Skip to main content

Full text of "The Classical review"

See other formats 


are arin ae ae SS - 
a eee ene ee anita 


Oh een te, Ah th tn ey Bvt hw - aa i 
ata andind Ore 
way -~ 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/classicalreviewO8clasuoft 








“m3 





GS, ll Mit le 


\% | THE 


CLASSICAL 
REVIEW. 


VOLUME VIII. 


Pondon : 
DAVID NUTT, 270 ann 271 STRAND. 
1894, 





Me, 
RicHARD CLAY AND Sons, LimiTED, 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


Nos. 1 and 2. 


PAGE 


H. Smwewicx. The Trial Scene in JI. 
xvii. 497-508 BS Sa re 

Roprnson Exuis. Collation of the 

Madrid MS. of Manilius. (Continued). 
C. Marcuant. Remarks on the 

Supplices of Euripides : 

C. Taytor. St. Mark in fae Dies: 
saron 

W. WaRDE Bowen, 
WoOoN..m. 142. ol Ne a eee aS 

M. L. Earte. Various Emendations . 

Lorp HarsBerton. On the dates of Cic. 
Ep. ad Fam. xi. 13 . 


E. 


Risks on “Blin: 


F. W. WALKER. Philological Notes on 
the Greek Aorist : are 

T. W. Auten. On Juv. iv. 116 pag? 

S. G. Owen. Reply to the preceding 
OE ee 

R. J. Watkxer. Doric Futures in Aris- 
tophanes . io. ce eet ee eee 

J. C. Rotrse.  Prothetic poe or 


Errors in Writing ? = 
H. Ricwarps. Critical Rites on thc 
Republic of Plato 
W.R. Incr. Corrections to ee mad 
Short’s Lexicon . . 
W. Garpner HAtez. 
Deliberative in Greek . . 
E. A. SonnENSCHEIN. The Remote Be: 
liberative and Prospective ping cl 
tive and Optative ‘ 
A. Patmer. Emendations ca Tana: 
iv. 741 and Val. Flace. iii. 20 
Reviews. 
Chase on the Old Syriac Element 
in Codex Bezae. T K. ABBoTT 
Mutzbauer on the Tenses in Homer. 
D. B. Monro é 
Hosius’ Edition of Pima, 
HEITLAND . 
Editions of Catullus by Merrill and 
by Owen. Rosrnson ELLIs . 


‘The 


"Ww. E. 


Tixiesded 


4 


38 


i 4 








Burckhardt on Hierocles’ Synecdemus 

Charles’s Book of Enoch. M. R. 
J AMES . 

Thiele on Hermagoras. 
KING) sy 

Kenyon’s Greek Papyrii in the British 
Museum. J. Renpex Harris . 


A. 8. Wi 


Fennell’s Pindar. W. R. Harpir 
Rushforth’s Latin Historical Inscrip- 
tions. E.G. Harpy . 

Thumser’s Political Antiquities of 
Athens. T. D. GoopELL , 
Ilberg on the Texts of Hippocrates. 

F. G. Kenyon . 
Reichardt on the Seprniee Metre: 
F. D. ALLEN : ce 
Jahnke’s ‘ Horatian Game ties” and 
Bolte’s Acolastus and Pammachius. 
C H. Herrorp 


F. E. Apnorr 


Ashmore’s Adelphoe. 
Levison’s Fasti Praetorii. E. G. 
Harpy. 
Harnack’s Early Christian Literature. 
H. M. GwatkIn . i 
Zahn’s History of the New Testa- 
ment Canon. J. RenpeL Harris . 
L. Mueller’s Horace. A. 8S. WILKINS 
Dr. Mustard on Hor. Sat. i. 10. <A.S. 
WILKINS . 
Archaeology. 
Two oe Notes. E. Garp- 
NER . . 
A Horoscope of the Year 316 ap. 
B. F. GRENFELL . 
Weber on the Cities - ee iinow 
Wire ARVAMSAY (., s 
Weber’s Guide to Ephesus. W. M. 
RAMSAY ; i 
Monthly Record. H. B. Watters . 
Summaries of Periodicals . é 
Bibliography 


PAGE 


40 


4] 


iv 


No. 


PAGE | 


W. G. Rurnerrorp. A New Fount of 





Greek Type.cis. 5%» 2: + see 
A. W. VERRALL. On the Problem of the 
Bacchae .. 85 | 
EK. A. ABBOTT. On the Temple in J ohn ) 
Ter | Mea Mss! 
W. R. Patron. tae Hyyéo:. a eo ey 
G. Dunn. The Long Sonants .... 94 
A. Patmer. Propertiana. ..... 98 
W.G. Fietp. Notes on the Rudens . 99 | 
A. N. Jannazis. The Modern Greek | 
pe ae a ie eR ET 
Reviews. 
James’s Apocrypha Anecdota. HE. N. 
BENNETT . . eoLOd | 
Pelham’s Patines aE Petia ‘Histor y- ' 
H, P: JupDsON . . eos | 
Peterson’s Dialogue e ‘Tacitus. H. 
FURNEAUX . . 106 
Lindsay on ine Satur nian Metre. 
A. S. WILKINS « . . at eS 


Neumann on Hectathius, W. Lear . 110 | 


Loofs on the Sacra Parallela. A. 


RGHRRTSON” cuics ca sis 4 +» ae 
Nordmeyer on the Octavia. J. | 
Leverett MoorE ...... . 113 
Lehmann’s Letters of Cicero to | 
Atticus. L.C. Purser. . . 114 | 

Mendelssohn’s Letters of Cicero. wis 
G@Pigsee i+. so ss. « «gee 
No 


Joun E. B. Mayor. On the New The- 


saurus Linguae Latinae . iss" 4 
F. G. Kenyon. On the Becca Frag- 
ments of Homer. . So ee 
C. V. THompson and ara Ww. Huapua 
On Slave Torture at Athens. . . . 136 
Ropinson’ ELLIs. Collation of the 
Madrid MS. of Manilius. (Con- 
tinued) . “ise 
A. H. Coin an. rae (he Roan ae 
perial Appeal. . . . 142 
J. Donovan. On the Prospective Sub- 
junctive and Optative . . 145 
W. Wayre. Corrections for juiddell al 
Scott’s Lexicon . . 146 
R. WHITELAW. Note on ‘Soph. Trach. 
O08 <= 5. pig BAG 
Joun E. B. "Mavor. "Two parallel pas- 
sages in Augustine and Milton. . . 147 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


3. 
PAGE 
Colson’s Pro Milone. W. E. Herr- 
LAND . = AMER 
Moor’s rarclarion of the De: Orasuee. 
TASS. UVVALIVICTN S Sins icns 118 


Bénard’s Philosophy of Plato and 


Horn’s Studies in Plato. R. G. 
BURY GA eerie J eng: 
Gwatkin’s Selections from Early 
Christian Writers. E. H. Biaxke- 
MEY!) fs. ne ot, eee eed Gee 
Gutschmid’s Kleine Schriften. J. W. 
HEADLAM. . =) py SOS eee 
Edition of Livy XXi. and xxi. by 
Greenough and Peck. M. T. 
TATHAM . . - 121 
Parallel Verse Extr acts by “Nixon and 
Smith. E. D. STONE: . . - a Mey 
Note on Review of Hosius’ pacers 
W. Hse Herrnanw. -. 5 oo ).h oan 
| Archaeology. 
W. E. Herrtanp. On the date of Tycha 
as a quarter of Syracuse . . . 123 
Weissmann on the Greek Theakee: 
pies OS: eee . 124 
Hartwig on Greek " Vase- painting. 
Grit. SMITH — «44.560. 3b oacca 
Monthly Record:.* 6, spe!) sad ane + 128 
Summaries of Periodicals . . ... . 128 
Bibliography.’ .: =. «.. sect -) aeee eae 
Az 
| A. B. Coox. On Two Passages in Archi- 
lochus bs) «fk eels See 
| G. Smita. Note on Mart. ii. 66 .. . 148 
| Reviews. 
Gardner on the Origin of the Lord’s 
Supper. J. B. Mayon ... . . 148 
Goodhart’s ranean Wit. (Esc: 
MARCHANT .. oe iy 
Goodwin’s Edition ap the Hamar 
Hymns. EH. E. Sykes . . . 156 
Editions of Plautus by Fennell and by 
Gray. W.M. Linpsay. . . . 158 
Kaibel on Aristotle’s Constitution of 
Athens. H. Ricuarps . . . 160 
Bruns’ Fontes luris Romani. HL. J. 
Rosy: . 5 t7 if og Ge 
Beloch’s History of Greece. J. W. 
HEADLAM.. . bal She 


Rohde’s Psyche. J. E. HARRISON » Woks 





TABLE OF 


PAGE 


W. Garpner Haute. On the Prospective 


| 
| 
. 166 | 


Subjunctive in Greek and Latin 
Archaeology. 
Furtwangler’s Meisterwerke der 


Griechischen Plastik. E. Setters 169 
Bodensteiner on the Greek Stage. A. 
eae Uae 78 | 


No. 
D. G. Rircniz. On Aristotle's Sub- 
divisions of Particular Justice . . . 185 
H. Ricwarps. Critical Notes on the 
Republic of Plato - ee 
G. W. Borsrorp. On the “beginning of 
the Athenian Hegemony . . . 195 
E. B. Enetanp. On Stephens’ Wes: 
“ia ELxemplaria . . . 196 
o ke are Notes” on Soph. Ty eS 
en and Tibull. i. 1,2. ae a 


Horton-SMITH. Gn the word 
ANASAKET in an Italic Inscription. 198 
F. F. Apporr. Note on Cie. Ad Fam. 

mir ks Ph eae OT 
H. W. Tac. Germ. 
M. H. M. Note on Catull. xxix. 20 
Ww. J. Seetye. Notes on Xen. Hellen. i. 

ie ao oP oO. amt 
A. F. Horr. Notes on the eine oe 

Kuripides. . . ; 202 
J. C. EaBert. Noted on Plauk. Amphitr 

Sogo OSs . 205 
T. E. Pace. Notes on “Verg. Aen. ii. 

353 and Eur. Bacch. 506 . 203 | 
Reviews. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorfi’s Avistoteles | 
und Athen. E.M. Waker . . . 205 | 
Fracearoli’s Pindar. R. Y. TyrreLti 207 


ik, 


Hayurty. Note on 


No. 


J. B. Mayor. Critical Notes on the 
Stromateis of Clement of a, | 


Book. . Se 5 eSB! 
a. SEL, Mouurox, “On Mr. Wallese! s : 
Articles on the Greek Aorist 


eB Ly 
EK, A. Apsorr. St. John’s Method of 
Reckoning the Hours of the Day . . 243 
A. B. Coox. On ie aa ad Autolyc. 
i a . 246 
H. van HERWEEDEN. On Two Fables 
of Babrius DR ae tN Wns eo 
K. P. Harrineton. Note on Plaut. 
Capt. 851 . . 249 | 





CONTENTS. v 


PAGE 
Teubner Edition of the Imagines of 
Philostratus. H. B. Watters. . 179 
Hettner on the Monuments of Tréves. 
H. B. WALTERS . 180 
Summaries of Periodicals alte! 
| Bibliography . 183 


a 8 


Hoffmann’s Greek Dialects. A. G. 
LAIRD pear arn 
Sommerbrodt’s eta W. N. Bares212 
Tappertz on the Use of Conjunctions 
in Manilius. Roprinson Extis . . 213 
A. Zimmern’s Home Life of the Ancient 
Greeks. W.C. F. AnpERSoN. . . 213 
Johnson on the Subjunctive and Opta- 
tive in Euripides. W. J. Battie. 
Roberts’ Short Proof that Greek was 


215 


the Language a Christ. F. A. 
CHRISTIE . Coo tate 
Archaeology. 
W.R. Paron. Inscriptions from Cos 


and Halicarnassus . . . , 216 
Furtwiingler’s Meisterwerke ee Girtedie 


ischen Plastik. (Second Notice.) 
EK. SELLERS : ray A les, 
G. F. Hiren: The East Thies of tee 
Parthenon : = 220 
WarWICK WROTH. Por traits on My ti- 
lenean Coins ... . 226 
F. HAVERFIELD. Discareria” of 
Roman Remains in Britain . . . 227 
C. Gartick. On the Lotus deh leae 228 
Monthly Record . . . . 229 
Suntemmgeee se ONS os Sea ae 
Bibliography . . ML tad dare Gana B 0) 
6. 
A. Patmer. Note on Plaut. Stich. 700 249 
A Pater. Propertiana . . 250 
W. C. F. Watters. Notes on War gil . 250 
A. TrLtury. Henri Estienne . 261 
Reviews. 
Schulze’s Edition of Baehrens’ Cat- 


ullus. A. E. Housman. ... . 251 
Jebb’s Growth and Influence of Greek 

Poetry. J. W. Mackalx . yregOd 
Sittl’s Firmicus. Joun E. B. Mayor 260 


Wohlrab’s Republic of Plato. J. 
ADAM .. . 261 
Dupuis’ Theo of Smyrna. he Avan. 262 


vi THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


PAGE | 


Corpus’ Glossariorum III. and V. 
Joan KE. B. Mayor. . . . 263 


Vollmer on Public Funerals at Rome. J.B. Mayor. Note on the above . 269 
W. A. MERRILL. . . . 264 | Archaeology. 

Praechter’s Tabula of Cebes. J. | Jane E. Harrison. On the dAikvov of 
ADAM... . 265 | Athene Ergane . . - 270 

Froehde on the de Nomine of Probus. - Cecit Torr. On the Harbours a 
Wi Ac MEBRRIED Gos. 2 . 265. | Carthage. . . eval 

Announcements and Recent Contri- Monthly Record and ‘Summaries seer 
butions to Latin Lexicography. Summaries of Periodicals . . . . . . 279 
Joun E. B. Mayor 266 | Bibliography: 3. sac otc elo 


Prrcoy GARDNER. Reply to the Re- 


J. B. Mayor. Critical Notes on the 
Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria 
(continued) a 2 Gis ee ee 

Ropinson Extis. Collation of the 
Madrid MS. of Manilius (Book V.) . 289 

H. Ricuarps. Critical Notes on the 
Republic of Plato (continued). . . 292 

R. Y. TyrreLtt. On Stephens’ Vetusiae- 
sima Exemplaria and on Eur. Bacch. 
BOG pect Zep : kh See 

H. Srpewicx. On é a ee or derpndaueeo6 

R. G. Bury. On the use of pants and 
gvots in Plato. . . enon 

T. E. Pace. Note on Vers “dem, v. 
Ste win or . 300 

J. B. Bury. Notes on Eur. "Med. 160, 
170, and on the two words zAc.ornpys, 
mAeotynpi~owar in Aeschylus . . 301 


C. Knapp. Note on Hor. #p. i. 1,51 . 302 
Reviews. 
Postgate’s Corpus Poetarum Latin- 
orum. Robinson Evuis. . .. . 302 


Manitius on Editions of Horace in 
the Middle Ages. F. A. Hirrzex 305 

Spengel’s Rhetores Graeci. A. 8. 
PV PRTACERR lec fees yr kci! at enh 5s ical eee 


No. 


Conjectures on the Constitutional His- 
tory of Athens. 
Sur les Actes de Sees et Polyxéne. 
Max BonNET . . . oaG 
Collation of the ies “MS. BE rhe 
Homeric pie M. ConstantIN- 
IDES =) -f00 ie 8 tithe ae ei Pimenaenes yal 
Note on Blancas 
Opera and operaeest. J.S.. . . . . 345 


“Exrnpopot. 


S. B. Puatner . 344 | 





H. SIDGWICK . . . doo4 





WRNVAWEE Seu ces. netoaa i 





| Lewis CAMPBELL. 


PAGE 
view on The Origin of the Lord’s 
Supper Ses. s ae ee peo 


i: 


Hallard’s Translation of Theocritus. 


H. Kynaston. . telat 
Keil’s edition of Cato ‘de Agricultura 
A.S. WILKINS . . 308 


Kobert’s Historical Studies in “Phar- 
macology. T. CLirrorD ALLBUTT. 309 
Bindley’s De Praescriptione Haereti- 


corum. J. RENDEL Harris... . 3ll 
A. Roperts. Reply to the Review on 
The Language of Christ .... . 311 


F. A. Curistiz. Note on the above . 312 
C. F. Appy Wiuurams. Notes on a 
Fragment of the Music of the Orestes 313 
Archaeology. 
E. Capps. On the Side Entrances to 
the Greek Theatre. . . Set eS 
Petrie’s Tell el Amarna. Gnem TorRr320 
Guhl and Koner’s Leben der Griechen 


und Romer. W. C. F. ANDERSON. 323 
Maps of Roman Britain. F. HavsEr- 
REELED eee ss Aten, 0 lteter wee: 
H. B:; WALTERS. Hlstraties of the 
Phoenissae of Euripides .. . . 325 
Monthly Record. . .. . <= eemeu 
Summaries of Periodicals . . . . . . 327 
Exbliography «; -.. = = 
8. 
On the Osean work ANASAKET. R. 8. 
CONWAY GAO. ee ee eee 
J. P. Manwarry. An Emendation . . 349 


E. T. Ropson. Note on Plaut. Rud. 160. 349 
Parallel in Milton 


aid. Pinder: Si. cl ae idee ee eee a 
Reviews. 
Jebb’s: Lleiva. ABS oc 4 2. 27858 
Ganzenmiiller’s Curis. RoBINSON 
Pee se ts hes ee 


aa jee 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


Schlee’s Scholia Terentiana. 8. 
ASHMORE . ‘ 
Hiibner’s M onumenta Linguae vf bericae. 


R. 8S. Conway. ae 
Bolderman’s Studia Destine: et we 
FULLER oan OOD 
Heberdey on Pausanias. HE. 
TOZER ...« peed oOe 
Schmidt on ee Tettera 1 i eee 
TYRRELL . . 364 


Author of Supernatural Religion on 
the Gospel according to Peter. 


A. E. Brooke . ; ; 
Hopkins’ Agricola and (ermania. 

F. G. Moore a . 367 | 
Robert’s Phaedrus. J. Gow . 368 | 


A BERNARD Cook. 
Names in Greece 

J. B. Mayor. Critical fates on fake 
Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, 
ease PDUs rien a, awed iis S08) 

E. WuitFIELD Fay. Note on the Word 
Insputarier in Plautus soe 

H. Ricuarps. Critical Notes on che 
Republic of Plato (concluded) . 

S. CHEeTHAmM. On the Name Cala 


Descriptive Animal 


. 393 
396 





. 365 


2881 | 


J. E. Sanpys. ‘“Appovia and rdvos in | 
Greek Music . . ie SOE 
Crecit Torr. The Music of ie. Orestes 397 


R. Y. Tyrrett. Note on the sae to 


Hermes v. 33 . . . 398 
ALBERT THUMB. Mats on the. aoa 
a ee See eo tks. 
F. Carter, Note on tees Ton 1276 . 3899 
Reviews. 
Delbriick’s Pes Syntax. D. 
B. Monro . « 099 
Jebb’s Wee htc of ‘Sophocles. E. 
Capps d . 404 
Erhardt’s ipcabie:. on the Powers 
Question. W. Lear . . 408 


Gardner Hale’s Treatise put Extended 


No. 


A. H. J. Greenipcr. The Power of 
Pardon possessed by the Princeps . 429 

T. D. Seymour. On the Duration of 
the Orestean Trilogy . 


: : . 438 
F. W. Tuomas. On the word SAdev / 


. 441 


vii 
PAGE 
Burton’s Syntax of the New Testa- 
ment. J. H. THAYER .. . 369 
Jusatz on Irrationality of Rhythm. 
C. B. HEBERDEN. . ato 
Genthe on the Erlangen “MS. of 
Lucan. W.E. HEITLAND. . arya) 
Preston and Dodge’s Private Life of 
the Romans. W. A. MERRILL . . 372 
Gsell’s Reign of Domitian. F. A 5 1 


Krumbacher’s Byzantine Proverbs. 
A. O; ERROR toy. 0 <a eS 
ArtTHUR Wricat. On the Origin of 


the Lord’s Supper (a reply) 375 
_ Archaeology. 
W. R. Paton. Calymna and Leros . 375 
Summaries of Periodicals . ok pk ee 
| Biblioprapliyawea) 030 > = 2 aval 
mF 
and Remote Deliberatives. J. 
Donovan . . 410 
Aly’s History of Roman Literature. 
A. Be . 413 


Trumbull’s Siadied 3 in ‘Orinneal ‘Social 


Life. T. Day SEymour . Yat SY! 
Persichetti on the Via Salaria A. 
TILLEY . 2 415 


Robinson’s Edition of the “ Bhitoealia, 
A. ROBERTSON . ; 

Anrich on the Relation of Christianity 
to the Ancient i cy J. 
HutTcHIson . eer 

Archaeology. 

On the name Gauris or Maurion as 
belonging to a Greek Meieg aaisans 
P. Hartwie . ; 

On a coin showing that C. " Septimius 
was Proconsul of Asia, B.c. 56-55. 


. 416 


eA19 


Barouay V. Heap . . 420 

Monthly Record . . 421 

Summaries . 422 
Obituary. 

Dr. Greenhill. W.W...... . 423 
Summaries of Periodicals. R.C. 8S. . 424 
Bibliography . 426 
IG: 


E. S. TuHompson. On the meaning of 
"Exrnpopot hh tot gee eee 

P. H. Damstt. Note on the reading 
septiremis, Curt. x. 1,19 . : 445 

E. W. Fay. Note on Cic. Zuse. 1, 22,50. 446 


vill THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


| 
| 


PAGE 
C. S. Jerram. Notes on some passages 
in the Helena of Euripides. . Ast | 
J. H. Gray. Notes on Plaut. Trteul 
Bop Sou sD ie oes ee ee . 447 
Reviews. 
Monro’s Modes of Ancient Greek 
Music. H. Sruart Jones. . . . 448 
Schwab’s Syntax of the Greek Com- » 
parative. E. WW. Way. |. /). 2a see: 


Fick on Greek Proper Names. F. W. 


THOMAS . . oS ae 


Gleue on Trial Por arden before 


the Areopagus. W. WaytE . . 462 | 


Windelband’s History of Ancient 


Philosophy. J. Burner .. . . 463 | 


Platt’s liad. D.B. Monro .. . 464 | 


PAGE 

Blass on Demosthenes. J. E. Sanpys. 465 
Schmidt on Cicero’s Letters (Second 

Notice). R. Y. Tyrrenn . . . . 466 

Freese’s Pro Murena. A.S. W. . . 467 
Botsford on the Athenian Constitu- 

tion. T.-D. Goope, .. . . . 468 
Von Arnim’s Dio Chrysostom. W. 


Ri; BATON. eee . 469 
Kriiger’s De Catechizandis Rudibus of 
Augustine. A. Ropertson . . . 470 
Archaeology. - 
Mayr’s Coins of Malta, Gozo and 
Pantelleria. W. Wrotn:. . . 471 
Monthly ‘Becords. eae oo ace “471 
Summaties: 2 4eiraee > hy ea a ee 


Bibliography. stout | ee <n 





The Classical Review 


FEBRUARY 1894, 


THE TRIAL SCENE IN HOMER, 


Tur Trial scene—or ‘act in two scenes’ 
—deseribed Jliad xviii. ll. 497—508, as a 
part of the description of the shield of 
Achilles, contains two passages which are 
at once historically interesting and much 
controverted. The first is at the beginning, 
where we are told that there was a crowd 
in the market-place, because two men 


7 cal 
€VELKEOV ELVEKA TOLVS 
> ‘ > , me x ¥ 2 9» 
dvdpos doKrapévov' O prev eXETO TaVT d7o- 
dodva 
> , 
Sijpw mupavoxur, 6 5 dvaivero jundev éX€o Oat. 


According to the interpretation generally 
received a generation ago, the dispute was 
on the question whether a certain blood- 
price had been paid—‘ one affirming that he 
paid in full, the other denying that he 
received anything.’ But during the last 
twelve years there has been a tendency to 
prefer an interpretation historically more 
impressive, according to which the dispute 
is not about a mere payment of money, but 
on the question whether a blood-feud shall 
be extinguished by the acceptance of a 
composition. 

The poet further tells us that the con- 
tending parties are desirous of settling the 
matter by arbitration ; and both sides are 
supported by dpwyoc. Then we are shown 
the elders sitting in a circle on the sacred 
judgment seat of polished stone : they give 
judgment in turns, The description con- 
cludes with the following lines :— 

NO. LXVI. VOL, VIII, 


aA 7% 9 , , a , 

keiro 0 ap’ ev peacowss Svw xpvooto TdAavTa., 
A“ ‘A Lal , 

TO Soper, OS peta Totor Siknv Oivrara €izrou. 


Here again there is a controversy between 
two fundamentally different interpreta- 
tions; some understand that the two 
talents of gold are to go to the judge who 
gives the best judgment, others that they 
are to go to the litigant who pleads his 
cause best. The former interpretation, 
found in the scholia, is that which recent 
commentators have on the whole been 


inclined to adopt—at any rate unt il 
1890. 
For in the year 1890 both these 


controverted passages were discussed in the 
Leipziger Studien (vol. xii.) by J. H. Lipsius, 
the editor of Schémann’s G'riechische Alter- 
thiimer : and not only does Lipsius believe 
that he has finally settled both points against 
the interpretation that has recently tended 
to prevail—so that henceforth, as he 
confidently says, ‘ein begriindeter Zweifel 
schwerlich aufkommen kann ’—but this is 
also the view of Busolt (G@viechische Staats- 
und Rechts-Alterthiimer p. 30). 

A dogmatic assertion that a controversy 
has been settled by the last controversialist 
naturally arouses opposition : it is, accord- 
ingly, the object of the present paper to 
express certain ‘ Zweifel’ as regards the 
second of the passages above quoted— 
doubts which the arguments of Lipsius 
have failed to quell. As regards the first 
passage IT am inclined to accept his view. 

B 


2 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


T never liked the newer interpretation— 
since the antithesis of rdvra and oddey seems 
to suggest irresistibly that the dispute is 
about a money-payment—and the contention 
of Lipsius, that the aorist in a future sense 
after etyerac would be contrary to Homeric 
usage, seems unassailable. 

I therefore accept the view that the 
question to be decided by the judges is 
whether a blood-price has been paid or not : 
but I cannot share the confidence with 
which Lipsius and Busolt conclude that the 
two talents of gold exhibited in court are 
the ‘Gegenstand des Streites.’ Ridgeway’s 
argument against this—that two talents 
are too small a sum for a_ blood-price— 
seems difficult to meet: for in the only 
other passage in the iad (ix. 633) which 
throws light on the amount of a blood-price 
we are told that the man-slayer stays at 
home +d6AN drotricas: Whereas two 
talents of gold are only a fourth prize in a 
horse-race (xxiii. 269). To this Lipsius 
answers that doubtless the zowy varied 
according tocircumstances and relationships, 
like the Teutonic Wergild. But, granting 
this variation, surely to select a conspicu- 
ously small {blood-price as the sum at 
stake, in a trial designed to be impressive, 
would be a literary blunder which we 
should hesitate to attribute to the brilliant 
author of the description of the shield. If, 
therefore, we are to regard the two talents 
as going to the successful litigant, I should 
agree with Leaf in preferring to take them 
to be ‘ of the nature of costs.’ 

But is it clear that the two talents are 
to go to a litigant and not to a judge? I 
certainly think that the arguments from 
language are all the other way,—though I 
hasten to add that none of them seems to 
me decisive. The consideration on which 
Lipsius relies is that pera toto. cannot be 
taken as equivalent to a genitive, since 
pera must be translated by ‘ vor’ or ‘ bei’ ; 
so that, as roto. must stand for the judges, 
the ds before pera roto. cannot stand for a 
judge.!' But this argument does not seem 
to be based on a careful study of the 
Homeric use of pera with a dative. The 
first book of the //iad contains a line (516) 
exemplifying the ‘equivalence to the 
genitive’ which Lipsius pronounces inad- 
missible here. ‘Deny me if you will,’ says 
Thetis clasping the knees of Zeus, ‘that I 


' “Die Bedeutung der Praeposition lisst nur die 
Wiedergabe mit ‘vor,’ ‘bei,’ ‘zu,’ und verbietet die 
Gleichsetzung mit einem Genitiv, wie sie die jungere 


Deutung bedingen wiirde.’ Leipziger Studien, xii. 
p. 229, 


may know how I among all gods am least 
in honour ’— 


7 > ‘ ‘ A > , , ; 
ogooVv €yw PETA TACLVY ATLLOTATH Geos ELpLL. 


So again in the Odyssey (iii. 362) Athena 
in the likeness of Mentor says to Tele- 
machus 


~ : a 
olos yap peTa ToIcL yepairepos evxomat Elvai— 


where the ‘Gleichsetzung mit einem Genitiv’ 
is surely again unmistakable. . 
On the other hand I can hardly find a 
single case in which pera with a dative 
could clearly bear the scene of ‘vor’ (if I 
understand the German preposition). It 
almost always, when the dative is a personal 
noun or pronoun, has the sense of ‘among’ ; 
and though in some cases the meaning 
seems to be purely local, still in the majority 
of cases where the sentence in which it is 
used has also a_ personal subject, this 
subject is ranked with, or associated with, 
and shares the actions of, the persons 
represented by the dative: eg. in the 
phrases :— 


(a) peta mpwroror payer Oa. 
(6) "Apys pera Tpdecow Spire. 
(c) Tudeidnv & ovk av yvoins rorépouct perecy 
ne peta Tpvecow dpiréor 7 pet 
*Axaiots. 


Hence in the phrase we are considering 
—though I‘ by no means say that ds (pera 
toiot) could not grammatically represent a 
litigant,—-the usage of the preposition tends 
more naturally to suggest one of the judges. 

And a similar tendency, I think, may be 
affirmed of almost every word in the 
sentence. 

(a) Thus ddpev seems to me more natural 
if the recipient of the ‘ gift’ is not a person 
who has had to furnish it in whole or in 
part, than if he is such a person. 

(6) Similarly, though dikqv cireiy might 
equally well be said of judge and of litigant, 
certainly—as Ridgeway has urged—the 
adverb i#i is more appropriate to the 
delivery of a judicial decision than to the 
pleading of a cause.- Compare i@etasor dikats 
in Hesiod, Works and Days, 1. 36, (quoted 
by Monro on this passage). 

(c) And finally the superlative i@ivrara 
more naturally suggests that more than two 
persons are compared. It might no doubt 
be used if two only were compared ; but 
the comparative would in that case be 
more natural, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 3 


To sum up: I think that both interpre- 
tations of the line are linguistically 
admissible, but that the indications of 
language all point in one direction, and 
that the direction opposed to the conclusion 
which Lipsius has confidently proclaimed to 
be unassailable. 

Further, the interpretation to which 
these indications point seems to me 
supported by a consideration of the line 
(508) in its relation to the whole passage 
490—508. In the description of the life of 
a peaceful city which these lines contain, 
the poet passes from scene to scene, 
depicting each in turn with concentrated 
vividness, as the spectator’s eye is supposed 
to pass round the circle of the shield. 
First comes the wedding, the brides, the 
dancing boys, the gazing women ; then the 
disputants in the market-place with their 
crowd of partisans ; then lastly the elders 
in the sacred circle, holding in their hands 
staves received from the herald, with which 
they start up and declare right and justice 
each in turn ; 


Toicw éret Hiccov, apousndrs Se dixkalov— 


while a gleam of gold shows the fee for arbi- 
tration, which will go as a prize to the elder 
who carries the majority of the court with 
him. ‘The litigants do not appear in this last 
scene—they could not appear twice over— 
surely, then, to maintain the vividness and 
unity of the picture we require to refer the 
last line also to the judges, so that the idea 
presented by diknv ibvvrara cio. may take 
up and add liveliness to the idea presented 
by décaov. 

T ought to notice one difficulty in this 


view of the whole passage, presented by the 
word jiccoy in the line last quoted: as the 
rapid movement which this word imports 
seems hardly consistent with the solemnity 
and decorum of a judicial proceeding. I 
would suggest that this difficulty is probably 
due to our importing into our conception of 
the scene ideas that are really alien to this 
stage of political development. Probably 
the successive delivery of judicial opinions, 
in a council of primitive yépovres, was not 
in form and manner, very unlike the 
successive delivery of opinions in a deliber- 
ative debate ; so that it would be naturally 
accompanied by eagerness of action and 
vehemence of expression. It will be 
remembered that when Menelaus has a 
conflict with Antilochus in the course of 
the funeral games, he appeals to the leaders 
of the Argives to ‘ give judgment neutrally, 
and not as partisans ’— 

és pecov adpudorepoist dikdooate pnd ex 
apoyn : 


and we may conjecture that in such a 
dispute as is described in this scene, between 
influential citizens with strong backing on 
both sides, there would probably be partisans 
within the council of elders as well as 
outside it; the successive speeches would 
be more like the utterances of advocates 
trying to persuade the court to adopt their 
views, than ike modern judgments. And 
the fact that the speaker who carried the 
court with him also carried off the court-fee 
would of course be a stimulus to this kind 
of oratory. 
H. Srmpewicx. 


4 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


COLLATION OF THE MADRID MS. OF MANILIUS (M. 31 BIBL. NAZION.) 
WITH THE TEXT OF JACOB, BERLIN, 1846. 


(Continued from Vol. VII. page 409.) 


Boox III. 


[Fol. 24*]—2 mementem inuadere saltos 
4 Conor et dignos in carmina 6 et 
flammis 8 H. we=ali uenalem (sic) 10 
laeetum f. scrupro 11 trucis 12 re- 
duces auro incendia. 15 fulmina 
16 uictam quia uicerat orbem 19 bello 
20 as Jac. 21 Inm. 22 as Jac. ex- 
cept that cauenda rather than canenda 
23 liquor 24 orbes 26 uella 28 
bori m. pr. Sbori (a corrector) 31 Ac 
32 Temporaque et uarios momentaque mundi 
(casusom.) 383 Quorumque 34 qd (ze. quid) 
35 C. quid proprio gd pedibus quid (sie, 
the second quid erased) cert 36 0 
om. 37 percere (sic) 38 Inp. 
ducia After 43 DE ATLIS - QVID SIT ATLVYM 
ET QVOD - SINT - EA - ET - QVE - NOMINA- 
ET QVAS + VIRES -: ET QVEM - ORDINEM 
HABEANT :— (in red) 44 ministrat 45 
dat 46 uiglanti ssnsu (a later corr. 
in marg. sensu) 47 latentem 49 con 
eluderet (conclu written over by a later 


hand) 


(* coeval) 


a 
52 natentem 
54 pugnantis 


50 pendintem 
53 prebere 


& 
regegret (sic) 55 staretque (& looks co- 
NV: 


eval) 56 exceptom a summo 60 
famam 

fammam (famam in lighter ink) ads. 62 

Deposita uagasue 63 Euincunt 

uincitur 65 sane sitque 66 uti fatum 

67 labores 69 sortem 70 Conplex 4é 


9 


= 
(4 


quod et a. uocarat 71 Res posuit 
Attribuiteze (que erased) 73 pars semper 
uteidem 74 in astris 78 Ex eisdem 
78 tempore 80 Atque alius sors quaeque 
accederet astro (sic) 82 modu for motu 
83 condita arte est 85 herent 86 in 
orbe 87 aut 88 fortunaet 89 Ut- 
cumque stellae 90 mouet 92 nego 
for negoti 93 cauenda 98 herencia 
cauta 99 quisit concessus 100 Quam- 
que cop. 102 Post hine genus 
est quidquid inarmis 103 Quoque pere- 
grina inter 104 Accipere assueuit 
¢ prehenditur 105 est om. 106 Hocque 
110 ad possitis 112 Fortunaque fu- 
dentem 113 asJac. 114 Inp. 116as 
Jac. 117 Quidquid — 118 hoecum partem 


119 gerunt parent 121 Et socios tenet 
committem hospitis ima (ima not quite 
certain. The space between committem and 


122 Iungitur 
horenda perielis © 
131 praetexto 
133 intrantum 


hospitis is larger than usual) 
et similis 127 censentur 
128 suscribunt 129 quo 
132 Gratorum sortem dubia 


nutricia 135 in quo sorcium rumores 
aequalibus omnis 136 quamque 137 
conp. 139 sumam uir estque gubernant 


140 Quae ual/cudo (sic) 141 opressa 
moueute mundum sideragze- cumque (sic) 
142 Non alias sedes tempus uegenu sue me- 
dendi 144 sucus (caltered from e) miserere 
salubris 146 aspiciendis- 147 effectus 
148 inr. 149 uirtus blanditus nominis 
151 uentisque 152 plena 153 bacchum 

multa After 153 gvoMODO + FORTYNE - 
LOCVS + INVENIATVR :— Then 175, 6 Con- 
iunges t. p. et s.s. Et ni f. uagus f. q.s. 
then 154 haec momenta 155 stelae 
157 compandere rerum 158 affectus 159 
undis After 159, written as if it were a verse, 
Quomodo adaper: signa de sonibus amnri 
(7 aninri) 162 Athala uocant grai quae 


1635 cohaerent 164 cauendum est 166 
nascentis altered from nascentib 168 In- 
colomis 169 Erge age uaria 170 
uolens labore 172 Quae/prim um 
pars est numerosis dicta sub _achlis 
175 second time but ut, not et. Then 
QVOMODO - FORTVNAE - LOCVS + INVENIATVR 


then 176 (second time) which begins 
with omitting Et, then si (changed to ni) 


forte 177 duplici certa 178 _ per- 
coepto 179 caela_ stellis 180 sic 
182 adf. 183 seuus fulgeuit 184 
leuaque 185 natis 187 Tunsiforte 


188 aluna& mune- 
189 totidem ortiuo 


diei nascentem exciperit 
rabis in ordine partes 


190 horoseo ponastris 193 Athla 194 
Adeum ob ducta 194 orbem tenexerit 
195 materno 196 natura euescitur 197 
mutantem 199 Quoque 200 ful- 
gens horos copus ase 201 ahlis 202 
natura. Then Q@yomMopo - HOPYSs! + INVENI- 
ATVR :— 204 yr. quie asnatalis (sub- 


sequently / has been introduced after qu 
and / after as) 205 inmenso 206 
sub stellis uisum 208 falsisque cuncta 


1 An error of the scribe for MoRoscorpys, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 5 


gubernant 210 memento 211 effectur 
esest 212 Cur sibi 213 Vt 214 
Exprimet et cop. certos 217 Au- 
ferat occasus aut imo sederit orbem 218 
praeterit 219 orientibus 220 spaclis 
225 orbem 227 Astilis 228 proprius 
229 Vix sunt cancer uix brumare ducit (sic, 


om. luces) 230 illa circula 237 
manere 238 Addet quod 239 pars 243 
Quod sit ut inbinas 244 oris 246 Quem 
numerum usu After 246 DE MENSVRA - 
TEMPORVM + ET + SIGNORVM :— 248 paris 
demensus 250 exacta horas 251 


Quae signemque diem sedem perpendat et 
umbras 252 eum 254 tempore 255 
phobus 256 His eum hieme sub 
motusinastro 257 oetaua 258 augus- 
ta uernalis 259 Dimidia 260 
opposita numerus neclaudice hora 261 
wrumque 262 natura 265 Atque ibi 
266 Brumalis 269 Inp. quartum 271 
Atque haec illa demum mensura per hora 


(est om.) 272 esti nisgradibus t. amnis 
(? annus) 273 immitatur (the first i was 


originally a) 274 ora om. 275 quod 
277 careant copendia 278 sequntur 279 
duplicat atque ducit 281 occidus 283 
admittunt gelida uergentia 285 in quarta 


- . . ? 
parte siducitur eius 287 diua 288 


ad sidera 290 per quod 292 Occidus- 
que tempusque cadendi 293 chelecon 
s. perstat 294 initial E om. uersis 


296 siquod quandoque horosco per astrum 
297 Nosceret signa 298 adscribere 
300 In quos = quarum. Then DE INCLINATIO- 
NIBVS - MYNDI:— 302 aeadem est 304 
Numquam phrixei 306 binas sibi 309 
iungentur 310 Obscurare — foere 311 
Nec falsi fallacia 313 Omnibns acu- 
minis 315 Nec resque et tune 
tune quo foebus decurat in astro (sic) 


516 Litoreum vuequoquat contraue 
317 medis quatuor 318 quaquam 
319 Obliquos ordinae 323 Adsimi- 
lis ex illa 3624 Quidquid ad extremos 

axe 325 conuexsa grauis gressum 


526 Quam teret inatura orbe 327 
et mediam inmundo suspendit adoiu (he. 
ad omnium 328 consedes scandes- 
que 330 redditur orbe 331 in- 
clinauit posituri 332 limiter octo 
(xr very clear) 333 curauator ether 
334 oblituus 335 spacio quando 337 
uanosque 340 propriusue 343 Vitima- 
que et fulgent celeris merguntur in umbras 


544 quando proprius 345 eflici- 
unt oculos 846 ortus 348 Tri- 
cinasque connexo tempore  noctes 
350 atricis oris 351 spacio 352 
partis sub rupto 353 medio temp- 


354 Add. 355 emptis 
356 initial S om. 360 meatu 361 
currit 362 obliquos ex 363 Circum 
nullo sum quam 364 terentem aeclini 
369 uersetur 370 om. 373 iunget nox 
una tenebris 374 as Jac. 375 Dimidi- 
um et toto m. uidet orbe rotundi 376 
illum 377 mediamque t. descinguitur 
aluo 378 spectantes 381 quod mensi- 
bus iactis 382 unde redit 384 partite 
After 384 QvoMODO - INOMNI + INCLINATI- 
ONE MYNDI HOPYS INVENIATVR :~ 
385 quinto 386 Equibuse 387 Quod 
389 horoscopos 393 quique 395 Qua- 
cumque hoc para t. quisque requiret 397 
crancro numinis (changed to minimis) 398 


ore ec. timore 


fuerint 400 Atque nocturnus (changed to 
nocturnis) 402 tribuantur 403 aduerso 
nascencia s. 404, 5, 6 om. 407 Vincat 
atque 409 Quo modo diuisis nemea sidux- 
erithoris 410 actu 411 prioris semper 
utastris 412 crescensque 413 addenas 


416 mergentis 
419 ter centum 


t 
humerus uicinaque cd s ent (sic) 420 
quod ademitur utque 422 soliscitium 
423 exs. ducit ineasquas 425 nu- 
mine 427 exuperat partem superatur 
429 numerum 430 Traditur 431 
semper tanta prioris 452 nouem uicinas 
munero 433 perueniet 437 monstrauit 
440 rigione horoscopus umquam 442 
parte After 442 DE + ACCESSIONIBYS TEM- 


n 
443 Nune 


415 Et quantis utrumque 
418 Illa quod standis 


PORUM ET DESESSIONIBYS :— 
444 Incipiam neque enim 445 Con- 
tingant 449 horam 450 quoque ad 
uisto s, umbras 451 Etrepident 453 
triasignaualentsed 456 Accedit 459 ac- 
sibi temporis ipse 
tollat 461 tatum eeeipian rieris 
(sic) 463 Etribus 465 procedere 
par tepus (sic) 466 arencia 467 VI- 
timaque Then 470 Cedere 471 Nam- 
que aries 472 Quod prius 473 Hora datur 
t. cumuletque 474 Dimidiam adiungunt 
geminis sic Then 468 Redditur 469 
Rursus et Then 475 Respondent 478 
v 


Haec uice discedunt noctes ad siderab; romae 


(sic) After 482 aLTERATIO! INVENIENDI 
HORAM 486 Asp. 487 decens 

hisdem 488 summis qualicuque 489 
sex tollunt 490 coniunges «sub et illas 
(sic) 491 momenta 492 Ex haec 


tricinas summas p. 8. partis 4935 in astra 
(but last a doubtful) 495 Tum quo sub- 
sistet consumtus 496 Quae in parte 

numerique reliquit 497 et pars et forma 


1 For ALTERA RATIO. 


6 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


498 Contineat summa fecerit 


per ignes 
unum 499 Tricenas dabis ex illa 500 
quae illa sub astris 501 cadet 503 uidis 


505 Vt cum ex hac 


sep 504 horoscopus 
fides steterit 506 possit 507 Nosceret 
oblitus 508 Sint ueri uerique sub- 
ortus 509 Denaque!in proprias After 
509 cVIVS + SIGNI QVISQ - ANNVS - AVT - 
MENSIS * AVI DIES AVT - HORA: sIT:— 511 
Quique diuisa 514 sole fulserit 515 
Annum tempora mundum 516 aliis 
secuntur 518 horoscopos 519 
Adserit atque dies tradit sequentibus 520 


521 munerandi signa per horas 
526 sequntur 528 usque 
530 usque 531 ipsa dies 
aliumque requiret 532 nonulli (sic) 532 
sistant 535 menses aminantur 536 
tum uertimur asta After 536 ALTERATIO - 
CVIVS + SIGNI - QUISQ3 ANNVS :— (so far in 
red Capitals, then in another line) A(a red 
initial)ut mensis aut dies aut hora sit (in the 
ordinary writing of M) 537 et om. 
placeat horae 538 as Jac. 539 
describitur 541 capit ex imo 542 
tradit (om. que) 546 Hora dies 547 
exacti solibusannum 549 et pariter 
sit mensis et annus 550 Asperioris agam 
551 si triste 552 si durior 554 Non 
annos signi 556 proprerant 557 
de est alius modo est 558 autque 9559 
uariata Then QvopD ANNOS VNV . 
QVODQ; - SIGNV - TRIBVIT :— 560 duci 


a 

561 uenit 564 quod queque 567 trienté 
568 adpositis tut_aure 569 Vincis et toti- 
dem 570 annosque for binosque 571 
neme e tribues 573 fluerint annis 
574 aequauit 576 quattuor 577 Adp. 
triplicauit 578 Quatuor 579 

580 de ee tribuet After 580 
ANNOS + QVAEQ + LOCA * TRIBVANT:— 


tuos 
525 est om. 
529 omnis 


herens 
QVOD - 


1 In Denaque the first e is almost an o. 


‘tris: 


581,2asJac. 586 nunc tantum templorum 
587 uenit 588 p cognita 589 turba- 
tur 591 Quo tenebat 593 Ni 
duo decidant ad 595 quadragenus —_in- 
actus 596 olimpaluna 597 Primaque 
599 Quoque 601 sequentur 602 duplicant 
604 Tertiaforma et summo 605 
i sub 

tris abstrahat annis 606 abequo 
607 complent 610 Ade. 61i 

614 temptatum est ter dena 
remittit 615 Annorum spacia et decum 
(cett. om.) 616 Interius puerum in (ceét. . 
om.) 617 Inm. trahant natalis corpore 
morti Then QVAE SINT-TRIPLICIA:SIGNA - 
ET - QVAS - VIRES - HABEANT 620 tenet 
621 adp. quatuor 625 a destinae 
627 quarito 629Tum 630 destringunt 
631 Et templum pelagus iactatum 632 


Nec 
(sic) 


praecidit 


morte 633 Scythdram (sic) hyemps 
germinia 634 tellurem (sic) fugit 

in aura 635 Huic 637 Parte ex ad- 
uerso 640 legit _suplet 641 
Tune figit 643 Stat quinto 644 P. 
in infectum et simili r. motus 645 luces 
jor noctes 650 sube.. 651 ueniat a 
sidere 652 mici 656 uemus 657 
Viribus 659 paritur foedera ducem 
660 as Jac. 661 Ex ipsa uiuet a brumae 


cum tempora uincat 663 inp. muicta? 
666 Quactuor ut tempora 667 Nequi- 
quam maneré After 668 QVAE: PARTES 
IN - QVATVOR - SIGNIS - TROPICE - SINT 671 
Qua jor una 674 Qui 675 urguent 
676 gerdendafiguris 677 mundumque 
mutent 678 Facta mouent 679 flec- 
tant reuoluant 680 octauam in 
parte 681 defluit 682 as Jac. 


M+ MILNILI ASTRONOMICON LIB: III: EXPLIC : 
INCIP : IIIT > 


Rowginson ELuis, 


® Conceivably for mudetra. 


(Zo be continued.) 


REMARKS ON THE SUPPLICES OF EURIPIDES. 


Since the publication of an admirable 
critical text in Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s 
Analecta Thucydidea, nobody need wish for 
a better recension of the Swpplices. In the 
senarii, Wilamowitz has left little more 
than tinker’s work for those that come 
after him. <A part of this htmble task I 
shall now attempt to perform before giving 


a few notes on some passages that appeat 
to me to have been misunderstood by the 
commentators. 


L. 100. & zat, yuvatkes aide pntepes TEKVOV 
Tov KaTGavovTuv. 


W. removes réxvwy, and marks the loss of 
a foot. We should read vexpov. Both in 


prose and verse vexpos is often found with 
-Ovnoxw, as Thuc. vii. 87 tév vexpov..ot-. 
dreOvycKov, and in our passage the word 
used by Aethra to her son, whose sympathy 
she wishes to rouse, makes an excellent 
point. 





L. 120. rovrovs Oavovras 7AGov eartov 
moXw. 


P W. gives péra for rodw, with Kaibel. 
The request was made to Eteocles and the 
victorious generals, not to Thebes at large. 
Perhaps Aafeiv is the missing word. 


L. 164. dvaé ’AOnvay, ev pev aicyivais exw 
TiTVOV T™pos ovoas yovu oov Gpario- 

¢ 

Xe XEPL- 

W. notes ‘éyw ® vere. cf. H/. 238=qui non 
rectius corrigitur.” In £7, 238 6zov loca 
cupdopas éxeis, the partic. goes with exw. 
In our passage duzicyew is direct object of 
éxw, and the meaning is ‘I deem clasping 
thee.. among disgraces,’ such as slavery. 


L, 248. yaipwv the pif yap BeBovdrAevoar 
Kados 
avtos miele Thy TUXHV HAs Alay. 


W. reads with Matthiae in 248 yatpwv i: 
ei yap py, and on 249 writes the sad note 
‘conclamatus.’ The two lines form the close 
of Theseus’ long and sententious speech, 
and, as we are in the midst of rhetoric, we 
might well substitute aicypov for aires. 

L. 302. ocxoretv keAevw py ohadgs atysacas* 
opd\r\a yap ev TovTw povw TAAN 

ev dpovov. 


odadns for opdANe. &. Hence we rearrange 
308 thus : 


oe ~~ > , , 
TAAN eb ppovav yap ev povw ToiTw ’opadys. 


L. 321 W. gives 
opas, éBovdos os KeKepTopn Levi) 
Tois KEpTopovae yopyov * as avafsAEre 
on Tatpts. 
and notes ‘ yopyov’ &s conjecit $. alii alia. 
alterum os languet.’ Read yopy pao’. 


L. 352, Kat yap xatéoryo’ avrov eis povap- 
tav 
eAevOepwcas tHvd iooynpov ToAww. 
W. gives x.y. katéotyo’ aitos éx povapxias. 
| Query kal yap Katagras aitos és povapxiay | 
: nAevOepwoa K.T.A. 


L. 406. dipos 8 dvacoe diadoxatow ev pepet 
é eviavoiaiow, ovyl TO TAOVTwW Sid0ds 
: 70 wAeiotov GAAG Kal 6 TEéVNS EXwV 
icov. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 7 


W. del. 408. But read ro wActov (with 
Elmsley) dAAa ye wevys apxet ’v iow. 


L. 444. dvjp de Baowredls exOpov iyyetra 
TOOE, 
. ‘ S es a Xx Lote! 
Kal Tovs dplotous Tos dv yynTat 
cbpovetv 
xretve. W., who notes 


‘Corrupta haee esse vidit Marklandus. 
Debebant juvenes nominari.’ Read véovs 7’ 
for kat rovs and cf. 1. 1092 veaviay rexwv 
dpiorov. 


L. 469. ef & €orw év yn, mpiv Geod ddvat 
oé\as 

NicavTa Gepva oTEeupatov Tpv0- 
TH pla. 


Trpad e&eAavvew. So W. 


Creon, in sending his message front 
Thebes to Theseus, could not include an 
order that Theseus should ‘free the 
mysteries, —a matter which in no way 
concerned Creon. The general sense must 
be ‘reject Adrastus’ supplication.’ L. 470 
should be read @vcavta cepva orEeupatov 
Avrypta, ‘ offering sacrifices that will release 
thee from suppliant wreaths.’ It was 
necessary that Creon should answer before- 
hand the objection that Athens was not in 
the habit of rejecting suppliants. Cf. 1. 38, 
where Aethra says of Theseus @s 7) 70 tovtwv 
Aurpov €EeAy xOoves | ) taad’ dvdyKas ixertous 
Avon Geodrs | Gordy TL dpacas. 

L. 555. yvovras otv xpewv tabe 
GdiKkoupevous TE peTpia, py Ovpd, 

péepew 
ddixety te Towwd ota pa PrAawe 

moAw. 


L. 557 is sarcastic. Very likely we 
should read BAdWer (pass.) wad. If not, 
the sense is ‘such as will not injure (your) 
city’ in the end, by provoking retribution. 


L. 587. povaprixov te padrapa xkwwetobat 
ToTopa. 
> ~ ve 
adpo  KatactacovTa 


xbbva. W. 


{Kadpeiav 


Clearly daAapa xatracrale. oropa abpo 18 
nonsense, and the passages cited by Paley 
in defence of it are quite different. oropa 
has been confused with y@dva, and we should 
read oriyas, and construct the sentence 
orixas TE povaprvkwv kwweta Oar hadapa (‘accus. 
of respect’) ddpo xatacrtalovra. 


L. 716. pod tpayyAovs KamiKetpevov Kapa 
Truveds  Oepifwv ~—kdrroxavArfwv 


éviw. = W. 


8 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Markland explains ‘heads with helmets 
on’; but this does not solve the difficulties. 
Gepifew iS a queer word to use of a man 
who is laying about him with a clay only 
taking care to hit high ; and if yon ‘reap ° 
a man’s neck, you can hardly help ‘reaping’ 
his head as well, and the. helmet doesn’t 
count. We should read xvvéas 7’ épetkor. 
In some cases Theseus smashed to atoms 


neck, head and helmet: sometimes he 
merely knocked them off. 
LL, 878, rods 6 eéapaprdvovtas odyt riv 
ToAwW 


” 2 ? , > \ ] ld , 
xXOaip , eel To. Kovdev aitia 7dALs 
Kakos kAvovoa 610 KUBEepynTHV KaKOV. 


W. marks the loss of a foot after airéa, 
and notes ‘magis etiam interpolate airéu 
meXe. Stobaeus.6 But we require a verb of 
some sort; and it is probably zovet, which 
is supported by xvBepvyryy. 


LL. 899. woddovs 8 epactas Kdzo Onder 
Tooas 
4 > , ‘ fe , 
Exov eédpovpe. pindev esaprapTa- 
vev. W. 


For écas read 76ovs, and we have another 
case of ép@ and wo in proximity. 

Ll. 903 rodda 7 ééevpetv codd...908 are 
regarded by W. as an interpolation. In 
I. 905 we should read ééyipev, and in 1. 907, 
for qAdtysov 70s Aovovov, which is non- 
sense, pidorysov 700s tovaiov (sc. éxwv). In 
1. 1194 av 8 Gpxov éxdurovres —Owoow TOA, 
we should perhaps read évéécw dddov. The 
words eAwow wodw recur in 1. 1208. 

‘Twice in this play the chorus is prevented, 
by a device common in the Greek drama, 
from ascending the stage, from which it has 
descended at the end of the first scene. 
The second example of this proceeding is 
quite clear. But the point of the earlier 
passage, which occurs in the Commos 
between Adrastus and the chorus, has 
escaped the commentators. The recovered 


bodies of the dead heroes having been 
brought on to the stage, their mothers 


naturally express from the orchestra a 
desire to embrace them. The passage rung 


(1. 815 fol.) :-— 


XO. 600’, ws TEPUTTUXALTL Oy 
Xépas Tpooapporac” €/.0t$ 
ev dykoou TéKva Opa. 


S18. AA. exels exets—XO. rypdrov ¥y’ ddts 
Bapos. 

AA. aiat. XO. Tots texotct 8’ ov 
Neyets. 

AA. dieré pov. XO. orévers ex’ ap- 


~ » 
oiv ayn. 


It is clear that Adrastus is here answering 
the mothers from the stage. They ask for 
their children; but Adrastus does not 
assent. He puts them off with the words 
exes €xers, and they at once catch his 
meaning and fill it up with the words: 
‘true, I have trouble enough, but I have 
not my son.’ Adrastus meant that it would 
only increase their sorrow to approach the 
bodies. It is the very same point that 
Theseus makes again subsequently when 
Adrastus thinks there is now. no objection 
(ll. 940 fo/.). Adrastus continues-the lamen- 
tation. But the chorus objects: ‘but you 
are disregarding us parents’; that is, you 
ave not giving us the bodies, To this 
Adrastus retorts: ‘listen to me’; that is, 
‘obey me.’ But the mothers take déere in 
its literal sense only. There is in reality a 
double sense running through the last two 
lines. This explanation disposes, by the 
way, of Nauck’s otv Aéyes for od A€yets. 

In 1. 187 ezotkiAtau tpdzovs, applied to 
Sparta, is a reference to the concealment and 
diplomacy practised at Sparta as contrasted 
with the frankness that Pericles claims as 
characteristic of Athenian tporo. Mr. 
Coleridge’s rendering, ‘ her customs variable,’ 
misses the point. Among similar mistrans- 
lations comes 1. 185 dare? mpos yxapw Oayar 
vexpovs. m™pos xapw is not ‘as a favour’ 
(Col.), nor does it go with Odyar (Paley) ; 
but it = amice, as Marland cet It 
would be idle to quote other adverbial ex- 
pressions with zpos. 

Creon’s herald delivers his message to 
Theseus in a remarkable manner, as though 
he were himself giving the orders—l. 467 
eyo 0 -aravee x.t.r.. Is it not probable that 
eyo means Creon, and that something has 
been lost denoting ‘ but my master bids me 
say this’ ? 


T ” , 3 
L. 846. €& 8 otk épyoopat ce, py yeAwT 
oAw, 
o € , a 8 o 3 ae 
OTM CUVETTY TWVO EKAOTOS EV [LAX1 


}) Tpatpa Adyxns ToAEuLwY ed€Earo. 


to these are regarded ¢ 
They stand in ie MSS.» 


The next Il. 
spurious by W. 


849 Kowol yap otto. Tav T dkovovtwv Adyot 
Kat Tov A€yovTos, oats ev waxy PeBus 

51 Aoyxys lovaons tpoobev dppatov TuKVNS 
capas amyyyer’ ootis eotiv ayabos ; 


This passage refers exclusively to the 
difficulty of identifying persons in the midst 
of a battle. There is nothing in it about 
noticing who displays courage, as Paley 
supposes. The passage that follows amounts 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 9 


to a demonstration of this. What appears 
to me to be fatal to the four lines in question 
is that they confuse together the actual 
progress of a battle (850, 1) with the report 
carried from the field (852). In 849 xowoi 
means ‘commonplace’ on the stage, and the 
remark reminds us of the great scene at the 
opening of the Phoenissae, as well as of 
Aeschylus. 851 means ‘ while serried ranks 
of spearmen pass before his eyes.’ 

Two pyres are lit for the dead heroes, one 
for Capaneus, a second for the rest. This 
action is going on during the singing of the 
stasimon that begins at 1. 955. Hartung 
wrongly says that both pyres are in sight of 
the audience. Theseus goes off with the 
procession before the stasimon is begun, and 
slaves remain behind to burn Capaneus on 
the stage. ‘This is certain from 1. 940, 
arexero 8 dxOn vexpov, where orexeTw = 
‘let them move off,’ as usual, and from the 
reference that Athena afterwards makes to 
their pyre as lit between Eleusis and Isthmus. 
But it is also clear that Adrastus is off 
the stage during the singing of the stasimon 
and the subsequent scene between Hvyadne 
and Iphis. L. 948, where Adrastus says 
Srav St Tovade tpocHapev Tupt, daTa tporaserO 
(should we read zpooigec6’ 1), is alone enough 
to prove this. He returns when the boys 
come in procession into the orchestra, bring- 
ing the bones of their fathers to their 
mothers. 

At 1. 1075, after Evadne has thrown 
herself on to the pyre, the chorus exclaims 
to Iphis, 

€ €, oxeTAua TAd€ Taluv, 
To) TavTOApov Eepyov ower TUAUS. 


The passage continues : 


1077 I®. ovk dv tw’ edpout GAXov abAwreEpov. 
XO. iw radas- 
1079 pereAaxes TUXaS Oidiroda, yEpov, 


Epos. 


7o mdvToApov épyov ower is supposed to refer 
to the fallen body of Evadne, which Iphis 
will soon see. But Iphis had seen her fall, 
and could now see nothing further than the 
mingled ashes of Evadne and Capaneus ; 
and any force that can be extracted from the 
words on the assumption that they refer to 
Evadne merely is extremely weak. Probably 
Euripides intended a wider reference to the 
story of Oedipus and the resulting strife of 
Eteocles and Polynices, which produced the 
mavro\pov épyov of the invasion of Thebes, 
and finally the misery of Iphis. Aeschylus 
makes Eteocles call Polynices zavroApos. By 
der is meant that Iphis will presently see 
the mingled ashes of husband and wife, and 
will thus realise the full meaning of the 
épyov wévToApov that had begun with Oedipus 
and resulted in the death of Evadne. €pyov 
thus refers to the whole series of troubles. 
I should connect 1. 1075 with 1. 1079 in this 
way :— 


r a’ aN , 
XO. @ €, oxetAva Tade Tabor, 
A , ” ” , 
TO wWavTOApov epyov owe TaAas— 


Id. otk dv tw’ etport GAXov GOAWwTEpov— 
XO. im tadas, 


peTeAayxes TUXGS K.T.A, 
E. C. Marcuant. 





ST. MARK IN THE DIATESSARON. 


Tue publication of a version of Tatian’s 
long lost Diatessaron (ed, Ciasca, Romae 
1888) gives an opportunity of testing some 
theories about the Gospels and their history. 
In this note I shall speak chiefly of the 
Gospel according to St. Mark. 

Papias writes on the authority of a 
certain elder, Mdpxos pev éppynvevtys llérpou 
yevopevos boa epvynpovevcev axptBOs eypawev. 
od pe to Tat TA bd TOD NXpwoTov i) 
Neybévta 7) TpaxGevta. ovre yup Kove TOV 
Kuptov, obte rapnxoAovOnoev aito: vorepov dé, 
ds env, Hérpw, ds mpds Tas xpelas éroteiro Tas 
Sidacxadias. GAN ody GoTep oUvTa ELV TOV 
Kvptaxav trowvpevos Aoyiwyy ws TE ovdev 


jpapte Mdpxos, ovtws eved ypawas os 
dmrepvnpoveroev. vos yap erojtaro Tpovowy, 
Tod pndev dv HKovee Tapadurely, 7) Wevoarbat 
7m. ev adrows (Routh R. R. i. 13, ed. 2). 
Briefly, St. Mark wrote évca and ob 
7rdé€eu from his recollections of St. Peter’s 
Gospel teachings, which themselves did not 
constitute a aivtaées. 

In the opinion of some writers the 
canonical St. Mark does not answer to this 
description, and accordingly it is said that 
some other writing or recension must have 
been referred to. This however does not at 
once follow; for it is possible to think 
with Eusebius that Papias was o¢ddpa 


10 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


gpukpos tov vowv, and so failed to see the 
discrepancy between the Kara. Mdpxov known 
to him and the supposed description of it. 
The question is, not whether our St. Mark 
is actually in good order, but whether 
Papias could have imagined that it was not. 
In his work on the Logia he may have 


followed by preference the order of St. ° 


Matthew, who (he tells us) ra Adyva 
cuvveypawarto. 

In Mr. Rushbrooke’s Synopticon St. Mark 
occupies the first column and St. Matthew 
the second, so that, for example, Mark iv. 
in its order has opposite to it selections from 
Matt. xii. v. xX. Xi. Vii. vi. xiii. viii. If St. 
Matthew’s order were followed, St. Mark’s 
Gospel would be in corresponding disorder. 

Of the Diatessaron it has been lately 
remarked, ‘As a rule Tatian strives to 
follow the order of events contained in 
St. Matthew’s Gospel...In the first eight 
chapters he seems to appreciate the more 
accurate chronological arrangement of St. 
Luke...The value of St. John’s Gospel from 
a harmonistic point of view he does not 
anywhere seem to have realized. As 
modern commentators in general consider 
St. Matthew to have least of all four sought 
to have reproduced the events of our Lord’s 
life in their chronological order, Tatian’s 
narrative differs very widely from all recent 
Harmonies in this respect’ (Maher). Here 
St. Mark is not even mentioned as having 
contributed to the determination of Tatian’s 
order. The substance of his chapters is 
brought in, at the most a few verses at a time, 
in the order i.-vi. ix. vi. iii. vi. ili, iv. vi. vii. 
1, Vill.-Xil. Xi, xii. Xiv. Xi.-xiv. xili.-xvi. 

The order of the Fourth Gospel is undis- 
turbed from vii. 31 to the end. In one 
place (T. 34 sq.) Tatian’s harmony takes 
from it a sequence of 212 verses from vii. 
31, unbroken except by Matt. xxii. 41-46, 
which supersedes the pericope of the Woman 
taken in Adultery; and in another place 
(T. 45 sg.) a sequence of 119 verses, broken 
only by Luke xxii. 35-39. Thus its order 
enters largely into the framework of the 
Diatessaron, according to the Arabic Version 
of it as edited by Ciasca. 

_ Modern critics differ as to the value of 
the order in Kara Mapxov. Mr. Badham on 
The Formation of the Gospels writes of the 
Papian St. Mark, ‘ But above all, it is John 
the Elder’s comment on the disorder of this 
first document that precludes our identifying 
it with the canonical St. Mark; for the 
latter is by all appearance the most orderly 
Gospel we possess. Definite notes of time 
...abound,’ Dean Alford wrote of the same, 


‘There is no attempt to bind on one section 
to another, or to give any sequences of 
events.’ 

In the following case Badham and Alford 
change sides. The one writes, ‘But the 
most striking example of posteriority [in 
St. Mark] is afforded by a comparison of 
Matt. xiv. 12, 13 with Mark vi. 30,31. In 
St. Matthew the disciples of the Baptist come 
and tell Jesus what has been done to John, 
and Jesus for the sake of safety withdraws 


into privacy. In St. Mark the Apostles, © 


returning from their mission, come and tell 
Jesus what they themselves have done. 
And another reason for withdrawal into 
privacy is suggested—that they may rest 
after their fatigue...A very slight misap- 
prehension accounts for the process by which 
Matt. xiv. 12, 13 develops into Mark vi. 30, 
31. The reverse process is simply incon- 
ceivable.’ The other comments thus on 
Mark vi. 31-34, ‘One of the most affecting 
descriptions in the Gospels...Matt. has a 
brief compendium of it. Every word and 
clause is full of the rich recollections of one 
who saw and felt the whole.’ Tatian takes 
the passage to pieces, giving Mark vi. 30, 
31 far away in T. 14, and Mark vi. 33, 54” 
in T. 18 in connexion with the other accounts 
of the Feeding of the Five Thousand. He 
must have been fully persuaded that this 
Gospel was not quite ‘in order,’ and Papias 
before him may have been of the same way 
of thinking. 

In respect of raéis what did Papias and 
his authorities take as their standard? If 
Kara Mapxov came to him as Petrine, it 


_ might have seemed that he was bound to 


honour it as the ‘ very chiefest’ of the Gos- 
pels ; but he finds that it is neither complete 
nor in perfect order—in a word, not at all 
what a Gospel of St. Peter should be. Its 
meagreness tended to its disuse except for 
matter peculiar.to itself, so that by Tatian 
and others after him it was cited least in 
proportion to its length of the four Gospels, 
and of itself it contributed comparatively 
little to the order of his Diatessaron. 

Why was Papias concerned about the raéis 
of the Gospels? Possibly he was one of the 
first of harmonists on a large scale. In his 
pentateuch of Aoyiwy Kupiaxév “Egnyyjoets 
(or -ovs) he would have had to think what 
was the true grouping and sequence of events 
in places where the Gospels disagreed, and 
his famous work may have led up to and 
influenced the structure of the Diatessaron 
of Tatian, and prepared the way for its 
speedy reception in the East. 

C, TayLor, 





_—— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 11 


NOTE ON PLINY AIST. NAT. III. 142. 


My attention was drawn to this passage 
by Mr. J. A. R. Munro, in connexion with 
the recent excavations at Doclea in Monte- 
negro. It contains an account of the 
political organization of the peoples living 
around the colony of Salona in Dalmatia. 
This account is extremely interesting, but 
at the same time very obscure. Pliny 
writes :— 


Petunt in eam (7.e. Salonam) iura viribus 
discriptis in decurias ccexxxxii Delmatae, 
xxii Deuri, cexxxviiii Ditiones, cclxviill 
Maezaei, lii Sardeates, &e. 


From these words it would seem that five 
peoples or clans of some kind were reckoned 
politically under the colony (for the 
meaning of petere ius in see Nettleship’s 
Contributions to Latin Lexicography p. 500). 
It would also seem that these clans were 
subdivided into smaller groups called 
decuriae ; but we are as yet almost entirely 
without information as to the nature of 
these, which are unique, so far as we know, 
in the empire. The words viribus discriptis 
do but increase the difficulty : it would be 
hard to say exactly what we are to under- 
stand by them unless it be that the clans 
were arranged in this singular way for 
financial purposes. I have not as yet found 
a parallel to this use of vires in Pliny’s 
account of the empire and its populations. 
Nor if we read, with some MSS. and editions, 
(eg. that of Sillig) cwribus is the matter 

made any plainer. 

I would suggest that the passage should 
be read thus : 


Petunt in eam iura V lribus : 
decurias etc. 


discripti in 


There is very little difference between 


VIRIBVS and VIRIBUS ; and a copyist, 


not noticing that the names of five clans 
were added immediately, may have easily 
read viribus, and then written discriptis to 
suit it, instead of discripti, which however 
is the reading of some MSS. There seems 
to be no MS. reading besides viribus or 
iurtibus ; at least I can find no mention of 
any such in the editions of Sillig and 
Detlefsen. A New College MS. of the 
twelfth century has plainly viribus. The 
editio princeps has twribus. 

It may possibly be objected that iribus is 
an unusual word for a clan, or whatever we 
are to suppose these divisions were, This 
is true ; but in the first place it is used by 
Pliny himself a few chapters before in this 
sense: Boit quorum tribus CXIL. fuisse 
auctor est Cato (iii. 116). And secondly it 
seems appropriate in connexion with the 
word decuwria; for the latter must surely 
mean some artificial division of a larger 
group, and the larger group itself would in 
this case more naturally be called by a 
word like ¢tribus signifying an artificial 
division, rather than by a word like gens.! 
There are some indications that the popula- 
tion of this district was extremely primitive, 
and it may be that the Romans in this case 
could not adapt the native social organiza- 
tion to their own purposes as they did 
elsewhere, and were thus driven to use 
terms of division which are unusual and 
indicate an organization not based on native 
groupings. But for further light on 
this point we must wait for some chance 
inscription more instructive than C./.L. 
ili. 2107, which seems to be the only one 
yet found which bears on the subject: and 
meanwhile the suggestion made above may 
possibly contribute to lessen the difliculty. 

W. Warve Fow er. 
1 See e.g. Verrius Flaccus ap. Gell. N.A. 18. 7: 


‘Tribus quoque et decurias diei et pro loco et pro 
jure et pro hominibus.’ 





VARIOUS EMENDATIONS. 


Plat. Protag. 322 A. "Emetoy) de 6 dvOpu- 
mos Oelas peter poipas, mparov poev Ou TV 
Tov Oeod cvyyéevetav Cywv povov Geovs 
évopuce xré. The words dia rijv Tod 0. ovyyev. 
are nonsense in this context: nothing is 
said anywhere about kinship with the gods. 
The text seems to have had originally zpatov 


pev dua sro dT oO lwo peovov kTE. "> in which 
rovro = TO Getas petacyxeiv poipas. ‘The 
reading of BT, as quoted above, is the result 
of a thoughtless ha on TovTO. 

Thue. vi. 96, eEnptyntar yap TOaAXO 
Xwopiov, kat Hexpt ais Toews emuxhuves Te €OTL 
kal érigaves Tav Eo w Kal ovopactar bro TOV 


12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


wn , 2. a A A . ca) “ IAA > 
Xupaxociwy dua TO exuroAjs Tod aAXov eivat 
‘ExumoAat. Read 70 dv w xwpiov and €o w ev 
(i.e. €k THs TOAEWS). 
"Eur. Jon 545. I. WdGes cis vobov tm 

, — ‘+s A , R ‘ d 
Nextpov ; EZ. pwpiac ye Tov veov. Kea 

Sy / : 


, of eS) 
peoplas Y 


€T WV VEOS. 


Kur. Med. 364 sq. 
KAK@S TETPAKTAL TAVT GX —Ts avrepel ; 
GAN’ ovte TavTn Ta DT a—py OoKeiré Tw. 
Read toAAayy in 364 and rdvra in 
365. The corruption is of a familiar type. 
Mortimer Lamson Earte. 


CICERO, FPIST. AD FAM. XT. 13. 


T po not know whether it has been 
noticed that the letter of Dec. Brutus 
to Cicero (ad Fam. xi. 13) appears to 
consist of fragments of two letters; the 
one written at or near Pollenza, about May 
7, the other written in Savoy, apparently a 
little after June 6. The first of these 
letters, of which we get the beginning, breaks 
off with the words: ‘In hoe enim vic- 
toriam puto consistere.’ The second, of 
which the beginning is lost, opens with the 
words: ‘In spem venerant.’ It may 
perhaps be suspected that it is also im- 
perfect at the end, as all of this series of 
letters from Brutus to Cicero have date and 
place given at the end, which are wanting 
here. Compare ad Fam. xi. 9, xi. 10, xi. 11, 
PN, i 20, ay ly A, 

In Schiitz’s edition this letter (841) is 
headed ‘Scr. Pollentiae Maio exeunte,’ 
which is clearly incorrect on the face of it. 
For it was written immediately after an 
attempt of Anthony on Pollenza, which 
Brutus had frustrated, while we know from 
a letter of Plancus (ad Jam. x. 17) that 
Anthony was at Fréjus on May 15. We 
have also a letter of May 6 from Brutus 
written ‘in finibus Statelliensium’ (ad 
Fam. xi, 11), that is in the neighbour- 
hood of Acqui, in which he says: ‘In 
itinere est Antonius; ad Lepidum pro- 
ficiscitur.’ But in the letter before us 
Brutus informs Cicero that, when he was 
about thirty miles from Vado, where 
Anthony was, he heard through his spies 
that Anthony had addressed his soldiers 
and asked them to follow him beyond the 
Alps, for he had come to an agreement 
with Lepidus; that they however had 
refused and asked to be led to Pollenza, to 
which he was forced to consent; that on 
hearing this he sent five cohorts to occupy 
Pollenza, who reached it an hour before 
Trebellius arrived with Anthony’s cavalry. 
Here the fragment breaks off, and we must 
infer that this check enabled Anthony to 
persuade his soldiers to follow him into 
Jepidus’ province, so that turning his back 


on Pollenza he marched to F rcjus, probably : 


by the Col di Tenda, arriving there on 
the 15th. His brother Lucius had reached 
the same place with his van-guard a few 
days before, for Plancus tells us in an 
undated letter (ad Fam. x. 15) that hearing 
Lucius Anthony had come to Fréjus, he sent 
on his brother to encounter him, May 11, 
and in the same letter we learn that he 
crossed the Isére, May 12. He therefore 
heard of Lucius’ arrival at-Fréjus before 
crossing the Isére, so that it could hardly 
have taken place later than May 9. , 

A comparison of these dates would lead 
one to suppose that Brutus’ letter of May 6 
was written early in the morning, before he 
began his march on Vado; that while on 
the march he was informed that Anthony 
was about to advance against Pollenza ; and 
that the events described in his letter took 
place on the same day. If so, as the whole 
tone of the letter shows it was written 
immediately after the events described in it 
took place, we may fairly suppose it written 
on the 7th or thereabouts. 

As regards the second part of the letter, 
it would at once occur to any one to ask, 
what the four legions of Plancus had to do 
in this connexion, and still more how there 
could be any question of a crossing of the 
Iscre. Moreover it is not at all clear who 
it is who ‘in spem venerant.’ The explan- 
ation seems to be given by the letter of 
Plancus (ad Fam. x. 23) written at Cularo 
‘in Allobrogum finibus,’ that is in Savoy, 
and dated June 6, in which he states 
that he had recrossed the Isére on the 4th 
and broken down the bridges, and that he 
expected to be joined by Brutus in three 
days. When the letter therefore, to which 
our fragment belongs, was written, the 
junction had been effected, and we have the 
key to the whole situation. Those who 
‘in spem venerant’ are Anthony and 
Lepidus; the army they supposed could 
not be transported so quickly across the 
Alps is that of Brutus ; the Allobroges who 


so gallantly held Anthony and Lepidus in - 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 13 


check are the auxiliaries of Plancus, 
referred to in his letter (ad. Kam. x. 21) 
written in the immediate prospect of the 
junction of Anthony and Lepidus, which 
took place May 29 (ad Fam. x. 23). 
His words are: ‘Hue me venire, et duobus 
exercitibus coniunctis obicere exercitum 
fidelissimum, auxilia maxima,  principes 
Galliae, provinciam totam, summae demen- 
tiae esse vidi.’ Again the ‘nobis’ by whom 
the men are sent forward are Brutus and 
Planeus. For that the junction actually 
took place we know from the letter of 
Planeus of July 28 (ad Fam. x. 24). 
1 should perhaps add that the letters 
of Brutus from Ivrea dated May 24 and 


25 (ad Fam. xi. 20, 23) point to his 
being then on his way to join Plancus 
no doubt by Aosta and the Little St. 
Bernard. He had then suspended his march 
and resolved for the present to remain in 
Italy, because of the favourable accounts he 
had heard of Lepidus’ intentions, to which 
he alludes, but had resumed it on hearing 
from Plancus of the junction, or impending 
junction, of Anthony and Lepidus. We 
have indeed a letter of his (ad Fam. xi. 26) 
dated June 3 from his camp, no doubt 
written when on the march from Ivrea to 
join Plancus. 
HARBERTON, 





PHILOLOGICAL NOTES.! 


(The Greek Aorist.) 


To conclude the account given in my last 
paper of the origin of the o aorist, it remains 
to discuss the singular group, 737 (jeidea) 
ya (jia) and their pendant 7 (ja). The 
chief peculiarities of the three forms are: 
1. That though they were, as I contend, 
created from the o subjunctives of an 
unthematic indicative, still that indicative 
was not an aorist, but a present or imperfect, 
and consequently the derivatives are not 
aorists but imperfects. 2. That though 
formed like o aorists with the terminations 
of the perfect, yet because 737 which set the 
type for the other two remained in close 
connection with the one form oida that 
adhered to the older endings, all three were 
kept from following the subsequent changes 
in termination of perfects and o aorists in 
general; the more so that neither ja nor 7) 
had any perfect at their side to influence 
them. 3. That the o formation in the 
better language is restricted to the singular 
in the first two tenses, the termination of 
the stem excluding this characteristic in the 
case of 7. 

"Hidy, as I have said, set the type. I 
account for its formation in the following 
way. In pre-historic Greek the pluperfect 
was not generally needed as a distinct tense. 
The perfect throughout had both a presential 
and a narrative meaning ; only in the third 
plural the original ending o had _ been 


} Continued from Vol, VII. p. 292. 


differentiated into a presential aov and a 
narrative cay. In the dual and plural this 
state of things remained substantially 
unchanged in the time of Homer ; pénaper, 
pépate, peudace is the present perfect ; 
pepapev, pewate, pepacav is the narrative 
perfect. The singular however at that 
time presented a difficulty as it had always 
done in the case of otda. The perfect 
singular, at least in many verbs, if my 
previous explanations are correct, had 
received in pre-historic Greek the reduplica- 
tion for the express purpose of emphasizing 
the presential force of the tense. In ordinary 
cases the language found a substitute in the 
employment of the aorist, but whenever it 
was desired to retain some of the special 
shades of meaning that were attached to 
the reduplicated perfect, it was driven to 
create a new tense. Now the analogy of 
Latin and some facts in Greek warrant us 
in assuming that the perfect, like other 
unthematic forms, had originally an o sub- 
junctive and optative. Thus we have 
1. from vowel stems—in Latin the common 
tenses amaro, amarim, flero, flerim, «ce. 
(the true formation of which from the stem 
of the perfect is established by the solitary 
but well attested monerim)—and in Greek 
éotOpev, éotainv for éordocwpev, éEotariny 
and so reOvainy and rerAainv ; and 2. from con- 
sonantal stems—in Latin cepero ceperim «e., 
and in Greek cidéw, cide(nv for cidéow, eideatnv 
. 





14 ' THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


with which we may compare dedvefnv. It 
is no wonder that the examples in Greek 
should be so few ; for when the perfect was 
used only in one of its special meanings, 
the subjunctive and optative must have 
been rarely called for ; the instances that 
exist are from perfects which in sense are 
simply presents. Hence the. common type 


of these moods easily overpowered the’ 


inherited forms. Even cidéw, there is some 
reason to think, had perished from the 
Homerie dialect in favour of eiéw (Monro 
p. 84). But the perfect subjunctive in ew 
(cétw) did not disappear without leaving 
clear traces of its former existence in the 
singular of the common pluperfect in ea 
which was formed on the analogy of the 
o aorist. In Homer (apart from the excep- 
tional éotkecav) there is no plural to this 
tense. The function is discharged by such 
persons of the perfect as remained unaffected 
by what I have called the intrusive a. In 
fact this intrusive a seems to have had the 
same power of destroying the narrative 
sense in the plural as the reduplication had 
in the singular and, when it became general, 
required the extension of the ea formation 
to the plural. This was done at a time 
when all traces of the original o were lost, 
and took place on the analogy of déé:a, 
dedyzev, So that from ézeroiHea was got 
erreTroiGemev. 

That the « of ea in ydea did not in the 
better language spread beyond the singular, 
is explained by the account that has been 
given by the post-Homeric plural of the 
pluperfect. “Iopev (iduev) and tore, toacr in 
all dialects over which analogy did not 
exert an overwhelming force remained 
without the intrusive a; thus there was no 
discord between juopev, qote, jucav and the 
corresponding forms of the perfect, while 
the long augment sharply differentiated 
them, "Hideueyv however with dere and 
qoecav were no doubt constantly called into 
existence after the strong and obvious 
analogy of the pluperfect, but do not appear 
to have established themselves except when 
and where icpev, iore, (aac. were wholly or 
in part supplanted by the similar neologisms 
oldapev, Ol0aTE, oldacL. 

The 2nd person must originally have been 
nederOa. If the Homeric 7dy06a is correct, 
which Mr. Monro seems to doubt, it is 
a contraction from 7d¢acba with the same 
intrusive a as in déduas or rather, as the 
accent shows, formed by the addition of 6a 
to an already contracted dys (jedys). It 
is at any rate the earlier Attic form and 
probably arose in that dialect under the 


influence of the contracted terminations of 
the pluperfect 7, ys, «. The change was 
natural in Attic: the stem 7d« which the 
language recognized in ydecGa has nothing 
in the standard forms of the tense to 
support it. The retention of the 6a is of 
course due to the connection with oida, 
which, though obscured in the singular, 
remained sufficiently evident in the plural. 
I will return to the later Attie ydeoba 
presently. 


The discussion of the second member of . 


the group 7a (jia) is one of great interest. 
Brugmann and other eminent philologists 
denounce the whole singular inflection as 
it exists in Homer y-ia, including jiov ke. 
as an ‘Unform,’ and in face of tradition 
deny its existence. But on the principles 
I am trying to establish, the formation is in 
strict agreement with the ordinary methods 
of the language. I take it to be the indica- 
tive with the terminations of the perfect 
and formed from the o subjunctive tomer 
(tconev), Latin irem, which in its turn comes 
from the lost imperfect of eiyi—iy, is, 7. 
The long c instead of the diphthong «i may 
seem surprising. No one has investigated 
the conditions under which « becomes in its 
strong form « or 7 respectively. But the only 
other unthematic stems ending in t, m and 
$6 show the same long vowel under similar 
circumstance, wi, riowat, and Otns the sub- 
junctive of the lost épéwv. 

The singular of this imperfect disappeared 
of course as unsubstantial and liable to 
confusion, but the language contentedly 
retained the longer dual and plural with the 
short vowel which were common to the 
present and imperfect. For the three lost 
persons a substitute had to be provided. 
Two ways of doing this lay within the 
ordinary resources of the language. One 
was to adopt thematic terminations as in 
ez.ov, epfiov ; traces of this procedure may 
perhaps be seen in the xaretev of Hesiod, if 
the reading is correct, and the Homeric ie. 
A second was to form a new indicative with 
perfect terminations from the o subjunctive 
iw (for iow, cf. irem) of the lost ty, in which 
case we should have 7a, tev. - But all the 
forms so constructed were chargeable though 
in a less degree with the same fault of 
indistinctness that caused the disappearance 
of tv. Both sets of inflexions however were 
rescued from destruction by the use of the 
long vowel 7 as an augment. In other 
words, as a long augment before a vowel 
indicates the existence of a subsequent 
digamma, the language substituted for the 


stem i the synonymous fi. Numerous 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. — 15 


derivatives from the digammated root 
are quoted by Maas in the. first number of 
Indo. Fors., and its existence is I imagine uni- 
versally recognized in the Homeric éeicato, 
celcacOny, erieivopat, emeioapevn, KaTacicato. 
It is strange that a homonym of this fc 
should have left its mark in the inflection 
of volo. 

If this contention is correct the new tense 
must at first have run yia, nioba, jie. In 
the Ist and 3rd persons the long « was 
shortened before the succeeding vowel ; just 
as the substantive 7jia passed into 7ia and 
thence into 7a. The 2nd person is not 
found in Homer. That the early form was 
not jeoba but qic#a appears not merely 
from its origin from tw (‘omev) and its con- 
nection with ja, but from a consideration 
of the laws of contraction. HFe passes 
into 7 as is clear in 7y for 7Feidera, and 
consequently if 7Feoa had been the basis, 
the normal form in Attic would have been 
7000. Now for 7joc6a from ecius there is no 
external authority though the form has 
been introduced on conjecture into Ag. 
511. For jo6a from otda there is the evi- 
dence (valeat quantum) of the “Zt. Mag 
I see no reason to dispute the possible 
existence of these forms. Individuals would 
naturally construct them from time to time 
from 7re, Hore on the obvious but misleading 
analogy of tore, oicfa. But there is nothing 
to make us believe that the language ever 
accepted them. In fact if the Attic dialect 
had ever recognized an inflection ja, 76a, 
NY, WV, ATE, Woav, it would have one of 
the typical paradigms, and in virtue of its 
symmetry and _ regularity would have 
lasted on, defying attack or modification. 

On the other hand jic6a would remain 
uncontracted. Two simple long vowels do 
not contract till by the operation of some 
phonetic law one or other of them is short- 
ened. Compare vyirys. It may be remarked 
that «dys kAydds is no exception. The Attic 
form is not to be identified with the Homeric 
KAnides, but with «Aaides which is to be found 
both in Simonides and Pindar. On this 
reasoning the contracted Attic inflection 
must have been 7a, 7060, jv. Perhaps the 
first change was from jicba to moda. The 
change was called for to establish an 
apparent harmony throughout the tense, 
and the difference between i and yi is 
so minute that it is only here and there 
represented graphically. Again jev was too 
attenuated for common use as a significant 
word unless it had been protected by the 
strongest analogy, and a substitute was 
sought, Now 757 and 7ja were in close connec- 


tion in their plurals, the Ist and 2nd persons 
only differing by a single consonant joper, 
nHEV, HoTe, Hre and the 3rd persons by what 
was the same thing, the unvoiced o, in joav 
(from 757) and the voiced o in joav (from 7a). 
The same relation was extended to the 3rd 
sing. of ya, and thus ye arose from 
noe. 

In yet the final of the stem thus became 
a thematic se, no longer as in all other per- 
sons of tense a simple c, and this lengthened 
stem forced its way into the 2nd person 
sing. which in Greek stands in a peculiarly 
close relation to the 3rd. Cf. éri@eis, éréec 
in spite of ériOnv. Thus yicha became 
qecOa. The change was facilitated by the 
exceptional character of jicba, which was 
the only instance in the whole language of 
the retention of an unthematic long « in the 
indicative. To this consideration we may 
add the minuteness of the difference in 
pronunciation between the original form i 
and its successor «. The slighter an apparent 
anomaly is, the less its chance of preser- 
vation. 

The new ye not only called jecba into 
existence, but the combined forces of the 
two strengthened the connection between 
the imperfects of oida and eiue to such an 
extent that the language began to treat the 
structure of the tenses as identical, making 
the difference to consist in the presence or 
absence of the medial consonant. Whatever 
change the one underwent was necessarily 
extended to the other. Compare two forms 
which lie outside the present inquiry, 
noeoav, neoav. With this felt interdepen- 
dence of the pair of inflections yea could 
not but give birth to ndeoGa. "~Hia and 73 
naturally offered a longer resistance, but 
the instinct to identify the accent and the 
termination of the two was so strong that 
it eventually destroyed both and substituted 
new and noe. 

In the coexistence of jeroGa and jet, nderrOa 
and 7de. we have doubtless to seek the cause 
of the later modification of the ending of 
the pluperfect 2nd sing. from ys to eas. 
When the language had occasion to employ 
one of these 2nd persons, it followed not 
tradition and memory, which in the case of 
words so rarely used must have but little 
life, but instinctively created a new form 
from the commoner 3rd person in e after 
the type of the more familiar verbs. 

Nor is the 3rd pers. jicay (joav) without 
importance in the history of Greek grammar. 
The uncontracted jia gave birth to jicav 
and the lost ta to ‘cay after the analogy 
of dédra to dedicay, and in their turn jicay and 


16 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


igav produced (tac. after the analogy of 
déducav to dediacr. From the relation of 
jiocav, toav to iar and from no other source, 
as it seems to me, we have to trace the 
creation of the common Attic type rifeacr 
by the side of éré@ecav in the place of the 
Tonic rifetor (tiHev7r) or the Doric riOevr. 
Whether the [onic or Doric accent is the 
older, is a subject of dispute. It has 
become nsual to affirm that the unbroken 
tradition as to the Ionic form is in error 
and that we should write rife. But the 
external authority is overwhelmingly strong 
in favour of éid0tc0w, ietor, TiHetor. and 
there are the numerous forms in ito 
which could not be accented on the first 
without introducing an improbable confusion 
between the 5rd sing. and plural. Compare 
the accentuation of the corresponding 
participles, did0vs, feds, TUHeis, Zevyvis. Whether 
or no the 5rd persons plural of the present 
and imperfect are, as is generally maintained, 
cases of the present participle, their identity 
in form is obvious. It only remains to 
account for the Doric 7ifevr. The Doric 
dialect followed the same course with the 
brd pl. pres. of verbs in pu as it did with 
the same person of the thematic imperfect, 
i.e. it transferred the accent in the 3rd plural 
to the same vowel as was accented in the 
Ist and 2nd persons plural. 

"H(7a), 76a, nv (nev) are formed on the 
same principle from the uncontracted sub- 
junctive éw, the language in this instance 
making no distinction between the modal 
and radical o, The hereditary form of the 
imperfect ja (qov), 7a (joo), no (jo7) is known 
from the dialects. But though 7ja is common 
to the two series of persons, the instinct of 
the classical language regarded it as having 
the termination of the perfect and created 
from it joav as jicay from ia. The epic 
éague Obviously bears the same relation to 
éoav as tao to toav, but, analogical as it is, 


it never was strong enough to displace so 
common a word as the inherited eioi. 

An attempt at a similar formation is found 
in the Herodotean érifeas created from 
éeribecay, after the analogy of écay éas. The 
motive of the change from éri@ys apparently 
was that the termination in ys was felt to 
be connected with an intransitive meaning. 
The same motive accounts for the thematic 
edidovv, edLdovs, €dLd0v, eriOets, ériHer, the laws 
of contraction rendering the Herodotean 
expedient useless in the Attic dialect. ‘ 

T have succeeded I hope in giving a con- 
sistent and rational account of the apparently 
anomalous forms which are the subject of 
this paper. If I have done so, it affords an 
almost convincing demonstration of the 
truth of the position that the Greek o aorist 
is an indicative formed with the personal 
suffixes of the perfect from the o subjunctive 
of an unthematic stem. For years I was, 
like other students of Greek Grammar, 
perplexed and bafiled by the formation of 
nia, necrOa, ne. The comparative philologists 
yielded no help, Their explanations (see 
Brugmann’s Greek Grammar, p. 109) came 
to nothing more than a statement that the 
tradition of the language had gone seriously 
wrong. Even such great Atticists as Dawes 
and the Headmaster of Westminster con- 
ceived that jeoba violated the dialectic law 
of contraction and denied its existence. 
But in the light of the theory I am striving 
to maintain it will be seen that all three 
persons are ‘regularly formed in accordance 
with the usual procedure of the Greek 
Janguage, and, if yeoba had not been 
attested by manuscripts and grammatical 
tradition, it would be necessary to suppose 
its existence as a, link in the chain of 
causes which transformed 7dy06a into 
noaoba and introduced a into the 2nd person 
of the pluperfect. 

F. W. WALKER. 


JUVENAL, IV. 116. 


I TAKE leave to doubt Mr. 8. G. Owen’s 
interpretation of ‘ dirusque a ponte satelles,’ 
Juv. iv. 116 (Class. Rev. vii. p. 401). 
He says ‘it is simpler to understand by 
pons the celebrated causeway...... by which 
the Appia Via was carried across the foot 
of the valley below Aricia.’ On general 
questions of Latinity I should not think of 
engaging with Mr, Owen, but pons or 


‘bridge’ I take to imply in either language 
a passage from one point to another, 
generally carried on arches or otherwise 
open at the bottom, certainly detached at 
both sides. Now the ‘causeway’ which 
still remains below La Riccia and the 
Madonna di Galloro does not in the least 
correspond to this simile. The road is 
carried up the side of the steep hill from 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 17 


the ancient Aricia to the modern Genzano, 
and where the ascent begins it is for some 
way buttresed up by a massive wall of 
stone, so high as to suggest a portion out 
of a Florentine palace. This no doubt was 
made necessary partly by the very steep 
natural slope, which the embankment 
modified, partly by the watery and _ half- 
submerged condition of the Vallericcia. The 
road however on its inner side is continuous 
with the hill, and presents no analogy to 
‘bridge,’ ‘causeway’ or ‘viaduct. A 
better parallel is a railway embankment 
carried along a slope, like many that may 
be seen on Italian and Swiss mountain 
lines. Similar pieces of the Via Appia 
embanked with stone substructures may be 
seen on the descent from Genzano to the 
Pontine plain, between Genzano and Castel 
8. Gennaro, and at other places further 
along, e.g. between Fondi and Itri. 

Again the carriage is not necessarily 
‘journeying from Puteoli to Rome.’ The 
Via Appia after climbing from Bovillae to 
Castra Albana (Albano) descended into the 
Vallericcia, and up out of this to the 
modern Genzano. There were two slopes, 
and no doubt beggars on both. Aricia was 
the only town for miles along the road, and 
‘Aricinos axes’ would suit either hill. 
And did beggars encamp upon bridges 
because they were narrow? I am not aware 
that they were narrower than roads. The 
ancient bridge was often a lofty arch, and 
offered the carriage a clivus which it 


slackened to climb. 
T. W. ALLEN. 


By the courtesy of the editor I have been 
allowed to see Mr. Allen’s remarks in the 
proof. I feel very diffident at finding 
myself in conflict with such an adept as Mr. 
Allen on Italian topography ; still, in justice 
to myself, I must say that when I was in 
Italy last April I made an excursion to 
Ariccia, with a special view to clearing up 
this passage in Juvenal ; and what I wrote 
in my article is the result, based on notes 
taken at the time. It seemed to me that 
the causeway in question might very well 
be described as a bridge (pons). In support 
of the testimony of my own eyes I will only 
add the following quotation from Murray’s 
Handbook to Rome (ed. 1888), p. 436; 
‘ About ten minutes’ walk from the village, 
descending into the valley to the S., is the 
magnificent causeway, 700 feet in length, 
and about 40 in width, by which the Via 
Appia was carried across the northern 
extremity of the Vallariccia: it is built of 
quadrilateral blocks of peperino, and is 
prerced by three arched apertures for the pass- 
age of water. In the deepest part of the 
valley its height is not less than 40 feet; a 
short distance from its 8.E. extremity is the 
opening of what appears to be the emissa- 
rium of the lake of Nemi, from which flows 
an abundant and pellucid stream, which 
carries with it fertility into the subjacent 
plain of Vallariccia.’ The italics are my 
own. I venture to think that there is here 
more than an ‘analogy’ to a ‘bridge.’ 
Further, as this causeway slopes from the 
ridge of the hill towards Ariccia, if the 
carriage were coming from Puteoli, it would 
be journeying down (devexae). 

S. G. Owen. 


DORIC FUTURES IN ARISTOPHANES. 


THE existence, outside the Dorie dialect, 
of a future at once sigmatic and circum- 
flexed is too well established to need proof. 
The use however of such a future in the 
best Attic is generally denied, and those 
instances that occur in Aristophanes are 
even by the author of the New Phrynichus, 
the one safe guide in all such matters, 
attributed to the exigencies of metre. 

The futures in question are all of the 
middle voice, and come from roots containing 
a v diphthong. They fall naturally into 
three readily distinguishable groups. 

NO. LXVI. VOL, VIII, 


1. hevyw (duyyava), hevfouar or devéodpar: 
muvOdvopat (mwevGona), mevoouar or  zrev- 
wovpat. 

a) f , cad ‘ ld , 

2. vew, vevoopar OY vevootpar: tAE€w, wAEv- 
gopat or mAevocotpar: mvéw, mvevoouat or 
Tvevooipat: pew, pevoouar Or pevoodpwar (and 
béw, Oevooua, no form Gevoodua actually 
occurring in our texts, though Stephanus 
says that it ‘citatur ex Thucydide,’ while 
the form drofevoovpefa is mentioned by a 
Grammarian in Bekker, 428, 3). 

3. Kaiw, kavow, OY Kavoouar OY Kavoodpat : 
kNaiw, KAaujow, Or kAKavoopat OY KAavoodpmat. 

Cc 


18 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


These groups demand separate treat- 
ment. 

1. With regard to the first group (devyo, 
muvOdvoya) the metre guarantees devfotpar 
and its forms in the following five passages 
of Aristophanes : 


(a’) N. 442. elrep ra ypea Siadevsotpar 
(B’) IL. 495-6. ds rots dyabovs trav avOpa- 
ws > 3 / 

mwv Padsetrar KovK aroXenpe 
Tous O€ Tovnpovs Kal TOUS 
Cy 2 Ws a bh , 2 
abéous hevéeirat Kara Towjoer K.T.X, 
(y’) IL. 446-8. ei TOV Oeov 


” 5 Xi / 
Epnpov amoXurovte wou ev- 


fovpcba 
THnVvOL Sedi6TE, nde Siapaxov- 
pea. 
(8) O. 932. ef py te Tovtw Sdvres arodev- 
Eovpcba. 
(e) A. 1129. evopd yépovra deiAtas pevgov- 
pLevov. 


That isto say, in all the persons &c. of 
the future in which the forms of devfotpar 
differ in quantity from those of ¢evéoua 
(i.e. hevodpor, pevéetrar, pevéovpeba, hevéov- 
pevos) the former are metrically established. 

On the other hand (except in the case of 
>. 157, as to which v. infra) not a single 
person of devgouer is so supported, for in 
every other instance where the manuscripts 
present the shorter the metre would equally 
admit the longer termination. 

The list is as follows : 


(s') A. 203. éya d€ devoual ye tos ’Axap- 
véas (pevgotpar R.). 
(C) 1 442. * * * * evéer ypadas 
exaTovTadavTous TETTApas. 
(7) ©. 1204-6. ov 8 O7ws 
avopikas, 
étav AvONS TaXLoTA, Pevser Kai 
TEVELS 
Os THY yuvatka Kal Ta Travel’ 
olkace. 
(6') Ex. 625. devfovrar yap rods aicyiovs, 
emi Tovs 5€ kadovs Badiodvrar. 


Now in gs the Ravenna manuscript is 
said to read devgotpar, and while in ¢@ and 
7, though no variant occurs, manuscript 
authority is almost valueless as between 
devéee and ¢devéei, there exists in the case 
of @' a special reason for restoring the lost 
devéodvrat. 

As in the passage from the Plutus (y’) 
devéovpefa and diupaxovpeha are contrasted, 
and as again in the same play (f’) Badtetrar 
and ¢evéetrar are set in strong opposition, 
the correspondence in metrical position of 


the two futures in the latter case being 
materially emphasized by their common 
properispomenon termination, so in this 
line from the Leclesiazusae we are led to 
look for a similar correspondence or opposi- 


tion, and can hardly do otherwise than 


read : 
a \ \ 3 eZ, SEEN \ \ 
devgodvrat yap Tovs aicxiovs, él Tovs O€ 
KaAdovs Badiodvrat. 


It will be observed that in all these 
passages, the future is that either of the 
simple devyw or else of the two compounds — 
aropevyw and duadetvyw, in both of which 
the final vowel of the preposition is short. 
But in such a word as éedevyw the first 
syllable is long, so that had the Attic 
dialect formed for this compound also 
a future on the model of devéodwar and 
amodevéotvpat, the result would have been 
a most distasteful sequence of four long 
syllables. Accordingly, not so much for 
the sake of metre as of euphony, or rather 
adopting for the purpose of metre a form 
already required by euphony, Aristophanes 
himself prefers in this compound the un- 
circumflexed inflection as is shown by : 


(u') 3. 156-7. ri dpacer’ ; otk exdpycer’, & 
[lLapoOTarol, 
duxdoovra p; Grd’ éxdev- 
&erat Apaxovridns. 

These instances, then, show that, except 
under the circumstances just mentioned, 
no authority worth the name can _ be 
adduced in support of qevgouar from the 
Aristophanic writings, and ¢evéodpua holds 
the field. Nor is the evidence for this 
conclusion weakened by a comparison of 
Tragic usage. 

The less Attic Tragedians, Aeschylus and 
Sophocles, do not know devéodpau. 


Aesch. Persae, 369. as a popov devéoial 
"EXAnves kaxov (devéoiaf’ might indeed 
conceivably come from devéoduat). 

Aesch. Supplices, 456. jxovea, Kai A€yous 
av: ov pe pevéeran. 

Soph. Oedipus Rex, 355. 70 ppya; Kal rov 
tovto hevéerOar Soxeis ; 
Soph. Philoctetes, 1404. airiav 8 was 
*Axardv hevfoua; pt Ppovrions. 


But the more Attic Tragedian, Euripides, 
varies between the uncircumflexed and cir- 
cumflexed forms. 

For the former see Hlectra 975, Heraclidae 
506, Orestes 1594: for the latter, Medea 
338, 341 and 346, Bacchae 659, Helen 500 


mi 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 19 


and 1041. Of these every instance in either 
direction is guaranteed by the metre: there 
are also others where the metre is no guide. 

It is worth noticing that in the passage 
from the Orestes (1594) : 

‘ob hevédpmecOa: rupt 8 avawopev Sdpovs’ 
several manuscripts present the unmetrical 
gevéovpea, and that this variant is char- 
acterized by Porson himself as ‘ too Attic.’ 

Such being the evidence for devéodp.a1, we 
should naturally expect tuvOdvopar (rev Gopar) 
to form a future zevooduar in Aristophanes. 
This form, the existence of which is suffi- 
ciently vouched for by the well-known 
mistake of revocioOa for revoeoOou in Aesch. 
Prom. 988, does not occur in our Aristoph- 
anic texts. 

The instances of zevoouat are as follows : 


(a') TI. 40. revoe capas yap 6 Oeds etre 
Lot TOOL. 

(B') Bi. 67. revoec6 face yap mpos abtov 
av TA0L. 

(y') O. 1120. otdels drov revodpeba TaKet 
Tpaypara. 

(8) IL. 36. revodpevos ei xpi) petaBaddvra 
Tovs TpdTOVS. 


(c’) O. 250-2. dv 1 ert rovriov oidya 
Garacoas 
ira per’ GAxvoveroe roti 
TAL, 
Sedp’ tre mevodpevor Ta 
vewrTepa. 


It is noticeable that in all of these 
passages, except the last (which is obviously 
non-Attic and may be put wholly out of 
account), the forms of zeveotyar may be 
substituted for those of zevoonar without 
detriment to the metre. It therefore seems 
more probable than not that this substitution 
should be made, if we take into account the 
identity of type of the two verbs. Beside 
devyo and wuvOdvopa there exist two other 
formations of the same class, épvyyavw 
(épevyouar) and rtvyxdvw. The future of 
epvyydvw (épevéouat) appears to occur outside 
the Old and New Testaments once only in 
the whole of literature (Hippocrates 8, 100), 
but revfouar is common, nor is there any 
trace in any writer or dialect of the exist- 
ence of a form revgotpa. 

In Aristophanes we have: 

I. 112. dedory’ drws pi) TevEouar 
pLovos. 


KaKkooat- 


1 The absurdity of the scholiast’s note on this 
passage suggests that the original reading was d:a- 
7bxw, in which case tedEouar would have no metrical 
support in Aristophanes, and the positive evidence 
against tevEodua: would be much weakened, 


and N. 435. revéer rotvuy adv imetperss ov yap 
peydduv éerupets. 


It is at least possible that the total 
absence of revéodyar is due in part to the 
influence of revéw, the future of Tevxyw, a 
verb to which rvyyavw bore somewhat the 
same relation as fio to facto. 

2. Turning to the second group (6éw, véw, 
mhéw, zvéw, pew), we are confronted with 
the rather singular fact that in Aristophanes 
neither véw, wAéw nor pew form a future of 
any kind, and zvéw once only : 


B, 1221. 7d Anx’Gov yap tTodtro wvevoeirat 
7oAv (rvevoetrar omnes codices). 


The future of 6ém occurs twice: 


I. 485. Oevoe yap agas és 76 Bovdevryjpiov. 
O. 205. édvrep éraxovowor, Oevoovrat Spopw. 


From data so doubtful and indecisive no 
conclusion can be drawn. 

3. The third group consists of the two 
words xatw and kAatw. 

Whatever may have been the usage of 
later authors, it can be proved that the 
circumflexed future of these verbs is not 
Aristophanie. 

The middle future of xaiw occurs once 
only in Aristophanes : 


Il. 1054. dowep mada y eipecuivyn Kxav- 
oeTau. 


kavoovpat is apparently not to be found 
except in Galen and the Second Epistle of 
St. Peter. 

But «Aavootpae has intruded itself into 
the Aristophanie text : 


(a) Bi. 1277. dvdpav oipwyyn; KAavoet vi) 
tov Atovucov. 
(B') O. 342. kdprar was kAavoet yap, jv 
imak ye TOPOGALY "KKOT IS ; 
(y) @. 1187. Kade ye 76 rvyy. Krave Y: 
dv pap vdov pevys. 
(8) Bi. 1080-2. adda ri xpHv ypas; ov 
ravoacbat ToNemovvTas ; 
7) ©SvaKkavvidorat 
kAavoovpeba peilo, 
efov omeimapevols KOT) 
tis EAAdOos apxew ; 


TOTEPOL 


In a, Pf’ and y the manuscripts vary 
between kAaveet and xAavoer: in 6 all the 
manuscripts read xAavoovpefa, except the 
Ravenna, which presents xAavoovperOa. y’ 
may at once be put on one side, as 

c 2 


20 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


kaveet (equally with xAavoet) is unmetrical. 
A Scythian is speaking, and the true 
reading is clearly x\ato., as is seen from 
comparing 


©. 1216. otuor, ri Spaor; rot 7d ypas.o ; 


kAavcoopuat and its forms occur twelve times 
in the received text : 


(c’) N. 58. ST. dedp’ €d6’, va kAdys.. OE. dud 
ti Onta KAavoopa ; 

(s’) Ei. 262. éywye, vip Av’ 
preslamens 

(€) I1..572. drip ovx qrTov y ovdev kNavoret 

pndev tatty ye KOPNONS: 

(n') N. 933. kAadvoe, riv xeip nv ewBadrdAgs. 

(6) Ei. 255. TO. wat rat Kvdomeé. KY. ri 
pe kaXets ; TO. KAatvoer paxpd. 

(v’) A. 505. IEP. iad tips dpyns adras toxev. 
TY. xAavoer toivev todd paddXov. 

(va’) ©. 916-7. MN. AaBov taxi wavy. TY. 
KAavoet apa vi TH Gees, 

GoTls o amaker TuT- 

Tomevos TH Aap7rdou. 

(8) IL. 174. 6 Maydiros 8 odxt da TotTov 
kAavoerat ; 

(uy’) IL. 425. XP. add’ ovK eye yap dadas. 
BA. ovxovy kAavoerat. 

(\8’) B. 1209. rourit ri jv Td AnKVGov ; od 
kAavoetau ; 

(te’) A. 435-6. ef rapa vip tiv "Aprepw tiv 
XElpa poe 


ei O€ py Ye, 


aKpav mpocoicel, OnjLocLos 
av, kAavoera. 
(us ) 3. 1327-8. krAatvoeral tis tov Oricbev 
erakoAovbovvTwv éuol. 


Though in ¢ and s’ the true reading may 
perhaps be ua ri 67 KexAavoerar; and ef de 
pa, KkexXavoerar, aS in the former passage, 
several manuscripts present an unmetrical 
57) for djra, and in the latter ye has not 
much meaning, yet such instances as .f’ and 
ue’ are alone sufficient to stamp kAavoopar as 
the true Aristophanic form. 

Hence in a’ and pf’ we need have no 
hesitation in reading xAavoev paroxytone. 
In 6’ the New Phrynichus admits xXavoov- 
pea as a true reading, on the ground that 
the passage is non-Attic. It is true that 
in the immediate neighbourhood avowedly 
non-Attic passages occur, but it may be 
urged that there is no obvious reason for 
regarding the three lines spoken by Trygaeus 
as anything but pure Attic, except the 
occurrence in them of the word dtaxaviidoat, 
than which in reality Se could be more 
Athenian, 


Compare : 
Aristoph. Fr. 543. récos éc8’ 6 xaivos ; 


and the no less Attic 


Cratinus, Pytina Fr. am6 rorépov tov Kad- 
vov apiOpnoets ; 


It can therefore be hardly doubted that 
for ckavocovpeba we ought to substitute the 
regular future optative xAavooiuefa, which 
is at once required by the more strictly 


normal consecution and presents no difficulty’ 


of form. We thus may safely conclude 
that the circumflexed future of xAatw, like 
the uncircumflexed future of devyw, was 
unknown to the comic dialect of Aristo- 
phanes. 

Outside the three groups already men- 
tioned, and not sharing in the one character- 
istic common to the three, a v diphthong, 
are two verbs that nevertheless appear ai 
first sight to form middle futures at once 
sigmatic and circumflexed, zizrw, and 
xelo. 

But wecotdpar, which, it should be re- 
marked, does not occur in Aristophanes, 
stands, as is generally admitted, for reréoprou 
(zetécopar), so that the sigma is not a part 
of the future termination but a modification 
of the ¢aw of the root under the influence 
of the so-called indeterminate vowel which 
in this respect resembles an zofa. €yecov 
(instead of éyeoa) and xeootpor (instead of 
Xéoropat) are usually considered to be modelled 
on érecov and zecodya. Not only is it 
difficult to find in the other tenses of the 
two verbs any similarity sufficient to serve 
as the basis for such an analogical forma- 
tion, but a consideration of the circum- 
stances under which the forms are alleged 
to occur casts considerable doubt upon their 
authenticity. 

In the first place it is clear that the 
normal aorist of xé{w in Aristophanes was 
exera. 

Putting aside two forms, xatéxerev and 
Xe 

. 173. ard THs dpodys voKTop yaredrns 
KATEXET EY. 
Ei. 24-5. is pev yap, 0, Tu wep av Xeon Ts, 
7 KUoV 
datidws épeider Tord’: 
hpovnpatos K.T.A. 


6 0 to 
which might come either from the first or 
second aorist, we find: 


Ex. 347. va pa ’yxéoau’ és tiv aicdtpav: 
avi) yap iV. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 21 


Ex. 808. zporepov yéoau mA€iv 7) TpiaKovl? 
nyL€pas. 
Ex. 320. adAX’ ev xabap@ wotd rod Tis av 
Xeoas TLXOL ; 
N. 174. noOnv yadewrn Kataxéoavte Swxpa- 
TOUS. 
and : 


I. 1057. GAN’ otk av paxévatto: xéoaiTo yap, 
ei paxeraTo. 


xeveiv appears once only: 


©. 570. rov oncapotvl ov katépayes, TOUTOV 
XETElY TOLTH. 


Both Herodian and Choeroboscus attribute 
a form é€yecov to Alcaeus the Comedian, 
neither to Aristophanes. Buta grammarian 
in Cramer’s Anecdota (i. 176, 19) states that 
Aristophanes similarly used yeoetv. Probably 
both Alcaeus and Aristophanes had been 
corrupted, owing to the similarity of ézecov, 
meoeiv, which must have proved a pitfall 
for copyists. The fragment of Alcaeus 
is: 


Ganymedes Fr. xatéxerov ths Nypyidos 


which will not scan. 
run : 


It probably should 
Katéxeoa THs Nypydos. 


The yeoetv in ©. 570, having even less 
authority, ought almost certainly to be 
changed to yéoa, an emendation originally 
proposed by Dobree. If, as some have 
maintained, both the first and second aorists 
existed side by side, the Attic usage in the 
case of eizov and jveyxov shows that the 
conjugation would have been éyecov, €xeras, 
EXETE, EXETATOV, ExETATHV, ExévopeEv, exETaTE, 
EXETOV, XETW, XETOYULL, XETE, XETELV, XeowV, but 
the existence of yéoayu and yéoas sufli- 
ciently disproves such a supposition. 

If then Aristophanes did not admit the 
analogy of wizrw in the aorist, it is difficult 
to imagine that he did so in the future. 

xXécouat is preserved to us in Aristoph. 
Fr. 207 (apud Pollux vi. 111): rore pev cov 


, ‘ ‘ fal ‘ ? > 
KatexoTTaBulov, vuvi d€ Kate“otor, Taxa 6 ed 
old’ ore Kal KaTaxéorovTaL. 

Elsewhere yecoduor appears : 


7? 925 »” , re. , a “ee 

Ei. 1235. ewer’ éwi dexdpvw xeoet Kaby 
pevos. 

Ex. 1062. NE. io rod déous. 

‘ ? ” fol 

Badil’- evdov xeoret. 

A. 440. rhv xetp’ eruBarels, ériyeret rarov- 
}EVOS. 

A. 441. idod y emiyeret. rod 'oTw €Erepos 
TOOTNS. 

Ex. 640. dyxovor, ti O96, orav ayvas 7; 
TOS OV TOTE KATLYETOLVTAL ; 

>. 941. rodrov dé y oi eyo yxeveioGar 

y oe’ eyo x 

TN EpOV. 


TP. Gappe, 


The restoration of yéoe, xéoovtat, xeoer bau 
is obvious. 

In short, forms of the antecedently im- 
probable éxeroy and xevotpar are presented 
six times in the Aristophanic text. Neither 
these forms nor the equal number of those 
that occur from éxyeoa, xéeoomar, are guaran- 
teed by the metre, but four of the former 
disappear if we merely change the accent, 
and the two remaining if we make a very 
insignificant alteration. Consequently we 
may safely say that eyerov and yxecodpuat 
are not sufficiently supported. 

It is now possible with some certainty to 
assign to the various verbs their Aristo- 
phanic futures: devyw, devéodua ; epvyyava, 
epevgovpar ; muvOavopar, Tevoodvpar ; TvyXaAvw, 
TEeveouat > KaLw, KAVTOMAL 5 kAalw, kAavoopat : 
xelw, xéoouar. In the cases of Géw, vew, 
7A€w, Tvew, pew the data do not warrant a 
conclusion. 

If it is of any use to investigate origins, 
it seems probable that the circumflexed forms 
are, like the Homeric éooetra:, survivals from 
a time when the inherited future, which we 
call Doric, had not been as yet discarded by 
the sister dialects. Attic lost it in all but a 
few words. In these it was kept because of 
the digamma of the root. The sequence 
-(F)v was as distasteful in devgouat as in 
Baoirnfos. Hence devéoduac was not dis- 
placed. 

R. J. WALKER. 


PROTHETIC VOWELS, OR ERRORS IN WRITING ? 


In the fragment of the preamble to 
Diocletian’s Edict De Pretiis Rerwm Vena- 
lium, discovered at Plataea in 1889, during 
the excavations by the American School of 


Classical Studies at Athens, the following 
forms oceur: debacchanidi (line 10), idirigt 
(45), and idepraedatores (51). In the pub- 
lication of the inscription by Professor 


22 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Tarbell and myself in the American Journal 
of Archaeology (vol. v., No. 4, pp. 428 fol. ; 
afterwards reprinted in vol. v. of papers of 
the American School at Athens) the three 
forms are explained in the same way; 


‘d was probably mistaken for 7, and the - 


mistake at once discovered.’ 

This view is supported by the form 
detestaniam (11) where 7 seems to be written 
for d (I say ‘seems to be’ for the reason 
given below), and by tconferatur (18), where 
t is written for c, and the mistake corrected 
without the erasure of the ~; and as the 
inscription abounds in flagrant blunders, it 
is possibly the safest explanation. 

But on the other hand we have the 
inherent improbability of three errors of 
precisely the same kind within forty lines 
(four, if detestaniam be counted) ; the slight 
resemblance of the forms used in the 
inscription for d and for7(d, qd, A, A; 1,4 
twice), whereas the forms for ¢ and ¢ are so 
nearly alike as to be readily mistaken for 
each other (C, C) ; and finally, the possi- 
bility of a different explanation. The form 
detestaniam may be thrown into this side of 
the scale, by supposing that the stone-cutter 
intended to write detestanidam (ef. debac- 
chanidi), but omitted the d, a supposition 
which is perhaps not an unreasonable one. 

A phonetic explanation of the three 
forms seems possible. In idirigi and 
idepraedautores we may have examples of 
the prothetic vowel. This phenomenon, 
foreign to the language until the second cen- 
tury of our era, is of general occurrence only 
before the groups sc-, sm-, sp-, and st-, but 
the following isolated exceptions are noted 
by Seelmann (Die Aussprache des Latein, p. 


318): <cbrittiorum, I. R. N. 109; cmelis- 
sianus, Le Blant, I. G., 74; docus, Mai, 
I. Chr., 369, 5; ¢filia, Muratori, 1939, 3. 

King and Cookson (Sounds and Inflections 
in Greek and Latin, p. 196) suggest that 
prothetic vowels ‘may have originally 
occurred in many cases only where the 
preceding word ended with a consonant, 
after which an initial group of consonants . 
would be difficult to ‘pronounce.’ This is 
the case with zdirigi, which is preceded by 
nostros, but not with idepraedatores, which 
is preceded by quo. ; 

On the whoie it would seem that ¢dirigi 
and idepraedatores belong to the same -cate- 
gory as the isolated examples cited by 
Seelmann ; that all are errors in writing, 
or that all are exceptional examples of pro- 
thetic vowels due to individual peculiarities 
of pronunciation. To me the latter view 
seems the more reasonable; it is certainly 
odd that errors in writing of this same kind 
should occur in widely separated places, all 
falling within the period of prothetic vowels 
before sc-, sm-, sp-, and _st-; moreover pro- 
thetic vowels are frequently heard in 
ordinary conversation with us, and are a 
very natural phenomenon. 

In the same way the ¢ in debacchanidi 
might be explained as an irrational vowel, 
inserted for ease of pronunciation ‘e prava 
provincialium consuetudine’ (C. J. G. 4, p. 
434). 

The versions of the preamble found in 
Egypt and in Stratonice, as might be 
expected, show no 7 in these words. 


: Joon C. Ro.re. 
Oniversity of Michigan. 


CRITICAL NOTES ON THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. 


(Continued from Vol. VII. p. 352.) 


484 A, of pev 8) hirdcodor...kat of py die 
Pakpod Tivos d1eeAOdvTos Adyou poyts Tws 
avepdvyncay ol eiow Exarepou. 

Neither dvefeAPdvtos nor the much less 
well supported dveécAOovres can stand for a 
moment. AvefeAModo., written perhaps 
with an abbreviated termination, has been 
‘accommodated’ to the genitives on either 
side of it. AvefeAOdvres is a poor attempt 
at correction. 


485 E. érav xpivew pédAAns. After pé\ArAw 


Plato prefers the future (cf. two lines 
below, peAAovon éropééco Gar), though he also 
uses the present. Here and in 409 A it 
may be better to write xpwetv. So Bekker 
xpwet for kpive in 582 D. 

486 B. émuorxéwe ei dpa duxaia te Kal nmepos 
}) Svcxowdvytos Kal dypia. ldvu pev ovv. 
Od pi odd€ Tod TapadciWers, Os eyoua. To 
rotov ; Eipalys 7) Sucpabyns. Before the ev 
in cipabijs an <i has probably dropped out ; 
or has zotov caused the loss of rérepov ? 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 23 


487 B. jyotvrat...71p éxagroy TO épitnya 
opiKpov wapaydomevor GOpoaIevTwy TOY opLKpOY 
emt teAeuTis Tov Adywv péya TO TPaApa Kat 
évavtiov Tois Tpwrols avadaiver Oa. 

A gross anacoluthon may be avoided by 
the trifling change of wrapaydmevor to zax - 
yopevois. 

488 A. vonoov yap rovovrovt yevomevov «ite 
roANOv vedv wépreire pds. Read yyvopevor. 
The participles following in apposition to this 
are all in the present tense, and the situa- 
tion is summed up in 488 E by the words 
rowovTwv dé wept Tas vais yryvouevwy. CF. 
note on 330C. ‘he same correction should 
perhaps be made in 574 E. 

488 C. mpos d€ rovtous éraivodvTas vavTLKOV 
pev KaAdodvtas Kal KvBepvyTiKov...0s Gv EvAAap- 
Bavew dewos 7)...Tov d€ py ToLodrov Weyovtas 
&s aypnorov. Cobet wished to omit émauw- 
otvras, but wWéyovras supports it, and the 
faulty pév may be cured by reading pev 
vavrixov instead of vautiKov pév. 

488 D. rod d& GAnbwod KvBepvitov rept 
pnd ératovras, Ore dvayKn adT@ tiv éryedecav 
rovetcGar éviavTod, Kal wpOv K.T.r. € pede 
TO dvr vebs dpyxuKds EverIar" ws Se kvBepvij- 
oa édv Té Twes BovrAwvTar édv TE py, parE 
réxvnv TovTou pyre peAernv oiopevous duvaTov 
elvat AaBety Gua Kal THY KYBEpvyTiKy. 

Almost all MSS. (including A) have the 
nominatives éatovres and oidmevor, but the 
accusatives are now generally, and I think 
rightly, accepted. Prof. H. Sidgwick has 
pointed out (Journal of Philology, v. p. 274) 
that the sense of the latter part of this 
passage is extremely faulty. It attributes 
to the crew in general the true opinion, not 
at all natural to them, that a man can 
never learn the art of inducing or forcing 
other people to accept him as steersman at 
the same time that he learns the art of 
steering. [Of course the xvBepyirns was 
more than a mere steersman]. This is a 
truth which they who know nothing about 
the true steersman would certainly not 
understand. Aristotle also (Politics 4, 2, 
13) states it, or something like it, probably 
with a recollection of this passage: ovre yap 
Tod iatpod ovre Tod KuBepvijrov epyov éotl TO 7) 
recat) Bidcacbar Tod pev Tors Oeparevope- 
vous Tov O€ Tos tAWTHpas. But the ignorant 
and self-confident sailors are the last people 
in the world to admit the principle, and 
488 C (és dv évANapBavew «.7.X.) has in 
point of fact almost ascribed to them the 
opposite belief. It is however impossible 
to accede to Prof. Sidgwick’s proposal to 
read oiowevw for oiowévovs. The sentence 
would be most clumsy in form, nor is it 
to the point what the true steersman 


thinks. Plato is describing the state of 
mind of the crew, (é€rawodvras, wWéyovras, 
éralovras, olouévous). The simple remedy 
for the corruption of the text is, I think, to 
read ddvvarov for duvarév. The crew deem 
it by no means as impossible as it really 
is that, while a man acquires kvBepvytiKy, 
he should at the same time acquire this 
other art, whether it is an art proper or 
only a knack got by practice. [Or do réxvn 
and pedéry mean the theoretical and 
practical parts of the art?] Grote’s usual 
good sense showed him that this was the 
meaning required, but he seems not to have 
seen that it could not be extracted from 
the Greek. See his Plato, vol. IIT. p. 80. 

489 A. rov Oavpdlovra...meipd meiGew, ote 
Tord dy Gavpacrdorepov Hv, et erysavTo. 'AAXa 
Suddéw, &py. Kat dre rotvev tadnOy A€yet, ws 
K.T.A, 

Toivuy is used as a connecting word (e.g. 
radnO7 Toivev Aéyer), but is it ever used as 
here? Perhaps it is an error for rou, as in 
343 A éru roi oe xopvGvra Teptope, and 
elsewhere. 

490 C. ‘Hyoupévns 87 ddnGetas od av ote, 
otpat, patwev adty Xopov Kakv axkoAovdjca. 

Goodwin (Moods and Tenses, § 159) cites 
this as an example of a ‘ gnomic aorist’ in 
the infinitive. I think there is no doubt 
that we should read dxoAovdjocev, like the 
future tense peréoras just preceding. 

490 D. dt was pév dvayxacOyoera. Opodo- 
yeiv ots Néyoper, édoas 5€ ros Adyous, «is 
abrovs dmoBdepas rept Gv 6 Adyos, pay opav 
K.T.A. 

It is strange that editors have acquiesced 
so long in dain after dvayxacOyoera. The 
future tense would be enongh in itself to 
show that Plato wrote dain <av>: but, as 
a matter of fact, he is repeating the words 
of 487 C viv yap dain av t1s...dpav k.7.r. 

491 A. 7dde pév ody, olpat, was Hiv Op0X0- 
yioe, Touavtrynvy Woxyv...dAuyaKis €v dvOpurous 
pvecbar kai ddtyas, 7) ovK oleL ; Shodpa ye. 
Tovrwv 5) rav éAiywv oKdmet ds TOAAOL OA€Opot 
Kal peydAo. 

For the ungrammatical dA/yas read 6ACyots, 
comparing note on 425 A for the corruption 
of o. toa. ddAcyos is implied in rovtwy tov 
édiyov following. Cf. Ar. #th. vii 9.1151 b 30 
Sua 7d TH érépav év 6ALyous Kal dAvydnes elvae 
davepdv. Stephanus proposed év éAtyous 
here; if év is necessary, as perhaps it is, 
we might read kév 6Atyos. Kat and Kav 
or «dy are several times confused in the 
Republic. 

491 D. etre éyyetwv cire tov Low. Tov 
should probably be omitted before {gwv or 
added before éyyetwv. Cf. 546 A od povov 


24 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


gurois éyyeious GNX Kal év emiyetors Lwors. 
See however Riddell $ 240. 

492 0. }) woiav dv aird madelay idiwricnv 
avOEeww (ote) ; 

If dy is nota mere dittography, it may 
not improbably be a corruption of 3%: see 
note on 472 D. 

492 E. ovbre yap yiyvera: ovre yéyovey ovde 
oby py yevytat GAXotov 7H0s Tpos apeTnY Tapa 
TH TovTwY TaLdciay weTaLdevjLevov, aVOparELOV, 
& éraipe: Ociov pévror Kata THY Tapoustav 
e~aipOpev NOyov. . 

If this be translated ‘another type of 
character, trained to virtue independently 
of them,’ the statement is surely strange in 
the mouth of the Platonic Socrates, who is 
actually proposing to form another type by 
another training. It would be unreasonable 
to say that his guardians are to be preserved 
by a cod potpa and therefore do not fall 
under the rule. What he says of the Geot 
poipa applies to the ‘present constitution’ 
(€v roattn Katacracer) of states, but there is 
no such limitation in ovre yap ylyverau k.t.X. 
He would be asserting that under no 
circumstances can a different type be formed 
by training. 

Stallbaum translates zapa by ‘juxta’ 
(Davies and Vaughan ‘in close contact 
with ’), but zapa obviously would mean not 
this but ‘ besides,’ or rather ‘in contrariety 
to,’ as in 529 C ete. The sense ‘because 
of’ is inadmissible, as zapa tiv TovTwv TaLd- 
ctav must go with remadevpevov. 

For dAdoiov suggestions of réAeov and 
aéwAoyov have been made. Baiter inclines 
to the latter. Neither however is sufficient 
to make good sense of the passage. I 
strongly suspect that Plato wrote ovde ody 
py yevntar adXnOwov 7O0s mpds aperiy Kata THY 
TovUTwy madelay weraidevpevov. For ddAnOuvov, 
which occurs often in this part of the 
Republic, cf. Critias, 121 B, ddnOwov zpos 
evoayroviay Biov. When ddrnfivev had been 
corrupted to dAAotov, kara may have been 
changed to zapa in an unsuccessful attempt 
to make sense of the passage. 

493 D. ore pev yap...... H Atoundeia eyo- 
pevn avaykn Toiv aitTo Taita & av ovToL 
eTaLvaow. 

There is nothing to govern or. Unless 
something has been accidentally omitted, we 
might read eore pev yap. 

494 D. dp’ edrerés ote eivar cicaxotoar 610 
rocovTwv Kakav ; IloAAod ye det, 7 8 ds. “Eav 
& ovv, iv 8 eyed, bia 7O €d mehvxevar kal 7d 
évyyevés TOv Aoywv eis aicOdvyntai Té wy Kal 
KOPLTTYTAL K.T.A. 

Bis or eis <tus> can hardly be right, 
because the subject of the verbs is given in 


the preceding sentence, 76 otrw diaTienevo. 
Madvig <icw. Is it too rash to suggest 
cicaKkovwv OY eioaKxovaas ? 

494 E. ob wav piv epyov, wav 8 eros Néyor- 
TAS TE KAL TPATTOVTAS. 

There is no possible construction for the 
participles. Insert dvareActy before or after 
N€yovrds Te kal TpaTTOVTAS. - 

496 D. otov év xeydye Kovioptod Kat ladys 
id rvevpatos hepowevov 7d TELXlov arooTds. 

Read év xetmave Kal Kovioptod Cady, or Cady 
xovioptov. L doubt whether xeov Kovioptov 


is Greek, for Sopds &v yemovr (Soph. Ané. . 


670) is both poetical and different ; and the 
writers of the imitative passages given in 
Stallbaum’s note evidently found the 
genitive governed by ay in their texts. 

498 B. xpoiovons Se ras fdukias, ev H 7 
Wuxn TeXerovGar apxeTa. 

Ev 7 is plainly a blunder for é 4, corre- 
sponding to the év 6 BAaoravei Te Kai avdpodrat 
(ra oopara) just preceding. “H #Arkia is 
‘their years,’ not any particular time of 
life. 

500 A. ‘The multitude will not be so 
hostile, if you explain to. them who the 
genuine philosophers are,’ iva py yyovTat oe 
Né€yew ods adrol olovrat, 7) Kal eav OVTHW GeGvTaL, 
adXotav K.7.X. ; 

The words following dAAoiav are very 
doubtful, but with them I am not now 
concerned. “Eady ovrw Oeavrar can scarcely 
be right. The expression is unsuitable to 
the meaning required, nor dves Ge@vrar seem 
proper, even if we altered ovrw. I believe 
Plato wrote: aicfwvra. Cf. the words a 
little farther on (500 D) agAX eay 87 aicbwvrar 
ot zoAXol ote GAnOy wept aitod A€youey and 
again (E) ov yaderavotcw, 7 8 ds, édvirep 
aicOwvra. Perhaps we may read kat éav 
TovT aicOwvra, and suppose rovrais to have 
turned into ovtws. 

5OL A. dA otv ota6 dru TovTw av edOds 
tov a\ov duevéycorev, TH pyre iudTov pyre 
Tokews eedAjoa dv aWwacbor pyde ypadew 
vonous mplv 7) wapadaBeiv Kabapay (zivaKa) 7 
avTol ToLnoaL. 

Baiter pnd éyypadev vopovs after Cobet. 
It would perhaps be better to omit pyde 
—yvépous altogether, for the words involve a 
most awkward and inartistic confusion of 
the figure (painting) with the thing figured 
(legislation). “Eyypadev, as far as I can 
see, only makes the matter worse by 


actually supposing laws to be put into the © 


picture. 

501 E. "Er otv aypiavotor AeyovTwv pov 
dtu K.t.A.; "lows, Eby, Frtov. BovAe odv, Hv 
S eye, py Arrov Popev avbrods d\AG wavtarace 
mpadous yeyovévan Kat wereto Oat, 





¢ 
q 
iy 
i 
: 
- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 25 


Surely dypiovs or dypiaivew should be 
inserted to go with pur #rrov. 

502 A. rodde d€ repr tis audioByryoe ds 
ovk av TUxoLEY yevomevor Bagiiéwy Exyovor 7 
duvvacrav Tas dices diiocodor; Oid av eis, 
efpy. Totovrous dé yevouévous ds ToAAH avayKn 
Siapbaphvar, exer Tus Aéyetv 5. as pev vip 
xaAerov oobiivat, kal Hpects Evyxwpodpev? as be 
ev TavTt TO Xpov TOV TavTwWY OvderoTE OVD GY 
els cwbetn, eo? ootis appurBntnce; Kai was ; 
"AAG pny, jv 8 eye, cis ixavds yevomevos, TOAW 
Exov weWouevnv, mavr eémiteAeoa. Ta voV 
aTLOTOUMEVA. 

The argument of this passage with its 
sharp distinction between vyevéc6a: and 
cwfnvar necessitates the conclusion that in 
the final sentence we should read eis ixavos 
<ods> yevouevos, or eis ikavos yevomevos <TeE 
Kal GOs yevouevos>, or something similar. 

502 D. Xexréov tiva tpdrov jpiv Kai ék 
tivov pabnuatov te Kal émitndevpdtwy ot 
TwTHpEs everovrat THS ToALTELas. 

Read eyyevnoovrar or simply yevyjrovrat 
for évécovrat. The question is not how they 
will live, but how they are to be obtained. 
In 521 C we have the parallel question, 
Tiva TpoTov ot Tovodror éyyevnoovra. Cf. 
552 E, 557 C, ete. 

503 B. oxvos yap, épyv, & dire, é éya, elretv 
Ta VoV aroreToApnpeva. 

The verb can hardly be omitted, when 
the time is past. Read édyv, <fv> or 
<jv>, ednv: 

504 B. eheyouev TOV, OTL WS meV OvvaToV WV 
KiAhiora aira Katideiv GAAn paKkpotépa €ty 
Teplooos. 

No doubt jv should be omitted, as Madvig 
proposed. Plato would have written <i. 
But I think we need an insertion too. 
Read és piv <as> (or <dcov> or <eis 70>) 
duvatov KdAMora aita Katibetv. The first as 
is wanted to go with the infinitive, the 
second with duvarov. 

504 KE. 6 peVTOL pe yLorov padnpa Kat mepl 
OTL aio Aeyets, ole. TW’ av oe, ep, aeivar pny 
epwrncavra ti eotiv; Od ravv, jv & éya, GANG 


Kai ob épwTa. mavrws aiTd ovk d6dLyLKI3 
aKNKOGS. 

Ilepi 6 re avro A€yers cannot be harmonized 
either with the 6 preceding or with the ré 
esriv which follows. I conjecture that 
oTiavro is a corruption of rovodvrwy: ‘ whic h 
you speak of as the greatest and as 
concerned with the greatest questions.’ For 
TOLOUTWV = peylorov after peyuorov padnwa 
see the instances cited by Riddell in Platonic 
Idioms § 54 b, e.g. Phaedo 80 C éav pe tis 
xXapievTws exwv TO copa TeXevTHON Kal ev 
TolavTn wpa * where Tour y simply means 
xapieoon. Tov peyiorwy occurs in our 
passage two lines above. I conjecture 
further that for kat ob épwra we should 
read kal ob épwras; Socrates feels or affects 
surprise that the question should come from 
Adeimantus, who has often heard about the 
peyrrov waOnua. 

507 D. “Evovons mov év ouparw dvews Kal 
ETLYELPOUVTOS TOD EXOYTOS XpnTIa: adbTH, Ta 20v- 
ons 5€ xpoas ev avrois, cay pi TapayevynT at 
yévos tpirov idia ex’ abrd TodTo reduKds, otc Oa 
OTL 7 TE OYs Ode OWeTaL TA TE YOWUITA EOTAL 
ey 
aopara. 

Commentators have been considerably 
puzzled by év avrois, but it ought to be 
abundantly clear that it cannot refer to the 
eyes. It can only refer to the devrepov 
yévos, external objects. Read év ad rots 
<iéparois>. The omission is due _ to 
homoeoteleuton. For the running of av 
tois into a’rots cf. 550 A where Paris A has 
avitovs for ad rovs. For the position of ad 


after the preposition compare 371 D trois dé 


dvti ad apyupiov diaddarrew: 577 B xat év ad 
Tols Onmogiots Kwwdvvots, etc. 

511 A. eixdor O& xpwpevnv avrots tots bro 
TOV KaTW aTetKacOeior Kal Exeivols Tpds ekeiva 
ws évapyéor dedoéacpevols TE Kal TETLULNMEVOLS. 

There is so much difficulty in éxeévors that 
I venture to suggest the possibility of its 
having accidentally changed places with 
avtots. 

Hersert Ricwarps. 


(To be continued.) 


ANNOTATIONS IN LEWIS AND SHORT’S LEXICON. 


QUANTITIES. 
acileus, acileatus, etc. ti: cf. Pl. Bacch. 
Ek 30-al. 
ego. To reff. for 6 add Val. Cato, Lydia 


53 egon. 


Jjio. . For fiere Enn. read fiere. 


Jocillo. But ficilat Laus Pisonis 126. 
Sortassé. 6 
Italus. {. 


litito. i. 


26 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


muginor. But muginor in Lucil. ap. 
Non. 139, 6. Is there any authority for 1? 

2 mito ete. But t in Priap. 52, 10; 
Mart. 3, 73, 1. 

myrtus. w (nom. sing.) in Ov. Met. 10, 
98, and perh. in Hor. Od. 2, 15, 6.. 

natriz, tcis. But natricem in Lucil. ap. 
Non. 65, 30. There seems to be no author- 
ity for i. 

Pdlatia. But Palatia Stat. S. 1, 34. 

1 pediculus ( =‘ little foot’). Probably 1. 

réglesco, réglutino. Probably é, as before 

Xr. 

7 rautrum, ratellum. wt: cf. 
Non. 18, 22. 

sanguis. 1: Ov. Met. 12, 127, ete; but 
i also class. 

sarisa. 4. 

scaturio ete. scattrio or scaturrio. 

sicciné, siciné. €: cf. Prop. 3, 7 (2, 15), 
8 al. 

superné. But € in Lucr. and Hor. Is 
there any authority for e in this word, or in 
abunde, temere, which are also marked long 
in this lexicon ? 

Tethys. ¥. 

tribulosus. 1. 

1 ater. Why not t, as titerus ? 

vertdga. a; cf. Grat. Cyn. 203. 

volo. Note vis in Mart. 9, 7, 4. 


Lucil. ap. 


MIscELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS AND 
ADDITIONS. 

abstineo. abstinendus sum=‘ I am to be 
dieted, kept from food.’ Sen. Zp. 75. 

aevum. ‘The plural is found Ov. Met. i. 
649. 

albus. The proverbs with ‘albus’ are 
badly treated. ‘ Qui albo rete aliena oppug- 
nant bona’ in Pl. Pers. 1, 2, 22, certainly does 
not mean ‘to attack in a delicate, skilful 
manner.’ The commentators here give no 
help. Gronovius tries to connect it with 
the praetor’s ‘album’; Ussing says ‘si 
verum est, de legum et iudicii laqueis 
dicitur, sed corruptum videtur.’ There is 
no need to alter the text: the proverb is 
explained in Gellius, praef. 11, ‘in quas res 
cunque inciderant, alba ut dicitur linea sine 
cura discriminis solam copiam secuti conver- 
tebant’ (7 converrebant). The words in 
italics explain the proverb: ‘albo rete 
(alba linea) converrere’ is ‘to make a clean 
sweep of,’ ‘to carry off everything promis- 
cuously, without distinction.’ A corrupt 
fragment of Lucilius (629 Baehrens), ‘ et 
amabat omnes : nam ut discrimen non facit, 
neque signat linea alba,’ contains, I believe, 
the same proverb, though the text cannot 
be restored with certainty. ‘Signat’= 


‘discernit,’ Nonius tells us; and the words 
‘discrimen non facit’ are so much like the 
passage of Gellius above quoted, that I 
think ‘alba linea’ must here too mean 
‘with a white net’ (or ‘line’), and not ‘a 
white line on a white ground’ ; though the 


‘latter is certainly a Greek proverb, év Aevkad 


Aw evky crabyn, cf. Paroem. Graeci, Diog. 
Cent. 3, 9; Zenob. 4, 89. There is not 
much use in guessing why ‘a white net’ 
should have this meaning, any more than 
why ‘ gallinae filius albae’ should mean ‘a 


favourite of fortune’: the two explanations - 


of the latter proverb suggested in L, and 8. 
are very improbable. : 

ambulo. rerum venalium fides male 
ambulans Petr. 12. 

aposia (a-rivw), ‘refusal to drink’ Leges 
Conviv. Biicheler p. 239. 

arcera in Q. Cicero (Baehr. Frag. p. 316) 
seems to be=the Great Bear. 

aris =aridus Lucil. 186 Baehr. 

assurgere with abl. for dat. Val. Max. 
5, 2, ext. 8. 

bona aetas =‘ so much the better for you !’ 
Sen. Zp. 47, 12, nullum: habes dominum. 
Bona aetas est; forsitan habebis; and id. 
Ep. 76, 1, bona, inquis, aetate. 

cocio or coctio. Add prob. Petr. 14. 

curabilis =‘requiring medical treatment’ 
Juv. 16,21. [L. and §&. strangely, ‘that is 
to be feared.’] - 

deiungere. met. ‘to throw off a yoke,’ se 
a forensi labore Tac. Dial. 11. 

desino. perf. desimus Sen. £p. 90, 31. 

deturpo |‘ post-Aug. and very rare’ L. 
and 8.] occurs [Verg.] Ciris 284. 

dissimulare feras=)avOavew, Grat. Cyn. 
208. 

ductus =‘a draught of fishes’ Val. Max. 
4,1, ext. 7, also d. [litterarum] =‘ tracings 
of letters, writing-copies’ Quint. 1, 1, 27; 
Pa Pa: 

epigrt in Sen. Ben. 2, 12, cannot mean 
‘pegs’; the context requires some kind of 
‘soccus’ or part of a ‘ soccus.’ 

eugium Lucil. ap. Non. 107, 30, is not 
in the Lexicon. Add the same ref. under 
destina. 

excutere = auyBrioxew Scrib. Largus p. 2 
Helmreich ; and perh. in Verg. Aen. 12, 158. 

exsultans in Quint. not ‘diffuse,’ but 
‘ finicking,’ suggesting the mincing gait of 
Asiatics. 

Jerocia, ferocitas. Erase the sections 
beginning ‘ in a bad sense.’ 

fulica. Add ‘or fulca,’ in a frag. of 
Furius Antias. 

gryllus. Add to ref. from Pliny, Val. 
Cato Dirae 74. 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 27 


helix Cie. Univ. 9, 27, means ‘a spiral,’ 
not ‘a kind of ivy,’ as L. and 8. 

hieran fecimus Sen. Ep. 83, 4. The 
context strongly favours the meaning ‘ we 
ran a dead heat.’ Was the wreath in such 
cases dedicated to the god? 

impuns =impudens Lucil. fr. 46 Baehr. 

instabilis =‘ that cannot be stood upon,’ 
Ov. Met. 1, 16. 

iubar in its original sense = ‘the morning 
star,’ Paul. ex Fest. p. 104 Miill.; and in 
Enn. frag. 314 Baehr. ‘interea fugit albus 
iubar Hyperionis cursum,’ where Baehrens 
most unhappily alters ‘fugit’ into ‘facit.’ 
So prob. in Verg. Aen. 1, 130. Festus says 
it also=‘ the evening star’: this sense is 
found in Licinius Calvus ap. Prise. 1, 
170. 

libella. heres ex 1.=‘heir to ;y,) not= 
exasse (L.andS.). The mistake is repeated 
S.V. deruncius. 


1 liceo. Erase section II.: in these 
passages liceo has its true sense =‘ to fetch 
a price.’ 

malo. ‘malet’ occurs Sen. “Zp. 28: this 


has escaped Neue. 

maneo =‘ await,’ with dat.: Verg. Culex 
38, which Baehrens emends without reason : 
and cf. Verg. den. 9, 301. 

mapalia ‘II. B. useless things, follies.’ 
In the passage quoted from Sen., if the 
reading be sound, the word = ‘low 
haunts.’ 


memini. Part. meminens Laevius fr. ap. 
Prise. 1, 560. 

ne. ut ne is denied to Tae. ; it occurs H. 
4,58. Add ne=nedum e.g. Sall. Caf. 11, 8. 

neo 3 Plur. neunt Tib. 3, 3, 36. 


ocris. Add Lucil. ap. Gell. 16, 9, 3, 
(79 Baehr.). 
pistillus. Add Verg. Mor. 111. 


plagium in Grat. Cyn. 24, casses plagiique 
exordiar astus, seems to mean ‘catching 
animals with a plaga.’ 

plectricanus Chalcidius ex Alexandro 
Milesio Baehr. Fragm. p. 409. 

prorogo =‘ advance money.’ 
Quint. 10, 7, 10. 

regemo. Add ‘II. “to groan repeatedly ” 
Verg. Culex 386.’ 

reses [‘nom. sing. does not occur’ L. and 
8.]. The nom. occurs Lucil. fr. 827 Baehr. 

salebrosus. Add to reff. from Apuleius, 
Verg. Mor. 110. 

scio. Add to perfect forms, sciero Priap. 
68, 36; scieris Sen. Hp. 110, 13; scierit 
Petr. 3. 

scultimido Lucil. Fr. 887 Baehr. 

tessera=‘a backgammon-board,’ Mart. 
14, 17. 


So prob. in 


totus. Add Lucr. 6, 652 to reff. from 
Col. and Manil. 
undivagus. Add Sil. 14, 372 to reff. 


from late authors. 
vapor =‘ smell,’ v. ferinus Grat. Cyn. 223. 
W. R. Iva. 


THE ‘EXTENDED DELIBERATIVE’ IN GREEK. 


Tur debate in the Classical Review upon 
the question of the existence of ‘ Extended’ 
and ‘Remote Deliberatives’ in Greek (in 
two groups of examples illustrated by Soph. 
Ai. 514 euot yap ovkér eorw eis 6 Te BAETw 

| zAnv ood and Aesch. Cho. 172 ov« eorw 
Satis iv Evds Ke(partd viv) has not resulted, 
as it seems to me, in any clear settlement of 
the case for either the subjunctive or the 
optative idiom under examination. The 
nature of the latter is perhaps difficult to 
establish beyond a doubt. As regards the 
subjunctive, the case is different. At a 
meeting of the American Philological Asso- 
ciation in July 1892, I gave, during an 
informal discussion’ at the close of the 
reading of Mr. Earle’s ‘Notes on the 
Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses 
in Greek’ (published in abstract in the 
‘Proceedings’ of the year), what seems to 


me a sure disproof of the theory that the 
subjunctive idiom under dispute is descended 
from a clause of purpose. Our discussions 
are not reported, and my argument conse- 
quently was not put into print. At the 
meeting of the same Association in the 
summer just passed, I presented a formal 
paper, which will appear in the ‘Transac- 
tions’ for the year 1893, and will contain 
an attempt to solve the question for both 
modes. In view, however, of the fact that 
the debate still goes on (see Classical Review 
for October), I venture to contribute at 
once that part of the evidence upon the 
origin of the subjunctive idiom which seems 
to me to be unanswerable. 

Two origins have been proposed, one in 
the deliberative subjunctive, the other in 
the final clause. Against the latter stands 
the overwhelming objection that no such 


28 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


relative clause of purpose as has to be 
assumed (namely a relative clause with the 
bare subjunctive, as in the idiom in question) 
was ever, in literary times, in vogue in 
Greek. In the Homeric poems, to be sure, 
the subjunctive with the relative pronoun 
is freely used to express purpose, but, with 
the exception of T. 287 (and. the duplicate 


459), the mode is accompanied by av or xe. 


On the other hand, the deliberative question 


1 Monro (Homeric Grammar, p. 257) follows 
Delbriick, Synt. Forsch. i. p. 130, in classing ¢ 334 
under the same head. My own view with regard to 
this example agrees with that of Professor Goodwin, 
viz. that it is not final. But both examples, and 
even others, might be admitted without affecting the 
substantial weight of the argument. 


in the subjunctive, to which the rival 
theory refers the idiom, is regularly unac- 
companied by either of these particles. 

Mr. Earle’s example, Hes. Op. 57 édadcw 
Kakov @ Kev amavtes Téprwvtar (the one 
instance thus far cited? that has dy or xe), is 
of an entirely different nature from the 
other examples, not only in its outward 
form but in the character of the introductory 
phrase. By both of these points it should 
have given warning. 

Wm. GARDNER HALE. 
University of Chicago. 


2 In my full paper, I shall discuss = 192, [&AAov 
D ov rev olda, Ted By KAUTA TévXEG SUw] not yet cited 
by any one. 


THE ‘REMOTE DELIBERATIVE’ AND THE ‘PROSPECTIVE SUBJUNCTIVE 
AND OPTATIVE,’ -. 


In my paper on the Prospective Subjunc- 
tive (Class. Rev. Feb. 1893) I quoted Soph. 
Trach. 903 


Kpvwac’ éavtiy evOa pn Tis eicidor 
_as parallel in past time to Soph. Aj. 658 f. 
Kpvww 70d’ €yxos...evOa py Tis OWeTaL. 


These passages are twice alluded to in the 
last number of the Clas. Rev. (pp. 343 f. 
and 353 f.). Mr. A. C. Pearson thinks that I 
have accidentally fallen into the error of 
regarding the Opt. as the normal way of 
expressing past purpose in a _ Relative 
Clause; and Mr. A. Sidgwick says ‘the 
historic sequence of a Future cannot be an 
Aorist.’ J. D. on the other hand treats the 
above two passages as parallel; and I still 
think that they correspond to one another, 
the one in present, the other in past time. 
But I never said that the Optative is final 
(that is just what I meant to deny), nor that 
the former passage is the historic form of 
the latter. (O.T. 796 édevyov évOa pyror 
oYoiynv corresponds more in form, though 
here there is a case of virtual or. obl., as 
Mr. Pearson says.) 

My view was that the Opt. mood in Trach. 
903 marks the action as prospective in the 
past ; and my object in writing the present 
note is to add a new suggestion to those 
that have already been made as to the 
‘affinities’ of such constructions as tiv’ éywv 
pypnv ayabiv Kes, éb’ btw Kvicdpev dyuids 
Aristoph. Knights 1320, an instance to 


which Mr. H. Richards calls my attention, 
and épavra ...avépa ovdev’ evToTor, odx ooTIS 
Gpkeaelev, OVO OOTLS VoOoU KdpvovTL ovAAG- 
Boro, Soph. Phil. 276 f., ef. 695 ovx 
éxov...tw’ éyxépwv Kaxoyeirova, Tap © 
orovov...aTokAavceev. Is not the ‘affinity’ 
of these Subjunctives and Optatives to 
be found (partly at any rate) in those 
clauses, chiefly temporal, in which the Subj. 
(sometimes without dv) marks an action 
as im prospect in the present, and _ the 
Optat. (always, or nearly always, without 
av) marks it as in prospect in the past? 
e.g. py orevale mplv paGys ‘ till thou learn,’ 
Phil. 917 (Goodwin § 648), ews 76 xatpew kat 
TO Avreicbar pabys Aj. 555 (Goodw. § 620) ; 
so with és 6 or és ov in Herodotus and péxpe 
or péxpt ov even in Thucydides : weprewevopev 
éws dvorxbetn To Seapwtypiov ‘donec apertus 
esset carcer,’ Plato, Phaedo 59 D, javyxake... 
éws d€or Bonbetv Thue. iii. 102, ete. (Goodw. 
§ 614). Iam assuming (against Goodwin) 
that the latter clauses do not express pur- 
pose, and in my article on the ‘ Prospective 
Subjunctive’ I gave reasons for that view.! 
To my mind ‘I am waiting till he come’ 
(ordinarily pévw ews av €XOn) and ‘JT was 
waiting till he should come’ (€xevoy €ws 
€\Gor) are not equivalent to ‘I am (was) 
waiting in order that he may (might) come’ ; 
the Subj. and Opt. seem to me to express 
simple futurity. Now is not &a pH tis 


1 ] would add a pretty example from Ovid. Fast. 
iv. 387 
Ante tamen quam summa dies spectacula sistat 
Ensifer Orion aequora mersus erit. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 29 


eioido. ‘where none should see’ (ubi nemo 
videret) precisely parallel? No doubt in 
this particular case we may speak of pur- 
pose—i.e. of a special kind of futurity ; 
but if we call eioidor final, it is an anomaly ; 
if we call it simply prospective, it is quite 
normal, the only peculiarity being in the 
word by which the clause is introduced 
(€vOa instead of a relative of time).! Ina 
word I regard éva jy tis eioidou as precisely 
parallel to Hor, Od. iii. 3. 41 f. ubi mutaret 


1 Are we not in danger of exaggerating the dif- 
ferences between the various kinds of subordinate 
classes, under the influence of the classifications 
current in our grammars ?—Still I should be very 
glad if anyone would direct my attention to a really 
representative collection of subordinate clauses in- 
troduced by Relatives of Place. 


...e6 demeret—the text of my previous 
paper. 

Iam far from intending to deny that in 
the Interrogative-Deliberative construction 
there are models on which some of the cases 
recently discussed may have been based.? 
My contention simply is that the prospective 
use of the Subj. and Optat. may also have 
served as a model, and that it is especially 
well adapted to explain cases like Trach. 903, 
which both Mr. Sidgwick and Mr. Pearson 
find puzzling. 

K. A. SONNENSCHEIN. 


2 e.g. cases like gor’ ody bmws “AAKnoTIS es yijpas 
odo; Eur, Ale. 52 (cf. 113—117), where the Optat. 
stands in present time. These seem to come from 
Direct Deliberative Questions like zo? tis pdyor;= 
quo fugiat ? (not quo fugeret ?) 


VALERIUS FLACCUS ITI. 20. 


I hope Mr. Bury’s paper in Hermathena 
will lead to the termination of the neglect 
which has befallen the text of this author— 
the second of Rome’s surviving epic poets. 
I offer the following slight correction of 
iii. 20— 


Dindyma sanguineis famulum bacchata 
lacertis. 


Read catervis. There may be some remin- 
iscence of /aceris in lacertis. 
A. PALMER. 


LUCRETIUS IV. 741. 


Verum ubi equi atque hominis casu con- 
venit imago. 

The elision of the iambic word equi before 
atque is very strongly objected to by 
Lachmann, who transposes casu. I have no 
doubt that the elision is illegitimate, but an 
easier correction is suggested by the first 
line of the Avs Poetica. I propose : 


Verum ubi eguina hominis casu convenit 
imago. 
This is very like 
Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam 


Tungere si velit. 
A. PALMER. 





CHASE ON THE OLD SYRIAC ELEMENT IN THE TEXT OF THE 
CODEX BEZAE. 


The Old Syriac Element in the Text of the 
Codex Bezae. By Frepertc Henry 
CuasE, B.D., Lecturer in Theology at 
Christ’s College and Principal of the 
Clergy Training School, Cambridge. 
London, Macmillan and Co., and New 
York. 1893. 7s. 6d. net. 


Mr. CuAser’s theory is that the peculiarities 
of Codex Bezae are due to the influence 


of an Old Syriac Version, of which he holds 
it is to some extent a translation, this Version 
having been frequently interpolated and not 
seldom misunderstood or misread by the 
Greek copyist. The theory would be for 
some reasons attractive if there existed any 
other clue to this Old Syriac Version ; but 
when we have to construct the Syriac text 
for ourselves and then to account for the 
readings of D by some error or misunder- 


30 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


standing the process becomes rather pre- 
carious. Mr. Chase indeed for reasons 
given in the Preface has (with scarcely an 
exception) confined his inquiry to the text 
of the Acts where he has no extant Old 
Syriac whereby to confirm or to check his 
results. Let us test a few of his instances. 

Acts xi. 26, omitting some other differ- 
ences, we have ENIQAYTON OAON | CYN- 


EXYOHCAN OXAON IKANON, 
the true reading being [éyévero airois] 
éviavtov OAov cvvaxOjvar ev TH éxkAynoia Kal 
diddéar dyAov ixavov. Here nothing seems 
simpler than to suppose that the archetype 
had 

CYNHXOHCAN EN TH EKKAHCIO 


Kal EAIAQZOAN 


and that the eye of the copyist passing from 
CAN to ZAN the intervening words were 
omitted. Possibly the first word had been 
written CYNEXOHCAN, at all events the 
proximity of OXAON would favour the mis- 


reading CYNEXYOHCAON. Now let us see 
Mr. Chase’s account of the matter. ‘ Were 
confounded’ must come from the Old Syriac. 
But what could have suggested such a 
reading? His reply is that it was desired 
- to assimilate the history of St. Paul’s 
preaching to that of St. Peter. Now we 
read in ii. 6 that the people were assembled 
and were confounded, and so here the Old 
Syriac instead of ‘assembled for a whole 
year in the church and taught etc.’ substi- 
tuted ‘assembled for a whole year and were 
confounded and they taught etc.’ Then two 
letters being alike at the beginning of the 
last two verbs, the latter of the two was 
accidentally omitted, and it was this muti- 
lated reading which D translated. (Why he 
put OXAON in the accusative does not 


appear.) 
Now we have to go back to ii. 47 where 


D reads O AE KC TIPOCETIOE! TOYC 
CWZOMENOYC | KQOHMEPAN ETT! 


TO AYTO EN TH EKKAHCIO, the 
last three words being an addition to the 
genuine text. Whence have they come? 
Mr. Chase refers them to the desire to 
assimilate the histories of St. Paul and St. 
Peter. In xi, 26 as above (after the words 
‘much people was added to the Lord’) we 
have the words ‘for a whole year they were 
gathered together in the church.’ This, as 
Mr. Chase says, presents no points of contact 
with the verse before us. Still less the Old 
Syriac used by D, which, as reconstructed 


just now, had not even the words ‘in the 
church.’ 

Mr. Chase then finds what he wants in 
the Syriac Vulgate, which has ‘ together they 
assembled in the church.’ From this then 
the last three words were introduced into 
ii..47. Butas the gloss has found its way 
into many MSS. before éri ro atro, he sup- 
poses further (1) that ‘together’ and ‘in 
the church’ were transposed ; then (2) émi 
7> avro was transferred to the history 


of the miracle in ch. iii. Meanwhile (3) an | 


introductory clause was inserted which in D 
reads : ‘ And in those days,’ but in the Syriac 
Vulgate : ‘ And it came to pass’ (the latter 
proceeding: ‘ that Peter and John together’). 
(4) As ‘together’ had to be taken into the 
history of the miracle, it was, on the revision 
of the Syriac, placed lower down after the 
name of John. Now, to take the third 
point first, these are simply examples of the 
phrases supplied as introductory to Church 
lessons, and given in the margins of later 
MSS. which mark the beginning of these 
lessons. Indeed a MS. cited by Tischendorf 
(104) which marks iii. 1 OPXH, actually 
places év tats 7pépais éxetvars in the margin 
for this purpose. 

That these phrases are not the same in D 
and in the Syriac Vulgate is so far against 
the supposed dependence of D in this passage 
on the Syriac. Mr. Chase however adopts 
the method of those scribes to whom we owe 
so many conflate readings, and supposes that 
the Old Syriac combined both. As to the 
words év tH éxkAnoia it must be observed 
that 77 éxxAnoia without év is found in a 
large number of MSS. not generally sympa- 
thizing with D or supposed to Syriacize. 
And a simple explanation seems to be that 
when ézi 76 airo was not unnaturally taken 
as belonging to Peter and John, it was felt 
that rpoceriMe. was incomplete, and the most 
natural complement was 77 éxxAnoia, whose 
first and natural place therefore was after 
kaOnpépav, Where most MSS. have it. This 
involved a change in the position of d¢, but 
D has the gloss ina more simple form though 
not in its original place. The év may 
possibly have been suggested by the Syriac, 
or perhaps merely inserted to connect 77 
exkAnoia with éri ro airé. The position of 
the latter words contradicts in this particular 
instance the derivation from the Syriac. 

Next let us take Acts xix. 1. Here the 
genuine text is: éyévero de év TO Tov “AtoAAD 
elvat ev KopivOw Tatdov duehOovta. «.7.’. The 
reading of D is OEAONTOC AE TOY 


TIAYAOY | KATA THN IAIQN BOY- 





7 
F 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 31 


AHN | TIOPEYECOAI EIC 1EPOCOAY- 


MQ | EITIEN AYTW TO TING YTIO- 
CTPEDEIN EIC THN ACIAN | AIEA- 
OWN AE «7A. 

The gloss, says Mr. Chase, can only have 
come from the Old Syriac, for it is derived 
from the Syriac of xix. 21, where the Syriac 
Vulgate has: ‘Paul purposed in his mind 
that he should go round all Macedonia and 
Achaia and should go to Jerusalem.’ The 
Greek there has é6ero é€v 7@ tvevpati, but as 
the Syriac word for ‘mind’ is used to trans- 
late such words as yvoun, Mr. Chase thinks 
BovdAy here was quite a natural rendering. 

_But why idiav, a word for which the Syriac 
language has no equivalent? Mr. Chase 
replies that dd’ éavrod in Jno. xvi. 13 
becomes in the Syriac ‘from the thought 
(or mind) of his soul,’ ‘soul’ in Syriac 
being = ‘self.’ The inference is not obvious, 
seeing that ‘soul,’ ze. ‘self,’ is not in the 
Syriac of xix. 21. As to eivey 70 rvetya this 
is ‘a gloss from a gloss,’ namely that in xx. 
3, which it is unnecessary to quote. 

All this is very far-fetched, and after all 
inadequate. Even admitting that xix. 21 
interpreted as above was the source of the 
gloss, why could not a Greek glosser have 
taken it from a Greek or Latin source? The 
modern Italian has ‘si mise nell’ animo’ and 
chronology alone forbids this being suggested 
as a source equally probable with the Syriac. 
But in truth the words idiav PBovdjy are 
inseparably connected, and _ intentionally 
opposed to eirev 70 tvedua. The glosser was 
not collecting unconnected expressions but 
wished to emphasize the contrast between 
what Paul wished of himself and what he 
was led by the Holy Spirit to do. But why 
was this necessary? The answer is in 
xviii. 20, where there was an early and 
widely accepted gloss (retained in the 
Received Text) which made Paul account 
for his hurried departure from Ephesus by 
his anxiety to go to Jerusalem. Apparently 
he did not then go to Jerusalem but to the 
‘upper coasts,’ the highlands of Asia Minor. 
This to any intelligent reader would seem 
to require explanation, and a hint at the 
explanation was found in xix. 21, ero év 
76 tvevpati, Which was understood to mean 
the Holy Spirit. This view of the latter 
verse appears even in some modern versions, 
such as the Portuguese which actually 
inserts ‘Santo.’ The gloss then in xix. l 
was intended to clear up the difficulty. But 
it will be seen that this implies an interpre- 
tation of xix. 21 wholly inconsistent with 
that found in the Syriac Vulgate and quoted 


above. Even if the gloss was not suggested 
by xix. 21 no translator having adopted it 
would proceed to gloss the latter verse so 
as to represent Paul’s movements, as deter- 
mined by his own wishes. 

Acts vi. 10 is one of the passages which 
Mr. Chase selects as most convincing. The 
genuine text reads: kat ob« trxvov dvtiorqvat 
Tm copia kal TO mvevpate © eAddrea. The 
Syrian Vulgate has: ‘And they were not 
able to resist the wisdom and the spirit 
which was speaking in him.’ The leading 
of D is OITINEC OYK ICXYON QANTI- 
CTHNAI TH COPIA | TH OYCH EN 
AYTW Kal TW TINEYMATI TW 
AFIW W EAQAEI. Mr. Chase’s ex- 
planation is as follows: (1) ‘was speak- 
ing in him’ is a gloss from Matth. x. 
20. (2) 7G dyiw was added from Mk. 
xiii. 11. (3) To balance this gloss, a 
further gloss was added to ‘wisdom,’ viz. 
‘which was in him.’ (4) The former gloss 
fell out in the Old Syriac, ‘the passage 
being heavy with glosses,’ or else @ éAdhe 
was retained by D as being fairly equiva- 
lent to the Syriac. This is a weak chain of 
hypotheses. The Syriac obviously read 6 
instead of 6, a very frequent error (which 
occurs here in some Greek MSS.) ; a trans- 
lator doing this would be sure to complete 
the sense by adding “in him.” On the other 
hand D wished to make it clear that the 
spirit was the Holy Spirit and therefore 
added 76 dyiw. If it is thought necessary 
to suppose that he borrowed this from Mark 
xiii. 11, it was as easy for a Greek writer 
to borrow it as a Syriac. Once this was 
added however, o could not include cod¢dia, 
and the addition of TH OYCH EN AYTW 
became almost inevitable. This view in- 
volves the minimum of hypothesis, Mr. 
Chase’s the maximum. Here again the 
derivation from the Syriac is contradicted. 

There are two other glosses in this 
verse, but limits of space compel me to 


confine myself to one MH AYNQMENOI 
OY ANTODOAAMEIN TH QAHOEIQ. 


According to Mr. Chase this is a conflate 
gloss made up from Lk, xxi. 15 and 2 Tim. 
iii. 8. As the gloss does not resemble the 
Syriac of these passages more than the 
Greek, I need not discuss this part of the 
hypothesis ; the question is, how came D to 
use QNTODOQAMEIN for ‘resist’? 
Mr. Chase replies: Because he remembered 
that the Syriac word in the gloss before him 
was the same that in Acts xxvii. 15 was 
used to render this verb. It must be noted 


32 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


that Mr: Chase supposes D to have had in 
his mind the Greek of the verse referred 
to, for instead’of giving the literal rendering 
of the gloss as constructed by Mr. Chase 
(from Cod. E) he adopts MH AYNQAMENOI 
from xxvii. 15. This being so, what need 
is there to suppose that he made three steps 
to reach the word when one would have 
sufficed? But it is quite unnecessary to 
suppose that he was influenced by xxvii. 15 
at all. The verb dvtodOadpeiv was a fami- 
liar one in later Greek (it is frequent in 
Polybius), and it is much more likely that it 
was suggested to the glosser by this familiar 
use than by the seemingly nautical appli- 
cation in xxvii. 15. 

Mr. Chase supposes D to have travelled 
by a like circuitous route in xvii. 34 where 
the epithet ctoyjpwv is given to Dionysius. 
It was desired, he says, to assimilate the 
description of Dionysius to that of Joseph 
of Arimathea in Mk. xv. 43. Granting 
this, is not the epithet accounted for on 
Greek ground? Not so, thinks Mr. Chase ; 
we must suppose that there was an Old 
Syriac Version here which had interpolated 
the Syriac word used in Mk. xv. 43 and D 
rendered it eicx7ypwv (not the most obvious 
rendering) because this was the Greek word 
there. Had the Greek there been different 
it would have served Mr. Chase better. In 
the same verse he again has recourse to the 
Syriac to account for the omission of a line 
KAI to Kal! in the Greek. 

Acts xix. 29 is claimed by Mr. Chase as 
one of his most convincing passages. 
Curiously enough, Dr. Rendel Harris re- 
gards it as equally conclusive in favour of 
his view of the influence of the Latin. The 
genuine text has érAyjo6y 4 rods cvyxvoeus, 
whereas D reads CYNEXYOH OAH H 
TIOAIC QICXYNHC the Latin being ‘ re- 
pleta est tota civitas confusionem’ (sic). Mr. 
Rendel Harris has the advantage of having 
certain facts to go upon. The Latin exists 
and is clearly not translated from the Greek 
of D but (except for ‘tota’ which is a 
very widely adopted addition) from the 
genuine text. Again, if we leave out 
QICXYNHC, the Greek gives a complete 
sense, equivalent to that of the true text, 
and this makes it probable that this was 
the reading of the archetype, and this it 


may be observed agrees with the Syriac 
Vulgate, which has here simply the same 
word which in Acts il. 6 represents ovve- 
xv6n. Whence then QAICXYNHC ? Admit- 
ting the bare possibility of Latin influence 


-the answer is obvious, for aicxvvy and aicyv- 


vowat do sometimes correspond to ‘confusio, 
confundor.’ Now let: us see what is Mr. 
Chase’s view. He supposes the Old Syriac to 
have adopted here a word which is found in 
several places in the O.T. where the English 


version has ‘confounded,’ the word ‘ashamed’ ~ 


being often coupled with it, ‘ashamed and 
confounded’ (especially Is. xlv. 16). -He 
thinks the Old Syriac was assimilated to this 
passage, running thus: ‘ it-was-confounded 
all-of-it the-city and-was-ashamed.’ There 
is absolutely no resemblance between the 
present passage and those which he cites 
from the O.T. except in the English Version. 
The Syriac word means, like that with which 
it is there coupled, ‘to be ashamed.’ The 
Hebrew words which it is used to translate 
(one of which is the same as the Syriac 
root) mean likewise ‘to be ashamed.’ 
In none of these passages do the LXX em- 
ploy ovyxéw or any similar word, but such 
words as évtpérouat. Indeed in no case is 
either of the Hebrew words in question 
rendered ovyyéw. The Latin again usually 
renders the first of the two words ‘ erubes- 
cet’ and reserves ‘confundetur’ for the 
second, which we render ‘ashamed.’ Even 
apart then from the total unsuitability of 
both words here, there was nothing to 
suggest to a Syriac translator the version 
supposed by Mr. Chase. It is superfluous 
to mention his further conjecture that D 
made the blunder of: mistaking the latter of 
the two verbs for the noun. 

More than once Mr. Chase invokes the 
Syriac to account for an omission which is 
quite as easily accounted for by the Greek 
(as in ii. 9 and xvii. 34), That Codex 
Bezae was influenced by the Syriac is prob- 
able, and I do not mean to deny that some 
of Mr. Chase’s suggestions have a certain 
degree of plausibility ; but the foregoing 
examination, which includes some of his 
strongest passages, shows, I think, that he 
is very far from having made out his theory 
that Codex Bezae is to a large extent a 
translation of a lost Syriac Version. 

T. K. Asgorr. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 33 


CG. MUTZBAUER ON THE TENSES IN HOMER. 


Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre 
und der homerische Tempusgebrauch, ein 
Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der 
griechischen Sprache, von CARL MuTZBAUER. 
Strassburg: Karl J. Triibner. 15 Mark, 
Pp. viii. + 402. 


Tris volume, which consists of about 400 
pages, and treats of the use of the tenses 
in Homer, is intended to be the first of a 
series. Dr. Mutzbauer proposes to go on to 
deal with the moods in the same way, then 
with the construction of sentences and 
finally with the syntax of the noun. The 
work, it will be seen, is planned on a gen- 
erous scale. The type and paper are 
excellent. 

The first business of the reviewer of the 
present instalment is to construct a table of 
contents. The task is rendered somewhat 
more difficult by the absence of headlines : 
but a certain amount of turning over the 
pages will show that the book consists of 
two main parts. The first part, which 
occupies forty pages, is entitled Die Grund- 
lagen der griechischen Tempuslehre, and is 
chiefly taken up with a discussion of the 
peculiar Greek uses of the aorist and im- 
perfect. The second part, entitled Das 
homerische Verbum, gives nearly all the verbs 
which occur in Homer, with a complete 
citation of the passages in which the 
different tenses are found. It is, in short, 
a concordance of Homer, drawn up from 
the point of view of the tenses. The verbs 
are arranged in five classes: A. the verbs 
with present stem unaltered (identical with 
the verb stem); B. (p. 172) the verbs with 
aorist stems formed without the thematic 
vowel ; C. (p. 252) the verbs with thematic 
aorist ; D. (p. 323) the verbs with redupli- 
cated aorist ; E. (p. 337) the verbs which 
lengthen the root in the present stem 
(Dehnelasse of Curtius). This classification 
is not a particularly happy one. It does 
not even profess to be exhaustive: and 
owing to the use of several /undamenta 
divisionis the sub-classes are not mutually 
exclusive. Moreover it is incorrect in 
several points, the author having followed 
Curtius in views which are now quite anti- 
quated. Thus he puts dépxoyar at the head 
of his list as a verb ‘mit unveriindertem 
Praesensstamm.’ But dépxoyar is to the aorist 
édpaxov precisely as devyw, a verb of the 
Dehnelasse, is to the aorist ésvyov. The term 

NO. LXVI. VOL. VIII. 


Dehnelasse, it need scarcely be said, belongs 
to a theory which is no longer tenable. 
Again, vw, Aivw, Ovw, &e., are all placed 
among the ‘verbs with unaltered present 
stem,’ though in fact they are of the Yod- 
class. It is a singular result of specializa- 
tion when a good Greek scholar—which Dr. 
Mutzbauer clearly is—can remain ignorant 
of the recent progress of etymology. 

As a collection of material the book will 
be of great service to students who are 
interested in comparing the forms of Homeric 
syntax with those of later Greek. The 
question, however, which we have now to 
ask is, what use has Dr. Mutzbauer himself 
made of the ample stores of his own work ? 
What is there that is new in the conclusions 
which he draws in his introductory 
pages ? 

Dr. Mutzbauer begins by pointing out 
that from the days of the Alexandrian 
school scholars have recognized a difficulty 
in the Homeric use of the tenses. The 
imperfect, especially, is often found where 
later usage would lead us to expect the 
aorist. Again, if there is a difference in 
this respect between Homeric and later 
Greek, there is a still greater difference 
between Greek and Latin. Grammarians 
have hitherto been too much in the habit of 
beginning with Latin,and then endeavouring 
to apply the Latin scheme of tenses to 
Greek. The result has been that they have 
given a wholly false impression of the nature 
of the tense-system in Greek, and have been 
especially unfortunate in explaining the 
tenses of the Homeric language. In par- 
ticular, according to Dr. Mutzbauer, they 
have attributed to the Greek tenses the 
force which the Latin imperfect and pluper- 
fect possess of representing one past event 
as contemporaneous with, or prior to, 
another. On the other hand they have not 
appreciated the distinctions which the Greek 
usage makes in the character of an action 
in itself (die Art der Handlumg) ; especially 
the distinction between a single or momentary 
act and a process. 

Tt will at once occur to the reader who is 
acquainted with recent works on the subject 
that much of this is already familiar to him. 
The essential difference of meaning between 
the present, the aorist, and the perfect was 
drawn out very clearly by G. Curtius in the 
Brliéuterungen to his Greek Grammar. The 
clear distinction which Curtius there made 

D 


34 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


between. the Zeitart, or character of the 
action expressed by a tense stem, and the 
Zeitstufe, or difference in time as_ past, 
present, or future, is the basis of Dr. 
Mutzbauer’s exposition. What is new in it 
seems to be the denial that the aorist and 
the imperfect can ever be used to indicate 
the relation in point of time between two 
past events—to show, for instance, that one 
is contemporary or subordinate to the other. 
In this he surely goes too far. The use of 
the imperfect with dpa to express something 
that was previously denied for overlooked 
seems clearly te be derived from a relative 
use of the kind. And the use of 7jv=‘is as 
we proved’ is of the same kind (Goodwin’s 
Moods and Tenses, § 40). Similarly Dr. 
Mutzbauer maintains that an aorist parti- 
ciple never expresses that an act is prior to 
that of the verb with which it is construed : 
e.g. that idsov tatra 7AGey does not mean 
‘after seeing this he came,’ but only ‘seeing 
this he came.’ This contention may be just 
in so far as it applies to the original use of 
the aorist participle, since idwy does not con- 
tain any inflexion which expresses past time. 
But the choice of the aorist rather than the 
present wherever the action of the participle 
was prior to the other must have soon 
created a usage according to which the notion 
of priority was implied in every phrase of 
the kind. Dr. Mutzbauer would reply that 
this notion is not in the words, that it is 
supplied by the hearer out of the context. 
But a notion which is irresistibly suggested 
not merely in a particular context but in 
every combination of the kind must surely 
be regarded as being (or having become) 
part of the meaning of that combination. 


A somewhat similar point is raised by Dr. 
Mutzbauer regarding the use of the optative 
to express the repetition or indefinite 
frequency of an action (the so-called iterative 
use). To show that the optative does not 
convey this meaning he quotes examples of 
it along with others in which the same mood 
is used with a different force: e.g. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 59 D zeptepevopev odv Exdortote ews 
dvotxGein TO Seapwryprov? érerdi) 5é dvorxOein 
jeyev Tapa tov Swxparyn. Here the first 


dvotxOein conveys no sense of repetition or 


frequency: but the second undoubtedly 
does, and Dr. Mutzbauer is strangely mis- 
taken in making the first use an argument 
against the ordinary explanation of the 
second. He should have been guided in 
this by Delbriick : for it is an excellent and 
indeed crucial instance of the difference 
between the clauses called by Delbriick Die 
postertorischen Lelativsdtze and Die prior- 
ischen Relativsdtze respectively (Synt. Forsch. 
i. pp. 36-50). 

The latter pages of the introductory part 
are chiefly taken up with the gnomic aorist. 
Dr. Mutzbauer has good reason for rejecting 
the explanation according to which a gnomic 
aorist asserts the occurrence of an event in 
the past by way of showing that it may 
occur again at any time. Rather the gnomic 
aorist is a ‘present aorist’ in meaning, which 
has survived under the guise of the 
augmented form. The survival is doubt- 
less due, as he says, to the comparative 
unimportance of the time relations of 
past and present in the Greek system of 
tenses. 

D. B. Monro. 





HOSLUS’S EDITION OF LUCAN. 


M. Annaei Lucani de bello civili libri decem. 
G. STEINHARTI aliorumque copiis usus 
edidit Carotus Hosrus. Leipzig 1892. 
Teubner. Mk. 3.60. 


THE appearance of this book marks an 
important epoch in the critical study of 
Lucan. Since the days of Oudendorp, 
Kortte and Burmann little or nothing had 
been done of importance towards the estab- 
lishment of the author’s text on a satis- 
factory footing till within the last forty 
years. The fragmentary notes left by 
sentley did not add to his reputation, 


and in reading such a book as Withof’s 
Encaenia [1741] one is irresistibly driven 
to ask ‘If this be sound eriticism, what is 
the use of collating manuscripts?’ Both 
he and Bentley look over Lucan’s work as a 
sort of school exercise; it is as well to 
know what he is said to have written, but 
it is more important to show what he ought 
to have or ‘must have’ written. 

It is in no such spirit that the present 
editor approaches his task. He is the 
representative of the sober and patient 
criticism that began with Steinhart’s first 
dissertation in 1854 and is not yet spent, 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 35 


It is enough to mention the names of 
Detlefsen, H. Genthe, and Usener. 

The MSS on which the recension is 
really based are :— 

M = Montepessulanus [olim Buherianus\, 
the leading position of which was first 
clearly asserted by Steinhart. 

V=Vossianus primus and U = Vossianus 
secundus, both well known by repute to 
readers in Oudendorp. 

B= Bernensis, now first raised to the 
rank of a leading MS. 

G= Bruxellensis, olim Gemblucensis, also 
a selection of Dr Hosius’ own, chosen, it 
seems, mainly on account of a subscriptio to 
which he attaches some importance. 

To these should be added :— 

C=commenta Bernensia, Scholia without 
text, published by Usener in 1869. 

Also, for parts of books v—vii the pa- 
limpsest fragments published by Detlefsen 
in Philologus 1857-60-67. These are :— 

N=the leaves of one MS. partly at 
Vienna partly at Naples. 

P = Palatinus, the Vatican fragments. 

Of the above, MV U BGC are ascribed 
to the tenth, N P to the fourth century. 

To the other MSS included in the list it 
is not necessary to refer here. They are 
only used now and then, and their evidence 
is of comparatively little value, if the 
fundamental position of Steinhart and 
Hosius be sound. 

The position is briefly this. Internal 
evidence shows that a certain group of 
MSS, which from their subscriptiones seem 
to be descended from an archetype corrected 
by one Paulus Constantinopolitanus (prob- 
ably in the seventh century), omit most of 
the certainly spurious lines, and in disputed 
passages generally give the best readings. 
To this group M and U belong. With 
them Hosius associates B and C, though 
neither bears the subscriptio. Two other 
MSS, which do bear it, turn out to be later 
and much corrupted. M U BC therefore 
stand as the true representatives of the 
Pauline recension. Of MSS not belonging 
to this group far the best is V, to which G 
is joined as a more than usually good 
specimen of the non-Paulines. 

Dr Hosius’ text then rests primarily on 
M, secondarily on U B with occasional help 
from C ; and, where these are in the editor’s 
opinion not satisfactory, V and G—rarely 
any other MSS—are called in. The result 
is a text far superior to any of its pre- 
decessors, though I doubt whether the 
judgment of Dr Hosius will in all passages 
be accepted as final. 


It is to be regretted that the early frag- 
ments N and P are so scanty. Enough 
however remains to show that (not counting 
mere slips of the pen) they, or N at least, 
represent a text differing considerably from 
the Pauline recension, sometimes from V 
G ete. also. I give a few instances, using 
the symbolO=M BU V G or those of them 
not separately mentioned. 

V 44 exhausto O exacto N, 50 pelagi O 
pelago N, 197 obstruait O obstrinait N, 300 
ducem O virum N, 659 abruperit O abrum- 
peret N. 

V1I24 rvemoventibus M VU —que vomen- 
tibus GP —que moventibus B, 58 flecus O 
flecum P, 244 putatis O putastis N, 400—1 
scindens ... . terrenum ignotas O secuit 
: . terrenumque novas N, 420 indigna O 
non digna N, 552 luporum O ferarum N. 

On the other hand we find striking cross 
testimony in some passages, as— 

V 52 famae M fama ON, 53 habent O 

om. MN, 175 stimulos ON stimulis V G, 375 
vevocare O retinere V N, 386 dominis ON 
dominos V, VI 32 metatur OP metitur 
V [et M,z in ras. |, 161 inpulsu M U tincwrsu 
V BGN, 237 trementen MV BN tenentem 
GP, 312 malorum V BGC N laborum MU, 
330 condiait MBN convertit V G, VII 462 
tempus V et ut vid. M vultus BU P. 
For one reading we have the most complete 
evidence: VI 228 furorem ON P, dolorem 
having no good MS authority ; and in VI 
550, where editors mostly read guacwmque 
with Grotius, the guodcumque of O is surely 
not the less probable for the quocwmque 
of N. 

The above are only a selection, meant for 
a fair one; it may be that I make too much 
of these early variants, but I think it an 
important fact that the text was already 
considerably corrupted within perhaps 300 
years of Lucan’s death. How far the testi- 
mony of the Paulines M BU should out- 
weigh that of all other kinds of authority, 
how far the ‘better’ reading is the more 
likely to be the vera Lucani manus, are just 
the questions that seem to me unsuited for 
a confident answer. 

How great is the gain to Lucan’s text 
from the labours of Dr Hosius may be seen 
in the following passages. I give the 
reading as established by him, and note 
the MS authority followed in each case, 
appending the rejected reading in brakets. 

I 531 tenso MBUC ([densol, IL 106 
praecepisse M V B [praecipitasse], 289 velit 
M VB [valet], 728 descivit M B U [destituit], 
III 348 attingere MBUC [carpere], 484 
incerta M BU GC [incensa], TV 578 writur 

D2 


36 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


O [utitur, vertitur|, V 71 summotus ON 
[semotus|, 91 contactum...hominis O [econtac- 
ius...hominum], 189 magna MBUGN 
[multa], 191 clara ON [many conjj.], 602 
concidat O [ pareat], VI 76 terrae O Ree 
137 vomit O [gemit], 317—8 suo MBVN 
hortatu BVN [sut...... hortati], VII 191 
nescius MV [nescit in], 325 imputet OC 
[impetat|, 406 corpore BU G [tempore], 621 
demissum...ensem O [demisso...ense|, VIII 
366 ibitur MBU [labitur], 864 Tusco...... 
fulinen OC [ fusco...... numen|, IX 604 nunc 
olim factura dewm es O with trivial variation 
[incolumis etc. conj. Withof], X 329 moribus 
M U ut vid. [molibus]. 

These are a few selections from a large 
number. Several of them have long been 
recognized as probably right: but it seems 
to me that Dr Hosius has now established 
the reading with as near an approach to 
certainty as we are likely to get. We now 
stand on MSS selected on an intelligible 
principle ; as I at present believe, on a right 
principle. And the collations are now 
precise. The corrections of other hands 
are no longer reported as the readings of 
the MS itself. We no longer have solutae 
given as the reading of M in I 277, an 
error that lasted till M was fully collated 
by Steinhart. 

Whether in following the Pauline MSS 
we draw nearer to what Lucan wrote, can 
hardly be determined. But that we are 
making the sense clearer and better in 
many places I for one do not doubt. Let 
us however not forget that we are dealing 
with an unfinished poem of which several 
recensions may have existed within a short 
time of the writer’s death. 

If we follow the Paulines as our main 
guide it is perhaps as well not to leave 
them without very good reasons. I proceed 
to give some passages in which I think 
Dr Hosius has left them too readily. 

I 74 mixtis O. Why drag in from con- 
jecture the rare Lucretian adverb mizxtim ? 
Surely the sense remains practically un- 
changed. 

101 mare MBGC. Why prefer male 
[V Ul? Is then conferre intransitive, or 
geminum = geminum mare? 

320 minantes MV UG. Why micantes 
[B]? To prove the use of micare [ Hos. praef. 
p- xv] is not to the point. 

588 volitantis MB. Why = errantis 
[V UGC]? Either word might be a gloss 
on the other, and the Pauline authority is 
for the former. 

II 214 nam O. Why iam (Hos.) dum 
(Grot.) or cum (Bentl.)? Ts not the con- 


trast between the stream of Tiber that 
could not, and the stream of blood that did, 
sweep away the gathered corpses, very 
much in Lucan’s manner? and is not this 
much better brought out by nam? 

476 vocarete MBG. Why vacaret [V U, 


for C is not very good evidence here]? 


Surely the former is much better sense. 
For the confusion of these words see Hosius. 
notes vi 126, 558, praef. p. vill. 

IV 219 petenda V B | petenda est in ras. 


Mj]. Is not the sense’ better than petita . 


[U G] est? 

V 383 summo ... honori M [summo ... 
honore V BG]. I cannot see why we 
should prefer swmmum...honorem | U, for in 
N only onore- remains]. The dative is 
accepted in II 707 by Hosius on the 
authority of M. Cf. Juvenal VIII 28. 

386 dominis MBUGN. Why dominos 
Vi! 
! VI 200 limine OC portae MUG. Bur- 
mann’s note may not be quite satisfactory, 
but I do get a possible meaning from the 
passage, not unsuited to Lucan. But of the 
meaning of limite and torta [V B, 4 C| I can 
get no notion whatever. 

453 adductus MBUGC. Why addictus 

Vi? 

a 183 tumultu MBUC. What is 
gained by reading tumultus’ after the 
correctors of M and B[V G have twmultum| 
I do not see. 

641 vincitur MBUG. Why ‘vineimur 
[Vv]? 
VIII 575 classemque MBVU. Why 
sociosque [|G]? Is not socios much more 
like a gloss on classem than vice versa? It 
explains the point. 

IX 449 nocens MBVU. Surely there 
is no serious objection to this, enough to 
justify us in reading nocet [G]. 

454 harenis MBVU. If we are to 
prefer habenis [G], and to compare IT 500-1 
levis totas accepit habenas in campum 
sonipes, 1 reply that there all is clear and 
the sense plain. Here there is a better 
supported alternative, and it is unnecessary 
to introduce a metaphor. Auster gives full 
vent to his rage ‘over the whole stretch of 
sand.’ 

X 536 subito MBUG. 
[Vv]? 

In these passages and many others I am 
at a loss to divine the grounds on which 
Dr Hosius’ decision is based. I can see 
pretexts in most cases, but not what I 
should call sound reasons. If it is to be a 
matter of taste, what of mixtim in I 741 

That M is the leading authority of the 


Why subitus 


— — 


—" 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Paulines is quite clear. In illustration let 
me cite 

II 57 conlatus in ignes M [contatus ©, 
collapsus O}. 

IIL 149 non iam potuisse negari M [nil 
iam O}. 

571 nullique perempti in ratibus cecidere 
suis M [multique O}. 

663 foll. at dllis...cum prensarent...inpia 
turba..ferit ense lacertos M [illi O}. 

V 419 tnewmbatque ferens (Aquilo) M and 
2G [ furens O}. 

VI 610 medios herbis praerumpimus annos 
M [abrumpimus O}. 

IX 379 mea signa secutis M [castra OC]. 

592 indiga cogatur laticis certare iuventus 

M and C in interpr. [latices VUG and 
potare petare portare O alius aliud]. 
Dr Hosius seems to me rightly to have 
followed M in these and other passages. 
Indeed nothing but the establishment of 
some entirely new theory of the MSS 
authority for Lucan’s text—of which at 
present we hear nothing—seems likely to 
dislodge M from its primacy. Written [see 
praef. vili—xii] by a copyist both blunder- 
ing and ignorant, it is probably a more 
faithful copy than if it were the work of a 
better scholar of that age. It therefore 
probably stands nearer to the text of Paulus 
than U or B. C is on rather a different 
footing. The readings of M seem to agree 
with Hosius’ appreciation of the MS. But 
it is not to be proved that MBUC came 
immediately from the same copy of Paulus’ 
text: and how far in descent they are 
respectively removed from that original 
there are of course no means of determining. 
Hosius p. xiv. thinks that Paulus’ own 
copy may have been the archetype of 
MBC. 

It is well to observe in a few instances 
the marked difference between V and the 
Pauline group. Blundering and ignorance 
are not the faults of the writer of V. But 
that he [or his original perhaps] allowed 
himself to correct blunders and improve the 
text has since Steinhart’s inquiries been 
held most probable. To cite passages :— 

I 50 iwvent O iwvat V, Il 133 hominis 
quid fata paterent O pararent V, 564—5 
cupis...paras O cupit...parat V, III 66 
prius O plus V, 488 jfronte O fronde V, 
IV 61 in euro O ab euro V, 253 in faciem 
O in facie V, VIII 617 vellet O possit V, 
IX 574 facimus O agimus V. 

In these passages Dr Hosius steadily 
follows O, rightly as I think. The con- 
scious consistency of the writer of V shows 
well in LV 318 tenera sucos pressere medulla, 


37 


where B and G have ¢éener(a)e and medulla, 
but V tenerae...medullae. 

Whether V be not right in some places 
where Dr Hosius rejects its readings is 
matter of legitimate doubt. For instance, 

Il 587 wmbras numquam flectente Syene. 
V (and a corrector of M) give nusqguam, 
which editors [see Oud.] have preferred as 
explicable without violating facts. M and 
the rest give numquam, and Macrobius 
taxes Lucan with error on the ground of 
this very word. Now, we know that there 
were differences in the text by the time of 
Macrobius ; we know from the Suetonian 
Life that copies were circulated of the 
‘cheap and nasty’ sort [non tantum operose 
et diligenter sed inepte quoque]: are we to lay 
the blame on the author or on his copyists, 
if there be a blunder of fact here? The 
passage well illustrates what I said above 
as to the possible difference between a 
better reading and a genuine reading in 
Lucan. 

lt may also be doubted whether V is 
rightly followed in certain cases. For 
instance 

V 107 dedit sedem notas mutantibus urbes. 
O have totas [totes C], which Kortte and 
Hosius reject, but which I prefer, comparing 
VIII 217, 336, LX 495. 

137 fart V seems to me a correction of 
Jati O [but ati in ras. B], and probably 
wrong. 

IX 627 non mollia suco [arva Medusae}. 
O have su/co, which may be a correction of 
suco, but I doubt it. 

What I have now said must suftice for 
the MS basis of the text. I may add a 
few words on the conjectural emendations 
now and then admitted by the editor. This 
path of criticism has not I think been 
hitherto a happy one in Lucan’s case. 
Bentley, whose splendid discernment re- 
peatedly led him in choosing between MS 
readings to a result confirmed by recent 
research, is miserable when he comes to 
conjectures. And where he failed others 
might well do the same. Grotius, Heinsius, 
Schrader, Withof,—not to name modern 
scholars—little of real value is to be gleaned 
from any. About half of the efforts are 
devoted to removing the near repetition of 
the same word. Yet, if we admitted every 
proposed change of this kind, the text 
would still bristle with such repetitions. 
The whole attempt is a blunder. 

L 295 pedibusque repagula laxet. So 
Hosius, comparing Ov. met. 11 155. But it 
is not clear that the two cases are parallel. 
Here 1 think the horse is meant to be 


38 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


using his mouth not his feet. To say that 
pronusque [QO] comes from prono in 292 is, so 
far as we can judge from the undoubted 
usage of Lucan, a baseless assumption. 

II 26 oculosque in morte micantes. So 
Hosius from Ennius [fr. 328 B]. This is 
much more probable, but I have no room 
for reasons. Still, are we not perhaps 
simply misunderstanding minaces [O]? 

VI 25 exigquo debet, quod non est insula, 


collo. So Hosius after Voss. This.is very 
tempting. But collis is sometimes a very 


slight rise in Lucan, as IV: 11, 98, will 
show. And from the point of view of 
military strength we gain sense by taking 
exiguo of height rather than breadth. I am 
not convinced that colli [O P] is wrong. 

663 praebente is a fine conjecture of 
Madvig’s, better than Grotius’ praestante 
(cf. 607), for the praesente of O. 

VIL 587 quid ferrum, Brute, tenebas? 
So Hosius after Burmann. quod O [quot 
M]. It is a pity to emend only to spoil the 
sense. 

There are not a few others, some very 
probable, but I cannot here deal with 
more, 

Of Dr Hosius’ bold transposition of VII 
510—20 to between 488 and 489 I can only 
say that, taken with the argument in praef. 
xx—xxil, I think it right, and a brilliant 


the reader of Lucan. 


achievement. It is well worth while 
reading all he says. 

The editor has also boldly discarded the 
erroneous title Pharsalia. 

A few desperate old enemies still await 
Such are II 126, 
VII 460—4, IX 568, 777—9. | 

The services of the editor in punctuation 
are here and there not small. Misprints 
are very rare. status for flatus in II 620 ~ 
is the most notable. See it acon in Jeep’s 
Claudian, IT p. 140. 

For Lucan’s orthography I must depend 
on the master of many collations, the editor. 
But that the MSS are really safe guides in 
this case may be doubted. I observe for 
instance that amentavit VI 221 has one m. 
N seems to give two. The verb or the sub- 
stantive comes four.times in Silius [Ruperti’s 
index], never again in Lucan. Bauer with 
the MSS accepts the double m in Silius, and 
the form is recognized in. other writers. 
May it not well be so in Lucan also? 

I am sorry to omit so much of real 
interest. Many of the passages I have cited 
for one purpose serve for other purposes, so 
I have not repeated them. I have only 
to repeat that the services of Dr Hosius 
deserve from students of Latin literature 
the sincerest gratitude and praise. 

W. FE. HEIrLanD. 





TWO EDITIONS OF CATULLUS, 


Catullus. 
Merri, 
Wesleyan 
1893. 

Catullus: with the Pervigilium Veneris. 
Edited by 8. G. Owen. Illustrated by 
J. R. Weeauetin. London: Lawrence and 
Bullen. 1893. 16s. net. 


Edited by Emer TurspELu 
tich Professor of Latin in 
University. Boston: Ginn. 


THESE two editions of Catullus are perfectly 
distinct in scope and character. Prof. 
Merrill’s is one of the ‘College Series of 
Latin Authors’ published by the enter- 
prising firm of Ginn and Co. As such it 
deals mainly with interpretation. Mr. S. 
G. Owen, on the other hand, offers his 
readers a livre de luxe, enriched with costly 
pictures, and proposing a large number 
of new conjectural emendations. It is a 
book for the curious and the virtuoso. 

Prof. Merrill has neglected none of the 
lines which nowadays are indispensable in a 


BY MERRILL AND OWEN. 


conscientious editor. The better to form 
an opinion of the textual question, he has 
himself collated and completely transcribed 
the Oxford MS. (0), one page of which, 
reduced a third in size to fit the shape of 
his edition, is facsimiled. The readings of 
this MS. and those of G, the Germanensis, 
now in the National Library of Paris, are 
given in the Critical Appendix at the end of 
the volume: with a selection from the 
numberless emendations of four centuries 
of critics. From this it will be seen that 
the American editor sides with Bihrens, 
Bonnet, Munro, Bénoist, Emil Thomas, 
B. Schmidt and 8. G. Owen in considering 
GO to be adequate representatives of all 
the MSS. This is not the place to raise 
the question again: but, to say the least, 
it is unsafe to consider the point settled 
finally.! 


1 The editor of the second edition of Biahrens’ 
Catullus, K. P. Schulze, says ‘nemo hodie omnes 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 39 


The Introduction treats of the life of 
Catullus, his amour with Lesbia, his relations 
with Caesar, the journey to Bithynia, &c. 
From the plan of the series it is necessarily 
brief, and rouses rather than satisfies 
curiosity. 

The Commentary, on the other hand, is 
tolerably minute and rarely leaves any real 
difficulty untouched. Original, indeed, it is 
not: but it is, as a rule, careful, and on the 
whole well-considered. Its chief demerit is 
the extraordinarily little use made of 
Munro’s Llucidations. 

Some points will rouse criticism. x. 17 
unum beatiorem ‘the one man who was blest 
above his fellows.’ xii. 8 mutari uelit 
‘ Pollio is so chagrined at your conduct that 
he would give a talent to change the facts,’ 
but mutarit must mean here an exchange or 
barter. xxi. 11 Ah me me though an eme2n- 
dation of Scaliger’s is very questionable 
Latin. lvii. 7 wno in lecticulo. This some- 
what doubtful diminutive of /ectus is sup- 
ported by /ecticula which is a diminutive of 
lectica and has a long 7. Ixi. 186 senibus 
unis will not scan, though the reading of 
MSS. The generally accepted emendation 
wiris has many notes of plausibility. At 
any rate, if wns is left in the text, it should 
be obelized. vi. 2, 3, nt sint—vuelles. ‘The 
tenses as they here stand convey the idea 
of a pause for deliberation after laying 
down the chosen proposition (ni sint &c.), 
and then a triumphant pounce upon the 
inevitable conclusion (uelles dicere &c.).’ I 
cannot feel this triumphant pounce: but 
the combination of pres. and imperf. no 
doubt admits of more than one explanation. 

Among the particular views which seem 
new, the following are among the most 
noticeable. (1) That the fragm. non custos 
si fingar wile Cretwm,—essem te mihi amice, 
quaerttande is not part of lv. or at least 
was not so considered by the original editor 
of the Liber Catulli, but a rejected trial- 
sketch on the same subject, for which lv. 
was afterwards substituted. If this is so, 
it seems odd that in both the fragm. and 
the complete poem lv., and in these alone, 
the phalaecius is constructed with a spondee 
in the second foot. (2) That in Ixiii. 73 
tam iamque is not = et iam iam, but tam et 
tam. For this is cited Cic. Att. vii. 20, 1 
at lum ruere nuntiant et iam iamque adesse, 
Xvi. Y tam iamque wideo bellum. This is a 


praeter codices Oxoniensem et Germanensem ut 
1uutiles reiciendos esse arbitrabitur,’ and has added 
to the readings of GO those of a Venice codex, M, 
recently reproduced photographically by Constantino 
Nigra, the erudite author of La Chioma di Berenice. 


nice point and deserves careful consideration : 
but I confess to scruples. (3) Ixiv. 130 
extremis querellis is explained after Prop. iv. 
7, 55 Flens tumen extremis dedit haec mandata 
querellis as if Ariadne’s grief so far over- 
came her that she supposed herself dying, 
and in support of this is cited Cu. 347 
super morientis alumnae Frigidulos ocellos 
= Catullus’ Frigidulos udo singultus ore 
cientem (lxiv. 131). This seems to me more 
than questionable. 

With Merrill’s verdict on liv. I am in 
the completest sympathy. He speaks of 
it as ‘exhibiting in spite of attempts at 
emendation, an extremely un-Catullian 
blindness and awkwardness, which fact, 


together with the repetition in the MSS. of 


1. 16, 17 after v. 1, makes it altogether 
probable that the tradition of the text is 
incurably defective.’ The remark, again, on 
x. 9, 10 nihil neque ipsis Nec praetoribus esse 
mec cohorti ‘the order is that of logical 
emphasis ; not even the inhabitants have 
anything ; how then can governors, to say 
nothing of staff, ever get anything?’ is 
acute and may seem to settle the question, 
here unusually difficult, of reading. 

The commentary is more than usually 
full and precise on lxiii., the Aitis; see the 
notes on cymbalum 21, curuo calamo 22, 
capita ut taciunt 23, and aethera album 40. 
But I have found nothing new on Ilkxvi., 
lxviiil., the most obscure of the Catullian 
poems, 

The readers of Mr. Owen’s Tristia will 
expect to find much that is new in his 
Catullus. And they will not be disappointed. 
To begin with what will commend the book 
to the bibliophile, it is enriched with eight 
illustrations, six of which refer +o scenes 
in the poems of Catullus, one to the 
Peruigilium, the other forms a frontispiece. 
The meaning of this frontispiece is not 
clear ; it represents a nude and very pretty 
female figure whispering into the ear of a 
long-nosed sphinx on a pedestal. Of the 
remaining illustrations, the most [pleasing, 
in my judgment, are those in Ixiv., the first 
of which gives a slim-limbed Nereid rising 
from the sea close by the Argo, the second 
represents Ariadne wandering with dis- 
hevelled hair and in a despairing -attitude 
along the beach of Dia. If I might offer a 
criticism on this part of Mr, Owen’s Catullus, 
I would suggest that in the picture of 
Lesbia and her sparrow, the form of the 
bird is very indistinct and its neck too thick 
and long, and that in the picture which 
illustrates Z//e mi par esse deo widetur, the 
nose of the poet looks preternaturally sharp. 


40 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The body of the work consists of (1) ten 
elegiac lines to the memory of the lamented 
J. H. Onions, (2) a short account of the 
MSS. of Catullus, (3) the poems, (4) a series 
of critical notes on disputed passages. 
In these Mr. Owen has brought together 
the remarks which a very long acquaintance 
with Catullus has suggested to him. Many, 
if not most, of them were read in 1892 to 
the Oxford Philological Society: but to the 
world at large they will be new. - On this 
point it is impossible not to regret that the 
luxurious and expensive get-up of the book 
will make it inaccessible to many, especially 
continental, readers; and that the new 
suggestions on the text, of which there are 
not a few, will only gradually pass into 
circulation. So much has been written on 
Catullus, that a volume which should 
contain, like the Appendix to Wecklein’s 
Aeschylus, ‘coniecturas uirorum doctorum 
minus certas’ (and even Avancius has his 
‘less certain’ conjectures) would be not 
without its use. In the interim, it may be 
worth while to mention some of the new 
emendations. vi. 12 Nam tu ista tpse vales 
nihil tacere. xvii. 3 awiclis. xxv. 5 Cum 
diva naufragos hiemps ostendit oscitantes. 
xxix. 19 Humne Gallia et timet Britannia ? 
xxix. 23 urbis editissimae. xxxi. 13 Gaudete 
vos quoque Italae lacus undae. liv. 2 Hara 
es, rustice. lv. 9 Avelli, an infinitive of 
exclamation. lv. 17 niueae citaeque bigae is 
explained as genitive; Mr. Owen’s dissent 


from Birt’s theory of this poem (that 
Camerius was a pusio or boy-favourite of 
Catullus) is certainly justifiable: but, as he 
observes, Birt’s pamphlet has an interest 
quite apart from the interpretation of lv., 


“as a monograph full of recondite archaeo- 


logical learning, well worthy cf the author 
of das antike Buch.-Wesen. I\xi. 152 cave | 
deneges. xiv. 16 Illa, alia uidere nec ulla, 
luce marinas where Owen says ‘ alia is mis- 
placed in the order, to show that the stress 
is on the word’; 29 te Nerine; 65 laniatum’ 
pectus amictu (uiolatum Haverfield); 110 
lateque comis cadit obvia frangens where I 
venture to prefer my own conjecture, 
recently published in Philologus, late quaeuis 
cumque obuia frangens ; 119 ut consangut- 
nearum amplecum, 321 pavientes vellera voce, 
cf. Ov. MW. vi. 55 ; 388 templo in fulgente rever- 
tens ; xv. 9 te voce loquentem. Ixvi. 59 Hic 
Veneris. In this poem Nigra’s Chioma di 
Berenice has been carefuily -considered and 
quoted. Ixviii. 91 Quaeque itidem; 118 
Quae tandem indomitum ; 157 Et qui prin- 
cipio nobis quae tradidit aufert. . cxvi. evitabi- 
mus uncta ‘I shall avoid your poisoned 
shafts.’ Perhaps the most valuable part of 
Mr. Owen’s book is to be found in the 
discussions on disputed passages which 
are dispersed among the notes. I have not 
space to dwell on these here; but hope to 
return to them elsewhere. 
Roginson EL.LIs. 





BURCKHARDT ON HZEROCLIS SYNECDEMUS. 


Hieroclis Synecdemus, rvecensuit Ava. 
Burcxuarpt. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893. 
Pp. xlix. and 88. Mk. 1.20. 


THE sources, the origin, and the character 
of this most important geographical work 
are likely to form the subject of much dis- 
cussion in the future. A new edition, 
founded on a more extended survey of the 
MSS. than had been made by Wesseling or 
Parthey, was much needed: and the task 
has been excellently performed by Dr. 
Burckhardt. One MS., which may be of 
importance, came to his knowledge too late 
to be used. This is a MS. at Jerusalem, 
which is mentioned in Mr. Papadopoulos 
Kerameus’s ‘IepocoAvpitixy Bi BdtobnKn, 
Petersburg 1591, without any account of 
the character and*extent of the text. 


Hierocles Grammaticus is not mentioned 
by any ancient writer except Constantine 
Porphyrogenitus, who made a good deal of 
use of him; but Wesseling has proved from 
the character of his lists and his statement 
of the government of the provinces that he 
wrote under Justinian, ¢.e. after 527, but 
before the reforms of 535. Dr. Burckhardt 
shows that all extant MSS. go back to one 
original, which differed in text from the 
copy used by Constantine Porphyrogenitus ; 
and it therefore appears certain that the 
text had suffered modifications and changes 
before the tenth century. It has appeared 
probable to me that our text is shortened 
from an older one; but it cannot be said 
that Dr. Burckhardt’s researches have 
disclosed any facts supporting this view. 
He distinguished two families ; one, which 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 4] 


contains seven MSS., goes back to a text 
mutilated of the last fourteen provinces, which 
was written in the tenth century, while the 
other, containing four MSS., goes back to a 
complete original. The latter family in its 
turn is divided into two groups, which have 
different forms of epilogue (neither of them 
written by Hierocles) attached to them ; 
two MSS. of each group are known. 

The value of Hierocles’s lists of the cities 
of the'Eastern Roman Empire can bardly 
be exaggerated, at least so far as Asia 
Minor is concerned. Jf my work on the 
geography of that country has proved 
anything, it is that Hierocles’s lists must 
be made the foundation of all study of the 
country ; and, though I have not succeeded 
in inducing any of the French and German 
scholars who have in recent years published 
anything on the subject to follow this 
principle, I believe that their comparative 
failure on the whole (as it appears to me) 
is due to their following a false method ; 
for the many excellent remarks and discov- 
eries in details which they have made show 
how much more they would have succeeded 
in doing had they followed a better method. 

What then was Hierocles’s work? 
According to the title, it was a ‘ traveller's 
companion, the ‘Murray’ of the sixth 
century. According to the view for which 
I have argued (which is similar to that of 
Wesseling, but which is, so far as I know, 
unanimously rejected by all foreign scholars 
that have recently written on the subject), 
Hierocles founded his account of Asia Minor 
on the ecclesiastical lists of his time. These 
he modified in various ways to suit his 
special purpose, and he performed his task 
with much greater skill and knowledge in 


the north-western provinces than in the 
southern and eastern provinces of Asia 
Minor. From this it may be argued that 
he was well acquainted with Bithynia and 
Hellespontus, and not with the provinces 
further away from Constantinople. The 
phenomena of his list seem to me to be 
inconsistent with the view that he used a 
political or administrative list of the cities 
of each province. ‘The errors which he 
makes are those of a writer who, in ignor- 
ance of the geography, tries to compile from 
the ecclesiastical lists a complete list of the 
cities of each province. The ecclesiastical 
list and the political list would of course 
coincide to a great extent ; but there would 
be certain discrepancies between them, and 
it is precisely in regard to these discrepant 
points that Hierocles makes most of his 
blunders. Against this view almost all 
recent writers maintain that Hierocles used 
as his authority a governmental list. 

I speak only of Asia Minor in this question. 
It is not absolutely certain that Hierocles 
would follow the same method in Europe 
and in Asia. In regard to Europe, Syria, 
and Egypt, I am not able to form any 
opinion; for it needs years of specialized 
work to know the geography of any of these 
countries sufliciently well to justify the 
expression of an opinion against the general 
consensus. 

Dr. Burekhardt’s admirable edition is 
precisely the kind of work for which my 
studies have made me long; and I only 
hope that he will supplement it by a short 
account of the Jerusalem MS8., if it prove to 
be of any interest. 

W. M. Ramsay. 





CHARLES’S TRANSLATION OF THE LOOK OF ENOCH. 


The Book of Enoch, translated from Pro- 
FEssoR DILLMANN’s Ethiopic text, emended 
and revised in accordance with hitherto 
uncollated Ethiopic MSS. and with the 
Gizeh and other Greek and _ Latin 
fragments, which are here published in 
full. Edited, with Introduction, Notes, 
Appendices, and Indices by R. H. 
Cuares, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, 
and Exeter College, Oxford. Oxford, at 
the Clarendon Press, 1893. 16s. 


Mr. CuArtes’s work must undoubtedly take 
its place at once as the authoritative edition 


of the Book of Enoch for English readers : 
I see no reason why he should not in future 
years produce what may be the final 
edition. 

In the first place, he has presented us 
with a translation of the Ethiopic version 
of the book, made on the authority of 
manuscripts more in number and better in 
quality than were accessible to Dillmann. 
This part of his work deserves, and has met 
with, a warm welcome from all scholars. 
It is true that his very high estimate of 
certain of his new MSS. is not by any 
means unreservedly accepted by Dillmann, 


42 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


who states (in the Vheol. Literaturzeitung 
for Sept. 2, 1893) as the result of his own 
investigation, that the group of MSS. G 
(GIM) which Mr. Charles ranks highest 
cannot claim to be the exclusive preservers 
of the best text ; and who, further, disputes 
Mr. Charles’s contention that the Ethiopic 
text was transmitted ‘with the greatest 
care and accuracy’ through successive 
copies from the sixth to the sixteenth 
century. Points of this kind, however, 
cannot materially detract from the great 
value of Mr. Charles’s main work, his new 
translation of a decidedly improved Ethiopic 
text. All students of Jewish literature, 
and indeed all who approach the study of 
the ‘origins of Christianity, are very 
grateful to him. 

In the next place, Mr. Charles has proved 
himself a laborious student of the modern 
literature dealing with Hnoch. His réswmés 
of the opinions of his predecessors will be 
exceedingly useful. His bibliography does 
not profess to be complete: one or two 
suggestions as to additions will be made 
when I come to criticize. At present I am 
trying to reckon up the good points of the 
book before me. 

Thirdly, we have in this volume for the 
first time a juxtaposition of a revised 
translation of the Ethiopic and of the text 
of the Greek fragments. Mr. Charles has 
been rather unlucky in respect of the prin- 
cipal Greek fragment, that discovered at 
Akhmim by M. Bouriant. It was not 
printed until most of Mr. Charles’s work 
had gone to press, and he has consequently 
been forced to give it in an Appendix, and 
has only been able to introduce a few 
corrections from it into the main part of his 
book. The result of this is that various 
points in the early chapters have to stand 
corrected in the light of Appendix C. It is 
fortune, and not Mr. Charles, who is to 
blame for this: perhaps it would not be 
unfair to add that the curious slowness of 
the French? Mission Archéologique in pub- 
lishing their great find has here again led 
to most unfortunate results. But I am far 
from wishing to blame the first editors : we 
do not know what difficulties they may have 
had to contend with. 

From what has been said, I wish the 
conclusion to be drawn that Mr..Charles’s 
work has very considerable value: but I 
have faults to find with it. I am not com- 
petent to criticize that part of it which 
deals with the Ethiopic text; nor, in any 
case, would this Meview be an appropriate 
vehicle for such criticism, I shall concern 


myself with the introductory matter, and 
with the Greek and other fragments. 

On the first page of his Introduction, 
Mr. Charles postulates the existence of a 
large literature connected with the name of 


- Enoch, of which we possess fragments in 


the present Book, and’ in the Slavonic 
Enoch. The hypothesis receives a certain 
confirmation from the existence of this 
latter text; but, until we know more of 
that (and I own to a wish that Mr. Charles 
had given some slight abstract of its’ 
contents), we cannot pronounce on its 
relation to the main book. As regards the 
general question, I should like to enter a 
humble protest against the sweeping asser- 
tions which are current that a very large 
number of Jewish Apocalypses existed, of 
which neither wola nor westigium remains. 
The more I see of the literature the less am 
I inclined to believe that any considerable 
proportion of it has disappeared and left 
no record of its existence. This is by the 
way: in the case of the Book of Enoch, is 
it so certain that the various portions of 
that book were current separately? It 
seems fairly clear that there must have 
been an Apocalypse of Noah which has been 
broken up and interspersed over the Book 
of Enoch: but will not the hypothesis that 
the Enochian portions were written to 
occupy their present position by successive 
authors meet the case ? 

On p. 5 we encounter for the first time 
the curious variant of Hallévi for Halevy, 
which, as_ Dillmann (J. c.) notes, is a 
frequent feature: On the same footing 
with this I would place a number of rather 
uncouth names and words which do not 
seem to be either necessary or expedient : 
‘J. Hyrcanus’ (p. 7), ‘Judas Maccabee’ 
(p. 9), ‘the Book of Enoch was made’ 
(=translated: p. 22), ‘Apocalyptic’ as a 
substantive (p. 27), ‘schema’ (p. 28). 

On p. 47 is a very odd note, which runs 
thus: ‘ Zpistle to the Hebrews. This Epistle 
was probably written by Barnabas. As we 
have seen above (p. 38) this writer cites 
Enoch as Scripture in the Epistle which 
goes by his name.’ It would be cruel to 
suppose that Mr. Charles thinks that one 
and the same man could possibly have 
written both the Epistles alluded to: but I 
really cannot make anything else of the 
note. IJoAAG wrafomev Graves ‘we are all 
of us weak at times,’ and if I cite some 
more slips it is because I hope that Mr. 
Charles will correct them in a future 
edition, which his book certainly deserves 
to reach. In dealing with the ancient 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 45 


testimonies and fragments he has made 
some omissions. J cannot find anywhere in 
his book a full reprint of Jude 15, a passage 
to which, of course, he repeatedly alludes. 
It is unfortunate, also, that he did not 
know of the Latin version of the same 
passage which Zahn (V7ZTichen Kanon, ii. 2, 
798) quotes from the Anonymus contra 
Novatianum 16.1. The testimony of Pris- 
cillian (De fide et apocryphis: ed. Schepss, 
p- 44) should have been cited ; and there 
is no allusion in the Introduction to a 
possible influence of Enoch upon Hermas. 

The Greek fragment Ixxxix. 42—49 is 
here simply said to have been ‘ published by 
Mai from a Vatican MS. and deciphered by 
Gildemeister.’ We ought, I think, to have 
been told what the MS. was, what it con- 
tained, and why a Greek MS. required to 
be ‘deciphered.’ The fact is that the 
fragment is written in tachygraphic charac- 
ters. In a note on p. 238 we hear of 
the ‘glosser of the Greek fragment’: but 
we are not told what his glosses con- 
sist of. 

I have more serious complaints of the 
treatment of the Gizeh fragment: I cannot 
agree with Mr. Charles (Pref. p. vill.) that 
his edition of it is altogether ‘free from the 
serious blemishes of M. Bouriant’s edition.’ 
No doubt the words and clauses omitted by 
the first editor appear here: but on the 
other hand it seems to me quite impractic- 
able to gather from Mr. Charles’s text and 
apparatus criticus exactly what the text of 
the MS, is. This isa grave fault. More- 
over, in ¢c. xx.—xxi. 9, we are suddenly 
confronted with a double Greek text, of the 
existence of which no explanation is to be 


found. Those who have examined the 
facsimile of the Gizeh MS. will have 


discovered (probably with considerable difli- 
culty) that the MS. begins with the text of 
xx.—xxi. 9, and then, in the middle of a 
line, goes back to i. 1, and that the second 
text of xx.—xxi. 9, recurs in its proper 
place. But Mr. Charles ought to have 
stated this quite clearly in his book. 

With reference to the Latin fragment 
which I was so fortunate as to find in a 
British Museum MS8., I have two corrections 
to make: first, the press mark of the 
volume is 5. E. xiii. not 8. E. xiii. ; for this 
my own handwriting may probably be to 
blame ; next, I hope and believe that I did 
not say that the fragment ‘follows a peni- 


1 | should here like to note that both in this fragment 
and in the longer Latin fragment recently found by 
me in the British Museum nuntius is used as an 
equivalent of &yyeados. 


tential edict of S. Boniface and is preceded 
by’ another document. 

I have now to note some omissions in the 
survey of the more modern literature about 
the Book of Enoch, which seem to me 
unfortunate. Grabe’s edition of the Syn- 
cellus-fragments (Spicil. Sacr. i. 344 sqq.), 
Fabricius’s reprint and additional remarks 
(Cod. Pseud. V. T. i. 160), De Sacy’s trans- 
lation of a few chapters of the Ethiopic, 
Gfrérer’s Latin version of Laurence’s 
translation in the Prophetae Pseudepigraphi, 
and the curious Enoch restitutus of Murray, 
should, I think, all have been mentioned, 
but in particular the first three: De Sacy’s 
extracts I believe preceded Laurence’s 
translation. Probably the first appearance 
of the Syncellus-fragments in English was 
in an appendix to a translation of the Letter 
of Aristeas. JI will transcribe the title- 
page. ‘The History of the Angels and 
their Gallantry with the Daughters of Men. 
Written by Enoch the Patriarch. Publish’d 
in Greek by Dr. Grabe. Made English by 
Mr. Lewis of Corpus Christi College in 
Oxford. London: printed for J. Hooke 
and IT. Caldecott, against St Dunstan’s 
Church in Fleetstreet. MDCCXV.’ 

The references to Enoch in Rabbinic 
Literature (mentioned on p. 38) ought also 
to have been quoted: English readers would 
have been grateful for a full treatment of 
them. 

I have some fault to find with the 
arrangement of the book. The critical and 
the exegetical notes are separated : but it 
seems to me that not unfrequently matter 
appears in the former which is more 
appropriate to the latter. The relegation 
of the Gizeh text to an appendix has been 
already explained : there can be no doubt 
that it is productive of considerable incon- 
venience to the reader. The system of 
special introductions to the various sections 
of the book is theoretically good, but here 
again I find in practice that it is difficult to 
tell whether particular points will be found 
treated in the general or in the special 
introductions. 

With Mr. Charles’s views of the relation 
of Enoch to other canonical or apocryphal 
books one must agree to a large extent, 
though many of the individual passages 
which he adduces I for one should strike 
out. That is natural. But with his 
‘Essay on the Meaning of the Term “the 
Son of Man ”’ (appendix B, p. 312) I have 
this quarrel, that I cannot understand it. 
After having read it I must confess that I 
doubted, and still doubt, whether the writer 


44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


had an absolutely clear conception before 
him of what he wished to say. The subject 
is of course a very difficult and thorny one : 
but it cannot be impossible to treat it 
simply and clearly. Such an expression as 
this, ‘to subsume the complete connotation ’ 
of a name, is really not necessary: one 
would welcome even a dozen lines of English 
paraphrase as a substitute. 

I have said frankly what I think of Mr. 
Charles’s work. The faults are all of them 
such as can easily be eliminated in a future 
edition of the book. To that edition we 
shall look forward eagerly. In the mean- 
time we can heartily thank Mr. Charles 


. Charles’s 


for what he has given us. The work has 
been extremely difficult, and in the main it 
has been very well done. 

It is good news that Mr. Morfill’s trans- 
lation of the Slavonic noch, and Mr. 
introduction and notes thereto 
are likely to appear in a few months’ time. 
The sooner the better. There is a very | 
wide field of apocryphal and legendary 
literature now in process of being opened 
up in Slavonic: and it is very pleasant to 
see that English scholars are entering upon’ 
the exploration of it. j 

M. R. James. 


THIELE ON HERMAGORAS. 


Hermagoras: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der 
Rhetorik, von GrorG THIELE. Strassburg : 
K. J. Triibner. 1893. 8vo. pp. 202. Price 
6 Mk. 


Tue brief and scanty notices of Herma- 
goras given by Cicero, Quintilian, and later 
writers on rhetoric suffice to show that he 
held a position of considerable importance 
in the development of the subject, but 
leave many points in need of further eluci- 
dation. One of the earliest efforts of a 
scholar who did much useful work in his 
time, Dr. K. W. Piderit, was a ‘ programm’ 
De Hermagora rhetore (1839) ; and since that 
date more than one meritorious attempt has 
been made to discuss his system and the 
nature of his influence. But even Volk- 
mann’s valuable treatise left much to be 
desired, especially from the historical point 
of view; for he made no serious endeavour 
to place him in his true relation to his 
predecessors and his successors. Dr. Thiele 
has therefore done good service to a study, 
which, whatever we may think of its 
intrinsic value, has an important place in 
the history of human thought, by taking 
up the question afresh, and submitting it 
toa very careful re-examination. He has 
done so in one of the daintiest little 
volumes which have ever come from the 
press, an almost startling contrast in its 
thick smooth paper and exquisite type, 
Greek Roman and Italic alike, to the 
eye-ruining abominations which used to be 
considered good enough for German dis- 
quisitions on the classics. Neither the 
Clarendon nor the Pitt Press has ever 


turned out more artistic work than that 
which the University Press at Bonn has 
done for Mr. Triibner. It. is something of 
a shock to find this ‘lepidus novus libellus’ 
not containing a translation of Catullus, or 
a revised text of Horace, but an elaborate 
discussion of the precise significance of 
some of the technicalities of an obsolete 
and artificial system of rhetoric. But the 
work was worth doing, and it has been done 
very well. 

Dr Thiele begins by collecting the testt- 
monia and fragments of Hermagoras, from 
which it comes out clearly that his influence, 
great as it was. for a time, by degrees 
waned and became finally extinct. In 
Cicero’s time the system of Hermagoras 
was stiil an object of lively discussion : but 
Quintilian has very vague notions about it ; 
and the Byzantine scholiasts give only a 
few traditional catch-words, though Augus- 
tine gives some valuable information as to 
his system. The necessity of a careful 
determination of his date is evident from 
the very unsatisfactory and largely erron- 
eous article upon him in Sir W. Smith’s 
Dictionary of Biography. It seems to be 
clearly made out that Hermagoras of 
Temnos flourished not less than 150 years 
B.c., and it is probable that he was to some 
extent indebted to the school of Stoic 
rhetoricians at Pergamum, on whose ac- 
tivity so much light has been thrown by 
recent researches. But Dr. Thiele argues 
with considerable force that the extent of 
this debt has been exaggerated, and that it 
was only some portions of the Stoic termin- 
ology which had become current coin, and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 45 


not the essential structure of his system 
which he owed to them. The repeated 
appearance of a four-fold division may also 
have been suggested by the division may 
also have been suggested by the four Stoic 
categories. But the corner-stone, the defini- 
tion of the subject-matter of rhetoric as 
fntjpara mwohitixd, @.e. questions concerning 
man as a citizen of the world, and the 
doctrine of ordces which is closely con- 
nected with it, were sharply attacked by 
Stoic philosophers like Poseidonios. And 
his whole system was in antagonism with 
the less artificial school of rhetoric, which 
found its leading representatives at Rhodes. 
This accounts for the contemptuous refer- 


ences to it in Cicero, who had not forgotten 
the lessons of Apollonius, Dr. Thiele does 
not go too far when he says that for 
Aristotle oratory is still a fine art, based 
upon a thorough philosophical training, 
while for Hermagoras it is a handicraft, 
working by patterns. 

On some detailed points of exposition and 
of criticism Dr. Thiele’s conclusions might 
be challenged: but the book contains 
much valuable matter, and is almost indis- 
pensable to the student of the treatise 
ad Herennium and of Cicero’s De Inven- 
tione, 

A. 8. WILKIns. 


KENYON ON GREEK PAPYRI IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 


Greek Papyri in the British Museum, edited 
by F. G. Kenyon, M.A., Fellow of Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford. London. 1893. 
£7 15s. 


THE collection of papyri in the British Mu- 
seum represents a series of acquisitions 
which must extend over a great number of 
years, from at least the beginning of the 
present century ; and it bears such marks 
of gradual and imperfect arrangement as 
might naturally be expected in a mass of 
documents accumulated over long periods 
of time and reduced to order by persons of 
very unequal administrative capacity. The 
first attempt at classification seems, as far 
as we can judge from the catalogues which 
have come down to us, to have consisted in 
the division of the papyri into two classes, 
one of which contained the Egyptian and 
Demotic papyri, while the second contained 
the Greek, Latin and Coptic scripts, which 
were numbered successively, apparently in 
the order of their acquisition. It was not 
until 1863 that the Coptic papyri were re- 
moved to the custody of the Oriental de- 
partment and assigned to a separate classifi- 
eation. The Latin papyri remain in the 
same tabular arrangement with the Greek, 
and, as we observe that the latest Latin ac- 
quisitions, both those which are announced 
in the volumes that are before us and those 
which have been acquired since the publica- 
tion of these volumes, are placed in series 
with the rest of the Greek and Latin texts, 
I suppose we may conclude that, unless some 
monumental find of Latin documents should 


take place, the Latin texts are to continue 
with the mass of Greek documents under 
the heading ‘Greek and Latin papyri’ and 
that, as far as is practicable, they will be 
treated as one collection. We have then a 
dual arrangement of papyri, the Egyptian 
and the non-Egyptian. It is an unfortu- 
nate one in this respect, that many of the 
demotice papyri have Greek registers, and so 
are of importance to the student of Greek 
papyri; and further, if it should happen, as 
is extremely likely, that a find should be 
made of bilingual documents in Greek and 
Coptic, the two departments of the Museum 
will find a difficulty in disposing of the com- 
pound texts. 

Another curious thing with regard to the 
Museum arrangement is that while relegat- 
ing the Coptic papyri to a separate class, the 
catalogue has preserved, even in its latest 
form, amongst the papyri, a number of 
fragments of vellum. It is reasonable to 
suppose that it is the intention of the au- 
thorities to leave these fragments in the 
series where we find them, for they are ap- 
parently a modern acquisition ; probably 
the explanation of the anomaly lies in the 
fact that Egyptian excavations, especially 
those in the Faytim, often bring to light 
fragments of vellum as well as fragments of 
papyrus, and there is some reason in keep- 
ing together things which are found in the 
same place and are recovered at the same 
time. But it must be admitted that if this 
reasoning is good for scraps of vellum in a 
papyrus collection, it is equally good for 
papyri in Coptic and Arabie which may be 


46 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


found associated with Greek or Latin re- 
mains. The fact is that every arrangement 
is a compromise between different principles 
of classification, If we propose to classify 
by putting the actual finds together, we 


must register ostraka and wooden tablets as - 


well as papyrus and vellum, as has been 
done in the great collection at Vienna ; if 
we propose to classify the materials we lose 
sight of the unity of the discoveries, which 
is often a matter of great importance ; and 
if we simply divide the texts according to 
the tongues represented, we are in difficul- 
ties the moment we come across a bilingual 
text. It seems clear, therefore, that some 
compromise is necessary in the arrangement; 
we cannot afford to lose sight of the 
material, nor can we altogether desert the 
linguistic arrangement. Hence the classifi- 
cation of the present catalogue. We think, 
however, that it would have been better if 
the vellum scraps had been removed from 
the table of papyri, where we should not 
naturally have looked for them, and classi- 
fied with the ordinary vellum codices. 

When we examine more closely the mag- 
nificent volumes before us, an atlas of repro- 
ductions far in advance of anything that has 
yet been accomplished in the scientific re- 
presentation of documents, and a volume of 
letter-press containing the transcribed texts 
and prolegomena, we are astonished at the 
amount of work that has been done in this 
department, and more astonished still to see 
how much of it has been done in recent 
times, and by a single pair of eyes. For it 
is due to Mr. Kenyon’s skill and industry 
that the publication of the classical and 
other papyri of the National Collection has 
been brought up to date, so that it is now 
comparatively easy for the Museum to keep 
level with its acquisitions by a periodical 
publication. The table of papyri shows 
that Mr. Kenyon has edited the Politeta of 
Aristotle (in itself a piece of work worthy 
of a single life), he has edited the Mimiambi 
of Herodas, has published fragments of 
Homer, Isocrates, Hyperides, Demosthenes, 
Tryphon the grammarian (all of which with 
the exception of the Aristotle are to be 
found in the volume of Classical Texts in 
the British Museum); and he has now 
brought out a complete collection of all the 
lesser and non-literary papyri in the Museum, 
including leases and petitions, books of 
magic and horoscopes, wills and accounts, a 
mass of material ranging from the third 
century before Christ down to the seventh 
century of the era. No one can appreciate 
the skill and labour involved in these tran- 


scriptions unless he has been actually en- 
gaged in them or has, like ourselves, followed 
Mr. Kenyon’s lead through the perplexity 
of the various hands, signs and abbrevia- 
tions of the documents. 

As we have said above, it will be com- 
paratively easy now to keep the publication 
of new documents level with their acquisi- 
tion. And the British Museum is constantly ~ 
acquiring fresh material. This material 
will be advertised in the successive Cata- 
logues of Additions to the MSS., of which a 
new number (for the years 1888-1893) is in 
the press. How extensive it is may be 
imagined from the observation that the 
latest number entered in the publication 
before us is cxxxviii., but the actual cata- 
rogue now runs up to cclv., amongst which 
fresh numbers we had recently the pleasure 
of examining a third century fragment of a 
Greek Psalter, which was interesting not 
only as being an early text, but as contain- 
ing the same colometric arrangement which 
is found in the Vatican and Sinaitic codices. 
There are also some fragments from a 
mummy-case of the second century before 
Christ and other interesting material. 

And now let us turn to the actual docu- 
ments contained in the two volumes. We 
have premised that the student must not 
look in this collection for the most famous 
papyri of the Museum. The great classical 
texts must be sought for in the separate 
publications of Babington, Goodwin, Wes- 
sely, Kenyon, &e. It is unfortunate that 
no attempt is made to give a complete list 
of the various books and articles that deal 
with the Museum papyri. The editor apo- 
logizes for his tabular references as being 
restricted to official publications, but if this 
be the case, why is Tischendorf’s work 
referred to, or articles in the Archeologia? 

The present volume, then, consists chiefly 
of non-literary papyri, and is arranged as 
far as possible by subjects and dates. But 
here again no single system of arrangement 
is possible. Roughly speaking, the paleo- 
graphical classification of the texts would 
be under the heads of Ptolemaic, Roman 
and Byzantine papyri. The actual classifi- 
cation is made as follows: Serapeum docu- 
ments, magic papyri, accounts, and Fayiim 
documents. The classification is invited by 
the fact that the British Museum contains 
a large share of the scattered papers from 
Memphis, relating to the misfortunes of the 
twin sisters in the Serapeum. These must 
be treated together, and the Ptolemaic 
papyri naturally are grouped with them. 

The Roman period contains the major 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 47 


part of the public and private accounts, the 
most important of all being a Farm-book of 
the time of Vespasian (on the back of 
which is the text of Aristotle’s Politeca) ; 
to the same period belong the great magic 
papyri, and the principal Horoscopes. Last 
of all the British Museum share (a small 
one compared with those of Berlin and 
Vienna) of the great discoveries in the 
Faytm constitutes a separate section, which 
would naturally be treated under a single 
heading, as they belong chiefly to the time 
of the Byzantine domination in Egypt. A 
few miscellaneous documents conclude the 
book. We will first speak of the paleo- 
graphical value of these documents. No 
one will work through a collection like this 
without observing that paleography is a 
science with is undergoing constant revision 
and correction. It is not so many years 
since that it was commonly held that the 
majority of vellum MSS. were susceptible 
of a reasonably exact dating ; in spite of 
the fact that there is hardly a dated docu- 
ment extant amongst early vellum codices, 
MSS. have been assigned to the different 
centuries with a confidence that savours 
more of intuition than of knowledge. It was 
assumed that vertical uncials were early, 
and sloping uncials late, nor was it common 
in the latter case to assign a document to an 
earlier period than the seventh or eighth 
century. When however we turn to the 
British Museum volumes we find that a 
famous magic papyrus written in neat slop- 
ing uncials is assigned (with some slight 
hesitation) to the fourth century. It is 
evident that the theory of dating of vellum 
MSS. will need a radical reform. When 
we turn from vellum MSS. to papyrus we 
find some surprising changes. The famous 
papyrus psalter of Tischendorf, to which he 
used to assign such a fabulous antiquity, 
has under the criticism of Gardthausen and 
others, as well as under the light from 
further study of papyri, dropped to the 
seventh century ; and it is quite an open 
question whether it ought not to come 
lower. It is fortunate for Tischendorf that 
he is dead. If he were alive he would have 
had to confess that he knew very little 
indeed about the date of a papyrus. 

If some documents have had to come 
down, poetical justice requires that others 
should go up. It is not so long since that 
the Paleographical Society published a plate 
of what they called a Money-bill from 
Thebes, a little scrap of writing on wood, 
relating to certain financial difficulties 
arising out of the burial of an [bis and the 


cost of its funeral sermon. The dating of 
that fragment with its peculiar script, 
and of similar documents amongst the 
Petrie papyri, has carried with it a number 
of other documents which were formerly 
assigned to a later period. ‘The hand- 
writing is cursive to the last degree, but 
for all that it is a hand of the third century 
B.c. The reader will be careful to notice 
the change that has taken place in the 
dating of the papyri marked t1a., and 
cyt. The former is dated in the text circa 
150 z.c.: but the preface to the work 
advises us to carry it back to the third 
century: the latter was placed either in 
157 or 146 B.c.: but here again we are 
advised to correct the date to B.c. 261 or 
p.c. 223. It appears, therefore, that we have 
now a number of documents assigned to the 
third century before Christ, and these are 
our earliest monuments for the study of 
Greek paleography. They are a curiously 
bad script, but easily to be recognised. It 
will be seen that on every hand paleography 
is making the corrections proper to progres- 
sive science: nor need we despair of the ulti- 
mate dating of vellum MSS, with an accuracy 
that we cannot at present lay any claim to. 

When we pass from the consideration 
of the writing to the contents of the 
papyri, we find fresh light on a mass of 
matters relating to public and private life. 
Probably those which have interested us as 
much as any are the magic papyri. ‘To most 
people these are very void of attraction. 
The recipes for raising spirits or for seeing 
one’s own double, side by side with plans for 
detecting thieves and for the expulsion of 
vermin, are in themselves stupid enough ; 
but, inasmuch as these things are a part of 
the life of the people, and therefore react 
largely upon the literature of the people, 
we ought not to neglect them simply because 
we find them made up largely of Coptic, 
Hebrew and Syriac Abracadabra. Magic 
is too near a relative of religion to be left 
unstudied. We will give an instance of the 
reaction of magic upon religious literature, 
which we came across in our reading not 
long since. 

The famous legends of the Finding of the 
Holy Cross by Helena have been published 
from a number of early texts (two Syriac 
forms by Nestle from those in the British 
Museum, and a sixth century Latin by 
Holder) and I have myself transcribed a 
seventh or eighth century Greek uncial 
text of the legend from a MS. in the library 
on Mt. Sinai. These curious legends have 
been written by a person who was skilled 


48 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


in magic and acquainted with magic 
formulae. The story records that the 
Empress Helena, unable to force the Rabbis 
to disclose the place where the Cross of 
Christ was hidden, takes the youngest of 


the Rabbis, a youth named Judas, and puts - 


him at the bottom of a dry well until he 
shall furnish the necessary information. 
After seven days of starvation, Judas sur- 
renders and promises to find the Cross : he is 
brought up and recites the following Hebrew 
prayer : 


AKPAAK - PABPIMI - AAMMEAAWX - AZZAHA 

ZWHOEN - PAYOIOY - BAPOYKKAOA - AAWNAIE - EAWI 
MNANE - AAEDIAWN’: BAPOYXATA - CIAMWP 

AMAMWP = IAHM - AAWNABEIP - AAWNAI - 

BEAEMWN - KAOA - EAWEIM - AXHA - AAAAYA 

NAME XW - EAXMAPW - IPOBA - ICTPHA 

AZAZIP - ABPANWKAOA +: AMHN 


Of this prayer we have an absurd and 
impossible Greek translation to the follow- 
ing effect : 

‘Maker of Heaven and Earth, thou that 
sittest upon the Chariot of the Cherubim, 
which swim in aerial courses, in immeasur- 
able light where mortal nature cannot pass, 
etc., ete. 

It is evident that the writer had no know- 
ledge whatever of the Hebrew which he 
professes to transcribe. And it is a waste 
of time (as we know by sad experience) to 
try and reconstruct the original Hebrew 
words of Judas’ prayer from the jargon of 
the MSS. Jét zs the jargon, as it stands, 
that must be printed. The fact is that the 
sentences are taken from a book of magical 
formulae, very similar to those which are 
found in the magic papyri of the Museum : 
and, as the editor of the Museum papyri 
remarks over the similar cases which occur 
in his texts, ‘we cannot hope to extract a 
connected or coherent sense from most of 
these passages. Formulae of this descrip- 
tion, handed down orally for some consider- 
able period, and recited without much 
attention to their meaning, soon became 
distorted and corrupt.’ The conclusion at 
which we have arrived with regard to the 
use of magic formulae in the famous legends 
to which we have referred will probably 
also lead us to see the influence of magical 
ideas in the main body of the legend. The 
search after lost property is one of the 
leading questions for which appeal is made 
to a magician: and it is very likely that 
this was the reason for the introduction of 
the formulae and for putting Judas at the 
bottom of a well, divination by means of a 
boy in a pit being one of the accepted 
methods. If ous is right, Mr. Kenyon 


ought in his text of the Divination of Serapis 
to read 
a 
pav SapamiaKov 
. Ta.oos ext Avxvov Kat piadys 
kat BoOpov. 


and not Bafpov as printed by him, against 
Wessely and Goodwin. 

But we must not spend more time over 
the magic spells, and will leave them with 
the ‘remark that when in an early Christian 
document, or semi-Christian documents, we 
find strings of quasi-Hebrew or Syriac 
words, we may suspect the hand of the 
student of magic. The convent library on 
Mt. Sinai has further magical jargon in 
the account of. the death of Judas who 
found the Holy Cross ; and there are similar 
phenomena to be traced in other patristic _ 
texts. 

Perhaps the most stupid of all the 
forms of divination in the Museum texts is 
the long papyrus which contains random 
verses of Homer: Homeric sortes would 
seem to have been highly developed, when 
we find that the author himself has been 
set on one side, and replaced by a selection 
of 216 verses. The only interesting thing 
about this papyrus is its numeration of the 
successive verses; they are not numbered 
successively but according to the following 
scheme 


aaa aBa 

aa a3 
? ” 

as aBbS 


and so on down to ¢¢¢ = 666. 


The reason for this odd arrangement is 
that, by means of three throws with a die of 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 49 


six faces, the person who is asking his 
fortune may be able to select a verse out of 
the 216 verses that have been transcribed, 
216 being the cube of six, and the number 
of possible throws. The verses however, 
seem to be a singularly stupid collection, 
and the oracle must have often needed an 
interpretation. 


We must bring our remarks to a con- 
clusion. The whole volume is one of much 
interest, and its production is worthy of no 
ordinary thanks. The transcriptions, more- 
over, will be found peculiarly accurate, and 
a marvel of eye-sight as wel] as insight. 

J. Renpet Harris. 


FENNELL’S PINDAR, THE OLYMPIAN AND PYTHIAN ODES. 


Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes, 
edited with Notes, Introductions, and 
Essays, by C. A. M. Fennetz, LL.D. 
Cambridge, at the University Press, 
1893. 9s. 


‘Tuts edition is virtually a new work,’ Mr. 
Fennell tells us in his Preface. In the 
earlier edition, published a good many years 
ago, there was much that was incomplete 
and that would inevitably be modified by 
later studies. The present edition, though 
it has some flaws, is perhaps the safest and 
most pleasing commentary on Pindar extant 
in English. 

The introduction is unequal. At page 
xiil, and onwards there is an admirable, and 
at the same time very simple, account of 
Pindar’s poetic genius. At page xxii. again 
Mr. Fennell lays it down that Pindar ‘ mixes 
metaphors, not confusedly, but by rapid and 
daring leaps from one to another,’ and in his 
commentary he defends Ol. vi. 82, ddéav 
éxw tw’ ext yAdoou aKxovas Avyupas K.T.A., a 
passage which has been often denounced or 
emended. This swiftness of transition has 
not always been allowed for by editors, 
though they probably would not be at all 
offended by such a passage as this in 
English :— 


Surely the ditter and the rooted love 

That burns between us, going from me to 
thee, 

Shall more endure than all things. 


At page xix. Mr. Fennell has some very 
sensible remarks on the subject of ‘signals’ 
or verbal echoes. His conclusion is that 
‘Tautometric responsion of single words is 
as a rule without significance and may some- 
times be due to chance.’ The last paragraph 
on page xxxii. conveys no clear idea to the 
unmusical reader—it may even be doubted 
whether a musician would see his way 
NO. LXVI. VOL. VIII, 


through it. In the pages which follow 
there is some confusion of ideas, as in 
writing -_|_ + || and in making - > = 1.) 
(top of page xxxiv.). The symbol - > 
was devised to denote two long syllables 
which were not to be taken as de ‘The 


Aeolian odes read admirably as _prose- 
poetry’ (p. xxv.) justifies a rather objection- 
able proceeding—taking a work of art in 
some other way than that which its creator 
intended. The account of the MSS. on 
page xxxvi. is too slight to be worth printing 
at all—a summary of Mommsen and Lehrs, 
on texts and scholia, extending over two or 
three pages, would have been undoubtedly 
useful. 

Mr. Fennell prefixes to each Ode a general 
introduction—sometimes headed by a very 
serviceable chronological table—an analysis 
of the metre, and an analysis of the contents. 
The last is rather unsatisfactory and mis- 
leading, for a mere enumeration of the topics 
of a Pindaric Ode necessarily gives the 
impression of disconnectedness. The general 
introductions are good and complete. In 
the metrical analyses, Mr. Fennell works 
upon a principle which is of more value 
than some of the theories expounded in 
the introduction to the book. The principle 
is to designate by letters the chief recurrent 
phrases of an ode and then write out its 
structure by their help. If he had carried 
this out in a lucid and consistent way, he 
might have rendered some service to the 
student of Pindar. But he sometimes 
recognizes phrases which, while they may 
have some musical justification, are far from 
convincing to the ordinary reader. Thus in 
Ol. ix. one of the constitutive phrases of 
the piece is set down as v|~_ || OF 
.|_ A, (B), and the last line is analyzed 
BEA, Baie tte lh be | my yall aime) 
— clu Making a xéddov begin with 
a contracted foot is his favourite device, 

E 


50 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Thus the first line of O/. i. 1 is read: 
Pee thru gall i eo le ieee 
mud the: Second 4) | |e eee 
—vl|l_>]. Mr. Fennell here speaks of 
‘the inevitable symmetry which results 
from J. H. H. Schmidt’s method as well as 
from mine’: the symmetry found by the 
latter may be trustworthy—that is another 
enquiry—but his own period 3, 4, 2, 4, 1 
does not on the face of it look ‘ inevitable.’ 

I append a few notes on particular 
passages. 

Ol. ii. 78, TnAevs te kai Kadmos ev rotow 
aX€yovra. ‘adéyovrar, ‘are numbered 
among them,’ requires illustration. The 
best parallel is to be found in the zap6énov 
of Aleman, otov od Avkaicov ev Kapodow 
aAdéyw, ‘I count him not among the dead.’ 

Ol. v. 10, deidea ev adoos ayvov is not so 
obviously intelligible as to require no note. 
Is it ‘fills with song,’ as we have in the 
passive atActras d¢ wav | €Aabpov, or is it like 
dv matép "“Axpwv’ €exkapuée Kal Tov véoiKov 
copay, makes the theme of heralds or of 
singers, heralds or sings ‘by an agent’ as 
Mark Twain would say ? 

Ol. vii. 49, ‘note that P.’s point is to 
show—.’ This is the evil example of 
Gildersleeve! The cost of printing ‘ Pindar’ 
in full is not so enormous as to justify an 
editor in causing irritation to a large class 
of sensitive readers. 

Pyth. i. 76, apéowar | tap pev Sadapivos 
’"AGavaiwy xapw | pioOov x.7.X. ‘I shall win 
from Salamis the gratitude of the Athenians 
as my reward.’ Has it never been sug- 
gested that this is a simple case of Xtacpds ? 
Tapa pev’APavaiwy apéowor picbdv Sadapivos 
Xap, év Srdpta oé «.7.X. Is it more puzzling 
than Aristophanes’ words in the Peace 


53 \ \ > BQ? ¢€ X , 2) aS 

6 Zeis pev ovv of0 as Ta ToUTwY pap’ ew’ «i 
7K 

mvOour’ dy érurpipee 


or than a passage where Mr. Fennell himself 
recognizes ‘interlacing’ of words, Pyth. 
iv. 24, dvix’ dyxvpav ott xadkdyev vat 
Kpnpvdvrwv ér€érooce (dyk. xadk. orl vat Kp.) 4 
Another passage where ‘interlacing’ should 


be recognized is Ol. ii. 63, dr. Oavévtwv pev 


evOad avrix’ dmddapvor dpéves x.t.\. Mr. 


Fennell rejects Rauchenstein’s explanation 


on the ground of the position of ‘ évOd8e’ !1 
Pyth, iii. 34, érel rapa BoBiddos kpnuvotow 
wxe. Tapbévos. An unpleasing and unneces- 


sary note of Mr, Fennell’s occupies space: 


which would have been better filled by 
quoting the graceful opening of one of the 
"Hota 


7) otn Adiviovs tepods vaiovea Kohwvovds 

Aoriw év rediv toAvBotpvos av’ *“Apdpoto 

vivato BouBiddos Aiuvys 76da tapHévos aduys. 
(fr. 142, Kinkel.) 


Very likely Pindar had this passage in 
mind. 

Pyth. iv.57. Mr. Fennell does not venture 
upon a theory about 7 pa.- But surely it is 
a thing about which an editor must say 
something. Is it the Homeric ‘spoke,’ with 
the schema Pindaricum ? 

Ib. 105, ovr’ eros eitpdredov. He suggests 
ovte Féros tpameAdv, ‘shifty.’ But is not 
evzpateAov the happiest possible expression— 
‘frivolous,’ a euphemism for ‘ disrespectful ’ 
or ‘insulting’ ! 

Ib. 189, érawyjoas ‘ gave praise to each.’ 
Mr. Myers’ ‘thanked them’ is more 


exact. 
W. R. Harpie. 


1 Demos. Ol. ii. 30 is a prose passage where 
Chiasmus has sometimes been ignored, ef 5€ To?s wey 
damep x Tupavvidos tua@v emitarrew amodwoeETE K.T.A. 
The construction is tots pwev buay, not tupavvidos 
DMV, 


RUSHFORTH’S LATIN HISTORICAL INSCRIPTIONS. 


Latin Historical Inscriptions, by G. Mc N. 
RusurortH, M.A. Clarendon Press. 10s. 


Tus book is very significant of the change 
which has come over the teaching of ancient 
—and especially perhaps of Roman—history 
in Oxford in the course of the last fifteen or 
twenty years. Those who can recollect the 
ordinary history lectures in—say the early 
seventies—will remember that they consisted 


very much of summaries, not so much of facts 
as of tendencies, and of generalisations, more 
or less wide, based on these as to the social 
or political characteristics of a particular 
period. The lectures were often highly 
suggestive, but they were suggestive of the 
ultimate results of historical investigation, 
not of the process of constructing history. 
The student learnt from them the faculty 
of writing extremely good essays on his- 


i 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 51 


torical results, but he was comparatively 
seldom allowed any insight into the processes 
by which the lecturers, or their German 
authorities, arrived at these results from 
the original data on which of course he had 
some vague idea that they depended. ‘There 
was a tendency in those days rather to look 
down upon the man who had the reputation 
of ‘knowing his books,’ and a ‘First’ 
gained by such knowledge, as it was reported 
to be sometimes, was somewhat of a ‘lusus 
naturae’ and argued a certain amount of 
eccentricity on the part of examiners. A 
few years later one used to hear at a dis- 
tance from Oxford that cases of this kind 
were becoming commoner, and without know- 
ing exactly what the change really meant, 
one had perhaps an uneasy—perhaps a com- 
placent—idea that a First in Greats was not 
what it had been. Asa matter of fact the 
change was a wholly good one, at least as 
far as history was concerned, and it was 
due very largely to Prof. Pelham’s teaching 
and influence. Even in the days I have 
alluded to, his lectures were beginning to be 
an exception to the general rule, and his 
hearers had many more references and cita- 
tions given them than they perhaps quite 
knew what to do with. But Prof. Pelham 
was then only one among many; now he 
stands in a position by himself, and those 
who come nearest to him are his own pupils 
who carry out the method which they have 
learnt from him. And that method con- 
sists in going back to the sources of history, 
accepting no generalisation which is not 
based on and cannot be traced back to— 
evidence, the evidence of classical writers 
critically weighed, the evidence of inscrip- 
tions and coins, the evidence in fact of 
archaeological data of any sort. Treated 
in this way the teaching of history is a 
training in scientific method, a distinct 
preparation for original work. It is of 
course possible to carry this tendency too 
far. The collection of evidence, the multi- 
plication of citations, the consideration of 
‘fontes’ are in truth only means to an 
end—the historical reconstruction of the 
past, and possibly Oxford lectures some- 
times a little lose sight of this, and tend to 
become a little scrappy, a little too crowded 
with evidence, brought together with a 
view more of showing how much evidence 
we have, than of developing the conclusions 
to be drawn from it. If the book before 
us in any way suggests this last remark, it 
is more because there is a certain want of 
proportion and perspective in Mr. Rush- 
forth’s work than from any failure to recog- 


nise the proper relation between evidence 
and conclusions. It is. perhaps a little 
surprising that Mr. Hicks’s volume of 
Historical Greek Inscriptions has not been 
followed before this by a corresponding book 
on Latin Inscriptions. As Mr. Rushforth 
says, ‘the ordinary student is almost help- 
less in presence not merely of the Corpus 
but even of selections like those of Wil- 
manns’ which do not supply or supply only 
imperfectly ‘the historical setting” on 
which the value of the inscriptions depends. 
Mr. Rushforth has to a certain extent filled 
this gap: if he has not filled it quite suffici- 
ently, as sufficiently as his careful and 
accurate work and his familiarity with the 
literature of the subject would have enabled 
him to do, it is, in addition to some 
faults of arrangement, because he has been 
too anxious to make his book a small one, 
to limit the number of his inscriptions to 
one hundred, and above all to confine him- 
self rigidly within the limits of the period 
usually taken up for the Oxford examina- 
tion. The result is a piece of work which, 
as far as considerable portions of it are 
concerned, can only be described as sketchy, 
a characteristic which is certainly not due 
to any lack of qualifications on Mr. Rush- 
forth’s part to have made it complete, and 
probably not to any undue precipitancy in 
publishing work that is imperfect, but seems 
to be an instance, an unfortunate one in 
this case, of the self-repression which makes 
the work of some scholars so much less full 
than their readers would like to have it. 

To a certain extent indeed Mr. Rushforth 
seems to have wavered between two methods 
of illustrating the historical value of inscrip- 
tions. One method would be to select a 
number of headings such as the Constitution 
of the Principate, the Administration or 
the Frontier policy of the Empire, or of 
particular provinces in it, the Organisation 
of the army or the fleet or the Imperial 
worship, and to show under each heading 
to what an extent epigraphical evidence 
contributes to our knowledge of it. A work 
of this kind would be more or less syste- 
matic ; its value would depend on its com- 
pleteness, and on the cumulative nature of 
the epigraphical evidence. Another method 
would be to show from a series of individual 
inscriptions the kind of information that 
we derive from this sort of evidence, and how 
inscriptions may supplement or correct our 
historical texts. In this case the value of 
the work will depend on the importance of 
the inscriptions selected : there will be less 
room for systematic arrangement, and 

E 2 


52 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


diversity of illustration will be aimed at 
rather than completeness of treatment. <A 
third method, that of chronological arrange- 
ment, followed by Mr. Hicks, is precluded in 
this case by the smallness of the period 
touched upon. 
ostensibly, and as far as outword form goes, 
Mr. Rushforth has chosen the second 
method, while his real object has been the 
exposition of certain branches of organisa- 
tion and administration. The result of this 
fusion of methods has been in some ways 
unfortunate. Anything like a sufficient 
treatment of the various headings would 
require the citation of a number of inscrip- 
tions to illustrate each; but the plan of 
Mr. Rushforth’s book with its hundred 
inscriptions limits him to one or two or at 
most three (I shall mention one or two 
exceptions below) for any particular section, 
while his too serupulous care not to admit 
inscriptions of a date later than 70 a.p. has 
been a still further limitation, and usually 
a quite unnecessary one, to his treatment. 
Except in connexion with matters in which 
a change is known to have taken place after 
Nero, inscriptions belonging to Vespasian’s 
reign or Domitian’s or even Trajan’s would 
have been quite as admissible for Mr. Rush- 
forth’s purpose as those of the earlier prin- 
cipes. He gives one example of this 
himself when he takes two comparatively 
late inscriptions indicating the boundary 
between the two Germanies as the pegs on 
which to hang the few remarks he has to 
make on those provinces. Again Mr. Rush- 
forth has often apparently found it 
impossible within the limits he has placed 
on himself to put really important and 
light-giving inscriptions at the head of his 
sections; and, as his plan precludes him from 
substituting for one or two important ones 
the cumulative evidence of numbers, and he 
has in his exposition somewhat strictly 
limited himself to the evidence of the 
inscriptions he has chosen—in these cases, 
and they are not infrequent, we really get 
the advantages of neither method, we 
neither have striking examples of epi- 
graphical evidence, nor a sufficient exposi- 
tion of the heading under which the 
inscription is placed. Thus under the 
heading of the organisation of Spain we 
have two milestones and an _ inscription 
relating to the pacification of Baetica. Mr. 
Rushforth’s commentary consists of a very 
brief reference to roads in Spain, and to 
the number of legions placed in Tarra- 
conensis. Under the heading—organisation 
of Pannonia, we have the funeral inscrip- 


Now it seems to me that . 


tion of a centurion of legio viii. Aug. 
found near Poetovio, and the commentary 
confines itself to the question whether the 
military boundary of the province extended 
or did not extend to the Danube at the 
time. The commentary on the organisation 
of Syria, based on an inscription interesting 
mainly as an example of an equestrian 
cursus honorum, does nothing more than fix ~ 
the date of the governorship of Quirinius, 
and inform us that the provincial census 
was usually taken by an official of eques- 
trian rank. The section on the colonies of 
Augustus in Pisidia, based on a milestone 
found at Comana, touches the fringes only 
of the Augustan organisation of the 
southern portion of Asia Minor. That on 
the military frontier of Africa does no more 
than fix-on Theveste as the legionary camp 
before Hadrian. The section in Moesia is 
perhaps especially disappointing. Mr. Rush- 
forth chooses the well-known inscription 
which mentions a praefectus civitatium 
Moesiae et Treballiae, and another mention- 
ing the two Moesian legions in 33 A.D. 
With regard to the latter we are merely 
told that their head-quarters are unknown ; 
from the former it is inferred that the 
organisation of the province was still under 
Tiberius in a rudimentary stage, and that it 
was necessary for a special reason to place 
these native communities within the pro- 
vince under a praefectus. But does the 
former statement follow from the latter? 
Mr. Rushforth says that the first mention 
of a legatus is in 6 a.D.: he omits to 
mention Mommsen’s almost certain sup- 
position that the Calpurnius Piso described 
by Dio Cassius (54, 34) as governor of 
Pamphylia in 11 B.c. was really legatus of 
Moesia, in which case the province would 
have been organised for twenty-five years 
at the beginning of Tiberius’ reign. But 
surely the existence of a praefectus for some 
outlying parts of the province no more 
proves Moesia to have been in a rudimentary 
state of organisation than the existence of 
a ‘praefectus orae maritimae conventus 
Tarraconensis’ proves the Spanish province 
to have been, or than the existence of a 
praefectus orae Ponticae proves Pontus to 
have been under Trajan. But Mr. Rush- 
forth has missed a good opportunity in 
Moesia of showing how epigraphical evidence 
may throw light on the organisation of a 
province. The relations between Poppaeus 
Sabinus, who was apparently legate of Moesia 
all through the reign of Tiberius, and other 
people who are also spoken of as its legates 
during the same period are not cleared up 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. | 53 


by the account of Tacitus, but Domaszewski 
has shown by means of an_ inscription 
(C.I.L. xi. 1885 = Wilm. 1138) which falls 
within Mr. Rushforth’s rather narrow 
limits that, owing to the temporary incor- 
poration of Macedonia and Achaia with 
Moesia, the consular legate of Moesia had 
the general administration of all these 
provinces while a praetorian legate also 
described as pro praetore Moesiae had a 
special command of the two Moesian legions 
and the Moesian frontier (hein. Mus. vol. 
xlv. pp. 1—5). 

But if these are instances of somewhat 
incomplete treatment, in other cases Mr. 
Rushforth’s work has been much more 
thorough. His account of the organisation 
of the Tres Galliae and Gallia Narbonensis 
is extremely clear and good ; but then under 
these two headings he has used no fewer 
than eight out of his hundred inscriptions. 
Would not a similar method in other cases 
have produced a similar result? Again his 
account of the Imperial worship in the 
Provinces and Italy, on which he has expended 
fourteen of his inscriptions, is altogether 
admirable and could hardly have been made 
more clear and intelligible; and, generally 
speaking, his treatment of Rome and Italy 
is fuller and better done than his account 
of provincial matters. To a certain extent 
no doubt this is due to the existence of such 
a book as Hirschfeld’s Verwaltungsgeschichte, 
but still a better use has been made of 
the epigraphical material, and above all the 
arrangement is better. It is really the 
arrangement which is the weakest point in 
the book. In the first place its division into 
two parts, one relating to Augustus and the 
other to the succeeding emperors, is awkward 
and, as it is worked out, quite unnecessary. 
If the first part had contained the original 
Augustan arrangements, and the second 
developments from them, the division might 
have been made instructive ; but this is not 
the case or in very few instances, and the 
results are rather such awkward separations 
as that of the two accounts of Armenia on 
pp. 21—22 and p. 126; that of Pannonia 
whichcomes in Part I. from the other Danube 
provinces which all come in Part II. : that 
of the annexation of Egypt in Part I1., from 
its army in Part II., and the double treat- 
ment of the water supply on p. 29 and 
87—89. Again under the heading—Organi- 
sation of the Provinces—we find very little 
indeed that justifies the title. There is 
nothing about the organisation of the 
Spanish provinces, nothing about the organi- 
sation of Syria. What is said about the 


Eastern policy of Augustus does not properly 
belong to this head, while of Pannonia only 
the frontier line is discussed. In Part II. 
everything provincial is included under the 
wide heading Frontiers and Provinces, and 
accordingly we find such heterogeneous sub- 
sections as Roads in Dalmatia, the Cities of 
Asia, the occupation of Frisia, and the 
development of the Canabae. Similarly 
another heading—the emperors and persons 
connected with them—has very miscel- 
laneous contents, personal matters such as 
the position of Julia Augusta or of 
Sejanus or the epitaphs of Agrippina and 
her son Nero, all of which with the excep- 
tion of Sejanus would surely have come 
more appropriately under the Imperial 
family. Then we have isolated references 
to the invasion of Italy in 69, to Civilis and 
the Imperium Galliarum and to the 
attempted revolution in Africa by Clodius 
Macer, and finally an inscription of primary 
importance, the lex de imperio Vespasiani, 
comes in under this personal section ; 
though it would much more naturally have 
been taken in connexion with the constitution 
of the Principate for which by the by Mr. 
Rushforth can apparently find no inscrip- 
tions more appropriate than entries from the 
Fasti Praenestini and the Fasti Feriarum 
Latinarum. Mr. Rushforth’s book would, 
it seems to me, be much improved by a 
radical rearrangement of his material, by 
abolishing the distinction, not worked out 
in a way to make it a real one, between 
Augustus and the succeeding principes, by 
collecting the materials for the provinces 
under two heads Organisation and Frontier 
Policy, by adding sections on the army (many 
of the inscriptions would come more appro- 
priately under this head than any other), 
the system of roads, and the cursus honorum 
both senatorial and equestrian. <A re- 
arrangement of this kind with the addition 
of another fifty inscriptions, as the material 
for a somewhat fuller exposition in certain 
parts of the book, would, I cannot help 
thinking, make the work far more useful 
than it is to the young students for whom 
it is intended. On the other hand, taking 
the book as it is, it deserves a very cordial 
reception, as a piece of exceptionally accu- 
rate work. When Mr. Rushforth really 
gets hold of an important inscription, such 
as the edict of Claudius on the civitas of the 
Anauni or the epitaph of Plautius Silvanus, 
his treatment of it is admirable. It has 
already been noted how thoroughly he has 
illustrated the Imperial worship, and his 
sections on the Canabae, the Praetorian 





54 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Guards and the Augustan administration of 
Rome are all as excellent as they could be. 
There can be no doubt that the book will in 
a great measure answer all the purposes for 
with it was intended: it will serve better 


than any other book as an elementary hand- ~ 


book to Epigraphy: it will supply a good 
deal of historical information and, perhaps 
better still, it will throw a good deal of light 
on the data from which much of the 
Imperial history has to be constructed. 

E. G. Harpy. 


THUMSER’S POLITICAL ANTIQUITIES OF ATHENS. 


K. F. Hermann’s Lehrbuch der griechischen 
Antiquitdten. I. Band, Staatsaltertimer, 
6te Auflage herausgegeben von Viktor 
Thumser. 2te Abteilung: Der athenische 
Staat und seine Geschichte. Freiburg-i.-B. 
1892. 8vo. pp. vii.+529 [273-801]. 
Mk. 12. 


Iv was in 1875 that the fifth edition of this 
well-known handbook was issued. The 
interval of seventeen years between that 
date and the date of Thumsevr’s revision has 
been one of extraordinary activity in the 
field of political and legal antiquities, as in 
other fields of scientific study. Inscriptions 
from all quarters of the Greek world have 
supplemented the previously available 
sources of information, the recovery of 
Aristotle's ’A@nvaiwv zodureta has set in 
motion a train of readjustments of ideas 
that is still in full course, and this great and 
still growing fund of fresh material has 
attracted an increasing number of zealous 
investigators. As was to be expected, 
therefore, many changes were called for, and 
have been made by Thumser, in the earlier 
edition by Bihr and Stark. 

The increase in size is considerable. The 
account of the Athenian state in the fifth 
edition contained 372 pages; this corre- 
sponding Abteilung of the sixth edition 
contains 506 of materially larger size. The 
reviser’s preface calls attention to the small 
number of sections that appear in the sixth 
edition unaltered or but slightly altered. 
Examination shows that the book has in fact 
been so worked over as nearly to constitute, 
as regards contents, a new work; and this 
in spite of the fact that Hermann’s general 
plan, and for the most part the details of 
the old arrangement, have been preserved. 
Most of the headings of sections are 
retained, sometimes with a slight variation 
in wording ; they mostly follow the same 
order, a few new headings being inserted. 
Transpositions in the other Abteilungen have 
caused a complete renumbering of the 


sections; under these circumstances one 
does not see the necessity or the advantage 
of marking the divided or newly inserted 
sections with a and 6, It would have been 
simpler and equally convenient to number 
consecutively, especially as the old number 
is placed in brackets beside the new. Lg. 
57a Der theseische Synoikismos is a new 
heading ; this section and 57 b Der attische 
Gesamtstaat und seine Gliederung together 
correspond to section 97 in the earlier 
edition. To subdivide by letters in this way 
preserves the difference of precisely forty 
between the old and the new numbering, it 
is true; but the comparison of the two 
editions is but very slightly facilitated there- 
by, while as a matter of book-making the 
disturbance of sequence in the numbering 
is annoying. Still of course this is but a 
trifle. And on the other hand it is a great 
improvement in form that the notes, as in 
the recent editions of other portions of the 
Lehrbuch, are placed at the foot of the page 
instead of being grouped at the end of the 
respective sections. 

Along with Hermann’s general plan and 
arrangement of matter the general method 
of treatment has remained essentially the 
same. The political and legal antiquities of 
Athens are described from the historical 
point of view ; the leading aims appear to 
be the utmost completeness, the utmost 
brevity, the utmost precision of statement. 
Completeness involves no little polemic ; 
this combination tends to obscure the larger 
outlines ; and when the constant endeavour 
after brevity is added, elegance of style is 
put out of the question and _ occasional 
obscurity is inevitable. Gilbert’s Handbuch 
der griechischen Staatsaltertiimer, the first 
volume of which has also recently appeared 
in a new edition, is far more readable, be- 
cause it neither aims at the same complete- 
ness in details nor turns aside so often to 
notice discrepant views. Gilbert’s is there- 
fore the better work for the beginner ; 
though on many controverted points Gilbert 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 55 


gives no hint that another opinion has been 
held or is possible. For a full introduction 
to the literature of the subject, and of every 
branch of the subject, no other work can 
compare with Thumser’s. Indeed the very 
fulness of the bibliography is perhaps open 
to criticism. Space might have been saved 
and clearness gained, with little loss in other 
directions, by such grouping as would have 
lessened the amount of repetition; an 
oceasional omission would have done no 
harm. Yet on the whole, in an encyclopedic 
work like this, an error on the side of fui- 
ness is more pardonable than error on the 
other side. The literature of the subject is 
so widely scattered that only a few special- 
ists can hope to keep track of it all ; those 
who consult such a work are entitled to all 
the assistance in that way which the author 
can give. The addition of a few more brief 
remarks in the way of criticism and discrim- 
ination would have been welcome, and would 
sometimes indicate whether a particular 
work not readily accessible could be safely 
ignored or must be procured at any cost. On 
some pages a simple abbreviation of the 
often repeated reference to Meier-Schoemann- 
Lipsius would have gained suflicient space 
for such a note. The remarks of this sort 
which are given will prove very valuable to 
many readers. The polemic, so far as we 
have observed, maintains always the best of 
tone; and although no one who has given 
attention to this phase of Greek life can 
expect to find himself in perfect agreement 
with the author at every point, on the other 
hand no one can fail to recognize and admire 
the learning and good judgment with which 
controversies are approached and_ the 
author’s own opinion stated and defended. 
A most difficult and delicate task has here 
been performed with great skill, and the 
result is a work for which all students of 
antiquity should be grateful. 

As was said above, entire agreement on 
every point is not to be expected; it is 
therefore no disparagement of the work if 
we devote the remainder of the space at 
command to a brief discussion of a few of 
the topics on which Thumser’s view appears 
to us doubtful or mistaken or especially 
interesting. 

On p. 344 we find: ‘Was nun den 
Amtstitel der genannten Behirde betrifft, 
so steht derselbe allerdings fiir die ilteste 
Zeit nicht fest. Miglich ist es, dass die 
Bezeichnung BaowXevs urspriinglich auf den 
ersten des Kollegiums iibergieng und die 
Zuerkennung dieses Titels an den 2. Archon 
sowie die Zuweisung der religiésen Funk- 


tionen des Kiénigs an denselben in jene Zeit 
fillt, da dem Demos wenigstens gesetzlich 
das Recht zuerkannt wurde, auch die erste 
Archontenstelle aus seiner Mitte zu beset- 
zen.’ This seems to imply that there was 
somehow a transfer of title and of duties 
from the first to the second Archon. But 
this is a mistaken conception of events and 
their relations. The natural supposition is 
rather that there was no transfer either of 
title or of the religious functions. The 
Baorte’ds was gradually denuded of all 
functions except the religious, and such 
judicial functions as went with the former. 
When the powers of the third member of 
the college, the dpywv, had been so enlarged 
as to make him in fact the most influential 
of the board, he was naturally regarded and 
treated as the head of the state. This is no 
Zuerkennung des Titels an den 2. Archon, but 
merely a change in the relative importance 
of the two offices of dpywv and Pacers. 

On p. 351 it is assumed that Drakon gave 
the citizenship to of d7Aa zapexdmevor and 
was the creator of the property classes. 
This leaves out of view the tense of drededoro 
4 wodureta (AO. vod. 4, 2), and the fact that 
before Drakon, according to ’A@. rod. 3, 1, 
Tas pev dpxas Kabictacav dpiotivdnv kat 
mAovtivdyv. The last word certainly implies 
some recognition of property distinctions, 
that is to say of some kind of property 
classes, though probably not so clearly 
defined as later. Instead of expressly attri- 
buting the creation of these classes to 
Drakon, Aristotle simply assumes their 
existence under his constitution. ‘ Dass 
Drakon sie erst eingerichtet hat, ist wenig 
wahrscheinlich ’ is the sound conclusion of 
Gilbert (Handbuch, i.? p. 127, note 1). 

On p. 375, in connection with Solon’s 
abolition of debts, the statement is made: 
‘Dass niimlich die Schuldvertrige begiiter- 
ter Schuldner keineswegs von dieser Bestim- 
mung [the abolition of debts] betroffen 
wurden, ist selbstverstiindlich, da es sich 
nicht im allgemeinen um die Besserung der 
Verhiiltnisse aller Schuldner zu deren 
Gliubigern, sondern lediglich um die Besei- 
tigung der Auswiichse handeln konnte.’ 
If this were the case, how could Solon’s 
false friends have been made rich by pur- 
chasing land with borrowed money just 
before the abolition of debts was proclaimed, 
as narrated in ’A@. vod. 6, 2% They 
possessed the means of repaying what they 
had borrowed, but were able to escape 
repayment by virtue of Solon’s measure. 
Had that measure been like a modern bank- 
rupt law, whereby only insolvent debtors 


56 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


obtained relief, these tricky borrowers would 
have made nothing by their scheme. It 
seems clear that Aristotle had in mind no 
exception whatever when he wrote xpedv 


> \ > f \ lol 307 .Y a 
dmokoTas émroinoe Kal Tov tdtwy Kal TOV 
dnpociwy. 

P. 407. ‘Seit der Tyrannis wurden die 


Archonten durch Wahl besetzt, bis man 
nach 487 das durch Solon eingefiihrte 
Verfahren wieder aufnahm, indem man auch 
hierbei den Demen Einfluss dadurch ver- 
schaffte, dass bei der Vorwahl in den 
einzelnen Phylen 500 Demoten ihre Stimme 
auf eine Person vereinigen mussten, damit 
sie als Kandidat gelten konnte.’ The latter 
part of this sentence rests upon a very 
doubtful interpretation of an obscure and 
perhaps corrupt passage in ’A6. rod. 22, 5. 
The words in question are éxvdpevoav Tovs 
evvea, Gpxovtas Kata pvAds, ex TOY tpoKpHevTwv 
bro Tov Onpwotdv Tevtakociuy K.t.’. Now, 
apart from the proposed change of zevraxo- 
giwv to éxatov (t.e. of ’ to p’: see Kenyon 
and Sandys ad loc.), it is quite possible that 
the numeral goes with rév zpoxpibévtwr 
instead of dyuordév. It is unsafe to assume, 
on such uncertain support, a regulation so 
peculiar and referred to nowhere else. 

Thumser’s conclusion with regard to the 
question of the zpoyeporovia is given sub- 
stantially as follows (p. 512 f.). In each 
assembly before throwing open to debate 
the subjects mentioned in the program of 
the Council, the question was regularly put 
to the assembly whether iepd and éc1a or 
foreign affairs, even if not mentioned in the 
probouleuma, might immediately be brought 
before the sovereign people. This view of 
the zpoxeiporovia is based mainly on Aischin. 
1, 23 eredav 76 Kabdpovov reprevexOq Kat 6 
Knpvé Tas Tatpious edyas evEnrar, tpoxerporoveElV 
KeAever TOUS Mpoedpous TeEpl iepdv Kal doiwv Kat 
Kypvé kai Tpec Beis, Kal pera TadTa érepwra 
6 Knpv§, Tis ayopeve Bovrerar x.7.X. It is far 
more probable than Hartel’s untenable idea 
that it was a sort of first reading of the 
measure ; it is on the whole as probable as 
Harpokration’s explanation, given as that 
is with a distinct note of uncertainty. His 
words are éoxey “AOyvnow todrdv Te yy 
verbo. ordrav rhs Bovdis mpoBovrevodons 
cioepyta eis tov Siyov i yvoun: mpdrepov 
ylyverat xetporovia év TH exxAnoia wérepov SoKet 
TEept Tov TpoBovrerOevtwy cKéeWacOar Tov Snjmov 
}) apxet TO mpoBovrAcvpa, and Gilbert and 
Busolt still adhere to this, the more com- 
monly accepted explanation. |Thumser 
supports his opinion with great clearness and 
force, and we incline to adopt it. 

On p. 652 the ten Aoywrai of ’AG. od. 


some / ‘\ ‘ 3 ‘ 
avaykyn TOUS TAS apxas 


48, 3, selected by lot from their own number 
by the members of the Council, are identi- 
fied with the Aoywrai of ’AG. zor. 54, 2, 
which are enumerated, among the officials 
chosen by lot, as those zpos ods dravras 
ap|éavrlas Adyov 
ameveyxetv. The distinction between the 
two boards is pretty clearly made out by 
Lipsius (Berichte der sachs. Gesellschaft 
1891, p. 65 f.) and by Sandys (on 48, 3) ; 
the distinction is accepted also by Gilbert 
and Buso]t. The reading of Bekker’s best’ 
MS. for Pollux viii. 99, Aoywerat dv0 joav 6 
pev THs Bovlyns 6 O€ THs dtocKyoews, taken in 
connection with the other considerations 
adduced by Lipsius and Sandys, gives the 
preponderance to that view. 

On p. 470 the age of the duautnrad is given 
as ‘das 60. Jahr’; p. 592 f. they are said 
to have been ‘diejenigen, welche das 60. 
Lebensjahr vollendet hatten.’ Among the 
Nachtrdége etc. p. 800 is the note: ‘ Die in 
Class. Review vi. 182 geiiusserte Meinung, 
dass die Di&iteten im 60. Lebensjahre stiinden 
und nicht dasselbe bereits zuriickgelegt 
hiitten, geht auf die irrige Interpretation 
der <Aristoteles-Stelle ziiruck, als ob die 
Athener im Anfange ihres 42. kriegs- 
dienetpflichtigen Alters zu Diiteten be- 
stimmt worden wiiren.’ Since scholars are 
curiously divided on this point of the age 
of the dvarrytat, perhaps the subject is worth 
renewed examination. Kenyon puts them 
in their sixty-first year, assuming the 
sixtieth year to be completed. Gilbert also 
(Handbuch i.” p. 435) is for the same age ; 
while Lipsius (Berichte der stichs. Gesellschaft 
1891, p. 58), Sandys (on ’A6. wrod. 53, 4) 
and Busolt (Miiller’s Handbuch iv. 1° p. 
270 f.), with E. S. T. in this Review (vi. 
p. 182), decide for the sixtieth year. Now 
the whole question rests upon the meaning 
of one passage in Aristotle, namely ’A@. zo. 
53, 4-5, duartyrat & ecicly ots av éEnxoorov 
éros 9}. Tovto de dyAov éx Tov dpxovTwy Kat 
Tov éruvipwv.  ciot yap érmvupor O€ka ev ot 
tov dvddv, dvo b€ Kal TeTTaApaKovTa ot TOV 
HArckiov + ot b& edyBor eyypahopuevoer mpdrTepov 
pev eis eAevKwMEeva ypaypareia eveypadovTo, 
Kal émeypapovto aitois 6 7 dpxwv ep ov 
éveypadynoav, kal 6 erwvusos 6 TO mpoTEpov 
e[rec] Seduarrnxads. tov O€ TedevTatoy Tov 
erwvipov AaBdvres ot TerTTapaKovTa Siavepovew 
avtots Tas dtairas. The phrase é€yxoorov €ros 
in itself is perhaps ambiguous. But the 
following propositions are clearly contained 
in the passage. 1. The citizens of military 
age were, at any given moment, arranged 
in forty-two lists, each list containing all 
who had been enrolled as é$7fou in the same 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 57 


year, each list marked by the name of the 
Archon of the year in which they were 
enrolled and with the name of an ézdvupos 
THs HAtkias. 2. The forty take, as the list 
of the dvairytai of the year, tov TeAevtatov 
tav éxrwvipwv, the last of the forty lists ; 
in other words those who are now in the 
last year of the cycle of ages, that is (if at 
the beginning of the year) are between 
fifty-nine and sixty years old. Tomake the 
words mean the list of those who were in 
the last year of the cycle the year before, 
as Thumser and Gilbert do, is to do violence 
to Aristotle’s language. 3. The list of 
épynBo. enrolled in the year assumed is 
marked by the _apxov of the year and by 
the é ETPMVUpLOS 0 TO T™pOTEpov e[ rev] dedtaiTnKws. 
The only meaning that can be given to those 
words is, the erontnes that marked also the 
list of those who the year before had served 
as duatytai.! Those, therefore, who had 
served as Arbitrators the previous year 
were during that year in the last of their 
forty-two years of liability to military ser- 
vice ; for they were still in a list marked 
by an érovupos, and there were but forty-two 
erovupor; and a youth was enrolled as 
égyBos in his nineteenth year, dxtwxaidexa. 
ern yeyovores (AO. rod. 42, 1). The arithme- 

! Gilbert (Handbuch i.? p. 353) strangely interprets 
the phrase as meaning the Arckon of the previous 
year. His words are: ‘Die einzelnen dieser 42 
Jahrgiinge der Hopliten waren in den Katalogen 
durch den vorgesetzten Namen des Archon, unter 
welchem * sie ecingezeichnet waren, und _seines 
Amtsvorgingers rubriciert. Diese 42 Archonten 
wurden als die émévumor der 42 Jahrginge 
bezeichnet.’ 


tical problem involved in the passage may 
be a little confusing at first sight, but the 
above solution is surely the only possible 
one, and the phrase ééyxoorov éros is to be 
understood in its most obvious modern 
sense. 

As regards errors of the press, it should 
be said that for a work of this character the 
book contains remarkably few. It would 
be too much to expect to find all of the 
hundreds of references quite correct; but 
in looking up a considerable number no 
mistake was found. On 346, note 2, 
however, in the quotation from ’A@. oA. for 
vopous read Pecpors. 

But enough of criticism upon details. 
Until some scholar endowed with equal 
learning and calmness of judgment and 
possessing also a high degree, but not too 
high a degree, of the reconstructive imagina- 
tion, shall write a genuine constitutional 
history of Athens, instead of a handbook 
of Athenian political antiquities from the 
historical standpoint, we can scarcely expect 
a better work of its class than this of 
Thumser’s. It will probably be long before 
that still more difficult task will be per- 
formed ; meantime we wish for the present 
volume the widest possible circulation and 
use. With the additions to our sources of 
information which may be expected, it will 
naturally require supplementing and cor- 
recting here and there, but will not soon be 
superseded. 

Tuomas Dwicur GooDELL. 

Yale University. 


ILBERG ON THE TEXTS OF HIPPOCRATES. 


Das Hippoerates-Glossar des Evrotianos und 
seine urspriingliche Gestalt : von JOHANNES 
Inpere (Abhandl. d. phil.-hist. Classe d. 
konigl. Sachs. Gesellschaft d. Wissen- 
schaften, band xiv. 1893). 2 Mk. 

Prolegomena Critica in Hippocratis operwm 
quae feruntur recensionem novam ; scripsit 
JowHannes Ireerc (Teubner, Leipzig, 
1894). 


THESE two works by Dr. Llberg deserve 
notice as a most praiseworthy attempt to 
reduce to order the critical material available 
for the text of Hippocrates. The Pro- 
legomena falls into two divisions, the first 
containing a description of the MSS. and 


an attempt to constitute their stemma, the 
second an examination of the secondary 
evidence contained in the glosses and in the 
commentaries of Galen. The second chapter 
is of especial interest, and not to students 
of Hippocrates only, from its bearing on the 
general question of the transmission of 
ancient texts. We are in the unusual posi- 
tion of being able to tap the stream of the 
Hippocrates-tradition at two points before 
reaching the extant MSS., by means of the 
glosses of Erotianus (cic. A.D. 60) and the 
commentaries of Galen (cic. A.D. 175) ; and 
the conclusions of Dr. Ilberg are briefly as 
follows. The text of Hippocrates used by 
Erotianus differed to a considerable extent 


58 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


from that which is represented by our MSS., 
sometimes for the better, sometimes for the 
worse. On the other hand the tradition 
which Galen selected as best among the 
numerous authorities known to him (which 
must be sought in the commentaries them- 
selves, not in the lemmata prefixed to them, 
which have been gradually corrupted) is 
substantially the same as that of the best 
MSS. of Hippocrates now extant. The 
bearing of this evidence on the -general 
history of textual tradition cannot be 
examined in detail here, but it deserves 
notice ; and much gratitude is due to Dr. 
Ilberg for his illuminating labours in the 
tangled wilderness of the criticism of 
Hippocrates, and incidentally of Galen. 


The examination of the glossary of 
Erotianus is subsidiary to the Prolegomena ; 
and it has the valuable result of recovering 
the original order of the glossary (which 
has come down to us mainly in an alpha- 


‘betically-arranged epitome), while at the 


same time Dr. Ilberg has been able to make 
the study of the text used by the glosso- 
grapher, the result of which has been 
mentioned above. 

It should be added that the Prolegomena 
contains a photographic facsimile of a page - 
from one of the principal manuscripts of 
Hippocrates, the Cod. Parisinus gr. 2253 
(A), of the eleventh century. 

F, G. Kenyon. 


REICHARDT ON THE SATURNIAN. 


Der WSaturnische Vers in der rémischen 
Kunstdichtung, von ALEXANDER ReEIcH- 
ARDT. Nineteenth Supplementband of the 
Jalrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, pp. 
207—253. 


Tuts methodical and lucidly written essay is 
in two parts,—first a collection and review 
of material, and secondly a systematic dis- 
cussion of metrical phenomena on the basis 
of this material. The first part anticipates 
the second a good deal, as the question of 
the integrity of the examples necessarily 
turns in large part on their conformity to 
standards, and Reichardt finds it necessary 
to postulate at the outset the rules which he 
expects to demonstrate afterwards more 
fully. ‘ Kunstdichtung’ with him includes 
not merely the Saturnians of Andronicus 
and Naevius, but those of the Scipio 
epitaphs and some other inscriptions, which 
he considers to have been composed under 
the influence of the literary Saturnian. 
So his treatise covers pretty much the old 
ground, and deals with the old problems. 
Nor does it contain much that is new in 
opinions or results. What novelty of 
method there is, lies in the rigid exclusion 
of alien or doubtful material. Popular 
verses—the ‘rude Saturnians’ or ‘quasi- 
Saturnians ’—are of course barred out 
altogether; even the Arval song and 
Mummius’s dedication (ductu auspicioque, 
etc.) do not figure in these pages. This is 
justifiable: the literary Saturnian was a 
thing by itself. He also excludes from con- 


sideration, as a disturbing element, all 
verses which bear signs of serious corruption 
or incompleteness, and in this he is ex- 
tremely conscientious, throwing out, for 
instance, the last two verses of the oldest 
Scipio inscription—hee cepit Corsica Aleria- 
que urbe and dedet Tempestatebus aide mere- 
to—on the ground that they are incomplete 
at the end. 

Reichardt arrays himself with decision 
on the side of a quantitizing Saturnian, and 
dismisses the word-accent theory of Keller, 
Thurneysen and Westphal with brief com- 
ments that will seem wholly inadequate to 
the adherents of that doctrine. Proceeding 
on the assumption that the Saturnian is a 
quantity-verse, he finds that of his stock of 
verses and parts of verses, ninety-one 
conform to a certain scheme, defined by 
eleven rules, and that fifteen more are 
brought into conformity by easy and 
certain emendations, not made wholly for 
metrical reasons. To these he adds later 
on two more, making seventeen. This 
total of 106 (or 108) verses represent, in his 
view, the usual or normal form of Saturnian. 
In substance, it is the Saturnian of many 
previous theorists, as Spengel, L. Miiller, 
Havet. Nineteen remaining verses, which 
differ from this norm, yet appear to be 
sound, Reichardt believes to exemplify rarer 
but admissible forms of the Saturnian. 
Here, of course, he is on slippery ground. 
and will not expect to convince everybody. 
These rarer forms arise : 

1. By catalexis of the first half, without 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 59 


anacrusis of the second : aetdte qguém parvé || 
posidét hoc sdéxsum. 

2. By catalexis of the second half: sin 
illos déserdnt, || fortissimés virds. 

3. By anacrusis of the second half, after 
trochaic ending of the first: igitiér demiim 
Uliat || cor frixit praé pavore. 

The strongest case is made out for the 
third of these forms. Here Reichardt puts 
eight verses. Unfortunately only two of 
these are inscriptional ; quotis formd virtiiter 
|| parisumé fuit, and quibus st in longa licuiset 
|| cibe vttér vita, and just these are open to 
doubt. The first can weigh little in view of 
simillumde, Plaut. Asin. 241, and as to the 
second, the reviewer believes that Biicheler’s 
transposition vtiér tibe vita reproduces what 
was intended, though he concedes that 
Reichardt’s scansion is the best that can be 
made of the verse as it stands. For the 
second freedom, the docking of the second 
half, Reichardt adduces six verses. Two of 
these, from Naevius, will bear no stress by 
reason of their textual uncertainty; the 
other four end with the words viro, virwm, 
viros, viri. Here some have measured vwiro 
etc. (Umbrian veiro). ‘It would be a 
strange freak of chance,’ says Reichardt, ‘if 
the long ¢ of vir had been preserved only at 
the end of four Saturnians, in each case with 
suppression of the preceding thesis.’ But 
to others it may seem strange that so many 
of the docked Saturnians should happen to 
end with this particular word. The first of 
the three exceptional verse-forms the author 
exemplifies by seven instances, but to make 
out this number he has to read : 


magnadm sapiéentidm || miiltasqué virtiites, 
aetdte quom pared || posidét hoc séxsum, 
donvi dantint Herc(o)leé || méxsumé méreto, 


verses which certainly can be differently 
understood. In two verses he finds a com- 
bination of the first and second peculiarities : 
duonbro dptumé || fiisé vivo, and popult 
primariim || fiissé virtim, and it is certainly 
an advantage to have these puzzling verses 
somehow brought into line. We cannot 
help wondering why Reichardt does not scan, 
with Korsch, hee cépit Corsicé Aleridque 
uirbe, and so dispose of one more estray. 
Noteworthy is Reichardt’s frank accept- 
ance of Havet’s doctrine that any short 
final syllable may count as long under the 
ictus. He even undertakes to show that 
this is no irregularity, but quite the normal 
usage, and that short final syllables are quite 
as often used long (sixty-six times) as short 
(sixty-three times). It is certainly a growing 


opinion that without some such doctrine as 
this the Saturnian cannot be explained as a 
quantity-verse. But just the difficulty of 
believing this is driving many to take refuge 
in accentuating theories. The choice is cer- 
tainly a hard one. On the one hand Luncis 
atque Purpireus ; on the other facile facteis 
superdses/ And yet, until some one shall 
discover a tertiwm quid, it appears that we 
must stomach the one or the other. 

Syncopation (‘ Thesenunterdriickung ’) 
Reichardt restricts to the penultimate 
‘thesis’ of the second half. To avoid it in 
the first half he reads aeldte quém parva, 
and don danint Herc(o)let (see above). 
We greatly prefer pérva and even Heérc(o)lei 
(Miller, Havet ete.). Still it is by no 
means self-evident that /Herclei is to be read 
where Hercolet is written. Here comes in 
the question of tetrapodic phrases. Reich- 
ardt will none of them; he reads (p. 241) 
dedét Témpestdtebiis ; the cases in the Mum- 
mius dedication do not, for him, come into 
consideration. 

Correspondence of ictus and word-accent, 
Reichardt thinks, is unsought. Where it 
occurs it is fortuitous. In the first two 
feet it is even avoided. Reichardt has 
trained his ear so that a succession of 
correspondences seems ‘ feeble and unpoetic’ 
(p. 229). On the other hand he finds 
nothing disagreeable in magniim stupriim 
populd or in dont danint Hercleit. To us, 
we confess, the reverse is the case. 

Considerable respect for manuscript tradi- 
tion, and resistance to the temptation of 
tinkering it in the interest of uniformity, are 
pleasing characteristics of this latest con- 
tribution to the Saturnian controversy, as 
against—let us say—Lucian Miiller’s work. 
It is also useful, as we have already said, to 
have those verses which we are reasonably 
sure are Saturnians considered by them- 
selves. Most recent writers have stirred 
too many things into one pot. It is odd 
that in the voluminous literature of this 
subject nobody has seriously considered the 
question of the proper range of application 
of the term Saturnian. It is often taken 
for granted that all early Italic verses were 
Saturnians, in one sense or another. But 
there is not the slightest evidence for this. 
We are entitled to call Saturnian, first 
those verses which the ancient writers tell 
us are Saturnians, and secondly those which 
exactly (not remotely) resemble them. Now 
what are these attested Saturnians? First 
and foremost Naevius’s Bellum Punicum 
(Fest. p. 325 ; two verses of it are expressly 
quoted as Saturnians by the grammarians), 


60 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


secondly the verse malum dabuit, etc., and 
four verses from ancient triumphal inscrip- 
tions. Absolutely nothing else. We are 
not told that Andronicus’s Odyssey was in 
Saturnians ; we only infer it. We have no 
reason for calling the verses of the Scipio 
inscriptions or any other .inscriptions Sat- 
urnians, save their similarity to the attested 
samples. And nobody can assure us that 
the metre of these inscriptions is homo- 
geneous, and that they do not contain 
verses which no Roman would have called 
Saturnian. Might, for instance, the curious 
line duonoro optumo fuise vireo, be not a 
Saturnian after all, but some other kind of 
verse 4 

The meaning of the name Saturnian 
obviously comes in question here. The 
common mupression is that the Saturnius 
versus is an ‘old-time verse,’ one belonging 
to the Saturnia regna, a Kpovios orixos, 80 
to speak. If this is so, it could only have 
been a fanciful name, given by some poet, 
after the verse had gone out of vogue. But 
I may take this opportunity of pointing out 
another possible origin. Among the aza- 
menta of the Salii, there were (Fest. p. 3) 
versus Lanuli, Iunonii, Minervii, ete., in 
honour of different gods. There may well 
have been versus Saturnti, especially as we 
know that Saturn was mentioned in the 
Salian songs. What if the rhythm of this 
‘hymn to Saturn’ served as a pattern for 


Livius Andronicus or whoever set the 
literary Saturnian a-going? It would follow 
that the Saturnian was only one of many 
early verses, and that we should be chary of 
applying the name to proverbs, Marcian 


‘vaticinations, Umbrian prayers, and to any 


verse that differed from the recognized 
norm. It does not make against this hypo- 
thesis that Varro (ZL. LZ. vii. 36, the earliest 
mention of the name Saturinius) and Be 
grammarians know nothing of it. 


There is a possibility that versus Faunius’ 


(Marius Victorin. p. 139 K) was in use as 
another designation of Naevius’s metre.. It 
was a fixed idea in Varro’s time that the 
Saturnian had been used in the oracles of 
Faunus (Varro Joc. cit., Fest. p. 325). This 
is no doubt based on Ennius’s well-known 
words about Naevius’s epic poem, versibus 
quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant. Had 
Ennius the name versus Faunius in mind ? 
This too might have been a Salian rhythm. 
Ennius’s interpretation would then be a 
mistake, and the right view would lurk in 
Placidus’s gloss Fauniorum modorum (p. 44 


Deuerling). But of course it is possible 
that the name versus Faunius is an in- 
vention of the grammarians. Ennius 


would then have meant only ‘rude verses, 
such as were used 1 in popular oracles.’ 
F. D. ALLey. 


Harvard University. 





JAHNKE’S 


HORATIAN COMEDIES AND BOLTE’S ACOLASTUS AND 


PAMMACHIUS. 


Bibliotheca Scriptorwm medic aevi Teub- 


neriana.  Clomoediae LHoratianae tres. 
Edidit R. Jaunke. (Lips.: Teubner). 

Lateinische Literaturdenkmédler des xv. und 
xvi. Jahrhunderts G. Gnaphaeus: Aco- 
lastus. Herausg. v. J. Boure. T. Naogeor- 
gus: Pammachius. Herausg. v. J. Bourr 
u. Ericu Scumipr. (Berlin: Speyer and 
Peters.) Mk. 1.80. 


Unpber the odd title of ‘ Horatian Comedies’ 
Jahnke has edited three of those descriptive 
monologues, of the early middle ages, which 
are interesting partly as late reflexes of the 
departed poetry of Rome, partly as incidents 
in the growth of the infantine modern 
drama. They are comedies only in so far 
as that term is applicable to narrative 
which frequently takes the form of reported 
dialogue ; and ‘ Horatian’ only by virtue of 


their resemblance in this point to some of 
Horace’s Satires, in particular toi. 9. The 
MSS. are innocent of either term, though 
they concur in describing two of the three 
pieces as the work ‘ Ovidii nasonis Sulmon- 
ensis poete.’ The date is determined within 
tolerable limits, on the one hand by the 
character of the leonine hexameter, which 
contains abundant examples of the double 
rhyme that became frequent in the eleventh 
century, and on the other hand by an 
undoubted allusion in the middle of the 
twelfth century. The frequent occurrence 
of stare in the sense of esse seems to assign 
them to France. The three ‘comoediae’ 
themselves are of the slightest value. In 
the first, ‘de nuntio sagaci’ (297 verses), a 
lover describes the cunning arts of a mes- 
senger sent with presents to woo a maiden 
in his name ; the second, ‘de tribus puellis,’ 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 61 


is an account of a love-adventure, related 
by the writer ; the third, ‘ de tribus sociis,’ is 
a mere anecdote, in 20 elegiac verses. 
These trifles have been edited with the 
elaborate care characteristic of the 
‘Mediaeval Library,’ of which the volume 
forms a part, the variants of several differ- 
ent MSS. being minutely recorded. The 
student of Mediaeval Latinity will appre- 
ciate the chapter on grammatical anomalies 
(p. 38 ff.). 

The Acolastus and Pammachius bring us 
into the comparatively broad daylight of the 
age of Humanism and of the Reformation. 
It would not indeed be easy to find two Latin 
plays of the time which better typify those 
two movements, where they accorded and 
where they conflicted, than do these. The 
Acolastus—early known in England by 
Palsgrave’s ‘ Eephrasis’ of it (1540)—is one 
of the first and best dramatizations of the 


favourite story of the Prodigal Son,—the 
work of a talented schoolmaster, who, like 
our own Udall, knew how to apply the 
art of Terence and Plautus to modern 
issues, and to convey wholesome examples 
in elegant verse. The ‘Pammachius,’ on 
the other hand, is the work of a militant 
and fanatical Protestant, a furious assault 
upon the Roman church, which has left its 
traces in the work of a kindred spirit 
among the English reformers, Bishop John 
Bale. Bale translated it, and his Kyng 
Johan is a palpable adaptation of its motives 
to the career of that heroic precursor (as 
Bale regarded him) of the Protestant 
Henry. Both plays are edited with his 
usually minute care by Dr. Bolte, one of 
the first living authorities on the Latin 
drama of the sixteenth century. 
C. H. Herrorp, 


ASHMORE’S ADELPHOE OF TERENCE. 


The Adelphoe of Terence. With Introduction, 
Notes and Critical Appendix by Sipney G. 
AsuMorE L.H.D. Macmillan & Co. 
1893. 3s. 6d. 


Iv is a pleasure to take up an edition of one 
of the plays of Terence with the feeling 
that the average school or college student 
may use it without running the risk of 
loading his mind with a mass of misinform- 
ation in regard to the Terentian metres and 
language. This edition would seem to be 
especially suitable for those who are 
beginning their study of Latin comedy, as 
the author has presented in his introduction 
a brief survey of the development of Greek 
and of Latin comedy, with biographical 
sketches of Terence and of his predecessors 
in the drama, together with chapters upon 
the division of a play into acts and scenes, 
the actors, the theatre, the MSS., the text 
of Terence, and the Terentian metres. The 
facts are well chosen and stated clearly and 
accurately in the main. 

This is especially noticeable in the chapter 
on metres, for some of our English editions 
of Terence and Plautus either present 
incorrect views on the subject of the metres 
in comedy, or else present correct views in 
such a blind fashion that the results are 
very misleading to the student. It may be 
noted in passing that to the rather full list 


of reference books upon metre and prosody 
on p. lvi. Klotz’s Altrémische Metrik should 
be added, and that on p. Ixiii, the editor 
rather unfortunately confuses ‘the length 
of a vowel’ with ‘the length of the 
syllable’ in which it stands, and uses 
‘arsis’ (ep. note to v. 142) of the accented 
part of the foot. Both better usage and 
the practice adopted by many of the school 
grammars apply this term to the unaccented 
part of the foot. In view of the fact that 
the introduction is made so full, the 
reviewer would have liked to see Suetonius’s 
‘Life of Terence’ included. Suetonius’s 
sketch is admirably adapted to serve as a 
preface, or perhaps better as a conclusion, 
to the study of Terence. Personal experi- 
énce has shown that it is always read with 
eagerness by students, and that it gives 
them an inclination to get at original 
sources, and unless it is printed in a college 
edition of Terence it is quite inaccessible 
for class-room use. The text of the 
Adelphoe followed by Professor Ashmore is 
that of Dziatzko. The edition has a critical 
appendix, which, as the editor says, is in the 
main a defence of the adopted text. The 
main excellence of the book, in the 
reviewer's opinion, consists in the good 
judgment which the editor has shown in 
his choice of material for his commentary, 
and in the concise and clear form in which 


62 


it is put, while many notes like those to 
enim v. 168 and vide utrum vis v. 195 give 
ambitious students an opportunity to carry 
their investigations further than the limits 
of a school or college textbook allow. The 
principal general defect in the notes lies in 
a confusion of colloquialism and archaism. 
The occurrence of a form, a word or a form 
of expression in Plautus and Terence and 
its failure to appear in later Latin do not 
furnish a_ sufficient proof, as the editor 
seems to assume, that it belongs to the sermo 
cottdianus. Such a word or expression may 
have belonged to the literary speech of the 
third or second century B.c. and may have 
disappeared from use altogether, and in 
fact its failure to appear in colloquial Latin 
of a later date makes that hypothesis 
probable—a theory which is made still more 
probable if the word or expression occurs in 
other literature of the period of Plautus or 
Terence. On the other hand certain ex- 
pressions which are so highly colloquial as 
perhaps to be barred out of formal Latin 
altogether are passed over’ by our editor 
without mention of the fact: e.g. compounds 
of dis—like disperit and discupio (v. 355), 
the omission of se in such a phrase as quo 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


pacto haberet, enarramus (v. 365), or prae 
manu (v. 980)—one of the forms which the 
many proverbial expressions with manus 
took. One or two minor points in the 
commentary may be noticed: zpsus (v. 78) 


-is not the ‘older form of the pronoun,’ 


while the statement (v. 209) that there is 
no well-authenticated- instance of the fut. 
ind. with faxo in Plautus is surprising, cf. 
Pseud. 49 faxo scies, 393 faxo aderit, 1039 
Saxo scibis and many others. The use of 
the ablative after wsws sit (v. 429) is not: 
very clearly stated. Usus est is followed 
by the ablative because of the verbal force 
in the substantive wsws and cannot be 
explained by a comparison with opus est, 
for the use of the abl. with opus est (v. 335) 
is merely by analogy from its use with usus 
est (cp. Scholl Archiv. ii. p. 209). On p. lvi. 
one should read quantitative for quantitive 
and in the note to v. 37 the arm or the leg 
for the arm of the leg. These are minor 
defects which detract but little from the 
excellent edition of the Adelphoe which 
Mr. Ashmore has givenus. __ 
F. F. Axpsort. 


University of Chicago. 





LEVISON’S FASTT PRAETORIL. 


Fasti Praetoriti inde ab Octaviani imperii 
initio usque ad Hadriani exitum by 
Hans Levison, Dr. Phil. 5 mks. 


THIs is a complete list of all those who are 
known to have held the praetorship, either 
from the express statement of authors or 
inscriptions, or from their having held prae- 
torian appointments or the consulship. 
The collection is the result of considerable 
labour, and is, so far as I have tested it, 
extremely accurate. The praetors are 
arranged according to the emperors under 
whom they held the office, but in several 
lists. Under A are those, the date of whose 
praetorship is either known for certain or 
can be assigned with great probability ; 
under B those who are known to have held 
some praetorian appointment at a particular 
date ; under C those who are known from 
the Fasti to have been consuls, but whose 
cursus honorum is not otherwise known ; 
under D and E those who are either known 
or supposed to have held office under a 
certain emperor. The names are all 


arranged in chronological order in A, B, 
and C, as far as this is possible ; in D and E 
they seem to be placed indiscriminately. 
Thus it will be seen that the usefulness of 
the collection for purposes of reference 
depends almost entirely upon the Index, 
which occupies thirteen pages and professes 
to be complete. The only criticism that I 
shall make on the book is that it seems to 
be compiled on no particular principle. In 
certain cases we have a fairly full cursus 
honorum given, eg. of T. Flavius Sabinus 
(by the by why should this personage stand 
almost alone in being distinguished by his 
tribe ?), but in a number of other cases, 
where just as much is known of the cursus 
honorum, we have only the date or ‘oflice 
bearing on the praetorship. Thus no hint 
is given that Verginius Rufus was ever 
legatus of Germany ; it is not stated that 
L. Junius Blaesus was ever proconsul of 
Africa (where he is described as proconsul 
Ciliciae, it should of course be altered to 
proconsul Siciliae), and so with many more 
names which might be mentioned, In a few 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 63 


other cases, as ¢g. in that of Domitius 
Corbulo and Suetonius Paulinus, a number 
of references are given by which no doubt 
the student could supply for himself the 
cursus honorum, but surely it would have 
been as well to summarize it for him as 


Liebenam does. As it stands the book is 
more than it professes to be—Fasti Praetorii 
—and yet much less than what it might 
have been, if the labour had been more 
evenly distributed over the whole. 

E, G, Harpy. 


HARNACK’S HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 


Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis 
Eusebius, von ApoutF Harnack.  Ister 
Theil. Die Ueberlieferung und der Be- 
stand. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1893. 2 Bde. 
35 M. 


Pror. Harnack’s Geschichte der altchrist- 
tichen Litteratur covers nearly the same 
ground as Mr. Cruttwell’s Literary History 
of early Christianity ; but there the likeness 
ends. Instead of a simple description of 
the literature for the student and general 
reader, we have in two massive volumes an 
exhaustive account of the literary material 
for the scholar. Not a document is omitted, 
down to scraps like the Fayoum fragment 
and the letters of Cyprian’s minor corre- 
spondents. In each case a list is given of 
the MSS., with a note of their exact con- 
tents and present localities and, where 
possible, a further critical account of their 
relations to each other. Then come the 
accounts of authors and works given by 
later writers, with lists of their quotations. 
Completeness is everywhere aimed at, so far 
as regards the purposes of future editors. 
It would of course have been endless to 
count up e.g. the late MSS. of Lactantius, or 
to give all the references of later writers to 
Origen and Eusebius. Afterwards come 
the uncertain works, and forgeries like the 
Lrrisio of Hermias and the letter of Theonas 
to Lucian, Next are the Acts of the 


martyrs, the genuine described in chronologi- 
cal order, the spurious merely referred to 
their place in the Acta Sanctorum. The 
work concludes with an account of the 
Jewish works adapted to Christian use, and 
a full collection of references to Christianity 
in heathen writers. An appendix is devoted 
to lists of Latin and Syriac translations, 
and catalogues of old Slavonic and Coptic 
MSS. contributed by Prof. Bonwetsch and 
Dr. Carl Schmidt. The Armenian and 
other MSS. are not collected into separate 
lists. The indexes are very complete, for 
writers and their works, for MSS., and for 
the first lines of documents. These, to- 
gether with the general plan of the work 
and perhaps the larger part of its execution, 
are due to Prof. Harnack’s own industry, 
while the remainder is mostly collected 
under his general guidance by Lic. Erwin 
Preuschen. 

There is little room for criticism of a plan 
so well worked out. If these volumes con- 
tain little that is strictly new, they form an 
invaluable collection of material for the 
history of patristic texts, and a trustworthy 
guide for future editors. The history itself 
is to follow, but for the present we may rest 
and be thankful to Prof. Harnack for the 
enormous mass of work already accom- 
plished. 

H. M. Gwarkin. 


ZAHN’S HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 


ZAHN. Forschungen zur Geschichte des 
Neutestamentlichen Canons u.s.w.: v. Teil. 
Erlangen und Leipzig, 1893. 437 ss. : 
Mk, 13. 50. 


Tue fifth part of Zahn’s invaluable or- 
schungen is full of interest to Cambridge 
men. It is made up of Paralipomena of 
the editor, accompanied by a full discussion 


of the text of the Apology of Aristides and 
of questions connected with the same by 
R. Seeberg. Amongst the matters discussed 
by Zahn will be found a tract on the 
chronology of Montanism, a sketch of the 
history of Abercius Marcellus of Hieropolis 
(which will be sure to attract the attention 
of the pupils and followers of Lightfoot), a 
study of the Armenian catalogues of canoni- 


64 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


cal and uncanonical books, a note on the 
existence of a Latin translation of the 
book of Enoch, in which Zahn verifies a 
former speculation of his own on the 
subject (Geschichte des Kanons, ii. 797-801) 
by comparing an apparent quotation from 
the epistle of Jude in the pseudo-Cyprianic 
tract against Novatian with the Greek text 
of the recovered portion of the book of 
Enoch, and shows that this apparent quota- 
tion is not taken from Jude but from a 
Latin Enoch. This confirmation of Zahn’s 
former speculation is especially interesting 
in view of Mr. James’ recent publication of 
a fragment of the lost Latin Enoch from a 
MS. in the British Museum (see Zeats and 
Studies, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 146). Before 
passing to the Apology of Aristides, there is 
one point in which a word of personal 
explanation is necessary. In his discussion 
of the story of Abercius (p. 57) Zahn quotes 
Lightfoot to the following effect: ‘I have 
heard recently from Prof. Rendel Harris, 
that a MS. of an earlier form of the Acts 
of Abercius, before it was manipulated by 
the metaphrast, has been discovered in the 
Kast, and that it will shortly be published 
in Greece’; and adds as follows: ‘ Meine 
Bemiihungen, Niiheres und Neueres zu 
erfahren, sind bis heute (20 October, 1892) 
vergeblich geblieben. Eine Anfrage blieb 
unbeantwortet.. I am sorry that Prof. 
Zahn should have had to charge me with 
inattention to his requests in a matter in 
which all my informations would be gladly 
placed at his disposal, but the honest truth 
is that up to the present time (bis heute, 
21 Oct. 1893) no such request has reached 
me. It must, I suspect, have been lost in 
the post, or transmitted through a third 
person, who has not yet forwarded it to me. 
However, as the question has been asked, 
I will state briefly what I know on the 
matter. The. sentence quoted from Light- 
foot is evidently based on a letter from 
myself, though [ had no idea my communi- 
cation was going to be printed. It is correct 
that there is a new MS. of Abercius acces- 
sible ; I saw it in the Patriarchal Library at 
Jerusalem, but, as it had been copied by my 
learned friend Papodopoulos Kerameus, with 
a view to publication, I naturally avoided 
the book, being content with Kerameus’ 
statement that it was earlier than the text 
of the metaphrast. The MS. is, I think, 
described in Kerameus’ Catalogue of the 
Jerusalem MSS. I hope Prof. Zahn will 
accept this explanation of the mysterious 
sentence in Lightfoot. 

And now let us turn to the discussion of 


the Apology of Aristides, by Reinhold 
Seeberg. It will be safe to say that this is 
by far the most searching investigation that 
has yet been made of the subject, comprising 
more than 250 closely printed pages, and 


this without including any printed Syriac 


text, or any Greek text except such 
sentences as Seeberg- regards as a relic 
of the original Greek Aristides. It will 
be seen that the German _ thorough- 
ness is present in an unusual degree. It 


will be remembered that the editio princeps - 


of the Apology presented the spectacle of a 
joint editorship, each editor being the happy 
discoverer of a text of the lost Aristides, 
and each profoundly conscious that the text 
which he had discovered was that which 
represented the mind of the author. I 
think, however, that it is not unfair to state 
that my pages were written from the know- 
ledge of the Syriac text only, while Prof. 
Robinson had the advantage. afforded by a 
comparative study of both the Greek and 
the Syriac texts. It was easy for him, 
under such circumstances, to present attrac- 
tively his theory of the superiority of the 
Greek text as preserved in the‘ Barlaam and 
Josaphat’ romance over the Syriac tradition 
as contained in the Sinai MS. I was content 
to leave the matter in this divergent presen- 
tation, without seeking to improve on my 
first statement, or to controvert Mr. 
Xobinson’s acute defence of the Greek 
text. And so we succeeded in provoking a 
combat of giants. Robinson’s championship 
of the Greek text drew to his side Harnack 
and Raabe, while the superiority of the 
Syriac text was upheld by Zahn, Hilgenfeld, 
and Egli, and now, at the last, by 
Seeberg. 

It is impossible, in the course of a brief 
review, to follow the course of the argu- 
ments by which Seeberg defends the Syriac 
text against the Greek ; we can only mention 
a few points. He shows that the relative 
brevity of the Greek text as against the 
Syriac cannot be due to expansions on the 
part of a Syriac translator, for the added 
matter in the Syriac shows Greek forms in 
the proper names. It is demonstrable that 
G (the Greek text) corrects the crudeness of 
the Syriac text (S) and improves on its 
mythology. In the case of the Isis legend 
G has abbreviated the account so as to leave 
no reason for the flight of Isis to Byblos. 
The great section on Christian ethics is too 
full of archaic traits to be the work of a 
Syriac scribe, while these very traits are a 
sufficient reason for the omission of the 
section by a late Greek writer, composing 


A Sl MED 1 me > 









THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 65 


a romance in which the archaisms would not 
be intelligible. Again it is very improbable 
that S should have reduced the Greek 
account of the Jews from the full statement 
which we find in G, and at the same time 
have added so many new points to his 
account. But if G has altered the section 
on the Jews, it is not unreasonable to 
suppose that he has also misplaced it. 
Consequently Seeberg justifies the order in 
the Syriac text. The existence of the 
section on the genealogical derivation of the 
Greeks in the original document is shown 
by the allusion to it by the Syriac text at a 
later point of the Apology in the words ‘and 
now let us return to the Greeks &e.’ 

These and very many other arguments are 
brought forward by Seeberg in defence of 
his thesis that the Syriac Aristides is a true 
translation (with a few errors and slight 
modifications), while the Greek text is a 
series of (often untrustworthy) extracts. 
It will be interesting to see how Prof. 
Robinson will deal with the arguments 
brought forward by Seeberg. 

One way in which it occurs to me that 
a crucial experiment might be made on 
the two texts, would be by finding quota- 
tions of Aristides by some early father, 
before the time of the composition of the 
‘ Barlaam’ story, in which we couldscompare 
the quotation with the two rival author- 
ities. Let us try whether this can be done 
for Irenaeus. I have a strong belief that 
Irenaeus was very well acquainted with the 
text of the Apology and that it has coloured 
his style. The difficulty of finding a 
passage where direct use is made of 
Aristides lies in the fact that all second 
century writers show, of necessity, common 
matter in biblical and philosophical ideas. 
For example, the following sentences in 
Irenaeus (ed. Mass. 183) are very like the 
opening chapter of Aristides :— 

‘ Ipse enim infectus et sine initio et sine 
fine et nullius indigens, ipse sibi sufticiens, 
et adhue reliquis omnibus, ut sint, hoc 
ipsum praestans; quae vero ab eo sunt 
facta, initium sumserunt. Quaecumque 
autem initium sumserunt, et dissolutionem 
possunt percipere, et subiecta sunt et 
indigent eius qui se fecit ete.’ 

Compare this with the corresponding 
sentences in Aristides: ‘God is not 
begotten, not made, aconstant nature, without 
beginning and without end, immortal, complete 
and incomprehensible ; and in saying that He 
is complete, I mean this, that there is no 
deficiency in Him and He stands in need of 
nought, but everything stands in need of 
Him: and in saying that He is without 

NO. LXVI. VOL. VIII. 


beginning, I mean this: that everything 
which has a beginning, has also an end, and 
that which has an end is dissoluble.’ The 
agreement both in the ideas and in the 
order of their arrangement in Irenaeus and 
Aristides isremarkable. And it is between 
the Syriac text of Aristides and the text of 
Irenaeus that the agreement is most marked. 
The parallelisms are much slighter in the 
Greek. This is certainly curious, on the 
hypothesis that we are dealing merely with 
Stoical commonplaces of the second century. 
However, supposing we set down the 
coincidences as due to popular theology of 
the second century (reproduced perhaps in 
more extended form by a Syriac translator 
in the fifth century), what are we to say to 
the following coincidence in language? We 
find Irenaeus (p. 192) concluding a 
discourse on the Gospels with the words 
‘Veniamus et ad reliquos Apostolos et 
perquiramus sententiam eorum de Deo.’ 
Here we have one of the characteristic 
sentences of Aristides: ef. c. 3, ‘ Let us then 
begin with the Barbarians and by degrees 
we will proceed to the rest of the peoples, in 
order that we may understand which of 
them hold the truth concerning God, and 
which of them error’; ec. 8, ‘ Let us return 
now to the Greeks, in order that we may 
know what opinion they have concerning the 
true God’ ; c. 14, ‘ Let us come now, O King, 
also to the affairs of the Jews and let us see 
what opinion they have concerning God.’ 

Surely one of the recurrent notes in 
Aristides’ speech has been working in 
Irenaeus’ brain. We can restore the Greek 
of Irenaeus from the translation, and it is 
in remarkable agreement with the style of 
Aristides. The three sentences which we 
have quoted are extant in the Greek frag- 
ments of Aristides, but the language of 
Irenaeus contains words which are not 
found in the Greek, but are found in 
the Syriac: for he has imitated the words 
‘the rest of the peoples’ in ‘the rest 
of the Apostles,’ but here the Greek merely 
says, ‘"[dwpev oty tives tovtTwv petéxovor TIS 
adnbetas Kai tives THs wAavys. Taking this 
coincidence along with the coincidence 
previously noted, it certainly looks as if 
Irenaeus had been acquainted with the 
Apology of Aristides in a form which is 
better represented by the Syriac version 
than by the Greek text in the ‘ Barlaam’ 
romance. And this means that, in the 
main, Seeberg and Zahn are right in their 
defence of the priority of the Syriac 
tradition. Now we will let the giants 
continue the battle. 

J. Renpet Harris. 
F 


66 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


MUELLER’S SATIRES AND EPISTLES OF HORACE. 


Satiren und Episteln des Horaz, mit 
Anmerkungen von Lucian Muetter. II. 
Theil: Episteln. Wien. F. Tempsky. 
8vo. pp. 346. Price 8s. 


THE appearance of an elaborate commentary 
on the Satires and Epistles of Horace by 
the veteran scholar, Prof. Lucian Mueller, 
is a matter of no little interest. It is the 
outcome, as he says, of forty years of con- 
stant familiarity with a favourite author, to 
whom he has been attracted, not by acci- 
dental circumstances, or in the service of 
science, but by special sympathy, and by a 
certain natural affinity of tastes. Wehave 
then the matured and well-considered judg- 
ments of a scholar, whose life-work has 
been to a large extent a preparation for 
such an undertaking. But this has not led 
him, as has sometimes been the case with 
English scholars, to an unreasoning conser- 
vatism. He claims indeed to have arrived 
at certain points of view which enable him 
to remove many difficulties of interpretation, 
and to adopt a cautious and respectful 
attitude to the tradition of the MSS. 
But this caution is relative ; and in England 
at all events his edition will not be con- 
sidered to have erred in that direction. 
Professor Mueller pronounces many lines 
interpolated, many others seriously corrupt, 
and frequently adopts conjectures which, 
though for the most part familiar to more 
conservative critics, have usually been 
rejected by them. Of the rejected 
lines, which are summarily set down 
to ‘monks,’ we may notice Hp. I. i. 60, 
61, 103-105, ii. 55, 61, vi. 8, vii. 24, 
38, 79, xi. 18-19 (in part), xiv. 12-13, xviii. 
85, xix. 48-49, IT. i. 63, 141, 155, 11. 155-157, 
iii. 337, 360, 449, 467. Not one of these 
lines is suspected by so sound a critic as 
Dr. Gow. They are almost exactly parallel 
to the cases of suspected interpolation in 
Juvenal, on which Biicheler and Mayor have 
expressed themselves emphatically. In a 
few cases there is some difficulty prevented 
by the line; in the great majority there is 
none, either in construction or in connexion 
with the context: the ground for rejection 
is simply that they are weak and otiose. 
The question is really whether we are to 
take as our canon the belief that Horace 
never wrote a line which might have been 
better away, and that if we can find such 


it must be due to interpolators. 
i. 59-61 


In Ep. I. 


At pueri ludentes ‘ rex eris’ aiunt 
‘Si recte facies. Hic murus aheneus esto : 
Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa. 


V. 60 might well have run as | Mueller sug- . 
gests: 


‘ Si recte facies, st non recte facies, non.’ 


But if it had so stood, what is the proba- 
bility that it would have been mutilated, 
and v. 61 foisted in to fill out the sense of 
the supplement which so clumsily filled up 
the gap? The insertion of 103-105 is sup- 
posed to have been due to the blunder of 
some one who mistakenly supposed the 
person addressed—who is.only the general 
reader—to be Maecenas, and desiderated 
some direct reference to him. It is not 
possible to examine all the instances in 
detail: but it may be said that in no case 
does the suspicion of spuriousness amount 
to anything like demonstration ; and if we 
allow to Horace a little looseness in the 
structure of these Sermones, it falls away 
almost entirely. It is worth uoting that 
not one of: these lines is bracketed in 
Mueller’s earlier text-edition ; the excisious 
are mostly due to. the suggestion of Nauck, 
though some had been suspected by 
Meineke. 

Professor Mueller also makes free use of 
the supposition of J/Jacunae. Somewhat 
curiously he suggests only one in the 
Epistula ad Pisones (between 309 and 310), 
and that one which Ribbeck, who uses this 
epistle so roughly, never suspects; but we 
have one in £p. I. i. after v. 105, another 
in £p. I. x. after v. 4, another in Zp. I. xii. 
after v. 24, others again in /p. I. xiii. after 
v. 7, in xvi. after v. 54, v. 59 and v. 68, in 
xviii. after v. 93, in xix after v. 39, in xx. 
after v.18. In the Second Book (excluding 
the Ars Poetica) there is not a single such 
lacuna indicated. The first is made almost 
necessary by the rejection of vv. 103-105: 
for the sense is certainly abrupt, if these 
be omitted. In Hp. x. 4, the slight awkward- 
ness of the construction certainly does not 
call for so strong a remedy. Nor does the 
transitional tamen of xii. v. 25 require us to 
suppose that some bad news of a private 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 67 


nature had preceded, to which Horace pro- 
ceeds to give a cheering postscript as to the 
prosperity of the state at home and 
abroad. 

On Lp. I. xiii. 7-8 


Abicito potius, quam quo perferre iuberis 
Clitellas ferus impingas ete. 


Mueller’s note is: ‘ Here too there must be 
a lacuna. For it is only in v. 11 that the 
arrival at the court of Augustus is men- 
tioned. Besides the following clitellas (also 
Sat. I. v. 47) ferus impingas cannot possibly 
be explained, or brought into connexion with 
the preceding words. The passage is 
probably to be restored : quam quo perferre 
iuberis invitus rapias et ad impositas male 
gratum clitellas ferus impingas. The burden 
is too troublesome for Vinnius. So in a 
rage and not very tenderly he fastens the 
packet which he had hitherto carried 
himself (as is shown by v. 6), like any 
ordinary piece of baggage, on his travelling 
saddle.’ Now possibly ‘fasten on’ is a more 
natural meaning for impingas than ‘dash 
down,’ which the ordinary text requires, or 
rather (as Kiessling suggests) ‘knock up’ 
against a tree or doorpost, in the endeavour 
to get rid of the burden. But the very 
point of the whole lies in supposing that 
Vinnius is carrying the packet himself, and 
to interpret clitellas of the saddle of the 
animal that he was riding ruins the humour 
of the thing, such as it is. Horace says 
‘If the packet galls you, throw it away, 
and don’t behave, when you reach Augustus, 
like a donkey that is wildly eager to get rid 
of its load, or men will think that your 
inherited surname was very appropriate.’ 
And this is advice for the journey, like v. 10. 
Why a man should be in danger of being 
thought to have been fitly called ‘a donkey,’ 
because he puts a heavy package on a 
donkey’s back, I cannot possibly imagine. 
In I. xiv. v. 31 which, following Ribbeck, 
Mueller transposes to before v. 14, seems to 
me much better where it is. Vv. 21-30 
describe the tastes of the vilicus; then 
comes ‘ Vune age, quid nostrum concentum 
dividat, audi’ =‘ Now see how widely diff- 
erent we are in our tastes’ ; and thereupon 
follows an account of what Horace likes. 
In xvi. 55 ‘nam’ may very well refer to the 
suppressed thought: ‘it is useless so to 
avoid more heinous offences, for detected or 
not, greater or less, the sin is the same.’ 
After 59 there is no need for the prayer, 
which might have followed the invocation 
of Apollo, to be recorded as uttered aloud. 


After 68, there is still less need for the 
occasion of the capture of the runaway 
soldier to be described : there is great force 
in the abrupt scorn of v. 69 as it stands. 
To maintain that a line or two must have 
been lost after xviii. 93, in which counsel 
was given how to behave towards the tristes 
and remissi, is to tie down Horace far too 
strictly : besides it is easy to answer that 
Lollius, as we see from the first few lines 
of the epistle, was in danger of falling into 
one extreme, but not into the other. In 
xix. 39-40 the difficulty which Prof. Mueller 
finds is simply due to a failure to catch the 
humorous tone, which Bentley pointed out 
long ago. After xx. 18 Meineke thought it 
was necessary that the jesting prophecies of 
the earlier portion of the epistle should be 
followed by some more serious expressions 
of pride in it and of good advice; to which 
one can only reply that the necessity is not 
obvious. ‘There is even something attractive 
in the sudden change from jest to earnest. 
Unless I am much mistaken there is even 
less cogency in the arguments for all these 
lacunae than for the rejection of the 
bracketed lines. 

With regard to the new readings intro- 
duced, the following deserve to be noticed 
(1 mark with an asterisk those which are 
Mueller’s own ; the others have been pre- 
viously suggested, but not generally adopted). 
I. i. 19 *et non res mihi for et mihi res, non, 
1. 91 *recte for ride, ii. 34 *cwres for curres, 
ii. 52 tormenta tor fomenta, which admits of 
a perfectly satisfactory interpretation, ib. 
68 vera for verba, vii. 80 tum tor dum, xvi. 
50 *notae for in te, xvii. 2 tenuem for tandem, 
xx. 19 sol *trepidus for sol tepidus (with 
some inclination to sal lepidus/), 11. i. 140 
*(uvantes for levantes (rejecting v. 141), 
ii. 87 wuctor for frater (without mentioning 
that he has been anticipated in this by Prof. 
Palmer), ii. 199 *tamen procul for domus 
procul, i. 120 Homeriacum tor honoratum, 
328 *properas for poteras, 358 ut idem for et 
idem, 430 *Salius for saliet. 

Of the passages marked as seriously cor- 
rupt we may refer to I. xii. 1, 9, xvi. 35, 
56, xvii. 55, xviii. 74, xix. 13, 28, xx. 24, 
Il. i, 67, 116, IL. ii. 188, 199-200, iii. 45, 
128, 153, 172, 359, 407, 437 ; and of course 
Pyrrhia in I. xiii. 14. With the exception 
of the last, it is hard to see that in any of 
the other passages there is suflicient reason 
to find incurable corruption, though some of 
them undoubtedly present difliculties. It is 
characteristic of two different ways of 
editing that in only six of these passages 
is any ditliculty at all recognized by Mr. 

» 


Ra 


68 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Wickham, and in almost all of these it is 
disposed of in a word or two. 

Limits of space do not make it possible 
to enter very fully into the explanatory 
portion of Professor Mueller’s lengthy com- 
mentary. 
learning, and by a strenuous desire to keep 
clear the sequence of the thought ; but in 
the latter respect he is often much less 
successful than Mr. Wickham, and the 
abundant ingenuity seems at times strangely 
perverted. Probably the very worst instance 
—one which we would fain believe impossible 
to an English editor—is the offensive sup- 
plement suggested to I. xvii. 55. In I. i. 44 
is it possible to take capitis labore ‘ risk of 
civil existence’? It is tolerably evident 
that the note on I. i. 34 ‘si nolis sanus, 
curres (for which he reads ‘ cures’) hydropi- 
cus’ was not penned at Oxford or Cam- 
bridge : ‘ besides, one cannot see why a man 
in health should run, instead of simply 
walking.’ In I. xviii. 22 it is hardly 
possible to take wngurt as ‘ fattens’ instead 
of ‘perfumes.’ On the whole it can hardly 
be said that any valuable contribution is 
made in this edition towards the satisfactory 
explanation of the well-known difficulties of 
the Lpistles. 

In the introductions many points of 
interest are raised, which it would take too 
long to discuss. Prof. Mueller claims it as 
a very important fact, not previously recog- 
nized, that Horace never addresses in Book 


Everywhere it is marked by 


I. any but people of middle rank, and 
humble position, especially of the ordo 
equestris, the assumed reason being that 
more important persons had no time to listen 
to moralizings on philosophy. This requires 
to be interpreted very widely, if it is not 
to mislead. It is true that we have no 
epistle addressed to any of the leading men 
of the time, like Agrippa, or Pollio, or 
Messalla. But Lollius and Florus, Torquatus 
and Albinovanus, and Quinctius are in.no 
fair sense middle-class - persons; and 
Kiessling even holds that Vinius belonged 
to the higher court-circles. The unknown 
Bullatius and Scaeva furnish a very slender 
basis for a sweeping hypothesis. Yet this 
hypothesis forms one of the most prominent 
reasons for the editor’s rejection of the 
view, which has lately found such weighty 
support, that the Ars Poetica was not much 
later than Book I. of the Hypzstles. A view 
which Professor Sellar after due considera- 
tion deliberately rejected can certainly not 
be regarded as established: but it needs 
more respectful treatment than Professor 
Lucian Mueller has given it. 

On the whole, unless I am biassed by 
extreme conservatism, I cannot think that 
this edition answers to the expectations 
which were formed of it ; or that it is either 
as suggestive or as trustworthy a guide as 
that of the lamented Professor Kiessling. 

A. 8. WILKINs. 





DR. MUSTARD ON HOR. SAT. I. 10. 


Dr. W. P. Musrarp has reprinted from 
the Colorado College Studies vol. iv. (1893) 
a dissertation of fourteen pages on the 
eight lines usually prefixed to Horat. Serm. 
i, 10. It makes no claim to originality, 
but is a careful collection of the various 
opinions that have been expressed with 
regard to them, with a statement and an 
occasional criticism of the arguments by 
which they have been supported. It is 
unfortunate that for a paper read on March 
24, 1893 he did not use the edition of the 
satires by Lucian Mueller, published early 
in 1891 ; for this contains by far the most 
satisfactory defence of the Horatian author- 
ship of these lines. Professor Mueller 
accepts one or two proposed emendations, 

ial] t by Heindorf of puerwm est 
for puer et in v. 5; and takes the whole 
passage to have been the original intro- 


duction to the satire, afterwards cancelled 
by Horace himself, and therefore not found 
in the better MSS., but introduced into the 
inferior class, undoubtedly from a_ lost 
commentary on the poet’s writings. The 
lines are given in the following form :— 


Lucili, quam sis mendosus, teste Catone 
Defensore tuo pervincam, qui male factos 
Emendare parat versus (hoe lenius ille, 
Quo melior vir et est longe subtilior isto, 
Qui multum puerumst loris et funibus udis 
Exhortatus), ut esset opem qui ferre poetis 
Antiquis posset contra fastidia nostra, 
Grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. 
redeam illuc : 


Ut 


Parat he takes to be used for paravit, as 
donat in i. 2, 56, and fugit in i. 6, 12, 
whence the sequence wt esset—ut posset. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 69 


The position is that Valerius Cato the gram- 
marian, who may well have lived on to 
B.C. 20, undertook to adapt Lucilius to the 
taste of the time, as various writers have 
done for Chaucer, and as he possibly did 
also for Ennius, and thereby showed his 
consciousness of the roughness of his verse. 
Horace was at first glad to shelter himself 
under his authority; but at a later date, 
when he had won the support of the dis- 
tinguished men mentioned in vv. 81—91, 
he did not care to do so any longer, and 
rejected the lines. The parenthesis contains 
a scoff at Horace’s old master Orbilius, who 
had tried to flog him into an admiration of 


the archaic writers. The situation is at 
least possible, and is worth consideration in 
view of the extreme difficulty of finding any 
other plausible date and origin for the lines. 
That Cato died in poor circumstances, having 
been obliged to give up his Tusculan villa 
to his creditors, is not sufficient to preclude 
the possibility of his having been an eques : 
perhaps the possession of such a_ villa 
rather indicates it. Dr. Mustard need not 
have been troubled about the phrase Joris 
...udis ; any schoolboy would have told him 
that a strap stings more, if it is well 
wetted. 
Bs Ba Ws 





ARCHAEOLOGY. 


TWO ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTES. 


I. Nore on Puiyy xxxtv. 58. Primus hic 
(Myron) multiplicasse veritatem videtur, 
numerosior in arte quam Polyclitus et in 
symmetria diligentior. 

This sentence has perhaps given rise to 
more variety of interpretation than any 
other passage in an ancient author concern- 
ing artistic criticism. But I think it is 
possible by comparing one or two other 
passages of Pliny to ascertain what the 
expression actually meant to him, and 
perhaps also to the authcrity from which he 
derived it. 

There are two main difficulties, one of 
reading the other of interpretation. (1) Are 
we to accept the statement of the text as it 
stands, that Myron was more studious of 
symmetry than Polyclitus? (2) What is 
the meaning of numerosior in arte? When 
these two questions are decided the inter- 
pretation of the rest follows as a matter of 
course, 

(1) Some attempts have been made to 
defend the MSS. reading, by making a 
subtle distinction between ¢uperpos and ovip- 
petpos, or otherwise justifying the astonish- 
ing statement that Myron surpassed Poly- 
clitus in symmetry. But a glance at the 
passages about Polyclitus in Overbeck’s 
Schriftquellen, especially those which concern 
the canon, in this direction his most charac- 
teristic work, will suffice to show that sym- 
metry was the quality of all others for 
which Polyclitus was most admired, and 
this too by those who reckoned him first, or 


nearly first, among all sculptors. His 
studies in bodily proportion were the basis 
on which all later artists worked. To place 
above him in this particular matter Myron, 
of whose attainments in the study of sym- 
metry and proportion we nowhere else hear 
anything, seems inconceivable, and so we 
must correct this passage so as to make it 
contrast the strongest points of the two 
artists, Myron ‘numerosior in arte,’ Poly- 
clitus ‘in symmetria iligentior. The 
easiest way to do this is to omit e¢ with 
Silig; and then we have a remarkable 
analogy in expression to another passage of 
Pliny, xxxv. 130, where the painter Anti- 
dotus is called ‘diligentior quam numero- 
sior.’ 

(2) We now come to the meaning of 
‘numerosior in arte’ ; and it is a help to us 
to know that it is contrasted with in sym- 
metria diligentior ; and the contrast of the 
same two adjectives in the passage just 
quoted may give usa clue to the interpre- 
tation. There Antidotus, three of whose 
works are quoted as of exceptional reputa- 
tion, is said to be ‘more assiduous than 
prolific’ ; and in another passage, xxxv. 138, 
‘numerosa tabula,’ as is shown by the list 
of people represented in it, evidently means 
a picture full of figures. The meaning then 
of ‘numerosior in arte quam Polyclitus in 
symmetria diligentior’ seems after all not 
so doubtful as it at first appears. Myron’s 
variety and richness in new artistic types is 
contrasted with the accurate but monotonous 
symmetry of Polyclitus, whose athlete 
statues were ‘ paene ad exemplum ’—a con- 


70 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


trast fully borne out by what we know 
otherwise of the works and style of the two 
sculptors. 

This interpretation is not, of course, a 
new one; but in view of the various and 


improbable translations that have been and’ 


still are given of this passage it seems worth 
while to point out what is proved by Pliny’s 
usage elsewhere to be the correct one. 

II. Was. PHIpIAS A PUPIL OF Hecras ? 

The only authority for the statement that 
Phidias was a pupil of Hegias is an emenda- 
tion by K. O. Miiller on a passage in Dio Chry- 
sostom, Orat.55,1,p. 282; but this emendation, 
HI-IOY for HITOY or ITIITOY, is palaeo- 
graphically so excellent that there is no 
wonder it has met with universal acceptance. 
Nor is there any historical objection to the 
connexion, since Hegias was an Attic artist 
working at the close of the sixth century, 
and may well have survived until the period 
of the Persian wars, when Phidias was a 
young man, Yet it seems worth while 
to examine the evidence a little more 
closely. 

In the first place, we find a fairly wide- 
spread and well-attested tradition that 
Phidias was the pupil of Ageladas (Hage- 
laidas) of Argos. The existence of this tradi- 
tion, whether based on fact or not, is not of 
course inconsistent with the existence of arival 
tradition assigning him to an Attic master ; 
and, indeed, he might very well have worked 
under both successively. But, on the other 
hand, it makes us examine rather more 
critically the solitary passage on which the 
rival tradition is supposed to rest. For we 
are concerned with traditions rather than 
with the historical facts; and it is -clear 
that we have in these stories about early 
artists the expression of the theories of 
later schools of artistic criticism, rather 
than the results of accurate research. 

If in this light we look again at the pas- 
sage in Dio Chrysostom, I think we shall be 
less inclined to recognize in it any tradition 
varying from the accepted one about Agela- 
das. The rhetorician is merely quoting, as 
an illustration, well-known instances of the 
relation of master and pupil; and it would 
only confuse his readers and obscure his 
point if in such context he quoted an in- 
stance where the tradition was doubtful, or, 
indeed, if he quoted any other master for the 
great artist than the one known to common 
fame. We should therefore have expected 
him to write Ageladas in this passage ; and 
if he wrote “AyeAdjas, or perhaps the quasi- 
Attic form “HyeAddas (cf. “Hynotdaos &e.), it 
would not be difficult to account for the 


MSS. readings. The similar letters AAA 
might easily lead to the contraction of the 
name. Thus when other evidence is taken 
into consideration, the correction Hegeladas 
seems preferable to the more obvious 
Hegias ; and so the evidence for any artistic 
connexion between Hegias and Phidias 
entirely disappears. The Ageladas story is. 
hardly affected by one more instance of its 
quotation. There was enough evidence 
before to prove the existence of the tradi- 
tion; and, as to the fact, the doubts ex- 
pressed by Professor Robert in his Archaeo- 
logische Mérchen retain all their -force. 
Professor Klein, in the Archaeologisch- 
Epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oe6ester- 
veich-Ungarn, vii. p. 64, rejects the Ageladas 
tradition altogether ; but he at least agrees 
in the improbability of Dio Chrysostom 
quoting one of two rival traditions, and 
rejects the easy but unsatisfactory solution 
of sending Phidias to study under Hegias 
and Ageladas in succession. 
ERNEST GARDNER. 


A HOROSCOPE OF THE YEAR 
316 A.D. 


THE papyrus containing this horoscope was 
with several other papyri brought to Oxford 
from the Fayum by the Rev. A. C. Headlam, 
by whose courtesy I am permitted to pub- 
lish it. It measures 5 in. by 44 in. On 
one side, ina semi-cursive hand of the fourth 
century, is part of a letter or petition, as is 
shown by the concluding formula, which 
is practically all that can be made out, 
[eppw lobar vpas e| vxopaLToAAoLs x |p| o |vous Kupte 

olv. . ..: ch. Brit. Mus. pap. 231, 282, 
234, 236, all fourth century letters ending in 
a similar formula. On the other side, in a 
larger and less cursive hand of the same 
period, is a horoscope. The writing on both 
sides runs parallel to the papyrus fibres, 
and the damaged condition of the papyrus, 
which in many parts is stained and rubbed, 
especially on the side containing the letter, 
renders it at first sight difficult to decide 
which side is the recto. But on the side 
which contains the letter, the texture of 
the papyrus seems slightly finer and 
smoother than on the other side, which 
points to the letter having been written on 
the recto (see Prof. Wilcken in Hermes 
vol. xxii. ‘Recto oder Verso?’). Fortun- 
ately the question is set at rest by the fact 
that the letter is mutilated both at the top 
and at the end of each line which remains, 
while the horoscope appears to be complete, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 71 


so far as it goes, since a space is left all 
round the writing. Moreover at the end of 
the horoscope Togory is not written in the 
same line as wpocko7os, but below it, no 
doubt because there was hardly room ; but, 
had the papyrus been perfect at the time 
when the horoscope was written, there would 
have been ample space for both words in 
the same line. All this tends to show not 
only that the horoscope was written after 
the letter, and therefore on the verso, but 
that it was written when the papyrus was 
almost, if not quite, as much mutilated as it 
is now. The horoscope contains, as usual, 
the exact date of the birth, and the signs 
of the zodiac occupied by the sun and moon, 
the tive planets and the wpooko7os, or point in 
the heavens which was rising at the time 
of the birth. But it does not give full 
details, such as the number of degrees in 
the signs, through which the planets had 
passed, or the exact position of the heavenly 
bodies with regard to each other, points 
which are not omitted in other horoscopes. 
For instance pap. Brit. Mus. ex. describes 
the position of Jupiter thus: Zeds év Kpide 
powpaov 8 Aewra@v pd ev TOL PB oTnprypar oikwr 
"Apews tWdpat. “HAiov tarewwpate Kpovov 
dptos "Adpodirns. Nor again is there any 
mention of the dvoixov, pecovpdvnua and 
ixd ynv, Which should complete the reference 
to the dpookdzos ; cf. pap. Brit. Mus. xeviil. 
and ex. Still from the appearance of the 
papyrus, as has been said, the horoscope 
does not seem to be incomplete. 

The horoscope is calculated for a man 
called Heracleides, born on Sept. 25th, 316, 
but it may not have been written for some 
time after that date, provided that it was 
written during his lifetime. 

The text of the horoscope is transcribed 
just as it is, except that the proper names 
have a capital letter. There are no stops, 
breathings or accents. Square brackets 
indicate a lacuna. 

ayabn Ty yeveris 
HpaxAetdou 
Ay § AvoxAntiavou 


(sic) Seed: Ow Kp 
Jv Mpa € np<| pas | 
K| at 


HAtos Eppys [Zv|yw 
YeAyvn Kapxivw 
Kpovos Yépnyw 
Zeus Avdupots 
10 Apns Kpw 
Adpotityn Tapbeva 
WpooKoTos 


Toforn 


Notes. 


Line 3. iN =erovs. The Diocletian era 
began in 284, so that the 33rd year is 316 
—T. This is the earliest instance of a date 
on papyrus being calculated by this era. It 
was commonly used in Egypt for astro- 
nomical calculations, as e.g. by Theon and 
Heliodorus, and to this class the present 
papyrus of course belongs. But sometimes 
the Diocletian era was employed by the 
pagans even for ordinary purposes of 
dating (see the two inscriptions dated 165th 
and 169th year of Diocletian in Letronne’s 
Recueil des Inscriptions de ? Egypte vol. ii. 
p- 217 sqq.). The Christians in Egypt how- 
ever did not use it, except for calculating 
Easter, until after the Arab invasion, when 
the Diocletian era is often found both in in- 
scriptions and papyri (see Letronne /.c. and 
M. E. Revillout in Revue Egypt. vol. iv. p. 
17 note). 

Line 6. «x{at] was apparently inserted 
above Eppyns; only the top of the « is 
visible. 

[Zv]yo. The last two letters are only 
faintly discernible, but the reading is 
certain, as on Thoth 28th (=Sept. 25th) 
just after the autumnal equinox the sun 
was in Libra. 

Line 12. wpooxoros is explained by 
Sextus Empiricus as 6mep érvyev avioyew 
Ka? dv xpovov % yeveots ovveredeiro (adv. 
Mathem. v. 13). 

B. P. GRENFELL. 


Dinair Célénes-Apamée-Cibotos, 46 pages 
with a Plan and two Maps: by G. WEBER. 
Besangon. 1892. 


Tuis work is slighter in character than 
M. Weber’s description of Ephesus; and 
evidently does not rest on such intimate 
knowledge of the district. It is however 
useful as a supplement to Prof. G. Hirsch- 
feld’s interesting and in many respects 
excellent study of Apameia, published in 
the Berlin Academy’s Abhandlungen 1875. 
It describes several interesting things which 
are not mentioned by Prof. Hirschfeld ; and 
gives a much clearer and better idea of the 
remarkable surrounding of Apamea than he 
does. Prof. Hirschfeld’s strength does not 
lie in geography, and we have therefore all 
the more reason to be grateful that he de- 
votes himself so zealously to this subject, 
which exercises such fascination over all 
those who have ever looked into it. His 
study of Apamea contains a great deal which 


72 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the student of history will read with great 
profit ; but it has merely confused the topo- 
graphy, and consecrated by a high authority 
errors on points which Arundel and Hamilton 
described correctly. On all these points M. 
Weber will be found more trustworthy ; and 
his maps make Strabo’s description of the 
Maeander and its tributaries quite clear. In 
fact Strabo’s description is so accurate and 
so vivid in its few words, that, to any one 
that has seen the rivers, it 1s stampéd as the 
account of an eye-witness. Prof. Hirschfeld 
unfortunately, in surveying the site for his 
map, made the error of combining two sepa- 
rate rivers into a single river; and after this 
initial blunder he, of course, found it impos- 
sible to adapt the words of Strabo to the 
features of his map. He was further misled 
by accepting a traditional misreading on a 
coin of Apamea and a false ‘correction’ in 
a passage of Livy xxxvill. 15; and he thus 
found Pliny’s Obrimas mentioned in these 
two weighty authorities as a river of Apamea. 
But the coin reads G€Pya, not OBPipas ; 


and Livy’s MSS. read Rhotrinos (i.e. 
{[aujrocrinos) Fontes, not Obrimae Fontes. 
In regard to the coin Prof. Hirschfeld says 
in the Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift that I have 
misread it, and refers me to Mr. Head’s 
Historia Numorum (which has been my 
guide and companion and friend since its 
publication) ; but, if he consults Mr. Head 
by letter or personally, or if he gets some 
other good authority to examine the coin, 
he will find that I am right. Every one 
interested in the history and antiquity of 
the great Greek cities of Asia should consult 
this little paper of M. Weber’s. 
W. M. Ramsay. 


Guide du Voyageur & Ephése, par G. WEBER. 
80 pages, 8vo, with two Plans, two Maps, 
and two views of the Temple of Diana as 
restored by Adler. Smyrna. 1891. 5s. net. 


Tus study of the topography of the Ephe- 
sian country, though it relates to a very 
small part of the Ionian coast, is really a 
work of great importance for students of 
Greek history. It has hitherto not been 
possible to acquire any clear idea of the 
surroundings of Ephesus as a whole, except 
by actually riding over the lower Cayster 
valley. Mr. Wood gives no map of the 
district that reaches down to the sea from 
the city, and his description is valueless ; 
puerile stories of brigands who were fright- 
ened away by the waving of a lighted 


cigarette or by the sight of a revolver lying 
on Mr. Wood’s table occupy more space 
than is given to the scenery of the valley. 
Ernst Curtius’s outline of Ephesian history 
in the Seitrdge zur Geschichte und Topo- 


graphie Kleinasiens is a work of genius 


(which is not nearly so much read by stu- 
dents of Greek history as it deserves), and it 
is founded to a great extent on topographical 
study of the actual site of the city; but it 
needs to be supplemented by a work like 


this unpretending but excellent book by” 


M. Weber. It is quite impossible to give 
any detailed account of it, for it is too full 
of details. Briefly I may say that it 
describes a number of interesting relics of 
antiquity in the Cayster valley, which are 
not alluded to in any other work known to 
me, and several of which were discovered by 
M. Weber himself ; that it gives an explana- 
tion of these and a view of the ancient 
topography as a whole, which seems to me 
(after having ridden over most of the lower 
valley in 1880, 1881, and 1882) to be in 
general correct ; that it contains the best 
archaeological map known to me of any 
district in Asia Minor (except perhaps the 
Troad) ; and that the price is four shillings. 
W. M. Ramsay. 


MONTHLY RECORD. 


GREECE. 

Athens.—In, the course of 1893 Mr. V. W. Yorke 
of the British School has found on the Acropolis 
three fragments of sculpture which appear to belong 
to the reliefs on the balustrade of the temple of 
Athena Nike. The first fragment corresponds with 
the measurements of the other slabs of the balustrade, 
and the style points to.the same conclusion. It con- 
sists of the left shoulder and breast and part of the 
left arm and wing of a Nike. The second fragment 
forms part of a right wing seen from the inside, only 
the lower part being worked. The third fragment 
forms a left breast and shoulder (with drapery) of a 
Nike. Unfortunately none of these fragments can 
at present be actually fitted to any of the remains 
already in the Acropolis Museum. Other interesting 
suggestions and corrections, some by Mr. Yorke, have 
also been recently made with regard to the fragments 
of the balustrade reliefs which are in the Acropolis 
Museum. ! 

Recent acquisitions of the National Museum: (1) 
From Rhamnus: a votive relief representing a female 
figure with a key, and an archaistic bearded head, of 
the Hermé type; a tablet with inscription to 
Theodoros who built a temple of Amphiaraos, and a 
head from the base of the Nemesis statue. (2) From 
Thebes: three terracottas, representing Telesphoros, 
a woman, anda monkey. (3) From Eretria : a white 
lekythos (sepulehral); r. f. lekythos with female 
figure playing lyre, inscribed Aovpts (?); b. f. white- 
ground lekythos, with a man slaying a bull; r. f. 
pyxis with a toilet-scene on the top, and a marriage- 





1 Journ. Hell. Stud. xiii. pt. 2. 


a) 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 73 


procession round the side with Herakles in a quadriga ; 
r. f. pyxis, with Leto giving birth to Apollo and 
Artemis in the presence of other deities, on the top, 
a female figure receiving presents, and a smaller 
pyxis ; terracotta figure of old woman with infant ; 
bronze mirror with Leda feeding the swan ; on the 
cover, a Nereid on a hippocamp ; two-handled pyxis 
with cover, on which is a female figure fastening her 
sandal; r. f. aryballos representing two horsemen 
tilting (cf. Welcker, Alte Denkm. iii. pl. 35, 2, p. 
513) ; terracotta figure of winged girl with fruits. 
(4) From other sources: a marble sarcophagus of 
Etruscan type and late Roman date, with a figure of 
the deceased on the top ; two headless statuettes of 
Hygieia accompanied by a snake; fragment of a 
statue of the Ephesian Artemis with belt on which 
are reliefs of Erotes and nymphs on sea-monsters. 
(5) From outside the Kerameikos: two white 
sepulchral lekythi, and another representing two 
Satyrs ; r. f. aryballos with bust of female figure in 
Phrygian cap; other small r. f. vases ; b. f. pyxis, 
with seven female figures variously occupied, and five 
more on the top; r. f. pyxis representing the 
Judgment of Paris; tile (ewAqv) with hole in the 
middle, used for burying a small child; gold ring 
with engraved stone, representing Theseus ; numerous 
inscriptions. 

Basilis and Bathos, in Areadia. Excavations were 
started here by the British School in the spring of 
1893, on the river Alpheios near Kyparissia. Basilis 
is mentioned by Pausanias (viii. 29)as being in this 
locality ; and it has been generally supposed that the 
site of Bathos was also here. The first finds con- 
sisted of about seventy terracottas, many of local 
fabric. The earlier types are very rude and archaic ; 
the later, the usual type of a standing figure holding 
some object to the breast. Besides these some 
bronzes were found, consisting of a bull, pig, handle 
of a vessel with reliefs, and two engraved rings re- 
presenting a youth and a female figure. None of these 
objects seem to be later than the fourth century B.c. ; 
the site appears to have been that of a small shrine, 
probably at Bathos, where rites were held in honour 
of the Great Goddess. A second site brought to 
light some interesting stone-work, probably on the 
road leading to the acropolis of Basilis, consisting of 
bases of statues ornamented with an elaborate key- 
pattern ; these remains appear to be not later than 
the sixth century B.c.! 

Megalopolis. Since the publication of the special 
Supplement :to the Journ. of Hell. Stud., the Ther- 
silion, or assembly hall adjoining the theatre, has 
been completely cleared by the British School. The 
chief point of interest that has resulted therefrom is 
the arrangement of the columns behind the centre, 
with regard to which the conjectural restoration was 
not borne out, the bases being now shown to be at 
different levels. Some light has also been thrown on 
the question of roofing and lighting, and it seems 
extremely probable that the clerestory system with a 
high roof in the centre and lighting from the sides 
was adopted. Mr. Bather has shown how the plan 





' AeAtioy, Sept.—Dec. 1892. 


is a development from that of a theatre-; the parodot, 
orchestra, and skene-wall are still preserved, although 
the building is changed from circular to rect- 
angular, ! 

Journal of Hellenic Studies, xiii. (1892-3), pt. 2. 

1. The pre-Persian temple on the Acropolis.— 
J. G. Frazer. 

The writer examines Dorpfeld’s arguments for the 
continued existence of this temple after the Persian 
wars, and shows the balance of the evidence to be 
against Doérpfeld’s views. 

2. The Chariot-group of the 
P. Gardner. 

An attempt to show that there is no evidence for 
the position of the statues of Mausolos and the 
female figure in the chariot on the top of the 
pyramid. 

3. A Mycenaean treasure from Aegina.—A. J. 
Evans. 

An account of a recent acquisition of the British 
Museum, which the writer considers to be of Aeginetan 
origin. The style points to a current of Asiatic 
influence, but has no connection with the Phoenicians; 
the treasure is probably of local fabric and Greek 
workmanship. In date it appears to belong to the 
latest age of Mycenaean art, about 800 B.c. 

4, Excavations on the probable sites of Basilis and 
Bathos.—A. G. Batherand V. W. Yorke. 

5. The bronze fragments of the Acropolis—II. (two 
plates).—A. G. Bather. 

Publishes those with reliefs and figure-subjects, 
also ornamental bands and small objects. The most 
interesting relief gives a new subject, from the myth 
of Herakles and Auge. 

6. Newly discovered fragments of the Balustrade 
of Athena Nike (plate).—V. W. Yorke. 

7. Selected vase-fragments from the Acropolis of 
Athens—I. (two plates).—G. C. Richards. 

An account of some black-figured fragments of the 
latter half of the sixth century, showing a considerable 
Corinthian influence. The most interesting subjects 
are Tydeus and Ismene, and a scene from the funeral 
games of Pelias. 

8. On waxen tablets with Fables of Babrius (seven 
plates).—D. C. Hesseling. 

Seven wood tablets covered with wax and written 
on both sides, which were found at Palmyra, and are 
now in the Leiden library. They date from the third 
century of our era, and were apparently used as a 
schoolboy’s copy-book. 

9. Terracotta antefix from 
Murray. 

Represents a Satyr and Maenad waiting for 
Dionysos, the former in the amrooxoredwy attitude, as 
in the picture by Antiphilus. 

10. The Thersilion at Megalopolis (plate).—E. F. 

Jenson, 

11. The development of the plan of the Ther- 
silion.—A. G. Bather. 

Showing how the plan is derived from that of a 
theatre. 

12. Aetolian inscriptions.—W. J. Woodhouse. 

Publishes thirty-seven, mostly from Naupaktos. 

13. The theatre at Megalopolis.—W. Loring. 

H. B. WALTERS. 


Mausoleum, — 


Lanuvium.—A. S. 


74 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins 
zu Berlin. August—December, 1892. 

Tacitus (except the Germania), 1899—1892, by 
G. Andresen. : 

I. Editions and translations. Cornelius Tacitus 
Dialogus de oratoribus, by G. Andresen. 3rd ed. 
Leipzig 1891. [Cl. Rev. vi. 365.] Des Cornelius 
Tacitus Gesprdéch iiber die Redner, translated and 
explained by Ed. Wolff. Progr. Frankfurt.-a.-M. 
1891. An excellent piece of work. Corn. Tac. de 
vita et moribus Julit Agricolae liber, by K. Knaut. 
Gotha 1889. On the whole a sensible school edition. 
Corn. Tac. de vita et moribus Cn. Julii Agricolae 
liber, by K. Tiicking. 3rd ed. Paderborn 1890. 
Corn. Tac. Historiarwm libri i. et ii., ree. R. Novak. 
Pragae 1892. Most of the many conjectures fail to 
convince. P. Corn. Tac. opera, rec. J. C. Orellius. 
Vol. ii. 2nd ed. Fase. vi. WHistoriarwm Tiber iii., 
ed. C. Meiser.. Berol. 1891. Differs from Halm’s 
text in about fifty places. The Histories of Tacitus, 
Books iii., iv., v., by A. D. Godley. London 
1890. Remarkable for sound judgment and neatness 
of expression. [Cl. Rev. iv. 423.] Corn Tac. His- 
toriarum libri qui supersunt, by W. A. Spooner. 
London 1891. Its value consists chiefly in the com- 
prehensive introduction and careful elucidation of the 
subject-matter. [Cl. Rev. vi. 35.] Corn. Tac. ab 
excessu. Divi Augusti libri i.—iii., rec. R. Novak. 
Pragae 1890. The reader is overwhelmed with a 
heap of unnecessary or even questionable conjectures. 
Corn. Tac. Annales, hy W. Pfitzner. Vol. i. Books 
i, andii. 2nded. Gotha 1892. In spite cf many 
improvements this edition remains as unstimulating 
as the former. Tacitus, The Annals, Books i.—vi., 
by (the late) W. F. Allen. Boston and London 
1890. Highly to be commended on all grounds. 
[Cl. Rev. v. 58.] Corn. Tac., by K. Nipperdey. Vol. 
i. Ab excessu. Divi Augusti i.—vi., 9th ed., by G. 
Andresen. Berlin 1892. Especially improved in 
the account of the campaigns of Germanicus. Corn. 
Tac. Annalium ab excessu Divi Augusti libri, by H. 
Furneaux. Vol. ii. Books xi.-xvi. Oxford, 1891. 
Deserves high praise as a repertory of the best and 
newest that has been done for the interpretation of 
Tacitus. P. Corn. Tae., by K. Nipperdey. Vol. ii. 
Ab excessu Divi Augusti xi.-xvi., 5th ed., by G. 
Andresen. Berlin, 1892. [Cl. Rev. vi. 461.] 

II. Works on the life and writings of Tacitus. 
W. Rosch, Der Geschichtschreiber Cornelius Tacitus. 
Hamburg 1891. Gives a history of the first century 
A.D. and an estimate of the work of Tacitus. All 
well done. C. Thiancourt, Ce que Tacite dit des 
juts au commencement du livre v. des Histoires. Rev. 
des études jwives xix. (1889). Explains the antipathy 
of T. to the Jews. E. Klebs, Entlehnungen aus 
Velleius. Philol. 49 (1890). Finds eight certain 
places in the Histories in which T. borrows from 
Velleius. Plut. borrows from Tacitus. O. Hirsch- 
feld, Zur annalistischen Anlage des taciteischen Ge- 
schichtswerks. Hermes 25 (1890). The birth of the 
twins mentioned in Ann. ii. 84 must be put at least 
a year later than the death of Germanicus. R. 
Scholl, Maternus. Comment. Woelfflin. 1891. Why 
Aper in dial. 3 refers to Medea and Thyestes instead 
of to Cato and Thyestes. P. R. Schmidtmayer, 
Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1890. On the speech of 
Claudius in Ann. xi. 24. 


III. Historical investigations. 
Zeitschr. ix. (1890), 


R. Patsch, Westd. 
Seeks to show against Momm- 


sen that legions xili.-xx. existed already before 6 A.D. 
R. Tieffenbach, Ueber die Ocrtlichkeit der Varus- 
schlacht. Berlin 1891. The problem is to reconcile 
the accounts of the original authorities, Velleius, 
Florus and Dio. K. Schrader, Wiscellen zur Varus- 
schlacht. Progr. Diiren 1890. R. Much, Die 
Sippe des Arminius. Zeitschr. f. deutsches Alt. 
1871. On some obscure German names. F. Wolf, Die 
That des Arminius. Berlin 1891. Shows how much 
military knowledge is at fault without philological ~ 
training. A. Deppe, Sommerlager des Varus in 
Deutschland 9 n. Chr. Rhein). Jahrb. 89 (1890). A. 
Riese, Ueber die Schlacht im Teutoburger Walde.- A 
discourse delivered at Frankfurt-a.-M. Considers 
the narrative of Dio the most trustworthy. W. Ihne, 
Zur Ehrenrettung des Kaisers Tiberius. From the 
English with additions by W. Schott. Strassburg 
1892. Ihne’s writing appeared under the title ‘A 
plea for the Emperor Tiberius,’ 1856 and 1857, in 
the Proceedings of the Lit. and Phil. Soc. of Liver- 
pool. Ihne has revised the translations and given 
some additional notes. Curtius Ferber, Utrum me- 
twerit Tiberius Germanicum necne quacritur. Diss. 
Kiel 1890. TT. wrote of Tib. sine ira et studio. His 
information about Germanicus and Piso goes back to 
eyewitnesses. W. Liebenam, - Bemerkungen zur 
Tradition iiber Germanicus. N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891. 
T. founds his account of G. upon the traditional 
enmity between him and Tib. and Tib.’s fear of his 
adopted son. A. Dumeril, Apergus sur Phistoire de 
Vempire Romain depuis la mort de Tibere jusquwa 
Pavéenement de Vespasien. Ann. de Bordeaux 1891. 
J. Kreutzer, Die Thronfolgeordnung im Principat. 
Progr. Kéln 1891. Directed against Mommsen’s 
opinion that the wish of the dead emperor in naming 
a successor had no binding force. Ad. Schmidt, 
Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte, collected and 
edited by Fr. Riihl. Leipzig 1888. Here we find 
an account, first published in 1856, on the projected 
reforms of Galba. E. Hiibner, Rémische Herrschaft 
in Westeuropa. Berlin 1890. Deals with England, 
Germany, and Spain. 


IV. Inscriptions. The year 1890 has brought us 
important discoveries from inscriptions on the person 
and life of Tacitus. 


V. Language. Lexicon Tacitewm, ed. A. Gerber 
and A. Greef. Fase. ix. ed. A. Greef. Lips. 1891. 
Extends from nemus to orior. The longest article is 
non, then neque and nomen. Guil. Heraeus, Vindi- 
ciae Livianae ii. Progr. Offenbach 1892. Many 
instructive parallels from Tac. given. J. Weisweiler, 
Der finale genitivus gerundii, Progr. Koln 1890. 
Most important for Tacitus. [A.J.P. ix. 464.] A. 
Ludewig, Quomodo Plinius major, Seneca philoso- 
phus, Curtius Rufus, Quintilianus, Cornelius Taci- 
tus, Plinius minor particula quidem usi sint. Prag 
1891. An excellent dissertation. H. Nettleship, 
Cognomen, cognomentum. Comment. Woelfflin. 1891. 
As regards Tac. this only confirms the views of 
Nipperdey, which are attacked. 


VI. On the Manuscripts. F. Scheuer, De Tacitet 
de oratoribus Dialogi codicum nexu et fide, with a 
collation of Vind. pecxt. Breslau 1891. All our 
MSS. go back to the apographum Henochianum. 
They fall into two groups X and Y. [Cl. Rev. vi. 
316.] G. Andresen, De codicibus Mediceis Annalium 
Taciti. Progr. Berlin 1892. The results of a new 
collation of both of the Flor. MSS. Baiter’s colla- 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 75 


tion of the 2nd is more trustworthy than Ritter’s, 
though R.’s is later. 

VII. Criticism and interpretation. H. Buchholz, 
Verbesserungsvorschlage zwm Dialogus de oratoribus 
des Tacitus. Progr. Hof 1891. None of the eigh- 
teen conjectures are convincing. A. Gudeman, 
Critical Notes on the Dialoqus of Tacitus. Amer. 
J. P. xii. 3 and 4 (1891). Few of these are accept- 
able, none is convincing. Next come scattered con- 
tributions by L. Dewan (Rev. de Phil. xiii. 142), W. 
R. Inge (Cl. Rev. iv. 381), H. Nettleship (Journ. 
Phil. xix. 110), Maehly (Philol. 48, 643), A. E. 
Schone (Philol. 49, 312), G. F. Unger (N. Jahrh. 
1890, 507), H. Probst (N. Jahr. 1891, 139), A. 
Mich] (Zeitschr. f. d. dst G. 1890, 197), Meiser 
(BI. f. d. bayer. G.S.W. 1891, 176), F. Schréder 
(N. Jahrb. 1891, 138), J. S. Speijer (Observatt. 
et emendd. 1891) on Ann. iii. 35 reads antelatus 
est for Med. haut custus est, C. L. Smith (Harvard 
Studies 1890, 107), A. Kiessling (Hermes 26, 634) 
on Ann. iv. 43 Vuleatius Moschus, G. Birch (Journ. 
Brit. Archaeol. Assoc. 44, 193) on Ann. xii. 31 
Antonam. 


Heropotvs, by H. Kallenberg. 


I. Editions. Herodotus, Book iii., by G. C. 
Macaulay. London 1890. A very slight book. [Cl. 
Rev. vi. 64.] Herodotus, Book vi., by J. Strachan. 
London 1891. Shows thorough acquaintance with 
the literature and deserves all recognition. Herodo- 
tus, Book vii., by A. F. Butler. London 1891. 
Shows diligence and is generally correct. Hérodote, 
Morceaux choisis, by Ed. Tournier, 4th ed. with the 
collaboration of A. M. Desrousseaux Paris 1891. 
Carefully brought up to date since 1887. 

II. Dissertations. N. Papageorgiu. Tep) ris ém) 
mpobécews map’ “Hpodédtrw. Diss. von Erlangen und 
Athen 1889. Diligent but imperfect. R. Heiligen- 
stidt, De finalium enuntiatorum usu Herodoteo cum 
Homerico comparato. Part 2. Progr. Rossleben 
1892. The first part appeared in 1883. This treats 
of (1) the union of two or more final sentences, (2) 
the future indicative in a final sense, (3) ways of ex- 
pressing a purpose other than by a final sentence. 
K. Sogawe, Ueber den Gebraach des Pronomens €xacros 
bei Herodot. Progr. Breslau 1891. Important for text 


criticism. M. Wehmann, De Sore particulae usu 
Herodoteo, Thucydideo, Xenophonteo. Strassburg 
1891. The final use of Sore is not sufficiently recog- 


nized by grammarians. [A.J.P. xiv. 240.] A. Lincke, 
Forschungen zur alten Geschichte. Part I. On the 
Cambyses question. Leipzig 1891. Does not add to 
our knowledge of a riddle in history. K. Krauth, 
Babylonien nach der Schilderung Herodots. Progr. 
Schleusingen 1892. Well worth reading. U. Koh- 
ler, Die Zeiten der Herrschaft des Pisisiratus in der 
moaitelz A@nvatwy. Berlin 1892. Ar. follows H. in 
his account of the Pisistratidae. HH. Welzhofer, Zur 
Geschichte der Perserkrieye. N. Jahrb. 1891. I. Der 
Kriegszug des Mardonius in 492 7. Chr. R. Adam, 
De Herodoti ratione historica quaest. selectae sive de 
pugna Salaminia atque Plataeensi. Viss. Berlin 
1890. Even in the account of the Persian wars it 
was the object of H. to narrate what was worth 
narrating though it might not be true. E. Schwartz, 
Quaestiones Ionicae. Ind. lect. Rostock, 1891. In 
the 2nd part S. finds traces in H. of Sophistic sources. 
On the other hand A. Nieschke, De figurarwm quae 
vocantur oxhuara Topylea apud Herodotum usu, 
Progr. Miinden 1891, thinks the rhetorical figures 
are due to the poets, especially Homer. H. Bliim- 
ner, Die Metaphor bei Herodot. N. Jahrb. 1891. A 
contribution towards a history of metaphor in the 
Greek language. O. Rentzsch, Herodot’s Stellung 
zum alten Mythus. Progr. Dresden 1892. 


Scattered contributions. G. F. Unger, Friihling’s 
Anfang (N. Jahrb. 1890, 174), Liebhold (N. Jahrb. 
1891) in iii. 19 Mépono: <ovy>ectparevovro, H. 
Richards (Cl. Rev. v. 434) in viii. 111 peydaas for 
peydaous, M. L. Earle (Cl. Rey. vi. 73) on ii. 39, H. 
Kynaston (Cl. Rev. vi. 180) on viii. 111 and ix. 11, 
Keelhoff (Rev. de Phil. xv.) in i. 94 &rerda for 
értrAoa, so v. Herwerden. H. Kallenberg, Der Artikel 
bet Namen von Landern, Stdédten und Meeren in der 
griechischen Prosa (Philol. N. F. iii. 516) and H. 
Kallenberg, Studien tiber den griechischen Artikel ii. 
Progr. Berlin 1891. In both these treatises several 
places in H. are handled. C. Radinger (Philol. N. 
F. iv. 468) defends the text of H. in several places by 
a comparison with Ar.’s ’A@nvatwy modrrela. 


Tuucypipgs, by B. Kubler, 1888-1892. 


J. Editions. Thucydide, Histoire de la querre du 
Peloponnese, by A. Croiset. Books i., ii. Paris 
1886. <A noteworthy edition, which should have 
been taken account of by Classen and Stahl. Thuky- 
dides, by J. Classen. Vol. ii. Book ii. 4th edit. by 
J.Steup. Berlin 1889. Contains valuable contri- 
butions by Steup to Classen’s monumental work on 
Th. [Cl. Rev. iv. 203.] Thucydidis de bello Pelopon- 
nesiaco libri octo E. F. Poppo. 3rd edit. by J. M. 
Stahl. Vol. i. Sect. ii. Lipsiae 1889. Contains 
book ii. The text and notes thoroughly revised, but 
too little attention is paid to form. [Cl. Rev. iv. 
249.] @OYKYAIAOY TETAPTH. A revision of the 
text by W. G. Rutherford. London 1889. An in- 
stance of what v. Wilamowitz calls delirium delens. 
[Cl. Rev. iv. 110.] Thue. Historiarwm libri vi.—-viii. 
rec. ©. Hude. Hauniae 1890. A collation of 
ABCEFG. MHude considers CG the hest. [Cl. Rev. 
v. 22.] @OYKYAIAOY EYITPAGHS E, by C. E. 
Graves. London 1891. Gives in a few words all 
that is necessary for a superficial understanding of the 
text. [Cl]. Rev. vi. 389.] Thukydides, by J. Sitzler. 
Gotha. Bk. vi. 1888, Bk. vii. 1889, Bk. i. 1891, Bk. 
ii. 1892. Well answers to its title of a school-book. 
Thuk.’s siebentes Buch, by F. Miller. Paderborn, 
1889. Falls between two stools, as the same edition 
cannot be useful both to schoolboys and students. 
[Cl. Rev. iv. 207.] Thukydides, by G. Boehme. Vol. 
ii. Part ii. Books vii. and viii. 4th ed. by S. Wid- 
mann. Leipzig 1891. If critical notes are given at 
all in a school edition, they should be given more 
fully. Thucydides, Book i., by C. D. Morris. Boston 
1887. [Cl. Rev. iv. 405.] Thacydides, Book vii., 
by C. F. Smith. Boston 1888. Both these are based 
on Classen, and are highly to be commended. 

II. Contributions to criticism. L. Herbst, Zur 
Urkunde in Thukydides v. 47. Hermes xxv. F. 
Schroeder, Thucydidis historiarum memoria, quae 
prostat apud Aristidem, Aristidis scholiastas, Hermo- 
genem, Hermogenis scholiastas, Aristophanis scholias- 
tas. Diss. Gottingen 1887. Contains some interest- 
ing emendations. For Herbst’s cightieth birthday cele- 
bration—(a) Schrader, De archacologiae Thucydideae 
apud veteres auctoritate. (b) H. Bubendey, De loco 
Thucydideo (vii. 28) restituendo. (c) M. Klussmann, 
Die Kémpfe am Eurymedon. Hamburg 1891. (a) 
gives quotations from many Greek and Latin writers 
from Aristotle to Constantinus Porphyrogenitus. 
(b) In vii. 28. 3 B. writes with Stahl 7d wap’ abrois, 
with Classen Suws 5é for dore, and omits of 5€ before 
tpiav ye érayv. (c) K. compares the accounts of 
Diodorus and Plutarch with Thue. i. 100. 1. L. 
Herbst, Zu Thucydides’ Erklérungen und Wieder- 
herstellungen, Books i.-iv., Ist Series. Leipzig 1892. 
Should be studied by every reader of Thue. [Cl. Rev. 
vi. 439.] C. F. Muller, Zu Thukydides. N. Jahrb. 
1890. Treats of various passages. 5S. Widmann, Zu 


76 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Thukydides iv. 80. 3. WS. f. kl. Phil. 1890. Pro- 
poses Biadrnra for crxatdrnra. [Cl. Rev. iv. 112.] 
Sakorraphos, Avop@dces eis Oovevdt5nv. N. Jahrb. 
1890. U. P. Boissevain, Epistola critica ad Naberum. 
Mnemos. N.S. 1888. On v. 11. 2and vi. 18. 7. C. 
Hude, Adnotationes Thucydideae. Nord. Tidskr. f. 
Phil. ix. Emendations to the 5th book. Roscher, 
Der Thesauros der Egestaier auf dem Eryx und der 
Bericht des Thucydides. N. Jahrb. 1889. In vi. 46. 
3 Meineke has suggested emapyupa for apyupa. R. 
conjectures imdpyupa. Hude in the following No. of 
the N. Jahrb. defends apyvpa. Kothe, Zu Thuky- 
dides, N. Jahrb. 1889. On vii. 75. 4. : 

II]. Grammatical contributions. K. T. Rodemeyer, 
Das pracsens historicum bei Herodot und Thukydides. 
Diss. Cassel 1889. Considers the present as time- 
less [sup. 233]. O. Diener, De sermone Thucydideo 
quatenus cum Herodoto congruens differat a scriptori- 
bus Atticis. Diss. Leipzig 1889. A noteworthy 
treatise. The collections from Hippocrates especially 
welcome [sup. 233]. E. Hasse, Ueber den Dual bei 
Xenophon und Thukydides. Progr. Bartenstein 1889. 
K. Reisert, Zur Attraction der Relativsdtze in der 
griechischen Prosa. Progr. Neustadt. Part I. Hero- 
dotus 1889. Part II. Thucydides 1890. In Th. 
more sentences are attracted than not: out of 69 
adjective rel. clauses 20, and out of 49 substantive 
clauses all are attracted [sup. 233]. 


IV. Contributions to the interpretation. W. Dit- 
tenberger, Commentatio de Thucydidis loco ad antiqui- 
tates sacras spectante. Halle 1889-90. On i. 25. 4 
mpukatapxouevor tav tepav. A. Weiske, Zu Thuky- 
dides. N. Jahrb. 1888. Oni. 13. 6 and iii. 104. 2 
avaribévar. Nissen, Der Ausbruch des peloponnesi- 
schen Krieges. Sybel’s Hist. Zeitschr. 1889. Fills up 
the gaps in Th.’s history previous to the war. Th.’s 
object was to justify the statesmanship of Pericles. 
R. Wohler, Zu Thukydides. N. Jahrb. 1887. Against 
theassertion of E. Engel that already in the 5th century 
B.C. Auuds and Aomuds (ii. 54) were pronounced alike. 
H. Wagner, Die Belagerung von Plataeae. Progr. 
Doberau 1892. Chiefly topographical and chronolo- 
gical. <A. Bauer, Ansichten des Thukydides iiber 
Kriegfiihrung. Philo]. 1891. Th. writes with the 
knowledge of a military man but avoids a learned 
tone. E. Thommen, Studien zu Thukydides. Diss, 
Basel 1889. In two parts (i.) Brasidas, (ii.) Nikias. 
W. Schmidt, Zz Thukydides. Rhein. Mus. 1888. 
On ii. 2, the date of the beginning of the war. L. 
Herbst, Thukydides, Vierter Artikel. Philol. 1887. 
On the date of the beginning of the war. G. F. Unger, 
Friihlingsanfang. N. Jahrb. 1890. In Th. this 
means when the day and night are of equal length. 
C. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen im Altertum. Vol. 
2. Part I. Liepzig 1890, and E. Curtius, Die Stadt- 
geschichte von Athen. Berlin 1891. Both works con- 
tribute much to the elucidation of Thucydides. B. 
Lupus, Die Stadt Syrakus im Altertum. Strassburg 
1887. Indispensable for the topographical parts of 
Thue. vi. and vii. 


V. Life and writings. L. Herbst, Thukydides 
Jahresbericht v. Leben und Schriftstelleret. Philol. 
1890. A judicious summary of our information and 
of the writings of others. J. Toepfier, Attische Genea- 
logie. Berlin 1889. Contains a special investigation 
into the family of Thucydides. M. Stahl, De Cratippo 
historico. Ind. lect. Miinster 1887-88. Seeks to show 
that Cratippus, who, according to Dionysius, com- 
pleted what Th. left unfinished, was not a contem- 
porary of the historian, but of Cicero. Gu. Bohme, 
Quaestionum Thucydidearum capita selecta. Progr. 
Schleiz 1888. Attempts to trace out the travels of T. 
from his own statements. G. Meyer, Der gegenwértige 
Stand der Thukydideischen Frage. Progr. Ilfeld 


1889. An account of the recent literature (1) or tne 
‘editor’ theory, (2) on the time of composition. H. 
Miiller, Quaestiones de locis Thucydides ad comproban- 
dam sententiam Ullrichianam allatis. Diss. Giessen 
1887. Comes to no certain conclusion, but a second 
part is promised. E. Lange, Zur Frage iiber die 
Glaubwiirdigkeit des Thukydides. N. Jahrb. 1887. 
C. Boltz, Quaestiones de consilio, quo Thucydides his- 
toriam suam conscripserit. Diss. Halle a. S. 1887. 
Goes further than Ullrich and Chwicklinski in ascrib- 
ing an original separate existence to various other 
parts of the Pel. war, as well as to the Archidamian 
and Sicilian wars. A. Bauer, Der Herausgeber des 
Thukydides. Philol. 1887.. E. A. Junghahn, Za 
Thukydides. N. Jahrb. 1887. On ii. 2-5. New ° 
material for his hypothesis that our Thue. is only put 
together from materials left by the original Thue. 
E. A. Junghahn, Agos-Siihne als politische Forderung 
bei Thukydides i. 126-139. Progr. Berlin 1890. W. 
Schmid, Zur Entstchung und Herausgabe des Thuky- 
dideischen Geschichtswerkes. Philol. 1890. Seeks 
to show that the editor of Thuc. was Cratippus. J. 
M. Stahl, Kratippos und Thukydides. Philol. 1891. 
Replies to Schmid, and maintains his own conjecture 
about the date of C. against Schmid and Herbst. M. 
Budinger, Poesie und Urkunde bei Thukydides. Prag. 
1890. No. iii. and v. Two important dissertations 
on the character, the political views and the historical 
method of Thuc. as well as his sources, but obscurely 
written. 


Hermes, Vol. xxviii. Part I. contains :— 

1. F. Studniczka. Cyrene und Kallimachos. 
Illustration of the way in which the Hymns of 
Kallimachus are explained by the legends and myths 
of his native country Cyrene. The article falls 
under the following sections: 1. Entstehungszeit 
und Character der jiingeren Form des Cyrenenmythos, 
2. Die Sacrale Bestimmung der Kallimacheischen 
Hymnos auf Apollon. 3. Die Entstehungszeit der 
Kallimacheischen Hymnos auf Apollon und ihre 
Bedeutung fiir die Kyrenensage. 

2. P. Schulze. Varia: notes on Ji. 10, 227 foll., 
Anthol. Pal. Epigr. vii. 425, Aeschyl. Hwmen. 
352 foll., Athen. xv. 698 C, Theocr. xvi. 96 foll. 

3. Th. Mommsen. Grabschrift des Kaisers 
Constantius Chlorus. A metrical epitaph to some 
one described as ‘ Constantius heros’ is found in two 
MSS.—one from Limoges (now Paris. 528f., 122) of the 
9th century, and the other from St. Gall 899, p. 57 
and 58, of the 10th century, both MSS. containing 
pieces mostly belonging to the Carolingian age, 
The epitaph however has clearly come down from 
the Roman period. Rossi refers it to Constans 
consul in 414 a.p. Mommsen shows that all the 
statements that can be extracted from the epitaph 
are suitable to Constantius Chlorus: that the 
monument and epitaph were probably prepared for 
Constantius by his wife Theodora during his life- 
time, and indeed before he became Caesar in 305 
A.D. The inscription may have belonged to Trier 
and been copied by one of the contemporaries of 
Aleuin, and so have found a place among Carolingian 
poems. 

4. G. Kaibel. Sententiarum liber sextus, con- 
tinued from vol. xxv. 

5. H. von Arnim. Ein Bruchstuch des Alexinos. 
An edition of the rhetorical works of Philodemus 
from the Herculanean rolls has lately been published 
by Sudhaus. In Book ii. ep) pnropixjs (col. 
xliii. 26) a polemic of Hermarchus is cited against 
some adversary whose name is illegible, but appar- 
ently commences with ’AdAe~ (col. xliv. 23). This 
was almost certainly Alexinus of Megara, a fragment 
of whose treatise wep) aywyis is quoted and criticized 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 77 


by Hermarchus. We not only get the name of this 
treatise, unknown before, but a more definite date 
for the literary activity of Alexinus, as 282/281, 
the date of the letter of Hermarchus, is a terminus 
ante quem for the wep) aywyiis, as well as a certain 
amount of fresh insight into the character of his 
writings. 

6. A. Reuter. Untersuchungen zu den rémischen 
Technographen, Fortunatian, Julius Victor, Capella 
und Sulpitius Victor. Our knowledge, such as it 
is, of the development of the Art of Rhetoric is gained 
from several hand-books of the 4th and 5th 
centuries, e.g. the Artes of Fortunatianus, Julius 
Victor, Augustin, the Jnstitutiones of Sulpitius 
Victor and the fifth book of the Nuptiae of Martianus 
Capella. Their contents are devoid of all individu- 
ality, and may be used without any reference to the 
names of their authors. The definition and exposi- 
tion of rhetorical terms are given under the headings ; 
Inventio, Partes Orationis, Dispositio, Elocutio, 
Memoria, Pronuntiatio. A very thorough analysis 
of the hand-books, but ‘interesting only to 
specialists. 

7. A. Gercke. Varros Satire Andabatae. This 
Satire derives its name from the gladiator who fights 
with closed vizor, and is a type of human blindness 
and error, but further light on the object of the 
satire is gained from Frag. 26, Biich. ; candidum 
lact e papilla cum fluit, signum putant Partuis, 
quod hie sequitur mulierem e partu liquor. 

8. J. E. Kirchner. Zwei Athenische Familien 
aus der drei letzten vorchristlichen Jahrhunderten. 
1. The family of Eurykleides and Mikion of the 
deme Kephesia, illustrated by inscriptions published 
in AeAtiov apxaiodA. 1891, 46, Bullet. di corresp. 
Hell. xv. 353. 2. The family of Mnesitheus, son 
of Echidemus, of the deme Cydathaenaion. 


Miscellen. P. Noach. Zu den Oinotropus bei 
Kallimachos. H. vy. Arnim. Conjectanea in Philo- 
demi rhetorica. U. Wilcken. Kandake. H. 


Dessau, zu Kaibel Epigr. er. ex lap. col. 553. A. 
Funck, Pontarius. R. Reitzenstein, Der Fulgentius 
Schrift iiber die Musik. 

Part II. contains :— 

1. U. Wileken. Ein neuer griechischer Roman. 
About 2000 papyri have lately found their way from 
Egypt to Berlin. Of these the greater part belong 
to the Roman period before Diocletian, so that 
there are great hopes that we may have as accurate a 
knowledge of the Roman administration as older 
papyri have given us of the Ptolemaic. The papyrus 
which contains the romance has on its reverse side 
some accounts referring to Trajan’s reign, and was 
itself probably written as early as the middle of the 
Ist century. The scene of the romance is probably 
Nineveh, the hero is Ninos. The other characters 
are 7 képn, whose name is not given and two sisters 
Thambe and Derkeia, the mothers respectively of 
Ninos and his lover, who are therefore cousins. 
An outline of the story is given, as far as the 
imperfect fragments allow, which are also printed 
in full. The author probably took a later form of 
the Ninos and Semiramis legend as the basis of his 
romance, but worked with considerable freedom 
according to the requirements of the story. The 
article concludes with a consideration of the ques- 
tions (1) when the romance was written, (2) what 
was its relation to the other romances of the same 
sort known tous. As to (1) Wilcken’s conclusion 
is that it is probably the oldest of extant romances, 
As to (2) the romance, like Greek romances generally, 
is a mixture of two elements, one ethnographical, 
based on fabulous travellers’ tales, and the other 
erotic. 


2. B. Niese. Zur Chronologie des Josephus. 
The investigation is limited to the period in which 
the bellum Jud. and the Antiquitates coincide. 1. 
Ueber den von Josephus im bell. Jud. benutzten 
Kalenden. The dates are given according to the 
Macedonian months in use in Syria, the calendar 
used by Josephus being equivalent to the Tyrian. 
2. Die rémischen Kaiserjahre. The years by which 
Josephus dates are not the years according to which 
the trib. pot. was counted, but the civic years 
beginning in each case with the first of the month 
Xanthikos or Nisan, the first month of the Jewish 
year. 38. Die Jahre der hasmoniischen Fiirsten 
Judiias und die Chronographischen Zeitbestim- 
mungen. 

8. U. Wilcken. amoypagai. A correction and 
revision of the author’s earlier work, ‘ Arsinoitischen 
Steuerprofessionen.’ What were there called 
generally Steuerprofessionen should be divided into 
Steuerprofessionen amoypapa! and kar’ oiklay amo- 
ypapat. To the first class belong those amoypapal 
whose object is to serve the officials as a direct index 
for the assessment of taxes. Instances are found (1) 
in the London papyrus L., published by G. Revillont, 
Revue Egyptol. iii. 186 foll. (2) in Griechischen 
Urkunde v. No. 112. (8) in G. U. v. No. 189. 
(4) in G. U. ii. No. 52. The kar’ oixlay amoypagat 
are periodische Volkszahlungs- oder Censusangaben. 
Examples are G. U. ii. No. 26, iii. Nos. 583—55, 
57—60, iv. Nos. 90, 95, 97, v. Nos. 115—120, 
etc. The following questions are then discussed (1) 
how often were such declarations demanded from 
the house-owners in Egypt, (2) what was the exact 
object of these amoypapai. The conclusion arrived 
at is that from the 1st to the 3rd century every 
fourteen years new assessments of all the 
inhabitants of Egypt were made, which may be 
compared with the provincial census. 

4. A. Busse. Die Neuplatonische Lebensbe- 
schreibung des Aristoteles. 1. Die vita pseudo- 
Ammoniana. In almost all the MSS. of the 
commentaries of Ammonius and Philoporus to the 
Categories is prefixed a short life of Aristotle, without 
any author's name attached. In the editio princeps 
(1497) the life is ascribed to Philoporus, in the 
succeeding editions to Ammonius. 2. Die Vita 
Marciana. This is preserved only in one MS. Mare. 
257 and consists of a number of detached excerpts 
from an older life, in which statements from other 
sources are interspersed without regard to the 
context. The method of the compiler can easily be 
discovered and the authorities which he used pointed 
out with more or less certainty. 


5. A. Thomas. Miscellae quaestiones in L. 
Annaeum Senecam, philosophum. 
6. G. Busolt. Die Korinthischen Prytanen. 


There are two different traditions about the govern- 
ment of Corinth up to the time of Cypselus. The 
view usually accepted, e.g. by Grote, Duncker, 
Curtius, Gilbert, etc., is that from 745—657 B.c., Ze. 
during the ninety years preceding the accession of 
Cypselus, yearly mputdve:s were chosen from the 
house of the Bacchiadae. Another tradition however 
makes the line of BaoiAe?s continuous up to Cypselus. 
Busolt thinks this tradition is probably correct, and 
that the ninety years of annual mpurave:s were an 
invention for the purpose of filling up a chronological 
gap, since the ten yeveal of kings belonging to the 
houses of the Herakleidae and the Bacchiadae (Paus. 
ii. 4, 4), were not sufficient to fill up the period from 
the migration of the Herakleidae to Cypselus. 

Part II]. contains :— 

1. O. Gradenwitz. Ein Protokoll von Memphis 
aus Hadrianischen Zeit. Pap. No. 136 in the 


78 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Kéniglich. Museum at Berlin contains the copy 
(avriypapov) of a protocol dated March 24, 185 a.D. 
taken from the acta of Claudius Philoxenus. The 
protocol is considered under the following heads: 
1. Gang des Verfahrens. 9. Die Parteien und ihre 
Familienbeziehungen. 3. Der Richter und sein 
Spruch. 

2. E. Wendling. Zu Posidonius und Varro. In 
Hermes, 1892, p. 118 foll. H. v. Arnim communi- 
cated a Greek anecdote from a Vatican MS. 
containing a collection of short stories from Roman 
history. The article is an attempt to determine the 
‘fontes’ of a speech attributed in the anecdote to 
Kaeso. ‘ 

3. J. Vahlen. Varia. 

4. E. Norden. Vergilienstudien. 1. Die Nekyia: 
ihre Composition und Quellen. 

5. H. Diels. Ueber die Excerpte von Menon’s 
Jatrika in den Londoner papyrus 137. 

6. L. Holzapfel. Doppelte Relationen in 8 
Buch des Thukydides. 

Miscellen. KR. Pischel zu Soph. Antig. 909—912. 
F. Diimmler ad Athenae. lib. x. p. 453B. F. Hiller 
von Gaertringen ’Avtarydpovu ‘Podiov. W. Dittenberger. 
Inschrift von Mantinea. E. Beethe. Nachtrage zu 
der Avaten. A. Erman évos dmb ofvov. 

Part IV. contains : 

1. J. Beloch. Zur Geschichte Siciliens von 
pyrrhischen bis zum ersten punischen Kriege. A 
criticism of Polybius’ statements as to the date of 
Hiero’s reign. He died in 214. Polybius says he 
reigned fifty-four years, which would put his accession 
in 268. But his accession was immediately after the 
battle on the Langanos, and this, Busolt thinks, 
could not have been so early as 268. He concludes 
that Hiero was de facto BactAeds from 268, but did 
not formally receive the title till265. The authority 
of Polybius was probably Timaeus whom Justin also 
used. Conf. Justin, 23, 4, 1, and Polyb. 1, 8, 4. 

2. P. Stengel. Buphonia. An attempt to 
establish the religious meaning and origin of the 
ceremony, preceded by an analysis and reconstruction 
of the traditional legends. The article should be 
compared with J. Topffer, Atiischen Gencalogie, p. 
149 foll. 

3. E. Norden. Vergilienstudien, continued from 
Part III. 2. Einiges iiber die Aeneisausgabe des 
Varius. 3. Zur Aeneis vi. 621—624. 

4. E. Bethe. Zur Ueberlieferung der Homer- 
ischen Hymner. Gives the variants of the Madrid 
codex Matiitensis H compared with the text of 
Gemoll (Leipzig 1886), and discusses its relationship 
to the lost Venetian MS. A. 


5. H. Swoboda. Ueber den Process des Perikles. 
An attempt not to solve the problem, for, with our 
present sources of information, that is impossible, 
but to work out and put together the few established 
points afforded by our authorities, and to define the 
limits of our present knowledge. The most 
important point now established is that there was 
only one impeachment of Pericles, viz. at the close of 
his life, and not two, as most authorities following 
Plutarch, whose authority was Ephorus, have 
affirmed. ‘The ordinary view is that Pericles owing 
to the annoyance of the Athenians at the war was 
not elected otpatnyés for the year 430—429, and 
was accused on the occasion of his rendering his‘ 
e#@uva for the previous year. This is discussed in 
relation to the important statement~ about the 
apxatpecia otparnyav in A@nvat. mod. c. 44, 4, the 
result making it probable that Pericles was elected 
otparnyés again in the spring of 439. A discussion 
follows on the meaning of the Whpisua of Drakon- 
tides in Plut. Per. 32, and the conclusion is drawn 
that the action against Pericles was a case not of 
émxecpotovia but of eicayyeAla, on Which the phpiocpa 
so regarded throws important light. 

6. Th. Mommsen. Zur Geschichte der Casarischen 
Zeit. 1. Die Zahl der romischen Provinzen in 
Cisars Zeit. In the year 711 the number of 
provincial governorships was eighteen, Crete and 
Cyrene being separate provinces, Ilyricum separate 
from Gallia Cisalpina and Numidia from Africa. 2. 
Cicero’s erster Brief an Trebonius. The date of the 
letter was probably 708. The candidate mentioned 
in the letter, who for election purposes laid down his 
plebeian cognomen and took that of Sabinus, was 
probably P. Ventidius Bassus, consul in 711. 3. 
Zum bellum Hispaniense. A number of critical 
notes on the text. 4. Die rémische Consulares des 
Jahres 710 der Stadt. 

7. A. Nikitsky. Eine Urkunde zur attischen 
Genealogie. On an inscription copied from the 
museum at Kastri ( Delphi). 

8. J. Beloch. Sicilisches zu Diodor. 





ERRATA IN THE DECEMBER NUMBER. 


Pi 464-eacol,el sas 
‘accented.’ 

P. 464; footnote 2, read ‘(q/7 : gel 2)’ and ‘in some 
Osean dialect before J.’ ‘ 

P. 468, col. 1, ll. 17-18, read ‘to the Indo- 
European aspirated mediae.’ 


14, read ‘unaccented’ for 


Ras; G: 





LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 


ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Aristophanes. Vespae. A literal translation by 
J. A. Prout. 12mo, Cornish. 1s. 6d. 
Bliimner (Prof. H.) The Home Life of the Ancient 


Greeks translated from the German by Alice Zim- 


mern. With numerous illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 
Pp. xv, 548. Cassell & Co. 7s. 6d. 
Corpus Poetarum Latinorum. New and revised 


edition. Edited by J. P. Postgate. 4 parts. Part 
I, 4to. sewed. Bell & Sons. 9s. net. 
Hall (T. D.) <A first introduction to the Greek 


Testament, with Extracts from the Gospels and 


Epistles, accompanied by Notes grammatical and 
explanatory. Post 8vo. Pp. 216. Murray. 
3s. 6d. 

Harris (J. Rendel). On the Origin of the Férrar- 
Group. A lecture on the genealogical relations of 
New Testament MSS. 8vo. sewed. Pp. 27. 
Cambridge Warehouse. ls. 6d. 


Hyperides. The orations against Athenogenes and 
Philippides. Edited, with a translation, by F. G. 
Kenyon. Post 8vo. Pp. xxxi, 81. Bell & Sons. 
5s. net. 


i 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 79 


Smith (Goldwinu.) Specimens of Greek Tragedy. 
Translated. 2 vols. Post 8vo. Macmillan. 10s. 

Strabo. Selections from, with an introduction on 
Strabo’s life and works, by the Rev. H. F. Tozer. 
With maps and plans. 8vo. Clarendon Press. 
12s. 

Tertullian. De Praescriptione Haereticorum. Edited 
by T. H. Bindley. Cr. 8vo. Clarendon Press. 6s. 

Thucydides. Book VII. Edited by E. C. Marchant. 
12mo. Pp. xlvii, 256. Macmillan & Co. 3s. 6d. 


Tutorial Latin Reader. A graduated series of ex- 
tracts for practice in translation at sight. 12mo. 
Pp. 100. Clive. 1s. 6d. 

Virgil. Aeneid, Book III. Edited, with introduc- 
tion, notes and appendices, by Philip Sandford. 
16mo. Pp. xix, 82. Dublin: Ponsonby. 1s. 6d. 

Virgil. Aeneid. Book V. Edited by A. H. Allcroft 
and W. F. Mason. 12mo. Clive. 3s. 


FOREIGN BOOKS. 


Adrian (G.) Quaestiones Statianae. 12mo. 42 pp. 
Diss. Wiirzburg. 

Amend (A.) Ueber die Bedeutung von Me:paxioy 
und ’Avrimais. 12mo. 74 pp. Diss. Wiirzburg. 

Appuhn (W.) Quaestiones Plautinae. Quae ratio- 
nes inter versus singulos seutentiasque intercedant 
Plauti exemplo comprobatur. 12mo. 97 pp. Diss. 
Marburg. 

Arnim (J. v.) De restituendo Philodemi de Rheto- 
rica lib. II. 4to. 14 pp. Progr. Rostock. 

Baedeker (K.) Greece. 2nd edition. Leipzig: Bae- 
deker. Mk. 8. 

Dinneboessel (P.) Untersuchungen iiber Quellen und 
Geschichte des zweiten Samniterkrieges von Clau- 
dium bis zum Frieden 450 u. c. 12mo. 119 pp. 
Diss. Halle. 

Birt (T.) Eine rémische Litteraturgeschichte, in 5 
Stunden gesprochen. 12mo. 210 pp. Marburg: 


Elwert. Mk. 2.40. 
Blass (¥.) Die attische Beredsamkeit. 3te Abthei- 
lung. Abschnitt 1. Demosthenes. 2te Auflage. 


8vo. viii, 644 pp. Leipzig: Teubner, 16 Mk. 
Biilz (M.) De provinciarum Romanarum quaestori- 
bus, qui fuerunt ab a. u. c. DCLXxXIr usque ad 
a.u.c. pccx. 12mo. 80 pp. Diss. Leipzig. 
Catalogus dissertationum philologicarum classicarum. 
Verzeichniss von etwa 18,300 Abhandlungen 
aus dem Gesamtgebiete der klassischen Philologie 
zusammengestellt von G. Fock. S8vo. iv, 222, 
148, 72 and 124 pp. Leipzig: Fock. Mk. 2.50. 
Cicero. Pro L. Murena et pro P. Sulla Orationes. 
Scholarum in usum edidit R. Sia 8vo. iv, 
76 pp. Prag. Storch Sohn. 80 pfz. 
Constans (L.) “fitude sur la langue de Tacite. 18mo. 
158 pp. Paris: Delagrave. 
Cucheval (V.) Histoire “de l’Eloquence romaine de- 
puis la Mort de Cicéron jusqu’’ l’avénement d’Ha- 
drien. 2 vols. 12mo. Paris: Hachette. 7 frs. 


Curtius (E.) Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Band I. 
8vo. iv, 528 pp. 2 plates. Berlin: Besser. 


Mk. 11. 

Cybrilski (S.) Tabulae quibus antiquitates graecae 
et romanae illustrantur. Series I. Tab. VIII. 
Castra romana mit erliut. deutschen und franzisi- 
ae Text. (St. Petersburg.) Leipzig: Koehler. 

; a. 

Darés de Phrygie, Histoire véritable des Grecs et des 
Troyens, traduite par C. de Bourgueville. 4to. 
115 pp. Caen: P. Massif. 

Degering (H.) Beitriige zur historischen Syntax der 
lateinischen Sprache. 12mo. 651 pp. Diss. 
Erlangen. 

Deuerling ( (A.) Cicero als Schul-Schriftsteller. Svo. 
61 pp. Miinchen: Lindauer, Mk. 1. 

[Extract : blitter fiir das bayer. Gymnasial-Schul- 
wesen. | 

Dobschiitz (E. v.) Studien zur Textkritik der Vul- 
gata. 12mo. 32 pp. Jena. 


Elter (A.) De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia 
atque origine commentatio III. 4to. 11 columns. 
Progr. Bonn. 

Erhardt (L.) Die Entstehung der homerischen 
Gedichte. 8vo. exiii, 546 pp. Leipzig. Duncker 
and Humblot. Mk. 12. 

Esser (G.) Die Seelenlehre Tertullians. 12mo. viii, 
234 pp. Diss. Wiirzburg. 

Franke (A.) De caesuris septenariorum trochaicorum 
Plautinorum et Terentianorum. 12mo. 50 pp. 
Diss. Halle. 

Furtwingler (A.) Meisterwerke der griechischen 
Plastik. Kunstgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. I1- 
lustrations and 32 folio plates in portfolio. 8vo. 
xv, 767 pp. Leipzig, Giesecke & Devrient. Mk. 85. 

Gemoll (W.) Die Realien bei Horaz. Heft 3. 8vo. 
17 pp. Berlin, Gaertner. Mk. 3.60. 

Contents: Der Mensch. A. Der menschliche 
Leib. B. Der menschliche Geist. Wasser & Erde. 
Geographie. 

Genty (Tony). Notes sur Dares le Phrygien et sa 
traduction par C. de Bourgueville. 4to. 144 pp. 
Illustrations. Caen, Massif. 2 vols. together (not 
sold separately). 30 fres. 

Geyso (E. v.) Studia Theognidea. 12mo. 
Diss. Strassburg. 

Grabreliefs. Die attischen. Herausgegeben von A. 
Conze. Lieferung 5. Folio. Band I. vi, pp. 
97—130. Plates. Berlin, W. Spemann. 60 Mk. 

Guiraud (P.) La propriété fonciére en Gréce jusqu’a 
la conquéte romaine. 8vo. Paris, Hachette & Cie. 
10 fres. 

Habich (A.) Observationes de negationum aliquot 
usu Plautino. 12mo. 39 pp. Diss. Halle. 

Hammer (C.) Beitrage zu den grosseren quintilian- 
ischen Deklamationen. 12mo. 58 pp. Progr. 
Minchen. 

Havet (L.) Abrégé de Métrique grecque et latine. 
12mo. Paris, Delagrave. 2 fres. 

Hennig (R.) Symbolae ad Asiae Minoris reges sacer- 
dotes Polemonemque I. Pontiregem. 12mo. 60 pp. 
Diss. Leipzig. 

Henry (¥.) Precis de grammaire comparé de l’an- 
glais et de lallemand, rapportés & leur commune 
origine et rapprochés des langues classiques. 
8vo. xxiv, 419 pp. Paris, Hachette & Cie, 


73 pp. 


Hense (O.) Seneca und Athenodorus. 4to. 48 pp. 
Freiburg. 

—— Die Synkrisis in der antiken Literatur. 12mo. 
41 pp. Freiburg. 


Herondas, Mimiamben. Deutsch mit Einleitung 
und Anmerkungen von O. Crusius. 12mo.  xliv, 
86 pp. Gottingen, Dieterich’s Verlag. Mk. 2. 

Homer. Ilias. In neuer Uebersetzung von O. Hu- 
batsch. 8vo. xi, 438 pp. Bielefeld, Velhagen 
& Klasing. Cloth, 3.50. 

Inama (V.) Filologia classica greca et latina. 
lé6mo. ix, 195 pp. Milano, Hoepli. 


80 


Jan (F. v.) De Callimacho Homeri interprete. 
12mo. 110 pp. Diss. Strassburg. 

Jors (P.) Die Reichspolitik Kaiser Justinians. 
23 pp. Giessen. 

Kalkmann (A.) Die Proportionen des Gesichts in 
der griechischen Kunst.- 4to. 113 pp. Plates. 
Berlin, G. Reimer. Mk. 7. 

[53ten Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste der 
archaeolog. Gesellschaft zu Berlin. ] 

Klett (T.) Sokrates nach den Xenophontischen Me- 
morabilien. 4to. 55 pp. Progr. Cannstatt. 
Kramer (A.) Quid Cicero senserit de lingua Graeca 

quaeritur. 12mo. 34 pp. Diss. Giessen. 

Krause (H. lL.) Die Amazonensage, kritisch unter- 
sucht und gedeutet. 8vo. ili, 104 pp. Berlin, 
Heinrich. Mk. 1.50. 

Krauss (S.) Zur griechischen und lateinischen Lexi- 
kographie aus jiidischen Quellen. 12mo. 54 pp. 
Diss. Giessen. 

Kroymann (E.) Quaestiones Tertullianae criticae. 
Pars I. 32mo. 31 pp. Diss. Gdottingen. 

Krumbacher (K.) Mittelgriechische Sprichworter. 
8vo. vii, 272 pp. Miinchen, G. Franz. 3 Mk. 

[Extract : Sitzungsberichte der k. bayer. Aka- 
demie der Wissenschaft. ] 

Lattes (E.) Saggi e appunti intorno alla iscrizione 
etrusca della Mummia. 8vo. 257 pp. Milano, 
18 lire. 

Launitz (E. von der). Wandtafeln zur Veranschau- 
lichung antiken Lebens und antiker Kunst, fort- 
gesetzt von Trendelenburg. No. xxix. Kassel, 
Th. Fischer. Forum latinum, Westseite. Rekon- 
struction von C. Hiilsen mit Text von O. Paulus. 
8vo. 22 pp. 2 tables and 4 plates. Mk. 24. 

Lind (J.) De dialecto Pindarica. I. Prolegomena 
et de vocalismo Pindarico ex proximis sonis non 


4to. 


apto. 4to. 48 pp. Lund. 
Lucretius. Delanature. Traduction nouvelle par 
Patin. 2ieme édition. 16mo. iv, 340 pp. Paris, 


Hachette & Cie. 3 fr. 50. 

Manitius (M.) Analekten zur Geschichte des Horaz 
im Mittelalter bis 1300. 8vo. xv, 127 pp. Gét- 
tingen, Dieterich’s Verlag. Mk. 2.80. 

Meyer (E.) Geschichte des Altertums. Band II. 
Geschichte des Abendlandes bis auf die Perser- 
kriege. 8vo. xvi, 889 pp. Stuttgart, Cotta. 
Mk. 15. 

Mosses (A.) Zur Vorgeschichte der vier aristoteli- 
schen Principien bei Platon. 12mo, 51 pp. Diss. 
Bern. 

Niese (B.) De testimonio Christiano quod est apud 


Josephum antig. Jud. xviii 63 s. disputatio. 4to. 
10 pp. Progr. Marburg. 
Overbeck (J.) Festschrift fiir J. Overbeck. Aufsitze 


seiner Schiiler zur Feier seines 40 jahr. Professo- 
ren-Jubilaums dargebracht. 4to. iii, 206 pp. 


Illustrations. Leipzig, W. Engelmann. 24 Mk. 

Plutarchi Chaeronensis moralia recognovit G.N. Ber- 
nardakis. Voi. V. 12mo. v, 500 pp. Leipzig, 
Teubner. 3 Mk. 


Péhimann (R.) Geschichte des antiken Kommunis- 
mus und Sozialismus. Band J. 8vo. xvii, 618 pp. 
Miinchen, Beck. Mk. 11.50. 

Polaschek (A.) Ciasars Biirgerkrieg, das hell. Alex- 
andrinum und bell. Africum und der Codex Vin- 
dobonensis 95 (Hist. prof. 594, Endl. LXV). 
12mo. 20pp. Progr. Czernowitz. 

Pridik (E.) De Alexandri Magni epistularum com- 
mercio. 8vo. vii, 166 pp. Berlin, Speyer & 
Peters. 3 Mk. 

vadtke (W.) De Lysimacho <Alexandrino. 
122 pp. Diss. Strassburg. 

Riemann and Dufour. Traité de rythmique et de 

métriqne greeques. 8vo. 158 pp. Paris, Colin & Cie. 


12mo. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Ringnalda (H. F. T.) De exercitu Lacedaemonio- 
tum. 12mo. 64 pp. Diss. Groningen. 

Rohde (E.) Psyche. Seelencult und Unsterblich- 
keitsglaube der Griechen. 2te Halfte. S8vo. vii, 
pp. 289—711. Freiburg, J. C. B. Mohr. Mk. 11. 

Rosenstock (P. EK.) Platos Kratylos und die Sprach- 
philosophie der Neuzeit. I. 4to. 41 pp. Progr. 
Strassburg. 

Sallustius. Historiarum reliquiae. Edidit B. Mau- 
renbrecher. Fasciculus II. Fragmenta argumen- 
tis, commentariis apparatu critico instructa. Ac- 
cedunt indices. 8vo. xii, 311 pp. Leipzig, 
Teubner, Mk. 8. 

Sauer (B.) Der Torso von Belvedere. 4to. 
116 pp. Plates. Giessen, J. Ricker. Mk. 4. 

Schermann. Zu Virgils Vorstellungen vom Jenseits. 
4to. 25 pp. Progr. Ravensburg. 

Schilling (O.) De legionibus Romanorum J. Mimer- 
via et XXX. Ulpia. 12mo. 76 pp. Diss. 
Leipzig. 

Schlemm (A.) De fontibus Plutarchi commentatio- 
num de audiendis poetis et de fortuna. 12mo. 
102 pp. _ Diss. Gottingen. 

Schwartz (E.) Quaestiones ex historia Graeca saeculi 
quarti desumptae. 4to. 16 pp. Progr. Rostock. 

Seriptores physiognomici graeci et latini, recensuit 
R. Foerster. 2 vols. 12mo. Leipzig, Teubner. 
Mk. 14. ; 

Vol. I. Physiognomica Pseudoaristotelis graece 
et latine, Adamantii cum epitomis graece, Polemo- 
nis arabice et latine continens. cxcii, 431 pp. 
Mk. 8. 

Vol. II. Physiognomica anonymi, Pseudopolemo- 
nis, Rasis, secreti secretorum latine, anonymi graece, 
fragmenta, indices continens. 534 pp. 6 Mk. 

Stemplinger (E.) Strabon’s litterarhistorische Noti- 


vil, 


zen. 8vo. 95 pp. Miinchen, T. Ackermann. 
Mk. 2. 

Stern (W.) De MoSchi et Bionis aetate. 12mo. 
58 pp. Diss. Tubingen. 


Supplementum Aristotelicum. Editum consilio et 
auctoritate academiae litterarum regiae borussi- 
cae. Vol. I]. ParsI. 8vo. Berlin, G. Reimer. 

Anonymi Londinensis ex Aristotelis iatricis 
menoniis et aliis medicis eclogae, edidit H. Diels. 
xix, 116 pp. 2plates. 5 Mk. 

Voigt (G.) Die Wiederbelebung des classischen 
Alterthums oder das 1. Jahrhundert des Huma- 
nismus. Band I. 8te Auflage besorgt von M. 
Lehnerdt. 8vo. viii, 543 pp. Berlin, G. Reimer. 
Mk. 10. 

Wentzel (H.) De infinitivi apud Justinum usu. 
12mo. 72 pp. Diss. Rostock 

Wessely (C.) Neue griechische Zauberpapyri. 
96 pp. Wien, F. Tempsky. Mk. 5. 

{Extract : Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Aka- 
demie der Wissenschaften. ] 

Wessely (K.) Ein griechischer Heiratscontract vom 
Jahre 136 n. Chr. 12mo. 18 pp. Progr. Wien. 

Wilamowitz-Méllendorf (U. v.) De tribus carmini- 
lus Latinis commentatio. 12mo. 26 pp. Progr. 
Gottingen. 

Willrich (H.) De conjurationis Catilinariae fonti- 
bus. Diss. S8vo. 53 pp. Gottingen, Vanden- 
hoeck and Ruprecht. Mk. 1 

Windelband (W.) Geschichte der alten Philosophie. 
Nebst einem Anhang. Abriss der Geschichte der 
Mathematik und der Naturwissenschaften im Al- 
tertum von S.Giinther. 2te Auflage. 8vo. viii, 
313 pp. Mk. 5.50. 

[Miller’s Handbuch. Band V. Abtheilung 1.] 

Wéorner (Ae.) De Ariaetho et Agathyllo fabulae 
apud Arcades Aeneiae auctoribus. 12mo. 26 pp. 
Leipzig. 


4to. 





The Classical Review 


MARCH 1894. 


A NEW FOUNT OF GREEK TYPE. 


Any one who has had the good fortune to 
examine some of the more ancient papyri 
recently discovered can scarcely fail to have 
been struck with the methods, whether un- 
consciously followed or no, by which the 
better scribes manage to produce the effect 
of evenness and regularity without sacrifi- 
cing grace of form in the single letters or 
even giving rise to an appearance of 
monotony in their combinations. The 
papyri are carefully ruled, but the ruling 
is a guide and not a master. The relation 
of each letter to the line is not altogether 
constant ; it varies in some degree according 
to the outline of the letters which happen 
to be in collocation. Each group of letters 
has more or less the effectiveness of a 
picture, while the complete continuous line 
may best be compared to a strip of em- 
broidery. ‘The tips of such letters as have 
a tilt upwards, and the feet of the descending 
letters are both kept so closely in line that 
the former make a well-defined upper edge 
to the broidery, and the latter an under 
edge. 

I can believe that a similar principle 
underlies all good handwriting, whatever 
the alphabet employed. In one alphabet 
it may be more easy to write with grace 
than in another, but the man who writes 
well in one will write well in all; and good 
writing will be more or less common at any 
time, according as artistic feeling is more 
or less widely imparted. 

If we jump a thousand years and more 
and turn from a Flinders Petrie papyrus to 
the Ravennas parchment of Aristophanes, 

NO. LXVII. VOL. VIII. 


or rather to the writing of the better of its 
two principal scribes, whether cursive or 
semi-uncial, we find something of the same 
characteristic. There are now accents and 
breathings to marshal, and in the case of 
the marginal semi-uncials, abbreviations 
too; yet, if we drew a line bisecting the 
letters horizontally, we should find parallel 
with it on either side the two edges of the 
embroidered strip almost as even and as 
clearly marked as in the writing on the 
papyrus. 

It seems to me, who am no expert, that, 
disregarding the common scribbling hand 
used for ordinary purposes alike by scholar 
and man of business, we can see something 
of the effect of a strip of rich embroidery 
in the best handwriting of all but the most 
rude and inartistic periods. And if this is 
the case, then the founts of Greek type 
commonly used in printing Greek books at 
the present day certainly fall very far short 
of excellence. For nothing could well be 
imagined less likely to call up ideas of art 
or beauty than a modern page of printed 
Greek, 

It is unfortunate that at the time when 
Greek began to be printed the art of Greek 
writing was not at all so well understood as 
had been the case a few centuries earlier. 
In cutting the types the Greek handwriting 
of the time was taken for model, and the 
handwriting was not very good. Yet how 
immeasurably superior are these early types 
to the type now in use! No test is needed 
other than laying open side by side on the 
same table a book printed this year and an 

G 


82 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Aldine, a Juntine, or even a Basel copy. 
The one page is a work of art, the other is 
a thing manufactured. Never had Greek 
letters such an outline, never in combination 
did they produce such an impression upon 
the eye and the sense, monotonous in the 
line and the page, hard and ugly in the 
word, and yet ragged and uneven in 
the alinement both under and above their 
centre. 

Early printed Greek has a grace and 
beauty of its kind. It does not represent 
Greek writing at its best, but that which 
it does represent is what Greek writing had 
become by spontaneous changes in natural 
transmission. It has parentage ; and with 
parentage has character and style and grace 
of movement—all of them marks of breeding 
totally wanting in any Greek type of the 
day except perhaps the fount in most 
common use in Holland, which, for all I 
know, may or may not have a pedigree, 
but which certainly looks as if it had. 

I do not understand Mr. Arthur Pollard’s 
point of view in regard to the Aldine 
Greek in his most valuable and, as it has 
proved, his most fertile article in the 
Century Guild Hobby Horse for October 
1891. He speaks of it as‘a wretched 
cursive hand’ and regards it ‘as difficult 
to read.’ It appears to me to be beautifully 
flexible, distinct, and legible, and, if com- 
pared with our modern types, a triumph of 
art, every double-page or opening being a 
sort of picture that might be framed and 
hung ina library. If the influence of the 
Aldine type had indeed lasted, as Mr. 
Pollard seems to imagine, down to the 
present time, undisturbed by scholars like 
Porson and Wolf, or by type-cutters who 
never set eyes ona brown Greek manuscript, 
we should at any rate have had a Greek type 
with a pedigree, and consequently a certain 
inheritance of dignity and flexibility. Mr. 
Pollard cannot, as a child, have taken his 
first lessons in Greek from an old text and 
a Schrevelius, or he would be less hard upon 
the Aldine contractions. At the same time 
his reasons are surely sound for thinking 
that we must not simply go back to early 
printed Greek, if we would reform Greek 
type. So many things would have to be 
altered or dropped—the syllable sigla, the 
symbols representing letter-groups, the 
punctuating marks, the forms of some of 
the letters —that its whole character would 
change. We find what is much nearer to 
our requirements, if we take for model the 
best handwriting of some centuries before 
the discovery of printing; and it is that 


model, the ‘calligraphy’ I believe of the 
tenth century, which Mr. Selwyn Image has 
followed in the main in designing for 
Messrs. Macmillan the beautiful new 
‘Greeks’ of which a specimen is here 


- given. 


I shall not attempt to describe minutely 
the genesis of this new type—that will be 
done, I understand, with better skill and 
fuller knowledge by Mr. Louis Dyer in an 
early number of the Hobby Horse,—nor will 
it be expected of me to give in detail my- 
reasons for believing that the new Greeks 
are likely to be welcomed and widely 
adopted; but I may be permitted to say 
something of the way in which they have 
impressed one whose ‘copy’ was the first 
to be set up in them. 

For some time I did not like them so well 
as I do now. The eye had to become 
familiar with their appearance of squareness 
and solidity, but with each week and month 
their fascination has grown, and I am con- 
vinced that they need only to be well known 
for a universal verdict to-be given in their 
favour. At first they disconcert the eye a 
little, just as a manuscript in an unfamiliar 
handwriting disconcerts it ; but this does not 
last long. My own experience is that they 
do not worry and weary the eye so much as 
the ordinary types, and that in this respect 
the even black letter upon the white ground 
is a change to be thankful for. 

If the comparison of a line of good hand- 
writing to an embroidered ribbon has any- 
thing in it, this type certainly excels every 
other. It has evenness without monotony, 
and seen in the mass has a singularly rich 
and decorative effect. All the letters, it 
will be seen, are based on a square, being 
actually designed within a square or some 
proportion of it. Such squareness is a 
characteristic of the best tenth century 
Greek writing. The letters are of an even 
thickness. There are no hair-strokes; but 
in order to produce the look of finish which 
in writing is produced by a slight tilt or 
change of direction, the designer has made 
the extremities of the letters just a trifle 
wider. Further, by a discreet selection, Mr. 
Image has avoided all risk of the letters 
departing too far from well-known forms. 
Even tiros in Greek have no right to be 
puzzled by them, as indeed I have proved 
by more than one experiment. A large 
proportion of them are merely the papyrus 
letters with a squared outline, as may be 
seen by anybody who will take the trouble 
of looking through the Flinders Petrie 
papyri, or even does no more than compare 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 83 


MIPECBYZ: AIKAIOMOAIZ: KHPT=: 


Kai NON drontec Hkouen Yeudaptrdaban 
x 4 9 / ‘J / 4 
TON Bacik€ooc OMeaAUON: EKKOWEIE re 
K6pa= maTd=ac TON re cON TOU npécBewc: 
e Ma 9 / - e 4 
: © Bactkéwe Opeahudc : @Na= Hpdkheic: 
Mpoc T@N SEN CONep~wNe NaU@apKTON BHdéneIc 
H mepi GKpaN Necoc KGUNTON OIKON cKcneic 
dckeou’ €xeic Mou Mepi TON O~eahUoN KGTO- 
ola ‘ 4 ‘ iA . ° 7 4 
: are OH cu, BacihkeUc aTTa c anénemwen ppdcon 
€=ZONT GOHNGioIcIN & YeudapTdBa. 


NAT®PAKTON’* nauctaeuon coc mepiB\émontoc EN KUKAw TOO mpecBeuTOO Kal dzlc- 
MLATIKGSC EICIONTOC. TINEC O€ NAUMPAGKTON THN €N NauCci cTpaTIGN- ofoN OON cTpaTIGN 
Bhéneic OAHN’ H NGUN GKPwTHPION KduNToUCaN’ éncldHh BedoikéTec of EundeonTec 
STAN @cl MAHCION TAC FHC Hpéua Kai enicTHUdNwc ieUNoUC! WH MpocnTaiccc! TAL Al 
€=elcl TepaToodHc Tic rehoiw éckeuacuéNoc Kail Speahuon eExwN ENA Eni MaNTOC TOU 
ripocconou. 

AZKOMATA®™ «oc Sépuata €=HpTHUENA TOU WUCTaKoc auUToU Kal THC pINoc. Kal ouTo 
€cKeuacuENOU réAwoTOC xGpIN* dckwuda d€ 6 Tudc 6 CUNEXON THN KOOMHN Mpoc TA 
cKGAUAI* KoonHe dé dpeadhuoc TO Tpiud EcTIN. 





MPOZ TON OEQON’ $eézenitHdec wéran opeahuon éckevacral éxwn 6 npecKeuTHc: 
NAU@PAKTON Oé, HTol NaUcTaeLON: cocnep nmepiBAénontoc éN KUKAw Tod npecBeuToU- 
Kal G=lcouaTik@c cicl6NTOc- TINéC O€ NAU@PAKTON, THN EN NGUCl CTpaTIGN* OfON OUN 
cTpaTian BEéneic OAHN' EnclOH werddor Tatc TpItpecIN dépeahuol rinonTal, 01° GN Tac 
Koonac éuBGAAonTec, EkwomHAGTOUN' éppdTToNTo 9 Kai SepuaTinoic Tpdénoic npdc TO 
uH TpiBecoal Ta canidcouarTa. 


EK %OTIOT 


NATOPAKTON KAI NATOAPKTON® TAN attiKin dUNauIN KadodciN. 

NAT@APKTON BAEIIEIN® gucin Eni Tod nepiaepodNntoc kai ceundc idNToc’ npdc TON e€dN UNepeone 
NaU@apKTON Bdléneic. 

®APKTEXOAI* 1d ppdtreceat: Kai NaU@apKTON Kai NQUTIKHN OUNGUIN. 


E= HEZTXIOT 


NAT®PAKTOZ* natctaeuoc. AWwHN. 
NEQONASX* neon ofkouc. nedAxia. 
PAKTOI* gdparrec: nétpai: xapddpai. 
PAKTOZ* Xogoc. 

NATPA H NATPON™ érkoc. 


E= ETZTAOIOT 


Aérerai 8& Td EnicTiON Kal NEwpION. Kal NE@N nepiekTIK@c.kal NE@N olKkol.KaAoOnTai 8 Kai of airiakol, 
Ne@nec Kai oiko1r Ne@n. AiAioc 8€ AtonUcioc Aéret STi “IeoNec ueN NE@nac gacin, “Attixoi d& 
Newcoikouc Kai Newpia. 


EK ZOTIAOT 


NAT®PAKTON BAENMEIE: ‘Apictropdnuc’ npdc TON e€@Nn GNopoone NaUAHN Bhéneic. Eneidi uwerddoi 
Talc TpiHpecin of épeaduoi rinonTal 01° GN Tac Kwnac éuBdAAoNTEc ExconHAdTOUN. 

NATEZTAOMON: dn Awéna: éppdttonto 3& Kal BépuaTi of Ténoi mpdc TO uN BAdNTecea TY 
canidwuata. H Sti 6 NaUTIKOc cTpaTéc NaUcTaeuoc KaleiTal. 


84 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW: 


them with the Table of Alphabets printed 
at page 64 of Mahaffy’s Introduction. Even 
the Chi and the Theta, which at first may be 
puzzling, have their analogues in the 
papyri. 

It appears to me that the gratitude not 
merely of Greek scholars, but also of all 
lovers of things sumptuous and beautiful, is 
due to Messrs. Macmillan for their enterprise 
and public spirit in carrying through with 
complete success so costly a work as the 
production of an entirely new fount of 
type. 

In the accompanying page specimens of 
the new Greeks are given in six sizes—first 
a line of small pica capitals, then nine lines 
(91-99) of the Acharnians in small pica, 
then in long primer, with the lemmata in 
long primer capitals, (1) the Ravennas 
Scholia on lines 94-97, and (2) part of the 
Aldine Scholia, lastly in brevier, with the 
lemmata in brevier capitals, certain extracts 
from ancient lexica of which some certainly, 
others possibly, bear upon the central critical 
difficulty of the passage—the past corrup- 
tions of line 95, and the consequent inter- 
polation of line 96. 

An analysis of the Greek marginal notes 
as compared with the glossemata preserved in 
the lexica reveals a great variety of reading 
in line 95, though I do not claim to say 
except in one or two cases what the reading 
was which gave use to the several annota- 
tions. In trying to discover the readings 
we must here surrender some of our best 
guides ; for no absurdity of syntax or form, 
no eccentricity of scansion or entire disre- 
gard for metre would justify us in saying 
that such and such a reading cannot have 
existed. One thing we do learn from 
raking the débris of ancient scholarship 
piled in disorderly heaps in ‘ scholia’ and 
lexica, namely, that the history of our texts 
is not yet understood even in its rudiments, 
and may perhaps be incapable of reconstruc- 
tion ; but still that any effort to reconstruct 
it by the scientific study of the few frag- 
ments still preserved out of ponderous 
ancient variorum editions is sure to produce 
results of great interest, and, it may be, of 
considerable value. Let us at least endeavour 
to discover new methods and at least peer 
after new light. We may not always find 
what we seek, but at any rate we shall dis- 
cover new points of view, and perhaps do a 
little to sweep aside the enormous weight of 
comment with which the text of every 
classical author is burdened, 

The Ravennas reading of line 96 shows 
the adscripts out of which it is made up in 


the last state before the process of tinkering 
them into metrical form was quite completed. 
One entry in Suidas indicates that in some 
texts vavorabpov had replaced vavdpaxrov or 
vavpapxrov in line 95, while the vavAnv of the 
quotation in the other entry in Suidas is 
apparently a contamination of the one 
reading or the other with the adscript 
otpatiav odnv, itself originating in the idea 
that vavdapxrov might stand for vavdapxrov 
otparov, a phrase occurring in the dative in 
the Equites. It may even be that the zpos © 
tov Gedv of Photius is a contamination of the 
two readings zpos tov vedv’ and zpds Tav Gear. 
The oxozeis of line 96 implies that some 
commentator took the Bdéres of line 95 in 
its late sense of ‘ inspect,’ seen, for example, 
in Babrius 56, 2, ‘ eirexvins érabda raou Tots 
Laos | 6 Leds COnxe, rdvra & EBderev Kpivov,’ 
and in the scholia to Wasps 775 om kat 
Gecpoberns taperiyxavey Kal €Bderev Ta Oukac- 
typi. Cp. Bekk. Anecd. 282 vewpiwv 
&pPXHV: hv ov tis apxwv os erepedeiro TOV 
vewpiwv Kat TOV oKEvodnKOv Kal mavTwY TOV 
TEpL TAS VadS OKEVOY. a; 

The scholia and the notices in the lexica 
may be thus analysed :— 


94, eLecu teparwdns tis yedolws eoxevac- 

i \ > ‘\ ” o es \ a 
Pévos Kat dPGadpov éxwv eva emi ravTds Tod 
mpoowmov.  Ravy., Ald. 

94. é€erizndes péyav odGarpov eoxevacrat 
» .4 / 
exov 6 mperBevtys. Ald 

95....4...: &s mepuBdérovros év KUK- 
Aw Tod tpecBevtod Kal dEtwpateKas lovros. 
Rav., Ald. 

95. tpdos Tov vedva ? Kt.dr.: eredy 
dedouxdres of euaAéovtes Grav Gou wAnotov THs 
Ys Hpepa Kai éeriatnpovws iOvvovor pi mpoo- 
Traicwor TH yn. Rav., Ald. The apeua 
suggests a reading vwOpdas in lieu of avOpo, 
and the émurrnpovus a reading -dpacra-. 

95. vedva: 6 xadodtow ayxova. Ald. 
Cp. vews otkov in the text of line 96, and 
Suidas s.v. dyxéves, and Hesychius. 

95. vedvas: vedv otkovs. Hesych. 

95. vedvas: vedrAxia. Hesych. 

a 4A 

95. vedvas: troxpidous Torovs dia Tov 
»” ” a) ec \ / Ja! “Ald 
avenov €vOa b70 oKéerny eioiv. : 

95. tpdos Tov vedv ? k7.A.: vedpLov 


ov pyot repiBreres ev @ vewdkyoes. Ald. 
95. .4 .: vady a&kpwrnplov KdparT- 
ovcav. Ravy., Ald., cp. Hesych. 


95. vat¥papktov: vatcrabpov. Rav., 
Ald., Hesych., ep. Suid. 

95. vatvdapKtov: tiv &v vavol otpa- 
Tidy" olov ovv otpatiav Brees dAnv. Rav., 
Ald., ep. Suid. 


95. vavhapKtov: tiv vavtixyy (Naber) 
dvvapw kadotow. Phot. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 85 


95. vav¥dpaktov: 6 vavtTiKds otparos 
vaidpaxtos Kaetrar. oxorTwv ov avTov bud 
TO coBapOs Kat ports mpoorévan Tadta you 
‘rorepov ev dfOadpots Td vauTiKov Exwv ovTW 
Badi~es;’ Ald. Did this annotator also 
read vw pds? 

95. vavdpaxrov: Apeva. Hesych. 

95. vatvdhapktov BrAE€wEtS: emedy 
peyaXror Tals tpinpeow dhOadrpot yivovra: dv dv 
Tas kétas euPddAovtes exwrnddtovv: éppar- 
tovto O€ Kal depparivois tpdmots mpds TO p12) 
tpiBecOa Ta cavidopata. Ald., ep. Suidas. 

95. vatvdapktov BrAErets: dyolv 
<’Apioroharvns> ext tov mepiabpotvtos kal 
oeuvas tovros. Photius. 

95. vatvoradporv: Tov Apeva. Suidas. 

96. 7) wept Gkpav Kdprtov: tHe 
KatTa yap padiora <idbacr mpoopay kat pudar- 
Tew THV vably érdéTay akpav TWH KépTTwoL. 
Ald. 

97. doxoépata: os deppata eénprnpeva 
<€yovTos> Tov pvoTaKos Kal THS pwvds Kal OTH 
eoxevacpevov yéAwtos xapw- Ray. 

97. doxkwp exerts Kt: ds Tov Oep- 
patos e&nptnpévov TOV pioTakos Kal THS pivds 
Kal ovTws yeAolws éoxevacpevov. Ald. 

97. doxop Exes KA: eoKevacpévos 
hv 6 Ilépons exwv xabeipevov eis torov (= in 
lieu) rod te rwywvos Kal Tod oTdpmaros, ws 
av mpoowreiov. Ald. 

97. dokwpa: doxwpa 6 twas 6 cvvéxwv 
Ti KoTHV Tpos TO oKaApa. Rav., Ald. 

7. doxopa: 6 THs KdTys dbOadrpos Exe 


70 doxwpa (Ald.).  Koans Sé dhOadrpods 7d 


tonya. Ald., Rav. 


It may be well to add here the remainder 
of the Aldine Scholia on lines 94-97, which, 
for want of space, have had to be omitted 
from the specimen page : 


AAAQS: 6 vauruKos orparos, vatppaxtos 
kaNetrau oKdrrov ovv avrov dua TO coBapis 
kat poAts Tpooreva Tadrd pyoe. TOTEpOV ev 
dpOadpois TO vavtiKoy éxwv otto BadéLets, 7 
vadv dxpwripiov Kd prroug ay: emrewdi) Sedouxdres 
ot cpmdeovres, 6 OTav Oot thagiov TS Ys» 7pepa 
Kat ereorTnPOvos iPivover, a mpoorrairuct TH 
yn eoKevarLevos dé Wv 6 Tépors, déppa é€ EXOV 
Kabeynevor, eis TOTOV TOD TE TuYwVOS Kal TOD 
oTopatos, ws av Tpoowretov. ddAws: €€euot 
Teparwdys TLS yAoius eoKevacpevos kat 6pban- 
pov EXov éva. ért TavTos TOD zpocdrov. 7) Tept 
aKpav kdparov" ThViKadra yap padre cidbbace 
™poopav Kal puddrrew mY vay, 670Tav akpav 
Te. KOPTTOCL vedpuov ovv poe mepiphemers” 
ev © vewhxnoets: oikov d€ vews, 0 Kadovow 4 dy- 
Kova" 7) paddov droKxpious TOmous bua TOV 
divepov" évOa id oKérn cioiv doKkop exes" 
os TOU dépparos e&npTnpevov TOU pbotaKos avTov 
kal THS puvds, Kat ovTus yAoiws eoKevacpevov. 
dokopa de, 6 ipas 6 TUVEXOV THV KOTNV, TOS 
Te oKadpd. dws: & THS Kos dpOadpo0s, 
EXEL TO GoKwpar Kdans dé dbOadpds 7d TPH. 





W. G. RuTHERFORD. 


ON THE PROBLEM OF THE BACCHAE, 


(A propos of Recent Editions.) 


Besiwe the recent school-edition of the 
Bacchae by Professor Tyrrell,! which itself 
had rivals in the field, yet another has now 
been placed by Mr. Cruickshank of New 
College.2 The new volume is entitled to 
that measure of praise at which it appears 
to aim, that is to say, the editor is a com- 
petent scholar, the notes are kept within a 
very moderate compass, and the student 
who holds by them will not be imperilled 
in his examination. It is not an interesting 
or a stimulating book, such as Professor 
Tyrrell’s. It is composed on a principle 
common in books of this kind and, whether 
correct or not, defensible, that the business 


1 Macmillan’s Classical Series, 1892, 
2 Clarendon Press, 1893, 


of an expounder for inexperienced students 
is not to provoke investigation, but to give 
always, if possible, a ‘safe’ explanation, 
an explanation which has sufficient authority 
to pass. The only question is, whether 
students so entirely dependent, that they 
must be treated in this way, are really 
ready for the Bacchae. To take one salient 
and characteristic example. In a well- 
known passage (v. 1066 foll.) the tree bent 
down to receive Pentheus is compared to 
some curve exhibited by the use of a répvos. 
Mr. Cruickshank explains the rdépvos to be 
a simple kind of compass, a peg and string. 
No hint is given that there is any other 
explanation, or that this one is open to any 
objection more serious than that ‘the 


86 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. - 


simile is prosaic.’ Now this view, that the 
comparison is between the bent tree and a 
circular curve, such as that of a wheel, has 
certainly the merit of having been many 
times repeated in respectable books, and 
being therefore technically ‘safe’: it has 
this merit and no other. If it were right, 
the only educational aid which a student 
could derive from the simile would be the 
perception of its infelicity and inadequacy ; 
and the only useful note could be one 
which exposed this defect. The objection, 
which has been several times alleged and is 
well known, is not that the simile is, if it 
be, prosaic, but that it is no simile at all ; 
that there is no resemblance worth notice 
between the illustration and the thing 
illustrated. The line produced by bending 
down a pine-tree or pine-bough would indeed 
be essentially like that of a bow, to which 
Euripides first likens it, but with a circle, 
or the outline of a wheel, it would have no 
affinity whatever, except that both are 
curved lines, not straight. The image 
therefore darkens, instead of enlightening, 
the intelligence of the auditor, and is an 
offence against the principles of poetry and 
sense. ‘This is not the place to set out the 
wholly different explanation of the rtépvos 
offered by Mr. Robertson first in 1879 
(Hermathena iii. 387) and reproduced with 
full detail in Professor Tyrrell’s edition, 
which Mr. Cruickshank has consulted. 
Right or wrong, it really is an adequate 
explanation of the passage and really does 
offer an object by which Euripides, if he 
had it in mind, might naturally have thought 
it worth while to explain his picture of the 
bent pine. It may perhaps not yet be con- 
sidered a ‘safe’ explanation, that is to say, 
it is not universally familiar, and a student 
reproducing it, in the imperfect style of an 
examination paper, might conceivably be 
punished as if for nonsense by an examiner 
not well prepared. But is this a sufficient 
reason, not merely for suppressing it, but 
for propounding the damaged alternative as 
if it were unimpeachable? What benefit is 
thus conferred, and on whom, which com- 
pensates for the retardation of the general 
intelligence, and how long must this 
conservative attitude be maintained ? 

To accumulate instances of this kind 
would scarcely be interesting to the readers 
of the Review, and here I should have ended, 
if it were not that there is one instance, 
which will take us right to the heart of 
Euripides’ work, and will expose not merely 
the variations of individual editors but the 
whole present position of Euripidean 


criticism, and the direction in which it 
should move. 


e / ‘\ , 
ikolwav ott Kumpov, 
vacov tas Adpodtras, 
év &. OeXEibpoves vewovrat Ovaroicw "Epures, 
/ | Lam \ 53 / 3 
. Tladov 6, av Exarooropor 
BapBapov rorapod poat 
Kaptrilovew avopBpot. 
o te , 
orov 6 & KaAAoTevopEeva. 
Tlepia povceios dpa, 
‘\ my ? , 
oeuva KAuTvs ’OAvmTrov, 
ele des. / , ’ ¥ 
exeio aye we, Bpoue, <Bpopue>, 
mpoBakxye Satpov. 
éxet Xapires, éxet O€ I1dGos" 
> a , / > 4g 
exel de Baxxator Géuis dpyualew. 
(Bacch. 402.) 


Such in all points of substance is the 
MS. reading of this passage except that in 
the third line for év a (Nauck) both MSS. 
have wa, and some after’ Heath print 
iv ot: this question for the present purpose 
may be ignored. The monstrous difficulty, 
which immediately confronts us, is that 
Paphos is said to be fertilized by the Nile, 
an assertion as absurd—rather more— 
as if Dover were said to be fertilized by 
the Scheldt. It is true that no alternative 
reading or explanation has been as yet 
established, and it is apparently on this 
ground that Mr. Cruickshank, faithful to 
the conservative method, does his best to 
tide the ignorant or the careless over the 
objection by such curiously mild phrases as 
that ‘ the poet’s geography was not accurate,’ 
or that ‘many editors’ have thought the 
language ‘more appropriate’ to Egypt. 
Did any ever think otherwise, or what, if 
they did, is the value of their opinion ? 
But here at all events the: method seems to 
be exaggerated or misapplied. Dr. Sandys 
is content to mark the place as corrupt; 
Professor Tyrrell emends it; Elmsley was 
not afraid to say that he had no guess of 
the meaning. Safety now lies, if anywhere, 
in the simple statement that the text is 
nonsense. 

Of the attempts to mend it by far the 
most skilful and the most plausible is that 
of Professor Tyrrell—Ilddgov 6’, dv @’ x.7.X. : 
‘Oh that I might go to Cyprus...and 
Paphos, and to [the land] which the Nile 
makes fertile’ that is, to Egypt. This 
would account completely for the text of the 
MSS. and if the supplement of ‘the land’ 
is somewhat hard, it may fairly be said 
that some such quality might be expected 
in the true original, since otherwise where 
was the temptation to so grotesque a blunder 


va 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 87 


as we actually find? But this reading, 
together with every reading and every 
exposition of the passage, is open to a far 
graver question, a question which could 
never have been passed over or dismissed, 
as it is, with perfunctory answers, if modern 
students could but be persuaded to take 
Euripides seriously. ‘Why should the 
chorus wish to go to Egypt?’ asks Mr. 
Cruickshank, by way of recommending our 
acceptance of the statement that Paphos 
was fertilized by the Nile. But why indeed 
should they wish to go there? And why 
should they wish themselves in Paphos? 
Or rather how dare these bacchants, situated 
as they are and assuming the style and 
claims which they do assume, how dare 
they for an instant to entertain such 
thoughts, and how can they have the con- 
summate impudence to express them? Itis 
no doubt true, as some of the commentaries 
tell us, that the worship of Dionysus was 
found both in Cyprus and in Egypt, as 
indeed some form of it was found in every 
part of the Hellenic and the Hellenistic 
world. It is also true that on one side the 
multiform worship of Dionysus had affinities 
with that of Aphrodite, and that therefore 
in such a country as Cyprus, where Aphro- 
dite was dominant, the orgia were liable to 
a close association with Aphrodisia. But it is 
also true that if the bacchanals depicted by 
Euripides were. prepared to admit and 
welcome such an association, much more if 
it were the aim of their favourite aspirations, 
then the whole tragedy is false, futile, and 
baseless, then it is impossible to credit the 
poet with any serious meaning or purpose ; 
he was not thinking of his subject, but only 
playing with it, and the finer his sentiments, 
the more profane they are. 

For what is the issue which the play puts 
before us? Simply this, whether the true 
worship of Dionysus, as preached by the 
god, is or is not a worship exciting to the 
sexual emotions; whether it is or is not 
allied in tendency and connected in fact 
with the worship of Aphrodite. Thisis the 
charge which Pentheus makes repeatedly 
and in express terms, and upon which he 
bases his proscription and persecution of the 
new rites; that the Bacchanal fervour, 
though in name religious, is merely a cover 
for unchastity : tpddacw pév ds 5%) pawddas 
Ovocxdous, | tiv 8 ’Adpodirny zpdc’ ayew Tod 
Baxxiov. Inevery scene, between Pentheus 
and ‘Teiresias, between Pentheus and 
Dionysus, between Pentheus and the mes- 
senger from Cithaeron, the dialogue turns 
upon this cardinal point. The name of 


Aphrodite or Cypris occurs repeatedly as 
the symbol of that imputation which the 
persecutor alleges and the sectaries deny 
(vv. 225, 236, 315, 459, 688). Not anywhere, 
unless it be in the passage which we are 
investigating, do the bacchanals, or any one 
for whose opinions they are responsible, 
acknowledge any connexion between their 
deity and the deities of sex. Even such a 
distant and secondary relation between them 
as is indicated by the herdsman in his 
oivov 6é pnxér’ Ovtos otk eotw Kirpis (773) 
receives no justification either from the deity 
or his initiated worshippers ; and moreover 
the herdsman is no authorized exponent of 
Bacchus. His conclusion, from which we 
have just cited, is not unreasonably treated 
by Pentheus asa fresh provocation, and it 
betrays, like much in the speeches of Cadmus 
and Teiresias, a very imperfect idea of the 
new religion as it appears in the language 
of its true adepts. According to them, the 
inspiration of Bacchus is a purely mystic 
religious enthusiasm, cherished partly for 
its own intense delight and partly for the 
sublime and rapturous meditations with 
which it is connected. Even wine, which is 
by no means universally prominent in their 
discourse, serves rather as a type than as a 
necessary instrument of that physical, 
mental, and’ moral elevation, which can 
sustain itself equally well upon honey, or 
milk, or water (vv. 704-711): and of sexual 
feeling or stimulus there is not, nor reason- 
ably could there be, one single authoritative 
word, 

Surely then it ought to stagger us, when 
we find the bacchanals, in the midst of their 
protest against the blindness and blasphemy 
of their opponents, in the midst of their 
appeals to the spirit of holiness and_pro- 
fessions of trust in providence, break out 
on a sudden into the passionate cry, ‘Oh 
that I could be in the island of Aphrodite, 
in the city inhabited by the heart-melting 
minions of Love!’ If Pentheus had heard 
them, what could he say but that in their 
own despite, forced out of their hypocrisy 
by the pressure of their genuine feelings, 
they had confessed the very substance of 
his charge ¢ 

And this objection would hold, even if 
the language here used were susceptible of 
an innocent sense, and intended by the 
speakers, in some obscure and mystical way, 
to be innocently interpreted. The horrible 
punishment of Pentheus is inflicted upon 
him for spiritual blindness, for uncharita- 
bleness and tyrannical haste in persecuting 
upon the faith of a misconception. That 


88 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


such offences do sometimes entail a fearful 
penalty, even upon men not ill-intentioned, 
is perfectly true, and is a legitimate founda- 
tion for tragedy. But in order that the 
tragedy so founded may be legitimate, and 
that our sympathies may be properly en- 
gaged, it is essential that there should be 
a fair human possibility of avoiding the mis- 
take which is punished. Pentheus asserts 
the thiasus to be an instrument of sexual 
temptation and sexual corruption. That it 
was liable by aberration to become such, 
not the most sincere and devout Macedonian 
or Phrygian believer could have denied. It 
is only too certain that almost everywhere 
the Dionysiac religion, however pure and 
exalted in its proper intention, had a 
tendency to become, and did in the end 
become, just what Pentheus affirms it to be. 
Like all enthusiastic forms of religion, it 
was exposed to this abuse, and therefore in 
a manner justly exposed to the imputation. 
But the better class of its devotees of 
course contended, and the whole sense of the 
Bacchae depends on our accepting the view, 
that such practices were in fact an abuse 
only and not a true use of their religion. 
And what practical person could be expected 
to believe this for a moment, if to the 
sufficiently equivocal and perilous acts of 
the bacchic propaganda were added the 
familiar adoption of a style and language 
which to any common apprehension must 
appear to interpret i malam partem the 
ambiguous acts ? 

But it is needless to consider what would 
be the effect of taking these sentences in an 
innocent sense, for in fact they are incapable 
of any such sense. Aphrodite, though not 
much admired by sober people, either in 
Athens or generally in Hellas, had no doubt 
one respectable aspect and some decent cults. 
But the name of Paphos is clear of all 
ambiguity. The goddess of Paphos was the 
declared patroness of every sexual extrava- 
gance, and her Phoenician rites were a 
system of scientific debauchery. For an 
honest maid or matron, to wish herself in 
Paphos would be simply to give her charac- 
ter away. If Euripides could put such a 
sentiment into the mouths of his bacchanals 
at this moment, he was writing at random, 
without purpose and even without meaning ; 
and really it does not matter what he 
said, 

But to escape this difficulty, there is a way 
so perfectly simple that it would have been 
found directly, if it had ever been sought. 
The sentiments in question are not adopted 
by the bacchanals at all, but on the contrary 


are cited by them only to be emphatically 
damned and reprobated. The paragraph 
does not begin, as is supposed, at v. 402 
ikoiwav mott Kimpov «.t.A., but two lines 
before, at v. 400, the sense overlapping the 
strophae, as it not unfrequently does. The 
correct punctuation is this y 


pawvopevav olde TpdroL 

‘ /, > >» lal 
Kat KakoBovAwv Tap Emorye PwoTov: 
‘ixoiwav mott Kumpor, 
vacov Tas ’Adpoditas, 
ev & OeAEibpoves vépov- 
tat Ovatotaow “Epwres 
Tlddov @ T av Exardoropor 
BapBapov rotapod poat 
kapmilovow avopfpot.’ 
4 2 fine A 
orov 6 a kadNorevopeva K.T.d. 


Mad fools, in my esteem, and mischievous are 
they, who wont to cry ‘Oh that I were in Cyprus, 
the isle of Aphrodite, oh to be in Paphos, [or the 
land of the Nile]!’ No! There, where in Pieria 
is the noblest seat of meditation, Olympus’ solemn 
slope, thither lead me, Bromius, our divine fore- 
runner. There is the ‘charm’ and the ‘passion’ 
for us ; there the fit place for the women of Bacchus 
to do their rite. 


The seat of Aphrodite-worship, and of 
such corrupted bacchanalia as might flourish 
beside it, is contrasted with the northern 
border of Greece, the seat, as the poet of the 
Bacchae repeatedly implies, of religion in a 
singularly pure, simple, and genuine form, 
of a religion for which, as he seems to imply, 
it was really possible to forecast and desire 
a great future. And a future it had indeed. 
But this is a subject far too large for this 

lace. 

That v. 400 begins a paragraph is properly 
indicated by the absence of any copula.! The 
quotation txoiuav...avoupor stands in loose, 
but perfectly intelligible, apposition to rpo- 
zo. For a bolder application of the same 
principle see Aristoph. Wasps 666, tovrovs 
Tous ‘ovyt tpodwcw Tov ’AOnvaiwy kohocupTov.’ 
In v. 409 the dé, which on the common 
hypothesis many would rightly change to ze, 
is now seen to be necessary. Whether dzov 
should be od is a purely metrical question, 
and may be here passed over. 

Now when we see the passage in its true 
bearing, we shall no longer seek, in 


wv. 406-408, for regions with which the 


religion professed by these bacchanals might 
best and most properly be associated, but 
merely for regions dominated by Aphrodite ; 
and this has an important bearing on the 
interpretation of v. 406. The land of the 


1 Porson, rightly on the common hypothesis, 
wished to put one in. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Nile, as a whole, did not appertain especially 
to Aphrodite ; the land which did so apper- 
tain was the Delta, with its Graeco-Phoenician 
population, and its sanctuary situated, just 
above the separation of the streams, at 
Memphis. And it is the Delta (note 
€xatéatomot) to which the words refer. This 
being so, though I would willingly accept 
Prof. Tyrrell’s reading and translation, in 
default of another, I think the principle of 
it may be modified so as to get rid of its 
only difficulty. I would read vacov ras 
"Adpoditas év G...vepovtat...,Epwres Iddor, 
av @ éxatooropor...poat kapmifovor: ‘ the isle 
of Aphrodite, wherein is the Paphian home 
of the heart-melting minions of Love, or 
that [other isle], which the strange stream’s 
hundred mouths make rich without aid of 
rain.’ Since the Delta is in fact an island, 
though not of the common type, it is not 
unnatural that, where it is to be linked with 
Cyprus, its sister in religious affinity, this 
point of resemblance should be utilized. 
With dy therefore we are to supply, not 
artificially yav, but simply from the context 
vacov. We may still do this no doubt with 
Prof. Tyrrell’s Tdgov @, dv @, though the 
correlation of év d...av re...is not then, I 
think, so manifest. In the antistrophic verse 
(421) we shall of course retain ica with 
both MSS. 

However it is far from my purpose to 


argue against Prof. Tyrrell, from whom 
comes the one gleam of light which has 
hitherto been thrown on the passage. Nor 
would I quarrel with Mr. Cruickshank, who 
here does at least ask, though not with the 
best intentions, the only question much 
worth asking: ‘ Why should the bacchanals 
wish to be in Egypt?’ To this question no 
tolerable answer has been or will be given. 
It is not even true that the bacchanal 
religion was essentially or distinctively con- 
nected with Egypt, and still less true that 
it was so connected with Cyprus, although 
those countries, like almost every part of 
the ancient world, exhibited, in more or less 
purity, the effects of that extraordinary and 
profoundly important ‘revival.’ Nor would 
such a connexion, if it existed, explain at 
all why the chorus of Euripides’ play should 
here choose out of all the world those very 
regions which, to judge by their professions, 
they must in a religious point of view regard 
as the most dangerous and least desirable. 

Such and not less vital are the problems 
of which many lie everywhere still unsolved 
before the serious student of Euripides. 
One by one they will have to be solved 
before we shall comprehend his significance, 
or be truly entitled to judge him. But to 
pass them over is merely to put back the 
clock, 

A. W. VERRALL. 


as a ec e 
JOHN ii. 20. Teooepdxovra kat && ereow wxodopyOn & vads ovros. 


Tue Rev. renders this, ‘Forty and six 
years was this temple (marg. “ sanctuary ”) 
in building’; Bishop Lightfoot (Biblical 
Essays, p. 30), ‘has been forty-six years in 
building’; Westcott (John, ad loc.), ‘In 
forty and six years was this temple built” 
as we now see it,’ adding, ‘the work was 
regarded as complete in its present state, 
though the reparation of the whole structure 
was not completed till thirty-six years 
afterwards’; Dr. Sanday (Fourth Gospel, 
p- 66), ‘We might almost paraphrase it, 
“‘Forty-six years is it since the building 
of this Temple began, [and is not yet 
finished |’’.’ 

None of these critics refer to the theory 
(just touched on, but not discussed, by the 


Horae Hebraicae, ad loc.) that Ezra’s temple 


is contemplated, and that the meaning may 
be paraphrased as follows, ‘This temple, as 
we have heard from our forefathers, took 


forty-six years to build, or, was forty-six 
years in building.’ This theory I shall try 
to prove to be at least more probable than 
the Herodian, on grounds (1) linguistic, (2) 
historical, (3) @ priori. 

(1) Although the dative is sometimes used 
(in late Greek) to denote extension of time 
‘during’ (as distinct from limitation ‘ within’), 
yet this construction appears to be confined 
to instances where the context makes the 
meaning of extension clear, e.g. Euseb. H/.L. 
v. 1 woAXots éreow év tats TadAlats dvarpivas, 
Soeckh. Inser. 4107 Lyodo[y] ereow Ye. 
Moreover, if the meaning were ‘has been 
[and still is] a-building,’ we should expect, 
not @KodopyOyn, but ps’ Ady ern oixodSopetra. 
It is true that 2 Ezra v. 16 (in the report 
made to Darius concerning Ezra’s temple) 
has dd tore éws Tod viv wKodopyOn Kat ovK 
érehéoOy, but this seems.to be an attempt to 
render the participle of the original Hebrew 


90 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. | 


as a finite verb, analogously with a number 
of preceding aorists in the official report: 
and in any case the words ov« érehéoOy 
make the meaning clear (the parallel, 1 Ezra 
vi. 19, has kat daw éxeivov péxpt Tod viv 
oikodopovpevos obk ehaBe ovvtéAccav), On the 
whole, the language appears not only to 
enforce Westcott’s conclusion that ‘the 
work was regarded as complete in its present 
state,’ but also to point to a completion in 
the past. Dr. Sanday’s paraphrase’ might 
pass muster in 2 Hzra v. 16 where there are 
signs of translation, and where the words 
ovk éreheoOy are inserted, but not here. 

The reference to a completion in the past 
is assumed by Heracleon as well as by his 
eritic Origen. The former referred the 
words to Solomon’s temple; the latter 
(Comm. ii. p. 187) points out the difficulty 
of Heracleon’s theory (since Solomon’s 
temple was built in seven years) and adds 
that there are no means of clearly con- 
necting ‘forty-six years’ with the con- 
struction of Ezra’s temple: but as to the 
Herodian theory he says nothing. He takes 
it for granted that the word @xodou76y 
means ‘ was built’ in past times, but gives 
up a solution of the historical problem. 

2 (a) As regards the Herodian claim, the 
facts given by Josephus (unfortunately our 
only authority) need to be stated with great 
exactness. When the eighteenth year of 
his reign had come about (or ‘expired,’ 
yeyovoros) (Ant. xv. 11), Herod undertook 
(éreBddero) to have put in complete order 
by his means (80 airotd katacKxevicacar) the 
sanctuary (vewy),t and to raise the sur- 
rounding buildings (rov zepiBodor) ona great 
scale to a magnificent height. Elsewhere 
(Wars i. 21, 1) he tells us, in a much briefer 
notice, that in the fifteenth? year of his 
kingdom he repaired the sanctuary itself 
(airév te Tov vadov érecxevace) and walled 
round twice as large precincts as before, and 
that a proof of the vastness of the work 
existed in the great porticoes round the 


2 The words appear to distinguish between the 
putting in order (karackevdcacbai, not émoxeud ew 
‘repair,’ nor yet on the other hand oikodopetv) of the 
‘sanctuary’ (vedv) and the rebuilding of the ‘ pre- 
cincts’ (rod mepiBdAov, elsewhere called fepdv): but 
the distinction does not seem to be observed through 
the whole of the narrative. The words 6? airod 
perhaps suggest that the king (who was then 
inclined eis evoéBeray (see preceding sentence) re- 
garded himself as the divine instrument in this vast 
enterprise. 

2 Some explain this discrepancy by dating the 
‘fifteenth’ year, not from the time when Herod 
received the crown from the senate, but from the 
time when he slew Antigonus and captured 
Jerusalem. 


temple (76 tepov) as well as the fortress on 
its north. The fuller narrative (Ant. xv. 
11, 1 seg.), describing the building in detail, 
contains the following important statement : 
dvedov O€ Tovs apxaiovs Hewediovs Kal KaTa- 
Baddopevos Erépovs er’ airods Tov vadv 7yELpE, 
PijKos pev Exatov ovTa 7nX@v, TO 6’ tos elkoot 
mepitTois os TO Xpdvw cviicyodvTwV TOV 
Gepediov tiréBn. Kal TovTo pev Kata Tovs 
Népwvos xatpovs ereyeipew eyvaxeimev. Whis- 
ton impossibly translates ods tréBy ‘ which. 
fell down.’ The passage is not free from 
ambiguity ; but, having regard to the fact 
that Herod had made it a point of honour 
that the present temple should match that 
of Solomon in height (Ant. xv. 11, 1) we 
may translate: ‘So he removed the old 
foundations and laid new. On these he 
erected the Sanctuary, in length a hundred 
cubits, in height [intended to be] twenty 
cubits more, to the extent of which [twenty 
cubits], however, in course of time, as the 
foundations shifted, he [or the work] fell 
short [of his intention].’ In other words, 
as the building went on (and it took from 
eight to ten years), he found that even his 
new foundations would not support the 
intended height ; so he gave it up, and built 
lower. Herod (id.) was not able to enter 
the Priests’ court and the inner portion of 
the Temple. These, therefore, were repaired 
or reconstructed by priests, trained for the 
work. But he busied himself with the 
porticoes and the outer courts (robs ew 
epyddous), and these he built in eight years 
(exoddpynoev Erecv oxTw). When the sanc- 
tuary (vaot) was built (oikodounfévros) by the 
hands of (d:&) the priests in a year and a 
half, the whole people celebrated the re- 
building (dvaxricw) with feastings and 
rejoicings. It happened that the day pro- 
claimed for celebrating the completion 
coincided with the anniversary of Herod’s 
accession, which he made a practice of 
observing: on this account it was now 
celebrated with special splendour. What 
suggestion is there, in all this, that the 
work was left unfinished? What more 
could have been said by the historian to 
make it clear that the whole of the work 
(sanctuary and precincts) was regarded by 
Herod and the people as complete ? 

In his history of the rest of Herod’s reign, 
Josephus drops no hint of any works of 
continuation ; but he tells us (Ant. xvii. 
12, 2) that, while Herod’s successor Arche- 
laus was at Rome, a conflict arose in 
Jerusalem between the Jews and the 
Romans, in which the latter set fire to the 
porticoes that surrounded the outer circuit 


_ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 91 


of the temple (ras orods airep Hoav Tod tepod 
tov efwbev wepiBorov weptéxovoat), and that 
‘those great and splendid structures were 
destroyed (jdavifero).’ Here was an oppor- 
tunity for Archelaus to do something for 
the temple; but as Josephus, while telling 
us (ib. xvii. 13, 1) that he magnificently re- 
built the royal palace at Jericho, adds not a 
word about anything done for Jerusalem, 
it is reasonable to infer that he did 
nothing. And, as in this disastrous fire the 
Romans pillaged the sacred treasury (ib, 
xvii. 12 (10), 2), we may be prepared to 
find that the mischief was not fully repaired 
till long afterwards. It is possible that by 
Pilate’s time the treasury may have been 
replenished enough to allow of some repairs ; 
but the silence of Josephus is all the more 
conspicuous because he tells us (Ant. xviii. 
3, 2) that Pilate did indeed employ the 
sacred money, but for a different purpose, 
viz. to bring water into Jerusalem. Nor 
do Mark xiii. 1 and the parallel passages 
in Matthew and Luke point clearly to any 
work actually going on, and certainly 
not to any work of addition to the Herodian 
structure. 

Herod Agrippa I. is said (Ant. xix. 7, 5) 
to have been a great builder in other parts 
of his kingdom; Josephus describes in 
detail his sumptuous works at Berytus, and 
adds that he (2b. 2) repaired and strengthened 
the walls of Jerusalem; and it is hardly 
possible that a king of such reputed piety 
omitted to do something to repair the 
destruction above-mentioned. But the 
silence of the historian obliges us to infer 
that nothing conspicuous was effected, and 
certainly nothing additional. 

Not till the time of Nero, under Herod 
Agrippa II., do we read of any building 
operations connected with the temple: and 
the historian certainly uses language which 
might lead a careless reader to suppose that 
the temple was hitherto unfinished (Ant. xx. 
9, 7), ‘Now at last the temple had been 
completed’ (73 5 rére kai 76 iepov éreréecrTo) : 
but this may very easily be explained. The 
fact seems to have been that, what with the 
destruction by fire under Archelaus, and 
what with sinking of the foundations, the 
ambitious architecture of Herod had very 
soon turned out to be so far a failure, that 
it had necessitated repairs for some years 
past, and had therefore given the impression 
of being an unfinished work. In that sense 
it never was finished ; for up to the very 
commencement of the siege, we find (Wars v. 
1, 6) that unused materials had been ac- 
cumulated ‘because it had been formerly 


decreed by the people and the priests to 
underprop the Sanctuary and to add twenty 
cubits of height’ (ddgav roré 74 Aa kal Tots 


iepetow vmrootnpigavtas TOV vadov elkoot 
myxes mpoovydca). Also, if  dveyetpac 
is correctly used in the following pas- 


sage (and not a mistake for éeyetpa, to 
‘raise higher’), we have to infer that at the 
very time when the temple was said to have 
been ‘at last completed,’ further repairs were 
needed ; for the Jews (Ant. xx. 9, 7) tried 
in vain to persuade Herod Agrippa ‘ to raise 
up again (dveyetpar) the Eastern portico’ 
(which may perhaps have fallen in through 
the subsidence of the foundations). 

What is the conclusion from all this? 
It is (1) that the Herodian reconstruction 
was finished in 8 (or 94) years, and celebrated 
as the completion of a great work ; (2) that 
nothing more was done to it for many years 
either by Herod or his successors; but (3) 
that in consequence of the too ambitious 
and ill-calculated design of Herod, and also 
of the fire in the days of Archelaus, repairs 
on a vast scale were going on under Agrippa 
II. (and possibly to a minor extent under 
Pilate and Agrippa I.); (4) that a Jew 
under Pilate, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius 
Caesar, with recent facts fresh in the memory 
of the citizens, and with present facts before 
him, could not possibly say, ‘This Herodian 
temple took forty-six years to build,’ but, if 
he spoke of Herod’s work at all, ‘This work 
took 8 (or 93) years to finish, and from the 
time of the great fire of Archelaus, it has 
been constantly needing repairs.’ 

Again, although the use of an exact 
number, such as ‘forty-six,’ would. be 
natural enough when applied to facts of 
past history, yet if the Jews were referring 
to a work that was still going on—and the 
commencement of which was marked by no 
conspicuous historical event that we know 
of—how much more natural to say, in round 
numbers, ‘ some fifty years’! At all events, 
it would be unnatural for them to wnderstate 
their case, and to say ‘forty-six’ when they 
might have said ‘forty-seven’: and yet that 
is what we seem driven to believe if we 
accept Bishop Lightfoot’s conclusion that 
Herod commenced his temple (2. #. p. 31) 
about A.U.c. 735 (B.c. 18), and that the 
occurrence related by St. John took place at 
the Passover in a.u.c. 782. And matters 
seem still worse if, with Westcott, we assign 
the commencement to B.C. 20 (so also Keim). 
On the former supposition the temple had 
been ‘a-building’ about forty-seven years, on 
the latter (it would seem) about forty-nine. 
Is it in human nature that these Jewish 





92 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


disputants should state their figures so 
exactly, and yet wnderstate them 4 

2 (6) As to the construction of Ezra’s 
temple, the evidence is as follows. The edict 
for the rebuilding was issued (Hzra-i. 1) ‘in 
the first year of Cyrus king of Persia,’ and 
(<b. iii, 1-6) ‘when the seventh month was 
come,’ they ‘set the altar upon its base.’ 
The narrative continues, ‘in the second year 
of their coming unto the house of God at 
Jerusalem,’ they ‘laid the foundations of the 
temple of the Lord,’ and celebrated the 
event with due solemnities: but during the 
rest of the reign of Cyrus, the enemies of 
the Jews managed to delay the work, and 
finally induced Cyrus’s successor to stop it 
altogether. In the second year of Darius 
the Jews took up the work again (7d. iv. 24, 
v. 1). The ‘governor beyond the river’ 
came to Jerusalem and made a report which 
may be condensed as follows. ‘We ques- 
tioned the Jews as to their authority for 
rebuilding, and they answered, “ In the first 
year of Cyrus king of Babylon a royal 
decree was issued for rebuilding...... and 
since that time even until now hath rt been in 
building, and yet it is not completed.” Now, 
therefore, if it seem good to the king, let 
search be made for the decree, and let the 
king send us his decision.’ (The italicized 
words occur in so ambiguous a context that 
we cannot be sure whether they belong to 
the Jews or ‘the governor’: but in subse- 
quent computations of the period of con- 
struction they might be accepted as repre- 
senting that the building went on more or 
less from the first year of Cyrus.) The king 
ratified the decree and the Jews finished the 
temple (vi. 15, 16) in the sixth year of 
Darius. It will be noted that no express 
mention is made of the time taken by the 
building operations. Parts of five years 
under Darius, and parts of two (or more) 
years under Cyrus would have to be in- 
cluded, so that a reasonable computation 
might set the number at seven ; but if we 
seek definite dates, we have only ‘the first 
year of Cyrus king of Persia’ for the com- 
mencement, and ‘the sixth year of Darius’ 
for the completion. 

Josephus agrees (Anf. xi. 1, 1) that the 
edict was issued ‘in the first year of the reign 
of Cyrus’ (omitting the words ‘king of 
Persia’), but he says nothing about the 
setting up of the altar in that year, nor does 
he agree that the foundations were laid in 
the second year. On the contrary, by the 
expression (7b. 2, 1) ‘BadAopévwv trois Oepe- 
Niovs,’ ‘ while they were /aying the founda- 
tions,’ he apparently means that they only 


‘the second year 


“ 


began to lay them, and were brought to a 
stand-still. For it is not till the first year 
of Darius that Zerubbabel constructed the 
altar (xi. 4, 1) ‘in the seventh month,’ and 
then (ib. 2) they raised the foundations ‘in 
of their coming to 
Jerusalem.’! Josephus appears to have con- 
fused together two versions of the Return. 
But still he wishes to make the building 
complete in ‘seven’ years (that being a 
sacred number, and also the number spent 


in building Solomon’s temple).’ Accordingly ° 


he makes the Jews complete their task not 
in the ‘sixth’ but in the ninth year (Ant. 
xi. 4, 7) of Darius, having begun it in the 
second ; and thus he is able to tell us that 
(ib.) ‘the temple was built in seven years.’ 
Hither the precedent of Josephus, or some 
desire to make up a sacred number, may 
have influenced other chronologians, for the 
Chronicum Paschale assigns the completion 
of the temple to the eighth year of Darius. 
Now the sixth, eighth, and ninth years of 
Darius are respectively p.c. 516, 514, 513 ; 
and ‘ the first year of Cyrus king of Persia’ 
is 559. Between these two dates the interval 
would be 43, 45, or 46 years. 

In such discrepancies the Jews under con- 
sideration would naturally adopt the larger 
number. When disheartened by the con- 
dition of the temple, suffering from the fire 
of Archelaus and from the shifting of the 
foundations, they would naturally console 
themselves by saying, ‘ Never mind, we read 
in Scripture that, in the beginning, the 
temple was not built in a hurry nor 
without obstacles. From first to last it took 
our forefathers from the first year of Cyrus 
king of Persia till the ninth year of Darius.’ 
Then a historian would tell them that this 
meant forty-six years; and so, as we say in 
a proverb, ‘ Rome was not built in a day,’ 
the Jews would say, ‘Our temple took forty- 
six years to build.’ 

Of course, the historian would be a pseudo- 
historian. ‘The ‘first year of Cyrus king of 
Persia’ is B.c. 559: but this is a slip of 
Ezra’s. He ought to have written ‘the first 
year of Cyrus’s sovereignty over the Jews,’ 
ze. after the capture of Babylon: and then 
the interval would be much less than forty- 
six years. But in the face of the chaotic 
confusion just mentioned in Josephus’ ac- 
count of Zerubbabel, and of the general 
doubt about Biblical dates and statistics of 
every kind, an error so natural as this seems 


1 But Josephus leaves a loop-hole for believing 


that both the altar and the foundations had been - 


begun before: for he uses xatackeva few as to the 
former, and ayefpey as to the latter. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 93 


to present no difficulty at all, and especially 
as a specimen of popular talk. At all events 
this was adopted in the chronology of Euse- 
bius as extracted from Syncellius (vol. ii. p. 
81), dd dé tod devrépov erovs Aapeiov ews 
extov averAnpwOn dia xeipOv Tod adtod Zopo- 
BaBeX at “Incod rod "Iworedék ev ps’ ereaw Odors 
amo Tod mpwtov érovs Kvpov. 
« (3) We are so accustomed to speak of 
Herod’s temple,’ and some Rabbinical ex- 
pressions lay so much stress upon the 
splendour of the Herodian structure, that 
modern readers take it almost for granted 
that this, and no other, must have been 
meant when the Jews of our Lord’s time 
pointed to ‘this temple.’ But it is highly 
probable that they would be very unwilling 
indeed so far to detach themselves from 
the building of their forefathers (hallowed as 
it was by the prophecies of Zachariah and 
Haggai) as to admit that the temple was a 
new one. Herod’s careful avoidance of such 


a suggestion of novelty has been noticed 
above, and—although in later days when the 
structure, new and old, was completely 
obliterated, Talmudical traditions might 
dwell fondly on the glories of the temple 
just before its destruction—it is not likely 
that the Pharisee would be less zealous than 
Herod in affirming that the whole temple 
of their forefathers still existed, repaired 
but not reconstructed. 

However, this @ priori argument is of 
little importance as compared with the 
evidence of facts, which, whether linguistic 
or historical, seem to show that the modern 
Herodian theory is less satisfactory than 
the one advocated above: and the argu- 
ments for the latter are independent of the 
question whether the dialogue under con- 
sideration is to be regarded as having the 
accuracy of a short-hand report or as being 
history dramatized. 

Epwin A. ABBOTT. 


Tyyy—Unyas.. 


I write what follows with a half convic- 
tion that I am telling people what they 
know already, but there is some little hesi- 
tation on the subject in Liddell and Scott’s 
Lexicon. 

The sources of water here during the 
summer months are: 

(1) Springs issuing from the rock and 
often conveyed to roads or villages by 
covered channels. Where springs are not 
thus conveyed to roads, roads are conducted 
to springs. Many a time have I been 
puzzled by a road going up-hill where it 
need not, and in most cases I have found 
that it went to find a spring. Of course in 
many places where springs are abundant a 
village or town has grown up, and the road 
goes to find the town, not the water. Not- 
able instances are Stratonicea, the chief town 
of this part of Caria in ancient times, and 
Moughla (whence I write), the present seat 
of government, both of which owe their 
origin to the abundance of their springs. 

(2) Rivers formed by a confluence of such 
springs. 

(3) Wells. 

(4) Tanks constructed to receive the 
winter rains. 

The Greek word for a fountain gushing 
from the rock is xpyvn (or kpovvds), and this 
words doubtless covers the artificial dis- 


charge of a spring when it is conducted in a 
covered channel to a roadside or village 
fountain. In fact the last is the main sense 
of xpyvn, as springs rarely or never spout 
from the rock itself, but must be artificially 
contained conducted and released if we are to 
fill a pitcher from them with ease. The 
Greek for well is ¢peap. I do not know if 
tanks made to receive rain water, now so 
common in this part of Turkey wherever 
there is no other supply, existed in antiquity 
or, if they did, what they were called. 

What I am anxious to know is the exact 
significance of the word ryyyj. At the pre- 
sent day rnydd is a well, Bpvovs is a spring, 
both xpyvn and dpéap being rejected. With 
the substitution for xpyvy of the more ex- 
pressive Bpvors I will not concern myself. 
It is doubtless a result of that effort to 
make language more individual—to make 
words more one’s own property—which finds 
its clearest expression in the creation of 
diminutives. For the extrusion of ¢péap in 
favour of ryyads I would suggest the follow- 
ing explanation, 

IIny) means a spring, where the water 
bubbles up, as distinguished from xpyvy or 
kpovuvés, the place whence the water gushes 
out (see Z/, X 147). In this country the 
sources of running streams are wont to 
be all close together. I recently saw 


94 


near Keramus a burn with fish in it 
and turning mills, which gladdened my 
heart after a sojourn in the riverless country 
west of this. I was told that its source was 
at some hours’ distance and that it came out 
of a big rock. When I went there to see, I 
found there were many little springs all 
close together and each one distinguished 
from its near neighbour in coolness and 
flavour. These are the wyyat wotapov and 
the explanation of the plural given in 
Liddell and Scott is either meaningless or 
misleading. I have since observed that 
running streams in this country are almost 
invariably formed by [numbers of springs 
rising in close proximity. The little child- 
ren who scramble about the Greek river-god 
(the Nile and Tiber) are not his tributaries 
but his zyyai, coming, as children should, to 
help him in his eternal labour of pouring 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the water from his urn, but forgetting, as 
children will, their task for love of him who 
set it. Or perhaps we should think of him 
as sitting within the rock and pouring from 
his urn one continuous stream which it is 
‘the duty of its little ministrants to distri- 
bute to the sunlight each by its own 
channel. 

If rnyj means ‘spring,’ ‘source’ and nothing 
else, it is easy to see how it came to mean 
‘well’ and expelled ¢péap, supposing that 
the transition was made in a country where’ 
wells were the chief source of water. It 
could hardly, I think, have been made in a 
country where springs and perennial streams 
were aS numerous as they are here; but 
possibly, as regards this, the history of the 
English word ‘ well’ may give me the lie. 


W. R. Parton. 





THE LONG 


In Vol. vi. p. 189 I ventured to advance 
a physiological explanation of the nasal and 
liquid sonants. Briefly stated this explana- 
tion is as follows: the phenomena of the 
nasal and liquid sonants result from the 
transference of m,n, r, 1 to an easier vocal 
plane. Thus, in pronouncing zév6os, the n- 
sound is produced by the forcible impact of 
the tongue upon the teeth, while, if we pro- 
nounce e-pnth-on with merely a rapid and 
transient impact of the tip of the tongue 
upon the alveolar region, the resultant sound 
is hardly to be distinguished from e-path-on. 
Hence érafov. Again, when we say dérko, 
the r is naturally alveolar because the accent 
resting upon the first syllable ensures the 
normal articulation of the rough liquid ; but 
when we say drakin, the r, in order to be 
more quickly pronounced, tends to be more 
coronal or cerebral in its character, that is, 
the tongue vibrates close to the hard palate. 
To illustrate from English phonology, the r 
now moves in much the same plane as the 
7 of pretty, and 


d€px-op.at : Spax-dv : : pert : pretty. 


But the vocal idiosyncrasy of each I.E. lan- 
guage assumes slightly different planes of 
utterance for the purpose of rapid articula- 
tion. And so ¢ = 7, dp, pa, Lat. or, Goth. 
adr (= or), &e. In fine, the quality of the 
vowel-coeflicient is a guide to the determina- 
tion of the plane of utterance. 


SONANTS. 


I concluded my essay with the remark 
that this theory had a direct bearing upon 
the question of the long sonants. For all 
that a long sonant would mean is that there 
is a more prolonged maintenance of the cha- 
racteristic sound in this easier plane of utter- 
ance. If this be so, the existence of a long 
sonant is inherently probable. But its 
abstract ome may be more directly 
inferred. 

It seems to be generally admitted that 
the Low-Grade (Z%ef-Stufe) form of a root is 
based upon the primitively exspiratory nature 
of the accent. Thus zer- in zér-owar becomes 
mT- 1 é-7t-dunv, When the accent leaves the 
verbal root. And this is suflicient for the 
explosive sounds which from their nature 
are abruptly terminated. But as regards 
the combinations of vocalic sounds it is 
obvious that there may be a varying degree 
of Prolongation. Thus ew and w are not the 
only possible alternatives ; there may be an 
intermediate stage @ For example, we have 
a triple form of the root bheu : bhév-dmi, 
gpv-w, and gv-7. Similarly we have ¢, 2, i. 
In general, then, diphthongs have two mono- 


phthongal correlates. Thus: 
eur: uit 
eb 32 3% 


If now we admit that m, n, 7, / are, like u 
and ¢, either consonants or sonants according 
to their syllabic functions, it will follow from 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 95 


analogy that the virtually diphthongal com- 
bination em, en, er, el will present triple 
forms, and that we shall have 


em :m:m 
°o vo 
en im i 
CF sr 2 
v. °o 
ae ee 


The forms exhibited by the short sonants 
being recognized as existent, the problem 
remains to determine whether there are any 
phonemes which may be regarded as the 
representatives of these hypothetical and 
analogically deduced long sonants. 

For simplicity and in order to save space 
we shall confine our remarks and illustra- 
tions to the long liquid sonants. (See Brug- 
mann, Grundriss, i. § 306; F. de Saussure, 
Systéme Primitif des Voyelles, chap. vi.) 

It may be postulated, in the first place, 
that no philological equation can be regarded 
as complete in which vocalic variation is 
ignored. In the earlier stages of linguistic 
research I.E. @ was a kind of Proteus which 
assumed the forms e, 7, 0, w very much at 
random. The vowel was treated as a ‘neg- 
ligible quantity,’ and its amoeba-like vari- 
ability was tacitly accepted. Thanks to the 
neo-grammatic school this is no longer ad- 
missible. Much doubtless remains to be done 
in this direction ; types like imos and Avxos 
have not yet been adequately explained ; 
but in general it may be said that vocalic no 
less than consonantal equivalences are im- 
periously demanded in any establishment of 
cognate identity. 

What then are we to make of the follow- 
ing equations ! 

8S. mad = armus = Goth. arm-s. 

S. drdhvds = arduus = dp6ds (for ép6Fos). 

S. purt = 7oXss. 

S. pirnds = full-s (for * ful-nas) = roAXo- 
(for zoA-vo). 

8. sdrva = salvus = dXos (for codFos). 

Let us provisionally adopt the hypothesis 
of the long sonant, and endeavour to ascer- 
tain how far it accounts for the seemingly 
sporadic variations of the vocalic element. 

According to this hypothesis , { before a 
consonant are represented by Sanscrit ir, ar, 
by Greek op (for wp), by Latin ar (for ar), 
by Gothic ar (for ar). 

LE. #més = tr-més = ar-mus = Gothic 
ar-ms. 


LE. fdh-ués- = ardhvds = arduus (for 
ardhu-us) = épOFos. 
LE. pl-né- = piir-na- = rodvo- (rodXo-). 


(The Gothic full-s for fulnas implies pl-né, 
the short sonantic form.) 


I.E. sl-vdé- = cod-Fo- (6Aos) = salvd. The 
Sanscrit sdrva- exhibits the wnreduced form 
of the root = sél-vo-. With a different suffix 
the Celtic slan (‘hale’) = s -nd-. (Compare 
lan full = plan = pj-né-.) 

It has been indicated that op is for wp. 
This is suggested by the fact that the meta- 
thetic form is pw. Thus orpwrtds = st7-tos. 
Compare stir-nds = st7-nas. Similarly Gr is 
suggested by rd. ‘Thus sétrd-tis = st?-tus, 
radix = wrdd-ie for ufd-ix from ,/uerd: 
compare jddapvos = Fpadayvos = urd-amnos; 
Goth. vaiirt-s, vrt-s = I.E. wrd-0-. 

The shortening of wp to op, a to ar, took 
place in virtue of the principle by which a 
long vowel was shortened before wy, 7, nasals 
or liquids, plus an explosive or sonant. Thus 
Buus (S. gaus) became Bots (w before u plus 
sonant) ; *e-yuy-nvr became ewyev (n before 
nasal plus explosive). (See Brugmann, 
Grund, i. § 611.) 

The application of these principles may 
now be illustrated. The forms ev, 7, 7 may 
be called respectively strong, medial and 
weak. 

(1) Opécxw. A root *dher in the sense of 
‘run’ is implied in dhardyati, ‘make to run,’ 
‘urge on,’ just as dhdrdyati, ‘hold,’ ‘carry,’ 
comes from ,/dher, ‘hold,’ bhardyati from 
Jbher, &e. Accordingly we obtain dir, 
represented by 6péoxw = dhi-ské. 

(2) BAwOpos (tall). This is for pAw6pos, 
ef. BAaé and padaxos. The word pArwbpos = 
mith-rés implies a root meldh or merdh. The 
strong form appears in 8. bradhna (big) = 
mredhna = merdhna. The weak form is ex- 
hibited in Slav. brado (hill) = mrdh-é. The 
medial form yields 8. mdérdhdén (head) and 
BAwOpos = mlth-ro-. 

(3) Bpdoxw. The root is ger (swallow). 
Hence Bpdoxw = gr-ské. The weak form ap- 
pears in yapyapedv (throat) = gr-grr-a-vdn ; 
and ydpos (sauce) = grr-6s (original accent). 

(4) dodAuxds. The 8. is dirghds (long) = 
d7gh-as. This implies a root dhergh (by 
dissimilation dergh, dregh), whence ‘drag.’ 
So that dirghas properly means ‘ drawn-out.’ 
The formation of the word dodrxds I explain 
thus. In certain cases the long sonant 
showed a tendency to anaptyxis. Thus: 
KoXocods = koXokios is connected with S. 
kirca (roll, bundle), both words implying 
kee, ,/kerk (to be round), hence xpikos, circus. 
Similarly xoAoBés = 8. kharba (maimed) = 
skerba. Hence dlgh-d- would naturally be- 
come dodoxos, but this being an anomalous 
adjectival form, it was assimilated to peiAc- 
xos, tUppixos, ke. 

(5) terpdoxw. The root ter (reipw = rep- 
t-w, tero, etc.) means ‘rub,’ and thence ‘ pierce’ 


96 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


by means of friction: cf. éerebra, réppos. The 
medial form ¢7 is presented in ti-rpwoKw = 
ti-t¢-sko. 

(6) BrAdoxw. This verb is of course for 
pAwokw (cf. guorov) = mf-sko. A root mel is 
implied, which appears in S. mél-dti (meet) 
=mll-Gti. The generic idea seems to be that 
of ‘ going towards.’ 

It would, I think, be a mistake to suppose 
that the long sonantic forms are sparse, casual 
and exceptional. On the contrary, they per- 
vade the I.E. languages. Did space permit, 
the illustrations given might be indefinitely 
multiplied. I propose merely to give two 
classes of Greek verbs, and a few Germanic 
examples of the operation of this sonantic 
principle. 

The class of verbs represented by orpuddu, 
TpoTdw, TPUXd0, Bpwrdopat, etc., has long pre- 
sented difficulty. They have been supposed to 
give evidence of an d-ablaut. I do not think 
there is any necessity for this assumption. 
I regard them as examples of long sonantic 
formation. Thus otpwddw = stfph-a-i-0. This 
formation is closely analogous to the type of 
Sanscrit verbs represented in gurdhdyati 
(delight), spharjayatt (make to rumble), &e. 
Such words as pwoxdopat, rwrdouar would then 
be formed by a process of analogy. 

There is another small class of verbs of 
which tpdéo and wAdw are examples. The 
verb tpww is of course for tpw-F-w (cf. Slav. 
trova, ‘destroy ’) and 7Ae&w for rAGFo. 

The root is ¢erv, a determinative form of 
ter. The medial ¢7v occurs in S. tarv-dti, 
‘overpower,’ and tpwfw = tfv-d. 

Similarly wAw-F-w0 = plv-d from plev (adev- 
coat). Bechtel’s theory that zAdw is evol- 
ved from a theoretic perfect pe-plov-a (Haupt- 
probleme der I. G. Lautlehre, p. 167) seems to 
to me far-fetched; and Bartholemae ex- 
presses himself in much the same sense 
(Indo-Ger. Forsch. Zeitsch. iii. p. 48, footnote). 

We come now to a few Germanic forms, 
the vocalism of which finds its explanation 
in the function of the long sonant. 

(1) Walten, Goth. waldan (‘rule’), Lith. 
valdyti, O.B. vladq, O.1. flaith = vlat-i- (‘rule,’ 
‘lordship’). The root is vel- + dh, Latin 
val-eo, and vald- = vidh-. 

(2) Halten, A.S. haldan. Hald- = qldh- 
from gel+dh. The primary root gel ‘drive,’ 
‘raise’) appears in Bov-kdXos, culmen, colum- 
na, Lith. kélti, ‘raise,’ etc. The connection 
of ‘raising’ and ‘holding’ (e.g. a tool, a 
burden, &e.) is close. 

(3) Spalten, O.H.G. spaltan, cf. Goth. 
spilda, a writing-tablet = dé\ros, from Jder, 
del, ‘cleave,’ ‘tear.’ Spalt- = spldh, trom 
spel + dh. The root spel, sper appears in 


oTapayy.os = sprr-ag-mos (unless the root is 
sger). 

(4) Falten, O.H.G. faldan, Goth. falpan. 
ald = p dh, from pel+dh. 'The weak form 
of the primary root appears in the redup. 


“noun zé-rA-os, in Latin duplus, the strong 


form in Ger. zweifel, ‘doubt.’ . 

(5) Walzen, O. Icelandic velé, from vd, 
from vel + d. The primary root appears in 
Fed-tw, Fedr-icow ; vj is represented by val-va ; 
vl gives vulva, volva, volvo. Oddos, ‘curly’ 
= Fodvos = vl-nés.: cf. villus for vilnus, and: 
this for vel-nus. ; 

Another class of German verbs exhibits 
the same function of the long sonant, that 
namely ending in -allen as wallen. Thus 
wallen, wallan = ul-nan- from wel, ‘go 
round.’ The English walk = wel + k. 

Similarly, wallen, ‘boil,’ ‘gush,’ ‘well 
forth,’ is for yl-nan-. The root is uel, yer ; 
0.H.G. walm, ‘heat,’ for yol-mo- (o-ablaut) ; 
Goth. vul-an, ‘be hot,’ for yl-an-. 

In general, then, when we encounter “a/-, 
“ar, in Germanic words we have to consider 
whether the syllabic a represents the 6- 
ablaut or whether it is the coefficient of the 
long sonant. Thus, for example, is kalt, 
from ,/gel (gel-u, gel-idus), for gol-to- or 
gl-to-? In such cases we must be guided by 
the principles of suffix-formation and ob- 
serve the analogies in the cognate languages. 

Brugmann (Grundriss i. § 306) points out 
an anomaly in the Greek forms of the long 
sonant. Thus, while 8. i and a before a 
consonant correspond to i and ur before a 
sonant, Greek op, oA, pw, Aw correspond to 
op, oA instead of ‘ap, aA, as might have been 
anticipated. Thus titpdcKw, &Top-ov, Opwo- 
kw, €Gop-ov, &c. He considers this pheno- 
menon as due to the same operation of ana- 
logy as that which produces Oerdés and dords 
instead of *@ards and *dardés, where a would 
have represented 2, ‘the indistinct vowel 
sound.’ ' 

A comparative novice in philological re- 
search has inevitably considerable hesitation 
in dissenting from the conclusions of a 
scholar whose erudition is so vast, and whose 
powers of scientific analysis are so transcen- 
dent. Nevertheless, I shall venture to state 
the opinion which I have formed on the 
subject. 

This opinion I would formulate in the 
following way: the long sonant being primi- 
tively an independent reduction of the strong 
form of a root, had originally no correlate 
whatsoever, and the apparent correlate was 
evolved by a process of analogy after the 
long sonantic form of the root had become 
hardened to a type. Nothing is more mani- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 97 


fest than the fact that the medial form of a 
root tended to supersede the strong form. 
Thus Ovo, dio, dvw, &e., supplanted dhey-, 
bhew-, deu, and such derivative forms became 
independent units, as it were, and centres of 
organic evolution. In Sanscrit this tendency 
was very marked, and we have a large num- 
ber of verbs which have budded off, so to 
speak, from the parent stem and acquired a 
separate and independent existence. Thus 
kurdati (leap, exult), jurvati (waste, con- 
sume), ¢arvati (overcome), sphurjati (rumble), 
&e. And it may be noted that concurrently 
with their assertion of independence they 
have generally assumed the radical accent. 

In this way also we are able to explain 
the declension of ddwp, cxdp, &e. For idwp 
(= 06-7) does not form its oblique cases by a 
reduction or modification of the long sonant. 
Had there been a correlate to 7, we might 
have expected vdapos or tdopos ; but the long 
sonant was so unique in character that the 
oblique cases were supplied from a different 
suflixal element, and we have wtdaros for 
bdnros (cf. S. udan, water, and Lithuanian 
genitive vanden-s). 

But when the long sonantic form became a 
distinct type, analogy began at once to oper- 
ate. Thus, for example, when *otwp-vvpt, 
orop-vupt had ceased to reflect the root orep, 
oTopéow, extopeca were readily evolved. And 
just as @vacKw gave eGavov, So OpwoKw gave 
€Oopov. 

No doubt 8. gir (praise) for g7-s yields the 
instrum. case gird, but this may be regarded 
as due to the same principle of analogy, or 
may be derived from the strong form of the 
root *gers collaterally existing with g7s. 
Surely it is more natural to derive ¢i-7 from 
bheu than from @i-. 

The differential selection of the medial 
form of a root as an independent type is an 
interesting and by no means insoluble pro- 
blem. One operating cause may have been 
an endeavour to distinguish homonyms. 
Thus 6vw was possibly isolated to distin- 
guish it from 6€F-w (run), dvw to avoid co- 
incidence with devw. As regards diw, Les- 
bian form dvi, it seems clear that it was 
originally 6%-cw with the accent on the 
suffix ; and possibly the other cases may be 
similarly explained. 

As regards the genesis of the long sonant 
the space at our disposal will admit of only 
a few remarks. (See Osthoff, Morph. Unters. 
iv. p. 277 ff.) A widely accepted theory is 


NO. LXVII. VOL. VIII. 


that its evolution is due to the operation of 
the Bye-tone (Nebenton) either in the word 
itself or in the sentence. To take an ex- 
ample in English: if we say, ‘a simple ex- 
planation will suffice,’ the accent on simple 
is a bye-tone, the stress being relatively 
slight ; but if we say, ‘this explanation is 
sufficiently simple,’ the first syllable of 
simple receives the acute accent. Similarly 
in Greek BacwWeds eyevero, but éyévero Bact- 
Aevs. That is to say, the WVebenton stands 
midway between the acute accent and non- 
accentuation. In the English word démon- 
strdtion the first syllable receives the Neben- 
ton, the penult the acute. Similarly in 
6APB.odaipwv the accentuation may be thus 
represented, dlbiodaimon. The WNebenton, 
however, may immediately precede or follow 
the acute accent. Thus in the Sanscrit de- 
siderative mi-mirsh-ati (desire to die, from 
,/mer) we have a kind of accentual cadence. 
So in Greek rérpwrar = pé-py-tdt. Consider- 
ing, however, the extreme difficulty which 
besets the whole question of the primitive 
I.E. accentuation, this may be regarded as 
an attempt to explain an ignotum per igno- 
tius. Jam inclined to think that the ex- 
planation of the phenomenon is to be found 
in the anceps quantity of vowels before a 
combination of a consonant plus a liquid or 
a nasal. Thus we have paxpds and paxpds, 
texvov and réexvov. Now we have good gram- 
matical authority for the fact that some 
longs are longer than other longs; and it 
seems manifest that the long of paxpds is 
shorter than the long of papydés from the 
greater articulative fluidity of the combina- 
tion. In other words, the @ of paxpos might 
be called a semi-long. What hinders us 
then to suppose that the long sonant repre- 
sents this intermediate length of sound ? 
According to this view stfnevimi exhibits 
the semi-long pronunciation of stern- pro- 
duced by the dragging effect of the accent. 
We might present the result of this concep- 
tion in the form of a proportion : 


OTpwTOs : OTPATOS : : LaKpOs : piiKpos 
st7-los : sty-tos 
What probability there is in this explana- 
tion must be left for more competent stu- 


dents to determine. The long nasal sonants 
will require a separate investigation. 


G. Dunn. 
Edinburgh. 


H 


98 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


PROPERTIANA. 


I. 2, 2. 

Aspice quos summittat humus formosa 
colores. 

Perhaps humus, formosa, colores. 

TE 13/5: 

Sive illam Cois fulgentem incedere cogis. 

Perhaps croceis—Cois. Cf. Catull. 68, 
132. : 

II. 9. 43, 44. 
Te nihil in vita nobis acceptius umquam : 

Nunc quoque eris quamvis sic inimica 

mihi. 

Mr. Postgate has improved this passage 
by his conjecture 
Nune quoque erié quamvis sis inimica nihil. 

But I should prefer 
Nune quoque eris, quamvis sic inimica, mea. 
keeping sic of N, against sis of other MSS. 

BIOMTOALT: 

Nam quid Medeae referam quo tempore 
matris 

Iram natorum caede piavit amor ? 

As Bahrens remarks, guo tempore matris 
is probably corrupt. But I think pectore 
for tempore is sufficient cure. 

IT. 23, 27. 

Kt cupit iratum talos me poseere eburnos 
Quaeque nitent sacra vilia dona via. 

T suspegt that a shopkeeper’s name lurks 
in tratum. Iraeum? Atrectum ? 

II. 26, 23. 

Non si Cambysae redeant et flumina Croesi. 

Perhaps : 

Non si gaza Midae, redeant et flumina 

Croesi. 

Statius more than once couples the ‘ gaza 
Midae’ with the wealth of Croesus. 

ETL 23) 

Famae post obitum fingit maiora vetustae. 
So N.: omnia—vetustas all other MSS. 
Perhaps : 

ferme post obitum fingit maiora vetustas. 
Va 

Ventwram melius praesagit navita mortem. 

Venturum—motum. Cf. ‘motus orientis 

Austri’ in Horace. 

HTT 1b; 39; 

Sub terris sint iura deum et tormenta. . 

Tisiphones atro si furit igne caput. 

The hexameter is left incomplete in N. 
The other MSS. give the improbable gigan- 
tum. Haupt’s nocentum is better. But I 
now believe tremenda or timenda to be the 
true reading, and to have been omitted in the 
archetype owing to its likeness to tormenta: 
cf. vs. 46, Et timor haut ultra quam rogus 
esse potest. 


TERA S9; £0: 


Corniger atque dei vacuam pastoris in 


aulam 
Dux aries saturas ipse reduxit oves. 
Vacuam should I think be vaccas. In that 
golden age Pan himself led the cattle home ; 
he is called armenti custos by Ovid. I 
propose : : ‘ 
Corniger atque dews vaccas pastoris in’ 
aulam, 4 
Dux aries saturas ipse reduxit oves. 
After vaccas had been corrupted to vacuum, 
deus was left apparently without a clause to 
govern and det pastoris suggested itself 
to the scribe as being a description of 
Apollo. 
NY, 125-20: 
Castra decem annorum et Ciconum manus 
Ismara, calpe ; 
Exustaeque tuae mox, Polypheme, genae. 
For calpe ‘non proposuerim’ cwlpae, 
although it is capable of ‘a construction if 
carried on to next verse. 
gee 
Inter quos Helene nudis capere 
papillis, 
Fertur nec fratres erubuisse deos. 
The tradition seems to vary between 
capere arma and armata. 
Perhaps spectata. 
Tyas 
Arma resurgentis portans victricia Troiae 
Felix terra tuos cepit, Tule, deos. 
Perhaps prora. 
TV S43: 
Qui me tam docilis potuisti fundere in usus. 
Perhaps indocilis. Cf. I. 2, 12. 
IV. 8, 39, 40. 
Nile tuus tibicen erat, crotalistria Phyllis. 
Perhaps : 
Miletus tibicen erat, crotalistria Byblis. 
TV ShSt, 62, 
Indixit leges. Respondi ‘ ego legibus utayr.’ 
Riserat imperio facta superba dato. 
The pluperfect is defensible, but I should 
suggest 
Risit, era imperio facta superba dato. 
T¥219,922: 
Terraque non ullas feta ministrat aquas. 
Read usta. 
EY A ey 
Damnatae noctes et vos vada lenta paludes. 
Perhaps : 
Damnati sontes. 


arma 


A. PALMER. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 99 


NOTES ON THE RUDENS. 


[The lines are numbered as in Schoell’s edition (1887).} 


THe name Rudens, for which we should 
expect Vidularia, is explained by supposing 
that the latter had already been used ; but 
Rudens may serve to mark the nautical 
character of the play: ‘The Halyard—a 
Tale of the Sea,’ as we might put it. 





85—8. Detéxit uentus ufllam—quid uerbis 


opust ¢ 

Non uéntus fuit, uerum Alcumena 
Euripidi, 

Ita omnis de tecto déturbauit 
tégulas : 


Inhistrioris fécit festrasque indidit. 


The last of these verses has always been 
felt to bea difficulty. Jnlustrioris must refer 
to tegulas, and so Ussing. But then we 
are using tegulae first of the single tiles, 
then of the tiles collectively, the tiled roof. 
Few will agree with Schoell: ‘at neque 
difficilius et facetius nos (ex v. 84) mente 
supplemus.’ Vobis is remote and trivial, 
and tegulas has intervened. I incline to 
think we have a mixture of two readings, 
both of ancient date: 


Non uéntus fuit, uerum Alcumena 
Euripidi : 
Ita omnis de tecto déturbavit tégulas. 
and Non uéntus fuit, uerum Alcumena 
Euripidi 
Inlistriorem fécit festrasque indidit. 

The former is to be preferred. When 
the two were combined, inlustriorem, which 
referred to willam, became inlustrioris to 
accommodate it to tegulas. I propose to 
bracket 88. 

139—146. The difficulties are removed if 
145, 6 precede 142—4, the latter being 
retained without brackets. There is no 
connexion between nullus (in 141) and 
nullum (in 142). Nullumst periclum is 
explained and justified by Pseud. 1076: 
Nulltim periclumst, qudd sciam stipularier. 
160—2. Sed 6 Palaemon, sincte Neptuni 

comes, 

Qui aerimnae Herculeae sdcius 
esse diceris, 

Quod facinus uideo 4 


161 has long been recognized as corrupt. 

a 
The MSS. (see Schoell) give: qui (q F) 
hercule (herculis B) socius esse diceris. It 


should be observed (1) that the explanation 
(qui ete.), proceeding from Sceparnio’s lips 


in such a moment of excitement is absurd ; 
(2) that it does not correspond with any 
known or easily conceivable facts ; (3) that 
the reading of MSS. does not even pretend 
to metrical form. The connexion between 
Hercules and Palaemon is given by Ovid, 
Fasti vi. 519 foll., where we are told how 
Ino (Leucothea) and her child Melicerta 
(quem nos Portumnum, sua lingua Palae- 
mona dicet) were saved from destruction by 
the appearance of Hercules. Remembering 
this story a scribe glossed : Qui ab Hercule 
servatus esse dicitur. Servatus being 
blurred, comes in 160 suggested socius, and 
when once the gloss had crept into the text, 
the change of dicitur to diceris was inevit- 
able. Fleckeisen rightly bracketed the 
verse. Schoell’s conjecture aerwmnae 
Herculeae will hardly meet with general 
approval. 


411. Ut edpse succincta ddiuuat, calefactat 
ut lauémus. 


The MSS. (see Schoell) give: ut ea spe 
succincta aquam calefactat ut lauemus, 
where the metre halts and aquam, recurring 
in 412, is at once suspicious. The correc- 
tion of ea spe to eapse, long since made, is 
in itself good, if obvious. Schoell’s adiwuat 
is sadly weak. Other conjectures, none of 
them satisfactory, are noted in his Appendix. 
I believe the verse to be spurious. (1) 
There is no need to explain why Ampelisca 
is obtaining the water: Daemones (133 
foll.) has told us that it was a constant 
practice to take water from his well for 
ritual purposes, and it is on this occasion 
carried in a sacra urna Veneris (473). (2) 
Spe succincta looks like the emendation of 
some one familiar with the Latin of a later 
age; nor, if we read eapse succincta, can 
succincta be held to be a very appropriate 
word of the venerable Ptolemocratia. (3) 
Calefactat (for which Seyffert : it....calefac- 
tatum) must be a present-future ; but is it in 
accordance with usage to say ‘ She is boiling 
water, and now I will goandfetchit’? (4) 
Nune ne morae illi sim points in the same 
direction ; Ampelisca is anxious not to keep 
the priestess waiting. The truth may well 
be that petam hine aquam (412) seemed to 
the scholiast to call for an explanation, 
which he gave in some such form as this : 
Ea sec. suceincte (he meant ‘hastily,’ as 
Camerarius did) aquam calefactat ut lauent. 

H 2 


100 


The comment once written into the text, 
lauent becomes lawemus (as dicitur became 
diceris in 161), and the rest is patchwork. 


682—3. Desiste dictis nuinciam miseram me 
consolari 
Nisi quid re praesidi ddparas, 
Trachialio, acta haec rés est. 
These verses are clearly out of place. (1) 
They are impossible as an answer to Trach- 
alio’s: Ah, desine: Nimis inepta’s. (2) 
They come too soon in the conversation : 
Trachalio has had no time to make 
any definite proposal. (3) They are 
appropriate when his bone animo’s (679) 
has been followed by bonum animum 
habete (687). (4) They are fitly answered 
by the advice of a practical character : 
adsidite hic in ara (688). (5) In their 
present position they break the connexion 
of thought : Certumst morirei quam ete. is 
an explanation of Quae vis vim mi adferam 
ipsa adigit, and must be assigned to the same 
speaker, whether Palaestra or Ampelisca I 
leave, at present, undecided. The passage 
is restored if 682, 3 are placed after 687 
and given to the same speaker. We are 
then able to recover the reading of 684 
with some degree of certainty. 
Read (680) 


AM. (or PA.) Si modo id liceat, uis ne 
épprimat : 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Quaé uis uim mi Adferam ipsa digit. 
TR. Ah, désine : 
Nimis inepta’s. 
AM. (or PA.) Certiimst morirei quam hine 
pati [aim facere] lenonem in me. 

Many other passages suggest themselves 
for comment. I briefly note: (253*) The 
difficulty seems to have been caused by .- 
amabo, which got out of place. Continue 
the cretics : 


Séd quid hoe dbsecrost? PA. Quid uides 1. 
AM. Fanum amabd uidesne -héc? PA. 
Ubist 2 


then as Fleckeisen. Creticus trimeter 
follows creticus tetrameter (252), as in 
Curculio 100, 101 (FL.). (711) At etiam 
minitatur audax. Readasa question; so Tri. 
991 At etiam maledicis? and often. (856) 
A portu, the conjecture of Acidalius, would 
seem most appropriate. The adulescentes 
had gone seaward (157). (1115) The 
excellent conjecture pro oratione should 
hardly give place to the pro portione of 
MSS. ; oe 

Students of Plautus owe Professor Schoell 
thanks for his admirable apparatus criticus ; 
their gratitude will hardly extend to all his 
numerous conjectural emendations. See ¢ela 
teneam (779) and pecw alui (1307). 

W. G. FIELp. 


THE MODERN GREEK WORD vepé. 


In turning over the leaves of the Classical 
Review of 1891, I lighted upon two notes 
on the derivation of the modern Greek word 
vepd. One, by Mr. J. B. Bury (p. 2326), 
connects the word with vypds and Nypevs in 
the relation of éepds to ypds, but denies 
that vypdv could give vepo. In the other (p. 
338a), Mr. Walter Leaf rejects Mr. Bury’s 
opinion on the ground of such analogies as 
mypavw to rrAEpdvw and giArdpyupos to didrdp- 
yepos. I beg leave to observe that the con- 
nexion of vepé with vypds and Nypevs, though 
appealing to the principle of the Erasmian 
pronunciation (7=€), as well as to the 
ambition of present Greeks, since it carries 
their language back to primitive antiquity, 
rests on a pure fallacy. Similarly the ex- 
ample giAdpyepos cited by Mr. Leaf from 
Mr. Psichari’s Tageid. is foreign to the 
purpose, since it is not a popular word. It 
is a mere fiction of Mr. Psichari for the 
genuinely colloquial and very common term 


axpiBos parsimonious—so used already in 
Byzantine Greek—or for the less common 
otxTos (2.€e. odryxtds) close. As to the dis- 
puted word vepo, it is nothing but a phonetic 
modification of veapoy (scil. vdwp), used as a 
substantive like Oepyov (i.e. vdwp) warm 
drink, broth; GXoyov (i.e. fdov) for trros 
horse; donpov (t.e. dpyvpiov), now aojpe 
silver ; ovxwtov (i.e. irap) ‘ficatum,’ now 
ovkat. liver; doBeotos (i.e. titavos), NOW 
aoBéorns quick-lime, lime, and many others. 
Of the identity of vepd with veapov we have 
an express testimony already in Ammonios 
the grammarian, who states s.v.: veapov 
veadovs Kal mpooddatov diadépery veapov pev 
yap éott TO vewoti Kopicbev vdwp. To the 
same, if not still earlier, period belong the 
following instances taken from the Her- 
meneumata Pseudo-Dositheana (ed. G. Goetz, 
1892) p. 87° (Herm. Amploniana, MS. IX. 
century) ‘ydor aqua; psychron frigida ; 
chearon (for yAapov) tepidum; neron 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


recente; zeston feruentem; synceraston 
calda aqua’; and Collog. Monacensia 1b. 
653* ‘ Bade vepov mitte recentem; zpdcbes 
dxparov adice merum ; tb, riwpev vepov €x Tod 
Bavxidiov bibamus recentem de gillone.’ 
Further examples from Byzantine authori- 
ties : Apophth. Patrum (ed. Migne t 46), p. 
205 B kat dvéorn ris tpecPvrepos péyas Sodvar 
TO Kavxddwov tod vepov. Leont. Neap. (ed. 
Migne t. 93) V.S. p. 1713 C, éxet Oeppov Kai 
vepov Kal @oe vepov kal Ocppov. Porph. Adm. 
77, 13, Bepovr&y 6 éote Bpdopa vepov. Lt. 


101 


M. 597, 43 sq. vapov 7o typov...opoxdAys 
Tpwirw: Ipods vapa dé xpyvata xwpodpev Tord. 
cttw DirdEevos kal tows % cuviGera Tpéyaca TO 
A cis E Aéye vepov (cp. Ht. G. 406, 23). 
That the etymological part of the last 
remark is a pedantic fiction of the Ht. M. 
needs no special comment, since every student 
of this authority knows too well his absurd 
passion to connect every platitude with 


classical Greek. 
A. N. JANNARIS. 





JAMES’ APOCRYPHA ANECDOTA. 


Texts and Studies, Vol. II. No. 3. Apocry- 
pha Anecdota, edited by Monracue 
Ruopes James, M.A. 6s. net. 


THE general excellence of the series to which 
it belongs is fully maintained by Mr. James’ 
Apocrypha Anecdota. Here is a volume of 
no less than thirteen apocryphal works 
compiled, as the editor states, without any- 
thing like a continuous or wide investigation 
from three British and two French libraries 
(Bodleian, British Museum, Cheltenham, 
Bibliothtque Nationale, Tréves), One can 
heartily sympathize with the editor’s regret 
that so few professed theologians appear to 
have any liking for research in the field of 
apocryphal literature. Nor indeed is there 
any necessity why such research should be 
undertaken solely by the theologian. If 
some portion of the time which is at present 
wasted by men of ability over hack-work 
editions of Cicero’s speeches or Virgil’s 
Aeneid were devoted to the scholarly study 
of patristic literature, what enormous gains 
would result alike to classical scholarship 
and our knowledge of the history of the 
Empire ! Of course if linguistic style be the 
criterion which determines the range of his 
pursuits, the classical student had perhaps 
better keep away from the present Anecdota 
lest the Greek of the Apocalypsis Mariae or 
the Latin of the Visio Pauli, like Jerome’s 
Hebrew, injure his powers of composition. 
The language of several of these Apocrypha 
represents an interesting stage of transition 
between ancient and modern Greek. Curious 
words like xovBovxXelov, dxovpPitos, Koyxo- 
oTaTys, xavorns meet us at every turn. 

The book opens with a complete Latin 
version of the Visio Pauli. Tischendorf’s 
belief that the existing Greek text is 


mutilated at the end is probably incorrect, as 
the present version, as well as the Syriac, 
concludes with the appearance of Elijah and 
Elisha. 

One may perhaps regret that the editor 
has seldom attempted to discuss in any way 
the historical setting of pieces like the Visto 
Pauli and the Acta Xanthippae et Poly- 
xenae, which furnish us with some internal 
indications of locality and date. In the case 
of the former document we find at the com- 
mencement : Quo tempore palam Jacta est ? 
Consule Theodosio Augusto minore et Cynegio. 
Both the Greek MSS, used by Tischendort 
read, in place of ‘Cynegio,’ Kwvrvavoi, for 
which Tischendorf suggests Tpatiavod. This 
is not in itself a very probable conjecture, 
but it is at any rate an attempt to place the 
date of the book under the reign of the 
elder Theodosius who shared the consulship 
with Gratian in 380. On the other hand it 
seems almost certain that the Latin version 
has preserved the correct form of the second 
consul’s name. Cynegius (Quinegius) was 
consul in 388 with Theodosius the Great. 
Now it is easy to see whence the error 
Theodosio Aug. minore arose. The MS. from 
which the present copy of the Visio Pauli 
was made read, no doubt, consule Theodosio 
II. et Cynegio,—the Roman numerals refer- 
ring, quite correctly, to the Emperor’s second 
tenure of office,—and the seribe, misunder- 
standing the significance of the number, 
wrote down minore. Any doubt as to which 
Theodosius originally figured in the date is 
set at rest by Sozomen’s statement (vii. 19), 
—riv 8& viv ds droxddvpw HavdAov Tod azro- 
aro\ov epopevyv...mAeiator povaxav émauvov- 
ow eri tavrns b¢ THs Bacureias (i.e. of Theod. 
I.) toyxuptovrail twes tavtqv nipjobae ti 
BiBdrov. The fact that the Syriac version 


102 


omits all mention of the consulship in ques- 
tion would seem to imply that it represents 
an earlier recension of the work than either 
the Greek or Latin versions. Perhaps after 
all the writing may be the old dvaBarixdv 
IIavAov mentioned by Dionysius of Alexan- 
dria worked up at a later date in a different 
form. The dvaBatixdv exists, I believe, in 
an Armenian version ; if so, it ought to be 
examined, 

Perhaps the most interesting document in 
the book is the Acts of Xanthippe and Poly- 
wena. It is difficult to see any justification 
for Tillemont’s remark, ‘ nous nous consolons 
aisément de ne les avoir.’ Mr. James has 
pointed out very carefully the numerous 
coincidences, verbal and otherwise, which 
exist between the present Acts and those of 
Paul and Thekla, Andrew, Philip and 
Thomas. In fact Mr. James is always 
thoroughly at home in dealing with the 
inter-relation of apocryphal writings. 

If the date assigned by Mr. James to 
these Acts,—the middle of the 3rd cen- 
tury,—be correct, several interesting results 
follow. For example, we get one of our 
earliest clues to the whereabouts of the 
mysterious ‘Babylon’ of 1 Peter. When 
Polyxena has been carried off by one of her 
rival lovers, he hires a vessel and sets sail-— 
(I suppose @ppovy is for dpyrwv)—ert ryv 
BaBvAwviarv- ciyey yap éxet ddeApdv ToTapyxnv 6 
kafapracas aityv. In the introduction Mr. 
James speaks of Polyxena’s ‘forced voyage 
to Greece.’ But BafvAwvia cannot denote 
Greece or any part of Greece. It might of 
course refer to the ordinary Babylon, but it 
is very improbable that a document written, 
as the present was almost certainly, in the 
east should speak of a sea-voyage from Spain 
to Babylon on the Euphrates. ‘The identity 
of the BaBvAwvia here is, I venture to think, 
rendered almost certain by the use of the 
word rordpxys in connection with it. This 
title was, it is true, occasionally used in a 
loose way of oriental rulers in Arabia and 
parts of Asia Minor [ep. eg. Joseph. Ant. 
vill. 7, 2, Spartian, Had. 13]. But its 
special employment to denote a definite 
magistracy seems, as far as I can gather, to 
to have been confined to two localities, viz. 
Edessa and Egypt. Abgarus was a ‘top- 
arch’ of Edessa; ep. Procop. Bell. Goth. 1, 
12. Avyapos qv ts év Tols dvw ypdvors "Edéons 
TOTapXNS, OUTW yap TOds Kata TO EOVos Bactrels 
Thvikavba exddovv. But Edessa will scarcely 
suit the ‘ Babylon’ of these Acta. On the 
other hand Egypt suits them very well: 
the fugitive vessel is on its way to Egypt 
when it is stopped by contrary winds and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ultimately carried to the coast of Greece. 
The question of the Egyptian magistracies 
is a difficult one, but there were, apparently, 
tordapxat of single réro [ep. C.L.G. 4976 
‘Eppias tomdpyns Aptavoatrios|, as well as of 


composite rozapxia, the latter of whom 


answered to the dyuapyo.-of Herod. 3, 6. 
In short the only locality which could be 
reached by sea from Spain, be called Bafv- 
Awvia and possess toparchs must be Egypt. 
The Coptic Church has, I believe, always 
held that 1 Peter. was written from some - 
part of Egypt and it is curious that in 
mediaeval Spanish MSS. Cairo is very 
commonly spoken of as ‘ Babylon.’ If the 
words 7 ev BuBvAdu in 1 Peter are not after 
all a primitive corruption which conceals 
some female name, probably that of Peter’s 
wife, the theory that he wrote from Egypt 
is at any rate supported by the passage we 
have been discussing in a writing of the 
drd century. And it may be remarked in 
passing that it is difficult to see on what 
grounds Alford speaks of the Babylon in 
Egypt mentioned by Strabo as ‘an insignifi- 
cant fort.’ So far from being insignificant 
it was the headquarters of one of the three 
army-corps which garrisoned Egypt, and a 
large number of chained convicts were per- 
manently employed in working the tpoxot 
and xoyxA/a: upon the canal which supplied 
the town with water from the Nile. 

There are many other points of interest 
which meet one in reading these early Acta. 
For example, the private use of a wooden 
cross (vide § xxiii.) in the middle of the 
3rd century is worth noticing. Again there 
is a clear reference to antiphonal singing 1 
§ vi. where Xanthippe hears the birds sing- 
ing ocd é€ avtipovev kal irnKkowv. In § xii. 
our Lord is spoken of as 6 do0vs trvov averaic- 
Ontov T@ Spdkovte pos 70 py) ewLyvOvat adtov 
THV evavOpdrynalv cov. This comes no doubt 
from the well-known passage in Ignatius’ 
letter to the Ephesians ($ xix.) quoted again 
and again by the fathers. But is the ex- 
pression 6 dovs Urvov averaicPyrov with its 
mythological associations derived from any 
known source ? 

In the same section a passage occurs 
which may have some bearing on the date 
of these Acts. Xanthippe utters a long 
prayer in which she addresses Christ as 
being Adyxy vuyels THY TAEVpaY iva THY eK THs 
mAevpas yevomevny wAnyiv TO ’Addp darobepa- 
mevons’ tAevpa yap ovoa 7 Eva wAnynv <ipyd- 
cato TO Adam kat d¢ adtod TavTi TO KOopY. 
Now this extraordinary exegesis is attri- 
buted to Apollinarius of Laodicea by Cor- 
derius in his Catena and is, I believe, found 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


nowhere else. What inference are we to 
draw? If the exegesis be Apollinarius’ own, 
then Mr. James has dated these Acts too 
early. But, of course, this may not have 
been the case, and this fanciful explanation 
of the Johannine passage may have been 
more or less prevalent in the 3rd century. 
No decided opinion can ever be offered on a 
point like this until the numerous ‘ Catenae’ 
of the New Testament which exist have 
been properly examined,—a work still open 
to the theological student and full of 
promise. 

Documents like the present Acta would 
often repay careful study on the lines pur- 
sued with such ability and success by Pro- 
fessor Ramsay in the case of the Thekla 
legend. For instance, can we find any 
historical facts incidentally mentioned which 
bear on the genuineness of the incidents 
recorded? The husband of Xanthippe is 
Probus, an avipp Baowsxds. Now the name 
Probus occurs with some frequency amongst 
Spanish inscriptions, especially, I believe, 
those of Tarraconensis, in which province the 
plot must necessarily be laid. At first 
sight, indeed, the name Xanthippe as that 
of the lawful wife of a Roman official under 
the early empire might cause surprise. But 
in C./.@. 4272 one finds an inscription from 
Tarraconensis,— 


M.GRANIO PROBO DEC. PONTIFICI 
AEDILICIIS HONORIBYS FYNCTO. 


In the rest of the inscription a sister of this 
magistrate is mentioned called ‘ Aphrodite.’ 
This seems to indicate that there is no a 
prvort reason against a Roman official with 
a Greek-named wife having lived in Spain 
in the reign of Claudius. At the same time 
‘ Probus’ is a name which would readily be 
used by the compiler of a fictitious narra- 
tive. 

Amongst the other contents of the volume 
is a full text of the well-known Apocalypsis 
Mariae Virginis. This has been transcribed 
from a Huntingdon MS. in the Bodleian 
which furnished Tischendorf with his printed 
selection from this Apocalypse. 

Another Bodleian MS. (Rawl. Auct. G, 4), 
unnoticed by Tischendorf but mentioned by 
Mr. James, contains what may perhaps be 
the latest recension of this Apocalypse. 
The text in this MS. is not only, as the 
editor remarks, much shorter, but quite 
different from the one before us, For instance 
we get no help from the later MS. towards 


103 


filling up the unimportant lacuna! at the 
end of § xvii. for the Greek is different,— 
avOpwros Kexpapevos: Kal Onplov wrepwrdv = 
kepadas...kat arexpiOn Muyayd kal etrev, obs 
€oTw 6 iepeds 6 py ody tiv didAvow Tis 
avayveoews «.t.A. I do not know how to 
construe the last words. 

With respect to the three short fragments 
which conclude this selection Mr. James has 
suggested very reasonably that they may all 
perhaps be amplifications of the ordinary 
LXX. text. Evena slight acquaintance with 
cursive MSS. of the LXX. reveals the fact 
that such additions occur frequently. 

In the supplement to the Acta Philippi 
there occurs one of the few known references 
to the talking cross which figures in the 
Gospel of Peter and very probably in the 
still earlier Ignatian Epistle to the Smyr- 
naeans (vid. Academy, Dec. 23rd, 1893). The 
whole section in the Acts where this inci- 
dent occurs is full of interest ; and I may 
mention that the expression zoAAal duvat 
nxnTav év obpavois TO du Hv lends support to 
my suggestion in a former number of the 
Classical Review (vol. vii. p. 42) that the 7d 
vat of the Petrine Gospel is not an answer 
to a question but a response equivalent to 
ayjv. We have also in this section a voice 
from heaven as in the Gospel of Peter. 
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that a refer- 
ence to a voice at the Crucifixion is found in 
the Christus Patiens, 1. 2256 sq. 


> ? > / / A X > , 
éx 0’ aidépos hwvy tis, ds pev cixdoar, 
Geos rarnp nxnoev ev Bon Eévp. 


The incidents of the voice and the talking 
cross and so forth must, one would think, 
have been borrowed originally from some 
very early Christian work of the apostolic or 
sub-apostolic age which may perhaps be yet 
recovered. 

Mr. James has edited the frequently cor- 
rupt and mutilated text of these Apocrypha 
with great skill and has seldom given up a 
passage as hopeless, Can the very difficult 
istic mel apex magnus of the ‘ Oratio Moysi’ 
conceal cota vel apex manet unus? This is 
the Old Latin rendering of ‘jot or tittle.’ 

E. N. Bennett. 

' The contracted cursive scrawl on f. 346 of the 
older document which Mr. James was unable to 
decipher does not, as he surmised, furnish the missing 
words. It seems to contain a couple of silly iambic 
lines, —perhaps, 


. 7600s ob Td ypapnu’ dv pavOdvew 
véas 8 dbopuas Kal tpomods eyxapdlas K.7.A. 


104 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


PELHAM’S HISTORY OF ROME. 


Outlines of Roman History, by H. F. Petnam, 
M.A.,F.S.A., Camden Professor of Ancient 
History in the University of Oxford. G. 
P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893. © 6s. 


THe story of the Romans has been told 
many times and in many ways. That im- 
perial people worked their wisdom and their 
wickedness so thoroughly into civilization 
that the world seems likely never to see the 
day when one cannot lay the finger on some 
familiar thing and say ‘this is Roman.’ 
We talk of our modern science, of our new 
thinking in philosophy and religion, of the 
achievements of our nineteenth century 
democracy. But everywhere, in state and 
church and scholarly life, we are always 
under the shadow of Rome. 

A new book, then, on this familiar theme 
we are inclined at once to challenge for its 
raison @étre. Is it the result of investiga- 
tion which discloses new truth? Or does it 
embody a fresh and more striking way of 
putting old views? For after all unless one 
can say something new, or can say some- 
thing old in a new way, there is hardly 
adequate excuse for giving another book to 
a book-burdened world. 

Mr. Pelham’s history is an octavo of 
nearly 600 pages, is a revised reprint of the 
article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and 
gives the outline of Roman politics to the 
fall of the Western Empire. It is not a 
picture book and is scantily supplied with 
maps. The author writes from a full mind, 
with ample command of the sources as well 
as of modern views. From the original 
purpose of the work it is perhaps fair to 
infer that it is not designed primarily as a 
school book, but is rather a concise treatise 
for the general reader. How far does it 
fulfil this end ? 

There is one form of historical writing to 
which of course it does not belong. The 
scholar who investigates a given field for 
purposes purely scientific cares little for the 
way in which his study is presented. He 
treats every point exhaustively, being 
guided as to the space he shall occupy only 
by the amount of evidence at hand, or by 
the amount of speculation to which the 
problem gives rise. Hisaim is simply to say 
all that can be said. Whether his opus 
requires one volume or ten, is matter of 
indifference. The demands of the subject 


‘are what control. 


The reader is quite of 
secondary importance. 

Such an outline as we are discussing, 
however, exactly inverts these conditions. 
The results of scientific inquiry are assumed, 
and the reader’s correct understanding of -a 
given epoch is the predominant thought. 
There must usually be some regard to the 
limits of space, determined in general by 
the probable limits of the reader’s time and 
patience. There must always be careful 
regard to the class of reader whom it is 
intended to instruct, as on this wil] depend 
the emphasis. If some special purpose is in 
view, as literature, war, society, that will be 
the main thing throughout, and others will 
be subordinated. : 

If, however, it is the ubiquitous and 
rather hazy individual known as_ the 
‘general reader’ for whom the work is design- 
ed, the emphasis should be determined on a 
different principle—or rather principles, for 
there are two. The first is the consideration 
as to what are the most characteristic 
features—what it is that marks out a nation 
or an age and makes it worthy of being 
remembered by everybody. And in the 
second place we inquire what it is that has 
meant most to the world. For in this view 
the importance of any portion of history 
does not depend on duration, or on the 
number or variety of phenomena, but on 
the bearing of things on the welfare of 
mankind. 

It is in accordance with these last con- 
siderations that Mr. Pelham’s book should 
be judged. It is an ‘outline,’ designed, as 
an encyclopaedia article presumably should 
be, for a somewhat general reader. Has he, 
then brought out the salient facts? Has he 
given his picture adequate perspective ? 
Literary perspective, we must remember, 
consists in leaving out things judiciously. 
And for this purpose it must be confessed 
that a scholar is at some disadvantage. He 
knows so many things that it often is quite 
painful to him to pass any of them over. 

May we not say that Rome means to the 
world mainly two things ? 

The first of these is law and government. 
The people of Rome built up, slowly and 
painfully enough to be sure, a scheme of 
government which stood the shock of many 
centuries, and which in the end controlled 
the civilized world and gave it political 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


shape. Many parts of the Roman system 
seem to us very poor political science. But 
perhaps our criticism may have more weight 
after our own institutions have endured as 
many centuries as did those of Rome. 

But the body of law which the Roman 
state and the Roman jurists created was not 
only a marvel in its cogent application of 
logic and justice to human intercourse under 
the conditions prevailing at Rome. It was 
also so universal in its conceptions, so ele- 
mental in its analysis of human motive, so 
clear in its application of reason to fact, 
that it has lived on long after the Roman 
state has vanished. It is the essence of the 
juristic science of the continent of Europe, 
and of the canon Jaw throughout the world. 
And through the church it has not been 
without influence on the common law of 
England itself. 

Virgil realized what his people were doing 
in the world: 

‘Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, me- 

mento ; 
Hae tibi erunt artes, pacisque imponere 
morem, 

Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.’ 

But government and law are a means, not 
-anend. They are mere machines, devised 
to produce certain results. And the charac- 
ter of Roman political and legal institutions 
was strictly determined by the composition 
and aims of Roman society, Every line of 
the Roman constitution was the crystalliza- 
tion of some social struggle. Every judicial 
maxim implied strife which had been stilled. 
And to understand the institutions of Rome 
and the process by which they were created, 
one must understand the Romans. The 
social classes, how they lived, what they 
wanted, what they enjoyed and suffered, 
their fierce faction fights,—all these are 
vital to a real comprehension of the meaning 
of Roman political results, 

Too often we err in conceiving these 
Romans as materially different from modern 
Teutonic men. We must not judge by the 
Italians of our day—a mixed race, not so 
much welded as crushed by the oppressions 
of a thousand years. The old Romans were 
in many ways like the modern English. 
They were hard-headed merchants and 
acute lawyers. They were keen, shrewd, 
civilized men, using adroitly the means at 
hand. They were, in short, much what 
modern Englishmen would be without the 
printing press, steam and the telegraph 
wire. 

Of these two conceptions which seem 
fundamental to Rome, and of which Roman 


105 


history should be the unfolding and the 
illumination, Mr. Pelham has been especi- 
ally happy in dealing with the first. 

To begin with, his distribution of space 
shows sound historical judgment. About 
three-fifths of the book are devoted to the 
time from the Gracchi to Nero, a period of 
some 200 years. It was in those centuries 
that the republic culminated and the empire 
rose. By the end of that time the legal 
system was virtually complete. The great 
work of Justinian’s jurists was of course not 
to create law, but merely to codify the 
corpus turis already existing. The transfer 
of the capital and the transformation of 
religion effected by Constantine were mere 
surface changes. The imperial structure 
was not altered, and Christianity was more 
Christian before it became the official cult. 
The orientalization of the empire due to 
Diocletian left still the virile Roman body 
of the state, simply substituting for the 
toga the gorgeous silks of the east. And 
though Mr. Pelham ends his volume before 
any of these events, he is able to present 
the essence of Roman law and politics. 

He traces the development of the consti- 
tution very logically. But perhaps for the 
general reader somewhat too much general 
knowledge is assumed. We can hardly say 
that he gives usa photograph of the Romans 
from life. And here it seems that he rather 
falls below his otherwise high standard. 
His treatment of what has been called the 
second of the two fundamental conceptions 
of Rome is not quite adequate. 

After all, constitutional growth is impor- 
tant not so "much for the mere change in 
mechanism as for what is done with it. 
Democracy, for instance, aims at power in 
order to make life better worth having. 
And for real understanding of the people 
one must know more than mere politics. 
Mr. Pelham hardly attempts to give even a 
reduced photograph of the living human 
beings whose political strife he so vividly 
depicts. 

One ventures such suggestions with difli- 
dence. In the narrow limits of 600 pages 
it is not easy to cover all the vast field of 
Roman life and history. And yet the 
course of politics is sketched with so 
masterly a hand that one cannot avoid the 
question whether perhaps the people too 
might not have been drawn. In other 
words, might not a brief history of Roman 
politics be at the same time a brief history 
of the Noman people ? 

If one is somewhat familiar with the 
Romans, Mr. Pelham’s book will be found 


106 


very delightful. It has perhaps a trifle of 
the encyclopaedia hardness of literary quality. 
A liquid style doubtless cannot be expected 
in a dictionary. And yet, bearing in mind 
that rather dreary purpose with which the 
work was originally written, it is sur- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


prisingly easy. And, as a clear presentation 
in short compass of the evolution of Roman 
politics, it is quite unique in its field. 
H. P. Jupson. 
University of Chicago. 





PETERSON’S DIALOGUS OF TACITUS. © 


Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus, a 
Revised Text with Introductory Essays 
and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by 
W. Pererson, M.A., LL.D., formerly 
scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 
Principal of University College, Dundee, 
St. Andrew’s University. Oxford at the 
Clarendon Press. 1893. 10s. 6d. 


Aut Latin scholars, especially those who are 
students of Tacitus, will feel deeply grateful 
to Dr. Peterson for having followed up his 
well-known edition of Quintilian Book x. by 
one of a treatise so nearly related to it, and 
hitherto so conspicuously neglected by Eng- 
lish scholars generally : and their gratitude 
will be the more complete by reason of the 
thorough and exhaustive manner in which 
all the questions relating to the Dialogue 
have been treated. 

The Introduction, in ninety-one pages, 
embraces the following subjects: i. The 
question of authorship and date; ii. Sub- 
stance and scheme of the Dialogue ; iii. The 
interlocutors and their parts; iv. Style and 
language; v. Manuscripts; vi. Biblio- 
graphy. 

The first head deals with one of the most 
vexed questions of literary criticism, on 
which Dr. Peterson has given us a full nar- 
rative of the controversy and a critical judg- 
ment grounded on it. It has been generally 
seen that the question of date closely affects 
that of authorship ; for the Germania and 
Agricola were written at the beginning of 
Trajan’s rule, and the difference of style 
between them and the Dialogue is too great 
to be accounted for by mere difference 
of subject, unless we also suppose them to 
be separated from it by a considerable inter- 
val of time ; and those who, like Andresen, 
treat this work as written in the time of 
Nerva, would consider its Tacitean author- 
ship at least extremely questionable. 

Again, it is generally assumed that the 
sentiments are too outspoken to have been 
published at any time under Domitian. On 


the other hand, the date at which the Dia- 
logue purports to have taken place has been 
generally fixed, on data furnished by ec. 17, 
somewhere from A.D. 75--78, at which date 
Tacitus calls himself ‘iuvenis admodum,’ an 
expression which he would hardly use if he 
were writing as soon afterwards as the time 
of Titus. Dr. Peterson’s conclusions on 
these points will very generally commend 
themselves. Inasmuch as the 120th year 
from the death of Cicero cannot be made to 
square with the sixth year of Vespasian, he 
prefers to take the latter as the most 
definite date, and to assume the Dialogue as 
held in a.p. 74, at which time Tacitus was 
probably about twenty years old. Nor does 
he consider it impossible that the treatise 
should have been written and perhaps even 
published under Domitian. That prince had 
his good period, like Nero,! and there is no 
difficulty in supposing literature to have 
been fairly free at such a date as a.D. 84-85, 
by which time Tacitus, who had meanwhile 
filled two magistracies and had become a 
senator, might well look back on himself es 
having been ‘iuvenis admodum’ some ten 
years previously. With this chronological 
arrangement most of the difficulties disap- 
pear, and full space is left between the 
Dialogue and the Germania and Agricola for 
such development of his peculiar style as 
Wolfflin, Drager and others trace continuously 
throughout all his writings. The fact that 
there is more difference of style between the 
Dialogue and the Germania or Agricola than 
between either of them and even the Annals, 
may well have been due to the difference of 
subject, and to the obvious desire of the 
writer to advocate by precept and example 
a nearer approach to the Ciceronian model 
than the prevalent fashion of his age pre- 
scribed. Making this allowance, we may 
admit that Dr. Peterson has shown by very 
careful study a great many points of contact 
between the Latinity of this treatise and 
that of the Silver Age generally and of the 
1 See Suet. Dom. 9. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


later writings of Tacitus in particular! which 
have not had the attention which they 
deserve: and his reasoning in favour of the 
Tacitean authorship of the treatise will add 
much weight to the conclusion which the 
majority of recent scholars have already 
reached. 

The scheme or plan of the treatise has 
been almost as much discussed as its author- 
ship. It is hardly possible here to draw 
attention to more than one or two points in 
the editor’s extremely thorough treatment 
of this subject. He holds that the reason 
of the decay of oratory is the chief topic of 
discussion, and that the apparently dispro- 
portionate proportion of the treatise as a 
whole which is given to this, its proper 
subject, is to be explained by the mutilated 
condition of the work, and the great lacuna,” 
which has deprived us of the close of the 
argument of Messala, and of apparently one- 
ninth of the whole treatise, and has caused 
much difficulty in apportioning the remain- 
der. Dr. Peterson argues that there is no 
second lacuna in ec. 40, that Maternus is the 
speaker throughout chapters 36--41, and that 
he is intended to be the principal person in 
the treatise and the representative of the 
author’s own opinions. It is also argued 
that he has been wrongly identified with the 
cogiorys of that name, mentioned by Dio as 
put to death by Domitian in a.p. 91, and 
may probably have died before the date of 
the composition of the treatise. The Ma- 
ternus of this treatise certainly could not 
rightly be so described ; but it is perhaps 
easier to suppose that Dio is inaccurate than 
that two literary men of the same note and 
similarly free-spoken were flourishing at the 
same time. This however is an open ques- 
tion. 

Another point to be noticed in the Intro- 
duction is the extremely full examination of 
the manuscripts of this treatise. Dr. Peter- 
son starts from the labours of Michaelis, 
Baehrens, and Scheuer, with especial recog- 
nition of the advance of the last upon his 
predecessors,‘ but has himself carefully gone 
over the whole ground again with the addi- 


1 See pp. xlvii. foll. ; liv. foll. 

2 See c. 35. 

* Dr. Peterson might perhaps with advantage 
have dwelt more on the evident touches of satire 
in the representation of the style of Aper, especially 
the pedantic subtlety by which he endeavours to 
show that the great Greek orators are moderns 
and Cicero one of the present generation. He almost 
reminds us in some points of the Thrasymachus of 
the Republic ; and the question ‘ who is an ancient ?’ 
carries us back to Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 35. 

* A review of Scheuer’s treatise, by Dr. Gudeman, 
will be found in @.R. vi. 316, foll. 


107 


tional examination of a manuscript in the 
British Museum (‘ Harleianus’), hitherto 
neglected but of considerable interest ; and 
has thus given us a superior critical edition 
of the text to any which has_ hitherto 
appeared. 

A very full bibliography of the literature 
of the treatise completes the Introduction. 

The notes, which are very scholarlike and 
complete, cannot here be adequately dis- 
cussed; but a few words may be said of 
some of the instances in which Dr. Peterson 
has himself originated emendations of the 
text. 

(1) Ine. 3, 9, ‘intelleges tu quidem quid’ 
certainly gives a better sense and construc- 
tion to the passage than Halm’s ‘leges 
inquit quid,’ and is far less violent than the 
suggestions of Nipperdey or Bihrens. 

(2) In c. 3, 22, the alteration of ‘adgre- 
gares’ (which could only stand with a some- 
what violent insertion of ‘ut’) to ‘adgre- 
gando’ is well supported by analogies as a 
probable resolution of a misunderstood ab- 
breviation. 

(3) Ine. 5, 12, the insertion of ‘ contigit’ 
is more questionable, and at least requires 
more explicit demonstration of the way in 
which it might be supposed to have dropped 
out. 

(4) Ine. 5, 13, ‘hos’ as a correction of 
‘eos’ is perhaps simpler than, and preferable 
to, the usual ‘ vos.’ 

(5) Ine, 21, 4, ‘alii omnes’ is very pos- 
sibly the right version of what has become 
‘alios’ by a misread abbreviation. 

(6) In ec. 22, 21, ‘insolentia’ is better 
coupled with ‘oblitterata than is the MS. 
‘olentia,’ and the word is supported by Cic., 
Quint. and Gell. 

(7) Ine. 25, 8, ‘in quae nimirum’ for ‘si 
cominus ’ (or ‘quominus’) is extremely bold 
and needs more defence in the note. The 
MS. text is plainly corrupt, but no emenda- 
tion seems as yet to deserve to win its way 
into the text, 

(8) Inc. 26, 12, ‘facetis hominibus’ for 
‘sicut his clam et’ seems again too conjectural 
to be admissible into the text, however legi- 
timate for suggestion in a note. 

(9) In ec. 27, 7, ‘nee nunc’ for the MS. 
‘nam nec’ or ‘nam et’ may fairly stand on 
equal ground with the other emendations, 
though none can be altogether approved. 

(10) In e. 32, 15, the insertion of ‘ huius’ 
after ‘ius’ strongly commends itself. The 
homoeoteleuton is one which a writer might 
well have tolerated, and on which a copyist 
might very easily blunder. 

(11) In ec. 37, 37, the reading ‘ vellicent’ 


105 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


for ‘velint’ rests on a possible supposition 
of misunderstood contraction, and the word 
has in other authors the meaning here given 
to it, but the sentence so read seems on the 
whole somewhat weak and pointless. 

(12) Ine. 39, 12, the insertion of ‘ audi- 
endis’ derives some support from a blank 
space left in one MS. which seems generally 
to have been overlooked, and, with the 
slight change ‘patronis’ for ‘patronus,’ 
gives good sense. 

As a sample of good discussion of a 
difficult point, attention may be drawn to 
the notes on the chronological difficulty in 
ce. 17. It might perhaps be worth while to 
compare the slighter but somewhat similar 
difficulty of dates in Germ. 37, where ‘ses- 
centesimum et quadragesimum,’ which does 
not look like a round number, is either to 
be so taken or as an inaccuracy for A.u.c. 641, 
and ‘ducenti ferme’ has to stand for 210 
years. If we add the slight errors of 
reckoning in Ann. 3, 31,1; 12, 25, 3 ; 14, 64, 


1 (which it is difficult to take as all due to 
copyists), it would seem to show some ten- 
dency in the author to chronological inac- 
curacy. 

As a small point to alter in another 


edition, Draeger has been wrongly followed 


in giving ‘ proeliator’ asa new word (see 
the reference in the -note on c. 37, 32). 


Also it does not seem quite clear on what — 


principle Dr. Peterson uses italics in the 
emendations of text, and it might be better 


to restrict them uniformly to cases in which 


words supposed to have dropped out are 
inserted. , 

It is much to be hoped that this treatise, 
evidently (to judge from the number of 
recent editions) not unpopular in Germany, 
may be henceforth rescued from its most 
undeserved neglect in England. An abridged 
edition for schools would be needful to 
effect this object, and would probably cost 
Dr. Peterson little trouble in preparation. 

H. Furneaux. 





LINDSAY ON THE SATURNIAN METRE. 


W. M. Linpsay, on the Saturnian Metre 
(American Journal of Philology, Vol xiv. 
No. 2). 


Mr. Linpsay has grappled with a thorny 
subject in undertaking to determine the 
real nature of the Saturnian metre. The 
extant specimens are derived almost wholly 
from citations by the grammarians, not 
uncommonly open to the suspicion of being 
corrupt, or from inscriptions, in which a 
certain amount of illiteracy on the part of 
the inscribers is at times a disturbing 
element. The theoretical explanations of 
the grammarians are shaped by their inca- 
pacity to look at any metrical question 
except through Greek spectacles. Hence it 
is little wonder that of the two most recent 
treatises on the Saturnian metre (both 
published in 1892) one emphatically pro- 
nounces it quantitative, while the other 
assumes it to be accentual. M. Havet, the 
author of the most elaborate and (as far as 
collection of materials goes) valuable work 
on the question (Paris, 1880), declares that 
no poet before Commodianus (circ. a.p. 250) 
ever attributed the slightest importance 
to accentuation ; and now again Mr. Lind- 
say finds accentuation to be the prime 
determining principle. There is obviously 


room for a fresh examination of the whole 
question on sound scientific methods ; and 
this is what Mr. Lindsay has given us. 
Whatever other results his inquiry may have 
had, it is certainly a fine specimen of the 
way in which such an inquiry ought to be 
conducted. 

It is clear that we have abundant 
evidence of the quantity of words as used in 
the comic dramatists ; and the whole burden 
of proof lies upon those who would assert 
that this was not the quantity which was 
observed in Saturnians. Forms like Zuciom, 
itaque have no intrinsic probability, and 
must be established by strong evidence 
before we can accept them. On the other 
hand there is so much evidence that the 
ordinary accentuation of a Latin sentence 
was observed by Plautus and Terence, that 
there is a strong presumption in favour of 
its holding good also in Saturnians. We 
shall therefore naturally start with reading 
Saturnians according to the current rules 
for quantity and accent, until we are forced 
to do otherwise. 

Mr. Lindsay begins his inquiry by 
reprinting all extant Saturnian verses. <As 
the number does not reach 150, this does 
not take up much space, and it is very 
convenient, not only for reference, but also 


ws - 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


as admitting of discussions on the text, 
where necessary, without interrupting the 
thread of the argument elsewhere. Then 
he proceeds to consider whether there is 
any evidence in Plautus or Terence for 
quantities forced upon those who suppose 
the Saturnian metre to be based upon 
quantity: eg. if we are to start with 
“iviv__, we assume @ in the 
nominative quoius forma virtutet parisuma 
fuit. But of this there is no satisfactory 
proof. Passing on to the question of accent, 
he shows by a large collection of instances 
that Plautus and Terence distributed the 
metrical ictus with due regard not only to 
the usual law of the penultima, but also to 
the modification of this produced by ‘ word- 
groups,’ as in voluptds-mea coctiim-dabo and 
the like ; and confirms his conclusions by 
some interesting phenomena of the Romance 
languages. Then on the firm basis thus 
won he tests the rival theories of accentual 
and quantitative scansion, and finds the 
latter directly clashing with the facts 
observed in the only trustworthy specimens 
that we have of early Latin poetical litera- 
ture. The only possible device for getting 
over some of these difficulties—to assume 
that the metre might be trochaic or iambic 
at discretion, a tolerably audacious sugges- 
tion—involves a metrical accentuation like 
inelitus, which is always avoided by the 
dramatists. The conclusions to which Mr. 
Lindsay comes are so far the same as those 
of Thurneysen in his book Der Saturnier 
(1885), «ae. that the lines are scanned 
according to accent, without regard to 
quantity, the first half having three accents, 
the first of which always falls on the first 
syllable of the line, the second having two 
accents ; and his service consists in having 
removed more completely certain difficulties 
by means of a more thorough investigation 
of the accentuation of certain word-groups, 
and especially of the conditions under 
which a secondary accent was allowed to 
count. (By the way, is Mr. Lindsay right 
in saying that the first syllable of ‘ fort- 
nightly’ has a secondary accent, and the 
second the main accent? I fancy that with 
the usual tendency in English to regressive 
accentuation most people would lay the 
main accent on the first syllable, not on the 
second. It seems to me a parallel rather 
to ‘hotiseholder’ than to ‘ Entsagung,’ or 
‘unfolding.’) 

In his second paper he contends however 
that this rule is not sufficient, and proposes 
to add a further limitation. Whether the 
restriction held good or not, must be decided 


109 


by the facts: the reason which-he gives for 
itis not cogent. If Thurneysen’s rule is 
accepted, what would prevent, he says, a 
large number of sentences in Cicero’s 
speeches from possessing Saturnian metre? 
This supposition he regards as so awful as 
to need a double mark of exclamation to 
express his horror at it. But why should 
not they possess it? We know, of course, 
that Cicero carefully avoided allowing his 
rhythm to pass into metre, in spite of which 
metrical bits are not very uncommon (ep. 
Reid on Acad. ii. 117). But the metre 
which he avoided was quantitative, not 
accentual. We have no reason to suppose 
that he was so conscious of the nature of 
the Saturnian rhythm as to deliberately 
avoid it. And how easily a rhythmical 
succession of accents presents itself unsought 
is evident from the well-known fact that 
sentence after sentence—I had _ almost 
written page after page—in a writer like 
Dickens falls into blank verse :—a phenom- 
enon only too familiar to those who have 
to read many translations of Greek or 
Latin poets into English prose. Still this 
is noreason against, even if it is not decisive 
for, a further restriction of the schemes of 
Saturnian versification. Mr. Lindsay adds 
two more conditions: (1) the normal 
number of syllables is seven in the first 
hemistich, six in the second: (2) after the 
first two feet of the lines, a regular 
alternation of accentual rhythm is sought, 
so that a ‘rising’ accent is followed by a 
‘falling’ and vice versa. The first is of 
course subject to the usual licence of reso- 
lution, though within well-defined limits. 
Hence he arrives at the normal types :— 

(A) Ddébunt mélum Metélli || Naévio poétae. 

(B) Hone otno ploirume || coséntiont Rémai. 

In the rare cases of five syllables instead 
of six in the second hemistich, this licence 
seems to be due to a desire to secure the 
alternation of accentual rhythm : e.g. fwisse 
virum. Other irregularities may have been 
caused by a wish to introduce alliteration 
or rhyme. 

There is no doubt that on this system the 
great majority of Saturnian lines can be 
scanned quite satisfactorily ; but a few diffi- 
culties remain for further elucidation. 
There seems to be no clear rule as to the 
treatment of secondary accents. Words 
like primdrium, codnlégium, Tawrdsia are 
allowed to have two accents, each counting 
in the scansion; others like conséntiwnt, 
saipissume, and even imperatoribus (in a 
very illiterate inscription, it is true), have 
but one. The reason is notobvious. Then 


110 


again some of the ‘ word-groups ’ are natural 
enough in themselves (Mr. Lindsay well 
compares fértis-vir with gentleman), or are 
established by the usage of Plautus or the 
express testimony of the grammarians. But 
of others Mr. Lindsay can only say that they 
are ‘strange.’ If we can take Ulixi cor or 
mare magnum as a word-group carrying 
but one accent, it is hard to see what limits 
can be set to this licence. 

It is not possible to lay much stress on 
the Saturnian lines which may perhaps be 
embedded in some passages of Livy. With 
all the ingenuity of M. Havet and Mr. 
Lindsay we cannot feel confidence in a 
method which after conjectural transposi- 
tions gives us such a foot as ‘ téim tt atidax.’ 
Mr. Lindsay rightly admits that most of 
these lines lack the true ring of Saturnians. 
In his suggestions as to the origin of the 
Saturnian verse and its possible relations 
to primitive metres in the languages, Mr. 
Lindsay is on still more slippery ground. 
We have at last arrived at an explanation 
of the metre on the basis of the accentual 
system in use when extant specimens were 
produced. But we know that there was an 
earlier system, not bound by the law of the 
penultima, which does not furnish a satis- 
factory explanation of Saturnians as we 
have them. It seems undue caution for 
Mr. Lindsay to say that it is equally 
impossible to affirm or deny with certainty 
the hypothesis that quantity alone supplied 
the rhythm to the earlier Saturnians. I 
should have thought that this hypothesis 
was one which could have been discarded 
with as much certainty as is ever possible 
in speaking about things of which no 
specimen is in existence. If anything is 
clear about the history of Italic metre it is 
(more than ever after the publication of 
Mr. Lindsay’s papers) that accentuation 
furnished its earliest basis, that metres 
regulated by quantity came in through Greek 


NEUMANN ON 


Eustathios als kritische Quelle fiir den Ilias- 
text ; mit einem Verzeichnis der Lesarten 
des Eustathios. Von Max Neumann. 
Teubner: Leipzig. 1893. Mk. 5. 


THE materials for a critical edition of the 
Iliad are slowly, very slowly, accumulating ; 
the present work is a useful, but not a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


influence and thrust the native metres into 
the background, and that ultimately the 
principle of accentuation gained the upper 
hand again, modifying even the quantitative 
metres and determining entirely the form of 


‘those of popular origin. To assume that 


quantity may have been in primitive Italic 
times the regulating force seems to me to 
ignore the course of history. There is much 
that is attractive in Mr. Lindsay’s suggestion 
as to the possible course of development of 
the Saturnian ; but it does not explain how’ 
what he calls the B type, which according 
to him represents the earlier form (a’«, «'a, 
x xe), is so much less common than the A 
type (x’w, w'x, xv'x). It is hardly sufficient 
to say that the former was disliked, because 
it maintained the falling accentuation 
throughout the hemistich. Why was this 
natural rhythm disliked? But the sugges- 
tion is put forward merely tentatively, and 
Mr. Lindsay recognises the need of fuller 
information from specialists as to the 
primitive metres of various Indo-European 
nations, before any trustworthy conclusions 
can be drawn. It is perhaps worth while 
putting in a plea for refraining from prema- 
ture identification. In view of the range of 
possibilities offered by metre, it is certainly 
rash to assume that all varieties must have 
had a common source, although it is highly 
interesting to establish this wherever it is 
possible. 

An apology is due to the readers of the 
Classical Review for offering what is rather 
a summary than a criticism of papers so 
easily accessible, and confined within the 
modest limits of some sixty pages, so that 
they make no heavy demands upon the 
students interested in the subject. My 
excuse is, in the first place, the request of 
the editor ; in the second, my own sense of 
the high value of Mr. Lindsay’s methods 
and results, 

A. S. WILKINs. 


EUSTATHIOS. 


vital addition to them. It is certain that 
any editor would require such a fresh survey 
of the critical remarks embodied in the 
mapekBodai, as La Roche’s citations in his 
apparatus criticus are notoriously inexact 
and incomplete. Needless to say that I 
have not attempted to check the new 
collections of the various readings of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Eustathios now given by Neumann ; but a 
rough examination convinces me that it is 
far more complete and trustworthy than 
any we yet have. It is not perfect; at 
least I should have expected to find in it an 
intimation that Eustathios may fairly be 
quoted as an authority for va. instead of 
vow in It 99. But I do not think that 
there can be many omissions on important 
points, to judge from an imperfect list of 
Kustathian readings which I once made out 
for another purpose. 

Neumann does not come to any conclu- 
sions which would raise our opinion of the 
critical value of Eustathios. He shows 
that the sources from which the good bishop 
drew are mostly accessible to us: the 
collection of Apion and Herodoros in the 
scholia A, and another compilation, con- 
taining a great deal of Porphyrios, in the 
scholia B, T, ete. And where we can 
control the use which Eustathios made of 
his authorities, we have no reason to rate 
his acumen very high. Still he had certain 
sources of information which are unknown 
to us, so we cannot afford entirely to 
neglect him. It must be added however 
that when we have a fuller knowledge of 
the MSS. these unknown sources will be 


111 


considerably diminished. I may give as an 
instance the reading xvvopa for Kuvapua 
in ® 394. This is at present quoted from 
Eustathios only; but in the MSS. which I 
have personally examined it is a rather 
commoner reading than xvvdwua, and 
Eustathios’ source is merely the vulgate. 
As for the MS. which Eustathios used, 
Neumann concludes that it was a copy of 
the vulgate nearly allied to L. But it 
must be observed that Eustathios very 
rarely gives any of the really important 
peculiar readings of L. It seems to me 
clear that he really did compare several 
MSS. of the vulgate, and give a selection of 
readings from them; at least the number 
of variants that he gives is far larger than, 
judging from MSS. which we possess, were 
ever given as marginal variants in any 
single copy. On the whole, the final 
conclusion which I should draw from this 
essay is that, though it is a piece of work 
which had to be done, and has been done 
well, it cannot lead to any improvement of 
the text of the /iiad at all comparable to 
what may yet be gained from a more 
complete collation of the MSS. 
Water Lear. 


LOOFS ON THE SACRA PARALLELA. 


Loors, Dr. Friepricu: Studien iiber die 
dem Johannes von Damascus zugeschrie- 
benen Parallelen. (Halle, Niemeyer, 1892. 
Pp. x. 146.—5 Mk.) 


Tus masterly investigation of a most intri- 
cate critical problem fulfils in part the pro- 
mise which accompanied the writer’s volume 
on Leontius of Byzantium (Classical Review, 
1888, p. 73). It bring us within measurable 
distance of that reconstruction of the orig- 
inal form of the fepd, or so-called ‘sacra 
parallela,’ which shall make them safely 
available for the criticism of the numerous 
authors on whom they draw. 

The whole credit of this result is due to 
Dr. Loofs, although Bishop Lightfoot as 
early as 1885 had divined in part the direc- 
tion from which light would come (Jgnat. i. 
210). But on the whole, Dr. Loofs found 
the problem of the ‘ Parallels’ much as it 
was left by Le Quien, over 500 of whose 
folio pages (Joh. Damasc. Opp. vol. ii.) are 
occupied by their rudis indigestaque moles. 


They consist of extracts from the fathers, 
and some from Philo and Josephus, grouped 
under titles, which again are arranged 
alphabetically. The whole is preceded by a 
full rivag, with abundant zapazopzai (cross 
references) at the end of each letter. There 
are also two prefaces. From the second or 
longer, which is clearly the preface of the 
whole, we learn that the author called 
his collection ra tepa simply (‘sacra par- 
allela’ was a compromise adopted by Le 
Quien in deference to the traditional title 
‘Parallela’) ; also that the whole was dis- 
posed in three separate alphabetically ar- 
ranged books, the first containing the topics 
relating to God, the second those relating to 
man, the third virtues and their opposed 
vices. That the author himself ‘ telescoped ’ 
the three books into one is a mistake, due 
to Billius, the first editor, which no one 
seems to have detected before Dr. Loofs. 
The shorter preface turns out to be the 
original preface to the ‘parallela’ proper, 
i.e. to the third book, in which virtues 


112 


and vices were arranged in ‘parallels’ or 
pairs. 

The MSS. of these iepa are at first sight a 
chaos of disorder, and Dr. Loofs compares his 
work to that of exploring a virgin forest. 
That he has left some work for future 
explorers is a matter of course; but he has 
defined the fundamental features of the 
country, and those who meet with a new 
manuscript will, with this volume at their 
side, be able to make the best use of their 
time. In fact the reconstruction of the tepa 
in their original form is a task which, in its 
main outline, Dr, Loofs has accomplished. 

Intricate questions remain, such as the 
mutual relation of the materials for Book IL., 
the order of Book III., &c., but we now 
know what lies behind the labyrinth of 
‘ Parallela’ MSS. 

These MSS. represent not merely textual 
variations, but different recensions, of their 
common ancestor. Dr. Loofs’ first step is 
to show that we have an independent tradi- 
tion of Book II. in the MS. JVaét. 1553 
(published in part in Mai, Script. Vett. Nova 
Coll. vii.) and of Book I. in Coisl. 276. 
Comparing the ‘titles’ in these collections 
of excerpts with those in the ‘ Parallela’ 
MSS., he leaves no doubt on this point. 

Books I. and II. are then discussed 
separately and with minute critical skill. 
The general result is that omission, not 
addition, has played the leading part asa 
factor in the divergence of tradition. Yet 
we can very nearly reconstruct Book I. 
both in materials and in arrangement. 

The same is approximately true of Book 
II., though the evidence is hardly as satis- 
factory as in the case of Book I. To arrive 
at what seems to be the true result, we have 
to subordinate ordinary genealogical rules 
to internal considerations more strongly 
than is agreeable. The omissions in the 
‘Parallela’ MSS. of many citations pre- 
served in Vat. 1553 are only explained by 
somewhat alarmingly free drafts upon the 
bank of Accident. That the MSS. in ques- 
tion may have been copied from two originals 
is a suggestion to which Dr. Loofs seems 
open (pp. 95, 104). Anyhow this is one of 
the points where fresh material will doubt- 
less let in more light. 

The reconstruction of the third book by 
eliminating from the ‘Parallela’ tradition 
all that has been assigned to Books I. and 
II., and that does not fit in with the known 
character of the book, is an obvious method, 
but exposed if used prematurely to equally 
obvious pitfalls. Dr. Loofs takes the safer 
line of first collecting the references to Book 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


III. from the zaparoura! in J. and IL. 
Next he combines this result with the pas- 
sages apparently taken from Book IIL. by 
Antonius ‘ Melissa,’ and with the two lead- 
ing recensions of the ‘ Parallela.’ Where 


‘the zaparoprai tally with either of the 


latter in combination with Antonius, the 
result is of course certain. This gives us sixty- 
five ‘Parallels’ and only about four really ~ 
unverifiable ztapazoumai. The independence 
of the witnesses shows that we have arrived, 
within a few ‘tituli,’ at the full original: 
contents of Book III. The question of the 
original arrangement of this book is beset 
with difficulties; all that need be said is 
that Dr. Loofs’ provisional summing up is 
the best working hypothesis at present 
available. 

The three books, so strangely separated on 
the one hand, and fused apparently by inde- 
pendent hands on the other, in course of trans- 
mission, are not earlier than.about 518, when 
the Areopagite, whom they frequently quote, 
first begins to be used as an authority. The 
terminus ad quem is the-year 627, if the 
Scholia referring to the loss of the Holy 
Cross really refer to the capture of Jeru- 
salem by the Persians in the reign of Hera- 
clius. 

But Dr. Loofs gives reasons for putting 
the iepa (apart from the question of these’ 
Scholia) a century earlier. The first book 
is ascribed to ‘the presbyter John,’ the 
second to ‘ Leontius the presbyter and John’ ; 
and Dr. Loofs gives almost conclusive 
grounds for identifying the Leontius in 
question with the subject of his former 
monograph. The latter work in fact owed 
its origin to Dr. Loofs’ first investigations 
of the ‘ Parallela’ question, to which we ac- 
cordingly owe a most important clearing up 
of the history of the Monophysite controversy, 
and a surprising illumination of many im- 
portant problems in patristic study and the 
history of dogma. Loofs has ‘ rediscovered ’ 
Leontius, and has (along with Caspari) 
enabled Driiseke to rediscover Apollinarius. 
‘Rediscovery’ is, in our age, apt to over- 
shoot the mark, but the sobriety and scho- 
larly acumen which characterize all that 
Loofs has written stamp his results with the 
signature of reality. 

The origin of the iepa is localized at the 
monastery of 8. Saba, where they possibly 
underwent partial revision: the tradition 
which associates the name of John Damascen 
with the ‘ Parallela’ in their later form 
may therefore have some foundation. 

The ‘Origenism’ of Leontius brought his 
name into disrepute after the 5th general 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


council, to the main result of which he had 
yet so largely contributed. John Damascen 
was content to profit largely by his labours 
without mentioning his name. To Dr. 
Loofs the most learned theologian of the 
age of Justinian owes the tardy reversal of 
the injustice of posterity. The tepd were 
probably a joint work (p. 106), but the 
master-mind was surely that of Leontius. 
As a small sample of the results to be 
hoped for from a restoration of the tepa, it 
may be mentioned that the fragments as- 
signed to Amphilochius (No. iv. and xvii. 
Combef.) in some recensions of the iepa were 
originally quoted from Epiphanius, who is 
therefore their traditional owner ; also that 
the citations from Philo and Josephus prove 
to be part of the original iepa. But the 


113 


classical quotations (alluded to in Dict. Chr. 
Biog. iii. 418) were never part of the ‘ Par- 
allela’ at all, being only found in a Medicean 
MSS. (Loofs, p. 5) containing portions of a 
‘sacro-profane’ florilegium drawn only in 
part from the ‘ sacra parallela.’ 

I may add that the citation from Athana- 
sius which has puzzled Dr. Loofs (p. 77° 
will be found by him in Migne P.G. xxv. 
p.420C, D. That the de Decretis (circa 355) 
was addressed to Maximus the Philosopher, 
a known correspondent of Athanasius, is an 
interesting hint, which possibly finds some 
faint support from a comparison of the 
opening sections of the treatise and $$ 1, 5 
of the letter to Maximus. 

A. RoBeErtson. 


NORDMEYER ON THE PLAY OCTAVTIA. 


Fabula, scripsit Gustavus 
NorpMEyeR. Commentatio ex supple- 
mento xix. annalium philologicorum 
seorsum expressa : pp. 257-317. Lipsiae, 
Teubner, 1892. 2 Mk. 


De Octaviae 


THe treatment of the subject is divided 


into six chapters as follows:—i. De rerum | 


scriptoribus qui Octaviae vitam narrant 
(pp. 257-63), ii. De ratione inter fabulam 
et Tacitum intercedente (pp. 263-75), iii. De 
fabulae fontibus historicis (pp. 275-83), 
iv. De tragoediae Romanae in primis 
Annaeanae historia (pp. 283-9), v. De 
hominum domus Augustae appellationibus 
quibus poeta utitur (pp. 289-309), vi. Octavia 
Domitiano imperatore conscripta (pp. 
310-15). 

The object of the article is to determine 
the time when the Octavia was written and 
the author finally settles on the early part 
of Domitian’s reign, viz., between 81 and 
92 a.p.— the opinion now in general accepted. 
Nordmeyer has produced a very excellent 
example of the modern historical method, 
and although he has brought forward little 
that is new, he has succeeded in gathering 
together in a very satisfactory way all the 
testimony that bears on his subject and 
presenting it in a logical, systematic 
manner. 

Chapter i. considers briefly the various 
authors by whom the story of Octavia, the 
ill-fated wife of Nero, is related, viz., 
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, The 

NO. LXVII, VOL, VIII. 


missing portions in the account of Dio 
Cassius may to a great extent be supplied 
from later extracts and epitomes of his 
history, the mutual relation and interdepen- 
dence of which is discussed. 

of the play are considered. A comparison 
of Tacitus’ account with the historical basis 
of the play leads to the conclusion that the 
Octavia was not drawn from Tacitus and 
probably was written before his account was 
published (p. 275); further, that Tacitus 
and the author of the Octavia probably drew 
from a common source—Cluvius Rufus. 

In chapters iii.-iv. the literary sources of 
the play are discussed—verbal resemblances 
to Seneca, Lucan, Velleius and Florus are 
pointed out, and the general dependence of 
the play upon its models, especially Seneca, 
is noted. The author belonged to the 
‘Ovidian’ rather than to the ‘ Vergilian’ 
school. 

Chapter v. is in great part taken up with 
disproving the statement of Suetonius 
(Claud. 45) that Claudius was deprived of 
divine honours by Nero, although ‘divus’ 
ceased to be applied to him after the 
beginning of the second century. From the 
fact that Claudius is always (four times) 
mentioned as ‘ divus’ in the Octavia it may 
be inferred that the play was written during 
the first century. 

Chapter vi. concludes the argument by a 
more exact definition of the time. 

The criticism of W. Gemoll (Wsch/t. /. 

I 


114 


kl. Phil. Feb. 1, 1893, 125) of Nord- 
meyer’s statement about the thoroughly 
Roman spirit that pervades the play is hardly 
fair in the light of the footnote on page 314, 
where the attributing of the fasces to a 
tribune of the plebs (v. 907 P and R) is 
discussed at length. It may be a trifle rash 
to regard as evidence of ‘absolute ignorance 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of Roman customs’ what Biicheler is willing 
to accept as testimony for the tribunes 
having the fasces at the time the play was 
written, even though this is denied by 
Mommsen and others. 


J. Leyerett Moore, 
Vassar College, 


LEHMANN’S LETTERS OF CICERO TO ATTICUS. 


De Ciceronis ad Atticum epistulis recensendis 
et emendandis, scripsit C. A. LEHMANN. 
Berolini apud Weidmannos, MDcccLXxxXxII. 
6 Mk. 


As regards the criticism of the Epistles to 
Atticus, the main question at present is 
whether the Medicean MS. is to be regarded 
as the chief basis of any reconstruction of 
the text ; or whether there are not other 
manuscripts of at least co-ordinate value. 

The criticism of the Hpistles to Atticus 
is a most difficult subject. The principal 
reason is that many of the fifteenth century 
manuscripts have suffered from serious 
interpolations. Of that there can be no 
doubt whatever; and Lehmann (p. 152) 
gives many obvious examples, e.g. in xv. 4, 
2 Bruto <intellewisse (or intellegere) dicis> 
scribis <ipsum optare> ut, the words in 
brackets, which are plainly interpolations, 
are not found in the Med. (M) or the Turin 
MSS. but appear in two Paris MSS. (one 
bearing date 1419). This would lead us to 
the just conclusion that, where we find 
additions to what appears in a manuscript 
of such recognized merit as M, we must be 
slow to receive them unless the manuscript 
in which they appear can be shown to be 
older than 1392, the date of the Medicean. 
That the Ambrosian Excerpts are older than 
that date Lehmann (p. 135 note, ep. 20) 
considers will be evident to any one who 
inspects that codex. 

But it must be remembered that all 
additions are not of the same character as 
the example given above. In it there is no 
reason why the words should have fallen 
out, and there is every reason why the 
addition should have been made by an 
intelligent copyist ; for the words which 
Cicero wrote are strongly elliptical, but not 
impossible in epistolary language. 

Not so plainly interpolations are such 
additions as xiii, 45, 3 equidem si ex omnibus 


esset eligendum nec diligentiorem nec officiosi- 
orem <nec mehercule nostri studiosiorem> 
facile delegissem Vestorio. These words in 
brackets appear not only in some of the 
Italian MSS. but also in Cratander’s mar- 
ginal notes, which are certainly in a con- 
siderable measure taken from a German 
manuscript. There is no reason for their 
addition and there is every reason why they 
may have fallen out. Bosius too (valeat 
quantum) attests their appearance in his 
manuscripts. 

It is well nigh impossible to prove con- 
clusively that any such words, which are 
not found in M, cannot have been inter- 
polations ; but still in many cases it is 
certainly more probable that the suspected 
words are really genuine, and that M is not 
the source of the manuscripts in which they 
appear. Thus in the following, the words 
(in Roman type) which are either necessary 
or very he\pful to the proper understanding 
of the passage may have been omitted in 
M ex homoeoteleuto—ix. 15, 4 ad te ante: 
xii. 12, 1 Insula ‘Arpinas habere potest ger- 
manam amroféwow, sed vereor ne minorem 
tysny habere videatur éxtoricpds (the copyist 
went on at the wrong, to him unintelligible, 
Greek word): xill. 3, 1 negotiwm meum 
gererem nihil gererem nisi consilio tuo; xiii. 
20, 2 non desinam. Ad Ligarianam de 
uxore. Again the following readings found 
in other MSS. cannot possibly be due toa 
copy of M corrected from another manu- 
script: v. 15, 1 qgutppe ius appears as quip- 
petus in a certain class of manuscripts 
which Lehmann calls 3, and as qguippe et iis 
in M. No corrector would alter Latin 
words to non-Latin words. In ix. 10, 3 
for st vel periculose, & gives sive periculose, 
M sive periculo. It is difficult to believe 
that = was due to a corrector who remem- 
bered x. 1, 4 vel periculose ; for if so, why 
would he not have changed sive to si vel? 
In x. 4,5 nunquam nisi pie cogitasse, for nist 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


pie, M (first hand) has infidie, M (corrected) 
infide, & nisi die (the intervening stage may 
be seen in the Burn MS. 146 insidie) : it is 
incredible that & would have altered a pos- 
sible to an impossible reading. In xv. 3, 
1 accepi in Atinati (or Arpinati) duas epis- 
tulas tuas, M omits in Atinati (or Arpinatt), 
x has accept nati. This last is a most 
striking example. 

Having thus found several manuscripts 
both in Italy and France which, on careful 
examination, would appear to be inde- 
pendent of M, Lehmann, in his valuable 
work, has given an elaborate account of 
these manuscripts, and a thorough dis- 
cussion of the principles which should guide 
any future reconstruction of the text. It 
would not be possible to point out in detail 
the vast wealth of learning and anxious 
and laborious care with which Lehmann 
traces the connexion of these various codices 
and assigns to them their relative positions 


115 


and value, Often no doubt he adduces 
arguments which, if they stood alone, would 
seem of little value, but which must be 
judged in connexion with the whole complex 
discussion. But, as far as we are able to 
judge, he has fully proved his main con- 
tention, that in reconstructing the text we 
must look beyond M; and that it is not 
merely the Tornesianus, Cratander’s notes 
(of which two important aids to the text a 
most exhaustive discussion is given), and 
the Wiirzburg fragments which are inde- 
pendent of M, but that there is a whole 
series of other MSS. which must be duly 
considered in any future recension of the 
text. We earnestly hope that Lehmann 
may be soon sufficiently restored to health 
to give us a longer list of readings from 
these codices if not a full collation of them, 
or better still a complete critical edition of 
these most important letters. 
L. C. Purser. 


MENDELSSOHN’S LETTERS OF CICERO. 


M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistularum Libri 
Sedecim : edidit Lupovicus MENDELSSOHN. 
Lipsiae: Teubner. mpccoxcur. 12 Mk. 


By the publication of Mendelssohn’s edition 
most of the questions which concern the 
criticism of Cicero’s Epp. ad Fam. may be 
said to have been settled. The labour 
which the author has expended in mastering 
the various departments of his work can 
only be equalled by the carefulness and 
accuracy which he has shown in_ the 
minutest details. To the vast mass of 
learning which study of many years has 
accumulated, he brings soundness of judg- 
ment and simple clearness of exposition ; 
and the whole work is animated by a high 
ideal of the end and aim of philological 
studies—‘atque omnino hae editiones fiunt 
veterum causa non nostra: illorum igitur 
qui ipsa scripta reliquerunt honori con- 
sulendum est, non nostrae gloriolae’ (p. 
XXxXi.), 

Mendelssohn first traces the history of 
the Zpistles from the time of their editor 
Tiro and shows that in no age was the 
knowledge of these letters lost. Originally 
each book appears to have been separate ; 
in the fourth or fifth century they were 
probably bound in volumes of four books, 
and later in volumes of eight books, 





such as we have them now. Even in the 
ninth century they were known to scholars 
like Lupus and Sedulius, and manuscripts 
of them existed in Germany and France. 
The labour expended in this investigation 
must have been immense. Thus we find in 
support of a statement that Lupus probably 
knew only the Epp. ad Fam. the following 
in a note (p. vi.) ‘equidem certe dum omnes 
perlego Lupi epistulas bis significatas inveni 
epistulas miscellas et libros quidem i.—viii.’ 
Again (p. iv.) ‘haud paucos medii aevi 
scriptores perscrutatus sum’ and then 
follows a list of over twenty such writers. 
We may regret, as the author does, that no 
adequate return was reaped for this labour ; 
but the work has now been done once for 
all and well deserves our amplest gratitude. 

The other subject of investigation is the 
arrangement of the most important exist- 
ing manuscripts. And first, in the volume 
which contains i.—viii., Mendelssohn un- 
hesitatingly gives the principal place to 
Med. 49, 9 (cent. :ix.), which contains the 
whole sixteen books, From this was copied 
in 1389 Med. 49, 7, and it is from the latter 
that most of the fifteenth century codices 
have been derived. Of a different class, 
and so supplementary in some cases but on 
the whole vastly inferior, are Harleian 2773 
and Parisinus 17812, both of cent. xii. 

12 


116 


From this latter the Turonensis was copied, 
as Mendelssohn has most acutely proved. 
As regards the second volume (ix.—xvi.) 
there are again two main classes, one repre- 
sented as before by M. 49, 9 and its copy 
49, 7, the other by Harl. 2682 (cent. xi.), 
the Erfurdt codex, now at Berlin, 
(cent. xii. or xiii.), and the Palatinus Sextus 
of Graevius (cent. xv. or xvi.). The assist- 
ance which each class renders to the other 
makes the decision of the primacy difficult ; 
but on the whole in doubtful cases Mendels- 
sohn inclines to follow his old leader M. 
But again there is a mixed class formed by 
a ‘contaminatio’ or blending of these two 
classes. There are several such manuscripts ; 
but, though they exercised a great influence 
on the early editions, they are all rejected 
as worthless by Mendelssohn (consilium 
cepi eliminandi totius illius sterquilinii), as 
any reading which differs from both the 
principal classes may be due to ‘a late cor- 
ruption. He takes as a special example of 
that class Canonicianus 244 in the Bodleian, 
a codex to which Gurlitt had assigned undue 
value; and he shows, from the materials 
supplied to him by the late Prof. Nettle- 
ship, that this codex does not hold even a 
high place in the ‘contaminated ’ class. 

Scattered throughout the volume are 
many brief discussions on difficult passages. 
Tt is consistent with the generally conserva- 
tive character of the whole work that the 
best attested reading should be defended to 
the utmost; and the defence has been 
successful as far as we can judge, in the 
following :—i. 9. 21 quem coeperis for ceperis, 
comparing for the transitive use of coepisse 
Rose. Am. 52, Brut. 20, De Legg. ii. 69: i. 
10 tam Ulines (for tanguam U.) ‘such a 
traveller’ comparing ix. 2,2 tam Lynceus : 
vi. 1, 1 guisquis used indefinitely, comparing 
Lex Iulia Munic. 1.13: vi 7.1 ne ea res 
inepte mihi noceret, where inepte=impru- 
dentia nostra as Manutius says, a very 
slight irregularity justly to be pardoned in 
Caecina ; xvi. 21,2 cum omnia mea causa 
velles mihi swccessa, in a letter of young 
Quintus, is admirably defended by such ex- 
pressions as custodibus successis in Coelius 
Antipater and sole occaso in Q. Claudius: x. 
1, 4 cwdicit ‘ recognition of your merits’ by 
reference to x. 23. 7, cp. also Plin. Hpp. x. 
3 fim. and Mr, Hardy’s note, who quotes 
Fam. xiii. 46. 

Elsewhere very slight alterations have 
been applied to difficult passages, which 
however do not always leave one quite 
satisfied, e.g. ili. 11, 2 for verwm he reads 
veteratorium (or vafrum) ‘a trickstering 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


thing is maiestas’; but such concord is 
rare in Cic. except with such words as 
extremum (Reisig p. 4): v. 8, 1 id. (= Idibus) 
for ad: vili. 11, 2 as hac ve can hardly, he 
says, mean zdeo ‘with this object’ (yet ep. 


Munro on Lucr. i. 172, where Balbus, Mela 


and Seneca are quoted: add Terence Heaut. 
v. 1, 59), he reads acre=acriter: ix. 2. 5 
gnavare is rightly suggested for gravare. 
The form gnavus appears in MSS. of Cic. 
in Verr. iii. 53, Leg. Man. 18, and it is just 
the word required and might easily have. 
been corrupted. (Gnavare is found in some 
inferior MSS., which perhaps might have 
been followed in the simple reading ne<id> 
ita caderet in ii. 19,1.). The slight changes 
x. 21, 3 nimis quam for nimisque, and xiii. 
26, 2 magni for magnum (comparing xiii. 72, 
2, xv. 15, 4) are admirable. x. 22, 2 esset, 
in quis certe ego fuissem, for essem qui ete. 
is possible: but the relative referring to 
a remote antecedent is hardly a Cicero- 
nian usage, cp. Kiihner on TZwse. i. 3. Per- 
haps essem, quot certe ego favissem. 

Two brilliant emendations of Mendels- 
sohn’s we keep to the last :—viii. 5, 1 e¢ quan- 
tum gloriae triumphoque opus esset adsequere- 
mur. For gloriae he reads loreae ( = laureae), 
comparing Cicero’s reply to this letter ii. 10, 2 
velles enim ais tantum modo ut haberem negotii 
quod esset ad lawreolam satis, where note too 
the correct quod. esset ad...satis instead of 
the dat. after opus. For the form ep. 
Loretum in Plin. xv. 138 for Lauretum. In 
vill. 8, 7:for de ea rep. he reads after 
Willems (Ze Sénat ii. 229, note 5) de ea re 
p. q. t. (=primo.quoque tempore), cp. § 7, 2. 

The volume ends with a useful chrono- 
logical table of the letters prepared by O. 
E. Schmidt and Aem. Koerner, who have 
already done excellent service in deter- 
mining the order of large portions of 
Cicero’s correspondence. 

There is one remarkable statement made 
in the Pref. p. viii. which deserves the most 
serious attention coming as it does from a 
scholar like Mendelssohn who weighs every 
word he writes. In a catalogue of the 
Library of the Abbey of Cluny (composed 
about 1160) we find no. 490 ‘Volumen in 
quo continentur libri Epistularum ad 
Atticum xvi.’ On this Mendelssohn says, 
‘Quippe e tenebris iam emergit ‘“ familiae 
Gallicanae”’ alterius collectionis testis et 
antiquus et ab omni suspicione liber, ut 
necessitas iam existat retractandae totius 
illius quaestionis quae est de “‘Tornesiano”’ 
Lambini deque Bosii et ‘ Decurtato,” hoc 
quidem “ex bibliothecae cuiusdam sacrae 
direptione servato ” et Noviodunensi, Fuisse 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Cluniacensem unum ex his codicibus si 
apparuerit equidem non mirabor—nam 
“ Decurtatum ” et Noviodunensem ut cum 
M. Hauptio e Bosii capite ortos esse putem 
multa me impediunt, recteque oblocutus est 
Hauptio D. Detlefsen (ann. phil. suppl. ui. 
1857, p. 113 sqg.): sed surdis cecinit.’ 
Nothing can be more interesting than the 
prospect that Bosius may be cleared of the 
charge of wholesale mendacity. We confess 


117 


to having listened to Detlefsen’s charming ; 
and though he charms never so wisely, and 
also most fairly, we cannot think that he at 
least has cleared Bosius. The fact that 
there is no evidence that a single scholar 
besides Bosius ever saw the ‘ Decurtatus’ 
or the ‘Crusellinus’ puts them in quite a 
different position from that in which the 
‘ Tornesianus’ stands. 
L. C. Purser. 





COLSON’S CICHRO PRO MILONE. 


Cicero pro Milone, edited with Introduction 
and Notes by F. H. Conson, M.A. 
Maemillan. 2s. 6d. 


Tuts little book, with its clear sharp-cut 
introduction and notes, is a satisfactory 
addition to our classical schoolbooks. 
Whether ‘ the fear of having classics over- 
edited is really groundless,’ I venture to 
doubt. That Mr Colson is right in 
partly addressing his notes to masters, 
rather than directly to boys, I have no 
doubt whatever. And the results of valu- 
able scholastic experience are apparent. 

The only fault I would find is one that 
borders closely on praise. Mr Colson is if 
anything too brief in explanation. Whether 
the mere translation of such passages as 
§ 17 non alio facinore etc. is sufficient to 
convey the meaning to an average student 
may perhaps be doubted. 

It is doubtless well to leave a good deal 
to the teacher, but I should gladly have 
seen the force of the genitive case more 
fully explained in such passages as § 6 
eriminis defensio, § 15 iuris defensionem, 
§ 38 quid simile Milonis, and in dealing with 
§ 81 praemia laudis it would have done no 
harm to consider § 97 praemiis virtutis. 
Indeed I rather miss the illustration of the 
speech from itself in other connexions ; for 
instance, in the note on § 8 Ahala ille 
Servilius Mr Colson, while citing a remark 
of Prof. Tyrrell, does not add that § 17 
Appius ille Caecus gives another order 
where the gentile nomen is omitted. Yet 
surely these two passages in the same 


speech are worth comparing if we are 
discussing the usage of names. 

The conclusions arrived at in the note on 
§ 56 propositam...... addictam seem to me 
disputable, but the note is valuable in any 
case, and it may well be that: Mr Colson is 
right. How far we are to require precision 
in metaphors is a question not in all cases 
easy to determine. 

The introduction is a model of terse » 
clearness. 

Important textual points are well treated, 
as in the note on § 34. Minor questions 
are wisely ignored. 

How far it is practical to refer boys to 
their ‘Classical Dictionary’ for historical 
or mythological allusions, how far we are 
free to refer to the details of a story when 
we do not tell the story itself, are points on 
which I cannot feel certain. Mr Colson’s 
notes (say on $$ 7, 8) raise these questions 
not seldom—intentionally, as the preface 
shows. As to making a boy ‘feel that he 
can do without his big Latin Dictionary,’ I 
admit that such an attempt is wrong. But 
I wish I knew a ‘ big Latin Dictionary’ in 
English that was not only sound in matter, 
but printed so as to facilitate inquiry. 
Fortunately Mr Colson now and then 
comes to the rescue ; and such notes as that 
on § 34 cottidie will be received by a weary 
schoolmaster with a sense of relief and 
gratitude. 

I have heard Mr Colson’s little Thucy- 
dides highly praised by several teachers, 
and I fully expect to hear a like verdict on 
his present work. 

W. E. Herrianp. 





118 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


MOOR’S TRANSLATION OF THE DEH ORATORE. 


Cicero de Oratore Book I. Translated into 
English, with an Introduction, by E. N. P. 
Moor, M.A. Methuen and Co. London. 
3s. 6d. 


Mr. Moor’s action in preparing and pub- 
lishing his translation of a part of Cicero’s 
de Oratore consisted of two stages: and if 
we measure these by Kant’s canon, which 
requires that a righteous act should be such 
as might be willed law universal, we must 
regard these two stages differently. That a 
master reading with a good sixth form a 
book like the de Oratore should translate each 
lesson on paper and read his version to the 
class, is an act of virtue which cannot find 
too many imitators. For the difficulty in 
producing an adequate translation lies not 
so much in particular phrases, of which a 
rendering may be jotted down in the margin 
of the text, but in maintaining a high level 
of dignity, of smoothness and of purity of 
language, through the whole of the long and 
stately periods, a task in which boys need 
the careful and well-prepared help of the 
teacher. But if such translations were too 
generally published, the temptation would 
be strong to make them the substitute for 
individual effort on the part of boys and 
masters alike. Each new translation has to 
justify its existence by its superiority not 
only to anything which already exists, but 
also to anything which is likely to be pro- 
duced in the ordinary course of school-work. 
It is no matter of surprise that Mr. Moor 
should have hesitated long before publishing, 
and have done so at last with reluctance. 
Just in proportion to a translator’s apprecia- 
tion of an author, will be his sense of 
dissatisfaction with his own attempts to 
reproduce him. Hence the more gratitude 
is due to Mr. H. F. Fox for having overcome 
this reluctance, and induced Mr. Moor to 
publish his translation. The translation is 
one which manifestly rises so much above 
the ordinary level that its publication was 
more than justified : it was demanded as a 
boon not only to pupils but to teachers. 
Every one must have his own ideal of trans- 
lation; some sacrifice being inevitable, 
opinions may and must differ as to the 
direction in which the sacrifice should be 
made. The great pleasure, with which I 
have read Mr. Moor’s version, is due to the 
extent to which his practice agrees with my 
own conviction as to the extent to which the 


- form as well as the precise meaning of the 


original should be retained. Mr. Moor con- 
fesses some doubt as to whether it might 
not have been wiser to take Addison or some - 
other English classic as a model and to have 
written the translation in his style. It is 
possible that the result —periculosae plenum. - 
opus aleae—might have justified the at- 
tempt: it is much more likely that the 
translation would have come far less near 
to its aim, that of producing the same effect 
upon an English reader that the original 
produced upon a Roman reader. As it is, 
the style is that of vigorous and idiomatic 
English, very pleasant to read, but undoubt- 
edly itis English dominated and moulded 
by the Ciceronian period. So far as this is 
wrong, Mr. Moor has been unsuccessful: in 
my own judgment, it is entirely right, and 
he seems to me to have been remarkably 
successful. Of course there may often be 
room for difference of opinion as to whether 
the best English equivalent for a particular 
phrase has been chosen: e.g. ‘civil law,’ 
which has a kind of technical sense, seems 
to me not so good a rendering of ius civile 
as ‘law of the land.’ At the end of $184 
another word might have been chosen than 
‘impertinence,’ which recurs immediately, 
as representing a different Latin word. In 
§ 257 ‘subjects’ is not so good a rendering 
for causas as ‘ cases.’ In § 226 ‘ hedonistic’ 
strikes me as too technical for the context. 
In § 219 ‘a moving air of passion’ is not 
happy for tragoediae. In §137 a point is 
missed by rendering cuiqguam novum ‘new 
to you.’ We certainly ought to have been 
spared forms like Caius and Cneius. But 
these and similar points are mere trifles, 
hardly worth notice except for the remark- 
able accuracy as well as felicity of the 
translation as a whole. 

Mr. Moor rightly calls attention to the 
service which such a rendering may do to 
students in their Latin prose composition. 
Time could hardly be spent better, especially 
by those who have not sufficient tuition at 
their command, than by reading large 
portions of this back into the original. 
This practice would give not only a copia 
verborum but also a sense for Ciceronian 
rhythm, which could hardly be otherwise 
attained. Dr. Reid’s translation of the 
de Finibus would be even more valuable for 
philosophic prose, but the subject-matter 
is naturally less varied. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The excellent introduction gives just what 
is necessary to put the reader into the right 
position for appreciating this, the greatest 
of Cicero’s treatises, and not a little shrewd 
criticism. A few notes on special difficulties 
would have been welcome ; but probably the 


TWO BOOKS 


Platon : sa philosophie : précédée d’un apercu 
de sa vie et de ses écrits, par Cu. Binarp, 
Ancien Professeur de Philosophie. (Paris : 
Alcan. 1892.) 10 fres. 

Platonstudien von Dr. Ferpinanp Horn. 
(Wien: P. Tempsky. 1893.) 6 Mk. 


M. BEnarp has succeeded in producing an 
excellent book. His object is to give a 
comprehensive survey of the whole of 
Plato’s philosophy, and thereby, as he 
states in his preface, to refute the opinion 
which is still only too prevalent in more 
countries than France that Plato’s system 
is an enigma and Plato himself a Sphinx. 
Accordingly M. Bénard’s attitude is on the 
whole conservative rather than critical, and 
the method of exposition he adopts syn- 
thetic. He treats the Platonic system 
under three heads, Dialectic, Physics, and 
Ethics, an arrangement, it will be seen, 
similar to Zeller’s, But the book does not 
challenge comparison with Zeller’s Plato— 
being intended, as the author is careful to 
explain, rather for the ‘enlightened public’ 
than for the professed student of philosophy. 
Consequently we miss in it the exhaustive 
fulness of detail which marks the great 
German authority, but we get in its place 
a lucidity and freshness of style and 
arrangement which will commend it to the 
attention of teachers and students of all 
classes. 

But though the scope of his work pre- 
cludes full discussion of vexed metaphysical 
questions, M. Bénard is careful to note the 
most important points at issue, and to 
indicate his opinion regarding them; and 
especially is he careful to point out where 
his more cautious judgment is unable to 
assent to the daring theories of M. Fouillée. 

The main value of the book, however, 
will be found to lie rather in its treatment of 
the less knotty problems, where the method 
of the author is more adequate to the matter 
of discussion, 

Dr. Horn’s Studies have, as the name 


119 
book is intended to be used not with a plain 
text, to which it would be an inadequate 
supplement, but along with some annotated 


edition. 
A. S. WILKIns. 


ON PLATO. 


implies, an entirely different aim. Instead 
of a comprehensive survey of the contents of 
the Platonic dialogues as a whole, and a 
synthesis of the results, we find here a 
series of separate essays on _ selected 
dialogues. These are arranged in three 
groups: the first contains the aches, 
Protagoras, Gorgias ; the second the Lysis, 
Charmides, Euthydemos; the third the 
Phaedrus, Symposium, Phaedo, with the 
Meno and Philebus as appendix. The 
argument of each of these dialogues is set 
forth in detail, followed by a general 
criticism of their philosophic contents and 
relations, in accordance with which. as the 
author explains, the grouping is determined. 
Hence the above order is not to be taken as 
necessarily identical with the historical 
order ; on the contrary, the second group 
must as a whole precede the first in point 
of date. 

The larger proportion of the book is 
naturally occupied with the Phaedrus, 
Symposium, and Phaedo, which Dr. Horn 
appears to think are to be placed in this 
order, since they express respectively the 
romanticism of philosophic youth, the 
maturity and power of middle age, and the 
other-worldliness of life’s declining years. 
If this determination is meant to indicate a 
corresponding divergence in the dates of 
composition, the author must expect to find 
many dissentients from his opinion. But 
though such results must be regarded as at 
least very questionable, there is much 
valuable criticism in the discussions which 
precede. 

The most interesting part of the book, 
however, in the eyes of many Platonic 
students will be the concluding fifty pages, 
which are devoted to a vigorous attack 
against the Platonic authorship of the 
Philebus. 

Dr. Horn is evidently a critic of the most 
radical type, who outdoeseven Schaarschmidt 
in his ‘chorizontic’ fervour. He finds in 
the Philebus quite a score of inconsis- 


120 


tencies with the doctrine of the Gorgzas and 
Republic, whence he deduczs the conclusion 
‘mit aller Bestimmtheit’ that this dialogue 
is not merely not Plato’s but actually a 
polemic against Platonism. But the major 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


premiss in this remarkable enthymeme is 
one, I imagine, that many Platonists will 
refuse to grant. 

R. G. Bury. 





GWATKIN’S EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 


Selections from Early Writers, illustrative of 
Church History to the time of Constan- 
tine, .by, .H.. .M..,... GWATEI, 5 MEA: 
Maemillan & Co. 1893. Pp. ix. 167: 
price 4s. net. 


Wiruin the brief compass of 170 pages, 
Professor Gwatkin has produced a_ book 
which is likely to be most helpful to those 
who are commencing the study of sub- 
Apostolic literature, and desire to acquaint 
themselves with the actual words of the 
greatest of the Early Christian writers. 
Only those who have abundant leisure can 
afford the time to wade through Clark's 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, or the well-known 
Library of Nicene and Posi-Nicene Fathers 
published by Messrs. Parker; and still 
fewer have the time or knowledge to read 
these books in their original tongues. A 
vast deal of labour and trouble is spent by 
the learned in editing and re-editing ad 
nauseam the Greek and Latin ‘classics’ ; 
it would be well if some of our scholars 
would set themselves to work, and produce, 
say, a worthy edition of the Stromateis, of 
Augustine’s City of God, and of the whole 
of Tertullian, to say nothing of the works 
of the two Gregorys. It is to be hoped 
that we are waking up to the fact that the 
works of the Alexandrine Fathers, at least, 
have been too long neglected; Prof. 
Armitage Robinson’s  recently-published 
text of Origen’s Philocalia, with critical 


apparatus 1s a great step in the right 
direction. It would surprise many modern 
writers, and even some professed students 
of philosophy, to find how many of the 
problems, intellectual and moral, which 
harass our age, were thought over and 
discussed, and (at least in some cases) solved 
by the great Alexandrian writers. They, 
of all the Early Fathers, have stated these 
questions, and put forward their solution to 
these problems, in terms of the modern 
consciousness. Prof. Gwatkin’s book is 
thus most opportune. The selected passages 
number, in all, seventy-two ; of these seven- 
teen are from Eusebius, and twelve from 
Tertullian. I venture to think this selection 
disproportionately large. Why are not 
Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Irenaeus, 
and above all Origen, more fully represented ? 
Opposite the Greek text there is an English 
translation,—a very great convenience to 
such as cannot read Greek with ease. Several 
of these translations are borrowed from the 
Clark Zibrary, and other sources. Unfor- 
tunately everything in the way of notes 
has been omitted, which is rather trying 
for the solitary student, who needs help if 
he is adequately to take in the meaning of 
the extracts. If Prof. Gwatkin could see 
his way to produce a companion volume 
of notes and introductions, he would be con- 
ferring a further boon upon every one who 
is interested in Early Church History. 
Epwarp Henry BLAKENEY. 


GUTSCHMID’S KLEINE SCHRIFTEN. 


Kleine Schriften von ALFRED VON GUTSCHMID. 
Herausgegeben von Franz Riinu. Vierter 
Band. Schriften zur griechischen Ge- 
schichte und Literatur. Leipzig : Teubner. 
1893. 20 Mk. 


Tue editing of posthumous works is always 
an unsatisfactory task, and this book forms 


no exception to the rule. It contains a 
series of dissertations on various subjects of 
which a few have been published before ; 
but the greater part are now, for the first 
time, published from the author’s lecture 
notes. The two longest are connected with 
the History of the Jews: we have a full 
analysis of the Sibylline Books, and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. . 


extracts from lectures on Josephus against 
Apion; these will be extremely useful to 
students of Josephus, for they contain the 
fullest discussion and illustration of the 
text available. It is to be regretted that 
all the author’s work on this period could 
not be published together in one separate 
volume. Most of the other essays in this 


volume are critical studies on the sources of | 


Greek History ; the most important is a 
series of extracts from lectures on the 
History of Greek Historiography, containing 
a full discussion of some of the earlier 
historians, and a rather laboured character- 
istic of Xenophon. There is also a lengthy 
discussion on that most unprofitable of 
subjects, the various dvaypadai of the 
mythical kings of Athens and other states. 
There are also a series of reviews of his- 


EDITION OF LIVY 


Livy. Books xxi. and xxii. edited with 
Introduction and Notes by J. B. Grrzn- 
oucH, Professor in Harvard University, 
and Tracy Peck, Professor in Yale Uni- 
versity. Boston, U.S.A. and London: 
Ginn and Co. Publishers. 1893. 6s. 6d. 


Tis book contains an introduction, pp. vii.— 
xiv., and text with footnotes, pp. 1--232. 
The introduction deals with the events that 
led to the Second Punic war, with Livy’s 
authorities and his treatment of history and 
historical problems ; the notes on the text 
are mainly literary and grammatical and are 
written ‘to stimulate...students and aid them 
in forming the habit of reading Latin as 
Latin, of apprehending thought in its Latin 
form and sequence, and of entering with in- 
telligent sympathy into the workings of 
_Livy’s mind and his conception of his coun- 
try’s history and destiny’ (preface). These 
notes are, as might be expected, scholarly and 
really helpful. They are intended, as the 
preface says, for college students—perhaps 
one might add, for honour men. Here and 
there I have noticed that their particular 


121 


torical works that appeared originally in the 
Literarisches Centralblatt and other papers : 
the greater number of these, however 
admirable they were as judgments on a new 
book, do not contain anything that justifies 
their republication. One exception to this 
isareview of Adolf Schmidt's Perikleische 
Zeitalter, which contains a careful discussion 
of the historical value of the fragments of 
Stesimbrotos. All the discussions show 
great diligence and thoroughness ; it is only 
to be regretted that the author was not 
able during his lifetime to publish them in 
a more complete and attractive form: the 
style that was admirably suited for lecture 
notes is most disagreeable to read. The 
editor seems to have done his work with 
great care and judgement. 
J. W. Heapiam. 


XXI. AND XXII. 


reference requires some thought to appreci- 
ate it. Take as an instance the note on xxi. 
62, 11, ‘levaverant: taking a new point 
of view, as, for instance, the time of the 
comitia, which is passed over without men- 
tion’ ; which is rather a dark saying. The 
same may be said of the note on sec. 5 of 
the following chapter, ‘consularibus: ie. 
used against consuls. The Romans were 
masters in the arts of filibustering.’ Does 
jilibustering mean chicanery in America? 
Historical and archaeological notes are given 
whenever they are needed, but the editors 
have thought it best not to discuss the two 
or three acknowledged historical difficulties 
of the narrative further than is necessary 
to make clear Livy’s point of view. For a 
discussion on the vexed question of the 
battlefield of Cannae, the reader is referred 
to Dodge’s Hannibal, chap. xxvii. 

The book cannot fail to give to any one 
who understands and appreciates Livy a 
better understanding and appreciation of a 
subtle and interesting writer. 

The paper and printing are excellent. 

M. T. TatHam. 


122 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


PARALLEL VERSE EXTRACTS. 


Parallel Verse Extracts for Translation into 
English and Latin, with special prefaces 


on idioms and metres, by J. E. Nixon, - 


M.A., and E. H. C. Smrra, M.A. (Mac- 
millan & Co.) 5s. 6d. 


Tr will seem specially undesirable to many 
interested in education that a fresh impulse 
should be given to the study and composi- 
tion of Latin verse. This jesuitical 
practice, cunningly contrived by the 
enemies of progress and enlightenment with 
the express object of dwarfing ana chaining 
the human intellect, has been held up to 
scorn by almost all enthusiasts of the utili- 
tarian school: and the superiority of Latin 
prose as an instrument for sharpening the 
faculties and training them in habits of 
accuracy and observation has become almost 
axiomatic. The pains bestowed on teaching 
Latin prose in all good schools has no doubt 
resulted in turning out a vast quantity of 
passable work, and yet it may be doubted 
whether the higher rhythmical effects can 
_be acquired without the aid of verse ; and 
consequently the higher a boy gets in his 
school, if verse is neglected, the more the 
prose which passed muster at first, and 
gained him a good position, falls off in 
quality and tone. But perhaps the tide is 
turning again, and the poets are reclaiming 
their proper place as the natural teachers 
of the young, and the exclusive study of 
Caesar for the sake of oblique narration is 
giving place to the more congenial Ovid and 


Virgil. And the triumph of turning out a 
fairly sonorous and compact Elegiac couplet 
is surely far more exhilarating than a 
successful dovetailing of final clauses. 

But Mr. Nixon’s book is not for begin- 
ners. It presumes an elementary training, 
and aims at finish and precision. The 
prefaces on Amplification, Condensation, 
Equivalents, Emphasis and Antithesis, 
Grammatical and Metrical licences are full 
of matter, and illustrated by constant 
references to the select passages from Latin 
poets which follow. Then follow chapters 
on various: metres, treating the subject 
scientifically, and with reference to musical 
notation. Especially instructive is the note 
at page Ixxxvi. on the sapphic stanza. 

An appendix at the end of the volume 
contains specimens of the Greek originals 
of Latin metres, and the early attempts of 
Ennius, Lucilius and the rest. 

The parallel extracts, to which all the rest 
is subsidiary, are ranged on opposite pages, 
and selected from a great variety of authors, 
—perhaps from too great a variety. But 
passages from Ovid’s Metamorphoses and 
from the Silver Age are often more modern 
in thought and feeling, and serve metrically 
as a foil to the perfection of Virgil. There 
are very few absolute translations from the 
Latin ; as a rule mere similarity of thought 
and general scope has led to juxtaposition. A 
key is being prepared, which will materially 
add to the interest of the work. 

i) D.. 8: 





HOSIUS’ LUCAN. 


In my review of this work in the last 
number of the Classical Review, I have not 
stated correctly the editor’s account of the 
relation of the MSS. I should have pointed 
out that both U and G are manuscripts with 
a mixed text. This error—quite inexcus- 
able, I admit—was caused by trying to do 
too many things at once, and I am very 


sorry for it. Those who are familiar with 
the Lucan literature of the last forty years 
will Iam sure be the most willing to make 
allowance for my blunder. I sent a correc- 
tion, but too late. 
W. E. Herrianp. 
5th February, 1894. 





a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


123 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


TOPOGRAPHY OF SYRACUSE. 


In Freeman’s History of Sicily | Vol. ii. 
pp. 306, 312] it is said that in the course of 
their struggle with Thrasyboulos the Syra- 
cusans occupied Tycha or Tyka, and that 
before long they fortified it. The latter 
step was taken in the course of the war 
with the mercenaries, after the tyrant’s 
expulsion. That a quarter of the city called 
Tycha existed in 466 B.c. and was fortified 
in 461 Bc. is, according to the author, 
practically certain. In the Appendix [note 
30] he sets himself to prove this in detail. 

On reading this note it appears that the 
conclusion is drawn from the evidence of 
Diodorus only. The other citations give 
no help whatever ; for that there was in 
later times a part of Syracuse called Tycha 
is not to the point. And what is to be 
inferred from the evidence of Thucydides is 
just the question, a question which seems to 
me not fully dealt with in the note. 

Diodorus says xi. 67—8 that Thrasybulus 
THs Toews KaTedndos THY dvopalopevnv 
"Axpadiwiv Kat Nijoov, édyupav otaay, Kal ek 
ToUTwV Oppwpevos, SieToA€uer TpOs Tos adeo- 
totas. Then he adds these words oi 6 
Svupaxdoo TO pev TpOTov pepos THs ToAEwS 
KatedaBovto tiv dvopacopevny “Irixny [Tdxnv 
Casaubon]. Soon after [xi. 73] he says that 
the mercenaries tis Toews KateAdBovtTo THY 
te Axpaduiv kat thy Nicov, audotépwv tov 


/, lal an 

Torwv ToiTwv éxdvtTwv idiov Tetyos Kadds 
/ 

KaTecKevacpevov. ot 6€ Xvpakdc.o. wadw 


euTecovTes eis Tapaxnv TO AowTov THs TOAEWS 
KaTELXoV, Kal TO Tpos Tas ‘EzuroAds TeTpappevov 
avTns ereTeixicav Kal TOAAHV dopadcav EavTois 
KATETKEVAT OY. 

Now this proves that Diodorus thought 
that there was then a quarter of Syracuse 
called Tycha (for I do not quarrel with the 
above emendation). Is he speaking from 
good authority, understanding it and using 
it well, or is he applying to the fifth century 
B.C. the language appropriate to conditions 
of a far later time 4 

First let me point to a passage in which 
he makes another statement more explicit 
than the above. In xiv. 18 he says that 
Dionysius, intending to go to war with the 
Carthaginians, decided to fortify Epipolae, 
elds Kata Tov ’ArtiKov moAcuov Tiv ToAW ék 
Gadarrys cis OdAarrav arorerayucpevnv. Can 
anybody believe this? or are we to suppose 


that mapa puxpov (or words to that effect) 
have dropped out? For my part I will say 
that what reading I have done in Diodorus 
has not led me to build much upon his 
statements. 

Thucydides mentions the vjcos, the 
Teuevirys, and 4» e€w rodts, but not Tycha or 
(by that name) Achradina. In vi. 75 he 
tells of the inclusion of the Temenites in 
the circuit of fortifications, ére‘yufov......... 
Tov Tewevitny evTos mounodpevol, TEtyos Tapa 
mav TO Tpos Tas “EmuroAds opOv, Orws py de 
eAdaoovos evarote(xicToL Gow, iv apa opdd- 
Awvra. What rapa wav...... dpov May mean 
I do not now discuss. I am at present 
concerned only with the reason given in the 
latter part of the extract. Let any one 
take a good map of Syracuse and consider 
the following propositions. If the object 
was to give the Athenians, after a possible 
victory in the field, a greater length of 
besieging wall to build and guard, then 

1. The acuteness of the angle [‘ reentering 
angle’ is I believe the technical term] to be 
formed by the Athenian lines, and hence 
the length of the lines, would depend on 
how far the new Syracusan wall projected 
towards Epipolae at its most advanced point, 
not on the line generally followed by that 
wall. 

2. If Tycha already existed and was 
fortified as in Freeman’s map [p. 139] it is 
hard to see how the Syracusans gained 
much in this respect by their extension. 

3. The particular mention of the Teme- 
nites by Thucydides rather goes to show 
that the most important part of their work 
was the inclusion of that district. When I 
went over the ground some years ago I 
thought that this was obviously true. The 
nature and importance of the post at the 
Temenites itself are well explained by 
Freeman Vol. ii. pp. 42—3. 

4. That the foremost projection of the 
new Syracusan wall was some point in that 
section which embraced the Temenites, is at 
least as probable in itself as that it was 
some point further north. That Thucydides 
calls particular attention to that section 
makes it if anything more probable. That 
in vi. 100 he speaks of 76 zpore(yiopa 76 rept 
tov Tewevirny rather favours the view that 
that section was an advanced outwork of a 
special character. 

5. I think that the operations concerned 


124 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


with the first Syracusan counterwork [Thuc. 
vi. 99, 100] are much more intelligible if we 
adopt this supposition. I hope some day to 
deal with this subject at length. There is 
not room for it here. 

6. That westward extension from the city 
consisting of the Island and Achradina 
should begin in the south [Temenites, later 
Neapolis] rather than in the north ['Tycha], 
is not improbable from the nature of the 
ground. I refresh my memory with the 
map of the Italian military survey. It is 
much the more probable alternative, if we 
consider that the southern piece lay nearer 
the harbour and the centres of city life than 
did the northern. And if, as Diodorus 
says, the expelled Syracusans occupied 
Tycha (or the piece afterwards Tycha) when 
at war with Thrasybulus and the mercen- 
aries, they did so with an offensive purpose, 
not a defensive one. 

7. Therefore, even if we accept Casaubon’s 
emendation Tvxnv in Diodorus as certain, 
we are not justified in so far deferring to 
Diodorus’ authority as to introduce a 
further difficulty into the narrative of 
Thucydides and violate the general proba- 
bilities of the case. That there may have 
been some houses at an early date on the 
piece afterwards Tycha, is surely not to be 
denied. But that there was a city quarter 
Tycha existing before the Athenian siege is, 
I submit, as surely not to be affirmed. 

W. E. HEITLAND. 


Die scenische Auffiihrung der griechischen 
Dranen des 5 Jahrhunderts. Diss. 
Inaug. von K. Weissmann. Miinchen: 
1893. 2 Mk. 


PENDING the publication of the long-ex- 
pected book by Drs. Dérpfeld and Reisch, 
which is certain to introduce a new phase 
to the stage question, contributions to this 
subject awake unusual interest, both for 
the new light which they bring to a series 
of difficult problems, and as showing the 
steady drift of opinion toward a complete 
reconstruction of the views generally held 
only a few years ago concerning the scenic 
arrangements of the theatre of the classical 
period. Within the past year three disser- 
tations on the subject have appeared, as the 
result of the prize competition set by the 
faculty of the University of Munich. That 
of Pickard is accessible to English readers 
in the American Journal of Philology for 
1893. The prize dissertation by Boden- 
steiner is reserved for a later notice. 


Weissmann has searched the dramas for 
information on the following points: (1) 
whether there was an elevated stage in the 
fifth century ; (2) whether a platform was 
built in the orchestra ; (3) whether actors 
made their appearance through the orches- 
tra; (4) whether the rule of Pollux as to 
the significance of the right and left rapodo. 
admits of proof; (5) whether periacti and 
parascenia were required in the presentation 
of the plays. In order to follow closely all 
the movements of actors and chorus, he 
limits his discussion to six plays, which he 
treats in the manner of Schénborn, drawing 


his conclusions on the various questions that — 


arise as he proceeds, and supporting them 
often by citations from the other dramas.. 

The author’s conclusions are briefly as 
follows. There were no side entrances to 
the stage; hence no periacti were in use. 
The lack of side entrances, which became 
necessary only on the introduction of the 
high stage, is one of the best arguments 
against such a stage for the classical drama. 
The zdpodo. were always used by actors 
entering from the sides. Since the chorus 
often sees and announces actors so entering, 
and since they in turn see and address the 
chorus before they notice other actors who 
are present, there were walls at each end of 
the proscenium projecting a considerable 
distance into the orchestra—the parascenia. 
Both actors and chorus, when entering from 
the zdpodor, sometimes refer to the steepness 
of the path. This leads to the supposition 
that there was an elevated platform in the 
orchestra, a ‘thymele,’ which is necessary 
also for ghost scenes. Since there was no 
high stage, against which speak also the 
intimate relations of actors and chorus, all 
references to an elevation in front of the 
scena have to do with the steps leading to 
the temple or palace in the scene, or a 
corresponding elevation in other plays. 
This elevation belonged distinctly to the 
scenery and is not a part of the stage proper. 
The notices found in literature and in the 
grammarians, when they do not square 
with such an arrangement, must be referred 
to the post-classical theatre. The directions 
of Vitruvius rest on a misunderstanding of 
his sources, caused by this confounding of 
the earlier with the later theatre. 

It will be seen that, in its general outline, 
this theory satisfies fairly well the demands 
of the dramas, and furnishes an easy method 
of disposing of the disturbing notices of 
scholiasts and lexicographers. With the 
exception of the ‘ thymele’ in the orchestra, 
any student of the dramas, unacquainted 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


with the tradition, might have reached the 
same conclusions from purely a priori 
grounds. But it is our duty to examine the 
evidence on which the theory is constructed. 
It would carry me too far to discuss in 
detail each of the many questions involved. 
It will suffice to show the author’s method 
by an examination of the most important 
parts of his argument. 

The theory of an elevation immediately 
in front of the background is suggested at 
first by the steps, often expressly mentioned, 
leading up to the temple or palace. This view 
is not new, and would be readily granted 
for certain plays. But a similar elevation 
before private houses, tents, etc., is another 
matter. Vesp. 1342 (dvaBawe Sdetpo yxpvco- 
pndoddvOcov) Weissmann completely misun- 
derstands, and the fact that he seriously 
discusses this scene in detail to prove an 
elevation makes us doubt both his soundness 
of judgment and his ability to see a joke. 
Against Vesp. 1514 xataBaréov y’ éx’ adtovs 
=kataBatéov eis aydva he has nothing of 
weight to urge. The only other passage 
here produced is Lys. 286—8 (7d oipov ot 
orovdyy éxw). We may grant that the 
approach to the Acropolis may have been 
suggested in the scenery, but what right 
has the author to assume a similar arrange- 
ment for all other plays? If this were the 
case, what special appropriateness would 
this elevation have had in the Lysistrata ? 
The only safe conclusion that may be drawn 
from the dramas, as I have said elsewhere 
(The Stage in the Greek Theatre, pp. 60 and 
70), is that the space in front of the back- 
ground may have been built up in some 
plays so as to be in a measure realistic, as 
in the Birds, Philoctetes, and others. To 
claim the same elevation for the Hecabe or 
Trachiniae would be a quite unwarrantable 
assumption. 

The raised platform in the orchestra 
Weissmann considers established by the 
necessity of providing for the shade of 
Clytemnestra in the Hwumenides. Todt 
considers such cases the strongest proof of 
the existence of the high stage. Weiss- 
mann, however, assumes for some reason 
that ghosts must appear in the orchestra. 
An underground passage such as has been 
discovered at Eretria would seem to be 
precisely what is needed for the explanation 
of such scenes. But its use in the classical 
period is denied, first, because its existence 
at Athens cannot be proved, and secondly 
because there is no agreement as to the 
date of that found at Eretria. The report 
of the American School at Athens assigns 


125 


this tunnel to ‘a good Greek period’ on the 
authority of Dérpfeld. No other authority 
has expressed himself on the subject. It is 
hardly probable that the great theatre at 
Athens should have been inferior to that at 
Eretria in its scenic conveniences. But it 
is not necessary to assume anything, either 
tunnel or platform, so long as we are able to 
explain the few ghost-scenes that the dramas 
contain by means of the arrangements of 
which we are certain—the altar or the 
usual side-entrances. Considering his 
‘thymele’ established, however, Weissmann 
explains by it such situations as Her. Fur. 
120 ff., Zon 748 and others in which actors 
or the chorus, generally aged persons, 
complain of the difticulty or steepness of the 
path, and Hg. 149 (dvaBawe cwrijp rH. rdXet) 
and Ach. 732 (duBare worray paddav). He 
supposes that the platform was connected 
with the ground by an inclined plane. 
Between this place of ascent and that near 
the background he would distribute all 
expressions in the dramas that indicate 
height. Now in order to be useful for 
ghosts the ‘thymele’ would have to be at 
least six feet high (W. simply calls it 
‘low’). The inclined plane would in that 
case be nncomfortably steep for horses and 
chariots, and would have to slope away on 
all three sides in order not to impede the 
view of those who occupied the front seats, 
which were also the best. See Pickard’s 
excellent reductio ad absurdum Am. Jour. 
Phil. 1893, p. 68 ff., and for explanation of 
the passages cited by Weissmann see White, 
Harv. Stud. ii. 167, and my paper in ‘ Trans. 
Am. Phil. Ass.’ 1891, p. 69 ff. One need 
only to refer to such scenes on the modern 
stage to show how weak Weissmann’s 
arguments are. 

The use of the parascenia is not proved. 
In the nature of the case it cannot be proved 
from the dramas, though its presence would 
often assist in preserving the illusion. The 
arguments for the use of the zdpoda by 
actors would have been greatly strengthened 
if the author had availed himself of Harz- 
mann’s investigations. The side-entrances 
to the stage and the periacti involve too 
complex a question to be decided on the 
slight evidence adduced. Niejahr and 
Dahn would have helped him here. The 
rule of Pollux as to the significance of the 
right and left entrances is treated only 
superficially, as is also the question of the 
curtain. Weissmann has some good obser- 
vations on the éxxk’xAnya which should be 
carried into a closer investigation. He 
would however find the machine hard to 


126 


manage on the steps that lie ae his 
background. 

Tn the way of general criticism it should 
be said that Weissmann does not realize 
that the burden of proof lies with those 
who oppose the tradition, which is distinctly 
in favour of a high stage. The only justifi- 
cation for rejecting for the fifth century the 
testimony of our only witnesses is that it is 
in direct conflict with the dramas of the 
fifth century. It was Weissmann’s plain 
duty to collect every ray of evidence from 
the dramas and to test fairly the traditional 
view by the material thus acquired. We 
cannot but admit that even with the whole 
number of extant plays our sources are 
defective. | Whatever conclusions one 
reaches from an examination of six plays 
must needs be provisional and should not 
be called proofs. Moreover, in interpreting 
the ancient dramas one should avoid above 
all things the assumption that perfect 
scenic appliances were at hand. We must 
leave a great deal, no one can say how much, 
to the imagination of the spectator. Weiss- 
mann has called Aeschylus and even 
Aristophanes to account with a rigour that 
no one would think of applying even to a 
modern stage-manager. 

In addition to his unscientific method, we 
must accuse him of being unacquainted with 
the literature of the subject, not only with 
the many articles that have appeared in 
English, but even with the work of his 
own countrymen. Consequently he has 
gone over ground that has been better 
worked by others and has made many 
blunders from which he might have been 
saved. His only source of information as 
to the theatre at Eretria is a short letter to 
a German periodical. Worse still, he trans- 
fers to the Americans the unwelcome honour 
of having conducted the campaign against 
Dorpfeld at Megalopolis. 

Epwarp Capps. 

The University of Chicago. 


Die Griechischen Meisterschalen der Bliithezeit 
des strengen rothfigurigen Stiles. Mit 
Unterstiitzung der Kon. Siichs. Ges. der 
Wissensch., und aus privaten Mitteln 
herausgegeben von Paunt Harrtwice. 
Stuttgart und Berlin 1893. pp. viii., 701. 
Tafeln i-lxxv. 220 Mk. 


THe author of this book, probably the 
most important work on vase-painting that 
has appeared since Klein’s Huphronios, was 
fortunate in his choice of a subject, and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


still more fortunate when he met with the 
financial assistance which enabled him to 
treat it on a scale which is not only adequate, 
but even lavish in the excellence of its 
printing and illustrations. It is to be 
wished that we in England had more of the 
spirit which prompted Herr Niethammer 
and the Sichsische Gesellschaft to undertake 
the cost of this splendid contribution to 
science. At the present stage of archaeo- 
logical enquiry, what we chiefly need is 
publication, and yet again publication. © 
With nations and schools and even indi- 
viduals vying with each other in a feverish 
energy of excavation, discovery succeeds 
discovery so rapidly that the new material 
is not given time for digestion, and new 
theories form and are dissolved with 
kaleidoscopic brilliancy and result. If some 
proportion of the money now spent on dig- 
ging the weapons of controversy out of dull 
theatres, and similar undertakings, were 
devoted to the issue of first-rate illustra- 
tions of important monuments, valuable 
time would be saved, and science would be 
decidedly the gainer. It is no prejudice to 
Hartwig’s suggestive and often brilliant 
commentary to say that the most important 
part of his work is the collection of plates 
in the atlas: these are drawn by the best 
Greek vase-painters, copied by the most skil- 
ful draughtsmen of antiquities, Anderson, 
Devillard, and Eichler, and reproduced in the 
full size which is so necessary for purposes of 
comparison, These are selected on a ju- 
dicious principle: where adequate publication 
already exists, the vase is not reproduced 
here ; in other cases Hartwig’s plates have 
all the claims of a first publication. They 
are arranged as far as possible in chrono- 
logical sequence under the artists to whom 
they are assigned ; so that with the Wiener 
Vorlegeblatier, now being issued, students 
have a fine apparatus available for studying 
the great vase-painters of the periods before 
the Persian Wars. It is to be hoped that 
Hartwig will be enabled to carry out his 
scheme of treating the preceding and suc- 
ceeding painters of cups in the same way : 
and finally, at some future period, perhaps 
we may even hope fora Corpus of those 
vases, signed or unsigned, which illustrate 
the styles of the individual artists. 

The book is not, however, merely an 
illustrated commentary on Klein’s MMetster- 
signaturen. It is a brilliant exposition of 
the comparative analysis, which has been so 
valuable with regard to sculpture, applied 
to vase-painting by a student of wide 
general knowledge and trained eye. Klein’s 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ELuphronios had shown what might be done 
in this direction, and Meier, Diimmler, and 
others have followed out individual 
minor paths which lead from his en- 
quiry: but Hartwig for the first time has 
actually extended the road which Klein 
began. It is only natural that the issue of 
so wide a range of new material should be 
accompanied by novel and suggestive ideas. 
Perhaps the purposes of the Classical Review 
will best be served if I merely indicate 
in brief the general scope of Hartwig’s 
innovations; a detailed criticism would 
involve technical discussion which would 
cover a large space and probably interest 
very few specialists only. 

The excavations in the Pre-Persian strata 
of the Acropolis, in moving back the 
chronology of vases by some decades, have 
practically established the fact that 
Euphronios, the central figure of vase- 
painting, began his activity at Athens as 
nearly as possible in B.c. 500, and continued 
painting for probably half a century. 
Starting from the somewhat flat and 
formal manner of Epictetus and his cycle, 
Euphronios has left us works in which can 
be traced the stages of development from an 
outline drawing in a single plane down to 
the art which observes the most complex 
forms in nature, and does not hesitate to 
record them. It is within these limits that 
the material before us stands. Twelve 
artists at least whose names are known to us 
fall within it: and a considerable number 
of vases, of which the attribution is due to 
considerations of style, sometimes coupled 
with the use of a particular name with 
kadds. ‘These names with xadds (‘ Lieblings- 
inschriften’) may be said to form the 
writer’s starting-point. He would explain 
them on the category of the concurrent 
formula 6 ais xadds, as referring exclusively 
to aides, never to grown men, and thus 
each such reference would fall within a 
period not exceeding ten years. Hence he 
deduces the following conclusions: (i) that 
all the cups of one master, bearing the same 
xados name, belong to a limited period (ten 
years) of the activity of that master; 
(ii) that all the cups by different masters, 
but bearing the same xadds name, are (within 
ten years) contemporary: (iii) that the 
occurrence of two or more xadds names on 
the same vase marks approximately that the 
persons so named were contemporary (within 
ten years). The identification proposed for 
so many of the xaAds names, with historical 
personages and others, falls through in this 
case : perhaps, after all, most of them have 


127 


a sentimental rather than a real historical 
value so long as we are not sure at what 
precise period of his career the personage in 
question was named xadds on the vase. At 
any rate the idea does not commend itself, 
that a popular general, presumably of 
mature years, if not elderly, should be 
persistently called beautiful: and it is 
significant that the instance of Miltiades on 
the Ashmolean plate, which Studniczka 
adduced as an argument in favour of this 
anomaly, has been recently converted by 
Winter into an argument against it. On 
the other hand it is certainly a striking 
coincidence, as Hartwig remarks, that 
among the vases of the middle decade of 
the fifth century, so many names occur 
which we meet in the Dialogues of Plato. 
The natural result, if we accept these 
deductions, would be to simplify the chron- 
ology of vase-painting. The author main- 
tains that the analysis of the style of the 
cups tends to confirm his position : admitting, 
that is to say, that in cases where any given 
kados name is found repeated on vases 
assigned by their style to totally different 
periods, the identity of the persons so named 
is impossible. In pursuance of this idea, he 
distinguishes both in Euphronios and in 
Duris an earlier and a later manner. This 
division is especially suggestive in the case 
of Duris. His earlier vases, judging from 
their kaAds names, cannot be much later than 
the earlier vases of Euphronios: it is on 
these vases that Duris, following the great 
painter of the palaestra, shows us mainly 
athletic subjects. In his later period, Duris 
is less under the influence of Euphronios, 
and scenes of this kind practically disappear 
from his work. Between these two periods 
are arranged the vases of Peithinos, of 
Hieron, and, more important still, of Brygos. 
These artists, and probably many more, 
inherited the improvements of those who 
were the pioneers, with varying success and 
with varying measure of originality : hence 
it is often difficult, as in the case of Brygos, 
to decide by style alone which are the earlier 
and which the later periods of his work. 
Euphronios on the other hand won for vase- 
painting gradually and step by step the 
power of conception and of artistic embodi- 
ment of ideas. It is he who represents for 
us the great epoch of transformation in 
Hellenic art reflected in the ‘inventions’ 
ascribed by Pliny to Kimon of Kleonae. 
In a highly suggestive chapter, the writer 
shows that these ‘inventions’ are reflected 
in the sense of individuality, of naturalism 
and knowledge of perspective shown in the 


128 


vases of Euphronios: within them is in- 
cluded the movement in different planes ; 
the capacity for raising or lowering the 
head; and the setting free of the pupil of 
the eye. Looked at in this light, Kimon 
takes his position as ‘the master who 
pushed to its full extent the power of ex- 
pression by means of mere linear drawing : 
and who thereby laid the foundations of 
drawing for Greek painters.’ Vase-painting 
in this respect affords at any rate a second- 
ary reflection of the developments of the 
greater art: the question whether the 
Kerameikos may be said to have actually 
contributed to this progress, cannot be 
settled here; it hangs together with the 
larger enquiry, which is still far from be‘ng 
solved, as to the status in Athenian social 
life of vase-painters and their work. The 
whole subject of the relation of this minor 
art to the achievements of sculpture and 
painting needs further enlightenment: while 
it is undoubtedly true that vase-painters 
often adopted characteristic motives and 
even compositions from one another or from 
a common source, it still remains to be 
proved that these are ever traceable to the 
major arts of painting or of sculpture. We 
must beware, for instance, of referring to 
the influence of Pheidias or Polygnotus 
vases in which motives occur which resemble 
known groups of the Parthenon or Nekyia: 
for a wide acquaintance with vases will 
often show that such motives had been the 
common possession of the vase-painters of 
nearly a century before. It would be well 
- in future in the index of a vase catalogue to 
include a heading in which these motives 
should be tabulated. 

Into the great mass of unassigned vases,— 
that is to say, vases with neither signature 
nor xaAdés name, or with a disconnected xados 
name,—the author has ventured with con- 
siderable boldness and ingenuity: as a 
result he claims to have added several fresh 
examples to most of the known artists’ lists, 
and has set up several series of new groups, 
determined either by their xaAds names, or 
else by pure criticism of style: both these 
classes will probably be subjected to criticism : 
the latter, especially those grouped under 
the ‘Meister mit dem Kahlkopfe’ and the 
‘ Meister mit der Ranke’ seem to me highly 
problematical. When we see what diversity 
of style is covered by the signed vases of 
(for instance) Euphronios and Phintias, it is 
evident that the unsigned vases must offer 
the gravest difficulties in classification. 


Ceci, SMITH, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


[The issues of the Classical Review for 
April and May will contain a notice by 
Miss Eugénie Sellers of the very impor- 
tant work just published by Adolf Furt- 
wingler, Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plas- 


tik. | 


————_— 


MONTHLY RECORD. 


ITALY. 

Concordia Sagittaria, Venetia. — Several new 
inscriptions have been found relating to the colonia 
established here under the Empire and the military 
cemetery attached thereto. The most interesting 
inscription is from a tomb raised to Flavius Fortun- 
atus Augustalis by Vettius Serenianrs. The former 
is styled ex nomine militum Iovianorum, and appears 
to have been tribune of the Jovii iwniores (cf. C.I.L. 
y. 8753), who derived their name from the Emperor 
Jovian.? 

Este.—Part of a mosaic pavement has come to 
light, consisting of geometrical patterns in black 
and white, having the general appearance of a 
carpet. Some of the patterns are unusual, as for 
instance a large star of laurel leaves and a double 
row of interlacing arches. Below the pavement 
were amphorae and glass vases of an earlier date, 
and on a higher level a coin with radiated bust of 
Probus and other unimportant objects were found.? 

Albacina in Umbria is on the site of the ancient 
Tuficum, on which excavations have been recently 
made. The results consist of sculptures, architectural 
fragments and inscriptions, which appear to have 
come from large public edifices surrounding the 
forum ; this view is supported by the fact that many 
honorary inscriptions from the bases of statues have 
been found. One very interesting inscription to C. 
Fulvius Plautianus refers to the betrothal of his 
daughter Plotilla to Caracalla. The date of the 
inscription is A.D. 203 ; Plautianus isstyled praefectus 
practorio clarissimus vir consul bis.” 

Arezzo.—Some new fragments of Aretine vases 
have been discovered on the site of the ancient 
officina which belonged first to C. Tellius and 
afterwards to P. Cornelius; they consist chiefly of 
cups and plates with reliefs of the usual type, masks, 
Bacchanalian subjects, ete. The manufacture 
appears to have been transferred from Tellius to 
Cornelius in B.c. 82.” 

Rome.—Excavations have been made in the 
Stadium Palatinum, and fragments of pilasters and 
columns from the colonnade have been found, alse 
part of a large vaulted apse. On three plinths of 
columns are the letters CAI, probably part of the 
name of the architect who restored the stadium 
under Septimius Severus. Among other discoveries 
were a fine female head of the best period of Greek 
art, perhaps from one of the Muses with which 
Augustus adorned the temple of Apollo Palatinus ; 
bust of Antoninus Pius; heads of Bacchus, a 
Bacchanal, and a youth; a statuette of a Faun; a 
double bearded terminal figure ; and the plinth of a 
statue of Venus, on which the right foot and the 
head of a dolphin remain ; also numerous stamped 
tiles of the second century of the Empire.” 

Near the royal palace on the Quirinal remains of 
ancient construction in opus reticulatum have come 
to light, below which was a well of brick lined with 
tiles. 

ae. iene Ee 

1 Notizie dei Lincei, June 1893. 
2 Ibid. April 1893. % Ibid. May 1893, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


On the Via Latina have been found the remains of 
the ground-plan of a tomb, and an inscribed tomb- 
stone of the time of Claudius to one Statilius, a 
flamen, on the tympanon of which are sculptured 
appropriate emblems; also a sepulchral cista of 
marble, and a tile stamped DoMITIAE.* 

Santa Maria di Capuwa,—An interesting inscrip- 
tion has been found relating to the magistrz vicorwm 
et pagorum Campanorum, of the period immediately 
following the second Punic War. Itruns: Q-sa.. | 
Q: MIN.. | L- OPIMI.. | C. FABIV.. | P- OFELLV[S | M- 
FVLMON,. | HEISCE-MAGISTREIS-HORTO... | IVDICI- 
OQVE - VICERE - EIDEM- LY.. | SVCRVNDAM-PORTICVS- 
QVE REC... | IIDEMQVE-DE-SVA-PECVNIA-HERUVLEI...” 

Santo Angelo in Formis.—A cippus has been found 
inscribed: IMP.CAESAR | VESPASIANVS - AVG | COS. 
VIII-FINES-LOCOR | DICATORVM - DIANAE | TIFAT- A- 
CORNELIO-SVLLA | EX-FORMA-DIVI-AVG | RESTITVIT- 
On the top: por. A similar inscription occurs in 
C.IL. x. 3828. ppr=Praedia Dianae Tifatinae. 
The upshot of the inscription is that Vespasian in 
77 re-established the boundaries of the territory 
dedicated by Sulla to Diana Tifatina according to 
the plan (forma) made by Augustus. The stone 
would then be a cippus terminalis.” 

Velletri.—An early tomb has been found here, of 
beehive shape, lined with blocks of tufa. It con- 
tained a cinerarium in the form of a hut, resembling 
those found at Alba Longa in 1877, one of which is 
now in the British Museum. Somewhat similar 
tuguria have been found at Falerii and other places 


129 


in Etruria. There appears to be no doubt that the 
form is derived from that of a primitive hut. 

Naples.—Some ancient constructions of Roman 
times have come to light, including remains of 
unburnt brick ; also a marble statue draped in a toga, 
holding a scroll in the left hand, of good workman- 
ship, probably a municipal statue. Also a female 
statue of marble, a marble head from a terminal 
figure of Hercules, and a few inscriptions, mostly in 
late Greek characters.4 

Ruvo.—A tomb of tufa has been opened containing 
a bronze patera and lebes, the latter containing some 
acorns, and supported by a large iron tripod ; also 
some painted vases, including a late b.f. kylix 
representing the return of Persephone (?), and a fine 
r.f. Attic vaso a colonnette representing Theseus re- 
ceiving the ring of Minos and crown of gold from 
Amphitrite. In the background Poseidon’s palace is 
indicated ; Poseidon, Nereus, and a Nereid are 
spectators of the scene. Only three other instances 
of this subject are known, one being the famous 
kylix of Euphronios. On the reverse is a music 
school.* 

Syracuse. —A Porta Scaca has been identified in 
the wall of Dionysius on the north side, with a road 
winding in a north-westerly direction down the slope 
of the hill, which was evidently available for 
vehicles.” 

H. B. WALTeERs. 





4 Notizie dei Lincei, July 1893. 





SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


Neue Jahrbucher fur Philologie u. Padago- 
gik. Ed. Fleckeisen u. Masius. Leipzig 1892. 
Heft 2 contains (1) H. Kluge, Vorhomerische 
Kampfschilderungen in der Ilias, calling attention 
to passages (several in K) in which a Homeric warrior 
lacks the usual breast-plate or greaves, and suggesting 
that these passages represent an earlier form of civili- 
zation. (2) W. Schwarz, Die Danwidensage. Chiefly 
an examination of the names of the Danaids as given 
in Apollodorus, and suggesting that the myth has 
reference to the exclusion of Greek ships (penteconters) 
from the Egyptian market. (3) F. Cauer, a criticism 
of B. Keil’s Die Solonische verfassung in ’A@ Tod. 
Chiefly to the effect that Keil misunderstands the 
”A@. moA., ‘because he has too high a notion of the 
intelligence and credibility of the author.’ (4) S. 
Brandt, Ueber den verfasser des buches de Mortibus 
Persecutorwm, contending that Lactantius is not the 
author. (5) A. Behr, Hragmente einer hs. Macrobius- 
und Plinius- excerpte, describing portions of a parch- 
ment ms. recently discovered in the Archiv of Cologne. 
Heft 3 contains (1) F. Blass, “Yrepeidou kar’ ’A@nvo- 
yévous, a summary, followed by an emended text, of 
this speech, discovered by E. Revillout in 1888. 
Blass has apparently had access only to the facsimile 
published this year. (2) E. Hasse, Noles on the Dual, 
showing that Xen. does not use the plural verb with 
dual nom., and that Polybius does not use dveiy as 
dat. but only as gen. For dat. he uses dvaty. (3) 
F. Geffcken, Die Griindung von Tarent, contending 
that Tarentum was an Achaean colony. (4) J. Lange, 
Zu Plautus, some emendations, one of which (on 
Captivi 923) calls forth from Fleckeisen a short note 
on redux, to the effect that redducere is found but not 
reddusx : hence redua probably is connected with red 
or redire, not reducere, the x being adjectival as in 
NO, LXVII. VOL. VIII. 


trux, atrox. (5) C. F. Miller on ante annos = vor 
jahren, showing that ante annos, without numeral or 
other limitation, is good Latin for ‘some years ago.’ 
Many similar Latin expressions are cited. (6) S. 
Brandt on De Mortibus Persecutorwm, concluded. 
Hefte 4 and 5 contain (1) G. F. Unger, Die Zins- 
urkunde zu ol. 88, 3-89, 2 (C.L.A. i. 273), an elabo- 
rate treatise on the Attic calendar for the years named. 
(2) T. Matthias, Die Stellung der griech. frau, an at- 
tempt to show, from classical writers, that women 
were not so much repressed in Greece as is commonly 
supposed. (3) E. Bussler, Zu Aeschylos Prometheia, 
contending that I. Muppépus was the first tragedy of 
the trilogy. (4) Ch. Clasen, Zur Gesch. Téimoleons, 
conclusion of some articles which appeared in 1886 
and 1888. (5) T. Oesterlen, Horatius Episteln ., 
contending that Zp. i. 7 implies a rupture between 
Hor. and Maecenas, and that this rupture was never 
healed. (6) R. Oehler, Die hafen von Karthago, a 
study of the existing ruins with conclusions founded 


thereon. (7) O. Stange, Zu Ovid. Metam., three 
emendations. (8) C. Hosius, Die hss. von Lucanus, 


a comparison of many readings, but not founded on 
inspection of the MSS. (9) K. Hachtmann, Zu Tac. 
Agricola, ¢. 9, suggesting adrogantiam et amaritiem 
(for avaritiam). (10) J. Lange, Zu Caesar B. G., 
emendations. (11) W. Koch, Die feldziige Julians 
gegen die Germanen chiefly on the original sources of 
Ammianus and Zosimus. : 

Heft 6 contains (1) B. Schmidt, Steinhaufen als 
Jtuchmale in Griechenland, connecting the avabeunarovpio 
of modern with the €puaoy of ancient Greece. (2) R. 
Peppmiiller, Theognidea, some emendations. (3) R. 
Vari, Oppiant codicum series, a list of over forty extant 
MSS. of the Haliewticon. (4) Th. Breiter, Zu Mani- 
liws, a number of emendatious founded on a Madrid 

K 


130 


MS. (5) W. Sternkopf, Ueber zwei briefe Ciceros an 
T. Trebonius (viz. epp. ad fam. xv. 20, 21), contend- 
ing that xv. 21 was written from the country about 
the end of a.u.c. 708, and xv. 20 from Rome a little 
later. 

Heft 7 contains (1) O. Froehde, Der begriff und die 
angabe der litteratur-wissenschaft, inaugural address 
delivered at Berlin. (2) V. Pingel, Zw Soph. Ant. 
1-4, proposing axis arep (Hesych. ann: Cepameia) and 
ap olg@ ém. (4) H. v. Arnim, Der streit des Zenon u. 
Theophrastos, a controversy with E. Norden. (5) G. 
Helmreich, Zu Galenos, a few emendations. (6) F. 
Skutsch, Ad Statii siluas symbolae, Part I. of a dis- 
cussion of the MS. authorities. (7) E. Sehweder, 
Ueber die Peutingersche tafel, a discussion of the origin 
and earlier form of this ancient map. 

Hefte 8 and 9 contain (1) H. Miiller-Striibing, Zur 
verfassung von Athen wahrend des peloponn. Krieges, 
an attempt to show that Pericles and Cleon were not 
otpatnyot, but emmeAnral tis Kowns mpocdbou, 71.¢. 
holders of a financial office tenable by one man for 
four years at a time, re-election being permitted. (2) 
O. Keller, Zu Livius, some small emendations. (3) 
E. Dittrich and A. Fleckeisen, Zu Plinius n. h. xii. 
18, reading auctor ille historiarwm condidit Thurios in 
Italia. (4) C.Schirlitz, Die fiinf ersten reden in Platons 
Symposion, the first part of a long disquisition. (5) 
O. Schwab, Uber paadstota bet zahlen usw., showing 
that padAicra with numbers means ‘about,’ ‘pretty 
nearly.’ (6) C. Riiger, Zu Dem. rede vom trierarch. 
Kranzen, emendations. (7) R. von Scala, Fabius wu. 
Nikias, contending that Livy (xxvill.), in his account 
of Fabius, was following the account of Nicias in 
Thue. vii. (8) H. Magnus, Zu Ovid. Metam.,a dis- 
cussion of the archetype MS. 


Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins 

zu Berlin. January—March, 1893. 
Livy, by H. J. Miiller. 

I. Editions. 7. Livit ab wu. ¢. libri i. ii. xxi. xxii. 
with select parts of iii. iv. vi. by A. Zingerle. 3rd 
ed. Wien 1892. Titi Livi ab wu. c. libri xxi. xxii. 
xxiii. xxiv. xxx., ed. A. Zingerle by P. Albrecht. 
Leipzig 1893. Chrestomathie aus Livius, by J. Gol- 
ling. Wien 1892. Besides an introduction this con- 
sists of (1) a selection from book ii. (2) the three 
books i. xxi. xxii. (3) a selection from iii. vi. xxvil. 
XXX. XXXili. xxxix. and xlv. TZ. Livi ab wu. c. liber 
ix. by E. Ziegeler. Gotha 1891. The notes need 
moreexamples. TZ. Liviab wu. c. liber x. by F. Luter- 
bacher. Leipzig 1892. An excellent edition. T. 
Livii ab u. c. liber xxi. by K. Tucking. 4th ed. 
Paderborn 1892. Livius-Kommentar, by C. Haupt. 
Commentary on book xxi. Leipzig 189%. Too elabo- 
rate for school use. ti Livii ab wu. c. liber xxi. by 
F. Luterbacher. 3rd ed. Gotha 1892. Much im- 
proved from the 1st ed., chiefly through the use of 
Luchs’ ed. Titi Livii ab wu. c. liber xxii. by F. Luter- 
bacher. 2nd ed. Gotha 1889. Most of the many 
new readings are improvements. 7. Livii ab wu. ¢. 
liber xxii. by E. Wolfflin. 3rd ed. Leipzig 1891. 
Commendable for its clearness and precision in expla- 
nation. Titi Livii ab wu. c. liber xxx. by F. Luter- 
bacher. Leipzig 1892. Luterbacher always shows 
independence of judgment. 


II. Contributions to criticism and interpretation. 
L. Winkler. 

Die Dittographien in den nikomachianischen Codices 
des Livius. Part ii. Progr. Wien 1892. [Parti. 
noticed Cl. Rev. vii. 191.] This part deals with 
books vi.-ix. W. Heraeus, Vindiciae Livianae. 
Part ii. Progr. Offenbach 1892. Often successfully 
defends the received text. [For Parti. see Cl. Rev. 
y. 346.] R. Novak, Zu Livius, Zeitschr. f. d. dst. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Gymn. 1892. A number of passages discussed and 
emended. FE. Reichenhart, Zu Erklérung einiger 
Liviusstellen, Zeitschr. f. d. 6st. Gymn. 1892. On 
4, 8, 5 and various passages in books 21, 23, 24 and 
25. Ad. Schmidt, Zu Livius, Zeitschr. f. d. ost. 
Gymn. 1892 Reads se for sese in 28, 18, 10 and 28, 
25, 13. Notes on reading in 30, 7, 3 and 37, 33, 5. 
A number of scattered contributions are given by A. 
Howard (Harvard Studies iii. 185), F. J. Drechsler 
(Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1892, p. 301), d’Arbois de 
Jubainville (Rev. de Phil. 1891, p. 56), R. Unger 
(Paradoxa Theb. p. 304), H. W. v. d. Mey (Mnemos. 
xx. 224), ed. Wolff (WS. f. kl. Phil. 1892, coll. 184, 
185, 212, 297), G. Landgraf (Festschrift des Prof. w.- 
v. Christ. 1891, p. 380), M. Miiller- (Or. Mitt.), A. 
Wodrig (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892, p. 421), and A. 
Zingerle (Berl. WS. 1891, col. 1038). 


III. Writings of mixed contents (Lexicon, Sources, 
&c.). 

C. Haupt, Anleitung zwn Verstindniss der Livia- 
nischen Derstellungsform. Leipzig 1892. This use- 
ful work is divided as follows: I. The period in his- 
torical writing. II. Notes on method. III. Gram- 
matical peculiarities. IV. Position of words (1) 
anaphora, (2) chiasmus, (3) union of anaphora and 
chiasmus. V. Elucidation of some comprehensive 
periods. Lexicon Livianwm, F. Fiigner. Fasce. iv. 
andy. Lips. 1892. Comprising adscensius-ambitio. 
A specimen ‘solidae eruditionis, diligentiae, assidui- 
tatis.’ [Cl. Rev. v. 346, vii. 191, 333.] A. M.A. 
Schmidt, Beitrdge zur Livianischen Lexikographie. 
Part iii. Progr. Waidhofen 1892. On the word 
contra (1) position, (2) meaning (a) as adverb (b) as 
preposition. R, v. Scala, Griechische Verse bet 
Livius, Zeitsehr. f. d. 6st. Gymn. 1892. LL. derives 
this ornament not from his own reading in Greek 
poets, but from his sources. On the relation of Livy 
to his sources, particularly in his use of Valerius 
Antias, see Fr. Miinzer, De Gente Valeria. Diss. 
Berlin 18917. Also see H. Hesselbarth, Die neweste 
Hypothese zur Livius-Polybios-Frage. Berlin WS. 
1891. M. Jumpertz, Der rémisch-karthagische Krieg 
in Spanien (211-206). Diss. Leipzig 1892. Well 
written and learned. It is questionable whether for 
205 B.c. it is necessary to assume a source between 
Livy and Polybius that Livy uses. [See Cl. Rev. vi. 
381 foll.] 


Homer (except the higher criticism), by E. Nau- 
mann. 


I. Editions. Homers Ilias, by G. Stier. Eighth 
part. X—O. Gotha 1890. Especially rich in quot- 
ing parallel passages. Homers Ilias, K. F. Ameis. 
Vol. i. 2nd part, A—Z. 4th ed. by C. Hentze. Leip- 
zig 1891. Still further improved. Homers Ilias, by 
J. La Roche. Part iii, I—M. Part iv. N—II. 3rd 
ed. Leipzig 1891. Homeri Odyssea, ed. J. La Roche. 
Part i. a-u. Part ii. v-w. Prag. 1892, and Kommen- 
tar zu Homers Odyssea in 4 parts. Prag. 1891-2. 
[Cl. Rev. vi. 176.] Homers Odyssee in a shorter 
form, by A. Th. Christ. Prag. 1891. On the same 
lines as the shorter edition of the Iliad by the same 
editor [on which see Cl. Rev. iv. 313]. The Odyssey 
of Homer, by A. Platt. Cambridge 1892. An at- 
tempt to restore the original Homer, often without 
taking count of the Alexandrians. [Cl. Rev. vi. 343]. 


II. Form and elucidation of the Text. Language. 
Verse. J. Mihly, Satwra, Bl. f. d. bayer. GSW. 1889. 
On A 453, 1668. W. T. Lendrum. Cl. Rev. iv. 
46, Notes, on T 227 and defends T 76 against Leaf. 
A. Platt, Notes on the text of the Iliad, J. of Phil. 
1889. Several conjectures. R. Peppmiiller, Zin 
Emendationsvorschlag zur Ilias, N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


1891. W 48, yaorpt for dati. E. Mehler, Inter am- 
bulandum decerpta. Mnemos. 1889. Several conjec- 
tures in Homer. J. van Leeuwen, jr. Homerica. 
Mnemos. 1889. (1) Patronymices in -eiys and -elwy. 
(2) The verb wéAdAew. (3) Contracted and lengthened 
verbal forms. Continued, Mnemos. 1890. (4) On 
the caesura after the 4th trochee. (5) On agauapro- 
Ferns, amroFernhs, aptierhs. (6) .pravOnv, kopelrwr, 
mepuxet, di5wOt, etc. (7) civ, eivi. (8) On O 556 foll. 
(9) €5Fie for 5é5Fe in = 34. (10) On the promise of 
Patroclus to Briseis, T 298. (11) Did H. consider 
the dolphin a fish? (12) On amp and &xAvs. Con- 
tinued, Mnemos. 1891. (18) Onthe digamma. H. 
van Herwerden, De locis nonnullis Homericis e pos- 
terioribus libris Iliadis. Mnemos. 1889. Conjectures 
and remarks on O—Q. H. van Herwerden, Annota- 
tiones ad Iliadem. Mnemos. 1890. Continuation of 
a previous paper in Rhein. Mus. [Cl. Rev. vii. 91.] 
H. van Herwerden, Homerica. Mnemos. 1891. 
Further emendations. S. A. Naber, Epistula critica 
ad Batavos Homeri editores. Munemos. 1891. On 
the digamma. <A. Platt, Notes on the text of the 
Odyssey. J. of Phil. 1889. A. Platt, Homerica. J. 
of Phil. 1890. Defends a number of readings which 
he adopts in his edition of the Od. A. Platt, The 
augment in Homer. J. of Phil. 1890. The augment 
was a method of emphasizing, not merely a mark of 
past time. K. Meiser, TYextkritisches. _Miinchen 
1891. On x 186. Fohleisen, Zu Od. viii. 521 foll. 
Wiirttemb. 1891. Ed. Goebel, Homerische Bliitter. 
Progr. Fulda 1891. On (1) aBpérn, aupiBpdrn, 
GBporacew. (2) ememrds, adoxetos. (3) ev vuoi 
meoéecbor I 235, M 107. (4) pevowaw and the so- 
called epic lengthening. (5) amardw, amatnads. (6) 
X 178. (7) © 535. (8) P 89. (9) P 155. (10) & 
441. (11) « 494. Ed. Goebel, Zu Homer, N. Jahrb. 
f. Phil. 1892. G. Vogrinz, ei wnd ef xe(v) mit den 
Konjunktiv bei Homer. Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 
1890. W. T. Lendrum, On the construction of clauses 
Sollowing expressions of expectation in Greek. Cl. 
Rey. 1890. The exposition of = 497 fails. A. Hilde- 
brandt, De verbis et intransitive et causative apud 
Homerum usurpatis. Diss. Halenses 1890. The 
intrans. meaning of many verbs has arisen from the 
causative meaning, but others are originally intransi- 
tive. Mehliss, Ueber die Bedeutung von kadrds bei 
Homer. Progr. Eisleben 1891. P. Stengel, @uxjers— 
OveAAa—Ovders. Hermes 1891. @%exv=to burn, only. 
G. E. Marindin, xAwpnits in Od. xix. 518. Cl. Rev. 
iv. 231. H. Skerlo, Hiniges tiber den Gebrauch von 
ava bei Homer. Progr. Graudenz 1892. L. Par- 
mentier, Homériques vnis, ypnis, jis. Rev. de l’instr. 
en Belg. 1889. F. Weck, Die epische Zerdehnung. 
Progr. Metz 1891. A new attempt to explain the 
various forms of contracted verbs in H. Deserves 
careful consideration. FE. Stolz, Bauwsteine zw einen 
sprachwissenschaftlichen Kommentar der homerischen 
Gedichte. Wiener Studien 1890. ‘This is premature. 
Index Homericus, comp. Aug. Gehring. Leipzig 
1891. Laborious and valuable. [Cl. Rev. vi. 14.] 
C. Hentze, Anleitung zur Vorbereitung auf Homers 
Odyssee. Leipzig 1891. Two parts. Books i.-xii. 
have as yet appeared. Much to be commended. E. 
Eberhard, Die Partikel nat im homerischen Verse. 
Zeitschr f. d. dst. Gymn. 1889. A. Platt, Note on 
Homeric Scansion. J. of Phil. 1889. A. Platt, 
— in the fourth foot in Homer. J. of Phil. 
1889. 
III. Scholia and Manuscripts. 


J. Nicole, Les scolies Génevoises de U Iliade. Paris 
1891. ‘Cl. Rey. v. 413.] J. Nicole, Zu den Genfer 


131 


Scholien der Ilias. Paris 1891. [Cl. Rev. v. 
413.] J. Nicole, Zu den Genfer Tliasscholien. 
Hermes 1891. C. Wachsmuth, Neue Bruchstiicke 
aus den Schriften des Grammatikus Crates. Rhein. 
Mus. 1891. On # 195 and 282 which both 
contain fragments of Crates. H. Pusch, Quaes- 
tiones Zenodoteae. Diss. Hal. 1890. Deals mostly 
with Z. apart from his work on Homer. A. Ludwich, 
Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik. Partii. Leipzig 
1885. A defence of Aristarchus. A. Schimberg, 
Zur handschriftlichen Ueberlieferung der Scholia 
Didymi. Part i. Philol. 1891. Part ii. Progr. 
Ratibor 1891. These essays lay a safe foundation for 
a new edition of these scholia, which is much needed. 
Fr. Kappe, Der Bekkersche Paraphrast der Ilias und 
seine Bedeutung fiir die Textkritik. Progr. Liegnitz 
1892. Includes A—O and é—aQ. E. Dittrich, ‘H é« 
Moveefov. N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892. This edition is 
only mentioned in & 204, and there in connexion with 
Crete. W. Leaf, The manuscripts of the Iliad. J. 
of Phil. 1890. Shows the need of a fresh collation of 
L. J. van Leeuwen, jr., De Lliadis et Odysseae Codice 
Vindobonensi NV. 5. Mnemos. 1890. T. W. Allen, 
Manuscripts of the Iliad in Rome. Cl. Rev. 1890. 
T. W. Allen, Palacographica. J. of Phil. 1891. Puts 
the Townley Homer in 12th or 13th cent. as against 
E. Maass, who dates it 1059. IF. G. Kenyon, Clas- 
sical texts from Papyri in the British Museum. 
London 1891. Contains passages from BrA¥Oa from 
late papyri. J. Douglas, The Harris Papyri. Athe- 
naeum 1891. K. Haberlin, Beitrdge zur Kenniniss 
des antiken Bibliothek und Buchwesens (1889). Deals 
partly with pre-Alexandrian editions of Homer. 
Menrad, Hin neuentdecktes Fragment einer voralexan- 
drinischen Homerausgabe, bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. 1891. 
A. Ludwick, Die sogenannte voralexrandrinische Ilias. 
Ind. lect. Konigsberg 1892. E. Meyer, Homerische 
Parerga. Hermes 1892. The first two of these seek 
to estimate the value of the fragment of a papyrus 
cod. of the Iliad published by Mahaffy for the pre- 
Alexandrian division of the history of the text. The 
third is divided as follows: (1) The oldest text of 
Homer, (2) Theseus in Homer, (3) Apollo’s festival 
on the first of the month, (4) The contest between 
Homer and Hesiod. R. Peppmiiller, Ueber die incer- 
tae sedis fragmenta Homerica. N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 
1891. The fragments 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 under H.’s 
name in Kinkel’s Epic. gr. fragmenta are only a freer 
handling of some passages in our text. 


IV. Subject-matter. Homer as a teacher. 


P. W. Forchhammer, Die Kyanen und die Argo- 
nauten. Kiel and Leipzig 1891. Contains also (1) 
Die Grotte auf Ithaka, (2) Dardania (on X 149), 
(3) vuerds auory@. S. Butler, Zhe topography of the 
Odyssey. Athen. 1892. C. Torr, Mr. Gladstone's 
Appendix, Cl. Rey. 1890. M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, 
Die homerischen Schwerter auf Kypros. Berl. Phil. 
WS. 1892. Explains élpos dpyupénAov. H. Kluge, 
Vorhomerische Abbildungen homerischer Kampfscenen. 
N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892. Certain battle scenes on 
seal rings, &c., are copied in A 517, 11 330, A 218. 
C. E. Haskins, On Homeric jishing-tackle. J. of 
Phil. 1891. «épas in Q 81 is an artificial bait of horn. 
Cl. Hultig, Zur Frage nach der Naivetét Homers, 
Progr. Ziillichau 1891. His so-called naiveté is the 
result of art not of nature. H. Grimm, Homer as 
Charakterdarsteller. Deutsch-Rundsch. 1892. 0, 
Sommerfeld, Hiilfsbuch zur Lektiire der Ilias. Progr. 
Glogau 1891. The pupil does not need such an 
elaborate preparation before reading Homer. 

R.C.8. 


132 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 
ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Abbott (E. A.) Dux Latinus: a First Latin Con- 
struing Book. With Rules for Translation, Notes, 
and Vocabulary. Post 8vo. Pp. 198. Seeley. 2s. 

Adversaria Critica Sacra. With a Short Explanatory 
Introduction by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., 
LL.D. 8vo. Cambridge University Press. 

Bell (A. M.} Second Greek Reader: Selections from 
Herodotus, with Introductions, Notes, and Vo- 


cabulary. Second Edition. 12mo. Pp. 190. 
Macmillan. 3s. 
Caesar. Tales from the Civil War. By C. H. 
Keene. Macmillan. 1s. 6d. 


Dionysius the Areopagite: Celestial and Ecclesias- 
tical Hierarchy. Now first translated into Eng- 
lish from the original Greek by the Rev. John 
Parker. 8vo. Pp. 100. Skeffington. 2s. 6d. 

Euripides in English Verse. By A. S. Way. I. He- 
cuba; IJ. Alcestis; III. Medea. Crown 8vo. 
Macmillan. Each part sewed, ls. 6d. 

Euripides. Hippolutos. Now first translated into 
English, in its original and identical metres, with 
stage directions, suggesting how it may have been 
performed ; also with Preface and Notes. By H. 


FOREIGN 


Blaufuss (J.) Ad Herodiani rerum Romanarum 


scriptoris libros V. et VI. observationes. Diss. 
8vo. 68 pp. Erlangen. 
Cauer(P.) Die Kunst des Uebersetzens. Ein Hilfs- 


buch fiir den lateinischen und griechischen Unter- 
richt. 8vo. viii, 130 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 
Mk. 2.40. 

Commentarii notarum tironianarum cum prolego- 
menis adnotationibus criticis et exegeticis nota- 
rumque indice alphahbetico edidit W. Schmitz. 
Folio. 117 pp. 132 Plates. Leipzig. Mk. 40. 

Costantini (G.) Per qual valico alpino scese Anni- 
bale in Italia? Progr. 8vo. 99 pp. Triest. 

Crémer (H.) Beitrage zur Geschichte Alexanders 
des Grossen. Diss. 8vo. 58 pp. Marburg. 

Cucheval (V.) Histoire de l’éloquence romaine depuis 
la mort de Cicéron jusqu’a lavenement de l’em- 
pereur Hadrian. Tome I.-II. 16mo. x, 370 and 
397 pp. Paris, Hachette & Co. 7 fr. 

Dissertationes philologicae Argentoratenses selectae. 
os oa 8vo. ill, 402 pp. Strassburg, Triibner. 

Forchhammer (P. W.) Homer. Seine Sprache. Die 
Kampfplatze seiner Heroen und Gotter in der 


Troas. Ein letztes Wort zur Erklarung der Ilias. 
4to. 42 pp. Map. Kiel, Lipsius & Tischer. 
Mk. 3. 


Genius (A.) De L. Annaei Senecae poetae tragici 
usu praepositionum. Diss. 8vo. 51 pp. Miinster. 

Hauler (E.) Zur Geschichte des griechischen Mimus. 
Progr. 8vo. 19 pp. Wien. 

Job (L.) De grammaticis vocabulis apud Latinos 
(Thése). 8vo. 185 pp. Paris, Bouillon. 

Jiilg (K.) Schillers Abhandlung iiber die Gesetzge- 
bung des Lykurg als Probe einer Uebersetzung 
aus dem classischen Deutsch in das classische 


Griechisch. 8vo. 31 pp. Trient. 
Kalopothakes (D.) De Thracia provincia romana. 
Dissertatio. 8vo. 80 pp. Leipzig. Mk. 2. 


Kappes (M.) Aristoteles-Lexikon. Erklirung der 
philosophischen termini technici des Aristoteles in 
alphabetischen Reihenfolge. 8vo. 70 pp. Pader- 
born, F, Schéningh. Mk. 1.50. 


B. L. 8vo. 
gate. 3s. 
Evans (M. M.) Chapters on Greek Dress. Illus- 
trated. 8vo. Pp, xvii, 84. Macmillan. 5s. net. 
Greek Vase Paintings: a Selection of Examples, 
with Preface, Introduction, and Descriptions. By 
J. E. Harrison and D. S. MacColl. Size of the 
book: 18 by 14 inches. Bound in strong cloth. 

Fisher Unwin. 31s. 6d. net. : . 
Harrison (Jane E.) Introductory Studies in Greek 
Art. With Maps and Illustrations. Third 
Edition. 8vo. Pp. 314. Unwin. 7s. 6d. 
Homer. Wiad, Book IX. From the story of Achilles. 
Edited, with Notes, by John Henry Pratt and 
Walter Leaf. 12mo. Pp. 84. Macmillan. 2s. 
— lliad, Book XXIV. A Translation by R. M. 
Thomas... 12mo. Sewed. Clive. 1s. 6d. 
Rooper (E. P.) and Herring (F.) Primary Latin Ex- 
ercises. 12mo. Rivington, Percival, & Co. 3s. 6d. 
Thomas (A. H.) The Junior Student’s First Latin 
Translation Book, with a Preface. By J. Arnold 
Turner. Rivington, Percival, & Co. 1s. 4d. net. 


Pp. xvili, 116. Williams & Nor- 


BOOKS. 


Philologus. Zeitschrift fiir das classische Altertum. 
Begriindet von Schneidewin und Leutsch. Her- 
ausgegeben von Crusius. 6tes Suppl.-Band. 2te 
Hilfte. 8vo. iii, 401-777 pp. Gottingen, Die- 
terich. Mk. 9. 

Placidus (V.) Liber glossarum, glossaria reliqua 


edidit G. Goetz. 8vo. xxxvi, 664 pp. Leipzig, 
Teubner. Mk. 22. 

[Corpus glossariorum latinorum recensuit, edidit 
G. Goetz. Vol. V.] 


Poppelreuter (J.) De comoediae atticae primordiis 
particulae duae. Dissertatio. 8vo. 45 pp. Berlin. 
Mk. 1.20. 

Rybezuk (P.) Quibus grammaticis formis Horatius 
agentium fines in suis operibus expresserit ? Progr. 
8vo. 12 pp. Tarnopol. 

Sanojca (J.) De comitiorum centuriatorum mutata 
ratione. Progr. 8vo. .35 pp. Lemberg. 

Scherrans (W.) De poetarum comicorum atticorum 
studiis Homericis. Dissertatio. 8vo. 57 pp. 
Konigsberg. Mk. 1. 

Schubert (R.) Geschichte des Pyrrhus. Neu unter- 
sucht und nach den Quellen dargestellt. 8vo. 
iv, 288 pp. Konigsberg, W. Koch. Mk. 7. 

Sittl (Prof. D.) Klassische Kunstarchaeologie. Theil 
I. 8vo. 1-304 pp. Miinchen, Beck. Mk. 5.50. 

[Miiller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertums- 


Wissenschaft. Band VI. Teil I. (18ter Halb- 
band. )] 
Spika (J.) De usu praepositionum in L. Annaei 


Senecae tragoediis. Progr. S8vo. 32 pp. Wien. 

Studien, Leipziger, zur classischen Philologie. Her- 
ausgegeben von O. Ribbeck, H. Lipsius, C. Wachs- 
muth. Band XV. Heft 1. 8vo. 274 pp. Leipzig, 
Hirzel. Mk. 7. 

Swoboda (A.) Beitrige zur Beurtheilung des unechten 
Schlusses von Euripides Iphigenie in Aulis. Progr, 
8vo. 24 pp. Karlsbad. 

Thumser (V.) Aufgaben eines zukiinftigen griechi- 
schen Staatsrechtes. Progr. 8vo. 13 pp. Wien. 

Wackernagel (J.) Beitrige zur Lehre vom griechi- 
schen Akzent. 4to. 39 pp. Basel. 


——s 


The Classical Review 


APRIL 1894. 


THE NEW THESAURUS LINGUAE LATINAE. 


Tue Archiv fiir lateinische Lexikographie 
(viii 621-5, 1893) contains the definitive 
plan for this great work, adopted by the five 
Academies of Berlin, Gottingen, Leipzig, 
Munich and Vienna. 

After a brief allusion to the Greek and 
Latin lexicons of Henry and _ Robert 
Kstienne in the sixteenth century, and the 
works of Gesner and Forcellini in the 
eighteenth, mention is made of Friedrich 
Wolf’s abortive plan at the beginning of 
this century, resumed by Ritschl, Halm and 
Fleckeisen in 1858. Biicheler was then 
selected as editor, and King Max II of 
Bavaria promised financial aid. Five and 
twenty years later Wolfflin, Halm’s 
suecessor at Munich, with the help of the 
Bavarian Academy, founded ‘The Archive 
for Latin Lexicography and Grammar, 
inclusive of the earlier Mediaeval Latin, as 
a preparation for a Thesaurus linguae latinae.’ 
This serial, which has just completed its 
eighth volume, has trained a large number 
of readers, who have divided among them 
the whole range of Latin letters. 

In 1889 Prof, Hertz read before the 
Congress of Philologists at Gérlitz a paper 
which attracted the attention of the Prussian 
Government. After various conferences it 
was resolved at Berlin on the 21st and 22nd 
of last October : That Professors Biicheler, 
Wolfflin and Leo should direct the whole 
work. For a few writers the existing 
special lexicons are recognized as sufficient. 
For the remainder complete indices omnium 
verborum et locorum, on Meusel’s system, 
are to be compiled. The archaic and golden 
Latin (and inscriptions) will be reduced to 
slips in its entirety, the silver Latin for the 
most part, the later Latin in a suitable 
selection. Readers will also ransack critical 
journals and adversaria. 

NO, LXVIII, VOL. VIII, 


When the special indices have been made, 
they will be sorted alphabetically, statistics 
taken of the frequency of occurrence of 
words and forms of words, the meanings 
arranged in groups. Thus the mass of 
material will be sifted by sub-editors before 
it comes under the hands of the editors in 
chief. The whole work will not exceed 
twelve volumes large 4to, containing on an 
average 1000 pages. 

The publication is expected to occupy 20 
years and to cost 605,000 marks. The 
copyright is calculated at 100,000 (or at the 
utmost 150,000) marks. The remaining 
500,000 marks will be furnished by the five 
Academies, each contributing 5000 marks a 
year for the 20 years. 


I take this opportunity of remonstrating 
against the neglect of the great storehouses 
of Latinity, known by the names of Gesner, 
Scheller, Forcellini. Fifty years ago, when 
I came up to Cambridge, my private tutor, 
the late Dr Bateson, rebuked me for not 
possessing a Forcellini. I had bought 
Riddle’s Scheller at school. I have now 
had much experience in the market, and 
know that any one of the three great 
lexicons can be bought (not indeed the 
latest edition of Forcellini) for a lower price 
than Lewis-Short or Riddle-White. Itis no 
less than a public calamity that Freund’s 
lexicon, pretentious and untrustworthy as it 
is, has for nearly half a century supplied 
our schools and universities with all that 
they care to know of Latin lexicography. 
Gesner summed up the work of a century ; 
Scheller and Forcellini each devoted a life 
to perfecting their collections. I have 
Halm’s copy of Gesner, Madvig’s of Scheller, 

} Georges, an excellent authority, supports my 
preference of Klotz to Freund. 

L 


134 


and believe that those excellent scholars for 
long years needed no other guides. Freund 
was a young man when he brought out his 
book; after the first volume (A—C), he 
became weary and was content with a hasty 
extract from Forcellini. I shall be reminded 
that he gives definite statistics : ‘only in 
the following examples’ ; ‘only in Cicero,’ 
etc. But these statements are made at 
random. If a word is marked ‘rare,’ it is 
probably very common (I have elsewhere 
commented on adiutortwm, perhaps the 
very commonest word ending in -oriwm, of 
which I have noted some 500 examples, 124 
from one author); if a single example is 
cited, and no note of rarity affixed, the 
word may very likely be dag cipyevor. 

I myself have two copies of Lewis-Short, 
and two of Riddle-White, but then I use 
them as convenient receptacles for marginal 
notes. I can make ten notes in a 
handy quarto in shorter time than I could 
make one in a large-paper folio of Robert 
Estienne. If I want to ascertain what the 
usage of the word is, so far as it is recorded, 
I consult perhaps a hundred volumes. 
Now young students ought to use a lexicon 
as a digest of evidence, in order to form an 
instinct for classical usage. For such a 
purpose the fuller the collection of examples, 
the better. 

IT could fill a large volume with proofs of 
the indictment against Freund and _ his 
followers, but a few specimens, taken at 
hap-hazard, must suffice. 

coronatio Riddle-White ‘late Lat.’ the 
authority being William of Malmesbury. 
The word is omitted by Lewis-Short, who 
cannot know that it occurs, not only in 
glossaries, but in Aug. civ. Dei vil 27 and 
serm. 286 7f. Itis true that Lewis-Short 
expunges many quotations that rest on the 
authority of John of Salisbury (see however 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


innominatus, innotescentia) or later writers, 
but a constant recourse to Georges and 
Paucker would stay the rash sentence in 
many cases, cf. wreparabiliter, discarded by 
L.-S. as resting on the authority of John of 
Salisbury ; but it has been found in Aug. ec. 
Faust. xv 3. de virgin. 29: op. imperf. c. 
Julian. vi 18 (x 2087°.Gaume), [Aug.] ad 
fratr. erem. serm. 41 f. concil. Matiscon. A.D. 
585. Vigil. Taps. c. Eutych. v 26. 

inequito L.-S. ‘ with dat. horrenti fascino,. 
Arn. 47. B. with ace. in mal. part. vestras - 
matronas, Arn. 4 131.’ Any one familiar 
with Arnobius would see at once that these 
two references are to one and the same 
passage, book and chapter being cited in the 
first case, book and page (ed. Leyden 1651, 
4to) in the second. A reference to the 
author himself, or to Forcellini, would show 
that matronas is subject, and fascino object 
of the verb, and that superstition, not lust, 
is the fault imputed to the heathen by the 
apologist. Here L.-S. adds the right 
construction (c. dat.) and reference to the 
wrong one, but has not insight enough to 
strike out Freund’s (and R.-W.’s) blunder. 
As for the confusion between chapter and 
page, Apuleius suffers rather worse treat- 
ment than his Christian countryman; for 
the page sometimes represents Oudendorp’s, 
sometimes MHildebrand’s, sometimes an 
earlier edition. 

perrectio om. L.-S. see Arn. 7 24, 

plasea om. L.-S. (though given under 
palasea) Arn. 7 24 bis. 25. It is not 
apparent on what authority the quantity of 
the word is given. - 

praesul = praesultator or praesultor occurs 
several times in the seventh book of 
Arnobius cc. 9. 39. 41f. 43 pr. 44. pp. 243 
24. 272 16 24, 274 24. 275 28. 277 20. 278 
4 ed. Reifferscheid. 

Joun HE. B. Mayor. 


THE GENEVA FRAGMENTS OF HOMER. 


Tue Revue de Philologie for January con- 
tains the text of the fragments of Homer 
included among the papyri recently acquired 
by the Bibliothéque de Genéve, the examina- 
tion and editing of which has been placed 
in the hands of Prof. J. Nicole. These 
Homeric fragments are six in number, of 
which two belong to the same MS. Three 
of them are of little or no importance and 
may be briefly dismissed. M. Nicole’s frag. 
ili, contains the ends of //. i. 44—60, with 


no variation from the received text. Frag. 
iv. contains the latter halves of J/. iv. 82— 
95, carefully written on the verso of a busi- 
ness document, again without variation 
from the received text. Frag. v. contains 
Il. vi. 327—353, more or less mutilated, 
irregularly written on the verso of a busi- 
ness document, and differing only from the 
received text in having a great number of 
gross blunders. Fragments i. and ii. form 
part of a single MS,, and are more interest- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ing. In the first place they are larger 
than the three above-mentioned; in the 
second, they contain part of the Odyssey, 
hitherto scantily represented among papyri ; 
and in the third, they exhibit one or two 
interesting variants. The text included in 
them is that of Od. iii. 364—375 and 384 
—402, written in a very large and thick 
uncial. The noticeable variants are the 
following. In]. 372 OduByoe dé Aads ’Axadv 
replaces @ayBos 8 é\e ravtas ’Axatov’s (al. 
idovras), in which the word éAe is somewhat 
objectionable, since it is repeated two lines 
lower. In 1. 373 the papyrus has Oavpacery 
instead of the vulgate davyalev. Line 394 
runs evxer’ droorévowy peind€a oivov épvbpdv 
in place of cvyer’ droarévdwy Kovpy Atos 
aiywoxoo. Finally in 1. 400 the papyrus has 
map d€ ot, as in the MS. Vindobonensis 5, 
instead of the vulgate wap 30 ap. M. 
Nicole’s discovery raises the number of 
papyri of the Odyssey to three (exclusive of 
some unpublished fragments said to be in 
the Rainer collection at Vienna), the other 
two being respectively at Berlin and in the 
British Museum. The latter, by a coin- 
cidence, contains part of the same book as 
_ the Geneva papyrus, but is considerably 
larger in extent. 

M. Nicole’s remaining papyrus is far more 
curious than these, and belongs to the same 
class as the Petrie fragment which aroused 
such searchings of heart when published, a 
few years ago, by Prof. Mahaffy. Like that 
fragment, M. Nicole’s frag. vi. contains 
several lines unknown to the received text, 
and consequently a more detailed description 
of its contents may be acceptable. 

It begins with J/. xi. 788 and ends with 
xii. 9 ; but besides the 80 lines included in 
our texts within these limits, the MS. con- 
tained, when intact, 13 lines more, besides 
diverging more or less seriously from the 
vulgate in other respects. Lines 788—809 
are preserved only as to their terminations ; 
but the three lines after 795 are here 
represented as follows (dotted letters are 
doubtful) : 

OyepovTos 
wvBoawy 
Aaovavwx$w 
cyevyat 
Hence M. Nicole reconstructs the passage : 


795. Kai twa ot rap Znvos éeréppade rorvia 
, 


Land 3 “4 A / , , 

195a. dpyupdrela Pris Ovyarnp adiovo yépov- 
tos (as in i, 538 etc.). 

7956. atros pev vydv peverw ev dyove Godwy, 


(cf. xvi. 239), 


135 


796. GAA o€ rep Tpo€rw, Tov 5 aG\Xov Aadv 
avoxOw (cf. xi. 189). 
797. Muppidovev, x.7.2. 


Line 798 ends with »npynx6yvar, where M. - 
Nicole proposes coi 6€ doTw wmois Ta & TevXEa 
BwpnxOijvat, or kai ddrw wporiv, after the 
model of xvi. 40. After 804 a line is inter- 
polated, ending xaxnoedebvpo, for which M. 
Nicole suggests reipe yap aivov ayos Kpadiny, 
dxdxynoe S€ Ovadv. After 805 is another 
interpolation, of which the editor prints 
only vo.....a..a.., restoring tov 8’ etpe mpomd- 
poise vedv dpOokpaipawv, but this reconstruc- 
tion seems a little doubtful (unless the 
traces in the papyrus support it more 
strongly than M. Nicole shows), since the 
final word undoubtedly recurs (MS. -oxpat- 
pawv) as the ending of another interpolated 
line which follows 807, where the editor 
reads kat kA\toiat, tpomdpo.be veav épboxpatpawyr, 
substituting joav for jmv in the next line. 
One other variant remains to be mentioned 
in this column of the MS., viz. in 1. 791, 
where the papyrus appears to have gov as 
the ending, instead of winrar. M. Nicole 
suggests, with some diffidence, taitr’ eirdv 
"AxiAni Saidpove detpo KadXeooor. 

The next column, ll. 810—834, is pre- 
served almost intact, and again there are 
several marked variations. In 1]. 811 dzé is 
read doubtfully for cara: 814 dyads (as in 
schol. on MS. Vrat. b) for GAkios: 815 
runs év 7’ dpa ot fd xeupi, Eros TF epar ek 7 
évopacev instead of kai p’ dAodupdmevos érea 
mrepoevta mpoonvoa : 822 tov 3% tx’ for tov 
8 avr’ and wervupévos for BeBAnpévos, as CL 
and schol. on A: 823 jap for ddxap: 830 
macowv for rdoce. But the chief novelty 
is at 1. 827, where the papyrus has 


827. xepoiv tro Tpdwv: tod dé cbévos dev 
(sic) dpwpe. 

827a. "Extopos, ds taxa vias évumrdelon (sic) 
Tupi Knew 

827b. dyuicas Aavaods mapa Gv’ adds’ 
avtap ’AxiAXdeds 

827c. éoOdOs ev Aavady ov Kyderar ovd 
eXeaipet. 

828,. AN duseund. 


Of the third column nothing is left 
except a very few letters at the beginnings 
of the lines; but these are suflicient to- 
establish, first, that six lines, instead of 
two, were written between ll. 834 and 837; 
and next, that an additional line followed 
838. No letters however remain legible of 
any of these new lines, so our curiosity is 
baffled: and any restoration of the MS, 

L 2 


136 


must be purely imaginary. It only remains 
to add that 1. 848 begins with icy’ instead 
of écy’, and that no interval is marked 
between the end of book xi. and the begin- 
ning of xii. 

These are the facts concerning this curious 
fragment, as reported by. Prof. Nicole ; 
space will not admit of much comment, even 
were it desirable. As to the date of the 
MS. he tells us nothing, and no facsimile 
has been published which would enable a 
judgment to be formed. Im one place M. 
Nicole says he has hitherto found nothing 
among the Geneva papyri which bears a 
definite date earlier than the Roman period ; 
on the other hand he states that the writing 
of frag. vi. much resembles that of the 
Petrie fragment, which is of the third cent. 
B.c. It is certainly a curious coincidence 
that both of these strange fragments belong 
to the same book of the iad, but, con- 
sidering the manner in which the Petrie 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


fragment was discovered, it is hardly possi- 
ble that they can be parts of the same MS. 
A definite pronouncement as to the date of 
the new fragment will be awaited with much 
interest, and it will certainly be curious if 
the existence of such a divergent recen- 
sion of the J/iad can be established much 
later than the great age of Alexandrian 
scholarship. As to the bearing of the dis- 
covery on Homeric criticism, Prof. Ludwich 
has shown that no exaggerated idea need be 
formed of the importance of the Petrie ~ 
fragment. The appearance, after so short 
an interval, of another MS. of the same 
description is certainly remarkable ; but the 
character of the added lines does not seem 
to be such as to disturb Ludwich’s conclu- 
sions. On this point, however, it is the 
opinion of Homeric specialists alone that 
will carry much weight. 
F. G. Kenyon. 


SLAVE TORTURE IN ATHENS. 


Aearnst Mr. J. W. Headlam’s proposition 


in the Classical Review, Feb. 1893, that the’ 


‘appeal to the Question [challenge to slave- 
torture] was not a means of collecting 
evidence for a jury,’ but ‘an alternative 
method of trial,’ a ‘kind of ordeal,’ the 
following considerations may be urged :— 

(1) The passages from Demosthenes 
against Onetor and Lysias on the Sacred 
Olive imply that if the challenges had 
been accepted the statements of the slaves 
would have been brought into court as 
evidence. In Dem. Onetor 35 the speaker 
says,—‘I demanded of him three female 
slaves...... iva pa Adyor povov, GAAB Kat 
Bacavor rept aitav yiyvowTo.’ In Lysias vii. 
37 the speaker does not imply that if the 
challenge had been accepted there would 
have been no trial, but says that if the test 
had gone against him he would have had no 
defence. But that he expected the state- 
ments of the slaves to be produced in court 
as evidence is clear from what he says at 
the end of the same section,—‘Ey® roivur eis 
TOUTO TpoOupias adikdpny, yyovjevos jet’ E00 
eivat kal éx Bacdvwv Kai éx paptipwv Kal ék 
Tekunpiov twas wept ToD mpayparos TaAnOH 
mubéc Bau. 

(2) Two other passages imply the use, as 
evidence, of such statements. Isaeus viii. 
10 Bovddpevos oby pods Tots irapxover papTvew 
éAeyxov ek Bacdvev rorjocacba epi aiTov..... 


Tovtous 7Elovv éxdodvar Tas Oeparraivas, ete. 
Similarly Lycurgus Leocrates 28. 

(3) That the statements of slaves under 
torture are not ‘always spoken of as being 
the only absolutely certain way of discover- 
ing the truth about a disputed fact’ is 
shown by Lysias vii. 35 otros 8’ otk 7Oeder, 
ovdev ddoKwv micTov etvat Tois OGeparovow. 
Similarly Lysias iv. 16, Lycurg. Leoer. 30, 
and especially Antiphon vi. 31 f. Aristotle 
Rhet. i. 15 shows how one may claim slave 
testimony to be fallible or infallible 
according to one’s interests. Challenges 
were refused from distrust of slave testi- 
mony, in spite of Isaeus viii. 12, and no one 
can greatly wonder that in the comparatively 
small body of speeches extant there is no 
instance of the acceptance of a challenge. 


C. V. Tompson. 
Vale University. 


Tue courtesy of the editor enables me 
to answer Mr. Thompson’s criticism at 
once. 

I attempted in my former article to show 
that there were several passages which 
seem to speak of the zpdxAyots eis Bdcavov 
as an alternative procedure to trial before 
the jury, and that there were none which 
clearly stated that the statements of slaves 
under torture obtained in a zpdxAyots could 
be brought before the jury as evidence, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


There are several passages which would be 
equally consistent with either explanation, 
passages in which the language used by the 
speaker is very vague. To this class as it 
seems to me belongs Onetor A. 35; at least 
I can find no words here which justify the 
statement that the statements of the slaves 
would be brought into the court as evidence. 
The words quoted certainly do not justify it. 

As to Lysias vii. 37 I venture still to 
claim this passage as a strong case on my 
side; the speaker does not say ‘I should 
have had no defence’ had the question gone 
against me, but ‘I should not even have 
been allowed to make a defence’: zepi éuod 
uev yap ei nAeyxov, 038 Av dtmoMOYHoac- 
Oaipor €€eyéveto. How could he have 
more clearly expressed the condition in 
which he would have found himself had he 
been defeated in a test, the result of which 
was that there would have been no further 
trial and therefore no opportunity for him 
to say anything to defend himself against 
the charge, or to plead in mitigation of the 
penalty ? 

The passages in Isaeus viii. 15 and in 
Lycurgus are very similar and must be 
considered together ; the actual words are: 

BovAdpevos odv zpos Tots t@apxovcr paptvow 
eXeyxov €k Bacdvev toncacbat rept adrar, iva 
pardAov avtrots tustevnte py peAAovor ddcew 
eAeyxov, GAN’ 75y Sedwxoor wept dv paptvpodor, 
Tovtous Hélouv éxdodvar Tus Oeparaivas. 
and 

Kat Tadta b€,@ avopes, éuod Gewpyjoare, ds 
dukaiav THY e€€raow TFOLOULEVOU Tept TOUTWV. 
ob yap oipat detv iuas trep TyALKOUTwY dduK7- 
patov eixaovras GAAd tHv GAnbGeav ciddras 
UnpiferOa, Kal Tots paptupas pi) dwcovras 
eXeyxov paptupeiv GANG dedwxKdras. 

In both the words décev éAeyxyov are used 
of the wdprupes ; as the article shows in the 
one passage and avrois in the other the 
paptupes Spoken of are those whose evidence 
is already before the jury; under no 
circumstances could they be subjected to 
the torture; the expression therefore can 
only mean ‘to offer the test.’ The state- 
ments of the witnesses are confirmed by the 
offer that has been made to subject the 
slaves to the torture. 

It is noticeable that in both passages the 
speaker is referring to the effect on the jury 
under actual circumstances and not to what 
it would have been had the challenge been 
accepted ; this is shown by the murevyre 
and the ofua:; I should therefore translate : 

‘ Wishing then in addition to the witnesses 
that I already had to have the test of the 
question about the matter, and I mention 


137 


this in order that you may have the more 
confidence in witnesses who are not going 
to offer the test but have already done so 
about these matters on which they give 
evidence, I asked my adversary to surrender 
his slaves, ete. 

he does not say, as on the ordinary theory 
we should expect : 

‘In order that you might trust other 
witnesses.’ : 
and in the other passage : 

‘And see on this point, gentlemen, how 
fairly I carry on the investigations ; for I 
do not think that on a charge of this 
magnitude you ought to give your vote by 
judging probabilities but with a knowledge 
of the truth, and I do not think that 
witnesses ought to give their evidence if 
they do not intend to put it to the test, but 
after having already done so.’ The test they 
have given is the offer of the zpdxAyous and 
the truth is the assumption made from the 
refusal.’ . 

In § 35 he confirms this interpretation by 
explaining that he could not be charged 
with bringing the cicayye\ia unjustly 
because he had wished to bring the matter 
to the test of the Bacavos : 

eyo Tolvuy TocOUTwWY adpéoTnKa TOD dodLKws 
THv eicayyeAiav Kata Aewkpatous tomjoacbat, 
ooov ey pev eBovdopnv Tots idiots Kiwdvvors ev 
tots Aewkpatous oikérats Kat Oeparatvats 
BacavicGeior Tov EXeyxov yever Gan. 

There would be no point in saying this, 
if, supposing the challenge had _ been 
accepted, the cicayyeAia would still have 
taken place. 

My statement quoted by Mr. Thompson 
under (3) is certainly too strong ; it is true 
that there are several passages in which the 
writers attempt to weaken the confidence 
assumed to be felt in the Question, when 
they have refused the challenge, and 
Aristotle gives directions for doing so, but 
it remains that the verdict of the Bacavos is 
often spoken of as giving absolute certainty 
in language quite different from that ever 
used of paptupiac however good. Could any- 
thing be stronger than the words of Isaeus 
viii. 12 which are repeated by Demosthenes 
Onetor A. 37%I— 

oUWLOTE yap OTL TOV pev paptpyoravTwv dy 
twes €ofav ov tadnOA paptpyoa, Tov de 
BacavicGevtwv ovdeves TuoTe HA€YXOnTAY as 
ovK GAnOn &k Tov Bacavey eizovTes. 

The absence of any single case in which 
the mpdxAnots became effective still seems to 
me to be very remarkable and to require ex- 
planation, even if that which I have hazarded 
is not the right one. J. W. Heapiam. 


138 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


COLLATION OF THE MADRID MS. OF MANILIUS (M. 31 BIBL. NAZION.) 
WITH THE TEXT OF JACOB, BERLIN, 1846. 


(Continued from page 6.) 


Boox IV. 
M + MILNILI ASTRONOMICON LIB « III + EX- 
PLICIG - INCIP - IIII. 


e 
6 qui plura 12 curasque lauate 13 


15 marg. aliter cursus 


t 
(later hand) 18 creatis 21 uobis 22 
/ua/uque ferenda marg. sortem (the 
second erased letter has perished by a 
worm, leaving a round hole: the top of 
the letter, seemingly c, remains) 23 
Aduisi (left marg. At nisi) 24 aenean 
(rather than aeneam, but very difficult 
to be certain) troia sub d’no (domino) 
25 statis 26 proiectus 28 aux- 
issent flumina montis 29 Lucludiue 
(I think) 30 Captus et capitis 31 


n 
repetisset iuuenis orbem 35 ab uuo 
36 iacebit 38 Varronemque pugum 
magnum quam uiuere possit 39 Postque 

b 


Be 
deflere que sellis 


n 
tuos tharsymef/ne lacus fauiumque morantem 
40 uictae 41 hanibalem 42 rogi 
43 Adde etiam italas acies 44 et om. 
45 Et cimbirun inmario 46 quod exule 
48 Seque trepidinibus que cepit carthaginis 
orbem 49 umquam 50 Quis tetulia_xo 
(attached so to a) eperiturum 51 Post 


mitri 
raetas mundatis 52 trisemenso 53 pos- 
58 uictorii 


set coponere 55 Electaeque 


us 

uilib3 armis 61 Iudicium 64 primum- 
que truceum 68qui 69inom. 72 
contingit 75 mora sepe malorum 76 
Dant causas 77 Deuenerant 79 Exilio 
80 transnare uertere 82 Alterius 
syons est 84 mouentur 86 nonmoue 
(? nonmone) 87 inuicta deuictum 88 
uirem sed legere pugnat 90 in- 
mensis 91 Sed rapit exceptos fumis 
fortuna superbos 96 causa 100 At- 
tribuatque suo sex enascentibus 102 non 
sumius (?)1 104 inportent noxam 105 
hora 106 Deneque 110 oderit 112 
dulcior 113 non nulla 114 eritis 

sit 118 facile est sic ipsum 120 plexo 


1 Probably for simius, 


121 pendentem 127 cadwt 128 In uulgum-. 
que 132 Nune gemere uestes om. 136 
Seque inarachneo magnam putat esse triumf- 
um 138 figum 140 dotauit 141 Pacat- 


s 
que 145 signa 148 facesque per aura 


152 Mollibts (sic) 153 hora 154 
gracilis _ et ueruis (?uerius) in seta 
uerba 155 socium 157 in morte 


158 munerisque 159 Consummant  or- 
bem postquam 162 metam? 163 
Quam 166 Actribuit 169 opus or- 
bisque orbi 171 nouas e. predas 172 
cOponere census 173 celeris obtando 
174 aequoque tempora 175 dubitit uasti 
179 Apparet spolio uiuit pecorumque rapinis 
Hoc habet hac studium positis ornare su- 
perbis 182 uiuere uictor 183 frenis 
184 pecudum ~~ grassentur 185 suspendat 
186 Luxuriaeque parent caedem mortesque 
lucrentur 187 facilisque recensus 188 
et puero 189 A quibus dixit (looks 
rather like theit) 190 Opta magisterio 
nudosque coercit auirgo 191 Ad studium 
ducit mores et 192 instituet 195 
Atque oculos mentis qui possit 197 cui 
littera uerbum es 198 om. 200 In- 
uicio bonas utteneros 202 Nec fecundus 
erit quid mirum uwirgine partus 203 
Libantes 204 post annum baechi 
(sic) 205 Mensuraet  actempora rerum 
206 Et pala medeis certante 207 nume- 
rus 209 tabolas et condita rura 211 
sciet sequetur 214 Qui leges potius 
posuit cum iura retexit 215 Denique et 
in ambiguo 216 Et rectoris tegens 
217 Scorpion armati uiolenta cuspide cauda 
221 multum 223 perarant 224 uio- 
lentia ferrum 225 finis harenae 227 
simul aera 228 pugna est disctique per 
orna bellum 234 biforo m. pr. (after- 
wards the first o has had a line drawn 
through it, converting it into e) 232 
molia 235 tigris 238 uere 239 In- 
postumque 240 Quoque interna cornit 
243 Restat uos ignes 244 trahit 

quidquid 246 Seruarique caecamet alla 


248 Materiam- 


2 As Bentley conjectured. 


t 
(so m, pr. then scru ari) 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


249 
250 
251 

254 Quare 
mutuataque 


que manu certa duplicari et arte 
Quicquid fabricetur quicquid 
ealidis canunt (rather than camint) 
Consumentque 253 Frigora 
trahis noctis 256 Hic 
257 iuncta sub pisce 258 Pars prior et 
uentri 259 proicit 261 unda sinducere 
263 per luxam inludere pondo 264 uarios 
lacos 268 Sidera scaelumque 
269 ueniunt operum pontisque sequentur 
270 Mitte ad sidera 275 Credent 
et pupes aut pupibus 278 carina 280 
Et pontum caelo uincit et nouerit orbem 
281 mundum 282 Iamque hue adque 
huc caligine conuertere clauum 283 ef- 
fundere 284 aggere edentas 286 
Litor ibique suis 287 Autiuncos 289 
luctus 290 natis uoluntas 294 
in totum semet 298 deganae decanica 
299 Annumero numem 304 in caeco 
(seemingly with some marks of erasure 


about the first c) 306 oposita est 
et fallit 307 caelai 308 alia B Ala 
Vel ateant alia euires 312 inest 314 


inter denas dicitur 315 quodcum- 
que 316 sub illa 318 erigonen 
321 adiuncta partes 326 undis 328 
partes perfundet 330 Ad leo 331 
recepit 333 flexus 335 parte 336 
nemee una est 337 Quae fastidito 
concessa est iure potiri 338 extemplo 
340 uerbis 341 Hee autumnalis 342 
trahitque sequenti 343, 344 om. 345 


fecit cui nomen 347 Atque in contento 
After 348 follows 343 Vicinam partem 
centauri tertia summa est, then 344 Scorpios 
an prima ec. p. |. 350 Nec manet ingrati 
capricornus et imine turpi 351 Sed inui- 
nis (hardly iuuinis: the i is thrice dotted as I 


have written it) crancro 356 Hae- 
rentisque decem partis nota 361 sumunt 
quae orbe 363 rekgit (sic) 364 In- 
plrurisque repetit atque 366 Nec 


367 ostentur 
369 Inque alio 
373 setus 374 
376 E genus 


tua sub utulis nodis 
368 annum (?) mittenda 
quaerendo mala quid 
animamtum (sic) milibus 
refererunt * 381 amauit (a dot over 
u, thus 1) 384 Centaurusque seri signi 
385 Ipse tui 386 pluris 387 Vultu inquis 
388 om. 393 necsuntinmuniatanta 395 
Admittit pocius sus-ar est sint After 596 
follows 388 Rursus et inmagna mergis cali- 
gine mentem, then 397 Obstauitque suis usu 
per addita tellus 398 geminae trans- 
ibunt 399 preuo 400 consument 
401 Et quantae mercedis erunt sollacia rura 
402 Quae renuis lucrum naues martemque 


ru 
3 Possibly from referent. 


139 


sequuur (sic) 403 belle caduca 
406 ueniat 410 quae sint insigta cuique 
412 uel quae sexus erat ignis 413 
Et sceleris utroque tamen quas_ largior 
umor (marg. humor) 414 Quaque miuor 
ibi touit namque 417 partis 419 Sic 
sterilis terris leus interuenit aruis 420 
fetus 421 pelaguamuastacharybdis 422 
ponty (sic) 423 lauitur 424 a worm 
has eaten a round hole over the first part of 
uritue leaving eritue: but it was no doubt 
uritue 425 Sic euam 426 Vt signum 
signo 427 usumque salubrem 429 
mixtaque rellis 431 Sed quis tot nu- 
meros totiens sublegere ferre 432 Tot 
partes iterareque artot dicere summis 
433 Per patris causas faciem mutare lo- 
quendi 434 Incidimus sic uerba piget 
sed gracia derit 435 Inuanumque labor 
cedit quem despicit auris 438 Nec fin- 
genda monstrada 439 mnus rather 
than nimis: nothingindicatesani 440 ne 
fasest 442 cauenda 445 Septima pars 


7 447 


illi ac decumaeque decu ae secunda 


405 pereat 


pars laudet 448 Et quintam et du- 

ramconsumat 449 similis quoteitua? 450 
mn m 

decu am decu ae 452 Quemque 


frauda duobus 455 et tritricesima summa 
est 454 Pestifeream geminis 455 
quina et 456 breuios 459 inmunis 
460 octabae similis secum seque peracta 


461 rapit quintae clementior 462 
Septimam 463 et om. septua 464 
contractu nemee 465 primis bis 


quinta salubris 467 adp. uictum est 
468 Vitimam nec 469 Erigone 470 
A decuma nec 471 et quarta timenda e 
After 472 follows as in Voss? Et septima 
et undecima est decimaeque et tercia 
iuncta est (474 Jacob) Et quinta in chae- 
lis et septima inutilis aestu (473 Jacob) 
Then 475 but ambrae 476 cludunt nonet 
477 pars est 478 et quater quinta nota- 
tur 479 Vndecima et q3 (que) 480 
Octauoue manet numero nonumque capesit 
481 se lege 482 octabam bis sex peractis 
485 figurant 486 nouae 487 terna sig- 
nat 490 succendens prima peracte 491 et 


quinta est numeroque condita ue 492 Et 
post uiginti quinta et uicesima noua est 
Then *Tertia per geminos et quinta et septima 
pisces “Cum illa quartam accumulat ui- 
cesima noua Vndecima et decimae m.e.s.i. 
498 et frigori et igni 499 uel quod 
superauerit humor 500 Si rapidiss mauors 
signis iaculetur in illum 501 Saturnus 
fumet glaciem phoebus ueca labores 


2 Perhaps a corruption of quot tertia. 


140 


ORIENTIA SIGNA QVID EFFICIANT 


502 Nete 504 ultraque 505 ubigse 

extollit 508 soluitque 509 Tantum 
audere iuuat 510 Et ruet ut uincat non 
ullus sedibus isdem 511 delectant 512 


iubat orbes 514 tibi 515 findens 
per fata sori 517 Et Colchida tergo 
reuexit 518 Ad 519. Feminea iuceat 


520 naturam serere fas est 522 
Pleiadum paruo 523 et ruris opes 

iuuentum 524 Dote 525 cum profert 
unda tegitque 526 ductas 528 uecis- 
529 et dotes salius 531 ex sutus 


que 
phoebi signibus 9532 Deficit 533 deficient 
arctus 535 Si qui 536 scandat 537 


coeperit ipse 538 Non legauit opes censu- 
que inmergit in ipso 539 sibi 541 reuocet 


if 
542 Erigonen 544 tribuit 547 antum- 
nales ceperunt (the v over n is ina faded ink 
and probably later) chela 549 externea 
550 rogabis (a later ink has written t in the 
margin) 551 notiique 553 Scorpius 
extraeme cum tollet lumina caude 5d4 
f ne 
susragantibus 555 iuueueisf#g (ne in 
fainter ink) 556 Moenisubcinctis (im left 
vi 

557 orbes (v coeval) 
560 arquite“ns 1 prima cum 
563 statuit uertit 565 
566 treuiam cauasque 
lacumque 568 summos 569 Miliciae 
inponto dicat 570 minis¢t eria 571 


573 Neue sit et 
575 imi- 


marg. Moenia) 
558 reddit 
ueste resurgit 
adsperrima fronti 


u 
castumque probumbe 
primus animus procedere pisces 
tantis (I think) ad auris 576 Crim- 
ina per polu populi ferre orbe biligro 577 
nectis (I think) 579 cetherea notauit 
580 Cum babiloniacas summersa 581 
alatos umeros thypona 582 picibus 584 
erit At the side of 585 in the right 
margin is written in vermilion 


DE PARTIBVS TERRAE DESTRIBVTIS AD SIGNA 
FIDE UMUERSA TERRA ET MARI 


586 Percipe sede summa est rerum r. figura 
587 descr. 588 nascentem ipsumque 591 
fugit gurus (c struck through, but no e substi- 


tuted) 592 zepyrusque 593 medios se 

594 similis 595 nattat m. pr., now 
natat 597 uespero ab astro 598 At- 
missus 599 Aluit 601 ad _ nihilum 
derectis 602 Leua cedunt hyspanias 


(not hyspanas) 604 Italaeque sin- 
uatis 605 adscillat uos 606 Hae ubi 

fudit (the word after fudit is wanting) 608 
laeuas effundens 609 Italiam hadriam 


1 The superadded 2 is later. 


‘pontemque ministra 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


comitatus nomine ponto 610 bellum 
611 Inliricum epirumque labat —_corintum 
612 Et pelo ponens si 613 in laeuum 
614 Thes alia et athica 615 Hic 


617 iniungit 618 
620 Heles ponti aces 
622 populus 


pontus 616 apto 
621 Icarium aegeum qua 
asia et 623 Quod loca gentes au- 
rumque 624 siriam (om. que) 625 
fugentis aequora terras 629 constringit 
harenis 631 Sardiniam inlibico 632 — 
Triuacria 634 genetrixcreta 635 

Aegiptia cipros omnis 636 Totque m. 
solo tamen e. ponto 637 Litora et aequa- 
lis ciclades deloque rhodonque 638 Auli- 
daque et tenedum uicina quae corsita terris 


639 primumque intrantis in orbe 640 
Oceani uictrice melius usum ~—rrura 641 
In numerum 642 Nec tantum exima 
pontus sibi parte reclusus,,. This v. ends 


f. 40°, and below the line on the right is a 
mark which looks as if it meant that some- 
thing is lost. I have copied it, as above. 
643 Faucibus abreptis 644 Inpulit# (sic) 
oceano pocius 646 Namque inter borea 
uortii/ese (sic) que est at enitentes 649 ex- 
uini similis facit aequora ponti 650 duo 
bella per unde (or rather perhaps per imde) * 
651 per sicca 653 Arua tenent _ preda- 
tur 653 Quae regat orbe 654 
inmollis arabas 659 ~Al pinas contun- 
dit cum hanibal artes 661 libyam (m 


altered inton)  infudet 662 Huc uarias 
pisces 665 partu 666 follows 667 
in M 666 In poenas horrida bella 
667 uastos altered from uastas 668 
cecropum 669° Ae changed to Ac 

harenas 670 ponet colonis 673 
odorata espirant medicamine siluae 674 
uel orbis 675 Alter 676 diuiso 
677 At tantam scycicas d. f. orbes 678 
Moetisque sacus euxenique 679 et ex- 
tremum propontidos helles pontum 680 
Asiae metam (om. Hanc)  pontentis 682 


resoluit | 683 Pondere passa suo sigmoueri- 
que iuuauit 684 puella ridouauit? 685 
monumenta suititulo s. amoris 687 Orbi- 
bus 688 Thelias (?Thebas) diuiset 689 
illa gracia 691 Illirisetrhece 693 
G. per census hispania maexima belli 694 
Italiam insumma 695 Inposuit 696 


Hoe erit in fines orbis¢ae- (sic) pontusque 
uocandusese (sic) 697 et singula 698 
tutela 700 adsererent prestantes 702 
conmunis et tutela 703 artibus exit 
704 Nanque aries capitaurus (sic) tapiti 
taurus 706 nemea euocant 707 colet 
708 et femina arquitenens 710 Sic alias 


2 Rossberg conj. perinde. 
3 Perhaps for pucllari dotawit. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


aliut 711 in uaria eleges 714 Mate- 
riamque 718 romani/s urbis (m. pr. ro- 
manus) 719 Gradiuumque genus 


temporat (sic) 721 Gimnasium uultus 
orti/sque, m. pr. ortusque 722 Cisyram 
723 maculantur bem 724 Per fusas 

indicit ostis 726 Iam proprior 727 Imnis 


uirginis 728 Paenus harenosi safrorum 
p. terris 729 mauretanea 731 fouos 
(tfonos) 732as Jac. 735o0mnis 736 


Nocte lae che pari 737 alis m. pr., a later 
hand has added a secondi 740 causas 
elephantas c. terrae 741 Quod 742 
discripta nitent recionibus (sic) 743 ae- 
quore 744 sortitur 745 gelidumque per 
tempora uerxis 746 pontumque emuicerat 
747 cum fratrem ad clitora 748 minuti 

dorsumlequari, x and again, more to the 
right, X (marking a difficulty) 750 E 
sire gentes 754 arabas 755 Enxinius 
(En rather than Eu) 756 Subgeministe 
phoebe colet bost 757 Vitimus et solidos 
ganges et transcolit india cancer 758 can- 
cro cui 759 ne mee potiri 760 Idace 
(? Idace) regnique feroces 761 bithy- 
nia 763 castra terraque maiorisque 


764 rectuare 765 Tuque 768 Areades 

celerebrataque 769 colat sisiligis 770 
nouit 772 pedent 773 sualibra 774 
Orbis et imperium 775 positas 776 


Qua genitus caesarque meus nunc possidet 
orbem 777 uicibus 779 Et lybiam aegyp- 


ta latus donat aquira (faqiura) 780 Tyr- 
rhenos |. radiat scorpius arces 781 Eruit 
782 fusaque 783 centaure 784 minuis 


785 celeris hine (rather than huic) 787 
adiura 788 Crentens 790 Ora paris 
rupta est 791 quidquid ca- 
dentem 792 Expositum helicem 
793 et om. quod fert 795 ambiguam 
796 Aestibus adsiduis 797 if the word 
after iuuenis is nudo it is not quite as 
usually written ; it seems to be undo. 
melior actus 798 Ae. alepidam tiriasque 
recedit cett. om. 799 uicina et aquarius 
800 euphrates pisces uruptor 803 Parthis 
et parthis 804 Bactraque -e+e-(sic) aete- 
rius babylone et susa apiniosque 806 
litora 809 Namque #aaiz (sic) eadem 
quae sunt signis cOmer™ seruant (it ought 
to be “* or “ but is not) 812 Quaeque 
aliam uarios adfectus (sic) 813 Sic terra 


eterris 815 Sic erit et pentendaque 
euique 816 sic et m. pericula 818 
egliptica On the right margin of 818 
is written in vermilion DEF GLIPUCIS 
SIGNIs ! 819 delas asta 820 Non 
umgquam 821 inmenso 823 Mittantur 


1 For DE ECLIPTICIS SIGNIS, as in the Gembla- 
censls. 


141 


diu 825 efeta 
827 sufficium 

830 uenit 
831 Nec se ipse 


834 temtauit 
uit 


837 Atque inio timent (uit later) 
sepulchro 838 Tempore 841 
quo defecerit 842 inmersa 843 
phobi 844 trathit ad coetum 845 


u 
languet 846 Incur bata uigori 


847 phoben lucent (g later) 848 
titulos causae egliptica 849 pariter sed 
bina 851 luna|s uojtum 854 affectus 
855 lassat manent 856 Seceduntque suo 
phebea 858 Inplerique suo 861 relin- 
qunt (sic) 862orbi 863 Sed qua 
indinet /t ipse (a worm has eaten away the 
lost letter) 864 Animasque 865 similis 
noxis After 865 in a new line Fat- 
orum recionem perspici posse 868 pro- 
hibetque lumine 869 Conditur enim quid 
¥¢recessu (sic) 871 pose potest (sic) 
facis 877 destendere 878 conponere 
880 portum 882 racionem discerne noctis 
889 terraque 890 Spiritum et totum 
rapido quae iussa gubernent 891 terraene 
892 gubernat 893 Dispinsatque 894 
in om. 896 celo 899 uenter censum- 
que 900 Et qua 901 Vunus inspectus 
loquenda 902 ed/citur (worm-hole) 
903 quicumque sic esset in orbes 904 


Edomuit ad fruges 905 stent has per- 
haps been altered into stetit 906 Erectus 
(sic) captis 907 Siderosque (an e added in 
fainter ink) propriusque 910 sit 


changed to Mutantur 
826 Rursusque fuerant 
m. pr. 828 conp. heres 


resoluit 
rf 
urbe Asserunt, rf 


later 


quaerit 911 Huic m. pr., afterwards 
changed to Hine sepe 912 trepide- 
que suo 913 Aumnnis (?) seems to have 


been barely intelligible to a reader of the 
MS., who wrote above in unusually distinct 
writing Ad minus. These two words are in 
a paler ink 914 auiumque adtendere 


cantis 916 reducit 917 Voluendo 
semper 918 posset uidendis 919 eat 
doceatque actendere 920 uocat nos- 


trosanimos 922 putat 923 Nec (c has 

had a line drawn through it and xX marked 
u 

in the left margin) contempnet uas q asi 


a 
924 Quo pondere 925 Expuerant 
m. pr. 928 Quoque 929 colata 930 
anguste rather than angusto 934 facis 


mittisque 935 et om. 
EXPLICIT - LIBER « II - INCIPIT - LIBER * III.” 
2 So the MS. by some error. 
Rosinson ELIs. 


142 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


THE GREEK EVIDENCE FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE IMPERIAL APPEAL, 


THERE are few questions in Roman 
constitutional law to which such different 
answers have been given as that of the 
origin of the appeal to Caesar. It is not 
proposed here to discuss in any way the 
nature of this appeal, nor the procedure 
connected with it, in the fully developed 
form in which they are described in the 
writings of the classical jurists ; but simply 
to examine certain passages in historical 
writers—notably in Dio Cassius—which 
contain almost the sole evidence for the 
origin of this, the most singular because it 
is the most unrepublican, institution of the 
principate. 

Dio Cassius has been supposed to give us 
the origin of the new appeal in his account 
of a plebiscitum passed in 30 B.c. It was 
decreed in that year tov Kaicapa tyv Te 
efovolav TH TOV Onudpxwv bia iov exewv, Kal 
Tots ertBowpmevors avTov, Kal evTOS TOU THpNpLOU 
Kal e€w pexpt oyddov nutotadiov dapadvew— 
exkAntov Te duxaew. The chief question that 
has agitated modern jurists and historians 
with reference to this appeal is: ‘Of what 
republican institution is it a development ?’ 
Is it an outcome of the ‘appellatio’ to the 
‘par maiorve potestas,’ or is it a continua- 
tion of the ‘provocatio ad populum’ ? 
Latin writers, whether jurists or historians, 
give, as is well known, no help. No 
distinction is drawn in the Latin literature 
of the Empire between ‘appellatio’ and 
‘provocatio,’ as descriptive of the new 
appeal; but Dio’s word éxxAyros (and its 
kindred éxxaAdcioGar and ézixadetoOar) may 
give the shade of meaning which will put us 
on the right track. J. Merkel, who has 
examined the question from this point of 
view in his work tiber die Geschichte der 
Klassichen Appellation, has no doubt as to 
what this shade of meaning is: éxxadetoGau 
is provocare ; ‘a direct translation of “ pro- 
vocare’”’ is éxxaAetoOa1, which is found in a 
constitution of Hadrian’s (C. J. Gr. ii. x. 
355) and in constitutions of the beginning 
of the third century (Dig. 27, 1, 13 pr. ; 
49, 1, 5), answering to émixadetoOar in a 
rescript of divus Pius (Dig. 49, 1, 1, 1), and 
in the Acts of the Apostles (xxv. 11), where 
the trial of St. Paul is described: it is to 
these words that the dikas éxxAnrovs Kpivew 
and the éxkAynrov duxagew of Dio Cassius (Iii. 
22, 5; li. 19, 7) answer’ (p. 45); this 
‘provocatio’ however is not that of the 
Republic: it is ‘without its limitations’ : 


by which is apparently meant that it could 


‘be applied to civil as well as to criminal 


cases, and perhaps also that it was of a 
more thoroughly ‘ reformatory ’ character. 

On the other hand he holds (/.c.) that the 
other words used by Dio Cassius to describe 
cases before the imperial courts have quite. 
a different meaning ; these are épéowor and 
avarroumysot (Sika) : the former means cases 
‘remitted,’ the latter cases ‘sent up’ to a 
higher court. I am not sure that the 
distinction between these words and éxkAyrTos 
is meant to be more than a distinction in 
the point of view from which the procedure 
is looked at ; but, if it is meant to mark a 
distinction in procedure itself, then these 
two latter words ought to refer to the 
emperor as a court of first instance (a 
cognitio extra ordinem), not as a court of 
appeal, 

It is in any case worth seeing whether 
this distinction will bear examination. The 
imperial appeal is the amendment of the 
decree of a magistrate; the essence of an 
appeal, if it is made to a court which 
possesses jurisdiction and is not merely a 
court of cassation, is a request for the 
reformation of a judgment. Where there 
has been no sentence there can be no appeal. 
But the Greek terms used do not mark 
clearly this essential of the appeal. In 
Greek international law the éxxAynros wéXus 
seems to have been usually, but we cannot 
say invariably, a court of second instance, 
and édeois in the treaty with Chalcis 
(C.L.A. Suppl. i. p. 10) means a ‘remit’ not 
an ‘appeal’ to Athens: but it is certain 
that no real distinction was drawn even in 
official documents between éxxAyros and 
édbéoysos. As regards the rules about civil 
jurisdiction between Athens and her allies 
we cannot say that, wherever édeois is used, 
it means a denial of jurisdiction ; wherever 
Athens is called an é&kkAyros 7oXus, it is a 
true case of appeal. (See instances in Gilbert, 
Staatsalt. i. p. 403, lst ed.) But it is even 
more with the language of literature than 
of legal documents that we are here con- 
cerned. Plutarch has been pronounced 
wrong for applying the word édecis to the 
appeal instituted by Solon (Sol. 18), which 
he compares with the Roman ‘ provocatio’ 
(Comp. Sol, et Poplic. 2): but the mistake, 
if it is one, is due to the author of the 
’AOnvaiwv odureia (9, cf. ec. 45 and 55). 
In the definition of épéra given by Pollux 


ies 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 143 


(viii. 125) it may be doubtful whether 
épeots Means an ‘appeal’ or a ‘remit’: but 
in the cases of reference to a higher court 
which he enumerates (viii. 62, 63) épeoipos 
is equivalent to exxAyros (diky). 

As regards the usage of the words by 
Dio Cassius, ékxAnros may be illustrated 
from the following passages : 

(i.) lit. 22 6 8 oy brarevKws TatTa TE Kal 
mpowert Kai Tas Oikas Tas Te ExKARTOUS Kal Tas 
dvaTouripous Tas bTO TOV TTpaTHY@V avTOD 
doitocas KpweTu. 

(ii.) lix. 86 pev yap TiBépios ovtws adrov 
(Silanus) ériunoev, GoTe poyte ExkAyTOv ToTE 
ax abrod diuxdoar eOeAjoa, GAN’ exeivw Tava 
adfis Ta TovadTa eyxelpioa. 

(iii.) Ixxvii. 8 (of Antoninus Caracalla) 
érepov d€ TWwa—ToAAZA be dea Sedpaxdra, Kat 
du TOUTO wap avTod e& eyKAHrTov Sikyns KpLvomevov. 

In (i.) éxxAjrouvs does no doubt refer to 
the true appeal, as developed at the end of the 
second century. The reform advocated here 
was, so far as we know, never realized in the 
principate ; the jurisdiction here described 
was in fact the appellate jurisdiction of the 
‘ praefectus praetorio’ of this period. 

About (ii.), which is important as occur- 
ring so early in the principate, no definite 
opinion can be pronounced, because we do 
not know what position Silanus held when 
Tiberius adopted this procedure. If, as has 
generally been supposed, he was consul, 
exxAnrov might refer to the appeals from the 
civil jurisdiction—e.g. jfidet commissa— 
delegated by the princeps to the consul.' 
On the other hand it might refer to a request 
(by supplicatio) for the ‘cognitio’ of the 
princeps from the directly competent 
authority, which the emperor refused to 
receive, remitting the case again to that 
authority. 

(iii.) is a criminal case, the facts of which 
are unknown. It was perhaps a case of 
denial of competence of a magistrate coupled 
with a request (which by the time of Cara- 
calla might have been a demand) to be tried 
before the princeps. In this case, though 
not strictly an appeal, it is a procedure 
evolved historically from the Republican 
‘ provocatio,’ and would be parallel to the 
appeal of St. Paul. 

In a legal document of Hadrian’s time 
(C. I. Gr, n. 355) the use of the word is 
important, on account of the curious nature 
of the jurisdiction disclosed by this inscrip- 
tion. In the rules made by Hadrian about 
the exportation of oil from Athens, a cer- 

1 Even in this case it may not be an appeal because 


the emperor still continued to exetcise this jurisdic- 
tion personally (Vit, Hadriani 22). 


tain procedure is ordained for the trial of 
individuals violating these regulations. In 
some cases the BovA7 alone, in others the 
Bovdy and éxxAyoia have jurisdiction: and 
the constitution ordains édy 6€ éxxadéeonrai 
Tis 7) ewe 7) Tov avOUmraTov, xXELpoTovEeitH ovV- 
dikovs 6 Onpos. 

This may refer to either of two alternative 
modes of procedure ; it may be (1) an appeal 
to the emperor after the sentence of the 
lower court; in this case there must have 
been delegation to the proconsul; or (2) it 
may be a request for the voluntary jurisdic- 
tion of the emperor or the proconsul before 
the trial by the lower court ; in this case it 
would be parallel to the request for ‘ cogni- 
tio’ which was made to Pliny when governor 
of Bithynia.2 Although the first would 
agree best with the emperor’s control of 
such curae, the objection to it is that here 
we have the choice between the two instances 
given to the accused. The first explanation 
would involve the view of the possibility of 
omitting a lower instance and going at once 
to a higher. The balance of probability is 
perhaps slightly in favour of regarding it as 
a case of request for a ‘ cognitio.’ 

As regards the use of the word edeoipos 
in Dio Cassius the following two citations 
make it clear that it has not any single 
legal meaning and does not denote any 
special form of procedure. 

lii. 21 GAN’ Wa ta Te GAXa del THS TOAEWS 
Tpoorary Kat Tas Sikas Tds TE Tapa TavTwV dV 
cirov dpxovTwv eberipous TE Kal avatrommiLous 
—Kptvn. 

It is the appellate jurisdiction of the 
‘praefectus urbi’ which is here descibed ; 
édeciuous in this passage is equivalent to 
é€xkAxjrous in the next chapter (quoted above). 

lii. 33 dékale be Kal avros idia Ta Te ePeopa 
Kal TH dvaTopmTiya, 00a av Tapa Te TOV pweLLove” 
GpxovTwvy K.7.A.—pyte yap airddiuos pyt 
avTOTEAIS OUTW TIS TO TapaTav EOTW, WOTE 41) 
ovk efécysov ax’ avtod dixnv ylyverOat. 

In this general summary of the emperor’s 
jurisdiction the appeal is described: but 
other cases of extraordinary jurisdiction are 
no doubt implied as well. 

It is sufficiently clear that Dio Cassius 
draws no real distinction between éeécimos 
and éxkAynros. These words are no key to 
what kind of jurisdiction is meant in either 
case. So far as language is concerned, he 
betrays the same incapacity as other Greek 
writers of drawing a distinction between an 


* Plin. (ad Trai. 81) says that he was ‘ appella- 
tum’: and yet this was admittedly a case of first 
instance, arising from the request of the prosecutor 
‘ut cognoscerein pro tribunali.’ 


144 


appeal proper on the one hand and a re- 
quest or remit to a superior court on the 
other. 

The results as to the general usage of 
these terms may be summed up as follows : 


édeoysos dikn may certainly mean two > 


things—(i.) a suit on remit, either where 
there is lack of competence in the lower 
court, or where there is choice of jurisdic- 
tion: and (ii.) the appeal itself, looked at 
from the point of view of the iudea a quo. 

éxkAyros dikn often means the appeal; but 
probably it also means a case on remit, by 
supplicatio of the parties; the essential 
notion of the word is simply a claim or 
request for trial, which a lower court is 
bound to grant. 

éxixadetoGac would more accurately be 
translated by cognitionem poscere or postulare 
than by provocare. In fact appellare is used 
in this sense by Plin. (/.c.), and requests for 
cognizance are perhaps all that is meant by 
the ‘ appellationes’ of Suetonius (Aug. 33). 

dvaTopTysos Oikn is a case ‘sent up’ by a 
judge—perhaps on appeal; but it no 
doubt also refers to cases referred to a 
higher court by consultatio, or even through 
lack of competence. 

These conclusions may perhaps be so used 
as to throw some light on the origin of the 
imperial appeal. The important words 
éxkAnrov ouxafew in Dio’s account of the 
‘plebiscitum’ of 30 B.c. may only describe 
the establishment of the princeps as a high 
court of voluntary jurisdiction : and even if 
Dio meant to make the improbable statement 
that Augustus was made a court of appeal 
at that early date, his description may be 
influenced by the developed institution of 
his own times and may not reflect the 
original fact. If this ‘plebiscitum’ only 
recognized the future princeps as a high 
court of first instance, this recognition was 
sufficient to establish the new appeal. For 
the Republican ‘ intercessio,’ with a ‘ cogni- 
tio’ following it, which can lead to a new 
trial and give rise to a positive verdict, 
constitutes the appeal to the emperor. The 
possibility of the ‘intercessio’ did not, 
perhaps, depend wholly on the ‘ tribunicia 
potestas’ conferred by this law of 30 B.c. 
If we grant that this theoretically enabled 
the princeps to control the magistrates of 
Rome and Italy, we may follow Savigny 
(Syst. vi. Beil. v.) in holding that the 
‘proconsulare imperium’ gave him a similar 
control in the provinces; it gave him the 
veto by virtue of ‘maius imperium’ over 
his own legates, it rendered him at least the 
colleague of the proconsuls of the senatorial 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


provinces.' The powers thus gained are 
merely negative ; but the emperor is a high 
court of first instance, with technically 
unlimited powers of extraordinary jurisdic- 
tion. If the ‘ appellatio’ was made for the 
emperor’s ‘ auxilium’ it would surely, under 
the new condition of things, have been 
accompanied by a request for a ‘cognitio.’ ~ 
This appeal would have existed in the 
Republic if the vetoing magistrate had 
possessed competence to decide the question 
which he vetoed. The negative and positive 
powers could now be exercised part passu, 
and these together constitute the imperial 
appeal. 

The appeal to Caesar must have soon 
ceased to be the direct outcome either of 
the ‘ tribunicia potestas’ or of the ‘ procon- 
sulare imperium,’ but it could reside in the 
princeps only because he possessed that 
‘potestas’ and that ‘imperium.’ For the 
princeps is not a king, the fountain of justice 
and controlling all lower courts in this capac- 
ity ; he is only a magistrate of the Republic 
and his control must be based on negative 
powers. Once gift him with these powers 
and the emperor’s jurisdiction as a court of 
second instance springs naturally from the 
fact that he is a court of first instance. 

The use of the negative and positive 
powers were not necessarily combined de 
ture ; de facto, perhaps, they always were, 
except where the ‘cognitio’ of the emperor 
was improper: ég. in cases meant to go 
before a iudex Tiberius vetoes without 
judging (Tac. Ann. i. 75) ; in criminal cases 
already before a high court, the Senate, the 
tribunician veto is interposed, also without 
a judgment (Tac. Ann. vi. 5). 

It must be admitted that no certain 
conclusion can be come to on a question 
where our only guides are Latin terms used 
in a sense foreign to the legal terminology 
of the Republic, and Greek legal terms 
which were never thoroughly defined: but 
two tentative conclusions may be regarded 
as the result of this discussion : 

(1) That it is not necessary to suppose 
that the radical reform of constituting a 
supreme court of appeal—an institution 
alien to Roman procedure in civil matters 
and which had almost disappeared in criminal 
—was actually made before the definite 
constitution of the principate; if such an 
artificial creation had been adopted, it is 
difficult to see why the reformers should 
have stopped at the point at which both 
the old ‘ appellatio’ and the old ‘ provocatio’ 


1 If we do not follow Dio’s apparent statement that 
he had ‘ maius imperium’ over these (lili. 32). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


stopped—the decree of the magistrate ; why, 
in short, the ‘iudicia ordinaria’ and the 
‘quaestiones’ should have been exempted 
from its control. 

(2) That the Republican theory was never 
so thoroughly reversed in the principate 
that the magistrate became the recipient of 


145 


the ‘ provocatio’ in the place of the people ; 
the true magisterial power of the ‘ appella- 
tio,’ with the modification independently 
(almost accidentally) introduced, being quite 
sufficient to account for the new order of 
things. 

A. H. GRrENIDGE. 


THE PROSPECTIVE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE. 


Mr. SonNENSCHEIN deserves thanks for 
his contribution to grammatical terminology 
in the shape of. the word ‘ prospective.’ In 
temporal clauses this term may be of great 
service to mark off the definite-time clause 
from the indefinite-time clause, present or 
past. Thus in the following sentences— 


, ” € e oF CK , 
paxns apgovrar d7d7’ Uv BovAwvrat. 
4 »” ” c , , 
padxns apxerOa ewedAov Ordre BovdAowTo— 


the former may be accurately described as 
‘prospective present,’ the latter as ‘ prospec- 
tive past’ (prospective=relatively future). 
These are perhaps good substitutes for 
‘indefinite following on a primary’ and 
‘indefinite following on an historic tense.’ 
It may be questioned however whether 
the extension of this term to other than 
temporal clauses will tend to clearness. 
Will not confusion ensue if it be applied 
indiscriminately, as it may be, to almost 
every species of subordinate clause? Thus 
for example in the sentence misit milites 
qui victoriam nuntiarent, we may say that 
nuntiarent is ‘past prospective’ or ‘ rela- 
tively future in the past.’ For is not the 
announcement of victory relatively future 
to the despatch of soldiers? But every one 
sees that such a description of the mood in 
nuntiarent would be most inadequate ; 
because futurity is not what is uppermost in 
the writer’s mind, though it is necessarily 
attendant on the mode of expression. Mr. 
Sonnenschein is of course at liberty to call 
this ‘a special kind of futurity’ ; but herein 
lies what would seem to be a flaw in the 
extended use of his term. Futurity—at 


least relative—will be found in many final, 
consecutive, causal and conditional clauses, 
but in distinguishing between these it is 
the ‘special kind of futurity,’ not the genus 
futurity, that will help. Thus as acriterion 
between the various classes of subordinate 
clauses the ‘prospective’ is practically 
valueless. To take another instance. In 
the passage quoted from Soph. (Zach. 903) 
kpvwao’ éavtiy évOa pH tus ctoidor it may be 
said that eic/Soc is ‘prospective past,’ inas- 
much as the action of being withdrawn from 
view is relatively future to that of hiding. 
But surely it is not the idea of indefinite 
future time but rather of indefinite place to 
which expression is here primarily given, 
the idea of relative futurity being only 
concomitant. The place—and in so far the 
clause—may be said to be indefinite, inas- 
much as it answers the general description 
of ‘a place such as would secure the resu/t or 
end of concealment.’ In other words we 
have here that species of indefiniteness 
which grammarians term consecutive or final 
relative. 

There is however another sense in which 
this clause may perhaps more appropriately 
be termed prospective. It describes a place 
‘in prospect,’ i.e. which offered the prospect 
of hiding. But that is only putting 
objectively the subjective intention of the 
speaker, and thus once more we are thrown 
back on finality. Hence a further danger 
of ambiguity in the extended use of the 
term prospective, unless its definition 
‘relatively future’ be strictly adhered to 
and within the limits of the temporal clause. 

J. Donovan. 


146 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


CORRECTIONS FOR LIDDELL AND SCOTT’S LEXICON. 


AveoBaparjs 1 in Anth. Pal. vii. 703 is wrongly 
translated ‘ bold as a wolf.’ 
shows, it is really ‘ not afraid of wolves’ := 
6 Tovs AvKous Gapaarv. 

xnpdw. In Aristotle’s poem on the death 
of Hermeias (Bergk* ii. 361) there is no 
need to assign to deAiov yjpwoev ‘aiyas the 
unauthorized meaning ‘left, forsook.’ 
According to the usual sense and the 
analogy of other words in -dw, we may 
explain ‘bereft the light of the sun,’ z.e. 
left the world poorer by his loss. The 
thought may be paralleled from Voltaire’s 
line on the death of Madame du Chatelet, 
ridiculed by Carlyle in his Miscellanies : 


L’univers a perdu la sublime Emilie. 


[The following corrections have been 
already discussed by the writer in the 
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. | 


atvé, a ‘blot’ at backgammon, ef. H. 
Jackson in Journ. of Philol. vii. 238; Dict. 
s.v. Duodecim Scripta. 

épdisByrnots. Not ‘the act of claiming 
an inheritance,’ but of ‘disputing the title 
of the first claimant.’ dudis of course 
implies that there are two sides to a 
question. 

avdpoAnia, avdpoAnyov should be distin- 
guished. The right of reprisals is avdpoAj ov 
(Dem. c. Aristocr. §$ 83, 84, 217); the act 
or process by which the right is enforced is 
avdpoAnypia, usually in the plural (76. $$ 82, 
83; de Cor. Trierch. § 13). 

aéoves. These were identical with the 
kipBes: the attempt to discriminate the 
two is now rightly rejected. 


As the context 


yeAcovres is referred by L. and 8. to 
te\éovres. The cross-reference should be 
the other way: inscriptions prove that 
yehéovres, not redéovres, is the true form of- 
the word. 

Opipaxror, ‘balconies’: ra trav oixodopy- 
parov é&€xovta &vAa,~ ‘el Aristoph. Eq. 
672, Vesp. 385, Heraclides Pont. iv. 10 with 
Miiller’s note in F. H. G. ii. 209. (Dict. s.v. 
Cancelli.) 

Exrnpopo, extnwopto. The text of ’AG. 
moX. c. 2 (pace Dr. Sandys) supports the 
contention that these cultivators paid five- 
sixths of the produce and retained only one- 
sixth. This is also the common-sense view : 
if the proportions were reversed, it is 
difficult to see where the oppression came in, 

éoOyns. The accusative form éo@yv is 
quoted from an inscription in Myconos. 
(Hermes viii. 1. 91 ff.; Bull. de Corr. hellén. 
vi. 590.) 

nbn. Theage denoted by 7B is explained 
rather vaguely. It is now agreed that 7By 
was at sixteen, 7o emt Sieres Boa at 
eighteen, on the authority of the writer in 
Bekk. Anecd. p. 255, 15. 

Anéiapxos. It does not appear that the 
Angiapxyo. had anything to do with the 
Anévapyixov ypayparetov: their duties were 


confined to. the Assembly. (Dict. s.v. He- 
clesia.) 
atpodets, atpddryé. The distinction 


between orpddry€ ‘pivot’ and orpodeds 
‘socket’ is not without exceptions: in Sext. 
Emp. adv. Math. x. 54 6 xara tod dApioKov 
BeBnxas otpodeds, 6Apuiokos is the socket and 
otpopevs the pivot. 

W. WayTe. 


SOPH. 7RACHIN. 903. 


Wou_p not Professor Sonnenschein have 
done better to look for his ‘parallel’ to 
évOa py tis cioidor, not in évOa py Tis dWerar, 
Az. 659 (the historic oblique form of which 
is évOa py Tis OWorro), but, two lines earlier in 
the same sentence, in poddv te yapov évO’ av 
aorBn Kixw 4 

If I were asked, What then is the 
difference between v6’ dv py tis (dn and 
evOa pn tis OWerart? I should reply: The 
difference may often be unessential, and 


the two forms interchangeable, but the 
distinction is grammatically none the less 
real, and may sometimes be essential. 

‘Hide me wherever (i.e. in any hiding- 
place where) no one may see me’—éev@? ay 
pun Ts idy—is not the same thing as ‘ Hide 
me in ¢his hiding-place, where no one shall 
see me’—évradOa kpvwov, eva un Tis OeTrar— 
a ‘generic’ expression with a definite 
antecedent: neither is it the same thing as 
‘ Hide me in some hiding-place where no one 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


shall see me,’ which is also év6a yy tis oWerat, 
this also being a ‘generic’ expression but 
without a definite antecedent. 

‘ Whoever thinks this, is foolish ’—éoris 
dv tovro vouily, pdtaius éorw—is not the 
same as ‘ He is foolish, since he (ze. being 
a man who) thinks this’—otros paratds 
éorw, Ootis voui~e.—nor even as ‘A man 
who thinks this, is foolish’— doris vopitet, 
paratds ear. 

Professor Jebb, in his note on darts “Atdov 
bOinevos oikytrwop téAn, Trachin. 1161, says 
‘Tf Nessus was alive when Zeus spoke, this 
is oblique for doris av eA; but if Nessus 
was then dead, it is oblique for doris wéAe.’ 
But this ignores the difference between 


147 


daoTis = quisquis and doris = qui generic. 
doris dv TeAN = guisquis est or quisquis erit 
(in this case quisquis erit), and could 
not have been used of the individual 
Nessus. 

‘Miserum me, qui videam’ is dotis bpd: 
‘Miserum hominem, qui videat’ is doris 
dpa: the one definite, the other either 
definite or indefinite, but both individual 
and ‘generic’: the mood subjunctive in 
Latin, indicative in Greek. But ‘ Miserum 
hominem, quicumque videt’ (or ‘ videbit’) is 
doris dy dy: not individual, but ‘ compre- 
hensive’ of every man who sees: the mood 
indicative in Latin, subjunctive in Greek. 

R. WHitTeLaw. 





AUGUSTINE 


I po not know whether any one has 
noticed a parallel to the famous words (Par. 
Lost I 254) ‘The mind is its own place.’ 

Aug. enarr. in ps. vi 10 ad jin. saepe 
enim mens nitens pergere in Deum, concussa 
in ipso itinere trepidat: et plerumque 
propterea non implet bonum propositum, ne 


ARCHILOCHUS 


ex O€ TOD kal TioTa TdvTa KaTieATTa yiyverat 
avopacw: pydeis EF tpav cicopdv Oavpacere, 
pnd orav deAdior Opes avrapeiwvrar vomov 
evadtov kai opw Oaddoons jxeevTa KUpata 

pirtep’ jreipov yévytat, Tota. 6 7dv TV opos. 

For the corrupt words toto. 8° 45d jv dpos 
various emendations have been proposed,— 
toicw nowv 8 dpos Gaisford and Jacobs: 
toiow avddvy 6 Schneidewin: toto. & otpos 
jovov Emper: rotor 8 xdovyv dpos (da) 
Hartung : rotor 8’ 7 dn ropos Haupt: rotor 
& qdvvyr’ opos Tyrrell: rotor 8 bAjew dpos or 
tois 8 adn dvew (dvrrew) dpos Bergk. 

I had thought of toto. 3 7 dvnv opos= 
‘while the mountain becomes the diving-ground 
of the dolphins.’ In favour of this it might 
be urged that, on the one hand, it is closer 
to the reading of the MSS., being in fact a 
redivision of the words rather than a textual 
change ; and, on the other hand, it supplies 
an adequate cause for the present corruption, 
inasmuch as d%yv (the regular Lesbian 
infinitive for dvev) would to iater tran- 


AND MILTON. 


offendat eos cum quibus vivit, alia bona 
peritura et transeuntia diligentes atque 
sectantes. ab his separatus est omnis sanus, 
non locis, sed animo; nam locis corpora 
continentur, animo autem locus est affectio 
Sud. 


Joun EK. B. Mayor, 


74 (Bergk), 5—9. 


scribers be an unfamiliar form, likely enough 
to pass into 700 jv. 

If however the occurrence of such a 
Lesbian form in Archilochian tetrameters 
be questioned, it is of course open to us to 
read roto. 8 7 dvev dpos. The confusion of 
final ew and yy, owing to the fact that a 
single minuscule compendium / originally 
stood for both, is well known (cf. e.g. Gre- 
gorius de dial. Dor. ed Schaefer, p. 296 n. 
Bast comment. palaeogr. p. 761 § 7, ‘causa 
cur syllabae ew, nv, et w iisdem notis scri- 
bantur non alia est quam quod eodem sono 
pronuntiatae sunt’), 


63 (Bergk), 1—3. 


Ov tis aidotos per’ dorav KavapiOp.os Oavov 
, / .¥ A “~ a QQ # 
cyverau: xapw dé wadAXov Tod Lood dudKopev 
lwot Kdxurta dé TO Oavovre yiyverat. | 
Porson restored the third line as follows, 
—ot oot kdxuota 6 aire Te 
(Schneidewin «atOavovtr) yiyverat. 


Gavovrt 


Bergk 


148 


offers kaxdv kaxiota TO O.y. Or Kaxicta 8 & 
mat 7.0.y., Hiller xaxuora 8 aiei ro 6.7. 
Perhaps we should read oi Cool: kax.rro. 
>” A , , > + 
8 70n 76 Oavdvere yiyverat. The syllables 0° 767 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


would readily be simplified into 6¢é: and 
the word 767 suits the sense of the passage 
better than Porson’s airé. 

ARTHUR BERNARD CooK. 


MARTIAL II. 66. 


‘Unus de toto peccaverat orbe comarum 

Anulus, incerta non bene fixus acu. 

Hoe facinus Lalage speculo quo viderat ulta 
est, 

Et cecidit saevis icta Plecusa comis, ete.’ 


The ‘saevis comis’ of v. 4 presents 
difficulties and is very curiously interpreted. 

(1) Friedlander makes it = propter saevas 
comas, and compares Liber Spectaculorum i. 
3, Nec Triviae templo molles laudentur Iones, 
where ‘templo’ undoubtedly = propter 
templum. But here icta seems to require 
an abl. of instrument and Friedlander’s 
interpretation is forced. 

(2) Stephenson says ‘comis=the thongs 
of the bull’s hide whip (tawrea, Juv. vi. 
492).’ The passage from Juvenal is indeed 
a useful parallel to this epigram and 
illustrates the same phase of feminine 
cruelty to slaves. But the mention of 
tawrea in Juvenal is not sufficient to justify 
the meaning adopted by Stephenson for 
comis. It is a meaning unsupported by any 
parallel and seems unnatural. 


(3) Paley and Stone seem to waver 
between Friedlinder’s interpretation and 
the absurdity ‘ Plecusa fell with her hair 
(i.e. scalp) cut’! (Reading sectis.) — 

(4) If we remember that v. 3 has said 
that the instrument of vengeance used by 
the mistress was the mirror that showed 
her the errant curl, I think that saevis comis 
will be seen to refer to the image of the 
hair seen in the mirror. ‘ Lalage avenged 
the crime with the mirror that detected it 
and felled the tiring-woman with the 
(counterfeit presentment of the) cruel 
locks.’ In this way the indefiniteness of 
‘speculo ulta est’ in v. 3 is explained and 
amplified in v. 4 quite after the manner of 
Martial. The transference of epithet in 
saevis is paralleled by ‘ tristis capillos ’in v. 
5; and the metonymy in comis is not too 
harsh for Martial’s style. These forced 
phrases are almost characteristic of his 
serious style when he wishes to display 
moral indignation. He is much more 
natural when he jests. 

GEORGE SMITH. 


GARDNER ON THE ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


The Origin of the Lord’s Supper, by Percy 
GaRDNER, Litt. D. Macmillan. 22 pp. 
ls. net. 


THe pamphlet before us belongs to a class 
of writings which is perhaps less likely to 
receive fair and adequate criticism in Eng- 
land than elsewhere. It is the work of an 
expert in one province venturing into a 
province which is not strictly hisown. The 
experts in the latter province are not un- 
naturally inclined to look with some sus- 
picion on the intruder, especially if he ven- 
tures to challenge conclusions which they 
regard as authoritative. And this is still 
more the case when the points assailed ap- 
pear to have any connexion with a subject 
of great practical importance, such as reli- 


gion, which excites the strongest interest 
not merely amongst the few who are capable 
of following the steps of a scientific discus- 
sion, but amongst the many who care for 
the conclusions alone. Reviews which are 
written for the many, whether on the posi- 
tive or the negative side, are alike impatient 
of discussion, and prefer to leave unnoticed 
books which might disturb the security of 
their readers ; or if notice them they must, 
they occupy themselves for the most part in 
rhetoric, laudatory or denunciatory, as the 
conclusions arrived at are, or are not, in 
accordance with their own preconceived 
opinions. 

And yet it cannot be doubted that, as 
regards any great and complex subject, it 
is necessary that it should be attacked from 


ae bi 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


various sides by minds of various quality 
and training, if real progress is to be made 
in the ascertainment of the truth ; and that, 
however unwelcome negative criticism may 
be, it is an essential factor in the establish- 
ment of a body of truth which is to com- 
mand the confidence of educated men. For 
these reasons I think it is well that a 
periodical like the Classical Review, while 
it holds aloof from religious or doctrinal 
discussion in the abstract, should not shrink 
from the treatment of religious questions, 
so far as they are involved in the criticism, 
interpretation and illustration of the lan- 
guage of the early Christian writers. Such 
a review must welcome every serious effort 
to throw new light on all subjects connected 
with Classical Antiquity, irrespective of the 
quarter from which it may proceed or the 
interest in which it may be used. 

Professor Gardner’s modest book, which 
has suggested these remarks, contains a 
hypothesis as to the Eucharist grounded 
upon two alleged facts:— 

(1) The command to repeat the Lord’s 
Supper as a memorial is not to be found in 
the original text of the Gospels, but only in 
1 Cor. xi. 20 foll. 

(2) St. Paul there professes to have re- 
ceived the command by immediate inspira- 
tion from Christ. 

Tt will begin by examining the second 
point as the simpler of the two. The words 
are éyo yap tapéAaBov ard tod Kupiov 6 kat 
mapéowxa tiv «.7.A. (v. 23), which Prof. 
Gardner translates ‘I myself received from 
the Lord that which I also delivered to 
you,’ 

In support of his view he refers to the 
many undoubted cases in which St. Paul 
claims to have received direct revelations 
from Christ ; and though he allows that in 
1 Cor, vii. 10 (zapayyéAdw odk eyo GAG 6 
Kupuos) it is the teaching of Christ as handed 
down in the Church, not as revealed to St. 
Paul by direct inspiration which is referred 
to; yet comparing it with Col. ili. 24 dod 
Kuplov droAnvecbe tiv dvtarddoow (which 
‘we must certainly render ye shall receive 
direct from the Lord the reward’’, and the 
omission of the words dzd tod Kupiov after 
mapé\aBov in 1 Cor. xv. 3 (where the refer- 
ence is to mere human testimony), he thinks 
there can be no doubt that in our passage 
there is a claim to personal inspiration, 
which is further marked by the emphatic 
eyw. 
To deal first with this last point, I do not 
think there is any occasion to interpret éya 
‘IT myself,’ as Mr. Gardner does, It seems 

NO, LXVIII, VOL, VIII, 


149 


to me sufficiently explained by the anti- 
thesis to iyiv, ‘J received from Christ what 
I handed on to you.’ Otherwise why should 
not the emphatic airds éyé have been used, 
as in Rom. vii. 25, ix. 8, xv. 14, and else- 
where? Next as to the use of zapadap- 
Bavw. In the sense which it bears here it 
is regularly followed by the preposition 
mapd,:as in Gal. 1. 12 otd@ yap éy® zap’ av- 
Opairov mapéAaBov airo, 1 Th. ii. 13° rapa- 
AaBovres Adyov axons wap Hudv, ib. iv. 1 wape- 
Aad Bere tap ypov, 2 Th. iii. 6 kara tiv wapa- 
doow iv mapeAaBere tap’ jyuov. This is in 
fact the only passage in the N.T. in which 
it is followed by azo, and we naturally sur- 
mise that there must have been some reason 
for departing from the ordinary use. The 
difference between the two prepositions is 
that zapa implies the passing on of tradition 
from hand to hand, while azo denotes simply 
the source, especially the ultimate source, 
just as, in contradistinction from izé, it im- 
plies the remoter cause or agent (cf. James 
i. 13 dd Ocod weipaloua). I cannot there- 
fore agree in the rendering of Col. iii. 24 
‘ye shall receive direct from the Lord the 
reward.’ As contrasted with xouioerat rapa 
Kvpéov ‘at the Lord’s hand’ in the parallel 
passage of Eph. vi. 8, the suggestion would 
be just the other way. As to the passage 
under consideration, I agree with Winer 
that dz rod Kvupiov wapéAaBov would be 
an inappropriate expression for ‘the Lord 
has himself personally, as in an doxaAvy1s, 
revealed it to me.’ Mr. Gardner however 
holds that the phrase ‘I received from the 
Lord’ ‘can scarcely by fair criticism be 
regarded as equivalent to J received from 
those who heard the Lord,’ Perhaps the use 
of the corresponding zrapadidwyr may help us 
to a decision on this point. In Acts vi. 14 
we read ra €0n & rapédoxev juiv Mwvojs, 
which might have been equally well ex- 
pressed by the words & zapeAdBopev ard 
Movoéws. Plato (Theaet. 180 C) even uses the 
expression 70 mpoBAnpa mapeAndayev Tapa 
Tov dpxaiwv ‘ the question has come down to 
us by tradition from the ancients,’ where 
mapa is used of the first link in the chain. 
To leave the grammatical point, Mr. 
Gardner would make ‘the tradition received 
from the Lord’ cover all that follows to the 
end of the 25th verse; understanding St. 
Paul to have seen in a vision the whole 
scene of the Last Supper enacted before his 
eyes. But is it conceivable that, if this 
were intended, such an unsuitable word as 
mapéAaBov would have been used? Should 
we not have had éyévero én’ eué Exoracis as 
in Acts x, 10, or dpapa GhOy as in Acts xvi. 
M 


150 


9, or éyevouny ev wvedparte as in Rey. i. 10? 
It seems to me far more natural to regard 
the zapddoats as limited to the words of in- 
stitution ‘This is my body’ &., the rest 
being merely the circumstantial framework. 
Logically expressed it would run ‘I received 


by tradition from the Lord the words > 


spoken by him after the breaking of the 
Bread This is my body given for you. Do 
this in remembrance of me.’ 

I now turn to the first allegation. The 
words rodro wovette eis THY Eunv avapyivnow are 
not found in the first two Gospels, and in 
St. Luke’s they are bracketed by WH.., 
along with other words supposed to be 
borrowed from 1 Cor. xi. 23 foll. 

I will not venture here to oppose the 
verdict of our two greatest textual authori- 
ties given in the Appendix to their Greek 
Testament, ‘there is no moral doubt that 
the words in question were absent from the 
original text of St. Luke’ (p. 24), but I 
confess to considerable difficulty in accepting 
it. This is one of the very few cases in 
which they allow a preponderating weight 
to the Western tradition, represented by 
Codex Bezae, &ec., in opposition to the 
Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Alexandrian and 
the other chief MSS. It would be out 
of place here to discuss the grounds of their 
conclusion, but I may mention one con- 
sideration which I think has weight on the 
other side. Weare told by St. Paul that 
the account he gives of the Last Supper 
was that which he received from the Lord 
and which he imparted to his converts. 
Was it likely that St. Luke, the devoted 
friend and companion of St. Paul, should be 
ignorant of this account, or could knowingly 
have passed it over in his Gospel, written 
several years after the Epistle to the Cor- 
inthians? If the words ‘ this do in remem- 
brance of me’ were interpolated in order to 
give the story in full, why do we not find a 
similar interpolation in the other Gospels ? 
Is it not conceivable at any rate that they 
were omitted, whether purposely or accident- 
ally, from the text of St. Luke by some 
scribe who was familiar with the shorter 
form as given in St. Matthew and St. 
Mark? 

I will not however press this. I will 
assume that WH. are [right in bracketing 
the words. Does it follow that, because 
they are not recorded by the Evangelists, 
they were therefore not spoken by the Lord 
at the Last Supper? The most careless 
comparison of the Gospels shows how pre- 
carious such an inference would be. If we 
do not doubt that the Parable of the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Prodigal Son was really spoken by Christ, 
though omitted in the first two Gospels ; if 
we accept as true the narrative of our Lord’s 
discourse with Thomas and with Peter after 
the Resurrection in spite of the silence of the 
Synoptists ; if we believe St. John’s state- 
ment that all that is written is but a small 
selection from the words and acts of Jesus ; 
then the want of positive evidence is no- 
proof that these words were not uttered 
upon earth, but only revealed in vision to 
St. Paul. Will it be said that they are of 
such transcendant importance that, if spoken, 
they must have been recorded? But the 
instances of omission we have noticed are 
sufficient to prove the fallaciousness of such 
reasoning ; and further it may be doubted 
whether the words would have been felt to 
be so important at the time when the 
Gospels were written. By that time at any 
rate the command ‘ Do this in remembrance 
of me’ was so universally obeyed, that it 
might seem to stand in less need of being 
reported than the other words which are 
said to have accompanied the first institution 
of the Sacrament. ; 

Mr. Gardner however questions whether 
the existence of the Eucharist, as a com- 
memorative feast, can be traced further 
back than St. Paul’s visit to Corinth. 
He thinks that the xAdo.s dprov of which 
we read in the Acts implies nothing 
more than ‘the Feast of Charity held daily 
or at set intervals, when all who professed 
the name of Christ ate and drank together’; 
and he explains this custom as an outgrowth 
of the common life of the Apostles, not 
necessarily connected with the Lord’s Sup- 
per. It was St. Paul’s influence, he thinks, 
which gave a sacramental and commemor- 
ative character to the Agape; and he sug- 
gests that the idea of this development may 
have come to him from his observation of 
certain rites of the Greek religion. The 
cultus of Heroes was a rallying point for 
the tribe, reminding the members of their 
relation to one another and to their invisible 
head. The Mysteries of Eleusis fostered a 
belief in immortality under the symbol of 
the buried corn. Might it not be possible 
in like manner to raise the Agape into a 
Communion, which should deepen the sense 
of the believer’s union with Christ and also 
serve as a pledge of a joyful resurrection 4 

But was it really necessary that a Jew 
should be brought in contact with Pagan 
ceremonial before he could realize the religi- 
ous importance of commemorative festivals? 
St. Paul’s own language is opposed to this. 
He finds parallels for the Christian sacra- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ments in the past history of the Jews (1 Cor. 
x. 2, 3) and in their sacrificial feasts (2b. 18) : 
and surely no Jew who had ever duly kept 
the Passover could have anything to learn 
from Eleusis or elsewhere as to the closeness 
of the tie which bound each Israelite to his 
brethren and to his God. To the disciples 
moreover the commemoration of the Pass- 
over had acquired a new and deeper mean- 
ing since the Last Supper. Christ himself 
was their Passover, their Paschal Lamb 
(Matt. xxvi. 17 foll., John xix. 36, 1 Cor. v. 
7, xi. 24). And though the phrase xddors 
dprov need not, of itself, imply a sacramental 
feast, yet when we find ‘ the breaking of the 
bread’ joined with ‘the prayers’ and the 
attendance in the temple, as part of the 
religious life of the first converts (Acts ii. 
42, 46); when we find the first day of the 
week celebrated, as it would seem, by the 
breaking of bread (Acts xx. 11); and the 
word «Adopa used in the Didaché (ix. 3) asa 
technical word for the Sacramental Bread ; 
I think we can hardly avoid the conclusion 
that the word and the act were associated in 
the minds of the disciples with the solemn 
scene of the Last Supper. St. Paul’s own 
words in 1 Cor. x. 16 76 zornprov Tis edAoylas 
0 edAoyodmev...7dv apTov ov kAGuev Witness to 
the ‘cup of blessing’ as joined with ‘the 
breaking of bread’ in the same religious 
rite, and certainly seem to imply that this 
rite was known to all Christians, though the 
argument on the xowwvia shows that its 
import as a bond of union was not fully 
recognized in Corinth. Moreover the words 
in xi. 2, introductory to the present discus- 
sion, kaOws tapédwxa ipiv tas tapaddces Karé- 
xere, Seem to appeal to the authority of the 
traditions as something independent of St. 
Paul, though communicated by him: and 
this is confirmed by v. 16 «i d€ tis doKed pido- 
VELKOS ElVaL, Hels TOLA’THV ovvnOELaY OvK EXoLEV, 
ovde at éexxAnoiac Tov @eov, where St. Paul 
appeals to the practice of other churches as 
confirming his own decision in regard to the 
position of women. Is it likely that he 
would appeal immediately afterwards to a 
private tradition, unknown to the other 
churches, on the subject of the Sacrament ? 
Would not his injunction in xi. 20 foll. 
have more weight with the turbulent 
Corinthian converts if it appealed to a uni- 
versally accepted tradition of the Christian 
Church, than if understood of a private 
revelation to St. Paul ? 

Prof. Gardner cites two passages as evi- 
dence that St. Paul’s account of the Euchar- 
ist was not admitted by all his contempor- 
aries. One is from the the Didaché, ‘ which,’ 


151 


he says, ‘shows a noteworthy independence 
of the Pauline teaching.’ The passage he 
quotes is the Eucharistic prayer in ch. ix., 
“As this broken bread was scattered upon 
the mountains, and gathered together be- 
came one, so let thy Church be gathered 
together from the ends of the earth into thy 
kingdom,’ which he contrasts with St. Paul’s 
words ‘as often as ye eat this bread ye do 
show forth the Lord’s death.’ But though 
there is no resemblance between Did. ix. 4 
and 1 Cor. xi. 26, yet there is a considerable 
resemblance between it and 1 Cor. x. 17 ¢is 
dptos, tv capa ot wodXot éopev, as on the 
other hand there is a marked resemblance 
between the Pauline account of the Euchar- 
ist and Did. x. 2, 3 edyapucrotpév cou warep 
iyte...drép tis yvdoews kal wictews Kal dbava- 
cias fs eyvepicas jpiv da "Inood tod raidds 
cov...5v, déorora TavToKpaTop, EKTLOAS TO TAVTO. 
évexev TOD dvdpatds cov, Tpopyv TE Kal TOTOV 
Zdwxas Tots dvOpwros cis arodavoew wa cot 
cbyapioticwow, ppiv &€ €xapiow TvEv- 
matikyvy tTpodyv Kal mTordv Kat 
Conv ai@veov dca Tod TaLldos Gov. 

I must own that Mr. Gardner’s other 
reference is one that considerably surprises 
me. He describes the sixth chapter of 
St. John’s Gospel as ‘an elaborate expan- 
sion of the phrases J am the living bread and 
Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath eternal life,’ and he considers that, the 
writer could not have connected these 
phrases with the feeding of the multitude, 
‘if he had accepted their Pauline attachment 
to the Christian Sacrament.’ Might it not 
with equal justice be alleged that because 
St. John records the words to Nicodemus 
‘Except a man be born of water and the 
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
tod’ he must have therefore rejected the 
command given to the Apostles to baptize 
all nations? To me the argument lies just 
the other way. It was because of the danger 
of the misuse of the universally received 
Sacraments, that St, John was at such pains 
to record discourses which dwelt, not on the 
sign, but on the thing signified. The writer 
who lays such stress on the witness of the 
water and the blood (Joh. xix. 34, 35; 1 
Joh. iv. 6—8) cannot have been ignorant of 
their sacramental use, any more than it was 
possible for one like St. Paul, familiar with 
the figurative use of the words ‘bread’ and 
‘food’ in the O,T., to have limited the 
feeding on Christ to the actual participation 
of the Eucharist. 

Those who are conscious of the deadening 
effects of familiarity will be grateful to 
Prof. Gardner for enabling them to look 

M 2 


152 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


with a fresher eye on the subject which he 
discusses, as well as for the interest of many 
of his incidental remarks ; but I cannot think 
that he has succeeded in giving probability 


to any of the main points in his theory as 
to the origin of the Lord’s Supper. 


J. B. Mayor. 


GOODHART’S THUCYDIDES VIII. 


The Eighth Book of Thucydides, edited 
with Notes and Introduction by H. C. 
GoopHART. Macmillan & Co. 1893. 
Pp. xlii., 180. 92. 


For the editor of a library edition of 
Thucydides there is plenty of work ready 
to hand. Much remains to be done even 
after the labours of Poppo; and much has 
been rightly left undone by the producers 
of the modest school editions with which we 
are familiar. It would be for any scholar a 
laudable ambition to make some day a 
library edition of one of the latter books. 
At the same time the learning that is 
essential for the performance of the task, as 
I conceive it ought to be performed, is not 
to be acquired in a few years, but only by a 
laborious and often vexatious study of all 
the authors who have imitated or cited 
from Thucydides. It is only by such study 
that we can hope to settle the disputed 
question of the origin of the Vatican version 
of the text from vi.92,51totheend. That 
the question will yet be settled is not im- 
probable ; and it is to be regretted that an 
editor in many respects so entirely com- 
petent as Prof. Goodhart did not set his 
hand to the plough instead of merely giving 
an able and useful summary of what has in 
the main been already done. 

Prof. Goodhart’s text is based upon 
sound principles of criticism: his intro- 
duction and commentary are throughout 
lucid and interesting: he expresses his 
thoughts with a clearness that may excite 
the envy of less gifted workers in the same 
field : he exercises an independent judgment 
that is not to be imposed upon by any author- 
ity. The results of these conspicuous 
merits are (1) that he has offered here and 
there explanations that are much better 
than those given by his predecessors ; 
(2) that his book is the pleasantest and on 
the whole the most serviceable edition of 
the Eighth Book with which we are 
acquainted. 


1 Prof. Goodhart wrongly says vi. 94. This error 
had been corrected by Hude, 


But alas! the mystery of the Vatican 
remains to be solved. 
glance through such authors as Denys, 
Josephus, Lucian, and Procopius—not to 
mention such servile followers as Dio 
Cassius and Aristides—would do something 
for the text, and much for the illustration 
of the use of words.? Thus, in the case of 
the text, it surely counts for something 
that the readings of C have the support 
of Plutarch against the Vatican. Again, 
in vii. 49 my school edition has 6xvos tis 
kat pedAAnoi eveyévero with Vat. But 
Bloomfield had already quoted Josephus 
Arch. 1, 2 éxvos pot kat pédAnors eyivero in 
support of C’s éyévero. Iam not now con- 
cerned to point out my own blunders ; but 
Bloomfield is scarcely right in saying that 
eveyevero ‘elegantior est quam quae librariis 
originem debeat’; for some of the Vatican 
readings certainly owe their existence to the 
elegantia of the Atticists of our era. 

Wide indeed is the gulf that separates 
the true scholar from the vir doctissimus 
who devours everything and digests nothing. 
But no available detail, however minute, 
should be omitted: by the scholar who hopes 
to generalize from his accumulated know- 
ledge. Prof. Goodhart might urge that a 
biologist who sets out to investigate the 
elephant disregards the parasites that live 
upon the great beast. But to this it may 
be replied that in this case the great beast’s 
anatomy—absit verbo invidia—is here and 
there defective, and can only be recon- 
structed by studying the lesser organisms. 
The first page of the commentary will 
illustrate these remarks. 

Ina very good note on tots ravu orpatwtav 
the editor quotes parallels to show that the 
meaning is ‘ actual soldiers.’ Now it has not 
been noticed that the imitators have their 
fads. Four phrases from the first section of 
this book reappear in Dio Cassius, and he 

2 As far as illustration goes, this has of course 
been done to some extent, especially by Bloomfield 
and by Hertlein (whose MS. notes passed through 
Kriiger’s hands into my possession). But nobody 


has perceived the full importance of the method in 
the latter books. 


Even a cursory 


eee eee ee 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


has a weakness for this use of wavv. All 
his instances (of which some, it is proper to 
add, are quoted by Prof. Goodhart), from 
Tov wavy Karwva éfnAov of 37, 32 to rods mavu 
vorowtas pious éréoxerto of 69, 7, tend to 
show that wavy adds a kind of superlative 
force to words other than adjectives.! In 
the companion passage, c. 89, 2, Prof. 
Goodhart follows Stahl in reading kai 
évvictavTo Te 7dn Kal TA Tpdypata SienepovTo, 
€xovres Hyemovas Tov Tavu [otparnydv] Tov 
év TH OAvyapxia kal év apxais dvTwy, otov 
@npapevyn...kat ’Apiotoxparn. The orpary- 
yov is considered spurious because Aristo- 
crates was not now otparyyos, but takiapyxos. 
It is true that Aristocrates is nowhere 
spoken of as being elected strategus by the 
Four Hundred, and that Thucydides him- 
self calls him taxiarch. But Aristotle Ath. 
Pol. c. 31 in giving the details of the new 
constitution says that the Council was to 
appoint the strategi and the other magis- 
trates for the year 411-410. It is surely 
remarkable that he does not mention 
taxiarchs among the officers to be so 
appointed. There are to be déxa avdpes 
avtoxpatopes (and these were, we know, duly 
appointed), and one hipparch and ten phy- 
larchs. The term orpatyyot is nowhere 
applied to these d€xa abroxparopes as w whole ; 
and we may therefore conclude that the 
taxiarchs and strategi were amalgamated, 
just as one of the hipparchs was abolished. 
Thucydides does not give such minute 
details as Aristotle gives; and it is not at 
all improbable that he includes Aristocrates, 
though a taxiarch, in the expression rtév 
mavy otpatnyav. The sentence therefore 
means, ‘ they (7.e. the rank and file of the 
moderate oligarchic party, as Prof. Good- 
hart explains) began to collect and had for 
their leaders men who were really strategi 
[though not necessarily called so] belonging 
to the oligarchy and in office, as Theramenes 
[who had been appointed strategus, or at 
least one of the joint board of ten] and 
Aristocrates.’ Now I submit that this 
view gives a far better sense than can be 
got out of the sentence when deprived of 
otpatnyav. Without orparnyav the words 
mean ‘the rank and file of the oligarchic 
party ... had for their leaders men who 
were actually members of the oligarchic 
party.’ The reader may judge for himself. 

Returning to the first page of the com- 
mentary, we find that the next note is on 
ayav mavovoit. Prof. Goodhart reads pi 

1 Prof. Tucker’s conjecture in viii., 89 tay mavu 
kpatiorwy for Trav navy orparnyay is probably not 


Greek. 


153 


ovTw ye ayav Tavovol diepOdpOar, Whereas the 
Vatican (B) offers pa) ovtw ye adyav ravovdi 
mwav 6., and yp. B has the pa ovrw ye av 
mavovor 6. of C. Surely dyav should not be 
accepted without further investigation. The 
editor does not explain how it is appropriate 
with ravov0l, 7.€. tavteAGs ; and though the 
passage is imitated again and again by 
Denys, Dio Cassius, Aristides, and Procopius, 
we may search in vain for any hint of this 
ayav. On the other hand, av appears very 
frequently in such expressions: in fact Dio 
Cassius—whether it be himself, or his copyist 
—actually presents us with kav racovdi av 
amoAcoav (54, 33). 

In his historical introduction Prof. 
Goodhart explains very clearly the causes 
that contributed to the Revolution of 411. 
He goes all the way with the modern 
German school in tracing the acceptance of 
Pisander’s proposal to the action of ‘the 
Moderate’ or the ‘Middle Party.’ Few 
errors perhaps have tended more to obscure 
historical perspective than the free use of 
phrases ; and though Prof. Goodhart rightly 
warns us that ‘it would be too much to 
assert that they had a definite programme 
of their own,’ he treats the peoou throughout 
as a political party acting in common. Yet 
neither by Thucydides nor in Aristotle is the 
Revolution attributed to any such party. 
Aristotle, who in the Politics says so much 
about pécor roAira, Says in one place (Ath. 
Pol. 29) that the oligarchy was established 
ouprecbevtwv tov woAAGv ; in another (Pol. 
1304b) he says tov djpov eEnratnoay. Again, 
Pisander, meeting with opposition in the 
Keclesia, appeals to no party; he remon- 
strates with individuals. In this same year 
Lysistrata expounded from the comic stage 
her heroic plan for restoring peace. Not all 
her hearers were of steel ; but she addressed 
her protests not to any party of peo, but 
to individuals. 

We are told by the new school, that the 
policy of ‘the Moderate Party’ since 412 
was War. The zpdfovdos in Aristophanes, 
to be sure, conceives of no other cwrnpia but 
by war. But, if the péoo. were a Party, 
how comes it that Aristophanes himself, 
who is supposed to represent the Party, is 
still staunch for peace in 4111 

ev dmrdcats On Tals TOACoW EoTL Tpla Ep THS 
modews (Pol. 1295 b), The péoo are not 
confined to Athens. Yet in no political 
commotion do we read that they acted as a 
Party. Indeed, the most definite statement 
that we have about them (Thue. iii. 82, 8) 
is strongly against the new school. In 
speaking of the political convulsions of 


154 


Greece Thucydides says: ‘ the citizens who 
were of neither party’—for so Jowett 
rightly renders ra péoa tv Todvrov— fell 
a prey to both.’ The peéoo. were never 
organized ; and could therefore be dealt with 
individually : dov woAd 70 bid. éoov, HKLoTa 
ovoTaces Kat diactaces yivovTat TOV ToALTOV 
(Pol. 1296 a). ' 

Thucydides attributes the Revolution 
entirely to the action of the oligarchs 
(c. 65, 66). A reign of terror was estab- 
lished, with the result that the democrats 
were reduced to a state of passivity. The 
oligarchs won over some ois ov« dy more TIs 
wero és 6Atyapxiay tparécOar, with the result 
that these latter ‘caused [the oligarchs] to 
distrust the majority and at the same time 
secured the position of the oligarchs by 
producing suspicion among the democrats.’ 
TO amLeTOV OvTOL peyiTTOV Tpos Tos ToAXOdS 
érotncav (66, 4). Prof. Goodhart, indeed, 
finds difficulty in these words and proposes 
to substitute dAAovs for toAXovs. But who 
were more likely to encourage the suspicious 
feeling of the oligarchs for the democrats 
than these new converts to oligarchy ? 

The above are some of the reasons why 
the statesmanlike account of Grote is pre- 
ferable to the speculations of German 
virtuost. The péco. are the persons who 
live quietly under any government that 
is based on reason, the men whose support 
the oligarchs might have retained ; whereas 
it is impossible that they should long have 
kept the friendship of the extreme demo- 
crats, because—to adopt one of Machiavelli's 
maxims—‘ they had sided with them at first, 
and favoured their enterprise merely from 
discontent.’ Among the péooufrom the days 
of Solon (himself one of them) the common 
ideas were not, as we are told, limitation of 
the franchise and the abolition of pay, but 
much more whatever was meant for the 
the time being by certain catch-words like 
jovxia, which they made a goddess, and 
cuwtnpta and cwdpocivn. 

The following passages taken from Prof. 
Goodhart’s commentary, in addition to two 
already noticed, are those which it did not 
seem right to pass over without remark. 

C. 2,3 4 6€ Tav Aaxkedaipoviwy modts Tact 
re Tovtois eOdpoe kat padiota OTL ol ex THS 
SuxeXlas airois Eviupaxor woAAH Svvapet, Kar’ 
avayKnvy non TOD vavTLKOdD mpoo-yeyevnjeEvon, 
dpa TO Hpt ws eikos Tapécer Oa ExedAov. Prof. 
Goodhart says that ‘not being a naval 
power before the Athenian expedition, 
Syracuse was not likely to interfere in 
Greek quarrels. Now, however, Athenian 
aggression had compelled her to provide 


‘Rhegium off the seas (iv. 86)? 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


herself with a fleet, and she would be glad 
to use it against Athens.’ Now (1) if 
Syracuse was not a naval power before 415, 
how comes it that in 427 she was able to 
keep the Chalcidian cities of Sicily and 
(2) What 
is the meaning of the hundred Syracusan 
triremes mentioned by Herodotus (vii. 158) ? 
(3) Where does Thucydides say that 
Athenian aggression had compelled Syracuse 
to provide herself with a fleet? That she_ 
had not ventured to oppose the Athenian 
fleet before 413 is surely no proof that she 
had not possessed a fleet. retpOrar ardov 
tov Svpaxooiwv ovres in vii. 21 means that 
she had possessed a fleet, though it might 
not have been one of the three Adyou aka 
(i. 36). (4) At the beginning of the war 
Sparta had hoped to obtain ships from 
Syracuse among other places (ii. 7). But 
none had hitherto been sent. Now, however, 
Syracuse was under an obligation (évayxyv) 
to send a fleet to add (xpocyeyevnpevov) to 
the resources of Sparta. 

In c. 8, 4 to the statement that ddvvacia 
is an Ionic form, add that it is used by Dio 
Cassius and was probably used by Antiphon. 
In c. 13 Prof. Goodhart reads €vydiarodeu7- 
cacat with B and the editors against 
évvroAepnoaca, of the rest. Hudesays ‘nullo 
fere sententiae damno praepositio abesse 
potest.’ The -dua- is probably a conjecture 
made in our era, and due to a tendency to 
use elaborate compounds that may be 
noticed in some of the authors of the 
Empire. ©. 25, 4 ’A@nvaior dé ... rots 
MuAyotows od Evppigavtes, GAN broxwpyoavTwv 
aitav ... ds Edpwv Td GAO oHdV HoTwpEVOV; 
mpos abtiy THv TOAW...7a Ota TiHevtat. In 
support of 75 dé\Xo with a genitive, Prof. 
Goodhart quotes vii. 2 7G dé GAAw@ Tod KvK)ov. 
But grave doubt is cast on the reading and 
the construction in the latter passage. On 
c. 46, 5 there is a good note on the contrast 
between icxvpds and Bpaxis. Procopius, in 
so many respects an admirable scholar, has 
this contrast: e.g. bel. Vand. 2, 20 b rupyov 
Bpoxiv...katapvynv te ioxupdv, and bel. Got. 
1,1 d Hua Bpaxd daiverar To tHS cedrvyS 
hos, ovde 7 THs Oaddcons mpdodos iaxupa 
yiverau. 

C. 48, 7 has ovcow éavtd ye TOY azo 
’ANkiBiddov Kat év TG TapovtT. Tpaccopmevov 
dpéoxew ovder, literally ‘for his part he was 
entirely opposed to the intrigue got up by 
A. and due to the exigencies of the moment,’ 
(cf. Aoywr ev TG TapovTe Kopros ii. 41). Two 
epithets applied to 7a zpacodpeva stamp 


1 | have-before said that I agree in the main with 
Herbst on this passage. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 155 


them with a bad character. They are 
(1) dao *AAKiBiddov, who is not to be trusted ; 
(2) ev 7 wapévte merely, not likely to lead 
to a permanent settlement. Prof. Goodwin 
finds a difficulty that I do not discover. He 
says that the two phrases joined by kai 
must be taken as distinct. Were we to regard 
them as one we should have the very 
awkward expression ‘the intrigues set on 
foot by Alc. and at the present moment. 
In this case év 76 wapdvre would add nothing, 
and xai would be clearly superfluous.’ He 
thinks that dao ’Adx. is very probably 
spurious. But then everything depends on 
discovering the exact meaning of ev ro 
mapovtt. Now, c. 48, 4 has ‘rots pev adXos 
epaivero eVTopa Kat miata, What 
Thue. says in the sections that follow amounts 
to this, that, whereas most persons at Samos 
approved of the new designs, Phrynichus on 
the contrary considered Alcibiades azucros, 
and that the scheme, while it was dazopov 
to Persia, would not settle their. own difti- 
culties abroad.| Then the sentence under 
discussion—ov « o vv éavt@ k.T.A.—is brought 
in to sum up the sentiments of Phrynichus. 
Is it not clear that dro “AdKiBiadov and 
év T® wapovTe are alike indispensable, cor- 
responding as they do in chiastic arrange- 
ment to evzopa and micra ? 

The note on c. 50, 1 ei rowvde Tu. Tepe 
os «.T.X., if it was wanted, should have been 
made clearer. ‘This abrupt commencement 
without any conjunction is usual in Thue. 
in a statement introduced by rovdcde.’ 
Either the readers of Prof. Goodhart’s book 
will know already that this idiom is neither 
confined to rowade, nor to Thuc., and so will 
hardly want the note, or they will be mis- 
led into supposing that this information is 
exhaustive. This point might have been 
investigated, as also might the double use 
of éreAcvra in the formula with which the 
account of a year is closed. It is, for 
example, interesting that in the latter 
expression Procopius substitutes eAnye or 
ireAnye for the tirst éreAevra. Inc. 67, 2 
the editor should have referred to Herbst’s 
ingenious correction ava mevtaxuryxiAlous 
eivetv. Again at the opening of c. 70 he 
should have mentioned that B reads dore 
TOUTW TO TpoTw for as de T+T.T. of the rest, 
Prof. Goodhart follows other editors in brack- 
eting a d€ in one sentence of this chapter, 
and reads re for 6€ with Classen in another. 
Though B’s dore rovr» may be a mere 
conjecture, it is perhaps right, and it has 
the advantage of necessitating no further 


1 For the sense of mépos cf. Euripides, Alcest. 213 
tls ay mépos KaKa@y yévoiro Kal Avots TUXaS & mdpEoTt ; 


change 1 in the text (cf. Herod, vii. 233 Gore 
radta Aé€yovtes wepteyiyvovro). The chapter 
would then run as follows: cre ro'Tw TO 
TpoTe n te Bovdyn ovdev avtevroica imetqjrOe 
Kai ot aAAot.. -yovxalov, ol O€ TeTpaKdcLoL.. 
TOAD peradddEavres Tis TOU Onpov Siouxrjorews 
(wAqv TOUS  pevyovras ov Kariyov.. .) Ta 6& GAAa 
EVELoV KATH KpaTOS THY TOAW, Kal Gvdpas K.T.A. 
In c. 80, 3 the editor proposes to remove 
kat twice with Classen, and to insert 
dppotow after €APotca. An insertion which 
would not involve the removal of either 
kat would be ai pev...vyes...xeyrarbeioa 
<érvyov>, Kal at pev...e\odoa: |sc. ervxor| 
és MiAnrov. The phrase éudce xwpety To Epyw 
in ec. 92, 10 should have been ‘illustrated ; 
e.g. by Joseph. bel. Jud. i. 2, 8 dpoce x. TH 
mpacet. 

In ¢. 93, 3 Prof. Goodhart objects to ro 
dé wav wAnOos...epoBetro wept Tod mavTos 
moAtrikod, and brackets the last word. ‘The 
Scholiast,’ he says, ‘explains 7yovuv wept THs 
mraons modureias, but a little consideration 
will show that both zodurixév and odureta 
are singularly inappropriate words here, for 
the leading idea is exactly the same as in 
c. 53, 3 Kat py wept moduteias TO mXéEov 
Bovdrctcopev...7) wept cwrypias.’ The idea is 
no doubt the same. But surely cwrypia is 
just what is meant by 10 wav woduruxoy in 
this context. So Demosthenes 25, 21 
asserts that he who contributes to the 
mohuTeKos €pavos by obeying the laws 
pepe Ti THS ToTNplas popav 7AnpYN TH 
mwatpio. In ec. 94, 3 as rod idiov ToAEHov 
petLovos |i] dad Tv wodepiwv odx Eas GAAG 
mpos TO Ayseve Ovtos, the editor says that 
‘the general meaning of these words is 
plain. The Athenians realized that the 
hostile movements of Agesandridas were 
a far more serious matter than their own 
internal dissensions.’ To me it seems far 
plainer that the first business here is to 
investigate the meaning of 6 idtos roAEpos, 
and on many grounds it is highly probable 
that the sense is not what Prof. Goodhart 
assumes it to be. C. 96, 2 the note on 
évppafovo. merely serves up again the 
meagre information given in L. and 8. on 
this interesting word. But pacow stands in 
need of further treatment. There appears 
to be some confusion between fjdcow and 
dpacow. In vii. 6 we have xarnp*ax6y, xarep- 
paxOn and karnpp&xOy for variants : katipagav 
is common in other authors. In the aorist 
forms however -pagau is often found, and 
this is doubtless the reason why Photius 
ke. give paga, not paocoey ; e.g. cvppdgavres 
Denys Ant. R. 9, 53; Plut. Pelop. 17; 
cuvéppagav Diod. 16, 4; Dio Cas. 71, 7. 


156 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Xenophon has not cuppdocew, as Prof. 
Goodhart says, but only ovvéppagav. IL 
know of no good prose instance of the 
present. 

To sum up. Prof. Goodhart’s edition 
contains very much that is good. As a 


school edition the book would have been 
perfect ; as a library edition it is not perfect 
only because the editor has not undertaken 
the research that would have made it so. 


E. C. MarcuHant. 





GOODWIN’S HOMERIC HYMNS. 


Hymni Homerici codicibus denuo collatis 
recensuit ALFREDUS GOODWIN, cum quat- 
tuor tabulis photographicis. Oxford : 
Clarendon Press. 1893. £1 1s. net. 


Tue reproach on English scholarship, that 
it has of late years contributed little of im- 
portance to the study of the Homeric Hymns, 
has now been to some extent removed by 
the appearance of this critical edition. In 
Germany, since Baumeister’s great work 
(1860), the literature on the subject has been 
fertile enough. In 1885 Fick applied to the 
Hymns his well-known method of ‘investi- 
gating the original form of the Homeric 
and Hesiodean poems. In 1886 Abel and 
Gemoll produced editions of the collection. 
Abel attempted to restore the digamma in 
those hymns which seemed to observe it 
with most consistency. Gemoll’s edition 
was remarkable for his excellent prolego- 
mena and commentary as well as his careful 
recension of the text ; and this work seems 
likely to remain for some time the standard 
book on the Hymns. Any new edition 
must therefore justify its existence, if not by 
superseding, at least by supplementing 
Gemoll’s Homerischen Hymnen. The present 
edition does not challenge comparison with 
Gemoll in one important particular; the 
commentary which the late Professor Good- 
win intended to form a second volume, as 
well as his emendations and conjectures on 
the text itself, have unfortunately been lost. 
Had the professor lived to complete his 
design, there seems no doubt, to judge from 
the results of his unfinished labour, that he 
would have produced a really fine edition. 
He had already, with the assistance of 
friends, collated the principal MSS., some of 
which were unknown to Gemoll and Abel ; 
and he left critical notes on the fragmentary 
Hymn to Dionysus, and on parts of the 
Hymns to Demeter and Apollo. The task 
of completing the edition was undertaken 
by Mr. T, G. Allen, who modestly omits his 
own name from the title-page, although the 


preparation of the present volume must 
have involved considerable labour and re- 
search on his part. 

Twenty-six manuscripts have been col- 
lated, of which five were not known to any 
previous editor. It is not claimed that 
any of these new MSS. belong to an arche- 
type different from that which is the parent 
of all the rest ; but at least three out of the 
five are important in correcting or confirm- 
ing the readings of the other copies. It 
may be convenient to remind the reader that 
the MSS. have been divided, by general 
consent, into three classes: (1) represented 
by M, the celebrated Moscow Codex, now at 
Leyden, (2) the Paris class, consisting of 
numerous MSS., the best of which are cited 
as ABC, (3) several very important codices, 
i.e. E (Estensis), L (Laurentianus), and D 
(Ambrosianus). Gemoll and Abel have 
chiefly relied upon a comparison of M with 
ELD, especially EL, in settling the text. 
Of the new manuscripts the three most 
valuable are quoted as II, fT, and 8. While 
II agrees closely with L, both in the text 
and marginal notes, I (Brussels) belongs to 
the Parisian class, and is remarkable for 
corrections, made bya later hand, which are 
not found elsewhere. Whether these cor- 
rections are due to the conjectures of a 
learned man, or to comparison with a manu- 
script of a different family, Mr. Allen 
leaves an open question. The former hypo- 
thesis would seem to be the safer. The 
third codex, § (Vatican), collated by Mr. 
Allen, is akin to DELII, but shows con- 
siderable variations, as to the origin of 
which the editor prudently remarks ‘ ambig- 
uum erat opinionem certam proferre.’ In 
one or two instances § alone preserves the 
true reading, e.g. in the Hymn to Apollo |. 
234, xetv’, for xetv’, which was evidently 
wrong, is found in 8 where all the rest have 
blundered. It will thus be seen that the 
apparatus criticus is fuller and more satis- 
factory than that of any former edition. 
Still, it must be acknowledged that the new 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


additions are of little or no help in elucida- 
ting the really corrupt passages in which 
the longer hymns abound. Probably these 
difficulties can never be solved until a 
manuscript descended from a new archetype 
is discovered. 

With regard to the vexed question as to 
the value of M it is interesting to note that 
Prof. Goodwin laid great stress upon this 
manuscript ; in deference to its authority, 
the fragment of the Dionysiac Hymn is given 
the first place in the collection, and is imme- 
diately followed by the Hymn to Demeter. 
In some places this deference strikes one as 
excessive. For instance, in iv. (iii.) 552, 
where M reads ceyvai, and the rest poipar, 
oewvai has been put in the text, while 
Hermann’s certain emendation @puai is rele- 
gated to the foot-notes. oeyvai seems to be 
due to a scribe who saw that the common 
reading Moipar was wrong, and adopted a 
correction on his own responsibility. Again, 
the consensus of manuscript authority is 
followed in preserving the unity of the 
Hymn to Apollo. Since Ruhnken, the 
editors, as is well known, have divided the 
poem into two, the second half being attri- 
buted to the Pythian Apollo. Gemoll was 
the first to uphold the manuscript tradition. 
The whole question is difficult ; but in spite 
of Gemoll’s contention that his view would 
be convincing ‘dem blidesten Auge,’ one 
may perhaps be permitted to think that 
Ruhnken’s view is still tenable. It has 
already been seen that the editors have 
been cautious in their treatment of the text. 
As a rule only those emendations are men- 
tioned in the critical notes which have been 
adopted in the text. The object, in fact, 
is merely to acknowledge their source. 
Occasionally, however, conjectures are put 
in the footnotes without being incorporated 
in the text. If this was done at all, it 
should have been done more completely and 
consistently. The choice of conjectural 
readings seems somewhat arbitrary. Mr. 
Allen gives many which are by no means 
convincing, and omits others which are more 
or less certain. For example, the line in the 
Hymn to Hermes (48) 


meipynvas Ou vara Tdia plvoto xeAwvys 


is admittedly corrupt ; but there are two 
excellent emendations, Aoppivoio (Pierson) 
and tadappivoio (M. Schmidt), one or the 
other being adopted by all recent editors. 


157 


Mr. Allen takes no notice of either, and 
leaves the passage without comment. But 
at line 188, where xvwdadov presents a diffi- 
culty, he mentions Prof. Ridgeway’s védadov 
and Rossbach’s xwdadov, neither of which 
can be said to be more than plausible sug- 
gestions. So again in the Hymn to Demeter 
(1. 64) Ogas vrep is corrected in the text to 
Oeav ot wep (Ludwich). This is attractive, 
but would certainly not command universal 
acceptance ; yet a few lines below (I. 76), 
where péya o” afowat is read for péya alopar 
by both Gemoll and Abel, and where sense 
and metre alike require the insertion of the 
pronoun, the correction is not even given a 
place at the foot of the page. On vii. 55, 
where the obscure and probably corrupt 6dve 
Katwp occurs, we find a note ‘xdtwp defendit 
Ridgeway.’ Compare this with the editor’s 
treatment of xix. 9. Here Mr. Allen marks 
eheAkomevos as corrupt, and ignores Gemoll’s 
successful defence of the manuscript reading. 
The German editor showed by a quotation of 
Thue. i. 42, 4 that ébedAxopevos may very 
well stand in the sense of ‘attracted by.’ 
If (which is scarcely conceivable) Mr. Allen 
did not think this defence worth noting, he 
might at least have quoted Baumeister’s cor- 
rection édelomevos. 

Apart from the question of inconsistency, 
it is to be regretted that the apparatus 
eriticus was not made more complete by the 
mention of emendations when they are 
really improvements. To give a single 
instance, taken at random, Bothe’s brilliant 
ddooter for 6Atyour. (Hymn to Hermes |. 259), 
a correction adopted by Baumeister, Abel, 
and Gemoll, surely deserves to be recorded 
in an edition of this size and importance, 
even though the work is not primarily con- 
cerned with the preservation of such sug- 
gestions. 

These are however merely faults of 
omission, which do not seriously detract 
from the value of an edition dealing with 
manuscript rather than editorial readings. 
The book is one-sided, it is true ; but, as far 
as it goes, it is excellent ; and, after all, one 
has no right to complain that it gives no 
more than it pretends to give. Considering 
the exceptional circumstances of its produc- 
tion, we may congratulate Mr. Allen on 
giving us so much. 

The type and general appearance of the 
volume are all that could be desired, and the 
facsimiles (of leaves from M) are admirable. 

E. E. Srgezs. 


158 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


TWO SCHOOL-EDITIONS OF PLAUTUS. 


1. 7. Macci Plauti Stichus, edited with 
Introduction and Notes by C. A. M. 
Fennett, Lirr. D. University Press, 
Cambridge, 1893 (Pitt Press Series). (Pp. 
xix. 55.) 

T. Macct Plauti Hpious: from the 
text of G. GorTz, with an Introduction 
and Notes by J. H. Gray, M.A. 
University Press, Cambridge, 1893 (Pitt 
Press Series). (Pp. xxxiii. 93.) 


ae 


THESE two school-editions from the Cam- 
bridge University Press are very welcome. 
Nothing is more likely to advance Latin 
scholarship in England than the wider 
reading of Plautus at our schools. And 
surely the time has come when an author, 
whose pure Latinity won the enthusiastic 
praise of Cicero and Varro, may be admitted 
to a larger place in school study, now that 
the text of the plays has been fairly 
established by the critical edition of Goetz, 
Schoell and Loewe, and the difficulties of 
the prosody have received a thorough treat- 
ment from Prof. Klotz (Grundaztige alt- 
ronuscher Metrik, Leipz. 1890). An English 
manual of Plautine Prosody (I am glad to 
hear that one is in preparation) will do 
much to remove the somewhat bewildering 
divergence in the accounts given in the 
introductions to our school-editions, which 
too often follow the older theories without 
regard to later research. The Law of the 
Brevis Brevians (7.e. brevis syllaba brevians 
sequentem syllabam), by which words like 
ave (imper.), cdve, volo, voluptatem, minis- 
teritum may be scanned with their second 
syllable short, seems still to be the great 
stumbling-block in Plautine scansion, and 
to receive a different enunciation from 
every new editor. For my own part, I 
believe that the only simple and correct 
way of explaining the usage is to regard 
it as reflecting the ordinary pronunciation 
of conversational Latin. Quintilian (i. 6, 
21) tells us that in unconventional talk the 
second syllable of ave was shortened, only 
a few punctilious persons taking the trouble 
to give it its proper long sound; and the 
pronunciation avé, cavé, or au(é), cau(é), is 
further proved by Cicero’s story (Div. 2, 40) 
of Crassus mistaking a fig-seller’s cry, 
Cauneas/ Cauneas! (sc. ficus vendo), for 
cave ne eas/, by the fable of Phaedrus 
(App. 21) about a man who mistook the 
caw of a crow for the salutation ave (have), 


and by the spelling causis for cave sis in 
Juvenal 9,120. Similarly Servius, in his 
note on Virgil Aen. 6, 779; says that vidén, 
not vidén, was the current pronunciation of 
his time; and forms like mi(n)steriwm, 
perstroma for ministerium, peristroma show 
that the second syllable of these words did 


not get its full weight in ordinary speech © 


(cf. citd, mod6, mihi, &c.). 

Plautus, who, like the other dramatists, 
aims in his dialogue metres at reproducing 
the conversational Latin of the time, and 
who accordingly uses only the conversational 
form of such a word as avonculus, viz. 
aunculus, to the exclusion of the literary 
form (a quadrisyllable), confines himself to 
scansions like cavé-fawis, volé-scire, voliiptas- 
mea, Philippus (the coin), evidently because 
the second syllables of these words and 
word-groups had in the speech of his time 
a short sound. And the shortening of these 
syllables is clearly due to the nature of the 
Latin accent, which had the effect under 
certain circumstances of reducing a syllable 
long by nature or by position, when a short 
syllable preceded —cavé-fdxis, vold-scire, 
voliiptds-mea, Philippus (the last retaining 
the accent in the same position as the 
Greek ®iAurros). What the precise condi- 
tions were under which this reduction was 
effected, I have tried to show in two 
articles in the Journal of Philology (vol. 
xxi. no. 42, and vol. xxii. no. 43), where I 
have defended two theses :—- 

(1) that no syllable was shortened in the 
metre of the dramatists which was not 
shortened (partially or completely) in the 
ordinary pronunciation of their time ; 

(2) that a naturally long vowel was 
never shortened by the Law of the Brevis 
Brevians, unless in a final syllable. If 
these two theses are right, scansions like 
puilla (Epidicus Intr. p. xviii.), amdbo 
(Stichus Intr. p. xv.), will be wrong. 

The text of the Stichus offers a good many 
difficulties. Dr. Fennell makes a neat 
suggestion for Stich. 420, mussaverim 
instead of mulcaverim of the MSS., though 
the fact that both families of MSS. (the 
Ambrosian Palimpsest (A) as well as the 
Palatine group (P)), agree in the mulcaverim 
makes me disinclined to accept so great a 
departure from their reading. For I take 
it to be a cardinal point in Plautine textual 
criticism that when A and P agree, their 
reading must be accepted, or, if it cannot be 


—— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


accepted, such an alternative reading must 
be proposed as can be imagined to have 
been corrupted in the same way by two 
scribes independently. J/ussaverim does not 
seem to me to be a word which would be 
likely to be changed by two different 
copyists to mulcavertm in this context : 


ere, si ego taceam seu loquar, scio scire te, 
quam multas tecum miserias mulcaverimn ; 


and the quotation (apparently from an old 
writer): ins Placidus (p. 66, 22 Deuerl.), 
mulcantem aerumnas, which is glossed by 
‘misere viventem; aerumna est miseria,’ 
seems to show that mulcare in Early Latin 
literature was capable of being used in this 
way. 

The reading of AP should, I think, 
also be retained in Stich. 67, with iambic 
metre : 


si quis me quaeret, ind(e) uocatote aliqui : 
aut iam egomet hic ero 


(on ind(e) see Skutsch Forschungen i. p. 80). 
In v. 71 I would retain the reading of A 
per, regarding the a patre of P as due to 
a confusion of per with pe the contracted 
symbol for patre : 
éxorando, haud simendam 
operam cénseo, 
gratiam per si petemus, spéro ab eo im- 
petrassere. 


aduorsando, 


In v. 326 the scansion dbsecro has frangit, 
with a Brevis Brevians operating through 
a mute and liquid is questionable, and 
it seems better to retain the reading of 
APs 


quisnam ébsecro has frangit foris ? ubist ? 
tun haée facis ? tun mi hic hostis uenis? 


with two Iambic Trimeters Brachycatalectic, 
as in Pers. 1-2 we seem to have two Iambic 
Tetrameters Brachycatalectic : 


qui améns egens ingréssust princeps in 
Amoris uiis, 


superauit aerumnis suis aerimnas Hercull, 


or with one Anapaestic Tetrameter (like 
the two following lines) : 


quisnam Oobsecrd has frangit foris? tibist ? 
tun haec facis? ttin mi huc hostis uenis ? 


In v. 354 the pinge humum of AP is per- 


159 


haps as likely to be a corruption of pinse 
humum (cf. Ennius Zrag. 396 R. cubitis 
pinsibant humum) as of jfinge hwumum. In 
v. 501, given by Ritschl as : 


quaen eapse deciens in die mutat locum, 


can the QVAENEATEsST of A and the quaene- 
tipsa of P point to an original eapte,' a 
by-form of eapse, and in v. 620 the 
sATERISEST(?) of A and the saterest of P 
to an original sute rest (re est), with sate, the 
older form of sat? In v. 684 the émnibus 
médis of AP is contrary to the metrical 
accentuation of this phrase in the dialogue 
metres of Plautus and Terence (Omnibus 
modis Pseud. 1074, Rud. 290, Hec. 701), 
and should be changed, with Goetz (and 
Fennell), to omnimodis, a change which may 
also be required in a line of the Canticum 
in the third scene of the fifth act of the 
Casina (v. 941): 


<nam iam> dmnia palam stint probra: 
omnimodis occidi miser. 


The beginning of v. 700 is very puzzling, 
but the amica of P, and the MATRICEM(‘) 
of A may perhaps be referred to an 
original mica or. micem, the Imperative or 
Dubitative Subjunctive of micare, to jerk 
one’s fingers in the game of ‘ mora’ : 


SAG. miei uter utrubi 4ccumbamus, sTI. abi 
tu sane stperior, 
or 
SAG. micem uter utrubi accumbamus ? 


if we may suppose the matri-(!) of A to be 
an expansion of the supposed contraction 
MI. Scarcely less difficult is v. 713 where 
the Palatine MSS. (we have not the reading 
of A) offer : 


bibe, tibicen: age si quid agis, bibendum 
hercle hoc est : ne nega, 


and where neither Dr. Fennell’s scansion 
quid agis bibéndum nor Prof. Klotz’s bibén- 
dum are quite satisfactory; a less violent 
departure from the reading of the MSS. 
than Ritschl’s bibe si bibis, for age siquid 
agis, would be the omission of agis : 


bibe tibicen : age, siquid bibendum, hercle 
hoc est: né nega, 


for the collocation age si quid would in- 


1 Cf. Corp. Gloss, Lat, ii, 192. 39: suapte r@ idle 
(MSS, suate). 


160 


evitably suggest to a copyist the usual 
phrase age si quid agis, which occurs two 
lines below, v. 715 age si quid agis, accipe 
inquam. 

That a school-edition of a play of 
Plautus should take note of every pamphlet 
or magazine article bearing on the play is 
not to be expected. 
think that it would be well to make a 
practice of reading through the annual or 
biennial notices of Plautine research which 
are to be found in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, 
before writing even a school-edition. It 
seems hard that Prof. Buecheler’s sedutraque 
in Stich. 106 (Wolfflin’s Archiv. i.), rem 
dinam Epid. 316 (Rhein. Mus. xxxv.) should 
be ignored, with Dr. Skutsch’s redd(e) 
cantionem Stich. 768, differor difflagitor 
Epid. 118, and Prof. Nettleship’s caperrat 
Epid. 609 (Contributions to Latin Lexico- 
graphy p. 403), and above. all that Prof. 
Studemund’s Apograph of the Ambrosian 
Palimpsest, the most important of all the 
recent contributions to the study of Plautus, 
should be treated as if it had never 
existed. 


In the Stichus, vv. 441-2 are printed: 
Sagarinu 


seru . ham meae, 


Still I cannot but. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


though almost the whole couplet has been 
deciphered in A through Prof. Studemund’s 
unremitting labours : 


Sagarinus scio iam hic aderit cum domino 
suo, ; 

seruos homo, qui mtsz temper: ad cenam 
meat, 


(similarly with vv. 427 sqq., 590 sqq.). In- 
the note on LHpidicus v. 476 Mr. Gray 
gives TRIDIS as the reading of A, though 
the Apograph points to TRYDIS, and so on. 
Dr. Fennell however in his preface explicitly 
states that ‘the text is based on the 
apparatus criticus of Ritschl’; while Mr. 
Gray, who avowedly follows the text of 
Goetz (ed. 1878), tells us at the end of his 
Introduction (p. xxxiii.) that ‘questions of 
reading are only noticed in the notes where 
the text printed differs from Goetz’s 
edition,’ so that recent additions to our 
knowledge of the text of the plays are 
necessarily excluded. This-is no doubt a 
common practice in our school-editions, but 
whether it is a wise one is doubtful. 


W. M. Linpsay. 


KAIBEL ON ARISTOTLE’S CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS. 


Stil und Text der Todrrela ’AOnvaiwy des 
Aristoteles von G. KarsBex. Berlin. 
1893. 8 Mk. 


Leavine to Wilamowitz-Mollendorf the 
discussion of all the historical questions 
raised by the “A@yvaiwv Todureia, Kaibel 
addresses himself to the consideration of 
the style in which the treatise is written 
and to questions of textual criticism. 
The volume falls into two parts accord- 
ingly. 

In the first part the writer is not con- 
cerned to vindicate the Aristotelian author- 
ship of the ’A@. II. On that point he and 
his colleague made up their minds as soon 
as the book was published (see the preface 
to their text, 1891) and he _ professes 
not to discuss any of the difficulties 
that have suggested themselves. It is easy 
to see, however, that he frequently has 
them in mind when writing. Many points 
on which he dwells are, though he does not 


say so, points to which attention has been 
called by other people, and he is really, 
though not avowedly, dealing with what 
they have said. If he had examined the 
various details of language which have 
been urged as pro tanto arguments against 
Aristotelian authorship in some more avowed 
and more systematic way, this part of his 
book would have gained considerably in 
thoroughness and interest. At present it 
is scrappy and imperfect. He dwells on 
some things and entirely passes over others, 
while the method and object of the dis- 
cussion hardly appear. Another thing also 
strikes me as somewhat unsatisfactory. 
He points out various features of style in 
the book without indicating sufficiently 
how far they belong to the other Aristo- 
telian writings that we possess. Apart 
from any question of authorship, and 
allowing for the fact that the ’A@. II. is a 
treatise of a different kind from any other, 
it would still have been worth while to 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


compare it more fully and carefully with 
the rest in respect of the features on which 
he dwells. 

Adhering to the high opinion of the book 
which was expressed in the preface above 
referred to, he holds that we can _ see 
in it ‘in greater or less degree’ the merits 
which the critics of antiquity discerned 
in Aristotle’s more popular’ writings. 
The flumen orationis awreum is there: grace, 
copiousness, &c., are not wanting. Even 
into the second and descriptive part of the 
book he finds that the author has known 
how to breathe a sort of life, so that for 
instance the training of the ephebi and the 
examination of the horsemen have the 
liveliness of actions performed by indi- 
viduals. He is indeed reminded by it 
(p. 63) of an economical but tasteful house- 
hold, where the best use is made of rather 
scanty means, and a certain impression is 
conveyed of there even being something to 
spare. He considers, however, that in some 
places Aristotle had not put his finishing 
touches to the work, and was prevented by 
illness or death from publishing the book 
himself. 

Some pages are given to an examination 
of the cases in which hiatus is admitted, 
but no reference is made to Mr. J. W. 
Headlam’s article on the same subject in 
this Review (v. 270). There is a very 
incomplete notice of rare or late words and 
phrases occurring in the treatise. It has 
been observed that the author of the 
"AO. II. once or twice in referring to some 
fact that has been recorded by Herodotus 
makes use of Herodotean and un-Attic 
words that yet are not used by Herodotus 
in the passages in question. Kaibel has 
the strange theory that Aristotle did this 
to indicate that he was drawing from a 
foreign source. After dwelling on the 
simplicity of style with which the treatise 
is written and on the absence of metaphor, 
he goes on to examine in some detail the 
political language of the treatise, that is, 
the use of such terms as zAjOos, dypos, 
Snpaywyeiv, wAeovegia, ke. (He points out 
incidentally that dyAos does not occur at 
all, nor éfovoia in the sense common in the 
Politics.) From this he passes to the 
structure of the sentences, showing them to 
be a mixture of the A¢éis cipowévy and the 
A€kts KaTeotpaypevn, Such as Demetrius pre- 
scribes for historical writing, and examining 
here the use made of various conjunctions 
and particles. Finally he studies the extent 
to which symmetry is observed in the parts 
and clauses of sentences and the degree 


161 


in which rhythm is regarded, maintaining 
on the latter point that the sentences are 
not constructed with anything like the 
minute and laborious attention to rhyth- 
mical Jaws which Blass discovers in them. 
After some remarks on the order of words, 
he concludes this part of the book by 
comparing the author in respect of style 
with lLysias and contrasting him with 
Ephorus and Theopompus. 

The second part of the book is a collec- 
tion of critical notes on the text, dealing 
with most of the passages where there can 
still be any doubt as to what should be 
read. So much has been written on the 
subject in former numbers of this Leview 
that I will content myself with mentioning, 
as samples, a few things that have interested 
me in reading the book. But it should 
first be stated in general terms that all 
serious students of the ’A@. II. will find 
much of interest and value in these notes. 
They are professedly critical, but necessarily 
deal from time to time with matters of 
interpretation and with history. Many 
things in them might perhaps be disputed, 
but the writer brings ample knowledge 
and generally good judgment to his work, 
and future editors and critics are bound 
to make considerable use of what he has 
written. 

In dealing with ch. 3 he makes a 
thorough examination of the author's 
practice with regard to adding or not adding 
the definite article to official titles (Oecpo- 
Oérar &c.) and a few other words. In the 
same chapter he thinks that 7a dpxca roujoewv 
may mean ‘will keep their oaths,’ while 
recognizing the difficulty of adapting this 
meaning to the context, and that dwpedy 
must be governed by zapaxwpycavTwy, in 
which case avri must be wrong. In iv. 3 
he considers zpo tod ravras éfe\Gety to mean 
‘before the whole number had entered on 
office and gone out again.’ In v. 2 he takes 
exception to kawvonéevnvy (which Blass now 
maintains to be legible in the papyrus, 
where Mr. Kenyon read kai yap érj\avver), 
and suggests, what seems to me unlikely, 
kappowevnve I am glad to find that he 
condemns écopévr’ alay (Naber’s suggestion, 
adopted in Hude’s text, in place of écopéav 
yatav) on exactly the same grounds on which 
I questioned it in this Review (vii. 212). 
At the beginning of Solon’s lines in xii. 4 
he would read agovnarady in the sense of 
‘ guiding’ the people as a driver his horses. 
In xvi. 10 he would alter xka@yjxwy to aviKwv. 
No parallel for such a use of xaOyjxwv has 
yet been produced, and in this as in a few 


162 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


other cases (e.g. the repeated use of emt cl7r0- 
wevos = dmroAeurdpevos) We have to choose 
between emending the text and enlarging 
the list of strange words or strange uses 
that occur in it. In xvii. 4 for éyypev yap 
he thinks éxéynuev yap required, and in xxii. 
8 would apparently rather read évros Depato- 
rod Kat SkvAXalov <piy> xaroxeity than alter 
évrés to éxrés. In xxvi. 1. he considers 
jyeuova to need no epithet, because a NYEwav 
is more than a zpoordrys, but he admits 
vedtepov to be untenable, and reads the 
unsatisfactory vwOpdrepov. In xlviii. 4 he 
is content with rats dyopais, explaining it, 


as Dr. Sandys and Mr. Kenyon do, of tribal 
assemblies, though he quotes Blass’s state- 
ment that the papyrus has something 
different (rats dv....ais). In 1xi. 1 he quarrels 
with zodepnel, which, as I pointed out long 
ago, will hardly bear the meaning required, 
and which may be added to xa6jxwv and 
éAerromevos mentioned above. He boldly 
substitutes nyetraz. 

On many passages the last word is far 


from having been said in this book, but it. 


is a useful contribution to the literature of 
the subject. : 
HERBERT RICHARDS, 





NEW EDITION OF BRUNS’ 


Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui ed. C. G. 
Bruns. Editio sexta cura Th. MomMsEn! et 
O. Grapenwitz 1893. Mks. 7. 


Tue fifth edition of this admirable and 
most convenient work was noted in our 
first volume (p. 157) when it appeared about 
seven years ago. The new edition has 
retained the benefit of Mommsen’s services 
and has gained those of a co-editor. Prof. 
Gradenwitz is specially known for the 
attention he has paid to the language of 
Roman law and his skill in detecting inter- 
polations in the Pandects, or, in other words, 
in noting the alterations made by Justinian’s 
digesters in the extracts from the old 
lawyers of the two first centuries, which 
they pieced together to make the manual 
for legal practitioners called Justinian’s 
Digest. 

Tn substance the new edition of Bruns’ 
collection is the same as the old, but there 
are some additions, some changes of arrange- 
ment, and of course that general revision 
which is always present when Mommsen 
takes or retakes a workin hand. The book 
is now divided into two parts, separately 
procurable : the first containing the remains 
of laws and legal documents, which have 


FONTES IURIS ROMANI. 


come to us, chiefly in inscriptions, outside of 
Justinian’s works ; the second containing 
extracts of the like general character from 
Festus, Varro and other writers whose 
works we have. The new inscriptions are 
welcome, but are not very numerous or 
important. In the second part are added 
the legal formulae which occur in Oato’s 
treatise On Husbandry extracted from Keil’s 
new edition. Anyone who wishes to measure 
the progress of the last sixty years in 
ascertaining the text of inscriptions and in 
collecting and arranging them with adequate 
insight and industry should compare with 
the present book the somewhat similar collec- 
tion published by Spangenberg from Hau- 
bold’s remains in 1830. The difference is 
due above all other things to Mommsen’s 
marvellous energy, knowledge, and ordon- 
nant faculty. He and his band of scholars 
and allies have sought out everywhere the 
best evidence and combined it on numberless 
tasks and problems of the highest interest 
in the language law and history of the 
Romans. This book is only a sample of 
what they have done in many other fields of 
antiquity. 
H. J. Rosy, 





— . 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


163 


BELOCH’S HISTORY OF GREECE. 


Griechische Geschichte, von Juttus BELocn. 
Erster Band bis auf die sophistische 
Bewegung und den_ peloponnesischen 
Krieg. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. 
Triibner. 1893: pp. xii. 637. Mks. 7.50. 


Dr. BeLocH some years ago published a 
small instalment of a History of Greece in 
Italian: he has now returned to his native 
tongue, and in German has published the 
first volume of a new History. The whole 
work is to be completed in two volumes: 
the one now before us, which consists of 
rather over 600 pages, carries the narrative 
down to the middle of the Peloponnesian 
war. The book is therefore one of those 
‘middle’ histories which have become so 
popular lately: one of the class to which 
Busolt’s, Holm’s or Mr. Abbott’s belong ; 
in which the author, without allowing him- 
self the licence of length which the older 
historians usurped, aims at giving in a short 
space a really complete account of the whole 
development of the Greek nation ; the kind 
of history, we may say in passing, which, if 
not the most valuable when written, is 
certainly the most difficult to write. The 
natural objection against a new book of 
this kind is that where we have so many a 
fresh one is superfluous. No one who 
has read the book will repeat the sugges- 
tion: Dr. Beloch’s point of view is too 
original, his treatment is too novel and too 
vigorous ; no one, even of those who dis- 
agree with him most, can read his work 
without learning much. In some ways it is 
a great advance on all previous histories. 
There are two points that call for special 
notice: the treatment of what may be 
‘ealled ‘prehistoric history’ and the treat- 
ment of the intellectual and material side 
of Greek life. It is in the former that the 
innovations are boldest; they are partly 
positive and partly negative. He is the 
first historian who boldly accepts the posi- 
tion that history cannot begin until the 
time that writing was invented. He refuses 
to accept the conclusions which so many 
authors have tried to establish by a com- 
bined interpretation of myths, ritual, 
legend, mythology and archaeology. The 
whole story of the migrations he dismisses 
as unauthenticated ; the attempt to build up 
the early history of Attica out of the 
legends of Theseus, the worship on the 


Acropolis, the story of Dionysus or Ion, 
he rejects. He is I think the first historian 
who has pointed out on what very unsatis- 
factory evidence is based the common view 
of the prevalence of the Phoenicians in 
some very early period; the arguments 
drawn from the names Phoenix and 
Kadmus he exposes, while he insists on the 
importance of the fact, too often under- 
estimated, that neither Homer nor the 
Greek vocabulary give any support to the 
view that the Phoenicians had played any 
part in early Greek history more important 
than in later times. Those who know what 
confusion has been introduced by the Phoe- 
nician hypothesis will welcome this as a 
great and permanent improvement. It is 
in regard to the period of Mycenaean civili- 
zation and the origin of the Spartans how- 
ever that he is most at variance with modern 
writers. Those who have read his article 
in the Lheinisches Museum will be aware 
that he holds that the builders of Mycenae 
were identical with the inhabitants of the 
Peloponnese in later times, that there was 
no great break in culture caused by an in- 
vasion from the North, that the Dorian 
invasion never took place, that in fact the 
Dorians as a tribal union never existed at 
all, and that the name was transported to 
Europe at the same time as the Homeric 
poems, having belonged originally to a 
small group of cities in Asia. This view he 
repeats in the book before us. It is im- 
possible to discuss this theory here ; it will 
be enough to point out that supposing he 
were right in tracing a continuity of life, 
unbroken by any serious invasion, from the 
period of Mycenae to the sixth century, it 
would then follow, as he says, that the 
Dorian invasion must be classed among un- 
historical legends; for if this event took 
place before, not after, the building of 
Mycenae, it happened at a period so remote 
that no authentic record or tradition of it 
could have survived ; and the evidence even 
of Tyrtaeus would be quite valueless. What 
he has omitted to consider is the peculiar 
nature of the Spartan institutions ; he simply 
states that they probably had come from 
Crete, and does not consider the evidence 
they afford that their civilization was of 
very modern origin, nor has he in the least 
succeeded in proving his dictum that the 
origin of the name Dorian is to be found in 


164 


Asia Minor. It is indeed impossible in this 
part of the work to ignore a certain tend- 
ency to dogmatism, and the reader will find 
statements which are at best possible 
suggestions made with the same ‘certainty 
as well known historical facts; e.g. (p. 300), 
speaking of the double kingship at Sparta, 
he says: ‘at Sparta in the eighth century or 
earlier a compromise was made between 
nobility and monarchy ; the race of the 
Eurypontidae was placed at the side of the 
old ruling house of the Agiadae, so that the 
heads of both families held the royal dignity 
together.’ In this and other places he 
would have done better to have followed his 
own course and confessed to ignorance. 

Passing to the later period, he has most 
valuable and instructive chapters on the 
development of trade and colonization, the 
progress of agriculture and the arts: to 
gain room for his full treatment of these 
matters, the political history is compressed, 
but the narrative is always clear and forci- 
ble, and critical as he is, he avoids the 
danger so common among modern writers ; 
he lays stress always on what is known, not 
on what is unknown. I may mention that 
in dealing with early Athenian History he 
questions the authenticity of some of the 
Solonian laws quoted by Plutarch; against 
Wilamowitz-Moellendorf he rejects the 
Aristotelian account of Draco’s legislation : 
like all modern writers he attaches great 
importance to Peisistratos. 

His treatment of the fifth century is 
marked by the endeavour to bring into pro- 
minence the civilizing influences of the 
growth of science and popularization of 
knowledge ; he lays much stress therefore 
on the teaching of the sophists and philo- 
sophers. In common with many modern 
writers, he is opposed to the view that the 
Periclean age was the highest point of 
Athens: he maintains that the Greeks were 
more civilized and more humane in the next 
century, and is even prepared to dispute 
Pericles’ title to be considered a great 
statesman—‘ at least,’ he says, ‘we seek in 
vain for a single creative thought that is 
his’; a statement that is scarcely worth 
criticism. It seems as though the desire to 
break through the conventional treatment 
had at times led him to state an opinion 
simply because it is new and paradoxical. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


He attempts eg. to show that the Attic 
Tragedy had no civilizing influences on life, 
while a few pages later he claims for the 
sophists what he denies to the poets: that 
the ‘ mob,’ as he says, was not much affected 


-by seeing a play of Sophocles is no doubt 


true, but what reason is -there to believe 
that the ‘mob’ was much affected by the 
ethical teaching of Protagoras? He does 
full justice to the ethical importance of the 
sophists, both scientific and practical, but 
few will follow him when he places them - 
‘in ethical matters unendlich hoher than 
Socrates and his whole school.’ These 
chapters deserve very careful study ; here, 
as in the earlier parts of the book, he carries 
out with more consistency that independent 
criticism of traditional views which Grote 
began, and though as in these cases {he is 
too apt to throw out as a challenge to the 
world an exaggerated statement, the greater 
part is full of most valuable and original 
matter. The account of the politics of the 
period seems to be identical with that given 
in his former work on the subject. 

The book is written with singular clear- 
ness and vigour ; it is scarcely necessary to 
say that his style is that of the new school 
of German writers, a matter of some im- 
portance to English readers ; there are no 
involved or obscure periods; the book is 
also so admirably printed that reading is a 
pleasure. He has not that grace of lan- 
guage which makes Holm’s History so agree- 
able, but on the other hand he is not like 
some of the modern books, bald and lifeless. 
As in the opinions so in the style we can 
see the constant endeavour to break through 
the cloud of romance which often obscures 
Greek history: in both he often goes 
beyond the line ; he overdoes the attempt 
to deal with the Greeks as ordinary men ; 
the language is not always dignified and 
refined, but this is easily excusable in a book 
where each word is carefully chosen; and 
if the perpetual succession of heavy-weighted 
sentences, each containing the uncompro- 
mising assertion of an unconventional 
opinion, often rouses in the reader the desire 
to disagree, the opinion is at least always 
fully thought out and stated with admirable 
precision. 

J. W. Heapiam, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ROHDE’S PSYCHE, PART II. 


Psyche-Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube 
der Griechen, von ERWIN Rowpe. Zweite 
Hiilfte. Freiburg & Leipzig. 1894. 11 Mk. 


By an instructive coincidence Mr. Verrall’s 
article on ‘the problem of the Bacchae’ in 
last month’s issue appears almost at the 
same moment as the second part of Dr. 
Rohde’s Psyche. Mr. Verrall is concerned 
of course primarily with the methods of 
Euripidean criticism, Dr. Rohde with a no 
less well worn subject, the belief of the 
Greeks as to the immortality of the soul ; 
they meet and pass in the dark and, all un- 
knowing, flash brilliant light each on the 
other’s track. 

The first part of Dr. Rohde’s book was 
reviewed on its appearance (Classical Review, 
1890, p. 376) and need not here be resumed 
—the writer sought and sought in vain, 
through an examination of Homer, of local 
cults, of burial rites, and even of the 
Eleusinian mysteries, for traces of anything 
that could fairly in the modern sense be 
called a belief in the immortality of the 
soul. Such a belief, in the days of the 
Orphics, of Plato, and later of Plutarch, un- 
questionably existed—where, when did it 
rise? The answer comes in the second part 
of the book just issued and comes as a sur- 
prise, almost a paradox. This tenet, the 
touchstone of any religion worth the name, 
the keystone of spirituality, was the main 
doctrine of the religion of—Bacchus. For 
his ‘spiritual blindness,’ for his misconcep- 
tion and persecution of this divine revela- 
tion, Pentheus died. 

Examine the genesis of other Hellenic 
worships, of the rites of Athene, of Hera, 
of Apollo, even of Demeter, and we come 
on quite other, quite material beginnings— 
we come on ploughing ceremonies, seed- 
sowing ritual, sympathetic magic of every 
kind to secure practical well-being, the 
fulfilment of primitive needs, of the 
fertility of crops and herds and of man 
himself. Bacchus we think of perhaps as 
the wine-god ; such an old Dendrites there 
certainly was, but the impulse of the 
Thracian god was, to begin with, quite other. 
The keynotes of his religion are two, 
ecstacy and its correlative askesis—its end 
and aim one, absolute communion, even 
identity with the divinity worshipped, and 
thereby—in the only possible way—attain- 
ment of eternal life. Here is the difference 

NO, LXVIII, VOL, VIII, 





—no worshipper of Athene or Apollo or Hera 
seeks to be made one with his god, seeks by 
fasting, by dancing, by exhaustion, by in- 
toxication, by any other form of asceticism, 
to stand out of his own nature and be made 
one with the god, to put off this corruptible 
and put on the incorruptible. The way is 
hard: ‘zodAol pév vapOnxopdpor, radpor SE Te 
Bdxyo...’ ‘Many bear the narthex but few 
there be that are made one with Bacchus.’ 
And what a madness it must have seemed ! 
To the rational self-contained carefully 
poised Greek, what foolishness! And since 
we do not understand, let us condemn with- 
out delay, let us dub it dangerous, disre- 
putable, immoral, a peril to hearth and 
home. So common sense, so the thoroughly 
British Pentheus, and yet— 


“O blest who glad at heart has known 
The deep things of the god his own, 
And lifts up holy hands ; 

And who with sacred cleansing rites 
Ts one in soul upon the heights 
With Bacchus’ sacred bands.’ 


To some their souls were more than their 
social status, and of these were honourable 
women not a few. 

It has long been.a puzzle whence the non- 
Hellenic, the spiritual, element in Greek 
religion came; it is so obviously un-Greek 
and yet so interpenetrates the Greek spirit. 
Some have attributed it to the East, some 
to the sub-stratum of a pre-Hellenic ‘ Pelas- 
gian’ population, some to Orphic sectaries. 
This last is in part, according to Dr. Rohde, 
true. The Orphic dogmas are a formulation 
and a reassertion of the old Thracian immi- 
grant faith. And as such they become at 
once intelligible. How is it a man can 
become one with the god? By virtue of the 
fact that his soul is a particle of the divine 
nature. Dionysos Zagreus is torn to pieces ; 
each of us has a fragment of him within 
us, and by virtue of this divine spark or 
atom each of us is a potential Bacchus. 
To dance till we are dizzy, to toss our heads 
in ecstasy, may not seem to us the best 
means of promoting spirituality, but to any 
one who has watched either the dancing or 
the howling dervishes at work the whole 
faith becomes historically intelligible. The 
dervish, by a process of rocking himself to 
and fro in a hideous and almost dislocating 
fashion to the music of a rude chant, or by 

N 


166 


turning steadily on his own axis, becomes 
slowly possessed. That he is regarded as 
actually divine is shown by the fact that at 
the close of the dance he has miraculous 
powers, and is allowed to step upon sick 
children before him by way of healing them. 
Immortality is but one attribute of divinity. 


Mantic art is another ; and here Dr. Rohde’ 


makes the interesting remark- that oracular 
possession, as opposed to the mere Homeric 
soothsaying, is always of Dionysos, not of 
Apollo. Soothsaying is rational (or rather, 
which is for our purpose the same, irra- 
tional) ; oracular possession is non-rational, 
emotional, religious. Dionysos held Delphi 
and possessed the Delphic priestess — a 
priestess note, not a priest—before Apollo 
came and slew the dragon of superstition. 

I have stated Dr. Rohde’s view ; the evi- 
dence will be found in the countless pas- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


sages cited in his notes. It will not be 
forgotten that in Thrace dwelt the Getae 
who, Herodotos noted, held themselves to 
be immortal, and that the oracles of Diony- 
sos were given among the Bessae exactly in 
the way that the Pythia prophesied at 
Delphi (Herod. vii. 11); and, to take but 
one other instance, when Plutarch writes to 
comfort his wife for the loss of their little 
daughter, he bids her remember ra puotixa 
ctpBora tov wept tov Audvucov épyiacpov &- 
cvvicpev GXAHAOLS ot. KOL_WwVOUVTES. 

Well indeed might those honourable 
women, the Bacchae, goddesses themselves, 
one with the god, come to their high estate 
through xd@apors and déoxyors, inspired Sibylls 
of a new and higher religion, bid the mad 
fools forsake the revels of Aphrodite and 
seek austerer joys upon Olympian heights. 

J. KE. Harrison. 





[The following article arrived too late for insertion in its proper order at the beginning of 


this number. | 


THE ‘PROSPECTIVE SUBJUNCTIVE’ IN GREEK AND LATIN. 


In the Classical Review for Feb. 1893, 
Professor Sonnenschein maintained a thesis, 
then of five or six years standing in his own 
teaching, that the subjunctive in a number 
of relative clauses in Latin is prospective, 
not, as generally held, final. His list in- 
cludes clauses with dwm, donec and quoad, 
clauses with anteguam and priusquam, and 
clauses of result. 

With regard to the two first sets of 
clauses, it gave me pleasure to learn that 1 
could now appeal to Professor Sonnenschein’s 
support for a doctrine which I also had long 
held. Notes taken by a student of mine 
in 1886 show that I was teaching it at that 
time, and I am sure that the notes of others 
would carry the teaching back a number of 
years further. From the beginning I gave 
the evidence which I am about to offer. 
Like Professor Sonnenschein, I have long 
meant to publish upon the question ; but, 
since | was engaged upon a piece of work 
of larger range, in which I planned, by the 
comparative method, to lay the foundations 
for an intended treatment of the Latin 
Modes and Tenses, I withheld my view on 
this point, together with a number of other 
results to which I had been led. Accord- 
ingly, in my discussion of the force of the 


tense in clauses with antequam, priusquan, 
dum, donec and quoad, in my article on the 
Sequence of Tenses in Latin, published in 
1887 in the American Journal of Philology, 
viii. 1, I contented myself with saying that 
the subjunctive represents the act as ‘ pic- 
tured,’ as ‘existing in somebody’s brain at 
a certain time which the narrator has in 
mind,’ which force I illustrated, @ propos of 
Livy’s priusquam inde digrederentur (i. 26, 
1), by the phrase ‘with that departure in 
view. By ‘in view’ I meant the same 
thing that Professor Sonnenschein means 
by the phrase ‘in prospect.’ And similarly, 
in the concluding paper, in ix. 1 (1888), in 
dealing with the imperfect and pluperfect 
subjunctives to indicate how I should pre- 
pare the way for a doctrine of the ‘Sequence 
of Tenses, I contented myself with saying 
‘the imperfect subjunctive pictures an act 
as in process, or a state as existing, at a 
certain past time which the speaker or 
writer has in mind ; and it also pictures an 
act or state as looked forward to from such 
a past time.’ ‘The pluperfect...also pictures 
a finished act looked forward to from such 
a time (a future perfect from a past point of 
view).’ By ‘looked forward to from a cer- 
tain past time’ I meant to cover, together 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


with something else, the same thing that 
Professor Sonnenschein means by the word 
‘ prospective.’! 

Professor Sonnenschein had apparently 
reached his idea by divination of the real 
feeling of the passages he was examining. 
My own idea, under the same dissatisfaction 
with the accepted theory of an origin in the 
final clause, was reached by the comparative 
study of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, and 
was the result of the new conception of 
method in syntactical investigation which 
came to me from reading Delbruck’s ‘ Ge- 
brauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im 
Sanskrit und Griechischen,’ a book which, 
though it contains no word upon Latin, [ 
regard—ut more LHibernico dicaom—as the 
most important treatise on the syntax of the 
Latin verb yet published. In Professor 
Sonnenschein’s article referred to, though 
the doctrine of the existence of a subjunc- 
tive with future meaning is supported by a 
reference to Homer's éy@ d€ Kev aidros Awpan, 
and to the Attic construction of the future 
indicative with 6zws, corresponding to the 
Latin present and imperfect subjunctive, 
and to évOa py tis OWerar of Az. 658 and év6a 
py tes eioidor of Trach. 903, nothing is said 
of the Greek constructions exactly corre- 
sponding to the Latin constructions with 
dum, donec’and quoad, antequam and prius- 
quam, namely, clauses with «is 6 ke, éws ay, 
mpiv av and the subjunctive. 

In the Classical Review for Feb. 1894, 
Professor Sonnenschein, discussing the 
‘Remote Deliberative and the Prospective 
Subjunctive and Optative,’ suggests that the 
affinities of the ‘extended subjunctive 
deliberatives’ and the ‘remote optative 
deliberatives,’ so-called, ‘are to be found, 
partly at any rate, in those clauses, chiefly 
temporal, in which the subjunctive (some- 
times without av) marks an action as in 
prospect in the present, and the optative 
(always, or nearly always, without dv) 
marks it as in prospect in the past.’ My 
article, printed just above his, will show that 
I, for one, cannot accept his suggestion ; for 
the prospective subjunctive generally has 
dv, while the subjunctive idiom which 


1 It must have been a similar and still greater 
reserve that made Professor Sonnenschein, in his note 
on Plaut. Rud. 456 in his edition of 1891, go so far 
even as to seem to accept the traditional starting- 
point of the constructions in question, in the words 
‘so regularly with antequam, priusyuam, donec, quoad, 
dum, when an action is to be marked as merely con- 
templated or in prospect (the original sense of will or 
purpose having been completely lost).’ For myself, 
I do not believe that the subjunctive after dum ever 
expressed will or purpose. 


167 


Goodwin, Sidgwick, and Tarbell have treated 
as an extension of the deliberative never 
has it. In this connexion, Professor 
Sonnenschein cites zpiv paOys (Phil. 917), 
éws pabys (Az. 555), and refers to the con- 
nectives és 6 and és ov in Herodotus, and 
expe or pexpe ov in Thucydides. He also 
says: ‘to my mind, “I am waiting till he 
come” (ordinarily pévw éws av ey) and “T 
was waiting till he should come” (€xevov ews 
€or) are not equivalent to “I am (was) 
waiting in order that he may (might) come.”’ 
In so doing, he has touched upon the Greek 
constructions to which he did not refer 
before, but, in employing the vague phrase 
‘sometimes av’ instead of dealing histori- 
cally with the question of its presence or 
absence (see footnotes in the present paper, 
under 7 (a) and (6)), and in citing examples 
of zpiv and éws without it, he seems to have 
failed to recognize the immense importance 
of this particle, and so to have overlooked 
the convincing proof which it might have 
afforded him for the view that the subjunc- 
tive after dwm, antequam, etc., is prospective 
and not an expression of purpose. 

My general conception of the question in 
its larger aspect (stated as briefly as I can 
put it) is as follows : 

The Greek subjunctives fall into two 
families, the Subjunctives of Will (volitive) 
and the Subjunctives of Anticipation (anti- 
cipatory or prospective). The volitives 
never have av; the prospectives sometimes 
do not have it, though they generally do, 
even in Homer and in the Attic plays, and 
always do in Attic prose. In Homer and 
the Attic plays, accordingly, the absence of 
av proves nothing, though it creates a pre- 
sumption in favour of the volitive ; while 
the presence of ay is proof positive that we 
are dealing with a prospective subjunctive, 
not a volitive. This doctrine Delbriick 
holds for the independent sentence, but not 
for the dependent clause. In an article upon 
the ‘Origin and Later History of the Clause 
of Purpose in Latin, Greek and Sanskrit,’ 
in the Proceedings of the American Philo- 
logical Association for July 1892, I have 
endeavoured to show that Delbriick is wrong 
as regards the dependent clause ; that the 
presence of dy is sure evidence of the pro- 
spective idea, or at least of the over- 
powering influence of some related con- 
struction containing that idea; and that we 
accordingly must distinguish two kinds of 
final clauses, the volitive, as with iva (xe 
oceurs only once in Homer in 94 instances), 
and the prospective, as in the clause with 
és xe,—a clause which betrays its force by 

nN 2 


168 


finally going wholly over to the future 
- indicative, and which is like an occasional 
future indicative clause in English (as in 
the sentence ‘I will send you a plumber 
who will mend your pipes’). I refer to 
this article of mine in passing, in order 
that the authority of Delbriick may not be 
quoted against me on the supposition that 
T have not considered his view. 

This test, once established, as I think it 
unquestionably can be, makes fairly easy 
the division of the Greek subjunctives mto 
two groups of constructions, and throws 
into the dependent constructions of the 
second of these, the prospective, a number 
of kinds which I will briefly enumerate as 
they stand in my mind. 


(1) Characterizing Clauses, expressing ex- 
pected behaviour, experience, plight, dc. 
[clauses answering the question ‘of what 
kind of aman, thing, &c., are you speaking ?’ |, 
as in obk éo@ bs Ké o” EAnou(Y 345; cf. Z 448, 
A 164, & 108, © 373). 

(2) Clauses in which the idea of Character 
and the idea of Plan (Purpose) both exist ; 
as in ddpa 0 ’AyirAj hepeuev, TA KE Ovpov 
invn (2 119; cf. B 192, v 400). 

(3) Clauses of Plan (Purpose), with no 
such idea of character ; as in 7yeudv’ éoOAov 
dmacaov, Os Ke pe Kelo ayayyn (o 310; cf. B 
212), and the future indicative construction 
in Q 152; also many clauses with as ay (or 
ke), and ddpa ay (or ke). 

(4) Dependent Questions of Expectation, 
as in tis 0’ 010, ef Ké more ot Bias aroricerat 
ehddv ; (y 216). 

(5) Substantive Clauses (possibly or 
probably descended from Dependent De- 
liberatives) with as ay (or xe) and dzws ay 
(or xe) after dpdZoua: and the like. 


(6) Clauses of Future Conditions. 


(a) Clauses of General Condition in the 
Future, as in ov dé k éyav amdvevbe paxns 
€Gedovra. vonow (B 391). 

(6) Clauses of Particular Condition in 
the Future, as in «i dé x’ ére mporépw mapa- 
vngopar (e 417). 

(7) Determining Clauses, or clauses an- 
swering the question ‘ what man, what thing, 
what manner, what time, &., are you 
speaking of %’ 

(a) Clauses of Exact Determination, as 
in Keivyos 6 avd mept Kppt pakaptatos ééoxov 
dAwy, 6s Ke o eédvorcr Bpicas otkdvd’ ayayy- 
tat (€ 158), as ay ey cir, reOdpeba mavres 
(2 74), dmmor’ av nByon (a 40), paore viv, 
eiws Ke Boas eri vnas iknat (P 622; a clause 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of anticipated limit,—‘ during all the time 
up to the time when’),! rédpa yap otv Biordv 
Te TeOV Kal KTHMAT €doVTal, Odpa KE KEY 
tovtov éxy voov (8B 123; a clause of antici- 
pated duration of time,—‘ during all the 
time during which’). 

(6) Clause of Less Exact Determination, 
as In pH wot erawnons mpl ay €idns avdpa 
cadyvews (Theog. 963,—at any time before 
an anticipated limit”). ; 

Now no one who should look at a scheme © 
of this general sort, and at the same time at 
a scheme of the volitive subjunctives,— 
which would include, e.g., prohibitions, 
exhortations, deliberations, purpose clauses 
with tva, ete..—would hesitate, in making 
out his scheme for the Latin conglomerate 
called the subjunctive, to put the clauses 
with dum, antequam, and the like into the 
company of clauses with éws ay and zply ay, 
rather than refer it, as everybody before 
Professor Sonnenschein has, to the final * 
clauses, and so put it into the company of 
prohibitions, exhortations, concessions, and 
the like. Of so much importance to the 
Latinist is the little Greek particle av. 

But its importance goes much further. 
The schemes for the volitive and the pro- 
spective in Greek being made out, I should, 
in making up comparative schemes for 
Greek and Latin together, confidently put 
many Latin constructions which have here- 
tofore been regarded as ‘ final,’ e.g. hortatory 
or volitive, into the prospective family, and 
should suggest a number of other examples 
which I suspect will, with equal confidence, 
ultimately be so placed. Some of these 
follow, arranged by the same numbering as 
above. 

(1) Characterizing Clauses, expressing 
expected behaviour, experience, plight, etc., 
as in nascetur...Caesar, imperium Oceano, 


1 “Ews and eis 8 always take xe in Homer, and, ac- 
cording to Dindorf’s Lexicon, always take &y in Aes- 
chylus, as they do in Attic prose. The occasional 
omission cf &y in Sophocles is accordingly simply an 
intentional archaism. 

2 The subjunctive with zpiy first takes ay in The- 
ognis and Solon (see Sturm in Schanz’s Beitrdge). 
(They stand without it in Homer’s six examples, in 
Hesiod’s two, and in a hexameter of unknown origin 
given in the Psewdophocylidea, 87—examples which 
I plan to discuss in a later publication.) They take 
it in Aeschylus’ six examples, in the larger part of 
the twenty-two of Sophocles and the nineteen of 
Euripides, and in all of the twenty-four of Aristo- 
phanes, and always in Attic prose. It is evident, 
then, that the subjunctive is the prospective, and 
that Sophocles and Euripides are archaizing. 

3 The word ‘final,’ as it has been universally used, 
has had the the idea of purpose, aim, &c., associated 
with it, and the dum and antequam constructions 
have been classed with the wt and ze constructions, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


famam qui terminet astris (Aen. 1, 286 ; ef. 
Eel. 4, 34; Sen. Hp. 10, 2; 4.7; 8,11; 
venient saecula...quibus...ingens pateat tellus, 
Sen. Med. 378). 

(2) A few dependent Questions of Expect- 
ation, expressed by the present subjunctive, 
or, after a past tense, by the imperfect. 

(3) All Clauses of Future Conditions from 
a past point of view. 

(4) Determining Clauses. 

(a) Clauses of Exact Determination, as in 
hic est ille dies, quom gloria maxuma sese 
nobis ostendat, seu vivimus sive morimur 
(Enn. Ann. 414; cf., as probable examples, 
Iuv. 16, 42, Liv. 8, 7, 7, Verg. Hel. 8, 7) ; 
aderat tam annus quo...sortiretur (Tac. 
Agric. 42; so in a great quantity of 
examples after secondary tenses; cf. cwm 
cresceret, Plin. Hp. 6, 16, 12); also after a 
past tense, clauses with dum, donec, and 
quoad, in the sense of ‘so long as.’ After 
primary tenses, on the other hand, the 
clauses last named have already gone over 
into the future indicative (like the 6s-clause 
of purpose in Greek) before the time of the 
earliest literature. 

(6) Clauses of Less Exact Determination. 

The subjunctive clauses with anteguam 
and priusguam, dum, donec and quoad, as 
already said. 

As for the constructions of purpose, I am 
inclined to think, for reasons given in the 
article upon the purpose clause cited above, 
that the prospective plays no important 
part in the formation of the Latin apparatus 
for the expression of this idea, while on the 
other hand I believe that the prospective 
subjunctive was one of the factors (volitive, 
prospective, true optative, and true potential) 
that combined to establish the subjunctive 
condition in Latin (from the present point 
of view as well as from the past). 

With another of the opinions expressed 
by Professor Sonnenschein in the article first 
named I am not in harmony, namely, that 
the ‘ consecutive ’ clause is probably a devel- 
opment of the final. According to what 1 
have already said, I should divide a part of 


169 


the Latin conglomerate mode into the volitive 
subjunctive and the prospective subjunctive. 
The remainder, which corresponds to the 
Greek optative, I should divide into the sub- 
junctive of wish [true optative in Greek], 
the potential subjunctive or expression of 
that which may happen [optative with ay in 
Greek], and the subjunctive of ideal cer- 
tainty, as in conclusions, softened assertions, 
and the like [optative with av in Greek], a 
measurably different thing from the poten- 
tial or expression of an ideal possibility, 
though the grammars have but the one word 
‘ potential’ and make no distinction. Now, 
as I have tried to show in the same number 
of the American Journal of Philology by a 
comparison with the Greek, the starting 
point of the Latin consecutive subjunctive is 
in the last named modal power, the subjunc- 
tive of ideal certainty [Greek optative with 
av|—a very different thing from the final 
subjunctive, which seems in Latin to be a 
volitive. As for one particular idiom, re- 
ferred to by Professor Sonnenschein, the one 
seen in sentences like nec quod (quid) spera- 
ret habebat, it is, as I have said in an article 
on the ‘ Extended and Remote Deliberatives 
in Greek’ [Zransactions of the American 
Philological Association for 1893, now in the 
press], a question whether it is to be re- 
garded as a construction parallel to the 
extended subjunctive in Greek, or as a case 
of the (true) potential expressing capacity, 
serviceableness, adaptability, etc.,— a con- 
struction briefly discussed in my Cum-Con- 
structions, p. 107, and made the easier to 
believe in on account of frequent Homeric 
examples like od ydp ot mapa vies érjperpor 
Kal é€ratpor, of Kev pw méepmoev (€ 16), In 
the former case, which is what Professor 
Sonnenschein seems to have in mind, the 
prospective subjunctive is not concerned, 
since the universal absence of ay in the 
Greek construction of the extended delibera- 
tive shows the latter to be of volitive 
origin. 
Wa. GARDNER HALE. 
University of Chicago. 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plastik. Kunst- 
geschichtliche Untersuchungen von ADOLF 
FurtwaneLer. With 140 illustrations in 
the text, and an atlas of 32 plates. 
Giesecke and Devrient: Berlin and Leip- 
zig. 1893. 85 marks. 


Every student of archaeology must be 
aware of the need for a new gathering 
together of the scattered material of Greek 
art, for a large reconstruction in place 
of -the isolated examination of individual 
monuments. To quote Prof, Furtwingler’s 


170 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


words, in a preface which is not the least 
valuable portion of his new work: ‘ Any 
one who tests with unprejudiced mind 
the state of our knowledge of Greek art, as 
exhibited in the ordinary text-books, must 
be ashamed to see how much less we appear 
to know the monuments, or to profit by 


them, than did Winckelmann in his day. 


Winckelmann’s history of art is entirely 
based upon his own personal observation, 
availing himself continually as he did of a 
wide range of examples. Our modern 
histories of art habitually draw from one 
little group of monuments—a tiny and 
trivial fragment cut off from the great body 
of extant works. Ever since Brunn indi- 
cated with broad touch the characteristics 
of the artists, and laid down the main lines 
of their history—so far as these can be 
gathered from the writings of the ancients— 
we have practically been content to repeat 
what he built up, merely decorating here 
and there with some “selected” monument 
the fabric that he built.’ While admitting 
that this modesty and caution have had 
considerable justification, Furtwiingler main- 
tains that the time has now come when, by 
the application of the comparative method, 
a picture of Greek art may be given ‘ very 
different from the pale and meagre image 
we have hitherto possessed.’ The achieve- 
ments of Furtwiingler in every branch of 
archaeological research have already won 
him a European reputation, and any work 
from his pen would naturally be awaited 
with interest and a confident expectation of 
thoroughness and suggestiveness. But in the 
present book not only has Furtwingler sur- 
passed himself, but he has produced a work as 
far above the timid trifling, at which he so 
justly cavils, as are the works of Winckel- 
mann or of Brunn. This is none the less 
true because he has embodied his researches 
in the modest form of separate essays, with- 
out attempting an exhaustive history. He 
has been content for the present to break 
with the old routine, to lay down a solid 
substructure and to indicate the lines which 
future historians of Greek art must follow. 
Needless to say that in his reconstruc- 
tions Furtwingler makes great use of those 
Graeco.Roman copies which are almost all 
that is left to us as a record of the master- 
pieces of ancient statuary. Of late years, at- 
tention had naturally been somewhat diverted 
from these copies by the excavations carried 
on in Greece; archaeologists, lured on by the 
hope of finding originals, have a little for- 
gotten that the greatest originals—with few 
exceptions—had been carried away long ago 


by their Roman admirers, and that it is still 
to Italy and to the galleries containing works 
found on Italian soil that they must turn in 
order to get some knowledge of the cele- 
brated statues ‘that once marked an epoch 
or initiated a new era.’ But the book is 
not only concerned, as its title implies, with 
Meisterwerke. One important chapter is given 
to the temples on the Athenian Akropolis, 
and the book closes (perhaps a little ir- 


relevantly) with an essay concerned with - 


Aeginetan art, with the throne of Apollo at 
Amyklae, and the chest of Kypselos. It 
seems so necessary to call attention to the 
rich and new material of the book, that in 
the following remarks I shall attempt not 
so much a ‘review,’ as an analysis of the 
contents of each chapter. 

1. Pheidias. At the beginning of the chap- 
ter Furtwingler brings before us the im- 
portant contribution he has made to our 
knowledge of Greek sculpture,—the discovery 
of a copy of the Lemnian Athena. On 
the tale of its disguise (for years it had 
been exposed to the scrutiny. of every 
passing archaeologist), and ultimate recog- 
nition, hangs many a moral; for our pur- 
pose it is sufficient to signalize the skill and 
acumen of the discoverer. ‘The Dresden 
Museum had long possessed two statues 
with identical torsos, but different heads. 
The head of the one was foreign to it,’ and 
the helmet of the other was a modern 
plaster addition. Some little while ago, 
when the statues of the Dresden Museum 
were being freed of their restorations, the 
head from which the helmet was removed 
turned out, to every one’s surprise, to be a 
replica of the beautiful Bologna head, 
that has passed for the head now of an 
Amazon, now of an ephebe ; it was therefore 
hastily assumed that this type of head 
could never have belonged to a torso of 
Athena ; colour was given to the assumption 
by the evident signs of breakage in the 
neck ; this second head was therefore also 
removed, and the two Athenas were left 
headless until Prof. Furtwingler visited 
Dresden. On examining the torsos and the 
head, he first made the startling discovery 
that this replica of the Bologna head did 
actually and unmistakably belong to the body 
from which it had been removed (proving his 
point by the likeness of the marble, by the 
correspondence of the old marks of 
breakage and of the muscles) ; then, looking 
at the second torso (like so many antique 
statues, it was constructed to have the head 


1 Tt is a replica of the head of the Farnese Athena 
(Naples). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


let into it), he tried the simple experiment 
of adjusting to it a cast of the Bologna head. 
It fitted with the utmost accuracy ef voila 
tout/ It had long been acknowledged (by 
Michaelis, Puchstein, etc.) that the Dresden 
torsos were Pheidian in character, while the 
fifth century characteristics of the head are 
obvious to all. The statue, as now recon- 
structed, Furtwiingler proves by a long 
analysis of its artistic qualities, of its dress, 
of its pose, of analogies to be found to it on 
vases or on coins, to be a copy in marble of 
the bronze Athena, executed by Pheidias 
about B.c. 440 for the Athenian cleruchs of 
Lemnos. The goddess was represented clad 
in the simple Doric tunic, bareheaded, 
holding her helmet in her left hand and 
grasping her spear in her right, her head 
slightly turned towards the Propylaea as 
if to bless the departing colonists. Ac- 
cording to Furtwingler, the Lemnian stood 
on the way from the great bronze Athena 
‘Promachos’ to the Propylaea. 

The elaborate criticism by which Furt- 
wangler shows the relation of the ‘Lemnian’ 
to previous, to contemporary, and to later 
works, forms the basis of a chapter that gives 
individual substance to a great artist,—an 
artist whose name had hitherto been more 
typical of a famous epoch than suggestive of a 
distinct personality. The ‘Lemnian recalls 
in scheme and construction a group of 
statues the best known of which is the 
Apollo of Mantua. But this Apollo is 
itself closely connected with the works of 
that first Argive school that centred round 
Hagelaidas. In the artist of the Apollo 
Furtwingler would recognize Hegias, the 
master of Pheidias. And thus, more satis- 
factorily than has been done hitherto, he 
reconciles the two conflicting traditions by 
which Pheidias has been made the pupil now 
of Hegias, now of Hagelaidas. For the art of 
Hegias is so closely connected with that of 
the old Argive master as to suggest that he 
was his pupil. Hegias transmitted the 
canons of the first Argive school to his own 
pupil Pheidias; and it would be an easy 
mistake for a critic more observant in style 
than learned in dates to call Pheidias a 
pupil of Hagelaidas.! 

In the February number of this Review Mr. Ernest 
Gardner has endeavoured to do away altogether with 
the Hegias tradition by proposing to force Hageladas, 


or more possibly “HyeAddas, out of the HOY or 
INNOY of our MSS. of Dio Chrysostom (instead of 
the perfectly satisfactory HT 10 Y of K. O. Miiller), 
As Mr. Gardner merely suggests that the three letters 
AAA ‘wight easily lead to the contraction of the 


171 


A young Pheidias, even more closely con- 
nected with the Hagelaidas school than 
when he executed the Lemnian, is revealed 
to us in the charming Apollo discovered in 
1885 in the Tiber, and now in the Zerme 
Museum at Rome.? To the same period of 
the artist’s career may be attributed a fine 
head in the Palazzo Barberini (Fig. 5). 

In a few vigorous pages Furtwangler 
vindicates for Pheidias the authorship of the 
sculptured decorations of the Parthenon (of 
the pediments and the frieze and of the more 
advanced metopes). He well points out the 
strong analogies that exist between the 
Parthenon sculptures and the figures on the 
Strangford shield and on the basis of the 
Lenormant Parthenos : ‘it is on these for 
instance that the striding Poseidon and the 
Hermes have their closest parallels. The 
pictorial trait that finds expression on the 
pediments, in the rocky seats and the waves 
of Okeanos, corresponds to the traces of un- 
dulating ground on the shield. The rising 
Helios with the sinking figure of Night are 
genuinely Pheidian in their spirit, and could 
be presented on the pediments in an abbre- 
viated form, because they had already been 
expressed elsewhere in full’ (¢.e. on the 
basis of the Parthenos). In the fine Ana- 
kreon Borghese (now in the Jacobsen collec- 
tion) Furtwingler sees the copy of a statue 
executed by Pheidias in his Parthenon 
period ; the original would be identical with 
the Anakreon on the Akropolis (Paus. i. 25). 
Pheidian also are a superb bearded head of 
the Museo Torlonia (Mus. Torl. No. 50) 
another of the Museo Chiaramonti (Fig. 10), 
name,’ and as he does not give the palaeographie form 
of the emendation he proposes, it is somewhat diffi- 
cult to judge of its soundness. For the present 
Furtwingler’s explanation seems simpler than a 
violent textual emendation. 

2 On the other hand F. thinks that works like the 
the Vatican ‘ Aktaion,’ a head in Munich (Fig. 21) 
and one in the Capitol (Fig. 4), though of the same 
period as the Terme Apollo, are not to be attributed 
to Pheidias but to some contemporary. This may 
be Praxias the pupil of Kalamis. To this same 
Praxias F. inclines to attribute the Athena with the 
wolf helmet of the Villa Albani and the ‘ Lysias’ in 
the same collection. For Kalamis he claims the 
Hestia Giustiniani, the Apollo on the Omphalos, the 
charioteer of the Capitol, the so-called Aspasia, 
ete. A number of Apollos that have generally been 
roughly classed under Overbeck’s ‘ Cassel type’ are 
apportioned by F., after a minute analysis of their 
stylistic qualities, among the following different 
artists : Hegias—Apollo of Mantua, Kritios—Apollo 
Pitti (in the private apartments of the palace; it is 
astonishing that this exquisite statue should have 
passed unperceived until now) ; Kalamis—Apollo on 
the Omphalos ; Myron—Cassel Apollo ; Pheidias— 
Apollo of the Terme; the Apollo of the Capitol 


(Helbig, Fiihrer 500) F. attributes to a sixth artist 
whom he leaves unnamed. 


172 


finally an Aphrodite and Eros (?) from a 
double term in Madrid. 

When Pheidias was at the height of his 
fame the Eleians invited him to make the 
ivory and gold Zeus for the temple at 
Olympia, whither he took Kolotes and 
Panainos to help him in his task. Nor is 
thereany reason to suppose, says Furtwangler, 
that his intercourse with Athens was inter- 
rupted, for in B.c. 432 occurred at Athens 
the famous trial and condemnation of the 
artist, followed by his death in prison. In 
this point Furtwingler adheres rigidly to 
the ancient tradition, as against the opinion, 
put forward lastly with much force by Dr. 
Loeschcke, that the Olympian Zeus was made 
before the Athena Parthenos. It had been 
understood from Plutarch (Pericles, 31) that 
Pheidias was tried immediately after the 
completion of the Parthenos. But, as 
Furtwingler well points out, there is nothing 
in Plutarch’s narrative to imply this 
directly or indirectly. The whole context 
on the contrary shows that Plutarch 
imagined the trial of Pheidias to have 
taken place about the same time as that of 
Aspasia, that is immediately before the 
beginning of the Peloponnesian war. The 
interval between this date and the comple- 
tion of the Parthenos allows sufficient time 
for the erection of the Zeus. There is 
therefore no reason to refuse acceptance to 
the perfectly clear literary tradition that 
makes the Zeus posterior to the Parthenos 
in date. As to the Eleian trial it is ad- 
mitted on all parts to be a mere clumsy 
double of the Athenian one, but Furtwingler 
points out very justly that the story of an 
Eleian process could never have grown up at 
all had it not been an undisputed and well 
known fact that the Zeus was executed after 
the Parthenos. 

Jt will be seen that in this career of 
Pheidias there is no room for that phantom 
_ of modern archaeology, the ‘ Kimonian 

Pheidias.’ The theory that the artist had a 
first public career under Kimon is based on 
two passages of Pausanias attributing to 
him the authorship of the votive offering for 
Marathon set up at Delphi, and that of the 
Athena Promachos at Athens. But, Furt- 
wingler observes, the Delphic offering must 
have been put up like all other votive monu- 
ments of the kind, directly after the event it 
was intended to commemorate, at a date too 
early even for a ‘Kimonian Pheidias.’ It 
is evident that in the eyes of Pausanias, 
Pheidias had: become the Marathon artist 
kat e€oxnv—this probably because of the 
attribution to him of the Athena Promachos, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


which Pausanias (like others of his day) 
believed to be a votive offering for Mara- 
thon. However, as Pausanias, who had been 
careful to state that an inscription on the 
Delphic offering described it as a dexaryn of 
the spoils of Marathon, mentions no such 
inscription in the case of the ‘ Promachos,’— 
further, as in the oldest mention of the 
Promachos (Dem. /. LZ. 272) she is only 
alluded to as the ‘great bronze Athena,’ 
Furtwingler inclines to deny altogether any: 
connection with Marathon. He further ~ 
disputes the Pheidian authorship of the 
statue ; Pausanias, the only authority for 
the attribution, is notoriously ill informed 
on the subject of Pheidias; passages from 
other writers prove him to have been mis- 
taken in at least three of the works he put 
down to this artist (the Nemesis of Rham- 
nus, the Mother of the Gods at Athens, an 
Athena in Elis). No need therefore, says 
Furtwangler, to prefer the testimony of Paus- 
anias to that of a scholion to Aristeides (Over- 
beck, S.Q. 640), where a certain Praxiteles is 
named as the artist of the Promachos. So far 
so good. When however Furtwangler (further 
developing a theory of K. Lange’s) proposes to 
recognize this Praxitelean ‘ Promachos’ in 
the Medici torso, and proceeds to reconstruct 
an Elder Praxiteles whose works bear such 
strong stylistic resemblance to those of 
Pheidias that it is hard to tell them apart, 
it becomes more difficult to follow him. 
True, the Medici torso is somewhat more 
advanced in treatment than the Parthenos ; 
but Furtwiingler himself compares the 
draperies to those of the Mattei Amazons 
which he subsequently claims for Pheidias, 
and he nowhere succeeds in establishing 
strong enough reasons to warrant out 
attributing to any artist but Pheidias 
a work so distinctly Pheidian in character 
as the torso. Nor is there anything con- 
vincing in the analysis by which Furt- 
wingler claims for this same Elder 
Praxiteles the Jacobsen head, Fig. 25 (in 
which he inclines to see a copy of the head 
of the Promachos), the head of Iacchos (Fig. 
26), or the Petworth head of Apollo (Fig. 
27). The slightly emotional character 
which he notes in these heads, the open 
mouth, and a certain pictorial asymmetria— 
are precisely characteristic of Pheidias, who 
began life as a painter, and who so con- 
stantly betrays his pictorial tendencies in 
the Parthenon sculptures. But even if 
there were an artist—mnot Pheidias and yet 
closely related to him—to whom the works 
just noted should be attributed, this artist 
could hardly be the Elder Praxiteles who, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


if Pliny’s story about the charioteer made 
for a chariot by Kalamis can be trusted, 
belonged rather to the artists of the Kalamis 
group. If a Praxiteles made the ‘ Proma- 
chos,’ which is highly probable, then the 
conclusions lately put forward by Dr. 
Gurlitt (Anal. Graeciensia, Graz, 1893) as to 
the archaic character of this statue cannot 
perhaps be as summarily disposed of as 
Furtwingler assumes in his appendix (p. 
739). It is true that the inscription attri- 
buting to a Praxiteles one of the Monte 
Cavallo colossi—in which Furtwiingler is un- 
doubtedly right in seeing copies of works 
of the Pheidian epoch—is difficult to recon- 
cile with the theory of an archaic Praxiteles. 
But much stress cannot be laid upon inscrip- 
tions that do not date from further than the 
fourth century a.p. (cf. Loewy, Jnschr. Gr. 
Bildh. No. 494). 

Furtwingler’s reconstruction of the Elder 
Praxiteles seems somewhat fantastic ; on the 
other hand he has succeeded in accentuating 
the artistic personalities of the pupils of 
Pheidias, Agorakritos and Alkamenes. Espe- 
cially happy is the recovery of the Hephais- 
tos of Alkamenes in a torso at Cassel (Fig. 22) 
and the identification of the colossal ‘ Ceres’ 


of the Vatican Rotonda as a copy of the — 


Nemesis which Agorakritos made for Rham- 
nus. 

Furtwiingler closes his truly admirable 
chapter on Pheidias by following the traces 
of the great master’s influence, far from 
Greece out in the cities of Sicily and Magna 
Graecia. There are Pheidian characteristics 
in the head of Athena on the coinage of the 
Athenian Thurii,—in the lovely Victories of 
Terina,—in the Arethusa of Kimon from 
that famous series of ‘Syracusan medallions’ 
which Mr. Arthur Evans’ charming pages 
have lately called into such deserved pro- 
minence. The same Pheidian influence 
makes itself felt in the vases of the Magna 
Graecia workshops—but it is scarcely pos- 
sible even to indicate the numerous parerga 
with which Professor Furtwiingler enriches 
his book. 

2. The Temples of Athena on the Akropolis. 
In order clearly to understand even the 
sculptures of the Parthenon, it is necessary 
to establish the mutual relations of the 
various temples on the Athenian Akropolis. 
A considerable portion of this second 
chapter is naturally devoted to a discussion 
of that ‘old temple’ discovered in 1885 by 
Dr. Dérpfeld, immediately to the south of 
the Erechtheion, which has been acknow- 
ledged on all hands to be identical with 
the Hekatompedon burnt down by the 


173 


Persians in B.c. 480; in addition Dr. 
Dorpfeld has repeatedly and vigorously 
maintained that the temple (without its 
outer colonnade) was restored after the 
Persian invasion, and that it continued in 
existence down to the days of Pausanias or 
even later. However, this contention has 
failed to satisfy most archaeologists ; it is 
now discussed at great length not only by 
Prof. Furtwingler in the present work, but 
by Mr. J. G. Frazer in a recent paper 
contributed to the Hellenic Jowrnal (vol. 
xiii. pp. 153-187). The points of agree- 
ment and of disagreement between Furt- 
wingler and Frazer may be briefly noted: 
both writers dispute (as we think success- 
fully) Dérpfeld’s contention, that opistho- 
domos in inscriptions of the fifth and fourth 
centuries refers to the western cella of the 
‘old temple’; both deny the possibility of the 
existence of the ‘ old temple,’ when once the 
Erechtheion with the caryatid porch had 
been built : and both maintain, in accordance 
with E. Petersen, that in the most ancient 
times there were not (as Dorpfeld asserts) 
two separate temples of Athena and of 
Erechtheus, but that these two divinities 
were worshipped in a single joint temple 
(Homer, J/. ii. 546 &e.). Furtwiingler con- 
siders this to have been the ‘old temple,’ 
which he believes was the sole temple on 
the Akropolis previous to the Persian wars ; 
Mr. Frazer on the other hand sees the 
ancient temple of Athena and Erechtheus 
in an old Erechtheion occupying the site 
of the later Erechtheion ; he further thinks 
that the ‘old temple’ (ze. the old Hekatom- 
pedon) was erected subsequently to the 
original ‘ Erechtheion’ at a date impossible 
to determine at present; and he sees no 
evidence whatsoever for its restoration 
after the Persian invasion. Furtwingler 
however considers that the ‘old temple’ 
was rebuilt—temporarily—after the Persian 
wars to accommodate Erechtheus, and that 
it was only destroyed and _ completely 
levelled when the Erechtheion with its 
caryatid porch was built. The divergences 
in the results arrived at by Prof. Furt- 
wingler and Mr. Frazer show that the 
question of the ‘old temple’ is yet far from 
settled, and archaeologists will await with 
eagerness Dr. Doérpfeld’s answer to the ob- 
jections raised against his views. 
Meanwhile Furtwingler settles finally a 
number of other points. Very interesting 
is the light he throws on the meaning of 
the name Parthenon, which at first only 
belonged to the western cella of the 
Periklean temple : 6 tapGevwv (on the analogy 


174 


of 6 dv8pwv, 6 yuvarxev, 6 immov, &c.) means 
the chamber of the maidens (‘das Jungfern- 
gemach’). These mapOévor or kdpar are 
familiar figures in the Akropolis rituals: 
the daughters of Kekrops like those 
of Erechtheus are worshipped as zapéévoi, 
and these mythical attendants are the 
counterpart of the living personnel of the 
goddess,—of those Arrhephoroi who had 
their playground near the temple of the 
Polias, of those "Epyaoriva: who embroidered 
her peplos. Certainly the western cella of 
the new temple could not be more fitly 
dedicated than to these, the chosen company 
of the goddess, among whom she appears as 
an elder sister, herself the most august of 
the rapGevo. Furtwiingler has, it would 
seem, succeeded in solving the central slab 
of the Parthenon frieze. He has no doubt 
that the delivery of the peplos is represented 
in the much disputed group of the priest 
and the boy, It has however often been 
urged that the peplos would be useless to 
the gold andivory Athena of the Parthenon; 
on the other hand there was a clumsiness in 
the supposition that although the delivery 
of the peplos was represented on the 
Parthenon, the peplos itself was intended 
for the old wooden Polias of the ‘ old temple.’ 
But, says Furtwangler in a sentence that 
betrays the most acute understanding of the 
history of Periklean Athens, ‘the frieze can 
only bear witness to the intentions of the 
man who built the temple, and not to what 
actually came to pass.’ Perikles had no 
doubt intended to transfer the old Polias to 
the Parthenon; but he was thwarted in 
this,—even as he was prevented from finishing 
the Propylaea according to the splendid 
designs of Mnesikles,—by the conservative 
and religious party. Equally convincing is 
the explanation of the left-hand group of 
the central slab. The maidens bringing 
stools to the priestess are certainly duppodo- 
pou (two only are actually represented, but 
more are imagined in the background) ; but 
the stools they carry are no ordinary 
‘sacred utensils,’ they are similar to those 
on which the gods of the frieze are seated, 
and wre destined for the banquet of the gods, 
who according to the most ancient usage 
are imagined to sit at the meal instead of 
reclining. By showing that the group of 
the priestess and attendants equals in 
dignity and importance the group of the 
priest and the boy, Furtwingler has removed 
what was perhaps the worst crua in the 
interpretation of the central slab. 

The peace of Nikias (B.c. 421) marked 
the definite triumph of the conservative 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


party. Furtwangler follows Michaelis in 
thinking that the Erechtheion was begun 
about that time. It was planned in that 
spirit of religious conservatism which was 
characteristic of Nikias. From the close cor- 
vespondence between its divisions and those 
of the ‘old temple,’ Furtwaingler argues 
that the Erechtheion- was intended to 
receive cults which must previously have 
had their home in the various chambers of 
the ‘old temple. Thus the eastern cella- 
of the Erechtheion was dedicated to Athena, 
and received the old image of the Polias ; 
the northern division of the middle cella 
was given to Poseidon-Erechtheus, the 
southern to Butes and Hephaistos; the 
western cella was given to Kekrops. Then 
it is that, according to Furtwangler, the 
‘old temple’ finally disappears ; it is levelled 
to the ground, only its stylobate being 
retained to form the terrace to the south of 
the Erechtheion: even its name passes to 
its successor: inscriptions and authors call 
the new Erechtheion ‘the old temple of the 
Polias,’ ‘the temple with the ancient 
image,’ &c, 

The artist of the temple Furtwangler 
assumes to have been the Kallimachos who 
made the gold lamp with the palm-tree 
over it for the interior of the temple; the 
somewhat finicking beauty of the Erechtheion 
decorations are characteristic of an artist 
who was celebrated for the elegantia ac 
subtilitas of his sculpture. This Kallimachos 
Furtwingler pictures as a sort of fifth 
century Pre-Raphaelite; to the inventive- 
ness and curiosity of the Periklean period 
he brought another note—that of conserva- 
tism, of return to the delicate ways and 
hieratic forms of archaic art, to the Aerrorys 
and the xdpis of Kalamis and his school. 
These tendencies would exactly suit the 
conservative and pious Nikias. Of the 
Saltantes Lacaenae by Kallimachos, Furt- 
wingler has reminiscences in the ‘ Kala- 
thiskos dancers’ represented on gems or 
reliefs of a later age. To Kallimachos or 
his school he further attributes the original 
of an Artemis at Munich, the so-called 
‘altar of the four gods’ on the Akropolis, 
the lost Corinthian puteal, the original 
of the Capitoline puteal, the original 
(bronze) of the famous ‘tripod basis’ at 
Dresden, and lastly the charming marble 
chair found in front of the pronaos of the 
Parthenon. Even Alkamenes was, according 
to Furtwingler, ‘bitten’ with the archaistic 
fashion—to wit, when he executed his triple 
Hekate. This recognition of a conscious’ 
return to archaism in artists of the fifth 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. . 175 


century is no less significant than the attack 
which is being carried on by the best 
archaeologists against that dismal refuge of 
unclaimed statues—the ‘archaistic school’ of 
Hellenistic or Roman times. 

The little temple of Wingless Victory 
was probably erected in honour of the 
successes of Nikias and Demosthenes in 
B.c 426-425. The image within the temple 
Furtwingler proves to have been fashioned 
like a &davov ; possibly therefore Kallimachos 
was the artist. The frieze of the temple is 
further shown to represent the battle of 
Plataea; on the south side we have the 
engagement in which the Persian general 
Masistius lost his life (Herod. ix. 20-24) ; on 
the west the battle between the Athenians 
and the Greeks of the Persian side; on the 
north was probably depicted the battle 
between the Lacedaemonians and the men 
of Tegea; the gods of the eastern frieze 
are present as protectors of Hellas. This 
selection of the battle of Plataea, where 
Athenians and Lacedaemonians had fought 
side by side, is characteristic once more of 
Nikias and his peace party. Rarely has 
archaeology confirmed and illustrated his- 
tory more brilliantly than in these pages of 
Furtwiangler on the Athenian Akropolis. 

In a long excursus Prof. Furtwangler 
returns to the Parthenon and discusses the 
interpretation of the pediments. He proves 
that there were ten figures in each half of 
the western pediment, and that we must 
assume the loss of a figure not only at A’, 
between A (‘ River God’) and B (Kekrops), 
but at U’, between U and V, where a figure 
must have been lost that corresponded to 
B. The interpretation proposed for the 
various groups on either side of the central 
scene is as follows:1 Bouzyges and his wife 
(A and the lost A’) in the north angle, 
corresponding to the wife of Boutes and 
Boutes himself (W and V) in the south 
angle ; Kekrops (B) and his three daughters 
with Erysichthon (C to F) answering to 
Erechtheus (the lost U’) and his three 
daughters with their children (P to VU), 
a.e. the wapOevor ’AyAavpides balancing the 
Cetyos tpurdpOevov. The céntral scene is 
not one of contest or of rivalry, but Athena 
and Poseidon have come down to take 
possession of the land, and in token thereof 
have produced the well and the olive. In 
the east pediment, Furtwingler interprets 
the charioteer goddess of the north angle to 


' Cf. Arch. Anzeiger for 1891 p. 70, where Furt- 
wangler had indicated the main lines of his present 
theory, and my note in the Class. Rev, vi. (1892) 
p. 369. 


be Vyx, and not Selene. The three figures 
next to her are, as Visconti showed long 
ago, the Moirai, (the evdAevou Kodpar Nuxros). 
On the south side the ‘Iris’ is probably a 
Hebe, the figures next to her are the Horai, 
the ‘Theseus’ is the young huntsman 
Kephalos; the whole scene is laid in 
Olympos. Furtwingler however scarcely 
succeeds as yet in proving for the eastern 
pediment that unity of conception which 
makes his theory on the western pediment 
so convincing. 

A second shorter excwrsus is concerned 
with figured akroteria,” such as those of the 
temple of Delos. This really astonishing 
chapter closes with a third and last exewrsus 
in which Furtwangler publishes an in- 
teresting Attic seal representing a female 
figure half emerging from a chariot or cart, 
and raising her hand in supplication. We 
probably have here an echo of the image of 
Ge praying to Zeus for rain, on the Akropolis 
(the inscription in front of the statue is still 
to be read on the Akropolis rock, [js kapzo- 
opov kata pavreiay, cf. Paus. i. 24, 3). The 
chariot is admirably explained by reference 
to the practice prevalent in other parts of 
Greece (Krannon), and in different countries 
of Europe, of rolling a chariot about as a 
rain charm. We may doubt however the 
explanation of the chariot as a reines Symbol 
of the storm cloud. Surely we have here 
a simple case of sympathetic magic: the 
rumbling of the chariot being intended to 
imitate the desired phenomenon of real 
thunder. 

EUGENIE SBLLERS. 

Paris, Feb, 1894. 


(To be continued.) 


BODENSTEINER ON 
STAGE. 
Scenische Fragen tiber den Ort des Auftretens 
und Abgehens von Schauspielern und Chor 
im griechischen Drama: von ERNST 
BoDENSTEINER, Reprinted from the 
Jiihrbuch fiir classische Philologie (Sup- 
plementbande xix.). Leipzig: B. G. 
Teubner. 1893. Pp. 639-808. 4 Mk. 


Tus interesting treatise, which was written 
in competition for a prize offered by the 
University of Munich, is a valuable addition 
to the literature on the subject of Greek 
theatrical performances. While professing 


THE GREEK 


* The terra-cotta antefix from Lanuvium, fig. 32, 
has now been published more accurately by Mr. A. 8. 
Murray (/. H.S. vol. xiii. p. 316). 


176 


to deal merely with the exits and the 
entrances of actors and chorus, it really 
covers a very considerable field, and dis- 
cusses in an elaborate manner the various 
devices for revealing interiors, or for pro- 
ducing supernatural apparitions, the charac- 
ter of the scenic background, the number 
and position of the doors and passages used 
by the different performers, and the question 
as to the existence or non-existence of a 
raised stage. The appendix contains an 
exhaustive list, drawn from the forty-four 
extant dramas, of every occasion on which 
any performer enters or leaves the scene ; 
together with a full quotation of all the 
passages in the text, and all the notices in 
the scholia which bear upon the subject. 

In discussing these questions the author 
confines himself almost exclusively to the 
evidence supplied by the existing dramas 
themselves. His desire is to discover how 
plays were acted during the fifth century ; 
and he considers that, for this purpose, the 
text of the plays is the only safe and reliable 
guide (p. 641). No doubt there is much 
truth in his view of the matter. Until 
recent years scholars were apt to forget 
that the fifth century, in the history of the 
Greek drama, was a period of growth and 
development. They assumed that the early 
theatrical performances were nearly identi- 
cal, in external character, with those of 
later times which the grammarians have 
described. Bodensteiner is careful to avoid 
this error. But in placing his reliance solely 
on the testimony of the plays themselves, 
he is sometimes in danger of being led away 
by over-confidence, and appears to hardly 
realize the extreme difficulty of founding 
certain conclusions on such evidence. This 
difficulty arises from the fact that, in the 
case of all early dramas, when the art of 
scenic decoration is still in its infancy, much 
is always left to the imagination of the 
spectators. Hence it is hardly possible to 
determine, from the mere words of a play, 
whether a thing was visibly represented, or 
whether it was not. Take, for example, the 
dramas of Shakespeare. Few people would 
imagine, on reading his works, that they 
were acted originally without any scenery in 
the background. On the contrary, if there 
had been no contemporary evidence, it would 
have been easy for a scholar to prove, by 
numerous quotations, that the scenic art 
had been brought to high perfection in 
Shakespeare’s time. This instance is suff- 
cient to warn us that, in dealing with early 
periods of dramatic history, it is dangerous 
to found too much upon the mere language 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of a play. If local surroundings are 
frequently alluded to, it by no means follows 
that they were exhibited to the eyes of the 
spectators. And it is equally unsafe to 
argue that they were not exhibited, because 


_of the absence of any allusion to them. 


Hence when Bodensteiner {p. 649) takes it 
for granted that there was no. painted 
scenery in the Septem, merely because 
Eteocles never specially mentions the build- 
ing from which he has come, the inference 
is hardly justified, A much stronger argu-- 
ment might have been adduced from external 


sources. Aristotle (Poet. c. 4) tells us that 
painted scenery was the invention of 
Sophocles. Now the Septem was produced 


only one year after the first appearance of 
Sophocles. If, therefore, the tradition 
recorded by Aristotie is to be accepted, it 
is almost decisive against the existence of 
painted scenery at the time of the produc- 
tion of the Septem. 

Sometimes, again, the author is inclined 
to be too subtle and minute in his infer- 
ences, and appears to ignore the simple and 
conventional character of the early drama. 
Thus he cites several instances in which, 
when a person enters from the background, 
five or ten lines intervene between the first 
announcement of his approach, and the 
moment when he begins to join in the 
dialogue. Hence he argues (p. 715) that 
the action must have taken place at a con- 
siderable distance from the background, 
and somewhere near the middle of the 
orchestra; and that the intervening lines 
were spoken while the actor was moving 
slowly forward. Now if this kind of argu- 
ment is admissible, it might be used with 
equal facility to prove the reverse proposi- 
tion. It would be easy to show that the 
action took place in close proximity to the 
background, by adducing numerous examples 
(such as Soph. Qed. Tyr. 531, and Eur. Hipp. 
900) in which there is no interval between 
the announcement of a person’s entrance 
and his participation in the dialogue. But 
such inferences are of little value one way 
or the other. It is hardly to be supposed 
that the ancient poets composed their 
dramas with this laborious accuracy, care- 
fully calculating the number of steps which 
an actor had to take, and measuring out the 
length of the speeches in proportion. If 
occasionally a character, on making his 
entrance, was allowed more time than was 
necessary, any actor of ordinary experience 
would know how to fill up the interval. 

But though the author occasionally 
endeavours to draw larger inferences from 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. Un Wj 


the text of the plays than can be fairly de- 
fended, the greater part of his treatise is 
written with much judgment and common 
sense. His remarks on the ‘eccycléma’ 
(p. 659 foll.) are especially admirable. He 
has no difficulty in disproving the recent 
theory that this contrivance was of com- 
paratively late origin, and was first employed 
by Euripides and his contemporaries. He 
throws just ridicule on the argument that, 
because it is parodied in Aristophanes, it 
cannot have been used by Aeschylus and 
Sophocles. He maintains that a rude device 
of this kind, so far from being ‘ unworthy ’ 
of the grandeur of the Aeschylean drama, 
is in reality far more in keeping with its 
naive simplicity than with the conscious art 
of Euripides. In this view he is fully 
justified. Nothing can be more unreasonable 
than to argue that the sublimity of the 
older tragedies must have been accompanied 
by a corresponding impressiveness in the 
external means of representation. The 
history of the modern stage shows that the 
very reverse is often the case. The plays of 
Corneille and Racine, as we learn from 
Voltaire, were originally exhibited in a 
tennis-court, with scenery of the most 
meagre character, and on a stage crowded 
with aristocratic spectators. Yet these 
tragedies have never been equalled, in 
dignity and artistic finish, by the more 
elaborate performances of the later French 
drama. » 

His observations on the ‘méchané’ are 
equally convincing. Wilamowitz has a 
singular theory that the ‘méchané’ was an 
old-fashioned piece of machinery, superseded 
in the course of the fifth century by the 
‘theologeion’; and that the scene in the 
Medea was one of the latest instances of its 
employment. Bodensteiner, on the other 
hand, shows (p. 667 foll.) that there are few, 
if any, certain examples of its introduction 
before the time of the Medea ; and he quotes 
numerous passages from Euripides to prove 
that it was constantly used in later times. 
If he had cared to turn his attention to 
external evidence, he might have fortified 
his conclusions by various additional testi- 
monies. Thus Plato (Crat. 455 D) speaks 
of the ‘méchané’ as a favourite device 
among contemporary dramatists. Anti- 
phanes, the writer of the Middle Comedy, 
tells us that when the tragic poet is brought 
to a standstill, he merely raises the ‘ mé- 
chané,’ and all comes right again (Meineke, 
Frag. Com. Graec. iii. p. 106) And 
Aristotle, whose disregard for the old 
Aeschylean drama is conspicuous, would 


hardly have spoken in such emphatic terms 
about the proper employment of the deus 
ex machina, if this device, at the time he 
was writing, had already been disused for 
nearly a hundred years (Poet. c. 15). 

But the reader will naturally turn with 
most interest to the discussion about the 
raised stage (p. 681 foll.). On this point, 
as elsewhere, the author confines his atten- 
tion mainly to the fifth century and to the 
evidence derivable from the existing dramas. 
The facts on which he lays most emphasis 
are the three following. In the first place, 
out of the forty-four tragedies and comedies 
which still survive, he cites fourteen cases 
where the actors and the chorus appear to 
come into such close physical contact that 
they must have stood upon the same level 
and occupied the same ground. Secondly, 
he adduces seven cases where the chorus 
enter or disappear through the background. 
Thirdly, he points out that on twenty-one 
occasions chorus and actors enter or leave 
the scene by the same passage. 

Some of these examples are undoubtedly 
open to question. Thus the altercation at 
the end of the Agamemnon (1649-1673) 
never advances beyond mere threats, and it 
is unnecessary to suppose that Aegisthus 
and the Argive Elders ever come intoactual 
contact with one another. Again, in the 
Supplices of Aeschylus, there is nothing to 
prove that Danaus and the chorus depart by 
the same exit. If one left by the side-wings 
and the other by the orchestra, such a mode 
of departure, though both are going to the 
same place, would be in no way inconsistent 
with the conventional character of the 
ancient drama. 

But assuming that all his examples are 
certain and reliable, the question is, What do 
they prove 4 Miiller, who quotes most of 
the cases cited by Bodensteiner, dwells on 
the comparative rarity of such cases, as a 
proof that there was some obstacle in the 
way of free communication between actors 
and chorus, and makes this an argument in 
favour of the existence of a raised stage for 
the actors. Bodensteiner thinks that these 
instances prove that there was no stage, and 
that actors and chorus performed together in 
the orchestra. The variety of the conclusions 
drawn from the same premises is at any rate 
a proof of the uncertainty attending this 
kind of evidence. Certainly, at first sight, 
it is difficult to see how the cases mentioned 
by Bodensteiner justify the conclusions at 
which he arrives. In fact, in order to estab- 
lish his thesis, he has to make two assump- 
tions, which are not warranted by the 


178 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


evidence. He assumes, in the first place 
(p. 701), that if there was any stage at all 
during the fifth century, it must have 
been a stage of the Vitruvian type, twelve 
feet high and ten deep. In the second 
place, he assumes (pp. 689, 704) that if 
there was a stage for the actors and an 
orchestra for the chorus, then the actors 
must have been confined ‘exclusively’ to 
the stage and the chorus ‘exclusively’ to 
the orchestra. . 
Neither of these suppositions are probable 
in themselves, or consistent with the ancient 
evidence. Vitruvius, in describing the 
height and depth of the Greek stage, is 
merely describing the practice of his own 
time. And although, in all the recently 
excavated theatres, stages have been found 
corresponding exactly to his account, they 
are subsequent in date to the original stage- 
buildings, and none of them earlier than the 
second century B.c. The inference, therefore, 
is that the primitive stage was of a different 
character. Moreover, the statement of 
Horace, that the stage first erected by 
Aeschylus was only of ‘moderate dimensions’ 
(Ars Poet. 279 modicis instruxit pulpita 
tignis), seems to imply that the primitive 
stage was less lofty than that of later times. 
Again, as to the communication between 
stage and orchestra. Both Pollux (4, 127) 
and Athenaeus (de Machinis p. 29) expressly 
state that such communication was effected 
by means of steps ; and steps of this kind 
are actually found in numerous vase-paint- 


ings. The Scholiasts, also, in their notes on _ 


the plays, though assuming throughout that 
the usual place for actors and chorus was on 
the stage and in the orchestra respectively, 
nevertheless frequently suggest that in such 
and such eases the actors descended into the 
orchestra, or the chorus mounted on to the 
stage (e.g. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 181, 297 ; 
Pax 727). 

If then we follow natural probability as 
well as ancient testimonies, and assume that 
the stage of the fifth century was only a 
few feet above the level of the orchestra, 
and was connected with the orchestra by an 
easy means of communication, such as a 
flight of steps, then the conclusions of 
Bodensteiner fall to the ground. There is 
nothing in the extant dramas which in any 
way conflicts with the supposition that the 
actors performed upon a stage of this 
character. Those who have seen the per- 
formances at Bradfield, where the theatre 
was constructed in the way described, will 
remember the facility with which chorus and 
actors were enabled to commingle with one 


another, and the picturesqueness of the 
general effect. 

It appears then that the evidence of the 
surviving dramas is no proof against the 
existence of a stage. On the contrary, it 


‘rather tends to support the opposite theory. 


The most precise and definite piece of testi- 
mony is the use of the words dvaBaivew and 
xataBatvey in Aristophanes, apparently in 
the sense of ‘coming’ and ‘ going’ (Hquit. 


149, Vesp. 1342, 1514, Hecles. 1152). This 


usage seems to have arisen, as the Scholiast 
declares, from the elevated position of the 
actors (Schol. Zguit. 149). Various novel 
interpretations have been suggested by the 
supporters of the new hypothesis, in order 
to get rid of the difficulty. But Bodensteiner, 
while mentioning these interpretations, 
confesses that he is dissatisfied with them, 
and suggests that in comedy there was a 
sort of terrace in front of the houses which 
formed the background (p. 699). But this 
practically amounts to the admission of the 
existence of a stage. If it is once conceded 
that the actors stood on elevated ground, 
no one will quarrel about its name, or care 
whether it is called a ‘stage’ or a ‘terrace.’ 

As to the period subsequent to the fifth 
century, Bodensteiner accepts without dis- 
cussion the views of Dérpfeld. He believes 
that throughout the whole duration of the 
Greek drama, from its commencement down 
to the third century a.D., there was no such 
thing as a stage for the actors in any 
theatre of purely Greek construction. It is 
unfortunate that he refrains from discussing 
the theory, as it would be interesting to 
know how he proposes to meet the difficulties 
with which it is attended. The principal 
objection to Dirpfeld’s views is that they 
conflict with the unanimous testimony of 
antiquity. Even if we omit all those pas- 
sages of which the meaning has been dis- 
puted, a sufficient number still remain to 
constitute a formidable body of evidence. 
Athenaeus (de Machinis p. 29), Polybius (30, 
13), Horace (Ars Poet. 279), Vitruvius (5, 
6 and 7), Plutarch (Dem. 34, Thes. 16), 
Pollux (4, 123), Phrynichus (p. 163 Lobeck), 
the Scholiasts (eg. Plat. Symp. 175 E; 
Aristoph. Ran. 181, 297, Pax 234, 727, 
Lys. 321, Equit. 149), Hesychius and Suidas 
and Photius (v. dxpuyBas)—all these writers 
either directly assert, or use language which 
implies beyond reach of doubt, that the 
actors in a Greek theatre performed upon 
an elevated stage. They range in date from 
the third century B.c. downwards. Most of 
them lived at a time when Greek plays were 
still performed in Greek theatres, Even 


ee 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 179 


those of a later period, such as the Scholiasts, 
derived their information directly from the 
Alexandrian grammarians. 

How then are we to account for this 
unanimous tradition ? How are we to explain 
the fact that if, as Dérpfeld supposes, the 
Greek actors performed in the orchestra, not 
a single trace of any statement to that effect 
is to be found in any ancient author? It is 
useless to suggest that these successive 
generations of poets, historians, architects, 
and grammarians were all mistaken. If the 
fact had been one which required accurate 
and scientific investigation, this view might 
have been maintained with some show of 
reason, But in a matter of the most 
ordinary and everyday observation, such as 
the position of the actors in a theatre, it is 
incredible that a long line of writers should 
have all committed the same obvious blunder. 
Nor can it be maintained that they were 
misled by the analogy of the Roman theatre. 
Had they told us that all the performers, 
chorus as well as actors, appeared upon the 
stage, the case would have been different. 
But they tell us that the actors were upon 
the stage, the chorus in the orchestra. Now 
in Roman theatres the orchestra was occu- 
pied by the senators. If we suppose, then, 
that they were thinking of the Roman 
practice, we shall have to conclude that they 
confused a Greek chorus with an audience of 
Roman senators. Such a mistake, even if 
made by a single writer, would be almost 
inexplicable. But that the same confusion 
should be made century after century, by 
successive authors, passes the bounds of 
credibility. 

There is also the fact that the statements 
of the ancients are confirmed by the vase- 
paintings of Magna Graecia, belonging to 
the third century B.c., which depict the 
actors upon a stage, with steps leading down 
into the orchestra. Further than this, a 
stage exactly similar to that described by 
Vitruvius is found in all the theatres which 
have been newly excavated. Dirpfeld sup- 
poses that this stage was really part of the 
background. Let us try to imagine how it 
would serve the purpose. According to his 
views, the greater part of the background 
must have represented the sky ; and at the 
bottom there would be a projection twelve 
feet high, ten feet deep, and about fifty feet 
long. It is true that in comedy this projec- 
tion might serve for a row of private houses. 
But in tragedy it would have to stand for a 
palace ora temple. What then would have 
been the appearance of a temple twelve feet 
high, and fifty feet long, stretching along 


the bottom of the orchestra? The propor- 
tions seem altogether unsuitable. 

Until these various difficulties, which have 
just been enumerated, are satisfactorily 
solved, the new theory can hardly find 
general acceptance. It is to be hoped 
therefore, that Bodensteiner will supplement 
the present treatise by another in which 
this particular question is considered. His 
careful and scientific methods of investiga- 
tion would give interest and value to 
anything which he might write upon the 
subject. 

A. EK, Hateu. 


Philostrati Maioris Imagines recensuerunt 
SEMINARIORUM VINDOBONENSIUM SODALES. 
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. 1893. 2 Mk. 8, 


Aw author like Philostratos stands on a 
different footing to most classical writers, 
in that mere scholarship is not sufficient to 
do justice even to a critical edition ; archaeo- 
logical knowledge is indispensable. It is 
therefore greatly to the credit of the 
Teubner firm that they have sought the aid 
of such a recognized archaeological authority 
as Prof. Benndorf in the revised and 
enlarged edition of the Jmagines which 
forms the most recent addition to their 
world-famed classical series. 

The present volume, which only contains 
the Jmagines, is almost equal in bulk to 
Kayser’s 1871 edition in this series, which 
included several other works of Philostratos 
the elder; this is accounted for partly by 
the more widely spaced type of more recent 
Teubner editions, but at the same time 
points to a greater fulness of critical and 
explanatory notes. In a purely critical 
edition the latter must of necessity be kept 
within due bounds, but at the same time 
they could hardly be dispensed with. 

A new edition of the text of Philostratos 
has been for some time urgently required, 
as Kayser’s text, though carefully compiled, 
was yet remarkable for a singular lack of 
discrimination, while, as Schanz points out 
(Rhein. Mus. xxxviii. p. 305), he shows a 
marvellous uncertainty in weighing the 
testimony of the MSS. It is generally 
recognized now by scholars that the two 
most important and trustworthy MSS. are 
the Laurentian (/), and the Parisian (P), 
whereas Kayser appears to have pinned his 
faith too much upon the Vatican MS. known 
as V* andthe Epitome Vossiana (Z). It has 
been laid down as a canon by Schenkel and 
his colleagues in this edition that in most 


180 


cases / and P alone have preserved the 
correct reading, and accordingly it is on 
these two MSS. that their text is based. P 
however is not altogether free from defect. 

Up till 600 a.p. or thereabouts the 
Tmagines appear to have existed in two 
forms, one divided into two books, and free 
from interpolations and corruptions, which 
is the original of the Laurentian MS., the 
other divided into four books and_ beset 
with numerous corrections, lacunae, and 
various embellishments of Byzantine gram- 
marians. It is evident that the task of 
the critical editor is hereby greatly simpli- 
fied. 

The much-debated question as to whether 
the Jmagines is purely the product of 
Philostratos’ fancy or an actual account of 
pictures preserved in a gallery at Naples is 
briefly touched upon in the introduction ; 
the editors adhere to Brunn’s now generally 
received opinion that the latter version of 
the case is the true one. It is however 
strange that scarcely any mention has been 
made of the excellent contributions of two 
French scholars to this subject, namely 
MM. Bougot and Bertrand. The latter’s 
Un critique dart dans Vantiquité contains an 
excellent summary of the various opinions, 
while M. Bougot in his Philostrate lancien. 
Une galerie antique, points out that the 
traces of improvisation and abruptness of 
style in Philostratos clearly point to 
lectures delivered on the spot in a gallery 
of existing pictures. It may also be 
mentioned that M. Bougot has made a 
laudable though insufficient attempt to 
illustrate the subjects by reference to 
existing works of art. 

It is perhaps to be regretted that in this 
text Kayser’s system of paragraphs (from 
762 onwards) has been ignored, especially 
as, eg. in Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon, 
references are made solely to those numbers. 
At the same time the pagination of 
Kayser’s edition is noted throughout in the 
margin. 

We proceed to note a few of the principal 
instances in which the testimony of the 
MSS. has led the compilers to differ from 
Kayser’s version. In the first place 
Kayser’s heading to the introduction 
IIpootpuov [7 AaAua| is supplanted by PiBAcov 
xpatov (reads Eixoves ®oorparov simply ; 
P and others the curious title zpootutov 
édAadia). Page 10, line 18 etBadéor with 
F and V2, though Kayser’s edadéou seems 
more natural and intelligible. P. 21, 1. 2 
om. d%0 dotvkas (bracketed by Kayser). 
P. 22, 1. 1 dfOadrpoits—Kayser déudadois, 


e ‘ 
-bracetat—Kayser troeorau. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Here the reading of V is rightly adopted ; 
oupadrots seems to have crept in from the 
following line. P. 39, 1. 11 7a pev ddAda T 
mérpa jor dueixaorar— Kayser add. doxet; the 
text here appears very corrupt. P. 42, 1. 1 
Peip2, ls 22 
for Kayser’s title SvoOjpar read Onpevrai. 
P. 54, 1. 10 <6 6 Kat Tas Kvjpas, 6 de> 
where Kayser has a lacuna. P. 60, 1. 2 
eobs <yxeipl, éoOys> airy Kal kvypy ; there 
appears to be no justification for the 
insertion of the words in angular brackets. ° 
P. 66, 1. 3 Oéwv dca, seems a doubtful 
reading ; better with Westermann and 
Kayser Oedv doa kai oe éxpevyovtas. 

Some valuable archaeological notes and 
illustrations are contributed by Professor 
Benndorf, eg. p. 39 1. 21, p. 43 1. 14, 
pe 52 1-22)" op. 67 Be 16s pare as, 

B71, G; cand pi RS ees 
to be hoped that we may yet see an archaeo- 
logical edition of Philostratos on the lines 
of M. Bougot’s work, especially as the 
pictures described in the IJmagines have 
many features in common’ with Pompeian 
and other wall-paintings which have come 
down to us, while there are not a few among 
the painted vases from Southern Italy 
which might well be utilized in illustration. 
We may instance the krater in the British 
Museum with the death of Hippolytos, a com- 
parison of which with Philostratos’ descrip- 
tion (Book ii. no. 4) is interesting, though 
it is doubtful whether the pictures that 
Philostratos saw represent a contempora- 
neous period of art. 

There are two valuable and copious 
indices, the first a carefully compiled list 
of loci classict illustrating the descriptions, 
the second a very full vocabulary. 

H. B. Watters. 


HETTNER ON THE MONUMENTS 
OF TREVES. 


Die Rimischen Steindenkmdler des Provinzial- 
museums zu Trier, von Prof. Dr. FrELix 
Hertner. Mit 375 Textabbildungen. 
Trier. 1893. 4 Mk. 


Tue study of Roman monuments is not 
one which appeals very strongly to the 
archaeologist as a rule; such interest as 
they possess is of course almost entirely 
historical. Still it is much to be regretted 
that more is not done in England towards 
the investigation of remains of the 
Roman occupation, for at present the 
student of these matters has little 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


material at his command, with the exception 
of scattered papers in archaeological or his- 
torical journals ; at the same time we must 
not ignore the excellent work that has been 
done in this line by such scholars as Mr. 
F. Haverfield and Mr. Pelham. To judge 
by the catalogue before us, the Germans 
are not inclined to neglect the subject, and 
in Tréves we have a city that has been 
exceptionally favoured in the discovery 
of Roman remains, as might be expected 
from its important position in the days of 
the Roman Empire. In this catalogue some 
eight hundred monuments and inscriptions 
have been described by Dr. MHettner 
with exemplary care and fulness, and 
copiously illustrated in the praiseworthy 
fashion that is becoming common with 
German catalogues. The plan of inserting 
a sketch of each monument by the side of 
the description is earnestly to be commended 
in a catalogue of this kind, and _ such 
sketches are really of more use than a 
few elaborate and costly plates would be. 

Among the more interesting sculptures, 
we may note an inscribed pedestal represen- 
ting Minerva, Ceres, Mercury, and Hercules 
(No 25) ; Jupiter riding over a Giant (No. 
32); a torso of Mercury with the infant 
Bacchus, evidently a reminiscence of the 
statue by Praxiteles (No. 68); a cinerary 
cista on which a shoemaker’s tools are 
represented (No. 192); an _ unfinished 
sepulchral monument with Cupids, «ec. 
(No. 232); a relief representing a shop 
(No. 244); all in sandstone and other local 
materials. Among the marbles, a good 
group representing Diana with two hounds 
(No. 654), and a torso of an Amazon 
apparently derived from the Mattei Amazon 
in the Vatican. We may also mention a 
collection of sixty-nine Hermae found at 
Welschbillig, which had apparently formed 
the decoration of a large fish-pond; they 
represent Romans, Greeks, barbarians and 
ideal figures. 

The collection is made up by a considerable 
number of Christian inscriptions and a few 
of Imperial Roman times, of which the 
most interesting are Nos. 7, 57, 60, and 73. 
Taken as a whole it is as representative 
and interesting a series of Roman antiquities 
as could be found anywhere outside Italy, 
and Dr. Hettner’s valuable catalogue should 
earn the gratitude of all who are interested 
in this subject. 
H. B. WAtreRs. 


NO. LXVIII. VOL. VIII. 


181 


Archiiologisches Jahrbuch. 1893, Part 2. Berlin. 


1. Korte: archaeological studies on the Old Comedy : 
it has been shown that the Aristophanic actor’s dress 
was not that of the Phlyakes ; discusses its character 
in an examination of the literary evidence and the 
monuments (list of terracottas, pp. 77-86): he con- 
cludes that the grotesque figures on the Attic stage 
came originally from Peloponnesian influence, and are 
antitypes of the Dionysiac rout. Comedy thus fol- 
lowed the same course as Tragedy: eight cuts. 2. 
Hauser: publishesa ‘Tyrrhenian’ amphora with the 
sacrifice of Polyxena, in the Bourguignon collection : 
it confirms the fact of the connection between this 
fabric and Korinthian : and suggests points of connec- 
tion with Chalcidian and generally with the Ionian 
styles of vases: plate and three cuts. 3. Kuhnert: dis- 
cusses the scenes from the Nekyia on vases of Lower 
Italian style. 4. Gercke: attacks Six’s explanation 
of Pliny’s ‘vulneratum deficientem’ as applied to 
the statue of Diitrephes (Jahrb. vii. p. 185). 

Anzeiger. Annual report of the work of the Insti- 
tute. Report of the meeting of philologists at Vienna 
on May 23 and following days. Meetings of the In- 
stitute: including a paper by Steindortf on archaic 
Egyptian statues, with notice of Petrie’s work at 
Tell el Amarna. Acquisitions of the Berlin Museum 
in 1892. News. Bibliography. 


The same. 1893. Part 3. Berlin. 


1. Michaelis: discusses the creator of the Attalic 
battle compositions: with eight cuts. 2. Winter: 
discusses the numerous archaic statues of riding figures 
found in the Acropolis excavations: they show a re- 
markable progressive development of execution, cor- 
responding with that of the series of female figures 
from the same finds and with vase-painting. He 
gives reasons for doubting Studniczka’s identification 
of the ‘Persian rider’ statue with the monument 
of Miltiades: and thinks that it is the statue of an 
Athenian in Thracian dress, possibly resulting from 
the Athenian relations with the Chersonese before 
B.c. 514: fourteen cuts. 3. Hartwig: discusses the 
two known examples of red-figured vases showing the 
adventure of Herakles with Kerberos: and publishes 
a third newly acquired by Berlin, with Epidromos 
xadds: four cuts and plate. 4. Wolters: identifies 
the bust of ‘Vesta’ from the large villa at Hercula- 
neum as the Athena of Kephisodotos: plate and cuts, 
5. Pernice: publishes two vase-paintings illustrating 
the form and use of a offwy (= kadauloxos), a tube 
used for tasting wine in wine-shops: three cuts. 6. 
Furtwiingler: publishes the Stosch glass paste in- 
scribed with the name of Skopas as genuine: he for- 
merly (Arch. Jahrb. iv. p. 72) thought it modern. 

Anziger. Meetings of the Institute: among other 
papers is one by Winter, reviewing the find of terra- 
cottas on the Athenian acropolis, with 30 illustra- 
tions. News. Bibliography. 


Bulletin de Correspondance 
July, 1893. 

1. Pottier: ‘Documents céramiques du Musée du 
Louvre’; publishes a series of notes on vases in the 
Louvre which are too full to be included in the cata- 
logue pow in preparation: seven cuts. 2. Legrand 
and Chamonard : publish a hundred and five inserip- 
tions from Phrygia. 3. Collignon: publishes the 
marble head which Mr. Webb presented to the British 
Museum in 1892: he places it at about 510 B.c., be- 
tween the Jacobsen head and the head published ’E@. 
*Apx. 1888, pl. 3. 4. Bérard: nineteen inscriptions 
from Dinair(Apamea), 5. Kambanis: the draining 
of the Copaic lake by the ancients (continued). 

oO 


Hellénique. May— 


182 
"Ednuepls “Apxadrdoyinn: 1893, Part 3, 


1. Skias: publishes twenty-seven inscriptions from 
Corinth. 2. Kavvadias: a marble relief dedicated 
to Hermes and the Nymphs, found on the old railway 
line from Athens to Peiraeus: discussing the subject 
and date: two plates. 3. Svoronos: types of coins 
of ancient Crete. 4. Mylonas: publishes a- bronze 
folding mirror from Corinth with the head of a woman 
in relief (plate 11), comparing it with coin types. 


Miscellaneous notes, excavations at Athens, Mycenae, . 
C.S. 


Thorikos. 


Numismatic Chronicle. Part iv. 1893. 


‘ The initial coinage of Athens.’ This controversy 
as to the earliest coinage of Athens is continued from 
Part ili. by Sir H. Howorth and Mr. Barclay Head, 
and a good note on the subject is contributed by 
Mr. G. F. Hill. Mr. Head appears to us to have 
completely answered the main objections brought 
forward by Sir H. Howorth and to have successfully 
maintained the view set forth in his Attica and now 
generally accepted by numismatists.—Review of 
Babelon’s Perses Achéménides &c. by B. V. Head. 
Vol] xix. 


Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik. Berlin. 


Part 3, 1893. 

E. J. Seltmann. ‘Ueber einige seltene Miinzen 
von Himera.’ Describes specimens examined by him 
from a hoard discovered in Sicily in 1890. The hoard 
contained about 200 early tetradrachms and drachms of 
Acragas, Gela, Leontini, Messana, Segesta, Syracuse 
and Himera. The coins of Himera are the most 
interesting and are described in detail. Amongthem 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


is a specimen of the rare coin with the inscription 
PEAOY and the nymph Himera. On another is 


the inscription Z£OTHP beside the nymph. A 
stady of the contents of the hoard leads Mr. Selt- 
mann to suggest that the archaic or rather 
‘transitional’ period of Sicilian coinage came to an 
end circ. B.c. 450 and thus later than is usually 
supposed.—F. L. Ganter. ‘Die Diktaturen Caesar’s 
und die Miinzen der fiinf ersten IIII. Viri a. a. f. f.’ 
—A. Lambropoulos. ‘ Beitrige zur griechischen 
Numismatik.’ 1. On a very interesting early coin 
of Elis in the Berlin Museum : obv. Eagle devouring 
a tortoise (cp. the story of the death of Aeschylus) ; 

rev. Naked figure of Zeus holding fulmen and eagle, © 
and the inscription OAYNPIKON which Lam- 
bropoulos, who discusses similar legends on coins, 
supposes to mean ’OAvptin@y aydévwv (or &Awrv) eipl 


ojjua (or kéuua). 2. Discusses the inscriptions AA 
and [O on Elian coins. 
that AA and not AA is the true reading. He 


conjectures that AA may be the ‘artist Alcamenes. 
Prof. P. Gardner (Cat. Pelop. p. xxxvi.) suggested, 
with some hesitation, that AA (?%) stood for the 
name of the sculptor Daedalus of Sicyon. Lambro- 
poulos thinks that [O is the name of the celebrated 


Polycleitus and assigns the coins to circ. B.c. 418. 
Gardner suggested Polycleitus the younger. 3. On 
various symbols on Corinthian coins. 

Wo Wie 


Lambropoulos maintains 





SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


American Journal of Philology. Whole No. 


56. Dec. 1893. 


The Third Class of Weak Verbs in Primitive 
Teutonic, by M. Sweet. On the Judaco-German 
spoken by the Russian Jews II., by L. Wiener. Notes 
on the use of Gerund and Gerundive in Plautus and 
Terence, by S. B. Platner. Even in Pl. most of the 
later constructions and idioms of the gerund and 
gerundive had already been developed to a consider- 
able extent. In early Latin the gerund is commoner 
than the gerundive. Then follows an analysis and 
classification of all the examples. With the gerund 
the great infrequency of prepositions except ad and 
in is noticeable. Mr. Bloomfield reviews Vedische 
Mythologie by A. Hillebrandt, vol. i. Soma und ver- 
wandte Giétter, and Prof. Gildersleeve J. Van Leeu- 
wen’s edition of the Wasps. Van L. maintains a 
donble recension as in the Clouds. He has paid too 
little attention to contemporary literature on the sub- 
ject. Prof. G. also sharply criticizes Dr. Fennell’s 
new edition of Pindar’s Olympian and Pythian Odes, 
which is substantially a new work. Briefly mentioned 
are Schmid’s Afticismus, vol. ii. on Aelian, and Dr. 
H. Schmidt’s paper De duali graecorum et emoriente 
et reviviscente, a contribution to the Breslauer Philo- 
logische Abhandlungen. 


Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins 

zu Berlin. March, April, 1893. 
Vircit, by P. Denticke. 

I. On the country poems. Virgil als bukolischer 
Dichter, by M. Sonntag. Leipzig 1891. No ground 
for believing in a double edition as S. does. [Cl. Rev. 
vi. 450.] E. Bethe, Vergilstudien I]. Zur ersten 


neunten und achten Ekloge. Rh. Mus. 47 and on it 
O. Ribbeck’s Epikritische Bemerkungen. B. denies 
the usually-admitted connexion between Eclogues 1, 
9and 8. H. TT. Karsten, Ad Vergilit eclogas tii. et 
wit. Mnemos. N.S. xix. Oniii. 110 and vii. 19. C. 
Pascal, Adversaria Vergiliana. Riv. di fil. 1892. 
In iy. 8 nascens=modo natus. O. Crusius, Rh. Mus. 
47. The proverbial verse G. i. 53 quoted by Macrob. 
v. 16. 7 perhaps goes back to Cato. H. Richards, 
Cl. Rev. v. 232, reads verrdt for ferret in G. i, 321. J. 
Geffcken, Saturnia tellus. Hermes 27. Traces the 
origin of the hymn to Italy (G. ii. 136 foll.). A. 
Oltramare, Etude sur Vépisode d Aristée dans les 
Géorgiques de Virgile. Paris 1892. Seeks to show 
that the episode is closely connected with the rest of 
the poem. 


II. On the Aeneid. A. Editions. Vergil’s Aeneis. 
In shorter form, by J. Werra. Miinster 1892, and 
Auswahl aus Vergil’s Aeneis, by A. Lange. Berlin, 
1892. These two books collect the most poetical 
passages. Out of the 9896 verses W. gives 5457 and 
L. above 4500. P. Vergili Maronis Aenets, by O. 
Brosin. Vol. ii. books iii. iv., vol. iii. books v. vi. 
3rd edition, by L. Heitkamp. Gotha 1892. This 
excellent revision is worthy of the original edition. 
B. Origin and sources. F. Noack, Die erste Aeneis 
Vergils. Hermes 27. The first sketch of the Aeneid 
was books i. ii. iv. vi., completed before 25 B.c., 
they contain no contradictions, imitate the Odyssey 
and follow Naevius. E. Bethe, Vergilstudicn I. Die 
Laokoonepisode. Kh. Mus. 46. V. mixes up two 
different versions. I. Noack in the Goétting. Gel. 
Anzeigen Nr. 20 1892 modifies the results of F. 
Kehmptzow, De Quinti Smyrnaei fontibus ae mytho- 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


poeia. Diss. Kiel 1891. V. was a constant source 
for Quintus, especially to be seen in the Laocoon 
episode. G. Ettig, Acherwntica sive descensuum apud 
veteres enarratio. Leipz. Stud 1891. V, is incom- 
parable in selection of materials and execution, but 
not great in invention, The subject is pursued down 
to Lucian and Ausonius. K. Baur, Homerische 
Gleichnisse in Vergil’s Aencide. Part I. Progr. 
Freising 1891. About twenty comparisons in books 
i.—ix. are discussed and the differences of treatment 
between H. and V. pointed out. C. Remarks on 
single passages. Jan. Kvicala, Nové Kritické a exe- 
getické prisptoky k. Vergiliovt Aeneidé, Prag. 1892. 
A German summary of the chief results is also pub- 
lished. Deserves careful attention. P. Weizsiicker, 
Zu Vergil. Aen. i. 75-80. Korr. Bl. f. d. Gel. u. 
Realsch. Wiirtt. 1891. P. Weyland, Vergil’s Be- 
schreibung des libyschen Hafens (Aen. i. 159-169). 
Progr. Gartz 1891. Schlenger, “rklirende Bemer- 
kungen und Verbesserungsvorschlige zu einigen Stellen 
unserer Schulklassiker. Progr. Mainz 1890. Notices 
i. 403 and ix. 448. “M. T. Tatham, Clas. Rev. vi. 
124. Ini. 455 reads mirantur. J. S. Speijer, Obser- 
vationes ct emendationes. Groningen 1891. On iii. 
329 and iv. 383. P. Simpson and T. E. Page. Clas. 
Rev. vi. 366 and 414. On iii. 510 sortiti vemos. E. 
Eichler, Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1889. On iii. 
684 foll. O. Linsenbarth, N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891. 
On iv. 402 foll. Th. Berndt, Kritische Bemerkungen 
zu Griechischen und Rimischen Schriftstellern. Her- 
ford 1891. Rewrites v. 290. <A. Kornitzer, Zur 
Wanderung des Aeneas durch die Unterwelt. Zeit- 
schr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1891. Considers V. here as a 
mechanical imitator of Homer. G. Landgraf, Con- 
jectanea. Miinchen 1891. In vi. 463 recommends 
tuis for swis, appealing to Brosin. Reichenhart, 
Zur Erklérung einiger Vergilstellen. Zeitschr. f. a. 
dst. Gymn. 1892. On vi. 474, 548 and villi. 143. 
G. MeN. R. and A. Platt, Clas. Rev. v. 232 and 337 
on vi. 567 [see also Cl. Rev. iv. 465 and v. 64]. Ed. 
Norden, N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891. On vi. 605 foll. 
R. Whitelaw, Clas. Rev. v. 186. Onvi. 743. W. 


183 


Schriftstellern. Progr. Liegnitz 1890. In ix. 579 re- 
commends eminus for manus. W. J. Evans, Clas. 
Rev. v. 128. On x. 1. J. Henry, Aeneidea. Vol. 
iv. Dublin 1891. On books x.—xii. Much shorter 
than the other vols. A remarkable memorial of the 
writer, but as the latest notes are 1870, the work is 
rather out of date. Vol. iii. On metre and language. 
W. Meyer, Ueber die weibliche Casur des klassischen 
lateinischen Hexameters. Miinchen 1889. Gradually 
the feminine caesura lost its prestige and remained 
only honoris causa because of the Greek precedent. 
J. Oertner, N. Jahrb. f. Pid. 1890. Defines the 
caesura as a musical pause. Joh. Ronstrém, Metri — 
Vergiliant recensio. Lund 1892. Out of V.’s 14072 
lines (incl. Culex, Ciris, Copa, Moretum and Cata- 
lecta) 94 end with one-syllabled words, 76 with four- 
syllabled, 23 with five-syllabled, and 32 with spondee 
in the 5th foot [see Clas. Rev. vii. 219]. A. Platt, 
Clas. Rev. v. 337. Sees in flwvii iii. 702 a spondee 
and in flwviorwm G. i. 482 a molossus. But we cer- 
tainly have an uncontracted genitive in Dardanii iv. 
640. B. Gerathewohl, Grundziige fiir lateinische 
Allitterationsforschung. Leipzig 1892, and Allittera- 
tion tontragender Silben an den beiden letzten Arsen des 
Hexameters in Vergils Aeneis. Miinchen 1891. 
Every rhyme is for the ear, not the eye. Diligent 
and sensible investigations, but sometimes fanciful. 
F. Seitz, De fixis poetarum latinorwm epithetis. Part 
I. Progr. Elberfeld 1890. Many of the epithets 
of the Augustan literature passed into the current 
speech. J. L. Moore, Servius on the tropes and figures 
of Vergil. Amer. Jour. Phil. xii. (1891). Two 
papers. A useful piece of work carefully done. A. 
Nehring, Ueber bidens hostia. N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 
1893. M. Bonnet, TZiberis, Thybris, Thymbris. 
Rev. de Phil. 1892. Believes that in V. as well as in 
Statius and Claudian traces of the Greek form Thym- 
bris are to be found. IV. Educational use. F. 
Ehrlich, Wittelitalien, Land wnd Leute, in der Aeneide 
Vergils. Progr. LEichstiidt 1892. Collects the 
seattered etymological, archaeological and historical 
notices by the poet. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 
ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Gemoll, Kritische Bemerkungen zu _lateinischen 
Aeschylus. Eumenides. ‘Translation by F. G. 
Plaistowe. Cr. 8vo. Clive. 2s. 6d. 


Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius. 
edited by Edwin Ginn. 12mo. xxiii, 213 pp. 
Boston, Ginn & Co. 45c¢. 1893. 

Appleton (W. H.) Greek poets in English verse, by 
various translators ; edited with introduction and 


Long’s translation, 


notes. 12mo. xlvi, 360 pp. Boston, Houghton 
Mifflin & Co. 1 dol. 50 c. 
Baird (R.) Greek-English word-list containing 


about 1000 most common Greek words. 
43 pp. Boston, Ginn & Co. 35 c. 

Botsford (G. W.) The development of the Athenian 
Constitution. S8vo. vi, 249 pp. Boston, Ginn & 
Co. ldol. 50c¢. 1893. 

Brownrigg (E. C.) A Classical Compendium, being 
a handbook to Greek and Latin constructions, &c. 
Post 8vo. 116 pp. Blackie. 2s. 6d. 

Butcher (8. H.) Some aspects of the Greek Genius. 
2nd edition. Cr. 8vo. Macmillan & Co. 7s. 
net. 

Catullus, Edited by Elmer Truesdell Merrill. 12mo. 
xlvi, 273 pp. Boston, Ginn & Co. (College 
series of Latin authors). 1dol.50c¢, 1893. 


12mo. 


Cicero. Ad T. Pomponium Atticum. 
notes &c. by J. Brown. 
schein. Ils. 6d. 

Conder (René F, R.) The Catholic’s Latin primer ; 
an elementary grammar for English-speaking 
Catholics. 12mo. N.Y., Benziger Bros. 55. 

Gospel according to Peter. A study by the author 
of ‘Supernatural Religion.’ 8vo. Longman. 

Harper (W. R.) and Castle (C. F.) Exercises in 
Greek prose composition, based upon Xenophon’s 
Anabasis, books 1—4, together with inductive 
studies in the use of the Greek modes, based on 


Book 4, with 
Cr. 8vo. limp. Sonnen- 


Xenophon’s Anabasis, book 4. 12mo. 127 pp. 
New York, American Book Co. 75c. 1893. 
Harvard Studies in classical philology. Vol. IV. 


Boston, Ginn & Co. 1 dol. 50 ¢. 

Homer. The Iliads of Homer ; translated from the 
Greek by George Chapman; illustrated from 
Flaxman’s designs. 3 vols. l6mo. (Knicker- 
bocker nuggets) N.Y., G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 
3 dol. 75 c. 

Homer's Iliad. Books XIIJ.—XXIV. 
by D. B. Monro. 
430 pp. 


With notes 
srd edition, revised. 12mo. 
Frowde. 6s. 


184 


Horace. Translations of the Odes of Horace, by J. 
O. Sargent, with an introduction by O. W. 
Holmes. 12mo. xx, 240 pp. Boston, Houghton 
Mifflin & Co. 1 dol. 50. 

Satires and Epistles edited on the basis of 

Kiessling’s edition by J. H. Kirkland. 16mo. 

xxiii, 399 pp. Boston, Leach, Shewell & Sanborn. 








FE dol, 20'¢)" 1893: 
Livy. Book III. Text and notes by W. F. 
Masom. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d. : 
Vocabulary with test papers. 1s. 
— Translation. Clive. 2s. 


Books XXI.—XXII. by Greenough and Peck. 
12mo. xiv, 232 pp. Boston, Ginn & Co. 1 dol. 
5Olcy V89s: j 

Luciani Vera Historia. Edited, with introduction 
and notes, for the use of Middle Forms in Schools, 
by C. S. Jerram, new edition. 12mo. 84 pp. 
Frowde. 1s. 6d. 

Preble (H.) and Huil (L. C.) Latin lessons assigned 
to prepare for the intelligent reading of classical 
Latin prose. 12mo. x, 417 pp. Boston, Houghton 
Mifflin & Co. 1dol. 12 c. net. 1893. 

Samuelson (J.) Greece: her present condition and 
future progress, with woodcuts of Greek anti- 





FOREIGN 


Geschichte der rémischen Litteratur. 


Aly (F.) 
8vo. 1—64 pp. Berlin, Gaertner. 


Lieferung 1. 
1 Mk. 

Angermann. Beitriige zur griechischen Onomato- 
logie. Progr. 4to. 25 pp. Meissen. 

Anz (H.) Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum 
sermonem vulgarem e Pentateuchi versione Alex- 
andrina repetita. (I.) Diss. 12mo. 50 pp. Halle. 

Ausonius. Decimus Magnus, Die Mosella. Heraus- 
gegeben und erkliirt von C. Hosius. Anhang: 
Die Moselgedichte des Venantius Fortunatus. 
8vo. vii, 100 pp. Marburg, Elwert. 1 Mk. 40. 

Batrachomachiae homericae archetypon ad fidem 
codicum antiquissimorum ab A. Ludwich resti- 
tutum. Progr. 4to. 28 pp. Kénigsberg, 
Schubert und Seidel. 

Brocring (J.) Quaestiones Maximianeae. Diss. 8vo. 
43 pp. Minster. 

Brugmann. Zur umbrisch-samnitischen Grammatik 
und Wortforschung. 12mo. 13 pp. Leipzig. 
Biilz (M.) De provinciarum romanarum quaestoribus, 

qui fuerunt ab a.u.c. DCLXXII usque ad a.u.c. 


DCCX. Diss. 8vo. sv, 80 pp. Chemnitz. 
1 Mk. 50. 
Burmeister(F.) De fontibus Vellei Paterculi. 8vo. 
83 pp. Berlin, Calvary & Co. 2 Mk. 50. 
[Berliner Studien fiir class. Philologie. Band 
15; Heft 1.) 
De fontibus Vellei Paterculi. (I.) Diss. 





S8vo. 36 pp. Halle 93. 368. 8vo. 

Cicero. Ate Kede gegen Verres (von den Kunstriu- 
bereien). Fiir den Schulgebrauch erklirt von M. 
Fickelscherer. 12mo. xi, 119 pp. Paderborn, 
Schéningh. 1 Mk. 

Eibel (J.) De vocativi usu apud decem oratores 
atticos. Progr. 8vo. 62 pp. Wiirzburg. 

Elter (A.) De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia 
atque origine, V. (de Justini monarchia et Aristo- 
bulo Judaeo). 19 pp. Bonn. 


Fiigner (¥.) Lexicon Livianum. Fasciculus VI. 


Composuit F. Schmidt. 8vo. Columns 993— 
1184. Leipzig, Teubner. 2 Mk. 40. 

Gimborn (E. v.) Bemerkungen zum Projmium der 
Theogonie des Hesiod. Progr. 4to. 14 pp. 


Sigmaringen. 


Goetzeler (L.) Animadversiones in Dionysii Hali- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


quities from original drawings by W. Hydemann. 
Post 8vo. 114 pp. Low. 3s. 6d. 

Sophocles’ Electra. Introduction, notes and vocabu- 
lary and:translation by Thompson and Hayes. 
Cr. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

Theocritus. The Idylls. 
verse by James Henry Hallard. 
Longman. 6s. 6d. 

Thucydides IT. and III. The Fall of Plataea and 
the Plague at Athens, edited for the use of be- 
ginners, by W. T. Sutthery and A. 8. Graves, 
with map, exercises, notes, appendices and vocab- 


Translated into English 
Square 8vo. 


ulary. Macmillan & Co. 1s. 6d. 

Torr (Cecil). Ancient Ships, illustrated. 8vo. 
Cambridge Press. 10s. 6d. - ° 

Virgil. Aeneid. Book-I. Edited by Alfred J. 
Church. 12mo. Blackie. 1s. i 


—— The seventh book of Vergil’s Aeneid, edited 
for the use of schools, with texts, notes and 
vocabulary by W. C. Collar. 16mo. xvili, 96 
pp. Boston, Ginn& Co. 50c. 1893. 

Xenophon. The Art of Horsemanship. Translated 
with chapters on the Greek Riding-Horse, and with 
notes, by Morris H. Morgan. Cr. 8vo. 190 pp. 
Dent. 3s. 6d. net. 


BOOKS. 


carnassensis antiquitates romanas. TarsII. 8vo. 


92 pp. Miinchen, Th. Ackermann. 2 Mk. 40. 

Gomperz(Th.) Griechische Denker. Eine Geschich- 
te der antiken Philosophie. lLieferung 2. 8vo. 
Band I. 97—192 pp. Leipzig, Veit & Co. 
2 Mk. 

Grueneberg (A.) De Valerio Flacco imitatore. Diss. 
8vo. 94 pp. Berlin. 

Hartmann (J. J.) De M. Tullio Cicerone. Allo- 


cutio ad studiosos qua mense Septembri a 1893 
scholas de literis latinis et antiquitatibus romanis 
instauravit. Svo. 27 pp. Leiden, van Doesbargh. 
1 Mk. 

Haury (J.) Procopiana. II. 
Miinchen. 

Helicma (H. D.) Kritische beschouwingen over de 
keizerlijke verordeningen aangaande de Christenen 
van Tiberius tot Decius. Diss. '12mo. x, 150 
pp- Leiden. . 

Herondas. Les Mimes. 
introduction et’ notes par Ristelhuber. 
xvi, 121 pp. Paris, Delagrave. 

Hesseling (G.) Waxen tablets with fables of Babrius 
(tabulae ceratae assendelftianae). S8vo, 24 pp. 
7 plates. 

Hilff (F.) Observationes criticae et exegeticae ad 
Silii Italici Punicorum I. W—X_ pertinentes. 
Diss. 12mo. 38 pp. Miinster. 

Hueffner (F.) De Plauti comoediarum exemplis 
atticis quaestiones maxime chronologicae. Diss. 
8vo. 79 pp. Gottingen. 1 Mk. 50. 

Hultzsch (T.) De elocutione Diodori Siculi de usu 
aoristi et imperfecti. Pars I. Diss. 12mo. 96. 
pp. Halle. 

Kaissling (F.) Ueber den Gebrauch der Tempora 
und Modi in des Aristoteles Politica und in der 


Progr. 8vo. 43 pp. 


Traduits en francais avec 
18mo. 


Atheniensium Politia. Diss. 12mo. 90 pp 
Erlangen. 

Kaufmann (N.) Die Physiognomik des Aristoteles. 
Progr. 4to. 32 pp. Luzern. 


Knatz(F.) Quomodo Persei fabulam artifices Graeci 
et Romani tractaverint. Diss. 12mo. 63 pp. 
Bonn. 

Koesters (H.) 
ad Valerium Flaccum pertinentes. 
96 pp. Miinster. 


Quaestiones metricae et prosodiacae 
Diss. 12mo. 





The Classical Review 


MAY 1894. 


ARISTOTLE’S SUBDIVISIONS OF ‘PARTICULAR JUSTICE.’ 


On the initial distinction made in £th. 
Nic. v. between ‘ General’ and ‘ Particular’ 
Justice there is no dispute. General Justice 
is Righteousness or Rightness of conduct ; 
it is the fulfilling of the whole law, written 
and unwritten. We call virtuous conduct 
‘just’ in this wide sense when we look at it 
in relation to its effect on others (c. 1 § 20, 
1130a 12): the coward or the debauchee 
may be called, in this wide sense, ‘ unjust,’ 
when we consider how his conduct affects 
others. Particular Justice, on the other 
hand, is a special virtue alongside of such 
virtues as Courage and Temperance : there 
may be unjust acts which are not acts of 
cowardice or debauchery or of any of the 
special vices. Of Particular Justice we are 
told (c. 2 § 12, 11306 30) that there are two 
species— one which is exhibited in distribu- 
tions of honour, property or anything else 
which is divisible among those who share in 
the commonwealth, another which is cor- 
rective in the case of, contracts (76 év tots 
cuvarrAdypace diopOwrixov). Of this latter 
there are two divisions; for of contracts 
some are voluntary, and some are in- 
voluntary. Voluntary contracts are e.g. 
buying, selling, lending at interest, pledging, 
lending without interest, depositing, letting 
for hire: and they are called voluntary, 
because they rise out of voluntary acts 
[i.e. voluntary on the part of both the 
parties to the contract]. Of involuntary 
contracts some are furtive (Aa@paia), e.g. 
theft, adultery, poisoning, procuring, entice- 
ment of slaves, assassination, false witness ; 
others violent (Aiaa), e.g. assault, imprison- 

NO. LXIX. VOL. VIII. 


ment, murder, rape, maiming, slander, con- 
tumelious treatment.’ I have followed 
Mr. Jackson’s translation of the names of 
the various voluntary and involuntary 
contracts. 

In passing from the discussion of Dis- 
tributive to that of Corrective Justice (c. 4 
§ 1, 11310 25) Aristotle speaks of the latter 
as the one remaining kind—z6 6€ Novrov ev? 
76 StopOwrikov, 6 yivetat ev Tots auvadAddypact 
Kal Tots ێxovolois Kal Tots axovolos. In 
chapter 5, Aristotle applies the conception 
of 7d dvrurerovO0s (which the Pythagoreans 
had used as their one formula for Justice) 
to the case of commercial exchanges. Hence 
it has sometimes been assumed that chapter 
5 deals with that subdivision of Corrective 
Justice which is concerned with voluntary 
contracts, of which buying and selling are 
conspicuous examples, chapter 4 being held 
to treat only of that subdivision of Cor- 
rective Justice which is concerned with 
involuntary contracts, 7.e. with the remedy- 
ing of wrongs arising out of fraud or force. 
Against this view I think the words of c¢. 5 
§ 2, 11326 23 are decisive: it is there 
explicitly said that the conception of dvr 
reroves does not suit either Distributive or 
Corrective Justice. It may be objected 
that inc. 5 § 2 Aristotle only says that ro 
dvtiumerovOos KaT ivoTnTais inapplicable 
either in Distributive or in Corrective 
Justice ; but I think the obvious interpre- 
tation of his words is to take the denial as 


1 Michael of Ephesus appears to have read 7d dé 
Aourdy eldos; this would make no difference in the 


sense. 
P 


186 


affecting 7d dvrurerovOos generally. The 
distinction between equal and proportionate 
reciprocity is not introduced until § 6, 11326 
33. The inappropriateness of the conception 
of 7rd dvturerovbds to Distributive Justice 
seems to be assumed without proof. As 
applied to Corrective Justice, it would 
mean ‘ Retaliation ’—the term often used, 
inaccurately I think, to translate 70 dvtu7e- 
zovds throughout this chapter. The theory 
that Corrective Justice is the lex talionis 
Aristotle rejects. The conception of Reci- 
procity (Requital, Mutuality of conditions, 
or however it is to be translated) Aristotle 
admits only in associations of exchange—éev 
ras Kowwviats Talis dAAaxtikats—and then only 
if we apply the conception of Reciprocity 
proportionately and not accordingly to strict 
equality (kar dvadoyiav kat wi Kat’ icdryTa). 

In spite of Euclid’s use of 70 dvturezov- 
Gévat for ‘reciprocal proportion’ it may 
perhaps be thought rash to translate ro 
dvtirerovos kat’ avadoyiav by ‘ reciprocal 
proportion,’ especially since in Aristotle’s 
illustrations of just or fair exchanges the 
formula of reciprocal proportion is not 
applied with quite the same strictness as is 
the formula of direct geometrical propor- 
tion in Distributive Justice or the formula 
of the arithmetical mean in Corrective 
Justice. In § 8 the reciprocity only comes 
in in the sense that, after the products of the 
builder and the shoemaker have been 
equalized, the exchange implies a cross- 
movement (7 Kara dudmetpov cvfeviis).1 To 
produce the equalization necessary before a 
fair exchange can take place, a formula of 
proportion is used, but it is direct propor- 
tion : édv oty mpOTov 7 TO Kata THY ava\oyiav 
ivov, €ita TO avrurerovOds yevnra etc. (11334 
10). I feel no doubt—in spite of what has 
been said by good authorities to the con- 
trary—that Aristotle does think of different 
kinds of producers having different social 
values: and we can easily give an economic 
meaning to what he says by understanding 
the ratio between two producers A and B 
to mean the ratio between the value of an 
hour of A’s labour and the value of an 
hour of B’s labour. As 4 is to B (in this 
sense), then, so is a unit of A’s product to 
a unit of 5's in value for purposes of ex- 
change. For convenience let us call the 
products of A and BL, a and B respectively, 
rather than C and J, as Aristotle calls 
them. Then suppose that 4=38, a=38 


1 Mr. Jackson has pointed out the error of the 
traditional diagram of a parallelogram with diagonal 
lines drawn. See his edition of the /fth Book of the 
Ethics, p. 95. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


in value. This equalization is arrived at 
by a direct proportion ; and when it has once 
been effected, exchange must take place 
‘ crosswise,’ A receiving 38, while J receives 
la; but there must now be no further talk 
of proportion, else one of the two parties, 
the one already favoured in the process of 
equalization, would be having his superi- 


- ority counted over again.. This is the only 


intelligible interpretation I can see for c. 
5 § 12, 1133a 33—6 5 (eis cxjpa 8 ava- 
Noylas ov det dyew etc.) 

An explicit reference to the geometrical 
formula of reciprocal proportion is however 
suggested by the first sentence of § 12, 
1133@ 381: ‘Reciprocity will be produced, 
when the parties have been equalized, so 
that as farmer to shoemaker, so 1s the shoe- 
maker’s product [sc. which the farmer 
receives| to the farmer’s product | which the 
shoemaker receives].’ Using the same terms 
as before, we get ‘reciprocal proportion’ in 
this sense, that ‘As A is to # in value, so 
must be the amount of 8 which A receives 
to the amount of a which & receives.’ But 
it is to be observed that if A-: B::3:1, we 
cannot say, ‘As A4:8::38:1a’; for this 
would be to do the very thing which 
Aristotle says in 11336 1, 2 we must not do. 
And therefore if 8 meant the product of B 
already equalized with some unit of A’s 
product (76 épyov airod 76 icacpévov A, 11336 
5), we could not say ‘As 4: B::6B:a.’ So 
that even in § 12 70 dvtiwerovfos May Mean 
simply that mutuality of conditions which is 
the essence of exchange rather than the 
mathematical formula taken strictly. If 
however Aristotle does mean, as is quite 
possible, to use the formula of reciprocal 
proportion, this only affords an additional 
argument for regarding chapter 5 as dealing 
with a different division of Justice from 
those dealt with in chapters 3 and 4. We 
have three distinct mathematical formulae : 
(1) direct geometrical proportion, (2) arith- 
metical proportion—or, more properly, the 
finding of the arithmetical mean, and (3) 
reciprocal proportion ; and we may reason- 
ably expect to find a separate division of 
Justice corresponding to each.. For this 
third kind of particular Justice we may 
invent the name of ‘Catallactic’ or ‘Com- 
mutative Justice.’ 

To this conclusion the following objec- 
tions may be made: (1) that in ¢. 4 § 1 
(11316 25) Aristotle distinctly says that 
Corrective Justice is the one kind remain- 
ing to be treated of after Distributive 
Justice has been discussed ; (2) that in ce. 
2 § 13 (1131la@ 1) Corrective Justice is sub- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


divided into two species, and that Cor- 
rective Justice dealing with voluntary con- 
tracts may be identified with the kind of 
Justice described in ec. 5; (3) that in ce. 5 
§ 6 (11326 31) proportionate reciprocity is 
said to be the basis of civil society (r@ av7- 
roueiv dvdAoyov ouppever ) ToAts) by regu- 
lating the requital of evil as well as the 
requital of good. With the second of these 
objections I have already dealt, in part at 
least. The third objection, it should be 
noted, is inconsistent with the second: ec. 5 
§ 6, 1132b 31 suggests, not that Commuta- 
tive Justice is one of the species of Cor- 
rective Justice, but that Corrective Justice 
is one of the species of Commutative 
Justice : and this is precisely what we find 
in Thomas Aquinas’s adaptation of the 
Aristotelian theory (Summa 2a. 2ae. qu. 
61, art 1,3). I quote from the convenient 
abbreviated translation of Father Rickaby 
(Aquinas Ethicus, vol. ii. pp. 22 seg.) :— 

‘ Particular Justice is in relation to some 
private person who stands to the community 
as a part to the whole. Now to a part we 
may either have another part related ; and 
that expresses the relation of one private 
person to another, which relation is regu- 
lated by commutative justice [et hune ordinem 
dirigit commutativa justitia|, or the justice 
that is concerned with the mutual dealings 
of two private persons one with another : 
or again we have the relation of the whole 
to the part ; and such is the relation of the 
community to the individual, which relation 
is presided over by distributive justice [quem 
quidem ordinem diriyit justitia distributiva] 
or the justice that distributes the goods of 
the common stock according to proportion. 
And therefore there are two species of 
justice, distributive and commutative...... 
Distributive justice presides over distribu- 
tions [est directiva distributionum|, while 
commutative justice presides over the ex- 
changes [est directiva commutationwm] that 
may take place between two individuals. 
Of these exchanges some are involuntary, 
some voluntary. Those are involuntary in 
which one uses the thing or person or 
service of another against his will. This is 
done sometimes by fraud, sometimes by 
open violence...... In all transactions such 
as those enumerated, whether voluntary or 
involuntary, the same principle holds of 
fixing the mean according to an even balance 
of give and take [secundum aequalitatem 
recompensationis|. And therefore the said 
transactions all belong to one species of 
justice, namely, commutative.’ 

In Article 4, under the same ‘ Question,’ 


187 


Thomas Aquinas lays down that the Just in 
Commutative Justice is identical with Re- 
quital (contrapassum), but not in Distributive 
Justice. From al] that he says in this part 
of the Swmma and also from his Commentary 
on the Ethics it is quite clear that Aquinas 
considers that he is only following the 
opinion of ‘the philosopher.’ And there is 
no doubt that the traditional merging of 
Corrective and Commutative Justice by 
Aristotelian commentators is greatly due to 
the example set by Aquinas. Father 
Rickaby in his own work on Moral Philo- 
sophy, or Ethics and Natural Law, which 
may be taken as a good specimen of Thomist 
ethics of the present day, introduces 
‘punishments’ among the ‘matters distri- 
buted’ by Distributive Justice (p. 104). 
But this seems to me to go beyond any 
possible interpretation of Aristotle, and to 
be a concession to the modern conception of 
Crime, as distinct from civil injury. Al- 
though, in this very book of the Lthics, 
Aristotle decides that the suicide commits a 
wrong against the State (c. 11 § 3, 1138@ 
11), yet, as we have seen, he regards 
assaults and murders as giving occasion 
simply for a kind of Justice, which has to 
restore the interrupted equality betweem 
individuals. Aristotle does indeed recog- 
nize that the use of such terms as ‘loss’ 
and ‘gain’ in involuntary contracts is a 
metaphor from their proper use in com- 
mercial transactions (c. 4 § 13, 11326 12) 
But his theory of Judicial Justice (if one 
may use the expression) adheres to the 
primitive type of penal law, which, as Maine 
expresses it, ‘is not the law of Crimes, but 
the law of Wrongs or, to use the English 
technical word, of Torts’ (Aneent Law, p. 
370). Even when he regards the suicide as 
committing an injury against the State, 
Aristotle probably conceives this injury ‘on 
the analogy of a personal wrong’—to use 
the phrase employed by Maine in speaking 
of the conception in early Roman juris- 
prudence of wrongs done to the State (7id. 
372). In the Lhetoriec (i. 13, 13736 23, 24) 
Aristotle distinguishes between wrongs done 
to a determinate individual (zpos éva kai 
wpirpevov) and wrongs done zpos 70. Kowov. 
Adultery and assault are given as examples 
of the former class, evading military service 
of the latter—6 yap potyetwv Kat TiTTwv 
adiucel TWH TOV wpiTpEevwy, 6 SE py) OTpAaTEvO- 
pevos TO Kowov. Mr, Welldon’s translation 
(‘ for adultery and assault are crimes against 
particular persons, but the refusal of mili- 
tary service is a crime against the State’) 
seems to me unfortunate in introducing the 
Bs 


188 


term ‘crime’ atall. Wrongs to determinate 
individuals are ‘involuntary contracts’ and 
form the occasion for Corrective Justice. 
On the other hand I think it probable that 
Aristotle would have regarded the evasion 


of military service as a violation of Distri-. 


butive Justice, on the principle laid down 
in Eth, Nic. v. 3 § 15, 11316 20—that the 
lesser evil is to be reckoned as good: the 
citizen who evades any public obligation, e.g. 
the payment of a tax, service in the army, 
etc., has taken to himself an unfair amount 
of the good things which the community 
secures to its members and has thrown an 
unfair burden on others. The wrong done 
by the suicide is probably to be interpreted 
in the same way ; he has deprived the State 
of his services without permission. But 
the penalty inflicted by the State on the 
deserter and the dzyia inflicted as a punish- 
ment on the suicide (c. 11 § 3) would in 
Aristotle’s eyes be matters of Corrective, 
not of Distributive, Justice. 

It is interesting to see in Aquinas and 
his followers what becomes of Aristotelian 
theories. But we cannot take Aquinas’s 
interpretation as proving anything more 
than that Aristotle’s words seemed to him 
to have a certain meaning. It is important 
therefore to consider in: what form 
Aristotle’s words reached him. Aquinas 
read the Hthics and the Politics in the 
version of William of Moerbek. Now in 
this old translation the words of c. 2 § 12, 
11306 30 are rendered as follows: ‘Una 
autem uae in commutationibus directiva.’ 
-In c. 4 § 1, 11316 25, we find: ‘ Reliqua 
autem una directivum [sic] ejus quod sit et in 
voluntariis commutationibus et involuntariis.’ 
In these passages Aquinas’s attention was 
obviously attracted by the phrase ‘in com- 
mutationibus’ and not by the vague word 
‘ directiva,’ which fails to give the force of 
diophwrixdv. In the sentences which I 
quoted above from the Summa it will be 
observed that Aquinas uses directiva and 
dirigit of Distributive as well as of Cor- 
rective Justice: so that he. has clearly 
missed the significance of the term dr0p6w- 
qixov. The absorption of Corrective in 
Commutative Justice—a view which seems 
to fit in well enough with c. 5 § 6 (11326 34) 
but not with §§ 2, 3, 4 (11326 23—31)—is, 
I think, sufficiently explained, so far as 
concerns mediaeval moralists and all whom 
they have influenecd, by the language of the 
‘old translation.’ 

As to the second objection—that drawn 
from the subdivisions in ec. 2 § 13—I do not 
think that the passage need be interpreted 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. | 


in such a way as to lead us to expect a 
special treatment of Corrective Justice in 
relation to voluntary contracts. Aristotle 
frequently elaborates divisions and _ sub- 
divisions without Ris up his classi- 
fication with a corréspondingly elaborate 
discussion in detail. In this very passage 







we have the distinction between 7a Aabpaia . 


and ra Pia laid down and illustrated, but 
not followed up by any further use of the 
distinction. In the same way I think that 
chapter 4 deals with Corrective Justice both 
in voluntary and involuntary contracts, no 
distinction being made, such as would be 
made in modern Jurisprudence, between the 
principles of civil and criminal law. 
Aristotle recognizes what is roughly parallel 
to a difference of spheres, but no difference 
in principle. As already said, assaults and 
murders are treated as matters to be 
remedied by equalization, z.e. by an assess- 
ment of damages (though. of course the 
‘damages’ may amount to the surrender of 
the life of the wrong-doer) on the same 
principle as the failure to pay a debt or to 
repay a loan. It seems to me quite certain 
that Corrective Justice is intended to apply 
to voluntary contracts, only when the terms 
of the contract have not been fulfilled : other- 
wise there is no case for a plaintiff to bring 
before a law-court. On this matter Mr. 
Jackson seems to me perfectly right is his 
interpretation. (See his edition of Zth. 
Nic. v. p. 76.) There can be no rectifica- 
tion, till a wrong has been committed. I 
cannot agree with Mr. Stewart’s ingenious 
suggestion (Notes, vol. i. pp. 415, 416) 
that Corrective Justice in Aristotle’s sense 
is exercised by a land-court, revising leases, 
the strict enforcement of which seems to 
involve hardship. Such revisions of volun- 
tary contracts or non-enforcement of the 
strict letter of voluntary contracts would, I 
feel sure, have been considered by Aristotle 
as cases of émveixeca—éravopOapatra vopipou 
dukacov—and not as cases of Corrective 
Justice, as that is described ine. 4. Nay, as 
such ‘correction of legal justice’ (as distinct 
from correction by legal justice) requires 
special legislation to bring it about or a 
special interference on the part of the 
executive, it would rather fall under 
Aristotle’s head of Distributive Justice. 
But I do not think that Aristotle is taking 
account of ced Gerar or ys dvadacpot or any 
such exceptional measures in any part of 
his theory of Justice. Mr. Stewart admits 
that Aristotle had not any such cases of 
rectification in his mind ‘when he drew up 
his list of Exovova ovvaddAdypara’ in ce. 2, § 13. 


 antinee 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


In bringing economic distribution under 
the conception of 7 do tév Kowdy diavopy, 
Mr. Stewart (Votes, i. pp. 417, 418, 432, 449) 
seems to be going beyond any warrant to be 
found in Aristotle. Aristotle means by 
‘distribution’ the formal assignment of 
power, office, d&ec., to different persons or 
classes in a constitution. Thus ‘one man, 
one vote’ would be in accordance with demo- 
eratical distributive justice: the Prussian 
‘three-class system’ in which votes count 
for more according to the amount of direct 
taxes paid, or the present English system of 
assigning votes in the election of poor-law 
guardians according to the amount of rates 
paid, would be examples of distribution on 
the principles of oligarchical justice ; in the 
ideal state political power would be propor- 
tionate to merit, if that could be ascertaiued. 
Thus too in an association other than the 
State, the payment of dividends according to 
the amount of shares would be Distributive 
Justice ; but Distributive Justice would have 
nothing to do with the market value of these 
shares, nor in general with the wealth or 
poverty of different persons and classes, 
which arises not from any direct assignment 
of rewards or burdens by the State, but 
simply from the operation of what we call 
‘economic laws.’ Though in the Politics (i. 
8-11) he has the conception of a distinct but 
subordinate science of wealth (ypnyatiorixy), 
Aristotle does not anywhere suggest the 
notion that industrial and commercial com- 
petition would of itself bring about Distri- 
butive Justice : and I do not think that he 
would have accepted’ the notion, if it had 
been propounded to him. His criticisms of 
constitutions in which the legislator has 
allowed great inequalities to grow up and 
his own express provisions for the d:avopy of 
land among the citizens (Pol. vii. 10. 13296 
40) imply a political and ethical distrust of 
the unchecked operation of what we call 
‘economic laws.’ 

Mr. Stewart (p. 433 and Classical Review 
vol. vii. p. 182) pleads the authority of the 
Magna Moralia i, ¢..34, in support of this 
introduction of economic considerations into 
the conception of Distributive Justice. But 
(1) when the writer of J/, MW. says (1194a@ 1) 
‘that he who has worked much should receive 
much and that he who has worked little 
should receive little,’ this is quite a fair 
illustration of Distribution in Aristotle’s 
sense. It is Distribution on principles of 
proportion according to whatever standard 
(aéia) be adopted. If the wages in a certain 
trade are so much per hour, the labourer who 
has worked eight hours receives twice as 


189 


much as he who has worked only four ; but 
what determines the amount of wages per 
hour in the trade is a question which 
Aristotle does not bring in Distributive 
Justice to decide ; and yet this is just the 
question which concerns the modern 
economist dealing with the problem of ‘the 
distribution of wealth.’ (2) In what 
follows, the author of the J/. J, referring 
to Plato’s Republic, goes on to introduce the 
question of economic exchange which is 
discussed in th. Nic. v. 5, though he:treats 
it in much slighter fashion. In the M. MM. 
there is however no subdivision of Particular 
Justice and no express mention of either 
‘Corrective’ or ‘ Distributive Justice.’ The 
writer simply shows that Justice involves 
the idea of equality—in the sense of pro- 
portionate equality, giving as illustrations 
the ratio of taxation to property and of 
wages to amount of labour. The latter 
illustration leads to a reference to Plato’s 
Republic ii. 369.. The formula of justice in 
exchange is ‘As the farmer is to the builder, 
so is the builder to the farmer.’ Since the 
products are not always of equal value, 
money is needed for equalization. Then the 
writer goes on to say: éore 5€ dikavov Kat TO 
avturerovOds, ov pevror ye ws ot IvGaydperot 
€Aeyov (1194a 28); but he applies the con- 
ception of 76 dvturerovOds only to punishment 
and not at all to economicexchange. Thus, 
important as the Magna Moralia may be as 
representing an early traditional version of 
Aristotelian ethical theory, I do not think 
that much stress can be laid upon it in regard 
to this part of Book v. One might almost 
conjecture that the writer had before him a 
defective copy of the Aristotelian text, in 
which chapters 3 and 4 were wanting and 
chapter 5 imperfect. Or is it possible that 
this part of A/. M. is descended from some 
older draft of the Aristotelian theory than 
what is elaborated in Hth. Nic. v.? In any 
ease I think one must agree with Mr. H. 
Richards (in Classical Review vol. vii. p. 251) 
when he says that the writer of the J. M. 
used a wider and vaguer formula which 
embraces both Distributive Justice and 
Justice in Exchange, and is not regarding 
the latter as a subdivision of the former any 
more than vice versa. Michael of Ephesus, 
commenting on th. Nic. v. 5, refers to the 
M.M.as explaining the matter more clearly : 
the account in the M. MV. is clearer indeed, 
but simply because it is slight and super- 
ficial. 


If, then, the kind of Justice described in 
chapter 5 §§ 1-16, cannot be absorbed in Cor- 


190 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


rective Justice or in Distributive Justice, or 
in any way amalgamated with either or both 
of these, can any satisfactory account be 
given of this passage, without resorting to 
the desperate measure of proposing unveri- 
fiable rearrangements of the text? First of 
all it should be noticed that the subject of 
Reciprocity is introduced ‘indirectly by a 
reference to Pythagorean opinion on the 
subject of Justice generally. The connexion 
of thought between c. 5 $$ 1-16 and the 
preceding part of Book v. may, I think, be re- 
presented as follows—interpolated comments 
are enclosed in square brackets :— 

‘ Particular Justice in both its forms has 
been explained in terms of mathematical 
formulae. [To use mathematical conceptions 
in ethics was for the Greeks to make ethics 
‘scientific,’ to take the subject out of the 
level of mere popular moralizing by using 
the conceptions of the only science which by 
that time had made conspicuous progress 
and so come to be the type of scientific 
thought.] But it was the Pythagoreans 
who first introduced these mathematical 
formulae into ethics. They, however, defined 


Justice simply as ‘Reciprocity.’ [They | 


really meant by this, apparently, the number 
multiplied into itself—the square (4 or 9) as 
a symbol of Justice. Cf. Alexander Aphrod. 
on Met. 9856 26. The passage is quoted by 
Mr. Jackson and by Mr. Stewart in their 
notes on this chapter of the Zthics. Again, 
as Mr. Stewart points out in his note on 
11526 21 (i. p. 445), the pseudo-Archytas, 
who at any rate ‘hoped to pass for a 
Pythagorean,’ applies the conception of 7d 
avtirerovGevat to the Spartan state, as a 
balanced constitution, in which the same 
magistracy might in turn be superior and 
subject : 70 6€ dvtirerovOevar eyo abt@, Kal 
apxev Kal dpxerGat Trav airavy épxdv, domep Kal 
€v 72 civomwtata Aaxedaiyov. There is, in 
any case, little reason to believe that the 
Pythagoreans really intended their concep- 
tion of justice as 76 dvturerovOés to mean 
merely ‘tit for tat.’ They were taking a 
mathematical term to express the general 
idea of correspondence or symmetry or 
balance—all of which terms we might use 
in trying to explain what is meant by a 
‘just’ arrangement, a ‘fair’ system of 
government, c&c.] But the formula of 
Reciprocity [as Aristotle chooses to under- 
stand it] will not fit either of the species of 
Justice we have distinguished. It will not 
fit Distributive Justice; because [I suppose— 
Aristotle himself has given no reason—]| the 
notion of Reciprocity applied in distribution 
would imply an exact reversal of the notion 


of giving to each his due: it would mean 
giving less to the better and more to the 
worse. Nor will it fit Corrective Justice : 
applied to Corrective Justice, Reciprocity 
would mean Retaliation, and exact Retalia- 


-tion is not just, (1) because the mere physical 


injury is no precise measure of the real 
wrong committed, e.g. a blow inflicted on an 
official is a greater wrong than the same 
blow inflicted on a private person; and (2) 
because we must take account of the inten- 


tion of the person who inflicts the hurt and © 


not of the mere physical injury ($§4, 5). 
Nevertheless, on our principle of looking for 
an element of truth in all current opinion 
(cf. Ath. Nic. i. § §1, 10986 10; vii. 1 §5, 
11456 2 &c.), we may reasonably expect to 
find some ground for the Pythagorean con- 
ception of Justice. In the case of voluntary 
exchanges, to which we have just been 
referring as the sphere from which we 
borrow the terms ‘ loss’ and ‘ gain’ employed 
in discussing Corrective Justice (c. 4, § 13, 
11326 12), we regard what is just or fair as 
depending on a sort of Reciprocity—not 
exact quantitative requital (for that would 
uot be fair, as it would not take account of 
the different values of different kinds of 
work), but Reciprocity determined by pro- 
portion. Such proportionate Reciprocity is 
the indispensable condition of civil society. 
Civil society, as Plato says [I take the hint 
of a reference to Plato’s Republic from the 
MJ. M.}, comes into being to meet the mutual 
economic wants of different persons ; but it 
would not meet these wants, unless they got 
a fair equivalent -for their respective pro- 
ducts. And this idea of a fair equivalent 
appears also in the notion of Reciprocity as 
applied to wrong-doing, though we have just 
seen that the notion of Reciprocity is not 
applicable in the literal sense of a lex 
talionis. People do not consider themselves 
freemen, unless they can get a fair equiva- 
lent for wrongs done to them (dovAca doxet 
eivat, et pr) dvtiTounoer).’ 

How the conception of Reciprocity is 
worked out in commercial exchanges I 
have already shown. The hint of its appli- 
cation to the remedying of wrongs will 
enable us to reconcile the seeming contradic- 
tion between c. 4 § 3, 1132a@ 1, where it is 
said that the equality of Corrective Justice 
is exact and not proportionate equality, and 
c. 5 § 4, 11326 28, where it is denied that 
an exact equivalent is just requital. We 
now see that the effect of Corrective Justice 
must be to leave the parties ‘ quits,’ but in 
the assessment of the amount of wrong that 
has to be redressed we must take account of 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


a principle of proportion (e.g. as an official 
is to a private person, so is the knocking off 
of an ofticial’s hat to the knocking off of a 
private person’s hat). Here, however, just 
as in the case of commercial bargains, there 
must be no talk of proportion after the 
equalization has once been made in terms of 
this proportion (ef. 5 $12). 

I have here attempted to work out the 
suggestion of Reciprocity with respect to 
wrongs on the analogy of its application to 
commercial exchange. But I do not thereby 
mean to regard Corrective Justice as a sub- 
species of Commutative. Commutative or 
Catallactic Justice (Aristotle has given no 
name to it) seems to me brought in by an 
afterthought to explain Aristotle’s attitude 
to the Pythagorean formula. But I do not 
think Aristotle would have considered this 
addition inconsistent with his previous 
recognition of two kinds only of Particular 
Justice; for I do not think he means 
Catallactic Justice to stand on the same 
level as the other two. Both Distributive 
and Corrective Justice imply a definitely 
organized State, and are in strictness applic- 
able only to the citizens of the same State, 
they are both parts of the Jus Civile, and 
they correspond moreover to the divisions of 
Public and Private Law. Catallactic Justice, 
on the other hand, may exist between those 
who are not citizens of the same State.! An 
Athenian for example may export wine to 
Egypt and may import corn (cf. 5 § 13, 
11336 9), and the bargain he makes may be 
fair or unfair ; but if, when the bargain is 
once made, one of the parties does not abide 
by his contract, e.g. does not deliver the 
goods he has contracted to deliver, or does 
not pay for the goods he has received, the ag- 
grieved party has no remedy unless in virtue 
of some special treaty or privilege he is 
allowed to sue in the courts of the other’s 
country. So too with the potion, which 
Aristotle does not develop, of Reciprocity in 
things evil. An Athenian may offend an 
Egyptian, and the Egyptian may ‘pay him 
out ’—hurting him in due proportion—and 
we may pronounce the transaction fair or 

1 Tt is interesting to note that, in opposition to the 
traditional view about Aristotle’s subdivision of Par- 
ticular Justice into Distributive and Commutative, 
Pufendorf (De Jure Naturae et Gentium, i. c. 7 § 12) 
holds that Aristotle has three species of Particular 
Justice, but recognizes a difference between the first 
two (Distributive and Corrective) and the third, which 
he ealls simply 7d dvtimexov0ds, retaliatio ; the first 
two both rest with the public authority to administer, 
the third either with private persons or public 
authorities. 1 may add that I had adopted my theory 


about Eth. vy. 5 before knowing of Pufendorf's 
remarks, 


191 


unfair, quite apart from any judicial decision, 
which, as already said, is only available be- 
tween citizens, unless there is some special 
treaty allowing aliens to sue. (Such treaties 
are referred to by Aristotle in Po/. ili. 1 § 4, 
1275a 10; 9 §$ 6, 7, 1280a 36 seq.). The 
fairness or unfairness of bargains as such, 
the fairness or unfairness of reprisals between 
individuals or nations who are in ‘a state of 
nature’ to one another belong to a kind of 
Justice which is, so to speak, below the level 
of 76 woAurixov Sikavov (Jus civile) proper, 
although it is a kind of Justice without 
which civil society could not hold together, 
nay, could not exist. The definite theory of 
a Jus naturale which would apply if there 
were no Jus civile is indeed post-Aristotelian, 
though the xowvds vopos of the het. i.ce. 10,13, 
15 comes very near it.” I do not think how- 
ever one can identify the Justice whose 
principle is 7d dvtirerovGds with 70 duovkov 
dikavoy as opposed to 7O-vopixdy dikatov : for 
the more nearly any State approaches to the 
ideal, the more nearly wili its Jus Civile 
(roAutiKkov dixavov) be duvotkov dixavov and not 
merely vouixov. Td avturetovds is rudimentary, 
rather than ideal, justice. This ambiguity 
between the ‘natural’ as the ideal and as 
the rudimentary recurs in all the theories 
which work with the idea of a Jus naturale, 
and exists in Aristotle’s own conception of 
pvors. 

Recurring to the hint supplied by Plato’s 
Republic ii. 369 B, one might rearrange the 
kinds of Justice in the reverse order, in an 
ascending instead of a descending scale. 
(1) There must be fair exchanges between 
human beings in order to satisfy their 
mutual wants, else there would be no 
xo.vwvia at all beyond the family and the 
village community (cf. Pol. i. 2), But (2) 
a State (woAis) exists for many purposes 
beyond this of satisfying economic wants : 
there must at least be law-courts in which 
the citizens can get their wrongs remedied, 
without having recourse to reprisals. But 
(3), in the opinion of both Plato and 
Aristotle, a State must do very much more 
than guarantee private rights (the theory of 
Lycophron the Sophist, referred to in Pol. iii. 
9 $8, 12805 10): it should provide for its 
citizens the proper sphere in which each may 
perform the functions for which he is best 
fitted. This is the problem of Distributive 
Justice, which in the best State will adopt the 

2 It should be noted, however, that Aristotle 
seems only to refer to the cowds vduos as a generally 
received notion, which may, when it is convenient, 
be used as a rhetorical commonplace: ‘No ease, 


talk about the law of nature and quote the Antigone’ 
(Rhet. i. 15. 13750 27 seq.). 


192 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


standard of merit, but in zwapexBaces like 
oligarchy and democracy will award power 
and honour according to wealth in the one 
case or on the principle of treating every 
freeman as equal in the other. 

This Catallactic Justice is not a species 


of Particular Justice alongside of the other | 


two. Whether it is to be called zroAcruxov 
dikacov or not isa matter of words. It is 
zoAurixov dikaov certainly in the sense that 
it is the essential condition of the zoAutiK7 
cowwvia existing at all; but it cannot be 
called woAurixov dtkacov in the same full sense 
as those kinds of justice with which the 
zo\utixés as Such concerns himself. Mr. J. 
Solomon (in the Classical Review vol. vii. 
p- 12) suggests that the contents of chap. 5 
may relate to 70 oikovopkov dikatov. But Aris- 
totleexpressly refers that term to the relation 
between husband and wife, the only one of 
the family relationships in which the con- 
ception of justice properly applies, 2.e. 
justice or ‘right’ in the lawyer’s sense not 
in the moralist’s, if we may use a distinction 
that at once occurs to us, but was not yet 
clearly seen by Aristotle. The author of 
the J. M. applies the phrase ‘household 
justice’ to the relation between master and 
slave, saying that the relation between 
~ husband and wife comes nearer to political 
justice (11945 20-24)—a variation from 
the terminology of £th. Nic. v. 6 $9, 1134 
617, which may help to warn us against 
trusting too much to the J. J. as a clue to 
Aristotle’s meaning. In the Politics (i. c. 
8-11) ypnpariorixy is treated as a branch of 
oikovoptky, it is true, but not in that sense 
of xpyyatiottxy Which means specially the 
art of exchange (weraBAntixy) : so that this 
dixatov of Lth. Nic. v. ce. 5, might rather 
have been called peraBAnrixdy than oixovo- 
pLukov. 

Ido not think that Zth. Nic. v. 6 §$ 3, 4, 
1134a@ 23-30 by itself would entitle one to 
assert that 70 dvtizerovGes belonged to 76 
d7A@s Sikatov as distinct from 76 zodXutiKov 
dixatov; but, taken in conjunction with the 


arguments already used, the passage seems 
to confirm the view that 70 dvtirerovGds does 
not apply to a species of 76 zodutiKov dikatov. 
The relation of Catallactic Justice to the 
two species of Jus civile may, I think, be 
best represented as follows :— | 


CORRECTIVE JUSTICE 
(Arithmetical Mean) 


DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 
(Geometrical Proportion) 


me 


both imply a wéaus, 
which implies 
CATALLACTIC JUSTICE 
-(Proportionate Reciprocity). 


The good case which seems to be made out 
by most interpreters of Aristotle, from the 
writer of the Magna Moralia to Mr. Stewart, 
for regarding the Justice of chap. 5 as 
dealing with the same matters as the Justice 
of chap. 4, or even as the Justice of chap. 3 
also, would according to the theory I am 
suggesting be sufficiently explained by the 
fact that chap. 5 deals with the conception 
of Justice in a part of human social life 
which lies at the basis of the definite political 
organization that alone makes possible Cor- 
rective and Distributive Justice. My theory 
is identical with what I take to be that of 
Ramsauer in his note on 4th. Nic. v. 5 § 6, 
11326 31. Butin working it out at greater 
length I have put it to a severer test: and I 
have also tried to explain the origin of the 
theories which I reject. If it be objected 
that I am reading into Aristotle ideas from 
later jurisprudence, I should answer that I 
have only followed out hints supplied by 
Aristotle himself (especially in Pol. iii. 9, 
a passage which professedly applies the con- 
ception of 76 dékaov arrived at in the Ethics), 
and that I have not knowingly introduced 
anything inconsistent with what Aristotle 
clearly means. 
D. G. Rircute. 





CRITICAL NOTES ON THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. 


(Continued from p. 25.) 


515 B. Bi oty duadéyeoGar ofot 7° elev pos 
a\AyAous, ovK abTa Hye Gv TA TaptovTa avTovs 
/ > / 7 c Lal ‘@) ~ 
vopiceww | 6vopalew | azep opoev; So Baiter, 
adopting Madvig’s ov« aird and Ast’s 


mapiovra for the od rairad and zapovra of 
MSS., and bracketing dvoydfew with Cobet. 
Perhaps it would be better to read vopiew 
<ai> édvoudfew. Cf. 443 E ev zaou rovros 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


hyovpevov Kat dvopdlovra duxaiav pev Kat Kadyv 
mpaéw 7) av x... The use of dep seems to 
me much in favour of raird, to which it is 
so often correlative. 

515 D. ei tis adrd A€you Ste ToTE pev Ewpa 
prvapias, viv 58 padAdv Te eyyuTépw Tod oOvTOS 
kal mpos paddov dvta TeTpappevos opOorepa 
BXero, Kail 3% Kal exacrov Tov TApLlovTwv 
dexvds adtG dvayxdlor épwrdv azoxpiverOau 6 
tiéotw. Read éyyutépw <div>, as in 330 E 
dorep dn eyyvtépw dv tov eéxet padrddv TU 
kafopa atta. Baiter prints BAéror, but Ast 
(3rd ed.) and Stallbaum are clearly right 
in reading BAére. The optative would not 
be grammatical, and Schneider, when he 
defends it by the dro@avo. in Phaedo 57 B, 
fails to notice that the optative there refers 
to past time. The right mood here is pre- 
served in 6 7 éorw. On the other hand in 
the words that follow, otKotv Kav ei rpds adro 
Td has dvayxdlor abrov Bréreuv, (ovK oie adtov) 
ddyeiv Te dy TH Oppata Kal pedyew droatpedpo- 
pevov zpos éxeiva & Ovvatar Kafopav, is it 
certain that the indicative dvvaro. can 
stand? The optative seems to me necessary, 
just as in 516 E the duBdvdrro of a few 


MSS. seems preferable to Baiter’s du- 
Bdvdrre. So in 515 B dep épdev could not 


Cf. on 538 A below. 

516 D. For dérutv av merovOévac read 
étiotv by merovOeva. See Class. Rev. vi. 
p. 341. 

518 A. érirkoroln av, ToTepov éx pavotépov 
Biov jeovea (4 Wuxi) t7d anOeias éeoKoTw- 
tat 7) €& dpabias mwelovos eis pavorepov lovoa 
i7d Aapmpotépov pappapvyns eumrérAnorat. 
Should not i7d Aaprporépov be omitted ? 
Just below (518 B) in ri aideiav odx 
olay Ties érayyeAAdpevol dacw elvar ToLavTyVY 
kai etvae the first e«ivac should be omitted. 
No good writer could have written the 
double civau as it stands. 

518 E. The other excellences of the 
soul are adventitious: 7 6 tod dpovncat 
mavTos paAXov Oevorepov Tivos ws Eotke TVYXAVEL 
ovoca, 0 TH pev SvvapuW ovderoTe aroA\dvOW, 
bird 8€ Tis mepiaywyns xpyoywov Kal ade- 
Amov Kal axpynorov ad Kat BAaBepov ylyverat. 

In a sentence containing a comparative 
adjective or adverb (here @eorepov) mavros 
padXov can have no place. Its proper use 
is illustrated by such passages as 520 EK 
mavTos piv paddov ws em dvayKatov airov 
exaotos elo. TO apxew, or 595 A where it 
oceurs twice. It is itself the comparative 
expression and cannot be combined (though 
padXov alone can) with another comparative. 


be azep dpc. 


It was no doubt for this reason that 
Madvig got rid of szavrds, suggesting 


, aA ~ 
mAaopatos Or bpaocparos padrdov Georepov. 


193 


I would rather suggest that qavrds is a 
corruption of dpydvov (TTANTos of opl ANov). 
Not many lines above (518 C) we have 
riv evodoav éxdotov Svvapu ev TH Wux7 Kat TO 
Opyavov @ KaTapavOdver EKATTOS...... 7 EPLAKTEOV 
civat: cf. the repiaywyn here. So (527 D) 
in the mathematical sciences éxdorov dpyavov 
TL Wuxis exkabatperal Te Kal dvalwrupEtrar...-.. 


kpetrrov dv cuwbijvar prpiov dpparov. Cf. 
further 508 B trav wepl tas aicbyoes 


dpyavev : 582 D adda pav kat dv ov ye det 
épydvov kpiverOat, od Tod gidoKepdods TodTO 
Spyavov ovdé TOV diAoTiov GANA TOD procodov: 
Theaet. 185 CG, D. I read therefore 4 de Tod 
povnca. dpyavov paddov Georépov _ k.T.A. 
For paddov (not wavtds paddov) added to 
a comparative see Ast’s Lexicon, or Riddell’s 
Diyest § 166. 

520 D. tiv & evavtiovs apxovtas cxXovoav 
(xéAw) évavtiws. As this refers to present 
time and is a rule of general application, 
we must read éyovcav. The aorist participle 
would refer to the past, ‘the state which 
got’ or ‘had got.’ 

529 OC. xav é& inrias veww ev yn 7 ev 
Gaddrry pavOdvy. Most MSS. seem to have 
véwv (with vafwy and vey as variants), but 
A and ono or two others have pév, while 
pjv and py are also found (Schneider). 
Pollux vii. 188 has vetvy 0) é& trrias pabnpa 
kolupBytov eipyxev Apiotopavys Kat UAdrwv, 
which seems at first sight to show that he 
found véwv in his text, but perhaps this 
is not certain. “Eé trrias and év Gadatry 
would justify his citation, Madvig proposes 
to read 7) (kav é& imrias 7) ev yn) and Baiter 
follows him. The conflicting readings of 
the MSS. might be to some extent reconciled 
if we were to read é& imrias GOedpevos, a 
word which would be very much to the 
purpose here, as the long sentence began 
with kwduvevers yap el Tis €v 6popy TokiApata 
ecspevos k.7.X. and é& irrias is certainly the 
better for going with a participle. I have 
also thought of xe(wevos, and Ficinus actually 
has dzacens.! 

Ibid. (det) ratra pev Ta ev TS otpave Torkir- 
pata, érsimep ev Opat@ wemoixwWtat, Kadota 
pe yyetobar Kal axpiBéorata tov ToLovTwV 
éxew, Tov d& ddAnOwav word evdeiv, Gs TO dv 
Taxos Kal 7) ovoa Bpadvtis ev TO Gdnbwo 
dpa Kal waa Tots adAnOéor oxyjpacr popas 
te mpos GAAnAa Péeperat Kal ra évovta pepe & 
di) Adyw pev kal dvavola Ana, ower d' ov. 


1 Mr. Marindin, who reminds me that Pollux may 
also be thinking of Phaedrus 264 A é& irrias ava- 
madw Siaveiy emxetper Td Adyov, suggests that Plato 
wrote here chy eEurtiaguévus ev yn, and | incline to 
think his suggestion better than my own. | (Cf. 
Lucian’s use of éfumria wr, ; 


194 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Defects of both grammar and_ sense 
condemn this sentence. With trav ddn6wav 
we must of course understand vorktApdrov. 
These zoixiAwata are contrasted with the 
visible zoixiAwara of the sky, and to the 
former & 61) Adyw «.7.A. refers. There is 
however no construction left in the sentence 
for ds...d@opas...pépetrat x.t.X. Moreover, as 
Ast pointed out, it is ridiculous to speak 
of swiftness and slowness as themselves 
moving or being carried along (déperar) and 
still more so to speak of them as carrying 
their contents (7a évovra) with them. 
What contents has swiftness? Evidently 
the subject of the verbs ¢éperar and dépa, 
as of Anmra (eoriv), is Ta GAnOwa Torkid- 
pata. ‘To obtain this sense, which is in- 
dispensable, Ast proposed to read dy 76 
ov Tdxos Kal 7 otca Bpadvtys, Kal ev TO 
Gynbwe apiOpa...dépetar kal... pepe, thus 
changing as to ov and inserting xaé before 
ev to, ‘of which absolute swiftness and 
slowness are the properties, and which 
move &c.’ I believe this to be in essence 
right, and have only to suggest that instead 
of av we might read ots, which is nearer to 
the ds of the MSS. Cf. 425 A, where I 
have suggested ois zpéra for ds zpéra, and 
491 A, where éAc‘yos is necessary for 6Acyas. 
- Whether we read xai é& or xév is im- 
material. 

529 E. jyjoaro yap ayv...kadduoTa  pev 
Exe arepyacia, yehoiov pay emirKo7eiv Taita 
orovdn K.T.A, 

lt looks as though an civat were omitted 
before or after éxickozeir. 

530 B. otk drorov iynoetar tov vopilovra 
ylyvecOat te TatTa det doattws Kal ovdapy 
ovdev mapadddrTew, copa Te €xovTa Kal 
Opwpeva, Kat Cntetv ravtl tTporw tiv GAjGeav 
aitov afer ; 

For (yretv, which can hardly be right, 
Madvig suggests {y7y0e (which seems to 
me to give a wrong sense, for airév must 
refer to tatra) or (yreiy detv (which gives an 
awkward number of infinitives). Read 
rather (ytotvra. Cf. note on 383 A. 

530 C. ’AAAG yap ri exes tropvqoca Tov 
TpoonkovTwv pabnpdruv ; 

The sense seems to require something 
like <aAAo> tT or <éri> Th. 

530 E. dvddfopev...py ror aitdv te dtedes 
emixepoow jw pavOavew ods OpeWopev Kat 
ovk é&jKov Exeioe del of wavta det adijKe. 

“Adjxew May be right, but the word 
seems hardly known and dvyjxew is much 
more usual in this sort of sense. Cf. below 
on 533 C. Perhaps of ded rather than det of. 

531 A. ras yap dxovopévas ad cupdwvias 
Kal pOdyyous aAAnAots avapetpodvres K.T.X. 


Perhaps <év> dAAyAows. 

533 C. ovxotv, iv 6 eye, % diadeKTLKi 
pefodos povn tavtn Topevetar tas irobecas 
avaipotou éx’ aitny THY dpxnv va BeBaroornrar, 
Kal K.T.A. 

' For dvatpotoa read certainly dvayovca, 
which had occurred to me before I found 
that Canter proposed it long ago. “Avaup- 
ovoa could only mean ‘doing away with,’ 
and ‘doing away with (provisionally) in 


order to establish (again ultimately), is a” 


very unlikely meaning. ’Avaipovca,of course 
suggests itself, but dvacpew is unknown to 
Plato and extremely rare. Read therefore 
Tas brobeces dvayouca én’ aitiy THv apyny. 
We have avayev again a couple of lines 
further on (€Akeu kai dvayer dvw), and for its 
use in connexion with dpyy cf. Laws 626 D 
tov Noyov én’ apxnv 6pOas avayayev and many 
uses of the word in Aristotle. Not quite 
the same, but similar, seems its use above 
in 529 A ds pev viv aitiy peraxepiLovtar ot 
eis piAocodiay avdyovres, Where it certainly 
does not mean ‘those who embark upon 
philosophy,’ but makes an antithesis with 
the xatw BAézew following. 

533  E. An ordinary éziotjyn (says 
Socrates) may perhaps be better called 
dudvowa. “Eoti 8, ws uot doxet, od rept dve- 
patos audi hytnots, ois TooovTwY Tépe oKets 
oowv qv TpoKeTa. Od yap ovv, ey: GAN O 
av povov dydot zpos tiv eéw cadyveta Eyer 
ev woxy. (A has A€yas written above Adyar 
as an old correction.) ’Apéoxer yodv, iv 
& ya, x.7-A. 

Baiter after Madvig writes dey’, «i &v 
Wox7n and translates sed quod modo declaret 
ad rem tenendam perspicuitate, dic, si intra 
animum tibi versatur: See his Adnotatio 
Critica for some other suggested readings, 
only one of which I will quote here, because 
it is the only one which gives anything like 
a satisfactory sense. Bywater proposes 
GAN 0 av povov dyrot tiv ew, TOs exer 
cadnveias & eyes ev Wry7y, In which tH ééw 
and @ A€yas do not seem to go very well 
together. I should rather suggest 6 dy 
povov dnAot ras aitHy exew cadnvetas héyeus 
év Woxn, ‘whatever will just show what 
degree of clearness in the mind you think 
it (the éruoryjpyn or diudvora, already referred 
to in the text three lines above as airjyv) 
possesses.’ I also concur in the view that 
apéoxe. Should probably be dpxéoe: and be 
read twice over, for I cannot see how 
properly to construct 6 ay «.7.A. with ov 
Tept dvopatos audioPytnots. The passage 
will then run thus: aA’ 6 av povov dyAot 
mas aityvy exew cadnvetas A€yes ev Wry7 
apxéoe. “Apxeoe (or perhaps we might here 


i 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


keep ’Apéoxe) yovv, jv 3 eyo, xvi A 
possible na lee elaar for Os airiv EXEL is 
mos éxew Ti efw, thus keeping the tiv egw 
of the MSs. For the question with Aeyets, 
as I suppose it to be put, cf. 562 B “Ap: 
ovv Kal, 0 Snpoxparia dpilerau dyabov, 0 
TOUTOU drhyoria Kal TAUTYNV Karadver ; Aéyes 
& avrny ti ( piler Ga ; ; Th ehevdepiav, elrov. 

535 A. Ta pay d\\a tolvuv, qv 8 ey, 
€xeivas TOS pvcets olou detv éxAexrTeas elvat. 

It is surprising that deiv has been so long 
allowed without protest to stand side by 
side with ékXexréas «iva. Unless it is a 


195 
corruption of something else, e.g. det, it 
must be removed altogether. 

538 A. & Tis toasty K.T.A., TOUTOV €xXELS 
pavredoar ban, Tos iv Siaredecy.. .€y exelvw TE 
TO X99V, o obk noe Ta Tepl THS ioBo djs, 
Kal ev @ av yet; 

Can the imperfect indicative Se stand in 
such a sentence? L think it should be 
eidecq, and we have that form in the parallel 
clause of the sentence following, év © ypove 
7) a\nbés py cidein. Cf. note on 515 D. 


Hersert RicHarps. 


(To be continued.) 





THE BEGINNING OF THE ATHENIAN HEGEMONY. 


Mr. J. E. Sanpys has kindly directed my 
attention to Kaibel’s reasoning in support 
of the reading dxovrwy tév Aakedaipoviwr, 
Arist. ’A@. TloA. ch. 23, as confirming the 
view which he himself has expressed in his 
Aristotle’s Constitution, p. 93. Kaibel’s 
principal statement is as follows: ‘ Dass die 
Athener die Hegemonie zur See nicht éxdvtwr, 
sondern dxovtwv tov Aaxedayovioy gewonnen 
oder genommen haben, ist doch wol allein 
historisch begriindet’ (Stil und Teaut der 
TloA. *AO. d. Arist. p. 178). I wish to 
prove, on the contrary, that if Aristotle 
wrote dxdvrwv, he is out of line with all the 
ancient writers who, so far as I have ex- 
amined, have expressed with clearness their 
views of the event. 

Isoc. Paneg. 72 does not prove anything,— 
ovk apdicByroivrwv may signify ‘did not 
care to dispute’ as well as ‘did not dare to 
dispute.’ There is nothing in the construc- 
tion or in the meaning of dydicfB. which 
would make Kaibel’s translation preferable. 
This and the other passages cited from 
Isocrates (de Pace 30, Panath. 67, and 
Areop. 17; cf. Kaibel, loc. cit.) are abso- 
lutely neutral, and contribute nothing to 
the settlement of the question. Hdt. viii. 
3 is also neutral,—ézeiAovro does not imply 
force or indicate that the Lacedaemonians 
were unwilling. We may infer from the 
passage that the Athenians assumed the 
hegemony without consulting the Lacedae- 
monians; but if any evidence should be 
adduced to prove that the Lacedaemonians 
yielded voluntarily, such evidence, it must 
be admitted, will not stand in contradiction 
to anything found in this chapter. Hdt. ix. 


106 contains some important facts which 
bear upon the question at issue. The 
Peloponnesians, recognizing their inability 
to protect the cities of Ionia, proposed to 
transplant the Ionians into European Greece. 
The Athenians repudiated this proposition 
and declared that they alone had a right 
to take measures concerning their own 
colonies. Hereupon the Peloponnesians 
gladly yielded (zpoOvpws cigav), and the 
Athenians thus took upon themselves the 
hegemony of the coast towns of Ionia 
together with the obligation of freeing and 
protecting these. ‘The Lacedaemonians re- 
tained the hegemony of the islanders only. 
That the Lacedaemonians had little zeal for 
strengthening and extending or even main- 
taining their command at sea is shown by 
the fact that they returned home soon after 
this without accomplishing anything further, 
leaving the Athenians in full possession of 
the field of action (Hdt. ix. 114). We may 
reasonably regard this movement of the 
Lacedaemonians as a voluntary surrender 
to Athens of their remaining claims to the 
hegemony ; and it is extremely doubtful 
whether they would have made any further 
claim to it, had it not been for the ambitious 
designs of Pausanias (cf. Wiiamowitz- 
Moellendorff, Arist. und Athen, i. p. 156). 
Accordingly, when they recalled him it 
seems that they not only left no commander 
in his place but even withdrew the Pelopon- 
nesian contingent from the fleet. Here 
again they show their lack of interest in 
maintaining their leadership. The sending 
of Dorcis with a few troops was but a 
half-hearted attempt to supply the con- 


196 


federates with a commander. When the 
latter found his post already occupied and 
had returned, ‘the Lacedaemonians sent out 
no others afterwards because they feared 
that they might find those who went abroad 
becoming corrupted, just as they saw in the 
case of Pausanias, and because they desired 


at the same time to be rid of the Median | 


war, and because finally they considered 
that the Athenians were competent to 
conduct the war and were on terms of 
friendship with them at that time’ (Thue. 
i. 95). Now if we should immediately add, 
as Kaibel seems to do, ‘The Athenians 
having received the hegemony in this way 
with the consent of the allies, ete, but 
against the will of the Lacedaemonians,’ we 
should contradict the passage from Thucy- 
dides just quoted. Thucydides, indeed 
(i. 75), represents the Athenians as saying 
to the Spartans, ‘ We received the hegemony 
because you were unwilling to remain in 
the field and finish the war with the bar- 
barians,’ and nowhere do we find this 
statement contradicted. Xenophon (fell. 
vi. 34) represents a Spartan as declaring 
that the Athenians were chosen leaders 
tov Aax. ovpBovdcvonevwv. Unfortunately 
Sandys has classed this with those passages 
_ which do not show ‘that the Lacedaemonians 
were really willing to surrender their su- 
premacy,’ while Kaibel calls it a Spartan 
tale. The willingness of the Lacedae- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


monians is also shown by Plut. Arist. ch. 23 
(quoted in my Development of the Athenian 
Constitution, p. 215, n. 3), while, in follow- 
ing the reading of Herwerden and Leeuwen, 
de Rep. Ath. p. 49 (eixdvrwv) I had in 
mind the zpoOvpus <igav of Hdt. ix. 106. 

The conditions involved in such a leader- 
ship were positively ruinous to Spartan 
state and society (cf. especially Bernhardy, 
Griech. Lit. i. p. 116). Ephorus (Diod. xi. 
50) in representing dramatically the conflict . 
of opinions in Sparta itself as to this event 
makes Hetoemaridas the spokesman of that 
party which understood and expressed in 
public life the true spirit of the Spartan 
constitution. As the interpreter of this 
spirit, Hetoemaridas persuaded the Spartans 
to the belief that in renouncing the hege- 
mony in favour of Athens they were 
removing from themselves an obligation 
both dangerous and burdensome, and were 
at the same time bating no point of their 
rights (Curtius, History of Greece, ii. p. 374 
f., N.Y. 1886). Among the modern au- 
thorities who hold the view maintained in 
this paper are Grote (History of G'reece, v. 
p. 258 ff., Harper’s ed.), Curtius (loc. cit.), 
Cox (Greek Statesmen, first series, p. 208), 
Holm (Griech. Gesch. ii. p. 115), Thumser 
(die griech. Staatsalterthiimer, p. 220), and 
Busolt (Mdller’s Hdb. iv.” p. 321). 


GEORGE W. BoTsFoRD. 





H. STEPHENS’S VETUSTISSIMA EXEMPLARIA. 


‘In literary history,’ says Mark Pattison, 
‘a conjecture passes into a certainty by 
repetition’ (Zssays i. p. 120). There is a 
‘conjecture’ about Henry Stephens, which 
has apparently lost sight of its original 
source, and.is now passing through the 
‘repetition’ stage. ‘That learned man,’ as 
Porson calls him (7Zracts, p. 92), before he 
began his long career of editing and author- 
ship, travelled for about two years (1547- 
1549) in Italy, visiting, as he tells us (Annot. 
in Soph. et Eurip. p. 98), all the public and 
the best of the private libraries in that 
country. Among the rich harvest of texts 
and notes which he brought back from this 
journey were, he says, readings from two 
very old MSS. containing the eight plays of 
Euripides which form the second volume of 
the Aldine edition (2?hesus, Troades, Bacchae, 
Cyclops, Heraclidae, Helena, Jon and Hercules 


Furens). Wherever these MSS. differed 
from the Aldine edition, he noted the fact, 
and published these readings (twenty years 
afterwards), along with conjectures of his 
own, in such a way that it is nearly always 
possible to distinguish the readings from 
the conjectures. 

That a man, who in the course of forty- 
four years edited or wrote (as well as 
printed and published) more than 170 books, 
should have made some mistakes, and some- 
times written ‘like one asleep,’ will not 
surprise any one who has had experience of 
printing and editing. But apparently the 
case is far more shocking than that. This 
is what we are now taught by the two scho- 
lars to whom, after Elmsley, we in England 
owe most of our power of understanding 
and appreciating the finest of Euripides’ 
plays. ‘It is now fully established,’ says 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 197 


Prof. Tyrrell (Bacchae, ed. 1892, p. 126), 
‘that he [Stephens] was in the habit of 
recommending his own conjectures by the 
authority of pretended MSS. (vid. Kirch. 
Praef.)’ and in the preface, p. xix., he 
says ‘Kirchhoff has shown that they (the 
vett. codd.] were feigned to give authority 
to his own conjectures.’ Dr. Sandys, again 
(Bacchae,? p. 213), talks of H. Stephens’ 
‘fraudulent statement’ about his ‘ pre- 
tended Italian MSS.’ 

Supposing it should turn out that neither 
in any ‘preface’ noranywhereelse had Kirch- 
hoff touched the subject of Stephens’s Italian 
MSS., and some indignant defender of the 
memory of the author of the Thesaurus 
were to call Prof. Tyrrell——but it is too 
horrible to contemplate. I, at all events, 
can find no reference to the question in any 
of Kirchhoft’s writings. Brunck (on Bacchae, 
v. 235) speaks of H. Stephens’s sublesta fides 
as the only support for a reading, asking 
why he had not said where he saw the 
MSS. Elmsley, in the preface to his Bacchae, 
comments somewhat significantly on the 
fact that no one else had seen these MSS., 
and Hermann (pref. to Eur. Helena, p. v.) 
says that people who believe in Stephens’s 
two old Italian MSS. are nimis creduli. At 
the most, he says, the readings were mar- 
ginal notes, perhaps Stephens’s own. 

Is it not a reason for being ‘credulus’ 
when we find that in twenty-three passages in 
the 7’roades Stephens quotes from his ‘ vetws- 
tissima exemplaria’ variants which turn out 
to be the readings of the better class of 


MSS. of which Vat. 909 (Prinz’s B, Kirch- 
hofi’s B) is the best representative? The 
published editions of the TZ'roades in 
Stephens’s time, and for about 200 years 
afterwards, were based on Pal. 287 (Prinz’s 
P, Kirchhoff’s B). In two passages in the 
Troades (vv. 193-196, and vv. 232-234) P 
and Ald. omit half lines to the extent of 
thirteen words, which words occur in Vat. 
909, and are recorded almost exactly by 
Stephens as noted by him in his old MSS. 
If he did not find these words there, where 
did he find them 4 ! 

Isaac Voss (of whom Charles II. said 
that he was a sort of savant who would 
believe anything provided it was not in the 
Bible) said he had found certain readings in 
a Florentine MS. of Euripides. Nobody 
has seen or identified the MS. but nobody 
doubts the genuineness of the readings. 
And yet one of the most learned Greek 
scholars and one of the greatest bene- 
factors of classical scholarship that ever 
lived, is in the nineteenth century called 
mendacissimus (Prof. Tyrrell, Bacchae ed. 
1871, p. 60) for having made a similar state- 
ment. Surely this question ought not to be 
regarded as settled without a much more 
searching discussion than it has yet received, 

EK. B. ENGLAND. 

1 Tn nearly but not quite all these twenty-three 
cases P. Vettori, in his marginal notes to the Aldine 
ed. preserved in the Munich Library, gives the same 
reading as H.S. Stephens made Vettori’s acquaint- 
ance on his Italian journey: perhaps some one will 
say that he got his readings from Vettori, but | hardly 
think it is likely. 


VARIA. 


On Sopnoctes, 7r. 1260, 1261. 


xaAvBos 
AGoKdAANTOV TTOpLov Tapexova’. 


That AoxdAAnTros is a perfectly good 
word, and means ‘set with stones’ is 
attested by plenty of passages (e.g. Chares 
ap. Athen. 514 F, Aristobulus ap. Strabo 
730, Menander ap. Poll. 10, 187, &c.). 
From Lucian (i. p. 29: kal 6 xadwos jv 
AOoxdAAnTos, Aapetov twos 7) KapBicov 7 
Kvpov aitod keyuyAvov) it is plain that stones 
were used at least in the ornamentation of 
the bridle very early. Professor Jebb in 
the appendix to his editionof the Z'’rachiniae 


(on v. 1261) says that a curb of steel, 
set with pieces of stone, has not been 
supported by any proof that a steel curb 
was ever furnished with teeth of stone; 
and further, that the epithet, if referring 
to ornamentation of the bridle, would be 
wholly out of place here. This latter we 
grant: but there is evidence from ancient 
writers that the bit was set with stones. 
One of the scholiasts on Sophocles, who 
probably wrote before 30 B.c., recognizes 
the word and explains it by A6wov kai 
okAnpov xadwov. More conclusive evidence 
is to be found about 400 years later in the 
poet Claudian (70, 7): 


sanguineo virides morsu vexare smaragdos ; 


198 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Cf. id. 8, 549, 550: 


turbantur phalerae : spumosis morsibus au- 
rum 

fumat: anhelantes exundant sanguine gem- 
mae ; 


and, again, 73, 7, 8: 


accipe regales cultus, et crine superbus 
erecto virides spumis perfunde smaragdos. 


These jewels were set doubtless near the 
ends of the bit, and were ornamental as 
well as severe. Cf. Isid. Orig. 4, 8: 
frenusculi ulcera circa rictum oris: similia 
his quae fiunt iumentis asperitate frenorum. 
But at the outset probably nothing but 
sharp or jagged pieces of stone were used, 
which would make a very cruel bit. It is 
likely therefore that this sort of a bit is 
meant in the Z'rachiniae. (The passage 
from Nonnus quoted by Prof. Jebb, p. 206, 
I cannot find, but edAdvyyas occurs in Nonnus 
11, 122, and 32, 242, ed. Koechly, 1857. 
Compare Claud, 70, 3: gemmis dum frena 
renident, &c.) 


Os Treveey bly. 
et teneat culti iugera magna soli. 


Shall we read magna or multa? Magna 
is supported by G (Baehrens) and by the 
Paris and Freising excerpts, and has there- 
fore the weight of authority. Multa is 
found in A V g(Baehrens). Editors agree; 
I think, in reading multa, and for the same 
reason perhaps that Prof. Ramsay urges, 


that the iugerum is a fixed amount! To , 


say that a similar mistake occurs in Ovid, 
Amor. 3, 15, 12, is begging the question. 
In this passage, Palatinus primus with two 
other MSS. reads iugera parva. Most 
editors (if not all except Miiller in his 
Carm. Amat. 1861) accept pauca. 

Light is thrown on both these passages 
by Statius (7%. 5, 550): 

collectus gyro spatiosaque iugera complet. 
Our acres, too, are all of the same size, 
but we say, rhetorically, ‘broad acres.’ 
Why should not the Romans do likewise ? 
Magna (and parva too) is the lectio diffi- 
cilior, and therefore the more . probable 
reading. F. K. Bau. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 





THE WORD ANASAKET. 


THE inscription on a bronze helmet (no. 
247 in Zvetaiett’s Inscripp. [taliae Inferioris 
Dialecticae, Rhein. Mus. xxxix. p. 558, Mém. 
de la Soc. de Ling. de Paris vi. p. 51) has 
caused great difficulty to scholars. BUCHELER 
reads Saurws ava aket Xredis Mapepeces, 
and translates ‘Saepina praeda; egit 
Spedius Mamercius’ ‘ Saepine spoil—Spedius 
Mamercius won it.’ He denies that the = 
after ava is a letter. Bréau reads S7edus 
Mapepextes airs avacaxer, and translates 
‘Spedius Mamercius Saepinas consecravit’ 
‘Spedius Mamercius of Saepinum made this 
offering.’ W. DerckE in his appendix to 
Zvetaielf says: ‘Die Inschrift im Rhein. Mus. 
xxx1x, 558 ist zu lesen—spedis : mamerekies : 

| saipins: ana aket, d.i. Spedius Mamercius 
Saepinus dedicavit. ana is Preposition, 
aket Perfect from akum = agére.’ 

Prof. Conway (Trans. of the Camb. Phil. 
Soc. vol. iii. part iv. p. 222 sqq.), in discussing 
‘Veseris and the letter F,’ mentions a set 
of Oscan coins with the legend eevoep and 
and fensernum which Dr. Imhoof- 
Blumer (Numismat. Zeits. 886, p. 206 ff.) 


assigns to the town Veseris. The object of 
his paper is to discuss the ‘altogether ex- 
ceptional representation of the same sound 
by v in Latin and f in Oscan.’ Dr. Blumer 
had been unable to give parallel uses of the 
sign ¢, But Prof. Conway quotes our in- 
scription and also the one immediately 
preceding it in Zvetaieff as containing the 
same letter reversed,! adding that in these 
two inscriptions o is the ordinary Ionic 3, 
The latter inscription is TpeBis 3S. Seores 
deder (sic Gvetaiett) where Conway explains 
it festes = Festus. In the former he 
explains TJyASANA, as -faxer in com- 
position = Osc. *fefaced (fefacust) Umbr. 
*faced (facust), He compares Umbr. 
Klavlaf aanfehtaf Tab. Ig. ii. a. 33, 
which he says may possibly mean ‘the 
dedicated chine.’ Apparently therefore, 
though he does not translate the inscription, 
he wishes to get the same meaning as I do. 

Seores in the inscription above quoted 


1 A view to which he still adheres in Class. Rev. 
vol. vii. pp. 468, 469, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


is generally understood as = ‘Sestius’ or 
‘Sextius’; but against this it may be said 
that the suffix *-ios is generally represented 
in Osean inscriptions by -is -iis -ies (in the 
Latin alphabet) and by -is -ves -ens (in the 
Greek alphabet). Hence it is much better 
to suppose Seores is for ‘Sestus’ or Sextus’ 
which we not unfrequently tind in Latin 
inscriptions as a cognomen as well as a 
praenomen, e.g. L. Tertinius Sextus (C./.A. 
1948 and 2021), Lic. Sextus (C.£.A. 2500), 
Sex. Vireius Sextus (where it is both 
praenomen and cognomen) : for the st =x cf. 
Umbr. sestentasiaru =‘ sextantariarum.’ 

The word preceding Seores (whose first 
letter is written S) is TPEB==. Biicheler 
Ithein. Mus. xxxix. p. 559 says the second 
= is a sign of separation both here and 
in avagaxer, but this is extremely unlikely. 
The probability is that the first = is an error 
on the part of the engraver for E (Zvetaieff 
gives Tpefis with an 1), and possibly the 
engraver was led to write ¢ for = at the 
beginning of the second word to avoid the 
ambiguity which would be caused by the 
close proximity of so many =’s and E’s in 
TPEBSSSESTES. In this inscription 
Conway’s explanation by ‘ Festus’ does not 
seem necessary, for Festus has not the 
advantage of being so common a name as 
Sextus ; nor is it likely, for, if $ is for $ 
retrograde ( = ¢), as Conway suggests, it is 
strange that it is so imperfectly formed, 
considering how very clearly 3? is cut in 


this inscription each time it occurs. Nor 
can I agree with his explanation of 
TSAyXATANA.§ It is true that in Latin 


facere is often used with the meaning 
‘sacrifice’ (cf. Greek félew); but, in so 
far as I am aware, this only applies to facio 
uncompounded ; facio in composition does 
not, | think, possess this meaning. Whether 
we regard aanfehtaf (quoted above) 
with Biicheler as = Lat. ‘ infectas’ (t= ‘ raw 
or half-raw chine’? Conway), or with 
Conway as from the preposition an-, it does 
not seem possible to extract the meaning 
‘dedicated’ from it. In Greek, dvaetvat 
gets its meaning ‘dedicate’ as an outcome 
of its literal meaning ‘ placed up, offered up 
on the God’s altar,’ but in Italic the Idg. 
/dhé- had lost its meaning ‘to place’ and 
had only retained that of ‘to make.’ We 
frequently find, it is true, on old, especially 
sepulchral, Latin inscriptions the letter F or 
FC = ‘fecit,’ ‘faciendum  curavit’ —but 
there it only means ‘ A, made or constructed 


199 


(not ‘dedicated’) this tomb.’ We do not 
find it used in inscriptions with the meaning 
‘dedicate an offering. To express this 
latter meaning we find instead, e.g. do, porto 
(C.I.L. 191), voveo, dico (C.L.L. 807) dedico 
(C.LL, 541), &e In short the meaning 
‘to dedicate’ is not found in any form of the 
Jdhé- in Latin inseriptional writing, nor 
do the writers use facio in composition with 
this meaning. 

Hence, as it is hardly likely that in our 
inscription the verb can have any other 
meaning than ‘dedicated,’ and as it is im- 
probable that facio, either compounded or 
uncompounded, can have that meaning, and 
as moreover the ‘graphic’ argument given 
above on Xeores holds good for avacaxer 
also, we must endeavour to find some other 
explanation. Buck (Der Vocalismus der 
Oskische Sprache) discusses the word avacaxer 
on pp. 14, 15, 17. On p. 14 he classes it 
with angetuzet ‘proposuerint, iusser- 
int’ Lat. an-held, Umbr. an-tentu ‘ inten- 
dito’ &. Gk. Att. dvd Boeot. Arcad. dv. 
Below he adds ‘ Auffallend ist das scheinbar 
nicht-apokopierte ana in avacaxer, falls es 
richtig interpretiert worden ist. Diirfen 
wir vielleicht an griech. Einfluss denken 1’ 
Below again, p. 17, he refers avacaxer to a 
verbal a-stem *saka (cf. sakahi{ter=san- 


ciatur). He agrees with Jules Martha 
(Bréal, Mém. Soc. Ling. vi. p. 5) that 


Biicheler (Rhein. Mus. 39, 558 f.) is wrong 
to doubt that ¢ is a genuine letter, and 
adds that a not-impossible explanation for 
> (whereas elsewhere in the inscription we 
have 3) = cis that given by Louis Duvau 
Mém. Soc. Ling. vi. 227. Brugmann, 
Grundriss ii. § 867, 5, p. 1235 (1892 a.p.) 
classes avacaxer under thematic aorists of 
his class ii. saying ‘Osk. ana-saked 
oder ana-zaked “consecravit”’ (Bréal 
and Duvau) zu Lat. sancid.’ I venture to 
think that Buck is on the right track, 
when he says ‘Durfen wir vielleicht an 
griech. Kinfluss denken?’ In spite of the 
many difliculties to be surmounted, I would 
venture to suggest that avacaxer was a 
borrowed word, and represents the Greek 
word dvé$nxe, SO common in Greek votive 
inscriptions, with the meaning ‘ dedicated 
an offering.’ The meaning would thus be 
much the same as Bréal’s ‘ consecravit,’ but 
it is reached by a different way. That it 
should be a _ borrowed word need not 
surprise us ; there are others, borrowed both 
from Greek and Latin; the latter need 
not concern us here ; from the former Buck 
(i. p. 10) quotes: Evkl ui: Evxdeys, 


200 


Herukinat: "Epuxivy, Kuiniks: yoingé, 
Aarovs: Aaprovios, ToTepew: ToTyp, San- 
tia: Zav@ias, and some others. 

The south of Italy was studded with 
Greek colonies, chiefly Achaean and Dorian, 
and the non-Greeks in Southern Italy were 


constantly coming into contact with Greek . 


life, manners, and language—a _ contact 
which was furthered by the importance. of 
the city of Tarentum to Greeks and non- 
Greeks alike. Accordingly we may expect 
not only to find Achaean and Doric charac- 
teristics in the language of the Greek 
colonies themselves, but also to find it 
reflected even in the dialects of the non- 
Greek peoples in this part of Italy. Perhaps 
of all inscriptions those commemorating 
votive offerings are the most common, and 
of all the words which occur on these in- 
scriptions dvé$yxe is probably the most 
frequent. May it not then be possible, or 
even probable that the non-Greek in- 
habitants in Southern Italy may have 
borrowed the word avéOyxe from the Greek 
inhabitants, in the sense of ‘dedicating’ an 
offering? 

Let us now examine avacaxer and see 
how it can have come from davéOyke. 
That 6 was changed to o by the Laconians 
is a fact noticed by grammarians of all 
ages: eg. Apoll. de Synt. p. 39, 3, ot pev 
GAXor Awpteis Typotor TO 6, Adkwves 5€ Kat 
cis o peraBadXdovow, and it is hardly neces- 
sary to multiply examples, such as. Thue. v. 
77, where in the Laconian decree 76 ced 
cvpatos = Tov Geod Piparos ; but one other 
from Aleman 72 [24] (Bergk) has particular 
application here: ‘"Qpas 6’ éonke Tpets’ 
‘and he made three seasons,’ where B has 
écaxe tpets, for in this passage we not only 
have the actual word which we are seeking 
(cf. Aristoph. Lys. 1080, 1081), but we also 
find it spelt with a for y. Inscription 33 
in Cauer (Delect. Inserr. Graec.), found at 
Taenarum, furnishes us with some good 
instances: Xypavdpida (line 2) for @npav- 
dpida, Snpur7os (line 23) for Ojpurmos, Stzrop- 
mos (line 24) for @edrouzros, probably coming 
through the form @:0- for Oeo-, SuxdAjjs (line 
27) for @coxAjs, and *AXxuroidas (line 38) for 
’AX\xiOotdas (which is remarkable for the 
change of 6 to o before 0), rov civ dhépwv 
(line 51) i.e. tov Gov dépwv (‘idem in titulo 
simili Foucart apud Le Bas, Voy. arch. ii. 
n. 163 d. vocatur ctoddpos, Cauer). This 
change seems to have been peculiar to the 
Laconians, and not to have been common 
to the other Dorians ; the traces of it in 
Crete are ‘suspectissima’ Ahrens (de Dial. 
Dor. § 7, p. 69). (Compare also Miillen- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


siefen de Titulorum Laconicorum Dialecto, 
§ 8, who cites the form dvéonxe (= daveOyxe) 
from an archaizing inscription of the second 
century A.D.). We see thus that this change 
was comparatively late on inscriptions—and 
it may be said by objectors that where we 
find the change in the MSS. of Alcman, 
Aristophanes, &c., it is probably due to 
archaizing grammarians—but this view _ 
seems hardly likely in the face of all the 
evidence: it is much more probable that 
even at Alcman’s early date @ was pro-. 
nounced o, though perhaps at that time it 
was written 6, and hence the change was 
made to o later in writing also to represent 
the sound which @ had had in Laconia in 
Aleman’s time. And it is thus also very 
probable that Aristophanes, finding that 
the Laconians did not pronounce 6 exactly 
as the Athenians did, exaggerated the 
difference and deliberately turned 6 into co. 
Or it may be that @ was pronounced p 
(English ¢h) and that co was an attempt to 
represent this spirant value. It is true that 
we do not find this change of 6 to o in the 
Tables of Heraclea, nevertheless when once 
it had arisen in Laconia itself, it may well 
have come over thence into the Laconian 
colonies in Southern Italy. Again, if the 
theory be correct that 6 was pronounced in 
Laconia sufficiently like o to induce Aristo- 
phanes to write a for 6, it is quite possible 
that, though @ was written in the Tables of 
Heraclea, it may have been pronounced o 
(or a sound approaching o) so that the 
neighbouring non-Greeks would have under- 
stood and adopted it as such. 

Another suggestion is perhaps possible, 
though perhaps hardly likely. The Oscan 
inscription under notice is retrograde ; hence 
the & (if it be an ¢) should be reversed, 
thus ¢. Perhaps therefore, after all, the 
letter may turn out to be, not ¢, but 6, 
rather imperfectly formed. This and the 
one letter in the lower line, it will be 
noticed, are the only two letters on the 
inscription which are not perfectly intelli- 
gible at first sight. They are the only 
two letters which are not formed by merely 
straight lines—they require a_ curved 
formation, hence possibly the unsatisfactory 
engraving in their case. At the same time, 
that the $ should be written in a different 
direction to the rest of the inscription 
would be no real difficulty. Fabretti (Paleog. 
Studien § 104, p. 82) says that there is no 
Greek letter which takes a different direction 
to the rest of the inscription so oftenas 2 and 


$. $is the form that ought strictly to be 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 201 


written, where the inscription runs from 
left to right, ¢ where it runs from right to 
left. He cites many instances of wrong 
direction (quoting mostly from F. Lenor- 
mant /thein. Mus. 1867, vol. xxii. pp. 
279 ff.) ; among them C./.G@. 28. 

Next, a for 7 I do not know of an 
instance of the word dvéOyxe itself spelt 
with a instead of » (te *dvéaxe) on 
Laconian inscriptions, either in Greece or 
in Italy. (We find however écaxe = €OyKe 
as a v.J. in Aleman (v. supra), which is 
worth mentioning, although perhaps we may 
not attach much importance to it.) One 
way of explaining this difficulty is to 
suppose that the long @ in the word under 
discussion (avacaxer) is a hyper-Dorism ; 
Doric is noted for its retention of original 
a where Attic preferred or ¢ (as paryp, 
d\Xoxa). Hence long a might have come 
in by false analogy here. Or again, as it 
is in a votive inscription, the a may possibly 
have come in from wrongly assumed con- 
nexion with sakrim ‘sacrum,’ saka- 
hiter ‘sanciatur, &e. (Compare the 
example cited by Prof. Kirkland in Class. 
Rev. vi. p. 435, of sarcophagus becoming in 
vulgar idiom sacrophagus, through the 
influence of sacer.) 

For instances of hyper-Dorism we have 
only to look at the Elean inscriptions, where 
they abound. Thus the Elean inscriptions 


show a often, where even Doric has y—for 
example zatdp: Dorie zarjp &e. (cf. Carolus 
Daniel De Dialecto Eliaco, § 3, p. 17). 
Those who went to the Olympian festival 
might well carry away with them a taint 
of this characteristic of the Elean dialect. 
The 7 is no real difficulty, because Oscan 
in the Greek alphabet regularly writes -7 
in secondary tenses, while in the native 
alphabet it has -d (Conway A.J.P. xi. 
309 f.). The alteration of the « (augment) 
to a may perhaps have arisen in a short 
syllable from ignorance on the part of those 
who borrowed the word. 

I would add as a possible parallel to 
avacaker (in case my explanation be right) 
the Phrygian addaxer adaxer (v. Brugmann 
Gr. ii. § 864, p. 1232) which is referred 
generally to Oy«, Lat. fec-i from ,/dhé, just 
as I would refer avacaxer also back to 
dvéOnxe, there being however this difference, 
that the Phrygian forms are not necessarily 
supposed to be borrowed, while I believe 
avacakeT iS SO, 

I confess that this explanation of 
avagaxer May seem at first sight im- 
probable, and has certainly many diffi- 
culties in the way of its reception, but as 
the word does not seem to have been, as 
yet, satisfactorily explained, it may be 
worth while to put forward the con- 
jecture. L. Horron-Smira, 


CICERO, HPIST. 


Iv may be worth noting in connexion with 
Lord Harberton’s interesting article in 
the February number of this Review that 
Gurlitt in Fleck. Ann. 1880, p. 611, called 
attention to the fact that Cic. ad fam. xi. 
13 was made up of fragments of two 
different letters, and Mendelssohn in his 
lately-published edition of the Hpist. ad fam. 
has accepted Gurlitt’s conclusions. Koerner 


AD FAM, XI. 13. 


and Schmidt in fact in their appendix to 
the same work express the belief that the 
two fragments formed parts of letters 
addressed respectively by D. Brutus to 
Cicero and by Plancus and D. Brutus to 
the Senate and People of Rome. 


F, F, Assort. 
The University of Chicago. 





TACITUS, GERM. c. 29. 


Manet honos et antiquae societatis in- 
signe ; nam nec tributis contemnuntur nec 
publicanus atterit. 

In this passage contemnuntur is commonly 
translated ‘humiliated’; but no other ex- 
ample of this usage of contemnere is given 
in the standard editions. Should we not 

NO. LXIX, VOL. VIII. 


read contaminantur, ‘are polluted,’ ‘de- 
graded’? The change is an easy one, and 
contaminantur would correspond well to 
atterit in the next clause, both words having 
an underlying physical sense. 

H. W. HAYtey. 


Harvard University. 


202 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


CATULL. XXIX. 20. 


Amone the new readings of Catullus 
suggested by Mr. S. G. Owen in his recent 


beautiful edition of that author, there is~ 


one which has been several times picked 
out for commendation by reviews. The 
passage is xxix. 20, where Mr. Owen gives 
Eumne Gallia et timet Britannia, But a 


reference to the third volume of the 
Classical Review, p. 292, will show that so 
long ago as 1889 Dr. William Everett 
suggested and defended there the same 
reading of the line. j 


XENOPHON’S HELLENICA. 


i. 7 (25). kat ovk adixodvres aroXovvTaL. 

Pror. Marratt, following Buchsenschiitz 
in his note on this passage, translates 
they will not, while not guilty, be put to death, 
and adds ‘ but the connexion of the partic. 
and verb is hardly such as to warrant the 
single negative. These words seem to 
have occasioned some perplexity; for, as 
Prof. Marratt remarks, Sauppe and Kurz 
omit dduotvres and Breitenbach brackets 
it. All difficulty is removed by supplying 
&s before déuxotvres, and the words ot 0’ 
dvairvol.....d7oAovvrat may then be rendered, 
but the guiltless will be acquitted by you and 
not be put to death as criminals. 

ii. 3 (31). daoBAéra 0’ ax’ apdoréepuv. 

The same editor, in a note on this 


passage, says ‘In the connexion the words 
should mean : faces both ways.’ But why ? 
In the preceding clause the buskin is said 
to fit both feet, but surely not both at 
once. There dudotépois = éxarepors, and why 
not take the gen. as used for a similar 
equivalent? Theramenes is likened to a 
buskin, because he is capable of adapting 
himself to either party, but proving false 
to either when identified with the other. 
If the parallelism be complete, drofXére 
refers to the appearance of the buskin in 
the act of toeing out, the normal position 
of the feet in standing, in which case it 
would of course ‘look away’ from the 
other foot. 
W. J. SEELYE. 





NOTES ON EURIPIDES’ HELENA. 


184-190. opadov éxAvov is impossible: 
épados occurs nowhere else in Tragedy and 
is inappropriate to the ery of one woman. 
The words have probably displaced a sub- 
stantive and its epithet balancing the phrase 
dAvpov éAeyov: the words 06,7u wot éAakev 
seem to show that there should be two 
alternative descriptions of the noise heard. 


29. riv’ irrodeiropa TVx7 ; 


The correction tiynv seems inevitable, but 
Paley’s translation of it (‘relictam habeo ’) 
will not stand. Translate—‘ What fortune 
do I not experience?’ tioXeire: ti pe would 
mean ‘something is wanting to me’ and 
iroXeiropai tr would have the same meaning. 
The construction (not noticed by L. and §.) 
is analogous to that of drocrepotpar. That 


this is the sense is shown by the fact that 
the speaker then goes on to enwmerate her 
experiences. 

388-9. It is unnecessary to suppose a 
loss of words. zpicbets for reaobe’s (which 
is however a correction and not supported, 
as formerly supposed, by MS. authority) is 
tolerable but unnecessary: zeurOe’s is the 
antithesis of ékév: perhaps it is an unin- 
telligent gloss on dxwév. €épavov ‘contri- 
bution’ is ironical as applied to Pelops’ 
contribution of his own body: the word is 
used of this particular feast in Pindar OJ. i. 
61, which Euripides may have remembered 
(see Fennell’s note). 


578. Perhaps 


° “ 
oKewat Tio ov Oe; Tid’ Ett or GadheoTepor ; 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 203 


601. Keep Oavpacr’ and éywr, translating 
‘Ay in wondrous wise, experiencing the name 
not so much as the thing.’ 

A very Euripidean reply: viz. ‘I have 
been robbed of my charge (the supposed 
Helen) but it was a robbery without robbers : 
she is really gone, though no one stole her.’ 


AMPHITRUO 


In the February number of the Classical 
Review, 1893, Dr. Knapp criticized Prof. 
Palmer’s rendering of mwmero ‘too soon’ in 
the above passage of the Amphitruo, on the 
ground that a contradiction is thus occasioned 
owing to the thirtieth line. Dr. Knapp 
has evidently misinterpreted Plautus and 
Prof. Palmer as well—quoniam bene quae in 
me fecerant ingrata ea habui atque inrita 
does not refer to any neglect in giving 
thanks, but, as Prof. Palmer puts it, to 
showing forgetfulness and ingratitude, by 
starting on a perilous errand to the house 
of Amphitruo after he had received such 
marked protection when in peril from war 
and on the sea. Such an interpretation 
gives ingrata habui atque inrita its proper 
force. Sosia feels that he deserves to be 
left to the mercies of some foot-pad, or, as 
he declares more strongly, the gods would 
act justly were they to cause some one to 
chastise him for his foolhardiness. In this 
sense Sosia is a verna verbero. 


NOTES ON VIRGIL, AENEID 2, 


Moriamur, et in media arma ruamus : 
una salus victis nullam sperare salutem. 
Aen. 2. 353. 


‘Hysteron-proteron is when, of two 
things, that which naturally comes first is 
mentioned last: as moriamur...... ” Pub. Sch. 
Lat. Gr. § 215, and so too generally the 
commentators, in whose notes on Virgil 
this phrase ‘ Hysteron-proteron’ occurs 
repeatedly. Is it not time that such rubbish 
was definitely excluded from notes and 
grammars? How long are we going on 
accusing Virgil of mentioning that last 
‘which naturally comes first’? Putting 
the cart before the horse is folly, even when 


The change of number from ovAacGe to 
éxwv is of course common enough. 
810. 2? otSnpdérpwrov (see L. and §.). 
1535. MS. cis & fy. Paley évereOn. 
? cicéver (from eciovéw, ‘heaped in’). ciovew 
seems a possible word. 
Artuur F, Horr. 


As to numero it should be noticed that 
‘soon,’ ‘ too soon,’ so soon’ alone interpret 
the five other uses of this word in Plautus. 

Note also from Festus, p. 170 (M),— 
Panurgus Antonius haec ait: mwmero nimium 
cito, celeriter nimium....celeriter. Caecilius 
in Aethione....ei perii: quod ita nwmero 
venit? fuge domum. Afranius in Suspecta : 
perfalsum et abs te creditum numero nimis, 


celeriter, Afranius in Simulante, (emisera) 
me miserum! numero ac nequiquam egi 
gratias. 


Nonius 352, 19,—Numero significat cito. 
Turpilius Demetrio—numquam nimis numero 
quemquam vidi facere quam facto est opus. 
352, 21,—Turpilius Demetrio...ego interim 
in turba foras subduxi cum hac me, neque 
sat numero mihi videbarcurrere. 352, 25,— 
Afranius Privigno...vwmero inepti perti- 
muistis cassam terriculam adversari. 


JAMES C. EaBert JR, 
Columbia College. 


353 AND EUR. BACCHAL 506. 
disguised under one of those Greek phrases 
which are so often employed—in grammar, 
in medicine, and in theology—to cloak 
ignorance. No writer of sense puts that 
last which should come first, and to accuse 
a great writer of doing so is mere imper- 
tinence. 

The simple fact is that the poets, and 
Virgil in particular, continually append to 
the main clause, which naturally comes 
first, an explanatory clause introduced by 
que (or sometimes et), and this clause, which 
is logically subordinate to the main clause 
and naturally follows it, often refers to 
something which is prior in point of time to 
that which the main clause describes ; but 

Q 2 


204 


this priority in point of time does not make 
the clause one whit less subordinate or give 
it any right to priority in point of sense, 
The origin of such explanatory clauses is to 
be found in the natural tendency of poets 
to prefer a simple style of writing with co- 


ordinate clauses rather than a complex style’ 


with subordinate ones, or, in grammatical 
jargon, to choose Parataxis rather than 
Hypotaxis, the metrical convenience of 
clauses introduced by que and eé of course 
also encouraging the practice. 

Take a few instances from the Aeneid ; 2. 
208 pontum...legit sinuatque ‘skims the sea 
by twisting’; 2. 223 fugit et...excussit se- 
curim ‘has escaped...after dashing away the 
axe’; 4. 154 agmina...fuga glomerant mont- 
esque relinquunt ‘as they quit the hills’ ; 4. 
263 fecerat...et discreverat ‘had made (the 
cloak) by embroidering...’ ; 6. 361 invasisset 
praedamque...putasset ‘had attacked me 
thinking’; 6. 365 terram inice...portusque 
require Velinos ‘bury me making for the 
harbour of V.’; Eur. Hee. 266 xeivn yap 
Odecev vw és Tpoiav 7’ aye ‘destroyed him 
by bringing him,’ 

Applying this principle to the present 
passage we get ‘ Let us die by dashing into 
the thickest of the fray,’ and obviously the 
passionate mortamur must not be taken too 
literally but is really =‘let us dare death,’ 
for, as the next line shows, the speaker does 
not urge them to die but to dare to die, 
because the only way to avoid death is to 
court it. The Hysteron-proteron critics, 
who argue you that you must ‘rush’ before 
you ‘die’ and cannot do so after, in their 
painful desire for accuracy make the words 
una salus victis nullam sperare salutem 
absolute nonsense. 

In 6. 567 castigatque auditque dolos sub- 
igitque fatert the real Hysteron-proteron has 
escaped the blind idolatry of its devotees. 
It is not auditque but subigitqgue which 
ought to be worshipped. The inquisitor 
‘scourges’ his victims and then ‘hears their 
guile compelling them to confess (i.e. by 
scourging them).’! 

In 3. 662 postquam altos tetigit fluctus et 
ad aequora venit Conington says ‘ ad aequora 
venit must be taken as a torepov mpdrepov.’ 
Why? The Cyclops, whose stature is 
immense, wades to the deep waves and 
reaches the level open sea (aeguora) before 
he begins to bathe his wound. It takes 
him some time to get out of his depth. Virgil 
has endeavoured to suggest this, and is in 
consequence credited with writing nonsense. 


Cf. Class, Rev. iv. 465. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


AI. otk otc 6 1 Lis 000’ Spas ot6’ boris ei. 
II. WerOevs, ’Ayavns rats, zatpos 8 "Ex(ovos. 
Eur. Bacchae 506. 


The first of these two verses Prof. Tyrrell 
calls a ‘desperate verse’ and says that he 
can only ‘ print it in its corrupt state.’ Dr, 
Sandys prints ¢6 for ov’ before doris. Both 
editors have long and perplexing notes, to° 
which Dr. Sandys adds a ‘Supplemental 
Note,’ while in his apparatus criticus he gives 
a list of emendations of enormous length, 
no critic agreeing with any other critic and 
it being obviously easy to alter such a line 
in a hundred ways. : 

For myself I am like Pentheus in the 
presence of the god; I have not the slight- 
est idea what the critics mean. Probably 
they may think that I deserve to be torn in 
pieces for my blindness, but [ must risk 
that and proceed. 

It is surely possible to say in Greek zi 
fys; and ris ef; or in Latin guid vivis? and 
quis es ? (cf. Pers. 3. 67 quid sumus aut quid- 
nam victuri gignimur), Af you say to a 
person that he is ignorant of the answer to 
these questions, you say to him otk oic@’ 6 71 
fjs otf doris et. If you wish to emphasize 
his ignorance by calling it ‘ blindness’ too, 
you say, 


> 9 = ? - 4A) 2 > 
ovk oic@ 6 tu Cis 00d bpas ov6 oatis Et. 


If an exact explanation of 6 7 &s is 
demanded it would be ‘that you have but 
the life of a mortal (te mortalem vitam vivere) 
and are but a mortal,’ so that the claim you 
have just made to be ‘more powerful’ 
(kupustepos) than me—Dionysus—is absurd ; 
but of course the charm of the line is in 
its affectation of philosophical language. 
The questions ré (6; and ris eivi; are like 
zo0 ot@; questions which philosophers pro- 
pound to puzzle plain men. Dionysus with 
his quibbles is in this dialogue the typical 
philosopher and Pentheus the typical plain 
man. ‘To Pentheus the deep problems which 
Dionysus suggests about ‘life’ and ‘indi- 
vidual existence’ are so much Hebrew, and, 
when told that he does ‘not know or see 
who he is,’ he answers with an accurate 
account of his name and parentage. The 
two lines must have been intensely funny to 
an audience who were accustomed to hear 
philosophers argue in the market-place. 
Their whole humour is now, however, buried 
beneath a heap of learned rubbish, the 
proper place of which is the dustbin. 


LT. Be PAGE: 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 205 


WILAMOWILTZ-MOELLENDOREFF ON THE CONSZ/TUTION OF ATHENS. 


Aristoteles und Athen, von U. von WiILamo- 
witz-MoretLenpDoRFF. 2 vols. Berlin. 
1893. 20 Mk. 


THEsE two volumes, containing between 
them upwards of 800 closely printed pages, 
form decidedly the bulkiest contribution to 
the literature of the ’A@ynvaiwy woXiteta that 
has yet appeared. They are concerned with 
the subject-matter only of the treatise, 
questions of textual criticism being dealt 
with in a companion volume, entitled S¢7/ 
und Text, by Kaibel, who was jointly re- 
sponsible with Wilamowitz-Moellendorfft for 
an edition of the text published in 1891. 
There is much, however, in the two volumes, 
especially in the second, that has only a 
very indirect bearing on the ’A@nvaiwv 
moditeia. The first volume is occupied in 
the main with an attempt to determine the 
sources of which Aristotle availed himself 
in the composition of his work; for it is 
assumed, as if it needed no proof, that 
Aristotle was the author of the ‘ Constitu- 
tion of Athons.’ The second volume 
furnishes us with a reconstruction of Athen- 
ian constitutional history on the basis of the 
Politeia, together with a number of essays 
on various points of Athenian history. 

The inquiry into the authorities followed 
by Aristotle is at once the most original 
and the most ambitious part of the work, 
and it is by these chapters that the author 
would himself, in all probability, wish his 
labours to be judged. The conclusion at 
which he arrives is that Aristotle can ad- 
vance no claim to be regarded as an inde- 
pendent investigator in the field of history ; 
original research, we are given to under- 
stand, was alien to his nature, and appears 
to have been limited to an occasional con- 
sultation of Solon’s poems. The sources 
from which he supposes that Aristotle 
derived his knowledge of Athenian history 
are four in number: (1) Herodotus, (2) 
Thucydides, (3) a source which is variously 
designated as ‘the Chronicle,’ ‘the Atthis,’ 
and ‘the Atthidographs,’ and (4) an oligar- 
chical tendenzschrift. It is to the two 
latter sources that he considers that Aris- 
totle owed most. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s theory as to 
source (3), so far as I understand it, may be 
stated thus. There are a large number of 
passages in the “A@nvatwy wodurefa. Which are 
so different both in style and matter to the 


rest of the work, and resemble one another 
so closely in both respects, that they must 
be derived from a common source. As to 
matter, they deal with facts rather than 
opinions ; in point of style, they are distin- 
guished by their brevity and by the precise 
dates they supply. These are the charac- 
teristics of a chronicle, and it is in a chroni- 
cle, in some form or other, that the common 
source must be sought. This chronicle, it 
is assumed, was based on contemporaneous 
records of noteworthy events, which began 
to be made before 600 B.c., and were worked 
up into histories, in the course of the fourth 
century, by a series of Atthidographs who 
flourished before the composition of the 
Politeta, of whom Androtion may be taken 
as a representative. These records however 
were not official in character—there were 
no fasti, in the strict sense, at Athens—; 
they were the work of many generations of 
eEnyntai, Who intended them for the guid- 
ance of their successors in office. The 
chronicle supplied Aristotle with the frame- 
work of the Politeia, and its statements, 
being derived from contemporaneous docu- 
ments, form the sole trustworthy basis of 
Athenian history. 

Clearly there is much in this theory that 
needs explanation, and still more that 
demands a good deal of evidence in its favour 
before it can be accepted. With regard to 
explanation, there is not a little that is left 
obscure. ‘Die Chronik,’ and ‘die Atthis’ 
are substituted for ‘the Atthidographs,’ 
and ‘der Exeget’ for the e&yyyrai, in a 
somewhat puzzling fashion. As I under- 
stand the theory, the chronicle proper—the 
‘urschrift,’ as Wilamowitz-Moellendorff calls 
it—was known to Aristotle only through 
the medium of the Atthidographs. What 
then becomes of the argument from style, 
which is admitted to be the chief evidence 
for the hypothesis? Are we to suppose 
that the writers of the fourth century re- 
garded the ‘uratthis’ as a sort of sacred 
text, which they were constrained to incor- 
porate in their histories without the alter- 
ation of one jot or one tittle? If this is 
not implied, how are we to explain the 
statement that in ch. 22 we have a specimen 
of the chronicle ‘unvermischt’? And, of 
course, in the Politeia we are dealing with 
the chronicle at third hand, at best. As 
to evidence, it is scarcely an exaggeration to 
say that none is adduced. It isa reasonable 





206 


hypothesis enough that such passages as ch. 
22, 2-8, or ch. 26, 2-4, may have been 
borrowed from an Atthidograph, though I 
fail to appreciate the improbability of Aris- 
totle, if he were the author of the VPoliteza, 
having consulted Wydiopara for himself ; it 


is, however, quite another thing to assume, - 


on such slender grounds, that so large a 
part of the “A@nvaiwy zoditeia is derived 
from a common source, or to postulate the 
existence of an ‘urschrift.’ Most readers 
will probably remain sceptical as to the 
existence in the fourth century of a chronicle 
dating back to the seventh ; they may even 
still prefer the authority of Thucydides to 
that of the hypothetical exegete. 

The oligarchical tendenzschri/t, source 
(4), was a history of the Athenian constitu- 
tion, published in the autumn of 404, asa 
manifesto of the moderate section among the 
Thirty. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff seems to 
be as confident about the authorship as 
about the date; it was the work of Thera- 
menes, and its object was to prove from the 
history of the Athenian state the correctness 
of the interpretation which he and his party 
put upon the phrase wdrpios woAute’a. To 
this ‘grundschrift’ Aristotle owed his 
knowledge of Draco’s constitution, as well 
as most of what he has to tell us about the 
fifth century. Its statements, except in 
the case of Solon, were accepted by him 
without hesitation ; a fact which explains, 
though it does not justify, his attitude 
towards Pericles and the demagogues. 

Here there is the same lack of evidence 
as before. I am not concerned to deny that 
there is a very close connexion between the 
constitution attributed to Draco and the 
ideals of the Four Hundred, or that the 
account given in the ’A@ynvaiwy zodcreia of 
Athenian politics in the fifth century is 
both prejudiced and inadequate. A good 
deal more than this, however, must be 
established before the existence of the olli- 
garchical pamphleteer can be regarded as 
proved. The suggestion that this pam- 
phleteer was Theramenes seems to me suffi- 
ciently improbable. We cannot, at any 
rate, attribute to him the narrative of his 
own death; yet, if a common source is 
assumed for the chapters relating to Aris- 


tides, Cimon, Pericles, the demagogues, and’ 


the Four Hundred, and if the chief ground 
for this assumption is that all these passages 
betray the same political sympathies, it 
seems unreasonable to assume a different 
source for the history of the Thirty, in 
which the point of view appears to be 
identical, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


To turn from the sources to the subject- 
matter of the Politeia. Wilamowitz-Moel- 
lendorft claims to have established the right 
of Draco to a place among the constitution- 
makers of Athens. I cannot but think 
that his arguments afford convincing reasons 
for the opposite conclusion. He admits 
that there is so close a resemblance between — 
ch, 4 and the constitutional schemes of the - 
Four Hundred in ch. 30 and 31 that we 
must make our choice between two alterna- 
tives ; either the constitution of Draco was 
the invention of a supporter of the Four 
Hundred, ¢.e. of the author of the ‘ tendenz- 
schrift, who sought to gain credit for the 
matp.os 7oAuteta by fathering it upon Draco, 
or else it was rescued from oblivion by the 
legislators of the year 411, to whom it 
served as a model. He further concedes 
that there is no trace of antiquity in the 
language of ch. 4, that its contents were 
unknown to Aristotle when he wrote the 
Politics, and that it is inserted in so clumsy 
a fashion as to interrupt the connexion 
between ch. 3 and ch. 5. It may be added 
that {the ‘ tendenzschrift,” from which ch. 4 
was borrowed, is supposed not to have come 
into Aristotle’s possession until after the 
publication of the Politics—indeed it must 
have been quite at the eleventh hour that 
he stumbled on it, as he would appear not 
to have had time to adjust the account of 
Draco to the passages of the chronicle 
between which it had to be interpolated— ; 
and that it is suggested that Theramenes 
arrived at his account of Draco’s constitution 
inductively, by a process of reasoning from 
those fragments of his legislation which were 
discovered during the revision of the laws. 

The explanation:of another well-known 
difficulty, that of the number and the names 
of Peisistratus’ sons, is likely to give as little 
satisfaction as the hypothesis of an ‘ ur- 
schrift,’ or this discovery ‘of the book of 
the law.’ Aristotle’s version of the history 
of the Pisistratidae, resting upon the infal- 
lible authority of the chronicler, must be 
preferred to that of Thucydides, wherever 
the two conflict. Thucydides attributes to 
Hipparchus the part played by Thessalus in 
the Politeia, and knows but of three legiti- 
mate sons; the VPoliteia adds a fourth, 
Iophon, and makes Thessalus a surname 
of Hegesistratus. The statement of Thucy- 
dides cannot be set aside as a blunder, for 
he can quote the or7A7y in the Acropolis to 
prove it; even a chronicle cannot claim 
to be more infallible than an inscription. 
To save the credit of the Atthis, the hypo- 
thesis is put forward that Iophon was 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


omitted on the column because he was 
domiciled at Sigeum, and to make this hypo- 
thesis agree with Herodotus, according to 
whom the governor of Sigeum was Hegesi- 
stratus, it is suggested that the latter may 
have dropped his true name in favour of his 
rapwvvu.ov Thessalus, and that the name 
Hegesistratus, being thus discarded, may 
have been adopted by Iophon as more 
euphonious than that which his father had 
bestowed upon him. Thus a Hegesistratus- 
Thessalus is matched by an _ Iophon- 
Hegesistratus. One is tempted to ask what 
a writer’s canons of probability can be, when 
he accepts such an explanation as this, and 
rejects the presence of Hippias at Marathon, 
or the interview of Themistocles with the 
Molossian king, as wholly incredible. 

In the account of Solon’s legislation the 
dpo. are explained as mortgage-pillars, and 
no allusion is made to any other view ; the 
ExTyopo. are regarded as deriving their 
name from the receipt of a sixth part, not 
from its payment, and as being a class of day- 
labourers whose wages were paid in kind; 
while the account of the alteration of the 
standard, given in ch. 10, is admitted to 


207 


betray ‘an almost incredible ignorance of the 
subject.’ Aristotle is borrowing from An- 
drotion, without understanding him. 

Amongst other points it may be noticed 
that the yewpopor and dyp.ovpyod are treated 
as divisions of the nobility, on an equality 
in all respect with the etvzarpidac; that the 
story of Themistocles and the Areopagus is 
pronounced a romance ; and that ch. 24 is 
allowed to do its author as little credit as 
ch. 10. The explanation of ¢iAos rév 
tupavvev in ch, 20 can scarcely be adequate. 
‘Bicameral system’ (‘ Zweikammersystem,’ 
vol. I. p. 88) sounds to English ears an odd 
way of describing the relation of the 
ecclesia to the boule. 

There are not a few omissions in the book, 
in spite of its length ; perhaps the one most 
to be regretted is a discussion of the 
question of authorship. There must bea 
good many readers, who are ready to agree 
with the charges Wilamowitz-Moellendorft 
brings against the writer of the “A@nvatwv 
woAtreia, Who will yet hesitate to admit that 
one who deserves to be judged so severely 
can have been the author of the Politics. 

E. M. Wa .keEr. 


FRACCAROLIS PIVDAR. 


Le Odi di Pindaro dichiarate e tradotte da 
GUISEPPE FRaccAROLI, prof. ord. di letter- 
atura greca nell’ Universita di Messina. 
Verona. 1894. 


THis is a very handsome large octavo 
volume, paper covered, with pp. xvi. 732. 
It begins with 165 pp. of Prolegomeni on 
the life of Pindar, the chronological order 
of the odes, Greek lyric poetry, and the 
style art and technique of Pindar. All the 
extant odes are then taken one by one, and 
to a very searching and careful analysis is 
added a literal line-for-line version of each 
in Italian. This portion of the work com- 
prises nearly 600 pp., though there is no- 
thing which could be called a running com- 
mentary to serve the needs of explanation, 
and little discussion of the text. The 
familiarity displayed by the editor with the 
views of all who have written on or about 
Pindar in ancient or modern times and in 
various languages is quite marvellous. The 
style of the introductory essays and the 
notes is very pleasing, and if it does not 
attain to the brilliancy of the French school 


in the hands of Villemain, at all events it 
affords a delightful contrast to the learned 
dryness of Boech, Dissen and Metzger. 

The recent awakening to the astonishing 
qualities of Pindar’s style is largely due to 
the striking and sympathetic criticism of 
Matthew Arnold; it has found its outward 
and visible sign in the beautiful prose ver- 
sion of Mr. Ernest Myers ; and it consti- 
tutes not the least excellence of Mr. Bury’s 
brilliant scholarly and eminently appreci- 
ative edition of the Vemean and Isthmian 
Odes. Henceforth it may be presumed that 
no scholar will undertake the editing of 
Pindar without due attention to the aesthe- 
tic part of his task. It is not neglected by 
Prof. Fraccaroli, but might perhaps have 
claimed even more of his attention, seeing 
that it has been well nigh neglected till the 
present generation. 

On the vexed question concerning the 
structure of the odes, Prof. Fraccaroli is 
disposed to take his side with those who 
accept the nomic theory, while about the 
doctrine of echoes and responsions he in- 
clines to scepticism. The extensive and 


208 


minute learning of the péya PrPdXiov is its 
main feature. On questions of explanation 
and criticism the editor has, as it seems to 
me, an undue reverence for the traditional 
and conventional. Hence it often happens 
that, while recording interpretations which 
are new and almost demonstrably sound 
and emendations which one, would have sup- 
posed to be irresistibly convincing, he is 
content to fall back on the hitherto 
accepted translation and reading. Thus, to 
take a few instances, in QO. ii. 45 


¥ rE \ By 
ov pry OudEw" KELVOS ELNV 


Prof. Gildersleeve has clearly shown that 
there is no omission of dv, or need to intro- 
duce metaphysical or psychological concep- 
tions in explanation, but that the words are 
really optative, ‘set me down as a fool’ (if 
Ido). So the same acute grammarian and 
tasteful critic explains Pyth. x. 21 


Geds ein Ganpov Kéap, 
and nearly in the same way Pyth, iv. 118 


ov eivay ikotwav yatar, 
the od being adhaerescent, and the optative 
a half wish or a thought begotten of a wish, 
‘I hope it will turn out that it is to no 
strange land have I come.’ 


The two first passages are thus rendered 
by Prof. Fraccaroli : 


Non vo’ cercarlo :—saria vanita ; 
and 


Chi ha il cuor senza dolori un Nume egli é. 


In the third he seems to try to give the 
pure optative some meaning different from 
the optative with dy, but is hardly within 
the limits of the Greek in rendering 


Stranier non venni, credo, in terra altrui. 


In J. iv. 93 he renders aivéwy ‘ praising’ 
not ‘emulating,’ which Mr. Bury shows 
conclusively to be the right meaning. In J. 
v. 44 he still translates dpape as if it were 
npape and meant ‘pleased’ or ‘favoured’ 
instead of ‘clave to.’ He gives the impossi- 
ble meaning of a/ par to Oda in NV. vii. 20, 
and in J. ix. 23, accepting épvacdpevor, he 
does not attempt to explain how 


4 
yAukiv voorov épveodpevor 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


came to mean 
Mentre il dolce ritorno aveano in cor. 


To turn to criticism, there is no sign in 
the translation that Prof. Fraccaroli accepts 


‘Bergk’s certain restoration of érav for € trav 


in JV. vii. 25, nor Mr. Bury’s nearly as cer-" 
tain correction of oty paxats to cvppayors in 
I. iv.(v.) 35,! nor Mr. Fennell’s highly prob- 
able zepavydlwv for zedavydfwv in NV. x. 61, 
nor Bergk’s Evvddapov in JL. v. (vi.) 46, which . 
as defended by Mr. Bury is better than any- 
thing which has been proposed. But the 
most striking example of a determination to 
tread the old paths in spite of most seduc- 
tive and, as I think, irresistible invitations 
to the new is to be found in J. vi. (vii.) ; 
and on this ode I will ask leave to dwell 
for a little, because it illustrates perfectly 
what a scientific instrument a just aesthesis 
becomes in the hands of a critic hke Bergk. 
That admirable scholar observed that in the 
penultimate line of the second epode of this 
piece the reading “Apduapyov re must be 
wrong, because it could not be believed that 
Pindar, in glorifying Strepsiades who fell 
in battle for Thebes, and in comparing him 
with Hector and Meleager who died for 
their country, would couple with these 
heroes Amphiaraus, who was slain (or rather 
was swallowed up alive by the earth) not in 
fighting for, but in leading an expedition 
against, his fatherland, the very country in 
defence of which Strepsiades fell. Bergk, 
fortified by many other excellent arguments 
which I have not space here to quote, reads 
av’ ’Apdudpevov ‘by the temple of Amphiar- 
aus, the place where Strepsiades met his 
death in battle. This palmary emendation 
is accepted by Metzger and Mr. Bury, who 
indeed improves it by reading dud’ for ay’. 
Prof. Fraccaroli falls back on the old read- 
ing, though the conjecture of Bergk not 
only completely restores the sense, but also, 
in modifying the metre slightly, carries 
with it too almost equally certain, though 
very minute, changes in the corresponding 
verse of the other two epodes in the piece. 
In this connexion perhaps I may be per- 
mitted to put forward a few arguments in 
support of two suggestions on this ode 
made by inyself. The first is to read 7 67’ 
for ordr’ in the sixth verse. This removes 
a very great difficulty which perhaps has 


1 The point of the passage is that the Aeacids 
were always called on when a great enterprise was 
a-foot and that they never failed to bring their power 
to bear. A similar correction has restored cuupaxou 
dopds for ody uaxn Sopds in Soph. Ant. 674. 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 209 


not presented itself in a sufliciently strong 
light to the editors. According to the 
ordinary reading Pindar thus begins the 
ode : 

‘In which of the deeds done in thy clime 
hast thou had most delight, O blessed 
Thebe? Was it when thou broughtest to 
fulness Dionysus of the flowing locks? 
Or when thou didst receive the mightiest of 
the gods in a midnight shower of gold, what 
time (é7dre) he took his stand within Am- 
phitryon’s doors, and approached his wife 
to the begetting of Herakles? Or when 
&e.’ 

Thus Zeus is said to have come to Alemena 
as he came to Danaé in a shower of gold. 
The leading incident in the tale of Danaé 
might well be transferred to other myths. 
Indeed, we hear in O. vii. 34 of Zeus snow- 
ing gold when Athene was born. But how 
is such a feature in the myth to be recon- 
ciled with the words of the present passage ? 
Does not orafeis ‘taking his stand’ pre- 
clude such a view? Moreover, in WV. x. 15 
Pindar tells the tale of the beguiling of 
Alemena by Zeus who, he says, ‘In the 
likeness of Amphitryon entered his halls 
with the seed that was to beget the daunt- 
less Heracles.’ 

All these difficulties are met by the sim- 
ple correction of 6767’ to 7 or, Which is 
metrically equivalent. We have then to 
suppose that the fifth verse refers to a visit 
of Zeus to Thebe in a shower of gold, the 
sixth alluding naturally to the story of the 
wooing of Alemena, as it is familiar to us, 
and as it is related elsewhere by Pindar. 

The second suggestion in the same ode is 
on the passage in the second epode which 
runs 


” > lal a , / » 

UOTW...aoTOV yevea peytatov KA€os avswv 
, P 

léwv tT a0 Kai Gavev, 


‘let him be certified that he increases to the 
highest the glory of his fellow-citizens— 
both living and when he is dead.’ 

But the order of dzd xai @avev for kat 
azofavév is very suspicious, especially in 
Pindar. A change of accentuation (which 
is no change at all) turns these words into 


cal >» . , 
lwav tT amo Kai Gaver, 


‘both from the mouths of the living (that 


is, his contemporaries) and after his death’ ; 
and thus we have a characteristic instance 
of Pindar’s passion for variety of construc- 
tion, of which we have many examples in 
his odes, e.g. V. x. 41 


vixadoptats yap ooas (erais Bury)... 
aorv Oadnoev KopivOov 7’ ev pvxots Kat Krew 
vaiwy mpos avopav 


‘prizes won in Corinth and at the hands of 
Cleonaean folk’ ; JW. iv. 19 


Lal ’ 
am “Adavay OnBas + ev Extamvdous 


‘ crowns (carried off) from Athens and (won) 
in Thebes’ ; JZ. vii. (viii.) 5 


> I A 
[rOpuados Te vikas arowa Kat Newea 
a2 o , ee 

déOAwv OTe KpaTos eFevpe 


‘meed of an Isthmian victory and for win- 
ning at Nemea’; and 7b. 35 


Al dapalopevav 7) Avos wap’ adeApeotow 


‘wedded to Zeus or with (one of) his 
brothers.’ 

Prof. Fraccaroli will no doubt have many 
to applaud him for his maintenance of time- 
honoured readings and interpretations, and, 
as he does not present his readers with a 
Greek text, perhaps it is unreasonable to 
demand from him too minute an examination 
of that which he translates. The book is 
certainly a mine of Pindaric lore. Every 
foreign and English editor has been care- 
fully studied, and the notes are full of il 
Gildersleeve, il Fennell, il Bury. Moreover, 
the editor is familiar with articles and even 
short notes on Pindar in various magazines 
foreign and British, such as the Pheinisches 
Museum, Jahrsbericht, Hermes, Philologus, 
Commentationes Philologicae Monacenses, 
Quarterly Review, Classical Review, Journal 
of Hellenic Studies, Journal of Philology 
both American and English. The book 
does much credit to Italian erudition, and it 
occupies and will maintain a high place 
among the works of those who have taken 
upon themselves the difficult but eminently 
commendable task of attempting to analyse 
the art and interpret the mind of the most 
characteristic product of Hellenic genius. 

R. Y. TyrreE.v. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


HOFFMANN’S GREEK DIALECTS. 


Die Griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen — 


Zusammenhange, mit den wichtigsten ihrer 
Quellen dargestellt, von: Dr. Orro Horr- 
MANN. Zweiter Band. Der nord-achdische 
Dialekt. Gottingen, Vandenhoeck und 
Ruprecht’s Verlag. 1893. 14 Mk. 


THE second volume of Hoffmann’s work is 
entitled Zhe North-Achaean Dialect. In 
very early times, he conceives, one of the 
two branches of the great Achaean stock 
was confined to Thessaly. Thence went forth 
two colonies, one eastward to Lesbos and 
the north-west corner of Asia Minor, the 
other southward to the district afterwards 
called Boeotia. The language spoken before 
the separation the author here seeks to 
restore by a comparison of the Aeolic and 
Thessalian dialects, as in the first volume 
the southern branch of Achaean was recon- 
structed from Arcadian and Cyprian. In 
this restoration the dialect of the colony 
which settled in Boeotia is but sparingly 
used, for the incursions of a North Doric 
people, the Bowroé, produced a mixed speech, 
North Doric in its sounds, North Achaean 
in its forms, which has been reserved for 
separate treatment at the end of the third 
volume, after the North and Middle Doric 
dialects. While it may be conceded that 
the mixture in Boeotian is so great that it 
could not successfully be grouped with 
either North Achaean or North Dorie, the 
very necessity of its separate treatment is 
a vindication of the method of Meister so 
severely criticized by Hoffmann in the preface 
to his first volume. That method certainly 
has its uses and advantages as well as the 
system of grouping, and should naturally 
precede it. The grouping can be carried 
out more successfully after the facts of each 
dialect by itself have been carefully col- 
lected and arranged, and the task of Hoff- 
mann has certainly been rendered much 
more simple by the labours in the separate 
dialects of those who have preceded him. 

A striking feature of this volume is the 
great mass of unnecessary material. Of 
the 620 pages 244 are devoted to ‘eine 
ausfiihrliche kritische Bearbeitung der 
Quellen,’ which to the author appeared 
necessary. It is doubtful if many will 
agree with him. One is grateful for the 
collection of inscriptions discovered since 


the publication of the Collitz-Bechtet 
Sammlung and not elsewhere brought to- 
gether, but all these might have been given 
within the compass of fifty pages, and ~ 
of those already published it would have 
been enough to give a list of the changes 
he desired to make. For the insertion of 
the fragments of the lyric poets no sufficient 
reason can be given. The edition of Bergk 
is satisfying to most minds, and it is hard 
to find what Hoffmann has added to it. 
He has, indeed, restored many Aeolic forms 
according to the known laws of the dialect, 
but such corrections give no support, other 
than negative, to those laws. The question 
arises, Will the fourth volume, which is 
to deal with Ionic, contain a similar treat- 
ment of the literature of that dialect, and 
present us perhaps with an edition of 
Herodotus corrected to agree with the 
inscriptional evidence ? 

Few will deny that the space taken up by 
this superfluous matter would have been far 
better given to the ‘ Wortbildung,’ ‘ Wort- 
schatz’ and ‘Syntax’ which it has crowded 
out. 

As for the main part of the work, the 
treatment of the sounds and forms, the 
greatest praise is due on account of the 
fulness of the material and the clear- 
ness of its arrangement. On the former 
of these points, however, a few words 
should be said. In giving full lists of the 
examples in which a dialect has preserved 
or changed the sounds of the original speech, 
Hoffmann and other recent writers on the 
Greek dialects have followed a much better 
method than that of Meister, who in 
general has contented himself with citing 
peculiarities of form merely. It is neces- 
sary that all the facts should be present 
to determine the limits within which a 
change has taken place, and explain it as 
far as possible. But, when an author is at- 
tempting, as in this work, to prove an 
original unity of certain dialects, this 
abundance of examples is deceptive, and 
seems to prove far more than it really does. 
On glancing through the pages treating the 
vowels, and observing the long list of 
words in which Thessalian and Aeolic agree, 
the impression is received, and rightly, 
that these two dialects after all differed 
but very little. But most of these words 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 211 


show exactly the same form in other 
dialects, and however much this may prove 
for the original unity of all Greek dialects, 
it proves nothing for the separate existence 
of an Aeolic-Thessalian group. That can 
be shown only by the common possession of 
peculiarities of form, and to determine this 
the attention must be confined to just such 
words as Meister is in the habit of citing, 
and the comparison can be made almost as 
easily in his work as in Hoffmann’s. The 
dangers incident to the method of arrange- 
ment followed by the latter are well illus- 
trated by his treatment of % This occupies 
twenty pages. Thirteen of these contain 
examples common to all dialects: the 
remainder deal with words in which ‘ toa 
North Achaean & another vowel corresponds 
in other dialects.’ Yet not one of the 
examples of the latter kind is certainly 
common to Aeolic and Thessalian. Aeolic 
alone uses ira, -ra, -Oa, Utepos, and érdpas ; 
Thessalian alone, AcvxaOéa, tipds, and ’Ac- 
Kidarios. This is an exceptional case, of 
course, and there are sufficient resem- 
blances between Aeolic and Thessalian to 
prove a close connexion between the two. 
In dealing with these dialects, and with 
Arcadian and Cyprian, where the relation- 
ship had before been recognized, Hoffmann 
is perhaps justified in letting the work of 
proof and reconstruction go together, but 
when he treats of dialects whose exact 
relationship has not yet been determined, 
the reader will require to be first convinced 
that they are to be grouped by themselves, 
before receiving the collection of their 
common forms as a reconstruction of the 
original language of the group. 

In his explanations of the facts of the 
dialects Hoffmann has naturally found little 
that is new in material so frequently 
worked over before. His views are always 
worthy of attention, and, where doubt may 
arise, he has always considerable evidence 
in his favour. 

That Aeolic avo, evo, &e. (in vatos, ke.) 
arose from acfo &e., avoo «e., or avjo &e., 
must be regarded as not proven. There is 
no evidence that medial -cf- dropped o and 
not fF: the Cyprian ra favdooas = tas 
Favacoas gives slight hold for such a result 
in Aeolic ; on the other hand there is ‘eaos, 
Sappho 91, from Fiofos. If we turn to 
*vavoos instead of *vagfos as the original 
form of vatos, the difficulty remains of ex- 
plaining the long a in Doric vads, Ionic vyds. 
The different resultants of the combination 
ns are not clearly brought out. The state- 
ment on p. 479, that ‘the spirants were 


assimilated to a neighbouring nasal by the 
North Achaeans,’ implies that this change 
took place, not in primitive Greek, but 
after the separation into dialects, and it is 
not stated that -vs final remained at that 
time unchanged. On p. 414 we read that 
‘In Aeolic the three short-vowel diphthongs 
tit, et, ot, and the diphthong w arose from 
av before o, passing over as nasalis sonans 
into vu. Now it is true that avs, evs, and 
ovs became in Aeolie ats, es, and ous, but 
that is no ground for stating that vs became 
ts. As Hoffmann himself states on p. 416, 
there is no example of ws from vwys, and 
as for supposing that tpivs became *zpiis, 
which afterwards contracted into pis, it is 
difficult to believe that tpiis ever existed 
anywhere except on paper. The exact 
nature of the phonetic change of -avs to -ats 
I leave to others to discuss, but I gain no 
enlightenment from the statement that avs > 
ans >ats. On p. 392 Baxxos, a patronymic, 
is derived from *Baxyxéevos, through *Baxxéeos, 
by dropping of « before o and contraction of 
ue tot Yet only a single certain example 
of e« losing its u« before a vowel is cited 
(p. 451), though surely that law must have 
been a well-established one before a further 
contraction could take place as a result of 
it. It is not strange that Hoffmann is 
somewhat doubtful of his explanation. 
What need of supposing Bdxyios to be 
anything but the patronymic of Bdxyos ? 
The name was applied to men (see Pape). 
There are other points to be criticized in 
the treatment of vowel contraction. Thus, 
while the sound which originally separated 
the vowels is used as a basis of distinction, 
it is not pointed out that this matter resolves 
itself into one of chronology. If ae<a-ce 
was contracted to a, while ae < a-F-e re- 
mained open, then the conclusion must be 
drawn that such forms as dvvdera, eddxaev, 
&e., Where no intervening consonant is to 
be assumed, are late formations, later than 
the contraction of ae<a+t-e« Again it is 
said that e-o-e, «-F-e, were contracted in 7)XOV; 
ketés, but in all other cases remained open. 
The fact is that like vowels were regularly 
contracted. If the inscriptions show such 
a form as ovyyevees, it is due to the influence 
of other cases, ovyyévea, ovyyevewy &e., and 
is probably a mere matter of orthography, 
just as in Attic inscriptions towards the end 
of the fourth century -ees appeared for the 
earlier -Es, -eus 

The index to the volume is incomplete, 
a defect not compensated for by the ex- 
cellent arrangement. On p. 314 évedaviocoe-n 
should read éveharioco-1. 


212 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


In conclusion it may be said that, on 
account of the richness of the material, 
students of Greek dialects cannot afford to 
be without this book. But the chief end of 
the work is as yet brought no nearer. We 


have not yet been shown that the Greek 
dialects can he arranged in three main 
groups, A. G. Latrp. 


Cornell University; 
Ithaca, N. Y. 


SSOMMERBRODT’S LUCIAN. 


Lucianus. Recognovit Juttus SomMERBRODT. 
Vol. I. Pars. II. Berlin, Weidmann. 
1889. M. 6. 

Vol) LL Parssl T9350 MiG: 


PROBABLY no man is better equipped by 
long experience for bringing out an edition 
of Lucian than the editor of the present 
text edition. Since 1855, when the first 
volume of his Selections appeared, Sommer- 
brodt has been more or less actively engaged 
in editing and emending Lucian, and has 
thus had ample opportunity for becoming 
well acquainted with the literature of his 
author. In the present work, of which 
the first part of the first volume appeared 
in 1886, Sommerbrodt proposes to give us 
a complete edition of the text of Lucian 
. together with a critical commentary and 

the readings of the best manuscripts. In 
his preface however he lays down a principle 
for establishing the text which wiil hardly 
be approved by all scholars, namely that of 
consulting only a few manuscripts which 
he regards as the best, and then, if their 
readings prove unsatisfactory, of emending 
the text to suit the passage in question. 

Sommerbrodt thinks there is no common 
source for the large mass of existing manu- 
scripts of Lucian, and makes no attempt 
to follow up the work of Rothstein in 
tracing the connexion between them and 
separating them into families. He there- 
fore discards as worthless all the manu- 
scripts except some sixteen, upon which he 
relies for his text. Of these he considers 
Vindob. 123 (B), Vat. 87 (U), Vat. 90 (I), 
Laur. 77 (®), Marc. 436 (W), Mut. 193, 
Mare. 434 (Q) together with Vat. 1324 and 
Paris. 3673 (Ath.) the best. But wherever 
& passage seems obscure Sommerbrodt 
follows his plan of resorting to conjecture 
to remove the difficulty, sometimes adopting 
the emendations of other scholars and 
sometimes making suggestions of his own ; 
but in a few places he is forced to acknow- 
ledge that he is not satisfied with any of 
the suggestions which have been made. 


A general idea of the emendations — 


adopted into the text may be obtained from 
the following passages taken from the 
Alexander. In ch. 4 (end) the editor 
changes ézwoew to évvoeiy on the ground 
that the latter word is more appropriate. In 
ch. 8 he follows Hemsterhuys and Fritzsche 
in inserting tvpavvow in the phrase izé dveiv 
Tow peyictow Tupavvovpevoy Tupavvow, éAmidos 
kat @oBov, the manuscripts reading io dveiv 
tovtow (tow YU) tupavvoipevov, Amides Kal 
poBov. Inch. 10 he changes éAcyns 82 rijs 
TEpt TOTO OTdTEWs tO ovK dAtyns O€ k.T-X. 
and in ch. 30 for 7a pev (dvres, ra 8 ds 
iddvres Kal as axovcavres he adopts the con- 
jecture 7a peév iddvres, Ta O€ ds iddvTos dKov- 
cavres. Again in ch. 52 he emends ddda 
Kal pnxavetrar to Kal GAO te pnxavetra. In 
all these passages the emendations may 
make the text easier, but the reading of 
the manuscripts can be understood without 
great difficulty, and a more conservative 
editor would doubtless hesitate before 
adopting some of the conjectures offered. 

The lectiones codicum which are placed 
together at the end of each half of each 
volume call for favourable comment. They 
are clearly arranged -and apparently very 
complete for the manuscripts which the 
editor has consulted. All variations from 
the Teubner text edition of Lucian by 
Jacobitz are noted. The various readings 
and emendations preferred by the editor 
are discussed separately in the adnotatio 
critica. 

A typographical improvement which 
should not pass unnoticed is the printing 
of the numbers of the chapters of each 
selection in the margin as well as in the 
text. This makes reference to this edition 
very much easier than to the Teubner text 
edition or to the edition of Fritzsche where 
the number of a chapter is frequently 
hidden away in the middle of a page of 
text. 

The contents of these two volumes are, 
in vol. i. part ii. the adnotatio critica to 
parts one and two and the Jectiones codicum 





ae: . 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


to part two besides the text in the usual 
order from Charon through the Scytha s. 
Hospes ; in vol. ii. part i. the text from 
Quomodo Hist. sit Conscrib. through the 
Vita Demonactis together with the /ectiones 


TAPPERTZ ON THE USE OF THE 


De coniunctionum usu apud Manilium 
quaestiones selectae. Scripsit Epuarpus 
Tappertz. Munster. 1892. 


Tus dissertation may be considered supple- 
mentary to the two treatises of Cramer de 
Manilit qui dicitur elocutione and der Infinitiv 
bet Manilius. The Lucubrationes of M. 
Paul Thomas naturally and necessarily form 
the groundwork of it; but the author has 
utilized various other contributions which 
in the last decennium have been made to 
the study of Manilius by Bechert, Cartault, 
Breiter, Rossberg, Kriimer and_ others, 
including my own Noctes Manilianae. It is 
satisfactory to find that the study not only 
of the Roman astrological poet, but of other 
writers on the stars, Greek or Roman, is 
steadily progressing. A new edition of the 
Mathesis of Firmicus Maternus has just 
been issued by the indefatigable press of 
Teubner: and the same firm promise edi- 
tions of the Eicaywy7) of Geminus, and the 
Commentary of Hipparchos on Aratus’ 
Phaenomena, based on MSS. not examined 
before. 

The most important section of Tappertz’ 
dissertation is that on the copulative payr- 
ticles et, que, ac (atque), nec (neque). These 
are treated with considerable minuteness, 
and though, probably for want of space, the 


BLUMNER’S HOME LIFE 


The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks, trans- 


lated from the German of Prof. H. 
BLUMNER by Axice Zimmern. Pp. xv. 


+ 548, with 206 illustrations. 
Cassell & Co.: London. 1893. 


Ts. 6d. 


Tuts is a translation of Prof. Bliimner’s 
well-known Leben und Sitten der Griechen 
(Prague 1887). The English title is some- 
what misleading, as it contains chapters on 


213 


codicum and the adnotatio critica to the 
text. This edition is distinctly an improve- 
ment on previous complete text editions. 


Witiiam N. Bates. 
Harvard University. 


CONJUNCTIONS IN MANILIUS. 


citations are often given only in outline, any 
one who wishes to arrive at an idea of 
Manilius’ style will get a very fair idea of 
it by simply reading through pp. 8—5l. 
Very instructive are the details given by 
Tappertz as to the way in which M. con- 
structs his long-drawn sentences by the 
most varied combinations of e¢ and que. 
All readers of the Astronomics know that 
one of the chief difficulties in the grammar 
of the poem is its linking together of clauses 
not always clear either as to their connexion 
with each other or as to their relation with 
the leading idea of the sentence. 

Incidentally a number of disputed passages 
are discussed, and the leading views of the 
most eminent Manilian critics, notably 
Bentley and Jacob, to say nothing of those 
whom the last half-century has produced, 
are brought under revision. Tappertz has 
also propounded views of his own which are 
worth considering. Now that the prose 
Astrology of Firmicus, which seems largely 
indebted to Manilius, is accessible to every 
one, we may confidently look forward to a 
new treatment of the various questions 
which a comparison of the two works, 
separated by a long interval of time, cannot 
fail to give rise to. 

R. E. 


OF THE ANCIENT GREEKS. 


‘religious worship, public festivals, the 
theatre, war and seafaring,’ as well as on 
private antiquities. 

The three volumes of the German edition 
have been brought into one, the references 
to authorities are placed at the end of the 
work and the list of the source of the 
illustrations is omitted. In its new form 
the work is more carefully printed, but costs 
double the original price (5s.). 


214 


Dr. Bliimner’s work is __ professedly 
popular and gives a concise account of such 
public and private antiquities as are 
intelligible to the general reader. Its value 
is much increased by the illustrations, which 
are drawn from recent sources and on the 
whole well reproduced. Most of these, 
especially the vase-paintings, are new to the 
English public, which as a rule has to be 
contented with clichés twenty or thirty years 
old. 

The great defect of the work is the 
absence of any guide as to the date, 
provenance or present home of the originals, 
a defect which is made worse by the omission 
(mentioned above) of the sources from which 
the illustrations are taken. This however 
is rather a specialist’s objection, for Prof. 
Bliimner does not forget to state that the 
monuments and antiquities considered are 
those of the sixth to the fourth century B.c. 

The translation is readable but marred 
by many slips and inaccuracies, most of 
which are due to a defective knowledge of 
the subject-matter. 

Most unfortunately the worst chapter is 
the first—that on ‘costume.’ The German 
text is far from satisfactory, for it is not 
fully intelligible without some acquaintance 
with Greek art and archaeological literature. 
A most amusing instance of the pitfalls into 
which the translator has fallen is to be 
found in the account of the apron or 
loincloth (Lenden oder Hiiftenschurz) which 
was the primitive under-garment of the 
Greeks. ‘ Besides the chiton the older male 
costume also had a sort of bib (dizAotduov). 
It is by no means impossible that at one 
period the Greeks wore only the bib and 
the cloak and no chiton. When the latter 
became universally fashionable (which 
according to recent surmises was due to 
Semitic influence), the bib disappeared, or 
continued only as part of military dress’ (p. 
6). A Greek dressed ina bib and cloak 
reminds one irresistibly of the topboots and 
collar of the savage king, but the translator’s 
addition of déizAoidiov makes her views on 
the subject only too clear. The mistake is 
unfortunate, for later on, in describing the 
tucker or fold which hangs over the breast 
in front of the chiton (Brustiiberschlag), she 
uses the same word ‘bib,’ except in one case 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


where she calls it a ‘scarf’ (pp. 11, 12). 
This makes the confusion worse, for she also 
calls the small mantle or shawl (wmschlage- 
tuch p. 41, Echarpe p. 43) shown in some of 
the early red-figured vase-paintings a ‘ scarf.’ 

Some other translations are equally 


‘misleading, e.g. Faltenwuxf is ‘drapery’ . 


instead of ‘arrangement of folds’ (pp. 9, 45), 
and Bausch or Kolpos becomes ‘ double- 
girding.’ 

Besides these more obvious errors there. 
are several smaller inaccuracies which © 
seriously affect the meaning, eg. ‘The 
monuments of the next period’ (nunmehr) 
(p. 9), and the translation of Bildwerke by 
‘ pictures’ in one place (p. 9) and ‘ statues’ in 
another (p. 18). The rest of the book is 
much freer from mistakes and is for the 
most part. very readable. The worst slip 
we have noticed is in the account of the 
discobolus (p. 277), where the German 
translation of Lucian’s description is very 
inaccurately rendered, making the account 
which follows almost unintelligible. There 
are also here and there- some curious 
renderings : the handle (Henkel) of a vase is 
called a ‘ haft’ (p. 281): the ‘ Basilina (sic) 
the wife of the Archon chief’ (p. 386) 
represents Basilinna d. h. die Gemdhlin des 
Archon Basileus: * The feast of Cans’ (xoaié 
sic) stands for Kannenfest.’ 

It is indeed a great pity that the transla- 
tion has not been revised by some one with 
a special knowledge of Greek antiquities, for 
it fills a vacant space among our handbooks, 
supplying an amount of monumental 
evidence that is sadly wanting elsewhere, and 
giving in short compass a large amount of 
information on comparatively neglected 
subjects. 

In spite of the errors, the translator 
deserves our best thanks. She has given 
the general reader a large mass of informa- 
tion by the aid of which he can reclothe the 
dry bones of antiquity and learn to look on 
the old Greeks as people who lived and 
moved, much as we do. The translation 
will, we hope, reach a second edition and 
afford the opportunity of clearing away the 
‘slips’ which at present detract from its 
value. 

W. C. F. ANDERSON. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 215 


JOHNSON ON THE SUBJUNCTIVE 


De Coniunctivi et Optativi Usu Euripideo in 
Enuntiatis Finalibus et Condicionalibus. 
Scripsit Franciscus Jounson, Dr. Phil. 
Berlin: 1893. Richard Heinrich. Pp. 70. 
2 Mk. 


ApparENTLY Dr. Johnson has examined all 
the cases in Euripides coming under the 
heads of Pure Final Clauses, Object Clauses 
after Verbs of Striving, Object Clauses 
after Verbs of Fearing, and Conditional 
Sentences, treating some of the cases at 
length while others he merely cites. His 
classification, owing to its intricacy and 
want of clearness in arrangement, is very 
hard to follow, and whatever be the merits 
of the treatise it must be admitted that it 
shows carelessness in construction. For 
example on p. 36, section iii, on the mood 
after iva, iva py, os, Os py, OTwS, OTwS py; 
and py alone depending on past tenses, we 
have first a summary of the preceding 
section, the first clause of which reads: 
Supra ii., (iva) invenimus locos v., while in 
reality there are six; and finally: Itaque 


locis lviii. optativus, ili. coniunctivus 
invenitur; neque vero metrum  obstat 
quominus hi loci viii. corrigantur. Inde 


concludo Euripidem coniunctivum numquam 
sic adhibuisse. Now he cannot mean that 
he thinks Euripides never used the Sub- 
junctive at all after past tenses, for he 
gives on p. 12, p. 24, &e., abundant instances 
to the contrary. What he does mean 
probably is that he thinks Euripides never 
used the Subjunctive except when the 
action of the leading verb is conceived of 
as continuing into the present (cf. examples 
on p. 12). But he does not explicitly state 
this, and in any case the assertion is a 
remarkable one. 

Other instances of carelessness are as 
follows: on 41 one of his divisions 
(B. I. c.) is the Subjunctive after as av py, 
where the example contains no py at all ; 
and on p. 64, (a «) and p. 65 (c. €, aal, cy 
et ccn), where cont, is put for opt. 


AND OPTATIVE IN EURIPIDES. 


Dr. Johnson’s general conclusions may 
be summarized as follows: In the use of 
the Subjunctive and Optative in final clauses 
Euripides does not differ much from 
Sophocles and Aeschylus, for these three 
poets (1) used os rather oftener than 
the other particles, Euripides somewhat 
more than the other two, and Sophocles 
considerably more than Aeschylus ; (2) 1 
alone in adverbial clauses they used a 
little oftener than py with ta, os, dws, 
Euripides in about the same proportion as 
Aeschylus and Sophocles ; (3) they used the 
Optative after past tenses when an action 
simply past was had in mind; (4) they 
used the Optative when the Optative 
occurred in the principal clause, but possibly 
Euripides preferred the Subjunctive after 
ideas of wishing, though this is not certain ; 
(5) Euripides was the first poet after Homer 
to omit the idea of fearing, &e., before 7, 
or rather he first returned to the old way 
of expression ; (6) dws py after a verb of 
fearing occurs once in Euripides ; (7) Euripi- 
des with the other tragedians used the 
Subjunctive after primary tenses. 

With regard to conditional sentences 
Dr. Johnson concludes: (1) in Euripides 
as in Aeschylus and Sophocles both yy and 
edv, but éav never except metri causa, while 
the form dy does not occur; (2) Euripides 
never used the Subjunctive with «i; (3) 
Euripides much oftener, Sophocles a little 
less often, used jv with the Subjunctive 
than «i with the Future Indicative, while 
Aeschylus almost always used «i with the 
Future Indicative. Euripides therefore of 
all the tragedians most nearly followed the 
speech of the people; (4) Euripides often 
used «i with the Optative in general con- 
ditions. 

An index of passages discussed and 
emended would have facilitated reference to 
this treatise. 

W. J. Battie. 

University of Texas, 

Austin. 


ROBERTS'S SHORT PROOF THAT GREEK WAS THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST. 


A Short Proof that Greek was the Language 
of Christ, by Proressor Roperts, D.D. 
Alex. Gardner: Paisley and London. 
1893. 


Proressor Roserts supplements his larger 
work of 1888 by a brief argument addressed 
to a wider circle of readers. The proof 
may be condensed as follows :-— 


216 


1. The whole Old Testament circulated 
in some written form, as is shown by Christ’s 
appeals to ‘the Scriptures’ and by such 
phrases as ‘have ye not read?’ or ‘as it is 
written.’ 


2. This ‘ People’s Bible’ was not Hebrew, . 


a language now unintelligible to the common 
people addressed by Christ, nor can the 
existence of a written Aramaic version be 
asserted. 

3. Therefore ‘by a process of exhaustion’ 
we infer that this People’s Bible was the 
Septuagint, a conclusion supported by the 
constant use of the LXX. for quotations 
of the Old Testament in the New. The 
Aramaic expressions in the Gospels represent 
then only an occasional use, and the dis- 
courses of Christ were delivered in Greek. 

The argument is singularly inconclusive. 
It ignores the purely formal value of as 
yéyparrat and ai ypapat. They are appeals 
to the contents of the Old Testament irre- 
spective of the manner in which it is 
known. Professor Roberts overestimates 
the circulation of books among the peasants 
of Palestine and ignores the significance of 
oral translation into Aramaic by the Metur- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


geman in the synagogues. Whether that 
usage can be dated as early as the time 
of Christ or not, such passages as Mark xy. 
54 attest some acquaintance with the Old 
Testament in Aramaic. The unintelligi- 
bility of Hebrew is overstated, as may be 
seen by the interesting remarks of Franz 


Delitzsch in his pamphlet Zhe Hebrew New 


Testament, p. 30. Kautzsch (Grammatik des 
biblischen Aramédischen, p. 19) indeed infers 
from Luke iv. 17 that the Hebrew Bible could 
still be understood by the people. 

Lastly, the use of the LX X. in quotations 
by writers addressing non-Palestinian 
readers proves nothing as to the common 
use of the LXX. in Galilee. 

If the author’s conclusion could be 
granted, its importance would not be such 
as he imagines. We could not infer that 
we are reading the sayings of Christ 
exactly as they were originally uttered. 
The difficulties which beset the criticism of 
the Gospels would remain undisturbed. 


F. A. CHRISTIE. 


Meadville Theological Seminary, 
Pennsylvania. 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM KOS AND 
HALICARNASSUS. 


(1) Kos. In the possession of Mr. 
te, complete stele, width 38 cm. 
The forms of the most important letters 


ars MOR) S =v. 


"Edoeev 7a Bovde cat TO 
ddépw* ILoAvapxos Sract- 
Na cizre’ Xaptav ’Apioroxpa- 
? ” / 
revs A@nvatov mpogevov 
> cat cal / 
npLev TAS TOALOS TaS Ko- 
wv Kal evepyéray Kal av- 
3 ; 
Tov Kal exyovas’ Twev Oe 
3 IA \o» aN oo 
avTots Kal €oTAOVV Kal EK- 
\ > /, ‘\ 
amRovv Kal € TOAELW Kat 
év cipava dovAel Kat aovrov- 
del Kal avTols Kal ypypacwy. 


A Coan decree of proxeny more succinct 
than any of those previously known (Paton 
and Hicks, Jnscripp. of Cos, Nos. 1-3) and 
remarkable in omitting yvoya mpootarav 
after the first sentence. Ihave not here the 
index to the (.J.A. vol 2 and cannot dis- 
cover if anything is known about the 
Athenian here benefited. 


(2) I espied this in 1886 in a street 
in Kos. It had just been excavated by 
some workmen. [I discovered it in an old 
note-book a few days ago. The stone has 
doubtless been lost, as I could find no trace 
of it in 1888. I prefer to reproduce my 
copy without any attempt at restoration, as 
it is evident that a great deal is lost. As 
to the accuracy of the copy I will beg that 
it may be estimated by a low standard, as 
this is one of the very first copies of Greek 
inscriptions I made, and I know now that 
it takes a long time to learn how to copy 
them with any approach to accuracy. 


PIQIKAIZAPIOEOYZE 


SASEXEITIAPAYTO 
MIONESTQPTAZEAESE 


SEBASTON 
P’SEBAS iI-Tk 
OAEY _ONAI 


OZTOTPITONTIA 
IAAZSEIKOSITIENT 


(3) In the collection of Mr. Platanis- 
tas. My. Demetrios Platanistas, the father of 


the present Mr. Platanistas, acquired this 
é stone, as he told Mr. Newton (Halicarnassus, 
Cnidus, &e., p. 580), at Cara Toprak near 
Myndus; but, although there are other 
traces of the cultus of Artemis in this 
region (see Bull. Hell. xiv. p. 118), I do 
not think that this evidence suffices to 
establish the existence of a cult of Artemis 
Kindyas near Myndus. Kindya was near 
Bargylia, I think, on a hill above the 
village of Cholmekji. It was an important 
place in the fifth century, paying to Athens 
a much bigger tribute than Bargylia, and 
its Artemis (see Strabo) continued to be 
famous for long; but nevertheless I think 
it is more probable that this stone was 
carried from Bargylia to Myndus than that 
the worship of Artemis Kindyas was so 
carried. 

(1) Height 38 em., width44cem. Letters 


AMEC WZ. 


a / 
Td pvnpetov Povpator|os 
, >. 
’ArrdAov kat Aapa Kat 
/ > © 
Anpaytptou ey eat 
SevdyjoovTat avTot 
Kal yuvatkes avTOv Kat Td 
la ‘ ” v] > \ rf 
réxva Kal eb twes (tuo!) adrot Lav- 
> / 
res cvvxwpyoovew. “Eav dé 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 217 


Tis Tapa TalTa ToLnoN a7ro- 
? 
teitoer Aprewide Kuvdva- 


du xh 


Beneath KINAYA is engraved an ivy leaf. 

This inscription may have been already 
published long ago in the T[avdwpa or 
“Opnpos, but it is interesting enough to be 
reproduced here. It is not cited by 
Hirschfeld in his catalogue of sepulchral 
inscriptions with fines. 


HALICARNASSUS. 


The castle of St. Peter is being converted 
into a prison. I fancy that no great harm 
will be done, as scarcely anything archi- 
tectural will be destroyed ; but the numerous 
Latin inscriptions of the names of knights in 
the refectory and elsewhere will be exposed 
to some risk. The chapel of the knights is 
being made into a prison for misdemeanants, 
and in order that they shall enjoy the 
comforts denied to felons, the stone flooring 
of the chapel has been taken up and re- 
placed by a wooden one. On one of the 
blocks thus removed the following inscrip- 
tion is engraved : 

Height 60 cm., width 49 cm. Letters 


= MoT Tro. 


’Emt teporowod Avopdvrov tod Avoxdéovs, ext 


mputavelas THS peta Mytpoddpov rod Acovru(a)d[ ov, 
ypappatevovtos Apdxovtos Tov Ocodwpov, penvos 
"Av6 o "Hdogev 7H Bovdy cat 7d dyp[or 

vOeornpiavos. ogev 7H} Body kat TH Onpl 4 

, > cal 
yvopn mputavewv’ éreidy Aiddoros Povixov Taca|y 
iroriyiay Kal mpobvptav Tapéoxytat eis TO emrl- 
oxevac Ova TO yupvacvov To Birurmetov Fm bev [7]a[e 

/ / > / > eed ‘\ 
mpaty Yypiopare emay|yJeAdpevos cis TH epya pely 

‘ “ 
THs Surdijs oTdas Swcew aToKov Spaxpyas puplas alt TO 
»” ‘ ‘\ > / A , \ 2 ” 
@\Xeurov Kata Tus éwayyeAlas TAY, rari v| de ev ad| Aw 
x = 
Undiopare pirorypovpevos Grws dv arav 7 TvVTETE- 
Neopévov Td yupvacvov Ta mpordéovTa xpywata 
kata Tas érayyeNlas Sdcew adtos TdvTa ATOKa. Kat 
Sua tavras Tas airias cvpBéByxev dmav To yupvaor ov 
> , VS / ays \ lal a 
é|reckevdo bat Kai drrodedetxacw ot éryseAnrat TH Bovdly 
owreredeopeva rave Ta Epya apertas Kat Sedo] Ki- 
< ‘ \ > Lal / / Ce ‘\ 
paxev 7) Bovdi, Kai év TO Aoyw HEepovow ot exyseAn[ rat 
cis Ta Epya Sedwxdra Arddorov To Tay GroKov dpax{ pas 
Tpirpupias TpirxiAlas TeTpaKooias, ov povov Oe 
BSN ” > ‘ / lal , , 

aires CowKev GAL Kal Twas Tov Seduxdtwv Si[o]e[wv 
» , L4 x Le a ‘ > 
trerev? 5€56x0at Srrws av Kal 6 Sjpos pavepos 7 
rov eis TO yopvdowov pirorynbevra Tmav TYyA| ats 
rais atagias Kal waves mpotperwvtat eis Toias xp|€las 


orepavacat Aiddorov Provixov xpvtG atepavy 
nw 7 4 > / > a 32 a“ , 9 
ees St riv eixdva adrod ev 7G [y]}u iy iva 


S|roprqpa 7 Tis PAotyslas [js] eis TO y vp. |val ovov 
A]oyo[v] iwep 7]av...- 


5 
10 
15 
20 
mapéxerOar ciddres tiv ebxapiotiav Tod SypLov 
25 
Kal elxdve xaAKy ad Spaxpav TeTpaxr Alo 
mapéoxeTo Kal eis XpnaTwv 
30 


NO. LXIX. VOL. VIII, 


‘wv adTod Kal eis TH GAXa* Srrws 0 av [7d apy vp.ov 
8009 76 Te eis TOV orl epavo|y [Kat TH e{ikova ot Tdywae 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


, 
érevdi ai pev tepat Kat Onpwdo|var Sardvar yévovrac 


c rr ‘X 
épavres 88... ee ee 
ALOO0TOVs cae oe. eee 


(The rest is missing.) 


Some of the readings in the last lines 
are a little doubtful, as the stone is much 
corroded here. In line 29 at the end I 
read YPEIFL on the stone, but the im- 
pression seems to establish YPEPT. At 
the beginning of line 30 Q is very doubtful. 
In line 32.the same may be said of AHM. 
This is, I fancy, the only known decree of 
Halicarnassus dated by a ieporois. For a 
list of Halicarnassian decrees see Diehl and 
Cousin in Bull. Hell. xiv. p. 91 and 
Hirschfeld in Jnserr. of the B. M. part iv. 

. 55. 

: By the Wndicpara mentioned here we must 
understand decrees relating to the construc- 
tion of the gymnasium not necessarily intro- 
duced by Diodotus, but having appended to 
them a list of subscribers of whom he was 
the chief. It would appear that two appeals 
for subscriptions were issued. In the first 
case Diodotus put himself down for 10,000 
drachmas and also offered to pay up the 
subscriptions which were not forthcoming 
from the subscribers. In the second case 
he did not subscribe any definite amount, 
but renewed his former offer. He must 
have been a most popular man, for it is 
evident that had he any private and par- 
ticular enemy, that enemy might have made 
himself very unpleasant to him by putting 
himself down for 100,000 drachmas and 
refusing to pay up. Possibly however in 
each case the appeal was for a stated 
amount. In line 20 I am not quite sure 
of the Q.E at the end, but supposing them 
to be correct, we can only restore ddceu, 
a tense, I fancy, unusual after zeiw. 

On the left return of this stone is 
engraved : 

NIKH 
NEWNOC 
TOY 
KOPPA 
NIKH 


/ 


This is yet another specimen of a class 
of graffiti which has been most recently 
discussed by Th. Reinach in the Rev. des 
Etudes Grecques vi. p. 197. I do not think 
that they have yet been satisfactorily 
explained, as no one has as yet brought 
under one point of view their two most 
characteristic qualities : (1) their geograph- 


ical distribution—they are peculiar to Cos 


‘and the Carian coast ; (2) the fact that they 


are almost invariably engraved on stones- 
bearing previous inscriptions. 
Two stones inscribed with NIKH fol- 


lowed by a proper name were found by me 
at Kos (Inserr. of Cos, Nos. 69, 70), and these, . 
as I have there stated, are not graffiti at 
all but regularly engraved texts; and 
therefore I should suggest that the usage of 
this formula is derived from Cos. I would 
hence also venture the suggestion that all 
these inscriptions are to be regarded as 
prayers for good health. I should be 
grateful to any one who would add to the 
very slender support on which I have 
founded this hypothesis. 

The right return of this stone has been 
covered with stucco, and some few traces 
of a Christian painted inscription remain. 

(2) Fragment partially complete on the 
left, width 24 cm., height 14 cm., thickness 
7 cm. recently found in the castle. 


IAZZQNAIATEA 
JAITEAYTONAPETH 
ZEIETONAHMONEn 
IPPOZTETHNBOYAI 
4) _IEPATTPQTQKAIP! 
KAIEIETTAOY 
: 


Part of a decree of earlier date than the 
last. We may restore 


, ‘ > ‘ 
3 Set fo Ree pee mwavTa TH ayaba 7-| 
, “~ \ ‘ / > cal 
pacowv diated et wept tyv ToAW éexnviao- 
Oat Te avtov apetals Evexev Kal evvoias 
tH |s eis Tov Shor, e[tvar d€ aita zpoco- 
dov| mpds te THY BovA[ Hv Kal Tov Sypov pe- 
5 ra taliepa mporw(t) K(ajim7 ... 2... 
X »” ed 
kal elotAov[v Kat éxrAovyv k.7.AX. 


In line 5 the A certainly comes closer in 
form to A than an A, but is of course meant 
for the latter. 


1 This is true of all the examples of these graffiti 
known to me personally and from sources previous 
to Reinach, except Le Bas-Waddington, Nos. 366 and 
503. Reinach publishes a number from Iasos 
engraved on drums of columns ‘either separately 
or after previous inscriptions’ ; from which we may 
conjecture that those engraved ‘separately’ were 
cut on columns, other drums of which bore previous 


inscriptions. 
W. R. Paton, 
CaLtymnos, Feb, 11th, 1894, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plastik. Kunst- 
geschichtliche Untersuchungen von ADOLF 
Furtwancier. With 140 illustrations in 
the text, and an atlas of 32 plates. Leip- 
zig and Berlin. Giesecke and Devrient : 
1893, 


Seconp Novice. 


3. Kresilas. In publishing the fine bust of 
Perikles (Brit. Mus.), now generally ac- 
cepted as a copy of the famous portrait of 
Perikles by Kresilas, Furtwiingler estab- 
lishes certain stylistic criteria which enable 
him to claim for this artist a whole import- 
ant series of monuments. This portrait 
bust—(that the original was really a bust 
seems proved by the shape of the inscribed 
basis found in 1888, Lolling Deltion Arch. 
1889, p. 36)—was put up, Furtwingler 
suggests, in B.c. 439 to commemorate 
the suceessful expedition of Perikles to 
Samos. He might have added, as further 
corroboration, that the enthusiasm roused 
by the Samian exploit found expression 
in another portrait,—for it must have 
been about the same time that Polykleitos 
executed the portrait of Artemon, one of 
the engineers of Perikles during the Samian 
war. 

Controversy has been raging of late 
around the Diitrephes of Kresilas. Furt- 
wingler shows that the Diitrephes mentioned 
on the Akropolis inscription that bears the 
name of Kresilas (Loewy J.@.B. 46) was not, 
as Pausanias supposed, the hero of the 
Mykalessian exploit, but an older Diitrephes, 
father of a certain Nikostratos—(who is 
mentioned by Thucydides as one of the 
generals at the beginning of the Peloponne- 
sian wars) ; the epigraphical difficulties con- 
nected with the dating of the work are thus 
disposed of. By publishing as a copy of 
the Diitrephes the torso of the so-called 
Farnese gladiator at Naples (it agrees in 
every respect with the descriptions in 
Pausanias and Pliny, the volneratus de- 
ficiens being of course identical with the 
Diitrephes), Furtwiingler puts an end to 
extravagant conjectures like those lately 
advanced by M. Six. Furtwiingler shows 
finally and definitely, through her likeness 
to the Perikles, that the wounded Amazon! 
leaning on her spear (Michaelis’ Capitoline 
type) was by Kresilas. In this connexion 
he discusses the existing material collected by 
Michaelis for the reconstruction of the 
Amazons, and in so doing brings to light 


' According to F. the Perikles and the Amazon 
are about contemporary, 


219 


three important points: (1) that the Ama- 
zon of the Villa Doria is not a replica of 
the Polykleitan type, but a distinct fourth 
type which had hitherto passed unnoticed ; 
(2) that the head placed upon the Petworth 
Amazon is foreign to the statue, and that 
therefore the head belonging to this type 
still has to be found; (3) that the Naples 
bronze head is nofé a replica of the head of 
the Polykleitan Amazon. The discovery of 
a fourth Amazon shows that archaeologists 
have perhaps been premature in doubting 
the story of the four Amazons told by Pliny. 
The Doria statue, from its likeness to the 
Polykleitan, betrays an Argive origin, and 
may therefore very well be the work of 
Phradmon. Furtwiingler combats the theory 
that sees in the Petworth-Mattei type a mere 
adaptation of the Polykleitan; he points 
out the great originality of the conception 
(it is strange it should ever have been 
doubted) and does not hesitate to trace it 
back to Pheidias. He inclines to consider 
that we have a copy of the head of this 
Pheidian Amazon in the Naples bronze. 
Furtwingler emphasizes the likeness 
(already noticed by Michaelis) between the 
Kresilaian Amazon and the superb Pallas de 
Velletrt in the Louvre. The original of the 
Pallas may doubtless be safely attributed to 
Kresilas ;—but it seems a trifle arbitrary to 
suppose that this original was an Athena 
Soteira possibly set up in the Peiraeus in 
the days of Perikles, and to try to prove 
that Pliny, through some disarrangement of 
his notes, came to put down under the name 
Cephisodorus a Minervam mirabilem in portu 
Atheniensium, that really belonged to Cresi- 
las ;—(poor Pliny! to what archaeological 
audacities has not your supposed untidy 
system of note-taking afforded a pretext ?) 
To the group of statues already reclaimed 
for Kresilas Furtwingler adds two of the 
grandest works in the Munich Glyptothek, 
—the Medusa Rondanini and the Diomede. 
The original of the last-named statue has 
been placed by most critics in the fourth 
century,—some have even named Seilanion 
as the artist (Brunn, F. Winter). Furt- 
wiingler shows however, by comparison with 
other replicas, that certain fourth century 
traits in the Munich Diomede are foreign to 
the original, and are due to the mannerism 
of one particular copyist. When once we 
have allowed for the admixture of foreign 
elements in the Munich replica, we must 
own with Furtwiingler that, in _ its 
essentials, the Diomede strongly resembles 
the works of Kresilas. On the ground of 
an inscription found at Hermione Furt- 
R 2 


220 


wingler ingeniously contrives for Kresilas 
an Argive period, during which he supposes 
the artist to have executed the statue of the 
great Argive hero. 

4. Myron. A discussion on the Riccardi 
head forms the natural link between Kresi- 
las and Myron, for in this head Furtwangler 
detects the work of an artist who influenced 
and perhaps taught Kresilas; that artist was 
Myron. Indeed the affinities of the Riccardi 
head to the head of the Diomede are so 
patent that it is difficult to see why it 
should be put down to Myron rather than 
to Kresilas himself. If students of Italian 
art not unfrequently lend to Giorgione an 
early but original Titian, how much more 
liable to error is the Greek archaeologist 
who, with nothing but copies to deal with, 
has to decide between Myron and Kresilas ! 
On the other hand Furtwingler is undoubt- 
edly right in attributing to Myron the ori- 
ginal of the Cassel Apollo with its replicas, 
and of the fine Perseus (Rome and Brit. 
Mus.), which Klein had already shown to 
be a work of the early fifth century. The 
original of the Perseus would according to 
the new theory be identical with the statue 
by Myron mentioned by both Pliny and 
Pausanias. Some idea of the whole com- 
position may be formed from vases and 
from coins: the hero was represented with 
winged feet holding the sword in his left 
hand, the head of the Medusa in his right, 
and looking slightly away to the left. It is 
in presence of this Perseus, which was 
evidently the artistic prototype of the 
Diomede, that we understand how greatly 
Myron influenced Kresilas. Among other 
works reclaimed for Myron are the colossal 
head of a Herakles in the British Museum, 
the exquisite ‘ Asklepios’ (Zeus Meilichios ?) 
feeding his snake, of the Uffizi. Finally 
must be noted the tempting conjecture that 
in a head of the Museo Chiaramonti (Fig. 
57), with its unmistakable Myronian touch, 
we have a copy, or at any rate an echo, of 
the Erechtheus set up at Athens and so 
greatly praised by Pausanias. 

5. Polykleitos. The date proposed by Furt- 
wangler for the activity of Polykleitos covers 
roughly the years s.c. 450—420. The 
Amazon, since it was made in competition 
with Kresilas, must be dated at about 440 ; 
the Doryphoros is evidently older and may 
therefore have been executed sometime 
towards 450. The third date we have for 
Polykleitos is B.c. 420, when he made the 
gold and ivory Hera for the temple of Argos. 
Thus Polykleitos would be a somewhat 
younger contemporary of Pheidias. These 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


results agree well with the express testimony 
of Plato in the Protagoras (311 C, 328 C). 
Tradition made Polykleitos also a pupil of 
Hagelaidas. The dates of the two artists do 
not permit us to accept this statement 


_ literally, but, as in the case of Pheidias, the 


tradition contains a generaltruth. Ina fine. 
critical passage Furtwiingler dwells on the 
subtle changes by which Polykleitos modified 
the harsh canon of the old Argive masters. In 
the Ligorio bronze for instance, or in the 
Munich Zeus, where the left leg supports - 
the weight of the body it is also the left 
arm that is bent at the elbow to hold some 
object, while on the right side where the leg 
is at ease the arm hangs down loosely. 
The effect produced by this tension of all 
one side of the body with the corresponding 
relaxation of the whole of the other side is 
unpleasant in the extreme. By an adroit 
interchange of the parts—by simply giving 
the spear into the left hand of his Dory- 
phoros while placing the weight on the 
right leg —Polykleitos converted the ancient 
stiffness into a rhythmical softness. This 
crossing of the lines, this chiasmos, that 
first makes its appearance in art with the 
Doryphoros, is doubtless the secret of the 
popularity of Polykleitos with artists of 
subsequent ages; it is easy to trace in 
Furtwingler’s pages the persistence of the 
Doryphoros type right down to the Mercury 
bronzes of Roman times. 

A most desirable addition to our know- 
ledge of the Diadumenos is made by the 
publication (Fig. 63) of the fine Madrid statue 
which, with its replicas, Furtwangler brings 
into the prominence it deserves. The Far- 
nese Diadumenos is proved finally to belong 
to the Attic school—to Pheidias, and it was 
probably from it that Polykleitos borrowed 
the subject of his statue. The identification 
of the Kyniskos of Polykleitos with the 
Westmacott athlete (Br. Mus.) has been 
recently arrived at by Collignon, by Petersen 
and by Furtwingler ; it is here worked out 
at length and with numerous illustrations 
(the charming head Fig. 73 has by the way 
recently passed from the Van Branteghem 
collection into the possession of Sir Edgar 
Vincent at Constantinople). Of the statues 
of Xenokles and of Pythokles (the in- 
scribed bases have been found at Olympia), 
Furtwingler thinks he can detect copies in 
two statues of the Vatican. The beautiful 
bronze Jdolino in Florence he claims to be 
an original from the school of Polykleitos— 
perhaps by his brother Patrokles. A Poly- 
kleitan statue from the Petworth collection, 
representing an athlete pouring oil from a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


flask into his hand, is published on p. 465. 
Furtwingler shows well how the Argive 
Polykleitos or some pupil borrowed the 
motive from an Attic statue,—perhaps 
from the original! of the Munich ‘ oil- 
pourer’—and in this as in other in- 
stances made it his own by a change in the 
conception. This change exemplified in the 
Petworth athlete, in the Diadumenos, in the 
Amazon, consisted above all in the sacrifice 
of the Attic directness and singleness of 
purpose to the general grace of the composi- 
tion, in the diversion of aim from simple 
expressiveness to an elegant nonchalance. 
Polykleitos, whom Furtwiingler’s investiga- 
tions have shown to be so purely dependent 
upon his Attic predecessors for the subject 
and general conception of his statues, became 
in his turn,—perhaps because of a certain 
reactionary tendency in his art,—an impor- 
tant factor in the future development of the 
Attic school, as will be seen in the subsequent 
chapter. 

6. Skopas, Praxiteles, Huphranor.—A fine 
and well preserved statue of Herakles (Lans- 
downe House), published on p. 516, Furt- 
wiangler shows to be still thoroughly Attic 
in conception, but in the handling of the 
nude he detects Polykleitan influences. 
The Lansdowne Herakles may be an early 
work of Skopas himself. As akin to it 
are noted inter alia: the beautiful 
Hermes of the Palatine (fig. 96), a bronze 
statuette of the young beardless Asklepios 
in Carlsruhe? (Fig. 95), a bronze statuette 
of Zeus (Fig. 94, Brit. Mus.). In most of 
these works an early Attic scheme has been 
modified by the introduction of Polykleitan 
motives ; it is however one of Furtwangler’s 
most subtle observations that the Argive 
influence so clearly detected in Skopasian 
works limits itself to the body, and never 
manifested itself, as had been supposed, in 
the treatment of the head. Into the ele- 
ments which he adopted from his Attic or 
Argive models Skopas infused a spirit of 
restless energy, which marks him clearly as 
the forerunner of Lysippos. This character- 
istic makes itself strongly felt in those 
works where he indulged his love of broken 
contours (gebrochene Um~risslinien) ; thus it 
was he (and not Lysippos) who first trans- 
ferred to the round a motive long popular 
in painting and relief, and represented a 
figure with one foot raised; this was the 


* Attributed by F. to Lykios, the son of Myron. 
The original of a similar statue at Dresden he attri- 
butes to the school of Alkamenes. 

_® F. points out that a beardless Asklepios by 
Skopas is known from Paus. viii. 28. 1. 


221 


attitude of the Apollo Smintheus (Strabo 
13, p. 604) ; the analagous pose of a young 
Pan on coins of Heraea in Arkadia suggests 
that in this case also we have the reminis- 
cence of a work by Skopas. Another sys- 
tem of ‘broken lines’ occurs in the Ares 
Ludovisi, in which in accordance with a very 
old conjecture Furtwingler sees a reduced 
copy of the Mars sedens colossiaeus of 
Skopas.* Certain elements of restlessness 
which are combined with a distinctly Sko- 
pasian cast of feature in a charming Athena 
of the Palazzo Rospigliosi lead Furtwiingler 
to conjecture that we have here a copy of 
the Athena made by Skopas to stand in 
front of the shrine of Ismene at Thebes ; 
the original was probably bronze. The 
Ares together with the ‘Meleager’ (in 
which Furtwiingler agrees with Graef in 
seeing a work of Skopas) betoken a change 
in the artist’s technique. The well-defined 
system of planes observable in his earlier 
treatment of the nude now gives place to a 
system of rounded surfaces. This same 
round modelling is characteristic of the 
Hermes of Praxiteles, which Furtwiingler 
accordingly assigns to the artist’s third 
period, in opposition to the current view 
(Brunn’s) that it was one of his early 
works.* Professor Furtwiingler finds a con- 
firmation of his theory in the shape and 
material of the basis of the statue. The 
date of Praxiteles’ first period is fixed 
by his close connexion with the little 
group of artists who, like Kephiso- 
dotos,°> Xenophon and Damophon, had a 
‘common historic background in the rise of 
Thebes, the supremacy of Boeotia, the eman- 
cipation of Arkadia, the rebuilding of Man- 
tineia, the founding of Megalopolis, and 
finally the restoration of Messene.’ In the 
artist’s earlier period Furtwiingler places 
the Satyr pouring wine into a cup (@.e. the 
Periboétos), which formed a group with 
Dionysos and Methe on either side. Furt- 
wingler suggests that it was perhaps a 

3 A good replica of the head (identified last year 
by Prof. W. Klein) is in the Br. Mus. 

4 F, agrees with S. Reinach and Purgold in think- 
ing that the group of the Arkadian god Hermes 
nursing Dionysos the god of Elis, was intended to 
symbolize some treaty between Arkadia and Elis, but 
instead of referring it to about B.c. 363 after the 
troubles in the Altis, he suggests the treaty concluded 
in B.c. 343 between the Arkadians and the aristo- 
cratic party in Elis. 

5 According to F. the elder brother, not the father of 
Praxiteles. His Eirene he connects with B.c. 375, 
when yearly offerings were instituted in honour of 
Eirene after the victories of Timotheus, and shows 
well that the statue by no means forms a transition 
from fifth to fourth century art; it is a conscious 
reaction towards Pheidian models. 


222 


replica of this statue, executed by the 
master himself, that stood with a Dionysos 
and an Eros by Thymilos in the shrine of 
the street of the Tripods. A little later in 
the same period came the Eros of the Pala- 
tine (Louvre), a very charming statuette of 
Apollo (Louvre), new identified for the first 
time as Praxitelean, a Dionysos in Tarra- 
gona. He revives the theory of E. Q. 
Visconti that in the Eros of Centocelle (of 
which Furtwingler gives a list of replicas) 
we have a copy of the Eros of Thespiai. 
The sombre beauty of the young god suits 
the fourth century conception of him as 
amdavtwv dalpovwy vméptatos, Set in vogue by 
Euripides. The original stood betweenstatues 
of Aphrodite and Phryne; of the goddess 
Furtwingler sees a copy in the Vénus 
d’ Arles, of the Phryne we may have an echo 
in our own Townley Venus, though the 
actual statue from its advanced style Furt- 
wingler judges to be a copy of the gilt 
portrait of herself which Phryne put up at 
a later period at Delphi, and which probably 
derived from the Thespian statue. Furt- 
wangler further identifies one of the statues 
that stcod next to the Delphian Phryne,— 
that of King Archidamos of Sparta,—in a 
bust from Herculaneum (published by Wol- 
ters Rém. Mitth. 1888, pl. iv.—but as 
Archidamos III.). The treatment of the 
head closely resembles that of the famous 
Euripides in Naples: Furtwingler inclines 
to refer both to the great master of Greek 
portraiture, Demetrios the avfpwzozouds. 
The Knidian Aphrodite with the Aphro- 
dite of Kos (of which Furtwingler detects a 
copy in the Louvre) belong to the master’s 
middle period ; so do the Satyr at rest, and 
the Eubouleus. Lovers of Praxiteles and 
of this fine head will be glad to find that, in 
spite of the mass of controversy on the sub- 
ject, Professor Furtwingler remains abso- 
lutely firm in his conviction that it is an 
original by Praxiteles.! Akin to the Eubou- 
leus is a head in the Palazzo Pitti; it may 
be a copy of the Triptolemos of Praxiteles. 
The middle period—always according to 
Furtwangler—closes with statues like the 
Apollo Sauroktonos and the Eros of Parion 
(Louvre, ‘Genius Borghese’). In the third 
period, and connected with the Hermes, 
came the Apollo resting his hand on his 
head, the kindred Dionysos (‘ Bacchus de 
Versailles’), a Dionysos in Madrid resting 
on aherm, The fine Hermes in the Uffizi 
raising a purse (purse and right hand are 
* The beautiful photograph of this head lately 


published by Messrs. Braun should help the public 
to appreciate this view. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


modern restorations) Furtwingler claims 
for Praxiteles, together with a bearded 
Herakles in the Villa Albani, of which there 
is a variant in the Mus. Chiaramonti. 
Although Furtwingler reserves for later on 
his most startling discovery in regard to 
Praxiteles, it will be seen that we have here - 
an essay equal in importance to that on 
Pheidias. It is early days yet to pass any 
judgment on the revolutionary chronology 
attempted for the works of Praxiteles.- 
Every view put forward by Furtwingler is ~ 
accompanied—one is tempted to say con- 
firmed—by such a wealth of argument, that 
they demand the most serious consideration ; 
yet Brunn’s views cannot be lightly set aside, 
especially in cases where we are confronted 
by the difficulty that besets archaeologists 
at every turn, that of establishing any fair 
comparison between a mass of copies and 
one or two originals. 

Of Euphranor of Corinth; sculptor and 
painter, tradition has left a considerable list 
of works, but we know little of his style 
except that the heads of his statues, accord- 
ing to Pliny or Pliny’s informant, seemed 
too large for their bodies, in other words 
that he was ‘ pre-Lysippian.’ Furtwangler 
identifies as copies after this master a whole 
series of works, which have certain charac- 
teristics in common with the great fourth 
century masters, and yet differ from them 
in the tenacity with which they reproduce 
the older canon of Polykleitos and even of 
Hagelaidas ; among these works are a Bonus 
Eventus (cf. Plin. 34 § 77) on a gem in the 
Brit. Mus. strongly reminiscent of the 
Idolino, the Dionysos of Tivoli, an 
analogous bronze Apollo from Egypt 
(Br. Mus.), the Vatican ‘Adonis’ recall- 
ing the proportions observed by Hagelaidas, 
the Minerva Giustiniani, perhaps a copy 
after the Minerva Catuliana (Plin. 34 § 77), 
the Sambon Dionysos (bronze statuette, 
Louvre), the ‘Elgin Eros’ (Br. Mus.) and 
the beautiful head known as the ‘ Faun of 
Winckelmann’ (Munich). The Paris of 
Euphranor Furtwingler sees in those statues 
wearing the Phrygian cap, which are gener- 
ally interpreted as Ganymede or Attis, and 
of which there are numerous replicas. 

7. The Venusof Milo,—F urtwingler’s argu- 
ments on this important question can only 
be appreciated when read in extenso. The 
history of the discovery of the statue, the 
mass of evidence for and against the authen- 
ticity of the inscribed block discovered with 
it, the final mysterious disappearance of the 
block—form a curious episode in the history 
of archaeology. Furtwingler by exhibiting 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the facts of the case in a sober and scientific 
spirit, that has been too conspicuous by its 
absence whenever the famous Venus has 
been discussed, is able to prove that 
the long missing inscribed block with 
the name of [Age|sandros of Antioch on the 
Maiander does belong to the statue; the 
square hole in the block must consequently 
be a main factor in any attempt to recover 
the original motive of the statue. Accord- 
ing to Furtwiingler it was intended for the 
insertion of a square pillar on which 
the goddess rested her left arm. 
Equally important with this recon- 
struction (which will probably be accepted 
as final) is the date Furtwangler proposes 
for the statue. The foundation of Antioch 
on the Maiander in B.c. 256 gives us a 
terminus ante quem, but Furtwingler would 
bring the statue down to the first century 
B.c., When he believes that a great Renas- 
cence of art took place. He finds a con- 
firmation for this late date in the fact that 
the inscription is carved on a block which 
forms an integral part of the statue, a 
custom that first obtains in works of the 
latter half of the second century, such as 
the ‘runner’ by Agasias, and the Belvedere 
torso. The vigorous forward movement of 
the Venus is however not in harmony 
with the quiet motive of the arm resting on 
the pillar: the whole conception, according 
to Furtwingler, arose out of the contaminatio 
of two types ; the artist, while partly copying 
the Aphrodite looking at herself in a shield 
which she holds on her raised left knee 
(Venus of Capua), replaced the motive of 
the shield by that of the pillar, in allusion 
perhaps to the Tyche of Melos, who on coins 
and bas-reliefs appears leaning on a pillar 
somewhat in the manner of the Aphrodite. 
Furtwiingler has rendered good service in 
vindicating the greater originality and 
nobility of the Capuan statue as compared to 
the Melian. Its original, reproduced perhaps 
on Imperial coins of Corinth (J.H.S. 1885, 
pl. LIIT. G. 121-6), Furtwiingler would refer 
to Skopas ;! a finer replica of the head (Pal. 
Gaetani) helps to this conclusion. This 
leads to a second essay on Skopas, in which 
Furtwingler proves two very celebrated 
statues, the Hypnos of Madrid (the Br. 
Mus. possesses a celebrated bronze replica 
of the head) and the Psyche of Capua 
(probably an Aphrodite), to be by this 
master. 


1 F. points out that here again Skopas would appear 
as the forerunner of Lysippos, the composition of the 
Eros stringing his bow being clearly derived from the 
Aphrodite with the shield. 


223 


8. Apollo of the Belvedere—By publishing 
his arguments for thinking the Stroganoff 
bronze a mere modern forgery, Furtwingler 
disposes of the last argument that could 
compel one to place the original of the 
Belvedere statue as late as Alexandrian 
times: the Apollo who was represented as 
averter of evil, carrying the bow in his left 
‘hand and the laurel branch in his right, 
must, from his likeness to the Vatican 
Ganymede, be attributed (as Winter has 
well shown) to Leochares, another artist 
who is slowly emerging out of oblivion.* 
The artist of the Apollo adopted for his 
statue a type long current in Greek art, as 
is proved from the fine head of the god on 
the coinage of Amphipolis (about B.c. 480— 
370): Furtwiingler conjectures that a head 
with distinctly Pheidian characteristics in 
the British Museum (labelled ‘ Alexander ’) 
must have belonged to a statue of this type 
—perhaps to a copy of the bronze Par- 
nopios that stood on the Akropolis (Paus. 1. 
24. 8).8 

The necessity for dwelling on what 
seemed the most important feature of the 
book, namely the reconstruction of fifth and 
fourth century Meisterwerke, compels me to 
pass over the final chapter, which is con- 
cerned with a number of questions 
connected with archaic art. The re- 
construction of the throne of Apollo at 
Amyklae must however be noted. Professor 
Furtwingler makes his throne clear by two 
fine drawings, which show the god stand- 
ing on a sort of huge chair; the actual 
Bdbpov of the image being formed by the 
altar over the ancient grave of Hyakinthos. 
On the rails that connected the legs of the 
throne, around the altar, and within twenty- 
seven panels on the back of the chair were 
disposed the subjects described at such 
length by Pausanias, and the distribution 
of which has constituted one of the worst 
archaeological puzzles. 

This article must conclude with a word 
about the album of plates, which is a real 
treasure-house of monumenti inediti ; a list of 
these is the best substitute for a summary, 
so desirable but so impossible, of the main 
portion of the book. Plates I. and II. 

2 To him F, attributes (with Koepp) the original 
of the Rondanini Alexander (Munich); as also the 
original of the Diane de Versailles, whose marked 
likeness to the Apollo has long been recognized. 

3 F. has apparently made here another brilliant 
identification. He however a little spoils his theory, 
by seeing something beyond Pheidian forms in the 
head, 7.¢. a peculiar emotional character which makes 
him bring forward his Elder Praxiteles, and try to 
prove that in attributing the Parnopios to Pheidias 
Pausanias erred once again—ne quid nimis ! 


224 


show the two Dresden replicas of the 
‘Lemnian’; the Bologna head is also 
reproduced by itself on Pl III. On Pl. 
IV. are exhibited side by side two fifth 
century types of Athena: the first (from 
a Dresden cast of which the original has 
disappeared) resembles the Hope Athena 
at Deepdene, the other is from a replica of 
the Athena Farnese. In the Deepdene and 
Farnese types of Athena Furtwangler recog- 
nizes respectively the work of Pheidias and 
of Alkamenes. Two such statues, with a 
general likeness to one another might, as 
Furtwingler points out, have given rise to 
the anecdote told by Tzetzes (Chil. viii. 340); 
the story must have been current at an early 
date, for we have a trace of it in the quo 
eodem tempore aemuli eius fuere Alkamenes... 
of Pliny, which has given rise to so much 
discussion concerning the relations of Alka- 
menes to his illustrious master. It is to 
Alkamenes also that Furtwiingler attributes 
the stately head of Aphrodite on pl. V. 
(Berlin) ; it bears a marked likeness to the 
‘Venus Genitrix.’ The superb head of 
Ares on pl. VI. (Louvre), with the rich 
masses of hair escaping from the helmet, 
Furtwingler attributes to Pheidias; the 
seemingly analogous Mars Borghese he iden- 
tifies as a copy of the Ares of Alkamenes. 
Pl. VII. reproduces the heads of the Monte 
Cavallo Dioscuri. On Pl. VIII. is given 
a fine head of Herakles (Berlin), which 
Furtwiingler inclines to connect with a 
torso in the Louvre; the original of the 
statue he attributes to an artist of the 
school of Kalamis. Plates IX. to XVI. re- 
produce a series of Kresilaian works: the 
bust of Perikles (Brit. Mus.), the head of 
the Mattei Amazon, the Munich Diomede, 
the Dresden cast (from an original in 
England, that has now disappeared) of 
another replica of the Diomede, the Medusa 
Rondanini and the beautiful head of an 
athlete with a taenia round his head, from the 
Petworth collection. On Pl. XVII. we have 
the interesting Riccardi head. Myron is 
further represented by two heads of athletes 
on pls. XVIII. and XIX. (Berlin), by an 
interesting portrait from the Villa Albani 
(the so-called ‘ Peisistratos’), by a bearded 
head (of Poseidon ?) at Berlin, and by the 
Perseus from Rome (the London replica is 
given in the text Fig. 55). A fine statue 
(Munich), probably a Zeus, published not 
long ago by Kékulé as Polykleitan, is given 
in Pl. XXIII; according to Furtwingler 
it is a work transitional from the school of 
Hagelaidas to that of Polykleitos. An 
important series of Polykleitan works ap- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


pear on plates XXV. to XXVIII: the 
head of a Diadumenos (Dresden), replica of 
the Madrid statue (which is published in 
the text) ; a superb statue of a boy (Dres- 
den) showing the master’s manner at a 
period when he was most influenced by 
Attic models ; and finally two bronze statu- 
ettes. In one of these-bronzes (Paris, Bibl. 
Nat.)—a figure wearing the turret crown 
symbolical of city guardianship—Furt- 
wiingler recognizes Aristaios, tutelary pro-- 
tector of Kyrene and of her silphion. The ~ 
original work would be by some pupil or 
imitator of Polykleitos. The second bronze 
(Louvre) is a superb Greek original—trom 
his immediate school, if not actually from 
his hand. Plate XXIX. reproduces a 
Praxitelean Artemis at Dresden, On Plate 
XXX. we get the fine Skopasian Aphrodite 
from the Palazzo Gaetani, while in the 
Petworth Aphrodite on Plate XX XI. Furt- 
wangler publishes another discovery he has 
made, equalling in importance that of the 
Lemnian Athena; it is his opinion that we 
have here an original from the hand of 
Prawiteles. The peculiarly living manner in 
which the growth of the hair is indicated 
alone betrays the actual touch of the master. 
The eyes have that mixed character of 
tenderness and vagueness which the ancient 
critic called 75 éypév and the modern lo 
sfumato, an effect produced by a peculiar 
working of the under lid, which may be 
paralleled from the Hermes. Plate XXXIL., 
finally, gives yet another discovery of the 
author’s,—the bronze head of a boy, which 
by the help of staring porcelain eyes, long 
curls and a bodice draped after the fashion 
familiar ‘in portraits.of Queen Louise,’ had 
passed for years as a modern bronze, and 
had accordingly been relegated to a work- 
room of the Berlin Museum. Deprived by 
Prof. Furtwingler of its modern embellish- 
ments, it proves to be a charming work of 
the same school which at a later date pro- 
duced the famous Spinario. 

I have already indicated that the Mezster- 
werke continues the great traditions of the 


1 There is in the Louvre another original bronze— 
the Beneventum head now published in the Brunn- 
Bruckmann Denkméler—in which Furtwangler re- 
cognizes Polykleitan elements combined with certain 
traits reminiscent of the ‘Lemnian.’ Years ago he 
was the first to draw attention to this magnificent 
example of the purest Greek workmanship; two 
splendid heads of boys (Munich 302, and Naples, 
Rayet, Monum. ii. 67) he also pronounces in his 
present book to be Greek originals. These original 
bronzes are beginning to form a series which will 
certainly grow. Their value to our knowledge not 
only of ancient technique but of ancient athletic life 
can scarcely be overestimated. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


schools of Winckelmann and of Brunn. At 
a time when, even in Germany, there 
seemed some danger lest archaeology should 
lose itself in special disciplines, —when, to use 
a homely proverb, archaeologists appeared 
unable to see the wood for the trees,—Furt- 
wingler, by his width of range, by his grasp 
of the subject as a whole, by the skilful 
manner in which he makes every branch of 
archaeological specialization contribute to 
the main inquiry, has succeeded in recalling 
his science to its noblest function—that of 
the history of art. Whether Professor 
Furtwiingler is offering some brilliant new 
solution of a problem, or whether with the 
conservatism of the true scholar he is 
defending the old views and resuscitating 
some theory of Visconti or of Winckel- 
mann, he invariably brings into the field a 
mass of new material enabling him to im- 
part to his arguments a force and a finality, 
in a word a quality of permanence, that 
marks his book as a standard work for 
years to come. I am reminded in conclusion 
of the sentence with which a scholar who 
combines to a rare degree erudition with 
subtlety of criticism greeted the book 
soon after its appearance: Ce livre est le 
plus important qui ait encore paru sur 
Phistoire de Tart Grec.! It is saying much 
but not too much. 


*.* T regret that owing to a misprint the 
approximate date of the Lemnian Athena 
is given in my first article as B.c. 440 
instead of B.c. 450. 


EuGENIE SELLERS. 
March 1894. 


THE EAST FRIEZE OF THE 
PARTHENON. 


In the absence both of direct evidence as 
to the meaning of the central group of the 
east frieze of the Parthenon, and of any 
conjectural solution which is in all respects 
satisfactory, it is perhaps unnecessary to 
apologize for attempting to add one to the 
numerous theories already propounded. 
That it is only a conjecture, and that if has 
in some of its details been anticipated, I am 
fully aware; but to the best of my 
knowledge the most important point in it is 
either new, or at least has not been 
considered by archaeologists within recent 
years. 

The first question to be considered is :— 
What is the relation of the central group to 


2 S. Reinach in the Revue Critique, 5 fév. 1894. 


225 


the procession represented on the frieze ? 
Is it a part of that procession, which may 
be supposed to have arrived ; or is it a group 
which is making preparations of some kind 
previous to the arrival of the procession 4 

This question is answered for us by the 
fact that the gods who are seated on either 
side of the central group appear to take no 
interest in what is there going on. Their 
faces are, with a few exceptions, turned 
away from the centre, and in the directions 
from which the procession is approaching. 
The exceptions only prove the rule, being 
dictated by a desire to avoid the monotony 
of a row of faces looking all in the same 
direction. Were the central group a part 
(in fact, the head) of the procession which 
has already arrived, this indifference of the 
deities would be inexplicable. Nor can it 
be supposed that the reason for their indiff- 
erence is that the central group is within 
the temple and out of their sight ; for where 
else can the deities themselves be supposed 
to be seated? To assume that the deities 
are seated outside the temple, while the 
ceremony which they are there to witness is 
to take place within it, seems altogether 
unreasonable. The central group then 
would seem certainly to be engaged in some 
arrangements preliminary to the ceremony 
which is to begin as soon as the procession 
arrives. 

It follows from this that the garment 
with which the priest and boy are concerned 
cannot be the new peplos which is to be 
presented to the goddess—for that is being 
carried in the procession, which has not yet 
arrived at its destination ; and, as already 
stated, it isin the highest degree unlikely 
that the gods should be so uninterested in 
the new peplos as to take absolutely no 
notice of it. That the garment in question 
is being folded up, not unfolded, is also 
against its being the new peplos, which 
ought presumably to be unfolded before 
putting it on the statue. 

The theory which explains the garment 
as the himation of the priest, which he is 
laying aside previous to beginning the 
ceremony, has met with considerable oppo- 
sition. In a recent paper (7ransactions of 
the Royal Society of Literature, vol. xvi. 
part i.), the late Mr. Watkiss Lloyd takes 
up this theory in a modified form. The 
garment, he maintains, is the protonion, 
which was worn by the priest during the 
actual sacrifice. While this interpretation 
is in some ways more satisfactory than the 
older one, the expression ipariduov used in 
Suidas to describe the protonion seems to 


226 


point to a garment of a very different size 
to that which we have on the frieze. 

From the great number of edges indicated 
in each fold, it would appear to be a very 
large piece of cloth, quite large enough to 
be carried, as was the peplos, in the form of 
a sailon a ship. But we have seen that 
the new peplos is out of the question. It 
remains—and this is so obvious a view that 
it will be surprising if it is now stated for 
the first time—that it must be the old 
peplos, which is to be replaced by the new 
one. Previous to the arrival of the pro- 
cession, the priest has taken the old peplos 
off the statue, leaving it clothed only in the 
chiton which—whether a part of the original 
wooden statue, or a separate piece of 
drapery—was worn beneath the _peplos. 
With the help of the boy, the priest is 
folding up the old garment -to lay it aside. 

It was objected to the ‘himation theory’ 
that the matter was too trivial to occupy 
the central point of the representation. 
This objection does not apply so strongly to 
Mr. Watkiss Lloyd’s view; but still less 
will it hold against the present explanation, 
because the scene, as thus explained, is not 
a mere ‘toilet-scene,’ but intimately 
connected with the statue itself. At the 
same time, lest it should be felt that the 
action is still not important enough for the 
place it occupies, it may be well to point 
out that, provided the group was sufficiently 
decorative—a great deal is sacrificed to the 
decorative aspect of the frieze—and in some 
way suggested the main ceremony, the idea 
of dignity was not likely to weigh much 
with the artist. It is sufficient that the old 
peplos is there to suggest the new one. 
The representation of the latter as actually 
extended on the mast of a ship would, 
though picturesque, be evidently out of 
keeping with the frieze as a Greek artist 
would compose it ; even the primitive statue 
of Athena herself is here avoided, although 
we know that, as at Phigaleia, the 
introduction of such an element was quite 
possible. 

And if the image itself is absent, much 
more can we dispense with the new peplos, 
especially as it is partly represented and 
wholly suggested by the old one. It must 
not be forgotten that the main object of the 
frieze is to decorate the wall, and that 
consequently much may be omitted which in 
a realistic and logical presentation would 
have to be in evidence. 

The meaning of the stools carried by the 
small female figures still remains unex- 
plained. The last to discuss the subject is 


- immediately to remove to other seats. 
clear that this double set of seats for the- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Furtwingler, who believes that the stools 
are meant for the gods themselves. The 
only objection to this view is that the artist 
would hardly represent the gods as already 
comfortably seated, if they are expected 
It is 


same persons is unnecessary and inartistic. . 
Under the circumstances, it is surely better 
to adhere to the safe, if somewhat vague, 
interpretation, that the seats are for some 
ceremonial purpose ; or to assume that they 
are meant for the most important onlookers, 
for instance those men who take no actual 
part in the procession, but are represented, 
on either side of the seated gods, as awaiting 
its arrival. There is no reason to suppose 
that the worshippers were expected to stand 
during the whole ceremony, which would 
certainly occupy a considerable time. 

The interpretation given above seems to 
me to be open to fewer objections than 
either the himation or new peplos interpre- 
tation; but far from claiming absolute 
certainty for all or any part of. it, I merely 
offer it as a suggestion which may help to a 
final solution of the difficulty. 

G. F. Hitt. 


PORTRAITS OF FAMOUS CITIZENS 
OF MYTILENE. 


Aivécwpev 87) avdpas évddgous. 


Iv is well known that the Imperial coin- 
age of Mytilene presents a unique series of 
portraits of famous personages of that city.’ 
On a rare coin in’ the French collection, 
Pirracus appears, with AxcaEus as the 
reverse type, while on other specimens 
representations of SappHo frequently occur. 
THEOPHANES of Mytilene, the historian and 
friend of Pompey, is portrayed,” as well as 
Lessonax the Mytilenean philosopher and 
rhetorician. Lesbonax appears both as a 
bearded philosopher and as a young Dio- 
nysos designated HPQC NEOC. Two por- 


1 See Head, Historia numorum, p. 488. These 
coins are well represented in the British Museum 
and will be photographed in the Museum Catalogue 
of the Coins of Lesbos that I am now engaged in 
preparing. The specimens in question are all of 
Imperial times, though they do not bear the names 
and heads of Emperors. 

2 On the obverse of coins of the time of 


Tiberius inscribed OEO ® ANHC OEOC., The 
Archedamis ——-APXEAAMIC ©OEA—of the 


reverse of these coins is unknown but is supposed 
to be the wife of Theophanes. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


traits, bearing the names of a JULIA 
Prokta (Procula), |1OV TIPOKAAN 
HPQIAA, and a FraviaA NEIKomAcuis, 


DAA . NEIKOMAXIC, have been assumed 
hitherto to be those of persons otherwise 
unknown, and no one, so far as I am aware, 
has cited in this connexion the following 
inscription of Mytilene, copied by Cyriac 
of Ancona and edited by Kaibel in the 
Ephemeris epigraphica (ii. p. 7, no. i.):— 
‘A BodXa kal 6 dduos PA. Tlov@AtKkiay Netxo- 
palx |ida....7atda Awvopdy[w] cat I[p]oxA[a]s 
Tov evepyeTav Kal dad mpoyovev evepyeTav Kal 
kt[tlorav ras moAvos dupéwv Tav be aidvos 
apvtavily] aperas etv[v|exa raicas. 

We need not hesitate, I think, to identify 
the apvtavs Flavia Publicia Neikomachis 
with the Flavia Neikomachis of the coins, 
nor is it rash to suppose that her mother 
Prokla is the Julia Prokla that we are in 
search of. Proklaand Neikomachis belonged 
to a family of Mytilenean ecvepyérar and 
ktiotat, just as did Theophanes and Les- 
bonax, who on another inscription of Myti- 
lene are honoured with the same epithets 
(Brit. Mus. Jnscript. pt. ii. p. 47, no. ccxi.). 
The coins bearing the portrait of Prokla I 
should assign to the time of Faustina I, 
and those of Neikomachis to a slightly 
later period, for the first-named portrait 
resembles the head of the elder Faustina 
in features and in the style of the coiffure, 
while the second recalls the heads of Faus- 
tina the younger, Lucilla and Crispina. 
Prokla and Neikomachis cannot therefore 
be later than the Antonines, though of 
course they may possibly have lived at an 
earlier period. The obverse of one of the 
coins which shows the portrait of Neiko- 
machis on the reverse consists of a bearded 
male head inscribed CE=CTON HPQA. 
This Sextus is unknown, but he may be 
conjectured to be the husband of Neiko- 
machis. 

On other coins of this series we find the 
portraits or the figures of a Dada, a Pankra- 
tides, a Nausikaa anda Leukippos. Thelegend 
AAAA is certain, though it has often been 
misread by numismatists. It accompanies 
a head resembling Matidia the niece of 
Trajan. The name Dapa occurs in a pass- 
age of Nicolaus Damascenus (frag. 21 in C. 
Miiller’s Frag. Hist. Graec. ii. p. 370), in 
which a Dada is mentioned as the wife of 
Samon the Cretan who was associated with 
Skamander, first king of the Trojans. The 
story of this Dada appears to be Cretan, 
though it is at least curious that in con- 
nexion with it occurs the name of a locality 


227 


IléAvov—which is possibly the T0Auv ev 
AéoBw tomros of Steph. Byz. s.v. Todtov. 
The inscription TTANKPATIAHC accom- 
panies a young male head and also a stand- 
ing figure resembling the youthful Asklepios. 
I take PankratipEes to be the name of a 
man (as in C./.G'. 1355) and not, as hitherto 
supposed, a name of the god Asklepios. 
Mr. Head has suggested to me that Pankra- 
tides may have been a Mytilenean physician 
who is here represented—after his death— 
in the character of the God of Healing. As 
Pankratides occurs on the coins of Dada, it 
may be presumed that he was related to 
her or was at any rate a contemporary. The 
bust of NausIKAA appears on a coin of 
the time of Faustina the elder with the 
inscription NAVCIKAAN HPQIAA. 
Doubtless, some Mytilenean lady is here 
represented and not the Nausikaa of 
Homer. 

Lastly, the legend AEVKITITIOC accom- 
panies a standing male figure who (so far as 
the British Museum coin can be made out) 
appears to be a philosopher. It is not 
known however that the celebrated philo- 
sopher LEUKIPPOS was in any way connected 
with Mytilene. A Leukippos occurs in the 
legendary history of Mytilene (Diod. v. 81). 
It will be seen that this curious gallery of 
Lesbian worthies demands still further 
study : meanwhile, I may perhaps claim to 
have somewhat reduced the number of its 
unknown portraits. 





WARWICK WROTH. . 


DISCOVERIES OF ROMAN REMAINS 
IN BRITAIN.—II. 


Tne first place among recent discoveries 
of Romano-British remains must be given 
to those made on the Wall. Dr, Hodgkin 
and other Northumbrian antiquaries have 
been promoting some very valuable excava- 
tions into the curious Vallum which runs 
closely parallel to the Wall for the greater 
part of itslength. The sections cut through 
this earthwork have already revealed some 
new facts. At Heddon it was shown pretty 
certainly that the ditch and its northern 
and southern mounds were made at the same 
time, and thus all the theories, however 
ingenious, which explain the Vallum as a 
composite work, constructed at various 
times, are put outof court. At Down Hill, 
a road seventeen feet wide, with a clay 
foundation and a sandstone pitching, was 


228 


discovered running parallel to the Wall 
and crossing the Vallum. This is a most 
important result, if (as seems most probable) 
this road is the Roman communication road 
along the Wall. The inference is obvious : 
the Wall and its appendages were made and 
used at a time when the Vallum was no 
longer in use, or, in other words, the 
Vallum is earlier than the Wall. Some 
antiquaries, like myself, had previously 
approached this conclusion by other argu- 
ments and we can only hope that further 
excavation will confirm the view suggested 
by the sections at Down Hill. Hitherto, it 
had been usually believed that the Vallum 
was the rear defence of the Wall, and this 
theory, ardently advocated by Dr. Bruce, 
received the sanction of Prof. Hiibner. The 
eminent German scholar has, however, as 
I believe, never traversed the Vallum, and 
IT cannot think that any one who looks at 
the earthworks can suppose them to be 
intended for defensive purposes or for any 
military object whatever. It is much to be 
hoped that Dr. Hodgkin and his colleagues 
will be able to continue the investigations 
which they have so well begun, and that 
they will receive bounteous measure of both 
local and of learned support. 

Apart from the excavations of the 
Vallum, the finds to be recorded are almost 
wholly epigraphic. A large hoard of coins, 
probably of the third century, found near 
Fordingbridge, and fragments of the Roman 
city wall at Rochester are, I think, the 
only exceptions. _ 

The inscriptions are as follows :— 

(1) A tombstone found at Chester, Q. 
Domitius Q. flilius) Cla(udia tribu) Optatus 
Viruno... doubtless one of the Chester 
garrison. 

(2) A ‘milestone’ found (it is thought 
near Neath) and now in the Cardiff museum, 
[Imp] C(a)es. [Diol c|leti[a|no [A ]ug., which 
may be put beside another ‘milestone’ of 
Diocletian found in the same district long 
since. 

(3) A tile found by Mr. John Bellows 
among the foundations of a large Roman 
building near the centre of Glevum (Glou- 
cester) and inscribed r.P.«G., probably 
Respublica Glevensium. Glevum received 
colonial rank pretty certainly under Nerva. 

(4) A dedication found at Carlisle, Deo 
Marti Ocelo et Numini Imp(eratoris) Alexan- 
dri Aug et Iulfiae Mammaeae ... totique| 
dom|wi divinae..., in which the names of 
Alexander and his mother have, as often, 
been erased. Ocelus appears to be an 
unknown epithet of Mars: it is, of course, 


431), 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


non-Roman like Belatucader and Cocidius. 
Some other inscriptions found along the 
eastern half of the Wall are of less interest. 

I may take this opportunity of correcting 
a mistake made in my first article (C.2. vii. 
I there spoke of excavations in 
Annandale as confirming the idea that a - 
Roman road ran from Carlisle past Birrens 
to the Wall of Antonine. I learn from 
Dr. James Macdonald, one of the excavators, 
that the results of their work were at first- 
wrongly reported and that, in his opinion, ~ 
no Roman road was found. I may here 
draw attention to a paper by the same 
antiquary, read to the Scotch Society of 
Antiquaries, which demolishes a supposed 
road in Ayrshire and shows the ease with 
which such roads are foisted on to our 
maps. 

EF. HAvVERFIELD. 


GRAMMAR OF THE LOTUS (1891). 


Mr. Goopygar in his valuable and com- 
plete Grammar of the Lotus appears to 
regard it as a still unanswered question 
why the lotus was regarded as a sun 
symbol, but surely the reason is not far 
to seek. He has proved that the lotus 
is of the genus Vymphaea, and the flowers 
of this genus may be said to follow the 
sun in his underworld journey since they 
dip under water at sunset and raise them- 
selves from it at sunrise. 

The fact was undoubtedly known in 
ancient times. Theophrastus describes the 
phenomenon in the case of the Egyptian lotus 
and gives special particulars of the lotus of 
the Euphrates: he says,—év d¢ 7@ Eidpary 
THv kwdvav gaol Kal Ta avOn divew Kal d7o- 
kataBaivew Ths dWias méxpt pecdv vuKTov Kai 
7 Baba woppwr ovde yap Kabievra THY XElpa 
NaBeiv <var. pera Se tadra drav opbpos 7 
médw eraviévar Kat Tpos Huepav ere paAAov apa 
7S fAlw gavepov dv imép Tod darTos Kat 
dvotyew To dvOos, avorxGévros S€ Ere dvaBaivewv* 
cuxvov d& To trepaipoy evar TO vowp. List. 
plant. iv. 8-10. 

While this has been observed in the 
case of many other species of the genus 
Nymphaea it does not seem to have been 
recorded of Nymphaea Stellata, the blue 
water-lily of tropical Africa which by its 
colour and outline strongly suggests the 
lotus of Egyptian art. A series of obser- 
vations which I made last August at Kew 
Gardens have enabled me to state the fact 
for this species also. 


—————— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


At 3 p.m. the flower-stalks were vertical, 
an hour later they were inclined at an 
angle of about 45°: the movement seemed 
due to loss of tension in the stem and the 
weight of the large flower. Two visibly 
moved with jerks and slips till by 5 o’clock 
nothing but falling on a floating leaf pre- 
vented them from being half submerged. 

CoNnSTANCE GARLICK. 


MONTHLY RECORD. 


GERMANY. 


Kreimbach in dem Pfalz.—The excavations begun 
in September last have been carried on, with some- 
what similar results ; also the find of iron tools and 
weapons (mentioned in vol. vii. p. 479) has been 
thoroughly investigated and classified, the chief 
result being to show that in many cases they differ 
but little from those now in use. They appear to 
belong to the third and fourth centuries after 
Christ. The excavations brought to light yet more 
foundations, together with architectural fragments, 
and more iron tools. An interesting capital of 
sandstone decorated with a pattern of scales, 
large bronzes of Constantine, Theodosius, and 
Honorius, bronze and glass ornaments, may also 
be mentioned.? 

SICILY. 


Syracuse.—Near the railway station the long 
missing Roman aqueduct has been discovered, 
though its source has not as yet been traced. Its 
existence had been known for some time, but it is 
only recently that a considerable portion of the 
arches has come to light.” 


GREECE. 


Athens.—Dorpfeld has reported on the results of 
his excavations during the winter in search of the 
spring of Enneakrounos. The aqueduct leading to 
it appears to have been built like that of Eupalinus 
in Samos, and followed the ancient road leading to 
the Akropolis, while below the reservoir into which the 
aqueduct of Peisistratos emptied itself, another later 
reservoir wasconstructed for the water flowing from the 
slopes, of the Hill of the Nymphs, to convey it to the 
Agora, Several archaeological objects of value were 
found, including a relief of the Phrygian god Men, 
who was worshipped as a divinity in connection with 
water and rain. Two heads, both portraits of the 
same person, known to us from other remains but 
as yet unidentified, and two small figures, a 
Nike in alabaster and a man fighting a lion in crystal, 
were also brought to light. 

The work of enclosing the Dipylon cemetery has 
begun, and at the first clearing of the soil at a very 
small depth was discovered a subterranean water- 
course. It is thought to be the ancient Eridanus, 
vestiges of which have already been identified 
during the past year in other parts of the city.* 

H. B. WALTERS. 





Athenische Mittheilungen. Part iii. 18938. 


1. Studniczka proposes a new reading for the 
famous inscription engraved on the Dipylon vase, 





1 Berl. Phil. Woch. 7 April 1894. 
2 Athenaewm, 7 April 1894. 
3 {bid. 17 March 1894, 


229 


probably the oldest existing Attic inscription (ante 
1881, p. 106 etc.): according to his view, the vase 
is a prize, probably given at a Dionysiac festival. 2. 
Korte: describes the temenos of a god of healing 
discovered in the Enneakrounos excavations: with 
an account of various inscribed votive reliefs ete. 
found there: one inscription describes the setting up 


‘of the shrine in the archonship of [probably Asty- 


phijlos, B.c. 420. 3. Kern: publishes eleven 
inscriptions of Thasos, copied in a recent journey in 
the island. 4. The same: eight inscriptions from 
Miletos. 5. Maass: proposes a new reading of the 
Rhea epigram from Phaistos (Mus. Ital. iii. p. 736). 
6. Milchhofer: discusses Liéper’s views on the 
Trittyes and demes of Attica (ante 1892, p. 319), 
treating the ten tribes in detail. 7. Noack: dis- 
putes the explanation given by Benndorf of the two 
friezes of the W. wall at Gjébaschi: he thinks there 
is no evidence sufficient to indicate that they are 
scenes from the Trojan War: possibly they may be 
local Lycian subjects. 8. Von Gaertringen: two 
inscriptions from Nysa. 9. Kern: inscription from 
Athos. 


The same. Part iv. 1893. 


1. Kern: studies in Samothrace, carrying on the 
record of discoveries in the island from the year 1875 
(the date of the last Austrian expedition) to the 
present time: one very interesting inscription 
records the importation by Hippomedon about 240 
B.C. of troops and war material, to protect the island 
either against Macedonians or pirates. 2. Von 
Gaertringen : collects the inscriptions from Rhodes 
and Karpathos which bear on the Samothracian 
cults. 3. Humann: gives an account of some tenta- 
tive excavations made in October 1888 on the site of 
Tralles: the most important results were in con- 
nection with the theatre, of which Dorpfeld gives 
(pp. 404—13) a description: an interesting pecu- 
liarity of this is the T-shaped underground canal 
running under the centre of the orchestra, similar to 
those found at Eretria and Magnesia, and clearly 
intended as a mode of access for persons: the build- 
ing supported on columns is not a logeion but a 
proskenion : with plan. 4. Briickner : publishes (pl. 
xiv.) a bronze tripod and urn, found in 1883 at Athens 
with vases of the Dipylon style. 5. Mordtmann: 
inscriptions from Edessa. 


Rémische Mittheilungen. Part iii. 1898. 


1. Michaelis: publishes an outline drawing of the 
relief of the so-called Ara of ‘Kleomenes in the 
Uffizi: and compares it with the Naples Orpheus 
relief: the figures on the left and right have been 
added to the original central group. 2. Erman : 
the obelisks of Roman time in Italy : (1) the obelisks 
of Beneventum. 3. Patsch: studies the inscriptions 
referring to the garrison of Praeneste, in reference to 
Tacitus, Ann. xv. 46, 4. Samter: publishes an 
inscribed altar in the Vatican, with a relief repre- 
senting Mercury and Maia. 5. Petersen: publishes 
part of a small disk of iron with figures in relief : 
the subject is a ia eae which was based on 
a picture influenced by the Pergamene frieze and in 
part derived from the shield of Athene Parthenos : 
probably it was the ornament of a shield. 6. 
Graeven: publishes a list of sculptures given in the 
Codice Barberiniano xxxix. 72, and belonging in the 
sixteenth century to the brothers della Porta: with 
conjectures as to identification. 7. Bulle: publishes 
a group found in Rome representing Dirke and the 
bull: the type chosen is that of the Farnese 
group, which shows not the actual binding, but the 
moment immediately before the catastrophe, 


230 


The same. Part iv. 1893. 

1. Petersen : discusses (in reference to Arch. Jahrb. 
1893, p. 119) the question whether the Farnese dead 
Amazon had an infant at her side: such a figure is 
given in the memoir of Belliévre and others, but the 
infant really belonged to some other group. 2. 
Hiilsen : fourth yearly report on new discoveries and 


Siena, pottery and sculpture (Petersen). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


researches in the topography of Rome, 1892 (pp. 
259—325). Report of discoveries. Descriptions of 
(1) the collection of Cav. Pascale near S. Maria di 
Capua: consisting chiefly of bronzes, and painted 
vases: (2) antiquities of the Marchese Chigi at 


(Os Ss. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 


FOREIGN BOOKS. 


Aby (F.) Geschichte der rémischen Literatur. 8vo. 
Berlin, Gaertner. 7 Mk. 

Aeschylus. Wecklein (N.) 
tiden des Aeschylos. I. 
Miinchen 94. 58S. 8vo. 

Albrecht (E.) Zur Vereinfachung der eriechischen 
Schulgrammatik. Progr. 4to. Berlin. 

Apuleius. Mele (Salv.) 
Saggio critico. 16mo. Torino, Clausen. 2: 

Arisiaencta. Soergel (H.) Glossae Aristaeneteae. 
Diss. 8vo. Erlangen. 

Augustini (S. Aur.) De Genesi ad litteram libri 
xii. ; eiusdem libri capitula ; de Genesi ad literam 
inperfectus liber ; locutionum in Heptateuchum 
libri vii. Ree. Jos. Zycha. (Corpus scriptorum 
eccl. lat. Vol. XXVIII.) 8vo. Vienna, Temp- 
sky. 16M. 80 Pf. 

Avianus. Heidenhain (F.) 
Progr. 4to. Strasburg. 

Becker (H.) Zur Alexandersage. 
iiber die Wunder Indiens. Progr. 
berg. 

Beschreibung der antiken Miinzen in den Kon. 
Museen zu Berlin. Band III. Abtheil. I. 
Italien. Aes rude, Aes signatum, Aes grave. 
Die geprigten Miinzen von Etrurien bis Calabrien 
(von H. Dressel). 12mo. Berlin, Spemann. 27 
Mk. 50 Pf. 

Bibliotheca philologica. Jahrg. XLVI. 
8vo. Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & R. 
40 Pf. 

Bruns (Dr. Ivo.) Die griechischen Tragoedien als 
religionsgeschichtliche Quelle. Rede. 8vo. Kiel, 
Universitats-Buchh. 1 Mk. 

Catonis (M. Porci.) De agricultura liber, M. 
Terenti Varronis rerum rusticarum libri III. ex 
rec. H. Keilii. Vol. I]. Fasc. I. Commen- 
tarius in Catonis de agricultura librum. 8vo. 
Lipsiae, Teubner. 6 Mk. 

Cicero’s Verrines. M. T. Ciceronis in C. Verrem 


Studien zu den Hike- 
Die Danaidensage. Ak. 


Zu den Apologi Aviani. 


Alexanders Brief 
4to. Konigs- 


Heft 3, 4. 
2 Vik: 


orationes. - Divinatio in Q. Caecilium et actionis 
secundae. Libri IV. et V. De signis et de sup- 
pliciis. Texte latin, avec un commentaire critique 


et explicatif, une introduction générale et un 
index détaillé par E. Thomas. Nouvelle édition. 
Svo. Paris, Hachette. 8 fr. 

Cicero. Strébel(E.) Die Handschriften zu Ciceros 
Rede in Pisonem. Progr. 8vo. Niirnberg. 
Commentationes philologae lIenenses, ediderunt 
Seminarii Philologorum Ienensis Professores, Vol. 
V. (Finis.) 8vo. Lipsiae, Teubner. 6 Mk. 
Constantinus Porphyrog. Biittner-Wobst. Der Codex 
Peirescianus. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der 
Excerpte des Konstantinos Porphyrogenetos, 

8vo, Leipzig. 


Apuleio e lasino d’oro. 


David (J.) Hermeneumata Vaticana emendata et 
illustrata. Diss. 8vo. Jena. 

Decker (F.) Die griechische Helena im Mythos und 
Epos. Progr. 4to. Magdeburg. 

Dictys Cret. Briinnert (G.) Sprachgebrauch des 
Dictys Cretensis. I. Syntax. Progr. 4to. Erfurt. 

Dornheim. Zur Anschaulichkeit im lateinischen 
Anfangsunterricht. Progr. 4to. Seehausen. 

Firmici Materni (Iulii) Matheseos libri VIII. 
Primum ree. Car. Sittl Pars I. Libri I1.—IV. 
12mo. Jipsiae, Teubner. 2 Mk. 40 Pf. 

Fuchs (Ios.) Der 2e punische Krieg und seine 
Quellen, Polybius und Livius, nach strategisch- 
taktischen Gesichtspunkten beleuchtet. Die Jahre 
219 und 218 mit Ausschluss des Alpentiberganges. 
Ein Versuch. 8vo. Wiener, Neustadt, Blum- 
rich, 2 Mk. 

Graf (Dr. E.) Die Theorie der Akustik im griechi- 
schen Altertum. Progr. 4to. Gumbinnen. 1 Mk. 

Gsell (H.) Essai sur le régne de l’empereur Domi- 
tien. (Bibliothéque des Ecoles Fr. Fasc. LXV.) 
8vo. Paris, Thorin. 12 fr. 

Hagen (T. v.) Erklirung und Kritik einiger Stellen 
aus griechischen Schriftstellern. Progr. 4to. 
Sangerhausen. 

Havet (L.) Abrégé de métrique grecque et latine. 
12mo. Paris, Delagrave. 

Heron of Alex. Schmidt (W.) Das Proemium der 
Pneumatik des Heron von Alexandria in latei- 
nischer Uebersetzung. Aus einer Miinchener und 


zwei Mailiinder Handschriften herausgegeben. 
Progr. 4to. Braunschweig. ; 
Herondas. Mimiamben, Eingeleitet, iibersetzt und 


mit erklirenden Bemerkungen von S. Mekler. 
8vo. Vienna, Konegen. 1 Mk. 60 Pf. 

Les Mimes. Traduction frangaise, précédée 
d'une introduction par G. Dalmeyda. 2d Edition. 





8vo. Paris, Hachette. 3 fr. 
Hesiod. Leo (Fried.) Hesiodea. Progr. Royal 
8vo. Gittingen, Dieterich. 50 Pf. 


Hoffmann (M.) Zur Erinnerung an August Boeckh. 
Progr. 4to. Liibeck. 

Holzi (M.) Bedeutung und Gebrauch des Wortes 
actio bei den lateinischen Schriftstellern. Progr. 
Dresden. 

Homer. Ludwich (A.) Batrachomachiae Homericae 
Archetypon ad fidem codicum antiquissimorum 
restitutum. Progr. 4to. Kéonigsberg. 

Horace. Henke (O.) Lehrplan fir die Lektiire des 
Horaz, nebst einer kurzgefassten Metrik fiir 
Primaner. Progr. 4to. Bremen. 

Tsidorus Hisp. Gropius (R.) Das Verhiiltnis des 
Codex Weilburgensis No. 3 der Etymologiae des 
Isidorus Hispalensis zu den Bernenses 101, 224, 
36 und 291. Progr. 4to. Weilburg. 


. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Tsocrates. Reuss (Dr. Fr.) Isokrates Panegyricus 
und der Kyprische Krieg. Progr. 4to. Trarbach. 
RO Piya!) s 

Job (L.) Le présent et ses dérivés dans la conju- 
gaison latine d’aprés les données de la grammaire 
comparée des langues Indo-Européennes. 8vo. 
Paris, Bouillon. 10 fr. 

Kretschmer (P.) Die griechischen Vaseninschriften, 
ihrer Sprache nach untersucht. 8vo. viii, 251 pp. 
Giitersloh, Bertelsmann. Mk. 5.50. 

Kekulé (R.) Uber eine weibliche Gewandstatue aus 
der Werkstatt der Parthenongiebelfiguren. With 
6 illustrations and 4 photolith. plates. Fol. 
Berlin, Spemann. 10 Mk. 

Koch (E.) De Atheniensium logistis euthynis syne- 


goris. Progr. 4to. Zittau. 
Krumbacher (K.)  Mittelgriechische Sprichworter. 
8vo. 272 pp. Miinchen. 


Kulturbilder aus dem klassischen Altertume VI. 
Schluss. 12mo. Leipzig, Seemann. Each 3 Mk. 
(Contents: Opitz, R. Das hiusliche Leben der 
Griechen und Romer. vii, 302 pp. Illustrations. ] 
Kupiaxidos, T., O@uas 5 Maylorpos xa “looxparns. 
Diss. 8vo. 106 pp. Erlangen. 

Kuruniotis (K.) Herakles mit Halios geron und 
Triton auf Werken der iilteren griechischen Kunst. 
Diss. 8vo. Munich. 

Lafaye (G.) Catulle et ses modéles. 
pp. Paris, Hachette & Co. 

Langen (P.) Quaestionum ad YValerium Flaccum 
spectantium part. I. Progr. 4to. 10 pp. 
Miinster 94. 108. 4to. , 

Leewwen (J. F. van). Enchiridion dictionis epicae 


8vo. xi, 257 


Pars posterior. 8vo. Leyden, Sijthoff. 8 Mk. 
25 Pf. 
Lucian. Bieler (Joh.) Ueber die Echtheit der 


Lucianischen Schrift De Saltatione, 
Wilhelmshafen. 80 Pf. 

Inudewig (A.) Schliemanns Ausgrabungen und die 
Homerische Cultur. Progr. 8vo. 50 pp. Plan. 
Feldkirch. 

Luetke (C.) Pherecydea. Dissertatio. 8vo. 64 pp. 
Gottingen. Dieterich’s Verlag. Mk. 1.20. 

Maichin (F,) De auctoribus quibusdam qui Posidonii 
libros meteorologicos adhibuerunt. Diss. 8vo. 
57 pp. Rostock. 

Maass (E.) Commentatio mythographica. II. Progr. 
4to. 16 pp. Greifswald. 

Mnvérovdos (@.) "Evatomos d:arpliBn wep) coplotwv 
él re mapaBoA} TapadrAtAwy Anuogrévou kal "Iueplou 
Kal Apioreldou Tov copiatov kal ém didanropiry avap- 
pacer. S8vo. Diss. Erlangen. 

Mentz(M.) De magistratuum Romanorum Graecis 
appellationibus. Diss. 8vo. Jena. 

Mitteilungen iiber rémische Funde in Heddernheim. 
I. 4to. vii, 50 pp. Illustrations. 4 plates. 
Frankfurt-a-m. Volcker. 4 Mk. 

Mommsen (Th.) Le droit public romain. Traduit 
sur la 3e édition allemande par Fr. Girard. Vol. 
IV. 8vo. Paris, Thorin. 10 fr. 

Forms Vol. 1V. of Mommsen et Marquardt, 
Manuel des antiquités romaines. 

Nerrlich (Dr. P.) Das Dogma vom klassischen 
Altertum in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. 
8vo. Leipzig, Hirschfeld. 7 Mk. 50 Pf. 

Wiese (B.) Josephi epitome adhuc inedita pars VII. 
Progr. Marburg 94. 25S. 4to. 

Oberdick (J.) Studien zur lateinischen Orthographie. 
IV. Progr. 4to. Breslau. 

Oppenraay (R. v.) Libri de Republica Athenien- 
sium CC. I—IV. Diss. 12mo. 115 pp. Leiden. 

Owvré (H.) Quae fuerint dicendi genus ratioque 
metrica apud Asclepiadem, Posidippum, Hedylum, 
Thése, 8vo. Paris, Hachette, 


Progr. 8vo. 


231 


Schulwoérterbuch zu Ovids 
8vo. Gotha, Perthes. 


Ovid. Peters (K.) 
simmtlichen Dichtungen. 
2 Mk. 50 Pf. 

Pausanias. Heberdey (Rud.) Die Reisen des 
Pausanias(Abhandlungen des archaeolog. -epigraph. 
Seminars der Universitat Wien.~ Heft 10). 8vo. 
Vienna, Tempsky, 10 Mk. 

Petreas (8S. M.) ‘H Mdynra 6 Blos Tay Maviaray ev 
avykpioe. mpds Ta map’ ’Apxaiov. Diss. 8vo. 
32 pp. Erlangen. 


Pindar. Reinhold (H.) Griechische Oertlichkeiten 
bei Pindaros. 4to. Quedlinburg. 1 Mk. 20 Pf. 

Planecus. Rhodius (A.) De syntaxi Planciana. 
Progr. 4to. Bautzen. 

Piato. Boetticher (C.) Eros und Erkenntnis bei 
Plato in ihrer gegenseitigen Forderung und Ergiin- 
zung. Progr. 4to. Berlin. 

Platonis Apologia. In scholarum usum denuo ed. 
M. Schanz. 8vo. Leipzic, Tauchnitz. 60 Pf. 





Sammlung ausgewihlter Dialoge mit deut- 
schem Kommentar, von M. Schanz. III. Apologia. 
8vo. Ibid. 3 Mk. 

Pliny. Renjes (L.) De ratione quae inter Plinii 
naturalis historiae librum XVI et Theophrasti 
libros de plantis intercedit. Diss. 8vo. Rostock. 

Schlottmann (W.) De auctoribus quibusdam 
in Plini naturalis historiae libro XVIII. Diss. 
8vo. Rostock. 

Plutarch. Schlemm (A.) De fontibus Plutarchi 
commentationum de audiendis poetis et de fortuna. 
Diss. 8vo. Gottingen. 2 Mk. 

Popp (E.) De Ciceronis de officiis librorum codicibus 
Vossiano Q. 71 et Parisino 6601. Progr. 12mo. 





Fated (P.) Les premiéres formes de la religion et 
de la tradition dans l’Inde et la Gréce. 8vo. 
Paris, Leroux. 10 fr. 

Reinkens (J. M.) Berechtigung und Ziel des grie- 


chischen Unterrichts. 4to. Leipzic. 80 Pf. 

Rhetores graeci ex rec. Leon. Spengel. Vol. I. 
Pars Il. Ed. C. Hammer. 12mo, Lipsiae, 
Teubner. 3 Mk. 60 Pf. 


Ringnalda (H. F, Th.) 
moniorum. Diss, 12mo. 
warden. 

Rodocanachi (E.) Les corporations ouvriéres 4 Rome 
depuis la chute de ’empire romain. 2 vols.  4to. 
With plain and coloured engravings. Paris, 
Picard. 

Roegholl (L. P.) Ps. Lysiae oratio contra Ando- 
cidem. Diss. 12mo. viii, 56 pp. Groningen. 

Sallusti Crispi (C.) Bellum Catilinae, bellum Ju- 
gurthinum, orationes et epistulae ex historiis 


De exercitie Lacedae- 
viii, 64 pp. Leeu- 


excerptae. Fiir den Schulgebrauch erklirt von 
Th. Opitz. I. Bellum Catilinae. 8vo. Leipzig, 
Teubner. 60 Pf. 


Felke (V.) De Sallustii Catilina. 8vo. Miinster. 

Schafer (P.) Das Particip des Aoristes bei den 
Tragikern. Diss. 4to. 18 pp. Erlangen. 

Scherrans (W.) De poetarum comicorum atticorum 
studiis Homericis. Diss. 12mo. 57 pp. Kdénigs- 





berg. 

Schlemm (A.) De fontibus Plutarchi commenta- 
tionum de audiendis poetis et de fortuna. Diss. 
12mo. 102pp. Gottingen. 

Schmidt (W.) Me Flavio Josepho elocutiones cri- 


ticae. Pars I. Diss. 12mo. 48 pp. Goet 
tingen. 
Schneider (R.) Excerptum zrep) diadéxtwv. E codi- 


cibus Baroccianis LX XII et CIII bibliothecae Bod- 


leianae Oxoniensis editum. Progr. 8vo. Duis- 
burg. 
Schoene (A.) Conjectanea critica. Progr.  4to. 


16 pp. Kiel, Universititsbuchhandlung. 1 Mk, 50, 


232 
Schrader (J.) Palaephatea. 8vo. 60 pp. Berlin, 


Heinrich. 1 Mk. 60. 
[Abhandlungen (Berliner) zur klassischen Alter- 


tums-wissenschaft. Band I. 1.] 





Palaephatea. (I.) Diss. 12mo. 33 pp. 
Berlin. 
Schulze (W.) Orthographica, Progr. 4to, Mar-_ 
burg. 
Seneca, Miiller (Joh.) Kritische Studien zu den 
Naturales quaestiones Senecas. (Extr. from 
Sitzungsberichte). | 8vo. Vienna, Tempsky. 
80 Pf. 


Sittl (C.) Parerga zur alten Kunstgeschichte. I. 
Was ist Schliemanns Troja? II. Die Kypselos- 
lade. III. Der Talo incessens des Polyklet. 
IV. Zum Myrmonischen Marsyas. 4to. 30 pp. 
Wiirzburg. 

Sophocles. Electra, Expliquée littéralement et 
annotée par Benloew et traduite en frangais par 
Bellaguet, 16mo. 225 pp. Paris, Hachette et 
Cie... 3 fr. 

Biichner (Dr. W.) Ueber den Aias des Sopho- 
cles. Progr. 4to. Offenbach. 1 Mk. 20 Pf. 
Stein (P.) Zur Geschichte der Piraterie im Alter- 

tum. If. Progr. 4io. Bernburg. 

Stern (E.) Zur Entstehung und urspriinglichen 





Bedeutung des Ephorats in Sparta. 8vo. v, 62 
pp. Berlin, Calvary & Co. 2 Mk. 
[Berliner Studien fiir Class. Philologie. Band 
15. Heft 2. 
Strabo. Stemplinger (E.) Strabons__litterarhi- 
storische Notizen. I. Diss. 8vo. Miinchen. 


Terence. Karsten (H. T.) Terentiani prologi quot 
qualesque fuerint et quibus fabularum actionibus 
destinati a poeta. (Extr. from Mnemosyne). 
8vo. Leiden, Brill. 1 Mk. 25 Pf. 

Ter-Mkrttchian (K.) Die griechischen Quellen tber 
die Paulikianer. Diss. 12mo. 40pp. Leipzig. 

Thalheim (Th.) Zu den griechischen Rechtsalter- 
tiimern. II. Progr. 4to. Hirschberg. 

Thucydides. Ausgewahlte Abschnitte fiir den Schul- 
gebrauch bearbeitet von Chr. Harder. 2 Parts. 
8vo. Leipzic, Freytag. 1 Mk. 60 Pf. 

Tomaschek (W.) Die alten Thraker. IJ. Die 


Sprachreste. Hiilfte 1. Glossen aller Art und 
Gétternamen. 8vo. 70 pp. Wien, Tempsky. 
1 Mk. 40. 


[Extract : Sitzungsber. d. K. Akad. der Wissen- 
schaften]. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. — 


Ulirich (J. B.) De Salviani scripturae sacrae ver- 
sionibus. Progr. 12mo. 52 pp. Neustadt. 
Valerius Flaccus. Koesters (H.) Quaestiones 
metricae et prosodicae ad Valerium Flaccum per- 
tinentes. Diss. 8vo. Miinster. 2 Mk. 
Valmaggi (L.)  Manuale storico-bibliografico di 
filologia classica. 8vo. Torino, Clausen. 8 1. 
Vermaat (H.) Disputatio de aetate, qua conscripta 
est Historia Augusta. Diss. 12mo. viii, 128- 
pp. Leiden. : 
Virgilius. Bucolica. Texte latin établi et annoté~ 
par A. Waltz. 18mo. 131 pp. Avec facsimile 
des plus anciens manuscrits. Paris, Colin et Cie. 
Voigt. Das sogenannte syrisch-rémische Rechtsbuch. 
12mo. 18 pp. Leipzig. 
Wetzstein. Die Wandlung der stoischen Lehre unter 
ihren spiiteren Vertretern. (Schlass.) Progr. 4to. 
Neustrelitz. ; ; 
Weyman (C.) Studien zu Apuleius und seinen 
Nachahmern. 12mo. 74 pp. Miinchen. 
Weissenborn (H.) Die Berechnung des Kreis- 
Umfanges bei Archimedes und Leonardi Pisano. 
8vo. 32pp. Berlin, Calvary & Co. 1 Mk. 50. 
[Berliner Studien fiir classische Philologie. 
Band 14. Heft 3.] 
Westerwick (O.) De Plutarchi studiis Hesiodeis. 
Dissertatio. 8vo. 77 pp. Miinster. Mk. 1.20. 


Wiegand (T.) Die Puteolanische Bauinschrift 
sachlich erlaéutert. Diss. 8vo. Freiburg. 
Winckelmannsprogramm. 17tes Hallisches. 4to. 
82 pp. Plate. Halle, Niemeyer. Mk. 8. 
[Contents: Robert, C. Die Iliupersis des Poly- 
gnot. | 
Xenophon. Anabasis und Hellenika in Auswahl. 


Text und Commentar. Fiir den Schulgebrauch 
herausgegeben von Sorof. 2tes Bindchen Anabasis 
Buch V.-VII. und Hellenika. Text, mit mehreren 
Plinen, einer Einleitung zu den Hellenika, nebst 
Zeittafel und einém Verzeichnis der Eigennamen. 
8vo. iv, 330 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. Mk. 2. 

—— Kommentar. 8vo. 182 pp. Mk. 1.40. 

Eichler (G.) Die Redebilder in den Schriften 
Xenophons. Progr. 4to. Dresden. 1 Mk. 
20 Pf. 

Zielinski (T.) August Nauck. Ein Bild seines Lebens 
und seiner Werke. 8vo. 65 pp. Berlin, Calvary 
& Co. Mk. 2. 

[Extract: Jahresber. iib. d. Fortschritte des 
classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. ] , 
j 





The Classical Review 


JUNE 1894, 


CRITICAL NOTES ON THE FIRST BOOK OF THE STROMATEIS OF CLEMENT 
OF ALEXANDRIA. 


THe present unhappy condition of the 
text of Clement has often been deplored 
by scholars. The particular treatise with 
which I am here concerned depends upon 
a single corrupt MS. of the eleventh century, 
and little has been done for it since Potter’s 
edition of 1715, the last two editors having 
contributed next to nothing to clear it 
of the innumerable errors by which it is 
disfigured. Klotz indeed would seem never 
to have corrected his proofs, leaving con- 
tinual mistakes of spelling and actually 
omitting several words between the end of 
one line and the beginning of another, 
while even Dindorf’s text is in many 
respects inferior to what might easily have 
been constructed out of the text and notes 
of Potter’s edition. The growing interest 
which has been taken in the writings of 
Clement among English scholars of late 
years encourages the hope that a serious 
effort may shortly be made to remove this 
reproach on our modern scholarship, and 
provide a worthier edition of an author 
who is on many grounds so important. 
As examples of this interest I may refer 
to the excellent emendations by Prof. 
Bywater which appeared in the Journal of 
Philology as long ago as 1870, to the paper 
which has been lately read by Dr. Henry 
Jackson before the Cambridge Philological 
Society, and to the edition of the Quis 
Dives Salvetur promised in the Cambridge 
‘Texts and Studies.’ Asa small contribution 
to such an edition I venture to send to the 
editor of the Classical Review a transcript 

NO. LXX. VOL. VIII. 


of notes on the First Book of the Stromateis 
which I have made on the margin of my 
copy of Clement. The notes on the suc- 
ceeding books may follow if space can be 
found for them. Some of the emendations 
are, I think, tolerably certain; others are 
of a tentative nature, and are inserted here 
rather by way of calling out happier con- 
jectures from other scholars, than as claiming 
to be final solutions of the difficulties of 
the text. Unless otherwise stated the text 
commented on is Dindorf’s. It may be 
helpful to readers who are not familiar with 
Clement’s writings, if I repeat here the 
words with which Prof. Bywater prefaces 
his emendations (Jour. of Phil. iv. 204)—‘ the 
main difficulties connected with the critical 
study of Clement arise from three sources : 
(1) besides the recognized palaeographical 
causes of corruption, the text seems to have 
suffered from the transposition and repetition 
of words occurring in lines immediately 
above or below that on which the copyist 
was engaged; (2) words and sometimes 
whole lines have dropped out; (3) the 
Codex Laurentianus, which is our sole 
authority for the Stromateis, must be the 
descendant of a MS. which frequently 
exhibited words in a mutilated form through 
contraction and possibly also through injury 
similar to that sustained by the Bodleian 
Plato, where the ends of the lines are fre- 
quently illegible through damp.’ 


$ 4, p. 318. GAN F ev Kypuixiy) ereorjpn, 
97 O€ mus ayyeducyn, Srotépus av evepyp, dua 
s 


234 


Te THS xepos Oia TE THS yAWTTNsS adedoica. 
Clement is not here distinguishing between 
an apostolic and an angelic knowledge, but 
upholding the right to write as well as to 
preach in behalf of the Gospel. Both 
speakers and writers are dodexréot, as it is 
said just above ; both cis otpavov rrepotytat, 
as we read below; both deserve the title of 
Geod dudkovor (as in 2 Cor. vi. 4 quoted just 
afterwards), being sent forth to minister for 
those who shall be heirs of salvation ; both 
may therefore be denoted by the word 
ayyeAos, used in Rev. i. 20 of the representa- 
tives of the Seven Churches. Remove the 
comma after émucrnyy and read dAXG py 7... 
noe, translating ‘ this science of the preacher 
is in a way angelical, whether the hand or 
the tongue be called into action.’ 

§ 7, p. 319. épyaleobe pH THY darohAvpevqy 
Bpacw, adda THY pevovray cis Cony aidviov. 
tpopy O€ Kat 7 dua oitiwy Kal 7 dua. Adywv 
Lap Baverat. Omit the articles in the 
last sentence, or else read AapBavopern. 

§ 8, p. 320. 0 8 dy &k ricrews EXytal Tus 
Egtiadaat, BeBaos ovtos eis Oelwy Adywv 
Tapasoxiv, Kpiow evAoyov THY TLOTW KEKTNLEVOS. 
Here it is the faith of the hearer, not of the 
speaker, which is spoken of, and the demon- 
strative in the apodosis should answer to 
the relative in the protasis. Read doris 3 av 
ex mictews eAntat éoruaic an. 

§ 9, p. 320. tiv wérzpay, TV TATOUPLEVV 
ddor, [ry Kaptopopov ynv| THY dAopavotoay 
xXépav, THY evpopov Kal KaAHV Kal yewpyouperny, 
tiv TokvTAacaoaL TOV oTopov duvvapernv. It 
is evident that the last two clauses refer, 
not to the thorny ground, but the fruit- 
bearing ground, tyv KapTopopov ynv, which 
should be placed after y«par. 

ie 10, p. 321. TAdrwv Kehever Tous Yewpyovs 

pA Maedveiy vowp Tap érépwv €av ps1) 
™porepov opdéarres Tap’ aUTOV... avvopov 
evpwor THY yqv. Read atrois for aitév which 
is merely a corruption from the preceding 
erépuv. Immediately below we have dzropia. 
yap émrapKety dixatov, dpyiav dé édodialew ov 
Kadov, €i Kal qgoptiov ovveruriBévar pev 
evAoyorv, ovyKabaipeiy de ov TpoonKery 6 
TvOayopas édeyev. For ci cai read et ye. 

§ 11, p. 322. Describing his teachers 
Clement says 6 pe tis Tov ‘Acovpiov, 6 Oe 
ev Tadaorivy “EBpaios dvéxaber, boratw dé 
TepiTuxov [Suvdper d€ otros tpOtos 
nv] dveraved wiv, €v Aiyirre Onpacas NeAn- 
ora, SuKeAuKy, TS Ove7e ] péAutTa, mpodntiKod 


TE Kal dmrooToALKOD hewisivor Ta avO@n Spero- 
pevos...eveyevvnoe x.7.4. Transfer the words 
in brackets to begin a new sentence after 
AeAnGora, and omit 4 before pédurra. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


§ 13, p. 323. 7 Kai ob KexdAVKEYV 6 
Kipwos amd dyabod caBBarifew petadiddvar 
dé tov Oeiwy prvornpiov...cvyKexdpynkev. It 
makes nonsense to say ‘The Lord has 
not hindered us from resting from good.’ 
The word should be xexéAevxey ‘he has not 


‘commanded us to rest from doing good, but 


has. permitted us to impart the divine 
mysteries.’ 

§ 14, p. 324. érayyédXerar...t0d tropvqjca 
€lTE ae €xAaboipeba cite OTws pnd éexav- 
Gavoipeba. Read éxravOavipeba. 

Ib. core pev obv TWa. pdt a7 OMY MOVE 
Gévra pw, ToAAH yap 7) Tape. TOUS paKapious 
Svvamis nV dvopacw, €or de Kal a dvuTean- 
pelwTa, MELEVNKOTA TO XpOvw Viv Grédpa, TA de 
60a. eo Bevvuro év ait) papawopeva TH Siavoia 
[émel pun) Paduos 7 a Todde Suakovia Tots p71 SedoKe- 
pacpevors], TOUTS. be dvalumupav dropynpace 
70. pev ekov Tapamép.T Opa exhéywv émiota- 
pevwus. Clement is here distinguishing 
between three portions of the instructions 
he received. One portion is entirely for- 
gotten, ‘for great was the power of those 
teachers’ ; another portion was not recorded 
at the time and has now slipped his memory ; 
the remaining portion was beginning to 
fade away, but he hopes to revive his 
reminiscences by writing down what he can 
still remember. The reason for the loss of 
the first portion is hardly intelligible. I 
should suggest pHde aropvnpovevOjvar dvvy- 
6é&vra: the wisdom of the speakers tran- 
scended the capacity of the hearer. The 
clause in brackets would perhaps come 
better at the end giving a reason for 
éxheywv emiotapevos. A little below Clement 
says he is afraid to impart all that he 
heard to his readers, pj wn eT Ep ws odhareter. 
Here I think we should insert AaBovres or 
some such word, ‘lest taking it in the wrong 
way they should fall.’ 

§ 15, P- 325. (ne erotik?) Gewpia) mpoBycrerat 
mpiv Kata TOV. +. THS Tmapadicews Kavova amo THS 
TOU KOO LOU yeverews Tpotovow avayKaiws €xovra. 
tpodiarypbhijvat THs hvoixyns Gewpias tpoTapa- 
Tiepevn Kal Ta euTodwy iotdmeva TH GKodoviia 
TpoaTroAvopern. Put a comma after zpoiotow 
and insert 7a before dvayKaiws corresponding 
to the ra before eprroduiv. 

$47; P- 326. ovx dpoiws Gewper TO mpoBarov 
o payerpos TE Kal 6 Tounayy" 6 pay yap el wiov 
€OTL ToAumpaypovel, 6 oO de € i € v ay € VELaV TNpPEL. 
The MS. has eis ¢ vy évetav, which Potter 
changed to «i evyeverov an densum habeat 
vellus observat. I see no reason for altering 
the MS. reading, which I should translate 
‘looks after the sheep with a view to the 
goodness of the breed.’ 

§ 18, p. 326. of d& kai pds kaxod av rH 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


procopiav cicdeduxévac tov Biov vopilovow. 
Omit dy, which may perhaps have arisen 
from a marginal correction of kai into kav. 

§ 20, p. 527. zpos 76 pire ad riyv pirtocodiav 
Avpatverbar tov Biov [Wevddv tpaypdtwv Kat 
pavrwv epywv Snu.ovpyov irapxoveav, iv Tues 
diaBeBArAyKacw] GAnbeias otcav cixdva évapyn, 
Gelav Swpeav “EXAnor Sedopevnv, pare Aas 
admooracbar THs wicTews. Omit the words 
which I have bracketed, and insert (after 
dedopernv) jv ties diaBeBrAjKxacw, <ds 57> 
Wevday tpaypatwv—trapxoveay. Just below 
insert the article before cvvady. 

§ 21, p. 327. Here again I think Dindorf 
has wrongly altered the MS. reading. He 
gives after Heinsius raAnfis yAuKi Te 
daiverar CntnGev Kai rovw topicbev, where the 
MS. has yAvkirntt. The latter seems to me 
to correspond better with the following 
dative, as well as with the preceding 6 ris 
Gypas épwrtkos. 

§ 22, p. 328. (of codiorat) kvyOovres Kal 
yapyadilovtes ovK avOpiKds, éuol doxelv, Tas 
axoas Tov KvicagOat yALxonevwr, ToTapos 
&TEXVOV pyudtwv vod b€ otadaypos. For 
xvicacGa read either xvierGar or xvyibecbar, 
for dréyvwv (which is quite inappropriate in 
reference to the sophists, who are in the 
preceding sentence stigmatized as fyAwrat 
Texvvdpiwv, and éraipopevor TH TéExvn) read 
arexvOs, 2 favourite word with Clement and 
one which is naturally used to introduce 
a proverb. [I find that I have been 
anticipated in reading drexvés by Bywater 
and Cobet. | 

§ 28, p. 331. dre 6 rods cov, dyoiv, od pi) 
TpocKoWwy, ert THY Tpovoiav TA Kaa avadépov- 
tos. There is probably a lacuna of some 
lines before 67, and we should perhaps 
read dvapépwv to agree with the subject 
of doi. In the last line of the section read 
with Petavius roAire/as for woAvreXelas. 

§ 32, p. 335. car’ dAXous pevtor ye TOTOVS 
eeraLopevar at mpoeipnuevae ypadat adda 
pvotypia pnviovot tapertavar. For the un- 
suitable torovs Potter proposed rious. I 
should suggest tpdzovs. 

§ 33, p. 335. rpod7) yap Kat % waidevors 
7 xpnoty Twlopevy pices dyabas wot. Put 
kal after zaidevors and omit the following 
article, tpody yap 7 maidevors, Kal ypnoti 
x.7.. [unless, as Dr. Jackson suggests to me, 
we simply restore the original in Plat. Rep. 
iv. 424 A by omitting the articles]. 

§ 34, p. 336. ef d& & TO Tapeiw ciyy, 
ws 6 Kupwos edidake rvevpare tpooKuvety, ovKere 
Tept Tov olkov ein dv movy % oikovopia, dAAG 
kal rept Hv Wuxynv. Insert 7 after ei d¢and read 
edx7) for evyyn and povoyr for pévy, translating 


235 


‘if the prayer in the closet is, as the Lord 
taught, to pray in spirit, housekeeping 
would no longer be occupied with the house 
alone, but with the soul also.’ 

§ 36, p. 337. door b€ Kai Geod ppow deidovow, 
HVTEp TeTVULEVA GELOwWaLY, Ov TIEpEvor ev opin, 
yopnv 8 éxovor pwpins. So Dindorf after 
Bernays, who however proposes either to 
omit 6’ or to read d€yovrar. I should prefer 
to put & after riOduevor, translating ‘though 
they should sing well, yet not using it 
(the divine word) wisely, they are thought 
fools.’ 

$ 37, p. 337. hveral re kal éxt Tov pynpatwv 
OvKT Kal El TL TOV avaldeaTéepwv Sevdpwv" Kal TH 
proueva ev TUTW TpoK’TTE TOV AAO, 
OTL THS aiTHs TOU veTod améAavoe Suvdpews, 
GAN’ ob tiv adtnvy eoxnKe xdpw Tois ev TO 
move greiow. For tizw read rowvtw torw 
and for adAnav read adXov. 

§ 37, p. 338. od 7 mousevixy povyn GAA Kal 
» ~BovkoXtKy, trrotpodixyn te Kal KvvoTpodtki) 
Kal pedurooupyiKy) TEXVAL TAaTaL, cvveAdVTL 
8 eivetyv, GyeXNoKopeky TE Kal LCwoTpo- 
diky GdAdAjnAwv pev To padAov Kai FrTov 
dtadépovor, tA ai wacat Biwdedrets. Transfer 
the phrases dyeoxoyuxyn te Kat Cworpodtx) 
and réyvar Taca. 

§ 38. ef wore of pay eriorapevor diaf3rodor 
Kadas €0 TOLECY, EvTolia yap TEpiTETTWKACLY, 
e€vioL O€ Kal evoToxovor dua TvVEeTEWSs Eis TOV 
wept dAnbeias Aoyov. Omit ed rovety as having 
arisen from dittography, and insert daciv 
after mepirerroxacw, translating ‘if it be 
true that men without knowledge live a 
good life, “for (say they) they have stumbled 
on a right way of action,” so too some 
through their natural ability are fortunate 
in regard to the word concerning the 
truth.’ 

§ 39, p. 339. at rolvey réyvar €% pay pera 
procodias yevwvtat, BrAaBepwdrepar tavtTi tov 
elev av. After réyvar read aide ea pu. 

§ 43, p. 341. adyedos 8& 5 Kuptos adXv- 
yopeira, map’ ov... Tov Kaprov TpvynTéor, 
k\adedoa det. Here we should put a full 
stop after tpvyyréov, and perhaps insert dé 
before dei. 

$ 43, p. 342. mapoparar d€ cat & abAnrijs, 
os mwpoeipntrat, adr eis tiv otvvtatw 
cupPadrropevos. This sentence follows an 
argument proving the importance of know- 
ledge for success in all pursuits. It is 
unmeaning as it stands, and unless my 
memory deceives me there has been no 
previous mention of the athlete. Possibly 
mpocipntac may be a repetition of wapoparau. 
We might complete the sense by reading 
(after dOAnris) Os vetpa povoev Kal odpKas 

s 2 


— 


236 
mapéxet, pnoev dAdo eis THY ovvTagw cvpPad- 
Aodpevos. 

§ 44, p. 342. wodddv avOporev cider 
dorea. Restore the Homeric idev, changed 
by itacism. Just below zodvzeipos obros 
ts GAnOeias ixvevtys...dckyv tis Pacavov 
hiov [i 8 éore Avd) diaxpiverr Temorerpevy 
ro vobov ard Tov iayevots xpvoiov| Kal ixavds 
dv xwpilew...copiotixyy pev drocddov, Kop- 
porunvy ds yupvactuns. The clause in 
brackets is I think a gloss. Omit xai before 
ixavés and read diAocodias for didoccdov. 

§ 45, p. 343. epyalerar 6€ Kai Ta KTHVvn 
ehavvdpeva avayxalovTe TH PdBw. odxi O€ Kat 
ot épboddgacrar Kahovpevor Epyols TpoapepovTar 
KaXois, ovK eiddTes & movodow. These words 
seem inconsistent with the previous argument 
and with what follows, showing the neces- 
sity of reason for action. Probably they 
belong to the opponent’s argument and have 
been wrongly inserted here. 

§ 45, p. 343. ras 8& evrodas aroypawyat 
Sicods Bovdyoe kal yvdoe Tov aroKpivacbat 
Adyous GAnOeias Tois tpoBahropevoars Gou. Tis 
obv 4) yvaos TOD GmoKplvacGat yTLs Kal 
Tov épwrav ; ein O av airy diadextixy. Read 
droxpivacOat; ap’ nTls Kat TOD épwrGy ; 

§ 46, p. 343. 4 yap duaBoAy Elpous didKovos 
Kat Avanv éurroret BAacdypia, e€ dv ai Tov Biov 
dvatpomat, épya Tov movnpov Adyou eiev av 
tadta. Insert kai after dvatporat. 

§ 47, p. 343. at Aas atta tov copiotov 
od povov yonTEvoval, KrémTovaL Tos TOA- 
Aovs, Braldpevar S& eof ore Kadpetay viknv 
amevéyxavto. Sylburg’s first thought was to 
read yoyrevovoa, but he persuaded himself 
(and Dindorf) that parallels for the asyn- 
deton might be found. I do not think those 
which they adduce are sufficient to justify 
it, and the participle is demanded by the 
following Biagopeva. [Dr. Jackson reminds 
me that in Plat. Rep. iv. 413, as also in 
Strom. i. § 42, men are said to lose the truth 
} KAarévtes y yontevbevtes 7) BiacOevtes. It 
seems better therefore to read here yontev- 
ovet Kai. | 

§ 52, p. 347. oditevecOar cis Svvapu 
efopotwtikynv TO Oe@ didaoKe Kal THV 
olKOVOMLGY Os iyEe“oviKOV TAaGNS T pOtEo- 
Gat radeias. Read eSopowrixdr (‘to live to 
the best of our power in imitation of God’). 
For zpotecGar read rpocier Oar and for oikovo- 
piav perhaps oixodopnv ‘to accept edification 
as the guiding principle of all education.’ 

§ 56, p. 348. GdAX’ 6 dkovere cis TO oOUs, 
dynow 6 Kipios, knpvgare eri tov dwpatwv, Tas 
amoxptgovs THs aAnOots yvdicews rapaddces 
[iynrds kal eSdxws Eppnvevopevas} éxdéxerGar 
KeAelwy, Kal Kaldzep ajKovoapev eis TO OUs, 
oUTw Kal tapadidovar eis déov. Transfer the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


phrase in brackets to the end. It is an 
allegorical interpretation of éri tov du- 
pLaTwv. 

Ib. GAN éore 7G Ovte 7 TOV bropvnpdtov 
irotitwcis Goa Siacmopadny Kal Sreppyypevws 


2 / ” ‘ > A a 
€yKaTeoTIappEevyV EXOUVTL TV aAnGeav, o7ws 


dv AdOou Tovs Siknv KoAoLOV orrEeppodrcyous. For 
éxovor read éyovoa and omit doa. One might 
be inclined to suggest dv Adby, but in § 42 
we find és dv pou RéAticTos paitvoirto. 

§ 57, p. 349. of peév odk ddAtya, of Se pépos. 
TL eurep Apa Tov THs GAnOeias Adyou ExOVTES © 
dvadeyOciev. Place a comma before and 
after eizep dpa, and insert ay before dyva- 
deux Geter. ; 

Jb. (The partial truths of opposing heresies 
are seen to be in harmony when viewed in 
relation to the whole, thus) év dpiOmots 6 
dptios TO wepitTd Stadépetat, Sporoyotou de 
dpow TH aprOpmynteKky os TO OXNPATL 
5 KUKXos Kal TO Tplywvov Kal TO TeTPaywVOV Kal 
Soa «Tov oxnudtwov adAjdwv dtev7pvoyev. 
Here I should read 76 dpiOpytixd with a 
comma following, and change oxypat. into 
padmparixa. The latter corruption is easily 
explained if we suppose the first three and 
the last two letters of [a6|nuarti[ xd] to have 
become illegible. Translate ‘in arithmetic 
the odd and even numbers are incongruous, 
but are both reduced to harmony by the 
arithmetician, just as the circle and triangle 
and square and all other incongruous figures 
are harmonious to the mathematician.’ 

§ 59, p. 350. I cannot agree with Dindorf in 
regardingas probable Valckenaer’ssuggestion 
that the dozen lines beginning dv “EAAnviKov 
ode mpodyrnv, ov. wéepvyTtat 6 amdaToAos 
év tT pos Titov ériuctoAn are the note of a 
scholiast. Perhaps ov péuvyrac may be a 
gloss on oide. Just below in dps dws «av 
ros EAAjvev mpodpyrais Sidwot tu THS GAnGelas, 
I think we should read xai, the dative being 
governed by didwot. 

§ 59, p. 350. pos yodv Kopw ious, ov 
yap évtaida pdvov, wept THs TOV VveKpOv ava- 
oracews Suadeyopevos iapBetw cvyKéxpyTat Tpa- 
yik@, TL por odedos ; AN€ywr, ot veKpot ovK 
eyeipovrat. In the preceding sentence 
Clement had quoted Tit. i. 12 as showing 
St. Paul’s acquaintance with Greek poetry. 
It seems to me that the more natural order 
in this sentence would be ov yap évraifa 
povov iapBeiw ovyKéxpyTar TpaylKo Tpos yoov 
Kopw@ious, mept tis TOV vexpOv dvacTacews 
duadeyopevos, Th poe ddedos, A€yet, Ei OF VEKpol 
oix éyetpovrac; The indicative A€yer would 
naturally be altered to Aéywv when the order 
of the words was lost. 

§ 60, p. 351. TAdtwv radar 76 dua orovdis 
yeyovevar TOveEe TOV Tpdrov Aéyet. Omit TO. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


§ 67, p. 355. erawdv WAdtwv tots BapBapous 
ws dahepovtws dokycavtTas pLovous GAnbas pyct 
kal GAAob wodAaxod Kat ev “EdAnou kat 
BapBapos, Gv Kal tepa rorAAa Hd yeyove Sud 
Tovs TowovTovs Tatdas. The sentence is evi- 
dently incomplete, wanting an object for 
doxyoavtas and an explanation for rovovtous 
maioas. We are helped to supply what is 
wanting by a comparison of the passage 
referred to (Symp. 209) in which Diotima 
describes the action of Eros Philosophus, 
who seeks immortality by begetting, not 
human children, but true and beautiful 
thoughts, eis"Opypov aroBréWas kai Holobdov... 
&n\Gv, ota Exyova éavtdv aroXciroveu,...TipLos 
dé wap tpiy cal Sodwv bia tTHv TOV Vvopwv 
yerrnow kali ada GAXOGt TOAAAYXOD 
avopes Kai év EAAnoe kai &v BapPa- 
pots..@v kat tepa torda Hoy ye- 
yove Ota Tods ToLtovTovs Taidas, 
and again by the phrase in 212 B kat airds 
TYL® TA Epwrika Kal OtadhepovTws a4oKke. 
I think however that Clement was more 
likely to take as the object of doxyoavras 
an ordinary word like ¢iAocodia, which he 
has used several times just before, than the 
less intelligible épwrixa ; and a general word, 
such as ypdppara, is more suitable than 
Toujpata or vouous, Which would apply only 
to a particular case. I should propose there- 
fore to read doxyjoavtas <tiHv pirocodiay>, 
povous GAnGas hyoiv <éxyova éavTav Katadel7rew 
tovs diAocddous TA ypappata> Kai addobt 
K.T.A. 

§ 70, p. 358. “HpaxAerros yap ovk avOpw- 
mivos pyoiv, GAG oiv GeO WaAXAOV ZiBvArAy 
medavoa. This is the MS. reading which 
Dindorf, following MHervetus, alters by 
reading SiBvA\av. The reference to the 
famous words describing the prophetic power 
of the Sibyl, MiBurra pawvopevey oropore 
Gyé\aota Kal dxadAdriota Kal dpeépiora 
bbeyyopern xiAiwy érOv ekixvetrar TH povy dua 
tov Geov, will be made plain if we alter the 
meaningless paAXov into 7d wéAXov. 

§ 71, p. 359. mpoéornocav (pirtocodias) Ai- 
yurtiov Te ol tpopytar...kat Tepody ot payor 
ol pev ye Kal TOD GwTHpos TpoEMAVYTAY TV 
yeveow... Ivdav te of yupvorodiotai, ddXor Te. 
Here we have a list of barbarian philosophers, 
among them the Magi. After oi payou read 
ot Kal TOU GwTHpos, Omitting pev ye, Which may 
be merely a dittography of payor. 

§ 80, p. 366. ’Avriroyos...a7o tas Iv6a- 
yopov HAukias éxt tiv “Emxovpov tedevriy, 
yapnrdtdvos 6 dexarn iotapevov yevoyevnv ern 
pepe Ta TavTa Tpraxooia Sddexa. Omit dé as 
caused by dittography of the following 
syllable. Similar examples may be found 
in § 48, p. 345 where pis inserted from the 


237 


following pera, § 54, p. 347 fin. where od 
has been foisted in from the preceding eo, 
ill. $ 4, p. 511 Heels evvovxiay pev...maKkapt- 
Comev, wovoyaptav de.. Gavpalopev, TUPLTAT KEW 
d€ deiv Néyovtes Kat dAAYAWY Ta Bapy Baora- 
few, where the second 6é is owing to the 
following dev, $ 6, 512 Atos Kowas Tpopas 
fwous dmacw dvateAXe dukavoovvyns TE THS 
Kowns amacw ém’ tons dobetons, where Te 
should be omitted on the same ground. 

§ 81, p. 366. vai daciv yeypapOa1, ravtes ot 
Tpo THs Tapovolas TOD Kupiov KAérrat eiot Kat 
Aynorat. wavres pev ov ol ev XG Y w—odTOL 
5%) of mpd THs Tov Adyou capKorews—é £ a - 
Kovovtat KaboAukwrepov. Read avev Aoyov 
for év Adyw, dé for 3), and egeAéyxovrae for 
é€axovovrat, ‘All who spoke without the 
teaching of the Word—and these are they 
who lived before the Incarnation of the 
Word—are convicted in general terms.’ 

§ 83, p. 367. (Speaking of the burning 
of the Grecian fleet as caused by the inaction 
of Achilles) GAN’ 6 bev dud pivv— er avTo 
d’ hv kal pyview Kat pay at waY OvK aTreipye 
TO Tp, Kal tows ovairtos, o dé bid Bodos 
aiteeovatos &: WV Kat peTavonoat olds TE iv Kat 
kNéat, Kal 6 altios aitos THs KAoTHs. It seems 
necessary to insert ov« before the first jv in 
order to mark the contrast between the ac- 
cessory and the sole cause. There would have 
been no reason for referring to the wrath of 
Achilles, unless it were intended to oppose it 
to the airefovoia of Satan. xat pav should 
be omitted asa dittography of the preceding 
words. 

§ 90, p. 371. dyabod F av avayxn Oeod 
ayabov tov Aoyov. For ay read etvat. 

§ 91, p. 372. Clement is never very exact 
in his quotations, but the inaccuracies in 
his report of St. Paul’s sermon at Athens 
seem to pass the bounds of possibility. 
Dindorf, however, who goes out of his way 
to change zpooreraypévovs (which is the 
reading of the best MSS. in Acts xvii. 26)into 
mpoteraypevouvs, has no scruple in printing 
intev td Oetov ci dpa Ynradyoeav 7 
evpovev av, Kaito. ov paxpay amo €vos 
ExdoTov ov trapxovtos, where the 
original has tov Gedv ei dpa ye WyAadyoetav 
avTov Kal evpotev, Kal ye...tmapxovta. Here 
70 Oetov and the omission of airdv and of ye 
after dpa and the change of xai ye into 
kairo. are quite in Clement’s style, and 7 
for cal, though it spoils the sense, is found 
in some of the MSS. of the G.T., but dy is 
merely a dittography of the preceding 
syllable and irdpyxovros is a scribe’s corrup- 
tion to suit the preceding genitive. 

§ 92, p. 372. ~ accept that philosophy) 
Tept 7s...Aéyer Lwxparyns’ eioi yap dy, ws 


238 


hagt, wepi tas teAeTas vapOyKoddpor pev 
7oAXol, BaxKor 5€ Te Tatpor, ToAAOUS pev TOUS 
KAnTous, dAtyous dé Tovs éxeKTOVs aiviTTOmevos. 
The text of Phaedo 69 has daciv ot rept 
tas teAeras, but Clement wrote dai, as 
we may judge from the following  aivrro- 
pLevos. 

§ 94, p. 373. lr’ otv kara repiztwcivy dacw 
drop beyéac Gat TWa THs dy Gods beatae 
Tobs "EAAyvas Geias oikovopias 7 TepirTwos.. 
elT€ KATA TUVTUXiaV OdK ATpPOVENTOS 7 TVTLXIA, 
eit av hvoikiy evvorav éoxnkevat Tors “EAAnvas 
A€eyou Tov THS Hiocews Syurovpyov eva yryvac- 
Kopev, KaO0 Kal THY Stkacoovvnv pvoiKiy €ipy- 
Kaper, elTeE pay KOLVOV eoxyKevar voov Tis 6 TaTHp 
kai TiS KaTa THY TOD VOU diavopY TKOTHTWpEV. 
The first thing here is to improve the 
punctuation, which is throughout most 
unintelligent in Dindorf’s edition, by placing 
a comma between “EAAnvas and Geias, and 
again after ovvtvxiav, and dé€you, and vodr, 
and a full stop after cuvrvxia. Then insert 
tis between A€yo. and tov, and for ea 
yryvéoxopev read évvoia dvoixyn (which has 
dropped into the line below in the shape 
of dvotkiv) yeyvéoxopev (or perhaps better 
yryveckeo Gar or ytyvwoKdpevov). The second 
seutence will then stand thus: er aid 
puoikny evvoiav éoxynKevar Tors “EAAnvas éyou 
Tis, Tov THS PvoEews Syprovpyov evvoia. pvoixy 
YLyvorKopev, Kao Kal THY Sucavoovvny eipy- 
Kapev" elre pay KOLVOV copies: vouv, Tis 6 
ToUTov TaTip...ckoTnowpev, ‘if one should 
say that the Greeks had a natural intuition, 
we know the Creator of nature by natural 
intuition, as we have also stated (that we 
know) justice: or if he should say that 
they possessed a common reason, let us con- 
sider who is the author of this.’ 

§ 95, p. 374. cioi b€ of Ta dua orelpovTes 
ot zA€lova zoovcw. Read,as in Prov. xi. 24, 
ot Ta toa omeipovtes wAElova oLotcw. The 
intrusive relative ot was doubtless a marginal 
correction of the incorrect article. 

§ 99, p. 376. 6 6 pel Erepov moret aredes 
ov Kal abto évepyeiv, cuvepyov aye Kal 
ovvaitiov GTO TOU TUVaLTLOV aitloy UTA p- 


XOv, amo Tod éréepew GuveAbetv aitiov 
yiyvecbar advopacpevov. Dindorf accepts 


Sylburg’s emendation izapxov for irapyerv. 
Comparing this with the account given of 
a joint cause in p, 934, I propose to read 
after é évepyely, ouvepyov aro TOU Erépy ouvepyetv 
PapLeVy Kal ovvairtov TO amo TOU ov aitio 
atTLov tmdpxew 7) aiTLov ylyvec ban OVOLATHEVOV, 
unless atriov ylyverGar should be omitted as 
a gloss. 

§ 153, p. 413. In the quotation from 
Philo, Dindorf fails to remove some blots 
which had been noted by earlier editors. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


evoetkvutat Should be évdetxvevtar, ra Aiyurriov 
ypdppata should be ra ’Acoupiwy ypdppara, 
and for ypappatixyv below we should prob- 
ably read ypappara. 

§ 178, p. 425. povn airy éxi tiv adnO7 
coptav Xeipaywyel.. .oUK avev TOD TwTHpos TOV 
KaTayaydovTos pay TO Oeiw doy TOU 
OpatiKod THS Woxns THV éxiyvoeicav ex davAys 
avactpopys ayvoav axAvwedn. Here there is 
no government for juav or for tod dpateKod, 
and xatayayovros iS unmeaning. Perhaps_ 
the true reading may be tod kataA\atrovros 
WHGs TO Geiw Oyo <kal GKedacavTos Gro> TOV 
‘ £ 
Opartikov. 

§ 180, p. 426. Commenting on the words 
of the Zimaeus p. 22, "EXAgves Gel Traides 
€oTE...000€ (€xere) paGnpa. xpovy TroALov ovdev, 
Clement. writes ézi tov “EAAjvov dyot TV 
oinow aitav Bpaxv tH Suahepew prdov: ov yap 
pidov TaLouKov eEaKkovaTéov ovoe pay TOV Tous 
Tal Yevopeveov pedo: Tatdas de cLpy Key airous 
¥E Tovs p.UGovs, as av puxpov Stopdvrwv TOV Tap. 
“EAAjow oinowopuy, aivitTopevos TO p.dOnpa. 
TO Tokwov, THv Tapa BapBdpos 7 poyeven- 
TaTHYV GAnOeav, o pyuatt TEGELKE TO Tals 
pooos. The words Bpaxv te diadpéepa pidov 
are taken from Zim. 23 B ra viv dy yeveadoyn- 
Gévra...ratdwv Bpaxd tu diadeper pvOwv, which 
Clement, if we may judge from his phrase 
mals wvGos, seems to have understood as if 
pvOwv and zaidwy were in apposition. I 
should propose therefore to insert zaidwv 
before Bpaxv tu—the similarity of ending 
explains its loss after airév—to insert oix 
before égaxovoréov (childish stories may still 
be told to children, it is the wats piGos which 
is forbidden), to read dytitéGexe for rtéGeuke, 
so as to provide a government for fjyati— 
the dvr. would easily disappear after ati— 
and perhaps zpoyeveorépay for zpoyevertarnv. 
As we have immediately below dudw xowds 
Tovs pvGovs aitav Kal tovs Adyous TaLdLKOs 
elvat tapiotas, I should further be inclined 
to change airovs ye Tovs pvOovs into abrovs TE 
Tous pvOovs Kal Tovs Adyous. 

§ 181, p. 427. 

TOVOE yap. dvOparoure vopov duerace Kpoviwv, 

ixOvor yap Kat Onpot Kal olwvots merenvols 

éxGeuev GAAyAovs, éxet ov Sikn eoTl per 
avTov- 

avOpwroice 6 edwKe Siknv 7 TOAXOV GpioTy. 

Eir’ otv tov dpa tH yeveon yo EL vomov 
eire Kal Tov avbis dodevTa ARV ex Beod, 6 
Te THS diaews 6 TE THS pabyoews Vvopuos «is. 
Here ¢iyjcaeu is Sylburg’s emendation accepted 
by Dindorf for the MS. divca. The future 
tense is unmeaning, and dice is implied by 
o TIS pucews vopos in the line below, 
answering to 6 THs pabnoews, AS pice vo“ov 
answers here to rov a861s Sobéra. I provide 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 239 


a construction for vouov by removing the 
full stop after dpucrn, when it becomes 
merely a resumption of vowoy in the first 
line. I should further restore Hesiod’s pév 


in the second line, which has been assimi- 
lated to the preceding yap, and put 
mAnv after Geod to begin anew sentence. 

J. B. Mayor. 





MR. WALKER ON THE GREEK AORIST. 


In discussing the last two instalments of 
Mr, Walker’s morphological investigations 
it is necessary to keep in mind the ulterior 
purpose with which he pursues them. Mr. 
Walker expects to get some evidence to re- 
habilitate the old doctrine of the Graeco-Italic 
Spracheinheit. I have no prejudice against 
the doctrine, the case against which has 
possibly been sometimes pushed too far, but 
the point is so important that it necessarily 
claims a front place in what little I have to 
say. Iam afraid I do not fully understand 
Mr. Walker’s position on this question. He is 
bringing out a feature of ‘ Graeco-Italian’ ; 
and since it is not a survival but a definite 
new departure in language, it must if 
proved have considerable cogency in deter- 
mining the mutual relations of Greek and 
Italic. The languages have in common 
their (retention of the primitive ?) femi- 
nine nouns in -os, much of the forma- 
tion of the pluperfect, and, if we accept 
Mr. Walker’s theory, an aorist indicative 
in s made up by the help of the perfect from 
an s subjunctive and optative. These 
common features, even if we were to add to 
them others for which some case might be 
made, are meagre enough when compared 
with the large resemblances both in phono- 
logy and in morphology which have been 
unsuccessful in convincing scholars of an 
Italo-Keltic unity. All that is allowed is 
that the Kelts and Italians were contiguous 
in some pre-historic period, so that new 
developments in language passed from one 
tribe to the other. Probably Mr. Walker 
means no more than the view corresponding 
to this: the Greeks were once contiguous 
to the Italians on the other side, though 
presumably with very much less communi- 
cation between them and their neighbours 
than the ancestors of Brennus and Camillus 
enjoyed. In such a view we need not 
quarrel with him, though we may perhaps 
object to the use of ‘Graeco-Italian’ in 
this connexion. It would be more justifi- 
able to speak of our own language as 
‘French-English’ since the Norman inva- 
sion. If Mr. Walker does mean more, a 


thorough discussion of the tremendous 
difficulties of the doctrine involved would 
be needed before such details as the s aorist 
could be handled. But I must not dwell 
further on this ambiguity, which would not 
matter were it not for the certainty that 
there are plenty of respectable scholars of 
Latin and Greek in this country who have 
scarcely an idea that the old doctrine has 
ever been questioned. I think moreover 
we shall find that a desire to bring the 
classical languages into closer morphological 
contact is in many cases the determining 
cause of Mr. Walker’s abandoning views 
which at present hold the field, and which 
as generally simpler and less artificial than 
his own we shall be tempted to prefer until 
we see the case against them, as well as the 
case for an alternative. On this point I 
need do no more than endorse the criticisms 
of the Master of Christ’s (C.R. ii. 163), 
whose observations might well be taken, 
mutatis mutandis, to characterize the later 
instalments of Mr. Walker’s ingenious and 
scholarly speculation. A student wishing 
to judge any such speculations fairly will 
naturally begin by examining the treatment 
of the subject in the pages of the great 
systematizer of modern comparative philo- 
logy. He will find in the second volume of 
the Grundriss how Brugmann marshals the 
evidence of all branches of the Indoger- 
manic family with a lucidity all his own, 
and presents an account which, whether it 
convinces us or not, must be described as 
clear, consistent and plausible in a very 
high degree. Mr. Walker consequently 
presents his theory under a great disad- 
vantage if he does not attempt to show 
weak points in such a system which may 
predispose us to look leniently upon the 
weak points discoverable in his own. 

Before passing from these general criti- 
cisms to notice individual points in Mr. 
Walker’s last two papers, [ might mention 
one or two recent investigations in verb 
morphology which should I think be taken 
into account. One is the virtual discovery 
of the Sanskrit type Gdis, applied by 


240 


Bezzenberger to solve the riddle of dyes 
(see Brugmann Grd. ii. 896), and by Bar- 
tholomae to ‘ erds = dsis,’ as well as several 
other formations (see his Studien ii. p. 63 
sqq-). On the subject of the Greek, Italic 
and Keltic ss aorist a very important con- 
tribution has been made by Bartholomae 
(B.B. xii. 80 sqq.); and the same question 
has been acutely attacked by Mr. Giles 
(Camb. Philolog. Soc. Tr. 1889, p. 126 sqq.) 
on very different lines. J am not endorsing 
here any of this literature, but I mention 
it as likely to modify in some way the 
investigations before us.! 

I proceed to take a few points from these 
papers in order. One I take from paper 
viii. (C.R. v. 451), because Mr. Walker asks 
us to lay special stress on it, connecting it 
in advance with the papers to follow. His 
treatment of the difficult word for ‘ spring’ 
contains some points that need further 
proof. Thus when it is said that the Attic 
éap must have lost a f, not a o, we 
remember that the author has _ been 
laying some stress on the explanation of 
Tigao asS=TiHe-cavtt. Mr. Walker may if 
he likes save his éap by annexing Johans- 
son’s r.6e-F-av7t, but of course that involves 
more inconvenient results still. Iam not 
proposing to re-examine éap jpos ver here, 
only staying to remark on the Greek that 
the explanation ought perhaps to take the 
exactly similar xéap xjpos into consideration, 
and on the Latin that the Old Norse vér 
is a much more obvious parallel than the 
Greek éap, whether or no 7p be brought in. 
I think that this word is much too ambig- 
uous to illustrate the general propositions 
Mr. Walker lays down at the end, though I 
should not quarrel with them in them- 
selves. The consensus of the Indo-Iranians 
and the Slavo-Lithuanians is not enough to 
prove a word Indogermanic, simply because 
these two languages are proved to have 
belonged to the same dialectic division 
of the parent speech, as is shown by 
their treatment of the palatals and velars. 
Nor can any warning be more important 
than that which forbids our applying to one 
language morphological observations estab- 
lished in another—unless, as I should prefer 
to put it, these completely satisfy the known 
phonetic and other conditions of both. But 
Mr. Walker is hardly entitled by his theory 
of éap ver to hint that ‘the connexion be- 
tween’ Greek and Italic ‘is of the closest.’ 


_ | Since this paper was written, Streitberg’s very 
important article on the ‘Dehnstufe’ has come out, 
inaterially affecting several of the points discussed 
here (Ind. Forsch. iii. 305 sqq.). 


.than the first—(the third 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The three propositions with which the 
present theory of the Greek Aorist is intro- 
duced will be best examined under the 
details of the proof. I may observe here 
that the second, which is far more plausible 
is generally 
admitted, if we drop the ‘ Graeco-Italian ’)— 
must be extended beyend Greek and Italian 
if it is to be allowed. Mr. Walker will 
hardly venture to assign the Sanskrit 
(and Iranian) s aorist to a different origin, 
and in that case the extension to the indica-” 
tive must belong to the proethnic period 
(rather an unsafe region, by the way, for us 
to assert or deny morphological processes 
alleged to have happened therein). If the 
theory is modified in this direction, it may 
very well be regarded as a kind of exten- 
sion of Mr. Giles’s theory to the Indo- 
germanic: the s subjunctive and optative 
being simply forms of es ‘to be’ tacked on 
to a verbal root-noun. One difficulty at 
least will result, besides the a priori risk of 
speculating for a dialect in which we have 
no history and no comparative process to 
guide us. The most prominent feature of 
the Sanskrit s aorist, which is probably 
shared by Greek, Italic and Germanic, is the 
so called vrddhi of the root in the active 
indicative. This is intelligible on the 
ordinary theory:. I am disposed still to 
adhere to my own conjecture? (Am. Journ. 
Phil. x. 286) that it originated in roots with 
initial vowel, where the augment contracted 
with the root in its strong and weak forms. 
But it constitutes a rather serious difficulty 
to Mr. Walker’s account. 

The identity of the suffixes of aorist and 
perfect is obvious in Greek, with one or two 
considerable reservations: their assimila- 
tion is easily explained by the ordinary 
accounts, such as Brugmann’s. But the 
5rd plural is a more serious difficulty than 
Mr. Walker thinks. His hypothetical peas 
depends on the Sanskrit -us -wr. But 
unfortunately this is conclusively shown by 
Zend to be a combination of two suffixes 
existing in Indo-Iranian, -zr and -73 (see 
Bartholomae, X.Z. xxix. 586). Even if the 
s were original in Sanskrit, we could not 
possibly reconcile the vowels. This upsets 
the external authority for pewas, and, as we 
have seen, Mr. Walker is unable to support 
it without entirely separating peydaor and 
riéacr. This difficulty (to say nothing of 
others) must be surmounted before the 
Graeco-Italian identity of aorist and perfect 
can be maintained. And when we reflect 
on the remarkable coincidences undeniably 

2 See, however, Streitberg, /.c. p. 391 sqq. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 241 


existing, without any historical connexion, 
between formations in languages totally dis- 
tinct, we shall probably feel that a much 
more startling identity of Greek and Latin 
phenomena would hardly bear the weight 
laid on this very doubtful one. Moreover, 
did not Germanic likewise merge its aorist 
and perfect? As to Mr. Walker’s assertion 
that no one has ever conjectured an original 
s indicative corresponding to essem and 
JSerrem, it is not going very far to bring up 
abharsit (Vedic) and the Greek édepoe 
(Hesych.) ; while Lithuanian gives us some 
forms that presumably started from the 
indicative (see Brugmann Grd. ii. 1172). 
It seems to me at least possible to take 
ornoa = starem, ynOnoa = gauderem, etc., as 
historically accurate equations (barring the 
restoration of intervocalic o in Greek by 
analogy of the consonant stems), and to 
put them both down as Jnjunctives. The 
Injunctive (or unaugmented indicative past 
tenses) included two main uses, one quasi- 
conjunctive, as commonly in Sanskrit, the 
other indicative, where past time was 
inferred from the context, as presumably 
was the case in the pre-historic stages of 
Achaian (Homeric) Greek and of Italic, and 
other languages which wholly or partially 
dropped the use of the augment in the 
indicative. The equation I suggest will 
hold also for the 3rd plural: y7@ycav = 
gaudérent, from Idg. gauedhésent, if we may 
for the moment assume the early extension 
of s aorists to the derivative verbs.'. In 
equating orjoav and stdrent we have to 
allow for the coincident extension of the 
strong ablaut of the singular: compare 
Skt. (middle) asthisata and éoracayv, also 
docav=ddrent, Skt. adisata, against the 
conceivably original sing. édwca. The com- 
pletion of the tense in Latin by the help of 
such analogies as amem, ament, with @ 
throughout, would be a very natural pro- 
cess, and this would anchor the form to the 
subjunctive mood, while from the older 
injunctive forms dixem, diximus, dixtis, 
dixent, two may well have gone to add 
another tributary to the newly forming 
stream of the aorist-perfect indicative. The 
suggestiveness of Mr. Walker’s comparisons 


must be my excuse for launching out on a 
. supplementary guess of my own towards 


he solution of that perennial problem, the 
imperfect subjunctive in Latin. While I 
am thus employed, I may as well add one 
or two more hints in the same line. What 

1 For the 8rd pl. -ent, levelled to -av(r) in Greek 


by contamination of -a(r)=-nt and -ev(r), see Streit- 
berg in Ind. Forsch. i. 82 sqq. 


if ferrés is really to be compared with the 
Skt. abharsis, adopting Bartholomae’s prin- 
ciple that this rather mysterious suffix 
appeared originally as é in the singular and 
@ in the plural, with inevitable levelling in 
both directions? The appropriation of the 
whole tense from injunctive to subjunctive 
remains as before. And lastly, let us notice 
the phenomena of the s aorist in a root like 
trad, with an irreducible d@, in Latin and 
Sanskrit : the extant ist pl. mid. atrasmahi 
in the Jatter will allow us to construct the 
active corresponding. In the singular, 
(a)trasam = (in)trarem; *atrds(s) *atrast 
would be *intrds *intradst, while the coex- 
istent atrdsis atrdsit will on my theory be 
intrarés intraret. Then in the plural atrasma 
would be *intramus, atrdsta is intrastis, and 
*atrasan intrarent. Here *intras and 
*intramus naturally do not survive their 
likeness to the present, and *intrast is the 
only form which has not been actually used 
in one way or another. 

I must hasten on to notice a few points 
of detail suggesting themselves in Mr. 
Walker’s last two papers. The account of 
the types orjw and orainy as sigmatic (Idg. 
sthasd, sthasiém) is plausible enough, and 
might very well be accepted without in any 
way impugning the originality of ¢oryca, 
which will be either a ss aorist or a re- 
formation on the analogy of the éegéa type. 
Of course the analogy of oratev will 
explain the retention of « in orainv perfectly, 
but one must confess that the optative 
sthaiém practically rests on Greek evidence 
alone, though the Sanskrit stheyadm will give 
us some trouble if we discard the help 
from this quarter. The hypothetical unthe- 
matic aorist—which simply means a_ past 
tense of the ‘root-class’ or ejut-conjugation 
—raises a number of very knotty questions. 
Are there in consonant stems the traces we 
should expect of the weakened root in a 
formation said to survive only in the middle? 
What is the relation of déyarar to ed€éypunv, 
and of dAerat to dAto? In this last question 
I should agree with Mr. Walker that GAro 
is not a sigmatic aorist (cf. Brugmann (rd. 
ii. 1283), but the equally unsigmatic sub- 
junctive will not suit him so well. The 
wide extension of the ss aorist is a point ou 
which I have always felt that Bartholomae 
made a strong case. Mr, Walker’s exten- 
sion of it to the éoryoa type is an alluring 
suggestion, to which I know no objection 
except its cutting off starem. 

I pass on to paper x., many points in 
which may fairly be allowed as probable 
without accepting the thesis upon which 


242 


they are based. That the past tenses of 
olda, ewe and eiye reacted upon one another 
is very likely indeed, but that does not 
depend on the doctrine of an unreduplicated 
perfect, as set forth in Mr. Walker’s earlier 
papers. The introduction of the parallel 
root vez to help out e¢ is an excellent pro- 
posal: we may compare the way in which 
three roots (sé, 7k and vei) make up the 
conjugation of ij. I should be inclined 
also to accept the main points in the sug- 
gested genesis of yeoba and ydecba, with 
some reservations noted below. But I am 
afraid I remain entirely unconvinced as to 
the main thesis which these forms are 
supposed to confirm. As far as I can see, 
it relies simply on two undeniable facts, (1) 
that in Greek the s-aorist and the perfect 
active had the same person-endings, except 
in the 3rd plural, and (2) that in Latin the 
perfect and aorists coalesced (as they 
coalesced in Germanic). But both facts are 
easily understood on very much simpler 
assumptions, and apart from this resem- 
blance no two sets of forms could be much 
less alike than the Greek and the Latin: 
what resemblances in detail they have are 
shown at once by other languages to be 
inherited. Some observations remain to be 
made on points of the proof. I do not 
understand how monerim is connected with 
a perfect stem: surely it is a ‘first aorist 
optative’ like faxim, capsim, amarim, ete. 4 
That Ffeidw should be the true Homeric 
subjunctive of Fotda is natural enough, as 
it is the normal form of the perfect sub- 
junctive. fedéow on the ordinary view is 
the -es- aorist subjunctive of the root veid, 
and was only attached to the perfect because 
it happened to be unreduplicated and in 
need of a past tense such as 7feide(c)a 
would supply. The usefulness of 8édi0 as 
an analogy force I should question: it is 
itself a comparatively late and decidedly 
restricted product of analogy. A Homeric 
‘ 70no6a’ might stand I imagine for Feider6a 
(unaugmented), by the familiar misinter- 
pretation of an early E. Of course the -6a 
suffix is not ‘ retained’ here, as it only came 
in from the perfect owing to the close 
association just mentioned. But I think 
the association may well have begun at a 
time even prior to the loss of intervocalic 
o, so that the similarity of Fotda and FeiSeca 
could be continued by the development of 
FeidecOa Feidere to supply the place of the 
doomed *Feders *Fedeor. The Latin vidisti 
represents apparently a very similar inde- 
pendent process at work on the ~s- aorist— 
(if we are really compelled to adopt this 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


rather unwelcome formation to explain an 
otherwise unsolved phonetic peculiarity). 
The augmenting of this aorist with 7- has 
surely no necessary connexion with the 
digamma initial? ‘HfovAcpyny, Advvapnr, 


- etc., show that this substitute for the aug- 


ment—best taken perhaps as a preposition - 
identical with Latin é—was free to join any | 
verb. Its frequency with digammated roots 
may well mean nothing more than the 
recognized change of éf- to ed- in the primi- 
tive Achaian dialect, joined presumably 
with one or two genuine cases of 7, 
accounting for éwpwv and its congeners. 

Mr. Walker will hardly expect to pass 
without protest the ‘conditions under 
which « becomes in its strong form e or t 
respectively. Adherents of the newer 
philology have learnt to regard i and { as 
standing on a different platform from e, 
though few would care to regard the posi- 
tion of 7 as finally settled. - But the lax use 
of ‘become’ here is very unfortunate, how- 
ever little intended, as there are far too 
many still who would innocently speak of 
an 7% ‘strengthened’ to «a, as though our 
science were bound for ever to the phraseo- 
logy of the old Indian grammarians. To 
restore a ‘lost imperfect of cipi’ as ty ts t 
ignores the fact that we have in Sanskrit 
ayam, dis, dit, perfectly normal forms which 
would be very hard to explain if the type 
dbhis, abhit, ébis, épv (as yet not fully 
accounted for)! bad to be followed. The 
tiyam is exactly represented by *ja, which 
borrowed an ce subscript from the plural. 
Then we can interpret 7a as a contamina- 
tion of ja and *yea, without questioning 
the tradition: the regular (unaugmented) 
3rd pl. lst aor. teav would help the process. 
On my supposition trem (=ezsm) is the Ist 
sg. injunctive aorist, of which icay is 3rd 
pl., went having the long vowel of the 
singular. One or two small points and I 
have done. The ‘unvoiced o in joav from 
oida’ and the ‘ voiced o in joav from ja’ 
can hardly be accepted without a proof. 
As to ri@éac1, etc., the development of a 
new 3rd pl. primary suffix -av7. out of the 
aorist -av, by the proportion -v to -vt 
familiar in all verbs, is the simplest explana- 
tion: the new suffix -avr. was added to the 
base 7iHe- just as the new past suffix -cav 
was added in the imperfect. The plural of 
the reduplicated -u. verbs is of course a 


1 tha is the proper reduction of the dissyllabic 
root bheye; and there is no real difficulty in sup- 
posing that Sanskrit and Greek independently levelled 
the singular to the plural. Note that the type is 
not found in Iranian. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 243 


problem in any case: we can hardly doubt 
that the original forms *7i6-yev *r6-aTe 
have been reacted on in a pre-historic period 
of Greek by the forms of the unreduplicated 
conjugation, Idg. dhamés dhénti, *Oéues 
*@eévre (cf. the 2nd aorist). In that case the 
Doric ziMevru is clearly more original, but 
the Ionic accent may very well represent 
the consciousness of another form after the 
type of riWéacr, Boeot. diddavéc: the evident 
antiquity of this type is certainly a point 
in favour of Johansson, as referred to 
above. In the verb esmi there were two 
forms in the plural, ésyti and sénti, *éare 
and *éyr, and the ultimate forms of these 
(€av7u, v7’) probably did more than anything 
else to fix the alternatives in r/@ypu. 

Here I must close my remarks, in which 
I have ventured perhaps rather farther 
than is wise from the safe paths of merely 
negative criticism. The novelty of Mr. 
Walker’s ideas and the long-felt fascination 
of this field of verb morphology must be 
my excuse. Two impressions remain in my 


mind as I account to myself for a general 
lack of conviction produced by these very 
original researches. On the one side is the 
absence of the necessary destructive 
criticism, which might clear away the 
structures occupying at present the ground 
Mr. Walker wishes to annex. On the other 
is the feeling that Mr. Walker is before all 
things a classical scholar, with the inevit- 
able prejudice in favour of Greek and Latin 
as better able to tell us the secrets of primi- 
tive language than any other dialects can 
be. A heavier sprinkling of words from 
Zend and Sanskrit, Gothic, Old  Ivish, 
Lithuanian, and sources less classical still, 
would doubtless send off the pure scholar 
or the archaeologist with a shrug to more 
congenial pages in the Review, but it would 
produce more effect upon students of a 
subject more and more imperatively demand- 
ing the thorough traversing of the whole 
field. 
James Hore Mou ton. 
Cambridge, March 16th. 


ON ST. JOHN’S METHOD OF RECKONING THE HOURS OF THE DAY. 


ALL admit that, with the exception of 
the Fourth Gospel, the New Testament 
(Mt. xx. 3, 5, 6, 9, xxvii. 45, 46; Mk. xv. 
25, 33, 34; Lk. xxiii. 44; Acts ii. 15, iii. 
1, x. 3, 9, 30, xxiii. 33) reckons ‘ the hour’ 
from sunrise (or sunset in Acts xxiii. 33 
where ‘of the night’ is added). But it is 
contended that St. John may have adopted 
a different reckoning, namely from mid- 
night (or mid-day), 

Westcott (Gospel of St. John, p. 282) 
mentions ‘two passages’ which ‘furnish a 
sufficient presumption’ that the reckoning 
from midnight was general in the Roman 
province of Asia and was adopted by John. 
One of these refers to the death of Polycarp, 
another to that of Pionius who ‘is said to 
have been martyred (at Smyrna also) at the 
tenth hour.’! The latter, if Pionius died 
in A.D. 250, is not cogent concerning the 
usage of 100 4.p. As to the former, West- 
cott says, ‘This’—the eighth hour—‘ from 
the circumstances, must have been 8 A.M.’ 
But Lightfoot (Apost. Fathers P. IL. Vol. i. 
p- 612) says ‘The hour of the day we have 
no means of testing. ‘The eighth hour”’ 
might mean either 8 a.M. or 2 p.m.’ ; and, 


The reference to the authority, in the case of 


Pionius, is not given. 


though he pronounces the former the more 
probable, he adds, ‘ Either is consistent with 
the narrative.’ 

But, upon close examination, the evidence 
as to Polycarp will be found in favour of 
2 p.M. and incompatible with 8 a.m. For it 
would appear that Polycarp was not brought 
into the stadium till (Zpist. Smyrn. 9) the 
‘sports’ had begun. When he was led into 
the stadium, the excitement was at its 
height (8), ‘such a tumult that no man’s 
voice could be so much as heard.’ The 
words (ib. 9), ‘at length, when he was 
brought up (Aourov zpocayxbevtos airod)’ 
perhaps ‘at length’ is rather strong for 
Aourov, but Lam quoting Lightfoot’s trans- 
lation—imply that the martyr had to wait 
his turn till the ‘sports’ were concluded ; 
and this is further implied by (i. 11) the 
proconsul’s threat, ‘I have wild beasts at 
hand here and I will throw thee to them,’ 
taken with what follows. The people shout 
for a lion to be let loose on Polycarp, upon 
which the Asiarch replied that (12) ‘It was 
not lawful for him, since he had brought the 
sports to a close (werAypwxe 7a Kvvnyéora),.’ 
Now it is most unlikely that ‘the sports’ 
could have been ‘ brought to a close’ in time 
enough to allow Polycarp to be examined by 





244 


the Proconsul, and a fire to be extemporized 
to consume him, and all this by 8 a.m. on a 
February morning (76. 21, mpo éxra Kadav- 
dav Mapriwv). 

The passages in John bearing on the 
subject are the following :— 

(a) i. 39 ‘about the tenth hour.’ 
Baptist is here introduced as ‘looking upon 
Jesus as he was walking (zepirartoiv7t).’ 
The walking does not necessarily imply 
anything in the nature of a journey. Two 
disciples of the Baptist, wishing to know 
Jesus, ask ‘Where abidest thou?’ They 
‘came therefore and saw where he abode ; 
and they abode with him that day (zap’ 
avT@ eweway THY HEepav exeivynv) : 1b was about 
the tenth hour.’ There is nothing here 
conclusive either way ; but the most natural 
supposition is that they took the evening 
meal there and remained for the night as 
well as the remainder of the day. (It 
should be hardly necessary to quote, for 
‘day’ used loosely in connexion with hours 
after or before sunset, Mk. xiv. 30 ‘to-day, 
even this night,’ and Matth. xxvii. 19, 
where Pilate’s wife speaks of the dream she 
had had ‘this day.’) 

(6) iv. 6 ‘about the sixth hour.’ This 
was the hour at which Jesus rested at 
‘Jacob’s well,’ wearied with the journey, 
while the disciples went into the city to buy 
food. Now, if this was ‘the sixth hour of 
the afternoon, i.e. 6 P.M. aS in modern 
reckoning, we have to suppose that the 
woman came to the well shortly after 6 P.M. 
and that the dialogue followed afterwards 
(lasting long enough to allow of the return 
of the disciples to interrupt it): then the 
woman returned to the city and told her 
story to the men ; and then the men came 
out to Jesus, heard His words, welcomed 
Him, and induced Him to remain with 
them. Even if this occurred in the summer 
it crowds a great deal into a small space of 
time; but if it occurred in winter it is 
almost impossible. 

Here rises the question of the time of 
year, and of the bearing on this point of 
John iv. 35 ody tpets A€yere Ore "Ere Terpa- 
pnvos €otw kal 6 Oepiopos Epxerar; idod A€éyw 
ipiv érapate Tovs 6dbadpors dav Kal Oedcacbe 
Tas Xwpas OTL AEvKal eiow Tpos Oepiopov. The 
words ‘lift up your eyes’ appear to mean 
‘lift up your eyes to the truth as it is in 
heaven, ‘discern the true harvest’; and 
the most probable rendering is, ‘ You (iets 
emph.) the children of men, who talk of 
earthly seed and earthly harvest, say, or 
are in the habit of saying, ‘ Four months 
more and the harvest [of earth] will come” ; 


The _ 


‘THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, | 


but I tell you the harvest {of heaven] is 
white already.’ 

lt appears (Tristram, Land of Jsrael, p. 
399 and 583, quoted by Westcott, John iv. 34) 
that corn sown just after Christmas was four 
inches high on 20 Feb., and that the harvest 
lasted from about 15 April to 15 May. . 
This gives an interval of ‘four months’ 
between seed-time and the average time for ~ 
the middle of harvest, and points to a 
common proverb by which the farmers in 
Galilee exhorted one another to patience, 
after seed-time was over. (The éri does not 
mean ‘more,’ and creates no difficulty ; 
comp. the saying of Joseph to Pharaoh’s 
butler, Gen. xl. 13 ri tpets yuepas Kal pyno- 
Ojoetar ®. THs apxns cov, ‘ Three days hence, 
Pharaoh will remember thy office’:=so 7. 
19 and vii. 34. 

Now it might seem at first sight as if all 
the bearing of the ‘four months’ upon the 
actual time of year disappears as soon as it 
is admitted that the words probably con- 
stitute a proverb, But in fact, all the point 
of our Lord’s words consists in the exact 
application of the proverb to the time of utter- 
ance, and in the contrariety between what the 
proverb said about the earthly harvest and 
what He said about the spiritual. For the 
former, the seed had only just been sown, 
and the fields were bare ; for the latter, the 
harvest was white for reaping, if the 
disciples would only ‘ lift up their eyes’ and 
discern it. Consequently, though the words 
are probably proverbial, their use here is 
strongly for winter as the time of utter- 
ance. 

This makes it all the more unlikely that 
‘the sixth hour’ meant the last hour in the 
evening. In the winter the Samaritan 
woman might naturally come to the well in 
the early afternoon; and in the winter 
people might naturally be travelling at 
noon. And the rest of the narrative will 
suit a winter noon-tide. Jesus had not 
intended to stay there; He merely rested 
at noon because He was ‘tired out’ (kexo- 
makws)’; but the talk with the Samaritan 
woman led the Samaritans to come out to 
see Him in the afternoon; and the con- 
sequence was that they induced Him to 
remain in their city for that night and the 
next. 

(c) iv. 52 ‘Yesterday, about (?) the 
seventh hour (éx0és wpav éBddunv), the fever 
left him.’ [Winer quotes for the accus. 
Acts x. 3, Rev. iii. 3. But in Acts the best 
MSS. ins. wepi: Rev. od pw yds rotav dpav 
7é possibly contains some corruption con- 
cealed under the marginal yvwon: in any 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 245 


case, the juxtaposition of yvés, and the 
solecisms with which Rev. abounds, make 
it worthless as an instance bearing on the 
present passage. Possibly the original was 
EXOECEIC (comp. Plutarch, Zimoleon, ed. 
Holden, index, eis with the meaning of év, 
temporal, cis €va xatpov xii. 3, and he com- 
pares Polyb. xxiv. 34, 10 eis ryv éxavpiov 
e&rOe) |. 

But let us assume that, so far as the hour 
is concerned, the text is correct. Westcott 
says (ad loc.) that ‘the uncertainty of the 
site of Cana causes a little difficulty in 
determining the time required for the 
journey from Capernaum to Cana. This 
may however be fairly reckoned at about 
four or five hours. Comp. Jos. Vit. ch. 17 ; 
a night journey from Cana to Tiberias.’ 

Now Josephus tells us that he travelled 
from Cana to Tiberias all through the night 
(d’ 6Ajs THs vuxTds)—and he had every 
motive to travel fast, as his object was to 
secure Tiberias from being brought over by 
his enemy. Moreover he was journeying 
downhill, and it would take longer to go 
uphill from the border of the low-lying lake 
to the uplands of Cana. We may therefore 
reckon Josephus’ journey at 7 to 8 hours 
and the return journey at 9 or 10; this 
gives about 17 hours of journeying, too 
much to be done at a stretch. 

The most probable supposition is that the 
father started from Capernaum very early 
in the morning, say at 4 or 5 a.M., and 
reached Jesus in eight or nine hours, at 
1 pm. (‘the seventh hour’) After the 
delay necessary for rest and refreshment, 
he started on the return journey, but stopped 
when night came on, and resumed his 
journey next morning. His servants did 
not start to meet him on the afternoon of 
the boy’s recovery; for, by the time they 
had convinced themselves that danger was 
over, say 2 P.M., it was too late to allow 
them to reach Cana before sunset. But 
they started very early in the morning and 
met their master ‘ when he was by this time 
descending (757 airtod xataPBaivovtos)’—a 
phrase which may here mean (a little more 
precisely than in iv. 49, ‘Sir, come down’) 
the descent from the table-land to the 
border of the lake. 

But on the supposition (adopted by West- 
cott) that the words of Jesus were spoken 
at 7 P.M., we have to ask how it was that 
the father (who most probably started before 
sunrise) was so late in finding Jesus, taking, 
say, fourteen hours to reach Him. Also, 
the pressing petition to Jesus (‘Come down, 
ere my child die’) is much more natural at 


1 p.m., when there was time for the journey 
to be at all events commenced, than at 7 
P.M., when it would be rather unreasonable 
to ask a Prophet to begin a journey that 
would last, as it did for Josephus, ‘all 
through the night.’ This last argument is 
all the more forcible because this incident 
occurred only a few days after the dialogue 
in Samaria, and therefore probably in the 
winter ; so that the sun would have set 
long before 7 P.M. 


(d) xix. 14 ‘about the sixth hour.’ This 
passage states the hour when Pilate pro- 
nounced sentence on Jesus; and, as the 
context stands, is unquestionably incom- 
patible with Mk. xv. 25, which fixes the 
Crucifixion at ‘the third hour.’ But the 
omission of Mk. xv. 25 by Mt. and Lk. 
indicates some early obscurity as to the 
exact hour. 

In any case the interpretation of ‘the 
sixth hour’ as 6 A.M. involves other extreme 
difficulties : for (Westcott on John xviii. 28) 
‘the Roman court could be held at any 
time after sunrise,’ but not before ; but at 
6 a.m. the sun would only just have risen, 
so that the Chief Priests could not expect 
to begin the trial till that time. And yet, 
according to this interpretation, we have to 
suppose that (xviii. 29-32) the dialogue 
between Pilate and the Jews, (xviii. 33— 
37) the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, 
(xviii. 39—40) the expostulation of Pilate 
with the Jews and the choice of Barabbas 
instead of Jesus, (xix. 1) the scourging, 
(xix. 2, 3) the clothing with the purple 
robe and the crown of thorns and the 
offering of mock homage, (xix. 4—7) 
the exhibition of Jesus in this condition 
to the Jews and Pilate’s further expostu- 
lation with them, (xix. 8—11) Pilate’s 
re-entry into the Palace and further dialogue 
with Jesus, (xix. 12) Pilate’s subsequent 
attempts (€k tovrov efjre) to procure an 
acquittal, and the recalcitration of the Jews, 
(xix. 13) the leading of Jesus to Gabbatha 
and (apparently) the erection of a tribunal 
(Bia, not ro Bhyua) there—all occur after 
6 a.m. in the course of about half-an-hour, 
so as to justify the writer in saying that the 
final sentence was pronounced ‘about 6.30 
A.M.’ (Weste. Gosp. p. 282, ‘If we suppose 
that the time approximately described was 
about 6 A.M. it is not difficult to fit in all 
the events of the trial’). If to this we 
were to add Mt.’s incidents of the washing 
of Pilate’s hands, and the message about 
his wife’s dream, and Lk,.’s supplementary 
trial of Jesus by Herod, and the mocking 
by Herod’s soldiers, and the sending back 





246 


from Herod to Pilate, the difficulty—if it 
did not amount to an impossibility before 
would certainly amount to one now. 
Strong evidence would be needed to make 
us believe that John departed from the 
synoptic method of reckoning the hours of the 
day. The substance of the synoptic Gospels 
—it is generally admitted-—was widely read 
and recognized as authoritative at the time 
of the composition of the Fourth Gospel. 
The Fourth Gospel—according to a very 
ancient and general tradition—was com- 
posed to supplement them and to give a 
more spiritual aspect of Christ’s life, but 
not to supersede them. But if the Fourth 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


was intended to be read with the Three, 
would it not have been a grievous and even 
culpable error to introduce, without warning 
or even suggestion of difference, a method 
of reckoning the hours (and more especially 


_as regards the Passion, where the four 


authors cover the same ground and allenter - 
into considerable detail) wholly different 
from that of the Synoptists, and certain to ~ 
create confusion in the minds of all readers ? 
So far, the evidence alleged by Westcott 
(and I have dealt with no other) appears: 
insufficient to prove such a departure. 


Epwin A. ABBOTT. 





THEOPHITUS AD AUTOLYCUM II, 7 


GANG Kal Sarvpos, tatopov Tos dyovs 
’AXeEavopewv, apEdpevos aro Piiowatopos Tov 
Kal Trodepatov Tpoayopevderros, Tovrou payee 
Atdvucov dpxmryerny yeyovevat: 610 Kal pudiyy 6 6 
Irodepatos TpOTnv KarérTnoev. Aéyeu ovv 6 
Sdtupos ovtTws" 


Here follows the genealogy purporting to 
connect the Ptolemies with Dionusos ; after 
which Theophilus continues :— 


‘H pev ovv mpos Avévucov TOLS eV ‘AXefavdpeia 
Bacire’oaor cvyyeveia, ovTw Tepiexer. “Obev 
Kal év TH Avovvoig pvryH Spor eioi KaTaKkexw- 
pispevory *AAOAS amd THs yevomevys yuva.Kos 
Avovicou, Ovyarpos d€ Meoriov ANG eas" Ania- 
veipns amo TS Ouyarpos Avovicou kat AdGeéas, 
yuvaixds 8€ “HpaxAéovs, dfev Kal Tas mpoow- 
vupias €xovow ot Kat aitovs Spor’ “Apiadvys 
amd THs Ovyatpos Miva, yuvaixds dé Atovicon, 
matdos matpodiAns, THs plxGeions Avoviow ev 
poppy mprvpvid. 
’"ANOéas maTpos” @oavris amd @davTos adds 
Avovicov' Zragvais & aro Lrapvhov viod Ato- 
vioou" Mapovis_ aro Madpwvos viov ’Apiadvns 
kat Avovicov' ovtou yap waves viol Atoviaov. 


Meotis aro Weotiov Tov 


I give the passage ‘ with all faults’ as it 
stands in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca tom. Vi., 
coll. 1057—60, since [ am here concerned 
only with the obscure words underlined. 
An Appendix containing the conjectures 
and emendations of J. H. Nolte speaks thus 
of the clause in question :— 

Locus haud dubie corruptus. Neque 
interpretum explicationes neque Toupii ep. 
p. 177 et Meinekei Anal. Alex. et Mulleri 
Frag. Histor. Graec. iv. p. 660, coniecturae 


probabiles sunt. Legendum zpvupvyrod aut 
tpootpvov (cf. Clem. Alex. Prot. p. 29 P et 
Arnob, ¢. nat. 5, 29) alibi olim proposui. 

Toup /.c. remarks: ‘ Appello omnes mon- 
strorum averruncatores, an quidquam vide- 
rint hac lectione monstrosius,’ and comparing 
the statement in Hom. Od. A 325 rewrites 
the passage with confidence (‘ procul dubio ’) 
as follows: rhs piyOefons Avoviow ev ddr 
porn Aia. Meineke op. cit. p. 347 hazards 
TNS px etorns Avovicw év dpopyn zpvpvaia, 
which C. Miiller /.c. rightly condemns as 
‘nimis quaesita ’ and unwarranted by tradi- 
tion. He himself offers with some _hesita- 
tion év kopydy Spvudde, citing Diodorus v. 
51,4: Ardvucos dé vukros daanyaye tHv ’Apiad- 
vyv eis TO dpos TO KaXovpevov Apios. As an 
alternative he suggests that the words 
ma.oos...7pvuvioe may have crept into the 
text from some such gloss as the following : 
THs Mivw zadds kat Taowpans THs java 
[Muworavpw] év [Bods] popdy zpwivy. 

It will be seen that these scholars unani- 
mously proceed on the assumption that the 
words adds...mpvurvide are descriptive of 
Ariadne. Dr. Jackson, however, who first 
drew my attention to the passage, observes 
that in that case the iteration of the word 
Avoviow is strange. It is not used more 
than once in any of the parallel clauses, and 
had a repetition been required we should 
have expected the pronoun airé. This may 
be taken as an indication that the words 
mavdos...mpvpvidoe cover the name and eponym 
of another deme. 

Assuming, then, that in the clause autos 
matpopirys, THs pixOelons Avoviow ev popdp 
mpvpvids we have to look for the name of a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


fresh deme and its mythological derivation, 
we first note that the MSS. read not zatpo- 
diAns—which is a conjecture of Wolf’s—but 
matpopivas. Now it is true that ratpodpiras 
is an incredible form for a prose writer of 
the second century of our era ; but so also 
is tatpopiAns. The probability is that such 
a writer would not have used such a com- 
pound at all ; and, had he done so, he would 
assuredly have written zarpodiAov for its 
genitive case singular. But the form zarpo- 
didas, though foreign to prose, would be 
perfectly legitimate in verse; indeed it 
actually occurs in an epigram by an anony- 
mous author, Anth. Pal. vii. 221, 2. This 
consideration leads me to suppose (1) that 
the words za.dds ratpodidas are the begin- 
ning of a hexameter verse, and (2) that 
they have ousted from the text the name 
which they were intended to illustrate. 

Can we, it may be asked, go a step 
further and restore the lost eponym? I 
think we can, though in the absence of 
documentary proof the matter must of 
course remain conjectural. Among the 
traditional amours of Dionusos there is one 
to which the words za.dds watpodidas seem 
peculiarly applicable, and that one is not 
Ariadne. For Wolf’s suggestion that zarpo- 
didos is used ironically to denote ‘ betraying 
her father’ is a mere makeshift. The Greek 
for ‘loving her father,’ whether in jest or 
earnest, would be qiAorarwp (cp. diropuytup, 
prddeXpos, «.7.A.): our word must be 
passive (cp. ’Apyididros, Acddidos, x.7.A.) and 
means ‘loved by her father,’ an epithet 
which in its present connection suits Pallene 
and no one else. The main outlines of the 
story are these, Dionusos journeying 
through Thrace encountered King Sithon— 


TladAnvas yevernv Bavarnpopov, 6 os mote Kovpns 
olorpov Exov dDeprroy a dpaptrydpov bpevaiwr, 
ovlvylnv avéexomtev* apetpyrous bé dailwv 
pedAdoydpovs prvynotnpas arébpurev, dv tro 
vopy 
KTELVOMEVOOV 
oTpat. 


A > y 4, 
Kavayxndov epowiocovto madXai- 


(Nonnos: Dion. xlviii. 93—7.) 
Undeterred by the fate of previous wooers, 
Dionusos demanded Pallene as his bride, 


kal airifovre Avaiw 
ppixtos avijp knpvée tadatpoovvyny tpevaiwv. 


(Id. ib. 101—2.) 


Pallene in the guise of a wrestler entered 
the lists. The god was victorious, wedded 
his antagonist, and slew her importunate 


247 


parent. It is patent that the phrase zraidds 
matpopivas exactly hits off the daughter of 
this dveépwra toxja (Id. ib. 205). 

But we have still to examine the words 
év poppy mpvuvide. Despite Wolf’s attempted 
rendering ‘forma obversa’ and W. G. 
Humphry’s ‘aliena forma,’ zpvyrvide is a vow 
nihil. Correction must, I think, be based 
on the foregoing legend. The only meta- 
morphosis there described is that Pallene, 
the personified promontory, met Dionusos in 
the guise of a female wrestler. Hence I 
submit that possibly, if not probably, we 
should read év popdy yvuvddu. The I of 
yupvad. may by a well-known error (see 
Bast, Comment. Palaeog. p. 710) have passed 
into the short-limbed P, and the meaning- 
less mpvpvidc have resulted from the conse- 
quent confusion. But if yupvad. be accepted 
as palaeographically possible, it must be 
confessed that év popdp yup~vdds is an odd 
phrase to denote ‘in the guise of a female 
wrestler.’ In fact, for a writer of plain 
prose I should say that it was out of the 
question : at the same time it appears to me 
just such an extravagant expression as we 
should look for in a poet of the decadence. 
I am therefore inclined to suppose that év 
pophy yuuvads formed part of the verse 
quotation from which I conceive the words 
ratoos Tatpopidas to be an excerpt. I refrain 
from including ris ptxGetons Avoviow in the 
inverted commas, although as the text 
stands zaidds...Avoviow is a passable hexa- ” 
meter, because it seems to me probable that 
the writer would cull two isolated phrases 
or perhaps the first five feet of a line, rather 
than one complete verse and three words 
from the middle of another without inter- 
position of his own. 

In brief, I hold that Theophilus, who in 
Book ii. is constantly quoting scraps of 
Greek poetry, penned the passage somewhat 
as follows :— 


"Apiadvets ard THs Ovyatpos 

. Mivw yovatxds 6& Avovicrov’ 

. <HladAnveis aro WadAjvns> 
‘ ravdos tatpoditas Tijs 
pixGelons Arovicw ‘ ev popdy 
yupvade’ 


OO mp ow be 


@Meortets k.7.X. 


Line 3 would be likely enough to drop out 
before line 4, since both begin with [A 
and both end with HC, the resultant text 
being the MS. reading. 

I gather, then, that in the Alexandrine 
vd7 Avovveia there was a ninth deme called 


248 


Pallene. This in itself will not appear 
improbable, when we recollect that it was 
the Greeks in Alexandria who were thus 
divided into tribes and demes (see Pauly, 
Real-Encyc. ed. 2, col. 1378 jin.), and that 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


at Athens there was in fact an important 
deme belonging to the tribe Antiochis which 
bore the name Pallene (see Indices to C.I.@. 
and C.1.A.). 

ARTHUR BERNARD Cook. 





AD BABRII FABULAS NUPER REPERTAS. 


Basrit fabulam inscriptam vids kat ew 
yeypappevos e tabulis ceratis Lugdunensi- 
bus inde a vs. 12 sic repraesentavit collega 
meus aestimatissimus van J.eeuwen in 
Mnemosyne Batava a. 1894, 2, p. 225: 


\ , ‘\ A / 3 , 
kat 51) Tote TAS TOV A€ovTOs Ov TOppw 
“KaKELOTE~ ov Tov Wevorny 
» ” ‘ - 
dvepov doppalow malrpos detgas 
ey} / 
15 eyes pe Ppovpe me[prBa]Aav yuvatkeia. 


FQ te tak \ , > 4 
ti On €Tt GOL Noyorguv KOUK eEpyovVv 
”? 


TOL® 

roixw S& xeipas (del. v. L.) éeBare TOV 
Neovra TUPAWTOY. 

oxotop 8&8 tovTw tmoduvakeka- 
datpaadorvs 

tis capkos <iadds nonvudgOmoLwy 

20 Geppa 8 én atte i. 

5 mpéaBus ovtws ov« Ecwce Tov waida 

pédovra Ovyjckew. Taira TARO yevvaiws 

Kal pip copiLov: TO xpewv yap od pevéset. 


Locum foede depravatum, in quo diductis 
litteris significavi verba corrupta aut sus- 
pecta, sic corrigere conatus sum : 


‘ , \ la) / > / 
Kal 0) WoTE OTAS TOV A€oVTOS Ov TOPPw 
, rn > , Nie , 
kdxuote [Onpav, ire has,| ov Tov Pevorny 
” my ” ‘ 4 
dvepov [dAAws| dppacw rarpos detEas 
15 dyes pe dpovpa rel pBa]rav yovatKeia. 
7.8 nTvw ASYOLGL KOLK Epyov TOLd; (1) 
roixw 8 éréBade tov A€ovTa TLPpAWOwY. 
oxddoy 8& tov (1) civ 68vats Kad 
atpwwdous 
THS  capKos «iodds 
éprordy: (tH) 
20 Oéppa 8 am (in?) aitov q [yay & 
Biov Oarrov 4}. 


na » ’ 
onwiv nvve 


Vs. 13] non male van Leeuwen kaxworov, 
ete, Onpiov, sed sire vera xakeote est in ta- 
bella, alio opus est supplemento. Praefero 
tamen meo supplemento id quod Polak (qui 
in sequenti Mnemosynes fasciculo de his 
fabulis scribet), mecum communicavit : 
kaxiote [, pyot, Oypiwv| «.7.€., quod ipsa 
simplicitate commendatur. Hidem debetur 


quod versui proximo intuli supplementum. . 
Furiae paraphrasis : 76 ovap—®o aitos Edpaxev 
év trvos watyv, unde non praeferendum 
arbitror [pdryv] dvepov «.7t.A. Vs. 17] 
TudAwowv pro adpaviav accipi posse vix 
credo. Jn idem se incidisse mihi scripsit 
Polak. - Vs. 18] rovrw, scil. 76 radi, usur- 
patum pro air@ suspectum. Cogitavi de 
TOUTOD, SC. TOU ToLxov, Sed aegre careo pueri 
significatione. aiuddovs proleptice dictum 
esse vix est quod moneam. Vs. 19] Hesse- 
ling dederat cicdtons qvuce tov. Ceterum 
quod e.g. dedi dubitationi valde obnoxium 
esse me non latet, nam et .accentus in voce 
tradita woav pugnat cum metro Babriano 
et parum respondet paraphrasis Bodleiana 
GAynpa ob Kal preypoviv wEeExX pt BovP o- 
vwv eipyacato. Prior quidem difficultas 
tolleretur coniectura z[A]eio[rov] jvva(er) 
wvov, sed altera restat. Accentus premit 
etiam zro.@ vs. 16 et tuav fab. v, 9. Vs. 20] 
De forma 6épya pro bépuy consulatur Lobeck 
ad Phrynichum p. 331. Reliqua correctio 
incerta. Paraphr. Bodl. habet zuperds re 
érl tovros avaias Tov maida OatTTOV TOD 
Biov timweéEnyayev. De sequentibus 
plane satisfaciet Polak meus, cuius sagacitati 
imprimis commendo vs. 16 et 19, de quibus 
ipse despero. Mediocriter enim placet quod 
praeterea venit in mentem ti dy émt cou 
Adyout KodK Ep y (ous?) Ovo; Le. patvouat. 
Nihil ibi auxilii est in paraphrasi @ ri d€ cou 
€ya apt TOLATY ; 

In fabula €Aados Kal xuvyyérae (tab. vii. 
init.) 


‘ ? e / ‘ - ‘\ / > , 
tov © of 7ddes pév ols TO TpdcOev HOVmeL 
div€cwlov: os O° HAGE eis péoas VAas, 
M” ‘ / ‘\ > 4, ec 
dlois Ta Kepata oupmrAaKels EOnpevOy K.T.E. 


recte improbat van Leeuwen Hesselingii 
coniecturam s 57 8’ 7AGev. Equidem nihil 
melius reperio quam ds d eiondOev. 


H. van HERWERDEN. 


Scribebam Traiecti ad Rh. 
Kalendis April. 1894. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 249 


PLAUTUS CAPT. v. 851. 


Horaeum scombrum et trugonum et cetum et 
mollem caseum ? 


Mr. Hatwiprr, in his recent edition of the 
play in Maecmillan’s Classical Series (London 
and New York, 1891), comments thus: 
‘@patos applied to fish properly means 
“in season” (Soph. Fr. 446) and dp. rapryos 
=“ fish pickled in season,”’ z.e. when at their 
best. In Latin the word does not occur 
elsewhere ; its proper meaning “in season ” 
is out of place here and it is generally 
translated “ pickled,” but there seems to be 
no instance of its meaning this in Greek. 
Ussing takes it to mean “qui uere, ris 
®pas, wenit,” ze. “spring-mackerel,” but the 
epithet would be superfluous if the season 
were spring and absurd if it were not. 
Possibly it means “young,” cf. Ar. £9. 
1008, wept oxopBpwv véwv.’ Weise, also, in 
his Die Griechischen Worter im Latein, p. 121, 
says:—‘Nach der Art des Priparats 
erhielten diese eingesalzenen Fische ver- 
schiedene Namen, je nachdem sie mager 
oder fett, in grossen oder kleinen Stiicken, 
halb oder ganz mariniert wurden. Zur 
mageren Sorte gehérte das von Plautus 
Capt. 851 erwihnte horaewm=<dpaiov se. 
taptxos, d. h. das zur rechten Zeit, niimlich 
im Friihjahre, von jungen Thunfischen 
bereitete.’ 


It seems to me, however, that the com- 
mentators on this passage have wasted their 
efforts in trying to find a remote allusion. 
The natural meaning of horaewm would be 
‘ot the season,’ ze. ‘fresh’ ; and that is, I 
believe, the meaning here ; for— 

1. The fact that tdpiyos dpaiov occurs 
in Alex. Iovyp. 1, 5, meaning pickled fish is 
no proof that tdpixyos is to be supplied 
here. 

2. wpaia mnAapis=‘tunny of the season’ 
apparently in Soph. Fr. 446. 

3. If the tunny was commonly pickled, it 
would lend point to the speech of the para- 
site here for him to specify that as a 
particular delicacy in this case the fish was 
to be fresh. 

4. As the parasite is here making a show 
of his extreme hunger and his extravagant 
desires, he would quite naturally mention a 
very large fresh fish, such as at Rome so 
notoriously often graced the great feasts of 
the wealthy, rather than the smaller young 
fish which are said to have been used for 
pickling in the spring. This is especially 
probable from the connexion in the rest of 
the verse, as both the other two species 
mentioned are wont to grow to a great size 
in the Mediterranean. 

Karu P. Harrineron, 

Oniversity of North Carolina. 


PLAUTUS, S7ICHUS 700. 


Mr. W. M. Liypsay’s correction of amica 
in the beginning of this verse to mica is 
most brilliant and, to me at least, convincing ; 
I should, however, write Jam mica or mica 
tu. A reference to the new edition of the 
Dictionary of Antiquities (Micare digitis) 
will supply many instances where this 
guessing at the number of fingers held up 
was equivalent to drawing of lots. In the 
713th verse—bibe, tibicen: age si quid agis : 


NO, LXX. VOL. VIII. 


bibendum hercle hoc est ; ne nega—l suggest 
that the difficulty may arise from /ercle 
which is possibly a mistake for helce, i.e. 
e\xe ‘toss it off.’ This scene is full of 
Greek. The line might have run: 


Bibe, tibicen : age si quid, agis: bibedum : 


é\xe hocst ! né nega. 
or hoc sis. 
ARTHUR PALMER. 


250 - THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


PROPERTIANA. 


II. 10, 21—24. 

Ut caput in magnis ubi non est tangere 

signis : 

Ponitur hic imos ante corona pedes ; 

Sic nos nune, inopes laudis conscendere 

carmen, 

Pauperibus sacris vilia tura damus, 

Currum and culmen are well-known 
suggestions for carmen and either would do 
very well if the only task proposed were to 
find a noun which would suit conscendere. 
But it is also necessary to make the idea 
harmonize with a metaphor in the penta- 
meter. And I think the key is supplied by 
Horace’s words : ‘Te nihil attinet Tentare 
multa caede bidentium Parvos coronantem 
marino Rore deos_ fragilique myrto.’ 
Propertius says: ‘I cannot offer meat 
sacrifices, only cheap frankincense.’ Carnem 
will be an easy change from carmen; and 
the distich may be thus written : 

Sic nos nune inopes laufis consczndere 

carmem, 

Pauperibus sacris vilia tura damus. 

‘Too poor to cut up flesh with expensive 
rites’: sacris being supplied from the 
second verse. 

Lautis has been proposed but not with 
this construction : /udis conscindere tawros 
has also been suggested. 

TEL. 10,21; 

Sit mensae ratio, noxque inter pocula currat, 
Et crocino naris murreus ungat onyx. 
Night should not come just yet (vs. 30). 

Read : 

nosque inter pocula currant. 

‘ Let our cups go swiftly round.’ 

Tit. 20, 22. 

Non habet ultores nox vigila deos. 

Read vigilata, not vigilanda. 

III. 18, 24. 

Scandenda est troci publica cymba senis. 


Troct N. troct D.V.: torvi vulgo. 

Perhaps Orci. Propertius may have 
identified Orcus with Charon (Gloss. 
Philox. : Orcus, Charon): if not, sents may 
be changed perhaps to semel, if senis is 
too irreverent an epithet for Orcus, z.¢. Dis. 

LV, 13. 


Murus erant montes:. ubi nunc est curia— 


saepta, 

Bellicus ex illo fonte bibebat equus. 

I propose the following arrangement :— 
Murus erant montes: ubi nunc est curia, 

saepta ; 

Bellicus ex illo fonte bibebat equus. 

‘Where the senate house stands now, 
there were cattle-pens,’ 

TIT. 24; 2b. 

Illic vel studiis animum emendare Platonis 
Incipiam aut hortis, docte Epicure, tuis. 
Persequar aut studium linguae Demosthenis 

arma. i 

Vel has been changed to aut by Miiller, 
the sequence vel—aut being _ solecistic. 
Studiis is not in itself likely, is not 
coordinate with fortis, and gives offence 
owing to studium recurring so soon. Hence 
Broukhusius has changed it to stadiws or 
spatiis. Stadiis has found acceptance with 
Bihrens, but is unlikely, as a Greek word, 
if for no other reason. Spatiis is no doubt 
possible. But how does vel come to be in 
all the good MSS.? Perhaps Propertius 
wrote : 
lic vestibulis animum emendare Platonis 

Incipiam. 

Vestibula might mean the porticos in 
the Academus. It would of course be more 
suitable to the Porch of the Stoics: and I 
would not deny that Propertius might have 
been thinking of them. 

A. PALMER. 





NOTES ON 


Verg. G. i. 77, and G. ii, 189. 
(a) ‘ Udoque docent inolescere libro.’ 
(6) ‘ Etiam inscius aevi.’ 


Modern commentators seem doubtful 
about the meaning of ‘udo’ and ‘inscius 


VERGIL. 


aevi’ in these passages. However that may 
be, it seems clear that Symmachus_ the 
orator took the words as simply applying to 
youthful vigour. At least he makes use of 
the passages in extolling the early elevation 
of Gratian to the throne. I will quote the 
passage at length as interesting if not 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 251 


instructive. ‘Kt mehercule tenacius rapit 
inperii disciplinas teneritudo primaeva : 
virtus, cum cito inchoat, diutius perseverat. 
nempe virentibus ramis artifex rusticandi 
alienum germen includit, ut novella prae- 
segmina coagulo libri wvidioris (?) inolescant. 
audio in edomandis equis aevi, ut ait [vates], 
inscios aptius essedis colla subiun|gere}.’ 
Laud. in Grat. ch. 6 (Seeck p. 331). (uvidi- 
ovis is Kiessling’s reading for the MS. 
ubidiovis. ) 


Verg. Eel. iv. 46. 

(c) Talia saecla suis 
fusis Concordes Parcae. 

The same speech (ch. 9) shows that 
Symmachus did not regard ‘ Talia saecla’ as 
vocative, as some moderns and Servius have 
done, whatever his view of the accusative 
may be: ‘Et vere, si fas est praesagio 
futura conicere, iamdudum aurewm saeculum 
currunt Jusa Parcarum’ (Laud. in Grat. ch. 
9, Seeck p. 332). W. C. F. Watters. 


dixerunt currite 





HENRI ESTIENNE, 


Proressor ENGLAND has done well to 
defend Henri Estienne from the charges 
brought against him by Prof. Tyrrell and 
Dr. Sandys. Had they been better ac- 
quainted with that great man’s life and 
character, they would, I feel sure, never 
have brought them. Prof. England has 
perhaps forgotten that a similar accusation 
used to be current against Estienne’s edition 
of Plutarch, until recently it was disproved 
by Sintenis, who showed that every one of 
Kstienne’s conjectures could be traced to 
some MS. or other. Estienne, like all the 


other editors of his time, did not give refer- 
ences to the authorities for his readings, 
but he was quite incapable of inventing 
readings. 

In conclusion, why do Englishmen persist 
in calling him by that absurd name ‘ Henry 
Stephens’ 4 

ARTHUR ‘TILLEY. 


[A reply from Professor Tyrrell to Pro- 
fessor England’s article has been received 
too late for publication in this number, and 
will appear in July. ; 





SCHULZE’S EDITION OF 


Catulli Veronensis liber, recensuit Aemilius 
Baehrens. noua editio a K. P. Scuunze 


curata. Lipsiae, Teubner, 1893. Pp. 
Ixxvi, 127. 4 Mk. 
Tue first edition of Baehrens’ Catullus, 


which now that the second has appeared 
will fetch fancy prices, was in the rigour 
of the term an epoch-making work. But 
it exhibited a text of the author much 
corrupted by unprovoked or unlikely or 
incredible conjecture ; so that the task of 
revision was delicate, and the choice of a 
reviser was not easy. It was not easy; but 
scholars who are acquainted with the hist- 
tory of Catullus’ text and with the metres 
he wrote in, who know how to edit a book 
and how to collate a manuscript, who are 
capable of coherent reasoning or at all 
events of consecutive thought, exist ; and 
to such a scholar the task might have been 
allotted. 


BAEHRENS’ CATULLUS. 


Jt has been allotted to Mr. Schulze, who 
says, ‘Munus nouae huius libelli editionis 
post praematuram Aemilii Baehrensii mor- 
tem curandae ita suscepi, ut quoad fieri 
posset quam plurima eorum, quae ille ad 
Catulli carmina et recensenda et emendanda 
contulisset, retinerem ac seruarem.’ Out of 
Baehrens’ conjectures Mr. Schulze has found 
it possible to retain six. The first of these 
is the merely orthographical correction 2 
6 Jubet for libet or tubet. Two more are 
specimens of Baehrens’ most despicable 
trifling: 6 9 heic et illeic! for hec et illo, as if 
forsooth that were a less and not a greater 
change than the old hie et i//e ; and 21 13 
net for nec instead of the usual ne, as if nec 
were not a perpetual corruption of me in the 
MSS. of authors who never wrote nei in 
their lives. The three others, 68 139 con- 
cipit, 100 6 egregie est, 111 2 ex nimiis, are 

‘The text has ‘//ci, whether from a misprint or 
from an improvement of Mr, Schulze’s. 


r 2 


252 


somewhat above the low average of Baeh- 
rens’ conjectures. 

But the emendations which place Baeh- 
rens next to Haupt among the post-Lach- 
mannian correctors of Catullus are the 
things which Mr. Schulze has not found it 
possible to retain. Take for shortness’ 
sake the 64th poem only. I will not be 
unreasonable and complain that Mr. Schulze 
omits Baehrens’ correction of v. 75 dla ex 
tempestate ferox quo tempore ; because I know 
that Mr. Schulze has never seen or heard of 
that correction. It occurs in Baehrens’ 
commentary, and Mr. Schulze has not read 
Baehrens’ commentary. That I affirm 
securely : if you ask ‘whence then did Mr. 
Schulze learn (p. 97) that Baehrens had 
proposed prompta at 68 59%’ IT reply that 
he learnt it from Schwabe’s edition of 1886; 
and if you ask ‘how does he know (p. v) 
that Baehrens abandoned in the commentary 
some of his earlier conjectures?’ I reply 
that he knows it from Iwan Mueller’s Jahr- 
esbericht. For if he had read the comment- 
ary he would not merely know that Baeh- 
rens abandoned some conjectures but he 
would know which those conjectures are ; 
and he does not. He still represents Baeh- 
rens as proposing quaecumueis at 64 109, 
though Baehrens in the commentary said 
‘quam formam minime latinam non debui 
olim exemplis male fidis deceptus recipere.’ 
And this barbarous and repudiated deprav- 
ation, and the frivolous Heic at 269, are all 
of Baehrens that Mr. Schulze finds it pos- 
sible even to mention within the 400 verses 
of the 64th poem. The transposition of 216 
and 217, nascente in 275, incultum cano... 
erimem in 350, residens in 387, Amarunsia in 
395,—these may be found at least recorded 
in the editions of other scholars, but not in 
this book which bears on its front ‘recensuit 
Aemilius Baehrens.’ The transposition is 
accepted both by Riese and by Postgate, the 
emendation of 350 by Riese Postgate and 
Schwabe, the emendation of 387 is approved 
by Schwabe and accepted by Riese and 
Schmidt : but no vestige of these corrections 
survives in the monument reared to their 
author’s memory by the Oedipodean piety 
of Mr. Schulze.! 

Baehrens’ are not the only emendations 
which Mr. Schulze finds it impossible to retain 
or even to record. Which is the finest correc- 
tion ever made in Catullus I will not under- 
take to say ; but one of the first half-dozen is 
Froelich’s ‘non est sana puella nec rogare | 
qualis sit solet aes [et MSS.] imaginosum,’ 


* «Tam bene de poeta suo meruit, ut dignus sit, 
cuius memoria pie colatur,’ p. v. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


which Baehrens of course accepted. Mr. 
Schulze ousts it for ‘nec rogate | qualis sit: 
solide est imaginosa.’ But no reader is 
likely to waste a glance on these Berlin 
goods if Froelich’s restoration is left glitter- 


‘ing in the apparatus criticus; so Mr. 


Schulze does not leave it there: he sup- 
presses it. Quaecumque adeo possunt afferre 
pudorem, says Ovid, illa tegi caeca condita 
nocte decet. 

One clue Mr. Schulze appears to possess : 
if he sees the name of Lachmann he follows © 
it, ‘errabunda regens tenui uestigia filo.’ 
I say advisedly the name. At 63 5_he 
expels the emendations of Auantius and 
Bergk and writes ‘deuolsit de’: it is not 
sense, but itis Lachmann’s. A still more 
pleasing instance of simple faith occurs at 
63 74 where Mr. Schulze reads with Lach- 
mann ‘roseis ut huic labellis sonitus abiit 
celer.’ Lachmann himself, ‘ uir egregius’ as 
Haupt calls him ‘et multo quam imbecilli 
capiunt maior, had a reason for adding 
celer: his theory of the pagination of the 
archetype made this verse the 18th line on 
the 41st page, while the 18th line on the 
39th page was ‘aliena quae petentes velut 
exules loca celeri,’ whence he took the hyper- 
metrical word to repair the deficiency here. 
But Mr. Schulze does not hold Lachmann’s 
theory, for on p. lxiv he retains a note of 
Baehrens’ which says ‘ tota ista numerorum 
singularum in V paginarum paginarumque 
uersuum computatio a Lachmanno instituta et 
ab Hauptio |quaest. Cat. p. 59-49; op. I 28 
sq. | multis defensa ad nihilum recidit’; nor is 
it through inadvertence that he retains this 
note, for he has taken the trouble to write 
‘ab Hauptio’ where Baehrens wrote ‘a 
Hauptio’ and to add the reference to the 
opuscula. He has abandoned then the basis 
of Lachmann’s conjecture, but to the con- 
jecture he adheres ; and why not? its merit 
is not that he thinks it has a basis but that 
he knows it is Lachmann’s. Again, when 
Lachmann has emended a passage, Mr. 
Schulze allows no one to improve Lach- 
mann’s emendation, because he does not 
know whether the improvement is an im- 
provement and he does know that it is not 
Lachmann’s. At 66 58 the MSS. have 
‘gratia Canopieis incola litoribus,’ Lach- 
mann emended Graia, and Baehrens im- 
proved this to Grazia, which Lachmann of 
course would have adopted, as any one can 
see who turns to his note on Lucr. i 477 or 
remembers, as Haupt says, ‘quotiens ex 
antiquae scribendi consuetudinis recorda- 
tione maxime Lachmannus in Catulli carmini- 
bus fructum ceperit.’ But no painting of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the lily for Mr. Schulze, who ejects Gratia 
and replaces Graia in the text. I do not 
know all the salutations with which his idol 
will hereafter welcome him to Elysium, nor 
durst I write them down if I did; but from 
what happened to Eichstaedt and Forbiger 
I can tell that mancipium and simius are 
two of them. At the end of the note 
however Mr. Schulze ventures on a sugges- 
tion of his own: ‘fortasse grata.’ It is 
news then to this editor of Catullus that 
for 300 years no text was printed with any 
other reading than grata: history for him 
begins with 1829: he supposes Scaliger and 
Heinsius and Bentley and the rest of them 
went on content with gratia till Lachmann 
came upon earth to tell mankind that it was 
a trisyllable. 

This brings us to Mr.. Schulze’s own 
emendations. One of these, monendum est 
te for monendum est at 39 9, is no worse 
than the monendwm te est and monendus es 
of others, so that the odds against it are 
only two to one. Then in several places he 
writes woster where the MSS. are divided 
between wester and noster. Catullus may of 
course have used that form, but this diver- 
gency of the MSS. affords not the slightest 
ground for thinking that he did : wester and 
noster are interchanged not in his text only, 
but in all authors whose MSS. are medieval ; 
and they are interchanged not because those 
authors wrote woster but from the cause 
exhibited in Mr. Schulze’s own note at 71 
3: ‘arm VM: nrmg.’ At 10 25 sqq. Mr. 
Schulze punctuates ‘quaeso, inquit, mihi, mi 
Catulle, paulum | istos: commoda nam uolo 
ad Serapim | deferri,’ but omits to say 
whether this means ‘I wish my emoluments 
to be carried to Serapis’ or ‘I wish to be 
carried to Serapis in an obliging frame of 
mind.’ Finally he emends 29 20 thus : 


hune Galliae timent, timet Britannia. 


Two metrical solecisms in one line. 

Baehrens’ spelling, which was bad, Mr. 
Schulze has corrected as well as he knows 
how. He knows how to spell sicine nequit- 
quam and condicio; so these words are 
rightly spelt. He does not know how to 
spell wnidus iucundus sodalicium or multa ; 
these words therefore retain their Baehren- 
sian forms. 

Baehrens’ apparatus criticus was, as usual, 
a model of lucidity and order. Take a few 
examples of what it now is. At 68 140 the 
text has ‘noscens omniuoli plurima furta 
Touis,’ where ‘ furta’ is an old and generally 
accepted correction for the ‘facta’ of the 


253 


MSS. An editor who knows his trade 
expresses this fact by writing ‘furta waulgo, 
facta V. Mr. Schulze’s note is ‘plurima 
facta VM plurima furta wu/go’: to occupy 
the printer he writes ‘ plurima’ twice where 
it ought not to be written at all; to delay 
the reader he puts the note wrong end fore- 
most. At 115 2 is a still wilder scene: 
text, ‘Maeciliam: facto consule nune 
iterum’: note of a competent workman, 
‘Maeciliam Lachmannus, Mecilia G, Mecilia 
O. Maecilia wulgo, Mucillam Pleitnerus’ : 
note of Mr. Schulze, ‘Mecilia OM Mecilia 
G | facto VM | Maecilia: facto wulgo Mae- 
ciliam ; facto Lachmannus Mucillam : facto 
Pleitnerus.’ Another revelation of the 
amateur encounters us in such places as 64 
386: the text is ‘saepe pater diuum templo 
in fulgente reuisens,’ which is the MBS. 
reading, so that of course there should be 
no note at all unless some conjecture is to 
be mentioned : Mr. Schulze writes ‘reuisens 
VM.” Why not ‘saepe VM, pater VM, 
diuum VM, templo VM, in VM, fulgente 
VM’? Elsewhere Mr. Schulze’s ignorance 
of how things are done and inability to 
learn have made his notes completely unin- 
telligible, and a reader who wants to know 
what the MSS. give must consult another 
edition, Take 61 46 sq.: text, ‘quis deus 
magis est ama- | tis petendus amantibus’ : 
note, ‘amatis VM magis a magis Sealiger 
anexiis Hauptius magis est ama-tis Bergk- 
ius’: problem, what is the MS. reading? 
From other editions you learn that it is 
‘magis amatis est.’ These are the sights 
which may now be seen in what was once 
the apparatus criticus of Baehrens: for 
appropriate comments I refer the reader to 
Cic. Phil. ii c. 41. 

Now for the prolegomena. The prolego- 
mena, I need not say, were the kernel of 
Baehrens’ edition. In them he demonstrated, 
what no one suspected before but every one 
acknowledges now, that the Oxoniensis (QO) 
and the Sangermanensis (G) are the authori- 
ties on which the text of Catullus rests. 
All that is now in dispute is whether the 
other MSS. are quite useless, as Baehrens 
held, or only almost useless, as his opponents 
hold. His prolegomena are thus the chief 
landmark in the criticism of Catullus’ 
MSS., and there were two reasons why 
they should have been kept intact: their 
intrinsic merit, and their historical interest. 
Errors they may contain; and Bentley’s 
Horace and Lachmann’s Lucretius contain 
errors, but Mr. Schulze has not yet been 
invited to revise those works. 

Baehrens held that G and O are the only 


254 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


copies ever made of the lost archetype V, 
and that the other MSS. (¢) are all derived 
from G. His disputation ran as follows. 
When Gand O disagree, > almost always 
side with G; and they side with it not only 
in corruptions but in false conjectures 
which its corrector has introduced and 
which they cannot have -got from any 
ancient MS.: therefore ¢ are derived from 
G. On the other hand all s, or nearly all, 
often agree in one reading when G and O 
agree in another: therefore >, except per- 
haps the Datanus, are not derived straight 
from G but from an apograph of G contain- 
ing conjectures. The few instances where > 
agree with O against G are partly due to 
true conjectures in this apograph, partly, 
where the difference is very minute, to 
accident : the Santenianus (L) has marginal 
readings taken from O, but whether O was 
ever transcribed entire he doubts. Where 
G and O and ¢ all three differ, the reading 
of ¢ is conjectural. As to the Datanus (D), 
which has at least one interpolation from 
Thomas Seneca, none of its readings (pos- 
quam, demostres, ete.) are necessarily genuine 
but may be sham-antique: sometimes, like 
almost all other MSS., it gives better read- 
ings than GO, but these are conjectures: it 
is so interpolated that he does not trouble 
to decide whether it comes straight from G 
or through the same apograph as the others, 
for from G it comes: else why does it agree 
with G in error where O preserves the truth, 
and why, above all, does it reproduce almost 
every reading of G’s corrector? questions 
which also apply to the rest of >. He then 
discusses the marginal variants found in G : 
these must have been in the archetype 
because the scribe of G says he had only one 
exemplar: many of them appear in s¢, 
which shows that they had most of them 
been copied into the apograph of G from 
which ¢ are derived. 

Baehrens’ arguments are now expunged, 
and in their place stands printed matter 
composed by Mr. Schulze. He sets out to 
demonstrate that all our MSS. come from a 
single codex, and fills more than two pages 
with passages which prove, or do not prove 
(the very first is ‘I 5 est pro es codd. omnes 
sinceri’ where of course ‘sinceri’ just begs 
the question), what might have been proved 
in two lines: I notice that this form of 
exercise is now much in vogue with ama- 
teurs who wish to be critics and think this 
is the way. The archetype, he holds, was 
four times transcribed: one transcript is O, 
another G: ‘librorum OG _ praestantiam 
magnus numerus locorum ostendit, quibus 


soli [my italics] neram lectionem aut certe 
meliorem quam ceteri omnes [mine again] 
codices praebent.’ The list begins ‘I 9 
quod OG ¢ plerique: quidem ¢ complures,’ 
and contains ‘42 22 nobis OG > plerique: 
uobis > pauci’ and ‘61 100 wolet OG > 
plerique: nolet D, nollet AL’: Mr. Schulze 
is proving what is indisputably true and 
denied by nobody, and yonder is how he 
proves it. Then follow a number of places 
where ¢ agree with g (i.e. the corrector 


of G) in opposition to OG, and then (p. xliii) . 


these incredible words : ‘uel hae re eorum 
opinio refutatur, qui, ut Baehrensius et qui 
eum secuti sunt, omnes > ex G@ fluxisse 
opinentur. nam cum codd.s> saepe cum G 
facere supra uideremus, qua re illi ut ¢ ex 
G descriptos esse putarent inducti sunt, hic 
non minorem numerum locorum congessimus, 
quibus ¢ cum g consentiunt.’ And pra 
what is g? simply the corrector of G: the 
fact then that > agree with the corrections 
found in G proves that Baehrens was wrong 
in supposing s to be derived from G! This 
is no malevolent fiction of mine: it is what 
Mr. Schulze has written and Messrs. Teubner 
printed. But in the next sentence Mr. 
Schulze faintly remembers what g is, so he 
says that if the corrections in G are derived, 
as he holds, from some lost copy of the 
archetype, ‘ manifestum est fieri potuisse ut 
etiam ¢ non ex G, sed ex eodem illo codice 
correcto fluerent’ : fieri potuisse / so evapor- 
ates our refutation of DBaehrens. ‘ Atque 
adeo g s inter se conspirant, ut ex eodem 
codice interpolato descripti esse uideantur ’ : 
yes, and Abraham and Isaac were so much 
alike that they appear to have _ been 
brothers. 

Next we have places where s agree with 
OG against g ; then ‘ Og ¢ saepius contra G 
facere uidemus,’ and of this ‘frequent’ 
phenomenon five examples are given, one of 
which is an example where it happens, and 
four of which are examples where it does 
not happen ; then passages where I) and the 
rest of > desert G' and agree with O are 
quoted, legitimately, though in stupefying 
disorder, to prove that ¢ are not derived 
from G. Some of these are places where G 
is wrong and ¢ are right, on which Mr. 
Schulze remarks (p. xlvi) ‘qua in re ut sane 
concedendum est facile fuisse librariis uitia 
illa corrigere, ita mirum est, quamuis ses- 
centies in transcribendis corruptelis seribas 
summa religione uti uideamus, illas a cwnetis 
[Mr. Schulze’s italics] felicissime esse cor- 
rectas.’ Cunctis! why, who ever dreamed 
of maintaining that each of the scribes made 
these corrections for himself? Baehrens, as 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


T have related, held that > were all derived 
from a single apograph of G, and that all 
corrections common to all = were derived 
from that apograph. But because Messrs. 
Teubner allow Mr. Schulze to maul Baeh- 
rens’ work out of all recognition, he appears 
to think that he can with equal ease obliter- 
ate it from human memory. ‘Then passages 
are quoted where s have the reading which 
by comparing O we infer to have been G’s 
original reading now erased by the corrector 
g. All these examples of > agreeing with 
O against G are of course valid prima facie 
objections to Baehrens’ theory. Baehrens’ 
answer was ‘ talia, si falsa sunt, mero casui 
adtribuas : sin recta, aut casui aut Italorum 
ingenio.’ This perhaps is not plausible ; 
but on the other hand Mr. Schulze has no 
ground for concluding ‘praeter duo illa 
apographa codicis V, G et O, tertium su- 
mendum est, ex quo deriuati sunt gs, uel 
potius, cum inter hos quoque D quidem et 
qui cum eo consentiunt et M _ insignem 
obtinere locum uideamus, quartum.’ All 
readings which ¢ share with O they may 
have derived from O. 

But in order to prove that sare authori- 
ties independent of O and G Mr. Schulze 
now quotes a page anda half of readings 
from ¢ which he thinks better than O’s 
and G’s. They are all obvious conjectures, 
except one which is an exploded corruption, 
one in which he misreports the MSS., one 
which is probably interpolated from Quin- 
tilian, and the following two: ‘65 16 Bat- 
tiadae| bactiade B > pauci: actiade O, ac- 
ciade G. 66 5 sub Latmia| sublamia B: 
sublamina O, sublimia G ¢ plerique.’ But 
bactiade may be a conjecture, as that was 
one of the many ways they spelt this name 
in the 15th century ; and suwhlamia may be 
no more than a corruption of sublamia. 
Therefore Mr. Schulze is mistaken in saying 
‘nonnulla ea habent expressae sinceritatis 
signa, ut facere non possimus quin eis fidem 
habeamus.’ Against the view that the 
good readings in s are conjectures he has 
this notable argument : ‘nemo quidem cre- 
det, eundem correctorem, quem aliis locis 
hominem indoctum cognouimus, hic illic 
mira sagacitate optimas correcturas suo 
ingenio inuenisse.’ Hundem correctorem ! 
Remember that on p. xlvi it suited him to 
assume that readings common to all ¢ 
must, if conjectures, have been made by 
each scribe for himself: now, when for 
instance at 64 120 he finds one MS. and 
one only giving praeoptaret, and giving it 
merely in the margin, he assumes that this 
reading must, if a conjecture, have been 


255 


made by the scribe of the common arche- 
type of all s. 

Then we deal particularly with the two 
MSS. which Mr. Schulze regards as holding 
an ‘insignem locum’ among ¢. First D, 
which ‘ceteris codicibus hisce praestat 
locis’: the places are 23 in number (and in 
several of them, since the list is of Mr. 
Schulze’s making, other MSS. read just the 
same as D), some of them obvious conjec- 
tures, some bad corruptions, one probably 
interpolated from Seneca, one in which Mr, 
Schulze contradicts his own apparatus criti- 
cus, and these two,—1 2 arrida, 25 11 insuta, 
the latter of which is worth something if it 
is really in the MS.; but these two read- 
ings are not found in D by other collators 
and rest on the testimony of Mr. Schulze ; 
and if any one, after hearing what I shall 
shortly say about M, chooses to accept Mr. 
Schulze’s testimony, let him. Then follow 
passages, proving nothing, where D ‘optima 
tradidit’ in company with OG or O or¢; 
then our old friends the ‘ priscae uerborum 
formae’ which are no doubt D’s most plau- 
sible feature ; but Mr. Schulze has drawn 
up the list, so it contains eleven which are 
also found in G or O or both: it is true 
that what he set out to prove was that D 
is not derived from O or G but from a 
separate apograph of V; but that was 
some pages back, so he has forgotten it. 
Lastly, crown of glory, ‘ uersum 65 9 paene 
solus tradidit,’ alloquar audiero numquam 
tua loquentem. Then are duly enumerated 
D’s faults, its blunders and interpolations, 
among the latter 68 47 omnibus et triuiis 
uulgetur fabula passim, which would do D 
even greater credit than alloquar audiero 
but for the mischance that we know it was 
written by Thomas Seneca. 

‘ Neque minus insignem locum inter ¢ 
codex M tenere mihi uidetur, qui et ipse 
magnum numerum bonarum lectionum prae- 
bet’: this is the Venetus excerpted by 
Ellis. There follow two pages of these 
‘bonae lectiones,’ many of which of course 
are bad (one of them is 68 50 where M has 
the false a/ii and the right reading A//i is in 
O!), while of those which are not bad only 
one is peculiar to M. True, the reader 
would never guess this, for Mr. Schulze 
only notes the agreement of other MSS. 
in about a third of his examples, and 
leaves you to draw the false inference that 
in the other two thirds, where he does not 
note their agreement, they do not agree: in 
another writer this suppression of facts 
would argue fraud, but no such hypothesis 
is necessary in the case of Mr, Schulze, 


256 


Not one of the readings quoted has any 
sign of genuineness. But ‘accedunt priscae 
formae’: e.g. Bithynia, Phrygti, coetus, laby- 
rintheis, cachinni / Others of these are not 
peculiar to M but found also in O or G or 
both or >: the reader has guessed, before 
I tell him, that Mr. Schulze sometimes 
states this fact and sometimes conceals it. 
Others contradict his apparatus criticus, as 
23 1 seruos. Neptumnus at 31 3 and antemne 
at 64 234 are not the readings of M but 
merely Mr. Schulze’s interpretation of its 
readings : it has neptinus and anténe, which 
are identical with the neptunnus and an- 
tenne of other MSS. ‘< Etiam in his lectioni- 
bus complures sunt quas non ingenio scribae 
deberi manifestum est, ut’—then one of 
Mr. Schulze’s lists, comprising for instance 
76 18 extrema, which is undisguisedly a con- 
jectural accommodation of G’s and O’s ea- 
tremo to the gender of morte; and 25 5 
oscitantes, which is in G, so that Mr. 
Schulze need not be at all afraid of our im- 
puting it ‘ingenio scribae.’ These readings, 
he placidly continues, are confirmed by the 
fact that most of them are found in other 
MSS. (such is the ‘insignis locus’ occupied 
by M), ‘whence we may readily infer that 
the good readings peculiar to M are also 
derived from V.’ On this logic it is the 
less necessary to comment, because there are 
only two good readings peculiar to M. They 
are thuniam for thimiam at 31 5 and hinsi- 
dias for insidias at 84 2. And these two— 
does my reader flatter himself that he has lost 
by this time the power to wonder at anything ? 
I promise to amaze him now—these two read- 
ings, the only two good readings peculiar to 
M which Mr. Schulze can find, are not in M 
at all. They are figments of Mr. Schulze’s. 
A facsimile of M has been issued by Count 
Nigra and may be seen at the British 
Museum: the handwriting is beautifully 
clear and the ink is beautifully black: and 
M gives thimiam and insidias just like any 
other MS. We see then that Mr. Schulze 
the collator is in no way inferior to Mr. 
Schulze the critic, Mr. Schulze the metrist, 
and Mr. Schulze the logician. And with 
such a collation of such a MS. has Mr. 
Schulze sullied Baehrens’ apparatus criticus 
from end to end. Worse: whereas he says 
that M is derived from V, he exhibits it 
throughout as an independent authority, 
and you find ‘arido VM’ at 1 2 and you 
find ‘dabis VM’ at 116 8 and you find 
‘ VM’ on every page between. 

Last comes the question of marginal 
variants in the archetype. Mr. Schulze has 
taken Baehrens’ list of the variants in G, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


and has mixed up with it all the variants he 
can find in s and especially in his precious 
M; and he, who has himself collated that 
codex, has done so without discovering what 
is patent to every one who sets eyes on the 
facsimile, that nine tenths of its variants 


‘are from a later hand. It is clear, he then 


proceeds to say, that these variants found 
their way into M and ¢ not from G but 
from some other MS8.: ‘nam cum G octo- 
ginta omnino praebeat atque inde ab ec. 
Ixvii nullas, M 155 per totum librum Catul-. 
lianum aequaliter distributas habet.’ If 
you say you have three sons at a school 
where there are 100 boys, Mr. Schulze will 
ask whether you are the father of the re- 
maining 97, and if you disclaim the honour 
he will tell you that in that case you cannot 
really be the father of the three. But he 
has another argument: ‘ quodsi omnes > 
ex G descripti essent, ponendum est singu- 
lares codicum O, M, B, L, aliorum duplices 
lectiones a scribis horum librorum fictas 
esse ; id quod uel propterea fieri non potest, 
quod multae earum in textu aliorum extant 
codicum.’ First, observe the ratiocination : 
because many of the variants in OMBL ete. 
are found in the text of other codices, there- 
fore the variants in OMBL ete. which are 
not found in the text of other codices 
cannot have been invented by the scribes of 
OMBL etc. Secondly, it is not true that 
the hypothesis which derives > from G 
compels us to suppose that these marginal 
variants have been invented by the scribes 
of the MSS. in whose margins they occur : 
what one naturally supposes is that the 
variants in the margins of MBL ete. (I do 
not know what O is doing here, nor does 
Mr. Schulze) have ‘been taken from those 
other MSS. in whose texts they occur ; and 
this is what Mr. Schulze must disprove 
before he will persuade any one that these 
variants come from the archetype. But he 
cannot disprove it: all he can do is to say 
‘nam si [30 9] in B inde al cdem, in GDL 
inde, in O idem legitur, quis dubitet, quin 
in communi archetypo, codice V, duplex illa 
seriptura fuerit?’ That V had the ditto- 
graphy is possible, since O has one reading 
and G the other; but B proves nothing 
unless Mr. Schulze can show that it did not 
get its inde from G and its idem from O. 
He however, as if he had proved his point, 
sails away with ‘iam cum M et B neque ex 
O neque ex G fluxisse certum sit...... , and 
concludes ‘itaque ea quoque, quae de uarlis 
lectionibus codicum Catullianorum exposul- 
mus, etiam codices deteriores quos uocant in 
recensendis poetae carminibus adhibendos 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


esse aperte docent.’ Yes, and if I had been 
in Venice a week before Mr. Schulze and 
had scribbled conjectures of my own in the 
margin of M while the librarian’s back was 
turned, Mr. Schulze, who cannot tell one 
handwriting from another, would have 
copied them all into his list, and they would 
now adorn pp. liv—lix of his prolegomena, 


JEBB’S GROWTH AND INFLUENCE 


The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek 
Poetry. By R. C. Jess, Litt. D., M.P. 
Macmillan and Co. 1893. Pp. xvi. 290. 
7s. net. 


Proressor JEBB has published in this 
volume the course of eight lectures on the 
poetry of Ancient Greece which he delivered 
in 1892 at the Johns Hopkins University, 
Baltimore. Beginning with a brief sketch 
of the rise of Greek civilization, he proceeds 
to discuss the early epic as it appears in 
the Iliad and Odyssey and the Hesiodic 
poems, the lyric) with a special lecture on 
Pindar, and the Attic drama, concluding 
with an essay on the permanent power of 
Greek poetry. 

The foundation upon which the course of 
lectures was delivered is a Lectureship of 
Poetry, and the subject is dealt with in no 
narrow or scholastic spirit. That one of 
the first of living scholars should address 
himself to a popular exposition, in so clear 
and simple a form as this, of the principles 
and masterpieces of Greek poetry, is a sign 
of the times no less interesting than 
welcome. The study of Greek in the old 
sense is on its trial as an important part 
of humane education; it seems certain 
that within a few years it will cease to be 
any necessary part of the best type of 
school or college course. Those who believe 
that this change is a change for the better 
rest their case largely on the broad dis- 
tinction between scholarship as a means, 
a set of gymnastic exercises for certain 
faculties, and scholarship as an end only 
worth following for itself. The compulsory 
study of Greek is not so much being forced 
out or argued down as melting away, but 
the study of Greek for the mere love of 
it is making extraordinary advance : perhaps 
it is not going too far to say that Greek 
has never been studied so much as now, 
nor on the whole so well, 


257 


and he would be maintaining that M got 
them from the archetype. 

Such are the contents of a book which 
carries on its title-page the name of Ae- 
milius Baehrens and the monogram of B, G. 
Teubner. 

A. E. Housman. 


OF CLASSICAL GREEK POETRY. 


And indeed it is when a distinguished 
scholar steps out of the charmed circle and 
in some such way as this communicates his 
results to a larger public than that of 
scholars, that he puts his own achievement 
to one of its highest tests. That there is a 
sense in which the technique of scholarship, 
like the technique of all acquirements, is 
an end in itself, an ‘energy’ in the 
Aristotelian sense, no one would deny. 
But it is an energy subordinate and an- 
cillary in its nature, and if pushed higher 
only develops into pedantry. Scholarship 
as an end in itself is not a technique, but 
a spirit ; its ultimate value to its possessor 
no less than to the world at large may be 
measured by the extent and force of its 
effect on the whole of life. The power of 
simple, true, and melodious expression is 
one of the first ways in which this effect 
should manifest itself. A life spent among 
the masterpieces of literature has been 
somehow spent wrongly if they have not 
saturated the scholar with something of 
their own virtue. 

But further, it is in such popular treat- 
ment of the classics as these lectures 
supply that even more certainly than in 
commentaries or technical discussions the 
distinction is clear between the really 
fine scholar and the scholar who is only 
of the second order. The one thing is 
after all very much a matter of industry, 
of verifying references, where you can 
continually approximate to exactness by 
merely taking pains enough, and even the 
pastime of conjectural emendation is a 
game played by strict rule. But to put 
in intelligible language the exact truth 
about a Greek author, or about any aspect 
of the Greek life and spirit, is a work 
not only of acquirement but of genius. 
There is perhaps no subject in the world 
where the inexact truth is so easy to 
reach ; none certainly where, when reached, 


258 


it is so useless and so worse than useless. 
To praise Professor Jebb’s scholarship has 
long been superfluous, and in any case 
would come ill from one who is little 
better than an amateur; to say that his 
book stands this other test is praise neither 
superfluous nor slight. 

That these lectures satisfy this test in 
varying degrees is of course inevitable. 
There are some parts of Greek literature 
—their earlier lyric poetry is a notable 
instance—where the exact truth is unattain- 
able from mere want of documents; and 
the same is perhaps to some extent true 
-—though the missing documents here are 
not manuscripts—of the Greek drama. It 
is not then surprising that the chapters on 
Homer and on Pindar should stand out 
very prominently from the rest of the book. 
It would be impossible to improve upon the 
sketch here given in the small compass of 
some fifty pages, of the spirit and substance 
of the lliad and Odyssey. One may 
specially note the careful and discriminating 
comparison of the Homeric epic and the 
French Chansons de Geste; the extremely 
fine passage on the characters of Achilles 
and Odysseus; and that on the social 
position of women in the world of the 
Odyssey, with the two remarks, so curiously 
illuminative, on the use of the word pigeo Oar 
in Odyssey vi. 136 and on the popular 
version of the meeting between Odysseus 
and Nausicaa current in Corfu at the present 
day. Not less admirable is the short essay 
on the Hesiodic epics with which this chapter 
concludes; in the contrast between the 
Iliad and Odyssey on the one hand and 
these poems on the other the author has, 
without forcing the note, skilfully conveyed 
the curious way in which Homer is at once 
Greek and not Greek with an exactly true 
value ; for, as he points out, the Homeric 
epic as we possess it was created by the 
instinct of the Asiatic Ionians, and the 
manner of the Works and Days was in a 
sense more purely Greek. Modern criticism 
is perhaps too apt to gloss over the fact that 
Homerand Hesiod were habitually bracketed, 
as it were, by the Greeks themselves ; and if 
as we follow down the history of Greek 
literature we keep hold in our mind of what 
one might call the Hesiodie tradition, much 
of what is difficult otherwise will be a good 
deal more intelligible, and the hard dry 
manner which meets us (and sometimes 
repels us) in much of the Attic drama, or 
in the prose of Xenophon and the Orators, 
will take its natural place, alongside of such 
a phenomenon as their excessive admiration 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of Sparta, as part of the curiously narrow 
ideal of the average Greek bourgeoisie; a 
type far from being either romantic or 
heroic in its combination of the precisian 
without moral fervour and the man of the 
world who never could succeed in being a 


~ gentleman. 


In the chapter on Pindar Professor Jebb - 
is on ground that he has made peculiarly . 
his own. The description of Olympia at 
the great festival is extraordinarily vivid 
and appreciative; and in the masterly 
analysis of the First Olympian, no less 
than in the general remarks which follow 
on the poet’s movement and manner, it is 
‘from out the ghost of Pindar in him’ that 
the criticism comes. Let one brief passage 
on the Pindaric diction, a model of fine 
and succinct expression, stand as a specimen 
of the insight and lucidity which inform 
the whole :— 

‘Particular notice is due to the stamp 
of his diction. Other great poets have 
been distinguished by more delicate felicity, 
more chastened beauty of phrase, more 
faultless and unimpeachable taste. Sappho 
and Simonides, to take only lyric examples, 
exhibit even in the few fragments that 
remain certain charms of this kind which 
Pindar lacks; but there is one gift in 
which he is absolutely alone. It is one 
which could find full scope only within the 
grand framework of the Dorian choral 
lyric,—the faculty of shaping magnificent 
phrases and giving them exactly their right 
setting in the spacious verse, so that they 
at once delight the ear and charm the 
imagination.’ 

Pindar, fortunately perhaps for himself, 
is too difficult for-use as a schoolbook, and 
the ground about him is not so clogged 
with masses of obsolete criticism as it is in 
the case of his great Athenian contemporary. 
There is no form of Greek poetry of which 
we know so much as we do of the Attic 
drama; ‘it is, says Professor Jebb, ‘ that 
which we can hope to see most nearly from 
the Hellenic point of view’; yet there is 
no form of Greek poetry of which our know- 
ledge is, on the whole, more confused and 
ineffective. ‘ Modern criticism,’ he says, ‘has 
pondered particular sayings of Aeschylus, 
Sophocles, Euripides ; it has brought these 
sayings together, arranged them under 
heads, digested them into formulas, linked 
them by ingenious reconciliations, until for 
each of the three dramatists, it has evolved 
a certain body of philosophy or theosophy. 
Such efforts,’ he hastily adds, ‘have an 
interest and a value of their own.’ Is he 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 259 


so sure that they have? or did he shrink 
from breaking with the traditions of the 
lecture-room? At all events, the inevitable 
rubric LZthical and Religious Views of 
Sophocles follows in the margin in due 
course: and in a good deal of this chapter 
the author seems to be writing without 
ease, and even with a certain loss of grace. 
That Welcker distinguishes two kinds of 
trilogy used by Aeschylus may be what Pro- 
fessor Jebb’s audience wished and expected 
to hear ; it is not quite what one wishes he 
had told them. Does it matter, is it really 
relevant to the growth and influence of 
classical Greek poetry, what Welcker 
distinguishes 1 

In the eighth or concluding lecture, on 
the Permanent Power of Greek Poetry, 
Professor Jebb reaches what is reatly the 
most difficult part of his task, The import- 
ance of the exact truth becomes here more 
vital than ever, and any criticism more 
useless that is dictated by some standard of 
supposed critical orthodoxy. It is thoroughly 
satisfactory to find that in the temper and 
lucidity of his observations Professor Jebb 
is not hampered by any such dictation, 
though here and there he adopts a tone 
towards current conventions that may seem 
almost needlessly deferential. The antithe- 
sis between ‘ Hebraism’ and ‘ Hellenism,’ so 
light-heartedly laid down by Matthew Arnold 
forty years ago, was even then only a 
brilliant and stimulating paradox ; with the 
advance of years it has lost most of its 
stimulating force and nearly all its gloss. 
The marriage of Faust and Helena is a 
piece of imaginative scholasticism which 
only shows how carefully scholasticism 
should keep clear of imagination if it does 
not wish to make itself ridiculous. One of 
Professor Jebb’s predecessors in the chair of 
Greek at Glasgow published a treatise on 
Greek syntax with a preface upholding the 
study of Greek as the true safeguard of 
orthodoxy in religion and politics, and the 
bulwark against Jacobinism and atheism. 
We may smile at this now; we can hardly 
afford to smile at the phrase Hebraism 
versus Hellenism while scholars and critics 
continue to repeat it with such imperturbable 
gravity. Yet this celebrated antithesis 
was founded on what is really a dexterous 
confusion of language, and neither logically 
nor historically will it bear examination. 
It expressed with added piquancy the sup- 
posed antithesis of art and morality, doing 
so on the large assumption that Greek art 
does not convey moral ideas and that Hebrew 
literature is not a form of art. So too with 


the specious contrast between classical and 
mediaeval art as though the two represented 
opposing forces. One of the chief triumphs 
of modern scholarship—and one for which 
it may be forgiven many shortcomings—is 
that it has worked out the proof line by 
line of what could before be only heid as a 
matter of instinct and belief, that mediaeval 
art is the direct and legitimate descendant 
of Greek art, and that the two speak a 
mutually intelligible language: nor need 
we cavil if this capital result has been 
reached mainly by the irregular troops of 
the army while its solid phalanx remained 
drawn up against a line of phantoms. In 
the history of art there are many periods ; 
every great invention—the dactylic hexa- 
meter, the brick arch, the use of oil as a 
medium for pigments—divides in a sense 
the art before it from the art after; but 
before and after, the art is essentially the 
same. J remember hearing the captain of 
the famous Oxford Eleven of 1884 remark, 
when talk was running on the great variety 
of Mr. Spofforth’s bowling, that he really 
bowled only two sorts of balls, those that 
were on the wicket and those that were not. 
There are and always have been two sorts 
of art; but these are not classical and 
mediaeval ; they are good art and bad. The 
classics may serve in a way as a touchstone 
of pseudo-mediaevalism, as the great 
mediaeval art does of pseudo-classicism. 
But here too the world moves on. No one 
of moderate intelligence would now repeat 
the incredible conduct of Goethe at Assisi ; 
nor has it yet, I suppose, been retaliated 
by Mr. Schultz or Professor Ramsay visiting 
Athens and refusing to go to see the Par- 
thenon. 

From such contracted views Professor 
Jebb is as far removed by the temper of his 
mind as by the width of his knowledge. 
No more just and appreciative statement 
could be made of the actual permanent value 
of Greek poetry than is made in the following 
words with which these lectures conclude : 

‘The claims of classical Greek poetry to 
a permanent hold upon the attention of the 
civilized world are of two kinds, intrinsic 
and historical. Viewed in regard to its 
intrinsic qualities, this poetry is the creation 
of a people in whom the gifts of the artist 
were more harmoniously united than in any 
other race; it bears the impress of their 
mind in the perfection of its form; it is 
also the spontaneous and profoundly sugges- 
tive expression of their life and thought. 
Viewed historically, this poetry is the 
fountain-head of poetical tradition in 


260 


Europe ; it has supplied the typical standards 
of form, it has also furnished a varied 
wealth of material and illustration ; even 
where it has not given a direct model it has 
operated by the subtle diffusion of an 


animating spirit; it has become blended . 


with various other influences of later origin, 
and to every such alliance it has contributed 
some intellectual distinction which no other 
element could have supplied. So far from 
being adverse to those religious and ethical 
influences which are beyond the compass of 
its own gift to modern life, it is, rightly 
understood, in concord with them, inasmuch 
as it tends to elevate and to refine the human 
spirit by the contemplation of beauty in its 
noblest and purest form. On the high places 
of Greek literature, those who are worn 
with the troubles or disturbed by the mental 
maladies of modern civilization can breathe 
an atmosphere which, like that of Greece 
itself, has the freshness of the mountains and 
the sea. But the loneliness of Oeta or 
Cithaeron is not there ; we have around us, 
on those summits, also the cheerful sympa- 
thies of human life, the pleasant greetings 
of the kindly human voice. The great poets 
of ancient Hellas recall to one’s mind the 


SITTL’S EDITION 


Tulii Firmici Materni matheseos libri viii. 
Primum recensuit Carouus Srrtu. Pars I. 
Libri 1—4. Teubner, bibliotheca scr. gr. 
et lat. 1894. 2 Mk. 40 Pf. 


Tue editor truly says of this book, almost 
unknown to scholars owing to the scarcity of 
copies, what holds equally of a Greek book, 
treating also of a mock science, the Oneiro- 
critica of Artemidorus,! ‘silvam rerum et 
sententiarum memorabilium libri continent.’ 
I myself watched the market for many 
years before I secured one of the old 
editions. Of late Bonnet, Jahn, Haupt, 
Chr. Kelber (‘ Anfang eines Worterbuchs z. 
d. libri math. des Firmicus, 1883’), H. 
Dressel (‘lexikalische Bemerkungen zu 
Firmicus Maternus, Zwickau, 1882’) have 
bestowed pains on Firmicus. Usener, with 
his usual sagacity, has discovered fragments 


1 See Reichardt in comm. philol. Jenenses, v 
(1894) 109—152, who finds traces of Stoic teaching 
in Artemidorus; a glance at Rigault’s notes will 
show how much antiquaries owe to a writer now 
little read, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. ~ 


words in which Aeschylus described the 
kinsmen of Niobe who worshipped their 
ancestral deity on the mountain-heights of 
Mysia :— 
The seed of gods, 
Men near to Zeus; for whom on Ida 
burns, 
High in clear air, the altar of their Sire, 
Nor hath their race yet lost the blood ~ 
divine. 


Humanity cannot afford to lose out of its 
inheritance any part of the best work 
which has been done for it in the past. All 
that is most beautiful and most instructive 
in Greek achievement is our permanent 
possession ; one which can be enjoyed with- 
out detriment to those other studies which 
modern -life demands ; one which no lapse 
of time can make obsolete, and which no 
multiplication of modern interests can make 
superfluous. Each successive generation 
must learn from ancient Greece that which 
can be taught by her alone ; and to assist, 
however little, in the transmission of her 
message is the best reward of a student.’ 


J. W. MacKAIrtL. 


OF FIRMICUS. 


of Sallust in the prologue, which have 
already found a place in Maurenbrecher’s 
edition of the histories of that author. 

It is to be hoped that some one will 
undertake a lexicon to Latin astrological 
writers, including not merely Manilius and 
Firmicus, but portions of the Clementine 
recognitions, and other writings bearing 
upon the subject. 

The belief in the influence of the stars 
on human destiny has coloured modern 
languages to an extent of which we are 
scarcely conscious. Firmicus is represented 
to some degree in our current lexicons, but 
new words, or new senses of old words, 
have still to be gleaned from his pages. 

Take a few specimens : altitudo ii 3 $$ 1 
bis 2 bis 45.¢.8 23 § 11. 27 § 21 bis. 
cardo ii c. 13. 27 § 23. domicilium ii 2 
$$ 13 bis5 679.3885 bis 7. domina ii 
24 § 2. dominus ii 2 § 3 bis. 23 $$ 2 bis 
ll bis. 24 §§ 14 5, 26§3. domusid 
$7. ii2§8.3§7.¢. 8 23 § 11. 27 §§ 24 
quater 26 bis (also in Clem. recogn. ix 17 
bis 21 f. 23 bis. 24 bis 32). dodecatemorion 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 261 


lic. ll. ii2§ 27 bis. 5 § 42 bis 13 $15 
quinquies. antiscia ii praef. §$ 2 5 ter 6 
c. 27 passim. anaphora ii tit. ad cale. ec. 7. 
iv 10 § 5. cataphora iv 10 § 5. ehrono- 
crator ii 24 § 1. benevolus ii 23 § 2. 26 
$$ 2 5. malevolus ii 26 §§ 2 5 (cf. male- 
volentia Macrob. somn. 119 § 20). minutum 
= go Pars =rsyo Signum iic.5. 6 $1 bis. 
cf. minutiarum brevitatem id § 2. feminina 
and masculina signa ii c. 2 (Libra e.g. is 
masculine, Zaurus feminine). vrespicio 11 23 
§§ 2 11. 27 §§ 18 19 20 22. video ii 27 
$$ 18 bis 21 bis. cacodaemon ii 27 § 17 
bis (cf. Clem. recogn. ix 17 f. 22 f.). 

-In Firmicus, as in Apuleius, we observe 
an enthusiastic devotion to the reformed 
paganism. See i 10$ 17 Sol optime maxime, 
qui mediam caeli possides partem, mens mundi 
atque temperies, dux omnium atque princeps 
cet. and the remarkable chapter (ii 27) on 
the life and conversation, sternly ascetic 
($ 20 st te rectum videndi votum ab omni 
scelerum liberavit invidia et si purgatum 
animum et memorem divini seminis geris, 
aggredere hoc opus), which befits him who 
would read the secrets of the heavens. 
Firmicus is careful to remark that neither 


astrologers nor soothsayers can foretell the 
future of empire (§ 7 solus enim imperator 
stellarum non subiacet cursibus et solus est, 
in cuius fato stellae decernendi non habeant 
potestatenr). 

Sittl seems to have done all that is 
possible to secure a pure text, but no 
ancient manuscript contains all the books, 
and gaps occur in all. 

One obvious correction has escaped the 
editor. 

iv 2 1 Si se Luna Saturni applicaverit 
stellae et crescens lumine ista se Saturno 
societate coniungat vel si ad Saturnum 
feratur, matri viduitatem et mulierwm 
locorum dolores decernit. ? 

Read muliebrium locorum,; if confirma- 
tion be required, turn to iv 23 3 Luna cum 
Saturno in horoscopo si fuerit partiliter 
inventa, faciet primos nasci aut primos 
nutriri, sed matribus miserum  pondus 
viduitatis imponit aut facit eas in templorum 
conversationibus detineri et ex necessariis 
aut muliebribus Jocis grave valetudinis 
discrimen indicit. 

Joun E. B. Mayor. 





WOHLRAB’S REPUBLIC OF PLATO. 


Platon’s Staat. 
Martin 
Teubner. 


drstes Buch. Erklirt von 
Woutras. Leipzig, B. G. 
1893. 60 Pf. 


THE present edition of the first book of the 
Republic does not lay claim to anything 
beyond an elementary character. Questions 
of textual criticism are excluded, and the 
exegetical notes are for the most part brief 
and dogmatic, on the Aristotelian principle 
dei murtevew Tovs pavOdavovras. But within 
the limits which the editor has prescribed 
for himself the quality of the work is good, 
although one could have wished that some 
fresh light had been thrown on some of the 
more difficult sentences in what is in some 
respects one of the most puzzling books of 
the Republic. 

The introduction, extending over sixteen 
pages, treats of the dramatis personae, the 
date of action, of the argument and purpose 
of the dialogue, and finally of the relation 
between the first and the remaining books 
of the treatise. Wohlrab is, as might have 
been anticipated, a believer in the structural 
unity of the Lepublic, the composition of 


which he assigns to the last period of Plato's 
literary activity, relying mainly on the 
formal connexion between the Republic and 
the Zimaeus. This is perhaps the best 
working hypothesis—oiov ériBaois te Kat 
éppy—on which to begin the study of the 
Republic, but he will be an unusually 
okAnpos Te Kal avtituros avOpwros Who can 
hold to it as he advances. 

The text of Paris A in the Lepublic is 
(apart from a few clerical errors) so much 
better than most of the emendations which 
have often replaced it that one is (on 
grounds of principle) glad to find Wohlrab 
retaining it even where it is_ probably 
wrong. Thus in 328 C he keeps the éAAei- 
werat Of A and II, although in view of 
Theaet. 188 A ado vy ovdev Xecretar wept 
éxactov wAijv eidévat 7) pr) etdevae it is more 
than probable that the év Aeizerar of © and 
a marginal corrector in A is right: in the 
extremely difficult passage 333 EK, where (in 
spite of Boeckh in his A/leine Schriften iv. 
pp. 326 ff.) it requires a heart of iron to 
resist the emendation of Schneider (in 
general the most conservative of editors), 


262 


he retains the reading of A with the 
addition of xaé before éuaomjou from I? 
at the cost of converting into manifest 
nonsense the manifest sophistry which 
we must allow to Plato in this part of 
the argument: and in 335 A he retains 
» before os where it is not only ungram- 
matical (which is not the point) but too 
harsh a solecism for the retined conversa- 
tional style of the Lepublic. On the other 
hand in one or two passages Wohlrab 
forsakes the MSS. with insufficient reason, 
as in 351 D, where the ovxotv, edn, eyo 0 
IloAuapxos Tov ye oGv KAnpovopos ; 18 quite 
in harmony with Polemarchus’ zpofupia, 
and perhaps in 343 3B, where the use of 
dtavoctcGar may to a certain extent be 
compared with 470 EK, 

The explanatory notes are clear and 


- thrown 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


sensible, if somewhat slight. _Wohlrab’s 
explanation of the difficult otov ye (A has te) 
ov, ® dite in 336 E is the same as 
Schneider’s, and probably right, but requires 
support in the face of the doubts recently 
on the text by Apelt, whose 
ingenious emendation iov, io’, @ ire (in - 
Fleckeisen’s Jahrbuch for 1891 p. 557) will . 
hardly convince Platonic scholars. There 
are many passages in which one might 
differ from the editor’s interpretation of his 
author, but enough has been said to show 
the general character of this edition. 
Readers of the Lepublic would have 
preferred if Wohlrab had done for the 
Republic what he has done for the Theae- 
tetus and other dialogues — brought 
Stallbaum up to date. 
J. ADAM. 





DUPUIS’ THEON SMYRNALUS. 


Théon de Smyrne. Exposition des connaissan- 
ces mathématiques utiles pour la lecture 
de Platon traduite pour la premiére fois 
du Grec en Frangais. Par J. Duputs. 
Epilogue : Le Nombre de Platon (Mémoire 
Définitif). Paris: Hachette et Cie. 


Turis is an elaborate and ambitious work, 
which is not likely to find many readers 
either among mathematicians or scholars. 
Besides a translation of the text, accompanied 
where necessary by diagrams, it contains a 
scholarly account of the material available 
for the formation of the text of Theo, 
various appendices on points of special 
interest, elaborate indices, and a treatise on 
the Number of Plato, the fifth which has 
proceeded from the pen of the indefatigable 
author. The translation (so far as the 
present reviewer can judge) is only fairly 
accurate. Thus on p. 3 ‘nous dormnerons 
ici un sommaire et un abrégé des connais- 
sances nécessaires et la tradition des théo- 
réemes mathématique les plus utiles’ is an 
incorrect rendering of ‘xedadawdy Kat 
otvropov Tomcbpela tov avayKatwv Kal dv det 
pdaduora Tors éevreveopevors TAatove pabnpate- 
kov rapddoow’: on page 5 there is a more 
serious error in translating a quotation from 
the Hpinomis (992 B), for an essential point 
of Platonic doctrine is ignored when tov 
rowvtov gyow €x TOAAGYV Eva yeyovora 
eddaipovd te eoecOar Kal codwratov apa Kat 
paxdpiov is rendered by ‘s'il y en a wn seul 


qui soit tel (mathématicien), c’est celui-la qui 
sera favorisé de la fortune et au comble de 
la sagesse et de la félicité.’ It would be 
easy to multiply such instances, but it is 
right to say that the exposition of the more 
properly mathematical part of Theo is 
probably more accurate. 

The chief interest of the book however 
is in the appendix on the Number, apart 
from Dupuis’ interest in which the transla- 
tion would probably never have been 
executed. It is unfortunate that Theo in 
his otherwise meritorious dissertation has 
steered clear of the one serious and impor- 
tant mathematical cruz in Plato. Such 
help as he gives is merely incidental and 
aecessible in other sources, such as Nicoma- 
chus. Although it is easy to attack, or even 
to overthrow, the theory of Dupuis, it may 
be interesting to know the final conclusions 
which have been reached by so diligent an 
investigator in this fascinating field of 
inquiry. Dupuis abstains from any attempt 
to connect the Number with the argument 
of the Republic as a whole, and confines 
himself entirely to the mathematical side of 
the problem. Retaining the best authenti- 
cated text, that of Parisinus A, he interprets 
the passage (Republic 546 B, C) as follows. 
Qciov yevvytov denotes the stars: dpOpos 
téhecos the great year. The avéjoes duva- 
pevat Te Kal Svvacrevdpevat (‘producing and 
produced’) he identifies with the Pythagorean 
retpaxtus 1, 2,3, 4: this comprises (AaBotcat) 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 263 


the three dwooraceis (2, 3, 4, the intervals of 
the octave, the fifth, and the fourth) and 
four dpo, which are avéovrwv kai POwovTwv 
according to the order in which you take 
them, and dpo.ovvTwr Kai dvopovovvtwv because 
two cords of equal tension give forth like 
sounds if one is twice the length of the 
other, and unlike sounds if the conditions 
are different. It will be observed that 
Dupuis does not regard the first section of 
the passage as expressing any single number 
at all. To come tothe second. ov ézitpitos 
mvOpnv is 4, ov (‘among which’) having as 
its antecedent avéyoas: wewrads cvlvyets is 
‘plus 5.’ This gives 4%. The words pis 
avénfets, according to Dupuis, denote three 
successive multiplications, but what the 
multipliers are has to be discovered from 
the sequel. In other words, the unknown 


quantities of the equation (for such, in 
common with most recent writers on the 
subject, Dupuis believes the Number to be) 
are contained in pis. We thus reach 
19 x ays = what? The first harmony (ac- 
cording to Dupuis. is 100 x 100=10,000: 
the second is (icopyKy pev TH) 100 x (4,800 + 
2,700) = 100 x 7,500=750,000, Having 
reached this stage, Dupuis adds the har- 
monies together and pronounces the dpi6.0s 
yewpetpixos to be 760,000. The equation 
19 x xyz = 760,000 is satisfied by interpreting 
x as 3,y as 4,and z as 10,000. Such is 
Dupuis’ solution of the Number: those 
who have busied themselves with the sub- 
ject, will be able to appreciate its value ; 
those who have not, will not, and need not, 
care. 
J. ADAM. 


CORPUS GLOSSARIORUM LATINORUM III. V. 


Vol. ILL. Hermeneumata pseudodositheana 
edidit Grorcius Gorrz. Accedunt 
Hermeneumata medicobotanica vetus- 
tiora. Lips.: Teubner. 1892. 22 Mk. 

Vol. V. Placidus liber glossarum, glossaria 
reliqua. Edidit Grorcius GortTz. 1894. 
22 Mk. 


Tar four volumes now published contain 
the bulk of the glosses thought to deserve 
publication. Supplements will be appended 
to vol. i, which is devoted to a general 
discussion of glosses and glossaries. Vols. 
vi vii, on which Goetz is now engaged, will 
contain a general glossary. In this the 
glosses will be critically revised ; as yet the 
exact reproduction of the MSS. is all that 
has been aimed at. Hence it appears pre- 
mature to suggest corrections, until the 
editor’s final results are known. Already 
many valuable contributions have appeared 
from the pen, among others, ‘of H. Nettle- 
ship; the latest, and not the least instruc- 
tive, in the fifth volume of the ‘ Commen- 
tationes philologae Jenenses’; (1) ‘De Festo 
Pseudophiloxeni auctore scripsit Albertus 
Dammann,’ pp. 1—48 ; (5) ‘ Hermeneumata 
Vaticana emendavit illustravit Immanuel 
David,’ pp. 197—238. It is a pleasure to 
welcome the latter critic, who signs himself 
‘Lesbius.’ Bryennios does not stand alone 
among the Greeks of today. 

Sometimes doubts are expressed whether 
great scholars, as Scaliger, Lindenbrog, 


Ruhnken, who devoted so much time to 
the correction of glosses, might not have 
been better employed; but no one will 
share the doubt who is acquainted with the 
progress of lexicography. Many words 
have found their way into the dictionary on 
the authority of a gloss, which later 
research has discovered in authors of name. 
For a long time to come this tracing of 
glosses to the rock from which they were 
hewn will afford interesting occupation to 
the student. I give three examples which 
I have lately noted. 

Aug. enarrat. in ps. 139 12 a.m. bestiis 
subrexerunt. corp. gl. v 443 5 bestiis subrigi 
ad bestias mitti. Paucker spicileg. 163 
seq. Vict. Vit. 111 27. Non. 50 2. Rinsch in 
Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1880, 379, 440. 
Rutin. h. e. (ed. Cacciari, Romae 1740, 4to) 
iv 15 p. 210: Proconsul dixit: bestias 
habeo paratas, quibus subrigeris, nisi cito 
paenitueris. vii 11 f. devorandi, inquit, 
bestiis subrigantur, where Cacciari reads 
subigantur, supposing that subrigantur of 
the printed copies is a misprint. viii 7 p. 
m. p- 476: iubentur alii vere criminosi 
bestiis subrigi. ix 6 p. igitur apud Tyrum 
Phoenicis urbem tres quidam iuvenes cor- 
repti cum se christianos esse confiterentur, 
bestiis subriguntur. 

Aug. in ps. 66 10 p.m. renovabitur iuven- 
tus nostra sicut aquilae ; tantummodo nos 
vetustatem nostram ad petram Christum 
conteramus...Sive illa vera sint, fratres, 


264 


quae dicuntur de serpente, vel quae dicuntur 
de aquila, sive sit fama potius hominum 
quam veritas...Tu esto talis, ut iuventus 
tua renovari possit sicut aquila. et 
scias eam non posse renovari, nisi vetustas 
tua in petra contrita fuerit. . . Tu ergo 
talis noli esse: sed esto talis quod contra 
invenis, id est, ut praeterita obliviscaris, in 
anteriora te extendas ; ut vetustatem tuam 
in petra conteras. Here the mention of 
the serpent made me suspect that vetustas = 


VOLLMER ON PUBLIC 


De funere publico Romanorum,  scripsit 
Fripericus VoLuMerR. Commentatio ex 
supplemento undevicesimo Annalium 
Philologicorum seorsum expressa. 8vo. 
319--364 pp. Leipzig: Teubner. 1 Mk. 
20. 


Tus is the first exhaustive treatise on the 
subject. A funus publicwum was an official 
funeral, not one merely to which the public 
was invited, as Guhl and Koner (Life of the 
Greeks and Romans, p. 590 English transla- 
tion) thought. It corresponds in many 
respects to the funeral of a United States 
Congressman, being at the public expense, 
costly, and stopping public _ business. 
Vollmer’s treatment is lucid and logical. 

§ 1 states the origin of the custom. The 
funus collaticitwm was paid for by voluntary 
contributions ; such, for instance, were the 
funerals of Valerius Poplicola and Menenius 
Agrippa; other forms of the collaticia 
appearing in funerals the expenses of which 
were met by burial societies; and in the 
field the military funeral of the common 
soldiers paid from the /follis. When the 
state paid the expenses through the quaestor, 
acting under the instructions of the consul, 
who was obeying a senatus consultum made 
for the purpose, then the funus became strictly 


publicum. The first Roman funus publicum 
positively known was that of Servius 
Sulpicius Rufus 711/43. Syphax and 


Perseus were buried at the expense of the 
state, but as guests of the commonwealth ; 
their funerals were not properly publica. 
Vollmer gives a list of thirty-four /unera 
publica, the last being Caracalla’s 971/217. 
The custom survived into mediaeval and 
modern times. 

§ 2 isa closer examination of the meaning 
of funus publicum ; a state funeral expressed 


-38 hom. 2 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


senecta or senectus, the ‘slough,’ but I was 
not fully assured till I found in corp. gl. v 
621 50: meratrum est herba de qua come- 
dunt serpentes et exuunt vetustatem. 

Add to lexicons conviciosus Hier. in ps. 
2. Aug. c. sec. resp. Iul. i 11. in 
ps. 21 enarr. 1 7. corp. gl. iv 325 10. 
Hildebrand gl. Paris. 429 p. 79. conviciose 
Aug. serm. 126 8. c. Petil. ui 18. Acron 
on Hor. s. i 5 65. 

Joun EH. B. Mayor. 


FUNERALS AT ROME. 


the public sorrow. Toward the end of the 
Republic the state not only paid the 
expenses, but undertook the whole manage- 
ment of the funeral. This included the 
eulogy by a magistrate, often a place of 
burial, but never the erection of the 
monument itself—except in case of the 
emperors—nor any cult of manes. 

§ 3. The decree was made by the senate, 
either independently, or at the suggestion 
of the emperor ; and finally by the emperor 
alone, when the senate became a nomvinis 
umbra. The consuls executed the decree 
through the quaestors. The funerals were 
always indicta, and often accompanied by 
ludi. 

§ 4. The order of the ceremonies was as 
follows: expositio corporis mortui (vel 
imaginis) in foro, contio totius populi 
praesentibus ordinibus senatorio et equestri 
virorum et mulierum, pompa militum, 
imaginum comitatio amplificata, laudatio a 
magistratu habita, portatio mortui per 
honoratos viros, agmen magistratuum et 
pontificum, ludi magistratuum et pontificum, 
ludi militares circa rogum, incensio rogi 
per magistratus. There was a ¢ustitiwm 
and mourning by the women for a year. 

§ 5. It was decreed in honour of distin- 
guished men ; not for women until the time 
of Augustus, but afterwards to women of 
the emperor’s family. In the municipia, at 
least, boys and young men were so honoured 
for the sake of their families. 

§ 6. The cost is not easy to discover. Ves- 
pasian’s funeral cost sestertiwm centies, but 
numbers are rarely given. Decies is stated 
in some Italie titles; at Surrentum HS c; 
at Pompeii HS m o for an aedile and 
IIviro iuri dicundo. 

§ 7. In the municipia the custom was 
general, The oldest instance is the funeral 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 265 


of the poet Lucilius 651/103. Sometimes 
the honour was accepted, and the money 
declined. 

§ 8. Funus censoriwm = amplissimum = 
imperatorium. Contrary to the opinion of 
Nipperdey and Becker, the funus censorium 
was carried out by the consuls or duoviri. 
The expression dates from Augustus, who 
wished to be buried in a censor’s robe. 

§ 9. Documenta, 17 pages ; chiefly from 
the Corpus Inscriptionum. 

The article in the Dictionary of Antiqui- 
ties follows Marquardt (Privatleben” i. 350 
sq.) in regarding the funerals of Syphax and 
Perseus as funera publica ; the f. censoriam 
being the magistrate’s funeral of highest 
grade; but Marquardt adds that the f. ce. 
was not due to the censor’s edict. Vollmer 
thinks the story about Valerius Poplicola is 
due to Valerius Antias and consequently 


untrustworthy as far as any vote of the 
people is concerned ; and, with reference to 
Menenius, he utterly discredits Dion. Hal. 
(6, 76). This is the weak part of the 
treatise, and we must regard the /unus 
publicum and collatictum as still confused. 
Military funerals, both of privates and 
officers, were not necessarily publica ; the 
senatus consultum is the decisive thing ; 
often, as in the case of Hirtius and Pansa, 
the funeral was both militare and publicwm. 
As to Syphax and Perseus, their funerals 
were in a sense public, but Vollmer is right 
in separating them from the ordinary class. 
The value of his treatise is conditioned by 
the importance of the subject ; but at any 
rate the author seems to have exhausted 
the topic. 
W. A. MERRILL. 


Miami University, Ohio. 


PRAECHTER’S TABULA OF CEBES. 


Cebetis Tabula. Recensuit CaroLus PRakEcH- 
rer, Lipsiae in Aedibus B, G. Teubneri. 
1893. 60 Pf. 


Tuts little edition contains within brief 
compass the results of much industry and 
learning. A preface of eleven pages dis- 
cusses the relationship of the MSS., in 
regard to which the editor» substantially 
agrees with Miiller, except that he refuses 
to consider the Vatican codex as the arche- 
type of the second class of MSS. A full 
apparatus criticus accompanies the text, 
which is followed by a brief index of non- 
classical words and usages likely to furnish 
evidence as to the date of composition of 
the Zabula. A single point of interest 
may be referred to. In section 3 of chapter 
26 it is said of the individual who has 
triumphed over ‘the greatest beasts’ 
(meaning Ignorance and Error and the 
like) od pi StoyAnOjoetar oddev ore b7d 
'Odvvys...obre id GAXOv Kakodovdevos. dravTwV 
yap Kupever Kat érdvw Ttavtwv éoti TOV TpO- 


tepov aitov Avrovvtwv Kabamep ot EeXLodnKTOL 
(so A, but Praechter adopts Casaubon’s 
conjecture éxvodetkrar). TH yap Onpia Syrov To. 
mavtas Tovs GAXous KakoTroLodVTa péexpt Oavarov 
éxetvous ov Avret dud TO Exew avTipdppakov 
todo (for which ovrw is read by Praechter 
after Schweighiiuser), Praechter’s note on 
this passage is as follows: ‘An fuit apud 
veteres opinio eos qui serpentis morsui 
supervixissent, ab eius bestiae impetu 
immunes esse? Quod si testimoniis con- 
firmetur, ut éyvdyxTor sic statim totro (ex 
€xddyxroe intell. 75 ded7xGar) servari possit.’ 
This suggested interpretation of the reading 
of the MSS. so plainly suits the whole 
context of the passage that it can hardly 
fail to be right. Mithridates is said to have 
fortified himself against poison by the 
abundant use of the homoeopathic method : 
can any one supply a specific illustration 
of a similar belief in regard to the bite of 
snakes 4 
J. ApAM. 


FROEHDE ON DE NOMINE OF PROBUS. 


Valerii Probi de nomine Tlibellum 
Secundi doctrinam continere demonstratur. 
Secripsit Oscar FROEHDE. 
NO. LXX. VOL, VIII. 


Plinti 


Commentatio 


ex supplemento undevicesimo Annalium 

Philologicorum seorsum expressa. Svo. Pp. 

159-203. Leipzig: Teubner,1892. M.1, 20. 
U 


266 


FrorHpe is well known by his work on 
Charisius, and in this monograph has made 
a strong case for the Plinian source of 
Probus’ work. He shows first that the 
libellus de nomine, the authorship of which 
has heretofore been a matter of doubt, is 
really a work of Probus. The complete 
text of the work is printed in parallel 
columns with parts of Charisius ; and from 
the agreement and disagreement, the 
common citation of texts, and some mistakes 
common to both, it seems highly probable 
that both drew from a common source ; and 
as this source for Charisius is known to be 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Pliny, the conclusion is that the original 
doctrine is contained in Pliny’s ‘ dubii 
sermonis octo’ referred to in the catalogue 
given by the younger Pliny Zp. 3, 5, 5. 
The contribution of J. W. Beck in the 


Berliner Wochenschrift 1892, Nos. 50 and 51, 


is also valuable, as showing that many 
Plinian fragments are concealed in the 
works of the grammarians, and that before 
many years it may be possible to reconstitute 
the book in a measure. 

W. A. MERRILL. 


Miami University, Ohio. 


ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO LATIN 
LEXICOGRAPHY. 


Amonc the necessary preliminaries of the 
great Latin thesaurus now in hand, are new 
texts and special lexicons. From the eighth 
volume of Wolfflin’s Archiv I glean various 
particulars of interest. Few writers were 
already furnished with a better index than 
Sallust, but Bert. Maurenbrecher (C. 
Sallusti Crispi historiarum reliquiae. Lips. 
1893) has superseded Dietsch by a fuller 
collection of fragments and a complete index 
verborum. The index to the Optatus of 
Car. Ziwsa (corp. scr. eccl. xxvi. Vindob. 
1893) is full of matter for the grammarian 
and lexicographer. Caelius Aurelianus is 
an important witness for African Latin: a 
pupil of Biicheler’s, Heinr. Friedel, has 
published prolegomena to a new edition 
(De scriptis Caelii Aurelianensis Methodici 
Siccensis. 1892. 4to). 

While Bishop Wordsworth and his col- 
leagues have finished about one half of the 
vulgate N.T., others have devoted their 
attention to the Old Latin versions, on 
which many scattered labourers have been 
at work since Sabatier and Bianchini. Thus 
Joh. B. Ulrich published in 1893 a pro- 
gramme: ‘De Salviani scripturae sacrae 
versionibus.’ Ph. Thielmann, a well-known 
authority on thelater Latinity, communicates 
to the eighth volume of the Archiv studies 
on the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. 
He thinks it unpractical to attack the 
question of the Old Latin from its most 
difficult side, the gospels and Pauline 
epistles. By the help of the Bavarian 
Academy, having obtained collations of 
many mss., chiefly from Paris and Italy, 


he announces a critical edition of wisd. 
ecclus. Judith, Esther, Tobit. Hugo Linke 
in Breslau proposes to begin an edition of 
the ‘ Itala’ with two sections, (1) the Penta- 
teuch, (2) Joshua—2 Esdr.; he reports that 
the palimpsest Vindob. 17, first published 
by Belsheim, may shortly be expected in a 
trustworthy form. 

Few fragments of grammar are more 
instructive than the Appendix Probi (Keil’s 
Gramm. iv 197—9). Keil however con- 
tented himself with Endlicher’s apparatus, 
but Prof. v. Hartel has photographed the 
text from ms. Vindob. 17 (cent. viii), and 
Wend. Forster (Wiener Studien xiv, 1892, 
278—322, also separately issued) by the 
help of Biicheler, Usener, Zangemeister, 
Leo etc. has been able to restore the text in 
many places. Some Tironian notes still 
defy the most skilful decipherers. 

P. Geyer (Archiv viii 469—481) finds 
traces of Gallic Latin in Marcellus Empi- 
ricus (in the critical edition of Helmreich, 
Teubner, 1889). 

Dr. Valentine Rose, known by his 
Anecdota, Cassius Felix, Vitruvius, etc., has 
undertaken to edit Theodore Priscian for 
the bibliotheca Teubneriana ; an edition of 
‘[Apuleius] de medicaminibus herbarum 1s 
shortly expected. Lessing, who published 
‘Studien zu den Script. hist. Aug. Berl. 
1889,’ has in hand a lexicon to these bio- 
graphies. Maxim. Ihm adds a compre- 
hensive index and commentary to the 
veterinary writer Pelagonius of Salona 
(cent. iv, biblioth. Teubn.). 

Joun E. B. Mayor. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


267 


THE ORIGIN OF THE LORD’S SUPPER: A REPLY. 


Tue little essay in which I propounded 
my historic doubts as to the origin of the 
Lord’s Supper, and submitted to the judg- 
ment of experts some new views on the 
subject, has called forth many criticisms ex- 
pressed alike publicly and privately. As 
yet the views to which I inclined, of the 
Pauline origin of the Lord’s Supper as an 
institution, and its connexion with Eleusis, 
have only been publicly accepted and de- 
fended by one eminent theologian, Professor 
Pfleiderer ; but various reviewers, English 
and foreign, agree with the views of my 
paper up to a certain point. It is not 
however easy to stop short at a given point : 
this I tried, and only after three or four re- 
writings did I see how far it was necessary 
to go in order to avoid the gravest diflicul- 
ties. On the whole I venture to say that 
my essay, put forth with professed diflidence, 
has stood fire better than could have been 
anticipated. 

Perhaps the most decided rejection of my 
arguments is to be found in Mr. Mayor’s 
criticism in the Classical Review of April. 
I am allowed by the courtesy of the editor 
to examine briefly that criticism. But the 
Classical Review is scarcely a suitable place 
for detailed controversy of a theologico- 
historical kind; I shall therefore use the 
privilege with great moderation, and do 
little more than reply to arguments which 
have already appeared in the pages of this 
Review. 

Iwill not follow Mr. Mayor in the de- 
tails of his grammatical argument as to the 
meaning of the phrase 1 Cor. xi. 23 éya yap 
mapéAaBov ard tod Kupiov. This has been 
matter of infinite controversy. Mr. 
Mayor, after Winer and other authorities, 
thinks that in the phrase it is implied that 
St. Paul received the institution from Christ 
not directly but through the Apostles or 
tradition. But this is denied by a host of 
authorities on the other side. To mention 
only one or two English theologians, Light- 
foot (on Gal. i. 12) writes ‘I do not think 
the distinction drawn by Winer and others 
between AapBavew zap Kupiov and d\apfd- 
vew dao Kupiov (1 Cor. xi. 23), as denoting 
respectively direct and indirect communica- 
tion, can be insisted on.’ Alford more 
boldly says ‘ the distinction is fallacious : ef. 
e.g. 1 Johni. 5.’ Principal Edwards (comm. 
ad loc.) says ‘Chrysostom, Calvin, Estius, 
Bengel, Osiander, Olshausen, Alford, Evans 


&c. understand’ (the phrase) ‘to mean an 
immediate communication made by’ the 
risen Lord to the Apostle himself. It is 
the only interpretation of the words that 
adequately explains why the Apostle should 
mention the thing.’ 

I confess to some surprise that Mr. Mayor 
has treated the view that we have here to 
do with a direct revelation to St. Paul as if 
it were a new invention of mine, instead of 
a view maintained by a number of able 
critics. In so doing he seems to take the 
place of a controversialist rather than of a 
reviewer: and though the controversy is 
quite courteous it appears in what professes 
to be a review. 

Mr. Mayor complains of my rendering 
éyo by ‘I myself.’ I took the rendering 
from Mr. W. J. Conybeare’s excellent para- 
phrase, but of course it somewhat overshoots 
the mark. Yet éyé means more than the 
unemphatic ‘I,’ and I would submit that 
the use of éyé and the singular verb raises 
up a wall of distinction between the phrase 
above cited and that which Mr, Mayor 
would regard as a parallel to it, & wapédwxev 
ypwv Movons. A tradition would naturally 
belong to ws, the Jewish race ; a revelation 
to me the seer. When in 1 Cor. xv. St. 
Paul is speaking of what he received from 
the Apostles, the words éys and dd tot 
Kvpéov are alike omitted. 

Passing from the grammatical criticism 
of the Pauline phrase, let us consider the 
wider historical criticism. And here I think 
that Mr. Mayor's strictures may be more 
definitely met. 

The statement of my essay that the for- 
mula of institution ‘This do in remembrance 
of me’ does not occur in the text of any 
Gospel, but is based only on the authority 
of St. Paul, rests on the critical decision of 
Westcott and Hort. Mr. Mayor is disposed 
to dispute that decision, ‘ Was it likely 
that St. Luke, the devoted friend and com- 
panion of St. Paul, should be ignorant of 
this account (in 1 Cor.) or could knowingly 
have passed it over in his Gospel?’ Surely 
an argument of this kind can claim very 
little objective value. That the author of 
the Third Gespel was acquainted with the 
Corinthian Epistle, or at all events with the 
customs of the Pauline Churches, is more 
than likely. But that he was 8. Luke is 
most doubtful, even most improbable. An 
argument in precisely the opposite direction 

u 2 


268 


would be more legitimate: ‘since the 
author of the Third Gospel omits words 
which are a prominent feature of the Pau- 
line account of the Last Supper, he can 
scarcely have been one of the immediate 
followers of St. Paul.’ 

But, proceeds Mr. Mayor, ‘does it follow 
that because’ (the words of institution) ‘are 
not recorded by the Evangelists, they were 
therefore not spoken by the Lord at the 
Last Supper?’ And he goes on to cite 
instances in which events recorded by one 
Evangelist are omitted by another, and the 
like. This is true enough, but not in the 
present case an argument. What we are 
searching for is proof that the words in 
question were uttered before the Crucifixion. 
It is no proof at all to reply that although 
the Evangelists do not record the saying, 
yet it might have been uttered. Of course 
the Evangelists do not record one in a 
hundred of the sayings and doings of their 
Lord: yet they can only be witnesses for 
what they do record. And going by histori- 
cal probabilities, it must be maintained that 
their evidence, so far as it goes, is against 
the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the 
lifetime of the Founder of Christianity, as 
a rite to be observed in the future. 

My essay called in question the existence 
of any evidence of the custom of the Lord’s 
Supper as a sacrament, before it was intro- 
duced at Corinth by St. Paul. To this Mr. 
Mayor replies that the custom in the very 
early church is implied by the phrase kdaous 
dptov. But the force of this objection is 
removed by the very fact on which he dwells, 
that kAdopa is a sort of technical term for 
the broken bread used in the common meals 
mentioned in the Didaché. For in that 
document what is described is not the Lord’s 
Supper of St. Paul and later Christendom, 
but a exapiurria, which may indeed show 
something of sacramental character, and 
probably of Pauline influence (as Iam ready 
to concede), but which is far nearer, as 
Harnack has pointed out, to the teaching of 
the Fourth Evangelist than to that of the 
Corinthian Epistle. 

Another of my reviewers, Mr. A. Wright, 
in an able paper contributed to the Church- 
man (March, 1894) has dwelt on the same 
point, and seems to regard the breaking of 
bread as a custom peculiar to the Christian 
sacrament. His view is extreme. He 
observes that the phrase breaking of bread 
is ‘never found in the Old Testament, nor, 
I believe, in any pre-Christian author.’ ‘ It 
was our Lord who introduced a new custom.’ 
This is however a mistake. In Isaiah lviii. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


7 both Cheyne and Delitzsch read ‘Is it not 
to break thy bread to the hungry?’ And 
Benzinger in his recent Hebrdische Archéo- 
logie, p. 87, mentions the Jewish custom of 
breaking bread. It seems to have prevailed 
in sacrifices (cf. Lev. ii. 6) and especially in 
the funeral feasts (Jer. xvi. 7 &e.). As toits 
precise meaning in Jewish custom we may 
be doubtful. Certainly to share bread with 
another in the East constitutes a tie of 
fellowship with him. But there was much. 
more in the Lord’s Supper than a feast of © 
Christian fellowship. ; 

A word must be added as to the relation 
of the Fourth Evangelist to the Lord’s 
Supper. Most of the critics have borne 
hard on my statement that this writer seems 
to intend in his sixth chapter to keep the. 
mystic teaching there contained as regards 
the body and the blood of Christ apart from 
the historical tradition of the Last Supper. 
No doubt the Fourth Evangelist was 
acquainted with the custom of the Lord’s 
Supper, as with the custom of baptism. 
He was not disposed to attach great value 
to rites as such. But as he mentions water 
in connexion with the new birth, he seems 
to have appreciated the Christian custom of 
baptism. On the other hand there is an 
entire absence of indication that he regarded 
the attachment of the mystic doctrine of 
the body and blood to the Christian Com- 
munion as desirable. And in describing 
the Last Supper he follows what seems to 
be a trustworthy tradition, and yet omits all 
reference to the founding of a Sacrament. 
No doubt argument from omission is always 
dangerous: but in this case it is of double 
strength and must be allowed some weight. 
it is far easier to account for the line taken 
in the Fourth Gospel if the Sacrament were 
of Pauline origin, and did not date from 
the Master’s lifetime. 

A wider historical question is raised when 
we consider how the ideas embodied in the 
Christian Sacrament are related to previous 
history, Jewish and Greek. It seems quite 
clear that the notion of communion with an 
unseen power, which is specially implied in 
the Lord’s Supper as accepted by St. Paul 
and the Christian Church, existed in a lower 
and embryonic form in the Mysteries of the 
Heathen, and only required like most 
heathen beliefs to be raised to a higher 
sphere, and ‘ baptised into Christ,’ to be fit 
for a nobler destiny. If the institution of 
the Lord’s Supper was first introduced by 
St. Paul at Corinth, the probability of some 
influence of the neighbouring Eleusis can 
searcely be overlooked. If it was first intro- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


duced elsewhere, the mysteries of Mithras 
or Sabazius might seem a more probable 
source. But Mr. Mayor thinks of a 
purely Jewish origin. He asks ‘ Was it 
really necessary that a Jew should be 
brought in contact with Pagan ceremonial 
before he could realize the religious import- 
ance of commemorative festivals!’ The 
reply is that the Christian Sacrament was 
far more than a commemorative festival. It 
implied a fellowship between worshipper and 
worshipped, a notion of primitive religion, 
the preservation and development of which 
was especially due to the more orgiastic 
forms of Greek religion, the Dionysiac 
Mithraic and Orphic cults. In origin these 
cults were not purely Greek: they brought 
into Greece ideas and feelings foreign to 
the purely Hellenic religion. And they 
had, as Dieterich has clearly shown in his 
Nekyia, a considerable influence on Jewish 
religion also between the time of Alexander 
and the Christian era. Doubtless St. Paul 
was a Jew, a Pharisee and the son of a 
Pharisee, but yet he was to an extent which 
he himself did not realize under the influ- 
ence of those Hellenistic ways of thought 
which in those days a man could no more 
wholly escape than he could live without 
breathing. And the Orphie Mysticism in 
one of its many forms would influence him 
as it influenced Aeschylus and Polygnotus 
and Plato and the authors of the Book of 
Enoch and Philo. Mr. Wright in the paper 
already cited observes that ‘the resemblance 
between the Christian ordinance and both 
ancestor-worship and the Eleusinian Mys- 
teries is no doubt real, but I should account 
for it by the similarity which exists be- 
tween all ancient religious rites among 
civilized peoples.’ As a generality, this 
may well pass. But in considering the 
origin of a rite arising at a known time, 
and possibly a known place, we must try to 
go beyond generalities. And it has to be 
shown that in the middle of the first 
century A.D.,in the Greater Greece of the 
Levant, any cults existed except those 
belonging to the Orphic stratum of ideas 
(using the word Orphic is quite a general 
sense) which were likely to give precedent 
for such a rite as St. Paul describes. 

The Fathers of the Church had a keen 
hatred for the Pagan Mysteries, not so much, 
probably, because they contrasted with, as 
because they were like their own. Simia 
quam similis turpissima bestia nobis. But 
we have changed our point of view. We 
look on the ape no longer as a caricature of 
man but as representing a stage in his 


269 


development. In the same way the Pagan 
Mysteries acquire interest and dignity when 
we realize that though they were tainted 
with formalism, imposture and even ob- 
scenity, yet they held the germs of ideas 
destined for a higher life under the influence 
of a nobler and purer religion. 
Percy GARDNER. 





T am reluctant to occupy any more of the 
space of the Classical Review with a discus- 
sion which searcely falls within its province, 
but there are one or two points in Prof. 
Gardner’s reply on which a word of explan- 
ation seems desirable. 

eyo yap mapeAaBov ard tov Kuptov. The 
point to which I ealled attention in this 
phrase was the variation from the ordinary 
construction zapéAaBov rapa. I never denied 
that wapa may be used with the first link of 
a chain of tradition—on the contrary, I 
quoted an instance of it—but, as contrasted 
with amo, the former suggests the closer, 
the latter the more distant connexion. I 
further pointed out, what I should think all 
must admit, the unnaturalness of the ex- 
pression wapéAaBov for an apocalyptic vision ; 
and lastly I said that St. Paul’s appeal to 
the authority of other churches in the same 
Epistle, in confirmation of his own decision 
as regards the position of women, made it 
unlikely that he should have been here in- 
sisting on a tradition not accepted by other 
churches. I do not see that in my dis- 
cussion of this point I have said anything 
which could imply that Prof. Gardner was 
propounding a novelty ; not that this would 
be any reason for condemning it In my own 
mind : non enim tam auctores in disputando 
quam rationis momenta quaerenda sunt. 
Nor do I quite understand the distinction 
he draws between the controversialist and 
the reviewer. We may distinguish three 
kinds of useful reviews ; the first states what 
is to be found in the book reviewed, with- 
out any attempt at criticism ; the second 
adds to this the expression of the reviewer's 
judgment ; the third adds likewise the 
reasons for his judgment. This last is to 
my mind by far the most profitable sort of 
review, provided that you have a competent 
and fair-minded reviewer ; and this is what 
it was my aim to give in my notice of the 
Origin of the Lord’s Supper. 

The argument as to the probability that 
St. Luke would have included in his account 
of the institution of the Eucharist those 
particulars on which St. Paul had laid such 
stress, was of course addressed to readers 


270 


who, with Bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort, 
believed the Third Gospel to be written by 
St. Luke. To those who, like Prof. Gardner, 
hold this ‘to be most improbable,’ the argu- 
ment would have to be differently worded, 
but it would not I think lose its force, 
supposing that they admit the writer of the 
Acts to be the same person with the 
writer of the Gospel. 

Lastly, I am not at all concerned to deny 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


that St. Paul may have found an interest- 
ing parallel to the Christian Sacrament in 
the Pagan Mysteries, and I should like to 
see this subject worked out more fully; at 
the same time it must not be forgotten that 
there was much in the details of the 


“Mysteries, which would have been most _ 


abhorrent to Christian feeling. 


J. B. Mayor. 





AUR HAE OT, OG ye 


ATHENE ERGANE. 


Bar’ cis 600v 62) Tas 6 XEtpOvaE eds 
ot tiv Atos yopyorw "Epyavynv orartots 
Nixvoist Tpootperrec Oe. 


Soph. Fr. 724. 


Tuts passage has generally and no doubt 
rightly been brought into connexion with 
the festival of the Chalkeia celebrated by 
the craftsmen of Athens (the yepdva€ deds) 
in honour of the master craftsmen He- 
phaistos and Athene Ergane. One element 
remains on this supposition unexplained. 
Why do the craftsmen worship their gods 
‘with winnowing baskets set up’—an 
element more appropriate surely to Demeter 
or Bacchus than to the ‘operosa Minerva’ ? 

Sophocles makes no mention of He- 
phaistos, and it is doubtful if originally the 
Chalkeia had anything to do with him. 
Suidas gives us some valuable information 
on this point. Xadkeia €opti dpxaia kal 
Snpwdns Tada, votepov dé t7d povwv TyeTo 
texvitav OTe 6 “Hdauoros év tH Atrixn xadxKov 
cipyaoato, and again €opti...4 twes AOyjvara 
kadovow* ot dé Ildvdnnov dua TO tmd TavTwv 
ayes$a. We may I think dismiss the 
Hephaistos element as torepov, but there 
still remains Athene the Workwoman and 
the problem why she demands the winnow- 
ing baskets. 

The explanation is I think a simple one. 
The root of the words épyov and “Epyavy 
bears another and a more primitive meaning 
than that in later times usually implied. 
"Epyov is a ‘land’ as well as the result of a 
craft and Ergane is she of the tilled ground 
as well as she of the needle and loom, the 
chisel and hammer. We need go no further 
than the "Epya xai “Hyépar of Hesiod and 
the dvdpév riova épya of Homer. This mean- 
ing is put second in the lexicon but surely 





came first to primitive man. The ‘ works’ 
of Ergane changed from ploughed fields to 
statues as her worshippers changed from 
rural labourers to city craftsmen and artists, 
but even yxepdvaé Aeds dare not omit from 
the cultus of Ergane her sacred symbol of 
the Aikvov : she would remember though they 
might forget. 

Yet another curious point remains to be 
noted. Athene Ergane was figured in art 
asa Herm. If she were merely the goddess 
of craftsmen, it is not a little surprising 
they should have given the figure of their 
patroness so meagre a specimen of their 
skill.. But for Ergane of the fields, possibly 
at first a mere landmark, no form could be 
more natural and appropriate. She was 
not alone inthis simplicity. At Megalopolis 
Pausanias writes (viii. 32, 4) «ici be bro- 
Karafavre ddéyov Goi, See be Kal ovToL 
TXHPA TEeTPAywvor" “Epydra d€ éotw aivtots 
émikAnots “AOnva te “Epydvn kai ’Awé\wv 
*Ayuiets. Here we have a whole collection 
of husbandry gods to whom later no doubt 
the names of particular Olympians were 
affixed. Aguieus, the primitive form of 
Apollo, wasa husbandman before he became 
the Delphian, Ergane before she attained 
local splendour as Athene. 

It has been noted by Prof. Robert 
(Hermes xxii. p. 135) that, as _ dedi- 
cations to Athene Ergane are set up in the 
precinct of the Polias, Athene Ergane and 
Polias are probably identical ; if so, there is 
no need to seek for a separate shrine of 
Ergane. It is to say the least noticeable 
that in the shrine of Athene-Polias-Ergane— 
there isa ‘Eppis EvAov, very ancient— K éxporos 
elvat Aeyopevov avaOyua—to which could we 
but add a Szovdaiwv Aafuwv the much dis- 
puted Trinity of the lacuna passage (P. i. 
24, 3) would stand complete. 

Mr, Frazer (J.H.S. xiii. part ii. p. 1) in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


his article on the pre-Persian temple on the 
Acropolis has shown incidentally that 
Polias was the mother goddess of the 
Erechtheion from whom the later Parthenos, 
originally but her other aspect, differentiated 
herself with ever increasing clearness. 
This Polias this Ergane was the Kouro- 
trophos, the mother of fruits to fields and 
man.! 

This brings us back to the Chalkeia and 
the Adkva and enables us to formulate their 
function with somewhat more precision. 

In an unpublished essay which he kindly 
allows me to cite Mr. A. G. Bather has 
shown, with I think a high measure of 
probability, that the Chalkeia was a plough- 
ing festival closely analogous, as primitive 
ploughing festivals are, to marriage cere- 
monials. It was émi raidwv yvnoiwy apdtw 
and ineluded such elements as the familiar 
‘ yoking of the maiden’ and the sowing of 
seed mixed with the ashes from the plough 
fire. For the whole question of this primi- 
tive sympathetic magic which has left 
abundant trace in many a tragic metaphor 
I must refer to the chapter on ‘Kind and 
Korn’ in Mannhardt, Mythologische For- 
schungen, where this natural symbolism is 
traced to the wedding ceremonials of primi- 
tive peoples throughout the world. One 
point however must be noted in detail, ¢.e. 
the function of the AcKvor. 

The Pseudo-Plutarch (Prov. Alex. xvi. 
1255) states vouos jv “AOyvyoe év tots yapors 
Gpdary maida Aixvov Pacrdlovta aptwv 
méewv eita éxtrdeyew “Eduyov Kaxov ectpov 
dpecvov—the loaves of bread are but the later 
more civilized form of the seed corn itself, 
and the seed was the symbol of the child. 
The new-born child itself was laid for luck 
in the liknon as its cradle. év yap Xeckvors, 
says the Scholiast to Callimachus hymn i. 
48, 7d wadauov KateKotpilov Ta Bpépyn zAodTOV 
kal KapTovs oiwvildépevot. Aikvov obv TO KOT KLWOV 
7) TO Kovvioy ev @ Ta Tada TIdacw, and 
again Servius commenting on the ‘mystica 
vannus lacchi’ (Georg. i. 166) says: vannus 

1 Since writing the above it has occurred to me 
that, in the ceremonies of the Chalkeia (or some 
analogous Boeotian festival) may be found the true 
solution of the much discussed archaic plate in the 

3ritish Museum B. 80 (for literature see Mr. Walters’ 
catalogue, p. 76). Mr. Cecil Smith explains the 
obverse as a marriage procession, Mr. A. S. Murray 
as a sacrifice to Athene. A priestess presents to 
Athene an object that seems to me to be a Alxvoy, 
May not the scene be explained by a quasi-joint 
solution—a marriage procession of Athene, ¢.¢. the 
Chalkeia? On the reverse, the goat is sacrificed, the 
skin of which, the aegis, was carried to, and put on 
the newly married goddess or mortal to secure 


fertility. I throw out the suggestion, but its full 
discussion must be reserved for a future date, 


271 


autem apud eos Aikvoy nuncupatur: ubi de 
more positus esse dicitur postquam est utero 
matris editus. 

Athene Parthenos might shirk her 
motherhood and give the child to Gaia to 
rear up, but Polias-Ergane, yoked to the 
plough, lawful wife of the old Herm 
Ergates, did not disdain the service offered 
otatots Aikvout. 

JANE E, Harrison. 


THE HARBOURS OF CARTHAGE. 


fy June 1891 I published an article on 
the Harbours of Carthage in the columns of 
this Review. And in October 1893 I 
replied here to the criticisms of Dr. Raimund 
Oehler in Fleckeisen’s Jahrbiicher fiir 
classische Philologie for 1893, pp. 821—332. 
I have now to reply to the criticisms of Dr. 
Otto Meltzer in Fleckeisen for 1894, pp. 
49—68 and 119—136. It appears that Dr. 
Meltzer had sent his article to press before 
he heard of my reply to Dr. Oehler ; but he 
has added a Nachschrift in rejoinder. 

Dr. Meltzer upholds the orthodox theory. 
Southward of the citadel of Carthage there 
are two large ponds in the low ground 
between the hill and the shore. The 
northern pond was originally circular, with 
a circular island in the middle, and formed 
the harbour for the fleet. The southern 
pond was originally rectangular, and formed 
the mercantile harbour. ‘There was a canal 
between the two harbours, and another 
from the mercantile harbour to the sea. 

My theory is that the ponds have nothing 
whatever to do with the harbours. I am 
of opinion that the outer harbour was formed 
by piers in the sea ; and also of opinion that 
the inner harbour was nearly surrounded 
by the outer harbour, but that its position 
is otherwise unknown. 

In speaking of Carthage, Appian says 
that the harbour-mouth was not very far 
from the land, viii. 121, ob rdvu réppw Tis 
yas bvra, sc. Tov €orovv TOD Aypévos. This 
implies that it was an appreciable distance 
from the land ; and that would be impossible 
unless it lay between two piers. Dr. 
Meltzer replies, p. 119, schliesslich erledigen 
sich freilich alle derartigen erwdgungen von 
selbst durch den blick auf den zusammenhang, 
in welchem jene angabe steht : sie ist gemacht 
von dem standpunkte Scipios auf der land- 
zunge aus, dem ausgangspunkte des damms, 
mit dem er den hafeneingang zw schliessen 
beabsichtigte, und in diesem sinne ist sie 
vollkommen xutreffend. Appian simply says 


272 


that Scipio decided on blocking the harbour- 
mouth by throwing out a dam, and this was 
practicable because the harbour-mouth was 
not very far from the land; but Dr. Meltzer 
wants to make him say that it was not very 
far from a particular piece of land. -Appian, 
however, has a particular name for this 
particular piece of land; .and calls it by 
that name in the very next sentence. 
After saying that the harbour-mouth was 
ov Tavy Toppw THs yys, he proceeds to say 
that Scipio threw out the dam amo ris 
Tawtas, 1) petacd THs Aiuvys ovoa Kal THs 
Gartacons yAdoou éxaXeiro. If he had only 
meant to say that the harbour-mouth was 
not very far from this piece of land, he 
would presumably have put tawias or 
yAéoons in place of yjs and altered the 
arrangement of the sentences. Moreover, 
on Dr. Meltzer’s hypothesis, the harbour 
lay inland in a hollow with its mouth upon 
the shore at the point marked 42 in Falbe’s 
map; and if Appian had wanted to say 
that this point upon the shore was not very 
far from another point upon the shore, he 
would never have used the word yy to 
denote one of these points in contradistinc- 
tion to the other. And then again Appian 
says that Scipio carried the dam out seaward, 
mpowwv és TO méAayos kal evfivwv emt Tov 
éom\ovy : and that hardly sounds as though 
the dam was carried from one point upon 
the shore to another point upon the shore, 
according to Dr. Meltzer’s theory. 

Dr. Meltzer admits that the name of 
Cothon was given to the outer harbour. 
The name is interpreted by Festus, s.v., 
Cothones appellantur portus in mari interiores, 
arte et manu facti. And this interpretation 
is in favour of my theory; for if an arti- 
ficial harbour is constructed in the sea, it 
must be formed by piers. In reference to 
this interpretation Dr. Meltzer says, p. 131, 
charakteristisch fiir Torrs methode ist thre 
verwertung, um damit, dh. mit einer wunrich- 
tigen auffassung derselben, Vergilius und 
Servius vermeintlicher weise zu widerlegen. es 
geniigt wohl dem gegeniiber festzustellen, dass 
die worte des Festus die bedeutung haben 
konnten, Cothones seien kiinstliche, im binnen- 
lande hergestellte seehifen. dass sie diese auch 
haben sollten, mag dabei immerhin nur den 
wert einer vermutung behalten. Dr. Meltzer 
has no ground for saying that I used the 
passage in Festus to refute the testimony of 
Virgil. I used it to refute the testimony of 
Servius ; but not without other evidence to 
the same effect. Dr. Meltzer does not give 
his reasons for saying that my construction 
of the passage is erroneous. And perhaps 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


I may be permitted to doubt whether he 
has any reasons to give; for in the next 
sentence he commits himself to the proposi- 
tion that the words portus in mari inter- 
iores may be represented by the words 
seehiifen im binnenlande. He must either 


‘make in mari mean in terra, or else take 


intertores as equivalent to im binnenlande 
and thus ignore 7 mari altogether. The 
word seehdfen does not give the force of 
portus in mari ; for it only means that the 
sea is in the harbour, whereas the Latin . 
means that the harbour is in the sea. 

The name of Cothon was not given to any 
harbour away from Carthage except the 
harbour of Hadrumetum ; and at Hadrum- 
etum there was a harbour formed by piers, 
which are still in existence. This coincidence 
is in favour of my theory that the Cothon 
at Carthage was a harbour formed by piers. 
Dr. Meltzer replies, p. 55, dabei ist jedoch 
tibersehen, dass drinnen im lande an einer 
stelle, die sich freilich zur zeit noch nihern 
nachforschungen entzieht, die spuren eines 
zweiten, von menschenhand gegrabenen hafens 
sowie die spuren des canals nachweisbar sind, 
durch welchem derselbe mit dem déussern hafen 
in verbindung stand. That is the orthodox 
statement ; and I went down to Hadrume- 
tum fully expecting to find these traces of 
an inner harbour. But I could not find 
anything of the sort ; and I do not think I 
could have been mistaken. A man might 
overlook the remains of a monument, or 
even of a building; but he could hardly 
overlook the remains of so big a thing as a 
harbour, if such remains existed. 

Dr. Meltzer supports his statement by 
references to H. Maltzan’s ‘Reise in den 
Regentschaften Tunis und Tripolis,’ vol. iii. 
pp. 46 ff., and C. Tissot’s ‘Géographie com- 
parée de la Province Romaine d’Afrique,’ 
vol. ii. pp. 154 ff.; and then he adds wem 
sie zu sehr unter dem einfluss von A. Daux 
zu stehen scheinen, dem wird doch die kurze 
bemerkung von G. Wilmanns im C.LLL,. VIUI. 
s. 15 geniigen. Wilmanns’ remark runs 
thus :—‘cum [Hadrumetum] tempore belli 
Caesariani et portum haberet et cothonem 
(bell. Afr. 62, 63), quorum certa vestigia in 
ora maris etiam nunc visuntur, saeculo 
tertio,’ ete. This does not agree with the 
account that Maltzan and Tissot have 
received from the notorious Daux. Accord- 
ing to Wilmanns, the vestiges of the inner 
harbour are by the shore: but Daux 
interposes a canal between the inner 
harbour and shore, and makes this canal 
more than 280 yards in length. Having 
seen the place myself, I am not prepared to 


—— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 273 


attach much weight to either story. I 
suspect that Daux and Wilmanns_ both 
‘went to Hadrumetum with the notion that 
a Cothon was necessarily a harbour that lay 
inland in an excavation ; and thus were led 
to describe various ruins ashore as remnants 
of that harbour. 

Be that as it may, Dr. Meltzer has not 
only got to prove that there was an inner 
harbour at Hadrumetum: he has also got 
to prove that this inner harbour was the 
Cothon. He says, p. 132, hier konnte der 
ausdruck [Cothon] nur den innern, von 
menschenhand ausgegrabenen hafen bezeichnen, 
und die im b. Afr. 62, 63 geschilderten ereig- 
nisse lassen auch auf nichts anderes schliessen, 
als dass von diesem die rede ist. welche 
benennung der ciussere, durch molen dem 
freien meere abgewonnene hafen von Hadru- 
metum gefiihrt hat, ist dabei eine sache fiir sich. 
Those statements will not bear examination. 
The two first passages are, 62, ‘vigilia 
secunda Adrumeto ex cothone egressus cum 
primo mane Leptim universa classe vectus, 
ete., and, 63, ‘promunturium superarunt 
atque Adrumetum in cothonem se universae 
contulerunt.’ These passages simply state 
that the fleet left the Cothon at Hadrume- 
tum to go to Leptis ; and that, after it was 
driven back from Leptis, it returned to the 
Cothon at Hadrumetum, There is nothing 
in them to suggest that the Cothon lay 
inland in an excavation ; or that the fleet 
started from an inner harbour and returned 
to an inner harbour. The remaining 
passage is, 63, ‘navibus onerariis, quae 
erant extra cothonem, incensis omnibusque 
reliquis ab iis aut subductis aut in cothonem 
compulsis.’ This passage simply states that, 
when Caesar came up from Leptis in pursuit, 
he burnt all the merchant-ships that were 
not either run ashore or taken into the 
Cothon. There is nothing here to suggest 
that the Cothon lay inland in an excava- 
tion ; and clearly the Cothon cannot here 
be taken for the inner harbour. If Caesar 
had burnt all the merchant-ships that were 
not either run ashore or taken into the 
inner harbour, he must have burnt the 
shipping in the outer harbour: and the 
historian would never have omitted all 
mention of so important an incident as the 
capture of the outer harbour. 

Dr. Meltzer asserts that the name of 
Cothon was given to the inner harbour at 
Carthage as well as the outer harbour. He 
says, p. 131, dem wortsinne nach muss also 
der ausdruck xiOwv die ganze hafenanlage 
von Karthago, den handelshafen und den 
kriegshafen, zusammen bezeichnet haben. That 


is contradicted by Appian, vill. 127, 6 pev 
Seirlov érexe(pe TH TE Bipon Kat TOV Aevov 
7 kahovpevw Kdbov. If these words mean 
anything, they mean that one of the 
harbours was called the Cothon, and the 
other was not. Dr. Meltzer meets the ob- 
jection by saying that Appian contradicts 
himself—p. 132, Appians darstellung steht 
im widerspruch mit sich selbst. There is 
no explicit statement of his grounds for 
this assertion, but he leaves no doubt of 
what they are. Appian speaks of 70 pepos 
tod Kiéwvos ro terpdywvov, and afterwards 
of 7d repidepés adrod pépos, and Dr. Meltzer 
takes these phrases respectively to mean 
the outer harbour and the inner harbour, 
But, obviously, this does not show that 
Appian contradicts himself: it only shows 
that he contradicts Dr. Meltzer’s interpre- 
tation of him. My interpretation is that 
the Cothon was formed by piers which made 
an angle at one end of the harbour and a 
curve at the other, like the piers at Hadru- 
metum ; and that Appian’s phrases refer to 
the two ends of this harbour. That is in 
accordance with his statement, viii. 127, 
that the round part was émi @drepa tov 
K&éOwvos from the square part. And from 
this point of view his narrative is plain and 
clear throughout. 

According to Appian, viii. 127, the 
Romans finally took the city by capturing 
the wall round the Cothon; and_ they 
effected this by surprising the round part 
of the Cothon, while they were threatening 
the square part. My theory is that the 
round part was the northern end ; and that 
the curved pier continued the curve of the 
hills that sweep round from the citadel to 
the little headland northward of the ponds. 
In this case the Romans could have at- 
tacked the round part from the north. Dr. 
Meltzer’s theory is that the round part is 
represented by the northern pond. In that 
case the Romans could not have made their 
attack from the north, as the way was 
blocked by the defences on the hills. 
Accordingly, Dr. Meltzer has to say that 
they came up from the south-east, where 
they had established themselves in force 
upon the x@pa, or wharf. He states this 
fully on pp. 129, 130, with references to 
Falbe’s map. But this only removes the 
difficulty a step; for then there is the 
question how the Romans got at the wharf, 
if that lay to the south-east. 

Dr. Meltzer supposes that this wharf is 
represented by some ruins in the sea just 
opposite the southern pond, and fixes the 
site by reference to the points marked 44 


274 


to 47 in Falbe’s map, In that position the 
wharf would not have been accessible by 
land from any place except the city itself. 
But the Romans must have made their 
attack by land, for Appian says that they 
brought battering-rams to bear on the 
defences here, viii. 124. Dr. Meltzer has 
therefore to suppose that the Romans made 
their attack from the dam which Scipio 
threw out to block the harbour-mouth. 
Thus he says, p. 122, sollte der damm die 
hafeneinfahrt wirklich versperren, so muste er 
auf das xopa hin gerichtet sein und dieses 
erreichen. er hat es bet der stidspitze desselben 
erreicht, &e., and then again, p. 54, am 
folgenden morgen griff Scipio das yapa an, 
was eben nur von seinem damm aus geschehen 
konnte. This is nothing but conjecture. In 
the first place, there is no evidence to show 
that the dam ran out towards the wharf. 
No doubt, it would have run towards the 
wharf, if the wharf were on the east side 
of the harbour-mouth: but that is simply 
an assumption. In the second place, there 
is no evidence to show that the dam ever 
was completed. The last that Appian tells 
us of the dam is that the work was making 
progress—vili. 121, zpowdvros tod épyov—and 
then the Carthaginians cut a new mouth 
at the other end of the harbour, thereby 
defeating the object of the dam. In the 
third place, there is no evidence to show 
that the wharf was attacked from the dam. 
Appian gives a minute account of the at- 
tack, devoting two whole chapters to it, 
vill. 124, 125; but there is nothing there 
to indicate that the attack was made from 
the dam. 

Dr. Meltzer here cites the passage in 
Plutarch, apophthegmata regum, p. 200, érei 
dé mwapehOav (Sxuriwv) eis TO Tetyos, TOV 
Kapyndoviwy éx ris dkpas Gpvvopevov, THY dia 
pécov Od\acoav ov wavy Babeiav ovoay tod 
TloAvBiov cupPBovdrcvovtos aitd Katac7eipar 
tpiBoXovs oidypods, x.t.A. He says, p. 123, 
Scipio befindet sich auf seinem damm, am 
schauplatz jenes kampfes—das miissen die 
worte rapedOav eis Td Tetxos besagen sollen. 
The dam is nowhere called a refyos, nor is 
there any mention of a retyos on the dam. 
Then he says, p. 123, die Karthager leisten aber 
noch widerstand éx tis axpas, dh. von der 
stidspitze des yOua aus. His interpretation 
here is arbitrary. But as he supposes that 
the dam ran out towards the wharf, and 
thus identifies the retyos with the dam and 
the dxpa with the wharf, he ought to take 
THY dua pecov Od\acoav for the sea between 
the wharf and the dam. This would not 
suit his theory ; so he says, p. 123, es ist der 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


meeresteil zwischen der nordlichen unter den 
beiden punktierten linien bei Falbe und der 
kiiste. According to Falbe’s map this was 
some way to the westward. Dr. Meltzer 
has certainly a eurious method of trans- 


_lating ; but in dealing with the wharf he 


never is guided by the natural meaning of 
the evidence before him. He proceeds on 
the assumption that the wharf was neces- 
sarily on the east side of the harbour-mouth, 
since the Romans could not otherwise have 
made an attack upon the northern pond, as - 
required by his theory. 

My theory is that the inet was on the 
west side of the harbour-mouth, and there- 
fore open to attack by land. I have always 
admitted that this view would be untenable, 
if there were evidence to show that the dam 
ever was completed ; for in the naval action 
described by Appian, viii. 125, the ships 
must have crossed the line of the dam to 
reach a wharf between the harbour-mouth 
and the shore. And here Dr. Meltzer says, 
p. 54, Sctpios sperrdamm war ja gerade fertig, 
als das seegefecht statifand; spat am abend 
endete es, und gleich am folgenden morgen yr uf 
Scipio das yépa an, was eben nur von seinem 
damm aus geschehen konnte. This is an 
interesting bit of reasoning. The wharf 
could not have been on the west side of the 
harbour-mouth, if the dam was finished 
when the naval action was fought. It is 
clear that the dam was finished then; for 
the Romans attacked the wharf next 
morning, and they could not have reached 
the wharf unless the dam was finished. 
And why not? Because the wharf was on 
the east side of the harbour-mouth! It is 
so easy to prove that a thing was not in 
any given place, if you only start with 
the assumption that the thing was some- 
where else. 

In speaking of the wharf, Appian says 
that it was defended by a dcare/yuopa or 
mapateixiopa, Vill. 123-125. Now, on my 
hypothesis, the wharf ran out from the 
shore to the harbour-mouth, and had a wall 
across the landward end to keep the enemy 
off. Dr. Meltzer has to suppose that the 
wall was intended to prevent a landing on 
the wharf—p. 122, gewis nur an einen lan- 
dungsversuch gedacht—in which case it must 
have run right round the sides that faced 
the sea; and such a wall could hardly be 
termed a zaparteiyiopa or dtateiyuopa. 

Dr. Meltzer not only asserts that the 
dam was finished, but that it has never been 
destroyed—p. 67, thn wegzurdiumen hat nie 
jemand anlass gehabt. And he places its 
remains between the points marked 41 and 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


45 on Falbe’s map, where I can only see a 
natural bar across the mouth of a little 
bay. And then he exclaims, p. 56, welch 
enorme linge hitte nun der damm bekommen, 
welch eigentiimliche richtung annehmen miissen, 
um Torrs hafeneingang zu erreichen. He 
does not explain what he means by the 
eigentiimliche richtung ; and I cannot guess. 
But the enorme ldénge is no more than is 
required by the evidence. Appian says 
that the work was regarded as ypoviov Te 
Kal pakpovd Kat lows advvarov, vill. 121. I 
may note here that Dr. Meltzer wastes a 
dozen lines on p. 56 in giving some words 
of mine a meaning that they do not bear. 
He really might have seen that what I call 
in English the promontory of Carthage is 
precisely what he calls in German die 
Karthagische halbinsel. 

According to my theory, the square part 
of the Cothon was the southern end and 
continued the line of fortifications which 
formed the angle, 7 ywvia, the round part 
being the northern end and continuing the 
curve of the hills. To the south of the 
citadel the ground is nearly level, with a 
solitary hillock a little way behind the 
southern pond ; and I suppose that this hil- 
lock was selected for the angular point in 
the fortifications, as the strongest position 
available. On p. 55 Dr. Meltzer calls this 
eine irrige ansicht of mine. He does not 
give his reasons there; but he says on p. 
53, aus den berichten der quellen tiber die 
letzte belagerung geht unzweideutig hervor, dass 
die vielgenannte dreifache befestigungslinie, 
welche die stadt gegen die landseite (landenge) 
hin deckte, mit ihrem siidlichen ende den see 
von Tunis beriihrt haben muss. He there- 
fore places the angular point considerably 
further to the south; for it formed the 
south end of the triple wall, and he says 
that this abutted on the lake of Tunis. But 
that is clearly a mistake. Appian states 
that the Romans carried their entrenchments 
across the promontory éx @addoons emi 
OdXaccay, vill. 119, and he distinguishes the 
lake as Aiuvn. As these entrenchments ran 
from sea to sea, they must have passed he- 
tween the city and the lake ; so the fortifi- 
cations of the city cannot have abutted on 
the lake. I had to point this out in my 
reply to Dr. Oehler, p. 377 ; and Dr. Meltzer 
returns to the question in his Nachschri/t, 
saying, p. 135, auch die unrichtige anschauung 
iiber den zug der sog. dreifachen stadtmauer in 
ihrem siidlichen teile kehrt wieder, jetzt nicht 
besser als friiher gestiitzt durch eine deutung 
von Appian, viii. 119 aa., die ja an sich zulds- 
sig wire, wenn es nur auf den landliufigen sinn 


275 


des einzelnen wortes ankdme, sich aber sofort 
als unmiglich erweist, sobald man den ganzen 
susammenhang und die thatsachen in betracht 
cieht, die in dieser hinsicht schon seit langer 
zeit vollkommen sichergestellt sind. That is 
simply a bit of bluster. Its value is shown 
by what he says elsewhere. Thus, on p. 
123, he asserts that Dr. Oehler has set right 
ein starkes misverstindnis of mine in relation 
to the sortie described by Appian, viii. 124. 
Dr. Oehler’s interpretation of the passage 
may be better than my own; but I fail to 
see how Dr. Meltzer can accept it. Dr. 
Oehler maintains that, when the Romans 
were driven away from the dam, they fled in 
a panie to their camp on the neck of the 
promontory. In that case, they must have 
passed between the city and the lake ; and 
this would have been impossible, if the 
fortifications of the city had abutted on the 
lake, as Dr. Meltzer supposes. 

Strabo says that the imner harbour at 
Carthage consisted of a little circular island 
surrounded by a channel with docks on 
either side in a ring, xvil. 3.14. And I 
imagine that the inner harbour was nearly 
surrounded by the outer harbour; for 
Appian says that around the docks there 
was a double wall, and r’Aae which carried 
the merchants from the outer harbour into 
the city without passing through the docks, 
vill. 96. This statement would be pointless, 
if rvAae here meant gates ; for if the mer- 
chants had only to walk through gates to 
reach the city, there would have been no 
question of passing through the docks in the 
inner harbour. I therefore suppose that 
mvAat here means channels, as in Strabo, iii. 
5. 5, quoting Pindar, zvAas Taderpidas, 
Aeschylos, Prometheus 729, orevordpors 
Aiuvns wvAas, and Kuripides, /.A. 803, év 
midas, cf. 804, Evpirov réAas. And I rely 
on passages in Plato and Diodoros as evidence 
that such channels did exist at Carthage. 
In reply to this, Dr. Meltzer says, p. 54, 
ferner hat wirta an der von Torr dafin 
angefiihrten stellen durchaus nicht die bedeu- 
tung von ‘canilen’ wie er sie auch fiir Appian, 
vili. 96, annehmen michte, freilich ohne 
irgendwie eine klare vorstellung davon zu 
geben, welche bewandinis es dann eigentlich 
mit diesen candlen gehabt haben sollte. He 
does not state his grounds for making these 
assertions. If the objection is that mia 
must refer to natural waterways, I may cite 
Diodoros, xiv. 7. 3, where an artificial 
waterway at Syracuse is termed a 7vAn. 

Appian says that there were docks for 220 
ships in the inner harbour at Carthage, 
some on the land around and some on the 


276 


island, viii. 96. I maintain that, if the 
Carthaginian docks were of the same dimen- 
sions as the Athenian docks of the same 
date, the inner harbour cannot be repre- 
sented by the northern pond, as a frontage 
of at least 5638 feet would be required 
where no more than 4442 feet would be 
available. On p. 66 Dr. Meltzer says that 
this has been disproved by Dr. Oehler. 
After reading my reply to Dr. Oehler, he 
returns to the question in his Nachschrift, 
saying, p. 135, betreffs der schiffshduser im 
Peiraieus darf vor allem wohl auf C. Wachs- 
muth, ‘die stadt Athen im altertum,’ II. i. s. 
60 ff. (vgl. B. Lupus, ‘ Syrakus’ usw. s. 26. 
175) verwiesen werden. ernstlich einspruch 
zu erheben ist aber gegen den versuch Torrs die 
sache mit den schmalen schiffshdusern (2°5 m) 
in Syrakus zu verschieben. lier heisst es 
einfach den festgestellten thutbestand zum 
ausgangspunkt der betrachtung nehmen, nicht 
ihn nach jeweiligem bedarf dndern. Wachs- 
muth’s book does not contain a single figure 
in support of Dr. Oehler’s calculations. It 
is true that Wachsmuth mentions the fact 
that Graser published some rough and ready 
measurements, which differed widely from 
those that afterwards were taken by Lieut. 
von Alten in the Germany survey. But 
nobody has quoted Graser’s measurements 
since the publication of the Karten von 
Attika. I have dealt with the statements 
of Lupus in my reply to Dr. Oehler, p. 376. 
The rest of Dr. Meltzer’s remarks exhibit a 
strange confusion of thought. It is a 
thatbestand that there are certain walls at 
Syracuse with intervals of 2°5 m between 
them. It is not a thatbestand that each of 
these intervals represents a dock. That is 
merely an hypothesis. And I think my own 
hypothesis is better, since it is justified by 
the analogy of the docks at Athens. In 
reply to Dr. Meltzer’s statements on p. 66, 
to the effect that there is a grave discrepancy 
between Beulé’s measurements and mine, [ 
may remark that the only difference is that 
Beulé’s measurements were given in metres 
and I have put them into English feet. 
Certain remains at Utica having been 
attributed to an excavated harbour with an 
island in the middle, I argued against that 
view, and pointed out that there are similar 
remains at Carthage with an inscription to 
mark them as the baths. Dr. Meltzer says, 
p. 55, Ocehler hat die schwéichen jener folger- 
ungen meist schon hinreichend aufgedeckt. 
Dr. Oehler took three objections, and I dealt 
with these in my reply to him, p. 375. After 
reading my reply, Dr. Meltzer says in his 
Nachschrift that he never attached any im- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


portance to the story of the anchor—p. 135, 
ich habe sie aber nicht einmal erwdéhnt. Then 
only two objections remain. Dr. Meltzer 
says, p. 55, endlich set noch darauf hinge- 
wiesen, dass die umgebung der ruine n. 67 
(vgl. Tissot, II, s. 799, CLL. VIII. n. 12513) 
keinerlet angemessene unterlage fiir einen 
vergleich bietet, wie thn Torr mit gewissen 
verhiltnissen in Utica ziehen will. The refer- 
ences serve only to identify the ruins at 
Carthage as those with the inscription to 
mark them as the baths. The rest is merely . 
a repetition of Dr. Oehler’s first objection— 
aus der tihnlichkeit des grundrisses allein ist 
kein zwingender beweis abzuleiten. And; as 
I pointed out before, the resemblance goes 
far beyond the ground-plan, and shows that 
both ruins belong to structures of the same 
design and date. I may remark that I have 
seen both the ruins, and Drs. Oehler and 
Meltzer have not seen either of them. 
Dr. Oehler’s second objection—aber siimpfe 
kinnen sich doch mit der zeit vergrissern— 
was directed against my statement that the 
marsh at Utica must overlap the former 
coast-line, as it runs right into the orchestra 
of the theatre. The objection does not 
touch this point at all; but it must be fatal 
to my opponent’s case. The current topo- 
graphy of Utica is based on the assumption 
that the former coast-line is marked by the 
edge of the marsh; and this assumption is 
untenable, if the marsh has gradually been 
increasing. But apart from that assump- 
tion, there is nothing to suggest that the 
sea ever ran into the alleged harbour. Dr. 
Meltzer only says, p. 55, schliesslich wird es 
doch dabei bleiben, dass das, was von jeher als 
der rest des kriegshafens von Utica betrachtet 
worden ist, diesen auch wirklich darstellt. If 
a question could be settled by assertions, 
Dr. Meltzer would clearly be the man to 
settle it ; but he does not appear to be quite 
so well qualified for dealing with evidence. 
Cecit Torr. 


MONTHLY RECORD. 


GERMANY. : 

Neuwied.—At Nieder-Bieber in this neighbour- 
hood, in the course of excavations in the Rémer- 
Kastell, was found a bronze bust of one of the 
Gordians. The bust is larger than life-size, and a 
fine piece of work ; it will be placed in the Provinzial- 
Museum at Bonn.? 

ITALY. 

Concordia Sagittaria, Venetia. More inscriptions 
from the tombs of Roman soldiers have recently come 
to light (ef. Class. Rev. for March p. 182). (1) From 
a stone coffer, of the Antonine period: .NNIVS... 





1 Athenaeum, 28th April, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 277 


virco...probably referring to one of the gens Ennius, 
sevir or duovir Concordiae. (2) ENAV... | VIT IN 
(fabrica) saci [TTARIA | QVI VIxIT’AN...cf. C.I.L. v. 
8742, qui militavit in fabrica sagittaria ; probably 
the Sagittarii Nervii, as in C.I.L. v. 8762. (3) Of 
the time of Constantine, invoking a penalty of so 
many folles (small coin) to be paid to the treasury by 
any one disturbing the tomb. The others present no 
special interest.” 


Toscanclla Immolese, near Bologna. In asepulchre 
of the Villanova type have been found a so-called 
tintinnabulum, bell-shaped, ornamented with ser- 
pentine patterns, and inlaid with red amber, and a 
sort of bronze hammer also inlaid with amber, which 
may have been used for striking the bell. Similar 
objects have been found before now in Etruscan 
tombs. With these objects were a bronze handle, 
two spindle-whorls of vitreous paste, and three boat- 
shaped fibulae.* 


Leprignano, Etruria. A bath has been excavated 
here, which was constructed to make use of the 
chalybeate water coming from the hill above. 
Different methods of construction point to restorations 
during the third and fourth centuries. It appears to 
have been finally used as a sort of store-house, as 
shown by fragments of casks, jars, amphorae, and 
mill-stones. In the remains were found a life-size 
marble statue of Diana Venatrix, a head of Venusin 
Greek marble, and a head of Cybele. 

At Teramo, Picenum, the ancient Interamna, five 
interesting inscriptions have been found. (1) Q. 
POPPAEO’Q’F’ | MVNIC*ET’COLON | PATRONO. He is 
mentioned in C.7.Z. ix. 5074, 5076. Interamna, as 
we learn from the stone, was both a municipiwm and 
a colonia (see Weber, Dic Rim. Agrasgeschichte, p. 
61). (2) L’FISTANVS L‘F‘[L’] TETTAIENVS L’‘F’ 
BARCHA ‘II VIR[I‘IJTER*IN"CAMPVM‘EX ‘C(onscripto- 
rum) * D(ecreto) * [P]EQVNIA*SOCIORVM ‘CAMPI‘FACIVN- 
DVM‘COERAVERE'EIDEMQ’PROBAVERE ; on the side of 
the stone EXTRA MACERIA[M]|IN AGR M... | ... 
PRECAR...cf. C.I.Z. ix. 5076. (8) c*F‘sthv[ANvs] | 
BALNEAS RE[FIC. The nature of his office cannot be 
ascertained. (4) ..VS*DEDICAT EPVL[A | S]ING*DEC’ 
HS‘XX‘N‘SE | V]IR‘ET‘AVG‘HS‘X'PLE | BJEI‘HS‘IIII‘'N * 
pEpIT (see Pannella, Rivista abruzzese, ann. Viil. 
fase. vi. p. 285). (5) HERC‘NEL (in archaic letters). 
Nel. may be an obscure local title. Cf. Herculis 
ponderum, C.I.L. vi. 336. The stone was used as a 
weight, equivalent to fifty Roman pounds.4 


Florence. —A well of Roman date has come to light, 
approached by a flight of steps, with walls of concrete. 
In one wall was a rectangular niche, lined with 
marble, perhaps for an image of a river-god. A 
relief of a river-god has also been found, of Luna 
marble, probably representing the Arno ; the date of 
the well and relief appears to be about A.p. 200.? 

Orvieto. —Excavations in tombs have brought to 
light some good specimens of bronzes and Greek 
pottery, among the former being a cottabos-stand on 
three lion’s feet, surmounted by a nude figure, and 
several simpula, one with dogs’ heads on the handles 
and a relief of a nude man running. Among the 
vases are ab.f. lekythos with two warriors in combat, 
and a r.f. stamnos representing Triptolemos in his 
winged car and other figures ; also a r.f. kylix in- 
scribed 6 wats adds (int. a youth on horseback ; ext. 
scene from palaestra), anciently repaired.* 





2 Notizie dei Lincei, Dec. 1893. 
3 Notizie dei Lincei, Aug. 1893. 
* Notizie det Lincci, Sept. 1893. 


Capannori, Etruria. In an Etruscan tomb a large 
jar has been discovered containing a crater, in which 
were twenty-four gold objects and fragments of burnt 
bones. The crater has r.f. designs, on one side 
Theseus slaying the Minotaur, on the other apparently 
the same hero and Skiron (or perhaps an adventure 
of Herakles) ; it is in very bad condition. The gold 
ornaments consist of a pair of earrings, numerous 
fragments of a chain, eleven fibulae, and a pin. 
With the vase, they appear to date about the begin- 
ning of the fifth century B.c. The chain is made up 
of figures of Sirens and other objects.° 


Corneto- Tarquinii.—Further excavations in the 
necropolis have brought to light a vaulted tomb with 
remains of pottery much incrusted and in bad con- 
dition. They include three proto-Corinthian lekythoi, 
a Corinthian aryballos, and a kantharos of bucchero 
ware ; also a green paste scaraboid with an archaic 
human face on the back, and two running figures on 
the flat side. Other tombs contained remains of the 
third century B.c., but nothing of importance beyond 
a kylix of Italian fabric with a female head in pro- 
file. From another tomb of the end of the sixth 
century came a b.f. kylix, two gold earrings, and a 
carnelian scarab; on either side of the kylix is a 
galloping Centaur. Two other tombs contained an 
aryballos of Egyptian porcelain and gold ornaments, 
and early pottery (including a Corintho-Attic 
lekythos) respectively.* 


Naples. —Remains of a building of Roman times 
have been discovered, consisting of walls of unburnt 
brick, with a suspensura supported by tiles resting on 
terra-cotta pillars, and perforated with tubes ; it was 
much blackened on the under side, and was evidently 
the floor of a calidariwm, probably of a public bath. 
Two marble bases have been found supporting the 
pilasters of an archway, both bearing inscriptions ; 
also two other inscribed slabs of marble. The inscrip- 
tion on one of the bases is of thirteen lines, and gives 
the dedication to Nicomachus Flavianus of the statue 
which the base formerly supported. He is styled, 
consularis Campaniae, proconsul Asiae, praefectus 
urbi iterum, patronus originalis, and appears to have 
lived about A.p. 400. Part of the inscription seems 
to relate to another person. Remains of a subter- 
ranean chamber, apparently a Roman tomb, have 
been found, with vestibule and passages ; the tomb 
contained part of an Aretine bowl, with figures of a 
woman and an old man, and glass bottles.? ® 


Altavilla Silentina, Lucania.—An interesting tomb 
has been discovered with paintings on the walls. On 
one side are represented two warriors in the local 
Messapian costume, inthe act of combat ; behind stands 
a draped female figure, holding a hydria on her head, 
and recalling the hydrophoroi of the Parthenon frieze. 
On the opposite wall is a quadriga guided by a winged 
Nike, and a column representing a meta. On the 
third side, a lion and ibis confronted ; above, a cock 
between a bunch of grapes and a pomegranate. On 
the fourth side are traces of an armed horseman to 
whom a female figure holds out a patera. The 
paintings appear to belong to the third century B.c. 
In this tomb were found a lekythos with a female 
head, and a two-handled vase with a youth and a 
seated female figure.® 


Syracuse.—At the beginning of last summer Dr. 
Orsi resumed his excavations in the large Greek 
necropolis known as Del Fusco; they are now com- 
pleted, and a report of the results published. The 





5 Notizie dei Lincei, Oct. 1893. 
6 Notizie dei Lincei, Nov. 1893. 


278 


tombs are all of the archaic period, dating from about 
800 3.c. down to the fifth century; they have 
suffered very much from robberies at different times. 
There are about 120 in all, mostly mere trenches 
scooped out of the tufa, but some in the form of 
sarcophagi with or without covers, others 
with coverings of tiles, and a few, large jars or 
ossuaria ; nearly all the corpses had been buried. 
The majority of the finds were.of Greek pottery, 
including numerous proto-Corinthian vases, specimens 
of b.f. vases by ‘minor artists,’ and a few r.f. The 
following tombs contained the most interesting 
examples: (No. 16) two r.f. lekythi, one with Eos, in 
bad condition. (19) A large archaic stamnos in 
fragments, with palmette-patterns on the shoulders. 
(20) A large model of a biga, (24) five bucchero 
kantharoi, (28) twenty-four large bent nails of 
bronze, and (29) a small proto-Corinthian lekythos 
with friezes of animals. (41) A b.f. kylix by a minor 
artist, with unintelligible inscription, (54) a r.f. 
skyphos of fine style, with ‘mantle-figures,’ and (65) 
an amphora imitative of Rhodian or Melian style, 
with geometrical patterns, a pyxis, and a b.f. kylix. 
(74) Numerous fragments of b.f. vases: two late 
kylikes and two large skyphoi, fragments of Pana- 
thenaic amphorae, and of a crater in the style of 
Nikosthenes ; fragments of b.f. kylikes in the style of 
Glaukytes, and another in the style of Epiktetos. 
(85) A vase terminating in an animal’s head, and 
several proto-Corinthian lekythi, one like that in the 
British Museum, with two friezes and_ elaborate 
patterns ; also an alabastron of enamelled ware, with 
figures of animals. (101) An early Corinthian kylix 
and stamnos, an early pyxis and lekythos, the latter 
with three dogs running. (113) Two proto-Corinth- 
jan lekythi with dogs and lions, and (115) 
a b.f. phiale omphalotos with ten ‘mantle-figures.’ 
Scattered about were a lekythos with Dionysiac 
subjects ; an olpe with Artemis carrying a stag, 
attended bya panther, inthe style of Pamphaios ; an 
oinochoe with Dionysos, Apollo, and Artemis; an 
ivory counter with an archaic Artemis carrying a 
stag ; boat-shaped and serpent-shaped fibulae ; rings 
of various kinds, three glazed scarabs, and two iron 
knives. ® 

Sardinia.—At Terranova Fausania a sepulchre has 
been excavated containing three Roman tombs on 
each side, and the following objects: a glass bottle 
and a lamp stamped LVPATI; sixteen coins of Probus 
and Carinus ; a bi-uncial as with Janus and ship’s 
prow, inscribed Roma; and a lamp with palm and 
crown. In the neighbourhood were found thirteen 
lamps, five stamped. Altogether 700 tombs have 
been excavated in this neighbourhood, containing 
350 fragments of pottery, over 2,000 coins, 125 glass 
bottles, and other unimportant remains. Fragments 
of a mosaic pavement have also been found, 
belonging to a fountain, with part of an old Roman 
aqueduct. 

GREECE. 

Athens.—Dorpfeld has discovered the site of the 
temple of Dionysos ev Aluvats, together with statues, 
reliefs, and inscriptions relating to the worship and 
rites, and the ceremonies attending initiation into the 
sacred society of the *IdBaxxor. The chief find was a 
large altar with sacrificial scenes : (1) a man preparing 
to slay a goat, and an ox tied by the horns to an 
altar ; (2) a Satyr dragging a ram by the horns, and 
aman about to fell it with a club; (3) Dionysos, 
Pan, and a Satyr; (4) an inscription. The ’Evvea- 
Kpouvvos is now finally identified, and the remains of 
buildings discovered near it may well be the Odeion. 
All the finds belong to the second and third centuries 
of our era, except a head of King Attalos. One 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


inscription gives the name of a new archon eponymos, 
Epaphroditos.?” 

Delphi.—The Paean to Apollo discovered in the 
treasury of the Athenians has been published by Dr. 
Weil; it is not earlier than 300 z.c., and contains 
several &mat Aeydueva. The hymns with musical 
notes inscribed on slabs have now been published in 
the Bull. de Corr. Hell. (1893, pt. 4); there are six 
in all, but only two are of any length. They are 
written in the Paeoniec measure, but the rhythmical 
periods are not easy to make out. The mention of 
the Tadarat lends an air of probability to the conjec- 
ture that the hymn was composed a few years after 
the attack of the Gauls on Phocis in 278 B.c. Probably’ _ 
there was in Delphi an Attic @ewpia for celebrating 
the miraculous preservation of the holy place and of 
all Greece.! § 


Livadia.—The cave of Trophonios is conjectured 
to have been discovered in this neighbourhood, in a 
grotto-like crypt under a church built on the hill to 
the north of Livadia. The nature of the place and 
its mysterious character tally with the account given 
by Pausanias (ix. 39, 10).8 

Crete.—My. Arthur Evans has made some interest- 
ing discoveries in the central part of the island. He 
has come upon the sites of two hitherto unknown 
prehistoric cities, one with acropolis and votive grotto 
containing statuettes of a Mycenaean type, the other 
with stupendous ruins, perhaps of what was once the 
principal centre of the Mycenaean civilization, and 
acropolis and remains of a palace. He also claims to 
have discovered traces of a Mycenaean system of 
writing, which seems closely parallel with the 
Hittite and picture-writing systems. . Another system 
has been discovered, apparently alphabetic, 
approaching more nearly to the Cypriote syllabary, 
the objected being reduced to linear forms.® 


AFRICA. 
Matabeleland.—Kight coins, in a fair state of 

preservation, have been found in the neighbourhood 
of the ruins at Zimbabye. They are undoubtedly 
Roman; four are inscribed CONSTANTIVS CAES., 
another HELENA AVGYSTA, and one represents the 
woif suckling Romulus and Remus.’° 

H. B. WALTERS. 


Revue Archéologique. July—August. 1893. 

2. Espérandieu: list of Roman oculists’ stamps, 
continued. 3. S. Reinach : discusses the terminology 
of megalithic monuments. 3. Kont: a lengthy 
analysis of the position of Lessing as an archaeolo- 
gist. 4. Vercoutre: identifies the subject of relief 
on the bronze mirror of Bulla regia as an episode in 
the Nausikaa legend. 5. de la Blanchére: new 
readings of three inscriptions in the Oran Museum 
6. Mayor: notes on the Merovingian rings of the 
Geneva Museum. Obituary, Julien Havet. 


The same. September—October. 1893. 

1. Deloche: Merovingian seals and rings, con- 
tinued. 2. de Vogiié: publishes a vase in form of 
a bird found at Carthage. 38. Espérandieu : list of 
Roman oculists’ stamps, continued. 4. Kont: Les- 
sing as archaeologist, continued. 

Review of Lanckoronski’s Pamphylia, by Radet. 
S. Reinach’s Chronique d’Orient, pp. 221—266. 





7 Athenaeum, 24 Mareh. 
8 Athenacum, 5 May. 

9 Academy, 5 May. 

W Standard, 8 May. 


alll 


i ee 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 279 


Plate xix. (p. 270) gives a statue of a warrior recently 
found near Vachtres (Basses-Alpes) and now in the 
Musée Calvet of Avignon: M. Saguier thinks it is 
either the Emperor Magnentius or his brother, 
Caesar Decentius. 

The same. November—December. 1893. 

1. Le Blant: publishes a series of terra-cotta 
panels found in Tunis in the ruins of a basilica 8. W. 
of Kairwan: they represent biblical subjects. 2. 
Joubin : proposes to substitute Kéup for ‘Péun in 
Strabo xiii. 41. 3. Espérandieu: list of Roman 
oculists’ stamps, continued, 

S. Reinach, Chronique d@’ Orient, part ii. pp. 339— 
386. Obituary, Ingwald Undset. Cagnat, Revue 
des publications Epigraphiques. 


"Egnuepts "Apxavodoyixy. 1893. part iv. 
1. Nicolaides: on Kallirrhoe and the Ennea- 


krounos: disputes Dérpfeld’s identification of the 
Enneakrounos and the temple of Demeter: with a 
disquisition on the Bunarbaschi-Hissarlik-Troy ques- 
tion. 2. Cavvadias: publishes (pll. 12—13) a 
bronze statuette of Zeus Ammon perhaps from Alex- 
andria ; the type is that of a bearded draped human 
bust, with ram’s horns, terminating in the body and 
head of a snake. 3. Mayer: publishes (pl. 14) 
fragments of a pedimental composition from Eleusis, 
representing Pluto carrying off Persephone, in the 
presence of Athene, Artemis, Hermes, and Hekate. 
4, Leper: a fragment of a catalogue of prytaneis. 
5. Mylonas: publishes (pl. 15) a folding mirror from 
Eretria: on the one side is a relief representing 
Aphrodite on a swan: on the other, a. woman, pro- 
bably Selene, riding on a horse. 6. The same: 
thirty-three sepulchral inscriptions. all 





SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


Neue Jahrbicher fur Philologie u. Padago- 
gik. Ed. Fleckeisen u. Richter (Leipzig : Teubner). 

1893. Heft 10 contains (1) C. Schirlitz Die rethen- 
folge der fiinf ersten reden in Platons Symposion. 
(2) H. Stadtmiiller Zur Griech. Anthologie, textual 
criticisms and other notes. (3) E. Hasse Ueber den 
dualis bet Lukianos, a collection of instances show- 
ing that Lucian followed the Attic usage. (4) C. 
Krauth Verschollene lénder des altertwms (see next 
number). (5) G. Hubo Die ausdehnung des gebictes 
der Helvetier. (6) M. Kiderlin Altes u. newes zu 
Quintilianus i.—iii., critical notes. 

Heft 11 contains (1) C. Schirlitz Die fiinf ersten 
reden in Plat. Symposion (conclusion), (2) F. 
Hultsch Zur Syniaxis des Plolemaios, chielly on the late 
Greek for ordinal numbers, such as €fdounkdaromovos 
for seventy-first. (3) C. Krauth Verschollene lander 
der altertwms, contending that the ancient Tanais 
was the river now called the Manich (flowing into 
the sea of Azov) and that an eastern branch of this 
river, flowing into the Caspian, was called by 
Aristotle Araxes, by Alexander Orexartes, by the 
Romans Jaxartes. This was the Araxes of the 
Massagetae, about which Herodotus (i. 202—204) 
has created so much confusion. (4) H. Lewy Zu 
Hesychios, emendations. (5) F. Wilhelm Zu Tibut- 
lus iii. 6, assigning the poem to Lygdamus and 
praising it. The number concludes with several 
isolated emendations, the best of which is one of P. 
Hennings, who ‘proposes sublentescit for splendescit 
in Cie. de Senect. 28. 

Heft 12 contains (1) F. Mie Zum fiinfkampf der 
Griechen, a full discussion, of which the chief 
uovelty appears to be the suggestion that the last 
two contests of the pentathlon did not take place if 
one competitor won the first three. (2) I. Susemihl 
Zu Arist. Politik, explaining certain alterations of 
the text in his third edition. (3) F. Skutsch and 
F. Vollmer Ad Statii Silvas, textual criticisms. (4) 
F. Philippi Zur Peutingerschen tafel, continued. (5) 
Th. Opitz Der Trierer Sallusthandschrift, showing 
that the MS. agrees usually with m, of the second class. 

1894. Heft 1 contains (1) O. Froehde Litleratur- 
Kunst- u. Sprachwissenschaft. (2) R. Peppmiller 
Griechische bittlieder, such as the swallow-song. (38) 
W. Christ Das Griechische theater, » summary of 
recent discoveries and theories, showing how they 
have affected the meaning to be attributed to such 
words as @uméAn, dpxnaotpa x.t.A. (4) O. Meltzer 
Die hifen con Karthago, first part. Several brief 
articles of no moment follow. 

Heft 2 contains (1) H. Kluge Der Schild des 
Achilleus, illustrating it from objects found at 


Mycenae, and contending that the scenes were 
engraved. (2) F. Susemihl Zur Alexundrinischen 
litteraturgesch. I. on Aratus and the Stoics, II. on 
Theocr. Jdyll. 4. (3) R. Fruin Zur Fastenkritik, 
a discussion of five difficulties, such as ‘the inter- 
reges of the first two centuries of the republic.’ (4) O. 
Meltzer Die hafen von Karthago, conclusion. (5) R. 
Fuchs IVundermittel aus der Zeit des Galenos, an 
amusing article containing a list of strange remedies 
(such as ‘dirt scraped off the statues in the 
palaestra ’) recommended by Galen. 

Heft 3 contains (1) H. Diintzer on MaAéos bet 
Homeros, contending that the word is often scanned 
as a spondee. (2) W. Christ Zur Chronologie Atti- 
scher dramen, contending that actors and chorus, in 
the classical drama, were on a stage raised above the 
mdpodo. (3) F. Hultsch Zw dem Komiker Krates, 
on a coin called fulexrov named by Krates and 
Pollux as worth 8 obols. (4) W. Schwarz Zur politik 
Alexanders des grossen, complaining of Grote’s 
depreciation of A. (5) H. Magnus Zur Kritik der 
Mectam. Ovids, on the O-family of MSS. (6) L. 
Gurlitt Ciceros briefschaften u. ihre verbreitung wnter 
Augustus, contending against the theory that the 
Tironian edition of Cic.’s letters was published so 
late as A.D. 60. 


Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione classica. 
Ed. Comparetti and Miiller (Torino : Loescher). 

1893. Fase. 10—12. The only original article is 
a continuation of L. Valmaggi’s monograph on La 


fortuna di Stazio nella tradizione letteraria latina 


ce basso latina, Several reviews are included. 

Anno xxii. Fase. 1—3 contain (1) G. Turiello 
Sui composti sintattict nelle lingwe classiche, con- 
tinued. (2) O. Nazari Quo anno Aristophanes natus 
sit, contending for 446 B.c. (8) E. Filippini Delle 


fonti adibite da Plitarco nella esposizione della querra 


Gallica di Cesare, contending that P. used, besides 
Caesar himself, Valerius Maximus, Oppius, Tanusius 
and Asinius Pollio. (4) G. Setti Studi critici salla 
Anth. Pal. (5) F. Scerbo La riforma ortografica 
Latina, a summary of certain reforms admitted to be 
correct, with a warning against excessive deference 
to inscriptions, inasmuch as the same word is often 
spelt in different ways on the same inscription. (6) 
F. Nencini Quaestiones Terentiane alterae, notes and 
emendations. 

Fase. 4—6 contain (1) A de Angeli La musica nel 
drama greco, apparently a lecture, containing no 
novelties. (2) A. G. Amatucci Appio Claudio Cieco, 
another lecture. (3) G. Setti Studi critict sulla 
Anth. Pal. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 


ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Aeschylus. Persae. By Rev. T. S. Ramsbotham. 
12mo. (Scenes from Greek Plays). Longman. 
1s. 6d. 

Allcroft (A. H.) The Decline of Hellas: a history 


of Greece. 37s. 323 B.c. Post 8vo. 184 pp. 
Clive. 4s. 6d. 

Aristophanes. Wasps. By C. E. Graves. 12mo. 
234 pp. Cambridge Press. 3s. 6d. 

Caesar. Gallic War. Book VIJ. Edited by A. H. 
Allcroft and W. F. Masom. Post 8vo. 186 pp. 
Clive. 4s. 6d. 

Dupré (A. M. D.) First Exercises on Latin Con- 
struction. Crown 8vo. Limp. Relfe. 1s. 


Euripides in English Verse, Arthur S. Way. Vol. 
I. Crown 8vo. Macmillan. 6s. net. 


Herodotus. Marathon and Thermopylae. Easy 
selections from, edited by A. C. Liddell. 18mo. 
Limp. Methuen. 1s. 6d. 

Holden (F. T.) Tripertita. 4th Series. A course 


of Easy Latin Exercises for Preparatory Schools, 
arranged to suit the threefold division of the year. 
12mo. 124 pp. Longman. 2s. 

Homer’s Iliad. Book XXIV. Edited with notes, 
introduction, and vocabulary, by Walter Leaf and 
M. A. Bayfield. 12mo. 126 pp. Macmillan. 
1s. 6d. 

Infamia: its Place in Roman Public and Private 
Law, by A. H. J. Greenidge. Demy 8vo. Clarendon 


Press. 10s. 6d. 
FOREIGN 
Aleiphron. Reich (H.) De Alciphronis Longique 
aetate. Diss. S8vo. 68 pp. Konigsberg. 1 
Mk. 20 Pf. 


Apollonius Rhodius. Berckmann (F.) De scholiis 
in Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica Etymologici 


magni fonte. Diss. 8vo. 42 pp. Bonn. 

Bérard (V.) De arbitrio inter liberas graecorum 
civitates. (Thése) 8vo. ii, 124 pp. Paris, 
Thorin. 





Essai de méthode en mythologie grecque. De 
Yorigine des cultes arcadiens. (Thése). 8vo. 
385 pp. Paris, Thorin. 

Caesaris (C. Julii) belli gallici libri vii. A. Hirtii 


liber viii. Recensuit, apparatu critico instruxit 
Henr. Meusel. 8vo. xii, 261 pp. Map. Berlin, 
Weber. 3 Mk. 





Fiir den Schulgebrauch herausgegeben von H. 


Meusel. Mit einem Anhang: Das romische 
Kriegswesen zu Caesars Zeit von R. Schneider. 
8vo. xv, 238 pp. Map. Berlin, Weber. 
Boards. 1 Mk. 25 Pf. 


Cagnat (R.) L’année épigraphique, revue des pub- 
lications épigraphiques relatives & Jantiquiteé 
classique (1893). 8vo. Paris, Leroux. 3 Fr. 

Cassiodori Senatoris variae, recensuit Th. Momm- 
sen. Accedunt I. Epistulae Theodoricianae 
variae edidit Th. Mommsen. IJ. Acta synho- 
dorum habitarum Romae a, CCCCXCVIIII. DI. 
DII. edidit Th. Mommsen. III.  Cassiodori 
orationum reliquiae edidit Lud. Traube. 4to. 
elxxxiv, 597 pp. 2 photolithographic plates. 28 
Mk. Writing Paper. 42 Mk. 

[Monumenta Germaniae historica. _Auctorum 
antiquissimorum tom. XII. Berlin, Weidmann. ] 


‘Juvenal Satires I.—VIII. 


A trans- 


(Expurgated). 
Allcroft. 


lation, with test papers, by A. H. 
Clive. 2s. 6d. ; 

Latin Prose Versions. Contributed by various 
scholars, edited by G. G. Ramsay. 4to. Half 
Vellum. Clarendon Press. 21s. net. 

Latine Vertenda. English Sentences to be turned 
into Latin, for Junior Forms. 18mo. 136 pp. — 
Simpkin. 1s. 6d. net. ; 

Quintus Curtius: Selections adapted for the use of 
beginners, with vocabulary, notes and exercises, 


edited by F. Coverley Smith. 18mo. 140 pp. 
Macmillan. 1s. 6d. 
Ritchie (F.) A First Latin Verse Book. 12mo. 64 


pp. Longman. 2s, 

Smith (Sir W.) A Classical Dictionary of Greek and 
Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography, 
revised throughout and in part rewritten by G. E. 
Marindin. With numerous maps and illustrations. 
8vo. 1020 pp. Murray. 18s. | 

Sophocles. Oedipus at Colonus. Closely translated 
from the Greek, an experiment in metre, by 
Arthur Compton Auchmuty. Post 8vo. 80 pp. 
Simpkin. 2s. : 

Plays and Fragments, with critical notes, com- 

mentary and translation in English prose. Part 

VI. The Electra. S8vo. 324 pp. Cambridge 

Press. 12s. 6d. 





BOOKS. 


Catullus. Ballin (F.) Das amdbiiische Hoch- 
zeitslied des Catull. Progr. 4to. 39 pp. Dessau. 

Morgenstern (O.) Curae Catullianae. Progr. 
4to. 20 pp. Gr.-Lichterfelde. 

Choix d’Eschyle. De Sophocle et d’Euripide. 
Notice, analyse et-extraits par Deltour et Rinn. 
12mo. 108 pp. Paris, Delagrave. 

Cicero. Plaidoyer pour Murena, expliqué littérale- 
ment, traduit en fiancais et annoté par J. 
Thibault. 12mo, 200 pp. Paris, Hachette. 2 
Fr. 50. 

Buning (G.) Zu Ciceros Briefen. I. Die 
beiden Gesetze des Publius Clodius gegen Marcus 
Tullius Cicero. Progr. 4to. 23 pp. Coesfeld. 

Cleomedes. Steinbriick (K.) De Cleomedis cosmo- 
graphiae codice quodam Parisino. Diss. 8vo. 
47 pp. Greifswald. 

Collection Barracco (La.) Publiée par Fred. Bruck- 
mann, d’aprés la classification et avec le texte de 
Giovanni Barracco et W. Helbig. Livraisons 11 
et 12(Fin.) Folio. With 20 phototypographical 
plates and text from pages 55 to 62. Miinchen, 
Verlagsanstalt fiir Kunst and Wissenschaft. 40 
Mk. The complete work, 240 Mk. 

Comédie Latine (La.) Extraits de Plaute et de 
Terence. Notice et analyse par V. Schneegans. 
12mo. 142 pp. Paris, Delagrave. 

Euripides. Stettner (E.) Theodor Bertholds 
Athetesen im Hippolytos des Euripides, Vers 
500—1000. Progr. 8vo. 26 pp. Triest. 

Elter (A.) De Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia 
atque origine commentatio. VI. (De Justini 
monarchia et Aristobulo Judaeo II.) Progr. 4to. 
15 pp. Bonn. 











a EA 


The Classical Review 


JULY 1894. 


CRITICAL NOTES ON CLEM. AL. S7ROM. I. AND II.! 


§ 70, p. 358. daci yotv ev AeAdots apa 
TO BovrXevtTyptoy deikvyvcbar wérpav Twa. 
Read 76 BovAeurypiv. 

Ib. tod 8& cis yy petaBarovros cémaros 
moas ws eikds dvadvelons. Read ééava- 
gveions to supply a government for rod 
TWOp"aTos. 

§ 76, p. 364. emi re Seurpapews Bacir€ws 
Aiyuariwv. Sothe MS., but Eusebius, 
quoting from Clement, gives Bacwdi8os ’Ac- 
cupiwv. Dindorf corrects the former word, 
but omits to change the latter. 

§ 81, p. 367. (Philosophy was filched from 
Revelation) ovdxi uz) eiddros Tod Kupiov Tod Kat 
Ta TEAN TOV evopéevwv Tpd KaTaBoARs TOD exac- 
tov elvat eéyvwKdtos, GAG py KwAvoavTos. 
[Perhaps xataBodjs tod <Koopouv> éyvuxdros, 
GANG pi KwAVGaVTOS Exacrov eva. 1.B.] 

§ 82, p. 367. Discussing the question 
whether he who does not hinder the occur- 
rence of a certain thing can be justly de- 
nominated the cause of the occurrence, 
Clement says 1a todro yotv émitedetrat, Ste 
TO kwAdoat Svvdpevov ovK evepyed ovde KwAVeL. 
Evidently this follows an assertion of caus- 
ality, such as we have some lines higher up, 
© yap Kwddoa Sivapis Fv, TovTw Kal 4H airia 
Tov cupPaivovtos tpocdmrera. But the words 
immediately preceding our sentence were to 
the opposite effect, 7d dé p7) KwAtDov Kexdprrrac 
Tod ytyvomevov, Which again are quite in 
harmony with the words immediately fol- 
lowing it, td yap evepye? 6 pr) KwAVwv ; k.7.A. 

1 The initials H.J. denote Dr. Jackson’s notes read 
before the Cambridge Philological Society in 1893 
and 1894; I.B. ms. notes received from Professor 
Bywater. 

NO. LXXI. VOL. VIII. 


The sentence must therefore be placed after 
Tpooamrera. 

§ 84, p. 368. 6 88 uy KwAvoas TH aipeow Tis 
Wuxis Kpiver Oucaiws, tv’ 6te paduota 6 Peds pev 
nplv Kaxias avaitios, éret dé TOV dpapTnudrwv 
TpOaipEcis...KATAPYXEL...€iKOTWS al KoAdoELsS. In- 
sert 7 either betore jpiy or after dvacrios, 
beginning a new sentence with ézei. 

§ 91, p. 871. éret ody paprupotyrar ddnb7A 
Twa. doyparilew kai "EXAnves, Eeote kavredbev 
oxorewv. For érei ovv read dru pev otv. The 
witness that the Greeks had some knowledge 
of the truth is contained in the following 
quotations from St. Paul. 

§ 93, p. 373. dp’ od doxet cot rictrews & 
tov EBpakdv ypadav tiv pera Odvarov édrida 
...capyvicew (6 IAdrwv) ; For the impossible 
miotews read perhaps muiotikds or mibavas. 
[L.B. suggests mucrevwv or musrevoas. | 

Jb. After contrasting the knowledge of 
geometry and other sciences with the know- 
ledge of the absolute good, Clement continues 
eTepwv pev ovtwv Tayabod Sdav, Gowep SE ext 
Tayabov. Read érépou pev dvros tayalod, érépwv 
d¢ trav dorep eri tayabov bdav. 

§ 94, p. 374. kar’ eudaow 8& Kal diadhacw 
ot dxpiBGs map’ “EAAnow diAocodyjcavtes 
dcopGat tov Oedv: rowira yap ai Kar’ 
ddvvapiav davraciat dAnOeis ds havtacia 
Kadopatat, ev Tois voaow dpapev Kal Ta did 
Tov diadavdv Kal diavyav cwpdrwv. Clement 
is here comparing the ideas of the 
Greeks about God to the images of real 
objects seen by reflexion or through a semi- 
transparent medium. Should we read d:opé- 
Cover for diopHo1, which usually means ‘see 
clearly’? In what follows I think we should 

x 


282 


insert ovca after roradTar yap, pub a comma 
after dA7nOeis, continuing os davrdcpara, 
kafopavrat, & év Tois voaow SpOpev (or 7a... 
épdpeva), ‘for being such, the inadequate 
perceptions are still truly beheld, as images, 
which we see in pieces of water and through 
transparent bodies.’ The allusion is to St. 
Paul’s 8 écdrrpov, and to. Plato’s scale of 
knowledge, beginning with shadows, of which 
the second stage is ra ev voaor davtdcpara 
(Rep. vi. 510 A). 

§ 96, p. 375. Kai Tots évdeeou PpevGv zapa- 
kehevopat, Néeyovoa Hyciv 77 copia Tots apdt 
Tas aipéces Sydovert. Place A€yovoa after 


dynAovert. 
§ 129, p. 396. [For 76 Oadet read 7a 
Gory. I.B.] 


§ 155, p. 414. dvoya 6 Moony avopace tod 
xdpw typas aveide totapias ax’ yovos. Read 
avopal, érov x¢pw. [Here I find I am an- 
ticipated by Cobet.] 

§ 156, p. 415. [apodwWackdpevos eis ayepo- 
viay toupevixyy, read with Davis on Cic. 
N.D. ii. 64 wousevixn. 1.B.] 

§ 158, p. 416. devrepoy Sé éorw ecidos 
Bacirclas...7d pOvoV TO Ovpoedet THs Wux7s 
eis Bacitelav ovyxpdpevov. Read povw for 
p.ovov. 

Ib. rod yap Ovpod 7d pev pidAoverxov povov 
éotiv...7o d€ dtAdKaXdov cis KaATY KaTAXpw- 
pevyns THS Wey7sT@ Ovpd. One’s first impulse 
is to read xaAdv here for xaAynv, but perhaps 
the termination is more easily explained if 
we suppose that dperjv was the original 
word, and that xaA- crept in from the pre- 
ceding iAdKxadov, which should be followed 
by acomma. [I.B. suggests xoAXovjv. | 

§ 160, p. 417. exi rnv epypov érpérero Kat 
vixtwp Ta TOAAG TH Topeia EKEXPNTO. 
Should we not read éypyro here, as well as 
in Protr. p. 48 “Eppns zpoonyopevero 6 Nixa- 
yopas Kal TH oTOAH TOD “Eppod éxéxpyto 4 

§ 164, p. 419. [70 zip Exetvo 76 éoixds aTVAw 
Kal Top TO Ova Batov atpPordv éarte pwros 
ayiov, read with V. 6” dBdrov, comparing 
§ 161 ye vixtwp tots “EBpaious db: &Barov. 
I.B.] 

§ 165, p. 419. dpa otv ra Kata Tov vomov 
Eppnvever mpos eva Gedv aopav...évteAdNopevos. 
Read Gp’ od with a question. Just before 
omit xai after 77 airn. 

§ 166, p. 420. ere 70 peév vopixdy mpos yeve- 
cwews elvat, TO ToAiTiKOV Se mpds diAlas Kal 
épovoitas 6 IlAatwv adeAnGecis (‘ borrowing 
from Scripture’) rots wey Nopors Tov prrdcodov 
rov ev TH Exwopide ovvéragev. Insert (after 
Opernbeis) cirev, Kal. 

§ 171, p. 422. pa toivey xatatpexerw tis 
TOU vopov Ou THS TYLWpias ws ov Kado Ka- 
yafod. Read ras tyswpias, ‘let none depreciate 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the law as imperfect on account of its 
penalties.’ [H.J. would keep ris, translat- 
ing ‘let no man make punishment an in- 
strument in running down the law.’|_ 

§ 176, p. 425. (The Platonic dialectic is 
useful) ody évexa Tov Aéyev Te Kal wpaTTeW TL 
TOv Tpos Tors avOpwrovs...dAAA TO OED kexapio- 
peva pev eye Sivacba1, Kexapiopeva bé mpar- 
Tew TO Tav eis OVvapwv. Insert rod (governed 
by évexa) before 76 6eG, and for 76 wav read 
TH TavTG. 

§ 177, p. 425. puxri) dé PbtXogTod la ova © 
TH GAnGeLa H GAnOHS SiadrexTIKy...b7eEava- 
Batve. Read with Lowth puxri dé procodia 
ovoa TH GAnOw7. : 

§ 178, p. 425. otrds éorw 6 TO ovte SetEas 
érws TE yvwotéov éavto’s. Dindorf would 
here read an unmeaning ye for re, in pre- 
ference to Sylburg’s insertion of 6zws Te Tov 
Geov after dei~as. The latter is suggested by 
the preceding line édp’ eb yryvéckoipev Hpev 
Gedy 75€ kat avdpa. [I.B. suggests dws 
<ro>té yvworeov. | 

§ 179, p. 426. yde twas yada povov «iAy- 
potas, ovdérw de kal Bpdya, abtixa ovx 
dwAds yaa. Read with Lowth 7 réxa for 
avrika. 

§ 181, p. 427. After quoting from Hermas 
to the effect that visions were sent for 
the benefit of the double-minded, Clement 
proceeds époiws 6@ Kal éx THs toAvpalots 
meplovolas amwodetEers icxvporowvor Kat 
BeBaotor kai OepeAtodor Tors Adyous Tovs azro- 
deuxTUKOUs, GTOV ETL GAL A’TOYV OS VEew 
dpeves HepeHovra. Put a comma after icxupo- 
rovovet, and for dcov ert ai avtav read <tov- 
Twv eveKa> Gowv ETL al Kapdlat avTov. 


Boox II. 


§ 3, p. 430. daci 6 kai Tas dpyiGas ndiorqv 
éxew tiv ocapkos ToldTyTa OTe ovK adHovov 
tpodis wapatebeions aitats at db cxadevovoat 
Tos woow éxéyovTar pera wovov Tas Tpoddas. 
El TLS OUV TOD Opolov HewpyTiKds év ToAXOIs Tots 
miOavois Te Kat EXAnvikois TO aAnfes dtadeA7- 
6 évact robe Kabarep br Tois poppodvketols TO 
mpocwrov TO GAnbiwvov toAuTpaypovycas Onpa- 
cera. pyc yap ev 76 Spdpatt TO Eppa 7 8v- 
vapis 7 pavetoa x.t-X. For aide read adda, for 
diadeAnGévae perhaps diadreAyOods cbpeOpvar (or 
the syllables -adeAnO- may be merely an echo 
of the preceding dAn@es, in which case such 
a word as duaxadvdOjvac might be concealed 
under diaAeAnGevar), translating ‘if any one, 
who is fond of noting resemblances, desires 
that the truth which lies hidden in many 
plausible Greek stories should be revealed, 
like the true face under the masks, by 
careful study he will hunt it out.’ In the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


next sentence we should either put 7d “Eppa 
after yap or after daveioa, or else read tov 
‘Eppa. [1.B. proposes a simpler remedy, the 
insertion of jax) before duadeAnOévar and “Eppa 


gen. | 

§ 6, p. 431. dyAov otv Hiv éort Kexpidbar 
tiv adynGevav, ei Kal €& évds wapadelyparos 7dy 
dédetxrar, puxpov 8 varepov Kai dua mAEiovwr 
mapactynoconev. Insert dé after «i, the second 
dé is in apodosi. 

§ 8, p. 432. In the quotation from Hera- 
cleitus read, according to Bywater’s text, 
Oxdgowwt eykupeovor for dkdco. éeyKupcev- 
oOvucl. 

§ 9, p. 433. In this bewildering chapter 
the only correction which I venture to make 
is in the last sentence, ai yotv tav Sewpyvev 
emiteXécers Ovvapiv trép avOpwrov évdeikvv- 
prevar e&érAnTTov Tovs Tapatvyxdvovtas. Her- 
vetus in his commentary honestly says quod 
autem verti ‘cantus efficaces, Graece est 
eriteAcoes, id est ‘ perfectiones.’ Quod Grae- 
cum quidem non satis exprimit, sed mihi non 
occurrit aliud. Perhaps the true reading 
is the otherwise unknown ézixyAjoes. The 
words «xypAéw and xyAnows are often employed 
of the Sirens, and exucpAnors might be used 
as a stronger form of éraywy7. [H. J. would 
read izepdv@pwrov one word. | 

§ 11, p. 434, odd Burrirpa ere evAoyov 
ovde aaieiha aire. ‘(If all is governed 
by necessity) there is no reason for baptism 
or for the blessed seal.’ Should we not 
insert 7 before paxapia ? 

§ 15, p. 436. of d& druoron ds Eouxev €& ovpavov 
Kal TOV Gopdtov TdvTa eAkovaw cis yiv Tals XEp- 
ow atexvas wétpas Kal Spis mepriapavovtes 
kata Tov IAdrwva: tév yap ToLovTwv éparrope- 
vow wavtwv ducxvpilovrat TodT civat povov, S7Ep 
éxet tpocBoAnyv Kal éeradyv twa, TavTov copa 
Kai ovatav dpilopevoiTposavrovs audio Byrodvres 
pdra evAaBGs dvwHev ef doparov Tobe apivov- 
Tal vonTe atta Kal dowparta €idn, BraLopevor THV 
aAnOuwijv otciay civar. This is a good specimen 
of the way in which Dindorf goes to work. 
The reference to Plato not being given in 
Potter’s edition, he has not taken the trouble 
to compare the original, and apparently is 
quite unconscious of the absurdities and 
inconsistencies which he is putting into the 
mouth of Plato. If we turn to the Sophistes 
246 A, we find there the words from éé 
ovpavod to dpropevor scarcely altered, except 
that 6 wapéye is the original of drep exe 
and should probably replace it here. But 
after dprfouevor we find some lines interposed, 
and then we read, not of the materialists, 
who formed the subject of the previous 
sentence, but of their opponents (oi zpos 
avrous dudioPyrotvres) that they take their 


283 


stand on the side of the invisible, main- 
taining that true existence is to be found 
not in matter, but in the incorporeal objects 
of the intelligence. Puta full stop there- 
fore after dépiféuevor, and begin a new 
sentence with <oi d6eé>, adding a comma 
after aytvovra. and removing the comma 
after «dn, [H.J. makes the same emenda- 
tions, but is inclined to add moro of after 
ot de. } 

§ 17, p. 437. adros pev dra eye Ta dKxove- 
Tika. THS GAnOelas’ pakapios be 6 A€ywv eis Ora 
GkKoVvoVvTwWV, GoTEp Geer pakapLtos Kal autos O 
THs traxons. Potter rightly suggests the 
omission of the last 6, the genitive depending 
On pakdptos. 

§ 18, p. 438. of eis tov Xpiorov wemiorev- 
KoTES XpynoToé Te cio Kat AéyovTat ws of TO OvTL 
Baowrxot Baowlet peucAnuevor. ws yap ot 
copot copia eiat codol...oitws of Xpirtd 
Baowet Baoweis kai of Xpictrod Xprortiavol. 
Dindorf follows Sylburg in placing the first 
Bao:kol before ot rd ovt. I should rather 
read os TO ovre PactAtkot of Baowe? penedn- 
pevo. In the following clause read oi 
Xpitoe Baciiet <peneAnpevar> Bacir€ls Kai 
Xpiotiavoi, omitting of Xpwrod as a 

loss. 

§ 19, p. 438. 6 d@ €wos vopos, ds mpoeipy- 
zat, PaciALKds TE €ott Kal EuwWoxos. For ends 
read perhaps 7érepos. Should we make the 
same change in Protr, p. 3, ade d€ ye 6 Evvo- 
pos 6 €mOs...TOv aldvov vopov, p. 4 od To1Wade 
6 woos 6 éwds, and Strom. iv. p. 642 ri 
‘Tepoucadip Tiv cpu | 

§ 21, p. 439. ™pos avuTov mpopytav & dvaxypur- 
TOpEVOS. Insert tév after airav. |apos avd 
tov tpopytav. H.J.] 

§ 22, p. 440. ei tis ducyvpilorro «lvar Tovs 
dixaiouvs, av Kal Tvyxavwcw ovTes alcxpol ra 
copata, KaTd ye TO Oukaldtatov 700s Ta’Ty av 
kadXovs evar oxeddv ovdeis av A€ywv ovTw 
aAnppedas dd€aev Aéyev. For dv xadods read 
maykaXous, as in the original (Plat. Legg. ix. 
859). [H.J. has made the same correction. | 
The reference is of course wanting in Din- 
dorf as he could not find it in Potter. 

§ 23, p. 441. paynrixoi dé kal €O eXovTrai 
aroOvnoKew ev Tow Tov pucboddpwv ety at 
mwaprokAo. For éG@eXovrai and clvac read 
edeXovres and eiciv, as in the original 


(Legg. i. 630). Dindorf only corrects the 


latter. 
§ 23, p. 441. apos tiv peylornv apernv 
amoBrkerwv = pddtiota otadyoetar Tors 


vouous. Dindorf in his note, copying Sylburg, 

says that Plato (/.c.) hasaryjce. The actual 

words are mpds tiv peylotny aperiv pada 

Prérwov dei Once. tots vopovs. The first 

syllable of cra@joera: is merely a dittography 
x 2 


284 


of the preceding syllable, Clement here 
using the middle @jcera for the active, as 
he does of Zaleucus ini. § 79. [Here again 
I am anticipated by Bywater and Cobet 
(and by Boeckh ad Plat. Min. p. 94, as I 
learn from I.B.). H.J. prefers to read Oye 
det as keeping closer to Plato. ] 

§ 24, p. 441. [ris TOV Odwr dpxns emuorywy 

aiagt? GAN’ odk érideréts, fort. mioTts. 
This seems confirmed by § miota ov ép- 
xéoOar pdvn olovrar THs TOV dAwy dpxjs. On 
the other hand C. seems to use the adjective 
xurrés, or TeioTés as Sylburg spells it, in the 
sense of ‘probable,’ ‘needing the exercise of 
faith, cf. § 16 mur toivey 9 yvGots. 

§ 26, p. 442. cuvepyet ov Kal 4 yovmos 
imdpxovea Tpods Ti TOV oTEppatov KaTaPohyv. 
ovre yap THS dpiarns Tadetcews Opedds TL aver 
Ths TOD pavOdvovTos Tapadoxns OvTE pyv TpoPpy- 
relas OUTE THS TOV GkovovTwy evreHelas py 
xapovons. Insert yy, which has been lost 
before ydvizos (the addition of tmdpxovce. 
forbids us to take % yovipos as a substantive 
with Sylburg), ‘the land by its natural fer- 
tility assists the sowing’ ; and omit the last 
oute, aS Sylburg suggests. 

§ 27, p. 443. was obv «i 7d mic revew b7oAap- 
Bavew éoti, BeBora ta Tap avT@V ob iro- 
scoot vouifovow ; Read atrar. 

§ 29, p. 444. rH e& COvdv KAjoe A€ywv, TH 
oteipa mote TOUTOV TOD avdpos Os éoTW O 
Adyos. Omit tovrov which probably arose 
from dittography of tot. 

§ 30, p. 445. dypt rotvev ri wiotw, ett e€ 
ixd dydrns Oepehiwf cite Kal iad dfov, 
n daciv of Katyyopor, Oetdv te civot, For 
etre read nvre. 

§ 31, p. 445. Geta roivey 4 Tocatry peta- 
Bodi e amurrias murTov TL yevomevov Kal TH 
elridt kal 76 hoBw mortedoa. Read twa for 
a. Just below in 7 zpwrn mpos cwrypiav 
vedots 4) TioTls...neO Hv hoBos Te Kal eAmis Kat 
perdvoia ovv Te Cy Kpatela kal UTOMOVA 
TpoKoTTOVvTal Ayovew Has el Te aydryv ert 
re yvoow, it makes a better construction to 
take ov as adverbial (like zpos in $ 1, p. 
429 and often), reading éyxparea and wzo- 
povy in the nominative. 

Ib. crotxeiwv yotv THs yvdoocews TOV TpoELpy- 
pevev GpeTov ororyewoerTépay elvar cup PEBnKE 
riv wiatw. Insert oicdy after yvocews. A 
little below in as 8 avev tav Tecodpwv oTot- 
xelwv ovK ote Liv, ovd avev rioctews yvaow 
éraxoAovOjaa, insert ovtws before ovdé, as in 
Paed. i. p. 103 xabamep otv otk eore hos 0 pH 
hutiler...ovde hirodv 0 pi) piiet <ottws> ovde 
ayabov eorw 0 pa dere. 

§ 32, p. 446. tpia yap ratra e€ avayKys 
idéornxey Tapa TO troxeipevov. Read cept. 

§ 36, p. 448. ob yap povov Tov Koopov GAAG 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Kal THv éxAoyy Staxpivas 6 ext rac. Tpomepzret. 
This seems to be inconsistent with the 
general teaching of Basilides (see Hort in 
D. of Christ. Biog. i. p. 273). There is no 
discrimination or sorting in the first putting 
forth of existence from the Supreme Being. 
The sorting takes place through the Son, 
who raises up with him what belongs to the 
different spheres, assigning each existence 
to the charge of the ruler of its sphere, the 
lower to the lower, the highest to the. 
highest. Perhaps therefore we should insert - 
vios ért tov before éxt zac, ‘the Son sifts, 
not merely the world, but the elect also, 
and carries up with him (those that are 
sifted) into the presence of Him who is 
over all.’ 

Ib. cat Gowepet bd Bos em éxeivov Tov 
mdoparos tianpée tots ayyéAous Ore peiCova 
edbeyEato THs TAdcEWS...0UTH Kat €V Tats 
yeveais Tov KocpiKdv avOpdrov PdoBo Ta Epya 
avOpdrwv tois wowtow eyévero. According 
to Valentinus, the angels who were employed 
in framing the first man were startled at 
the inspired words which he uttered ; in like 
manner men themselves have bowed down 
in fear before the idols made by their own 
hands. The MS. reading wozepet Pdfos or 
&s mepipoBos does not correspond rightly 
with the following ovrw. Read daozep 
boos. 

§ 37, p. 449. ei d) dyvowa zpoxarnpse THs 
exmrAngcews, ei 8 q exmrAnéts Kat 6 poBos apxy 
copias P6dBos Tod Oeod yeyevyTa, KW- 
Suvever THS TE Topias TOD Heod Kat THS KoTpMo- 
rowas drdons...dyvowa mpoxatdapxew. Read 7 
82 for ei & 7, and omit as a gloss ¢dfos Tod 
Geod. 

§ 38, p. 449. 7 70 redevtaiov, yvaoet remot 
Odres éroApnoav 6 kal aiTd ddvvatov. mabdvTes 
7d Siadépov 7d ev wAnpwpate avOpoTw em 
Bovrevew, ere kat TO Kar ciKdva év @ Kal TO 
dpxéruroyv Kal 0 ov TH yrooe TH Aor} 
adpbaprov rapedjdecay. Put a colon after 
éréAunoav, and commas after advvarov, tANpO- 
part, apxérumov, and omit the comma before 
ér. For paddvres read pafdvras, agreeing 
with the subject (understood) of érPovdAevew, 
which explains the preceding relative 6; for 
7) kat’ eikéva read 7@ x. €. in apposition with 
dvOpdérw, put ére after dpxéru7or, and omit 
xat. The sense will then be ‘or, as a 
last alternative, the angels may have con- 
spired against the first man, because they 
knew that all would turn out for the best in 
the end. But this is impossible, that when 
they knew the supreme Excellence in the 
Pleroma they should plot against man, 
against the copy, in whom the original 
pattern was still visible, which pattern they 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 285 


had received with the rest of their know- 
ledge, as an imperishable treasure.’ 

§ 39, p. 449. ei rolvey Kaxdv dp xiv ado- 
Biav cipnxev nv 6 Tod Kupiov doBos épyalerat, 
ayabov 6 PdBos...poBw dé apoPBiav cicaywv, od 
maGer amafeav, tardeia dé petporabeav 
euroet. The reference is to Prov. i. 33, 
quoted just before, 6 d& éuod dxovwy dvaray- 
oetat er’ cipnvns TeTOLOds Kal yovyacer apoBus 
azo mavros kaxov. It is evident that this 
adoBia, caused by the fear of the Lord, 
cannot be xaxav dpxy. Potter suggests 
kaxov dmadAaynv, Lowth xadav apxyv; but 
neither of these seems quite suitable. If 
the original reading were kaxov dadoPiav 
eipyvnv eipyxev, this would at once exactly 
suit the quotation, and explain the loss of 
eipyvnv, for which a scribe might easily 
substitute a word like dpyjv. In the last 
clause zatdefa is probably a misprint for the 
mavdeia of other editors. 

Ib, p. 450. eray otv dxovowpev, tia Tov 
Oedv kai icxvoes, zAnV bé adtod pr) dood 
adXov, 70 poBeicbat duaprave, éerecbar dé Tats 
imd Geod dobeicais évtoAais TLemayv Vv aro 
tod Oeod éxdeyoucba. Perhaps the original 
may have been tiv <elvac tod Oeod Kat 
isxiv> ad Tod Oeod exdéxonefa, ‘when we 
hear these words, we learn that to fear 
sin and follow the commands of God is 
an honouring of God and strength from 
God.’ The recurring rod Geod would easily 
account for the loss of the intermediate 
words. [I.B. also proposes to omit jv. ] 

§ 40, p. 450. dos dé eaote PoBos Oeiov. 
Probably we should read tod Geiov. 

§ 42, p. 451. dydryows 8 aadderécs 
mavredys. Potter is, I think, right in reading 
addeéts. 

§ 45, p. 453. Kav 1d mouiv Kadds 7 
tTisw eénoknpéevov, GAAG 7O exiotacbar as 
xpnoréov Kal Towtéov Kal ouvexrovnréov. 
Omit the last xai, ‘though men may have 
practised doing rightly, still they should 
strive to join with this the knowledge of 
how they ought to use it and how they should 
act.’ 

§ 51, p. 456. [6 de oinoicodgos ex TOV THs 
adnGeias ody arrerat, for éx tdv read perhaps 
éxov, as below éxdv pebictata, comparing 
Plato’s ris dAnOelas arrecOar. I.B.] 

§ 52, p. 457. dépe ov, ei 6 Kipwos ddnbea 
Kat codia...dexOein ote TO OvTL yvwotiKds 6 
tovrov eyvwxws. Dindorf inserts dv after 
SerxGety. I think the commencing words 
pepe ovv v suggest a question, and should rather 
insert dp’ ov dv before Serx Dein. 

§ 53, p- 457. murrevowev O€ TH TapoxnKora 
yeyovevat Kal Ta pedXovra Eveobar, a dyar@pev TE 
ab ovuTws exew Ta TAapwoXNKoTa TLOTEL TETELO- 


Hévol, TH pweAXovTa eAmide drekdexopevor. Put 
a comma after av, and insert 8é before 
peAXovTa. 

§ 55, p. 458. 4 re dmurtia GmWooVoTacLs 
ovoa THS TiaTews SuvaTiV Seikvuat THY CvyYKaATA- 
Oeciv te kal wiotw: avuTapéia yap orépyots 
ovx av exGein. Lowth’s emendation dazo- 
oracts is confirmed by Sext. Emp. P.H.i. 192 
9 ovv adacia droatacis éote THS KoWas deyo- 
pernsipacews. For dvurapéia read avurapEéias, 
‘we could not speak of a privation of a 
non-entity.’ (Hence, dmoria being a priva- 
tive, ziorts must be an entity.) 

§ 56, P. 459. ext yap TH mpory kal povn 
peravoia TOV AGpapTiav aityn (sc. adeois) 
av ein Tv tpoitapsdvTwv Kata TOV eOviKoV Kat 
mpatov Biov. This is a reminiscence of 
Herm. Mand. 4, 3, 1, érépa peravoia ovw eotw 
ei py exeivn OTE cis VOwp KaTeBnuev Kal Aa Bopev 
adecw apaptiov av tov zpotépwv. For 
dpaptiav read dyaptnuarey to agree with 
TpovTapSavTwv. 

Ib. (The Lord foresaw) as Lyrdoas (6 dud- 
Bodos) eri ty adécer tév dyapriav Tov avOpwrov 
TpootpliWyntal twas aitias tov dpapty- 
pdtv Tots SovAos Tod Geod. For rpoorpilyrat 
read mpootpiverat. 

§ 59, p. 460. After quoting Ps. exxviii. 1 
pakdploe yap mdvtes ot hoBovpevor tov Kupuor, 
Clement continues dpas tov év TO edayyediw 
euhepy paxapicpov ; and then gives another 
quotation on a different subject from Ps. xlix. 
Read rov 76 év 74 etayyeXiw, ‘ do you observe 
the blessing similar to that in the Gospel ? 

§ 59, p. 460. mafos d&...dpyr) exhepopevyn 
kat debs Aoyw. rapa pvow ovv Kivyncis Wuy7js 
kata Tov mpos Aoyov ameiMeav TA TaOn, 7 
ardotacts Kal exotacts Kal aeiOea ef’ Hiv... 
50 kat Ta Exovowa Kpivera. [aitixa kal’ 
ExagTov Tov TaGav Et Tis ereklor, aAdyous dpé- 
€eis etpor dv aird.| 1d yotv axovowov ov 
kpiverat. Transfer the sentence in brackets 
and place it after Adyw at the end of the 
first sentence. For ra ێxovo. read ds 
EKOVCLA. 

§ 61, p. 461. rHv Aor yuvaika...crjoas «is 
TO fy TPOTW XwpeEly, OD pwpay Kal ampaKToV 
eikova, apticar dé kal ordWae Tov mVvEvpaTLKds 
Suopav duvdpevov. For dpricas dé read <oiav 
dé> dpticat. 

§ 62, P. 462. 76 dé & dpapravew €K TOU ) deyvoetv 
kpivew Oy TL xpi) Tovelv owiorarat, 7) TO advva- 
tev woveiv. For to read TOU. 

§ 64, p. 463. dréxnpa d€ vod mapadoyds 
eoTw dpapria, H Oe épaptia Exovovos ddixia, 
adikia Oe Exovotos Kaxia, €oTw ovv 7 pev 
dpapria épov Exovoutoy. ..druxta dé éeorw 
aAXov eis eye mpacis d dKovovos, 7 d€ ddikia povn 
eipioxetat éxovows cite é€ui) etre GAXov. 
Dindorf makes no mention of Potter's 


286 


emendations ody for vod and dxovovov for 
éxovovov, though they are required by the 
context, as well as by the parallel passage 
in Arist. Zth. v. 8, tpidv 8) otcdv BrAaBdv 
TOV eV Tats Kowwoviaus TO. pay per’ . Gyvotas 
dpaprypard €OTW...OTAV pe our Tapadoyos 7 
Bray yevyra irbyna, OTav Oe pi) Tapahoyws, 
dvev 0€ KaKias, dpd pType" Gpapraver yep drav 
H apxn ev aitd 7 THS airias, atvxet 8 Tar 
eLobev. drav oe “eidds pey, p13) a poPovhevoas dé, 
ddiknpa, oiov ooa Te Sia Ovpov...od pevToL TH 


»” ‘ lal Ld ? > / 
dduko. Oia Tadta...drav 6 ek mpoaipecews, 
GOLKOS. 

§ 68, p. 465. Kafédpa dé Aowav Kai Ta 


Oéarpa Kai Ta diKaoTypia ein av. OmEp Kal 
padXov 7 eSaxorovOynots Tats Tovnpats Kat Tats 
Avpavtixats eEovoias kal 7) KaTA TA epya aiTov 
kowwvia. Put a comma after «in av and read 
ouzep for orep. 

Ib. doxet 8€ Kat GaAs Tpiav a7 0d50xX a) Vv 
dpaptias TpoTwv diddoKew 6 vomobérns, TOV 
pev ev Ady” du. TOV txOvwv TOV dvavdwv.. TOV 
de év Epyw Ova TOV dpTaKTiKOY Kal capKoBopwv 
opvewy, Xotp: os BopBopy merat kal KOTpw* 
Kal xpi) pande TH ovveldnow exeLy pEeLoAva LEVY. 
C. is giving an allegorical explanation of the 
Mosaic prohibition “of certain meats. Thus 
the mute fish symbolizes abstinence from 
sins of the tongue. I think we should read 
droxyv for drodoxyv. We meet with a similar 
phrase (Gpapryparoy GToxn, Kakav mpdgewv 
dzroxy}) 3 in pp. 556, 576, 623, 625, &e. In p. 
566 dzoyjs kaxdv was restored by Sylburg out 
of the same corruption dzodoyqs x. The chief 
corruption here, however, concerns the word 
xoipos. Sins of speech and of act have 
been mentioned, and it would seem that the 
pig is to symbolize sins of thought (ouvei- 
dqots). Perhaps we should read <rév de é&v 
Kapoia tUros 6> and add ds after yxoipos. 
[H.J. reads <rév 8 év vo dua ones Os>. | 

§ 77, p. 469 iit. Shr THY yvoow Trodv- 
mpuypovet. This clause is out of place where 
it stands, and is probably, as Potter sug- 
gested, a marginal note on the preceding 
paragraph. 

Ib. dpxerov b& eav yevopeBa. ds 6 dtddoKaXos, 
ov kat’ ovciav (ddvvaTov yap tvov civar pds 
THY drape 70 Oécer TO ioe), TO Se didious 
yeyovevau Kal THY TOV OvTwY Oewplay éyvwKéevat 
Kal viovs TpoonyopevoOan. Sylburg’s emen- 
dation 76 6é didiovs for 7d 6.4. seems to me 
required for the construction. 

§ 78, p. 469. rpodavets pev odv kat racar 
GANat dperai at mapa TO Movoet dvayeypap- 
wevar apxiv “EXAnoe ravtos tod 7OuKod tTé7ov 
rapacxopevat. Insert ai after aca. and put 
commas after dperai and dvayeypappevat. 

§ 84, p. 472. yiveobe oty Oeodidaxtor exly- 
routes TL Lytet 6 Kipios ad’ ipa, iva et pyre 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ev PEPE Kpicews TOUS TOUTWY ETL B ovAov s. 
ayamrns TEKVE. Kal cipyvns YVooTiKOs Tpoonyo- 
pevoev. Dindorf has followed Heinsius in 
reading evpyre for MS. evpyra. The sentence 
yiverOe—xpicews is taken from Barnabas 21, 
6, where however kat zovetre is interposed 
between iuav and wa, and ectpebjre stands 
for etpyra. Shortly after occur the words 
cwlerbe ayarns téxva Kal eipyvns. It is a 
question how we are to understand, and in 
what connexion we should read the re- | 
maining words of the text, rots tovtwy 
ériBovdouvs. Potter with most annotators 
joins them to the following clause, which 
certainly is rather abrupt by itself. If 
ériBovAovs has its usual meaning it makes 
no sense with either clause. I am disposed 
to read érnodovs (usually spelt ézuBddovs 
in the MS. of Clement), placing the full stop 
after xpicews, as in Barnabas, and trans- 
lating ‘those who have attained these things 
(viz. to be taught of God) he styles children 
of love and peace.’ Clement quotes so 
loosely from memory, that we are perhaps 
not justified in restoring the original eupeOnre, 
but I cannot see the force of evpyre ‘searching 
what the Lord seeks from you, that ye may 
find it in the Day of Judgment.’ Why not 
keep etpyrat ‘in order that he may 
find it (i.e. what he seeks in you) in the 
Day of Judgment’ ? 

§ 86, p. 474. Speaking of the merciful 
character of the Mosaic law, Clement 
instances the law of Jubilee, tpocamod.idods 
ExdoTw TO idloy...Tovs TE TEViA paKpa d7o- 
oXovTas diknv po 81a Biov xoAalopevous 
éXedv. Dindorf follows Potter in reading 
éXcov for éAdv, but in that case the pre- 
ceding py should be omitted. It was pro- 
bably inserted to make some sense when 
é\eOv was changed to éAdv. Otherwise we 
might conjecture pi) koAdlecOar OéAwv. But 
eXcOv agrees best with what follows. 

A little above for 7) i) yap vax dua prev TOU 
EBdopov € é€rous apyiv dvteoOat THY Xépav mpoo- 
ratte. should we not read 7 yap; ovxt 
K.T.A. 4 

§ 87, p. 474. eye pev ovv Kat GAXas é€ K- 
86 Oo ELS Ta mpoepynpeva...d\d’ otk &v TO 
mapovtt N€AXeKTat. Read perhaps éxSoxas 
‘interpretations’ and Xexréas. 

§ 88, p. 475. mpooTay pa. Kupiov rnyi) Cons 
ds GAnOGs woret exxAive €k tay idos Gavarov, 
ri dé; Insert dé after zoel as in the ori- 
ginal (Prov. xiv. 27), and put a full stop 
after @avarov. 

Ib. {ovre yap éd’ UBpe Tas avvovotas ovde 
pay bua puobapviav os éTacipas, arAN 7H 
Ou povov TOV TEKVOV THV yeveow yiver Oar, read 


éraipixds, GAAd. I.B.] 


A eg 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 287 


§ 89, p. 475. ro épdvre kvplo Tis 
aixypadurov yeyovott otk eémitpérer xapilerOar 
7H y00v7. There isno place here for yeyovori, 
till the true reading is restored by writing 
the first three words with the usual ab- 
breviations—rwepariK@ (tO épwrtkd). Simi- 
larly in the corrupt (iv. § 167, P. 639) ai 
ayabai mpdges as dmelvovs TO KpettTove TO 
Tvevpate KUplw TpocdrTovTat, at dé dtiA1- 
Sovol...7TO HTTOVL TO dpapTyTiKo, the original 
is restored by reading xvpiw contracted (xo), 
TO TVEUPATUKD corresponding to 7d dpap- 
TNTUKO. 

§ 90, p. 476. ri dé Kat eyOpav troliyia 
axOodopovvra ouverixoupiCer... -TpooTagee ; 3 
moppwhev diddoKwv 7pas.. -€rixaupexakiay p41) 
aoralecOa. If we keep ti dé, we should 
put the interrogative after it, and read what 
follows as a categorical sentence, placing a 
comma after zpoordcoa, but I prefer 
Sylburg’s reading éru dé. 

Ib. xiv tov e ovs exOpov trodaBys, rapa- 
Aoyt{opevov Sé Tovtov dAdyws...kataraBys, 
eriatpeWov aitov. For tov read tua. 

§ 91, p. 476, Tots Te €k davelwy KaTadovAw- 
Ociow exexeipiav 77) Vv «is wav didwow eviavtd 
Bdép. Dindorf reads tiv with Potter for 
ts, Which is, I think, merely a dittographia 
of eis. The article is also omitted in Philo, 
whom Clement here follows. 

§ 92, p. 477. rv adoywv ta exyova dieLevy- 
vue bat Tis TeKOvoNS TPO THS yahaKTovxlas 
amayopeve. This is borrowed from Philo’s 
Xdpura TH pytpt To éyyovov éexta yotv Tas 
mporas np€pas yaXaktotpopyjca. The only 
meaning of ya\axrovxia recognized in L, and 
S. is ‘sucking of milk,’ which is evidently 
unsuitable both here and in iii. 72, pera riyv 
Tod texOévros yaXaxrovyiav. Can it mean 
‘withholding of milk,’ ‘ weaning,’ or should 
we read dzoyaddaxriocw instead } 

§ 94, p. 478. otdev exovras aitutcacbar dre 
pn to adXoyevés, OrEep eotiv dvaitiov, pire 
Kakia pate amo Kakias dppopevov. For 
kaxia read xaxia with Potter, as in Philo 7d 
ddXoyevés, OTEp eotiv avaitiwv: boa yup pyre 
Kakla pte aro KaKkiov ew TavTos éyKAxjparos 
loTarat. 

§ 96, p. 479. ein & av otros 6 THs yewp- 
ylas TuTos éiackadiastpomos. ‘Transfer 
tizos and tpozos. A certain method of 
horticulture supplies a model for the 
teacher, 

§ 99, P. 481. (Of Jacob) éx te aitod d.dv- 
pov Yevopevew 6 vewtepos KAnpovopet...Kal Tas 
€ dx a s AapPdve. Should we read erevxds 
for edxds, as we find in Jerem. xx. 40 ézevx77 
opposed to érixatrdpartos 4 

§ 101, p. 482. of Srwikot 1d dxoAovbws TH 
dice Civ téA0s eoypaticayv, Tov Gedy eis dvow 


petovopdoavtTes CVT PET AS, Exedy 1 vats 
kai eis huta...xat eis AMOovs dtate’ve. Should 
we not read ot x etzperos here? The fact 
that the term ¢vovs is used of lifeless things 
is surely an argument that the Stoic maxim 
‘follow nature’ is a poor version of the 
Platonic and Christian maxim ‘follow 
God.’ 

§ 103, p. 484. ra ert rov ’Avaviar 
taropovpeva. Read perhaps ext <tav rept> 
tov Avaviav. |H.J.has the brilliant emen- 
dation éxt rav A veanav (z.e. Daniel and his 
three friends). ] 

§ 104, P- 484, rov oraupoy | TOU TwrTipos 
repubéepov eTreTaL Kupiy per ixviov W@oTeE 
Oeds dytos aylwv yevopevos. The hyper- 
bole is too strong even for Clement. Can 
he have written do7ep ctv 00 ev dylos éylwv 
yevonevos? Just before he had described 
the Christian as ovvoikos dy Td Kupiw, daptorys 
TE Kal ouveotios KaTa TO Tvedpa. [H.J. re- 
minds me that we have here a Homeric 
phrase borrowed from the Phaedrus, p. 266 
Tovrov SuwKw Katomicbe per’ ixviov date Oeoio, 
which would be spoilt by mutilation. Keeping 
Jeoto we might continue as év dylos éytwv or 
perhaps @s dy.os dyiws, as in p. 633.] 

$ 109, p. 486. dvdpos 51) ant darts 6 av- 
LacTas Kat GOVYXUTWS TOLS mpdypace xpn- 
cetat ad dv ta 7éOn Sppara. Read 
dGavpaorws, comparing M. Anton. i. 15 76 
aavpacrtov Kai avéxtdnxtov. [The same cor- 
rection is made by Bywater.] The sentence 
which follows, iva yap adiapopws Tois d1a- 
popors XPIT wpa, ToAAs Huty det Sta d op as 
are TpoKxexaxwpevors aoGeveia ToAAH Kal zpo- 
duactpopy, does not seem quite right even 
with Bywater’s correction of atiiaooers for 
duapdpots. What is needed in order to make 
one whose nature is distorted by natural 
frailty and bad bringing up view things 
indifferent with an indifferent eye, is re- 
formatory discipline, doxyo. or Oeparea, 
not duadopd, which merely crept in from the 
preceding line. 

§ 119; P- 491. et yotv tavrys diya melv 
olov te qv 7) TpodaAs zpoctecOau. For 
tpodys read tpodny. 

§ 120, p. 492. 806 por doxed Oelws 6 
voLos avayKains Tov poBov éxaptav. Sylburg 
reads 6 @etos. The short and long vowels 
are constantly confused, and the order of 
6 Oelws vopos would be changed without 
hesitation. Just below in da ris dravorov 
kal dvamravojrov mpos Tas tov maldv tpaov 
dvtiaxjoews, some word like édddovs or 
mpooPodds is required before dvripayjoews. 

§ 123, p. 493. drav tréprovoy ade A€ynrat, 
aorep Kat 6 Kiptos eri tivas, iva py Twes TOV 
&yrotvrwv airov extovov Kal drdxopdov acwow, 


288 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ovTws aKovW, OVX WS iméprovor, GANG. Tots py 
Bovdopevors dvahaBetv Tov Oetov Lvydov Tovrots 
baréprovov- Insert dzAd@s before adda, trans- 
lating ‘when the law is said to be too high 
pitched, as also the Lord (is said to have 
been) with reference to certain persons, in 
order to prevent some of his followers from 
being altogether out of tune, I understand 
it in this way, not as absolutely too high 
pitched, but as too high for those ae will 
not accept the divine yoke.’ 

§ 125, p. 494. (Zeno said he woul rather 
see a single Indian roasted than hear all the 
arguments about the endurance of pain) 
jpiy d€ ddOovor paptipwv myyal Exaorns Hpépas 
ev 6pOaApots juav Gewpovpevar TapoTTwpevor, 

dvacxwdvhevopevov x.7.’. The metaphor of 
ayyat is too violent even for Clement. 
Read odayai. 

§ 126, p. 495. yxpy roivey ovvackety abtovs 
eis evAaBevay TOV droTITTOVTwWY ToIs TaOeECL, 
dvyadevovtas...kal Tv Tprpyv Kal Ta eis 
tpudiv wan adAots civar GOAov Bapv, jpiv sé 
ovxert. Insert after rafy <dv 7 evAaBe 
Soxel Tois pev> adAors. 

§ 126, p. 495. yiverar 8 4 doxnots...ov 
pOvov TOD CHparos, GAG Kal THS WoyAs Dy leva 
doxvin wovwv, akopin tpodys. Read with 
Potter tyeias. 

§ 127, p. 495. trav yap dd THs Adovns 
apxopnevwv Tovs Te Kupyvaixois e€ivat Kat TOV 
’Ezikoupov...tyv noovnv. This is a clause in 
oratio obliqgua set in the middle of oratio 
vecta. Probably some such verb as 
dxovouev has dropped out after dpyouever. 

§ 128, p. 496. evexa yap jdovns ma ped- 
Gotaa  aperi doviv everoinoe. Read 
mapecceAfovaa. In the last sentence of the 
same section ovr otv 6 zévns ovl’ 6 ddo€os, 
&XN 0t8 6 éxivocos, GAN otd’ av oikérns 7 
tis kat’ avtovs. There seems no reason for 
the former dd’ od’. Possibly it has re- 
placed an original ov6’. 

§ 129, p. 497. KredvOns db 7d dpodoyor- 
pevos TH pica Lhv év TG cidoyorely, 0 ev 
Tm Tov kata piow exroyn KetoOar wtreAdp- 
Bavev. Dindorf should have adopted 
Menage’s emendation 7 710 eiAoyiorety, 
proved from Diog. Laert. vii. 28, where the 
téXos of certain Stoics is said to be rd evAoyio- 
Tel ev TH TOV KaTA vow éexAoy?.- 

Lb. ’Apxédnpos te ad ottws eEnyeito elvar 7d 


tehos €xANEyOpmevos Ta Kata diow péyiora 
kal KupwwoTata, odx olov Te OV Ta brepPaivew. 
According to Stobaeus (Hel. Eth. 6, p. 134) 
Antipater defined the rédos as Civ éxXeyo- 
pévovs Ta Kata dvow. This suggests the 
reading (jv éx\eyopevous for exAeyop.evos, and 
we should probably insert é a after KupLoTrara, 
and change ovra into «iva. Just below in 
ti OH co “Apiotwva katadéyoyn. dv; TéAos 
ovTos elvar TiV ddvaoplay epy, TO SE adiaopov 
dmAGs Gbtadhopoyv amodeirea. Read ri d¢, - 
and ddpiorov for the second adiadopov. 

Ib. KpurdAaos be. Teeoryta eeyev Kara 
vow etpoorvtos Biov, THY €k TOV TpLOV yEVOV 
cupaAnpouperny mpoyovixiy TeAcL6TyTA pyViuv. 
This sentence is explained by 2 139, p. 504, 
Téhevos 6 TeToUNKws e& EavTOD TOV GpoLtov, HaAoV 
de éreday KaKetvov TO aitd mwerounKora éridy. 
The only change which seems to me required 
is yevedv for yevov ; there is an hereditary 
completeness where prosperity continues 
through three generations. 

§ 137, P. 502. yapos pev ovv éott atvodos 
dvdpos kal ‘yuvaukos o] Tp OTN Kata vomov ert 
yvynciwv téxvwv oropa. As C. defends second 
marriages against the Encratites (ef. iii. § 82, 
p- 548), perhaps we should read with F. 
Jacobs, reported by Klotz, épwruyn for 7 
mpwtn, or omit the latter altogether as an 
ascetic comment. 

Ib. (nrotpev dé ei yapnréov, rep Tov KaT a 
i) Tpos TL Tws éxew @vopacpevwv éoriv. The 
MS. has xara zpés, the latter being probably 
a correction of the former. Omit therefore 
KaTa 7). 

§ 143, p. 506. riv trav adoywv Lowy civodov 
Ths avOpwrivys ovivyias cvvadoveav TH poet 
paddXov kata Tov 6uoroyovpevov 60 p ov O op ov. 
For this verbum nihili read the Aristotelian 
phrase @opod xaipdv, which agrees with the 
following clause ra yotv évia airav © KeAeverat 
Kaip@ evGéws aradAarrerau. [H.J. is certainly 
right in joining the second Oopov to the follow- 
ing 7a, and perhaps in reading dpov for the 
former Oopdv. The words will then run, cara 
Tov dpooyovpevov dpov. Oopdvta yodv eva 
x.t.\.] The words which follow from rots 
Tpaywooro.ots 6€ 7 IloAvgevn to 4 cupdopa 
seem to me misplaced. They would come 
better in the middle of the second sentence 
of § 145 beginning Geodurés yap To ovtt. 

J. B, Mayor. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 289 


COLLATION OF THE MADRID MS. OF MANILIUS (M. 31 BIBL. NAZION.) 
WITH THE TEXT OF JACOB, BERLIN, 1846. 


(Continued from page 141.) 


Book V. 
1 finis sed iter signisque relatis 4 strux- 
isset 5 percurreret ignes 6 Satorni 
8 libet 9 uectantur 10 conse. curros 


11 contingerim 12 magni pars maxima 


caeli 13 Et ratis heorum (sic) 14 er- 
rantis 15 Et biferum cecum squamis 
adque 16 diuitis detauri! 20 Enioch- 
usque 23 Andromedanque negans 24 
uolat 25 etippiter 27 sunt c. canenda 


29 Et quod adebisse xastris par quemque r, 
30 Ab stellis 33 inmunis 34 Colcludis 
et magicas artes qui uisere Colchon 35 
Mediam 36 pupimceli nauiget arto 37 
ducat 39 Quattuor hora 40 Illis 
41 inmobilis 42 Mutauit uentyisque (sic) 
43 nitumque uolet transnare 44 Clauibus 
45 tiphums. trementem 46 portur 47 


solutum 48 nomine heundis 49 Per 
sidera xer xenus facietque 50 Vtra 
Syracusis 52 suspinsus u utrunque 56 
arcessitur gobis (sic) 57 Sed deus mala 
terris 59 Quod trahentem 60 
Et mentita 61 Sollertis 63 Inde lassato 
corde uidere 64 totaque habitauit in 
orbe 66 conmunis 70 auitis pl 
sed’ium 72 retentas 73 quattuor 


74 Praeualidis uires et torto stringere guiro 
76 d (uncial d partially obscured) deu 
laxato 77 Exagiare m. pr.: then in lighter 
ink a small * above the line between gia 
80 oblicum 81 Obsantemque 83 acuta 
86 Quadripedum 87 Perquo labite 
quos ludet 89 Nunc licet per 
cursum 90 Quidquid 91 imitatus 
inurbe 92 inpositis 94 Atque mouisse 

de fulmine fingit 95 Sinsit et 
inm. 97 bellerophontem 98 Inp. 
101 conanda 102 partis artes 103 
heduli 104 promittereaer 105 necrede 
106 signis trictosque incoda catonis 107 
A bruptumque 108 peculcis 109 las- 
ciuyaque 111 Desidant inaniore iu- 
uentae 113 Inpellit 114 Et tumimum 
(I think: but possibly minimum) quia 
crimine uictum 118 artes 119 Lani- 


u 
geri surgent (" coeval with e) nati 
122 grecosque tenentis 125 Immundos- 
que 126 Et fidunt uerciadu genueres sy- 
boetem 127 hyades 128 orbis 131 


2 Perhaps for sed ditis et auri, 


Egelido 153 Fundamenta 
inpleuit 135 fidae creatur 
136 Suspensas trepitus 137 ingeniestui- 


quae 


u 
sendi 138 per noctis que rutarb3ta (the 
letter over t seems to be u, but may be n) 


140 Taurus inaduersos conpellitur 141 
luce sorores 142 Pleidas 143 Educunt 
baechi sequacis 145 mordacis 146 
cultus frocitisque decorde 148 Aut undis 
peruocare 149 adp. 150 menbra’ 151 
sterilisque optare 152 nec insunt tec- 
mina 153 Sed specie fictaeque 154 
Natuare adque 155 Lactant 156 
cupient et amere uideri 157 uero om. 
160 uolo erisque 166 pinsare fulto 
167 cito sictuos 168 mebra 169 uagus 
170 teneant sibique ipsa reludat 171 


Et uelut edictos iuueat 172 Inuigilat 
summis 175 aspir. 176 flammis habenti- 
bus 179 Atque atalanteos conatur 180 
Et calidonea 181 et quam potuisse uidere 
182 Quamque erat tactaeon s. mutandus 
185 Rectibus montes 186 Mendacis- 


que 187 Curentisque copede 190 
caeco missa 191 litorje (sic) is habetis 
192 precis inbellacessere 194 amnis 195 
Luxuria qua 196 gilam pascit 197 
ad procion 198 pars emergit 200 
tribuit sagacis 201 genus aproam 
203 astilia 204 quictque 206 surget 
nemeus 207 Exoriturque canis 

flammas 208 rapet 209 Qua 

mouenté 210 Dimicat 212 nemoris 
sanguis 213 querunt, 217 uno ceu sunt 
in flumine 218 ponta per proximas extulit 
horas 219 Nascentem quam nec 

restrinxerit 220 fingit 221 fletus 


ddiumque (sic) 222 Procurrunt 223 
condita causis 224 rabit 225 relin- 
quit 227 Baechus 228 rupesque 229 
Et spumantis adque 230 Et fundunt 
quae corpore flama 231 Nee alis 
232 ueneretur 233 cdpredere 235 
Cetera caelatus ab 236 sequétur 
237 Inr. 238 Ecce baeche tuas 239 
Disponetue 240 fidentem in brachia ducit 
241 Teque sibi credit s. qui matre resectum 


242 Adiungit segentemque 243 et 
244 parte 245 e miseris fouetur 
247 terra inanima 249 umor 250 


craterii moris 
runtur 


251 cum ter quinque fe- 
253 Cara ariadnae 254 Et 


290 


mollis tribuent artes 255 Namqua 257 
Pallentes hiac hinchos 258 Tliaque 
260 Caeruleumque foliis uiridemue in ger- 
mine collem 261 Consereret 262 nectit 
locauit 265, 4 Et fingetque suum 
sidus similesque inmutua pressos (sic) This 
line ends fol. 47°. There is no indication of 
anything wrong, but half an inch below is 


O 


] 


Incoquet atque arabum | 


265 mulcebit 266 medios 267 sue- 
orum 268 Mundiciae cultusque artesque 
decori 271 Ad cum 272 praesens 
uallantis 274 in faenus 276 atque 
279 orbi 280 iuris actis 282 fac- 
turos liti 283 pendentis orbes 284 
Aetorrere 285 KEtque uariasque 286 
habitatur 287 Frugibus destructos 1 

conponitur 290 tenacis 292 pars 


triclinia templis (et om.) 295 lacertis 
296 Et calamum ueruis glebas et mitere 
uirgis 299 Quod tocius d. tecycro 300 
Tene philoctetae cui mallum 300 Hectoris 
ille facesar cutelumque fugauit 301 Mit- 
tebatque suos ignes et 302 Hie orta in 
pharetro 307 sonumque animamque ui- 
uentem 308 aprosternere 311 Tune 
iterum nato et fatum per somnia raptem 
312 Ad cum inp. 313 quaerit 315 
Sollertis agittaque pectore 316 Et 
fingit 319 curam digito quae iuuerit 320 
Defuerit bonis 321 fraudaret 322 Cog- 
nitor est urbis amoris 325 ponetque 
forum suadetque lyaco 324 Nobilis in- 
saltus et staenae mollior arte 325 Nune 
surgent elirate studinise natat 326 tantum 
post fata sonantis 327 somnumque ferens 
oeagrius 328 tensus a2ddit-adidit (sic) 
330 uoces dotis horeaeque sonantis 331 
Garrulaque moduios 331 quodcumque 


ce 
332 Mulorbitque baechum 337 can- 
tauit adiuris 338 Hic distant elyra cum 


p. u. sexta 339 Chaelarum surgent quae 
e. ducit ad a. 340 Quid regione pauis partis 
341 thuris 343 dextra 344 Iupiter 
345 Quod ortus 347 uenerantis 

uoces 348 Pene possint * 


349 Quattuor adp. 350 more 351 agitauit 
onus mixtasque iugabit 352 quadripedes 
aut currus 353 Aut onerauit 304 
medias artes ad menbra 355 mutarunt 
357 non aegros corpus 358 Hune 

arquit. par quinta 359 nantis 
361 opus et sancta seruit 362 Reg- 
nante sub regno suo 363, 4 in M follow 


1 Perhaps ae structo. 
2 possint seems to be right, not posswnt, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


374 365 Arquit. 366 decima (not 
decuma) 367 uttibi solore uolatalis 370 
Alitumque genus studium 371 fluant 372 
modios pensare 9375 nitidos clamare suis 
374 ducere lina 363 Tutelamque gerant p. 
domibusue r. 364 Praepositis limine 
376 Qua modo 377 Fasidos et ducis 
378 nouo effecta est 380 nouasque in 
cometcia ducit 381 natura elege necata 
382 Ipse deum cycnus condit 385 ueneris 
gaudent et r. caecos 386 totamue per - 
orbem 387 Qui gestant acaueis 388 
constitit pascere 389 olotaureus 390 
Et qui? tenens 393 Accipiunt senibusque 
suis populoque fluentis 394 iungent inpone 
395 Ac 


pisces 397 Quisquis erit 398 
ripisue circum ferret 401 Protrahet 
inmersus 403 Inm. exquiritur 404 
tanta ‘405 rapidumque notori 406 
locuplebs 407 forte 409 Iustititor 


aequore ac 413 latencia 414 inmitis 
415 uero fauet 416 turgia. pectora tollat 
418 Erigit et iquamam stillis imitantibus 
est sic 419 pelagoque creatur 422 Et 
senibus uires sumet fluctumque f. 424 
brachiat actus 425 Et plausa resonabit 
aqua nunc aequore mersas 425° Et senibus 
uireso nabit aqua nunc aequore mersas 
426 Dicucet furtiuo renus 427 pas- 
sumque notauit 428 reddit 429 inmota 
431 Pendebitque pretotum sine remigere 
uotum est 433 qui mergunt 436 una 
sauidi harenas 437 Pars ex d. 
studium sociatur utrumque 438 Ingeinis 
atque imo ~~ 439 Adnumeros etiam ulla 
440 ualidos aliunt 44] que om. 442 
Hune 443 Membraue orbesque 
flagrantis 445 Delfinamque suos p. 
i, natanta motus 446 uiduat pinus 
inatre 447 Ad 448 acta 449 
Adque uocancia 450 cepheus mentis 
451 seuerare 452 Frontis ac u. cop. 
pondere mentis 453 Pascentur 
exemplare uoluet 455 Totorisque 


patruiue 456 Coponent reueros 457 
praetextae 459 tragica* 460 quam- 
quam stilus cruentis 461 haec 
462 auri luxum m. sepulchra 463 Ruct- 


antemque patrem natos 464 theuana 


iuuauit 465 iustatre parentem 466 
Queretune deae 467 uestis flammas illine 
pro munerae 468 uotos 469 aliae 
in carmina ducant 470 cefeus 
inactis 472 componit lactis 473 Ar- 
dentis iuuenis 474 senos 476 orbe 


477 uita 
479 Hesteruis tamen actus 


lingue sub frore 
charusque 


3 Conceivably for eacetenens or exquitenens, ‘ snake- 
holder ’ (excetra). 
4 Perhaps for tragici. 


~The 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 291 


480 tacito adf, 482 reddit 483 
magnus (?) haeruas aget scevisque! togatus 
485 Aequabit (que om.) 486 cad (entem 
om.) 487 Y partes inastra 488 Rotantis 
489 externis circumuola talis 490 alis 
494 Cumque hominum dedert frages 495 
pace ac bello 497 Precipitant 


cotenere 502 Inmissosque flumina 
503 magister 504 Ingentisque urbi- 
bus usus 505 Ad 506 Aequore 507 
Arfices 508 possunt carnique adquirere 


dotem 510 Hinc augusta then 515 Et mit 
hridateos tropea then'511 Aurea 512 
Gemmarumque ub radiantes lucibus ignes 
513 triumfis After 513 follows 543 Et 
quod erat regnum then 514 Non eximcta 


lues then 516 then 517 adque 518 
dueci 524 eruere orbemque inuertere 
prade 525 Inp. et glaebas gazas 


527 numerauit 528 Perfunditque 
stillancia litora 530 ramentis faciet 
momenta 529 Protulit ut ta legeret (sic) 
census spumantis in aurum 531 Et perlu- 
centes cuperet prensare 532 emittit 533 
Adquoque targenti glaebas 534 Eruet 
riuos alienate liquauit 535 Aut 538 
Andromedae 542 naufragia 543 
follows 513 544 uesano 545 An- 
drome dantenepos ut bella maneretatus 
546 Hic chimenaeus erat solaque in p. d. 
547 uicti (sic) poena 548 Inductus- 
que? sinus 549 uiua erapitur 550 
Ae 556 custos est ipsa f. 557 umeris 


558 scapulis 559 pinnis 561 Nec? tibi 
adsuetas 

562 Attua 563 Adsitetasque (same ink) 

desiit rupes 564 ab equore uultu 


566 leuis flatur efobens 
571 Deriguit 572 
573 inandromedae 
579 Promissum 
581 aut fuge- 


565 et undas 
567 resonauit fleuile 
manus - polium (sic) 
577 ira 578 paretis 
uite 580 Additus 


bant aumine 581 Inp. 583 Scindentis 
mouit 584 oré 585 uastis 
urguent inm, 586 fortus 587 Adque 
modgntes 588 Infex 589 tune 
quas f. in auro 593 quantis hie subuola- 
talis 597 uersaque a gurgit effonte 
598 innutens altis 599 semper 
iaculata 601 ceci 602 seuit 604 
Et flat 605 exstillat 606 puella 607 


oblita (sic) 609 belua membrais 610 
summasque iterum regnauit 612 noc 
uirginis 613 Perfundit 615 puella 
616 nubturam 619 lentus 620 tempora 


1 The letter after sce is doubtful ; possibly it is n 
altered to v. Can the right reading be scaewasque 
togatos = Roman Scaevas, ‘such as Lucan has immor- 
talized in Book vi. of the Pharsalia ? 

2 Possibly for Indutusque (accus. plural). 

3 Perhaps for Haec = hae. 


621 inm. 622 tustus quostanta superbe 
623 Postrata eiaceant miserorum in lumine 
m. 624 Pernoctentque* 626 uindentis 
627 secure 628 Supl. qui deneque 
posse 629 Rendentem et scopulis 630 
catenas 631 Interdum poenis noxia ec. 
seruet 632 Signauit terra elimen 635 
Velocisque 636 Come 637 glomeranit 

cyros 639 fidem 640 cursum 
641 Quauis orbem 642 Nuncius 
extremum uellebis 644 Quadrip. 645 
humano sed qual’ 647 Et gonas iugui 


eulauides 649 creatur 650 orbem 
651 consurgit in artis 652 first letter is 
1 not i. uindetque 654 extinctos 


ponit u. fines 655 mediatus inter u. perdet 
656 Et peneuaet pendens porulum suspendet 
ab ipsa 657 extremi cecl 658 
andromedam 659 bulnera .notos 661 
furentem 662 in lacxo 663 claudent 
nectant 664 meularum nomine 
thinnof 667 sanguie potus 668 To- 
tumquoque litore praede 669 sic 
caedis in artus 670 Corpora 
discr. 671 recentis 672 praetiosa suis- 
fluit (sie) 673 temporat 674 rages 
678 turbaeque inmobilis haeret 679 
sagina-sagina (sic) 680 bachi conplet 


681 Vmorisque uolet socia per mutua dote 
684 quoqueret ponti uires 685 dis- 
cendant 685 Ad bellumque suo diductum 
et aequore 687 negant tum demum sus- 
cipit undas 688 Aepaet® ponto per 
solem umore nitescit 690 sed nota 
rigentes 691 Ingentes tumultos 
pelagique uenerunt 692 Quoderit 694 
Ad sua perpetuas 696 Numquam 
orbem 697 Aut Cynosura minorticin 
prima luce rusurgit 699 promittunt 700 
fere 701 Hora ferent comergia 
gentis 705 peruersaque munera duce 
706 mouebit 707 int anto cunctis 
708 tigrim 709 aliam festant 710 ami- 
citias 711 pleidas dotauit 712 suffus 
piropo 713 cecynos ura 716 
per lubrica 717 omnem 718 E numero 
summaque gradus qui iungitur angue 719 
per minimos uno 721 Re- 
spondent 723 uaga est illa eterris sulumina 
724 igni 725 trans gresuis 726 Eff. 
actenditur 727 Cernere “siminibus to- 
tumque micare (solidis om.) In the right 
margin a different and very distinct hand 
has written luminibus solidis After 728 
Jollows Spiritus aut solidis (ste) desunt 
sicque haec d. concors then 729 Spacium 
stellis suma 730 siccare (sic) 731 
quod eant 732 quod de libia 734 


4 i.e. Pernoctemque. 
® Probably for Aer et pota. 


292 


Vt per ingentis 735 et quester 736 
equitum 737 Vulgus 738 respondere 
739 quae ue 742 gradus atque 


743 Co ae (seems 
745 fraglaret 


omnia uicta prior¢ ae 
to mean Cuoi si = Quoi si) 


Teloo 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


[I would again call the attention of 
students of Manilius to my article, ‘The 
Madrid MS. of Manilius,’ in Hermathena 
(Dublin) for 1893, pp. 261-287.] 


Roginson E.tts. 





CRITICAL NOTES. ON THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. 


(Continued from p. 195.) 


546 A. ov povov urois eyyetors adda kal 
ev emuyetous fous opa Kai dpopia Woxis Te) kal 
THOMATOV ylyvovrat, eee eee . yevous de DETEPOV 
evyovias Te Kat adopias, Kaitep ovTes codoi, 
ous TYEpHOvas moAews erardevoac be ovdev paddov 
Aoyopg per air Ojo ews TevéovTat, GAG map- 
ELoOLV avTous Kal yevvnocover Taloas TOTE ov 
déov. 

In spite of the dopa cal ddopia preceding 
I am inclined to think that we should read 
eidhopias for ddopias, the occurrence of 
ddopia before accounting for the error. 
Tevéovra naturally, though perhaps not 
necessarily, refers to the right time only, 
and wdpecw can only have the right time, 
not the wrong, for its subject. So in Arist. 
Eth. Nicom. vi. 10, 11426 34 ectovvecia 
seems right for dovvecia. Indeed the con- 
fusion of a and ev is a recognized cause of 
error in MSS. For te xai coupling syno- 
nyms cf. 571 C AedAvpevoy Te Kat aarndday- 
pevov: 575 B ev cipyvy te kat yovxia: ke. 
Perhaps év should be added before ¢vrois or 
omitted before éruyeto.s. 

BAT E. 7a d€ ye oBetcbar trois coors ext 
Tas Gpyas ayew, are ovKéTL KEexTyLEVvYN aods 
TE Kal GTevels Tovs ToLOvTOUS avOpas GAG puLK- 
Tous, emt d€ Ovpoedets te Kal amAovoTépous 
azokAXivew, Tois mpdos ToAEuov paddov edvr- 
KOTas 7) mpos eipyvnv, k.T.r. 

am\ovetépovs is manifestly wrong, but 
none of the suggested words is satisfactory. 
Stallbaum’s zo\AamAovorépous, though prima 
facie plausible from its antithesis to the 
Gaods preceding, is not really suitable. 
Madvig’s avovarépouvs does not strike me as 
good, I had at first thought of dypwwrépovs, 
as ayptos is a word which Plato uses in this 
connexion (cf. 410 D: 411 E: 486 B) and 
we have tiydvres dypiws iro oKdTOV xpvadv TE 
Kat adpyvpov a few lines below. I believe 
however that Plato really wrote dpovao- 
tépovs. In 548 E the individual character 
corresponding to the timocratic is called 
broapovadtepov. Cf, Adyou povotky KeKpa- 


pevov in 549 B and rips dAnOujs Movons (or 
povorxys) in 548 B. Add546 D dpovadrepar 
yevycovtar piv ot véor: 411 D pucddoyos... 
Kal GjLovcos. 

548 D. Read probably zés te yuyvopevos 


for ds Te yeroneves: 


549 C. orav m™p@rov pe THS paTpOS dKovy 
dxOopevas, 6 OTL ov TOV dpxov Trav ary o avnp 
€or, Kal eharrouperys dud Taira €v Tals aAats 
yuvaisiv, ererta Spdons pn Fpddpa rept xen- 
para. orovddtovra pode [0X0 p€VOV kat Aovdopov- 
pevov idia Te ev ducarrnpiors Kat Sypoota, aAXa 
pobtpus jwavTa TH ToOLAdTa _Pépovta, Kat éavTod 
peev Tov VOUV Tpooexovra del aicbavynrat, é EauT nV 
dé pyre wavy TywdvTa pyte atysalovta’ é€& 
amdvTwv TovTwv axOopuevys Te Kal Aeyovons ws 
K.T.X. 

One is unwilling to believe that such a 
sentence proceeded from the careful pen of 
Plato, AicOdvyra: ought in grammar to be 
aicbavopevns. It is however unnecessary to 
have any such word at all, as édpéons would 
govern zpocéxovra, and I suspect that aic6a- 
vntat Should be banished from the text 
altogether. If we retain it, we might 
possibly read xat <édv> €av7@ or kav éavTo. 

550 C. "Exopuev apa, nv & eye, tHv Te Sev- 
Tépav Toditetav Kal Tov devTepov avdpa. "Exomev, 
edpy. 
Should not éyouev...avdpa be made interro- 
gative ? 


551 C. zovnpav, 7 8 
avTous vaurihieo Bat. 

For 7 & 6s Ast suggests cixés, which I 
had thought of independently. It might 
be either substituted or added. Perhaps 
Tovnpav avaykn, 7) 8 ds. 

551 D. "ANAG piv OSE TOE KaAOv, 7d aduvd- 
Tous €ivat tows ToAEMOV TIWa ToAcHEtY. tows 
(given by A and some other MSS., but not 
found in all) is feeble. Baiter after Badham 
ods: but we need an adverb. A very suit- 
able word would be io(xvp)ds. Cf. Thue, i. 
69, 6 icxupas eyKeioovTat. 


¢ ‘ 4 
Os, THV vavTiriav 


OS —  — ———— 


<a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 293 


554 E. épovontixns 8€ Kal pppoopevyns THs 
Wuxis adnOijs apery. 

Should not ris be omitted ? 

555 C. For cicdavetfovres, an odd word, 
read perhaps zpoodavetCovres. Ast after 
Steph. éxdaveiLovres. 

556 A. ovte y’ exetvy. 
exeivyn 

556 C. Otrw dy TaperKevag pevoL oTav Tapa- 
Bid\oow adAnrors ol Te dpxovres Kal ol apxo- 
prevot y ev odav mropetats a ev adXas Tit 
Kowwviats, 7) Kara Bewpias 7} 7] Kata orpareias, i) 
Evprhor yeyvopevon n €votpati@tar, 7) Kal év 
avTots TOLS Kvdbvous ddArAous Decpevor pndapn 
karadpovavrat ot TevyTes WTO TOV TAOVTLWY. 

This sentence, which is as ungrammatical 
and—what is worse—as awkward as that 
in 549 C, D, may be put fairly straight by 
reading G@ewpevwy for Oedmevor. For the 
genitive absolute with a subject to be 
supplied from the context, cf. 327 C and 
616 A. Possibly we should also add éav 
before év avrots or read kav év aitots. An- 


Perhaps ovre yap 


other simple remedy would be to insert kat 


before pydapyy (dtav...rapaBadArAwor Oedpevor 
Kal pydapy TavTy KaTappovavrat ot TEvyTES). 

558 A. ti d€; 7 mpadrys eviwy Tov diKac- 
Oévrwv ov Kopin; 7 ov7w eides ev ToLat’Ty 
moAtreia avOpwTwv Kataynpicbevtos (so Mad- 
vig and Baiter for kataWyndicbevtwrv) Oavarov 
 vyjs ovdey Frrov aitév pevovtwv Te Kat 
dvacrpepopeviov €v péow, Kal @s ote povTi- 
Covros ovre bpGvTos ovdevos TeEpiwooTEl WoTEp 
Hpws; Kat toAXovs y’, Epy. 

In the first sentence zepé should probably 
be inserted before or after éviwy (Steph. 
inserts xara). Cf. “A@nvaiwy Iloditeia 22, 
Xpopevor TH eiw9via Tod Sypov mpadryt, and 
many passages of Demosthenes, e.g. 19, 107. 
The second sentence suffers from four 
distinct faults: (1) «ides with the genitive 
absolute: (2) the change from plural to 
singular in repwooret: (3) the loose attach- 
ment of the last clause, os apparently 
going with dpovrifovros and épavros, which 
last word absolutely requires és to qualify 
it: (4) the weakness of airév and dv6parev. 
I believe that the words have got consist- 
ently corrupted and that we must read the 
accusative, either singular or plural, through- 
out : ze. either ovzw cides ev Tova’Ty ToXtTEla 
avOpwrov katalyndicbevtos Oavarov 7) pvyis 
ovdev 7TTOV avTOD pévovTa TE Kal dvacTpeEedo- 
pevov ev péeow kal...TEepwooTovvTa WaTeEp 7pwa, 
or the accusative plural throughout. I 
write airod for airév, as Schneider had 
already suggested, though he did not adopt 
it in his text. 

558 E. In this and the following sections 
it would seem proper to make dvayxatos 


consistently an adjective of either two or 
three terminations, and not to treat it 
sometimes as one, § sometimes as the other. 

559 B. 7 pev ye mov Tod citov (érbvpia) 
Kat’ apotepa dvayKaia, 7 TE GpPeAyos 7 TE 
ratca Lavra ov dvvaty (od is rightly added 
by GC. Hermann. Cf. note on 488 E, 
where perhaps ov dvvarév is as likely as 
advvarov). On the model of Xen. Anab. 4, 
1, 24 aitis & Edn HyjoecOar Svvarnv Kaa 
brolvylous Topever Oar dddv, quoted by L. and 
S. s.v. duvaros, I should suggest Zévru here. 
7atoat means of course the same as dzrotpeat 
and dazadAdéeev above. 

561 E. Mavrdracw, 7 8 6s, dueAnjAvOas Biov 
isovopikod twos avdpds. Oipar d€ ye, Hv S 
éyo, Kal mavtodarov te Kal mAcioTtwv 7Odv 
peotov, kal Tov Kadov TE Kal qotKihov domeEp 
exeivyv tiv wodw Todvtov Tov avdpa elvat. 
Thompson proposed tv kadév te kai 
motkiAwv } & more certain correction in my 
eyes is mavrodarod te kal mircloTtwv 7Odv 
peorov. Surely the words are parallel to 
ig OVOMLKOD. 

562 A. depe 57; tis TpoTros Tupavvidos, é 
dire € éraipe, ylyverat; OTe pev yap ek Snuoxpa- 
Tias perapahher oxedov dj Aov. Ajdov. *Ap’ 
obv TpoTov TWa TOY aiToV Ek TE ddyapxias 
Snpoxparia ylyverat Kat éx SnpoKparias Tupavvis ; 

Tis Tpomos Tupayvidos yiyverat cannot give 
that meaning of ‘how does tyranny come 
into being ?? which the words following 
show to be required. Cf. 563 E airy pév 
ToiVUV...%) GpXy-.-00ev 7 Tupavvis pPverar: 565 
D ris apy otv petaBodjs «.t.A. Probably 
Plato wrote here simply tiva tpérov tupavvis 

.-ycyverat, as in the words almost immedi- 
ately following (tpdmov Twa...ylyverat). Tis 
dpxi) Tupavvidos ylyverat would give the same 
sense. Or should yevéoews be substituted for 
yiyverar! 

567 E Kypjvas, qv O eyo, v7) Tov KUva, 
doxels ad Tiuvds por A€yev Eevixovs Te kal TavTo- 
Sarovs. “AAnOA yap, edn, Soxd co. Ti de; 
aitodev Gp’ otk av eAnoeaev; lds; Tods 
dovAous ddeAdpevos Tos ToAiTas eAevbepicas 
Tov wept éavtdv Sopyddpwv roujpoacbar (ri 
de; aitdfev Stallbaum with one MS., ris dé 
avtobev A, rods dé aitéfev most MSS.). 

The ellipse with é@eAjoeev on this reading 
is very harsh, for an infinitive and an 
accusative after the infinitive have both to 
be supplied. But rods airdfev is unlikely, 
for then the question could hardly have been 
taken up with a bare wés. Is it possible 
that Plato wrote ri dé; airdfev dp’ ovx av 
eOeAjoece mws Tors SovAovs adadedAdpmevos 
k.T.Xr, 4 

573 D. Diyverar pev, ds eorxev, ottw Kal 
towvros avnp. Perhaps ylyverar pév ody, or 


294 


ovxoov ylyverar pev, the ovkotv having been 
lost after pév ovy just preceding. 

575 A. rupavvixds ev aitd 7 "Epas...Car, 
Gre abtos dv povapxos, TOV €xXoVTa TE avTOV 
dorep wodw afer ert Tacav TOAmav, OOev abTov 
TE Kat TOV wept adTov OdpvBov OpéWer, TOV pev 
eEwbev ciceAyAvOdta Grd KaKns 6pidias, TOV 
évoobev id Tav atTdv TpdTwv Kal EéavToOd 
avebévra kai éhevOepwhevTa. . 

The rerafter tov éxovta ‘is omitted by 
Stallbaum, nor do I see how Baiter could 
justify its retention, unless we are to 
suppose something omitted like tov €xovrd. 
re <Kat tpéhovta>. Cf. 575 D pyrtpida te... 
Kat mwatpioa e€e. te Kal Opewa. Again io 
TOV avTaV TpdTwV Kal éavTod is nonsense. I 
conjecture to tav aitav tTporwv éavTo, Or 
possibly izéd rv aitav tpdrav Kai adrov (cf. 
451 E ei dpa tats yuvaséiv ert tadTa xpnoopeba 
Kat Tols avopaot, TavTa Kat didaxTéov aidrds, 
where xaé goes closely with eri raird) in the 
sense of ‘ the same habits, or manners, that 
have set him ("Epws) free.’ 

577 A. & te traits Kar’ oikiavy mpageow, ws 
mpos ExdoTous TOUS oikEious Exel, ev ols padioTa 
yupvos av 6bGein Tis TpayiKns oKEVTS. 

Probably ‘év ais. 

577 B. BovrAa.. tpormornowpcba ets civar 
Tov duvatav dv Kpivat: kal yon évTvxdvTwv 
TOLOUTOLS. 

Ido not think tév dvvarév av could be 
defended by the parallel of Eur. Ale. 182 cé 
8 addy Tis yuv”n KEKTHTETAL, THPpPwV [eV OK 
av paddov, evTvyis 0 isws and the parody in 
Ar. Hq. 1252. In prose it is surely impos- 
sible to attach ay to an adjective. We have 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Tov Ovvatod pev Kpivat a few lines above, 
which tells against the genuineness of dv 
here. Can ay represent 6v(rwv)? Or should 
we read tév duvatav av ovtwv 2 

579 D. dotrAos tas peyioras Owrelas Kat 
dovAcias. Surely we ought with two MSS. 
(Schneider) to read dovAelas kal Owrefas. The 
only thing that could make dodtAos Owrreias 
tolerable would be that dotdAos dovdAcias 
should lead up to it. 

585 A. domep dé mpds peAav haiov arocKo- 
mouvres ameipia NevKOd, Kal mpos TO GAvTOV OUT 
vrnv ahopavres Gretpia HOovyas dmaTOvrat. 

Thompson was undoubtedly right in 
principle when he proposed xat apos Avdayv 
ovTw To GAvrov: but I should rather incline 


to write kal TO dAvrov ovTw zpos Arynv. One 
or the other is absolutely necessary. 
586 C. os av aitd TotTo dvarparryTa. The 


sense seems to require something lke ratro 
TOUTO OY av ToLOvTOV. 

592 B. ’ANN, jv 8 eyo, ev otpavde tows 
Tapacerypa avaKeta. TO BovNoméevw Spay Kat 
OpOvTe EavTov KaToLKilewv. 

Herwerden seems right in taking 
exception to éavrov Kkatoixilev, but neither 
avto Katouxilew Dor 6pavte mpos adTd (‘ keep- 
ing it in view’) is satisfactory. I should 
suppose Plato to have written <éavrov 
<aitéce> (or <eis aitivy>) xarouilew. Cf. 
543 B dyovres rods otpatwrtas Katouktovow els 
oikynoes: Lim. 69 D karouxilovow eis adAAnv 
Tod gwpatos oiKnow TO Ovytov. By itself 
€avtov Karouxiéewv is incomplete. 


HersBert RICHARDS. 


(To be continued.) 


THE BACCHAE OF EURIPIDES. 


I sBeGIN by withdrawing the expression 
mendacissimus, which in my hot youth I 
applied to Henry Stephens. I think it was 
my opinion at that time that one might say 
anything in Latin. I remember that on the 
appearance of the edition of 1871 I was 
courteously admonished in a _ long-defunct 
magazine, the Dark Llue, by a young 
Cambridge scholar who had even then given 
earnest of his future brilliant achievements 
in scholarship, I mean Prof. Jebb, that it 
was unadvisable to revive the asperities of 
the Brunckian era. I have followed that 
advice, and have adopted a far less emphatic 
tone in my recent edition of the Bacchae. 


But I still hold the belief that Stephens’ 
vetustissima exemplaria had no existence. I 
know nothing about the case of Isaac Voss 
instanced by Mr. England, but I think he 
has been singularly fortunate if scholars 
have taken his word for the existence of 
MSS. seen by nobody but himself. Bosius 
(Du Bos), a fellow countryman of H. 
Stephens (Henri Estienne), has not gained 
such credence. His X and Y have been 
universally rejected by scholars. Baiter 
declares that all readings depending on 
them alone are /furca expellendae. and in 
relating the circumstances of the death of 
Bosius he writes Bosiwm cito scelus swum 


~ ee 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


morte luisse a latronibus trucidatum. It is 
true that Mendelssohn has lately raised the 
question whether these codices may not 
have been genuine; but the answer of 
scholars seems to be unanimous: ‘If those 
codices existed how is it that no ore has 
ever seen them?’ Scholars of the revival 
were very ready to give full information 
about their exemplaria when they really 
existed. By an extraordinary vagary of 
human ambition some of them were capable 
of resorting to imposture to gain admittance 
into the early editions, and consequently 
a good chance of permanent acceptance, for 
their own conjectures, which were in many 
cases so good that they would have been 
universally accepted as certain conjectural 
emendations if candidly put forward as 
such. 

I heartily admire Mr. England’s scholar- 
ship, and appreciate highly the work he has 
done on Euripides. Moreover I completely 
agree with him in his admiration for the 
brilliant services of Stephens to scholarship. 
He is polite enough not to apply the 
objectionable superlative (even in Latin) to 
me, but, in the face of a significant aposio- 
pesis on his part, I should like to show that 
even a less courteous disputant than he is 
himself would not be justified in applying 
to me the adjective even in the positive 
degree (and in Latin). 

Kirchhoff does not believe in Stephens’ 
vetustissima exemplaria. He gives a full 
account of the MSS. on which the text of 
the Dacchae depends, and he makes no 
mention at all of Stephens’ codices Italict. 
He gives Stephens’ quotations from them as 
the conjectures of that admirable scholar, 
and when he does not approve of them as 
conjectures he does not mentionthem. For 
instance, in 1060 he does not make any 
mention of pdfwy, though Stephens is very 
instant in claiming for it MS. authority. 
This being so, I perhaps did not use the 
most appropriate language when I said that 
Kirchhoff has shown that the codices were 
fabricated when he had only shown that he 
believed them to be fabricated. Yet, if I 
proclaimed that I had won the Derby, and 
if Mr. England, on referring to a list of 
Derby winners generally accepted as accurate, 
and finding there no mention of my name, 
should declare that the list had shown that 
I was making an untrue statement, it would 
not be to Mr. England that the defamatory 
attribute would be most applicable. 

Mr. England says that Stephens pub- 
lished the readings of his Italian codices 
along with conjectures of his own ‘in such 


295 


a way that it is nearly always possible to 
distinguish the readings from the conject- 
ures.’ The fact seems to be that he 
published as his conjectures such emenda- 
tions as he thought sure of general 
acceptance, and appealed to MSS. authority 
for those which he deemed to need such 
support. For instance, he writes repone 
TavonpLoiet pro wavoopots in 227, but in 235, 
desiring to read evkoopos Kdpnv, his tone is 
very different : im vet. cod, legitur evKkorpos 
quam esse veram lectionem persuasum habeo. 
Sometimes, but very rarely, he overrates 
the certainty of his own conjecture, and 
gives it as such, ¢.g. jppevwpuevas in 688 ; but 
nearly always when his emendation is good 
enough in his judgment to dispense with 
MSS. support, it has proved sufficiently 
convincing to win universal acceptance. 
When he corrects ozovdjs to orovdns and 
Noyxatov to Aoyxwrov he says non est dubium 
quin reponendum sit; but when the case 
admits of doubt he claims the authority of 
his codices. And the worse the conjecture 
the more earnest his appeal to the codices. 
This is illustrated by his note in defence of 
his worst conjecture ddwv, which Kirchhoff 
does not even record. It is worth noticing 
that Stephens never thought of pdéwy as 
anything but the gen. plur. of pdfos; he 
was too good a scholar to think of intro- 
ducing such a word as poOwy (-wvos) into a 
tragedy. His practice is the same as 
regards the conjectures of other scholars. 
For instance the brilliant correction of 
Brodaeus, Uavos for xarvos in 952, is 
accepted as a certain emendation, but to the 
same scholar’s fo8y for doBw in 1187 and 
mepisodv for repicoas in 1197 he calls the 
aid of his codices. 

Mr. England did very well in calling the 
attention of the readers of the Classical 
Review to the fact that certain verses 
restored from £B to the Zroades in two 
passages, 193—196 and 232—234, are quoted 
from his codices by Stephens, who certainly 
did not know &. It is to be observed that 
of the second passage Kirchhoff writes 
‘mutilatos exhibet Ald. cum AZ, supplevit 
in A m. sec.’ Could Stephens have seen A ? 
In any case it would seem better to accept 
the hypothesis suggested by Mr. England 
himself in his note than to believe in the 
existence of those exemplaria which both in 
the life of Stephens and since his death 
have evaded the search of every scholar 
save the brilliant Frenchman. 


I would add a word or two in reference to 
Mr. Page’s note on Bacch.506. I have printed 


296 


that verse with obeli because I believe it has 
never been restored. I do not believe 
Euripides would have written otk otc 6 7 
fjs in the sense of ‘you do not know what 
(blind) life you are leading’ or ‘that you 
have (but) the life of a mortal.’ I think 
the word which I have in each version 
enclosed in parenthesis would be essential 
to the sense, yet it is not in the Greek. 
‘You do not know that you are a mere 
mortal’ could be expressed in scores of ways. 
Mr. Page, who isa most skilful verse-writer, 
would not think of such an expression as 
ovk of 6 Te Cs aS a rendering of this 
sentiment. Why then should he ascribe it 
to Euripides? Still less do I believe that 
Euripides having written such an inelegant 
expression as ovk otc@ 6 te Lys ovf doris et 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


would have further encumbered the line 
with such a superfluous and clumsy addzta- 
mentum as ovd dpas, which adds nothing to 
the sense and brings in a most ungraceful 
ovd between otk and ovf’. Mr. Page 
complains that the verse is now ‘buried 


‘beneath a heap of learned rubbish, the proper 


place for which is the dustbin.’ Just so. 
That is why I obelized the verse and put all 
the suggestions for its restoration, none of 
which seemed quite satisfactory, into the 
dustbin, my note. The only difference’ 
between us is that Mr. Page would put his 
little armful into the text, not the note, 
into the casket which holds the precious 
jewels, not into the dustbin which stands 
beside it. 
R. Y. TYRRELL. 


ON THE TERM Exrypopor OR éExrypopror. 


In Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon the word 
éxrnudpwos is interpreted thus—‘of a sixth 
part: hence ot éxtnpoptou = 70 ExTov TOY YyLyvo- 
pévov tedoovtes, those who paid a sixth of the 
produce as rent, Plut. Sol, 13 ; also éxrnpopor 
Hesych.’ 

In the April number of this Journal, Mr. 
Wayte ina list of ‘corrections of Liddell 
and Scott’ proposed to correct this inter- 
pretation. His arguments were as follows: 

‘The text of *A@. Tod. ch. 2 (pace Dr. 
Sandys) supports the contention that the 
cultivators paid five-sixths of the produce 
and retained only one-sixth. This is also 
the common-sense view: if the proportions 
were reversed, it is difficult to see where the 
oppression came in.’ 

May I suggest that these are inadequate 
reasons for ‘ correcting’ a statement of fact 
distinctly made by Plutarch, repeated—as 
Liddell and Scott indicate—by Hesychius, 
and indirectly supported—as I shall 
presently show—by Isocrates. Mr. Wayte’s 
first argument I am unable to answer, 
because he does not say how the text of ’A0. 
IloA, supports his interpretation. But it is 
easy to show how, in my opinion, it supports 
that of Liddell and Scott. The relevant 
phrases are these :— 

..ekaAouvTo mweAdtar Kal exTnpopot* Kara 
raitny yop THvy picbwow <cipydlovto Téav 
mroveiwv Tovs aypovs...Kal et pay TAS pucHaces 
dmrodwotev, aydyysor Kat adroit Kat ot aides 
eyiyvovto. 

It seems to me (1) that the pronominal 


reference in tavryvy to ékrnuopor implies 
clearly that the pioOos or picbwors was 70 
extov pepos, While (2) the phrase «i py tas 
puoOdces arodbotev Shows that the picGwors 
was paid and not received—was, as Dr. 
Sandys says, ‘rent and not wages.’ 

The authority of the ’A@. Hod. seems to 
me, therefore, entirely on the side of 
Plutarch and Liddell and Scott. But, says 
Mr. Wayte, the other interpretation is 
required by ‘common sense,’ because, if the 
meXdrat Only paid one-sixth, ‘it is difficult to 
see where the oppression came in.’ Surely 
it came in where our authorities describe it 
as coming in, viz. through a severe law of 
debt, administered by oligarchical judges 
independent of popular control. It is 
against this that Solon’s remedies are 
directed : we are not told that he attempted 
to introduce ‘ fair rents.’ If it be said that 
the law of debt could not have done so much 
harm, if the tenants had only paid one-sixth, 
the answer is that Solon’s language indicates 
a wide-spread economic distress among 
proprietors as well as tenants; since his 
first boast is that he ‘removed many 
mortgage-pillars.’ Surely, if the economic 
difficulties of the small proprietors were so 
great as to require the revolutionary remedy 
of a cecdxGea, the distress of mere tenants 
might be sufficiently severe, even if they 
only paid a rent of one-sixth. 

In any case I hardly think that ‘common 
sense, in so obscure a subject as the 
economic history of Attica before Solon, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 997 


should override the explicit statements of 
Plutarch, supported—as I have tried to 
show—by the natural and obvious interpre- 
tation of the words of ’A@. Tod. ch. 2. I 
know of no unambiguous evidence on the 
other side: and it is to be noted (1) that 
neither Plutarch nor the author of the 
Athenian Polity give a hint of a conflict of 
tradition on this point ; and further (2) that 
Plutarch’s statement is supported by the 
account which Isocrates gives (Areopag. § 32) 
of the good old times,—describing how ot 
ras ovcias éxovres did not neglect the poor, 
but érijuvoy tais évdetats, Tois pev yewpytas 
éml petplacs picOadcece mapadvovtes 
x.t.A. Now Isocrates, writing as laudator 
temporis acti is doubtless not a first-class 


authority on a question of historic fact. 
Still the Areopagiticus is a serious political 
pamphlet: and, if it had been the estab- 
lished tradition in the time of Isocrates 
that the poor cultivators before Solon had 
to hand over five-sixths of their produce to 
their landlords, surely a writer of his repute 
would hardly have ventured on a moving 
description of the rich coming philanthropi- 
cally to the succour of the poor by letting 
lands to them at ‘moderate rents’ ! 

On the whole, therefore, I venture to hope 
that—as the ancient authorities appear to 
be on their side—our old friends Liddell and 
Scott may be left uncorrected on this point. 


Henry Sipewick. 





Avvapis AND vars IN PLATO. 


WE might classify the senses of the term 
Svvapts according as it is used in reference 
to (a) animate things, or (6) inanimate things. 
Under (a) we might roughly class its uses 
to denote personal ‘ powers’ of either an 
internal or external character by subdividing 
into (1) outward might or influence (due to 
kTjpara and ypyara and the like), (2) cor- 
poral strength, (3) psychical effectiveness. 

Under the first of these heads may be 
grouped such passages as Menex. 240 D 
9 Tov Ilepodv Sdvvapis (‘ force’ as concrete 
rather than abstract), Zim. 24 E, 25 A, 
Rep. ii. 364 A, iv. 423 A, Laws iv. 706 B, 
ete. But neither this nor the second loose 
and vulgar usage deserves more than a mere 
mention. 

Passing on to (4) we find dvvayus frequently 
applied (1) to denote the ‘ effectiveness,’ or 
sphere of action, of arts or sciences, e.g. 
Rep. v. 453 E } yewaia...7) Svvapis ths dv- 
TidoyiKHs Texvys, cp. Gorg. 447 C, 456 A, C. 
Also (2) it may denote the meaning or 
significance of a term, e.g. Cratyl. 394 B 
i) TOD Ovopatos Svvayus, 1b. 435 D, Phil. 24 C, 
etc. And further, (3) we find it applied as 
a technical term in mathematics, in the 
sense of (a) the side of a square or the root 
of a number, e.g. Polit. 266 B 7 dudperpos 7 
duvdper Sirous...7 ye Tod Aourod yevous wahw 
éott kata Sivapww ad THs imerepas Svvdpews 
Sutpetpos. Cp. Theaet. 148 B ff., and also 
conversely (4) of a square or sguare number, 
e.g. Rep. ix. 587 D xara dé dvvapw Kat tpirnv 
avénv x.t.. (‘by raising to the second and 
third powers’), Zheaet. 147 E rov peév duva- 

NO. LXXI. VOL. VIII. 


> , ” — | 4, / 

pevov (sc. appv) toov iodks yiyver bau 
Tetpdywvov Kat isomAevpov tpoceiropev. Hence 
the dvvapts, in mathematical sense, may be 
either rod woreiv (square root) or rod Tacxew 
(square number): dvvaca, as active, has 
for passive duvacrevec Oar (cp. Adam, Vuptial 
Number p. 31). 

It thus appears that the term divapis 
admits of a tolerably wide range of appli- 
cation. But Plato has taken care in some 
places to define this range with more pre- 
cision. Thus in Rep. v. 477 C ff. he makes 
use of the term for the purpose of dis- 
tinguishing between emuor pn and d0éa. 
First he describes duvdpes as yevos Te TOV 
” e ay aS Dis 8 , a 8 4 ‘ 
OVTWV GALS 01) KQ@L TPLELS uva pea, a vva peda Kat 
»” A ¢ 4 e , ” 
dAXo wav 6 tu wep Gv SvvyTat, olov Aeyw ov 

‘ > ‘ cal , > 
kal dko7v Tov Suvapewv eva. Then he re- 
marks that a dvvayis has no visible pro- 
perties whereby to define it—dvvdépews yap 
éy ovte Twa xpelav SpO ovte oXHpa ovTE TL 
Tov ToLovTwv,—and consequently its character 
is determined by that of the object upon 
which it is exercised and the effect which it 

, > > > Lad 4 / 
produces : duvdpews 8 eis Exetvo povov Br€rw, 
oe » \ ee , ‘ ‘ \ rae 
€d © TE EOTL Kal 0 arepyaceTal...Kal THY PEV ETL 
7G avTG Teraypevnv Kal TO adTd dmepyalopevny 
Ti avtiv Kado, tiv de emt Erépw Kal Erepov 
dmepyalopnevnv GAAnv. Then (477 E ff.) both 
émotyyn and ddéa are referred to dvvapis as 
their yévos or eldos, but distinguished from 
each other by their respective objects (é ¢’ 
ols), TO yvwotov and 7d dogacrdv. So in 
518 B, C ff. émoryjuy is spoken of as dvvayus 
évotoa ev tH Wuyj. Hence we conclude :— 
Spyavov : Svvapss : : Opp : dyes 3:70 NoyioTiKorv : 

Y¥ 


ane 


,Which do not exist évepyeia. 


298 


eTLoT HAY Svvapus, then, is best translated 
here ‘function ’ (not ‘faculty’ or ‘ seelen- 
vermigen,’ as Krohn, Der plat. Staat p. 160: 
see Peiper’s Ontol. Plat. pp. 574 ff.), which 
function may be of either bad or good quality 
according to the nature of its object and 
result ; so that a dvvayis is not strictly 
identical with an dpery (in spite of iv. 430 
B, 443 B, v. 477 C), nor yet with divans. 
For the notion of dvvayis as conditioned by 
épyov we may compare 352 E dp’ ovv totro 
dy Geins Kat irmou kat aAXov drovody - PH es 
0 avi Hove exeiv ToOLn Tis 7) dpLora;.. 
eof ory av GAdw ‘Sous 7 7 dpOarpois j—dxovoais 
GAXw 7) dotv ; obdapas. ovkoov dixaiws av Tadta 
ToiTwv gaye Epya eva. 353 A: dp ay 
TOTE Oppata TO avTOV Epyov KaAGS aTEP- 
yaoavTo py €xovTa THY avray oiketay GperHy 
k.t.\. With which passages cp. Ar. Fth. 
Nie: i. 6; 10976 24 ff., ii, 5, 1106a 15 ff. 
So dupa as dpyavov has ous for Svvapus. and 
also (opposed to TupAdrns 353 C) for dpern, 
and, for Epyovy TO Opav (0 dmepyalerat), and 
for object (éd’ &, Td opdpevov) XpOpa, TKXHMA.. 
Again in 507 C ff. dys is described as the 
disOhaw wherewith we see what we see, but 
for its actualization there is needed not only 
a visible object (xpépa) but also a third 
factor, light, without which 7 re dys ovdév 
oweTar TA TE XpwpaTa EoTar ddpata. So the 
sun’s light is the cause (airia) which oyw Te 
Tout Opav OTL KdAACTA Kal TA Spdpeva Opacbat 
(508 A). ss is thus the ripuov fvydv by 
which are unified 7 Tod 6pav aicOynots Kai 7 Tod 
épacbar Svvapis (507 E) or % rod épav te kai 
bpacbar Stvapis (507 C). The dvvayis may 
be present (é€votca, tapotca), as dys in the 
eye, xpda in the object, only potentially and 
unrealized—a potency which the subject will 
attempt vainly to use (xpjoGar) in the dark. 
Hence, though Plato prefers to use dvvapis 
of function realizable at will, it is evident 
that he has in mind here the distinction 
between potentiality and actuality, of which 
Aristotle made so much: ep. de An. iii. 5 
where ¢@s is airiov kat zountixov Which zrovet 
7a Suvdwer dvta yxpdpata, evepyeia xpwpara. 
The same distinction between the actual and 
potential underlies the discussion in Theaet. 
197 ff. where ééis and xrfjous are distinguished, 
where xtjots implies dvvayis Tod Aafety Kai 
exew €v tais xepoiy or the recollection of 
previously acquired knowledge. But as 
‘ efficiency’ is the special mark of dvvaps, 
Plato does not trouble much to consider 
duvdpers Which are unproductive of épya, or 
He does not 
contrast dvvayis persistently with the actual, 
but rather regards it as a condition of ac- 
tuality, and as of causative value. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


How nearly ‘power’ is akin to ‘cause,’ 
Svvapus to airia, we may learn from Aristotle: 
Svvapis A€yerau 7 bey, apxy) KWHoEwsS 7) peTa- 
Borns } ev érépw 7 7) Erepov x.7.r., Met. A 12, 
1019a@ 15, cf. id. 2, 10134 29 ff, of the 
third, or efficient, cause, ere dOev 7 dpxy) THs 


‘peraBodns i) Tory i) THs Tpepjrews, otov 6 


Bovdetoas aitios Kat 6 marnp Tov TEKVOU, kat 
OAws TO ToLOdY TOD ToLOUmeVvOU Kal TO weTaBAr- 
TUKOV TOU peraPdddovros. So Phileb. 30 D 
Sua tHv tHS aitias Sivapw. Thus divas 
may be said to mean causative efficacy, 
moving force, power of -self-extension. But 
it is not conceived by Plato as mere abstract 
notion, but as belonging to an operative 
subject regarded as organon in whole or in 
part, whose qualityitis. Everything which 
is causative or operative must, in so far, 
possess dvvayis, and so ‘power’ is con- 
ditioned by and correlative with the object 
worked on, cause and effect being an in- 
separable pair. So the ‘square root’ involves 
in its notion that of the square which it has 
‘power’ to form: if 3 is expressed as ,/9, 
or as a dvvayis, we necessarily think of it 
in relation to its square or expanded form. 
And as the ‘ power’ of 3 is tomake 9, or 32, 
so the ‘power’ of iarpixy is to make tyieu 
or of zatjp to make réxvov. And conversely, 
9, or 3%, has the ‘ power’ of becoming made 
by 3, tiyiea and réxvoy of becoming produced 
by iarpés and raryp: division is the converse 
of multiplication, and we can speak of a 
Svvapis TOD macxew as well as of a dvvays 
TOU TOLELY. 

Hence in its widest sense dvvayis means 
much what we mean by ‘relativity’: it 
is the necessary quality of every object and 
every subject of a related pair—édvvayw 76 
pev Trovety Exov, TO Oe “racxev, Theaet. 156 A. 
Each member of the correlated pair is 
dynamical, and their causativeness is reci- 
procal: if 3 is the factor of 9, it is only 
because the nature of 9 admits of such a 
mode of production. Everything which is 
in relation to another thing may be termed 
a dvvapis, or said to possess dvvayis. So in 
Rep. ii. 366 E justice and injustice are re- 
garded as each tp avrod duvape év mH TOU 
éxovros Yux7 evov: tb. 367 D justice dvivyor, 
injustice BAdrret, and in E the question is 
raised rt ToLovga éxaTépa TOV €xovTa. avTn 
dv atryv...7 pev ayabdv, 7 S€ Kaxov éorw— 
z.e. states of soul or moral qualities are 
effective ‘powers.’ Thus moral virtues, or 
vices, are duvdpets, and intellectual states also, 
é.g. emuotnun or ddga, aS We have seen. The 
distinction between the psychical and cor- 
poreal side is most clearly brought out in 
the epistemological doctrine of the Theaetetus. 





oN. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


In pp. 184-5 we have the organon or 
physical medium (8 od) of sensation dis- 
tinguished from the sentient subject, 7 
aicbavopeba, i.e. the bodily organs from the 
soul. And the duvdpes (dys, axon, etc.) 
equally with the dpyava are spoken of as 
d¢ dv: and the phrase 7 dua ths yAdrrys 
dvvapis is used. So in the case of ra kowd,— 
general qualities, mathematical relations and 
the like—airi dv airs » Wx eriKore, 
whereas it perceives sensible qualities 61a rév 
TOD Gwpatos Suvvapewv—i.e. in pure diavora 
or vonjats there is no special organon, and so 
no special dvvajus, but the soul is its own 
dvvayts, or & ov. But here too, in the 
purely intellectual sphere, the objects—-ideas 
of dpo.drns, TadTov, Oarepov, etc.—are dvvapets 
no less than the soul which thinks them: 
they condition it no less than it them, or 
rather, the voyara are the resultants of the 
two factors vooty and voovpeva. Hence dv- 
vaps may attach to subject and object in 
sensation or in cogitation, as material or 
immaterial. And so in Soph. 247 C, E, the 
definition of dv offered for the acceptance 
of the materialists is dUvapts —T0 Kat d7ovavotv 
KexTnwevov SUvap uv, er eis TO TOLEtv 
Erepov étioiv weduKds, eit eis TO Tadetv 
Kal opikpoTatov b7d Tod havroTaTov, TaV TOTO 
ovtws etvac: and similarly in 248-9 the 
idealists are forced to admit in thought 
and its object worety and racyeu, since yvaots 
implies dvvayis and dvvayts Involves kivyots. 
So that dvvayis is the common denominator 
to which all reality, all causal relation 
whether outer or inner, spatial or non-spatial, 
is reduced. dvtws ovoia = dvvayis, the per- 
cipiend and percipient, sensuously and in- 
tellectually—qualities and relations, with 
the minds which they affect whether me- 
diately or immediately : or, if we prefer to 
put it so, psychical and corporeal ‘functions’ 
and their food or material. Hence it is 
apparent that the’ superficial classification 
with which we st out is sufficiently in- 
adequate for a f \mulation of the import 
of the term latonic doctrine; but 
exempli gratia iEumy be of service. * 

Next, to ede kde Svvayis with Pics. 
In Phileb. 29 Gxavth of the elements in the 
sensible wors viv amd to be oddapds eiAukpwes 
dv al tiv avopa KT. odk aklav Tis PVoeEws 
€xov, wherr OB wavtt wip is tAnOe Te 
Gavpacrovoroe 1029,\ Kat don Suvdpec TH 
TEp. TO Pa ToApns TiHHLere dvvapis is ‘ sense- 
affectingopavtw Ao€gi¢hile diais is substantial 
nature ’ as something original 
and esthe second of titter being fire as abso- 
lute, ‘of the verb wAelf, the former as its 
relatiifest from the cdr dicis (‘ production ’) 


299 


may be said to denote the thing’s generic 
aspect, as member of a given stock whose 
name it bears—‘ Fire.’ Again in Phileb. 
64 E we find: xatrarépevyev Hiv 7 TayaGod 
Sivapes eis THY Tod Kadov Picw—‘ the 
efficient power of the Good has fled down 
into the substantial nature of the Beautiful.’ 
dvvapis is appropriate to the Good as the 
pre-eminent airia—also as super-ordinate 
notion, ef. Zth. Nic. A 1, 1094a 10 dca 3 
ciot trav TowvTwv (sc. TexvOv) bd play TWA 
Svvapev Kabarep bro tiv trmuKny xadwo- 
routtky «.t... Which also shows the force of 
the prep. in katazegdevyev. Similarly in 
Rep. 433 D the other virtues owe dvvayw tod 
eyyeveoba to Justice, and in 508 A, B the eye 
owes its dvvapyis to the Sun—riyv dvvapyev, Hv 
éxel, €x TovTov Tapevomevny Gowep ézippuTov 
kextntat. The Universal dvvayus or energy 
descends into the particular dvcas to which 
it imparts their particular duvapes, by a kind 
of self-division or self-expansion, as the root 
expands into its square, or the wv6p7yv, or 
primary ratio, in the geometrical progression 
proceeds onward in the series 1...» As 
thus expanded and actualized the Ideal 
dvvapis becomes itself dvais: hence, in Phileb. 
66 A ryv dldvoy dvacy (as subject to ypjoba, 
if the text be right) can indicate rayaov. 
And so the Ideas as real are said to be 
éotykota év TH Pio, 7.e. permanent elements, 
or rather laws, in rerwm natura: they are 
as factors ‘present’ in their resultants, roots 
manifested in their expansions, limits applied 
to 70 drepov. The dicis of a thing may be 
said to be its compound union of both form 
and matter; but its dvvayis depends solely 
on its formal character. 

A thing as dvo.s is, thus, composite, 
mixed, extended, whether physically or 
logically. For vows of logical genera and 
species ep. Soph. 257 A % trav yevav divas, 
C 7) 7a Oarépov picts, D ra ths Oarépov picews 
popia, Which shows that the vos of such 
genera is soluble, divisible, and that its 
unity is not that of the individuum but 
of the dor, of the sum not of the monad. 
dios of personal moral nature is also 
analysable into pépy, as Rep, vi. 495 A 
Ta THS Hrocddov dicews pepn. And physic- 
ally, the dicts of a capa is its constitution 
of elements: Zim. 74 D ri dé trav vevipwv 
piow e& darod kai capkds alvpou Kpaceus... 
évvexepaoato. Thus the resultant of ele- 
mental factors, or dvvapes, is pvcws—so 
Phil. 25 E % rovrwv (i.e. rév wépas exovtwv) 
6p6i) kowwvia tiv bytelas piow eyevvntev. So 
in general, dvats is to dvvayis as effect to 
cause, result to agent, subordinate to super- 
ordinate: the 0 dmepydlerar, whereby the 

¥2 


eg 


300 


otherwise incomprehensible dvvayis is con- 
ditioned and determined, appears as actual 
év dice. This distinction is set forth as 
that between the human and the Divine 
in Laws iii. 691 E: givous tis dvépwriy 
peypevn Oeia twit dvvdéper Katidovoa x.T.A. 


But ¢vo1s may be contrasted with other 


notions beside dvvayis. Thus it may denote 
what is independent of human effort or 
volition: so dice: is opposed to vopw (Prot. 
337 C, Gorg. 482 E, etc.), to réxvy (Rep. ii. 
381 A), to ddaxrov (Prot. 323 C), to copia 
(Apol. 22 C). So it indicates what is innate, 
instinctive—the inherited, permanent, and 
transmissible characteristics, as opposed to 
the acquired and artificial. And the natural 
and permanent is the true and genuine— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


dice kat py trAaAcTas Laws vi. 777 D; 7) xara 
diaw adds otoa...roditixy Polit. 308 C. 
Applying here also the same terms to the 
intellectual as to the physical sphere, we 
can thus speak of 7 Tod KddAovs vats 
(Phaedr. 254 B), vos being equivalent to 
ovata, ‘essence,’ what a thing is aird xa” 
air, or absolutely regarded. Which brings 
us again to our former point of contrast— - 
dvvaprs as relative and self-externalizing with 
vows as absolute and self-complete. In the 
Idea both these aspects are combined— Unity 
in process of cognition expanding into 
Totality, root into square, o7éppa into 
purov. : 


R. G. Bury. 


NOTE ON VIRGIL, AENEID 5, 359. 


Et clipeum efferri iussit, Didymaonis artes, 
Neptuni sacro Danais de poste refixum. 
hoe tuvenem egregium praestantt munere 
donat. 
Virg. Aen. 5, 359. 


Aut explanations of the second line which 
violate the plain meaning (such as render- 
ing reficum ‘hung up,’ or with Conington 
making it = refixum et ademptum Danais) 
must be dismissed as palpable subterfuges. 

The words Danais refixum can only mean 
‘taken down by the Greeks,’ and the ex- 
planation of those who so take them is fairly 
given by Deuticke (11th edition of Ladewig 
and Schaper’s Virgil) —‘ The Greeks therefore 
had carried off (geraubt) the shield from a 
temple of Neptune in which it was dedicated. 
How it afterwards came into the hands of 
the Trojans Virgil does not state.’ 

This explanation must however be dis- 
missed. It obviously explains nothing and 
it rather strains the meaning of refixum, 
but the fatal objection is that it makes the 
whole line nonsense. A shield ‘ carried off 
by the Greeks’ can only be a memorial of 
Greek valour, and the mind naturally thinks 
of it as carried off by them during the sack 
of Troy. But the object of Virgil in writing 
the line is clearly not to connect the shield 
with memories of disaster and defeat, but to 
enhance its value in the eyes of the youthful 
Trojan to whom it is presented. It exhibits 
‘the skilled workmanship of Didymaon,’ it 
is a ‘glorious gift’ for a ‘very goodly 
youth,’ and the words WNeptuni...reficum 


beyond question indicate some quality which 
is to be a cause of exultation, and not of 
grief, to its possessor. 

If this be accepted—and it seems to me 
beyond dispute—we are in a complete 
dilemma. We must either mistranslate the 
line or we must put up with an explanation 
which is worse than useless. Under these 
circumstances any suggestion which is not 
obviously foolish deserves consideration, and 
I put one forward in the hope that some 
readers of the Classical Review will be able 
to contribute some of the additional evidence 
which is required to support it. It is this. 
Why should not the shield have been ‘ taken 
down’ (not ‘carried off’) by the Greeks 
from a Grecian temple of Neptune when 
starting for Troy, and there won by Aeneas 
in combat with the chosen champion who 
bore it? What nobler prize could Aeneas 
select than a sacred shie}d, of rare beauty, 
and which recalled a prow nmemory 4 

The weakness of this dv.ggestion is, of 
course, that the practice ¢ injixing dedicated 
armour or weapons to buvayeneeds proof. 
Under stress of necessity!) justicre certainly 
used, cf. Livy, 22, 57; 4 the qu(quoted in 
Conington) and the well; tov éyomstance of 
David taking the sword dé xaxdy th 1 Sam. 
xxi. 9, nor is there anyral qualitiimproba- 
bility in such weapons/moral virtwosed to 
possess peculiar eflicaciectual statesced in 
Livy 24, 21 those who t: have seen. * spoils 

1 See too Val. Max. 7, qoycnieal and %, 599, 


two excellent references for W brought out ed to 
the editor.—T. E. P. 20f the Theaetetu. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


from the temple of Jupiter pray him along 
with his hallowed weapons to lend his holy aid 
(precantes ut volens propitius praebeat sacra 
arma, pro patria, pro deum delubris, pro 
libertate sese armantibus), while David ac- 
cepts the sword which is ‘ wrapped in a cloth 
behind the ephod’ with special confidence— 
‘There is none like that ; give it me.’ 

One passage of Virgil affords some 
help. In 38, 286 the shield which Aeneas 
dedicates as a trophy won ‘from the con- 
quering Greeks’ (de Danais victoribus) is 
described as ‘magni gestamen Abantis.’ 


EURIPIDES, 


MH. © peydda ue Kat worve "Apres, 
Actor)’ & rary K.T.A. 


TP. KAved’ ofa Eyer Kami Boarat 
— , > or ~ / 7A oe 
170 Ou evxtatavy Zivd & dos dpKwv 
Ovyrots Taptas vevomorat. 


Ir has been observed that the words of 
the Nurse misrepresent the invocation of 
Medea, who has appealed to Themis and 
Artemis but not to Zeus, The difliculty 
cannot be explained away, and it may be 
regarded as certain that the text is corrupt. 
Weil’s attempt to correct it 


@ peydre Zed kai O€ue worvia 
is wild, and Mr. Verrall’s suggestion zdrep 


opxte for zorv’ “Apres involves tco violent 
a change to be probable. The corruption 


301 


Now the only Abas we know of was an old 
king of Argos whose shield was preserved in 
the temple of Juno and seems to have been 
annually carried by the victor of the games 
held in her honour (see Heyne, Excursus IX. 
to Book 3, de clipeo Abantis). But if this is 
the shield which Aeneas dedicates—and the 
words magni gestamen Abantis seem to mark 
a noted shield—how did Aeneas win it from 
the Greeks, unless some Argive champion 
had in Juno’s cause taken Juno’s shield to 
Troy as a sign of Juno’s aid ? 
T. E, Pace, 


MEDEA 160, 170. 


lies in 1. 170 and may be set right by a 
simple change. Read 


, a ” 
O¢uw eviktaiav Zyvos, Os opKov. 


For an obvious reason os fell out, and Zyvos 
was then corrected to Ziva & ds to restore 
sense and metre. This emendation is rendered 
almost certain by ll. 207, 208 


OeoxAutel 6’ ddika rabotca 
‘\ A ec td , 
tav Znvos opkiav Oem. 


Since I wrote this note, I found that I 
had been anticipated in this solution of the 
difficulty by Nauck ; but as he did not adopt 
his conjecture in his text, and as it does not 
seem to have attracted attention, I venture 
to publish my note as it was originally 
written. The emendation, whatever be its 
value, is Nauck’s property. 

J. B, Bury, 


TAcorypys, mAecotnpicopat. 


Aeschylus, Humenides 762 $99. 
eyo be X“pq TOE Kal TO O@ oTpar@ 
ro Nowrov eis dravta we Lot 7 PN Xpovov 
Spkwporyoas viv arrest Tpos ddpovs, 
pyro. tw’ avdpa x.7.X. 


Choephoroe 1029, 1030. 
kal pirtpa todApns Thode wee oT Np ilCopac 
tov IvO6pavtw Aogiav xpycavr’ épot K.7.A. 


In the second of these passages the general 
sense of the verb zAeornpiCoparis sufliciently 
manifest from the context. It must mean 


‘I cite in justification,’ ‘I appeal to.’ But 
it is not clear how it came to bear this 
meaning, and the scholiast’s xavyépar does 
not help us. In the first passage, on the 
other hand, the general sense of zAeoripy 
is by no means obvious, and the common 
interpretation is unsatisfactory. In form 
mAeotypys evidently belongs to the group 
KaTHpPNS, TpLNpys, Todypys, etc., in which the 
second part seems to be etymologically con- 
nected with dpw, dpapicxw. It is supposed 
to be equivalent to wAcicrov and to mean 
‘very long.’ The verse might be rendered 


302 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


‘henceforward for all the long course of 
time ’—the words being placed by hyper- 
baton here, instead of after pyro. If so, 
mAeotHpy Would be merely rhetorical. 

It seems to me that these two passages 
may be used to explain each other and the- 
meaning of this rare word elicited by com- 
paring them. The clue, I believe, is to be 
found in a common use of zAcioros as signi- 
fying ‘widely spread, generally received, in 
vogue,’ in regard, for instance, to an opinion 
or a custom. I propose to ascribe to 
rAeoTHpys a similar meaning, and to take 
mAevaTnpy in the passage under discussion as 
a neuter plural depending on épxwporycas : 
‘having sworn oaths which shall be authori- 


tative for all time from henceforth, even 
that no man’ etc. It may be observed that 
this interpretation gets rid of the justifiable, 
though a_ little awkward, hyperbaton. 
mAeoTHpys Meaning authoritative, thaorypt- 
Coat would mean ‘I make authoritative for 
myself, cite as authoritative,’ and so ‘appeal 
to.’ 

Mr. Verrall (Choeph. 1027) throws out a 
conjecture that rAeorypilerOai twas might 
mean to make oneself a majority by calling 
one’s supporters, and so, cite to support ; he 
does not deal with the passage in the 
Eumenides, but merely notes its obscurity. 


J. &. Bory: 


HORACE, EPIST. I. i. 51. 


dulcis sine pulvere palmae. 

To the illustrations of this phrase 
adduced by the commentators ad loc. we 
may add the following, Cic. De Of. 1, 18 
§ 61: 

Itaque in probris maxime in promptu est, 
si quid tale dici potest : 

Vos enim iuvenes animum geritis mulie- 

brem, 

Illa virago viri, 
et si quid elusmodi : 


Salmaci, da spolia sine sudore et sanguine. 


(See Holden ad loc.) 


Compare also Gellius 5, 6, 21: Ovandi ac 
non triumphandi causa est, 
deditione repente facta, impulverea, ut dici 
solet, incruentaque victoria obvenit. 


CHARLES KNApP. 
Barnard College, New York. 


POSTGATE’S EDITION OF THE CORPUS POETARUM LATINORUM. 


Corpus Poetarum Latinorum, ed. J. P. 
PostcaTtE. Fasc. I. London: Bell. 
1893. 9s. net. 


Tuis is the first instalment of a work which 
has long been a necessity. The Corpus of 
Walker (1827) and that of Weber (1833) 
were useful enough and for the time when 
they appeared fairly well executed : but they 
could not satisfy the needs of a generation 
trained to more exact criticism by Lachmann, 
Ritschl and Munro. Indeed the last half 
century of classical philology has been mainly 
and specially occupied in examining and ex- 
pending the materials on which a sound text 
must be based ; new MSS. have been brought 
to light, the relation of families of MSS. 
marked out, and an attempt made, not always 
indeed conclusively, to reject the useless and 
retain only the important. A great deal has 


been done, in this way and as a consequence 
of this examination of sources, to clear the 
ground for conjecture : corrupt passages may 
now (at least in the case of some authors) 
be considered in a fair way towards restora- 
tion, and many emendations founded on 
inferior MSS. no longer hold their ground. 
In a word it had become a necessity to have 
a Corpus in which the text of each poet 
should be edited from the best known MSS. 
and the readings of those MSS. faithfully 
reported ; and that, so as to present them- 
selves to the eye of the reader simultaneously 
with the text based upon them; in a word, 
upon the same page. In addition to this, 
the editing was to be placed in the hands of 
competent scholars, 7.e. scholars who possessed 
—hbesides the equipment which at one time 
was thought adequate to the task of editing, 
a proper grammatical and metrical training 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


—the no less indispensable faculty of being 
able to read and pass judgment on MSS. 
For, strange as it may seem, there are still 
in existence men who venture to pronounce 
on questions of classical criticism, without 
such preliminary meletesis; and who, if 
pressed on the point, are ready to assert 
that, to take a good typical example, no 
real advance upon Heinsius has been made 
in the study of Ovid by the labours of 
Merkel, Korn, Riese, Magnus, Birt, Tank, 
Sedlmayer, Ehwald, A. Palmer, 8. G. Owen, 
or myself. 

Prof, J. P. Postgate, the well-known tutor 
of Trinity College, Cambridge, the college 
of Bentley, Dobree, Munro, Jebb, and many 
other lights of less, but not inconsiderable, 
brightness, some years ago conceived the 
idea of once again satisfying the wish of 
English scholars for a collective edition of 
the Latin Poets to be brought out by scholars 
of eminence, and who had shown special 
training or aptitude for the task by published 
contributions on different parts of the sub- 
ject. The work has gradually taken shape, 
and the first fasciculus is now before us. It 
contains Ennius edited by Lucian Miiller, 
Lucretius by Munro, Catullus by Postgate, 
Vergil by Nettleship, Horace by Gow, Tibul- 
lus by Ed. Hiller. The names are more 
than to content us. LL. Miiller’s Hnnius is 
known to every scholar; the Lucretius of 
Munro has secured a world-wide fame; 
Prof. Postgate’s Catullus may rank with the 
best editions of the poet ; Nettleship had 
devoted many years of a busy life to Vergil ; 
Gow’s Horatian studies have exhibited their 
first-fruits in the Classical Review ; Hiller’s 
Tibullus in care and judgment may rank 
with his Greek work. It is satisfactory to 
find Germans of such eminence contributing 
to an English series: and Prof. Postgate 
has shown his full appreciation of the im- 
portance of their collaboration by frequent 
references to their views in his apparatus 
criticus. 

Turning to a more mechanical point of 
view, I may say that the work is printed in 
pages of double columns, containing, where 
the lines run on uninterruptedly, an average 
of sixty to sixty-five linesina column, The 
print is handsome and tolerably clear ; for my 
own part I could have wished the type a trifle 
larger: but economy of space is responsible 
for this. Italics are used, as in Munro’s 
LIwucretius, to show that a word has been 
introduced which is not in the MSS., or an 
emendation which deviates from them. 

The book is not entirely free from mis- 
prints. den. v. 709 fato for fata, vii. 207 


303 


Tdaes for Idaeas, x. 554 mnlta for multa, xi. 
370 findens for fidens, gemmis for geminis v. 
416, suscitit for suscitat v. 454. 

The Vergil however is most carefully done. 
As the last work Prof. Nettleship undertook 
it has a special interest for his friends and 
admirers. That wide knowledge of the 
ancient commentators, which his preface to 
the second volume of Conington’s Vergil 
exhibits, is conspicuous in the readings 
which from time to time he has in deference 
to them introduced. Such are v. 850, 1 
Aenean credam quid enim fallacibus auris Et 
caelo, totiens deceptus fraude sereni? Vi. 
249 Succipiunt, as Servius, against Suscipiunt 
of MR; vii. 98 Laterni ueniunt generi, 
which Servius pronounces to be ‘melius’ 
than wenient ; viii. 25 lacuaria for laquearia ; 
ix. 349 et multa morte recepit Purpureum : 
uomit ille animam for e. m. m. r.; Purpu- 
ream u. t. a; on ix. 486 nec te tua funera 
mater Produawi, Servius’ improbable view 
that funera = funerea is cited as if it might 
perhaps be right, which is very difficult to 
believe; x. 316, 17 casus euadere ferri Quo 
licuit paruo? for Quod of M and P!. Some 
of these, and others such as epulaeque ante 
ora paternae vi. 604 for paratae, vi. 806 
uirtute extendere wires for uirtutem extendere 
factis, will surprise or shock the lovers of 
the established : yet those who wish to arrive 
at a rapid knowledge of the principal 
divergences from the traditional text of 
Vergil will nowhere find them presented 
more lucidly or in succincter form than in 
Prof. Nettleship’s apparatus criticus. The 
absence from it of modern names is 
a pleasing fact, for which I suspect 
many Englishmen will be grateful. Even 
Conington is quoted only exceptionally. 
There are few, probably, who believe that 
emendation can do much for Vergil. I 
speak, of course, only of his acknowledged 
works: for the opuscula are so corrupt in 
the very earliest MSS. as to make the 
problem of the conjectural restorer unusually 
tempting and interesting. 

In Horace, where the MS. problem is 
notoriously one of the most difficult, Mr. 
Gow bases his text on Keller and Holder. 
In lecturing on Horace I confess to have 
found this so difficult to manage with any- 
thing like clearness, that I cannot but fear 
the same result may await the reader of 
Mr. Gow’s text. The mind strays perplex- 
edly in the mazy mixture of Greek and 
Roman letters, sometimes capitals, sometimes 
minuscules, sometimes accented (A’) some- 
times not, and ends with giving up the 
attempt to arrive at anything like a clear 


304 


view of the relative value of the MSS. which 
these symbols express. It might have been 
more judicious, for the purposes of a Corpus 
like this, where succinctness is everything, to 
simplify the apparatus criticus by rejecting 


more than a very small number of the MSS. . 


examined by Keller and Holder. It may be 
urged that such a selection is a matter. of 
great difficulty : it is, yet I wish it had been 
attempted ; and that the readings of the 
MSS. actually quoted had been verified by 
personal or at any rate new inspection. It 
is probable that such a verification would 
have led Mr. Gow to distrust the vast mass 
of critical information given by Keller and 
Holder ; at any rate the confidence which 
the student would feel as to the correctness 
of any reading would be greatly increased. 
Perhaps, too, some of the emendations 
might have with advantage been spared, 
e.g. raut Epod. xiii. 13, crepuscla S. 1. 8, 
34, again §. ii. 1, 86, rabulae, ii. 3, 25 Mer- 
curtali, 215 gnatae pater, S. ii. 5, 48, ut et, a 
violently improbable conjecture of Madvig’s, 
Epist. ii. 1, 115, 116, melicorwm—melici for 
medicorum—medici,a very tame conjecture of 
Bentley’s, lastly Housman’s guondam nauos 
dormitat Homerus for quandoque bonus d. H., 
a correction which must be ranked with the 
less successful efforts of this ready and 
ingenious, but not equally convincing 
scholar ; of whose powers Mr. Postgate’s 
first fasciculus presents perhaps over-many 
specimens, to the neglect, at times, of other 
and more plausible emendations. 

Mr. Postgate, who has been allowed to 
reprint Munro’s text of Lucretius, would 
perhaps have gratified the general public 
more by giving a revised text of his own. 
It would have made of this first volume of 
the Corpus a more perfectly new contribution 
to the study of the Latin poets, and it would 
have been interesting to note the deviations 
which an enthusiastic, yet not, as too many 
Cambridge men are, slavish, follower of 
Munro could bring himself to introduce in- 
to the Lucretian text. And I suppose that 
even Englishmen are aware that in more 
than a few passages Munro is not final. How 
should he be, if Lachmann was not? 
Speaking at any rate for myself, I should 
have hailed from Mr. Postgate a completely 
new and re-constituted text : nay, I imagine, 
it would have been better for the study of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the poet if, besides the larger and smaller 
editions which we already have of Munro’s 
recension, a third, almost if not quite 
identical, had not been added to the list. 
Fresh views, fresh restorations would have 
been acceptable enough to the scientific 
student, to the professed scholar. It ought 
not to be said that Munro has edited 
Lucretius once for all time; and that any- 
thing like a really new recension is impos- 
sible. That Mr. Postgate does not think so, 
is abundantly clear from his articles in the 
Journal of Philology, and from his citations 
of other critics who have not been able 
always to agree with Munro, notably 
Bockemiiller. There are, indeed, some pas- 
sages in which Munro perversely kept to a 
reading well-nigh impossible, e.g. v. 311, 
312, which MSS. give 


Denique non monimenta uirum dilapsa 
uidemus 

Quaerere proporro sibi cumque senescere 
credas 4 


and which Munro prints so, altering cwmque 
to sene (se ne). This question which the 
ruined monuments are supposed to putas to 
their antiquity has always seemed to me 
not a little grotesque: and it was not 
Munro’s original view. If anything can be 
clear about the passage, it is that credas is 
corrupt. More than twenty years ago I 
suggested that the verse should be thus 
restored 


Aeraque (so Munro) proporro silicwmque 
senescere petras. 


This has, I think, escaped Mr. Postgate. 
The Zibullus of Hiller is interesting 
rather as the latest work of an eminent 
scholar than for any striking contribution of 
his own. But some of the corrections made 
by foreign scholars are remarkably inter- 
esting, and to many readers will be quite 
novel. I would mention Waardenburg’s 
curtas for hircus ii. 1, 58, Lachmann’s 
miatu subriguisse for mixtus obriguisse il. 3, 
14c, and, to go back to an earlier time, 
Scioppius’ proxima for maxima iil. 5, 3, and 
our own Markland’s geniwm for centwm i. 7, 
49, which may be truly called palmary. 
Rosinson ELLIs, 





err 


‘THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 305 


MANITIUS ON EDITIONS OF HORACE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 


Analekten zu. Geschichte des Horaz im 
Mittelalter (bis 1300). M. Manrrius. 
Gottingen. 1893, pp. vil. 127. M. 2.80. 


Ir is unnecessary at the present day to 
point out the importance for the constitution 
of the texts of classical authors of a thor- 
ough knowledge of the history of those 
texts. Such knowledge has put us within 
measurable distance of solving the problem 
of Bosius’ alleged MSS. of Cicero’s Letters, 
and has established the value of the English 
as against the continental tradition of the 
text of Pliny’s Vatural History. But while 
we admire the results, we in this country 
are rather apt to forget to be grateful to 
those who have done the real work, by toil- 
ing through the writers of the middle ages 
for quotations from or imitations of classical 
authors. It is work of this kind that 
Manitius has done for Horace in this little 
book. M. Hertz in his Analecta ad carmi- 
num Horatianorum historiam (Breslau 1876- 
82, i-iv.) had collected Horatiana from all 
the writers of the first three and a half 
centuries: in v. he had gone through all 
the ecclesiastical writers and grammarians 
ete., down to the Mavortian recension in 
527. At this point he left off, expressing 
however the hope that he might be able to 
undertake the further task (‘ periculosae 
plenum aleae’) of tracing the Horatian 
tradition through the middle ages. But he 
never did so; and some years ago handed 
over all his materials to Manitius, who is 
already well known as a worker in the field 
of ‘ Ueberlieferungsgeschichte.’ Hence the 
present Analekten. 

The book is divided into an introduction, 
and five chapters. In the introduction M. 
gives a general account of his subject, 
showing the influence of the growth of 
monasticism on classical studies, and bring- 
ing together some of his results, the details 
of which are to be found in the following 
chapters. Unfortunately, they contribute 
nothing to the constitution of the text. 
But there is much that is interesting in 
them. Thus Manitius calls attention to the 
very small degree in which Horace has in- 
fluenced Italian literature. Italy supplies 
the fewest Horatian MSS. and the fewest 
citations, though it was to an Italian— 
Vilgard of Ravenna—that the poet chose to 
appear ina dream and thank him for the 
attentions he had paid him. In France, on 


the other hand (i.e. the part of Europe to 
which modern France corresponds), Horace 
was largely studied. As early as the middle 
of the ninth century Heiric was acquainted 
with all four books of the Odes. <A ninth 
century MS. at Montpellier has ¢. iv. 11 
set to music. In the tenth century Gerbert 
(afterwards Sylvester JI.) lectured on Hor- 
ace, Juvenal, and Persius—the earliest in- 
stance of Horace being taught in medieval 
schools. In the eleventh century there 
appears to have been a decline in the study 
of Horace in France, though MSS. are 
numerous ; but with the increased import- 
ance of Cluny and Paris in the twelfth cen- 
tury the number of quotations as well as of 
MSS. increases also. The thirteenth century 
was the period of compendia and florilegia, 
and the original texts were not much 
studied. After France comes Germany : 
and though France supplies most MSS. and 
florilegia, and though it is French authors 
who quote Horace most, Manitius is inclined 
to hold that it was in Germany that the 
knowledge of Horace was most widely 
diffused. It is remarkable that in the 
ninth century there is no MS. of Horace 
mentioned in the catalogues of the great 
libraries of Constanz, 8. Gall, Reichenau 
or Bobio. That there was one at Reichenau 
is shown by Walahfrid’s quotations, and 
there must have been one at Toul, where 
the Lcbasis Captiui (one-fifth of which con- 
sists of lines borrowed from Horace) was 
written in 940 ; its readings, Manitius points 
out, most resemble those of Keller and 
Holder’s E and A. In the tenth century 
there were complete Horaces at Kéln and 
Gandersheim, and Hedwig Duchess of 
Schwaben (Ekkehard’s pupil) presented one 
to Burchard. In the eleventh and twelfth 
centuries the number of German MSS. in- 
creases (in the latter especially glossed 
MSS.), and with them also the number of 
quotations. In the thirteenth century 
florilegia and collections of proverbs prevail, 
as in France ; but MSS. also are numerous. 
Albert of Stade quotes largely from Horace, 
using a text which has the ordinary mis- 
takes of our inferior MSS. (a. p. 58 he 
appears to have read procudere nummum), 
Conrad de Mure was well acquainted with 
him, and wrote a full account of his metres, 
with illustrations: his MS. appears to have 
been closely related to y. 

Horace appears to have found his way 


306 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


early to Great Britain ; and it is to our 
countrymen (or perhaps Italians) that Mani- 
tius ascribes the introduction of the poet 
to the court of Charlemagne (p. 18), and goes 
so far as to say that Alcuin was probably 
nicknamed Flaccus because of the moral 
tendency of his writings : ‘wir haben also fiir 
die friihe karolingische Zeit Horaz als einen 
Typus des gelehrten Lebens gewonnen ’— 
hardly satisfactory reasoning. Three English 
MSS. of the ninth and tenth centuries are ex- 
tant, but none are mentioned in catalogues 
before the twelfth century when there was 
one at Durham; and in the thirteenth cen- 
tury we find four—at Canterbury, Rochester, 
Glastonbury, and Reading. John of Salis- 
bury had a good text tolerably free from 
interpolation. 

In Spain, Horace appears to have been 
but little read. Eulogius of Cordova (848) 
knew the Satires, but after him there is no 
quotation for three centuries. 


SPENGEL’S EDITION OF 


Rhetores Graeci ex recognitione LEONARDI 
SpenceL. Vol. i. Pars ii. edidit C. 
Hammer. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. 8vo. 
Pp. 416. 1894. 3 M. 60 Pf. 


Tue first volume of Spengel’s convenient 
and well-known edition of the Lhetores 
Graect contained, besides Aristotle’s 
Rhetoric, ten minor treatises. The Aristotle 
has already been re-edited for Teubner’s 
series by Adolf Roemer (1885), and now 
Hammer has revised the rest of the volume 
for a new edition. The first is a brief 
fragment epi épwrncews Kai drokpicews, 
which is a commentary on Aristotle Jhet. 
iii. 18. The second is the important and 
interesting treatise, now commonly ascribed 
to Anaximenes. Hammer retains this 
ascription, but inclines to the view of 
Susemihl, that it really comes between 
Isocrates and Hermagoras, and cannot be 
earlier than the third century before Christ. 
He has used for his recension, besides the 
MSS. employed by Spengel, two others in 
the Vatican, both of which he considers to 
belong to the better family. The third 
treatise is that repi tous, for which Hammer 
has naturally followed very closely the 


An interesting point which Manitius 
brings out is that it is Horace’s moral 
writings which are most largely quoted 
from, and which were most widely read. 
It is rare to find the Odes at all known 
before the tenth century (Hraban, Walah- 
frid, and Heiric are exceptions) : the Epodes 
are seldom quoted, and the Carmen Saeculare 


only twice in the whole of the middle ages 


(vv. 59-60 by the author of Vita Adalber- 
onis of Wiirzburg, and v. 1 by Conrad de 
Mure). On the other hand, the Epistles and 
Satires appear to have been very popular 
(especially Zpp. i. 1-2), and many lines from 
them became proverbs, such as semper 
auarus eget : oderunt peccare boni uirtutis 
amore, with the eleventh century gloss 
oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae. 


F, A. Hirtze.. 


THE RHETORES GRAECI. 


excellent edition by Vahlen. The fourth is 
the réxvn fytopuy of Longinus, which is 


followed by an anonymous epitome of this 


treatise, and bya series of brief extracts, 
which are said, but evidently incorrectly, to 
be taken from Longinus. The seventh is 
the réyvy pytopixy of Apsines, for which the 
edition of Bake based upon Cobet’s careful 
collation of the two Paris MSS. has been 
mostly followed. Then comes a_ brief 
treatise by Minucianus, for which a new 
Paris MS. has been collated, a réyvn pytopiKy 
recently without sufficient reason assigned 
to Cornutus, and finally, a short compendium 
by Rufus, a pupil of Herodes Atticus. On 
almost all these works much has _ been 
written since the date of Spengel’s edition, 
and Hammer appears to have used the 
literature with considerable diligence, 
besides collating several important new 
MSS. I have not observed in reading the 
wept wWovs any original emendations of 
importance, but the suggestions of previous 
scholars are carefully recorded : and it is an 
immense advantage to have the critical 
notes now placed at the foot of each page. 


A. S. WILKINS. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


307 


HALLARD’S EDITION OF ZJHEH IDYLLS OF THEOCRITUS. 


The Idylls of Theocritus, translated into 
English Verse by JAmes Henry HALiarp, 
M.A. Oxon. Longmans. 6s. 6d. 


Mr. Hax.arp tells us in his Preface that he 
has ‘ endeavoured to satisfy the requirements 
of the exacting scholar as well as those of 
the man of letters.’ But surely if the 
exacting scholar requires any translation at 
all, it will not be a Verse Translation. The 
scholar however welcomes such a translation, 
and indeed any translation which gives proof 
that, in spite of many douches of cold water, 
the love of Greek Poetry is not yet quenched 
in the hearts of men: and the man of letters, 
whether familiar or not with the original, 
welcomes it as a test of literary merit, and 
will value it in proportion to the closeness of 
adaptation of the thought and language of 
the present time to those of a race that has 
passed away. 

Mr. Hallard is undoubtedly right in not 
attempting to present Theocritus’ characters 
more faithfully by employing any provin- 
cialism of dialect. These herdsmen of Sicily 
or South Italy are not idealized: this is 
shown by the coarseness of banter which in 
some (very few) instances stays the pen of 
the translator. Natural refinement is the 
rule: but in herdsmen of the present day it 
would be the exception. Mr. Hallard’s 
translations—apart from the metrical form 
—are remarkably accurate. The exacting 
scholar might take a few trifling objections 
—e.g. in Id. i. to ‘ softly smiling’ for Apia 
yeAdoua, and to ‘that glides on the lip’ for 
mept xetAos EAcxrav: in Id. iv. 28 to ‘I fashion’d’ 
for érdéa, which must be 2nd person: in 
Id. vii. 23 to ‘from tomb unto tombstone’ 
for émirupBidior, and ibid. 26 to ‘buskined 
feet’ for dpBvdAieoow: in Id. xiv. 17 to 
‘were fetched forth’ for ééypé6y: in Id. xv. 
53 to ‘the roan’ for 6 wivppos, and ibid. 92 
to ‘like people in the Chersonese’ for 
TleAorovvaciori ; ibid. 149 to ‘ welfare still 
be ours at thy return’ for és ya/povras dadikev 
(though possibly the reading ddixved is 
followed, which has generally been super- 
seded). Again rérmé is sometimes ‘ grass- 
hopper,’ sometimes ‘cicala’; and is not Mr. 
Hallard singular in taking Bovxaios in Idyll 
x. for the name of one of the mowers? The 
received argument gives ‘ Battus and Milo.’ 

With regard to the metres employed, the 
blank verse is certainly the most successful, 
as in Idylls iv. v. xiv. xv. xxi, and naturally 


so, inasmuch as rhyme fetters the free choice 
of words, or emphasizes an insignificant 
word or syllable: e.g.— 


In Id. ii. 
... sprinkle 7é, 
... Whither is flown thy wit. 

In Ids 

...grasshopper loves the grasshopper aye, 

..and to me the Muse’s lay, 

In lds xine 
..bethink them of seafaring 
..their sail to the breezes fling. 

In Id. xviii. 
..Athene and maiden Artemis 
...a matron art thou by this. 


Again in Id. xxiv. Amphitryon’s ‘ glaive ’ 
is obliged to ‘ wave,’ rather than hang, over 
his couch. Such rhymes too as ‘then’ and 
‘again,’ ‘love thee’ and ‘above me,’ ‘ preci- 
pice’ and ‘eyes’ are, to say the least, 
unsatisfactory. 

Hexameters are employed in Idylls vii. 
xvi. xxii. xxv. This metre (unless in the 
catalectic form adopted so successfully by 
the late Lord Bowen in his translation of 
the Aeneid) is wearisome in English on 
account of the necessarily constant recur- 
rence of a disyllabic word at the end ; and 
when two monosyllables are substituted, the 
effect is often like the fish-ending of the 
fair woman: ¢.g. 


...smote with his héel there. 

...come let us now sing. 

. nevertheléss ye. 

... Speaks to them thése words. 

... Stubborn are yé twain. 

...Castor and I fight. 

...prone on his mouth there. 

...Hades vast had gotten the soul 
of him, Then I 


With such exceptions, and in spite of an 
undue proportion of spondees, Mr. Hallard’s 
hexameters are spirited and smooth. Pen- 
tameters he has attempted once, in Id. vi.: 
but they will not do—the pause in the middle 
knocks the breath out of the line. Anapaests 
are used for lyric passages. These lines are 
made up of anapaests and iambi, and when 
that rhythm is adhered to, are easy and 
musical, e.g. 


‘Though the kids be low in the west and 
the south wind drive the sea,’ 


308 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


But the effect of varying them with lines 
composed of dactyls and trochees is some- 
what irritating, and similar to that produced 
upon a rider when his horse changes its leg 
in cantering, as in the line which precedes 
the above — 


‘Fair shall Ageanax’ convoy to Mitylene 
be.’ 


Compare also these consecutive lines— 


‘To a herdsman’s love thou didst yield, to 
the voice of Anchises’ wooing ; 

Oak woods are yonder—here is nought 
but galingale.’ 

or 

‘And how to my home I won I know not, 
but fever sore 

Wasted me on my couch for many a night 
and day.’ 


This inconsistency mars what otherwise 
would be the prettiest piece in the book, Id. 
xii. That Idyll, and xiv. xv. xxi. xxiv. are 
the best. The least successful are iii. x, 
XVili, XXVIil. 


Mr. Hallard has stated and carried out 
his opinion that ‘the only chance for a 
translator of Theocritus is to vary his 
measures as much as possible.’ This may 
well be disputed ; and [ cannot but think 
that he would have done better in many in- 
stances if he had adhered more constantly 
to the blank verse, which admits of infinite 


variety, and to such easy and musical 


anapaests as the two first lines of Id. xiii— 


‘Thou art come, dear youth, art come: 
three nights and days thou hast tarried. 

(Alas ! for the sad love-longing that makes 
men old in a day !)’ 


He tells us also that his work has been a 
labour of love; and one can readily trace 
throughout the thorough appreciation which 
he feels for these delightful poems, which he 
has so sympathetically translated. Those 
who are familiar with the originals must 
gratefully recall them line by line to memory, 
as they read his translations: and let us 
hope that by reading the -latter many more 
may be induced to court familiarity with 
the former. H. Kynaston. 


KEIL’S EDITION OF THE DE AGRICULTURA. 


M. Porci Catonis de agri cultura liber: MM. 
Terentt Varronis rerum rusticarum libri 
tres: ex recensione H. Ketuir. Vol. ii. 
Fase. i. Commentarius in Catonis de 
agri cultura librum. Leipzig: B. G. 
Teubner. 8vo. Pp. 194. 6M. 


TEN years ago Dr. Keil published a critical 
edition of Cato’s De Agricultura, the purpose 
of which was to restore, so far as possible, 
the text of the MS. used by Politian and 
Vettori. This was followed by a similar 
edition of Varro’s work. In 1889 a text of 
Varro was published in Teubner’s series on 
the basis of this, but with a freer use of 
conjectural emendation: and in 1891 Keil 
gave us the second part of the critical com- 
mentary, containing a discussion of these 
emendations proposed by himself or by others 
on Varro. Now we have the first part of 
the commentary, treating ina similar way 
the text of Cato. Before long the Teubner 
text-edition of Cato is to be published: and 
finally the critical edition is to be completed 
by the issue of an index-volume to Cato and 
Varro, prepared by Krumbiegel and 


Rollfus. There are obvious inconveniences 
in this fashion of publication, and especially 
in the further delay in issuing a convenient 
and emended text of Cato; but when the 
work is done, it will be done thoroughly so 
far as it goes. It ‘is to be regretted that 
the veteran scholar, whose earliest published 
work on the Rerum Rusticarum Scriptores 
dates from forty-five years back, should still 
renounce the task of explaining the matter 
of his authors—at times not a little obscure : 
so that Schneider’s edition is still indispens- 
able. But the text and the language 
(including the orthography) are treated with 
a completeness which leaves little to be 
desired. 

One or two examples will show the method 
which has been adopted. In c. Ixxiy. the 
critical edition reads, without any note, 
‘farinam in mortarium indito, aquae 
paulatim addito.’ Now we have the com- 
ment ‘aut nota mensurae post aquae 
excidit...aut, quoniam ne farinae quidem 
certum pondus indicatum est, aguae paululum 
scribendum est,’ with the quotation of 
several parallels for each construction. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Schneider left the difficulty untouched. In 
ce. Ixxix., where he had printed ‘in aenum 
caldum unguen indito,’ he now points out 
that the true reading must be ‘in ahenum 
caldum in unguen indito,’ for the meaning 
must be ‘put into the brazen cauldron into 
the fat which is heated therein.’ In ec. 
xxxvii., where we had ‘frumenta ‘tfacebis 
sarias’ with the conjecture ‘frumenta fac 
uti sarias,’ we now have Vettori’s ‘frumenta 
face bis sarias’ defended by evidence of two 
annual hoeings, and of the use elsewhere of 
Jace. In ec. xiii. incertum is shown to be 
meaningless after centumpodium, and is 
rightly rejected. These instances will 


309 


suffice to show that the present commentary 
is an indispensable supplement to the 
critical edition, and that we may look 
with confidence to the issue of a much- 
needed legible text. One of the most 
valuable portions of this instalment consists 
is the full discussions of various questions 
of orthography and of syntax. Attention 
may be especially called to those on felix or 
jilix, spongiw or spongea, stercorare or 
stercerare ; on < in the ablative, im in the 
accusative, 7s in the accusative plural ; on 
the indicative in indirect questions, and on 
the indefinite third person singular. 
A. S. WILKINS. 


THE THIRD VOLUME OF KOBERT’S HISTORICAL STUDIES. 


Historische Studien aus dem Pharmako- 


logischen Institute der K. Universitdt 
Dorpat. Vol. iii. Herausgegeben v. 
Dr. Rupotr Koserr. Halle: 1893. 
Pp. 481. 18 M. 


Tus volume is the third of the series of 
Historical Studies issued by Prof. Kobert, 
but is complete within itself. The first 
volume, among other articles of interest, 
contained an essay by Dr. v. Grot on the 
pharmacological knowledge of the Hippo- 
cratic writings with comments by the 
essayist, and an article by Dr. Demitsch on 
Russian folk-remedies from the vegetable 
kingdom. The second volume contained 
articles of a more special pharmacological 
interest. 

The present and third volume consists of 
two parts which are quite different in char- 
acter. The first part contains a catalogue 
of the dissertations and other works pub- 
lished by members of the medical faculty of 
Dorpat since its foundation ninety years 
ago. This catalogue seems to have been 
drawn up in a very workmanlike manner by 
Dr. Griinfeld, who is naturally proud thus 
to testify that his own university has not 
shown itself to be behindhand in the search 
after knowledge during the nineteenth cen- 
tury. The works of lecturers and professors 
are described more fully in an appendix. To 
students of the history of pharmacology 
this catalogue will be very useful. The vast 
stream of scientific discovery must be 
surveyed to its sources, and all its tributaries 
likewise, if we who are sailing on the current 


are to have a chart for our guidance in the 
future. 

The second portion of the volume before 
us contains a work of far greater immediate 
interest. This is a translation into German 
by Dr. Achundow of Baku (a Persian 
physician educated in Europe) of the 
‘Liber fundamentorum pharmacologiae’ of 
Abi Mansir Muwaffak bin Ali Harawi. 
This translation from the original text is the 
first which has been made and is edited with 
full critical and scientific notes by the trans- 
lator, Dr. Paul Horn of Strassburg, and 
Prof. Jolly of Wurzburg. 

Ignorant as I am not only of the Persian 
language but also of the very letters in 
which it is written, it is not for me, even if 
the original were before me, to express any 
opinion concerning the translation beyond 
this—that it reads well and seems to supply 
all needful explanations, such for example as 
the Latin names of the drugs and the equiva- 
lents of the doses in grammes. The annota- 
tions give brief references to other ancient 
authors and supply a bibliography of the 
works which are desirable in order to put 
the student in a proper position for the 
understanding of Aba Manstfir Muwaffak. 
I hope the student will not be discouraged 
when he hears that the list contains the 
titles of fifty treatises. 

Aba Manstr’s work, which begins and 
ends with a prayer to Almighty God and his 
Prophet Muhammed, was ‘ written (so says 
the colophon) by the bard (‘ Dichter’) Ali 
Ibn Ahmed Asadi of Tis in the month 
Schawwal 447 (December 1055) of the flight 


310 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of the Prophet whom God bless! May the 
owner of this manuscript be fortunate!’ 
This manuscript, says Dr. Horn, is of the 
highest value, as it is written in the oldest 
handwriting of modern Persian, and presents 


many refinements to which the commentator 


calls attention. 

However this may be, it is evident to the 
European reader that the contents of the 
treatise, which were composed in the tenth 
century (about 970 a.p.), are of the highest 
interest for the student of origins; More- 
over it throws light upon the stores of 
Indian, and, by way of the Arabians, on 
those of European medical lore. Conversely, 
however, it seems certain that Persian 
medicine was almost entirely derivative and 
owed its existence to India and _ the 
Arabians: the sheets are marked, for 
example, according to the Arabian alphabet 
and it seems probable that in this treatise 
we have the first work on medicine which 
was written for the Persian people. In 
order to collect materials Abi Manstir tells 
us he travelled in India—that Eldorado of 
potent drugs—and from India he brought 
back also principles of medicine which to 
him seem as valuable as the Greek. 

The Arabians took up the study of medi- 
cine in the ninth century, the first important 
author being Rhazes (850-923 a.p.), who was 
born in Khorasan in Persia but spent his 
active life in Bagdad : little of the writings 
of Rhazes is extant, but we know that he 
drew a large part of his knowledge from 
India. 

As in theology, so in medicine, theories 
which came more or less completely and more 
or less directly from Aristotle held an un- 
broken sway over men’s minds for nearly 
2,000 years, and during the middle ages, as 
interpreted by Galen, they reigned unques- 
tioned. The Galenical doctrine was held by 
Abi Manstir to interpret the action of every 
one in his huge list of drugs whether of 
animal, vegetable, or mineral origin. This 
doctrine was based upon the assumption of 
four fundamental substances: heat, cold, 
dryness and moisture, which severally or in 
their various combinations constituted the 
materials of nature: of these, even the 
four elements Air (hot-moist), Water (cold- 
moist), Earth (cold-dry), and Fire (hot-dry) 


were made. Remedies then, according to Abt 
Manstr, who accepted the traditional doc- 
trines, acted in accordance with their several 
qualities in respect of heat, cold, moisture 
and dryness. Acute maladies are hot, as 
are the blood and yellow gall; chronic 
maladies are cold, as are mucus and black 
gall. So the patient, unless his malady were 


a very obscure one, would come to his - 


physician with the diagnosis ready made, 
and the duty of his physician or hakim 
would be to supply him with drugs properly 
compounded to meet the qualities of these 
humours. Thus, to take one example at 
hazard, 174. Chirwa‘. Ricinus communis, 
castor-oil tree (Persian, Bid-andschir) makes 
hot and moist, is of use in colicky pains and 
palsies: it softens indurations. The oil of the 
seeds contains more heat and is hotter and 
more rarifying than olive oil ; it is useful in 
facial palsy, is an emollient to hardnesses in 
the abdominal organs and gently dissipates 
the mucus (p. 192). 

And so forth: there is much curious and 
entertaining matter in the descriptions of 
the virtues of the various articles of the 
materia medica, of which nearly 600 are 
described from the vegetable world alone. 
Wine, I regret to observe, is prescribed by 
this excellent Mussulmans as strengthening 
both to mind and body, in health as well as 
in disease; but he impresses upon us that 
these advantages are lost if we go beyond 
the stage of moderation in its use. Of the 
evils which follow excess Abi Mansir gives 
rather a good account ; it produces, he says, 
tremors, fever, lethargies, convulsions, and 
coma. The wine of the grape, he adds, is 
by far the best, being generous and warming 
to the organs; moreover it makes good 
blood, especially if it have a fine bouquet. 

The lore of poisons and antidotes seems 
to be found among almost all peoples, as 
we may observe from bushmen to Homer, 
from Homer to Mithridates, and from 
Mithridates to the mediaeval clergy; did 
space permit I might extract much that is 
interesting on this subject from the treatise 
of Abii Mansiir. I have however occupied 
too much space already and must refer the 
curious reader to the work itself. 


T. Cuirrorp ALLBUTT. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


311 


BINDLEY’S DE PRAESCRIPTIONE HAERETICORUM. 


Tertulliant De Praescriptione Haereticorum : 
al Martyras: ad Scapulam; by T. 
Herpert Binptey. 8vo. 180 pp. [+72 
pp. of advertisements]. Oxford. At the 
Clarendon Press. 6s. 


THE present volume is a continuation of 
Mr. Bindley’s studies in Tertullian, which 
have already given us an edition of the 
Apologeticus. It contains the famous treatise 
De Praescriptione Haereticorum, to which is 
appended the pseudo-Tertullianie tract 
Adversus omnes Haereses on the ground that 
it was the custom of the earlier editors to 
attach it to the De Praescriptione (its 
proper place, in such arrangements of texts 
as are convenient for modern work, would 
be in a Corpus of Treatises ugainst Heresies) ; 
Mr. Bindley has also added the two little 
tracts ad Martyras and ad Scapulam, which 
make a very good pair for study though 
they are not synchronous and have nothing 
to do with the De Praescriptione. 

Any one who undertakes to place the 
text of special treatises of ‘Tertullian 
before the world in an accessible form 
and with elucidatory notes deserves our 
warm thanks, even though his work 
may not be characterized by originality or 
profundity. At the same time we could 
wish that an admirer of Tertullian, as Mr. 
Bindley undoubtedly is, had selected for his 
criticism some tract which did not show 
Tertullian at his very worst, where he is 
only sparingly witty and almost always 
unfair. The tract whose arguments Mr. 
Bindley assiduously defends might just as 
well be called a tract De Praescriptione 
Academiarum as De Praescriptione Haereti- 
corum: and its arguments would silence 
eritical methods of study quite as effectively 
as they would break the neck of individual 
heresies. The most famous proverbial 
expression in the treatise (and Tertullian’s 
line of thought is necessarily rich in 
epigrams) is the sentence ‘ Quid ergo Athenis 


et Hierosolymis? quid academiae_ et 
ecclesiae ?’—in connexion with which it is to 
be remembered that the volume before us is 
published at the Clarendon Press. So he 
chooses Athens in his riper age, or his editor 
chooses it for him. ‘There is something 
ironical in the very title-page. 

The critical apparatus, as far as we have 
examined it, is carefully described ; most of it 
is taken verbatim from Oehler, as are also a 
great many of the notes. We say verbatim and 
do not add literatim, for on the first page 
which describes the authorities used there 
are not less than three bad misprints (e.g. 
1. 7. solus enim superstes nobis liber intactus 
a correctione magistrorum manu: lege 
correctrice; 1. 12. scatena vitiis vulgaris 
codicum Tertulliani familiae propriis ; lege 
scatens ; 1, 20. concordat hie cordex: lege 
codex): this does not speak well for the 
proof-reading. Another curious misprint 
will be found on p. 82, 1. 11, where the 
student can exercise himself in the applica- 
tion of the maxim ‘ proclivi lectioni praestat 
ardua’; we are told that ‘Tertullian no 
more meant to assert the possession of the 
Apostolic autographs by Apostolic churches 
than their possession of the very charis used 
by the Apostles.’ I suppose we should read 
chairs. 

These are trifling blemishes on what is 
really a careful and useful book. Many of 
the notes elucidatory of Tertullian’s language 
and of the African Latinity are excellent. 
Occasionally there is a philological remark 
which wili hardly be accepted : for example 
on p. 59 in discussing the form swswm we are 
told that this archaic form may be equated 
with subvorsum. ‘This derivation has been 
for a long time abandoned; the latest 
explanation is that of Stiirzinger (in 
Wolfflin’s Archiv for 1892, p. 598) who 
considers it an old participial form of swrgere. 
Bat I do not know how far this view has 
met with acceptance. 

J. Renpet Harris, 


THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST. 


A Repty. 


As Professor Christie has, to some extent, 
misrepresented (of course, not intentionally) 
what I have recently written on this 


subject, I beg permission to say a few words 
in reply. 
1. He says that my argument ‘ignores 


312 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the purely formal value of as yéyparrar and 
at ypadai.’ I have never once referred to 
the expression ds yéypavrax in the course of 
my work. That phrase is generally regarded 
as implying the canonical authority of any 
book which is so quoted, but I have nothing 


to do with that question. What I have said 


is that the constant appeal made by Christ, 
on the one hand, to ai ypadai, and the ready 
quotation by the people, on the other hand, 
from some written source, prove that the 
ancient Scriptures in some written form 
then circulated among the Jewish people. 

2. Professor Christie seems to think that 
the ypadai in question may have been the 
Old Testament Scriptures in their original 
Hebrew form. He tells us that Kautzsch 
‘infers from Luke iv. 17 that the Hebrew 
Bible could still be understood by the 
people.’ In maintaining such a position, 
Kautzsch is opposed to the great body of 
modern Biblical scholars. I have quoted in 
my ‘Short Proof’ statements from Ewald, 
De Wette, and Bleek, to the effect that 
Hebrew was then a dead language so far as 
the Jewish people at large were concerned. 
Many more authorities might be cited in 
support of this conclusion. I shall, however, 
only add one other from a Hebrew scholar 
who has recently gone from among us. 
Professor Robertson Smith expresses himself 
as follows (The Old Testament in the Jewish 
Church, p. 35),—‘ Before the time of Christ, 
the Jews had already ceased to speak 
Hebrew. In the New Testament, no doubt, 
we read once and again of the Hebrew 
tongue as spoken and understood by the 
people of Palestine; but the vernacular of 
the Palestinian Jews in the first century 
was a dialect as unlike to that of the Bible 
as German is to English—a different 
language, although a kindred one.’ 

3. I do not affirm that, if my conclusion 
is accepted, it would follow that in the 
Greek Gospels we have ‘the sayings of 
Christ exactly as they were originally 
uttered.’ The many slight differences which 
occur in the reports of His words given by 
the Evangelists prove that such is not the 
case. But what I uphold is that we possess 
His utterances in the language in which 
they were at first spoken. And _ surely 
Professor Christie is mistaken when he 
declares that, if this conclusion were 
accepted, ‘the difficulties which beset the 
criticism of the Gospels would remain 
undisturbed.’ I trust I may be pardoned 
if I see in such a statement another illus- 
tration of the prejudice with which this 
whole question has been so much encum- 


bered. For, can it really be denied that, if 
we still have tbe words of Christ in the 
language He actually made use of, the 
problem of the Gospels is greatly simplified ? 
We then get rid at once of the manifold 
perplexities which have arisen from the 
supposed necessity of searching for a 
Urevangelium in some Hebrew dialect. 


And need I do more than refer to the- 


monstrous theories of Eichhorn and others, 
in order to show how much has been thus 
gained ? ay 

4, Professor Christie has so written as to 
convey the impression that I have only 
proved that the Septuagint was used in 
writings intended for extra-Palestinian 
readers, He says: ‘The use of the LXX. in 
quotation by writers addressing non-Pales- 
tinian readers proves nothing as to the 
common use of the LXX. in Galilee.’ But 
he has entirely overlooked a remarkable 
case of quotation to which (p. 77) I have 
called special attention. The scene is Jeru- 
salem; the speaker is St. James; the 
audience are the apostles, and office-bearers 
as well as ordinary members of the church 
in the Holy City (Acts xv. 6—21). Now, 
the argument of St. James on that occasion 
depends entirely for its cogency on words 
which he quotes from the Septuagint—words 
which exist in the Greek version, but are 
totally wanting in the Hebrew. Could 
proof more conclusive be desired that the 
Septuagint was then the Bible used and 
accepted in Palestine? It seems to me that 
by no fair or even plausible form of reason- 
ing can this conclusion be resisted. 

Christ said to His hearers—’Epevvare ras 
ypadds—and the one question is—What 
were the ypadai to which He referred? I 
claim to have proved that these could be no 
other than the Old Testament books in the 
Septuagint version, and, as a necessary 
inference, that Christ’s habitual language 
in His public discourses was Greek. 

A. Roserts. 

University, St. Andrews. 


[The above reply was submitted to the 
Reviewer, who appends the following notes. ] 


1. For yéyparra: read yeypappévoy eorw, 
found in two of the three passages cited to 
prove popular quotation from a written 
source, John ii. 17 and vii. 31. The point 
is simply that ai ypadai and ds yeyparrac or 
any of its equivalents means an appeal to 
Scriptural authority and no etymological 
meaning of ‘ Holy Writ’ proves the circula- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


tion of manuscript Scriptures whether Greek 
or Hebrew. 

2. All admit that Hebrew was not the 
vernacular, but Robertson Smith’s readers 
will know whether Bleek should call it a 
dead language, while, for reasons indicated, 
the unintelligibility of Hebrew in the Syna- 
gogues seems to me overstated. What 
Professor Roberts must prove and has not 
proved is that the unlearned had a book of 
Scripture in their hands. I regard it as 
established that they knew Holy Writ by 
oral translation and exposition in Aramaic. 

3. Whether Mr. Marshall can establish 
an Aramaic Urevangelium or not, he lends 
probability to an Aramaic substratum for 


NOTES ON A FRAGMENT OF 


Tue Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der 
Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, vol. 5, part 3, 
published in August 1892, contains a 
facsimile of the musical notation of a small 
portion of the first chorus of Orestes. The 
MS. is attributed by Dr. Wessely to the 
age of Augustus, at which time Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus is known to have possessed 
a ‘score’ of this play. 

The fragment contains the following 
words and musical signs :— 


ibs. bi. 


fee eed. © Tl 
YPOMAIZMATEPOC 
Z BZ £ 
AKXEYEIZOMETAC 
fy Pc a! 
CEMBOTOICZANA 
CPS eo Rid °C 
CAKaTOYGOACTINA 
ee a 
KATEKAYCEND 1) 

ON tae A 
NI13WWCNONT 

2 

13 P ‘thiol gat 
AAG he 2 OCWN 


| 


—_ 
SF OoOwoOoOonNTOoUr WN 


| 
b 


There is not sufficient material here to 
attempt any reconstruction of the melody ; 
but we obtain a certain amount of insight 

NO. LXXI, VOL. VIII. 


313 


many elements of our Gospels. I am more 
troubled than Professor Roberts by the 
differences of our Greek Gospels, but I seem 
to have strained somewhat his words : ‘still 
possess His teachings in the form in which 
they were originally uttered’ (p. 99). I 
must add that some of us do not regard the 
Fourth Gospel and the Book of Acts as 
accurate historical sources. Granting, 
finally, that in the absence of an Aramaic 
Old Testament only a Greek version could 
be in general circulation, the necessity of 
Professor Roberts’ final inference does not 
penetrate to this side of the Atlantic. 


F, A. CHRISTIE. 
Meadville, Pa., U.S. A. 


THE MUSIC OF ORESTES. 


into the Greek method of notation, and 
something may also perhaps be learnt with 
regard to rhythm. The words and music 
are written continuously like prose, asis the 
case with modern vocal music, the single 
phrases of which are never written in 
separate lines. 

Alypius tells us, p. 2, that ‘the upper 
notes of the Lydian trope are those for the 
voice, the lower those for the accompaniment 
(ris kpovoews).’ The latter notes are here 
mingled with the text: the reason for this 
will appear later. 

The enharmonic and diatonic genera are 
used indiscriminately. 

The ictus dot is placed either above the 
musical sign, or alongside of it, apparently 
according to the exigencies of space. 

In lines 5, 7, and 9 is seen the simulta- 
neous use of the three signs showing pitch, 
value, and accent. 

When two or more successive syllables are 
to be sung to the same note, the note is only 
written over the first, as in lines 3 and 4. 
When a single syllable is to be sung to two 
notes, the vowel sound is written twice, as 
w, ws in line 12. The Paean discovered 
at Delphi also shows both of these features, 
The translation of the few notes of melody, 
which are in the Lydian notation, offers no 
difficulty, while the reconstruction of the 
rhythm can only be conjectural, owing to 
the dilapidated condition of the papyrus. 
I venture however to suggest the following 
reconstruction, with an explanation of the 
principles on which I have made it. 


314 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


co 


or 










































































Ex, 2 2 Pe PANG 
Dds. wie tee > | Paar ie a e e Po 
S ra) meee Seemann! ferclonvesy Sree fearmerae eS See es 
oS = Be See = SS aoe = = 
ka-To-Ao - vu - po-pat ka-T0-Ao - dv - po - pat Zz 
P: oy) n 1 . 1 q . a . “ i yh 
es SN 8 DOR RW, xs (i POISE IA: SOe e SD ae =x 
a eee ee rae OMEEESSE (REESE. (sperm Wal (role ase es) aj bea 
2S = Se 
Pa-TE-pos at-pa cas Oco-va-Bak - xv-a Z 
® “ . . . oe 
PiZicE Par iy as Sh Fu: wane : 
Oe — Saas (area —--= Seer = SOnrEee er 
Meats [Sad bean in SORneem iecam raed Severe! RT eo Son a aeaaee = 
— a 
0 pe yas oAPos ov LOvLLos eu-Bpo-Tots Z 
Se Se a Ee ee 




















a-va 6€ Aados ws 





















































Ren ne reas 5 ONY ciate Oot: een 

a: “_»—@_, #9 = = See ee 
Jaa aaa 

Tis a-Ka-Tov Go - as tTU-va- as dat-pwv 

va : : a e A ads) any ess ie ae aie 
pata tata gt ee =f p= = 
= a eeees cee Fe EE ae = = = See = == 

ka-reKdv-cev 2 1) Se - vow ro-vww > 1D ws arov - TOU 

Core” Ae 


Puri r r ff cre . 












































a 


AaBpors o-A€-Opt- os 0-cwv cup-do-pav 


The small notes above the stave show short note v,? and often omitted the signs 


the values of the syllables. The sign P _ for rests:3 while they made the two time 


represents the enharmonic note, or quarter 
tone, between B flat and A. Since there 
is no sign in modern notation for quarter 
tones, I have placed two horizontal lines 


u 


pitch of this sound was a quarter of a tone 
flatter than B flat. 


be familiar with the laws of rhythm and 
metre ;! and to this no doubt is due the 


long — do duty for a note of any value greater 
than the chronos protos.4 The ictus dot, or 
stigma, is referred to by Meibomius® and 
discussed by Bellermann.® It shows the 
position of the chief accent in a foot, 
whether simple or compound ; and therefore 


nder the B flat to show that the real 


Every musician and poet was supposed to 2 See examplesin Bellermann, Anonym? Scriptio de 
Musica p. 94 etc., see also Gevaert, La Musique de 
V Antiquité, vol 1, p. 416. 

3 Bellermann, Anonym p. 21, and Vincent, Notices 


carelessness of the scribes, who invariably sur Divers Manuserits Grees p. 50. 


C 


: 
st 


mitted the sign for the single ‘time’ or 4 Gevaert p. 416 and Anonymt p. 19, note. 

= 5 5 Preface to Antiquac Musicae Auctores Septem, 
1 Burney, Disserlation on the Music of the Ancients fol. 9. 
12. 6 Anonymi p. 21, note. 


, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the note on which it occurs corresponds with 
the first note of a bar in modern notation.! 
The confusion which has arisen through the 
negligence of scribes with regard to the 
ictus dot is referred to by Vincent in his 
Notices p. 232. 

The most completely preserved verse in 
our fragment is the fifth. The first note is 
wanting, but, by analogy with vv. 2, 3, 4, 
and 6, we may take it for granted that it 
was provided with the ictus dot. 

Seidler in De versibus dochmaicis gives 
thirty-two varieties of the dochmius, of 
which the second is -4.V 4. J __ or, in musical 
notation, JX | a ag ht | ¢: rhe first por- 
tion of verse 5 therefore gives the rhythm of 
Seidler’s second form of dochmius, except 
that our fragment places the accent on the 


1 Westphal, Aristoxenus p. 32. 


315 


Jirst note while Seidler places it on the second. 
It will also be observed that this half verse 
is divided by a single instrumental note from 
the second half. Westphal considered that 
the end of the dochmius was completed by 
a rest, or by the extension of the last 
syllable. Dr. Karl Wessely suggests in the 
Mittheilungen that where two ictus-notes 
follow one another as in lines 1 and 
3 and 4 etc. Ex 1, we may take it for granted 
that the time is to be completed by the 
addition of a rest or a three time long. I 
have given the preference to the rest as the 
sound of a single note on the lyre must have 
been of a very transient character. The 
first half of the fifth verse then, with the 
rests suggested by Westphal and Wessely, 
will give us the following perfectly intelli- 
gible rhythmical phrase, which might occur 
in any modern song : 


2, 





Voice. Inst. 
—_—X_————————— 
2 3 4 
FS l ‘| er | Nr | 
Sedge e @ © e 
dochmius — Ss 
ScHUMANN. SFrauenliebe. 
Voice. Inst. 
if 2 3 4 





hiitt’ - er - doch 

In Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
Antiquities 3rd ed. 1890, vol. ii. p. 561b, we 
find the following remark concerning the 
dochmius ; ‘It is doubtful whether the chief 
ictus is on the first or second long syllable.’ 
In the fragment before us, the ictus occurs 
on the first syllable of each dochmius, whether 

3 <== |6 ) 
Se¢ee'/|8 @ 

It is worth while to compare the scherzo 
of Beethoven’s first symphony, in which the 
two time notes of the first, second and fourth 
bars of each colon produce a subtle accentua- 
tion somewhat akin to that of the above 


BEETHOVEN, Symphony No, 1. 
(>) (>) 
1 2 


un - ter 











eS 


¥ 


short or long, on the fourth ‘time,’ and on 
the final instrumental note of the colon. 
To represent this exactly in modern notation 
we should be obliged to use a combination of 
simple and compound bars of the three time 
species : 


Al - len 


3 
8 


scheme: for the third bar, consisting of 
three equal notes, is relatively less accented 
than those which contain the contrasting 
long and short notes. 


N | 
ee 


“ Ba 





ee ees ee tee 


This subtle accentuation is not shown by 
Beethoven, but it can scarcely fail to be felt 
when attention is called to it. In the Greek 
passage the accentuation is distinctly shown 
by the ictus, 





The first colon of v. 5, as well as the 
second colon of vv. 1, 2 and 3, finish with 
the accented instrumental note ; and Ihave 
therefore ventured to complete this rhythm 
on the following scheme : 


) 
a 


Zs 


316 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


1 2 3 4 
pier! | 4 Ale he ae 


which would correspond with an ordinary 
modern period, composed of two pobeaBeae 
cola. 

In the second colon of vv. 2, 5, and 6, in 
which two long syllables occur in succession, 


Without syncopation, it is impossible to 
translate the ninth dochmius into an intel- 
ligible modern musical rhythm, unless we 
take each long as of three-time value : 


my JE jy JR 


Syncopation (in the musical sense) is no 
modern invention. Itis found in the oldest 
folksongs, and is a striking feature in the 
pressus of the Gregorian neumes. 


BEETHOVEN, Sonata, No. 1. 


Gree 


Where the accentuation of the pairs of 
feet is not thus shown by the notation, as 
in those pieces in which each bar contains 
only a single foot, the performer generally 
instinctively feels it: if he does not, or if 
he gives the wrong order of accentuation, 
his performance is insipid and unsatisfac- 
tory. 

But modern composers, especially Beet- 
hoven, Schumann, and Chopin, are very fond 
of disturbing the regularity of this succes- 
sion by means of sforzandos, etc. which make 


ee 
a 





Thesis 


Arsis thesis, arsis thesis, 
oI =—=— N| | N | 
Sece | a e @ i e r 


which, in its rhythmical disturbance, might 
produce something of the same emotional 
effect on the Greek mind that the over- 
powering syncopated sforzando chords 
succeeding one another in Beethoven’s 
Eroica symphony produce on us. 

V. 6 is broken by instrumental notes. As 
neither the ictus nor time value of these are 
given, I have merely written them in conjec- 
turally. They are doubtless ritornels, the 
exact nature of which it is impossible in our 
present state of knowledge to discover. An 


1 2 8 4 
BAP eb |, tI) 


I have made use of syncopation. tiaéas 
daiuwv, v. 5, by this means corresponds 


exactly with Seidler’s ninth form of 
dochmius ; 4 4 —.—, Orin musical no- 
tation : ; 

aa 

_—_aee 

| 

Be Fie a 


In modern music, not only does each foot 
contain its thesis and arsis, but of each pair 
of feet one is slightly more accented than 
the other. In the majority of instru- 
mental movements, the tetrapodic cola 
occupy the space of two bars; hence each 
bar contains two feet, one of which forms 
the thesis, and the other the arsis, of the 
bar. 

Example of ordinary tetrapodic colon : 








arsis item C arsis 


accents occur in unexpected places, in order 
to produce special effects on the hearer. 

It has occurred to me that the dochmius 
may possibly have formed one of the Greek 
methods of disturbing the regularity of ac- 
centuation, thus producing restless effects, 
such as are to be found in many of the works 
of the great modern masters: 7.e. that (if my 
reconstruction of the rhythm of the frag- 
ment of Orestes is anywhere near the mark) 
the accentuation would be something of the 
following nature: 


Arsis thesis, arsis thesis. 
oS N| 

Pie a Nae “| ahve 
sf sf sf 


important passage occurs in the treatise by 
Anonymus (Bellermann, § 68, p. 78) in which 
it is explained that two kinds of notation 
are employed, one for the song, the other 
for the instrument (é7i Acfews yap Kal 
Kpovorews). 

‘It is necessary that there should be this 
ditference of notation, since xk@Aa are inter- 
posed in songs. The melody will properly 
begin, and be made known, and recognized, 
through its employment on the instrument 
(év xpovoe). And the notation (orgs) is not 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


restricted to what is sung in words (jyr@): 
but prolongation of the melody is produced 
on the (single) syllables, and variety is 
brought about through the intercepting or 
succeeding colon.’ 

Vincent (Notices p. 35) considers that 
the x@Xa here are passages for the instrument 
alone, as opposed to xpovpara which are 
the instrumental accompaniment to the 
voice. 

From the above quotation it would seem : 

1. That there could be an introductory 
ritornel on the instrument, before com- 
mencing the song, just as in an ordinary 
modern song. 

2. That syllables were extended, in order 
to produce vocal melody without words, as 
in the neumae of the ancient church music, 
and in the florid passages of Italian opera : 
(but no examples occur in the fragments of 
music known to us of more than three notes 
to a syllable). 

3. That monotony, which would be 
produced by an unbroken flow of vocal 
music, was avoided by the introduction of 
ritornels during the course of the song, as is 
the case in modern music. 

Since these ritornels occurred between 
the vocal passages, it seems natural that 


they should be written on the same 
line as the words, as is done in our 
fragment. It is quite possible that the 


interposed ritornels were left to be extem- 
porized, and merely a single note, or a few 
notes, were given as a cue to show where 
they were to occur. It will be observed that 
the single notes at the end of vv. 1, 2, 3, 
and in the middle of v. 5 of our fragment 
do not harmonize with the vocal note which 
immediately precedes them: but they do, 
except in one instance, with the note which 
follows them. Is it possible that they were 
the concluding notes of the ritornels, and 
were written for the same purpose as the 
concluding shake of a modern cadenza is 
written, ¢.e. to show the conductor when to 
bring in his orchestra 1 

While no information has come down to 
us with regard to the treatment of the 
instrumental accompaniment, a passage in 
Plutarch’s ‘epi Movorxjs’ seems to prove 
that the lyre was not always played in unison 
with the voice: for he tells us that the 
‘ancients’ used the trite as the accompani- 
ment to the parhypate (producing the 
interval of a fifth), ‘’Ore d€ of wadavoi od dv 
ayvowav amre(xovto THs Tpitns ev TH oTovOEa- 


317 


Covte tporw, avepov moved 7 ev TH Kpovoet 
ywopevn xphots * ov yap av ToTE avTN TpOs THY 
mapuratyy Kexpnobar cvppdvos pr yvopilovtas 
tiv xpjow. Westphal’s edition, ch. 14, p. 15. 
From the same chapter it appears that they 
also used the intervals of the second, fourth, 
and sixth in the same way. The accompani- 
ment seems to have always been above the 
voice, not below as with us: and it is prob- 
able that it was extemporized and never 
written down, while only a few notes of the 
ritornels were given in writing, as we have 
already seen. 

The question has been asked of late why 
the musical compositions of the Greeks have 
so entirely disappeared, while so many of 
their dramas and poems have been preserved. 
After the fall of Greek independence,through 
the Macedonian and Roman conquests, the 
dramas and poems of the ‘classical’ school 
were no longer sung on the stage, which 
was given over to a degenerate form of 
music and dancing, intended merely to 
amuse the ignorant mob. The musical nota- 
tion was of such a complicated nature, that 
even the most learned men would not be able 
to read and enjoy a ‘score’ without hearing 
it; while, on the other hand, the noble 
thoughts expressed in the words of the 
dramas were easily conveyed by writing, and 
could be appreciated without their being 
publicly performed. 

Hence, the scribes, who were responsible 
for multiplying and handing down to pos- 
terity copies of the Greek classics, would, 
while taking every care with the text, omit 
to copy a number of musical signs, which 
neither they nor their employers any longer 
understood and appreciated. Thus, the texts 
of the dramas were preserved in the 
libraries of the learned, while the music was 
entirely lost. Whether, if we were fortunate 
enough to discover suflicient of this ancient 
music to be enabled to perform some of 
it, as it was performed in its own day, 
it would appeal to modern ears, is very 
doubtful. No art varies in its methods of 
expression so much as music. European 
music seems as barbarous to Orientals, as 
theirs does to us: and even the music 
which delighted our forefathers in the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries seems anti- 
quated and expressionless to the general 
public of to-day. How much more then 
would that of 400 years before Christ 
appear strange and weird to us! 

C. F. Appy WILLIAMS. 


318 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


THE SIDE-ENTRANCES TO THE 
GREEK THEATRE. 


In Mr. Haigh’s interesting review of 


Bodensteiner’s dissertation in the April 
number of the Classical Review, one of the 
most weighty of the arguments brought 
forward against an elevated stage was 
passed over without the consideration that 
it justly merits. Bodensteiner concludes 
his article with the statement that his 
investigation of the dramas has convinced 
him (1) that there was no elevated stage 
in the theatre of the fifth century, and 
(2) that there were only two zapodo, the 
same for both actors and chorus.. The 
latter does not necessarily follow from the 
former, for we might still believe that 
there were doors in the zapackjva. No 
warrant for this belief, however, is found 
in the existing ruins. For this reason 
Dorpfeld makes the second proposition an 
essential part of his doctrine. On the 
other hand, once prove that actors and 
chorus used the same side-entrances, and you 
have made anything but an exceedingly 
low platform, that is practically none at 
all, an absolute impossibility. For no one 
would assert that at every entrance and exit 
the actors had to ascend or descend a flight 
of steps leading to even Mr. Haigh’s stage, 
only six or seven feet high. Now Boden- 
steiner believes that he has been able, on 
the evidence of the dramas themselves, 
to prove this most important point. For 
this reason I have thought it worth while 
to submit to those who are interested in 
the stage question a summary of this 
portion of his article. 

All writers on scenic antiquities who 
have given especial attention to the dramas, 
G. Hermann alone I think excepted, have 
believed that actors sometimes used the 
entrances to the orchestra. Groddeck, 
Buttmann, and Geppert have even claimed 
that this was the rule, but the more 
orthodox have regarded it as an exceptional 
if not an unlawful proceeding. They were 
loath to admit that Aristophanes would 
violate a rule of Pollux. In recent years, 
however, there has been a growing tendency 
to permit the dramas to interpret them- 
selves, unhampered by the restrictions sup- 
posed to have been put upon them by the 
Athenian Professor of Antiquities. Even 
Miiller admits a good many cases of the use 


of the orchestra by actors, though he 
believes that it was attended by the difficulty 
of mounting a stage. Mr. Haigh is still more 
conservative. He asserts that an actor 


makes his entrance only once through the- 


orchestra (Carion in the Plutus), and very 
rarely his exit (citing the final scene in the 
Eumenides and Wasps). He even claims to 
prove (Attic Theatre, p. 175) from the 
dramas that the stage had its own side- 
entrances. All that he does prove, in fact, 
is that actors often enter from the sides, 
which no one has ever disputed. Boden- 
steiner has done the service of having 
brought together and classified all the 
passages from the dramas that bear upon 
this question. The following are his results, 
briefly stated, with comments of his own. 
It should be borne in mind that in the 
preceding part of his paper he has brought 
out a series of weighty arguments against 
an elevated stage, and has found nothing 
in the dramas that make against it. 

I. All chariots and horses must enter 
through the orchestra, following the highway 
that leads past the palace in the _ back- 
ground, This road is the duagéypys tpiBos 
of Orestes 1251, along which the semi- 
choruses are commanded to go. One might 
consider that corpses borne on biers would fall 
into this class, but our author, with his 
usual good judgment, refrains from doing 
so, although in three of the six instances 
cited it seems nécessary, for other reasons, 
that the actors should be in the orchestra. 
Mr. Haigh believes that chariots and horses 
appeared on the high stage. How this 
could be managed on a platform only 7} 
to 8 ft. deep he does not attempt to 
explain. Apart from the difficulty, imagine 
how ridiculous the scene in the Agamemnon 
would be, where Clytemnestra makes so 
much ado about a strip of carpet, only 
two or three feet long, for her husband 
to walk upon, when he might easily, if he had 
had anything of the activity of Mr. Haigh’s 
choruses, have stepped lightly from his 
chariot into the doorway. But perhaps Mr. 
Haigh’s stage is a deeper one. At any rate 
one may fall back upon the scene in the 
Iphigenia at Aulis, where the choreutae 
assist Iphigenia to alight. Though the 
passage may be an interpolation, yet the 
action would have been as difficult with 
a high stage at one time as at another. It 
is interesting to find that Timoleon, ac- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


cording to Plutarch, was accustomed to 
drive into the theatre in his chariot in 


order to address the people. Did he too 
drive in on the high stage? 
II. Actors who enter or depart in 


company with the chorus must use the 
same passage. Two instances are given of 
the former, eighteen of the latter, all of 
them as certain as the three admitted by 
Mr. Haigh. 

III. When the choreutae hold a special 
relation toward an actor, as in the Jon, 
where they are the servants of Creusa, they 
would naturally enter and depart in the 
same way. So in the Humenides the Furies 
follow on the track of Orestes like hounds 
on a fresh scent. The only alternative in 
all these cases is to make the chorus mount 
the stage in order to be with the actors. 
Mr. Haigh prefers this alternative. 

IV. Incoming actors seem to require a 
long time to reach the place of action. 
Hence they enter by the zapodo. Some 
thirty cases are cited and discussed, but 
only three are accepted as evidence. The 
others admit of no better test than merely 
the number of verses spoken. In this 
matter it is fair to point out that Boden- 
steiner proceeds throughout the chapter 
with the greatest caution. 

V. An incoming actor who is announced 
by the chorus is often not seen at first 
by an actor already present. The use 
of the wdpodo offers an easy explanation 
of such cases, It never happens that an 
incoming actor, announced by an actor who 
is present, cannot be seen by the chorus 
also. 

VI. Similar to the above are the cases 
in which incoming actors cannot see all 
who are present. Furthermore it is the 
usual practice for incoming actors to accost 
the chorus first, though there are many 
exceptions. Yet when the incoming actor 
is unknown to all those who are present 
he always addresses the chorus. This points 
to the same conclusion—that actors entering 
from the sides always find themselves 
nearer to the chorus than to the other 
actors. Bodensteiner, however, makes use 
of only the cases of this class that are 
exceptionally clear. 

VII. A few times the chorus on entering 
complains of the steepness of the path. 
This is explained by the fact that in the 
earliest theatre at Athens of which we 
have any remains the wdpodo. have a con- 
siderable upward slope toward the orchestra. 
Bodensteiner would explain in the same 
way the similar references on the part of 


319 


actors, and the cases avaBaivew and karta- 
Baivev in Aristophanes that have been 
interpreted as meaning ‘approach’ and 
‘depart.’ Oehmichen has just given another 
explanation (Woch. f. kl. Phil. 1894, 362)— 
that the actors are ascending the ramps 
leading to the top of the proscenium, while 
the chorus climb to the so-called ‘thymele’ 
in the orchestra ; but it is hardly necessary 
to reckon with one who still believes in the 
latter. 

It is shown that actors use the approaches 
to the orchestra about forty times, accepting 
only those instances that seem exceedingly 
probable. Still another argument might 
be adduced from the street scenes in 
Aristophanes, which resemble closely the 
New Comedy. In these there can be but 
one entrance on either side—the street that 
passes in front of the house through the 
scene of action, Granting that the mdpodor 
were used by actors in all these cases, can 
it be considered an exceptional occurrence ! 
A hundred other passages which are most 
easily understood on the same disposition 
of the actors at once suggest themselves. 
Furthermore there is no statement in any 
ancient writer that contradicts this view 
for the Greek theatre. Even Pollux, if 
rightly understood, says nothing against it. 

Mr. Haigh asserts that the dramas are 
not a trustworthy source of information on 
questions of scenic antiquities. In this I 
quite agree with him in general. But we 
must make distinctions between questions 
of scenic antiquities pure and simple, and 
questions of interpretation. We can tell 
little from Shakespeare’s text as to the 
scenery and scenic appliances of his day, 
but the movements of the actors, their 
relative positions on the stage, the time and 
manner of their entrances and exits we can 
almost always determine within certain 
limits. This is especially true of the Greek 
dramas, which to a stage manager would 
offer very few difficulties in this regard. 
Now fortunately for us in trying to settle 
the stage question, the Greek drama had 
a chorus which performed a peculiar function 
of its own and also frequently took part 
in the action. In determining the move- 
ments of actors and chorus we are able also 
to establish certain conditions as regards 
the space in which they acted. In the first 
place the actors generally stand in the neigh- 
bourhood of the background, though they 
sometimes advance to the position of the 
chorus. The chorus on the other hand are 
generally considerably farther away from 
the background, though they sometimes 


320 


approach it and even go through the door. 
This we learn from the dramas themselves, 
and find confirmed in Pollux. But the most 
imperative condition imposed by the dramas 
is that there should be no hindrance to the 
free and frequent intermingling of actors 
and chorus. 
what Aristotle says in the Poetics 18 : cat tov 
xopov d€ eva det brodaBeiv trav iroxpirdv Kai 
Popiov civat Tod dAov Kat cuvvaywvilerbat, 
though Aristotle of course has in mind a 
still closer relation. This is a perfectly 
legitimate conclusion to draw from the text 
of the plays. We should apply exactly the 
same principle to Shakespeare or any other 
dramatist with perfect right. That the 
question of the high stage is involved does 
not affect the principle. 

Since the dramas and the ruins lead 
to the same conclusion, and since no writer 
before the Roman era refers to a stage, 
the real question at issue is the explanation 
of Vitruvius and the tradition that has con- 
tinued down to our own times. The citations 
from ancient authorities given by Mr. Haigh 
in defence of the old theory are either mis- 
understood or misapplied. 


Epwarp Capps. 
The University of Chicago. 


Tell el Amarna. By W. M. Fttnvers 
Perriz, D.C.L. London: Methuen and 


Co. 1894. Pp. iv. 46: and 43 plates. 
Large 4to. £1. 


Tats volume deals principally with matters 
that are not within the province of this 
Review ; and is noticed here solely on ac- 
count of the author’s views about the con- 
nexion of Egypt with the Hellenic districts 
of the Mediterranean. These views are set 
forth in a passage which had better be 
quoted at length. It runs thus :— 


§ 28. When I first went to Tell el Amarna, I 
aimed at finding the rubbish heaps, where the waste 
was thrown from the palace. I searched all around 
the palace region, but could not find any such 
remains ; while clearing, however, on the desert, 
about three furlongs from the palace, I found a wide 
stretch of waste heaps. As they are on the nearest 
open ground to the palace, and contained scattered 
throughout the whole area dozens of objects with the 
names of the royal family, and hundreds of pieces of 
imported Aigean pottery, it seems evident that these 
are the palace waste heaps which I sought ; though 
probably mixed with waste from other large houses 
in the neighbourhood. The extent of the heaps was 
about 600 feet by 400 feet, and the depth varied from 
4 feet to a mere sprinkling, probably averaging more 
than 1 foot. 

Nearly all the broken rings, &c., with car- 
touches that I obtained, were found here ; these 


This is in accordance with ~ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


comprised a few of Tahutmes III and Amenhotep 
III (doubtless brought here), and about 80 or 
90 of Akhenaten,’ his family, and his successor, 
Ra-smenkh-ka ; on most of the latter, however, he 
called himself ‘beloved of Akhenaten,’ and they 
date, therefore, during a co-regency, or soon after 
Akhenaten’s death, when his successor still trusted 
to his name for support. ‘Thus it is clear that the 
mounds belong to a very little longer time than the 
reign of Akhenaten; and as he only reigned here 
for twelve years, everything found inthe mounds was ° 
probably thrown away within fifteen years, at about 
1400 B.c. 

§ 29. The principal importance of these mounds 
was quite unexpected. So soon as we began to dig 
we found Aigean pottery and so-called Pheenician 
glass ; and the quantities of pieces of these materials 
prove how usual they were at the time. The glass 
Vases ... 

§ 30. The gean pottery is however more 
important, as there is no indication that it was ever 
made in Egypt ; and its presence therefore shews the 
coeval civilization of the Agean countries with which 
it is always associated. The total quantity of pieces 
found was 1329 in the waste heaps, 9 in the palace, 
and only 3 fragments of one vase elsewhere, in 
house 11. 

§ 31. It is almost needless to observe that this 
discovery and dating of Zgean pottery stands on an 
entirely different footing to those which have been 
previously made in Egypt and Greece. All previous 
correlations have depended on single vases, or on 
single scarabs found associated with things from 
other sources; and hence (to any one without a 
practical knowledge of how completely things are of 
one period, in almost all cases when they are 
associated), it may seem as if the dating all depended 
on isolated objects, any of which might have been 
buried centuries after it was made.2 Here we have 
not to consider isolated objects, about which any 
such questions can arise, uor a small deposit which 
might be casually disturbed, nor a locality which has 
ever been reoccupied; but we have to deal with 
thousands of’ tons of waste heaps, with pieces of 
hundreds of vases, and about a hundred absolutely 
dated objects with cartouches. And when we see 
that in all this mass, which is on a scale that is 
beyond any possibility of accidental or casual 
mixture throughout, there is not a single object 
which can be dated later than about 1380 B.c., we 
may henceforward remember that there are few facts 
in all archaeology determined with a more over- 
whelming amount of evidence than the dating of this 
earlier style of Agean pottery to the beginning of 
the fourteenth century B.c, 


This raises two distinct questions. The 
first is whether the Aigean pottery is con- 
temporary with those kings. The second is 
whether those kings reigned about 1400 s.c. 





1 Akhenaten (Akh-en-Aten) is Mr. Petrie’s name 
for Khu-en-Aten or Chu-en-Aten. I follow his spell- 
ing throughout, simply to avoid confusion. 

* This was Mr. Petrie’s own hypothesis in dating 
the Aigean vase from the tomb of Maket at Kahun. 
See Lllahun, Kahun and Gurob, p. 24 :—‘ The searabs 
must have been nearly all old ones when buried. The 
latest is of Tahutmes III, or 1450 B.c., and probably 
contemporary with him, by the style of it: whereas 
the character of the beads, of the pottery, and of the 
coffin all shew that two or three centuries had elapsed 
since the scarabs were made.’ 


ee 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 321 


Mr. Petrie does not say anything at all 
about the second question. He takes that 
for granted. And I do not propose to 
discuss it here, as I shall presently be deal- 
ing with Egyptian chronology as a whole. 

As regards the first question he seems to 
rest his case upon the following points :— 
That hundreds of pieces of A‘gean pottery 
were found in the same rubbish-heaps with 
dozens of objects bearing the cartouches of 
those kings. That these rubbish-heaps are 
formed of the rubbish from the palace oc- 
cupied by those kings. That these rubbish- 
heaps have not yielded any objects bearing 
the cartouches of later kings. 

Now for the evidence. In $ 31 he says 
that the rubbish-heaps have yielded about a 
hundred absolutely dated objects with car- 
touches. In § 28 he says that nearly all 
the broken rings, &c., with cartouches that 
he obtained, were found there; and that 
these comprised a few of Tahutmes IIT and 
Amenhotep III, and about eighty or ninety 
of Akhenaten, his family, and his successor, 
Ra-smenkh-ka. In plate XIV., entitled 
‘Scarabs, rings, &ec.,’ and in plate XV., en- 
titled ‘Scarabs, &e.,’ he gives three broken 
specimens with the cartouche of Tahutmes 
III, eight with the cartouche of Amenhotep 
III, and then a great many with the car- 
touches of Akhenaten, his family, and his 
successor, Ra-smenkh-ka; and in § 65 on 
p. 29 he refers to some of these as coming 
from the rubbish-heaps. Taken together, 
these statements seem to show that the 
‘absolutely dated objects with cartouches’ 
are nothing but scarabs, rings, ete. 

Such objects cannot be absolutely dated 
by the cartouches on them. That is certain ; 
for many of them have the cartouches of 
kings who reigned at different dates. Thus, 
for example, there is a plaque in the British 
Museum, no. 16,580, with the cartouches of 
Tahutmes I, Tahutmes III and Seti I; and 
a scarab, no. 16,796, with the cartouches of 
Tahutmes III and Psammitichos. 

But, supposing that these objects were 
made in the time of those kings, there is 
nothing to show that they were thrown into 
the rubbish-heaps then. Mr. Petrie says 
that the rubbish-heaps are formed of the 
rubbish from the palace. But in § 28 he 
admits that they are not in ‘the palace 
region’ at all, but on the desert, about three 
furlongs away. He meets the objection by 
saying that this was the nearest open 
ground to the palace. To judge by the 
plans, this statement is disputable; but 
taking it for granted, it hardly clears the 
difficulty. He then proceeds to say that ‘it 


seems evident’ that the rubbish-heaps be- 
longed to the palace, inasmuch as they 
contained objects with royal cartouches and 
pieces of Aigean pottery. But this is 
reasoning ina circle. His main argument 
is that the AZgean pottery must be contem- 
porary with the kings who lived in the 
palace, because this pottery was found in the 
rubbish-heaps belonging to the palace ; 
and here he argues that the rubbish-heaps 
must belong to the palace, because they con- 
tained the Aigean pottery. As for the 
objects with royal cartouches, their presence 
here will not establish a connexion between 
the palace and the rubbish-heaps; for 
similar objects have been found all over the 
site. He says that he found about a hun. 
dred of them in the rubbish-heaps ; but in 
§ 100 on p. 43 he says that he found 351 
altogether. Quantities have been found by 
other hands in recent years; and none of 
them can have come from the rubbish-heaps, 
if he is right in supposing that these heaps 
were still intact. 

Some other evidence will throw a little 
iight upon the question of how and when 
these rubbish-heaps were formed. 

Besides the fragments of Aigean pottery, 
Mr. Petrie found a number of fragments of 
Egyptian pottery with Egyptian inscriptions. 
On plate XXI. there are 59 inscriptions in 
hieroglyphic, which are described as ‘jar- 
sealings’; and on plates XXII. to XXV. there 
are 101 inscriptions in hieratic, which are 
described as ‘ jar-inscriptions.’ There is also 
a list of ‘jar-inscriptions’ in § 75 on p. 382; 
and this shows that 130 were found. The 
sealings and the inscriptions both contain 
the names of Amenhotep III, Amenhotep 
IV, Akhenaten, etc. 

Now, if the A2gean fragments were con- 
temporary with the Egyptian fragments, 
the probabilities are that some of them 
would have Egyptian inscriptions. But 
Mr. Petrie does not allege that there is a 
single letter of Egyptian, either hieroglyphic 
or hieratic, on any one of his 1341 fragments 
of Aigean pottery. 

Again, if these Adgean and Egyptian frag- 
ments were contemporary, the probabilities 
are that they would have been mixed up 
together. But this was not the case. In 
§ 30 Mr. Petrie says that 1329 of the 
Aegean fragments came from the rubbish- 
heaps, nine from the palace, and three from 
house 11; and in $13 on p. 7 he speaks of 
finding Aigean fragments at the palace in 
the passage in the wall. In§96 on p. 42 
he says that the jar-inscriptions were col- 
lected from many different parts of the 


322 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


town ; and in § 97 on p. 42 and § 12 on p. 7 
he says that some were found in the great 
hall of the palace, and that many were 
found in one of the small halls. In § 47 on 
p- 23 he says that a few of the jar-sealings 
were found in house 17. That is all he 
says about the finding of the jar-inscrip- 
tions and jar-sealings ; but in what he says 
about rubbish-heaps, he makes it clear that 
none were found there. 

Thus the fragments of Aigean pottery 
cannot have been associated with these 
fragments of Egyptian pottery. But they 
were associated with the fragments of 
Phenician glass. In § 29 on p. 16 Mr. 
Petrie says that 750 of the fragments of 
this glass came from the rubbish-heaps, 
thirty-eight from the palace, and none from 
elsewhere; the corresponding figures for 
/&gean pottery being 1329 from the rub- 
bish-heaps, nine from the palace, and three 
from elsewhere. In § 58 on p. 27 he says 
that ‘this style of glass descended into 
Greek times, and was largely used in Magna 
Grecia ; but the later styles are all coarser, 
and have not the brilliancy and flat face 
that mark these earlier products.’ I have 
examined the specimens which he has de- 
posited at the British Museum, and some 
others elsewhere; but I cannot see that 
they are superior to picked specimens from 
Greek tombs of about 600 8.c. or afterwards. 
In § 29 on p. 16 he says that it is ‘ almost 
certain’ that the so-called Pheenician vases 
from Tell el Amarna were made on the 
spot, as factories for glass-workings were 
found there ; and in § 58 on p. 27 he speaks 
of them as ‘firmly dated’ to 1400 B.c. But 
he does not allege that a single fragment of 
this glass was found in or near the factories 
for glass-working. And here the TAad«’ 
’AGjvale argument can only lead to reason- 
ing inacircle. If he contends that foreign 
glass would not be purchased at a place 
with factories for glass-working, he must 
assume that the glass belongs to the period 
when the factories were at work; and this 
is the very point that is at issue. Moreover, 
there is evidence of importation ; for in § 30 
on p. 16 he admits that eighty-one frag- 
ments of Pheenician pottery were found in 
the rubbish-heaps with the Pheenician glass. 

Thus the facts appear to be that the 
/Xgean pottery was mixed up with Pheeni- 
cian pottery and Pheenician glass, but was 
not mixed up with the Egyptian pottery 
bearing the inscriptions of Amenhotep III 
and his successors. No doubt, Aigean pot- 
tery was found in the rubbish-heaps in 
company with about a hundred scarabs, 


rings, etc., bearing the cartouches of those 
kings ; but such objects have been found 
all over the site, and could easily have got 
into the rubbish-heaps at any date, these 
heaps being in many places ‘a mere sprink- 
ling’ and nowhere more than four feet in 


' depth, as Mr. Petrie himself admits in § 28. 


There is then the question why there were 


not any scarabs, rings, etc., bearing the - 


cartouches of later kings ; and the answer 
seems to be that no later kings resided at 


Tell el Amarna. In § 31 Mr. Petrie asserts. 


that the locality has never been reoccupied 
since Horemheb destroyed the buildings of 
Akhenaten ; and most likely this is true as 
regards the royal family. But there is 
nothing to show that it is true as regards 
the ordinary population. In fact, these 
/fgean and Pheenician remains may be 
adduced as evidence that the place was oc- 
cupied in later times; and this evidence 
cannot be dismissed with the remark that 
the locality has never been reoccupied, for 
that assumes the point at issue. 

Throughout the book Mr. Petrie writes 
as though the whole question of the Augean 
pottery and the Avgean civilization could be 
settled by evidence from Egyptian sources 
only. But, even within these narrow limits, 
he fails to reconcile the inferences he draws 
from Tell el Amarna with those he drew 
from Gurob and Kahun. 

Mr. Petrie found some false-necked vases 
of Aigean ware in two deposits at Gurob ; 
and he fixed. the dates of these deposits at 
1400 sB.c. and 1350 B.c. respectively, because 
one of them contained a kohl-tube with the 
cartouche of Amenhotep III, and the other 
contained a pendant with the cartouche of 
Tut-ankh-amen.! Now, in § 86 on p. 39 he 
makes Amenhotep III the father of Akhen- 
aten ; and in § 97 on p. 42 he makes Tut- 
ankh-amen a son-in-law of Akhenaten, and 
says that he succeeded Ra-smenkh-ka. Thus 
the dates assigned to this Augean ware from 
Gurob just cover the period assigned to the 
ffgean ware from Tell el Amarna. That 
being so, this Agean ware from Gurob 
ought to belong to the same class as the 
figean ware from Tell el Amarna. But 
that is not the case. In § 30 on p. 17 Mr. 
Petrie says :— 


We see that half the Augean ware is of piriform 
vases, which are most commonly found in Rhodes, 
and nearly the other half is of globular vases, which 
are peculiarly Cypriote ; the balance, only eight per 





1 Petrie, Zi/ahun, Kahun and Gurob, § 37 on pp. 
16,17. Cf. Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xi. p. 
274. 


7 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 323 


cent. of the whole, is not distinctive of any other 
locality, and there is no type specially Mykenean... 
...The absence of certain types from the large 
quantity of many hundreds of vases which have 
furnished this mass of fragments, is worth notice. 
There are none of the small false-necked vases of flat, 
low, form, which are commonest at Gurob....... In 
short, the impression is that this pottery belongs to 
an entirely different trade route to that of Gurob ; 
that this came down with the Syrian coasting vessels 
from Cyprus and Rhodes, while the Gurob Aigean 
ware belongs rather to Greece, and came along the 
African coast to the Fayum. 


Appearances are rather against a theory 
that people on the west bank of the Nile 
imported Aigean ware from the west of the 
figean vid Libya, while their contempor- 
aries on the east bank imported it from the 
east of the Aigean vid Syria. And, un- 
luckily, this pretty theory leaves Kahun on 
the wrong side of the river. The Aigean 
ware from Tell el Amarna belongs to the 
same class as the Algean ware from Kahun ; 
and Kahun is close to Gurob. 

In the tomb of Maket at Kahun there 
was a vase of Aigean ware with a pattern 
of ivy leaves. Mr. Petrie fixed the date of 
this tomb at about 1100 B.c.: and then pro- 
ceeded to assign this date to the earliest 
Aigean vases with such decoration, saying 
that the false-mecked Aigean vases with 
geometric ornament were considerably older, 
their date being fixed by his discoveries at 
Gurob.! But now at Tell el Amarna he has 
found a fragment of an A%gean vase with a 
pattern of ivy leaves—fg. 106 on plate 
XXIX.—and fragments of others with simi- 
lar decoration. And in §§ 30, 31 on pp. 16, 
17 he says that these fragments are from the 
rubbish-heaps, and that the rubbish-heaps 
did not contain a single object which could 
be dated later than about 1380 B.c. He 
discreetly avoids any allusion to Kahun. 

In conclusion Mr. Petrie assures us that 
‘we may henceforward remember that there 
are few facts in all archaeology determined 
with a more overwhelming amount of evi- 


1 Petrie, Jllahun, Kahun and Gurob, § 45 on p. 
24, If then we take 1100 B.c. as a middle date for 
the Pheenician pottery and the A°gean vase, it will be 
reasonable. This consorts well with the dating for 
other Aigean pottery. The earliest geometrical false- 
necked vases are about 1400 B.c. ; that early style 
appears to die out about 1200 B.c. ; and therefore 
the earliest figure pattern, such as this ivy, may well 
belong to acentury later. Cf. Jowrnal of Hellenic 
Studies, vol. xi. p. 273, This tomb belongs to about 
1100 B.c., or within fifty years of that either way. 
p. 274, We have then carried back a chain of 
examples in sequence, showing that the earliest 
geometrical pottery of Mykene begins about 1400 
B.c. and is succeeded by the beginning of natural 
designs about 1100 B.c. p. 275, We have dealt with 
facts which are now hardly controvertible as to the 
well fixed age of these vases. 


dence than the dating of this earlier style 
of Aigean pottery to the beginning of the 
fourteenth century B.c.’ We may also 
remember that what is described here as 
‘this earlier style of Aigean pottery’ was 
described just as confidently in his former 
works as the later style that followed the 
period of geometric ornament. And we 
may also remember that the pottery which 
is dated here to the beginning of the four- 
teenth century B.c., was dated there with 
no less certainty to the beginning of the 
eleventh century. 
Cecit Torr. 


Guat und Koner, Leben der Griechen und 
Romer, vi vollstindig neu bearbeitete 
Auflage, von Ricnarp ENGELMANN. Pp. 
xii. + 896, with 1061 illustrations. 8vo. 
18 Mk. Weidmannsche Buchandlung : 
Berlin. 1894. 


Tue original Guhl and Koner is too well 
known to need either description or 
criticism. 

It first appeared in 1861, Guhl dying 
very shortly after, and ran through five 
editions, the last appearing in 1882. The 
familiar English translation is from the 
third edition of 1873 (1). Koner died in 
1887, when his work was already in need of 
reediting. It is difficult to grasp the full 
difficulty of Dr. Engelmann’s task. In 
1882 the excavations at Hissarlik, Mycenae, 
Olympia could scarcely be said to have led 
to results definite enough to be incorporated 
in any part of the book save that on 
architecture. Now the progress of excava- 
tion and the opening up of such sites as 
Pergamon, Eleusis, and Epidaurus has 
made everything antiquated which does not 
give them full consideration. 

One may say at once that Dr. Engelmann 
has been singularly successful in retaining 
a large portion of the original text, and yet 
in incorporating concise accounts of recent 
work, 

The result is that the new work, instead 
of being grown out of knowledge, is (apart 
from being printed on slightly larger paper) 
only some fifty pages bulkier than the fifth 
edition. 

The increase in size is entirely due to the 
additional illustrations, of which almost 500 
have been inserted. They much improve 
the book, being for the most part excellent 
phototypes on a larger and more generous 
scale than the old cramped woodcuts. 

Students will be grateful to Dr. Engel- 


324 


mann for the reproduction of a large number 
of photographs and drawings from the 
collections of the German Archaeological 


Institutes at Athens and Rome. The 
illustrations of the buildings on _ the 
Acropolis are especially welcome. ‘They 


give cuts taken from photographs of the 
staircase in the north wall, the columns 
built into it, the Cyclopean wall, the 
foundations of the old palace and temple 
and the foundations of the Parthenon and 
Propylaea, as they were during the excava- 
tions. The better known monuments are 
also well illustrated and are accompanied 
by the most recent plans. 

Recent archaeological publications have 
also been laid under contribution, e.g. good 
reproductions are given of the pictures of 
ships in the Jahrbuch des Inst. vol. iv. (with 
a description revised by Dr. Assmann), of 
the wall-paintings from the ‘ Casa Tiberina,’ 
the gold cups from Vaphio, and the silver 
‘siege’ relief from Mycenae. 

The text, considering the amount of new 
illustrations introduced, has been very little 
altered. It is divided into chapters instead 
of the old sections, which is a distinct 
improvement. The greatest innovation is 
the introduction of a series of new chapters 
on important sites; Troy, Tiryns, Mycenae, 
the Acropolis of Athens, Olympia, Dodona, 
Delos, Delphi, Epidaurus, Samothrace, 
Pergamon and Pompeii. This alteration 
has introduced a cross division into the 
plan of the work, for many of the buildings 
described have to be mentioned a second 
time in the chapters giving the history of 
architecture and fortification. 

The work as a whole is a great improve- 
ment on the old edition, and will no doubt 
sustain its deserved popularity. The most 
obvious criticism is that too many of the 
old woodcuts remain. They look poor and 
inadequate by the side of the new photo- 
types, and are in many cases painfully 
inadequate. Many of them, e.g. well-known 
statues and reliefs, could be replaced at once 
by phototypes. 

Many of the descriptions, especially those 
of the new illustrations, strike one as 
inadequate, but this is due to the desire to 
cut the text down as much as possible, and 
does not affect the value of the book as a 
popular résumé. 

As is usual in German popular works, the 
only references are to the sources of the 
illustrations, and even these are given in 
the most abbreviated form. Among them 
we have noticed a curious misprint. 
‘Cameroon, The Baths of the Rom.’ due no 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


doubt to the influence of German colonial 
enthusiasm on the printer’s spelling. 

The new Guhl and Koner, though far 
from perfect, fills a place of its own. It 
has not the wealth of illustration of either 
Baumeister’s Denkmdler or Schreiber’s 


- Bilderatlas, but it gives a connected account, 


covering a very large field of classical 
antiquities and can be read as a whole, which 
is no small advantage. 

W. C. F. ANDERSON. 


MAPS OF ROMAN BRITAIN, ETC. 

Atlas Antiquus by H. Kieperr. (Berlin: 
Reimer) 1893. New edition. 

Atlas Antiquus, entworfen und _ bearbeitet 
von D. W. Srecuin. (Perthes: Gotha) 
1893. 

Ist Irland jemals von einem romischen Heere 
betreten worden ? von W. PriTzNeR. (Neu- 
strelitz) 1893. 


Any opinion of ancient geography which 
Mr. Kiepert pronounces is worth the careful 
consideration of scholars, and this may be 
our excuse for selecting for notice a little 
piece of his Atlas which has special interest 
for Englishmen. Roman Britain finds a 
place in two of Mr. Kiepert’s maps and the 
workmanship is excellent. There are a few 
points on which the critic may pounce. A 
few places are dubious: the position of 
Praetorium, for instance, is unknown and, 
if the Portus Gabrantovicum was on the 
south side of Flamborough head, it was a 
singularly bad harbour. The only port on 
the Yorkshire coast ‘which the Romans are 
likely to have occupied is the shelter of 
Filey, on the shore of which Roman remains 
were found about 1857. A few roads, too, 
are omitted or included with doubtful reason: 
there is, for instance, no authority for a 
road direct from Sarum to Bath, and there 
is some authority for various roads in Wales. 
More important and more difficult is the 
question of demarcation of provinces. Mr. 
Kiepert puts Britannia Superior, we observe, 
in the west, and Inferior in the east. We 
should prefer south and north, making 
Lower Britain a geographical anticipation 
of Northumbria. The frontier must remain 
uncertain: it may, as one scholar has con- 
jectured, have run from the Humber to the 
Solway, or it may have ended on the Lan- 
cashire coast, but it is fairly certain, if only 
from the evidence of Dio and certain 
African inscriptions, that York and Hadrian’s 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 325 


Wall formed its substance. We are equally 
doubtful about Mr. Kiepert’s division of 
fourth century Britain. Like Horsley and 
others before him, he takes the sketch in 
the manuscripts of the Votitia to be a map 
and thus, inter alia, gets Valentia into 
Wales. We do not believe that the sketch 
is a map and, despite theories about Offa’s 
Dyke, we do not see how Valentia can have 
been elsewhere than in the north. But 
these are vexed questions: the general 
accuracy of Mr. Kiepert’s map is hardly 
affected by our criticisms, which are rather 
a testimony to its merits. 

Mr. Sieglin’s map is larger, and, as a 
piece of cartography, is most admirable. As 
a map of Roman Britain, it seems to us 
open to serious criticism. Names are re- 
tained from Richard of Cirencester: we 
have, for example, once more the slowly 
dying legend of a Roman road to St. 
David’s. That road is most improbable. 
he patriotic zeal of Gerard of Wales, and 
the undergraduate wit of Bertram of 
Copenhagen have foisted it into some of our 
maps: otherwise there is no reason to 
believe that Romans ever dwelt in the 
strange land that lies beyond Carmarthen. 
Mr. Sieglin has other uncertain theories. 
Pinnata Castra, Ravonia, Delgovicia, Rigo- 
dunum, Petuaria and more such place-names 
are located with undesirable precision : an 
odd theory is put forward about Corinium, 
and some roads are open to question. I 
cannot think that Mr. Sieglin’s Britain is 
so good as some of his other maps: some 
people might call it considerably worse. 

Dr. Ptitzner’s pamphlet is the outcome of 
a controversy with the late W. T. Watkin, 
who denied that the Roman troops ever 
entered Ireland. Mr. Watkin was not a 
scholar, but I must confess that his opinion 
seems to me in this case to be the true one. 
Dr. Pfitzner relies mainly on a passage in 
the Agricola which he misrenders, he builds 
much on what he thinks probable, and he 
has no archaeological evidence to produce 
which may justify his opinion. 

F. HAVERFIELD. 


ILLUSTRATIONS OF EURIPIDES’ 
PHOENISSAE. 


Tue British Museum has lately acquired a 
vase of exceptional interest, belonging to 
the class which, inasmuch as a considerable 
number have been found at Megara or in 
the neighbourhood, are known as ‘ Megarian 


bowls.’ These bowls represent the last 
stage in the manufacture of vases in Greece 
proper, and belong to the Hellenistic period, 
about the end of the third century B.c. A 
red clay is employed in their production, 
which by means of firing at an excessive 
heat or the application of black varnish 
often assumes a black quasi-metallic appear- 
ance. They are of a hemispherical, some- 
times cylindrical shape, and bear designs 
stamped or moulded in relief round the 
outside, with conventional decorative 
patterns. Where the designs are stamped, 
they are generally insignificant and with 
much repetition of the subject. It is not 
uncommon to find the same mould used for 
more than one vase. 

It has been suggested that these vases 
were moulded from originals of silver for 
those who could not afford the more expen- 
sive material, much in the same way as 
plaster casts now-a-days do duty for original 
sculptures. The British Museum possesses 
two silver phialae from Roquemaure in 
France and two terracotta phialae (numbered 
G 88 and G 89), all with identical scenes, 
and these bear out the probability of the 
suggestion mentioned above. 

The majority of these bowls bear subjects 
drawn from the epic cycle, reminding us of 
the Tabulae Iliacae and similar products of 
the age which devoted such attention to the 
illustration and exposition of Homer and 
the tragedians. It has been supposed that 
the Homerii scyphi of which the Emperor 
Nero was so fond (Suet. Wer. 47) were 
silver vases with subjects of this kind, and 
hence the name of ‘Homeric bowls’ has 
often been applied to them. 

Professor Robert, in his valuable mono- 
graph, LHomerische Becher (50tes Winckel- 
mannsfestprogr. 1890), has collected all the 
known examples, including a small fragment 
in the British Museum (G 51), which Mr. 
Murray (Class. Rev. ii. p. 327) has shown to 
be an illustration of the Phoenissae of 
Euripides. Hitherto only one other vase 
of this kind illustrating Euripides was 
known, and that existed in three copies at 
Athens, Berlin and in the van Branteghem 
collection ; it gives several scenes from the 
Iphigeneia in Aulis, and is fully discussed by 
Prof. Robert. The Museum may therefore 
be considered doubly fortunate in this new 
acquisition, which curiously enough, like the 
fragment we already possessed, illustrates 
the Euripidean version of the Theban story 
as treated in the Phoenissae. The reliefs 
fall into four groups, and all the figures 
have their names inscribed above them, so 


326 


that there is no doubt about the interpre- 
tation, as will be seen from the following 
description. 

The vase, which is said to have come from 
Thebes, is a hemispherical bowl of plain 
unglazed red ware. It has been consider- 
ably injured and broken, but fortunately no 
part is missing; the inscriptions however 
are somewhat worn away, and not always 
easy to make out. Above and below, the 
design is bordered by wreaths running all 
round, and on the foot is a rosette. The 
four scenes are as follows : 


(1) Cf. lines 834959. Kreon (KPEQN), 
wrapped in a himation, is fallen at the feet 
of Teiresias (THPEC | AC), and places his 
right hand on the seer’s knee in supplication 


against the announcement that Menoikeus 
must die to save the state (lines 923928) : 


> / 
. ® TPOs GE YovaTwv Kai yepacpiov TpLXOs, 
/ lal 
. Tl mpooritves we; SvepvAak7’ airtel KaKkd. 
id 4 
. otya Toda b€ Tovade pn A€Ens Aodyovs. 
ra > 
. dducety kedevers pe; 00 GLuTHTaeV av. 
/ / , a lal 
. Tt On pe Spaces ; Taldd pov KaraKrevels ; 
AA XH Po yak be wr) \ 8 Se, 
. GAXous peAjoe Tait, Emot 8 eipyoerar. 


Teiresias is guided by his daughter Manto 
(MANTQ), who in the play isa persona 
muta (cf. line 834, jyod mdpoe, Ovyarep: os 
TUPrAG Todt | dhOarpos ef ov, K-17...) She 
places her hands on his right arm, while he 
holds up in both hands what seems to be a 
large branch. In line 852 ff. of the play 
Teiresias says that he is bringing back a 
crown of gold (rdvde xpvootv orépavov) 
granted him for giving victory to the 
Cecropidae in their war with Eumolpos ; it 
is however doubtful whether this wreath 
can be here intended. 


(2) The next group is that of Eteokles 
(ETEOKAHC) and Polyneikes (NOAY- 
NEIKHC) in combat, thrusting at each 
other with their spears, as the messenger 
describes in his speech (1217—1263). On 
their right is the personified city of Thebes 
(OHBH) seated on a high rock, and wearing 
a mural crown ; her presence perhaps signi- 
fying that the combat took place before the 
assembled population of the city. 


(3) In the next group we have the 
messenger (ATTEAOC), in cap and short 
girt-up chiton, carrying a spear, and leading 
up Jocasta (IOKACTH) and Antigone 


(ANTIFONH) to witness the combat 
between the brothers (cf. 1259—1282) : 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


AT. OTELX, EpyTUTOV TEKVA 
dewys dpidAgs, ws 6 Kivduvos péyas... 
IOK. © réxvov éeA@’ ’Avtvyovy dépwv rapos... 
ANT. iyyod od mpos peraixype, ov peAdAnTEov. 
IOK. émevy’, érerye, Ovyarep, ws, nv pev d6dow 
Tatdas mpo Adyxys, ovmos ev hae Bios, 
KTM 


Jocasta hurries along and seems to turn 
back to Antigone, urging her to greater 
haste. Behind them is seen the doorway of 
the palace which they have just left. 


(4) The last scene represents Kreon 
(KPEQN) standing half-turned away from 


Antigone (ANTI -ONH), who _ bends 
forward in supplication before him, laying 
her hand on his arm; his arms are folded, 
and he has all the appearance of a person 
refusing to grant a favour. The reference 
is to lines 1643—1681, where Kreon makes 
known to Antigone his intention not to 
allow burial to Polyneikes : 


ANT. vai zpds oe thode pytpos “loxacrys, 
Kpéor. 

KP. pdrata poxbeis: od yap av TvxoIs TaOE, 
K.T.A. 


The artistic merit of the vase is of course 
small, and the treatment of the drapery and 
other details is of the rudest description. 
The modelling of the human figures too is 
often careless and confused, e.g. the Anti- 
gone in the fourth group, were it not for the 
inscription, might well be taken for a 
bearded man. 

The existence even of these few vases 
with Euripidean subjects, taken in connection 
with the fondness of the vase-painters of 
Southern Italy for subjects derived from 
Kuripides, tends to show the great popularity 
that he enjoyed in the third century B.c. all 
over Greece, which must have manifested 
itself in a general revival of his plays, in 
Athens and neighbourhood as well as at 
Tarentum, Paestum, and other important 
centres in Magna Graecia. 

An illustration of this bowl will be given 
in the forthcoming volume iv. of the 
Catalogue of Vases in the British Museum, 
which will include all the vases which can 
be attributed to the Macedonian and 
Hellenistic periods. I may mention in 
passing that another of these Megarian 
bowls in the British Museum appears to 
illustrate the rare subject of Herakles 
carrying off Auge, this group being repeated 
round the vase alternately with figures of 
Pan, who may be introduced to indicate the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


scene of the rape, Arcadia. This subject 
cannot However be traced to any lost play 
or epic poem ; the story is told by Pausanias 
(viii. 4, 6 and 48, 5) and Apollodorus (ii. 7, 
4 and iii. 9, 1). A similar vase is published 
by Furtwaengler, Coll. Sabouroff, i. Pl. 73. 
H. B. Watters. 


MONTHLY RECORD. 


Rome. —In the Piazza Capo di Ferro has been found 
a nude male torso above life size, of Pentelic marble, 
the arms wanting. It is in good style, and probably 
represents Hermes. On the Via della Polveriera a 
base of a candelabrum has come to light, of triangular 
form, with figures of Diana, Mars, and Minerva.' 

Argos.—The excavations of the American School 
have laid bare a large marble building believed to be 
the gymnasium, and also many bee-hive tombs of 
the Mycenaean age, in one of which were fifty-eight 
vases. Several new fragments of metopes from the 








1 Bull. Comm. Arch. Jan.-Mar. 1894. 


327 


Heraion have also been discovered. In the lowest 
layer of the Heraion a number of imported Egyptian 
objects were found, mostly porcelain, They include 
a small lion with hieroglyphic inscription, figures of 
Bes, cats, and scarabs with cartouches of kings 
(chiefly Thothmes III. and Amenophis). They were 
presumably brought over by the Phoenicians.” 

Epidauros.—The stadium is now being excavated, 
and several rows of marble seats have been brought 
to light, in perfect preservation, resembling those 
found in the theatre. A considerable portion of the 
original structure has been preserved. Hopes are 
entertained of discovering the &peors and tépua, and 
the stelae that marked the starting-point, also the 
metae, and the direction followed by the racers.’ 

Delphi.—In the course of the most recent excava- 
tions a column has come to light sculptured with 
reliefs after the manner of those belonging to the 
archaic and later temples of Ephesus. The reliefs 
are in excellent preservation, and consist of three 
figures of women in rapid motion, with flying 
drapery.4 

H. B. WALTERS. 





2 Berl. Phil. Woch. 19 and 26 May. 
% Athenaewm, 19 May. 
4 Standard, 15 June. 


SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


The American Journal of Philology, Whole 


No. 57. April 1894. 


The Dramatic Satura and the Old Comedy at Rome, 
by G. L. Hendrickson. An attempt to show that 
a very close parallelism exists between Ar. Poet. and 
Livy (vii. 2) and as a result that the satwrae of 
L. the satura of Euanthius de comoedia and the 
satura of Naevius are but the Roman designation of 
an analogue to the old Attic comedy. Some further 
hitherto-unnoticed analogies between the accounts 
of Livy and Horace (Epp. ii. 1, 145) are pointed 
out. A collation of the ancient Armenian version of 
Plato’s Laws, Books V.and VI., by ¥. C. Conybeare. 
Continued from No. 55 [Class. Rev. vi. 482]. The 
ie-sound in accented syllables in English, by E. W. 
Bowen. On the authorship of the Leptinian orations 
attributed to Aristeides, by J. E. Harry. The object 
is to prove that Morelli was right in attributing 
them to Aristeides. M.’s dictum was denied in 1841 
by Foss, whose conclusion Schmidt accepts in his 
‘‘Atticismus’ [W. Christ also agrees with Foss, 
Hist. Gk. Lit.|. There is a note on Cic. Tuse. i. 
$$ 18, 19 by E. W. Fay who keeps and interprets 
the MS. reading, and a list of corrigenda to Wickham’s 
Horace by A. F. West. Peterson’s ed. of the Dia- 
logues of Tacitus is most unfavourably criticized by 
C. E. Bennett (Class. Rev. viii. 106]. Prof. Gilder- 
sleeve contributes an interesting dissertation on Plato, 
comparing Horn’s Platonstudien with Pater’s Plato 
and Platonism. Both the philological and the 
poetical aspects have their value but Pl. is a Proteus 
who will not reveal himself. Briefly mentioned are 
Tucker's Eighth Book of Thuc. (Class. Rev. viii. 152]. 
Burton’s Moods and Tenses in New Test. Greek, 
Jebb’s Growth and Influence of Classical Greek 
Poetry (Class. Rev. viii. 257], and Hiibner’s Monu- 
menta Linguae Hibericac. 

R. C, 8S. 


Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins 
zu Berlin. May—August, 1893. 


Homer (higher criticism), 1891-2, by C. Rothe. 


P. Cauer, Hine Schwéche der Homerischen Denkart. 
Rh. Mus. 47. Different strata, as Cauer thinks, are 
no doubt recognizable, but their extent is difficult to 
define and a judgment is always more or less subjec- 
tive. R. Thomas, Zur historischen Entwicklung der 
Metapher in Griechischen. Diss. Erlangen 1891. A 
meritorious work showing the passage of many sub- 
stantives, adjectives, and verbs from the literal to the 
metaphorical sense. K. Dyrotf, Ueber einige Quellen 
des Iliasdiaskeuasten. Prog. Wiirzburg 1891. In 
three parts : (1) the new weapons, (2) the death of 
Patroklos, (3) the deceiving of Zeus. Ilg, Ueber die 
Homerische Kritik seit Fr. A. Wolf. 1. Die Wolf- 
Lachmannsche Richtung. Prog. Ravensburg 1891. 
A strong upholder of the unity of the Jliad. KR. C. 
Jebb, Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the 
Odyssey. Glasgow 1892. J. is probably mistaken in 
considering that the difference in style of ¥ and Q is 
sufficiently great to negative the view that they are 
by the same writer as the rest of the Iliad. As to 
the place of origin of the poem, we can only say that 
the first publication was Aeolic, but whether in Greece 
or in Asia Minor cannot be decided. G. Sortais, 
Tlios et Iliade. Paris 1892, It is here maintained 
that the Iliad is made up ‘des rhapsodies séparées 
formant un tout distinet, qui peut suffire & une reci- 
tation, mais en méme temps reli¢es entre elles par le 
fil de leur commune adn W. v. Christ, Geschich- 
te der griechischen Litteratur. 2nd ed. 1891. On 
the Homeric question the second edition exhibits only 
slight alterations, but the author is more cautious in 
his views upon the contradictions in the poem. E. 
Meyer, Homerische Parerga. 1. Der dlteste Homer- 
text. Hermes 1892. Criticizes the fragment recently 


328 


found in Fayoum. The conclusion is drawn that be- 
fore the Alexandrian critics the text showed many 
divergences, and that they chiefly reduced it to its 
present form. L. Erhardt, /dias B. Philol. 1892. 
As in A, Erh. recognizes a double motive in B, a 
divine and a human. The demonstration is clear and 
convincing. H. Diintzer, Der Apologos der Odyssee. 
Philol. 1891. Tries to weaken Rothe’s proof, in a 
paper eleven years ago, that Poseidon’s wrath is the 
middle point of the Nostos, by his favourite assump- 
tion of interpolation. A. Czyczkiewiez, Untersuch- 
ungen zur zweiten Hdifte der Odyssee. Progr. Brody 
1892. Considers that the second half also of the Od. 
has arisen from the joining of three epics, the old and 
younger Nostos and the ‘Telemachia, and vainly en- 
deavours to show their respective limits. 


Horace, by G. Wartenberg. 


I. Editions. @Q. Horatii Flacei carmina, by M. 
Hertz. Berlin1892. The chief feature is the atten- 
tion given to philology. @Q. Horati Flacci opera, ed. 
O. Keller and J. Haeussner. 2nd ed. Wien and 
Prag 1892. A great improvement on the 1st edition, 
especially in the critical apparatus. Horaz’ lyrische 
Gedichte, by G. H. Miller. Strassburg 1892. Rather 
led astray by his search for scorn and irony in Horace. 
Q. Horati Flacci opera, by H. Stampini. Modena 
1892. Belongs to the new Elzevir series. The text 
is conservative. 


II. Dissertations. M. Boissier, Acad. des inscr. 
1892. On two medallions found at Pompeii supposed 
by the writer to represent Virgil and Horace. P. 
Cauer, Wort- wnd Gedankenspicle in den Oden des 
Horaz. Kiel and Leipzig 1892. No step in advance 
but a new wandering from the right path. W. A. 
Detto, Horaz und seine Zeit, 2nd ed. Berlin 1892. 
Excellently fulfils its aim. H. Diintzer, Des Hora- 
tius Canidiagedichte. N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892. Con- 
tains nothing new or suggestive. W. Gemoll, Die 
Realien bei Horaz. Part I. animals and plants, cloth- 
ing and dwelling, in the poems of H. Part II. cos- 
mology, minerals, war, food and drink. Berlin 1892. 
These subjects here first meet with a satisfactory 
treatment. H. T. Karsten, De Horatii carminibus 
amatoriis praesertim interpretandis et ordinandis. 
Mnemos. 1892. Builds a structure on sand in the 
absence of any real knowledge. L. Poppelmann, 
Bemerkungen zu Dillenburgers Horaz-Ausgabe letzter 
Hand. Part III. Progr. Trier 1892. Chiefly treats 
of Od. iii. 1 and 2. G. Schimmelpfeng, Lrziehliche 
Horazlektiire. Berlin 1892. Analyses Epist. i. 1 and 
2. J. Vahlen, Varia. Hermes 25. On the word 
speculatum in Suetonius’ Life of H. Horace. The 
Quarterly Rev. 1892. Ina review of the literature of 
the last ten years H. is estimated, and especially the 
relation of the Satires to Lucilius and the question of 
the originality and truth of feeling in the Odes. 


III. Criticism and interpretation of single poems 
and passages. ‘The Odes. i. 2, 21. P. Barth in N. 
Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892, p. 335, conj. secwisse for acwisse. 
A. Platt, Catull. xi. Horace, Odes, ii. 6. Journ. of 
Phil. 1892. H. has not here imitated Cat. but both 
have imitated Alcaeus. ii. 10,9. J. M. Stowasser, 
Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1892, p. 208, supports the 
conj. saevius by quoting Isid. Synon. ii. 89. G. H. 
Miiller, Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1892, p. 385, dis- 
cusses li. 20. K. Niemeyer, Zur Erklarung des Ho- 
ratius, N. Jahr. f. Phil. 1891. On iii. 1-6. Opposes 
Kiessling, Seliger and Mommsen, who appear to have 
rightly comprehended only 1 and 4. N.’s work is 
worth consideration. J. Vahlen, in his academical 
paper named below, maintains the unity of iv. 6. J. 
Vahlen, Uber das Sacculargedicht des Horatius (Sitz- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


ung d. phil.-hist. Kl. d. kgl. Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss. 
v. 24 Nov. 1892). Consists of two prayers (9-32 and 
37-72), separated by the inserted invocation to Apollo 
and Diana. O. Crusius, Ad scriptores latinos exege- 
tica. Kh. Mus. 1892. On Epod. 5. Rightly per- 
severes as against Diels in his earlier reference to 
Proclus. The Satires. ii. 5, 41. A. Gudeman, A 
Classical Reminiscence in Shakespeare. Modern Lan- 
guage Notes, 1891. Thinks Shaksp. (Hen. V. Act 
ili. 5, 50) took Furius as an adj. agreeing with Alpis. 
H. Dittmar, Horati libri ii. satiram vi. interpreta- 
tus est. Part I. Progr. Magdeburg 1892. Shows 
sound judgment. LL. Miiller’s latest lacuna-theories 
successfully opposed. The Epistles. Crusius (see 
above) interprets ii. 1, 79 rectone talo percurrat put- 
pita theatri Attae fabula necne. J. J. H. Ad Horatii 
artem pocticam. Mnemos. 1892. In A. P. 252 reads 
dus est for iussit [Cl. Rev. v. 188]. At the end O. 
Schroeder discusses Sat. i. 9, 6-8, especially 
whether novis nos is to be understood as a wish or as 
an assertion. 


CicERo’s SPEECHES, by F. Luterbacher. 


I. Contributions to knowledge of the manuscripts. 
A. C. Clark, Collations from the Harleian MS. of Cic 
2682. Oxford 1892. Has collated Harl. 2682, which 
is of the 11th century, and recognized in it the Cod. 
Coloniensis supposed to have been lost. P. Thomas, 
Le codex Bruxellensis (Parcensis) du Pro Caecina de 
Cicéron. Rev. de V instr. publ. en Belg. 1892, 1893. 
This is MS. 14492 in the royal- library at Brussels, a 
parchment cod. written apparently by one hand and 
about the beginning of the 14th century. 


II. Editions. <Ausgewthlte Sticke aus Cicero in 
bioeraphischer Folge, by W. Jordan. 4thed. Stutt- 
gart 1892. This beautiful selection from the speeches, 
philosophical and rhetorical writings, and the letters 
of Cicero gives the scholar a living picture of the life 
and literary activity of the great orator. MU. Tullii 
Ciccronis orationes selectae xiv. 21st ed. by O. Heine. 
Part I. Pro S. Rosciv Amerino, pro lege Manilia. 
Halle 1893. The critical apparatus not thorough. 
M. Tullii Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes quat- 
twor, by R. Novak. 2nd ed. Prag 1893. This 
edition is increased by an account of the conspiracy. 
Ciceros Reden gegen L. Catilina und seine Genossen, 
by H. Noh]. 2nded. Leipzig 1893. Though with- 
out a commentary or critical apparatus, contains much 
useful introductory matter. Ciceros Reden gegen L. 
Sergius Catilina, by K. Hachtmann. 4th ed. Gotha 
1893. The text should have been again weighed in 
places where H. differs from the agreement of Laub- 
mann and Nohl. Ciceros Rede fiir L. Murena, by J. 
Strenge. Gotha 1892. The text well weighed and 
emended, and completed for pupils. The commen- 
tary clear and concise, and shows the course of the 
argument. Ciceros Rede fiir T. Annius Milo, by F. 
Richter and A. Eberhard. 4th ed. by H. Nohl. 
Leipzig 1892. Much improved both in matter and 
form. MM. Tullii Ciceronis pro T. Annto Milone, pro 
A, Ligario, pro rege Deiotaro orationes, ed. R. Novak. 
Prag. 1892. The text is based on Nohl’s (1888). 
Ciceros erste, zweite wnd siebente Rede gegen Marcus 
Antonius, by J. Strenge. Gotha 1893. This edition 
will suit all readers. The text is based en C. F. W. 
Miiller. 

III. Contributions to text-criticism and interpre- 
tation. <A. Spengel, Zu Cicero pro Sexto Roscio 
Amerino, Bi. f. d. bayer. G.S.W. 1891. Five places 
discussed. A. Kornitzer, (@) Texthritische Bemer- 
kungen zu Ciceros Reden. Progr. Nikolsburg 1891. 
(b) Zum Canon der in der Schule zw lesenden Neden 
Ciceros. Zeitschy. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1892. (a) Ex- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


amines ten places, viz. Verr. iv. §§ 2, 90, v. § 113, 
Cat. iv. § 11, Mur. §§ 43, 49, Planc. § 6, Mil. §§ 15. 
89, Deiot. § 34, and seeks to justify the readings 
adopted in his edition. (6) A strong recommendation 
of the pro Murena for school reading. J. Lange, N. 
Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892, p. 356. On Pomp. § 24. F. 
J. Drechsler, Kritische Miscellen. Zeitschr. f. d. dst. 
Gymn. 1892. Various conjectures. F, Becher, Zu 
Cicero pro Deiotaro, § 35. Kh. Mus. 47. E. Jullien, 
Le fondateur de Lyon, histoire de L. Munatius Plan- 
cus. Paris 1892. Gives an admirable account of 
all we know of Plancus. The events of 44 and 43 are 
illustrated by Cicero’s letters. P. Dettweiler, Unter- 
suchungen tiber den didaktischen Wert Ciceroniani- 
scher Schulschriften. 1. Die Rede pro Roscio Amertno. 
Halle 1889. Considers that on account of its length 
and difficulty it is more suited for a small and good 
class than for a large one. 2. Die philippischen 
Reden. Halle 1892. No one would read the Philip- 
pics for their form, but the importance to Roman 
history of this time of change from a republic to a 
monarchy is undervalued by D. 


Tacitus (except the Germania), 1892-93, by G. 
Andresen. 


I. Editions and translations. C. John, Tacitus 
Diatogus de oratoribus cap. xxviii. bis Schluss, trans- 
lated and explained. Progr. Schwiabisch Hall 1892. 
The translation is correct and elegant, the commen- 
tary learned and acute, but in many places the text 
is unsatisfactory. The previous part appeared in an 
Urach progr. 1886. P. Cornelit Taciti Agricola, with 
introduction, notes and critical appendix, by R. F. 
Davis. London 1892. Essentially based on Kritz’ 
and Draeger’s edition. Contains nothing new. [Cl. 
Rey. vi. 461.] Tacitus, The History, translated into 
English, with an introduction and notes, by A. W. 
Quill. Vol. i. London. [See Cl. Rev. vii. 167.] 
Cornelio Tacito Gli Annali, by V. Menghini. Part I. 
Books i. and ii. Torino 1892. Excellent both in 
text and commentary, and up to date except that the 
latest investigations on the campaigns of Germanicus 
in Germany are not referred to. P. Cornelit Taciti 
ab excessu Divi Augusti libri i.-vi., ed. G. Némethy. 
Budapest 1893. Gives the variations from Halm’s 
4th ed., 69in number. In these he often agrees with 
Nipperdey. 

II. Historical investigations. Th. von Stamford, 
Das Schlachtfeld im Teutoburgen Walde. Cassel 
1892. A powerful book, but the writer uses too much 
untrustworthy evidence to solve the question. E. 
Meyer, Untersuchungen iiber die Schlacht im Teuto- 
burgen Walde. Progr. Berlin 1893. Uses the Fasti 
of Antium to throw light on the month in which the 
battle was fought. O. Kemmer, Arminius. Leipzig 
1893. All that is valuable is taken from P. Hofer’s 
three works on Arminius. G. Kossinna (Indo-Germ. 
Forsch. ii. 174-184) traces the name Arminius toa 
German Erminz. A. Taramelli, Le campagne di Ger- 
manico nella Germania. Pavia 1891. Much to be 


329 


commended. Differing from most authorities, T. 
thinks that the accounts of Tacitus and Dio of Varus’ 
defeat can be reconciled. <A. Breysig, Germanicus. 
2nd ed. Erfurt 1892. Considers G. as the type of 
pietas in all its manifestations. He follows Tacitus’ 
account of the campaigns in Germany. Phil. Fabia 
(Meeting of the Acad. des se. et b.-l. of 7 April, 
1893). Upon the year of Tacitus’ consulship places 
it in 97, which was the date usually assigned before 
Asbach put it in 98, nnder Trajan. 


III. Language. Lexicon Tacitewm, ed. A. Gerber 
and A. Greef. Fasc, x., ed. A. Greef. Lipsiae 1892. 
Contains the words oriens—potestas. 'The same high 
standard of excellence is maintained. R. Macke, 
Die riimischen Eigennamen bet Tacitus iv. Prog. 
Hadersleben 1893. The last part: the three previous 
parts appeared in 1886, 1888 and 1889. The prae- 
nomina are here dealt with. It is very common with 
T. to repeat a proper name where a pronoun would 
have been sufficient. R. B. Steele, Chiasmus in 
Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus and Justinus. Northfield, 
Minn. 1891. Chiasmus is less frequent in Caes. and 
Just. than in Sall. and Tac., and in the latter is more 
frequent than one would infer from Draeger (Synt. 
und St. des Tac. § 235). The examples in Dial. and 
Germ. (in which anaphora prevails) are proportionally 
fewer. 


IV. Criticism and interpretation. H. J. Heller, 
Beitraége zur Kritik und Erklérung der Taciteischen 
Werke. Philol. 51. A great number of conjectures, 
mostly worthless. Two only in Ann, worth consider- 
ation, viz. i. 28 quae properent, and ii. 36 the inser- 
tion of quum before legionwm legati. F. Zochbauer, 
Studien zu den Annalen des Tacitus. Wien 1893. 
Written in the spirit of Pfitzner, with much acute- 
ness, much originality, but little feeling for style. The 
last fifth part is a commentary, linguistic and techni- 
cal, on vi. 16 and 17. W. Peterson, Hmendations on 
Tacitus, Dialogus de Oratoribus. [Cl]. Rev. vii. 203.] 
None of these can be approved of, F. Walter, in the 
Abhand. aus d. Gebiete der klass. Altertumswiss. 
For the 60th birthday of W. v. Christ. Miinchen 
1891. Makes some conjectures to Tacitus, viz. Agr. 
33, Ann. xii. 63, H. iv. 73 andi. 67. O. Keller, N. 
Jahrb. f. Phil. 145. On Baehrens’ conj. to Agr. 5. 
In c. 17 Tac. uses altertus for the gen. of alius, which 
isnot used Ine. 9 elegit is perf. P. R. Miiller, N. 
Jahrb. f. Phil. 145. Several conjectures on Agr. In 
Ann. i. 20 reads nimius operis ac laboris. 8. Spitzer, 
Weiner Studien xiv. In Ann. xi. 27 reads atque 
libum divisisse. S. A. Naber (Mnemos. 20), doubts 
the trustworthiness of Tac.’s account of the pretended 
marriage between Messalina and Silius. Nixon 
(Acad. 1038) considers the question what river ( 7'r7- 
santona? Antona?) is meant in Ann. xii. 31. On the 
same chap. W. Ridgway (Archaeol. Journ. 18938) 
discusses the account of the battle against the Iceni. 
F. Haverfield (Archaeol. Journ. 1893) discusses the 
real name of the people called Decangi in Ann. xii. 32; 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 


ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Aristophanes. The Acharnians, translated into 
English by W. H. Covington, with introduction 
and memoir. viii, 45 pp. Cr. 8vo, Sewed. 
Bell & Son. 1s, 

NO. LXXI. VOL. VIII. 


Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea. By I. Bywater. Cr. 
8vo. Sewed. Clarendon Press. 3s. 6d. 

Cicero pro Murena. Edited with introduction and 

notes, by J. H. Freese. Macmillan & Co. 2s. 6d. 
AA 


330 


A translation with test 


Cicero pro Roscio Amerino. 
2s. 6d. Notabilia. 


papers, by F. G. Plaistowe. 
1s. Clive. 


Ellis (R.) Fables of Phaedrus. An Inaugural lec- 


ture. 8vo. Sewed. Clarendon Press. 1s. net. 

Euripides. Weeuba. With introduction and notes 
by W. S. Hadley. 12mo. 140 pp. - Cambridge 
Press. 2s. 6d. 


Hardy (E. G.) Christianity and the Roman Govern- 
ment. A study in imperial administration. Cr. 
8vo. xv, 208 pp. Longman & Co. 5s. 

Livy. Book XXI. Translated into English, with 
notes by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb. Cr. 
8vo. Sewed. Macmillan & Co, 2s. 

Easy Selections from. The Kings of Rome, 

, edited with introduction, notes, etc., by A. M. M. 
Stedman. 18mo. Methuen. Ils. 6d. 

Piato. Gorgias. A translation with test papers, 
by F. G. Plaistowe. 4s. 6d. Notabilia. 1s. 
Clive. 

Plautus. Asinaria. From the text of Goetz and 
Schoell, with an introduction and notes by J. H. 
Gray. 12mo. 156 pp. Cambridge Press. 3s. 6d. 

Scrivener (F. H. A.) A plain introduction to the 
criticism of the New Testament for the use of 
Biblical students. 4th edition. Edited by the 
Rev. Edward Miller. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s. Bell 
& Sons. 

Studia Sinaitica. No. 4. 





A tract of Plutarch on 


~ Tutorial Latin Reader. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the advantage to be derived from one’s enemies. The 
Syriac Version edited from a MS. on Mount Sinai, 
with a translation and critical notes by E. Nestle. 
Royal 8vo. Sewed. Cambridge Press. 2s. net. 

Tacitus. Agricola and Germania. With introduction 
and notes by H. M. Stephenson. 190 pp. Cam- 
bridge Press. 3s. 

Key to parts 1, 2, 5. 
Clive. 2s. 6d. net. 

Virgil. Aeneid. Books-I.—III. A literal trans- 
lation by A. Hamilton Bryce, with introduction ~ 
and memoir. Cr.8vo. Sewed. Bell & Son. 1s. 

— Bucolics, a literal translation by A. Hamilton 
Bryce, with introduction and memoir. Cr. 8vo. 
Sewed. Bell & Son. 1s. ; 

Georgics. A literal translation by A. Hamilton 

Bryce, with introduction and memoir. Cr. 8vo. 
Sewed. Bell & Son. 1s. ; 

Williams (J. H.) and Rowse (W. H. D.) Damon: 
a manual of Greek {Iambic composition. Post 
8vo. 108 pp. Rivington. 2s. 6d. 

Xenophon. Anabasis. Edited by C. E. Brownrigg. 
Book I. 12mo. 136 pp. Blackie. 1s. 6d. 

Hellenica. Book 1V. Edited by A, Waugh 
Young. Cr. 8vo. Clive. 3s. 6d. 

— Books III. and IV. A translation by A. H. 
Alleroft and A. Waugh Young. Cr. 8vo. Clive. 
2s. 6d. 








FOREIGN BOOKS. 


Albrecht (E.) Zur Vereinfachung der griechischen 
Schulgrammatik. Progr. 4to. 28 pp. Berlin, 
Gaertner. 1 Mk. 

Anthologia graeca epigrammatum Palatina cum 
Planudea ed. H. Stadtmiiller. Vol. I. Palatinae 
libr. I.—VI. (Planudeae libr. V.—VII.) 8vo. 
xli, 419 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 6 Mk. 

Auctoris incerti de ratione dicendi ad C. Herennium 


libri ITY. (M. Tulli Ciceronis ad Herennium 
libri VI.) ed. Fr. Marx. 8vo. vi, 554 pp. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 14 Mk. 


Labrius. Plusieurs fables de Babrios sur tablettes 
de cire. D. C. Hesseling, on waxen tablets with 
fables of Babrius (Tabulae ceratae Assendelftianae) 
dans ‘the Journal of Hellenic Studies’ par H. 
Weil. 4to. 11 pp. Paris. Impr. nationale. 

Baudrillart (A.) Les divinités de la victoire en 
Gréce et en Italie, d’aprés les textes et les monu- 
ments figurés. 8yvo, 96 pp. Engravings. 
Toulouse (Paris, Thorin). 

[Bibliotheque des écoles francaises d’Athénes et 
de Rome. Fasc. 68.] 

Beitrige zur historischen Syntax der griechischen 
Sprache. Herausgegeben von A. Schanz. Bd. 
IV. Heft 2. (Schwab (0.) Historische Syntax der 
griechischen Comparation in der klassischen Lit- 
teratur. II. Steigernde Comparation.) 8vo. 
vii, 180 pp. Wiirzburg, Stuber. 5 Mk. 

Blase (Dr. H.) Geschichte des Plusquamperfects im 
Lateinischen. 8vo. v,112 pp. Giessen, Ricker. 
3 Mk. 

Caesar (des C. Julius.) Gallischer Krieg, heraus- 
gegeben von Frz, Fiigner. Text. 8vo. 234 pp. 
Portr. 3 maps. Leipzig, Teubner. 2 Mk. 

Cacsaris (C. Julii.) Commentarii cum A. Hirtii 
aliorumque supplementis ex recensione B. Kiibleri. 


Vol. IJ. Commentarii de bello civili. Ed. major. 
8vo. 1, 153 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 90 Pf. 
Editio minor. 153 pp. 60 Pf. 


Caesar. Froelich (K.) Adverbialsaitze in Caesar’s 
Bellum Gallicum V.—VII. Part I. Progr. 4to. 
23 pp. Berlin, Gaertner. 1 Mk. 

Caetant Lovatellt (E.) Nuova miscellanea arche- 
ologica. 16mo. -134 pp. Engravings. Roma, 
Accademia dei Lincei. 

Catullus. Morgenstern (O.) Curae Catullianae. 
4to. xx pp. Gr. Lichterfelde. 1 Mk. 25. 

Cicero. Belling (H.) Quaestiones Tullianae. Progr. 
4to. Berlin, Gaertner. 1 Mk. 

Stangl (Th.) Bobiensia. Neue Beitriige zur 
Textkritik und Sprache der Bobienser Cicero- 
scholien. Progr. 8vo. 35 pp. Miinchen. 1 Mk. 

Dionis Cassii Cocceiani Historia romana, cur. Lud. 





Dindorf, rec. Jo. Melber. Vol. II. 8vo. iv, 482 
pp. Leipzig, Teubner, 3 Mk. 60. 

Dissertationes philologicae Halenses. Vol. XII. 
Pars 2. 8vo. iii, 177—387. Halle, Niemeyer. 
5 Mk. 20. 

Epictetus. Bonhoffer (A.) Die Ethik des Stoikers 
Epictet. Anhang: Excurse iiber einige wichtige 


Punkte der stoischen Ethik. 8vo. viii, 278 pp. 
Stuttgard, Enke. 10 Mk. 
Euripides. Ausgewihlte Tragoedien. Vol. II. 
Iphigenie auf Tauris. Erklirt von F. G. Schoene 
und H. Kochly. 4th edition by Ew. Bruhn. 8vo. 
vi, 191 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 2 Mk. 40. 
Facciolati (J.) Aeg. Forcellini et J. Furlanetti, 
Lexicon totius latinitatis, nunc demum juxta 
opera R. Klotz, G. Freund, L. Déderlein alio- 
rumque recentiorum auctius, emendatius, melio- 
remque in formam redactum, curante F. Corradini. 
Tom. IV. Fasc. 5, 6. 4to. 321—480 pp. Patavii. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Fick (Aug.) Die griechischen Personennamen nach 
ihrer Bildung erklirt und systematisch geordnet. 
2nd edition by F. Bechtel and A. Fick. 8vo. 
xviii, 474 pp. Gottingen, Vandenhoeck und 
Ruprecht. 12 Mk. 

Florus. Schmidinger (Dr. Frz.) Untersuchungen 
iiber Florus. (Aus Jahrbiicher fiir class. Philol. 
20 Suppl. Bd.) 8vo. 38 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 


1 Mk. 20. 

Fredrich (C.) De libro wept gicios av@pémov pseud- 
ippocrateo, Diss. 8vo. 32 pp. Gottingae. 
80 Pf. 


Galland (J. J.) Grammaire compléte de la langue 
grecque, & l’usage de l’enseignement secondaire. 


8vo. vi, 263 pp. Grenoble, Grotier. 
Gunzenmiiller (Dr. Carl.) Beitraige zur Ciris. 8vo. 
107 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 3 Mk. 20. 
{Aus Jahrbiicher fiir class, Philol. 20 Suppl. 


Bd. 

Geriand (E.) Die Persischen Feldziige des Kaisers 
Herakleios. Diss. 8vo. 46 pp. Jena. 

Grammatici graeci recogniti et apparatu critico in- 
structi. Partis IV. Vol. II. (Theodosii Alex- 
andrini canones, Georgii Choerobosci scholia, 
Sophronii Patriarchae Alexandrini excerpta, rec. et 
instr. A. Hilgard. Vol. []. Choerobosci scholia 
in canones verbales et Sophronii excerpta e 


Characis commentario continens.) &vo. xxxii, 
526 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 22 Mk. 

Gutschmid (Alf. von.) Kleine Schriften. Heraus- 
gegeben von Fz. Riehl. Vol. V. 8vo. xxxii, 


768 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 24 Mk. 
{Schriften zur rémischen und mittelalterlichen 
Geschichte und Litteratur. ] 

Hassebrank. Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Theo- 
dosius I, Progr. 4to. 24 pp. Blankenburg. 
Hehn(V.) Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem 
Uebergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und 
Italien, sowie in das iibrige Europa. Historisch- 
linguistische Skizzen. 6 Aufl. neu herausgegeben 
von O. Schrader. Mit botanischen Beitraigen von 


A. Engler. 8vi. xxvi, 625 pp. Berlin, Born- 
triger. 12 Mk. 
Ferodot. Hauvette (Amédée.) Herodote, historien 


des guerres médiques. Ouvrage couronné par 
VAcadémie des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres. 8vo. 
Paris, Hachette. 10 Fr. 

—— Sitzler (J.) Praeparation zu Herodot Buch 
VI. Fiir Schiiler bearbeitet. 2 Hefte. 12mo. 
Gotha, Perthes. Each 50 Pf. 

Heron d Alexandrie. Les mécaniques, ou 1’Eleva- 
teur. Publiées pour la premiére fois sur la version 
arabe de Qosti Ibn Ligd et traduites en francais 
par le baron Carra de Vaux. 8vo. 318 pp. Paris, 
Imprimerie Nationale. 

Herondae Miniambi, acced. Phoenicis Coronistae, 
Mattii Miniamborum fragmenta, iterum ed. Otto 
Crusius. 8vo, xxxvi, 156 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
3 Mk. 20. 

Hlerondas. Zanei (Ioa.) De Heronda mimorum 
scriptore nuper in lucem restituto, 8vo. 20 pp. 
Turin, V. Bona. 

Hilberg (Isid.) Die Gesetze der Wortstellung im 
Pentameter des Ovid. 8vo. vii, 892 pp. Leip- 
zig, Teubner. 28 Mk. 

Homer. Rothe (C.) Die Bedeutung der Wider- 
spriiche fiir die Homerische Frage. Progr. 4to. 
86 pp. Berlin. 1 Mk. 20 Pf. 

Horace. Orazio, Le satire, commentate der Ferdin- 
ando Gnesotto. 8vo. viii, 230 pp. Padova, 
Randix. 3 Lire. 

— Hoehn (P.) Beitriige zur Auslegung Horazischer 
Oden. Progr. 4to. 16 pp. Weimar. 

Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. Herausgegeben 


331 


von Prof, Dr. A. Fleckeisen. 20 Suppl. Bd. 2nd 
(last) part. S8vo. iii, 341—816 pp. 2 plates. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 12 Mk. 

Josephus. Schmidt (Wilhelm.) De Flavii Josephi 


elocutione observationes criticae. 8vo. 110 pp. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 6 Mk. 
[Aus Jahrbiicher fiir class. Philol. 20 Suppl. 


Bd.] 
Jungels (J. P.) Abriss der lateinischen Formenlehre, 
I. Progr. 8vo. 30 pp. Gross-Glogau. 
Rleinschmit (M.) Kritische Untersuchungen zur 


Geschichte von Sybaris. Progr. 4to. 25 pp. 
Hamburg. 

Koch (E.) Griechisches Elementarbuch zur Vor- 
bereitung auf die Anabasis-Lectiire. 8vo. vi, 
218 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. Cloth. 2 Mk. 


Laneiani (R.) Forma urbis Romae dimensus et ad 
modulum 1: 1000 delineavit, Fasc. II]. Milan, 
Hoepli. 251. 

Livy. Narrations choisies de Tite-Live. 
Fustel de Coulanges, 
par Ch. Lebaigue. 
3erlin. 

Loeschcke (G.) Die Enthauptung der Medusa, Ein 
Beitrag zur Geschichte der griechischen Malerei. 
Festschrift. 4to. 16 pp. and1 plate. Bonn. 

LTucani (M. Annaei.) De bello civili liber primus. 
Texte latin avec apparat critique, commentaire et 
introduction par P. Lejay. 8vo. Paris, Klinck- 
sieck. 3 Fr. 60. 

Meissner (C.) Petit traité des synonymes latins. 
Traduit sur la 4te édition allemande par P. 
Altenhoven. 8vo. Boards. Paris, Klincksieck. 
1 Fr. 50. 

Minucius Felix. Ploss. Der Sprachgebrauch des 
Minucius Felix. Progr. 4to. 27 pp. Borna. 
Mythographi graeci. Vol. J. (Apollodori_biblio- 
theca). Pediasimi Jlibellus de XII Herculis 
laboribus, ed. Rich. Wagner. 8vo. Ixxv, 323 
pp. 1 photolith. plate. Leipzig, Teubner. 3 

Mk. 60. 

Neue (Fr.) Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. 
Band III. Das Verbum. 3, Auflage von C. 
Wagener. Lieferung I. 8vo. 1—64 pp. Berlin, 
Calvary & Co. 2 Mk. 

Overbeck (J.) Geschichte der griechischen Plastik. 
4th Edition. 4. Halbband. Royal 8vo. Vol. II. 


Edition 
Texte et commentaire revus 
12mo. 345 pp. Paris, 


xiii, 217—570 pp. 142 engravings. Leipzig, 
Hinrichs, 12Mk. 2volumescomplete. 35 Mk. 
Phaedrus. Fables de Phédre. Edition paléogra- 


phique publiée d’aprés le manuscrit Rosanbo par 

Ulysse Robert. 8vo. xlvi, 190 pp. Text in red 

and black. Imprimerie Nationale. 10 Fr. 
Pindar. Reinhold (H.) Griechische Oertlichkeiten 


bei Pindaros. Progr. 4to. 30 pp. Quedlin- 
burg. 
Plato. Backhaus (Aug.) Der Gedankengang im 1. 


Buche des Platonischen Staates. 
28 pp. Koln. 1 Mk. 

—— Tietzel (H.) Die Idee des Guten in Plato’s 
Staat und der Gottesbegriff. Progr. 16 pp. 
Wetzlar. 

Plauti (T. Macci.) Comoediae, rec., instrumento 
critico et prolegomenis auxit Fr. Ritschelius, 
sociis operae adsumptis Gust. Loewe, Geo. Goetz, 
Fr. Schoell. Tomi IV. Fase. 5. (Finis). 
(Cistellaria, ree. F. Schoell, Acced. deperditarum 
fabularum fragmenta a Geo, Goetz recensita.) 
8vo. xxxviii, 204 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 6 Mk. 

Egli (E.) Die Hyperbel in den Komédien 

des Plautus und in Ciceros Briefen an Atticus. 

Ein Beitrag zur Characteristik der roémischen 

Umgangssprache. (Schluss.) Progr. 8vo. 68 

pp. Zug. 


Progr. 4to. 





332 

Plautus Langrehr. Plautina, Progr. 4to. 5 pp. 
Friedland. 

Plutarch. Schlemm (A.) De fontibus Plutarchi 


commentationum de audiendis poetis et de fortuna. 
Diss. 100 pp. Gottingen. 

Preller (L.)  Griechische Mythologie. Vol. I. 
Theogonie und Gétter. 2 Halfte. 4th edition by 
C. Robert. 8vo. xviii, pp. 429—964. Berlin, 
Weidmann. 8 Mk. , 

Propertius. Bonafous (R.) De sex Propertii amori- 
bus et poesi capita. (Thése.) 8vo. 117 pp. 
Marseille. 

Rainaud (A.) Quid de natura et fructibus Cyrenai- 
cae Pentapolis antiqua monumenta cum recen- 
tioribus collata nobis tradiderint. These. 8vo. 
138 pp. 1 plate. Lyon (Paris, Colin). 

Reisch (E.) Ein vermeintliches Werk des Enu- 
phranor. 8vo. 31 pp. Innsbruck. 

Reyter (L.) Das Orakelwesen bei den Griechen und 
Rémern. Progr. 4to. 57 pp. _Diekirch. 

Rothkegel (F.) Die Regierung des Kaisers Gallienus 
von 258 bis 268 n.Chr. JI. Progr. 4to. 28 pp. 
Glatz. 

Ruggiero (Ett. de.) Dizionario epigrafico di anti- 
chiti romane. Fase. 32. (Augustus—Aulisua). 
8vo. 897—928 pp. Roma, Pasqualucci. 1 Lire 
50 cts. 

Sallustii (C. Cr.) Libri de Catilinae coniuratione et 
de bello iugurthino, Recensione e note di Ign. 
Bassi. 12mo. viii, 286 pp. Torino, Paravia. 
1 L. 80. 

—— Miiller (G.) Phraseologie des Sallust. III. 





Progr. 4to. 27 pp. Kothen. 
Willrich (H.) De conjurationis Catilinariae 
fontibus. Diss. 8vo. 53 pp. Gdttingen. 
Scala (R.v.) Rémische Studien. 8vo. 32 pp. and 
plate. Innsbruck. 
Schaefer (A.) Die Gétterfabeln der alten Griechen. 
Progr. 8vo. 387 pp. Barmen. 
Schén (G.) Die Dictatur des M. Valerius im Jahre 
253. Progr. 8vo. 4 pp. Reid. 


Schreiber (Thdr.) Die Alexandrinische Toreutik. 
Untersuchungen iiber die griechische Goldschmiede- 
kunst im Ptolemaeerreiche. Part I. Royal 8vo. 
210 pp. 188 engravings. 5 plates. Leipzig, 
Hirzel. 10 Mk. 

[Aus Abhandlungen der K. Siichs, Gesellsch. 
der Wissensch. ] 

Schubert (F.) Zur mehrfachen priifixalen Zusam- 
mensetzung im Griechischen. Progr. 8vo. 64 

Po Prag: 

Schwarz (W.) Der Schoinos bei den Aegyptern, 
Griechen und Rémern. Eine metrologische und 
geographische Untersuchung von W. Schwarz. 
ix, 126 pp. Calvary and Co. 4 Mk. 

[Berliner Studien fiir classische Philologie. xv, 


3.] 

Seneca. Miiller (J.) Ueber die Originalitit der 
naturales quaestiones Seneca’s. 8vo. 20 pp. 
Innsbruck. 

Sodiaski (O.) 
Terenz, mit besonderer 


Die trochaeischen Septenare des 
Beriicksichtigung der 


Hecyra. Progr. 4to. 27 pp. Berlin, Gaertner. 
1 Mk. 

Sophocles. Biichner (W.) Ueber den Aias des 
Sophokles. Progr. 4to. 18 pp. Offenbach. 


Stobaei Anthologium, rec. Curt Wachsmuth et O. 
Hense. Vol. III. Et s. titulo: Anthologii libri 
II posteriores. Vol. I. Ixxx, 769 pp. Berlin, 
Weidmann, 20 Mk. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Studi Italiani di filologia classica. Vol. If. 8vo. 
592 pp. Firenze, Sansoni. 20 Lire. 

Contents: Albini, Praecipuae quaestiones in 
satiris A. Persei. Bancalari, Index codicum 
graecorum b)ibliothecae casanatensis. Cocchia, 
Nuovo tentativo di emendazione a Plauto (Mil. 1., 
21—24.) D’Ovidio, Noterella plautina (Stich. 
639.) Franchi de Cavalieri, La forma del Kothon. 
Fuochi, de titolorum ionicorum dialecto. Nencini, 
Sul proverbio am dvov (amd xpods amd rbuBov) 
xatarecerv. Piccolomini, Osservazioni critiche ed 
esegetiche sopra i Cavalieri d’Aristofane. Romag- 
molt, L’azione scenica durante la parodos degli 
Uccelli d’Aristofane. Rostayno, Bellum hispani- 
ense cum Cod. Laur. 68, 8 collatum.—ddem, 
Codici greci Laurenziani meno noti. Jdem, Il 
libro de bello Africo, nel Cod. Laur. Ashb. 33. 
Sabbadini, 11 commento di Donato a Terenzio. 
Tocco, Del Parmenide, del Sofista e del Filebo. 
Vitelli, de generatione hominis etc. 

Terence. Terentius Bijspelen. Mit inleiding en 
aanteckeningen mitgegeven door P. Hookstra. I. 
Andria, Heauton timorumenos. 8vo. Haarlem, 
Erven F. Bohn. 1 Fl. 10. 

Théocritus, Theocrite appliqué littéralement, traduit 
en francais et annoté par L. Renier. 12mo. 596 
pp. Paris, Hachette. 7 Fr. 50. 

Thucydides. L’epitafio di Pericle, con proemio e 
note del dott. P. Malusa. 8vo. 182 pp. Venezia. 
3 Lire. 

Ueberhorst (C.) Ueber die Trugschliisse der grie- 
chischen Philosophen. 8vo. 17 pp. Innsbruck. 

Vergilii Maronis Opera. Apparatu critico in artius 
contracto iterum rec. O. Ribbeck. Vol. I. Bu- 





colica et Georgica. 8vo. x, 208 pp. Leipzig, 

Teubner. 5 Mk. 

Vergil. Irmscher (E.) Vergils Aeneide, Buch 

VIII. Progr. 4to. 9 pp. Dresden. 
Klammer (H.) Vergils Aeneis Gesang I. 

Tibull ausgewiihlte Elegieen. Uebersetzt. Progr. 


8vo. 37,25 pp. Elberfeld. 

Volger (H.) Die Lehre von den Seelenteilen in der’ 
alten Philosophie. II. Progr. 4to. 17 pp. 
Ploen. 

Wiegand (Thdr.) Die puteolanische Baumschrift, 
sachlich erléutert. S8vo. 120 pp. 15 engrav- 
ings. 2 plates. Leipzig, Teubner. 3 Mk. 60. 

[Aus Jahrbiicher fiir class. Philol. Suppl. Bd. 

20.) 

Winer (G. B.) Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 


Sprachidioms. 8. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von P. 
W.Schmiedel. Theil I. Einleitung und Formen- 
lehre. S8vo. xvi, 144 pp. Gottingen, Vanden- 


hoeck and Ruprecht. 2 Mk. 60 Pf. 

Winteler (J.) Ueber einen rémischen Landweg am 
Walensee. Progr. 4to. 40 pp. Aarau. 

Wissowa (Geo.) Die Saecularfeier des Augustus 
Rede. 8vo. 23 pp. Marburg, Elwert. 50 Pf. 

Xenophon’s Anabasis. Auswahl fiir den Schulge- 
brauch, herausgegeben von Dr. Hans Windel. 
Text and Kommentar. 12mo. xv, 279, 161 pp. 
Map. Bielefeld, Velhagen & Klasing. 1 Mk. 
80 Pf. 


Hempel (0.) De Agesilao qui fertur Xeno- 








phontis quaestiones. Progr. 4to. 18 pp. 
Berlin. 

Olsen (W.) Bemerkungen zum Sprachge- 
brauch Xenophons. Progr. 4to. 18 pp. 
Greifswald. 





The Classical Review 


OCTOBER 1894, 


CONJECTURES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 


OF ATHENS, * 


594-580 B.c. 


THe period of Athenian history extend- 
ing from Solon’s year of office to the year of 
ten archons is a particularly attractive field 
for the exercise of conjecture: since the 
brief account of it given in ’A@. ITod. (ch. 
13) tells us enough to show that a full 
knowledge of it would be highly interesting 
to the student of Greek constitutional his- 
tory, yet not enough to give such a student 
any real instruction, unless he permits him- 
self to interpret its meagre statements by 
adding conjectures and merely probable 
inference. I venture in the present paper 
to attempt such a process of conjectural in- 
terpretation. I will begin by quoting from 
Dr. Sandys’ edition the passage from the 
‘Constitution of Athens’ which contains 
almost all the information that we possess 
on the subject : 

YoAwvos drodnpajravros, ere THS TOAEwS 
TeTapay Levys, emi pev ery TeTTapa Sujyov ev 
Horvxige TO Oe TepTTy pera, TV Xohwvos d dpxnv 
ov KaTeoTno av dpxovra. Oud THY. ordow, Kal 
mwaAdw € €TEL TET TW Oud THY auTiVv aitiav avapxtav 
erotnoav. peta O€ Tata dua TOV aiTav xpdvev 
Aapacias aipebeis dpywv ern Sv0 Kat Svo pivas 
hp&ev, Ews e&nrAdOn Bia rhs apxis. eir’ edokev 
avrois bua TO oracle apxovras EAéoGar d€éxa, 
TevTe pev evrrarpioav Tpeis dé aypoikwy dvo dé 
Snpuovpyav, kal ovTou TOV pera. Aapaciay np&av 
eviauTov. @ Kat OpAov OTe peylorny elxev Ovva- 
pay 6 dpxwv paivovrat yap ae oracidlovres 
Tepl TAVTYS THS apx7s. 

The first point to determine, before we 
can even begin to conjecture, is what is 
meant by the phrases, used as equivalents, 

NO. LXXII. VOL, VIII. 


od KatéoTnoay dpxovtTa and avapxiav éroincar. 
Is it meant that the nine dpxovres were not 
appointed, or only that there was no ap- 
pointment of the chief dpxwv, called in the 
last sentence simply 6 dpywv? The latter 
is certainly the natural meaning of the 
phrase od katéornoayv apxovra, and it is the 
more probable: for if there had been a 
complete failure to appoint archons there 
must have been some other government, 
and it is probable that we should here heard 
something about this other government. I 
shall therefore assume that the other eight 
apxovres were appointed, and carried on the 
necessary functions of government in the 
years of so-called dvapyia. 

If this be so, it seems most probable that 
the chief dpywy was appointed somehow 
differently from the other eight. And this 
seems to me to be confirmed by an examin- 
ation of the language of the passage , since 
Damasias is said to have been ‘chosen’ 
archon (aipefeis)—although we were be- 
fore told that the dpyai were xAnpwral éx 
Tpoxkpitwv. 

And I think that the failure to appoint 
is more easily explained if we assume choice 
and not sortition. For a refusal to abide by 
the result of the lot would have been a 
violently revolutionary proceeding : and if 
such a blow had been given to the Solonian 
constitution only four years after Solon, 
and a second similar blow four years later, 
it seems to me that the new political order 
established by Solon could hardly have 
stood the shock:—the revolution would 

BB 


334 


have gone further and Solon would not have 
held the place in traditional Athenian his- 
tory which he always has held. 

But if we once suppose that the chief 
dpxwv was elected, not appointed by lot, it 
is easy to conjecture conditions of elec- 


tion which might bring about a failure ~ 


to appoint, without any _ revolutionary 
breach of the constitution. The most obvious 
way in which such a failure to appoint might 
occur is if the concurrence of two or more 
bodies was required. It seems on other 
grounds a not improbable conjecture that this 
was the case, and that one of the bodies whose 
concurrence was required was the Areopa- 
gitic Council: since we are told in ch. 8 
that in pre-Solonian times this Council had 
the appointment of annual magistrates 
entirely in its hands; and it seems there- 
fore natural that in the Solonian constitu- 
tion it should have been allowed to retain a 
share—but only a share—in the election of 
the chief magistrate. If this was the case, 
it is not difficult to understand why from 
time to time there was no election. For we 
may infer from the concluding portion of the 
narrative above quoted that the ordots 
which is going on more or less throughout 
this period is an evenly balanced struggle 
between the evzatpidac and the rest of the 
citizens :—I say ‘ evenly balanced,’ because 
the change from nine to ten dpxovres is 
obviously made in order that an equal re- 
presentation in the government may be 
given to the two contending parties—five 
Eupatrids and five non-Eupatrids. Now 
the evzarpida: may be assumed to have had 
before Solon—and to have retained for 
some time after—a decisive majority in the 
Areopagitic Council; while it is easy to 
suppose that, in spite of the numerous 
clientéle of the old families, the party of the 
aypo.xor and dymrovpyot combined may have 
had sometimes a majority in whatever more 
popular body had to concur in the election. 
This is just the state of things in which an 
obstinate struggle, both parties refusing to 
give way, might from time to time result in 
a failure to appoint any chief dpywyv at all. 
The conjecture that the other eight 
apxovres Were appointed differently from the 
chief dpywv is further supported by con- 
sidering the probability that there was a 
constitutional arrangement for distributing 
the dpxovres equally among the tribes. I 
regard it as probable that this was the case ; 
because we learn from ch. 55 of ’A@. Io. 
that, in the later constitution, each of the 
ten tribes had a representative on the board 
of dpxovres—the number ten being made up 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


by adding the secretary to the nine dpyovres. 
Now it would be contrary to analogy to 
suppose that sectional political feeling was 
stronger in the ten tribes of the post-Kleis- 
thenean period than it was in the four 
tribes of the older constitution: and there- 
fore we may fairly infer from the equal 
representation of the ten tribes on the later 
board of apxovres, that the four tribes had - 
similarly equal representation in the period 
with which we are now concerned : just as 
they had in the Council of 400. Now T 
need not point out that eight is divisible by 
four, whereas nine is not: it is therefore 
reasonable to suppose that of the eight 
dpxovres two were drawn by lot from the 
ten nominated by each tribe. 

But if the probable existence of a tribal 
sentiment sufficiently strong to demand and 
obtain equal representations for each tribe in 
the chief executive organ be granted, we are 
naturally led to carry our conjecture a step 
further, and devise some plan for distributing 
the chief dpywv also. Otherwise the existence 
of a chief archon—who must be a member 
of one tribe or another—seems to impair 
the tribal equality, attained by distributing 
the other eight in pairs. My plan for meeting 
this difficulty furnishes at the same time a 
conjectural explanation of a feature in the 
narrative which I have hitherto left un- 
noticed,—viz. the regularity with which ir- 
regularity occurs in the appointment of 
dpxovres. After Solon, we are told, ‘they 
keep quiet for four years’; then they have 
a year with no archon: then after the same 
period of quiet regular employment to office, 
avapxia from the same cause occurs again ; 
then after the same interval—o.a tév aizdv 
xpovev—the irregular extension of Damasias’ 
tenure of office occurs, Before we attempt 
to explain this, it is necessary to determine 
the length of the recurrent period. The 
writer seems to say that dvapyia occurs in- 
the fifth year after four years of order. 
But the commentators seem to be agreed 
that we cannot put the date of the dpyy of 
Damasias later than 582: so that if we 
take the commonly accepted year of Solon’s 
government—594—there is obviously no 
room for twelve years of order and two of 
avapxia between Solonand Damasias. More- 
over it is quite in accordance with Greek 
habits of numeration to describe a quad- 
rennial period as quinquennial ; e.g. Pindar 
repeatedly refers to the Olympian games as 
mevtaetnpis €optd. I therefore agree with 
Mr. Kenyon in interpreting the ‘ fifth 
year’ to mean the fifth from Solon’s year 
inclusive, so that the recurrence of irregu- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


larity will be quadrennial. Iam confirmed in 
this view by the fact that I can conceive no 
explanation of irregularity occurring period- 
ically every fifth year ; whereas its occurrence 
every fourth year may be conjecturally ex- 
plained without much difficulty. For in the 
latter case we may fairly assume that the 
recurring period of four years was somehow 
connected with the four tribes; and if so, 
it seems an admissible conjecture that the 
demand of each tribe to have an equal 
representation on the executive was extended 
to the head of the government, and was satis- 
fied in his case by choosing him from each 
tribe in rotation : and, accordingly that the 
recurring crisis of dvapyia was due to a 
peculiarly violent antagonism between one 
of the four tribes and some other body 
which had to share in the appointment—as I 
have already conjectured, the Areopagitic 
Council. This special antagonism does not 
seem to me a priori improbable. For though, 
as I have already said, we may infer from the 
compromise of the ten-archon year that the 
struggle between the Eupatrids and the 
non-Eupatrids was tolerably evenly balanced, 
there is no reason to suppose the two parties 
were evenly balanced in each tribe. On 
the contrary, as there is reason to regard 
the Attic tribes as partly localized, it would 
be a priori likely that both the oligarchi- 
cally inclined landowners of the plain, and 
the democratically disposed peasants of the 
mountain, would be stronger in some one 
tribe than in the others. Let us suppose 
then that the Areopagitic Council was in 
each year constitutionally bound to choose 
the chief archon from the ten zpoxpito of a 
particular tribe ; that it was determined to 
choose a Eupatrid; that, as three of the 
tribes nominated at any rate some Eupatrids 
among their ten zpdxpitor, the Council found 
no difficulty in keeping the headship of the 
government for three years to the class of 
‘well-born’ ; but that when it came to the 
fourth year, the tribe nominated only non- 
Eupatrids, and the Council refused to make a 
selection. Both sides being obstinate, there 
was a deadlock : so—dvapyiav éroincay. 
This is, of course, only one way among 
several in which the deadlock may have been 
brought about. Z.g. I may be wrong in 
supposing that the premier dpywv was chosen 
€x 7poxkpitwv : it may be that he was selected 
by the Areopagitic Council from each tribe 
in rotation, the concurrence of the tribe being 
required, and that one obstinately democratic 
tribe refused to accept the nomination of the 
oligarchical council. All I am concerned to 
suggest is that the only probable explanation 


335 


of the quadrenniality of the disorder is to 
be found in the quadruplicity of the tribes : 
that each tribe in rotation had some defined 
share along with some other body, in the 
appointment of the chief archon who was 
chosen from it: and that one of the four 
tribes was specially antagonistic to the body 
with which it had to concur. 

Let us now pass to consider the extension 
of the dpxy of Damasias. In accordance 
with the general view that I have taken of 
dvapxia and its causes we shall not regard 
this irregularity as at first a mere usurpa- 
tion—a simple though brief Tyrannis—but 
rather as originally another method of 
getting over the deadlock which had twice 
led to dvapyia. I conjecture that Damasias 
was a Eupatrid, and that when some such 
deadlock as I have suggested occurred for 
the third time—in 582-l—he continued 
in his office with the approval, or at least 
acquiescence, of the Areopagitic Council. 
I conjecture, however, that it was no¢ with 
their approval that his government went on 
into a third year: Damasias, I conjecture, 
having committed one irregularity for his 
party, thought that he could avail himself 
of the precedent to commit a second for him- 
self. He was, in fact, working towards 
Tyrannis ; and probably he had the support 
of partisans, so that the Eupatrids became 
alarmed and combined with their plebeian 
opponents to get rid of him. In order to 
effect this combination, the patricians, I 
conjecture, had to grant the plebeians an 
equal share in the executive government, 
and therefore to increase the number of 
dpxovres from nine to ten, so that exact 
equality might be realized. 

I have reached the last stage of my con- 
jectural history: for with the year after 
Damasias the data come to an end. We 
must suppose that this is the only year with 
ten dpxovres—if there had been another, the 
chronicler would have known of it, and we 
should have heard of it. We must suppose 
they went back to the old executive of nine: 
yet the periodic dvapyia seems to cease, and 
we hear no more of the conflict between 
Eupatrids and non-Eupatrids. Why is this 
short year—only ten months, I suppose— 
such a critical time? I must try to guess 
the answer to this. question before con- 
cluding. 

First, | must say a word on the constitu- 
tional import of this ‘decemvirate.’ There 
seems to me no reason to hold with Dr. 
Sandys that it was a ‘reactionary measure, 
implying an abandonment of the classifica- 
tion by assessment.’ I see no ground for 

BB2 





336 


assuming that these were not dypouxo. and 
Syprovpyot wealthy enough to be eligible 
for the chief magistracy, according to 
Solonian conditions: accordingly I regard 
the equal division of offices as simply an 
arrangement between two parties within the 
constitution, not a violation of it. 
other hand I see no reason to regard the 
classes of dyporxot or yewpopou and dnurovpyot 
as species of nobility (Ade/)—as Busolt and 
Wilamowitz hold: for all our information 
as to the meaning of the threefold division 
into edratpidar, yewpopor, and dyp.ovpyoi 
points to its being an exhaustive division of 
Athenian citizens ;—all inhabitants of Attica 
who were not slaves, freedmen or aliens, 
must be regarded as belonging to one or 
other of these classes. Accordingly I 
imagine the social conflict of Solon’s time to 
be like that at Rome in the fourth 
century—a struggle of poor plebeians against 
the economic oppression of wealthy patri- 
cians, combined and complicated with a 
struggle of wealthy plebeians to share the 
honour of the wealthy patricians. But I 
conjecture that the latter struggle is in 
Athens much briefer. I do not mean that 
the power and prestige of the old families 
is broken—had that been so, the reforms of 
Cleisthenes at the end of the century would 
hardly have been needed—but I conjecture 
that the compromise of the decemvirate is a 
sign that they are learning to moderate their 
exclusiveness. I guess that the ‘ party of 
the plain,’ of which we hear afterwards, 
included wealthy plebeians though its 
nucleus was patrician ; and that that is why 
we hear no more of the old three-fold division 





On the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


into classes, which seem in pre-Solonian 
times to have had almost the fixity of castes. 
This, of course, will serve as a part of the 
explanation why the periodical ‘anarchy’ 
ceases. But another reason for this may 
be suggested. It seems to me very likely 
that the kAijpwots ek tpoxpitwv Was abandoned 
for the decemvirate and not afterwards 
renewed : probably simple election by the 
assembly was substituted. We are told 
(ch. 22) that ‘all the apyovres were atperot’ 
for twenty-four years after the expulsion of 
the tyrants : and this makes it-probable that 
the change from ot to choice was not intro- 
duced by the tyrants : otherwise appointment 
by choice could hardly have lasted through 
the reforms of Cleisthenes. Thucydides 
tells us (vi. 54) that the Pisistratids did not 
interfere with the working of the previously 
established jconstitution, except that they 
always contrived to have one of their 
numbers in office: such contrivance would 
be easy under a system of election, but 
difficult in the case of appointment by lot. 
Again, on my view, the decemvirate offered 
a plausible excuse for changing from sortition 
to election, since it would have been a com- 
plicated matter to arrange sortition soas to 
bring about the division of dpyovres among 
the three classes while at the same time 
respecting the claim of the four éribes to 
equal representation. And having once got 
sortition abandoned, it would be the interest 
of the Eupatrids to prevent a recurrence to 
it; and the coalescence with wealthy 
plebeians, which I assume to have taken 
place, would enable them tv prevent it. 
H. Sipewick. 


SUR LES ACTES DE XANTHIPPE ET POLYXENE. 


M. James, en publiant pour la premiére 
fois les Actes de Xanthippe et Polyxéne,! 
les a fait précéder d’une Introduction 
excellente, 4 laquelle je saurais 4 peine que 
reprendre ni qu’ajouter. Il a fort bien 
démontré, en particulier, le manque d’ori- 
ginalité de cette composition, dont presque 
tous les éléments se retrouvent soit dans les 
Actes apocryphes des Apdtres, soit dans les 
romans grecs. C’est la en effet le principal 
intérét quelle présente. Elle peut servir 
d@exemple, dans J’antiquité, du genre 

1 Texts and Studies, edited 


, by J. Armitage 
Robinson, ii. 3. Cambridge, 1893. 


p. 58. 


hybride qui fleurit aujourd’hui sous le nom 
de roman religieux. : 

On peut discuter, naturellement, sur le 
détail de Vimitation. Ainsi, les apdtres 
sont représentés comme médecins ailleurs 
que dans les Actes de Pierre ; voyez Acta 
Philippi, ed. Batiffol, p. 14 et 15; Acta 
Thomae, ed. Bonnet, p. 59, 33. Avec la 
lumiére qui rayonne sur la face de Philippe, 
Acta Ph., p. 25, 1, on comparera mieux Acta 
X. et P., p. 68, 38 cidev 7d zpdcwrov aitod 
Adprov was TO dos, que les empreintes sim- 
plement dorées (ypvcas) qui se voient sur le 
front de l’apétre Paul, p. 63, 1; ete. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Ou pourrait aussi relever quelques traits 
de plus empruntés aux Actes apocryphes. 
Ainsi par exemple, p. 84, 8, un certain 
Onésime se dévoile comme étant l’auteur du 
récit. Il y a de méme dans les Actes de 
Jean un témoin des événements qui parle a la 
premiére personne, Acta Joannis, ed. Zahn, 
p- 225 et 252. De méme encore dans une 
Passion de saint André inédite, qui sera 
publiée dans le second fascicule de la nouvelle 
édition des Actes apocryphes des Apdtres, 
et Acta Philippi, p. 11, 11 et 26, 6, ot le 
manuscrit porte euevayev. Comparez aussi 
Acta X. et P., p. 79, 25, et Acta Thomae, p. 
29, 32 ou Acta Philippi, p. 46, 2; p. 76, 37, 
et Acta Philippi, p. 22, 15; p. 66, il et 
Acta Thomae, p. 67, 12 ou 78, 34; p. 65, 
11, et Acta Thomae, p. 66, 25; ete. 

Mais ce qu'il y a de plus caract¢ristique, 
ce sont les apparitions de Jésus et les 
enseignements de l’auteur sur les relations 
conjugales. Jésus apparait sous la forme 
d’un bel adolescent, veavias evpopdos ou 
everdys, Acta X. et P., p. 66, 30; 68, 20 ; 74, 
8, comme Acta Thomae, p. 20, 26; 80, 17; 
Acta Andreae et Matthiae, 33 p. 165; Acta 
Matthaei, 1 p. 167; Fabricius, Codex apo- 
eryphus N.T.,i. p. 549 ; 552; enfin dans un 
fragment inédit du plus haut intérét, décou- 
vert par M. James, et dont ila bien voulu 
trés gracieusement me permettre de prendre 
connaissance.” P. 68, 26, Jésus prend la 
figure d’un apdtre, comme Acta Thomae, p. 
11,1; 79, 5, et dans un fragment inédit des 
Actes d’André, qui sera joint aussi a la 
nouvelle édition des Actes apocryphes des 
A potres. 

Les relations entre Probus et Xanthippe 
sont manifestement copiées, avec les modi- 
fications que comportait la situation, sur 
celles de Charisius et de Mygdonia dans les 
Actes de Thomas ; comparez Acta X. et P., 
p- 60, 4, et Acta Th., p. 57,19; 61, 19, et 
58, 27; 61, 22, et 62,15; 66, 17, et 61, 
15; etc. Aussi, il me parait inutile de 
chercher avec M. Bennett # A identifier les 
héros de notre roman avec des personnages 
réels, Ce n’est pas un roman historique que 
nous devons voir dans ces Actes, ce serait 
plutét un roman didactique. Il nous montre 

* Il s’agit d’un morceau des Actes de Jean, re- 
cueilli par M. A. Robinson, d’aprés une indication 
de M. James, et qui faisait partie des Actes primi- 
tifs non remaniés, puisqu’il renferme les fragments 
i. et ii. de l’édition Zahn, p. 219 et 221, les relie 
entre eux et les comple te. Espérons que ce docu- 
ment si intéressant ne tardera pas 4 venir continuer 
la belle série des Texts and Studies. Un autre mor- 
ceau trés semblable, qui renferme le fragment iii. 
de Zahn, p. 223, paraitra dans les Acta apostolor um 


apocrypha. 
3 Classical Review, viii. p. 108. 


337 


la rupture des relations conjugales imposée 
par la foi nouvelle, et les incidents qui s’en 
suivent. Car, chose curieuse, l’auteur, tout 
orthodoxe qu'il parait ¢tre d’ailleurs, s’est 
tellement nourri de la lecture des Actes 
apocryphes, qu’aprés avoir reproduit, p. 72, 
14, la doctrine biblique sur la légitimité 
relative du mariage, il tombe en plein dans 
Vhérésie dont ces Actes sont tout pénétrés: 
Kai kpeirrov jyty éoriv, s’écrie une jeune fille 
chrétienne, pera Onpiwv oikeiv Kal arobavely 7) 
tro “EXAjvov kal cidwroAatpav cis BopBopov 
ydpov dvayxacOjvar eureceiv (p. 80, 9). 
Comp. aussi p. 83, 6, vuudios POopas. 

Certains détails peuvent servir 4 déter- 
miner approximativement le temps et le 
lieu ott nos Actes furent composés. Déja, 
aprés M. James, M. Bennett en a signalé 
quelques-uns.4 On peut ajouter que l’auteur 
a lu les Actes apocryphes complets, et non 
pas seulement les chapitres détachés qui 
depuis le IX® siécle, et peut-étre plus 
anciennement, continuérent presque seuls a 
se propager, c’est & dire, le commencement 
des Actes de Thomas, la fin de ceux de 
Philippe, l’assomption de Jean, etc. Puis, 
p- 74, 33, Xanthippe (étant en Espagne ?) 
fait venir de Rome une Bible, ou peut-étre 
seulement quelques livres de la _ Bible 
(BiBXrovs), parmi lesquels un psautier, et 
elle en tire des sorts (ps. 141 [142], 5; et 
plus loin, p. 77, 24, ps. 37 [38], 7). Ces 
livres se payent sept cents piéces d’or. 
Voir encore p. 73, 5 76 tis Cwapyxixns Tpiddos 
ovopa ; p. 82, 29 zpocdyw cou Tas edxas Tod 
ayiov kypukdés cov IlavAov. Enfin, comme on 
va le voir, certaines fautes du texte s’expli- 
quent par l’emploi de lettres capitales ; 
preuve d’une assez haute antiquité. Car 
pour le reste, je partage Vavis de M. 
Bennett: les Actes de Xanthippe et Poly- 
xéne me paraissent ¢tre moins anciens que 
ne les estime M. James (milieu du III° 
siécle). Je serais porté 4 croire quwils le 
sont beaucoup moins. 

Quant au texte, M. James a di le donner 
d’aprés un seul manuscrit, ce qui, comme 
M. Usener le remarquait récemment®, a 
propos de la Vie de saint Théodose publidée 
par lui, ne peut étre considéré jamais que 
comme un pis-aller. Mais ce manuscrit, le 
Paris. gr. 1458, du XT° siécle, est le seul qui 
existe, 4 ce quil parait, et heureusement du 
moins il n’est pas trop mauvais. En somme, 
le texte de nos Actes est lisible. Non pas 
pourtant qu'il n’ait fallu, pour le rendre tel, 
certaines retouches du savant ¢diteur ; 
peut-étre aussi quelques-unes des corrections 

4 Classical Review, viii. p. 102. 
5 Literar. Centralblatt, 1894, p. 402, 


338 


que nous allons proposer ne paraitront-elles 
pas inutiles. 

En fait d’accentuation, M. James a-t-il 
cru devoir conserver des particularités du 
manuscrit dans dpetpytds, Onoatpe, Aoyx7, 
dvaorn@r, et plusieurs autres mots? Méme 
quand le sens en souffre, comme p. 79, 19 
tl dpa pour ri dpa; p. 79, 11 dvaxadéoar pour 
dvaxdXeoat; p. 84, 25 zAdos pour zAods 
génitif) ; plusieurs fois BaciAe pour Bact 
Neila ; p. 67, 22 exyeeis pour éxxéeas®; p. 73, 
14 «i@ otvws pour «if otrws*? Il y aurait 
la, si je ne me trompe, un scrupule excessif. 
Il y en a un également, semble-t-il, 4 res- 
pecter les confusions de lettres équivalentes 
(a=, c=y=1t, o=«@), et 4 écrire p. 66, 29 
ioryker; p. 58, 24 wepiodevOnoar ; p. 63, 36 
épovoyncare, 4 cdté de p. 70, 8 zapacryKeicay ; 
p- 75, 1 ddevov; p. 77, 4 rapadpyica ; ete. 
"Apxvatpos est si bien attesté par des manus- 
crits et des inscriptions, c’est un mot si 
commun, qui a passé méme en latin, qu’on a 
de la peine a admettre p. 58, 18 dpyuiarpod. 
P. 81, 21 zpondAOotoa n’est sans doute 
qu’une faute d’impression. 

Souvent la ponctuation des textes anciens 
faite d’apres la coutume d’un pays déconcerte 
les lecteurs d’une autre contrée. Qui ne 
s’est achoppé, en France et en Angleterre, 
aux virgules que tant de savants allemands 
ne manquent pas de mettre, en latin et en 
grec, devant le pronom relatif? Heureux 
le jour annoncé par M. L. Havet® ow les 
ponctuations modernes, allemande, anglaise, 
francaise, pourront, et par suite devront, 
faire place a ja ponctuation latine en latin, 
grecque en grec! En attendant, ne 
pourrait-on pas réformer la ponctuation 
des textes anciens la ot elle est le plus 
clairement contraire au génie des langues 
anciennes, comme par exemple quand nous 
mettons le vocatif entre virgules? Voyez 
les notes de M. Weil sur Kuripide, J. A, 
613; 1062; 7. 7. 336. M. Jeep a eu le 
courage de supprimer la plupart de ces 
virgules dans son Claudien. M. Birt aurait 
bien fait de le suivre (comme, en général, de 
reconnaitre plus franchement ie mérite de 
son devancier). M. James aussi écrit p. 77, 

Non contracte, comme ovyyeréa p. 76, 4; le 
futur n’a pas de raison d’étre. 

7 Cette locution, expliquée par M. Usener, Der 
heilige Theodosios, p. 126, n’est pas rare ; voir, outre 
les exemples cités dans le Thesaurus, Aristote, Toa. 
°AO., 24 et 40; Acta Thomae, p. 46, 8; Cyrille de 
Scythopolis, wita Sabae, 22 p. 249 B; Palladius 
(Migne xxxiv.) Historia Lausiaca, 42 p. 1147 C ; 108 
p. 1210 B; Syméon le Métaphraste, wita Ignatii, 
rap exiv. p. 1277 A; de Theela, cxv. p. 841 B; 
etc. 


8 Prose métrique de Symmaque, p. 21 suiv.; comp. 
p- 12, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


34 ovprabnoov por 7d Onpiov Kal pH pe oKop- 
xtoys. On devrait en conséquence supprimer 
la virgule p. 85, 6 kadds eAndAVOarTe, of TeOAyp- 
pevor, et ailleurs. Il y a d’autres virgules 
qui sont peut-ctre conformes aux habitudes 
anglaises, mais qui nous génent, comme p. 63, 
15 woddods euaxdpica Ews TOV viv, Tovs tpiv 
ouvtvyxdvovtas ; p. 63, 19 6 7d dpdpo tiv 
Enpav dAtevwv, Kat tos eurimtovras ixOvas 
cuvaywv ; méme cas p. 75, 18; etc. L’inter- 
prétation est en jeu p. 67, 21 dcov ydp ce 
éiv wapopyion avOpwros ToAvTAacius, Ta een 
cov éxxéets éx” adTov -d€o7roTa, OU je mettrais 
la virgule avant zodvrAaciws ; et peut-étre 
p- 71, 4, o& je mettrais un point’ aprés 
aotauvpov. P. 76, 9 danyyéAn atte ote 7 
mapOévos ovk eat ade, ce dernier mot semble 
indiquer que le discours est direct, et qu’on 
écrirait mieux drnyyéAn atte ore “H tapGévos 
Katie 

Les Actes de Xanthippe et Polyxéne 
comme la plupart des textes de méme sorte, 
présentent de fréquents exemples de con- 
fusion des cas, accusatif et datif, parfois 
méme génitif. Il est fort difficile de dire dans 
quelle mesure ces fautes sont imputables a 
Vauteur. M. James s’est trouvé évidem- 
ment embarrassé. P. 59, 33 6 kde ri dva- 
élav kai tarewnv SeiEas tov oropov tov det 
Cévra, il change les quatre premiers accusatifs 
en autant de datifs, xdmuoi, ete. P. 62, 13 
eyyicas Ta tpdbvpa (comp. p. 78, 14 ds Fyywer 
TH IloAvéevy ; 22 pa eyyions por) il ajoute 
<eis>. P. 70, 25 muoretoa cis 76 ekarooret- 
Aavre Tovs avopas, il change cis en év. Mais 
il laisse subsister p. 59, 25 érixadeoouar 7 
évopate tod Geod (malgré p. 77, 3 riva otv 
erixahécopat); p. 60, 13 aves por...xabevd7- 
oat; p. 71,13 7a AexHevTa Tap’ evo; p. 77, 
1 otwo. THY wote..:pavuxny (malgré p. 76, 36 
olor TH éyKatadcAeppevy; etc.); p. 78, 34 
odpayiler dua Aovtpoy wadryyevecias; p. 80, 
12 cvvavtaot kryvirny (p. 75, 12 cvvavrjoce 
go. TAotoy ; comp. p. 75, 24; 81, 7); p. 81, 
30 mpd 7H xbes Hepa; p. 82, 29 denOjvai cor 
(p. 60, 2 déopaé cov; p. 85, 19 deonevn rod 
Oeod) ; p. 85, 13 aripyyere tiv Zavbixayy Hv 
mapovoiav THs IloAvgévys. Sil est permis de 
corriger, c’est dua Aoutpoy et zpd TH Huépa 
dont je tiendrais le plus 4 me débarrasser ; 
puis zap eof. Mais peut-étre faut-il savoir 
supporter méme cela. 

En effet, quand la langue classique est 
pour un auteur, au point ot elle parait 
Vétre ici, une langue apprise par l'étude, on 
est toujours 4 se demander dans quelle 
mesure on doit le rendre responsable des 
incorrections qu’on rencontre dans ses écrits. 
P. 64, 21 twés yap...ovres ev TH “Padpn éEwpdxacr 
TH... TEPATAKALOnLELa Kal TapeyevovTo, le parfait 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 339 


est-il pour l’aoriste, comme cela arrive si 
souvent (p. 84, 24 yéyover, ete.), ou faut-il 
écrire éwpdxecav? Inversement, p. 79, 21 
Katewnper pe ) edxy THS ek SeE@v Gov toTa- 
pévys, ce plusqueparfait peut-il tenir lieu 
du parfait, qu’on a p. 80, 30, kat oé Karei- 
Ayndev 4 mpdvora Tod Oeod? =P. 64, 34 aicbaveis 
doit-il subsister 4 cdté de 7aGovro (p. 67, 16) 
et aicOduevor (p. 75, 22), ou doit-on mettre 
au moins aicbavOets? P. 65, 24 tore 6 
IIpéBo0s mpooxaXeirar tiv EavOinmyy ev Te 
detrvw rips S& py tpooGeions Eyer 6 IIpoPos : 
ce participe actif est-il admissible, a la place 
de zpoobenévys,® ou lirons-nous veo Getons 4 

Dans la syntaxe du verbe, une des con- 
fusions les plus ordinaires en bas grec est 
celle du futur indicatif et de l’aoriste sub- 
jonctif.!° Cependant quand les deux temps 
ne différent que par des lettres équivalentes, 
o=o, yn=«l, ne devrait-on pas corriger, 
comme le demande, trop absolument peut- 
étre, Cobet, V. 7. gr., p. lxii.? P. 60, 17 
rolous TpdTous XpHTopat 7) Tota evvorav GvaddBw, 
éerivons xpyjcopar, puisque c’était indifferent 
a Voreille du copiste. Au contraire, p. 75, 
23 dy yap cvvavticwpev aird, od Kav KW?- 
cope, Kujoopev serait mieux, Sl odk av KUWy- 
coysev parait trop hardi.' Mais p. 76, 17 
icws Kav ev TovTw TANpodopyOy 6 dSovAos Tod 
Xptcrod, le subjonctif doit étre sans doute 
respecté ; de méme p. 62, 32 iows yévy; p- 
78, 9 icws pvnoO7, malgré p. 66, 12 isws 
revo Oyjoerat. 

Voici maintenant quelques corrections 
plus importantes pour le sens, et que je 
proposerais cependant avec moins d’hésita- 
tion. 

P. 61, 22 ds épwrapevos THY aitiav THs Avrns 
...edeyev...€is mohAds Kal dvuToatdrous aitias 
éurertoxeva. Je soupconne que airia(v) est 
revenu sous la plume du copiste au lieu de 
GLKLAS. 

P. 69, 30 rods codois Bapavdov kat Tvw- 
oréa. Ce dernier s’appelle Tvworéas (p. 70, 
3 et 71,35; datif Tvworea p. 70, 2). N’est- 
il pas bien probable qu’un trait sur l’a a 
pali, ou a été oublié, et quwil faut lire 
Tvworéav 4 

P. 71, 36 edéar ivép tpav...rod Katayeivae 
Kal jas eis Tov cov apiOpov. Kcrivez xara- 
puyjvac; comp. Acta Thomae, p. 81, 13 76 
ipod eyxataptywv (éyxatapioyov 1) TO oO. 

P. 73, 24 wai eiOws dpracaca Koyxoorarny 

® Théophraste, de sens, 2 tobTp mpocébecay Thy 
yvéuny, est différent. 

” Voyez Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 723; G. N. 
Hatzidakis, inleitung in die neugriechische 
Grammatik, p. 218; Zeitsch. f. vergl. Sprachf. 
Xxxiii. (1893) p. 110 ; ete. 

11 P’ailleurs l’auteur affectionne la particule x&v. 
Il s’en sert 8 fois en 27 pages, 


aWnportv, pimrer cis TO TpdTwTOV avTod, kal 
cuvéerpupev adtod dAnv Thy oyw. TOTE O daipwv 
dveBonoe éyov: °Q Bia’ ax TovTov xXavorov 
kal ai yuvaixes €daBov eEovotav rod TUTTEW 
has. Que veut dire dmd rovrov xavotov | 
Si vous ne réussissez pas 41’expliquer, au lieu 
de QBIAATIOTOYTOYXANOTOYKAI, 
lisez QBIAATIOTOYKOF XOCTATOY- 
KAI, c’est A dire*Q Bia amo tod KOYXOOTaTOU" 
kal, et voyez sur & Bia dad, H. Usener, 
Legenden der Pelagia, p. 44. Le xoyyxoorarys 
de fer que Xanthippe lance a la téte d’un 
démon (comme Luther son encrier) parait 
étre le pied sur lequel on pose le vase appelé 
Koyxn Ou Kdyxos, comme le orvAoBadrns est le 
pied sur lequel se tient la colonne. 

P. 73, 28 4 d& ZavOinwyn eeipacev opddpa. 
De dematve, il n’est pas précisément incroy- 
able qu’on ait fait l’aoriste eée(uaca, Il est 
plus probable cependant que €AEIMACEN 


doit se lire EAEIAIACEN, deAtacer ; 
comp. p. 60, 20 dedi, et 83, 4 edertiacer. 

P. 75, 1 ratra 88 aris Acyovons Gdevov ot 
xabédxovres ev rdxet Kal ¢ POacdvTwv adtav TOV 
aiyaddv prcbwodpevor TAviov dppovy emt THY 
BaBvrwviav. L’imparfait dppovy pour dppwv 
n’a rien d’extraordinaire; on lit de méme 
ailleurs iydrovv, 7pwrovv, ete.!2 Mais pour 
le second 82 il faut peut-Ctre 6); et plavw 
étant employé absolument p. 75, 32, et con- 
struit p. 65, 31 avec éws; p. 72, 7 avec 
éyyis; p. 84, 13 avec ev; p. 77, 27 avec eis 5 
p. 67, 3 avec éxé; nulle part avec laccusatif, 
il semble qu’on doive ajouter ici émi; comp. 
p- 83, 24 xarehOe ert Tov aiyvadov. 

P. 83, 7 éy® yap otda totrov Tov Gedv...dvijp 
yap Ts...exyputte Ttodrov Oedv. Il est pro- 
bable que roy est tombé aprés le second 
TOUTOV. 

P. 83, 23 Sedpo otv Kopn Badrodod pov 70 
oxjwa kdtedOe. Est-ce que Padciv, sans un 
complément avec préposition, peut signifier 
mettre, en parlant de vétements? Je n’en 
pourrais citer qu’un autre exemple, Acta 
Philippi, p. 22, 13 &kdvca tatra ra ipdria Ta 
Sudxpuoa kal dre Ta KoopodvTd ce cis apOap- 
ciav.3 Mais je me demande s’il ne faut pas 
corriger dans ce dernier cas AdBe et dans 
Vautre AaPodtod pov. 

P. 83, 33 @wxav...dd€av 7d pravOparw 
Ged, éyovtes: “OvTws el, Kat povos etl Geos 
5 da Todvéévns dvopafdpevos. Lisez “Ovrws 
el Kal povos Oeds K.T.A. 

12 Voyez Hatzidakis, Hinleitung, p. 129; H. 
Gelzer, Leontios von Neapolis, p. 198 ; ete. 

13 T] en existe X la vérité un troisitme, dans une 
Passion d’André déji mentionnée : érépas BadAdvras 
(lire Baddvres) éo@Aras. Mais au méme endroit un 
récit paralléle, également inédit, porte ces mots: 
AaBdvres ecOitas Etépas. 


340 


Il me reste sur d’autres passages des 
doutes que je dois laisser 4 de plus habiles a 
dissiper, en expliquant, s’il se peut, le texte 
tel qu’il est, ou en le corrigeant, s’il le faut. 
J’ajouterai seulement que certaines cor- 


rections de M. James ne me paraissent pas . 


suffisamment motivées, comme p. 62, 24 
Katayyedet pour kal ayyeXet; p. 65, 33 d.op- 
Goons pour dioph%cy (moyen) ; ete. ; ; et je 
terminerai par une remarque d’une portée 
plus générale. 

Les savants les plus compétents sont 
d’accord sur l’extréme difficulté que présente 
Vétablissement de ces textes rédigés 4 la 
basse époque par des auteurs imparfaitement 
lettrés, qui écrivent en une langue artificiel- 
lement conservée ou rappelée a la vie.!* Il 
est presque impossible souvent de faire le 
départ entre les fautes qu’ont pu commettre 
les auteurs et celles qu'il faut attribuer aux 
copistes. On en a vu assez de preuves dans 
les pages qui précédent. En cet état de 
choses, le meilleur parti 4 prendre ne serait- 
il pas de tenir strictement séparées la recen- 
sion et l’émendation? J’entends par recen- 
sion—une definition précise n’est pas super- 
flue, en présence des confusions qu’on voit 
faire tous les jours—le travail qui consiste 
a tirer de la tradition tout le parti qu’on en 
peut tirer. J’appelle émendation toute cor- 
rection apportée par conjecture au texte 
constitué par la recension. Si done le 
principe que je viens d’énoncer était adopté, 
le texte mis en pleine page serait exactement 
tel qw ilressort de l'ensemble des témoignages, 
écoutés selon leur valeur relative, sans une 
lettre ajoutée ou retranchée par conjecture. 
Tout essai de restitution, toute correction, 
si évidente qu’elle puisse paraitre, serait 
reléguée dans les notes, dont on pourrait 
faire d’ailleurs deux séries : l'une donnant 
les variantes des manuscrits, avec la tradi- 
tion indirecte, s’il y a lieu; l’autre, tout ce 
qui concerne |’émendation. 

Les avantages d’une telle disposition me 
paraissent évidents. 

Dune part, elle obligera le lecteur, pré- 
cisément dans les cas douteux, 4 contrdéler 
Yceuvre de l’éditeur, et 4 exercer son propre 
jugement. Car en présence d’une forme 
insolite ou d’une phrase inintelligible, il ne 
manquera pas d’abaisser les yeux sur les 
notes, pour y chercher secours ou confirma- 
tion; tandis que dans nos textes tout 
replatrés et badigeonnés, son attention 

14 Voyez G. N. Hatzidakis, Byzantinische Zeit- 
schrift, i. p. 98; K. Krumbacher, Studien zu den 
Legenden des h. Theodosios, p. 264; H. Gelzer, 
Leontios von Neapolis, p- xli.; etc. On me per- 


mettra de rappeler aussi mes propres remarques, 
Acta Thomae, p. xii. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


n’étant sollicitée par aucune aspérité, il aura 
bien des chances de passer outre, en prenant 
une conjecture incertaine ou fausse pour la 
vraie ou pour la seule legon. [I] en résulte 
—qui ne l’a constaté maintes fois /—que les 
inventions des éditeurs, soigneusement re- 
cueillies, passent dans nos dictionnaires et 
nos grammaires, parfois méme servent _ 
d’appui a des affirmations historiques ou 
autres, et quau contraire des_ lecons 
vraiment instructives, et parfois excellentes, 
mais méconnues par les éditeurs, restent 
cachées dans le fouillis des notes. 

D’autre part, l’éditeur scrupuleux ne se 
trouvera pas dans la facheuse nécessité 
de décider entre deux probabilités qui peu- 
vent étre absolument égales : est-ce l’auteur 
qui a commis la faute, est-ce un copiste qui 
Va introduite dans le texte? I jouira au 
contraire de la plus large faculté de pro- 
poser, suivant les cas, des corrections de 
vraisemblance diverse, et graduce 4 volonté 
par des points d’interrogation ou des 
adverbes dubitatifs. 

Peu importe, d’ailleurs, qu’un texte nous 
soit transmis pas un seul manuscrit ou par 
plusieurs. Dans le premier cas, c’est le 
manuscrit unique, dans le second, c’est 
Varchétype des manuscrits existants dont 
nous reproduirons les legons avec une 
fidélité absolue, quitte 4 indiquer au bas de 
la page les corrections nécessaires, ou simple- 
ment probables, ou méme _ seulement 
possibles. 

Est-il besoin d’ajouter qu'il ne s’agit 
nullement de pousser cette fidélité a la 
tradition jusqu’a. faire de notre texte une 
sorte de facsimilé, ni ce qu’on a coutume 
d’appeler une édition diplomatique? Nous 
y marquerons, selon notre propre jugement, 
la séparation des mots, la ponctuation, les 
accents et les esprits ; nous corrigerons sans 
hésiter les fautes qui ne consistent qu’en 
confusion de lettres équivalentes (a:=«, 
e=n='t, o=w; et dans les manuscrits 
récents, o. =v, enfin méme v=v). En 
d’autres termes, nous donnerons le texte tel 
que, 4 l’époque ot la tradition nous permet 
de remonter, il se présentait, non a l’eil, 
mais 4 loreille du lecteur, ou mieux encore, 
i son esprit. En le faisant, nous ne pren- 
drons guére plus de liberté que ne s’en 
attribue quiconque, par exemple, transcrit 
un texte hébreu en y ajoutant les points- 
voyelles. Ou, plus exactement, nous agirons 
comme le font aujourd’hui, pour les statues 
antiques, les conservateurs les plus intelli- 
gents: ils en recueillent les fragments, les 
nettoient et les assemblent, mais ils 
n’ajoutent ni pied ni bout d’oreille au 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


marbre: les essais de restauration se font 
sur un moulage en plaitre qu’on place a cété 
de l’original. C'est l’oitice de ce moulage 
que remplira notre seconde série de notes. 
Mais aux statues mémes on ote les fausses 
tétes appliquées dans Tlantiquité: n’en- 
léverons-nous pas de nos textes les mots, 
les phrases, les chapitres inauthentiques qui 
peuvent se trouver déja dans l’archétype de 
nos manuscrits! Les interpolations an- 
ciennes sont souvent aussi trompeuses et 
plus que les conjectures modernes: y a-t-il 
moins de danger 4 les laisser pénétrer dans 
nos dictionnaires et nos grammaires? I] y 
aurait lieu de répondre a ces objections et a 
d’autres qui m’ont été faites ou que je 
prévois, si l’on devait traiter de la méme 


341 


fagon tous les ouvrages anciens. Mais il 
ne s’agit pour le moment que des écrits qui 
présentent les difficultés spéciales signalées 
plus haut, et pour lesquels il est particuliére- 
ment aisé de voir que ces objections ren- 
ferment une pcétition de principe. En tout 
cas d’ailleurs, qu’on ne croie pas les droits 
de la critique menacés. La critique, on l’a 
vu, ne serait que plus libre de ses mouve- 
ments. Ce n’est méme pas, 4 proprement 
parler, une question de méthode que je pose ; 
c’est une question de pratique, de procédé, 
je dirai presque de disposition typogra- 
phique. Ce n’en est pas moins une question 
qui a son importance. 
Max Bonnet. 


THE ATHOS MS. OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 


ATTENTION was first drawn to the Athos 
MS. of the Homeric Hymns by Prof. J. P. 
Mahaffy in the Athenaeum for May 18, 1889. 
The present collation of the MS. is the 
work of Prof. Michael Constantinides, now 
of Athens, but for many years a resident 
among us, and the author of the very 
valuable volume, entitled Veohellenica, which 
appeared in London in 1892. The facsimile 
specimens, to which reference is made in 
the article, I shall be happy to show to any 
scholar interested in these matters. 


IncrAM ByYwaATER. 


Svvtomos Teprypadi) 
tov ev TH PBiBAtoOyKy tTHS Movs Batorediov 
doxeymevov ToAvBiBArov yElpoypddor, ev @ 
evpyvrat Kal ot “Opnprxot “Ypvou. 


TO xepoypadov TodTo éote Sedepevov vewort 
Kal héper eLwbev apibpov avgovta 587+ exer dé 
pijxos pev 0, 27, wAdros 6€ 0, 20, Kat raxos 


0, 05. To xaAvppa abrod juweppatwov éotw 
Kal heper OrirGe tiv exrypadiy THVvO€ : 
TOPOKAENE (odxt OYE) 
TPATOATIAI 4 (dvti tod 3) 
EYPIILIAOY 3 
OMHPOY _ 32 (dvr. rod 31) 


KAAAIMAXOY 4 (dvi rot dpiOy. 6) 


"Eote 5& yeypappevov éexi yxdptov dpyxatov 
Tapeuepors peuBpdvyn. 'Epreptexee pvAXNa 
247 (jrow oedidas 492). “Eore d€ zAjpes Kat 
év dploty KaTaoTace, Kal 7) ypadi) TOD KEyLevov 


az’ dpxns péxpt TéAovs Tis adtis xetpos. "Ev 


TH TpoTn cedidi, ext Kepadjs, exer Kdopypa 
EpvOpoxpovv Kat Katomw Ti ervypadiv rivde 


TENOC COPAOKAEOYC PAN KOY 


"Exerat Bioypadia LodoxA€ovs—éaKorovbus 
‘YrdOeots Aiavtos. “Exerat 7d dpapa zAjpes, 
pel? epunveav Kai cxodiwv, ds ev TO eykdeioTw 
HiKp® Tavomovotire delypatt. Td dpaua todo 

/ >. n~ . 9 4 nw tA A 
Anyet ev To 32 prrhy TOU XEtpoypadon, Kal 
evOis exerar 7 Yrrobecis THs “HAéxzpas, 
> a \ 8 a“ 4 , 3 lel 9 
dkorovbet TO dpGya orep Ajye ev To 620 
Pvilrdy. Ta cxohia ris ’HA€ktpas eypady ix’ 
” , > ~ / fal > a 
adds xeipos. Ex tov addXov pépovs tod airod 

, »” c > 4 4 »” 
pvdrov dpxetac 6 Oidiérovs Tpavvos dvev 
c / > m” \ 4 ‘\ , > “ 
broberews: odk Exer SE oXALa Kal Ajye ev TO 
920 PidAXrw ots : 

T TéXos rod Oidirodos. 

T Téppa ths BiBr\ov Sodoxréovs de. 
“Qote &v TO xeElpoypddy tovtw imdpxover tpets 
povov tpaywdiac rod odoxA€ovs Kat odyi 

/ c > , ” c ‘ “ 
Téecoapes ws cone ELwbev bd Tod BuBrL0- 
d€rov. 

"Ard Tod I3ou PvAXov apxerar ‘ Tévos Hijpuri- 
Sov,’ ererar trdfeors “ExaBys Kat Kxatrérw 
‘ a a LS s “A > \ »¥ ‘ 
TO Opapa THs “ExdBys Ajyov cis TO GAO pEpos 
tov 1200v gvdAov. “Axodorvbed ‘Yrdbects 
‘Opéarov, 'Opéorys, Kat Ajya ev TO Hirw 
155. *Ard 7d dAAo pépos rod airod PvAXov, 
apxetat 7) UrdGeots TOV Powiccdyv, axo\ovbee 7d 

“ 4 4 > “ »” , wn“ , 
dpapa kal Ayyet év TO ddA pepe Tod pidrov 
190. Tév tpiav TovTwv tpaywdidv Tod Eipuridou 
¢ tm ‘ ‘ »” € / ‘ , c > 
7) ExdBy povov xe Eppnveias kat oyoALa, ds ev 
TO pikp@ eykelotw Selypari, 6 ’Opéeorns dpws 
Kal at Poiviroa ovk exovow «i pr Eppnvetas 
pLovov TWas oTopadnv. 


342 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


"Ard Tod 19 lov pvAXov apxovrat ot “OpnprKot 
Upvor Kata THVv ESAs Tae : 
(1) ‘Opjpov tuvos eis ’ArodAAwva (191 PvAA. 
—199). 
(2) ——-——— cis Eppiv (199—207). 
(3) 
(4) “Erepos tpvos eis TV avTHV iaiecey 
xXpucotépavor k. T: Xr. 
(5) Avovucos 7 Done 
(6) His “Aprepuw. 
(7) Eis “Adpodcrnv. 
(8) His “A@nvar. 
(9) Eis "Hpav. 
(10) Eis Anpnrpar. 
(11) Eis Myrépa Gear. 
(12) His “HpaxAéa Ncovrdbupov. 
(13) His “AcxAnmuov. 
(14) His Atooxovpovs. 
(15) His “Eppjy. 
(16) His Hava. 
(17) Eis "Hdaorov. 
(18) His ’A7voAAwva. 
(19) His Tooedava. 
(20) His trarov Kpovidny, 7) Ava. 
(21) Eis “Eoriav. 
(22) Eis Movoas cat "AvodNwva. 
(23) Eis Avovucor. 
(24) His "Apreuw. 
(25) His ’A@nvav. 
(26) His “Eoriav, 
(27) Eis qv pnrépa ravrov. 
(28) His "HAvov. 
(29) Eis SeAjvny (. 
(30) Eis Avookovpovs. 
(31) Eis Eévous. 
TéAOS TOV Uuvov. 
pvrAXov 2190v—‘Exi Kehadyns Koopnpa 
epubpoxpovr, € erelTa 7 e&js emeypagy, : ‘“Hpodo- 
TOU rept ‘Opnjpou yeverews.’ 
€TETAL TO Ketpevov, omep ive ev pity 
224—’Aw6 tov pvddov 225 dpxovrat of vpvou 
Tod KadAysdxov, tod Kupyvaiov zounrod : 


Eis A‘a, 

His ’A7voAXAwva, 

His “Aptepuv, 

Eis AjAXor, 

Kis Aovtpa ris TladXddos, 
Eis thv Anpyrtpa. 








Eis TO Téos TOU Upvov eis THyV Anpatpa 
drapxet KOT ppc. Kal pera. TOUTO Ob Edis Téo- 
gapes oTixor yeypappévor Sid THs adrijs 
XELpos -— 

©“Yuve Tov bYyiLuyov € €v mparos Aia, 
PoiBov 3 éreira Kat Tpirny Thy “Aprepuw: 
AjjAov TE TerdpTyy" cite. Aourpa IladAddos 
"Exrynyv de tHv Ajpntpa THV maAaurépay.’ 
"Evradda Arye 7d xerpdypacov. 


eis A ppodiray (208- vill) Be 


AvriBodi) TOV ‘Opmprxav %, Upvov Tov Bato- 
medwov Xetpoypacou Tpos TO KEipevov Tis 
exdooews tod Augusti Baumeister, Acw/ia, 
tu7os B.G. TeiBvépov, 1888. 


"Ev Tpurors onpevodpar ote 6 “Yuvos eis 
"AroANwva ev TO Baroredug Xetpoypady ov 
Staupetrat cis 8¥0 Upuovs, GAN Zorw cls Kal 

ouvictatat ek otixwv 538, 
oTixou 14—15—16—17—18 Kat 20—21—22 
—23—24 kat 96, of &y TH éxddoe Tod Ady. 
Baovpéiotep irexoploOqoay TOU KEULevon, év TO 
Baroredi@ XEtpoypddw pévovew exaatos ev TH 
oikeia avtov Oéce. 3 

pvdAov TOU Xetpoypadou 19 lov. "Ext tips avo 
ee TOU pvrAov dmdpxer 7) 1 ENS ertypady : 
“Ypvot ‘Opmpov cis Tovs Beors 
neon Koopnpa épvlpdxpovv—dkorovOus ide 
7) emvypady : 

uy ‘Opmpov % ULVOS cis ’"ArroAXwva. 
€reita TO Kalpevov avev Eppyverdv 7) TXoACwv. 
‘H zparn oeXis € EXEL orixous 31, ai d€ dxoAovdor 
14 oehides a ava. 34 otixovs, 7) bé tehevtaia oeXis 
TOU Upvov eis "ArodAwva 31, date ev cuvOdw 
OTAVTES ol arixo cio 358, eva ev TH exddoer TOD 
A. B. ciot 546. dpxopar ris dvr Boje. 

Sr. 3. kal pay’. Zr. 6. Biov. 12. xaGiovor, 
dvev Tov eddwvixov v. 17. IEP Oey Ot 
18. ix’ "Ivérow. 19. rads yap o. 20. yap re. 
20. Vopos. 22. ddov. 25. jus ce. 30. Kpirn 
evrds. 31, Aiywa. vavoxhetrn. 32. 7 cipeo ta 
Te. 3d. "Abus. 36. aS 6 orixos Neier Kat 
av avtov dmdpxe 6 41 ‘kai Sapos idpnr%, 
Muxadys 7 aimewa xdpynva.’ Mera rodrov 
exerat ‘"IpBpos 7’ édxrysevn’ K.7.r. 41. evradOa 
dv7t Tod otixov ‘Kal Sdpor’ x.7.A. drdpyxe 
Manrés te k.7.. 44. “Pyvata. 45. érwdivovca. 
46. ef tis cou. 54. 08d’ etpndrov. 55. oicets. 
62. MeydAowo xpdvoto. 65. y' époiunv. 73. 
aoe. 75. cid ot. 87. aiev. 90. yovw. 93. 
ecav—Péy. 104. ypvoeiousr Aivourr éepy- 
févov evvedrnxuv. 116. ri store dy. 125. 
aavarnor Xepoty. 129. decpar epuxe. 1582. 
xpyow 7. 133. do XPoves. 136—137—138. 
Oi pets otro. orixor ovx imdpxovow ev 7 
Baroredwé Xetpoypady. 147. 'Idyoves. 151. e- 
pevar avyp. 152. Ot tor éravria oeto 7’ idovos 
GOpdo elev. 157. Andtades 8. 163. pypetoOar 
165. ’AXN’ aye dy Anta pev’ AodAXwv ’Aprépec. 
éiv. 171. Ad’ qyewv. 172. Xiw ei. 173. 
Tov Tacar petoriaGev. 174. yperepov. 184 (6). 
exw Te Oude’. 197 (19). otre Adyera. 209 (31). 
omc’ avwdopevos extes Alavtida kovpnv. 211 
(31). Aetres 6 arixos obTos ev TH XElpoypadw 
PAS 315)) Pee rs ce 3; ov pny Tplomos y’ éveAurrev. 
216 (38). Tlvepins. 217 (39). Aéxrov 7’ jpa- 
Odevta mapéotiyes 7) Mayvnias. 218 (40). 
"Iwrkov. 231 (53) dvamvete. 233 (55). ovde 
téws pev. 235 (57). dynow. 247 (69). Aed- 
gota’. 256 (78). AeAdotaa. 459 (81), ot d€ 


éreira OTL ol 


- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ro aiet. 272 (94). GAAG Kal bs tpoordyorev. 
276 (98). Aeddovon. 277 (99). mporepy. 
281 (103). wpos depada Oiwv. 283 (105). 
kvjpov. 284 (106). iwoxpeuara. 295 (117). 
Sayrrepts (dvti tov, dupvexés). 299 (121). 
ktistoist Adeoow. 306 (128). ruddy (avri 
tov, Tupdova). 309 (131). ev Kopudy. 326 
(147 b). 5 atixos otros obx imdpxer ev TO 
xepoypadw. 327 (148). cat viv pevrou yap. 
331. ywouevyn wep. 337. adrot (dvtt rod, aitap). 
339. héprepos 7) tocogov Kpovov. 343. 8) jrevra 
347. wodvadiorot. 355. ds kaka ToAN’. 359. 
kata xopav. 363. rovAvBore(py. 364. 00 ye 
fwotor. 367. Odvarov te. 368. obd€ xiparpa. 
371. twepov pévos. Ot aorixor 372, 373, 374 
Neirovow ek Tod Baroredwod yxetpoypadov. 
379. ékarddovoa. 383. wétpyor tpoxuTyow. 
Oi orixo. 391, 392, 393 XAElrovow Ex THs 
Oécews atrav kai ciot petareBepévor pera TOV 
396 orixov. (391. ‘Tepa te pefovor Kat dyed- 
Novor Oemioras). 395. juabonv (avti tod, via 
Gojv). 402. éredppdcato vonoas. 403. dvacet- 
cacke. 406. ovd€ Avov Aaldos. 408. Evenpe. 
410. dduorépavov rroAtcOpov. 417. apis dpov- 
ge. 419. riepay exovoa. 420. jev dddv. 
423. éixrivevov aim’. 436. 8 nrera. 444. 
drdya date. 452. rev ear. 456. retundres. 
460. dSnxdres. 468. éxyedyaow. 488. vija 8 
greta Oonv. 492. 0 qrera. 500. Kat 
inraijova vnov. 501. otros 6 arixos etrer Ex 
Tov xelpoypapov. 507. rapa 8’ eppara. 509. 


ext 8’ aGAduta. 516. ot dé ppiccorres. 521. 
guedrev. 522. rerynpevos. 523. dnge 0 
dywv avtov ddredov Kal iova vyov. 544. od 


pect. 
"Yuvos eis “Epp. 


ortx. 1. “Eppa ipvel Modoa. 5. jAavver’ 


dptrtov. 31. yoporime. 37. Ear aixpd. 
38. tore dv. 44. ovre Oapwal. 45. at dre 
SuvnfGcr. 48. dia pivoto yeAdvys. 52. Ted&e 


dépov. 54. xovaBioe. 58. Eraipeinv. 79. oav- 
dara 8’ aitix’. 82. dyxadov. 83. aBAaBEws 
87. dduwv alfovoav. 93. ore poner. 94, 
toccov daa éceve Bodv. 99. cxomen. 100. 
Meyapndeiao. 103. ddpunres 8 Aavvov és 
avAuov tWyseAabpov. 110. ev waddpy dva- 
Sdprvero. 114. dilav. 116. troBpvyias. 
122. vara yepdopia. 124. evi wérpy. 125. 
ds ere viv tape 7 dooa. 127. xappodéepor. 
132. Hdeu (dvri rod Ader’). 133. wépyv’. 136. 
onpa vens pwvns—deipas. 138. éret ravta. 
148. i@vvas. 155. wédev rade. 156. viv d€ 
oe. 157. 7 taxa. 160. eppe rad. 163. rerv- 
oxeat. 168. dddpyror Kal amacro. 175. 
dvvapar dé. 212. dddv Kie dotBos ’AmodAXov. 
224, Ovre te Kevravipou Aaciavyxevos eoTty dpoia. 
232. Kidvaro. 238. zpéuvwv avOpaxinv vAns 
orod0s audixadvrre. 241. dy pa. 242. dypys 
eiveruov Te xeAvv. 254. ds ev KAivy. 256. pio 
yip ce Badov, 259, ddrd‘yoow év dvdpaow. 


343 


* 262. wat Bots aypavAovs. 265. 6 ottxos oUTOS 


rekevta ‘ov enor.’ 266. obros d& apxerac 
‘&pyov todro.’ 279. dppvor purtalecke. 280. 
tov piOov dxovuv. 288. dvrices &yéAyor Body 
kat roeot prov. 289. ripatov Kat vorartov. 
306. dud? duorow eArypevos. 316. od ddikws. 
322. alwa S& répOpov ixovto. 325, edpvAty. 
326. dbOcror HyepeOovro Tort TrVxas OiAVprov0. 
342. eiOurdpov 0’ eXdwv: Ta 8’ ap’ ixvia dove 
méhwpa. 345. abrds 8 ovros, 60° exros dyu- 
xavos. 357. kat dua mip pad’ apnoev 6600. 
361. abyas dpudprale. 366. “Eppijs e atl? 
érépwbev dpeBdpevos exos ybda. 376. Tdde T 
olde Kal abtos. 381. “Hédiov pad’ aidéopar. 
383. ’Exwalopar dpxov. 384. éixdopnta. 385. 
ka 7o7’...vndéa hovyv. 397. orevdovro. 398. 
jpabdevta 8 éx...400. Hy’ ob di 7a Xpypata. 


” 

407. Oavpaivo. 410. dyvod. 414. a6poicas 
rote 5) Kparis ’Apyepav tis. 415. rip dpapvo- 
cov. 419. xara pédos. 420. yeAace fotBos. 
422. & arixos ovros Neier ek TOD XEpoypadov. 
431. kata mpéoByv. 446. pyAqra. 453. dde 
pednoev. 457-458. Ot orixor Actwovow ek TOD 
xetpoypddov. 459. kal pytpi 10d x.7.A. 460. 
kpavdivov. 472. mapa Geodata. 473. eywye 
maid’ advewv. 474. adr’ ayperov éor. 478. 
cipodme. 479. éxvotapevws. 482. dois av 
aitiv. 486. pbéyyovoa Sitafov. 487. épéewve. 
488. Opvadclo. 497. éxwv. 501. Kara pedos- 
Ho irs Kaddv. 502. bd pédos dace. 509. 
Boes. 507. kai 75 pev “Eppa. 508. ds ere xat 
viv. 515. dvaxrédys. 520. epdos. 531. exe 
kpaivovoa Oeots. 539. xpvodpami. 540. "Oca 
Bovr\crar. 543. kal pav. 547. eedjoe. 552. 
Motpa ydp twes. 5D7. ddéyover. 558. 0 


irera. 563. aypovtar 3 yrera mdpeg Odov 
ryepoveve. 565. Kat iv Bporov. 572. Oiov 
eis dion. 


‘(O dpvos eis “Eppav Karexer OxTo 
pvdrAa kai piav cedida Tod xetpoypadon, dnAady) 
17 cedidas é€v cuvoAw. 7 TeAcvTala ceXis EXEL 
otixous 32, Tacae de al dAAa ava 34. 


"Ypvos eis "Adpoditnv. 

10. ddev. 13. roujoae oxitwa Kal appara. 
14. de re. 20. words dvdpOv. 22. “Eoriy. 
32. mpécBvpa. 46. puryywevar, 52. dvemte. 
56. tov 8 Hrera...properdys. 65. properdys. 
72. jecav. 87. émvyvaprrds. 93. xpvo7p 
"Adpoditn. 99. Byoea. 103. dvdpa. 152. ov 
ydp te. 136. ov ogy dexeAty vios eooopat, 
GAN eixvia. pera Todtov dxoAovbe? 6 oTixos 
bde2 fel Te dexedin yuvy) Egoopar He Kal ovKé.’ 
139. of 5é te xpuodv kev. 141. dai. 173. 
ebromtoo. 174. Hpe xdpn. 200. "Ayxe Geot. 
203. jpwace dv. 206. ék kparijpos. 209. tov 
8 jrera. 214. kai dyjpaos jpata Tavta. 
229. evyevéos. 244. Aetrer ro, taxa. 245. 
76 y ereta. 247. per GOavdroow. 252. 


344 


ovkéTL frou oTovaxnoetat. 254. ovK« dvdrarov. 
272. rav bex’ dpov. 284. pact Te vos. 
To Xetpoypaov € EXEL orixous 294, 
1 ‘Erepos ¥ Upvos eis THY AdTIHV. 
OTLX. 7. édtixrov. 
tT Avovucos 7) Anorat. 


ottx. 8. tods 8 gyaye. 13. Avdol (avi 
Avyor). 22. atrov adddmev. 27. Ydprav6’ 
oma. 43. pa dydew (avr, vi non). 


T Eis “Apea. 
Oideuia duahopa brapye. 
T Eis "Apreuw. 
ortx. 1. "Apreyw spel. 

pedytys. 7. Oeai 0’ apa. 

T Eis “Adpodirnv. 
ovdenia Suahopa b7apyxet. 

T His “A@nvav. 
ovdeuia Suadopa. 

T Eis “Hpav. 
ovdenia Suadopa. 

T Eis Anynrtpav. 
ovdenia Suadopa. 

T His pyrépa ear. 
ory. 2. duvet. 3. Topraver. 

T Kis “Hpakdéa Acovrdupov. 
ovdepia dtadopa. 

tT His ’AokAnzmeov. 
oTx. 3. Kovpyn pdAcyvos. 

T His Avocxovpovs. 
ovdepia dvadopa. 

His “Epp jv. 
ottx. 8. €xeu 


3. Babvoxoivo.o 


His Ilava. 
otix. 11. pydookdrov. 12. aiywoevre. 14. 
tore 8 €amepos exAayey otov. 15. dxpys 
e~aviov. 16. vydvpov. 17. woAdvavOeos. 18. 


xéer peAtynpvv. 31. evOa dé oi. Wacepo- 
tpixa. 33. rapa Ovyta- Odde yap. 38. avatfas. 
tT Eis "Hdatorov. 
ottx. 1. deideo. 
T His ’Awo\Awva. 
ovdepia dtadopa. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


His Tlocedéva. 
atix. 3. Aiyas. 6. Ioceddov. 
T Eis trarov Kpovidnvy 7 Ata. 
ovdenia dvadopa. 
T Eis ‘Eoriav. 
ory. 4. érépxeo Oupov exovea. 
T Eis Movoas cai “AroAXNwva. 
ottx. 1. Znvos te. 5. Hidov te. 
T His Avovucov. 
ovdenia Suadopa. 
T His “Aprepuv 
T His “AOnvav 
Eis ‘Eoriav. 
Aeirovoew 6 évaros Kal d€katos ontyos ek we 
Oécews atrav, eiol O& perateHepevor pera Tov 
evoéKatov oTixov. 
T Kis tiv ynv pntépa wavtov. 
ottx. 14. repecavOéor. 15. xalpovor. 
tT Eis “AAuov. 
otix. 7. dkdpat. 10. xpvo7ns ek. 
16. Ocoréowos ripryct. 
tT His SeAnvnv. 
ottx. 1. pyvyv deidew. 6. axrnpes 8 & 
dudovrat. 11. “Eomepin duydpevos: dre 7AjOeE. 
tT His Avocxovpovs. 
ao7tx. 16. movov odiow. 19. 
adXyns. 


; ovdepta. Siapopd. 


12. xdprev. 


€ / \ 
ULEWY KL 


Eis E€vovs. 

Aidetobe Eeviwv kexpynpéevov 75e ddj.010 

Oi rodw airewiny vipdys épatwridos “Hpys 

Naier’ és adnv Hs 10a velatov tyuKdp.o1o 

"Ap Bpocrov rivovtes Vdwp FavG0d rotapoto 

"EBpov kada péovros, bv aOavatos téKeTo 

Zevs. 
TéXos. 

"EreXclwoa THV dvtvypadiy TOV avwTépw ék 
TOV ONpELwBoEwY TOV ev TO Terpadiy prov TH 
10/234 Adyovorou 1893 é& 7H vijcw Ndéw ras 
Siar pudas TOLOUVILEVOS. 

M. KONSTANTINIAHS. 
é€x Tlavéppov thas Kvlixov. 


NOTES ON ZLEMENTUM. 


In Allen and Greenough’s Latin Grammar, 
p. 146, we read :—‘ So elementum is a devel- 
opment from L-M-N-a, l-m-n’s (letters of the 
alphabet), changed to elementa along with 
other nouns in men.’ 

This has all the appearance of a folk- 
etymology and its first occurrence seems to 
be unknown. In the Déderlein-Heindorf 
ed. of Horace’s Satires (Leipzig, 1859), in 
the note toi. 1, 26, we read :—‘ Scharfsinnig 
leitete jemand das etymologisch nicht 
erklirten Wort elementa aus der Zusammen- 


stellung der Buchstaben /, m, n, her wie wir 
sagen das A. B. C. Gewiss bedeutete 
elementa, wie das Griech. orovyeia urspriing- 
lich die einzelnen Buchstaben welche Worter 
bilden, erst metaphorisch iiberhaupt einzelne 
Bestandtheile (elementa mit ddeua, ad€xrys 
verwandt, als Mehlstiiubchen).’ This view, 
supported by Keightley and the Century 
Dictionary, has been rejected by almost all 
etymologists. Cf. Pott, Htymologische Forsch. 
ii. 1, 192, where he combats this derivation, 
which he speaks of however as an ‘als 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 345 


hiibscher Einfall nennenswerthe Herlei- 
tung.’ 

No trace of this etymology occurs, so far 
as I can find, in any Latin grammarian, 
where certainly we might have expected it, 
if true or supposable. 

It is evident that if it can be proved that 
elementum meant first a letter, and only by 
metaphorical use the element of a thing, 
this etymology will have more probability. 
Conversely, if it can be shown with reason- 
able certainty that the word was first used 
in the latter sense, grave doubt is cast on 
this derivation. 

The Latin grammarians discuss the word 
as follows :—Diomedes, Avs Gramm. (Keil 
i. 421, 17) elementum est minima vis et 
indivisibilis materia vocis articulatae vel 
uniusculusque rei initium a quo sumitur in- 
crementum et in quod resolvitur. 

Priscian. Inst. Gramm. (Keil ii. 6, i4) 
literas autem etiam elementorum vocabulo 
nuncupaverunt ad_ similitudinem mundi 
elementorum ; sicut enim illa coeuntia omne 
perficiunt corpus, sic etiam haec coniuncta 
literalem vocem quasi corpus aliquod compo- 
nunt vel magis vere corpus...Litera igitur 
est nota elementi...abusive tamen et elementa 
pro literis et literae pro elementis vocantur. 

See also Probus, Jnst. Artiwm (Keil iv. 
48); Serg. Haplanat. in artem Donati (Keil 
iv. 487) ; Audacis Excerpta (Keil vii. 321) ; 
Dosithei Ars Gramm. (Keil vii. 381) ; Marius 
Victorinus, Ars Gramm. (Keil vi. 5), where 
the same explanation is repeated. 

In Lucretius (who, with Cicero, first uses 
it) the word occurs twenty-four times, if I 
have counted correctly, and in only seven 
instances does it mean the letters of the 
alphabet, never the alphabet itself. In fact, 
the only case I find where it means the 
alphabet itself is the well-known one in 
Suet. Jul. Caes. 56. Cicero uses the word 
for the beginnings, constituent elements of 
things, and for the rudiments of arts and 
sciences, nowhere, I think, distinctly for the 
letters of the alphabet. 


The number of cases where it means 
letters is very small both absolutely and 
relatively. Palmer, in his note to Hor. 
Sat. i. 26, says ‘elementa by itself is the 
alphabet only. Suet. Jul. Caes. 56.’ Per- 
haps I do not quite understand what is meant 
by ‘by itself,’ but cf. Quint. i. 1, 24 
pudeatne me in ipsis statim elementis, where . 
we have in the preceding section prima 
literarum elementa; Quint. ii. 3, 1 ad 
suscipiendas elementorum molestias, where 
it seems to me that the whole context is 
against limiting the meaning to letters ; 
Cic. Acad. i. 7, 26 ergo illa initia et, ut e 
Graeco vertam, elementa dicuntur ; Ov. Vet. 
xv. 237 Haec quoque non perstant quae nos 
elementa vocamus ; Hor. Lpist.i. 1, 27 ut 
his ego me ipse regam solerque elementis. 

Hlementa was the equivalent of orovxeia, 
as shown in the passage quoted above from 
Cicero’s Academica, where initia represents 
dpxai and elementa oroxeta. The transfer of 
meaning from element in this sense to the 
parts of a word seems more natural and 
easy than the transfer in the other direction. 
No sufficient evidence can be produced to 
prove that elementa meant first letters and 
then elements, and probability is against 
it. 

In Fulgentius and ecclesiastical Latin we 
find the word abecedaria for the alphabet. 
Why should this have been coinedif elementa 
represented the same idea and formation 1 

Most etymologists accept the ordinary 
derivation (a/, of + mentum), recognizing the 
difficulty of explaining the weakening of 
al or ol to el, and the existence of elementum 
and alimentum side by side. The antepenul- 
timate e is however explained satisfactorily 
by King and Cookson (Principles of Sound 
and Inflexion, pp. 91-2) by the ‘ balancing 
power of /,’ so that edimentum easily becomes 
elementum. 


SAMUEL Batt PLATNER. 
Adelbert College. 


OPERA AND OPERAE EST. 


BeING dissatisfied with some interpreta- 
tions of opera and the usual explanation of 
operae est, I have examined a number of 
passages in which opera occurs and I think 
all the passages in which operae est is 
found. 


From this investigation I deduce the 
following statement of the meaning of 

OPERA :— 

1. A working, exertion. 

2. A working willingly, willing service. 
(This is the predominant meaning.) 


346 


3. A willingness to work, energy. (Of 
this meaning examples are Cic. Q.fr. 3. 4. 
4 de versibus, quos tibi a me scribi vis, deest 
mihi quidem opera. id. Mur. 36 quis 
Philippum summo ingenio, opera, gratia, &e. 
id. Att. 15. 13. 6 exstabit opera preregrin- 
ationis huius, ‘you will see how energetic I 
have been during this tour.’) 

Opera is used in the plural very frequently 
to indicate repeated action. It is also used 
in a concrete sense = workman, usually in 
plural, but }Horace Sat. ii. 7. 118 accedes 
opera agro nona Sabino, of a single slave. 

[For the sake of analogy compare these 
uses of imperium. Cic. Leg. 3. 3. 9 imperia 
= imperatores. Verr. 4. 111 decumarwm 
imperia, ‘repeated imposition of tithes. ] 

Applying the result of this investigation 
to all the passages where the phrase operae 
est occurs, I find that the second meaning of 
opera exactly suits every passage, if operae 
is taken as predicative dative. 

I conclude therefore that the meaning of 
OPERAE EST is ‘it is a willing service, a 
pleasant task.’ The phrase is exactly 
similar to voluplati est, exitio est, or any 
other phrase in which the predicate dative 
occurs. 

Just as cordi is qualified by magis and 
maxime, voluptati by maxime (Seneca de 
- Benef. 1. 11 § 6), so operae is qualified by 
magis, Plaut. Ps. 377 magis operae si sit 
plus tecum loquar. 

The person or thing pleased is put in the 
dative case. 

To take a few examples :— 

Persius vi. 9 (from Ennius) Zunai portum, 
est operae, cognoscite cives ! Persius is speak- 
ing of the beauties of the Gulf of Spezzia. 
The subject of est operae is cognoscere to be 
supplied from cognoscite. ‘Acquaint your- 
selves with the haven of L., ’tis a pleasant 
task.’ 

Plautus Mere. prol. 14 sed ea ut sim 
implicitus, dicam, st operaest auribus atque 
advortendum animum adest benignitas, i.e. ‘if 
your ears are willing to listen.’ 

Plautus Amph. 151 adeste: erit operae 
vobis inspectantibus LIovem et Mercurium 
Jacere hic histrioniam, ‘attend: the acting 
here of J. and M. will give a pleasant em- 
ployment to (the minds of) you spectators.’ 

Livy xliv. 36. fin. non operae sit stanti 
nune in acie docere, quibus de causis hodie 
quiesse melius sit: rationes alias reposcito. 
‘I should be unwilling to explain to you 
now (sc. if you asked me).’ Non operae sit 
(sc. mihi) = nolim, the protasis being ment- 
ally supplied from reposcito. Cf. Roby, 
1536. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


I shall now discuss some of the explan- 
ations which seem to me to have arisen 
from an inedequate conception of the mean- 
ing of opera and the phrase operae est. 

Lewis AND SHort, s.v. opera B. ‘ Leisure, 
spare time,’ citing operae est, the meaning 
of which I have explained, and Plaut. Mere. 
2.2. 15 dicam si videam tibi esse operam aut 
otium, where operam evidently means will- 
ingness to hear and is distinguished from 
otium. Cf. Merc. prol. 14 cited above. _ 
L. and S. also cite Rudens 440 quor tu 
operam gravare mihi? where the context 
shows that operam is = operam amatoriam, 
‘why do you grudge me the favour ?’ : 

SPENGEL, 7’ruculentus, p. 122, 1. 30. n. 
operae erit = otium erit. 

What authority is there for assigning 
this arbitrary meaning ? 

HEITLAND, Cic. Murena, Pitt Press, Cam- 
bridge, 1886, p. 47 § 21 n. on assiduttatis 
et operarum harum cotidianarum. ‘ oper- 
arum| “ jobs,” perhaps with a touch of the 
sense ‘“day-labourers,” as Zumpt thinks. 
The plural is certainly contemptuous.’ It 
seems to me that operarum h.c. means ‘ this 
daily display of energy,’ or more literally 
‘these daily labourings,’ the plural like that 
of other abstract substantives denoting the 
repeated display of the quality. JI am not 
aware either of any reason for limiting the 
concrete meaning of opera, by confining it 
to one who works by the day. Nor does it 
seem to me possible that Cicero should 
speak contemptuously of the forensic labours 
of Servius Sulpicius Rufus, and two lines 
before he says summa in utroque est honestas, 
summa dignitas, quam ego si mihi per Ser- 
vium liceat, pari atque eadem m laude 
ponam. : 

WorpswortH, Frag. and Spec. Early 
Latin, Clarendon Press, 1874, p. 614 n. 
‘operum operarumque = operum dierumque. 
* Opera est quantum uno die operis potest 
fieri, et dierum significationem includit recte 
monente Gesnero.” (Schneider).’ The words 
of the passage in Cato’s De Re Rustica to 
which this note refers are: rationem inire 
oportet operarum, dierum, st et opus non 
apparet. Dicit vilicus sedulo se fecisse, servos 
non valuisse, tempestates malas fuisse, servos 
aufugisse. Ubi eas aliasque causas multas 
dixerit ad rationem operum operarumque 
vilicum revoca. I have no doubt that 
operarum means ‘slaves employed on the 
farm’ in this place. Cf. Hor. Sat. i. 7. 
118 accedes opera agro nona Sabino. 

Nicenspacu, Lat. Stilistik, 7th ed. p. 45 
der Lat. Plural fiir das deutsche Abstractum. 
‘ Thiitigkeit : operae nicht selten, z. B. Cie. 


- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 347 


Off. 2. 12 pleraque sunt hominum operis 
effecta.’ Surely the plural here denotes the 
working of different men at different times, 
and cannot be the plural of a concrete sub- 
stantive used in abstract sense, like facta, 
instituta, mores, munera, dedecora, Ke. 

Revised Latin Primer, 1889, p. 32 § 61. 
‘Some words have a different meaning in 
singular and plural: opera labour, operae 
work-people.’ This seems misleading as 
operae rather more frequently, I think, does 
not mean ‘ work-people.’ 

Rosy 1283, ‘ operae est usually with neg- 
ative nec or non “it is a matter of attention,” 
hence colloquially = commodum est.’ Out 
of seventeen places in which I have found 
the phrase only ten have a negative. ‘This 
translation, I think, is ambiguous and 
misses the chief idea, that of willingness. 
Livy uses the phrase more frequently than 
Plautus, and with exactly the same mean- 
ing. It is not, so far as I can discover, used 
by Cicero, who seems to have avoided also 
the phrase operae pretium est in his later 
speeches. Plaut. Mere. 5. 2.76 qua causa? 
EU. operae non est. CH. Cur? EU. quia 
non, est illi commodum, seems to show that 
it is not equivalent to commodum est. 

TyrReELL,! Miles Gloriosus, 1881, p. 163. n. 
252. ‘ operae non est, ‘she is not at leisure 
for it,” literally, ‘‘it is not a thing (a case) of 
work” = “itisnot a thing about which she 
feels bound to trouble herself.” Operae is 
the genetivus generis.’ This is perhaps the 


1 Unchanged in last edition. 


best attempt to explain operae as a genitive, 
treating it as similar to moris est Graecorum 
ut, &e. Cic. Verr. 1.66; but the genitive 
Graecorum (Tac. Agr. 42 and Quintilian 
1. 1. 13. however use dative), the absence of 
any phrases at all similar, except where the 
possessive genitive is used predicatively ¢.g. 
fortitudinis est, and the alien idea suggested 
by ‘at leisure,’ seem to me decisive against 
this interpretation. ‘Genetivus generis’ 
seems to be a misprint due to dittography. 
The real meaning seems to me to be ‘she is 
not inclined to, she does not wish,’ literally, 
‘it is not a pleasant task.’ Cf. Merc. 5. 2. 
73 seqq. 

ConIncTon AND NETTLESHIP,” Persius, 2nd 
ed. 1874, p. 118. n. 6. 9. ‘est operae, ‘‘ now's 
your time.” Opera for opportunity or work- 
ing time, especially in the genitive which 
seems to be partitive.’ Ido not think that 
this translation suits the context so well as 
that which I have suggested. I have not 
been able to discover any passage in which 
opera means working time, or opportunity. 
The term partitive genitive does not seem 
to be used in exactly the same sense as by 
Madvig, Gram. § 284, Zumpt, Gram. § 429, 
Roby 1290 segq. 

In conclusion, it has occurred to me that 
perhaps in opera (and in cwra) we have an 
old verbal substantive, with the same suffix 
as appears in the present infinitive active. 

J. 8. 

June 4, 1894. 


2 Unchanged in last edition. 


‘Extynpdpor OR Extnpoptor (p. 296). 


I am quite willing to believe that I may 
have been carried too far by modern 
analogies. Any farmer or métayer whose 
rent was only a_ sixth of the gross 
produce would now be thought to have a 
sufficiently good bargain : on the other hand, 
the penalty for default was worse than mere 
eviction. The case however is not so one- 
sided as it appears in my friend Prof. 
Sidgwick’s presentment of it. It will be 
seen from the article ‘ Hectemorii’ in the 
Dictionary of Antiquities, or from Dr. 
Sandys’ note on °A@. IloA. c. 2, that the 
ancient authorities are divided on the 
question whether the éxryudpo paid, or 
retained, five-sixths of the produce. Modern 
scholars from Schémann (de Comitiis, 1819) 
downwards have been (or were until quite 


lately) almost to a man in favour of the 
former view: Boeckh, who in his first 
edition held that the rent was one-sixth, 
was afterwards converted by Schémann ; 
Gilbert (Staatsalterth. i. 125) remarks, in 
words equivalent to my own, ‘Im letzten 
Fille kinnte von keiner Hiirte die Rede 
sein’; Biichsenschiitz, the specialist on 
Greek economics, noticing the passage from 
Isocr. Areop. § 32, which had been adduced 
by K. F. Hermann, observes ‘ois pev 
yewpylas eri perpias pucOdceor TapadiovrTes 
ist nach allen Seiten zu allgemein und 
unbestimmt um fiir die hier behandelte 
Frage etwas entscheiden zu kinnen’ (Besitz 
und Erwerb, p. 50). I will add that the 
‘good old times’ of Isocrates in the 
Areopagiticus appear to me to be the 


348 


moderate democracy after Solon and Clei- 
sthenes but before Pericles (see especially 
§ 16), not the pre-Solonian oligarchy of 
which he knew so little. This is likewise 
the opinion of Prof. Jebb (Aéé. Or. 11. 202). 
An entire generation of scholars were prac- 


tically unanimous in what I ventured to- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


call the ‘common-sense view ’sof the con- 
dition of the Hectemorii. I am not pre- 
judiced in its favour, but I think it deserves 
to be re-stated before being finally aban- 
doned. 

W.; Ways: 





OSCAN ANACAKET. 


Mr. Horron-Smirn’s ingenious discussion 
of this form in the May No. of the Cl. Rev. 
isa little dificult to follow, from the wealth 
of alternatives which he offers. But on 
the main point, the value of the symbol 
$ or § in inscriptions in Greek alphabet, 
I cannot accept his conclusions. 

Mr. Horton-Smith supposes the word to 
be ‘borrowed’ from the Greek dyvé6yxe. 
Passing by the impossibility of -é@axe in 
any dialect but Elean,! and the very serious 
questions whether a verb can be ‘ borrowed’ 
with its tense termination aftixed, or whether 
a verb can be borrowed at all except under 
certain special (e.g. political) conditions—we 
have to ask simply, ‘ What was the sound of 
S in Oscan?’ Mr. Horton-Smith seems to 
hesitate between (1) an Attic 6, (2) a Laconian 
6, ue. the English aspirant in thin, and (3) 
ans pureand simple. Now (1) we know from 
innumerable examples how the regular Greek 
aspirates were represented in Italic, namely 
by the corresponding tenues (Santia, Pilipus), 
and there is no evidence whatever that ¢$ 
could be also used to represent them: (2) 
Mr. Horton-Smith seems himself to recog- 
nize the complete absence of evidence for 
a spirantic 6 anywhere in Magna Graecia in 
the third century B.c., and there is absolutely 
none for such a use of the ¢ ; and will he 


read the nomen of the other inscription as 
Oeories?? (3) If we are bidden to read the 


1 The alternative suggested is no doubt less im- 
probable in itself, viz. that the supposed stem anaséc-, 
meaning ‘to dedicate,’ should have been influenced 
by the Oscan stems sékro-, séka-. But I know of no 
examples of the transference of a verb in a particular 
tense, and that tense only, from one language to 
another, 

* Dr. von Planta tells me there is a clear 1 between 
the 7 and the e, 


symbol § simply as equivalent to the four- 
stroke unrounded 3 of the same two inscrip- 


tions, then is it not remarkable that this § 
should be used elsewhere with the value /, 
and only used in these two inscriptions (once 
beside three examples of 3 in the one, once 
beside five examples of 3 in the other) in 
words in which it may perfeetly well be read 
asf? And secondly, can there be found in 
the 1200 pages of Saalfeld’s Thesaurus Italo- 
Graecus a single example of an Italic word 
with s derived from a Greek word with 6? 
No mention of such a change is to be found 
in his Lautgesetze der Griechischen Lohn- 
worter ; on the contrary he expressly accepts 
(p. 19) Curtius’ remark (Grdzge. p. 416) that 
the absence of such forms proves that @ was 
not a spirant. 

Mr. Horton-Smith prudently abstains 
from pledging himself to any one of these 
alternatives, and, however it be interpreted, 
the hypothesis of borrowing appears to me 
to hang upon a string of desperate improb- 
abilities. 

In favour of reading the $ or § as f 
we have the strong direct evidence of the 
Jensernu: Sevoep coins with identical types, 
the fact that some symbol for # must have 
been devised in a Greek alphabet used to 
write Oscan, the a priori probability that a 
discarded form of the symbol of a similar 
sound would be chosen for the purpose, and 
the fact that both Festies and anafaket are 
perfectly good Oscan words. The latter I 
prefer to regard (with von Planta) as con- 
taining two prepositions, so that the corre- 
sponding Latin form would be ‘ *inaffecit.’ 


R. 8S. Conway. 
CARDIFF, June 1894. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 349 


AN EMENDATION. 


In the ‘ Letter of Aristeas to Philokrates’ 
concerning the Translation of the Law of 
Moses by the LX XII. under the patronage 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus occurs the follow- 
ing (ed. M. Schmidt in Merx’s Archiv for 
1868). When the king is taking leave of 
the Translators, he tells them (p. 69) should 
they return to him zapayevnbévras 8é, as 
Ours, e£er adrods dirous, kai TroNvdwpilas 
THs peylotns TevEerOar wap’ aitod. The word 
moAvowpia may be a good Greek word; it 
occurs once in Xenophon, but it makes very 
bad sense here, and puts into the king’s 
mouth a most vulgar sentiment. I have 


no doubt we should read zoAvwpias, a word 
occurring in the early papyri of the third 
century B.C. as well as the verb woAvwpéw, for 
the opposites of dAvywpia and éAvywpéw. The 
king says that, whenever they choose to 
return, he will treat them with the greatest 
consideration. The two verbs are our ‘make 
much of’ and ‘make little of.’ 

So also (p. 35) it is said M dvdpav éyxAnpor 
kadevaTy Keay Exatovtapovpos. Read éxarov- 
Tapovpot, a technical term common in the 
Petrie Papyri. The word is omitted in 
Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon. 

J. P. Manmarry. 





PLAUTUS RUDENS 160—2. SCHOELL. 


Sed o Palaemon, sancte Neptuni comes, 
(ui aerumnae Herculeae socius esse diceris 
Quod facinus video ? 


By all means bracket 161. Is it a result 
of reading in 160 





Sed o Palaemon, Sance Neptuni comes 


upon which a gloss has been appended 
‘Qui Hercule N[{eptuni] socifi esse diceres”? 


‘ How could you call Hercules (i.e. Sancus) 
a comrade of Neptune?’ 


Ernest T. Rosson. 





MILTON AND PINDAR. 


Lirerary parallels appear differently to 
different minds, but the following seems to 
me as close as others which have been 
quoted in the Classical Review :— 


Yet, be it less or more, or soon or slow, 
It shall be still in strictest measure even 
To that same lot, however mean or high, 
Toward which Time leads me, and the will 
of Heaven. 
Miron, Sonnet vii. 


> ‘\ 9 € / > ‘\ 
enol 0’ omoiav apetav 
edwxe [étpos avaé, 
> aN) 4 g / / 
ed old’ Ott xpovos EpTwv Tempwmevav TEedEceEL. 
Pinpar, Vem. iv. 67. 


Had Milton read Pindar—of course he 
may have done so—in his ‘three and 
twentieth year’ ? 

Lewis CAMPBELL. 





NO, LXXII. VOL. VIII, 


cc 


350 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


JEBB’S FLECTRA. 


In welcoming the sixth volume of Profes- 
sor Jebb’s great critical work on Sophocles, 


it is idle to expatiate on the qualities which. 


distinguish it, for they are known to all 
scholars. If the Greek scholarship. of 
England is able in this generation to ‘speak 
with its enemies in the gate,’ there are few 
men who will have a larger share of the 
credit for this achievement than the editor 
of Sophocles, with his fine taste and sober 
judgment, his full but discriminating know- 
ledge, his detailed thoroughness of work, 
his unrivalled instinct for the subtleties of 
Greek expression, and his luminous and 
forcible exposition. 

The introduction contains the history of 
the legend of Orestes from its first appear- 
ance in the Odyssey to 1783, when Alfieri 
published his Oreste. Perhaps the most 
interesting pages are those (xv.-xxii.) where 
Professor Jebb, following mainly the Bild 
und Lied of Robert, builds up, from evidences 
scattered about among ancient references 
and extant vase-paintings, a highly probable 
restoration of the treatment of the myth in 
the Oresteia of Stesichoros. There could not be 
a better example either of Professor Jebb’s 
power of lucid statement, or of the unex- 
pected light which the recent study of 
Greek art, on a thorough and systematic plan, 
may throw on old literary problems. 

In making a full and careful comparison 
of the three extant Oresteiai of the 
tragedians, Professor Jebb is of course 
traversing old ground. His most instructive 
contribution here is the great stress he lays 
on the question, Why does Sophocles give no 
hint that Orestes after his matricide was 
liable to the visitation of the Furies? The 
editor suggests that it is because the poet 
chose to adopt the Homeric view of the 
story, viz. that Orestes’ vengeance was 
entirely laudable. But he argues that this 
is an incomplete defence for Sophocles, since 
in the poet’s version Apollo is still an ele- 
ment in the story: and the god was intro- 
duced not only to command the murder, but 
to purify the murderer. And if the 
murderer is not purified, or needs no 
repentance, 1s not the presence of Apollo 
superfluous ? 

The difficulty is a real one; but it is at 
least certain that Sophocles could not have 
been blind to it: if he ignored the Erinyes, 
he must have done it deliberately. Perhaps 
the truth may be (as the Zlectra is a late 


play) that the higher moral teaching about 
guilt, so emphatically insisted on in the 
Coloneus, is here implicitly but intentionally 
applied to the LErinyes. If guilt (as 
Oedipus passionately pleads) lies in the evil. 
will, and not in the deed, then Orestes 
requires no formal purification when once 
Apollo, the god of light and justice, ha 

taken the responsibility of the deed. 

If this is so, then Sophocles’ view is not 
only not a return to Homer’s crude approval 
of the vengeance : it is the last stage in the 
moralization of the tale. Justice requires 
the murder: and in Homer it is therefore 
done without misgiving. But matricide is 
horrible guilt: and so from Stesichoros to 
Aeschylus the Furies punish it, though 
Apollo saves and purities the offender. Thus 
arises a theological ‘scheme of salvation’ 
for Orestes, which is worked out in Aeschylus’ 
trilogy. Sophocles’ solution is simpler and 
higher: if Apollo ordered the matricide, it 
is a just and not a guilty deed. It follows 
that the Erinyes, who punish unjust homicide 
(113) and adultery (276), are to be feared 
by Klytaemnestra and Aigisthos, but not by 
Orestes: and thus Electra may even invoke 
them (115) to help in the deed of venge- 
ance. 

In the commentary on the text there is 
no new emendation as brilliant as dozep 
iddepwov yew (O. 7. 1219) or AuTyprov ASdypa 
(Trach. 554); but there are many places 
where Professor Jebb’s lucid and subtle 
discussion of difficulties gives material help 
toward the settlement of disputed questions 
of reading or interpretation. Such are his 
notes in favour of reading dpxov (47), dyéov 
and not dyewy (159), rexéwy (187), AdvOav’ 
dv (914), and Musgrave’s radécer for ri 
gdvce in the well-known crux of 686. There 
is an excellent note and appendix on 
apxerAoutov (72), where the editor shows 
strong ground for translating ‘ master of my 
possessions’: rote py Avmety (363) is well 
defended against the numerous corrections : 
and there is much to be said for the correc- 
tion Oapoos 71 1n 495, We are glad to see 
that Prof. Jebb is converted from his old 
view of 70 pa) Kaddv KafowAicaca in 1086 : 
for though the participle is still very doubt- 
ful, there can be little question that coda 7 
dpiora Te mats KexAjoGor must be the praise 
which the chorus give, and not that which 
they refuse, to Electra. 

On the other hand there are one or two 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


points on which the editor has not converted 
us, and where at least an appeal may be 
made to him for further consideration. One 
concerns the ‘divided attribute,’ which 
occurs three times in the play (133, 284, 
1143), and on which the notes give an 
uncertain sound. On 133 Prof. Jebb says, 
commenting on the phrase tov éuov zarép’ 
dOduov, that ‘an adjective, though not a 
predicate, is sometimes thus placed’: but he 
nowhere clearly says that it is only where 
the attribute consists of two elements (as énov 
...a0\vov here) that one may be placed, and 
more commonly is placed, after the substan- 
tive. Nor is it needful that ecther of these 
elements should be adjectives: on 284 
(where no reference is made to 133) he cor- 
rectly quotes Thue. vii. 23, ai mpd rod ordpa- 
TOS Ves VavpLaxovoat, Where one element is a 
preposition-phrase and the other a_parti- 
ciple. 

In 155, ovrou cot povva...dyos épavn...mpods 
6, TL ov Tov evoov et Tepicod, Prof. Jebb’s note 
‘in respect to whatever grief’ seems 
misleading : the 6,7. is due to the negative 
(as in ovdev...6, 71) and means (as the editor 
gives it in his translation) ‘not to you alone 
has any grief come wherein.” And e repicoa 
can hardly mean ‘less moderate in showing,’ 
but simply ‘thou dost exceed’: so that the 
whole clause practically contains two points, 
‘you are not the only one afflicted’ and 
‘you are not more affiicted than your 
sisters.’ 

In 443 why should défac6ar not be right, 
even if it be the only Sophoclean instance 
of the well-known use of the aorist infinitive 
with verbs of thinking? There are many 
other examples besides those which Professor 
Jebb quotes: e.g. Thue. ii. 2 évopicay padiws 
kpatnoa, id. vi. 24 vopilwv 7) amotpévey 7)... 
exwAcdoa, Eur. Or. 1527 padpos «i doxets pe 
tAjvat, and Aias 1082 (where some editors 
strangely take it gnomic) vouile Td ypdve 
TEC ELV. 

In 564 it is surely better to translate ‘she 
kept those many winds at Aulis’ : we cannot 
feel it natural that the expression ‘ those 
many winds’ should be used of the winds 
that did not come: they must be the adverse 
winds which Artemis held or kept at Aulis, 

For the corrupt tov dei mwatpos deAata 
orevaxovoa in 1075 Prof. Jebb prefers (though 
he does not adopt) the ingenious 4 zats otrov 
dei watpos Of Heath. But does he not go 
too far in saying that Dindorf’s tov édv 
motpov ‘is excluded by the comparison with 
aydwv, Which indicates that the doom she 


351 


mourns is not her own’? There is no 
incompatibility in Electra lamenting her own 
Jate and her father’s too: she does both con- 
stantly in the play. Nor does the comparison 
exclude it: the chorus in Agamemnon 1142 
say to Kassandra 


> \ > c lal a 
appl & attas Opoets 
4 »” es ‘ 
vopov avopov, old Tis Eovba 
» ” / 2 3 , 
Irvv “Itvv orévova’ addr, 


where the very same comparison of the 
nightingale mourning for Itys is applied to 
the prophetess lamenting for herself. 

Lastly, in 1106, is it not both more 
dramatic and more natural that Orestes 
should not recognize his sister until he hears 
her lamentation over the urn? Prof. Jebb 
says that he would be ‘dull’ not to make 
the discovery sooner, and that he is acting 
a part. But it must be remembered that he 
has not before set eyes on her, and that she 
is not dressed as a princess but as a slave. 
When he does recognize her he is shocked 
at her cdp’ aripws xabews ebOappévov: there 
is indeed nothing to suggest to him who 
she is, until her sorrow over the supposed 
ashes reveals her. The coldness of ovk oida 
tiv onv kAndov’ (1110) and the dramatic irony 
of 466’ Aris éoré (1123) lose their point if 
Orestes is acting a part. 

In the appendix on 780 Professor Jebb 
has an excellent analysis of the uses of dare 
ov with infinitive. The only comment we 
should like to add is that in the two passages 
under class III. which he quotes from Dem. 
53 and Phoeniss. 1357 éore od stands not for 
aote py (as the editor says) but rather for 
gore py ov. This suggests that we should 
insert 7 in the Demosthenes passage, and 
perhaps read és pa) ody Gzravra in Phoenissae. 

In conclusion a word of thanks should be 
given to the editor for the firm stand he has 
made here as elsewhere against the tendency 
of critics to suspect interpolation on per- 
fectly inadequate grounds. The worst 
offender in the Hlectra is Nauck, who excises 
twenty-two lines altogether: and, as a 
specimen of his literary taste, it will be 
enough to quote the two beautiful lines 
which (if he had his wicked will) would no 
longer be read in Electra’s lament over the 
urn :— 


a 4 ~~ 398 ” / A 
viv pev yap ovdev ovra Baoralw xepot" 
Sdpwv b€ o, & wat, Aapmrpov eee’ eyed. 


A. 8. 


352 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


GANZENMULLER’S CIRIS. 


Bettrage zur Ciris von Dr. Cart GANZEN- 
MULLER. Leipzig. 1894. 


Dr. GANZENMULLER in this excellent 
dissertation on the Ciris (which forms part 
of the twentieth supplemental volume to 
Fleckeisen’s Jahrbiicher), has reopened the 
questions which the problematical character 
of the poem raises, and which he satisfac- 
torily shows to be hitherto unsolved. Teuffel 
had fixed the date of its composition from 
19-14 Bc. Dr. Ganzenmiiller finds in it 
too many parallelisms with Ovid to admit 
so early a date. Zingerle in his Kleine 
philologischen Abhandlungen iii. pp. 23-31 
(Innsbruck 1892) had already called atten- 
tion to these correspondences between the 
two poets, but had not pressed the inquiry. 
The present treatise is minute and detailed, 
filling more than 100 pages of close small 
print. It must form the basis of any 
future edition, commentary or dissertation 
on the poem. 

Unlike the Culex, Moretum, Dirae, Copa, 
the Curis is preserved in no good or early MS. 
One short fragment alone 454-541 is con- 
tained in a Brussels codex of the twelfth 
century : all the other MSS. are, so far as 
is yet known, of the fifteenth. It was my 
hope, when working in Rome in 1887, to 
have discovered a new and independent 
source for the text of the Curis, as the 
Corsini is for the text of the Culex, but in 
this I was disappointed, though some vestiges 
of a better tradition are mentioned in my 
article ‘Further Notes on the Ciris and 
other poems of the Appendix Vergiliana’ 
published in vol. viii. of the American 
Journal of Philology. After all, the text of 
the Curis is less desperate than the Catalepta, 
a collection preserved in very few MSS., 
and those so hopelessly corrupt as to baffle 
all the ingenuity of criticism. 

The first part of Ganzenmiiller’s disser- 
tation is a comparison of the verses of the 
Curis with those of other poets, mainly of 
the Ciceronian and Augustan eras, though 
those of a later time are sometimes cited 
also, e.g. Manilius, Lucan, Val. Flaccus, 
Statius. 

Catullus and Vergil are the poets most 
largely borrowed from : but there are many 
parallels with Lucretius, and, as Ganzen- 
miiller successfully shows, with Ovid, though 
in reading them side by side it is difficult 
to feel any certainty which of the two poets 


preceded the other. G. believes that the 
Astronomica of Manilius were read and 
used by the poet of the Ciris(p. 561, note). 
The combination Felix tila dies in both is at 
least noticeable : but it is not certain that 
illa was written by the author of the Ciris, 
some of the MSS. giving dle. ; 

The juxtaposition of so large a collection 
of passages where the same combinations of 
words in the same place of the verse occur 
is very instructive, even if it leaves the 
reader in doubt as to such combinations 
being anything more than fortuitous. V. 
122 of the Ciris ends with the words 
vertice crims ; G. cites the same ending (some- 
times with crinem or crines) ten times from 
Catullus, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius, Lucan, 
Silius and Statius. It is obvious that little 
or nothing can be inferred from so large an 
array of coincident endings as to any one of 
the poets being indebted to the other. 
Perhaps, and this is all we can say, Catullus 
set the tone, and it was taken up more or 
less unconsciously by the poets who followed 
him. Again Cir.170 ends with the words 
bacata monilia collo, and the same combina- 
tion, only with the participle altered, is cited 
four times from Ovid. But it is at least as 
possible that Ovid took the combination 
from the Cvris, as vice versa. What is 
certain is that the poet of the Ciris copied, 
not Ovid, but Vergil, Aen. i. 654 colloque 
monile Bacatum. So, if both the Ciris and 
the account of Scylla in Metamm. viii. have 
Nise pater! as an exclamation, it is more 
than probable that one borrowed from the 
other: but Iam not prepared to say with 
Ganzenmiiller that Ovid was the prior of 
the two. 

Let me put the point in another form. 
The active use of reguiescere is found in 
Calvus, the Helogues of Vergil, and the Ciris. 
In all these cases the accusative is cursus. 
Here it is likely that Vergil copied Calvus, 
certain that he was himself copied by the 
poet of the Ciris. No such use is found in 
Ovid. What is to be inferred? I should 
suppose that the construction was felt by 
Ovid to be too harsh and strange to be 
admissible: the language of poetry had 
become more sensitive and intolerant of 
abnormal uses. If it was so, the Ciris 
would seem to belong to the less exacting 
and earlier period, and such real parallelisms 
with it as are found in Ovid are imitations 
of the Ciris, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The same reasoning may be applied to 
another of G.’s arguments. The Ciris omits 
those parts of the Scylla-legend which Ovid 
dwells upon, because they were familiar 
already as Ovid had presented them in 
Metamm. viii. It is equally possible that 
Ovid, having the Ciris before him, enlarged 
on those parts which he did not find there. 

The general view of G. may be thus 
stated. The first sketch of the Ciris was 
made shortly after the publication of the 
Georgics (four lines of which (i. 406-409) 
form the argument of the poem and are 
repeated in it word for word Cir. 538-541), 
Ze. in 30-29 s.c. Its author, at the time 
quite young and under the influence of 
Catullus and the imitators of the Alex- 
andrian school, was diverted from his project 
and only resumed it in later life, perhaps 
when sixty years of age. What it may have 
lost in youthful fire, it has gained in finish 
and apt imitation of other and later poets, 
particularly Ovid. In form however it still 
retains the Alexandrian outline on which 
Catullus and Calvus constructed their 
epyllia, the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, 
and the Io: with an additional tendency to 
Lucretian reminiscences, natural to an author 
who had purposed, as he tells us (5 sqq.), a 
more ambitious poem of a philosophical or 
scientific, probably astronomical, character. 
His training shows itself pre-eminently 
Greek: he seems indeed to have fixed his 
residence in Athens, and to this are probably 
owing not only his frequent allusions to 
recognized Athenian customs and observ- 
ances, eg. the navis Panathenaica and 
peplum embroidered with the battle of the 
Giants, the rérrvyes used to fasten the hair 
(Thue. i. 6), but the minute description of 
the coast-scenery in the neighbourhood, and 
the details about the founding or building 
of Megara. Hence also the number of 
Greek words, which G. estimates as 146 ina 
total of 1360, an average exceeding Catullus, 


353 


many of them not proper names, psalterium, 
storax, thallus, sophia, haliaeetos, oestrus. 
In estimating the merits of the poem, G. is 
inclined to side rather with the depreciatory 
side. It is, as has often been observed, in 
an extraordinary manner a cento: the vast 
array of parallels now collected does not 
seem to me to add much to this at once 
obtrusive and palpable note of inferiority. 
It abounds, too, in parentheses and repeti- 
tions, sometimes, no doubt, purposely 
introduced to give a rhetorical effect, more 
often from imperfect command of poetical 
technic. G.’s lists here are curious and very 
interesting in comparison with Catullus’ 
sixty-fourth poem, which is open to the same 
criticism. My own inclination is to rank 
the Ciris higher than G. would admit: 
especially the speeches of the Nurse are 
well conceived and the suggestion of Scylla’s 
real object in her mysterious visit to Nisus’ 
bed-chamber is conveyed in language which 
recalls Ovid without his indecency. Itisa 
pity that we cannot compare here Cinna’s 
Smyrna with the Ciris: but from Martial’s 
epigram it seems to have been doomed early 
to extinction ; yet we may feel certain from 
Catullus’ high-flown eulogy, as well as 
from the fine fragments which have survived, 
that Cinna had poured all the resources of 
a lavish art into his portrayal of Myrrha’s 
incestuous passion. 

Much is to be learnt from the metrical 
details which form another section of Ganzen- 
miiller’s dissertation. I cannot but agree 
with him in his disparagement of Drobisch’s 
and Lederer’s statistics; in contrast with 
these mechanical appraisers of poetry, all 
that G. has put together as to the character- 
istics of the Ciris, looked at as a new 
experiment in hexameter, is sound, judi- 
cious, and convincing. There are however 
points on which he is silent, and to which 
I hope again to return. 

Ropinson EL.ts. 





SCHLEE’S SCHOLIA TERENTIANA. 


Scholia Terentiana. 
Frip, SCHLEE. 
184 pp. 


Collegit et disposuit 
Leipzig : 1893. Teubner. 


Tuts is an attempt to place within conveni- 
ent reach of Terentian scholars all that are 
valuable of the scholia existing in manu- 
scripts other than the Bembine; and to 


establish the antiquity and importance of 
these scholia, in opposition to the adverse 
judgment of Umpfenbach in Hermes ii. 338 
—a judgment that now for the first time is 
shown to have had little foundation in fact. 
Indeed, since the year 1867, when Umpfen- 
bach edited the Bembine scholia in the 
journal already named, the scholia of the 


354 


other MSS. have in general been regarded 
as unworthy of particular study, no one 
thinking it worth his while to test the 
accuracy of Umpfenbach’s unfavourable 
verdict. 


The test has at last been made by Frid. . 


Schlee, with the result that the value of a 
large portion of the other’ Terentian scholia 
is established as equal, or nearly so, to that 
of the scholia of the codex Bembinus ; and 
the importance of the lemmata of the codex 
Monacensis is for the first time brought to 
light. 

The editor has made special use of the 
following codices: Victorianus (D), Decur- 
tatus (G), Vaticanus (C), Riccardianus (EF), 
and Monacensis (M), the last the oldest of 
the MSS. containing lemmata, and assigned 
by Halm to the eleventh century. The 
lemmata referred to are of considerable 
length, and fairly numerous, and since they 
are evidently derived from an ancient codex 
of the D family, are considered to be 
deserving of publication, especially as the 
MSS. of this family are more or less in a 
mutilated condition. 

As a basis for what is to follow the 
editor begins his book with a discussion of 
the Calliopian recension, pp. 1-11. Students 
are familiar with the threefold classification 
of the Terentian codices, attributed to 
Umpfenbach. The codex Bembinus (A) 
constitutes in itself class I. To class II. 
belong the codices Victorianus (D), Decur- 
tatus (G), and Fragmentum Vindobonense 
(V). This is the D family. Class III. 
contains the Parisinus (P), Vaticanus (C), 
Basilicanus (B), Ambrosianus (F), and 
Riccardianus (E). These are known as the 
P family. The most ancient of all these 
MSS. is the Bembinus. It is also the most 
trustworthy, because it is the only one 
certainly free from the arbitrary alterations 
of the unknown grammarian Calliopius. 
Which of the other two families is more 
strictly representative of the original 
Calliopian recension is a question concerning 
which there still exists considerable doubt, 
notwithstanding many efforts have been 
made to solve the problem. All that has 
been positively ascertained is that each 
family has suffered, to a greater or less 
degree, from the correcting hand of a 
commentator of the fourth or fifth century, 
whose name was probably Calliopius. 

In Umpfenbach’s opinion the Parisinus 
(P) and Vaticanus (C) exhibit the Calliopian 
corrections and alterations more faithfully 
than do the Victorianus (D) and the Decur- 
‘tatus (G). Frid. Leo (‘die Ueberlieferungs- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


geschichte des Terenz,’ Rh. Mus. 1883) finds 
the original recension preserved in DG, 
while in PC he discovers the same recension 
revised and changed by some writer who 
failed to subscribe his name. Dziatzko 
(Comment. Woellflin. Lips. 1891) concludes 
that Calliopius, about the fifth century, 
produced an edition of Terence in which he 
had made many violent and arbitrary ~ 
alterations, both verbal and metrical, and 
that this edition is now represented by the 
codices PC; that this edition gradually 
acquired such importance and authority 
that many of its readings crept into the 
vulgar text, and that the vulgar text, thus 
corrupted, is to be seen in a more or less 
genuine form in the codices D and G ; and, 
further, that the similarity now traceable 
between these two classes of MSS. is due not 
so much to the readings which have passed 
from the family of PC into that of DG, as 
to those which belonged originally to the 
accepted text, and have remained common 
to the two families in spite of subsequent 
alterations. . 

It will be noticed that Leo’s view attaches 
the name of Calliopius to the DG recension, 
while Umpfenbach and Dziatzko give it to 
the recension of which PC are the exponents. 
But the question, says Schlee, to which of 
the two the name more properly belongs is 
of slight consequence, so far as the consti- 
tution of the text is concerned. A more 
important point is the relative antiquity of 
the two recensions,—a matter regarding 
which both Leo and Daziatzko are in 
substantial accord and one that has been 
ably treated by Schlee. The latter is at 
pains to show that DG are descended from 
an archetype older than that of PC, while 
each family springs ultimately from the 
same recension—a recension believed to 
have been in common use in the third or 
fourth century of our era. 

In short, our editor reaches a conclusion 
in all essentials the same as that arrived at 
by Dziatzko, and differing from that of Leo 
in regard merely to the name of the author 
of the later recension (=PC). From the 
third century to the fifth there existed, 
besides the Bembine, a second recension in 
common use. The MSS. of this recension, 
being circulated in the schools, gradually 
became burdened with scholia, and often, to 
save space, were written without due 
attention to the metres. In the fifth 
century Calliopius made his recension from 
a MS. of this class, and in doing so intro- 
duced many metrical corrections, omitted 
not a few of the scholia, added marginal 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


illustrations from an earlier MS., and 
altered the text (=PC). This recension 
acquired considerable authority. But the 
other MSS. also, which had been supplied 
with scholia for use in the schools, were 
passed from hand to hand, and frequently 
copied, and in this way became more and 
more similar (=DG) to the Calliopian 
recension. DG therefore are derived from 
a recension older than the Calliopian, and 
according to Schlee are entitled to greater 
consideration, especially as  Calliopius 
declined to adhere to his exemplar, but 
made changes in the text in harmony with 
his own peculiar fancies and prejudices. 

But while DG may be of greater import- 
ance than other MSS., wherever the 
question of the scholia is to be considered, 
it is improbable that they are so important 
to the constitution of the text as Schlee 
appears to maintain. Indeed there is 
evidence that our editor, like others before 
him, has underrated the value of PC in this 
regard. A discussion of this point in detail 
would be out of place here; but the 
reader is referred to an article of the 
relative value of the MSS. of Terence by 
Prof. E. M. Pease in the Zransactions of 
the American Philological Association for 
1887, vol. xviii. (see also my edition of the 
Adelphoe, pp. li. and lii., Macmillan & Co.), 
in which the writer proves at length that, 
next to the Bembinus, the Parisinus is the 
most trustworthy of the MSS., and that, 
while the original form of the Calliopian re- 
cension is to be sought in DG, yet PC repre- 
sent by their archetype an edition of the 
Calliopian recension, worked over, illus- 
trated and arranged according to a MS. 
sprung from the best period; that PC are 
more closely bound together and have suf- 
fered less from errors creeping into the 
individual MSS. than DG, and that in 
general more changes have been made in 
the archetype of the D family than in the 
archetype of the P family. ‘The similarity 
of these conclusions to those of Leo will be 
readily observed. 

The theory that Calliopius is only another 
namefor Alcuin, the celebrated Anglo-Saxon 
scholar of the time of Charlemagne, has 
lately been revived by Gutjahr (Act. Leg. 
Soc. Litt. Sax. 1892), but is rejected by 
Schlee. 

The second paragraph, pp. 11-17, 
estimates the value to be attached to the 
scholia handed down by the codex Mona- 
censis (M). In Hermes, vol. ii. p. 388, 
Umpfenbach says: ‘Kaum_ auf ein 
urspriingliches corpus gehen die Trivial- 


355 


scholien ziiruck, die sich in gleicher oder 
sehr iihnlicher Fassung in den Handschriften 
seit dem ix.—x. Jahrhundert, nur bald 
vermehrt, bald vermindert, finden und 
ihren Ursprung aus halbbarbarischer Zeit 
nicht verleugnen. Die undankbare Miihe, 
sie zusammen zu schreiben, hat sich ein 
Namenloser zu Verona im xi. Jahrhundert 
gegeben. Die Frucht seines Fleisses ist 
die Miinchener Handschrift 14420 =M.’ To 
this our editor replies : haec fere omnia prava 
sunt; for, as he explains, the writer of M 
was not the first to collect the materials (lem- 
mata and scholia) of which the commentary 
is composed. He merely made a copy of a 
commentary already in existence, as may be 
proved from an examination of the lenmata 
themselves. Nor was M made from any 
one or more of the MSS. as they now 
appear. A comparison of the subscriptiones 
and indices of this and other codices 
indicates that M, while not derived immedi- 
ately from G, must have proceeded from 
some MS. of the DG family very closely 
related to G; and its lemmata are the more 
valuable for the reason that they supply 
much of what is lacking in the codex 
Decurtatus, a MS. now in great part 
destroyed. Hence just so many of the 
lemmata are printed on pp. 17—384 as, in 
the judgment of our editor, are useful in 
determining the text, or otherwise impor- 
tant to a correct valuation of the codex 
itself. 

The fourth paragraph, pp. 34—37, 
reviews those particular points on which 
the authority and importance of the Mona- 
censis are believed to rest: (1) This codex 
confirms certain good readings which, on 
account of the discrepancies between the 
MSS., were previously doubtful; (2) it 
establishes the correctness of certain ancient 
forms; (3) it agrees in some particulars 
with the codex Bembinus, against the 
testimony of the other MSS. ; (4) it adds 
weight occasionally to recent conjectures ; 
(5) it frees the text from a number of 
superfluous readings which are found in all 
the MSS.—both the later ones, and even 
the Bembinus ; (6) it helps to restore the 
ancient reading of the DG family in many 
places where the true reading has been 
altered through the influence of PC; (7) 
finally the lemmata of this codex lend 
confirmation to the theory that the Riccar- 
dianus (E) and the Ambrosianus (I) belong, 
not to the PC, but to the DG family—a 
matter regarding which there has been 
some difference of opinion. 

According to the filth paragraph, pp. 


306 


37—39, the scholia in DGEFPC and M 
fall into three groups. The first group 
consists chiefly of extracts from Servius and 
Priscian, which occur only in DGE, and are 
written in the margin. They are by the 
same hand as the words of the text, or at 
least by one that is not later. The second 
group embraces many more scholia than the 
first, which consists for the most part of 
brief glosses ; each scene begins however 
with a so-called explanatio praeambula, 
_ indicating the characters about to be intro- 
duced, and explaining how the scenes are con- 
nected one with another. These scholia are 
more perfectly preserved in M_ than 
elsewhere; they appear however also in 
DGEFPC. In PC they are added by a 
later hand ; in the rest they are by the same 
hand as the text itself. The scholia of the 
third group are only fragments of what was 
once a much fuller commentary, and are 
found in the last pages of D and G. 

The sixth paragraph, pp. 39—42, deals 
exclusively with the first group of scholia. 
Here the editor explains that certain 
scholia taken from Donatus, Eugraphius, 
Festus, Porphyrion, and Isidorus, are to be 
reckoned in the same category with those 
of Priscian and Servius; and that all these 
are to be distinguished from the remainder 
of the great body of the scholia, and are to 
be esteemed as of primary importance on 
account of their antiquity and fulness. The 
scholia of the first group are printed on pp. 
53—78; those of Servius and Priscian 
being given on pp. 53—67, those of Donatus 
on pp. 67—75, those of Eugraphius on pp. 
75 and 76, and the rest, together with those 
of an unknown scholiast, on pp. 76—78. 

A. Funck, in his review of this work in 
the Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 
Oct. 28, 1893, suggests a comparison of the 
scholia of Donatus with the commentary 
that passes under his name, and remarks 
that the commentary is fuller and more to 
the point. Only occasionally, he says, do 
the scholia add anything new, as e.g. on 
Phorm. ii. 2, 24, where a citation from 
Juvenal, i. 135, is given in illustration of 
the use of rex = patronus. 

The seventh paragraph, pp. 42—48, 
discusses the second group of  scholia. 
These are taken from M, and are here 
printed for the first time—on pp. 79—162. 
Owing however to the frequent repetitions 
and unnecessary fulness which characterize 
the group, the editor has omitted a good 
deal of what, after due deliberation, has 
appeared to him to be superfluous, The 
scholia are by an unknown hand, distin- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


guished for convenience as Commentarius 


Antiquior. At the top of the first page 
of G are to be found the letters: 
COMMENTARII OOPEIVS. The 


letters OO are uncertain. That Calliopius 


jis not intended there can be _ little 
doubt. Woefllin (Arch. viii. 419 sq.) 
hints that the reference may be to the 
grammarian Pompeius who wrote a 


Commentum Artis Donati about the close of 
the fifth century. To this group of scholia 
was originally prefixed a. Vita Terentt: 
The life however has not~ been fully 
preserved in any of the MSS., owing, in 
some instances, to the loss of the original 
first page, as in the case of D and G; in 
another instance, that of C, to the oblitera- 
tion of the life by a scribe who wished to 
make way for other scholia. 

As the unknown scholiast has nowhere 
mentioned any of his authorities, it is 
difficult to determine the sources from which 
the scholia of the second group have been 
drawn. Our editor however thinks he has 
detected points of contact with Festus, 
Isidorus, Eugraphius, Donatus, and the 
scholia of the codex Bembinus. He traces 
certain agreement also between the glosses 
of this group and those of the Corpus Gloss- 
ariorum. A list of glosses is given on pp. 
45—47, with references to the plays in a 
parallel column. It is probable, says 
Schlee, that the scholia of this group 
accumulated by degrees from various 
sources—the writings of grammarians, 
commentators, glossatores, etc..—and that 
accordingly they: were penned by different 
hands; but that the praeambulae explanationes 
prefixed to the scenes were the work of a 
single scribe,—a fact indicated by the 
character of their diction. These scholia 
in question are chiefly valuable for the 
elucidation of the text of the codices 
Victorianus and Decurtatus, since in this 
family they appear as given by the first 
hand, and are better preserved than in the 
Parisinus and Vaticanus. 

The eighth paragraph, p. 49, gives a brief 
account of the third group of scholia, of 
which a specimen taken from codices 
Barbarinus, Riccardianus, and Victorianus 
is printed at the close of the volumes, on 
pp. 163—174. These scholia are in the 
form of a continuous commentary, and are 
later than the eleventh century. Their 
purpose is similar to that of the preceding 
group, except that they bear upon the 
meaning of sentences as a whole, rather 
than upon the peculiar significance of single 
words. The first part of the commentary 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


contains a brief life of the poet which, 
being taken from Orosius iv. 19, falls into 
the error of confusing the name of the 
dramatist with that of Q. Terentius Culleo, 
the Senator (Liv. xxx. 45). Following the 
life is a treatise in comedy, taken principally 
from Euanthius, and enriched with quota- 
tions from Horace and Juvenal. Then 
follow a commentary on the prologue to 
the Andria and a summary of the plot; 
after which come certain eaplanationes 
pracambulae which outline individual 
scenes in the play, and enlighten the reader 
as to the characters that appear in them. 
Our editor finally felicitates himself on 
having worked in an unknown field, for, as 
he has already remarked, the scholia which 
he edits have been looked upon as of slight 
importance—the work of the unlearned of 
the Middle Age. The ground for this 
unfavourable judgment he claims to have 
removed. Terence, he says, was studied by 
school children in the very earliest times 
(cf. Sid. Ap. #p. iv. 12), and his diction 
could not have been properly understood 
without assistance. The commentary of 
Donatus was of too learned a character to 
be suited to boys, for whose use editions 
with brief notes or glosses were better 
adapted. In one of these school editions, 


357 


he repeats, the codices known as the Vic- 
torianus and Decurtatus had their origin, 
and the scholia are derived from a similar 
source, 

That this collection, so well edited, of 
Terentian scholia will be generally helpful 
to students of Latin comedy, and of special 
service in settling difficulties in criticism 
and interpretation, no one need doubt. We 
have only to regret, in company with the 
writer of the review in the Berliner Philo- 
logische Wochenschrift, that the editor has 
not added to this most praiseworthy edition 
both the commentary of Donatus and the 
scholia of the codex Bembinus. ‘The former 
is at present accessible only in such early 
editions of the poet as those of Lindenbrog, 
Klotz, Westerhovius, and Stallbaum. The 
latter must be sought in the special articles 
of Umpfenbach in Hermes ii. and Stude- 
mund in Neue Jahrb. 97. To combine these 
four available sources of early Terentian 
criticism in one convenient volume would 
greatly facilitate the labours of modern 
scholars, and would be an undertaking 
worthy of the special experience and critical 
skill of the editor of the Scholia Terentiana. 


SipNEY G. ASHMORE. 
Union College, Schenectady, N.Y. 





HUBNER’S MONUMENTA LINGUAE IBERICAE. 


Monumenta Linguae Ibericae edidit A¥EmI- 
Lius Huser. 4to. pp. exlii. 264, Berlin, 
Reimer, 1893. 


Art the request of the editor of the Classical 
Review I submit to its readers a very brief 
description of the last and not the least 
noteworthy outgrowth of the Corpus IJn- 
scriptionum Latinarum. Its unique import- 
ance and interest would demand in justice a 
far fuller notice than, unhappily, I can at 
present attempt to give. 

The lingua Iberica is that of the primitive 
inhabitants of the Spanish peninsula, the 
people, that is, who were there before Phoe- 
nicians, Greeks, Celts or Romans. Its 
remains are now collected, practically for 
the first time, by the great epigraphist who 
edited the Spanish volumes of the C./.Z., 
Emil Hiibner. The courage needed to 
undertake such a task is matched by the 
scrupulous care with which it has been 
executed, though neither is new in the army 
of scholars whom Mommsen has inspired ; 
and it is not to be counted the least of their 


triumphs to have rescued from the dust 
what must be by far the largest articulate 
record of pre-Aryan Europe. 

In Hiibner’s numbering the volume con- 
tains some seventy-six inscriptions, five or 
six of which are of some length (containing 
from fifty to a hundred and fifty letters), 
besides coins from nearly 200 towns, each of 
which shows several different species and 
legends. The types of these are described, 
not reproduced, but of the inscriptions in 
the narrower sense facsimiles are frequently 
given. In all points of method the editor 
follows the lines which the C./.Z. has once 
for all established, fulness and definiteness 
of all certain information bearing on the text 
of the inscriptions, combined with a jealous 
repression of merely conjectural matter. All 
the inscriptions are transcribed into italics, 
and those given in facsimile are represented 
also in black and white in Iberian a8. But 
in two respects the plan of the book goes 
beyond that of the Corpus. Its admirable 
indices include all the ancient local and 
personal names of Iberian territory, taken 


358 


either from C'./.Z. ii. or from literary sources 
—an invaluable complement to the inscrip- 
tions themselves. Similar collections for 
the whole of Europe—the materials for 
which no doubt exist in some form or other 
in all its parts—would be a laborious but 
a most welcome contribution to primitive 
history. Secondly, in a long and masterly 
introduction, the editor has collected what 
may be said to be known about the Iberians, 
their alphabet, and their language (includ- 
ing some fifteen good glosses), and by his 
careful lists of forms classified according to 
their endings and other phonetic character- 
istics he has at least laid the foundation of 
a scientific study of this terra incognita. 
How much has yet to be done, and how 
scrupulous the present editor has been the 
reader may judge from the fact that, so far 
as I can find, he does not confess to even an 
inkling of the meaning of more than some 
half-a-dozen words. The longest of the in- 
scriptions is the bronze tablet found at 
Castellon (on the east coast south of the 
mouth of the Ebro) in 1851 and now in the 
Museum at Madrid, which contains a hundred 
and fifty-three letters. But, though abstain- 
ing from interpretation, Hiibner has come to 
a conclusion as to the character of the lan- 
guage, based on its phonetic character- 
istics, namely that it is not Indo-European. 
‘Linguam apparet secutam esse leges for- 
mationis et flexionis diversas non tantum a 
Graecis Latinisque, sed etiam ab eorum 
populorum quos Iberis aliquando vicinos 
fuisse scimus, quatenus de linguis eorum 
iudicare licet ; Venetos dico, Ligures, Etrus- 
cos, Celtas’ (p. cxli.), and he points out that 
this was the belief of Humboldt (the one 
illustrious name in the scanty list of Iberian 
students), and he goes on to quote with 
sympathy rather than definite approval the 
same scholar’s conjecture that the modern 
representatives of the Iberians in race and 
language were no other than the Basques. 
But he refuses at present to appeal to 
Basque words or forms as a means of inter- 
pretation. For this there are two unassail- 
able reasons: first, that the only sound 
method of interpreting an unknown lan- 
guage is to begin by working simply at the 
monuments of the language itself with 
whatsoever light their surroundings and 
mutual relations can shed upon it;! and, 
secondly, that there is as yet no satis- 
factory grammar of the Basque language. 
Will Professor Rhys help us here? It 


1 T should perhaps explain that this is not a quo- 
tation of Hiibner’s own words, but only an inference 
from the method he actually pursues. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


should be added that Hiibner follows Kie- 
pert’s treatment of the Celtic invasion 
(Monatsber. d. Berl. Akad. 1864, p. 143, 
and Lehrbuch d. alt. Geogr. p. 478-498) 
and carefully eliminates place and personal 
names of Celtic origin. 

The Iberian alphabet or rather alphabets, 
for the signs vary considerably in Hither 
and Further Spain, are derived directly from 
the Phoenician, as appears clearly in the 
tables on pp. liv. lvi. It may be useful to 
reproduce the shorter of these; } is wanting, . 
and in Hither Spain the direction is mainly 
from left to right, in Further always right 
to left. ; 


Value. Phoe- Further Hither 
nician. Spain. Spain. 
a 4 4 P 
c “ “AN < 
d A ei X 
€ 4 4 = 
Zz 4  . a 
h H H H 
th ® @ @ 
a ~ n N 
k; ¥ vy x 
bh “A i. 
m bes vi VY 
n V ha N 
O O 8 O 
Pp u | [7 
q P as x 
r q q ° 
s XY; eZ $ 
s WwW M M 
t 0 A N14 
U Y 4 4 


Further there are five signs not borrowed 
from the Phoenician a8, but ‘exemplo Ro- 
mano’: 


- J 

| t 
A ca 
é ce 
A du 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 359 


Hitherto the value of ¢, M, and ¢ has 


been uncertain, of A, T, and & (a variant 
of ¥, &) unknown. Ina few points, 1 may 
add, these af’s resemble those of the enig- 
matic pre-Italic inscriptions of the Adriatic 
coast. 

As to date, the coins range roughly from 
241-133 bB.c., the inscriptions ‘ probably’ 
from the Hannibalic war to the fall of the 
republic, the latest being in Latin a8. But, 
naturally, there are very few, if any, of the 
inscriptions whose date in particular can be 
fixed. 

For curiosity’s sake may be given Hiib- 
ner’s transcription of the Zabula Castellon- 
ensis (the words are separated by a triple 
interpunct, but after the last it is only 
double). 


[zlirtaims airieimth sinektn urcecerere au- 
runikiceaiasthkiceaie ecariu aduniu kduer 
ithsm eosu shsinpuru krkrhniu qshiu wthgm 


kricarsense ulttheraicase argtco aicag tcepu- 
raves tithsiniecarse. 

If the transcription is correct it would 
seem that some vowel sounds must be un- 
written in the heavy consonant groups ; and 
one cannot help asking, Were the Iberians 
quite innocent of sonant nasals and liquids 4 

Unless one is prepared to become a 
serious student of Iberian, all criticism 
must be more or less nugatory. Yet per- 
haps it may be asked whether Hiibner’s 
negative conclusions as to the character of 
the language can be called ‘ proved,’ at least 
so far as they are based, as they seem to be 
in chief, merely on its phonetic characteris- 
tics. Does the foregoing inscription strike 
the average scholar as more outlandish than 
would an extract of similar length from, 
say, Armenian, Old Church Slavonic, or 
even Old High German ? 

R. 8. Conway. 

CanpirF, June 1894. 





BOLDERMAN’S S7UDiA LUCIANEA. 


Studia Lucianea. Specimen Litt. Inaug. 
Scripsit P. M. Botperman. Lugd. Bat. 
1893. 


THE original purpose of the writer in under- 
taking the study of Lucian was to discover 
quotations from Attic Comedy. So far as 
this definite purpose is concerned his con- 
clusions are negative: not only are no new 
comic fragments to be found in Lucian but 
the number of references to comedy assumed 
by Kock and others is to be materially 
reduced. The tendency to find satire, evi- 
dent or concealed, in all the works of 
Lucian and to reject as spurious those in 
which no satire can be found, together with 
the failure sufficiently to take into account 
the changes in the character of his works 
incident to changes of age or purpose in 
writing, constitute the principal defects of 
previous studies of Lucian. The positive 
results of the comparison with comedy are 
that Lucian’s works are to be divided into 
these four classes : 

I. The Rhetorical works in which, with 
the exception of the Yoxaris, no comic 
influence is traceable. 

II. Dialogues in which the matter or 
method is comic. 

IIl. Satires in which contemporaries and 
their faults are rebuked, but without evi- 


dence of imitation of comedy except in 
three cases. 

IV. The works of Lucian’s old age,— 
rhetorical declamations in which the comic 
element is also lacking. 

These classifications of his works corre- 
spond to periods in the life of the author. 
From the Somnium and Bis Accusatus we 
learn that he studied and practised rhetoric 
in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy until his 
fortieth year, then turned to Dialogues in 
the style of the comic writers and Menippus. 
In this style he continued until the Piscator 
in which, himself turned philosopher, he 
attempts to retract his former abuse of the 
old philosophers and promises to satirize his 
contemporaries. This period of his life and 
style, to which belong the satirical Fugitivi, 
Philopseudes, and Convivium, lasted until 
his old age, when he was forced by poverty 
to ask for an official position from the 
Prefect of Alexandria. After the loss of 
office he was compelled to support himself 
by returning to the practice of rhetoric. 

In discussing the date of Lucian’s birth, 
Bolderman defends the accuracy of the 
notice in Suidas (yéyova dé éri rod Kaicapos 
Tpatavod Kat éréxewa) against the usually 
accepted 125 a.p. The Mors Peregrini was 
written in 165 and in it he says that at the 
age of forty he turned from rhetoric to his 


360 


comic and Menippean style, but Bolderman 
urges that he did not necessarily write the 
Mors Peregrini at that time, but ten years 
later, when fifty years old, and during these 
ten years he wrote in the comic and Menip- 
pean style. This places his birth at 115 
and gives as approximate dates for the four 
periods of his writings : 

I. The Rhetorical, “115—B5D5. 

II. Comic and Menippean, 155—65. 

III. Censorious of his eentompomnes 
165—80. 

IV. Old Age, 180 till death. 

To the discussion of each of these periods 
of his life and style a chapter of the Studia 
is devoted. 

The artificial and romantic tendencies 
which characterized the writings of the 
rhetors and sophists of the age of the 
Antonines exerted a strong influence upon 
the first, or rhetorical period of Lucian’s 
life, the works of which were not the 
expression of his own sentiments but were 
composed to meet the taste and demands of 
the audience. To this purely declamatory 
time and class belongs the Patriae laus, 
which is not to be considered with Wieland 
and Jacobs, ‘eine reife und edle Frucht 
seiner spitern Jahre, mehr ein Werk des 
Herzens als des Witzes.’ The De balneo 
and De domo were also written from inter- 
ested (mercenary) motives and neither in 
them nor in the De salutatione is to be 
sought the overworked satira latens. On 
account of its rhetorical character Bolder- 
man discusses in this connection the 
Imagines. The explanation of éuevvpos yap 
éoti TH TOD "ABpadara éxeivy TH Kady (X) as a 
reference to the Panthea who accompanied 
Lucius Verus to the Parthian War and the 
conclusion that the Jmagines was therefore 
written in 162 to win the favour of that 
emperor certainly seem probable. 

The <Anacharsis and Tozxaris, though 
belonging to the rhetorical age, give evi- 
dence of a comical or satirical spirit suffi- 
cient to justify the assumption that they 
belonged to the transition from the first to 
the second period. 

The third division of this chapter deals 
with Kock’s attempts to restore fragments 
of comedy by assuming common comic 
sources for Lucian and Alciphron. Bolder- 
man thinks that Kock carries this method 
to extremes in that he too readily finds 
comedy where similarity of words, subject 
matter, or expression may be purely acci- 
dental or proverbial. Very likely some of 
Kock’s restorations have not sufficient 
reason, but to urge that because many of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


his assumptions are false others probably are, 
is perhaps quite as dangerous as to have 
too much faith, and some fragments which 
Bolderman attacks seem too reasonable to 
be lightly given up. 

After calling attention to the diversity of 


‘opinion hitherto prevailing among scholars 


as to the chronological order of the dia- 
logues, Bolderman proceeds to discuss the 
place of the Piscator and Bis accusatus and 
concludes that the former, from its pro- 
fessional respect for the old philosophers . 
and the announcement of the. intention 
henceforth to attack the vices and pretences 
of contemporary would-be philosophers, 
marks the close of the second era of Lucian’s 
life, during which he had bitterly attacked 
the ancient philosophers but after which he 
never depreciated them. The Bis accusatus 
from its milder tone toward contemporaries 
is to be placed just before the Piscator, 
while the Fugitivi, which is severer, follows 
immediately and in fact introduces the style 
of the third period. Accepting as correct 
this conclusion from philosophical content 
for the position of the Bis accusatus and 
Piscator, the next steps areeasy. The Dial. 
Mort., Menipp., Icaromen., Charon, Jup. 
Trag., Hermot., and Vit. Auct. are mentioned 
or referred to in the Bis Acc. or Pisc., 
therefore precede them. To the other 
dialogues the test of Lucian’s treatment of 
the old philosophers is to be applied and 
the works in which he abuses them precede 
the changed disposition evidenced in the 
Bis Acc. and Piscator. A still further sub- 
division of the works of this period is 
attempted, into (a) those attacking all 
philosophers without distinction and written 
under the influence of comedy, viz. Dual. 
Mer., Timon, Dial. D., Dial. Mar., de 
Parasito, Vit. Auct., Deorum Cone., and 
Prometheus ; (b) those which breathe a 
cynic spirit, the Cronica, Dial. Mort., 
Menippus, Hermot., Jup. Confut., Charon, 
and Navigium; {c) those in which cynic 
philosophy is put in the mouths of comic 
characters, the Jup. Trag., Gallus, Tyrannis 
and Jcaromen. ; 

It is difficult to find a place for the 
Nigrinus in this list if we are to accept it 
as literally meaning that Lucian was at one 
time a follower of Platonism. This objec- 
tion Bolderman meets without resorting to 
the usual explanation, that Lucian was once 
for a brief period Platonist, or the Vigrinus 
contains satira latens, or is pseudo-Lucianic. 
The name Nigrinus and the introductory 
letters addressed to Nigrinus he considers 
sophistic fictions—the matter is cynic—the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


manner comic. 
to subdivision c. 
The analysis of the Z7imon and the deter- 
mination of comic sources for it, as well as 
for the Prom., Vit. Auct., and several of the 


The NVigrinus then belongs 


Dial. Mer., Dial. Mar., and Dial. Deorum™ } 
(p. 73 sgg.) form one of the strongest” 


features of the Studia. 

To adjust the Vitarwm Auctio and Her- 
motinus to this antiphilosophic period of 
Lucian’s life, it becomes necessary to explain 
sundry remarks favourable to philosophy 
found in them. This our author does by 
assuming that we have second editions of 
these works revised to suit the new position 
taken in the Piscator. 

After Bolderman has so strongly insisted 
that the Dialogues are to be absolutely 
separated from the works which preceded 
the fortieth year and that Lucian entirely 
forswore rhetoric at that time, we are 
somewhat startled to read that the Dia- 
logues, because they were composed by a 
rhetor who follows the example of comic 
writers, and because Lucian wrote the 
Imagines, which is also rhetorical, at a later 
date, are ‘nihil nisi rhetoricae disciplinae 
specimina.’ Well does Bolderman remark 
‘Multi statim exclamabunt: ‘Quid de 
satirico Luciano restat ?”’’ 

The third period of Lucian’s life began, 
as already noticed, with the Fugitivi, in 
which he began to carry out the pro- 
mise of the Piscator—to censure his de- 
praved contemporaries. As regards his 
attitude towards Christianity, his writings 
do not show knowledge of the subject 
sufficient to warrant the assumption that 
he was bent upon persecuting the Christians, 
nor can the theory that he was a supporter 
of that faith be established in view of the 
few disparaging remarks. The Philopatris 
and its attack upon the Trinity Bolderman 
agrees with Gesner was not written by 
Lucian. 

In this third period of his life he wrote 
the Convivium, Philopseudesis and Lunuchus 
against the philosophy, and the de Hist. 
Con., Rhetor. Praec., Lexiph., Ver. Hist., and 
the de Merc. Conductis to attack the other 
vices, of his contemporaries. 

From a discussion of Photius (Bibl. 129) 
and a comparison of the Asinus with 
Apuleius’ Metamorphoses Bolderman con- 
cludes that both may have used Lucius 
Patrensis as a common source, but that 
Lucian was not writing a parody of Lucius 
but rather a simple fabella in the style of 
Lucius. The Asinus is therefore to be 
placed at the transition from age I. to IL. 


361 


This question can of course never be settled 
definitely without the lost Jetamorphoses 
of Lucius of Patrae. 

The Demonax, written to praise the philo- 
sopher of that name, is vindicated as Lucian's 
work by assuming that the references to 
Sostratus in the preface were inserted by 
some one who tried thus to make Lucian 
responsible for a Vita Sostrati by another 
author. 

The increasing sadness and moroseness 
successively exhibited by the Adversus 
Indoctum, Pseudologistes, de Luctu and de 
Sacrificiis give evidence of the approach 
and transition to the fourth age in which, 
compelled by poverty, he seeks public office 
for support. This abject office-seeking 
period produced the Apologia and De Lapsu 
in salutando. Failing in his political aspira- 
tions, Lucian returned to rhetorical declama- 
tion for a livelihood, but that his spirit was 
broken is seen in that the Hercules, Bacchus 
and Dipsades are much more insipid and 
cringing than the rhetorical work of his 
earlier years. 

A paragraph in this chapter devoted to 
the suppositious writings attributed to 
Lucian acknowledges as such the Amores, 
Halcyon, Nero, Demosth., Encom., Charidemus 
and Macrobius, but defends the Dea Syria 
and Astrologia. 

A tabula chronologica follows which groups 
the writings under the different ages and 
classes. An appendix contains an excellent 
bibliography of works on Lucian. 

The propositions of the Studia are in- 
genious if the reasons are not always con- 
vincing. The arguments advanced cannot 
from the nature of the case be supported 
by many proofs ; often they are little better 
than mere assertions. There is too much 
of an effort to differentiate in every case 
upon the basis of subjective analysis and, 
because a tendency appears stronger than 
another in a given work, to assign the work 
to an arbitrarily prepared place in the 
author’s life., 

Affected and monotypical as was the 
rhetoric of his time, one cannot help being 
reluctant to see in Lucian the typical rhetor. 
Lucian had innate satirical tendencies not 
wholly acquired from study and imitation, 
and the literature of comedy and satire 
may well have exerted stimulating influence 
upon his mind long before he was forty 
years old. May we not then be justified in 
expecting to find traces of both tendencies 
and influence in some of the works which 
Bolderman ascribes to the first age? Again, 
is it probable that Lucian’s philosophical 


362 


tendencies came from Menippus and comedy 
alone? Is it not more probable that he or 
any other rhetor as such busied himself 
largely with the study of philosophy, the 
influence of which might thus be expected to 
operate upon the writings of the rhetorical 
or youthful age (40—50) ? 
ciple of division cannot be insisted upon 
between the first and second age. An 
author is not likely during his whole life to 
confine himself exclusively to one style of 
composition for a certain period and then 
turn abruptly to another, and the greater 
the number of subdivisions or changes 
assumed the greater the improbability and 
difficulty of proof. Should we then take 
even Lucian’s references to himself too 
literally and should we not allow flexibility 
in his style varying at any period of his life 
according to his moods or to the nature and 
needs of his subject? These are some of 


If so, the prin- ~ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the doubts which the Studia, bold and 
captivating as they are, have failed to drive 
from the reviewer’s mind. As to Bolder- 
man’s methods, one cannot help remarking 
that the assumption of interpolation and 
revised editions to substantiate a definite 
theory seems quite as radical as to argue 
along stilistic lines, or to deny~ Lucianic 
authorship or to search for fragments of - 
comedy or sativa latens in an author whose 
natural tendencies were those of Lucian. 
But in spite of these misgivings the. 
Studia form a valuable contribution to 
Lucianic literature. The Latinity is good 
except for a monotonously frequent repeti- 
tion of licet when quamquam or some other 
construction might have been used. 


: A. L. FULuer. 
Adelbert College, 
Cleveland, Ohio. 


HEBERDEY ON PAUSANTAS. 


Die Reisen des Pausanias in Griechenland ; 
von Rupotr Heserpey: Vienna, Temp- 
sky, 1894. 


In a review of Dr. A. Kalkmann’s Pausan- 
ias der Perieget in the Classical Review for 
1887 the wish was expressed that the im- 
putations on -Pausanias’ veracity, which 
were made in that able but aggressive book, 
should be examined, and if possible refuted, 
in detail. Between that time and the 
present this wish has been to a considerable 
extent fulfilled—notably by Gurlitt in his 
valuable work Ueber Pausanias ; neverthe- 
less, the passages in the ancient topographer 
which imply personal observation on his 
part of the places and objects which he 
describes were nowhere systematically 
brought together—a strange omission, it 
might seem, because it is on these that the 
decision of the question mainly turns. This 
task has been accomplished by Heberdey in 
the dissertation now before us, so that 
every one has the opportunity of judging for 
himself, whether the claims which Pausanias 
thus puts forward to the position of an 
independent inquirer are genuine, or 
whether they are purely fictitious and in- 
tended to throw dust in the reader’s eyes. 
The evidence furnished by these passages 
is either divect, where the writer says {that 


he has been in a place, or indirect, where 
his presence is implied by the words used in 
the description. . And here at starting 
Heberdey draws a distinction between such 
categorical statements as are introduced by 
eldov, adixopnv, Oadpa mapécxe pro. and the 
like, and those which are made by Aéyovot, 
dact, and even by érvvOavoynv and 7Kovca. 
The expressions contained in the latter of 
these two groups, though by earlier critics 
they would have been regarded as proofs of 
personal inquiry, are now considered in 
many cases to be used where quotations 
from other treatises are spoken of. It is at 
first sight perhaps a shock to our modern 
notions of strict accuracy in the citation of 
evidence to find such ambiguous terms em- 
ployed—somewhat in the same way as the 
English visitor to Italy is apt to regard it 
as a proof of a lower standard of morality, 
when he discovers that fixed prices for 
objects of sale are the exception and not the 
rule in that country: but in both these 
subjects a rigid estimate of such practices, 
independent of the view taken of them by 
those among whom they prevail, is apt to 
be unfair. Anyhow it is certain that the 
use of these words with regard to literary 
as well as oral sources of information is 
found not only in Pausanias, but also in 
other ancient writers whose veracity has 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


not been questioned. And, to show that 
they are employed bona fide by Pausanias, 
and not with the view of masking the 
origin of the statements, Heberdey cites a 
number of passages, where the various 
terms which are used in this way are undis- 
guisedly employed with reference to earlier 
compilations. In like manner, though a 
class of é&nynrai or local cicerones is known 
to have existed in the cities of Greece in 
Pausanias’ time, and therefore it is 
reasonable to suppose that he may have 
obtained some of his information from them, 
yet Heberdey maintains that, when the 
term efnyyris is used simply, and without 
further qualification, as an authority for 
statements, it is equivalent to ‘local hand- 
book’ or ‘guide.’ Excluding, then, the 
passages in which these equivocal terms 
occur, we find that there are fifty-five in- 
stances, in which the words used (idev and 
such like), if they are not unqualified false- 
hoods, are direct statements of personal 
observation; and the great majority of 
these refer to places in Greece, though a 
few are employed of localities outside the 
borders of that country. Of the passages 
which afford indirect evidence of the same 
thing the most numerous are those in which 
there is a change from the present to the 
past tense; for, as the present is used in 
descriptions, it is reasonable to suppose 
that, when the historic tense is introduced, 
the writer is going back to his own experi- 
ences, whether in seeing objects or hearing 
narratives: e.g. 2. 34. 11, reixos pev dy zepi 
Tracav TiHv Epp.ovnv €ornke: ta 5€ és ovyypa- 
piv cat da Tapetxeto, Kai dv aitos ToLoac- 
Oar pariora 7éiwoa pryjpnv. At the same 
time due allowance has to be made for a 
certain number of passages, in which there 
is the possibility of a different interpreta- 
tion of the tense. The total number of 
those that fall under this head is 150, and 
deducting thirty-nine as possibly doubtful, 
there remain 111 as certain evidence. The 
personal observation which is implied in these 
is in many cases further confirmed by other 
expressions which occur in the same context. 
The result of combining these two sources of 
evidence, the direct and the indirect, is to 
show that there were ninety-nine places in 
Greece which Pausanias is proved to have 
visited. Heberdey appends a table of these, 
arranged according to the different districts 
to which they belong. 

Having thus determined the central 
points at which Pausanias’ presence is guar- 
anteed, our author proceeds to trace the 
course which he seems to have followed in 


363 


his archaeological journeys, and notes the 
roads which, to judge from his method of 
description, and from the objects mentioned 
or omitted in their neighbourhood, he did 
or did not take in passing from one place to 
another. He also in numerous instances 
assigns the reason why the traveller chose 
one of these in preference to another, by 
pointing out the objects of special interest 
which attracted him in this or that direction. 
For instance, in journeying from Sicyon to 
Phlius Pausanias does not appear to have 
followed the direct road, for he does not 
describe it, whereas he does carefully de- 
scribe the more circuitous one by way of 
Titane ; and his reason for preferring this 
is easily discoverable in the interest which 
he shows in the rites observed in the temple 
of Asclepius in that town. For this part 
of his investigation Heberdey is especially 
well equipped, because, as he tells us in his 
preface, he has himself on various occasions 
travelled over the same ground as Pausanias. 
He further draws attention to a principle, 
already noticed by Gurlitt, which the old 
topographer generally, though not univer- 
sally, observes in his description of districts 
—viz. that he begins with the central city, 
and then describes the roads that radiate 
from it. This is especially noticeable in the 
case of Mantineia and Megalopolis, from the 
former of which towns four, from the latter 
five, divergent routes are traced. And it is 
suggested that it may be a farther extension 
of this method when, in giving an account 
of cities, he commences, not from the point 
at which he entered, but from the chief 
central place, whether agora or sanctuary, 
and then proceeds to the noticeable 
objects in other parts. Our confidence in 
the trustworthiness of Heberdey’s conclu- 
sions is increased by finding that he fully 
allows that Pausanias frequently drew his 
information from other topographical works, 
and even introduced quotations from them. 
For various parts of the Peloponnese, and ina 
lesser degree for Northern Greece, he shows 
that he is largely indebted to a Periplus ; 
for Elis also to a book on Homeric topo- 
graphy, perhaps that of Demetrius of Scep- 
sis ; and here and there evidence of quota- 
tion from local guidebooks is discovered in 
traits of local patriotism emerging from the 
narrative. Very interesting also are the 
passages where Pausanias corrects the state- 
ments of an earlier authority from his own 
observation ; e.g. 8. 25. 7, dcou dt O€uSos 
kat od Arjpntpos tis Aovaias ro dyadpa elvat 
vopicovet, pata torwoav treAndores: and 
again 8. 41. 10, €or dé fSaros ev TO Ope TO 


364 


KorAdo ryyh, Kal drov cvvéypayev yoy Tis 
ard ravTns TO ToTapG 7O pedtpa TH Adpaxt 
dpxerOa1, ovveypayev ovte adTos Feacdpevos 
oltre dvdpos axonv iddvros' & Kat apdorepa 
mapnoav é¢uot. Heberdey’s general conclu- 
sion is, that in the Peloponnese Pausanias 


made three tours—one in the eastand south ~ 


of that country, one in the north, and a 
third in the centre; while in Northern 
Greece he made four journeys, but here the 
question of the routes which he took is more 
complicated. His First Book, which treats 
of Attica, was originally published as an 
independent work, and for this, outside 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Athens, the author drew his information 
from another compilation, and only in a 
slight degree from personal observation. 
To enable the reader more easily to follow 
Pausanias in his travels, two maps are given 
at the end of the volume, on which his 
routes in the Peloponnese and in Northern 
Greece respectively are traced. In conclu- 
sion, it should be added that the usefulness . 
of this excellent treatise is not confined to 
the subject with which it immediately deals, 
for it contains also numerous valuable 
discussions of the topography of special places 
in Greece. 
H. F. Tozer. 


SCHMIDT ON THE LETTERS OF CICERO. 


Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero von 
seinem Prokonsulat in Cilicien bis zu 
Caesar's Ermorderung, nebst einem Neu- 
drucke des XII, und XIII. Buches der 
Briefe an Atticus, von OrTto Epuarp 
Scumipt. Leipzig: Teubner. 1893. 


Tuts work is indispensable for all students 
of the correspondence of Cicero. It is the 
result of untiring industry and patience, 
and is full of acute inferences, founded not 
only on the closest observation of minute 
points in the correspondence itself, but also 
on a deep and wide basis of learning and 
knowledge of the life and institutions of 
Ancient Rome. It is in the arrangement 
of the order of the letters that these 
qualities have proved most fruitful; in 
explanation of the text not so much, and 
in emendation hardly at all. 

His accurate arrangement of the date 
of each letter sometimes starts difficulties 
before unfelt, while it oftener resolves 
problems which have presented themselves 
to the minds of the successive editors. 
Examples of the latter result are countless. 
As an instance of the former, we would 
point to Att. vii. 11, 5, which he shows to 
have been written on Jan. 18th from 
somewhere near Rome. Accordingly haec 
Campana in that letter cannot refer to 
Campania proper, and Schmidt is driven 
to infer that in Cicero’s time Campania in 
ordinary language included the Campagna 
of Rome. However, as there is no example 
of such an application in Republican times, 
it is perhaps safer to understand haec 
Campana to mean ‘the Campania on which 
my thoughts are now dwelling’ as being 


the district of Italy now placed by Pompey 
under Cicero’s charge. 

Schmidt brings out clearly a fact not 
thoroughly recognized in the histories of 
this period, that at the beginning of the 
Civil War the loyal optimates seem to have 
felt some apprehension lest an understanding 
should arise between Caesar and Pompey, the 
result of which would be the crushing of the 
senate ; see Att. x. 8,5. But his work teems 
with acute historical remarks, and the ingen- 
uity with which he has arranged the order of 
the letters is amazing. For instance, he 
thus settles the date of Att. ix. 8. In § 2 
Cicero says that the ‘fever-day’ of Atticus 
was ‘yesterday’; now Atticus had fever 
every fourth day (the numbering being 
inclusive according to the Roman usage), and 
we know from Af¢é..ix. 2 that he had had an 
attack on the 7th. But the letter must have 
been written after the 10th, therefore ‘yester- 
day’ was the 13th and the date of the letter 
is the 14th. The application of such prin- 
ciples to a body of literature so large as the 
letters demands a power of keeping the text 
of the correspondence exactly before the 
mind’s eye with an accuracy which is little 
short of miraculous. This power is illus- 
trated on almost every page of his book. 
His arguments hardly ever fail to carry 
conviction, and if they do not always 
establish an exact date, they nearly always 
bring it within a few days. It is clear that 
the task which he has set himself and has 
so ably discharged is one of very great 
importance and interest. 

The questions concerning the diplomatic 
evidence on which the Letters to Atticus 
rest are not so numerous or so difficult as 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


those which beset the codices of the “pp. 
ad Fam., though Lehmann has certainly 
shown that there are MSS. other than Zl 
and W which are independent of M. The 
problem would indeed be difficult if editors 
could be persuaded by Mendelssohn to re-open 
the question of the genuineness of the 
Bosian codices. Schmidt must be added to 
the list of those who have turned a deaf 
ear to the theory that Bosius really had 
access to two MSS., X and Y, which no 
one but himself ever saw, and from which 
he was in the habit of quoting readings 
which varied according as his own views 
about the emendation of certain passages 
underwent modification. 

Whether one essays oneself the art of 
conjectural emendation or is merely an 
onlooker at the attempts of others in this 
branch of inquiry, one can hardly help 
noticing how every year increases one’s con- 
viction that the art of emendation has no 


365 


recognized principles, and that the criterion 
of certainty is merely subjective and varies 
with each observer. The emendations which 
one regards as certain are condemned or 
neglected, while some wild suggestion which 
one hesitated to print, and finally cast 
forth merely in default of any reasonable 
conjecture, is hailed as a discovery and 
almost an inspiration. One friend urges 
one not to publish a conjecture which 
another finds to be the only contri- 
bution to knowledge in the volume. I am 
quite prepared therefore to find that many 
readers will see the hand of Cicero in 
Schinidt’s in qua erat (Caesar) erus sceleris in 
Att. ix. 18, 2, though to me erus sceleris seems 
the worst attempt which has yet been 
made to emend the erosceleri of the MSS. 
Yet Schmidt writes of his reading, ‘Das 
Nachtsliegendes und sicher Richtige aber 
hat man iibersehen.’ 
R. Y. TYRRELL. 





THE GOSPEL ACCORDING T0 PETER. 


The Gospel according to Peter. A Study. 
By the author of Supernatural Religion. 
London: Longmans, Green, & Co. 1894, 
6s. 


Few literary discoveries, or recoveries, have 
excited more interest in modern times than 
that of the Fragment of the Petrine Gospel 
at Akhmim. And, to judge from the works 
of real importance dealing with it which 
have been published up to the present time, 
the interest which it first aroused is by no 
means slackened. From the lecture given 
by Prof. Robinson in Cambridge upon it in 
November 1892, which was published shortly 
afterwards, to the scholarly and laborious 
work of von Schubert published towards the 
end of 1893, probably the most important 
contribution to the literature of the subject 
hitherto published, there has been a con- 
tinuous output of important editions, articles, 
and reviews. So much good work has thus 
been forthcoming, and such careful attention 
has been paid to this Gospel, that although 
many questions which are raised by it have 
received no certain answer, and many 
problems still remain unsolved, the net gain 
of what may now be regarded as settled 
beyond reasonable doubt is not incon- 
siderable. 

The appearance of von Schubert’s Die 

NO. LXXII. VOL. VIII. 


Composition des pseudo-petrinischen Evange- 
lien- Fragments, and the accompanying Tables 
(which have been translated into English, 
and published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark, 
Edinburgh, 1893), and the important review 
of von Schubert’s work by Harnack in the 
Theologische Literaturzeitung for Jan. 6, 
1894, mark a definite stage in the discussion 
of the Petrine Gospel. This review contains 
Harnack’s most recent judgment on the 
most important question connected with 
the Petrine Gospel, its relation to the Four 
Canonical Gospels, and is of great interest. 
He prefaces his review of von Schubert with 
a personal explanation of his own (partial) 
changes of opinion, showing how such 
changes were the natural consequence of 
the conditions under which he was obliged 
to work. When his second edition was 
published he saw reasons for doubting his 
earlier impression that the author of the 
Fragment was dependent upon the Four 
Canonical Gospels, though still feeling the 
weight of the reasons which rendered pro- 
bable the view that he had used Mark, if 
not also Matthew, Luke and John. The 
work of von Schubert has convinced him of 
the ‘ probability that our Canonical Gospels, 
including St. John, underlie the Petrine 
Gospel.’ ‘ Er hat es wahrscheinlich gemacht, 
dass unsere Kanonischen Evy. hinter dem 
DD 


366 


PE liegen, auch das Joh. Ev.’ are his exact 
words. 

We may conclude then that, though much 
remains obscure, some points may now be 
regarded as practically settled, and it is 
unlikely that questions connected with them 


will be again reopened. Thus the anti-— 


Jewish tendency of the Gospel is now 
beyond dispute, and its Docetic tendency is 
generally acknowledged, though the precise 
effect of these considerations on the de- 
termination of the sources used by the author 
is and will be still disputed. The proba- 
bility also that the author used and mainly 
depended upon our Canonical Gospels is 
placed beyond question. This does. not of 
course preclude the possibility of his having 
made use of other sources of information, 
oral or written, independent of them. But 
that he mainly relies (especially in the 
latter part of the Fragment) on our Four 
Gospels is the view which holds the 
field. 

The book before us contains a short 
account of the Akhmim discovery, and a 
translation of the Petrine Gospel. This is 
followed by some account of the earliest 
traces of the Petrine Gospel which can be 
found in Christian literature of the second 
century. ‘The main part of the book con- 
sists of a careful and elaborate comparison 
of the new fragment with the Canonical 
Gospels. A long chapter is devoted to the 
criticism of Mr. Rendel Harris’s article in 
the Contemporary Review (Aug. 1893), and 
the ‘highly evolved prophetical gnosis’ 
which he claims to have discovered in 
Pseudo-Peter. 

The writer finds in almost every case 
where the Petrine narrative touches parts 
recorded in the Four Gospels that Pseudo- 
Peter is independent of the Canonical 
Gospels and embodies the tradition at an 
early stage of legendary development, or 
produces scenes at least as grand and 
credible as those found in the Canonical 
Gospels. As a rule he prefers the Petrine 
account. As he avowedly approaches the 
questions raised by this Gospel from the 
stand-point of his book on ‘Supernatural 
Religion ’ (see p. 20 f.) he can hardly come to 
his subject without prejudice. It is im- 
possible to give any detailed criticism of his 
methods and results. The following in- 
stances of the results at which he arrives 
must suffice. The conduct of the Roman 
Procurator, as described by Pseudo-Peter, is 
pronounced to be historically far more 
probable than the ‘ extraordinary spectacle 
of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly ex- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


postulating with a noisy Jewish mob’ (p. 49) 
as recorded in the Canonical Gospels. ‘There 
is every reason to consider’ (on the 
ground of historical probability) ‘that the 
betrayal by Judas is a later product of the 
evolved gnosis’ (p. 104). ‘ The expressions of 
distinct antagonism to the Jews in the fourth 
Gospel far exceed any in the Gospel according 
to Peter’ (p. 108). ‘It is not difficult to see ~ 
that the cleansing takes place because it is 
written, My house shall be called a house 
of prayer, but ye make it a den of robbers.’ 
‘Peter has evidently got an earlier form of 
the story’ (of the Penitent Thief) ‘ without 
those much later touches with which the 
third Synoptist has embellished it’ (p. 64). 
It is unnecessary to make further extracts. 

It is unfortunate that the author of the 
study before us was not in a position 
to make use of von Schubert’s careful 
work and Harnack’s review of it. As a 
popular summary of the subject, the book 
would have had more value if the writer 
had been able to take into consideration 
Harnack’s latest judgment on the most 
important question which the author dis- 
cusses. If it is to be regarded as a popular 
treatise it appears just too early or just too 
late to have much value. But as the 
general style and method of the book seem 
to claim recognition for it as a contribution 
to the scientific study of the questions with 
which it deals, it is necessary to point out 
the serious defects which it exhibits when 
regarded as.a work laying claim to scholar- 
ship. 

With at least four trustworthy English 
translations accessible the following novelties 
should have been avoided :— 

(1) dre dpOwcav’ tov oravpdv, éréypawav 
x.7.X. ‘As they set up the cross, they 
wrote thereon.’ 

(2) mpd pias Tov alipwv, Tis Eoprys avtov. 
‘Before the first day of the unleavened 
bread of their feast.’ 

(3) cuppépa ydp, gpaciv, pw dddrAjoa 
peylornv dpaptiavy x.7.X. ‘For it is better, 
they said, to lay. upon us the greatest 
sins.’ 

In conclusion it may be interesting to 
quote the author’s present position with 
regard to the existence and contents of 
Tatian’s Diatessaron. ‘This is not the place 
to discuss again the identity of the supposed 
‘‘ Diatessaron,” but it will be sufficient to 
point out that we have it only in an Arabic 
version, published and translated by Ciasca, 
and a translation of the supposed Armenian 
version of the Commentary upon it, ascribed 
to Ephraem, which again Moesinger, who 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


edited the Latin version published in 1876, 
declares to be itself translated from the 
Syriac. In these varied transformations 
of the text, anything like verbal accuracy 
must be regarded as totally lost.’ (The 
italics are my own.) It would be rash 
to venture to interpret this passage ! 


367 


As a popular treatise the book before us 
was written at an unfortunate moment, 
before a consensus of scholarly opinion had 
been reached. Asa scholarly contribution 
to the literature of the subject it has 
really no claim to consideration at all, 

A. E. Brooxe, 


GROSVENOR HOPKINS ON THE AGRICOLA AND GERMANIA OF TACITUS. 


Tacitus, the Agricola and Germania, edited 
on the basis of Draeger’s ‘ Agricola’ and 
Schweizer-Sidler’s ‘Germania’ by A. Gros- 
venork Hopkins. Boston: Leach, Shewell 
and Sanborn, 1891. 


Fottowi1ne the general plan of the series to 
which this edition belongs Prof. Hopkins 
has adapted two well-known German school- 
books to the use of American students. 
The text is mainly that of Halm, whose 
critical apparatus appears in a modified 
form at the bottom of the page. <A rather 
full introduction gives a suflicient account 
of Tacitus and his works, also of the MSS. 
of Agricola and Germania, On p. viii. there 
is a slight confusion between the arguments 
for the date of publication of the Annals 
and those for the death of Tacitus. Had- 
rian’s resignation of Trajan’s Parthian con- 
quests has nothing to do with the time of 
Tacitus’s death. To speak (ibid.) of ‘ that 
reign of bloodshed and horror which ex- 
tended, with but slight interruptions, from 
the rise of Nero to the death of Domitian’ 
is to give the student a very wrong idea of 
the twelve years of Vespasian and Titus. 
On p. vii. there is a similar carelessness of 
statement, which would throw doubt upon 
one of the few certain dates in Tacitus’s 
life,—that of his praetorship; we are told 
that ‘it is impossible to associate the 
bestowal of definite official honours with any 
of these emperors’ (7.e. the Flavians). More 
serious is (p. xv.) ‘the two most important 
MSS. of the Agricola’ for ‘ the only two.’ 

The text is accurately printed, and pro- 
vided with rubrics, which are not always 
quite reliable clues to the contents of the 
chapters. Thus ep. 1 ‘ eulogies upon virtue 
...are hardly safe even in the age of 
Trajan’; ep. 6, dona templorum is para- 
phrased ‘ public funds’; ‘ probably from 
Gaul’ (ep. 11) is certainly misleading. 

In regard to the date of the Agricola 
Prof. Hopkins is still satisfied with the old 
arguments to prove that it was written 
shortly before the death of Nerva, rather 


than after Trajan’s accession [Mommsen, 
Nipperdey, Andresen]. Matters relating to 
the government of the provinces are clearly 
explained. Facts as to the legions in 
Britain (p. 90), the Rhine-Danube limes (p. 
115), the walls of Hadrian and Antonine 
(pp. 104-5) are welcome additions to a com- 
mentary on the Agricola. But the note on 
the walls is so misplaced as to give a very 
confused idea of the location of Hadrian’s 
wall. It begins ‘ Agricola built a line of 
forts here’; and ‘here’ can only refer to 
the ‘Tanaus, the uncertain location of which 
is remarked upon just above. The state- 
ment that Hadrian utilized forts of Agricola 
is without authority. 

The note on 1. 3 plerique is misleading, 
but corrected by that on Germ. 13.5. On 
25. 5 ‘et ipse: only twice so found in 
Cicero’ aims at greater precision than so 
controverted a question allows. The trans- 
lation of 10. 5 guia...iusswm ‘for only so far 
had we orders’ adds a new voyage to the 
conjectural travels of Tacitus. 

We add a few misprints :—p. iii. Hirsch- 
feld for Hirschfelder, Deutsche for Deut- 
schen ; p. viii. 1. 2, a.v. 95 for 96: 1. 22, 118 
for 117; p. 16 fin. lacunuwm; p. 84 1. 1, 
eipyevov ; p. 87 1. 23, a.p. 60 for 61: Caer- 
laon ; p. 101 1. 19, strategmata ; p. 103 fin. in 
bella for bello of text ; p. iii. 1. 13, a.v. 42 for 
43, 

In the ‘ Germany’ the elaborate notes of 
Schweizer-Sidler have been of course much 
abridged. On the other hand additions 
have been made from Hehn, Waitz, Grimm, 
&c., and matters of language and style are 
much more fully treated of than in the 
German original. Space forbids a more 
detailed criticism. 

The maps (2) are reproduced (without 
acknowledgement) from Mommsen’s Prov- 
ences and Church and Brodribb’s Germania. 
On the former the form ‘ Themse’ survives 
unaltered. There is an index to the notes. 


F, G. Moore. 
Dartmouth College, U.S.A. 
pp2 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ROBERT’S PHAEDRUS. 


Les Fables de Phédre. “dition paléogra- 
phique, publi¢e d’aprés le manuscrit 


Rosanbo par Utysse Rosert, Inspec- - 


teur général des manuscrits et archives 
etc. pp. xlvi. 188. Paris: Imprimerie 
Nationale. 1894. 10 Frs. 


Tus book, which is printed at the expense 
of the French Government, consists in the 
main of two copies of the codex Pithoeanus, 
which is almost the sole extant authority 
for the text of Phaedrus. ‘The first copy is 
a most beautiful print of the MS. as it 
stands, page for page and line for line: 
red letters, capitals, points, abbreviations 
and corrections being faithfully reproduced. 
It would be impossible to praise too highly 
the typography of this portion. Thesecond 
copy gives precisely the same text but 
printed as verse, with modern punctuation, 
without abbreviations and with many notes 
on the corrections and other minutiae of the 
MS. The editor has added a photographic 
facsimile of one page of the original, an 
introduction dealing with the provenance, 
character and affinities of the MS. and an 
appendix containing a mediaeval treatise 
‘De Monstris,’ which (though of later date) 
is partly written on the same parchment, 
and is now bound in the same volume, with 
the text of Phaedrus. 

The codex Pithoeanus is a small octavo of 
thirty-nine leaves, written in Caroline 
minuscules of the first half of the ninth 
century. The writing is large and clear, 
and the abbreviations are not numerous or 
obscure, though one or two of them are 
unusual. The style is believed by M. 
Robert to have been peculiar to Rheims in 
the time of Archbishop Hincmar. The 
MS. is complete though copied from a 
mutilated archetype, and has been revised 
both by the original scribe and by another, 
who sprinkled some stops at random. It 
came into the possession of Pierre Pithou, 
the famous French scholar, in 1595, and 
was used by him for the editio princeps 
which he published in August 1596. It 
was used again by N. Rigault for his edi- 
tion of 1599, but, though more than one 
scholar collated it, no other editor actually 
handled it till G. Brotier, who published a 
Phaedrus in 1783. In 1830, Berger de 
Xivrey published what purported to be an 
accurate copy, verbatim et literatim, of the 
MS., with this difference oniy, that the 


text was printed as verse, though the MS. 
gives it as prose. Lucian Miiller, who had 
some doubts of de Xivrey’s accuracy, was 
unable to induce the owner, the Marquis de 
Rosanbo, to let him éollate the MS. for his - 
edition of 1877, and M. Robert himself has 
evidently had some difficulty in gaining 
access to it. However, when at length he 
was allowed to copy it, he made the fullest 
use of the permission and has produced a 
transcript which is likely to relieve the 
Marquis from any further importunities of 
scholars. 

After all, M. Robert would probably 
admit that not much, except a beautiful 
book, is gained by his labours. He con- 
victs Berger de Xivrey of some gross 
blunders, but editors had already repaired 
them. He cites altogether 107 passages in 
which de Xivrey’s copy of the MS. is inex- 
act. Of these, fifty are mere mistakes in 
spelling, such as senareis for senariis, inquit 
for imquit, immiscuit for inmiscuit, nunquam 
for numquam, pretio for precio, commendasse 
for cummendasse, impune for inpune, etc., 
which are of little or no importance for 
critical purposes. In other passages the 
mistake of a letter or two is more serious : 
e.g. ini. 3, 9 de Xivrey prints multatus for 
MS. mulcatus: in ii. 7, 11 contentum for 
contemtum : in ill. Prol. 6 causae for causa 
est: in iil. 1, 3 spargent for spargeret ; in v. 
1, 8 (or iv. 29, 8) na for ni, but previous 
editors had either read the MS. correctly or 
made the necessary emendation. The worst 
blunders in de Xivrey’s copy are these: in 
ii. Epil. 12 he gives pervenit ad aures for ad 
aures pervenit ; in iil. Prol. 18 he inserts ne 
and in 52 st without warrant : in iv. 22 (or 
23), 7 he omits woluit : in v. 1, 1 (or iv. 29, 
1) he inserts est: and he omits altogether the 
line v. 5, 25 (or iv. 33, 25). In some other 
cases M. Robert seems to me to do less than 
justice to his predecessor. Thus in i. 29, 7 
de Xivrey reads pene where M. Robert 
reads pede. But de Xivrey adds this note 
‘recentius correctum pede...sed prior scrip- 
tura facile dignoscitur’: and M. Robert 
himself adds this note ‘le reviseur a corrigé 
pene en pede.’ In iv. 5,12 de Xivrey prints 
conferant with the note ‘correctione mala 
librarius conferunt’: M. Robert prints 
conferunt with the note ‘le scribe a corrigé 
conferant en conferunt, correction dont M. 
Berger de Xivrey n’a pas tenu compte.’ 
In cases of this kind, and there are several 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of them, it seems unnecessary to impute 
error to the earlier editor. In one con- 
spicuous instance, de Xivrey was wrong, 
though he provided the necessary correction. 
In iv. 7, 12 he reads aetate, adding the note 
‘recte Pithoeus dete.’ M. Robert reads 
Aete and adds the note ‘le scribe avait 
dabord écrit etate, mais il a exponctué ta.’ 
M. Robert actually goes so far as to insinu- 
ate that de Xivrey sometimes misread the 
MS. on purpose that he might correct the 
mistake ina footnote. I can find no ground 


BURTON'S SYNTAX OF 


Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Tes- 
tament Greek. By Eryest bE Wirr 
Burton, Professor in the University of 


Chicago. Second edition, revised and en- 
larged. Chicago, U.S.A. 1893. Pp. 
xxii, 215. 21 cm. by 14. 


Ir is a good omen for the study of the Greek 
Testament that the characteristics of its lan- 
guage are beginning to engage afresh the 
attention of scholars. Since Germany gave 
us the preeminent grammars of Winer and 
Alexander Buttmann, comparatively little 
first-hand work in this department has been 
given to the public. The labours, indeed, 
of T. 8. Green, Moulton and W. H. Simcox, 
together with such essays as those of Hatch 
and T. K. Abbott, have received grateful 
and merited recognition and it is a pleasure 
to welcome the simultaneous appearance of 
two elaborate works devoted to the syntax 
of the verb.! 

The author of a work on New Testament 
Greek is confronted at the outset by a grave 
practical difficulty. Shall he assume a 
general knowledge of the Greek language 
on the part of his reader, and restrict 
himself to the peculiarities of the Biblical 
writers? or shall he exhibit these peculiari- 
ties in perpetual comparison with ordinary 
secular usage? The former method is apt 
to produce a jejune and fragmentary result. 
And even when such a restricted treatment 
is furnished with a running equipment of 
references to the more noteworthy grammars 
of the classic tongue, it seems to find little 
favour, if we may judge by the comparative 


1 See, besides Professor Burton’s book, the Etude 
sur le Gree du Nowveau Testament. Le Verbe: 
Syntaxe des Propositions. Par M. V’abbé Joseph 
Viteau. Paris, 1893. Pp. lxi. 240. 


369 


for this suggestion except the passage ii. 7, 
11 where de Xivrey reads contentum with 
the note ‘sic pro contemtum.’ The shade of 
M. de Xivrey will be pleased to learn that, 
in the list of errors attributed to him, M. 
2obert has made at least two errors himself: 
he cites iii. Prol. 53 when he means 52, and 
iv. 5, 25 when he means 5, 12. Also in iii. 
Prol. 38 M. Robert twice prints viam, though 
he gives the note ‘le scribe avait écrit vida ; 
il a ajouté un ¢, pour faire vitam.’ 


J. Gow. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


neglect which the translation of Buttmann’s 
excellent work has received from the 
public. 

Professor Burton has probably been wise, 
therefore, in adopting the plan of giving a 
somewhat detailed account of the functions 
of the several verbal forms, with accom- 
panying references to current grammatical 
works, and then subjoining in each case 
select examples from the New Testament. 
But his avowed aim throughout is merely 
to furnish an aid in interpretation. This 
aim has shaped and limited his treatment. 
His exposition of principles is in the main 
admirable. He evidently possesses a keen 
interest in grammatical analysis, and an 
undeniable gift at clear and succinct state- 
ment. His definitions are lucid and guarded, 
his discussions orderly, and their conclusions 
neatly summed up. 

But while the decisive test of a text-book 
is actual use, the first impression, we must 
confess, made by Professor Burton’s work 
is that the grammatical machinery is exces- 
sive. The simple syntax of the Greek 
Testament appears in a form a little sugges- 
tive of the rustic youth in the royal armour. 
Certainly the treatment is unequal. At 
one time, rudimentary principles are form- 
ally stated and illustrated as though for 
beginners ; at another, extended quotations 
from erudite works are given in the original 
German (see, for example, p. 62). This 
disproportion in treatment, which results 
apparently from more regard for complete- 
ness of grammatical exposition than for the 
actual phenomena of the New Testament 
(see e.g. $$ 851—356), can be in some measure 
removed in future editions by giving greater 
prominence to the discussion of examples, 
after the fashions well exemplified in $$ 55, 


370 


88. Nevertheless, the general tenor and 
tone of the book make the impression that 
the author has written in forgetfulness of 
the maxim—which holds almost as true of 
language as of history—that ‘nothing tor- 
tures it more than logic.’ Thought and ex- 


pression are more varied and versatile than - 


the theorist’s rules. Forgetfulness of this 
truth is also in large part responsible for 
the author’s restiveness under many of the 
renderings of the recent ‘ Revision’ (see, 
for instance, p. vill. and § 17). Historical 
considerations and the genius of a language 
have their rights. Considered from this 
point of view his strictures will hardly 
command general assent. Moreover, exces- 
sive emphasis laid upon particular formulas 
of translation tends to foster in the pupil a 
mechanical habit of mind. 

It would be easy to specify details 
the treatment of which is_ especially 
judicious and satisfactory (for example, the 
use of cis with the infin., of iva, etc.); and 
possible, on the other hand, to cull out par- 
ticulars respecting which Prof. Burton’s 
decision is more than questionable: as, 
Rom. ii. 27, p. 167. But, passing over 
details, the treatment of the participle is 
perhaps the least satisfactory portion of the 
book. Considerable space, to be sure, is 
given to the subject, first and last, under 
the several tenses, especially the aorist. 
But after all, we doubt whether a student 
will get an adequate idea of the peculiarities 
of New Testament usage: for instance, the 
use of the participle in the nom. out of con- 
struction (as Mark xii. 40 ; Phil. iii. 19), and 
in mixed constructions (as Rev. vii. 9) ; of the 
present participle virtually denoting purpose 
(as Mark xiii. 11°; Acts xxi. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 14); 
of the anomalous gen. absol. (as Matt. viii. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


1, 5, 28; Luke xxii. 10; John iv. 51); of 
the anarthrous participle used substantively 
(as Mark i. 3; vi. 54; Rom. iii. 11 sq. ; 
Rey. ii. 14), especially with was (as Matt. 
xiii. 19 ; Luke vi. 40)—none of which pas- 
sages are cited in the book. Indeed, the 
distinction between a participle with the 
article after a definite antecedent and a 
participle without the article is nowhere - 
drawn with sufficient sharpness :—witness 
the silence respecting such stock examples 
as Mark v. 30, 36; 1 Pet. 11.19. More- 
over, positive surprise. will be stirred in the 
reader by the heading, in black-faced type, 
‘The Aorist Participle of Subsequent Action,’ 
a surprise which will not abate when he 
finds the vouchers to consist of the dubious 
doracdpevot in Acts xxv. 13, and 7 ddciWaca 
in John xi. 2, adduced on the ground that 
the fact of anointing is only first narrated 
in ch. xii. 3. 

After all, however, the book as it stands 
is a scholarly and painstaking piece of 
work, and deserves to be welcomed as a 
valuable addition to the apparatus for the 
study of the New Testament. It is carefully 
indexed, and the typography is almost im- 
maculate. The only slips which a pretty 
careful perusal has discovered are here set 
down: p. 12, 1. 8, dele the comma after ide ; 
p- 21, 1. 29, read or; p.. 23, 1.7, nead 
“Hpwéys: p. 110, 1. 24, dele the comma after 
Sobnoerar ; p. 112, 1. 6, insert and winter ; 
ibid. |. 24, read 6; p. 158, 1. 20, insert twa 
after tyas; 1. 172, 1. 3, read efovaiay ; ibid. 
1. 8, read ovv; p. 173, 1. 30, read dye; p. 
180, 1. 1, read otros; p. 186, 1. 6, read otdé ; 
and on pp. 125, 165 a Greek word is divided 
wrongly at the end of a line. 

J. Henry THayer. 

Harvard University. 


JUSATZ ON IRRATIONALITY OF RHYTHM. 


De irrationalitate studia rhythmica. Scripsit 
Hueco Jusatz. Leipziger Studien zur 
Classischen Philologie, vierzehnter Band, 
zweites Heft, pp. 175-351. Leipzig: S. 
Hirzel. 1893. 5 Mk. 


THis is an elaborate essay on a somewhat 
obscure and difficult subject. In the intro- 
ductory portion, which deals with the sources 
of Greek rhythmical theory, it is argued 
that, while it is generally admitted that our 
knowledge of the principles of Greek rhythm 


must be based on Aristoxenus, the views of 
modern writers, e.g. on the so-called ‘ cyclic’ 
dactyl and on the equalization of dactyls 
and trochees etc. in ‘mixed’ metres, are 
incompatible with his doctrine. An attempt 
is made to prove that the lengthening and 
shortening of syllables, whereby their normal 
value is altered, is circumscribed within very 
narrow limits, so that the dactyl never 
occupies precisely the same space of time as 
the trochee. There are also some remarks 
about the relation between the fragments 


_ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of the rhythmical elements of Aristoxenus 
and the excerpts of Psellus, and it is affirmed 
that Martianus Capella is not directly 
dependent upon Aristides, as has been sup- 
posed, but that they are derived from a 
common source, and that the former some- 
times represents the original better than the 
latter. 

The second part of the treatise discusses 
the nature of ‘irrationality’ both in musical 
intervals and in rhythm. The general con- 
clusion, so far as rhythm is concerned, is 
that a space of time is ‘irrational’ when its 
exact duration as compared with other 
definite spaces of time is not clearly per- 
ceptible. Thus, to take the commonest 
instance, the spondee found in the even feet 
of a trochaic rhythm is ‘irrational,’ ¢.e. the 
second syllable in the foot is slightly longer 
than the normal short syllable would be, 
though it cannot be determined how much 
longer it is. Jusatz supposes that in this 
and similar instances the additional length 
of the irrational syllable is compensated by 
a corresponding diminution in the length of 
the following syllable, so that the scansion 
of the trochaic dimeter catalectic might be 
represented thus :— 


2 1 2 1+2 2-21 


2 
v 
Pat a then PA 


where the numbers denote units of time, 
and x is the indeterminate quantity by 
which a syllable exceeds or falls short of 
the ‘rational’ duration. 

In the third part, which is the longest and 
most important division of the essay, the 
position of irrational syllables in various 
metres is investigated, and certain laws 
regulating their use are laid down. The 
criteria of an irrational space of time are 
that it may be represented by either a long 
or a short syllable, that it can never be re- 
solved into two syllables, and that in some 
cases the irrational arsis (in the ancient 
sense of the word) may not be separated 


371 


from the succeeding thesis by a caesura. 
This last point serves to explain Porson’s 
law as to the final cretic, which, it is shown, 
may be applied also, mutatis mutandis, to 
metres other than the iambic senarius and 
the trochaic tetrameter. The subject of the 
various permissible feet and caesuras in these 
two metres is discussed with much subtlety 
and ingenuity. Another form of metre 
which is examined in detail is what Jusatz 
calls ‘ pseudo-logaoedic,’ of which the gly- 
conic may be taken as the most familiar 
type. It follows from the writer’s general 
theory that he will have nothing to do with 
the ‘cyclic’ dactyl. To him, apparently, 
e.g. the second glyconic consists of two 
trochees followed by two iambics, the effect 
of the change from trochee to iambic being 
analogous to that of what is called ‘ ana- 
clasis’ in ionic metres, a subject which is 
also discussed at some length. The last 
chapters are concerned with irrational 
syllables which stand alone, not in combina- 
tion with others, where therefore the irra- 
tional lengthening of one syllable is not 
compensated by the irrational shortening of 
another. This is chiefly the case in ‘ scazons,’ 
in which the penultimate syllable is irra- 
tionally lengthened, the view that in such 
metres the ante-penultimate syllable is equal 
to a three-time foot being criticized and 
rejected. 

Whatever may be thought of the 
rhythmical principles of the writer, which 
are certainly at variance with prevailing 
opinions, he has collected and sifted a con- 
siderable amount of material in reference to 
irrational syllables, and this will be useful 
to all students of metre, however different 
their exact interpretation of the forms in 
question may be. The reviewer must confess 
that he has found the argument hard to 
follow in some places, and that he has not 
been always able to make out the meaning. 

C. B. Heperpen. 


ANOTHER IMPORTANT MS OF LUCAN. 


De Incani codice Erlangensi. ARNoLp 
GentnE. [Dissertation, Jena 1894.] 


Tue author of this little treatise is a son 
of the late Hermann Genthe, whose name 
is well known to students of Lucan. Cogit 
pietas inponere finem officio. The MS 


described and collated is specially inter- 
esting from its connection with B, the 
Bernensis to which prominence was first 
given by Hosius in his recent edition. 

The Erlangen MS is of the tenth cen- 
tury. So is B. Both MSS belong to the 
class known as the Pauline recension, but 


372 


neither has the subscriptio found in M 
and certain other MSS. Dr. Genthe points 
out that another MS at Erlangen has the 
subscriptio, but does not enter into this 
matter further. The Hrlangensis described 
[No 304] is by two hands using the same 


original. The second of these wrote only the - 


part vill 134-ix 146. The normal number 
of lines to a page is twenty-eight, but a 
few pages have twenty-nine. Dr. Genthe 
(pp. 13-4) ingeniously infers that twenty- 
eight was the number in the archetype also. 
Besides the corrections of the first hands 
[m1], who are shown to have revised their 
work, three other sets of correctors {m?, 
m?, m‘,] are clearly distinguished. Of these 
the earlier ones used either the same or a 
closely connected MS as their basis, while 
m* draws from a different source, and 
probably employs conjecture as well. The 
clearness with which these various cor- 
rectors are distinguished adds not a little to 
the value of the dissertation. 

The derivation of E from the Pauline 
recension is clearly shown, and seems to 
admit no doubt. So also its peculiarly 
close relationship to B. Its relation to the 
mixed MSS, such as U and G, is also well 
discussed with much advantage. It appears 
that G is more nearly connected with BE 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


than with the other Paulines, and that G 
is nearer than U to BE. Band E them- 
selves agree in a remarkable manner. Not 
only do they very often unite to differ from 
the other MSS, but in misplacement of 
lines and peculiar order of words they show 
a striking concurrence. It may be added 
that the first readings of B, altered in the 
MS, often stand unalteredin E. Dr. Genthe - 
holds that B and E are copied from the 
same original, and that E is the better 
copy of the two. He adduces weighty 
reasons for believing that they are not 
copied from the original of M or from M 
itself. And he rejects,—rightly, I venture 
to think,—the view [Hosius, praef. p. xiv] 
that MB[C] may perhaps be directly derived 
from the original MS of Paulus. He 
allows that M may be a direct copy of 
Paulus: but the rest are derived from him 
in an indirect manner. In this he agrees 
with Wotke, and I believe this will become 
the received view. 

To enter into details here would require 
far too much room. But I think I have 
said enough to show that an interesting and 
important addition to Lucan literature has 
been made by Dr. Arnold Genthe. 

W. E. Herrnanp. 


PRESTON AND DODGE’S PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS. 


The Private Life of the Romans. By Har- 
RIET WATERS PRESTON and Louise Donat. 
Boston [1893]. Pp. 167. 12mo. Price 
$1.00. 


TEAcHERS of Latin have long desired a 
small manual to illustrate Roman private 
life for their students, and this spirited and 
inspiring little book will be warmly re- 
ceived. Heretofore there has been prac- 
tically nothing but the antiquated trans- 
lation of Gallus, the translation of Guhl 
and Koner, which for various reasons was 
an inconvenient book, and the dictionaries 
which had the defects of their qualities. In 
this book we have a readable and interest- 
ing sketch of the subject. The six chapters 
describe first the family, then the house and 
everyday life, the children, slaves, guests, 
clients, freedmen, their food and clothing, 
agriculture, and finally travel, transporta- 
tion, and amusements. ‘Tables of weights 
and measures and an index conclude the 


book. The treatment is sympathetic, and 
in a clear running style, enlivened also by 
comparison with modern Italian customs 
gathered from the personal observation of 
the authors. Some may think this is 
carried too far when confarreatio is com- 
pared with a ‘Catholic wedding with pon- 
tifical high mass.’ The materials of the 
book are drawn from Marquardt, Fried- 
linder, and Becker-Goéll; and many of the 
numerous woodeuts are credited to Rich, 
and a few to Baumeister and Seyffert- 
Nettleship. Some of the illustrations are 
not altogether good. In the ‘ process’ view 
of the Roman House after Schill (p. 24) the 
names of the parts of the house are alto- 
gether illegible. The picture of the Roman 
Bath (p. 49), said to be from an ancient 
painting, dates back some three hundred 
years only, and has no more authenticity 
than any picture invented in modern times. 

As a second edition of the book will un- 
doubtedly be called for, it may be well to 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


call attention to a few matters passim which 
demand correction or at least reconsidera- 
tion. Some statement of the principle fol- 
lowed in marking the long vowels of the 
Latin words should be made; and if, as it 
appears, the short vowels are left always 
unmarked, the reader should be put on his 
guard. In sicinum on p. 149 the quantity 
of the penult is more important and harder 
to remember than that of the antepenult ; 
iugum, p. 111, is certainly wrong. In 
manum suam ‘into his hand’ for the manus 
of the husband is hardly good Latin : Gaius, 
1. 136, has ‘in viri sui manu,’ but it is safer 
to omit the pronoun altogether as may be 
seen by comparing the passages cited by 
Heumann, rém. Rechtsquellen® 330. On 
p. 3 the derivation of Cicerones from ‘ chick- 
pea growers’ is over-confident, as is also the 
statement on p. 5 that daughters had a 
praendmen of their own, which remark 
should be qualified by what is said in 
Seyffert-Nettleship, p. 412. Nothing is said 
by our authors about the custom of num- 
bering daughters. The association of quiri- 
tatio (p. 19) with the mortuary cry may be 
correct ; yet as the word occurs but once 
(Livy 33. 28) we must interpret the noun 
by the verb guirito which was originally the 
ery for aid by the distressed citizen. The 


GSELL’S REIGN 


Essai sur le régne de [1 Empereur Domitien 
par SrieHane Gsetu, (Paris: Thorin.) 
8vo. pp. 392. 1894. 12 Frs. 


THE account of Domitian’s reign contained 
in this volume was originally written as a 
‘thése de doctorat’ for the Faculty of 
Letters of Paris. The author does not say 
whether it has been since revised or ex- 
panded, but for its original purpose I may 
say at once that it seems to me to possess 
just the merits which such a work should 
possess. The writers of such theses (we have 
them or something like them in England) 
seem to me to be liable to one of two 
errors. They are apt either to aim at the 
fabrication of epochs and the sonorous dis- 
closure of sweeping novelties, or they 
painfully concentrate laborious attention on 
some possibly correcter view of an insigni- 
ficant trifle. In either case, in the desire 
to be original, they reveal their inability to 
grasp the proportions of things and to 
master the matter which forms their sub- 


373 


‘mortuary proclamation ’ could hardly have 
given the primary signification to the word. 
Carmen necessarium (Cic. De Leg. 2. 59) is 
hardly a ‘species of hymn’; carmen might 
with more propriety be called a chant or 
rhythm. A modern analogue is the sing- 
song recitation of the multiplication table 
by school children. In Tac. Ann. 4; 9, 
which describes the funeral procession of 
Drusus, the verb is spectarentur ; to trans- 
late this ‘walked’ is scarcely justified (p. 
20). English ‘aes’ for Latin as occurs 
twice on page 140; but the book is in 
general very free from misprints. 

Those who have followed the Atlantic 
Monthly articles by H. W. P. and L. D. on 
various Roman worthies will find the same 
warm treatment, and freshness of style in 
this little book, which is doubtless more 
readable than it would have been if written 
by professed philologians or archaeologists. 
It is a work which may profitably be put 
into the hands of young students, and 
should find a place in all public libraries. 
It will be particularly valuable as a com- 
panion to courses of lectures in Roman 
private life, such as are given in several 
American universities. 

W. A. MERRILL, 


University of Indiana. 


OF DOMITIAN. 


ject. M. Gsell seems to me to have avoided 
these errors. He has given us a_well- 
digested account of Domitian, with a careful 
collection of facts and authorities both 
ancient and modern, and an estimate of 
the man which, whether right or wrong, is 
sober and suitable. He shows that he is 
the master, not the servant, of his matter 
and that, when he tries original work, he 
will at least be able to start well equipped. 
For scholars his book will have the value 
that many good digests have at the present 
day: it is a convenient summary to which 
one may turn for a judicial account of 
what has been well said about Domitian. 
Its fault, of course, is its length—rather a 
common fault in some French books, but 
that is partly the result of its careful 
quotation of references and treatment of 
detail. Were it shorter, it would doubtless 
be more interesting to read, but it would 
be less useful as a summary, 
i ee 


374 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


KRUMBACHER’S BYZANTINE PROVERBS. 


Mitteigriechische Sprichwérter. Von Karu 
Krumpacuer. Miinchen, 1893. Verlag 
der K. B. Akademie der Wissenschaften. 
Pp. 272. 1893. 3 Mk. 


KRruMBACHER belongs to the new and more 
enthusiastic school of students of Byzantine 
history. In his Geschichte der Byzantinischen 
Litteratur he has put himself on record as 
a believer in the intrinsic value of Byzan- 
tinism as a form of civilization. He refuses 
to compare it either with ancient Greek and 
Roman or with modern civilization, and 
finds in it merits and charms peculiarly its 
own, for which it is worth the study. His 
standpoint thus appears to be the same as 
that of Bury and Oman, who have reacted 
from Gibbon’s too disparaging representa- 
tions of Byzantinism. In the present work 
he gives practical evidence of his belief in 
the value of Byzantine life as a subject of 
study by undertaking a most thorough 
investigation of the extant collections of 
Byzantine proverbs. The object of the 
treatise is to compare and codify these col- 
lections and elucidate their obscurities. It 
contains an enumeration and description of 
the collections, a critical and descriptive 
classification of the MSS. in which they 
are found, the text of the proverbs with 
textual, dialectic, local and redactorial 
variants and explanatory notes. The aim 
of the author seems to be so to investigate 
the subject as to render the further investi- 
gation of it unnecessary, until perhaps some 
more light should break on it through the 
discovery of materials now unknown. This 
feature of the work constitutes its strength 
and weakness. Jt is its strength because 
the investigation is ideally thorough. One 
can hardly think of any particular in which 
greater exhaustiveness would have been 
desirable. In the notes and explanations, 
for instance, Krumbacher introduces all the 
light obtainable from parallels to these 
proverbs in the proverbs of other peoples— 
Albanian, Arabic, Turkish, Italian, Spanish, 
ete. The object of these parallels is two- 
fold; z.e. either to elucidate the meaning of 
obseurer proverbs by comparing them with 
some similar but clearer ones, or to show up 
some historic connection between them and 
those found in the Byzantine collections. It 


is hardly necessary to say that in this latter 
particular the instances where such connec- 
tion is established are very rare and limited 
to parallels from Classic Greek. The other 
object of the citation of parallels is clearly- 
secured in a large number of cases. The 
author’s diligence and painstaking in 
bringing these into comparison with the 
Byzantine proverbs cannot be too highly 
commended. This division of the work 
may furnish an illustration of what is meant 
by saying that the attempt to be absolutely 
exhaustive is the chief source of weakness 
in it. This effort leads the author into 
redundancy, and in many cases to the accu- 
mulation of explanations that do not explain. 
Such are the notes on proverbs numbered 
9, 13, 21,and 28. Here much simpler and 
briefer notes, without interfering with the 
thoroughness of the work, would have served 
all purposes much better, So also in the 
presentation of the text the method of the 
author leads him into numerous digressions, 
confusion of order, and the traversing of 
the same ground over and over again un- 
necessarily. A little more attention to the 
proper condensation of the valuable materials 
gathered by Krumbacher would have added 
much to the usefulness of the work. 

Krumbacher has made a correct diagnosis 
of the motive that led to the formation of 
these collections of proverbs in finding that 
motive in the desire of preachers to use 
these proverbs as illustrations and confirma- 
tions of religious truth. It can scarcely be 
doubted that the’ theological interest was 
more of a controlling factor in every depart- 
ment of thought and life at Byzantium than 
literary and historical knowledge as such. 
In this theological use therefore rather than 
in the philological value of the proverbs 
we are to find the secret of the making of 
these collections. 

The general care and diligence spoken of 
as characteristic of the work is noticeable 
also in such details as the spelling and ac- 
centuation of words. It is only very rarely 
that even typographical errors such as 
kntoupé (p. 144) for kyroupé, or avy for ayy 
have been allowed to creep into the work. 

A. C. ZENos. 

Chicago. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


375 


THE ORIGIN OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ProressoR GARDNER in his reply to 
Mr. Mayor’s article in the Classical Review 
criticizes also some remarks of mine which 
appeared elsewhere. He had maintained 
in his treatise that St. Luke’s phrase 
‘breaking bread’ or ‘the breaking of the 
bread’ indicates no more than the agapé 
or common meal of which the primitive 
Christians partook. To this I objected 
amongst other things that the words are 
hardly suitable for the description of an 
ordinary repast. In the Old Testament 
men invited their fellows to ‘eat bread,’ 
never to ‘ break bread.’ Nor is it otherwise 
in Greek or Latin authors. The expression 
appeared to me to be newly invented by 
the Christians to describe their new 
ceremony. 

Dr, Gardner replies that I am mistaken 
on this point, for in Isaiah lviii. 7 it is 
written ‘ Break thy bread to the hungry.’ 
In answer to this I might plead for the 
rendering of the English version, which 
has been retained by the Revisers, ‘ Deal 
thy bread to the hungry,’ but even if the 
literal meaning of the Hebrew root be 
pressed, my position, I think, is not seriously 
affected. It may be inhospitable to give 
broken meat to a guest, and yet praise- 
worthy to share your loaf with a starving 
brother. I shall be wrong in asserting 
that the phrase ‘break bread’ is never 
found in the Old Testament, but right in 
denying it to an ordinary meal. 

Dr. Gardner next reminds me of the 


practice of breaking bread in sacrifices. 
That I consider is hardly relevant to the 
present controversy. A primitive altar had 
no fire. The worshipper, who came to eat 
and rejoice before the Lord, daubed its sides 
with blood or placed fruits and offerings 
upon it. And as bread was hard and dry, 
needing to be broken for young children, 
so by a naive instinct Jehovah’s cake was 
crushed to prepare it for His use. The 
existence of such ceremonies, if they have 
any bearing on this question, only makes 
it the more improbable that the Founder 
of the Lord’s Supper should have gone for 
inspiration to Eleusis. 

Are we to suppose that St. Paul was 
initiated into the LEleusinian mysteries 4 
To my mind it is almost inconceivable that 
the Apostle, notwithstanding his large- 
hearted liberality, should have consented 
to such a thing. But granting for the 
moment that he was ready, would there be 
no difficulties from the other side? Origin- 
ally, I understand, initiation was confined 
to members of the tribe. Then it was 
thrown open to all Greeks. In St. Paul’s 
time cosmopolitan ideas had so far prevailed, 
that a Roman emperor or governor and any 
person of rank and wealth, who desired to 
be initiated, would experience no great 
opposition. But would a poor man, and 
especially a Jew, have any chance? 

ARTHUR WRIGHT. 

Queens’ College, Cambridge. 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


CALYMNA AND LEROS. 


Ir seems, when one looks at the map, a 
remarkable if not inexplicable thing, that 
the sea frontier of the Dorians and 
Tonians passes between Calymna and Leros. 
The two islands are so near: they are 
even linked by a series of small island 
stepping-stones, so that there is a legend 
of a Calymnian who used to swim across 
to visit his Lerian mistress,—a thing 
physically quite possible. 

It is true that our few epigraphical 
documents from Leros are of late date. 


We see it as a deme of Miletus, and it is 
perfectly possible that it was originally 
Dorian. We do not know at what time 
it was annexed by its great continental 
neighbour. It is also true that the 
existence at Calymna of a tribe of 
KvdpyActor (see Jnserr. of Cos, p. 354) is 
good enough evidence of the existence there 
of an Ionian element. 

The Homeric Catalogue does not help 
us. If Leros were one of the vioo 
KaAvévar, then it was Dorian, but these 
vngo. May very well have been Calymna, 
Pserimos, and Telendos, and the plural 


376 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


does not oblige us to include Leros among 
them. There are however certain physical 
conditions (and this is the object of this 
note) which separate Leros from Calymna. 
The northern tongue of Calymna is very 
barren and rugged. The only. habitable 


part of Calymna is its southern part; so 


that Calymna is naturally averted from 
Leros and faces Cos, to which it was finally 
annexed. The only ancient ruin on the 
northern tongue of Calymna is at Emporid, 
somewhat north of Telendos. It is a very 
small fortress under a high cliff, in which 
is a cave, and contains an oil-press. The 
position and size of this fortress convince 
me that it was a place of refuge for the 
people of this little township. Their 
oil-press was within its walls because 
they kept pigs, who eat the refuse of 
the olives, and of course when they retired 
to their fastness, they took their pigs with 
them. I hope to publish a plan of this 
fortress and its oil-press together with 
other ancient oil-presses which Mr. Myres 
and I found in Asia Minor last year. 

But north of Emporié there is a long 
barren tongue with no trace of any settle- 
ment. The geological structure of the two 
islands is also very dilferent, Calymnos 
being almost entirely lime-stone, and Leros 
chiefly schist ; and, what is most important, 
there is almost no intercourse between the two 
islands at the present day. The Calymnians 
are sponge-divers, the Lerians are ship- 
owners, doing a big carrying business, and 
having a sort of colony in Alexandria. 
In costume, customs, and sentiment the 
difference between the two islands is very 
wide. 

It may be that, as I am now living here, 
I lay too much stress on the importance 
of this matter of determining the exact 
frontier of the Dorians and Jonians, and 
determining what were the conditions which 
fixed it here, but I certainly gather from 
Meyer’s History that the matter is of great 
importance. I find no answer in this 
history to the problem of the omission 
from the Homeric Catalogue of the Ionians, 
I find no attempt to explain why the Dorians 
colonized the particular islands they did 
colonize ; and ina book which states as a 
fact and not as a hypothesis that Odysseus 
was an Arcadian god, one might wish for 
some hypothesis about these things. Of 
course the book is a delightful one, since 
it contains nothing of which the author has 
not convinced himself after much labour, 
and one feels that his judgment is often 
creative and always sound; but my own 


interest and knowledge are confined to a 
little corner of the ancient world, and I 
cannot help feeling that he has somewhat 
neglected this corner. However, I daresay 
that countless other people will feel that he 
has neglected their corners, and will be 
none the less grateful to him for his great 


book, which is the most life-giving History 


of Early Greece that I have read. 

Calymna has not yet had a book written 
about it; Leros has (Aepuaxa, td Auvov. I. 
OixovoporovAov 1888). I may take this 
opportunity of stating that the plan of a 
so-called dpvxrdpiov or beacon at Parthéni 
in the late Mr. Oeconomopoulos’ book is 
quite fanciful. There is no temple in 
antis, as his plan gives. There is a tower 
and there are some remains of an outer 
wall—at some distance from the tower. 
His book isa very interesting book, and I 
was sorry not to be able to verify his 
plan. I made a copy of an inscription 
which he first published, and as it is of 
some interest and perhaps not generally 
known I give it here in cursive. The stone 
was found on an eminence near the sea 
at Parthéni. The exact site was pointed 
out to me. ‘There are certain medieval 
ruins there, but nothing such as a church 
to indicate that this was the site of the 
temple of the Lerian Artemis Parthenos. 
This site still has to be found. The stone 
is now in the town-house of Leros. 

"Ext Srehavnddpov Sworsrparov | pyvos 
Merayertviavos cixddur | Ooge Aepiwy Tots 
katotkovow | év A¢pw: Mevexparns “Extyovov, 
| “HpdxAertos Tynéov, Pirioretdy[s] | “Aperro- 
BovXov eizav: éreidy | “Aptoropuaxos Apopwvos 
kato[lx|av év TH vyow ex tAclovos xpd|[volv 
Tv TE GvactpoPpyy weroin|\rat peta Tao7ns 
ebracias, epya|Copevos TE TV Kata Gahaccay 
| epyaciay | Peak €avToV Ta|péxerau mpos 
TavTOV ov av zis] | xpyav EXOV Tevxavn’ 67rws 
ovv Kat] | 6 O7jpos paivarar xdpw Kal tipi[v] 
| dmovépov Tols TOLOUTOLS, de66|xGau Acpiows 
TOlS KATOLKOUTWY iy | Aépw "Apirropaxov pe 
ernvno|Gat Kal elval ev _emreheta Tapa TO $ 
7rn6[ er] ded0cbar dé adr Kat tLe |pav petovoiav 
Kal Tov Aowrav | wavTwv dv Kal Aepious perectw" 
| va de pavepa Stapev y] TE ’Apto|ropdxou 
Tpoaiperts Kat n Ti ov mpou ev xapioria, TO 
Undiop| a i | rode dvayparyan eis orn Any [Ac]- 
| Oivny kat avabeivar ev TO tep& | THs LapOevov, 
70 de € eo opevov | eis Tavra avadwpa danperjo[at 
| rovs Xpurovepous kat evypad|ec|Oau | eis Tov 
Aoyow, Tov O€ ypapparéla tapadaBovra TOE 
<ro> Whdiopa alvaypayar eis Ta Sypdora Kat 
dialpvrlac<o>ew peta Tov GAXwv ypappd- 
TOV. 

The cata Oartaccav épyacia suggests some 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


connexion with the present ‘thalattocracy’ 
of Leros, which is the only one of these 
islands that possesses big ships. Its beautiful 
harbour of Parthéni must always have made 
it an important naval station. Calymna 
has only one secure port at Vathi, and this 
is very small indeed, so it does not possess 
ships which are too big to be pulled up on 
the beach—or rather did not, for now it has 
a pier and quay and is getting on in the 
world. When the sponge-fishing industry, 
which now absorbs all the energy and 
capital of Calymna and Symi, began, I do 
not know. At present it has tended to 
bring these islands into close and direct 
intercourse with Europe, while Leros is 
somewhat turned away from Europe and 
looks to Alexandria. However, since 
Alexandria is very European and com- 
paratively near Leros, Leros has become, 
externally at least, more European than 
Calymna. It would not be wise to say 
more, as I should trespass into politics. 
Our farewell to Leros in ancient history is, 
I fancy, the inscription I have quoted ; our 
farewell to Calymna is Dio’s oration to the 
Rhodians, in which he speaks of the 
Calymnians and Caunians in like terms and 
with extreme contempt. The Caunians are 
now reduced to a few fever-stricken peasants, 
while the Calymnians are far more full 
of life than the Rhodians, to whom Dio 
cited them as outsiders. 

There is such a tendency on our part to 
trace fancied survivals (as in the case of 
this inscription and the present sea-power 
of Leros) that it is, I think, wise to call 
attention to such revolutions of history. 

W. R. Patron. 


CALYMNOs, 
July 2, 1894. 


Numismatic Chronicle. Parti. 1894. 

Warwick Wroth. ‘Greek coins acquired by the 
British Museum in 1893’ (with Plate). A table is 
given showing the number of coins acquired during 
the years 1887—1893, the total amounting to 2,384 
specimens. The number acquired during 1893 was 
403 among which the following may be noticed. 
Hebrytelmis or Hebryzelmis, King of the Odrysae, 
B.C. 386-5. A unique coin (in bronze) of this ruler 
who was only previously known from an inscription 
found on the Acropolis of Athens and published by 
Lolling in 1889 (cp. A. Hoeck, Hermes, xxvi. 1891, 
p. 453 ff.), The coin reads EBPYTEAMIO€. 
Messalina. An unpublished double-denarius, struck 
at Corinth (1), with a portrait of Messalina (rare on 
coins) and figures of Octavia, Britannicus, Antonia, 
Pheneus in Arcadia, <A fine didrachm showing on 
the reverse Hermes carrying the young Areas. 
Adramytewm in Mysia, An unpublished silver coin 
in value 4 of a cistophorus of the Province of Asia. 


377 


Lampsacus. A fine gold stater with a youthful head 
winged and wreathed with myrtle. Probably Eros. 
Pergamum. Remarks on the occurrence of OeoAdyos 
on coins and in inscriptions. Myrina. Two very 
rare drachms corresponding in type to the well-known 
tetradrachms with the type of the Apollo of Grynium. 
Phocaca. An archaic electrum stater struck B.C. 
602—560, the period when the Phocaeans were 
supreme at sea, ‘This stater has hitherto been only 
known from a specimen in the Munich Collection. 
Titiopolis (Isauria). A bronze coin of Commodus 
dated ‘year3.’ Rare coins, of Titiopolis, of Hadrian, 
and of Caracalla and Geta have been previously pub- 
lished (ep. Waddington, Rev. Num. 1883, p. Si) teas 
Ramsay, Hist. Geog. p. 366). Review by B. Vi; 
Head of C. F. Lehmann’s ‘Das altbabylonische 
Maas- und Gewichts-system.’ 


Numismatische Zeitschrift. (Vienna, 1894.) Vol. 
xxv. Part 2. July—Dec. 1898. 

O. Voetter. ‘Die rémischen Miinzen des Kaisers 
Gordianus III. und deren antiken Filschungen.’ 
Th. Rohde. ‘Silber-Antoniniane der rémischen 
Kaiserin Sulpicia Dryantilla.’ 

Revue Numismatique. Part 4, 1893. 

Blanchet. ‘Monnaies grecques inédites ou_ peu 
connues.’ Coins in the collection of Prince P. de 
Saxe-Cobourg. 

Part 1, 1894. 

Th. Reinach. ‘La date de Pheidon.’ Reinach 
calls in question two statements of Aristotle: (i) 
that Pheidon struck coins in the island of Aegina, 
(ii) that the iron é6feAtoxo: dedicated by Pheidon 
in the temple of the Argive Hera were deposited 
by him, at the time when he introduced a coinage 
into Argolis, as primitive and disused media of 
exchange. Reinach accepts the dedication of the 
dBerloxor as a fact, but supposes them to have been 
standard weights and not primitive substitutes for 
coinage. Pheidon was inaugurating a system of 
weights and not a system of coinage. He had thus 
nothing directly to do with the invention of coinage 
and cannot have lived later than cire. B.c. 650 when 
the coinage of Aegina first appeared. The Aeginetan 
coins are struck on the Pheidonian system, and if we 
suppose that it took about a century for that 
weight-system to be applied to coinage, the date of 
Pheidon will be fixed circ. B.c. 748, which is the 
date recorded by Pausanias (vi. 22, 2). J. A. 
Blanchet. ‘Tétradrachme archaique de Syracuse.’ 
A tetradrachm in the collection of Mme. A. 
Hartmann, remarkable for having an incuse square, 
without type, on the reverse. Is the genuineness of 
this specimen beyond all question? The absence of 
any similar coins in Sicily and the peculiarly 
Macedonian character of the ieverse raise in my 
mind the suspicion that the piece may be a product 
of a modern school of forgers who especially affect 
the ancient money of Macedonia and Thrace. M. 
lilanchet has however the advantage of having seen 
the original coin. H. De la Tour. ‘Monnaies 
gauloises recueillies dans la forét de Compiégne.’ 
Memoir of W. H. Waddington, by E. Babelon. 

Part 2, 1894. 

E. Babelon. ‘Etudes sur les monnaies primitives 
d’Asie minewe.’ I. Trouvaille de Samos. On a 
find recently made in the island of Samos of archaic 
electrum coins of Euboic weight. This find is 
important as suggesting the attribution of the coins. 
Babelon believes them all to be of Samos itself, 
though some similar pieces have been previously 
classed to Chalcis in Euboea. Babelon comments on 
the historical relations between Samos and Chalcis in 
early times and suggests that Euboea received the 


378 


‘Euboic’ standard from Samos, a standard that 
would be more properly called the ‘Samian.’ W. 
M. Ramsay. ‘Colonia Niniva ou Ninica?’ Prof. 
Ramsay arrives at the important conclusion—as M. 
Waddington had done independently—that all the 
coins hitherto assigned to Nineveh in Assyria are 
wrongly ascribed. The evidence for the existence 


of a Roman colony (the supposed ‘ Niviva Claudio- - 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


polis’) at Nineveh ee falls to the ground. The 
coins-belong to ‘Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Ninica 
Claudiopolis,’ a Cilician town whi: ch, Ramsay 
supposes, may be identical with J uliosebaste. Other 


coins reading KAAYAIOTIOAEITON are 
assigned to Claudiopolis (JZwt) on the road from 


Laranda to Celenderis. 
WARWICK WROTH. 


SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins 
zu Berlin. Sept.—Dec. 1893. 


CAESAR AND HIs CoNTINUATORS, by R. Schneider. 


I. Editions. C. Jultii Caesaris comment. de bello 
Gallico, by J. Prammer. 4th ed., Leipzig 1891. 
Has a new appendix on the Roman military system. 
C. Sulit Caesaris bell. Gall. lib. VIL. und A. Hirtii 
lib. VIUII., by A. Doberenz. 9thed. by B. Dinter, 
Leipzig 1892. Quite brought up to date. C. Juliz 
Caesaris comment. de bello civili, ed. R. Novak. 
Pragae 1893. On the whole founded on Paul’s 
edition. Jules César, Commentaires sur la guerre 
des Gaules, by M. E. Benoist and M. S. Dossen. 
Paris 1893. Benoist’s name is merely a bait for 
buyers as he had nothing to do with it. Has no 
scientific worth. 

IJ. Manuscripts and text-criticism. A Polaschek, 
Vielhabert in libros Pseudocaesarianos adnotationes 
criticae. Zeitschr. f. d. dst. Gymn. 1891. Contains Y.’s 
remarks on the Bell. Alexandrinum. <A. Polaschek, 
Der Caesarcodex Vindobonensis 95. Zeitschr. f. d. 
ost. Gymn. 1892. Contains the variants of V. for 
the Bell. Hispaniense. E. Gruppe, N. Jahrb. f. 
Phil. 1892. A list of passages in B. G. alleged to 
be interpolations. G. Karo, Rh. Mus. 1893. Gives 
three readings in B. C. i. from Cod. Laur. Ashburn- 
hamensis 33. Various conjectures, emendations and 
interpretations are given by the following : On Bell. 
Gall. H. Schiller (Bl. f. d. bayer, GSW. xxvii. 294, 
618), J. Lange (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891 pp. 199, 
508 : 1892 p. 595), J. Schmidt (Wien. Stud. xiii. 
326), A. Polaschek (Zeitschr. f. d. 6st. Gymn. 1890 
p- 396), E. Dittrich (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892 p. 132), 


F. Weck (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891 p. 205), and 
Deiter (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891 p. 736): On Bell. 
Civ. H. Schiller (Bl. f. d. bayer. GSW. xxvii. 284 


and xxviii. 292), A. Polaschek (Zeitschr. f. d. dst. 
Gymn. 1891 p. 989), K. P. Schulze (Progr. Berlin 
1893), and D. May (N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1891 p. 508): 
On Bell. Afr. Funk (Philol. 1890 p. 673). 

III. The appa of the continuations. T. Wid- 
mann, Uber den Verfasser des bell. Afr. wnd die 
Poliiohypothese Landgrafs. Philol. 1891. Coneludes 
(1) the composer is a member of the 5th legion, (2) 
Pollio stands in no connexion with the 5th legion, 
(3) there is no probability that P. was present as an 
eye-witness to all the campaign, which was the case 
with the composer. H. Mélken, Jn commentarium 
de bello Africano quaestiones criticae. Diss. Strass- 
burg 1892. Against Landgraf. Wé6lfflin’s over- 
valued Leidensis is untrustworthy. About 90 places 
are discussed where W. has found interpolations. 
J. Zingerle, Zur Frage nach der Autorschaft des bell. 
Alexandr. und dessen: Stellung im Corpus Caesari- 
anum. Wien. Stud. xiv. Seeks to show that 
Caesar’s genuine work reaches to bell. Alex. ¢. 21. 
H. Schiller, Die Caisarausgabe des Hirtiws. Philol. 


1892. Considers that the question of authorship 
must be determined by the supplements themselves 
rather than by the literary evidence of Hirtius and 
Suetorius. : 

IV. The Rhine-bridge. Fr. Hermes, Zu Césars 
Rheinbriicke. Gymnasium x. On iv. 17, 6 quantum 
corum tignorum junctura distabat, which has given 
occasion to Hubo, noch einmal Casars Rheinbriicke, 
Gymn. x. on sublicac, and Hubo, Zu Casars Rhein- 
briicke, N. Jahrb. f. Phil. 1892. 

V. Geography and topography. E. Desjardins, 
Géographie de la Gaule Romaine. Vol. iv. Paris 
1893. On the network of roads and the sources of 
the topography. Concluded after D.’s death by 
Longnon. A standard work on‘the subject. Stoffel, 
Guerre de César et d Arioviste et premieres opérations 
de César en Van 702. Paris 1890. Shows more 
clearly than any one has yet done the site of the 
battle at the foot of the Vosges. It needs no 
further investigation. 

VI. Onthe military system. Stoffel, Remarques 
sur Pouvrage intitulé : das Kriegswesen Céisars par M. 
Franz Frohlich. Rev. de Phil. 1891. While re- 
cognizing the diligence and care of Fréhlich, Stoffel 
misses the military knowledge, which is indispensable. 
F. Giesing, Bettrage zur rémischen Taktik. N. Jahrb. 
f. Phil. 1892. - Divides the cohort-legion into three 
classes, viz. primi, priores, posteriores. R. Schneider, 
Legion und Phalanx. Berlin 1893. <A_ historical 
account of ancient arid modern tactics. 

VII. Smaller articles of various contents. H. 
d’ Artois de Jubainville, Les noms gaulois chez César 
et Hirtius de bello Gallico. Paris 1891. O. E. 
Schmidt, Der Ausbruch des Biirgerkrieges im Jahre 
49 v. Chr. Rh. Mus. 1892. Tries to show that even 
in the stormy time of transition to Caesarism the 
old constitutional forms played a larger part than 
is generally suspected. O. Sumpff, Casars Beurteilung 
seiner Offiziere in den Kommentarien vom gallischen 
Kriege. Progr. Quedlinburg 1892. C. deliberately 
disparages the merit of his officers. F. Cramer, 
César und seine Zeit bis zum Beginn des Gallischen 
Krieges. Progr. Miilheim a. Rh. 1890. A good 
sketch of C.’s life to B.c. 58. F. Cramer, Kriegs- 
wesen und Geographie zur Zeit Casars. Progr. 
Miilheim a. Rh. 1892. The military part is imade- 
quate, the geographical well done. Plochmann, 
Casars Sprachgebrauch in Bezug auf die Syntax der 


Casus. Progr. Schweinfurt 1891. Without special 
value, S. “Elias, Vor- wnd Gleichzeitigkeit bet 
César I. Bedingungs- und Folgesdtze. Progr. Berlin 
1893. 

VIII. Lexicons. H. Meusel, Lexicon Caesari- 
anum. Vol. ii. Berlin 1893. A masterpiece of 


lexicography, and at the same time a complete 
critical edition of the text. O. Eichert, Schulwértcr- 
buch zw den Komment. vom Gallischen Kriege. 7th 
edition. Breslau 1891. H. Ebeling, Schulwérterbuch 





, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


4th ed. by R. Schneider. Leipzig 
1892. 

Finally comes appendix Das Marschgepiéck der 
Legionare in which the works of Riistow, Frohlich 
and Stoffel are noticed. The writer agrees with S. 
in saying that the legionary carried food for one or 
two days as a rule. Comparisons are also drawn 
with modern armies. 


Heropotvs, by H. Kallenberg. 


I. Editions. Herodotos, by J. Sitzler. Book 
vii. 2nd ed. Gotha 1892. The text thoroughly 
revised and mostly improved. Herodotos, by K. 
Abicht, vol. v. books viii., ix. with two maps. 4th 
ed. Leipzig 1892. Herodotus, books v., vi. by E. 
Abbott. Oxford 1893. Stein’s text followed. The 
chief value lies in the historical excursuses. Hervo- 
dotos by H. Stein, vol. ii., part i., book iii., 4th ed. 
and vol. v. books viii. ix., 4th ed. Berlin 1893. 
The whole has been gone over again. Stein’s 
opinion is that H. has not put the finishing touches 
to his work. 

IJ. Dissertations and smaller contributions. 
Sagaue, 5¢ im Nachsatz bei Herodot. Breslau 1893. 
A completion and correction of Gomperz’s paper 
(Sitzungsber. der phil. hist Kl. der Akad. der 
Wissensch. zu Wien. 1883, pp. 543-553). A. W. 
Forstemann, De vocabulis quae videntur esse apud 
Herodotum poeticis. Diss. Magdeburg 1892. Words 
common to Herodotus and Homer are not necessarily 
poetical but merely Ionic. F. Krapp, Der substan- 
tivierte Infinitiv abhingig von Prapositionen und 
Priipositionsadverbien in der historischen Grdcitat 
(Herodot bis Zosimus). Diss. Heidelberg 1892. 
A careful statistical account. This form of the arti- 
cular infin. begins with H. (9 cases), reaches its 
highest point in Polyb., then declines but revives 
again in Herodian and Zosimus. Lell, Der absolute 
Akkusativ im Griechischen bis zu Aristoteles. Progr. 
Wiirzburg 1892. Devotes two pages to Herodotus. 
A. von Domaszewski, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der 
Perserkriege Heidelberg1891. I. The panhellenic 
confederation on the Delphian serpent-column. II. 
The return of the Persian fleet after Salamis. H. 
Welzhofer, Der Kriegszug des Datis und die Schlacht 
bei Marathon. Hist. Taschenbuch 1892, and Zur 


379 


Geschichte der Perserkriege III.—VII. Neue Jahrb. 
Vol. 145. Maintains that Darius and Xerxes had a 
respect for Greece and that a feeling of opposition 
between these two branches of the Aryan stock was 
not in existence at that time, but, says rev., there is 
nothing to show that the Persianslooked on the Greeks 
as nearer to them than the Semites or Egyptians. 
N. Wecklein, Zhemistokles und die Seeschlacht bet 
Salamis. Miinchen 1892. Warns us against 
Duncker’s method of combining the account of H. 
with that of later historians who either expand or 
even pervert him. R. Neumann, Nordafrika (mit 
Ausschluss des Nilgebietes) nach Herodot. Leipzig 
1892. <A book of the same kind as Hugues’ L’Africa 
secondo Erodoto [Cl. Rev. vii. 233], but N. deals 
with plants, animals and men as well as 
with topography. J. Krall, Zu Herodot. Eranos 
Vindob. pp. 283, 284. On ii. ili J. EK. B. Mayor, 
Journ. Phil. xxi. Compares Her. ii. 121 with the 
Passion of Theodotus c. 31—34. A. Weiske, Zu 
Herodot. N. Jahrb. vol. 145. Justifies the delay of 
the Spartans before Marathon (Her. vi. 106). H. 
Kostlin, Jsagoras und Kleisthenes. Philol. N. F. v. 
On Her. v. 66, vi. 131. See also for Herodotus the 
important third vol. of K. Miillenhotf’s Deutscher 
Altertumskunde. Berlin 1892. 

Appendix. K. <Abicht, Uebersicht tiber den 
Dialekt des Herodotos. 4th ed. Leipzig 1898. 
Practically the same as that contained in the intro- 
duction to vol. i. of his edition. Merodotos, by K. 
Abicht. Vol. iv. Book vii. with two maps. 4th 
ed. Leipzig 1893. Very little altered. H. Welz- 
hofer, Die Schlacht bet Salamis. Hist. Taschenbuch 
1892. Tries to depreciate the glory of the Greeks 
and to raise that of their enemies. 

This year’s Jahresbericht concludes with an essay 
by W. Nitsche on ‘Old Interpolations in Plato’s 
Apology.’ He finds these in c. 10, the beginning of 
c. 22; and the end of ec. 27, and the foundation of 
his view is found in ¢. 30. The interpolations are 
attributed to one who was a well-wisher neither to 
Plato nor Socrates, a man of their time who had 
access to the archetype of our MSS., in short to 
Aristoxenos the Musician. 

R. C. 8. 





LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 
FOREIGN BOOKS. 


Abhandlungen des archaeologisch-epigrafischen 
Seminares der Universitit Wien, herausgegeben 
von O. Benndorf und E. Bormann. XI. Heft. 
8vo. 151 pp. 55 engravings. Wien, Holder. 
5 Mk. 

[Contains : Ueber homerische Waffen, archaeo- 
logische Untersuchungen von W. Reichel. ] 

Aeschylus. Scholia in Aeschyli Persas, rec., appa- 
ratu critico instruxit, cum praefatione de arche- 
typo codicum Aeschyli scripta ed. O. Daihnhardt. 
8vo. lxvi, 275 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 3 Mk. 60. 

Aesop. Hausrath (Dr. Aug.) Untersuchungen zur 
Ueberlieferung der Aesopischen Fabeln. 8vo. 68 
pp- Leipzig, Teubner. 2 Mk. 

[Aus Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. 21 
Suppl. Ba.] 

Anthologia graeea, Sakolowski(P.) De anthologia 
palatina quaestiones. 8vo. vi, 81 pp. Leipzig, 
Grife. 1 Mk. 60. 


Berger (Dr. C. P. jr.) Neue Forschungen zur 
ailteren Geschichte Roms. I. Die Bildung des 
grossen rémisch-latinischen Bundesstaates (358 | 
396—342 | 412). 8vo. 48 pp. 1 coloured map. 
Amsterdam, J. Miiller. 2 Mk. 25. 

Carminum Saliarium reliquiae, ed. B. Maurenbrecher. 
8vo. 42 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 1 Mk. 

{Aus Jahvbiicher fiir classische Philologie. 21 
Suppl. Bd.] 

Cassius Dio. Maisel (Dr. H.) Beitriige zur Wiir- 

digung der Handschritten des Cassius Dio. 8vo. 


35 pp. Leipzig, Fock. 1 Mk. 50. 
Coelius. Lettres & Cicéron (VIIIe libre des Lettres 
familitres). ‘Texte latin, publié avec un commen- 


taire critique et explicatif et une traduction par F. 
Antoine. 8vo. 189 pp. Paris. 

Compte-rendu de la commission impériale archéolo- 
gique pour les années 1882—1888. Imperial 4to. 
lv, cccxxxv, 97 pp. Engravings. 2 plates. With 


380 _ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Atlas in Imperial Folio. 6 plates. St. Peters- 
burgh. 16 Mk. 

Curtius (Ernst.) Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Bd. 
II. 8vo. xii, 562 pp. 15 engravings, and 9 
plates. Berlin, Besser. 12 Mk. 

Démosthene. Sept philippiques, publiées avee une 
introduction, des notices, un commentaire, des 


notes critiques et un index archéologique par Ch. | 


Baron. 12mo. 399 pp. Paris, Colin. 

Dirpfeld (W.) Troja 1893. | Bericht tiber die im 
Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. 
Unter Mitwirkung von A. Brueckner, Max Weigel 
und Wilh. Wilberg. 8vo. v, 140 pp. 83 
engravings. 2 coloured maps. Leipzig, Brock- 
haus. 5 Mk. : 

Eck (T.)  Saint-Quentin dans Vantiquité et au 
moyen Age, récit relatant les intéressantes décou- 
vertes faites dans cette ville en 1892 et 1893, 
suivi d’une notice sur une trouvaille de monnaies 
romaines faite a Fontaine Uterte. 8vo. 51 pp. 
Paris. 

Ferrette (Jul.) Ulysses Panhellen, poema heroicum, 
graecas radices universas, ut 3150 censas, jucun- 
dissime discendas in versibus 617 continens. Om- 
nium gratia graecae linguae studiosorum Mvrandum 
Gyrodi perfecit J. F. Ed. II. 8vo. xii, 94 pp. 
Genf, Stapelmohr. 1 Mk. 60. 

Férstemann (Albr.) Zur Geschichte des Aeneasmy- 
thus. Litterargeschichtliche Studien. S8vo. 104 
pp. Magdeburg, Creutz. 2 Mk. 80. 

Frericks (Dr. Herm.) Der Apoll von Belvedere. 
Eine archaeologische Studie. 8vo. 79 pp. 
Paderborn, Schéningh. 1 Mk. 60. 

Galeni (Claudii) protreptici quae supersunt. Ed. 
G. Kaibel. 8vo. ix, 62 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 
2 Mk. 

Geist (Dr. Herm.) Was bieten die antiken Schrift- 
steller der modernen Jugend? Pt. I. Die His- 
toriker. 8vo. 153 pp. Posen, Ebbecke. 2 Mk. 


50. 

Gellius. Hertz (M.) Supplementum apparatus 
Gelliani. 8vo. 48 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 1 
Mk. 40. 


{Aus Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. 21. 
Suppl. Bd.] 

Glene (Dr. Herm.) De homicidarum in areopago 
Atheniensi iudicio. 8vo. 52 pp. Gittingen, 
Dieterich’s Verlag. 1 Mk. 

Grabreliefs, Die attischen, herausgegeben im Auf- 
trage der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 
Wien. 6 Lfg. Royal Folio. pp. 131—170, 
engravings and 25 plates. Berlin, Spemann. 
60 Mk. 

Haas (Dr. G. E.) Der Geist der Antike. Eine 
Studie. 8vo, xvi, 575 pp. Graz, Moser. 6 Mk. 

Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft, 
herausgegeben von Dr. Iwan von Miiller. 6. Bd. 
2. Thl. (19. Halbband.) 8vo. Miinchen, Beck. 
5 Mk. 50. 

[Contains : Klassische Kunstarchaeologie von 
Dr. K. Sittl. (2Thl. 305—624 pp.)] 

Héron @ Alexandrie. Longraire (L. de.) Notice 
bibliographique sur la traduction des Mécaniques 
de Héron d’Alexandrie de M. le Baron Carra de 
Vaux. S8vo. 28 pp., engravings. Paris. 

Horatius. Friedrich (Gust.) Q. Horatius Flaccus. 
Philologische Untersuchungen. 8vo. vi, 232 pp. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 6 Mk. 

Jamblichi in Nicomachi arithmeticam introductionem 
liber, ad fidem codicis Florentimi ed. H. Pistelli. 
8vo. ix, 195 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 2 Mk. 40. 

Kiepert (Heinr.) Formae orbis antiqui. 86 maps, 
Mit kritischem Text und Quellenangaben zu jeder 


Karte. Lfg. I. (6 maps and 26 pp. of letter- 
press.) Berlin, D. Reimer. 4 Mk, 80. 

Lanciani (Rud.) Forma urbis Romae. Consilio et 
auctoritate regiae academiae Lynceorum formam 
dimensus est et ad modulum 1 : 1000 delineavit 
R. L. Part II. (6 maps a 57x87 ctm.) Milan, 
Hoepli. 20 Mk. 

Lucien de Samosate. Scenes dela vie des courtisanes, 
traduites littéralement sur le texte de Karl 
Jacobitz par Pierre Louys. 16mo. 159 pp. 
Paris. ; 


Meissner (Bruno.) Alexander und Gilgamos. 8vo. : 


19 pp. Leipzig, Pfeiffer. 1 Mk. 

Monumenta Germaniae historica. Quarto Series : 
Auctorum antiquissimorum tomi XI. pars 2: 
Chronica minora saeculorum iv, v, vi, vii, ed. Th. 
Mommsen. Vol. II. Fase. 2. Royal 4to. v, 
pp. 241—506. 2 plates. Berlin, Weidmann. 
9 Mk. : 

Omont (H.) Inscriptions grecques de Salonique, 
recueillies au XVIIIe siécle par (J. B. Germain. 
8vo. 19 pp. Paris. (Extrait de la Revue archéo- 


logique. ) 
Pauli (Prof. Dr. C.) Altitalische Forschungen. 
Bd. 2. Eine. vorgriechische Handschrift von 


Lemnos. Abtheilung II. 8vo. iv, 262 pp. 
Leipzig, J. A. Barth. 14 Mk. 

Pernice (Dr. Erich.) Griechische Gewichte, gesam- 

melt, beschrieben und erlautert. S8vo. vi, 215 
. lplate. Berlin, Weidmann. 6 Mk. 

Phaedri fabulae, Texte latin, publié avec une 
notice sur Phédre, des notes en francais et les 
imitations de la Fontaine et de Florian, par E. 
Talbert. 16mo. iv, 140 pp. Paris. 

Plautus. Siewert (Dr. P.) Plautus in Amphi- 
truone fabula quomodo exemplar graecum trans- 
tulerit. 8vo. 85 pp. Leipzig, Fock. 2 Mk. 

Plinius. Der Jiingere, Ausgewahlte Briefe. Fiir 
den Schulgebrauch erkliirt von Dr. A. Kreuser. 
8vo. iv, 143 pp. 1 plate. Leipzig, Teubner. 
1 Mk. 50. 

Ptolemaeus. Boll(Dr. Frz.) Studien iiber Claudius 
Ptolemaeus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der 
griechischen Philosophie und Astrologie. 8vo. 
198 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 5 M. 60. 

[Aus Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. 21. 
Suppl. Bd.] 

Prisciani (Theodori) Euporiston libri III., cum 
Physicorum fragmento et additamentis Psendo- 
Theodoreis editi a* Valentino Rose. Accedunt 
Vindiciani Afri quae feruntur reliquiae. 8vo. 
xxviii, 554 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 5 Mk. 

Reinach (T.) Une page de musique grecque. 8vo. 
26 pp. Paris. 2 Frs. oe 

Riemann (O.) Syntaxe latine, d’aprés les principes 
de la grammaire historique. 3e édition, revue par 
P. Lejay. 12mo. xiv, 641 pp. Paris. : 

Schwarz (Gymn.-Director Dr. W.) _Nachklange 
praehistorischen Volkglaubens im Homer. Mit 
einem Anhang iiber eine Hexenfarth der Hera und 
die sogenannte Hexensalbe. Svo. 52 pp. Berlin, 
O. Seehagen. 1 Mk. 60. iy rhe 

Studien (Griechische) Herman Lipsius zum 60: 
Geburtstag dargebracht. 8vo. 187 pp. Leipzig, 
Teubner. 6 Mk. ; ‘ 

Leipziger, zur classischen Philologie. Heraus- 
gegeben von O. Ribbeck, H. Lipsius, C. Wachs- 
muth, 15 Bd. 2 Heft. 8vo. pp. 275—467. 
With 2 coloured maps and 4 plates. Leipzig, S. 
Hirzel. 7 Mk. ; 

Terentius. Lalin (Dr. Esaias.) De particularum 
comparativarum usu apud Terentium. 4to. 34 
pp. Norrcopiae. 1 Mk. 60. 





The Classical Review 


NOVEMBER 1894. 


DESCRIPTIVE ANIMAL NAMES IN GREECE. 


CoMMENTATORS on Hesiod have noted 
certain quaint, picturesque phrases, occur- 
ring chiefly in the Works and Days, as 
evidence of a so-called ‘oracular or religious 
style.’' Géttling, for example, remarks: ? 
‘magnam Hesiodi carmina familiaritatem 
produnt cum Pythiorum sacerdotum oraculis 
eorumque toto loquendi modo,’ and as in- 
stances of this Delphian dialect cites the 
following words: depéoixos (W. and D. 571), 
avooteos (524), zevrofos (742), atov and 
xAwpov (743), pis (778), uepoKortos avip 
(605), xetpodixns (189), pio cKxodroi (194) 
and dicar oxoAtai (221), eippdvn (560), vyds 
mrepa (628), yAavky (Th. 440). The list is 
not exhaustive — Van Lennep e.g. adds 
Kepaol Kat viKepot vAnKotrat (W. and D. 529)— 
but it will serve to indicate the phraseology 
in question. 

That these and similar forms of speech 
really emanated from Delphi seems to me 
to be a proposition that has been accepted 
too readily. The Pythian priestess was 
indeed wont to use a jargon of obscure and 
unobvious words, which gave her responses 
a grandiloquent air not without a seasoning 
of ambiguity. Plutarch says* that Apollo 
ultimately forbade her to call her fellow- 
citizens IIvpixao., the Spartans ’Odofdpor, 
mankind in general ’Opéaves, rivers ’Opéuzro- 
rat, and so forth—ddeAov tov ypynopov ern 
Kat yAwooas Kal tepippaces kal doddevay. 
But the recondite wording of Delphian 
oracles was only a particular example of 


1 Mahaffy, Greek Classical Literature, i. 124, 
2 Ed. 1843, p. xxix. 

3 De Pyth. or. 24. 

NO, LXXIII. VOL. VIIT. 


ni Z 


that enigmatic and symbolic language which 
was the common possession of all Greek 
mystics,* and does not on examination bear 
more than a superficial resemblance to the 
descriptive style of Hesiod. Nor is there, 
so far as I am aware, any ancient authority 
for connecting the two. To take Gittling’s 
list : in no single case do the scholia allude 
to Delphi, while more than once they defi- 
nitely assign other localities as the proven- 
ance of the phrases in dispute. But if, in 
view of their testimony, we are unable to 
regard Hesiod’s peculiar terminology as due 
to Delphian influence, if we cannot go so 
far as to call it the ‘dialectus deorum,’ it 
remains to ask from what source were de- 
rived those striking expressions which give 
pause to all who are familiar with the even 
flow of epic verse. In the present inquiry 
I propose to limit myself to the animal 
names, perhaps the most salient of the said 
expressions ; and I shall attempt to show 
that Hesiod has availed himself of a few 
graphic provincialisms, which with a poet's 
instinct he has incorporated in his other- 
wise conventional vocabulary. 

It will probably be admitted that in 
Greece, as in our own country, descriptive 
animal names were either (a) universally 
recognized, (5) restricted to local usage, or 
(c) poetic neologisms. Just as wag-tail or 
glow-worm with us are xipia dvdpara, while 
hod-man-dod (a snail) would be barely in- 
telligible to a Londoner though expressive 


* Clement cf Alexandria (Strom. V. viii. 45-50) 
affords ample proof of it in the case of Orphie and 
Pythagorean writers. 

E E 


382 


enough in Suffolk; so with the Greeks 
KiAXoupos Or tuyéAapmis Would pass current 
anywhere, while depéouxos, which Dionysius 
Thrax understood of the snail and others of 
the tortoise,> meant an insect of some sort 
to the Arcadians.* Again, just as Browning’ 
alone is responsible for sea-/ruit in the sense 
of anemones or Jong-ears as a synonym for 
ass, so an Aeschylus or a Sophocles* may 
jure suo term the eagle Atos. rrnvos kvwv. 

But it is with provincial variants that we 
are more immediately concerned. | Further 
examples are collected by Lobeck ;° some few 
of them may be names of distinct species, 
but the majority are alternative appellations 
of a local sort. With the help of Hesychius 
we may enumerate the following. ’Apyirovus!® 
was a Macedonian word for an eagle. The 
Athamanes called fishes do7wdXovs,!! a word 
possibly connected with dozaipw. Grass- 
hoppers in Elis were BaPaxou, that is ‘ chat- 
terers’; though in Pontus the same term 
denoted frogs.!2 The Laconians called the 
sow the ‘clod-digger,’ BwrSpvya. At Syra- 
cuse the worm was known as yaddyas.'* 
Swans at Elis were depqra.t? Kids fed on 
straw were called diaxadaydoapkes © in a 
Rhodian law. The ass, from wagging its 
ears, was xiAXos !7 among the Dorians ; from 
its stubbornness was péuvov 8 at Athens— 
the stallion-ass being puydds!? among the 
Phocians. The Thebans said xcw7Addas for 
swallows, and épradxov for a cock.2° Avydvrap 
was a Laconian name for the grasshopper,” 
Nakeras*? and ayéras*> being Doric equiva- 
lents for the same creature. dzirforiAa was 
the Boeotian word for a cuttle-fish.** taxivas 
meant a hare® to the Lacedemonians, a 
stag® elsewhere. itpagé, connected by L. 
and §. with a Sanskrit root meaning to 
‘ery,’ was Aetolian for a mouse.2" In Mace- 

> Etym. Mag. 790, 35 s.v. pepéotros. 

§ Proclus on Hesiod, W. & D. 571. 

7 The Englishman in Italy: A Pillar at Sebzevar. 

8 Aesch. P.V. 1022, Ag. 136: Soph. fr. 766. 

® Aglaophamus, p. 847 ff. 

10 Hesych. s.v. 

11 Idem, s.v. 

12 Tdem, s.v. 

13 Tdem, s.v. 

14 Etym. Mag. 221, 49: Anecd. Bekk. i. 230. 

15 Nicander ap. Athen, 392A. 

16 Hesych. s.v. 

7 Pollux, vii. 56. 

18 Tdem, ix. 48. 

19 Hesych. s.v. 

°0 Strattis ap. Athen. 622A. 

21 Hesych. s.v. 

22 Ael. N.A. 10, 44. 

23 Arist. Av. 1095, Pax 1159. 

*4 Photius, p. 249: Strattis ap. Athen, 6224. 

2% Ael. N.A. 7, 47. 

*6 Hesych. s.v. taxivns. 

7 Schol. on Nic. Alex. 37. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


donia the dion was known as ‘bright-eyes,’ 
xépwv,> a word also used to denote an 
eagle.?9 

It will be seen that many of these pro- 
vincial terms are strictly analogous to the 
animal names of Hesiod. Consequently, I 


- should prefer to regard dvdoreos, depéorkos, 


iopts, aS local names for cwttle-fish, snail, and 


ant, rather than as terms adopted from the __ 


vocabulary of the Delphian oracle. Of 
course the Delphians, like other Greek com- 
munities, had idioms of their own. For. 
instance, when Pindar®? uses xaptatzoda to’ 
denote a bull, the scholiast ad Joc. observes 
that it was a word peculiar to the inhabit- 
ants of Delphi—otrws AeA dol idiws tov tadpov. 
And it is likely enough that the priestess of 
Apollo would employ such words for Loxian 
purposes: thus 7dvrvovr, an epithet of similar 
formation, was according to Polemon used 
by the Pythian to mean a young lamb.*1 
But to infer that Hesiod’s phraseology is 
necessarily ‘oracular or religious’ seems to 
me quite an erroneous limitation. 

It would, however, be rash to argue that, 
because a descriptive animal name was not 
universally recognized, therefore it must be 
a provincialism. This would be to leave out 
of account our third division—poetic inno- 
vations—of which examples are not far to 
seek. Archilochus*? calls an eagle peddp- 
mvyos, a word with a double reference, but 
apparently modelled on zvyapyos, which is 
used by Sophocles ** and others to denote 
a further variety of the same bird.*+ Aeschy- 
lus writes dvenoupyds for bee,®° Ndpzrovpis for 
fox,6 and perhaps peddyxepws tor bull.*! 
Later poets furnish numerous instances ; 
e.g. Theocritus uses pyxades®® for goats ; 
Lycophron é\XAoy* for a fish; Nicander 
Bpwopyris*® or Bpwpytwp,*t the Anthology 
oykyntys,*? for an ass. Hence it is evident 
that, in default of express witness to their 
origin, it is unsafe to conclude that such 
words were not mere freaks of the poet’s 
fancy. As regards Hesiod, we have it on 


23 Schol. on Lye. 455. 

29 Lye. 260. 

80 Ql, xiii. 81. 

3 Hesych. s.v. 

32 Frag. 110, Bgk. 

33 Frag. 931. 

34 Etym. Mag. 695, 50. 

35 Pers. 604. 

36 Frag. 397: cp. Theoe. viii. 65, 6 Adumoupe 
kvov, and v. 112, tas dacuKepKos GAMTeEKasS. 

37 Schol. on Ag. 1118. 

38 Theocr. i. 87, v. 100. 

39 Lyc. 598, 796. 

40 Ap. Athen. 6835. 

4. Ther. 357. 

42 Anth. P. ix. 301, 1. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the authority of Kleitarchos that dvdareos 
was a Lacedemonian word for cuttle-fish, 
and Dionysius Thrax is cited for the fact 
that depéoixos was the name of an Arcadian 
insect :** {pis is unvouched for, but, if 
analogy goes for anything, should be set 
down as a third example of provincialism. 
It is tempting to pursue the topic further, 
and to raise the question, Are these de- 
scriptive names of animals to be attributed 
merely to the inborn poetry of rustic wits, 
or do they possess any deeper significance 4 
In the Journal of Hellenic Studies, xiv. 157, 
I ventured to suggest that nomenclature of 
this type is comparable with that of some 
totem clans, which ‘are careful not to speak 
of their totem by its proper name, but use 
descriptive epithets instead.’* Mr, Frazer 
apprises me that indirect modes of address 
are found also where there is no question of 
totemism, and he has most kindly furnished 
me with the following cases in point. 
Natives in Bechuanaland count it unlucky 
to speak of ‘a lion by his name, Tao: he is 
called the boy with the beard.’ *® Monteiro 
states that the blacks of Angola ‘always 
use the word Ngana or “Sir”? when speaking 
of the lion, as they believe that he is fetish, 
and would not fail to punish them for their 
want of respect if they omitted to do so.’ 
Certeux and Carnoy relate that the Arabs 
eall the lion ‘Monseigneur Johan-ben-el- 
Johan,’ that is, John son of John.4® Suma- 


43 Proclus on Hesiod IV”. & D. 524. 

44 Tdem ibid. 571. 

45 Frazer, Z'otemism, pp. 15-16. 

46 Journal of the Anthropological Institute, xvi. 
84. 

7 Angola and the River Congo, ii. 116. 

48 JT) Algérie Traditionelle, i. 172. Prof. A. A. 
Bevan supplies me with the following note on 
Arabian appellations. 

The kunya is the name which Arabian parents 
derive from one of their children (usually the eldest 
son), as when a man is called Aba Malik (father of 
Malik), a woman Uimu Malik (mother of Malik), 
ete. 

Among the Arabs it is considered more polite to 
address a man by his kunya than by his real name 
(‘ism’) or his nickname (‘lakab’). In the early 
days of Islam there were people who maintained that 
only persons of Arabian descent had a right to be 
called by a kunya, that the Mawali (‘ Clients,’ ¢.e. 
foreigners converted to Islam) did not deserve such 
an honour. It is worth noticing that the same man 
migh bear several kunyas, and, in particular, war- 
riors sometimes bore one kunya in battle and another 
in time of peace (see Goldziher, Muhammedanische 
Stuaien, Halle 1889—1890, Erster Theil, p. 267). 
Sometimes a man’s kunya was derived not from a 
real but from a fictitious son; thus for example the 
poet Abii Nuwas (who died early in the ninth century 
after Christ) says in describing a conversation with a 
Jewish tavern-keeper— 

‘We said to him, What is your name? and he 


383 


trans call the tiger by coaxing and euphem- 
istic terms,*? such as ‘ ancestor’ or ‘the free 
wild beast’ or ‘the old man.’*° The same 
islanders call crocodiles by the honourable 
title of ‘ grandfather.’ *! Sayyids and high- 
class Musalmans affirm that when you see 
a snake you should call it not by its proper 
name, but either sher (tiger) or rass? (string). 
According to Mateer natives of Travancore 
‘are careful not to speak disrespectfully of 
such powerful creatures (as serpents) : as ° 
the Malayalies of the Shervaray Hills, 
while hunting the tiger, only speak of it as 
a dog, so the cobra is called nalla tambiran, 
“the good lord,” or nalla pambu, “the good 
snake.” ’53 Bourke states that among the 
Apaches ‘ only ill-bred Americans or Euro- 


answered, Samuel-—but I bear the kunya Aba ‘Amr 
(father of ‘Amr), although no ‘Amr exists.’ 

A kunya may also be given to inanimate objects, 
e.g. a battle-field is called Unmw kastal, ‘mother of 
dust,’ the Red Sea is called Aba Khalid, ‘father of 
Khalid’ (Khalid being a common name), ete. 

The following kunyas are applied to animals— 


1. Abii Ayytb (father of Job) = the camel. 


2, Abu-l-husain (father of the little 
fortress) = the fox. 
3. Abu-l-Harith = the lion. 
4, Abu Ja‘da = the wolf. 
5. Aba Jukhadib = a kind of lo- 
cust. 
6. Abi barakish (father of spots) = qnae of wild 
ird. 


. Ummu ‘Amir (mother of ‘Amir) = the hyaena. 


In some of these cases the selection of the name 
has an obvious reason, but in others it_is altogether 
obscure. Names like Al-Harith and ‘Amir were ex- 
tremely common among the Arabs, and it is therefore 
by no means certain that in calling the lion ‘father 
of Al-Harith’ and the hyaena ‘mother of ‘Amir’ 
the Arabs were guided by the etymological meaning 
of the name, for in proportion to the commonness of 
a name its original sense ceases to be thought of. 

The poet Ash-Shanfara, of the sixth century of our 
era, predicting that he will be slain in battle, says to 
his unfriendly fellow-tribesmen :— 

‘Do not bury me, for that is a thing forbidden to 
you, but receive the glad tidings, O mother of 
‘Amir!’-—i.e. he prefers to be devoured by the 
hyaena rather than to be buried by his tribe. The 
scholiast on this verse tells us that ‘it is the custom 
in hunting the hyaena to dig out her hole, she mean- 
while retreating little by little, and the hunter 
saying, ‘Mother of ‘Amir, she is not here, receive 
the glad tidings, Mother of ‘Amir, concerning lean 
sheep and locusts clinging together!’ So the hunter 
continues to dig, repeating these words, and the 
hyaena retreats until she reaches the bottom of her 
hole, when she rushes out with fury ’ (see the Hamasa 
of Abi Tammam, ed. Freytag, p. 242 of the Arabic 
text, p. 431 of the 1st vol. of the Latin transla- 
lation). 

49 Marsden, Hist. of Sumatra, p. 292. 

50 Bastian, Die Volker des dstlichen Astén, V. Pp. 


~I 


51. 

51 Nieuwenhuisen en Rosenberg, Het eiland Nias, 

. 115. 

52 Panjab Notes and Queries, i. no. 122. 

63 Native Life in Travancore, p. 320 f. 
: EE2 


384 


peans, who have never had any “raising,” 
would think of speaking of the bear, the 
snake, the lightning, or the mule, without 
employing the reverential prefix ‘“ Ostin,” 
meaning “old man,” and equivalent to the 
Roman title Senator.’°4 Leemius.®°’ says 
of the Lapps of Finmark: ‘ursum proprio 
et genuino suo nomine Gnouzhja compellare 
non facile audebant, metuentes, ne, si fece- 
_ rint, immanis belua solito crudelius armenta 
dilaniaret ; vero itaque suppresso nomine, 
Moedda-Aigja, senem cum mastruca; appel- 
lare solebant.’ Similarly Miss Stokes °° 
says: ‘The Laplander speaks of the bear 
as ‘“‘the old man with the fur coat”: in 
Annam the tiger is called ‘“‘ grandfather” or 
“lord.’ The Finnish hunters called the 
bear ‘“‘the apple of the forest,” ‘the beau- 
tiful honey-claw,”’ “the pride of the thicket.”’ 
Among the Wotjaks the bear is termed the 
‘uncle of the wood.’* The Esthonians 
call the bear ‘ broad-foot,’ the wolf ‘ grey- 
coat,’ thinking that if thus addressed they 
will be inclined to clemency.*® Gubernatis 
states that a girl in an Esthonian tale ac- 
costs a crow, whose help she needs, as ‘ bird 
of light.’ °° Swedish traditions enumerate 
certain creatures that are not to be men- 
tioned by their own but by euphemistic 
names for fear of incurring their wrath.® 
Even in the Shetlands, fishermen, when at 
sea, will not mention the salmon directly, 
nor yet certain other objects such as the 
pig, the cat, the minister, but use some 
circumlocution to escape the ill-omened 
words.®! 

In the foregoing examples of this wide- 
spread practice the country folk avoid the 
risk of offending the animal by using some 
periphrasis of a deferential sort in lieu of 
the actual name. This periphrasis may take 
the form of a descriptive title—‘the boy 
with the beard,’ ‘ broad-foot,’ or ‘ grey-coat.’ 
And it is, I think, possible that similar 
animal names in vogue among the Greeks 
are to be accounted for by some such 
underlying superstition. At any rate the 
parallelism is sufficiently striking ; and the 
euphemistic evasion of the direct name is 
quite in the Greek spirit. To the stock in- 
stances should be added Maxpofio, which, 
Hesychius informs us, was the Rhodian 


54 On the Border with Crook, p. 132. 

53 De Lapponibus Commentatio, p. 502. 

58 Indian Fairy Tales, p. 260. 

57 Max Buch, Die Wotjaken, p. 139. 

58 Bocler-Kreutzwald, Der Elhsten abergliubische 
Gebrauche. 

59 Zoological Mythology, i. 151. 

69 Thorpe, Northern Mythology, ii. 83. 

61 A. Edmonston, Zetland Islands, ii. 74. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


name for the nymphs. Rennell Rodd in his 
volume on The Customs and Lore of Modern 
Greece remarks (p. 188) that the vampire in 
Crete and Rhodes is known as Karayxavas 
the Destroyer, in Tenos as “Avaxafovpevos 
the Snatcher, in Cyprus as Sapxopeévos the 
Flesh-eater : similarly (p. 202) the devil is 
‘not to be named save indirectly, or under 
some euphemistic title such as 6 7Aavyrns 
the Wanderer, 6 dpederntos the Unmention- 
able, 6 patpos the Black one, 6 kados avOpo- 
aos the Good man, or even—as in Rhodes 
and elsewhere—é 2é azo 66, which may be 
interpreted, the Get-thee-behind-me.’ An 
extreme case is the modern Greek for the 
small-pox (ibid. p. 135), viz. EvAoyia, ‘ she 
that must be named with respect.’ 

But if we cannot affirm that the animal 
names used by the Greek peasantry are to 
be considered the outcome of primitive 
superstition, there is at least one case 
(hitherto, I believe, overlooked) in which a 
descriptive title seems to be associated with 
an animal cult —I refer to the name MeAdp- 
zovs, Black-foot. The similarity of this word 
to many of the formations already noticed 
will be at once perceived. Médas is an 
obvious element in the compound, occurring 
also in peAayxdpudos, the black-cap; peddp- 
muyos, the eagle ; weavderos, the black eagle ; 
peAavderpos, the redsturt ; peXavovpos, the 
black-tai (fish or snake), &e. And as ex- 
amples of animals named from some pecu- 
liarity attaching to their feet we have 
Sacvous, <«iAtrodes, €AAdrodes, epvbpdozrous, 
xodvrous, for generic terms ; Ilddapyos, the 
horse, Ioddpyn, the equine harpy, and the 
"Ios Bpotozovus of the Nikaians,™ for par- 
ticular specimens.®* On Greek moneys, too, 
the foot sometimes ~stands for the entire 
creature. The device of Kranion in Kephal- 
lenia was a ram; for this some coins sub- 
stitute a ram’s head, the foreparts of a ram, 
or a ram’s foot. Again, the currency of 
Psophis, which usually bears a stag or the 
foreparts of a stag, in one case shows on the 
reverse a stag’s hoof.®? But, granted that 
the word peAdurovs, so far as its mere form- 
ation goes, may be ranked with the Estho- 
nian ‘broad-foot’ or the Greek dpyérovs, 
épvOpdrous, as an animal name, is there any 
proof that the mythical MeAapzovs, the seer 


62 Mionnet, Médailles Antiques, Suppl. vol. v. 
Pl. I. p. 148. 

63 Cp. Jean Ingelow’s, 
Come up Light-foot.’ 

64 Brit. Mus. Cat. of Gr. Coins ; Peloponnesus, PI. 
XVI. 16, 24, 25: pp. 78, 80. 

65 Jhid, Pl. XXXVI. 20; p. 198, where the design 
is described with a ? 


‘Come up White-foot, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of the Odyssey, stood in close relation to an 
animal that might be so described ? 

In the first place we recall the legend that 
Melampus was acquainted with the language 
of animals.®° Then, he cured the daughters 
of King Proetus of their animal mania. 
And he possessed the power of transforming 
himself into various shapes.* These fables 
suffice to connect him with the animal world 
in general, but more exact references are 
not wanting. The fact that he was wor- 
shipped as patron deity at AiyocOeva suggests 
that the animal with which he was especially 
associated was the goat. The suggestion is 
supported by an imperial coin of Aegosthena, 
which represents an infant suckled by a 
goat.°© On this Prof. Percy Gardner com- 
ments :® ‘TI am not aware that there is any 
record of the existence of a tradition that 
Melampus was suckled by a she-goat ; but 
nothing is more likely. Such stories were 
told of highly-gifted men, and it is fairly 
certain that the type of the coin must refer 
to a noted native of Aegosthena, and so to 
Melampus, who was its only remarkable 
man.’ Further support is given by Pliny, 
xxv. 47 (ed. Sillig), who writes : ‘ Melam- 
podis fama divinationis artibus nota est ; ab 
hoc appellatur unum hellebori genus Me- 
lampodion. Aliqui pastorem eodem nomine 
invenisse tradunt capras purgari pasto illo 
animadvertentem datoque lacte sanasse Proe- 


66 Apollod. I. ix. 11—12. 

67 Mythogr. Gr. ed. Westermann, p. 384, 9. 
68 Head, Hist. Num. p. 329. 

69 J.H S. vi. 58, with Quarto Plate L, A. 


385 


tidas furentis, quam ob rem de omnibus eius 
generibus dici simul convenit.’ Mr. R. Carr 
Bosanquet, who first showed me the passage, 
observes that this ‘shepherd of the same 
name’ must be identical with the mythical 
Melampus, inasmuch as Pliny attributes to 
the former the cure of the Proetides which 
is commonly credited to the latter. Here, 
then, we have evidence on the one hand that 
Melampus was suckled by a goat, on the 
other that he was a goat-herd. When we 
reflect that he bears a name closely re- 
sembling those given by the Greek peasantry 
to animals, and peculiarly appropriate to a 
goat, may we not infer that in primitive 
times he was himself conceived as a sacred 
goat? Other facts tally with this inference. 
Melampus was said to have introduced to 
the Greeks the cult of Dionysus. Now the 
attendants of that deity—Pans, Satyrs, and 
Sileni—are regularly represented as partially 
caprine in form, and are sometimes called 
atyes, Pan especially being aiyurddys or tpayo- 
zous."” Moreover, Melampus’ fame rested 
largely on his talent for curing madness, 
and Dionysus was invoked éxt wavoei Tis 
pavias under the title of MeAdvarys.™ 

If this explanation of MeAapzrovs be ad- 
mitted, it lends some colour to the view that 
the descriptive animal names of the Greek 
provincials owe their origin to some such 
primitive superstition as has been shown to 
obtain elsewhere. 

ARTHUR BERNARD CooK. 
70 Frazer, The Golden Bough, i. 326-8 ; ii. 84-7. 
71 Suidas s.v. 





CRITICAL NOTES ON CLEM. AL. STROM. III. 


Boox III. 

§ 2, p. 510. (A quotation from Isidorus). 
drav dé % edxapiotia cov eis altryow iroreoy 
Kal oT7S TO Aowrov ov KaTopFdca GAAG pH 
odadjvat, ydpnoov. For aris read izcorys, 
the izd having been lost owing to the pre- 
ceding iroréoy. The corruption is as early 
as Epiphanius, by whom the passage is cited. 
Just below it is said of one who wishes to 
strengthen himself in his resolution not to 
marry otros Tod GdeA God py Xwpileobo, 
Aeyerw Stu EiceAyAvOa eyw eis Ta dya, ovdev 
Svvapac rabeiv. The plural ray ddeAdpov 
seems more appropriate. 

§ 4, p. 511. ob didaoxe: 8 ad t7) cwdppoveiv. 
Read atrn. ‘This principle (éyxpdrea) not 
only inculcates, but creates, temperance.’ 


Ib. jpeis eivovxiavy pev—paxapiLoper, jLovo- 
yaplav 8&...davpaloper, crprdoxew Oe detv 
N€yovres Kal GAAjAwy Ta PBdpy PBacraleu. 
Omit dé before deity. 

§ 6, p. 512. éret pip diaxpiver tAovowv 7) 
TevyTa 7) Onpov apxorTa, adpovas TE Kat 
TOUS ppovovvtas, Onrelas dpoevas. For 7 
Sypov dpxovta read dipov 7) dpxovra ‘ common 
people or ruler.’ 

Ib. jAwos Kowas Tpodas Cows dracw ava- 
rédXcr Scxavoovvys TE THS Kows aracw ex 
tons Sobetons. Omit re before ris. [I]. B. 
suggests ye] In the last line of the § 
Potter’s reading Suawovvy is confirmed by 
the phrase xowwviav id dixacoovvys Which 
follows in the next §. 

§ 7, p. 513. rd 7 epiv Kat 70 adv dqoe be 


386 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Tov vopwv rapecedOcty pyxére eis KoworTyTA, 
KOLVa TE yap KapToupéevov pire YHv pire 
kripara. Omit xowd te yap as a dittography 
of cis xowdrnra, which should be taken with 
KapTOUpevwv. ; 

§ 8, p. 513. (A quotation from Epiphanes). 
‘Men abandoned the community of women 
established by the Creator, xat dyow, Ei 
play dydpevos €xétTw Svvapevwv Kowwvety 
drdvrwv.’ Sylburg’s emendation of 6 for «cis 
generally accepted: read also etxero for éxéro. 
It is a statement of fact, not of law. Per- 
haps «i may have originated in a mar- 
ginal correction of the first syllable of 
e€xeTo. 

Ib. was ert obtos vy TO Ka Hpas ekeracbein 
déyw ; Insert ay after ws, ‘how could such 
an one be reckoned as belonging to our 
doctrine ?’ 

§ 9, p. 514. (Another quotation from 
Epiphanes). év6ev as yedotov cipnxdros Tod 
vopobérov piya ToiTo dkKOVaT €0v ‘ OvK Ert- 
-Oupjoers” mpos TO yeAoudrEpov eizety ‘Tov TOD 
mAynoiov. Transfer dxovoréov, placing it 
before cizeiv, ‘after the Lawgiver had 
uttered the ridiculous word “ Thou shalt not 
desire,’ we must hear him say still more 
absurdly “ what belongs to thy neighbour.” ’ 
Perhaps we should read in the preceding 
line év aidrod (for aité) 74 rodvOprd7ro 
BiBrLw. 

Ib. 76 BE‘ tHS TOD TANTIov yuvatkos’ ididTyTA 
Ti Kowwviay avayxdlwv ére yeAolorepov etzev. 
Insert cis after yuvaixés with Potter. 

§ 12, p. 515. The followers of Marcion 
object to marriage, fighting against the 
Creator kat owevdovtes pos Tov KekAnKOTA 
dyabov, GAN od TOV ds dace Geov &v GdrAw 
TpoTe, fev ovoey tovov Katadurely evradéa 
Bovdépevor x.7.A. Read otros, ds pact, Geds ev 
G\Aw toro The Good—thus Marcion dis- 
tinguished the Supreme God from the 
Demiurge whom he characterized as Just— 
who has called his own elect out of the 
world, does not reign as God here, but in 
another world, for which reason they do not 
care to leave anything of their own behind 
them in this world. 

§ 13, p. 516. The philosophers from whom 
Marcion got his idea tiv yéveow Kaxyy eivat 
do not hold this to be naturally evil, dAAa 
TH WVXD TH TO GAnbes Stadovay Kara- 
yovor yap evtaila tiv Wxyv Oetay otcay 
KaGarep «is KoAdornpiov Tov Kdcpov. Read 
Th <pyn> 70 ddnbes Sudovcy, this life is not 
in itself evil, but only evil to the soul which 
failed to see the truth. Or perhaps we 
might read tiv poxnv tiv TO adnbes <p> 
dudodoav: it is not yéveors but the erring 


soul which is evil. Compare for the phrase 


GdjOevav dudeiv Strom. p. 335 fin. The allu- 
sion is to Plato Phaedr. 248 ‘After the 
divinities, which contemplate absolute truth, 
come the other souls for whom the law is 
laid down that jjris av Wry7 Ged Evvoradds 
yevonern katTidn TL TOV aArANGGv... 
éPBdaBA civat: bray S& ddvvatjcaca éerioréc Oar 
By Udy, AjOns TE Kat Kakias wAnoOEioa 
Bapvv67j, it loses its wings and falls to the 
earth and receives a body of man or some 
animal’: also p. 249 ov yap 7 ye py TOTE 
idSotca tHv GAnOevav eis TOdE HEEL TO 
oxjpa (i.e. human form). 

[$ 16, p. 518. didte ToDTO onpaiva & dy 
onpaivy } Wx), Kat Tatty ona 6pGas KaXeto- 
6a. For totro read rovrw. I. B. 

§ 21, p. 520. odxi cal “Hpdxdertos Pdvarov 
tiv yeveow kode; ILvdaydpas O€ Kai To 
év Topyia Swxparer euepds ev ots pyat ‘ Gavatés 
éorw bxooa éeyepbevtes dpéopev.” Read with 
Stephanus and Bywater (Heracl. p. 25n.) 
Iv6ayédpa. te. 

§ 25, p. 522. rav 8 ad’ aipécews ay o- 
pe évav Mapkiwvos pev tov Ilovtixod érepvyo- 
Onpev. Read dvayopévorv, as In §-5 ot 6 azo 
Kapzoxparovs. ..avayopevot. 

Ib. xiv ovyxpyowvta TH Tod Kupiov dov7 
Néyovros TH Didirrw ‘addes—por.’ GAN exeivo 
CKOTELTWOOY OS THV Opolay THS GapKos TAGoW 
Kat @idurros depel...7Os odv oapKiov €xwv 
vexpov ovK elxev; OTL e€avéoTn TOD pYyjpaTOS 
Tov Kupiov Ta 7dOn vexpdcavtos, Cp oavTos 
S¢ Xpicro. ‘The first sentence is wrongly 
joined to the preceding sentence by Dindorf : 
it is the protasis of which the apodosis 
begins in oAX’ éxeivo. Put a comma there- 
fore after po. “For (joavtos, written 
mechanically after vexpwoavtos, read éLyce. 
Potter’s emendation {woroujoavtos is nega- 
tived by the fact that we must understand 
tov Kvpiov of Christ. 

§ 26, p. 523. amoBod? rabovs nv eis pérov 
tov droctoAwv 4 THS LyAoTuTovpéevys éxKv- 
KAnols yuva.kds. “Transfer 4 before eis pécor, 
as in Eusebius. 

§ 27, p. 523. (On the use of the word 
Kowwvia). dpotws d€ Kai 7 Kowwvia, ayabov dé 
Kat év peradoce apyvpiov Kat Tpodys Kat 
aToys, of SE Kat THY Srotav Sjror’ obv adpo- 
Siciwy cvprAoKiyy Kowwviay aceBas KeKAjKaow. 
The phrase dé xai occurs three times in these 
lines. I cannot but think that on the 
second occasion it has slipped in from the 
line above in place of pey, which would be 
easily lost before ev. 

Ib. haci yotv Twa aitav 7Wmetepa Tap- 
bévw pala thy ow tpoceAOovra pava. Read 
tov jpetépwv for ymeréepa and insert tui 
before ziv. Both rév and twit would be 
easily lost after aivév and before rv, and 





a 


—— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 387 


yperepov would be naturally changed to 
agree with zapGévw. 

Lb. P: 524. (ScaypevSovrar) ot Tapaxapac- 
covres TIV GAnGeav, padXov bé KaTaaKaTTOVTES 
ds oldv te aitois, of ye TpLaoadOX Loe THY 
TE GAPKLKiV Kal Ti)V TLVOVTLACTLKIY KOLWYLaV 
tepopavrovar. For of ye tpirdOAvor read ot 
Tpirabdx0L, of ye, ‘unhappy ones who make a 
sacred rite of mere fleshly union,’ and omit 
re and rnv. 

§ 29, p. 525. «i yep Kal ovToL. + TVEVMOTUKES 
éribevTo Kowwvias, iows Tis adTOV my broAnww 
éwedééato. Read éredééar av. 

§ 30, p. 525. The followers of Prodicus 
claim to be free because they follow their 
pleasures, xparnOjvat im ovdevds...Baciret dé 
pace VO}LOS dypapos. TpOTOv jLev OTL OV TOLOVE LY 
& BovrAovrar wavra. It is evident, as Potter 
has observed, that the latter sentence is 
inconsistent with the former, and that some 
such words as taira dé Wevd A€yovow must 
have been lost. [I. B. suggests obv for du. | 
At the end of the § ‘ds yap’ dyolv ‘6 
dpaptdvev Sod\dés éorw’ [6 dadarohos A€yer], 
omit the words in brackets. [H. J. reminds 
me that Sylburg in his Index s.v. @yai gives 
other examples of the pleonastic use of dycé. 
In the few relevant cases I think the explan- 
atory clause should be regarded as a gloss. ] 

§ 31, p. 525. bPpiler d€ tus E€vos woXiTas 
Kat Tovrous dSuxel, ov xt de Os mapemtdn pos ToLsS 
dvayKacous Xpmpevos a T p 6 O0KOTOS TOUS 
moNiraus diaBiot ; For dampdckomos read dzpo- 
OKOTWS. 

§ 32, p. 525. 6 yotv exxevtyoas Tov Tdopvov 
edrAaBovpevos zpos Tod Oeod delkvuTat. 
Read with Lowth eiAoyovperos. 

§ 35, p. 527. 7) yap ovdey éore Kaxdv Kat 
OUKETL peppews aos ov airiao be os dvruretay- 
p-evov TO Ged), ovde K@KOD TLWOS yeyore TOUNTUKOS 
—evvavaipetrat yap : o KaK@ Kat TO dévdpov 
—i) €l eat TO Tovnpoy ev iwdp£eu x.7.A. The 
reference is to the Demiurge, the author of 
the Mosaic law, spoken of in the previous 
§$. We learn from Tertullian that Marcion 
used the figure of the tree and its fruit to 
prove that he was of an evil nature, cf. adv. 
Mare. ii. 23 Marcion defendit arborem 
bonam malos quoque fructus non licere 
producere, andi. 2. Insert ro Kapr before 
TO KAKO, comparing § 44 dro 8 Tov KapTrOv 
TO Sévdpor, ov dmd tov avOdv Kat retTddwv 
yopilerar. Clement’s argument is that 
either there is no evil fruit, and then (since 
there is no other sign of an evil tree, but 
its evil fruit) we have no ground to believe 
in an author of evil; or if there is evil, it 
is that which is forbidden by the law which 
you ascribe to the Demiurge, who is there- 
fore opposed to evil. 


§ 36, p. 527. odd yyv thorijy, Bariy dé 
es epydleode 5 Kabdmep ot Tas ioropias 
cuvtagdpevor TOV BapBapov Ccdnoa Zepénv. 
Add daciv or ioropotow. 

§ 38, p. 528. yeypadpbar 4p pnow ‘ avre- 
otncav OG Kat éodOynoav.’ ot o€ Kal TO 
avatoet “Oe mpoorileact. Can dvatdis 
mean ‘ puthless,’ or should we read dvedee? 
here and below? Weare told that Marcion 
regarded the God of the O.T. as severus et 
saevus (Tert. ib. ii. 11), but he is nowhere 
characterized as impudens. It was easy for 


ANAIAEHC to pass into ANAIAHC, and 
the confusion once made was likely to be 
repeated. Perhaps we should read 70 for 
76 both here and below in +@ péev ody 
dva.oet Gew od yeypamrat. 

Si 42, P- 530. emyneAnt cov TE THS WrxIs, 7] 
Tpos pova TO Oeil Svareearéov. The 
following sentence kabapos yap dv Kal maons 
Kakias amndAaypevos 6 voids SextTiKds ws 
bmdpxet 7s Tov Ocod Suvapews inclines me to 
read 7 ovyn mpos TO Ged. 

§ 43, p. 530. eo 8: yvaow AaBetv ToLs ETL 
ind Tov Talay a d-yopLevors advvatov: oUKOUV Obde 
THs eAmidos Tuxely padepiav Tov Geod yvOow Te 
ToUppLevous” Kal TOU ) ev GTOTUYXAVOVTOS TOLOE TOD 
TéAovs 7) TOD Oeod ayvoia KATHY OPEV EoLKE, 
TO O€ ayvoey Tov Oedv y Tod Biov rodiTEla 
TaploTnoWw. TavTarac. yap advvarov dpa TE 
kal eruoT nova €lval Kal THY TOU owpaTos 
KOAGKELAY OvUK erauaxvver Ga: ovoe yap ovvadewv 
Tote dvvarat TO dyadov TH pSov7 7) 
pLovov elvat TO KaXov a ry a CaO) ® 7 Kal pLOvov kaNov 
TOV Kupvov Kat povov ayabov tov @cdv. For 
Katnyopeiv read KaryyopeioGat ‘ignorance of 
God seems to be predicated of him who fails 
to attain the Christian hope.’ [I. B. suggests 
Katnyopia and qepureroupevors.| In the. last 
clause read 77 dAnGela % ydov7 for To ayabov 
7H WOovy, and dyabov for dyadd. ‘ Pleasure 
cannot agree with truth either that the 
beautiful alone is good, or that the Lord 
alone is beautiful and God alone good.’ It 
would be easy for ddnOefa 7 to drop out 
between 77 and 7d0v7, and 76 ayaddv would 
as easily slip in from the line below. The 
context shows that the opposing parties are 
truth (or knowledge) on the one hand and 
pleasure on the other. 

§ 44, p. 531. Kal ds exeivo...1d mwavra 
KaTadyAa rowotv Ta TE ev yeveoet adTOV TE TOV 
avOpwrov éavtTov Te yryvookew TapacKeva ov 
Kat Tov Oeod éem7Porov KabictacOa didackov. 
Omit the first re, which would only be ad- 
missible if it were taken with the following 
te to couple the ra év yeveoes and Tov dvOpwrov 
under the government of zovoty, whereas tov 
av@pwrov comes under the government of 


[I. B. would read ye for Te. | 


’ 
maparKkeva Cov. 


388 


Ib. jets yap edevbepiav wepabjxapev iv 6 
Kvpios spas éAevdepot povos, dokvwy TOV 
qoovav te Kal TOV érup.dv Kat Tov dddov 
mrabov 6 éywv éyvwxa Tov Kupiov xat Tas 
evTo\as adrod py THpaV WevaTys éoTtiv... lwdvvns 
Neyer. Puta full stop after raGov and insert 
d€ before A€yur. 

§ 47, p. 533. adda pera tiv avdoracw, 
dyno ty, ote yapovow ovte yapilovrar. This 
text is adduced by the Encratites as an 
argument on their side. I think therefore 
Sylburg is right in suggesting ¢aciv for 
pyoiv. 

§ 48, p. 533. rs oty od revGor Kal dupdor kal 
THY odpKa wacxovow ; Should we not read 
7a capxuka ? The latter word would easily 
be changed to odpxa, and the gender of the 
article would be made to suit. [Insert xara 
after cal. I. B.] 

§50 and $51, p. 534. 6 re Kupyvaios 
"ApiotroréAns Aaida epdcav trepewpa povos. 
GpopmoKHs OVV TH éTaipa 7 pyv amakew advTiVv 
eis THY Tatpida...ypadpevos aiTns ws OTL 
padiota Gpowotdtnv eikova, aveotnoe cis 
Kupyvnv. For otv I think we should read 

ovr. 

§ 53, p. 536. tis adrav pnhoriy Kal  Sovny 
Sepparivyy € EXOV ‘aeptepxetat os HAlas ; 7 wept- 
Copa... ot paxapior tpopjra. ‘This sentence 
contains a comparison between the Encratites 
and the saints of old, who thankfully used 
God’s creatures, and yet surpassed the 
Encratites in mortification of the flesh. It 
has no connexion with what immediately 
precedes, but fits in perfectly in $ 52 after 
ot d€ Kal TovTous treppepew A€yovtes Toditela 
Kal Biw, ovde ovyKpiOnvar Tals exetvwv mpageor 
duvycovrar, to which place it should be 
transferred. 

§ 55, p. 536. mevia dé avdpa tamewot, xetpes 
dé advdp&v mrovti~ovow. Read, as in the 
original (Prov. x. 4), dv8pevav. 

S 56, p. 537. & pev yep omeipwv kal 7A €iova. 
guvdywv ovTds éoTw...€Tepos O€ 6 padevt pera 
didobs KEevas Kat Badin ert THS YS 
Read xevis 8é. 

$57, p. 537. 70 etvar das (dpewov) rod 
mept puts Nadeiv kal} Kata dd7jOevav eyKparera 
TIS U7T0 TOV hirocdduy SidacKoperns. Ov yap 
Orou Ps, éxet oKoTos, eva d€ éeotw emOvpia 
eyxabelopevyn pov Tvyxdvovca, Kav TH 
evepyeta Wovxaly TH Ova TOD Gdparos, TH mY}LY 
cuvovaidler pos TO py) Tapov. Put a colon 
after oxdros, and for ot yap read ov yap 76 
mvedpa, exer ovdepia eriOupia eveotw: ob yap 
«.t.’. The line from ob yap to od yap would 
be easily lost. Perhaps for pévy we should 
read pvnpys. 

§ 59, p. 538. aavra, yor, 


tropeivas 
> . > , > a 
€ykpatys Hv, Oedtnta “Incods 


cipyalero. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Put a comma after troueivas and read ravra 
eyKpariys av. 

§ 60, p. 538. Bpaxpavar yotv ore éuvxov 
> ‘4 + > id > ? ¢ SS 
ecGiovaw ote otvov mivovew, [aA of pev 
avtov Kal’ éxaotyv tpépav as jets] THY 


X / ” oe ae Ou0 
-Tpodyv TpPpOTleVTAL, EVLOL QUTWV OLGA 


Tpiov Hpepov. Omit the words in brackets 
as a marginal note, and transfer tiv tpodyv 
mpoolevrat to the end. 

§ 62, p. 539. davepwOjvar det eurpoobev Tod 
Bipatos tod Xpiotod, [iva Koplontat éxactos- 
dua TOU THpaTos Tpods & Expakev ite dyabov elite 
kakov'] tva & dua Tod oapatos expacey Tus 
amoAafy. Omit the clause in brackets as a 
marginal note quoting 2 Cor. v. 10. 

Ib. i800 yéyove Kawa, ayveia ek mopveias 
Kal éyxpdrea e€ dxpacias, Oukaocvvy é& 
dduxias. Omit Kat. 

§ 68, p. 940. 7 mpoxardptaca 77s Tapapda- 
Tews ‘Cony’ TpooryopevOy dud. TV THS diadoxijs 
aitiav TOV TE Yevveapeveov TOV TE paptay ov- 
Twv yivetat, dpotws dixaiwv. ws Kal adiKkwv 
pytnp. For épaptavovrwy read dzo6vyoKovtuv, 
insert @ after yivera, and put the comma 
before, instead of after yiverar. ‘Eve was 
named “life” as she is the cause of succes- 
sion both of those who are born and of 
those who die, and becomes the mother alike 
of the just and the unjust.’ [Perhaps all 
that is wanted is a colon after airiav. The 
word dpaptavovtwy carries on the idea of 
mpoxatapéaca THs TapaBacews. I. B.] 

§ 67, p. 541. Let no one think marriage 
sinful [ei yu) wixpav irokapBave radotpodpiav 
—roAXots yap euradw atexvia AvTnpdTatov— 
pnd’ av amikpa 4 maoroua daivntal tut 
petarepioraca Tov Oeiwy dia Tas xpemders 
doxoXias' pi pepwv 0’ otToS edKdAws TOV 
poovnpyn Biov émOvper Tod ydpov...cvvopd 8 


éTws TH Tpodage TOV yadfwov ol pev 
amecynevor ToUTov...€is pucavOpwriay wi7rep- 
ptyoav. With the existing reading it is 


difficult to make out the relation of the two 
hypothetical clauses: there is no clear 
reference for otros, and the last yanov makes 
nonsense. Transfer the words in brackets 
after doxoAtas, read 6 rovodros for otros and 
éytacpod for the last ydpou, translating ‘ (Let 
none think marriage sinful) not even if the 
begetting of children seem to some to be a 
root of bitterness, as distracting them from 
divine things owing to the troubles it en- 
tails ; unless, that is, he thinks the rearing 
of children itself undesirable. Many on 
the contrary think childlessness a most 
miserable condition. And such an one, not 
being able to endure the solitary life, desires 
marriage—and I notice that those who have 
abstained from it under the pretext of 
holiness have become a prey to misanthropy.’ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


§ 68, p. 542. The last sentence in this 
section seems to mea gloss. It contains a 
cursory mention of two interpretations of 
Matt. xviii. 20, interposed between the inter- 
pretations which Clement himself thinks 
worthy of discussion. At the beginning of 
§ 69 raya dé Kal TH KAjoW TH TE eKAoYiV 
Sevrépay kal tpirov 7O «is Tv mpwOTnV TYLHY 
Katataccopevov yéevos aivicoerat 7) Tpoetpni.evy 
tpids, I think z«péryv should be inserted 
before the first or second rijv. 

§ 70, p. 543. rpiros 82 jv ex T&v dvety Krilo- 
pevos els eis xawov avOpwrov. Both Dindorf 
and Klotz omit the necessary eis, which is 
given in Potter’s text without any suggestion 
of its being conjecturally added. 

§ 72, p. 543. dev od defEeras eyxvpou 
mrAnoucavta tov ampecButépwv twa. For 
deéEeras, Which may have been accommodated 
to the following ctpors av, read decEets. 

§ 74, p. 544. tavtras otv ExeTeE Tas 
érayyeAlas, pyoiv, ayaryrol, Kabapiowpev 
éavtav tas Kapdias. Restore éxyovres from 
2 Cor. vii. 1. Even Clement could not have 
used the second person with xafapicwpev 
staring him in the face. 

§ 77, p. 545. émuBoa, ‘7d pev cdpa vexpov 
80 dpapriav, SnAGV Gs OTe py vews, tapos 
8 éorv ér tas Woyfs. Perhaps we should 
read pa Ore for ore pi, interpreting ‘not 
only is the body not a temple, it is still the 
tomb of the soul.’ Another remedy might 
be to suppose os to be a marginal correction, 
altering dyAdv into dy\<déo>uv. We find 
py used with 6m in the quotation from 
Isidore p. 488 éay rue weiopa Sas OTe py EoTW 
Hh Wexy povopepiys, and very frequently with 
érei. Schmidt (Atticismus) gives many in- 
stances from Dio Chrysostom, Lucian and 
others. 

Ib. éwnvixa (76 cGpa) dyachy TO Ged ‘70 
mvetpa’ émolaer ‘Tov eyeipavTos €k veKpOv 
"Inoodv oixe ev dyiv. There seems no reason 
for the future here. Perhaps émipéper may 
have been corrupted through the (wo- 
zo.noec in the following line: or if a 
faint @ were mistaken for o, it would be 
easy for émiwepa to pass into ézoce, ef, 
p. 650, where Klotz reads éroica with the 
Paris MS. against émAéye of the ordinary 
text. 

§ 78, p. 546. tva ywooKxwpev...trov TO OvTL 
Tatépa, TOV Tov OVTWY pLovoy TaTépa TOV Eis 
cwrnpiav maidevovta Os watépa Kal Tov dBov 
a&metret. The sentence is evidently in- 
complete: dee perhaps represents some 
such words as deAjs evexa povors Tots ji) 
meGopeévors eirdyovra. 

§ 79, p. 546. ef b@ trepBas bv etAeTO Kavova 
eis petCova dogav, Exetta amroréon mpos TiV 


389 


éXwiéda. Dindorf makes a lacuna at the 
end. Perhaps éA7ida represents éAdrrova, 

Suws pry aroBadérwo tiv édmida, ‘If he 
transgresses the rule (of celibacy), which 
he chose for his greater glory, and falls 
away afterwards to the inferior rule (of 
marriage), still let him not cast away his 
hope.’ The resemblance between éAdrrova 
and éAriéa would explain the loss of the 
intervening words. Should we read éay for 
et before the subjunctive ? 

§ 81, p. 548. dpas cis tiva BAardynpotow 
of pucattopevor Tv Tdppova oTopav Kal TO 
SiaBorw rpocdrrec Oar yéveow ; Potter changes 
mpocdrresOar into tpocarrdomevor. I should 
rather add toApavres after yeverw. 

§ 82, p. 548. Speaking of the Apostolic 
injunction in 1 Cor. vii. 5 ‘pa droorepetre 
GAAjAous €i py Te av ek TYApwvou Tpds KaLpor,’ 
Clement says ov yap dmoxpoverar TéAcov Tas 
ris pioews dpélers Svtwroica 7) TpooKatpos 
cupdovia, ov nv ciodye wadw tiv ovtvylav 
Tov ydpov. Read di’ 7s, the cvuzpwvia being 
simply the means by which he provides for 
the renewal of conjugal intercourse. 

Ib. ob wodvyaplav ert cvyxwpet (6 Kvpuos): 
Tore yop Gy TEL 6 Oeds, dre addverPar Kat 
aAnOivew éxpyv. It cannot be said that God 
ever required polygamy. It would be nearer 
the truth to read dzytetro, ‘God yielded to 
the demand’; but édetro seems to me to 
suit the context best. [I. B. suggests 
Tapyver. | 

Ib. (Uf the Apostle allows second marriage 
in certain cases) ddfav d€ adt@ ovpaviav 
mepurovel pctvas eh’ Eavtod Kal THY diadAvbeioav 
Gavitw ovtvyiav axpavtov dvddcowv. Read 
ai7o and insert 6 before petvas ‘still he who 
abides by himself lays up for himself glory 
in heaven.’ 

Ib. ob yap erdvayKes raidoroulas adiorynor 
tovs muotevovtas 8 évds Bamtiopatos «is TO 
mavTedés THS Opttias amoAovcas 6 Kupuos, € i 
kat Ta TOAAA Mwvoews 8° evds meptAaBov 
Baxticparos. Put commas after turtevovtas 
and dzoAovcas, and read 6 for ei, as above 
in § 8. 

§ 84, p. 549. After quoting from Rom. 
vii. 4 ‘ cis TO yeveo Oar dyads Erépw TO ek vEeKpOV 
éyepOevrr, Clement continues éfaxoverar yap 
TpoceXasS ‘ bryKOovs yevopnéevovs ’—at least 
this is Potter’s reading without any hint 
that it is changed from the MS.; Dindorf 
however follows Klotz in giving zpoceyets, 
which I do not understand, and attributes 
mpocexas to Heinsius. 

§ 86, p. 550. ‘Hv Hy yn Tod “laxdB erawov- 
pevn Tapa Tacav TH yiv’ dyotv 6 rpopyrys 
TO TKEdOS TOD TVEVpaTOs AVTOD dogalwv. KaTa- 
Tpéxer O€ TLS yeverews...Kai Bidleral Tis emt 


390 


Texvorrouias Neywv eipnKevar TOV GwTnpa K.T-A. 
The MS. here has avTos, but Dindorf reads 
avrod with the original in Barnabas, where 
the editors explain it of the body of Christ. 
Here the reference is to the body of the 


Christian, regarded as the vessel of the- 


Spirit, and I think airé is the true reading. 
The body itself (which the Encratites scorn) 
is glorified. For the first tus read tis. 

Ib. taxa 8 dv Kat ots duehéyeTo ws Gpaptwdois 
apodnrevet POopavy. Shouid not ray’ av 
be followed by the optative 4 

§ 87, p. 551. eet py dvev yevéreds Tis TOVOE 
tov Biov mapeActoerat. Insert eis after tus. 

Ib. cis pev ovv 6 ratTyp Wav 6 & Tots 
ovpavots. Probably we should read dtpav, 
as in the original (Matt. xxiii. 9), since the 
second person is continued in the latter part 
of the quotation just below (ui) Kadéonre oby 


byt). 

§ 89, p- 952. 6 mpopirns pyot.. -Karepudv Ons 
év yn GdAotpia THY TE KOWwviay puapav 
nyovpevos. Omit re. [Or read ye. I. B.] 


§ 90, p. 552. dcwrip rods ‘Iovdaiovs, yeveay 
city Tovnpay Kal potxadida, diddoKer p22) 
€yvwKkorTas vopov...rapadoce b€ TH TOV TpecBv- 
Tépwv Kal éevtdApacw avOpwiTev KatnKo\ovOy- 
KOTGS. LOLYEVELY TOV VOuLOV, OVX WS aydpa Kal 
Kupiov THs Tapfevias aitav dedopévov, taxa be 
kat é7ufupiars dedovAwpevovs GAXoKOTOLS, otdEV 
avtovs. Remove the full stop before porxyeveuv 
and the comma after dAXoxéros, and put a 
comma after porxevev and a full stop after 
dcdouevov. Also insert dexouevous before 
dcdouevov, translating ‘The Saviour, when he 
called the Jews a wicked and adulterous 
generation, shows that they committed 
adultery in not having known the law, but 
having followed the traditions of men, 
not receiving the law as given to be the 
husband and lord of their virginity. Perhaps 
too he perceives them to be enslaved to 
strange lusts.’ 

§ 93, p. 553. oray ovv.. 
Read évwcn. 

§ 95, p. 554. dray otv 6 amdatoXos cizy 
‘évOvoacbe Tov Kawov avOpwrov’...jpiv Eye 
...Tadatov O€ ov mpos yeveow Kal avayevvynoiy 
pycw, dAAG mpos Tov Biov Tov Te ev TapaKxon 
Tov te ev wraxon. It seems necessary to 
insert kat xawov after tadauov dé. 

Lb. oi yapodvres ws pn yapodvres, of KTdpevor 
Os p) KTWMLEVOL, OL TaLdoToLOdYTES WS OvyTOdS 
yevvovres [os Karadetfovres TO. KTH PATO, as Kal 
av €U YOVALKOS Proc opevor € eav d€y>| ov tp adés 
7H KT O EL Xpadpevor, per edxapiotias 0° 
amaons Kal peyadodppovodrtes. It is evident 
that the clauses here follow no natural 
order. I am disposed to think that the 
words in brackets were marginal notes on 


X\ c , 
-Wuxnv EVOTEL 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


as pn yapovvres and as pay kTopevor. For 
KTyjoer read «rice. With Potter, and insert py 
before peyadodpovoirTes. 

§ 96, p. 554. The words of the Apostle 
Kadov avOperm yvvaikds py artecOat, dia de 
TAS TopVvElas EKUTTOS TV EaVTOD yuvaika éxéTw 
...a pn Tepaln tpas 6 Zatavas, were 
uttered for the sake of those who were 
inclined to indulge themselves too freely as 
py mod émivetoas 6 & évavtias éxKv- 
peqvn THv Opeéw eis GAXoTpias Oovas. Taxa 
dé, émel tots duxaiws Biotow avOioratar did 
Ghrov...tmayerGar TovTovs TH EavTov Taypate 
BovdAopevos, adoppas ou éykpateias emurdvov 
mapéxe tovtos PovAcrar. In the last 
sentence the subject is evidently Satan. 
The preceding clause, as it stands, suits 
neither Satan nor the Apostle, nor can it be 
understood of the self-indulgent man spoken 
of before. In place of an emendation of my 
own, which I had proposed to Prof. Bywater, 
I gladly accept his correction of émurvetoas 
for éxwetvoas, ‘in order that the adversary 
may not blow strongly upon them and 
stimulate (lit. ‘lash into waves’) the appetite 
for forbidden pleasures.’ Cf. Paed. ii. 
p- 179 od yap as emi rAciorov éyxvpatvovrar 
éru Tav mpecButépwv ai dpéeeas Tept TA THs 
péOns vavay.a. 

§ 98, p. 555. ob yap wovorv 7 ebvovyxia 
Sixavot ovde pyv Td TOD evvortyov caBParTov, éav 
py Toujon Tas évtoAds. For povoy read porn. 

Ib. Referring to Isa. Ixv. od TEKVOTOLI}T-OU- 
ow eis KaTdpay, C. says, aAXou de Kardpay TH 
madomouav exdéxovrat Kal ov ovviaor KaT 
avtav éxeivawv Xé€yovoay tiv ypapyv. For 
exeivov read éxetvo. 

§ 101, p. 557. ei 8 xal ras 6 émiotpépwv 
ef dpaptias éxt thy wiotw ard THS cvvnbeias 
TS dpapTwdov olov PayTpos ext tiv Lon 
erro rpepet, paptupyoe pot ets. For ef read 
OTL. 

1b. Pp. 558. a dy Tues Kal THs map0évov THv 
xXipav eis eykparevay T pore ivovgee katape- 
yaAroppovicacav 7S memetparau yoovns. For 
the unmeaning mporetvovor read zpotiuaot. 

§ 102, p. 559. Kav GTO TOV BAGyov fawv 
THY emuridevow THs TUE Bovdri tas 6 Odts 
ciAndos Kal Tapameiras ™ Kowoveg Tis Evas 

ovyKxaraber Gar TOV ‘Adays deyy, ws av pi) pucet 
TAUTY KEXPNLEVOV TOV TPWTOTAGOTOV...1) KTLELS 
rdlw Braodnpetrat. For cvpPovdcas read 
cvvovoias, and A€yyrat for Aéy7. 

§ 103, p. 559. was 8 dvev rod TwparTos 7” 
Kata THY ex Anotav Kal? mpas oikovopia TéXoS 
edu Paver ; O7rou ye Kat avtos % Kepadi Tis 
exxAyotas ev apxt peev dvd) s Bred pdrvder 
Kat dpop pos, cis TO Gedeés Kal GowpaTov TIS 
Ocias airias droBdérew jpas dudadoxwv. Insert 
av before dvev. Dindorf has followed 








are” 


OO —— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 391 


Sylburg in reading dewdys for MS. dndijs, but 
the ordinary meaning of de.dis is ‘ invisible,’ 
and the fact that it is used in this sense 
immediately below makes it impossible to 
understand it here of one ‘who has no form 
or comeliness.’ On the other hand such a 
one would be naturally regarded as dydijs, 
and if there is something offensive in the 
expression as used of Christ, this is 
explained by reading &) éAjAvGev for the 
unmeaning deA7jAvOev, since 467 has the 
effect of putting the preceding word in 
inverted commas. [Perhaps d¢ éAjAvoev. 
C, plays on the word des, which he first 
uses in the sense of ‘ugly’ (not uncommon in 
late Greek), and then in its philosophic 
sense of ‘invisible.’ I. B.] 

§ 105, p. 560. of d& ddyvidoavres e&vBpicav 
...avTol Te akaTagvyéeTws EXO MEVOL Kal TOUS 
mAnoiov avareiGovres piAndovetyv. Should not 
we read éyovres for éyouevor? [I. B. suggests 
ETOLEVOL. 

§ 106, p. 560. After the quotation zode- 
puotat, TARKTAL Tats ovpats airav C. continues 
elev 0 dy ois aiviccerat 1) tpodyreia katadepets, 
akpatets, [ot tats ovpais aitdv moAcuioral, | 


oxoTovs Kal dpyns téxva. I think the words 
in brackets should be omitted as a gloss. 
[For xatadepets read xatwdepels, this being 
the form used elsewhere by C. I. B.] 

1b. édv tis GdeApds dvopald pevos 7) TOpvos 7) 
tAEovenTyS...TO ToLovTH pyde cvverOiew. For 
the first 7 read 7. 

Ib. G bE ovkéere eyw, os eLwy Kata Tas 
eriOupias, fn dé ev euot Xpiords dua THs TOV 
evtoAdv traxons [ayvGs Kal paxapiws], dore 
TOTE pev ELwv ev capki GapKikas, 0 dé viv LO év 
capKt ev micta LO TH TOD viod TOD Geod. 
Transfer the words in brackets to the end, 
put a colon before écre and omit the second 
év capxi. In this way we get the proper 
antitheses, kata tas émiOupias )( dua THs 
braxons and év capkt capkikds )( ev miore 
diun 
ayvas. 

§$ 107, 108, p. 561. dzep év rots éutrpoobev 
eonrwocev cirav, TH yovaurt 0 avijp_ THY odeday 
drodid6re, 6 opotws d€ Kal 7 yer TO avOpi. Me 
iv EKTLOW KOTO. THyv oixoupiay Kal THY eV Xpiore 
miotw Bonbds, kal re cadéarepov eizuy K.T.X. 
Put a comma after dvdpé and a colon after 
Bon Ges. 

J. B. Mayor. 


NOTE ON INSPUTARIER, PLAUT. CAPT. 550, 553, 555. 


ForcELLINI-CorRADINI define: ‘insputo 
idem fere quod inspuere (omitting the ex- 
amples to come later) ex quo intelligimus 
non solum evertendi eius morbi causa, sed 
etiam sanandi, in eum qui laboraret inspui 
morem fuisse. Nam saliva hominis in 
multis vim medicinae habere creditur.’ The 
implicit interpretation here given for the 
Plautus passages I shall soon cite is based 
on a passage of Pliny, W.N. xxviii. $$ 35, 
36; despuimus comitiales morbos, hoe est 
contagia regerimus : simili modo et fascina- 
tiones repercutimus dextraeque clauditatis 
occursum, Veniam quoque a deis spei 
alicuius audacioris petimus, in sinum spuendo. 
Eadem ratione terna despuere praedicatione, 
in omni medicina mos est, atque ita effectus 
adiuvare, 

The only oceurrences of forms of imspu- 
tare cited by Fore.-Corr. or by Lewis and 
Short are in Plautus, Captivi 547 sq. 


TY. Hegio, hic homo rabiosus habitus 
est invalide 

Ne tu quod istic fabuletur auris in- 
mittas tuas. 


Nam istic hastis insectatus est domi 
matrem et patrem, 
550 Et illic isti qui insputatur! morbus 
interdum venit. 
Proin tu ab istoce procul recedas. HE. 
Ultro istum a me. AR. Ain, ver- 
bero % 
Me rabiosum atque insectatum esse 
hastis meum memoras patrem ? 
Et eum morbum mi esse, ut qui med 
opus sit insputarier ? 
HE. Ne verere multos iste morbus 
homines macerat, 
555 Quibus insputari saluti fuit atque is 
profuit. 


I give the reading of Brix, Captivi.} 
Two of Brix’s notes will show his under- 


standing of the passage. ‘547. Tyndarus 
: ; 
sucht das Zeugniss des Aristophontes 


dadurech zu entkriiften, dass er ihn fiir 
tobsiichtig und epileptisch (550) ausgiebt, 
das erstere um die Furcht, das zweite um 
den Ekel des Hegio zu erregen.’ ‘550. 


1 The MSS. sputatur, but the correction seems to 
me quite certain. 


392 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


“ Die Krankheit wird bespuckt” d.h. der 
mit der Krankheit Behaftete, wie dies Aris- 
tophontes selbst 553 versteht. Da die 
alten Aerzte von diesem Heilmittel nichts 
berichten, so ist wohl anzunehmen dass es 
von Plautus zur Erhdhung der komischen 
Situation erfunden ist. Unter morbus qui 
insputatur pflegt man die Epilepsie zu ver- 
stehen, nach Dombart ist es Melancholie, 
Schwermutswahnsinn, von dem es verschie- 
dene Arten gab, bei einer derselben kamen 
nach Galen xix. p. 706 auch periodische 
Tobsuchtsanfille vor.’ 

The interpretation I am about to suggest 
is perhaps implied in one form or other by 
the note of Harrington’s edition of the 
Captivi. ‘Some suppose that the disease 
was cured by spitting upon the person 
afflicted ; others, that it was cured by the 
spitting of the sufferer. Pliny and Mer- 
curialis think that a person in the presence 
of the disease avoided the contagion by 
spitting, an instinctive process when we are 
in the sight of anything offensive. Perhaps, 
from the fact that those overtaken by the 
fit recovered soon after the foam appeared, 
it was thought that this was the means of 
their cure, and the evil spirit escaped in the 
foam.’ 

We need not concern ourselves with the 
cure of this disease, for we may be sure 
Tyndarus did not. Brix is, I think, quite 
right in his insight into the motives of 
Tyndarus. The insanity (rabiosus) was to 
excite Hegio’s fear; the foaming of epi- 
lepsy (qui insputatur morbus) was to excite 
his disgust. That his disgust was effectu- 
ally excited is proved by his ery ‘ Ultro 
istum a@ me.’ 

I find linguistic and exegetical reasons 
for taking the verb to be a deponent. 
(1) insputarier is a frequentative verb, and 
should mean, leaving the preposition unex- 
plained for the present, to keep on spitting. 
(2) It is fair to interpret any deponent as a 
reflexive (middle). So interpreted we can 
translate insputarier ‘to keep spitting upon 
one’s self,’ 7.e. ‘foam at the mouth,’ cf. 
lavari ‘to wash oneself,’ ‘to bathe.’ (3) If 
insputarier is a real passive qui insputatur 
morbus implies aliquis morbum insputat, 
which is Brix’s interpretation, but does not 
seem to me to be good grammar, for inspuo 
construes with the dative (Seneca and Plin.) 
or with in + acc. (Seneca), cf. L. and §. s.v. 
Now Pliny’s testimony amounts to nothing 


more than quicunque morbum vidit terna 
despuit ut contagia regerat. (4) Pliny’s 
terna despuere certainly does not make for 
the use of a frequentative as much as taking 
insputarier in the sense of ‘foam at the 
mouth.’ This sense also supplies a better 
motive for Hegio’s ‘ Ultro istum a me.’ (5) 
Epileptics do foam at the mouth. (6) So 
far as I can discover, insputarier is to be 
found in this passage alone. No gram- 
matical difficulty is experienced if we take 
the verb as deponent: vs. 550=‘and the 
foaming disease (epilepsy) sometimes came 
upon the fellow in yonder land’; vs. 553 = 
‘and I had a disease that somehow (qui) 
I must (or it did me good to!) foam at the 
mouth ’ ;! vs. 555 ‘and for these foaming-at- 
the-mouth is healthful ete. (7) Plautus’s 
readiness in coining words to suit the 
moment is well known, e.g. Captivi 766 
exauspicavi, T67 redauspicundum, 291 
eminor, 904 absumedo. A very trifling 
circumstance may have determined the form 
of one of these new words ; insputatur in 
vs. 990 is preceded by.fabuletur vs. 548, 
and insectatus est in vs. 549. The reitera- 
tion of forms of iste in the three verses 
suggests the possibility of. turning vs. 550 
‘and in yon land a sickness sometimes 
comes upon the fellow and he foams-at-the- 
mouth.’ 

An objection to the explanation given 
may be held to lie in Plautus, Mere. 1, 2, 
30: Lua causa rupi ramices, iam dudum 
sputo” sanguinem, where the active is used. 
This objection will not hold, for (1) Plautus 
uses the same yerb, now as active, now as 
deponent, e.g. Capt. 548 fabuletur, Miles 
Glor. 444 fabulem, where fabuler might 
stand as well as far as the metre goes (cf. 
Brix ad loc. and in general cf. Brix on Ji. 
Glor. 172); (2) sputo is here construed with 
an object not a cognate accusative implicit 
in the middle form of tnsputarier, cf. 
Jabulor : fabulo (Zumpt, Lat. Gram. 207, 
Anm.). 

Epwin WHITFIELD Fay. 

Lexington, Virginia. 

Washington and Lee University. 


1 It is perhaps worth noting that this construction 
reappears in Cicero’s Letters. Tyrrell in introduction 
p. xxii. calls attention to the parellelism of the 
Letters and comic diction. 

2 Lewis and Short cite further only Ovid. J/. 12, 
256 mixtos sputantem sanguine dentes, possibly a 
reminiscence of this Plautus passage. 





s 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


393 


CRITICAL NOTES ON THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. 


(Continued from p. 294.) 


598 B. 6 Loypados Lwypadynoer Hiv OKUTO- 
TOMLOV; TEKTOVG, Tobs adXovs Snproupyous, mrept 
ovdevos TovTwy eratwy TOV TEXVar. 

We should certainly read (as Ast sug- 
gested) the regular phrase, oidév rept tovTwv 
(or rovrwv épi ovdev) eraiwy Tay Texvov. 
Cf. 601 B. 

598 EB. det by erurxewaobar rorepov pysntats 
TovTOLs OTOL evTUXOVTES ELNTATHVTAL. 

The article would be necessary with 
rovtots. But pysyntats tovovros will give 
much better sense and is evidently what 
Plato wrote. 

601 D. TIohAy apa aveeyKn Tov XPopLevov 
ExdoTw cpmeiporarov TE elvan Kat dyyehov 
ylyvec Oat TO TounTy ota ayaha 7) Kaka movet év 
TH xpela @ xpHTau olov avAnrys ov eéayyeAct 
Tept Tov avtOv ot av trypetoow ev TO advdciv 
Kal émitager oiovs det wrovety, 6 8 Sanpetyces. 
Ils 6’ ot ; Ovxoty 6 perv cidds eEayyeAct epi 
xpyotav kal wovnpdv aidov, 6 bé mioTevwv 
mouoe; Nat. 

Though A and some other MSS. have 
ot Gv, the majority have oia dv, and this 
was the common reading of editors before 
Bekker (Schneider). It is to be observed 
that ot av irnperaow ev 7o aideiy for ois 
xpyra is feebly verbose, and that we seem 
to want something here after éfayyeAe 
closely corresponding to the ota «.7.A. after 

ehov yiyveoGa: in the preceding sentence. 
This would lead us to write ofa (perhaps 
ota 61)) inperovaw. I cannot however believe 
that Plato used imnperotow here, and then 
imnpernoe differently applied in the next 
line of the same sentence. The occurrence 
of 6 6 mistevwv roujoe immediately after- 
wards might suggest zoumjoe in the place 
of imnperjoe. On the other hand ofa 
zowvcw would be closely parallel to ofa 
ayaba 7) Kaka Trove?, and ofa ixnperotow would 
seem a less natural construction than zds 
imnpetovow. Believing therefore that one 
use of trnpereity grew by a copyist’s error 
out of the other, I should prefer to read 
ola movodow (or aroteAotow, or some such 
word) and to keep irnperjoer; but ola 
timnperotow and zomoe would be much 
better than the received text. 

602 A. Odre dpa cicerar ove dpOa doface 
6 papers mept dv av pupytar mpos KaAXos 
a Tovnpiay. Ovx éoixev. Xapies dv et 6 &v 
Tm Toupee PupayTeKos Tpos codiav Treph ov av 
oun. Ov ravv. 


xapies x.7.A, needs a particle of connexion, 
and od ravv is not quite in harmony with it. 
Both these faults may be removed by 
reading <Ovxovv> yapées. Ovdxovy fell out 
from its likeness to €orxey, and its restoration 
will give us a pair of negative sentences 
just like the pair preceding. 

602 C. kai raita kapmida te Kal edfea ev 
Voatl Te Oewmevors Kat €&w, Kat KoiAd Te dy Kat 
eexovra Out tiv mepl Ta ypwpara ad rravyv 
THS OWews Kal Tadd Tis Tapayyn Syn piv 
evovoa avtn €v TH Wyn. Perhaps we should 
read rao for aca, which hardly harmonizes 
with ts. In Aristotle’s Poetics 6, 14496 36 
mTacw is a very probable correction for 
Tara. 

602 E. rovrw de (i.e. 76 NoyrtiKG) ToAAAKts 
peTpHoavTe Kal onpaivovTe peilo arra eivat 
7) eXatTw Erepa érépwv 7) ica Tavaytia atverat 
apa rept taitd. Nat. Odxotv épapev TO ata 
dpa rept TavTa evavtia doalew advvarov etvat ; 
Kai dp6as y' edaper. 

I see no way out of the difficulty of this 
passage except iby reading the genitive 
TOVTOV de TT. PETpHOAVTOS Kal onpatvovTos and 
supposing that the dative was due to a 
misapprehension. The words as they stand 
compel us to take the dative with gaivera, 
and give a sense which is not only false 
but flatly contradicted by the immediately 
following sentences. It is not to the 
rational part that the contrary impression 
is conveyed, but to another. 

603 C. ‘Ode 8% zpobdpeba: mzpdrrovras, 
ghapev, avOpwirovs pupetrac 7 pysntiKy K.T.A. 
py te GAXO Tapa tatra; Ovdev. *Ap’ otv év 
aract TOUTOLS K.T.A. 

For zpo$mue6a, which can hardly be right, 
I suggest brobipeba, or perhaps dedpeba. 

604 A. 7oAXG pev torpjoe pbeyéacba, 
ei TIS aidtov axovou aisyivorr’ av, woAda Se 
momoe, & K.T.’. Read Toujoa 

604 B. ovxotv 76 pev ETEPOV. TO 
€ronov reiHerba, 7) 6 vopos efnyetrau. 

Perhaps either ro von or 6 vopos should 
be omitted. But in view of the words 
preceding (Adyos Kat vonos) I suggest To p Aoyo 
for tO vopw. Cf. the phrase in D oixoiv, 
dhapev, TO pev BeAtictov to'tw TO oyipe 
edéXer Exes Gan. 

605 C. ot yap Tov BeXruerot HOV aKpow- 
peevot ‘Opajpow 7 7) aXAXov Twos TOV Tpaywoororay 
pyjLouprevov Twa TOV Hpwowv év wevlet ovTa Kat 
pakpav pow amorteivovta ev Tois dduppois 7) 


rsp 


394 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


kAalovras (kat adovras MSS.) re kal korropevovs, 
ola ort xatpopev K.T-X. 

A few inferior MSS. have twas...ovras... 
dzoteivovtas, and the change to the plural 
in the later participles is certainly very 
awkward. Yet the singular number is the 
best : only one hero is shown lamenting at 
a time, Achilles or Ajax. I cannot help 
suspecting that what noe es: wrote was 
GKpowmevol.. + YLOUPEVOD. . . GTOTELVOVTOS:..7) 
kXatovtos TE Kal i If we can be 
said to ‘ hear Homer imitating,’ I think we 
might be said to hear him doing the rest, 
even KOTTOJLEVOU. 

606 A. For rér’ éori rotro Madvig would 
read avr’ éott tovro. Tore is clearly wrong 
after the previous tore in the same sentence, 
and aird seems clearly right. But I think 
the order should be inverted and we should 
read totr’ éoriv aird, which has the advantage 
of putting both words in the right place. 

606 D. kai repi adpodiciwv dy Kat vod 
Kat Tept mavTwv Tov ériGvpntiuKGv Te Kal 
AuTnpOv Kal yoewv ev TH Wryn, & dyn dapev 
maon mpage. nuivy erecOar, oT ToLat’Ta Tuas 
Y TOUTiKY pipnows epydletau tpépear yap Taira 
apdovoa, déov adypety, Kal K.T.d. 

"Orvis bracketed by Baiter. Madvig reads 
ér. Towatra can hardly stand as it is, and 
I should suggest for 67. toutra either érepa 
Toiaira, OY od Ta atta (a question). The 
latter is supported by Glaucon’s otk éxw 
dd\Aws davar, Which seems to imply a question 
preceding. The confusion of totra, 7a 
avta, taita &e. is common. Cf. last note, 
and on 586 C: 598 E. 

607 C. Kai 6 Tav diacdpwv 6xXos Kparav. 

The quotation from an author unknown 
is given in this form by Baiter after Schmidt. 
Most MSS. have 6&4 cofSv: A apparently 
dia codov, from which many scholars have 
written Aia codov, some (Schleiermacher, 
Stallbaum) thinking Aéa could depend on 
coporv, others (Schneider, Bywater) govern- 
ing it by xparév. No one seems to have 
seen that the dia of A is nothing but an 
easy corruption of diay (AIA for AIA). Cf. 
Kur. £7. 296, yvdpnv eveivar tois codois Niav 
codynv: Med. 295, ratdas tepicods éxdidac- 
keoGar cogovs and 305 cipi 8’ odk adyav cody. 
As we are dealing with a mere fragment, 
it would probably be unwise to alter xpardav, 
but «pity is an obvious conjecture. 

608 E. *Ap’ ovv aomep ey® wept avtov 
dtavoet; To motoy ; To yey drohvov kal dva- 
POcipov wav TO KaKov civar, TO d€ Golov Kal 
ddpedovv TO aya ov ; "Eyoy, ep. Ti d€ ; Kaxov 
KaoTw TL Kal ayabov A€yets, olov opGadpors 
pbarpiav Kat E0uTavTL TO THmaTL VoooV, TiTw 
€ épvaiBnv k.7.A. 


Does not the sense require that with 
Kakov €xdoTw TL Kal ayabdov A€éyers we should 
read some such word as idov (610 B) or 
oixetov (609 C: 610 EK)? Probably it pre- 
ceded ofov and fell out through likeness 
to it. 

610 A. *H rotvw ratra éécdéyywpev Ort 
ov Kadds A€youey 7, Ews Gv 7 avekeeyKTa, By 
TOTE POMEV K.T.A. - 

Read éfeAcyydapev. Cf. zpiv av tis dro- 
de(éy four lines below. 

611 E. mepixpovobeira TéTpas TE Kal doTpea 
& viv airy...yenpa Kat L werpoon TOAXG Kat Gypia 
TepiTeukev. 

I think we should get rid of the tautology 
by omitting wérpas Te kal dotpea, aS having 
got in from odotped te kal pukia Kal mérpas 
in 611 D, or we should at least read <xat> 
a viv. If the substantives were right, 
would they not need an article? 

612 A. Odxotv, qv 8 eyo, ta Te Garda 
arehuodp<ba ev TS Adyw Kal od ToOds puobods 
ovde Tas Sdgas dikatocvvys: eryveKapev, woTrEp 
“‘Hotodov te xat “Opnpov ipets ébare. 

’Exnvéxapev (Cobet) or érnvécaper is clearly 
right as against the old -érnvéyxapev ; indeed 
ernvexapev seems really to be the final 
reading of A. But neither the dzedvoa- 
pela of ‘the best MSS.’ and Stobaeus nor 
the dzedvodpeba of other MSS. is at all 
satisfactory: amedvoayefa is not even an 
Attic prose form. I should say that Plato 
wrote ta te GAXa drewodpea, just as in 
366 A he writes ra 8’ e€ déduxias Képdn arrwod- 
peOa. The corruption of » to dv occurs in 
a fragment of Archilochus (74 in Bergk), 
where the faulty Avypév should certainly be 
changed with Bentley to a xpdv. 

614 B. EXxipou pev avdpés, “Hpds od 
’Appeviov, 76 yévos Tapvrov. 

We hardly need Theodoret’s quotation of 
these words to suggest that we must read 
TO <Oe> yévos. The duaxeAeverGar which he 
and Eusebius give in 614 D seems decidedly 
preferable to diaxeAevouTo. 

615 D. ody jeer, davar, ovd’ av HEE. 
ovce b1) Feu (Class. Rev. vi. 339 6). 

616 A. rots det raptotor onpatvovres dv 
évexd Te Kal eis O TL TOV _Taptapov eumrerov- 
pevo Gyowro. A has cis 6 71, all other MSS. 
apparently eis ort, and the editors before 
Hermann 6é7u eis. Hermann however and 
Baiter keep cis 6 r0and bracket tov Taprapov 
as a gloss. But is it certain that Plato 
could have written of a place eis 6 tT, instead 
of ot or éror? Cf. Thue, L, 69, 5 emorapeba 
oia 686 of “A@nvator kat drt Kat’ 6Alyov xXwpotow 
ért ros wéAas. There is some awkwardness 
there, as here; but does Cobet avoid all 
awkwardness by bracketing xal 671? If we 


Read 





: 
& 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


want to do that, we must bracket xat dru 
Kat’ oXtyov. 

618 D. dere e drdvrwv aitov dSvvarov 
etvat cvdXoyiodmevov aipetcbat mpos THY THs 
Woyns plow amoBdéerovta Tév TE XEipw Kal 
Tov apeivw Biov. 

For aipetcda, which gives a quite wrong 
sense here (it is rightly used ten lines 
below, tov pécov det tov TowtTwv Plov 
aipcioOa), read diaupetrba. Cf. Biov kai 
xpnorov Kat rovnpov duayryvécKovra and duapov- 
peva itself in 618 C. 

619 D. 86 3: cat peraBodrnv trav Kaxdv Kat 
tov ayabav tais toAAais TOV Woxdv ylyver Oar 
Kal dua TrHv TOD KAypov TUXNV. 

Aw $y...kat dua is awkward, and worse 
than awkward, for Plato clearly wrote xat 
<ov> dd. The words immediately following, 
el...6 KARpOs adTo Tis aipeoews pur) ev TeAEVTALoLS 
mimto., may be quoted against this: but 
what of 619 B xai reXevtaiw émiovti, Eiv vO 
Edopévo, cvvtévos Lave Keitar Bios ayaryros, 
od Kakos: pare 6 apxwv aipéoews dpeheiTw pyre 
5 teAevtdv dbvpetrw |—and this is the drift of 
the whole passage. The éreé which follows 
here after the words cited (and which 
Davies and Vaughan boldly translate ‘ but’) 
has no meaning, unless there was an ov 
preceding. The condition thrown in (Eéi... 
xixrot) only means that one of the very last 
choosers cannot expect eddaovetv in the 
highest degree. 

621 B. éedy dé KounOjvar Kal péoas 
vixtas yeveobar, Bpovryv te Kal ceiopov 
yever Oar. 

Is Plato really responsible for the clumsy 
and ill-sounding repetition of yevéoGau! 
As xaié and xara are often confused, perhaps 
we should write érewy 8& xoynnOjvat, Kara 
pécas viktas Bpovryy te Kal ceurpov yeveo Oa. 

Ibid. eéaidvns dvaBrdpas idetv ewhev abrov 
keiwevov ext tH wupa. A’s marginal dvwfev 
for éofev commends itself to me, though 
no editor seems to have favoured it. The 
marginal correction in 576 D seems certain 
and that in 607 D very plausible: cf. too 
533 E. 

621 C. Kat jas dv cdceaev. Read xat jpas 
8) cdoe (Class. Rev. vi. 341 a). 

Ibid. ris dvw 6800 dei E€dpeOa Kal Sucavootvyv 
pera ppovicews ravtl tporw émirndevooper, 
iva Kat npiv adrots pidou Gpev Kai Tots Geois, 
abrov te pevovtes évOade Kal ereday Ta dda 


395 


airs Kopilopeba, Gomep of vixnpopor mept- 
ayepopevol, Kal evOdde Kat ev TH XiALETEL TopEla, 
qv dueAnAVOapev, &d TpatTwper. 

Schneider, who objects on grounds of 
logic to joining iva...piAou Gpev...Tots Geots... 
érevsav Ta GOAa aitis Kopilomefa, connects 
abrod Te... repiayepopevor With ed mpdtTrwper. 
But his logical objection, though not un- 
founded, seems to tell with equal strength 
against saying tva...éredav ta GOAa avris 
kopilopeba...e0 mpattwpev, and in his con- 
struction the repetition in kal évOade is very 
weak. I conclude therefore that airoi te... 
mepiayepopevo. goes with dito. dyer, and 
indeed the re and xat almost necessarily 
form a pair. But the meaning would be 
much more clearly and symmetrically ex- 
pressed, if we might suppose a re to have 
been lost, reading kat év@ade <te> kat év TH 
xArérer wopeig...cd mparrwpev. Plato does 
not avoid such a combination of short 
syllables: cf. 602 C ev vdari re. For the 
omission of re cf. note on 614 B, and here 
it is made easier by de preceding. 


I take this opportunity of cancelling three 
suggestions that have been made in this 
collection of notes. In 369 D I doubted 
whether the adverb airdce could stand after 
mpootévac in the sense of ‘ add,’ and 
suggested airois: Dem. Ol. 2, 14 droe Tis dv 
mpooOy oiar Kav puxpay dvvapu, mavt wpbedet 
shows that it can. In 489 B I took ex- 
ception to xal—rotvuv, but wrongly : see for 
instance Dr. WHolden’s index to the 
Oeconomicus s.v. roivw. Finally I called 
in question the use of dydpeorépov iarpod in 
contrast with davAdrepoy in 459 C, but in 
reading Isocrates I have found three places 
where dvdpixds seems to be used of purely 
intellectual characteristics. In 13, 17 he 
declares various things in the art of com- 
position zoAAjs eredcias detoGar kat Wuyxijs 
dvopixns Kat dogacrixys epyov eivat, and in 
15, 200 he contrasts of adducts (rv pytopwv) 
and of tas Wuyas avdpucas ExovTes: See also 
15, 266. These passages seem to indicate that 
if in 459 C dvdpeorépov itself is not right, we 
might be content with dvdpiuxwrépov. The 
two words are confused in Ar. Peace 498 
and Knights 453, where the MSS. give av- 
Spixds and dvdpixdtara, while dvdpeiws and 
dvdperara are required by the metre. 

Hersert RIcHARDs. 


396 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


THE PROVINCE OF GALATIA. 


Ir has been generally supposed up to our 
own time that 
Keltic district in Asia Minor which is always 
known as Galatia. Lately however Professor 
Ramsay has found himself compelled ‘to 
understand Galatians as inhabitants of 
Roman Galatia.’ Ido not propose to discuss 
this hypothesis generally, but. only to offer a 
brief criticism of the Professor’s view of 
the name Galatia. 

In The Church and the Roman Empire (p. 
6 note) Professor Ramsay says—‘I did not 
expect to be obliged to argue that this great 
province [7.e. that which includes, besides 
Galatia proper, Lycaonia, Isauria, and por- 
tions of Phrygia and Pisidia] was called 
Galatia ; but even this simple fact, which 
has been assumed by every writer since 
Tacitus, has recently been contested by Dr. 
Schiirer : and I have appended a note on the 
subject at the end of this chapter.’ 

As Emil Schiirer is a man who says 
nothing lightly, it was certainly worth while 
to attempt to refute him. I turn to the note 
(p. 13). There I find Schtrer quoted as 
saying—‘ An official usage which embraced 
all three districts (Galatia, Pisidia, Lycaonia) 
under the single conception Galatia has 
never existed. And again—‘the name 
Galatia is only a parte potiort, being taken 
from the biggest of the various districts 
which were included in the province, and is 
not an official designation.’ On the other 
side Professor Ramsay alleges (no doubt 
correctly, though without any quotation of 
authority) that ‘the first governor appointed 
is called “Governor of Galatia,”’ What 
was the Latin or Greek title of this 
‘ governor’ does not appear ; but at any rate 
it is not disputed that there was a Roman 
official who took his designation from 
Galatia, or that he had jurisdiction over a 
considerable district outside Galatia proper ; 
but it by no means follows that ‘ Galatia’ 
was the name. the proper official designation, 
of his whole jurisdiction. Indeed, Professor 
Ramsay very candidly supplies evidence that 
this was not the case, ‘ Honorary inscrip- 
tions,’ he says, ‘in which it is an object to 
accumulate titles, speak of the official as 


St. Paul’s Galatia is the - 


governor of Galatia, Pontus, Paphlagonia, 
Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, ete.’ There 
could scarcely be clearer proof that at the 
date of these honorary inscriptions the name | 
‘Galatia’ did not designate a province which 
included Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. 
We cannot imagine that any desire to 
‘accumulate titles’ would induce the people 
(for instance) of a city in the Madras 
Presidency to address their governor as 
Lieutenant-governor of Madras, ‘Trichi- 
nopoly, and Madura, these districts being 
included in the Presidency. But we can 
very well suppose that the people of Delhi 
would address the official in whose jurisdic- 
tion they are as ‘Chief Commissioner of the 
Punjab and Delhi,’ because, though Delhi is 
under his authority, it is never spoken of 
as being in the Punjab. 

But ‘inscriptions found in theextreme parts 
of Galatic Pisidia and Galatic Lycaonia men- 
tion the governor of the district as governor 
of Galatia.’ If this were the case, it would 
afford (it seems to me) a slight presumption 
that Pisidia and Lycaonia were not included 
in a province called Galatia ; for if they had 
been it would have been more natural to 
speak of the governor as governor ‘of this 
province’ or ‘of our province.’ But in the 
inscriptions as given by Professor Ramsay 
(I know them only in his quotation) we do 
not find ‘ Galatia,’ but ‘ the Galatic province.’ 
Is this a synonym for ‘Galatia’? If this 
is really the case, it is difficult to imagine 
why the simple word ‘ Galatia’ was not used. 
It is not—so far as my small observation 
goes—at all usual in the ‘lapidary ’ style to 
use needless amplification. But if Schurer’s 
supposition is correct, that there was no 
Roman province called Galatia, the ‘ Galatic’ 
province is a natural designation for the 
region governed from Galatia, but not 
wholly included in Galatia. 

On the whole, I come to the conclusion 
that Professor’s Schiirer’s view has much in 
its favour, and that Professor Ramsay’s 
arguments against it are very far from con- 
clusive. 

8. CHEETHAM. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


397 


dppovia AND tovos IN GREEK MUSIC. 


In the interesting and instructive volume 
on the Modes of Ancient Greek Music, lately 
published by the Clarendon Press, the Pro- 
vost of Oriel maintains that there was no 
such distinction as that which Westphal and 
others have drawn between ancient Greek 
‘modes’ (dppoviar) and ‘keys’ (rover or 
tpowor). Among the reasons which Mr. 
Monro adduees in support of their identity 
is the fact that Plutarch was apparently not 
aware of any difference of meaning between 
rovos and dppovia (/.c., p. 26). This is inferred 
from a comparison of three passages in his 


treatise De Musica, cc. 15-17, ec. 6 and 8, 
and c. 19. May I be permitted to point 
out that-it appears to be (if possible) still 
more clearly proved by another passage in 
the same author? In the tract De E apud 
Delphos, c. 10, p. 389 e, Plutarch incidentally 
mentions wévre Tovs TpwTos, ETE TOVOUVS 
) TpoOTovs «0 appovias xpr Kadeiv, ov 
emiTacel Kal Dpeoet TpETOMEVWV KATA TO LAAXrOV 
Kat yTTov at Aourat Bapityrés ciot kat 6€vTyTES. 
Here Plutarch obviously regards the ‘modes’ 
as synonymous with the ‘ keys.’ 
J. E. Sanpys. 





THE MUSIC OF THE ORESTES. 


In his article on the Orestes papyrus in 
the last number of this Review, pp. 313-317, 
Mr. Abdy Williams has been following Dr. 
Wessely with rather too much confidence. 
The transcript will not bear examination. 

1. He says that the notes for the accom- 
paniment are mingled with the text. That 
would be unprecedented. In the nine frag- 
ments from Delphi with notes for instru- 
ments the notes are written above the text ; 
and so also in the Kircher and Marcello 
MSS. He says that the notes here are 
), 1, and Z. Whenever the so-called Z 
occurs in the text, it comes between the last 
word of one verse and the first word of the 
next verse; so this must be a species of 
xopwvis for marking off the verses. The 
> and 4 occur, with other fragments of 
letters, in the interval between xaréxAvoev 
and as wovrov, Where dewav rovwv should be 
read; so they are blunders of the scribe. 
Obviously, the scribe was puzzled by the 
half-verse ava dé Aaidos ds, and completed it 
with the half-verse tis dxarov Gods, beginning 
the next verse at rwaéas and adding the Z 
above the line. And then he made this 
muddle of the text, beginning a fresh verse 
at as movrov with the Z again above the 
line. 

2. Mr. Abdy Williams says that the ictus 
dot is placed above the musical sign, or 
alongside it, according to exigencies of space, 
It is always above the punctuating Z, 
and alongside the musical sign that follows 
the Z, Thus, Z and P* inlines 1, 2; Z and |° 


NO, LXXIII. VOL. VIII. 


in 3, 4, and again in 5, 6, and 11; and 
Z and oF in 7. Thus the plain dot marks 
the first note in a verse, while the combined 
dot and dash mark the first note in the 
fourth foot. The dot and dash occur in 
lines 5, 7, 9, as printed in the transcript ; 
and a photograph shows traces of them 
above the first M in line 1. They are re- 
quired above the first Z in line 3, but here 
the photograph shows hardly any traces of 
the Z itself. 

3. In determining the values of the notes, 
he treats the wa in parépos as a short syl- 
lable; the xev in dvaBaxxever, the dar in 
Sa(uwv, and the rov in zdvrov, as two short 
syllables each; the word as as two long 
syllables ; and the vwv in dewéov as a short 
and along. No doubt the os is split, for 
this is written as @ws: but if the other 
syllables were split, they would be written 
accordingly. Moreover, a long syllable al- 
ways splits into two shorts, as may be seen 
from the Delphic hymns. 

4,. As regards the notes for voices, he 
follows the usual system in giving e for 
1, gfor ®, a for C, d for |, and e for Z. 
But he gives f for E, whereas E was the 
lower of the two notes that came between 
e and /; and in line 11 he treats the punctu- 
ating Z as a note for voices. He also gives 
bo for 1 and makes P a quarter-tone between 
bb and a. This involves the enharmonic 
scale with intervals of a quarter of a tone 
apiece ; but the notation will also suit the 
chromatic scales with intervals of three- 

F F 


398 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


eighths or a third of a tone apiece, besides 
other chromatic and enharmonic scales with 
more complicated intervals. 

5. As regards the alleged notes for in- 
struments, he follows the usual system in 
giving g for Z. But he gives JF tor, 


whereas ] was a note between ¢ and /; and 


he also gives bp for 5, théreby involving the 
enharmonic scale with intervals of a quarter 
of a tone apiece. 

6. He transcribes the music into the no- 


tation that is now in use; and this is asso- 
ciated with an octave of twelve equal 
intervals. But in Greek music the intervals 
were not the same; so the notes are not 
exactly in their places. 

The comparisons with modern music ap- 
pear to be illusory. They are not founded 
on the ancient music as it stands, but on a 


transcript which twists it into modern. 


shape. 
Ceci Torr. 


NOTE ON THE HOMERIC HYYN TO HERMES V. 33. 


In the current Hermathena, in a review of 
Goodwin’s Homeric Hymns among other 
conjectures I have put forward one (on 
Hermes v. 33) which has been fortunate 
enough to command the assent of many 
of my friends. I avail myself here of the 
courtesy of the Editor of the Classical Review 
to make a slight improvement on it. The 
note ran thus :— 


In v. 33 there is, as it seems to us, room for a 
certain conjecture, though, strange to say, the need- 
fulness of a correction has not struck any of the 
editors. Hermes, addressing the tortoise out of 
whose shell he afterwards fashioned the lyre, ex- 
claims :— 

mobev TOdE, KaAdY Ovpmua, 
aidAov daTtpakov eal, xéAus pet (dovea; 


But ‘how came it that thou art a shell ?’ is unmean- 
ing. Read €oao for éool. The tortoise was not the 
shell much more than a man is his great-coat. One 
is reminded of the joke ascribed to Mr. Gilbert 
when in reply to ‘ You wear a great-coat ?’ he said, 
‘No, I never was.’ But ‘thou art clothed with this 
shell’ at once recalls the Adivoy €ooo xiTava of T 57. 


The punctuation given above, which is 
that of most editions, compels us to give 
to woev the sense of gui fit ut ? not of unde ? 
Now this sense of zdfev is posthomeric. 


This is- not a serious objection, for every 
reader of the hymns knows that they 
abound in posthomeric usages. But a slight 
change of punctuation improves the con- 
struction ; read :— 


mo0ev TONE KaAOV aOuppa. ; 
s/ »” g , »” , 
aiddov oaTpaKov Exoo xéAvs dpect Lwovea. 


‘Whence this pretty plaything? Curiously 
wrought (or, sheeny,) is the shell wherewith 
thou art clothed upon, thou tortoise of the 
field.” The punctuation which I now re- 
commend is, I find, that of Gemoll’s edition. 
It would be quite impossible with the 
ordinary punctuation to take wdée écci 
together =.unde es? To this rode is fatal ; 
rovro would be awkward, but rdéd¢ would not 
be Greek, unless we could write zé6ev 65c 
copos Hipuridns (or de cope Hipuridn) @; 
Besides, the coupling together in apposition 
of a@vppa, dotpakov, xéAvs, would be un- 
graceful to the point of unintelligibility. 
The words aicAov datpaxov éoot would of 
necessity supply the predicate. 
-. BR. Y. Tyreext. 


THE MODERN GREEK WORD vepo. 


In a note in the Classical Review of 
March (p.°100) Mr. A. N. Jannaris says 
that the modern Greek word vepd has no 
connexion with the ancient vypd-, Nypevs, 
but is nothing but a phonetic modification 
of veapov ‘fresh,’ sc. tdwp. I should like to 
point out that Prof. Krumbacher at Munich, 
three years ago, proposed the same etymo- 


logy. In the edition of the Colloquiwm 
Pseudo-Dositheanum Monacense inserted by 
Krumbacher in the Abhandlungen aus dem 
Gebiet der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 
W. von Christ dargebracht (Miinchen, 1891), 
p- 362 segg. (in a note to ‘wiwpev vepov éx 
Tov Bavxdiov bibamus recentem de gillone’), 
we find the explanation of vepov from veapov 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


supported by good arguments. Further Mr. 
Hatzidakis, discussing the etymology in a 
criticism of Krumbacher’s paper (A@nva 
iv. 466), completes the arguments of Krum- 
bacher, showing that the contraction of ea 
to » (veapov—vnpov—vepov) is attested by 
ancient authority, Moreover Hatzidakis 


399 


refers to Korais’ "Araxra, iv. 349 and Sopho- 
cles’ well-known Lexicon. Both these 
writers suggest (though without arguing the 
question) that vepd may possibly be identical 
with the ancient Greek word veapov. 

ALBERT THUMB. 


Freiburg-7.-B. 


EUR. JON 1276. 


c ’ > e x > \ / / 
608 otkTos 6 Gos €“ol Kpeloowv Tapa 
\ x a? col 
kal pytpt THM) 


These words should naturally mean ‘ But 
pity for thee is stronger in my heart and 
that of my mother,’ a sense absolutely 
irreconcilable with the context. Ion is 
threatening Creusa with instant and certain 
death : 


GAN’ ovre Bwpos ovr’ ’AmdAAwvos Sdp05 
owoe oO. 


are the words immediately preceding ; and 
there is no sign of relenting in what follows, 


In order to make the line fit into its con 
text, editors are reduced to translating (as 
Paley) ‘The feeling of pity for you is 
stronger for myself and my mother,’ a 
rendering adopted also by Dr. Verrall in 
his poetical version. But it is hard to see 
how the words can possibly be so construed. 
I would suggest the Epic oiros, used by 
Sophocles (#7. 167) and Euripides (7.7. 1091, 
where Dind. has oixrpdv) in lyric passages, 
with the sense ‘But thy doom is present 
as a mightier desire (than reverence for 
Apollo) with me and my mother.’ 


FRANK CARTER. 


DELBRUCK’S COMPARATIVE SYNTAX. 


Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der 
indogermanischen Sprachen. Von Karu 
BrueMann und BerruoLtp DE LBRUCK. 
Dritter Band. Vergleichende Syntax der 
indogermanischen Sprachen. Von B. DEL- 
prick. Erster Theil. Strassburg. Karl 
J. Triibner. 1893. M. 20. 


Tus is a book to which it is out of place 
here to apply the general language of eulogy. 
The time will come when it will be interest- 
ing and proper to call attention to the 
qualities which distinguish Delbriick among 
the great scholars who have built up the 
science of comparative grammar. At pre- 
sent our business is simply to give such an 
account of the work as will be of service to 
those who intend to study and use it. 

The author begins with a sketch of the 
history of syntax. Three periods are dis- 
tinguished. The first is that of the ancient 
Greek grammarians. The second begins 
with the twelfth century, when education 
in western Europe derived its substance 


from the doctrines of the Church, and its 
formulas from a Latinized version of Aris- 
totle. Here we find the early history of 
such terms as ‘ subject,’ ‘ predicate,’ ‘ govern- 
ing,’ ‘concord,’ &e. After the Renaissance 
the growth of philosophy led to the concep- 
tion of ‘universal grammar,’ and to such 
theories as that of the derivation of the 
grammatical cases from local relations 
(‘ where,’ ‘whence,’ ‘whither’). The third 
period is that of the modern science of lan- 
guage, founded by Bopp, whose treatment 
of the infinitive in his Conjugationsystem 
(1816) may be regarded as the beginning of 
comparative syntax. Since that time the 
most marked change in the method of com- 
parative grammar has been the limitation of 
its first aims. To Bopp and even to G. 
Curtius it seemed possible not merely to re- 
construct the original or ‘ Indo-germanic’ 
language but to explain the formation of 
that language from its elements. The latter 
of these aims is now recognized as hopeless : 
indeed the comparative method is inapplic- 
FF2 


400 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


able to it. We compare the members of the 
family of languages in order to arrive at 
the original mother-tongue: but when we 
have reached that mother-tongue we find no 
term of further comparison. 

After this introductory matter the author 


addresses himself first to the problems of- 


gender. Does the gender of nouns depend 
on their meaning? In Latin, for example, 
why are the names of rivers masculine, and 
those of trees feminine? On this point it 
appears that there is nothing to be learned 
from comparative grammar, since the pheno- 
mena in question cannot be traced back to 
the period of Indo-germanic unity. On the 
other hand the rule that stems in -o are 
masculine or neuter, and stems in -@ femi- 
nine, was originally an absolute one, numer- 
ous as are the exceptions in Greek and 
Latin. How then do we account for the 
gender of such words as tapias, zoAtrys, 
seriba, scurra? Or again of such words as 
006s, vycos? The former question was 
touched upon in Delbriick’s earlier Grund- 
lagen der griechischen Syntax, but now re- 
ceives a more complete discussion. The 
source of the change of gender, he points 
out, lies in a change of meaning. The com- 
monest case is when a feminine abstract 
denoting an action comes to be used as a 
noun of the agent. Thus there was doubt- 
less a noun tayia which meant ‘ cutting up,’ 
and so ‘dispensing,’ stewardship. In Homer 
we find a change of meaning, but not of 
gender, yuvi) tayin being used in the sense 
of a housekeeper. Finally, when the 
steward was usually a man, the further step 
was taken of making the word masculine 
and adding the characteristic -; to the 
nominative. Similarly veavias presupposes 
a collective or abstract veavia. Most of the 
Latin masculines in -@ are either words ex- 
pressing some action or employment, as 
scriba, popa, auriga, liza, &c., or contemptu- 
ous terms, as scurra, gumia, &c. Some are 
borrowed from Greek, e.g. nauta, poeta, and 
these may point, as Delbriick suggests, to 
areek forms vavra, tounra (without final -s). 
This hypothesis may perhaps be supported 
by the Boeotian and Elean masculines in -é 
(as to which see Meister i. 160); but we 
must reckon with the probability that the 
borrowed words would follow the analogy of 
the native Latin seriba, &e. The change of 
meaning from abstract to concrete may be 
illustrated within Latin by such uses as 
magistratus ‘magistracy,’ then ‘ magistrate.’ 
Probably it began with the use of the word 
ws a title or epithet: ep. the Greek irzéra 
IInAcvs, yrvra Kppvé, &e., also Bin Tpudpoo 


and the like. Thus it is ultimately the 
same change of meaning that we see in 
bahuvriht compounds (swift-foot for swift- 
Jooted, &e.). Delbriick adds apposite paral- 
lels from the Balto-Slav languages. On p. 
109, 1. 24, ‘das Lateinische’ is surely a mis- 
print for ‘das Litauische.’ 


After gender comes number. In dealing 


with the dual the German language has the. 


advantage of possessing in the words beide 
and zwei the same distinction as that which 
obtained between the dual and the plural 
as used of two objects. In Greek, how- 
ever, even as early as Homer, the plural had 
begun to encroach on the province of the 
dual. Regarding the loss of the dual Del- 
briick makes the interesting suggestion that 
it was caused by the use of the words 
audo and dvw. These words expressed 
the dual idea in a clear and uniform 
manner, which was gradually adopted in 
preference to the complicated system of 
dual-endings. 

In regard to the plural the chief interest 
is to be found in the words which show more 
or less difference of meaning between singu- 
lar and plural. The reason usually lies in 
the nature of the object. It may be one 
which does not admit of a true plurality : as 
aes ‘brass’ (aera ‘pieces of brass’), kdéos 
‘fame’ (xAéea ‘deeds of fame’). Or it is 
composed of parts which may be treated as 
a plurality: hence orjfos or ornfea ‘the 
breast,’ ré€ov or toga ‘a bow.’ The difficulty 
is further illustrated by a class of nouns 
treated by Delbriick under the head of gen- 
der, viz. those which are masculine in the 
singular and neuter in the plural. This 
class, which appears to go back to the Indo- 
germanic period, .may be exemplified by 
Greek pnpos pypa, keAevos KéXevfa, Taprapos 
Taprapa, Latin locus loca, jocus joca, &e. In 
these cases it is evident that the plural is a 
kind of collective noun, denoting a whole 
set or mass of things, not a true plurality: 
e.g. loca does not mean places (Jocz), but ‘a 
region.’ This is a shade of meaning by no 
means unknown with masculine and feminine 
plurals (ep. the Latin jines, sales, nugae, 
tenebrae, divitiae), but it is especially notice- 
able in the neuter. It is needless to refer 
to the use which Joh. Schmidt has made of 
these facts. 

Under the head of the ‘elliptic plural’ 
Delbriick notices the use of evdcuras = ‘the 
father-in-law and those who belong to him.’ 
The use, he observes, is a rare one. We 
may compare the Homeric vvds dvdpév 
aixpntawv (Il. ili. 49), also Virgil’s hospite- 
bus quondam socerisque vacatis (Aen. xi. 105), 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


applied to the Latin nation in their relation 
to Aeneas. 

The chapters dealing with the cases are 
introduced by a short statement of the doc- 
trine of the Indian grammarians, with a 
comparison of their views with modern 
theory. The rest of the chapter treats of 
the process of development or rather decay 
which is called ‘syneretism’—the amal- 
gamation of two or more cases by the use of 
a common form. This is the process by 
which in Greek the ablative has been 
absorbed into the genitive, and the locative 
and instrumental into the dative ; while in 
Latin the locative, instrumental, and abla- 
tive have formed one case. The same thing 
happened at a still earlier period to the 
nominative and accusative of the neuter. 
As Delbriick points out, the nominative 
probably was the case of the agent, and a 
neuter, which denoted an object without 
life, could not be regarded as an agent. In 
a more developed grammar, when the nom- 
inative might be used for a mere grammatical 
subject, the accusative neuter came to be 
employed as a nominative. For somewhat 
similar reasons in the dual and plural the 
nominative was used for the vocative. 

The further steps by which in modern 
Greek the dative has been absorbed in the 
genitive had begun to be taken in the ancient 
Tranian language. In the pronominal de- 
clension the two cases agreed in some of 
their forms from a very early period. Del- 
briick [p. 482] would recognize traces of this 
in the Homeric use of ol, as in JJ. xvi. 531 
Srte of Ok HKovce peyas Geds edéapevorwo. But 
the dativus commodi in Homer is surely 
elastic enough to cover such uses. In general 
it may be remarked that syncretism is con- 
fined in Greek and Latin to the three cases 
which have a distinctly local meaning, the 
locative, ablative, and instrumental. The 
reason of this is happily explained by 
Delbriick. These are the cases whose mean- 
ing can be at once expressed by simple pre- 
positions—in, from, with: and whenever 
these prepositions are employed, the case- 
ending becomes superfluous, and is soon 
neglected. In the Aryan languages, in 
which the locative survives in full vigour, 
there is no preposition with the meaning 
‘in.’ In Greek, on the other hand, the pro- 
cess of supplanting the case has gone so far 
that even in Homer the use of it is no longer 
free, but is confined to certain groups of 
words. 

The treatment of the dative offers a good 
example of the changes of view which may 
be observed in the recent history of com- 





401 


parative grammar. Delbriick reminds us 
(p. 185) that a quarter of a century ago 
(K. Z. xviii. 100 ff.) he explained the funda- 
mental meaning of the dative to be the 
quasi-local one of a leaning in the direction 
of an object, and traced this meaning back 
to the original formation of the case. He 
now confesses to a decided distrust of all 
‘ glottogonic’ hypotheses, and also to a free- 
dom from prejudice in favour of local ex- 
planations of the cases. Looking simply at 
the facts, he regards the dative as probably 
the case of that for which something is done 
(dem der Verbalbegriff gilt). In this way 
he explains the circumstance that the dative 
is mainly used of persons, which would 
hardly be if it were the case of the end of 
action. It follows that in such a construc- 
tion as redim réoe ‘fell on the ground’ he 
does not find a true dative, but a locative, 
as in the Latin adveniens domi, or procumbit 
humi. He admits indeed that cae/o in the 
phrase it caelo clamor is a dative of the end 
of motion, but regards it as modelled on 
uses like mittere leto. A nearer approach to 
the final dative is seen in some Attic in- 
scriptions in which we find phrases such as 
étia kat dvOpaxes TO podvPdw ‘wood and 
charcoal for the lead,’ @.e. for smelting it. 

In dealing with the genitive it will be 
found that Delbriick is inclined to a view 
which is equally removed from the pre- 
vailing tendencies of the last few years and 
from the earlier local theory. The sugges- 
tion that the genitive ending did not origin- 
ally express any such notion as that of the 
prepositions ‘of’ or ‘from’ appears to have 
been first made by Hofer (Lautlehre, p. 92), 
who proposed to connect the ending -osyo 
with that of adjectives like dypdurs, and 
thus to prove the genitive to be a sort of 
undeclined adjective. A similar view was 
put forward in a more subtle and plausible 
form by Curtius in his Chronologie (p. 69). 
According to him, the genitive ending being 
a pronoun, the whole word was a kind of 
compound, so that (e.g.) ém-ds was literally 
voice-that, or ‘that of the voice.’ And even 
now that this hypothesis would generally, 
and doubtless rightly, be regarded as too 
‘ glottogonic,’ the view of the genitive as an 
‘adnominal’ case, ¢.e. as expressing the de- 
pendence of a noun upon another noun, not 
(as with the other cases) upon a verb, may 
be said to be the generally accepted one. 
Delbriick now rejects this view. In the 
chapter which treats of the fundamental 
notions of the cases he points out (p. 186) 
that there is also an adnominal dative, which 
is generally regarded as having been de- 


402 


veloped from the ‘adverbal’ use. How 
then, he asks, if the adnominal genitive 
arose from a similar, only much earlier, 
change ? 

What was the fundamental notion of 
the ‘adverbal’ genitive? Delbriick accepts 
the definition given by. C. Gaedicke (Der 
Akkusativ im Veda), according to which 
the substantive is put in the genitive when 
the notion given in the verb does not extend 
to or affect the whole of it. This account 
of the matter was originally put forward by 
Grimm, and was adopted by Delbriick in his 
earlier volume on Greek syntax. What is 
new in his present treatment is the dispo- 
sition to regard this partial affecting of the 
substantive by the verb as the oldest mean- 
ing of the genitive, from which the ordinary 
possessive and other adnominal uses are 
derived. The question is not one which can 
be discussed here, especially as Delbriick 
himself does not put his arguments into a 
controversial form. Apparently he is in- 
fluenced chiefly by the general analogy of 
the case-system, which would make it un- 
likely that any one case was formed in a 
wholly different way from the rest. He 
insists also with much force on the prob- 
ability that the original conception of a 
case was not a vague and general notion, 
such as ‘belonging to,’ but a comparatively 
definite one—in this instance the partitive 
use—from which others were obtained by 
continued imitation and slight changes of 
usage (p. 333). In his treatment of par- 
ticular uses we may notice the account of 
the genitive with verbs of emotion (x#opat, 
KoTEw, Axvupat, POovew, &c.), which he regards 
as probably ablatival. The reason is that 
Sanscrit verbs of fearing take an ablative. 
Jt seems difficult however to separate verbs 
expressing emotion from those of thinking, 
caring, &e., such as pédopat, adréyw, Kydopat 
(p. 313). Classical scholars will be inter- 
ested by the Slavonic use of the genitive 
singular instead of the accusative when the 
object is a living being (p. 319). Delbriick’s 
explanation of these as partitive genitives 
gives real support to his theory of the parti- 
tive sense as the original nucleus of the 
case. 

In the numerous points which arise with 
regard to the other cases the reader will*be 
chiefly struck by the care with which every 
possibility is duly considered and admitted. 
There is no trace of the feeling that some 
one solution of a difficulty must be chosen 
for the sake of a finis litium. Examples of 
this suspense of judgment will be found in 
the account of the Greek dative with verbs 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. - 


of ruling, which may be a true dative, an 
instrumental, or a locative (p. 286), and 
with verbs of trusting, which is probably an 
instrumental, but may be a_ locative or 
(when the object is a person) a true dative. 
In phrases like payn (ayopy, &e.) vixay it is 
duly noted that the dative may be locative 
or instrumental. Regarding the idiom in 
phrases of the type atrotow dyeogw ‘ chariot 
and all’ there is a characteristic passage. 
Delbriick had noticed the difficulty of seeing 
why in this idiom the combination with 
avtos should have preserved the original 
instrumental or ‘comitative’ use. Various 
scholars expressed the opinion that airds 
originally went with the governing word, 
and was drawn to the subordinate word by 
a kind of attraction (airds tois oxerdu = the 
man with his chariot), But this, as Del- 
briick drily observes, is only a confession, 
clothed in historical form, that we are sur- 
prised to find airés going with the subor- 
dinate notion when it ought to go with the 
principal subject of the sentence. The 
considerations put forward by the present 
reviewer (Homeric Grammar, § 144 note) 
are also insufficient, as Delbriick says, to 
explain the supposed attraction. But is 
there any such attraction? The point of 
avtos in the phrase (immo.) abtoicw dxerpw 
is that the horses were not separated from 
their chariot—that the chariot was there 
as before. So when a man returns aira 
xéXevba he goes his way as before. If this is 
the force of atrds, it belongs properly to the 
accompanying object. 

Regarding the cases in -du(v) Delbriick 
has now satisfied himself that this form 
belongs properly and originally to the plural. 
The use of zaccadddi, ecxapodu, Lvyodu, 
kepadndu, and a few others as instrumental 
singular is connected with the archaic char- 
acter which the ending undoubtedly had in 
the time of Homer. We have also to reckon 
with the chance that some of these forms do 
not belong to the original text: it is prob- 
able (e.g.) that aird¢e has sometimes crept 
in in place of airoft. 

In the chapters on the adjectives and 
pronouns it is peculiarly difficult to pick out 
topics for notice in a short review. On the 
interesting subject of the reflexive pronoun 
Delbriick is very reserved. He holds the 
balance impartially between the critical 
scholars who looked upon isolated forms as 
blunders to be corrected, and the compara- 
tive grammarians who treasure them as 
survivals. Perhaps some progress may be 
made by keeping apart the two questions : 
(1) what evidence is there in the Homeric 





a a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 403 


text of a wider use of the reflexive stem 
ofo-4 and (2) is the use for the first and 
second persons due to an original wide re- 
flexive sense, or to extension of a narrower 
use? The possibility of such an extension 
is obvious enough: cp. the modern Greek 
extimnoa Tov é€avtov pov ‘I struck myself.’ 
And surely the use of a pronoun as a 
‘general reflexive’ is less likely to be primi- 
tive than the narrower and more definite 
use for the third person. 

The chapter on the adverbs is a kind of 
appendix to the discussion of the cases. 
Delbriick excludes words which have no 
recognizable suffix (e.g. y6és, cras), or have 
a suffix which belongs properly to the pro- 
nouns or numerals (-6er, -61, -tus, &e.). Con- 
sequently the essence of an adverb is that it 
is a case-form of a noun which has come to 
be used in a special isolated way—which is, 
so to speak, petrified (erstarrt). The process 
of Lrstarrung—a word for which we have 
no good translation—is finely analysed, and 
the chief instances are enumerated. Much 
of this is now familiar, but a few points 
may be noted. Delbriick still explains the 
adverbs in -ws as ablatives, notwithstanding 
the phonetic difficulties pointed out by 
Brugmann. The exact correspondence in 
use between Sanscrit ydd, tad and Greek 
®s, Tws appears to him decisive. Thus he 
takes ovtws as an ablative, ovrw as an instru- 
mental. ‘The meaning in both instances 
has been generalized so as practically to 
coincide (p. 559, 580). On the other hand 
the Doric forms such as 6 ‘whence’ are 
ablatival, answering in form (not in meaning) 
to the Attic ot, the meaning ‘where’ being 
expressed in Dorie by the forms ¢i, we?, &e. 
The forms in -y or -y present a peculiar 
difficulty. Originally (as in the Cretan 
dialect of Gortyn) there were adverbs in -7 
meaning ‘where’ or ‘whither,’ and adverbs 
in -¢ meaning ‘how,’ ‘in what way.’ With 
the Ionic change of a to yn, and the tendency 
to omit 1 subscriptum in MSS., it is no longer 
possible to distinguish these groups. In 
favour of the forms Adépy and wdvrn Del- 
briick has taken from Joh. Schmidt an ar- 
gument which unfortunately is not conclu- 
sive. It had been pointed out by Hartel 
(Hom. Studien ii. 5) that in the first four 
books of the liad and Odyssey final -y is 
shortened before a vowel forty-one times, 
and -y only nineteen times. Joh. Schmidt 


observed that the final vowel of AdOpy and 
mwav7n is frequently shortened in this way, 
and inferred that in Homer it ought to be 
written without « subscriptum. He omitted 
to notice another table given by Hartel on 
the same page to show the relative frequency 
of different final vowels and diphthongs. 
From this table it appears that -7 is three 
times as frequent as -7. Consequently the 
shortening of -y is relatively commoner than 
the shortening of -y, and the argument for 
AdOpy, raven falls to the ground. 

The last part of the volume.(pp. 643-774) 
is devoted to the prepositions. The space 
will not seem excessive when we consider 
the peculiar value which they have for the 
purpose of comparative grammar. In no 
other class of words have we such opportu- 
nities of observing original agreement in 
contrast to later growth and consequent 
divergence of usage. Delbriick arranges 
his matter from the points of view given by 
the distinctions (1) between ‘ pro-ethnical ’ 
and ‘ethnical’ grammar, and (2) between 
the use with the verb and the use with a 
governed noun. These uses he distinguishes 
by the words Praeverbium and Praeposition. 
It may be objected perhaps that terms of 
this kind would be more properly applied to 
two distinct classes of words than to two 
different uses of the same class. In his 
Altindische Syntax he assumed that every 
preposition was originally an adverb, and as 
such had a meaning which was ‘free,’ 2.¢. 
did not depend upon the verb of the sen- 
tence. For instance, déi meant ‘beyond 
measure,’ ddhi meant ‘besides,’ &c. He has 
now retracted or at least modified this view, 
and holds that the free adverbial use is in 
all cases a later development from the use 
as a Praeverbium. Thus the use of wep in 
the adverbial sense of ‘exceedingly’ is not 
original, but is due to the fact that with 
certain verbs (cipi, yéyvopa, &e.) wépe formed 
combinations meaning ‘to be in excess,’ ‘ to 
be superior.’ The observation is an acute 
and important one ; but it is hard to see how 
we can define a Praeverbium (not yet at- 
tached to a verb) so as to distinguish it 
logically from an adverb, The main point is 
to understand the profound gulf which 
historically separates the Indo-germanic pre- 
positions from the case-forms out of which 
the adverbs were developed. 

D. B, Monro, 


404 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


[The following review from unavoidable causes has been very long delayed, but the number 
of interesting and important points which it discusses makes it hardly necessary to 
apologize for its insertion now.—ED. | 


PROFESSOR JEBB’S EDITION OF THE 7RACHINIAE OF SOPHOCLES. 


SopnocLtes.—7rachiniae. Part V. of the 
Plays and Fragments, with Critical Notes, 
Commentary, and Translation in English 
Prose, by R. C. Jess. Cambridge Uni- 
versity Press. 1892. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d. 


Txis volume of Professor Jebb’s magni- 
ficent edition of Sophocles has been in the 
hands of scholars too long to require any 
formal expression of praise from the present 
reviewer. Its merits are those of the entire 
series. One marks throughout the same 
delicacy of touch, the same erudition, the 
same insight into the poet’s thought, the same 
elegance and purity of language, that have 
won for this edition of Sophocles the first 
place in the esteem of scholars of both 
continents. I would not by criticism of 
details disparage in the slightest degree the 
fine workmanship of the whole. Professor 
Jebb has encouraged critics by his generous 
treatment of their suggestions in his revision 
of the Oedipus Tyrannus. I trust therefore 
that I shall not be misunderstood if in the 
following review, I give an undue prominence 
to certain omissions, or blemishes, as they 
seem to me, in a work that as a whole com- 
mands nothing but praise. 

The report of the MSS. is not invariably 
correct. Most noticeable perhaps is the 
report of L’s reading of v. 129: ‘aja Kat 
xapa made from ayparte cal xapa.’ But 
there was never room for tu between rjpa 
and xai, where there are traces of a slight 
erasure, and 7. was added by the corrector 
above the 7. The accent that now stands 
on xapa: (“) shows that the original grave 
was changed to a circumflex, not vice versa, 
at the same time that the . was added. The 
note then should read ‘ajpare (ze written 
small over 7) kal yapé, made from Tha Kal 
xapa.’ It will be seen that the corrected 
reading distinctly favours the dative, and is 
against Professor Jebb’s ér-xvkdotow in 
imesis. The correction proposed by Gleditsch 
(not noticed by Professor Jebb) is simple 
and satisfactory—éeri myjpacw yxapal. On 
622 we read: ‘70 pi) od A: 7d pnv (sic) L, 
made from 76 pi ov.’ But, in spite of 
Subkofi’s report to the same effect, I believe 
that Lhas py’v. The corrector tried to unite 


py ov by crasis, but was no more successful 
than in 0. C. 566, where the result is p’ od. 
v standing alone is almost invariably 
written w. The letter here is exactly 
like that in Biov 942, where Wakefield’s 
emendation to Piov was necessary. This 
point is of interest as showing how easily 
ov after yy falls out altogether, as in this 
passage in four of the MSS. When it has 
disappeared in L, Professor Jebb, contrary 
to the practice of most editors, refuses to 
restore it (7d py) ov in 90 is an oversight). 
Minor errors in reporting L are more 
frequent, ¢.g.: 720 tavrn (J. tavry), 969 xpx 
Gavovra viv (J. xpy Oavdvra viv), 1062 x’ ovk 
avdpos (J. kovK dvdpds), 1091 de Ketvou(J. de (sic) 
keivot). A is not credited with the accepted 
reading det in vv. 16 and 28, dvaparAd«nrov 
in 118, izépoxyoy 1096, a dé 650, nor is it 
recorded that L’s reading kotyi Avda in 
432 is supported by five other MSS., while 
the reading adopted, cody 7 Avda, is supported 
by only A and -R (Subkoff). One would 
infer quite the contrary from the report 
‘xodx 7 A, ete.: xovyi L.’ In view of the 
trouble that critics have had with v. 809 
teicait “Epwis > ei Oguis 8 erevyomat, it 
would have been well to notice the omis- 
sion of 6 in B- and V (Blaydes). This 
favours Axt’s excellent emendation of & to 
y with a comma after ’Epuwis 7, which gives 
the best sense, though it is not noticed b 
Jebb. K gives éupémovey in 982 (Subkoff), 
which Erfurdt had restored, and which 
many editors read in preference to L’s 
éupewove. In 1161 didov was at first omit- 
ted and afterwards added above the line by 
first hand. 

An editor has the right to decide for 
himself how minutely he shall report the 
minor mistakes in the MSS. Professor Jebb 
reports innumerable mistakes in writing 
accents and breathings, v movable and 
u subscript, and corrections of the diorthotes, 
often when no especial reason is apparent. 
The student is grateful for this, and for any 
information that wili help him to under- 
stand the peculiarities of IL. Not every 
student has access to Professor Jebb’s sum- 
mary of L’s orthographical peculiarities 
contained in the introduction to the Auto- 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


type Facsimile. It seems to me that the 
following also deserve mention: 127 @varots 
made from QOavdros, 302 7a viv, which 
Nauck, Wecklein, Subkoff and others prefer 
to ravdv, 757 oixatos corrected to oixetos, 
844 én’ (a supra ¢) dAXoPpdov, the first 
being a kind of mistake that justifies 
Triclinius’s éréuoXe for dwéuoke in 855 and 
Wakefield’s dopa for the objectionable 
édopa in 1270 (which Jebb keeps without 
comment), 313 oide and 730 éorw, where the 
metre requires oidev and éor. One would 
infer from the note on 1219, ‘zap6évor| 
zapvov L, with @ over a, that this is a 
correction, not a contraction. Nothing is 
said about the similar contraction in 148, 
nor of the contractions of maryjp. Just as 
the practice of contracting the latter word 
justifies Lachmann’s emendation of zpoo to 
matpds in O. JT. 1100, so we may _ believe 
that in v. 56 the present rarpds is due toa 
supposed contraction rapos in an earlier 
copy, justifying Earle’s conjecture zapos | 
véwe. Certainly Earle is right in making 
Hyllus the logical subject of doxety, and his 
conjecture is easier than Nauck’s véwew vw 
—8oxeis (not mentioned by Jebb), which 
also relieves the difficulty that many have 
felt with doxeiv. The father’s ‘reputation 
of being successful’ (Jebb) has nothing to 
do with the case. 

One of the most commendable charac- 
teristics of this series is its strong defence 
of the traditional text. The most con- 
servative will rarely have to object to the 
reception of a conjecture where the MSS. 
reading can be retained. Yet I venture to 
defend the tradition in two passages. In 
422, ris wd0ev podrowv | col paptupyoa trait’ 
€“ov KAvEWW TAP OV j, Jebb accepts Bothe’s 
mapa for wapév. But there is much force in 
mapov here. It is a defiant challenge on the 
part of Lichas for a direct witness to his 
words. His defiance turns to scorn when the 
Messenger answers only the first question, 
motos év avOpmroor.; He is quick to take 
advantage of the apparent evasion of the 
second question, sneers at the ddxcyors on 
which he thinks that the Messenger depends, 
and in a distinct tone of triumph asks 
Deianeira who this fellow is. The Mes- 
senger’s next words however, Os ood 
Tapwv 7ykovoev, completely shatter his self- 
confidence. ‘The second zapdév wins greatly 
in force by reason of the former, while 
wdpa would be distinctly weak. The change 
in 675 of éypiov dpyfr olds evépov rdw to 
Explov, apyijs....-. mwoxos is unnecessary. A 
presumption is raised in favour of the 
change by the groundless assertion that 


405 


dpyjr in the MSS. =dpyfrte. But there is 
no punctuation in L to indicate this. The 
objections to dpyjra are merely that it 
would be weak in this position, and that 
‘the connection of dpyyjs with zoos is con- 
firmed by Aesch. Hum. 45 dpyira paddov.’ 
It is ‘confirmed’ for wérAov just as clearly 
by J. T 419 éavG dpyjre pacwe (Apitz). 
An epithet is needed for zérhov rather than 
for 76x, and the rhythm favours the con- 
nexion of dpyjr’ with what precedes. This 
view is wrongly attributed to Nauck, who 
has merely placed a comma after the ad- 
jective as Wunder did before it. Neue, 
Apitz, and Wunder-Wecklein hold to the 
same interpretation without the comma. 

In 1160, zpos rOv wvedvtwv pydevos Oaveiv 
tro, Professor Jebb accepts Erfurdt’s rév 
éurvedvrov. But the objection to Oaveiv 
after jv mpddavrov still remains, though not 
mentioned. Sophocles always uses the 
future, I believe (cf. Zrach. 79, 825, 
1171, etc.), and the aorist in other authors 
is exceptional. 0. 7.713, quoted by Blaydes, 
is not a case in point. Wecklein’s xpivae 
Gaveiv meets the difficulty, but is too violent. 
Would not vedcy Biov be the simplest 
remedy (cf. Ant. 1114 tov Biov redetv)? dro 
having effected an entrance as a gloss on 
mpés, Tedetv was replaced by the self-evident 
Gave. avedvtwv = évtwv is not seriously 
objectionable, and could hardly have replaced 
€pTVEOVTWV. 

In so conservative a text it is to be ex- 
pected that many scholars will find the 
defence of the tradition occasionally in- 
adequate. Indeed in many instances, though 
the critical notes are crowded with con- 
jectures, one finds in the commentary no 
hint that the passage in question is in any 
way unusual. The reader feels that, in an 
edition so strong on the side of interpre- 
tation, he has a right to expect at least 
the editor’s opinion on the difficulties that 
other great scholars have felt. The defence 
of xwpocw abrod 145, of domep cidere 692, 
and of jvicw 995, is not convincing. The 
objections to #vicw are (1) voice and (2) 
metre. Nothing is said of the latter. 
The comment on the former is this: ‘ The 
proper force of the middle “to obtain,” 
‘“win” seems fitting here, since the sac- 
rificial altars may be said to have earned 
the recompense given by Zeus.’ But ézi 
por is quite overlooked (cf. translation ‘won 
jor me’), as well as the fact that the 
middle must mean ‘win for oneself,’ as it 
does in the passage cited, Ar. Plut. 196. 
Wakefield’s jvvcas (cf. Phil. 710, 1145) 
seems necessary. So also Herwerden’s wep 


406 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


in 692. In 144 f. I cannot see how rovoicde 
can refer to viv 5 depos «. The reference 
to Az. 148 is against it, because rtowovcde 
Néyous there has a direct antecedent in 
@dpvBo. Since the difficulty in this passage 
lies entirely in towtode and airov, the 
citation from Antiphon, which gives kat 
ard, cannot be said to ‘confirm’ the MSS. 
kai vv. In the commentary on 1048 f., the 
editor does not recognize the difficulty of 
xovrw following poxOyoas éyé, for which 
Wunder suggested ov (also not mentioned). 
But, as the translation, ‘Ah, fierce...... 
have been the labours of these hands! But 
no toil’ etc., shows, we should have a finite 
verb in the first clause or simply ovzw fol- 
lowing. The xat, however, is strong, as 
Jebb makes clear on Ant. 332, and ought 
to stand. The simplest correction would 
be éyw for éy#—an easy change considering 
the similarity in sound and in writing of the 
two words. ; 

Of the two conjectures of his own which 
the editor admits to the text, the first, 
AutHptov <Ad dypa> 554 for Avaya is the 
best that has yet been proposed. Not so 
with érocua for dupa in 1019, because 
(1) foua is not readily understood from xaz’ 
nav popav preceding, (2) és tAéov 7 Ov enod 
owfev can hardly mean ‘too largely to need 
my aid in his relief,’ (3) the old man simply 
asks Hyllus to help (avdAdaBe). In the 
analysis of the various conjectures in the 
Appendix, Gleditsch’s <rade> yap ofwar av 
méov 7) dixa cod cuxeiv (oimar and Kav zéov 
had been suggested by M. Schmidt, diya ood 
coxeiv by Meineke) is not mentioned. This 
gives very nearly the sense required. I 
cannot but think, however, that 7 dv’ éuov 
culev (or coxetvy) is right, and, as Jebb 
says, és wAé€ov is a certain correction of the 
MSS. guzAcov, The sense clearly is, ‘Help 
me, for with your aid to a greater extent 
than by myself’ etc. Would not the following 
reading satisfy both sense and grammar 
without too great violence? ov dé cvAAaPe, 
civ yap ay oipat és mrEov 7) Sv’ €nod owlew 
(or coxeiv). After the corruption of ofua: to 
éupa, ovv was naturally changed to co/, and 
dv gave way to the space-filler re. For the 
position of dy see Jebb’s note on Ant, 466. 

dyov d€ papyé for ey 8 parnp in 526 is 
more violent than Wecklein’s éyo 6@ pov 
téppat ota dpdfw, and not so suitable to the 
sense, of course with the change of édevov 
to ro Sevvov—an essential part of Wecklein’s 
conjecture that Jebb fails to record. Thus 
we win a contrast between the result of the 
fight, which was favourable to Deianeira, 
and her fearful expectation of the unfavour- 





able alternative. papya with dyov in the 
sense ‘the battle rages’ strikes one as 
modern. In 869 Jebb objects rightly to 
the commonly accepted aydijs for ayOns, pro- 
posing instead dyyOys. The much better 


suggestion of Blaydes, xarndijs, is not even 


mentioned, though made extremely probable 
by Machlin, who proposed it, independently 
of Blaydes, on the strength of Choricius 
Gazaeus 103 (ed. Boissonade) ris oty otro 


KaTHdYNS Kat cUVMOP>PVGpPEVOS Oy Od - 
katabcEer Ta Spdpeva ; Occurring as it does © 


in a writer who shows much familiarity with 
the classical poets, this certainly looks like 
an echo of our passage. The objection to 
éx dAXos for dradas in 911 is that Dei- 
aneira had no prophetic gift to know that 
Hyllus was not to succeed to his father’s 
position as head of the household. The 
corrections made in 853 are decidedly good, 
giving the metrically correct dvapoiwy <vm’> 
olrw <todd oop’> dyaxhearor, and explain- 
ing the source of the error. és téAw for 
oroAov in 562 and 6 yap wofdy for ro yap 
awofotv in 196 are both good, better than 
omddtov for omAddos in 678, which allows 
the objectionable wy to stand. 

I have had occasion above to notice the 
omission by the editor of essential parts 
of other scholars’ conjectures. In 380 
Wecklein’s conjecture for pev otoa yéeverw 
is not yeyooa but yeydo’ avaxtos, and in 
582—7 he not only makes the changes 
mentioned, but also reads qreretpapar for ze- 
meipavtat, Which he believes to be wrong. 
Wunder’s conjecture in 331 is é€ éuod véav. 
tiv for tuds is essential to Blaydes’ xéva- 
kowovcba. 396, and in 1012 he proposes 
ToAAG par’ for woAAG pev (not for rdvra), or 
Kata O¢ Opia woAXa for x. te 0. wavTa, Similar 
omissions are found in critical notes on 94, 
267, 581, 825, 743, App. on 911 (Nauck 
prefers Reiske’s éoréas to go with his 
amatopas). Nauck’s conjecture in 969 is 
ovr (not dvra) and his change in the cor- 
responding verse 960 should be given. 
Instead of Wecklein’s abandoned zrpoogparov 
y’ éuo0d AaBou in 331 his latest reading tots 
otow dn mpdadatov Avanv AdBo. would have 
been more acceptable. 

The following conjectures are wrongly 
accredited : 328 airs (omitting y’) Wecklein 
after Blaydes, 692 Herwerden before 
Blaydes, 810 ézeé ror Axt, 873 Kawov oixobev 
M. Schmidt before Mekler, 878 déA€pov 
Herwerden before Blaydes, 1014 ovdev 
épeEec Gleditsch on the basis of Fréhlich’s 
dpeEar; 1238 POivovros dpav in Nauck’sreading 
was suggested by Blaydes. 

The following emendations admitted to 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 407 


the text are not accredited to their authors ; 


210 raava waav’, 539 bird, 557 wapa, 772 
*Bénoe, and 1073 zpooyiyverat, Brunck; 68 
iSptoba, 332 dvrimpwpa, and 1084 diaPdpos, 
Dindorf ; 97 xapdéar, 1082 dpriws 68’ at, and 
1044 and 1046 éo7., Hermann ; 445 7° dvdpi, 
Seidler. We should be sorry to see Profes- 
sor Jebb give up the practice, followed in 
the earlier volumes of the series, of noting 
the originators of these little corrections, even 
though they are now universally accepted. 

We miss from the critical notes many 
of the conjectures that are currently re- 
ported. For this we are grateful, for in 
general we may justly infer that Professor 
Jebb has weighed them and found them 
wanting to such an extent that it would 
have been a waste of valuable space to 
mention them. We could cheerfully have 
spared many that have gained admission. 
But there are many others, not only sup- 
ported by great names, but sometimes also 
by intrinsic probability, for which we look 
in vain. Such are Wunder’s rotde 17, Metz- 
ger’s rdawav 139, Braun’s change of order in 
308—311, of which Nauck and Herwerden 
approve, Hilberg’s «iré, rod oopa wot 7V 
316, Hense’s ipty yuvaixes 673 and yovos 
1205. I think that no notice has been 
taken of two valuable works that have 
appeared within the last few years, Her- 
werden’s Lucubrationes Sophocleae and 
Gleditsch’s Cantica der Sophokleischen Tragé- 
dien. At any rate the following attractive 
conjectures, if they cannot all be called 
emendations, are not mentioned: Herwer- 
den, transposition of pdyys and zévev in 
20 and 21 and of zoré and wapa in 555 and 
557, 87 wadau y day, 623 épeis, 682 ov ev 
(note disagreement between Jebb’s note on 
this verse and that on Ph. 24 to which he 
refers), 955 éxroddv or éxtdmuov, 1058 ddos, 
1211 zov; Gleditsch, 129 noticed above, 646 
éx’ olxov, 890 ris for was, 949 and 952 dve- 
rotpov and pévew, 1012 mjpar’ dvoipdv (sug- 
gesting Wecklein’s xvwdad’ dvaipov), 1027 
detva, and many others in the melic parts 
that deserve consideration. 

We could wish that the reasons advanced 
by the best critics for rejecting certain 
verses might have received more attention 
in the commentary. Sometimes the objec- 
tions are so stated that they appear quite 
trivial. On 695 ff we read: ‘Wunder 
rashly rejects the verse. Dobree’s objection 
to it seems to have been the repeated és.’ 
Then follow illustrations of the repeated 
preposition, But even supposing that Dobree 
could have found so simple a grammatical 
construction objectionable, is it quite fair 


to allow the reader to infer that Wunder, 
Dindorf, Blaydes, Nauck, Wecklein, Subkoff 
and others have had no better reason for 
emending or rejecting the verse? See also 
on vv. 24, 301, 305. The interesting ‘black- 
list’ of suspected verses on p. liii, which is 
given as ‘nearly complete,’ might be in- 
creased by the following, omitting the whole- 
sale rejections of such scholars as Schmelzer. 
31—33 Blaydes, 57 f. reduced to one by 
Hense; 54 f. reduced to one by Nauck ; 
90 f. Hermann; 167 Wunder; 260—280 
Blaydes ; 274 f. reduced to one by Hense ; 
308 f. Herwerden ; 313 Wunder ; 351 Opitz ; 
379—81 reduced to one by Hense ; 383 f. 
Herwerden ; 447 Blaydes ; 672 f. reduced 
to one by Nauck ; 678 Herwerden ; 731 f. 
reduced to one by Nauck ; 898 f. Herwerden 
and Nauck ; 1105 Campe ; 1266—7 reduced 
to one by Nauck ; 1225—27 H. F. Muller. 
In this list 735 should be 745, and 1060, 
1069. If the names of the important 
editors who agree with the first critic were 
given, the list would be more valuable to the 
student. That Professor Jebb finds it 
necessary to reject only three out of this 
large list of about 150 bad verses speaks 
volumes for English scholarship. 

In the commentary we note a _ loose 
use of the ‘accusative of respect’ on v. 137 
(the example from Isocrates gives a direct 
object followed by an appositive clause), 350 
(@ is direct obj., déyvota p éxer=ayvod, cf. 
Jebb’s note on O.C. 223, 583, 1119), 608 
(x. is to be explained by the preceding 
question ri 8 €o71), 914 and 941 (ace. re- 
tained in passive, correctly explained on 
158). é&jGov dO’ is not satisfactorily 
explained by the passages given on 159. 
The citations on 1204 f. are not in point. 
It is not a question of adoption into another 
family, but of disowning. The examples 
given on 1241 for the use of dpdfw might 
be cited to prove the contrary, that yetpc 
was necessary to give the word a figurative 
instead of its literal meaning. I mention 
these three notes because others have found 
a change in the text necessary. The new 
interpretation offered of AGoxdAAnTOV aTdp.L0v 
1261, ‘acurb on lips set like stone to stone,’ 
seems impossible. If the reading is correct 
the first interpretation suggested is the best, 
‘a curb set with sharp stones.’ A curb is 
wanted, not to hold the lips together, but 
to give the sufferer something to hold be- 
tween his teeth that he may better endure 
the pain, on the principle of a bullet in the 
mouth of a patient at a surgical operation. 
The more painful the curb the less the sense 
of pain elsewhere. 


408 


I have noticed a few misprints. In the 
text, 551 xadrjra, 611 comma misplaced, 
996 p’ dp’ ; in the critical notes, 331 zpdc- 
garov y’, 632 Kaxeibev, 882 ‘Wunder wrote’ 
etc. belongs to preceding verse, 964 Baous ; 
in the commentary, 80 f. torepov, 83—85 
et tis, 149 f. ev, 679 Adyov, 801 read ‘ 1st. 
pers. sing.’, 898 zoey, 947 transposition 
necessary, 1238 os; in Appendix, p. 207, 
1, 18, insert ‘not’ before ‘to Hyllus.’ In 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


critical note on 1183, ‘Blaydes dpets, which 
Nauck and Mekler cite without noticing the 
a,’ the editor is the guilty one. dp from 
deipw has a; cf. Pers. dpodpev ordAov and Ran. 
377. A similar confusion occurs in the 
index to the Antigone, where under atpw 
is given a reference to the usage of de(pw. 


EpwarpD Capps. 
University of Chicago, 





ERHARDT ON THE 


Die Entstehungder Homerischen Gedichte. Von 
Louis Erparpt. Leipzig, Duncker und 
Humblot. 1894. Pp. cxiii. 546. M. 12. 


Dr. Eruwarpt is certainly a bold man. He 
believes himself to have found the final 
solution of the Homeric question : and what 
is more, he seems to expect to convert every 
one to his view. Itis a pity that he should 
not have started with more moderate asser- 
tions and hopes : for his book contains much 
that is interesting and able, and in many 
points advances the question with which it 
deals ; but excessive claims serve only to 
rouse suspicion and distrust. 

The key which has unlocked to Erhardt 
the great mystery is a right conception of 
the Volksepos—a conception which, as he 
seems to think, has not been attained by 
any of the professed Homerists, with the 
single exception of Niese, and even in his 
case only with an admixture of error which 
makes the two theories, though in essence 
very similar, seem the very opposites of one 
another. Dr. Erhardt began his Homeric 
studies as a historian, not as a philologist : 
and though he has thus been enabled to 
attack the problem witha notable freshness 
of view, which renders his work excellent 
reading, he has perhaps had to pay the 
penalty in an imperfect acquaintance with 
recent work. So far as can be told from his 
book, he knows nothing of anything later 
than Niese and Christ. 

In fact his theory is anything but 
revolutionary ; it is in essence accepted, I 
believe, by most recent workers ; if I may 
speak for myself, it is precisely the general 
conception of the rise of the //iad which I 
have long held. That the creative power of 
the Epos is the poetical genius of an epoch ; 
that the epic poets are the mouthpieces of 
their age, not individual and isolated per- 


HOMERIC QUESTION. 


sons of quite phenomenal genius ; that the 
Iliad grew by successive accretion, each new 
motive affecting what went before and 
producing anticipative as well as subsequent 
changes ; that an original //iad is not to be 
discovered by mere athetesis, and that what 
is called interpolation in our texts is in 
almost every case only a part of a con- 
tinuous creative process; all these theses 
can surely be regarded now almost as com- 
monplaces of criticism. And the ‘ theory of 
the Volksepos’ does not seem to contain 
more than this. It is true that Erhardt 
makes a point of eliminating the diaskeuast 
from the poem, but then the diaskeuast, as 
Lachmann conceived him, had, one thought, 
long disappeared : and the diaskeuast as he 
still exists, the mechanical inventor of a few 
lines here and there to connect portions of 
narrative, is virtually admitted (e.g. in H 
and P) even by Erhardt. He holds too 
that the Volksepos itself may be, and pro- 
bably is, the work of a ‘Sangerschule,’ as 
many of us have all along been supposing 
that it was; so that in our fundamental 
conceptions it does not seem that Erhardt 
has brought us much farther forward. 

And this suspicion is strengthened when 
we come to weigh the results to which the 
new key leads us. Erhardt is led to the 
discovery that the oldest part of the Jliad 
(p. 505) consists of ‘the Wrath (our A), then 
the unsuccessful fighting of the Greeks in 
the absence of Achilles (parts of A-O), the 
sending of Patroklos and his death (II), the 
return of Achilles to battle and the slaying 
of Hector (Y-X). To these was added a 
series of further songs, which partly branched 
off from the main action, partly served to 
complete it’ (the Presbeia, the Agora in B, 
the making of the arms in 3, the deceiving 
of Zeus in B-O, the parting of Hector and 
Andromache in Z, the duels between Paris 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


and Menelaos, Aias and Hector, the 
aristeia of Diomedes and of Idomeneus, the 
Doloneia, the games in W and the ransoming 
of Hector). All this I can of course only 
applaud with all my heart, for these views 
entirely coincide with my own. 

But now we come to a serious point of 
difference. Erhardt holds that these sepa- 
rate songs were all tolerably independent of 
one another, though treating their matter 
under the general unity of the Wrath, That 
is, it would seem, that though the earlier 
singers of the Volksepos had a story which 
dealt (1) with the wrath of Achilles; (2) 
with the consequent discomfiture of the 
Greeks; (3) with the consequent sending 
and death of Patroklos ; (4) with the con- 
sequent return of Achilles to battle and the 
death of Hector; yet these four different 
portions of the story were never combined 
till much later in a consecutive narrative at 
all, but went on more or less independently 
side by side. This is to me a most extra- 
ordinary idea. The whole story is there, 
yet the little links to bind it together are 
denied. Why the Volksepos should not be 
able to create a unity of some 2,000 lines, 
when it could admit unities of 600, is beyond 
my apprehension. And in fact we have in 
our existing J/iad, as I believe myself to 
have shown, the very links which are needed, 
save only between (3) and (4). The agree- 
ment between the four portions of the story, 
when carefully analysed, is complete: so 
complete as to preclude the possibility of 
even a modified independence, and I cannot 
see that Erhardt has done anything to dis- 
prove this agreement. 

With regard to some of the later rhapso- 
dies the case is somewhat different, and I am 
not concerned to deny that, before they were 
incorporated with the J/iad, such portions 
as the Presbeia, and still more the Doloneia, 
may have had a more or less independent 
existence : that is, they were composed with 
a general reference to the plot of the Iliad, 
without fitting exactly into any place in it. 
A similar assumption must be made too in 
the case of the Agora in B and of books 
N-O, which seem to show clear evidence of 
the fusion of elements originally alternative 
to one another. But with regard to the 
bulk of the accretions it seems not only most 
probable, but most consistent with the con- 
ception of the Volksepos as laid down by 
Erhardt himself, to suppose that they were 
originally designed for incorporation, and in 
fact were originally incorporated, with the 
Iliad as it was from time to time, always a 
corpus ready to receive fresh additions. And 


409 


in all that Erhardt has said I can find no 
valid evidence against this view. 

Hence it becomes impossible to accept 
Erhardt’s ‘second period of the Epos,’ ‘in 
which the need of a more systematic ar- 
rangement of the lays ina distinct succession 
made itself felt.’ No reason is given why 
such an obvious need was not felt from the 
very first. In fact Erhardt here all but 
falls into sheer Lachmannism, and what he 
says is open to the objections which have 
been so successfully urged against the 
Kleinliedertheorie. However ingeniously 
he may try to avoid it, the work he assigns 
to this period is in fact no better than the 
task of the diaskeuast, whom he claims to 
dispense with; and the difficulty is acute 
when he comes to Peisistratos, whose collec- 
tion of the lays of the J/iad he expressly 
believes in, and in fact describes as the third 
period of the Epos. The task of Peisistratos, 
he says, was the ‘collecting and writing down 
of what already existed, not arrangement and 
redaction.’ As for the writing down, that 
may of course have been left to Peisistratos, 
though it seems unlikely ; but what possible 
room is there for ‘collecting’ when the 
corpus, with all its little connecting links, 
has already been formed? It is at least 
conceivable that individual lays may have 
existed in a more or less independent form 
till then : but with the links this is absurd. 
Their presence is unanswerable evidence 
that all the collecting had already been 
done. If the J/iiad was not complete as we 
have it before the time of Peisistratos, then 
his work, if work he did, must have been 
redactional ; if the Z/iad already existed in 
its present form, then Peisistratos did not 
collect it. 

It is unfortunate that Erhardt should 
have laid his work open to these funda- 
mental objections in a part of the theory 
which is rather a hindrance than a help to 
his view of the Volksepos—a view which I 
have no doubt is in the main perfectly right, 
and which he has on the whole put better, 
perhaps, than any of his predecessors. It 
looks as though he had not succeeded in 
freeing himself from the traditional rever- 
ence which the name of Lachmann seems 
still to carry with it in Germany. He has 
done such good work that he might very 
easily have done better. In detail of course 
there is much in which it is impossible to 
agree with him; much rests, as in this 
matter it must always rest, on individual 
judgment. But there is much too in which 
he has made advances on what has been 
done before. His analysis, for instance, of 





410 


the Theomachy in Y-®, and of the steps by 
which those two books have attained their 
present form, seems to me excellent; it is 
only a pity that he should not have applied 
the principle of gradual growth, which he 
uses so skilfully for these two books, to the 
Iliad as a whole, without recourse to his 
machinery of second and third periods. He 
has made another excellent suggestion too 
in H; that the Agora of the Trojans, with 
the proposal to surrender Helen, originally 
followed the duel in T, before the invention 
of the Pandaros episode as its conclusion ; 
and that this proposal is what Paris refers 
to, when in Z he speaks of anger against 
the Trojans as the reason why he will not 
take the field. The idea is one which throws 
light on many difficulties, and can hardly 
fail to be right. On the other hand his 
analysis of IL is very unsatisfactory. He 
has not a word to say about the glaring 
signs of dislocation which occur in this book 
wherever the wall is mentioned, and which 
form one of the most instructive handles for 
the criticism of the //iad. And the question 
of the change of armour is certainly not to 
be dismissed in the few words which he 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


devotes to it ina note. In fact his view of 
this most important book does not seem to 
be at all consistent. In his summary 
already quoted, he distinctly, and undoubt- 
edly with justice, puts it down as one of the 
oldest constituents of the J/iad, to which 


‘the Hoplopoiia in } was subsequently added. 


Yet in the analysis itself he says that the 
Hoplopoiia ‘ to all appearance belongs to the 
old portions of the poems, and to an epic 
period beyond which it is not in our power 
to see’; and seems to regard II as in all - 
essentials assuming the existence of &. 

For these and other reasons, which there 
is no space to enter into here, the book is 
most disappointingly unequal. The author 
is so enthusiastic and hopeful, so ingenious 
and acute, his style is so delightfully 
lucid, his views are often so fresh, that 
one would be only too glad to give his 
book unmixed approval. It is certainly 
one to be read and weighed by all students ; 
but it is far indeed from: bringing the 
problem to the ‘endgiiltigen Abschluss’ 
which it promises. 

WALTER Lear, 


EXTENDED AND REMOTE DELIBERATIVES. 


‘ Extended’ and ‘Remote’ Deliberatives in 
Greek. By Witttam Garpner Hats, 
Professor of Latin in the University of 
Chicago. (Extracted from the 7ransactions 
of the American Philological Association. 
Vol. xxiv. 1893.) 


Att who are interested in syntactical 
questions will welcome the above-mentioned 
brochure for the light it throws on two 
subtle points of Greek syntax, which have 
already been debated in the pages of this 
Review. The author sets himself to solve 
the twofold question: Didthe Greek language 
possess a final relative subjunctive and a 
remote deliberative optative? Both ques- 
tions are answered in the negative, and if 
all scholars will not share his conclusions 
they cannot henceforth overlook his 
arguments. 

Part I. of the extracts before us is taken 
up with the subjunctive idiom. After 
giving a brief outline of all that has been 
hitherto written on the subject, the author 
proceeds to state the rival theory of the 
extended deliberative and defends his posi- 
tion as follows. 


1. The introductory expressions after 
which the so-called ‘ final relative with sub- 
junctive ’ is found are all of a type usually 
followed by the deliberative clause. They 
convey the notion either of the existence of 
a difficulty or its absence (presence of 
means); in other words they contain an 
affirmation or negation of that state of 
perplexity which generally postulates a 
deliberative subjunctive. 

2. The historical order of their appearance 
favours a deliberative origin. All the earlier 
examples, down to the last of those cited 
from Xenophon, are found to express 
‘existence of a difficulty,’ while it is in the 
later ones that ‘ existence of means’ occurs. 
This fact points to the development of the 
latter class from the former—a state of things 
which should be reversed, were the ‘ final 
subjunctive’ theory correct. 

3. The case for the deliberative is 
strengthened by the absence of ay in all] the 
disputed examples of Attic sources. The 
final relative with subjunctive is,in Homer, 
almost invariably accompanied by that par- 
ticle, the solitary exceptions being IT’ 459 
and o 334. 








————— 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 411 


Now, on the hypothesis that our instances 
are descended from the Homeric idiom, the 
invariable absence of dy would be inex- 
plicable, whereas on the deliberative theory 
it is only what we should expect. 

Prof. Hale next seeks to corroborate his 
views from a similar idiom said to be found 
in Anglo-Saxon, as well as from an ‘ex- 
tended deliberative future indicative’ of 
which we now hear for the first time. 

Of the twenty-five examples which form 
the subject of the inquiry just summed up, 
five are introduced by ov« éxw and five by 
éyw—both used intransitively ; five others 
have ovx éyw followed by an accusative of 
direct object, being of the form otk exw 
mpopacww, ovdeva éxw. Of the remaining ten 
ovk €or, With or without a predicate, is the 
introductory expression to five; the rest 
are too heterogeneous to admit of classifica- 
tion. 

To the present writer it would seem that 
two of the latter five ought to be eliminated 
from a list of ‘ extended’ deliberatives : 


ov yup adXov 010 dtw Aeyw. Soph. Phil. 938. 
ov mpoddcews aropo & nvtwa €eyw. Isocr. 
21, 
These should be regarded as deliberatives 
proper, as the prolepsis or antiptosis in zpo- 
gddcews and adXov offers no difficulty. 
Otherwise they possess all the marks of 
strict deliberatives. As regards the others 
Prof. Hale has abundantly proved that all 
those in which a subjunctive occurs must be 
set down as being deliberative in origin. A 
doubt may however be raised about some in 
which an optative is used, eg. 


ovdeva yap elxov ootis...réupee. Eur. 
I, T. 588. 

Y | ‘ »” > 3 SX 

OpOvrTa pev...avopa 6 ovdev’ evtotrov 

ovx batts apxeoeev... Soph. Phil. 279. 

OK EXwV...0VOE TY’ Ey YWPUV.,.0S KATEVVATELEV. 


Ib, 691. 


No one can deny that (after a primary 
tense) nothing would be more natural than 
ovdev’ éxw doris rewer. It is further well 
known that the future indicative is retained 
in this construction after a historic tense. 
Moreover if there be any deviation from 
this rule we should expect to find a future 
optative. Nevertheless it has yet to be 
proved that the foregoing examples are not 
cases of final relative with anomalous 
sequence. When it is remembered that the 
optative is the mood of secondary sequence 
in most dependent clauses, the step here 


involved is quite intelligible. It is not 
certain that we do not possess instances of 
the kind, as may be seen from the two 
following parallel passages : 


GAN’ Epov €&w cal padiora pev ples 

évravé’ drrov pe py Tis OWerar Bporav. 
Trach, 801, 

kptWao’ éavriv évOa pa tis eo or. 


Lb. 905. 


This view however loses much of its pro- 
bability from the fact that cioido. is more 
likely due to implied oratio obliqua (where, 
as she thought, none would see). Confirma- 
tion of this is found in another verse, also 
from Sophocles : éfevyov évOa pyror’ éoiunv. 
O. T. 796. Here the context points forcibly 
to indirect discourse as the true explanation 
of the optative. Hence, even in instances 
to which I have taken exception, the balance 
of probability favours the deliberative. It 
must not be lost sight of that Prof. Hale 
does not consider the optatives cited above 
as instances of an indirect remote delibera- 
tive. An indirect remote deliberative would 
necessitate recourse to a direct remote 
deliberative; but Prof. Hale, as well as 
Prof. Jebb, seeks the direct form of doris 
dpxécevev in tis apxéon ; not in tis dpKécese 
which would be the direct remote delibera- 
tive.! 

Prof. Hale is not so felicitous in his 
discovery of an ‘extended’ deliberative 
future indicative. Samples of the latter 
are : 


39) 4D »” = / 
ov’ éve | ppovtidos éyxos | @ tis dAeEerau. 
; 0. P.-169, 
> , 4 ” 30) / 
ov yap Tis Oppos Eat, odd’ Grrot TAEwY 
3 , , x , 
eceuTroAnoer KEepdos 7) Eevocerar. 


Soph. Phil. 302. 


1 I may perhaps be permitted to append here the 
arguments which, in my opinion, militate against 
regarding xptWao’ éavthy 0a wh tis eiocido as a 
certain instance of virtual Or. Obl. 

1. If this were an incontestable case of quoted 
statement—to the exclusion of other influences—it 
should admit of being rendered; ‘Where, as 
she thought, none saw.’ Compare Plato Rep. 614 
B dvaBiods & erevyey & exe? TSoi—‘ which, as he 
alleged, he saw’; cf. also Soph. 0.7. 1246 and 
Pind. Ol. 6, 49. The direct thought or utterance 
would have contained eigeide or cicewpa or eicopa 
or eiodverat. If either of the three former, we 
should have a genuine case of virtual Or. Obl., but 
the consequent rendering would not suit the con- 
text ; if the latter, we are on debateable ground, as 
the question of sequence offers a difficulty whether 
the relative clause expresses a statement of fact or 
of purpose. 

2. The English rendering: ‘ Where, as she thought, 
none would see,’ is ambiguous and may be but a 
mere paraphrase of the ordinary final construction. 
It is one of our ways of expressing intention. 


412 


These possess all the characteristics of the 
final relative clause with the future indica- 
tive! The meaning is admittedly final ; the 
syntactical form is so likewise. In fact, 
practically speaking, the only element com- 
mon to these and deliberative clauses is the 
introductory expression ov« éort. But surely 
a final relative is equally .admissible after 
ovx éo7t. Is it not good Greek to say ovx 
éatw oats Avoerat? Is the corresponding 
Latin, non est consilii vis quo quis mederi 
queat, to be regarded as of deliberative 
origin? The development of an ‘ extended’ 
deliberative future indicative is of course 
possible, but even supposing it to exist, it 
could never with certainty be distinguished 
from the rival idiom exactly similar in form 
and meaning. 

Prof. Hale’s argument might be parodied 
in this way. Let us suppose the existence 
of a deliberative potential to be satisfac- 
torily established and let us take as specimen 
of the same Soph. Zrach. 991 oix exw ws 
av otepfayu Kakov Nevoowr. 

We now look out for an ‘extension’ of 
this idiom in the direction of purpose and 
we alight on the line otd€ pH vais 
éoTw 7 cwbciwev av. Eur. Heracl. 1047. 
This would be a case of ‘ extended’ delibera- 
tive potential. Now the only difference 
between the line of argument here pursued 
and that leading to Prof. Hale’s discovery, 
is the fact that the deliberative potential 
has so far not met with recognition from 
grammarians, whereas the deliberative 
future indicative is well warranted. 

The remaining instance of this idiom may 
be readily explained without recourse to the 
principle of ‘extension.’ In the lines 
aitov yap Set tpopnbéms | Oro tpoTw THod 
exxvaic Oyo Ttvxns, Aesch. Prom. 86, the 
phrase dct zpounfews otw tpd7w is either 
equivalent to det zpopnbeicbar drws or to det 
mpopnOias...... In the latter case we should 
be dealing with a strictly deliberative clause 
or at least an indirect question ; the former 
is a well-known construction. 

One other example of those discussed in 
the treatise under review calls for com- 
ment : 

ovKer’ eioiv éArrides 
rot Tpardopevos Gavarov “Apyciwy diyo. 


Kur. Or. 722. 


The expression ovxér’ ciciv éA7ides, if not 
containing a verbum sentiendi, has at least 
a verbal substantive sentiend?. Further the 


1 For present purposes it matters little whether 


we call them final or consecutive. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


state of ‘no hope’ is certainly not far re- 
moved from a state of perplexity.* 
Moreover, as our author informs Mr. 
Earle, ‘ hopes do not exist in order that one 
may escape’ and hence they should not be 
made to bear the strain of a final appendage, 


-even of the ‘extended’ type. 


Happily the defects just noted, if defects 
they be, do not in the least invalidate the 
main contention of the treatise, viz. the 
non-existence of that remarkable phenomenon 
—a ‘Greek final relative with subjunctive.’ . 
This is a theory which Prof. Hale’s acute 
and scholarly arguments have at last dis- 
posed of, at any rate as regards Attic 
Greek, although he has probably not said 
the last word on that portion of the subject 
which is an inroad on Homeric grammar. 

Part II. contains a most searching study 
of the remote deliberative—a theory which 
has been widely accepted in this country. 

Prof. Hale first deals with the bibliography 
of the subject, stating the views not only of 
authors of grammars but also of com- 
mentators on the classics and others. It is 
to be regretted he has omitted the name of 
Paley,® who certainly deserves mention. The 
inquiry leads to the decisive rejection of 
Mr. Sidgwick’s hypothesis, the proofs being 
the following :— 


1. The idea of- ‘remoteness from the 
possible’ put forward as the distinguishing 
characteristic and raison d ’étre of the remote 
deliberative 


(2) is not outside the range of meaning 
assignable to the potential ; (6) neither does 
it constitute, as is alleged, sufficient ground 
for differentiation between the (subjunctive) 
proximate and remote deliberative ; (c) this 
idea is not actually found in all Mr. 
Sidgwick’s examples. 

2. On the other hand (a) the potential is 
not only a priori sufficient to convey this 
notion of ‘wild impossibility,’ but (5) pas- 
sages are forthcoming—and that in great 
abundance—which correspond exactly to the 
disputed examples, save that the presence of 
dv leaves no room for doubt as to their 
potential character. A list of these is given 


2 Literally : ‘no hopes remain as to whither I am 
to turn to escape.’ 

3 Paley discussed most of the mooted passages as 
they came before him in his commentary on the 
Attic Tragedians. To him the omission of &y in 
potential clauses seemed a matter of course, and he 
adheres to the MS. reading in many places where 
other critics insert &y, e.g. Aesch. Ag. 535, 1346 
(Paley’s numbering), see also Bacch. 747. Cf. the 
indices to his Aeschylus and Euripides (vols. i. and 
ii.) under the word ‘ Optative.’ 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


on page 192 and it alone is quite sufficient 
to settle the question. 

3. An examination of the context of some 
of the alleged instances of remote delibera- 
tive favours the potential theory: e.g. 
Aesch. Cho. 593-4 where dpacaris said to be 
potential and to act as a pointer to the 
* grammatical affinities’ of tis Aéyou. Simi- 
larly Eur. Ale. 48 and 52. 

4. Mr. Sidgwick’s objections are not 
insoluble, not even his query as to why the 
omission of av should be confined just to the 
class of expressions introduced by ovx éortt. 
Prof. Hale replies that as regards the 
independent construction the omission of av 
is far more frequent than Mr. Sidgwick 
would seem to allow. Hecites Aesch. Ag. 
1163, Suppl. 727, Eur. Andr. 929, Hipp. 
1186.1 1t is however freely admitted to 
be somewhat curious that the representatives 
of the dependent construction should all be 
relative. After examinatiom of a list of 
potential optatives taken at random from 
some lexicons the following solution is sug- 
gested: ay is the particle of contingency as 
opposed to bare possibility, and its omission 
seems to take place in cases where the latter 
idea alone is conveyed.” 


1 It might have been added that some of those 
retained by Paley have as good authority as those 
cited here, z.c. Aesch. Ag. 535 (Paley) 1346 (ditto), 
Eur. Bacch. 747, Helen. 992, Hipp. 868 (Paley). Of 
course it is needless to add that instances occur in 
Homer, Pindar and Theocritus. 

2 Paley seems to have hit on the same explana- 
tion. On 4g. 603 he comments thus : ‘ The optative 


413 


It will be noticed that Prof. Hale directs 
his attack especially against the groundwork 
of Mr. Sidgwick’s theory, namely, the dis- 
tinction between the possible and remote 
from the possible. To the present writer 
such a division taken as a basis of syntacti- 
cal forms seemed in the highest degree 
fantastical. In dealing with exclamations 
of persons in perplexity the context is 
generally sufficient to explain the nature of 
the situation, and the subjunctive idiom is 
quite capable of conveying even the most 
whimsical ideas, e.g. trép dorépas TéTwpat ; 
Obviously the potential is likewise available 
to express either a maximum or a minimum 
of possibility. One hears, in fine, of no 
language possessing special forms for ex- 
pressing ditferent shades or different degrees 
of possibility. This was certainly a weak 
point in Mr. Sidgwick’s armour. 

It may be remarked in conclusion that, 
although unhesitatingly rejecting Mr. 
Sidgwick’s addition to our syntactical tables, 
Prot. Hale does not claim more than a very 
strong probability for the potential theory. 
This reserve only renders his contribution 
towards the solution of the problem all the 
more valuable. 

J. Donovan. 


expresses a purely mental conception apart from any 
condition.’ And on Eur. Ale. 52 he writes: ‘It is 
a peculiarity of relative words to take the optative 
without dy in some cases where a merely contingent 
event is conceived.’ By ‘merely contingent’ he 
means what Prof. Hale terms ‘bare possibility.’ 


ALY’S ROMAN LITERATURE, 


Geschichte der rémischen Litteratur, von 
Friepricoh Ay. Berlin: 1894.  R. 
Girtner’s Verlagsbuchhandlung. 8vo. 
pp. 356. 


Dr. Ay, who is favourably known by two 
little books on the life and writings of 
Cicero and of Horace, has prepared a_ brief 
history of Roman literature with a very 
definite purpose. His desire is to supplement 
the small portion of Latin literature which 
can be actually read in the upper classes of 
schools by such a sketch as may enable them 
to have some conception of it as a whole, 
and so to enter more completely into the 
intellectual life of the ancient world. Hence 
the book is not exactly one for the general 
reader, but still less is it one for the profes- 
NO. LXXIII. VOL. VIII. 


sional student. There are occasional hints 
as to the MSS. and the best editions, but on 
the whole there is little of the paraphernalia 
of learning. On the other hand there is a 
good deal of independence of judgment ; 
and in particular there is some sharp 
criticism of Mommsen’s literary judgments, 
which, to say the truth, are much more 
conspicuous for trenchancy and brilliance 
than for sobriety. There are fairly numerous 
quotations, with translations, by Dr. Bruno 
Kaiser, in the metres of the originals, in 
which may often be noticed a far from 
admirable spondee in the second half of the 
pentameter. The general plan and compass 
of the book seem well adapted to the purpose 
in view. The introduction contains some 
excellent remarks on the chief characteristics 
GG 


414 


of the Roman nation and the Latin language. 
The derivation of carmen and Casmena from 
canere in the chapter on the beginnings of 
Latin poetry is of course impossible. With- 
out disparaging the work of Naevius, Dr. 


Aly entirely agrees with Lucian Miiller’s . 


protest against Mommsen’s depreciation of 
the character and poetry of Ennius, treating 
him as the true founder of Roman litera- 
ture. It is worth notice by the way that he 
treats the famous line of Naevius as a 
Saturnian, reading Vato Metella 
consules fiunt ; and that he does not follow 
the more recent fashion of accentuating 
Saturnians. He differs quite as widely from 
Mommsen’s estimate of Plautus, and finds 
in him a genuine representative of the 
vigorous popular element in the drama, as 
Terence represents that of refined beauty. 
And he has some excellent remarks in quali- 
fication of Mommsen’s general estimate of 
the New Comedy. He is equally at variance 
with Mommsen’s praise of the comoedia 
togata, and with his defence of Caesar’s action 
towards Laberius. In fact for the whole of 
the literature of the Republic Dr. Aly gives 
us a running protest against the views which 
the genius of the great historian has made 
fashionable at present. He is naturally 
most emphatic in his attack upon the 
‘thoroughly unscientific’ account of Cicero, 
by which Mommsen has pandered to the 
vulgar popular prejudice, and has led even 
the sober Dr. Schanz to speak of him as a 
‘gefallene Grosse.’ Dr. Aly’s own sketch is 
excellent in its compressed but clear survey 
of his literary activity ; but it would have 
been more convincing, if it had allowed a 
little more room for the shadows as well as 
the lights of his character and his genius. 


Romae - 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. | 


Nothing is said which is inaccurate, but the 
effect of the whole is somewhat misleading. 
The same strong reaction leads the author 
to do less than justice to the charm of 
Caesar’s prose: and he seems to forget that 
such simplicity and clearness are themselves 
signs of the highest art. To Catullus and 
Lucretius he dves no. more than justice ; of 
Vergil he writes sympathetically, and fully — 
recognizes his position as one of the first of 
‘reflective poets,’ if not ‘a naive genius,’ a 
distinction which recurs with somewhat 
wearying frequency. The view taken is very 
much that of Ribbeck in his history of Latin 
poetry. ToSallust Dr. Aly does something 
more than justice; to Livy he is at least 
completely just. On the whole it may be 
fairly said that he gives a sober, accurate 
and kindly sketch of Latin literature, with- 
out anything of special value for English 
students, but well suited for the class of 
readers for whom it is intended. The litera- 
ture of the decline is for the most part 
adequately treated, though such a notice as 
that of Cyprian is so brief as to be almost 
misleading. Due notice is taken of Mr. 
Hardy’s interesting researches into the MSS. 
of Pliny, but the valuable evidence recently 
brought to light by Professor W. M. Ramsay 
as to Tacitus’s proconsulship in Asia is 
ignored. Dr. .Aly follows Ribbeck in 
treating Apuleius as the last of the Roman 
poets, though not without reference to 
Claudian and Namatianus; his survey of 
the prose writers he closes with Ammianus. 
His 350 pages are brightened for his German 
readers with many happy references to their 
native literature and especially to Goethe. 


Ae Be We 





TRUMBULLS STUDIES IN 


Studies in Oriental Social Life, and Gleams 
Srom the East on the Sacred Page. By H. 
Cray TrumBuLt. Philadelphia, 1894. 


GREECE was the source of Occidental culture, 
but many elements of Greek life can be 
explained best by comparison with Oriental 
customs. For instance, nothing in Euro- 
pean modern life throws so much light upon 
the position of woman in Athens, and the 
relations of Athenians to their wives and 
the hetaerae, as the position of woman in 
Japan, and the readiness of the men of 


ORIENTAL SOCIAL LIFE. 


Japan to turn to their wives for devotion 
and to the geisha girls for entertainment. 
Dr. Trumbull has gathered a mass of in- 
formation and observations on Oriental be- 
trothals and weddings, hospitality, funerals 
and mourning, prayers and praying. TIllus- 
trations may be drawn thence for many 
passages of Greek literature. Oriental 
customs of mourning allow us to supply 
details and parallels for the lamenta- 
tions for Patroclus (Homer & 22 ff.) and 
for Hector (X 405 ff., Q 710 ff.), and show 
the full significance of Homer y 259 ff., 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


where Nestor says of the fate of Aegisthus 
if Menelaus had found him alive: rov ye 
KUVES TE Kal Olwvol KaTedaWar,...0Vde Ke TIS MW 
kAatoev ’Ayatiddwy. The stories told of 
Oriental hospitality illustrate the feeling 
expressed by Orestes in Aesch. Cho. 554 ff. : 
@or emealew Twa...Kkal Tad evverew: TL 81) 
mvAnot Tov ikerny ameipyerar Aiyiobos, «l rep 
oldev évdnpos Tapwv ; and 637: ei rep Pirogev’ 
eotiv. The author gives from the experience 
of Dr, L. Woolsey Bacon a striking parallel 
to the entertainment of Heracles by Adme- 
tus (Eur. Alc. 509 ff.), in spite of the latter’s 
grief for Alcestis. He says that Koords 
ceased their wailing in order to avoid dis- 
turbing stranger guests: ‘the privileges of 
mourning gave way to the demands of hos- 
pitality.” After reading the chapter on 
Oriental hospitality, one can no longer 
regard as a mere quibble the claim of Lycaon 
(Homer ® 75 f.), that Achilles should not 
kill him since he had eaten food (though as 


PERSICHETTI ON 


Niccolo Persichetti. Viaggio archeologico 
sulla Via Salaria nel circondario di Citta- 


ducale. Rome. 1893. Pp. 212. 


Tuts treatise is the fruit of a commission 
given to the author (the head of a noble 
family of Aquila) by the Minister of Public 
Instruction to explore the remains of the 
ancient Via Salaria between Rieti and the 
village of Tufo and between Antrodoco 
(Interocrium) and 8. Vittorino (Amiternum), 
this latter portion being a branch of the 
main road which was continued to the coast 
at Giulianova (Castrum Novum). Between 
Rieti and Antrodoco and from there to 8. 
Vittorino the line of route almost coincides 
with that of the modern railroad from 
Rieti to Aquila, which is only five miles 
from S. Vittorino. Travellers by it will 
remember the tremendous zigzags by which 
it climbs up from Antrodoco. 

The date of the construction of the Via 
Salaria is unknown, but its name testifies 
to its antiquity, for with the exception of 
the Via Latina it is the only great Roman 
road which is not called after the censor or 
consul who constructed it. It is first men- 
tioned by Livy under the year 361 B.c. ; 
but probably at this date it only went as 
far as Rieti. The fact that Forwm Decii 
lies about half-way between Rome and 


415 


a prisoner) in the tent of the son of Peleus. 
The author notes many resemblances as well 
as contrasts between Oriental and Occidental 
usages, but does not make entirely clear his 
view of the connexion. Thus he speaks of 
the ‘remarkable survival of these Oriental 
mourning customs...in the Irish wake,’ and _ 
calls attention to the fact that the Irish cry 
of ullagone is ‘identical in both sense and 
sound with the Arabic designation of the 
Oriental mourning cry,’ without explaining 
the relation between the two. 

But on the whole I do not know where 
else the classical scholar can find so conve- 
niently gathered so much illustrative ma- 
terial on the subjects treated. The author, 
as may be gathered from the second title of 
the book, has collected also parallels to 
customs recorded in the Bible. 


Tuomas DALE SEYMOUR, 
Yale College. 


THE VIA SALARIA. 


Castrum Truentinum or Truentum would on 
the analogy of Forum Appi, F. Aurelit and 
F. Flaminwi seem to show that the road 
was continued to Zruentum in the censorship 
of P. Decius Mus, B.c. 304. After leaving 
Reate it followed the course of the Velino 
(Avens), the first noteworthy place which it 
traversed being Cutilia or Aquae Cutiliae 
celebrated for its three lakes, on one of 
which was the floating island known as the 
Umbilicus Italiae, and for its mineral waters, 
a too liberal use of which caused the death 
of the Emperor Vespasian. On the edge of 
one of these lakes Signor Persichetti came 
upon a piece of the old road about fifty feet 
in length, but he reports that other large 
pieces, which are noticed by Keppel Craven 
in his LHzxeursions in the Abruzzi, have 
recently been destroyed. At Cutilia he 
found considerable remains of buildings, the 
most important being remains of Zhermae. 
At Interocrium, six Roman miles from 
Cutilia, the road left the plain and ascended 
to cross the Apennines. At about four 
miles from Jnterocrium, immediately under 
Monte Terminillo (7,710 feet), which Signor 
Persichetti identifies with JJons Tetricus, 
the Tetricae horrentes rupes of Virgil, the 
real difficulties of the road began. For the 
next five miles there is ample testimony to 
the engineering powers of the Romans, the 
Ga2 


416 


most striking features being the galleries or 
tunnels through the rock, of which the 
longest is 200 yards in length, and the huge 
supporting walls which carry the road, some- 
times far above the stream, sometimes below 


it, now on one side of it, now on the other, - 


wherever the ground offered least difficulty. 
All this is well described by Signor Persi- 
chetti, and his remarks are illustrated by 
several photogravures. It was in this part 
of the road that he had the good fortune to 
discover an unknown milestone in situ. It 
is the sixty-ninth from Rome and bears an 
inscription of the year B.c, 16. 

At about nine miles from Antrodoco the 
difficulties ceased, and the road emerged on 
the broad upper valley of the Velino. Two 
anda half miles further lies Bacugno, which 
Signor Persichetti identifies as the site of 
Forum Decii, placed by Kiepert at 8. Croce, 
nearly two miles distant. The name and 
some incorrect information as to the pro- 
venance of an inscription has led previous 
authorities to place here the well-known 
Fanum Vacunae; but Signor Persichetti 
shows that the true site of this place, which 
was a vicus as well as a temple, is to be 
found nearer Antrodoco, at a small village 
called Laculo, situated at a considerable 
height above the road. At Valacrine, the 
birth-place of the Emperor Vespasian, 
marked by some remains near the village of 
Collicelli, theroad made the final ascent to the 
watershed, and after crossing it at a height 
of about 3,500 feet above the sea, descended 
into the valley of the Tronto (/ruentus). 
The next station on the Antonine Itinerary 
is Vicus Badies, tweive miles from Falacrine. 
Four miles further on the road reached the 
village of Tufo, the limit of Signor Persi- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


chetti’s researches, which he plausibly iden- 
tifies with the station Ad Martis mentioned 
in the Peutinger Table. 

Of that part of the Via Salaria which led 
from Interocrium to Amiternum there are 
few visible remains. It first traversed the 
gorge, three miles in length, known as the 
Fosso di Rapello, which has more than once 
played a part in military annals. After 
ascending about 830 feet it emerged on 
one of the high plains so characteristic of 
Apennine scenery. This one is about 
74 miles long; it terminates-at Vigliana, 
the site of the ancient /isternae. A little 
before Vigliana the watershed (3,300 feet) 
between the Velino and the Aterno is 
marked by the railway station of Sella di 
Corno. The next place on the route is 
Civita-Tommassa (foruli), whence the road 
proceeded in a bee-line to 8. Vittorino 
(Amiternum). This latter part of its course, 
about which there was some doubt, has been 
clearly elucidated by Signor Persichetti. 

It should be noticed that in the first 
chapter, which deals with Roman roads in 
general, there are some inaccuracies. The 
distinction between the various classes of 
roads is not clearly brought out, and the 
statements on page 14 with regard to the 
officials who had the charge of the roads are 
incorrect. In the useful map at the end of 
the volume the milestone found at Antrodoco 
is by a slip marked as LXVII instead of 
LXIV. These however are trifling blem- 
ishes which do not detract from the real value 
of the work. It is a solid contribution to 
Italian archaeology and topography, and in 
particular to our knowledge of the Roman 
system of road-making. 

ARTHUR TILLEY. 


ROBINSON’S PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN. 


The Philocalia of Origen. The text revised 
with a critical introduction and indices: 
by J. Armitace Rosrnson, Norrisian 
Professor of Divinity in the University 
of Cambridge. (Cambridge University 
Press, 1893. Pp. lii. 278.) 


Tus edition will prove a welcome boon to 
all students of Theology or of Christian 
Literature. For the textual criticism of 
Origen and for that of the New Testament 
alike the recovery of the textual tradition 
of the Philocalia is of great importance. 


But the work has even greater value a 
an end in itself, as providing the student 
with this excellent introduction to the study 
of Origen for the first time in a trustworthy 
text. 

The edition of the Philocalia owes its 
origin to the former motive. Prof. Robinson 
had contemplated an edition of the contra 
Celsum, and had made considerable progress, 
in co-operation with Mr. Wallis, in sifting 
the MS. tradition of that work, But, 
owing largely to the advice of Dr. Hort, 
he was soon led to take in hand the Philocalia 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


MSS. as an indispensable preliminary of 
the other task. Then came the discovery 
that Dr. Koetschau was at work in the 
same field, also with a view to editing the 
contra Celsum. The two workers published 
their results independently, Mr. Robinson 
in the Journal of Philology 1889, Dr. 
Koetschau in Zeate und Untersuchungen 
VI. i. From the latter scholar we may 
hope for a definitive text of the contra 
Celsum. Meanwhile we have in the book 
now under notice what may fairly be called 
a model of editorial work. 

The introduction, dealing with the 
materials for the text, is lucidly clear, and 
the general results as bearing upon the 
Philocalia are given in a ‘family tree’ 
(p. xxvi. sg.). This differs slightly as to the 
grouping of some of its branches from that 
given by Koetschau. So far as it is possible 
to form a judgment without personal know- 
ledge of the MSS., Mr. Robinson appears, 
in his summary of reasons, sufficiently to 
justify each step in his genealogical analysis. 
With regard to the MSS. of the contra 
Celsum, they all prove to be dependent on 
the one MS. Vat. Gr. 386 ; Koetschau, who 
in 1889 maintained the independence of 
Par. Suppl. Grec. 616, has now, it appears, 
come round to Prof. Robinson’s view. 


417 


The most interesting subordinate question 
discussed (pp. xl.—xlix.) is the origin of 
Philoc. e. xxiv. which in Eusebius Praep. Lv., 
whence Basil and Gregory drew it, is 
ascribed to an enigmatical ‘Maximus.’ The 
solution proposed for the puzzle,—that 
Basil and Gregory incorporated it because 
they knew it to occur in the Adamantian 
Dialogue, ascribed by them to Origen, but 
that the unknown author of the Dialogue 
took it in reality from a dialogue of 
Methodius where ‘ Maximus’ was simply the 
interlocutor,—is made, to say the least, 
highly probable by Prof. Robinson. 

Elaborate criticism of the text and 
indices is scarcely necessary in this notice. 
Both alike show every sign of scholarly 
care, and the misprints are singularly few: 
in fact I have only observed one, in the 
last word of p. 277. 

The gratitude owed to the illustrious 
editors of the Philocalia by all who value 
a fearless and reverent constructive spirit 
in theology may also be extended to the 
conscientious accuracy by which their labour 
of love has now been recovered in something 
like its pristine form. 


A, ROBERTSON. 


THE MYSTERIES AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Ein- 
jluss auf das Christentum. Von Lic. 
Gustay AwnricH, Privatdozent in Strass- 

. burg. Giéttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ru- 
precht. 1894. Pp. 237. Price 5s. 6d. 


THis volume supplies a want to which 
expression was given by Mr. Mayor at the 
close of the interesting discussion which 
took place a short time ago in the Classical 
Review regarding the origin of the Lord’s 
Supper. It works out fully the relation 
of the ancient mysteries to early Christian- 
ity—a subject, it may be remembered, 
which was considered in some of its bearings 
in one of the unrevised Hibbert Lectures on 
the Hellenizing of Christianity by the late 
Dr. Hatch. As the result of a very full 
consideration of the whole subject the 
author comes to the conclusion that the 
general judgment of the ecclesiastical writers 
on the mysteries that formed the mainstay 
of falling paganism forbids the idea that 


any conscious or direct acceptance of forms 
and institutions from the mystery-worship 
can have taken place. The final result of 
assimilation to the mysteries both of 
baptism and the Lord’s Supper is very 
fully admitted ; but the process is traced 
mainly to the magic of gnosticism—that 
attempt to express in symbolical and mytho- 
logical form a combination of pagan, Jewish, 
and Christian ideas. The experiences, aims, 
and theories also of gnosticism, in which 
there was naturally inherent somewhat 
of the mysterious element, aided the pro- 
cess; and it was further promoted by the 
purifications, the magic, and the ‘ Telestik’ 
of the Neo-Platonists and by the mystical 
tendency of later philosophy in which the 
religion of the time found its most distinct 
expression, Anything approaching to con- 
scious imitation of the mysteries or designed 
borrowing from them—of deliberate accom- 
modation to the religious language or modes 
of conception of paganism—Mr. Anrich 


418 


does not allow. ‘We have here to do,’ he 
says, ‘with a natural, necessary, and 
therefore unconsciously effected process.’ 
Hatch, it may be remembered, claimed no 
more than this; but he traced directly to 


the mysteries what Mr. Anrich shows good ~ 


ground for considering as the result of a 
much wider and more complex range of 
phenomena. The earliest apostolic age is 
known to have been actuated by ideas very 
remote from those of the mysteries; and 
later on the conceptions of Christianity 
formed by St. Paul and the author of the 
Fourth Gospel are in the main to be under- 
stood as no more than ‘original creations 
of the Christian genius on the basis of 
genuine Judaism and to have been influenced 
only in a secondary degree by Greek 
thought.’ The author finds no ground for 
tracing the views of St. Paul or St. John 
on baptism or the Lord’s Supper to Greek 
influences. Pfleiderer’s connexion of the 
Pauline view of baptism with Eleusis is 
shown to be quite forced, the ‘ new birth’ 
being nowhere mentioned as accompanying 
initiation, and the ‘new name’ of the 
hierophant being merely the official one of 
iepwvupzos. The man’s own name came back 
to him in the inscription on his tomb. The 
opinion of the mysteries entertained by 
Philo (De Sacrificant. p. 857 A)—a con- 
temporary of St. Paul, a Jew, and a 
philosopher whose writings are steeped in 
the language of the mysteries—may also be 
allowed as a subsidiary proof that Eleusis 
is probably about the last place in the 
world which St. Paul would have sought to 
associate with a new Christian institution ; 
although of course it will be readily allowed 
that the conception of the mysteries as 
set forth in the Hymn to Demeter or as 
practised by devout Greeks in the Periclean 
age is something very different from that 
associated by Philo with the practice of 
his time. 

The process of the assimilation of the 
Christian sacraments to the mysteries is 
one that in the nature of things must have 
been slow and gradual, affecting as it did 
mainly the sphere of religious feeling and 
experience. The increasing degree to which 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


these were dominated by the mystic ten- 
dency of falling paganism may be explained 
by the fact that Christianity presented 
some points of contact to those tendencies. 
‘Christianity,’ says Mr. Anrich, ‘from its 
very origin was in some respects a knowledge 
concerned with revealed truths of faith, a 
side which was wanting to the popular . 
religions of paganism, but has a sort of 
analogy in the revelations of the mysteries 
[but ‘to the Eleusinians,’ says Grote, ‘the 
Homeric Hymn was- genuine and sacred 
history’] and in the Neo-Pythagorean and 
the Neo-Platonic assumption of the divine 
revelation of the highest truths. Baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper on the other hand 
were two sacred acts which appeared to the 
pagans as mysteries and must have awak- 
ened corresponding feelings and dispositions.’ 
The spread of this view was largely favoured 
by the great Alexandrians, whose general 
conception of Christianity’ came to be a 
yvao.s pvotnpiov. The mysteries-termino- 
logy, too, was largely used by Christian 
writers because it yielded convenient forms 
of expression for cognate experience. It 
was widely spread, was consecrated by 
tradition, and had the additional advantage 
of being easily intelligible to antiquity. 
The points of contact, therefore, between 
the mysteries and Christianity rest upon no 
conscious borrowing from the mystery- 
system, but are a necessary consequence of 
the dominance of the idea of mystery in 
religious feeling. In his contribution to 
the Essays and Reviews Jowett thirty years 
ago recommended a lexilogus of theological 
terms as the great desideratum for the 
proper understanding of the New Testa- 
ment. This method is applied in this 
volume to the mysteries-terminology with 
sound judgment and an adequate acquaint- 
ance with the pagan and Christian literature 
connected with the subject. There seems 
on the whole good ground for concluding 
that the Christian sacraments are neither 
‘pagan survivals’ nor ‘heathen beliefs 
baptized into Christ.’ 


J. HuTcHIson. 
Glasgow. 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


419 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


CAVPI$ UND MAVPINN. 


Am Schlusse seines Artikels iiber die 
Namen der griechischen Vasenmaler iiussert 
sich de Witte (Bullet. de Corresp. Hell. 1878, 
S. 552) iiber die Inschrift FAVPI$ EMOESE 
oder MEIOESE, welche Postalaccas auf 
einer Pyxis in Athenischen Privatbesitz 
gelesen hatte (Arch. Zig. 1876, S. 38), fol- 
gendermaassen: ‘.. . Cette lecture est 
douteuse, et je crois qu'il est prudent d’at- 
tendre des découvertes ultérieures, avant 
d’admettre le nom de Gwuris dans la liste des 
fabricants de vases.’ Diese Mahnung de 
Wittes zur Vorsicht ist nicht beachtet 
worden. Klein giebt in seinen JMeistersig- 
naturen?, S. 213, den Namen Gauris ohne 
ein Fragezeichen an, und an einer andern 
Stelle desselben Buches (S. 10) nimmt er 
auf ihn Bezug und vermuthet dass er einer 
Vasenmalerin angehért habe.t Neuerdings 
hat P. Kretschmer (Die Griech. Vasenin- 
schriften, S. 74) dieser Auffassung wider- 
sprechen ; den Namen an sich jedoch halt er 
fiir gesichert und reiht ihn unter die Vasen- 
malernamen mit fremdartigen oder wenig- 
stens nicht-attischen Charakter ein. 

Die angebliche Pyxis ‘des’ oder ‘der’ 
Gauris befindet sich gegenwirtig im K. 
Antikenkabinet zu Kopenhagen, wo ich sie 
im vorigen Jahre studiren und eine Abschrift 
der Inschrift nehmen durfte. Die Zweifel 
de Wittes erschienen mir vollstiindig be- 
richtigt. Der erste Buchstabe des Namens 
ist nicht sicher ein Gamma: er hat die fol- 
gende Form A, Der von Postalaccas fiir 
ein Sigma gehaltene sechste Buchstabe ist 
sicher kein solches, sondern ein Omega (11). 
Von dem Reste des folgenden Buchstabens, 
welchen Postalaccas sah (A) und den de 


Witte zu M ergiinzte (MEMOESE), Klein 


als \ wiedergiebt (A\EMOE), konnte ich 
keine Spur mehr entdecken. Er kann sehr 
wohl dagewesen und im Verlaufe der Jahre 
erloschen sein, um so leichter als die In- 
schrift mit einer weissen, leicht zu zerstéren- 


1 Die Verwendung weiblicher Arbeit in den Tépfer- 
werkstiitten Athens ist uns durch die Hydria der 
Sammlung Caputi in Ruvo (Annali, 1876, Tav. D, E) 
fiir die mittleren Dezennien des 5ten Jahrhunderts 
sicher bezeugt. Auf einem herrlichen, streng rot- 
figurigen Schalenfragmente von der Akropolis von 
Athen erscheint ebenfalls eine Frau in einer 'Tépfer- 
werkstitte: leider ist nicht mehr zu erkennen, in 
welcher Weise sie beschiiftigt war. 


den Farbe auf den schwarzen Firmisgrund 
aufgetragen ist. Von dem Verbum sind die 
drei Buchstaben E[™O ganz sicher; Post- 
alaccas sah noch einen weitere Rest, welchern 
die obere Querhasta eines Epsilon zu sein 
scheint. 

Nach diesen Wahrnehmungen durfte die 
bisher angenommene Lesung des Namens 
/ AVPI$ als beseitigt gelten und es blieb 
ein Name zu suchen, welcher den vorhande- 
nen Buchstaben besser entsprach. Man 
wiirde hierbei auf dem Boden der Hypothese 
stehen geblieben sein, wire nicht eine der 
‘ découvertes ultérieurs,’ auf welche de Witte 
hoffte, hinzugekommen. Das British Mu- 
seum erwarb vor kurzem eine kleine, 
schwarzgefirnisste Pyxis, wahrscheinlich aus 
der Gegend von Aidin, auf deren Deckel 
in rotfiguriger Manier ein rechter Arm, ein 
Schwert in der Scheide haltend, und zur 
Linken, unter dem Arme, die in zwei Zeilen 
geschriebene purpur aufgemalte Kiinstler- 
inschrift 


MAVPIALN 
EMOlE 


zu sehen ist- Kein Zweifel! Wir haben 
den fragmentirten Malernamen auf der 
Pyxis in Kopenhagen ebenfalls MAVPISLN 
zu lesen. Auch dort wird das My die eigen- 
thiimliche Form mit den kurzen Schenkeln 
gehabt haben, woraus sich der Rest / 
erklirt. Der Rest (A) welchen Postalaccas 
vor dem F['O... constatirte, ist der 
obere vordere Theil eines N, 

Die Anwendung des Imperfectum EMOJE 
auf der Pyxis im British Museum ist sicher, 
Moéglicherweise war auch auf dem Kopen- 
hagener Gefiisse die gleiche Form E[OIJE 
oder Ef["OE verwendet, doch kénnen wir, 
da die Pyxis hinter den angegebenen Buch- 
staben einen Bruch zeigt, dies nicht sicher 
erwissen. 

Ueber die kiinstlerische Art des Vasen- 
malers Maurion ein Urtheil zu fiillen, er- 
scheint verwegen, gegeniiber dem geringen 
Bilderschmuck, welchen die beiden kleinen 
Werke des Meisters in Kopenhagen und in 
London zeigen: hier ist, wie wir bereits 
oben sagten, nur ein Arm mit einem 
Schwerte, dort ein Krater, in ziemlich 
fliichtiger Weise, dargestellt. Fiir die Le- 
benszeit des Malers giebt uns jedoch der 


420 


Charakter der Inschrift, wie ich glaube 
einen sicheren Anhalt. Das Omega einerseits 
und die zweizeitige Anordnung des Kiinstler- 
inschrift andrerseits weisen in die mittleren 
Dezennien des 5ten Jahrhunderts ; ein Zeit- 
genosse yon ihm, Sotades, wendet dieselbe 
Form des Verbums, Ef OIE, an. 

Was den Namen Mavpiwy an sich betrifft, 
welcher sonst, so viel ich sehe, nicht weiter 
bezeugt ist, so darf man wohl in Erwagung 
ziehen, ob wir in ihm nicht eine Weiterbil- 
dung von Maipos und demnach in dem 
Vasenmaler einen nach Attika Zugewander- 
ten oder einen auslindischen Sclaven zu 
erkennen haben, wie einen Sxvys, einen 
Avdds, und einen Supicos. 

P. Hartwic. 

Rom, Sept. 1894. 





C. SEPTIMIUS, PROCONSUL OF ASIA. 
B.c. 56—55. 


THE late M. Waddington, in his invalu- 
able treatise Yastes des Provinces asiatiques 
de Empire romain, 1872, gives’ the 
succession of the proconsuls of the Roman 
Province of Asia from Quintus Cicero to 
Claudius Pulcher as follows :— 


Q. Tullius M. f. M. n. Cicero......B.c. 61-58. 
C. Fabius M. f. [Hadrianus] ......8.c. 58-57. 
T. Ampius T. f. [Balbus] .........B.c. 57-56. 
Name anknid wi gisesdo. 3.52587 B.c. 56-55. 
C. Claudius Ap. f. Pulcher ...B.c. 55-53. 


In my History of the Coinage of Ephesus 
(1880) (p. 72) I was able to show on the 
evidence of a previously unpublished Cisto- 
phorus of Ephesus dated OF (=76 of the 
era of Asia=B.c. 58-57) that the immediate 
successor of Q. Cicero was T. Ampius, and 
that the names of Fabius and Ampius must 
consequently be transposed. 

A hitherto undeciphered Cistophorus of 
Tralles in Lydia now enables me to supply 
for the first time the name of the missing 
proconsul B.c. 56-55. The coin in question 
must have been seen by M. Waddington 
while he was oceupied (1888—1893) on his 
Corpus of the coins of Asia Minor, 
daily visiting the British Museum and 
examining coin by coin every specimen in 
our National Collection. 

As however this particular coin was very 
thickly coated with oxide I presume that he 
passed it by as_ hopelessly illegible; 
otherwise I think he would have consulted 
me (as was his wont in the case of obscure 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


coins) with regard to the reading of the 
inscription. 

A few days ago, suspecting that this coin 
did not bear the name either of Ampius or 
Fabius, I subjected it to a careful process of 
cleaning. The oxide is now completely 


‘removed from its surface, and every letter 


of the inscription is clearly and even 
sharply legible as follows :— 


C. SEPTVMIVS 
T. F. PROCOS 


Beneath the usual Bow-case and serpents 
is the name of the local Greek magistrate 
of Tralles TOAYAEYKH® accompanied by 
his personal signet or badge—the hat of one 
of the Dioscuri surmounted by a star. 

There can therefore be now no room for 
doubt that C. Septimius T. f. is the name of 
the proconsul of the Province of Asia B.c. 
56-55. 

C. Septimius is mentioned by Cicero (fed. 
in Sen. ix.) among the seven Praetors for 
the year B.c. 57 who used their influence in 
supporting his (Cicero’s) recall from exile. 

The appointment of the ex-praetor, C. 
Septimius, to the proconsulship (in his case 
propraetorship with title of proconsul) of 
Asia is not recorded by any ancient writer, 
but, about four years after his return to 
Rome from Asia, we again meet with his 
name as one of the signatories (qui scribendo 
adfuerunt), of the Senatusconsultum M. 
Marcelli s.c. 51, where his name is given in 
full as C. Septimius T. f. Quirina (the last 
name being that of his tribe), (Cael. ap. Cie. 
ad Fam. viii. 8). Again in two of Cicero’s 
letters to Atticus written, according to 
Schmidt, on the 7th and 8th March B.c. 45, 
the name of C. Septimius appears as a 
member of the College of Augurs (Cic. ad 
Att. xii. 13, 14). 

Sooner or later a Cistophorus of Ephesus 
will I have no doubt be discovered bearing 
the date OH or O@ (78-79 of the era of the 
Province of Asia, corresponding with B.c. 
56-55), together with the name of c. 
SEPTVMIVS PROCOS, which will be useful as 
confirmatory evidence. 

I may perhaps be allowed to take this 
opportunity of expressing an earnest hope 
that M. Waddington’s MS. catalogue of all 
the known coins of Asia Minor may not be 
long withheld from publication. He showed 
it me in a complete state a few weeks before 
he left England early last year, telling me 
at the same time that on his return to 
France he would lose no time in placing it 
in the hands of the printers. 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


This catalogue (the result of no less than 
forty years’ study) is not merely a descrip- 
tion of M. Waddington’s own collection 
(valuable indeed as that alone would be). 
It is a complete Corpus of the coins of Asia 
Minor in all the great European cabinets, 
each of which was in turn visited and 
minutely examined by M. Waddington. 
Mionnet’s readings (frequently lamentably 
deficient) were all either verified or corrected 
by him, and thoroughly reliable descriptions 
were added of hundreds of coins which are 
as yet unpublished. 

Who can say what new lights such a 
catalogue, by such a _ scholar as M. 
Waddington, might not throw upon the 
fragmentary history of Asia Minor in Greek 
and Roman times ? 

Barcuay V. Heap. 


October, 1894. British Museum. 


MONTHLY RECORD. 


ITALY. 


Great St. Bernard.—The excavation of the ‘ paln 
of Jupiter’ has been completed, and the rest of the 
walls brought to light. Three votive tablets have 
been found: (1)C*VETTIVS’SAL...P.P.LEG"XV | V'S‘L'M. 
The mention of the fifteenth legion without further 
specification points toa date when the Primigenia 
did not exist, i.e. before the time of Claudius, and 
when that legion was in Pannonia. (2) M‘CAssIvs | 
FESTVS | MILES LEG X> IVLI | RVFI | v's‘L’M. The 
legion is that known as Gemina. (3) I‘POENINO | 
IVL*FORTV | NATVS BF‘ | cos | v's‘L'M. About fifty 
of these tablets are now known, one being in the 
British Museum. Among the finds were a small 
bronze statuette of Pallas, fibulae, weapons, stamped 
tiles, and 174 Gallic and Roman coins.! 

Pavia.—Part of an old Roman bridge has been 
discovered, close to the site of the modern bridge ; it 
consists of a boat-shaped pier pointing up stream, 
formed of blocks clamped together, in three layers, 
the lowest projecting down stream. The shape of 
the upper end shows that the hydraulic principle of 
meeting the greatest resistance by oblique surfaces 
was recognized in antiquity. The bridge appears to 
have been completely made of stone, and may date 
from the Augustan age.” 

Cortona.—An Etruscan cinerary urn of travertine 


has been found, incised 4¢QA>I| *NR4 
VA *VN44 , Vel'Karse Velchal. Karse appears to 
be the original of the Latin name Carseoli or Car- 
sulae; Velchal is probably for Velcia natus. The 
inscription is of archaic date, as shown by the >| 
for K,1 


Corneto-Tarquinii.—The excavations have been 
continued in the necropolis, and a tomb cleared out 
which contained an onyx scarab of the advanced 
archaic period, with a design of Peleus (3431) 


and the young Achilles: Peleus is pouring oil from 


1 Notizie dei Lincei, Feb. 1894. 
2 Ib. March 1894. 


421 


a lekythos. Besides this, eight gold ornaments were 
found, one vase of bucchero, and five of Attic make ; 
among the latter was a skyphos with black figures, 
whereon the painter had originally intended to 
depict a Dionysiae scene, but had abandoned his 
intention and transformed it into a group of Amazons. 
In the other tomb was a large doliwm of clay con- 
taining a metal vase, fibulae and other remains.} 

Rome.—In Reg. x., on the way up to the Palatine, 
were found four fragments of a leaden pipe, one 
being inscribed IMP‘DOMITIANI‘AVG’GER‘SVB‘CVRA* 
EPAGATHI'AVG'L | PROC’FEC’MARTIALIS‘ET ‘ ALEXAN- 
DER'SER. It may be referred to the alteration of the 
aqua Claudia under Domitian, which brought water 
to the palace on the Palatine from the Celimontane 
aqueduct. 

Palestrina.—An interesting honorary inscription 
to Trajan has been brought to light. It runs: 
IMP ‘ CAESARI * DIVI ‘NERVAE ’F | NERVAE‘TRAIANO* 
AVGVsT | GERMANICO'PONTIF MAX | TRIB‘POTESTAT* 
COS‘ILII‘P’P | DECVRIONES ‘POPVLYSQVE. On the left 
is inscribed: DEDICATA XIII K‘ocr’ | TI';CLAVDIO 
ATTALO MAMILIANO | T’SABIDIO SABINO'TI ‘VIR. It 
belongs to a statue of Trajan which was inaugurated 
A.D. 101, on September 18th, the Emperor’s birth- 
day.? 

Terracina.—The site of the temple of Jupiter 
Anxur has been discovered on Monte S. Angelo near 
the city ; it is mentioned by Livy, and this deity is 
alluded to by Virgil (Aen. vii. 799). A wall of lime- 
stone with a well-moulded cornice was recognized as 
the base of the temple, and fragments of mosaic 
paving were also discovered. Finally the entire plan 
was revealed, the dimensions being 33°50 x 19°70 
metres. Among the remains were stamped tiles, 
lions’ heads in alabaster, one drum of a column, 
votive objects in lead, and two marble bases. The 
latter are inscribed respectively DEXTER | VENERI | 
OPSEQUE ;TI | V'M‘DON and CARPINATIA | FORTVNATA 
| VENERI V’s'L’M. It is clear that Venus had a 
sanctuary within the temple. The leaden votive 
objects consist of crepundia representing the furniture 
of a room, a table, couch, stool, side-board, candel- 
abrum, etc., also pairs of soleae and a series of plates 
with fish on them (resembling the painted terra-cotta 
fish-plates sometimes found in Southern Italy, of 
which there are specimens in the Fourth Vase Room of 
the British Museum). Near the temple was a curious 
construction of rectangular walls built over a natural 
cave, either for an oracle, or more probably a bi- 
dental. Below isa large super-structure of arches, 
probably the praetoriwm Theodoricit of a medieval 
writer, and behind the temple a portico in opus in- 
certum covered with painted stucco, supported by 
Corinthian columns.” 

Strongoli, Iweania (the ancient Petelia).—A 
marble pedestal of a statue has been found, with an 
honorary inscription to Manius Megonius Leo; on 
the left is an extract (Kaput) from his will. This 
inscription seems to show that Petelia was an impor- 
tant place in the second century of the empire ; Leo 
was aedile, guaestor pecuniae publicae, quattuorvir 
lege, patronus municipti, and quattuorvir quinquen- 
nalis. His will seems to betray a great anxiety to 
be remembered by posterity. With this were found 
the left hand of a large bronze statue, wearing a ring, 
part of a large stone vase inscribed sACRVM, and a 
bronze coin of Faustina the younger.* 





GREECE, 


Eretria.—The American School has discovered, 
near the theatre, the foundation of a building which 


3 Notizie dei Lincei, January 1894. 


422 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


appears to bea temple of Dionysos. Between this 
and the western parodos of the theatre was a long 
stylobate with bases in situ for monuments of theatri- 
cal victories, as is shown by the fragmentary inscrip- 
tions. They have also found a row of large stone 
water-troughs, water-pipes, and part of an ancient 
street. East of the town a tumulus was opened, 
which had been erected round a tower twenty feet 
high ; it contained no grave, and had already been 
opened in ancient times. In excavating the stylo- 
bate above mentioned was found a small but graceful 
head of Aphrodite.? 
CRETE. 


Mr. Arthur Evans has published the results of his 
discoveries of early methods of writing among the 
Cretan people in the Mycenaean age. He has found 
numerous examples of seal-stones of a peculiar kind 
engraved with symbols of a hieroglyphic nature, and 
collected seventy of these symbols. belonging to an 
independent hieroglyphic system. From stones of a 
similar form and also from pre-historic vases and 
other objects he has collected a series of linear 
characters, a certain proportion of which seem to 
have grown out of the pictorial forms. The hiero- 
glyphs include parts of the human body, weapons 
and implements, animal and vegetable forms, mari- 
time objects, and astronomical and geometrical signs ; 
they show interesting affinities to the Hittite forms. 

From the linear characters a Mycenaean script of 
twenty-four characters has been reconstructed, each 
probably having a syllabic value, a large proportion 
being identical with the signs of the Cypriote sylla- 
bary. ‘They cannot be later in date than 1000 B.c., 
and must be previous to the introduction of the 
Phoenician alphabet. The relation of the picture- 
signs to the linear characters has not yet been eluci- 
dated, but they seem to be more or less contem- 
poraneous. The former are perhaps indigenous to 
Crete, and the latter Mycenaean in the widest sense. 
Another result of these discoveries is to show that 
the Philistines were the old indigenous stock of 
Crete, and that it was consequently they who used 
these signs. 

The researches of Dr. Halbherr in this island have 
done much to corroborate Mr. Evans’ discoveries, he 
having also found stones with syllabic signs. On the 
south side of Mt. Ida he has investigated three 
tombs of Mycenaean date, containing numerous 
vases. He has also discovered two towns hitherto 
unknown, from one of which came a series of in- 
scriptions, one of the archaic period, fragments of 
fine Mycenaean vases, and archaic Greek pottery 
with reliefs. In a grotto near Lebena he found vases 
of the Thera class, also objects of stone, and a pre- 
historic habitation, and in another grotto numerous 
fragments of very ancient pottery.” 


CARIA. 


Mr. Paton has found an inscription which iden- 
tifies the site of the Carian Telmissos, and assists in 
the identification of several other important sites. 
The inscription in question, with plans, &c., will be 
published in the forthcoming number of the Jowrnal 
of Hellenic Studies. 





Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. xiv. part 1. 

1. The Hymn to Apollo: an essay in the Homeric 
question. A. W. Verrall. 

2. The Chest of Kypselos. H. 8S. Jones. 

A reconstruction by the light of recent discoveries 





' Berl. Phil. Wochenschr. 7 July 1894. 
* Academy, 25 August and Times, 29 August. 


of Corinthian pottery and metal-work, reproducing 
the specially Corinthian features of the work. 

3. Animal-worship in the Mycenaean Age. A. B. 
Cook. 

Discussing the cult of various animals as illustrated 
by gems and other monuments on which appear 
human figures dressed up as animals, and the relation 


- of this cult to Totemism and anthropomorphic wor- 


ship, between which it appears to be intermediate. 

4. A lecythus from Eretria with the death of 
Priam. E, A. Gardner. 

Shows how the Epic tradition is modified by 
artistic and technical influences ; also discusses his- 
tory of painting in black figures on white ground. 


5. Selected Vase-fragments from the Acropolis of - 


Athena.—II. G. C. Richards. . 

Publishes several red-figured fragments. 

6. Greek Head, in the possession of T. Humphry 
Ward, Esq. Eugénie Sellers. 

The stylistic affinities point to Kalamis or one of 
his schoo] as the sculptor. 

7. Polledrara ware. Cecil Smith. 

A republication of the hydria with Theseus and 
the Minotaur, and of the bronze female bust. 

8. Archaeology in Greece, 1893-4. E. A. Gardner. 

H. B. WALTERS. 


Archéologisches Jahrbuch. 1894, part 4. Berlin. 


1. Schone: a study of the Nekyia of Polygnotos, 
with especial reference to Robert’s monograph. (i) 
He shows that there is no evidence for supposing 
that the figures were-life size, nor that their arrange- 
ment and indications of scenery were like those of the 
vases usually quoted : probably only four colours on 
a white ground were employed : and witha very high 
horizon the perspective effect was somewhat similar 
to that of Oriental pictures. (ii) He discusses the 
Descent into Hades, the representation of the Shades, 
and the relation of these pictures to the Homeric 
Nekyia ; concluding that Polygnotos ‘ adhered to the 
idea of the shadow world which each of this con- 
temporaries who knew the Odyssey must have held.’ 
(iii) He makes some suggestions as to the divergent 
views existing in regard to the relative positions of 
certain figures in the composition. 2. Mayer: 
explains the much-debated Splanchnoptes motive as 
that of a boy holding up meat ona spit, which is 
found on vases: and identifies it with a marble 
statue of an ephebus found at the Olympieion at 
Athens in 1888: plate and cuts. 38. Strzkowski: 
studies the column of Arcadius at Constantinople, 
reviewing the extant ruins, the description of Gyllius, 
the view of Sandys (1610) and a detailed drawing of 
Cassas (died 1827): also the drawing by Melchoir 
Lorch (1557) noted in Arch. Jahrb. 1892, p. 91: and 
compares the column of Theodosius : cuts. 

Anziger. Report of the boundary commission 
from the end of Nov. 1892-1893. Acquisitions of 
the British Museum in 1892. Antiquities of Stift- 
Neuburg at Heidelberg. Notes on Attic terra-cotta 
slabs, by Masner: on the rapacxevf in the east pedi- 
ment at Olympia, by Six: on a vase with Herakles 
sacrificing, by Korte, with rejoinder by Furtwingler. 


Bulletin. de Correspondance Hellénique. 1893. 
August-December. Paris. 


1. Couve and Bourguet : publish the inscriptions 
from the polygonal wall at Delphi discovered by 
Haussoullier in 1880 and as yet unedited : they are a 
hundred and nine in number, and all deeds of 
enfranchisement, mostly of the normal type: to 
this is appended an index of proper names. 2. 
Michon: publishes (plate 16) a headless statue of 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 423 


a draped woman in the Louvre: this statue was 
acquired in 1829 by the former owner at Halicar- 
nassus: though of good Greek work, it does not 
seem to have belonged to the Mausoleum. 3. Le- 
chat: the archaic Elgin head in the British Museum 
(Cat. 150) is the head of a Sphinx. 4. S. Reinach: 
suggests the restoration, on the authority of Cyriac, 
of a new sculptor’s name, Thrasyxenos of Paros. 5. 
Pottier: continues his series of ‘documents céra- 
miques’ of the Louvre: (ii) vases of Ionian type ; 
Ionism in Attika. 6. Joubin: publishes two decrees 
of proxenia and a deed of enfranchisement found by 
him at Stratos in 1892. 7. Lemnios: two inscrip- 
tions of Cyzicus. 8. Svoronos: along article on the 
numismatics and history of Mykonos. 9. Diehl: 
publishes an inscription in Greek and Latin found in 
1889 by Cousin at Ali-faradin on the borders of 
Pisidia and Kibyratis: it is a rescript of the 
emperors Justin and Justinian, assuring imperial 


protection to the oratory of St. John, A.D. 527. 
10. Lechat and Radet: thirty-nine inscriptions 
of Mysia (cf. ante xii. p. 187). 11. Legrand : 
sixty inseriptions of Mysia and Bithynia. 12. Dia- 
mantaras: coins of Lycia. 13. Weil publishes the 
text of the Delphic hymn; and 14. S. Reinach 
gives the new fragments with musical notation and a 
long critical study of their bearing on our knowledge 
of Greek music. 

Institute. Homolle’s report on Delphi, and (p. 
616) two Delphian inscriptions giving the accounts 
of the temple administration : Svoronos’ interpreta- 
tion of astronomical types on coins (p. 618), applied 
to coins of Crete (p. 621), especially the famous 
Gortyna type. News and correspondence: Athens, 
Peloponnesus, Islands, &c. including three new 
Orphie inscriptions from Eleutherae (cf. ante, p. 


121). 
C. 8. 


OBITUARY. 


WILLIAM ALEXANDER GREENHILL, M.D. 


As the only English physician of the 
present century who had devoted himself to 
the ancient literature of his profession, Dr. 
Greenhill claims some mention in the pages 
of the Classical Review. Very full and 
appreciative notices have appeared in the 
Athenaeum and the Guardian, as well as in 
the local papers, and in these his many- 
sided activity, disinterested character, and 
sound and zealous churchmanship have been 
set forth in attractive colours. We shall 
here speak of him chiefly as the exponent 
of the Greek and Latin, and, incidentally, 
of the Arabic medical literature. 

William Alexander Greenhill was born 
on Jan. 1, 1814, of a family which had an 
hereditary connexion with the Stationers’ 
Company ; his father having been treasurer 
of the Company, his elder brother, who died 
not long since, secretary and afterwards 
Master. In 1828 he went to Rugby at the 
beginning of Arnold’s headmastership, and 
there he laid the foundation of his sound 


scholarship. He was a favourite pupil of . 


the great Doctor, whose niece he ultimately 
married ; and among such schoolfellows as 
Deans Stanley, Vaughan, and Lake, he was 
regarded as not the least promising of the 
brilliant band. 

In 1832 he went to Trinity College, 
Oxford, where he held an exhibition. Here 
he at first gave himself up to desultory 
reading, instead of working for the schools : 
in after life he attributed this to the inferi- 
ority of the college lectures as compared 


with Arnold’s teaching, but owned that he 
had acted priggishly in giving way to this 
feeling. 

After a year or two he thought better of 
it, but it was then too late to read for 
honours, and in the end he took no degree 
in Arts, graduating M.B. in 1839 and M.D. 
in 1841. 

Together with his scientific studies he 
cultivated that literary side of the profession 
which he made so completely his own. 

The Bodleian is rich in Arabic MSS., and 
it is understood that these, as well as 
printed sources, were laid under contri- 
bution. On his marriage he settled in 
Oxford, and began practice as a physician. 
Here he was one of Newman’s parishioners, 
and for some time his churchwarden. His 
first publication, in 1842, was the Greek 
text of the anatomical treatise of Theo- 
philus Protospatharius, rept ris Tod avOpdrov 
KatacKeuns, In a more complete form than 
had yet appeared. In the same year he 
contributed the medical articles to Dr. 
(afterwards Sir William) Smith’s Dictionary 
of Antiquities. In the last edition of this 
work he was the only one of the original 
writers (except the late Dr. Leonhard 
Schmitz to a slight extent) who revised his 
own contributions. Some years later he 
wrote the lives of the ancient physicians for 
the Dictionary of Biography in the same 
series. In 1844 he was chosen by the 
Sydenham Society to edit the Latin works 
of its eponymous hero. Soon afterwards 


424 


he translated the work of Rhazes On Smail- 
pox and Measles for the first time from the 
original Arabic; previous English versions 
having been made from the Greek or Latin. 

About 1852 Dr. Greenhill left Oxford 
and settled at Hastings. Here, in. addition 
to his practice, he was the life and soul of 
every philanthropic and sanitary scheme, 
especially of the Hastings Cottage Improve- 
ment Society. He was also conspicuous in 
church and parish work; and the notices 
which have appeared since his death testify 
to the affection and reverence with which 
he was regarded by his fellow-townsmen. 
His old age was not free from sorrows. 
His elder daughter died of consumption, 
and his elder son was cut off in the midst 
of a promising career as an undergraduate ; 
Mrs. Greenhill did not long survive this 
double loss. His literary work continued. 
Some years ago he brought out an elaborate 
edition of Sir Thomas Browne’s Religio 
Medici, and at the time of his death was 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


engaged upon the same authors Hyarv- 
taphia. He also contributed largely to 
Notes and Queries, and to the Dictionary of 
National Biography, the last volume of 
which, published since his death, includes 
the life of Dr. J. B. Mozley, the Regius 


’ Professor of Divinity. The subjects of his 


biographies were mostly Oxford celebrities. 
Besides his distinguished schoolfellows 
already mentioned, he was the friend of 
almost every eminent Oxonian of his time ; 
of Pusey, Newman and Keble; of Deans. 
Church, Goulburn, Liddell and Scott; of 
Dr. Mozley; of Dr. Ogle and Sir Henry 
Acland, Regius Professors of Physic; and 
of Mr. Gladstone. He had long suffered 
from a heart trouble, and on Sept. 19 he 
passed away after two hours’ illness, in his 
8lst year; having kept up his literary 
labours to the last. A son and a daughter 


survive him. 
Ww. W. 


SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


Classical Studies in honour of Henry Drisler. 

New York, Macmillan and Co. 1894. 

This sumptuous volume commemorates in German 
fashion the fiftieth year of Dr. Drisler’s official con- 
nection with Columbia College. It consists of twenty- 
one papers by his pupils on various subjects connected 
with classical philology or archaeology, with the ex- 
ception of three which are concerned with oriental 
literature. (1) On the meaning of nauta and viator 
in Hor. Sat. i. 5, 11-28, by S. G. Ashmore. After an 
examination of various parallel passages and the 
views of commentators the writer concludes that the 
viator is a ‘man on foot, whose destination lay in the 
same direction as that of Horace’s party, and who 
was too poor to pay his fare by boat. He joins the 
nauta who is guiding the mule, and the two men sing 
as they go.’ (2) Anaximander on the prolongation 
of infancy in man, by N. M. Butler. This note on 
the history of the theory of evolution calls attention 
to the remarkable way in which certain pre-Socratic 
thinkers, especially Anaximander and Xenophanes, 
anticipated some modern discoveries. It is clear, for 
instance, from a fragment of Anax. that he ‘ observed 
and understood the main point in connection with 
the prolongation of the period of infancy in man ; 
namely, that it affords a needed opportunity for the 
adjustment of the complex physical and psychical 
activities to their environment,’—a point which has 
recently been drawn out by Messrs. Spencer, Fiske, 
and Wallace. (3) Of two passages in Euripides’ 
Medea, by M. L. Earle. In the much-vexed 1. 12 
Dr, Earle would read épyf for pvyf after Musgrave, 
and in the next line change air} to airg. For 
apixdunv in 503 he would read aphrayev—a change 
which hardly seems required. (4) The preliminary 
military service of the equestrian Cursus Honorum, 
by J. C. Egbert, junr. From a study of the inscrip- 





tions of the empire it appears that the equestrian 
military service during the three centuries of its 
history assumed four different forms. I. Tribunatus 
militum, JI. Tribunatus cohortis vigilum, cohortis 
urbanae, cohortis praetoriae, III. Praefectus cohortis, 
tribunus nilitum, praefectus alae, 1V. Praefectura 
alae. The praefectura (castrorum) legionis became a 
part of the mélitiae equestres under Septimius 
Severus. At first this.military service merely led to 
civil offices, but from the time of Hadrian the military 
career assumes an importance of its own. (5) 
References to Zoroaster in Syriac and Arabic litera- 
ture, by R. J. H. Gottheil. (6) Literary frauds 
among the Greeks, by A. Gudeman. This paper draws 
attention to some of the more important and inter- 
esting literary frauds beginning with Onomacritus 
(Hdt. vii. 6). The entire classical period gives no 
clear case, which will not surprise us in such an age 
of originality of thought and expression, and at a 
time when no class of reading public had yet arisen. 
They first appeared in the guise of interpolations, a 
common example of which is the practice of actors 
to tamper with the text of the dramatists. The cen- 
turies following the time of Aristotle were fruitful in 
forgeries. (i) In poetry Heraclides Ponticus is in- 
stanced as introdueing us to the mythical predecessors 
of Homer, viz. Philammon, Linos, and Amphion. 
Some of the odes of Sappho, the didactic sayings of 
Theognis, and the erotic songs of Anacreon were so 
much diluted with the effusions of unknown bards 
that it is often most difficult and sometimes impos- 
sible to separate the genuine from the spurious. (ii) 
In philosophical literature we find a long list of 
forgeries, which owe their existence principally to 
two causes, one being a pecuniary inducement and 
the other a desire to increase for purposes of pro- 
paganda the material of certain sects, particularly 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 425 


the Neo-Platonic and the Neo-Pythagorean. Ex- 
amples are found in the spurious writings of Plato, 
most of the esoteric works attributed to Aristotle, but 
most of all in the pseudo-Pythagorean writings. (iii) 
Literary frauds however reached their culmination in 
the department of epistolary composition. ‘ There is 
scarcely an illustrious personality in Greek literature 
or history from Themistocles down to Alexander, who 
was not credited with a more or less extensive corre- 
spondence.’ But not all apocryphal writings were the 
result of fraud. Thus the class of poems known as 
the Epic Cycle was generally attributed to Homer 
down to the time of Zenodotus, so the Corpus Hip- 
pocrateum was increased by spurious medical treatises. 
(7) Henotheism in the Rig-Veda, by E. W. Hopkins. 
(8) On Plato and the Attic Comedy, by G. B. Hussey. 
There is probably no direct connection between the 
Eeclesiazusae and Plato’s Republic. ‘ Both are an out- 
come of the same state of restless thinking and love 
for reconstruction that was then prevalent among the 
Athenians.” However, in the few fragments we 
possess of the works of Theopompus, who belongs 
partly to the Old and partly to the New Comedy, we 
seem to discover the first instances of a direct parody 
of the Republic. We see this in the Srparidérides and 
the KamrnaAldes. (9) Herodotus vii. 61, or ancient 
Persian armour, by A. V. W. Jackson. The purpose 
of this paper is to ‘summarize the main results 
already arrived at with reference to the description 
which Herodotus gives of the Persian armour, and 
then to test the passage in the light of standards 
drawn from Iranian literature, the Avesta, Old 
Persian inscriptions, Pahlavi books, and later Persian 
writings, as well as from some non-Iranian sources, 
and also from the monuments and rock-sculptures of 
Iran itself.’ It is illustrated from bas-reliefs and 
especially by a plate of the Dieulafoy frieze of archers 
from Susa. (10) Archaism in Aulus Gellius, by C. 
Knapp. Gellius’ fondness for the old writers and his 
habitual study of their works is well-attested. Among 
poets Plautus and Ennius, among orators Cato Censor 
stand highest in his estimation. In all this Gellius 
is in accord with the literary tendencies of his time. 
Fronto and Apuleius show the same fondness for all 
that is archaic in vocabulary and style. The whole 
is illustrated by a list of archaisms from Gellius. 
(11) On certain parallelisms between the ancient and 
the modern drama, by B. Matthews. A slight paper. 
The writer thinks that Euripides in composing the 
Medea was ‘fitting’ some Athenian actor, that the 
Oedipus Rex is scarcely more skilfully contrived than 
Ibsen’s ‘Ghosts,’ and that the ‘topical song’ of the 
modern burlesque resembles the parabasis of the Old 
Comedy. (12) Ovid’s use of colowr and of colowr-terms, 
by N. G. McCrea. In order to determine Ovid’s 
colour preferences, all instances of his use of each 
colour-term are given. ‘Ovid decidedly prefers the 
most luminous colours, markedly exceeding the 
spectrum proportion in yellow, and, to a less extent, 
in green.’ (13) A bronze of Polyclitan affinities in 
the Metropolitan Museum, by A. C. Merriam. This 
paper, illustrated by a plate, describes a_bronze 
statuette found in Cyprus by General di Cesnola. 
The writer thinks it may be a copy from the statue of 
Cyniscus by Polyclitus, and would assign it to the 
middle of the fifth century and to the Peloponnesian 
school. (14) Geryon in Cyprus, by A. C. Merriam. 
A description of the three shields on the largest 
statue of Geryon from Cyprus, from which the con- 
clusion is drawn that it is a work of the second half 
of the sixth century. (15) Hercules, Hydra, and 
Crab, by A. C. Merriam. This is concerned with the 
instances where the crab appears as an antagonist of 
the hero whether with or without the hydra. An 


illustration is given from a mutilated group found by 
General di Cesnola. (16) Onomatopoetic words in 
Latin, by H. T. Peck. The Latin language was rich 
in the most primitive kind of onomatopoeias, those 
which are formed directly in imitation of some 
natural sound, and there is ample proof that the 
Romans recognized and enjoyed these words. A list 
of rare onomatopoetic words follows. (17) Notes on 
the Vedic deity Pisan, by E. D. Perry. (18) The 
so-called Medusa Ludovisi, by J. Sachs. This paper 
is an able argument to show that this relief represents 
not Medusa but Penthesilea dying, but at a later stage 
than appears in the archaic Amazon torso of Vienna. 
There is nothing to show whether the so-called 
Medusa is part of an independent figure or a fragment 
ofa group. The paper is adorned with two beautiful 
plates, of the so-called Medusa and of the Vienna 
torso. (19) Aristotle and the Arabs, by W. M. Sloane. 
A historical account of the Arabian appreciation of 
Aristotle, more particularly of Avicenna. It is 
maintained that the Arabian philosophy was much 
more than the mere ‘ insensate strong box’ in which 
the Peripatetic system was locked up for a few cen- 
turies. (20) Iphigenia in Greek and French Tragedy, 
by B. D. Woodward. A comparison between 
Euripides and Racine. (21) Gargettus, an Altice Deme, 
by C. H. Young. An elaborate account of the history 
of this deme, with a list of all the people known to 
have belonged to it in literature or by inscriptions. 
The only important name in literature is that of 
Epicurus. 


Transactions of the American Philological 

Association, 1893. Vol. xxiv. 

(1) The scientific emendation of classical texts, by 
E. A. Sonnenschein. The canons here laid down are 
exemplified by Plautus, whose text presents two pro- 
blems—the problem of MSS. and that of metre and 
prosody. ‘The first step is to examine into the rela- 
tions of the extant MSS. to one another and to 
arrange them in families, the next to infer the 
probable reading of the archetype or archetypes, and 
the last (if necessary) to bring all the resources of 
palaeography, logic and observation of the language 
of the author to bear upon the problem of emending 
the text. Prof. Sonnenschein also says that the critic 
‘may be called upon to put iuto a lacuna of the text 
something which the author himself might have 
written ’—surely a most dangerous doctrine. (2) On 
the canons of etymological investigation, by M. Bréal. 
Prof. Bréal reminds the reader of a few rules which 
are too often forgotten by the lexicographer: (i) he 
must conform to the lessons taught by phonetics, (ii) 
be should always be careful to distinguish the suffixes, 
A dictionary of words arranged according to their 
suffixes is a great desideratum, (iii) he must examine 
the concordance of meanings as minutely as the con- 
cordance of forms. <A protest is rightly made against 
the habit which linguists have of accumulating in the 
prototypes they invent all the phonetic elements 
presented by their descendants. Thus the Ursprache 
after being praised for its harmony ‘has suddenly 
come to be the least sonorous and most rugged of 
tongues.’ (3) Hin Ablaut problem der Ursprache, by 
W. Streitberg. (4) Dunkles wnd helles | im Latein- 
ischen, by H. Osthoff. I have purposely refrained 
from summarizing these papers as they are printed in 
the original German. To give papers in a foreign 
language in a periodical meant for English-speaking 
readers is a fraud upon them, for it cannot be pre- 
sumed that all understand German, If the papers 
are worth printing they are also worth translation. 
(5) The implicit ethics and psychology of Thucydides, 
by P. Shorey. Thucydides’ philosophy of life is 


426 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


considered under two aspects : (i) ethical positivism, 
(ii) intellectualism. Under the first head it is shown 
that he regarded the nature and conduct of man as 
‘strictly determined by his physical and social en- 
vironment and by a few elementary appetites and 
desires,’ that while the naive man is duped by the 
moral drapery thrown round this primitive core the 
wise man discovers the naked human nature beneath. 
On the intellectual side Thucydides is constantly 
preoccupied with the part in life played by the con- 
scious calculating reason. All this is excellently 
illustrated from the History. Prof. Shorey is not a 
thorough-going admirer of the style of Thucydides. 
He remarks, ‘ often what we take for a new substan- 
tive thought is merely an ingenious variation on a 
commonplace theme. Often periphrases that are 
apparently wrapped around a kernel of profound sug- 
gestion are found empty when unfolded.’ This he 
_attributes to the study of the formal rhetoric of the 
day. (6) English words which have gained or lost an 
initial consonant by attraction, by C. P. G. Scott. 
This is a second paper, the previous one was published 
in the Transactions for 1892. Unfortunately the 
writer is a prey to the silly affectation of writing 
‘publisht, hav, ar, speld, gon, wer,’ etc. ete., which 
makes an interesting subject matter too tiresome to 
read. Luckily it is not connected with classical 


philology, so I am not compelled to read it. If we 
are to reform our spelling we shall not stop here. 
(7) ‘ Extended’ and ‘ remote’ Deliberatives in Greek, 
by W. G. Hale. This admirable paper is the gem of 
the collection. Prof. Hale here gathers up all that 
has been written on this subject in the grammars and 
lately in the Classical Review and expounds his own 


. views. With regard to (1) the extended deliberative, 


z.e. cases like éuol yap odkér’ ori eis 8 Tt BATH, he 
concludes that the subordinate clause is a true de- 


liberative and not derived from a clause of purpose. - 


One reason against the latter view is that in all the 
Homeric clauses of purpose expressed by the subj., 
with one exception, the mood is accompanied by & or 


xe. *With regard to (2) the so-called remote delibera-. 


tive, as seen ¢.g. in ovk @o0@ Omws Aga Ta Wevdq 
kad, he concludes that the most probable solution is 
that these are cases of ordinary potentials and equiva- 
lent in sense to optatives with &. These seven 
papers are here published in full. A good many 
others were also read and discussed at the annual 
‘ Proceedings’ and abstracts of them are given in the 
appendix. Altogether the present publication in no 
way falls below the high standard attained by the 
previous numbers. 
Ri, CLS. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 


ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Appian. Civil Wars. Book I. Translated by E. 
F. M. Benecke. Cr. 8vo. Sewed. Blackwell. 

Benecke (EK. F. M.) Poetarum Latinorum Index 
in usum versificatorum nostratum conflatus. Post 
8vo. 172 pp. Methuen. 4s. 6d. 

Caesar. Tales of the Civil War. Adapted for the 
use of beginners, with vocabulary, notes and 
exercises by Charles Haines Keene. Macmillan. 
1s. 6d. 

— Gallic War. BooksI. and II. Edited by T. 
W. Haddon and G. C. Harrison, with plans and 
illustrations. Cr. 8vo. xxxvi, 107 pp. E. 
Arnold. 1s. 6d. net. 

Gallic War. Books I—VII. Literally trans- 

lated from the text of Hoffmann, by St. George 

Stock. Post 8vo. 140 pp. Shrimpton. 3s. 6d. 

Invasion of Britain. Gallic War IV. 20—28: 
V. 1—23. With introduction, notes, &c., by J. 
Brown. 12mo. Blackie. 1s. 6d. 

Cherbuliez (V.) A Phidian Horse: art and archae- 
ology on the Acropolis ; from the French by Eliza- 
beth Hill Bissell Roberts. 16mo. 38381 pp. 
Philadelphia, John Wanamaker. 

Church (Rev. A. J.) Pictures from Greek Life and 
Story, with illustrations. Post 8vo. 316 pp. 
Hutchinson. 3s. 6d. 

The Fall of Athens. A Story of the Pelopon- 
nesian War. With 16 illustrations. Post 8vo. 
336 pp. Seeley. 5s. 

Cicero’s Correspondence, arranged according to its 
chronological order, with a revision of the text, a 
commentary, and introductory essays, by Robert 
Yelverton Tyrrell and Louis Claude Purser. Vol. 
4. 8vo. 598 pp. Longmans. 12s. 

Cicero. Speeches against Catilina and Antony, and 
for Murena and Milo, translated by H. E. D. 
Blackiston. Cr. 8vo. Methuen. 5s. 











Cicero. Orations against,Catilina, By A. S. Wilkins. 
New and revised edition. Macmillan. 2s. 6d. 
Pro Milone. Edited for Schools and Colleges, 
by James S. Reid. 12mo. 160 pp. Cambridge 

Press. 2s. 6d. 

In Verrem. Actio II. Chapter IV. De 
Signis. Literally translated by J. A. Prout. 
12mo, 70 pp. Cornish. 1s. 6d. 

Cook (A. M.) and Pantin (W. E.) Key to Mac- 
millan’s Shorter Latin Course. Second Part. Cr. 
8vo. Macmillan. 4s. 6d. 

Curtius (Quintus.) Selections from, adapted for the 
use of beginners, with vocabulary, notes, and 
exercises, edited by F, Coverley Smith. Mac- 
millan. 1s. 6d. 

Davidson (J. L. Strachan.) Cicero and the Fall of 
the Roman Republic. Post 8vo. 449 pp. 
Putnam. 5s. 

Ellis (R.) The Fables of Phaedrus, an iuaugural 
lecture. S8vo. Sewed. Clarendon Press. 1s. net. 

Euripides. Alcestis. Edited by Mortimer Lamson 
Earle. 12mo. 244 pp. Macmillan. 3s. 6d. 

Hecuba. With introduction and notes, by W. 
S. Hadley. Fep. 8vo. Cambridge Press. 2s. 6d. 

Freeman (E. A.) The History of Sicily, from the 
Earliest Times. Vol. 4. From the tyranny of 
Dionysios to the death of Agathokles. Edited 
from posthumous MSS., with supplement and 
notes by A. J. Evans. Maps and Numismatic 
plate. 8vo. 578 pp. Clarendon Press. 21s. 

Goodwin (W. W.) Greek Grammar. New edition, 
revised and enlarged. Cr. 8vo. Macmillan. 6s. 

Holm (Adolph.) The History of Greece from its 
Commencement to the Close of the Independence 
of the Greek Nation. Translated from the 
German. (4 Vols.) Vol. I. up to the end of the 
sixth century, B.c. 8vo. Macmillan. 6s, net. 

















THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 427 


_ 


Homer. Mliad, Edited by Arthur Platt. Post 8vo. 
520 pp. Cambridge Warehouse. 4s. 6d. 

—— Odyssey. Books V.—VII. Edited on the 
basis of the Ameis-Hentze edition, by B. Perrin. 
8vo. E. Arnold. 6s. 

Infamia, its Place in Roman Public and Private Law, 
by A. H. J. Greenidge. 8vo. xii, 219 pp. 
Clarendon Press. - 10s. 6d. 

Innes (A. D.) Verse Translations from the Greek 
and Latin Poets. Chiefly of passages chosen for 
translation at sight. 8vo. 156 pp. Innes. 5s. 
net. 

Isocrates. Orations. 
with introduction and notes. 
354 pp. Bell & Sons. 5s. 

Juvenal. Satires I., [II., IV. Text and notes. 
Edited by A. H. Allcroft. Clive. 3s. 6d. 

Livy. History of Rome. Book IX. Translated 
by F. Storr. 12mo. Sewed. Bell & Sons. 1s. 
Lucian. Six Dialogues, translated into English with 
an introduction by Sidney T. Irwin. Post 8vo. 

212 pp. Methuen. 3s. 6d. 

Macmillan’s Shorter Latin Course. Second part. 
Being an abridgment of the Second part of 
Maemillan’s Latin Course, by A. M. Cook and W. 
FE. P. Pantin. 12mo. 204 pp. Macmillan. 2s. 

Meissner (C.) Latin Phrase Book. ‘Translated from 
the sixth German edition, with the addition of 
supplementary phrases and references, by H. W. 
Auden. 12mo. 324pp. Macmillan. 4s. 6d. 

Monro (D. B.) The Modes of Ancient Greek Music. 
8vo. Clarendon Press. 8s. 6d. net. 

Niebuhr (B. G.) Stories of Greek Heroes. Edited 
with notes and vocabularies, by H. S. Beresford- 
Webb. 12mo. 128 pp. Rivington. 2s. 

Pilato. Gorgias. With English notes, introduction 
and appendix by W. H. Thompson. Post 8vo. 
Bell & Sons. 6s. 

Platonis Hippias Maior. Edited for the upper forms 
of schools, by George Smith. Rivington, Percival 
& Co. 3s. 6d. 

Plato. Phaedo. Edited, with introduction, notes, 
and appendices, by R. D. Archer-Hind. 2nd ed. 
8vo. 210 pp. Macmillan. 8s. 6s. net. 

— Republic. Translated by Thomas Taylor. 
Edited with an introduction by Theodore Wratis- 
law. 12mo. 306 pp. W. Scott. 1s, 6d. 

Plautus, Captivi. Abridged and edited with intro- 


Translated by J. H. Freese, 
Wok deo 1amo. 


FOREIGN 
Abhandlungen (Breslauer Philologische). Herausge- 
geben von Prof. Rich. Forster. vii. Bd. 1. Hett. 


Breslau, Koébner. 
[De oraculis chaldaicis, seripsit Gu. Kroll. 78 
pp. 3 Mk. 60.] 

Aesop. Sternbach (L.) fabularum Aesopiarum sylloge. 
E codice Parisino Gr. N. 690 suppl. (Aus ‘Sitz- 
ungsberichte der K. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu 
Krakau.’) 8vo, Krakau. 83 pp. 3 Mk. 

Agathias (Reffel, H.) Ueber den Sprachgebrauch 
des Agathias. 8vo. Kempten, 1894. 84 pp. 

Anthologia Graeca, Stadtmiiller (H.) Zur griechi- 
schen Anthologie. Festchrift. 4to. Heidelberg, 
1894. 10 pp. 

Apuleius von Madaura (Apologie des). Zum ersten 
Male iibersetzt von Dr. F. Weiss. 8vo. Leipzig, 
Reisland. xxii, 88 pp. 2 Mk. 

Aristophanes. Gli uccelli, tradotti in versi italiani 


duction and notes, by J. H. Freese. 12mo. 
Methuen. 1s. 6d. 

Shuckburgh (Evelyn 8.) A History of Rome to the 
Battle of Actium, with maps and plans. Post 
8vo. 816 pp. Macmillan. 8s. 6d. 

Smith (R. H.) The Theory of Conditional Sentences 
in Greek and Latin, for the use of Students. 8vo. 
670 pp. Macmillan. 21s. net. 

Smyth (H. W.) The Sounds and Inflections of the 
Greek Dialects. Vol. I. Ionic. 8vo. 682 pp. 
Clarendon Press. 24s. 

Stedman (A. M. M.) A Vocabulary of Latin Idioms 
and Phrases. 16mo. 40 pp. Methuen. Is. 

Summers. (W. C.) A Study of the Argonautica of 
Valerius Flaccus. 8vo, Sewed. 76 pp. Deigh- 
ton, Bell & Co. 

Tacitus. Annalium ab Excessu Divi Augusti Libri. 
By H. Furneaux. Text. Cr. 8vo. Clarendon 
Press. 68. 

Germania. 
R. F. Davis. 

—— Germania. 
and map, by Henry Furneaux. 
Clarendon Press. 6s. 6d. 

Thucydides II., If. The Fall of Plataea and the 
Plague at Athens. Edited for the use of beginners, 
by W. T. Sutthery and A. S. Graves. With map, 
exercises, notes, appendices and vocabulary. 
Macmillan. 1s. 6d. 

Tutorial Latin Reader; a graduated series of 
extracts for practice in translation at sight. 
12mo. 160 pp. Clive. 2s. 6d. 

Virgil. Works. A literal translation by A. 
Hamilton Bryce, with introduction aud memoir. 
Post 8vo. Bell & Sons. 3s. 6d. 

Aeneid. Books I.—VI. Edited, with intro- 
duction and notes, by T. E. Page. 12mo. 524 
pp. Macmillan. 6s. 

Xenophon. Goodwin and White’s Anabasis revised 
throughout by the original editors, with an intro- 
duction. 12mo. Ginn & Co. Boston. 

— Hellenics. Books 4 and 5. Literally trans- 
lated by J. A. Prout. 12mo. 72 pp. Cornish. 2s. 

Young (A. W.) Tutorial Greek Reader, or Prooemia 
Graeca : a book of easy and entertaining extracts 
in Attic Greek, introductory to the fuller study of 
the Greek authors, with notes and complete voca- 
bulary. Post 8vo. 130 pp. Clive. 2s. 6d. 





Edited, with introduction, &c., by 
12mo. Methuen. 2s. 
Edited, with introduction, notes 
8vo. 122 pp. 





BOOKS. 


da Aug. Franchetti, con introduzioni e note di 
Dom. Comparetti. 16mo. Citti di Castello. liv, 
125 pp. 

Piéces choisies d’Avistophane, avee une intro- 
duction et notes par G. Ferté. 16mo. Paris. 
219 pp. 

Aristoteles. Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca, 
edita consilio et auctoritate academiae litterarum 
regiae horussicae. Vol. vii. 8vo. Berlin, Reimer. 

[Vol. vii. Simplici in Aristotelis de caelo com- 
mentaria, ed. J. L. Heiberg. xvi, 780 pp. 30 
Mk. 

Aristotle. Essen (E.) Das 2. Buch der aristotelischen 
Schrift tiber die Seele in kritischer Uebersetzung. 
Mit einem offenen Briefe an Herrn Geh. Reg. Rath 
Susemihl als Vorrede. 8vo. Jena, Neuenhahn. 
94 pp. 2 Mk. 50. 

Augustae historiae scriptores. 





Lenze (W.) Quaes- 


428 


tiones criticae et grammaticae ad scriptores histo- 
viae Augustae pertinentes. 8vo. Miinster, 1894. 
47 pp. 

Blondel (J. E.) Histoire économique de la conjura- 
tion de Catilina. 8vo. Lille. viii, 430 pp. 

Boussion (R.) Grammaire grecque simplifiée et aug- 
mentée d'un précis. 8vo. Paris. ii, 151 pp. 
2 Fr. 50. 

Chassang (A.) et Clairin (P.) Nouvelle chrestomathie 
grecque et exercices grecs’ (classe cinquieme). 
Crown 8vo. Paris. iv, 107 pp. 

Choppard (L.) et Hannezo (G.), Note sur la nécropole 
romaine d’Hadjeb-el-Aioun. Nouvelles découvertes 
dans la nécropole romaine d’Hadruméte. 8vo. 
Paris. 16 pp., 2 plates. (Extrait du Bulletin 
archéologique. ) 

Ciceronis (M. Tulli.) De officiis libri iii, scholarum 
in usum iterum ed. Al. Kornitzer. 12 mo. Wien, 


Gerald. iii, 213 pp. 
Claudian. Masettius Arcturus. De Claudii Clau- 
'  diani raptu  Proserpinae disputatio. 16mo. 
Bononiae. 11 pp. 


Corpus inscriptionum latinarum consilio et auctori- 
tate academiae litterarum regiae borussicae editum. 
Vol. viii, Supplementum, part ii. Folio. Berlin, 
Reimer. 

fii. Inscriptionum provinciae Numidiae la- 
tinarum supplementum, ed. R. Cagnat et Jo. 
Schmidt, commentariis instr. Jo. Schmidt et H. 
Dessau. v, et pp. 1667—1903. 22 Mk. 

Cyprian. Demmler (A.) Ueber den Verfasser der 
unter Cyprians Namen iiberlieferten Traktate, De 
bono pudicitiae und De spectaculis. 8vo. Miin- 


chen, 1893. 54 pp. 

Donatus. Schellwien (Alf.) De Cledonii in Dona- 
tum commentario. 8vo. Konigsberg, Koch. 64 
pp. 1 Mk. 


Draygendorff (J.) De vasculis Romanorum rubris ca- 
pita selecta. 8vo. Bonn, 1894. 34 pp., 1 plate. 

Euripides. Johring (J.) Ist die ‘Alkestis’ des 
Euripides eine Tragodie? 8vo, Feldkirch, 1894. 
19 pp. 

Florus. Schmidinger (F.) Untersuchungen iiber 
Florus. 8vo. Miinchen, 1894. 36 pp. 

Fondation Eugene Piot. Monuments et mémoires 
publiés par l’Academie des inscriptions et belles- 
lettres, sous la direction de G. Perrot et Rob. de 
Lasteyrie, avec le concours de P. Jamot. Tome i, 
fasc. 1. 4to. Paris. xxiii, 104 pp. 

Gitlbauer (Mich.) Die drei Systeme der griechischen 
Tachygraphie. (Aus. ‘Denkschriften der Akade- 
mie der Wissenschaften.’) Imper. 4to. Wien, 
50 pp., 4 plates. 3 Mk. 60. 

Glewe (H.) De homicidarum in Areopago Atheniensi 
iudicio. 8vo. Gottingen, 1894. 52 pp. 

Gomperz (Prof. Dr. Theod.) Griechische Denker. 
Eine Geschichte der antiken Philosophie. 3. hfg. 
8vo. Leipzig, Veit. Pp. 193—288. 2 Mk. 

Grammatik (historische) der lateinischen Sprache. 
Bearbeitet von H. Blase, G. Landgraf, J. H. 
Schmalz, Fr. Stolz, Jos. Thiissing, C. Wagener, 
A. Weinhold. 1 Bd., 1 Halfte. 8vo. Leipzig, 
Teubner. 

{I, 1: Einleitung und Lautlehre von F. Stolz. 
xii, 364 pp. 7 Mk.] 

Herodote. Hauvette (A.) Heérodote, historien des 
guerres médiques. 8vo. Paris. xi, 513 pp. 10 Fr. 

Stourae (F.) Ueber den Gebrauch des Genitivus 
bei Herodot. (Fortsetzung). S8vo. Olmiitz, 1894. 
26 pp. 

Hervieux (L.) Les fabulistes latins depuis le siécle 
d’Auguste a la fin du moyen age: Phédre et ses 
anciens imitateurs, directs et indirects. 2de 
édition, entitrement refondue. 2 vols. 8vo. Paris. 
xli, 834, 814 pp. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi phaenomena commen- 
tariorum libri iii, ad codicum fidem rec., germanica 
interpretatione et commentariis instr. Car. Mani- 


tius. 8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. xxxiv, 376 pp. 
4 Mk. 
Homer. Diederich (B.) Quomodo dei in Homeri 


Odyssea cum hominibus commercium faciant. 8vo 
Kiel, 1894. 87 pp. 
Ludwich (Arth.) De codicibus Batrachomyo- 








machiae. 4to. Konigsberg. 22 pp. 30 Pf. 
Mancini (A.) L’elemento lirico nell’ epos 
omerico. 8yvo. Pisa. 49 pp. 


Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, herausgegeben 
von Prof. A. Fleckeisen. 21 Supplt. Bd. 1. Heft. - 
8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. 352 pp. 9 Mk. ; 

Jerome. (St.) Sychowski (S. v.) Hieronymus als 
Litteraturhistoriker. Eine quellenkritische Unter- 
suchung der Schrift des H. Hieronymus ‘ De viris 
illustribus.’ [. 8vo. Miinchen, 1894. 44 pp. 

Keller (H.) Studien zum Attischen Staatsrecht. 
8vo. Miinchen, 1894. 145 pp. 

Kleinschmit (Dr. Max) Kritische Untersuchungen 
zur Geschichte von Sybaris. 4to. Hamburg, 
Herold. 26 pp. 2M. 50. 

Kéobert (H.) Der zahme Oelbaum in der religidsen 
Vorstellung der Griechen. 8vo. Miinchen, 1894. 
viii, 48 pp. 

Kraut (K.) und W. Rosch. Anthologie aus griechi- 
schen Prosaikern zum Uebersetzen ins Deutsche fiir 


obere Klassen. 1 Heft. 8vo. Stuttgart, Kohl- 
hammer. viii, 79 pp. 80 Pf. 
Lactantius. Brandt (S.) De Lactantii apud Pru- 


dentium vestigiis. Festschrift. 4to. Heidelberg 
1894. 10 pp. 

Livius. Schmidt (Adf. M. A.) Zum Sprachge- 
brauch des Livius in den Bichern i., ii., xxi., 
xxii. Thl. I.: Elemente des livianischen Stiles. 
Stellung der Liviuslectiire. Formenlehre, Sub- 
stantiv. 8vo. St.-Polten. 30 pp. 1 Mk. 

Lucretii Cari (T.) De rerum natura libri vi., ed. 


A. Brieger. 8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. Ixxxiv, 
206 pp. 1M. 80. 
Lucretius. Moreeaux choisis de Luecréce, avec une 


notice, des analyses, des résumés et des notes par 
C. Poyard. 16mo. Paris. vili, 184 pp. 1 fr. 50. 

Manuel Paléologue. Lettres de | Empereur Manuel 
Paléologue, publiées d’apres trois manuscrits par 
E. Legrand. le fase. 8vo. Paris. xii, 112 pp. 

Mussolin (Giac.) Il mito di Psiche: Carlo Bologna 
e Ludovico Savioli. 16mo. Venezia. 26 pp. 

Otto (R.) Die sogenannte Sokratische Methode, 
dargestellt nach Xenophons Memorabilien und auf 
deren Anwendung im Gymnasialunterricht gepruft. 
8vo. St. Paul. 27 pp. 1 Mk. 

Ovid’s Metamorphosen (in Auswahl), nebst einigen 
Abschnitten aus seinen elegischen Dichtungen, 
herausgegeben von Dr. M. Fickelscherer. Text. 
8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. iv, 123 pp. 1M. 

Paton (J. M.) De cultu dioscurorum apud Graecos. 
I. 8vo. Bonn, 1894. 36 pp. 

Pauly’s Realencyclopaedie der classischen Alterthums- 
wissenschaft. Neue Beabeitung, unter Mitwirkung 
zahlreicher Fachgenossen herausgegeben von Geo, 
Wissowa. 2 Halbband. 8vo. Stuttgart, Metzler. 
xv pp. and Col. 1441-2902. 15 M. 

Petii-Dutaillis (C.) De Lacedaemoniorum reipublicae 
supremis temporibus. 8vo. Taris. 106 pp. 

Plato. Christ (A. T.). Beitrige zur Kritik des 
Phaidon. 8vo. Prag, 1894. 23 pp. 

TlAovrdpxov Td év AeAdois E rpoopwveitat "Epvéotw 
Kouptiw ayovti Thy oydonkovTaeThpioa, bd Tpeyopiov 
N. Bepyadaxn. 8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. v, 36 pp. 
1 M. 50. 

Ptolemy. Boll (F.) Claudius Ptolemaus als Philo- 
soph. I. 8vo. Miinchen, 1894. 61 pp. 





The Classical Review 


DECEMBER 1894. 


THE POWER OF PARDON POSSESSED BY THE ‘PRINCEPS.’ 


THE question as to the exercise of the 
power of pardon in the Roman Principate 
cannot be said to be one which has suffered 
from over-treatment. Mommsen in his first 
edition of the Staatsrecht (ii. p. 848, note 2) 
lamented that ‘the whole subject of the 
rescission of sentences and of the power of 
pardon earnestly demanded a comprehensive 
revision. The complaint was listened to by 
Johannes Merkel, who in 1881 produced his 
treatise Uber die Begnadigungscompetenz im 
Rémischen Strafprocesse, a marvel of learn- 
ing and clearness, and so complete that any 
attempt to revive the question must be 
largely a criticism of his work. Still the 
question deserves to be revived, for on at 
least one all-important point, the power of 
pardon possessed by the Senate, Mommsen 
and Merkel differ fundamentally from one 
another. Hence any attempt to weigh again 
the delicate balance of probabilities, which 
is the result not only of discrepant state- 
ments of historians but of conflicting utter- 
ances of jurists, is justifiable, in spite of the 
fact that little or no evidence can be added 
to the material already collected. The so- 
lution of questions such as this may be 
assisted by analogies gathered from other 
fields of inquiry as well as by the addition 
of positive evidence, however poor a substi- 
tute the former may be for the latter. 

Pardon may be treated under two aspects, 
as a question of judicial administration and 
as a question of constitutional law. From 
both points of view its historical development 
is important, although from the latter it is 
more obviously so. But, from one point of 

NO, LXXIV. VOL. VIII. 


view at least, its importance as an element 
in constitutional law has been perhaps ex- 
aggerated. We often find a tendency to 
treat the growth of a power of pardon as 
though it were equivalent to the growth of a 
theory of sovereignty. This is not necessarily 
the case. Pardon may be an administrative or 
it may be a purely judicial act. It may be the 
right of an extra-judicial branch of the 
executive, such as the President of a Re- 
public, or it may be the right of a High 
Court to rescind sentences ; but this execu- 
tive authority or this court may have none 
of the other attributes of sovereignty. It 
can be shown that at Rome the Emperor’s 
power of pardon grew with his control of 
legislation ; but, had the latter power not 
accompanied the former, few would have 
dreamed of seeing in the mere executive 
exercise of pardon a sign of sovereign 
authority. 

This brings us to another—a narrower 
but still more instructive point of view— 
from which the power of pardon may be 
treated either as mainly a constitutional or as 
mainly a judicial question. Pardon may be 
exercised by a central controlling authority 
set above all courts of law, or it may be 
exercised by a supreme court over its own 
jurisdiction and over that of lesser courts, 
In neither case is it essentially a sovereign 
prerogative, but in the first it must have an 
extra-judicial basis : in the second it depends 
simply on the scheme of subordination of 
courts recognized by the state. But a third 
and more complicated alternative is possible, 
one also more closely connected with the 

HoH 


430 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


judicial than with the administrative func- 
tions of government. The power of annul- 
ling its sentences may be possessed by each 
separate court in its own right. Here there 
is a general power of pardon but no general 
pardoning power. 
whether this system, familiar to the Repub- 
lic, and which maintained itself in the form 
of the modified in integrum restitutio of each 
separate court, still survived in its perfect 
form in the Principate, or whether the 
striving after unity of administration was 
powerful enough to suppress the autonomy 
of the courts. 

Another important distinction between 
the different aspects of this power is sug- 
gested by the possibility of limitations being 
set on the power of pardon—limitations not, 
like those just discussed, connected with its 
sphere of operation, but with its actual ex- 
ercise. Pardon, in short, may be conditional 
or unconditional. It may be limited to 
certain contingencies by law or by custom, 
which is as strong as law, or it may be 
wholly unfettered. It is in the latter case 
only that it is a true sovereign right, although 
the exercise even of this power would not 
make the holder of it a sovereign. The 
question of main interest from the point of 
view of constitutional law, and the one 
which chiefly demands an answer, is the 
question whether this unconditioned power 
of pardon, however it may be viewed, was 
possessed by the princeps. If it was, we 
must ask further how it was gained and 
whether it had a legal basis. 

The power of pardon, as generally under- 
stood, implies the previous existence of a 
sentence to be rescinded, and all who have 
treated this question have been careful to 
distinguish it from such powers as that of 
amnesty, which precedes trial, or of abolitio, 
which precedes a sentence, or even from the 
power of completing the function of a lower 
court by ratifying a sentence which it is 
incompetent to pronounce on its own au- 
thority. The distinction is a just one, yet 
even juristically the latter are analogous 
powers, and historically they tend usually to 
accompany the exercise of the true power of 
pardon. They, therefore, demand a place in 
this discussion. 

The judicial influence of the princeps was 
of such a many-sided character that it is 
necessary to begin by distinguishing his 
power of pardon from the many indirect 
modes by which he could control the juris- 
diction of other courts. The least formal 
of these was guaranteed by his presence at 
the senate when sitting as a court of justice : 


We shall have to inquire - 


and in whatever character he attended the 
‘consilium’ of the consul’s court, whether as 
magistrate or as senator, his control of its 
decisions was none the less effectual because 
it was indirect. A less anomalous, but still 
indirect interference with the jurisdiction 
of lower courts arises from the emperor’s 
position as a Court of First Instance. This 


authority of the emperor as a high court of © 


voluntary jurisdiction, granted apparently 
to Augustus by a plebiscitum of 30 B.c, 
(Classical Review, 1894, p. 144), did enable 
him to usurp the jurisdiction of the lower 
courts; but it is going too far even to de- 
scribe it as a ‘right of summons’ possessed 
by the emperor (Merkel, op. cit. p. 58) ; it is 
really rather a right of the parties than a 
power of the magistrate, since the summons 
could proceed only ona request for cognizance. 
Its effectiveness as a mode of control rested 
on the facts that the request could proceed 
from prosecutor or accused in a criminal case, 
as it might from either of the parties in a 
civil suit, and that the merits of the case 
would have to be considered before the em- 
peror decided whether he should exercise his 
own jurisdiction. It is obvious that this 
procedure might be employed as an indirect 
mode in which the accused might secure the 
grace of the emperor, although there appears 
to be no case known in which the power was 


used, or rather abused, for this purpose. | 


We come next to a procedure which approxi- 
mates much more closely to a power of 
pardon, and in its final stages does not fall 
far short of it. It is the emperor’s control 
of provincial jurisdiction, not in the way of 
appeal, but in the form of supplementing the 
competence of provincial governors by con- 
firming penalties which required ratification. 
The ‘capital punishment of decurions was 
prohibited by Hadrian (Dig. 48, 19, 15), and 
the earliest mandata directing the procedure 
of governors in such cases are those of the 
‘divi fratres’ (Dig. 48, 19, 27, land 2). The 
punishment of deportation had also been 
confined to the princeps and to the two great 
prefects by the time of Septimius Severus 
(Dig. 48, 19, 2, 1 and 21, 2, 1),) and any 
provincial governor could only inflict the 
penalty subject to the emperor’s ratification 
(Dig. 48, 22, 6, ‘missa plena opinione ut 


1 The earliest notice of the restriction appears to be 
found in the edict-commentary of Ulpian, written 
probably under Septimius Severus. It was Severus 
who created, or confirmed, the power of the ‘prae- 
fectus urbi’ to ‘deport’ (Dig. 48, 22, 6). This does 
not touch the question of the emperor’s control over 
the ordinary criminal courts of Rome even for the 
time of Severus, since the ‘praefectus urbi’ was a 
delegate of the emperor, 





ee oe 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


princeps aestimet, an sequenda sit ejus sen- 
tentia’). It was inevitable that this power, 
gradually usurped by the emperor, should be 
followed by another—by the power, that is, 
of reforming illegal sentences, where a mis- 
take had been made by the governor and 
where a change in the sentence required 
ratification ; in this case both amendment 
and restitution were forbidden to the judge, 
and the question was referred to the emperor 
(Dig. 48, 19, 9, 11, ‘referre ad principem 
debet, ut ex auctoritate ejus poena aut 
permutetur aut liberaretur’). In both these 
cases the confirmation, the change, or (what 
must have been very much rarer) the re- 
scission of the penalty was made by imperial 
rescript following on the ‘relatio’ of the 
governor. The emperor acts in this case as 
an interpreting authority, and it is evident 
that we have here no theory of a power of 
pardon. The procedure is simply the result 
of the limitation of the competence of certain 
judges. If limitations of this kind, based 
on nature of punishment or on rank, exist, 
there must be some court to fill up the lack 
of competence : and, as in the history of the 
appeal, the highest court in the Roman 
world, that of the ‘ princeps,’ was ultimately 
chosen for this purpose. Its basis is to be 
sought not so much in any general preroga- 
tive, such as the ‘ proconsulare imperium,’ as 
in the fact that the ‘princeps’ and the con- 
sistory formed the highest interpreting au- 
thority in the empire. Nor could the pro- 
cedure usually have led to the exercise of 
pardon; the punishment, where found im- 
proper, was changed by the emperor. Yet 
full restitution was contemplated as a possi- 
bility, and this power of ratification might 
be so used as to become an act of grace. A 
passage in the Code (9, 51, 1) shows us 
Antoninus (Caracalla) in the consistory 
saying to a man who had been deported toan 
island, ‘ Restituo te in integrum provinciae 
tuae.’! This necessity for consulting the 
princeps by ‘relatio’ in certain cases must 
have done a great deal to strengthen a power 
which we shall soon have to examine—that 
of the superior restitutio possessed by the 
emperor over all criminal jurisdiction in the 
provinces, although the latter had an inde- 
pendent origin and is found as early as 
Trajan, probably before the fixed rules which 
we have just discussed had been finally 
framed. 


1 In this case the delinquent had appeared in 
person, and the result was practically a trial in the 
‘auditorium ’-of the emperor. But this must have 
been very unusual. Asarule the procedure was by 
rescript, which did not demand the presence of the 
accused, 


431 


For the present we must turn from the 
provinces and glance again at the courts of 
the central state to find a true, though very 
limited, power of pardon resting on a legal 
basis. This is the ‘intercessio’ in virtue of 
the ‘tribunicia potestas’ which gives the 
emperor the power of vetoing the decrees of 
the Senate when constituted as a criminal 
court. Here the emperor extends the func- 
tions of the tribune of the Republic as a 
court of cassation ; the procedure becomes 
formal, for rules are framed for its exercise” 
and the language of the appeal is used. But 
it is an accidental power in so far as it arises 
merely from the fact that this class of 
sentences assumed a form which was subject 
to the tribunician veto, and it was conse- 
quently confined to one sphere of jurisdiction 
only. The tribunician power furnished no 
basis for the exercise of a general power of 
pardon. 

Its complement, the ‘proconsulare impe- 
rium,’ with its direct supremacy over the 
imperial provinces, and its vaguer but still 
very real control over the senatorial, would 
seem at first sight sufficient for establishing 
a basis for this power in the world outside 
Italy. But, except in the case of military 
jurisdiction, which was, as a matter of course, 
completely under the control of the ‘impe- 
rator, the power of ‘restitutio’ over pro- 
vincial jurisdiction seems to have been of 
too gradual a growth for it to have been 
felt as a necessary and immediate outcome 
even of this ‘imperium.’ 

The unlimited power of ‘in integrum 
restitutio’ over criminal jurisdiction is a 
true power of pardon: and that this prero- 
gative was possessed by the emperor in all 
the provinces is proved by many statements 
of the classical jurists. But there are also 
evidences which prove that it had a gradual 
growth—a growth perhaps as gradual as 
that which led to the recognition of the 
universal appeal to Caesar. The passages in 
the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan (31, 
5; 56, 3; 57, 1), which have been sometimes 
taken to show that this power then existed, 
sometimes that it did not exist in its perfect 
form, really prove two points: firstly, that 
there was at the time no fixed rule limiting 
the ‘restitutio’ of governors, at least in 
senatorial provinces; and, secondly, that 





2 Tac. Ann. 8, 51, 3, ‘factum senatus consultum, 
ne decreta patrum ante diem decimum ad aerarium 
deferrentur idque vitae spatium damnatis prorogare- 
tur’; cf. Dio lvii. 20, 4; Suet. Tib. 75. Merkel 
(op. cit. p. 54) notices a striking peculiarity of this 
rule from the point of view of constitutional law. 
The regulation that increases the power of the superior 
court is obtained by a concession of the lower. 

wu 2 


432 


‘restitutio’ by a governor was felt to be 
permissible in certain cases. A fixed rule 
was created by a series of ‘ mandata,’ of 
which this of Trajan may have been 
amongst the first, laying down the general 


principle that ‘ praesides ’ should not rescind - 


their sentences without consulting the 
emperor, and specifying the cases in which 
they might use their own discretion.1_ This 
prerogative of the ‘ princeps’ is necessarily 
associated with the ‘ proconsulare imperium,’ 
since it is this alone that brings the em- 
peror into contact with the provinces ; but 
it is not an outcome of it. The courts even 
of the provincial world are not the emperor’s 
courts in the early principate. It grew 
with the greater centralization of govern- 
ment and the increasing limitation of the 
powers of governors—a limitation created 
by the ever growing practice of making 
‘relationes’ in cases of difficulty. The 
reference is made to the emperor as the 
highest court, as an interpreting authority. 
The history of the usurpation of the ‘ resti- 
tutio’ by Caesar is a part of the history of 
procedure by rescript: and the imperial 
rescript is rather a vehicle of advice 
than of command. But a general ‘man- 
datum’ was the inevitable consequence of 
successive rescripts ; it saved time and in- 
formed provincial governors of limitations 
on their powers which had been largely 
created by their predecessors. It was thus 
that the creation of customary law became 
fixed in the imperial ordinances before it 
was finally stereotyped in the writings of 
the jurists. If we ask whether this power 
even as finally developed rests on any general 
theory of pardon, the answer is ‘ probably 
not.’ It is simply restitution on equitable 
grounds, but on wider grounds than those 
possessed by the ordinary provincial gover- 
nor. 

It is when we turn to the courts of the 
central state that the question where pardon 
resides becomes, as we should expect, more 
complicated. For, if pardon is a function 
of the judicial power, the imperial jurisdic- 
tion has two rivals, the senate and the 
quaestiones perpetuae, theoretically exempt 
from its control; and if it isa part of the 
executive functions of government, then 
there is the senate, whose administrative 
control over Rome and Italy is far more 
real than that nominally assigned it over 
certain of the provinces. Here we are in 
the midst of controversy ; for while Momm- 

? Such specified cases are found in Trajan ad Plin. 


xxxil. and in a rescript of divus Pius (Dig. 48, 
19, 22). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. | 


sen assigns pardon to the senate, Merkel, 
with less confidence but with more certainty, 
finds it vested in the ‘princeps.’ We shall 
attempt to show that neither of these two 
views is tenable in its extreme form ; but 
that the power of pardon, like most ad- 
ministrative, judicial and even legislative 
functions in the Principate, is divided. ; 

The senate continues to grant public 
amnesties (abolitiones publicae) on the occa- 
sions of festivals or public rejoicings (‘ ob 
laetitiam aliquam vel honorem domus divinae 
vel ex aliqua causa, ex qua senatus censuit 
abolitionem reorum fieri,’ Ulpian in Dzg. 48, 
16, 2; cf. 48, 3, 2,1). This has little or 
nothing to do with any general theory of 
pardon ; it is primarily an administrative 
act ; the power of ordaining such ‘feriae’ 
was naturally accompanied by what, accord- 
ing to Roman religious notions, was an in- 
evitable consequence of such ordinances. 
This power is not shared by the emperor, 
but, as an interpreting authority, he may 
step in to show the proper limits of such 
decrees. Domitian by an edict declared 
that such ‘abolitiones’ did not extend to 
slaves who were in custody awaiting trial 
(Dig. 48, 16, 16; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1). 

We now turn to two cases, which have 
been preserved, where the senate seems to 
exercise the power of actually rescinding 
criminal sentences, 7.e. of ‘ restitutio’ in its 
pure form. It is said of Claudius (Suet. 
Claud. 12) ‘neminem exulum nisi ex sena- 
tus auctoritate restituit’ : and of Antoninus 
Pius (vit. 6) ‘his quos Hadrianus damnaverat 
in senatu indulgentias petiit, dicens etiam 
ipsum Hadrianum hoc fuisse facturum.’? 
Standing by themselves these passages might 
appear to exhibit a general power of ‘ resti- 
tutio’ possessed by the senate, although 
they are far outweighed in number by 
passages which assign such a function to the 
‘princeps’ alone. But the context in both 
of these cases shows that Merkel is undoubt- 
edly right in holding that we have here to 
deal with an unwonted concession made by 
the ‘ princeps.’? They are cases of certain 
‘ principes’ exercising, with the senate’s 

2 The words ‘quos Hadrianus damnaverat’ must 
probably be taken, with Merkel, to signify persons 
condemned in the emperor’s courts. If they mean 
persons condemned by the senate (through the in- 
direct influence of the emperor), the case is simple 
enough ; since, as we shall see, the seuate undoubt- 
edly possessed the power of ‘restitutio’ within the 
sphere of its own jurisdiction. 

3 This procedure of Claudius is cited by Suetonius 
amongst instances of his being ‘ pareus atque civilis.’ 
The sentence immediately following the words cited 


from the life of Antoninus Pius begins ‘ imperatorium 
fastigium ad summar civilitatem deduxit.’ 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


authority, a power which the average ruler 
would have exercised in his own right, and 
it is doubtful whether they rest on the 
faintest idea of the senate’s being a body 
properly qualified to pardon. They are, in 
fact, not exactly parallel to the imperial 
delegations of appeal, to which they have 
been compared. In the delegation of appeal 
we have the recognition that there is another 
side to the dyarchy; the appeal is made 
primarily to the consuls. Here we have 
simply an instance of the emperor consulting 
an ever-present ‘consilium’; cases that 
would naturally have come before the 
smaller council (the later consistory) are 
referred to a wider body. The procedure 
resembles the delegation of appeals only in 
so far as it springs from the same ‘civile 
ingenium’ of the ‘ princeps.’ 

A third instance of the exercise by the 
senate of a power which at least approxi- 
mates to pardon dates from the the reign of 
Pertinax. In an inscription (Wilmanns i. n. 
1198) we find the record of a M. Antonius 
Antius Lupus ‘cujus memoria per vim 
oppressi in integrum secundum amplissimi 
ordinis consultum restituta est.’ He had 
been put to death by Commodus (vit. Commod. 
7) and was amongst those whose memories 


were restored in the reign of Perfinax (vit. . 


Pertin. 7, ‘revocavit etiam eos qui deportati 
fuerant crimine majestatis, eorum memoria 
restituta qui occisi fuerant’). Here we 
have apparently an instance of ‘ restitutio 
memoriae’ by the senate. Merkel (p. 44) in 
his efforts to disallow any power of pardon 
to the senate understands the ‘ senatus con- 
sultum’ here as that which rescinded the 
‘acta’ of Commodus. It is a possible, but 
it is not the most obvious, interpretation. 
The difficulty arises here from the fact that 
the whole question of ‘damnatio memoriae’ 
is shrouded in great obscurity. It must be 
treated both as a general power of the 
senate and as an appendix to its criminal 
jurisdiction (Mommsen, Staatsrecht ii. p. 
1190). It was a consequence of ‘ perduellio ’ 
(Rein, Criminalrecht p. 501) but a special 
appendix to each separate condemnation (7. 
p. 537). No instance appears to be known 
of condemnation of memory being pro- 
nounced by any other authority than the 
senate, during the Principate. If in this 
way it supplemented the jurisdiction of other 
courts, then we need not inquire by whor 
Antius Lupus had been condemned. ‘ Re 
stitutio memoriae’ would be a prerogative of 
the senate! and if we choose to regard it as 

1 When Nero ‘Lolliae Paulinae cineres reportari 
sepulchrumqne exstrui permisit’ (Tac, dann. 14, 


433 


a power of pardon, the senate does to that 
extent possess this power. 

Has the senate, then, no power of ‘resti- 
tutio’ other than this occasional restoration 
of the memory of the condemned? For an 
answer to this question we have the best 
material conceivable, the definite statements 
of jurists. The praetor in his edict dealing 
with the ‘infames’ exempted, those who 
were ‘restituti’ from the praetorian infamia. 
Ulpian in his commentary to the Edict 
remarks (Dig. 3, 1, 1, 10) ‘De qua autem 
restitutione praetor loquitur? utrum de ea 
quae a principe vel a senatu Pomponius 
quaerit : et putat de ea restitutione sensum, 
quam princeps vel senatus indulsit.’ This 
statement is certainly no justification for 
Mommsen’s theory of a general power of 
pardon possessed by the senate; but it is 
equally illegitimate to extend it with Merkel 
(p. 49) to a general abolitio infamiae. No 
abolition of immediate infamia appears to 
be known until the period after Constantine, 
and there is no evidence for an ‘ abolitio’ of 
mediate infamia without a quashing of the 
sentence which created it. Nor could the 
senate have had power to cancel the imme- 
diate infamia even of its own members. It 
could expel its members—and even this pro- 
cedure is quasi-judicial—but there is no- 
thing to show that it could restore them. 
The passage in the praetor’s edict on which 
Ulpian commented clearly refers only to 
judicial restitutio, which, according to the 
commentators, might be granted by three 
courts, the emperor, the senate and the 
praetor, and the important point to notice is 
that the ‘restitutio’ of the senate is wncon- 
ditioned like that of the princeps, not con- 
ditioned like that of the praetor. Here at 
least the dyarchy of emperor and senate is 
complete. But for this very reason the 
passage furnishes no evidence for a general 
power of pardon being possessed by the 
senate. It possesses ‘ restitutio’ only over 
its own sentences and only in its capacity as 
acriminal court. This ‘restitutio’ doubt- 
less continued in force as long as the senate 
continued to be actively employed as a 
criminal court. In legal theory this power 
was never lost to the senate; for, however 
seldom its jurisdiction was employed in the 
later empire, it never ceased to be a court of 
criminal jurisdiction. Hence the appearance 
of the principle, however casually stated, in 
the Digest. Its preservation is due to a 
motive similar to that which led Justinian’s 
12, 6), this ‘restitutio memoriae’ was no doubt 
effected by a ‘senatus consultum.’ Lollia Paulina 
had been condemned by the senate. 


434 


compilers to preserve the theory that the 
senate was an inappellable court. 

It is true that a great number of passages 
may be cited from the writings of the 
classical jurists which appear to conflict 


with this conclusion and implicitly to deny - 


this power to the senate. All these pas- 
sages state that pardon is confined to the 
emperor. A closer examination shows, 
however, that they are by no means conclu- 
sive against our theory. First we may take 
a series of passages from Ulpian (Diy. 28, 
3, 6, 2; 32, 1, 5; 48, 23, 2) and from 
Paulus (Dig. 34, 1, 11; 48, 23, 4), chiefly 
referring to the validity of wills and codicils, 
all of which speak of restitution ‘a principe’ 
or ‘indulgentia principis,’ and have no word 
to say of restitution by any other power. 
The reason for this silence is no doubt to be 
sought, as we shall soon see, in the place 
occupied by these passages in the Digest. 
The next important point to notice here is 
that the passages are perfectly general and 
do not raise the question of the court which 
had condemned the persons so_ restored. 
More important is the series of passages 
from the jurists which deal directly with 
criminal law and which state that ‘ resti- 
tutio,’ as well as any change or commutation 
of sentence, can be effected by the ‘prin- 
ceps’ alone. Of these six passages no less 
than four refer directly to the provinces 
(Dig. 48, T3515 21-5 19,9, ets Shean 
27); a fifth from Marcian (Dig. 48, 19, 4), 
although it appears in a general form, seems 
as though it may. have been originally 
directed to provincial administration. The 
sixth and most important is a statement by 
Paulus (Dig. 42, 1, 45, 1 = lib. i. sent.) and 
seems the only one that means to lay down 
quite a general principle. It runs ‘de am- 
plianda vel minuenda poena damnatorum 
post sententiam dictam sine principali auc- 
toritate nihil est statuendum.’ It refers, 
therefore, to revision of sentences rather 
than to ‘restitutio, but, judicially con- 
sidered, the principle of both these powers 
is the same. 

The uniformity of statement in these pas- 
sages, which seems to conflict with the theory 
that the senate possessed a power of ‘resti- 
tutio,’ may be accounted for on three 
grounds ; (1) many refer to the provinces, 
and the emperor’s superior power. of ‘resti- 
tutio,’ the growth of which has been traced 
above, is here admitted ; (2) even the most 
general statements, such as that of Paulus, 
are sufficiently true approximately not to 
surprise us by their occurrence. They are 
true of nearly the whole Roman world. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The early exceptions had been the senate 
and the ‘quaestiones,’ but the senate with 
its limited Italian jurisdiction was not an 
important exception, and the ‘quaestiones’ had 
disappeared by Paulus’ time (Dig. 48, 1, 8) ; 
and (3) we must always remember the place 
of these passages in the Digest. They were 
excerpted by the compilers as a statement | 
of a principle which was literally true after 
the abolition of the procedure of the 
‘judicia publica’ and after the senate had 
practically ceased to. act as a court of 
justice. ; 

We may now turn finally to the only form 
of pardon which yet remains to be discussed : 
that of the emperor for Rome and Italy. 
That the emperor possesses the power of 
judicial ‘restitutio’ over his own sentences 
can hardly be doubted. In some of the 
passages which treat of recall from exile 
and the like a personal act of the emperor 
seems clearly implied (e.g. Tac. Ann, 14, 12 
and 12, 8); others (e.g. Tac. Ann. 4, 31) are 
rendered doubtful, because they may imply 
previous condemnation by the senate, and 
consequently a restitution through the em- 
ployment of the tribunician veto. But, 
apart from these isolated cases of ‘ resti- 
tutio, we have frequent evidences of a 
wholesale pardon being extended by em- 
perors to the victims of past reigns. Such 
acts are mentioned under Claudius (Dio 60, 
4), Otho (Tac. Hist. 1, 90: Plut. Otho 1), 
Vitellius (Tac. Hist. 2, 92),1 Vespasian (Dio 
66, 9), Antoninus Caracalla (vit. 3) and 
Gordian (Herodian 7, 6, 4).2 In none of 
these passages is there any suggestion of the 
cooperation of the senate. 

If we compare these instances with the 
few examined above, where the senate is 
mentioned as being consulted by the emperor 
on questions of ‘restitutio, we have to 
choose between the probabilities of all men- 
tion of the senate being omitted in these 
numerous cases, the actual controlling power 
of the emperor being so great, and of the 
activity of the senate, where it occurs, being 
abnormal. In questions of historical proba- 
bility, where we are dealing with legal 
institutions described by non-juristic writers, 
the number of instances on either side 
counts for little. It is the context of the 
instances that is all-important, and from 
this point of view, as we have already seen, 

1 In the passages referring to the reigns of Otho 
and Vitellius the language is indeterminate; the 
mention is simply of ‘reversi’ or ‘revocati ab 
exilio.’ 

2 A similar isolated case of ‘restitutio’ is men- 
tioned by Pliny (Zp. 4, 9, 2), ‘(Julius Bassus) a 
Domitiano relegatus est : revocatus a Nerva,’ 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


there is everything to be said for Merkel’s 
view that ‘restitutio’ was made by the 
emperor, and that, where we find a mention 
of the senate, its concurrence was only an 
imperial concession. 

If we ask what sentences were thus 
rescinded, the most obvious answer is ‘ the 
judgments of the emperor’s own courts.’ 
The holder of office may change, but the 
‘princeps’ as a court never dies. It is 
purely judicial restitution, which is as 
valid over the acts of the emperor’s pre- 
decessors as over his own. ‘The exemption 
of the senate’s jurisdiction from this power 
is almost certain. Besides the evidence 
for senatorial restitution noticed above, the 
fact that cross appeals were not allowed ! 
makes it extremely unlikely that the em- 
peror gained? any power of rescinding its 
sentences. For ‘restitutio’ on the whole 
follows throughout the analogy of the appeal. 
The ‘ quaestiones perpetuae’ are not neces- 
sarily implied in any of these instances, for 
these courts were not usually employed in 
the trial of political offences. The question 
whether the emperor had any power of 
‘yestitutio’ over the ‘quaestiones’ is by 
no means easy to answer. There is no 
evidence for such a power, but perhaps it 
it is not quite so impossible that it existed 
as has usually been thought. If we admit 
that the emperor has no control over the 
‘quaestiones’ in the way of appeal, does 
this exclude a ‘ restitutio’ of their sentences 
based on certain valid grounds? Possibly 
not. In civil cases the analogy of the 
appeal is not followed here. We have the 
instances of Claudius’ ‘restitutio in inte- 
grum’ of cases in the ‘ judicia ordinaria’ 
(Suet. Claud. 14), and of Domitian’s restitu- 
tion of judgments of the centumviral court 
(Suet. Dom. 8). The passages cited by 
Merkel (p. 64) to illustrate the unchange- 
ableness of judgments in the early Princi- 
pate— 

Quinctil. Declam. 372: ‘judicia judiciis 
rescindi non possunt. sera post damna- 
tionem innocentiae defensio est.’ 

Seneca, Controv. iii. 23: judex quam 
tulit de reo tabellam revocare non potest. 
quaesitor non mutabit sententiam suam.— 
are perhaps too general to be argued from. 


1 Ulpian in Dig. 49, 2, 1, 2, ‘sciendum est appel- 
lari a senatu non posse principem, idque oratione divi 
Hadriani effectum.’ It becomes a stronger proof if 
we believe it to be an old principle contirmed (and 
not created) by Hadrian. 

2 That he could not have possessed it from the 
first is proved by the necessity of employing the tri- 
bunician ‘intercessio’ as an indirect means of 
pardon. 


435 


They only show the general inviolability of 
a ‘res judicata’; this did not, however, in 
general exclude either the appeal or the 
‘restitutio.’ But, if they be taken to prove 
the complete unchangeableness of a sentence 
by the ordinary criminal court at Rome 
which had pronounced it, this will be an 
argument for some power of ‘ restitutio’ 
having been vested in the ‘princeps.’ For 
it is hardly conceivable that, at a time when 
the whole Roman procedure was being co- 
ordinated and reformed by statute law as 
well as by imperial edicts,’ no provision 
whatever should have been made for an 
equitable readjustment of unjust sentences. 
If such a power was exercised by the 
‘princeps, it would probably not have as- 
sumed the form of a cancelling or an amend- 
ment of the sentence, but of permission for 
‘ retractatio judicii’ or renewal of the trial. 
The control, in any case, would not have 
been so arbitrary as that in the emperor’s 
own courts. The grounds for ‘ retractatio’ 
may have been fixed, but the question 
whether it should be resorted to in any par- 
ticular case may well have been referred to 
the highest court and the highest interpret- 
ing authority, the emperor. This may be 
pronounced conjecture ; but we have more 
right to speculate about the ‘ quaestiones’ 
than about any other court in the Princi- 
pate, since their complete disappearance has 
caused no trace of their relations to the 
emperor to be preserved in the Digest. 

On the whole there is no evidence that 
this ‘restitutio’ was exercised over any 
criminal courts at Rome but those of the 
‘princeps’ himself. Had it been, it could 
not be explained, as the control over provin- 
cial courts has been explained, as the gradual 
growth of customary law—the instances 
are too early for the growth of customary 
law on such a point. This ‘restitutio must 
have been based on a principle fairly obvious 
from the first: and this could have been 
none other than rescission by the emperor’s 
court of its own sentences. 

But, even in the procedure as thus limited, 
have we any theory of pardon? Probably 
none of free pardon such as that granted by 
a sovereign—the epoch of ‘general indul- 
gences’ is not reached until much later. 
In all these cases there was probably at 
least the fiction of improper—.e. of irregular 
—condemnation. This appears very clearly 

3 Of the first kind were the leges Juliae de judicvis 
ordinandis and judiciorwm publicorum ; of the latter 
such imperial regulations as that by which ‘Titus put 
an end to an anomaly of the criminal courts by for- 


bidding ‘de eadem re plurimis legibus agi’ (Suet. 
Tit. 8). 


436 


in the procedure adopted by Gordian (Hero- 
dian 7, 6, 4), where he is spoken of as 
madwoikiay Sidovs Tos adikws KaTaKptiOetor ; 
that is, his ‘restitutio’ did not lead to an 
acquittal but to a renewal of the trial (re- 
tractatio judicii). It is a power which does 
not differ essentially in theory from the 
praetorian restitution, which is certainly not 
a power of pardon. 

But, besides the restitution proper, we 
have evidences of a power possessed by the 
emperor from the very dawn of the Princi- 
pate. This is the ‘abolitio,’ or power of 
quashing indictments, which approximates to 
pardon and may clearly be used for this 
purpose. Instances of its employment are 
found under Augustus (Suet. Oct. 32), Gaius 
(id. Calig. 15; cf. Dio 59, 6), Domitian 
(Suet. Dom. 9), and Vespasian (Dio 56, 9). 
So far as we conceive this procedure to have 
been adopted within the sphere of the em- 
peror’s jurisdiction, the possession of the 
right of ‘abolitio’ creates no difficulty, 
although we may not be able to fathom the 
principles on which its exercise was based. 
If we are forced to adopt a legal theory for 
what seems to have been a somewhat irregu- 
lar procedure, it seems simply to have been 
the right of a court, less hampered by legal 
formalities than any other, to refuse indict- 
ments brought before it. But the instances 
given by our authorities seem to show a 
wider power than this. The procedure of 
Augustus, who ‘diuturnorum reorum — 
nomina abolevit,’ we may perhaps account 
for with Mommsen (Staatsrecht ii. p. 885, 
note 1) by saying that it was an outcome of 
the extraordinary ‘ potestas’ which he pos- 
sessed before the final constitution of the 
Principate. Gaius * criminum — omnium 
gratiam fecit,’ but the context shows that 
political charges, which had survived his 
predecessor’s rule, are meant, and these 
might have been before the emperor’s court. 
The same is true of Vespasian’s use of the 
‘abolitio’; but Domitian ‘reos—univeros 
discrimine liberavit,’ and fixed certain con- 
ditions under which alone these charges 
could be renewed. There is nothing in the 
context here to fix the limits within which 
he exercised his authority ; it is quite pos- 
sible, however, that political prosecutions 
before the emperor’s court alone are meant. 

Bat, if we hold that these instances force 
us to admit a wider power of ‘abclitio’ than 
this, it is not altogether impossible to supply, 
from the known prerogatives of the ‘ prin- 
ceps, a basis for this power. A very wide 
power of quashing indictments might have 
been exercised by the emperor in two ways. 


_ brought to the emperor’s court. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


The one is an indirect mode of control based 
on his personal jurisdiction, the other a direct 
power springing from his ‘tribunicia po- 
testas.’ As regards the first, we must re- 
member that it was possible to get any case 
It might be 
presented to that court in the first instance 
by the prosecutor, or the request for cogniz- 
ance might come from the accused. The © 
emperor might, therefore, listen to the pre- 
liminaries of any case and then refuse to. 
take it, without ‘remitting’. it to another 
court. It is extremely unlikely that any 
other criminal court at Rome would have 
listened to even the preliminaries of a 
prosecution which had been rejected by the 
emperor, and in this way what was practic- 
ally a general power of ‘abolitio’ might 
have grown up. 

But the power might also have been ex- 
ercised more directly. It has been stated 
above that the ‘tribunicia potestas’ furnishes 
no basis for a general power of pardon ; but 
it does not seem hitherto to have been 
noticed that it might have furnished a basis 
for something approaching to a_ general 
power of ‘abolitio’ in criminal jurisdiction. 
The veto of the tribunes was in the Republic 
sometimes exercised against the preliminaries 
of a prosecution in a ‘ judicium publicum,’ 
and might be directed against the reception 
of the charge itself. WVatinius appealed suc- 
cessfully to a tribune ‘ne causam diceret’ 
(Cic. in Vat. 14, 33), and the college inter- 
fered to protect C. Antonius against con- 
demnation for ‘repetundae’ (Ascon. in orat. 
in tog. cand. p. 111). The exercise of this 
power, although unusual, was admittedly 
legal, and it must, undoubtedly have de- 
scended to the emperors with the other at- 
tributes of the ‘tribunicia potestas.’ It 
might be directed against the senate as well 
as against the ‘quaestiones,’ and perhaps the 
indirect influence of the emperor on sena- 
torial jurisdiction may be accounted for 
largely on this hypothesis. The numerous 
instances in which the senate refuses to 
entertain a charge until the will of the 
emperor is consulted may have arisen, at 
least partly, from a sense that the tribu- 
nician veto was possible at any stage of the 
proceedings. 

Here we may conclude our sketch of the 

1 In the case of Piso Tiberius ‘minas accusantium 
et hine preces audit integramque causam ad senatum 
remittit’ (Tac. Ann. 3, 10, 6). The word ‘remit’ 
is unfortunate, as it might seem to imply that the 
court to which the remit was made was bound to ac- 
cept the case. This was not true either of the senate 
or of the ‘quaestiones,’ which were theoretically in- 
dependent of any anterior decisions of the * princeps.’ 


Bros 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


‘princeps’ as the head of criminal juris- 
diction in the Roman world. He does 
become very nearly the head, but he is not 
a supreme authority, still less a sovereign. 
His exact position will be best exhibited by 
a brief summary of the conclusions tenta- 
tively arrived at. 

The senate possesses no general power of 
pardon beyond its inheritance from the 
Republic of declaring ‘abolitiones’ on cer- 
tain public occasions ; but it has, as a high 
court, the ‘ restitutio’ of its own sentences. 
Further than this, it is occasionally consulted 
by the ‘ princeps’ on the advisability of his 
rescinding the sentences of the imperial 
courts, but in this procedure there seems to 
reside no recognition of a power of pardon. 

The emperor, as regards Roman courts, 
possessed the right of ‘restitutio’ only over 
his own sentences. It is merely a judicial 
power, and there is no interference, in the 
way of ‘restitutio’ proper, with the senten- 
ces of the senate, and perhaps none with 
the sentences of the ‘quaestiones.’ If any 
interference was possible with the latter, it 
probably merely assumed the form of a 
permission for ‘ retractatio.’ The emperor 
probably possessed some power of ‘abolitio’ 
in all criminal jurisdiction. As regards 
criminal jurisdiction in the provinces, the 
revision of the sentences of the courts, 
where revision is suggested by the judge, 
like the infliction of punishments denied to 
the judge, centres finally in the hands of the 
emperor. It appears to have been based on 
no special prerogative, but to have been a 
gradual development of customary law—a 
reference to the highest authority in the 
Roman world, the emperor and the imperial 
consistory. This custom became fixed by 
the writings of the jurists, and appears as 
an undisputed prerogative of the emperor in 
the form in which they have been preserved 
for us by Justinian’s compilers. The dif- 
ference between the imperial ‘restitutio’ and 
that of the provincial governor, when it was 
permitted, is that the former, although sup- 
posed to be based on equitable grounds, was 
unlimited, the latter was limited by certain 
well-defined rules. This power might be so 
employed by the emperor as to take the form 
of a free pardon, but theoretically it was 
merely an equitable assistance. As a legally 
unlimited power of rescinding sentences, it 
approaches very nearly to a power of pardon ; 


437 


but it is an executive duty rather than a 
sovereign right, and we search in vain in the 
Principate for a power of pardon regarded 
as an admitted constitutional right of a 
sovereign. 

In the later empire, if there is no differ- 
ence in theory, there is yet a difference in 
practice. The issue of ‘indulgences’ and 
‘abolitiones,’ some occasional, like those 
granted by Constantine to the Christians, 
some, like the Easter pardons, regularly re- 
curring, proceeds from the emperor as the 
head of the administration. They are the 
work of the imperial consistory rather than 
the function of a supreme judge. Mean- 
while the wholesale pardons, retrospectively 
extended to the victims of past reigns, have 
disappeared. For it is one of the brightest 
features of the later empire that, as the 
emperor’s prerogative became more undis- 
puted, the actual administration of justice 
became more independent of the imperial 
personality. There were greater stretches 
of administrative law, but there was less 
judicial tyranny. 

From a practical point of view, through- 
out the history of this power the imperial 
consistory must be kept in mind. It is 
significant that the consistory first becomes 
prominent under Hadrian (vit. Hadr. 18 and 
22, Haubold de consistorio, p. 30) at the very 
time when the control of provincial juris- 
diction was beginning to centre in the hands 
of the emperor. The references (relationes) 
were felt to be no longer made to the em- 
peror alone but to the emperor’s privy 
council, or, if we regard the ‘auditorium’ 
as distinct from the consistory, and employ 
what is not quite a perfect analogy, to the 
judicial committee of the privy council,! 
composed of the greatest jurisconsults in the 
Roman world. This was the standing defence 
of the emperor’s control of jurisdiction ; it 
was through this that he came to be replaced 
by his prefects, no doubt in pardon as well 
as in appeal, and that his personality came 
in time to be lost in a great impersonal 
system of central administration. 


A. H. J. GREEnIDGE. 


' The analogy is rendered imperfect by the prob- 
ability that some of the members of the auditorium 
(e.g. great lawyers who were not distinguished for 
statesmanship) were not members of the consistory 
(Haubold de consistorio, p. 42). 


438 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ON THE DURATION OF THE ACTION OF THE ORESTEAN TRILOGY. 


Tae story of Orestes in Aeschylus is 


generally assumed to be essentially the same | 


as in Homer, Sophocles, and Euripides: 
Orestes was sent from home when a boy (of 
ten years) by his sister or a nurse, in order 
to save his life at his father’s death ; after 
eight years in Athens or Phocis, on coming 
to manhood, he returned to his Home and 
slew his mother and Aegisthus; after that, 
he wandered for an indefinite period (Hur. 
Iph. Taur.), pursued by the Furies, until he 
was at last acquitted of guilt and purified 
in Athens. Thus a period of at least eight 
or ten years would intervene between the 
death of Agamemnon and the trial of Orestes 
on the Areopagus. 

My thesis is that, according to Aeschylus, 
the action of the Humenides closes only a 
few (perhaps ten) days after that of the 
Agamemnon. 

The case must not be prejudiced by any 
assumption that all the a poets would 
agree in such a matte The freedom 
allowed by the Greeks in ile treatment of 
mythical details is well illustrated by the 

case of Oedipus. According to Homer, the 

relationship between Oedipus and Jocasta 
was discovered immediately on their mar- 
riage ; she hung herself, but he lived on, 
and—far from blinding himself—seems to 
have fallen in battle; certainly he was 
buried with royal honours at Thebes. In 
Sophocles, the awful truth was not made 
known until four children had been born to 
the unhappy pair; then Jocasta hung her- 
self, while Oedipus blinded himself, was 
driven out of the city to suffer in exile, 
attended by Antigone, and finally died near 
Athens; his sepulchre was as unknown as 
that of Moses; the contest between his 
sons for the possession of Thebes followed. 
In Euripides, finally, on the long-delayed 
discovery of the relationship between them, 
Oedipus blinded himself but remained at 
Thebes ; while Jocasta did not hang herself 
at all, but stabbed herself after the death of 
Eteocles and Polynices; not till then was 
Oedipus driven from home. 

The undisputed discrepancies in the stories 
of Agamemnon’s family are instructive. 
Homer knows nothing of any quarrel be- 
tween Atreus and Thyestes, nothing of 
Iphigenia and her sacrifice, nothing of 
Electra; Aegisthus invited Agamemnon to 
his home as the warrior was returning to 
Greece and there—not at the palace of the 


king of men—slew him at the feast by an 
aminosedde of armed men,—Clytaemnestra 
not aiding in any way ; Orestes passed his 
youth at eee and eight years after the 


death of his father returned to his home © 


and slew Aegisthus, while Clytaemnestra 
seems to have committed suicide. The Epic 
poet knows of no guest-friend Pylades, and 
of no pursuit of Orestes by-the Furies. 
The fortune and fame cf Orestes are held up 
by Athena as an incentive to Telemachus. 
The established differences being so great 
between the story followed by Homer and 
that told by Aeschylus, we should be ready 
to receive evidence that the action of the 
Orestean trilogy was much more condensed 
than is generally supposed and is assumed 


by the stories of Homer and Sophocles. 


The differences of the Euripidean account 
are so marked in this particular matter, that 
I shall say nothing of his play; when I 
speak of the Hlectra in this paper, I mean 
the Sophoclean drama. 

My thesis involves a different view from 
that ordinarily held with regard to the age 
of the Aeschylean Orestes at his father’s 
death. He can no longer be considered a 
boy of ten years at that time; he must be 
already a man. The evidence for this view 
is partly negative and partly positive. In 
the warning of Aegisthus by the chorus in 
the Agamemnon (1617, 1638), that Orestes 
may return and. inflict vengeance on his 
father’s murderers, no indication of youth 
is found as in the warning given by Hermes 
in Homer that Orestes would return when 
he should come to manhood (éz7r67’ av HByon, 
a 41). In the Zlectra of Sophocles, Orestes 
is guided on his return by the faithful old 
paedagogus who had saved him; as Orestes 
says to his sister, ob 76 ®wxéwv wédov | imeée- 
réupOnv on tpopnbia xepoiv, 1349 f. The 
aged attendant points out to the son of 
Agamemnon Argos, the sanctuary of Io, the 
Lycean agora, the renowned temple of Hera, 
Mycenae, and the home of the Pelopidae, 
odev oe TaTpos €K povev ey mote | mpos offs 
bpaipmov Kat KaoLyVATYS Aa Bio | nveyxa Ka€e- 
cwoa Kakebpepapny | tovovd’ és HBys, 11 ff. 
A hint of the tender age of the Sophoclean 
Orestes when sent from home may be found 
in his mother’s words about him, as pacrév 
dmooras kal tpopns éeuns 776, which though 
exaggerated in any case are better suited to 
a boy of ten than to a youth of eighteen. 
In the Cheéphori, on the other hand, no 





hy ll, Or Ope 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


attendant is said to have saved Orestes’ 
life, and none accompanies him as his guide 
on his return. Electra had nothing to do 
with his departure. Orestes of his own 
knowledge is perfectly familiar with the 
locality. Nothing indicates that he has not 
seen his home since early childhood. But, 
for a positive argument, in Aeschylus 
Orestes is an exile. In this respect the dif- 
ference is marked between the representa- 
tions of Aeschylus and of Sophocles. In the 
latter’s play, Orestes has deserted his home 
of his own will, rescued from death by his 
sister, and sent away secretly. In the 
Aeschylean trilogy he was driven out by 
his mother. When, under his reproaches, 
Clytaemnestra says that he should not de- 
clare that he was cast out—she had sent him 
to the home of an ally—he insists that he 
was ‘sold, though the son of a free father.’ 
When the mother asks what price she had 
received for him, he declares that he is 
ashamed to name it openly. In her sticho- 
mythic reply she bids him consider also his 
father’s wantonnesses,—xal zatpos Tov ood 
paras (Choéph. 906-911). What Orestes 
means by the price received for him, is 
clear ; he was sent from home because he 
was too old a youth to endure the sight of 
the intimacy between Aegisthus and _ his 
mother. His sisters, being women, were 
helpless, but the young man would not have 
brooked the sight of his mother’s shame and 
the wrong to his father. Such an age for 
Orestes is assumed aiso in the Agamemnon, 
841 ff., where the queen apologizes for her 
son’s absence; if he were only a ten-year- 
old boy, she need not have mentioned his 
absence, any more than that of his sisters, 
in her speech of welcome to her husband. 
That passage shows sufficiently that Orestes 
was no child to be saved by his sister ; his 
mother says he was already in Phocis. 
That Orestes was considered an exile is in- 
dicated elsewhere in the Choéphori, and also 
in the opening lines, where he says 7jxw yap 
és yqv tHvde Kal Katépxopa, explained cor- 
rectly by Aristophanes’ words in the mouth 
of Aeschylus, Mrogs 1113, devywv 8 avip 
WKer TE Kal kaTépxerat. With this is to be 
compared Ag. 1617 f., “Opéorns dpa ov 
Bréret haos, | drws xateAOdv dedpo «.7.r., and 
the words of Aegisthus, 1639, 013 éya ev- 
yovtas avépas eAridas ottoupéevovs. 

In accordance with the view here pre- 
sented of the age of the Aeschylean Orestes 
is the fact that the Choéphori does not con- 
tain the indications abundant in the Llectra 
of the lapse of time since the death of 
Agamemnon. Sophocles evidently followed 


‘what he promises.’ 


439 


the Homeric story that Orestes returned 
after eight years. He represents Electra as 
losing all hope because of the procrastina- 
tion of Orestes (H/. 164 f., 303 ff.). ‘He 
says that he will come, but does naught of 
Clytaemnestra too has 
long (aiév, 782) expected the return of her 
son to render vengeance ; the dread of this 
has kept sleep from her eyes. But in the 
Choéphori, Orestes is not yet the declared 
enemy of the guilty pair. On receiving the 
false news of Orestes’ death, Aegisthus 
expresses regret (833 ff.) which bears no 
marks of hypocrisy, and clearly does not 
look to be slain by his hands. Perhaps he 
does not think that Orestes has yet heard of 
Agamemnon’s death. The Aeschylean Elec- 
tra is so far from resting all her hope on 
her brother that she actually needs to be 
reminded of him by the coryphaeus (108). 
The lamentations of the chorus of the 
Choéphori on their entrance are more natural 
when understood as following soon after 
Agamemnon’s death. The cheeks of the 
women are torn by their nails, their gar- 
ments are rent in their grief, dyeAdorots 
Evdopats werAnypéevov (30). To discuss the 
old question of the constitution of the 
chorus of this play would carry us too far 
afield for the present discussion, but I must 
express my belief that modern scholars 
would not have thought these women to be 
Trojan captives, if it were not for the 
opinion of the scholiast, which in such 
matters has the slightest of weight. The 
lists of dramatis personae seem to be derived 
from those which were made under the 
direction of Aristophanes of Byzantium, 
yet modern criticism denies them any 
authority in the case of names which are 
not found in the text, like that of Aeacus in 
the Frogs. The passage éxoWa Koupov “Aptov 
év te Kioatas | vopois intemotptas, 411 f., is 
assigned to Electra by some editors, with as 
much authority as to the chorus ; but if any 
one desires to assign these verses to the 
chorus, and to interpret them literally and 
exactly (not merely in Oriental fashion), he 
would make these women out to be Persians 
and not Trojan captives. Evidently the 
chorus sympathize with Agamemnon as they 
could not do if they had been taken by him 
at the fall of Troy, and had remained in his 
service only during the voyage to Greece. 
Their sympathy is not so much with Electra 
personally as with the old royal house. 
They are to be compared with the watchman 
at the opening of the Agamemnon, who has 
true affection for his lord and sincere sorrow 
for the troubles of the house. No sufficient 


440 


motive has been assigned for the lamenta- 
tion of the ‘ Choéphori’ if they are Trojan 
captives. But if they are old servants of 
Agamemnon, and mourning for his death, 
this is surely an indication that the murder 


had not taken place eight years previously. - 


When Orestes sees them, he asks himself, 
ToTepa Odpoiot THUG TporKupel veov, 13, which 
is most easily interpreted, ‘Is some one else 
dead?’ This involves an allusion to his 
father’s death borne out by the next verses, 
which would be natural soon after its occur- 
rence, but less so after several years had 
passed. So, too, the conversation between 
Orestes and Electra and the chorus, 427 ff., 
implies that he had not heard the details of 
his father’s death; but I lay little weight 
on this, because at their first meeting after 
a great sorrow, though distant in time, 
friends naturally recall the details of the 
occurrence. 

The address of the chorus to the tomb of 
Agamemnon, calling upon the earth which 
now lies over him (@ rérva xOov .. . i) viv 
ert vavapx» | cdpat. Keioar TO Pacrrcio, 
703 f.) implies recent burial; otherwise viv 
is meaningless. 

An interesting bit of circumstantial evi- 
dence tending to show that the action of the 
Choéphori followed soon after that of the 
Agamemnon, in my opinion, is found in Cho. 
797 ff., where Orestes after the death of his 
mother brings upon the scene the blood- 
stained garment in which his father was 
entangled at the bath, before the murderous 
blows were struck. This robe is stretched 
before the chorus, and the attention of men 
and gods is called to the dye of blood as 
evidence of Clytaemnestra’s guilt. The sup- 
position is extremely improbable that this 
garment so stained should have been pre- 
served by the ‘butcher queen’ for eight 
years, as if it were a pleasant memorial, 
kept in a convenient place where Orestes 
could find it at once. On the other hand, 
nothing could be more effective than the 
discovery by Orestes of the manner of 
Agamemmnon’s death, before Clytaemnestra 
had had a convenient opportunity to destroy 
the evidence; he takes her thus ‘red- 
handed.’ 

Two expressions in the Choéphori have 
been thought to imply the lapse of time 
since the action of the Agamemnon. One of 
these is tv madar terpaypevov | A\voab’ aipa 
mpoogparos dixats. | yepwv dovos pnKer ev 
ddpois téxo1r, 787 ff. If the yépwv ddvos must 
be understood, with the scholiast, specifi- 
cally of the murder of Agamemnon, then 
this passage would not follow soon after the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


king’s death. But the yépwy ddvos refers 
naturally to the former blood shed in the 
house of the Pelopidae, to which constant 
reference is made in the latter part of the 
Agamemnon, and the prayer in question may 
fairly be compared with the words of Cly- 
taemnestra, dg. 1538 ff.; she was ready to 
count good all the past, hard though it was, 
if only the divinity of the Pleisthenidae ~ 
would depart from the house. Similarly, 
Ta prev Tada cvyKexpapeva | GAyn dvcoora, 
taiod ev ’Atpéws dopos, Cho. 726 f., in the. 
mouth of the old nurse are not to be re- 
stricted in reference to the single sorrow for 
the death of Agamemnon. The chief diffi- 
culty which my view has to meet is in énode 
pev dixa UHIpiapidars xpove Cho. 928. Here 
xpovw of course is naturally interpreted at 
last. But the expression is so general and 
relative that I do not think it should be 
allowed to balance the evidence on the other 
side, 

That the action of the Zumenides follows 
fast upon that of the Choéphori is less 
opposed to popular opinion. The expres- 
sions used of the Furies and of their pur- 
suit of Orestes, and his refuge to be sought 
at the temple of Delphi, are almost identical 
in the two plays (cf. Cho. 1031 ff. with 
Eum. 40 ff., 166 ff., 202 ff., 278 f., 567 £.). 
The Pythian priestess sees Orestes sitting 
ex dua with drawn sword, still dripping 
with blood, with the suppliant bough and 
fillet which he had brought from Mycenae. 
The first scene of the Humenides seems to be 
as closely connected with the close of the 
Choéphori as with the second scene of its 
own play. The second scene of the Zu- 
menides is sometimes thought to be widely 
separated from the first,—but this supposi- 
tion is improbable. Orestes and the Furics 
have ‘traversed sea and land,’ indeed, in the 
journey from Delphi to Athens,—but that is 
here an indication of the route taken rather 
than of the distance travelled. Orestes de- 
clares that the stain of his mother’s blood, 
while still fresh (zoraivwos, Hum. 278), was 
washed away by Apollo (Zum. 235, 278, 
568). On his journey he had met men, but 
had brought no pollution upon them, and 
thus the fact of his complete purification 
was proven. 

If the proof of my main thesis seems still 
incomplete, Athena comes to my aid in 
Eumenides 393 ff. She hears the appeal of 
Orestes, as suppliant at her shrine, and 
comes with speed at the call from the land 
of the Scamander, where (as she explains) 
she is engaged in taking formal possession 
of the portion of the Trojan territory which 


<——-7 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the Achaeans assigned to the sons of Theseus 
as part of the spoils of war on the capture 
of Troy. This is a delightfully artistic 
touch of the poet and a delicate reminder of 
the time of the action, if we suppose that 
Troy had been taken only a few days before ; 
but entirely unmeaning and unreasonable if 
we suppose the sack of Troy to have pre- 
ceded by eight or ten years. In the latter 
case, the question at once arises, why Athena 
had delayed so long the occupation of the 
land, and why she should be thus employed 
at this particular moment. In my opinion, 
by the words of Athena the poet tells us 
distinctly that the action of the Humenides 
followed immediately the close of the Trojan 
war, and hence immediately after the action 
of the Agamemnon. 

One further indication of time is found in 
the dialogue of the scene to which I have 
just referred. On Athena’s arrival and in 
response to her questions, Orestes not merely 
tells her who he is but narrates in detail the 
death of his father. But if Agamemnon 
had been dead for eight or ten years, surely 
Athena would have heard of it! The Greek 
tragic poets, to be sure; often represent their 
characters as ignorant of what they must 
have known. For instance we should say 
that it was hardly complimentary to ‘Theseus 
or his city for Sophocles to make Oedipus 
inquire (O.C'. 68) who was king of Athens! 
But such statements are for the sake of the 
audience, while in the Orestean trilogy no 
reminder of the death of the king was needed 
for the sake of the spectators. But if we 
understand that the poet wished to repre- 
sent Athena as still in ignorance of the fate 
of Agamemnon all difficulty vanishes, and 


44] 


the speech of Orestes is just what is desired. 

According to my view, then, the Aes- 
chylean Orestes was sent from home by his 
mother several years before his father’s 
murder. He lived as an exile in Phocis. 
On learning of Agamemnon’s death, he 
turned at once to Apollo (zepi Ta rowwira 
racw avOperous Tatpios e€yyntys) for instruc- 
tions as to his duty, and was directed to 
compass the death of his mother by guile 
and then to seek purification at the Pythian 
shrine. (6 pavris éEnyeito pntpoxtovetv.) He 
returns at once to his home and slays Aegis- 
thus and Clytaemnestra, Without delay 
the Furies, invoked by his mother, appear 
before his eyes, and he flees to Delphi. 
There he is purified by Apollo and is directed 
to hasten to Athens where he might hope 
for legal acquittal. Just as the warning of 
the chorus at the close of the Agamemnon is 
fultilled in the Choéphori, so the last words 
of the Choéphori prepare for the first scene 
of the Humenides, and the last words of this 
first scene lay the foundation for the action 
which follows. The connexion, from first to 
last of the trilogy, could hardly be closer. 
Of course the different plays of a trilogy 
might be separated by generations, as was 
the case in the Theban Trilogy—JZaius, 
Oedipus, Seven against Thebes, each of a dif- 
ferent generation,—not to speak of the time 
supposed to have elapsed between the action 
of the Prometheus Bound and that of the 
Prometheus Loosed. But certainly the action 
of the Orestea loses nothing, while it gains 
in energy and distinctness, if we think of it 
as condensed into a few days. 


Tuomas Date SEYMOUR. 
Yale Coileze. 


dnbev. 


THERE is 2 use of 676ev in Apollonius 
Rhodius to which attention has not been 
hitherto drawn. The particle is employed 
where in Homer we should have had simply 
57. Instances are : 


ei b€ Kal ovvopa d7bev embers dedancbat, 
Tade Kutiowpos réXet ovopa, TOE TE Ppovtis, 
to 6 Méas. B 1157-9. 
= be s > ‘ bné c / ” ™” 
viv 0€ Kal avty Onbev moins Eupopes arns. 
A 62. 


OAOpEF aivorarov bnGev popov, ovd' tradvéts 


€or’ arns. Ib. 1261. 
tiv 8 oye dnbev ixoBAndnv tpocéerev. 
T1119. 


The other passages are A 998, B 384, T 354, 
4A 1291. In none of them is the special 
force of dj6ev present, and we have simply 
an equivalent of 8). As d76ev does not 
occur in early Greek at all, the fact may 
serve to gauge Apollonius’ familiarity with 
the minuter details of Epic usage. 67ev is 
similarly employed in the Anacreontea (i. 
14-18, with kai d96ev for Kat dy): eyo 8 6 
pwpos apas ednodpnv petwomrw Kal dnGev axpte Kat 
viv €pwros ov wéravpar. It is probably in 
view of such cases that Hesychius gives 
evredbev as one of the senses of 676: L. 
and §. quote the passage from the Ana- 
creontea under this head. 


449 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The general employment of the particle 
is not free from difficulty. In the first place, 
it is extremely rare. It occurs in Aeschylus 
twice (Prom. 202 and 998), in Sophocles once 
(Zr. 381), in Euripides six times, in Thucy- 


dides six times, in Xenophon once, Herodotus | 


nine times, Plato once, Hippocrates twice, 
never apparently in Aristophanes or the 
Orators. The only later writers beside 
Apollonius who appear to use it are Aratus 
(once), Plutarch (three times), Pausanias 
(once), Dio Cassius (passim), “Herodian 
(eight times), Lucian and Heliodorus. I 
will now suggest an explanation of the 
usage, which differs from that generally 
current. 

6n0ev is employed (1) at the beginning of 
sentences (second) in order to distinguish 
profession or hypothesis from fact, (2) with 
single words or phrases—which it always 
follows—(qa) as with sentences, (6) simply to 
draw attention to an explanation. We 
may represent the first usage by inverted 
commas,! the second by a sie or note of 
exclamation, But just as in English we 
constantly quote words or phrases, or pro- 
fessions in general, with an indignant, 
sarcastic, or ironical intention, so dager 
constantly occurs in indignant, sarcastic, 
or ironical sentences. To describe the 
particle however as always ironical is an 
abuse of language, from which few gram- 
marians are free. The most generally apt 
translation would be ‘you know’ or ‘you 
understand.’ 

To illustrate: for 676ev with the sentence 
we may quote 


Aoyos ye pev evtpéexer GAAOs 
3 , ¢€ a 2 i s a2 
avOpurots, as Onbev erty Govin mapos ev K.T.X. 
Aratus Phaen. 100-1. 
, ȴ = Lo > / XN , 
Tov Te apTov, w OnOev euepixtTo TO HappaKov 
K.T.X, Plut. De Soll. An. 973 E. 
eyo pev arereuwapnv peya ppovav, ore dyGev 
THs Paciiews Ovyarpos Tov emov vidv dWoipny 
yapernv.—Xen. Cyrop. iv. 6, 3. 
Kayo oxvOpworods 6upatov €€w Kdpas, 
os dnbev oik cidvia Tagepyarpeva. 


Eur. Or. 1319-20. 


In all the cases 676ev has the force of quo- 
tation marks; but the sentence gives to it 
in the second and fourth the sense of mere 
profession, in the third the same with a 
tinge of sarcasm added. If we translate 
the sentences, our ‘you know’ will be simi- 
larly affected. 


! This method of putting the matter was suggested 
to me by Dr. Postgate. 


Employed with words or phrases the 
particle merely calls attention in 


¢ ied \ “4 a + aA e¢ 

ot O° intpot codiLopevor dnOev EoTw ot épap- 
tavovew.—Hippoc. (Kiihn) iii. p. 153. Cf. 
ili. p. 64. 

< AN A > 7 a” vA 

Oo pe yvvaika eroincev exovcav Ardjpay, 
Sadprqv Mie TloAvKAettos a k.T.A.— Pausa- 
nias i. 18, 5 

Kawov O€ TOYO ava. xpovoy TerAac pEvoOV 

‘wy, iovre OnGev bre ovvyvTeTo. 


Eur. Jon 831-2. 
Cp. ibid. 656 and Herc. Fur. 949. 


Here we have simply ‘you understand.’ 
Indignation or contempt is added in 


AE a dnOev « ws Tato ovr ee. 


Aesch. Prom. 986. 


‘This surely is mockery, as if I were a 
child.’ 

ot pev Gedovtes exBadeiv edpas Kpovov 

e \ > / lol c X\ ȴ 

as Leds avaccor dnOev, ot d¢ Tovpraduwy K.7.X. 

ibid. 202, 

‘ Zeus forsooth.’ 

” X \ a 2 , n Ne 

nAXAa€e O€ Kal TOV eviAvTLMWY PHVOV TA 6vopaTa, 
doa pev apxata Katadioas, mavtas 8€ Tats 
€avTov Tapyyopiais Gvoudacas, ov at TAEtaTaL eis 
c , a ~ 3 4 > 4 
HpaxAéa d70ev, as avdpevotatov, avepepovto.— 
Herodian 1. 14, 17 

‘ Heracles, if you please.’ 


Something between indignation and amaze- 
ment is expressed in 


Kat od BovAevopevoice Sewov Te eoeduve, ei 
87) Stayeyvoo Korey odiot TE BonOéew ot maides 
™pos TOV KoupBieov, yovarnav Tovs matdas Kat 
TovTwv aitika dpxew Teipwato, Ti dy avopw- 
Gévres OnOev mornoovor.—Herod. vi. 138. 


Lastly, there is irony in 


ovde yap ért KwoAVpy, GAG yvouns Tapawerer 
dnGev 7H Kowe exper Bevoavto.—Thue. i. 92. 
OES1 27: 

tovs Il¢pcas eipge ws KatacKdrouvs d7Oev 
éovras.—Herod. iii. 136. Cf. i. 78, vi. 1, 
viii. 5, ete. 

ToANG dé Ta 

Baoiiid’ éotiav Kaas 

eBale dnGev éxOpos dv otpatnrarats. 

Eur. Rh. 717-9. 

‘ Reviled, truly.’ 

téedos O€ mereapevous dnOev ws ’AmodAAWwVoS 
vid detéar Ta ypdupara.—Plut. Lys. 448 C. 
Cf. Pyrrh. 395 D. 

tots 0 GAXows areAOetv dnGev Grow BovdowrTo 
dovs ToAXOds Kal exeivov ev TH 650 epdvevoev.— 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Dio Gass. (Sturz) § 24 and passim. Cf. 
Herodian ii. 15, 6, vii. 11, 7 and 16, ete. 


I now come to a question which has evoked 
some discussion. Hoogeveen not having 
seen that in Eur. Or. 1112 


” > ” ~ ¢ , 
eloysev és oixovs d7Gev ws Gavovpevor 


576ev is misplaced and in sense follows os, 
Hartung, using what our grammarians 
would, I suppose, term irony, says that this 
does not surprise him in Hoogeveen. 
Hartung’s view has been followed by most 
editors in this and other passages. Jebb, 
discussing the matter on Soph. Zrach. 381, 
declares that ‘there are certainly instances 
where the special point of the irony con- 
veyed by 876ev lies in the words which 
follow it’ (quoting Aesch. Prom. 986, Thue. 
ji. 127, iv. 99)...‘ but that is no reason why 
5n0ev should not refer to the whole sentence.’ 
The passage from Soph. 7’r. 381 however— 


THS EKELVOS OVOA{LO. 
5 Q 
Braoras eddver d76ev oidev totopav— 


he translates at variance with his note ‘she 
of whose parentage Lysias could say nothing, 
because, forsooth, he had asked no questions.’ 
Now very strong reasons would be needed 
to convince us that é76ev violates the canon 
that no word can begin a sentence-group 
which cannot begin a sentence ; and again, 
to make it probable in the face of a com- 
paratively large number of cases that d76ev 
does not go with the previous word. As 
soon as we see that the particle is not 
necessarily ironical every difficulty vanishes. 
If the édwve is sound—which has been 
doubted with some show of reason— d76ev 
goes with BAdoras to convey a sneer ‘her 
origin forsooth’: BAdoras is too general a 
word to use of a princess. édwve, aS an un- 
emphatie word, may come between PdAdoras 
and $870ev, just as dvaoco. intervenes in 
Aesch. Prom. 202 supra (though here 
possibly the particle goes with dévdccot, con- 
trasting Zeus’ kingship with Kronos’ paternal 
yule) and airo in Herodian vii. 7, 16 as 
ro\uopkyaovres ai7d dnbev. That a participial 
or &s clause should be added to explain or 
continue the sneer, irony, etc., in 7’rach. 381 
and several of the passages quoted above 
is no more surprising than if to ‘This surely 
is mockery,’ which is suflicient to express 
indignation in itself, we should add ‘as if 
I were a child’ (Prom. 986). In Thue, i, 


“ \ , 
127 rodtro dy 7 ayos ot Aaxedarpovior €xeAevov 


443 


edavve dpGev Trois Heois rparov Tyswporvres 1 
propose to take 670ev not with the following 
words, but with the phrase dyos éAavvew, 
which is ironical like yrépys tapaveoe c. 92. 
We have irony again in iii. 68 dire Tov Te 
ddXov xpdvov Hélouv S7Oev adtods KaTa Tas 
rodaas Havoaviov peta tov Madov oovdas 
hovxdtew, where d76ev goes with HSlovv 
‘requested forsooth’; unless indeed it is a 
mere mark of quotation. In one passage, 
which Stephanus and Hoogeveen quote from 
Heliodorus (Aethiop. i. ¢. 14 Opyjvev ovK 
éxavero Snbev pev Tod ext cot, TO 8 GANGES TOD 
é’ éavtp), the particle certainly attaches to 
the following words in the sense of ‘ pro- 
fessedly.’ The passage, which no doubt 
was not without influence on the current 
view, seems to show that by the time of 
Heliodorus 876ev, which originally only am- 
plied pretence, had come to denote it : having 
recovered the force of a full word it had re- 
covered the right to head its clause. But 
this does not justify us in finding the same 
usage in the tragedians. The passage from 
Eur. Or. 1112 we may translate ‘We will 
indeed enter the house (as if about to die),’ 
the 570ev being spoken with bitter sarcasm 
in the thought of the deed to be done there. 
The misplacement of the particle (elomev és 
oixovs b7Gev for ciomer dpGev x.7.A.) may be 
due to the fact that the phrase acts as a 
single word: does not go with one word 
more than the other, and so, as in yropys 
rapaweoet 67 Ger, follows the whole. 

The derivation of $76 from 67+a form 
of the Homeric 6yv ‘surely’ seems to have 
been first given by Hartung. Although 6ev 
does not occur separately, yet the parallelism 
of dé and 8% etc. lends support to the deri- 
vation. Hartung ascribes the sense of 
évredbev ap. Hesychius to a false etymology 
equating the -ev to that of cé#ev. We have 
shown that there was a late classical employ- 
ment of 590ev in place of 34; and, as dy often 
has practically the force of évretOev, the 
rendering may have arisen in this way. Of 
6ijv with 67 in Homer we have one occurrence, 
viz. y 392-3: 


ot Onv dy Todd advdpos ’Odveanos diros 
vLOS 
vnos éx’ ixpiodpw Kxarad€£erar x.7.X. 


The proper force of the compound would 
therefore be ‘now surely’ or ‘ nothing less 
than this surely,’ 5 denoting that a limit or 
result has been reached (Monro, Hom. G'r.® 
§ 350). 

F. W. Tuomas. 


444 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


“Extnpopor. 


THE view of the éxrnudpor (or éxtnpoptor) 
taken by Mr. Wayte is supported by 


Schémann, Bickh, Hermann and his latest 


editor Thumser, Gilbert, Busolt, Buchsen- 
schiitz and Holm. The importance of these 
names may justify those who, like myself, 
agree with Dr. Sandys and Dr. Sidgwick in 
taking the opposite view (that the éxrnuopor 
paid only a sixth of the produce) in desiring 
that their case shall be fully stated. 

The subject naturally falls into two 
divisions : (I) the ancient evidence, (II) the 
@ priori probability. 

I Of the evidence. 

Plutarch, Sol. 13, 2 exra tév ywopuevov 
tedovvtes is quite explicit, and is admittedly 
on our side. ’A@. rod. ch. 2, though not so 
explicit, may fairly be claimed on the same 
side, for, as Dr. Sidgwick has shown (Class. 
Rev. viii. p. 296), the words xara ravryy ri 
picbwow, coming just after the word 
ExTnopor, must mean that the pwicbwors was 
extov pepos, While the words that follow, «i 
py Tas pucOdces arodidoiev, Must mean that 
the picfwo.s was rent paid, not wages 
received, 

Now these two authorities are the oldest 
that can be quoted on the matter; and 
moreover they are the only statements by 
writers that have a historical interest in the 
subject. The later authorities are lexi- 
cographers, interested mainly in the 
etymology of the word and content to 
acquiesce in ambiguous and _ traditional 
phrases. These remaining authorities come 
trailing after each other at long intervals, 
Hesychius in the fourth century, Photius in 
the ninth, and Eustathius in the twelfth. 
Besides these we have the scholiast on Plato’s 
Euthyphro 4 C, to which we cannot assign a 
date. 

In Hesychius the true tradition is not yet 
extinct. Under the word ézipopros we read 
opty yap TO wépos exadeiro, Kal ExTnopor ot 
TO extov Teoivres. This is clear enough and 
can be claimed as a third testimony. But 
on the word itself, éxryuopo, he utters an 
uncertain, though (I think) not a discordant, 
sound: €xrnpdporr of extw peper THY ynV 
yewpyovvres. The bare dative is to be no- 
ticed ; one would have expected ézi éxrw 
pépe. But the same dative without the 
preposition occurs in the gloss on Plato, oi 
avTo. O€ Kal ExTypopol, érel TO ExTw péper TOV 
kapvov eipyalovto THv ynv, and again in our 
next authority, Photius, who has under the 


gloss weAarau the words of airol Kai Exrnuopor 
€TELOn EKTM pepeL TOV KapTOV cipyalovTo Tiv 
ynv. As to these three places it would seem 
a plausible theory that in the oldest of these 
authorities, whether Hesychius or the’ 
scholiast on Plato, the preposition ézi fell 
out, as it well might after éet, and that the 
other two copied the mistake. But this 
theory, tempting as if is, must- be accepted 
with caution. Naber indeed in his edition 
of Photius (Proleg. p. 56) would read érei 
émi extw pepe. And Hemsterhuys would 
make a similar correction in the scholium 
of Plato. But Ruhnken in a note in 
Bekker’s edition of the scholia points out 
that this omission of ézi occurs in other 
places too, so that it is dangerous for us to 
venture to restore it in any. In the earlier 
portion of Hesychius’ gloss on éripopros we 
have érimoptos: ordpynos yj erynepra ty: A€yerau 
oUTw Kal 6 pepe épyatouwevos. (Here Moritz- 
Schmidt would read ézt pepe. though in 
the gloss on éxryudpor he leaves éxrw pepe 
without the preposition.) Again, Photius 
in a second gloss on weAdrau has weAdrau: ot 
pc SovAevovres. We may therefore (per- 
haps) dispense with the preposition in the 
three places mentioned above. The gram- 
marians were chiefly anxious to connect 
éxtnopor as closely as possible with &xrov 
#-épos and adopted an expression both am- 
biguous and unusual. But even if we read 
emi extw pepe, the expression, though no 
longer unusual, remains ambiguous. Some 
would seem to have supposed that exrw pépea 
cipyagovro must be translated ‘ worked for a 
sixth part.’ But there is no dative of price 
in Greek. The dative may, no doubt, ex- 
press attendant circumstances ; so the dative 
pce attached to a verb implies that pay- 
ment accompanied the transaction; but in 
which direction the payment passes only the 
context and common sense can decide. IfI 
say pc dSovrcvw it would naturally mean 
‘I serve receiving hire’ ; if I said otkov pod 
oik® I should be taken to mean ‘ I keep house 
paying rent.’ Tf LT say pico yewpyo it may 
mean, I think, either ‘I till the ground 
receiving hire,’ or ‘I till the ground paying 
rent.’ (In all these cases the addition of 
éxi would be more usual, but the sense of 
the case is not thereby modified.) The same 
point comes out on examining the instances 
given by Jelf § 610, 2. Where a dative 
xa\xd is used with oivi~ovro (Il. H 473) it 
means of course that wine was bought by 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the payment of bronze; where with {y.odv 
(Hat. vi. 136) it means that the punishment’ 
consisted in the payment of money ; but 
where it is used with xepdaivew (Hdt. viii. 
60) the gain consists of something received. 
The grammarians in fact neither knew nor 
cared for anything more than that éxrypopou 
had something to do with a sixth part. 

Then, last of all, comes Eustathius, who 
observes on Od. 7 28 (but not much & propos 
of anything) eOvixy de Ais Kat ) popTy, TO 
éxtov, acl, épos TOV KapTOv, 7) €did0TO Tots 
Extnmoptos as ev dvwovipm Ketrar AekuKo 
pyroptxo. Here at last, amid the dregs of a 
Byzantine tradition, we have a definite 
statement, as I hold, on the wrong side. 
The bishop has got hold of one of the 
ambiguous glosses and read it the wrong 
way. So much then for the ancient evidence. 
If I were to attempt to mark the scores 
made so far, [ think I should describe it as 
three goals against a try. 

IL If we turn to @ priort considerations 
the case is still clearer. It is absurd to say 
that the payment of one-sixth of the pro- 
duce would not be felt as a hardship. If 
the economic rent of a holding be nil, the 
payment of a sixth of the produce will be 
felt as a hardship. But there are holdings 
of which the economic rent is nil. Probably 
no Irish landlord, perhaps even no English 
College Bursar, would have fallen into the 
mistake made by these great German 
scholars. Mrs. Poyser went so far as to 
compare English farming to cooking a feast 
all the year and getting nothing but the 
smell for your pains; but what would she 
have said to surrendering five-sixths of the 
produce of her dairy? To the names of 
Oncken and Gomperz, quoted by Dr. Sandys 
as supporting his view, must be added that 
of Naber. He in his Prolegomena to Photius, 
p. 57, after quoting Schémann’s view, most 
sensibly says: ‘ Plane contra est ; nusquam 
terrarum adeo sunt fertiles agri ut hanc con- 
ditionem agricolae ferant. In insula Java 
verbi causa, hoe est sub caelo haud parum 
feliciore, agrorum possessores olim solvebant 
e toto proventu unam partem, sibi habebant 


445 


quattuor partes.’ He then refers to a place 
in Polybius, which appears to bei. 72, where 
Polybius represents the Carthaginians as 
most cruel for levying from the cultivators, 
after the first Punic war, half of the pro- 
duce, it being implied that the amount 
usually claimed by the state was one 
quarter. And this (it may be remarked) 
was in the land of the Libycae areae / Naber 
proceeds: ‘Itaque Attici coloni, qui solwm 
arabant sterile, misera erant conditione’ etc. 
In métayer systems, it is true,“ the portion 
of produce claimed by the landlord is often 
more than a half; but in estimating the 
practical working of any such system we 
must know, not only the quality of the soil, 
but also what part the landlord bears in 
providing cattle, implements, manure, etc., 
and this part is often a large one (Mill, 
Pol. Econ. Book ii. chap. 8). Enough has 
been said to show that the payment of one- 
sixth may be feltasa hardship. But we may 
go farther. tis quite possible fora rent of 
one-sixth to be a perfectly fair rent in 
ordinary years, and yet for there to be a 
difficulty in meeting it in exceptional years. 
And the grievance, as Dr, Sidgwick has 
shown, was in the fearful power the law 
gave to a creditor over any man who, from 
any combination of circumstances, was 
unable to meet his liabilities. It was, in 
fact, rather an Arrears Bill than a Land 
Bill that Solon introduced. Liddell and 
Scott may therefore be left uncorrected in 
their article on éxrnuopor. But they seem to 
uphold the opposite view in their article on 
pLopTy- 

Much interesting matter remains as to 
the relation of the éxrnudpor to the weddrat, 
about which the authorities differ, some 
making the weAdrac synonymous with the 
éxtnpopo., others making the  eddrat 
labourers for wages. Should not the word 
be connected with woAéw rather than with 
ré\as, TeAdTys Standing to woAéw somewhat 
as tevéotns to rovew? But this is matter 
for philologists. 

E. 8. THompson. 


NOTE ON CURTIUS X. 1, 19. 


Iairurk Mesopotamiae praetoribus imper- 
avit, materia in Libano monte caesa devec- 
taque ad urbem Syriae Thapsacum septin- 
gentarum carinas navium ponere : septiremis 

NO. LXXIV. VOL, VIII. 


omnes esse deducique Babylona. Cypricrum 
regibus imperatum, ut aes stuppamque et 
vela praeberent. 
In this passage the word septiremis or VII 
Lz 


446 


remis, as the MSS. give it, is undoubtedly 
corrupt for the following reasons : 


In the first place septiremes or hepteres, as 
they were called, were very rare, and it is 
not probable, not to say impossible, that 


Alexander would have built a whole fleet of © 


them. Secondly, there are no other in- 
stances, as far as I know, of such an enor- 
mous fleet consisting wholly of the same 
sort of ships: always to the triremes was 
added a small number of ships of: a larger 
size. So there is no warrant for suggesting 
another cipher for vit. Finally our 
suspicion is roused on learning that septi- 
remes is an araێ cipnwevov in Latin literature, 
especially as the MSS. only give vir remis. 
The corruption of the word being unques- 
tionable, let us follow the order of Curtius’ 
tale about the building of that fleet. 

Firstly Alexander commands that timber 
should be cut and transported to Thapsacus 
for the building of seven hundred ships, 
Further that all those ships should be vit 
remes and be brought to Babylon, Finally 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the Cyprian princes are ordered to furnish 


-the metal, oakum and sails. 


Hence we see that Curtius has informed 
us of the sources of the timber, metal, 
oakum and sails, i.e. of nearly all the mater- 
ials needed for the construction of ships. 
Nearly all, I said, for whence came the oars, 
the principal means of locomotion? That 
nothing is said about them is the more - 
astonishing as the origin of the sails, that 
played a so far inferior part in ancient 
navigation, is duly noted. For by ordering 
that the whole fleet should consist of sepéi- 
vemes Alexander has not yet inferred that 
the oars should be added too. ; 

I firmly believe that this neglected in- 
formation is hidden in the words vit remis 
omnes esse. Therefore remis is to me not the 
latter part of an adjective but abl. plur. of 
the substantive remus, and so the assump- 
tion is near at hand that vir in the MSS. is 
a corruption of cwm or of im after the 
analogy of in armis esse. 

P. H. Damsre. 

LEIDEN, 15 October, 1894. 


NOTE ON OIC, TOUSC. 1.22, 0. 


Quast vero intellegant, qualis sit in ipso 
corpore, quae conformatio, quae magnitudo, 
qui locus: wé, si iam possent in homine vivo 
cerbi Omnia, quae nunc tecta sunt, casurus- 
ne in conspectum videatur animus an tanta 
sit elus tenuitas, ut fugiat aciem. 

This passage has caused some difficulty. 
The defenders of the MS. reading take wt 
in the sense of ‘for example.’ Chase’s note 
is: ‘I agree with Hottinger, Orelli and 
Moser, in regard to the rendering to be 
given wt in this passage (cf. Cic. Part. Or. 
19, 65):—[as if they understand], for 
example, whether etc. Lambinus conjec- 
tured aut tor ut, which is adopted by Wesen- 
berg, Baiter and Seyffert; Heine omits ne 
after caswrus, and puts a colon after animus.’ 
Tischer-Sorof § reads for wf aut, and for 
anacnon. This reading is based on Koch 
Coniectanea Tulliana, p. 37 (1868), and 
Weissner in the WV. Jahrb. fiir Philol. und 
Pddag. p. 298 ff. (1869). Ac non for an 
seems possible from the palaeographic point 
of view ; Koch cited as a parallel passage 
fam. iii. 2, 2: pluribus verbis ad te scribe- 
rem, si aut tua humanitas longiorem oratio- 
nem exspectaret aut id fieri nostra amicitia 
pateretur aut res verba desideraret ac non 


pro se ipsa loqueretur. Weissner cites 
Seat. Rose. 33, 92; quasi nune id agatur, 
quis...occiderit, ac non hoc quaeratur eum 
etc. Objection can be taken to wé ‘for 
example.’ L. and 8. s.v. ué ii, A. C. cite 
only Cic. De Or. 3, 29, 112 and Quint. 8, 3, 
89; 4, 3, 12, where on the face of it wé 
might mean for ‘example, introducing a 
dependent sentence. In reality it does not. 
In Cic. Part. Or. 19, 65 it is even further 
from doing so. Certainly none of these 
passages is similar to the sentence before us. 

I suggest therefore the following inter- 
pretation : ut (sc. intelligerent) ete.: ‘and 
so they would understand, if they could 
penetrate into the secrets of a living man, 
whether the mind seems likely to come 
into our ken, or its delicacy is such as to 
escape our vision.’ By this interpretation 
the sense comes out at the same place as in 
the explanation of Chase. ‘The MS. reading 
is retained by a natural interpretation of 
ut, and the triple change of ut, ne and an is 
avoided. Granting all that may be claimed 
on palaeographic grounds for ac non instead 
of an, and admitting that ne would be 
brought into the MSS. from an, we still 
have the third difficulty of wét for aut. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The sequence is not violated by this 
interpretation. Cf. Gildersleeve’s Lat. Gr. 
§ 517, R. 2, and the example there cited 
from Pliny. 

I urge the consideration of wt in a con- 
secutive sentence asa relative and submit 
the following explanation of its etymology. 
The point is to account for the loss of the 
initial consonant qu. I see in wt a repre- 
sentation of Sanskrit wid, which means ‘ and 
also’ but is also interrogative. Now in 
Sanskrit utd takes the optative, and the sense 


447 


is precisely ‘and so,’ cf. Delbriick, A/tind. 
Syntax p. 260. 

In Latin beside ewm was probably *cué 
(cf. Sk. ku-tra), *cubi, etc., but the similarly 
used ut = Sk. wté mastered the other forms 
and gave whi etc. 

In the form utz we possibly have a Latin 
representative of Sk. utd vat. 


Epwin WHITFIELD Fay, 


Washington and Lee University, 
Lexington, Virginia, 


NOTES ON EURIPIDES’ HELENA, 


1135 Mr. Horv’s suggestion cioéver for 
eis €v Hv has already been proposed in my 
edition of the Helena (Clarendon Press, 
1882; revised, 1892). I wrote: ‘It has 
occurred to me...to suggest cicéver (véw), 
* piled up ” the sails into the ship... Of this 
verb however the pres. and imperf. do not 
seem to occur in Attic Greek...only the aor. 
évnoa and the perf. pass. vévnuat or vevnopat 
are found.’ But the MS. reading may be 
right = ‘were fitted into one (figure),’ ¢.e. 
compactly. Eis ¢v = una is rather a favour- 
ite expression with Euripides. Cf, 1. 742, 
Orest. 1640, among other instances. 

I had also cited, on 1. 388, the passage 
from Pindar, OJ. i. 38(61) upon égpavov. I 
think zevo6e/s is certainly corrupt, but prob- 
ably some participle in -Ge/s stood in the 
original. 

I append a few notes of my own. 

122 Adopt W. G. Clark’s reading (from 
the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 
1854-1859) cidov, ei kat viv o’ bpd, a reitera- 
tion in varied terms of 1. 118 = ‘I saw her, 
just as I see you now.’ [Eidov, jv ke. has 
been suggested to me as still nearer the 
MSS. ciddunv, but jv with subj. is not defi- 
nite enough for the sense. | 

263 Read ’AaBov (éAafov), with Porson 
and Dindorf, for AaBetv. Hermann’s A\aBow 
is not only a doubtful form, but does not 
give the meaning required. The indicative 


means ‘ would that I, after being obliterated, 
had (then) taken a plainer form.’ 

679 Read (with Dindorf, &c.) ri 8 for rade 
and épjy for €6nx’, but retain tavde Kaxdv, 
‘which of these misfortunes did Hera inflict 
upon you in consequence of the trial?’ de. 
in revenge for her slighted beauty. In 675 
Menelaus had asked ri vav xpylovca zpocGet- 
vat xaxov; Helen replies with lamentations 
and a vague allusion to the xpio.s, whereupon 
Menelaus inquires more precisely. 

1158 It has been suggested to me to read 
ri for at, and some verb such as ézpa6ov for 
the unmeaning éAurov of the MSS. ‘Why 
did they (the Greeks) make desolate the 
chambers ke. ?’ 

1247 Perhaps read efopi{opev, ‘ take out 
(and let down) into the sea.’ Cf. dsopioar 
394, also |. 828. 

1353 ’ripwoas may be genuine. Reading 
dv for év, the sense may be ‘thou didst 
inflame (with love) one whom thou oughtest 
not,’ z.¢. Paris, the votary of Cybele. It is 
true that zupdw in this sense lacks positive 
authority, but the meaning is possible and 
natural, just as swecendere is used absolutely 
without amore by Propertius, i. 2, 15.  Pa- 
ley’s exupoas etvGv is not convincing. 

1453 Read eipectas with parnp. “PoOiowwr, 
‘amid the surge.’ 

C. 8. JeRRAM. 

Trinity College, Oxford. 


NOTE ON THREE PASSAGES OF PLAUT. 7RUCUL, 


Puaut. Trucul. 667-8, 896, 952 (Schoell’s 
text). 

I offer’ brief notes on the distribution of 
the dialogue in these three passages. 


(1) vv. 667-8. Strabax the rustic lover 
has been talking outside the house to 
Astaphium, the maid of Phronesium. The 
old arrangement of the end of the scene was. 

112 


448 


SrraBax. Jbitur, ne me morari censeas. 
Asrapuivm. Lepide facis. But Schoell di- 
vides Srrapax. Jbitur. AstapHivm. Ve me 
morari censeas. StTRABAX. Lepide facis. 
His reason is that by Langen’s canon morart 
in Plautus never = cunctari. This is true, 
but nevertheless the old division is right 
and morari is transitive with the object te 
omitted more Plautino. Keep then the old 
distribution and translate, ‘I will go, lest 
you should think that 7 am keeping you 
here,’ for which Astaphium thanks Strabax 
by the reply ‘That’s very nice of you.’ It 
was Strabax who was detaining Astaphium, 
not vice versa: the thanks belong naturally 
to Astaphium, not to Strabax. 

(2) v. 896. The soldier Stratophanes 
returns. He sees Phronesium and Asta- 
phium and addresses them guid hie vos 


agitis? Phronesium angrily retorts ne me 
adpella. What are we to do with the next 
thres words? BCD give nimius evi, LZ 


nimium sevis, ilicet is Schoell’s conjecture. 
I would read saevit, take the three words 
together, assign them to Stratophanes and 
treat them as an aside. Mimium saevit: 
ilicet, ‘she’s very angry: it’s all up.’ Then 
Phronesium, who has commenced ne me 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. | 


adpella, goes on naturally potin ut mihi 
molestus ne sies ? 

(3) v. 952. Phronesium is getting all 
she can out of Strabax and Stratophanes, 
who bid against one another for her favours. 


- Strabax offers silver, Stratophanes gold, this 


will determine the distribution of the line. 
The gold Philippics belong to Stratophanes, _ 
talentum argenti to Strabax. Thus, to take 
the conjectures of Camerarius and Brix, 
Strabax will be made to say Lm tibi talentum 
argenti, which Stratophanes outbids with 
Philippicum aes est: tene tibt. 

To mix the gold and the silver and assign 
the whole line to the same speaker is im- 
possible for any one who has read carefully 
what has gone before. The only real ques- 
tion is what we are to read at the end of the 
line, 7.e. in what terms Stratophanes makes 
his offer. 

Spengel and Langen object to Philippicum 
as non-Plautine, and Langen has shown that 
Philippus, not Philippeus is the more regular 
Plautine form. It will perhaps be best to 
read Philippum hoc aes est: tene tibi, but my 
point is the division of the line rather than 
the form of the adjective employed. 

J. H. Gray. 





MONRO ON GREEK MUSIC. 


The Modes of Ancient Greek Music, by D. B. 
Monro, M.A., Provost of Oriel College, 
Oxford. Oxford: 1894. (144 pp.) 8s. 6d. net. 


Mr. Mowro’s book merits the serious atten- 
tion of all students of Greek music. From 
the time of Béckh it has been the general 
assumption of scholars that the ‘modes’ of 
Greek music—the dppoviat familiar to 
readers of Plato’s Republic—were, like 
the modern major and minor, scales distin- 
guished by the order of their intervals, and 
that each of the seven degrees of the 
diatonic octave could and did form the final 
of such a scale. This thesis has been 
elaborately expounded by Westphal, Gevaert, 
and numerous other writers on the subject. 
Mr. Monro’s object is to prove that the 
modes were nothing more than keys differ- 
ing only in pitch, and that of modes in the 
modern sense one only was known to Clas- 
sical Greek music, viz. a scale corresponding 
to the modern minor as played in descending 
from A to A, and represented by the stand- 
ard ‘ Dorian’ octave, extending from E to E, 


but having for its tonic the ‘peony’ (A). It 
will be seen at once how revolutionary Mr. 
Monro’s work is; and there is no question 
that the author has marshalled the facts 
which he adduces as evidence with great 
skill, so that his argument is prima facie a 
very telling one. 

Putting aside for the moment the state- 
ments of Greek writers on music, to whom 
the appeal must ultimately le, we may 
premise that there are two circumstances 
which create at the outset a prejudice 
against Mr. Monro’s view, a prejudice which 
it is his business to dissipate by the most 
convincing proof that the ancient authorities 
can be interpreted only in the sense which 
he attributes to them. The first is the fact 
that although the trained modern ear can 
detect a certain difference of ‘colour’ in 
keys of different pitch (Helmholtz, Zonemp- 
findungen, p. 476 f.), it is impossible to us 
to conceive of such keys as exerting so 
strong an influence on human sensibility 
and character as that attributed by Plato 
and Aristotle to the modes. How, we ask. 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


could a melody which in By minor imitated 
‘the tones and accents of a brave warrior 
on the field of battle,’ become, when trans- 
posed into D minor, a plaintive dirge, while 
in A minor it partook of a convivial charac- 
ter? This difficulty will perhaps appear to 
many insuperable, when every allowance 
has been made for possible changes in human 
sensibility. But although it creates a 
strong presumption against the correctness 
of Mr. Monro’s view, it cannot absolve us 
from examining the positive evidence in its 
favour. 

Beside this negative consideration, there 
remains the positive fact that the varieties 
of 760s attributed by the Greek philosophers 
to the modes are distinctly traceable in 
music which does not confine itself to the 
diatonic major and minor. This is true not 
only of the popular melodies of many 
nations, but especially of the plain-song of 
the Catholic Church, which is lineally de- 
scended from the music of Ancient Greece. 
It is sufficient here to refer to the admirable 
treatment of the subject by Gevaert in 
vol. i. of La Musique de l Antiquité, pp. 166 
ff., 200 ff. One instance will suffice. The 
dppovia pufoAvduori, according to Plato, was 
plaintive and appropriate to the dirge. On 
the usual theory it corresponds to the 
fourth Gregorian mode (B natural), which is 
described by a writer of the eighteenth cen- 
tury as ‘appropriate to feelings of compunc- 
tion and sadness, complaint, prayers, suppli- 
cations, lamentations, groanings.’ Those 
who study the parallels drawn by M. Gevaert 
must feel that in them we have a body of 
evidence sufficient to predispose us strongly 
in favour of the current view of the modes. 

We may now approach Mr. Monro’s argu- 
ment more closely. His method is in itself 
a good one. It consists in treating the 
passages or works of ancient authors dealing 
with the subject in chronological order, and 
interpreting them in their most natural 
sense. So far asthe principle is consistently 
pursued we may safely trust its guidance, 
only remembering that the sense does not 
always lie on the surface, and that the 
beginning of a process cannot be interpreted 
with certainty without reference to its end. 
To deal adequately with the closely-woven 
web of Mr. Monro’s argument would re- 
quire a treatise following him point by 
point and section by section ; but it is pos- 
sible to select certain prominent theses and 
topics for discussion without doing him an 
injustice. 

The earlier sections are directed towards 
establishing 


449 


(1) that the dppovia of Plato and Aris- 
totle did, in fact, differ in pitch, and, that 
the difference of 70s is connected by those 
writers with the difference of pitch ; 

(2) that the term dppovia disappears from 
scientific writing after the time of Aristotle 
and is replaced (in the works of Aristoxenos) 
by révos, which certainly means ‘key’ ; 
while the writers (such as Plutarch) who use 
both expressions treat them as convertible. 

Both these points deserve to be carefully 
considered. 

(1) Mr. Monro is successful in showing 
that different dppovéa were associated with 
different degrees of pitch. The Aeolian is 
called Bap’Bpopov dppoviayv by Pratinas ; 
and in musical terminology certain modes— 
or rather varieties of the same mode '— 
were called givrovor and yxadapai (or avet- 
pévat), and these terms were connected with a 
difference of pitch, for Aristotle Pol. v. (viii.) 
1340 b 20 writes, tots dzretpnxoce 51d. xpovov ov 
padi ddew tas cvvtdvous appovias, GhAG Tas 
dvepevas 4 pvows troBadAe Tots TovovTots. 
Nor can it be questioned that Plato and 
Aristotle, in their philosophical treatment of 
the 700s of the modes, seized upon these 
distinctions, and sought a parallel to them 
in ethical language. The ‘loosely-strung’ 
modes (xaAapat, dveysévar) Were padaxat and 
affected the soul padakwrépws. The ‘highly- 
pitched ’ modes were plaintive in character. 
The Dorian and Pirygian occupied a middle 
place in pitch, and are therefore selected by 
Plato as occupying a mean between extremes, 
while Aristotle holds that the Dorian mode 
influences the mind pécws kal kabeornKdTus. 

The dppovio, then, as usually executed, 
differed in pitch, and fell roughly into three 
groups. But though we learn from this 
that in practical peAozoiia certain dppoviat 
were associated with certain regions of pitch 
a fact not denied by the supporters of 
the mode-theory (Gevaert i. p. 205)—we 
have as yet no positive evidence as to what 
the dppoviae were, and if such evidence can 
be found elsewhere, it must be allowed to 
decide the question. 

But Plato and Aristotle, it will be said, 
explicitly connect difference of 7#os with 
difference of pitch. It is no doubt true that 
they do fasten on the terms ovvrovo: and 
dveysevat, aS well as on the central position 





1 Ts it not clear that in Plat. Rep.£398 F the words 
iaorl...kal Avdirrl, altiwes xXadapal KadovvyTar are 
equivalent to xaAapaiagrl kat xadapadrvdiorl ? Thisis 
not bronght out either by Prof. Jowett’s or by Mr. 
Monro’s trauslation. ovvtoveAvdiorl is mentioned a 
few lines earlier ; the term ouvtovviacri appears to 
have been replaced in use by mitoAvdior! (Gevaert, 
i. p. 156). 


450 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


occupied by the Dorian and Phrygian modes, 
and turn them to account in philosophical 
speculation : but how far they were here, as 
so often, following a verbal lead may be indi- 
cated by the following considerations :— 

(a) In Pol. iv. 1290 a 19, Aristotle 
mentions the view that all modes were really 
reducible to two—Dorian and Phrygian—of 
which the rest were wapexBaoes. And this 
view he compares with that which saw only 
two right constitutions —oligarchy and demo- 
cracy—the rest being likewise zapexBacets, 
dAtyapxiKas pev Tas GvvTOVwTEepas Kal deaToTt- 
KwTépas Tas 6 dvepevas Kal parakas Onpo- 
Tixds—4.é. Oligarchies were ‘highly-strung’ 
closely organized governments, democracies 
‘relaxed,’ soft, disorganized. Is there any 
reason to suppose that while Aristotle here 
follows the verbal leading of the parallel, he 
(and Plato) neglected the same brilliant 
opening in the case of 760s ? 

(6) The parallel breaks down in practice. 
For Phrygian, although occupying a central 
position and therefore selected by Socrates, 
is rejected by Aristotle as évovowortixds 
(the same character is given by him even to 
the Hypo-phrygian in Probl. xix. 48, which 
should according to pitch be classified with 
the padaxat dpyovia), and it seems quite 
possible that Socrates indicates his conscious- 
ness that the parallel will not hold water by 
his feigned ignorance in reply to Glaukon 
—ovK oloa Tas appovias, GANG Katddeure K.T.X. 

On the first head, therefore, Mr. Monro’s 
proof seems inconclusive. Later authorities, 
such as Aristides Quintilianus, attribute a 
certain 760s to the various réro ris duvis 
or ‘ registers’ (see § 25), and we may admit 
that in composition the réros and therefore 
the key was chosen to suit the dppovia, but 
this must not be allowed to prejudice the 
question as to what the dpyovia was. 

(2) The identification of éppovia and révos 
—which Aristoxenus no doubt uses in the 
sense of ‘key’ (rots révous éf’ dv ta ovory- 
para riGerar)—is difficult to maintain. It 
may be shown that Plutarch uses the terms 
loosely, so that e.g. in De Mus. 17 7 8wpiori 
appovia is afterwards spoken of as 6 Sdépuos 
tporos (the later syuonym of révos, ep. 
Monro p. 27), and in c. 19 appears as 6 
ddéptos zévos; but until the meaning of 
dppovia is settled it must remain an open 
question whether Plutarch erroneously 
applied the terms rpéros and zévos to an 
appovia, or whether the three are really 
identical.!_ Mr. Monro presses the argument 

* Another instance of Plutarch’s usage in this 


respect 1s supplied by Dr, Sandys in the last 
number of this Review, p. 397. 


that as Plutarch states that the tetrachord 
hypaton was omitted in the tovos dupros 
in order to preserve the 760s, and as the 
tovos dwptos clearly means the dwpicti ap- 
povia of which P. has lately been speak- 


‘ing, the essential element of the scale must 


have been its pitch. But we must point out 
that no support is lent to this latter view by 
the context of the passage quoted, since the 
omission of tpity and vyrn in the tporos 


o7vovoaikes and the use of the vyry cvvny- © 
pévov in the same scale as well as in the 


Phrygian mode are carefully explained in a 
manner which leaves no doubt that con- 
siderations of tonality in the modern sense 
and not of absolute pitch were the cause of 
the restrictions. No doubt Plutarch means 
that the tonality of the Dorian scale on 
which its effect depended was more clearly 
felt if the compass of the melody was not 
extended below the melodic final (E). 

Mr. Monro attributes to Plutarch the 
same interchange of expressions in the pas- 
page (c. 8) relating to the vomos tpiyepys of 
Sakadas. Plutarch says: ‘ there were three 
rovor in the time of Sakadas [circ. 590 B.c.] 
Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydian; 8. com- 
posed a strophe in each, and instructed his 
chorus to sing, the first dwpiori, the second 
dpvytori, and the third Avéiori.” It may be 
that Plutarch here uses rovos in the sense 
of dppovia, but surely some attention is due 
to the view that mode as well as key was 
changed in the composition referred to; by 
this means the rule given by Plutarch in 
cap. 6 (év yap Tots vopois ExaoTw dveTHpovv THV 
oixelav taow) was strictly observed, since in 
spite of the change of dppovia (which Plu- 
tarch says was unknown in early xGapwoia 
in the words preceding those just quoted) 
the three strophes were reduced to the same 
pitch. 

Thus we see that the identity of dpyovia 
and révos must not be hastily inferred from 
the somewhat confused statements of Plu- 
tarch, and we may now ask whether it is 
proved by the use of Plato, Aristotle and 
Aristoxenus. dpyovia in the sense of mode 
is foreign to the terminology of Aristoxenus ; 
tovos in the sense of key does not appear in 
Plato or Aristotle. This fact in itself, 
however, proves nothing ; and a reason for 
the disuse of the term dppovia is suggested 
by Mr. Monro himself on p. 56. The word 
had at least three meanings (1) ‘scale’ in 
general, (2) either ‘mode’ or ‘key’— 
whichever meaning we give to the word in 
Plato—,(3) the enharmonic genus. As Mr. 
Monro says, ‘it is not surprising that a 
word with so many meanings did not keep 








Pt FES PR AR tes: * 


ree 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


its place in technical language but was 
replaced by unambiguous words.’ 

The result of our examination of Mr. 
Monro’s argument, then, has been to leave 
the question an open one. If positive indi- 
cations on the nature of the dpyovia can be 
found, they must guide us in our decision. 
Such indications are not wanting. 

In one instance Mr. Monro departs from 
his chronological arrangement of passages. 
On p. 55—much later than the section on 
Plato (p. 7)—we find a quotation from the 
Philebus 17. Mr. Monro says truly enough 
that the passage ‘has an air of technical 
accuracy not usual in Plato’s references to 
music.’ If this be so, should it not have 
held the first place in § 5, and should it not 
have governed the interpretation of the 
more popular passage in the Republic? In 
the Philebus, then, Plato speaks of intervals 
(Suacrjpara) and the cvorjyata produced 
by their combination @ xatiddvres ot tpocbev 
Tapeédoocav Huiv Tos Eropevors exelvors Kadetv 
atta dppovias. As Mr. Monro remarks, 
there is a close agreement between this 
passage and the teaching of Aristoxenus 
with regard to ctornuata. Does not this 
show that the word which in reality replaced 
dppovia, was not tovos but ovornpat In 


close connection with this should be taken ° 


the passage of Aristoxenus (p. 36, 29 Meib.) 
in which he criticizes his predecessors, who 
Tov cvoTHATwV Tas dtahopas of pev dAWS ovK 
erexeipovv eSapiOetv, GAG epi adTov povev 
Tov érra<éxta>xopdwv (the emendation is a 
necessary one) & éxaAovv dppovias tiv émi- 
oxeyw érowtvtro. These passages show 
clearly that the term dpyovia was applied to 
the species of the octave, and Mr. Monro 
does not deny this ; but he argues that the 
word dppovia ‘even in the time of Plato 
appears as a word of traditional character 
(ot zpooGev wapédocav), his own word being 
ctiornpa, While its use ‘is noticed by Aris- 
toxenus as if it were more or less antiquated.’ 
‘There is no such hesitation, either in Plato 
or in Aristotle, about the use of dppoviar 
for the modes.’ Surely the argument is 
somewhat strained here. Is it not equally 
open to us to say }—‘In the time of Plato 
the popular term, consecrated by tradition 
(ot zpocbev tapédocav), Was dppovia ; in tech- 
nical writing gvornpa was gradually taking 
its place, from the cause assigned by Mr. 
Monro on p. 56 (v. sup.); by the time of 
Aristoxenus the change of usage was com- 
plete and he could therefore speak of the 
use of dppovia in this sense as a thing of the 
past.’ Is there any sign of ‘ hesitation” in 
the passage of Arist. Probl. xix. 26 d:4. 7¢ péorn 


451 


kadeirat év Tais dppoviats, Tov O€ GKTw OvK éoTL 
pécov ; where Mr. Monro admits the use of 
the word dppovia in the sense of cvornpa? 

Our list of indications, however, is not 
yet complete. On p. 24 Mr. Monro notices 
the statement (derived by Plutarch from 
an unknown writer named Lysis) that 
Lamprokles (circ. 475 B.c.) discovered the 
true place of the disjunctive tone in the 
Mixolydian dppovia at the upper end of the 
scale (éxt rd 6€v) and admits that the explan- 
ation given by Westphal and Gevaert! is 
correct —that the Mixolydian was an octave 
of the form 








He tries to minimize the importance of this 
notice—which bears on its face the stamp 
of genuine antiquity—and concludes, ‘in 
any case the existence of a scale of this 
particular form does not prove that the 
octaves of other species were recognized in 
the same way.’ Should we not rather infer 
that so clear a testimony to the meaning of 
4 pr€odvoioTt dppovia ought to govern our 
interpretation of the corresponding terms 
applied to other modes 4 

Once again, in the immediate context of 
the passage just quoted, Plutarch says: 
GAA pv Kal TH éxavepevnv AvdwoTl, yTEp 
évavtia TH prEoAvdiaTl...i7d Adpwvos eupnobat 
gact tov “AGyvaiov. On this Mr. Monro 
says, ‘The statement that the “relaxed 
Lydian ” was the opposite of the Mixolydian 
has given rise to much speculation. In 
what sense, we naturally ask, can a key 
or a mode be said to be “ opposite” or 
“similar” to another? I venture to think 
that it is evidently a mere paraphrase of 
Plato’s language. The relaxed Lydian is 
opposed to the Mixolydian because it is at 
the other end of the scale in pitch.’ But 

(a) the relaxed Lydian—if rightly iden- 
tified by Mr. Monro with the later Hypo- 
lydian key—is not ‘at the other end of the 
seale in pitch’ to the Mixolydian key, since 
the final of the one is A, and of the other 
E>. Thus Mr. Monro’s explanation is in- 
adequate ; while 

(5) a simple and convincing explanation 
is given by Gevaert (i. p. 109). The suc- 
cession of intervals in the Hypo-lydian 
mode is precisely inverted in the Mixo- 
lydian (semitone -tone-tone-semitone-tone- 
tone-tone). What more suitable meaning 
can be found for évayria ? 


1 See the very clear statement of the question in 
La Musique de UV Antiquité i. p. 47 f, 


452 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Thus far then we have seen that the facts 
established by Mr. Monro do not prove the 
dppoviac to be keys, while we have certain 
clear indications that the name was applied 
to modes, 

Space will not permit us to trace the 
remainder of Mr. Monro’s argument in all 
its details, but some salient points deserve 
special treatment. 

1. In § 24 Mr. Monro develops an argu- 
ment on which great stress is laid. The 
names of the keys and the smae names as 
applied to the species of the octave follow 
each other in precisely reversed order. As 
he says, this cannot be an accidental coinci- 
dence ; either the names of the species were 
derived from those of the keys, or con- 
versely. But we learn from Aristoxenus 
that in his time the seven species (to which 
he gives no names) had long been recognized 
by theorists, while the number of keys and 
their relative pitch was still unsettled. 
Therefore, argues Mr. Monro, the names of 
the keys must be the original ones, and 
must have been transferred to the species 
after the determination of their number 
and relative pitch. On the other theory 
the scheme of seven keys would have been 
at once complete. 

Stated thus in the abstract, the argument 
appears a strong one. But Mr. Monro has 
omitted to explain why the two series of 
names occupy the reverse order of pitch.! 
The reason is that the keys were used in order 
to reduce melodies composed in the various 
modes to a common standard of pitch (Gevaert 
i, p. 218). Let each species be noted in 
the key of the same name, and all will 
occupy the same octave—viz. that which 
extends from F to F in modern notation 
(see Table I. p. 127 in Mr. Monro’s book), 
That this is the true explanation is amply 
confirmed by the fact that in the Greek 
instrumental notation (Monro § 27) the 
fifteen origina! letters represent two octaves 
in the Hypo-lydian key (that of F), while 
all the other keys are noted with a greater 

1 It is strange that Mr. Monro should not mention 
this explanation, and still more strange that on p. 77 
he should write with reference to the notation as 
follows: ‘The octaves which are defined by the 
successive pairs of letters, B-y, 5-e, and the rest, are 
octaves of definite notes. If they were framed with 
a view to the ancient modes, as Westphal thinks, 
they must be the actual scales employed in these 
modes. If so, the modes followed each other, in 
respect of pitch, in an order exactly the reverse of 
the order observed in the keys. It need hardly be 
said that this is quite impossible.’ The modes 
regarded as sections of the Perfect System—not 
necessarily ‘the actual scales emplcyed’—did succeed 
eich other in an order the reverse of that observed 
ia the keys, 


or less proportion of derived signs—z.e. the 
Hypo-lydian key was the ‘open key’ of 
antiquity. This fact is explained by Gevaert 
by the supposition that the octave originally 
belonged to the Dorian key, which after- 


- wards became a semitone higher owing to a 


change in the standard pitch. Mr. Monro 


suggests that ‘the Dorian became split up | 


into two keys by difference of local usage, 
and that the lower of the two came to be 


called Hypo-dorian [later Hypo-lydian], but- 
kept the original notation.’ Now, whichever 


be the true explanation, it can scarcely be 
reconciled with the view that the absolute 
pitch of the dpyovia: was of such importance 
that a change of a tone or even a semitone 
produced a change of 740s. The prevailing 
uncertainty with reference to the pitch of 
the keys in the time of Aristoxenus—which, 
when the position of the Mixolydian is 
rectified by a necessary correction of the 
text, amounts merely to this, that on the 
flute the interval of a minor third was 
equally divided instead of being spht up 
into tone and semitone—seems only to imply 
that the ‘standard pitch’ and the system of 
names dependent on it were not absolutely 
fixed. 

2. The names of the seven species are 
given for the enharmonic genus by Pseudo- 
Eucl. Jntroduct. Harm. (a work probably 
dating from the end of the second century 
A.D.) and for the diatonic by Gaudentius 
(1 fourth century). By the latter author 
they are applied to the octaves founded on 
each degree of the diatonic scale, by the 
former to those founded on the various 
degrees of the enharmonic scale. Hence 
the diatonic Phrygian octave is defgabed, 
while the enharmonic Phrygian is cee*- 
fab b*c—not, as we should expect to be the 
case if the species were of practical rather 
than theoretical importance, dee*fab- 
b*cd. The objection is a very pertinent 
one, and it must be conceded to Mr. Monro 
that to the author of the Jntroductio Har- 
monica theory was more important than 
practice. But he is a writer of unknown 
and probably late date, when the enhar- 
monic genus had fallen into disuse ; and we 
are fortunately in possession of a piece of 
direct evidence that the ancient form of the 
Phrygian enharmonic was precisely that 
which we should expect to find. This is the 
famous commentary of Aristides Quintili- 
anus on the dppoviat of Plato’s Republic, 
discussed by Mr. Monro in $$ 33, 34. Mr. 
Monro tries to minimize the importance of 
this direct testimony to the identity of 
Plato’s dppoviac with the species of the 


er. 


he 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


octave in the enharmonic genus, but not, 
as it seems to us, with success. The very 
imperfection of the scales, to which Mr. 
Monro (p. 97) can find no parallel, furnishes 
one of the clearest indications of their 
antiquity, since, as will be seen from 
Gevaert’s transcriptions (vol. i. p. 286 f.), it 
is caused by the absence of the zpooAap- 
Bavonévn from the system which they pre- 
suppose. There is no reason whatever to 
trace Aristides’ information to the same 
source as ‘7 mapa Tots dpxaiows Kara Overs 
dppovia, as Mr. Monro does on p. 98 f. 
They are correctly noted in the usual 
manner, Whereas the latter diagram is, as 
Mr. Monro has no difficulty in showing, 
‘a species of forgery,’ not employing the 
ordinary notation. The witness of the 
ancient document embedded in the text of 
Aristides remains therefore unshaken. 

3. In §$ 29—31 Mr. Monro discusses the 
musical theory of Claudius Ptolemy, and 
particularly his double system of évopacia 
kata @Oéow and xara divapw. It is to be 
noted that in the discussion he appears to 
follow Westphal’s Jater doctrine, according 
to which évopacia Kata ddvapwv was the old 
system, applying to the ovornpa aperaBoror, 
while 6. xara 6éow was that which varied 
with the scale. But, as he himself states, 
‘the 6éo1s of Ptolemy’s nomenclature is the 
absolute pitch (Harm. ii. 5 wore pév zap’ 
abr tH Geo, To dEvTEpov aAGs 7) BapvTepor, 
ovopalouev)’ ; and yon Jan has clearly shown 
(Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 1886, 
Sp. 1285 ff.) that the contrary view (adopted 
in Westphal’s earlier works) is the correct 
one. Mr. Monro insists strongly that Aris- 
toxenus and his followers recognize only the 
perfect system and the keys, while Ptolemy’s 
nomenclature (kara dvvayuv)—which should 
have been all-important, had the species 
of the octave been the scales of prac- 
tical importance—seems to be his own 
invention, or at least of recent invention in 
his time. It is true that he has no difficulty 
in disposing of the passages adduced by 
Westphal from earlier writers to prove the 
existence of dvopacia kata Oeow. AS we 
have shown, it is rather dvopacia xara 
dvvayw that we should seek; and Arist. 
Probl. xix. 20 is rightly interpreted of the 
péon xara Oéow (i.e. of the perfect system) 
by Gevaert (i. p. 260). But it must be 
remembered that the musical theory of 
Aristoxenus and his school is that naturally 
developed with reference to wind instruments 
(z.e. the flute), for which the perfect system 
and its keys are admirably adapted ; while 
Ptolemy’s system, on the other hand, is that 


453 


applicable to stringed instruments, such as 
the cithara and lyre!—and, whatever may 
have been the date at which évopacia xara. 
Svvaywy was first invented, there is no question 
that the KOaprotys must in practice have 
adopted the method of tuning his instrument 
which Ptolemy presupposes and the modern 
harpist practises long before the theory was 
expounded in the ‘ Harmonics.’ 

4. A word remains to be said on the 
extant remains of Greek music. Mr. Monro 
prints the three most recent additions to 
our stock : (1) the Seikelos inscription, after 
Crusius ; (2) the fragment of Euripides’ 
Orestes, after the same scholar; (3) the 
Delphic paean and fragments, after M. 
Théodore Reinach. He notices with regard 
to the last-named composition the fact 
(which had escaped MM. Weil and Reinach*) 
that, as in the case of the Seikelos inscrip- 
tion, there is a remarkable correspondence 
of melody with accentuation ; in all but 
three cases an acute accent is followed by a 
note of lower pitch: while in every case 
there is a fall of pitch in the two notes 
of a cireumflexed syllable. When Mr, Monro 
wrote, the opposite case seemed to occur 
once, in the word @varots, but this exception 
has since been removed by von Jan’s reading 
(A for A).3 We are now able to add the 


Ua = aa 


ial 
f pte 
aN er 


€ - tp]n - cas 








name of the composer—Kleochares, the 
son of Bion, of Athens (Bull. Corr. Hell. 
1894, p. 71). 

Of these three compositions, the first * and 
third appear to be written in the ‘ Dorian’ 
mode, and Mr. Monro finds in this fact a 
signal confirmation of his theory. But the 
Dorian mode would certainly be that most 
appropriate to a choral lyric addressed to 
the Pythian Apollo, so that its use in the 
Delphic paean might have been expected. 
As to the Orestes fragment the case is not 
so clear. MM. Wessely and Ruelle regard 
the mode as Hypo-phrygian, noted in rovos 
Avéuos. Mr. Monro prefers to regard it as 
‘ Dorian’ with the addition of trepurary at 
the lower end of the scale—i.e. the Dorian 
dppovia as given in the table of Aristides 
Quintilianus. This seems to be right; but 


1 See Gevaert i. p. 253, with note 2. 

2 It is noticed by Crusius, Philologus liii. 504. 

3 The same scholar suggests © for O in bar 19, @e. 

4 On the Seikelos inscription see T. Reinach, Revue 
des Etudes Grecques 1894, p. 263. 


454 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. . 


is it quite fair to Aristides to say that ‘as 
the Dorian least needs defence, the fact 
that it is verified by an actual piece of 
music does not go far in support of the 
other scales in the same list’? 


There remain (1) the scales in practical - 


use on the xifdpa given by Ptolemy (§ 31); 
of these one seems to be Phrygian, another 
Hypo-phrygian in species, while the rest 
are Dorian or Hypo-dorian ; (2) the hymns 
of Mesomedes (Mr. Monro clings to the 
name Dionysius, which has been shown not 
to belong to the composer of the hymns by 
von Jan, Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie 
1890, p. 679 f.); of these two are Dorian 
in mode, one Hypo-phrygian; (3) the 
exercises given by Bellermann’s Anonymus 
(on which little stress should be laid) ; of 
these three are Hypo-dorian and a fourth 
perhaps Hypo-lydian, if their tonality be 
pressed. 

Lastly, MM. Havet and Théodore Reinach 
have lately published (Revue des Etudes 


Grecques 1894, p. 196 ff.) a musical phrase 
from the accompaniment of Terence Hecyra 
861 (found in the Codex Victorianus)—but 
little can be said of its tonality ; M. Reinach 
believes it to be Hypo-phrygian both in 
tone and key. It will be seen that the 
extant specimens of Greek music do not 


enable us to solve the problem before us. - 


That the Dorian dppovia would be the most 
popular might have been predicted, yet 
beside it there appear indications of the 
use of other modes, though of late date. 

Here we must conclude our examination 
of Mr, Monro’s argument. Much has: per- 
force been passed over in silence; yet it 
may be hoped that no substantial injustice 
has been done to the case which he has put 
forward with so much vigour and ingenuity. 
Jf it does not seem fatal to the current 
theory, it certainly requires to be seriously 
reckoned with by its upholders. 


H. Sruart Jones. 





SCHWAB’S SYNTAX OF THE GREEK COMPARATIVE. 


Historische Syntax der Griechische Compara- 
tion in der klassischen Litteratur, von 
Orro Scowas. Pp. viii. 127. Mk. 4. 


Tuts treatise forms Heft 11 of Schanz’s 
Beitrége. It is to be followed by two other 
parts by the same author. The part before 
us contains (A) Allgemeimer Teil which we 
may phrase by ‘Of Comparison in General’ ; 
and (4) Besonderer Teil I. Syntax der 
gegensitzlichen Comparation =‘ Of Compar- 
ison in Particular, Syntax of Adversative 
Comparison.’ The author undertakes in his 
preface to bring the description of compari- 
son in Greek up to date with the advances 
in general linguistics and thus ‘den 
anerkannten Gewinn feststehender That- 
sachen sich anzueignen.’ He sets himself 
to follow Brugmann’s limitation of the 
scope of Syntax: wie hat die Sprache ihre 
Formen syntuktisch verwendet, und wie ist 
man xu dieser Verwendung gekommen ?—and 
takes strong ground on the harmony of logic 
and syntax. 

The primary tenet of the volume! is 
stated on p. 2: ‘Comparison is adversation 
and the fundamental meaning of the compar- 

* The author follows closely Ziemer (Vergl. Synt. 


d. indoger. Comp.) here as in almost every other 
place. 


ative suffix is adversative’: p. 3: ‘ The 
underlying original notion of the comparative 
endings was solely the notion of contrast.’ 
We are further told that -wy, -.cros, “TEpos 
are Ar yan endings and older than the notion 
of comparison which arose after the separation 
of the individual languages, and so the 
original sao cannot have been the 
comparative. 

These adhéeitaone are reinforced by the 
psychological one that we can only conceive 
‘good’ as the opposite of ‘bad’? and so in 
pairs: ‘big’)(‘little’, ‘strong’)(‘ weak’. 
The only exceptions allowed to these con- 
trasting pairs are designations of material 
and colour, 

The line of facts on which this general 
proposition is based is that in the various 
literatures words like Eng. ‘xupper’ com- 
parative in form and contrasting or 
solely adversative in meaning occur: thus 
in ‘upper’)(‘lower’ the termination is 
contrasting and not comparative. From 
this point of view the form ‘great’ is later 
than the form ‘ greater.’ 

Is adversation of opposites a more 
primitive operation than comparison of 

? Of course in any inquiry into linguistic origins we 


inust deal with concrete terms like ‘ gr eat *\(«small,’ 
and not with moral abstractions like ‘ good ’)(‘ bad.’ 





omar ee, 


{HE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


likes? Is there not a characteristic normal 
notion if not an absolute positive one of 
‘ swiftness’ for instance? Granted that of 
two tortoises as of two horses one may say 
the ‘swifter’ and the ‘slower’; do we 
unavoidably contrast ‘ tortoise’ with ‘ horse’ 
before we compare ‘ tortoise’ with ‘ tortoise’ 
or ‘horse’ with ‘horse’? Is not the positive 
process of comparison more essential to 
classification than the negative process of 
contrast 4 

In the analysis of the underlying force of 
the two comparative suffixes -wwv and -repos 
we must seek to fix their primary meaning, 
and this is best done on the Vedic field 
where the suffix -yd-s- (-wwv) seems clearly of 
participial nature (Delbruck S./. v. p. 
189)! and frequently governs the accusa- 
tive, eg. R.V. v. 41, 12° sé ndbhas tdriyan 
‘he is a crosser of the sky’ is affirmed of 
Rudra the storm-god. It will be noted 
that the comparative force need not be 
taken here. A comparative sense for this 
suffix had however been acquired at a 
period antedating all literary remains, that 
is to say in the Aryan period, and this 
comparative force arose I believe from the 
participial. RV. ix. 66, 17°: bharidabhyas 
cin manhiyan =‘ From <the standpoint of> 
the generous-givers even he is generous- 
giving ’=‘ He is more-generous-giving than 
the generous-givers.’ The collocation 
tavdsas tdviyan (3 ts.) ‘stronger than 
strength,’ originally ‘strong from <the 
standpoint of> strength,’ lends weight to 
the assumption made above that comparison 
arises between like things and not by 
contrast of opposites. I note also svaddh 
svadiyas (2 ts.) ‘sweeter than sweet.’ 

We can reach a similar origin for the 
compy. suffix -tero-, making it an extension 
of the participial-agency suffix in -ter-. 
The suffix -fero- was extended to adjectives 
as a specific comparative, and dissociated 
itself from the agency suffix -ter-. This is 
true of the suffix -yen-s-,2 which has lost its 

1 Note also Brugmann, Gr. ii. § 135: In mancher 
Beziehung geht -zes- mit dem Participialsuffix -yes- 
den gletchen Weg. 

2 I agree with J. Schmidt in K.Z. xxvi. 337 sq. 
that this is the Aryan form of the suffix spite of 
Brugmann’s argument to the contrary in his Grun- 
driss ii. §135, Anm. 1. I write the stem however as 
-yen-s-, the s being really a nominative ending re- 
affixed in the Aryan period just as later in Latin 
participles, e.g. feren-s. If this explanation is 
reasonable it ought to be capable of a statistical 
proof. The upgrowth of the comparative from the 
participial sense must have mainly taken place in 
sentences like the R. V. passage quoted above (ix. 66, 
17°), that is to say with the comparative adjective 
in the nominative case. We have then the nominative 
variations y2-s || yés masc. ; to this last -y@s neut. was 


455 
participial nature everywhere save in 
Sanskrit. We reach now this conclusion : 


the difference between the suffixes -wy and 
-repo- is effaced save in Sanskrit, and the 
participial nature of -ydns- in Sanskrit 
suggests the identification of -tero- with the 
agential suffix -ter-. 

In the light of these considerations I can- 
not believe that adversation underlies 
comparison, or that coddrepos, 7diwy are 
formations prior to codds, dus. 

It remains to consider the pronouns and 
adverbs with comparative suffix, for here 
perhaps is the strongest basis for the 
adversative conception. We may take 
morepos, Sk. katard-, Lat. uter ‘which of 
two’ as typical for the pronouns. At 2.V. 
vii. 104, 12 we gain a hint of the origin of 
these comparatives: tdyor ydt satydm 
yatardd Fjiyas tad it Smo ’vati hanty dsat = 
‘of these the one which is true which<er> 
is more-correct, that one Soma favours, he 
destroys the untrue’; that is to say yatardd 
is compy. because #jzyas is compv. We can 
apply this to the uses of wter. As a direct 
question L. and Sh. cite eleven instances ; 
six are in sentences with a compy. in the 
predicate,? like Pl. Aul. 321 sed wter 
vostrorumst celerior ; three instances have 
no adj. predicate, only two instances have a 
positive adj. predicate, but of these one 
popularis need not be counted, as being a 
political term. 

Such apparently contrasting forms as dve- 
tépw)(katwtépw (Schwab, p. 12) are, T believe, 
to be really understood as of compy. origin. 
The compv. degree it must be remembered 
moves prevailingly by increment not by 
decrement (cf. also in this sense p. 16) ; 
‘higher’ is not only compy. to ‘high,’ but it 


added: -ds- ; -8s-=-yas- : -y&s-. InSk. -yg-s was treated 
as -yas- to form the ace. sg. and nom. plur. mase. : 
-yé-s had grades in 0, Le. -yd-s (-cwv), and -yes was 
further graded to -is. The perf. participle sip -ven-s 
had the same treatment precisely, with the additional 
stem -v7-t-, evolved out of a case form -v7-t-0s. A 
statistic of the comparatives in -yas- and -iyas- in 
R. V. excluding sényas ‘old,’ naévyas || néviyas ‘ young’ 
which are not true comparatives reveals fifty-five 
nominatives mase. in -yd-s, sixty neuters in -yas, 
two vocatives (masc.) in -yas, eight accusatives sg. 
and nominatives plur. in -yds- over against but fifty- 
nine case forms in -yas-. This statistic seems to me to 
amply vindicate Schmidt's contention for an analo- 
gical origin of the stem form -yes-. Ileave to Schmidt 
x 
and Meringer the defence of the proposition that dns 


x 
gives as, noting however that it is accepted by 
Streitburg against Brugmann J. Ff, iii. p. 150. 

8 These instances conform precisely to the point 
of the last note—that the compy. sense grew out of 
the participial mainly in the nom. sg. masc. and 
neuter. 


456 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


is compv. to ‘ /ow’ in the sense of ‘ less-low’ ; 
‘lower’ is thus, as ‘less-high,’ compv. to 
‘high.’ The contrast of ‘ higher’)(‘ lower’ 
involves a middle term, ‘high-low.’ When 
this middle term is expressed there results 


the superlative ‘ lowest,’ ‘ uppermost,’ ‘ mid- 


most’ (Sk. adhamé, J madhyamda, 
Ks, Y..1.. 24, 15): 

With dea- ter)(sinis-ter (cf. 7b. p. 10) we 
may likewise think of a median line, the tacit 
norm of comparison ; but the possibility is 
not excluded that here we have agency- 
suffixes pure and simple. 

The typical ot pev zpecBitepa)(ot de 
vewtepo (p. 53), is thus explained: ‘the 
veorepo. are young in respect of the 
mpeaBitepo, but not absolutely young— 
adversation and not comparison.’ Such 
phrases may be explained as the result of a 
process of division into young and old; to 
reach this result there was a norm of 
comparison, a dividing line. Such a 
standing ellipsis can be well illustrated by 
the special ellipsis in A. 786 sq. : 

TEKVOV €.0V, even pev wmépTepos eat 

"AxiAXevs, 
mpeaPutepos b€ av éeaot Bin 8 6 ye woAXOv 

apeivov. 

Here where the adjectives cannot be 
referred to the same norm nobody will 
boggle over the ellipsis ; but if v. 786 read 
yeven ev vewtepos! we should then have to 
say that ‘ Achilles is vesrepos in respect of 
the zpecBirepos but not absolutely young.’ 
What is said is ‘Achilles is higher-bred 
<than you>, but you are older <than he>.’ 
We can imitate the ellipsis in English 
‘Achilles is the higher-bred, you are the 
elder.’ Will anybody contend that this is 
equivalent to ‘Achilles is high-bred, you 
are old’? No, but this is a fair reduction 
of Schwab’s contention, that in a sentence 
like ‘ Achilles is younger, you are older’ the 
original sense was ‘ Achilles is young, you 
are old.’ 

Schwab devotes several pages to the 
compv. as a modified positive (107 sg.). A 
typical example is 6 187 AaBe dioxov peilova 
Kal 7axeTov = ‘ he took a rather large and (a) 
thick disk.’ Another example is dweAéorepov 
éropevovto (Xen. fell. iv. 8, 36), ‘they 
proceeded rather carelessly, too carelessly.’ 
Here we have to supply the norm: of 
comparison ‘than usual’: the English 
compyv. ‘rather’ shows all this shift of 
meaning. Schwab sees adversative force 
here too, or a development from the 
adversative. In this sense too he takes such 
phrases as doxet BéAriov ecivac. But no, 

1 This it could not metrically do. 


these are all solutions of a dilemma: one 
seeks only a good course of action ; of two 
such courses that present themselves one 
asks which is the better. 

On p. 28 this tenet is maintained; der 
genetivus comparationis ist separativus. This 
we think Ziemer has abundantly proved. 
As a corollary to. this formula Ziemer 


explained the genitive after superlatives as 


also a separative, and Kvicala had as early 
as 1858 brought under one rubric with the 
gen. comparationis the gen. after certain 
superlatives. Delbriick (Grundriss der 
Vergl. Gram. il. § 196) accepts Kvicala’s 
results only in pepand of the three Homeric 
examples Z 295, A 505, « 105. A typical 
example is Z 295 éxeiro (sc. wérXos) O€ veiaros 
d\Awv. Schwab (p. 39) demonstrates to his 
own satisfaction that this is not a partitive 
gen. thus: ‘Die partitive Erklirung eines 
solchen Genetivs lisst uns offenbar im 
Stiche, da ja der vergleichene Begriff nicht 
zu der Menge der ddA gehéren kann, 
sondern deutlich von denselben  unter- 
schieden, ihnen gegeniibergestellt wird.’ 
As a general proposition we do not believe 
that language takes the pains to be logical. 
Who has not heard a little boy whose only 
playmates were girls say some such thing as 
‘I counted and the other girls hid’? and yet 
the boy is neither one of the others, nor one 
of the girls. It is only the grammarian and 
not the reader that stumbles at: ‘the 
fairest of her daughters—Eve’ (Paradise 
Lost iv. 324). Schwab grants that the later 
Greek feeling held this as a partitive con- 
struction (p. 42), and he lays down (p. 43) 
a canon to which the Homerie instances 
recognized by Delbriick all conform: ‘ein 
Genetivus comparationis d.i. separationis ist 
nur da zu erkennen, wo eine Ausschliessung 
des superlativischen aus der zahl der iibrigen 
Vergleichsobjekte stattfindet.’ A suspicion 
should be raised by the fact that the gen. 
with which this is possible is always d\\or, 
and this g\Awy is in my opinion an un- 
doubted popular mistake for *@Awy out of 
*¢d\Ffo-=Sk. sdrva- ‘all,’ Lat. salvus ‘ whole, 
sound’: thus vedatos aAAwv =‘ last of all.’2 

2 This sense is to be also scen in &AAws: I 699 
oo deynveop éoTl kal uArdws, ‘he is headstrong, even 
utterly.’ Hdl. i. 60 nal @AAws everdns, ‘and quite 


comely.’ In Aesch. Hum. 726 GAdws Te wadvTws Kal 
we may look upon mévrws as a sort of translation of 
GAAws. 

We have here a fine instance of the fact that Greek 
and Latin sometimes mixed their d@ and 6 and did 
not have that perfect phonetic orthography generally 
ascribed to them; cf. my remarks in Modern 
Language Notes ix. col. 262 sg. In GAd@y as ex- 
plained above I see a doublet to dAos. In Latin we 
have the forms salvos, sollus, sdlus, sdleo (Breal, 


Des 


renreereys se 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Latin furnishes no ground for interpreting 
the genitive with the superlative as any- 
thing but a partitive and for Sanskrit 
Delbriick (/.c. p. 412) cites only one exam- 
ple of the superlative with ablative and 
this he admits can be explained by the 
meaning of the superlative. 


I note here that the compv. construction 


with alius ‘other’ and words of like 
meaning in the various languages may be 
genetic, that is, employ the true separative 
ubl. in the sense ‘ different from.’ 

I turn to a third point, the contention 
that the compv. 7 is the disjunctive 
‘or’ (Schwab p. 46 sq., Ziemer 149 sq.). 
Others have claimed for it identity 
with the interrog.-afiirm. 7, and_ still 
others have made it a relative 7 or 7 
(Ziemer /.c. p. 157). For my own part I 
believe that the disjunctive 7 and the 


interrogative 7 are at bottom identical. I 


note that the double ‘and’ Sk. ca...ca, Grk. 
ré...7é, Lat. gue...que belong to the interroga- 
tive. The copulative sense was in my 
- opinion won by the second ré. 7 is by origin 
a demonstrative belonging to the stem e- (cf. 
Brug. Gr. ii. § 409), the same stem to which 
ei ‘if,’ ‘ whether’ also belongs, of which it 
is perhaps only a graphic variant (cf. Kretic 
#=«i)—on a theory that even the Greeks 
needed a spelling reform (supra, last note). 


Mém. de la Soe. de Ling. 5, 437 f.). The Greek cor- 
respondents are *aAfo- (cf. Thess. KépFat, &dAo-) 
*§AAo (Ion. obA0-) *@Ao- (Dor. cf. Képa) bAos. The 
confusion of &AAo- ‘all’ with @AAo- ‘other’ per- 
haps accounts for the smooth breathing in Ionic 
ovAos. 

A most interesting correspondence, never before 
pointed out so far as I know, is that between ‘OAduma 
and sollemnia, games (performed for the state as a 
whole ?). In regard of the suffixes -wma and -mnia I 
remark that in careless articulation the group mn 
gives m<p>n, e.g. ‘dampnation,’ passim in the 
English ballad poetry ; we sometimes have the spell- 
ing sollempnis in Latin MSS. In ’OAdyma I would 
see *’OAvum(v)ia with a loss of -v-. The permanence 
of the group -uv- is not proved by words like BéAcuvoy 
where the felt participial suffix -wevos (cf. BadAduevos) 
may have had effect. “OAvumos || OfAvumos ‘ god- 
mount’ is a name derived I believe from ’OAvuma, 
Liv. i. 5 tells of a sollemne that was established on 
the Palatine mount,—so in ”OAvumos a general name 
for mountain we can see a regression from ’OAvuma 
*mountain-festivals ’—and these occurred doubtless 
at a fixed period (cf. Lat. sd/eo). Attention is called 
to the variants O#A°||“OA° as in odAos || 6Aos * whole.’ 

In respect of the doublet, salvus || sollus, Thurney- 
sen (K.Z. 28, p. 261) explains & for] as due to the 
following v. De Saussure had previously brought 
together a group of words in which -oF- was _repre- 
sented by Lat. -av-. Who can say which is older ? If 
we assume av to be older, then the explanation is 
simpler phonetically ; the low-back-wide vowel @ is 
rounded by the following -w- to a something very 
close to 6, mid-back-wide-round. In the same way 
-ev- in Latin was rounded to -ov- in novus ; véFos. 


457 


The form é for *#-Fe is comparable precisely 
with Lat. st-ve—si-ve, for st is also a 
demonstrative that has become interrogative, 
but 7 (#é) developed further in this direction, 
being helped on by the exclamatory-inter- 
rogative 7, which has a direct congener in 
Lat. en, and this amounts in en wmquam to 
an interrogative. 

But, whatever the etymology of the 
particle may be, I confess [ cannot see the 
force of the argument to prove that 7 
‘than’ is the disjunctive 7. A brief state- 
ment of this view I cite from Schwab (p. 
25): ‘xpetrrov teOvavar GAN’ od dvyeiv. Als 
der sinnentsprechendste Ersatz fiir ad’ od 
bot sich eben das disjunktive 7 dar, welches 
ja zwei unter gegenseitiger Ausschliessung 
geltende Begriffe verbindet; vergl. 7 
arobaverv=vixav, GAN ot« drobaveiv oder 
drobaveiv Kal ov vixav. So far, so good! but 
this explanation does not show us why in 
kpeirrov TeOvavae i) puyeiv it is puyeiv that is 
always excluded, and never reOvdva. I 
think it much easier to reach the sense in 
the way of G. Hermann’s rtoiro BéAriov 
éotw: 3) éxeivo; this is better: or <is> 
that? If we assume a question zdrepov 
Bédriév éorw TotTO 7) exeivo ; its normal answer 
was todTé éorw PeAtiov éxeivov, but with a 
sort of echo the answer may have “been 
BéAriév ext TodTO 7) éxetvo. 

Ziemer brings in support of the disjunctive 
origin of 7 ‘than’ such dialect English as 
‘nobody need to have a quieter death nor 
he had’ (Jane Eyre); also in German, du 
es tirger gemacht hast weder sie (Luther's 
Bibel, Ezech. 16, 47). Now in both these 
cases the disjunctive particle is negative, 
Eng. nor like Lat. neque means and not : 
thus ‘ better bow nor break’ means ‘ better 
bend and not break.’ 

It must be confessed however that in 
citing Isoc. Pan. 80 Ziemer has brought up 
a very strong case for 7=dAd’ od (kat od), 
but after all the passage is of an intensely 
rhetorical character: Geparevovres aX’ ovx 
iBpilovres...ctparnyetv oldpevor Setv GAAG pr) 
rupavveiv...madrov eriBupodvres yyyeoves 7} 
deordrar mpooayopeverOar Kat owrnpes dAXrO 
pn =Avpedves aroxadetobat,| TO Torey & 
mpocayopevol...adX ov Bia Kataotpepopevo. 
The balance is perfect: dX’ od (A)—aAAG py 
(B)—padrAov 9 (C)—addAAd wy (B)—adX’ od 
(A). The same balance goes on through 
§ 18 pev)(dé (X)—oix obtws || ds (Y)—rHv 
avriy || yvaep (Y )—pev)(de (X). 

Schwab (p. 67) claims but one other 
literary occurrence for this formula: Thue. i. 





1 Perhaps we are to construe this as <se. oldéuevor 
deiv > amoxadciobay, 


458 


120, 2, jpav 8€ door pe ’AOnvaiors nd 
evn\Adynoav ovxi didayns dSéovtar wore pvdd- 
€acOat aitovs: Tovs d& Tiv pecdyeav paddov 
Kal pi) €v TOpw KaTwKnwévous cid€évar xpy etc. 
Now if anything is clear it is that ooo. pe 


and rots d€...xatwxnevors are the two parts 


of joy d€ and that cat pa év Top is simply 
explanatory of peodyeay, whereas paddov 
eidevat xp7) 1S a Comparative advance on odyxt 
didaxns d€ovTau. 

With these examples explained Greek 
seems to furnish no proof for the tenet that 
y ‘than’ is a disjunctive 7 ‘or,’ as a 
substitute for ddd’ od. In any case it were 
dangerous to explain Homeric 7 ‘than’ by 
two isolated examples in rhetorical prose 
writers like Thucydides and Isocrates ! 

The rhetorical explanation of 7 as inter- 
rogative given above cannot be called quite 
satisfactory for the very reason that it 
is entirely theoretical. It remains to 
examine briefly SchOmann’s theory that 7 is 
a relative, z.e. for 7 or 7. In Latin guam and 
German als we also have relatives but both 
are secondary formations. A very trans- 
parent origin for the Lat. guam ‘than’ can 
be made out, e.g. tam ego fui liber quam (se. 
liber) gnatus tuus (Pl. Capt. 310); it is but 
a step to liberior quam gnatus tuus. In 
Greek we should expect a group *77)(7, and 
7 seems preserved in 7 Oeuts éori (y 45), but 
no such permanent group can be found. 7 
‘than’ may however be for *7 so far as the 
breathing is concerned (cf. jos)(TH0s). 

Another point that speaks strongly for 
the conception of 7 as a relative is the form 
nrep * than.’! 

The difficulties in the way of this theory 
are the deaspiration and the non-existence 
of the correlative group *77) (7. 

It remains to mention an additional possi- 
bility; to the demonstrative stem e- there 
may have been an ablative *ét, Fem. *at. It 
seems possible in this way to bring together 
a\Xo rep and aliud atque (cf. the last note 
on wep || que). Atgue and 7 seem directly 
comparable in use if we take Pl. Ps. 1133 
as a typical case, ili sunt alio ingenio atque 


tu.2 In Homer 7 ‘than’ is always followed 


' The origin of this -rep with relatives may per- 
haps be found if we consider its practical equivalence 
with -re, as in éo7ep || bore. Then -zrep is to be 
ascribed to the relative stem with labialization, and 
derived from a primitive Greek *«Fe-p. The source 
of the -p is perhaps to be sought in the enclitic zep, 
C.9. Avybs wep éwv ayopnTis (B. 246) ‘though being 
very shrill,’ cf. Lat. per-iwcundus ; we can translate 
Avyts mep by ‘ever so shrill,’ and bomep by ‘who so 
ever’ in English. 

2 We must reckon with the possibility that after 
‘tw’ ‘alio ingenio’ is implicit, thus ‘ they have one 
nature and you have another.’ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


by a dat. or gen. (not dependent on the 7), 
a clause, or an infinitive, not by the 
nominative (or acc.) as a substitute for the 
gen. compv.;* atgue too, so far as the 
examples cited by L. and Sh. (s. v. alius I. 
B) allow us to make an induction, is a 
compv. particle with clauses as in the 
example just cited.*. 

It must be admitted however that there’ 
is a missing link in this line of development ; 
thus we must make a collocation like 7 yuvy 
peiwv *(7) dvdpos ‘this woman is shorter 
from <the standpoint of> this (*j7) man,’ 
and assume that as the pronoun stem e- faded 
out in Greek this fossil remained behind ; 
beside the definite *#r dvépés was an in- 
definite dvdpds, and 7 (for *ir) was felt to be 
superfluous with the genitive, but was not 
entirely lost until it had been converted into 
use as a compy. particle where the gen. 
could not stand, as for example in clauses. 

1 turn to the connexion of two compara- 
tives by 7, guam, a phenomenon that meets 
us both in Greek and Latin. Ziemer 
explains the second compy. as due to an . 
assimilation in form to the first; Schwab 
(p. 89) resorts to the examination by adver- 
sation (cf. supra, p. 454). There is but one 
example in Homer, a 164; Telemachus has 
been charging the wooers with devouring 
his father’s living ; he adds: 


> (hes ie thee) 4 3 , Zz 
ei xewvov y' laxnvde idotato vorctycavra 
? / ’ * 
TavTes K apyoaiat’ éhadporepor todas civar 
BI , cr A 
7) ApveloTepot xpvTotd Te EoOATOS TE. 


This I interpret éAadpdrepor <‘Odvocjos 
partrov> i advedtepor <’Odvocjos>. The 
ellipsis of paAXov® by brachylogy need not 


3 Apparent exceptions are A 417, K 556 (in both 
cases je rep) and A 395 where a predicate verb is to 
be inferred from the context. 

4 There are several points in which the usage of 
Homeric 4 corresponds with the exclamatory-inter- 
rogative uses of aft. Cf. L. and Sh. s.v. aé I. B. 3 
a—b, with L. and Se. s.v. 4. Eng. ‘why’ like at is 
exclamatory, interrogative and apodotic in con- 
ditions. If the comparison of aque and 4ep holds 
good then we should expect an *d@t*‘than.’ The 
form at-que may have crowded out the simple form 
because of quam ‘than,’ just as -gwe ‘and’ became 
in general the important part of the compound. at 
‘but’ is perhaps a derived meaning from ‘than’ as 
in English we have the pair, ‘nothing else but’ | 
‘nothing else than.’ 

> Except that BovAoua # precedes in point of time 
BovAoun warAAov H, we might claim the same pheno- 
menon there. 

I note that etymological relation obtains possibly 
between madAdAov ‘rather’ and Lat. malo ‘ prefer,’ 
which I find it hard to believe a double affection of 
*mage volo, magvolo || mavolo, malo. If malo is not 
such a compound it then remains to explain mavis, 
mavult on the analogy of nevis || nonvis, nevult.|| 
nonvult ete, 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


surprise us, for the compv. has the sense of 
the positive with potius (ua\Xov) just as 
well as with magis (ef. Schwab p. 65). I 
take at random two other passages and they 
yield to the same interpretation. At Lys. 
19, 15, a father is said to have refused his 
daughters to rich suitors who wished to 
take them without dower, 6tt éddxovv KaxK.ov 
yeyovevat ‘ because they seemed to belong to 
the lower classes,’ dAAG Tv wey Bropyrw TO 
Tlataveet, dv ot woAAot BeAtiova ayotvra <ivat 
# TAOvawrepov etc. This I interpret BeAriova 
<yeyovévat padXov> 7) tAovoWTEpov ‘he was 
thought to belong to a higher class rather 
than to be richer <than the other suitors>.’ 
At Livy 22, 38, in contrast with Varro’s 
inflammatory harangues, it is stated: 
conlegae eius Pauli wna...contio fuit, verior 
quam gratior populo, and this I interpret 
verior <contionibus Varronis potius> quam 
gratior populo. From such brachylogies as 
these, with contemporaneous -.working 
perhaps of the principle of balance recog- 
nized by Ziemer, 7 with two comparatives 
became a mere formula; synonymic 


459 


correction is suggested by such examples as 
avvTomerepov 7) cadeorepov (Isoc.), ‘concise ’ 
being substituted for ‘clear’: callidior 
quam cautior, ‘more cunning <one would 
say rather than> more cautious.’ 

The reviewer has not found himself able 
to agree with the contention of the author 
that comparison is adversation, a point that 
has affected all the details of the argument. 
There yet remain to be published two parts 
of the treatise dealing with the statistical 
history of the true compy. in Greek, and 
from this statistic we shall doubtless gain 
further insight into an important aspect of 
Greek lexicography. 

The result of the present volume lends 
itself toa stronger statement of grammatical 
formulae than Kaegi’s, for example § 160, 
thus: (A) 7 (quam) ec. nom. and ace. is a 
substitute for a casus separationis (gen., abl.) 
after a compv., (B) but uninflectible phrases 
require 7 (guam) at all periods. 

Epwin W. Fay. 


Washington and Lee University, 
Lexington, Virginia. 


FICK ON GREEK PROPER NAMES. 


Die Griechischen Personennamen nach threr 
Bildung erklért und systematisch geordnet 
von Avucust Fick. Zweite Auflage 
bearbeitet von Fritz BecuTeL und 
Avueust Fick. Vandenhoeck and Ru- 
precht: Gottingen. 1894. Pp. xvii. 
474. -M. 12. 


In the year 1874 Fick published in his 
Griechische Personennamen one of the most 
original and at the same time convincing 
of his many brilliant contribuftions to 
Ancient Philology. Inquiry into the his- 
tory of proper names had hitherto been 
almost. confined to the range of the Teu- 
tonic languages. Jacob Grimm had pub- 
lished discussions both in his Geschichte der 
Deutschen Sprache and in separate papers : 
Pott in his Personennamen insbesondere die 
Familiennamen 1853 had collected and 
classified an enormous number of chiefly 
Teutonic names: in the monumental work 
of Férstemann the labours of a whole period 
were completed and systematized. In 
English we have a few treatises by Kemble, 
Ferguson, &c., as well as a translation of 
Salverte’s discursive History of the Names of 
Men, Nations, and Places. 


Already in 1852 Miillenhoff asserted (see 
Pott pp. 86 sqq.) that in the Teutonic names 
‘the sense of the shortened forms could be 
seen only in the compounds,’ and the thesis 
was by implication extended to the Greek. 
But in point of method Fick’s most notable 
forerunner was Franz Stark, whose Jose- 
namen d. Germanen 1868 exhibits on 
Teutonic soil almost all the various abbre- 
viations, diminutive formations, &e., which 
Fick subsequently discovered in Greek 
names. The main contentions of Fick’s 
work were, first, that with few exceptions 
all Greek full names were compounded of 
two stems, of which one at least was 
habitually employed in names and had 
acquired the value of a name _ word 
(Namenwort), and secondly, that all names 
of apparently one stem were derived from 
these by a process of mainly hypocoristic 
shortening. Justas ‘Gotz’ is a Kosename 
for ‘ Gottfried,’ ‘ Fritz’ for ‘ Friedrich,’ so is 
Zedéis (as Sauppe had asserted ap. Plat. 
Protag. 318 B, C) for Zevéirros: just as 
‘Madeline’ is a diminutive from the first 
member of ‘ Mathilda,’ so is MvyoiAa from 
Mryoideos: and just as ‘Adalbo’ contains 
a part only of the second component of 


460 


‘Adalbert,’ so @goyws and ‘Avtizas are 
shortened from @ecdyvyntros and ’Avriratpos. 
Even a Te:oapevos implies a Teoigfovos. The 
proof of this is contained in five arguments 
which Fick adduces: but the first is enough, 
that the most ‘Greek short names have 
corresponding long names by their side.’ 
After a review of the different forms which 
the abbreviation takes and the various 
suffixes employed, Fick proceeds to show the 
same principles at work in Celtic, Teutonic, 
the Slav languages, Iranian, Indian, and 
finally to draw up a system of Indo-Euro- 
pean names. All this is done with a sur- 
prising clearness and geniality. 

The rest of the book consists of a classi- 
fication, containing (1) a list of name-words 
(with their Kosenamen) found only in the 
first part of compounds, (2) a similar list of 
second members with their Kosenamen, 
and (3) a ‘System’ of Greek name-forms. 
This arrangement, however, involves a good 
deal of repetition, as many name-words may 
belong to both (1) and (2), and a large 
number of pairs such as @eddwpos and 
Awpofeos are formed by transposition. 

In the second edition, which now lies 
before us, and for which Fick has availed 
himself of Bechtel’s help, the subject has 
advanced to a second stage. The first is 
more of a thesis, the second has passed into 
a formal exposition of the subject. The 
comparison with other languages now dis- 
appears because ‘ the proof has been given 
in the first edition, and, as it has never been 
seriously contested, its repetition may be 
dispensed with.’ The three subdivisions 
are now (1) Names of Men, (3) Names of 
Heroes, (5) Names of Gods, and under each 
appear (A) discussions concerning the re- 
lations of ‘long’ and ‘short’ names, 
(B) combived lists of both, and (C) cases of 
names derived from other names such as 
those of dates, animals, and plants. In 
fulness of citation and reference the present 
edition occupies a different plane from its 
predecessor. The authors claim that every 
fresh name, as well as such as have hitherto 
been insufficiently attested, has been pro- 
vided with a reference. Indeed every page 
bears testimony to careful and critical work. 
What degree of completeness has been 
reached only the habitual use of the book 
can show: a comparison with a long list of 
names in an inscription from Pharsalus 
(Cauer no. 395) suggests that something is 
still wanting. Referring to the index to 
Grote’s History we note the absence of 
"Aytppios, Bias, Aadvatos, Iirraxos, Avkap- 
Bys, XaBpias, Xapidnwos, Xethwv, as also 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of certain derivatives in -/dys from simple 
forms which appear, ¢.g. “Aynoavdpioas, 
’Exipevidns, Epacwidns, Kparnowrmidns, Meve- 
kefdas. Curiously enough, Miltiades fails 
us, and Kimon suffers a second banishment. 

The authors themselves are under no 
delusion that their work represents a final 
stage in the treatment of the subject. A 
real name-book, observes Bechtel, would 
begin where we conclude. It should in the 
first place present the gradual growth and 
decay of names and name-words from the 
earliest times to the latest. It should show 
how appellatives gradually acquired and 
lost the value of name-words. It should 
assign to different dialects their peculiar or 
favourite designations, and explain the 
reasons for the choice. Above all, it 
should make clear the special force and 
appropriateness of each name. On all these 
topics the reader will find observations of 
value in every part of the book. But a 
mere glance through a few pages will show 
what a vast work remains to be done. To 
take only the last question: in the long list 
of compounds of immos there are many 
which seem absolutely unintelligible. We 
may make a shift to understand Topyurzos, 
‘Inrotipa, Swourros, Adpirzos, and the like : 
but what are we to make of Eipyyrzos, 
Kvdurmos, Koopurros, MetEurros, Iatdurros, 
IIpaéurros? Are these merely due to the 
obviously aristocratic sound of these com- 
pounds of imzos, or are they the result of 
combinations such as that whereby Aristo- 
phanes reached his Peadirmidys? (Cf. Bechtel, 
Preface, pp. vili.—ix.) Certain Homeric 
citations by Bechtel seem also to suggest 
that Martial was ridiculing a real fashion 
when he proposed to name his cook ‘ Tara- 
talla’ (7 dpa TaAXa). 

Many curious or important questions 
suggest themselves even in a rapid perusal. 
How many famous Hellenes are known to 
us by the names which they received at 
birth? The cases of Stesichorus, Plato 
(hypocoristic for IIXatuxédados, if the tradi- 
tion is any more than an explanation), and 
Chrysostom suggest themselves at once. 
Solon, Thales, Kleon, Kratinus, Lysias, and 
numerous others ure Kosenamen: did their 
owners hear the full names except hypo- 
thetically, or when did the short names 
begin to supplant the long? Was Aeschylus 
(‘Turpilius’) perhaps KaAAatoypos? Whence 
did Iewwiorpatos ‘Imziov vies and father of 
Hippias and Hipparchus acquire his too 
appropriate name? Was he possibly Ileio- 
urzost The combination of “Imzapxos and 
‘Imzias as names of brothers represents a 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


type, and if the Kosename was commonly 
given to the younger brother we have an 
explanation or an argument in support of 
the prevalent Athenian view that Hipparchus 
was the elder. In any case it is clear 
that birth names were far less permanent 
than among the moderns, or the Romans, 
who early abandoned the fanciful primitive 
method for a rigid system. 

In the sphere of linguistics the forma- 
tion of hypocoristic names gives rise to 
questions of great interest. Fick has 
already in his ‘ Namenartige Bildungen d. 
Griech. Sprache’ (Curt. Stud. ix. 167-198) 
collected a large number of such formations 
- outside mere nomenclature, especially in 
the names of animals. To this type belong 
yrad€, xeparias, kavOwv from yAavkazis, Kepac- 
opos, kavOyuos. The process is familiar to 
us in such phrases as ‘the blue (sky), ‘the 
briny (ocean),’ where the short forms are 
really posterior to the longer ones in time 
and derived from them. This seems to 
throw light on questions of suffix-formation 
which have latterly come once more to the 
front. The termination -dos, as found in 
names of animals, may really be hypo- 
coristic for -opos. Thus xdépudos may be 
from *xopuddpos ‘ crest-bearer’ (kopvdy also 
being originally hypocoristic) : xipados ‘ fox’ 
(cf. oxipados ‘trickery’ Hipponax, ‘ dice- 
box’ #.M.) is obviously connected with 
axiovpos (metamorphosed from *cxipodos) 
and our ‘squirrel,’ cf. Schrader, ‘ Bezzen- 
berger’s Beitrdge xv. 127-139: perhaps also 
the Sanskrit ¢grgd/a ‘jackal’ is only a dis- 
torted *¢ciradla. Were this so, the word 
might mean ‘tail-bearer’ and Laconian 
kipa. ‘fox’ will correspond to such an 
expression as ‘a brush.’ Again, Johannes 
Schmidt has suggested in his Pluralbildung 
that exaoros and zéaros contain the root of 
iornt. There can be no objection to ex- 
tending the explanation to éxatrooros &e. 
and to dyxiorev’s and ayyiotivos. If so, why 
not also to dyxioros and superlatives in 
-sTos in general? Comparative philologists 
are familiar with facts in harmony with 
such a hypothesis: such are the isolated 
superlatives in Greek and Sanskrit such as 
edéyxioros varsistha and the like, apparently 
from noun stems. If then the superlative 
is really a locative compounded with the 
stem of ‘stand,’ we must transpose the 
common explanation, and regard the com- 
paratives in -is -ies -ien as really hypo- 
coristic forms of the superlative. This will 
find support in the so-called patronymics in 
-twv, such as Kpoviwy, in animal names such 
as aidadiwv, dxavOiwy, &e., and especially in 

NO. LXXIV. VOL. VIII. 


461 


the common hypocoristic! employment of the 
comparative in the ancient tongues. 

Beside mere shortening, which may itself 
have had its origin in some accidental 
analogy, we must plainly recognize in some 
of the Koseformen the application of a suffix 
in itself hypocoristic. The cause of these 
combinations of form and meaning might 
profitably be made the subject of special 
inquiry : in which connexion the theory of 
‘attracted’ (‘angeschlossen,’ ‘ angelehnt’) 
common nouns deserves an ampler considera- 
tion than it receives, pp. 31-2 and else- 
where. 

These suggestions have been briefly men- 
tioned as arising naturally in reading the 
work of a scholar whose writings, as has 
been said before in this Review, are emin- 
ently inspiring and genial. The book should 
bein every scholar’s hands. Names present 
themselves in every branch of study, and 
often tell us things which we should not 
otherwise have known. A use has been 
found for that large part of the matter 
of our inscriptions which hitherto seemed 
useless lumber. The chapters on the names 
of gods and heroes may be recommended to 
mythologists. The former however pro- 
fesses to be no more than a preliminary 
sketch: in the domain of the latter we may 
note that such variations as I¢iavacoa and 
‘Idryévaa, “Exixaorn and loxaorn may really 
have arisen from the use of a common 
Kosename, cf. *Idis, p. 391, and Kaorwp. 
Comparative philologists will naturally re- 
gard such a book as addressed to themselves, 
and, apart from general questions of suffix 
formation and usage, will find many in- 
teresting, if not always convincing, sugges- 
tions in detail, e.g. under eipu- p. 121, Fapvo- 
125, Fao- 125, -Faoxns 126, Fro- 129 and 452, 
-Froros 129, -nprros 138, GaFno- 139, -Kapos 159, 
opti- 226, -repywv 234, ropbeot- 240, -rpwros 
244, yavu- 287, -advn 378, -ayswv 378, -yuns 
385 and 450, -Fnpys 391, -wapns 398, -zourns 
406, ’AyiArdrev’s 425, Keévravpos 428, IInAcv’s 
431, IadAds 437, -awvy 449, -von 459, ipe- 
463. 

Of controverted matter there is scarcely 
anything to note in a subject which is 
almost exclusively the property of the 
authors. They are plainly right in re- 
taining the term Kosename in preference 
to Curtius’ suggested Kurzname (Curt. 
Stud. ix. 112), since they are dealing not 
merely with an abbreviation, but with one 
due to a special attitude of mind. 

In Fick’s hope that he may be able to 

1 If we may so describe the use of the compara- 
tive to denote ‘ somewhat’ or ‘rather.’ 

K K 


462 


treat of Greek names in a third edition we 
heartily concur. Perhaps he will then find 
it possible to add a discussion of place 
names, a subject at present obscure, but 
from which we may expect to obtain light 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


on several matters. Both the gender and 
the meaning of the name ‘Rhodes’ are 
made clear by the remark that ‘Pddos is 
shortened from ‘Poddvygos. 

F, W. Tuomas. 


GLEUE ON TRIAL FOR MURDER BEFORE THE AREOPAGUS, 


De Homicidarum in Areopago Atheniensi 
Judicio. Scripsit Hermann Gueve, Dr. 
Phil. Gottingen, Dieterich. 1 Mk. 1894, 
Pp. 52. 


Since the publication of the Aristotelian 
"AO. wod. the reconstruction of the early 
Athenian constitution goes briskly along. 
The present dissertation, apparently a 
doctoral thesis though this is not expressly 
stated, is devoted to the criticism of some 
points which have lately come to the front. 
The principal works brought under notice 
are Beloch’s Griechische Geschichte, ¥. 
Meyer’s Gesch. des Altertums, vol. ii., v. 
Wilamowitz-Mollendorff’s Aristoteles und 
Athen, and the first volume of Gilbert’s 
Handbuch? ; all published in 1893, and the 
last noticed in Class. Rev. vii. 424. The 
writer agrees generally with v. Wilamowitz 
(he drops the Méllendorff), but on occasion 
differs boldly from that distinguished 
scholar. 

The first point noticed is Gilbert’s 
contention that the dovixat décac were taken 
from the Areopagus by Draco, and restored 
by Solon. The question is not a very 
important one, as no one now doubts that 
the Areopagus, the only BovAy in primitive 
times, judged those cases before Draco and 
after Solon, and the interval was only about 
thirty years; but Dr. Gleue gives good 
reasons for thinking that Gilbert is 
mistaken, and that the jurisdiction of the 
Areopagus was never interrupted (Dem. c. 
Aristocr. p. 641—2, § 66). He further 
agrees with Mr. Ridgeway (in Dict. Ant. 
s.v. Phylobasileis) that wherever oi BactXets 
are mentioned in this connexion (as e.g. 
Plut. Sol. 19) the dudoPacrXcZs are intended : 
the king-archon is always 6 BaowXeds in the 
singular. The Ephetae, in accordance with 
the general opinion, tried in the Palladium, 
Delphinium and Phreatto the curious cases 
assigned to these courts ; the Phylobasileis 
in the Prytaneum inquired into murders of 
which the perpetrators were not discovered. 
But he needlessly finds fault with Pollux 
for attributing these Prytaneum cases to 


the Ephetae also; he does not see, as Mr. 
Ridgeway does, that in this court the 
Phylobasileis presided (had the jyepovia 
ducacrypiov), the Ephetae formed the jury. 
Whether the Phylobasileis were raised to 
ten by Cleisthenes or, as I rather think, 
remained always at four, they were much 
too few for an Attic jury. Even the fifty- 
one Ephetae would be an exceptionally 
small number for this purpose, according to 
Athenian notions. In his second chapter 
Dr. Gleue argues that the four minor courts, 
though earlier than Draco, arose much later 
than the Areopagus, and. already show a 
tendency to curtail its powers. It is 
generally held that the very quaintness of 
these courts, and their sacred character, is 
evidence of their primitive antiquity. He 
next discusses the words in Dem. ¢. Aristoer. 
p. 628 § 24, rv Bovdjy [tiv ev ’Apeiw zayo| 
duxalew povov Kai Tpavpatos ek mpovoias Kat 
Tupkaids Kal pappaKwr, édv Tis azroKteivy Sovs. 
Here tpatpa éx mpovoias answers exactly to 
the English ‘assault with intent,’ but the 
sentence may be completed either with 
‘intent to murder’ or ‘to do some grievous 
bodily harm.’ The prevailing opinion is 
that the intent to kill was of the essence of 
this indictment; Dr. Gleue argues with 
much probability in favour of a wider 
interpretation. He is less successful, I 
think, incontending that dapydkov = piAtpor, 
not poisons in general. About zvpxaid, the 
action for arson, he finds a difficulty in 
deciding. He very justly remarks that a 
man who burnt a pile of cut wood in order 
to injure his neighbour would not be 
prosecuted before the Areopagus; but he 
adds ‘quaestionem denique de actione 
mwupkaias ad certum finem deducere de- 


speravi.’ The Att. Process also (p. 357 Lips.) 
leaves upxaia undefined. We _ know, 
however, that the Areopagus and _ its 


affiliated courts did not deal with destruc- 
tion of property as such; and we may 
safely infer that the word here applies to 
acts which violated, or at least endangered, 
the sanctity of human life ; that is, to the 
arson of dwelling-houses only. The con- 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


cluding chapter deals with the PovAevoews 
ypady, usually explained as for conspiracy 
or instigation of a crime. Our author puts 
it more generally, of any one who is 
‘responsible’ for a death, even by misad- 
venture. Thus there can be Povdevors 
without zpovora or intent, as in the speech 
of Antiphon de Choreuta ($$ 16, 19; ef. 
Jebb, Att. Or. i. 62, Drtot. Antrig. s8.Vv. 
Bouleuseos Graphé). Dr. Gleue here 
somewhat oddly applies the word choreutes 
to the choregus who is on his trial, not to 


463 


the boy who has been poisoned by misad- 
venture: other curious words in his Latinity 
are argutus asa passive participle = rews, and 
auctrix. 

I note, finally, that an inscription of the 
archonship of Diocles, B.c, 409—8, mentions 
the qovicot vouor as inscribed upon the 
MPOTOS AXSON, i.e. mparos aéov. This 
supports Cobet’s conjecture év 7G 4 d&ove for 
év 76 dou, Lex ap. Dem. ec. Aristocr. p. 629 
§ 28: ef, Dict, Antig. s,v. Awones. 

W, WAYTE. 


WINDELBAND’S ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY. 


WINDELBAND’s Geschichte der alten 
Philosophie (Handbuch der klassischen Alter- 
tums-Wissenschaft vol. v. part 1) has now ap- 
peared in a second edition, ‘and this alone 
shows that it supplied a real want. In one 
respect the first edition made a very great 
advance upon the traditional treatment of 
the subject. The arrangement and ordering 
of the subject-matter was highly original, 
and made it far more easy than it had ever 
been before for the student to grasp the his- 
torical development of Greek thought, and 
the relation of the leading systems to one 
another. It is just this which makes the 
book so useful as an introduction to the 
subject, and there is probably no other from 
which so clear an idea of Greek philosophy 
as a continuous growth can be derived. 
Professor Windelband has himself indicated 
in his preface the chief points upon which 
he has taken his own way— 

—‘ die Scheidung des Pythagoras von den 
Pythagoreern und die Kinstellung der 
letzteren unter die Vermittlungsversuche 
zwischen Heraklit und Parmenides, die 
Trennung der beiden Phasen des Atomismus 
durch die Protagoreische Sophistik, die 
Nebeneinanderstellung von Demokrit und 
Platon, die Auffassung der hellenistisch- 
rémischen Philosophie als einer fortschrei- 
tenden, erst ethischen und dann religiésen 
Auswertung der Wissenschaft, der sich auch 
die Patristik organisch eingliedert ’"— 

These were the chief points in the 
arrangement of the first edition and they 
are all retained and emphasized in the 
second. For myself, I prefer to regard the 
Pythagoreans, Empedokles, and Anaxa- 
goras as ‘ Vermittlungsversuche’ between 
Parmenides and the ordinary unscientific 
consciousness ; but, with this reservation, it 


must be admitted that the work would be 
of the greatest value even if it gave us 
nothing new but this thread of connexion, 
Tt seeks everywhere to find the vera causa 
of philosophical development, and shows no 
trace of the tendency to arbitrary construc- 
tion so common in books of this class. 

When we come to details, there is, of 
course, much that is open to criticism. 
Professor Windelband fully admits the 
naive corporealism of the earliest Greek 
philosophy, but he certainly makes some 
statements which cannot be reconciled with 
this admission. There is still a slight ten- 
dency to credit the pioneers of science with 
highly abstract conceptions of which it is 
quite certain that they never dreamt. For 
instance, the thoroughly Aristotelian term 
dpxy is still ascribed to the early philo- 
sophers, though I think I have shown in my 
Early Greek Philosophy (pp. 10 sqq.) that 
Aristotle himself never meant to say that 
they used the term at all. It is hard, too, 
to see what is meant by the description 
of Anaximander on p. 27 as ‘the first 
metaphysician.’ If by ‘metaphysician’ 
we mean an inquirer into reality, Thales 
was one just as much and just as little as 
his successor. If we mean one who finds 
reality in the supra-sensible, Prof. Windel- 
band tells us himself on p. 28 that ‘it is 
certain Anaximander always thought of 70 
aepov as & body.’ Nor should he have 
quoted Parmenides v. 149— 


\ ‘ , > \ , 
TO yap TA€ov €oTl vonHAa— 


to prove that for the Eleatic philosopher 

body and spirit coincided. The meaning of 

these words is simply, as Theophrastos puts 

it (De Sensibus § 3), dri Svotv dvrow oroxeiow 
KK 2 


464 


Kata 70 vrepBaArov eotiv » yvaors (cf. Harly 
Greek Philosophy, p. 188, n. 18). 

On the whole, however, a just view of 
these things is taken, and on p. 117 we find 
this very true remark— 

‘Immaterialism is Plato’s distinctive new 
creation. Wherever in earlier systems— 
Anaxagoras not excluded—there is anything 
said of the spiritual as a principle by itself, 
it yet appears always as a particular kind of 
corporeal reality. It is Plato that first dis- 
covers the purely spiritual world.’ — 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


It would be easy to accumulate criticism 
of details, but it is more important to em- 
phasize the merit of the book. It is far the 
best introduction I know to Greek philo- 
sophy ; those who wish for more than the 


. outlines will still have to go to Zeller and 


Diels—éet yap tows irotutécat mparov, €t6’ 
vaTEpov avaypawa. 
JoHN BuRNET. 


United College, St. Andrews. 


PLATT’S EDITION OF THE JZIAD. 


The Iliad of Homer, edited by ARTHUR 
Pratt, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge, Professor of Greek 
in University College, London. Cam- 
bridge: at the University Press. 1894. 
4s. 6d. 


Mr. Puatr has followed up his edition of 
the Odyssey (noticed in this Review in 
October 1892) by an edition of the J/iad, in 
which the recension of the text is carried 
out on the same lines. The chief differences 
are (1) the substitution of y for e in such 
verb forms as ecw, ete., and (2) the expulsion 
of wv and éryv, though the particle dy is 
(rightly) retained. As the plan of the work 
does not admit of any discussion, or even of 
an introductory statement, of the principles 
on which the new text is constructed, there 
is no occasion now to do more than refer 
briefly to the opinions expressed in this 
journal two years ago. 

The restoration of the original text of 
Homer is really the restoration of an earlier 
stage of the Greek language, and is to be 
accomplished, if at all, partly by inference 
from the language and metre of the poems, 
partly by the light which has been thrown 
upon the history of Greek by comparative 
grammar. It is in the latter branch of the 
inquiry that Mr. Platt appears to be less 
entirely at home than he is in Homeric 
scholarship proper. Several instances 
pointing in this direction were quoted in 
the former article. One of these may be 
repeated now as an illustration of the 
difference between the older or philological 
and the later linguistie point of view. In 
the declension of nouns in -ts, such as ToAts, 
oss, Mr. Platt rejects the contracted dative 
forms zoAXe«, ower, and substitutes, where 
possible, the ‘resolved’ 7oAu, du. What 


is the evidence for these forms? Gram- 
marians find Ionic and Aeolic datives zéAi, 
owt, ete., and infer that they are contracted 
from the seemingly regular 7éAu, cfu. But 
in the opinion of Brugmann (Grundriss ii. 
§ 266, p. 620, and § 278, p. 631). the -z of 
7oXi, dyi is not formed by contraction from 
-u, and in any case is older than any period 
of Greek. It is Indo-Germanic, and belongs 
to the original instrumental case. On the 
other hand, the ‘ resolved’ forms zoAéi, etc., 
represent an Indo-Germanic locative form. 
Thus we have evidence for zoAci etc. and 
for zoXz etc., but +dAu is a mere hypothetical 
construction, which we have no sufticient 
reason for introducing into Greek of any 
period. 

Again, a form may be undoubtedly 
Homeric, but may belong to the archaic 
element in Homer, 7.e. to that part of his 
vocabulary which was due to poetical tradi- 
tion. A good instance of such a form is the 
genitive in -oo. But if an archaic form, 
which is preserved in certain phrases or 
combinations only, is introduced whenever 
the metre admits it, we run a great risk of 
falsifying the language—of making it older 
than Homer. 

Turning to individual passages, we find 
few alterations to which any serious objec- 
tion can be taken. In 1, 291 Bekker’s 
zpoGéwow introduces a form of this subjunc- 
tive (with « for 7) which is not Homeric: 
for Od. 24, 485 @éwuey is hardly to be 
counted. In 2, 291, where avinOevr’ avéxerOau 
is read instead of dvibevta veecOu, Mr. 
Platt adds: ‘displicet tamen aoristum,’ 
The objection is surely fatal, especially when 
it would have been so easy to say avudgovr’ 
avéxecOax. In 6, 149 Mr. Platt gives diel 
in the preface, but leaves q@ve in the text. 
A similar discrepancy occurs in 10, 362. In 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


7, 451 donv seems to be a misprint for dcov. 
In 9, 133 the reading Fis is hardly to be 
reconciled with the reflexive sense of Fos. 
In 9, 230 caw6epev’ is a form hard to account 
for. Is it a passive aorist? In 10, 246 the 
usual reading y’ éo7opévoro might be given 
ina note. In 11, 156 rdévry must be a mis- 
print, as Mr. Platt elsewhere writes ravry. 
In 11, 348 oréopey for oréwper is doubtful : 
how do we arrive at the Attic oraduev? In 
11, 417 the MS. reading is not audi dé 7’, as 
given in the note, but dudi te or audi 7. 
Tn 11, 831 to whom should dedaécGar be at- 
tributed? In 16, 150 dprua is altered to 


465 


dpérua: but the alteration is not noticed in 
the preface. Similarly in 23, 327 dpywa is 
turned into épdéyua. In 19, 208 rucatpeba 
is surely required by the governing 
optative. 

Mr. Platt has done a ‘considerable service 
to scholars by ascertaining as far as possible 
to whom the various alterations are due. 
We now know for the first time how much 
was done by Bentley: and it is interesting 
to see how little advance was made upon his 
work except by making use of the light 
afforded by the comparative method. 

D. B. Monro. 


BLASS ON DEMOSTHENES. 


Die Attische Beredsamkeit, 111 i, Demosthenes, 
dargestellt von Frrepricu Buiass. Pp. 644. 
Leipzig: Teubner. 1893. 16 M. 


Wuen the publication of the volume on 
Demosthenes in the Attische Beredsamkeit of 
Professor Blass was first announced in 1877, 
those who were familiar with the masterly 
work of Arnold Schaefer on the same 
subject may well have wondered what more 
was left to be said on a theme which had 
apparently been already exhausted. When 
the volume was actually published, they 
were interested to find that it was dedicated 
to Arnold Schaefer himself, and they soon 
discovered that there was ample room for 
the literary treatment of the great orator’s 
speeches side by side with the historical 
treatment which they had already received 
from the author of Demosthenes und seine 
Zeit. English readers were further grati- 
fied to observe that Professor Blass, in the 
absence of any personal experience of 
public life, had supplemented his own 
criticisms by giving special prominence to 
those of Lord Brougham. 

The value of the work as a whole has 
been widely recognized, and now, after an 
interval of sixteen years, we have to con- 
gratulate the author on the publication of 
a new and enlarged edition. The enlarge- 
ment extends to no less than eighty 
additional pages, and the thorough revision 
which the work has received proves that 
the author is still true to the motto quoted 


in the preface to his edition of the Speech on 
The Crown:—‘ dies diem docet.’ Besides 
many minor additions we now have a fuller 
treatment of the orator’s public life, and 
a revised and expanded exposition of the 
author’s views on the rhythm of Demo- 
sthenes. He dwells more fully on the law 
of composition discovered by himself, in 
obedience to which the orator avoids the 
‘jgnoble tribrach’; he also discusses at 
greater length the rhythmical correspon- 
dences between the several clauses of the 
orator’s sentences. The views of Professor 
Blass on these points are familiar to scholars 
and there is less need to dwell upon them 
here as they have been discussed in the 
Classical Review in the course of an admir- 
able article by Professor Butcher (v. 309- 
315). The general result is that we have 
now fresh reason for regarding the prose of 
Demosthenes as something intermediate be- 
tween oratio soluta and the strictly metrical 
compositions of poets. 

The only misprints which I have ob- 
served are on p. 126 & Geta xepadr for 
xedody, and on p. 210 (in an English quo- 
tation) seam for seem. 

Whatever differences of opinion may 
prevail as to the value of the author's 
criticisms on the minutiae of rhythmical 
composition, there can be no doubt of the 
great value of the work as a whole. It is a 
work that is absolutely indispensable to 
every serious student of Demosthenes. 

J. E. Sanpys. 





466 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


SCHMIDT'S BRIEFWECHSEL DES CICERO. SECOND NOTICE. 


As we gave our readers in the October 
number of the Classical Review some estimate 
of the work of Dr. O. E. Schmidt on the cor- 
respondence of Cicero, we desire to supple- 
ment our former notice by a selection from 
the readings which he has introduced. into 
the 13th and 14th books of the Letters to 
Atticus, the text of which he has réprinted 
in full. We number the letters according 
to Baiter’s edition. 


XII. 

6.2.—For ravra dir odynpoyv he sug- 
gests ravta iAodaipova. 

9.—For villa he reads with M walla, and 
with the same MS. in 10 testamento for the 
generally accepted Zisameno, for which 
Bos. claims the authority of Z. A leading 
principle of Schmidt’s text is the adherence 
to M whenever it can be defended, and the 
rejection in nearly every case of readings, 
however attractive, which rest on the 
authority of the Bosian codices. 

46.—tantummodo occultius for tantummodo 
octius M. 

49.2.—ad Ciceronem M for ad Caesarem 
vulg. 

XITI. 

1.2.—efficis M, quod si efficis C, sicunde 
Schm. 

2.1.—et tamen Pisonem M, examina Pi- 
sonem Schm. : 

4,1.—et quidem puto M, de Tuditano idem 
Schm. 

17.1.—aliquid non imperassem igitur ali- 
quid tuis M, aliquid novi ; imperasses vellem 
igitur aliquid tuis Schm. 

20a.4.—in toto M, in Bruto Schm. 

23.3.—quam habere qui utar M, quam 
habere quin utar (which he does not explain) 
or quam non habere qui utar Schm. The 
latter emendation gives an excellent sense. 
The usual insertion of laetor or gaudeo is 
quite inconsistent with the tone of the 
letter. Cicero does not smugly congratulate 
himself that he is comfortably off, but 
rather confesses his pecuniary embarrass- 
ment and professes his comparative indiffer- 
ence thereto. Schm. however prints in his 
text the unexplained quam habere quin utar. 

33.3.—easpecto negotium M, de Spurio si 
cut negotium Schm. 

Ib.—vide etiam M, videlicet Schm. 

34.1—vitt K iul. M, viii K vesperi (written 
ues.) Schm. So in 41 fin. he reads commeat 
vesperi (ues.) for commeatus of M. 


~ 


40. 1.—ut fultum est M, ut ‘ futilum est 
Schm., a supposed quotation from Ennius 
Srag. 374: 

saeviter suspicionem ferre falsam futilumst. 

Ib. 8.—ad saxa acrimonia M, ad Saxa 
Acronoma Bos. vulg., ad Saxa summa acri- 
monia Schm. 


42 fin.—eatur: MIACKOPAOY M;- 


eatur: placpa Kodpov Schm. 

46.3.—eretionem testibus praesentibus_M. 
is well defended by Schm. against the 
Bosian liberam cretionem testibus praesen- 
tibus. On the other hand when he assigns to 
the interpolator certain words in the begin- 
ning of Até. xiii. 47 which are found in Zl 
but omitted in M, he seems to overlook the 
fact that the two passages stand on an 
entirely different footing. .The words in 
47 are testified to by Lambinus not by 
Bosius, and the scraps of verse, the disiecti 
membra poetae, are far too -characteristic of 
Latin comedy to be the work of a fifteenth 
century interpolator. Moreover Schmidt’s 
conjecture, pepigit Oppius for tetigit onisi of 
M, is a violent correction and gives a poor 
sense. 

49.2.—-libenter odisse M, libere odisse 
Schm. 

51.1.—ne ridicule micillus M, ne ridicule 
micidus Schin. 

We have no intention of discussing all 
the above suggestions, but we may briefly 
estimate a few of them. The following 
among his conjectures seem to deserve careful 
consideration, if not,acceptance : 23.3 com- 
mented on above, 33.3 videlicet, 34.1 and 
41 fin., 40.1 where futilum should probably 
take the place of /ultwm, though we do not 
go further with Schm. in his view of the 
meaning of the passage. The best are those 
on 40.3 ad Saxa summa acrimonia, on 49.2 
libere for libenter, and on 46.3 where he 
gives good reason for believing that cretio 
testibus praesentibus was the technical name 
for a certain method of formal acceptance 
of an inheritance which permitted the em- 
ployment of a proxy and did not demand 
the personal attendance of the legatee. He 
further holds that there was no such ex- 
pression as cretio libera, which is not found 
in the Roman jurists or glossaries. 

Perhaps his worst conjectures are those 
on 51.1 and 42 fim. In the former he intro- 
duces. a very unlikely word in micidus, 
for which he quotes ‘ micidiores hoc est 
minores’ (se. termint) from Gromat. vet. 





>Re ye erty pr ny : 


(Re tece 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


321.24. We believe that we have here one 
of Cicero’s azaég cipnueva diminutives which 
are so frequent in the letters, and that the 
passage should run fui nec ridicule amicillus 
mec mehercule scripsi ac si mpds toov 
Opovodvgue scriberem, ‘I was not [in my 
letter to Caesar| the humble friend to an 
absurd degree, nor yet was I hail, fellow, 
well met with him.’ Amicillus would come 
regularly from amicus as tantillus from 
tantus, haedillus from haedus, auricilla from 
auricula ; and the word as a dz. «ip. would 
be very likely to suffer corruption. 

As to piacpa Koddpov, we have given 
our own view of the words hidden 
under MIACKOPAOY in the Classical 
Review, vol. iv. p. 451 (Dec. 1890). Of the 
conjecture of Schm. we would say a few 
words. It is not true, as Schm. assumes, 
that pas was either an alternative form or 
a Nebenform for piacua. It is an error for 
piacpa in the Hesychian lemma pias 7} 


467 


puacpos, Which should of course be piacpa 


7) pracpos (jac-ma or -pos). Moreover, 
when Schm. explains piac(ua) Kodpov 
to mean ‘ein Kodrusmord,’ we_ should 


like to ask (1) why Caesar should be called 
Codrus, (2) why péas should be written 
for piacpa, and (3) how ‘a pollution of 
Codrus’ could afford the same meaning as 
these words which he gives as an explanation 
of the Greek phrase, ‘ein Frevel der nicht 
dem Caesarismus niitz, sondern die repub- 
likanische Opposition stiirken wird.’ 

‘I meant by Jmpenetrability,’ says Humpty 
Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, ‘that 
we've had enough of this subject, and that 
it would be just as well if you’d mention 
what you mean to do next, as I suppose you 
don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your 
life.’ 

‘That’s a great deal to make one word 
mean,’ said Alice in a thoughtful tone. 

R. Y. TYRE. 


FREESE’S PRO MURENA. 


M. Tullii Ciceronis pro L. Murena oratio ad 
tudices. Edited with introduction and 
notes by J. H. Frresz, M.A. London, 
Maemillan & Co.: 1894. fp. 8vo. Price 
2s. 6d. 


WHEN an edition so admirable as that of 
Mr. Heitland is already in possession of the 
field, a new edition of the same speech has 
to justify its existence by some distinctive 
characteristics. Mr. Freese says that his 
is intended for a less advanced class of 
readers. His commentary appears to differ 
from Mr. Heitland’s mainly in keeping the 
critical notes separate from the rest, in 
giving translations somewhat more freely, 
and in furnishing the substance of gram- 
matical rules as well as references for them. 
On all these points Mr. Freese has undoubt- 
edly taken thought for the wishes, and 
perhaps also for the interests, of young 
students. He says that he has abstained 
from consulting Mr. Heitland’s notes, setting 
thereby an excellent example. There have 
been too many instances recently of rival 
editors, who have used very freely editions 
which their own are intended to displace, 
and have satisfied such consciences as they 
may have with a bare acknowledgment that 
they have done so. Mr. Freese has chosen 
the better way; and if there is a good deal 
of common matter, this is obviously due to 
the use which each editor has made of the 


admirable edition of Halm (now reedited by 
Laubmann). Mr. Freese’s introduction is 
clear and sufficiently complete. It is aston- 
ishing that so good a scholar should have 
allowed the slip Deciws Junius Silanus to 
have passed uncorrected. The phrase 
‘Catiline and Antony’ on p. xiv. will 
inevitably confuse the easily confounded 
schoolboy, especially as there has been no 
previous reference to C. Antonius. If he 
has read of a Basilica, he will be astonished 
to find the statement that the Roman courts 
were always held in the open air: and he 
will find some difficulty in reconciling the 
phrase ‘loose gown’ with his conception of 
a tunic: he may even be led to think that 
the senators wore their broad stripes on 
their togas. The source of the wealth of 
Crassus in speculative purchases is referred 
to misleadingly ; and the probability of his 
complicity in the so-called first Catilinarian 
conspiracy is much too summarily disposed 
of. But on the whole the introduction is 
well suited to its purpose. The notes are 
clear and to the point, and on doubtful ques- 
tions the view taken is always sensible and 
capable of defence. If any teachers have 
found that Mr. Heitland’s commentary is 
rather above the class of students with whom 
they may wish to read this speech, Mr. 
Freese’s edition may be used by them with 


some confidence. 
ASW. 


468 


BOTSFORD ON THE DEVELOPMENT 


The Development of the Athenian Con- 
stitution. 
Ph. D., Professor of Greek in Bethany 
College. (Cornell Studies in Classical 
Philology, No. IV.) -Boston, U.S.A. 


Ginn and Co. 1893. 8vo. pp. 249. 6s. 6d. 


To set forth the development of the 
Athenian constitution from proéthnic 
times to the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war is a large task. To attempt such a 
task, however, within the space of 233 
octavo pages is to mark out distinct limita- 
tions for one’s treatment of the subject. 
These limitations, while they increase the 
difficulties on the one side, eliminate certain 
difficulties on the other, and on the whole 
greatly simplify the matter. There is no 
room within such limits for profound in- 
vestigation of problems of detail, and we 
have no right to demand of the author more 
than a clear outline, resting upon personal 
examination of the chief sources and the 
most important modern literature. This 
there was room for in English, and this Dr. 
Botsford has given us. 

The subject divides itself into two parts, 
belonging respectively to the prehistoric 
period and to the historic period, which are 
distinct, although the line of demarcation 
cannot be sharply drawn. These periods 
are very unequal in duration, and still more 
unequal, but in reversed relation, in regard 
to the amount of knowledge attainable ; 
and they are unlike in regard to the 
methods of investigation applicable to them. 
Of the centuries from Kodros to Solon we 
know little enough; how much more 
scanty our knowledge of the millenniums 
between the age of Aryan unity and the 
age of Kodros, whatever the latter date 
was! Dr. Botsford’s first two chapters, on 
the Patriarchal Theory and the Aryan 
Gens, cover sixty-seven pages; the four 
following chapters, on the Grecian Gens, 
the Phratry and Phyle, the Four Ionic 
Phylae, and the Basileia, bring us to page 


128. For all this period it is clear that 
our information is gained mainly by 
inference from early Indo-European 


language, from the comparative study of 
communities that have preserved to a later 
date their more primitive civilization, and 
from later Athenian institutions; the 
Homeric poems throw some light on the 
latter part of the period. The structure 
built upon these inferences, however sym- 


By Georce WIL.Is BotsrorD,- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


OF THE ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION. 


metrical and attractive it may appear, can- 
not be very substantial. It is hable at any 
moment to meet with a serious disturbance. 
For example, a more accurate knowledge of | 
land tenures in India than was accessible 
to Sir Henry Maine has removed an 
important support for the belief in an 
Aryan village community of joint owners.' 

From chapter vii. on the Oligarchy 
before Draco, Dr. Botsford gives a clear 
and concise narrative, containing little that 
is new, yet exhibiting independence of 
judgment and a good acquaintance with the 
literature. Throughout the work such full 
references are given as to make it an ex- 
cellent introduction to the entire subject. 
There is nothing else in English that can 
compare with this monograph in that regard, 
and it may be cordially recommended to all 
who would find the more extended works in 
German difficult to use. 

Nevertheless the author occasionally 
makes a statement that raises a query in 
the mind of the reader. On page 74 it is 
said, ‘So in the Olympian council [in 
Homer] the goddesses Athena, Here, &c., 
mutually control affairs; while Zeus is 
little more than a figure head.’ That is 
surely hyperbole. And on the same page 
is the authority of Varro, as quoted in 
August. de Civ. Dei, sufficient to give any 
weight whatever to the strange statement 
that ‘ womenin Athens possessed the right 
of suffrage before Cecrops and ruled the 
state, being in the majority’? True, Dr. 
Botsford does not accept this literally ; but 
is there anything whatever in it on which 
we can base an account about the condition 
of women in Attica? On page 90 we find, 
‘Tt has already been stated that the 
phyle is older than the Aryan household as 
we find it at the dawn of history.’ Ap- 
parently this refers back to the remark on 
page 4, ‘It is natural to assume an epoch 
in history marked by a tendency to separate 
into families, even though men _ were 
formerly grouped in tribes.’ But on page 
92 we find, ‘The religious and political 
constitution of the tribe was patterned 
after that of the family.’ Here is certainly 
confusion, either of thought or of expression. 
On page 202 is an instance of a common 
error, in the remark that ‘the work of 
the Zcelesia was mainly legislative.’ The 

1 Baden-Powell’s Land System of British India, 
and Short Account of the Land Revenue, &e., in 
British India. 





THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


popular assembly did not legislate, in the 
proper sense of the term. Again on page 
223 it is inaccurate to say that ‘once a 
year the laws were revised in the Ecclesia.’ 
In both these cases the author is well aware 
of the facts, but careless in statement. One 
still smaller matter in conclusion. We have 
no quarrel with those who prefer to Latinize, 
when writing them in the English alphabet, 
Greek names that are already well estab- 
lished in our language in that form. 
Under no system is entire consistency 
attainable, at least without pedantry. But 
k is a good English letter. We do not 
hesitate to use it even in some Latin words, 
like Mark and pork and Greek. It represents 


469 


perfectly the Greek «x, and on page 94 
appear the appropriate forms kome, komae, 
tetrakomia, tetrakomos. Then why carry 
one’s hostility to a useful member of our 
alphabet so far as to write such strange 
forms as cyrbeis, Herceius, Ceryces, Agroect, 
docimasy ? Curiously, in note 3 of page 135, 
the spelling Aylon has escaped the anti-h 
crusade, although the text of the same page 
contains two instances of Cylon and three 
of Cylonian. In general however the printing 
and proof-reading have been done with care. 
There is a very useful bibliography and a 
good index. 
Tomas Dwicur GOoDELL. 
Yale University. 





VON ARNIM’S EDITION OF DIO CHRYSOSTOM. 


Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysosto- 
mum quae extant omnia. Edidit, et ap- 
paratu critico instruxit J. DE ARNIM. 
Vol. I. 14 Mk. Berolini. 1893. 


THOROUGHLY good critical editions of three 
Greek writers, Chrysostom, Lucian and 
Plutarch, are ever more urgently demanded 
as our knowledge and thirst for more know- 
ledge of the food which nursed Christianity 
increase. The revival of interest in these 
writers is less due to their persons (although 
these are charming in themselves and in their 
difference) than to the insight we gain from 
their works into the inner life of that time. 
They are all three preachers in their way, 
and the pity of it is that they usually 
preach at dummies (Dio especially), but 
they are all three great writers, ¢.e. highly 
gifted men with hearts which beat, who fear 
to say nothing that they think ; and conse- 
quently through the veil of rhetoric they 
let us a little into the secret of that world. 

As far as I ean learn, there is little 
chance of our soon having good critical 
editions of Plutarch’s Moralia or of Lucian. 
Sommerbrodt’s edition of Lucian, now in 
course of publication, is not what we desire, 
and Bernardakis’ promised edition of 
Plutarch will not be satisfactory, unless he 
more perfectly devotes his ability and in- 
dustry to our requirements than he has 
been able to do in his Teubner text. 

The present edition of Dio, while of 
course it is not foolish enough to aim at 
finality, has the quality we wish—the 
quality of thoroughness. The preface, 


dealing with the MSS., is an admirable 
model of what such prefaces should be. It 
is a succinct and clear statement of the final 
conclusions derived from much intricate 
thought. I feel at present in perfect 
agreement with the editor and no just 
criticisms of his conclusions could be 
offered until his second volume has 
appeared. I rather wish he had given us a 
list of the interpolations of the PHW class 
of MSS. at least, as the detailed history of 
interpolation is very important for the 
textual criticism of these authors. Unless 
we stand on more or less sure footing here, 
we are apt to regard the interpolators as 
capable of anything (e.g. p. 41, 28 where we 
should, following cod. P, write rH ev zpory 
re kal dGpiory Kat povy duvarp, Writing TH for 
# twice below and probably rapadvovrat for 
Somep eipyra), and to forget that it is our 
duty to weight the spirit of the scribe against 
the spirit of the author. 

In the reconstruction of the text von 
Arnim, whose excellent judgment is 
supported and corrected (sometimes perhaps 
supplanted) by that of von Wilamowitz- 
Millendorff and in a lesser degree by that 
of Schwartz, has been very wise. In the 
present notice I will abstain from expres- 
sions of admiration and agreement and will 
simply offer a few criticisms about the use 
of brackets, confining myself to the four 
speeches De Regno (i.—iv.). 

It is disgraceful enough that square 
brackets mean one thing in reproducing 
inscribed texts and another thing in repro- 
ducing written texts. Let them at least 


470 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


have one meaning in the last case. Let 
them mean ‘These words occur in all the 
MSS., but are not the author’s,’ and let the 
editor use his discretion in inserting brackets 
in this sense. But in this book there are at 
least four other senses which these brackets 
bear.—(1) They indicate that words or 
sentences are not Dio’s because they do not 
occur in some of the MSS. (2) They 
indicate that they are variants of Dio’s own. 
Arnim has shown us that the words 7a zept 
tov Aws in Or. ili. p. 42, 16, mean that a 
certain locus classicus about Zeus should 
here be inserted, and Wilamowitz has 
pointed out that the same locus classicus 
was to be inserted at the end of Or. iv. 
After reading through the four speeches I 
feel certain that it was not a scribe 
weary of iterating this passage about Zeus 
who wrote 7a wept tod Atds, but that it was 
Dio himself. These four speeches were, so 
to speak, found among his papers. He had 
written four variants of an address to the 
emperor, and the passage about Zeus was 
his big plum. It had to be got in to his 
speech to the emperor, but he could not do 
it to his own satisfaction and finally 
utilized it in Or. xii. In Or. i. it is written 
out, but this is a matter of chance and 
should not induce us to think that Or. i. 
was really sent to the emperor. None of 
these orations were ever sent to the emperor. 
They are full of variants of Dio’s own, and 
these variants shouid be put in parallel 
columns (as has been done in Or. xi. p. 120) 


and not bracketed. A notable instance is 
6pa yap «.t.r. (p. 43, 26) where the original 
version is 6pa yap kat Tov 7ALov x.T.A. (se- 
cluded by Emperius), épa yap or. mavraxod 
down to évavriwy (p.47) being an amplification 


-of this. I select this instance because these 


words 6pa yap Kat Tov HALov x.t.A., Which are 
just as much Dio’s as the others, have 
not been simply bracketed but relegated to 
the critical notes. In many other cases 


variants acknowledged by the editor have’ 


been bracketed. (3) Brackets indicate that 
words are misplaced. (4) They indicate 
that words are unintelligible to the editor, 
e.g. p. 26, 26 where ozrovddfovra should not 
be bracketed, but at most marked as 
corrupt (if we do not accept Arnim’s 
conjecture xouralovra we must insert 7a 
toatta after orovddfovra), and p. 72, 21 
where we should write padAov 8€ dexaxis Tis 
Tpépas. 

This is a criticism of a mere matter of 
form, but I think it is a necessary one, 
because the seemingly legitimate aéerjoes 
here are numerous, and J, at least, would 
question the justice of some. It is difficult 
for one to dispute the judgment of editors 
unless they give one value to one sign. 
There is no doubt another sense in which 
brackets may be used, viz. as suggestive of 
a difficulty of somé kind, but no one would 
dare to use them thus in the text of Pindar, 
and I fail to see why what holds good for 
Pindar’s text, should not hold good for Dio’s, 

W. R. Parton. 





KRUGER’S AUGUSTIN DE CATECHIZANDIS RUDIBUS. 


Augustin de Catechizandis Rudibus. Heraus- 
gegeben von Adolf Wolfhard. Zweite 
vollstindig neubearbeitete Ausgabe von 
G. Kricer. (Sammlung ausgewiihlter 
kirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche Quel- 
lenschriften. Viertes Heft. Freiburg, 
1893. Pp. vii. 76. Price 1 Mk. 40). 


ENGLISH as well as German students will 
welcome the very useful series of texts edited 
by Prof. Gustay Kriiger of Giessen. Their 
purpose is to a certain extent analogous 
to that of Prof. Gwatkin’s recent volume 
of selections from early Christian writers. 
The two undertakings might most usefully 
supplement one another. The scale and price 
of Dr. Kriiger’s publications makes them 
very convenient for the ‘ seminar’ or lecture- 
room, while their execution is such as to ren- 
der them useful to advanced students also, 


The present edition has a history. The 
work, when first issued, fell below the high 
standard contemplated by the _ general 
editor of the series, and candid friends were 
not lacking to point out the fact. Dr. 
Kriiger accordingly, setting thereby an 
example to all general editors, recalled the 
whole edition, and recast it himself with 
scrupulous care. As the result, we have 
a most convenient text with a full and 
capital index. The text, with three small 
variations, and a very few conjectural 
emendations, follows the Benedictine edi- 
tion. 

I may be permitted to wish the present 
edition the success which its  editor’s 
courageous promptitude deserves, and the 
whole serics a wide circulation. 

A. Rosertson. 





= 
£ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


471 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


Aubert Mayr, Die antiken Miinzen der 
Inseln Malta, Gozo und Pantelleria. 
(Programm des K. Wilhelms-Gymnasiums 
in Miinchen.) Miinchen, 1894. Pp. 40. 
8yvo. 


Tus interesting little treatise forms part 
of a work that the writer has in preparation 
on the ancient history of Malta, Gozo and 
Pantelleria. A monograph on the numis- 
matics of these islands has been much 
needed, and Mayr has well supplied the 
want. In a photographic plate he has 
given illustrations of well-preserved coins 
selected from various European museums— 
including the British Museum—and_ has 
furnished critical lists of the coins, accom- 
panied by a judicious commentary. 

It may well be doubted whether the 
meaning of several of the Phoenician in- 
scriptions has been finally determined, but 
Mayr’s arrangement of the coins is from a 
numismatist’s point of view decidedly satis- 
factory. Mayr’s principal innovation on the 
received classification is the withdrawal 
from Gaulos (Gozo) of four types with 
Phoenician inscriptions and the assignment 
of them to Melita. The result of this re- 
arrangement is that while the series — of 
Melita is strengthened, the issues of Gaulos 
are reduced to dimensions more suitable to 
the size of the island. The attribution to 
Melita of the coin no. 7 (reverse, Lyre) 
appears to me hazardous, seeing that on 
the only known specimen—that in the 
British Museum—the inscription is obliter- 
ated. Its types, moreover, are not dis- 
tinctive and the coin seems to be somewhat 
earlier in style than those specimens 
with the lyre-type that are undoubtedly of 
Melita. 

The coinage of these islands is entirely 
in bronze and probably belongs to the second 
and first centuries B.c.—the period of the 
Roman Domination. Some of the coins of 
Melita and Cossura (/antelleria) bear Latin 
inscriptions, but the coins of Gaulos have 
the name in Greek. The coins of Melita 
are partly also inscribed in Greek, but the 
earliest specimens bear Phoenician char- 
acters, a circumstance that points to the 
presence of aconsiderable Phoenician popu- 
Jation in the island. 

The types of the coins—especially in 
Melita—evidence a strange amalgamation 
of Egyptian, Phoenician, and Greek re- 


ligions. On no. 2, e.g., is a representation 
of Isis and Nephthys protecting Osiris, 
while on no. 6 the head of Isis is accom- 
panied bya Phoenician symbol (ep. the 
god Malk-Osir in Melita). Herakles (= Mel- 
kart), Hera (= Astarte?) and Astarte as a 
Moon-Goddess are among the other divin- 
ities represented. 
Warwick Wrorn. 





MONTHLY RECORD. 


GERMANY. 

Kreimbach in der Pfalz.—During the spring of 
this year the west side of the Roman camp was in- 
vestigated. It has been proved that these late 
Roman camps were the pattern on which mediaeval 
fortresses were formed. Among the small objects 
discovered were remains of pottery, two iron spear- 
heads and other implements, bronze armlets, hair- 
pins, and a hollow bronze sword-handle lined with 
wood ; also thirty bronze coins of Gratian, Magnen- 
tius, Constantius II., Tetricus and Postumus, and 
the upper part of a cippus with inscription apparently 
relating to some public officer, probably one of the 
ordo Augustaliwm.' 

RUSSIA. 


Kertch.—A gigantic lion’s head has been discovered, 
seven feet high, and of the finest Greek marble. It 
is in excellent preservation, and is said to date from 
about 700 3B.c.(?). It has been acquired for the 
Museum at St. Petersburg.” 


ITALY. 


Milan.—Two interesting Latin inscriptions have 
come to light; one a dedication by C. Valerius 
Fabricius to himself and various members of his 
family. The other gives the name of another of the 
sexvirt tiwniores (see CLL. v. p. 635); it runs 
Vv ¥F | PIONTIVS | CRESCENS VRSINVS | VI'VIR‘IVN | 
SIBI‘ET‘SVIS | IN‘FR.(P’) 8 | 1(N) AG* P*(X).3 

Campli (Picenum).—Forty silver tetradrachms 
have been discovered, illustrating five different 
types: (1) Lysimachus of Thrace (about 300 B.c.) ; 
(2) Eucratides of Bactria (200—150 B.c.) ; (3) Deme- 
trius I. (Soter), 162-150 B.c. ; (4) the city of ‘Tyre ; 
(5) cistophorus of Apamea in Phrygia, inscribed 
ATTAAOY TIMOY.* 

Capodimonte, Tuscany.—Near the Lago di Bolsena 
a sepulchre of primitive type has been excavated, 
containing tombs of a curious quasi-spherical shape. . 
They contained numerous vases with geometrical 
decoration, fibulae and other bronzes, and a fine 
bronze cyathus with two stiff conventional figures 
in relief on the handle, one a priestess, the other an 
Etruscan deity with tutulus.® 





1 Berl. Phil. Woch., 27 October. 
2 Athenaeum, 27 October. 

8 Notizie dei Lincei, May 1894. 
4 bid, June 1894. 

5 bid, April 1894. 


472 


Arezzo.—Numerous fragments of Aretine ware 
have been discovered ; none possess subjects, but 
nearly all have potters’ stamps or the names of 
owners of furnaces; in all eighty-nine different 
stamps were found.® 

Naples.—In making the foundations of the new 
Bourse, remains of various periods were brought to. 
light, including blocks of white marble which had 
been used for an edifice af the Roman period. 
One is inscribed TESTAMENTO, and belongs to a 
fragment already published (Wotizie, 1893, p. 522). 
Architectural fragments of white marble were also 
found, including a bearded head, and a few fragments 
of inscriptions. One of the latter consisted of the 


Greek alphabet followed by KEAE YCANTOC- 


OEOY, apparently the name of a Christian, 


answering to the Latin Quodvultdei. It was appar- 
ently a tabella abecedaria for school use.? 

Pesavella Settermini, near Pompeii. <A large 
Roman bath-house has been excavated, containing 
three chambers with mosaic floors and marble baths 
of artistic design in good preservation, also a roof 
sixty feet in length. The large boiler is still in its 
original position, with a complete system of tubing 
and bronze taps.® 

Ruvo.—In the necropolis the following vases have 
been found: a considerable number of early date, 
one with figures of sphinxes ; three b.f. lekythi with 
Dionysiac subjects, and one. with heroes playing 
draughts before a statue of Athena ; two b.f. kylikes 
with a bird and a horseman as interior subjects; a 
b.f. skyphos with charioteers ; ten r.f. vases, chiefly 
aski, one with Eros pursuing a bird ; and numerous 
plain vases. 

Canosa.—An early Apulian stamnos (about 400 
B.C.) has been found, with a female figure bathing on 
one side, and a similar figure gazing in a mirror on 
the other: also a terracotta urn with a figure of a 
comic actor in the costume worn in the phlyakes, and 
a terracotta group of two lovers embracing.® 


GREECE. 

At Delphi further discoveries have been made: 
(1) metrical inscriptions in the Treasury of the 
Athenians, one in eleven fragments with musical 
notation for an instrument, not the voice; the words 
can be restored with tolerable certainty, but the 
notes are difficult to read. The subject is the birth 
of Apollo at Delos, his coming to Delphi and victory 
over the Python, with the help of Dionysos ; it ends 
with a prayer for Athens and the Romans, and must 
therefore date from the second century B.c. A 
second Paean may be dated from the names of 
archons about 340 B.c.; the poet was a native of 
Scarphaia in Locris, but his name is lost. (2) A 
sculptured figure of a warrior with the artist’s name 
inscribed on the shield, but only the first four letters 
KAFFE...remain ; the form of the F shows that he 
was an Argive. (3) Metrical inscriptions mentioning 
works of art dedicated in honour of historical per- 
sonages ; (4) some accounts, of the fourth century 
B.c.; (5) a decree in favour of Cotys, King of 
Thrace ; (6) statues of Hellenistic and Roman times ; 
(7) four archaic statues of the type of the Képa of 
the Acropolis; (8) fragments of repoussé bronze 
work ; and (9) a Corinthian helmet in perfect pre- 
servation.” 

AFRICA. 

At Biserta, the ancient Hippo-Zarytus, a silver 

sacrificial bow] has recently been dredged up ; it is 


6 Athenaeum, 3 November. 
7 Academy, 10 November. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. . 


of a shallow oval shape, with two handles. The 
inner surface is inlaid with a design in gold, repre- 
senting the conflict of Apollo and Marsyas with 
attendant personages. It appears to be Greek work 
of the first century after Christ, at which period 
Biserta was a Roman colony.® 

H. B. WALTERS. 


Revue Numismatique. Part 3, 1894. 


E. Babelon, ‘ Chronologi2 des monnaies de Samos.’ 
A continuation of Babelon’s suggestive paper on the 
chronology of early electrum coins, especially of 
Samos. E. Beurlier, ‘Le Koinon de Syrie et les 
Syriarques Artabanés et’ Hérode.’ J. A. Blanchet, 
‘Monnaie inédite de Nicée.’ Describes and figures 
a coin recently acquired for the French collection 
forming a variety of the interesting specimen in the 
British Museum (Cat. Pontus, p. 171, pl. xxxiii. 14) 
with the inscription IMMON BPOTOMOAA and the 
representation of a male figure riding on a horse 
which has human feet and a serpent’s tail. Roscher 
had already connected this type with the human- 
footed horse of the statue of Julius Caesar in the 
Forum Julium at Rome. It is known that the people 
of Nicaea honoured Caesar with a gold wreath and 
established in their city a temenos of the hero Julius. 
On the new coin the horseman has the attributes of 
the god Mén and probably a representation of Caesar 
is intended in the character of that divinity. 


Numismatic Chronicle. Part ji. 1894, 


J. C. Myres, ‘On some bronze coins from Crete.’ 
On coins chiefly procured at the sites of Polyrhenion 
and Elysos. Reviews of the Berlin Catalogue of 
Greek Coins, vol. iii. part 1, and Svoronos’ ‘ Brito- 
martis’ by B. V. Head. C. W. C. Oman, ‘Half 
and Quarter obols of Alexander the Great.’ Describes 
specimens of these very rare ines is 


Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Jan.—July 
1894. ; 


1. Cousin and Deschamps: publish inscriptions 
of Tralles, Magnesia, Priene, Caria near Halicar- 
nassos, Iasos, Bargylia, Keramos, collected chiefly 
during journeys in 1886. 2. de Ridder: examines 
bronze statuette from the Acropolis (pil. v.—vi.): 
it is not Aeginetan, as Furtwangler (Olympia iv. 
p- 20, no. 52) thought, but of Attic workmanship. 
3. Paris: twelve inscriptions of Phocis and Locris: 
in no. 11 is part of a list of lands and properties 
given to Apollo and Artemis. 4. Joubin: publishes 
(pl. xvi.) a relief from Thasos representing Heracles 
kneeling shooting an arrow: this relief was found 
in 1866 (cf. Rev. Arch. 1885, i. p. 472) but disap- 
peared, and was lately re-discovered and brought to 
Tchinli Kiosk. He thinks it may have belonged to 
some monument like the Thasos Apollo and Nymphs 
in the Louvre: and is interesting as showing an 
‘anti-Ionian character’ of style. 5. Couve: an 
instaluent of the Delphi inscriptions, chiefly 
honorary decrees throwing an interesting light on 
the musical contests and concerts of the Greeks ; 
among these is one in honour of Cleochares, son of 
Bion, an Athenian, whom M. Couve identifies as the 
author of the famous hymns with musical notation : 
it is inscribed on a block belonging to the Treasury 
of the Athenians. 6. Svoronos: a number of unex- 
plained coin-types have an animal with or without a 
star or crescent ; these cannot be merely decorative, 
but are astronomical symbols: this theory he tests 





8 Athenaeum, 6 October. 








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


by an examination of the coinage of Crete. 7. Radet 
and Ouvré: publish (pl. iv. bcs)an interesting stele 
from Dorylaeum, with a relief representing the so- 
called Artemis Persike, dating from about 530 B.C. : 
they consider it offers evidence against Studniczka’s 
identification of a similar type with the goddess 
Kyrene. 8. Mylonas: notes and corrections of an 
inscription from Troezen, based on a MS. copy by 
P. Eustratiades. 9. Mahaffy: publishes (i.) a papyrus 
of B.c. 210 which had formed part of the pectoral of 
a mummy at Alexandria: it gives the declaration by 
one Asclepiades of his property (for taxing purposes) 
and includes a very interesting series of names: 
(ii.) a series of corrections or additions to the C. 7.4. 
10. Bury : comments on one of Mahaffy’s inscriptions 
found by him at Kalapcha: the author is a poet 
whom the god Mandoulis had ordered to write his 
poem on the walls of his temple. 11. Fontrier: 
inscriptions of Asia Minor. 

Meetings of the Institute: including an account 
by Homolle of the theatre at Delos, with remarks 
by Dérpfeld: an account of the metopes of the 
Treasury of the Athenians from Delphi: and of the 
séance before the king of Greece, at which a musical 
rendering of the hymn was given. News. Delphi, 
compte rendu up to date: Calausia, Delos, Amorgos 
&e. 


Rémische Mittheilungen. Part i. 1894. 


1. Lanciani: traces the history of the ‘ Palazzo 
Maggiore’ in the xvi.—xviii. centuries: chiefly in 
connection with records of the Monastery of SS. 
Andrew and Gregory, of which a copy existed in the 
collection of Sir T. Phillips at Cheltenham. 2. 
Mau : excavations at Pompeii, 1892-1893: in Regio 
v, insula 2 was discovered an oecus corinthius of 
elaborate dimensions, of which restorations are given 
on p. 38: and another large house of which the 
origin goes back to pre-Roman times (p. 43—48). 
On p. 51 is reproduced a painting representing a 
garden, resembling the well-known Primaporta garden 
scene (Ant. Denkm. i. 11): pp. 62—65 is described 
a series of inscriptions from a sepulchral monument 
accidentally found near the Porta Stabiana. 3. 
Amelung: publishes a fragment of a votive relief 
in the Capitoline Museum, showing that the Munich 
relief (Brunn, Beschr. no. 85a) is after all genuine : 
it represents Asklepios seated, with Hygieia standing 
beside him: (cut). 4. Petersen: publishes cuts of a 
seated statue of Asklepios set up on the Pincio: the 
original must be referred to the fifth century B.c. 
5. The same: discusses the ‘rain miracle’ in con- 
nection with the German campaign of M. Aurelius, 
supposed to be represented on the column of the 
Piazza Colonna: the legend probably arose froma 
misinterpretation of these sculptures. 


The Same. Parts ii. andiii. 1894. 


1. Six: iconographic studies, continued: (iii. ) 
Lysimachos king of Thrace: (iv.) Euthydemos I. 
king of Bactria: (v.) Titus Quinctius Flamininus : 
and the lady of the Villa of Herculanum. 2. 
Samter: publishes (pl. 6) a marble relief in the 
Palermo Museum, representing a sacrifice by Vestals : 
compares it with two reliefs, one in Rom. Mitth. 
1889 (pl x.), the other in the Villa Albani (cut on 
p. 128): the Palermo example is of the first century, 
or possibly the Augustan age. 3. Bulle: a study 
of the caryatide statues of the Via Appia, in con- 
nection with other Greek and Roman examples of 
this type. 4. Amelung: publishes (pl. 7) a marble 
head in the possession of Friiulein Hertz in Rome: 
the copy of awork which belongs to the saie school, 
and probably the same hand, as the Nike of Paionios, 


473 


5. Mau: gives a cut of a wall-painting in the Villa 
Pamfili, representing a man climbing a date-palm by 
means of a loop of cord: and compares a passage 
in Lucian, De dea Syria 29. 6. Petersen: gives 
(pp. 171—228) a detailed study of the Ara Pacis 
Augustae (mentioned in the Res Gestae divi Augusti, 
ed. Mommsen ii. 37). 7. The same: publishes the 
vase described by Jatta in the Notizie 1893, p. 242, 
representing Theseus in the sea, the subject of the 
myth described by Pausanias i. 17, 2. 8. Domas- 
zewski: suggests emendations to Bormann’s note on 
the lists of Roman soldiers in ph. Epigr. iv. p. 317. 
9. Patsch: two fragments of Roman tiles with 
legionary stamps, from the Bosnia-Herzegovina 
Museum. 10. Hiilsen : further notes on the Sorrento 
basis (Rém. Mitth. 1889, pl. 10: ante, p. 125). 11. 
Sauer: answers Petersen’s suggestions (hém. Mitth. 
1893, p. 251) as to the dead Amazon of the Naples 
Museum. 12. Petersen: controverting Freericks’ 
views as to the Apollo Belvedere. 


Parti. 1894. 


1. Hiller von Gaertringen: an account of the 
excavations in the theatre of Magnesia on the 
Maeander : (i.) the inscriptions (pll. i.-iv.). 2. Kern: 
the same continued : (ii.) publishes a marble basis 
with a terminal figure attached to a tripod table, 
inscribed with a dedication to Hermes Tychon. 3. 
Dorpfeld: the same: (iii.) a description of the theatre 
buildings, showing (p. 89) the various epochs of its 
development. 4. Kern: the same: theatre inscrip- 
tions trom the Agora (pl. v.). 5. Buresch: pub- 
lishes (in connection with a new inscription from 
Antiocheia) notes on Lydian epigraphy and geo- 
graphy. 6. Friinkel: notes on the Hippomedon 
inscription of Samothrace (vol. xviii. p. 348). 7. 
Ziehen : publishes a cut of a marble statue of a boy 
from the Peiraeus : one hand holds a bundle of rolls 
(probably books), the other a large alabastron: on 
the shoulders are laid a quantity of tainiae: the 
signification of this figure is not explained. 8. 
Preger : five inscriptions from Athens. 9. Dorpfeld : 
continues his account of the excavations at the 
Enneakrunos (cf. vol. xvili. p. 231). 


The Same. Part ii. 1894. 


1. Winter: of the four artists who decorated the 
Mausoleum, Timotheos was hitherto otherwise almost 
unknown: the material excavated at Epidauros 
enables us to form a better idea of his work: gives 
in pl. 6 one of the Epidauros groups with a group 
from the Capitoline Museum, also probably inspired 
by Timotheos. 2. Philios: publishes (pl. 7) a stele 
from Eleusis, recording an interesting decree relating 
to road mending: above is a relief representing 
Athene and the demos of the Eleusinians, Demeter 
and Kore: and eight other public documents of 
Eleusis of great interest, including a long series of 
treasure lists. 3. Nikitsky : shows that, as Sokoioff 
has already pointed out, the words XIOY and EKXIOT 
in the Delphian lists of Hieromnemoues have been 
misunderstood. 4, Bruck: notes on the Athenian 
heliast tickets, with corrections and new readings. 
5. Strack: publishes some inscription of the 
Ptolemaic period in the museums of Gizeh and 
Alexandria. 6. Cordellas: notes on Laurion ancient 
and modern, with remarks by Wolters. 7. Wide: 
publishes the inscriptions of the Iobakchi, found 
between the Pnyx and the Areopagus (cf. ante, 
p. 147): it is in 162 lines, dating from the third 
century A.D., and contains the statutes of the thiasos 
of the Iobakchi, with a rich variety of interesting 
detail concerning the regulations of societies such as 
this in antiquity. 8. Gurlitt: examines the system 


Athenische Mittheilungen. 


474 


followed by the artist in decorating the Heroén of 
Gjolbaschi, and concludes that the frieze with the 
beleaguered city represents Troy with Priam and 
Helen ; it is not the Iliupersis, but some episode 
which has not come down to us in literature. 9. 
Wernicke: suggests an.emendation in the Rhea 
epigram from Phaestos (Ath. Mitth. xviii. p. 272).. 
10. Wilhelm: further note on the Hippomedon 
inscription (see Frinkel’s note above). Under ‘ dis- 
coveries ’ is noted that of two tombs on the northern 
slope of the Acropolis of Rhodes, dating from the 
third century B.c.: one of these had an inscribed 
stele, and contained a bronze-gilt hydria, full of 
bones and vases. : 


Revue Archéologique. Jan.—Feb. 1894, 


1. Kont: concludes his study of Lessing as 
archaeologist: ‘il ne lui était pas donné de vivre au 
milieu des antiques. I] connait et manie avec aisance 
ce que les recueils des antiquaires depuis la Renais- 
sance contiennent pour les matiéres quwil traite....il 
est au moins a la hauteur des grands savants de son 
temps.’ 2. Torr: a statement of the evidence in 
favour of his theory as to the harbours of Carthage 
(see Class. Rev. 1893, p. 374). 3. Tannery: discusses 
the origin of the word chiffre, which he concludes is 
derived from gos through the intermediary of 
Arabic. 4, Espérandieu: continues his catalogue of 
Roman oculists’ stamps. 5. Nicole: publishes two 
of his collections of papyri, containing the details of 
an interesting case in which the guardianship of a 
certain Lucius is at issue: if throws considerable 
light on the administrative and judicial organization 
of Egypt under the reign of Antoninus Pius. 6. 
Michon: gives an account of the various fragments 
of the Parthenon in the Louvre and the history of 
their respective acquisitions. 7. Coulon: excava- 
tions at Chérisy near Arras (pp. 96—97, two cuts 
showing ornaments &c. found). 

Correspondence &c. : Vetulonia, Tunis. 


The Same. March—April. 1894, 


1. Deloche: seals and rings of the Merovingian 
epoch (continued). 2. Bertrand: the vase or eal- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. . 


dron of Gundestrup (continued). 3. Th. Reinach: 
the name of the toreutes Acragas given by Pliny, 
Nat. Hist. xxxiii, 154, is really due to an error; 
probably Menander had seen in Rhodes, among the 
masterpieces of Mys and Boethos, certain Agri- 
gentine cups: copies of such cups in terracotta have 
come down to us bearing in the centre the impression 
of a decadrachm of that city, with the usual inscrip- 


. tion of Agrigentine coins, ‘ Acragas,’ (pll. vii.—ix.), 


and this fact has given rise to Pliny’s error. 4.. 
Joubin: publishes (pll. v.—vi.) three stelae from 
Dorylaeum in Phrygia, now at Constantinople: on 
each are carved a series of partitions containing 
objects of toilet use &c. in relief. 5. The same: 
publishes (pl. iv.) the torso, with head attached, of 
the colossal Apollo from Tralles : the head was given 
fev. Arch. 1888, i. p. 289: the torso has since been 
found in Humann’s excavations. 6. Cagnat: at 
Carthage there were two distinct temples built nearly 
on the same plan, a Capitol and a temple of Tanit : 
the former may have stood on Byrsa; the latter 
elsewhere, possibly on a hill or near the forum. 7. 
Omont: inscriptions of Salonica collected by Ger- 
main, who was employed in the French consulate at 
Smyrna and Salonica between 1733—1748. 8. 
Espérandieu : tabular list of collyria of which the 
names are known from stamps. . 9. Villenoisy : dis- 
cusses the modes of use of ancient swords. Cagnat’s 
Revue des Publications Epigraphiques. 


The Same. May—June. 1894. — 


1. S. Reinach: publishes (pl. x.) a terracotta 
statuette representing a woman (probably Ariadne or 
a Maenad) riding on a mule. 2, Torr: replying to 
Meltzer’s attempted refutation of his theory as to 
the harbours of Carthage (Jahrbiicher fiir el. Phil. 
1894, pp. 49 and 119). 3. Hubert: two metrical 
inscriptions of Asia Minor, 4. Vitry: study of the 
epigrams of Anth. Pal. which contain the description 
of a work of art: with tabulated list, pp. 355—367. 
6. Espérandieu ; tabular list of the names of oculists 
which are known from the stamps. Cagnat’s Revwe 
des Publications Epigraphiques. 

C: 8; 


SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


American Journal of Philology. Whole No. 
58. July 1894. 

The Latin Prohibitive, part i. by H. C. Elmer. 
Omitting the Letters of Cicero, ne with the 2nd pers. 
perf. subj. does not occur in poetry or prose during 
the whole Ciceronian period, except in seven dia- 
logue passages of Cicero, where the tone sinks to 
that of ordinary conversation. There is no ground 
for the common statement, that ne with the pres. 
subj. is general, and ne with the perf. subj. is 
addressed to individuals. The last-named kind of 
prohibitions is often expressed by ne with the pres. 
subj., while a general prohibition is expressed by the 
3rd pers. subj. such as ne quis putet ec. The usual 
way of prohibiting in Cicero is by oli with 
infin. or vide, cave, quaeso &e. with pres. subj. The 
Dog in the Rig-Veda, by E. W. Hopkins. On the 
Archaisms noted by Servius in the commentary to 
Vergil, by R. B. Steele. A very elaborate paper. 

3etween the two versions of the commentary, the 
shorter ‘Servius’ and the longer, the ‘Scholia of 
Daniel,’ there is considerable difference and their 


relative value must be estimated. The archaisms 
are treated under the foll. categories: changes in 
letters, nouns (case-endings, syntax, gender, mean- 
ing), pronouns, adjectives, particles, prepositions, 
verbs (form and meaning), tropes and figures (see 
J. L. Moore in A. J. P. nos. 46, 47), novae elocu- 
tiones, neotericae elocutiones. The Origin of the 
Gerund and Gerundive, by L. Horton-Smith. Mr. 8. 
B. Platner has set forth the uses of the gerund and 
gerundive in Pliny’s Letters and Tacitus’ Annals in 
A. J. P. nos. 34 and 36, and in Plaut. and Ter. in 
A. J. P. no. 56. This paper is concerned with the 
origin of these forms. The writer suggests a theory 
based, as Brugmann’s, on the Prim. Ital. infin. in 
-m. To this infin. as basis was added the suffix -do, 
probably Indo-Germ. ,/-dd- ‘give.’ These forms 
were orig. act. but from their use shaded into a 
pass. meaning, and hence came to be regarded as 
pass. The gerund probably did not arise until the 
infin. had lost its use as a subst. Then the neut. 
sing. of the gerundive was employed as an abstract 
subst. Next follows a note on the Latin Gerundive 











THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


°*ndo- by E. W. Fay, who seeks to justify phoneti- 
~eally the equation Latin fer-en-d-ae = Sk. bhar-a- 
dh-yai; ef. Grk. pépe<o> Oar, and ends with a 
comparison of the syntax of the Latin and Sanskrit. 
Among the reviews are The Epistle of James, by 
Joseph B. Mayor, noticed by Prof. J. H. Thayer, who 
says: ‘ with allits present imperfections the book is a 
valuable addition to exegetical literature, and may 
be heartily wished such prosperity as shall speedily 
call for its reconstruction, that it may thus be ren- 
dered more thoroughly helpful to students, and a 


475 


yet more worthy memorial of an eminent scholar’ 
{Prof. J. B. Mayor is not dead however], and 
Broring’s Quaestiones Maximinianae, by Prof. Robin- 
son Elis. ‘Its chief value is the attention it calls 
to the Eton MS. and to the fact that though E is 
much the best MS. it cannot safely be trusted 
alone.’ Briefly mentioned is Dr. Merry’s Wasps, 
which, like similar editions, falls short of what is due 
to the poet and the artist in refusing to consider the 
the form, and does not give a conspectus metrorum, 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 
ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Caesar. Gallic War. Books I. and II. Edited by 
T. W. Haddon and G. C. Harrison, with plans and 


illustrations. Post 8vo. 130 pp. Arnold. 1s. 
6d. net. 
Cicero. Speech for Cluentius. Translated into 


English, with an introduction and notes. Post 
8vo. 158 pp. Simpkin. 4s. 

Gardiner (G, B. & A.) A Latin translation primer. 
12mo. Arnold. 1s. net. 

Graves (C.) The Hawarden Horace. 
Smith & Elder. 3s. 6d. 

Hartland (Edwin Sidney.) The Legend of Perseus, 
a study of tradition in story, custom and belief: 


12mo. 92 pp. 


Vol. J. The Supernatural Birth. Post 8vo. 
Nutt. 7s. 6d. 
Homer. Iliad. Books IJ. to XII. With intro- 


duction, a brief Homeric Grammar, and notes by 
D. B. Monro. 4th ed. revised. 12mo. 476 pp. 
Clarendon Press. 6s. 

Iliad. Done into English Verse, by A. S. 
Way. 2vols. 4to. Macmillan. 10s. 6d. net. 
— The Wanderings of Ulysses. Selected from 
the Odyssey. Edited, with introduction and notes 
by E. D. Stone. 12mo. 112 pp. Methuen. 2s. 
Horace. The Odes and Epodes, Edited, with intro- 
duction and notes, by Clement Laurence Smith. 

Post 8vo. Ginn & Co. 7s. 6d. 
—— Odes. Translated into English by the Right 





FOREIGN 


Abhandlungen (Breslauer philologische). Vol. VII. 
Pl. 2. 8vo. 60 pp. Breslau, Koebner. 2 Mk 50. 

[Quaestiones Choricianae, scr. C. Kirsten. ] 

— Vol. VIJ. Pt. 3. (De Callimachi hymnis 
quaestiones chronologicae, scr. B. Ehrlich.) 8vo. 
70 pp. Same publisher. 3 Mk. 

Anthoiogia latina sive peesis latinae supplementum, 
ed. F. Buecheler et A. Riese. Pars I. Fase. I. 
8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. 4 Mk. 

(Carmina in codicibus scripta, rec. A. Riese. J. 
Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina. Ed. II. 
xlvii, 372 pp.] 

Baumstark (Ant.) Lucubrationes Syro-graecae. 8vo. 
172 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 5 Mk. 

[Aus ‘Jahrbiicher fiir class, Philologie,’ 21. 
Suppl.-Bd.] 

Bergk (Th.) Griechische Literaturgeschichte. 
gister von Rud. Peppmiiller und W. Hahn. 
ui, 94 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 2 Mk. 40. 

Boliz (A.) Der Apollomythus. Die Engel und ihre 


Re- 
8vo. 


Verehrer. 2 mythologisch-linguistische Studien. 
8vo. 58 pp. 1 plate. Darmstadt, Brill. 1 
Mk. 20. 


Damon (K.) Etudes d’art grec. Symétrie et har- 


Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 
6s. 

—— The historical and political Odes. 
duction and notes, by A. J. Church. 
146 pp. Blackie. 2s. 6d. 

Plato. The Parmenides of, after the paging of the 
Clarke manuscript, with introductions, facsimiles, 
and notes, William Wardlaw Waddell. 4to. 150 
copies printed. Maclehose & Sons. 31s. 6d. net. 

Ramsay (W.) Manual of Roman antiquities. Re- 
vised and partly re-written by Rodolfo Lanciani. 
15th edition. Post 8vo. 580 pp. Griffin. 10s. 6d. 

Schrammen (Professor J.) Tales of the Gods and 
Heroes of Ancient Greece, with notes and vocabu- 
lary by A. R. Lachner. 18mo. 166 pp. Riving- 
ton. 2s. 

Tyson (E.) A philological essay concerning the 
Pygmies of the Ancients. By Edward Tyson, 
M.D., F.R.S., A.p. 1699. Now edited, with an 
introduction, treating of Pigmy races and Fairy 
tales, by Bertram C. A. Windle, M.D., M.A., 
Trinity College, Dublin. (Bibliothéque de Cara- 
bas IX.). Nutt. 6s. net. 

Xenophon. Selections illustrative of Greek life from 
the minor works of Xenophon, adapted for the use 
of beginners, with vocabulary, notes and exercises 


8vo. 156 pp. Murray. 
With intro- 
Post 8vo. 


by Charles Haines Keene. 18mo. 118 pp. 
Maemillan. 1s. 6d. 

BOOKS. 

monie. Lelogeion. Folio. 32 pp. 1 plate and 


engravings. Haarlem. 4 Mk. 

Demosthenes. Rotteck (Ed.) Dispositive Inhalts- 
iibersicht zu Demosthenes’ acht Staatsreden. 8vo. 
46 pp. Wien, Holder. 1 Mk. 

Fritze (H. yon.) Die Rauchopfer bei den Griechen. 
Royal 8vo. 52 pp. Berlin, Mayer & Miiller. 2 
Mk. 50. 

Fréhner (W.) La Collection Tyszkiewiez. Choix 
des monuments antiques avec texte explicatif. 


Pars III. Folio. 8 plates, coloured and photo- 
type, 10 pp. of letterpress. Miinchen, Verlags- 
anstalt. 20 Mk. 


Hildebrandt (P.) De scholiis Ciceronis Bobiensibus. 
8vo. 63 pp. Berlin, Mayer & Miiller. 1 Mk. 60. 

Hoiz(Ge.) Beitriige zur deutschen Alterthumskunde. 
Part I. Ueber die germanische Volkertafel des 
Ptolemaeus. 8vo. 80 pp. 1 table. Halle, 
Niemeyer. 2 Mk. 

Horace. Q. Horatius Flaccus, texte latin, publié 
avec des notes en francais et précédé d’un précis 
sur les métres employés par Horace, par E. 
Sommer. Crown 8yo, xvi, 426 pp. Paris, 
Hachette. 


476 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Horace. Scholia antiqua in Horatium Flaccum, rec. A. 
Holder et O. Keller. Vol. I. 8vo. Innsbruck, 
Wagner. 20 Mk. 

[Pomponi Porfyrionis commentum in Horatium, 
rec. A. Holder. x, 620 pp.] 

— Grumme(A.) Dispositiones Horatianae. 8vo. 
15 pp. Gera, Kanitz. 40 Pf. 


Hyperidis Orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmentis- 


ed. F. Blass. Ed. III.  8vo. lvi, 176 pp. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 2 Mk. 10. 

Ihering (R. von.)  Entwicklungsgeschichte des 
rémischen Rechts. Linleitung. Verfassung des 
romischen Hauses. Aus dem Nachlass herausge- 
geben. 8vo. vii, 124 pp. Leipzig, Duncker & 
Humblot. 3 Mk. 

Jung (Jul.) Fasten der Provinz Dacien. Mit Bei- 
trigen zur rodmischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, 
8vo. xlii, 193 pp. Innsbruck, Wagner. 4 Mk. 80. 

La Ville de Mirmont (H. de.) Apollonios de Rhodes 
et Virgile. La mythologie des Dieux dans les 
Argonautiques et dans l’Enéide. 8vo. viii, 778 
pp. Paris, Hachette. 

Lehrs (K.) see Lobeck. 

Lehmann (K.) Der letzte Feldzug des Hanni- 
balischen Krieges. 8vo. 92 pp. 1 map. Leip- 
zig, Teubner. 2 Mk. 80. 

{Aus ‘Jahrbiicher fiir class. Philologie,’ Suppl. 
Bd. 21.] 

Lobeck. Briefe von und an Chr. Lobeck und K. 
Lehrs, nebst Tagebuchnotizen, herausgegeben von 
A Ludwich. (1802—1878). 2 vols. Published 
by the Verein fiir die Geschichte von Ost- und 
Westpreussen. 8vo. xii, 1049 pp. Leipzig, 
Duncker & Humblot, 16 Mk. 

Meringer (Rud.) Ueber die Spuren rémischer Dach- 
constructionen in Carnuntum. Dell (J.) Archi- 
tectonisches aus den Reliefs der Matres in Car- 
nuntum. 4to. 8 pp. 13 engravings. Wien, 
Holder. 1 Mk. 

[Extr. from ‘ Mittheilungen der anthropologi- 
schen Gesellschaft in Wien.’] 

Meyer (&d.) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der 


Gracchen. 4to. 32 pp. Halle, Niemeyer. 1 
Mk. 60, 
Mittheilungen (archaeologisch-epigraphische) aus 


Oesterreich-Ungarn. Herausgegeben von O. Benn- 
dorf und E. Bormann. 17 Jahrg. Pt. 1. 8vo. 
118 pp. 16 engravings. Wien, Holder. 5 
Mk. 

Plinvi Seewndi (C.) Librorum dubii sermonis VIII. 
reliquiae, coll. et illustr. J. W. Beck. 8vo. xxvii, 
96 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 1 Mk. 40. 

Reinach (T.) La musique grecque et ’hymne 4 
Apollon, conférence faite & )’Association pour l’en- 
couragement des études grecques. 8vo. Paris. 
24 pp. 

Ruggiero (Ett. de) Dizionario epigrafico di antichita 
romane. Fasc. 33. (Cappadocia—Cassio.) 8vo, 
Roma. pp. 97-128. 1 L. 50. 

Schmidt (H.) Epeirotika. Beitrage zur Geschichte 
des alten Epeiros (Epeiros von Konig Pyrrhos). 
8vo. Marburg, 1894. 94 pp. . 

Schumm (K.) Die Bedeutung des Pathetischen in 
der griechischen Plastik und bei den griechischen 
Tragikern. 8vo. Hof, 1894. 23 pp. 

Sittl (K.) Die Grenzbezeichnung der Romer. Ein 
Beitrag zur Limesfrage. Mit Anhang zu: Parerga. 
III. Jahresbericht des Kunstgeschichtlichen Mu- 
seums der Kgl. Universitiit Wiirzburg. 4to. Wiirz- 


burg, Stahel. 25 pp. 4 plates. 1M. 50. 
Statius. Mueller (Henr.) Studia Statiana. 8vo. 
Berlin, Heinrich. 59 pp. 1 Mk. 20. 


Studien (Berliner) fiir classische Philologie und 


Archaeologie. 16 Bd. 1 Hft. 8vo. Berlin, 
Calvary. 

1, Opiniones Homeri et tragicorum graecorum 
de inferis, per comparationem excussae. Scrip- 
sit Geo. Ivanowitsch. 105 pp. 3M. 

Studien (Prager) aus dem Gebiete der klassischen 
Alterthumswissenschaft. Heft 1-4. 8vo. Prag, 
Dominicus. 

1. Joéhring (Jos.) De particularum ut ne quin 
quominus apud L, Annaeum Senecam philoso- 
phum via atque usu. v, 59 pp. 1M. 80. 

2. Herkenrath (Rol.) Gerundii et gerundivi 
apud Plautum et Cyprianum usus comparatus. 
115 pp. 2M. 50. ; 

3. Stiglmayr (Jos.) Eine alte Regensburger 
Handschrift des sogenannten Homerus latinus. 
56 pp. and 2 plates. 2 M. 

4. Holzner (Eug.) Plato’s Phaedrus und die 
Sophistenrede des Isokrates. 50 pp. 1M. 50, 

Tacitus. Adami(R.) La milizia Romana secondo 
Tacito. I. 8vo. Triest, 1894. 63 pp. 

Thucydides. Crampe (R.) Thucydidem nunquam 
temere usurpare adverbium ‘monon’ adjectivi 
vicem. Festschrift. 4to. Halle, 1894. 3 pp. 

Tibullus. Ehrengruber (S.) De carmine panegyrico 
Messalae Pseudo-Tibulliano. V. 8vo. Krems- 
minster, 1894. 60 pp. 

Tomaschek (Wilh.) Die alten Thraker. Eine eth- 
nologische Untersuchung. II. Die Sprachreste. 
II. Halfte: Personen- und Ortsnamen. (Aus 
‘Sitzungsberichte der K. Akademie der Wiss.’) 

_8vo. Wien. 103 pp. 2M. - 

Uberweg (Fr.) Grundriss der Geschichte der Philo- 
sophie. 1 Thl.: das Alterthum. 8 Aufl. bearb. 
von Prof. Dr. Max Heinze. 8vo. Berlin, Mittler. 
ix, 390 pp. 6M. 

Urwalek (J.) Die griechischen Gelehrten zur Zeit 
der Eroberung Konstantinopels. 8vo. Baden, 1894. 


44 pp. 
Usener (H.) Acta M. Anastasii Persae. 4to. Bonn, 
1894. 30 pp. 


Vernier (L.) Petit traité de métrique grecque et 
latine. Crown 8vo. xv, 231 pp. Paris, Hachette. 
3 Frs. 

Virgil. Kunz (Fz.) 
(1 Thl.: Kriegswesen und Privatleben.) 8vo, 
Wiener-Neustadt. 34 pp. 1M. 

Vocabularium iurisprudentiae romanae iussu instituti 
Savigniani composuerunt O. Gradenwitz, B. 
Knebler, E. Th. Schulze. Fasc. I. (a—accipio.) 
Royal 4to. 75 pp. and 96 columns. Berlin, 
Reimer. 6 Mk. 40. 

Waser (O.) Skylla und Charybdis in der Literatur 
und Kunst der Griechen und Romer. Mythologisch- 
archaeologische Monographie. 8vo. Ziirich, Schul- 
thess. 147 pp. 2M. 

Weber (Lot.) Mehr Licht in der Weltgeschichte. 
38 engravings and plans of the battles of Salamis 
and Plataiai. 8vo. Danzig. iii, 247 pp. 2 M. 

Weidlich (Th.) Die Sympathie in der antiken 
Literatur. 4to. 76 pp. Stuttgart. 1 Mk. 20. 

Willmann (O.) Geschichte des Idealismus. (In 3 
vols.) Vol. JI. Vorgeschichte und Geschichte des 
antiken Idealismus. 8vo. xiv, 696 pp. Braun- 
schweig, Vieweg. 10 Mk. 

Zoeller (Max.) Roémische Staats- und Rechtsalter- 


thiimer. 2nd Kdition. 8vo. xvi, 520 pp. 
Breslau, Kébner. 8 Mk. 
Zumetikos (Alex.) De Alexandri Olympiadisque 


epistularum fontibus et reliquiis. 8vo. Berlin, 
Mayer and Miiller. iv, 148 pp. 2 Mk. 

Zutt (G.) Ueber den Katalog der Heroinen in der 
Nekyia. 4to. Baden-Baden. 23 pp. 


Realien in Virgil’s Aeneis. © 








1 a OS ee, & 





Note.—In the General Index names of actwal contributors, in the Index Locorum references to passages 
discussed, are printed in heavy type. 


I.—GENERAL INDEX.! 


A. 


Abbott (E. A.), on St. John’s method of reckoning 
the hours of the day, 243 ff. 
on the Temple (St. John ii. 20), 89 ff. 
Abbott (F. F.), note on Cic. ad Fam. (xi. 13), 
201 (see 12 f.) 
notice of Ashmore’s Adelphoe, 61 f. 
Abbott (T. K.), notice of Chase’s Old Syriac 
Element in the Text of the Codex Bezae, 29 ff. 
abecedaria, 345b 
(tabelia), discovered at Naples, 472a 
Abercius Marcellus, MS. of, 64a 
abolitio, 436 f. 
abolitio infamiae, 433b 
abolitiones publicae, 452b 
abstinendus swm, 26a 
Abii Mansfir Muwaflak’s Liber fundamentorum 
pharmacologiae, 309 f. 
Acolastus, Bolte and Schmidt’s ed. of, noticed, 61 
Acta Philippi, the, 103 
Acta Xanthippae et Polyxenac, the, 102 f. 
borrowed details of, 336 f. 
date of, 102b, 103a, 337) 
grammar and syntax of, 338 f. 
Max Bonnet on, 336 ff. 
MS. of, 3376, 338a 
text of, 337 f. 
ar (J.), notice of Dupuis’ Theon Smyrnacus, 
262 f. 
notice of Praechter’s ed. of Cebes’ Tabula, 265 
notice of Wohlrab’s Republic of Plato, 261 f. 
Adelphoe, Terence’s, Ashmore’s ed. of, noticed, 61 f. 
adiutorium, 134a 
adjectives as substantives in Modern Greek, 100) 
*‘adnominal’ case, 401) 
‘adverbal’ genitive, 402¢ 
adverbs, 403a 
Aegean pottery in Egypt and its date, 320 ff. 
Aeolic and Thessalian dialects, connexion between, 
210 f. 
Ageladas and Phidias, 70 
ai ypapal (as yéyparrat) in N.T., argument from, 
216a, 312a 
Akhmim fragment of the Book of Enoch, 42a 
Gospel according to Peter, 365 ff. 
albo rete (alba linea) converrere, 26a 
Aldine Greek, 82a 
alius, compar. constr. with, 457@ 
Allbutt (T. Clifford), notice of Kobert’s Historical 
Studies (vol. iii.), 309 f. 
ea D.), notice of Reichardt’s Saturnian Metre, 
58 ff. 











NO. LXXIV. VOL. VIII. 


1 The Index is by W. F. R. SumieTo, M.A., formerly Foundation Scholar of Christ’s College, Cambridge. 


Allen (T. W.), note on Juvenal (iv. 116), 16 f. 
Altavilla Silentina (Lucania), discovery of tomb at, 
2776 
altitudo, 2606 
Aly’s Geschichte der rémischen Litteratur, noticed, 
413 f. 
amento, orthography of, 38) 
avaBarixdy TMavAov, the, 102a 
‘anaclasis,’ 3710 
anaphora (cataphora), 261a 
évapxla in the interval between Solon and Damasias, 
333 ff 
avacaker, notes on the word, 198 ff., 348 
Anaximander a pioneer in evolution, 424a 
Anderson (W. C. F.), notice of Alice Zimmern’s 
transl. of Bliimner’s Home Life of the Ancient 
Greeks, 213 f. 
notice of Engelmann’s ed. of Guhl and Koner’s 
Leben der Griechen und Rémer, 323 f. 
Anrich’s Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss 
auf das Christentum, noticed, 417 f. 
ante annos, 129b 
antiscia, 2610 
Antius Lupus, restitutio memoriae of, 433a 
aor. part. + verb, priority of time in, 34a 
Aper in Tac. Dial., style of, 107@ (n.) 
Aphrodite and Dionysus, worship of, 87 f. 
Apocalypsis Mariae Virginis, the, 103a, b 
Apocrypha Anecdota, James’, noticed, 101 ff. 
Apollo of the Belvedere, 2230 
throne of at Amyklae, 7. 
aposia, 26) 
appellatio)( provocatio, 142 ff. 
Arabian kunya, the, 383 (n.) 
study of medicine, 310a 
arcera, 26b 
Archaeology, 69 ff., 123 ff., 169 ff., 216 ff, 270 ff. 
318 ff., 375 ff., 419 ff., 471 ff. 
Archilochus, notes on, 147 f. 
Areopagitic Council, function of the, 334a 
trial for murder before the, 462 f. 
Arezzo, vase-finds at, 128), 472a 
Argos, excavations at, 327a, b. 
aris (=aridus), 26b 
Aristeas’ letter to Philokrates, emendations in, 349 
Aristides and Irenaeus, 65 
Apology of, 64b, 65 
Aristides Quintilianus on Greek music, 450a, 452) 
Aristophanes, Doric futures in, 17 ff. 
Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens, Kaibel on, noticed, 
160 ff. 
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff on, noticed, 205 ff. 
subdivisions of ‘Particular Justice,’ 185 ff. 





LL 


478 


Aristoxenus on Greek music, 449 ff. a 
&puovla and tévos in Greek music, 397 (see 448 ff. ) 
various meanings of, 4500 
Arnim’s (von) Divnis Prusaensis quem vocant Chry- 
sostomum quae extant omnia, noticed, 469 f: 
Ashmore (Sidney G.), notice of Schlee’s Scholia 
Terentiana, 353 ff. 
Ashmore’s ei. of Terence’s Adelphoe, noticed, 61 f. 
Asia Minor, Cities of, Weber's, noticed, 71 f. 
assurgere with abl., 26d 
at=%\(atque=Arep, 458) (n.) 
Athena, temples of on the Akropolis, 173 ff. 
Athene Ergane and her Aixvoy, 270 f. 
Athenian constitution, development of the, 468 f. 
constitutional history (594—580 B.c.), conjec- 
tures on, 333 ff. 
hegemony, beginning of the, 195 f. 
women compared with Japanese, 414a 
Athens, discoveries at, 726, 229a, 278a 
the Moderate Party at, and the Revolution of 
411 B.c., 1530, 154a 
Athos MS. of the Homeric Hymns, collation of the, 
341 ff 
Atthidographs, theory of, 2056, 206a 
augment in Homer, the, 13la 
Augustin de Catechizandis Rudibus, Kriiger’s, no- 
ticed, 470 
Augustine and Milton—a parallel, 147 
Augustus, special jurisdiction of, 144a, 4300, 436a 
aunculus (avonculus), 158b 


B. 


Babrius, recently discovered Fables of, 248 
‘Babylon’ in 1 Pet. (v. 13), 102 
= Cairo in mediaeval Spanish MSS., 1026 

Bacchae, problem of the, 85 ff. 

Baehrens’ Catulli Veronensis liber, ed. by Schulze, 
noticed, 251 ff. 

Bale (Bishop), Kyng Johan of, 616 

Ball (P. K.), Varia, 197 f. 

Barlaam and Josaphat, story of, 64b, 65 

Basilis and Bathos, excavations at, 73a 

Bates (William N.), notice of Sommerbrodt’s 
Lucian, 212 f. 

Battle (W. J.), notice of Johnson’s Use of the 
Subjunctive and Optative in Euripides, 215 

Bechtel and Fick’s Die Gricchischen Personennamen 
nach ihrer Bildung erklért und systematisch geord- 
net, noticed, 459 ff. 

Beloch’s Gricchische Geschichte, noticed, 163 f. 

Bénard’s Platon : sa philosophie, noticed, 1194 

benevolus (malevolus), 261a 

Bennett (E. N.), notice of James’ Apocrypha 
Anecdota, 101 ff. 

Bentley on Lucan, 34, 376 

bestiis subrigi, 263b 

Bibliography, 78 ff., 132, 183 f., 230 ff., 280, 329 ff., 
379 f., 426 ff., 475 f. 

Bind'ey’s ed. of Tertullian De Praescriptione Hacreti- 
corum, noticed, 311 

Biserta (anc. Hippo-Zarytus), discovery of sacrificial 
bowl at, 472a, b 

Blakeney (Edward Henry), notice of Gwatkin’s 
Selections from Early Christian Writers, 120 

Blass’ Attische Beredsamkeit (III. i. Demosthenes), 
noticed, 465 

Bliimner’s Home Life of the Ancient Greeks, transl. 
by Alice Zimmern, noticed, 213 f. 

Bodensteiner’s Scenische Fragen iiber den Ort des 
Auftretens und Abgehens von Schauspielern und 


Chor im gricchischen Drama, noticed, 175 ff. (see 
318 ff.) 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Bolderman’s Studia Lucianca, noticed, 359 ff. 
Bolte and Schmidt’s edd. of the Acolastus and Pam- 
machius, noticed, 61 
bona aetas, 266 
Bonnet (Max), sur les Actes de Xanthippe et 
Polyxéne, 336 ff. 
Book of Enoch, Charles’ transl. of the, noticed, 41 ff. 
Bopp the founder of the modern science of language, 
3990 
Bosius (Du Bos) and his MSS., 2940 ' 
Botsford (George W.), on the beginning of the 
Athenian hegemony, 195 f. 
Botsford’s Development of the Athenian Constitution, 
noticed, 468 f. = 
Bougot and Bertrand on Philostratos, 180a 
brevis brevians, law of the, 158a, 6 
Britain, Roman remains in, 227 f. 
British Museum, arrangement of papyriin, 45, 46a 
Brooke (A. E.), notice of The Gospel according to 
Peter (by the author of Supernatural Religion), 
365 ff. 
Bruns’ Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, Mommsen and 
Gradenwitz’ ed. of, noticed, 162 
Burckhardt’s ed. of Hierocles’ Synecdemus, noticed 
40 f. 
Burnett (John), notice of Windelband’s Ancient 
Philosophy, 463 f. 
Burton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New 
Testament Greck, noticed, 369 f. 
Bury (J. B.), note on Eur. Med. (160, 179), 301 
on ace mwAcLoTHpNS, TAELoTHpl Comat, 
301 f. 
Bury (R. G.), notice of Bénard’s Platon: sa 
philosophie, 1194 
notice of Horn’s Platonstudien, 119 f. 
on the use of d¥vauis and vars in Plato, 297 ff. 
Bywater (Ingram), suggestions on the Stromateis 
of Clement of Alexandria, 233, 235a, 281 ff., 
386 ff. : 
Byzantine Proverbs, Krumbacher’s noticed, 374 


C. 
cacodaemon, 261a 
Calliopius—his identity with Aleuin (?), 355a 
Calymna and Leros, note on, 375 ff. 
Campbell (Lewis), on a parallel in Milton and 
Pindar, 349 
Campli (Picenum), coin-finds at, 471) 
Canosa, discoveries at, 472a 
Capannori (Etruria), discoveries at, 277) 
Capodimonte (Tuscany), primitive sepulchre at, 4710 
Capps (Edward), notice of Jebb’s ed. of the 
Trachiniae, 404 ff. 
notice of Weissmann’s Diss. Inaug. on the 
Greek Theatre, 124 ff. 
on ne side-entrances to the Greek Theatre, 
318 ff. 
Caracalla and the restitutio, 431a. 
cardo, 260b 
Caria, inscription in, 422a 
Carlisle, inscription found at, 228a 
carmen necessarium, 373b 
Carter (Frank), note on Eur. Jon (1276), 399 
Carthage, the harbours of, 271 ff. 
‘ Cassel type,’ Overbeck’s, 171 (n.) 
Castellon, Iberian inscription at, 358a, 359) 
Catholic plain-song descended from ane. 
music, 449a 
Cato de Agricultura, Keil’s ed. of, noticed, 308 f. 
Catulius (xxix. 23), note on, 202 
Baehrens’, ed. by Schulze, noticed, 251 ff. 
Merrill’s ed. of, noticed, 38 f. 
MSS. of, 384 (and n.), 253 ff. 
Owen’s ed. of, noticed, 39 f. 


Greek 





INDEX. 


cavé-faxis (Plautus), 158 
Cebes’ Tabula, Praechter’s ed. of, noticed, 265 
Chalkeia, the, 270a, 271a (and n.) 
Charles’ transl. of the Book of Enoch, noticed, 41 ff. 
Chase’s The Old Syriac Element in the Text of the 
Codex Bezae, noticed, 29 ff. 
Cheetham (S.), on the Province of Galatia, 396 
Chester, tombstone inscription at, 228@ 
chorus in the Greek drama, the, 319d, 320a 
Christie (F. A.), notice of Roberts’ Short Proof 
that Greek was the Language of Christ, 215 f. 
supplementary note on author's reply, 312 f. 
chronocrator, 261a 
Cicero ad Fam. (xi. 13), on the chronology of, 12 f. 
(ep. 201) 
de eA (Book i.), Moor’s transl. of, noticed, 
118 f. 
pro Milone, Colson’s ed. of, noticed, 117 
pro Murena, Freese’s ed. of, noticed, 467 
Tuse. (i. 22, 50), note on, 446 f. 
Cicero’s Letters and comic diction, parallelism 
between, 3920 (n.) 
Mendelssuhn’s ed. of, noticed, 115 ff. 
to Atticus, Lehmann’s ed. of, noticed, 114 f. 
Schmidt’s ed. of, noticed, 364 f., 466 f. 
Cinna’s Smyrna, 353) 
Ciris, Ganzenmiiller’s, noticed, 352 f. 
Classical Studies in honour of Henry Drisler, noticed, 
424 f, 
Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis, critical notes 
on, 233 ff., 281 tf., 385 ff. 
history of the text, 233a 
main difficulties in its criticism, 2330 
single MS. of, 233, d 
want of accuracy, 2376 
Codex Bezac, The Ola Syriac Element in the Text of 
the, noticed, 29 ff 
Coin-portraits of Mytilenean worthies, 226 f. 
Coins of Malta, Gozo, and Pantelleria, Mayr’s, 
noticed, 471 
Colson’s ed. of Cicero pro Milone, noticed, 117 
Comparative Syntax, Delbriick’s, noticed, 399 ff. 
system in Greek art, the, 126a, 127, 170a 
Concordia Sagittaria (Venetia), inscriptions at, 128), 
276) 
confarreatio, 372b 
Conington and Nettleship on opera (operae est), 347b 
Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Hierocles, 40d 
Constantinides (M.), collation of the Athos MS. 
of the Homeric Hymns, 341 ff. 
‘Constantius heros,’ metrical epitaph to, 765 
Constitution of Athens, Aristotle’s authorities for 
the, 205 f. 
Constitutional history of Athens (594—580 B.c.), 
conjectures on the, 333 ff. 
convicinsus (conviciose), 264) 
Conway (R. S.), notice of Hiibner’s Moawmenta 
Linguae Lhericae, 357 ff. 
ou the word avacaxer, 348 
Cook (Arthur Bernard), notes on Archilochus, 
147 f. 
on descriptive animal names in Greece, 381 ff. 
on Theophilus ad Autolycum (ii. 7), 246 ff. 
Coptic Church and 1 Peter, the, 102) 
Corinth before Cypselus, government of, 770 
Corneto-Tarquinii, excavations at, 277), 421a, b 
coronatio, 134a 
Corpus Glossariorum Latinorwm iii. 
263 f. 
Corpus Poetarum Latinorum, Postgate’s ed. of the, 
noticed, 302 ff. 
Corrections in Lewis and Short, 25 ff. 
Liddell aud Scott, 146 
Cortona, cinerary urn discovered at, 421a 


v., noticed, 


479 


Cothon at Carthage, the, 272 f. 

meaning of the word, 272a 
Crete, discoveries in, 278) 

early writing in the Mycenaean age in, 422a 
Critical notes ou Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis, 

233 ff., 281 ff., 385 ff. 

Plato’s Ltepublic, 22 ff., 192 ff., 222 ff, 393 ff. 
curabilis, 26b 
Curtius (x. 1, 19), note on, 445 f. 
‘cyclic’ dactyl, the, 370), 3716 


Dz 


Damascen (John) and Leontius, 1126, 113a 

Damasias, the apxn of, 3356 

damnatio memoriae, 433a 

Damsté (P. H.), note on Curtius (x. 1, 19), 445 f. 

dative, the, 40la, b, 4026 

of nouns in -ts (Homeric), 464a, 6 

decurin)(tribus, 116 

Dehnelasse, Curtius’, 38a, 6 

deiunyere, 26b 

Delbriick’s Vergleichende Syntax der indogermani- 
schen Sprachen, noticed, 399 ff. 

‘delirium delens’ of editors, 75) 

Delphi, excavations at, 327), 472a 

Paean to Apollo at, 2784, 313), 472a 
Demosthenes, Blass on, noticed, 465 
Descriptive animal names in Greece, 381 ff. 
(a) provincial (4) euphemistic in origin, 382, 
383 f. ; not 
‘ oracular or religious,’ 381 
desimus (perf.), 26 
570ev, note on the uses of, 441 ff. 
origin of the word, 443 

deturpo, 26b 

dex ter)(sinis-ter, 456a 

Dialogus of Tacitus, Peterson’s ed. of the, noticed, 
106 ff. 

diaskeuast, the, 408d, 4090 

Diatessaron, St. Mark in the, 9 f. 

Diitrephes of Kresilas, the, 219a 

Dio Chrysostom, von Arnim’s ed. of, noticed, 469 f. 

Diocletian era. dating by the, 716 

Diodorus Siculus, inaceuracy of, 1236 

Dionysus, worship of, 87 f., 165 f. 

diphthongs, monophthongal correlates of, 945 

Dipylon vase, the, 229) 

dissimulare feras, 26b 

dodecatemorion, 260b 

domicilium, ib. 

domina (dominus), tb. 

domus, tb. 

Donovan (J.), notice of Hale’s ‘extended’ and 
‘remote’ deliberatives in Greek [T7rans. Amer. 
Phil. Assoc.], 410 ff. 

on the prospective subjunctive and optative, 
145 

Dorian invasion, myth of the, 163d 

‘ Dorian’ octave, the, 448@ 

Doric futures in Aristophanes, 17 ff. 

Drisler (Henry), Classical Studies in honour of, 
noticed, 424 f. 

dual, the, 400d 

usage of in Xenophon and Polybius, 129a 

ductus, 26 

Dunn (G.), on the Long Sonants, 94 ff. 

Dupuis’ Théon de Smyrne, noticed, 262 f. 


E. 


Earle (Mortimer Lamson), various emendations, 
11.f. 
arly Christian Literature, Harnack’s, noticed, 63 


Tie 


480 


Early Christian Writers, Gwatkin’s, noticed, 120 

East Frieze of the Parthenon, central group of the, 
225 f. 

eceycléma, the, 1774 

éxrnudpor or éxtnudpiol notes on, 
347 f., 444 f. 


146, 296 f., 


Egbert (James C. Jr.), note on Plautus’ Amphi- | 


truo (i. 1, 26—80), 203 
Elder Praxiteles, theory of an,.172b, 173a, 2230 (n.) 
clementum, derivation of, 345d 
notes on, 344 f. 
elementa (= orotxeta), 345d 
Eleusinian Mysteries, suggested influence of the on 
St. Paul, 1500, 268 ff., 3750, 418a 
‘elliptic plural,’ the, 4006 
Ellis (Robinson), collation of Madrid MS. of 
Manilius with Jacob’s text, 4 ff., 138 ff., 289 ff. 
notice of Ganzenmiiller’s Ciris, 352 f. 
notice of Merrill’s and Owen’s edd. of Catullus, 
38 ff. 
notice of Postgate’s Corpus Poetarwm Latin- 
orwin, 302 ff. 
notice of Tappertz’ Use of the Conjunctions in 
Manilius, 218 
emendation in the 
krates,’ an, 349 
no recognized principle in, 3650 
Engelmann’s ed. of Guhl and Koner’s Leben der 
Griechen und Rémer, noticed, 323 f. 
England (E. B.), on H. Stephen’s Vetustissima 
Excemplaria, 196 f. (see 251, 294 f.) 
English mode of voting for poor-law guardians, 
1894 
Englishmen, old Romans compared to modern, 105a 
enharmonic and diatonic scales, the, 4526, 453a 
Ephesus, Guide to, Weber's, noticed, 72 
Ephetae and Phylobasileis, the, 462a, b 
Epidauros, the stadium at, 327) 
epigri, 26b 3 
Erasmian pronunciation and modern Greek, 100a 
Erechtheion, date, plan, and artist of the, 1740 
Eretria, discoveries at, 4216, 422a 
Erhardt’s Die Enstehung der Homerischen Gedichte, 
408 ff. 
Erlangen MS. 
noticed, 371 f. 
Erotianus, glosses of, 57b, 58 
Erstarrung, process of, 403a 
Este, discoveries at, 128) 
Estienne (see Stephens) 
euphemisms in animal names, general, 383 f. 
in modern Greece, 3840 
in totem clans, 383a@ 
Kuphranor of Corinth and his works, 222 
Euripides Bacchae (560), note on, 204d (see 296) 
problem of the, 85 ff. 
illustrations of the Phoenissae (923—928 &c.), 
325 ff. 
Ion (1276), note on, 399 
Medea (160, 170), note on, 301 
notes on the Helena, 202 f., 447 
remarks on the Supplices, 6 ff. 
use of the subjunctive and optative in, 215 
Justathios, Neumann’s, noticed, 110 f. 
cucutere (= &uBAloreyv), 26b 
cxsultans (in Quintilian), 7b. 
‘extended’ and ‘remote’ deliberatives, Greek, 27 f., 
410 ff. 
izra’s Temple, 89 f., 92 f. 


‘Letter of Aristeas to Philo- 


of Lucan, Genthe’s treatise on, 


Lie 
fabulo, fabulor, 392b 


facere (= féCew, sacrifice) only when uncompounded, 
199a, b 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Fasti Praetorii, Levison’s, noticed, 62 f. 
Fay (Edwin Whitfield), note on 
(Plaut. Capt, 550, 553, 555), 391 f. 

note on Cicero Tuse. (i. 22, 50), 446 f. 
notice of Schwab’s Syntax of the Greck 
Comparative, 454 ff. 

Seminina (masculina) signa, 2614 

Fennell’s Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes, 
noticed, 49 f, 

T. Macei Plauti Stichus, noticed, 158 ff. 

Fick and Bechtel’s Die Griechischen Personennamen 
nach ihrer Bildung erklért und systematisch 
geordnet, noticed, 459 ff. 

Field (W. G.), notes on the Rudens, 99 f. 

Finding of the Holy Cross, legend of the, 470, 48 

Firmicus Maternus, Sittl’s ed. of, noticed, 260 f. 

Florence, Roman well and relief at, 277a 

Focillo)( foctlo, 25b 

Fordingbridge, discovery of coins at, 228a 

Fowler (W. Warde), note on Pliny Hist. Nat. 
(iii. 142), 11 ; 

Fraccaroli’s Le Odi di Pindaro dichiarate e tradotte, 
noticed, 207 ff. 

Fragment of the music of Orestes, notes on a, 313 
ff. (see 397 f.) 

Freese’s M. Tullit Ciceronis pro L. Murena oratio 
ad iudices, noticed, 467 

Froehde’s Valerit Probi de nomine libellus, noticed, 
265 f. 

Sulca (fulica), 266 

Fuller (A. L.), 
Lucianea, 359 ff. 

Junus censorium, 2650 

collaticium, 264a : 

Furneaux (H.), notice of Peterson’s Dialogus of 
Tacitus, 106 ff. 

Furtwingler’s Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plastik, 
noticed, 169 ff., 219 ff. 

Plates in, 224 


insputarier 


notice of “Bolderman’s Stadia 


G. 


Galatia, the province of, 396 
Galen, commentaries of, 576, 58a 
Galenical doctrine, the, 310a 
Ganzenmiiller’s Beitrdge zur Ciris, noticed, 352 f. 
Gardner (Ernest), note on Pliny Hist. Nat. 
(xxxiv. 58), 69 f. 
note on Phidias and Hegias, 70 
Gardner (Percy), reply to notice of The Origin of 
the Lord’s Supper, 267 ff. 
Gardner’s The Origin of the Lord’s Supper, noticed, 
148 ff. 
Garlick (Constance), note on Goodyear’s Grammar 
of the Lotus, 228 f. 
Gauris or Maurion (?), Hartwig on, 419 f. 
gender, the problems of, 400a 
Geneva fragments of Homer, the, 134 ff. 
genitive, the, 401), 4024 
after superlatives, 456 
in -oo (Homeric), 4640 
Genthe’s De Lucant codice Erlangensi, noticed, 371 f. 
Germanic forms and the long sonant, 96 
Gizeh fragment of the Book of Enoch, 43a 
Gjobaschi, friezes of W. wall of, 229 
Gleue’s De Homicidarum in Areopago Atheniensi 
Judicio, noticed, 462 f. 
Glevum (Gloucester), inscribed tile found at, 228@ 
genomic aorist, the, 340 
Goodell (Thomas Dwight), notice of Botsford’s 
Development of the Athenian Constitution, 468 f. 
notice of Thumser’s revision of Hermann’s 
Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitdten, 54 ff. 





INDEX. 


Goodhart’s The Eight Book of Thucydides, noticed, 
152 fff. 
Goodwin's Hymni Homeric?, noticed, 156 f. 
Gospel according to Peter, The (by the author of 
Supernatural Religion), noticed, 365 ff. 
its alleged independence of the Four Canonical 
Gospels, 366a, 0 
Gow (J.), notice of Robert’s Phaedrus, 368 f. 
Gradenwitz and Mommsen’s ed. of Bruns’ Fontes 
LIuris Romani Antiqui, noticed, 162 
graffiti, characteristic qualities of, 218d (and n.) 
Grammar of the Lotus, Goodyear’s, note on, 228 f. 
Gray (J. H.), notes on Plautus 7'’rwewl., 447 f. 
Gray’s 7. Macei Plauti Epidicus, noticed, 158 ff. 
Great St. Bernard, excavations at, 421la 
Greek aorist, notes on the, 13 ff. (sce 239 ff.) 
Christ’s mother-tongue, 215 f., 311 ff. 
colonies in S. Italy, linguistic influence of, 200a 
comparative, syntax of the, 454 ff. 
descriptive animal names, 381 ff. 
dialects, 210 ff. 
evidence for the origin of the Imperial appeal, 
142 ff. 
‘extended’ and ‘remote’ deliberatives, 27 f., 
410 ff. 
forms and the long sonant, 95 f. 
history, 163 f. 
music, apuovla and tévos in 397 
explanation of the loss of, 317 
extant remains of, 453d 
modes of, 448 ff. 
mythology, free treatment of details in, 438 
numeration of events, 334) 
papyri in the British Museum, 45 ff. 
poetry, 257 ff. 
printing and writing, 81 f. 
proper names, 459 ff. 
psalter of the third century, fragment of a, 46 
‘remote deliberative’ and ‘prospective sub- 
junctive and optative,’ 28 f., 166 f. ‘ 
romance, a, 77a@ 
sculpture, 169 ff., 219 ff. 
sophists and philosophers, influence of, 164a, 
subjunctives (a) volitive (4) anticipatory, 167) 
syntax in N.T., 369 f. 
theatre, 124 ff., 175 ff., 318 ff. 
type, a new fount of, 81 ff. 
vase-painting, 126 ff. 
Greenhill (William Alexander, 
notice of, 423 f. 
Greenidge (A. H. J.), on the Greek evidence for the 
origin of the Imperial Appeal, 142 ff. 
on the power of pardon possessed by the 
Princeps, 429 ff. 
Greenough and Peck’s ed. of Livy xxi. and xxii., 
noticed, 121 
Grenfell (B. P.), on a horoscope of the year 316 
A.D., 70 f. 
Gsell’s Essai sur le réqgne de V Emperewr Domitien, 
noticed, 373 
Guhl and Koner’s Leben der Griechen wnd Rimer, 
Engelmann’s ed. of, noticed, 323 f. 
Guide to Ephesus, Weber's, noticed, 72 f. 
Gutschinid’s Kleine Schriften, Riihl’s ed. of, noticed, 
120 f. 
Gwatkin (H. M.), notice of Harnack’s History of 
Early Christian Literature, 63 
Gwatkin’s Selections from Early Christian Writers, 
noticed, 120 


M.D.), obituary 


H. 


Haigh (A. E.), notice of Bodensteiner’s Greek 
Stage, 175 ff. (see 318 ff.) 


Hale (Wm. Gardner), on the ‘extended’ and 


48] 


‘remote’ deliberative in Greek, 27 f., 410 ff. (see 
also 4260) 
on the ‘prospective subjunctive’ in Greek and 
Latin, 166 ff. 
Hallard’s Zdyl/s of Theocritus, transl. into English 
Verse, noticed, 307 f. 
Harberton (Lord), on Cicero ad Fam. (xi. 13), 


Hardie (W. R.), notice of Fennell’s Pindar, 49 f. 
Hardy (E. G.), notice of Levison’s Fasti Praetorii, 
62 f. 
notice of Rushforth’s Latin Historical Inscrip- 
tions, 50 ff. 
Harnack’s Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis 
Eusebius, noticed, 63 
Harrington (Karl P.), note on Plautus Capt. (851), 
249 
Harris (J. Rendel), notice of Bindley’s Tertullian 
De praescriptione Haereticorwm, 311 
notice of Kenyon’s Greek Papyri in the British 
Museum, 45 ff. 
notice of Zahn’s History of the New Testament 
Canon, 63 ff. 
Harrison (Jane E.), notice of Rohde’s Psyche 
(Barats) Ube te 
on the At«voyv of Athene Ergane, 270 f. 
Hartung’s Der Griechischen Meisterschalen der Bliithe- 
zeit des strengen rothfigurigen Stiles, noticed, 
126 ff. 
Hartwig (P.), on the name Gauris or Maurion, 419 f. 
Hatzidakis on the word vepd, 399a 
Haverfield (F.), notice of Gsell’s Reign of Domi- 
tian, 373 
on discoveries of Roman remains in Britain, 
227 f. 
on maps of Roman Britain, &c., 324 f. 
Havet’s doctrine on the Saturnian, 59a 
Hayley (H. W.), note on Tacitus Germ. (29), 201 
Head (Barclay V.), note on C. Septimius, pro- 
consul of Asia (56—55 B.c.), 420 f. 
Headlam (J. W.), notice of Beloch’s History of 
Greece, 163 f. 
notice of Riihl’s ed. 
Schriften, 120 f. 
reply to Thompson’s criticism on slave torture 
in Attic law [see Classical Review vii. 1 ff.], 
136 f. 
Heberden (C. B.), notice of Jusatz’ Zrrationality 
of Rhythm, 370 f. 
Heberdey’s Die Reisen des Pausanias in Gtriechen-. 
land, noticed, 362 ff. 
Hebrew and the Jews of Christ’s time, 216, 312a, 
313a 
Hegias and Phidias, 70 
Heitland (W. E.), notice of Colson’s Cicero pro 
Milone, 117 
notice of Genthe’s Erlangen MS. of Lycan, 
371 f. 
notice of Hosius’ Lucan, 34 ff. 
supplementary note to, 122 e 
on operae (Cie. Mur. 21), 346) 
on the topography of Syracuse, 123 f. 
Hekatompedon, Furtwingler and Frazer on the 
rediscovered, 173d 
Helena’s Finding of the Holy Cross, legend of, 
47b, 48 
helix (in Cicero), 27a 
Henri Estienne, 251 (see 196 f., 294 f.) 
Heracleon on the Temple (St. John ii. 20), 90a 
heres cx libella, 27a 
Herford (C. H.), notice of Jahnke’s Horatian 
Comedies, Bolte’s <Acolastus and Bolte and 
Schwidt’s Pammachius, 60 f. 
Hermagoras, Theile’s ed. of, noticed, 44 f. 


of Gutschmid’s Kleine 


482 


Hermann’s Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitaten, 
Thumser’s revision of, noticed, 54 ff. 

Herod’s Temple, 90 f., 93 

Herwerden (H. van), on recently discovered Fables 
of Babrius, 248 

Hesiod’s so-called ‘oracular or religious style,’ 
381 ; 


to be explained as (a) provincialisms (b) euphe- 


misms, 382 ff. : 

Hettner’s Die Rémischen Steindenkmédler des Pro- 
vincialmuseums zu Trier, noticed, 180 f. 

hieran facere, 27a 

Hierocles’ Synecdemus, Burckhardt’s ed. of, noticed, 
40 f. : 

MSS. of, 40, 41a 

Hill (G. F.), on the East Frieze of the Parthenon, 
D225. 

Hippocrates, llberg’s works on, noticed, 57 f. 

Hirtzel (F. A.), notice of Manitius on edd. of 
Horace in the Middle Ages, 305 f. 

history, methods of writing, 104 

Hoffmann’s Die Griechischen Dialekts in ihrem 
historischen Zusammenhange, mit den wichtigsten 
threr Quellen dargestellt, noticed, 210 ff. 

Holland, Greek printing in, 82a 


Home Life of the Ancient Greeks, Bliimner’s, Alice 


Zimmern’s transl. of, noticed, 213 f. 
Homer, Geneva fragments of, 134 ff. 
Homer, Hymn to Hermes (33), note on, 398 
Iliad, analysis of, 408), 409a 
independent rhapsodies in, 409a 
Peisistratos and, 409) 
trial scene in (Z/. xviii. 497508), 1 ff. 
‘ Homeric bowls,’ 3255 
Hymns, collation of Athos MS. of, 341 ff. 
Goodwin’s ed. of, noticed, 156 f. 
edd. of, 156a 
MSS. of, 1564 
question, Erhardt on the, noticed, 408 ff. 
sortes, 48b, 49a 
tenses, Mutzbauer on the, noticed, 33 f. 
Hopkins’ Tacitus, the Agricola and Germania, 
noticed, 367 
Horace, Carm. Saec., analysis of, 328 
classes addressel by, 680 
corruptions in, 676 
date of Ars Poet., 68 
edd. of in the Middle Ages, 305 f. 
Ep. (i. 1, 51), note on, 302 
influence of in France and Germany, 3060; 
Great Britain, 306a; Italy, 305a; Spain, 
306a 
lacunae in, 660 
MSS. of, 3056 
new readings in, 67) 
quotations from, 3060 
rejections in, 66a 
Sat. (i. 10), Mustard’s note on, noticed, 68 f. 
ee and Epistles, Mueller’s ed. of, noticed, 
Horatian Comedies, Jahnke’s, noticed, 60 f. 
Horn’s Platonstudien, noticed, 119 f. 
horoscope of the year 316 a.p., a, 70 f 
pres gerne ie) F.), notes on Euripides’ Helena, 
Horton-Smith (L.), on the word avacaxer, 198 ff. 
Hosius’ ed. of Lucan, noticed, 34 ff. (see 122) 
Housman (A. E.), notice of Schulze’s ed. of 
Baehrens’ Catullus, 251 ff. 
ee Monumenta Linguae Ibericae, noticed, 
5 5 
Hutchison (J.), notice of Anrich on the Mysteries 
and Christianity, 417 f. 
hyper-Dorisms, 201a, 6 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


hypocoristic comparative, 46la 
names, 460d 
their formation, 461la 
‘hysteron-proteron, absurdity and explanation of, 
203 f. 


Le dI- 


Jackson (Henry), suggestions on the Stromateis of 
Clement of Alexandria, 233a, 235 f., 282 ff., 387a - 

Jahnke’s Horatian Comedies, noticed, 60 f. 

James (M. R.), notice of Charles’ transl. of the 
Book of Enoch, 41 ff. : ; 

James’ Apocrypha Anecdota (‘Texts and Studies’), 
noticed, 101 ff. : 5 

Jannaris (A. N.), note on the Modern Greek vepd, 
100 f. 

Iberian alphabets, 3580 

inscription at Castellon, 358a, 359a 
race—identical with the Basques (?), 358a 

Jebb on Trach. 1260, 1261 (Append.), 1976 

Jebb’s Electra, noticed, 350 f. 

Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry, 
noticed, 257 ff. 

Trachiniae, noticed, 404 ff. 

iepa (‘Sacra Parallela’), the, 111 ff. 

arrangement of, 112 

authorship of, 1124, 113a 

contents of, 1110 

date of, 1126 

MSS. of, 112a : 

Jerram (C. S.), notes on Euripides’ Helena, 447 

Jerusalem MS. of Hierocles, 40a 

Ilbery’s Das Hippocrates-Glossar des Erotianos und 
seine urspriingliche Gestalt and Prolegomena Critica 
in Hippocratis operum quae feruntur recensionem 
novam, noticed, 57 f. 

Illustrations of Euripides’ Phoenissae, 325 ff. 

Image’s new ‘ Greeks,’ 820 

Imperial appeal, the, Greek evidence for its origin, 
142 ff. 

impuns = impudens, 27a 

inequito, 134b 

Inge (W. R.), corrections and additions in Lewis- 
Short’s Lexicon, 25 ff. 

initia (= apxat), 3455 

Inscriptions from Kos and Halicarnassus, 216 ff. 

insputarier, note on, 391 f. 

instabilis, 27a 

intercessio of the emperor, 144a, 431b 

John (St.), method of reckoning the hours of the 
day, 248 ff. 

note on the Temple (ii. 20), 89 ff. 

Johnson’s De Coniunctivi et Optativi Usu Euripideo 
in Enunciatis Finalibus et Condicionalibus, noticed, 
215 

Jones (H. Stuart), notice of Monro’s Modes of ; 
Ancient Greck Music, 448 ff. 

Josephus, chronology of, 77) 

tos, compounds of iu proper names, 4600 

Treland, Roman troops in (?), 325a 

Irish wakes, an Oriental survival, 415d ¥ 

Irenaeus and the Apology of Aristides, 65 4 

Trrationnlity of Rhythm, Jusatz’, noticed, 370 f. 

irreparabtiliter, 1346 

it caelo clamor, 401b 

iterative optative, 340 

tubar, 27a 

Judson (H. P.), notice of Pelham’s Outlines of 
Roman History, 104 ff. 

Jus naturale)(Jus civile, 1916 

Jusatz’ De irrationalitate studia rhythmica, noticed 
376 f. 

Juvenal (iv. 116), note on, 16 f. 








INDEX. 


K. 


Kaibel’s Stil wnd Text der Nodrrela AOnvalwv des 
Aristoteles, noticed, 160 ff. 

Kallimachos and his school, 1740 

Keil’s Commentarius in Catonis de agri cultura 
librwm, noticed, 308 f. 

aera (F. G.), notice of LUberg’s Hippocrates, 
oy fay 

on the Geneva fragments of Homer, 134 ff. 

Kenyon’s Greek Papyri in the British Musewm, 
noticed, 45 ff. 

Kertch, discovery of lion’s head at, 471) 

Kiepert’s Atlas Antiquus, noticed, 324 f. 

Knapp (Charles), note on Horace Lp. (i. 1, 51), 
302 

Kobert’s Historische Studien aus dem Pharmako- 
logischen der K. Universitét Dorpat, Vol. II1., 
noticed, 309 f. 

Kos and Halicarnassus, Luscriptions from, 216 ff. 

Kosenamen, 459b, 460a 

Kreimbach in dem Pfalz, discoveries at, 229a, 4710 

Kresilas and his works, 219 

and Myron, 220a 

Kriiger’s Augustin de Catechizandis Rudibus, noticed, 
470 

Krumbacher on the word vepé, 398) 

Krumbacher’s Mittelgriechische 
noticed, 374 

kunya, the Arabian, 383 (1. ) 
applied to animals, 7b. 

Kynaston (H.), notice of Hallard’s transl. of 
Theocritus’ Jdylis, 307 f. 


Sprichworter, 


L. 


Laconian o for 6, 200a, b 
Laird (A. G.), notice of Hoffmann’s Greek Dialects, 
210 ff. 
Lamprokles on apuovla, 451) 
Latin fragment of the Book of Enoch, 43a, 64a 
historical inscriptions, 50 ff. 
lexiccgraphy, 133 f., 266 
‘ prospective subjunctive,’ 145, 168, 169 
verse, a plea for, 122@ 
Leaf (Walter), notice of Erhardt’s Die Enstehwng 
der Homerischen Gedichte, 408 ff. 
notice of Neumann’s Eustuthios, 110 f. 
leges Juliae on Roman procedure, the, 435d (n.) 
Lehmann’s De Ciceronis ad Atticwm epistulis recen- 
sendis et emendandis, noticed, 114 f. 
pea Athena, discovery of a copy of the, 1700, 
17la 
leonine hexameter, the, 600 
Leontius and John Damascen, 112), 113a 
‘Origenism’ of, 1120 
Leprignano (Etruria), discoveries at, 277a 
Leros, inscription at, 3765 
Levison’s Fasti Praetorii, noticed, 62 ff. 
Lewis and Short’s Lexicon, corrections and additions 
in, 25 ff. 
on opera (operae est), 346 
Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon, corrections for, 146 
Lindsay (W. M.), notice of two school edd. of 
Plautus, 158 ff. 
Lindsay ‘On the Saturnian Motre’ [American 
Journal of Philology], noticed, 108 ff. 
Literary frauds among the Greeks, 424), 425a 
Livadia, cave of Trophonios (!) at, 278) 
Livy xxi. and xxii., Greenkough and Peck’s ed. of, 
noticed, 121 
a borrower from Thucydides, 130a 


long souants, the, 94 tl. 
genesis of, 97 
in Germanic forms, 96 
in Greek forms, 95 f. 
Loofs’ Studien tiber die dem Johannes von Danvascus 
zugeschriebenen Parallelen, noticed, 111 ff. 
Lord’s Supper, origin of the, 148 ff., 267 ff. 
Lotus, note on the, 228 f. 
Lycan, Bentley on, 34, 37 
Hosius’ ed. of, noticed, 34 ff. (see also 122) 
MSS. of, 35a, 122, 371 f. 
orthography of, 38) 
Pauline recension of, 35 ff., 371%, 372 
Withof on, 34), 370 
Lucian, attitude of towards Christianity, 36la 
classification of works, 359a, b, 3600 
date of birth and writings, 359), 360a 
MSS. of, 212a 
Sommerbrodt’s ed. of, noticed, 212 f. 
supposititious writings of, 361) 
Lucretius (iv. 741), note on, 29 
Munro and, 304 


M. 


Mackail (J. W.), notice of Jebb’s Growth and 
Influence of Classical Greek Poetry, 257 1. 
Madrid MS. of Manilius, collated, 4 ff., 138 ff., 289 ff. 
Maeander, Strabo’s description of the, 72a 
magic papyri, 470, ff 
Mahaffy (J. P.), an emendation in the ‘ Letter of 
Aristeas to Philokrates,’ 349 
Maine’s Ancient Law quoted, 187) 
malo)(uadrrdov, 458d (n.) 
manduta of the emperor, 430), 4382a 
maneo With dative, 27a 
Manilius, collation of the Madrid MS. with text 
of Jacob, 4 ff., 138 ff., 289 ff. 
Tappertz’ Use of the Conjunetions in, noticed, 
213 
Manitius’ Analekten zur Geschichte des Horaz in 
Mittclalter (bis 1300), noticed, 305 f. 
mapalia, 27a 
Maps of Koman Britain, &c., 324 f. 
Marchant (E. C.), notice of Goodhart’s Thucyd- 
ides viii., 152 ff. 
remarks on Euripides’ Supplices, 6 ff. 
Mark (St.) in the Diatessaron, 9 f. 
Martial (ii. 66), note on, 148 
Matabeleland, discovery of coins in, 278) 
Mayor (John E. B.), notice of the Corpus Glossa- 
riorwm Latinorum iii. v., 263 f. 
notice of Sittl’s Firmicus, 260 f. 
on a parallel in Augustine and Milton, 147 
on announcements avd recent contributions to 
Latin Lexicography, 266 
on the new Thesaurus Linguac Latinae, 138 f. 
Mayor (J. B.), critical notes on the Stromateis of 
Clement of Alexandria, 233 ff., 281 ff., 385 ff. 
notice of Gardner’s Origin of the Lord's Supper, 
148 ff. 
supplementary note on author's repply, 269 f. 
Mayr’s Die antiken Miinzen der Inseln Malta, Gozo 
und Pantelleria, noticed, 471 
méchané, the, 177a, b 
Medusa Ludovisi, the so-called, 425 
Megalopolis, the Thersilion at, 73a, 6 
‘ Megarian bowls,’ 325) 
Melampus, legend of, 8865 
meminens, 27b 
Mendelssohn’s M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistularum 
Libri Sedecim, noticed, 115 ff. 
Merrill (W. A.), notice of Fréhde on Probus de 
nomine libellus, 265 f. 


484 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Merrill (W. A.), continued— 
notice of Preston and Dodge’s Private Life of 
the Romans, 372 f. 
notice of Vollmer’s De funere publico Romanorum, 
264 f. 
Merrill’s ed. of Catullus, noticed, 38 f. 
placua Kédpov (Cic. ad Att. xiii. 42 fin.); 467a, b 


Michael of Ephesus on Aristotelian Justice, 1850 — 


(n.), 1896 ; : 
micidus, 466) 
Milan, Latin inscriptions at, 471 
Milton and Augustine—a parallel, 147 

and Pindar—a parallel, 349 
mi(n)sterium (ministeriwm), 158) 
minutum, 261a 
Mitylenean worthies, coin-portraits of, 226 f. 
Modern Greek vepé, derivation of, 100 f., 398 f. 
Modes of Ancient Greek Music, Monro’s, noticed, 

448 ff. 

Mommsen and Gradenwitz ed. of Bruns’ Fontes 

Turis Romani Antiqui, noticed, 162 

criticisms on, 414a@ 
Monro (D. B.), notice of Delbriick’s Comparative 

Syntax, 399 ff. 

notice of. Mutzbauer’s Homeric Tenses, 33 f. 
notice of Platt’s Z/iad, 464 f. 
Monro’s The Modes of Antient Greek Music, noticed, 

448 ff. 

Monthly Record, 72 f., 128 f., 229a, 276 ff., 327, 

421 f., 471 f. 

Monumenta Linguae Ibericae, Hiibner’s, noticed, 

357 ff. 

Moor’s transl. of Cicero de Oratore i., noticed, 118 f. 
Moore (F. G.), notice of Hopkins’ Agricola and 

Germania, 367 
Moore (J. Leverett), notice of Nordmeyer de 

Octaviac Fabula, 113 f. 
morari never = cunctari in Plautus, 448a 
Morgan (M. H.), note on Catullus (xxix. 20), 202 
Moulton (James Hope), on Walker’s Notes on the 

Greek Aorist, 239 ff. 

MSS. of Book of Enoch, 41b, 42a 
Catullus, 38 6 (and n.), 253 ff. 
Cicero, 328) 
cpp. ad Att., 114 f., 365a (see 466 f.) 
epp. ad Fam., 115 ff. 
Euripides, 1970 
Hierocles’ Synecdemus, 40, 4la 
Hippocrates, 57 f. 
Homer’s Hymns, 1560 
Horace, 3050 
iepd (‘Sacra Parallela’), 112a 
Lucan, 35a, 122, 371 f. 
Lucian, 212a 
Origen contra Celswm, 4174 
Philostratus’ Jmagines, 179b, 180a 
Sophocles, 404 
Tacitus’ Dialogus, 107a, b 
Terence, 354 ff. 
Vergil’s Ciris, 352a 
Mueller’s Satiren und Episteln des Horaz, noticed, 

66 ff. 
mugiuor, quantity of, 26a 
musie of Orestes, notes on a fragment of the, 313 ff. 

Torr’s criticism on, 397 f. 
Mustard’s note on Hor. Sat. 1. 10 [Colorado College 

Studies], noticed, 68 f. 
muto, quantity of, 26a 
Mutzbauer’s Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tem- 

puslehre und der homerische Tempusgebrauch, ein 

Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen 

Sprache, noticed, 33 f. 

Mycenaean civilization, myth of the, 163d 
Myron and his works, 220a 


Myron and Kresilas, 220. 
and Polyclitus, 69 f. 
myrlis (nom. sing.), 26a 
Mysteries and Christianity, the, 417 f. 


N. 


Niigelsbach on operac (Cic. Off. ii. 12), 3460 
Namenwort in Greek proper names, the, 459 
Naples, discoveries at, 129b, 277b, 472a 
nasal and liquid sonants, 94a 
natriz, quantity of, 26a 
Neath (?), a ‘milestone’ inscription at, 228a 
Nebenton (* Bye-tone’), the, 970 
vepé, the Modern Greek, 100 f., 398 f. 
Ammonios on, 1000 
Byzantine authorities on, 1000, 101la 
Neumann’s Lustathios als kritische Quelle fiir den 
Tliastext ; mit einem Verzeichnis der Lesarten des 
Eustathios, noticed, 110 f. 
neunt, 27b 
Neuwied, excavations at, 2760 
New fount of Greek type, a, 81 ff. 
New es Canon, Zahn’s History of the, noticed, 
63 ff. 
New gle Greck, Burton’s Syntax of, noticed, 
369 f. ; 
New Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, the, 133 f. 
Nineveh—was there a Roman colony at ? 378a 
Nixon and Smith’s Parallel Verse Extracts, noticed, 
122 
Nordmeyer’s De Octaviae Fabula, noticed, 113 f. 
number, the problems of, 4004 
numero, 2030 
Nyimphaca Stellata, the, 228 


a0: 
Obituary notice :— 
William Alexander Greenhill, M.D., 423 f. 
Octaviae Fabula, Nordmeyer’s, noticed, 113 f. 
authorities for, 113a, 0 
date of, 113a 
historical and literary sources, 1130 
Old Syriac Element in the Text of the Codex Bezae, 
Chase’s, noticed, 29 ff. - 
oligarchical tendenzschrift, theory of an, 206) 
‘one man one vote,’-189a 
opera (operae est), note on, 345 ff. 
Orestean Trilogy, duration of action of the, 438 ff. 
Orestes legend, the, 350 
Origen on the Temple (St. John ii. 20), 90a 
OfeanS Philocalia, Robinson’s ed. of, noticed, 
416 f. 
Origin of the Imperial Appeal, Greek evidence for 
the, 142 ff. 
OA the Lord’s Supper, Gardner’s, noticed, 
148 ff. 
author’s reply and reviewer’s supplementary 
note, 267 ff. 
Wright on, 375 
Orvieto, excavations at, 277a 


Outlines of Roman History, Pelham’s, noticed, . 


104 ff. 

Owen (S. G.), supplementary note on Juvenal (iv. 
116), 17 

Owen’s ed. of Catullus, noticed, 39 f. 


Ps 


Page (T. E.), note on Virgil (4en. v. 359), 300 f. 
notes on Virgil (den. ii. 353) and Euripides 
(Baech. 506), 203 f. (see also 295 f.) 








INDEX. 


Palatia, quantity of, 26a 
Palestrina, inscription to Trajan at, 421/ 
Palmer (A.), note on Lucretius (iv. 741), 29 
note on Plautus (Sézchus 700), 249 
note on Valerius Flaceus (iii. 20), 29 
Propertiana, 98, 250 
Palsgrave’s ‘ Eephrasis’ of the Acolastus, 61a 
Pammachius, Bolte and Schmidt’s ed. of the, 
noticed, 61 
Papias one of the first of harmonists, 10 
papyri and vellum MSS., respective date of, 47 
arrangement of in British Museum, 45, 46a 
characters of ancient, 81 . 
Parallel Verse Extracts, Nixon and Smith’s, noticed, 
122 
Pardon possessed by the Princeps, the power of, 
429 ff. 
Parthenon, east frieze of the, 225 f. 
frieze, central slab of the, explained, 174a 
meaning of the name, 173), 174a 
pediments, explained, 175a, b 
‘Particular Justice,’ Aristotle’s subdivisions of, 
185 ff. 
Paton (W. R.), Inscriptions from Kos and Hali- 
carnassus, 216 ff. 
note on mnyn—mnyadi, 93 f. 
notice of von Arnim’s ed. of Chrysostom, 469 f. 
on Calymna and Leros, 375 ff. 
patristic literature, neglect of, 101la, 120 
Pauline recension of Lucan, the, 35 ff., 371), 372 
Pausanias, Heberdey on, noticed, 362 ff. 
his method of description, 3630 
how far an independent inquirer, 362 ff. 
indebtedness of, 3630 
Pavia, old Roman bridge at, 421@ 
Peck and Greenhough’s ed. of Livy xxi. and xxii., 
noticed, 121 
mnyn—nyas., note on, 93 f. 
Peisistratidae, the, 2066, 207a 
Peisistratos and the Jliad, 4096 
Pelham’s Outlines of Roman History, noticed, 104 ff. 
Pericles, impeachment of, 78) 
and his age, overestimate of, 164a 
perrectio, 134b 
Persichetti’s Viaggio archeologico sulla Via Salaria 
nel circondario di Cittaducale, noticed, 415 f. 
perstroma ( peristroma), 158b 
Pesavella Settermini (Pompeii), discovery of Roman 
bath-house at, 472a 
petere ius in, 1la 
Peterson’s Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus, 
noticed, 106 ff. 
Petrie’s Tell el Amarna, noticed, 320 ff. 
Pfitzner’s Jst Irland jemals von einem réimischen 
Heere betreten worden ? noticed, 325a 
Phaedrus, Robert’s ed. of, noticed, 368 f. 
MS. of and its history, 368a, } 
Pheidias, a ‘ Kimonian,’ 172a 
author of the sculptured decorations of the 
Parthenon, 1716 
influence in Sicily and Magna Graecia, 173a 
invitation from the Eleians, 172a 
Pausanias ill-informed about, 1720 
trial, condemnation, and death, 172a 
was he a pupil of Hegias? 70, 171a 
Pheidon, date of, 3776 
Philippus (Plautus), 1580 
Philostratus’ Jmagines, Teubner ed. of, noticed, 
179 f. 
MSS. of, 1796, 180a 
origin of, 180a 
Phoenician hypothesis in Greek history, the, 163) 
pottery and glass fragments in Egypt, 322« 
govixal Sika, jurisdiction over, 462« 


Phylobasileis and Ephetae, 462a, } 

Pindar and Milton—a parallel, 349 
Fennell’s ed. of, noticed, 49 f. 
Fracearoli’s ed. of, noticed, 207 I. 
nomic theory of, 207) 
revival of due to Matthew Arnold, 7b. 
‘signals’ or verbal echoes in, 49a, 207) 

plagium, 27b 

plasea, 134b 

Platner (Samuel Ball), 

344 f, 

Plato Apology, alleged interpolations in, 379 

evitical notes on the Republic, 22 ff., 192 ff., 
292 ff., 393 ff. 

groups and chronology of Dialogues in, 119 

Number of, 262 f. : 

Philebus, authorship of, 119d, 120a 

use of Svvauis and vars in, 297 ff. 

Platon : sa philosophie, Bénard’s, noticed, 119. 

Platon’s Staat, Wohlvab’s, noticed, 261 f. 

Platonstudien, Horn’s, noticed, 119, 120 

Platt’s The Lliad of Homer, noticed, 464 f. 

Plautus Amphitruo (i. 1, 26—30), note on, 203 
Captivi (550, 553, 555), note on, 391 f. 

(851), note on, 249 


notes on elementwmn, 


edd. of the Stichus and Epidicus, noticed, 
158 ff. 
his habit of coining words, 392) 
prosody of, 158a, b 
Rudens (160—2), note on, 349 
its title, 99a 
notes on, 99 f. 
Stichus (700), note on, 249 
Truculentus (667—8, 896, 952), notes on, 
447 f. 


plectricanus, 276 
mAELoTHpNS, TWAELTTNpiCouat, note on, 301 Ff. 
Pliny Hist. Nat. (iti. 142), note on, 11 
(xxxiv. 58), note on, 69 f. 
Polyelitus and his works, 220 f. 
and Myron, 69 f. 
Polygnotus, the Nekyia of, 422) 
Porson’s canon of the final cretie, 3710 
Postgate’s new ed. of the Corpus Poetarwm Latin- 
orum, noticed, 302 ff. 
Praechter’s ed. of Cebes’ Zabula, noticed, 265 
praesul, 1346 
Praeverbium)(Praeposition, 4030 
Praxiteles and his works, 221 f. 
theory of an elder, 1720, 173a, 223 (n.) 
prepositions, 4030 
Preston and Dodge's Private Life of the Romans, 
noticed, 372 f. 
Princeps, power of pardon possessed by the, 429 ff. 
Private Life of the Romans, Preston and Dodge’s, 
372 f. 
Problem of the Bacchae, 85 ff. 
Probus de nomine libellus, Froehde on, noticed, 
265 f. 
proconsulare imperium, the, 144, 431, 432a 
Propertiana, 98, 250 
prorogo (= ‘advance money’), 27) 
prose, tendency to rhythm in, 109) 
prospective subjunctive and optative, 28 f., 145, 
166 ff. 
prothetic vowels or errors in writing (?), 21 f. 
Prussian ‘ three-class system,’ the, 189@ 
Psyche, Rohde’s, noticed, 165 f. 
Ptolemy (Claudius), musical theory of, 453a 
Purser (L. C.), notice of Lehmann’s ed. of Cicero’s 
Letters to Atticus, 114 f. 
notice of Mendelssohn's ed. of Cicero’s Letters, 
116 ff. 
Pythagorean formula of justice, the, 185) 


486 
Q. 
quiritatio, 373a 
quaestiones perpetude, 4320, 434b, 435, 436d (n.) 
R. 
raised stage, the, 124b, 125a, 177b, 178 


confirmed by antiquity, 126a, 178) ; excavations, ~ 


179@ ; vase-paintings, 7b. 
Ramsay (W. M.), notice of Bureckhardt’s ed.. of 
Hierocles’ Synecdemus, 40 f. 
notice of Weber's Citics of Asia Minor, 71 f. 
notice of Weber’s Guide to Ephesus, 72 
Ramsay’s view of the name ‘ Galatia,’ 396 
redux)(redducere, 129a 
reflexive pronoun, the, 402d, 403a 
Reichardt’s Der Saturnische Vers in der rimischen 
Kunstdichtung, noticed, 58 ff. 
feign of Domitian, Gsell’s, noticed, 373 
relatio (ad principem), 431a, 432a 
‘remote deliberative’ and ‘ prospective subjunctive 
and optative,’ the, 28 f. (see 145, 166 f.) 
Sidgwick’s theory of, rejected, "412, 413 
requiescere cursus, 352b 
respicio, 2614 
restitutio (in integrum), 431 ff. 
restitutio memoriae, 433a 
retractatio judicii, 435b, 436a 
Rhazes a pioneer in medicine, 310a 
Rhetores Gracci, Spengel’s, noticed, 306 
Richards (Herbert), critical notes on Plato’s 
Republic, 22 ff., 192 ff., 292 ff., 393 ff 
notice of Kaibel’s Stil wnd Text der Modrrrela 
’"AOnvaiwy, 160 ff. 
Rickaby’s (Father) Aquinas Ethicus quoted, 187a 
Moral Philosophy referred to, 1870 
Ritchie (D. G.), on Aristotle’s subdivisions of 
‘ Particular Justice,’ 185 ff. 
Roberts’ (A.) Short Proof that Greek was the Language 
of Christ, noticed, 215 f. 
reply to notice of, 311 f. 
Robert's (U.) Les Fables de Phédre, noticed, 368 f. 
Robertson (A.), notice of Kriiger’s Augustin de 
Catechizandis Rudibus, 470 
notice of Loofs on the Sacra Parallela, 111 ff. 
notice of Robinson’s Philocalia of Origen, 416 f. 
Robertson’s explanation of Eur. Bacch. 1066 sqq., 
86a 
Robinson’s The Philocalia of Origen, noticed, 416 f. 
Robson (Ernest T.), note on Plautus Rudens 
(160—2), 349 
Roby (H. J.), notice of new ed. of Bruns’ Fontes 
Iuris Romani Antiqui, 162 
on operae est, 3474 
Rochester, fragments of the Roman city wall dis- 
covered at, 2280 
Rohde’s Psy yche-Seelencult und UOnsterblichkeits- 
glaube der Griechen, noticed, 165 f. 
Rolfe (John C.), on prothetic vowels or errors in 
writing (2), 21 f. 
Roman Britain, maps of, 324 f. 
history, outlines of, 104 ff. 
imperial appeal, the, 142 ff. 
literature, 413 f. 
public funerals, 264 f. 
remains at Tréves, 18la 
in Britain, discoveries of, 227 f. 
troops in Ireland (#), 325a 
Romans compared to modern Englishmen, 105a 
private life of the, 372 f. 
Rome, discoveries at, 1285, 129a, 327a, 421b 
Rudens, notes on the, 99 f. 
Riihl’s ed. of Gutschmid’s Kleine Schriften, noticed, 
120 f. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Rushforth’s Latin Historical Inscriptions, noticed, 
50 ff 

Rutherford (W. G.), 
type, 81 ff. 

Ruvo, discoveries at, 129), 472a 


on a new fount of Greek 


MISE 


Sacra Parallela, Loofs on the, noticed, 111 ff. 
‘safe’ commentaries on the classics, 85), 86a 
Sakadas, the véuos tpimepris of, 4500 
Samian coin-finds of the ‘Euboic’ standard, 3774 
Sandys (J. E.), note on apuovla and tévos in Greek 
music, 397 He 448 ff.) 
notice of Blass on Demosthenes, 465 
sanguwis, 26a 
Santa Maria di Capua, inscription at, 129a 
Santo Angelo in Formis, inscription at, 7d. 
Sardinia, discoveries at, 278a 
Saturnian metre, aceentual and quantitative theories 
of, 108 ff. 
Havet’s view of, 108a 
ictus and word-accent in, 59) 
Lindsay on the, noticed, 108 ff. 
origin of and relation to primitive metres, 110 
of the name, 60a, b 
Reichardt on the, noticed, 58 ff. 
syncopation in, 59D 
Thurneysen’s view of, 109a 
‘scazons,’ rhythm of, 371b 
Schlee’s Scholia Terentiana, noticed, 353 ff. 
Schmidt and Bolte’s edd. of the Acolastus and 
Pammachius, noticed, 61 
Schmidt’s Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero 
von seinem Prokonsulat in Cilicien bis zu Caesar's 
Ermorderung, nebst einem Neudrucke des XII. und 
XIII. Buches der Briefe an Atticus, noticed, 364 f., 
466 f. 
Scholia Terentiana, Schlee’s, noticed, 353 ff. 
Schulze’s ed. of Baehrens’ Catuwllus, noticed, 251 ff. 
Schiirer’s view.of the name ‘Galatia,’ 396 
Schwab’s Historische Syntax der Griechische Com- 
paration in. der Klassischen Litteratur, noticed, 
454 ff. 
Scipio inscription, ce 58a, b, 60a 
scultimido, 27b 
Seelye (w. J.), onee on Xenophon’s Hedlenica, 
202 
Sellers (Eugénie), notice of Furtwingler’s Meister- 
werke der Griechischen Plastik, 169 ff., 219 ff. 
Septimius (C.), Proconsul of Asia (56—55 B.C.), 
note on, 420 f. 
septiremes, 446a 
Septuagint, the, how tar used in palit 216, 
3126 
servmo cotidianus, criterion of the, 62a 
Seymour (Thomas Day), notice of Trumbull’s 
Studies in Oriental Social Life &c., 414 f. 
on the duration of the action of the Orestean 
Trilogy, 438 ff. 
Shakespeare’s scenic appliances, 176a, 3196, 320a 
supposed interpretation of Hor. (Sat. ii. 5, 41), 
328) 
siccine (sicine), quantity of, 26a 
side-entrances to the Greek Theatre, the, 318 ff. 
Sidgwick (A.), notice of Jebb’s Hlectra, 350 f. 
Sidgwick’s (A.) theory of the ‘remote deliberative’ 
rejected, 4120, 413 
Sidgwick (H.), conjectures on the constitutional 
history of Athens (594—580 B.c.), 333 ff. 
on éxtnudpo or éextnudpior, 296 f. (see 1468, 
347 £., 444 f.) 
on the trial scene in Homer (J//. xviii. 497—508), 
1 ft 








INDEX. 


Sieglin’s Atlas Antiquus, noticed, 325a 

Sikes (B. E.), notice of Goodwin’s Hymni Homerici 
156 f. 

Sittl’s ed. of Firmicus, noticed, 260 f. 

Skopas and his works, 221 

slave torture in Attic law, 136 f. 

Slavonic Enoch, the, 42b, 440 


Smith (Cecil), notice of Hartwig’s Greek Vase- | 


painting, 126 ff. 

Smith (George), note on Martial (ii. 66), 148 

Smith and Nixon’s Parallel Verse Extracts, noticed, 
129 

sollemnia)?OAdvuma, 4570 (n.) 

Solomon’s Temple, 907 

Solon’s time, social conflict of, 336 

Sommerbrodt’s Lweianus, noticed, 212 f. 

sonants, the long, 94 ff. 

Sonnenschein (E. A.), on the remote deliberative 
and prospective subjunctive and optative, 28 f. 
(see 145, 166 ff.) 

Sophocles Electra, Jebb’s ed. of, noticed, 350 f. 

Trachiniac, Jebb’s ed. of, noticed, 404 ff. 
(903), note on, 146 f. 
(1260 sq.), note on, 197 f. 

Spartan institutions, origin of the, 1635, 164a 

Spengel’s Rhetores Gravei, noticed, 306 

Spengel’s view of operae est, 346) 

Stanley (J.), note on opera (operae est), 345 ff. 

stare =esse, 60b 

Stephens (Henry) [Henri Estienne] and his edition 
of Plutarch, 25la 

‘pretended Italian MSS.’, 197, 295a, b 
Vetustissima Exemplaria, 196 f. (see also 
251, 294 f.) 

Stone (E. D.), notice of Nixon and Smith’s Parallel 
Verse Extracts, 122 

Stromateis, Clement of Alexandria’s, critical notes on, 
238 ff., 281 ff., 385 ff. 

Strongoli (Lucania), discovery at, 4210 

Studia Lucianea, Bolderman’s, noticed, 359 ff. 

Studies in Oriental Social Life &c., Trumbull’s, 
noticed, 414 f 

Summaries of Periodicals :— 

American Journal of Philology, 182, 327a, 
474 f. 

Archiologisches Jahrbuch, 1816, 422d 

Athenische Mittheilungen, 229, 473b, 474a 

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 181, 
422 f., 472b, 473a 

"Eonuepls Apxaodoyiny, 1820, 279 

Hermes, 76 ff. 

Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu 
Berlin, 74 ff., 180 f., 182 f., 327 ff., 378 f. 

Journal of Hellenic Studies, 73b, 422 

Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie und Pidagogik, 
129 f., 279 

Numismatie Chronicle, 182a, 377, 4720 

Numismatische Zeitschrift [Vienna], 3770 

Revue Archéologique, 278 f., 474 

Revue Numismatique, 377 f., 472 

Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione classica, 
279b 

Roémische Mittheilungen, 229 f., 473 

Transactions of the American Philological As- 
sociation, 425 f. 

Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik [Berlin], 182 

superne, quantity of, 26a 
syncopation in music, 316a 
in the Saturnian metre, 59) 

‘syneretism,’ 491a 

syntax, history of, 399a, b 
of the Greek comparative, 454 ff. 

Syracuse, discoveries at, 129b, 229a, 277), 278a 
topography of, 123 f. 


487 
i 


Tables of Heraclea, @ and o in the, 200 
Tacitus Agricola and Germania, Hopkins’ ed. of, 
noticed, 367 
date of, 7b. 
Dialogus, Peterson’s ed. of, noticed, 106 ff. 
date and authorship of, 106a, 
MSS. of, 107a, b 
scheme of, 107a 
Germania (29), note on, 201 
his inaccuracy in dates, 108a 
year of his consulship, 329) 
talking cross, the, 1030 
Tappertz’ De coniunctionum usu apud Maniliwmn 
quaestiones selectae, noticed, 213 
Tatham (M. T.), notice of Greenhough and Peck’s 
ed. of Livy xxi. and xxii., 121 
Tatian’s Diatessaron, St. Mark in, 9 f. 
Taylor (C.), on St. Mark in the Diatessaron, 9 f. 
Tell el Amarna, Petrie’s, noticed, 320 ff. 
Temple, on the (St. John ii. 20), 89 ff. 
Tenses in Homer, Mutzbauer’s, noticed, 33 f. 
Teramo (ane. Interamna), inscriptions at, 277a 
Terence Ade/phoc, Ashmore’s ed. of, noticed, 61 f. 
confounded with Q. Terentius Culleo (Liv. xxx. 
45), 3570 
Terentian MSS., 354 ff. 
Calliopian recension of, 354 f. 
subscriptiones and indices in, 355) 
scholia, 353 ff. 
explanatio pracambula of, 356a 
Umpfenbach’s view of, 353d 
Terracina, temple of Jupiter Anxur at, 4210 
Tertullian De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Bindley’s 
ed. of, noticed, 311 
tessera (= ‘ backgammon-board’), 27 
Thayer (J. Henry), notice of Burton’s Syntax of 
the New Testament, 369 f. 
Theocritus’ Zdylls, Hallard’s transl. 
307 f. 
Theon Smyrnaeus, Dupuis’ ed. of, noticed, 262 f. 
Theophilus ad Autolycwm (ii. 7), notes on, 246 ff. 
Theramenes and an _ oligarchical tendenzschrift, 
2060 
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, the new, 133 f. 
its history and plan, 133 
Thiele’s ed. of Hermagoras, noticed, 44 f. 
Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, 187 f. 
Thomas (F. W.), notice of Fick-Bechtel on Greek 
proper names, 459 ff. 
on the uses of 570ev, 441 ff. 
Thompson (C. V.), on slave torture in Attic law 
[see Class. Rev. vii. 1 ff.], 136 
writer’s reply to, 136 f. 
Thompson (E. S.), on éxrnudpor or Extnudpior, 444 f, 
(see 146 f., 296 f., 347 f.) 
Thucydides (Book viii.), Goodhart’s ed. of, noticed, 
152 ff. 
his philosophy of life, 426a 
Livy a borrower from, 130a 
Thumb (Albert), note on the Modern Greek vepd, 
398 f. 
Thumser’s revision of Hermann’s Lehrbuch der 
griechischen Antiquitdten, noticed, 54 ff. 
Tibullus (i. 1, 2), note on, 198d 
Tilley (Arthur), notice of Persichetti’s Via Salaria, 
415 f. 
on Henri Estienne (‘ Henry Stephens’), 251 
Topography of Syracuse, 123 f. 
Torr (Cecil), notice of Petrie’s Zell el Amarna, 
320 ff. 
on the harbours of Carthage, 271 ff. 
on the music of Orestes, 397 f. 


of, noticed, 


488 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Toseanella Immolese (near Bologna), tintinnabulwm 


at, 277a 
totem clans, euphemistic nomenclature of, 383a 
totus, quantity of, 27) 
Tozer (H. F.), notice of Heberdey on Pausanias, 
362 ff. 
Tralles, cistophorus of, 420a 
excavations at the theatre of, 229) 
translation, difficulty of and requisites in, 118 
Tréves, Roman remains at, 180 f. 
trial scene in Homer (Z/, xviii. 497—508), 1 ff. 
tribus (= ‘elan’), 110 
Trumbull’s Studies in Oriental Social Life ete. 
noticed, 414 f. } 
Tycha (in Syracuse), date of, 123 f. 
Tyrrell (R. Y.), note on Homer’s Hymn to Hermes 
(v. 83), 398 
notice of Fracearoli’s Pindar, 207 ff. 
notice of Schmidt’s ed. of Cicero’s Letters to 
Alticus, 364 f., 466 f. 
on operae “est, 3470 


on. eg, Vetustissima Exemplaria and Kur. - 


Bacch. (506), 294 ff. 


WEEE 


vaco and voco confounded, 360 
Udal (Nicholas), 610 
Valerius Cato and Lucilius, 69a 
Valerius Flaccus (iii. 20), note on, 29 
vapor (=‘ smell’), 27b 
Varia, 197 f. 
vase-painting, comparative analysis in, 126), 127 
KkaAds names in, 127 f. 
Vatican version of Thucydides (vi. 92, 5—end), 
origin of the, 152a 
Velletri, hut-cinerariwm at, 1290 
vellum and papyrus fragments, date of, 47 
Venus of Milo, the, 223a 
Vergil Acneid (ii. 353), note on, 2038 f. 
(v. 359), note on, 300 f. 
Ciris, date of, 352a, 353a 
Greek words in, 3530 
MSS. of, 352a 
parallelisms with Ovid and other writers, 


corrupt state of opuscula, 303 
notes on, 250 f. 
Verrall (A. W.), on the problem of the Bacchae, 
5 ff. 
versus Faunius, 606 
vertical and sloping uncials, 47a 
Vettori (P.) and Henry Stephens, 197) 
vetustas (=‘ slough’), 2646 
Vetustissima Exemplaria, Stephens’, 196 f. 
Via Salaria, Persichetti’s, noticed, 415 f. 
vidén)(vidéen, 158b 
video, 261a 
Vienna ed. of Philostratus’ Jmagines, noticed, 179 f. 
vis (from volo), 26a 
visible representation on the stage, how far realized, 
176a, b 
Visio Pauli, the, 101 
date of, 1016 
Ulpian’s edict- commentary, 430) (n.), 432b, 43380, 
35a (n.) 
Umbilicus Italiae, ihe, 415d 
vocalic equivalences, importance of, 95a 
Volksepos, theory of the, 408 f. 
ee s De funere mublico Romanorum, noticed, 
264 


volneratus deficiens, Pliny’s, 181b, 2194 

volo-scire (Plautus), 1580 

voliiptas-mea (Plautus), 7b. 

Voss (Isaac) and a: Florentine MS. of Euripides, 
1976 

wpper) (lower, terminations in, 454 


uter (wérepos), 455) 


W. 


Walker (E. M.), notice of Wilamowitz-Moellen- 


dorfi’s Avristoteles und Athen, 205 ff. 
Walker (F. W.), Philological Notes X. (The 
Greek Aorist), 13 ff. 
Moulton’s notice of, 239 ff. 
Walker (R. J.), on Doric futures in Aristophanes, 
litte 
Wall, Romano-British discoveries on the, 227 f. 
Walters (H. B.), Monthly Record, 72 f., 128 f., 
229a, 276 ff., 327, 421 f., 471 f. 
notice of Hettner’s Monuments of Teves, 
180 f. 
notice of the Teubner Philostrati maioris Ima 
gines, 179 f. 
on illustrations of Euripides’ Phoenissae, 325 ff. 
Walters (W. C. F.), notes on Vergil, 250 f. 
Wayte (W.), corrections for Liddell and Scott’s 
Lexicon, 146 
note on éxTnudpoe OY ExTHMdptol, 347 f. (see 146), 
296 f., 444f.) 
notice of Gleue’s De Homicidarum in Areopago 
Atheniensi Judicio, 462 f. 
obituary notice of Dr. Greenhill, 423 f. 
Weber's Dinair Célenes Apamée-Cibotos, noticed, 
ak it 
Guide du Voyageur & Ephese, noticed, 72 
Weissmann’s Die scenische Auffiihrung der griechi- 
schen Dramen des 5 Jahrhunderts, noticed, 
124 ff. 
Welldon’s transl. of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 1876 
Westcott and Hort’s verdict on St. Luke (xxii. 19), 
150a, 2670 
Whitelaw (R.), note on Soph. TZvrach. (908), 
146 f. 
Wilamowitz- Moellendorft’s Aristoteles und Athen, 
noticed, 205 ff. 
Wilkins (A. S.), notice of Aly’s Roman Litera- 
twre, 413 f. 
notice of Freese’s ed. of Cicero Pro Murena, 
467 
notice of Keil’s ed. of Cato De Agricultura, 
308 f. 
notice of Lindsay on the Saturnian Metre, 
108 ff. 
notice of Moor’s transl. of Cicero De Oratore i., 
118 f. 
notice of Mueller’s Horace, 66 ff. 
notice of Mueller’s dissertation on Horace (Saé. 
i, 13); 681. 
notice of Spengel’s Rhetores Graeci, 306 
notice of Thiele’s Hermugoras, 44 f, 
William of Moerbek’s version of Aristotle’s Ethics 
and Politics, 1884 
Williams (C. F. Abdy), notes on a fragment of the 
music of Orestes, 313 ff. 
Torr’s criticism of, 397 f. 
Windelband’s Geschichte der alten Philosophie, 
noticed, 463 f. 
Wingless Victory, origin of the temple of, 175a 
Withof’s Encaenia, 346 
Wohlrab’s Platon’s Staat, noticed, 261 f. 








‘pei > ie? 





INDEX. 489 


Wordsworth on operae, 346) Mi? 
Wright (Arthur), on the origin of the Lord’s 
Supper, 375 (see 148 ff., 267 ff.) 
Wroth (Warwick), notice of Mayr’s Coinage of  Zahn’s Forschwngen zur Geschichte des Neutestament- 
Malta, Gozo and Pantelleria, 471 lichen Canons, noticed, 63 ff. 
on portraits of famous Mytilencans, 226 f. Zeitart and Zeitstufe, 34a 
Zenos (A. C.), notice of Krumbacher’s Byzantine 
Proverbs, 374 
rE Zimmern’s transl. of Bliimner’s Home Life of the 
Ancient Greeks, noticed, 213 f. 
Xenophon’s Hellenica, notes on, 202 


11.—INDEX LOCORUM. 


Note.—References to the Orators are given by number of speech and section, to 
Aristotle by the paging of the Berlin edition, to Cicero by section, to Plato by Stephanus’ 
paging, to Plautus and Terence by the continuous numeration where such exists. It will 
materially assist subsequent readers of the ‘Review’ if contributors will in future 


conform as far as possible to this system. 


A. 


Acta Xanthippac et Polyxenae (p. 61, 22), 339a; (62, 


24), 3402; (65, 24), 339a; (65, 33), 340a; (69, 30: 
71, 36), 39a; (73, 24, 28: 75, 1: 83, 7, 28, 
33), 339D 
Aeschines (1, 23), 56a 
Aeschylus :-— 
Ag. (535 Paley), 412b (n.), 413a@ (n.); (6038 
Paley), 413a@ (n.); (841 sqq.), 489a; (1142), 
351d ; (1163), 413a ; (1346 Paley), 4126 (n.), 
413a (n.) ; (1538 sqq.), 4406; (1617 sq.), 4380, 
4397 ; (1638), 4885; (1639), 4390; (1649— 
1673), 177b 
Cho. (3), 489a; (18), 440a; (30, 108), 4390; 
(172), 274; (411 sq.), 4396 ; (427 sqq.), 4402 ; 
(554 sqq.), 415a; (593 sq.). 413a; (637), 
415a; (703 sq.), 440a; (726 sq.), 4400; 
(787 sqq.. 797 sgq.), 440a; (833 sqq. ie 
439h ; (906—911), 439%: (928), 4400 ; 
(1029 sq.), 301 f. ; (1031 sqq ), 440d 
Eum. (40 sqq.), 4405 ; (45), 4055; (166 sqq., 
202 sqq., 235, 278 ‘sg. 393 sqq., 567 sq.), 
440); (726), 4560 (n.) ; (762 sqq.), 301 f. 
Pers. (369), 180; (795), 4080 
Prom. (86), 4120 : (202), 442), 443a; (729), 
275b; (986), 442}, 4430; (988), 19a 
Suppl (456), 18); (727), 4134 
Alcaeus (Comicus) :— 

Ganymedes fr., 21a 
Aleman (72 [24] Bergk), 200a, 201a 
Anacrcontea (i. 14—18), 441b 
Anth. Pal. vii. (703), 146a; (221 sq.), 247a 
Antiphanes (Meineke, Frag. Com. Greec. iii. p. 106), 

177a 

Antiphon (vi. 31 sq.), 136 

De Choreuta ASS 16, 19), 463a 
Apollodorus (ii. 7, 4: iii. 9, 1), 3270 

De Synt. (p. 39, 3), 200a 
Apollonius Rhodius :— 

Argonautica 1. (998), 4410; ii. (384), ab. ; (1157 
sqq.), 441; ini. (354), 4410; (1119), 441a; 
iv. (62, 1261), 7b. ; (1291), 4415 

Appian viii, (96), 275b; (119), 275a; (121), 2718, 
274a, 2750; (123), 2746; (124, 125), 2740, Bb; 
(127), 273b 


Aratus :— 
Phaen. (100 sq.), 442a 
Archilochus 63 Bergk (1-3), 147), 148; 74 Bergk, 
394d ; (5-9), 147a, b 
Aristeas :— 
Ep. to Philokrates (p. 35 a 3490 ; (p. 
69 Schmidt), 349a 
Aristobulus ap. Strabo (730), 197a 
Aristophanes : — 
Ach. (203), 18a; (732), 1250 ; (1129), 18 
Av. (205), 195;. (250 sgq.), 19a; (342), 19D; 
(932), 18a; (1120), 19a 
Eecl. (320), 21a; (347), 206; (625), 18a; (640), 
21b; (808), 21a; (1062), 216; (1152), 178d 
iq. (112), 19a; (149 and schol.), 1255, 1780; 
(442), 18a; (453), 3955; (485), 19D; (672, 
schol.), 1466; (1008), 249a; (1057), 2la; 
(1252), 2940; (1320), 280 
Lysistr. (286 sqq.), 125a@; (321, schol.), 178); 
(435 sq.), 20a; (440 sq.), 216; (505), 20a; 
(1080 sg.), 200a . 
Jub. (58), 20a; (173), 20b; (174), 21a; (435), 
195; (442), 18a; (933), 20a 
Pax (24 59.) 20b ; (67), 19a; (234, schol.), 
178); (255, 262), 20a; (498), 3950; (727, 
schol.), 178a, 6 ; (1080 sqq.), 19 ; (1235), 210 ; 
(1277), 196 
Plut. (36, 40), 19a; (174), 20a; (196), 4050 ; 
(425), 20a; (446 sqqg.), 495 sq.), 18a; (572), 
20a; (1054), 19d 
Ran. (181, 297, schol.), 178 a, b; (377), 4080; 
(1113), 439a ; (1209), 20a; (1221), 195 
Thesm. (570), 21a ; ; (916 sq. ) 20a : (1187), 196; 
(1204 sqq.), 18a ; ” (1216), 20a 
Vesp. (157), 18a, b; (386), 1460; (666), 88); 
(775, schol.), 84b; (941), 210; (1327 s¢.), 
20a ; (1342, 1514), 125a, 1785 
Jr. (207 ap. Pollux vi. 111), 21a; (543), 205 
Aristotle :— 
°AO. mod. (2), 1465, 296 f., 347a, 444a; (38), 
LGUbi (Sie ees 2), 55d ; (4, 3 3(5,'2), 161b: 
(6, 2), 55d ; (8), Wear (9), 1426; (12, 4), 
1615; (13), 33a; (16, 10), 1610; (17, 4), 
162a; (20), 2070; (22), 8360; (22, 5), 56a; 
(22, 8), 162a; (23), 195a; (26, 1), 1620; 
(29), 1530; (81), 158a; (42, 1), 57a; (48, 3), 





8 a I « 





INDEX, 491 


Aristotle, continued— 


56); (48, 4), 1620; (58, 4 sg., 54, 2), 560; 
(55), 334a; (61, 1), 162d 

De An. (iii. 5), 298a 

Eth. Nie. (1094a 10), 2995; (1097b 24 sqq.), 
298a; (1098b 10), 1905; (1106a 15 sqq.), 
298a ; (1130a 12), 185a; (1130b 30), 185za, 
188a@; (113la 1), 1865; (1131b 20), 188a; 
(1131b 25), 185/, 186d, 188a; (1132a 1), 
1905; (1132b 12), 187b, 190b; (1132b 21), 
190a; (1132b 23—31), 188a@; (1132b 28), 
185; (1132b 28), 1905; (1132b 31), 187a, 
1926 ; (1132b 33), 186a: (1132b 34), 188a; 
(1138a 10), 186a@; (1133a 31), 1865; (1133a 
33—b 5), 7b. ; (1133b 1, 2, 5), ib. ; (1133b 9), 
19la; (1134 23—30), 1924; (1134b 17), 
ib. ; (v. 8), 286a; (1138a 11), 187; (1142b 
34), 292a; (1145b 2), 1900; (1151b 30), 230 

Met. (985b 26, Alex. Aphrod. on), 190a; (1013a 
29 sqq., 1019a 15), 2980 

Poem on the death of Hermeias (Bergk? ii. 361), 
146a 

Poet. (4), 176) ; (1449b 36), 3930; (15), 1770; 
(18), 320a 

Pol. (i. 2), 1916; (i. 8-11), 189a, 192a; (1275a 
10), 1915; (iii. 9), 1920; (1280a 36 sqq.), 
191b; (1280b 10), ib.; (iv. 2, 13), 23a; 
(1290a 19), 450a; (12950), 1530; (1296a), 
154a; (1304b), 153d; (1329b 40), 1890; 
(1340b 20), 4490 

Probl. xix. (20), 458a; (26), 451a; (48), 4500 

Rhet. (i. 10, 13), 191); (1373b 23 sg.), 187¢; 
(i. 15), 186, 191b ; (1375a 27 sq.), 1910 (n.) 


Avistoxenus (p. 36, 29 Meib.), 451a 
Athenaeus :-— 


De Machinis (p. 29), 178, b 


Augustine :— 


Enarr. in ps. vi. (10 ad fin.), 147; 1xvi, (10), 
2636; cxxxix. (12), 7b. : 


B. 


Babrius :— 


Fab. (56, 2), 840; (€Aad. kad xu. tab. vii. init.), 
248) ; (vids cal Aéwy 12 sqq.), 248a, b 


Barnabas (21, 6), 2860 


C. 


Caesar :— 


Bell. Afr. (62 sq.), 272b, 2730 


Callimachus :— 


Hym~n (i. 48, schol.), 271a 


Cato :— 


De agri cultura (xiii. xxxvii.), 309a ; (Ixxiv.), 
3084; (Ixxix.), 309a 


Catullus i. (2), 2555; (5), 254a@ 5 ii. (6), 2510; vi. 
(2 sq.), 39a; (9), 2515; (12), 40a; x. (9 sq.), 
a90 (17), 89a% (25), 258a@':. xii. (8), 89a; 
xvii. (3), 40a; xxi. (11), 39a@;. (18), 2510; 
xxi (1), 2b6a; xxv. (5); 40a; 256a 5; (11), 
2556; xxix. (20), 40a, 202, 253a; (23), 40a; 
xxxi. (3, 5), 256a; (13), 40a; xxxix. (9), 2580; 
xli. (7 sq.), 252a; liv. (1), 39a ; (2), 40a; (16 s7.), 
39a; lv., 39a; (9, 17), 40a; lvii. (7), 89a; Ixi. 
(46 sq.), 2535; (152), 406; (186), 39a; Isxiii. 
(5), 2526 ; (73), 89a ; (74), 252) ; Ixiv. (16, 29, 
65), 406; (73, 109), 252a; (110, 119), 40); 
(120), 255a; (130), 395; (216 sq.), 252a; (234), 
256a ; (269, 275), 252a ; (921), 40) ; (350), 252a ; 
(386), 253; (387), 252a; (388), 465; (395), 
252a; Ixv. (9), 40b, 255 ; (16), 255@; Ixvi. (4), 
255a; (58), 252b ; (59), 40); Ixviii. (39), 252 ; 
(47, 50), 2550; (91, 118), 400; (132), 98a; 


Catullus, continwed— 
(189), 251b; (140), 258a; (157), 400; Ixxvi. 
(18), 256@; lxxxiv. (2), 7b.; c. (6), 2510; cxi. (2), 
2b.; exiii. (2), 25380; exvi. (7), 40 
Cebes :— 
Tabula (26, 3), 265a, b 
Chares ap. Athen. (514 F), 197a 
Christus Patiens (2256 sq.), 103 
Cicero :— 
Acad. (i. 7, 26), 3450 
Brut. (20), 116a 
De Legg. ii. (59), 373 ; 69), 116a; iii. (3, 9), 
3460 f 
De Off. i. (18, 61), 302a; ii. (12), 3470 
De Orat. (iii. 29, 112), 4460 
De Senect. (28), 279a 
Diw. (ii. 40), 1680 
Epp. ad Att. v. (15, 1), 1146; vii. (11, 5), 
364a; (20, 1), 39a; ix. (8, 2, cp. ep. 3), 
3645; (10, 3: 15, 4), 1140; (18, 2), 365) ; 
(1, 4: 4, 5)» 114b'3 (8, 5), 86405 xix. (6) 2 
9 : 10), 466a@; (12, 1), 1140; (18), 4200; 
(14), 2b.; (46: 49, 2), 466; xiii. (1, 2: 2, 
1), 2b.; (3, 1), 1140; (4,1: 17, 1: 20a, 4), 
466a ; (20, 2), 1140; (23, 3: 33, 3: 34, 1), 
466a, b; (40, 1, 3), 466) ; (41 jfin.), 466a ; 
(42 jin.), 4660 ; (45, 3), 1140; (46, 3: 47: 
49, 2: 51, 1), 4660; xv. (3, 1), 115a; (4, 
2), 114; (13, 6), 346a; xvi. (9), 39a 
Epp. ad Fam. i. (9, 21: 10), 116@; ii. (10, 2: 
19, 1), 1160 ; iii. (2, 2), 446; (11, 2), 1l6a; 
vo. (85 1); bose ue (2, De 7); Dida vin. 
(5, 1: 7, 2); 1166; (8, Cael. in), 42005 (8, 
fo Ades D2) GG ia 2) ae Cas ace 
5), 1160; x. (1, 4), 116a@5, (1b), 1205. (17); 
12a; (21), 18a; (21, 3: 22, 2), 1166: (23), 
12b, 13a; (23, 7), 116a; (24), 13a; xi. (11), 
12@3..(13)5 12 £5. 201.205 23 826), Sh: 
xiii. (26, 2), 1165 ; (46), 116a; (72, 2), 116d ; 
xv. (15, 4), 1160; (20, 21), 1380a; xvi. (21, 
2), 1164 
Epp. ad Q. F. (iii. 4, 4), 346a 
In Vatin. (14, 38), 4360 
Part. Or. (19, 65), 446a, b 
Phil. (ii. 41), 2530 
Pro Leg. Man. (18), 1160 
Pro Murena (21), 346) ; (36), 346a 
Pro Rose. Am. (38, 92), 4460 ; (52), 116@ 
Red. in Senat, (ix.), 4206 
Tusc. (i, 22, 50), 446 f. 
Verr. i, (66), 3470; iii. (53), 1160; iv. (111), 
3460 
Claudian (8, 549 sqg.: 70, 3), 198a; (70, 7), 1970; 
(78, 7, 8), 198a 
Clement of Alexandria :— 
Paed. i. (p. 103), 284a ; ii. (p. 179), 390d 
Protrept. (pp. 3, 4), 2886 ; (p. 48), 282a 
Strom, i. (§ 4 p. 318), 233; (§ 7 p. 319, §§ 8, 9 
p- 320, § 10 p. 321, § 11 p. 322), 234a; ($13 
p. 323, § 14 p. 824, § 15 p. 325, §§ 17, 18 p. 
326), 2340; (§§ 20, 21 p. 327, § 22 p. 328, 
§ 28 p. 331, §§$ 32, 33 p. 335), 235a ; (p. 335 
fin.), 386b; (§ 34 p. 336), 2350; (S$ 36, 37 
p. 337, § 87 p. 838, § 38, § 39 p. 339, § 43 p. 
341, § 43 p. 342), 2350; (§ 44 p. 342, §§ 45, 
46, 47 p. 343), 236a; (§ 48 p. 345). 237; 
(§ 52 p. 347), 236a; (§ 54 p. 347 fin), 2370 ; 
(§ 56 p. 348), 236a; (§ 57 p. 349, § 59 p. 
350, § 60 p. 351), 2365; (§ 67 p. 355), 237a ; 
(§ 70 p. 358), 287a, 28la; (§ 71 p. 359), 
2374; (§ 76 p. 364), 2la; (§ 79), 284a; 


(§ 80 p. 366), 237a; (§ 81 p. 366), 237); 
(8§ 81, 82, p. 367), 281a ; (§ 83 p. 367), 2375; 
(§ 84 p. 368), 2812 ; (§ 90 p. 371), 2370 ; (§ 91 


492 


Clement of Alexandria, continuwed— 
p. 371), 2810 ; ($§ 91, 92 p. 372), 237b; (§ 93 
p- 378), 2810; (§ 94 p. 373), 238a ; (§ 94 p. 
374), 281b; (§ 95 p. 374), 238a; (§ 96 p. 


375), 282a; (§ 99 p. 376), 238a; (§ 129 p. © 


396), 282a; (§ 153 p. 413), 238a ;(§ I55 p. 
414, § 156 p. 415, § 158 p. 416, § 160 p. 417, 
§ 161, §§ 164, 165 p. 419, § 166 p. 420, § 171 
p. 422), 282a; (§§ 176, 177. p. 425), 2820 ; 
($178 p. 425), 238, 282b; (§ 179 p. 426), 
282b; (§ 180 p. 426), 2380; (§ 181 p. 427), 
238b, 282d : 

ii, (§ 1 p. 429), 284; (§ 8 p. 430), 2820 ; (§ 6 p. 
431, § 8 p. 432, § 9 p. 433, § 11 p. 434, §15 p. 
436), 283a; (§ 16), 284a; (§ 17 p. 487, §§ 18, 
19 p. 438, § 21 p. 439, § 22 p. 440, § 23 p. 
441), 2830 ; (§ 24 p. 441, § 26 p. 442, § 27 p. 
443, § 29 p. 444, §$ 30, 32 p. 445, § 32 p. 
446), 284a; (§ 36 p. 448, §§ 37, 38 p. 449), 
284; (§ 39 pp. 449—50, § 40 p. 450, § 42 
p. 451, § 45 p. 453, § 51 p. 456, §§ 52, 53 p. 
457), 2850 ; (§ 55 p. 458, § 56 p. 459, § 59 
p. 460, § 61 p. 461, § 62 p. 462, § 64 p. 463), 
285) ; (§ 68 p. 465, §§ 77, 78 p. 469), 286a ; 
(§ 84 p. 472, §§ 86, 87 p. 474, § 88 p. 475), 
286) ; (§ 89 p. 475, §§ 90, 91 p. 476, § 92 p. 
477, § 94 p. 478, § 96 p. 479, § 99 p. 481), 
287a ; (§ 101 p. 482, §§ 103, 104 p. 484, 
§ 109 p. 486, § 119 p. 491, § 120 p. 492), 
2870; (§ 123 p. 493, § 125 p. 494, §§ 126, 
127 p. 495, § 128 p. 496), 288a; (§ 129 p. 
497), 288a, b ; (§ 187 p. 502, § 143 p. 506), 
288) 


iil. (§ 2 p. 510), 385a; (§ 4 p. 511), 2370, 385a, 
b; (§ 6 p. 512), 2376, 3855; (§ 7 p. 513), 
3850 ; (§ 8 p. 513, § 9p. 514, § 12 p. 515, 
§ 13 p. 516), 386a; (§ 16 p. 518, § 21 p. 520, 
§ 25 p. 522, §§ 26, 27 p. 523), 3860 ; (§ 27 p. 
524, §§ 29, SO, 31, 32 p. 525, § $5 p. 527), 
3872: (§ 36 p. 527, § 38 p. 528, §§ 42, 43 
p- 530, § 44 p. 531), 3876; (§ 44 p. 531, 
§§ 47, 48 p. 533, §§ 50, 51 p. 534, §§ 53, 55 
p. 536, §§ 56, 57 p. 537, § 59 p. 538), 388a; 
(§ 60 p. 538, § 62 p. 539, § 65 p. 540, § 67 p. 
541), 388b ; (§ 68 p. 542, §§ 70, 72 p. 548), 
389a ; (§ 72), 2870; (§ 74 p. 544, § 77 p. 
545, §§ 78, 79 p. 546), 389a; (§ 81 p. 548), 
389) ; (§ 82 p. 548), 288b, 389); (§ 84 p. 
549), 3890 ; (3 86 p. 550, § 87 p. 551, §§ 89, 
90 p. 552, § 93 p. 553, § 95 p. 554), 390a ; 
(§ 96 p. 554, § 98 p. 555, § 101 pp. 557, 558, 
§§ 102, 103 p. 559), 390b ; (§§ 105, 106 p. 
560), 391a, b; (§§ 107, 108 p. 561), 3910 
iv. (p. 633), 2876; (§ 167 p. 639), 287a; (p. 
642), 283) 
v. (8, 45—50), 3810 (n.) 
Code (9, 51, 1) 431a 
Cratinus :— 
Pytina fr., 20b 
Curtius (x. 1, 19), 445 f. 


D. 


Demosthenes (19, 107), 293 ; (25, 21), 1550; (53), 
3510 
De Cor. Trierch. (18), 146a 
De Fals. Leg. (272), 172b 
In Aristocr, (24), 462b; (28, lex) 463); (66), 
462a ; (82, 83, 84, 217), 146a 
Ol. ii. (14), 3950 ; (30), 50d (n.) 
Onet. A (35), 1260, 137a; (37), 137b 
Didache ix. (3), 151a ; (4), 151 ; x. (2, 3), 7b. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Digest 3 (1, 1, 10), 4830; 27 (1, 13 pr.), 142a; 28 
(3, 6, 2), 32 (1, 5), 34 (1, 11), 42 (1), 45 (1), 
434a; 48 (1, 8), 4340; (3, 2, 1: 16, 2: 16, 16), 
432b; (18, 1, 27), 434a@ ; (19, 2, 1), 4300; (19, 4), 
434a; (19, 9, 11), 481a, 434a; (19, 15), 4300; 
(19, 22), 432a (n.); (19, 27, 1 and 2), 4300; (19, 
27:19, 81), 434a; (21, 2,1: 22, 6), 4300; (23, 
2: 28, 4), 4340; 49(1, 1,1: 1, 5), 1420; (2, 1, 
2), 435a (n.) 

Dio Cassius xxxvii. (32), 153a@; li. (19, 7), 142a; 
lii, (21), 1485; (22, 5), 142a, 1430; (33), 1430; 
lili. (32), 144d (n.); liv. (83), 1530; (84), 520; 
lvi. (9), 436a; lvii. (20, 4), 4810 (n.) ; lix. (6) 
436a ; (8), 148a; Ix. (4), 4840; Ixvi. (9), 2. ; 
Ixix. (7), 153a ; Ixxi. (7), 1556 ; xxvii. (8), 143a ; 
(§ 24, Sturz), 443a 4 

Dio Chrysostom (p. 41, 28), 4695; (p. 42, 16), 470a; 
(p. 43, 26), 4706 ; 

Orat. (55, 1), 70a 

Diodorus Siculus vy. (81), 227b; xi. (50), 1960; 
(67 sg., 73), 123@; xiv. (7, 3), 2750; (18), 1234; 
xvi. (4), 1550 

Diogenes Laertius (vii. 28), 288a 

Diomedes :— 

Ars Gramm. (Keili. 421, 17), 345a 

Dionysius Halicarnasseus (6, 76), 2650 


E. 
Ennius :— 

Ann. (414), 1694 

Trag. (396 R.), 1596 

Jr. (314 Baehr.), 27a; (328 Baehr.), 38a; (374), 
4666 

tym. Magn. (406, 23; 597, 42), 1016 
Euripides :— 

Alc. (48), 4130; (52), 294 (n.), 418a, 4135 (n.) ; 
(113—117), 296 (n.), (182), 294@; (218), 
155a (n.), ; (509 sqq.), 415a 

Andr, (929), 413a 

Bacch. (225), 87b ; (227, 235), 2956 ; (236, 315), 
875; (400 sqq.), 86 ff. ; (459), 876: (506), 
204b, 296a, b; (659), 185; (688), 87b, 2950 ; 
(704—11), 876; (747), 4126 (n.), 413a (n.); 
(773), 876; (952), 2955; (1060), 295a; (1066 
sqq.), 85b, 86a; (1187, 1197), 2950 

Ei. (238), 7a; (296), 394a; (975), 18b 

Hee. (266), 204a 

Hcl. (118, 122), 4474; (184—190), 2020; 
(263), 447a ; (293), 2020 ; (388 sq.), 2020, 
447a; (394), 447b ; (500), 184; (578), 2020; 
(601), 203a ; (675, 679), 4475 ; (742), 447a; 
(810), 2030; (828), 447b; (992), 418a (n.) ; 
(1041), 19; (1158, 1247, 1353, 1453), 
474) ; (1535), 203, 4470 

Her. (506), 18h ; (1047), 4120 

Herc. Fur. (120 sqq.), 1256 ; (949), 4420 

Hippol. (868 Paley), 413a (n.); (900), 176); 
(1186), 413¢@ 

Ton (545), 12a; (656), 442b; (748) 1250 ; 
(831 sq.), 4420; (1276), 399a, b 

Iph. A. (803 sq.), 275b 

Iph. T. (367), 50a; (S88), 41la; (1091), 
399d 

Med. (12 sq.), 424a; (160, 170), 301a, 3; 
(207 sq.), 3010 ; (295, 305), 394a; (388, 341, 
346), 18) ; (364 sq.), 12b; (503), 424a 

Or. (722), 4120; (1112), 4430, b; (1251), 
318d ; (1319 sq.), 442a ; (1527), 351a; (1594), 
186, 19a; (1640), 447a 

’ Phoen. (1357), 3510 

Rhes. (717 sqq.), 442b 

Suppl. (100), 6b; (120, 164), 72; (185, 
187), 8); (248, 302, 321, 352, 406), 





INDEX. 


Euripides, continued— 
7a; (444, 469, 555, 587, 716), 7); 
(815 sqq.), 8a; (846 sqq.), 8b, 9a; (878, 


899, 903 sqq.), 8a; (1075 sqq.), 9a, 4; - 


(1194), 8a 
Troad. (193 sqqg., 232 sqq.), 197b, 295 
Eusebius :— 
HE. (v. 1), 896 


Festus (p. 170 M), 2030 
Firmicus Maternus :— 
Mathesis i. (10 § 17), 261a; ii. (27 § 7), 2610; 
(27 § 20), 261a ; iv. (@§1, 23 § 3), 2610 


G. 


Gellius :— 
Noct. Att. (praef. 11), 26a; (v. 6, 21), 3026 
Gratius :— 
eye 4), 27b ; (203), 26a ; (208), 26d ; (223), 
27 


H. 


Heliodorus :— 
Aethiop. (i. c. 14), 4430 
Heraclides Ponticus (iv. 10), 146 
Hermas :— 
Mand. (4, 3, 1), 2850 
Herodian i. (14, 17), 4425; ii. (15, 6), 443a; vii. 
(6, 4), 4340, 436a ; (11, 7, 16), 4480 
Herodotus i. (60), 4565 (n.); (73), 442b; (94), 
75b ; (202 sqq.), 279a; iii. (6), 1020; (19), 75); 
(136), 4420; vi. (1), ib. ; (186), 445a; (138), 
442d ; vii. (6), 4240; (11), 166); (61), 4250; 
(158), 1546; (283), 1556; viii. (3), 195@; (5), 
442b ; (60), 445a ; (111), 754; ix. (20 sqq.), 175 ; 
(106, 114), 1952 
Hesiod :— 
Op. et D. (86), 2b ; (57), 280; (276 sqq.), 
238b, 239 
Hippocrates (8, 100), 19a; iii. (p. 64, p. 153 Kiihn), 
442b 
Homer :— 
Hymn iv. {iii.] (552), 157a; vii. (55), 157) ; 
xix. (9), 7. 
Hymn to Apollo (234), 1560 
Hymn to Demeter (64, 76), 1576 
Hymn to Hermes (33), 398a, b; (48), 157a; 
(188, 259), 157b 
Iiad i. (44—60 pap. fr.), 134a ; (137), 167a ; 
(291), 464); (505), 4560; (516), 2a, b; ii. 
(246), 458a (n.); (291), 4640; (391), 1682 ; 
(546), 173b; iii. (49), 4000; (57), 398a; 
(287), 28a; (419), 405b; (460), 28a, 4100; 
iv. (82—95 pap. fr.), 134) ; (164), 168; vi. 
(149), 464); (295), 456); (327—353 pap. 
fr.), 1840 ; (448), 168a@; vii. (473), 4440 ; viii. 
(373), 168a; ix. (133, 230), 465a; (633), 2a; 
(699), 456) (n.); x. (556), 458b (n.); xi. 
(348, 417), 4650 ; (786 sq.), 456a ; (788—xii. 
9 pap. fr.), 135a, b; (831), 465a ; xiv. (74), 
168a ; xvi. (99), 1lla@; (150), 465a ; (5381), 
40la; xvii. (622), 168a; xviii. (22 sqq.), 
414d; (34), 131la; (192), 28) (n.) ; (497— 
508), 1 ff. ; xix. (208), 465; xxi. (75 sq.), 
415a@ ; (108), 168a@: (394), 111); xxii. (147), 
93b; (405 sqq.), 4140; xxiii. (48), 13la; 
(269), 2a; (327), 465); (345), 168a; xxiv. 
(119, 152), ib. ; (710 sqq.), 414d 


NO, LXXIV,. VOL, VIII, 


493 


Homer, conlinued— 

Odyssey i. (40), 168a, 488); (164), 4580; ii. 
(123), 168 ; (192, 212), 168a ; iii. (216), 7b. ; 
(259 sqq.), 414) ; (352 sqq.), 443d ; (362), 2b; 
(864—375, 384—402 pap. fr.), 135 ; v. (16), 
169) ; (105), 4560 ; (417), 168a; vi. (158), 2b.; 
viii. (187), 456a; xi. (325), 246D; (417), 
4586 (n.); xiii. (400), 1680; xv. (310), 4b. ; 
xviii. (334), 28a (n.), 4100 ; xix, (28 Eustath. 
on), 445a; xxiv. (485), 4645 

Horace :— 

Ars Poet. (1), 29a, 6; (58), 305b ; (@52), 3280 ; 
(279), 178a, b ; (359), 304a 

Ep. 1. i. (7), 1290 ; (27), 3450 ; (44), 68a; (51), 
302a, b; (59 sqqg., 103 sqq.), 660; ii. (34), 
68a; (52, 68), 67b; xiii. (7 sqg.), 67a; xiv. 
(14, 21 sqq.), ib. ; xvi. (55, 59, 68 37.), 
67a, b; xviii. (22), 68a; (93), 675; xix. 
(39 sq.), ib. ; xx. (18), ib. ; II. i, (115 sq.), 
304a 

Epod. xiii. (13), 804a ' 

Od. i. (2, 21), 328a; ii. (10, 9), 2b. ; (15, 6), 
26a ; iii. (3, 41 sq.), 29a 

Sat. 1. i. (26), 344a, 3450; ii. (56), 680; v. 
(11—23), 424a; vi. (12), 685; viii. (84), 
304a ; x. (1—8), 68 f.; II. i. (86), 8040 ; 
iii. (25, 215), ib. ; v. (48), 7b. 5 vii. (118), 
346a, b 


I. J. 


Ignatius :— 
Ad Ephes. (xix.), 1026 
Josephus :— 
‘Ant. (i. 2), 1526; viii. (7, 2), 102a ; at (aly ahi 
2, 1), 92a; (4, 1, 2, 7), 926; xv. (11), 90a, 
b; xvii (12, 2), 90b, 91a; (13, 1), 91a; 
xviii. (3, 2), 2b.; xix. (7, 2, 5), 2b.; xx. (9, 7), 


91a, b 
Bell. Jud. (i. 2, 8), 1550; i. (21, 1), 90a; v. (1, 
6), 9la 
Vit. (17), 2450 
Isaeus viii. (10), 136a, 137@ ; (12), 1368, 137) 
Isidore :— 
Orig. (4, 8), 1984 
Isocrates (13, 7: 15, 200, 266), 3950 ; (21, 1), 41la 
Areop. (16), 348a; (17), 195a; ($2), 297a, 
347b 
De Pace (80), 195a 
Panath. (67), 1950 
Paneg. (72), 195a ; (80), 457) 
Juvenal i. (135), 356a; iv. (116), 16 f.; vi. (492), 
148a ; viii. (28), 360 ; ix. (120), 158d ; xvi. (21) 
26b ; (42), 1694 


L. 
Laevius :— 
fr. ap. Prise. (1, 560), 275 

Laus Pisonis (126), 25b 

Licinius Calvus ap. Prise. (1, 170), 27 

Livy i. (5), 457a (n.); (26, 1), 166d ; viii. (7, 7), 
169a ; xxii. (88), 459a ; (57), 300) ; xxiv. (21), 
ib.; xxviii. (18, 10: 25, 13), 130d; Xxxlii. (28), 
378a; xxxviii. (15), 72a; xliv. (36 jin.), 3460 

Lucan i. (50), 87a; (74, 101, 277), 36a ; (295), 370 ; 
(320), 36a; (531), 355; (588), 86a; ii. (26), 38a ; 
(57), 87a; (106), 35d; (126), 38d; (133), 37a ; 
(214), 36a; (289), 35d; (476, 500 sq.), 36); 
(564 sq.), 87a; (587), 37 ; (707), 36D ; (728), 350 ; 
iii. (66, 149), 87a; (348, 484), 35d; (488, 671, 
663), 37a; iv. (11), 38a; (61), 37a; (98), 38a; 
(219), 36); (253, 318), 37a; (578), 350; v. (44 


MM 


494 


Lucan, continued— 
50; 52, 53), 2b.; (71, 91), 36a3 (107, 1387), 376; 
(175), 350 ; (189, 191), 36a; (197, 300, 375), 350; 
(383), 366; (386), 355, 360; (419), 37a; (602), 
36a ;. (659), 356; vi. (24), 2b.; (25), 38a; (32, 
58), 35b; (76, 137), 36a; (161), 35 ; (200), 360 ; 
(221), 385; (228, 237, 244, 312), 355; (317 sq.), 


36a ; (330, 400 sq., 420), 355; (453), 3653; (550, 


552), 355; (607), 38a; (610), 37a; (663), 38a; 
vii. (183), 360; (191, 325, 406), 36a; (460 sqq.), 
38); (462), 355; (510—20, 587), 38a; (621), 
36a; (641), 36b; viii. (217, 336), 370; (366), 
36a; (575), 360; (617), 37a; (864), 36a; ix. 
(379), 37a; (449, 454), 36; (495), 375; (568), 
380; (574, 592), 37a; (604), 36a; (627), 370; 
(777 sqq.), 38) ; x. (829), 36a; (536), 360 
Lucian (i. p. 29), 197a 
Alexander (4 fin., 8, 10, 30, 32), 2126 
Lucilius ap. Gell. (16, 9, 3=79 Baehr.), 27) 
ap. Non. (18, 22: 65, 30: 139, 6), 26a 
Jr. (46 Baehr.), 274; (186 Baehr.), 260; (629 
Baehr.), 26a ; (827, 887 Baehr.), 270 
Lucretius i. (172), 1160; (477), 252b; iv. (741), 
29a, 6; v. (311 sq.), 3040; vi. (652), 276 
Lycurgus :— 
Leocrates (28, 30), 1360, 187a ; (35), 1876 
Lysias iv. (16), 1366; vii. (35), ib.; (87), 136a, 
137a@; xix. (15), 459a 


M. 


Magna Moralia (i. 34), 189a; (1194a 1), 2b.; (1194a 
28), 1895; (1194b 20 sqq.), 1920 
Martial :— 
Epigr. ii. (66), 148a, 6; iii. (73, 1), 26a; ix. 
(ion) tins aver (7, 1); 270 
Lib. Spect. (i. 3), 148a 
Menander ap. Poll. (10, 187), 197a 


N. 


New Testament Writers :— 

St. Matthew viii. (1, 5, 28), 370a; x. (20), 310; 
xiii. (19), 3700; xviii. (20), 889a; xx. (8, 5, 
6, 9), 243a@ ; xxiii. (9), 390a; xxvi. (17 sqq.), 
15la ; xxvii. (19), 244a; (45 sq.), 248¢ 

St. Mark i. (3), 3700; v. (30, 36), 7b.; vi. (54), 
ib.; xii. (40), 370a; xili. (1), 91a; (11), 310, 
370a; xiv. (30), 244a ; xv. (25), 248a, 2450; 
(33), 243a; (34), 2160, 243a ; (43), 32a 

St. LInke iv. (17), 2166; vi. (40), 3700; xxi. 
(15), 310; xxii. (10), 3700; xxiii. (44), 2480 

St. John i. (39), 244a ; ii. (20), 89 ff.; iv. (6, 
35), 244a, b; (51), 370b; (SQ), 2440, 245; 
vi., 1510, 2686; xi. (2), 3706 ; xvi. (18), 3la; 
XVill. (28), 2456; xix. (14), 2450; (34, 35), 
151d ; (36), 151 

Acts ii. (6), 30a, 326; (9), 32b; (15), 2480; 
(42, 46), 151a; (47), 30a, dD; iii. (1), 2480; 
vi. (10), 31h; (14), 1495; x. (3), 248a, 2440 ; 
(9), 243a; (10), 1495; (30), 2430; xi. (26), 
30a, b: xv. (6—21), 3125; xvi. (9), 1490; 
XVli. (26), 2376; (34), 32a, 6; xviii. (20), 
31a; xix. (1, 21), 30b, 31a; (29), 32a, b; 
xx. (11), 15la; xxi. (2), 370a; xxiii. (83), 
243a; xxv. (11), 142a; (18), 3706; xxvii. 
(15), 314, 32a 

Romans iii. (11 sq.), 3700 ; vii. (25), 1490; ix. 
(3), 7b.; xv. (14), 2b. 

1. Corinthians iv. (14), 370a; v. (7), 151a@; vii. 
(10), 149a ; x. (2, 3, 16), 151a; (17), 1510; 
(18), 15la; xi.-(2, 16), 15la; (20 sqq.), 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. — 


New Testament Writers, continwed— 


149 ff.; (23), 149a, b, 267a, 2695; xv. (8), 
1490, 2670 

2 Corinthians. v. (10), 3880; vi. (4), 234a; vii. 
(1), 389a ; (5), 3890 

Galatians i. (12), 149b, 2674 

Ephesians vi. (8), 1496 

Philippians iii. (19), 370a 

Colossians iii. (24), 149a, b 

1 Thessalonians ii. (13), 1490 ; iv. (1), 2. 

2 Thessalonians iii, (6), 1495 

2 Timothy iii. (8), 31D 

Titus i. (12), 2366 

James i. (18), 149b 

1 Peter ii. (19), 370b;-v. (13); 102a,-6 

1 John i. (5), 2674; iv. (6 sqq.), 151d 

Jude (15), 43a, 64a 

Revelation i. (10), 150a; (20), 234a; ii: (14), 
3700; iii. (3), 2440; vii. (9), 3700 

Nonius (352, 19, 21, 25), 2030 
Nonnus (11, 122: 32, 242 Koechly), 198a 

Dion. xlviiil. (93 sqg., 101 sq.), 247a; (205), 

247b 


O 


Old Testament Writers :-— 
Genesis vil. (34), 2446; xl. (13, 19), 2b. 
Leviticus ii. (6), 268d 
1 Samuel xxi. (9), 3006 
Ezra i. (1), 92a; ili. (1—6), ib.; iv. (24), 2b.; 
v. (1), #b.; vi. (15 sq.), 2b.; (19), 90a 
2 Ezra v. (16), 896, 90a 
Proverbs i. (33), 285a; x. (4), 388a; xi. (24), 
238a ; xiv. (27), 286 
Isaiah xlv. (16), 326; lviii. (7), 2680, 3750; 
Ixy. (23), 390) 
Jeremiah xvi. (7), 268); xx. (40), 287a 
Origen :— 
Comm. (ii. p. 187), 90a 
Philocalia (ce. xxiv.), 4176 
Ovid :— 
Amor. iii. (15, 12), 1986 
Fast. iv. (387), 286 (n.) ; vi. (519 sqq.), 996 
Met. i. (16), 27a ; ii. (155), 370 ; (649), 26a; vi. 
(55), 406; x. (98), 26a; xii. (127), 7; 
(256), 392d (n.) ; xv. (287), 3450 


Ee 


Parmenides (149), £63 
Paulus ex Fest. (p. 104 Miill.), 27a 
Pausanias i. (24, 3), 175, 2706 ; (24, 8), 2236; (25), 
1710; ii. (84, 11), 368a; iii. (18, 5), 4420; vi. 
(22, 2), 3770; viii. (4, 6), 327a; (25, 7), 3630; 
(28, 1), 221a (n.); (29), 73a; (82, 4), 2706; (41, 
10), 3630; (48, 5), 327a; ix. (39, 10), 2786 
Persius iii. (67), 2040 ; vi. (9), 346a, 3470 
Petronius (3), 270 
Phaedrus :— : 
Fab, i. (29, 7), 3680; ii. (7, 11), 3685, 3690; 
iv. (5, 12), 3680; (7, 12), 369a; App. (21), 
158a 
Philo :— 
De Sacrificant. (p. 857 A), 418a 
Phrynichus (p. 163 Lobeck), 1780 
Pindar :— 
Isth. iv. [v.] (85), 2080; v. [vi.] (46), 2b; vi. 
[vii.], 208 f. ; vii. [viii.] (5, 35), 2092 
Nem. iv. (19), 2090 ; (67), 349a, b; (93), 208a; 
v. (44), 2b. ; vil. (20), 2b.; (25), 2080; ix, 
(23), 208a; x. (15), 209a@; (41), 2095; (61), 
2086 





INDEX. 495 


Pindar, continwed— 
Ol. i. (1), 50a ; (61), 2024, 4470; ii. (63), 500; 
(78), 50a; iii. (45), 208a; v. (10), 50a; vi. 


(82), 49a; vii. (34), 209a; (49), 50a; ix., 


Plato, continwed— 
B), 2940; (595 A), 198a; (598 B, E, 601 D, 
602 A), 393a; (602 C), 393d, 395d; (602 E, 
603 C, 604 A, B, 605 C), 3930; (606 A, D, 


49D ; xiii. (81, schol.), 382 


(21), 208a 
Placidus (p. 66, 22 Deuerl.), 159a 
Plato :— 
Apol. (22 C), 300a 


Critias (121 B), 24a 
Epinomis (992 B), 262a 
Euthyphro (4 C, schol.), 444a 





Pyth. i. (76), 50a, 6; iii. (84), 500; iv. (24, 
57, 105), 2b. ; (118), 208@; (189), 500; .x. 


Cratyl. (894B, 485D), 297a ; (455D), 177a 


Gorg. (447 C, 456 A, C), 297a; (482 E), 300a 


607 C), 394a; (607 D), 395a; (608 E), 
394a; (610 A, 611 E, 612 A), 3946; (614 
B), 3946, 411 b (n.); (615 D), 3940; (616 A), 
293a, 394b; (618 D, 619 D, 621 B), 395a; 
(621 C), 895a, b 


Soph. (246 A), 283: (247 C, E, 248-9), 299a ; 


(257 A, C, D), 2990 


Symp. (175 E, schol.), 1784; (209, 212 B), 237a 
Theaet. (147 E, 148 B. sqq.), 297a; (156 A), 


298b ; (180 C), 149d; (184-5), 299a; (185 C, 
D), 1930 : (188 A), 261b; (197 sqq.), 2982 


Timaeus (22, 23 B), 238b; (24 E, 25 A), 297a; 


Laws (626 D), 194; (630), 2830; (691 E), 


(69 D), 2942; (74 D), 2990 


300a ; (706 B), 297a; (777 D), 8000; (859), Plautus :— 


283d 
Menex. (240 D), 297a 
Phaedo (57 B), 1938a; (59 D), 28b, 340; (69), 


LJ 


Amph. (26—30), 203 a, b; (151), 346a 
Asin. (241), 59a 
Aul. (821), 455d 


238a ; (80 C), 25d 


Phaedr. (248 sq.), 3860; (254 B), 3000; (264 


A), 1930 (n.) ; (266), 2876 


Phil. (17), 451a; (24 C), 297a; (25 E), 2990; 


(29 B), 299a; (30 D), 2980; (64 E, 66 A), 
2990 


Polit. (266 B), 297a; (808 C), 300 
Protag. (311 C), 2205 ; (318 B, C, Sauppe on), 


459b ; (322 A), 1la, 6; (323.C), 300a; (328 
C), 2200 ; (337 C), 300a 


Rep. (827 C), 298a; (828 C), 2616; (380 E), 


193a; (331 D), 262a; (333 E), 2610; (335 
A), 262a; (336 E), 2626; (343 A), 230; (343 
B), 262a ; (852 E, 353 A, C), 298a; (364 A), 
297a; (366 E, 367 D, E), 2985; (369 B), 
1896, 1916; (869 D), 3955; (371 D), 250; 
(381 A), 300a; (398 F), 4495 (n.); (399 A), 
450a ; (409 A), 22b; (410 D), 292a; (411 D), 
292b ; (411 E), 2920; (413), (423 A), 297a; 
(424 A), 235a; (425 A), 194a; (480 B), 298a ; 
(433 D), 2990 ; (443 B), 298; (443 E), 1920; 
(451 BE), 2940; (453 E), 2970; (459 ©), 3950 ; 
(470 E), 262a; (477 C), 298a; (477 C sqq., E 
sqq-), 2976; (484 A), 22a; (485 E), 220; 
(486 B), 224, 292a; (487 B, 488 A, C, D), 
23a; (488 E), 293; (489 A), 230, 395d ; (490 
C, D), 23; (491 A), 23d, 194a; (491 D), 
23b; (492 C, E, 493 D, 494 D), 24a; (494 
E), 24b ; (495 A), 2995; (496 D, 498 B, 500 
A, 501 A, E), 24b; (502 A, D, 503 B, 504 
B, BE), 25a; (507 C sqq.), 298a; (S07 D), 
25b; (507 E, 508 A), 298a; (508 A), 2990; 
(508 B), 1934, 2994; (510 A), 282a; (511 A), 
256; (515 B), 192, 198a; (515 D, 516 D, 
E, 518 A), 198a; (518 B), 1938a, 297b; (518 
C and sqq.), 193), 297); (518 E), 193a; 
(520 D), 193b; (520 E), 198a; (527 D), 1930; 
(529 A), 1946; (529 C), 24a, 193d, 1940; 
(529 E, 530 B, C, E, 531 A), 194a; (533 C), 
194d ; (533 E), 194), 395a; (535 A), 1950; 
(538 A), 195d; (543 B), 2940; (S46 A), 230, 
2920; (546 B, C), 2620; (546 D), 292); 
(547 E), 292a (548; B, D), 292b; (548 E, 
292a; (549 B, C), 2920; (550 A), 256; (550 
C, 551 C, D), 292); (552 E), 25a; (554 E, 
555 C, 556 A, C), 293a; (557 C), 25a; (558 
A, E), 2930; (559 B, 561 E, 562 A), 2930; 
(562 B), 195a; (563 E, 565 D, 567 E), 293d; 
(571 C), 292a; (573 D), 29380; (574 E), 23a; 
(575 A), 294a; (575 B), 292a; (575 D), 294a ; 
(576 D), 395a; (577 A, B), 294a; (577 B), 
256; (579 D), 294b; (582 D), 220, 193d; 
(585 A, 586 C), 2940; (587 D), 297a; (592 


Bacech. (30), 25a 

Capt. (810), 458a; (547 sqq.), 391 f. ; (851), 
249a, b 

Cas. (941), 159d 

Cure. (100 sq.), 1000 

Epid. (118, 316), 160a ; (476), 1600; (609), 
160a 

Mere. (prol. 14), 346a; (i. 2, 30), 3920; (ii. 2, 
15), 346); (v. 2, 73 sqq.), 3476; (v. 2, 76), 
3470 

Pers. (1 sq.), 159a; (i. 2, 22), 26a 

Pseud. (49), 62b; (377), 346a; (393, 1039), 620 ; 
(1074), 159d; (1076), 99a; (1133), 458a 

Rud. (85 sqq., 139 sqq.), 99a; (160 sqq.), 99a, 
349a, b: (252, 2538), 1005; (290), 1590; 
(411), 99b; (440), 3460; (456), 167a (n.); 
(473), 99b; (682 sq.), 100a; (711, 779, 856, 
1115, 1307), 100d 

Stich. (67, 71), 159a; (106), 160a; (326, 
354), 159a; (420), 158), 159a; (427 sqq.), 
160b; (441 sq.), 160a, b; (S01), 159; (590 
sqq-), 1606 ; (620, 684), 159) ; (700, 713), 
159d, 249a, b; (715, 768), 160a 

Trin. (991), 100d 

Trucul. (667 sq.), 447b, 448a; (896). 4480; 
(952), 448d 

Pliny :— 

Hist. Nat. iii. (116), 110; (142), lla, b; xii. 
(18), 130a; xv. (138), 1160; xxv. (47), 385 ; 
Xxvill. (85 sq.), 39la; xxxiii. (154), 4740; 
xxxiv. (58), 69 f. ; (77), 2226; (xxxv. (130, 
138), 690 

Pliny :— 

Epp. iii. (5, 5), 2660 ; iv. (9, 2), 4345 (n.); vi. 
(16, 12), 169@; x. (3 fin.), 116a 

Ep. ad Trai. (31, 5), 43810; (82), 432@ (n.); 
(56, 3: 57, 1), 4318; (81), 1436 (n.) 

Plutarch :— 

Apophth. reg. (p. 200), 274a 

Arist, (23), 196) 

Comp. Sol. et Poplic. (2), 1426 

De © apud Delphos (ec. 10, p. 389 e), 397) 

De Musica (ce. 6, 8), 397b, 450) ; (c. 14, p. 13 
Westphal), 317); (ec. 15—17, 19), 397), 
450a 

De Pyth. Or. (24), 381a 

De Soll. An. (973 E), 442a 

Dem. (84), 178) 

ys. (448 C), 442 

Oth. (1), 4340 

Pelop. (17), 1550 

Per. (31), 172a 

Pyrrh, (395 D), 442b 


496 


Plutarch, continued— 
Sol. (13, 2), 296a, 444; (18), 1420; (19), 4620 
Thes. (16), 1786 
Timol. (xii. 3), 245a 
Pseudo-Plutarch :— 
Prov. Alex. (xvi. 1255), 271a 
Pollux iv. (123), 178); (127), 178; vii. (138), 
1936; viii. (62 sqg.), 143a; (99), 56; (125), 143a 
Polybius i. (72), 4450; xxiv. (34, 10), 245@; xxx. 
(13), 1780 
Priapea (52, 10), 26a; (68, 36), 27b 


Priscian :— 
Inst. Gramm. (Keil ii. 6, 14), 345¢ 
Procopius :— 


Bell. Goth. (1, 1d), 1840 ; (1, 12), 102a 
Bell. Vand. (2, 20b), 1546 
Propertius i. (2, 2), 98a; (2, 15), 4470; ii. (1, 5S: 
9, 43 sq.), 98a; (10, 21 sqq.), 250a; (19, 17: 
23, 27: 26, 23), 98a; iii. (1, 23: 5,39: 11, 
S), ib. ; (7, 8), 26a; (10, 21), 250a; (11, 39 
sq.: 12, 25: 14, 19), 98); (18, 24: 20, 22), 
250a; (21, 25), 2500; iv. (1, 47, 63), 98); (4, 
13), 2506; (7, 55), 390; (8, 39 sq., 81 sq.: 9, 
22: 11, 15), 980 
Pseudophocylidea (87), 1686 (n.) 
Ptolemy (Claudius) :— 
Harm. (ii. 5), 453a; (§ 31), 454a 


Q. 
Quintilian :— 
Deelam. (372), 435a 
Inst. Orat. i. (1, 18), 3470; (1, 24), 3450; (1, 
27), 26b ; (6, 21), 158a; ii. (3, 1), 34503 iv. 
(3, 12), 446; viii. (3, 89), 7b.; x. (2, 2), 
26) ; (7, 10), 27d 


Sallust :— 
Cat. (11, 8), 276 
Script. August. :— 
Vit. Commod. (7), 433a 
Vit. Pertin. (7), ib. 
Seneca :— 
Ben. (1, 11, 6), 346a ; (2, 12), 260 
Controv. (iii. 23), 485a 
Epp. (4, 7: 8, 1: 10, 2), 169a; (28), 27a; (47, 
12), 26); (75), 26a; (76, 1), 265; (83, 4), 
27a ; (90, 31), 26b; (110, 13), 270 
Med. (378), 1694 
Sextus Empiricus ;— 
Adv. Mathem. v. (13), 71b; x. (54), 146d 
P.H. i. (192), 2856 
Sidonius Apollinaris :— 
Ep. (iv. 12), 3574 
Silius Italicus x. (599), 3000 (n.); xiv. (372), 276 
Sophocles :— 
Ai. (148), 406a ; (514), 27a; (555), 285, 1670; 
(658 sq.), 28a, 146a, 167a; (1082), 351a 
Ant. (1 sqq.), 130a; (332, 466), 406a; (670), 
24b ; (674), 208) (n.) ; (1114), 405d 
El. (11 sqq.), 4386; (47, 72, 113, 115), 3500; 
(138, 155), 35la; (159), 3505; (164 sg.), 
439b ; (167), 3990; (187, 276), 350; (284), 
351a ; (303 sqq.), 4395; (363), 3500; (443), 
351la; (495), 3505; (S64), 35la; (686), 
350d ; (776), 4386 ; (780), 3515; (782), 4390; 
(914), 3500; (1075), 351a; (1086), 3500; 
(1106, 1110, 1123), 351b; (1143), 3851a; 
(1349 sq.), 438 
0.C. (68), 441a ; (223), 407); (566), 4040; (583, 
1119), 4070 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Sophocles, continwed— 

O.T. (169), 4116; (855), 18); (531), 1760; 
(713), 4055 ; (796), 28a, 4115; (1100), 4050 ; 
(1219), 3500 ; (1246), 4116 (n.). 

Phil. (24), 407a; (276 sq.), 280; (279), 41la; 
(302), 4110; (691), 411a; (695), 285; (710), 
405b ; (917), 28b; (938), 411a@; (1145), 4050 ; 
(1404), 18d 

Trach. (16), 4046; (17, 20 sq.), 407a; (28), 
404) ; (56), 405a; (68), 407a@; (79), 4050; 
(87), 407a; (90), 4040; (97), 407a; (118), 
4040 ; (127), 405a ; (129), 404a, 407a ; (137), 
407); (189), 4074; (144 sq.), 406a; (145), 
405d; (148), 405a@; (158 sq.), 4070; (196), 
4066 ; (210), 407a.; (302), 405a ; (8308 sqq.), 
407; (313), 405a ; (316), 407a ; (328, 331), 
406) ; (332), 407a ; (850), 4070 ; (380), 4060, 
(381), 4430; (396), 406); (422), 405c: 
(432), 404b; (445), 4070; (526), 406a; 
(539), 407a; (554), 350), 4060; (555 sqq., 
557), 407a ; (S62, 582 sqq.), 406) ; (608), 
407); (622), 4040; (623, 646), 407; 
(650); 4040; (673), 4074; (675), 4050; 
(678), 406); (682), 407a; (692), 405), 
406a, b; (695 sqq.), 407a@; (720), 404); 
(730, 757), 4050 ; (772), 407a@; (801), 4110: 
(809), 4040 ; (810), 4060 : (825), 4050 ; (844), 
4050; (853), 406); (855), 405a; (869, 
(878, 878), 406 ; (890), 4072; (903), 28 f., 
145d, 146 £, 167a; (905), 411 ; (911), 4060 ; 
(914, 941), 4075; (942), 404d; (949, 952, 
955), 4077; (960), 4060; (969), 4040, 4060 ; 
(982), 4040; (991), 4120; (995), 4050: 
(1012), 406), 407a; (1014), 406); (1019), 
406a ; (1027, 1044, 1046), 4072 ; (1048 s9.), 
406a; (1058), 407a; (1062), 4040; (1073, 
1082, 1084), 407a; (1091, 1096), 4n4p: 
(1160), 4050 ; (1161), 147a, 4040; (1171), 
405b; (1188), 408); (1204 sq.), 4076; 
(1205, 1211), 407a; (1219), 405a ; (1238), 
406d ; (1241), 4070 ; (1260 sq.), 197 f., 4070 ; 
(1270), 405a 

Fr. (446), 249a, b ; (724), 270 f. 

Sozomen (vii. 19), 1016 
Spartian :— 

Had. (13), 102a; (18) 4370; (22), 148a@ (n.), 

4376 


Statius :— 

Silv. i. (84), 26a ° 

Theb. v. (550), 1980 
Stobaeus :— 

Ecl. Eth. (6, p. 124), 288d 
Strabo iii. (5, 5), 2750; xiii. (41), 279a; (p. 604), 

2216 ; xvii. (8, 14), 2750 

Suetonius :— 

Ant. Pi. (6), 4320 (and n.) 

Ant. Car. (3), 434d 

Aug. (33), 1444 

Calig. (15), 436a 

Claud. (12), 4326 ; (14), 435a 

Dom. (8), 485a; (9), 4860 

Jul. Caes. (56), 345a, b 

Ner. (47), 3256 

Oct. (32), 436a 

Tib. (75), 4316 (n.) 

Tit. (8), 4856 (n.) 
Symmachus :— 

Laud. in Grat. (ch. 6), 251a; (ch. 9), 2515 


Ts 
Tacitus :— 
Agr. (9), 1296, 3296 ; (17), 3295 ; (42), 1694, 
3470 





INDEX. 


Tacitus, continwed— 

Ann. i. (20, 28), 329); (75), 1440; ii. (36), 
329D ; iii. (10, 6), 436d (n.); (31, 1), 108a; 
(35), 75a; (51, 8), 431 (n.) ; iv. (31), 4340; 
vi. (5), 1440 ; xi. (27), 3295 ; xii. (8), 4340; 
(25, 3), 108a; xiv. (12, 6), 433 (n.), 4340 ; 
(64, 1), 108a; xv. (46), 2295 

Dial. (3, 9, 22: 5, 12, 13), 107) ; (11), 260; 
(17), 1060, 108a ; (21, 4: 22, 21: 25, 8: 
26, 12: 27, 7: 32, 15), 1070; (87, 32), 
108b ; (37, 37), 1075 ; (39, 12), 108a 

Germ. (29), 201a, b ; (37), 108a 

Hist. i. (90), 4340 ; ii. (92), 2. ; 

Terence :— 

Adelph, (78), 62b ; (168, 195)) 62a; (209, 335), 
62b ; (355), 62a; (365, 429), 980), 62b 

Heaut. (v. 1, 59), 1160 

Hee, (701), 1590 

Phorm. (ii. 2, 24, schol. on), 356a 

Tertullian :— 
Adv. Mare. i. (2), 887a; ii. (11), 887; (28), 


iv. (58), 270 


3874 

Theognis (963), 1680 

Theophilus :-— 

Ad Autolycum (ii. 7), 246 ff. 

Theophrastus :— 

De Sensibus (§ 3), 4630 
Hist. Plant. (iv. 8—10), 228) 

Thucydides i. (6), 353a ; (36), 154) ; (42, 4), 1570 ; 
(69, 5), 3940; (69, 6), 2920; (75), 196a; (92), 
442b, 44380; (95), 196@; (120, 2), 458a; (127), 
442), 443a ; ii. (2), 851; (7, 41), 1540; iii. (68), 
4436; (82, 8), 153b; (102), 28); iv, (80, 2), 
76a; (99), 448a; v. (77), 200a; vi. (24), 351a ; 
(46, 3), 76a; (54), 3360; (75), 123); (96, 2), 
11d; (99), 124a; (100), 1230, 124a; vii. (2), 
1546; (6), 155d ; (21), 154); (23), 351a; (28, 
3), 75b ; (49), 1520 ; (87), 7a ; viii. (2, 3), 154a, b ; 
(8, 4: 13: 25, 4: 46, 5), 154d; (48, 4), 1550; 
(48, 7), 1540; (50, 1), 155a; (53, 3), 1550 ; 
(65, 66), 154a ; (67, 2: 70 init.), 155a ; (80, 3), 
155); (89, 2), 153a (and n.); (92, 10: 93, 3: 
94,3: 96, 2), 1550 


497 


Tibullus i. (1 sq.), 198); (7, 49), 3040; ii. (1,58: 
3, 14c), ib. ; iii. (3, 36), 270; (S, 3), 3045; (6) 
279a 


Vic 
Valerius Cato :— 
Dirae (74), 266 
Lydia (53), 25a 
Valerius Flaccus (iii. 20), 27a, b 
Valerius Maximus (4, 1, ext. 7: 5, 2, ext. 8), 265; 
(7, 6), 3000 (n.) 
Varro :— 
LL. (vii. 36), 600 
Vergil :-— 
Acn. i. (130), 27a ; (286), 169a ; (455), 1830; 
(654), 3520; ii. (208, 223), 204a ; (353), 
203 f. ; iii, (286), 30la, b; (662), 2040; 
(702), 183); iv. (154, 263), 204a; (640), 
183); v. (859), 300 f.; (850 sq.), 3080; 
vi (249), ib.; (361, 365, 567), 2040; 
(604), 303d ; (779, Servius on), 158) ; (806), 
3035; vii. (98), 2b. ; (799) 4210; viii. (25), 
308); ix. (301), 27a; (849, 486), 3030 ; 
(579), 183): x. (816 sq.), 3030; xi. (105), 
400D ; xii. (158), 260 
Cir. (5 sqq.), 358a; (122, 170), 352b; (284), 
260 ; (347), 39b; (538 sqq.), 3530 
Cul. (38), 27a; (886), 276 
Ecl. ii. (2), 1696; iv. (8), 1820; (34), 1690; 
(46), 2510 ; viii. (7), 169a 
Georg. i. (53), 182b; (166, Servius on), 271a ; 
(321), 182); (406 sqqg.), 353a; (482), 1830 ; 
ii. (77), 250, 251a; iii. (189), <b. 
Mor. (110, 111), 276 
Verrius Flaceus ap. Gell. (N.A. 18, 7), 110 (n.) 
Vitruvius (5, 6, 7), 1780 


X, 
Xenophon :— 
Anab. iv. (1, 24), 2930 
Cyrop. iv. (6, 3), 442a 
Hellen..i. (7, 25), 202a,; ii. (8, $1), 2020; 
iv. (8, 36), 456a; vi. (34), 1960 


II.—GREEK INDEX. 


A. ddcav = darent, 241a 
aduvacia, 154b dpvpaxtor, 1465 
avi, 1460 dvotkev, 71a 
aicxuyn, aicxvvoua)(confusio, confundor, 32b 
axovuBiros, 101a 
aupioByrnots, 146a E. 
avaewaruvpio)(epuatov, 129 
avdpixds (of intellectual qualities), 3950 tap (ver), 2400 
avdpoanwia)(avdpoanpiov, 146a éxaotos, 4614 Z 
avbeuoupyds, 382) ExkAntos (ék- ém-Kadretobat), 142 ff. 
avdarteos, 881a, 382), 3830 ExTnudpor (ExTnudptor), 1466, 207a, 296 f., 347 f., 
avtimermov@evar (Td avTimemovOds), 185 ff. 444 f. 
avropbaruery, 31), 32a €AAoW, 382 
avwrtéepw)(kaTwrépw, 4550 efnyntat (ciceroncs), 3630 
&éoves)(KUpBes, 1460 *"Emixdatn (‘loxaorn), 4610 
amoypadat (kat’ cikiay amoypapat), 776 émiwoptos, 444a, b 
apylrous, 382a eo Ony (acc. of écOHs), 1460 
apuovia, 451 f. evppdrn, 381a 
apuovia pitoAvdsori, 4490 evxouat (with aor.), 2a 
apuovia)(ovornua, 451a epéommot and avamdumimo: Sixat, 142 ff. 
apuovia)(rovos, 449 f. €ws (eis 0) with and without ay, 168d (n.) 
&puoviat)(rdvor or TpdTa, 397A, b 
apxal (= initia), 345d 
&pxwv)(Bactrevs, 55a, 6b 1 H. 
aondhous, 382a 
aboy...xrwpér, 3810 -n (-n), adverbs in, 408a, 6 : 


avtoiow bxeopiv, 402D # comparative, 457 ‘ff. 


Homeric constr. of, 4586 
B. origin of, 457a, b 


AdBaxa, 3820 disjunctive, identical with 4 interrogative, 457a 
Bactrets (of) = pvaAoBacireis, 4620 # = Lat. at, 458) (n.) 
BdAw6pds and the long sonant, 955 4 pa, 50D 
Brook Lever eer ae 96a Bn (7d em Sieres HBAca), 1465 
Bovretoews ypapn, 4630 jdvumvovy, 382b 
Bpvots, 936 ; 00s (in Greek music), 449 f., 452 3 
Bpwpntns (Bpwyntwp), 382) huepéxorros avnp, 381a 
Bpéoxw and the long sonant, 95d jv (= is as it was proved), 34a 
BwArdpuxa, 382a iimep = Lat. atque, 458d (n.) 

ie 
yapayas, 3820 e. 
yeAeovtes)(TeA€ovtes, 1460 
yewpdpot, Snusouvpyol)(evmarpidat, 207b, 336a GepiCew, 8a 
1Onoa = gauderem)(yhOnoay = gauderent, 2410 @péoxw and the long sonant, 950 
yAaukh, 381a 

A. I 
deipyra, 382a 
Siartntal, 56b, 57a Y5pts, 381a, 382d, 383a 
diakardaudoapKes, 3820 Yooos (Sappho 91), 21la 
dlknv eimeiv, 2b, 8a "Ididvacca (“Ipyevera), 4616 


5oArxés and the long sonant, 95d -twy, -Tepos, the suffixes 455a 





INDEX 499 


K. medaTat, 444b 
derivation of, 4456 

kaptatmoda, 382b mévtocos, 38la 
Kepaol Kal vhepot HANKoiTa, 38la mept (adv.), 4036 
KiAAos, 3820 anyadt, 93d 
«tAAoupos, tb. myyal motanav, 940 
klpagpos, 461a mnyh opp. to Kphvn (Kpovvds), 930 
KAdats &ptou (kAdopa), 1500, 151a, 268a, b, 375a mActoThpns, TAELoTHpiCouat, 301 f, 
KAhpwots éx mpoxpltwy, 333), 335a, 336) mow (= Wergild), 2a 
koyxooTarns, 101la méaros, 461la 
Képupos, 46la mérepos (uter), 455) 
kovBovraAcioy, 101a mplv with and without av, 168) (n.) 
Kphvn (kpovvds) and rnyn, 930 mpdxAnats eis Bacavoy, 136) 
Kbpia dvéuara, 381b mpoxetpotovia, 56a 
KwTiAddas, 382a mbyapyos, 382 


muyoraumls, 382a 
mupkaid, 4625 


A. 

P: 
Aakéras (axéras), 3820 
Aautroupts, 382 pdoow (apdaocw), 155b, 1560 
Anélapxos, 146 ‘Pdd0s = ‘Poddynaos, 462b 
Avyavrap, 3820 
AvdoxdAAnTos, 197 
Auuds and Aojmds, pronunciation of, 76a >y 
Aoytoral, 56) 
AvKobaporjs, 146a orThw, otalnv, oratuev, 241b 


otioa=starem)(orjoav =starent, 2414 
otoxeia (=elementa), 345) 
M. otpopeds)(arpdpiyé, 146) 
oTpwpdw, Tpwraw, &c., 96a 
pakpdBio, 384a 
MaAAov)(malo, 458d (n.) 
uaxn (ayoph &c.) ukav, 4026 
édouat, adéyw, &c., with gen., 4020 
MeAayKepws, 382) 
MeAdumous, 384) 
MeAdumuyos, 3820 
séAas, compounds of in animal names, 384) 
Béuvwv, 3820 
Mecoupaynua, 71a 
werd with dat. (Homeric), 2a, b 
pnnades, 382b 
dot okoAtol (Sikac cxoAral), 381a 
BuXAds, 382a 


T. 


taulas, veavlas, &c., origin of gender of, 400a 
Taxlvas, 3820 

Titpéokw and the long sonant, 95d 
Tomapxns, 102a, b 

Tpadua ex mpovolas, 462d 

Tpow and TAdw, 96a 


Jue 


tSwp, oxdp, &c., declension of, 97a 
imd yav, 71a 


N. Spat, 382a 

velaros %AAwv, 456) 

vexpés...-OvioKev, 7a &, 
vepé (Mod, Greek), 100 f., 398 f. 

vnds mrepd, 381a papuaca = plrrpa (2), 462d 


pepéotkos, 381la, 382a, b, 383a 
-i(v), cases in, 4020 


Oo. ppéap, 93b, 94 
dyKntis, 3825 
of SwAa mapexduevor, 55d x 
OAdumia)(solemnia, 457a (n.) 
évopacta Kara béowv)(KaTa Sivan, 453a xavétns, 101la 
émitOoTiAa, 3820 xdpwy, 382b 
dpor (in Solon’s legislature), 207a xetpodlans, 381la 
dprartxov, 382a xpeav amoxoral, 55), 56a 


Xdouat, KoTéw, &c., with gen., 402a 


TI. 
a. 
mavu, 152b, 15380 
mapadauBdvew mapd)(ard in N.T., 149a, b,:267a 4 (Doric), 403a 
269) apookdmos, 71a 
medio méoe, 4010 as, Tas)(Sk. yad, tad, 403a 











RicHARD CLAY AND Sons, LiMiTED, 
LONDON AND BUNGAY- 














ee wee FU) Ul UU 


PA The Classical review 


PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET 
a te a 


UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY