The Classical review

af ἦν», ~<a a ae νι οι ον ἡ ἢ
~rotetieg ann, oe 2 at oat a - =

OA mmm en me

im oe ae ~~ + Ὁ
--- . το + eee Bow

τ τ oe gD
pena inane

we tee cee, as
- ane Peas vernon oun, 4.
δι. κῶνοι, eee Maw ἐπ Σὰ ¥ Sates Oe ade gee OT On. στ © παπνιος “καὶ ΤΕΣ OS CRS 0. BR WS OLS Soe ~ we eb be TY >
ead in 1 Soteteetee sea gegewens pe eee Sree τοῖς TT σα eee Ga ere weenie oe bt ka act ae etre COR A σοι"
Se sei eT ETP ETI oe eee ee tO etree eae τιν ὁκα band hon

4 © tus =a oben a

δου... es = — Ξ νῇ Ὡ -- _ _ - ~~ πω a — 2 _y — en =

(4) fs BD
tee OO ILlCA £

REVIEW

Peewee YY VV. oH. DD. ROUSE

ASSOCIATE EDITOR IN ARCHAEOLOGY: H. B. WALTERS

ADVISORY COMMITTEE : PROFESSOR R. M. BURROWS, 5. H. BUTCHER, M.P.,
J. W. MACKAIL, T. E. PAGE, MISS E. PENROSE, V. RENDALL

VOLUME XXIII.

Donodon
DAVID NUTT, 57-59 LONG ACRE.
BOSTON, MASS.: GINN AND COMPANY, 29, BEACON STREET

I9IO

RoR i ein Χμ. ὙΠ Ὁ ie) ΡΥ ἢ if
ῃ ; he

ΨΩ

᾿ i” : j id ; yy feel

ἢ: ἣ 4 1. :

ΠΟΙ Ἢ
" Ψ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Original Contributions :
The Learner’s Point of View.
ΓΑΙ.

Perta of Lycaonia. W. Μ. Ramsay
On Virgil. Eclogues, ix. 17. JOHN
SARGEAUNT
Notes :
Two Notes on Aeschylus. H. L.
JONES : : : :
Aeschylus. Agamemnon. A. C. P.
MacKWORTH : .
An Emendation in ces: fA.
SONNENSCHEIN
Reviews :

Blass’s Die Eumeniden des Aischylos.
A. W. VERRALL
Macan’s Herodotus, the seventh, he
and ninth spoke E. SEYMER
THOMPSON .
Ludwich’s Homeri carmina.
ALLEN
Brugmann’s ἜΣ ae l eich.
enden Grammatik. R.S. CONWAY
Marshall’s Catalogue of the Finger-
Rings. ERICH PERNICE :
Short Notices :
Clark’s QO. Asconii Pediani Commen-

T. W.

tarii. J.S. REID : :
Schneider’s Griechische Ροϊίογκε-
tiker

Original Contributions :
The Aims of Classical Study, with
special reference to Public
Schools. T. NICKLIN
The Death of Cyrsilus, alias Lyides
A. W. VERRALL . :
κλισίαις ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων ἄξω το 1).
HARRY ;

J E.

Noid:

Short Notices—continued :

PAGE
Hildebrant’s Scholia in Ciceronis
I Orationes Bobiensia. J.S. REID .
7 Prott and Ziehen’s Leges Graecorum
sacrae ὁ titulis collectae. Ziehen’s
9 Leges Graeciae et Insularum.
W..H.D. Ra
Delbriick’s Hellenistische Bauten in
IO Latium. I. Baubeschreibungen
Lindsay’s Contractions in early Latin
II Minuscule MSS. W. H. Ὁ. R.
Some School Books : Herodotus
II vii. and viii, Xenophon’s Hel-
lenica, Virgil’s Aeneid i.-vi., Epi-
grams of Martial, Select Epigrams
12 of Martial, Cicero in Verrem v.
New Editions : Homeri opera i., ii.,
Prolegomena to the Grammar of
15 New Testament Greek, Ferrero’s
Greatness and Decline of Rome iv.
17 | Obituary :
Thomas Day Seymour. JouNn H.
18 WRIGHT : : : :
Archeology :
19 Corstopitum. Κα. H. FORSTER
News and Comments
Translation :
21 To Cynthia concerning his Buriall.
Co δὲν:
22 | Books Received
No. 2
| Notes :
Two Classical Parallels. J. P. Post-
GATE : ; . ᾿ .
33 Tacitus, Ann. iv. 33. RacHet E.
WEDD
36 Theocritus, /dylli. 136 RACHEL ΕΞ.
WEDD

40

PAGE

ιν
Ὁ]

iv THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Notes—continued.

Note on Herodas ii. 44, 45. H.G.
EVELYN-WHITE . ; :
The Reading in Aristoph. Ach.

gi2. M. Kraus . ἔξ ;
Propertius I.xx.32. J. U. POWELL
Reviews :

Gelzer and Burckhardt’s Des Ste-
phanos von Taron Armenische
Geschichte. 1). 8. MARGOLIOUTH.

Anderson and Spiers’ The Architec-
ture of Greece and Rome. W.R.
LETHABY

Diels’s Die Reacher ae Toe
tiker. A. Ὁ. PEARSON :

Allen’s Homeri Opera, T. L. AGAR

Gundel’s De stellarum appellatione
et veligione Romana. F.GRANGER

Martinon’s Les Drames d’Euripide.
G. M. :

Some English remmeinnone

Short Notices :

Dahnhardt’s Natursagen ; eine
Sammlung naturdeutender Sagen
Mdrchen, Fabeln und coat
Ν᾽. H. D. ROUSE :

Birt’s Die Buchrolle in der ἘΝ
archdologisch-antiquarische Unter-

Original Contributions :
The Teaching of Latin and the
Fundamental Conceptions of Syn-
tax. W. A. RussELL, M.A.
A New Fragment of Alcaeus.
EDMONDS .
A New Reading of the Hippolsts
J. Ε΄ Dospson
Last Words on Pore fans. Τ᾿
RicE HoLMEs

|. M.

Notes :
Arnobius vii. 18. H. JOHNSON
μέτασσαι. J. FRASER

Emendation in the ἘΠῚ ἢ Pa.
pyri, vi. 116. W. Ruys Roperts
Note to C.R., p. 8. W.M. Ramsay
Reviews :
Charles’s Greek Versions of the Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs. .
NICKLIN

PAGE

44

44
44

45

46

48
50

53

54
54

Short Notices—continued :
suchungen zum antiken Buchwesen.
Ea: : ; :
Robert’s Szenen aus Menanders Ko-
modien and Der neue Menander ;
Leeuwen’s Menandri Quatuor Fa-
bularum Fragmentatterum. H.R.
Chase’s The Loeb Collection of Arre-
tine Pottery. ἘΠ B. W. :
Jackson’s The Shores of the Hanae
Cagnat’s Les deux Camps de la Lé-
gion [116 Auguste a Lambeéese d’ apres
les fouilles récentes. H. B. W.
Schmidt’s De Hermino Peripatetico.
A.C. Pearson . ὃ
Laurand’s De M. Tulli
Studiis Rhetoricis
Miller’s Two Dramatizations \ Fata
Virgil
Bloomfield’s
E. V. A.
News and Comments

Ciceronis

ΤΩΣ Concorde

Versions and Translations
Archeology :
Monthly Record. E. J. FORSDYKE .
55 | Correspondence
Books Received
No. 38.
| Reviews—continued :
Reitzenstein’s Hellenistische Wunder-
erzihlungen and Helm’s Lucian
65 und Menipp. F. GRANGER .
Mulder’s De Conscientiae Notione
72 quae et qualis fuerit Romanis and
Dobbs’s Philosophy and Popular
75 Moralsin Ancient Greece. W.H.S.
JONES : :
77 Garnsey’s Odes of ΠΣ ΕΣ A Trans-
lation and an Exposition. A. S.
81 OwEN
82 Thiloand Hagen’s ae Vit Grammnien
qui feruntur in Vergilit carmina
82 Comimentarii. 8. E. WINBOLT
82 Harrower’s Flosculi Graeci Bore-
ales :
Papillon’s Nugae nines
Harvard Studies in Classical Phi
83 | logy. H. RIcHARDS

PAGE

56

84

86

87

88

89
go

go

TABLE OF CONTENTS ν

Short Notices :

Beeson’s Hegemonius : Acta Arche-
lai. ARTHUR S. PEAKE

Mommsen’s Le Droit Pénal oe
main :

News and Comments

Original Contributions :

Dr. Warren’s Death of Virgil and
Classical Studies. I. GREGORY
SMITH :

Three Fragments ᾿ Sanna. rh M.
EDMONDS

On τε etc., with eesti τ:
PLATT -

The Rate of ἈΠ ΔΝ of irate in
the Fifth siiicg ΒΘ Gace (es.

vace News and Comments—conlinued :
The ‘ Frogs’ at Oxford . : ἘΠ 85

QI | "Versions and Translations :
| For Greek Elegiacs. J. Hupson . 94

gt Prince’s Grave. R.C.SEATON . 94
92 Books Received . : ' - 94
No. 4.

Reviews—continued :
Unus Multorum’s The Lately Dis-
covered Fragments of Menander.

97 ROBINSON ELLIS : 125
Ehrle’s Roma prima di Sisto V.

99 Tuos. ASHBY . soma
Thiersch’s Pharos Antike, yee ἘΠ

“ΤΟΣ Occident. J. P. MAHAFFY ; 2 (826

Lethaby’s Greek Buildings represented
by Fragments in the British Museum.

GRUNDY {R07 TT. Ppa. Ὁ 129
Terence, Andria, Vv. iv. oe -8 iets =) Pais’s Ancient ΠΝ iP 5, R. ; 131
ἘΞ PHILLIMORE . 108 Ludwich’s Homerischer Hymnenbau.
On Juvenal i. 157 and Tracie, T. Hupson WILLIAMS : 122
Annals, xv. 44. S. ἃ. OWEN ans. Walters and Conway’s Limen. J. P.
Varia. H. DARNLEY NAYLOR ΠῚ POSTGATE . : ; : .. 134

Reviews :

Sandys’ History of Classical Scholar-
ship. ALFRED GUDEMAN

Slavery. F. DE ZULUETA
Smith and Ross’s The Works of Aris-
totle. R.G. Bury

Short Notices :
Michaelis’ A Century of Archeologi-

ee cal Discoveries. H. BL. W. . . 136
Buckland’s The Roman Law οἵ

Pottier’s Douris and the Painters of

- 116 Greck Vase. H.B.W. . . 136

Lang’s Die Bestimmung des Onos oder

; shane Epinetron. H. ΒΝ. : . 137
Mutschmann’s Divisiones quae pulgo Abbott’s Silanus the Christian. E. H.
dicuntur Aristoteleae. R.G.B. . 120 ἘΣ ; . 137
Dittmeyer’s Aristolelis de Animalibus Breiter’s M. Mantlit ΓΕ ΕΗ Δ
Historiaand Rudberg’s Tewtstudien H.W. GaRROD . ; . 137
zur Tiergeschichte des Aristoteles, Bokerscnts 7 Biante Oras
R. G. B. ; a 4 le tiones. T. NICKLIN . Fe:
Laurand’s De M. Tulli _ Ciceronis Vebsions 128
Studiis Rhetoricis and Etudes sur Ἐν ᾿ ἶ ἶ Ι ol FO"
le Style des Discours de Cicéron, Archeology . : : : - 139
avec une Esquisse de Histoire du | News and Comments ᾿ ᾿ “| paz
‘ ) T , - |
Cursus.’ ἊΝ. RHys ROBERTS 121 | Correspondence ; ; ἣ . 142

Anthropology and the Classics. Ἰ. Ἐ..
HARRISON :

. 123 Books Received ; : . . 143

vi THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Original Contributions :
Euripides, elena 962-974.
VERRALL
The Expressions ὅδε 6 Bene and
ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε in Thucydides. G. B.
GRUNDY
The Date of the Di opcenaniee of

A, IW:

Legio XXI. Parax. G. L. CHEEs-
MAN

More Finonients a Sanpho. i M.
EDMONDS

An Important ἘΝ ΑΕ to

the Social War. THomas ASHBY .
Reviews :

Maurice’s (Vumismatique Constantt-
nienne. \WARWICK WROTH .

Ellis’s Appendix Vergiliana and Cur-
cio’s Poeti Latini Minorit. H.W.
GARROD

Brugmann’s Dze ΠΣ ἘΠ ἘΠ dte

Kollectiven Numeralia der Indo-
germaniscthen Sprachen. 5. E.
JACKSON

Smiley’s Lazinitas “en cee nae
W. Ruys ROBERTS

Clemen’s Ree ἘΤῚ Erk-
lirung des Neuen Testaments : Die
Abhangigheit des altesten Christen-

Origina Contributions :
The Position of Classics in South
Africa. Marie V. WILLIAMS
A Note on the Teaching of the Pas-
sive Voice. W. H. S. JonEs
On a Redistribution of the Parts in
Aeschylus, Agamemnon ll. 489-502.
ADAM Fox . ,
The Attitude of ἜΤ ΒΟ
Death. J. A. SPRANGER :
Fleet-Speeds: A Reply to Dr. Grundy.

W. W. ΤΑΕΝ
Notes :
Two Notes on Tibullus. J. P. Post-
GATE .
A Note on Dicken. R. H. TUKEY

No. 5.

PAGE

. 145

. 146

δ ες

. 164

| Translation
| Books Received

Reviews—continued :
tums von nichtjiidischen Religtonen
und philosophischen Systemen 214-
sammenfassend untersucht. ARTHUR
S. PEAKE. ‘ Ἶ

Nohl’s Cicero’s Fourth Vee Ore:
tion. ΨΥ. PETERSON . :

Hellmann’s Sedulius Scottus,
Rand’s Johannes Scottus

Short Notices :

Regnaud’s Dictionnaire Etymologique
du Latin et du Grec dams ses
Rapports avec le Latin d’apres
la Méthode Evolutionniste. S. E.
JACKSON

Jatta’s Le ἜΣ οὐαὶ ΓΈΝ
delle Provincie Romane. (α. ¥. HILL

Croiset’s Ménandre: IT Arbitrage.
ἘΠῚ ἘΞ :

Burnet’s Larly
W.. H.35. J. :

Fairbanks’ Athentan White Tee
ἘΓ ΒΝ :

Heinze’s Vzrgil’s Epon
S. E. WINBOLT

News and Comments .

and

Greek Philosophy.

Ti ochniih.

No. 6.

ὁ Ly

. 180

. 184

. 186

187

Notes—continued :

Note on Suetonius, Divus Julius 79. 2.
M. O. B. CasparRI

The Aegeus Episode, Jedea ἐξ, 3- 26%
H. DaRNLEY NAYLOR .

On Horace, Serm. II.
ARTHUR PLATT :

Statius, Sz/vae I. Praef. ll. 35-37. Bs re
SLATER

Reviews :

Rees’s The Rule of Three Actors in
the Classical Greek Drama. A.W.
VERRALL

Butler’s Post- EES Pacis? Of W.
MACKAIL 4

Vill. 15.

PAGE

166

. 168

Beaty {>

171

ἘΠῚ

ΜΈΓ

172

τ

Re
<9
- 194
ΒΡ"

IgI

- 193

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reviews—continued :
Robin’s Za Théorie Platonicienne de
2 Amour. Marie V. WILLIAMS
Robin’s Za Théorie Platonicienne des
Idées et des Nombres d’apres Aris-
tote. MARIE V. WILLIAMS
Roscher’s Enneadtsche Studien.
JACKSON

Friedlander’s oman "ΝΣ cd. Mar
ners under the Early Empire.
it er oa i :

Emout’s Zes Eléments Videatoaes p
vocabulatre latin, and Recherches sur
Lemplot du passif latin a Vépogue
républicaine. J. FRASER

Caectht Calactint Fragmenta leat

S. ἘΣ

Original Contributions :
The Connection of the Aegean Cul-
ture with Servia. M. S. THOMPSON

and A. J. B. WaAcE : :
Sophocles’ Antigone. H. A. SIEP-
MANN . : ‘ : τ
The Defence of Orestes. Η.
RICHARDS : : 2
Plato, Phaedo 668. J. E. Harry
Notes :

A Geographical Note on Thucy-
dides IV. 54. Epwarp 5. ForsTER

Terence, Andria V. iv. 37-8. A.
SLOMAN ς :
Notes on Tacitus, nes ΣΙ ΡῈ
FISHER : : ; F
A Note on the ‘Dionysiaca’ of
Nonnus. H. I. BELL.
Reviews :

Neméthy’s Ciris epyllion pseudover-
gilianum. A. E. HOUSMAN .

Bury’s Ancient Greek Historians.
H. RacKHAM , :

Chaytor’s Ferrero: The Greatness
and Decline of Rome. G. M.
YOUNG

|
PAGE |

197

199

200

|

201

No.

Reviews—continued :
Ernestus Ofentoch.
ROBERTS

Short Notices :

William’s Diogents Oenoandensis Frag-
menta. R. G. B. :

Codices Blandinit. J. Gow

Wittich’s Homer in seinen Bildern und
Vergletchungen. S. E. WINBOLT

Kyriakides’s Modern Greek-English
Dictionary with a Cypriote Vocabu-

W. Ruys

lary. W.H. Ὁ. Rouse
Moore’s Days tn Hellas
Translation
Correspondence

Books Received

7.

| Reviews—continued :

. 224

. 226

Walters’ Catalogue of the Roman Pot
tery in the Departments of Antiqut-

ties, British Museum. ae
CURLE
Magoffin’s Szudy We the Pipa raphy

and Municipal History of Praeneste.
T. ASHBY
Gercke’s ZL. Annaet ΓΒ Ναΐωξ
alium Quaestionum Libros VIII.
WALTER C. SUMMERS . :
Abrahams’ Greek Dress. A Study
of the Costumes worn in Ancient

Greece from Pre-Hellenic Times
to the Hellenistic Age. C. A.
HutTon

Short Notices :
Souter’s Pseudo-Augustint Quaestiones

Veteris et Novi Testamentt. E. W.

WATSON : : Σ

Carotti’s History of « age Hy Be WwW. :
Translation

News and Comments .
Correspondence .
Books Received .

Vil

PAGE

- 202

. 229

ty

ty
ww Ye

-᾿
-

Ὁ oN ON
Www
co Ooo

ty
+
ο

Vili

Original Contributions :

The Berlin-Aberdeen Fragment
Alcaeus. J. M. EpMonpDs

οὗτος and ὅδε in Thucydides.
MARCHANT .

Some Notes.

Conjectures. D. A. SLATER

Plato, Republic 4408. JOHN I. BEARE

The Adverbs odxe and vatxe in Greek.
A, Ns JANNARIS :

Horace, C, 1v: 5. 10: 9. A. cee

Varia. LEONARD BUTLER

Appian, B.C. i. 74. T. Rick ent:

of
ΒΟΟΣ

(NS ΕΘ

Phrixus and Demodice. A. C.
PEARSON
Notes:

Note on Antigone 1216-1218. F. R.
MonTGOMERY HITCHCOCK
Demosthenes, Wezdias,§ 158. ERNEST
J. Rogson .
Note on Seres.
Reviews :
Brugmann’s Grundriss der Vergleich-
Grammatik. R. 5. Con-

E. H. PARKER

enden
WAY

INDEX

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

No. 8.

PAGE

ΠΟ

Reviews—continued :
Domaszewski’s <Abhandlungen sur
Romischen Religion. W. WARDE
FOWLER
Jebb’s Translation ak Ti he Rneire of
Aristotle. W. Ruys ROBERTS
Espérandieu’s Recuezl Général des
Bas Reliefs de la Gaule Romaine.
EUGENIE STRONG
Waldstein’s ‘Hivcutaneinn Pave Pre-
sent, and Future, and Barker’s
Buried Herculaneum. aS) ME:
DANIEL
Lethaby’s Greek Bums vepresnied
by Fragments in the British Museum.
Part iii, Zhe Parthenon and its
Sculptures. Part iv, The Theseum,
Evechtheum and other works. ‘THEO-
DORE FYFE .
Priester und Tempel im ‘Femmes
chen Agypten: ein Beitrag sur Kul-
turgeschichte des Hellenismus. H. 1.
BErLh:
News and Comments
Books Received

PAGE

. 260

+. 267

. 268

Ὁ
cour
(275

- 273

The Classical Review

FEBRUARY

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE LEARNER’S

Ir is sometimes possible for a looker-on
to intervene without excessive presumption
in the disputes of experts. In the matter
of education, all who are more or less
educated must watch the controversies of
teachers with acute interest and even some
anxiety. We have ourselves been taught;
our children, perhaps, are being taught at
the present day. In any case the question
of effective and useful teaching is one which
admittedly concerns the whole nation. It
is a matter of common knowledge that the
unrest in India and the agitation of the
suffragists, to take two only of the burning
questions of the day, can be traced to
educational causes. Perhaps there is no
dispute in which the ordinary citizen need
feel less hesitation in intervening than an
educational dispute.

Again, the language question is one in
which we are all concerned. We have all,
more or less, mastered our own rather difficult
speech so as to be able to write, read, hear
and speak it. The present writer has been
compelled, by administrative and other
necessities, to learn more languages than the
average Briton has any need to learn. He
has no pretension to be an exceptionally
gifted or skilful linguist. Quite the contrary,
as the following candid narrative will plainly
show. But he has been forced, with varying
success, to acquire several languages of

ΝΟ. CXCIX. VOL. XXIII.

POINT OF VIEW.

different types, and it is possible that a full
account of his experiences may be of some
value. Itis offered simply as the contribution
of a learner who was compelled to go on
learning till past middle-age. It is admittedly
difficult to secure the views of learners, nor
have these usually much choice in the
methods by which they are taught. In my
case circumstances compelled me to adopt
various methods of learning. I hope I shall
not be accused of egotism if I tell my. tale
frankly and, as far as may be, without
prejudice.

I shall assume that it is the object of
language-teaching that it shall result in some
mastery of the language taught. It is of
course possible to take Ste.-Beuve’s well
known paradox seriously, and to assert that
education has no practical end other than
discipline ; that life is such a bore that it is
well that the schoolroom should be dull as a
preparation for life-long ennui; that, in a
world which teems with disappointment, it is
good that a boy or girl should spend several
years over a foreign tongue and at the end
should know little and forget that little as
speedily as possible.

We may argue, too, that Porsons must in
any case be few, and that if we succeed in
getting one or two Porsons out of hundreds of
public school boys, the sacrifice of the re-
mainder is not too great. Personally, I

A

2 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

venture to think that the etymologist or
grammarian would be none the worse
equipped if he began by being a mere
linguist, inasmuch as a working knowledge
of colloquial English is no impediment to
the subsequent scientific study of the lan-
guage. I shall also venture to assume that
a colloquial knowledge of the so-called
‘dead’ languages is not impossible. Latin
and Greek are not dead but sleeping, and
they have only to be spoken to awake to life
once more. We have the precedent of
Sanscrit in India, where it is successfully
spoken in schools, colleges and learned
societies. Persian and Arabic are ‘alive’
in purely Mussulman countries, but are
‘dead’ in India. Yet they can be and are
taught orally in Indian schools. As for
Latin and Greek—but I must not forget that
I am writing for readers more learned than
myself.

Let me proceed to the tale of my personal
adventures. If it is permissible for a traveller
in foreign lands to relate his experiences
without offence, an explorer in foreign tongues
may perhaps claim the same immunity. I
was at Rugby from 1867 to 1872. I went
through the usual Classical grind, but when
I was promoted to the Upper School I was
called upon to choose between Modern
Languages and ‘Science,’ which was then
a somewhat fashionable novelty. I do not
in the least regret that I spent some part of
my time in Museum and Laboratory. But
I had to abandon French (of which I had
some elementary knowledge) and German
(of which I knew next to nothing). It
happened that during my holidays I had
opportunities of hearing French spoken, and
good French books were thrown in my way.
Hence I conceived the ambition of becoming
a candidate for the school French prize. I
had to secure the permission of my house-
master, who was also one of the Modern
Language masters. He objected, very pro-
perly, that I could not know much French,
but I persevered, with an audacity which now
somewhat surprises me, and I not only got
permission but captured that French prize.
I had unconsciously (the phrase was not yet
invented) been following the ‘ direct method.’

I had heard and talked French in the
holidays. This encouraged me to read
rather widely. My knowledge of formal
grammar was defective, but I answered the
questions put to me in French (of a sort).
I have no doubt I used out adverbially
without doubt or hesitation. I do not think
I could have answered the question recently
set at an examination—‘Give the various
adverbial uses of owt.’ This experience may
have been of use to me later on. In Classics
I was just the ordinary sixth-form boy. I
could write Latin prose and verse well enough
to be occasionally ‘sent up for good’ to the
Doctor ; my Greek prose and verse were not
nearly so good. I could do unseens in both
languages fairly well, and, as a result, on
French, Classics, Science and English sub-
jects I managed to scrape my way into the
Indian Civil Service in 1873. Then I had
to undergo two years of probation in London,
during which I had to learn, amongst other

-things, one Indian language, which, in my

case, happened to be Hindustani. I learned
it with a coach in the usual Classical way,
as if it were a ‘dead’ language. I just
managed to satisfy the examiner. I could
construe an easy piece of prose—with
difficulty. I could write a piece of Hin-
dustani in which the words were Hindustani
words, though the syntax was painfully
Britannic. I could not speak Hindustani,
or understand it when it was spoken to me.
I relied on the dictionary and grammar.

Then I was sent to Bengal and, as luck
would have it, was placed in independent
charge of a large ‘subdivision’ containing
some half million of Bengali souls, before
I had acquired more than the barest smatter-
ing of Bengali idiom and had hardly mastered
the written character. I heard Bengali, and
nothing but Bengali, spoken from morning
to night. I had to make a rough English
translation of the depositions of hundreds of
Bengali witnesses. I had to listen to the
eloquent speeches of Bengali advocates. I
had to talk the language so as to be under-
stood. In quite a short time I found myself
counting the stamps and coin in my little
treasury in Bengali.

It was after some two years of this experi-
ence that I took to the study of Bengali

ae

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 3

literature. I can still remember the acute
satisfaction I experienced at recognising, in
the new script and spelling, words which
were familiar to my ear. ‘Aha,’ I said,
‘ that’s how they spell such and such a word,
is it?’ And since the Bengali character,
like its mother Sanscrit, is more or less
phonetic, I was able to check my British
ear and improve my pronunciation. The
standard dialect in print gave me a new and
delightful comprehension of local vagaries of
pronunciation. I made very rapid progress.
But, above all, I remembered what I learned.
You cannot forget a language learned by eye,
ear and tongue. It becomes, as it were, a
second native language. If you have not all
a native’s proficiency, what you do know,
you know thoroughly and naturally. You
make up your own grammar as you go along,
and when you come to the formal study of
grammar, you use it to verify or correct
impressions already strongly made on your
memory. Grammar, then, is no longer dry
but delightful.

So far, there is nothing exceptional in my
tale. It merely relates what has been the
experience of hundreds of Englishmen in
India. Bengali is an Indo-European tongue
not differing very widely in syntax from our
own, and abounding with roots familiar to
every public school boy. Anyone can see at
first sight that 222 is ‘father,’ ma¢a ‘mother,’
bhrata ‘brother,’ and so on. The system of
counting is the same, since we seem to have
borrowed our decimal system from India.
Negatives are expressed by nasal sounds as
with us. The prepositions are all but identi-
cal with those of Latin and Greek. It was
like learning French after learning Latin.

After this, however, I had the good fortune
to be sent amongst the genial semi-savage
folk of the North-Eastern frontier. I came
into contact with tribes who spoke rude but
expressive Indo-Chinese languages the words
and idioms of which were not in the least
like anything I had heard before. There
was no written character. There were, of
course, no books, grammars, dictionaries.
There were no teachers. My semi-savage
friends had no notion of teaching and no
desire whatever to teach. Yet I could be of
no use to them unless I learned their speech.

I began in the usual way, by preparing voca-
bularies. It was easy enough to prepare a
list of nouns. You had only to point at
objects and mutely or verbally ask their
names. Verbs, too, in their simplest form,
one could obtain after a time. But adjec-
tives and adverbs presented a curious diffi-
culty. Sometimes one met a bilingual native
who could talk the Indo-European Assamese
as well as his native tongue. You could
give him an Assamese adjective and ask for
a translation. But the result was disappoint-
ing. Very often he gave you back Assamese
for Assamese, and you were driven to imagine
that his simple mind could not translate into
his native speech. That was not the case,
however. I had unconsciously run up against
the ‘agglutinative’ verb, a singularly interest-
ing and expressive device when idiomatically
and skilfully used. No savage could possibly
explain its use to you. Once learned, how-
ever, it is easily explained by an European.
It is something like this. Take the root

thang=‘go. Thang-bai is ‘did go.’ Thang-
a-bat is ‘did not go.’ Thang-a-hiit-bat is ‘did
not go from a distance. Zhang-a-hitt-thi-bai

is ‘did not pretend to go from a distance.’
Thang-a-hiit-thi-slai-bai is ‘did not mutually
pretend to go from adistance.’ Zhang-a-hiit-
thi-slai-zap-bai is ‘did not finish mutually
pretending to go from a distance.’ And so
on. The little particles @, hiz, thi, slat, sap
are what philologers call ‘infixes.’ They
have no separate existence. No savage
would dream of using them separately, or
of thinking of them separately, or of regard-
ing them as words at all, or, least of all, of
translating them. They are not words that
have a meaning, they are modifiers of words,
if the phrase may be allowed. Instead of a
made-up verb like the one given above, let
me cite two actual specimens from living
speech. Vu-2a-hiii-nat-siit-la means ‘ go from
a distance and take and see and observe
carefully,’ or something to that effect. Again,
bi-kho hom-lang-fop-din-fai-natse means ‘they
took him, and carried him, and buried him,
and left him there, and came away.’ (Bi-kho
is the accusative of the pronoun, and -wazse
is the inflexion.) In this case, the ‘aggluti-
nation’ is of a different type, all the ‘infixes’
being verbal roots. But, so used, they are,

4 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

to a native, not words, but ‘modifiers,’ as it
were.

The device is a simple one, it will be seen.
It is familiar enough to learners of Indo-
Chinese languages. But it was new to me,
and I had no one to explain. But, as luck
would have it, I met a born story-teller,
possessed of a large collection of both Indian
and Indo-Chinese folk-lore. His tales were
not without some primitive satiric humour.
I have often Englished them to my own
nursery with great applause from my own
little savages. My fabulist Samson became
my teacher in the sense that I employed
him to tell me his stories over and over
again. I listened as a child listens to his
mother, and at each telling a new joy of
comprehension came to me. I can hardly
describe without exaggeration the excite-
ment and pleasure that arose from suddenly
mastering the secret of the ‘agglutinative’
verb. It can hardly be called an intellectual
pleasure. It was like suddenly acquiring
the knack of learning to skate, or swim, or
bicycle. Like these, too, once learned it
was learned for ever. After twenty years
of disuse, I can remember the homely Bodo
stories Samson told me as I can remember
nothing else. They stick firmly in a memory
by no means retentive, so that, not long ago,
I was able to compile an elaborate account
and systematic list of Bodo infixes for Dr.
Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India. 1
imagine that my account has some interest
for comparative philologists and grammarians,
but I am heartily glad that I had no such
help in the acquisition of the language.
For (and this is what makes my tale worth
telling) I found the story-telling method
not only an efficient but a rapid way of
learning languages, and that at an age when
the power of acquisition is diminished even
in the case of far better linguists than I can
claim to be. The secret was simply in
listening like a child, learning with the ear,
and talking without false shame. I have
essayed other Indo-Chinese (or rather Tibeto-
Burmese and Kuki-Chin) languages, but, for
want of a story-teller, have had to stop far
short of my wishes, not because the languages
were more difficult, but because a continuous
narrative was lacking to exercise my ear and

engage my interest. Others, better linguists,
surmounted difficulties which stopped me.
But it is only justice to say that the best
teacher I ever had was a semi-savage being
who liked telling stories and told them with
admirable enjoyment, emphasis and visible
humour. I have written down and printed
these stories in a simple phonetic script for
the benefit of my successors. But no written
narrative can take the place of living speech.
It, and formal grammar, should follow some
mastery of audible language. The pupil
should use his aural memory, and the memory
which goes with the actual practice of speech.
The memory of the eye is a different thing, a
useful adjunct to the others, but, for many
minds, not sufficient by itself.

Perhaps it is not necessary to point the
moral of my ingenuous tale of personal ex-
periences. But I am a father of many boys
and spend all I can afford in having them
taught Latin and Greek. One of them shows
some promise of being an Oxford Greats
man, a Classical scholar of the orthodox
type. The others, so far as I can judge,
seem to be of the ordinary kind of British
youth. It is only natural, perhaps, that their
anxious parent should ask himself whether
they might not learn Latin and Greek in
some such fashion as that which proved so
useful to himself in India. A great language
and literature is not to be mastered, doubt-
less, in the same fashion as a simple savage
dialect. But it might at least be learned in
the same way and to something like the same
extent as our native language. There are
many boys who read English greedily who
would probably read Latin, Greek, French,
and German if they learned these languages
as they learn English. The other day I
found one of my small sons struggling with
Caesar’s Commentaries in the usual prepara-
tory school way of a paragraph a day. I
tried the experiment of reading a larger
quantity with him, rapidly and ‘for the
story. He was delighted: he had had no
idea that ‘Caesar’ was so interesting: he
realised that he was reading the personal
account of a real soldier's campaigns. His
master complains that this boy ‘knows no
grammar.’ He makes mistakes in declen-
sions and conjugation. He is inattentive.

be

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 5

He is expected to ‘attend’ to one of the
weariest and dreariest of studies. Yet he
loves reading, and knows his Scott and
Dickens (especially Dickens) far better than
I do. He has just been reading Barnaby
Rudge, and this has led him to take an
interest in Lord Chesterfield and his period,
including even the reformation of the calen-
dar. But he is probably as ignorant of
formal English grammar as he is of formal
Latin grammar. He misses something, no
doubt. But suppose he were not allowed to
read Barnaby Rudge till he could answer
‘catchy’ questions in English grammar!
Another of my boys got a very early ground-
ing in Latin grammar and ‘Latin Arnold.’
He does his ‘prep’ most carefully with
grammar and dictionary. But he never does
a word more than the prescribed task. He
never reads for his own pleasure or informa-
tion, either in Latin or English. As for
reading French or Greek ‘for fun,’ the idea
has only to be suggested to be greeted with
boyish incredulity and laughter. He is
nearly seventeen, and has never learned
the joy of reading, has never realised that
printed books are only stories written down
for convenience. I venture to think that in
his case print has come to be associated
with ‘lessons,’ and that lessons have never
been a pleasure to him. He has never,
apparently, had the satisfaction of feeling
that he has acquired a new art. Is nota
language primarily an art, to be acquired by
practice, by hearing, speaking and ultimately
writing, as a musician learns music? It is
more also. But do we not begin wrongly
with the ‘more also’? Do we not teach the
rules which grammarians make out of a
language before we have taught the language
itself? Making up a grammar after you
know a language is very interesting and
amusing. But as a means of learning a
language it is neither easy, amusing, nor
profitable for many minds.

The proof, as it seems to me, is in the
extraordinary facility with which average
public school boys and B.A.’s forget so
much of the Classics as they absorb. A
larger use of the oral system means more
work, and more exhausting work, for the
already heavily tasked master, no doubt. But

the thing can be done, and has been done,
and the result seems to be a linguistic pro-
ficiency which in suitable cases can be
converted into scholarship, and even in the
case of ordinary youths yields somewhat.
Translation is not required so much as the
use of the language itself, its oral use, in the
manner now made familiar by practitioners
of the ‘direct method.’ Mme. de Seévigne
could say with conviction, ‘qu’on est heureux
d’aimer ἃ lire!’ Yes, but Mme. de Sevigne
could not have written her charming letters
if she had not been one of the most delight-
ful of talkers, a listener as well as a talker.
For her, reading was a kind of conversation.
It is a significant fact, surely, that the average
English lad is a poor converser, shamefaced,
shy, and self-conscious. Might not this fault
be remedied by more oral instruction, by the
conversation of the class-room? Mere learn-
ing by rote is not enough. There must be
improvisation, and ultimately the power of
thinking in a foreign tongue, probably a less
difficult feat than grammarians suppose, since
orally acquired idiom is rapidly assimilated.

Nor let it be supposed that orally acquired
languages will be confused with one another.
I know a young lieutenant of Sappers who
believes that he is ‘rather a duffer at lan-
guages.’ When he was a small boy of six he
could talk fluently in English, Assamese,
Kachari and Hindustani, had _ excellent
idiomatic command of each, and could
pronounce them with a purity which was
the envy of his elders. He had, at that
stage, practically four native languages, being
in the midst of grown-up people who spoke
one or other of all four. He may yet find
that experience useful if he goes to India, in
the involuntary training and suppleness of
his vocal chords. But at present he imagines
he is no linguist because he prefers mathe-
matics to grammar, neither of which have
much to do with linguistics properly so-
called.

Among the young recruits for the Civil
Service who have just gone to India was one
who barely qualified in his obligatory lan-
guage. Yet he did the best English essay of
his year. The Modern Language people
know that a pupil who writes English well
has an instinctive appreciation of style (which,

6 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

after all, is idiom of a sort) in French and
German and Italian. But this young essayist
was floored (or bored) by grammar and an
unfamiliar and crabbed character. Neither
character nor grammar would have troubled
him if he had learned oral idiom first.

I have been told that Prof. Vambéry,
master of many languages dead and living,
uses some form of the ‘direct method,’ the
natural and maternal method, in his own
practice. He can remember words and
constructions because he listens to them,
and shuts himself up in a room and shouts
them. He uses his oral and aural memory
to supplement his ocular memory. No
doubt we all do-this even when we read to
ourselves. We zmagzne the sound of the
words as we read, as a musician silently reads
a written score. But in the case of a foreign
language we are apt to let the sounds approxi-
mate to those of our native tongue, unless
we practise them aloud and have often heard
them. Weare also liable to fall into uncon-
scious translation. Hence the benefit of a
conversational method, at all events at the
beginning. Once a fair grasp of idiom has
been obtained, the nsk of translating grows
daily less, especially if true ‘composition’ be
practised and not attempts at the infinitely
difficult art of rendering ready-made phrases
into another language. The old-fashioned
system suits some boys, but they are the
boys who would learn under almost any
system. The average boy is often unable
to tackle a language no more difficult than
his native tongue, because he is expected to
learn it in a way which would be thought
absurd in the elementary teaching of his own
language. There are parents who would be
grieved if Latin and Greek were to drop out
of the curriculum, not because they regard
these as a stern and necessary discipline in
inevitable boredom, but because they believe
that Latin and Greek, and other languages
too, can be taught in school time if formal
grammar is not too much insisted upon.
Comparative grammar at the end of a univer-

sity course might well be a delightful and
stimulating study to young men who are
already possessed of two or three languages.
Most seniors like etymology and grammar,
and are apt to believe that it was through
these that they learned language. In most
cases, it was through language that they
learned etymology and grammar, For ele-
mentary students surely language itself is
the best basis for subsequent study. Why
begin with philology instead of humbly
teaching language as an art to be practised
audibly as well as in the more artificial and
derivative way of a written record, that bane
of modern memories ?

I feel that I owe some apology to any
professional teachers of youth who may do
me the honour to read this scrap of linguistic
autobiography. I have no desire to diminish
the ‘angustae pia munera disciplinae,’ or to
plead for an easier way of learning, merely
because it is easier. For teachers, it is
probably harder, if more stimulating, inter-
esting and fruitful. I can imagine the twinkle
in Samson’s eye if he could guess that I am
holding him up for an example to European
teachers of youth. He is quite capable of
grasping the humour of the situation. But
Samson succeeded with a by no means apt
pupil, and it seems to be admitted that Latin
and Greek are not only becoming crowded
out but, in the case of average boys, are not
successfully learnt even after years of tuition.
Might not the ‘direct method’ be given a
trial on a larger scale? It is natural, speedy,
and interesting, as anyone will admit who has
seen an oral lesson in Latin delivered by a
master who believes in the system. It is not
even a novelty, since Montaigne and his
contemporaries learned to read Latin with
ease and fluency by treating it as a living
language. It is only dead, if you kill it and
serve it up for dissection by way of gramma-
tical analysis. The artist should know
anatomy, but he copies from living models.
And, once more, is not language an art?

J. D. A.

a

ial te ies

ΜΝ δον. νον ααυμνμμνανκανδνοννοονινανον δεν νκμμν 21... Νὐ με ἀμ θννννώνι.:». ΡΨ ΨΚ. Ὅν». ΘΟ, ΉΜΝΝ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 7

PERTA OF LYCAONIA.

INscRiIPTION found in 1907 at Kotchash,
a small village on the north side of Boz
Dagh, about τὸ hrs. North of Konia. Also
copied in 1908 by Sir W. M. Ramsay. A
round pillar.

ΘΕΙΑΤΤΡΟΝΟΛΛΙΑΦΙΛΟ λλῇ

TTAPATWNOEOOVANKT?

HMWNAECTITIAIAKNAAI

NIKSTSENAO2°ATIOVTIIAT

IOICTHNTTEPTEW NOIKSCI
TTOAIN

-

θείᾳ προνομίᾳ φιλο[τι]μ(ηθέντα)
4 “ /
παρὰ τῶν θεοφυλάκτ(ων
ἡμῶν δεσπ(οτῶνδύο) διὰ Καλλι-
νίκου τοῦ ἐνδόξ(οτάτου) ἀπὸ ὑπάτ[ων]
τ]οῖς τὴν Llepréwv οἰκοῦσι
πόλιν]

The date of this inscription remains un-
certain, unless Callinicus can be identified.
As Callinicus had been consul, the date
cannot be later than the middle of the sixth
century. θεοφύλακτος δεσπότης is applied to
Emperors from about 610 a.p. onwards for
several centuries (according to the Index of
C.1.G.). The form of letters affords no safe
criterion of date in late Roman and Byzan-
tine times.

The nature of the monument is also un-
certain. It has most analogy to a boundary
stone. It might be a milestone if there
were any distance stated on it; but in
Byzantine time milestones were rare. It
perhaps marked an important point on the
road without recording the distance from
a caput viae.

The important fact about the inscription
is that it furnishes evidence to place the city
of Perta (a bishopric in Christian time) in
this neighbourhood. Sir W. M. Ramsay has
placed Psibéla or Pegella (the latter form
is used in the Peutinger Table, the former
in Byzantine documents) at Suwarek, and
pointed out that an important Roman road
marked by many milestones ran from

1Confirmed by R. almost exactly, except in 1]. 5,
where he read |OIC, while I read KOIC,

Laodiceia of Lycaonia through Pegella, pass-
ing beside this inscription, to Savatra, Canna,
Hyde, the Cilician Gates and Syria. Now
on a road in the Table we find the stations

Pegella xx Congussa xv Petra xx Ubinnaca.

It is, therefore, now established conclusively
that Petra of the Table is an error for Perta,
and that Perta was situated on this Roman
road between Pegella and Savatra. The
name Savatra is misplaced in the Table;
but its situation on the road has been assured
by inscriptions. So also has the site of
Canna; and Sir W. M. Ramsay has con-
jectured that Ubinnaca is an error for Uden
Cana. See his paper on Lycaonia in the
Ocsterreich. Jahreshefte, vii. 57-132 (Berblatt),
where also it is assumed that, as is now
certain, Petra of the Table is meant for Perta.
The numbers in the Table are not reconcil-
able with the actual distances.

T. CALLANDER.

Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.

Professor T. Callander communicated the
above inscription to me in 1907, and in the
summer of 1908 I revisited the district in
order to fix the exact site of Perta. Kot-
chash, where the stone was found, is not the
site of an ancient city, but only of a village ;
and I came to the conclusion that the modern
village Geimir, about five miles south-east,
is the site of Perta. The ruins there are
extensive, and mark an ancient city. In 1907
and in 1908 neither Professor Callander nor
I found any inscription there, only Christian
carved stones uninscribed. But in 1905 I
copied several inscriptions on the site, and
one of these proved that it was an important
place in Roman times. This was a fragment
of the architrave of a temple or other public
building, with part of the dedication to an
Emperor of the second century in very large

fine letters :
AAPIANOYAI

TTPOBOY

The letters of the second line were mutilated,
and only the upper part remained, but all
are certain except B (which might be read P).

8 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The restoration is uncertain.
conjecture :

One might

[ὑπὲρ τῆς Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος 1. AiXiovT pa-
ανοῦ] ᾿Αδριανοῦ αἰ[ὠνίου διαμονῆς... ....
; οἷ πρόβοιυἰλοι οἵ κατὰ τὸ] προβούλευμα.

It is not probable that the correct order of
the imperial names was violated by placing
Αἴλιος] after ᾿Αδριανός in the title either of
Hadrian or of Pius.

I know of nothing analogous to the last
words. The terms πρόβουλοι and προβού-
λευμα are almost confined to Athens, except
that Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses them
to render the Latin words consules and
senatus consultum, and Plutarch uses the
former in that sense. It is therefore possible
that κατὰ προβούλευμα was used at Perta to
translate the Latin sewatus consulto. But in
a Galatian city, in an imperial province, one
does not expect to find any reference to a
decree of the Roman Senate.

On a subsequent journey I visited Obruk
in order to see the famous circular lake in a
deep hole. As two archaeologists have been
at Obruk in modern times, both interested
in epigraphy, and neither found any inscrip-
tions, I had no expectation of discovering
any. But to my astonishment the fine old
Seljuk Khan and the cemetery are both full
of inscriptions, including six Roman mile-
stones, and a second copy of Professor
Callander’s inscription. The latter differs
only in one or two slight details; notably,
it gives the word φιλοτιμηθέντα in full.

The sense in earlier Greek and Graeco-
Roman usage would be that the stones on
which the inscriptions are engraved were φιλο-
τιμηθέντα διὰ Καλλινίκου, ‘set up in the career
of public service by Callinicus.’!. He modestly
attributes the action to the Emperors, and
mentions himself only as their agent. This
makes one at first think of boundary stones ;
but Obruk seems to be the site of an
independent city, and not a mere village
dependent on Perta. Now if this stone
marked a boundary, it would be necessary
to take Obruk as a village near the frontier
of the land of the city Perta. It seems, on
the whole, most probable that Professor

1 Τῇ we can assume that ἐφιλοτιμήθην could be used
in a passive sense in that period.

Callander’s suggestion is right, and that the
stones mark the roads at important points.

But I prefer to take the inscription as
comparatively late (perhaps late fifth or early
sixth century); and to see here the common
sense in Byzantine times of φιλοτιμέομαι,
‘give as a compliment’ (construction, two
accusatives, cr accusative and dative). The
aorist ἐφιλοτιμήθην is usually active; but
Stephanus quotes Georg. Mon. 809: φιλοτι-
μηθεὶς παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως νομίσματα ἕκατον,
‘having been granted by the king 100 zuwmmit.’
The passive use also occurs in Theophilus
Antecessor : prooem.}

νίκαις ἄνωθεν φιλοτιμηθείσαις 3
‘victories granted from heaven.’

Callinicus, as Professor Seeck and Professor
Dessau inform me, is unknown. He was
evidently governor of a Province, who placed
these stones by orders of two emperors. The
only Provinces which can be thought of are
Pisidia if the inscription be older than 372,
and Lycaonia if it be later. Perta was cer-
tainly in Lycaonia from, the institution of
that Province about 371-2. The sense of
φιλοτιμηθέντα (if I rightly take it according
to Byzantine usage) and the style of letters
(which is not dissimilar to the inscription of
Epinicus? in the end of the fifth century,
though less ornate), point to a later date
than 372. Now Callinicus was a consular,
and Lycaonia was governed by a simple
praeses in Notitia. Dignit. Or. in the begin-
ning of the fifth century, but by a consular
in the list of Hierocles, about A.D. 530. The
period therefore, as seems fairly certain, was
not very far removed from A.D. 500.

One of the Roman milestones at Obruk
is inscribed vil, probably the distance from
Perta (if we suppose that the stone has been
brought to the cemetery from a point on the
road about a mile towards that city). Another
is marked KA, which is rather difficult to
explain. The only important point which

2In the edition which lies before me (afud Guz?.
Laemarium: 1587) the text printed is φιλοτιμηθεῖσαις,
but the correction seems necessary, and is assumed in
the Latin translation.

3 Published by Mommsen in Hermes xxxii p. 660,

and included in part in his Gesammelte Schriflen by °

O. Hirschfeld, Histor. i p. 560.

|
|

ee δι, δι οὖν ον

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 9

is near ΧΧΙΝ miles from Obruk is Suwarek-
Psibéla; and the road from the one town to
the other does not form a part of any main
route. We must suppose that at Obruk the
town put up milestones indicating the distance
from all the cities around. On the other
milestones the numbers are indecipherable.
As to the name of the city at Obruk, that
is a matter of complete uncertainty. It
stands near, but not actually on, the direct
road from Iconium to Archelais. Possibly

it may be Congoustos, understanding that
the name has been slightly misplaced on the
Table, or rather that the enumerator of the
stations, instead of going along the direct
road Pegella-Perta, went a circuit through
Obruk ; but the numbers would have to be
corrected in that case to

Pegella xxv Congustos 1x Perta.

W. M. Ramsay.
Aberdeen.

ON VIRGIL, ZCZLOGUES, 1x. 17.

Heu, cadit in quemquam tantum scelus ἢ

EvriPIDEs in his plays seems to have com-
pensated for his many modernisms by a
plentiful use of Homeric forms. In a like
spirit Virgil seems to have sprinkled the
artificial language which he puts into his
shepherds’ mouths with uses which may be
called either colloquial or archaic, since the
one is in most languages often the other.
We know that the town wits laughed at one
instance of this habit.

‘Dic mihi, Damoeta: ‘‘cuium pecus” anne Latinum?’

In iii. 102, Donatus seems to have taken /zs
as a nominative, a use extinct in polite Latin,
but doubtless still common on rustic lips.
Conington, even with cuivm in the same
Eclogue, accounted this interpretation ‘a very
hazardous hypothesis,’ and Mr. Page regards
the archaism as too startling to be true; but
neither authority seems to have taken cog-
nizance of the indirect support which Donatus
gets from other passages in the L£c/ogues.
Nor is it easy to make good sense of the
line on any other supposition, except indeed
the desperate remedy of reading ἀξ for Ais.
It may be observed that no interpretation
gives a good sense to cer/e, and for Ais certe
we should perhaps read /zsce autem. The
change is in any case very small, and perhaps
the less that, as Pompeii shows, there were
scripts in which it was not easy to distinguish
aand vr. Of course Aisce is nominative. To
return to our colloquialisms. We know the
free way. in which the comedians interchange

do and facto. Thus me dubiam dant means
‘make me doubtful,’ and ute ego die nomen
Trinummo fect means ‘I have given to-day
the name of Half-a-Crown.’ In i. 6, μοδίς
haec otia fecit seems to mean ‘has given us
this ease,’ and ini. 18 the use of da nobis as
‘tell us’ is probably a colloquialism which
descends from Plautine days. In ii. 14 the
use of satis as ‘ better,’ though not unknown
to classical prose, belongs in the main to the
spoken tongue. With this we may class guz
in a sense akin to guadis, 11. 19; fero in
the sense of carry away, v. 34 and ix. 51;
and perhaps foferas in 1. 79, and odie in
iii. 49. In the last even Conington finds ‘a
sort of comic pleonasm’ despite its use in
Aen. ii. 670. More decisive is the interroga-
tive zam in ix. 39, with which we may place
reponas, a subjunctive in a direct command,
ili. 54. The use of mitfo in the sense of
‘make a present,’ iii. 71 and ix. 6, misled
Conington, who says on the latter passage
‘mittimus is used seemingly because Moeris,
though carrying the kids himself, speaks for
his master, who is the sender of the present.’
No doubt Moeris speaks as servants usually
do, and says ‘we are making him a present,’
meaning that the present is made by his
master, as in the former passage Menalcas
carried the apples himself to his Amyntas.
This sense of mitto is found in Terence, e.g.
Phor. 50, puer causa erit mittundi, and re-
appears in silver Latin, e.g. /wv. lil. 45, guae
mittit. In Terence the slave would probably

10 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

take his own present. Other passages in the
LEclogues which savour of colloquial use are
iv. 11, decus hoc aevi; vi. 26, aliud mercedis ;
and perhaps the infinitive after 970 in il. 43.
It would also seem that there is as much
suggestion of common speech as of Homeric
use in such scansions as Ayla omne, v1. 44;
valé inqutit, iii. 79; 6 Alexi, ill. 65; and
certainly gui amant, vill. 109. We may pro-
bably add enzm, 1. 31, deleting the comma
which editors print after samgue, and cer-
tainly the Plautine emphasism of modo, viii.
80. Perhaps guid sz, v. 9, an expression of
the comedians, belonged also to the polite
speech of Virgil’s days, nor would it do to
press the simple negative sense of mec, ix. 6
and x. 46, since this may have been an
archaism of prayer. It is not so in il. 40,
where zec is no more than zon, and the
comma usually printed after dwo is false. It
will be seen that hardly one of these instances
occurs where Virgil himself is speaking. They
belong to the diction of his shepherds and
his rustic gods.

The passage quoted at the head of this
article seems to have been taken by com-
mentators to mean ‘can anyone be guilty of
such wickedness?’ In that case sce/us has
its usual meaning, guemquam refers to the
oppressor, and cadzt im means, as Mr. Page
says, ‘refers to.’ But cadz¢ 271 should perhaps
rather mean ‘is in accord with’ or ‘fits,’ and
though this meaning allows a sense to the
passage, it is not a very good one in the
context. Now, in the comedians, scelus

passes from the meaning of ‘wickedness’
into that of ‘a piece of mischief,’ and hence
to a sense which can hardly be distinguished
from ‘misfortune.’ Quid hoc est sceleris?
says Chaerea in Terence, Azz. 326, meaning
that fortune has treated him badly, and so in
Plautus, Cap¢. 762, Hegio lamenting the loss
of his sons says Quod hoc est scelus, where
Dr. Lindsay translates ‘What a piece of ill-
luck is this!’ He notes that sce/ws ‘seems
often to have this sense of misfortune arising
from guilt,’ but it may be observed that in
neither case is the guilt that of the person
who suffers the misfortune, and this is true
also of the zzfandum scelus, ‘unutterable mis-
fortune,’ of which Martial writes, vil. 14.
Thus in our passage it seems right to take
guemguam not of the oppressor but of the
oppressed. ‘No one,’ says Lycidas, ‘can
deserve such a misfortune, certainly not such
an excellent singer as you.’ If we could
accept Conington’s note we might render
‘Can such a misfortune befall anyone?’
But he seems inaccurate in saying that
‘cadere seems to be used in the sense of “‘is
the lot of,” . .. so that suspicto cadit in
aliguem is little more than equivalent to
cadit aliguis in suspictonem. The right
meaning of the phrase gives an excellent
sense In our passage, and the context shows
that Lycidas is more likely to have dwelt on
the misfortune which had befallen his friend
than on the guilt of the man who had
brought it about.
JOHN SARGEAUNT.

NOTES

TWO NOTES ON AESCHYLUS.

1. Agam. 1146-1149:
KA, ἰὼ ἰὼ Avyetas μόρον ἀηδόνος"
περίβαλον γάρ οἱ πτεροφύόρον δέμας
θεοὶ γλυκύν 7 αἰῶνα κλαυμάτων ἄτερ'
ἐμοὶ δὲ μίμνει σχισμὸς ἀμφήκει δορί.
κλαυμάτων ἄτερ presents a difficulty. The
Chorus remark that Cassandra sings a sad
song like the nightingale, ‘bewailing Itys

all her sorrow-laden life’; whereupon she
seems to reply that the nightingale (that
very personification of grief) lives a life
‘without lament. It is suggested that she
means ‘without vea/ sorrow’; but κλαύματα,
which primarily means the sound of grief,
not the feeling, seems hardly an appropriate
word to denote the feeling as distinct from
the sound. May not the difficulty arise
from the meaning of arep? I would suggest

——

ee

it. - γι ὧν. τὰ δὲ δ 5. Μὰ να «1

σα. 4 «“ "αν ee eee

.

— eS ἡ χὰ... -

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ΤΙ

that it means not ‘without,’ but ‘apart
from. The lines then translate :

‘Ah me! the doom of clear-voiced Philomel !

To her the gods have vouchsafed feathered form,

And, save for her weeping, happy days: for me

There waiteth rending by the two-edged sword.’

Cassandra thus does not contradict the
Chorus, but corrects them merely.

The sense would be made clearer by read-
ing κλαυμάτων γ᾽ ἄτερ ; and γ᾽ may well have
dropped out after the final v of κλαυμάτων.

2. Pers. 274-277:

ΧΟ. ὀτοτοτοῖ, φίλων
ἁλίδονα μέλεα πολυβαφῆ
κατθανόντα λέγεις φέρεσθαι

πλαγκτοῖς ἐν διπλάκεσσιν.

No extant explanation of the last line is
satisfactory, or even possible; while such
proposed corrections as πλαγαῖσιν διπλά-
ἵκεσσιν and πλαγκτοὺς (5. πλαγκτῶν) ἐν σπιλά-
δεσσιν seem rather pointless, and unduly
remote from the reading of the MSS. I
venture to think, however, that these objec-
tions do not apply to the suggestion

πλαγκτοῖς εἰνὶ πλάκεσσιν,

which is literally very close to the MS.
reading, and yields a sense which seems
not unworthy of Aeschylus. The words are
taken with φέρεσθαι, ‘are borne in the wan-
dering plains, an expression very similar (as
Mr. Arthur Sidgwick kindly reminds me) to
Tennyson’s ‘ Drops in his vast and wandering
grave.’ The occurrence of eivé is natural in
a play which is exceptionally rich in Epic
forms, particularly in juxtaposition with
another of such forms; while the meaning
of πλάξ is supported by Pindar’s πόντου πλάξ,
and (probably) line 953 of the ersae
itself; cf. also the use of aeguor for a tract
of land or of sea.

πλαγκτοῖς civi πλάκεσσιν was first proposed
by Tournier (apparently following Halm’s
suggestion of ἀμφὶ πλάκεσσιν), a fact which
I only discovered after the emendation had
occurred to me independently. My excuse
for drawing attention to it in the Classical
Review is that it does not seem to have
found its way into the editions of the
Persae which are generally accessible, at
least to schoolmasters and their charges.

H. L. JONEs.
Willaston School, Nantwich.

AESCHYLUS, AGAMEMNON,
LINE 194 (204, VERRALL).

πνοαὶ δ᾽ ἀπὸ Στρυμόνος μολοῦσαι
κακόσχολοι, νήστιδες, δύσορμοι,
βροτῶν ἄλαι,
Ἂ Ν ’ 3," »"
νεῶν τε καὶ πεισμάτων ἀφειδεῖς, . ..
. κατέξαινον ἄνθος “Apyous.

The words βροτῶν ἄλαι are usually inter-
preted in one of two ways: (4) ἄλη is said
to mean mental distraction, and connected
with ἀλάομαι, to wander; or (f) it is con-
nected with ἀλέω, to grind, and is rendered
‘tribulation.’ Both these explanations are,
as Dr. Verrall says, highly artificial. The
suggestion of error or wandering is extremely
inappropriate in the context, whether it mean
a literal wandering in search of food or a
metaphorical wandering in their minds, ‘mad-
ness,’ for the whole point of the passage is
that the Greeks were kept stationary ; while
the rendering ‘tribulation’ involves rather
a grotesque mixture of ideas, the idea of
‘grinding’ being hardly suitable to that of
‘wind.’

I therefore suggest that instead of ἄλαι
the true reading is dat (from εἴλω, €-dAny,
dels). The literal translation would then
be ‘cooping up of men,’ 2.6. preventing the
Greeks from making any movement. This
idea seems to fit in well with the general
sense of the passage, and is free from the
verbal inconsistencies which appear to mar
the other interpretations. On the philological
point of the formation of the word, cp.
παγή : ἐπάγην : πήγνυμι.

A. C. Ρ. MACKWORTH.

Magdalen College, Oxford.

AN EMENDATION IN SENECA.

Tue Editor informs me that my note in the
November number of the C.2. (p. 216 f.)
has met with criticism, though he has not
told me the name of my critic. In reply 1
desire firstly to plead guilty to having slightly
overstated my case in regard to the use of
in dies. 1 had forgotten, or never clearly
realized, that this phrase is occasionally used

12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

where there is no comparative or verb of
increasing or decreasing: my critic quotes
Sallust, /ug. 44. 5, panem tn dies mercari
(where, however, z7 dies stands for 7m diem ;
he ought rather to have quoted ch. 74. 1),
Livy, Xxxvi. 17. 14, 7” dies exspectatur, Suet.
Otho 5, in dies reportabat. | This usage,
however, is surely very rare. And I cannot
agree with my critic when he says that Mad-
vig’s explanation of the reading ezws is ‘most
indubitably right.’ I still prefer the emenda-
tion fetus, even though a comparative is not
absolutely demanded. Secondly, I thought
I had made it quite clear that I do not claim
the emendation as my property: when I
made it I thought it was original; for the
editions which I had consulted had ezws.
But I found out afterwards from Madvig
that it was a reading accepted in his day by
several editors, and I quoted his words
(‘scribitur nunc e P “ Quaerendum est quod

non fiat in dies peius”’); I also ended up
by calling Aezws ‘an old emendation.’ Thirdly,
my critic can hardly deny that I have contri-
buted something in correction of Madvig’s
statement that fezus is the reading of the
MS. called P.—I do not regard my note as
a matter of any importance; but I thought
readers of the C.&. might be interested in
the history of an emendation which was
apparently made for the first time by a later
hand in the MS. P, and which after being
accepted by many editors, has disappeared
from the latest critical edition of Seneca
(that of Hense), leaving no trace behind
even in his critical apparatus ; but which has
been made again independently by at least
one reader within the present year. So great
is its vitality !
E. A. SONNENSCHEIN.

November 20th, 1908.

REVIEWS

THE ZLUMENIDES OF FRIEDRICH BLASS.

Die Eumeniden des Aischylos. Erklirende
Ausgabe von FRIEDRICH Brass. Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1907 [pub-
lished under the supervision of F. Bechtel].
Sve.) ἘΡ: 170: 5 mark.

THE late Professor Blass, at his lamented
death, left, partly in print and complete in
MS., an edition of Aeschylus’ Zumenides,
with an introduction and explanatory notes
in German. All those interested in the
subject will desire to consult such an
authority for themselves, and will need
neither an estimate nor a secondary account.
It may perhaps however be useful to give
a list of places which have caught my atten-
tion on a first perusal. The few remarks
which I shall add are also to be taken merely
as first impressions, and subject to the
general statement that the book, of course
and by the name of the writer, will require
most careful attention.

The following are some cf the points

which are noticeable in the formation of
the text (numbers of Wecklein) :

20. τούτους ἐν εὔχαις φροιμιάζομαι θεούς is
placed (with Weil) immediately before 27,
Πλείστου τε. . ., and in 21 εὐλόγως (Her-
mann) is accepted for ev λόγοις.

30. τυχεῖν μοι (for με M, which the critical
note does not mention, but see commentary ;
the critical notes are imperfect, and must be
used with caution).

64. Speech of Apollo. Before this is
placed (with Burges) 85-87, the speech of
Orestes.

68 ff. ὕπνῳ πεσοῦσαι (sic, with MSS.)...
ποτε iS given as a complete sentence:
‘ ὁρῶνται or the like may be supplied.’

IOL. μηνίσεται, for μηνίεται.

125. πέπρωται, for πέπρακται.

162 ff. τοιαῦτα... κάρα makes one sen-
tence, so that κρατοῦντες φονολιβῆ θρόνον =
‘masters of a blood-stained throne’ (see
commentary).

174. τε retained.

:

ap

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 13

178. εἶσιν οὗ (with Weil), for ἐκείνου.

195. κληισίοισι (with Wieseler), for πλησίοις
(οισι). For κλεισίον, see Paus. 4. 1. 7.

211. γυναικὸς retained. τί γυναικὸς. . .;
=‘What οἵα ψοιῆδῃ. . .?’

213. παρ᾽ οὐδὲν ἦρκας ὡς (for ἠρκέσω) : ‘you
have taken away (done away), as if of no
account’ (ὡς παρ᾽ οὐδέν).

223. ἡσυχαιτέραι, dative, (for av), as
comparative of ἡσυχῆι, ‘more calmly.’

277. πολλῶν τε καιρούς, for πολλοὺς καθαρ-
μούς.

294. τίθησιν ὀρθὸν μὴ κατηρεφῆ πόδα (for
ἢ κατηρεφῆ). Text has ov, but see com-
mentary. The possibility of κατηρεφὴς πούς,
as separate from and opposed to ὀρθός, is
denied.

302. ἀναιμάτωι βόσκημα δαιμόνων σκιᾶι
. σκιά), to be joined with
preceding sentence, in sense ‘feeding the
(punitive) powers with bloodless shade,’ the
dative σκιᾶν depending on the verbal force
in βόσκημα.

337. Tol σὺν αὐτουργίαις ξυμπέσωσιν.

364. ἐπικραίνων (for -ev), to be joined
with Ζεὺς in 366, the yap (MSS.) there being
ejected.

408. πώλοις retained, and interpreted meta-
phorically as ‘legs’.

424. βροτοκτονοῦντας retained in text, but
αὐτοκτονοῦντας (Davies) preferred.

429. GAN ἢ ᾿ξ ἀνάγκης, ἤ τινος τρέων κότον ;
(for ἄλλης . .

435. τὰ μὲν δίκαια (recc.) preferred to τὰ
μὴ (M).

493. μεταστροφαὶ (for καταστροφαὶ) with
Meineke.

494. ἢ κρατήσει (for εἰ), taking δίκα τε καὶ
βλάβα 85 -Ξ- punishment’.

525 ff. τίς δὲ μηδὲν ἐν φάει

καρδίαν av’ (ἔτι) τρέων..
(for ἀνατρέφων), interpreting by ἀνὰ καρδίαν
‘in his heart’, and μηδὲν ἐν φάει as ‘nothing
visible’ or ‘conspicuous ’.

570. ἥ τ᾽ οὖν... σάλπιγξ (with lacuna of
~ — ὦ before).

595. mpos δέρην τεμών defended by βεβλήκει
mpos στῆθος (Hom. 71. 4. 108).

635. εὔφροσιν defended as masc. dative
ethic, ‘in the view of the well-disposed.’

641. τήνδ᾽ ad (with Weil), for ταύτην.

666-667. Lacuna between.

(for dvatpatwv . .

”
. οὔτινος).

688. πάγον δ᾽ ap’ ἕξει (for Ἄρειον). No
anacoluthon.

722. λέγεις explained (with Wilamowitz) as
= ‘Yes’, in answer to question of Apollo,
taken as meaning ‘Was Zeus mistaken in
purifying Ixion?’—This should have been
noticed in my commentary.

754. μολοῦσα, for βαλοῦσα.

792. δύσοισθ᾽ ἃς (for δύσοιστα), the relative
to be referred apparently to χώραι in 790,
‘to whose citizens my injuries will be
grievous.’

858. Lacuna after this, to explain ὅσην in
859.

862. ἐμμανέσι, for ἐμμανεῖς.

863. ἐξελοῦσ᾽ retained, but see com-
mentary.

886-888. No lacuna. Sentence con-
tinuous. Use of δ᾽ οὖν illustrated by 226,

σὺ δ᾽ οὖν δίωκε, ‘wo δ᾽ οὖν wie tiberall enthalt,
dass man von etwas nicht weiter reden will.’

go2. κατὰ χθόν᾽ οὖσ(α) retained. No illus-
tration.

g21. Ἑλλάνων... δαιμόνων <P>, the pos-
sibility of the phrase “EAAdvwv δαιμόνων being
denied.

933. βαρεῶν (sic, gen. fem. plural = βαρειῶν)
with HL Ahrens.—This ought to have had
notice in my commentary. It does not
necessarily require ὁ ye μὴν (Linwood) for
ὁ δὲ μὴ, which however Blass accepts.

988. ἐμ βροτοῖς, original reading of M.
So ξυμ προσπόλοισι in 1025.

1024. κατὰ, for κάτω,

1026. ὄμμα referred to the company (λόχος)
ofwomen. No lacuna marked in this speech :
φοινικοβάπτοις ἐνδυτοῖς ἐσθήμασι | τιμᾶτε
construedas complete sentence, andexplained,
in reference to the robing of the Eumenides,
after Roberts, who partly anticipated the
suggestion of Headlam.

1045. σπονδᾶι δ᾽ ἐς πρόπαν ἔνδαιτες οἴκων,
where ἔνδαιτες σπονδᾶι (feasted with libation)
is to be joined with τερπόμεναι in 1043.

To pronounce off-hand on these points,
or on the general merits of the book, would
be rash, especially for me, who have so
recently formulated my own opinions. At
first sight, I find most attraction in the
remarks on ΤΟΙ, 211, 223, 302, 429. Where
Blass has supported an old view which I
think important (as at 635), I am of course

14 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

much encouraged by his authority. Where
he is most novel, he must be heard with
consideration. To no one, except to a
master in the subtler parts of Greek grammar,
would it even have occurred as possible, that
βόσκημα δαιμόνων oxic. should mean *a
thing that feeds δαίμονες with its shadowy
substance’ (302). The correction there
proposed may well be the true solution of
the difficulty. One may regret in many
places that the discussion is not more full;
but even there we learn something important
from the mere fact that Blass has no more
to tell us. For example, upon the vitally
significant question, how we should punctuate
and construe the speech of Athena which
precedes, and apparently produces, the con-
version of the Erinyes, we may now say with
increased confidence, that, if εἰ dyvév ἐστί σοι
Πειθοῦς σέβας, σὺ δ᾽ οὖν μένοις ἄν is a con-
tinuous sentence, and if δ᾽ οὖν (888) is here
apodotic, the phenomenon is altogether
exceptional and without parallel. A reference
to 226, σὺ δ᾽ οὖν δίωκε, tells us only what no
one doubts, that the force of these particles
is to sum and dismiss the topic. But it
prompts us not to accept, but to question
more insistently, the assumption that they
can be attached, in that sense or any, to
the apodosis, the direct consequence, of a
brief and simple conditional clause.

In some places it may appear, and it is
no matter for surprise, that the problem
presents itself to Blass rather as it would
affect an analyst of language than as it may
strike a student of poetry. For example, in
68 ff., it is quite true, as a matter of grammar,
that ὕπνῳ πεσοῦσαι δ᾽ αἱ κατάπτυστοι κόραι
is construable as a complete sentence, by
the supplement of a verb, ‘such as ὁρῶνται᾽,
from the preceding sentence ἁλούσας τάσδε
ὁρᾷς. But whether this supplement is ‘easy ’
to the literary and aesthetic sense, is a ques-
tion to pause upon, when we consider, to
how many readers and critics this ready

escape has for some reason not seemed
available. A like observation may be made
at 213. If we admit that the conversion of

(ταῦτα) ἦρκας ὡς παρ᾽ οὐδέν, ‘you have removed
these things as of no account’, into (ταῦτα)
παρ᾽ οὐδὲν ἦρκας ὥς is not prohibited by any
definite rule, this does not necessarily carry

the conviction that, as a matter of art, such
an inversion is satisfactory to the ear. So
again at 177, ποτιτρόπαιος ὧν δ᾽ ἕτερον ἐν
No one
can disprove by rule the reading which Blass
accepts from Weil, εἶσιν οὗ, with the inter-
pretation ‘The man of blood shall go where
(in Hades) he shall still have a punisher (?)

"4 / 7
κάραι | μιάστορ᾽ ἵ ἐκεινου πάσεται.

upon him.’ But with this admission doubt
is not laid to rest. So also at 525, and
elsewhere.

As a personal view, I think that Blass, in
common with others, is open to the criticism
that, in reviewing the current text, he metes
with unequal measure, and is too indulgent
to tamperings which are not the less arbitrary
because they have long been in print. In
416, for instance, λέγειν δ᾽ ἄμορφον ὄντα τοὺς
πέλας κακῶς πρόσω δικαίων, ‘that the un-
comely should be abused by others is unjust’,
there is no difficulty ; to substitute ἄμομφον,
and so to obscure the clear, is not any more
justifiable now than when the mistake was
first made by Robortello. In the twenty
verses of Athena (473-492), the MS. text is
supposed to exhibit blunders, for the most
part quite causeless and irrational, at the
rate of more than one to every two lines.
Surely it is a fair remark that, on this
hypothesis, our only course is to obelize
the whole passage. From witnesses so
perverse nothing could be accepted with
safety. But this controversy, not proper to
the present book nor specially affected by it,
must await the arbitration of time.

The Introduction discusses ably, but
without probing very deeply, most of the
questions which the play presents. We may
welcome most warmly the observation, that
Aeschylus, in his varying treatment of legend
and mythology, is ‘nowhere dogmatic’. All
these things were for him mere symbols, to
be so presented as from time to time seemed
best for the commendation of truth. Truth
itself lies above, ‘far higher’s How much
of such truth we should discover in the
Eumenides is a weighty question. Professor
Blass was disposed to admit that ‘the interest
of the play falls off, for us, after the first
appearance of Athena’, that is to say, before
we reach the middle; and this is likely to
be the inference from his position, that,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 15

according to the conception of Aeschylus,
the case of Orestes is settled for all purposes
by the verdict of the Areopagus. But here
we enter upon a debate too large for the

present opportunity. It remains only to
express our thanks to those who have pre-
served to us this legacy from a venerable

name. A. W. VERRALL.

HERODOTUS.

Flerodotus, the seventh, eighth, and ninth books,
with introduction, text, apparatus, com-
mentary, appendices, indices, maps. By
REGINALD WaLTER Macan, D.Litt., Uni-
versity Reader in Ancient History, Master
of University College, Oxford. Vol. L.,
Part I., introduction (pp. c.), Bk. VIL.,
text and commentary (pp. 356). Part II.,
Bks. VIII. and IX., text and commentary
(pp. 357-831). Vol. II., Appendices, In-
dices, Maps (pp. 462).

THE inevitable word that occurs in attempt-
ing to describe the present edition, with its
heroic proportions, is ‘monumental.’ But it
must be at once made clear that in con-
nection with Dr. Macan, the word is by no
means synonymous with ‘heavy.’ Some
happy δαίμων ever sits by his side, and
not only keeps the writer awake, but his
reader also. When he dedicates his second
volume to Professors Mahaffy, Butcher, and
Bury, ‘Iernensibus Iernensis,’ we see much
accounted for. (The first volume, by the
way, is dedicated to a great trio of Hero-
dotean critics—Stein, van Herwerden, and
Holder.) Another secret of Dr. Macan’s
success is his enthusiasm for his author.
He says, with perfect justice, in our opinion,
‘There is, indeed, no ancient historian,
whether upon his own ground or on general
grounds, with whom Herodotus need fear
comparison. He was more comprehensive
than Thucydides ; he was more candid than
Xenophon; he was more brilliant than
Polybius.’ This is the true spirit for an
editor. The cross-examination to which the
author is subjected is most rigorous ; but on
the whole he emerges from it with enhanced
credit. We must revise, and ever keep on
revising, Our estimates of ancient authors.
Not long ago we used to be taught that a

strong line marked the distinction between
the period of Herodotus and that of Thu-
cydides. With the one Romance ended,
with the other true History began. But now
the gap has diminished ; the older writer has
been somewhat rehabilitated, while in the
light of recent investigations the credit of
the later might be described, to borrow the
language of the Stock Exchange, as ‘some-
what weaker, on attempts to realize.’

As to the text, it is taken in the main
from Stein, by permission. An apparatus
criticus is printed, which ‘has been formed
from the collation of Stein’s various editions
with the editions of Holder (Leipzig), van
Herwerden (Utrecht), and others. This is
very useful, of course ; but the editor rightly
says: ‘The text is, on the whole, satisfactory
to the mere historian: cases in which any
point of material or historical importance
turns upon the reading, are comparatively
few in number.’ He adds a short list of
passages in the last three Books, apart from
lacunae, glosses, and doubtful proper names,
which afford textual problems of special
interest from the realist point of view. To
the ‘doubtful proper names,’ I should like
to add one, thus using the privilege which
may, I hope, be conceded to a reviewer, of
taking the opportunity to ventilate views of
his own, always of course with modesty and
moderation. In viii. 73 I am convinced,
and have been for some time (see Proceed-
ings of the Cambridge Philological Society,
Lent Term, 1893, p. 2), that ᾿Ορνειῆται
is a false reading, and has supplanted the
true reading, Θυρεῆται. The Orneats are,
in spite of the fancied analogy of Caerites,
etc., mere intruders in the passage, and the
general structure of the chapter with its list
of the seven races of the Peloponnesus,
demands that after mention of the Cynurii,

τό THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

it should be specified in what town or towns
they are to be looked for. This is clear
enough. The Cynurians are the people of
Thyrea, καὶ οἱ περίοικοι (keeping the article,
which gives trouble if Ὀρνεῆται be read).

In ix. 35 Dr. Macan judiciously (with
Stein’s third edition) abandons the conjec-
ture, πρὸς ᾿Ιθώμῃ, which is much too uncer-
tain to be assumed into the text, though the
original πρὸς ᾿Ισθμῷ can hardly be right. He
obelizes the word ἰσθμῷ in his commentary,
and it is perhaps a pity that he did not do so
likewise in his text.

Though Dr. Macan’s interest is mainly in
Realia, we occasionally get an illuminating
note on a point of grammar, as at Vil. 122,
κάμπτων δὲ Αμπελον παραμείβετο τάσδε
πόλεις, where Blakesley noted the absurdity
of the statement, if κάμπτων is regarded as
synchronous with παραμείβετο. Dr. Macan
here says: ‘But a present participle followed
by a narrative verb to describe two successive
acts is good Herodotean grammar ; it is not
the time-index in the participle that is most
essential.’ Here a little more clearness of
exposition might’ perhaps be desirable.
Otherwise, the note is all that could be
wanted.

The printing of the book is excellent;
considering the amount and variety of the
material, strikingly so. One or two apparent
slips may be pointed out. In vol. il, p. 119,
Themistokles is spoken of as the son of
‘Neokles and Abrotonos.’ But the name of
Themistokles’ mother—at least of his prin-
cipal mother, for he seems to have had more
than one—was not Abrotonos, which were
impossible, but Abrotonon. At vil. 129, in
the note on Πίνδος, we read that ‘This great
range runs nearly north, and south from 41°
to 39° longit.’ It is difficult to keep free
from confusion in dealing with these ‘ merely
conventional signs,’ but ‘latitude’ is prob-
ably intended.

Dr. Macan is largely occupied, and most
interestingly and profitably, in considering
the growth of the Herodotean work. His
main result he thus expresses (Introd., p.
xlvii.): ‘The genesis of the work is a legiti-
mate subject of speculation, and what theory
is at once more simple and more consistent
with the work, as we find it, than the view

that Herodotus first projected, and, to a
greater or less extent, first elaborated the
History of the Persian War in Bks. vil,
Vili, ix., though not in quite the exact
form, or with all the details, now presented
in those Books; and that afterwards there
developed before his mind the possibility of
working up into a vast prelude to that main
theme materials amassed during many years
of study, research, inquiry, travel, a prelude
that should portray the historic antecedents,
both Barbarian and Hellenic, of the great
struggle, and present in vivid colours a
panorama of the two worlds that clashed
together in the final duel?’ For the truth
of the view that the triad of books which are
numbered last in the work before us were
really its germ or nucleus, Dr. Macan pro-
duces an amount of evidence which col-
lectively appears irresistible. But in this
section of the work itself a certain amount of
stratification may be recognized. In the
Introduction, § 9, evidence is adduced of
three successive redactions, of which the
second is connected with Herodotus’ life at
Thurii. Here we are on ground that is more
precarious, and perhaps less interesting.

Dr. Macan is throughout most generous in
recognizing the value of the work of others
in the same field. In spite of his thorough
command of German resources, there is no
neglect of English scholarship. Blakesley,
who has sometimes not had due recognition,
here has justice done him. In the Appendix
on Salamis (vol. ii, Appendix vi.) Dr.
Macan may fairly claim to have carried the
solution of this problem to the furthest
point yet reached—but the contribution of
Blakesley to this result is fully and clearly
set out. In the note on vil. 161 we read
“μάτην yap av ὧδε πάραλον ’EAAjvev στρατόν
forms, as Blakesley observed, δὴ iambic
trimeter.’ But this is only the case on con-
dition that dv is omitted. On this point
Blakesley is safeguarded. Whether we really
have here a ‘buried verse’ appears very
doubtful.

As for the style of the notes and Essays, it
were mere impertinence to praise it. But
just because Dr. Macan is such a master of
English, we might make bold to enlist his
sympathies on a small point, the use of the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 17

hybrid gerund-participle in -ing. ‘Some pre-
text on which to prevent the question being
re-opened’ is not pretty English, to say the
least. But these are mere motes and flecks.

Dr. Macan has done a great work ; and we
hope he will not think it discourteous if we
recognize it, in a way not unusual, by asking
him to do some more. The equipment
necessary for an editor of the first triad of

Herodotus’ books differs indeed in some
respects from that required for the last six.
But that Dr. Macan is equal to the task
cannot be doubted. And if he can see his
way to completing his Herodotus by an

edition of Bks. i-iii. the world of scholars

and historians will not be ungrateful.

E. SEYMER THOMPSON.

LUDWICH’S JZ/AD.

Homeri carmina, recensuit et selecta lectionis
varietate instruxit ARTHURUS LUDWICH.
Pars altera: Z/ias, volumen alterum. Lip-
siae, in aedibus B. G. Teubneri. 1907.
Pp. xii+ 652.

THE first volume of this edition of the //iad
was noticed C.F. 1903, 58. The reviewer
has now to offer his hearty congratulations to
the author upon the fulfilment of this portion
of his great task. ‘The general principles upon
which Professor Ludwich’s editions are based
have long been known to the world, and do
not require statement or criticism. A few
observations upon method suggest themselves.

Herr Ludwich gives a capital letter to each
MS., and cites them individually for each
variant they give. The reader thus has the
whole information before him, without the
risks of inference and interpretation which
attend upon the use of more complicated
symbols. On the other hand, space is enor-
mously sacrificed. A method which, with
about 7o MSS., swells vol. ii. to 652 pages,
would be impossible if the whole number of
MSS., amounting to perhaps three times as
many, were in question. Again, how are
separate MSS. to be designated? Is tradition
or consistency to prevail? A reviewer who
is also an editor is in a delicate position ;
in the second edition of the Oxford /iiad
it will be found that extensive changes in
nomenclature have been perpetrated, and
they may not be to the taste of everyone.
However, I must boldly say that Herr
Ludwich has not improved matters by his
arrangements. The members of the small

NO. CXCIX. VOL, XXIII.

collection of //iads at Vienna were known—
the three that were quoted—as L, G, H, a
preposterous enough device, and which could
not last, however consecrated by time.
What has Herr Ludwich done? Given them
all one letter? No; he calls the first two
W, and the last three X, breaking therefore
with tradition without introducing a con-
sistent treatment. The letter P is divided
among Milan, Paris, and Perugia; E covers
Eton, the Estense, and the British Museum ;
the Laurentian MSS. are to be sought under
F, M, and S (while C and D, once dear to
us, have vanished); Paris, not content with
part of P, governs Y, and the Venetian
codices range from A through B to K and
N. Clearly such a system is transitory, and
can impose no obligation on those who come
after.

The MSS. for which Herr Ludwich is his
own authority are enumerated in his Besfréage
sur Homerischen Handschriftenkunde (1900).
The other material is afforded partly by his
predecessors and partly by Dr. Leaf’s sub-
stantial statistics from London and Paris.
What is entirely Herr Ludwich’s own is his
wealth of ancient quotations, more especially
from the grammarians. One needs only
open the editions which preceded his to feel
that this branch of evidence is practically his
creation. While the accumulations of papyri
must put all our editions on the shelf, to
have exhausted this province is an abiding
merit. The public, however, are not content
even with the strenuous service of forty
years ; they ask anxiously after the scholia to
the Odyssey. T. W. ALLEN.

B

18 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

GRUNDRISS DER VERGLEICHENDEN GRAMMATIK.

Grundriss der Vergletchenden Grammattk.
By Kart Brucmann. Vol. II. (Morpho-
logy). Edition II. PartI. Leipzig, 1906.

Hearty and respectful welcome will be
given to this evidence of continued activity
on the part of the veteran leader of Philo-
logical science. Like the first edition, it is
a book which becomes indispensable the
moment it is published. No one can hence-
forward profitably consider any point in the
whole sphere of Noun-formation in any of
the Indo-European languages without first
ascertaining at least the latest advance of
discovery that has been recognised and
recorded in the Grundriss. In reviewing the
second edition of the first Volume, one could
not but (in some sense) regret the inevitable
expansion of material which the work of
twenty years had added to its bulk; yet the
disadvantage was in itself a triumph. One
commanding intellect had surveyed an enor-
mous field of knowledge, and brought order
out of chaos, into every province, and almost
every corner; and the result was that a
hundred scholars of humbler powers were
enabled to cultivate their own particular part
of the field with a safety and thoroughness
which had never before been possible.
Exactly the same double-edged reflection is
suggested by this second edition of the first
part of the second Volume. The pages have
risen from 462 to 688, and the difference is
some measure, though an inadequate measure,
of the amount of solid knowledge added to
the possessions of mankind by the work and
the influence of its author in the last quarter
of a century.

The chief, perhaps the only serious,
changes in plan are two. (1) Very much
larger room is given to the treatment of the
meaning of the formative elements (which
one may more briefly call with Brugmann,
Formantia). In the first edition this occu-
pied only thirty pages; it has now been
expanded, very fruitfully and very happily,
to over a hundred. This part of the book,
in fact, affords a second and hardly less

1[The Editor thinks it right to state that the delay
of this notice is not due to the present reviewer. ]

important point of view from which the
whole material can be surveyed, and a glance
through the careful Table of Contents will
make it possible for scholars who wish to
discover how any one of a large number of
special significations is commonly expressed
in the Indo-European languages, to ascertain:
at once whether there is any one or more
special forms charged with this meaning, and
precisely through how many languages it
spreads. Thus, for instance, the denotation
of Sex, of Parts of the Body, of Relationship,
of Animals, of Actions and Agents, of Loca-
lities and their Inhabitants, of Tools, of
Time, Extent, Colour, Disease, Affection,
Contempt, and many more such concepts,
are all separately collected and explained.
How useful this is, even for a mainly literary
appreciation of the separate languages, every
scholar and teacher will realise.

The only other important modification of
the plan of the first edition is (2) a very
considerable expansion of the theoretical
exposition of principles at the outset. The
reader very soon learns to feel that he has
before him, not merely a wonderful collection
of facts (which would be appalling in their
multitude if they were less lucidly arranged),
but an acute, philosophic and leisurely survey
of their essential meaning, that is, of the
contribution which is made by this huge
chapter of separate linguistic data to the
history of the spirit of man. The mass of
the book is an indispensable handbook of
reference, but the first hundred pages are
much more than this. They should be read
by every teacher of language, as containing
a good part of the fruit of a lifetime spent
in studying the growth of the human mind
as reflected in human language. Here the
great master shows the same interpreting
and fertilizing touch which has marked his
earlier work. In the motto from Goethe,
which he still modestly prefixes to the
whole,

‘There shall many a riddle be loosed,

But many a riddle tied anew,’
the first line well suggests the keen pleasure
which will be felt by his pupils all over the

EE νει

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 19

world in the freshness and power with which
some of the most intricate problems in the
growth of language are handled in this part
of the book. The doctrine in the main is
what it was, but it comes now enriched and,
if one may say so, mellowed by a more
contemplative tone and a greater wealth of
genial illustration.

Of smaller changes may be mentioned the
transfer of the suffix-less noun-stems (like
véx regis) to their natural place before those
containing suffixes or infixes; and the inter-
esting treatment of the φερέοικος, τερψίχορος
class, whose first part is now justly recog-
nised as verbal. ‘Conglutinate’ for complex
formantia like -s-mo-, -mdn-i0-, -εσ-τηρτ-ιο-;
‘Suppletion’ for the process by which
defective parts of a paradigm are made up
by forms based on a different root (φέρω,
οἴσω, ἤνεγκα) are among the most useful of
many new terms to which currency is now
given. For names of different classes of
compounds the old and ambiguous ‘ Deter-
minative’ still lingers, though it is officially
superseded by ‘Exo-centric’ to denote a
compound which is used as an epithet to

something else, the familiar ῥοδοδάκτυλος
class. The opposite of this, when the
result is a substantive (e.g. ἀκρόπολις) should
surely be called ‘Endocentric’ rather than
‘Esocentric’; it seems rather a cruelty to
hearers, printers and readers alike to make
an important difference of meaning depend
merely on the difference of two single sounds
and symbols which are so closely alike as
s and x.

Every one will welcome the separate
paragraph-numbering and pagination an-
nounced for each part of the new edition of
Volume II. ; a select Index would have been
welcome too, but in this particular part the
task of selection would have been so difficult
as to be almost impossible ; for it would be
obviously absurd to catalogue in the Index
every word that happened to be cited in the
book merely as containing ἃ particular
formant.

I have noted only one misprint; the pre-
position zz has fallen out in the last line of
Ρ. 249.

R. S. Conway.

Manchester, November, 1908.

MARSHALL’S CATALOGUE OF FINGER-RINGS.

Catalogue of the Finger-Rings (Greek, Etrus-
can, and Roman) in the Departments of
Antiquities, British Museum. London:
F. H. Marshall, M.A., printed by order of
the Trustees, 1907. 8vo. 54+258. 160
Figures in text and 35 Plates. 235.

THOSE who at any time have occupied them-
selves with a collection of smaller antiquities,
are able to estimate the difficulties involved
in cataloguing a series of such objects as
ancient rings. While the kindred subject of
ancient gem-engraving has the advantage of
Furtwaengler’s splendid work on gems for a
thoroughly trustworthy guide, which can be
largely supplemented by the advance of in-
vestigation, nothing has for many years been
done in regard to antique rings, and the
enormous mass of existing and undigested
material has done more to repel than attract.

From this point of view we regard Mr.
Marshall’s work as a very important produc-
tion, destined to form the basis of all
subsequent labours.

The Catalogue proper is prefaced by a
short Introduction. The first chapter collects
all the available information from trustworthy
literary sources on the practical use of rings
as seal-rings, as the insignia of particular
officials or persons, and as wedding-rings ;
further contributing much information on
their use as amulets. To set apart a special
class of ‘poison-rings,’ although rings are
occasionally mentioned as used for holding
poison, is inadmissible, nor can any definite
conclusion be laid down as to the manner in
which the poison was introduced into the
rings.

In the second section the author deals
with rings as ornaments, and here again

20 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

mainly depends on literary tradition. In his
view an increasing popularity of these orna-
ments is to be observed during the Hellenistic
and Imperial Roman periods ; but that does
not accord with the facts of the case. The
great popularity of the ring as an ornament
even in the very earliest times is fully attested
by the innumerable rings with geometrical
decoration from Boeotian tombs, while for
the archaic Greek period we have similar
evidence in the metal rings ornamented with
relief, which are not uncommon. Further,
the delicately-cut older Ionic rings may with
tolerable certainty be regarded as ornamental,
the use of which as seal-rings the author
would at least admit as possible. To this
section are appended a few notes on the
subject of the fingers on which the rings
were worn.

In the next section, which deals with the
inscriptions on rings, a doubt may be per-
mitted as to whether the names sometimes
found on the rings actually indicate ‘the
owner in all cases, or if they may not equally
well be artists’ signatures. In the case of
entirely unornamented rings there is, of
course, no room for such doubt. But the
name Anaxiles, for example, which occurs on
the very important ring No. 52, may equally
well be that of the artist.

Some very valuable remarks on the tech-
nique and material of ancient rings! form the
concluding section of the Introduction, to-
gether with a survey of the forms employed.
This survey, although confined to the British
Museum collection, and therefore in no way
claiming to be exhaustive, must be com-
mended as specially instructive.

To be able to speak of the Catalogue itself
in detail requires actual personal handling of
the rings themselves; for well and carefully
executed as are the plates, yet in many cases
the small scale of the illustration forbids close
investigation. But it may be said by way of
preliminary, that the descriptions appear to
be very trustworthy, and that is the essential
requirement of an illustrated catalogue which
is intended for those unfamiliar with the
collection. We can only approve the choice
of Furtwaengler’s conclusions as a basis for

1 For the expressions ἐπίχρυσος and κατάχρυσος cf.
Wilamowitz in Berichte der Berl. Akad. 1901, p. 1318.

the dating of the engraved gold rings and the
intaglios.

A few remarks on points of detail must
follow. The gold ring No. 43, one of the
best examples in the collection, with its
wonderfully naive attempt at foreshortening
of a horse with its rider, can hardly be of
later date than 450 B.c.; similar attempts in
red-figure vase-painting point rather to an
earlier date. For the design on the gold
ring No. 48, rightly dated about 450 B.c., a
comparison may be made with the so-called
Penelope or the seated woman, of the well-
known Melian terra-cotta group, as the author
has very properly done with No. 66 and the
coins of Histiaea. The subject of the ring
No. 374 (Plate xi.) is described as ‘three
warriors standing before a low altar upon
which is a bird.’ But the circumstance that
the head of the warrior on the right is on a
much smaller scale, and that nothing of his
legs is visible, demands another explanation.
It seems to me clear that the bearded warrior
is Odysseus, the beardless one Diomedes,
who carries in his left arm the Palladion
(z.e. ‘the third warrior’). But the explana-
tion of the altar still remains doubtful. The
Etruscan ring No. 379, with the subject of a
kneeling warrior, surely belongs to the fifth
century. The manner in which the figure is
disposed in the space provokes a comparison
with the earlier subject on the interior of the
Sosias cup, or—to take an obvious example
of local and contemporary work—the Etrus-
can mirror in Gerhard (Pl. 233) with the
subject of Achilles and Penthesileia. One
of the most interesting rings in the collection
is the bronze ring No. 1258, described as
‘Eros crouching on one leg and holding with
both hands a strap (?) which passes through
a ring.’ Obviously here we have an instance
of the use of the ‘magic wheel’ as a love-
charm, the ἴυγξ. The nearest parallel to the
ring is the vase recently published by A.
Brueckner in the Athenische Mittetlungen,
1907, p. 79 (cf. p. 94), where Himeros is
fastening up the wheel in just the same
fashion.

As already noted, the plates are admirable,
and executed with the greatest care, while
the printing is free from errors except for a
few trifles, such as 574 for 674 on page xxviii.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 21

The great number of illustrated types raises
the work far above the average. It is a real
joy to have placed before one’s eyes this rich
collection of choice pieces, and one cannot
lay the volume aside without feeling the need
of a lively expression of gratitude to the

SHORT

Q. Asconit Pediani Commentarit.
novit A. C. CLarK. (Oxford text).

As editor of Asconius, Mr. Clark shews him-
self a worthy successor of Manutius, Madvig,
the ‘sospitator Asconii,’ and Kiessling and
Schoell, who so named Madvig. His work
marks the limit of what scholarship can at
present do for the author, and will probably
remain the standard text for a long period of
time. As in his other undertakings, Mr.
Clark has proved himself unwearied and suc-
cessful in the pursuit of evidence, and
judicious in his use of it. Even a destructive
critic (a rarity now, but not unknown) could
find here little material for the exercise of his
art. The conditions attached to the series
in which the book appears must of course
have cramped Mr. Clark a little. A_biblio-
graphy of editions, pamphlets and articles
relating to Asconius would have been a boon.
In the construction of it some matter worth
taking into account would probably have
come to light. I do not think, for instance,
that Mr. Clark refers to a Breslau program
on the codices of Asconius, by Schmiedeberg
(1905) which I have seen quoted.

Little or nothing could be added to the
information about Asconius given by Kiess-
ling and Schoell, which is here conveniently
repeated. It is curious that a passage in
Silius Italicus (12, 212-4) referring to a
Pedianus of Patavium as_ distinguished
both in arms and in letters during the time
of Hannibal, should still be taken as good
evidence of the noble descent of our Asconius.
Silius invented the names of his minor com-
batants as freely as Virgil, and we can often
see a reason for his inventions, as when he
introduces a Galba and a Piso side by side

Recog-

author, who has known how to dispose his
unwieldy and difficult material in a thorough-
going and charming manner.

ERICH PERNICE.

Greifswald,

NOTICES

(10, 403). The Pedianus of Silius was no
doubt suggested by our Asconius, but the
mention of literature at Patavium in that
age shews how mythical the figure is. The
name Antenorides applied to Pedianus by
Silius is national, not personal.

Mr. Clark’s valuable researches on the
text are embodied in the account given in
the preface of its history since Poggio made
his famous raid on St. Gallen. A curious and
interesting history itis. Mr. Clark argues that
the Madrid transcript of Asconius is Poggio’s
own and his case seems to be a good one.
In the choice of readings for his own text,
Mr. Clark brings into play all the sound and
thorough scholarship which his previous work
has led us to expect from him. Of his own
suggestions, some are obviously right, many
more are probable and not one flouts the
requirements of the passage or the laws of
Latin. More than this can rarely be said
of a text. The lacunose condition (in parts)
of the transcripts from the lost St. Gallen
MS. makes emendation often difficult. Of
matters which have given me pause in Mr.
Clark’s apparatus criticus 1 can only mention
a few. In § 3 Asconius refers to the
privilege whereby members of a Latin
community could become Roman citizens by
rising to office in their town:—wuf fetendo
magistratusctvitatem Romanum adtpiscerentur.
Here fefendo is written by Mr. Clark for
petendi or petit. But Asconius can hardly
have supposed that mere candidature for a
magistracy was sufficient. A. Augustinus
proposed gevendo, which gives the required
sense. Perhaps Asconius wrote odeundo.
In § 13 there is in the codices sdem prouinciam
deposuerat ne sumptui esset oratio (or oro).
The reference is to Scaevola the pontifex, at

22 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the time of his consulship. For oratio
Manutius wrote aervario and Mr. Clark sug-
gests populo Romano. But the word required
seems to be ornatzio, the technical phrase for
expenditure on the equipment of a magistrate
for his province. When Scaevola went to
Asia after his praetorship he refused to accept
the ordinary grant from the treasury. He
was still of the same mind, but (apparently)
unable to supply the money for himself. At
§ 32 there is mention of a law passed by C.
Cornelius the tribune of 67 B.c. ‘ut praetores
ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent.’
Asconius adds guae res eum (so MSS.) aut
gratiam ambitiosis praetoribus qui varie tus
dicere assueuerant sustulit. For eum Mr.
Clark gives studium. But studium is too
like gratiam; a word of opposite sense is
needed, such as Ze/um, which is often meta-
phorically applied to powers or privileges
capable of being used out of spite. The
praetors contradicted their edicts in order to
do damage to their enemies as well as favours
to their friends. At § 84 Mr. Clark wishes to
read submisisse capillum for tmmisisse c., on
the strength of Plin. ep. 7, 27, 14, vezs moris
est summittere capillum. But in this sense
immuittere, submittere, demittere, promittere are
all equally good. See the ‘ Thesaurus,’ s.v.
barba, and particularly fragm. 47 of Sisenna
there quoted.

Considerations of space compel me to part
unwillingly here from Mr. Clark’s book,
which is sure to receive elsewhere the ex-
tended examination it deserves.

J. S. Rem.

APOLLODORUS’ (OF DAMASCUS)
IIOAIOPKHTIKA.

Griechische Poltorkettker von RUDOLF
SCHNEIDER. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buch-
handlung, 1908. (51 diagrams.)

Tuis edition of R. Schneider (Géttingen) has,
with Preface, a note on Apollodorus Damas-
cenus, Trajan’s magister fabrum, builder
of that Emperor’s bridges, forum, odeum
and gymnasium, and victim of the Imperial
exiling and execution. Procopius (De Aed.
iv. 6), Dio Cassius (xix. 4. 1) and Spartianus
(Hadr. 19. 13) refer to him; the last-men-

tioned gives Hadrian’s commission to Archi-
tect Apollodorus for a statue to the Moon.
The chief codices followed for the text are
Parisini M. and P. with the Vaticanus (V.).
The editor has drawn on C. Wescher’s
Poliorcétigue des Grecs (Paris, 1867) and
Ernest Lacoste, Les Poliorcétigues d’ Apollo-
dore de Damas. Traduction, Revue des études
grecques, ili. Paris, 1890. <A (diffuse) trans-
lation into German is followed by an index
and the 51 diagrams of storming apparatus.
A σκάνδαλον in limine is ὑπελάλησα, trans-
lated habe ich . . . durchgesprochen, but the
sentence is awkward: πᾶσιν (ὑποδείγμασιν)
ὑπουργὸν For
ὑπολαλέω L. and 8. give as authorities only:
Greg. Nyss., Byz., Math. Vett. and Eustathius,
authors that land us in the fourth and later
centuries. True, Apollodorus of Damascus
is unknown to the List of Authors in L.and S.,
who give no such word as ὑπολατρεύω ; still,
ὑπελάτρευσα suits the context (ὑπουργὸν az.)
better than ὑπελάλησα, ‘chattered in an
under-tone, murmured, whispered.’ Among
the strange words (for which the Damascene

ὑπελάλησα Kal ἀπέλυσα.

apologises) are: ἀρίς, drill(?), κατάσσω
(-Ξ- κατάγνυμι), μάγγανον (Kloben am

Flaschenzuge), the dim. σιαγόνιον (a LXX
word), (τὰς καλουμένας) ψιάθους, (die soge-
nannten) ‘Jalousien.’ Of these the first
only is known to L. and S. as occurring in
our author, on whom it is, perhaps, a little
hard that his name does not figure on R.
Schneider’s brochure cover, though he
designed the Forum and Column of Trajan
(and the bridge over the Danube)—works
imperishable.

Scholia in Cuceronts Orationes Bobiensia,
Edidit PauLus HILDEBRANT. Leipzig.
1907 (Teubner Text).

SoME readers of German periodicals bearing
on Classical studies may remember that the
Editor of this volume has been engaged in
controversy with some other German scholars
interested in the subject. That a few weak-
nesses in the book have been indicated I am
not disposed to deny. But nevertheless the
Editor has achieved a most laborious task in a
manner which, on the whole, entitles him to
gratitude. The preface gives an elaborate

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 23

account of the famous MS. of the Scholia,
part of which is now at Milan, part at Rome.
The ‘Scholia Gronoviana,’ preserved in a
Leyden MS., are prefixed to the text. The
Editor believes them to be extracted from a
lost portion of the ‘Bobiensia,’ and has
argued the matter in a dissertation published
some time back. Although many will think
that he has not made out his case, it is
convenient to have the two sets of Scholia
printed together. The handling of the text
is generally sound, though open to criticism
here and there. A very elaborate index
occupies almost half the volume, and there
are two photographic plates, one from the
Ambrosian, the other from the Roman

portion of the palimpsest.
J. S. RErp.

Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae.
Ediderunt et explanaverunt JOANNES DE
Prott, Lupovicus ZIEHEN.

II. 1. Leges Graeciae et Insularum
Edidit L. ΖΙΕΗΕΝ. Leipzig: Teubner,
1906. M. 12.

Tus book is part of a work projected by
the two editors; of which one part was issued
by Prott in 1896, but his untimely death left
the work unfinished. The cult of Alexander
and his successors was the subject that fell
to Prott; and Ziehen was to take the rest.
Here we have the first part of Ziehen’s work.
The texts here published are not all those
which relate to religious matters; votive
inscriptions, catalogues, administrative enact-
ments, might all have a claim, but their bulk
was too great to allow of their inclusion as a
whole. Those that deal with temple finance,
the use of moneys and farms, have been
almost wholly omitted, amongst them the
Tabulae Heracleenses ; some, however, that
contain allusions to points of special import-
ance, have been included. The inscriptions
have been given whole or not at all, with
three exceptions, one of which is the Will of
Epicteta.

The inscriptions are printed in minuscule,
but with word-divisions and accents, the
same plan as was adopted in the Teubner
booklet of Greek inscriptions. It is difficult
to read, and when the subject is the chief

matter of importance, it seems to be a pity
to add a new difficulty to the student’s task.
For all matters of palaeography or dialect, for
critical discussions of date and other ques-
tions that depend on the alphabet, students
will go to other books, and the editor’s
purpose could have been served as well by
a transliteration in the common script.

The commentary is searching and com-
plete. It includes criticism of the text and
the various restorations suggested ; not seldom
the editor is able to improve on his prede-
cessors, as in the supplement πεντετί pide
τῶν ΤΠαναθηναίων, p. 50 (7.G. i. suppl. p. 64,
354). Abundance of illustrations are quoted,
which will materially help in the understand-
ing of the text. See, for instance, the
illustrations on p. 16 of privileges conferred
by decree to single persons.

The editor is cautious however, more so
than some of his compatriots ; he refuses to
accept a conjecture as established fact, as in
Kirchoff’s restoration of a line in the same
inscription (p. 16-17), and he has omitted it
from his text. In discussing the temple of
Wingless Victory he is more arbitrary than
usual; assigning the decree of its building
to a time between 460 and 446—probably in
450/449—he will not allow it to have been
built until after the Propylaea. There is less
in the notes than could be wished about
peculiar forms or constructions, such as
αὐσαυτᾶς (p. 156) from Calauria.

The book is invaluable to students of
Greek religion; no other can give a survey
of the sources over the whole Greek area of
Europe and the islands, accompanied by the
materials for the most searching study. With
the second part of this volume, containing
the inscriptions of Asia, the editor’s task will
be done. It is to be hoped he will not leave
his colleague Prott’s work incomplete.

ΗΕ Ὲ:

Flellenistische Bauten in Latium. TI. Baube-
sthretbungen. By R. DELBRUCK. Strass-
burg: Karl J. Trubner, 1907. 1 νοὶ]. 4to.
0.31 x0.24. Pp. vilit+92. 20 plates and
88 illustrations in text.

Tuis volume contains accurate detailed
drawings and descriptions of several of the best

24 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

known monuments of the Republican period
in Rome and Latium—the Aqua Marcia
(near the so-called Porta Furba, two miles out
of Rome), the Pons Mulvius, the Pons
Aemilius (Ponte Rotto), the Tabularium, and
a portion of the buildings connected with the
Temple of Fortune at Praeneste. With the
illustrations, mainly from drawings by Italian
architects from Herr Delbriick’s measure-
ments and under his direction and respon-
sibility, no fault can be found, and their
accuracy will bear testing on the spot. In
regard to the interpretation of the facts,
however, he is not always correct.

Thus various indications, some of them
already accessible to him at the time his
work was done, go to show that the ‘ court-
yard’ at Palestrina was really a roofed
basilica, notably the arrangements for the
carrying off of rainwater from the roof, and
further the existence, ascertained by recent
excavations, of eight columns on the N. side
of the aforesaid ‘court.’ This is also the
view of Professor Hiilsen (cf. Motizze degli
Scavi, 1907, 292 Nn).

In other points, too, recent work at Pal-
estrina may cause some modification, and it
will be fairer to wait till the publication of
vol. ii. before passing a final judgment.

The second part of the work, too, will
perhaps persuade us of the justice of calling
Hellenistic what we have hitherto been in-
clined to consider characteristic specimens of
Roman construction of the Republican
period.

Contractions tn early Latin Minuscule MSS.,
by Wm. Linpsay. Oxford: Parker. St.
Andrews University Publications, V.

Ir might have seemed that there was not
much left to discover about Latin MSS. after
all these centuries of study; but Traube’s
Nomina Sacra has revolutionized the whole.
He has discovered why the old method of
suspension (2.6. the word represented by the
first letter or letters) gave way to contraction
(eg. DOM. to DNS.), and by so doing has
furnished invaluable tests of the age of MSS.
These results, with classified lists of his own
notes, are given by Prof. Lindsay in the
pamphlet before us. It will be indispensable

to editors, critics, and students. Without
the knowledge it contains, corruptions cannot
be safely mended; and it forms thus a
useful check on the emender, whilst sug-
gesting to the careful student how he ought
to emend. Many mistakes are due to a
scribe of one country wrongly interpreting
the abbreviation written in another country,
where the same symbol meant a different

thing. W.d. ἘΣ

SOME SCHOOL BOOKS.

American Book Company: Herodotus vii and viii
(Smith and Laird), and Xenophon’s Ae/lenica
(Brownson). Sanborn: Virgil’s Aenezd i-vi
(Fairclough and Brown). Ginn: Zpigrams of
Martial (Post). Clarendon Press: Select Epigrams
of Martial i-vi (Bridge and Lake).

ALL these books, compiled for America, differ some-
what from English books. They seem to be meant
for both schools and colleges, and therefore lack
unity of aim: besides this, they have the common
fault of annotated editions, that they try to meet the
wants of both teacher and learner. For the teacher,
the elaborate introduction and the very full biblio-
graphy are necessary; but they are of no use to the
learner, only to one who has already learnt. The
learner, again, may profit by some of the notes; but
on the other hand, many of the notes are meant for
the teacher, and others would not be needed if there
should be someone to teach. Of the four books, the
Martial is best adapted to school use ; but this, like
the Herodotus and the Xenophon, has notes at the
foot of the text. The Martial is a very good book ;
it contains a great deal of illustrative matter (an index
of 14 pages refers to the authors cited in notes), and
Martial needs notes more than most authors. We
have noted only one important omission : in discussing
the epigram, votive epigrams ought to be added to
the list of true epigraphic superscriptions (p. xxiii).
The two Greek books are clearly printed, but need
larger margins. The Herodotus, besides a historical
introduction adapted from Stein, has a very full analysis
of the author’s Ionic dialect, a piece of useful and
original work ; which would be better, however, if
printed so that text and references were distinct.
The notes are practical, and show knowledge of
Greek lands. The apparatus of the Xenophon is also
good; the notes contain too much that is elementary
(e.g. explanation of μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, simple concords,
and so forth), but frequent references to several dif-
ferent grammars can only be useful to the teacher.
The Virgil has notes at the end, and an English
analysis of the text at every few lines; 320 pp. of
notes with less than half that amount of text. There
are far too many elementary notes, whilst many real
difficulties are left alone (e.g. iii. 305 /acrimis after a

ἣν»

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 25

noun, 317 devectam=viduam, 340 cause of incomplete
sentence, 661 /men ademptum, life or eye?). There
is a vocabulary, which is surely not advisable at this
stage. The editors omit the first four lines of the
Aeneid, although they admit that Virgil wrote them
and that his first editors cut them out: just what
editors would do, spoiling the whole balance of the
period, and making our gentle Virgil into an Ancient
Pistol. Any who still cling to arma virumgue should
be advised to read Henry’s triumphant vindication of
the four lines. The English style of the editors is
not good: Virgil is made to ‘hail from’ the pro-
vinces (xvii) and the specimen prose translation on
p. lviii is full of tags of iambic verse. The good
points of the book are an abundance of excellent
pictures, an excellent introduction on Virgil’s literary
influence, many literary notes and parallels, and the
marking of the long vowels in Bk. i and vocabulary.
The book would do well for revising the six books
after first reading them in a plain text.

Tuis book, more unpretending than Post’s A/artzal,
is also better suited to be a schoolbook. It contains
the Oxford text of all the readable epigrams, with a
short but admirable introduction on Martial, the
epigram, patron and client, cooptator and orbus,
recitations, books, spectacles, chronology, metre,
text (35 pp.), and good, sensible notes.

Weidmann: Cicero zz Verrent v (O. Drenckhahn,
M. I. 40).

THE plain text is well printed, with good margins,

and bound in cloth; German notes in a separate

pamphlet enclosed at the end of the book.

NEW EDITIONS.

Clarendon Press: Homeré opera i, ii. (Allen).

Clark: Prolegomena to the Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek (Moulton).

Heinemann: Ferrero’s Greatness and Decline of
Rome iv.
A NEW edition—the third—has been published of
Prof. J. H. Moulton’s Prolegomena. There area large
number of small changes, in which the author has
profited by criticism or has added to his knowledge ;
and enlarged indices, with a new index of Greek
words and forms. The preface contains a brief answer
to the criticism that Egyptian Greek may have been

influenced by Aramaic. We must protest, however,
against the practice, now so common, of refusing to
improve a book for fear of altering the pages. This
is the publisher’s fault, no doubt, but the fact remains
that more improvements might have been made (see
Ρ. xv for the author’s admission), and that we have
nearly 20 pp. of notes at the end which ought to be in
the text, and addenda to the indices.

The Oxford //iad is now in its second edition; in
which use is made of papyri discovered since the first,
and other new matter is put into the notes, from
Ludwich and Leaf, which would have been more
‘nisi illa lege obstricti essemus ne paginis pridem
instructis ab alia in aliam stichus transcurreret.’ This
is another instance of the practice just mentioned, and
more culpable in a university press.

We have already reviewed the Italian edition of
Ferrero’s book: the English translation must, how-
ever, be mentioned here. It is very well done, cheap
(6s. net), and well printed. Whether Ferrero be
right or wrong, there is no question that the book
is as absorbing as a sensational novel.

The Ziectra is the latest added to the shortened
edition of Jebb’s Sophocles: Mr. G. A. Davies has
treated it on the same plan as the others. Messrs.
Ginn have brought out a new and revised edition of
Plato’s Apology and Crito (Louis Dyer); the new
editor, T. D. Seymour, and the original editor, both
died suddenly before the book was published. The
new edition contains extracts from /haedo and
Symposium and from the A/emoradilia, with notes,
and the introduction has been rewritten. A useful
book is King’s Phi/ippics of Cicero i, ii, iii, v, and vii.
The notes are nearly all taken from the larger edition,
which is well known to scholars, and revised by A. C.
Clark.

Four volumes of Weidmann’s Sammlung have
lately appeared in new editions. These are: Kiess-
ling’s Odes and Epodes of Horace (5th ed. by R.
Heinze), Nipperdey’s Azma/s of Tacitus, xi-xvi (6th
ed. by G. Andressen), Stein’s Herodotus vii (6th ed.),
and Classen’s 7hucydides vii (3rd ed. by J. Steup).
These have introductions and German footnotes.
There is practically no change in the Horace. In
Tacitus, about 100 changes are made, 75 restoring
or giving for the first time the MS. reading, and the
spelling has been brought closer to the MSS. ; the
commentary has been improved and corrected, with
special reference to the Prosop. Imper. Rom. At
the end, Claudius’s speech on the Gothic /us Honorum
is added from C./.Z. xiii 1668, with notes. The
commentary on 7 με. vii has been enlarged and
revised by Steup.

26 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

OBITUARY

THOMAS DAY SEYMOUR.

PROFESSOR SEYMOUR, who died on Dec.
31, was born in Hudson, Ohio, April 1,
1848, of Puritan ancestry on both sides.
He received the degree of B.A. at Western
Reserve University, where he was Professor
of Greek from 1872 to 1880, when he
became Professor of Greek at Yale Uni-
versity ; he held this position until his death.
He studied classical philology in Berlin and
Leipsic in 4870-72, and made many visits to
Greece and other Greek lands.

His powerful influence on American
scholarship was exerted in many ways: by
his teaching, by his activity as editor and
reviewer, and by his own writings: by his
shining example as a profound, unwearied,
accurate and fruitful scholar, impatient ever
of inadequate work: by the close friendships
he established with the scholars of his own
and of the younger generation, and not least
by his activity as administrator of large
_ enterprises. His writings were miscellaneous
in character, Pindar, Plato, but above all
Homer being his favourite authors. His
earliest book was his Selected Odes of Pindar
(1882); he wrote many notes on Plato: while
he attested his lifelong devotion to Homer by
his Zntroduction to the Language and Verse of
Flomer (1885), Homer's Iliad, I-VI (1887-
90), Homeric Vocabulary (1889), School Iliad,
(1891), Lnutroduction and Vocabulary to School
Odyssey, eight books (1901)—most of all,
however, by his Life zn the Homeric Avge,
published only three months before his death.
Besides original articles in the Zvansactions
of the American Philological Association
and Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,
and in more popular periodical literature

(Scribner's Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, The
Chautauguan, etc.), he wrote a vast num-
ber of shorter notes and book reviews,
signed and unsigned, in the /Vation (New
York), American Journal of Philology, Clas-
sical Philology, and this Review. Since 1889
he had been one of the Associate Editors of
this Review for America.

He was for twelve years chairman of the
Managing Committee of the American School
of Classical Studies at Athens. At the time
of his death, he had been President of the
Archaeological Institute of America for five
years. The honorary degree of Doctor of
Laws was conferred upon him by Western
Reserve University in 1894, by Glasgowin rgot,
and by Harvard in 1906. He had countless
friends, here and abroad, some of whom
were attached to him by the warmest ties
of affection: among these, to name only the
dead, were F. D. Allen, Blass, Jebb, and
Lord Kelvin.

All who knew him loved him for the purity
and loftiness of his character, and for his
high disinterestedness; they admired him
for the swiftness and sureness of his mind
in action, for his marvellous powers of work,
for the range of his intellectual interests, and
for his broad outlook on life, where sensitive-
ness to new ideas was united with a wise
conservatism. To many of us, in his going
forth,

δύσετό τ᾽ ἠέλιος σκιόωντό τε πᾶσαι ἀγυαί.

Joun H. ὙΝΈΙΘΗΤ.

[We regret to add that before this notice

reached us, the author himself died.
EpiTor C.R.]

ARCHAEOLOGY

CORSTOPITUM.

THE excavations on the site of Corstopitum
were resumed in July last, and continued
till early in October, the area examined

lying on the north side of the broad street
discovered in 1907. The buildings fronting
on this street proved to have been of con-

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 27

siderab!e importance, and included two large
granaries, nearly a hundred feet in length
from north to south, and more than twenty
feet in width. Each has been heavily
buttressed on the east, north, and west sides,
and the flagged floors have been supported
on parallel dwarf walls, the space below
being ventilated by means of apertures in
the main walls between each pair of but-
tresses on the east and west sides: in the
case of the western building these apertures
have been divided by stone bars or mullions,
one of which was found in place. The west
granary is probably of earlier date than the
other: its foundations lie at a lower level,
and its floor has been renewed and raised.
In front of this building a large altar, broken
in two pieces, was found: the upper part of
the inscription is obliterated, but the lower
half seems to indicate that the dedicator
was an officer in charge of the granary at
the time of a successful campaign in Britain.
The east granary produced several fragments
of sculpture, of which the most remarkable
was a stone panel bearing a radiated head
with a circular 2zmdbus; a scourge projects
from behind the left shoulder, and probably
the deity represented is the sun god.

To the east of the granaries the ‘fountain,’
first discovered in 1907, was again cleared,
but practically no fresh light was thrown
on its character or purpose. A broad street,
running north and south, comes up to the
back of it and overlaps it on the east side:
this street, like most of those so far dis-
covered, shows traces of two reconstructions
above the original level.

To the east of the street just mentioned
were the remains of a structure of great
extent and evident importance, only part of
which lay within the reserved area. Much of
it had been destroyed down to the foundation
course, but on the west side, which measures
over two hundred and twenty feet, a good
section of the outer wall was found standing
four courses high,—a plain foundation course,
a second course with a moulded plinth on
the outside, the inner face being of rustic
work, and two courses with rustic work on
both faces. The stones are very massive
and closely jointed, each extending the full
thickness of the wall,—viz. two feet six

inches. From the inner face cross walls pro-
ject eastwards at intervals of about eighteen
feet, forming a series of small courts, which
appear to have opened upon a large central
court. On the south side of the building,
so far as it could be examined, traces were
found of a range of courts or chambers,
which possibly opened upon the street, but
there was no indication of a main entrance,
which possibly lies just to the east of the
part explored: this may indicate that the
building was approximately a square. The
foundations of a part of the north wall were
traced, and a range of courts seems to have
existed on this side also; but of this part
very little remained, and it appears to have
been destroyed and abandoned before the
end of the Roman occupation.

To the west of this northern part was a
small building of late date and rough con-
struction, which produced the most important
find of the year. At the back of what
appeared to be the remains of a small
furnace or oven was found a hoard of forty-
eight gold coins and a large gold ring,
wrapped ina piece of sheet lead. The coins,
which are in splendid condition, were minted
under the following Emperors:

Valentinian 1. - - - 4
Valens - - - - 2
Gratian - - - - τό
Valentinian II. - - - ὃ
Theodosius - - - 5
Magnus Maximus” - - 13

It is probable that they were deposited
about a.D. 385. The find is of great im-
portance as proving that the occupation of
Corstopitum continued at least until the
later years of the fourth century.

Apart from this hoard, the series of coins
unearthed was very large, the total number
being above a thousand. Two hoards of
small bronze coins (third brass and mznzmz)
of the latter part of the Constantinian period
were found, and their burnt condition seems
to afford evidence, confirming that found
last year, of an extensive fire about A.D. 340.
The excavations produced large quantities of
pottery, including serra sigillata, Caster, and
other wares, and the list of potters’ names
found at Corstopitum has been considerably

28

increased ; but beyond one small fragment,
nothing could be definitely assigned to an
earlier period than the second century.
Small bronze objects were fairly plentiful,
but as a rule in a poor state of preservation,
while iron implements, mostly of an industrial
character, were more numerous and in better
condition than those found in 1907.

NEWS AND

Tue ‘ Hellenic Revival’ (the phrase is not
ours) goes on merrily in America. Besides
lively debates on reform of various kinds,
dramatic performances make it clear that the
revival is not a thing of books and pedants.
At Wabash College Commencement the
Oedipus Tyrannus was acted in English
(Campbell’s translation), with choral odes
chanted to music ‘composed by Paine.’
Great care was taken with dress and staging.
The Johns Hopkins Classical Club acted
as a ‘parlor performance’ Lucian’s tenth
Dialogue of the Dead.

These details are taken from the December
Classical Journal, which describes another
innovation likely to make the English school-
master envious. At Oak Park, IIl., a new high
school building is being built, which contains
a special classical room, to be a home and
center for their interests. It has a frieze of
Flaxman drawings and a floor of marble
mosaic, and is intended to appeal to the
sense of beauty. This school publishes each
month a Latin paper, Zazzne.

Perhaps some of our readers may be glad
to know of another Latin paper, Vox Uris,
published monthly in Rome by Aristides
Leonori, Piazza del Gest, 48: subscription
7s.a year. Current events are discussed, and
there is verse and dramatic dialogue. We
regret to add that the editor’s ideas of Latin
verse are not those of Terence.

THOSE interested in classical education
would be interested to read a paper on Dead
Bones in the December number of Llack-
wood’s Magazine. The author, who is anony-
mous, attacks the current system of instruc-
tion; and, unlike many critics, suggests a

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Thanks to the generosity of the owner of
the site, Captain J. H. Cuthbert, D.S.O.,
the principal buildings unearthed during the
past season have been left uncovered. They
will be open for inspection when the excava-
tions are resumed in July 1909.

R. H. FORSTER.

COMMENTS

remedy. Our old friend mental gymnastic
reappears, together with the formation of
character and organized games. On all these
the writer has something new to say, or says
old things in a new manner. He is the first,
we think, to question the claim of a public
school to form character : ‘the public schools
develop characteristics, and suppress char-
acter.’ Will some one take up the cudgels
in their defence?

Mr. E. R. GarnseEy (B.A., Syd.), the author
of two recent books on Horace, has read a
paper before the Oxford Philological Society
entitled ‘The Fall of Maecenas, in its
bearing on the interpretation of Horace.’
The author points out that Maecenas, the
brains of the new imperialism, lost Augustus’s
confidence, and was shelved in favour of
Sallustius Crispus. This came about partly
through the plot of Murena, his brother-in-
law. Mr. Garnsey sees allusions in Horace
to this episode, which he believes to have
been a great blow to Maecenas, an ambitious
man. Other allusions to the inner political
situation of B.c. 23-19 are also pointed out in
the paper.

Pror. PostGaTE read a paper before the
British Academy on ‘Flaws in Modern
Classical Research.’ He traces the effects of
modern ways of thought and modern preju-
dices, morals, and taste; not least those of
modern vanity, which rejects the direct state-
ments of the ancients in favour of precon-
ceived ideas as to what ought to be true.

THE first Classical Quarterly for 1909 is
an unusually varied number. The longest

~

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 29

articles are Mr. Rice Holmes’ learned dis-
cussion of a nautical problem, ‘Could
ancient ships work to windward?’ and Mr.
M‘Elderry’s detailed investigation of ‘The
Legions of the Euphrates Frontier.’ Mr. Ὁ. E.
Stuart gives a collation and an estimate of a
new MS. of Juvenal, which the editor utilises
to improve the text of a passage in Satire I.
Miss D. Mason puts out a new interpretation
of a place in the P&ilebus, and Mr. Richards
emends a number of passages in the spurious
writings of Plato. Mr. Rennie has several
new suggestions on the Acharnians. Mr. L.
Whibley writes on the Bronze Trumpeter of

‘Sparta in connexion with the earthquake of

464. Mr. Sturtevant controverts in part Mr.
Exon’s views on the senses of dez (deis) and
met (mets) in Plautus. Mr. Lindsay has a
note on a reading in Ennius, Mr. Housman
one on the use of s¢wcerus in Lucretius III.
717, Mr. Summers further conjectures on the
letters of Seneca, and Mr. Garrod some
‘Manilian Miscellanies.’ There are reviews by
Mr. Ashby and by Mr. E. W. Brooks (of
Uroth’s Byzantine Coins). There is a notice
of the death of J. H. Wright, the second
associate editor that the Quarterly has lost
within a twelvemonth.

TRANSLATION

TO CYNTHIA CONCERNING HIS BURIALL.

Propertius, 111. 5.

WHENAS my closing eyes shall make an
Ende,
Hear in what Sort my Rites to celebrate ;
For me no pageantrie of Maskes shall wende;
No wailing Trumpet shall lament my Fate;
For me no ivorie-footed Bier be spread,
With Aszatick pride to prop the dead.

Let none those aromatick Censers bear ;
A meane man’s simple Buriall be mine;
Enough if those three lytel Bookes be there ;
No greater Gifte I take to Proserpine;
And Thou wilt come with naked beaten
breast,
And crye aloud my name withouten Reste.

When the full Syvzan box anoints the Pyre,
Then let my poore cold Lips by thine be
pressed ;
My Flesh shall perish in the kindled Fire:
A litel earthen Pot will holde the reste,
And by that narow stead the poets Bay
Shall shade the place where my slaked Ashes

lay.
There write two Rimes: The Dust that lyeth
here
Lived of one onelie Love the constant
Slave.

So Fame shall visit my poore Sepulchre
As erst the PhAthian heroes bloudie Grave;

And when white-haired thou comest to thy
Doom,
Come unforgetfull to my speaking Tomb.

Meanwhile though there I lye disdain not me:
Not without sapience is the conscious
Earth.
Ah would that anie of the Sisters three
Had called me from the Cradel of my
Birth !
Why should I vainly hoard this dubious
Breath?
Three Generations waited /Ves/or’s Death ;

But had some foe on //éan Bastion
Shortened the long Yeeres of his lingring
Fate,
He hadde not seen the Buriall of his Son,
Nor cryde: O Death, why comest thou so
late ἢ
Yet wilt thou sometimes weep; the Pious say:
Love still the Lover that hath passed away.

So when the hardie Boar prevailed to slaye
Adonis hunting on the Cyprian Hill,
The place, ’tis said, where his white Bodye
laye
Venus with loosened tresses visits still.
Yet vainly, Cynthia, vainly wilt thou seeke
To call the silent Dead ; can poudred Ashes
speak ? Ce. ὟΣ

30 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note of
the price.
The size of Books is given in inches: 4 inches=10 centimetres (roughly). They are unbound unless
the binding ts specified. ᾿
*.* Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Alexander (W. H.) Some textual criticisms on the
Eighth Book of the De Vita Caesarum of Suetonius.
(University of California Publications in Classical
Philology, 11. 1. Pp. 20. Berkeley, at the Uni-
versity Press. 1908.

Anthropology and the Classics. Six lectures delivered
before the University of Oxford by Arthur J. Evans,
Andrew Lang, Gilbert Murray, F. B. Jevons, J. L.
Myres, W. Warde Fowler. Edited by R. R.

Marett. 93”x 5%”. Pp. 192. Oxford, Clarendon
Press. 1908. Cloth, 6s. net ($2.00).
Aristotle. Aristotelis Politica post Fr. Susemihlium

recognovit Otto Immisch. (2261. Script. Gr. et

Rom. Teub.) "3" x 43". Pp. xl+354. Leipzig,

B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 3; geb. in Lein-

wand, M. 3.50.

The Works of Aristotle. Translated into
English under the editorship of J. A. Smith, M.A.,
and W. D. Ross, M.A. Vol. VIII. Metaphysica,
by W. Ὁ. Ross. 9”x 5$”. Pp. xvit+316. Oxford,
Clarendon Press. 1908. Cloth, 75. 6d. net

__ ($2.50).

Das Athener Nationalmuseum. Phototypische Wie-
dergabe seiner Schitze, mit erlauterndem Text von
J. N. Svoronos. Deutsche Ausgabe, besorgt von
Dr. W. Barth. Heft 9-10. 13”x10". Pp. 239-
286. Tafeln LXXXI-C. Athen, Beck und Barth.
1908. M. 14.40.

Becker (Josef) Textgeschichte Luidprands von Cre-
mona. (Quzellen und Untersuchungen zur latein-
tschen Philologie des Mittelalters, begriindet von
Ludwig Traube. Band III. Heft 2.) 10”x7”.
Pp. 46, mit zwei Tafeln. Miinchen, Oskar Beck.

1908. M. 2.50.
Bolchert (Paul) Aristotelis Erdkunde von Asien und
Libyen. (Quellen und Forschungen sur alten

Geschichte und Geographie. Werausgegeben von W.
Sieglin. Heft 15.) 10”x6}”. Pp. x+102. Berlin,
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 1908. M. 3.60.

British Museum. Catalogue of the Roman Pottery
in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum.
By H. B. Walters, M.A., F.S.A. 10}"x 73". Pp.
liv+464, and XLIV Plates. Printed by Order of
the Trustees. Sold at the British Museum, and by
Longmans & Co., etc. 1908. Cloth, £2.

Buck (Jakob) Seneca de Beneficiis und de Clementia
in der Ueberlieferung. Inaugural-Dissertation.
93" x 62”. Pp. νι - 84. Tiibingen, J. J. Hecken-
hauerschen Buchhandlung. 1908.

Bywater (Ingram) The Erasmian Pronunciation of
Greek and its Precursors. Jerome Aleander, Aldus
Manutius, Antonio of Lebrixa. A lecture by Ingram
Bywater. 83’ x54”. Pp. 27. London, Henry
Frowde. 1908. Is. net.

Caesar. Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War,
translated into English by T. Rice Holmes.
72'x 5". Pp. xx+298, and a map of Gaul.
London, Macmillan & Co. 1908. Cloth, 4s. 6d. net.

Clemen (Prof. Lic. Dr. Carl) Religionsgeschichtliche
Erklarung des Neuen Testaments. Die Abhangig-
keit des altesten Christentums von nichtjiidischen
Religionen und philosophischen Systemen, zusam-
menfassend untersucht von Prof. Lic. Dr. C. C.
9” x6}”. Pp. viiit+302, mit 12 Abb. auf zwei
Tafeln. Giessen, Alfred T6pelmann. 1909. geh.
ME τον Seba Vier.

Commentationes Aenipontanae guas edunt E. Kalinka
et A. Zingerle.

I. De Clausulis Minucianis et de Ciceronianis
quae inveniantur in libello de senectute, scripsit A.
Ausserer. 19006.

II. De Casuum Temporum modorum usu in
ephemeride dictyisseptimii, scripsit R. Lackner.
1908.

III. Der Artikel vor Personen- und Gotter-
namen bei Thukydides und Herodot, von A.
Pfeifauf. 1908. 93” x63”. I. pp.96; II. pp. 56;
III. pp. iv+68. Ad Aeni Pontem in Aedibus
Wagnerianis. I. M. 1.70; II. M.1; III. Μ. τ.

Crees (J. H. E.) Claudian as an Historical Authority.
[The Thirlwall Prize, 1906.] (Cambridge Historical
Essays. No. XVII.) 7%"x5". Pp. xvi+260.
Cambridge, University Press. 1908. Cloth, 4s. 6d.

Deonna (W.) Les ‘Apollons Archaiques.’ Préface
de M. Henri Lechat. 123”x9}". Pp. 408,
9 plates, and 202 figures in text. Geneve,

Librairie Georg & Co. 1909. Fr. 40.

Elsee (Charles) Neoplatonism in relation to Christian-
ity. An Essay by C. E. 72”x5”. Pop. xii+144.
Cambridge, University Press. 1908. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
net.

Empedocles. The Fragments of Empedocles. Trans-
lated into English verse by William Ellery Leonard,
Ph.D. 84"x 53". Pp. vilit92. Chicago, The
Open Court Publishing Co. London Agents,
Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner ἃ Co. 1908.

Gaius. The Institutes of Gaius (Extracts). The
Digest, Title XLV. 1. De Verborum Obligationi-
bus. Translated by J. Graham Trapnell, B.A.,
LL.B. (New Classical Library, edited by Dr.
Emil Reich.) 7} x42". Pp. 158. London, Swan
Sonnenschein ἃ Co. 1908. Cloth, 3s. δα. net;
Leather, 4s. 6c. net.

Germain de Montauzan (C.)
de Lyon.
112 x 72".
text illustrations.
Fr. 20.

Les Aqueducs antiques
Etude comparée d’archéologie romaine.

Pp. xxiv+438. With 5 plates and
Paris, Ernest Leroux. 1909.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 31

Germain de Montauzan (C.) Essai sur la Science et
l’Art de l’ingénieur aux premiers siécles de ’ Empire
Romain. 10’x 6%". Pp. xviili+124. Paris, Ernest
Leroux. 1909. Fr. 7.

Giarratano (Caesar) De M. Val. Martialis re Metrica,
scripsit C. G. 9}”x6}”. Pp. 88. Neapoli apud
Detken et Rocholl. 1908.

Havet (Louis) Philologie et Linguistique. Mélanges
offerts a Louis Havet par ses anciens éléves et ses
amis a l’occasion du 60° Anniversaire de sa Nais-
sance le 6 janvier, 1909. 9}”x6}". Pp. 624.
Paris, Librairie Hachette et Cie. 1909.

Flelbig (W.) Zur Geschichte der hasta donatica.
(Abhandl. der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wiss. su
Gottingen. Philologischhistorische Klasse. Neue
Folge. Band X. WNro.3.) 11"x9". Pp. 46, mit
2 Tafeln und 6 Figuren im Text. Berlin, Weid-
mann. 1908. M. 7.

Herodotus. Herodoti Elistoriae. Libri I-IV, V-IX,
recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit
Carolus Hude, Ph.D. Tom. I and II. (5.722.
Class. Bibl. Oxon.) 7%x5". Pp. 416 (?). Pp.
432 (?). Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1908. Each,
‘paper covers, 45.3; cloth, 4s. 6d. Vols. I and II
together on India paper, 125. 6a.

Herodotus, Books VII and VIII. Edited with
introduction and notes by Charles Forster Smith
and Arthur Gordon Laird. (Gveek Series for
Colleges and Schools.) 7%’x5". Pp. 442. New
York, Cincinnati, Chicago, American Book Co.
1908. Cloth, ca. $1.40.

Hesiod. Hesiod, the Poems and Fragments done into
English Prose, with introduction and appendices, by
A. W. Mair, M.A. (Zhe Oxford Library of Trans-
lations.) 73"x4?". Pp. xlviiits174. Oxford,
Clarendon Press. 1908. Cloth, 3s. δα. net.

Hymenaeus. A Comedy acted at St. John’s College,
Cambridge. Now first printed with an introduc-
tion and notes by G. C. Moore Smith, Litt.D.
62” x 42’. Pp. xvi+84. Cambridge, University
Press. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net.

Tsocrates. Ausgewahlte Reden des Isokrates, Pane-
gyrikos und Areopagitikos, erklart von Dr. Rudolf
Rauchenstein. Sechste Auflage, besorgt von Dr.
Karl Miinscher. (Sammlung griechischer und
lateinischer Schriftsteller mit deutschen Anmer-
kungen, begriindet von M. Haupt und H. Sauppe.)
8’x 54”. Pp. x+234. Berlin, Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung. 1908. M. 3.

Jackson (Ε΄ Hamilton) The Shores of the Adriatic.
The Austrian Side. The Kiistenlande, Istria, and
Dalmatia. Fully illustrated with plans, drawings
by the Author, and photographs taken specially for
this work. 94”x64’". Pp. xvi+420. London,
John Murray. 1908. Cloth, 21s. net.

Kaerst (Julius) Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeit-
alters. Band II. MHialfte 1. Das Wesen des
Hellenismus. οὐ" x6}”. Pp. xii+430. Leipzig
und Berlin, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 12;
geb. in Leinwand, M. 14.

Krumbacher (Karl)

84” x 52”.

Populare Aufsitze.

Pp. xii+388. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. 1909.
geh. M. 6; geb. in Leinwand, M. 7.

Lang (Dr. Margarete) Die Bestimmung des Onos
oder Epinetron. 9}”x 6%". Pp. viili+70, mit 23
Abb. im Text. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhand-
lung. 1908. M. 2.40.

Lethaby (W. R.) Greek Buildings represented by
Fragments in the British Museum. IV. The
Theseum, the Erechtheum, and other works.
10 x 64”. Pp. 147-212. London, B. T. Batsford.
1908. 35. net.

Loew (E. A.) Dia altesten Kalendarien aus Monte
Cassino. (Qwzellen und Untersuchungen zur latein-
wschen Philologte des Mittelalters, begriindet von
Ludwig Traube. Band III. Heft 3.) 10’x7”.
Pp. xvit+84, mit drei Tafeln. Miinchen, Oskar
Beck. 1908. M. 6.

Martial. Selected Epigrams of Martial. Edited,
with introduction and notes, by Edwin Post.
(College Series of Latin Authors.) 7} x 42”.

Pp. lii+q4o2z. Ginn ἃ Co., Boston, New York,
Chicago, London. 1908. Cloth, 6s. 6d.
Mayr (Albert) Die Insel Malta im Altertum.

10”x 73”. Pp. 156, mit 36 Textabb. und einer
Karte. Miinchen, Oskar Beck. 1909. M. Io.

Menander, Menandre L’Arbitrage, par Maurice
Croiset. Edition critique, accompagnée de notes
explicatives et d’une traduction. 10”x6}”. Pp.
94. Paris, Ernest Leroux. 1908. 2 Fr. 50c.

Miller (William) The Latins in the Levant. A
History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566). 9” x 62”.
Pp. xx +676, with 4 maps. London, John Murray.
1908. Cloth, 21s. net.

Neff (Dr. Karl) Die Gedichte des Paulus Diaconus.
Knitische und erklarende Ausgabe. (Quzedlen und
Untersuchungen sur lateinischen Philologie des
Mittelalters, begriindet von Ludwig Traube. Band
IlI. Heft 4.) 10°x7”. Pp. xx+232, mit einer
Tafel. Miinchen, Oskar Beck. 1908. M. Io.

Noack (Ferdinand) Ovalhaus und Palast in Kreta.
Ein Beitrag zur friihgeschichte des Hauses, von
F. N. 94x64”. Pp. 70, mit einer Tafel und
7 Abb. im Text. Leipzig und Berlin, B. G.
Teubner. 1908. geh. M. 2.40: geb. in Lein-
wand, M. 3.20.

Pausanias. The Attica of Pausanias, edited by
Mitchell Carroll, Ph.D. (College Series of Greek
Authors.) 8’ x κ΄. Pp. viiit294. Ginn ἃ Co.,

Boston, New York, Chicago, and London. 1908.
Cloth, 7s. 6d.
Plato. Apology of Socrates and Crito. With

extracts from the Phaedo and Symposium, and
from Xenophon’s Memorabilia. Edited by Louis
Dyer. Revised by Thomas Day Seymour. (Co/-
lege Series of Greek Authors.) With a vocabu-
lary. 8” x 52”. Pp. 246. Ginn ἃ Co., Boston, New
York, Chicago, and London. 1908. Cloth, 6s. 6a.

Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated into
English by Benjamin Jowett. Thirdedition. 2vols.
(The Oxford Library of Translations.) 7} x 4k".
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1908. Cloth, 3s. 6d.
net each.

32 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Preuschen (Dr. Erwin) Vollstandiges Griechisch-
Deutsches Handworterbuch zu den Schriften des
Neuen Testaments und der iibrigen urchristlichen
Literatur. Lieferung 2. 10?” 73". Pp. 81-160
(Columns 161-320). Giessen, Alfred Topelmann.
1908. M. 1.80.

Proclus Diadochus. Procli Diadochi in Platonis
Cratylum commentaria, edidit Georgius Pasquali.
(Bibl. Script. Gr. et Rom. Teub.) 73" χ 43". Pp.
xiv+150. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. 1908. geh.
M. 3; σεῦ. in Leinwand, M. 3.40.

Sands (P. C.) The Client Princes of the Roman
Empire under the Republic. [The Thirlwall
Prize, 1906.] (Cambridge Historical Essays, No.
XVI.) 72"x5". Pp. xii+242. Cambridge, Uni-
versity Press. 1908. Cloth, 45. 6d.

Scheindler (August) A. Scheindlers Lateinische Schul-
grammatik. Herausgegeben von Dr. Robert
Kauer. Siebente Auflage. 82’x6". Pp. 240.
Wien, F. Tempsky. 1908. geh. 2 K. 30h. ; geb.
2K. 80h.

Schenki (Karl) ‘Karl Schenkls Ubungsbuch zum
Ubersetzen aus dem deutschen ins griechische.
Fiir die oberen Klassen des Gymnasiums bearbeitet
von Heinrich Schenkl und Florian Weigel. 12te.
Auflage. 82”x6". Pp. 142. Wien, F. Tempsky.
1908. geh. 1 K. 75 h.; geb. 2 K. 25h.

Schmidt (Wilhelm) Geburtstag in Altertum. (fe-
ligionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, be-
griindet von Albrecht Dieterich und Richard
Wiinsch, herausgegeben von Richard Wiinsch und
Ludwig Deubner. Band VII. Heft 1.) 9” x ΟΖ".
Pp. xvi+136. Giessen, Alfred T6pelmann. 1908.
M. 4.80.

Schneider (Rudolf) Griechische Poliorketiker. Mit
den handschriftlichen Bildern herausgegeben und
iibersetzt. (Abhandl. der Kénigl. Gesellsch. der
Wiss. zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse.
Neue Folge. Band X. Nro.i.) 11" xg". Pp. 66,
mit 14 Tafeln. Berlin, Weidmann. 1908. M. 8.

Sijthoff (A. W.) A. W. Sijthoff’s Enterprise on the
Codices Graeci et Latini. Photographice depicti
duce Bibliothecae Universitatis Leidensis praefecto.
91" x 64”. Pp. 62. Leiden, A. W. Sijthoff. 1908.

Sophocles. The Electra of Sophocles. With a Com-
mentary abridged from the larger edition of Sir
Richard C. Jebb, Litt.D., by Gilbert A. Davies,
M.A. γ8 κ΄. Pp. Iviiit196. Cambridge,
University Press. 1908. Cloth, 4s.

Sophocles. Sophokles Antigone. Fiir den Schulge-
brauch herausgegeben von Dr. Adolf Lange.
Teil I. Einleitung und Text. Teil. II. Kom-
mentar. (Griechische und lateinische Schulschrift-
steller mit Anmerkungen.) 8’ x5". Pp. 102 and
92. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 1908.
Cloth, M. 1.80.

Statius (Publius Statius) The Silvae of Statius.
Translated with introduction and notes by D. A.
Slater, M.A. (Zhe Oxford Library of Trans-
lations.) 7} x 43", Pp. 216. Oxford, Clarendon
Press. 1908. Cloth, 35. 6d. net.

Steiner (Josef) und Scheindler (August) Lateinisches

Lese- und Ubungsbuch. Herausgegeben von J. 5.
und A. 8. Vierter Teil. Ubungsbuch zur Einiibung
der Moduslehre. Vierte Auflage, herausgegeben
von Dr. Robert Kauer. 82”’x6". Pp. 138.
Wien, F. Tempsky. 1908. geh. 1K. 45 h.; geb.
2K.

Terence. The Famulus of Terence. As it is per-
formed at the Royal College of St. Peter, West-
minster. Edited by John Sargeaunt, M.A., and
the Rev. A. G. S. Raynor, M.A. 62”x 43”.
Pp. 72. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1908. Cloth, 2s.

Terry (F. J.) Elementary Latin. 7%” 4%". Pop.
220. London, Methuen & Co. 1908. Cloth, 2s.

Terry (F. J.) Elementary Latin, being a first year’s
course. Teacher’s Edition, containing the necessary
supplementary matter to the Pupil’s Edition.
74” 42”. Pp. xvit+102. London, Methuen &
Co. 1908. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net.

Tillyard (H. J. W.) Agathocles. [The Prince Con-
sort Prize, 1908.] (Cambridge Historical Essays,
No. XV.) 7%’x5”. Pp. xiit+236. Cambridge,
University Press. 1908. Cloth, 45. δα.

Virgil. The Aeneid of Virgil. Translated into
English by J. W. Mackail. 72’x 5”. Pp. vit 300.
London, Macmillan & Co. 1908. Cloth, 5s. net.

Virgil. Vergils Aeneis nebst ausgewahlten Stticken
der Bucolica und Georgica. Fiir den Schulge-
brauch herausgegeben von W. Kloucek. Siebente,
neu durchgesehene Auflage. 72”x5". Pp. 384.
Wien, F. Tempsky. Leipzig, G. Freytag. 1908.
geb. 2 M. 50 Pf. or 3 K.

Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen. Von Ludwig Traube.
Herausgegeben von Franz Boll. Erster Band:
Zur Paliographie und Handschriftenkunde. Ueraus-
gegeben von Paul Lehmann; mit biographischer
Einleitung von Franz Boll. Pp. Ixxv+263.
Miinchen, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
1909.

Xenophon. Xenophon’s Hellenica. Selections, edited
with introduction, notes, and appendices, by
Carleton L. Brownson, Ph.D. (Greek Series -for
Colleges and Schools.) 7%"x5". Pp. 416. New
York, Cincinnati, Chicago, American Book Co.
1908. Cloth, $1.65.

The Year's Work in Classical Studies, 1908. Edited
by W. H. Ὁ. Rouse, M.A., Litt.D. Third Year
of Issue. 84”x5$". Pp. xx+176. London,
John Murray. 1908. 2s. 6d. net.

ERRATA.

The following corrections have to be made in Mr.
Lendrum’s letter, which by an oversight was not
submitted to him in proof:

P. 261, line 4, for ‘minimal’ read ‘ minimae.’

P. 261, line 21, for ‘ Monro’ read ‘ Munro.’

P. 262, line 18, for ‘light’ read ‘ sight.’

P. 262, line 38, for ‘on that sphere except in’ read
‘in that sphere except as.’

P. 262, line 70, for ‘this size for the mental con-
templations’ read ‘their size for the mental contem-
plation.’

P. 262, line 85, for ‘host’ read ‘least.’

P. 262, line 89, for ‘ fattos’ read ‘ fatto.’

P. 262, line 90, for ‘ fatti’ read ‘ fatta.’

The Classical Review

MARCH 1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE AIMS OF CLASSICAL STUDY. 3

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

NOTHING could be more satisfactory to
those who are anxious that English educa-
tion should be of the best than that the
necessity of some agreement as to our ulti-
mate aims is coming to be realised. In
The Years Work in Classical Studies Dr.
Rouse writes : ‘In reading the various essays
of those who defend or assail the study of
classics, the thought is often suggested that
the writers often argue on different assump-
tions. Each on occasion will allude to the
aims of the study, but these aims are not
always the same. It is fortunate, therefore,
that this year the question has begun to be
discussed.’

It is obvious that a branch of education
with so many diversely attractive interests
may be pursued with very diverse aims, and
I have heard it seriously argued that each
teacher should be left with a free hand to
teach in the direction of his special interests,
since he will then be more likely to enlist
the enthusiasm of his pupils. I cannot
assent to this principle, for it is plain that
the same argument would require us to
allow each teacher to teach or not to teach
any and every subject according to his own
predilections, and, while this may be justified
in the eyes of an individualist, the interests
of the community make it imperative that
the subjects taught and the aim in teaching

NO. CC. VOL. XXIII

them shall be determined in the main apart
from the teacher’s tastes, even if the result
be some loss in enthusiasm.

The questions, then, with which educa-
tionists interested in classical study are
concerned are these: With what aims can
Latin or Greek be studied, and with what
results? Are these results all or in part
indispensable to the majority of well-educated
men and women in England to-day? are all
or some of them only of interest as hobbies ?
And, finally, in view of the answers to these
questions, the further question requires atten-
tion, with what aim should Latin and Greek
or either of them be studied, if at all, by
boys in Public Schools?

First, then, Latin and Greek may be
studied, we may say, either as literature or
as supplying the key to art, to political
science, to ethics and metaphysics, to the
history of Western civilization, to the history
of Christianity, or again as a fascinating
branch of science, whether in the department
of palaeography, or of textual criticism and
interpretation, or of archaeology prehistoric
or historical, of numismatics, of grammar, or
any of their subdivisions. These aims have
only to be stated thus plainly for the impartial
thinker to decide immediately that many of
them, however attractive, are not indispens-
able. Even if we confine our attention to

Cc

34 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

those who are not to be trained in a primary
school—and throughout this paper, I may
say, I am not thinking of primary education
—still there are amongst the aims just
mentioned many which it is not even desir-
able that all pupils alike should have set
before them. Various classes of students
may pursue various selections from these
aims. To take one instance, the University
Extension student may desire some first-hand
acquaintance with the masterpieces of Greek
literature, and this aim will determine the order
and method of his approaching the subject.

But, apart from the hobbies of later life,
there is a type of culture which it is to the
interest of the community to require in every
member of those classes from which the
Public Schools draw their pupils—ze.,
roughly, in all professional and public men.
Unless this type be clearly determined and
justified on intelligible principles, we shall
never have any lasting agreement as to
whether or how Latin and Greek are to be
studied in the Public Schools. To me, at
any rate, this type of culture requires first,
an adequate command of our own language ;
secondly, a reasonable acquaintance with the
facts of Nature and with the current theories
to coordinate them; thirdly, some literary
and, if possible, some artistic taste ; fourthly,
a tolerable knowledge of the course taken
by civilization in its development ; fifthly, a
sufficient comprehension of the problems
which have confronted and still confront
men in politics, ethics, and metaphysics ;
and lastly, some power of conversing on
everyday topics in at least one foreign
language. Experience convinces me that
this type can be secured in ordinary boys
who remain at school till 17 or 18 years of
age, if they are properly taught from the first
—the failures! almost invariably have been
improperly taught in the years before they
reach the Public School.

If this ultimate aim be conceded—and I
have not space here to defend it or to show

1¥For them and for those who will not remain to
the age I have named, the ordinary scheme of work
on the classical side of a school is neither suitable nor
intended. Our five aims can, however, still be carried
out for them. And with a return to the true classical
system many difficulties would vanish.

that it is in modern terms the aim proposeu
by our forefathers after the Revival of Letters
—it is easy to fix the object with which Latin
and Greek must be learnt. It will be
observed that a study of the original tongues
is not in this case indispensable. Dr. Rouse
guessed (School, x. p. 98) that this might
follow from my principles, but he assumed
that therefore this study was indefensible as
a method of attaining our ends. ΒΥ all
means let those who can afford to make the
experiment try other methods; but for myself,
I can only repeat my conviction that the
experiments of the last two thousand years
are sufficient to show that our first, third,
fourth, and fifth ends are most easily secured,
and most economically, by the old method
of studying Latin and Greek, if the old
method be understood to mean that trans-
lation into good English is that part of the
study without which the whole is unjustifiable.
The reader will have seen for himself that
our fourth and fifth ends necessitate a know-
ledge of the great Greek and Latin writers
at least in translations, and, since two other
ends can be secured by the mere additional
labour of making acquaintance with the
original, this labour, it has been proved, is
the best way to those ends.

Before passing on, it is necessary to say
a word as to our second end,—the gaining
of a reasonable acquaintance with the facts
of Nature and with the current theories to
coordinate them. Any one familiar with the
history of classical learning is aware that
down to the time of Bacon, Greek and Latin
authors were read partly with this object.
As modern discoveries increased, the authors
who dealt with such subjects rightly fell out
of the range of classical reading. Unfor-
tunately, modern authors were not prescribed
to take their place, and it is to this fact very
largely that the disastrous narrowness of
many classical scholars may be attributed,
and in consequence the obscuration of the
true aim of Public School classics. ‘Scholar-
ship,’ in a word, superseded culture. This
obscuration seems, indeed, to have become
prevalent not earlier than the beginning of
the last century, if we may judge by two
significant facts. One is that Lord Byron
at Harrow was not shut out, by the method

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 35

of education then followed there, from an
enthusiastic intimacy with English literature.
The other is one to which the centenary of
Corunna has called public attention. A
public school man of the eighteenth century
taken practically haphazard (for it was the fact
of his two superior officers being incapacitated
which devolved the duty upon him) wrote a
report of that fight which, it has been claimed,
is comparable with Caesar's Commentaries.
After the eighteenth century, as I have before
argued (School, x. p. 77), many classical
teachers wandered from the way, and the
essential aim of translation into good English
was forgotten. How deep-seated the error
has become, has been curiously illustrated
by the Index to Zhe Year’s Work, where I
am represented as writing ‘on construing’ !

Further to clear the air, it may be well to
state that from this point of view Greek and
Latin composition (apart from the elementary
drill designed to hasten the acquisition of
grammar rules and of vocabulary) must be
looked on as little but a pretty exercise of
the intellect,—but very fascinating to many
boys, and extremely helpful towards our third
end of literary taste. Experience has con-
vinced me that verses can be mastered with
infinitely greater economy of time and with
equal success if boys do not begin them till
they have read a great deal of the classical
poets. Without doubt the principle is true
of prose also.

One objection deserves to be met. It has
been often argued that the classics supply an
unrivalled means towards the awakening of
literary taste, and apologists have been found
ready to stake the case of classics on this
claim. Englishmen in the mass, however,
will never be convinced that Shakespeare as
literature is not superior to the three Greek
dramatists together; that Burke is ποῖ
greater than Demosthenes (and what Public
School classics make much account of the
other orators?); and that the Bible in the
Authorized Version is not more than Homer.
And, if Aristotle be added on the classical
side, it will be pointed out that he is not
read for his style, so that for the average
man a translation suffices, as it may for
Thucydides. Or, if Thucydides’ style is
commended, we have Froude and Macaulay,

to say nothing of Clarendon. Plato alone is,
doubtless, inimitable, but his single charms
cannot outweigh the English Milton, Ruskin,
and Thackeray, and if we add to Plato Cicero,
Vergil, Caesar, and Horace, the balance is
still redressed by Milton’s verse and a score
of other authors.

It will be noticed that the names which
naturally suggest themselves on the classical
side are mainly Greek, and this supports the
view that, if experience proves that the time-
table must be lightened, the sound method
of doing so is by abandoning the study of
Latin in the original, while our second, fourth,
and fifth aims must be sought so far as Latin
is concerned by means of translations. But
at present there is no evidence that this is
needed. What is needed is rather the speedy
return to the true old aims of studying Latin
and Greek, —first, oral composition in English
during translation hours,—this first since it
is the aim which specially legitimates the
study of the original languages rather than
of translations ; then,! familiarity with history,
ancient and English ; immersion in philoso-
phical thought in its widest sense; and
development of literary and artistic feeling ;
and finally, introduction to the natural science
of to-day ; and this last, I may add, not in the
futile fashion, attempted in the last century,
of chemistry and physics lessons, but more
in the form of good University Extension
Lectures on astronomy, biology, and most
departments of natural science.

Such aims as I have sketched correspond,
it is not unfair to say, with that ‘something
broader, and, to our mind, more inspiring’
which the critic in the Athenaeum, whom
Dr. Rouse quotes, desires when he writes,
‘A mental atmosphere is the aim ; literature
is subordinate to that; and in its turn,
grammar is subordinate to the reading of
authors it spells the possibility of
culture, gained by means of a wide range
of information acting on the imagination.’

T. NICKLIN.

1The relative importance of these ends and the
order in time that they may take in making their
appeal to pupils, will vary with different boys. That
different aims appeal at different ages has been well
pointed out in the Ovtlook, 31 Jan. 1909, by a
reviewer of Dr. Sandys’ History of Classical Scholar-
ship.

36 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

THE DEATH OF: CYRSILUS; AZ/AS -LYGIDES.

A PROBLEM IN AUTHORITIES.

Few events so remote as the year 479 B.C.,
and perhaps none relating to the fate of an
individual person, are so well known to us
and so fully attested, as the vengeance taken
by the Athenians on the unfortunate coun-
cillor, who ventured to recommend for con-
sideration the proposal of Mardonius, that
Athens, upon favourable terms for herself,
should make peace with the king of Persia
and abandon the common cause of the Greek
nation. We possess three notices of it, two
summary and one full, which have, all of
them, high pretensions to authenticity. Of
the two summaries, one at least is derived
directly from an official document almost
contemporary with the event itself. The
fuller account is not indeed thus warranted,
and may be supposed rather to depend on
oral relation; but our narrator must have
had and used the opportunity of consulting
eye-witnesses. All three accounts may be
combined without difficulty, and, except in
one unimportant detail, exhibit no dis-
crepancy.

The outline of the story is this. The
Persian proposal was laid before the Athenian
Council by an envoy sent from Athens to
the island of Salamis. Here the Athenians,
or so many of them as had ventured to
return to their homes upon the retreat of
Xerxes in the year before, had again taken
refuge, when Mardonius, after wintering in
Boeotia, had re-occupied the desolate city.
One councillor, apparently alone, moved that
the terms offered should be referred to the
Assembly. By the exasperated patriotism of
his colleagues this advice was regarded as
treacherous and corrupt ; and such was their
indignation, that, upon the rising of the
Council, they and others joined in stoning
him to death. The Athenian women, upon
hearing what had occurred, were seized with
a like fury, rushed to the man’s house, and
killed in the same manner his wife and his
children. These proceedings became the
subject of a decree (psephisma). The text
of this document is not preserved, nor its
purpose specified; but since it is cited as

approving what was done, we can hardly be
wrong in supposing that it was designed to
put a legal face upon the matter, and to
prevent the perilous consequences likely
to arise out of acts which, however popular,
were in law nothing better than murders.

In all these facts our three authorities,
Herodotus (9. 4), Lycurgus (contr. Leocratem
122), and Demosthenes (de corona 204), so
far as they go, concur,—Demosthenes not less
than the others, as shall presently be shown.
The decree is mentioned by Lycurgus only,
who cites it, though the quotation, as usual,
is omitted in our copies of his speech. He
describes it as ‘concerning’ or ‘ relating to
the man who came to his end in Salamis’
(περὶ τοῦ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι τελευτήσαντος), ---8.
phrase which could not naturally be used of
a sentence to death, but only of an enactment
‘concerning’ the death, that is to say, relating
to it ex post facto. With this agree the allusion
of Demosthenes, which implies,! and the story
of Herodotus, which asserts, that the man and
his family were not regularly executed, but
lynched. Doubtless therefore this is the
meaning of Lycurgus also, though in saying
that ‘the Council’ stoned the man, and that
before doing so they ‘took off their wreaths’,
he colours the act with certain touches of
solemnity. The participation of persons
from the Council, as individuals, is affirmed
by Herodotus ; the colours of Lycurgus come
probably from the decree, which, if designed,
as we must suppose, to give a retrospective
sanction, naturally put upon what had been
done the most plausible construction which
it would bear. The act of the women, the
killing of the wife and the children, cannot
possibly have been legalized a priorz ; and it
is plain, upon all three accounts, that the
killing of the man, however the decree may
have coloured it, was also a mere act of
popular vengeance and _ equally without
formal justification. We may doubt indeed,
though we need not here discuss, whether at
this date any Athenian court would have

1By including the action of the women, which
cannot have been legal.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 37

deliberately awarded, for a lawful expression
of opinion, a species of punishment which an
Athenian poet, only twenty years later,
classes with impalement and other tortures,
as a barbarity fit only for fiends.!_ However
that may be, our authorities agree in showing
‘that upon this occasion there was no legal
award.

It is extremely important to note, for
reasons which will presently appear, that
Demosthenes, though he does not mention
the decree and has no need to do so, cannot
reasonably or fairly be supposed ignorant of
it. The allusions of both orators are so
introduced as to convey the impression that
in their time the case, and the public pro-
nouncement on it, as examples of the
fervency of Athenian patriotism, were notori-
ous and celebrated. And when we consider
what were the character, vocation, and pur-
suits of Demosthenes, it is beyond belief that
he was not acquainted, and perfectly familiar,
with a document so remarkable and in all
respects so interesting to him as this. We
may presume then, and must necessarily
presume, that the account of the affair, which
he gives in the most famous and finished of
his compositions, is consistent, so far as it
goes, with the authoritative record. In the
case of Herodotus there is of course no such
presumption. He was neither lawyer nor
consulter of archives; and although the
decree, being no part of the story as a story,
would not perhaps have interested him much
if he had heard of it, we may suppose more
probably that he never did. Nevertheless,
as to the main and material facts, his graphic
narrative agrees perfectly with his more
learned successors. His conception of the
event is just that which we might have
formed by combining the data of Lycurgus
and Demosthenes, and discarding their
flourishes. One addition he makes, though
it cannot be called a discrepancy. He tells
us, as the climax of the terrible tale, what
neither of the orators chooses to comprise in
his encomiastic allusion,—that the crowd of
enraged women pelted to death not only the
wife of the delinquent, but also his children :

1 Aesch. Zum. 189. It seems, however, to have
been a possible punishment; see Macan on Herod.
διό,

κατὰ μὲν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἔλευσαν, κατὰ δὲ
Lycurgus refers to the man only,
Demosthenes only to the adults. Their
motives are obvious; and their reticences
afford no reason to doubt, that the recital of
the decree, if we had it, would be found to
confirm the completeness and candour of the
historian.

In one detail only, and that not affecting
the substance of the narrative, Herodotus
disagrees with those who had access to the
document; and here he must have been
misinformed. The name of the offender,
according to Demosthenes, who had for it
the testimony of the psephisma, was Cyrsilus
(Κύρσιλος). Herodotus gives it as Lycides
(Av«idys). Whether his variation may be
accounted for, we will consider presently.
But if it cannot, if it is a mere error, there is
nothing in it to raise difficulty or suspicion.
In things of no significance, the best oral
tradition will be inaccurate ; and in this case
the personality of the victim was apparently
of no significance. It is not alleged that,
apart from his fate, he had any importance,
nor does the story imply it. In Lycurgus he
is actually anonymous—6 ἐν Σαλαμῖνι τελευ-
τήσας. That Herodotus should have picked
up a wrong name is not surprising and
hardly worth notice.

Let us repeat then, and firmly remember,
that this instructive incident, in its substance
and essential features, is absolutely certain.
It must have happened when, where, and as
these authorities assert. Evidence so authen-
tic and concordant would outweigh much
improbability. But there is no improba-
bility. The Athenians of Salamis and
Plataea were incomparably the most civilised
people of the time. But they were not more
civilised, or more immune from excesses of
passion, than the Hollanders of the seven-
teenth century, who, in a crisis not dis-
similar, tore in pieces the innocent and
illustrious De Witt.

Where then, it will be asked, is the
problem? Why, in editions of Herodotus
or the de corona, is the story treated as a
puzzle? Why are there histories in which it
is canvassed as dubious, or even altogether
omitted? The cause is remarkable and
worthy of curious attention.

\ ,
τα TEKVG,

38 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

In the de officiis of Cicero (3. 11. § 48)
the anecdote is cited as follows: ‘The
Athenians, being unable to withstand the
Persian invader, determined to abandon
their city, putting their wives and children tn
Troezen, and themselves on board the fleet,
which was to defend at sea the liberties of
Greece; and they stoned to death one
Cyrsilus, who advised that they should remain
in Athens and should admit Xerxes. Now
between this version and that of the Greek
authors, no conciliation is possible. Cicero
has changed almost every circumstance,—the
date, the place, the position of the Athenians
at the time. Above all, he changes the
essential matter, the proposal of Cyrsilus and
the connexion of his conduct with his fate.
According to Cicero, the proposal was, that
in the year 480, and before Salamis, the
Athenians should submit wholly and uncon-
ditionally to the king of Persia. Nothing is
said of any offer to them from Xerxes, nor
indeed would it be credible that, before
Salamis, any offer was made. Athens and
Attica, with their population, were to be
surrendered to the king and the army then
under his command, a surrender which
would have extinguished the state as a factor
in resistance, so that the naval force of
Hellas would have been practically anni-
hilated, and, as Cicero plainly and. neces-
sarily supposes, no sea defence whatever
could have been made. How such a sub-
mission could have been ‘advantageous
(utile)’ for Athens, is not apparent; but
certainly it would have been, in the highest
degree, ‘dishonourable’. Moreover (a point
more vital yet) we are told that by Cyrsilus
the submission was recommended. But in
Herodotus the Athenian councillor is not so
committed. Mardonius offers, in considera-
tion of a separate peace, to respect the
independence of Athens, and to give her
what territory she chooses to ask (Herod.
8. 140, 9. 4). The offer is made to ‘the
Council’, and the proposal of the councillor
is simply that it should be referred to the
Assembly. To treat this as a proof of treason
was a mere extravagance, a frenzy of popular
enthusiasm ; and Herodotus expressly allows
that the conduct of the councillor may have
been honest. But the Ciceronian proposal,

that Athens should accept slavery without
striking a blow, without reward, and with
every reason to expect the severest treatment,
would have gone near to prove treason (if
not rather insanity), and the execution of
the proposer might well have followed in
course of law, as Cicero would let us think
that it did.

But the disagreement of Cicero with the
Greek authorities would of course not suffice
to impeach them, or to throw upon them any
shadow of doubt. It would be enough to
say that his statement, improbable upon the
face of it, is proved by history to be altogether
erroneous. We need not even ask how he
came by his mistake. He is mistaken, and
there we might leave him. Why then, we
have still to ask, have the Greek authorities
been treated as dubious?

Because it is said, and repeated in book
after book, that, on the essential point of
date, Cicero is supported by Demosthenes:
that Demosthenes also puts the affair of
Cyrsilus before the battle of Salamis, and
represents the offers, which Cyrsilus wished
to accept or to consider, as having been made
by Xerxes during his march upon Athens in
the year 480.

Now, if this were so, we should have a
problem indeed, and a problem hopeless of
any satisfactory solution. Both Herodotus
and Demosthenes, for different reasons, are
in this matter authorities of the greatest
weight. Yet to accept both, if in substance
they differ, and to suppose that an incident
so remarkable was repeated, with no other
variation than the name of the principal
victim, in two successive years, is an escape
not worth discussion. The logical and
practical conclusion would be that, for the
most interesting part of Greek history, we
have no trustworthy witnesses at all.

But we are in no such position. It is not
true that the blunders of Cicero are sup-
ported by Demosthenes. It is true that
they can be read into Demosthenes. But
that is an injury to the orator, who says
nothing which is not consistent with the
truth as it appears in the other Greek
testimonies.

Demosthenes says (de corona 204) that
the Athenians had the endurance (ὑπέμειναν)

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 39

to abandon their country and city, and take
to their ships, rather than do what the
Persians required of them; and he adds, in
proof of their resolution and stubbornness,
that ‘they elected Themistocles, the adviser
of this (course), for their s¢vafegos, and stoned
to death Cyrsilus, who suggested compliance.’
Now, if this were our only account of the
matter, and if we knew nothing about the
history of the time, we might doubtless
suppose that these two facts, the advice of
Themistocles and the suggestion of Cyrsilus,
were contemporaneous, and therefore that
the latter as well as the former took place in
the year 480.

But why should we so suppose, since
it was not the fact, and since not only
Demosthenes, but many or most of his
audience and readers; must have known that
it was not the fact? Demosthenes does not
say so. The abandonment of Attica and
Athens extended (in effect) from the summer
of 480 to the autumn of 479, from before the
battle of Salamis until after the battle of
Plataea. Demosthenes here speaks of it,
quite correctly, as one single course or
action, disregarding, as in such a retrospect
is natural, whatever precarious and temporary
re-occupation may have occurred in the winter
between. The facts which he subjoins are
given as illustrations of the resolution with
which this painful policy was adopted and
pursued. The election of Themistocles
marks the deliberate adoption of it; the
treatment of Cyrsilus displays the passionate
adhesion to it in spite of bitter experience.
To suppose the two facts contemporaneous
is not only unnecessary to the purpose of the
orator, but unsuitable ; since the two together
would then only show the high spirit of the
Athenians before the trial, and not their
perseverance in enduring it.

Nor is Demosthenes incorrect or inaccurate
when, in a passage preceding (§ 202), he says
that the offers, by which Athens was tempted
to abandon the cause of Hellas, came ‘from
the King of Persia’ (παρὰ τοῦ ἸΤ]ερσῶν
βασιλέως). He does not thereby say or
suggest that they were made by Xerxes
during his personal campaign in the year
480. The offers of Mardonuus in the follow-
ing winter and spring, the offers recom-

mended for consideration by Cyrsilus, were
made on behalf of the king, by his express
sanction and command (Herod. 8. 140, and
by reference 9. 4), and of course would not
otherwise have been worth attention. The
terms offered are described by Demosthenes
as they are by Herodotus; he translates
Herodotus, we may say, into language of his
own.! There is no reason therefore to doubt,
that it is to the offers made by Xerxes through
Mardonius, the only offers ever made, that
Demosthenes refers; and he speaks truly
when he says that, rather than accept them,
the Athenians (for the second time) aban-
doned their country.

But though the statements of Demosthenes
are true, they are ambiguous, and would
easily be misunderstood by ἃ reader having
no external information. Probably they mis-
led Cicero, or the intermediary person, if
there was one, by whom Cicero was misled.
For this ambiguity, as for any, two different
causes may be suggested. It might be
thought intentional. Demosthenes, it might
be said, was willing to hint what he dares
not assert, namely, that Athens, though she
received no offers from Persia before the
battle of Salamis, might then or at any time
have obtained advantages at the expense of
Hellas, if she had chosen to ask for them.
But there is an alternative supposition, more
candid and more reasonable, that the ambi-
guity, unperceived by Demosthenes, was
possible to him, because the facts were
notorious, and the false construction, the
construction of Cicero, not thinkable. It
never occurred to Demosthenes as imagin-
able (and why should it have occurred Ὁ),
that Xerxes, before receiving any check,
would have consented to favour, or even
to spare, the state which was the chief object
of his vengeance. Unfortunately Cicero was
capable of this confusion ; and, still more
unfortunately, Cicero has misled others, who,
but for him, would have done Demosthenes
the justice of taking his words, as they may
be taken, consistently with the notorious
facts of history.

1 Herod. 8. 140 τοῦτο μὲν τὴν γῆν σφι ἀπόδος, τοῦτο
δὲ ἄλλην πρὸς ταύτῃ ἑλέσθων αὐτοί, ἥντινα ἂν ἐθέλωσι.
Demosth. de cor. 202 ὅτι βούλεται λαβούσῃ καὶ τὰ
ἑαυτῆς ἐχούση.

40 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

With this observation the historical pro-
blem disappears. The date given by Cicero
for the stoning of Cyrsilus is a blunder, a
misreading of the de corona. Demosthenes,
Lycurgus, and Herodotus all give, or admit,
the true date, after Salamis and in the year
of Plataea; and they agree in all other
respects, except that Herodotus gives the
name of the victim not as Cyrsilus (which it
was) but as Lycides.

It remains only to consider, whether the
name Lycides is, as it well may be, a mere
error, or whether it admits of explanation.
Is it not possibly a patronymic? There was
such a name as Lycus (Λύκος). May not
Λυκίδης represent 6 Avxov? We cannot, of
course, suppose that Herodotus so under-
stood it. But if it were, in this sense,
applicable to Cyrsilus, it may well have been
used for its significance (wo/féing) by those

who stoned him for treachery. It is even
possible, in that age of omens, that this ill-
sounding name contributed to his horrible
fate. Herodotus himself (7. 180) makes a
like conjecture about one Leon (dion), who
was killed by the Persians as a sacrificial
victim, possibly, as the historian supposes,
because of the name. His conjecture, what-
ever it may prove about the Persians, is
significant as to the feelings of a Greek. If
thus explained, the τῷ οὔνομα ἦν Λυκίδης
would be not precisely an error, but. a mis-
apprehension. But upon this we need not
speculate. In any case the misnomer, cor-
rected (from the documentary evidence) by
Demosthenes, is no reason for questioning
the narrative of Herodotus, or for raising any
doubts respecting an incident unimpeachably
certified.
A. W. VERRALL.

7, of > Sf
κλισίαις «OM, ἔχων

(Ajax, το1).

In ΟΟἋΟ. xix. 150 I attempted to show
that ἥκοι av means must have come. ΑἹ]
Cis-Atlantic scholars whom I have consulted
accept my interpretation. Pearson, in the
abridged edition of Jebb, just issued from
the press, refers to my article, but evidently
gives preference to the rendering must come.
In this paper I shall discuss the remainder
of the antistrophe, and particularly the phrase
κλισίαις ὄμμ ἔχων, which I shall endeavour
to show does not mean ‘keeping thy face
hidden in the tent.’

There seems to be a tendency among
scholars to render ὄμμα in the tragic poets
by ‘face,’ where the sense, I think, requires
the meaning of ‘eye.’ So in C.R. xvii. 430
I tried to prove that τέτραπται in Eur. Hipp.
246 means ‘my eye has turned,’ not ‘my
face has changed’ (Ellershaw), ‘die gesichts-
farbe schligt um’ (Wilamowitz). Mr. W.
Rhys Roberts sent me additional illustrations
of my point from the tract De Sublimitate ;
and I have since found numerous examples
of the construction and the idea in both the

earlier and the later literature! Now there
is a certain affinity between the two pas-
sages—ideas as well as constructions are
analogous.

Jebb remarks that ‘xAwiais is a locative
dat. The adv. ὧδ᾽ helps to suggest the idea
of “‘hidden”.’ The great English scholar
here, as the German scholar in the Euri-
pidean verse, feels convinced that ὄμμα
connotes, not ὀφθαλμός, but πρόσωπον.
Nevertheless, Jebb was evidently haunted
by the lurking suspicion that after all ὄμμα
may signify ocwdus rather than os; for he
adds at once: ‘the objections to the version
‘keeping thine eyes fixed on the tents” are
(1) that ἔχων could not well stand for ἐπέχων,
and (2) that the seclusion of Ajax within
the tent is not then expressed.’

Dismissing Reiske’s conjecture (ἐμμένων)
as unnecessary, let us examine at once Jebb’s
first objection. If ἔχων could not stand for

12g. Plato, Rep. 518 D; Eur. 7.4. 994; Plutarch,
Mor. 3460; Caes. 22; Marcel. 27; Dion. Hal.
Rom. Antig. 233; Heliod. 2. 33.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 41

ἐπέχων, it could not stand for tporexwv—as,
e.g. in the ordinary phrase νοῦν προσέχων.
Indeed this substitution would be much more
likely to be avoided by the Greek, since νοῦν
ἔχων commonly connotes a totally different
idea from νοῦν προσέχων ; as Plato, Polit.
285 Ὁ, οὐδεὶς dv ἐθέλησε νοῦν ἔχων. Whena
man gets sense (Soph. O.C. 1256), he hath
understanding. But νοῦν ἔχων is occasion-
ally employed as an equivalent to νοῦν
προσέχων (at least nearly so): Plato, Zheag.
129 6, ἀνέστη οὐκέτι εἰπὼν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ λαθὼν
This is
practically the same idea as inheres in the
phrase ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων (ἄλλοσε. Cp. IL 179,
ἑτέρωσε Bad’ ὄμματα. Then, again, we find
πρός sometimes so far removed from ἔχειν
that the verb seems to coalesce with the
noun, forming a temporary compound equiva-
lent to νοῦν προσέχειν. The direction of the
thought is expressed by means of the pre-
position separate and apart from ἔχειν, and
combined with the object alone, as e.g. in
Plato, Gorg. 504 Ὁ, πρὸς τοῦτο ἀεὶ τὸν νοῦν
ἔχων. Cp. Crit. 109 E, πρὸς οἷς ἠπόρουν τὸν
νοῦν ἔχοντες. In Ar. Pax, 174 we find even
πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν ws ἐμέ. True, ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων can
signify Zossessing an ὄμμα (Soph. Phil. 171 ;
Aesch. Prom. 570, 7953; Sep¢. 537), but it
may also mean ‘directing the eye.’ Cp.
‘Soph. 7%. 272, ἄλλοσ᾽ αὐτὸν ὄμμα, θατέρᾳ δὲ
νοῦν ἔχοντα (both eye and mind with ἔχω in
this sense in the same verse); 7. Com.
Graec. (Kock, vol. 2, p. 249), ὅπου τις ἀλγεῖ,
κεῖσε τὸν νοῦν exer; Cratinus, Pytine, πρὸς
ἑτέραν γυναῖκα ἔχων τὸν νοῦν ; Eur. 7. Ζ: 372,
λεπτῶν ὄμμα διὰ καλυμμάτων ἔχουσα (= βλέ-
πουσα, as in the passage we are discussing) ;
L.A. 994; Xen. De Venat, 25, βλέπει δὲ οὐκ
ὀξύ... τά τε γὰρ ὄμματα ἔχει ἔξω. The
mind can be turned in a certain direction
and kept fixed there. So in Eur. 77. 1322
the messenger says, μὴ ᾽νταῦθα τρέψῃς σὴν
φρέν(α)η. Cp. Ar. Φαωΐ. 156, ποῦ τὸν νοῦν
ἔχεις; Zhesm. 902, στρέψον κόρας - Plato,
Rep. 530}, πρὸς ἀστρονομίαν ὄμματα πέπηγεν ;
Eur. Jom, 251, οἴκοι δὲ τὸν νοῦν ἔσχον ἐνθάδ᾽
οὖσα περ; 582, τί πρὸς γῶν ὄμμα σὸν βαλὼν
ἔχεις ; Or. 1181, ἄκουε δή νυν καὶ σὺ δεῦρο

> ΄ ” Q a ”
ἐπιτηρήσας ἄλλοσε τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα.

νοῦν ἔχε; 1418, τὸν νοῦν πρὸς αὑτὸν οὐκ ἔχων,
ἐκεῖσε δέ: Arrian, An. 2. 5. 5, πρὸς τοὺς
Πέρσας μᾶλλόν τι τὸν υοῦν εἴχον ; Thue. 3.

22. 5, ὅπως ἥκιστα πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὸν νοῦν
ἔχοιεν ; Thuc. 3. 25. 2, πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους
ἧσσον εἶχον τὴν γνώμην.

Now, Ajax is παρὰ σκηναῖσιν (984) and
refuses to leave this locality; he has turned
his eye, ὧδ᾽ ἐφαλίοις κλισίαις, and is keeping
it fixed there (like Achilles sulking in his
tent), paying no attention to his friends, but
brooding by himself on the shore. There
his heart and soul and mind are centred.
Hence the mariners entreat him in the next
breath to rouse himself and come forth (ava
ἐξ édpdvwv), And ὧδε means (in spite of
Meineke) ‘in this place,’ or ‘in this direc-
tion,’ as well as ‘in this way’; and the
Salaminian sailors are not disposed to take
kindly to their leader’s determination to
brood over his troubles by the lonely shore
with his eye fixed ὧδε at the tent ἐφ᾽ ἁλί,
when it should be turned ὧδε (196) out
toward the open plain, where the insolence
of his foes stalks abroad with increasing
might and mischief, in that it receives no
attention (τὸ σὸν ὄμμ᾽’ ἀπέδραν, 167) from the
very man who could, if he would, put it
down. They are powerless without the aid
of the δεινὸς μέγας ὠμοκρατὴς Αἴας (166).
But if he would only come forth, these
mocking foes would cower mute with fear
(171). The mariners’ prayer is simple. They
desire their mighty chief to look hither (ὧδε,
where they have just been), instead of ὧδε
(where they now are)—otros, βλέφ᾽ ὧδε (77.
402). This does not exclude the notion
of ‘thus.’ Both ideas may be englished by
‘this way. Cp. O.C. 1547, τῇδ᾽ ὧδε τῇδε
Bare.

The phrase ἐφάλοις κλισίαις, then, does
not necessarily signify ‘ z¢hzz the tent by
the sea.’ The case is locative, but κλισίαις
to the Greek conveyed only the general idea
‘at the tent’ (the sailors do not know exactly
where their chieftain is) without specifying
whether the τόπος designated was outside or
inside. So wept τὴν οἰκίαν and περὶ τὴν ὕλην,
like their English equivalents, do not indicate
the exact locality. Ajax is somewhere about
the tent on the shore—dézov ποτέ, as the
mariners themselves declare in the next
sentence. If the poet had intended to
emphasize the fact (which the chorus learns
later—344, ἀνοίγετε) that Ajax was hidden

42 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

in the tent, he would, in all probability,
have employed a preposition to bring out
clearly this idea, as in other parts of the
play: 7 (ἔνδον), 65 (κατ᾽ οἴκους), 73 (στεῖχε
δωμάτων πάρος), 76 (ἔνδον... μένων), 105

(ἔσω), 218 (σκηναῖς ἔνδον), 305 (ἐς δόμου»).
But he desired to express simply the thought
that the sire here, as later the son (984), was
μόνος παρὰ σκηναῖσιν.

J. E. Harry.

NOTES

TWO CLASSICAL PARALLELS.

THE two following parallels, whether coin-
cidences or reminiscences, seem sufficiently
noteworthy to interest those who, like Prof.
Mustard and Prof. Shorey, take a pleasure in
illustrating classical by English authors.

1. Wordsworth, Jztimations of Immortality
(in my copy printed ‘Imitations of /mmor-
tality’):

The man at last perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.

Lucan, Phars. v. 219 sq. of the Pythian

prophetess :

dumque a Juce sacra, qua uidit fata, refertur
ad uolgare tubar, mediae uenere tenebrae.

2. Tennyson, Zhe Eagle:

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls ;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.

Apuleius, /lorida, ii. (p. 146, de Vliet):

inde cuncta despiciens ibidem pinnarum eminus?
indefessa remigia ac paulisper cunctabundo uolatu
paene eodem loco pendula circumtuetur et quaerit
quorsus potissimum 7 praedam superne sese ruat
fulminis uicem de caelo inprouisa.

The distinctness of the Latin and the
allusiveness of the English are both charac-
teristic. I wonder how many people read
Tennyson without observing what the eagle
was watching: Apuleius will tell them.

J. P. PosTGaTE.

TACITUS, AWW. iv. 33.

In chapters 32 and 33 Tacitus is speaking
deprecatingly of the scope and subject-matter

1 eminens Kronenberg, Classical Quarterly, ii. p. 312.

of his Axna/s as compared with the work
of other historians. ‘Sed nemo annales
nostros cum scriptura eorum contenderit
qui veteres populi Romani res composuere.’
He then goes on to say why he considers
such a species of composition useful, and
adds: ‘Ceterum ut profutura, ita minimum
oblectationis adferunt. Nam situs gentium,
varietates proeliorum, clari ducum exitus
retinent ac redintegrant legentium animum:
nos saeva iussa, continuas accusationes, .. .
coniungimus.’

I would see in the words sttus gentium,
vartetates proeliorum, clari ducum exitus an
indirect reference to his own earlier historical
writings—in sztus gentium to the largely geo-
graphical and ethnological Germania; 771
varietates proeliorum to the Aistories, in
which the extent to which the military
interest predominates is shown by the fact
that the four and a half extant books deal
almost entirely with the battle-laden years
69 and 70. As the total number of books
was at the most fourteen, perhaps only
twelve, and the number of years covered
eighteen, the very disproportionate amount
of space given to the years when the interest
is mainly military, suggests that the descrip-
tion of battles was the leading characteristic
of the work. In clari ducum exitus 1 would
see an allusion to the Agricola. If this is
so, one might perhaps legitimately infer that
Tacitus himself felt that he had done a
specially fine piece of work in the concluding
chapters of the Agricola.

As to the order of quotation, there is much
to be said for the theory of Miinzer (Dze
Exntstehung der Historien des Tacitus, Leipzig,
1901; Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1906, vol.
xxvi. No. 40, p. 1253) that the composition

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 43

of the Hisfories began much earlier than
used to be assumed, and may even have
occupied Tacitus in the fifteen silent years
following the publication of the dialogue on

oratory.
RACHEL E. WEpp.

THEOCRITUS, JOVLIL τὸ. 136.

“νῦν & ἴα μὲν φορέοιτε, βάτοι, φορέοιτε δ᾽
ἄκανθαι,
< Ν Ν ’ pee ee ’ , 5
ἁ δὲ καλὰ νάρκισσος ἐπ᾽ ἀρκεύθοισι κομάσαι
Δ 7 *¥ cA ον δ ὦν δ ”
πάντα δ᾽ ἔναλλα γένοιντο, καὶ & πίτυς ὄχνας
ἐνείκαι,
Δάφνις ἐπεὶ θνάσκει, καὶ τὰς κύνας ὥλαφος
με
ἕλκοι,
» as, Ν A > / 4 ?
κὴξ ὀρέων τοὶ σκῶπες ἀηδόσι γαρύσαιντο.

Most commentators agree in finding diffi-
culty in the last line; ἐξ ὀρέων does not
seem to have much point; γαρύσαιντο must
be intolerably strained to give any sense,
and even granting that γηρύεσθαι can be
taken as -- ἐρίζειν, can the meaning be con-
sidered satisfactory? Surely what is required
by the sense of the passage is some definite
inversion of nature’s laws, such as are the
examples in the preceding lines. The owl
may always be said to hoot to the nightingale,
as both birds are vocal by night.

I would therefore suggest reading κὴξ
ὄρθρων in place of κὴξ ὀρέων.

‘From cock-crow onwards let the owls call to the

nightingales,’
the anomaly being that the xight-dirds are
to sing by day instead of by night. The
plural ὄρθροι would thus be = Aaditually. A
precisely similar use of ὄρθροι (plural) is
found in Eur. £7. 909:

καὶ μὴν δι’ ὄρθρων γ᾽ οὔποτ᾽ ἐξελίμπανον

θρυλοῦσα.

Other instances of a similar use of the plural
are: Aesch. Cho. 288, μάταιος ἐκ νυκτῶν
φόβος ; Hom. Od. 12. 286, ἐκ νυκτῶν δ᾽ ἄνεμοι
χαλεποί; Theogn. 460, ἀπορρήξασα δὲ δεσμὰ
πολλάκις ἐκ νυκτῶν ἄλλον ἔχει λιμένα.

This reading would give the required
natural anomaly, unless the objection is
raised that Theocritus ought to have been

aware that nightingales at any rate do sing
by day. If we read κὴξ ὄρθρων it also be-
comes unnecessary either to reject γαρύσαιντο
or strain its sense.

For dawn as the time for the change of
shift—when the day-birds take up the tune—
cf. Hesiod, W. and D. 568, ὀρθρογόη χελιδών
(if this is the form to be read).

The scholiasts throw little light on the
passage. One at any rate certainly reads
ὁρέων ; but Tyrannion lays stress on the fact
that the habit of the oxy is to hoot at night
—€v νυκτὶ ἔχοντας τὴν φωνήν, which might
perhaps suggest that his reading implied
some departure in the passage before us
from its usual habit.

Vergil’s certent οὐ cygnis ululae is, as
Huschke points out, no argument in favour
of dapicawro, as Vergil may just as well
have had /dy// v. 136 in his mind:

> Ν , "Ὁ / ’ 2 /
ov θεμιτὸν, Λάκων, ποτ᾽ ἀηδόνα κίσσας ἐρίσδεν.

Besides, have we not his rendering, ap-
parently, of πάντα δ᾽ ἔναλλα γένοιντο of this
very passage to serve as a warning against
too readily accepting his versions of
Theocritus ?

RACHEL E. WeEpp.

NOTE ON HERODAS II. 44, 45.

μὴ πρός τε κυσὸς, φησί, χὠ τάπης ἡμῖν,
τὸ τοῦ λόγου δὴ τοῦτο, ληίης κύρσῃ.

THE precise meaning of these two lines is
generally admitted to be obscure, and no
satisfactory explanation has been offered by
the editors. However, the words φησί.
τὸ τοῦ λόγου δὴ τοῦτο show clearly that refer-
ence is made to some proverb. Nairn gives
the following paraphrastic explanation, ‘ Lest
my πρωκτὸς suffer and furthermore my blanket
be stolen.’ Crusius suggests a reference to
tossing in a blanket. The other explanations
seem less probable, and it is needless to
recapitulate them here.

I think it is impossible to accept Nairn’s
interpretation: κυσός never=zpwxris, and
Anins κύρσῃ is not satisfactorily rendered by
‘suffer injury.’ Ihe matter would surely be

44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

simplified by taking κυσὸς in the same sense
as the Latin cumnus (cf. Hor. Satz. i. 2. 26).
The term might well be applied by the
πορνόβοσκος to Myrtale. We might then
render ‘Lest I lose bed-fellow and blanket
too.’ The general sense would then be:
‘Lest, besides losing my slave, I suffer the
additional loss of being unable to obtain
redress.’

If this explanation is correct, we have the
complete proverb in the text and not an

adaptation.
H. G. EvEetyn-WHITE.

THE READING IN ARISTOPH.
ACH. 912.

AIK. kai μὴν ὁδὲ Νίκαρχος ἔρχεται φανῶν. 908

BOL. μικκός ya μᾶκος οὗτος. AIK. ἀλλ᾽
ἅπαν κακόν.

NIK. ταυτὶ τίνος τὰ φορτί᾽ ἐστί; BOI. τῶδ᾽ ἐμά

Θείβαθεν, ἴττω Δεύς. NIK, ἐγὼ τοίνυν

ὁδί
φαίΐνω πολέμια ταῦτα. BOI. τί δαὶ κακὸν
παθών 912

ὀρναπετίοισι πόλεμον ἦρα καὶ μάχαν ;

Line 912 MSS. τί δαὶ κακὸν παθών. So
Paley, who notes that Elmsley rejected κακόν
as a gloss and read... BOL. τί
δαὶ παθών κτλ.

Bentl. (followed by Meineke and Ribbeck)
Paley suggested καὶ τί
κακὸν κτλ. But none of these changes
accounts for the MSS. reading. Hence I
would suggest τί δ᾽ ἄδικον παθών, the cor-
ruption arising thus:

ΤΙ A AAIKON> TI ΔΑΙΚΟΝΣ TI AAI
KAKON, the syllable KON becoming KAKON

ταὐυταΎ i.

/
τί δὲ κακὸν παθών.

under the influence of -KAKON at the end
of line 909, three lines above.

In support of this suggestion, it may be
pointed out (1) That the Boeotian speaker,
in his very next words, says τί ἀδικειμένος ;
(2) The Schol. on line 912 says τί ἠδικημένος ;

M. Kraus.

St. John’s College, Cambridge.

PROPERTIUS OE, xX. #22.
A dolor, ibat Hylas, ibat Enhydriasin.

Tuis is Dr. Postgate’s text in his Corpus.
He has pointed out to me that the sugges-
tion £phydriasin given in this volume of the
C.R. p. 123 was given by Baehrens in his
edition ; and he has referred me to a paper
of his own in 4./.P. xvii. 30 sg. on ‘The
alleged confusion of Nymph-names’ (cf. his
paper in 4./.P. xviii.), in which he suggests
that the passage in Propertius might be a
reminiscence of Alexander Etolus. In that
paper he makes out a case for Enhydriasin,
a word which, though not found, he rightly
regards as a legitimate formation; and he
points out that it is nearer to the MSS.
tradition than “fAydriasin. But considering
that this word is found, and ’Ev- not; that
Ap. Rhod. i. 1229 has νύμφη ἐφυδατίη in his
tale of Hylas; and that our line so closely
resembles that of Alexander A£tolus, Proper-
tian experts might reconsider the claim of
Ἐφ-. At all events, it might well be
mentioned in the App. Crit. to the passage.

J. U. Powe tt.
St. John’s College, Oxford.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 45

REVIEWS

THE ARMENIAN HISTORY OF STEPHANOS.

Des Stephanos von Taron Armenische Ge-
schichte aus dem altarmentschen tibersetst
von Heinr. Gelzer und Aug. Burck-
hardt. Leipzig: Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana.

1907.

A LiBRARY of Greek and Roman authors
seems an unsuitable home for the German
translation of an Armenian work of the
tenth or eleventh century a.D., and the
German translators by furnishing their work
with neither Preface nor Notes, shirk the
trouble of explaining how Stephanos of
Taron came to be in such illustrious com-
pany, what text they have followed, and
who Stephanos of Taron was. The two
last questions can to a certain extent be
answered by the reviewer. Stephanos was
an Armenian who lived in the latter half of
the tenth and the first half of the eleventh
century, and at the request of his Katho-
likos Ter Sargis composed a Universal
History, in which Armenia in the main
represents the universe. It is in three
parts, of which the first begins with Adam
and ends with the conversion of Armenia,
the second ends with the restoration of the
Armenian monarchy by Ashot Bagratuni in
the year 888, and the third brings the
history down to the year 1004 A.D, The
first two parts are extracted from well-known
books, and have no value except for the
criticism of the text of those sources; the
third has some independent value, as being
in part a contemporary chronicle. The
Armenian text has been printed twice, first
in Paris, 1859, and again, with collation of
fresh MSS,, in St. Petersburg, 1885. <A
French translation of the first part by M.
Dulaurier was published posthumously in
Paris, 1883: it had been preceded by a
Russian translation of the whole by M.
Emin, published in Moscow, 1864. The
German translation appears to follow the
Petersburg edition, of which a copy has
kindly been lent the reviewer by Mr. Cony-

beare.
of print.
The right to publish a translation with-
out note or comment should be jealously
guarded, and the reviewer has no intention
of censuring the translators’ procedure in
this matter. The principle however that a
translator need only translate is not quite
easy to carry out, and if he give an inch
his reader is apt to demand an ell. The
inch given here is in the Index, where some
common and obvious names are identified :
the reader may want to know why the less

The Paris edition has long been out

obvious ones have not been similarly
treated. Such are ‘Azdaz, Emir von
Agypten,’ by whom al-Aziz, Fatimide

Caliph, is meant; Ipn or Ibn Khosrow, this
writers name for Fannakhosrau, usually
called ‘Adud al-daulah ; Nphrkert, the Ar-
menian equivalent of Mayyafarikin ; ‘ Bat,
Emir,’ known in Moslem history as Badh
the Kurd.

Although Stephanos writes profane history,
his heart is evidently far from the things of
this world, and is with monks and ascetics,
whose valour consists in singing the psalms
of David day and night, or else is expended
on dragons. Thirty-eight pages out of the
hundred and five which constitute the third
part of the work are taken up with Ter
Khachik’s letter in defence of the dogmas
of the Armenian Church. ‘This is a theo-
logical document of some consequence.
The rest is of some interest, partly for the
side-lights which it throws on personages
familiar to the readers of Ibn al-Athir’s
Chronicle, though it might be unsafe to
trust Stephanos where his statements are
without confirmation from other authorities.
The whole badly needs both geographical
and historical commentaries.

As a specimen of his contributions to
history we may take what he says of his
contemporary ‘Adud al-daulah. This Emir,
he says, amazed the world by his wisdom,
which equalled that of Alexander. Having
to take a city, the houses whereof were

46 ; THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

constructed of reeds, he got the inhabitants
to send him their dogs; to [the tails of]
these dogs he attached naphtha and fire ;
the dogs, running to their homes, caused a
general conflagration. Feats of this sort so
alarmed the great tribe of Hamdan, that
they abandoned their fortresses and betook
themselves to the Byzantine empire. By
the command of Basil however they had
to return and settle in Aleppo, till they
were dispersed and perished. [The German
translation omits this last sentence].—
Hamdan was not a tribe, but a dynasty:
the historical facts perverted in this state-
ment are to be found in Freytag’s Geschichte
der Hamdaniden (Z.D.M.G. x. 493-495).

Stephanos continues:—Ipn Khosrow not
only let the Christians celebrate their feasts
fearlessly, but himself on the day of the
Coming of the Redeemer into the Temple,
which is called Candlemas, organized illu-
minations with brilliant torches, wax-candles,
and a quantity of flax. [The German trans-
lation is: ja er selbst feterte das Kommen des
Erloésers, welches Advent genannt wird, in
dem Tempel mit hellem Lichterglanz. The
German translators seem a little weak here
in Christian antiquities.] Further, he illu-
minated the wings of the doves with naphtha
and fire, and sent them skywards. He also
put on a crown and styled himself king of
kings, which was not the Arab custom.
Finally he tried to debase the coinage, and
when his coins were not taken, he stamped
potsherds and scraps of leather, and com*
pelled the tradesmen to take them in ex-
change for goods.

A good deal of this appears to be histori-
cally sound. The title ‘king of kings’

(shahansha) and the wearing of a crown
‘against the custom of the Arabs’ by “Adud
al-daulah, are the subject of allusions by his
court-poet Mutanabbi (ed. Dieterici, pp. 762,
763). He had a Christian vizier, and the
story of his keeping Candlemas has no in-
herent improbability. His debasing of the
coinage is not expressly mentioned by Ibn
al-Athtr in his obituary notice, but agrees
very well with what is stated there.
The above extract not only gives an idea
of the historical value of Stephanos, but
shows that the translators have not taken
their task too seriously. Their Armenian
scholarship seems to be on the whole trust-
worthy, but is occasionally slipshod. In iii.
22 we are told that the emperor Basil, being
asked to send his sister to wed with a
Bulgarian prince, sent das Wetb eines seiner
Diener: the Armenian (kin mi 1 dsarayits
torots) surely means ‘one of his slave
women,’ which is somewhat different. At
the beginning of iii. 23 the author is made
to repeat himself: mach diesem zog der
Kaiser Wasil selbst mit einem Heere nach
dem Lande der Bulgaren. Und er zog mit
einer starken Armee aus. In the original
the first sentence says that he prepared
troops to go out. Slips of this sort seem to
occur very rarely, and since Russian is
scarcely better known than Armenian in

“Western Europe, they deserve thanks for

rendering this chronicle generally accessible.
In these days of relentless industry it is
refreshing to find some scholars who do not
take too many pains.

D. S. MARGOLIOUTH.

88 Woodstock Road, Oxford.

CLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE.

The Architecture of Greece and Rome. By
W. J. ANDERSON and R. PHENE SPIERS.
Batsford, 1907.

THE systematic study of Greek architecture
was undertaken first by English students.
For about two generations, however, this
phase of classical archaeology was almost

completely neglected, and except for the fine
work of the late Mr. Penrose—the last fruit
of the old tradition, which seemed indeed
to appear out of season—English architects
contributed little of value to European
scholarship during this time. Fergusson,
however, in working over the materials.
gathered by others, formed another link

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 47

between the past and the present, and his
general history of architecture has been a very
useful compendium, although it is hardly
scientific enough, being in many cases con-
cerned rather with the author’s aesthetic
opinions than with external facts. Nor must
we, in this relation, neglect to mention the
records of excavations undertaken by the
British Museum at Ephesus, Priene, and
Halicarnassus.

With the establishment of the Hellenic
Society and the British Schools in Athens
and Rome, a new era in the appreciation of
classical architecture seems to have opened.
The volume of Messrs. Anderson and Spiers,
of which Mr. Batsford has just issued a
second edition, is eminently qualified to
maintain and enlarge this interest, for it is
just the kind of book which was required,
being at once learned and readable; giving
a wide survey and adequate summary of
what is known in regard to both Greek
and Roman art in one volume of moderate
size. I have just happened to see a review
by S. Reinach of the German edition of this
book, and wish to echo his praise of the
excellent bibliography included, which, he
says, is the best that is known to him. The
volume consists of 339 pp. and full index,
together with 253 illustrations, many occupy-
ing the whole page, a valuable chronology of
Greek temples, a good glossary of terms, and
a list of books, the last covering 6 pp. It
opens with a chapter on Mycenaean architec-
ture brought well up to date, and including
an excellent restoration by Mr. Spiers of the
gate of the ‘Treasury of Atreus.’ This is
followed by chapters on the archaic period
in Europe and Asia Minor, on the age of
maturity in two chapters, another on the
Alexandrian period is followed by a chapter
on ‘Secular Buildings.’ These form the
first section of the work, and an account of
Etruscan and Roman architecture fills eight
more chapters. The illustrations are admir-
ably selected, fresh, and from the best
sources, and include several drawings by the
authors. A most valuable feature is the
large number of plans of temples given in
the work. It is a book to read, as well asa
book of reference, convenient in size and
pleasant. I hope that the present edition

of this most useful volume will be speedily
exhausted, so that from time to time still
more may be added, for it seems to me the
best groundwork for a history of classical
architecture that we are likely to obtain.
With still more material the arrangement
might doubtless be further improved; at
present the Treasury of Cnidos at Delphi
and the Great Altar at Pergamos come close
together in a chapter on the ‘ Culmination
in the Peloponnesos.’ I note the following
small points—some as to doubts of my own,
and some as to small slips of the pen or
the memory on the part of the authors. Is
there any record that Phidias worked on the
Parthenon without pay? It is suggested
(p. 77) that the metopes of the Parthenon
might have been carved when in position on
the building. It is my impression that Mr.
Ebersole’s inspection of those on the west
front showed that they did not all perfectly
fit, and must have been carved before they
were put in place. That the centre of
‘west’ pediment was missing in 1674
(p. 78) should read ‘east.’ The architect
of the Erechtheum is properly said to be
unknown, but Furtwaengler has suggested
Kallimachos. The North Portico, shown on
figure 63, is now entirely restored. The
Temple of Athene at Priene, begun about
340 B.C., is spoken of on p. 108 as the earliest
of the Hellenistic temples of Asia Minor,
but this hardly agrees with the chronological
list, and Ephesus, begun c. 356 8.6. at latest,
seems to be the type from which it derived.
The Temple of Apollo near Miletus is spoken
of as the greatest of temples (p. 113). Strabo
is, I believe, the authority for this, but in the
recent French work on Miletus it is stated
that Samos was still bigger. On the same page
Paeonios is called the architect of this Temple
of Apollo as well as of the Artemision, and
this he may have been at some stage, but the
Apollo Temple is generally much later in
style than the other, and I think that a date
much too early is given to it. On page 114
it is pointed out that square plinth blocks
under bases are not found in the purer Greek
works. This may be true of Athens, but the
Croesus Temple at Ephesus had them. It
is, I think, going outside the record to say
that the Mausoleum ranked as one of the

48 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Seven Wonders ‘owing to its sculptures’
(p. 119). An angle capital, not only a
volute, of this building is in the British
Museum.

One of the many points which have speci-
ally interested me in this work is mentioned
on page 114. What could Vitruvius have
meant by attributing the invention of the
Pseudodipteral formation of temples to
Hermogenes, the architect of the Temple of
Dionysos at Teos? I have often felt that
the putting of the peristyle at a wider distance
than ordinary from the cella can hardly have
constituted a remarkable departure. The
portico columns of most temples, including
the Parthenon and Theseum, are at a dis-
tance from the inner row as great as the
beams would allow. At Selinus the whole
peristyle stands at a distance of two columni-
ations from the cella walls, and this temple

happens to be given as ¢ie example of the
Pseudodipteral arrangement in the recently
issued American Dictionary of Architecture.
The early Ionic temple at Locri had, I
believe, a very wide peristyle, so also had
some of the Doric temples of Paestum. Mr.
Spiers himself gives the plan of the temple at
Messa, on the island of Lesbos, and speaks
of it as pseudodipteral, while in his chron-
ology he places it early in the Fourth
Century, and before any of the other Hellen-
istic temples, including Ephesus.

Of the Roman part of the book I have not
space to speak. I can only say that it is
fully equal in every respect to the Greek
section, and even more indispensable, for
there is no other book of any authority in
English upon this subject.

W. R. LETHABY.

DIELS’S PRESOCRATICS.

Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch
und Deutsch. Von HERMANN DIELS.
2° Auflage, Band II. τ. Berlin: Weid-
mann, 1907. Pp. vili+ 469-864. 10m.

THE appearance of this volume marks the
further progress of the second edition, so
that it is now complete with the exception
of the Index Verborum. It is good news
to hear that arrangements have been made
for the preparation of a full verbal index
‘with special reference to terminology,’ and
that its publication may shortly be expected.
The present instalment contains the text of
the Cosmologists and Sophists, with short
notes at the foot of each page, the notes to
the texts printed in the first volume, and a
register of authors and names. The whole
of the text, that is to say, the biographical
and doxographical extracts as well as the
actual fragments, is now printed uniformly
in the larger type; and it is to be hoped
that, when the book reaches its next edition,
another improvement will be made by the
transference of the notes to the Philosophers
from the end of the second part to their

proper place below the pages to which they
refer. There cannot be any practical diffi-
culty in making this change, which has
already been carried out to the great
advantage of readers in respect of the less
important writers printed in the present
volume.

Prof. Diels has spared no pains in remedy-
ing the minor defects of the first edition:
as illustrating the care with which the work
of revision has been carried out, it may be
mentioned that almost all the particulars to
which exception was taken in this Review
(xviii. 217 ff.) have now been modified. The
principal additions to or alterations of the
text in the second part are as follows. The
chapter on Orpheus contains two new extracts
(15° and 22); but a passage in the former
(p. 478, 28-30) is quite unintelligible as
printed here. In the case of Epimenides,
frs. 6, 7 and 17 of the old edition have been
separated and rearranged, with certain addi-
tions, as belonging to a work bearing the
title Κρητικά, A new chapter among the
astronomers is now given to the fragments
of the ᾿Αστρονομίη of Hesiod: this work,

ae

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 49

formerly regarded as Alexandrian, is attri-
buted by Diels, following Robert and others,
to the sixth century B.c. The account of
Pherecydes of Syros is enlarged by several
fresh passages, and Acusilaus now receives
complete treatment, whereas in the former
edition Diels was content to refer to Miiller,
while pointing out certain additions to his
collection to be found in Philodemus. A
new chapter (73°) has been added for the
Seven Wise Men, which is however pro-
fessedly incomplete: besides extracts from
Laertius and Plato, it contains only the
sayings preserved in Stobaeus (77. 3. 79)
under the name of Demetrius. I question
if this addition is of much use, at any rate
in its present form ; and indeed, if Thales is
left out of account, Dicaearchus was not far
wrong in describing the Wise Men as οὔτε
σοφοὺς οὔτε φιλοσόφους, συνετοὺς δέ τινας καὶ
νομοθετικούς.

As it may be predicted with confidence
that this book will go through other editions,
I subjoin some comments on points of
detail, suggested by a fresh examination of
the text and by the notes now first published :
the references are to the page and line of the
second edition. At p. 486, 22 surely dre is
required for ὅτι. At p, 531, 2 δύηι takes the
place of Meineke’s δύη adopted in the Poetae
Philosophi ; but would not Timon follow the
Homeric syntax? I cannot think ὡς is right
at p. 577, 11; we seem to want δι᾽ ὃ, or even
ᾧ. P. 580, 23: Richards’ ἀκροατήν (CR.
xv. 298) should be added to the foot-note.
Thinking that an adjective is wanted to
balance ἱκανώτατον, I suspect that something
has fallen out; perhaps we might read
δίκαι ζόν te κριτήν. P. 618, 27 ff.: the
arrangement of the text is very confusing, and
the quotation from the scholiast on Aristo-
phanes should be placed within brackets.
On p. 619 (fr. 19) Eusebius is mentioned
in the note, but the reference (2.2. xiii.
Ρ. 681B) is nowhere given. In connexion
with this fragment, I should have welcomed
a note on the interesting word αὐτοφυῆ.
L. and S., who certainly should not have
compared Plat. Prot. 321 A, render self
existent, following (I suppose) Grotius and
Valckenaer diatr, p. 41. But such a meta-
physical application of the word seems

NO. CC. VOL. XXIII.

improbable; the only parallels I can find
belong to a much later period. Cf. Suid.
5.0. Μαρκιανός: αὐτοφυῆ τὸν κόσμον καὶ
διοικεῖσθαι οὐκ ἐκ θεοῦ, the tenet of a man
corrupted by Epicurean δόγματα. In [Plut.]
Plac. i. 7, p. 881 Ε, αὐτοφυῆ is an epithet of
θεόν, but Diels (Doxogr. p. 304) on other
grounds refuses to ascribe it to Aetius.
Similar to this is Aristid. i. p. 5, quoted by
Valckenaer. I think that Clement’s para-
phrase—évratda γὰρ τὸν μὲν αὐτοφυῆ τὸν
δημιουργὸν νοῦν eipyxev—points to an
active meaning, creative, and that this is
much more appropriate to the context.
P. 627, 6: ἐλεύθερον is unpledged, see Wyse,
Isaeus, p. 405. P. 661 (on Heracl. fr. 7):
this fragment is most simply explained by
being brought into connexion with frs. 98
and 107, so that in each case the worthless-
ness of sense-perception is contrasted with
the intuition of ψυχή. Thus in αἱ ψυχαὶ
ὀσμῶνται καθ᾽ “Avdyv the emphasis is on
ψυχαί (1.6., no longer ῥῖνες): see also frs. 26, 27.
P, 662 (on p. 66, 17): the reference to Anon.
Iambl. is decisive in favour of Diels’ inter-
pretation. P. 662 (on p. 68, 11): the refer-
ence given for ὁτέη -- ἥτις is wrong. P. 663
(on p. 71, 3): a note is required on the
insertion of τῆς. P. 664 (on p. 75, 9): the
supplement τῆς αὐτῆς is unnecessary, if ἕξιν
is taken not as ‘quality’ or ‘condition,’ but
in its special Stoic sense of continuity, 1.e.,
unifying principle, Thus κατὰ ef.v=‘in so
far as it is a unit’: see the passages cited in
my note on Zeno, fr. 56, 53. The subject
to σκίδνησι, which is used absolutely, is not
θεός (Bernardakis), but θνητὴ οὐσία. P. 665
(on p. 78, 13): Diels has changed his mind
and now prefers αὐγὴ ξηρὴ ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη
k.d., without giving any reason. The philo-
sophical content of αὐγή deserves investigation :
cf. Emped. fr. 135, and for the later schools,
Chrysipp. ii. 611 Arn., Plut. Aor. 653 F.
P. 684 (on Emped. fr. 15): the generalising
te is in place here and should not be changed
to κε: the two passages quoted from the
Odyssey do not support xe in a clause of
general assumption. The very unusual aorists
after πρίν and ἐπεί in the same fr. require
explanation: cf. fr. 35, 3 ff. The thrice-
repeated αὐτὰ γὰρ ἔστιν ταῦτα (frs. 17, 343
21, 13; 26, 3) is rendered ‘denn nur diese
D

50 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

(vier Elemente) gibt es,’ z.e., ‘ only these exist,’
not ‘these are alone.’ This is questionable
(see Starkie on Ar. 752. 255); and I prefer
the old view that the vea/ity of the elements
is asserted (i.e., ‘they exist of themselves’).
For another interpretation see Platt in Journ.
Phil, xxiv. p. 246. Fr. 62, 1: the common
view that πολυκλαύτων means earful is to
be preferred. A reference should be given
ἴο 4.72. P. 688 (on p. 202, 5): the recently
discovered commentator on the Zzheaetetus
confirms Buttmann’s κέρματα against the
corruptions of Plutarch’s MSS. Diels supplies
ζώονθ᾽ in the next line, but Alexander does
not indicate that Empedocles drew this dis-
tinction: perhaps ὀσμᾶθ᾽ (ὀσμᾶται) fell out
before ὅσσ᾽ ἀπέλειπε. P. 690 (on p. 209, 12):
I think it improbable that peAdyxovpos means
‘black-haired,’ as Diels holds; and Hege-
mon’s evkovpos proves nothing. Comparing
εὔπαις, καλλίπαις, εὐπάρθενος Δίρκα, εὔτεκνος
ξυνωρίς, I suggest that μ. -- ἡ μέλαινα κούρη
(cf. Theocr. 10. 26f.). “Αιδης μελαγχαίτης
is another matter: if the reference is to shorn

hair, what is the point of pedas? On fr. 133
Lucr. vy. too should have been quoted.
Fr. 30, 3 (cf. fr. 115, 2) πλατέος ὅρκου, and
fr. 112, 1 κατὰ (‘overlooking’?) require ex-
planation. P. 274 (on Democr. fr. 179):
Diels now gives ἔξω τί κως ἢ πονεῖν παῖδες
ἀνιέντες, excellent palaeographically but not
quite convincing. I laid no stress on ζωτικῶς,
and cannot attempt to defend it here; but I
must protest against the odd travesty of my
suggestion which Diels inadvertently prints.

The following slips should be corrected.
P. 58(a5) and p. 67(B31): the evidence
of Aristotle and his commentators on the
ἐκπύρωσις question is incomplete: e.g., Phys.
lll. 205 a3 is wanting. P. 77, 5: some
words have been omitted from the text, as is
obvious from the translation. P. 79, 4: ἄλλη
is an error for ἄλλῃ: P. 187, 15: add a
reference to 55 A 89%. P. 189, 1: the refer-
ence should be Plut. gz. conv. vill. 3, I, p.720E.
P. 686 (on p. 188, 23): the MSS. reading
should be given.

A. C. PEARSON.

T. W. ALLEN’S ODYSSEY.

Homeri Opera recognovit THomas W.
ALLEN. Tomi iii, iv. Odyssea i-xxiv.
Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,
1908. 25. 6d. paper, 3s. cloth.

In 1889 A. Ludwich published his edition
of the Odyssey, a revised text with an
apparatus criticus based on the examination
by himself and others of twenty-four MSS.
In his preface he castigates and denounces
with considerable freedom contemporary
Homeric critics and their methods, appealing
to the younger scholars to complete the
examination of the extant MSS., to finish
in fact the work so well begun by himself.
This task, involving visits to libraries all
over Europe, a task of immense extent and
difficulty, ‘opus non unius hominis’ Ludwich
calls it, has been undertaken and accom-
plished by Mr. Allen, who deserves every
scholar’s congratulation on his great achieve-
ment. With some help duly acknowledged,

he has examined and collated the extant MSS.
of the Odyssey, more than seventy in all, with,
as he says, only three exceptions, and the
results of his labours are contained in these
two modest volumes recommended by con-
venience of size, clearness of type, accuracy
of printing and moderate cost.

This welcome text, one of the Scriptorum
Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, must
inevitably take the place of the time-honoured
dumpy and ugly Oxford Pocket Edition,
which with all its imperfections has so long
held the field in the University. To compare
the merits of the two would be an injustice
to Mr. Allen’s work, which challenges com-
parison with the very best. Though, perhaps,
in general the necessity of extreme brevity
has prevented him from giving in full detail
much that can be found in Ludwich (e.g.
0153, #532), yet by the grouping together
of the MSS. into ‘familiae,’ indicated by
small letters, he is often enabled to convey

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ΟΣ

more in a few words than Ludwich can in
five or six times the number. By this com-
pendious method of classifying the authorities,
which he proposes to discuss at length and
justify in actorum scholae Brit. Rom. tom. v,
the economy of space indispensable for a
popular edition has been secured. Of course
in some points Mr. Allen’s arrangement
differs materially from what we meet with in
Ludwich’s book. Ludwich classes M (Allen’s
U*) with J and K: according to Allen Ὁ
and K still remain together, in family e, but
J stands in fam. ὦ with two different Venetian
MSS. U® and U®. Again Ludwich associates
X (V*) and D (P"); Allen places V* in a
group (m) with M*(L.’s E), while P’ forms a
class (/) with R* Taking it for granted
that, when any reading is attributed to a
family of MSS., it is to be understood that
this reading is found in every MS. of that
family, I note that in «70 the variant ἔσκε is
here supported by C L’ R* M? Rl}, but in
Ludwich by T only, a MS., by the way,
apparently not included in Mr. A.’s classifi-
cation. In a88 δὲ ἐλεύσομαι seems to have
no support beyond the somewhat remote
δὲ éX. of C Τῷ. ἘΦ (but N T Καὶ Ludwich),
whereas in a 112 a hiatus licitus vouched for
by all the MSS. is disregarded, and rightly,
I believe, for a good metrical reading of
Aristarchus.

Mr. Allen has set forth a few of the
general principles by which he has been
guided. He has wisely paid some heed
to the digamma. He has expelled εἷος and
ἕως in favour of ἧος save for just one awkward
instance of ἕως, β 78, cf. τέως for τῆος, σ᾿ 190.
He declines to admit any gen. in -οο, and he
might fairly have based this exclusion on the
character of his edition (libellorum indoles).
In truth the appearance of these forms
would probably have caused a shock of
surprise to all readers, an unpleasant one,
it may be, to some, an agreeable one to
others. To the mere exclusion, then, no
objection need be taken; but in defending
it Mr. Allen states that Αἰόλου ἀνεψτοῦ sim.
must or may be attributed to metrical
license on the part of the epic poet (immo
potius epicorum ἀδείᾳ metricae attribuenda
sint). This statement I really cannot accept.
Let any one fairly consider all the traces of

-oo as set forth in §98 of Monro’s Homeric
Grammar, and I am sure he will be absolutely
convinced, not of the propriety of introducing
-oo into our texts intended for learners (bonis
pueris grandibusque virginibus), but certainly
that to call in ‘ poetical license’ as a justifi-
cation of the quantity Αἰόλου is altogether
retrograde and untenable. Dr. Monro states
a positive fact when he says: ‘there are
several places where -oo is called for by the
metre.’ To take a concrete instance, in
ξ 239 the original poet did not write or say
δήμου φῆμις because a spondee was admissible
there ; but he wrote, as Sir R. Jebb (Introd.
to Homer, p. 191) and every one else say,
δήμοο φῆμις. If the epic poet, fretus ἀδείᾳ
metricae, could write δήμου φῆμις, then he
might apparently equally well have ended
his verse with φῆμις δήμου, which Mr. A.
must admit is utterly inconceivable. So also
there is no doubt the quantity traditionally
given to Αἰόλου and ἀνεψιοῦ is epically
impossible. Even the most conservative
defender of the transmitted text would hardly
maintain that ἠῶ δῖαν is due to metrical
license. Anything akin to a ‘legal fiction’
has no place in literary criticism. Whether
the original dactyl should be printed in our
texts is another matter.

In dealing with the augment, Mr. Allen,
rightly I think, seems disposed to dispense
with it when not required by the metre.
His tendency is certainly in this direction.
We have ὅρμηναν, ἀπόμνυ, ὄτρυνεν, ὅπλεον,
ὁπλίσσατο, ἄσπαιρε, ἕρπον, ἄρχε ἡ47 (but ἦρχε
€237), ὄρνυτο (but ὦρσεν 313). Again
ἅνδανε, ἐργάζετο οἴκεον show regard for the F,
but not ᾧκει «200, and the form ἐῴκει which
is quite as bad as ἑήνδανε presents a difficulty.
The syllabic augment is on many occasions
omitted rather arbitrarily, ‘déya βάζομεν cum
codicibus’; but the appar. crit. on y 127
hardly bears this out. What is there against
diy’ ἐβάζομενν The most questionable case,
however, is when the result is a strong
diaeresis at the end of the second foot, e.g.
S112, 144, 733, 736, +197, v417, etc.
This with all deference I can hardly regard
as either necessary or desirable.

The following variations from Ludwich
seem to be in the main improvements:
B 55 ἡμετέρον for -ov, B 275 σέ γ᾽, y 19 αὐτὸς,

52 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

5567 πνείοντος, ζᾧ 262 βήομεν, 303 ἥρως,
6 380 ἑσταότες, 462 ἐμεῦ, 526 ἰδοῦσα, κ 429
ἐρύκανε, 481 μευ, ν 289 ἰδυΐῃ, τ 403 θῆαι,
υτοῦ ἥατο, ᾧφ ττο γ᾽ om., 401 αὖ, x 234 ἴδῃς,
254 ἐπεί x’, w118 dp. But the merits of the
text may be better gauged by a few com-
parisons with the Oxford Homer (1901) of
the editor’s lamented collaborator Dr. Monro:
y 10 κάταγον, τοι, ὃ 475 (=€114) 7 om., ὃ 556
δ᾽ om., 596 οὐδέ με for οὐδέ κέ p’, 784 σφιν
ἔνεικαν, € 34 ἤματι εἰκοστῷ, ἡ 86 ἐληλέατ᾽
(ἐληλάατ᾽ ?), Θ τόρ 7 om., 495 ῥ᾽ om., 578
ἰδέ for 70, A146 τι for τοι, 452 τε OM.,
v125 αὖ for αὖτ᾽, ξ 342 pe for μοι, 0 109
δώματος, 0216 ἐς, 507 Kal for τὲ καί, p70
ἅπαντα for ἕκαστα, 78 τ᾽ om., also 189, 533,
o 38, X422. p393 πολλὰ ἔπεσσιν, o 418 ἄγε,
746 ἀμφί for dudis, 463 ἅπαντα, P192 σφε
ἔπεσσι, X 233 ἵσταο for ἵστασο, Ψ 40 οὐ 50
E52:

Among interesting variants noted, in some
cases for the first time, are: 8144 ai κε Zevs
δώῃσι 1.8, €272 θ᾽ δρόωντι Schol., 290 «dav
Schol., ¢ 426 τε δρύφη, (296 ἄστυ διέλθωμεν,
1366 ὄνομ’ ἔστ᾽, 393 σιδήροιο κράτος, μ 415

ἅμα δίς, ξ 221 ἔ᾽ ἐν πολέμῳ, 7257 φραζε,
᾿ πὶ 44 καταλέξε, T 343 ἐνὶ θυμῷ, φ 363
τάχα σ΄.

So much then for the merits of these
volumes and the quality of the text. The
work may indeed claim to be in a certain
limited sense an editio princeps, being as it
is the first that can be said to be based on
an examination of practically all the extant
codices. Let me now with due regard to
the aim of the editor, the indoles libellorum,
indicate a few points of possible improvement
in future editions. It is surely not necessary
to retain αὐχένας ἦξε (7539), and although
ἔσιδεν (ι 251) and ἔσιδε (v 197) are acceptable,
the same cannot be said of ἐσεῖδον (A 582,
593). The choice can only lie between the
traditional modernism and the
correct εἰσέιδον (1.6. εἰσέξιδον). The form
δείδω might be allowed to lapse in favour of,
I would not say, δείδοα, but δείδια (δέδια),
for which there is good warrant, v. Didymus
on © 44.

There are no less than six different varieties
of reading for an editor to select from in
1360. The MSS. seem unanimous in giving
the true reading, and editors seem equally

εἰσεῖδον

unanimous in giving something else. Mr.
Allen, who follows Ludwich, is no exception.
The line as transmitted runs thus:

ἃ 3
ὡς ἔφατ᾽" αὐτάρ of αὖτις ἐγὼ πόρον αἴθοπα
οἶνον.

Editors and critics apparently imagine that
the second foot was intended by the poet
to be a dactyl. The true scansion is of
course :

ὡς ἔφατ᾽- αὐτάρ F’ αὖτις ἐγὼ, etc.

The scansion is perfect and the rhythm un-
exceptionable, cf. a 49, 78, 216, 0 281, 7 226,
x 400, E204, Z157. Why add more?

The paragogic v might, I suggest, be
allowed to disappear more frequently, e.g.
ἄναξ, ete.
’Eviores has no metrical guarantee anywhere :
eviore, besides the support of most MSS,,
has confirmatory evidence, e.g. 6642, and
should be preferred.

Other possible desiderata are: 8 305 μάλ᾽,
y 230 Τηλέμαχος, 256 ζώοντ᾽, 296 ἀπεέργει,
372 ᾿Αχαιούς, ὃ 2 ἔχον, €136 ἀγήραον et alibi.
το τεχνῆσαι with ἱστόν, not mentioned.
L331 ἄνωγα, KI7 ἐγών, 505 γενέσθω, A221
δάμνατ᾽, 540 γηθοσύνῃ, μ΄ 5 ἐρωέει, 278 dele μ᾽,
v 238 (0 484), τήνδε ye with Monro. με is
possible, but not te. 363 ἀλλ᾽ aye bko, € 32
κε ©, 0334 ἰδέ, 432 ἴδῃς also AQg4, 7 234
βουλεύωμεν, 7 406 ἐπιάνδανε, the text-reading
is apparently an oversight. 469 μητέρ᾽ ἔειπεν
in X(V*) Ludwich. p479 δῶμα, 762 Sera’
deserves mention, 64 φάος τ΄. 203 I would
suggest πόλλ᾽ ἀλέγων. The fictions are
deliberate. v255 ἐοινοχόει, $208 (ὦ 322)
ἦλθον ἐεικοστῷ, 222 ἐσιδέτην ἐύ τ΄ XI81 A
period at μένοντε. The var. ἔνθ᾽ (182) is
attractive. 275 βεβλήκειν, ψ 348 φάος, ὦ 192
πάις from h.

In y 182 ἔστασαν (ἵστασαν Ox. Hom. Lud-
wich) seems a curious preference; but in
view of o 307 ἵστασαν the reading of θ 435
ἔστασαν is utterly untenable. p70 πασι-
μέλουσα and S121 ἐκ ᾿Ελένη are both more
or less objectionable. In 7259 Bentley’s
erroneous ἔμπεδα might be well allowed to
be forgotten.

It may perhaps be doubted whether the
editor has done well to leave out the brackets
by which the doubtful character of such lines

before ἕκαστος, ἰδών, ὅς, ἔπος,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 53

as B 191, y 78, 0113-9, etc., has been marked
by all editors since Wolf.

it would seem, are to them almost unknown
phenomena. The only misprint I have

The highest praise is due to the work of detected is ἐκ for ἐν (p 269).

the staff of the Clarendon Press. Mistakes,

THE STARS IN

De stellarum appellatione et religione Romana.
By WILHELM GUNDEL. Giessen: Alfred
Topelmann, 1907. ὅνο. Pp. iv + 160.
M. 4.40.

Mr. GuUNDEL has written a useful book. He
has gathered together from Roman writers
most of their references to the stars, and
arranged them under various heads: the
evening star, the dog star, certain constella-
tions, and so on. But he has left room for
much better work.

To begin with, Mr. Gundel’s Latinity is
not of the best. Among other things, I have
noted an unhappy use of wf with the indica-
tive in a causal sense. ‘ Ut Romani primitus
navigio non studebant, a Graecis hanc obser-
vationem eos traxisse veri simile est’ (p. 80).
Later on there is a still more painful case
(p. 96). The author in a footnote unkindly
declares that the proofs were corrected by
one of the editors of the series to which this
essay belongs. This only makes matters
worse for Latin studies at Giessen.

Mr. Gundel’s book is somewhat to seek in
etymology also. His argument is varied but
not improved by fairy tales of the following
sort: G. Vossius deducit stellam ‘a σέλας
lumen adtecto t vel a τέλλω (ἀνατέλλω) Prae-
posito stbilo vel’—but why proceed? It is
indeed late in the day for stuff like this to be
reprinted. Exploded etymologies fill the
place of material which is necessary to the
completion of the essay. Astrology certainly
was an importation into Rome, but it already

ΤΙ “AGAR:

ROMAN LITERATURE.

flourished in the second pre-Christian century,
and would have rewarded a fuller considera-
tion than Mr. Gundel gives it. He thinks to
find with Nigidius Figulus the first traces of
astrology in Rome (p. 90). Rome was
subject to foreign influences from so early
a time that we cannot form a clear picture of
purely Roman religion: it seems to me
inconsistent to quote late writers to illustrate
the Latin names of the stars, and to pass
over the astrology with which their minds
were tinged.

In fact, Mr. Gundel’s book is below the
level of others in the same series, notably
Mr. Thulin’s book on Etruscan religion. Mr.
Thulin, for instance, finds in the oldest
Roman calendar relations with astrology
due to Etruscan influences (Die Gotter des
Martianus Capella, p. 78). Why does not
Mr. Gundel make use of the work of his
predecessor ἢ

I have noted one or two details, of which
the following may be mentioned. Vitruvius
probably took the form vesperugo from Varro ;
de architectura ix. pref. 17 and ix. i. 7 (p. 8).
Professor Mahaffy, in the Rambles and Studies
in Greece (p. 360), furnishes a charming
parallel to the seftem triones, ‘the seven
threshing oxen.’ ‘As for the treading out
of corn, I saw it done at Argos by a string of
seven horses abreast, with two foals at the
outside, galloping round a small circular
threshing-floor in the open field upon which
the ripe sheaves had been laid in radiating

?
order. F. GRANGER.

54

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

EURIPIDES IN FRENCH.

Les Drames d’Euripide. Traductions en vers
par P. Martinon, professeur au Lycée
d’Alger. I. Alceste, Hécabe, Hippolyte.
II. Les deux Iphigénies, Meédée. Paris,
1908.

THESE pleasant little books are easy to
criticise. They contain certain plays of
Euripides, with very large omissions, trans-
lated into what appear to be good and
effective Alexandrines. The verse is fairly
strict, though not quite on the model of
Racine. Verses without caesura, for in-
stance, are admitted, like

Pour te suivre dans Iolcos j’ai pris ma fuite,

and there are signs of Romantic or post-
Romantic influence. The lines, however,
run well, and have the immense advantages
of being free from pedantry and easily
intelligible. They would speak easily on the
stage.

And now for the omissions. All choral
‘and lyric elements are omitted; all long
speeches are drastically shortened; in the
Tauric Iphigenia the Messenger’s narrative at
the end is omitted altogether, and the earlier
one greatly cut down. It seems, indeed,
roughly speaking, that everything not intelli-
gible and entertaining at first sight has been
tactfully avoided—a process necessarily at-
tended with enormous loss. The poetry, the
mystery, the intensity of tragic meaning, even
any really difficult or unusual psychology—
all these have disappeared. M. Martinon, of

SOME ENGLISH

Clarendon Press: Hesiod, by A. ΝΥ. Mair. Plato’s
Republic, by B. Jowett. The Silvae of Statius,
by D. A. SLATER. Macmillan: Caesar’s Gallic
War, by T. Ric—E HOLMEs.

Mr. SLATER’S Statzus is a very welcome addition
to the English translations of classical authors ; for
strange to say, his is the first English translation
ever made of the Sz/vae. The work has been helped
by the new Oxford text of the Sz/vae, and the trans-
lator has had the revision of Prof. Phillimore, Prof.

course, might very well answer that at least
what he has done he has done successfully,
and that to attempt the rest is only to lose a
sense of proportion and to court failure.

For example, in the scene of the /p/igenia
in Aulis, where Clytemnestra is appealing to
Achilles to save her daughter, there is a
poignant effect produced by the profound
egotism of the champion. At one point,
after raging at the use to which Agamemnon
has turned his ‘name’—‘ Is my name to do
his murders for him? ’—he adds, ‘Why did
he not ask me first ?’

ἔδωκα τἂν Ἕλλησιν, εἰ πρὸς Ἴλιον
(965)

This is of the utmost importance for the
understanding of the scene. It moves it
from the plane of mere romance to that of
bitter psychological tragedy. M. Martinon
omits these lines, and slurs over others which
point in the same direction.

A more obvious instance of the change
made by the omission of the Chorus is in the
great scene of the AZedea, where the children’s
voices are heard crying for help in the house,
and the Chorus, torn by the intolerable
moment from the calm of its ideal world,
batters in vain against the barred doors: a
very wonderful scene, anticipating the end of
Maeterlinck’s Mort de Tintagtles.

To the more intimate lovers of Euripides
these omissions are disastrous, but to many
readers they will probably make the plays
easier to follow. G Me

> Ao» ΄
εν TOLO EKGILVE Vvoo ToS.

TRANSLATIONS.

Hardie, and Mr. Garrod. The difficulties of the
Latin are better known than its merits, because it
has been a happy hunting ground for examiners
through many years; now the student’s task will be
greatly lightened, and he will have leisure to enjoy
what is best in the author. An excellent introduction
and a few useful notes are added. Mr. Slater’s
style is a little affected: perhaps he meant this to re-
present the affectations of his original ; but this is no
excuse for his lapses into iambic verse, which spoil the
pleasure of reading. Unfortunately the prose prefaces

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

are omitted, perhaps for the benefit of examiners.
It is to be hoped that Mr. Slater will carry out his
original intention and give us a commentary also:
Vollmer’s is notoriously unsafe.

Mr. Mair’s is not the only translation of Heszod,
but there was room for a new one. This includes all
the works ascribed to Hesiod, with the fragments.
Mr. Mair also drops into iambics, at times, and his
style is archaizing perhaps a little beyond need;
‘certainly beyond the style of the author, who with
the proper poetic tags, thinks and often speaks like a
peasant. A touch of dialect would hit him off to a
nicety. We have noted some of his renderings with
surprise: ἐπάλεα 493 cannot be ‘sunny’; it means
‘crowded’ (cp. ᾿Αθήνα ᾿Αλέα, ἀολλέες, ἁλίζω) ; and
τροχαλόν 518 surely means ‘running,’ not ‘bent.’
The introduction deals with poetry in the early world,
‘conventional epithets, and the like ; Hesiod’s life, and
works ascribed to him. There are some valuable

SHORT

Natursagen ; eine Sammlung naturdeutender
Sagen, Mérchen, Fabeln und Legender.
Herausgegeben von OsKAR DAHNHARDT.
I. Sagen zum alten Testament. Teubner.
M. 8.

Tuis volume is the first of an important
undertaking, in which O. Dahnhardt has
the help of a number of other scholars. It
is no less than a collection, classified and
criticised, of the world’s nature-myths. Such
a work is not important only for the student
of folklore; it touches at many points both
the classical scholar and the theologian. Here
for example, although the main subject is not
Greek, we have parallels to certain Greek
legends, such as the flood, the theft of fire,
the story of Silenus, not to mention fables
of Aisop. For the theologian, it may be
a fascinating task to unravel the threads
of primitive tradition that meet him in the
Old Testament, and to see how the Bible
stories have again intertwined themselves
with the structure of folk-tales. The
psychology of man is often illuminated by
these tales ; in particular his insatiable curio-
sity for the reason of everything, and the
ease with which he satisfies it.

The divisions of this volume are: Creation
of the world, the making of Man, with his

55

essays at the end, on the folk of the Golden Age, and
the ‘Farmer’s Year’ in Hesiod (of the latter inter-
esting parallels and illustrations are found, from the
Geoponica, an English calendar of 1669, and Xeno-
phon’s Oeconomicus), Farmer’s Implements, and Lucky
Days. These are a new commentary on the poem,
which was much needed.

The other volumes of this series reprint Jowett’s
translation with introduction and analysis unchanged.

Mr. Rice Holmes’s Caesar is accompanied by a
short introduction describing the Gauls and the con-
stitution of the Roman legion. Readers of Mr.
Holmes’s standard books will be prepared to find an
excellent version in simple English. It is also attrac-
tively printed, and we may hope that Caesar in his
English form may penetrate to many a class-room
and many an examination-room which would regard
the original Latin as useless.

NOTICES

complement Woman, the Devil, and dualistic
legends, the Fall, with its results; the persons
of Bible story, Adam, his beard and his
stature, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood,
Abraham, Ishmael, Joseph, Moses, Solomon,
Jonah, Job; the fallen angels; Wine. Typical
sagas—such as the two types of Creation
myth—are given fully ; parallels and contrasts
are cited in brief, or in the significant part.
It is remarkable to trace the relations be-
tween European and Eastern versions of
similar things: the dual system of Man, for
example, plays an important part ; often God
is weak, and the Devil does what is usually
ascribed to God. Thus the Devil makes
Adam, but cannot give him life; or God
makes Adam and the Devil mars him. The
Devil even makes the world, as the Gnostics
held. As a rule, however, the Devil tries to
deceive, and is detected or thwarted. The
manifold nature of man, still more of woman,
is often allegorized, by describing the various
elements that went to his making; most
remarkable of these stories is one from
India (p. 123!) that describes the character
of woman in terms of nature. Many of the
tales and episodes are numerous, especially
those that deal with animals. One series of
tales makes Adam with a long tail, which
was cut off to create Eve. Eve had no

56 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

respect for Adam, so God gave him a beard,
which immediately made her respectful and
obedient. This very odd tale, with its rough
humour, is traced to an earlier Lilith-cycle,
which has the same central idea of the
disobedient wife.

A bibliography and a full index complete

the volume. W. H. Ὁ. Rowse.

Die Buchrolle in der Kunst: archiologisch-
antiquartsche Untersuchungen zum antiken
Buchwesen. By THEODOR Birt. Leipzig.
1907. Pp. 352, 101 illustrations. M.12.

THIS appears as a supplement to the earlier
studies of the same author, Das antike Buch-
qwesen (Berlin, 1882), which dealt with ancient
books in relation to literature; but at the
same time it is complete in itself, and not
dependent upon the other, of which the chief
points are summed up ina short introduction.
The author draws his material from ancient
monuments of all classes, in which the
fashion and use of books are illustrated, and
he has collected almost exhaustive lists of
examples, which will be of great value to all
who study the subject. It is, however, much
to be regretted that the frequent reproduc-
tions in the text are of the poorest quality,
being mostly amateur drawings which are
often slovenly and not always intelligible.
One may not perhaps require the skill of a
trained draughtsman in sketches which only
profess to illustrate essential details of the
originals, but there is a minimum of care and
cleanliness which even the untrained hand
should recognise, if the work is to be worthy
of publication. The use of books is examined
from every aspect, but most attention is
naturally given to the act of reading, in
which the various positions are analysed and
reduced to definite schemes. An interesting
chapter deals with the ancient book in its
connection with the Trajan and Antonine
columns and similar monuments. These are
held not only to have been suggested by
the papyrus picture-book, but actually to
represent such a roll set out for public
inspection on a round shaft, like the Spartan
skutale; and the view is supported by the
observation that Trajan’s column was erected

in the Forum of Trajan, the open court
between the Emperor’s Latin and Greek
libraries. A notable feature is that, although
the subject belongs to classical archaeology,
the author does not confine himself within
the conventional ‘Greek and Roman’
periods, but extends his investigations into
Early Christian and Mediaeval times, and so
preserves the continuity of art which is too
often neglected by archaeologists.

Ἧς ΠΕΣ
Szenen aus Menanders Komodien. Deutsch
von CARL RoBERT. Berlin, 1908.

M. 2.40.

Von CaruL ROBERT.
Pp. 146. M. 4.50.

Der neue Menander.
Berlin, 1908.

Menandrt Quatuor Fabularum Fragmenta
tterum edidit J. VAN LEEUWEN. Lugduni
Batavorum. Pp. 178. 55. 6d.

THE first of Prof. Robert’s two volumes is a
translation in plain verse of the greater part
of the new Menander. It is not for a
foreigner to pronounce on the language or
metre of the rendering ; but the latter seems
to me—I speak with all diffidence—some-
what rougher than that of the original. As
far as I know, no similar English version has
yet appeared.

The second volume is a new text. Robert
has indicated a number of missing scenes,
and tried to fit into them some of the pre-
viously known fragments from the four plays.
He gives at the end a conspectus of all
emendations known to him down to a certain
date. These are very numerous, but un-
luckily the date was a little too early for him
to include the results of Kérte’s reading of
the papyrus, which have since been published
in the proceedings of the Royal Saxon
Academy. As far as I can see from exami-
nation here and there, Robert’s own contribu-
tions to the text are mainly in the way of
conjectural supplement where the papyrus
quite or almost fails us, an attractive but
perilous enterprise. Correcting errors is
precarious enough, but in absolute gaps there
is often little to guide conjecture and nothing
to support it. We all try it, however.

It would be an excellent rule to establish

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 57

that editors who make or propose any
changes in a text should always give a list
of the passages changed. One would not
then have to hunt through a whole book
for the novelties of this sort that it may
contain. The same rule should indeed apply
to distinctly new matter of any kind.

Van Leeuwen, in his second edition (more
attractively got up than Robert’s book, which
is for one thing rather too closely printed),
has considerably altered his text on longer
consideration and additional suggestions from
many sources, including English. He has
also added a brief commentary. The book
is now on the plan of his plays of Aristo-
phanes. FoR.

The Loeb Collection of Arretine Fottery.
Catalogued with Introduction and descrip-
tive notes by GreorceE H. Cuasz, Ph.D.
New York, 1908. Pp. 167. 23 plates.

Tus handsome volume describes a collection
of Arretine pottery, chiefly moulds and
fragments of vases, now at Harvard
University. So little has been done hitherto
in the way of cataloguing or publishing this
interesting class of pottery that Dr. Chase’s
admirable and well-illustrated catalogue is
exceedingly welcome. The items, numbering
nearly 600, are classified according to
subjects, following Dragendorff’s grouping
(Bonner Jahrb. xcvi. p. 58 ff.), and the brief
but useful introductory summary of the
subject is largely based on the same authority.
Few individual pieces call for notice, the
best being the mould No. 1, with the Birth
of Dionysos, a duplicate of which is in the
British Museum (L 94). The fragment of a
Centauromachia by M. Perennius (PI. xii)
makes us regret its incompleteness. Other-
wise the types follow the usual conventional
‘new-Attic’ lines, with frequent repetitions.
An interesting point noted by the compiler
is the parallelism between the decorative
patterns and those of Renaissance work, e.g.
of Ghirlandajo and the Robbias. As he
points out, it is quite possible that the Italian
artists of that period were well acquainted
with Arretine ware, the discovery of which
goes back as far as the thirteenth century.

BH. By We

The Shores of the Adriatic: The Austrian
Side, the Kiistenlande, Istria, and Dal-
matia. By F. H. Jackson, R.B.A. Fully
illustrated with Plans, Drawings by the
Author, and Photographs taken specially
for this work. Murray. 215.

Tuts book is well printed on good paper
and well illustrated ; its chief interest, however,
is for the student of modern life rather than
ancient. The classical student will indeed
find something. There is a full-page photo-
graph of a statue of Venus in the museum of
Aquillia, much damaged but very graceful ;
and a brief description of several other
objects of art. One relief depicts a pro-
cession in which a meteoric stone is carried,
A brief account is given of the palace of
Diocletian, with a picture of the Golden Gate
and one of the door of the Atrio Rotondo.
Occasional references to Roman remains are
found in various parts of the book. But
most of the pictures are of Christian antiqui-
ties or of modern scenes and groups. The
book says much of the customs of the people,
and contains besides a great deal of anti-
quarian lore. The traveller will find it very
useful ; the enquiring reader will read it with
great pleasure.

Les deux Camps de la Légion 111e Auguste ἃ
Lambése dapréis les fouilles récentes. By
M. R. Cacnat. (Extrait des Mémoires
de l’Acad. des Inscrs. et Belles-lettres,
XXXVili.). Paris, 1908. Pp. 63. 5 plates,
Ss cuts. Prov:

ΑΝ exhaustive account of the two camps at

Lambesi. Researches have shewn that the

smaller one, formerly known as the camp ‘ of

the auxiliaries’ is the original legionary camp
of Hadrian’s time, where the inscription with

his adlocutio was found. The later camp, a

fine example, dates from the beginning of

the third century. Fd. WW

De Hermino Peripatetico (diss. inaug.), NWENRICUS
ScHMIDT. Marburg: Bauer. 1907. Pp. 46.
84” x 54”.

HERMINUS was a Peripatetic philosopher, who lived
in the latter part of the second century A.D., and
whose chief claim to distinction is that he was the
teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The writer of
the above dissertation has collected all the notices
relating to him, which are to be found almost entirely

58 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

in the writings of the Aristotelian commentators. The
work has been carefully done, but it is open to ques-
tion whether Herminus was worth rescuing from the
oblivion into which he has fallen; and this indeed
seems to be the opinion of the author himself.
Herminus wrote commentaries on the categorzae,
on the de interpretatione, and on the first book of the
prior analytics; and his views on various points of
detail in these treatises have come down to us
through Simplicius, Boethus, and Alexander. There
is nothing in these notices to show that as a thinker
he possessed any originality ; but, as he is generally
mentioned where his opinion is considered erroneous,
it is probable that the extracts do less than justice to
his merits as a commentator. Though mainly con-
cerned with logic, he appears also to have lectured
on the physical books, even if he did not publish a
formal commentary. It should be observed that on
p. 28 Zeller’s account of Herminus (Zclectics, p. 312,
Eng. tr.), which is perhaps unduly depreciatory, is
shown to require correction. A. C. PEARSON.

De M. Tulli Ciceronis Studiis Rhetoricis Thesim
Facultati Litterarum Universitatis Paristensts
proponebat L. LAURAND. Paris. Picard et
ἘΠῚ WP piaxxs SEOs Exes.

Tuls isa handy but not very important little book

written in most un-Ciceronian Latin on the sources of

Cicero’s theory of Rhetoric. Μ. Laurand’s collection

of passages four servir is good, but his conclusions are

“not striking and his method is far too ‘schematic.’

Long lists of passages excerpted to prove ‘ Quzd Czcero

debuerit’ to Plato, Aristotle, the inevitable Her-

magoras and so forth do not help us very much.

M. Laurand relies far too much on the rhetorical

works and pays far too little attention to the speeches.

It is surely clear that, starting from the praecepta artis

of the ‘moderns,’ Rhodian or Asiatic Cicero developed

a manner and method all his own, which led him in

the leisure of retirement to reconsider his early

theories. Hence the return to Aristotle and antiquity,
suggested in the de Oratore and worked out in the

Brutus. In the section guzd Ciceronts in arte proprium

M. Laurand shows that he has at least considered this

point: it is a pity he did not develop it.

Two Dramatizations from Virgil: τ. Dido. 2. The
Fall of Troy. Arranged and translated into English
verse by F. J. MILLER. Stage directions and
music by J. R. NELtson. Chicago: University
Press. $1.08 post paid.

Tus book is practical: it contains minute directions
for staging, costume, and scenery (with illustrations) ;
it also gives some rather attractive music, in which
certain lines are set to airs with careful attention to
quantity. It is therefore to be recommended to
any who may wish to try the experiment of putting
the Aeneid on the stage. But it is not possible to
speak with the same praise of the verse. Zhe Fall
of Troy is in blank verse, and may pass muster; but
the Dzdo is in Alexandrians, a most monotonous

measure, quite unsuited to a long piece in English.
They are unrimed; and they seem to be made
by chopping up sentences into so many feet. See
e.g. p. 19:

‘ Away with all your cares. My cruel fortune and
My yet unstable throne compel me thus to guard
My bounds with wide and jealous watch.’

The speeches are too long, and there is a stiffness
about the action.

BLOOMFIELD’S VEDIC CONCORDANCE.

A Vedic Concordance. By MAURICE BLOOMFIELD,
Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology in
the John Hopkins University, Baltimore. Harvard
Oriental Series. Volume X. Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, 1906. Royal 4to, xxiv+ 1078.

In this magnificent work, which has occupied its
author for fifteen years, we have for the first time a
complete index to the Vedic mantras; that is, every
line or Aada of every stanza appears in the alphabetic
order of its first word. In addition, we have the
whole of the prose formulas included in the Vedic
literature. The whole number of entries must be
about 75,000, of which 40,000 are from the Rigveda,
and over 10,000 from the Atharvaveda. The value
of the work is thus evident. It is in the first place
a collection of critical material for students of the Rig-
and Atharvavedas. They will find in it all the verses
which may serve either directly to interpret the Vedic
texts or by their perversion of it to indicate the
direction in which it was most liable to corruption.
The comparative philologist, again, will find here a
complete collection of the earliest remains of Sanskrit
literature. Further, the student of ritual will be en-
abled to refer rapidly to any treatment of a ritual
practice with which a particular mantra is regularly
associated.

The production of a concordance on this scale on
the basis of a literature which is not completely
published or readily accessible, is a task of which
the burden cannot easily be appreciated, and which
is lightened not by the interest of present discovery,
but only by the foretaste of the success of future
generations. It is a work perhaps of which only
members of Professor Whitney’s school are capable.
The scholar who has achieved it can at any rate view
with a smile the terrors of the law, for fifteen years at
the treadmill would hardly involve more monotony or
more self-suppression. Professor Bloomfield has in
return the scholar’s reward, in seeing before him a
result which is perfect in every detail, and forms an
indispensable contribution to the study of his subject.
At the same time the production of such a work is no
small tribute to the value of classical studies, seeing
that no less than ten out of thirteen coadjutors of
Professor Bloomfield are actively engaged in the
teaching either of Greek or of Latin. Great Britain
may also claim no small share in this work, for
Professor Macdonell has indirectly made substantial
contributions to it, and the authorities of the Clarendon
Press have the credit of the fine typography and
extraordinarily accurate revision of the text.

FE, ν. Α.

OEE νυ ν..ο:--.-ς--.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 59

NEWS AND

A Joint Committee on Terminology has
been appointed by the Classical Association
and several other educational bodies, to con-
sider how far it may be possible to simplify
and to unify the technical terms used in
different languages. Perhaps this may lead
up toa series of coordinated school grammars,
like the larger scheme of Prof. Sonnenschein.
Such series have already been begun in Ger-
many, Holland, and we believe elsewhere.

A proposal has also been made for a
Vacation School, in which demonstrations
might be given of improved methods in
classical teaching. Time and place have yet
to be arranged ; but it will hardly be doubted
that such a school, with free discussion and
criticism amongst a number of teachers, must
be useful.

Mr. A. C. Benson has returned to the
charge in the Church Family Newspaper,
where he sets forth his simplified scheme for
secondary schools. ‘The main outlines of
this are familiar from his letter in the JZorning
Post (see The Year's Work, 1908, p. 2), and
he still shows his disbeliefin Latin and Greek

VERSIONS AND

PATIENCE ON A MONUMENT.

THERE once was a man who said, ‘ Well,
Will nobody answer this bell ?
I have rung day and night
Till my hair has grown white,
And yet nobody answers the bell.’
EL. Lear.

THREE BLIND MICE.

Three blind mice (262)
See how they run! (2672)
They all run after the farmer’s wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving-knife.
Did you ever see such a sight in your life
As three blind mice?

COMMENTS

for all but the very few. The great majority
of schoolmasters still remain silent, and leave
the forces of disintegration to work without
any attempt to meet them.

ATTENTION should be called to Mr.
Justice Malden’s address, to Trinity College
Classical Society, on the early history of
classical learning in Ireland (Longmans,
1908). This subject still awaits its explorer ;
but enough is said to disclose an unexpected
state of things. It may have been known
that in the early centuries of our era Ireland
kept the light of learning alight, and in
particular that Greek was studied in her
universities; but it is a surprise to learn
how good were the Irish schools under the
native chieftains, before wars destroyed the
whole system. Yet even in the seventeenth
century (about 1689) Sir Richard Cox says:
‘In the present day, very few of the Irish
aim at any more than a little Latin, which
every cowboy pretends to, and a something
of logic.’ In the sixteenth century Latin
was the common medium of intercourse with
strangers.

TRANSLATIONS

KAPTEPIA.

. ” ~ 4
ἀνὴρ τις nvda ξυμφορᾷ νικώμενος,
«ὑπακούσεται τἄρ᾽ οὔτις ἐξηρτημένῳ

ΤΩΝ » ὃ \ i A Cine wa θ᾽ tla
τῷδ᾽ ἀνδρὶ συνεχῶς ἡμέρας νύκτας θ᾽ ὁμῶς
κώδωνος οὕτως, μεχρὶ τοῦ γῆρας χρόνῳ
μακρῷ χνοάξειν τοῦτο λευκανθὲς κάρα ;

> / > ¢ ’ Ν »ῸΝ ἋΣ.)
κἀμοί ποθ᾽ ὑπακούει τις ; οὔτις οὐδὲ γρῦ.

ἘΠ,

ΤΡΙΣΑΘΛΙΟΙ.

Ἀ 7 »
Μυὲς μὲν οἵδε τρεῖς σκότον δεδορκότες"
ἴδεσθε δ᾽ οἵῳ βουκόλου κατωκάρα
δρόμῳ φέρονται μετὰ γυναῖχ᾽ ὁρμῇ μιᾷ,
ἣ κοπίδος οὐρὰς καιρίᾳ τρισσὰς γνάθῳ
“Ὁ ip n> ΄ a ,
ἀπέταμεν, ὦ ᾽λεξίκακε τοῦ θεάματος,
οὗ ποῖον ἦν ἄλγιον εἰσορᾶν ποτε;

᾿ς τ

60 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

ARCHAEOLOGY

MONTHLY

Britain.—The beginning of the excavation of
Maumbury Rings has been reported by Mr. H. St.
George Gray, who directed the work. The result
was to prove beyond doubt that the place was a
Roman amphitheatre. A hard chalk floor was found
within the Rings, covered with a gravelly substance
which is supposed to have been used as sand to
dress the surface of the arena. Roman pottery and
other remains were found at this level. Where the
entrance joined the arena, an almost circular patch
of stone pavement was discovered, beneath which
was a shallow depression in the chalk. A row of
six post-holes, at intervals of three feet, was also
found in this part, and near the holes were several
fragments of Samian and New Forest wares, and a
dupondius of Claudius. An embankment and more
post-holes were also found; but the arrangement
of the entrance will not be understood until the
excavation is complete. A cutting into the surround-
ing embankment revealed no trace of steps or even
ledges for the accommodation of the spectators.'

Greece.—The preservation and restoration of ancient
monuments, which is now proceeding generally in
Greece, has been carried out also in the Temple of
Apollo at Bassae (Phigaleia in Arcadia). The frieze
of this temple was excavated by C. R. Cockerell
and others in 1812, and occupies a room in the
British Museum. At the same time excavations at
a deeper level, ten feet below the ancient ground,
have laid bare the floor of an older sanctuary,
which is dated by Corinthian vases and bottles in
the shape of beasts to the seventh century B.C.
Among the remains of votive offerings were many
pieces of armour in miniature, such as_ bronze
corselets, shields and greaves, which were evidently
dedications to Apollo in his character of Epikourios.

At Corinth the exploration has been mainly
topographical, and has thrown much light upon
the position of streets, fortifications and harbour.
One of the earliest discoveries was the Odeion,
which was found where Pausanias describes it, half-
way between the theatre and the fountain Glauke.
It is a large building, nearly a hundred yards in
diameter, and very similar in construction to the
Odeion of Herodes Atticus at Athens; it is said by
Philostratus actually to have been built by this
person. Of the recent finds the most interesting is
one which casts suspicion upon the methods of the
Greek oracle. Opposite a sacred precinct, upon
which, according to an inscription, trespass was
forbidden by the penalty of eight drachmas fine,
there stands a small shrine or ferodn. This is
raised on a high platform, against which is built a
limestone retaining-wall; and on the wall is a frieze

1 Times, Dec. 26, 1908.

RECORD.

of metopes, of which one is movable and gives.
access to a narrow passage. The passage leads.
under the pavement of the temple to a funnel-
shaped hole in the floor, through which the voice
of the oracle is supposed to have been heard.

The numerous cist-graves of prehistoric date which
were discovered in 1906 near Chalcis in Euboea
have been further excavated. They are of Cypriote
type, of which only one example has been found
on the mainland, at Corinth. The contents include
the stone vessels and crude marble images which
are characteristic of the primitive civilisation of the
Cyclades ; and the close connection with the islands
is marked by a peculiar type of flat vase with the
handle in the shape of a horizontal plate. On
the other hand, there is no trace of Boeotian or
Thessalian pottery of the same period. The date
is put at about 2000 B.c. Some half-dozen tombs
of bee-hive form are valuable for the history of
Mycenean culture in Euboea. Quantities of pre-
historic pottery which have been found recently at
Elateia, Chaironeia, and other Boeotian sites also
tend to prove that the early civilisation of these
parts of the mainland was distinct from that of the
Aegean islands, and more subject to ‘influence of
the north than of the south.

The investigation of deep-lying strata which
Dorpfeld has been conducting for some time at
Olympia, were brought to an end in May. From
finds on the sites of the Heraion and the Pelopion
and between them and the Metro6n it is demonstrated
that the place was occupied in the prehistoric period.
There came to light remains of older structures made
of rubble and clay, some of which have the form
of a rectangle with a semicircular apse which appears
later in the Bouleuterion. Among the smaller
objects were pottery, monochrome and with incised
decoration, obsidian and flint implements and polished
stone axe-heads. Nothing was found which can be
certainly identified as Mycenean, and there is no
evidence of the exact date at which the settlement
became a sanctuary.”

The best find of the year artistically was a large
number of painted tombstones at Pagasai in Thessaly.
In the last century B.c. a tower built in the fifth
century was enlarged by the construction of an outer
wall, and the space thus created was filled with the
spoils of a neighbouring graveyard. The fragments
which have just been discovered are more than
a thousand in number, and are decorated with
coloured paintings instead of reliefs. The inscriptions
which they bear date them in the third and second
centuries B.c. By the peculiar circumstances of
their concealment many of them are well preserved,

2 Arch. Anzeiger, 1908, ii.

ve

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 61

and these are unique documents of Greek art. The
subjects of the pictures are mostly similar to those of
the familiar sculptured slabs, scenes from domestic
life, and greetings or farewells of friends; but one
at least has something new to offer in a representation
of the death of a woman in childbirth. The interior
of a room is shown, with the mother lying in the
foreground ; by her bed sits an attendant, while the
nurse carries the infant towards the door, through
which is seen another girl in the distance. The
conventions of perspective and other difficulties of
drawing are perfectly understood. The paintings
generally bear a strong resemblance to the wall-
paintings of Pompeii. They are now in the newly
established museum at Volo. The only similar
tombstones hitherto known were found in Boeotia,
and are now in the Museum of Thebes (Az//. de.
Corr. Hell., xxvi, 1902, pl. 7, 8), but these are
not in colours. Four, of which three were discovered
in the excavations of 1894-5 at Amathous in Cyprus,
are in the British Museum; but as they have never
been reproduced, their existence is not generally
recognised. +

Jtaly.—Although the work of excavation has been
carried on without interruption in Rome, no find
of great importance can be recorded. Commendatore
Boni is exploring the neighbourhood of the Arch of
Titus, and has discovered, under the arch, remains
of earlier buildings. Two of the walls he identifies
as having belonged to the earlier Temple of Jupiter
Stator. Among the smaller objects was a collection
of eighty-six seals in glass paste, and some fragments
of lamps, which were found in a small drain. Other
fragments of pottery, a large quantity of lamps, of
which many were painted, and many fine pieces of
the red Arretine ware, were among the remains of a
house of the Republican period on the Clivus Sacer.
Fragments of architectural ornaments were also
found, one having a stork modelled in low relief
against a blue background. The house itself is
built in ofus reticulatum, and presents a curious
array of small rooms, courtyards and passages. In
many of these the mosaic pavements are still
preserved. The plan is not altogether clear, but
there appears to have been an underground portion,
where some of the floors show brick ridges that
once supported beds. The walls of one of the
small rooms were filled with nails, and are said
to show traces of at least twenty coats of paint
and whitewash; some marks of an inscription in
red letters are visible, and bundles of Bacchic
thyrsi, bound together with red ribbon, are a
motive of decoration. Another part of the house
contained baths. In the same district were found
ruins of the ancient granaries and other public
buildings. On the right of the Clivus Palatinus
appeared a shrine for the /aves pudblict according to
the worship restored by Augustus.

1 Arch. Anzetger, 1908, ii. ; ᾿Εφημερὶς ᾿Αρχαιολογική,
1908, pl. 1-4.

On the north side of the Forum, the excavation
of the Basilica Aemilia, which was begun in 1899,
is being continued. The building was erected first
in 179 B.C., and became a sort of family monument
of the Aemilii. Of the original structure, however,
only a small portion remains, built into walls of
the Imperial period.”

A curious find has been made quite recently on
the slope of the Janiculan Hill, near the Villa Sciarra,
where an altar dedicated to the nymph Farina and a
shrine of some Syrian deity had been already exca-
vated. The new discovery consists of a small sunk
quadrangle, to which three wide steps give access,
and which contains a sanctuary, a cell with two
niches for figures of the gods. There are also remains
of a triangular brick altar in the middle of the court-
yard. Inside the cell was found a marble slab,
apparently from the entrance of the shrine ; this bears
an inscription recording its dedication by one Gaionas
—pro salute et reditu et victoria tmperatorum augus-
torum Antonini et Commodi. Between the cell and
the altar was the body of a statue of Jupiter seated,
and elsewhere, at various depths, jars full of bones
and other sacrificial relics. Two other cells adjoining
the courtyard and opening on to it have been dis-
covered. In one of these, on the left of the entrance,
was found a small marble statue of Bacchus beside a
broken column. The work is said to be Greek, and
there are.traces of gilding on the head and hands. A
basalt figure of an Egyptian deity, probably of the
time of Hadrian, and three skeletons laid at full
length, were discovered in a niche between the
two cells. In front of this niche was the base of
an altar, and in a covered cavity in the middle
of the base the excavators found a small gilt
terracotta statuette of Chronos, nude, and encircled
by a snake, in the lower coils of which were
several eggs. This must have been deposited in
some rite of consecration, which has not yet been
explained.

Some interesting sepulchral monuments have been
revealed by excavation outside the Vesuvian Gate
at Pompeii. They stand by the side of the road,
and are supposed to belong to the suburban cemetery
which Pliny speaks of. One of them, an altar
decorated in stucco and surrounded by four columns
which are also covered with stucco, was erected to
an aedile Gaius Vestorius Priscus by his mother
Mulvia. It seems to have been originally coloured
vermilion. Another is unusually elegant, consisting
ot a slender shaft supporting a sun-dial and provided
with a semi-circular seat at the base. The inscription
records that the monument was erected to a lady
Septimia by her daughter, and that the town granted
the site and two thousand sesterces for the funeral.
It is said that this is the identical sun-dial which
is represented in the Mosaic of the Philosophers
at Naples.

2 Times, Dec. 11; Dec. 31, 1908 (T. Ashby) ;
Standard, Dec. 28, 1908.
3 Times, Feb. 13, 1909.

62 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Sictly.—On a hill near the Doric Temple at Gela
have been found the remains of a small archaic
temple. They consist mainly of foundations, and
only a few fragments of a column-shaft, and an
archaic capital have been recovered. There are,
however, numerous pieces of terracotta decoration
from the entablature; and among the acroteria is
an immense gorgoneion, which was originally more

than three feet in diameter. The date is fixed at
about the end of the seventh century B.c.?

E. J. FORSDYKE.
The British Museum.

1 Arch. Anzeiger, 1908, ii. ; Notizie α΄. Scavt, 1907,.
Ρ. 38.

CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editor of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
EPICURUS AND LUCRETIUS.

THE letter of W. T. L. in the December number
of the Classical Review forms an interesting contribu-
tion to the elucidation of the very difficult doctrine
of the mnimae partes in Lucr. 1. 599-634, and
Sections 56-59 of Epicurus’ letter to Herodotus ; but
as I find myself at variance with him in several points
of his interpretation alike of Epicurus, Lucretius, and
Giussani, I venture to submit to you certain criticisms
of your correspondent’s views.

I. In the first place W. T. L. suggests that the
reason why an atom is invisible is not because it is so
small, but because it does not possess quality: ‘if
an atom were as large as a mountain, it would still
be invisible.’ This is an ingenious deduction from
Epicurean premises, but it cannot, I think, be
maintained as sound Epicurean doctrine in the face
of such passages as (a), Ep. ad Hdt. 55, ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ
δεῖ νομίζειν πᾶν μέγεθος ἐν ταῖς ἀτόμοις ὑπάρχειν, ἵνα
μὴ τὰ φαινόμενα ἀντιμαρτυρῇ, 1.6. ‘lest we may be
contradicting the evidence of the senses that atoms
are invisible’ ; or (4), if a clearer statement be wanted,
the next sentence but one, ‘that the atoms should
be of all sizes is not necessary to produce the
differences of qualities,’ ἀφῖχθαι re ἅμ᾽ ἔδει καὶ πρὸς
ἡμᾶς ὁρατὰς ἀτόμους : ‘if the atoms were very big,
we should see them’; or (c), by implication, in
reference to a passage now lost, Lucr. 11. 498, 9.
W. T. L.’s notion seems to come from an inexact
recollection of the perfectly correct definition of the
atoms given by Giussani on p. 59, ‘the atoms, that
is, the absolutely invisible, of on/y because of their
smallness, ὁμέ also because of their solidity and
singleness, which excludes all emission of idols.’

2. ‘Atoms, like all finite (ὡρισμένα) bodies,
whether ‘‘visible” or ‘‘invisible,” must have parts,
that is, ‘‘extremities” (ἀκρά, cacumina’), e.g. a right
side and a left, to determine their shape. ... But
since the finite cannot contain the infinite, there must
be a point at which the separation of these parts or
“extremities” ceases.’ The language here is very
loose and indeed misleading, for, so far from the
separation of the parts of the atom ‘ceasing,’
Epicurus’ whole point is that it could never even

begin. There seems to be a confusion between
the ‘visible’ object and the atom, between ‘ parts”
and ‘extremities.’ In the visible object the separa-
tion of parts can continue perceptibly until we reach
the point when, as W. T. L. has clearly explained in
the next paragraph, any more division would put the
new section outside the range of sight; an ἀκρόν can
only be seen as a part of an ὄγκος. But the atom is.
itself in the sphere of νοητά what the ὄγκος is in the
sphere of αἰσθητά: if it could be divided into its
πέρατα, they would be outside the range of creative
matter (see 3), for they themselves have no parts.

3. ‘Apart from it (the atom), they (the ἀκρά)
would be οὐ νοητά, that is, without material parts
determining their shape. They are, therefore, as.
material, inseparable from the body. If isolated from
it, they would cease to be matter and become
nothing.” They would be ‘without material parts,”
but they would neither be “οὐ νοητά,᾽ nor ‘ nothing,”
for they would still have extension (see 4). As Lucr.
very carefully explains, 628-634, they would not have-
the qualities and capacities which are necessary for
‘creative matter.’

4. ‘The conclusion therefore is, that the atom.
must have parts (ἀκρά), but these parts themselves.
are without parts, that is, without extension
(duerdBara), and therefore cannot be conceived
as existing separate from the atoms. Unextended
themselves, they merely supply the atom with its.
extension.’ If they were unextended themselves,
they could not supply the atom with extension: no.
combination of mathematical points can make a
material body. It is strange that a reading of
Giussani should have led to this conclusion, for the
one point which he labours above all to establish is-
that Epicurus was trying to maintain the ‘inherent
contradiction of materialism’ (p. 61) that the πέρατα
of the atom have extension but not parts: ‘the atom
(p. 59) is the minimum of matter, the ‘‘ extremities”
the minimum of extension.’ Nor can the very
difficult word ἀμετάβατα mean ‘without extension.’
The idea is rather that you could not put the
‘extremities’ in a row and ‘pass’ mentally from:
the one to the other, saying ‘now I am looking
at A, now at B, andso on.’ That can only be done
with objects large enough to have determined shape
and outline, and that implies parts. The πέρατα have-

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 63

extension but no such determinate and independent
shape.

5. W. T. L.’s translation of Lucr. 1. 749, is
certainly a great improvement on the ‘current’ trans-
lation of Munro, but I would venture to suggest one
further alteration: the gzod in line 752 is surely a
relative, not a conjunction, and is exactly parallel
to the gzod of line 750. I should translate: ‘al-
though we see that that is the extreme point of
anything, which seems, judged by our senses, to be
a least part, so that you may infer from this that
the extreme point of things which you cannot see,
is the least part also for them.’ (I agree in accepting
Postgate’s et 2415.)

I may perhaps be allowed to use this opportunity
to call attention to the one place in which Giussani
seems to me to have gone seriously wrong in his
interpretation of Epicurus, namely, in the last sen-
tence but one of the section (59 ad fin.), 7 yap κοινότης
ἡ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὰ ἀμετάβατα ἱκανὴ τὸ μέχρι
τούτου συντελέσαι. Giussani renders, ‘the common
character which the atoms have with sensible things
in regard to the partes mintmae, is that which renders
them fit for the completion or rather the creation
of things up to the point which we see.’ This is
very difficult, and necessitates a great deal of reading
between the lines. Surely αὐτοῖς is not the atoms
but the πέρατα of the atoms, πρὸς τὰ ἀμετάβατα is
constructed directly after κοινότης, and συντελέσαι is
not transitive but intransitive in its regular idiomatic
sense. I should translate, ‘the community of char-
acteristics which the extremities of the atoms have
with the inseparable particles of things perceived, is
sufficient to justify their being classed together to
this extent’ (7.6. for the purposes of an analogy from
the seen to the unseen); and then he goes on
naturally enough to explain where the essential
difference comes in, ‘but of course it is impossible
that the extremities of the atom should ever have
been brought together by motion to form an atom’
(sc. as the ἀμετάβατα of the visible object, being
themselves formed of many atoms, were brought
together to form the object).

Much of the difficulty of the problem of mzzimae
partes disappears, I think, on consideration of the
history of the idea. It originated with the statement
of Leucippus that the reason of the indestructibility
of the atoms (note that here we have Lucretius’
context, not Epicurus’-—a divergence which has
caused Giussani qualms), is τὸ σμικρὸν καὶ τὸ ἀμερὲς
(Simpl. Phys. p. 925. 10, Diels Frag. ed. 2,
Leucippus 13). Now Leucippus doubtless meant
by ἀμερὲς ‘indivisibility,’ but his statement lent a
handle to opponents who chose to interpret it ‘the
fact that they are without parts’: what is without
parts, they might argue, is without magnitude, and
cannot therefore have material being at all. Aristotle,
according to Simplicius, was not slow to use this
argument, and it is highly probable that earlier critics
did too. Democritus shelved the difficulty by sup-
pressing the infelicitous epithet and allowing his atoms
to be of some size, but Epicurus characteristically

faced it, and from the quite disproportionate length
which his discussion occupies in the letter to
Herodotus, we may be sure he was answering
opponents and trying to think out his reply on
strictly Epicurean lines. Hence his appeal to the
sensuous analogy: we can in ordinary life, see
extremely minute parts of bodies, as parts, which if
isolated, would become invisible, though still re-
maining in the realm of matter: they are the mznzma
of the perceptible world. Similarly the atom must
have such parts, never existing except as parts of the
atom, which, if isolated, would cease to be matter,
though they would still have extension: they are the
minima of the material world. As the size of the
visible object is determined by the number of its
perceptible mznzma, so is the size of the atom
determined by the number of its material mzzzma.
And then as in other cases (notably at the end of
§ 62) he scrupulously points out where the analogy
breaks down: ‘ Of course the perceptible mz7zma are
materially separable one from another and liable to
be broken up still further: the material mzzzzma are
not.’ His answer is a satisfactory one from the
point of view of his own logic, but, as Giussani says,
it has not solved ‘the insoluble antinomy.’ At the
bottom of the scale of material existence, we have
that which is material, yet can only exist as a part of
matter, that which has extension, but no parts.
Would the modern scientist be able to make any
very different answer ?

I hope, that in an endeavour to clear up some
difficult points suggested by your correspondent’s
letter, I have not made darkness worse confounded.

CuB:

CHICAGO, Dec. 2, 1908.

To the Editor, THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

The editors of Homeric Vocabularies fully appreciate
the extended and careful notice you have given that
book. Yet with all his acuteness your reviewer has
failed to grasp our problem and method. For our
method we may be allowed to say that, while it is
obviously not the only one, it has already proved its
efficiency, for example in President Harper’s Hedrezw
Vocabularies, now in a fifth edition ; for our statistics,
that they are based on Gehring’s /dex Homericus,
where anyone may verify them for himself; and for
our meanings, that we may well be excused for faibing
to satisfy a reviewer who thinks ‘ great-hearted’ for
μεγάθυμος ‘a mere school-boy’s rendering.’ Is Walter
Leaf then a mere school-boy? Your reviewer wishes
us to print κορέννυμι, because he finds it in his
Homeric dictionary. But he will not find it, or any
form from that stem, in Homer, and we have tried

‘not to lead students to expect in Homer forms they

will not find there. For the misprints to which your
reviewer calls attention, however, we give him hearty

thanks.
WILLIAM B. OWEN.

EDGAR J. GOODSPEED.

64 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note of
the price.

The size of Books is given in inches: 4 inches=10 centimetres (roughly).

They are unbound unless

the binding ἐς specified.
*.* Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Besnier (M.) Les Catacombes de Rome, par M.B.,
Professeur a l’ Université de Caen. Avec 20 planches
hors texte. 74” x 53”. Pp. 290. Paris, Laroux. 1909.

Boesch(G.) De Apollonii Rhodii Elocutione. (Doctor’s

Dissertation.) 8%"x5%". Pp. 76. Gottingen,
University Press. 1908.

Bury (J. B.) The Ancient Greek Historians. (Har-
vard Lectures.) 92?’ x53". Pp.x+282. London,

Macmillan & Co. 1909. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.

Cicero. M. Tullii Ciceronis de finibus bonorum et
malorum libri quinque. With introduction and
commentary by W. M. L. Hutchinson. 83” x 54”.
Pp. xxxii+238. London, Edward Armold. 1909.
Cloth, 8s. 6d. net.

M. Tullii Ciceronis Oratio pro M. Caelio, re-
censuit atque interpretatus est Jacobus van Wagen-
ingen, ΟΣ" ΧΟ". Pp. xxxiv+120. Groningae, in
aedibus heredum P. Noordhoff. Fl. 1.80. M. 3.

D’Ooge (Martin L.) The Acropolis of Athens.
9” x6".. Pp. χχ 406. With 9 photogravures, 7
plans and 134 figures in the text. New York,
The Macmillan Company. 1908. Cloth, 17s. net.

Eynout (Alfred) Les Eléments Dialectaux du Voca-
bulaire Latin. (Collection linguistique publiée par
la Société de Linguistiqgue de Paris. III.) τοῦ x 63".
Pp. 256. Paris, Librairie Ancienne Honoré Cham-
pion. 1909. Fr. 7.50.

Recherches sur l'emploi du passif latin a
Vépoque républicaine. (Zxtrazts des Mémoires de
la Société de Linguistigue. Tome XV.) τοῦ x 63".
Pp. 62. Paris, Librairie Ancienne Honoré Cham-
pion. 1909. Fr. 4.

Hall (E. H.) The Decorative Art of Crete in the

Bronze Age. (Doctor's Dissertation.) τοῦ x 7%".
Pp. 48. 3 plates. Philadelphia, John C. Winston
Co. 1907.

The Hisperica Famina. Edited, with a short intro-
duction and index verborum, by Francis John
Henry Jenkinson. With 3 facsimile plates. 9” x 53”.
Pp. xl+96. Cambridge, University Press. 1908.
Cloth, 6s. net.

Loew (E.) Heraklit im Kampfe gegen den Logos.
(From Jahresb. d. kk. Sophiengymnasiums im
Wien.) 9’ x 64". Pp. 32. Wien, im Selbstver-
lage des Verfassers. 1908.

Masqueray (Paul) Euripide et des idées. 10” x 64”.
Pp. x+406. Paris, Librairie Hachette et Cie.
1908. Fr. 10.

Menardos (Simos) The Value of Byzantine and
Modern Greek in Hellenic Studies. An Inaugural
Lecture delivered before the University, Thursday,
October 29th, 1908. By Simon Menardos, D.Ph.,
LL.D., University Lecturer. ΟΣ ΧΟ. Tp. 24.
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. 15. net.

Modern Greek-English Dictionary, with a Cypriote
vocabulary. By A. Kyriakides. Second Edition.
10”x 7". Pp. 16+908. Athens, Anesti Con-
stantinides, 1909.

Murray (Gilbert) The Interpretation of Ancient
Greek Literature. An Inaugural Lecture delivered
before the University of Oxford, January 27th, 1909.
9” x6”. Pp. 24. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909.
Is. net.

Patterson (J.) Bion’s Lament for Adonis, translated
in English verse. 8’x5”. Pp. 8. University of
Louisville, U.S.A.

Plato. The Euthyphro of Plato. With introduction
and notes by St. George Stock, M.A. 62” x 4%”.
Pp. xx+24+20. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909.
Cloth, 2s. 6d. (60 c.).

Pottier (Edmond) Douris and the Painters of Greek
Vases. By Edmond Pottier. Translated by Bet-
tina Kahnweiler. With a Preface by Jane Ellen
Harrison. 9x53”. Pp. xvi+92. London, John
Murray. 1909. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.

Stearns (W. N.) Fragments from Graeco-Jewish
Writers, collected and edited, with brief introduc-
tions and notes, by W. Ν. 5. 8”x 54”. Pp. 126.
Chicago, University Press. 1908. Cloth.

Theophrastus. Θεοῴφραστου Xapaxrypes. The Char-
acters of Theophrastus. An English Translation
from a revised text with introduction and notes, by
R. C. Jebb, M.A. A new edition, edited by J. E.
Sandys, Litt.D. 94”x 52”. Pp. xvi+230. Lon-
don, Macmillan & Co. 1909. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.

Tibullus. Tibulle et les auteurs du Corpus Tibul-
lianum. Texte établi par A. Cartault. 9”x 52”. Pp.
260. Paris, Librairie Armand Colin. 1909. Fr. 7.

Ullman (Berthold Louis) The Book Division of
Propertius. (Reprinted from Classzcal Philology.
Vol. iv. No. 1, Jan. 1909.) 10”x7”. Pp. 45-51.
Chicago, published by the University of Chicago
Press.

The Identification of the Manuscripts of

Catullus cited in Statius’ Edition of 1566. A Dis-

sertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate

School of Arts and Literature in candicacy for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Department of

Latin). 94”x6}”. Pp. 64. Published by the
Author. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
1908. 75.

Vergil. BP. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber undecimus.
Edited by L. Ὁ. Wainwright, M.A. (Se//’s [llus-
trated Classics.) 6}"x4}". Pp. viiit132+xliv.
London, George Bell & Sons. 1909. Cloth, Is. 6d.

Zottoli (Giampietro) Lusus Pompeianus, (Estratto
dall’ Atenee Roma. AnnoXI. 1go8. ἢ. 118-119.)
64” x 42”. Pp. 8. Firenze, Enrico Ariani. 1908.

The Classical Review

MAY

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE TEACHING OF LATIN AND THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTIONS
OF SYNTAX.

Der Mensch begreift niemals wie anthropomorphisch er ist.—GOETHE.

THE teaching of Latin in the schools and
colleges of the future will, in the opinion of
many authorities, be directed to giving the
student the power of reading Latin literature
with intelligence and with some appreciation
of the finer qualities of the language. Practice
in prose composition, which still occupies a
large part of the student’s attention, will
probably be more and more curtailed until
it comes to be simply the doing of gram-
matical exercises, sufficient to give the needful
knowledge of the usages of Latin syntax.

My purpose in the present paper is two-
fold. An endeavour will be made to expound
that method of teaching Latin which in my
opinion will lead most rapidly and certainly
to the end desired, viz., the reading of Latin
with intelligent appreciation. At the same
time I shall endeavour to show how this
method is based upon and throws light on
the fundamental facts and laws of human
thought and its expression.

Reading with intelligence means that the
pupil follows the sense of the passage he
is reading, and reads it in such a natural
manner that the sense is clearly apprehended
by the listener. A pupil may, and often
does, read off each single word in the sen-
tence correctly and yet fail to read with
intelligence. In what does he come short?

NO. CCI. VOL. XXIII.

In this—that he has not observed the re-
lationship between the separate words, and
does not read them with their proper group-
ing. For the meaning of a sentence does
not flow evenly into our minds, one word
after another. Rather it enters, as it has
been said, by pulsations—phrase by phrase
and clause by clause. Intelligent reading
means good word-grouping. When this is
achieved, the mind advances from idea to
idea by a kind of natural logic in such a
manner that the full meaning: is realised
when the end of the sentence is reached.

Tried by this criterion, very few of our
scholars read even easy Latin with intelli-
gence. Even after they know the meaning
of a sentence, they approach it as if they
were unravelling a tangled skein. And yet
to appreciate the form of Latin literature
one must read the language as the Romans
did—that is, with a clear perception of its
peculiar word-grouping.

The study of word-groups—or logical terms,
as it is proposed to call them—belongs to
the domain of syntax, that part of grammar
which treats of the functional relationships
of words in a sentence. At the present
day the principles of syntax are taught in
school mainly under the form of analysis of
sentences. It is a valuable exercise for the

E

66 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

cultivation of clear thinking and logical
expression for these purposes; but most
educationists would agree that there is a
good deal of pedantry and formality in
connection with it, so that the actual result
of the analysis for the pupil is sometimes to
darken what it was intended to illuminate.

I go further than this; for I think that
the fundamental doctrine of the old analysis
—the division of the sentence into subject
and predicate—is not wholly correct, and
that this analysis is applicable only to one
type of sentence, and that not of the greatest
importance.

A new analysis of the primitive syntactical
conceptions is put forward in this paper. An
attempt is made to apply the facts and ideas
of the theory of mental development to the
theory of syntax, and to exhibit in a concrete
and realistic manner the original scheme of
syntactical relationships—the primitive cate-
gories of the human understanding, as I think
they might be called—on which the logic of
early speech was based. I hope in this way
to recover for our fundamental grammatical
ideas some of that original freshness of feeling
which has been dulled by the continued use
of such abstract and formless terms as subject,
indirect object, extension of predicate, enlarge-
ment of subject, etc.

The analysis of the simple sentence is con-
sidered in the first part of the paper, and the
complex sentence is briefly dealt with in the
second part.

I.—THE SIMPLE SENTENCE.

In analysis the point of attack is all im-
portant; and for the student of syntax a
consideration of the nature of the verb
is the best. starting point. The reason is
easily given. The verb expresses Action,
Doing, Movement; and Action, Doing,
Movement are what our bodies are made
for, and what, primarily at least, our minds
take most interest in. The first intelligent
notice the infant takes is directed to the
movements and doings of its mother and
nurse. In nature’s school Dorng it is the
method of instruction employed. She has,
therefore, implanted in the child’s mind the
instinct to observe and to imitate the actions
of the persons with whom it lives.

As Action thus claims our first and, indeed,
absorbing attention, it follows that the normal
type of sentence is that in which an action,
generally a human action, is the central idea.

Before proceeding to its analysis, I wish
to point out one important result that has
followed from this dominant character of the
action sentence. Its predominating influence
has brought it to pass that all sentences are
constructed on its model and a feeling has
been engendered that a sentence, if it is to
be grammatical, must have a verb, even
though it be only the semblance of a verb.
This was not originally the case. There were

verbless sentences, as, for example, sentences _

concerning the qualities of a thing. A man
tasted a berry and found it good. ‘Good
berry’ was an earlier and more natural way
of saying this than ‘The berry is good.’ In
καλὸς ὁ παῖς the ἐστί is not understood, as
grammiarians assert; it was added in later
times. For the substantive use of the verb
‘to be’ is not primitive. The forms of this
verb are no doubt very old, but its present
highly abstract meaning must have been
evolved comparatively late in the history of
speech. The following interesting passage
bearing on this point is taken from Professor
Earle’s Philology of the English Tongue :

I one day expressed to an intimate friend my regret
that the collectors of vocabularies among savage tribes
did not tell us something about the verb ‘to be,’ and
especially I instanced the admirable word-collections
of Mr. Wallace. To this conversation I owe the
pleasure of being able to quote Mr. Wallace’s own
observations on this subject in his reply to my friend’s
query. He says:

‘As to such words as ‘‘to be,” it is impossible to get
them in any savage language till you know how to
converse in it, or have some intelligent interpreter
who candoso. In most of the languages such ex-
tremely general words do not exist, and the attempt
to get them through an ordinary interpreter would
inevitably lead to error. . . . Even in such a com-
parative high language as the Malay, it is difficult to
express ‘‘to be” in any of our senses, as the words
used would express a number of other things as well,
and only serve for ‘‘ to be” bya roundabout process.’

From Western Australia, where the natives are
forming an intermediate speech for communication
with our people, and are converting morsels of English
to their daily use, we have the following apposite
illustrations :—‘ The words get down have been chosen
as a synonym for the verb ‘‘to be,” and the first
question of a friendly native would be Mamman all
right get down? meaning ‘‘Is father quite well ?”?

Qe, .

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 67

The logical copula ‘is,’ the so-called sign
of predication, was evolved later still. <A
sentence such as ‘ Man is mortal’ does not
represent an original type, though gram-
marians and logicians with their doctrine
of subject and predicate often take it as
the typical sentence. Predication consists in
the mind thinking the ideas man and mortal
together and finding no contradiction in
them ; it does not lie in the use of ‘is,’
for ‘is’ is also used in the question ‘Is
man mortal?’ What purpose then does
the insertion of ‘is’ serve? It simply
serves to give a feeling of life and move-
ment and so of greater reality to the
sentence.

The doctrine of swézect and predicate makes
for clearness of thought in sentences like
‘ Man is mortal.’ But underlying the doc-
trine is the assumption that every sentence
must consist of two parts, one of which—
viz., the subject—we know, while the other
—the predicate—gives us information con-
cerning the subject. But as we shall see
immediately, in most sentences there are not
simply two ideas, but often four or five
absolutely distinct ideas; and the mind
must think all four or five together.

We now begin the work of analysing the
simple sentence; but the new analysis pro-
mised will turn out to be a very ancient
analysis indeed, older than the scientific
study of grammar. For the method will
be simply to use that ancient and interesting
family of words, the interrogative pronouns
and adverbs. Taking the action as our
central idea, we shall ask: (1) ‘Who did
it?’ (2) ‘On whom was it done?’ (3)
‘For whom was it done?’ (4) ‘How was

it done?’ (5) the interrogative of place—
‘Where?’ ‘Whence?’ ‘ Whither?’ and
‘How far?’ (6) the interrogatives of time

—‘ When ?’ and How long?’

The answer to these questions, it will be
found, cover most of the field of primitive
thought.

It will be observed that one important
interrogative has been omitted—viz., ‘Why?’
It will be discussed later on when we come
to the complex sentence.

We shall consider the first two questions
together—‘ Who did it?’ and ‘On whom

was it done?’—subject and object, as they
are called: for, being antithetic, they will
illustrate one another.

Victor and victim, slayer and slain, eater
and eaten, give the primitive ideas of these
two grammatical conceptions. In his early
struggle for existence on the earth when the
larger carnivora were still common, man’s
energy must have been mainly directed to
the two great ends of (1) killing that he
might eat and (2) escaping the fate of being
eaten. But we shall perceive more clearly
the different feelings associated with the ideas
of subject and object, if we consider the
words for the first personal pronoun when
used as subject and object respectively—
viz. ‘I’ and ‘me’; for it is from the
thoughts and feelings we have of ourselves
that we obtain our ideas of the thoughts
and feelings of other people. From the
thoughts and feelings of ourselves as sub-
ject and object, we come by our thoughts
of subject and object in general. Contrast,
therefore, the words ‘I’ and ‘me.’ Though
the person referred to is the same, there is
so much difference in feeling that we use
two different words.

This mysterious sense of Zersonal agency
is the origin of our conception of the
grammatical subject. One objection to this
theory will readily suggest itself: ‘What of
the passive voice? In it the object of the
action becomes the subject.’ But the history
of the passive confirms the theory. For the
passive voice was late in development and
was impersonal in its origin, and the object
of the action remained in the accusative.
‘Saxum frangitur’ really meant ‘ Breaking is
done on the stone,’ frangitur being imper-
sonal and saxwm accusative.

As regards the primitive conception of the
object, I believe we shall not be very far
from the facts if we picture mentally to
ourselves the effect of a heavy blow which,
inflicted on a man, would stun him and
paralyse his powers of willing and acting ;
or, if inflicted by him, would reduce the
erstwhile active body of his victim to the
condition of inert matter. The blow of the
civilised man takes the shape of an action
at law. And so we find that the Greek
name for the object was the ‘categoric’ case,

68 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the case of the defendant, or, as the Latin
grammarians put it, the ‘accusative.’

The third question concerning the action
was: ‘For whom was it done? Cui bono?’
—the indirect object, as it is called in
English grammar. The appellation is un-
fortunate, but the Latin name is excellent—
dative, the person to whom it is given, the
recipient. But we shall perhaps best con-
ceive of the indirect object as the person
interested. Man is more than gregarious ;
he is social; and his highest social faculty
is the faculty of speech. The commonest
example of the indirect object is the person
spoken to, for to be spoken to is the
simplest form of social recognition.

The fourth question concerning the action
was: ‘ How was it done?’ This in its most
concrete meaning refers to the instrument
employed. Man’s first instruments were, no
doubt, those given him by nature—hands,
feet, teeth.

The fifth question deals with the ideas of
place and primarily expresses itself in the
three interrogatives, whence, where, and
whither. The interrogative how far comes
later. The pre-eminence of the animal lies
largely in its power of locomotion. Liberty
of movement bulks largely in man’s subcon-
scious mind. If he has it, he is free; when
it is curtailed, he feels caged and is restless
and uneasy. From his power of locomotion
spring man’s quantitative ideas of space.
Just as the idea of device comes mainly
through the use of the hand, so the first
definite knowledge of the properties of space
has been developed through the use of the
legs.

The questions with regard to the time of
the action—the when and how long of it—
form our sixth category. There is a very
intimate connection between our thoughts
of time and our thoughts of motion. Per-
haps our first idea of abstract time was
gathered from the deep-seated feeling of
the rhythmic movement of our life. The
beating of the heart, with its regular periodic
and barely perceptible movement, may be
the origin of our idea of the ceaseless, steady
passing of time.

From our apprehension of the passing of
time, however obtained, we get the ideas of

past, present, and future; and so closely do
we associate time and action that the time
of the action is always indicated by the form
of the verb.

The ordinary definite periods of time, as
conceived by primitive mankind, were, no
doubt, night and day, evening and morning,
the year and its seasons, and his own life
with its successive ages of childhood, youth
and manhood.

The Indo-Germanic Case System.—We
have now completed our study of the funda-
mental terms of the simple sentence; and
an important and interesting fact calls for
attention. If the scheme of primitive logical
relationships detailed above be examined
critically, it will be found to coincide almost
exactly with the original Indo-Germanic case
system. Thus the Nominative expresses the
doer or agent: the Accusative, the person o#
whom the action is done; the Instrumental,
the thing wzth which it is done; the Ablative,
the place whence; the Locative, the place
where. By an easily felt analogy the Accusa-
tive expresses the place whzther and also the
space how far (for powers of locomotion
overcome the resistance of space and dis-
tance). By another intimately-felt analogy,
time when and time how Jong are expressed
by the same cases as the corresponding ideas
of space.

One case, it will be observed, has not yet
been mentioned—the Genitive. It is adjec-
tival in nature, not adverbial; that is, it
expresses association not between a thing
and an action but between two things. The
English designation for it—Possessive—is a
good name, one of the most important asso-
ciations being that recognised between owner
and property.

The Teaching of an Inflected Language.—
We are now in a position to apply the results
of our analysis to language teaching.

The fundamental question concerning any
language is: ‘In what manner does it express
these primitive logical relationships ?’

Latin is an inflected language ; and, if the
Ablative be treated as a composite case,
comprising the Instrument, the True Abla-
tive and the Locative (the two latter being
distinguished by the propositions ad, ex and
in), the Latin case system can be made to

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 69

correspond completely with the primitive
Indo-Germanic.

The difference between inflected Latin and
uninflected English will be best exhibited if
we endeavour to represent in English the
force of the inflections in a Latin sentence. |

Here is a typical English sentence :

In the evening, on the bank of the river, the hunter
with his arrows killed a stag for his wife and children.

If this were expressed in Latin, the effect
of the inflections might be thus represented
in English:

-Evening the time, the bank of the river the place,
hunter the agent, his arrows the instrument, his wife
and children the persons interested, stag the object,
killed the action.

It will be observed in the first place that
in an inflected language the order of the
terms is free.

In the second place, the movement of the
sentence is slower, but the meaning comes
more impressively.

The freedom of the order of the different
terms in Latin, and the force of the inflec-
tions, are strikingly shown in connection with
the adjective. In English the attributive
adjective is placed beside the noun it quali-
fies, as proud man, fair woman; while in
Latin the connection is shown by the
adjective having the same inflection as the
noun it qualifies—that is to say, the speaker
gives the adjective the same attitude—the
same logical relationship—to the action.
Accordingly it does not require to be
placed beside the noun it qualifies ; it may
be removed from its noun by the whole
length of the sentence. It is, in fact,
almost substantival. For example, in the
sentence given above (‘Evening the time,’
etc.), the adjectival phrases ‘sharp the in-
strument.’ ‘fat the object,’ might be inserted
among the terms in any order we please, and
yet it would be evident that ‘sharp’ goes
with ‘arrows’ in meaning and fat with ‘ stag.’

In the following two passages the primitive
feelings associated with the nominative and
accusative cases still survive. Compare the
lines

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
and

Felicem Nioben quamvis tot funera vidit
Quae posuit sensum saxea facta mali.

These are two of those early verbless sentences
to which reference has been made. Why is
the predicate μα in the first and fedicem in
the second? Because gw? pofuzt in the first
gives the thought of activity, while the mental
image of Niobe is that of a victim, motionless
and insensible. In the common ejaculation
me miserum we have a parallel construction
to felicem, but it will be felt that the meaning
of mzserum harmonises better with the mean-
ing of the accusative, indeed there is some-
thing of an oxymoron in fe/icem thus used.

The bearing of these ideas on the teaching
of Latin Grammar is easily seen. Of late
years there has been an immense improve-
ment in the method of teaching Latin
accidence. The doctrine of stem and in-
flection has firmly established itself. The
anatomy of the language is now well taught.
The next step forward will be to improve the
teaching of the physiology. The doctrine of
the life and use of inflections must be placed
on a more scientific basis.

As a commencement to this improvement,
two cases should be added to the present
case system—viz., the Instrumental and the
Locative, which pupils should no longer be
allowed to confuse with the Ablative. But,
if the views put forward in this paper are
correct, their main effect as regards practical
teaching should be felt in the actual process
of reading Latin. In the language of the
professional psychologist, the reader would
approach his task with a different ‘apper-
ceiving mass.’ The doctrine of subject and
predicate would not be so prominent in his
consciousness, but he would instinctively
think of one term as telling the “me, of
another as telling the A/ace, another the agent,
and so on to the conclusion of the sentence.

II.— THE COMPLEX SENTENCE.

The two characteristic terms of the complex
sentence—the participial phraseand theclause
—now demand our attention.

The participial phrase is the more flexible
and vivid of the two. The wealth of par-
ticipial forms in Greek is one of the
characteristic beauties of the language.
English also has a very effective participle
A group of these participles gives
what has been called ‘a

in -ing.
to a sentence

70 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

feeling of radiant activity,’ as in the following
lines from Walt Whitman—

Splendour of ended day floating and filling me,

Hour prophetic, hour resuming the past.
Latin, on the other hand, is weak as to its
participial system. The so-called present
participle has only a limited use. The
most useful of all the participles, the perfect
participle active, is wanting—a great defect
in the language. Shift has to be made with
the perfect participle passive, and the useful
construction known as the Ablative Absolute
has been developed. It is, however, but an
awkward substitute for an active participle,
as will be seen by comparing Dux, hostibus
victis with 6 στρατηγὸς νικήσας τοὺς πολεμίους.

One common error in grammatical analysis
should be noticed here. In analysis of sen-
tences it is the usual custom to take all
participial phrases without exception as
adjectival and regard them as enlargements
of the subject or the object as the case
may be. ‘This is not correct, for while a
participle may be attributive, it is much
more frequently adverbial. Its function is
best seen by turning it into a clause. If
the clause is adjectival, then the participial
phrase is adjectival; but, if the clause is
adverbial, so also must be the phrase. This
distinction is clearly effected in Greek by the
use of the article, as will be seen by com-
paring ὁ στρατηγὺς ὁ νικήσας and 6 στρατηγὸς
νικήσας. :

The weakness of the participial system in
Latin gives all the greater importance to
the clause. The typical Latin sentence is
the long, logically constructed, carefully
modulated sentence which is called the
period. To the modern mind such a sen-
tence seems complicated; as Jowett has
said, ‘Modern languages have rubbed off
this adversative and inferential form; they
have fewer links of connexion, there is less
mortar in the interstices; and they are con-
tent to place sentences side by side, leaving
their relation to one another to be gathered
from their position or from the context.’

To follow the meaning of the Latin
period, it is of the first importance to under-
stand the nature of the clause; and it
will be useful to cite the parallel of the
algebraic bracket. A clause is something

enclosed. Just as in the bracket the curved
lines enclosing the terms attract the eye of
the student, so in the clause the words that
mark the beginning and end are of special
importance. The introductory word is
generally of pronominal origin, is easily
recognisable, and indicates the nature of
the clause. The word marking the con-
clusion is the verb, and in many cases it
is put in the subjunctive, so that in the
popular consciousness the subjunctive mood,
as its name indicates, came to be regarded
as the mood of the subordinate clause.

The observation should also be made that,
as in algebra one may have brackets within
brackets, so a clause may, and often does,
contain among its terms subordinate clauses
and phrases.

Only the briefest survey is possible here
of the various types of clause. They fall
into three classes—adjectival, substantival
and adverbial.

Adjectival clauses are simple and do not
call for any remark,

Substantival clauses consist of reported
questions, statements and commands. It 15
not necessary to say more here on these
clauses than that a long narrative can be
told clearly in the ovatio obiiqua in Latin,
its reported character being in evidence all
the time. This is a considerable achieve-
ment. The following extract from an Ulster
narrative will illustrate some of the difficulties
of the man who wrestles with the problem of
indirect speech in an uninflected language :

Ses I to him, ses I, ‘That coo o’ yours,’ ses I,
‘she'll no be verra contint the night,’ I ses to him—
like that, d’ye mind?

*Och,’ ses he, ‘the coo’s all right,’ ses he, he ses
to me. ‘All right,’ ses I, ‘allright: but,’ ses I,
‘TI don’t think,’ ses I, ‘as she’s pertickler comfort-
able,’ ses 1; ‘I wudn’t say she was,’ ses I. ‘ Don’t
bother yerself,’ ses he, he ses; ‘the coo’s strange;
that’s all,’ ses he.

‘She’s strange,’ ses I, ‘av coorse; but,’ ses I, I
ses, ‘I wudn’t call it comfortable,’ ses I, ‘ hingin wi’
a broken leg between two powls,’ ses I, just that
way, d’ye mind ?

Adverbial clauses are by far the most
important, and are of many types. But a
general survey of the adverbial clause, suff-
cient for our purpose, will be effected if we
consider that the principles on which actions
and events are associated in our minds must

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 71

follow the great laws of the Association of
Ideas. Hume, one of the great exponents
of these laws, classified them under three
headings—contiguity, similarity, and cause
and effect.

Contiguity is not of great importance in
this connection. It gives us clauses of Alace
and “me.

Similarity gives us the important clauses
of manner and comparison.

But the idea of cause and effect is of pre-
dominating importance, as nothing produces
a stronger feeling of connection in the human
mind than the perception of this logical relation-
ship. Under this heading would be classified
all the numerous Cum Causale clauses, which
give the precedent circumstances from which
the main action springs, and the equally
numerous U¢ clauses of purpose and con-
sequence which give the subsequent actions
that arise or are intended to arise out of the
main action. Under this heading also fall
all the Sz clauses which represent the idea
of cause and effect in its most highly developed
form—that of condition.

It may be remarked that Hume’s threefold
division does not quite cover all the ground ;
e.g. Clauses of concession find no place under
any one of his three headings.

We are now in a position to apply our
principles to the reading of an elaborately
constructed sentence, such as a Ciceronian
period. It will help us if we realise that
these long sentences, which seem so compli-
cated to the average student, must as a
matter of fact have not been so difficult to
follow. This can be readily shown. Many
of Cicero’s most celebrated speeches were
addressed to political meetings in the Forum,
and were delivered to large miscellaneous
audiences. Now, the orator who addresses
such meetings must at all costs be clear.
People will not give a patient hearing to
a man whom they cannot understand. It
may be assumed, therefore, that his hearers
followed Cicero’s rounded periods without
any consciousness of the difficulty of their
structure. How did they do this? There
was but one possible method. The hearer’s
thought advanced from idea to idea as ex-
pressed in the successive terms, each idea
persisting in his consciousness more or less

distinctly, according to its emphasis, on to
the conclusion of the sentence, on reaching
which the completed meaning of the whole
sentence presented itself to his mind.

The student’s success in attaining a similar
facility in veading will depend on his ability
to recognise promptly and accurately the word-
grouping of the sentence. He will find that
the framework of the sentence lends him
assistance. The word-groups, whether clauses
or participial phrases or simple terms, are
distinctly marked and are logically connected.
When the earlier portion of the sentence has
been intelligently read, the reader will often
be able to anticipate the form of what is
going to follow. An adjective suggests a
noun. An adverb of degree or manner,
such as zfa or sic, makes him look forward
to a clause of consequence. A verb of
petitioning or ordering calls for an indirect
command. A zon modo ushering in one
term must be followed by a sed etiam in-
troducing a similar term. The grammatical
scheme of the sentence will reveal itself to
him as he reads.

The following is a good specimen of a
Latin period from Livy, although, judged
according to modern ideas, an excessive
amount of matter has been compressed
into it:

Ibi cum Herculem, cibo vinoque gravatum, sopor
oppressisset, pastor accola eius loci, nomine Cacus,
ferox viribus, captus pulchritudine boum, cum aver-
tere eam praedam vellet, quia, si agendo armentum
in speluncam compulisset, ipsa vestigia quaerentem
dominum eo deductura erant, aversos boves, eximium
quemque pulchritudine, caudis in speluncam traxit.

In conclusion the following suggestion is
put forward for the improvement of the class-
teaching of Latin. Under the guidance of
the teacher the class should frequently prac-
tise reading the lesson aloud simultaneously,
pausing at the end of each term so that they
may gather the meaning as they read, and
dispensing as far as may be with translation.
In this reading the teacher should endeavour
to cover as much ground as possible. For it
is only by extensive reading that the pupils
will become familiar enough with the general
scheme of a Latin sentence to recognise its
structure at sight.

W. A. Russet, M.A.,
Inspector of High Schools, Cape Colony.

72 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

A NEW FRAGMENT OF ALCAEUS.

Tue following restoration of part of one
of the new fragments of Alcaeus! is based
on a photograph of the papyrus kindly
supplied to me by Dr. W. Schubart. At
first sight it would seem a well-nigh hope-
less task to restore so mutilated a fragment
with any degree of probability. But there
is really a good deal to help us. Not only
have we the metre and the dialect to guide
us, and the general test of literary and
linguistic suitability, but there is what in
similar cases has been too often disregarded,
the necessity of making all the suggested
beginnings of the lines correspond in written
length. Given these conditions, it is sur-
prising how few alternatives are possible.
In the present case the restorations are all
based on careful tracing from extant parts of
the MS, and the beginnings of the lines
coincide with a vertical line drawn parallel
to the fibre of the papyrus.

The poem explains itself. The scene is
a chamber opening on a harbour, and the
time is early in the forenoon of ἃ hot
summer’s day. Alcaeus, roused to energy
by the cool morning air, urges a less active
companion to make a speedy end of the
breakfast-drinking and come for ἃ sail.
They have only, he says, to go aboard their
boat, set sail, and cast off; and they will
spend a far jollier day, in fact (here the
wine-bibber is betrayed by his metaphor) it
will be as good fun as a long draught of
wine. To add force to his appeal, he gives
the lazy friend a picture of himself, lolling
back on the couch with hands folded, refusing
to budge. Let Alcaeus, the poet pretends
him to say, speak for himself; as for him,
he will call for unguent and spend a hot day
in repose, unperturbed by the other’s bluster.

TEXT.
7τε κατθάγη
Jes δόμοις
Jov
Ἰέκεσθαι
Bers ge 2 MD οὐ ζεται
; . Ἰωμένω

1 First published in 1907 in Berliner Klassiker-
texte, Heft V 2, P. 9810, by W. Schubart and U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff.

ae
. Jens.
a rae ἀρύστηρ᾽ ἐς ene μέγαν᾽

Ιο τί τόσσ]α μόχθης, τοῦτ᾽ ἔμεθεν σύνεις,

> + Ν > 5 ”
ὡς οὔ τι] μὴ TOE αὖος ἄλλως
ἄμμαρ ἔΪμοι μεθύων ἀείσης ;
τί γὰρ θα]λάσσας φειδόμεθ᾽, ὠς κάρον
χειμω]νοείδην αἴθρον ἐπήμενοι ;
Σ > Ὁ) 9 , > ΄
Is ai δ᾽ ἐνσ]τάθεντες ὡς τάχιστα
κἀπριγ]άδαν καμάκων ἔλοντες
ar νᾶα] λύσαμεν προτ᾽ ἐνώπια
κέρα τρό]ποντες, καί κ᾽’ ἰθαρώτεροι
΄ 3 ΄ 4
φυίημ]εν ἰλλάεντι θύμωι
PU ΝΠ 5 ἦν ΕΊΣ ”

20 ἀντὶ δ᾽] ἀμύστιδος ὄργον εἴη.
φαὶς δ᾽ ὦρ]γον ἄρταις χέρρα σὺ ξεμμάτων
ες ΄ ” ΄ ΄
ὕπερθε χέρρι" "Ἄ]μωι φ[ερέ]τω κάραι

μύρραν τις" οὐ γὰρ] εἰστίθησιν
Fddpev’ ἔμοιγ᾽ ὀ]δε τἄιδ᾽ ἀοίδαι..

25 οὐ μὰν ταράσσής,] ἬΠ ἀυὐτά, τ
Ἄν ὄ γε Rigs are πῦρ μέγα

adhe τίθησθα

CRITICAL NOTES.

All the lines began directly under one
another, the stanzas being prob. marked by
the paragraphos 9 Pap. prob. wAev
10 a is probable before poy Ges (51 II
Pap. τωξ not τὠξ: the “μέση στιγμή after
αλλως in the Pap. Dr. Schubart kindly tells
me may be an accidental blot like others
near it, especially as there are no stops else-
where,! and moreover the μέση is rare in
MSS of this date 13 Pap. φειδομεθώς :
Pap. κηρον, which is unmetrical: W. κῆρον,
comparing 1. 1, which he reads τεκαιθακῆη,
but that need not be θάκη 16 Pap. prob.

18 ἰθαρώτεροι, W. compares
19 ἰλλάεντι, 8. = tAdevte = ἱλαρῶι:

καιπριγαδαν
Hesych.

Pap. θυμωι indistinct but almost certain, see
on 22 20 Pap. epyov 21 Pap. prob.
apyov, but the letter before ὁ may be τ:
Pap. μεμμάτων, cf. Sa. 2. 13 ἀ de Fidpus
κακχέεται where MSS read μ᾽ tdpws; simi-
larly in Sa. 2. 1 φαίνεταί Fou (1.6. ἑαυτῶι)
κῆνος ἴσος θέοισιν may be right despite
Catullus, for Apollonius Dysc. de Pron.

1 Unless in 1. 27; and if that is a μέση, this must
be accidental.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 73

3364 quotes from Sappho the words φαίνεταί
ἔοι xjvos,) and in fr. 89 [ξεΞ-- ἑαυτὴν, cf. also
ree τ 22 below γοναρτ in the line
above there are very small remains of the
tops of letters which may be ρρίε, below αἱ
a curved stroke which I take to be the left-
hand half of μ, and below x a small piece
of the right-hand curve of w; the last down-
stroke of the » was shortened before the o,
and there was no break between the two
letters ; the same must have been the case
in θυμωι 1. 19: in φερετω epe fits the gap, and
τ though indistinct is certain: Pap. καραι
24 Pap. prob. yadpev or φαδμεν Meist.Ahr.p.105,
or else one of the elided vowels was written :
in 6]ée, 6 is almost certain: Pap. ταιδαοιδα
Between ll. 25 and 26 a space, but not
sufficient to contain another line, prob. to
avoid a spongy spot 26 Pap. arte, which
is unmetrical 27 Pap. after τιθησθα a
very short horizontal dash just above the line
28 there are marks which may be very faint
traces of this line.

(On the right, opposite ll. 1-3, traces of
another column, with a > opposite ll. 3
and 4.)

TRANSLATION.

Mix no more into the great bowl; why
labourest so, when I tell thee that never will
I have thee to waste the day from dawn
onward in dtunkenness and song? O why
spare we to use the sea, suffering the winter-
cool freshness of the morn to pass like a
drunken sleep? If we would but go quickly
aboard, take the rudders in our grasp, and
loose the ship from her moorings, turning
the sailyard to front the breeze, then merrier
should we be and light of heart, and ’t would
be as good work as a right long draught of
wine. But thou, linking one idle hand in
another over thy robe, sayest ‘As for me,
bring they myrrh for my head; for I am
little pleased with that this fellow putteth
into this song of his. Never think thou
troublest my soul, thou wild clamourer,
though thou roarest like a great fire and
makesthess tay wah. ἶ

But 335 A the first one and a half lines of the Ode

with μοι.
? Bergk’,

COMMENTARY.

It will be seen that the whole of my re-
storation depends on the interpretation of
twgavos. (1) If αὖος is the genitive of the
word for ‘dawn,’ it has no parallel elsewhere
in Lesbian ; but on the other hand there is
no genitive of the word extant in that dialect
till quite late times. Apollonius Dysc. de
Adv. p. 183 1. 21 (Schneider) mentions
among μεταπλασμοί, the word ata as used
by Sappho. I take ata to be an accusative,
representing an earlier aFoa or αὔοα the
probable original of ’H@ δῖαν, 77. 9. 240 et
al. Of the corresponding genitive we get a
glimpse in Pindar Vem. 6. 52, where the
MSS read dots but the metre requires ἀόος.
If Sappho used ata for the accusative,
Alcaeus might have used αὖος for the
genitive. (2) An alternative is to take e£avos
as the neuter of an adjective ἐξαύως mean-
ing ὁ ἐξ ἕω, cf. ἔξηβος, ἔξωρος.

9 πλεῦν ; this form, classed as Ionic and
Doric, was probably also Lesbian (some read
πνεῦν Pind. P. 4. 225); cf. βέλευς (gen.) Ale.
15. 4, ὥρχευντ᾽ Sa. 54. 2, and the forms
Θεύδαμος and Θευδαίτης on coins, v. Meister-
Ahrens i. p. 98.

képapev: infinitive of κέραιμι used as
imperative ; elsewhere the Lesbian form is
κέρναν, but Alcaeus and Sappho sometimes
use Homeric forms for metrical reasons; cf.
Sa. 78, 1 and 2 for infin. as imp. and for an
Homeric form.

Io μόχθης: from μόχθημι; μόχθησθα
would be used if the metre required it.

11 ov τι μὴ... ἀείσης : an early use of
this construction, but not necessarily to be
rejected ; it is used by Simonides fr. 12. 19
(Hiller) ; ἀείσης may be future or subjunctive,
cf. Meist.-Ahr. i. pp. 89, 93, note 2.

12 dppap: i.e. ἦμαρ; for the pp cf. one
of the new fragments of Sappho, Ser/.
Aiasstkerpeavé V2, P. 9742. 22°94 1. 17
πεποημμέναις, Where it would seem to have as
little right as here; cf. Meist.-Ahr. i. § 34.

13. k«dpov: elsewhere the form is κάρος,
neuter; for Lesbian peculiarities of declen-
sion cf. avéws for αὐδῆς Sa. τ. 6, κίνδυν or
κίνδυνα for κίνδυνον fr. 161, ἔρος for ἔρως
passim, Alc. ἄγωνος for ἀγών fr. 121, and the
use of -yv as acc. sing. of adjectives in -ys,
as in χειμωνοείδην below.

74 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

14 ἐπήμενοι: 1.6. ἐφειμένοι, lit. ‘having
let go,’ ‘allowed to pass’; for 7 cf. Meist-
Ahr. i. p. 93 note 2.

16 Kampuydday: 1.6. καὶ ἄπριγδα (Aesch.
Pers. 1057); for the form cf. κρυφάδαν,
λαθράδαν for κρύβδα, λάθρα in Boeotian,
Corinna Hel. 14, Asop. 59, Berl. Klassther-
texte; or κἀπριχάδανΡ This word seems
unnecessarily strong. An alternative would
be τάν τε χάδαν ‘and the tiller,’ χαδή bearing
the same relation to xavddvw as λαβή to
λαμβάνω ; but the article is perhaps unlikely.
For the singular χάδαν with the plural
καμάκων cf. Luc. Wav. 5 ὑπὸ λεπτῆι κάμακι
τὰ τηλικαῦτα πηδάλια περιστρέφων.

1 Atodpev: I take this to be subjunc-
tive, cf. ἔραται Sa. fr. 13, Pind. P. 4. 92, and
δύναμαι Sa. (Gerd. Klass. texte, P. 5006).
ἔσταμεν Alc. 15. 7 looks like a subjunctive.
For ai with subjunctive without «ev see on
1. 18, and Goodwin JZ. and T. §§ 453-4.
if this is a genuine Aeolic form
it supports the suggested προτὶ in Theocr.
30. 24 where the MSS have the unmetrical
Tori.

mpor ἐνώπια: cf. ἐνώπιον Theocr. 22.
152; lit. ‘to face’ the wind, i.e. so as to
catch it.

18 κέρα: the ends of the sailyard, to
which the ropes for regulating the position
of the sail would be fastened.

τρόποντες : Present, cf. στρόφω Meist.-
Ahr. i. p. 52; so also ἐπιτρόπηις Theocr.
29. 35, which however is generally taken as
Aorist.

fae BD
καὶ K ¢

προτ᾽:

marks the apodosis in a
similar conditional sentence in another frag-
ment of Alcaeus, Hiller Anth. Lyr. 42a,

ai δὴ μὰν χέραδος μὴ BeBaw βεργάσιμον

λίθον

κίνης, καὶ κὲν ἴσως τὰν κεφάλαν ἀργαλίαν

ἔχοις.

It marks a secondary apodosis
ea. 08.

19 φυίημεν: 2nd Aorist Optative, cf. φύη
Theocr. 15. 94; Aeolic would keep the 4,
especially as the Present would be ¢viw for
vw, cf. Kiihner, G.G. 1. 2. p. 567. For αἵ

Pind.

ke with subjunctive followed by Optative cf.
Πρ 8 2.

26 apts, “as. good" as,’ icf: Zip 126
ἀντὶ πολλῶν λαῶν ἐστί and other instances
in L. and 5.

ὄργον : this form of ἔργον is rendered
probable by ὄρπετον for ἕρπετον Sa. fr. 40;
cf. Meist.-Ahr. i. p. 52.
21 dais: Le. φής.
ὦργον : 1.6. aFopyov.
ἄρταις : Present Participle of ἀρταιμι.

22 χέρρι: "ἔμωι: cf. κῶττι ἔμωι Sa. 1. 17.

23 μύρραν: used by Sappho for σμύρναν
according to Athen. 688 c.

τις: (Chir. 20,

25 ταράσσης: for ταράσσεις, see On II.

26 6 ye: relative.

One or two of the above suggestions
involve ‘new’ words or forms. These I feel
to be peculiarly hazardous. But in attempt-
ing to transform a specimen of palaeography
into a piece of literature one should not be
altogether debarred from such guesses. It
would be absurd to suppose that in the two
or three hundred lines which we possess of
Lesbian literature the vocabularies of Sappho
and Alcaeus are exhausted. The first ten
lines of the first of the new Paeans of Pindar
contain two words not found elsewhere, a
third found only in Aristides, and a fourth
only in Hesychius. There are upwards of
4000 lines of Pindar extant.

[Since the above was set up in type my
attention has been directed to the suggestions
made by Mr. Powell on p. 177 of the C. 2.
Though my restoration is based upon a
different conception of the scene described,
it may be well to give the result of my
tracing-test as applied to his suggestions.
I use the signs +, —, or = to indicate that
his first letter falls beyond, within, or upon
my ferminus ad quem. 13 τί δ᾽ ov (with
W.)= = =14 χιδνοείδην -- 15 ἐρετμὰ θέντες
impossible, the letter before a must be y
or T 16 παρβολάδαν =
18 πλοίου tpérovTes +

17 ἔπειτα =
Ig wivowpev =
20 τοῦτο κ᾽ +.]

J. M. Epmonps.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 75

A NEW READING OF THE AZPPOLYTUS.

THE Hippolytus is generally ranked as one
of the finest, if not the finest, of Euripides’
plays ; standing on its own merits as an early
but excellent example of Romantic drama, it
has recently obtained a considerable success
on the stage at Manchester, where those who
saw it played, many of whom were ignorant of
Greek and quite free from that prejudice in
favour of classical form which may be thought
to warp the scholar’s judgment, were deeply
impressed by its dramatic power.

The motives of the play are so complex
that after reading it or seeing it acted we are
left in total bewilderment as to where the
blame of the tragedy really lies, or rather,
how it should be apportioned. Yet no critic
hitherto has discovered that there is a riddle
underlying it, or seen any trace of a teaching,
intelligible only to the initiated, different from
that lesson which seems to be enforced—that
those who disobey the world’s moral laws
must be the cause of misery and ruin to
themselves and others. But, as the lightning
strikes the mountain-summits, it is probable
that, sooner or later, modern critics will fall
upon this masterpiece, and we may perhaps
forestall them by pointing out some of the
inconsistencies of the play.

First, however, we must say what we can
on behalf of the author who is on trial.
According to tradition, the A/7pfolytus in its
extant form is the second play by our poet
on the same subject, or rather, perhaps a
revision of the original form. From the
fragments of the older play,! we are led to
believe that Phaedra herself accused Hippo-
lytus to Theseus, and it is generally supposed
that she was there represented as declaring
her passion to Hippolytus in person.”

With the story in this form, there could be
little to raise Phaedra above the level of
Stheneboea, with whom she is ranked by
Aristophanes.’ As the slighted Anteia cried
in anger to Proetus, demanding the death of
Bellerophon, so in all probability Phaedra
acted according to epic tradition. The in-

1 Poetae Scenict (Dindorf), 442, 443.
2 See Introd. to Mahaffy and Bury’s Edn.
3 Frogs, 1043.

troduction of the nurse and the story of the
δέλτος may well be refinements devised by
Euripides himself; and after reading the first
half of the’ play no one can fail to realize how
vastly Euripides has improved on the familiar
story of the gross type.

The character of Phaedra, as conceived by
Euripides, explains her reasons for suicide.
She loves passionately, but when her love,
declared against her will, is slighted, the
shame of outraged pride is the dominant
motive. She is shamed and enraged not so
much by the coldness of Hippolytus as by
the false and undignified position in which
the nurse’s officiousness has placed her. The
evil inclinations against which she has been
struggling are, when revealed, as sinful to her
mind as the deed of evil would have been.
Remorse prompts her to kill herself, for she
will not bring shame on her royal lineage,
nor face Theseus with the consciousness of
guilt, for the sake of saving one life.*

To what life is she referring? If it were
not for the sequel, we should say that she
means her own, for suicide is the thought
uppermost in her mind. We have had, so
far, little indication of her love having sud-
denly changed into hate so violent that she
is eager to sacrifice the beloved. She may
wish to wring his bosom, to move him at
last to pity, if not to a tenderer feeling, by
the contemplation of her own violent end ;
but we can hardly yet believe that she wishes
to bring him to acruel death. Indeed her
first utterance after listening to his reproaches
is ἐτύχομεν Sixas5—‘*we have met with justice.’
So her subsequent treachery shocks us the
more as it is unexpected.

Again, let us consider the stage-situation.
Theseus is abroad ; Hippolytus has announced
his intention of leaving the palace until his
father returns ; and Phaedra believes that he
will then break his oath and tell Theseus all.
If Hippolytus is likely to break his oath, the
Chorus may well break theirs, and such a
weight of evidence will overpower any accu-
sation on her part, especially as Hippolytus

4 Hippolytus, 719-722. > Hipp. 672.

76 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

will have told his story first. Moreover, there
is little chance of any such message as she
actually leaves behind her reaching Theseus.
He, as already noted, is abroad; Hippolytus
is near at hand, and the news of the Queen’s
death, cried through all Attica, must bring
him soon on the spot, when, seeking for an
explanation of her death, he would discover
this damaging piece of false evidence and
destroy it.

We may now consider the possibility of
another theory. Phaedra declares her inten-
tion of causing trouble (evil) to another ‘that
he may learn not to regard my evils proudly’; +
in other words, she will die, and let him know
that he caused her death.

There is no anticipation that Theseus’
return is imminent; unexpectedly he arrives
before his son, and reads the tablet intended
for Hippolytus, inscribed, let us suppose, with
some such words as ‘ Thy love has destroyed
me’—he draws the natural inference, and a
tragedy still more grim than that of the
Queen’s death is the result of this misunder-
standing. Had the δέλτος with the message
so worded fallen into the hands of Hippolytus,
‘his chivalrous pity for the dead would have
sealed his lips, and the Chorus could be
trusted to remain silent so long as no danger
threatened the beloved young hero; that the
oaths would be so binding even in the new
circumstances of horror could never have
been foreseen by Phaedra—indeed she had
emphatically repudiated the idea that Hippo-
lytus would keep his oath even when in no
danger whatsoever.” Still less could she have
believed that he would remain silent, as he
_actually did, when the terror of death con-
fronted him.

The death of Hippolytus is thus due toa
series of accidents, which Phaedra could never
have foreseen or reckoned on.

On these lines a consistent explanation of
the play could be constructed, which a critic
of exceptional merit might even make plaus-

1 Hipp. 728-731. Surely the νόσος in which Hippo-
lytus is to share, and so ‘learn to be temperate,’ is
here Jove, not death; cf. infra 765, “Agpodiras νόσῳ.

2 Hipp. 689-690.

ible. On the above suppositions we have
introduced an example of one of the im-
portant axioms of modern criticism—that the
gods of Euripides shall be futile. As in other
plays, the prologue will have no real bearing
on the plot. Dr. Verrall has pointed to other
plays (e.g. the Adestis) where the god pro-
logizing predicts events which never really
happen.? Here Euripides is even more
subtle, for everything turns out exactly as
Cypris wishes, but the events are due actually
not to her intervention but to an extraordinary
set of malign chances. If Theseus had not
returned before he was due; if he had not
misinterpreted the message; if Hippolytus
and the Chorus had not been pious beyond
all rational expectation, Cypris would have
been completely stultified ; as it is, ᾿Ανάγκη,
that blind force which is older and stronger
than any personal divinity, is alone respon-
sible for the catastrophe. It may be further
observed that Artemis at the close of the
play gives a circumstantial account of the
events, tallying exactly with the ordinary
reading of the plot; but if we accept the
modern canon that a deus ex machina is
either ineffectual or mendacious,t we have
scored an additional point.

Most old-fashioned lovers of Euripides,
however, will be content with the prima
Jacie plot; they will find that it is equally
tragic, and, while making less of a tax on
their credulity, presents a more subtle
psychological problem. As to Phaedra’s
irrational action, ‘od εἰ amo’ is a common-
place in such stories, and the knowledge of
an infuriated woman’s capabilities may well,
they will say, be left to the so-called mis-
ogynist poet.

J. F. Dosson.

The University, Manchester.

3Cf. Euripides the Rationalist, p. 160. ‘.. . the
story is contained solely in the action proper, without
the prologue and finale, which are not the story but
comments on the story by “gods,” that is to say
‘© iarsae

4 Euripides the Rationalist, p. 67. ‘ Experienced
readers at Athens must have known that in Euripides
what had been spoken from the machine was not to be
taken seriously. . . .’

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 77

LAST WORDS ON PORTUS ITIUS.

I HAVE something to say about Portus
Itius which has never been said before ; and
I ask all who have read my two former
articles to read to the end before they decide,
considering the arguments without prejudice
and reserving judgement on the writer’s
shortcomings.

A few days before the publication of Ancient
Britain, when all the sheets had been printed,
I saw that there were flaws in the article on
Portus Itius which formed a part of that
volume. While I was revising it I felt the
need of trustworthy and detailed information
regarding the experiments that were made
in order to ascertain the time in which the
main division of Napoleon’s flotilla could
clear the port of Boulogne ; but I failed until
too late to put my hands upon the authori-
tative work—Captain E. Desbriére’s Projets
et tentatives de débarquement aux iles britan-
nigues—in which it is contained. Serious
reviewers, British, American, and Continental,
who had already devoted much time to the
study of Caesar’s British expeditions, have
pronounced that the conclusion reached in
the article which deals with the question of his
landing-place is definitively established ;1 but
two scholars who were convinced, and one of
whom was converted, by the argument have
told me that the article on Portus Itius did
not seem to them to achieve demonstration ;
and Mr. Stuart Jones in the Zxglish Historical
Review has recently written in the same
sense.

It will not, however, be denied by any
critic who has even an elementary knowledge
of seamanship or is willing to accept the
unanimous testimony of nautical experts that
the article made one contribution to know-
ledge: it proved that ihe port from which
Caesar sailed in his first expedition was
Boulogne.? It is now generally admitted

1 Among many others Mr. A. 6. Peskett (C/ass.
Kev. xxii. 1908, p. 94), Prof. Dennison (C/ass.
Philology, iii. 1908, p. 457), M. Camille Jullian (Xev.
des études anc. x. 1908, p. 290), and Mr. H. Stuart
Jones (Eng. Hist. Rev. xxiv. 1909, pp. 115-6).

2 Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius
Caesar, pp. 581-3. I am glad to find that Mr,

that Portus Itius was either Boulogne or
Wissant. If, then, Caesar sailed from the
same port on both his expeditions, Portus
Itius was Boulogne, The difficulty is that
he did not say that on his first expedition he
started from Portus Itius; and while I was
at work upon the article I felt ‘obstinate
questionings’ in regard to his having only
mentioned the harbour in connexion with
the second expedition. The drift of my
argument was that Boulogne was in all
respects more conyenient as a starting-point
than Wissant, and that Caesar, having had
experience of the superior advantages of
Boulogne in 55 B.c., would not have
abandoned it in the following year. But,
for want of the information which I found
too late, I failed to see that Boulogne, with
all its superior advantages, had, for the
second expedition, one drawback which may
have been damning.

I will now point out the flaws in my article
that may have escaped the notice of reviewers,
and ask scholars to consider that one aspect
of the question-—the most important of all—
which has hitherto been neglected.

On page 569° I asked ‘if eight hundred
ships had been beached at Wissant [during
the twenty-five days for which Caesar was
windbound at Portus Itius in 54 B.c.], would
it not have been necessary, in order to
protect them from storm-driven spring tides,
to construct an enormous naval camp, the
earth necessary for which did not exist?’
I asked the question because, as I have
shown on pages 566-7, there was no harbour,
properly so called, at Wissant except a creek
formed by the mouth of the rivulet called
the Rieu d’Herlan, and possibly a small
anchorage partially sheltered by a shoal.
The answer is that to construct a naval
camp would not have been necessary if the
ships could be hauled up beyond the highest
high-water mark of spring tides. Supposing
that the dune which extends from the
Stuart Jones (Zug. Hist. Rev. xxiv. 1909, p. 115),
with many other competent critics, accepts this
conclusion.

3 See also p. 574.

78 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

‘ruisseau de Guiptun,’ near Tardinghem, to
the ‘ruisseau d’Herlan,’ at Wissant, and
which did not exist in the time of Caesar,!
were bodily removed, it would not, I think,
be possible now to haul up ships beyond this
mark ; but if we may suppose that the sub-
sidence which has taken place since Roman
times between Sangatte and Dunkirk ex-
tended to Wissant, there must in 54 B.C.
have been a fringe of beach immediately
below the high ground wide enough to allow
eight hundred ships to remain high and dry
at all states of the tide.?

On page 571, note 2, I hardly allowed
sufficient weight to the fact that the author
of Bellum Africanum (το, ὃ ty applies the
name of fortus to a mere anchorage,—that
of Monastir (the ancient Ruspina), which is
protected from northerly and westerly winds,
but otherwise exposed.?

On page 584 I argued, as Desjardins had
done before, that the sixty ships which
Labienus built during Caesar’s absence in
Britain could not have been built at Wissant,
where there were certainly no dockyards and
whither it would have been very difficult to
convey the necessary timber; whereas the
material could have been carried both by
road and river to Boulogne. But I over-
looked a passage in Caesar (v. 8, § 1) to
which I had on an earlier page called
attention. He tells us that he directed
Labienus ‘to protect the ports’ (μέ portus
tueretur), which implies that he thought it

1 Ancient Britain, etc., p. 566.

2 The eminent geologist, M. Charles Barrois, of the
University of Lille, has very kindly written to me on
this question. ‘Je ne crois pas,’ he says, ‘que nous
ayons encore des documents assez précis pour arriver
a une connaissance décisive et absolue de la question
topographique qui vous interesse. II faudrait pour
cela faire une série de levées topographiques et de
nivellements précis qui n’ont pu étre faits encore.

‘Je ne puis donc vous donner que mon impression
que les conclusions de M. Gosselet [that the coast
between Sangatte and Dunkirk extended considerably
further seaward in Roman times than now (Anczent
Britain, p. 566)] me paraissent appuyées sur des
bases solides, qui n’ont pas été réfutées, et doivent
entrainer l’assentiment, la céte s’étendant plus loin a
Vépoque romaine.... Je n’ai rien a ajouter a vos
connaissances bibliographiques, qui me _paraissent
fort completes.’

3 Cf. Stoffel, Hzst. de Jules César,—Guerre civile,
ii. 110-1, and pl. 20.

necessary to keep more than one port under
control. Assuming then that Portus Itius
was Wissant, the ships were doubtless built
at Boulogne.

On page 585 I showed that, according to
‘seafaring men, both English and French,
who have practical experience of the winds
and the currents in the Channel,’ ‘the
passage for sailing-vessels from Boulogne to
the south-eastern part of Britain is, and
always has been, in circumstances such as
Caesar described, not only very convenient
but by far the most convenient.’ But Caesar
had to think of the start and of the arrival as
well as of the passage; and this consideration
brings me to the question on which the whole
controversy really turns,—could Caesar’s fleet
have started from Boulogne without becoming
unduly scattered ?

It must of course be remembered that the
port of Boulogne in the time of Napoleon
was less spacious and less deep than it was
2000 years ago because it had been largely
silted up.* Still, although the map in which
Desjardins ὅ attempts to depict the state of
the Liane in Caesar’s time and represents it
as navigable for sea-going ships as far as
Isques—7 kilometres from the mouth—seems
approximately correct, it is of course in part
conjectural. Moreover, although we know
that Boulogne was from the time of Augustus
the regular starting-point for ships sailing
from North-eastern Gaul to Britain and the
naval station of the Roman Channel Fleet,
we have no information as to the largest
number of ships which ever started from it
at one time. There is not even direct
evidence that Aulus Plautius sailed from
Boulogne : ὃ if he did, some of his ships may
have sailed from Ambleteuse; and we do
not know how many he had. All we know

4 Ancient Britain, etc., pp. 586-7. Cf. Bozlogne-
sur-mer et la région boulonnaise, i. 1899, p. 31.

5 Géogr. de la Gaule rom. i, 1876, pl. xv.

6 Mr. H. 6. Evelyn-White (Class. Rev. xxii. 1908,
p. 205, n. 9) thinks that it ‘can probably be inferred
[that Plautius started from Boulogne] from Suetonius,
v. 17,,—Quare a Massilia Gesoriacum usque pedestri
itinere confecto inde [Claudius] ¢ransmisit, etc. But
Claudius was not accompanied by an army ; and it is
questionable whether he would have started from
Boulogne if he had had to get 800 ships out of the
harbour. .

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 79

is that Caesar sailed from Boulogne in
55 B.C. with about 80 transports and a few
galleys; and it is probable that even this
comparatively small fleet was inconveniently
strung out.! Philip Augustus is said to have
assembled 1500 ships at Boulogne in 1213
for his contemplated invasion of England ;?
but the attempt was abandoned.

Captain Desbriére’s researches have shown
that one of the insuperable difficulties with
which Napoleon had to contend was this :—
it was impossible, in the most favourable
circumstances, to float more than 100 vessels
out of Boulogne harbour in one tide ;* and
therefore it would have been necessary for
each successive relay of ships to anchor in
the roadstead until the whole flotilla had
cleared the harbour. But experience proved
that it was dangerous to keep more ships in
the roadstead than would be able, in case an
unfavourable wind sprang up, to return for
shelter into the estuary; and that westerly
and south-westerly winds, which were favour-
able for the voyage, generally made the
roadstead unsafe. Owing to the rapidity of
the current vessels could not safely begin to
move out of the port until half-an-hour
before high tide; and even those which were
rowed could not continue the operation later
than two hours after the tide began to fall,
and then only if the wind was not against
them.®

My point then is this. Although we know
that the estuary of the Liane was larger and
deeper in Caesar’s time than in Napoleon’s,

1Cf. B.C. iv. 23, § 2 with § 4.

2M. Luchaire (E. Lavisse, Ast. de France, t. iii.
Ire partie, 1901, p. 162) appears sceptical as to the
number.

3 Projets et tentatives, etc. iii. 1902, pp. 451, 566.

4 7), iv. 91, 94-5; iii. 141. Between the Ist of
May and the Ist of November, 1804, more than 150
vessels were on three several occasions anchored in
the roadstead for six or seven successive days; but on
each occasion, when they were returning into the
harbour, some of them were dispersed or injured (76.
iv. 145). Except in the very narrow space formed by
the channel of the Liane, which at low water nowhere
exceeded 40 metres in breadth and was in many places
not more than 20, the ships were generally aground
(76. ili. pp. 147-8). The vessels of least draught
could only cross the bar even at spring tides during
4 hours.

5 Jb. pe 14dq

we cannot be sure that Caesar would have
been able to get eight times as many ships
out of it in one tide as Napoleon ;° and we
know that even if he could have done so,
they would have been obliged to anchor in
the roadstead as they emerged until the
whole flotilla had cleared the harbour. For,
in the most favourable circumstances, and
assuming that the harbour was as extensive
and as deep as Desjardins maintained, this
operation would have required not much less
than ten hours:* if the ships had sailed on
as they emerged from the estuary, the leading
division would have been off the British
coast at daybreak ὃ before the rearmost had
begun their voyage; and it is clear from
Caesar’s words that the start was virtually
simultaneous.® But there is another point
to mark. I have said that the ships, as they
came out of the harbour, would have been
obliged to anchor in the roadstead. But it
is extremely doubtful whether they would
have anchored in the open roadstead. Pro-
bably they would have been attached by
hawsers to the shore, and anchored as well.
For Caesar describes his start by the words
naves solvit..° Now, as Professor J. 5. Reid
has written to me, ‘the natural meaning of
the expression [zavem solvere] is . . . to free
the ship from all her fastenings’; and it
commonly connotes the operation of un-
mooring,—letting go a hawser and putting
off from shore or quay. Perhaps, if the ships
were merely riding at anchor, the expression
might, as Professor Reid admits, ‘ be loosely

®Some years ago I put the following question to
Capt. J. Iron, the harbour-master of Dover :-—‘ It is
certain that Boulogne harbour, that is, the estuary of
the river Liane, was much larger in 54 B.c. than it is
now. Assume that the harbour was about 24 miles
long, and that its breadth varied from 250 to 700
yards. [See A. E. E. Desjardins, Géogr. de la Gaule
rom. vol. i. pl. xv.] Would it have been possible for
800 small vessels, which had oars as well as sails, and
which drew not more than 3 feet of water, to get out
of it in one tide?’ Capt. Iron’s answer was, ‘ Yes,
because they would have had from one hour after to
one hour before low water.’ But it is hardly safe to
accept Desjardins’s delineation of the harbour as
absolutely accurate.

7 See the preceding note.
© BG. v. 8, 82.

® Jb. ξ8 2, 5-6.

19 76,:§ 2.

80 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

extended to lifting the anchor’; but it is
very unlikely that Caesar uses it in this
sense, for he repeatedly describes the opera-
tion of weighing anchor by the words sudates
ancoris.1 It may therefore be safely con-
cluded that if Portus Itius was Boulogne,
the ships, as they passed out of the harbour,
were moored alongshore outside until the
signal was given for the whole fleet to set
sail. Now, however closely they may have
been moored, we can hardly allow a less
breadth of front for each than 7 yards.”
The ships then would have extended in a
row more than 5600 yards long,—about
5 kilometres, or more than 3 miles; in other
words, they would have reached from the
mouth of the Liane two-thirds of the way to
Ambleteuse! Does this agree with the
datum that they sailed from Portus Itius?

The danger of anchoring orof mooringalong-
shore would of course have been increased
if the operation of clearing the harbour
had required more than one tide. North-
westerly winds had been blowing for twenty-
five days before Caesar sailed from Portus
Itius; and when the wind backed to the south-
west it would have been most important to
seize the opportunity of sailing while it lasted.
By making Wissant the starting-point this
advantage would have been secured; and,
although it would not have been possible to
make as good a run to Britain before a south-
west wind from Wissant as from Boulogne,

LB. συν 23, S60 9. Cet. 38, § 33°s 22, $35 25,
ὃ 7.

? The ships were small, but comparatively broad ;
540 of them carried 5 legions with their auxiliaries,
camp equipage and stores, 2000 troopers, 2000
cavalry horses, remounts, and baggage cattle (4.G.
v. I, §23 2, $23 5, 82; 8, §§ 1-2). Their breadth
of beam cannot have been less than 15 feet and was
probably rather more. The breadth of one of the
great merchant-ships of the Mediterranean, the
dimensions of which have been recorded by Lucian,
was, as Mr. Torr points out (Azczent Ships, 1894,
p- 24), ‘slightly more than a fourth of the length’;
and Caesar says that the breadth of the ships which
he designed was proportionally greater than that of
the, Mediterranean craft. The breadth of Napoleon’s
‘bateaux canonniers,’ which were 60 feet long and
drew only 44 feet of water, was 14 feet (E. Desbriére,
Projets et tentatives, etc. iii. 1902, p. 90). If
Caesar’s ships had all been moored in actual contact
with one another (!), the line would have been over
4000 yards long.

although the labour of hauling up and hauling
down the ships at Wissant would have been
great, these disadvantages may not have
been considered too high a price to pay for
the advantages of security, certainty, and a
simultaneous start.

Professor Camille Jullian, of the Institut
and the Collége de France, who has seen the
rough draft of this paper, writes to me, ‘Je
né vois pas en faveur de Wissant que /e nombre
donné par César, et je me demande si le pays
est assez peuplé, assez fertile, assez pres des
bonnes routes pour nourrir une armee de 10
[read 8] légions.’ I would remind my friend
that even if the number of ships given by
Caesar—‘more than 800’—is not correct (and
there is surely no reason to question it), they
must have been several times as numerous as
the hundred or so which had sufficed in the
previous year ; for they were evidently much
smaller, they had to carry five legions and
2000 cavalry instead of two legions, and they
included ‘private vessels.’ The other con-
siderations which my friend adduces were
emphasized in my article. But the com-
parative infertility of the country, its sparse
population, and its want of good roads would
not have been fatal if it was possible, as it
surely was, to provision the army for a few
weeks by sea or by pack-horses, which could
have moved on tracks that would have been
impracticable for wagons.

One may imagine that if Caesar could have
foreseen the complaints that have been so
often made as to the insufficiency of the data
which the Commentaries contain for deter-
mining this question, he would have said
‘Your criticisms are hasty. Exercise your
intelligence and inform yourselves, and you
will find that I have told you enough. When I
said that I chose the shortest passage and that
the distance from Portus Itius to Britain was
about 30 miles I made it clear that Portus
Itius was either Boulogne or Wissant ; and on
that point you are nowagreed. My account of
the adventures of my cavalry transports was
sufficient to show those of you who under-
stood seamanship that they sailed not from
Sangatte or from Wissant but from Amble-
teuse, and consequently that on my first
expedition I sailed from Boulogne. I did so
because Boulogne was the port ,from which

ἕο"

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 81

most Gallic trading vessels regularly sailed,
and was, in the circumstances, the most con-
venient starting-point: my ships were too
large to be hauled up on a beach out of the
reach of spring tides, and, being comparatively
few, they could clear the harbour in a single
tide. Nevertheless, they were unavoidably
strung out, and I had to wait several hours
off the Kentish cliffs before the stragglers
arrived. The fact that I made no mention
of Portus Itius except in connexion with my
second expedition naturally suggested to some
of you that I did not sail from it on my first.
That clue you ought to have followed. If you
assumed that because Boulogne possessed
many advantages over Wissant, it possessed
that advantage which, on my second expedi-
tion, was indispensable; if you failed to reflect
that I could not have got my eight hundred
ships out of Boulogne harbour without their
being dispersed, you cannot blame me. As
I told you, I designed my new vessels ex-
pressly in order to enable them to be hauled
up on dry land: I sailed from Wissant on
my second expedition because from Wissant
alone was it possible for them to start simul-
taneously ; and if Wissant was not used by
my successors, it was because their circum-
stances were wholly different from mine.’

I have allowed myself to make this flight
of fancy because I wished to give prominence
to the claim of Wissant. But it is enough to
have shown that the case for Boulogne cannot
be regarded as proved, because, if there is only
one really strong argument for Wissant, that
argument is so strong that it cannot be set
aside. I have stated the reasons which led
me to revise my opinion; and the reader
now has at his disposal all the data necessary
to enable him to form his own.

May I suggest that an attempt should be
made to determine the question by excava-
tion?! 1 am not sure whether the ground
on which Caesar would have encamped if he
had sailed from Wissant is undisturbed ; but
I venture to express the hope that, if exca-
vation is practicable, MM. Salomon Reinach
and Camille Jullian will make the necessary
arrangements and invite subscriptions. 1
would gladly contribute what I can afford.

T. Ric—E HouMgs.

[Note.—On pages 586-7 of Ancient Britain I said
that ‘it may be regarded as certain that the draught
of Caesar’s transports [in 54 B.C.] was much less than
five feet.’ This statement is misleading though the
error does not affect my argument : probably, however,
the draught of the beamy shallow vessels which Caesar
designed for his second invasion was not more than
five feet. Evidently they were much smaller than the
Gallic transports which he had used in the previous
year; for about 80- 18 (say 100) of the latter had
sufficed to carry two legions with their complement of
cavalry, whereas 600 of the former were built to carry
five legions and 2000 cavalry. Even the Gallic transe
ports drew so little water that it was possible for the
troops whom they carried to jump off them into the sea.
Allowing for the projection of the bows, from which
the men doubtless jumped, and assuming that the
ships sank 18 inches or 2 feet in the bed of the sea
(Ancient Britain, p. 673), we may suppose that their
draught was from 8 to 9 feet. Again, the largest of
the transports which Napoleon built for the invasion
of England were designed to carry each 38 seamen,
120 soldiers, and 12 24-pounder guns, and their
draught was only 8 feet; while the vessels called
bateaux canonniers, which were designed to carry each
6 seamen, 100 soldiers, 2 horses, and 2 guns, only
drew 4% feet of water (E. Desbriére, Projets et
tentatives de débarquement, etc. 111, 1902, pp. 90, 92).

1 Probably Labienus’s camp was distinct from
Caesar’s ; for if eight legions had occupied one camp,
the three which Caesar left with Labienus when he
sailed for Britain might have had difficulty in defending
11,

NOTES

ARNOBIUS VII. 18 (252. 14).

minus gratior et iucundior sanguis est.

FOR minus read sinus. Sinus (or sinum)
is by Varro joined with capis, capida (‘sin-
orum et capidarum species’) and cafis (Livy
x. 7) is sacrificial: ‘cum capide et litus
victimam caedat.’ Karl Meiser (Studien su
Arnobius, p. 36) prefers magis, saying,

NO. CCI. VOL. XXIII.

‘minus ist verderbt fiir magzs, das ofter
beim Komparativ steht, 2. B. 19. 24, magts
rectius, 165. 30, magts, . . . ignomintosius 5.
den Index von Reifferscheid.’ This magts,
if read, would still be ‘a dish, platter or vat,’
payis, and not the adverb.

Vii. 50 (284. 10),

cur non minaei /fortz se obtulit?

82 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Here forti, or forte, may be for fortem simply,
a much readier emendation than Meiser’s
torrenti, which ¢st¢ vielletcht su lesen.

v. 7 (180, 4),
mater suffod7t δίας deum, unde amygdalus nascitur
amaritudinem significans funeris.

Read m.s. dectas deum, -(112 εἴας giving that
reading fairly, and dettas being a word of
Arnobius, S. Augustine, Prudentius and
S. Jerome. Indeed, Prudentius says ex-
pressly (in Afoth. v. 144): ‘et hoc verbo
uti jam nostros non piget, ut e Graeco
expressius transferant quod illi θεότητα appel-
lant.’ The Germans have gone far afield in
explanation and reading, K. Meiser (Studien
zu A.) saying: ‘fiir e¢as vermute ich Attin,’
—Helm thinking Attis = ‘ etos’ (consuetudo)
—and Reifferscheid reading at ef Jam, to
Otto Gruppe’s amusement. For amygdalus
... amaritudinem significans funeris compare
Ecclesiastes xii. 5, which Arnobius explains
here. For the interchange of ‘e’ and ‘i’
in above reading, a good instance in point
is given in the Lvewe Bruchstiicke aus Wein-
gartener Ltala-Handschriften von Paul Leh-
mann (Miinchen, 1908): καὶ τί ὑμεῖς ἐμοί,
Τύρος καὶ Σειδών ; e¢ adhuc vos mihi, T. et S.?
where the Latin betrays a reading καὶ ἔτι

(κἄτι) [Ρ. 33 on Joel iv. 4] H. ΤΟΗΝΞΒΟΝ.

/
μετασσαῖι.

ΤῊΙΒ word, which occurs only once,
L 221 χωρὶς μὲν πρόγονοι, χωρὶς δὲ μέτασσαι
—in Hymnus Merc. 125 μέτασσα of Μ
has been emended to péra(e—is, so far as
the sense goes, fairly clear. Suidas explains
it as τὰ Urapva πρόβατα, Eustathius, 1625,
29, aS at μεσήλικες, which is in all proba-
bility the true interpretation: sunt igitur
agnelli qui medii inter προγόνους et ἕρσας
nati sunt, Ebeling, Zex. Hom. p. 1079. The
etymology of the word, on the other hand,
is more uncertain. Curtius, L. Meyer, Vani-
éeck and Grassmann favour the analysis into
μετα-κι-αι, while Ebel, X.Z. 1. 302, iv. 207,
prefers μετα-τια-. Grassmann, X.Z. xi. 2af,
derives περισσός, ἔπισσαι, μέτασσαι, “Apdirca,
"Avrwoa from περικιο-, etc. comparing Skt.
2γάϊ᾽: praticd. It is pointed out by Schmidt,
Pluralbildung, p. 397%., that though this
explanation might suit μέτασσαι, it will not

do for ἔπισσαι, “Audicoa, where, instead of
τισσ-, τιασσ- would be required on Grass-
mann’s assumption. Prellwitz, Ziym. W2*.
Ρ- 310, compares νεοσσός < ἕνεβο-τκιός: τίκτω,
das tunge, neugeborne Tier. 1 would make
still another suggestion. May not μέτασσαι
be simply pera-sntiai > μέτ-ασσαι, cf. Doric
ἔασσα, Cretan ἴαθθα, <esntia? The original
sense of μέτα, Goth. mp, was ‘between,’
‘among, Brugmann, Griechische Grammatik?,
Ρ. 444, and so we get for μέτασσαι the
meaning ‘ those that come, are between, t.e. be-
tween the πρόγονοι and the ἕρσαι, which
satisfies Eustathius’ definition μεσήλικες.
King’s College, Aberdeen. J. FRASER.

EMENDATION in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vi.
116 (Commentary on Thucydidesii.). Gren-

fell and Hunt give: ἐν πλάτει καὶ οὐ

May not the miss-
ing words be κατὰ drapticpov? Cp. Dionys.
Halic. de Comp. Verb. c. 21, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι τῶν
> / / ε 3 ad \ |
ev πλάτει θεωρουμένων ws ἀγέλη τε Kal σωρὸς
καὶ ἄλλα πολλά. id. 22. c. 24, ὁρᾶται 8,
ὥσπερ ἔφην καὶ πρότερον, οὐ κατὰ ἀπαρ-
Ν 3 P| > 4 X\ X > A ΕΣ
τισμὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πλάτει, καὶ τὰς εἰδικὰς ἔχει
διαφορὰς πολλάς. Stephanus, s.v. ἀπαρτισμός,
has a reference to Gl. Stob. Ecl. vol. i,
Ρ: 258: τὸ δὲ viv καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ἐν πλάτει Kai
οὐχὶ κατ᾽ ἀπαρτισμὸν νοεῖσθαι.
W. Ruys RoBERTS.

NOTE to Classical Review, 1909, p. 8.—After the
article was printed I heard from Professor Dessau
that he finds in Eyagrius, A7zst. Eccles. iv. 32, a
reference to KaAXivixos τῶν Κιλίκων ἡγούμενος, who
was crucified by Justinian on account of an act of
severe justice in his office. The date is not
mentioned. There is great probability that this
official was the Callinicus mentioned in the inscription
of Perta. Cilicia (as distinguished from Cilicia
Secunda) was a consular Province. Callinicus must
have governed Lycaonia earlier, both because Cilicia
was a more honourable and important Province, and
because Callinicus held no office later than Cilicia.
The inscription mentions δύο δεσπότας, presumably
either Justin I. and Justinian, A.D. 527, or Justinian
and Theodora (who were colleagues), 527-548.
Thus the date is fixed within comparatively narrow
limits.

In part of the article mentioned I did not see a
proof. On p. 8, col. B, the reference to the first
section of the Procemium to Theophilus is falsely
printed, and in the footnote φιλοτιμηθεῖσαις is
wrongly printed instead of φιλοτιμηθεῖσαι.

W. M. Ramsay.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 83

REVIEWS

THE GREEK VERSIONS OF THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE
PATRIARCHS.

The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs. Edited from nine MSS.,
together with the Variants of the Armenian
and Slavonic Versions and some Hebrew
Fragments, by R. H. Cuar.es, D.Litt,
D.D. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908.
61" Χ 91". Pp. Ix+324. 18s. net.

Amonc the half dozen scholars who have
made a special study of Jewish apocryphal
writings, Dr. Charles holds an honourable
place. He has given long years to diligent
and determined examination, appraisement
and affiliation of MSS. containing works
rarely read to-day by students even, impor-
tant though they are for the proper under-
standing of early Christian thought. The
volume now before us will be indispensable
to students of these Testaments in our
generation. Dr. Sinker’s editions of 1869
and 1879 preceded the scientific treatment
of manuscript tradition, and Dr. Charles is
entitled to the honour of establishing certain
theories about the origin and history of this
work, which it is improbable that we shall
see discredited. Briefly, the editor shows
that the book was originally written in
Hebrew, and was thence translated into
Greek. From the Greek derive an Armenian
version, in two forms, and a Slavonic, also
in two forms. The Greek MSS. too on
examination prove to exhibit two types of
text, and Dr. Charles holds that the Hebrew
itself must have existed in two recensions.
Unfortunately, the editor seriously pre-
judices his cause by the extraordinary
method he has adopted of presenting his
argument. He throws together proofs strong
and feeble, and gives the reader no hint
that he is conscious of any difference in
their cogency. The result is that he runs
a grave danger of having the strength of
his case misunderstood, and indeed of having
judgment given against it because the evidence
may not be completely examined. He
classifies his proofs that the Greek version

is a translation from the Hebrew under four
headings, and on each of these it is worth
while to make a few comments.

First, ‘Hebrew constructions and expres-
sions are to be found on every page. Though
the vocabulary is Greek, the idiom is fre-
quently Hebraic and foreign to the genius
of the Greek language.’ His examples under
this head are of such a character in many
instances as to betray either an inacquaint-
ance with the work of Deissmann and Prof.
J. H. Moulton, or a rejection of their views,
which is impermissible even to the Grinfield
Lecturer on the Septuagint at Oxford, unless
he develops at length his reasons for doing so.
Thus κλοπῇ ἔκλεψαν, Test. Jos. xii. 2 has
been paralleled from papyri and T. Sim. iv. 4,
ἠγάπησέ (misprinted on p. xxiv as ἠγάπησά)
pe σὺν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς pou=as (he did) my
brothers, is like a use of μετὰ found in Attic.
Other examples depend on a misunderstand-
ing of the text. Thus he quotes (p. xxiv)
T. Lev. xviii. 10! with the comment, ‘’Addu
="N, and should here be rendered by
ἀνθρώπους. But the reference is plainly to
Gen. ili. 24. Curiously enough, he does not
quote what might have furnished him with
a good argument, T. Sym. vi. 4.

Next, ‘ Dittographic renderings of the same
Hebrew phrase, and expressions in the Greek
implying dittographs in the Hebrew MS.
before the translator.’ Most of these invoke
that subjective spirit of criticism which the
discoveries of papyri in the last seventeen
years have so greatly discredited. The editor
would have carried conviction more quickly
if he had confined himself to a few examples
like that in T. Naph. vi. 2, where the one

class of MSS. has ἐκτὸς ναυτῶν = ΞΡ Ν 5,

while the other has μεστὸν ταρίχων = BAIS

Nop. This, however, would lead us no
1 καίγε αὐτὸς ἀνοίξει τὰς θύρας τοῦ παραδείσου,

καὶ ἀποστήσει τὴν ἀπειλοῦσαν ῥομφαίαν κατὰ τοῦ
᾿Αδάμ.

84 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

farther than the theory that one class of MSS.
had been translated from Hebrew.

Thirdly, ‘paronomasiae which are lost in
Greek can be restored by retranslation into
Hebrew.’ As for these, it must be said, they
show no more than that the writer knew
Hebrew ; they do not prove that he wrote in
that language. Moreover, how uncertain an
argument this may be is evidenced by the
fact that it would prove St. James’ Epistle
to have been written in English, because in
i. 6 ‘he that wavereth is like a wave of the
sea driven with the wind and tossed,’ the
English has a charming play which is absent
in the Greek.

Lastly, ‘ Many passages which are obscure
or wholly unintelligible in the Greek become
clear on retranslation into Hebrew.’ Out
of a number of examples which again depend
too much on subjective considerations, one
or two are conclusive; eg. T. Lev. i. 8,
where in both groups of MSS. the second
heaven is πολὺ φωτεινότερον καὶ φαιδρότερον,
because ἣν καὶ ὕψος ἐν αὐτῷ ἄπειρον, where
ὕψος -- ΠΣ} ἢ is a misreading for γ]Δϑ -- φέγγος
So T. Jud. xxi. 6, of pev Kuev-
αἰχμαλωτιζόμενοι, οἱ δὲ
πλουτοῦσιν ἀλλότρια may
plausibly be explained as a mistranslation
of what in earlier Hebrew=77wyxevovcu..
But T. Jud. iv. 3 may well be not a mis-
translation but a misunderstanding of the
Midrash by the author, and ix. 3 is no more
convincing than T. Dan. i. ὃ and iv. 4. In
T. Jos. xi. 7, ἐπλήθυνεν αὐτὸν ἐν χρυσίῳ Kai
ἀργυρίῳ Kat ἔργῳ, the last word may be a
mistranslation for ‘household servants,’ but
it might=‘farm,’ and in T. Benj. iv. 2,

‘or os.
δυνεύουσιν
ε , X\
ἁρπάζοντες τὰ

σκοτεινὸν ὀφθαλμόν may be further illustrated
by St. Matt. vi. 22 ff.

When Dr. Charles goes on to deduce two
lost Hebrew recensions from which the
Greek are derived respectively, it is doubtful
if he makes good his case. It would suffice
to postulate (1) a translation made from a
Hebrew MS. misread, misunderstood, mis-
taken in places; (2) a revised translation,
where the former version was checked and
corrected by comparison with another Hebrew
MS. But again the editor injures his case
by throwing together good and bad examples.
Certainly T. Naph. iii. 2 may well be a
Greek corruption, οὐκ ἀλλοιοῦσι becoming ov
καλύψουσι. Weak instances like this make
the reader distrust the strength of the argu-
ment, and Dr. Charles has certainly not
stated adequately his case for supposing the
book to have been interpolated so early that
all our MSS. contain identical additions.
I have no space to enlarge on this, nor to
do more than point out the impropriety of
assuming—as is commonly done—that ὃς
ἂν διδάσκει implies the use of ἂν with the
indicative. Because the past indicative and
the subjunctive of zo de are identical in
spelling, it does not follow that we are un-
conscious of a grammatical difference between
them, nor would an inference that there was
confusion be legitimised, if we should begin
to spell dave and dear in one way.

Of misprints I have noted: p. 132, note
51, αἶμα for αἷμα ; p. 192, line 6, ovyyevy for
συγγένῃ; p. 204, line 9, ἐφόβουντο; and
Pp. 277, Xil. 4, ὁ (for 0) πρῶτον.

T. NICKLIN.

TWO STUDIES IN GREEK AUTHORSHIP.

Flellenistische Wunderersihlungen. Von R.
REITZENSTEIN. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,
1906. 8vo. Pp. vit+172. M.5.

Lucian und Meni~p. Von Rupotr HELM.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1906. 8vo.
Pp. vi+ 392. M. to.

THESE two books attempt to solve a problem
which lies at the very foundation of criticism,

namely, how does a writer, or a group of
writers, make use of material ready to hand.
Mr. Helm is content to deal with the way in
which Lucian fell back upon Menippus ; Mr.
Reitzenstein tries to show that ancient bio-
graphy and history was largely the writing
of anecdotes with a moral. To describe
this method, he falls back upon the term
‘aretalogy.’ This term is to mean both the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 85

wonderful works and the sayings of great
men, and of the gods. Thus the Son of
Sirach can say, even of God, ‘fill Sion with
thy majesty’ (dperaAoyia), xxxvi. 17.

Such is the simple formula with which
Mr. Reitzenstein solves the difficulties, which
beset the student of ancient history and
biography. Prophets, philosophers and his-
torians display but little knowledge of what
is real and true, and along with the biograph-
ers, are but little removed from novelists.
When Cicero wrote to the historian Lucceius,
and asked him to compose the history of the
orator’s exploits, Cicero, forsooth, was antici-
pating the plot of Chariton’s romance of
Chaireas and Callirhoe (p. 99)! Such are
the results of the comparison of the unlike,
and of the failure to draw distinctions.

One of the pundits at the recent Congress
of the History of Religions said that it
was time scholars began to discriminate.
To read this speculation of Mr. Reitzenstein
where the argument is of so bare a thread
and where it rests upon the faintest analogies,
is like reading in a dictionary where the
alphabet furnishes the succession of topics.

And yet Mr. Reitzenstein has not failed
to keep in view the purpose for which his
book was composed. For it has been com-
posed witha purpose. He proposes to prove
that the methods of early Christian writers
are part of a great tradition ; that for example
the Acts of the Apostles was written much in
the same way as other short histories. But
in order to avoid dogmatic considerations,
he has gone outside the province of canonical
literature, and has subjected the apocryphal
Acts of Thomas to a comparison with Egyptian
and Greek miraculous stories. In particular
the two hymns contained in the Acts of
Thomas are traced to earlier Hellenistic
literature, and ultimately to Egyptian
sources.

Will it be believed that Mr. Reitzenstein
is unable to deal with Egyptian and Coptic
sources at first hand? He invented in his
previous book, the Poemandres, an Hermetic
community for which there is no adequate
warrant. In reviewing the Poemandres else-
where, I purposely omitted a protest against
this unscholarly treatment of a great subject.
But others have been less considerate of Mr.

Reitzenstein’s feelings, and I gather from
a footnote (p. 14), that Mr. Walter Otto has
spoken quite clearly upon this matter. I
will quote Mr. Reitzenstein against himself.
‘The help of friends does not compensate
for the lack of knowledge of the language’
(p. 103 ἢ). Mr. Reitzenstein makes the
reader doubtful, when he speaks of the
vulture as ¢#e divine bird of Egypt without
even a reference to the hawk of Horus (p.
21). And the author not being able to
read Egyptian, attaches a quite ridiculous
importance to isolated phrases taken from
the huge and formless mass of Egyptian
literature. The present reviewer has but a
slight knowledge of things Egyptian. But
even a slight knowledge of the Egyptian
language dispels the awe with which Mr.
Reitzenstein approaches Egyptian tradition.
I am sorry to seem ungrateful to Mr. Reit-
zenstein for the many interesting suggestions
which his books contain.

Mr. Helm’s book is a valuable contribution
to the study of Lucian, and incidentally
covers some of the ground traversed by
Mr. Reitzenstein. The two writers agree in
this, that Lucian’s debt to Menippus was
considerable. Lucian’s object was ‘to make
Menippus live again’ (Lucian und Mentpp,
p. 13), and outside this object Lucian was
unsuccessful. Mr. Helm treats in turn of
those works of Lucian which owe something
to Menippus, apart from whom he says
Lucian’s invention flags. Mr. Helm, how-
ever, has not entirely settled how Lucian
stood to Menippus. For there is a serious
omission which deserves notice. Much is
said about Lucian’s lack of invention and of
constructive power. But little acknowledg-
ment is made of his undoubted command
of style. His fine taste received powerful
impulse in the sculptor’s workshop, which he
early deserted but of which he never lost
the remembrance. No one would gather
from either of the works under review, that
the conception of the antique world should
include the balanced sublimity and beauty
of which antique sculpture is the symbol, and
that here Lucian is of the greatest importance.
Lucian, says Professor Ernest Gardner, is
undoubtedly the most trustworthy art-critic of
antiquity ; it is through Lucian’s eyes that

86 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

we see the most splendid vision of material
beauty.

It is a shock, therefore, to pass from Lucian
to the inelegant comparison which Mr. Helm
has borrowed (p. 343). He quotes a German
humorist who says that ‘Verses should be
sprinkled in a book written in prose, with
the same purpose as bacon is sprinkled in
sausage.’ I wonder what Lucian would
have said about the taste of his critic. It
may be, after all, that the continued study
and imitation of Greek and Roman prose
and poetry is needed to keep the Teutonic
mind in touch with the beautiful and sublime
in style. Recent innovations in classical

studies are based upon the assumption that
the vernacular speech of the age is represented
by its great writers. This is the opposite
of the facts. Lucian’s Attic is not more
artificial than the dialect which was used for
their works by Caesar and Cicero. ‘The
style is the man.’ In the elaborate analysis
which forms the staple of the two works
under consideration, the human personality
disappears. But it is just the touch of the
artist that gives greatness and unity to his
picture.
F. GRANGER.

University College,
Nottingham.

THE HISTORY OF MORAL IDEAS.

(1) De Consctentiae Notione, quae et qualis
Juerit Romanis. By RorLtor MULDER.
Lugduni Batavorum: apud E. J. Brill.
MCMVIII. Pp. 127.

(2) Philosophy and Popular Morals in
Ancent Greece. By A. E. Dosss, Junr.
Dublin: E. Ponsonby ; London: Simpkin,
Marshall and Co. 1907. Pp. xi+282.
55. net.

THESE books are the result of very careful
attempts to discover, not only the views of
ancient writers on ethics, but also the
popular morality which was recognised by
the Greeks and Romans.

Dr. Mulder quotes in full the chief passages
from Latin literature in which the words
‘conscire’, ‘conscius’ and ‘conscientia’ are
found (pp. 6-49), and although ‘conscientia’
does not occur before the time of Cicero,
he infers, not that the term was unknown
previously, but that it began then to acquire
its moral force.

In the next chapter he argues that ‘ religio,’
as implying an external, prohibiting power,
could not develop the idea of conscience,
the evolution of which was due to the study
of philosophy (particularly of the Stoic system)
and its teaching that there was innate in man
a divine arbiter of right and wrong.

Finally, after a few remarks about the
consciousness of sin (implied in ‘fides,’

‘ pudor,’ ‘delictum,’ etc.) among the Romans
in pre-Ciceronian times, a full account is
given of ‘conscientia’ as internal accuser,
witness and judge. The writer concludes:

‘In religione non tam amor quam timor
verecundiaque deorum homines, ut deos
colerent, impellebant.

“δες omnia, quominus notio conscientiae
cresceret, impedire, quin etiam in rebus, quae
ad religionem pertinerent, numquam vocem
conscientiae apud Romanos inveniri, supra
ostendimus.

‘Deinde religione neglecta philosophia
munus paedagogi suscepit: sed rursus normae,
secundum quas vitam disponere actionesque
regere volebant, a recta via declinabant.
Conscientiae autem notionem ea aetate, qua
philosophia cum Stoicorum tum Platonicorum
recentiorum homines, ut in se recederent,
monebat, crevisse atque amplificatam esse,
satis apparebat’ (pp. 118, 119).

The work abounds in illuminating thoughts,
e.g. the distinction between ‘recta con-
scientia’ (the ‘mens sibi conscia recti’),
which is an internal law, a guiding power or
compass, and ‘bona conscientia,’ which is
the approval of a ‘conscience void of offence.’
But the writer seems to pay too little attention
to the early stage, in which the Romans,
under the training of their laws and customs,
were gradually becoming more and more
conscious of moral responsibility and a sense

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 87

of sin. Even ‘religio’ formed habits of
thinking which, later on, developed into
deeper moral ideas.

Mr. Dobbs describes first of all the morality
of the early Greeks and that current in the
period of enlightenment,, represented by
Euripides, in which the old sanctions ceased
to bind thinking men and gave way to
philosophic ethics. He then proceeds to
trace the reflex influence of philosophy on
popular life and thought. The latter subject
is novel, and although the writer has scarcely
proved that the influence of philosophy was
great, he deserves the gratitude of scholars
for his candid presentation of the evidence
and for the industry with which he has
collected references. His account, however,
of duty and conscience (p. 165 and Appendix
C) is very meagre, and he recognises even
less than Dr. Mulder the importance of
tracing from the earliest times the sense of
sin, a feeling which .certainly existed (as
shown, e.g. by the word αἰδώς), even though
imperfect and inarticulate.

English scholars have displayed wonderful
industry in expounding the tenets of Plato
and Aristotle, but in discussing the growth
of popular morals among the Greeks and
Romans they appear to have neglected the
‘labour of the spade.’ Brilliant general-
isations, sometimes right, often wrong, are
common enough; careful tabulation of the
evidence, in chronological order and in
relation to institutions, is conspicuously
wanting. What is needed is a minute
analysis of all the non-philosophic writings,
so that an investigator may have at his
command what each author says about man’s
duty to the gods, the state, his family and
himself. Doubtless much of this work has
been done already, but it is buried in
forgotten theses or magazine articles. These

should be unearthed and supplemented, and
the evidence published in one or two volumes
without comment. The labour involved
would be immense, but as only the most
important passages need be quoted in full,
the volume or volumes would not be very
bulky. The writer speaks from experience,
as he has already analysed three authors in
this way. With such a guide historians would
be less apt to forget the effects of time and
place, or to couple together Homer and
Plutarch (after the manner of L. Schmidt)
without realising that they are separated by
a thousand years.

Mr. Dobbs, while admitting the value of
this method, points out the difficulty of
distinguishing between literary and popular
ethics. ‘The views propounded in books,
on the platform, or on the stage, do not
always represent the principles of faith and
practice generally accepted at the time’ (p.
226). But, after all, literature is practically
all we have upon which to base our
conclusions, and it goes without saying that
the historian must not interpret his authorities
in a wooden, unintelligent way. Moreover,
the ‘views propounded in books’ do not
exhaust the evidence to be obtained from
literature. The moral tone which is implied
in a remark is often of far greater value than
moral judgments definitely expressed. ‘Take,
for instance, the light thrown upon the
Athenian conception of a ‘ perfect gentleman’
by the following passage of Antiphon :

ὑπερῷόν τι ἦν τῆς ἡμετέρας οἰκίας, ὃ εἶχε
Φιλόνεως ὁπότ᾽ ἐν ἄστει διατρίβοι, ἀνὴρ καλός
τε καὶ ἀγαθὸς καὶ φίλος τῷ ἡμετέρῳ πατρί: καὶ
ἦν αὐτῷ παλλακή, ἣν ὁ Φιλόνεως ἐπὶ πορνεῖον
ἔμελλε καταστῆσαι.

Κατηγορία φαρμακείας. ὃ 14.
Such evidence as this is far from uncommon.
W. H. S. JONEs.

THE ODES OF HORACE.

The Odes of Horace: A Translation and an
Exposition. By E. R. Garnsey. Lon-
don: Swan, Sonnenschein & Co. 1907.
8vo. Pp. 230. 6s.

Mr. GarnseEy has called his book a Trans-

lation and an Exposition. The principle

that he has adopted in translating he explains
on page 3; he describes it as a rendering
‘in metre, but without rhythm or a set
scheme of prosody,’ and says of it: *The
reader will see that adherence to the “nuance”
of thought agreeable to the Latin mind has

88 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

often been preferred to the course of making
a change to something more congenial to the
English ear. The desire for fidelity has been
the cause of this, and the risk of uncouthness
has been faced in preference to any conscious
disturbance of the sense.’ Mr. Garnsey’s
method seems to be to translate, where he
reasonably can, into blank verse, but to let
any line that will not accommodate itself to
the demands of that metre, fend for itself.
How far the ‘“ nuances” agreeable to the
Latin mind’ have been adhered to is ques-
tionable: but that there is reason in his
apology for uncouthness may be seen by
considering such examples as the following :

Ode τ. 27.

‘ Wish you that I too share the strong Falernian ἢ
Let brother of Megilla the Opuntian
Tell to what wound he has been treated,
And from what dart he dies.’

or Ode Ill. 5.

‘ Has soldier of Crassus passed his life,
A dastard husband with a foreign mate?
And in the lands of foes—and fathers-in-law—
(Oh, Senate, oh, perverted morals!) with Mede
For king, have Marsian and Apulian grown old ?’

The object of the exposition, to which the
translation is but secondary, is to prove that
L. Licinius Murena, the brother-in-law of
Maecenas, was not only, as Dr. Verrall makes
him in his Studzes tn Horace, an important
personage in Horace’s writings, but the all-
pervading source of influence of the Odes,
which become in his hands a dark political

cryptogram. The events of 22 B.c. produced
this monumentum, the ‘memorial’ of this
lyrical Mr. Dick. Dr. Verrall has pointed
out many possible allusions to Murena; Mr.
Garnsey finds him everywhere. To the
Murena motive he traces all references to
astrology, metempsychosis, physical de-
formity, heirs, fish ponds, barrages, and
extravagance of various kinds. The man
had many aliases: he is Sybaris, Pyrrhus,
Telephus, Dellius (who has to become Gillo),
Grosphus, Gyas, Pirithous, Achilles; he is
one of the ‘three gentlemen at once’ who
constitute Cerberus: not content with being
the unclaimed ¢u of 1. 18 (as with Dr.
Verrall), he lays claim to the pronoun in
1. zo. The method by which he is identified
with Thaliarchus in Ode 1. 9 will serve as an
illustration: Soracte is mentioned in the
same Ode; Soracte is in the territory of the
Hirpini; Hirpus, whence comes the name,
means wolf: this suggests Lycaon in Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, Book I., whose banquet is
connected with a plot against Augustus. It
seems strange that ‘the most gentlemanlike
of Roman poets’ should trouble his generous
patron with incessant references to his dis-
honoured kinsman, even though anxious to
show that he did not class them in his mind
together. But there is too much Murena,
however ingeniously Mr. Garnsey has em-
ployed his learning. Henry I. died of a

surfeit of lamprey.
A. 5. OWEN.

SERVIUS GRAMMATICUS.

Servoit Grammatica qui feruntur in Vergihi
carmina Commentarit. THILO and HaGEN.
Vol. ui, Fasc. 1. Appendix Serviana.
Leipzig: B. Ὁ. Teubner, 1902. Pref.
pp. Vil—xili + I-540.

WE have here the penultimate volume of
Thilo’s Servius, the appendix arranged and
emended by Hermann Hagen just before his
death. Only the indices remained to be
done, and a preface in which it was hoped
he would address himself to the difficult
questions concerning Probus and Philargyrius.

This work will be undertaken by Paul
Rabbow, who will thus bring the work to
completion. The present volume contains
the so-called additions to the Vulgate found
in MSS. of the ninth and tenth centuries,
first published in 1600 by Daniel. It has
been generally held that the Danielian addi-
tions were not part of the original commentary
of Servius, but were transcribed into it from
a similar and equally sound work. This
volume contains (i) a commentary by Junius
Philargyrius on the Eclogues, excerpts from
which, now published in full for the first

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 89

time, are given in two forms in three MSS.
These two forms differ one from another
considerably, one being much fuller than the
other. One can never tell where a chance
piece of information thrown out in these
comments will be the missing link in
a hitherto broken chain of mythological,
literary, or social knowledge, and Mr. Warde
Fowler has recently made good use of such a
note on Eclogue iv. 63 in his essay on the
Messianic Eclogue. (ii) A short anonymous
explanation of the Georgics; (111) a com-
mentary on the Eclogues and Georgics,
assigned to Probus ; (iv) the Scholia Verone-
noia ; (v) Magni Glossarum libri glossae, to
which the name of Virgil is prefixed; (vi)
Grammatici incerti Glossae, on Aen. xii. ;
(vii) Scriptoris incerti Glossarium Vergili-
anum ; and finally (viii) Grammatical Frag-
ments of Asper. As to the commentary on
the Georgics, it is no longer assigned (since
M. Thomas) to Philargyrius; but its informa-
tion as to grammar, history, and antiquities
is drawn, like that of Servius, from scholars
of the first and early second centuries.
Nettleship, judging from the remains of the
notes of Probus preserved in Servius and

later writers, would assign to him the first
place among the commentators of Virgil,
whether from the point of view of textual
criticism or interpretation. But the bulk of
the commentary here preserved he refuses to
believe to be the work of Probus. Instead
of grammar and criticism (the subjects which
Suetonius and his own scattered notes would
have us expect), this commentary is con-
cerned with points of mythology, history,
and theosophy. We can heartily endorse
Nettleship’s remark: ‘Nor can its quality as
a whole, though here and there it gives us a
valuable remark, be pronounced at all worthy
of what might have been expected from the
great scholar of Berytus.’ The good quality
of the Verona Scholia is well known, ‘their
air of genuine antiquity, their clearness,
fulness, and sanity of view.’ Modern com-
mentators cannot dispense with the Verona
Scholia as here most carefully edited. We
need not here consider the other sections of
this volume, which must find a place on the
shelves of Virgilian scholars if only for the
Philargyrius and Verona Scholia.

S. E. WINBOLT.

TWO BOOKS OF VERSIONS.

Hlosculi Graeci Boreales: Series Nova. Aber-
deen University Studies, No. 28. Decerpsit
JoaNNnEs Harrower. Aberdeen University
Press. 1907.

THis is a volume for the book-lover, finely
printed on goodly paper, and full of good
things. It contains a hundred versions in
various kinds of Greek verse, with a few
epigrams and oddities thrown in. Some of
the pieces are of considerable length: one
renders a whole scene from Byron’s JZarino
fatiero. ‘The greater number of the versions
are in iambics, and the iambics are nearly all
excellent: to add to the interest, the originals
are mostly new, although a few old favourites
are repeated. Next in favour come the
elegiacs, and these are also the most pleasing
to the reader. The iambics sometimes smell
of the lamp a little, but the elegiacs are
graceful and spontaneous in a high degree.

We may especially mention the versions of
A. W. Muir, who is not afraid to compress
an English lyric: he has his reward, as may
be seen by a comparison of his version on
p. 69, and another on p. 151 of Rossetti’s
song, ‘When I am dead, my dearest.’ His
version is admirable indeed, and all his work
is marked by a welcome clearness. He has
another charming version (p. 131) of Words-
worth’s Zucy. Several pieces are Theocritean
Doric, which goes well in rendering our
native Doric ; all these are pretty, especially
so one by the editor on p. 31, and an
ὀαριστὺς (p. 233) by Wm. Calder. One
or two short sets of Sapphics are not
quite so successful. There are also trochaic
tetrameters, anacreontics (rather free in
rhythm), and one or two choral pieces.
Certain versions are unsuccessful because
the English is unsuitable ; one is ‘ Crossing
the Bar,’ in which the last couplet reads

go

more confused in Greek even than in

English, through no fault of the translator. —

We cannot pretend to have compared all
the translations with their text as if examin-
ing for the Tripos, but we have noted
hardly anything to find serious fault with.
Perhaps the rhythm of the Theocriteans is
not always quite sound (¢.g. p. 30, line 6),
the Anacreontics allow a variation of ~~ - and
~-in the first foot, and petéyvos (p. 235)
is better avoided ; surely Cordelia’s truth is
πίστις, not ἀλήθεια (p. 85). A. few lighter
pieces complete the volume: please note
‘Mary had a Little Lamb,’ in charming
anacreontics.

HARVARD STUDIES IN

Harvard Studies
Vol. xvii. 1906.

in Classical Philology.
Pp. 185. 6s. 6d. net.

Mr. Morean leads off with a few detached
notes on the text, subject matter, and date of
Vitruvius, The most interesting point as to
the text is the question whether a dative can
be joined to dignus. He might have cited
the parallel dative with ἄξιος and, as that
suggests, have drawn a distinction. ‘I am
worthy of death’ is different from ‘This is
worthy of (a worthy thing for) Venus,’ and
the latter would seem likelier to admit a
dative. Mr. Rand argues in a very readable
paper from material collected by others that
Virgil was by no means adverse to Catullus
and that he shows in fact no small liking
and admiration for him. Except perhaps as
regards Horace, Mr. Rand controverts the
idea that Catullus was depreciated by the
Augustans. Mr. Minton Warren gives an
account of five Roman MSS. of Donatus on
Terence, not used in Wessner’s edition, and
Mr. Moore maintains that the /aurobolium
originated in the worship of the Great Mother
herself in Asia Minor. Prof. H. Weir Smyth
prints his presidential address to the American
Philological Association on ‘Aspects of Greek
Conservatism,’ dealing mainly with the fixity
of types and some other conservative traditions
in Greek literature. About political, social or
speculative matters he has less to say. Dr.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Nugae Latinae: Verses and Translations by
the late Edward Conolly, of Merton College,
Oxford. Edited by Rev. T. L. PAPILLon.
Oxford: Blackwell. 1908. 2s. net.

A BRIEF memoir precedes this booklet, ex-

plaining that ‘verse-writing’ was the solace

of the author’s life in time of trouble. The
pieces given are few, but all delicately
finished. Mr. Conolly prefers the lighter
lyric or quasi-lyric metres, and he uses them
with complete ease. Two versions are
especially striking: both in trochaic tetra-
meter. One renders ‘Der Konig in Thule’
in old-fashioned style; the other, ‘Lead

Kindly Light.’ Each easily puts two lines

of English into one of Latin.

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.

W. W. Goodwin recurs to the Battle of
Salamis and urges further with modifications
the view he has previously put forward about
the movements of the Persian fleet. Prof.
J. W. White argues that not only in the
Lysistrata and one part of the Acharnians
but generally in Aristophanes the chorus falls
constantly into two divisions, and—what is
his special point—that we may recognise a
good deal as said or sung by the leader of
a second half-chorus as distinguished from
the coryphaeus who leads the first half and
at other times the two halves together. In
the lack of clear evidence the matter is very
doubtful, but Mr. White’s suggestions deserve
careful consideration, founded as they are on
minute study and sober judgment. Dr. J. H.
Wright, dismissing the idea that the cave in
Plato’s Republic was suggested by anything
in Empedocles, or again that the Corycian
cave on Parnassus or the Syracusan quarries
had anything to do with it, starts the interest-
ing theory that a cave at Vari on Hymettus
(‘finally and fully explored in February, 1901,
by students of the American School of Classi-
cal Studies at Athens’) was in Plato’s mind.
Running parallel with the back wall of the
cave, he says, for about eighty feet and at
a distance of fourteen is a platform of stone,
raised some feet above the floor. Images
and votive offerings have been found on the
spot. Tradition connects the infant Plato

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW gt

with Hymettus, though not explicitly with the
Vari cave. Mr. Chase writes on an amphora;
Mr. Parker on Seneca’s Sacer intra nos spiritus
(22. 41), contending that sfz77tws represents
energy more than anything else, and that
πνεῦμα in St. Paul has the same meaning:
it is as energy that the spirit is opposed to
the enslaving flesh, not as abstract Platonic

SHORT

HEGEMONIUS: ACTA ARCHELAL.

Hegemonius: Acta Archelai, herausgegeben tm
Auftrage der Kirchenviter-Commission der
Α΄. Preuss. Ak. der Wiss. Von CHARLES
Henry Besson. Leipzig: J. C. Hin-
richs’sche Buchhandlung. 1906. lvi+134.
Price M. 6.

THE Acta Archelai, which has served for a
long time as an important source for our
knowledge of Manichaeism, has till recently
been known only in an imperfect form.
It was suspected that it was incomplete,
and this has been placed beyond question
by Traube’s discovery of a manuscript con-
taining the complete Latin text. This has
now been edited for the series known as
Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller
der Ersten Dret Jahrhunderte, by Mr. C.
H. Beeson. He has prefixed an admirable
introduction dealing with the references to
_ it in literature; the original language, which
in common with most recent scholars he
believes to have been Greek, not Syriac ;
the Latin translation; the manuscripts and
their relation to each other. There is an
excellent critical apparatus and exhaustive
indices, those for the Greek and Latin words
deserving special praise. The author has not
shrunk from putting conjectural emendations
in his text, for example Routh’s ‘parabolam’
for ‘paruulam’ in chapter 67. The chief
interest of the work lies, however, in the
new portion. The older text broke off in
the most tantalising way in the middle of
a very important quotation from Basilides,
which seemed to several scholars definitely
to pledge the great heresiarch to the recog-
nition of two original independent principles,

thought (νοῦς) or as modern mystical per-
sonality. Finally, Mr. Howard examines in
detail the relation of Livy to Valerius Antias
with the view of showing that Livy, far from
following Valerius blindly, had the greatest
possible distrust of his authority.

H. RICHARDS.

NOTICES

light and darkness. Other scholars considered
that while the author of the Acza took Basilides
to be a dualist, the quotation did not neces-
sarily bear out this inference. The new
material is extremely interesting, but it does
not seem definitely to settle the question
whether Basilides endorsed the description
of Persian dualism which he gave. It is
very regrettable that the author did not
prolong his quotation. In view of the sen-
sational discovery of primitive Manichaean
documents at Turfan, the importance of the
Acta for our knowledge of Manichaeism will
be much diminished, and if we could only
be lucky enough to recover the Lwegetica
of Basilides we should be able to solve a
problem which the additional material in the
new manuscript of Hegemonius, in spite of
Bousset’s contrary opinion in his Hazfr-
probleme der Gnosis, seems to leave much
where it was.
ARTHUR S. PEAKE.

Le Droit Pénal Romain. Par TH. MOMMSEN.
Traduit de allemand avec lautorisation
de la famille de l’auteur et l’editeur alle-
mand par J. DuQUESNE, professeur a la
faculté de droit de Grenoble. Volumes
I-III. -Pp. xvi, 401, 443, 420. Paris:
Fontemoing, 1907. Fr. 30.

In default of an English translation of

Mommsen’s standard work on Rémisches Straf-

recht this competent and readable version in

French by Professor Duquesne will prove a

boon to the considerable number of English

and American students who cannot read Ger-
man or prefer to read French. The book is
strictly a translation, the only alterations

92 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

introduced in addition to those warranted
by the errata in the German edition, are a
few corrections of indisputable mistakes ;
the change of perduellis (ii. p. 234 = 538) to
perduellio would appear then to be an acci-
dent. The pagination of the original is given
in the margin, and a full index is promised,
the German one being insufficient. The
tribute which the translator pays to the
author may be quoted here: ‘II fallait, en
effet, pour répondre aux exigences de tous

dans le domaine du droit pénal, reunir les
connaissances du jurisconsulte, de l’historien
et du philologue; or Mommsen les posse-
dait toutes ἃ un degré rare. Concu et
executé par un tel savant, le livre ne pouvait
étre qu’une ceuvre magistrale appelee ἃ une
grande renommeée et ἃ un long avenir. Les
espérances n’ont pas eté decues et tous les
juges compétents s’accordent a reconnaitre
que Védifice construit est “solide comme le

ΤᾺ)
granit.

NEWS AND

Mr. Β. G. TeuBNER (Leipzig) asks
purchasers of Brandt’s Lclogae Loetarum
Latinorum to communicate with him, if
they have any suggestions to make as to a
new edition. He wishes to know whether
they find the selection meets their wants,
or whether they would recommend any
change, omission, or addition. Letters may
be addressed to Mr. Nutt.

THE two longest papers in the Classical
Quarterly for April are Mr. T. W. Allen’s
dissertation on the meaning of Argos in
Homer and Mr. A. T. Martin’s examination
of an inscription to Mars found at Caerwent.
Mr. Cook Wilson writes on the use of ἀλλ᾽ 7)
in Aristotle and points out in a shorter paper
that Miss D. Mason’s explanation of Phile-
bus 316 has been anticipated. Mr. W. R.
Paton contributes suggestions on the first
six books of the Laws of Plato. The later
Greeks are well represented in the number.
Mr. Tucker emending Strabo and Plutarch’s
Moralia and Mr. Richards the Philostrati,
while Mr. Kronenberg has a few notes on
M. Antoninus. The editor, writing on ‘Some
Tibullian problems,’ discusses Mr. Warde
Fowler’s theory of Tibullus II. i. as published
in the Classical Review of March, 1908. The
reviews comprise Traube’s ‘ Nomina Sacra’
and posthumous works by Mr. Lindsay,
Henderson’s ‘Civil War and Rebellion,’ by
Mr. E. G. Hardy, Bianca Bruno’s ‘Third
Samnite War,’ by Miss Matthaei, and ‘A

COMMENTS

Sketch-book of Ancient Rome,’ by Mr.
Ashby.

BeEsIDEs the representations of the Frags
at Oxford and the /phigeneta at Cardiff, there
are other signs of the vivifying of classical
work. Miss Ethel Wilkinson of Chicago
describes in the Classical Journal the acting
of Roman scenes in a way that gives scope
for much originality. In one class a Latin
debate was held on the punishment of the
Catilinarian conspirators. ‘The teacher’s
chair represented the sella curulis, the ordinary
seats the subsellia, a side aisle the lobby
where Cicero’s son-in-law Piso stood... .
Some had the part of tribunes stationed near
the door, others were lictors. The auspices
were declared favorable.... We had a
number of short speeches in addition to
those on record by Decimus Silanus, Cato
and Caesar.’ Since the pupils knew they
were to act later, they took a keen interest in
the preliminary reading of the fourth against
Catiline.

Another class acted the meeting of the
senate described by Cicero in his third
speech before the people. Volturcius was
brought in alone and cross-examined, after-
wards the Allobroges, and then the con-
spirators, one by one, were confronted with
their seal and handwriting, and obliged to
own them. The thread was cut, and the
contents of the waxed tablets read. During
the cross-examination, Sulpicius rushed in

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 93

breathless, bearing an armful of poles (the
weapons from Cethegus’ house). Another
class acted the trial of Archias in the same
way.

Hints for similar scenes may be found in
most of the ancient orations. For example,
Zenothemis makes a very good series of
scenes for beginners in Greek. Others,
depending more on invention, may be found
in the teachers appendix to Walters ἃ
Conway’s Limen.

THE ‘FROGS’ AT OXFORD.

LIKE all revivals of Greek plays, the recent
representation of the /vogs was at once
helped and embarrassed by the success of
a former production. The immense popu-
larity of the 1892 play has become a legend,
and subsequent performances are bound to
suffer by comparison: at the same time,
the earlier experience of Oxford and Radley
supplied many useful hints, sometimes warn-
ings, more often examples, of which recent
stage management was able to take full
advantage: and it may be fairly said that in
point of archaeological correctness, artistic
effect, stage machinery and mse en scéne
generally, this year’s representation improved
on both its predecessors, and did infinite
credit to the O.U.D.S. and their collabor-
ators—notably to Mr. Cyril Bailey, the
guiding spirit of the whole. All that criticism
can suggest is that perhaps improvement and
imitation can go a little too far in exploiting
the (of course abundant) opportunities for
comic business. For instance, the ‘corpse’
achieved an extraordinary popularity in 1892
—in its place: ought it therefore to appear
as a comic κωφὸν πρόσωπον in the latter part
of the play? Again, the βρεκεκεκέξ. scene
was really spoilt by the introduction of
small boys dressed as frogs,—however much
this may have amused the children them-
selves and their families. But these are
small matters.

If no two actors quite competed with the

Euripides-Dionysus combination of seven-
teen years ago, what was noticeable this year
was the general average of competence
throughout. The minor performers were
uniformly good: Heracles had a gift of truly
Heraclean laughter, Aeacus maintained the
best traditions of his part, and Charon, with
his far-away suggestion of a ’bus-conductor
in the nether world, was quite excellent.
Moreover, Greek seemed to be familiar to a
larger proportion of the cast than is usual on
these occasions. Among the more important
roles, Mr. Corbett’s Euripides was the best
piece of acting in the play—quiet, restrained,
dignified, and showing also an unusual
familiarity with the stage. The only question
was whether Aristophanes did not intend
Euripides to be a little more ridiculous. M.
de Stein entered into the part of Xanthias
with great humour. The réle of Dionysus is
extremely difficult: like Hamlet, he is on
the stage nearly all the time: and no two
critics agree as to how the part should be
acted. Certainly it is wrong to make him an
aesthete: probably to present him as a keen-
witted and rather cynical and also rather
effeminate man of the world is nearer the
mark. Under the circumstances it is not to
be wondered at that M. Howard as Dionysus
seemed rather more conscious of what he
had to avoid than what he had to aim at:
and his representation was rather colourless
in consequence: but the fault such as it was
lay more in the conception, or want of con-
ception, than in the acting, and he deserved
credit for grappling manfully with difficulties
which perhaps could hardly be overcome.
Taking the play as a whole, the impression
of the acting is one of pervading merit rather
than pre-eminent brilliance. But the chorus
may be praised without any qualification.
They moved as they should and they sang
Sir Hubert Parry’s musi¢ as it ought to be
sung: it is even said that they satisfied their
conductor. Few who saw the play will
forget the delightful effect of the χωρῶμεν és

πολυῤῥόδους λειμῶνας Movement.
Φ.

94

VERSIONS AND

FOR GREEK ELEGIACS.

TAKE me away, and in the lowest deep
There let me be,

And there in hope the lone night-watches

keep

Told out for me.

There soul-refreshed and happy in my pain,
Lone, not forlorn,—

There will I sing my sad perpetual strain,
Until the morn.

Newman, Zhe Dream of Gerontius.

(Set 27: the Classical Tripos, Cambridge, Feb. 22, 1882.)

PRINCE’S GRAVE.

Here in his grave above the lonely sea

Sleeps Prinnie, faithful to the last to me.

No more he'll roam these hills and dales,

no more

Will breast the waves upon the windy shore:

His times are over and his sun is set ;

His dear old self lives on in memory yet!
W. H. SAvILe.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

TRANSLATIONS

IDEM GRAECE.
*Evd τις εἶα λαβὼν ποτιθές μ᾽ ὑπὸ βένθεσι
γαίας,

δός τέ μοι τῆλε φίλων κεῖσθαι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ:
ἔλπιδας ἔνθα τρέφω μακρᾶς διὰ νυκτὸς ἄνπνος

ἐν δνοφεροῖς κευθμοῖς Gpap ἐπ᾽ Gpap ἄγων.
ἔνθαδε μοῦνος ἐὼν, μάλα δ᾽ ὄλβιος, ἄλγεα κρύψω

ἔντοσθεν πραπίδων τήνδ᾽ ἀναπαῦλαν ἔχων.
λήξω δ᾽ οὐποθ᾽ ὁλῆς λιγυρῶς διὰ νυκτὸς ἀείρειν

ἐν θνήνοις μινυροῖς δακρυόεσσαν ὄπα.

J. Hupson.

Pet. Coll. and Seatonian ( University)
Prizeman.

A las) > ΄ ΓΝ ἢ > ,
Μνῆμα τόδ᾽, ὦ παριών, ὑπὲρ ἀτρυγέτοιο
θαλάσσης
> U 3 - “Μ᾿ ’
ἡρίον εἰσαθρεῖς πιστοτάτου σκύλακος.
αν i ae) ” \ ΄ ἄν» ὍΝ
οὐκέτ᾽ ἀν᾽ οὔρεα μακρὰ κυλίνδεται, οὐκέτ᾽ GV
:
ἄγκη,
> U 4 /, 4 ᾿ς
οὐκέτι δὴ παίζει κύμασι νηχόμενος"
ἠέλιος δὲ δέδυκέ οἱ ὕστατον. ἀλλ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔτ᾽ αὐτὸς
ζώει ἀείμνηστος δεσπότου ἐν κραδίῃ.

R. C. SEaTon.

BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note of
the price.

The size of Books is given in inches: 4 inches=10 centimetres (roughly).

They are unbound unless

the binding ts specified.
*.* Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Aristophanes. The Acharnians of Aristophanes. With
introduction, critical notes and commentary by W.

Rennie, M.A. 8”’x5". Pp. viiit+280. London,
Edward Arnold. 1909. Cloth, 6s. net.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Book VI. With

essays, notes, and translation by L. H. G. Green-
wood, M.A. δξ" χ 53’. Pp. vilit+214. Cambridge,
University Press. 1909. Cloth, 6s. net.

Augustine. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi de
civitate Dei libri XXII. Tertium recognovit B.
Dombart. Vol. I. Lib. i-xiii. (δ 124. Script. Gr.
et Rom. Teub.) 53 43. Pp. xxxiv+6o0.

Leipzig, B. G. Teubner.
in Leinwand, M. 5.60.
Baker (Charles M‘Coy) and Zmgilzs (Alexander James)
High School Course in Latin Composition. 73 x 5”.
Pp. xiv+464. New York, The Macmillan Com-

pany. 1909. Cloth, 5s.

1909. geh. M. 5; σεῦ.

Bentley (Richard), D.D. A Bibliography of his works
and of all the literature called forth by his acts or
his writings, by A. T. Bartholomew, M.A. With
an introduction and chronological table by J. W.
Clark, M.A. 82?” x 62”. Pp. xx+116. Cambridge,
Bowes ἃ Bowes. 1908. Linen back, 7s. 6d.
net.

Boni (Giacomo) Trajan’s Column. (From the Pro-
ceedings of the British Academy. Vol. 741.
οὗ x62". Pp. 6. London, Henry Frowde.
1909. 15. net.

Brugmann (Karl) und Delértick (Berthold) Grundriss
der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermani-
schen Sprachen. Band II. Lehre von den Wort-
formen und ihrem Gebrauch ; von Karl Brugmann.

Teil II. Lief. 1. Zweite Bearbeitung. 9}” x 6}”.
Pp. 432. Strassburg, Karl J. Triibner. 1909.
Μ i.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 95

Butler (H. E.) Post-Augustan Poetry from Seneca
to Juvenal. 9”x σέ". Pp. vilit+ 324. Oxford,
Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth, 8s. 6d. net.

Caesar. Caesar’s Invasions of Britain. (De Bello
Gallico, Lib. IV. c. xx-V. c. xxiii.) Edited, with
introduction and notes, by the Rev. A. W. Upcott,
D.D., and Arthur Reynolds, M.A. (Sed/’s Zllus-
trated Classics.) 6}’x 4". Pp. viiit120+xxxil.
London, George Bell ἃ Sons. 1909. Cloth,
Is. 6d. net.

Cancogni (Domenico) Le Rovine del Palatino.
Guida Storico-Artistica. Con prefazione del Prof.
Rodolfo Lanciani. 6”x 4”. Pp. xvit+180, con una
pianta, 44 tavole e 5 figure nel testo. Milano,
Ulrico Hoepli. 1909. Linen, L. 3.50.

Carotti (Dr. G.) A History of Art; by Dr. G.
Carotti. Vol. II. (Part I.). Early Christian and
Neo-Oriental Art, European Art North of the Alps
[The Middle Ages]. Translated by Beryl de Zoete.
Revised by Mrs. S. Arthur Strong, Litt.D., LL.D.
62” x 42”. Pp. xxii+376, with 360 illustrations.
London, Duckworth & Co. 1909. Cloth, 5s. net.

Cauer (Paul) Grundfragen der Homerkritik. Zweite,
stark erweiterte und zum Teil umgearbeitete

Auflage. 82” 52”. Pp. vilit 552. Leipzig, S.
Hirzel. 1909. geh. M. 12; geb. in Leinen.
M513335;

Church (J. E.), Junr. Adolf Furtwaengler. The
Identity of the Child in Virgil’s Pollio. On Vergil’s
Aeneid I., 249. A Defense of Propertius IV. 3,
47, 48. (University of Nevada Studies. Edited
by the Committee on Publications. Vol. I. No. 2.
1908.) 93”x6". Pp. 61-98.

Cicero. M. Tulli Ciceronis Oratio pro M. Caelio.
Recensuit atque interpretatus est Jacobus van
Wageningen. 9355 χ 65". Pp. xxxiv+120. Gron-
ingen, P. Noordhoff. 1908. ΕἸ. 1.80; Mk. 3.

Cicero. Supplementum Ciceronianum. M. Tulli
Ciceronis de virtutibus libri fragmenta, collegit
Hermannus Knoellinger. (B76. Script. Gr. et
Rom. Teub.) 7}"x 42’. Pp. vi+96. Leipzig,
B. G. Teubner. 1908. geh. M. 2; geb. in Lein-
wand, M. 2.40.

Classical Association, Proceedings of the Classical

Association, 1908. With Rules and List of
Members. Vol. VI. 84” 54”. Pp. 188. London,
John Murray. 1909. 2s. 6d. net.

Curtius Rufus (Quintus) Q. Curti Rufi Historiarum
Alexandri Magni Macedonis libri qui supersunt,
iterum recensuit Edmundus Hedicke. (/76/. Script.
Gr. et Rom. Teub.) 7}"x4?". Editio Major.
Pp. x+404. geh. M. 3.60; geb. in Leinwand, 4.20.
Editio Minor. Pp. xii+312. geh. M. 1.20; geb.
in Leinwand, 1.60. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner.
1908.

Etymologicum Gudianum quod vocatur. Recensuit
et apparatum criticum indices que adjecit Ed.
Aloysius De Stefani. Fasc. 1. A-B. 10” x δῖ".
Pp. 293. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. 1909. M. Io.

Ferrero (Guglielmo) The Greatness and Decline of
Rome. Vol. V. The Republic of Augustus. By
Guglielmo Ferrero. Translated by the Rev. H. J.

Chaytor, M.A. 9”x 5%’ Pp.. 372. London,
William Heinemann. 1909. Cloth, 6s. net.

Fowler (W. Warde) Social Life at Rome in the Age
of Cicero. 9”x 53”. Pp. xvi+362. London,
Macmillan & Co. 1908. Cloth, Ios. net.

Frank (Tenney) A Chapter in the Story of Roman
Imperialism. (Reprinted from Classical Philology.
Vol. lV. No.2. April, 1909.) 10”x7". Pp. 118-
138. Chicago, Published by the University of
Chicago Press.

Frothingham (Arthur L.) The Monuments of Chris-
tian Rome from Constantine to the Renaissance.
(Handbooks of Archaeology and Antiquities.)
8” x5’. Pp. 412. New York, The Macmillan
Co. 1908. Cloth, τος. 6a.

Galenus. Galeni de usu partium libri xvii ad codicum
fidem recensuit Georgius Helmreich. Vol. II.
Libros ix-xvii continens. (2 164. Script. Gr. et
Rom. Teub.) 71’ χ 42’. Pp. vi+486. Leipzig,
B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 8; geb. in Lein-
wand, M. 8.60.

Grasserieé (Raoul de la) Essai d’une Sémantique
intégrale. (Ztudes de linguwistigue et de psychologie
linguistique.) 7%"x5". Tomel. Pp. 324. Tome

II. Pp. 325-672. Paris, Ernest Leroux. 1908.
Fr. 10,
Hardy (E. G.) Studies in Roman History. Second

Series. 73” x 72”.
London,
Cloth, 6s.

Hlense (Otto) Teletis Reliquae, recognovit pro-
legomena scripsit Otto Hense. LEditio secunda.
0: x6". Pp. cxxiv+108. Tiibingen, J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 1909. M. 7.

Hiller von Gaertringen (Ἐς ¥Frhr.) Briefwechsel iiber
eine attische Inschrift zwischen A. Boeckh und
K. O. Mueller aus dem Jahre 1835. Als Erginzung
des 1883 erschienenen Briefwechsels der beiden
Gelehrten mitgeteilt von F. F. Aaillex von Gaer-
91. x6” Pp. vi+44, mit. 22 Abb. im

Leipzig und Berlin, B. G. Teubner. 1908.

Pp. xii+308, with a map.
Swan Sonnenschein ἃ Co. I9g09.

tringen.
Text.
M. 2. 7
Hogarth (David 6.) JIonia and the East. Six
lectures delivered before the University of London.

ο΄ x54”. Pp. 118, withamap. Oxford, Clarendon
Press. 1909. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net. ($1.15.)
Homer. The Iliad of Homer. Books IX, X.

Translated into English Prose by E. H. Blakeney,
M.A. (Bell’s Classical Translations.) 7}" x 42".
Pp. 213-276. London, George Bell & Sons.
1909. Is.

Homer. La Question d’Homére. Les Poémes
Homériques, l’Archéologie et la Poésie populaire,
par A. Van Gennep. Suivi d’une bibliographie
critique par A. J. Reinach. (Les Hommes et les
Jdées, 10.) 7” x4%. Pp. 86. Paris, Mercure
de France. 1909. 75¢.

Tlberg (Johannes) und Wellmann (Max) Zwei
Vortrige zur Geschichte der antiken Medizin.
(Sonderabdruck aus dem XXJ. Bande der Neuen
Jahrbiicher fiir klassische Altertum, Geschichte und
deutsche Literatur.) 1 0%"x7". Pp. 585-703.
Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 1.40.

96 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Καρολίδης (II.) τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ γράμματα κατὰ τοὺς χρό-
vous τοῦ Χριστιανικοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ. I2mo. Pp. 82.
Published by the σύλλογος πρὸς διάδοσιν ὠφελίμων
βιβλίων. Athens, 1908. 50 centimes.

Krause (Dr. Emst) Diogenes von Apollonia.
Zweiter Teil. Mit einer Zeichnung des Ver-
fassers. Beilage zu dem Jahresberichte des
koniglichen Gymnasiums zu Gnesen, Ostern, 1909.
1909. Zu Programm Nr. 224. 10}”x8". Pp. 16.
Posen, Merzbachsche Buchdruckerei. 1909.

Livy. Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri. Editionem
primam curavit Guilelmus Weissenborn. Editio
altera, quam curavit Guilelmus Heraeus. Pars
V. Fase. 1. Liber xxxix-xl. (Bz. Script. Gr.
et Rom. Teub.) 73" x 42". Pp. xvit+112. Leipzig,
B. 6. Teubner. 1908. geh. 85 Pf.; geb. in
Leinwand, M. 1.25.

Marett (R. R.) The
ΠΧ ΕΝ Pp. χα 174.
1909. Cloth, 3-. 6d. net.

Merry (W. W.) Orationes tum Creweianae tum
Gratulatoriae in Theatro Sheldoniano plerumque
habitae, auctore W. W. Merry, D.D. 9%” x 62”.
Pp. 102. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth,
6s. net.

Miinchener Archiologische Studien dem Andenken
Adolf Furtwaenglers gewidmet. 10''x7}". Pp.
vili+504. Munich, Oskar Beck. 1909. Linen
back, Μ. 25.

Naylor (H. Darnley) Latin and English Idiom.
An Object Lesson from Livy’s Preface. 73” κ΄.
Pp. viiit+72. Cambridge, University Press. 1909.
Cloth, 2s. bs

Oppien ad’ Apamée. La Chasse. Edition critique
par Pierre Boudreaux. (Bzbliothégue de [ Ecole des
Hautes Etudes. Fasc. 172.) 10"x6%". Pp. 152.
Paris, Librairie Honoré Champion. 1908. Fr. 7.

Partsch (Josef) Griechisches Biirgschaftrecht. Teil
I. Das Recht des altgriechischen Gemeindestaats.
93” x 62”. Pp. x+434. Leipzig und Berlin, B. G.
Teubner. 1909. M. 14.

Plessis (Frédéric) La Poésie Latine (De Livius
Andronicus a Rutilius Namatianus). 9” x 54”.
Pp. xvi+710. Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Igog. Fr. 12.

Proclus Diadochus. Procli Diadochi Hypotyposis
astronomicarum positionum. Una cum scholiis
antiquis e libris manu scriptis edidit Germanica
interpretatione et commentariis instruxit Carolus
Manitius. (2221. Script. Gr. et Rom. Teub.)
74 x 42". Pp. xlvit+378. Leipzig, B. G. Teub-
ner. 1909. geh. M. 8; geb. M. 8.60.

Robert (Carl) Pausanias als Schriftsteller. Studien
und Beobachtungen von Carl Robert. 9}” x 6}”.
Pp. 348, 2 Planen und 7 Planskizzen im Text.
Berlin, Weidmann. 1909, M. Io.

Rotron (F. X. M. J.) Etude sur I’Imagination
Auditive de Virgile. Thése presentée a la Faculté
des Lettres de l’ Université de Paris par F. X. M. J.
Roiron, S.J. 10”x6%”. Pp. iv+690. Paris,
Ernest Leroux. 1908. Fr. 12.

Ῥοιρων (&. Ξ. M. 1.) Κριτικα και Ἐξηγητικα περι
τριων Ονεργιλιου στίχων A 10.857, 4.436, 6.242

Threshold of Religion.
London, Methuen & Co.

κατα καινὴν μεθοδον πειρασαμενος τῷ. τῆς ἐν παρισιοις
παναχαδημείας Μουσείῶ παρεθηχε ©. Ξ. Μ. I.
Ροιρων. ἐχ τῆς Ἑταιρειας Inoov. 10”x6%". Pp.
94. Paris, Ernest Leroux. 1908. Fr. 3.
Schneider (Rudolf) Griechische Poliorketiker.. Mit
den handschriftlichen Bildern herausgegeben und
iibersetzt von Rudolf Schneider. II. (Adhand-
lungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu G6ttingen. Philologisch-historische

Klasse. Neue Folge. Band XI. WNro. 1.)
10?” x 83”. Pp. 110, mit 11 Tafeln. Berlin,
Weidmann. 1908. M. 9.

Sthlery (E. G.) Testimonium Animae, or Greek and
Roman before Jesus Christ. A Series of Essays
and Sketches dealing with the Spiritual Elements
in Classical Civilization; by E. G. S., Professor
of the Latin Language and Literature in the New
York University. 9”x6". Pp. viit+453. New
York, Stechert & Co. 1908. $2.25 net, post
paid.

Solmsen (Felix) Beitrage zur Griechischen Wort-
forschung. TeilI. 9}”’x6’. Pp. 270. Strassburg,
Karl J. Triibner. 1909. M. 9.

Tacitus. Germania. Edited by J. F. Stout, B.A.
(The University Tutorial Series.) 7” x 43". Pp.
viii+74. London, W. B. Clive. 1909. Cloth,
25. 6d.

Thiele (W.) De Severo Alexandro Imperatore ;
scripsit Waltharius Thiele. 9x6". Pp.
xli+132. Berlin, Mayer ἃ Miiller. 1909. M. 3.

Traube (Ludwig) Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen
von Ludwig Traube. Herausgegeben von Franz

Boll. Band I. Zur Palaographie und Handschrif-
tenkunde. οὐχ γ΄. Pp. Ixxvi+264. Munich,
Oskar Beck. 1909. M. 15.

Uliman (B. L.) Additions and Corrections to C.I.L.

(Reprinted from Classical Philology. Vol. IV.
No. 2. April, 1909.) 10 Χ "2. Pp. 190-108.
Published by the University of Chicago Press.
1909.
Université de Paris. Bibliotheque de le Faculté des
Lettres. XXV. Mélanges d’Histoire Ancienne.

[I. G. Bloch: M. Aemilius Scaurus. II. J. Car-
copino: Histoire de l’Ostracisme Athénien. III.
L. Gernet : L’Approvisionnement d’Athénes en blé
au Ve et au VIE siécles]. 9#” x64”. Pp. 392.
Paris, Felix Alcan. 1909. Fr. 12.50.

Voligraff (Wilhelm) Nikander und Ovid. Teil I.
93x 63”. Pp. 144. Groningen, J. B. Wolters.
1909. Cloth, 5s.

Watson (J. M.) Aristotle’s Criticisms of Plato, by
the late J. M. Watson. 9”x6". Pp. 88 Henry
Frowde, Oxford University Press. 1909. 3s. 6d.
net.

Wessely (Dr. C.) Studien zur Palaeographie und
Papyruskunde, herausgegeben von Dr. C. W. VIII.
13?” x 104”. Pp. 137-308. Leipzig, E. Avenarius.
1908. M. 8.

Zottoli (Giampietro) Publio Paquio Proculo, Panat-
tiere e supremo magistrato Pompeiano. Nota di
G. Z. (Reale Accademia det Lincet Estratto dal
Vol. XVII. Fasc. 7-9. 1908.) 94'’x 6”. Pp. 22.
Roma, Tip. della R. Accademia dei Lincei. 1909.

The Classical Review

JUNE

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

DR. WARREN’S DEATH OF VIRGIL AND CLASSICAL STUDIES.

SoME critics may depreciate the literary
merit of Dr. Warren’s Death of Virgil:
Walter Savage Landor would have esteemed
it highly. But, independently of its merit
as poetry, it comes very opportunely just
now. For it is an object-lesson of the way
in which Greek and Latin Classics must be
studied, if they are to keep their place in
education.

At this moment in England the air is rife
with controversies about education, as if we
were awakening to the fact, that the making
of the character of the nation is more really
momentous than questions of finance; and
certainly of all educational questions this

particular one is not the least in importance.

The old struggle of the fifteenth century in
Europe seems to recur in anew shape. Then
the renascent literature of Hellas dethroned
scholasticism. Now the culture, almost
universal in its range, robust and vigorous
though versatile and exquisite, which Europe
inherits from the most artistic race that ever
was,! will be lost, unless the literature, which
enshrines this Culture, can be studied in
such a temper and in such a method as
to be made interesting generally. It must
be brought into familiar contact with the
sympathies of life, as life is lived now. The

1 All that is finest in Roman art and literature
percolates from Greece. Southern Italy to this day
is more Greek than Roman.

NO. CCII. VOL. XXIII.

dead Past must live again before our eyes.
The men and women of to-day must find
their counterparts, in flesh and blood, (by the
touch of nature, which ‘makes the world
akin,’) limned by the unfaltering hand of
men, who drank their inspiration from the
pellucid skies, the soft airs, the ‘old poetic
mountains’ of Attica. This is what Dr.
Warren has done for us in his Death of
Virgil.

Poetry cannot be transliterated from one
language to another. The spirit may be
transfused, but not the letter. Swift’s lines

‘ Harley, the nation’s great support,
Returning home one day from court,

Espied a parson near Whitehall
Cheapening old authors at a stall, ete.,

are more truly Horace, and Johnson’s

‘ All sciences a fasting Mounseer knows,
And, bid him go to Hell, to Hell he goes—’

is more truly Juvenal’s
‘omnia novit
‘Graeculus escuriens ; ad coelum jusseris, ibit’

than the most rigidly exact rendering could
be.

The author rightly calls his Death of Virgil
a ‘dramatic narrative,’ not a ‘drama.’ It is
more akin to Comus or Samson Agonistes
than to the ordinary stage-play. Action there
is hardly any. Yet the interest never flags.
The picture of Virgil, as he lay, fever-stricken,

G

98 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

at what is now Brindisi, is life-like; the
Tennysonian flow of the blank verse, most
difficult though easiest of metres, is graceful
and musical; the tone, the sentiment rings
true. The reader sees it all and feels it
all—the sick-room, the friends standing by,
the dying poet himself.

Both as man and poet Virgil is here
portrayed justly. Conington put Virgil
and Scott together.! Both had the same
passion for country-life and folk-lore, the
same fondness for stringing a sonorous list
of place-names together, the same patriotic
ardour. Both sing of feats of arms. Here
the difference comes in. To the one
Marmion’s last charge on Flodden Field or
the bold moss-trooper

‘on his border foray
Pattering an Ave Mary’

was a joy; to the other all this sort of thing
was perfunctory, to please his friend and
patron, the Caesar. ‘Let me love streams
and woods and I am content without fame.’
If, as Dr. Warren paints him, he was hyper-
critical about his Aenzezd, morbidly anxious
to add a finishing touch to what was already
polished enough, his sensitiveness was for
love of his art mainly. He was singularly
unambitious, unsordid, unselfish, a ‘white
soul,’ as his friend Horace said; and this
sheer unworldliness made him, like ‘ Noll’
Goldsmith, all the more lovable. This
fastidious scrupulosity of the dying poet,
though it detracts somewhat from the great-
ness of the man, makes the whole scene
more truly human. It might be Tennyson
revising an Idyll again and again in the
presence of the Prince Consort and Glad-
stone.

Even a reader who has never heard of
the Aeneid realises, how true to nature it
all is. The dry bones are scarfed again
with flesh and nerve and sinew; the hopes
and fears of to-day pulsate in the men
of 1900 years ago. One might be read-
ing of Alexander Pope, sick at an inn in
Southampton with Bolingbroke near his
pillow.

1Dr. Arnold at Rugby used to compare Virgil’s
* Audiit et Triviae longé lacus’ with the convent bell
in Marmion.

The stately Romans in their tunics and
togas, how modern they become! Horace,

for instance,
‘that friend of friends,
The little, plump, shrewd, dapper poet-critic ;
The laughing, loving, lyric-satirist,
Of wit and heart, honey and gall compounded’

may be found easily, if one looks for him,
at a club in Pall-Mall. The faithful Eros
is the literary man’s typewriter in this
twentieth century. Virgil is ‘ poet-laureate.’
He and Horace in their early days were
‘treasury-clerk and briefless barrister.’ The
comic incidents of their journey to Brundisium
are the ‘clown and pantaloon’ of our Drury
Lane. Time and distance are annihilated.
Men, women and children all the world
over, their almost infinite diversity of idiosyn-
crasies notwithstanding, are strangely like one
another after all.

It is an anachronism to introduce microbes
into Virgil’s reminiscences of the graveyard
at Megara. But the thought is quite in keep-
ing with the environment, when Augustus,
anticipating the future glory of his friend,
imagines

* Kings in the crisis of their fortune’s fate’

endeavouring, like our Charles I., to find an
omen in the ‘Sortes Virgilianae,’ or some
famous poet in the far-away British Isles
treading in Virgil’s footsteps, like our
Tennyson, with King Arthur in place of
‘pius Aeneas.’

Many other things, as well as largeness and
thoroughness of culture, have to be thrown
into the scales when we poise the ‘pros and
cons,’ the loss and gain, the advantages and
disadvantages of retaining the study of Greek
and Latin. To learn these languages is an
‘Open Sesame’ to the romance languages
of modern Europe, as well as to the technical
language of modern science. What is more
vital still, merely as gymnastic, no substitute
for this study has yet been found in the way
of developing the faculty of observation.
Call the niceties of Greek philology, if you
will, a mere drill, a treadmill. Even so
they have their use. The first thing in
learning is ‘to learn how to learn.’ All
this, and much besides, will have to go,
unless people can be brought to see that

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 99

those, who taught and wrote centuries ago,
are in close touch with life nowadays. This
is what the Death of Virgil helps one to
realise. It shows vividly the humanising
influence of what has been rightly called
‘litterae humaniores.’ We talk of ‘the dead
languages.’’ They are not ‘dead.’ The
teaching of them must be un-pedantic. Too
much stress in days past may have been laid
on particles and accents. The danger now
is of exaggerating the value of the exhuma-
tion of paraphernalia, which are merely
accessories to the great drama of Life.

The study of Latin and Greek, except for
professed students, must be compressed into
fewer years by the use of such schoolbooks
as Thackeray's Ana/ecta. And the pruriences
must be got rid of, which are a blot on what
is otherwise supremely beautiful. The time
for learning is limited; year by year the
struggle for existence grows keener; and,
deplore it as one may, with too many what
is immediate counts for more than what
seems far away.
I, GREGORY SMITH.

Horsell, Woking, 1909.

THREE FRAGMENTS OF SAPPHO.

WHEN Herculaneum gives up its treasures
we may confidently hope that Sappho’s
poems will be among them. Meanwhile we
owe it to the greatest poetess of the world to
make the very best we can of the few frag-
ments of her works that have been recovered
in recent times. In all of these torn pieces
of papyrus or vellum there is something to
be supplied, before, even as fragments, they
can be in any sense complete. Often the
beginnings of all the lines are torn away, or
there is an internal gap to be bridged by
conjecture, or the loss of a line at the top or
bottom of the page suggests to the reader’s
mind a lovely sculptured head that has come
down to us lacking nose or chin. The
proper limits of restoration are, of course, a
matter of personal taste. No one would add
a new body to the Castellani Head of
Aphrodite; but while some would leave
the Hermes of Praxiteles with no legs and
but one foot, many would prefer him with
both legs and both feet. In dealing with
these fragments of Sappho’s work I have
allied myself with the latter school. In two
places where the context gives a clue I have
not hesitated to ‘restore’ a whole line, in the
hope that in meaning, at any rate, the words
come near to what Sappho wrote. Where
there are gaps, external or internal, I have
tested all suggestions by tracing letters and
letter-groups from the extant portions, and
in the case of lines lacking their beginning

have sought to make the proposed additions
correspond in written length. In the first
fragment the length of the internal gaps is
itself doubtful. The only means of arriving
at an accurate estimate here was to recon-
struct the MS in such a way as to correct
all twists, rents, and creases of the vellum.
This I have done by making tracings of
certain portions separately and then piecing
them together.

These tests have overthrown many of the
earlier suggestions, and while I cannot claim
certainty for those I have substituted for
them, I feel sure that in most cases we now
have the choice of but two or perhaps three
possible alternatives.

The first two fragments were first published
by Dr. W. Schubart in Svtsungsberichte d.
Konigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften,
1902, 1. p. 195, with a facsimile, and have
been re-edited in Berliner Klassthertexte, Vv. 2
(1907), where a bibliography will be found.
They ‘are written side by side on a piece of
vellum which, folded down the middle, formed
two not necessarily consecutive leaves of a
book. The writing dates from about the 7th
century. The first contains a large gap,
where however two or perhaps three lines
can be restored from extant quotations. Of
the second only the beginning of the first
stanza, a few letters of the second, and the
last word of the last, have been torn away.
In both cases I have worked upon new

Too

photographs kindly supplied me by Dr.
Schubart. They are a good deal clearer
than the facsimile in the Sitzungsberichte.

I. In the Ode to the Nereids Sappho
seeks to make up a quarrel with her brother.
The motive of the present fragment would
seem to be similar. In 227. 41' Sappho
complains that her pupil Atthis has left her
for a rival teacher: ‘ Atthis, it became hate-
ful to thee to think of me, and now thou
flutterest after Andromeda.’ In 7. 33 she
is probably harping on the same string:
‘I loved thee once, Atthis, long ago.’
Neither of these fragments can belong here.
Not only is the metre different, but the
subject of this piece is in the third person.
On the other hand this poem may well have
had the same motive, and the use of the
third person in such a case is paralleled by
the Ode to the Nereids. We need but one
line to: complete a stanza, which, considering
the length and unity of what follows, may
well have been the first. The relative ἃ
below makes a feminine third-person subject
necessary ; θέλω calls for μοι, ἔμεθεν, or pe.
I choose the name Atthis for the parallel
with the two fragments above. For the crasis
μοι οὐκ, cf. μὴ ἀλλὰ below, ὠράνω αἴθερος
Οὐδ I, and κείσεαι οὐδέποτα, Fr. 63. If I

—
have rightly interpreted the scanty traces of
this line, crasis is unavoidable. Sappho and
Alcaeus elsewhere use the form ἦλθον, Sa. τ. 8,
Alc. 84, but Sappho sometimes uses Epic
forms for metrical reasons, cf. ἀνήτοιο 78. 2.

Lent?
[τις μοι οὐκ ἄ]ρ[᾽ ἀνήλυθεῆν,
— °
τεθνάκην 8 ἀδόλως θέλω.
” ΄ ’ὔ
a με ψισδομένα κατελίππανεν
πόλλα, καὶ τόδ᾽ ἐειπέ μοι"
5 Ὥιμ᾽, ὡς δεῖνα πεπ[ζόνθ]αμεν,
Ward’? ἢ μάν σ᾽ ἀέκοισ’ ἀπυλιππάνω.
τὰν δ᾽ ἔγω τάδ᾽ ἀμειβόμαν'"
Χαίροισ᾽ ἔρχεο κἄμεθεν
4 -“ > » ἌΝ 7
μέμναι" βοῖσθα yap ὦς σε πεδήπομεν.
10 αἱ δὲ μὴ, ἀλλά σ᾽ ἔγω θέλω
— %
ὄμναισαι τ[ὰ σ]ὺ [λά]θεαι,
ὄσσ᾽ [ἄμμες φίλα] καὶ Kad’ ἐπάσχομεν᾽

1 Bergk?.

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW

πόϊλλοις & στεφάνἼ]οις ἴων
καὶ βρ[όδων γλυκίων γ᾽ ὕμοι

15 κὰπ π[λόκων] πὰρ ἔμοι περεθήκαο,

καὶ πόϊλλαις ὑπα]θύμιδας
πλέκ[ταις ἀμφ᾽ ἀπάλαι δέραι
ἀνθέων ἔκ[ατον] πεποημμέναις,

καὶ πόλλωι ν[έαρο]ν σὺ χρῶ

20 βρενθείω πρ[οχόωι μύρ]ω
ἐξαλείψαο κα[ὶ βασιληΐω,

καὶ στρώμυζας ἔπι κημένα

> / ἈΝ 2 Ul

ἀπάλαν way [ἐδητύων

ἐξίης πόθον ἠδὲ πότων γλύκιων.

25 κωῦτε τ΄.- e
ἦρον οὐδ᾽ ὐ.
ἔπλετ᾽ ὃν τρί.

οὐκ ἄλσοςϊ.

Critical (Notes:

[The signs +, =, — indicate that a suggestion
exceeds, coincides with, or falls short of, the gap in
the MS.] 1/2 My suggestions fit the following
scanty indications :—between the tops of 6 and o in
ado\ws a slanting stroke which must be the tail of
p, ¢, or Ψ: above and some way to the right of
w in θελω᾿ (szc) the bottom right-hand corner of v:
MS clearly Sadodws (not as S.) 3 MS ψισ᾽δομενα
4 MS 70d’ 5 MS ow 6 MS yard’ and σ᾽:
MS απυλιμπανω 7 MS τανδ᾽: MS rad’apeBow av
8 MS χαιροισ᾽ 9 MS μεμναισθοισθαᾳ, the first
6 has apparently been corrected ‘to F: Wil.
μέμναισο οἶσθα : Solmsen péuva βοῖσθα: MS woe-
med nrowev, for haplography cf. next frag. 1. 6
Io MS a’ 11 8. [σὺ de] λ[ά]θεαι, but the tops of τ᾽
and v are nearly certain 12 after ogg the tops of
what may be au: MS prob. φιλια: Jurenka boca
τέρπνα te—: MS kan’ 13 8. πόλλοις yap +:
MS ἴων 14 γλυκίων Fraccaroli, but x may be
x: of Blass’ a before this letter the traces are very
doubtful: it is just possible that γ᾽ may be τ᾽ (B.),
but cf. eyw 1. 7 and νωνγαπ next frag. 1. 20: duo B.
15 mepeOnxao J. MS παρεθηκας 16/17= Fr. 46:
the letter after the gap in 16 is not @, prob. 6
17 MS απαλαδεραι, the 3rd a being a correction of t
18 Wil. εἰαρίνων + 19 MS πολλω 20 MS
BpevOetw: MS prob. mpoxow, the tail of p is clear:
the last letter of the line appears as w in the MS;
for carelessness about ὁ adscript cf. amada 1. 17,

πολλω 1. 10, and next frag. 11; 18 and 20: 5.
βασιληΐωι — 21 MS εξαλιψαο 23 MS παν or
mau (not rap) 24 MS ποθε or ποθο 26 MS ἔρον
27 MS emer’ In this and the next fragment the

stanzas are generally separated by short horizontal
strokes placed above the first letter of the new stanza
and projecting into the margin.

— ὅδ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Translation :

So my Atthis is not come back, and in
sooth I would I were dead. And yet she
wept full sore to leave me behind, and said,
‘Alas! how sad our lot, Sappho; I swear
tis all against my will I leave thee.’ To

her I answered, ‘Go thy way rejoicing and »

remember me; for thou knowest how I
doted upon thee. And if thou rememberest
not, O then I am fain to remind thee of
what thou forgettest, how dear and beautiful
was the life we led together. For with many
a garland of violets and sweet roses mingled
thou hast decked thy flowing locks by my
side, and with many a woven necklet made
of a hundred blossoms thy dainty throat ; and
with many a jar of myrrh both of the precious
and the royal hast thou anointed thy fair
young skin before me, and lying upon the
couch hast taken thy fill of dainty meats
and of sweet drinks... .’

Commentary :

3. ψισδομένα : cf. Hes. ψιζομένη" κλαίουσα (S.).
κατελίππανεν : so the MS; this may be right;
gm becomes mmr in ὄππα-τεὄμμα, and it is
possible that 2g” also became m7, cf. κύββα
ap. Hes. Ξεκύμβη and ἀππασάμενος for ἀναπασά-
μενος in Boeotian, the new Corinna Asop. 78;
or the form might correspond to an imaginary
Attic λειπάνω, cf. κευθάνω, and for ε εξαλιψαο
1.721.

9. μέμναι: I take this to be the imperative corre-
sponding to an indicative μέμναιμαι ; an alternative
is to read μέμναισ᾽" οἶσθα (μέμναισο-ε μέμνησο),
regarding μεμναισθ᾽οισθα as a blunder and μεμ-
ναισξοισθα as an ignorant attempt to correct it.
The infinitive μέμναισθ(αι) would be strange so
soon after épxeo.

11. ὄμναισαι : 1.6. ἀναμνῆσαι.

12. dupes: for vd as generally in Lesbian.

13 ff. Itake a... γε together ‘seeing that thou’;
the repeated πόλλοις. . . πόλλαις. .. πόλλωι
refer of course to the frequency of these delightful
scenes, not to the number of the wreaths, etc., on
any one occasion.

14. γλυκίων : i.e. γλυκέων, cf. Meist.-Ahr. i. p. 48;
there seems to be no flower-name which could

‘follow βρύδων here; this makes τ᾽ impossible

unless we read καὶ for kam in ]. 15 and another
epithet instead of πλόκων. There are no words
for ‘red’ and ‘ white’ that will fit; besides, the
scent is the point, not the colour.

ὕμοι : i.e. ὁμοῦ.

15. kaw πλόκων : πλόκος is so used in the compound
ἰόπλοκος by Alcaeus Fr. 55; κατὰ suits long hair ;
the phrase is contrasted with ἀμφ᾽ ἀπάλαι δέραι
below.

IOE

18. ἀνθέων éxarov: an epithet would be out of place
here ; to speak of flowers in general after ta and
βρόδα above, would seem strange unless they are
mentioned for their zzzder.
πεποημμέναις : perhaps a late blunder on the false
analogy of σελάννα etc. ; but the ‘ false’ extension
may also have been made in Sappho’s time; the
MSS read κάλημμι 1. 16, φίλημμι Fr. 79, νόημμα
Fy, 14and on an inscription we find προαγρημμενω,
cf. Meist.-Ahr. i. p. 148.

20/21. In his note on /. 49 Bergk quotes Athenaeus
15. 690E Σαπφὼ δὲ ὁμοῦ μέμνηται τοῦ τε βασι-
λείου καὶ τοῦ βρενθείου, λέγουσα οὕτως" βρενθείω
βασιληΐω. If this was the place, Athenaeus
must have been quoting from memory. Though
the two words would scan here side by side,
the MS reads βρενθεΐω followed by an obscure
letter and then pl , and moreover βασιληΐω
would be a good deal too short for the gap.

23/24. may: short in Aeolic, see Meist.-Ahr. i. p. 36;
I take it here as accusative masculine, cf. Alc.
ap. Choer. Dict. 95. 12 (Bgk. 48a) Αἴαν = Αἴαντα,
and λυκάβαν -λυκάβαντα C./.G. 2169 (M.-A. i-
p- 158); so too in Lxx.

wav... ἐξίης πόθον : either (1) ‘didst put
forth all thy desire,’ i.e. eat without restraint,
or (2) like the Homeric ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο ‘didst put
away all thy desire,’ i.e. eat thy fill. The
active occurs in the latter sense //. 24. 227 ἐπὴν
γύου ἐξ ἔρον εἵην. γλυκίων : disyllabic, cf. xpu-
σίοισιν Fr. 85. ἐδητύων : or perhaps ἐδωδἄων ;
Sappho is said to have used the form Μοισάων,
Fr. 164.

The following restoration of ll. 23, 24 I think
more fanciful and less likely :

ἀπάλαν may [ἔρον φρένων
ἐξίης ποθέ[σαισ᾽ ἐτάρας τέας,

‘hast sent forth all the love of thy tender heart
in desire of thy friend.’ With érdpas réas cf.
Frag. 83 datos ἀπάλας érdpas| ἐν στήθεσιν.
Blass suggested καὶ orpwuvas ἀπὺ padOdxas |
ἀπάλαν map’ ἔμοι χέρα | ἐξίης ποθέσαισα πότον
γλύκν. But παρ᾽ is a misreading of the MS
and χέρα is unlikely for xéppa, cf. M.-A. i. p.
147 and Alc. new frag. C.X. May.

II. This poem, though ostensibly ad-
dressed to a pupil who was still with Sappho,
was doubtless intended to be sent to another
pupil who had taken up her abode across
the sea. If I am right in supposing only
one line to be lost at the beginning of the
preceding fragment, there is perhaps some
probability that only one is missing here.
The two poems would then begin at equal
distances from the upper edge of the original
pages. The existing remains of this poem,
like those of the other, seem to me in favour
of this view. Of the first stanza we have

102

σαρδε in the 2nd line and all of the 3rd line
but the first three syllables. The sense of the
whole piece points to ‘a¢ Sardis.’ We next
want a verb and, to agree with ἔχοισα below,
a feminine personal subject. The verb must
be comparatively colourless, the emphasis
lying in the participle which follows. The
subject is of course the absent pupil,
and the person addressed may be presumed
from ἐπιμνάσθεισ᾽ "Ατθιδος in 1. 16 and νῶιν
in 1. 20. If, as it now seems natural to
suppose, the subject of ἐζώομεν is ‘we three,’
then a mention of ‘you and me’ in the rst
line is necessary. The use of φίλα seems
the best way to bring them in. The sense
of the passage points to ‘distant Sardis.’
The beginnings of Il. 2 and 3 are limited as
to written length.

hethea
[}Ατϑθι, σοὶ κἄμοι Mvacidixa φίλα]
πηλόροισ᾽ ἐνὶ] Σάρδεσιν
ναίει, πόϊλλακι τυῖδε [ν]ῶν ἔχοισα,
Os ποίτ᾽ εἸζώομεν β[ίον, als ἔχεν
᾿ ΄ eer > ;
5 σὲ θέας ἰκέλαν ἀρι-
΄ vay \ ΄ et) ,
yvotas, σᾷι de μάλιστ᾽ ἔχαιρε μόλπαι.

“τὰ QA ,ὔ >’ 7 "4
νῦν δὲ Λύδαισιν ἐμπρέπεται γυναί-
κεσσιν WS TOT ἀελίω

δύντος d βροδοδάκτυλος σελάννα

\ . ΄ a as ΄ i ae 1a

10 πὰρ τὰ TEPPEXOLT αστρα, φάος ὁ ἐπι-
΄ ey ES , Ξ

σχει θάλασσαν επ ἀλμύραν

” ‘ , 3 δ᾿
ἴσως καὶ πολυανθέμοις ἀρούραις,

a δ᾽ ἐέρσα κάλα κέχυται τεθά-
λαισι δὲ βρόδα κἄπαλ᾽ ἄν-
15 θρυσκα καὶ μελίλωτος ἀνθεμώδης.

πόλλα δὲ ζαφοίταισ᾽ ἀγόνας ἐπι-
μνάσθεισ᾽ Ατθιδος, ἰμέρω
λέπταν ἔοι φρένα κῆρ ἄσαι βόρηται.

κήθυι 7 ἔλθην app? ὄξυ Boa τὰ δ᾽ οὐ
20 vow γ᾽ ἄπυστα νὺξ πολύωΪς
, pee: ΄
γαρυίει δ[ ι} ἄλος πα[ρενρεοίσας.

Critical Notes :

3 ΜΒ τυΐδε 4 MS ζωομεν᾽ J. εὖ ζώομεν 5 MS
ἵκελαν 6 ywrace, for haplography cf. previous
frag. 1. 9: σᾶι and ἔχαιρε Fraccaroli: MS μαλιστ᾽
7 MS evmpererac (not evmpexerat) 8 MS ποτ᾽
9 (end) MS μην (not pnrn) 10 MS zapra (not
mavta): MS περεχοισ 12 MSiows 13 MS adepoa
14 MS λεισι and karan: ἄνθρυσκα B. 16 MS
ζαφοιταισ (not faporrax) 17 MS tuepw 18 MS

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

mo. the ‘accent’ indicating that m is to be
erased ; a prob. arose from a misread F 18 MS
aca 19 MS κηθυ followed either by 6 with a
vertical line through it and 7 written above or by ὃ
corrected to +: under A in ελθὴν a short upright
stroke, perhaps indicating that we should read ἔνθην,
cf. M.-A. 1. p. 125: MS Boarad’ou 20 MS νων ἢ
MS apparently νυξ[. .]proAve[ , prob. νὺξ yap (the
unmetrical yap due to the scribe’s taking ἄπυστα as
Ξεἄπυστά ἐστι) 21 MS σγαρνει, cf. κηθυ above:
MS δίι7αλος.

Translation :

Atthis, our loved Mnasidica dwells at far-
off Sardis, but she often sends her thoughts
hither, thinking how once we used to live
in the days when she thought thee like a
glorious goddess, and loved thy song the
best. And now she shines among the dames
of Lydia as after sunset the rosy-fingered
moon beside the stars that are about her,
when she spreads her light o’er briny sea
and eke o’er flowery field, while the good
dew lies on the ground and the roses revive
and the dainty anthrysc and the honey-lotus
with all its blooms. And oftentime when
our beloved, wandering abroad, calls to mind
her gentle Atthis, the heart devours her
tender breast with the pain of longing; and
she cries aloud to us to come thither; and
what she says we know full well, thou and I,
for Night, the many-eared, calls it to us
across the dividing sea.

Commentary :

2. πηλόροισ᾽: i.e. τηλούροις, cf. dpavos Sa. 37 and
Alc. 34. I (but @pavos Sa. 1. 11, Alc. 17), and
πῆλυι Sa. 1. 6.

4. ἐζώομεν βίον, ds: nothing can be made of the
MS reading unless the stop is shifted, for to fill
the gap we have practically no choice but between
BeBaws and βίον, ds (i.e. ἕως), and we want a
temporal particle; βίον is merely antecedent to
the relative particle,ds, ‘the life in which.’

5. σὲ θέας : for the short syllable at the beginning
cf. ἀπάλαν in 1. 23 of the previous fragment.

6. -γνώτας, cat: the MS reading σε is meaningless
and probably unmetrical; for haplography cf.
ερσα for ἐέρσα below and 1. 9 of the previous
fragment.

9. σελάννα: the MS reading μὴν (for μήνη ἢ) is
unmetrical.

IO. πὰρ Ta πέρρεχοισ᾽ ἄστρα : i.e. παρὰ ἃ περιέχουσιν
ἄστρα, ‘compared with the stars which surround
her,’ cf. 27. 3 dorepes μὲν ἀμφὶ κάλαν σελάνναν
k.T.\. For pp cf. πέρροχος Sa. 92 and Meist.-
Ahr. p. 142.

el

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 103

16 ff. ξαφοίταισ᾽: i.e. διαφοιτῶσα, present participle of
ζαφοίταιμι, nominativus pendens; ἐπιμνάσθεισα
is dependent on it.
ἀγόνας : so the MS for dydvas; it may well be
the Aeolic form, cf. ὀνία, ὃν for ἀνὰ.

(uépw: genitive with doa.

λέπταν : cf. Simon. 37. 14 λεπτὸν ὑπεῖχες ovas.
βόρηται: third person singular of a middle
ut-verb βόρημαι corresponding to a form βορέομαι
in Attic=PiBpwoxw, cf. βορά, φορά, Popéw.

If we keep ποι, several alternatives present
themselves—all, to my mind, unsatisfactory: (1)
take ζαφοίταισ᾽ as 3rd person singular, ποῖ as ‘in
what direction,’ ‘for whom,’ introducing an
indirect question loosely dependent on ἐπιμνάσ-
θεισα, ἱμέρωι and dod as dative, and Bdpnrar=
Bapetra:, and translate ‘and often our beloved
wanders abroad calling to mind her gentle
Atthis, (and wondering) for whom her tender
breast is oppressed with longing (and) her heart
with pain’; but βόρηται for βαρεῖται is hardly
paralleled by Bpéxus for βραχύς, for op in Aeolic
represents ep in Attic (cf. ὄρπετον Fr. 40)};
moreover the omission of ‘and’ is almost if not
quite impossible; and further, the point is not
Atthis’ love for an unknown person but the
Sardis lady’s love for Atthis, as the following
lihes show—besides, νῦν would be required ;
(2) take ποῖ as dative of a word equivalent to ris
agreeing first with (uépa and then with doa;
this is open to the same objections; (3) read
ἔμερος, taking ζαφοίταισα (and ἐπιμνασθεῖσα de-
pendent on it) as xomdnativus pendens, take
qot= ποεῖ (cf. xpa for χροΐ or χρωΐ Sa. 2. 10 and
Ode. to the Nereids, οἷν ‘sheep’ 95. 2, and Soph.
£/. 882 where it has been proposed to read νόει
as a monosyllable), dca as nominative and βόρη-
rat= ‘devours,’ translating ‘longing wastes her
frame (and) pain preys upon her heart.’ The
omission of ‘and’ makes this very doubtful.
Other possibilities involve the same or similar
difficulties, e.g. ποι τε ποὺ enclitic as Pindar Pyth.
5 et al. (so Wilam., and Bépyrac=Bapetrac), ποὶ
Ξε πρός as in Doric.

19. κήθυι: I follow previous editors with some
hesitation; if this form corresponds to Attic
ἐκεῖσε with the -v¢ termination seen in τυΐδε,
should we not expect κήσυι, cf. μέσσυι for
μεσσόθι perhaps the @ appears by contamination
with κῆθι Ξε ἐκεῖθι and κῆθεν -- ἐκεῖθεν. I should
suggest as an alternative κηὔθυ -- καὶ εὐθύ if it did
not give a weak sense.

19 ff. τὰ δὲ ‘and what she says,’ οὐ νῶιν γ᾽ ἄπυστα
‘not unknown to us’ (predicate), νὺξ πολύως
(ΞΞ- πολύωτος) ‘ Night with her many ears,’ yapulec
δι᾿ Gos ‘calls across the sea.’

v@w: the dual is unusual in Lesbian, but as it
occurs sometimes in verbs (e.g. καθέταν Alc.
39. 5? moinrov Et. AZ. 23. 12, cf. Meist.-Ahr.

Ἰ πτόρμος for mrapuds is a possible exception, cf.
Meist.-Ahr, i. p. 49.

pp. 178, 188) and the form νώε is found in
Boeotian, Cor. 5, there is no reason to reject it.
γαρυίει : for the form see Meist.-Ahr. p. 181.
παρενρεοίσας : ourchoice seems tolie between words
meaning ‘silent,’ ‘dark,’ or ‘ flowing between’ ;
cf. παρεμβάλλω, παρεμπίπτω, παρένθεσις. As an
alternative avoiding the unsupported compound
I would suggest zrepippeoicas, ‘ flowing around,’
implying that Lesbos is an island and so
emphasising the impossibility of the friends’
meeting.

III. The third fragment was discovered
in'1879. It is included among the Adespota
in Bergk’s posthumous edition, but Blass
ascribed it to Sappho, and metre and style
alike are in favour of this view. It is re-
edited in the Berliner Klassihertexte v. I
have used the excellent facsimile in Wharton’s
Sappho (1895). The fragment is part of a
vellum page, both sides of which contained
poems in the.Sapphic metre, but only one
of the two is sufficiently preserved to warrant
an attempt at restoration. The writing on
both sides is by the same hand, the letters
small and neat, suggesting that there were
horizontal lines ruled for each line of the
text and a vertical line on the left to secure
an even margin. That the former were at
right angles to the latter, becomes evident
if we place tracings of the two sides back to
back, when the lines on one side are seen to
be parallel to those on the other. In the
following attempt the beginnings of the lines
all coincide with a vertical line drawn at
right angles to the text, and for that reason
may be regarded as coming nearer than
the ends to what Sappho wrote.

The occasion of the poem I take to be a
quarrel between Sappho and one of her
brothers, probably Charaxus. Of the three
brothers mentioned by Suidas one is known
only from that passage, and another, Larichus,
is known to have been a great favourite with
her. The third is Charaxus, of whom she
wrote in the Ode fo the Neretds. The drift
of the passage does not perhaps justify us in
supposing that this is the poem in which
we are told by Herodotus that she πολλὰ
ἐκερτόμησέ μιν when he returned from Nau-
cratis with the ransomed Rhodopis. We
feel that in that poem she must have spoken
more directly. But there is to my mind an
elder-sisterly ring in this fragment which

104

makes it probable that it was addressed to
Charaxus on an earlier occasion. That
Sappho was older than Charaxus is very
probable. She was old enough and important
enough to be included among the nobles
who were banished from Lesbos in 596.
Suidas’ date for her birth, Ol. 42 (612—), is
therefore probably too late. She must have
written the Ode to the Neretds at least a
year or so after 570; for it was in that
year that Egypt, under Amasis, was thrown
open to Greek trade, and, moreover, Hero-
dotus says, 2. 134, κατ᾽ "Apacw βασιλεύοντα
ἣν ἀκμάζουσα “Pods. Sappho must then
have been at least 50 in 568, but it is ex-
tremely unlikely that the wayward Charaxus
was as old at that date. We find the same
dignified and yet straightforward tone of
remonstrance in her answer to Alcaeus
(Fr. 28) ai δ᾽ ἦχες ἔσλον ipepov ἢ κάλων
κιτιλ. But here there is something else as
well, the idea of a family honour to be
upheld, an idea which occurs again, if I am
not mistaken, in the Ode to the Neretds—
γένοιτο δ᾽ ἄμμι | δύσκλεα μήδεις.

eset
| δώσην.
τῶ κλ]ύτων pev 7 ἐπ[πότεαι wed ἄνδρων
κωὺ κ]άλων κάσλων, ἐ[νέπεις δὲ χαίρην
τοὶς gr} λοις, λύπης τέ ple σοὶ yéver Gat
Ν ” Ὅν 39 iN}
5 sais ἔ]μ’ ὄνειδος,
ἤπαρ] οἰδήσαις. ἐπὶ τά[ιδε δ᾽ ὕβρει
καρδι] av arate’ τὸ γὰρ γ[όημα
" 5 ” 7 ΄ ᾽ὔ
τὦ]μον οὐκ οὔτω μ[αλάκως χόλαι παί-
δων] διάκηται.

το ὄρπε,] μηδ᾽ [

Critical Notes :

1 Bergk δοκίμοις χάριν po | οὐκ ἀπυδώσην - and
the open vowels in μοι οὐκ make it very doubtful
2 κλύτων Bl., Ἰύιων is also possible: over 7 in μεντ
a zigzag mark: Buecheler συμφύτων μέντ᾽ ἐπτατόνοις
λύραισι: Bek. ἐπτερύγης 3 κάλων Bl.: Bue. καὶ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

κάλων κἄσλων ἐπέων ἀπέλλης — 4 τοὶς φίλοις Bue. :
MS λύπηστέμ (not λύπηστεμ) : Bl. με κἀπορίπτης
5 Bl. εἰς ἔμ᾽ ὄνειδος. - and ὄνειδος seems not to
be used so in the singular 6 Bgk. ἢ κὲν οἰδησαις,
ἐπί τ᾽ aly’ ἀμέλγων--: Bl. ὧι κὲν οἰδήσαις, ἐπὶ rae
τε λώβαιτε: Bue. θῦμον οὐ Syoas+: MS επιτ
καρδίαν Β].: Bgk. Σκυρίαντε: MS 'αν᾿ἄσαιο or
‘avacato: MS τογαρ: νόημα Bl. 8/9 MS prob.
τοὔμον : τῶὥμον Bl.: MS ουκ᾽: μαλάκως Bue.: Bgk.
μαλάκοφρον ἔχθρως | τοῖς διάκηται (subjunctive) -- :
Bue. πρὸς ὄργαν | τὰν διάκηται (indicative) -- 10 MS
μηδ᾽ (not μηδ) [The MS contains accents, stops,
and marks of elision and crasis. ]

Translation :

. .. Therefore not only dost thou hover
about the notable rather than the good and
noble, and biddest thy friends go about their
business, but dost grieve me by saying in
thy swelling pride that I am become a
reproach to thee. Go to, glut thy heart with
this thy insolence ; for, as for me, my mind
is not so softly disposed towards the anger of
a child. Go thy way, nor...

Commentary :

2. ἐππότεαι : the simple verb occurs Alc. 27. 43
moréovrat, and Sa.» Fy. 41 ἐπ᾽ ᾿Ανδρομέδαν πότῃ.
The uncontracted form here is no difficulty. It
was obviously a matter of metrical convenience.
Sappho uses both ἀλίω (77. 69) and ἀελίω (F7..79
and above), both isos (2. 1) and ἴσος (47. 91),
both dpavos and épavos (see above). λάθεαι,
1. 9 of our first fragment, would be a good
parallel if it were certain. For ἐππ- cf. amr
πατέρων Alc. Fr. 104, and Fr. 19. 3, where
ἐββᾷ is read by some for ἐμβᾷ. For the phrase
cf. Sa. Ar. 68. 3:

ἀλλ᾽ ἀφάνης κὴν “Alda δόμοις
φοιτάσεις Ted’ ἀμαύρων νεκύων ἐππεποταμένα,

where the accepted ἐκπεποταμένα is meaningless.

4. λύπης : 2nd person of λύπημι.

Gs Girt Ae
7. vonua: ch Fr. 14.

οἰδήσαις : participles.

8. παίδων : two syllables as 77. 95.
10. ὄρπε: i.e. ἕρπε, cf. ὄρπετον Fr. 40.

J. M. Epmonps.

— πιῶ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

105

ON re ETC, WITH VOCAEIVES.

Monro writes in his Homeric Grammar,
§ 164, as follows: ‘Regarding the use of
the Vocative in Homer, the chief point to
be noticed is the curious one (common to
Greek and Sanscrit) that when two persons
are addressed, connected by τε, the second
name is put in the Nominative (Delbriick,
Synt. Forsch. iv. p. 28).’ Cf. Thompson’s
Greek Grammar, § 152.

This rule is also observed by the Attic
dramatists. I will set forth the instances
known to me, without any pretension to
making anything like a complete list.

I. Certain instances. Aesch. Septem. 70,
"Apa 7 Ἐρινὺς πατρὸς ἡ μεγασθενής : 121,
Πάλλας, ὅ θ᾽ ἵππιος ποντομέδων ἄναξ : Ag.
508, νῦν χαῖρε μὲν χθὼν χαῖρε δ᾽ ἡλίου φάος,
ὕπατός τε χώρας Ζεὺς ὁ Πύὐθιός 7 ἄναξ : Soph.
O.T. 1398, ὦ τρεῖς κέλευθοι καὶ κεκρυμμένη
νάπη δρυμός te: Ajax, 862, ποταμοί θ᾽ οἵδε:
Aristoph. Clouds, 264, ὦ δέσποτ᾽ ἄναξ λαμπρός
τ᾽ Αἰθήρ: 595, Φοῖβ᾽ ava. . .
ἡμετέρα θεός, aiyidos ἡνίοχος, πολιοῦχος᾿ Αθάνα:
Eur. Hipp. 1128, ὦ ψάμαθοι πολιήτιδος ἀκτᾶς
δρυμός τεῖ : ALF. 1389, ὦ γαῖα Κάδμου πᾶς τε
Θηβαῖος λεώς : 721. Aul. 1136, ὦ πότνια μοῖρα
καὶ τύχη δαίμων τ᾽ ends: Phoen. 1225, ὦ γῆς
Ἑλλάδος στρατηλάται Κάδμου τε λαός. It
is true that in nearly all these passages the
first name or noun might be called a nomi-
native, but no one would naturally suppose
them to be anything but vocatives, nor is
.the rule affected even if they were nomina-
tives. At Ὁ Κ΄. 88 Aeschylus certainly begins
with a nominative, ὦ δῖος αἰθὴρ... παμ-
μήτωρ τε γῆ (παμμήτωρ Med., παμμῆτορ cet. ;
the editors hesitate between the two, but it
is clear that the Medicean is right). In two
passages, Aesch. Suppl. 23, ὦ πόλις, ὦ γῆ
ὕπατοί τε θεοὶ καὶ Ζεὺς Σωτὴρ τρίτος : Soph.
Phil. 1453, χαῖρ’ ὦ μέλαθρον Νύμφαι τε καὶ
κτύπος, we are to regard θεοὶ and Νύμφαι as
already nominatives, Ζεὺς and κτύπος simply
continuing the construction; otherwise indeed
Ζεὺς and κτύπος would be strange.

II. Passages easily corrigible. Aesch.
Pers. 629, Vij re καὶ “Epp βασιλεῦ τ᾽ ἐνέρων,
read βασιλεύς; Eur. Hipp. 1166, ὦ θεοὶ
Ilocevdov τε, read Ποσειδῶν.

1¢So the Aldine, rightly as I think.’

ΠΕΣ 3 ΄
1) 1 ἐπιχώριος

III. Violations of the rule. In the drama-
tists I am aware of but one exception, Eur.
Frag. 781, line 55 (Nauck), σὺ δ᾽ ὦ πυρὺς
δέσποινα, Δήμητρος κόρη, “Ηφαιστέ τε, and
here the reading is not certain, though it is
difficult indeed to see what else can ‘be read.
But the rule appears to have been too subtle
for the Boeotian wit; Pindar, ΟἿ. xiv. 13,
ὦ πότνι᾽ ᾿Αγλαΐα φιλησίμολπέ τ’ Εὐφροσύνα
Θαλία τε ἐρασίμολπε: Pyth. xi. τ, Σεμέλα μὲν
ἀγυιᾶτις (-τι Ὁ) ᾿Ϊνώ τε ὁμοθάλαμε.. It is
observed in frag. adesp. 140 (Bergk), Κλωθὼ
Λάχεσίς τε.

If two adjectives are connected by τε, the
second remains in the vocative. - Ar. Zhesm.
315, Zed μεγαλώνυμε χρυσολύρα te: Knights,
561, ὦ Γεραίστιε παῖ Κρόνου Φορμίωνί τε
φίλτατε. Soph. Phil. 1445, ὦ φθέγμα ποθεινὸν
ἐμοὶ πέμψας χρόνιός τε φανείς is evidently no
exception to this, though χρόνιε would also
be possible ; cf. Eur. Zvo. 1221, σύ τ᾽ ὦ
οὖσα μῆτερ.

If the second person addressed be intro-
duced by the words σύ τε, we of course
continue with a vocative, though apparently
σὺ itself is to be regarded as nominative ;
eg. Ar. Clouds, 359; Thesm. 322; Eur.
Tro. 1221, 1269; Helen, 1097. At Aesch.
Septem, 124, σύ τ᾽ "Ἄρης, one would expect
“Apes, but it may well enough be a poetical
variation.

Armed with this information let us now
turn back to Homer. Leaf on I 276 ex-
presses himself with much doubt about the
rule, inclining to think that the change in
that passage from Zed πάτερ to ᾿Ηέλιός τε
may after all be decided by the scansion.
After contemplating the evidence from later
poets, I hardly think it is possible to hesitate
any longer. If we confine our view to Homer
we may indeed well agree with Leaf, for this
seems to be the only instance where the
MSS. present a certain nominative with τε,
whereas in four places they give the vocative.
P 669, Μηριόνη τε, read Μηριόνης: VY 493,
Alav ᾿Ιδομενεῦ τε, Αἴας ᾿Ιδομενεύς τε, Cobet,
metri gratia: τ 406, γαμβρὸς ἐμὸς θύγατέρ
τε, θυγάτηρ, Monro: and finally 0 18s,
Ξάνθε τε καὶ σὺ Πόδαργε καὶ Αἴθων Λάμπε τε
δῖε, an atrocious line, which puts at once

ποτ᾽

τοῦ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

dubious grammar into Hector’s mouth and
four horses into his chariot. However, no
doubt it is quite ancient enough, and if
Pindar was content with that construction,
‘what shall hinder’ the author of the
Homeric line or passage in question ‘from
being as pliable as Pindar’? But I feel
convinced that the genuine Homeric grammar
requires a nominative.

Unfortunately in the great majority of
instances the nominative and vocative are
indistinguishable; Ζεῦ ἄλλοι τε θεοὶ and
endless other such phrases would, however,
clearly be felt by at any rate most of the
classical poets as a vocative followed by a
nominative.

I believe that τε is never used to connect
two persons addressed in prose; the particle
is always καί, At what date the sense of the
correct idiom with τε was lost by the poets
it were vain to speculate, but certainly by
the time of the forgery of the prelude to the
so-called Orphic Hymns it was completely
ignored. I hope the present headmaster of
Shrewsbury will graciously accept the emen-
dation εὐγενής τε παῖς for εὐγενές Te παῖ in
the first line of his Porson prize verses for
1861.

In his note on 7 406, Monro seems to
attempt an explanation of the peculiarity by
saying: ‘So in Sanscrit, and doubtless in the
original language, the voc. cannot be fart
of a sentence in any respect.’ I confess I
cannot understand this; does he mean that
in Zev, δός the vocative stands outside the
sentence, whereas in Ζεῦ ἄλλοι τε θεοί, δότε,
the words ἄλλοι τε θεοί are somehow part of
the sentence? Will not Ζεῦ καὶ θεοὶ then
come under the same head? But, as I will
shew directly, Zed καὶ θεοὶ would both be
vocatives. The thing seems to me a mystery,
and it may be wiser to be content with
stating the facts. In the same note he also
says: ‘The voc. is never used with a con-
junction such as τε or δέ This is loosely
expressed, and must be taken to mean that
when two persons or things are addressed,
being connected by a conjunction such as
te or δέ, the second ought not to be in the
vocative. For two adjectives in the vocative
may be connected by τε, as we have seen, or
by δέ, as ὦ πολλὰ μὲν τάλαινα πολλὰ δ᾽ ad

σόφη γύναι (Agam. 1266), where I presume
that no one will dream of asserting σόφη to
be nominative. I do not make these remarks
out of a desire to pick obvious holes in the
work of a sagacious and admirable scholar
to whom I owe so much, but rather because
that note puzzled me and set me on pursuing
the subject further to details perhaps trifling
and even platitudinous; ‘in tenui. labor’
truly.

The fact then is that two persons or
things are never addressed in the same
sentence by two nouns connected by δέ.
And the reason is that δὲ is too adversative
in its nature. We may well say ὦ τάλαινα
μὲν σόφη δέ, but who could think of saying
Vocative nouns
with δὲ do, however, occur very rarely in a
beautiful idiom of which I only know two
instances, one the lovely line Ὕπν᾽ ὀδύνας
ἀδαὴς Ὕπνε δ᾽ ἀλγέων (Soph. Phzl. 827) and
the other ‘Ocia πότνα θεῶν σία δὲ (Eur.
Bac. 370). Of course, ᾿Ατρείδα, σὺ δέ and
the like are plentiful, but there δὲ always
introduces a new sentence. We can however
use such phrases as ὦ φίλτατον μὲν ἦμαρ
ἥδιστος δ᾽ ἀνήρ, Soph. P72. 530, for is not
ἦμαρ here vocative? If so, the change to
nom. with δὲ is exactly like that with te. Cf.
Eur. Med. 1071.

When two vocatives are connected by καὶ,
the common rule is that they remain vocative,
and the second does not change to the
nominative. Homer, Z 77, Αἰνεία τε καὶ
Ἕκτορ; ef; -B 37, vette. > Sepa Οὐ sap;
1394: Ar. Ach. 55: Wasps, 136, 401, 433:
Thesm. 320: Plut. 81: Eur. Jon, 465: £2.
1177, frag. 938: Plato, Gorg. 458c: Lach.
180 D, 186A: Euthyd. 274 Ὁ; Lucian, Zzmon,
42. Therefore, in the ridiculous invocation
of Aeschines, (ες. ὃ 260, ὦ γῆ καὶ ἥλιε Kat
ἀρετὴ καὶ σύνεσις, We must read σύνεσι.
Pindar, O/. xi. 3, ὦ Moio’, ἀλλὰ σὺ καὶ
θυγάτηρ ᾿Αλάθεια Διὸς ἐρύκετον is not an
exception, for σὺ καὶ θύγατερ ἐρύκετον would
be impossible. Cf. Aesch, Hum. 775, Eur.
Ton, 465, and καὶ Κύπρις ἄλευσον at Septem,
127. ἰὼ δίκα καὶ θεῶν παλίρρους πότμος at
H.F. 739 may be rather an exclamation in
the nominative than a vocative.

ὦ Πρίαμε Κασσάνδρα dé?

ARTHUR PLATT.

:
i lla

) ae»

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

107

THE RATE OF SAILING OF WAR-SHIPS IN THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C.

In the article on the ‘Fleet of Xerxes,’
which Mr. W. W. Tarn contributed to the
flellenic Journal of November, 1908, speak-
ing of the voyage of the Persian fleet from
Therma to the Sepiad strand, he says: ‘The
fleet together moves from Therme to some-
where near C. Sepias in one day (7. 183),
perhaps 120 miles. Dr. Grundy has defended
this: but it seems a wild impossibility.’ In
a note attached to the passage Mr, Tarn says
there is little real evidence of the pace of
triremes: that single ship voyages afford no
criterion, because the pace of the fleet is
determined by that of its slowest member.

Mr. Tarn may disbelieve the ancient evi-
dence ; but he has made no attempt to prove
its incorrectness. I do not profess to have a
complete knowledge of that evidence, but it
may be interesting to quote certain items
relating to the Fifth Century which I have
come across in the course of my reading.

Thucydides (ii. 97) says that a voyage
from Abdera to the mouth of the Ister ‘can
be made by a merchant vessel, if the wind is
favourable the whole way, at the quickest in
four days and as many nights.’

The total distance for a vessel which kept
in sight of land from the Bosphoros to the
Ister would be 597 miles, of which over 50
would have to be made against the strong
currents of the Hellespont and Bosphoros.
Thucydides, himself a resident in the parts
. Thraceward, may be presumed to have
known what he was talking about when he
made this assertion. It will be seen that the
rate of sailing works out at about 150 miles
for the twenty-four hours, or 6} miles an
hour; and this for a merchant vessel, a class
of ship notoriously much slower than the
warships of the same period.

Another noticeable point is that it is not
assumed that a voyage of this length need be
confined to the hours of daylight.

In il. 3 Thucydides says that ‘a messenger
from Athens... crossed to Euboea and went
on foot to Geraestos: there he found a mer-
chant vessel just about to sail: he took ship,
and arriving at Mytilene on the third day after
he left Athens, announced the coming of the
Athenian fleet.’ Assuming that he took 2}

days for the whole journey, the voyage from
Geraestos to Mytilene cannot have occupied
much more than one day, for by whatever
route he went to Euboea his journey thither
and the walk on foot to Geraestos can hardly
have been accomplished in less than 1}
days. Ifso, his sea journey works out at 6
miles an hour.

In ii. 49 Thucydides describes how a
trireme sent with an urgent message to
Mytilene all but overtook another trireme,
which had 24 hours’ start of it. He tells us
that the first did not hurry on a disagreeable
errand. Let us suppose that it travelled
slower than a merchantman, and made only
5 miles an hour. The total distance from
Piraeus to Mytilene is about 210 miles.
The first trireme would, under this hypo-
thesis, have taken 42 hours to accomplish
the distance. The second trireme, there-
fore, cannot have taken much over 18
hours to accomplish the distance of 210
miles; that is to say, if we assume a very
slow rate of progression for the first trireme.

In iv. 49 Thucydides says that the voyage
from Thasos to Amphipolis is ‘about half a
day’s sail.’ Let it be conceded that he means
the somewhat shorter distance to Eion.
From the town of Thasos to Eion is about
50 miles. By half a day he means half of
twelve hours, for when he includes a night in
a calculation of distance he says so. ‘The
rate implied is therefore about 84 miles an
hour. He is evidently speaking in general
terms of the distance, not in terms of his own
voyage. In this case, again, the length of
time required would be well known to him
from personal experience.

In vi. 1 Thucydides says that the voyage
round Sicily for a merchant vessel is ‘not
much less than eight days.’ Here again he
says nothing of night-voyaging. The dis-
tance is about 510 miles. That works out at
about 64 miles a day, or about 5} miles an
hour, supposing always that the putting in at
night and out in the morning were not in-
cluded in the twelve hours a day.

I think that these statistics are sufficient to
show that there is nothing ‘wildly impossible’
in the acceptance of Herodotus’ statement

108

with regard to the voyage of the Persian fleet
from Therma to the Sepiad strand. The
actual statement made is as follows (Herodo-
tus vii. 183): ‘Sailing throughout a whole
day they accomplished the voyage (from
Therma) to Sepias in the Magnesian country
and the shore which lies between the city of
Kasthanaea and the Sepiad cape.’ The
statement is quite a general one. It would
be gratuitous to assume that a critical reader
must interpret it as meaning that the zho/e
of the Persian fleet accomplished the whole
distance within the daylight of a Greek
summer's day.

What Herodotus is chiefly concerned with,
and that which he obviously has in his mind
is the fighting portion of the Persian fleet.
But Mr. Tarn makes a curious mistake, which
tends to upset his calculations. He says
that the distance to be traversed was ‘perhaps
120 miles.’ How far a voyage of ‘perhaps
120 miles’ would have taken the Persian
fleet I really cannot say, but one of an actual
120 miles in the direction in which it was
going would have brought it into the North
Euripus opposite to Artemision. But Hero-
dotus says it went to the Sepiad strand,
which he asserts to have been between
Kasthanaea and Cape Sepias; and it is with
Herodotus’ assertion that Mr. Tarn is con-
cerned. The site of Kasthanaea is uncertain.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

It was probably near Meliboea. But if we
concede somewhat, and assume that that
part of the shore of Magnesia which, lying
north of Cape Sepias and nearest to it, affords
facilities for putting in, is the Sepiad strand
of Herodotus, then the distance from Therma
is 90, not ‘perhaps 120’ miles. It was of
the utmost importance that the Persian fleet
should get past the harbourless stretch of
coast between Therma and the Euripus in
as short a time as possible, the more so as it
is a lee shore to the dangerous winds (N.E.)
of the North Aegean. They could start ina
fairly good light at 4 a.m. at the time of year.
They would certainly not loiter by the way.
Taking Thucydides’ calculation of the rate of
travel from Thasos to Amphipolis, which is
over 8 miles an hour, the warships could
have accomplished the distance in 11 hours,
i.e. by 3 p.m. on the afternoon of the same
day, whereas from the data also furnished by
Thucydides the transports would have re-
quired from 15 to 18 hours to accomplish the
distance.

I confess I do not understand where the
‘wild impossibility’ comes in, except in refer-
ence to the ‘perhaps 120 miles’ applied to
an easily ascertainable distance of go.

G. B. GRUNDY.
C.C.C., Oxford.

TERENCE, AWVDRIA V. iv. 37-8 (940-1).

CH. At scrupulus mi etiam unus restat
qui me male habet. PA. dignus
es):

cum tua religione, odium, nodum in
scirpo quaeris. CR. Quid istud
est?

So Mr. Tyrrell’s Oxford edition prints the
text of this passage. The scholia recognize
a v.l. odto for odium.

I submit that Pamphilus’ sentence as it is
given in the text is barely Latin, for the
words dignus es are hardly capable of
explanation; and that there are parallel
passages in Terence which will lead us to
an almost certain reconstruction of the cor-
rupted idiom.

(1) cum tua religione is not classical Latin
for gua es religione. Can it be justified by
the idiom of comedy? I think not.. See
Appendix below.

(2) dignus es. The scholiast suggests
dignus es qui male habearis for an explanation.
The nearest approach I can find in Terence
is Lun. 1088.

GN. hunc comedendum vobis propino et

deridendum. CH. placet.

PH. dignus est.
or Adelph. 919

di tibi, Demea,
bene faciant quom te video nostrae familiae
tam ex animo factum velle. DE. dignos

arbitror.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

But, even allowing that Pamphilus means
dignus es qui male habearis, we are still left
with no meaning for cum tua religione.

(3) Now a comparison of the following

examples shews the legitimate and constant’

use of these cum phrases in Terence. They
appear to correspond with a λαβὼν or συλ-
λαβὼν in Greek, though I do not find an
instance in the Menander fragments.

Ad. 713.

DEM. defessus sum ambulando: ut, Syre,

te cum tua

monstratione magnus perdat Iuppiter !

flee. 134.

at te di deaeque faxint cum isto odio,

Laches! (faxint Beazley: perduint
codd.).

Phorm. 930.

in’ hinc malam rem cum ¢stac magnificentia !

Andr. 317.

abin’ hinc in malam rem cum suspicione

zstac, scelus !

The cum phrase belongs to imprecations ;
and an imprecation is just what Pamphilus’
temper (look at the impatience in odzum 1)
would otherwise make us expect.

And one more quotation from Terence
gives us the very model for our reconstruc-
tion—cum phrase in imprecation, and use of
dignus. Itis Eun. 651.

PH. Quid festinas? aut quem quaeris,

Pythias ?
PY. ehem, Phaedria, ego quem quaeram !
in *hine quo dignu’s cum donis tuts
tam lepidis!
The conclusion hardly requires to be
stated ; the words gui me male hadbet, need-
less to the sense, are corrupt. In their stead
Terence must have written something like
CH. Atscrupulus mi etiam unus restat...
PA. in’ malam rem, ubt dignus es
(or guo dignus es or ut dignus es)

cum tua religione, odium ! nodum in scirpo
quaeris.

(For the omission of zz with such phrases
as 276 malam crucem, one can instance both
from Plautus and Terence: e.g. Ter. Zum.
536, Phorm. 368, Plaut. Poen. 496, Men.

328.)

10g

I do not pretend that the emendation is
verbally certain, only that the text can be
restored upon an ascertained ¢yZe of sentence :
e.g. one might also read either of the
alternatives above suggested: ut for haber
(=ht) is palaeographically easy.

Then the exclamatory odzwm would be
attached to the odum in scirpo sentence.

APPENDIX.

M. Fabia in his admirable edition of
Eunuchus, at 1. 153,

Egon quicquam cum istis facts tibi respon-

deam ?
makes cum istis factis ‘equivalent to a causal
proposition, cites our Adria passage as
another instance, and adds as illustrations :

Phorm. 465.

(i.) multimodis cm zstoc animo es vituper-

andus.

(11.) Plautus AZzZes.

Quid? Ego hic astabo tantioper cum hac

Jorma et factis frustra ὃ

(iii.) Hun. 353.

Quis is est tam potens cum tanto munere

hoc?

Of these (iii.) is a true ablative of accom-
paniment, not qualification; and so no
parallel.

(i.) needs only to be written guom istoc
animo es, vituperandw ’s, and the anomaly
disappears.

In (ii.) the Vetus Camerarii reads guom
for cum; and, for frustra, sit frustram;
another ν.]. is sz sic frustram. But here,
too, even if the reading be sound, the mean-
ing is ‘beauty and exploits and all.

These instances disposed of, there remains
only Lun, 153.

Egon quicquam cum ἐς facts tibi res-

pondeam ἢ

The remedy here is not far to seek: egon
quicquam Zsésce factis tibi respondeam, or
(since Terence sometimes postpones —we for
emphasis, e.g. Phorm. 518, 612) ego quic-
quam ¢stscine factis. . ..

J. S. PHILLIMORE.

5 The College, Glasgow.

110

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

ON. JUVENAL I. 157 AND TACITUS, AWWAZLS, XV. 44.

In the first satire Juvenal illustrates his
plaint that the times are out of joint by the
introduction of sundry pictures and person-
ages which confront him in the streets of
Rome. The persons belong largely to the
age of Nero; and suggest to some extent at
any rate vivid personal recollection. The
ruthless favourite of that emperor, Tigellinus,
the rich freedmen Pallas and Licinus, the
energetic official Ti. Claudius Alexander, the
female poisoner Lucusta, were all upon the
scene during Nero’s reign, and in the passage
1. 157 it may be supposed that we have an
allusion to the ‘living torches’ of Nero (see
Diirre, Die zettgeschichthchen Beziehungen in
den Satiren Juvenals, p.6). The story of the
tortures inflicted on the Christians by Nero
is well known, how, amongst other torments,
some were condemned to be burnt at the
stake in such a way that by a refinement of
cruelty their flaming bodies served to give
light at night. Tacitus, Azmals, xv. 44, ‘et
pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis
contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus
adfixi aut flammando, atque, ubi defecisset
dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur.’
In this passage I venture to read fammando
‘by being set on fire,’ which is nearer to the
untranslateable fammandi of the MSS. than
Nipperdey’s flammati; and gives the same
meaning as the parallel expression of Sul-
picius Severus, ΖΔ ii. 29, ‘flamma usti.’

The horror of the thing, those sufferers
clad in the flaming pitchy shirt of little ease
(tunica molesta), did not go unnoticed by
Seneca, who enumerates it among the devices
of the torturer (ef. 14. 5, ‘illam tunicam
alimentis ignium et illitam et textam’); and
who refers to it in the sarcastic words, which
read like a satire on the motive alleged time
without number by torturers in the interest
of religion (cons. ad Marciam, το. 6, ‘alios
ignibus peruret vel in poenam admotis vel
inremedium’). Similarly he speaks of bodies
planted in the ground and burnt (de 27α,
lil. 3. 6, ‘circumdati defossis corporibus
ignes’); and when he declares that the good
conscience of the virtuous man is the one
stand-by which does not desert him at the
moment of such torment, it is scarcely

fanciful to suppose that the philosopher was
thinking of the Christians and their creed,
which had so much in common with his
own stoicism (de. den. iv. 21. 6, ‘quid nunc
mihi prodest bona voluntas? prodest et in
eculeo, prodest et in igne. qui si singulis
membris admoveatur et paullatim vivum
corpus circumeat, licet ipsum cor plenum
bona conscientia stillet: placebit illi ignis,
per quem bona fides collucebit’). See also
Pliny, paneg. 33. I think it more than
probable that in the passage in question
Juvenal is registering a similar reminiscence.

Therefore in the new edition of my Oxford

text I read

Pone Tigellinum: taeda lucebis in illa,

qua stantes ardent, qui fixo pectore fumant,

ut latum media sulcum dent lucis harena.
The reading μΖ sulcum dent lucis was suggested
to me primarily by the difficulty of explaining
sulcum here as ‘a furrow,’ to which I drew
attention C. Δ. xi. 401; where following
Maguire I interpreted swdcus as a ‘streak of
light’: cp. Verg. Aen. ii. 697, Lucan, v. 527,
to which passages I now add Sil. Ital. i. 357,
‘sulcutum tremula secat aera flamma’; xv.
141, ‘ardenti radiare per aera sulco.’ Some
few years ago Mr. John Jackson, who attended
my lectures, influenced no doubt by the above
consideration, cleverly proposed, in a college
dissertation, to read wf sulcum des lucis. This
bold method of dealing with the text had
been in part anticipated by the conjecture
et sulcum dant lucis, cited as due to ‘adol-
escens quidam’ by Dobree, Adversaria, ii.
387, mentioned in Mayor's additional note,
and by Jahn wrongly ascribed to Dobree
himself.

Judged palaeographically détlucis = dent
ἑμεῖς is simple. The meaning will then be:
‘If you portray Tigellinus, you will blaze
among those faggots, where the wretches
burn erect fastened by the chest, that they
may provide a broad gleam of light in the
middle of the sand.’ This seems to me more
effective than to make the poet say, ‘ani
they provide, etc.’ (Dobree), or ‘that you
may provide, etc.’ (Jackson), because Juvenal
thus states in the first line what the out-
spoken satirist has to expect, burning at the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

΄

stake ; and in the relative sentence contained
in the two following lines he amplifies with
characteristic irony the grim utilitarian pur-
pose which the victims were made to serve,
the final clause μΖ dent, etc., being closely
parallel to the language of Tacitus, where
the purpose is conveyed by the words 27
usum nocturnis luminis. I may be permitted

Iil

to add that I am glad to find that my con-
jecture has been approved by so able a critic
as Dr. Julius Ziehen in a review of my second
edition in the Philologische Wochenschrift f.
kl. Philologie, Nov. 20, 1908.

S. G. OWEN.

Christ Church, Oxford.

VARIA.

i Fiato Rep: 1. 331 A.

γλυκεῖά of καρδίαν ἀτάλλοισα “γηροτρόφος συναορεῖ
ἐλπίς, ἃ μάλιστα θνατῶν πολύστροφον γνώμαν
κυβερνᾷ.

Davies and Vaughan translate πολύστροφον
by ‘capricious’; Jowett by ‘eager’; and
Liddell and Scott by ‘ versatile.’

The word means ‘much-turning,’ and the
picture is surely that of a ship whirled about
among dangerous eddies and guided into
safety by the helmsman’s skill.

Cephalus is quoting a psalm of comfort
for the aged whose hearts are torn to and fro
(πολύστροφον) by fears of death (θνατῶν
contains a point) until hope steers them into
the haven of resignation.

In 3288 has it been pointed out that
Thrasymachus’ presence is explained by a
natural desire to see the procession of his
compatriots? His native town, Kalchedon,
was in Bithynia, and the Bithynians were a
Thracian stock.

2. Juvenal 15. 145.
Atque exercendis capiendisque artibus apti.

This is the reading of pandw. Duff after
Biicheler has partendis. Dr. Leeper, appa-
rently reading cafzendts, translates: ‘ fitted
to practise and understand the arts of life.’
This I suspect to be the sense, but why has
corruption arisen? If we assume that the
original ran exercendis sapiendis the source of
error is obvious. P found an unintelligible
apiendis, gave it up and recorded only sends ;
whereas p and w ‘corrected’ to capiendis.

For safere, with other than general objects,
= understand ep. Cic. Div. 1. 58.132. The
antithesis is between artists, poets, orators,
(gui exercent) and their public (gu sapzunt).

3. Horace Epist. 1. 16. 30.

cum pateris sapiens emendatusque vocari,
respondesne tuo, dic sodes, nomine?

Schiitz (followed by Wilkins) holds that
ne=nonne. But this is to overlook the stress
on Zuo by separation from zomine. The sense
is: in allowing yourself to be called wise . . .
are you answering to your name or some one
else’s? As if utrum tuo an alieno respondes
nomine?

We may conjecture that the young soldier
at roll-call, like the young student, was wont
to answer to other names than his own in
order to save a defaulting comrade. Horace
says: when the name sapiens emendatusque
is called, and you cry ‘Adsum,’ are you
answering to your own name?

4. Vergil Aen. vi. 452-454.

ut primum iuxta stetit adgnovitque per umbras

obscuram, qualem primo qui surgere mense
aut videt aut vidisse putat per nubila lunam.

The construction of gz? is so harsh that it
seems better to read gwis, cp. vi. 568 and
passin. The ‘s’ has dropped out by haplo-
graphy.

5. Vergil Aen. vi. 567.

Castigatque auditque dolos, subigitque fateri. . .

Page has long ago exploded the ὕστερον
πρότερον hypothesis, but it might be pointed
out that Conington’s interpretation entails
the further assumption that ‘do/os seems to
be put generally for crime.’ By do/os are
meant the evasive accounts to which the
torturer listens. He is not, however, so easily
deceived, and forces confession of the whole
truth.

H. DARNLEY NAYLOR.

The University, Adelaide.

1

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

REVIEWS

SANDYS’ HISTORY OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP.

A History of Classical Scholarship. By J.
E. Sanpys. Cambridge: University Press,
1908. Two vols. 8vo. Pp. xxviii +498;
xili+ 523. ὅτ portraits. 8s. 6d. each.

Wirx the publication of these two stately
volumes, extending from the Renaissance to
the present day, there is brought to a close
the first complete survey of classical scholar-
ship extant in any language. Works of so
comprehensive a range, for the record here
unfolded covers a period of more than 2500
years, have hitherto been ‘made in Ger-
many,’ and on this account alone the author
is to be congratulated for having broken the
time-honoured spell. The first volume, pub-
lished in 1903,! appeared in a second edition
in 1906, and closed with the name of Dante.
In the meantime the author had issued his
Harvard Lectures on the Revival of Learning
(1905), an appetising ‘gustatio’ for the
richly-laden banquet to follow.

The second volume opens with an account
of the Revival of Learning in Italy and of
Italian scholarship down to the sixteenth
century (pp. 1-156). Passing by a few pages
devoted to Spain and Portugal, which of all
the countries of Europe have been least
fertile in classical scholars, France is taken
up from 1360-1600 (pp. 165-218), then
England (pp. 219-250) and Germany (pp.
251-273) for the same period. A similar
arrangement obtains for the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries—Italy (pp. 280-282,
373-384), France (pp. 283-299, 384-398),
the Netherlands (pp. 300-352, 441-466),
England (pp. 352-358, 401-439) and Ger-
many (pp. 359-370). ‘The third volume
treats of German scholarship in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (pp. 1-273), the
nearly 300 philologians being, however,
distributed according to the subject-matter
dealt with, to wit, editors of Latin or
Greek classics, archaeologists, etc., a division
apparently conducive to synoptical clearness,

1 Reviewed at length in this journal, vol. xviii. pp.

271-276, 316-321.

but involving some inappropriate inclusions
and necessitating at times the discussion of
the work of the same man in widely separate
places. It is here, too, that the author has
often mentioned living scholars, whereas we
are told in the preface that he purposed
doing so only in a very few cases, such as
Weil and Comparetti, ‘where complete
silence would have been unnatural,’ but I
submit that on such a plea a goodly number
of illustrious philologians of Europe, happily
still living, ought in justice to have been also
included. The rest of the volume is taken
up with the scholars of other nationalities—
Italy (pp. 241-247), France (pp. 248-273),
Holland (pp. 275-291), Belgium (pp. 292-
309), Scandinavia (pp. 311-352), Greece and
Russia (pp. 353-392), England (pp. 393-
449) and the United States (pp. 450-470).
The work closes with a brief retrospect (pp.
471-476) over the entire field covered in the
three volumes, followed by addenda, includ-
ing ten scholars who passed away while the
book was in press.

Of the more than 1200 classical scholars
recorded in the volumes before us, Germany
leads with more than 400 names, ‘proximus,
sed longo intervallo proximus’ comes Eng-
land with more than 200, Italy with over
180, France with 150 and Holland with
nearly 100 names. The list is well-nigh
exhaustive ;2 in fact, many writers are treated
at greater or less length whom one would
hardly expect to find here, but, owing to the
extremely liberal interpretation which Dr.
S. gives to the term ‘classical scholarship,’
he has been free to admit the Latin poets
of modern times, authors like Chaucer,
Rabelais, Macchiavelli, Ben Jonson, states-
men and publicists of classical proclivities
and humanistic enthusiasts generally.

To marshal this vast amount of information
in such a way as to avoid throughout the
monotony of a biographical dictionary was
perhaps an impossible task. By the insertion,

2 Of omissions I note in particular Papebroch, J.
A. Symonds, Johannes Schmidt, F. Diimmler.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

however, of anecdotal details, human touches
and countless other items of more or less
relevancy, Dr. S. has succeeded in over-
coming this all but insuperable difficulty to a
large extent, and, in consequence, he has
produced for the most part an eminently
veadable book. Five chronological tables, a
complete list of edztrones princifes, more
than sixty well-executed portraits with a
scrupulously exact account of their pro-
venience, a select bibliography,? and last, but
not least, two indexes of subject-matter—one
for each volume—greatly enhance the value
and usefulness of this magnum opus. These
indexes constitute quite a feature of the
book, for, apart from their exhaustiveness,
Dr. Sandys has, besides many items of
interest, included under the names of the
ancient authors” the most noted editions of
their works from the edztio princeps down to
the present day. The expediency of /o
separate and elaborate indexes seems to me,
however, open to question. The author and
the publishers probably thought that vol. 11.
could thus the more easily be sold separately,
and for that reason presumably the volumes
are not distinguished numerically on the
cover. But I can hardly imagine on what
grounds any reader even remotely interested
in the subject would be willing to purchase a
torso !

If we look to the execution of the
work as a whole, it may be said without
exaggeration that we have a survey that is
absorbingly interesting and highly instructive,
and, above all, exhaustive and accurate,
qualities the more noteworthy because

1 Full bibliographical details are accumulated in the
footnotes, but unfortunately these are too frequently so
vague as to be of little use to one who hasn’t access to
a British Museum catalogue. Thus, to mention but
one typical instance out of many: Vol. iii. p. 1957, we
are told that a bibliography of Traube’s writings was
compiled by P. Lehmann. I fancy, there will be but
few readers who will guess that the author refers to
Rendiconti della Reale accademia det Lincet, xvi.
(1907), pp. 351-361, for the revised reprint in
Traube’s Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, i. (1909),
pp. xlviii-lx, had not yet been published when the
above note was written.

? Owing to an oversight, only two modern editions
of Sallust are cited, the most important being omitted
at that, though mentioned III. 200.

NO. CCII. VOL. XXIII.

EL

Dr. 5. had no complete records at his dis-
posal, except for the Renaissance in Italy
and for Germany, but even Bursian does not
go beyond the year 1882. Errors of omission
or commission and misprints are, considering
the myriad details, astonishingly few and far
between, and so rarely misleading that I
prefer to communicate such as I have
noticed to the author privately, lest their
enumeration in this place convey the false
impression of untrustworthiness, and thus do
an injustice to a work which is an honour to
English scholarship, and which will remain
for many years to come one of the few indis-
pensable books in the field of classical
learning.!

1A few trivial details, however, it will be well to
point out here. Vol. ii. p. 71: For Sextus Pompeius
read Sextus Pompeius Festus, or simply Festus.
p- 114: For Tabula Zszaca (the same misprint occurs
in the Index) read //zaca. p. 209: No mention is
made of Casaubon’s famous and still useful disserta-
tion, Le satyrica Graecorum poesi et Romanorum
sativa. p. 219: Richard de Bury and Petrarch were
hardly ‘kindred spirits.”_ p. 297: Mabillon’s descrip-
tion of Magliabecchi as ‘a walking museum and a
living library’ (*zseum inambulans et viva quaedam
bibfiotheca) is not original, but a literal translation of
the compliment which Eunapios, Vzta Soph. p. 456% ",
paid to Longinus : βιβλιοθήκη τις ἣν ἔμψυχος καὶ περι-
πατοῦν μουσεῖον, a fact which also escaped L. Traube,
Vorlesungen und Abhandl. i. p. 21. p. 317: read
Io instead of ‘ 14 years later,’ for Grotius died 1645.
p. 328: The six letters of Bentley, published by
Haupt, Ofusc. 111. 89-107, are αὐ addressed to
Burman, μοί to Graevius. p. 441: P. Cornelius
Severus is surely not ‘the veputed author of the
Aetna,’ this adscription being a mere conjecture,
found in a worthless Italian MS. On the same page
Dr. S., following a long exploded notion, still
attributes three Ps, Platonic dialogues (viz. Axiochus,
Eryxias and περὶ ἀρετῆς) to Aeschines Socraticus.
Vol. iii. p. 82: Bonnell’s Lexicon Quintil, is fairly
complete, but certainly in no sense ‘admirable.’ Ρ.
164: Sauppe’s library is now at Bryn Mawr College
(Ρ8), zo¢ at Columbia Univ. p. 173: The words ‘an
edition of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Theo-
phrastus, with the ancient scholia,’ are misleading, as
the τὰ μετὰ τὰ φύσικα of the latter are preserved only
in meagre fragments, while the scholia belong to the
former only, being not very ancient at that. pp. 317
and 362: If Heracleides Ponticus (for Ps. Hera-
cleitos) be retained, ‘ Pseudo’ ought at least to have
been prefixed, for the author of the Homeric Allegories
was certainly very much later than his alleged name-
sake, the famous pupil of Plato and Aristotle. ρ.
409: Why Donaldson is styled ‘the principal (?)
author of a work on The Theatre of the Greeks’ is
not clear to me.

H

114 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

In view of the transcendent merits of this
work, it may seem invidious, as well as
captious, to draw attention to one defect
which characterizes the volumes before us,
but it is too conspicuous to be passed by in
silence. I mean the deplorable lack of a
proper proportion or perspective in the treat-
ment of a very great number of scholars.
In the first place, no system or consistent
plan is discernible in the use of brevier and
long-primer type. Over and over again
philologians of decidedly mediocre achieve-
ments are given undue typographical pro-
minence, while many famous scholars are as
often undeservedly dismissed in a few lines of
brevier type. This discrepancy would be
partially explained by a conjecture, which I
am somewhat reluctant to advance, even
though it may seem warranted by the facts.
The author appears to have been intent on
making out as good a showing as possible for
the philological activity of every nation
throughout the various centuries. Where
genuinely great scholars at any one period
existed in abundance, their achievements
could easily be allowed to speak for them-
selves, but where classical scholars of the
first magnitude were sadly lacking, as is the
case in Italy during the seventeenth—nine-
teenth centuries, in France during the
eighteenth-nineteenth centuries, in Belgium
and Greece, and—’tis true ’tis pity, and pity
tis tis true—also in the United States, Dr. 5.
unfortunately felt called upon to raise medi-
ocrity to the th power by giving to many
an unjustifiable spacial prominence. Such
a procedure undoubtedly does infinite credit
to his cosmopolitan generosity and kindness
of heart,! but it seems not quite compatible
with the true function of an objective his-
torian.

In order to substantiate so sweeping a
charge, I append a list of names according to

1Jn the biographical portions the author also acts
on the principle of de mortuis nil nist bonum, grave
faults of character and conduct being often either
ignored, as 6.9. in the case of Lenormant, or merely
alluded to in passing. The only noteworthy exception
is Filelfo, who is said to have ‘combined the accom-
plishments of a scholar with the insidiousness and the
brutality of a brigand,’ but how few Renaissance
scholars, if judged by their moral character, would
‘escape a whipping’?

the space allotted to them, those printed in
italics being grossly overrated, while those
cited in ordinary type have not received the
attention to which their well-known achieve-
ments in the field of classical learning
unquestionably entitle them:

3 lines-} page: Cuiacius, B. Rhenanus,

Middleton, Borghiss, de Rossi, d.

Fabretti, Heindorf, Westphal (3 lines!),

A. Kuhn, Nipperdey (5 lines!), Ahrens

(12 lines), Steinthal, Studemund (12

lines), U. Kohler (3 lines), P. Tannery

(3 lines !), Traube.

p.-2 page: Melanchton, Camerarius,

Perizonius, Valckenaer, Kaibel, 1.. Spen-

gel, Kirchhoff. ᾿

p.-1 p.: Turnebus, Dorat, A. Johnston,

Strada, Du Cange, Gronovius, Dempster,

Prantl, Usener, Rohde, CGantre/le,

Nisard, Benotst, Graux, Waddington,

Rayet, Grote, Biicheler, Zeller.

pp. 1-14: Mizolius, D. Heinsius, L.
Vossius, Duport, Barrow, Damm, J. F.
Christ, Creuzer, Goethe, Lehrs, WVuts-
horn, Cornelissen, Falster.

pp. 14-2: Sigonius, Macchiavellt, Lam-
binus, Vives, Salmasius, Downes, Bacon,
Twining, Dawes, Montfaucon, Le Clerc,
Lobeck, A. Schafer, Gennadios, Kennedy.

pp. 2-24: Pomponius Laetus, Robor-
telli, Dolet, Rabelais (2 pp: brevier),
Linacre, Lipsius, Selden, Parr, Jebb,
Kochly, L. Miller.

pp. 24-3: <Ascham, Buchanan, Ritschl,
Roersch.

pp. 3-34: Saville, Winckelmann, Wedlems.

pp. 33-4: Scaliger, Jadillon, Milton,
Gesner, Niebuhr, Lachmann.

pp. 5: Casaubonus, Herder, Boeckh.

pp. 64: Lessing, being exceeded only by
Petrarch, Bentley, and F. A. Wolf!

hie

(UTS)

This list—it might have been zxdefinitely
augmented—in the mere juxtaposition of
names speaks a sufficiently eloquent language,
but one or two points may still be noted.

I do not begrudge the four pages given up to

the paleographist JJadil/on, but if he be
entitled to them, how can it be possibly
justified that Z. Zraube is dismissed in
eighteen lines of small type?! A full page
in brevier is taken up with a synopsis of

‘the 174 pages

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW IIs

Nutzhorn’s Die Entstehungswetse der homer-
ischen Gedichte. ‘This book is mainly negative
and polemical in character, and marks no
real advance toward the solution of the
problems in question. But granting that ‘its
patriotic spirit makes it (for our present pur-
pose) a characteristic product of the scholar-
ship of Denmark’—a very curious justification,
by the way—how are we to account for the
fact that Airchhoffs epoch-making contribu-
tion to the Homeric question is only accorded
four lines? Fully ‘vee pages are devoted
to the Belgian Wit/ems. His ponderous
volumes on the Roman Senate certainly are a
vast thesaurus of facts, but the conclusions
which he draws from the documentary evi-
dence are, as Mommsen has shown, extremely
often hasty, fanciful, or due to misinterpreta-
tion. But if this work be deemed worthy of
half a page of panegyric, what shall be said of
the fact that the monumental S/aatsrecht of
Mommsen must be content with two lines?!

Belgium is accorded a separate chapter ;
(partly small print) are
distributed among e/even scholars, and the
account of their alleged achievements is
throughout pitched in a highly eulogistic
key, the author following all too complacently
the fulsome biographies of national writers.
In the case of Roersch, Dr. S. seems himself
to have had some slight misgivings, for, after
devoting three pages of large type to him, we
are treated to the following apologetic
epilogue: ‘ His administrative duties left him
little leisure for any work on an extensive
scale. But he was fully capable of producing
works of far larger compass, any one of
which might have ensured him a permanent
place in the history of the scholarship of his
country.’ Surely this is to have greatness
thrust upon you with a vengeance! If
potential erudition, latent capacity and
κτήματα es ἀεὶ, which were never composed,
are to entitle a philologian to an extensive
consideration in a history of classical scholar-
ship, it is impossible to understand how
Dr. S. succeeded in forcing so glorious a
record into the Procrustean bed of two
volumes! JVéve is the author of an interest-
ing but discursive work on the history of
learning in Belgium, beginning with Eras-
mus(!), but omitting—incredibile dictu—J.

Lipsius! He is styled a man of considerable
note—/wo pages are accorded to him, and
yet his published work was chiefly confined
to ortental languages and but incidentally
touched on classical subjects! But if Bel-
gium (since 1830), which did not produce a
single classical scholar of first rank, is thus
handsomely treated, and practically the same is
true, as already remarked, of Scandinavia and
of Greece, the space allotted to the classical
scholarship of the United States (pp. 450-
470) is—pudet dictu—simply ultra-generous
and undeservedly flattering. So unpalatable
a truth must here be the more emphasized,
because coming from any other than an
American source (for ‘caelum, non animum
mutant qui trans mare currunt’) the motive
for giving public utterance to it might be
misconstrued, if not resented. Among the
American philologians of the past there
were certainly many men of profound eru-
dition and general culture, of singular
personal charm, magnetic personalities, in
fact, and brilliant teachers, who succeeded
in instilling into their pupils not only an
abiding love for the humanities, but also a
deep affection for themselves, which re-
peatedly found outward expression in sub-
sequently published biographical sketches.
It was upon these that Dr. S. unfortunately
mainly relied, but such /audationes funebres
constitute no more unbiassed documents for
the historian to-day than they did in the days
of Cicero and Livy. Scholars like F. D.
Allen, Merriam, Hayley and Earle, to judge
by the publications which they have left
behind them, would presumably have pro-
duced more works of a high order, had
not a cruel fate cut them off in the
prime of life. But the literary output of
the others was almost without exception
wholly devoid of originality, independence,
imaginative insight and critical acumen.
Anthon and A. W. Allen, Greenough and
Lincoln and Harkness, Drisler and Short
and Lewis, Felton and Hadley and Woolsey
—to mention only these—were one and all
skilful compilers of lucrative school editions
and grammars and dictionaries, the frequently
wholesale adaptation of the work of foreign
scholars being usually indicated by the
ominous semi-euphemism ‘based on the

ττό

edition of so-and-so.’ Not a single contribu-
tion marking genuine progress, no work on an
extensive scale, opening up a new perspective
or breaking entirely new ground, nothing,
in fact, of the slightest scientific value can
be placed to their credit.1 Unquestion-
ably the most valuable legacy of these
scholars is not to be sought in their books
(some of them, indeed, published but little),
but in the goodly number of brilliant pupils
still living, ‘qui olim nominabuntur, nunc
intelleguntur,’ so that some future edition of
this work or some future Sandys will not be
open to the criticism of a candid reviewer of

'The Greek Lexicon of Sophocles and the work of
C. Beck, ‘the Petronian scholar,’ are only apparent
exceptions, for both of these Harvard professors were
born and educated abroad. Nor can Seymour’s
Life in the Homeric Age be exempted, except in the
eyes of loving friends. Whitney, the only philologist
of genius whom America has produced in the past,
was unfortunately in no proper sense a classical
scholar.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

having grossly exaggerated the achievements
of the United States in the field of classical
scholarship.

But regret, as one must, that a glaring
inequality of treatment, a lack of discriminat-
ing appraisement or proper evaluation is too
conspicuously in evidence in these volumes,
the incontrovertible fact remains, as remarked
at the outset, that we now possess, thanks to
the profound learning and the indefatigable
labour of one man, as exhaustive a record
of the representatives of classical scholarship
and their works as one could desire. There
cannot be the slightest doubt that these
volumes will pass through several editions in
the near future, and that the distinction of
being translated into a number of foreign
tongues will also be accorded to them in
due time.

ALFRED GUDEMAN.

Munich.

THE ROMAN

The Roman Law of Slavery. By W. W.
BUckLanD, M.A., of the Inner Temple,
Barrister-at-Law, Fellow and Tutor of Gon-
ville and Caius College, Cambridge. Cam-
bridge: at the University Press, 1908.
Pp. ΧΙ 7235.

ΤῊΙΒ work, as its sub-title indicates, deals
with the condition of the slave in private
law from Augustus to Justinian, and is not
concerned, except incidentally, with the
freedman. The topic of slavery occupies a
peculiar position in the modern study of
Roman law. So long as the main interest
was the application of Roman law as a living
system, slavery was of no importance, because
obsolete. But now that the interest is chiefly
historical, it has become of the greatest
moment to the student, since it permeates
every department of the ancient law, of
which it is, as our author with a little
exaggeration observes, the most characteristic
part. Hence while there was no need for it,
there wa no comprehensive treatise on this

LAW OF SLAVERY.

topic as a whole, and since the change in
point of view the want of such a treatise has
been felt.

Mr. Buckland has supplied this want with
a completeness that deserves the highest
praise. We can say of his work what we can
say of no other English work on Roman law,
that it is the standard book, and will be
necessary to the library of every one whose
study of Roman law extends beyond the
Institutes.

Part I. is logically arranged. After an
interesting first chapter, in which the defini-
tion of slave is discussed, chapters ii. and
ili. treat of the slave regarded as a chattel,
chapters iv. and v. of his non-commercial
relations, chapters vi. and vii. of his com-
mercial relations apart from the peculium,
chapters viii. and ix. of his commercial rela-
tions in connexion with the peculium, while
the remaining chapters of this part are de-
voted to special cases such as those of the
servus vicarius, hereditarius, fugitivus and
many others.

a

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The subject of Part II. is enslavement and
manumission, and here an historical arrange-
ment by periods has been adopted, with the
result that a connected view of the various
topics is not obtained: for instance, manu-
mission vindicta must be hunted up in three
places, pp. 441, 451, and 552. It might
have been better to give an historical account
of each of the modes of manumission one by
one. Still the author is probably.the best
judge, as any one who has faced the actual
difficulty of arranging a large mass of material
will be ready to believe; and certainly the
reader armed with the excellent table of
contents and index will have no difficulty in
finding his way to a given point. That after
all is what matters with a work like the pre-
sent, which is not to read continuously, but
is chiefly for reference.

We could wish that we had been provided
with a ‘ Quellenregister,’ so that the author’s
interpretation of a hard passage in the Digest
would have been as accessible as the com-
ment of an English text-book on a decided
case, but no doubt the number of passages
discussed would have made the compilation
of such an additional index a laborious task.
With more justice we may complain that the
modern punctuation of Digest references has
not been adopted ; it is a real source of delay
to find for instance: D. 41. 1. 10. 3, 4, 19,
54. pr., instead of D. 41, 1, 10, 3. 43 193 54,
pr.: see Girard, Manuel, pp. ix and x.
There is no reason why Digest references
should continue to be as bewildering as they
have been in the past.

Apart from these superficial criticisms, we
have nothing but praise for this extremely
learned work, in which every point is dis-
cussed with,a wealth of citations both of
texts and literature. We only regret that it
is beyond our power to do it full justice, but
since to review it as a whole would require
many months of study, the results of which
would occupy several articles, we can only
endeavour to give the reader some idea of its
methods by presenting its treatment of one or
two topics upon which we have had occasion
to consult it.

The principle is well known that a bona fide
serviens, whether a liber homo or a servus
alienus, acquires for his supposed master ex

117

operis suis vel ex re ejus, but extra duas
istas causas for himself or for his real master,
as the case may be: Gaius 2, 92. But the
application of the principle is naturally diffi-
cult: take, for example, the fragment of Pom-
ponius, D. 41, 1, 21, which states as the
opinion of Proculus that if my slave bona fide
tibi serviens buys and takes traditio of a
thing, it does not become mine because I am
not in possession of the slave, nor does it
become yours unless the acquisition is ex re
tua. Inconsistently it is admitted that if
the acquisition were not ex re, the liber homo
Ὁ. f. serviens would acquire for himself in
such a case. Now one might puzzle for
some time over the opinion which denies that
a servus alienus Ὁ. f. serviens does not acquire
for his real owner by taking a traditio outside
the two causae (ex re vel ex operis), but Mr.
Buckland (p. 341) at once goes to the root
of the matter by pointing out that the text
rests on the notion that acquisition by
traditio depends on the passing of possession,
whereas, in fact, acquisition by traditio does
not involve acquisition of possession. On
this last difficult point we should have liked
further enlightenment, but with characteristic
avoidance of side-issues the author simply
refers us to Salkowski, Sklavenerwerb, and
Appleton, Propriété Prétorienne. We have
not pursued the subject.

In a neighbouring passage, D. 41, 1, 109,
Pomponius raises a well-known crux, that
the acquisition by a liber homo b. f. mihi
serviens of an hereditas jussu meo involves
on his part at least the act of aditio, though
the great preponderance of opinion is that
such an acquisition is not ex operis, nor
indeed ex re. But the rejected opinion is
still considered worthy of mention by Aristo
and Pomponius, and had agitated the repub-
lican lawyer Varro Lucullus, and also Tre-
batius, whom Mr. Buckland overlooks. The
point at issue is really the conception of
acquisition ex operis, of which, following
Salkowski, our author takes a narrow view.
‘It covers,’ he says at p. 342, ‘ only the case
of the slave hiring himself out or his service
being in some way active fora third person
for hire,’ or as he puts the matter below,
‘the opera involved in acquisition ex operis is
not that expended in making the acquisition,

118

but that which is the consideration for
the acquisition. The main argument for
this definition of operae appears to be the
texts D. 7, 8, 12, 6; 14, pr., against which
must be set Ulp. D. 7, 1, 23, 1: ‘ Quoniam
autem diximus quod ex operis adquiritur ad
fructuarium pertinere, sciendum est etiam
cogendum eum operari.’ Without having
seen Salkowski’s argument, we think that
this central point might have been con-
sidered at greater length, but at any rate
under such a conception of acquisition ex
operis it is quite clear that aditio of an
hereditas does not fall.

Julian, D. 29, 2, 45, pr., quoted by Mr.
Buckland, expressly says ‘ Aditio hereditatis
non est.in opera servili,’ and therefore that a
servus fructuarius cannot make aditio by
order of the usufructuary. Yet he goes on to
state as a possible opinion that a liber homo
bona fide mihi serviens, who has been insti-
tuted heres propter me, and makes aditio
jussu meo, acquires thereby for me. This is
not the prevalent view, and the ground on
which Julian puts it is interesting: ‘ ut in-
tellegatur non opera sua mihi adquirere,
sed ex re mea, sicut in stipulando et per
traditionem accipiendo ex re mea mihi
adquirat.’ If weare to have a narrow concep-
tion of ‘ ex operis, we must widen our views
of ‘ex re.’

Now it is clear from these texts that a
narrow conception of ‘ex operis’ was by no
means universal, and Salkowski accounts for
the discrepancy of opinion by supposing a
development of the principle of acquisition
ex re out of acquisition ex operis, a process
which incidentally narrowed down the earlier
wide conception of operae. Mr. Buckland
is more cautious, and asks what is the reason
for saying that ‘ex re’ is the later develop-
ment. This leads to an interesting reference
to the ultimate ground of acquisition for the
bona fide possessor, into which we cannot
enter.

We hope we have given the reader an idea
of the sort of help he will get by consulting

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

this work. Our impression is that not only
will he find the fullest references of every
kind, but also a thoroughly fundamental dis-
cussion of ultimate principles. On the other
hand, the book is quite unsuitable for general
reading, in spite of its length its style is
usually compressed, even too much so, and
above all the author assumes that the reader
has the texts before him. Hence he does not
tell his own story, and we have to turn up
the text before we can appreciate his argu-
ment. We do not say this by way of
criticism, but merely to advertise the charac-
ter of the work.

Some chapters are, of course, more read-
able than others: thus in Part I. we recom-
mend the introductory chapter and chapter
g on the peculium. Part 11. enjoys the
advantage of a more dramatic subject, and
any one interested in legal antiquities will be
fascinated by the learning and good sense
with which the forms of manumission are
discussed. We observe that, like the majority
of Romanists, Mr. Buckland rejects Kar-
lowa’s view that manumission vindicta was
not in origin an in jure cessio, and he makes
a strong case (p. 451). On p. 446 hereturns
to the subject of the informal manumissions
with which he has dealt more fully in a
recent article, Nouvelle Revue Historique,
1908, p. 234; in a general way he agrees
with Wlassak’s conclusion that they were not
absolutely free from form, but he shows that
in a real sense they were informal.

We leave with regret these and other topics
(see especially the Appendices) which Mr.
Buckland handles with complete mastery.
His whole work shows a rare combination of
patient research and grasp of detail, with
breadth of view and command of principle,
and is certainly the most important work on
Roman private law that has appeared in this
country, with the possible exception of Mr.
Roby’s two volumes.

F. DE ZULUETA.

New College, Oxford.

“"-

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 119

THE WORKS OF ARISTOTLE.

The Works of Aristotle. Translated into Eng-
lish under the editorship of J. A. SmirH,
MA... ‘andew. 0. Ross, M.A. Part T.
The Parva Naturaha. Part 11. De Lineis

Lnsecabilibus. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1908. Two vols. Vol. I. 3s. 6¢.; Vol. II.
25. 6d.

THESE, the first instalments of the new Oxford
translation of Aristotle, promise well for the
usefulness and success of the enterprise. In
Prof. J. I. Beare of Dublin, who has done
the larger part of the work in the first
volume, the editors have secured the co-
operation of one who is not only an experi-
enced scholar but a recognised expert in all
that pertains to ancient Greek psychology.
And the translations of the minor sections (de
long. et brev. vitae, de tuv. et senect., de vita et
morte, de respiratione) contributed by Mr. G.
R. T. Ross, while of a less testing and
difficult character, are done with adequate
skill and care. |

In the preface written by the general
editors which accompanies the volumes the
plan and principles of the series are thus
indicated: ‘The translations make no claim
to finality, but aim at being such as a scholar
might construct in preparation for a critical
edition and commentary. The translation
will not presuppose any critical reconstitution
of the text. Wherever new readings are pro-
posed the fact will be indicated, but notes
justificatory of conjectural emendations or
defensive of novel interpretations will, where
admitted, be reduced to the smallest com-
pass. The editors, while retaining a general
right of revision and annotation, will leave
the responsibility for each translation to its
author, whose name will in all cases be
given.’

Fortunately the editors have seen fit to
allow to Prof. Beare and to Mr. H. H. Joachim,
the translator of Part II., considerable latitude
as regards the addition of notes on questions
of text and interpretation. Both in the de
sensu and its fellows and in the de din. insec.
there occur quite a long list of places where
the editor finds himself in straits between
‘the devil’ of nonsense and the ‘ deep sea’

of purely conjectural restoration. Did space
permit, one might produce a number of
instances in which both Mr. Joachim and
Prof. Beare have resisted the devil and made
him flee—at least for a short season—by
adopting the heroic alteration, ὥσπερ ot
κυβιστῶντες καὶ εἰς ὀρθὸν τὰ σκέλη περιφε-
And since the next best thing to
making sense of one’s author is the convict-
ing him of writing unintelligible nonsense,
one may freely commend the work of both
these scholars as excellent examples both of
critical acumen and of reconstructive skill.
Another point about the method of trans-
lation may be noticed: words or phrases not
in the Greek but necessary or useful for the
elucidation of the meaning are inserted in
the body of the translation enclosed in square
brackets; and when the page is so richly
be-bracketed, as not a few of these are, the
effect is unpleasing. Part I. is furnished with
an index, but, for some unexplained reason,
Part II. is not. The books are well pro-
duced, and about the only material error I
have noticed is in the footnote (1) on 4578,
where λήθαργος apparently ought to be
ληθάργοις.

ρύμενοι!

R. G. Bury.

The Works of Aristotle. Translated into Eng-
lish under the editorship of J. A. Smitu,
M.A., and W. D. Ross, M.A. Vol. VIII.
Metaphysica, by W. Ὁ. Ross. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1908. 8vo.

UNLIKE the £¢/ics, which has often attracted
the pen of the ready writer of notes or
versions, the AZe/aphysics has received but
scant attention. Nor indeed is the work of
translating it a work to be lightly undertaken.
The successful interpreter of a treatise often
so obscure and difficult, always so dry and
bald in style, cannot safely indulge—how-
ever pressing the temptation—in even occa-
sional lapses into dormitation : he must leave
that luxury for his author. The translation
now before us, judging from considerable
portions which I have examined with some
care, is wholly, or almost wholly, free from
such lapses. It is not only reliable in point

120

of accuracy, it possesses the further merit of
simplicity and clearness, and reproduces well
such virtues—they are not many—as can be
claimed for the style of the original. The
text adopted is, in the main, that of W.
Christ (1895), and where Mr. Ross departs
from this—as he does pretty often—the fact
is signified in the notes. With regard to
these notes, however, there is one general
criticism I venture to make. Would it not
be more clear and satisfactory to the reader
if the authority for the lection adopted were
stated in all cases? Often the change indi-
cated is simply a reversion to the MS.
tradition which Christ had discarded, but
sometimes it is the adoption of a new conjec-
ture ; and at the expense of a very little extra
space the student using the book might have
been informed of the precise facts on each
occasion. For this fault of method, as it
seems to me, the blame rests, perhaps, rather
with the general editors, who pursue a policy
of rigid Laconism, than with the particular
translator. Brevity is sometimes the soul
less of wit than obscurity ; and obscurity we
find in several of Mr. Ross’s notes. For
example: ‘985 18 read τὸ δὲ E τοῦ H θέσει.
Cf. Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, i. 568’: the
change is excellent, but are we to understand
that Gomperz is the originator? Again, how
is a reader with Christ’s text only before him
to understand the note ‘988° 28-29 read τῷ
γὴν (Ὁ)... τῷ ῥᾳδίως. Cf. I. Bywater in /. of
Ph. xxviii. 246.’

Apart from this one complaint, there is
little fault to find with the book: it is (in
spite of γὴν) well printed and furnished with
a useful short analysis and a carefully com-
piled index. Mr. Ross deserves to be warmly
thanked for the pains he has bestowed on
his lengthy task, and complimented also on
the skill and scholarship with which he has
brought it to so successful a completion.

R. G. B.

Divisiones quae vulgo dicuntur Aristoteleae.
Ed. H. MurscHMann. Teubner, 1907.
Pp. xlii+ 76.

Tue ‘Aristotelian Divisions’ here printed

are drawn from Diog. Laert. 11. 80-109 and

from the Codex Marcianus 257. The

.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

arrangement adopted by Mr. Mutschmann is
to print first the 32 ‘divisions’ of Diogenes,
with the corresponding divisions of the
Codex in parallel columns, and then to print
afterwards in order the remaining divisions
of the Codex, of which there are 69 in all.
In the Preface, the editor gives us a sketch
of the history of δικίρεσις as ἃ logical
method in Plato, Aristotle and the earlier
Peripatetic school, with other matters per-
taining to the question of origins, his
conclusion being that ‘ divisionum nostrarum
maiorem partem e vetere Academia et
Peripato fluxisse.’ At the foot of the text
the editor prints not only critical notes but
also—and this is a specially useful feature of
the book—the pertinent /estmonia, 7.6.
references to the parallels in Plato, Aristotle,
etc. In addition to the earlier work at the
text done by Cobet and V. Rose, the editor
has had the advantage of consulting with
Sudhaus and Wendland, whose names appear
frequently in the foot-notes, and the result
is decidedly good. Not that all doubtful
points are finally settled; but most of these
are likely to remain always in doubt, unless
fresh evidence should be forthcoming. My
remarks on matters of detail must be brief:
D.L. 2, the notion of ἐρωτικὴ φιλία might
be illustrated from Xenophon. D.L. 5,
Mutschmann’s ἔργον, for θετόν of codd., is
better than Cobet’s θεατόν or Wendland’s
and probably right. D.L. 8, it
would seem more scientific to insert <xai
ἀπολογίας» before rather than after καὶ
κατηγορίας, and after καὶ eis (just above)
perhaps κρίσεις might be inserted more
plausibly than δικαστήρων. D.L. 11, τὰ δὲ
πρὸς νόμους κτλ. ; Wendland conj. περὶ for
πρός, Mutsch. κατά, but read perhaps τὰ δὲ
πρὸς (ὠφέλειαν οἷον» νόμος κτλ. (comparing
the Marcian parallel). D.L. 13, the ed.
after Sudhaus reads ἡ δὲ ἀνδρεία τοῦ...
μὴ [ἐξίστασθαι] τρεῖν, the MSS. having μὴ
ἐξ. ποιεῖν : Cobet deleted ποιεῖν, and Wend-
land conj. πτοίᾳ in place of it; more
probable might be τόπου or τόπων. D.L.
19, for the 4th species a ref. should
be added to the famous def. in the
Sophist. Cod. M. 15, νόμοις φαύλοις καὶ
μετρίοις : it is unlikely that μετρίοις stands
for μοχθηροῖς, as the ed. suggests; read

τέλος,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 121

perhaps ἀμέτροις or ἀλλοτρίοις. Cod. M. 6;
if, as Sudhaus plausibly suggests, ἔχθρα is
a blunder for καχεξία, we must transpose
and write οἷον {καχεξίαν νόσος κτλ. Cod.
M. 30; read perhaps τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὅτι»
“οὗτος ἐστὶν ἀληθὴς Adyos’, ὁ λόγος οὗτος
ἀληθής ἐστιν: ἔστι γὰρ πρᾶγμα κτλ. Cod.
M. 41, ἡ δὲ ἐν τῴ σώματι ἀταξία κτλ. :
rather than change ἀκολασία to ἀταξία
twice, and add ἀταξία the third time,—as
the editor proposes,—I should prefer to
excise ἀκολασία twice. Cod. M. 42, the
restoration proposed by the editor,—ws τὰ
πολιτικὰ ἢ ἀνομοίως for ἢ τὰ π. ἢ ἀνόμοια, .---
has much probability, but why did he not
go further and change the next 7) to καί,
to correspond with the other sentence-
endings ? awe wack

Aristotelis de Animalibus Historia. Textum
recognovit L. DirtMEvER. Teubner, 1907.
Pp. xxvi+ 467.

Textstudien zur Tiergeschichte des Aristoteles.
Von GUNNAR RuDBERG. Uppsala: Akade-
miska Bokhandeln, 1908. Pp. xxvi+107.

Ir is safe to say that the new Teubner
text marks a considerable advance in the
study of the ‘History of Animals.’ The
latest and best of previous editions was
that of Aubert and Wimmer, of which Mr.
Dittmeyer speaks in eulogistic terms, and
to which, as his footnotes show, he is largely
indebted; but, as regards their use of the
. manuscripts, Aubert and Wimmer were open
to the criticism that ‘criticis eorum ad-

notationibus non omnino fides haberi potest.’
We may trust that in this respect the
Teubner edition will prove reliable; and
the editor claims that he records ‘codicum
A*C* (ze. the representatives of the best
family) omnes lectiones varias.’

Mr. Rudberg’s ‘Textstudien, however,
make it pretty certain that even the new
Teubner text is not to be regarded as final.
Mr. Rudberg deals mainly with William of
Moerbeke’s translation of the Ast, An.,
giving a transcription of William’s rendering
of Book I. with the manuscript variants.
He examines William’s language and method
of translation, and investigates the relation
in which his Latin stands to the various
Greek manuscripts. And finally he draws
certain conclusions regarding the genealogy
of the sources for the text—a problem
which Dittmeyer, in his ‘praefatio,’ leaves
untouched. Mr. Rudberg postulates an
archetype, as representative of the first
period of the text’s history; as representa-
tive of the second period, he assumes the
two archetypes which were the immediate
sources of the two main families generally
recognized (viz. A* etc., and P etc.); close
to this second period he places x, the
source of William’s Latin translation ; and in
the third period falls the division into the
two families A*, P. Whether these broader
conclusions win acceptance or not (and
they seem to require further proof), this
careful study of William’s style and value
should prove indispensable to future investi-
gators of the text of Aristotle. Rp G Bp.

CICERO’S ORATORY IN RELATION TO HIS RHETORICAL STUDIES.

1. De M, Tulli Ciceronts Studits Rhetoricis
thesim Facultati Litterarum Universitatis
Parisiensis proponebat L. LAuRAND. Paris:
A. Picard et Fils. 1907. 8vo. Pp.
xe eee. > Fr. 3,

2. Etudes sur le Style des Discours de Cicéron,
avec une Esquisse de 1 Histotre du ‘ Cursus,’
Par L. Lauranp. Paris: Hachette et C™
1907. 8vo. Pp. xxxix, 388. Fr. 7.50.

THESE two books, taken together, give an

interesting and able estimate of Cicero as

a student of rhetoric and as a master of
oratorical style.

The topics discussed in the Latin thesis
are as follows:

I. What value did Cicero set upon the
art of rhetoric? ‘The conclusion reached is
that he did not, as has sometimes been
supposed, depreciate studies of this kind, but
simply maintained that they must be con-
joined with natural gifts, practice, and a well-
stored mind.

122 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

II. What did he owe to ‘the ancients ’—
to Plato, Isocrates, the disciples of Isocrates,
Aristotle, and the earlier Peripatetics (Theo-
phrastus especially)? The general answer to
these questions is sought in Cicero’s own
avowal, ‘ego me saepe nova videri dicere
intellego, cum pervetera dicam, sed inaudita
plerisque’ (Cic. Ov. 3, 12), while the warn-
ing-is added that we must not assume him
always, or even often, to have gone direct to
the original sources.

III. What did he owe to authorities nearer
his own time,—to Hermagoras,—to Asiatic
and Rhodian rhetoricians,—to Stoic, Aca-
demic, and Latin writers? The answer
suggested is that he drew his material more
freely from recent than from ancient teachers.

IV. What did he himself contribute to the
art of rhetoric, and how far did his opinions
undergo modification? M. Laurand holds
that Cicero was no slavish follower of the
text-books he used, but that his true self
appears not only in the style of his rhetorical
writings, but in the stress which they lay
on appeals to the sense of mirth and to the
emotions generally, in the importance attached
to the popular verdict as helping to deter-
mine the rank of an orator, and in the
broad view taken of the general training
which an orator needs. And as for modi-
fication, it would be strange indeed if his
views did not change and develop during
the thirty or forty years, spent in the practice
of oratory, which separate the ‘De Inven-
tione’ from the ‘ De Oratore,’ the ‘ Brutus,’
and the ‘ Orator.’

It is this practice of oratory which forms
Cicero’s chief distinction. Among all the
ancient writers on rhetoric, he was by far
the greatest speaker. Accordingly, in the
French tudes which accompany the Latin
dissertation, he is studied in relation to
the style of his published speeches. The
result is highly interesting and instructive.
Cicero is here seen at his best, whether
the topic under discussion is the purity of
his language (in regard to choice of words
or to grammar), or his oratorical rhythm, or
the variety of his style. M. Laurand pays
much attention to a point superficially so
trivial, but really so characteristic, as the
end-rhythms of the Ciceronian sentence.

Alike from. his theory in the Ovator, and
from his actual practice in his speeches, it
is clear that Cicero had his favourite endings
(particularly the dichoreus, eg. fersolutas,
comprobavit; and the cretic, ¢.g. curiam,
[de|cernitur). Following in the wake of
Zielinski and other inquirers, M. Laurand
marshals under this heading a large number
of facts, which he discusses with much
acumen and independence. He is quite
alive to the vagueness, vacillation, and in-
consistency by which modern analyses of
the Ciceronian clausulae have often been
marked ; but he has no difficulty in showing
that definite principles, or at all events
preferences, are involved, and that there is
a real accord between the precepts of the
Orator and the practice of the speeches.
He also subjoins an interesting appendix
on the ‘cursus,’ or those regular cadences
which mark the end of phrases (or members
of phrases) in Latin prose from the classical
period to the time of the Renaissance.

In pp. 284-295 Cicero’s ‘temperatus’ (as
applied to style) might perhaps have been
compared with εὔκρατος, which (and not
κοινός) is given by the Florentine manu-
script in chapters 21 and 24 of Dionysius’
treatise De Composttione Verborum. On p.
125 reference is made to the fact that while
rhyme is pleasing to the modern ear in verse,
it is displeasing in prose. It would, how-
ever, not be safe to assume that the ancients
generally liked their prose to be loaded with
those assonances (ὁμοιοτέλευτα) which are the
forerunners of our modern rhyme. Cicero,
no doubt, loved them, as his speeches clearly
show. But would a Greek really have
admired such a sentence as: ‘Ubi sunt,
C. Pansa, illae cohortationes pulcherrimae
tuae, quibus a te excitafus senafus, inflam-
matus popwzdus Romanus non solum audzvt
sed etiam dzdzczt nihil esse homini Romano
foedius servitute?’ Here again Dionysius,
in the same work, helps to give us the true
point of view. Assonance is good, but not
when it degenerates into jingle; when variety
comes into conflict with monotony, variety
must be preferred. Dionysius saw clearly
that an inflected language, while rendering
great freedom of word-order possible without
any sacrifice of clearness, needs this variety

IF ἄς,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

all the more because of the monotonous
effect of its recurring case-terminations. Con-
sequently he says (de Comp. Verb. c. 12),
‘We must not hesitate to change the cases
of nouns (since, if continued unduly, they
greatly offend the ear), and we must con-
stantly, in order to guard against satiety,
break up the effect of sameness entailed by
placing many nouns, or verbs, or other parts
of speech in close succession.’ On this
ground, Dionysius would have condemned
the collocation, ‘excitatus senatus, inflam-
matus populus Romanus.’ Very probably
he would also have taken exception to the
reiteration of s sound. ‘Sigma,’ he says,

123

‘is a letter devoid of charm, disagreeable,
and positively offensive when used to excess.
A hiss seems a sound more suited to a
brute beast than to a rational being. At
all events, some of the ancients used it
sparingly and guardedly. There are, indeed,
cases in which entire odes have been com-
posed without a sigma’ (de C.V. c. 14).
While it is possible that M. Laurand’s two
volumes might occasionally have gained by
being brought into still fuller relation with
Greek literary theory, it is certain that their
general execution shows great competence.

W. Ruys ROBERTS.

OXFORD ANTHROPOLOGICAL ESSAYS.

Anthropology and the Classics. Six lectures
delivered before the University of Oxford
by ARTHUR J. Evans, ANDREW LANG,
GILBERT Murray, F. B. Jevons, J. L.
Myres, W. WarRDE Fow.Ler. Edited by
R. R. Maretr. Oxford : Clarendon Press,
1908. 8vo. Pp. 191. Twenty-two figures.
6s. net.

THE volume before us is of good omen.
One might on verbal grounds suppose, as
Mr. Marett remarks in his preface, that
Anthropology and the Humanities were co-
extensive, but in practice they have been
‘widely sundered. ‘The six lectures here pub-
lished were given last Michaelmas Term at
the instance of the Committee of Anthro-
pology with the avowed object of bringing
the two subjects together, of ‘inducing
classical scholars to study the lower culture
as it bears upon the higher.’

Oxford may well be proud of the list of
classical scholars who answer to the call of
Anthropology; she could command autho-
rities at first hand on well nigh every branch
of the subject. Dr. Arthur Evans lectured
on Zhe Luropean Diffusion of Primitive
Pictography and its Bearings on the Origin of
Script; Mr. Andrew Lang on Homer and
Anthropology ; Professor Gilbert Murray on
The Early Greek Epic; Dr. Jevons on
Graeco-Italian Magic; Professor Myres on

Herodotus and Anthropology, and Mr. Warde
Fowler on Lustratio.

Instead of attempting to resume or criticise
the varied contents of these lectures—a task
manifestly impossible in brief space—we
may be permitted to ask and answer the
question: ‘Does the volume before us ap-
prove the new venture?’ Will the normal
classical scholar or student laying it down
feel that Anthropology can really illuminate
the Classics, or is Anthropology only the
last straw imposed on the already over-
burdened camel ?

Take Mr. Warde
When a man reads

Fowler's Lustratio.

dum montibus umbrae
Lustrabunt convexa,

he needs no Anthropology to tell him that
lustrare is a word of magical beauty ; if he
can feel anything in language he can feel
that. But why is /ustrare so moving, so
stately, so religious? Just because it has in
it two elements, the purgational, the pro-
cessional. Zustratio is the slow perambu-
lation, the ‘beating of the bounds’ to purge
your newly won clearing from alien, hostile
spirits. Anthropology gives back to a word—
hackneyed for Cicero to the mere ‘ review ’ of
an army—its primitive colour and atmosphere.
Knowledge of this sort makes language worth
learning and life worth living.

124

Flerodotus and Anthropology simply teems
with suggestion. Prof. Myres thinks so hard
and so swiftly, he is so cogent, so alert and
yet so intricate—mental states rarely com-
bined—that he leaves reader and reviewer
gasping. Frequently he convicts us, not
only of ignorance, but of a certain torpor and
slovenliness of thought. We imagined, for
example, that we knew what φύσις and νόμος
meant. But now the outlook of the ἀνθρω-
πολόγος of the fifth century B.c. is analysed
and reconstructed anew. For lack of that ima-
ginative effort we had not realized how modern
is the embryology of Anaximander, how
evolutionary was Archelaos. We had some-
how forgotten that the medical school of Cos
was but two hours’ sail from Halicarnassus,
and that the physiology and anthropology.of
Hippocrates was superior by far to anything
that came after till the seventeenth century.
The formula of Heracleitus, πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ
οὐδὲν μένει, spite of its application to meta-
physics, had its origin in physical science as
a generalization from experience. ‘It empha-
sized the kinetic and physiological aspect of
nature and of science, which has ever been
of so far higher value, in research, as in life,
than the static and morphological ; it substi-
tuted an analysis of processes for classification
of the qualities of things.’ In this Heracleitos-
phrase began the technical use of the twin
terms, φύσις and νόμος ; ‘in their primitive
sense they denote nothing else than precisely
such natural processes in themselves, on the one
hand, and man’s formulation of such processes,
on the other. ‘The italics are our own. Here
is a sentence to brood over, and such sen-
tences abound.

With Prof. Myres the hunt is always up,
and if we want to catch his game we must
hunt with him, and hunt hard. Prof. Murray
labours for us long and strenuously, and gives
us garnered sheaves, gives them so quietly

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

and simply that we may well forget the toil
they cost. He takes kindly to Anthropology ;
it allows him a humorous touch on things
apt to be canonical and pompous. Under
this touch Hesiod’s confused and laboured
theogonies and orthodoxies grow human,
even thrilling. Hesiod’s “κράτος τε Bia te’
are to most of us dreary abstractions. Who
but Prof. Murray (p. 74) would have seen
behind them the mana of the medicine-king,
that power at once tricky and tremendous.!
‘There he is,’ that medicine-king, ‘the
visible doer of all those things which later
races have delegated to higher and more
shadowy beings, walking palpably before you
with his medicine and perhaps his pipe, his
grand manner, his fits, and his terrific dress.’
As to this matter, Prof. Murray lets drop at
the end of his essay a tentative sentence
that might well be expanded into a book,
‘I suspect that the contrast between these
medicine-chiefs and the Homeric gods is
one of the cardinal differences between
Hellenic and pre-Hellenic religion.’

We congratulate Oxford on ἃ brilliant
success. A book so vivid must needs be
fruitful. Dry-as-dust himself, if he attended
these lectures, must have given himself a
shake and felt for the nonce—less dusty.

J. E. HarRIson.

1 Prof. Murray’s case for κεραυνός as the thunder-
stone swallowed by Kronos is strengthened by the
Hesiodic fragment preserved by Chrysippos (ap. Galen
de dogmat. Hippocr. iii. 8, p. 320). Zeus is about to
swallow Metis.

συμμάρψας δ᾽, & γε χερσὶν ἑὴν ἐγκάτθετο νηδὺν
δείσας μὴ τέξῃ κρατερώτερον ἄλλο KEpauvod.
Cf. Soph. Oed. Rex, 200,
ὦ τᾶν πυρφόρων ἀστραπῶν κράτη νέμων,
and finally Cornutus 10, p. 10, 13, τὸ de κράτος ὁ
ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ κατέχει, Where Kpdtos=Kepauvds : see
Usener, Rhein. Mus. 1901, p. 174.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

125

THE LATELY DISCOVERED FRAGMENTS OF MENANDER.

The Lately Discovered Fragments of Menander.

* Edited with English Versions, Revised
Text, and Critical and Explanatory Notes
by Unus Murtorum. Oxford: James
Parker, 1909.

Tuis, seemingly the latest edition of the
newly found fragments of Menander, ought,
we think, to be hailed by Englishmen as a
very substantial contribution tothe literature,
already considerable, of the subject. The
editor, Lord Harberton, as is no secret,
though his actual name is disguised under
the enigmatic title Unus Multorum, is well
known to Greek scholars by his volume of
epigrams from the Greek Anthology, published
by Mr. James Parker several years ago. Of
the emendations and suggestions there offered,
Stadtmiiller, the lamented editor of the 4z-
thologia Graeca in the smaller Teubner series,
has made full use, but his premature death
has unhappily interrupted the progress of
that really monumental work, which in
richness of information as to the MSS. and
the large array of critics who have contributed
to the correction and elucidation of the
poems, leaves little or nothing to be desired.
Besides his edition of the Greek Anthology,
Unus Multorum has also published a collec-
tion of notes on Aeschylus, Sophocles and
Euripides.

The new fragments of Menander are in
one sense disappointing. It is true that they
contain portions of four distinct plays, and
that large sections in each one of the four
comprise long passages which are obviously
continuous and only require supplementing
here and there. The lacunae are sometimes
very slight and not difficult to fill up. In
such passages our new editor is at his best.
His style of translation is easy and flowing,
as free from pedantic literalness as from
unscholarly looseness. ‘This it is which may
fairly be called the strong point of the
book.

But there are whole scenes the location of
which is quite uncertain, and which have
been assigned by the first editor, Lefebvre, to
one play, by his successors to another.
Here van Leeuwen seems to be closely

followed by Harberton, and the coincidence
of the two may generally be taken as based
on sound, or at least not unplausible grounds.
But it is not impossible that a fresh examina-
tion of the MS. of the new fragments may
lead to different and more permanent results
than either Lefebvre or van Leeuwen can
claim ; just as in the case of the Tewpyds
fragment Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt were
able to arrive at a different arrangement of
the verses by a new inspection of the MS.

In view of these uncertainties it is
interesting to find Unus Multorum an
enthusiast on the rather debateable question
of the merits of the new Menandrian
fragments in dramatic effectiveness and finish
of style. I believe most of those who have
read them confess to a feeling of disappoint-
ment, at any rate in comparison with the
universal laudation accorded to Menander in
antiquity. It may be said that this could
not be otherwise, as even complete comedies,
such as those of Terence or Plautus, abound
in lines where the allusion is notwithstanding
obscure; and in the new fragments of
Menander, as in the earlier discovered
fragments of the Tewpyds, not one of the
four plays, the ᾿Επιτρέποντες, Tlepixerpoper),
Σαμία, or “Hpws can be said to reveal its
argumentum. This is particularly true in
the case of the ‘Woman with shorn locks’
as Unus Multorum translates the famous
comedy περικειρομένη. Still it is nothing
remarkable to find in Lord Harberton an
exception to the prevailing verdict, an
exception stated with emphasis more than
once, and obviously based not only on a
most conscientious study of the new frag-
ments, but on an enlarged familiarity with
comedy and dramatic effect in general. So
much, however, even he will not deny, that,
among the finds which research has brought
to light within the last twenty or thirty years,
one at least, the J/mes of Herondas,
presents views of ancient Greek life in-
comparably more vivid and, to most readers,
far more interesting than any even of the
continuous remains of the four Menandrian
plays. These miniature works of mimetic
art, where they have come to us unmutilated

126

and whole, are perfect, indeed exquisite. I

would specify in particular the κοτταλος,
which I do’ not scruple to prefer to any of
the comic scenes of Menander we at present
possess. It might even, we think, be said
that the new fragments bring into greater
prominence ποῖ 8 little of the weaker side of
his plays. I, of course, mean the taking up
and repeating the words of a former speaker,
which is done ad nauseam, and must have
been a common artifice (if it deserves the
name) of the Menandrian dialogue. This
taking up and repeating the words of the
former speaker must have been as tiresome
as Lessing’s trick (in his prose tragedy, Hmz/ia
Galotti) of breaking off sentence after
sentence with an interrupting —.

It remains to speak of the emendatory
side of our new editor’s work. He has done
a good deal in this way, and I should depre-
cate any sweeping assertion as to his merits
or defects. Perhaps his suggestions may be
said to be more plausible as Greek than
successful as approaching closely to the MS.
tradition, or even (at times) to the proba-
bilities of metre. The safe rule of not
introducing as an emendation anything which
departs violently from the ordinary metrical
observances of the writer is not always
kept in view. Thus in “Emp. 264 the
MS. gives at the end of an iambic line
which the new editor
corrects τῆν σὺ παῖδα δ᾽ ἥτις ἦν, a rude sever-
ance οὗ τὴν from παῖδα, to which I have not
noticed any parallel in the MS. In the
following line he refers in defence of οἶσθας
as Attic to his discussion on ἦσθας in 156.
Considerable space is there devoted to the
dicta of various grammarians or lexico-
graphers on this question, which is one of
no little importance in correcting the text
of many similar passages, e.g. 325 where van
Leeuwen with MS. gives οὐκ οἶδα, βουλοίμην

δ᾽ ἄν: ON. od yap οἶσθά ov; Harberton

τηνδεπαιδητιςὴν,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

prefers οὐ yap οἶσθας, ov, which some critics
will think good and forcible. In 280 where
the MS. gives at the end of a line ηἡτιςεστ-
αβροτονον, it may be a question whether ἐσθ᾽
‘ABporovov, a diminutive found elsewhere
in Menander, is not more probable than
ἐστίν, “‘ABporovov, though the latter reading
seems to be more favoured by editors.
Metrically improbable are the following:
Epitr. 410 ovéxpaye τὴν κεφαλὴν ἅμα πατάξας
σφοδρα.

ε Ν > an
κατὰ σχολὴν ἐρεῖν.

Ilepix. 39 αἰτεῖ τί βούλεθ᾽. 6 μὲν
114 τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Αδράστειαν
μάλιστα νῦν ἄρα με δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, unless
this is a misprint for νῦν ἄρα δεῖ με προσ-
κυνεῖν, 257 λάβῃ τι τούτων᾽ οὐ γὰρ ἕωρα-
κενᾶαι ποτε. ᾿

Ingenious and at any rate notable are the
following: Epitr. 340 τεγεατικὸν for τογασ-
τικον of MS., and the explanation drawn
from Diog. Laertius, 6. 61 ‘the woman has
all the cunning of a street walker.’ It is,
however, a little far-fetched. Tlepix. 337
But in Samia 18
εἶναι τυγχάνει the infinitival construction of
τυγχάνει is not supported by the MS. and
seems unjustifiable.

On the whole this English edition will
hold its place among the similar issues of
the new fragments in foreign countries.
Lord Harberton does not seem to have seen
the clever and original criticism of the
eminent Cambridge scholar, whose loss we
all deplore, Mr. Walter Headlam, although
his little volume was among the earliest
published on the four comedies. We are
still in want of a complete edition, one which
should embody the views and suggestions
of a crowd of scholars whom the fame
of Menander naturally drew to the task
of explaining or supplementing the comedies
immediately after their first publication by
Lefebvre.

Lal > la
τυιγαροῦν ἀπάγξομαι.

Rosinson ELLIs.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 127

PLAN OF ROME.

Roma prima di Sisto V.: la pianta di Roma
Du Pérac-Lafréry del 1577, riprodotta
dall’ esemplare-esistente nel Museo Britan-
nico per cura e con introduzione di FRAN-
cEsco EHRLE, @.C.d.G., Prefetto della
Biblioteca Vaticana. Wanesi, 1908. Sm.
folio in portfolio. 70 pp. text, one folding
map 1x0°820m. 15 lire (12s.).

THE object of the present publication is set
forth by Father Ehrle in his preface. His
intention is mainly to assist historical stu-
dents, ‘very many of whom, in dealing with
the various historical problems of the period
after the Renaissance and the Reformation,
often feel the necessity of clearing up some
topographical question connected with the
continual and extensive transformation of
Rome, eternal, despite all changes.’ It is by
no means the first of sixteenth-century en-
graved plans of Rome to be reproduced ;
but, owing to its extreme rarity, it has hitherto
escaped the attention of students. The
British Museum copy is, indeed, the only
known example of the original edition: of
the second (of 1640) one is in Paris, another
in the collection of the present writer ; while
a copy of the third (of 1646) was found by
Father Ehrle in a private collection.

In each of the last two editions the
dedication has beén changed, and the plan
brought, to a certain extent only, up to date,

‘by retouching the plates so as to show the

modifications which had taken place in Rome
in the interval. But the original plan of
1577 15 rightly considered by Father Ehrle
to be the best and clearest representation
that we have of Rome before the transforma-
tions that a great part of it underwent at the
hands of Sixtus V., and a fac-simile reproduc-
tion of it will thus be of the greatest use to
students, not only of history, but of the
classical and Renaissance topography of
Rome, which are so intimately connected
with one another. -

The introduction has an interest of its
own: it is the first attempt at a coherent
account of the authors of this plan and of its
modifications, and of the various hands
through which these and similar plates

passed, from the middle of the sixteenth cen-
tury till the present day.

Both Du Perac and Lafréry are otherwise
well known to us. The former appears both
as draughtsman and engraver of several
plates of archaeological and architectural
interest, and especially of a large plan of
ancient Rome (reconstructed) dedicated to
Charles IX. of France in 1574 (the plates are
still in existence at the Government engraving
depot in Rome!; Father Ehrle’s statement to
the contrary (p. 24) rests on an error of Ovidi,
La Calcografia Romana, Rome, 1905, p. 24),
and of a very important collection of views
of ancient Rome of 1575. The latter was,
between 1544 and 1577 (circa), the most
important printer and publisher of engravings
in Rome, and most of Du Pérac’s work was
issued by him. His master appears to have
been a certain Antonio Salamanca of Milan,
whose activity belongs mainly to the period
from 1538 to 1549, and with whom he
entered into partnership in 1553, soon be-
coming, however, the predominant member
of the firm, and largely increasing his activity.
A little after 1572, indeed, he published a
catalogue of his stock, which Father Ehrle
reproduces in full from the unique copy pre-
served in the Biblioteca Marucelliana in
Florence. The list contains 112 geographical
and topographical engravings (maps, views of
cities and fortresses and a few battles), 79
engravings of Roman antiquities, 19 impor-
tant Renaissance works of art, 72 mytho-
logical and historical prints, 174 religious
subjects, 26 portraits, and 20 illustrated
books. The inventory of his goods, made
shortly after his death in 1577, is unluckily
missing, though it seems to have been in its
place in the archives until a few years back.

But the catalogue in question gives a good
idea of his activity and enterprise. Ata date
which cannot be precisely fixed, but probably
towards the end of his life, he began to form
a collection of his most important archaeo-
logical plates, giving to it the title of Specu-
lum Romanae Magnificentiae; but no copy
of this collection has an index or an original

1 Catalogo delie Stampe. .
No. 1439.

. della Regia Calcografia,

128

numbering of the plates, which are in fact
differently arranged and chosen in every copy
known. There are, too, very few copies to
which later issues of the same plates, or
plates issued for the first time by Lafréry’s
successors, have not been added.!' For the
plates were handed down through a series of
vendors and publishers of engravings, of
whom Father Ehrle gives most interesting
particulars, most of whom’ added plates of
their own, right down to the end of the
eighteenth century; while, despite the fact
that in 1799 the French Republican Govern-
ment sent 1158 copperplates to the mint to

1To the earlier copies mentioned by Father Ehrle
I may add one in my own collection, from the
Destailleurs Library, which contains very few plates
dating after the death of Lafréry, while, as it has
been rebound, they may well have been added
separately.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

be coined into money, some of the plates
exist to the present day.

There is not space to follow Father Ehrle’s
careful and conscientious introduction further ;
but it is a most important contribution to the
study of a little known and fascinating sub-
ject, while the appendix contains unpublished
documents and inventories bearing on it.
To the present writer, who has for some
time contemplated the publication of a
catalogue raisonné of the Speculum Romanae
Magnificentiae, this book affords an indispens-
able foundation for the work, and at the
same time an encouragement to proceed.
Father Ehrle, by continuing the publication
of other important plans of Rome, will render
a very great service to students.

THomas ASHBY.

PHAROS.

Pharos Antike, Islam, und Occtdent.
HERMANN THIERSCH. ‘Teubner.

Von

SELDOM has even the great house of Teubner
issued a more splendid and exhaustive mono-
graph than this. The author indeed modestly
tells us that on some points he is writing at
second hand, and that further researches are
required by specialists. That may be so,
but it will be hard to find readers who will
desire to go more deeply into the question of
the tower industry of the whole human race.
For such this volume proves to be. It is
divided into three parts and an appendix of
independent value. The first gives all that
can be known about the great Alexandrine
lighthouse, with all the Arabic information
about its history till its complete ruin by
earthquake in the thirteenth century. The
evidence not only of writers (which is very
scanty) but of coins, Pompeian wall pictures,
illuminated MSS., is brought in to help the
author to his reconstruction of this wonder
of the world. He corrects earlier essays,
especially that of Adler, and produces a
consistent and splendid result in his picture
of the Pharos, which was a great quadrilateral
base (each side a plethron) and the height

two plethra, then an octagonal building of
half that height, then a round building in
the same decreasing proportion, with a fire
signal of wood and pitch at the top, and pro-
bably a mirror facing seawards to intensify
the light. The whole thing was about 105
metres high. The reader must consult the
volume for ample details and justifications of
the author’s views. ἶ

Then follows a long chapter on the use
made of this lighthouse by the Arabs, whose
minaret is derived from manara, a fire-tower,
for they established a little chapel for prayer
in the topmost storey, and from this came the
fashion, at least in Egypt, North Africa, and
the West, of setting up minarets of a form
always recalling the great original at
Alexandria.

But the minaret of this kind does not
include the whole genus. It appears that
the earliest towers used for the call to prayer
were those of Christian churches at Damascus
and elsewhere in Syria, square towers from
which the call to prayer was given by beating
the semantron, or board of dry wood, which is
used to-day in some of the ruder and wilder
monasteries on Mount Athos.

The Mohammedans substituted the musical

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

call of the human voice, the Christians in
due time the sound of bells.

The third part shows how the Egyptian
minaret, carried all along the coast of Africa
and into Spain by the Saracens, was from
the great mosque of Cordova, and other such
minarets, the suggestive model of Christian
church towers, of which there is a whole
army (as there is of minarets) reproduced in
the illustrations which crowd the pages of
this noble volume. In fact, only the square
Norman church towers of England and the
Round towers of Ireland seem to have
escaped from the influence, direct or indirect,
of the three superposed structures of the
Pharos. ἢ

129

The appendix contains the author’s re-
searches in the ruins of Taposiris Magna,
near Alexandria, to the west, where there are
the remains of a smaller lighthouse of the same
character. The present notice confines itself
to a mere summary of a book full of interest-
ing details and various learning, and refrains
from any criticism which would only affect
small details, and occupy more place than it
is worth. The main duty of the reviewer is
to recommend to all lovers of antiquity,
or of the Middle Ages, either in Asia or
Europe, to acquire and read this fascinating
work.

J. P. MAHAFFY.

BRITISH MUSEUM MARBLES.

Greek Buildings represented by Fragments in
the British Museum. By W. R. LETHABY.
I. Diana’s Temple at Ephesus. II. The
Tomb of Mausolus. London: B. T.
Batsford, 94 High Holborn, 1908. Two
vols. 9$’x6". Pp. 1-36; 37-70. 2s.
net each.

Pror. LETHABy has entered the Greek field
by the publication of two pamphlets each
devoted to the study of a great building of
which nearly all the actual stones are in the
British Museum.

. In each case the fragments are taken as
the principal facts beyond question; what
past author or explorer has woven around
these facts is briefly but clearly stated and
criticised with a view to a definite result ;
and the pamphlet closes with a description
of statuary and detail.

That we should expect delightful style as
well as penetration and insight in the dis-
cussion of the fragments goes without saying,
but we get more; the theoretic conclusions
are reached with a clearness, conciseness,
almost a dryness of statement which leaves
one with the impression that little more
remains to be said.

A theory of reconstruction forms an
important part of each study. In the case
of Ephesus Prof. Lethaby begins by stating

NO. CCII. VOL. XXIII.

the main facts of Wood’s discovery, the work
of the Austrian Institute and Mr. Hogarth’s
excavations, and he passes on to a criticism
of Dr. Murray’s reconstruction of the frag-
ments of the later temple in the Museum,
and his theory of the form of the temple
from these fragments.

Without stating Dr. Murray’s case, which
may be seen in the Museum, we pass to
Prof. Lethaby’s, briefly, as follows:

(1) The temple was raised on a high
platform of steps which was carried all round
it, probably equidistant on all sides from the
order and -conditioned by the foundations
which Wood discovered.

(2) The sculptured pedestals and sculp-
tured drums were used separately as bases to
columns, the former at the outer end-rows,!
the latter at the inner end-rows and the pairs
between the antae, thus giving the ‘36
sculptured columns’ of Pliny without any
duplication, and avoiding the over-drawn-out
columns of the fronts with the awkward
arrangement of steps behind them of the
Museum restoration, not paralleled by any
other example in Greek art.

(3) The temple had an ‘architrave orde1
(so characterised by Choisy) or entablature
consisting of architrave and dentil-cornice,
but no frieze.

)

1 Also at one return column on each flank.
I

130

To our mind there is no doubt that Prof.
Lethaby’s case for the reconstruction is fully
proved. The result—and this is the im-
portant fact—gives us a much finer and
better-proportioned temple than the one
illustrated in Mr. Cromar Watt’s drawing in
the Museum.

In discussing the details of the Order
Prof. Lethaby says (p. 19), ‘ With the plinth
the height of the [column] base is two thirds
of a diameter, a fair proportion ; but without
it, it is impossibly low.’ It should be borne
in mind that this refers only to Asiatic work.
At Athens, where square members are
omitted from Ionic bases, we find that
those of the Erectheum North portico, for
example, are less than half a diameter in
height.

There are some good remarks on the
somewhat early form of the Ephesus caps
(with their large egg and tongue carvings
having no relation to the flutings beneath)
compared to the more developed Mausoleum
and Priene examples.

Dr. Murray's restoration of dentils in the
raking cornice is criticised, and Priene is
cited, where the raking bed-mould is less in
‘depth’ [height ?] so as to lighten the raking
cornice ge.erally. This also would be right,
aesthetically.

The few pages devoted to the sculpture
are really constructive. Two fine free
sketches of the sculptured drums are given
shewing certain figures completed. It seems
instinctively sound judgement to parallel these
sculptures with the work of the Praxitilean
school.

Let us hope that the suggestion for a
proper setting of fragment 1239 will not fall
to the ground.

In the notes on methods of workmanship
there is a timely remark about the freedom
of the Ephesus work. There is apparently
much departure from exact symmetrical
precision in the details of Greek work, and
this applies even in the best Athenian
buildings.

There is,one remark about the overall size
of the temple which does not seem quite
clear. ‘Pliny says that it was of the
enormous and impossible size of 425 feet by
220 feet’ (p. 2); but might this not refer to

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the extreme sizes of the platform steps?
Wood’s calculation of the platform in English
feet is 418’ 1” by 239’ 43”.

At Ephesus, our conception of the archi-
tectural scheme is nearly assured. In the
case of the Mausoleum it is not so. In his
second study Prof. Lethaby carefully dis-
cusses all the known restorations, on paper,
of this great wonder, and then, wisely
perhaps, puts forward no certain scheme of
his own except a ‘rejected restoration’
(p. 55), one that he would like to have seen
and at one time thought possible, but which
he was forced to reject as lacking in
simplicity. The keynote of his own con-
jectural reasoning may be found on p. 57,
where he says ‘the basis of the true design
seems to be the tumulus developed, con-
sisting of a basement, a pyramid, and a
trophy. It may best be compared with the
Cnidus monument; ... The marvel must
have consisted in setting over a temple-like
structure a pyramid hanging high in the
air.’

The general criticism of the methods of
former restorers on pp. 54 and 55 is very
sound, but is too long to quote here.

The method of discussing the actual form
of the monument is quite admirable. It is
based on a careful description of ‘the
evidence of the stones themselves’ and thus
arrives at the most original part of the study,
a discovery of some certain evidence of ratio
of length to width in the pyramid, and the
number and spacing of the columns (pp.
45-48).

Five different restorations are illustrated
and discussed. It is pointed out that these
fall into two types of plan, the large plan
type with a single row of surrounding
columns, and the small plan type with a
double row.

The small type is finally (p. 56) rejected
altogether, and Adler's restoration, illustrated
on p. 49, singled out as the ‘best general
view of the monument which has _ been
produced.’

The arguments in favour of simplicity
seem thoroughly sound. However pleasing
may be Oldfield’s restoration (accepted by
Prof. Gardner in his Sculptured Tombs of
Hellas) and the author’s more excellent

‘

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

‘rejected restoration,’ there appears to be
no real evidence for them. This is clearly
shewn.

In calling attention to the use that has
been repeatedly made of ‘Pullan’s faulty
measurements,’ Prof. Lethaby fully admits
his own indebtedness to the admirable
survey of the fragments in the Museum
made by the students of the Royal College
of Art, under Prof. Pite.

The penetrating remarks on the frieze do
full justice to its excellence, though it is
placed below the Parthenon. The remarks
also about colour are very much to the
point. One must conceive of these great
monuments as covered with colour, but
‘harmonised and softened into waxy texture
and hues.’

As is here shewn, there was an ‘archi-
trave order’ at the Mausoleum also. In
the notes on construction we learn that the
pyramid steps had rolls or fillets at the back
and two. ends, which would throw the water
away from the actual joints, a practical
subtlety which is thoroughly Greek. The
author says with special regard to the mitre
joints which make the work resemble marble
joinery rather than masonry, ‘the whole out-

131

look is very advanced and even doubtful’ ;
but in the best Athenian period we see
mitre joints used for marble work.

The praise of Pythios the sculptor-
architect, responsible also for the temple at
Priene, is well-deserved, and the quotation
from Vitruvius at the close is delightful in
the gravity of its large outlook.

The volumes are well illustrated by plans,
line-illustrations of architectural detail, and
fine suggestive sketches of carving and
sculpture. They are pleasant to handle, of
good paper with wide margins and large
print. The proof-reading has been careful,
and we came across no printer's errors.
The pagination is continued straight through
to facilitate future binding. Altogether these
are most notable booklets, and when the
series is complete! it should form one of
the most suggestive contributions to the
practical study of Greek architecture in
certain aspects, that has ever been pro-
duced.

THEODORE FYFE.

1Since this was written, the third study of the
series, on the Parthenon, has appeared. A fourth
and final part will appear later.

ANCIENT ITALY.

Ancient Italy. By Ettore Pais. The
University of Chicago Press, and Unwin,
London.

THE title of this work hardly conveys a just
idea of its contents. It is a miscellaneous
collection of papers, bearing mainly on the
history of the Greek settlements in Italy,
Sicily, and even Sardinia. The amount of
matter which is connected with the author’s
‘Storia di Sicilia’ is larger than that which is
cognate with the ‘Storia di Roma,’ and the
former portion appears to me to be the more
valuable. But in this short notice I can only
touch on one or two articles particularly.
Like all the work of Prof. Pais, these essays
are interesting and even fascinating when
read rapidly and uncritically. But when the

processes are probed and the results are
brought face to face with the evidence,
the colours often fade, and chaos takes
the place of plausible coherence. The first
paper on ‘ Ausonia and the Ausonians’ seeks
to show that these two titles were applied in
ancient times, and properly applied, to a much
larger part of the land and inhabitants of
Italy than has commonly been supposed.
Material is selected from the warring pro-
nouncements of ancient writers concerning
the prehistory of Italy, and is wrought into a
skilful mosaic in support of the theory. The
unpractised reader will not guess the extent
to which the process is a ‘ periculosae plenum
opus aleae.’ The ancient writers have to be
taken on trust. There is no discussion of
their intrinsic value as authorities ; nor any

132

reference to publications in which such dis-
cussion may be found. The essay requires
us to believe that fragments of a genuine
tradition concerning the state of Italy in
times a good deal older than the Trojan war
are to be found in writers from Herodotus to
Lydus.

The acceptance of such a belief is often
purely a result of temperament, but it is odd
to find that the ‘littera scripta’ sometimes
exercises a great fascination over Prof. Pais,
of all men in the world. Curiously, even if
his Ausonian theory were proved, it sheds no
light on the early ethnology of Italy, because
the spread of the name Ausonia is due
largely to political amalgamation carried out
by Morges and similar heroes.

In the essay on ‘ Ausonia’ the writer poses
as a defender of tradition. In others he
returns to his more familiar and congenial
role. An ingenious paper is that on ‘Siceliot
elements in the early history of Rome.’ The
theme is old, but the treatment shews fresh-
ness and originality. Part of the article seeks
to prove that the story of the ‘First Seces-
sion’ is a replica‘of an event in the history of

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Gela recorded by Herodotus (vii. 153). The
democrats drove the aristocrats out, and
these established themselves at a town near
Gela. They were induced to return by an
ancestor of Gelo the tyrant of Syracuse. Of
the argument in favour of this theory, I can
only say ‘mole ruit sua.’ Its great ingenuity
cannot beguile a reader even into a moment-
ary belief. As Prof. Pais seems to admit
that the ‘Second Secession’ is historical, one
is much surprised to find that he does not
employ here what we may call his ‘ principle-
of-all-work,’ so conspicuous in the ‘Storia di
Roma,’ and pronounce the First Secession a
pale reflexion of the Second.

I ought to say that there are a number of
articles in the volume which I am not com-
petent to criticize. Also that in spite of the
faults of method which I have indicated, and
numerous risky details on which I cannot
touch here, there are very many acute
remarks on current views, and on passages in
ancient writers, which will make it indispens-
able that the work should be consulted by
those who handle in future the same topics.

1. 5. Ε.

.

A THEORY OF VERSE STRUCTURE.

Flomerischer Hymnenbau nebst seinen Nachah-
mungen bet Kallimachos, Theokrit, Vergil,
LNVvonnos und Anderen, erschlossen von
ARTHUR LupwicH. Leipzig: S. Hirzel,
1908. 9} x6}". xii, 380. In _ paper
covers, ro marks: bound, 12 marks.

THE main feature of Herr Ludwich’s new
book is a theory based on his discovery of
‘a remarkable peculiarity in the architec-
ture’ of the Hymn to Hermes.

‘In arranging the framework of his poem
the poet has utilized the two numbers which
receive special prominence in the opening
lines of the hymn’; its 580 lines fall into
‘pericopae’ of four and ten lines respectively ;
this is simply another way of saying that 580
is divisible by 4 and το, and this is all that
Ludwich claims for his theory ; he expressly

warns his readers not to expect a division
into stanzas or strophes in which a pause in
the sense corresponds with the close of each
metrical group.

The ‘symbolism’ of the poet’s arithmetic
lies in his choice of the numbers 4 and to,
which are sacred to Hermes because he was
born on the 4th day of the 1oth month.
Ludwich claims that his discovery vindicates
the traditional length of the poem, and we
have no right, he says, to add or take away
a single verse. He gives examples of the
same principle at work in many other
hymns.

We do not deny the facts adduced by
Ludwich; but do they mean anything?
There is no doubt that the ancients occa-
sionally constructed poems on arithmetical
principles; but we are going beyond the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

limits of sane criticism if we extend this
Zahlensymbolik to any poem on the sole
ground that its total number of verses is
divisible by one or two simple numbers, and
therefore capable of being arranged in a
‘monistic’ or ‘dualistic’ scheme of ‘peri-
copae.’ We have only to find ἃ simple
divisor in any given hymn, and we shall
require but little ingenuity to endow it with
a deep inner meaning.

At times the expositor finds himself called
upon to choose the sacred number from a
perplexing variety of divisors, as eg. when
Ludwich hesitates between 2, 3 and 3, 4 in
Callim. Zeus; Zeus, he remarks, ‘ possessed
no fixed holy number’; for, as King of the
gods, he enjoyed ‘a certain freedom’ in this
respect ; so that 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, or 16 would
have suited equally well in this poem of 96
lines. Our suspicions are still further aroused
when we observe that the same numbers are
symbolical in a great number of hymns
addressed to different deities. Were it sud-
denly discovered that the Hymn to Helios
was originally intended for the Dioscuri,
Aphrodite, Selene, or several other deities,
we could still maintain its arithmetical prin-
ciples by changing the mystical meaning of
its ‘tetrads.’ The number 3 is sacred to
Adonis, Apollo, Zeus, Demeter, Asclepius;
4 to Hermes, Heracles, Apollo, Aphrodite,
Helios, Gaia, Dioscuri, Selene. There is no
undue severity in the rules of the fascinating
game invented by Ludwich; gods gaily
borrow one another’s numbers (especially
those of their near relatives), and we are
occasionally allowed to expel lines from
intractable hymns.

Ludwich’s theory will not protect the
hymns against the expurgator. If we omit
from the 4. Hermes the lines bracketed as
spurious in Baumeister’s edition, we get a
total of 58ο -- 28 τ 55,2 lines; this we can
divide into ‘pericopae’ of 12 and 4 lines;
the former finds its justification in the sacri-
fice to the 12 gods (δώδεκα μοῖραι v. 128),
and the number 4 was universally regarded by
the ancients as sacred to Hermes. If the
interpolated lines numbered 27, we should
have a remainder of 553, giving a ‘ monistic’
plan of 7-line ‘pericopae’ derived from the
close connection of the god with the 7 strings

133

of the lyre. The assumption of a single
one-line lacuna (e.g. after 109) would give a
like result, 581=7x 83. Ludwich’s own
interpretation of the poem is open to serious
objections; vv. 11-12, 17-19 and the
archaeological footnotes in 25, 111 are rightly
regarded by many critics as interpolations.
There can be no significance whatever
in δέκατος pels (v. 11); the birth of a child
at that date was not ‘an unusual occur-
rence,’ as Ludwich calls it, but quite in
accordance with the ancient method of
reckoning. In Herod. vi. 63 a child’s legiti-
macy is seriously impugned because the
mother οὐ πληρώσασα τοὺς δέκα μῆνας τίκτει,
and an ἐννεάμην child is declared to be
exceptional (7. 69). Further, Hermes was
born τετράδι τῇ προτέρῃ, and Ludwich is
wrong in his statement: ‘ vod/e zehn Monate
lang tragt die Mutter das Kind unter ihrem
Herzen.’ It was but a few days over nine
months.

The Hymn to Pan consists of 49 lines, a
‘monistic’ system of ‘ pericopae’ in 7 lines.
Like Apollo and Hermes, Pan was devoted
to music; some evén regarded him as the
son of Apollo; accordingly ‘the hieratic
number of Pan was the same as that of
Apollo, viz. 7.2 Had the poem contained 51
(3 x 17) we should then have had a ‘ monistic’
scheme based on 3, which was sacred to
Apollo ‘because with his sister and mother
he formed a triad.’ Supposing the number
of verses to have been 48, the poem would
be based on 3 and 4, and 4 was also
sacred to Apollo, A total of 50 would
give a ‘dualistic’ scheme with τὸ and 5, the
former borrowed from Pan’s friend Hermes,
and the latter of course representing the
trinity Apollo, Zeus and Artemis, with the
two musical gods Hermes and Pan. ‘There
is therefore no particular significance in the
number 49; any figure from 48 to 52 inclu-
sive would have suited just as well.

Ludwich finds the same principle at work
in Latin poetry, and he gives several examples
from the Zc/ogues. The reader can easily
find for himself innumerable instances from
the religious and secular poetry of every race
and age. The following are in accordance
with the canons laid down by the German
scholar.

134

Catullus xxxiv. 24 lines to Diana ; mystic
numbers, 4 and 3, the sacred numbers of
Apollo and Zeus, her father and brother; a
‘ triadic-tetradic’ scheme like Callim. Zeus.

Catullus xxxvi. 20 lines ; mystic numbers,
4 sacred to Venus (Veneri Cupidinique),
and 5 representing Cupid as a member of
the quintet Venus, Mars and their three
children. |

From English Literature the following
case will suffice: Book I. of Paradise Lost
contains 798 lines, divisible by the sacred
numbers 3 and 7, the former denoting the
Holy Trinity, the latter representing the
Divine Perfection. English, Welsh and

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

German hymnology will also supply many
striking parallels.

The very universality of the phenomenon
discovered by Ludwich affords the strongest
argument against its mystic significance ;
there will always be many poems the totals of
which can be divided by 3, 4, or 5; and by
the assumption if necessary of a single-line
lacuna or interpolation we can include all
the rest (now divisible by 2) in a ‘ monistic’
scheme of ‘dyads’ like that suggested by
Ludwich for the short Homeric Hymn to

Zeus.
T. Hupson WILLIAMS.

University College of N. Wales, Bangor.

WALTERS’ AND CONWAY’S ZIJMEN.

Limen, a First Latin Book. By W. C.
FLAMSTEAD WALTERS, M.A., Professor
of Classical Literature in King’s College,
London, and R. 5, Conway, Litt.D.,
Professor of Latin in the University of
Manchester. London: Murray, 1908. Pp.
xxll+ 376. 25. 6d.

ELEMENTARY books in dead languages would
be much better, and far fewer, if the difficulty
and importance of their proper construction
were more generally understood. ‘The tact
and experience of the practical teacher must
meet the knowledge and insight of the
finished scholar and together execute what
differs little from an educational sword
dance. How often the first has to say, ‘ You
cannot teach ¢#zs; it is abstruse’; and the
second, ‘You must not teach /¢#af; it is
wrong.’ The path of reconcilement is not
easy to discover, but the well-known position
and qualifications of the joint authors of
Limen warrant us in the expectation that
they will find it. The object of the book is
to provide ‘the grammatical staple of a three
year course for boys who begin Latin when
they are about eleven years old,’ and its
contents embrace grammar (accidence and
syntax), reading lessons, questions upon
them, and exercises with conversations.
Whether the result, to produce which no

small pains and care have been expended,
has the prime merit of being a ‘teachable’
book, I do not venture to determine,
remembering what a schoolmaster once said
to me, that it was rash to call a book
‘teachable’ till you had taught from it for at
least a single term. But so much is clear
at once that in its handling of the various |
topics Limen is not only rational and
methodical but lucid and stimulating.

It will be interesting to consider how its
authors approach the chief problems of
elementary Latin teaching. One of these
is the question, what part should philology
be allowed to play in the exposition of
the accidence and the explanation of the
syntax? It is, I suppose, generally recog-
nised that analysis cannot be altogether
excluded from the presentation of declen-
sions and conjugations, that the mind will
of itself discern the difference between
the ending of a word which changes in the
individual but is permanent in the type, and
its beginning, in which just the opposite is
the case, and that it may as well be helped
in the process. But how far should we go
in this direction? Shall we adopt the
thoroughgoing etymological analysis which,
if I mistake not, Dr. Fennell was the first to
introduce into an English school-book, and
teach the division by ‘stem’ and ‘suffix,’ as

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

terra-m, porta-t? Or shall we divide by
‘base’ and ‘ending’ as “err-am, port-at, as
in the ew Latin Primer and Atkinson’s and
Pearce’s First Latin Book. The former, to
which the authors evidently incline, is the
more strictly scientific; but it is apt to induce
perplexities which we cannot remove, or
remove only by explanations either uncertain
in themselves or not readily comprehended
by beginners. Inconsistencies too are in-
evitable. Take the declension of diés
(§ 107). There you have dié-s, die-m, dié-i
(6. D.), but ἐξ (Abl.), and in a note dé is

given as another form of the Gen. and Dat. .

The anomalies thus forced upon our notice
retire into the background if the common
coalescence of formative with inflexional suffix
is recognised by the division di-és, -em, -& -é.
With a good tutor, this matter is of no very
great importance ; and speaking generally the
use of etymological explanation in Zzmen is
sparing and judicious. Some of the sugges-
tions are new or at least not hackneyed. dé
‘concerning’ is compared to the English, ‘to
preach from a text.’ sicut(z), derived from
st-cut(t), ‘so, as’ (not from sic-z¢(z)), is used
to explain the well-known anomalies w/, 07,
etc.; these have arisen from a misunder-
standing of the compounds s?-cu/, st-cudz, etc.,
whose first element was supposed to be sic;
inpero is from im paro ‘to make ready (put)
a burden on a person.’ (So substantially
Vanicek and Walde.)

Another question for the teacher of Latin
is how should he deal with the numerous
correspondences in the vocabularies of
English and Latin. Should he draw atten-
tion to them in order to smooth, as he
thinks, the path of Latin beginners? Or
pass them over as being on the whole rather
a hindrance than a help to progress? Or
again utilise them to throw light on the
meaning of the rarer English words which
are derived from Latin? The last proceeding
has its utility, but it belongs rather to the
teaching of English than Latin, and in a Latin
text-book should have been relegated to the
index. On the other hand the authors are to
be congratulated on the way they treat the
English representative of a Latin word
which has ceased to be its equivalent. No
fault of our Latin dictionaries is more

135

mischievous than the intrusion into transla-
tions of such transliterations as compensate,
subtle, and so forth. The authors see this
clearly, as a single page will show. There
(170) the vocabulary gives excitare, pro-
pagare, doctrina, hereditas, pius, subtectus,
all with English translations from which
excite, propagate, doctrine, heredity, pious and
subject, are every one of them excluded.
Some may think that strictness has been
carried too far, but not those who have had
much to do with looking over Latin com-
position. Upon the true correspondences
there is little to say. All I have noted is
that the authors might more frequently have
called attention to the English derivations
from the ‘supine’ stems of third conjuga-
tion verbs.

I now come to syntax. In spite of, and
perhaps also because of, German and
American activity, much in Latin syn-
tactical theory is still in an unsatisfactory
state; and all that we can demand from a
first manual is that it shall be clear, concise,
and as accurate as can be expected from an
account that extends over some two centuries
of shifting usage and embraces a multitude
of details. Little fault can be found with the
authors here. No new terminological ‘ exacti-
tudes’ have been introduced, unless we count
‘patient,’ for the subject of a passive verb;
and the origin of constructions is explained
where it is safe and illuminating to do so,
though I rather doubt the advisability of
importing Brugmann’s explanation of the -do
suffix into the interpretation of the gerundive.
The different types of the conditional state-
ment receive arresting descriptions; the
Open-question type, the Might-have-been
type, and the Might-yet-be type. Oratio
obliqua is treated more adequately than in
most English and American grammars; but
the statement that rhetorical questions, the
answer to which is zof known or clearly
foreshadowed, are put into the subjunctive,
is insufficient. Such questions, if a first or
second person is concerned, are normally put
into the infinitive.

Great pains have been spent on the
reading lessons, and those in continuous
narrative are written in pure and idiomatic
Latin. The ‘copy-book jargon’ of so many

136

elementary books is wholly absent. The
conversations are not in all cases so success-
ful. The Latin sometimes seems stiff and
unnatural ; e.g. on p. 31, would the boy have
called out, ‘O Iuppiter, remus in aquam
cadit,’ and not rather, ‘remum uide: cadit in
aquam,’ or else ‘cadit remus in aquam’?
Lively and unstudied Latin conversation
is certainly not easy to produce: but our
teachers must learn to produce it if the oral
method is to succeed, and without the oral
method the position of Latin will, I fear,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

remain precarious. I could descant upon
this topic, but I must content myself with a
single word of warning, though not one
that Professors Walters and Conway need.
Latin conversation is a most useful adjunct
to elementary teaching, but it must be
confined to the regions—the sufficiently
ample regions—which English and Latin
hold in common. Outside these limits it is
apt to be mere artifice and sham.

J. P. PostcaTE.

SHORT

A Century of Archaeological Discoveries. By
ApvoLF MIcHAELIs. Translated by BEt-
TINA KAHNWEILER. With a preface by
Prof. PERcy GARDNER. 9”x5#. Pp.
xxli+ 366. With 26 plates. London:
John Murray, 1908. 125.

THE ordinary reader might expect this book
to be a somewhat dry record, but he, and
still more the specialist, will find it alive with
interest and fascination. Professor Michaelis
does not limit himself to Greece and Rome,
nor does he only discuss the work of the
excavator; and he has certainly added to
the value of the book by incorporating the
chief results of critical research in such
subjects as Greek sculpture and vase paint-
ing. The story of the Elgin Marbles and of
the provoking misfortune by which those of
Aegina were lost to the British Museum, is
in particular of great interest to us. Much
of his chronicle is doubtless familiar from
other works on the same lines, such as those
of Schuchhardt, Percy Gardner, and Diehls,
but many records of less known yet important
discoveries are included. An apparent ten-
dency to ignore the recent labours of British
archaeologists may be noticed, such as the
work done in Cyprus and Melos, which
publications have now rendered accessible
to foreign scholars; these may be more
familiar to English readers, and on that
account less missed, but they might still have
been incorporated in the useful chronological

NOTICES

table at the end of the book. Bibliographical
references might with advantage have been
added throughout or in a concise table at the
end. We note a few odd misprints, such as
‘Cerveteri’ on p. 70; on p. ΟἹ ‘the lioness
. although her hind-quarters are already
paralysed, lifts his (527) head’; in the chrono-
logical table, ‘ Ketalog’ (1854) ; ‘ Kleimasien’
(1903); and the title of Prof. Strzygowski’s
work (1gor) is not ‘Rome oder Orient’ but
‘Orient oder Rom.’ ΤΕΣ ἘΣ ΗΝ

Douris and the Painters of Greek Vases. ΒΥ
EpMoND Portier. Translated by Bert-
TINA KAHNWEILER. With a preface by
Jane ΕἾΠΕΝ Harrison. 9” x53". Pp.
xvit+92. 25 plates. London: John
Murray, 1909. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.

THE original of this work has already been
noticed in these pages (C.2. 1905, p. 377).
M. Pottier’s charming and lucid style loses
nothing by its re-appearance in English form;
his illustrations are all reproduced, and the
only important difference is the increase in
price from 3 fr. 50 to 7s. 6d., due to the fact
that the plates now appear in colour. Of
the latter change one unfortunate result is
that Fig. 5 appears as a vase-painting drawn
in outline on red ground! Miss Harrison
contributes a characteristic preface.

H. B. W.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Die Bestimmung des Onos oder Epinetron.
By Dr. MarcaretE LANG. οἱ x 63”.
Pp. viiit+7o. 23 illustrations. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1908. Mk. 2 40 pf.

THE chief interest of Dr. Margarete Lang’s
brochure is that it is an attempt to deal with
the curious implement known as the ὄνος or
᾿ ἐπίνητρον from the practical feminine point
of view. It was apparently used for more
than one purpose (Hesychius says that it
was used for smoothing the thread for spin-
ning), but was always placed on the knee, as
depicted in vase-paintings. Probably it was
of wood, a more practical material, the terra-
cotta examples which we possess being either
votive offerings (eg. those found on the
Athenian Acropolis), or wedding presents,
afterwards placed in tombs. H. B.W.

Πορφυρίου ᾿Αφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά. Recensuit
Β. MomMertT. Teubner, 1907. Pp. xxxiii
+56.

THIS is a carefully edited text of Por-
phyry’s ‘sententiae,’ by a scholar whose name
is not familiar tous. The ‘praefatio’ contains
a lucid account of the manuscript upon which,
together with Stobaeus, the text is based, and
also, amongst other matters, a discussion of
the title and design of the work. The work is
designed,—so the editor concludes,—to serve
as an introduction to philosophy, and its
proper title is ἀφορμαί, not ὑπομνήματα,
κεφάλαια or ἐπιχειρήματα. Under the text
are printed, first, the parallels from or
references to the philosophic sources (mainly
Plotinus), and, at the foot, the critical notes.
In the constitution of the text the editor is
indebted for many useful emendations to
Mr. G. Kroll, to whom the book is
dedicated. RK. G..E;

Stlanus the Christian.
London: A. & C. Black.

By E. A. ABBoTT, D.D.
Pp. 368.

THE doctrinal standpoint of the author of Phi/o-
christus is well known to studints who interest
themselves in theological questions. For the benefit
of non-theological readers we may say that this
doctrinal standpoint is, briefly: ‘ Non-miraculous
Christianity.’ Some would reply that this is im-
possible ; and to these Dr. Abbott offers the present
book by way of disproving their contention.

137

Naturally, such a book is in the highest degree
contentious, though written with all Dr. Abbott’s
skill and tact. The book is in the form of a ‘story’;
but the story-telling part of it is very thin—little
more than a background for the exposition of the
writer’s own views. No detailed proofs are given ;
these must be looked for in the supplementary volume
of ‘ Notes.’

From the point of view of the classical reader, pure
and simple, not the least interesting parts of Si/anus
are the sections devoted to Epicurus and his system.

E. H. BLAKENEY.
The King’s School, Ely.

MM. Manilit Astronomica.
BREITER.

Edidit THEODORUS
Pars II. Commentary.

THE first part of this work (the text only) I reviewed
in the Classical Quarterly, ii. 2. 123 sqq., and
I was able to speak of it in terms of commendation
such as I am unable to give to the present volume.
Breiter has been writing upon Manilius for more
than half a century; but this Commentary is not
worthy of his reputation. It leaves the reader under
the impression that the editor has a real knowledge
of Manilius, but little or no gift of exposition. Nor
can I escape the suspicion that the work has been
executed with haste: if B. had not been working
so long upon Man. I should say it had been ‘ scamped.’
Difficulties of reading are not discussed. Certain
emendations are not even noticed. Interpretations
other than Breiter’s are wholly neglected. No attempt
is made to illustrate or explain the Latin of M. And
I marvel for what class of reader this work is
intended. The κακοῆθες of “ Quellenforschung’ is
everywhere apparent; and again and again B. ob-
scures a difficult issue by seeking to interpret M.
from every source save M. himself.

Nor are the faults of this Commentary merely
negative. The number of really bad mistakes in
it is startling. I select two for special notice: 2.
489 ‘consilium ipse suum est’ is interpreted by B.
as = ‘amat se.’ This is impossible not only as Latin
but also as astrology; moreover, no previous com-
mentator has ever made a mistake as to the meaning
here. 4. 750-1 ‘laxo Persis amictu, uestibus ipsa
suis haerens’: B. interprets this to mean that the
Persians wear loose outer garments and tight under-
clothing. Whence he derives his knowledge of
Persian underclothing I do not know; but all that
Manilius says is that the Persians are dracatz (as
Ovid, 77rzst. 10. 34 ‘pro patrio cultu Persica braca
tegit’), and that their évacae are of wool, 7.e. ‘ haerens
=haerens Arieti (‘belonging to Aries,’ as 2. 443
‘ Mauorti haeret’) qui laniger est.” Aries is /aniger’,
and Persia belongs to him even in its garments:
uestibus is ablative. Other mistakes I might notice
of a like kind.

I am sorry not to be able to speak with greater
respect of this book; for Breiter has in the past
deserved well of Manilius. But I have had this

138 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Commentary in my hands every day for four months,
together with other works upon Manilius, and I
cannot see that it advances the study of its subject.

H. W. GARROD.

M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes: Divinatio in Q.
Caecilium; in C. Verrem recognovit brevique
adnotatione critica instruxit GULTELMUS PETERSON.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, n.d.

Reapers of this journal will be familiar with the
critical principles of Principal Peterson. In his Preface
he refers amongst other articles to C.2. vol. xvi. pp.
401-406, and vol. xvii. pp. 162-164. No one who
has given serious attention to the subject can doubt
that he has established one contention at any rate,
viz. that the excellent Cluny manuscript No. 498 is
identical with that used by P. Nanninck in 1548, and
by Franz Schmidt (+ 1573), and owned by Jean
Matal (1520-1597), and that the first hand in Lg. 42
is in wonderful accord with it asa rule. The editor’s
work and that of Mr. A. C. Clark have undoubtedly
laid more securely and scientifically than ever before
the foundations for a trustworthy text, which will not
be widely different from what Cicero actually wrote.
The reviving interest in Petrarch’s age is bearing fruit.
Only there remains, and probably will long remain,
room for difference of opinion, due to the character
of editors—to the personal equation. Professor Peter-
son’s can be estimated by one or two examples—all
that there is room for in this notice.

In 11. i. § 41 we have ‘idem iste . . . idem in Cn.
Dolabellam qui in C. Carbonem fuit. Nam quae in
ipsum valebant crimina contulit in illum, causamque
illius omnem ad inimicos accusatoresque detulit ; ipse
in eum cui legatus, cui pro quaestore fuit, inimicissimum
atque improbissimum testimonium dixit. 1116 miser
cum esset Cn. Dolabella,—cum proditione istius
nefaria, tum improbo ac falso eiusdem testimonio,—
tum multo ex maxima parte istius furtorum ac flagi-
tiorum invidia conflagravit.? The critical note runs,
*Cn. Dolabella del. Naugerius, lord., Kays.: malim
Ille miser (i. § 74) cum esset con/flictatus, cum etc.’
The interjectional use of 2225e7 is, of course, common ;
but it is an ‘idol’ to expect an author continually to
use the same turns of expression. Here mziser may
very well be taken predicatively, ‘to be pitied both
for Verres’ abominable treachery and for his shame-
less false evidence against him.’

In 11. 4 § 26 all the MSS. give ‘ Vestrane urbs
electa est ad quam cum adirent ex Italia crucem civis
Romani prius quam quemquam amicum populi
Romani viderent ?’ except that Harl. 4852 has czves
Romani. The editor inserts céves before crucem (cf.
C.R. xviii. 210). Mueller added gzicumgue before
adirent. But for the plural used without a subject
expressed, cf. 2 Phil. § 105 Casino salutatum
ventebant, Aquino, Interamna.

On the other hand, in 1. 4 § 20, ‘Res publica
detrimentum fecit quod per te imperi ius in una
civitate imminutum est: Siculi, quod ipsum non de
summa frumenti detractum, sed translatum in
Centuripinos. . . . et hoc plus impositum quam ferre
possent,’ the editor rightly keeps guod ipsum of RS.
(geod hoc pd), and rejects the specious guod id tpsum
of Richter. Similarly the passage in § 22 about the
condemnation of C. Cato, the consul of 114 B.c., he
very properly retains as authentic, merely adopting
Rossbach’s improvement of the punctuation. That
Velleius ii. 8 is not the source of an interpolation, but
is drawn from Cicero, is undoubtedly the correct view.

Lastly, to take a point of spelling. It is often
taken for granted by editors that an author would not
avail himself of two forms of a word, although the
example of English writers might have shown that,
for euphony even, an elegant or scholarly taste will
sometimes vary the form of a word. In 11. 4 § 1, we
have (according to RSHp) i Sicilia tota, tam
locupleti, tam vetere provincia (δ alone have /ocuplete).
In § 29 RS give a Phylarcho Centuripino, homine
locuplete ac nobili (6 ‘ut semper’ locuplete). In ὃ 46
1. Papinio, viro primario, locupleti honestogue equite
Romano, with no variant noted. The editor reads
locupleti in all cases. It is sounder to follow the
evidence of RS and to look for an explanation of the
variation. Cicero appears to use Jocupleti, except
when that form would give an unmusical iteration of
z-sounds, when he substitutes /ocupéete, as in § 29,
because of xodz/z.

These instances should suffice to give the reader
an understanding of the editor’s manner of working.
His text is as little open to serious cavil as any
probably could be, that could be constituted to-day,
and his apparatus criticus is a solid contribution to
knowledge, whether a reader disagrees in any case
with his inferences from it or not.

T. NICKLIN.

Rossall, Fleetwood.

VERSIONS

He first deceased ; she for a little tried
To live without him, liked it not and died.

Sir Henry WotTrTON.

ὦ θ᾽ «ε ΑΥ ‘4 ὃ Ν , no > -

ὑχεθ᾽ ὁ μὲν πρότερος βαιὸν χρόνον ἥδ᾽ ἀτὲρ
ἀνδρὸς

τλᾶσα βίον τρίβειν ἤχθετο κἀπέθανεν.

E. D. STONE,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

THERE are not words enough in all! Shake-
speare to express the merest fraction of a
man’s experience in an hour. The speed of
the eyesight and the hearing, and the con-
tinual industry of the mind, produce in ten
minutes what it would require a laborious
volume to shadow forth by comparisons and
round about approaches. If verbal logic
were sufficient, life would be as plain sailing
as a piece of Euclid. But as a matter of
fact we make a travesty of the simplest
process of thought when we put it into
words ; for the words are all coloured and for-
sworn, apply inaccurately, and bring with
them, from former uses, ideas of praise and
blame that have nothing to do with the
question in hand. So we must always see
to it nearly, that we judge by the realities of
life and not by the partial terms that represent
them in man’s speech; and at times of
choice we must leave words upon one side,
and act upon those brute convictions, unex-
pressed and perhaps inexpressible, which
cannot be flourished in an argument, but
which are truly the sum and fruit of our
experience. Words are for communication,
not for judgment.

R. L. Stevenson: Walt Whitman.

139
Ὅσα γὰρ καὶ Bpay’os τις μέρους μιᾶς ἡμέρας

πάσχει τε καὶ πράττει, πῶς ἂν καὶ πᾶσι τοῦ
« ΄ ’ ἊΨ ’ Lid , > \
Ὁμήρου λόγοις χρώμενος οὐχ ὅπως πάντα ἀλλὰ
ἈΝ n / "4 tA Ν
καὶ πολλοστὸν ἂν μόριον διεξίοι ; τοσαύτῃ γὰρ
ταχυτῆτι βλέπουσι καὶ ἀκούουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι
ἴω
καὶ οὕτω συνεχῶς τῷ νῷ χρῶνται, ὥστε εἴ τις
βούλοιτο καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν σκιαγραφίας μέρει μόνον
᾽ - Ἁ “-
ἀποδεῖξαι, μεγίστῃ ἂν τῇ βίβλῳ καὶ πλείστῳ
τῷ πόνῳ χρώμενον δεῖν συγγράφειν, καὶ τοῦτο
σκολιῶς πως καὶ ἐκ παραβολῆς ἁπτόμενον τοῦ
πράγματος. εἰ γὰρ ἱκανὸν ἦν ἡμῖν τὸ τῶν
Ν
λόγων ἀκριβὲς, τί ἂν χαλεπώτερον συνιέναι
, 2 ’ὔ fal δ Ν “A” “~
βουλομένοις ἐδόκει τὸ ζῆν ἢ TA TOV γεωμετρῶν
προβλήματα; ἀλλὰ κωμῳδοῦσι γὰρ καὶ οὐ
συγγράφουσιν οἱ καὶ τὰ ἁπλούστατα τῆς
, > ’ , ΄ ‘
νοήσεως ἐπεξιέναι πειρώμενοι: κίβδηλοι yap
αὐτοῖς καὶ παράσημοι οἱ λόγοι καὶ οὐ δι’ ἀκρι-
’
βείας διὰ τὸ τοσαυτάκις
’ «ε wn ΝΜ ’΄ Ν ων»
πρότερον ῥηθῆναι ἔπαινόν τινα καὶ ψόγον
ἀλλότριον ἐνσημαίνοντες. ὥστε πᾶσι σκεπτέον
τόδε, ὅπως τοῖς οὖσι τοῦ βίου τεκμαιρόμενοι
μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐνδεῶς ἀναφαί.
νουσι λόγοις κρινοῦσιν ἃ αἰσθάνονται: καὶ

3 cal
EM LKELVT GAL, ἅτε

ὅταν δέῃ δυοῖν θάτε io ὶ

ῃ ρον προαιρεῖσθαι, τοὺς
λόγους ἀπολιπόντας τὰ τῆς γνώμης τὰ ἄλογα

Ν ” ων Μ a / > aA
καὶ ἄρρητα καὶ ἔστιν ἃ λέγεσθαι οὐδαμῶς
3 4 ea J. we ἈΝ > ,
ἐνδέχομενα, οἷα ἐνδείκνυσθαι μὲν ἀδύνατον δια-
λεγομένοις, τῷ δὲ ὄντι ἀκμή τις ἡμῖν ἐστὶ καὶ
καρπὸς τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον παθῶν,.- πρὸς
ταῦτα χρὴ ἀποβλέποντας προαιρεῖσθαι. διὰ

Ν a λό ~ 6 / ε a Ε΄ )
γὰρ τῶν λόγων κοινοῦσθαι προσήκει ἡμῖν, ἀλλ
οὐ κρίνειν.

J. Μ. Epmonps.

ARCHAEOLOGY

MONTHLY RECORD.

SOUTH RUSSIA.

Batum.—An exceptionally rich find of jewellery,
of which all the pieces were acquired by the Russian
Government, occurred here last year. A portrait of
the Emperor Lucius Verus is an example of rare
technique, being cut z#fag/io in a rock-crystal gem,
which is then backed with gold foil, so as to give
the effect of a relief in gold under the crystal surface.
This kind of work was revived in the period of the
Italian renaissance, and many crystal plaques of that
date are extant, which were originally used in the
decoration of caskets; but the gold backing of these
has mostly perished, This Roman gem, which is of
the finest workmanship, is set in a gold frame and
mounted as a shoulder brooch. Other notable objects

were a silver bowl ornamented with an embossed
figure of Fortune, and a necklace of gold beads which
are curiously like some designs of the Minoan period.

Panticapaion.—The excavation of the cemetery has
been continued. Among the finds were a stone
sarcophagus with a lid in the shape of a gabled roof,
a sepulchral chamber with painted walls,—barbarous
motives, birds, figures with symbolical attributes, in
blue and red, and a long series of gravestones. Most
of these were adorned with sculpture in relief: horse-
men and youths armed in the Scythian fashion, seated
ladies with their maids, and other familiar types; and
many were found with painted decoration, fillets and
garlands, usually in red. There were remains of
colour also on the reliefs. The inscriptions, which
give the date to the stones, are mostly of Roman

nee THE CLASSICAL REVIEW Fa

period; but several go back to the fourth century
B.C. One of the monuments is recognised as having
been in the museum of Kertch at the time of the
Crimean War, when the building was destroyed and
its contents dispersed. There were also the usual
large finds of gems and gold jewellery, a few archaic
and later terra-cottas, bronze and iron ornaments and
utensils, and pottery of all kinds—little Corinthian jars,
Attic black- and red-figure ware, including a quantity
of the miniature children’s /ecythoz decorated with
palmettes, heads, and figures of geese and ducks, and
plain black-varnished and moulded ware. One of
these last fragments bears a gvraffto inscription:
ἱερὸς Διὸς φιλίου, which is of interest as being the first
evidence of the cult of Zeus Philios at Panticafaion.

Excavations were resumed in the tumulus of Blity-
nitya, which was partly explored in 1882. Near the
centre were discovered five skeletons of horses, their
heads turned towards the grave which was first
opened. Near them were the bits and remains of
harness; the bronze and silver trappings, unfortun-
ately not well preserved, were decorated with relief,
heads of Medusa and other designs. There were also
strings of glass and bone beads.1

AFRICA.

Mahdia.—The bronzes which were found in the
sea off Mahdia have now been bought and cleaned.
The little statuette of Eros is seen to have been
adapted for a lamp, the head and bust forming
the reservoir, while the torch which he holds
was the burner. The large terminal figure of
Dionysos has been found to bear the sculptor’s signa-
ture BOHOOS-KAAXHAONIO®: ETTOIE!.
This inscription is a final confirmation of the con-
jecture that Boethos was a native not of Carthage,
as was formerly supposed, but of Chalcedon in
Macedonia. The style of the hair and beard of this
figure and the dignity of the features are true to the
fifth century manner of the original; but the free
treatment of the fillets with which the head is
wreathed is thought to be an innovation of the
copyist.”

An attempt has also been made, with considerable
success, to recover more of the shipwrecked cargo by
means of divers. The funds for this purpose were
provided by the French Academy. There was great
difficulty in finding the place at which the sponge-
fishers had drawn up the first pieces ; but at last a
mass of marble columns was discovered, tightly
packed in rows and converging towards the bows of
the boat, which must have been more than ninety
feet long and about twenty-four feet in beam. Βε-
tween the columns were other architectural members,
including capitals of the Ionic and Corinthian orders.
Many fragments of pottery were found, and one
whole vessel, a storage amphora nearly three feet
high. The only works of art which appeared were

1 Arch. Anzeiger, 1908, pp. 159 sy.
2C.R. Acad. Inscr., 1908, pp. 386-7.

fragments of the large marble craters, sculptured with
reliefs, which were common in the Graeco-Roman
period. The best of them is almost a duplicate of
the Borghese Vase, which is now in the Louvre.
The subject is a Bacchic revel; the figures preserved
on these fragments are Dionysos, leaning on the
shoulder of a young girl who is playing on a lyre,
and a dancing Satyr. The exploration of these
remains is to be continued, and other valuable dis-
coveries may be made.?

Bulla Regia.—The excavation of the sanctuary of
Apollo has yielded an important series of statues.
The building itself, like many of the African shrines,
which were largely influenced by Punic cults, con-
sisted of an open courtyard surrounded on three sides
by a colonnade, and three small chambers opening
from the further wall of this precinct. In the central
chamber, which bore over the doorway a votive
inscription—Deo patrio Apollini et Dits Augustis—
was a colossal statue of Apollo with the lyre, a variant,
apparently an earlier version, of the type represented
in the Apollo which was discovered at Cyrene by
Lieutenants Smith and Porcher, and is now in the
British Museum. The lyre is adorned with a relief:
Marsyas, and the Scythian slave sharpening the knife
to flay him. In front of the base of this statue is a
triangular pedestal on which a tripod stood, and in
niches on either side of the Apollo two more statues,
Aesculapius and Ceres. In this group of deities, as in
the form of the shrine, there seems to be evidence of
the Punic religion ; Apollo is Baal, Ceres Tanit, and
Aesculapius Eschmun. Some of the other statues,
found in the two side chambers and the colonnade,
show the curious fusion of attributes which was com-
mon in Africa in Roman times: Athena, winged,
wearing a mural crown over her helmet, and holding
a cornucopia, is identified as Athena-Polias-Tyche-
Nike; and a figure of Saturn similarly holds the
cornucopia and wears the mural crown. There is
another statue of Athena with wind-blown drapery in
the manner of the Victory and Nereid types of the
fifth century. The head of the figure is missing. A
Roman in civilian dress of the time of Trajan has been
converted for use at a later period ; it bears an inscrip-
tion of the fourth century A.D. and a beard has been
engraved on the face in the later style. The statue of
Minia Procula, also of Trajan’s time, was probably
re-used in the same way when the shrine was rebuilt
under Marcus Aurelius.

Kairuan.—An inscription from the recently excav-
ated Temple of Saturn contains an allusion which has
not yet been explained: Pro salute Publii nostri et
Passeni . . liberorumqué eorum . . . dealbavit
petram Saturni.*

FRANCE.

Narbonne.—A tombstone which was recently dis-
covered in the old ramparts and is shown by the
material to be of local workmanship, bears a curious

3 Jbidem, pp. 532 5g-
4 Arch. Anzetger, 1908, pp. 213 sq.

ἵ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

relief and an inscription. The field of the relief is
divided by a partition, on one side is a corn-mill of
the usual type, turned by a mule whose eyes are
blindfolded, and on the other side a dog, wearing
a collar from which a bell is hung, with a small
altar in the background. The inscription reads:

M -CAREIVS-M-L- ASISABISIO- VIVOS-
SIBI. FECIT . ET - CAREIE - NIGELLAE -
ET -CAREIEAE -M-F-TERTIAZ-ANNOR:-
Vi.

MATER -CVM- GNATA.- IACEO- MISERABILE -
FATO

QVAS - PVRA- ET -VNA.- DIES - DETVLT -AD-
CINERES.

NEWS AND

THE second open meeting of the British
School of Rome for the present season was
held in the Library of the School on Friday,
March rath.

The Director read a paper by Dr. Duncan
Mackenzie, illustrated by lantern slides, on
the results of his recent journey to Sardinia,
in which he was accompanied by the Director
and by Mr. F. C. Newton as architect.
Among the most important monuments dis-
covered were several dolmens—one close to
the already known dolmen at Birori, in the
centre of the island, which had hitherto been
believed to be the only one still existing in
the island in a good state of preservation ;
another, near the village of Austis (which
had afterwards been elongated, one end
having been removed, thus forming a transi-
tion between the dolmens and the longer
cellae of the tombs of the giants), and two
others of an advanced type, one with a cover-
slab measuring over 4 yards by 3. Another
tomb was partly cut in the rock and partly
built, with a characteristic dolmen coverslab.

Another interesting class of monuments is
formed by some tombs of the giants, some-
what shorter than the usual type, with a
curved facade built of several courses of
masonry: a small square hole communicated
with the interior of the tomb. The whole of
the tomb mound was covered with polygonal
masonry of large slabs. In another case the
characteristic round-headed headstone and
facade of the tomb of the giants was imitated
in a vertically cut face of rock, the cella being

141

The name Careieus is of frequent occurrence in the
district, but the cognomen is unique.

Alise-Sainte-Reine.—In recent excavations a bronze

vase was found with the votive inscription: DEO-
VCVETI-ET - BERGVSIAE - REMVS-PRIMI-FIL-
DONAVIT-V-S-L-M.
This is of value, as it establishes the sex of Ucuetis,
who, since his first discovery in a Gaulish inscription
seventy years ago, has been taken for a goddess. It
also introduces for the first time his female colleague,
Bergusia. Such pairs of deities appear very com-
monly in Gaul.}

1C.R. Acad. Inscr., 1908, pp. 496 sq.

COMMENTS

cut in the rock itself. Another building
already noticed by Sig. Nissardi resembled
closely a ‘naveta’ or ‘nau’ of the Balearic
isles. Several important nuraghi were also
studied, and their structural peculiarities noted.
In all the work done the presence of a trained
architect was found to be of great assistance,
and it is hoped that funds will permit the
School to continue its work of exploration in
Sardinia in other seasons.

THE IPHIGENEIA AT CARDIFF.

Two performances of the /phigeneta at
Aults in the original Greek were given last
month at Cardiff by the Classical Society
of the University College, Zhe Frogs, who
had previously produced, four years ago,
scenes from the comedy of Aristophanes
from which they take their name. The play
was presented almost entire. The acting-
edition, with a verse translation by members
of the Society, was published (Sherratt &
Hughes, Manchester) under the editorship
of Professor Norwood. For the musical
setting of the Choric Odes (by the Rev.
W. G. Whinfield) ‘The Frogs’ went outside
Cardiff, and they received some valuable
assistance from the Cambridge Greek Play
Committee: in all other respects the pro-
duction was entirely their own, and primarily
and chiefly the work of student members.

Each performance drew a crowded house ;
and afforded fresh proof, if proof were

142 | THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

needed, that an ancient Greek play can still
hold a mixed or modern audience, even
without such accessories as attractive scenery
and fascinating dances: for on this occasion
the chorus were drawn up in a row at the
front of the stage and the background to
the bright dresses and shining armour was
a plain curtain of dark green.

Outstanding features of a very successful
representation were the first scene of the
play between Agamemnon and his slave at

early dawn, and the great climax, in which
Iphigeneia shakes off her girlish fears and
nerves herself to lay down her life for her
country :

‘Slay me! vanquish Troy! I die not childless since
through ages down

Lives in place of home and children this my never-
dimmed renown !

Mother mine, the base barbarian to the Greek must
bend his knee

Ever. Thralls hath Nature made them! Hellas’
sons are ever free.’ S.

CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editor of THE CLassIcAL REVIEW.

Sir,—The Education Department has recently
re-issued to the Secondary Schools its Circular on the
pronunciation of Latin, and I find that it is again a
reprint of the Report of the Committee of the Classical
Association (Proceedings, Oct. 1906, p. 75-6). In
most respects the scheme of the Committee is in
agreement with the views of Munro, Roby, and other
writers on the subject ; but in one important point it
differs from them in a very startling manner. I refer
of course to the pronunciation of the diphthongs ae and
oe. The Committee recommends that ae should be
sounded nearly as az in Isaiah (broadly pronounced),
oe nearly as οὗ in boil, and adds the following Note :

‘In recommending these sounds for ae and ve the
Committee is guided mainly by practical considera-
tions, since it has been found by experience that this
pronunciation is convenient for class purposes. The
Committee regards it as clear that this was the pro-
nunciation given them in early Latin, etc.’

The word ‘them’ in this Note can only mean the
diphthongs ae and oe, and the sentence as it stands is
of course inaccurate. The inaccuracy is no doubt due
to a desire for brevity, but it is none the less on that
account dangerous and misleading. Indeed it is within
my own knowledge that teachers of Latin have been
misled by it into believing that when the Romans
wrote ‘aequos’ they pronounced it ‘ aiquos.’

The late Mr. Munro devoted especial attention to
this very point and expressed his views on it with
great clearness and force. He held that Latin ae and
ὄ should have the sound of the Italian open ὁ (ὃ), and
he added that as a rule, ae invariably is represented
by é: Cesare, sécolo, εἴς.

The members of the Committee would no doubt
themselves admit the soundness of Mr. Munro’s views,
which indeed are substantially those of Mr. Roby,
Mr. Lindsay and other authorities, but they have
introduced their startling innovation owing to the
supposed exigencies of school classes. It is on this
point especially that I wish to address you. I myself
was for some years a pupil and an ardent admirer of

Mr. Munro; and in 1871, having been appointed
lecturer in a Colonial University, I at once introduced
his pronunciation. Nor did I ever find the slightest
difficulty in getting it adopted by the students, who
indeed took great pleasure in it. It is true that our
pronunciation was not always absolutely correct, and
I dare say we sometimes pronounced caedo as if it
were written cedo. But that did no harm, for fortun-
ately we all had brains enough to distinguish the
two words by the context; just as we were able to
distinguish other pairs of words which are not only
pronounced, but spelt the same. In the same way I
dare say we sometimes gave the 2 sound instead of the
oe sound to foedus, but that also did practically no
harm. I retired from my post in 1908, and my
successor has since continued the use of Munro’s
pronunciation. Now comes the sad part of my story.
During my time the Rector of the High School, from
which many of our students were drawn, had also,
without any difficulty, used Munro’s pronunciation.
But in 1908 he also retired, and was succeeded by a
gentleman who insisted on introducing the az and o7
pronunciation of ae and oe, thus causing a discrepancy
between the teaching of the High School and of the
University.

The Committee, when they first issued their Report,
guarded themselves by explaining that they were
influenced by practical considerations of what was
said to be feasible in schools. But as was to be
expected, their Report is now printed and circulated
without any such explanation ; and it is, and will be,
looked upon as a manifesto issued by the most com-
petent scholars in England, declaring what was, in
their view, the pronunciation of Latin in the best
Classical period. This I look upon as nothing less
than acalamity. The only remedy that I can suggest
is this. Let the Association apply to Mr. Lindsay,
with the assistance, if he requires any assistance, of
Professor Strong of Liverpool, to draw up a circular
stating shortly what was the pronunciation of Latin
during the Augustan period, and let the Classical
Schools be recommended to adopt that pronunciation
as nearly as they are able.—Yours, etc., S.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

143

BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send αἱ the same time a note of
the price.

The size of Books ts given in inches: 4 inches=10 centimetres (roughly). They are unbound unless
the binding is specified.

*,* Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Bergfeld (Hermann) De Versu Saturnio. Disserta-
tio Inauguralis. 84”x 5%”. Pp. ν 138. Gotha,
F. A. Perthes. 1909. M. 3.

Boulenger (F.) Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours
Funébres en honneur de son frére Césaire et de
Basile de Césarée : texte grec, traduction francaise,
introduction et index. Textes et Documents pour
Pétude historique du Christianisme. 73” x 48”.
Pp. cxvi+254. Paris, Alphonse Picard et fils.
1908. Fr. 3.

Caesar. Gai Juli Caesaris de Bello Gallico liber I.
With vocabulary; by E. S. Shuckburgh, M.A.
62” x 43". Pp. 84. Cambridge, University Press.
1909. Cloth back, paper boards, 9d.

Cicero. M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes pro P. Quinc-
tio, pro Q. Roscio Comoedo, pro A. Caecina, de
Lege Agraria contra rullum, pro C. Rabirio Per-
duellionis reo, pro L, Flacco, in L. Pisonem, pro
C. Rabirio postumo. Recognovit brevique adnota-
tione critica instruxit A. C. Clark. (Scrzpt. Class.
Bibl, Oxon.) 73" χ σ΄. Pp. xvit+388(?). Oxford,
Clarendon Press. 1909. Paper, 2s. δα. ; cloth, 3s.

See Némethy.

Colloguia Latina. Adapted from Erasmus. First
Series. With vocabulary; by G. M. Edwards,
M.A. 6}’x 4%". Pp. 82. Cambridge, University
Press. 1909. Cloth back, paper boards, 9d.

Ciris.

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum editum

consilio et impensis Academiae Litterarum Caesareae
Vindobonensis. Vol. LII. S. Aureli Augustini
opera (Sect. VII. Pars 2). Scriptorum contra
Donatistas. Pars II. Contra Litteras Petiliani
libri tres, Epistula ad Catholicos de secta Donatis-
tarum, contra Cresconium libri quattuor, recensuit
M. Petschenig. 9}”x6”. Pp. xvi+602. Vindo-
bonae, F. Tempsky. Lipsiae, G. Freytag. 1909.
M. 20.

Crichton (Douglas) The Admirable Crichton: the
real character. By Douglas Crichton, F.S.A. Scot.
73) χ κ΄. Pp. 64. Illustrated. London: L. Up-
cott Gill. 1909. Is.

Dies (Auguste) La definition de l’étre et la nature
des idées dans le sophiste de Platon. (Collection
Historique des Grands Philosophes.) 9" x54". Pp.

‘vili+140. Paris, Felix Alcan. 1909. . 4 Fr.

Diogenes of Apollonia. See Krause.

1; Der
2. Dionysos mit seinem

Eitrem (S.) Drei griechische Vasenbilder.
Auszug des Amphiaraos.

Thiasos. 3. Opferaufzug. (Zxtract from ὃ Fest-
shrift Dietrichson,’ Kristiania, 1909.)

Hermes und die Toten. (Christiania Viden-
shkabs-Selskabs Forhandlinger for 1909. No. 5.)

οὐ" x 64". Pp. 74. Christiania, Jacob Dybwad.
1909.
Euripides. IUphigeneia in Aulis. Acting Edition,

with a translation into English Verse; arranged,
translated and enacted by ‘‘ The Frogs ” Classical
Society of University College, Cardiff. Edited by
G. Norwood, M.A. δῖ χό΄. Pp. xii+96.
Sherratt & Hughes. 1909.

LEsveld (van, ΝΥ. H.C.) De Balneis Lavationibusque
Graecorum. 9}”x6}”. Pp. viiit+272. Amers-
fortiae, G. T. Slothouwer. 1908.

Fitzhugh (T.) Carmen Arvale seu Martis Verba ;
or the tonic laws of Latin Speech and Rhythm.
Supplement to the Prolegomena to the History of
Italico-Romanic Rhythm. οἷ" x 6}”. Pp. 8. 1
plate. Charlottesville, Va., Anderson Brothers.
1908.

fFriedlinder (L.) Roman Life and Manners, under
the Early Empire, ed. 7. Translated by L. A.
Magnus. 8”x5}”. Pp. xxviiit428. Routledge.
1909. Cloth.

Gregory Nazianzen. See Boulenger.

Hloratius and other Stories. Adapted from Livy.
With vocabulary; by G. M. Edwards, M.A. 63” x
44". Pp. 46. Cambridge, University Press. 1909.
Cloth back, paper boards, οἵ.

Sacoby (E.)
libro. (Doctor’s Dissertation.) 9” x 5}.
Berlin, Reimer. 1908.

Krause (E.) Diogenes von Apollonia, II. Theil.
Mit einer Zeichnung des Verfassers. (Program.)
10” x 84”. Pp. 16. Posen, Merzbach.

Lipscomb (H. C.) Aspects of the Speech in the Later
Roman Epic. (Doctor’s Dissertation.) 9” x6”.
Pp. 50. Baltimore, J. H. Furst Company. 1909.

Martin (H.) Notes on the Syntax of the Latin In-
scriptions found in Spain. (Doctor’s Dissertation.)
9}”x 6”. Pp. 50. Baltimore, J. H. Furst Com-
pany. 1909.

Monro (Charles Henry)
Translated by C. H. M., M.A.
Pp. viiit+454. Cambridge,
1909. Cloth, 12s. net.

De Antiphontis Sophistae περὶ ὁμονοίας
Pp. 70.

The Digest of Justinian.
Vol. II. gh” x 6”.
University Press.

144

Moore (Mabel) Days in Hellas. 8”x 5΄. Pp. xii+
236. With numerous illustrations and coloured
frontispiece. London, William Heinemann. 1909.
Cloth, 6s. net.

Mutzbauer (Carl) Die Grundlagen der griechischen
Tempuslehre und der Homerische Tempusgebrauch.
Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen
Sprache. Band II. 93”x6’. Pp. xiv+324.
Strassburg, Karl J. Triibner. 1909. M. 9.

Némethy (G.) Ciris: Epyllion Pseudovergilianum,
edidit, adnotatibus exegeticis et criticis instruxit
G. N. 82?’x58”. Pp. 160. Budapest, Acad.
Litt. Hung. 1909. 3 cor.

—— De Ovidio Elegiae in Messaliam auctore.

93" x 62”. Pp. 24. Budapest. 1909. 60 filler.
Oldfather (W. A.) Lokrika: Sagengeschichtliche
Untersuchungen. (Doctor’s Dissertation.) Re-

printed from P%zlologus.
474. Tiibingen, H. Laupp, Jr.

Ovid. See Némethy.

Pallis (A.) The XXII. Book of the Iliad, with
critical Notes. 82” x52”. Pp. 84. Nutt. 1909.

Perdrizet (P.) La Vierge de Miséricorde: étude d’un
theme iconographique. Bibl. des écoles francaises
d’Athénes et de Rome: fasc. 101. 9” x63”. Pp.
260. 4 illustrations in text, 31 plates. Paris,
Fontemoing. 1908. Fr. 18.

Phaethon and other stories from Ovid. Edited with
notes and vocabulary, by G. M. Edwards, M.A.
(Pitt Press Series.) 62” x4h". Pp. xxviii+132.
Cambridge, University Press. 1909. Cloth, Is. 6d.

Phoinix von Kolophon. Texte und Untersuchungen
von Dr. Gustav Adolf Gerhard. 9”x 6%”. Pp. 302,
mit einer Tafe! in Lichtdruck und einer Skizze.
Leipzig und Berlin, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh.
M. 12; geb. in Leinwand, M. 15.

Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas. By J. A. Stewart, M.A.

9” x 5%”. Pp. 206. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
1909. Cloth, 6s. net.

9” x 62". . Pp. 67; 410-
1908.

Porter (W. 4H.) Pervigilium veneris, translated into
English verse. 7”x 4%". Pp.18. Dublin, Hodges,
Figgis ἃ Co. 1909. Is.

Religions, Lectures on the History of. (1) The Re-
ligion of Early Rome, by C. C. Martindale, S.J. (2)
The Religion of Imperial Rome, by the same. (3)
The Religion of Ancient Greece, by Rev. J. Huby.
(4) The Religion of the Athenian Philosophers, by
Rev. Henry Browne, S.J. (5) The Religion of
the Koran, by Rev. E. Power, S.J. (6) The
Religion of Egypt, by Rev. A. Mallon. (7) The
Religion of Ancient Syria, by G. S. Hitchcock,
B.A. (8) The Religion of Mithra, by C. C. Mar-
tindale, S.J. (9) The Study of Religions, by Rev.
L. de Grandmaison. 7}”x κ΄. London, Catholic
Tracts Society. 1909. Each 32 pp., Id.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Schanz (Martin) Geschichte der romischen Litteratur
bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian.
Theil I. Die rémische Litteratur in der Zeit der
Republik. Halfte 2. Vom Ausgang des Bundes-
genossenkriegs bis zum Ende der Republik. Dritte
ganz umgearbeitete und stark vermehrte Auflage.
(Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft,
herausgegeben von Dr. Iwan von Miller. Band
VII, Abt. 1. Halfte 2.) τὸ x62". Pp. xii+
532. Miinchen, Oskar Beck. 1909. geh. M. το;
in Halbfranz geb., M. 12.

Schoonover (D. T.) A Study of Cn. Domitius Cor-
bulo, as found in the Annals of Tacitus. (Doctor’s
Dissertation.) 93” x 6?”. Pp. viiit+56. Chicago,
University Press. 1909.

Schréder (O.) Vorarbeiten zur griechischen Vers-

geschichte. 8”x53”. Pp. vit+166. Leipzig,
Teubner. 1908. M. 5.
Stangl (Thomas) Pseudoasconiana. Textgestaltung

und Sprache der anonymen Scholien zu Cieros vier
ersten Verrinen auf Grund der erstmals verwerteten
altesten Handschriften, untersucht von T. 5.
(Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums,
herausgegeben von Dr. E. Drerup, Dr. H. Grimme
und Dr. J. P. Kirsch. Band If. Heft 4s. 5d.)

93” x 62”. Pp. 202. Paderborn, Ferdinand Schon-
ingh. 1909. M. 5.20.
Tacitus. The Agricola. With introduction and

notes, by Duane Reed Stuart. 7”x 4%". Pp.
XXVili+ 112. New York, The Macmillan Co. 1909.
Cloth, 2s. 6a.

—— The Annals of Tacitus. Books XI-XVI.
An English Translation, with introduction, notes
and maps. By George Gilbert Ramsay. 9” x 54”.
Pp. xcvi+358. London, John Murray. 1909.
Cloth, 15s. net.

Thucydides. Wistories, Book IV. Edited by T. R.
Mills. With a general introduction by H. Stuart
Jones. 72”x5”. Pp. xxxvi+88+158, witha map.
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth, 3s. 6d.

University of Liverpool. Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology. Issued by the Liverpool Institute
of Archaeology. Vol. I., No. 4. December, 1908.
103” x72”. Pp. 97-140. Plates XXXIII-LI.
Liverpool, University Press. London, Archibald
Constable ἃ Co. 2s. 6d.

Viirtheim (1.) Octavia Praetexta cum prolegomenis
annotatione critica notis exegeticis, edidit I. V.
go” x62”. Pp. 76. Lugduni Batavorum apud
A. W. Sijthoff. 1909. M. 2.

Warren (T. Herbert) Essays of Poets and Poetry
Ancient and Modern. 9x53”. Pp. viiit+328.
London, John Murray. 1909. Cloth, τος. 6d. net.

White (J. W.) The Iambic Trimetre in Menander.
Reprinted from Classical Philology, iv. 2. τοῦ x7”.
Pp. 139-162. Chicago, University Press. 1909.

The Classical Review

AUGUST

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

EURIPIDES, HELENA 962-974.

THE situation is this. Helen has been
committed to the protection of the good
Proteus, king of Egypt. By the death of
Proteus, his obligations have devolved upon
his daughter Theonoe. A claim for the
restoration of Helen is now made by her
husband Menelaus, who, in the course of
his plea, speaks as follows :

969 ὦ veprep’ “ΔΑιδη, καὶ σὲ σύμμαχον καλῶ,
ὃς πόλλ᾽ ἐδέξω τῆσδ᾽, ἕκατι σώματα
πεσόντα τὠμῷ φασγάνῳ, μισθὸν δ᾽ ἔχεις"
ἢ νῦν ἐκείνους ἀπόδος ἐμψύχους πάλιν,

ἢ τήνδ᾽ ἀνάγκασόν γε Τεὐσεβοῦς πατρὸς
κρείσσω φανεῖσαν tap’ ἀποδοῦναι λέχηΐ.

The god of the nether world, who has pro-
fited (such is the argument) by the many
dead, whom Menelaus has sent to him for
the sake of Helen, is called upon either to
give back these dead, as a payment not
earned, or else now to make repayment, by
compelling Theonoe to restore Helen to her
husband.

The last two verses have no metre. But
the attempts to mend them, by repairing the
metre only, are useless. The sense is equally
defective. Hades is to compel Theonoe to
restore Helen. But how is he to do this?
What power or function in the matter has
the god of the nether world? This is what
the concluding verses, in their genuine form,
must explain. And upon consideration, it

NO. CCHI. VOL, XXIII.

seems that between Hades and the office
proposed to him there is but one possible
link. To control and compel Theonoe, ἦέ
must release, for the moment, her father
Proteus. Proteus, if he could return and
appear, would of course be master of the
situation. His authority would displace that
of his heiress (ἡ viv κυρία, v. 968), and he
could deal as he pleased with the deposit
(Helen) entrusted to himself. But Proteus
cannot appear except by permission of Hades,
and this it is which Menelaus demands:

” es ῬΌΨΒΙ, ΄ ς > a
ἢ τήνδ᾽ ἀνάγκασόν ye, πατρὸς εὐσεβοῦς

΄ γσὺς ΄, ars a ,
κρείσσω γ᾽ ἀνεὶς φαντάσματ᾽, ἀποδοῦναι λέχη,

‘Or else compel Theonoe to restore my wife,
by sending up, to control her, the apparition
of her pious father.’ For the use of ἀνιέναι
in this connexion, see Liddell and Scott s.v.
The important words ἀνάγκασον and κρείσσω
(superior, to the daughter) are thus each
enforced by ye. Other arrangements, with
the same sense, are possible, e.g.
ἢ τήνδ᾽ ἀνάγκασόν γ᾽ ἔμ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι λέχη,

, > 9 ‘ ΄ Be 29 A ,
κρεισσω Y ανιεις φάσματ εὐσεβοῦς TAT pos.

But the first seems on the whole the most
probable, and, as will be seen, a slight con-
fusion in the letters γανεισῴφαν would account
for the actual tradition.
Thus explained, the passage continues
naturally the sense of the preceding (962 ff.),
K

146 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

in which Menelaus appeals directly to the
deceased Proteus, but adds that, being dead,
he can now act only through his daughter and
representative. The connexion of thought
thus indicated may perhaps throw light upon
the defective verse 965,

οἶδ᾽ οὕνεχ᾽ ἡμῖν οὔποτ᾽ TF ἀπολέσεις F θανών.

Here ἀπολέσεις is nonsense, and nothing
satisfactory has’ been suggested. Possibly
the lost word signified, not ‘you will restore
(Helen)’ or the like, but ‘you will return.’

THE EXPRESSIONS ὅδε 6 πόλεμος

Preface.

Tue following article raises a question
which is certainly interesting, and may
possibly be regarded as important, with
reference to the exact interpretation of the
pronoun ὅδε in. a number of passages in
Thucydides. It is a question which has
been much discussed, especially by German
writers who have dealt with the order of the
composition of various parts of Thucydides’
work; but so far as I am aware, none of
them has come to the conclusion at which
I have arrived by comparison of the passages
to which reference is made. The article has
therefore, I believe, the merit of originality ;
whether it also possesses the merit of truth
or probable truth must be decided by those
who care to examine the arguments contained
in it.

I myself approached the question from the
historical point of view, and for the historical
rather than the linguistic purpose; but I
found it quite insoluble on purely historical
lines, and was therefore obliged to consider
the data from a point of view more linguistic
than that of others who have written upon
the subject. The conclusions may therefore
be interesting to the pure scholar as well as
to the historian.

For those to whom the subject may seem
of interest, but who are unacquainted with
the main lines of the criticism of the com-
position of Thucydides’ history, I may say

‘IT know that, being dead, you cannot come
back to us,’ would be appropriate to the
context, and would be given by ἀπονίσσῃ
(or -et), whether taken as a present or as a
future—a point upon which the ancients
differed. Or ἀπονοστεῖς would give the same.
This would afford a natural, though not
necessary, lead for the subsequent appeal to
Hades and the request that he will, for this
occasion, make possible the impossible, and
permit the return of the deceased.

A. W. VERRALL.

AND ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε IN THUCYDIDES.

briefly that the historical importance of
these passages is as follows:

(1) It has been argued that the first half
of Thucydides’ history (1. 1-v. 25) was
originally written as a history of the
Ten Years’ War (431-421), in the years
subsequent to the Peace of Nikias (421),
that is to say before the Dekelean War,
and possibly even before the Sicilian
Expedition, began.

(2) It has been further argued that this is
evidenced, zzter alia, by the existence in
this first half of the work of passages
which cannot have been written at a
time when the author had the whole
Peloponnesian War in view, because
they would be obviously untrue if
applied to the whole twenty-seven years
of war.

(3) Many of the most important of these
passages contain the expressions which
‘I propose to discuss in this article.

I may confess that I am a convinced
adherent of the general argument stated in
(1); but it will be seen later that, as far as
the passages to which reference is made in
(2) and (3), I do not feel that those which
contain the expression ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε can be
used as arguments in favour of this general
theory in which, on other grounds, I have
faith.

To enter into all the arguments which
have been employed with reference to those

be aioe ὸ διιτοον

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 147

passages would necessitate the writing of a
preface much longer than this article which
it prefaces. I shall therefore confine myself
to one or two selected examples.

Ullrich argues with reference to the pas-
sages ill. 98 (οὗτοι... διεφθαρήσαν) and iii.
113 (πάθος... ἐγένετο), in both of which
the expression 6 πόλεμος ὅδε is used, that
Thucydides would not have spoken so
strongly in these passages had he known at
the time of the greater events of the second
war (cf. vil. 28. ὅσῳ καὶ μείζων ὁ πόλεμος ἦν),
and especially of those referred to viii. 29
and 30, Vii. 57, Vili. 96.

If my interpretation of ὅδε after πόλεμος in
Thucydides be right, Thucydides might have
written those passages, even had he known
of the events of the later parts of the whole
war. In other words I believe ὅδε in this
passage to be far more precise and _limi-
tative in meaning than Ullrich assumed it
to be.

Herbst, a conservative and therefore anti-
Ullrichian critic, after considering various
passages in which this expression occurs, is
inclined to come to the general conclusion
that ὅδε. ὁ πόλεμος refers to the Twenty-Seven
Years’, while ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε refers to the Ten
Years’ War. (v. his article in Phz/ologus
38.)

My conclusion approximates more closely
to his than to Ullrich’s, but differs from it in
certain essential and very important features.

Any student of Thucydides must notice at
an early stage of his study of the author’s
work that the demonstrative adjective ὅδε
when used with the word πόλεμος sometimes
precedes and sometimes follows that noun.
Furthermore, an examination of the passages
in which these two varieties of expression
occur will probably raise the suspicion that
this variation is not a mere question of taste
in the order of words in some particular
context, but implies a difference of meaning
in the demonstrative adjective. Even at the
risk of anticipating the discussion it may be
said that it seems almost certain that such
a difference of meaning does exist. ‘The
difficulty is to determine wherein that
difference lies. The question is one which

has been much discussed by modern critics,
without, however, any agreement on the
subject having been arrived at.

Before entering upon any detailed dis-
cussion of the question, there are certain
general considerations which must be taken
into account.

The contrast between the frequency with
which Thucydides uses the demonstrative
adjective ὅδε in connection with πόλεμος and
the rarity with which he uses the adjective
οὗτος with that noun is very striking. The
latter is only found in three instances, in one
of which it precedes, and in two of which
it follows the noun;! whereas the former
occurs in thirty-six cases, in fifteen of which
it precedes, and in twenty-one of which it
follows the noun.? In the cases of the use
of οὗτος, there is in vii. 85 an express
reference by name to the Sicilian War ;3
the other two might refer, judged by them-
selves, to either the Ten Years’ or the
Twenty-Seven Years’ War, though both
probably refer to the Ten Years’ War.4
The second noticeable point is with regard
to the use of ὅδε alone. In the First Book
it invariably precedes the noun πόλεμος.
The same order is found in the earlier
chapters of the Second Book (16, 21, 34).

τιν. 23 (preceding) ; i. 21 and vii. 85 (following).

? Cases in which it precedes are found: i. 8, 13, 18,
23, 24, 97, 118 (3 times); ii. 16, 21, 343 vi. 173
vii. 44, 56. Cases in which it follows are found:
li. 47, 70, 103; ili. 25, 54, 88, 98, 113, 116; iv. 48,
51, 133, 1353 ν. 20 (twice); vi. 7, 93; vii. 183 viii.
6, 60, 87.

8 ἐν τῷ Σικελικῷ πολέμῳ τούτῳ.

41 have called attention to this contrast between
the frequency of the use ὅδε and the rarity of the use
of οὗτος because it is so striking a peculiarity in the
author’s composition. But I have not made up my
mind as to what conclusion is to be drawn therefrom.
I cannot believe that it is simply due to a mere personal
preference for the one form of the distinguishing
adjective over the other, because, in point of fact,
οὗτος is far more common than ὅδε in the general
text of Thucydides. I believe it to be deliberate in
a significant sense, but I confess I am unable to make
any satisfactory suggestion as to where the significance
lies. Cne negative fact is certain: that the common
distinction between οὗτος as referring to previous and
ὅδε as referring to subsequent matter, though marked
in other parts of Thucydides, does not hold good in
these phrases.

148

In ii. 47 it is used for the first time in
marking the close of a year of the war; and
there, as is invariably the case in Thucydides
where ὅδε zs used in this connection, it follows
the noun. But the curious thing is that from
this point onward to the end of the first half
of the history in v. 25, ὅδε invariably succeeds
the noun πόλεμος, whether it be used in
speaking of the termination of a year of the
war,! or in some other connection.? ‘Thus
the usage in the first part of the first half of
the history is distinct from that in the second
part of the same half.

In the second half of the history both
positions of ὅδε are found. In recording the
terminations of the years of the war, whenever
used, it comes after the noun, as in the first
half of the history. In one other case it
also comes after the noun.* In three cases
it comes before the noun,°® but none of these
three have reference to the end of a year of
the war.

With respect to its use in dating the ends
of years of the wars certain peculiarities are
noticeable. The tendency of the author is
to employ a set formula. The formula most
commonly employed is : καὶ (ordinal number)
ἔτος τῷ πόλέμῳ ἐτελεύτα τῷδε ὃν Θουκυδίδης
ξυνέγραψεν. This is found in ten out of the
nineteen instances of this form of dating in
Thucydides’ work.®

A slight and apparently unimportant variant
of this formula, καὶ (ordinal number) ἔτος
ἐτελεύτα TH πολέμῳ τῷδε ὃν Θουκυδίδης ξυνέ-
γραψεν, is found in two instances.’ In one
instance an abbreviated form is used—(ordinal
number) ἔτος τοῦ πολέμου τοῦδε ἐτελεύτα. ὃ
In the remaining six instances of the dating
of the end of a year of the war the adjective
ὅδε is not used,® and the formula employed
is kat (ordinal number) ἔτος τῷ πολέμῳ ἐτε-
λεύτα in five of the six passages,!? and in the
sixth a slight variant, namely (ordinal number)
ἔτος ἐτελεύτα τῷ πολέμῳ.}}

1 As in il. 47, 70, 1033 iii. 25, 88; 1163 iv. 51, 135.

2 As in iii. 54, 98, 1133 iv. 48; v. 20 (twice).

3 vi. 7, 933 Vil. 183 vill. 6, 60. 4 vii. 87.

5 vi. 173 Vii. 44, 56.

Gi, TOS sp ΠΡ 25. 55, 110 Vest [555 1209
vil. 18; viii. 6, 60.

ΤᾺ ΟΝ Wie Sil. 47.
9iv. 1163 Vv. 39, 51, 56, 81, 83.
10 Vjz., those in Book V. iv. 116.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

It thus appears that, ignoring the slight
variation referred to above, the full formula
is employed throughout the history of the
Ten Years’ War, with one exception,” and
also throughout the history of the Sicilian
expedition and that part of the narrative of
the Dekelean War which Thucydides lived
to write. In the Fifth Book (and once in
the latter part of the Fourth Book) an ab-
breviated and less precisely worded formula
is used, in which the word ὅδε does not occur.

Summing up, therefore, what has been
already said, the general peculiarities which
are noticeable with regard to the use of ὅδε
with πόλεμος are as follows :

(1) Its frequency as compared with the
use of οὗτος :

(2) That in the first half of the history,
7.6. as far as v. 25, ὅδε, when used with
πόλεμος, always precedes that noun in the
text up to the thirty-fifth chapter of the
Second Book; whereas from the forty-seventh
chapter of the Second Book up to the end
of this first half of the history, it invariably
follows that noun.

It is also remarkable that the instance in
the forty-seventh chapter of the Second Book
is the first case in which it is used in dating
the end of a year of the war.

(3) That wherever ὅδε is used in dating
the end of a year of the war, it always follows
the noun.

(4) That ὅδε is always employed in this
form of dating, except in the Fifth Book and
in one passage of the Fourth Book.

It is impossible to suppose that these
peculiarities are accidental.

Ullrich was disposed to regard the earlier
references in the first half of the work, those
in which ὅδε precedes the noun, as applicable

to the Ten Years’ War, and the later ones,

in which it follows the noun, as applicable
to the war as a whole. But as a fact the
earlier series of references are, 7 themselves,
quite indeterminate ; and, though they 2γοό-
ably refer for the most part to the Ten
Years’ War, yet those in 1. 97 and 1. 118
probably refer to the Twenty-Seven Years’
War.

In one passage (ii. 54) ὅδε refers almost
certainly to the Ten Years’ War; but then

liv, 116.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the word πόλεμος does not appear, so that
no conclusion can be drawn as to the signi-
ficance before and after the noun.!

It has, however, been already pointed out
that the passages referring to the close of
the years of the war which do not contain
the word ὅδε occur, with the one exception
in the one hundred and sixteenth chapter of
the Fourth Book, in the Fifth Book only ;
and furthermore no such passages containing
ὅδε are found in this book. It is noteworthy
that this fifth book deals with a period in
which the war though, according to Thucy-
dides’ view, alive, yet was not in actual
progress. The context of the exceptional
passage in the Fourth Book is noteworthy
in the same respect. It runs thus (ch. 116,
ad fin.): ‘And with the passing of winter
the eighth year of the war (τῷ πολέμῳ) came
to an end.’

Ch. 117 then opens with the words: ‘Im-
mediately on the arrival of the Spring of the
following summer half of the year the Lace-
daemonians and Athenians made a truce for
one year. The juxtaposition of these two
passages is remarkable in view of the special
wording of the passages in the Fifth Book.
The close of the eighth year of the war came
in a period during which there was a pause
in the operations, which pause was immedi-
ately confirmed by a regular truce. It came
in fact within a time which, though not
covered by the regular truce, might never-
theless be conceivably regarded as part of
that period of cessation of hostilities which
the truce formally established. It is true
that the truce was not fully observed, because
Brasidas in Chalkidike refused to regard it.
Still it was actual throughout the rest of the
area of warfare.

These considerations suggest, therefore,
that one significance of ὅδε in the passages
referring to the close of the years of the war
is that it indicates that at the time that that

1The passage is: ἤν δὲ γε οἶμαι ποτε ἄλλος πόλεμος
καταλάβῃ Δωρικὸς τοῦδε ὕστερος καὶ ξυμβῇ γενέσθαι
λιμόν... Here τοῦδε must almost certainly refer
to the Ten Years’ War, because, as Ullrich points
out, the passage is written in obvious ignorance of
the fact that the taking of Athens and the decision
of the Dekeleian War was finally brought about by
long continued starvation. The Dekeleian War, too,
was another Dorian War.

149

particular year, in connection with which it
is used, came to an end, the war was in
active progress.”

It is further possible that the correspond-
ence of the formula in iv. 116 with the
formula employed in Book v., and_ this
despite the fact that the circumstances were
not in strict correspondence with those dealt
with in Book v., is due to ἃ peculiarly
deliberate act on the part of Thucydides.
He was emphatic in asserting that the
‘years of peace’ of Book νυ. were in reality
part of the war; and by the use of this
formula in Book iv. 116 he identifies the
circumstances of the truce of the Ten Years’
War,—a period which all would reckon as
part of that war,—-with the circumstances of
those ‘years of peace’ which, as he claims,
but nobody else thought, were really part of
the Twenty-Seven Years’ War.

In these passages, therefore, which refer
to the dating of the years of the war, ὅδε
following the noun πόλεμος appears to have
at least one special significance, z.e. Thucy-
dides uses it of that which is in active and
actual existence at the time of speaking ;
but omits it when the existence has been
brought to an end, even if that end be only
temporary, defore the time of speaking.

It remains to be considered whether this
is the only significance which ὅδε in this
position. possesses.

This involves a review of two series of
passages :

(1) Those in which ὅδε follows πόλεμος in
passages which do not refer to the dating of
the years of the war.

(2) Those in which ὅδε follows other nouns
than πόλεμος.

The passages in which ὅδε follows πόλεμος
without reference to the dating of years of
the war are: iii. 11; ili. 543 ili. 113; Iv. 48;
iv. 1333 V. 20 (twice).

In it. 11 the Mytilenians are repre-
sented as saying: ‘Our survival was due to
our courting their commons and the pro-
minent men of the moment. But, judging from

2 This conclusion is important, because in passages
in which ὅδε succeeds nouns other than πόλεμος, the
existence, at the time of speaking, of that which is
referred to by ὅδε is a marked peculiarity of most of
the passages.

150

the example of what has happened to others,
we had no prospect of being able to main-
tain our position for long, had not this war
(ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε) arisen.’

In iti. 54 the Plataeans are represented
as saying: ‘We assert in answer to the curt
question, whether we have done any good
to the Lacedaemonians and their allies in
this war (ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷδε) that, if you put
the question to us as enemies then we have
not wronged you by not serving you, or, if
you put it to us as assumed friends, then
you yourselves are in the wrong since you
have invaded us.’

In wit. 113 the disaster which overtook
the Ambrakiots at Olpae and Idomene is
spoken of as ‘the greatest disaster of all
which occurred during this war (κατὰ τὸν
πόλεμον τόνδε) in the same number of days
to any individual Greek city.’

In tv. 48 Thucydides, speaking of the
στάσις at Corcyra and the final destruction
of the aristocrats, says that ‘the civil dis-
turbance, which had been violent, ended in
this incident,’ ὅσα ye κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε.

In w. 133 speaking of the flight of
Chrysis after the burning of the temple of
Hera at Argos, he says: ‘Chrysis’ tenure of
the priesthood up to the time of her flight
overlapped eight years, and half of the ninth
of this war’ (τοῦ πολέμον τοῦδε).

In v. 20 Thucydides says: ‘This treaty
was made at the close of winter as spring
was coming on, immediately after the city
Dionysia, exactly ten years and a few days
having elapsed since first the invasion of
Attica and the beginning of this war (τοῦ
πολέμου τοῦδε) took place.’

Again in the same chapter: ‘If, according
to the practice in this history, the reader
reckons by summers and winters, each having
the value of half a year, he will find that ten
summers and as many winters fall within
the period of this first war.’
πολέμῳ τῷδε γεγενημένους.)

In these passages two uses of ὅδε may be
distinguished :

(1) As referring to something in existence
at the time of speaking, viz. 111. 11, iv. 48.

(2) As referring to something in existence
up to the time of speaking, viz. iii. 54, iv.
133, Vv. 20 (twice).

(τῷ πρώτῳ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The passage iv. 48 belongs to one of the
two uses; but, until some decision has been
arrived at with regard to the exact meaning
of ὅσα ye κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε in its special
context, it is impossible to say which.

The passages in which ὅδε is used referring
to the dating by years imply probably both
ideas, viz. ‘the war up to this time and which
was in active progress at the moment.’

Owing to the very nature of the above
passages ὅδε has a ‘temporal’ significance,
that is to say, it limits in respect to time the
noun to which it applies. Moreover, it
appears to imply a very definite limitation in
the mind of the speaker.

One of the general facts: which has been
shown to be apparent from an examination
of the passages in which ὅδε is used with
πόλεμος is that up to the thirty-third chapter
of the Second Book this adjective precedes
the noun. The use of ode in the First Book
and in these earlier chapters of the Second
Book may therefore be its ordinary use of
an event still to come. This would be
natural in the First Book, where the author
is dealing with events before the war opened.
But even in the passages in the beginning
of the Second Book the futurity of the war,
or of part of it, is implied. In 11. 16 the
reference is to the habitual residence of the
majority of the population of Attica in rural
districts, μέχρι τοῦδε Tov πολέμου: in Ii. 21
to an invasion of Attica, mpd τοῦδε τοῦ
πολέμου: in 11. 34 to the funeral oration of
Perikles as the first example, ἐν τῷδε τῷ
πολέμῳ, of a practice which was customary,
and which was presumably carried out on
subsequent occasions during the war. Even
in this passage the future course of the war,
which had then only just begun, was pro-
minently before the mind of the writer.

In the passages in the later books, how-
ever (Vi. 17, Vil. 44, vil. 56), the idea of
futurity in the expression ὅδε 6 πόλεμος is
not traceable; and the adjective seems to
be used merely as determinative of the
identity of the war, without implying that it
was in whole or in part a future event.

Thus the remarkable contrast between the
use of ὅδε before the noun in the early part
of the first half of the history, and its use
after the noun in the later part of the same

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

half, seems to be deliberate in the full sense.
The difference of position implies a marked
difference of meaning.

Expressed in general terms, the difference
is that ode before the noun is used in these
early passages in its ordinary prospective
sense, whereas in the cases in which it follows
the nouns it is usually employed in a retro-
spective sense.

The retrospective meaning of the adjective
ὅδε is not identical with that of οὗτος, in that
it seems to imply what οὗτος does not neces-
sarily imply, namely, that that which is
spoken of existed not merely in the past,
but either at or up to the time of speaking.

This implication is of course most marked
in those passages in which ὅδε is used ex-
pressly as determinative of time; but it is
also traceable in other passages in which the
idea of time is not prominent. This comes
out on examination of the passages in which
ὅδε as an attribute follows nouns other than
πόλεμος.

There are twenty-eight such passages in
Thucydides’ work, in fifteen of which the
definite article is also used with the noun
with which ὅδε agrees.

Of these passages twenty refer to circum-
stances, things or periods which were in
existence at the time of mention, while in
all cases either their existence in the past,
or some action relating to them in the past,
is mentioned or implied.!

1 The passages are :

i, 2. παράδειγμα τόδε: the example is given in
the immediately preceding text.

i. 53- In an Athenian speech: reference to the
Corcyreans ‘our present allies, to whose assistance
we went’ in the past.

i. 68. In the Corinthian speech at the first Con-
gress at Sparta: reference to ‘the allies present,’
who have been allies in the past.

i. 75. In the Athenian speech at the first Congress
at Sparta: reference to the empire still existent, and
to the mode in which it was acquired in the past.

i. 140. In Perikles’ speech: reference to the Pelo-
ponnesian embassy, then apparently at Athens, and
to previous embassies from the same quarter.

ii. 34. Reference to the public funeral of those
who had fallen in the war. The τάφον mentioned is
one of a previous series, but the first is this war.
Reference has also been made in the immediately
preceding text to this particular funeral.

ii. 35. In the Funeral Oration: reference to τὸν
λόγον τόνδε in a speech which is actually being made.

ἘΠῚ

In these twenty passages the special use
of ὅδε is naturally most apparent in those in
which time is definitely mentioned, as in iii.
13 and viii. 99, or definitely implied, as in
1535: 1. SAG TAO, IVtO5, Vi 12; but, the
‘temporal’ idea is always behind this use of
ὅδε, even if the reference to the past be
merely to that which has been just previously
mentioned by the historian, as in i. 8, 11. 34,
v. 18, v, 22, v. 68, vi. 78. The remainder
of the twenty-eight passages stand in a class
by themselves. In them ὅδε is used after

It has been already clearly indicated in the text that
similar speeches had been made in the past.

ii. 35. In the same oration: reference to the
funeral—epl τὸν τάφον révde—which is proceeding,
but not concluded. Similar funeral ceremonies had
been carried out in the past.

ii. 64. In Perikles’ speech: reference to the plague
which was still in existence, and had been in the
past.

ii. 74. In Archidamos’ speech at Plataea: refer-
ence to Plataea and to the beginning of the invasion,
a matter in the then past.

iii. 13. Reference to a proposed invasion of Attica
in the summer in which the proposal is made: ‘if
you invade a second time this summer’ ; i.e. reference
to a previous invasion.

iii. 57. In the Plataean speech: reference to their
trial which is proceeding.

iii. 85. In a speech of Brasidas: reference to his
own army, which is then present, and to the fact that
he had had it with him in the past at Nisaea,

v. 18. Reference to the terms of a treaty which
have been stated in the previous text. In this case
the language is apparently that of an official formula,
not that of Thucydides himself.

v. 22. Reference to an alliance then being made,
and whose existence has been already indicated in the
previous text.

v. 68. Reference to the order of battle at Mantinea,
which has just been described in the previous chapter.

vi. 9. Reference to an ἐκκλησία which is already
assembled.

vi. 12. In a speech of Nikias: reference to the
Sicilian fugitives, who have already asked for help.

vi. 40. In a speech of Athenagoras: reference to
Syracuse as it was at the time—a democracy ; a con-
trast with the past implied.

vi. 78. Reference to an envy and fear which is
felt by one state of another, and to which the speaker
has already referred in the previous sentence.

vii. 66. In the speech of Gylippos: reference to
Sicily or Syracuse and to the original coming of the
Athenians, spoken of as in the recent past.

vill. 99. Reference to the summer which is run-
ning its course at the time of speaking, and to an
event which had previously taken place in the same
summer.

152

the noun, refers to a quotation, or, in one
case, to a list, which zmmediately follow in
the text. This use is found in six passages.!

These passages have certain noticeable
points of resemblance:

(1) That to which reference is made
follows, as has been already mentioned,
immediately in the text.

(2) In five out of six passages that to
which reference is made is a quotation in
the actual words of the original, while in the
sixth (ii. 9) it is a list which may conceiv-
ably have been drawn from some official
source.

The idea lying behind the use of ὅδε in
these passages is doubtful. It may be that
the adjective is put immediately before the
quotation, that is to say, after the noun
with which it agrees, on the analogy of the
pronoun τοιάδε as used in the introduction
of speeches into the text. But it is also
possible that the idea expressed by ode after
the noun may extend in some instances to
that which has a definite termination in that
future which zmmediazely follows the time of
speaking, and, on the analogy of this tem-
poral use, be applied to that which immedi-
ately follows in the text.

The examination of these passages in
Thucydides’ work seems then to show that
the author used the adjective ode after the
noun in two or possibly three senses :

(1) Of that which had an existence in the
past and which was still in existence at the
time of speaking.

(2) Of that which had an existence in
the past and whose existence extended up
to the time of speaking ; and possibly

(3) Of that which terminated in an im-
mediate future known at the time of speaking.

This third possible use might easily

1], 132. τὸ ἐλεγεῖον τόδε: the lines immediately
follow.

ii. 9. πόλεις τάσδ᾽ : a list of the states immedi-
ately follows.

iii. 104. ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι τοῖσδε : the lines immedi-
ately quoted.

iv. 105. κήρυγμα τόδε : proclamation immediately
quoted.

iv. 117. ἐκεχειρία. .. ἥδε : terms of the truce
immediately given.

vill. 57. σπονδὰς τρίτας τάσδε : terms of the treaty

immediately given.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

develop out of the first use, in which a
certain futurity of existence is implied though
not postulated.

For practical, and indeed for theoretical
purposes, the three uses have to be dis-
tinguished, but one general idea underlies
all of them, the idea, namely, of the exist-
ence of that to which reference is made, at
least up to the time of speaking.

The importance of these uses in relation
to the date of the composition of various
passages in the history need not be empha-
sised. These passages relate to various
incidents in the Ten Years’ War, in that
part of Thucydides’ History which extends
from ii. 47 to v. 25 inclusive.

It has been sufficiently indicated in what
has been already said on this question that
the passages which state the termination of
the years of the war have no significance in
this connection. ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε in these
passages refers neither to the Ten Years’
War nor to the whole war, but simply to the
war up to the time of speaking.

But there are other passages in this section
in which the expression is used, which have
provoked a great deal of comment both
from Ullrich and his followers and their
opponents. It is commonly argued by the
progressives that the expression as originally
written by Thucydides meant ‘the whole
war, but that the circumstances mentioned
in the passages make it impossible to suppose
that the Twenty-Seven Years’ War could be
implied, and therefore Thucydides when he
wrote those passages had the Ten Years’
War, and the Ten Years’ War only, in his
mind. In other words, they were written in
the first draft of his history, were never
revised, and are in fact part of the proof
that a first draft of this part of the history
was written. It has been necessary to
examine the majority of these passages from
a general point of view in the course of this
inquiry ; but it is now necessary to examine
them further with special reference to the
evidence they afford, in the light of the con-
clusions already arrived at, as to the date of
their composition. It may be well to add
to them certain passages from the same
section of the history (11. 47-v. 25) which
contain kindred expressions.

“μος.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The passages to be considered are con-
tained in 111. 11, iii. 54, iii. 98, iii, 113, iv. 48,
lv. 133.

In all these the expression ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε
is employed. The kindred passages are
contained in li. 25, li. 94, ili. 68, iv. 40.
In them the expression employed is 6 πόλε-
In the first of these two series, if the
‘conclusions already arrived at are sound,
ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε must be intended to express
one of three ideas either in the mind of the
writer or attributed by him to some person
or persons on his historical stage, these ideas
being ‘the war at present going on,’ or ‘the
war up to this time,’ ‘this war which has a
definite and known termination in the near
future.’

Jn tit. rz the Mytilenians are represented
as referring to ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε. The meaning
is obviously ‘the war at present going on.’
Consequently the passage throws no light on
the date of composition.!

In 111. 54 the Plataeans are represented
as saying that they have been curtly asked
whether they have done any good to the
Lacedaemonians and their allies, ev τῷ πολέμῳ
τῷδε. Some commentators? regard this use
of the expression as equivalent to that in
i τα.

Ln 111, 52 Thucydides gives in an oblique
form the question originally put, and there
the expression used is ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ TO καθε-
In iii. 68 reference is again twice
made to the same question, first in the words
εἴ τι ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγαθὸν πεπόν-
θασι, and secondly in the words εἰ τὶ Λακε-
δαιμονίους καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους ἀγαθὸν ev τῷ

στῶτι.

πολέμῳ δεδρακότες εἰσίν.

The expression in lil. 52 means un-
doubtedly ‘the existing war’;* but the use
of the perfect tense in both passages zz
tit. O§ points to a meaning ‘the war up to
the present time,’ which is probably the
meaning of the expression in ili. 54.

In any case the passage does not throw
any light on the date of composition, as,
whichever of these two meanings were
attached to the expression, the expression
itself might stand either in a history of the

1Herbst, Phzlologus, 38, takes this view of the
meaning.

2 E.g., Herbst, Phzlologus, 38. * Ch tiie

153

Ten Years’ War or in one of the Twenty-
Seven Years’ War.

In tit. 98 comes the first of a series of
passages in which a particular event is com-
pared with other events of the same kind
in the course of the war. Of those Athenian
hoplites who fell in Demosthenes’ defeat in
Aetolia it is said that they were ‘the best
men of the state of Athens who perished,’
ev τῷ πολέμῳ τῷδε. Herbst? thinks that
the expression must be understood to refer
to the Ten Years’ War. That the expression
does not imply a comparison extending
beyond the Ten Years’ War is, judged by
the general usage of it in Thucydides, almost
certainly the case. It might of course imply
‘the present war,’ or ‘the war up to this
time.’ But in any case the expression might
have been used by one who was writing
either the history of the Ten Years’ War or
that of the Twenty-Seven Years’ War, and
is therefore quite indeterminate as to the
date of the writing of the passage.

In tit. 773 the disaster to the Ambrakiots
at Olpae and Idomene is said to have been
the greatest which overtook any single Greek
city within the same number of days, τῶν
κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε.

The meaning of the expression used in
this passage is clearly determined by use of
a similar expression in a later passage, which
must be taken in juxtaposition with it.

In tv. 48 Thucydides, speaking of the
στάσις at Corcyra, says that it came to an
end, ὅσα ye κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε, with the
murder of the Aristocrats. Enough is known
of the later history of Corcyra to make it
certain that Thucydides could not in these
words have been referring to the ‘l'wenty-
Seven Years’ War. The wording of the
passage clearly shows that the historian
knew of some later civil disturbances at
Corcyra. But Thucydides cannot have
known of any such disturbance at Corcyra
after the Twenty-Seven Years’ War, because
it was not until thirty years® after that war
came to an evd that such a disturbance took
place. But in Diodoros® there is mention

4 Philologus, 38.

5In 374 B.c. Cf. Diodoros, xv. 46 and 47, and
Xen. Hell. v. 2. 4-38.
* 6 xiii. 48.

154

of one under the archonship of Glaukippos
in 410, and a reference in the context to the
earlier civil war described by Thucydides.
It must, therefore, be the events of the year
410 which the historian had in his mind
when he limited his assertion to ‘this war,’
and ‘this war’ can only mean the Ten
Years’ War. It would seem, therefore, that
in this passage the words κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον
τόνδε belong to the second draft of this part
of his history, and have been inserted on
revision.

But it is improbable that Thucydides used
this expression, κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε, in a
wholly different sense in il. 113 from that
in which he used it in iv. 48, and therefore
his remark with regard to the disaster to
Ambrakia must be understood to imply a
comparison with other events of a similar
kind during the Ten Years’ War, and the
τόνδε in the expression may be a later
addition to the text.

In iv. 133 the priesthood of Chrysis of
Argos is said to have overlapped the first
eight and a half years. The expression
may mean the Ten Years’ War, but it is
more probable that ὅδε is used, as in the
dating of the years of the war, as meaning
the war ‘up to this point.’ The expression
is, in other words, correspondent to and
suggested by the statement made in the
sentence.

In itself the expression ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε in
these passages does not give any clue to the
date of their composition, but does not
necessarily imply their revision. In all of
them, with the exception of that in iv. 48,
it might conceivably be used by a writer
who was narrating either the story of the
Ten Years’ War only, or that of the Twenty-
Seven Years’ War.

For the main purpose of the discussion of
the determination of the date of composition
of these parts of Thucydides’ history, the
conclusion is itself inconclusive from a
positive point of view, but it proves the
important negative that these passages are
not, as has been sometimes alleged, cases of
unrevised elements in the first draft of the
first half of the history. If they have any
significance in this respect, it is that they
have been revised.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

CONCLUSION.

It may be well, perhaps, if I state briefly
what I believe to be the conclusions which
may be arrived at, and which I have ex-
pressed already in this paper.

(1) In all the passages in which ὅδε is
used before πόλεμος by Thucydides in the
first half of his history, the idea of the
futurity of the war is obviously present in
the mind of the writer [cf. the passages in
the first book and the early chapters of the
second book], whereas in all the passages in
this part of the history in which ὅδε is used
after πόλεμος, the idea uppermost in the mind
of the writer is not the future but the present,
and in most of them the present is the ter-
minus of the idea, z.e, the idea of futurity is
excluded.

(2) In this latter series of passages the
idea takes various forms:

(a) That which is in active existence at
the present and has been in existence in the
past [this shown in the passages on dating
of the year of the war] and arising, per-
haps, out of this, certain passages in which
the idea is of that which is in active exist-
ence in the present, has been in existence in
the past, and has a definite, known terminus
in the near future.

(ὁ) That which has existed in the past
and up to the present. [Passages in v. 20.]

On the question with which I am mainly
concerned, the order of composition of various
parts of Thucydides’ history, those passages
throw hardly any light.

Those in which ὅδε precedes πόλεμος might
refer to either war and their reference, when
determinable, can only be determined by
their context.

Those in which ὅδε succeeds πόλεμος are
so definitely limited with respect to time
that, even if they had appeared in what was
originally the story of the Ten Years’ War,
they might stand unaltered in a history of
the ‘T'wenty-Seven Years’ War.

There is, of course, the possibility that
the ὅδε in some of these passages has been
inserted on revision. Although I am on
other grounds inclined to believe that Thucy-
dides originally wrote the first half of his

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

history as a history of the Ten Years’ War,
and the Ten Years’ War only, and wrote it
too before the Dekelean War began, yet I

155

cannot, like Ullrich and his school, cite
these passages in support of this view.

G. B. GRUNDY.

THE DATE OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF LEGIO XXI. RAPAX.

Tue fate of this legion, the exploits of
which are frequently mentioned by Tacitus
both in the Auna/s and the Azstories, is one
of the many obscure points in the history of
the Roman army at the end of the first
century, to which modern research can give
nothing but probable explanations. It is
usually considered that the latest evidence
for its existence is contained on the Mirebeau
tiles, which can be dated to 83, and some
inscriptions on the limes which probably
belong to the same period, and most writers,
particularly Ritterling and Filow in his re-
cent essay on the legions of Moesia in Klio,
1906, consider that it was destroyed in the
Danubian campaigns of Domitian. It has
therefore frequently been identified with the
‘legione cum legato simul caesa’ of Suetonius
(Vita Dom. c. 6). Trommsdorf, however
(Quaestiones duo ad historiam legionum
Romanarum spectantes, 1896), following an
earlier suggestion of Schilling, has pointed
out that this theory involves considerable
difficulties. There must have been 29
legions existing when Trajan called his new
legion XXX. Ulpia, and this legion must
have preceded 11. Traiana, which can only
have been so numbered as being the second
legion of Trajan. Now, it is generally stated
that of the thirty-four legions existing at one
time or another between Tiberius and Trajan
four (I., IV. Macedonica, XV. Primigenia,
and XVI.) were disbanded by Vespasian for
complicity in the revolt of Civilis, and two
others (V. Alaudae and XXI. Rapax) were
destroyed on the Danube in the reign of
Domitian. According to this reckoning
only 28 legions remain at the accession
of Trajan. Trommsdorf therefore, relying
chiefly on a new interpretation of an in-
scription (C./,Z. 111. ἢ. 6813), considers that

only one legion (V. Alaudae) was destroyed
in the reign of Domitian, and that XXI.
Rapax survived into the reign of Trajan.
Further than this he does not go, except to
suggest that the erasure of the title of the
legion on an early German _ inscription
(Inscr. Helv. ἢ. 248) indicates that the
legion was eventually disbanded in disgrace.
It seems possible to define even more
closely the date of this disappearance. No
regular system was observed by the emperors
in numbering the legions which they raised,
but it is certainly curious that Trajan, after
having been struck with the idea of number-
ing his first legion XXX., should not have
gone on to number his second XXXI. This,
however, can be explained if we consider that
XXI. Rapax disappeared after the creation
of XXX. Ulpia, but before the creation of
II. Traiana. In that case the total number
of legions was again 29, and the new one
had naturally to be numbered on a different
principle. Now II. Traiana was certainly
raised before 109, since an_ inscription
(CZZ. III. n. 79) of it exists in Egypt
dated in February of that year, and Tromms-
dorf has given good reason for supposing
that it succeeded III. Cyrenaica in that
province in 106. We may therefore place
the disappearance of XXI. Rapax between
this year and 98. Further than this it is
impossible to go with certainty, but a study
of Trajan’s column shows that his first Dacian
campaign met with a decided check if not a
serious reverse, and the ‘ignominiosa missio’
of the legion may well have been a conse-
quence of its behaviour on that occasion.

G. L. CHEESMAN.

Christ Church, Oxford.

156

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

MORE FRAGMENTS OF SAPPHO.

IN the fifth volume of the Berdiner Klasst-
kertexte there are three small fragments from
the same book of Sappho’s poems as the two
which have already been re-edited in the
Classical Review.1 Only one of these three
appears there with the words spaced. After
a careful study of photographs of all the
fragments I have been led to conclude that
with regard to the first the views of Blass
and others need some revision, and that
something more can be made of the second
than has yet been done. The third, consist-
ing as it apparently does of the ends of
longish lines, can give us some help in the
metre of the other two, and contains one or
two useful parallels. I refer to the poems of
my former article by the numbers I, II, and
III, and to the three pieces which are the
subject of the present paper by the letters a,
β, and y.

a. In the first piece Sappho sings of a
conversation with her pupil Gongyla, in which
_ she tells of a dream in which Hermes ap-
peared to her. Guided by the second piece
and to some extent by the third, I differ from
previous editors in regarding the second line
of the stanza as consisting of eleven syllables
like the first. Thus the metre of this poem
—as of the next—is like that of II except
in the second line. The first three syllables
can be eng OF and
the group — ~ ~ — occurs in various places
in the line, but never more than once in the
same line.

ed δ Ε-- ἢ

Vexr-

τουΐ.

ι ἄέν ον,

jp al.
δῆρα τοί.
Γογγύλα τί.

5 ἢ τί cap ἐθέλ[ης δείκνυναι τέαις
maior; Μάλιστά γ᾽, [ἀμειβόμαν ἔγω" "Ερ-
μᾶς γ᾽ cionAP ἐπὶ [δὲ βλέποισ᾽ ἔγω Fe
εἶπον" ἾὮ δέσποτ᾽, ἔπίπαν ὀλώλαμεν᾽
ο]ὺ μὰ γὰρ μάκαιραν [δέσποιναν ἔγωγ᾽

10 οἤ]ὖδεν ἄδομ᾽ ἔπαρθ᾽ ἄγαν ἔτ᾽ ὄλβωι,

1June ’o9.

, > oo” , ” ΄
κατθάνην δ᾽ ipepos τις ἤγρεσέ με’
XG στᾶσ᾽ εἰς δροσόεντ᾽ ἄγ[ρον o app’, ἴναπερ

᾿Ατρήιδην ᾿Αγαμ[έμνον᾽ ἄγαγες πρὶν

: ι] . δεθαι. Ι
15... δετου. [.

.7- ᾳτισε. |.
Critical Notes :

4 The apparent apostrophe between vy ‘is prob.
accidental: 7 corr. from 6, we should therefore com-
paring II. 19. prob. read 7’: the blank contained
‘asked’ and part of the question 5 ἐθέλης, for
~~ — in this position cf. β 5: not necessarily
ἐθέλησθα, cf. Meister-Ahrens i. p. 186: Blass ἢ τίς
dup’ ἔθελξεν θέος 6B μάλιστα μὲν αὖτος ἜἜρ-, but
~~ — twice in the same line is prob. unmetrical
7 MS ἰσηλθ᾽ (c corr. from e) 8 MS ez not ey orev
10B ἄγαν ἐπ᾽ ὄλβωι : ἔτ᾽ Jurenka το 11 Over κα
a horizontal line separating the stanzas, so I. and II.
11 η not ef 12 MS λωστησισ, cf. 7 tonrdO: ay
or ap[ 12/13 B [ἄ- | Bpos ἴδην [στεφάνοις προκεῖσθ᾽

ἔχοισαν 132 MS ἴδ: MS has upper traces of
αγαγί or ayapl
Translation .

πο And Gongyla \[askedjme *2 =o ]

or what sign wilt thou show thy children?’
‘Yea, I will tell you,’ I answered; ‘ Hermes
came in unto me, and looking upon him I
said “Ὁ master, I am altogether undone.
For by the holy mistress I swear to thee, I
care nothing any more that I am exalted
unto prosperity, but a desire hath taken me
to die. I would fain have thee set me in
the dewy meadow whither aforetime thou
leddest Atreus’ son Agamemnon. . . .”’

Commentary :

4. Τογγύλα : of Colophon, one of the three pupils.
mentioned by Suidas.

6. ἔγω “Ep-: for the crasis cf. Ode I ὠράνω αἴθερος,.
Fr. 681 κείσεαι οὐδέποτα, Fr. 85 ἔγω οὐδὲ,

8. ἔππαν : i.e. ἐπίπαν ; for ἐππ see my note on
III. 2, and for πὰν M.-A. i. p. 36.

9. δέσποιναν : Aphrodite.

το. ἔπαρθαι : perfect passive infinitive = ἐπῆρθαι.

11. ἤγρεσε: cf. Ode 2. 14 τρόμος με | παῖσαν ἄγρει..
Sappho perhaps wrote ἄγρεσε.

1 Bergk4,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

12. λῶ : there seems to be no Aeolic parallel, but the
letters λωστησ are certain.
στᾶσαι : infinitive.
δροσόεντ᾽ : cf. χρυσίαισιν and Λυδίαν, Fr. 85.

12/13. Wwamep’| Ατρήιδην ᾿Αγαμέμνον᾽ : cf. the Song of
Harmodius ἵναπερ ποδώκης ᾿Αχιλεύς, | Τυδεΐδην
τέ φασιν Acoundéa. The next line probably con-
tained other names.

8. The first four lines of this piece do
not appear in the Lerliner Klassthertexte,
and the remainder is given there unspaced.
The dotted letters are to be regarded as
rather more than usually doubtful, especially
as the Jettering on the other side of the page
often shows through in the photograph. But
by various expedients, such as putting trac-
ings of the two sides back to back and using
tracings of letter-groups from other parts of
the MS to confirm my observation, I have,
I hope, guarded effectively against seeing
what is not there. Sappho is apparently
telling how one of her girl-friends came and
awoke her one morning, and the fragment
consists largely, if not entirely, of the words
she puts into the mouth of the friend.

Text:

Ward’, ἦ μὰν οὕτω δέ γ᾽ ov σε φιλήφῳ.
ὦ φαῖν᾽ ἄμμι, κὴξ εὔναν λῦσε τέαν
πεφιλημμ[έν]αν igxev, ὕδατι δὲ

/ ” > * Ἂς » θ
κρίνον ὥσπερ tAvitas πὰρ yOu

5 πέπλον Χῖον ἀπύσχοισα λούεο"
καὶ Κλεῖϊς σάων καββάλρισα γρύταν

.,
κροκόεντα λώτεά σ᾽ ἐββάλη καὶ

πέπλον πορφύρ[ι]ον. ΓΛΟΟΣ
wAsivarmep @ ferj. τ Πρ οὖν
Io στέφανοι wepf . . . . |

KéAGos capau[ . . . . |
φρῦσσον ὦ mp.[
παρθένων πο

Critical Notes :

2 MS υμμε mistaking the intransitive use of φαῖνε
4 MS tnvirns 5 MS χιον (not κωον), o corr. from
τ, the scribe having begun to write xitwva 6 MS
Kreis: MS γρυτων 7 MS εβαλη 9 xAalvac?:
MS τ over ε in περ.

157

Translation :

*. .. Sappho, I swear, if thou come

not forth I will love thee no more. O rise
and shine upon us, and from thy bed set
free thy beloved strength, and then with
water by the bank, like the lily that dwells
in the marsh, hold aloof thy Chian robe
and wash thee. And Cleis for thy adorning
shall cast down from thy press saffron smock
and purple robe. . . .’

Commentary :

I. Ψάπφ᾽, ἢ μὰν : so I. 6, where I would now put
the colon at the end of the preceding line.
οὔτω δέ γ᾽: ‘unless thou wilt rise and come
forth,’ doubtless referring to the previous line.
φιλήσω : cf. Plautus’ use of amaéo=‘I prithee.’

2. φαῖνε : for the intransitive use, which suggests a

heavenly body rising, cf. Theocr. 2. 11 et al.
κὐξ: cf. κἦν, Fr. 68. 3.

4. ἰλυΐτας : the v seems conclusive against connect-
ing the word with ἕλος ‘marsh’ and Theocritus’
εἱλιτενής (13, 42) rather than with (dvs ‘mud.’
Moreover, Hesychius explains εἰλύς (sic) as τὸ
πηλῶδες τοῦ ποταμοῦ ‘the muddy part of the
river.’ The literal meaning, then, is ‘dweller
in the marshy river-edge.’ The use of a noun
in -77s in apposition to the neuter κρίνον is
strange, but not, I think, impossible. Lucian
speaks of νησιώτηι μειρακίωι de Domo, 3. It has
the effect of personifying κρίνον.

ὔχθωι : 1.6. ὄχθωι, cf. M.-A. p. 53.

5. πέπλον Xiov: cf. Lucr. 4. 1130, where editors
have needlessly altered the reading to Cia, i.e.
Κεῖα. ;

ἀπύσχοισα : this can hardly mean ‘throwing
aside,’ but rather ‘keeping out of the way,’ e.g.
by tying it round the waist so as to leave the
upper part of the body bare, or, if we imagine
her standing in the water, by girding it up to
prevent it getting wet.

6. Κλεῖϊς : Sappho’s daughter, mentioned Fy. 85,
where the MSS read Κλεῖς, but a trochee is
required.

σάων : for the o-form cf. σῶ Alc. 74; we are
told that Sappho used the form Μοισάων Fr. 164,
cf. also my note on I. 23.

γρύταν : cf. 27. 156and Mahafty Alinders- Petrie
Papp. ii. 32. 27 (Herwerden Lexicon Supfi. s.v.).

7. ἐββάλη : i.e. ἐπιβαλεῖ, ‘shall put upon thee’; see
note on ἔππαν above.

8. πορφύριον : may scan as 4 or 3 syllables; in either
case -ov must be followed by a consonant.

11. κάλθος : this I take to be a masculine form of
the flower-name cadtha of Vergil Ec/. 2. 50.
Prudentius uses a neuter form ca/thum.

12. φρῦσσον : perhaps aorist imperative of φρύγω,
Attic φρῦξον.

158

γ. The third piece is written on the back
of the fragmentary page which contains the
first. We accordingly have only the ends
of the lines. By a comparison of the two
sides of the page I conclude that the lines
were of about the same length in both
poems, and I believe the metre to be the
same. In line 4 piav seems to be for
. . pecav, the earlier part of the word being
lost. In line 8 ὄξυ βοῶν gives a parallel to
ἔλθην o€v Boa in II. 1g. In line g οὐκὶ is
an interesting form; cf. in III. 8 the MS
In the same line the form βάρυ
is decisive against the equation βόρηται --
βαρεῖται in 11. 18 (on a page from the same
MS book), and so indirectly supports my
interpretation of βόρηται as ‘ devours.’

“
ουκ᾽ οὕτω.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Text:

jel
eae
. 7 μοι ἄναξ
.]1. μἴαν ἦχον
δ. Ge ee San | παρθενιαν
. .] ὀρρώδων Urepay
: Ἰφεν.. αβιφζ.. φ....
.]εφραν ἄρ᾽ ὄξυ βοῶν δ᾽
ἰ: iP as
. jrap. nxe νὺξ οὐκὶ Bapv
Io. ewes co Seer oc pee Br

My thanks are due to Dr. W. Schubart,
of the K6nigliche Museen, Berlin, for very
kindly furnishing me with excellent photo-
graphs of the above fragments.

J. M. Epmonps.

AN IMPORTANT INSCRIPTION RELATING TO THE SOCIAL WAR.

In June of last year Professor Gatti, with
equal perspicacity and good fortune, acquired
for the municipal collections of Rome a
bronze plate (with holes for the nails by
which it was once fixed to a wall), bearing an
inscription of singular interest and import-
ance, which is now to be seen in the Palazzo
dei Conservatori. Professor Gatti’s publica-
tion of it has just appeared in the third part
of the Bullettino Comunale for 1908, pp.
169 sgg., with a full-size photograph. The
plate measures 29 cm. (11 in.) high, and 51
to 52 cm. (20 in.) long; and the inscription
contains two decrees issued, as we shall see,
in camp before Asculum at the end of go B.c.
by Cn. Pompeius Strabo as commander of
the Roman forces in Picenum during the
Social War, conferring Roman citizenship
and certain other rewards on some members
of a Spanish troop of auxiliary cavalry, the
turma Salluttana.

Of the first few lines of the inscription
only about one-third, on the left, is pre-
served: but the rest is practically complete.
It begins as follows (according to Professor
Gatti’s restoration) :

[C]x. Pompeius Sex. [fi imperator infra
scriptos |

1 Professor Bormann suggests ¢urvmae Salluitanae.

equites Hispanos ceives | Romanos, virtutis
caussa de consili sententia pronuntiavit |
ex lege Iulia. In consilio | fuerunt}.

Then follows a list of the conszdium, sixty in
number, as can be calculated from the space
occupied in the lines now lost, the greater
part of the names being preserved. The
praenomen, nomen, the father’s praenomen
and tribe are alone given. A fair proportion
of them seem to belong to Picenum itself, no
less than eleven being members of the ¢vzbus
Velina.

So far the inscription has run right across
the plate. We now come to the list of the
soldiers of the zuxma Salluitana, arranged in
three columns, leaving a space in the right
bottom corner, of which we shall speak later.
The name itself is conjectured by Professor
Gatti (and probably he is right) to be iden-
tical with Salduba, Salduva, or Salduvia (the
MSs. vary), which, as Pliny (77.2. iii. 24)
tells us, was the former name of Caesar-
augusta, the modern Saragossa. In the case
of the first four of the soldiers mentioned,
unlike the rest, the place of origin is ,not
stated, and Professor Bormann has suggested
that they were the officers in command, the
commander of the troop and the three
decuriones. Yo the names of the other

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

twenty-six the place or tribe to which they
belonged is added: some of these local
names are unknown, but all that are known
occur in Pliny’s list of the principal tribes of
the conventus of the district of Caesaraugusta,
so that we may assume that the rest belonged
to the same district. The names are all
purely barbaric, and interesting to the philo-
logist.

The space in the lower right-hand corner
of the plate is occupied by the text of the
second decree, by which certain rewards were
conferred on the soldiers of the troop for their
valour— Cn. Pompetus Sex. f. imperator | vir-
tutis caussa turmam | Salluitanam donavit in
| castrets apud Asculum | cornuculo et patella
torque | armilla palereis (sic) et frumeninum
(sic) | duplex.

An important difference may be noticed at
once between the two decrees: in the first,
conferring the citizenship, the grant is made
with the approval of the considium, which
normally consisted of all the military tribunes
present and the chief centurion (przmusprlus)
of each legion (Mommsen, Séaatsrecht, i3.
316), and, no doubt, in virtue of special pro-
visions contained in the /ex Zulia of go 8.6.
For the second, no such approval was
needed, the ordinary powers included in the
imperium being sufficient. The interesting
particular is here added, that the gift was
made ‘in camp before Asculum’ (modern
Ascoli Piceno). That both decrees were
promulgated at the same time, there is no
‘doubt; and as there is no mention of
Pompeius being consul, which he became in
89 B.C., the inscription must belong to the

159

end of 90 B.C., z.e. to the beginning of the
siege of Asculum, whither after the victory of
Pompeius over Lafrenius at Firmum the sur-
vivors of the defeated Piceni took refuge. Of
the gifts mentioned, that of the cornzculum is
known to us from a passage of Livy (x. 61),
where, coupled with the bracelet (both
being in that case of silver), it was given to
cavalry soldiers who had distinguished them-
selves in the third Samnite war. Of the gift
of the fazed/a (probably also of silver), or
small patera for libations, no other case
appears to be known, except that of the
gift to Probus in his youth of a patera
weighing five pounds, among other rewards,
for conspicuous bravery in the Sarmatian
war (Vopiscus, Vzta Prodi, 5,1). The other
ornaments are well known, and were con-
stantly given as rewards of valour, and the
gift of double rations of corn (or double pay,
as it later on came to mean) was so frequent
that the term duplarius or duplicarius is often
met with in inscriptions of the imperial
period.

The exact provenance of this inscription is
not known, but there is no doubt that it was
one of the many original documents which
were kept on the Capitol, only a few frag-
mentary specimens of which had hitherto
been known, and those all now preserved
in Naples. As Professor Gatti remarks,
with justifiable pride, this is the only
specimen of its kind now in Rome, and has
fitly found a resting-place once more on the
very hill where it was originally preserved.

THomas ASHBY.

REVIEWS

THE COINAGE OF THE AGE OF CONSTANTINE.

By JULEs
Tome I.

Numismatique Constantinienne.
MAURICE. Paris: Leroux, 1908.
Pp. clxxix+507. With 23 plates.

EuseEsius begins his life of Constantine the
Great by an expression of his feelings as to
the great and universal interest of the subject,

‘for whether,’ he says, ‘I look to the East or
the West, or cast my eyes over all the world,
I see the blessed Emperor present every-
where.’ Some such feeling may have been
awakened in the breasts of numismatists who
for several years past have been accustomed
to note, in all the principal numismatic

160

periodicals of the world, the appearance of
articles by M. Maurice dealing with the
money that was used ‘pendant la période
Constantinienne.’ Such articles have been
welcomed as the first successful attempt to
grapple in a scientific way with an enor-
mously complicated mass of detail—types,
mints, dates and legends—and also as being
the evident outcome of widely extended
numismatic research and of unusual know-
ledge of the political and financial history of
the period during which the coins were issued.

There was one regret arising from M.
Maurice’s piece-meal method—no doubt in-
evitable—of publishing his studies: the whole
series seemed in every sense of the word to
require binding together, and needed a
general introductory article which would
summarize and explain results. But by the
publication of the present exhaustive and
amplified work the author has completely
removed any such occasion of regret. In
the volume before us (which will be followed
by a second volume) we have first of all an
Introduction which deals with the various
denominations of the coinage and the con-
stitution of the mints, and an elaborate
chronology of the Constantine period, of
which both the literary and the numismatic
evidence form the basis. Then follows a
long chapter on the imperial Iconography,
and finally a detailed description of the
coins struck at the various imperial mints.
Of these mints there were no less than
nineteen. In the first volume the output of
the mints of Rome, Ostia, Aquileia, Carthage
and Tréves is described ; in the second, we
shall have a description of the remaining
fourteen mints and—may we hope?—a good
index.

Any of us who have been prone to regard
the coinage of Constantine as a conglomera-
tion of somewhat banal types and _hetero-
geneous legends may require M. Maurice’s
reminder that these coins were official issues,
and that all the important acts of the
imperial government are indicated by their
legends or by the striking of special types
and denominations. ‘Thus, the date of the
foundation of Constantinople—‘le baptéme
de la nouvelle capitale’—may be fixed by
the inscription CONST(antinopolis) which

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

is found in the exergue of coins struck in A.D.
324. The actual inauguration of the city, as
city, is celebrated, after May 11, 330, by the
issue of coins bearing the personification of
Constantinople ; and only after this date did
the imperial court move to its new centre.
Again, the celebration of imperial anniver-
saries is marked by the issue of coins with
special types; and we have similar contem-
porary records of the visits of the Emperor
to Rome, of meetings of Emperors, of vic-
tories over the barbarians, of the first appear-
ance of a new Caesar or a new Augustus.
But such types, however curious in them-
selves, only become fully instructive when
they are arranged not merely according to
subject, or, as in Cohen’s work, alphabetically
according to the legends, but chronologically.
The determination of the chronology is thus
of high importance, and is a salient feature
of M. Maurice’s monograph.

I am obliged to pass over the sections on
denominations and on the highly elaborate
constitution of the mints, though with regard
to the latter it may be remarked that a
principal characteristic of Diocletian’s mone-
tary reforms was his multiplication of mints.
He found only eight in operation and set as
many more in motion, some, indeed, only
alternately. Under Constantine, the highest
number reached was nineteen. M. Maurice
has necessarily paid special attention to mint-
marks and secret mint-marks—to the fairly
obvious RP and RS, the first and second
workshops (f7ima, secunda, officina) of the
mint of Rome, and to more recondite marks
like | and H, which, being interpreted,
mean Jovius and Herculius, and refer to
Diocletian and Maximian. Many Christian
symbols seem also to figure as the symbols
and secret-marks of mint-officials, when the
times were favourable, as between the years
320 and 324, when Constantine legislated
in favour of the Church.

The chronological lists are, as I have
already indicated, minute and valuable, and
include a list of the imperial titles as they
vary from year to year, and these titles,
brought together chronologically, set forth in
firm outline the political changes of the
period, and offer a welcome clue to the exits
and entrances of the enormous cas¢ of the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

imperial drama. In 309 there were six
Augusti, but an Emperor does not necessarily
strike coins in the name of his colleagues,
and the absence of coins is sometimes as
instructive as their existence. For instance,
Maxentius isolated in Italy, and Alexander
at Carthage, strike only in their own names:
Constantine strikes for all the four leading
Augusti but not for Galerius, who had refused
him the title of Augustus.

If the Classical Review were a purely
numismatic periodical it would be desirable
to extend considerably this notice of a book
which furnishes invaluable material both to
the historian and the student of coins; but it
may be sufficient, in conclusion, to say
something of the chapter that deals with
portraiture, more especially as being likely to
interest those readers who» may not have
followed M. Maurice’s researches when they
first appeared.

Most archaeological writers, including
Cohen and Bernoulli, have remarked on the
great difficulty, or impossibility, of ascertain-
ing from coins the true portraiture of the
Emperor Diocletian and his successors of
the period of Constantine. M. Babelon, in-
deed, published a most enlightening study of
the portraits of a later Emperor (Julian), but
it has been reserved for M. Maurice to deal
with the whole subject in detail, and, what is
more, to discover the secret. The view that
there are no true portraits discoverable on
the coins seems at first sight to be justified
_ by the fact that we find the most diverse
effigies accompanied by the name of one and
the same Emperor. But this apparent diffi-
culty vanishes when the coins are carefully
sorted (as by M. Maurice) under mints and
periods. Then, it becomes evident that there
was at least a method in the apparent
vagaries of the different mint-masters in their
choice of effigies. The whole subject is
extremely complicated, but it may be made
clear by observing what took place at the
beginning of the period when this practice
arose of putting forth a single effigy bearing
the names of varying Emperors.

We are first on solid ground in the
period 17 Noy. 284-1 April 285, when the
Empire had but one ruler—Diocletian.
Coins that belong to this period obviously

NO. CCIII. VOL. XXIII.

161

can give us only the portrait of Diocletian.
But on 1 April 285 Diocletian took as
colleague an ‘Augustus’ Maximian Her-
cules. The new Augustus had the West for
his sphere, and accordingly in the Western
mints we find a new head inscribed with
Maximian’s name. But in the Eastern mints,
those within the sphere of Diocletian, we
note that such coins as are issued with the
name of Maximian are accompanied by the
portrait of Dzocletian. The Eastern mints
not having received the model of Maximian’s
portrait presented Diocletian’s, but at the
same time recognized Maximian by encircling
it with Maximian’s name. So, then, the
Western mints give us a true portrait of
Maximian; the Eastern mints (in spite of
their accompanying inscription) do not.
With regard to the coins issued in the name
of Diocletian during this period, we find the
true portrait of that Emperor both in his
own Eastern sphere and in the Western
mints of Maximian, the reason for this being
that Diocletian’s effigy was already in use
throughout all the imperial mints defore the
accession of Maximian.

Lastly, in order to carry the complication
a little further, we pass on to the year 293,
when to the two Augusti were added two
Caesars, namely, Constantius Chlorus and
Galerius. Each of these Caesars strikes coins
in his own name and also in that of his
colleague. But here, again, the name around
the portrait does not invariably serve as the
correct label. For Constantius, in his own
mint of London, places his own head on all
the coins, even on those struck in the name
of Galerius; and, on the other hand, the
coins struck by Galerius, in his own mint of
Siscia, bear solely the effigy of Galerius, even
in the case of coins struck by him in the
name of his colleague Constantius. The
reason for this substitution of portraits no
doubt was that the mint-masters of the two
Caesars did not exchange the Caesars’ por-
traits, and had to be content with inscribing
a name that did not belong to the portrait
that they utilized. These clues to an apparent
maze of portraiture having been obtained, it
is possible to construct the real iconography
of the Emperors and Caesars; and with
respect to the general character of the por-

L

162

traits, M. Maurice remarks that the coins are
not without artistic value, and that they are
(apparently) fairly characteristic. An analysis
(illustrated by the plates) of the portraiture of

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

each imperial personage brings all the details
of the evidence before the reader.

WARWICK WROTH.

‘DIVINI ELEMENTA POETAE.’

Appendix Vergiliana. Recognovit et adnota-
tione critica instruxit R. ELLis. Oxonii: e
Typ. Clarend. 1907. (Pages not num-
bered.)

Poeti Latint Minori. Testo Critico: Com-
mentato: da G. Curcio. Vol. ii, fase. 2.
Appendix Vergiliana (Dirae, Lydia, Ciris).
Pp. 198+xv. Catania: Battiato, 1908.

VerciL’s ‘ Frithzeit’ has just now a peculiar
fascination for Latin scholars: and whether
the poems of the Appendix Vergtliana are or
are not, any of them, Vergilian, they most of
them belong to ‘Vergil’s Friihzeit, and a
respectable text of them is the necessary
preliminary to a study of that fascinating
period. This, thanks to Prof. Ellis, we now
possess. The limitations of Ribbeck’s text
are well known. Baehrens’ edition seems to
be out of print; and, though Prof. Ellis pro-
nounced it on its appearance to be a great
advance on Ribbeck, I have never been able
to see that, save in the direction of simplifi-
cation (in the Apparatus), Baehrens did any
great service to the text of the pseudo-
Vergiliana, apart from the clever and certain
correction, coccina for cognita, at Cirts 169.
In any case Prof. Ellis’ text will at once
supersede its predecessors. Not only are his
collations new (correcting those of other
scholars at a great many points), but his
recension has been made with great tact and
prudence, and with that consideration for
others from which alone can be born a work-
able text. Indeed, as a textual critic Prof.
Ellis is perhaps here seen at his best. In
emendation he has never been more felicitous,
and that in poems where scholars like
Scaliger constantly dissatisfy, and where Sillig
is probably as successful as anyone. Among
emendations of Ellis’ which I think certain
are Ciris 321 praes sit (for pressit): 323

commenta: Moretum 15 plausa (for clausa) :
Culex 62 feruent (fuerint codd.), 140 fleta
(aeta codd.), 274 ecfossasgue. And scattered
up and down the Apparatus are a number of
less certain conjectures, which I should pro-
nounce superior to those of previous editors.
Some suggestions do not appeal: as the
notion of an old English gloss égor at Ciris
481: thidem 249 scora: Culex 221 lurent (a
word which Mr. Housman introduces into
Ovid, but which is otherwise strange to the
best Latin poets). At Cz7/s 218 Ellis retains
‘nutantia’ sidera mundi, but it can hardly bear
the sense ‘bickering’ which he gives to it
(4./.P. xv. p. 479). The stars are part of a
convexo ‘nutans’ pondere mundus (εἰ. iv. 50).
At 303 ibid. the view (which seems to me
certain: so too Prof. Hardie) that a line has
been lost at least deserved mention. At
Culex 264 V’s a points, I think, not to
causa (Ellis), but merely to the cvva of the
other MSS.: ca as a contraction for cura is
found also at Tibullus 3. 2. 25.

In the selection of MSS. upon which to
base his texts Ellis has followed a middle
course. He has not overwhelmed us with
the readings of MSS. worth nothing; and he
has at the same time given the student of the
text as much as he can want. It is in the
Culex that he is perhaps most open to
criticism.!_ To my mind, we could quite well
have dispensed with the readings of Gand I.
Their claims to independent value seems to
me to rest solely on 51, where Ellis, with
them, reads 7zfzs. But even here the parallel
which Skutsch cites from Ovid Rem. Am.
178-180 tells strongly in favour of vrzfpes.
F again adds nothing of value to B. With
regard to Vossianus 81 (Voss.), I do not
quite understand Ellis’ position. Baehrens

1This was written before the appearance of Mr.
Housman’s paper on the MSS. of the Culex.
/

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

perceived the great worth of this late MS.
But, since Baehrens, the value of Voss. has
very much gone down, owing to Ellis’ dis-
covery of V, an earlier and better MS. to
which Voss. is very closely related. Is Voss.
(in the Cudex) a copy of (or directly derived
from) V? If it is, we can at once dismiss it.
If it is not, its every variant is worth citing.
Ellis cites it only rarely. Yet at 237, 269
(pene Voss.=faenene: Ellis does not note
this), 273, 308, 340, 378, 379, Voss. alone
has the true reading, and V has lost it.
These passages constitute a strong claim to
independence, and seem to me to entitle
Voss. to a greater consideration than Ellis
has allowed it. In some places Ellis has
failed to record the reading of V, so that a
comparison with Voss. is often not possible.
On the whole, I incline to think that Ellis
would have given us a better and simpler
text of Cu/ex, if he had confined himself to
B and V with Voss. Cors. Cant. But many
people will no doubt dissent from this; and
everyone will agree that in Ellis’ edition of
the Appendix as a whole we have the only
readable text that exists.

The most important part of Curcio’s book
is the Cvris. In his text of the Curis
Curcio employs (though he had not seen
Ellis’ work) the same six MSS. as Ellis,
though Ellis is wiser in that ‘ parcius adhi-
buit’ Curcio’s H and L. Curcio’s Ap-
paratus is far less compact and readable
than Ellis’; and, as a textual critic, he has
not much of his own to offer. Often I
think his judgment rather wooden: e.g. 155
furando for iurando is not bright: why not
finish, and write fure for wre? At 185 the
retention of serum is hardly credible. At the
same time Curcio’s text, though his judgment
is often thus stiff and heavy, is a careful and
meritorious piece cf work. The Commentary
is slight and disappointing. Such notes as
those at 5-7, 63, 88—to take three much
vexed passages—not only do not explain,
they do not even state, the difficulties.
Some notes again are otiose: e.g. 46 (where,

163

if a note was wanted at all, it was worth
mentioning that the phrase, mz/tum uigilata,
is found outside the Ciris): 165 Edonum:
226 sanguine suffundit. Such notes, once
more, as 108 vecrepat: ‘transitive,’ are not
very scholarly. The most interesting portion
of the volume is the Introductions. ‘They
put one in possession of most of the problems
raised by the poems, and, if the author is
rather loth to make up his own mind about
anything, he yet gives the reader the materials
for forming an independent judgment. The
sections in Dirae and Lydia, as well as in
Ciris, on Language, Style, Affinity with other
poets, Metre, etc., are all skilful and useful
work. In particular, the table of affinities
between Cz77s and other Latin poets is a
great improvement on that of Baehrens,
though often (e.g. Divae 80 = Edi. g. 2) Curcio
sees borrowing where there is none. Review-
ing at length Skutsch’s contentions as to the
authorship of Czris (with Leo’s rejoinder)
Curcio himself pronounces for an unknown
author. Let me offer here one suggestion
pro Skutsch and contra Leo. Leo urges that
Eclogue vi cannot be a catalogue of Gallus’
poems, because it is addressed to Varus.
But Servius knows of ancient critics who
held that ZcZ. vi. originally stood first in
Virgil’s collection. In that case,

(1) Ze/. vi. (as the first in the book) is
naturally concerned with Gallus’ poems, since
Gallus was Virgil’s only predecessor in the
Latin Idyll or Eclogue.

(2) The introductory lines to Varus are
not so much an Introduction to £¢/. vi. as a
dedication of the whole volume. Moreover,
the story—whatever its historical value—that
this 4clogue was recited in the theatre by
Cytheris = Lycoris at least shows that at a
very early period it was regarded as a poem
in honour of Gallus. I notice these points
because I have not seen them noticed else-
where, and because Curcio’s volume hardly
does full justice to Skutsch’s theory.

H. W. GARROD.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

INDOGERMANIC NUMERALS.

Die Distributiven und die Kollectiven Numer-
alia der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Von
K. BruGMANN. Mit einem Anhang von
EpuarD SIEVERS. Altnordisch tvenn(i)r
prenn(i)r, fernir, from Vol. XXV. of the
‘Abhandlungen der Philologisch-Histo-
rischen Klasse der Ko6nigl Sichsischen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.’ Leipzig:
D. σὲ Teubner, 1907. M. 3.60.

Tus work is of great interest both to the

student of Comparative Philology in its ,

exposition of the origin and use of these
numerals in the Indogermanic languages,
and also to the Classical student in its clear
statements of many points in Greek and
Latin usage, which have hitherto been only
too vaguely apprehended; in_ particular
several difficult uses of the so-called dis-
tributives (ὀζγ2, etc.) are explained by ἃ
careful consideration of their collective
origin. The main results of the book are
the following. The true distributives are
first dealt with. Here Brugmann finds
three principles :

(i) The Iterative. Skr. éka ékas is the
type. Class. Gk. pia pia (δύο δύο etc. are
later). Asa later development forms joined
by ‘and’ are found, e.g. O.E. twaem ond
twaem.

(ii) The use with a pronoun: Gk. εἷς
Lat. unus guisque. Irish cach oen,
‘ guisque unus.’

(iii) The use with prepositions: Skr. prazz,
e.g. praty éham, ‘one by one” Gk. κατὰ, ava
etc. The Gk. κατὰ through its use in
Patristic Latin comes out in Romance, e.g.
Ital. cada uno, ‘one by one.’

Connected with (ili) is the use of the
Vedic suffix -sas, e.g. Skr. @ha- -sas, ‘one by
one. There can be little doubt that it is
identical with Gk. -xas in ἑ-κάς, ἀνδρα-κάς.
With regard to its orgin, which is disputed,
Brugmann’s theory is that it is from t ks
from a root Aems- seen in Lat. cénséo, Gk.
κόσμος from ἴ κονσμος. Vedic sdsa-ti
‘counts,—so that the original meaning was
‘according to a fixed measure or order,’—
seems likely to be the true one. Possibly

ἕκαστος.

the form itself was once really an Imperative
‘count one,’ ‘count two.’

In dealing with the Collective numerals
(under this heading are included (1) forms
which have both the Collective meaning and
a later acquired Distributive meaning, and
also (2) forms which though Collective in
origin have become merely Distributive),
Brugmann first considers the formative
elements ;—three in number, -o, -zo and -go
added to the cardinal.

(i) The forms in -o; Indg. { dueio-,
+ duieid-; treid-, troid-; -bheio-, -bhoio. Vedic
adj. dvaya-s, ‘two-fold’; subst. dvayam,
‘duplicity’; zraya-s, ‘three-fold’; ubhaya-s,
‘both.’ Lat. des and dessis, + de[z|-essis from
dueio- with elision of the last vowel of the
stem, so Zvess¢s from ἡ freto-essis ; 7 guetuero,
guetuoro. In Aryan only found in.the Vedic
substantive catvard-m.

As regards the Lat. decuria, Brugmann
dismisses Schulze’s conjecture of a stem
ἡ deku-, and advances a theory which can
hardly be doubted, namely that the form
arose analogically from ἡ g%e¢ur-iia ; so that
while the ending -evzia spread to ‘5,’ eg.
Unbr pumperia-, in the form -u7zja it spread
to ‘10’ and ‘100.’

(ii) The forms in -7o- :

bint from t+ bisno-; terni from jf ¢risno;
guaternt from ἴ guatrisno (or ana-
logical after ¢ernz?); sént from 7 secsno;
guint from guincsno; septént from
ἡ septensno; octoni from ἴ octosno;
nouent from + novensno (probably the
-sno- form of the suffix started from
+ bisno-, ἵ trisno-, Ἷ secsno-).

With regard to the forms for ‘seven,’
‘eight’ and ‘nine’; regularly we should have
+ septsno- becoming 7 sesno- and that 7 seno-;
+ octsno- becoming ἵ osvo- and that ἴ ono-,
+ mousno- becoming zuno-. Clearly forms
which were so far from the cardinal and in
which, moreover, the expressions for ‘six’
and ‘seven’ had become identical, were not
likely to survive. The survival of dem? may
be due partly to the fact that it appeared
also in the forms uxdent, duodent ; moreover,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

it was not likely to be confused with any
other number.

As regards the double forms sera and
trint, quaternt and gquadrini, Brugmann
points out that they are distinguished in use;
terni, quaternt are used as Distributives,
though the Collective function is not entirely
foreign to them ; /r7nz, guadrini, are used as
Collectives. Bini combines both these func-
tions and for it Brugmann postulates a
double origin;—in its acquired use as
Distributive from ἴ duzsno-, as Collective
from Τ duino or t+ dueino-. From ἴ isnot,
T ¢risnot, the -sno suffix as we have seen
passed to the numbers from ‘5’ onwards,
and these acquired a distributive meaning at
the same time as ἴόζεγιο etc., without
however losing their collective meaning.
The form a/terni might have had some
influence in the use of sernt, guaterni as
Distributives. Corresponding to + duzisno is
O.H.G. swirnén, swirnon. To + duino- and
} ¢rino- correspond O.H.G. swinal, zwinel,
zwenel, ‘gemellus’ and Mod. H.G,. dre//,
‘linen woven with three threads.” If a
criticism may be ventured, these German
forms seem rather a slight basis for the
creation of + duezno- as well as ft duisno-.

(111) -qo- forms are represented in Vedic
Skt. dvikas, ‘aus Zweien bestehend’ and
O.H.G. zwisk, ‘zweifach.’

In discussing the various uses of the
Collective and Distributive forms, Brugmann
brings forward many interesting points.

Forms in -Ὁ, -zo and -go had or acquired
a Collective meaning outside the numerals,

PURITY IN GREEK

Latinitas and ‘EXAnvopos.
SMILEY. Wisconsin, 1906.

By. ΟΝ;

THE author of this thesis attempts to
estimate the influence of the ‘Stoic theory
of style,’ as seen in the writings of Dionysius,
Quintilian, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus,
Fronto, Aulus Gellius, and Sextus Empiricus.
His purpose is to show that the Stoic theory
persisted as a strong literary influence at

165

e.g. Skt. asvam beside asvas, Gk. ἱππικόν
beside ἵππος ; these Collective nouns are,
‘like the numerals, neuter. As regards the
use of 7T(d)kmto—m, ‘100’ (where it is
an elliptical expression for a ‘ten of tens’),
Brugmann notes that it is found in its
original meaning of ‘a group of ten’ in
Gothic, stbunté hund etc., ‘a ten of sevens,’
7.6. 70. In Aryan and Slavonic this neuter
numeral is found with a genitive plural (in
Aryan appearing as a compound, e.g. Skt.
go-dvayam), but in both these groups we
find the adjective use of the numeral as well,
while in Italic and Germanic the substantive
is only used absolutely, the adjective supply-
ing its place in other cases. Both these
constructions are probably Indogermanic,
the substantive use was the earlier.

Lastly, the Distributive use is treated: the
question is how Latin came to prefer the
Collective in this use to the Cardinal and
to make it the rule; in Greek we find a
parallel use of σὺν with the Cardinal, where
the explanation is as doubtful as that of the
use of ὀΖγιΖ etc. in Latin. It is in Latin only
that the Collective is regularly used as
Distributive; in the other Indg. languages
it is only an occasional phenomenon.

In discussing the Gk. δοιοί and δοίω
Brugmann inclines to think’ that they too
were collective in origin, and this seems very
probable, although the evidence is not
sufficient to afford a proof. One can only
say in conclusion that this is a work which
fully repays the most careful study and

consideration.
S. E. Jackson.

AND LATIN STYLE.

Rome for a period of two hundred years
after the death of Cicero, and that it was
always at war with what he terms the
‘Ciceronian or rhetorical’ style.

The whole question of “EAAnvw pds is, as
the author knows, beset by many un-
certainties. The first enunciation of a
doctrine of the kind is supposed to be found
in Diogenes Laertius’ life of Zeno (vii. 59),
where it is attributed to Diogenes the Stoic

166

of Babylon and teacher of Panaetius: ’Aperai
δὲ λόγου εἰσὶ πέντε: ᾿Ἑλληνισμός, σαφήνεια,
συντομία, πρέπον, κατασκευή. “EAAnvicpos
μὲν οὖν ἐστι φράσις ἀδιάπτωτος ἐν τῇ τεχνικῇ
καὶ μὴ εἰκαίᾳ συνηθείᾳ. σαφήνεια δέ ἐστι

λέξις γνωρίμως

, , > 4 > Ν 4, 5 »
συντομία δέ ἐστι λέξις αὐτὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα

nw 4
παριστῶσα τὸ νοούμενον.

περιέχουσα πρὸς δήλωσιν τοῦ πράγματος.
πρέπον δέ ἐστι λέξις οἰκεία τῷ πράγματι.
κατασκευὴ δέ ἐστι λέξις ἐκπεφευγυΐῖα τὸν
Smiley suggests that the
reason why the first virtue gave its name to
the theory as a whole was that it includes
all the others. But, to waive other difficul-
ties, the inclusion of κατασκευή in the list
is unexpected, if κατασκευή be understood
in its ordinary sense, as the definition
λέξις ἐκπεφευγυῖα τὸν ἰδιωτισμόν (together
with Herodian’s κυριολογία and εὐσυνθεσία)
seems clearly to prove that it should be.
In fact, ᾿Ἑλληνισμός becomes so com-
prehensive a quality that the possession of it,
or of its Latin counterpart, would assuredly
be claimed by the eclectic Cicero, who does
not fail to see that pure Latin must be the
basis of all elegance in style: ‘neque enim
conamur docere eum dicere, qui loqui
nesciat ; nec sperare, qui Latine non possit,
hunc ornate esse dicturum (de Oraz. 111. το,
38).’

With regard to Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
the author rightly says that he disapproved
of any adornment of style for which purity,
precision, clearness, or conciseness must be
sacrificed,—that he preferred, in Attic
oratory, the simple style of Lysias to the
embellished style of Isocrates. But what
we miss is any proof that, in referring so
often to καθαρὰ ἑρμηνεία and the like,
Dionysius admits that he is following in
Stoic footsteps. He does, indeed, mention

ἰδιωτισμόν. Mr.

THE RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT

Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des Neuen
Testaments: Die Abhingtgkett des altesten
Christentums von nichtjidischen Religionen
und philosophischen Systemen susammen-
fassend untersucht von PrRor. Lic. Dr.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

(de Isocr. c. 13) that, among others, the
Stoic dialectician Philonicus had criticised
certain wearisome features in the style of
Isocrates. But elsewhere (de Comp. Verb.
c. 4) he expresses great disappointment with
the Stoics, regarded not as dialecticians or
grammarians but as authorities on the artistic
arrangement of words; and yet εὐσυνθεσία
is supposed, as we have seen, to have formed
part of the Stoic doctrine of style The
general impression left upon the mind is
that, though there are many points of contact
between the writings of Dionysius and what
is represented as the Stoic theory of style,
Dionysius himself felt that, in these matters,
he was following a longer and_ higher
tradition than the Stoic.

The question, however, needed discussion;
and it has been well discussed by Mr. Smiley.
If space allowed, it would be pleasant tc
follow him in the pages he devotes to the
other authors on his list. Whether we
agree with his conclusions or not, his
treatment of the points at issue is full of
interest and suggestion, and exhibits that
wide and sound knowledge of ancient
rhetoric which might be expected in a pupil
of Professor G. L. Hendrickson. Rhetorical
studies seem to have a wide vogue in
America. And this is all to the good, so
long as a knowledge of the technique of
literature aids rather than impedes the
appreciation and production of literature
itself. The terms “EAAnvopés and Latinitas
should, at all events, suggest that, in our
own common language, there is a purity to
guard, and one all the more worth guarding
when that language is still at the height of
its vigour and its influence.

W. Ruys ROoBERTs.

OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.

CarRL CLEMEN. Mit 12 Abbildungen auf
zwei Tafeln. Pp. viii, 301. Giessen:
Alfred Tépelmann, 1909. Price 10 M.

Αμον the questions which at present
engage the attention of New Testament

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

students, one of the most important is
certainly that of reconstructing the religious
environment in which primitive Christianity
developed and tracing its influence on the
new religion. It is of course a common-
_ place that the Gospel, both as_ proclaimed
by Jesus and in the form given to it by
the original Apostles and Paul, was largely
dependent on the religion of Israel and the
contemporary Judaism. That Jesus Himself
was indebted to foreign sources has been
generally denied by those most competcnt
to express an opinion. And the Old Testa-
ment and the simple piety of the common
people were far more important factors in
His religious training than Jewish scholas-
ticism. But while the primitive Gospel was
untouched by influences from abroad, these
influences began to play on the religion at
a pretty early point. It can hardly be
denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews
owes its fundamental conception to the
Jewish Platonism of Alexandria, and many
scholars would say the same of the Logos
doctrine in the Fourth Gospel, though
others would put in a claim for the Hermetic
literature. It has for long been keenly
debated whether Paul was much indebted
to Greek thought.

But recently the question has entered on
a new phase. A band of very able and
enthusiastic scholars, of whom Gunkel,
Bousset, and Heitmiiller may be named as
among the most active, explain much in
_the New Testament as due directly or in-
directly to the religious syncretism of the
time. The astral religion of Babylonia,
the dualism of Persia, the mystical cults of
Asia Minor and the theology of Egypt had
been blended together, and possibly India
itself had contributed to the amalgam.
Scholars are divided on the question whether
Christianity borrowed from these directly or
indirectly. Dieterich, for example, found no
difficulty in supposing that the story of the
heavenly woman, the dragon and the man-
child, which we read in the twelfth chapter
of the Apocalypse, was simply borrowed
from the similar story of the birth of
Apollo. Gunkel, on the contrary, argued
that the writer could not have consciously
taken over a myth in this way from

167

heathenism. He assumed accordingly that
it had come to him through Judaism,
having passed through a long process of
purification in that religion. He postulated
a Babylonian origin for the myth. The
story of the persecution of the mother of
the sun-god by the dragon of chaos and
darkness with the birth and triumph of the
sun-god seems to have been very wide-
spread. ‘This is a sample of what the
advocates of the Religionsgeschichtliche Methode
as it is called apply to a great deal of the
New Testament. For example, they con-
sider that the advanced Christological dogma
which we find in the Pauline Epistles can
be accounted for only on the theory that
a very developed Messianic theology had
already been formed in Judaism and, since
the Christians regarded Jesus as the Messiah,
was transferred by them to Him without
more ado.

Inasmuch then as the exponents of this
method are extremely active in Germany,
and the question is among the most
important that can engage the student of
Christian origins, Clemen’s work deserves a
very warm welcome. He is himself a very
eminent theologian who has gained his
reputation not only in the field of the New
Testament but of Systematic and Practical
Theology. He has more familiarity with
non-German literature than most of his
countrymen, and he has done a good deal
of work in the study of Comparative
Religion. His book is excellently planned,
and in spite of some lacunae shows remark-
able familiarity with the relevant literature.
The general principles which he lays down
are thoroughly sound; indeed were it not
that experience shows how lightly they are
transgressed, one could have imagined that
some of them might have been left to native
common sense without explicit formulation.
The introduction briefly sketches the history
and defines the method of this type of
investigation and then deals with its pre-
suppositions. ‘The body of the book falls
into two main divisions, a general and a
special. The former, after a discussion of
the question as it affects Christianity in
general, examines the individual doctrines
and rites, first those borrowed from Judaism

168

and then those that are specifically Christian.
The special portion deals first with the life
and teaching of Jesus, paying particular atten-
tion to the infancy narratives, then with the
Pauline, and finally with the Johannine
theology. When we remember how in this
subject in particular far-reaching hypotheses
have been erected on the flimsiest evidence
we may well be grateful for a work so
cautious in its method, so free from pre-
judice and desire to make out a case, so

CICERO’S FOURTH

Cicero’s Fourth Verrine Oration. Richter-Eberhard,
‘revised (4th edition) by HERMANN NOHL. Teub-
ner, 1908.

(Cicero’s Rede gegen C. Verres. Viertes Buch fiir den
Schul- und Privat-Gebrauch erklart von Fr. Richter
und Alfred Eberhard in Vierter Auflage bearbeitet
von Hermann Nohl.)

Tuls is an up-to-date edition of a useful and well-
known volume. Apart from the commentary, the
most valuable feature of the work is H. Nohl’s
critical appendix, consisting of 14 closely printed
pages, in which the editor undertakes to say to
advanced students the last word that can be said on
the problems of the text. With these he shows a
thorough familiarity. It is perhaps a little odd that
the appendix should be introduced by a somewhat
obsolete ‘stemma’ of the MSS.—very slightly altered
from that which appeared in Nohl’s edition of 1885.
If this were the place for proof, it could easily be
shown that G1, for example, does not deserve the
place which Nohl continues to assign to it in his
classification (v. Journ. Phil. xxx. p. 183). And
indeed there is no longer any reason—as the editor
seems himself to have realised in practice—for citing
G}, G2, Ld. at all in connection with the detailed
criticism of Books IV. and V. They have been
superseded by the identification of their first parent
S (Par. 7775). Of this MS., however, Nohl has
little to say that is good. He considers it a copy
of R (Reg. Par. 7774 A), and pronounces it to be
‘fiir die Kritik der 4 Rede wertlos.’ After this ex
cathedra pronouncement, it may well surprise even
a casual reader to find that Nohl’s practice does not
accord with his theory, and that, as a matter of fact,
he almost invariably cites the readings of S, as given
in the Oxford text, along with those of R. The
citations are in the main correct, though there is a
wrong attribution in § 102 (a¢ minime mirum S)
and ex zis S must be a misprint at § 106. On the
other hand, the authority of S should have been
invoked for at widele § 151 as it is for modo ut bona
ratione § 10, zpst se ὃ 87, and elsewhere.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

moderate in its conclusions. If a word of
criticism may be permitted on this pains-
taking and balanced enquiry it would be
that on some points needless concessions
are made to the method which he submits
to such careful examination. In view of the
really wild statements which are industriously
circulated in England at the present time
it would be a good thing if the book could
be translated.

ARTHUR S. PEAKE.

VERRINE ORATION.

The excuse for Nohl’s attitude to S is that he is
dealing with S only so far as the Fourth Book is
concerned. This sort of piecemeal work has of
course its disadvantages: it is just as if a student
were to attempt to deal with the criticism of the
Verrines as a whole, though competent in only a
portion of the text. Considering, however, that the
emergence of S has sufficed to banish from his critical
apparatus all references to G!, G? and Ld., of which
he made so considerable a use in his first edition
(1885), Nohl need not have protested so strongly
against the statement that S ‘must be elevated to
the very first rank among MSS. of the Verrines.’
His view that S has no authority independently of R
may be compared with the facts as set forth in ΔΛ Δ.
ΧΧΧ. pp. 195 sgg. And even if S were merely, as
Nohl thinks, a copy of R, and therefore practically
superfluous for Books IV. and V. (where R still
exists) it is different in the case of the earlier books,
which no longer form part of R. For these books
(z.e. the Divinatio, the Actzo Prima, and Lib. I.)
S gives the key to the whole situation, along with
its copy D, and the mention of this fact—so care-
fully ignored by Nohl—should be enough to justify
the place claimed for it by recent students of the
text of the Verrines as a whole (v. 7. PA. xxx.
163 sgq-)-

A good deal of Nohl’s otherwise laudable endeavour
to secure a true text is spoiled by his inability to
understand a point of view that differs from his own.
He becomes in places even satirical. I take as an
instance ὃ 125. The mistake of attributing evant to
the MSS. instead of evat was made by Nohl himself
and will be found on p. 63 of his 1885 edition. In
this error he was preceded by Eberhard, and followed
by C. F. W. Miiller: it is repeated even in the
Halm-Laubmann edition (1900). Now that Nohl has
reminded us that, as stated already in the Ziirich
edition, the MS. reading is evat, not evant, there is
all the less reason for deleting the words to which
most German editors have taken exception in this
part of the speech—guod erat etus modi ut semel
vidisse satis esset. They may even be made to serve

EE πν..--

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 169

as a lesson in construing. ΝΟ] asks incredulously
‘Worauf soll sich der Sing. (eva¢) beziehen’? The
answer is to be found in the zd at the end of the
paragraph. Perhaps the following method of setting
forth a disputed passage may commend the MS.
reading to impartial students :

‘Etiamne gramineas hastas—vidi enim vos in hoc
nomine, cum testis diceret, commoveri: quod erat
eius modi ut semel vidisse satis esset, (in quibus . . .
plus quam semel) etiam id concupisti?’

A similar inability to allow for the anacolutha of
what may have been intended to represent rapid
rhetorical utterance (such as is exemplified in the
accusative eramineas hastas in the passage just quoted)
and a tendency to standardise, as it were, all such
passages by the application of a schoolmaster’s rules
of grammar may be discovered in Nohl’s note on
§ 127 where the only explanation (CZ. A’ev. xviii.
p- 211) which stands by the manuscript tradition
(quod... certe non sustulisset) is contemptuously
rejected. This passage may be noted also as illus-
trating a much-needed improvement in German
editions of Latin texts. It is difficult to over-estimate
the harm that has been done to learners by the abuse
of commas. A German will never say, with Cicero,
St guts eorum gui adsunt forte mitratur; he will
insist, with Nohl, on a comma after eovum, and
another after adswnt. This sort of thing has always
seemed to me to obscure the fact that the words
interpunctuated (here eorum gui adsunt) form a single
concept. In the last sentence of the passage under
consideration, Nohl’s 1908 edition has Mee enzm,
quod scriptum est inant in bast, declarat quid fuerit.
This is bad enough, but not so bad as the editor’s
previous texts, where one more comma is inserted
after declarat. There is therefore some progress here
in the matter of commas, just as there is at § 36
where Nohl now prints compone hoc quod postulo,
instead of with a comma after hoc, as he did in 1907.
But it ought to be obvious that, on any rational
system of punctuation, the construction of the sen-
tence quoted above from § 127 should not be obscured
by any commas at all.

It would be comparatively profitless to contrast
Nohl’s latest edition with the excellent school text
which he published in 1885: the field of criticism has
been largely extended since that date, and valuable
results have been obtained which are now common
property. But as recently as 1907 Noh! produced
a third and revised edition of his earlier work,
(Freytag, Leipzig). He was probably not so well-
versed then as he is now in the latest results of
criticism, and it is interesting to compare what he
puts forward as final in 1908 with readings to which
he had given the authority of his name in the year
immediately preceding. Thus he now reads ezus
modi (§ 6) for huzus modi: modo ut (§ 10) for modo:
at § 22 he restores to the text, though evidently with

‘

hesitation, the passage za C. Cato—aestimata est,
which he had previously omitted: at § 25 he reads
locupletissima et amplissima instead of as formerly
locupletissima : § 36 hic iudices in place of hosce iud.:
8 43 despoliaretur st emeras? guid erat quod, etc.,
instead of despoliaretur? Si emeras quid erat quod.
This improvement Nohl attributes, by the way, to
Baiter, whereas it is really the reading given by
Lambinus. In § 48 words previously omitted are
restored to the text—de patelii's pateris turibulis: § 54
a change for the worse is made at the opening of the
section, where there should be no parenthesis, the
construction being obviously consecutive,—me extsti-
metis . . . videte, etc.: ibid. δὲ paterts is added
to the text, and zz¢erzm is substituted for the MS.
tamen: ὃ 67 td sibi—abstulisse is quite rightly sub-
stituted, in accordance with MS. authority, for the
7d ab se—abstulisse of previous editions: ὃ 102 umam
eligam for eligam: § 104 legibus ac for legibus aut:
§ 122 picta praeclare for picta: §124 cludendum for
claudendum: § 128 Schlenger is rightly cited: in
1907 he was called Schlenge (Vorrede to the Freytag
edition, p. 4): ὃ 144 zs¢7us is altered to Suisse (after
commonefaceret, to vouch for which reading the
despised and rejected S is cited as well as p).
Most of these changes are improvements and _ their
adoption since the publication of the 1907 edition
is an indication that Nohl has profited by the recent
work of other students of the Verrines.

Nohl lays claim to the most scrupulous accuracy,
even in matters of detail. He goes so far as to
chronicle the fact (p. 162) that whereas the Richter-
Eberhard 3rd edition, which he is revising, has
‘pervenit res ad istius aures, nescio quo modo’ he
has decided (quite correctly) to omit the comma.
But his critical appendix is by no means free from
errors, of which the following may be cited as
examples: ὃ 14 “1 lébédind non feceris is wrongly
credited to Madvig: it occurs in the Lezdensis:
§ 29 ‘tuama... istius B.’ This is exactly the
opposite of the fact, ¢wam being found in pé (8) and
istius in RS (a): § 35 wt is given in the notes, but
the text has not been altered to correspond, and
uti still appears: ὃ 55 de zstius pallio is credited to
Zumpt, though there is MS. authority for the reading :
8 64 the references should be 3, 77 and 3, 129 instead
of 2, 77 and 2, 129: ὃ 104 the last note (Aas zn Ais)
is wrongly included in this section, and should be
transferred to § 106: ὃ 107 declararant is a misprint
for declararunt: ὃ 140 the note ‘7//ius a, istius B’
is misplaced, it should come first in the section:
§ 146 the note on a/iguz is also in the wrong order,
it ought to precede that on P. Caesetius.

W. PETERSON,

M‘Gill University, Montreal,
March, 1909.

170

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

SEDULIUS SCOTTUS, AND JOHANNES SCOTTUS.

Quellen und Untersuchungen 2ur lateinischen Philo-
logie des Mittelalters. WHerausgegeben von LUDWIG
TRAvURE. Vol. I. Part 1. ‘Sedulius Scottus,’
von S. HELLMANN, Privatdozent der Geschichte
an der Universitat Miinchen. Pp. 203. M. 8. 50.
Part 2. ‘Johannes Scottus,’ von E. K. Ranpb,
Assistant Professor of Latin at Harvard University.
Munich: Beck, 1906. Pp. 106. M.6. ~

THE above works are the first two parts of the series
of studies in mediaeval Latin philology founded by
the lamented paleographer and mediaevalist, Ludwig
Traube of Munich. Both of them came to the know-
ledge of the present writer immediately after their
publication, but it was only recently that he was re-
quested to review them. The first deals with Sedulius
Scottus, the Irishman of Liége, who was copying a
Greek Psalter, and writing Latin verses founded on
Virgil, Ovid and Fortunatus, about the middle of the
ninth century. It begins with the first completely
satisfactory text of the Liber de rectoribus Christiants,
a noteworthy contribution to the political philosophy
of the Middle Ages, dedicated to Lothar II about
855-9. It is written in prose intermingled with sets
of verse in various metres after the model of the
Philosophiae Consolatio of Boéthius, from whom the
author borrows directly when he prefaces his first set
of verses with the following sentence: ‘haec quae
breviter stilo prosali diximus, a/égua versuum dztlce-
dine concludamus.’ To the classical scholar the
interest of his work lies in the reminiscences of the
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, as well as of Virgil
and Ovid. The following is a favourable specimen
of his Sapphics :

Quid valet flavi nitor omnis auri,

Ostra quid prosunt rosei decoris,

Gloriae quid sunt Scythicaeque gemmae,

Quid diadema,

Orba si mentis acies hebescat,

Lumen ut verum nequeat tueri,

Unde discernat bona prava justa,
Fasque nefasque ἢ

Next follows an important monograph on the
Collectaneum in the library at Cues on the Mosel,
which first attracted the notice of scholars when it
was announced that it included certain new fragments
of Cicero’s orations Jz Pisonem and Pro Fonteio. It
also included excerpts from the Scrzptores Historiae

Augustae, and it was ultimately proved by Traube
that this miscellaneous MS was the commonplace-
book of Sedulius. His knowledge of Vegetius may be
due to the Irish colony at Laon, while that of Valerius
Maximus may be ascribed to non-Irish influence at
Stavelot, S.E. of Liege, and that of Cicero may have
come from MSS at Louvain or Liege, where (it will
be remembered) Petrarch discovered a copy of Cicero’s
speech Pro Archia in 1333. The editor adds Cicero’s
Tusculan Disputations to the works known to
Sedulius; he also shows that the orthographical
peculiarities of the Collectaneum are mainly of Irish
origin, and draws the same inference in the case of
the Latin Proverbia Graecorwm included in it.

Dr. Rand’s contribution to the series contains the
text of two anonymous Commentaries on the Ofzescula
Sacra, now accepted as the genuine works of Boéthius.
The author of the first is identified by Dr. Rand as
Johannes Scottus, and that of the second as Remigius
of Auxerre. This identification proves that, about
870 (a date approximately referred to in the first
Commentary), John the Scot was still in Frankland
and had not returned to England. It also shows
that, so far from his being a resolute opponent of
Boéthius (as supposed, for example, in Mr. H. F.
Stewart’s interesting essay on that author), he was
actually in general agreement with him. He knows
his Virgil, but he is not a humanist like Eric of Aux-
erre, the commentator on Juvenaland Persius, who sup-
plies us with the earliest evidence of the influence of
the study of Horace’s Odes in France. Dr. Rand clearly
shows that John the Scot had no sympathy with a
purely humanistic devotion to the study of the
classics, but that he is the prophetic precursor of
the scholastic controversies of the Middle Ages. A
large part of Dr. Rand’s work lies outside the im-
mediate province of the Classtcal Keview, but it
presents us with an admirable example of precise and
scholarly method applied to the solution of intricate
literary problems, and Harvard may be congratulated
on having a scholar of his wide interests among the
members of its professorial staff.

Both of these works should be studied closely by
any one who wishes to form an accurate conception
of the important place taken by Irishmen such as
Sedulius of Liége and John the Scot in the intellectual
life of the ninth century in Europe.

J. E. SANDys.

1 0 or

J THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 171

SHORT NOTICES

Dictionnaire Etymologique du Latinet du Grec
dans ses Rapports avec le Latin a’apres la
Méthode Evolutionniste. Par Pau Rec-
NAUD, Professeur de Sanscrit et de Gram-
maire comparée ἃ l'Université de Lyon.
Paris: Librarie E. Leroux. Fr. το.

Tuts work, which shows a high degree of
industry, is unhappily distinguished by clumsy
arrangement and an absolute disregard of
phonetic laws. It is only necessary to quote
one or two examples. Under foena we have
no mention of the fact that the retention of
an ‘oe’ diphthong in an unaccented syllable
in Latin is irregular. Similarly under dos no
mention is made of the fact that the pure
Latin form would be twos, and that dos must
therefore be a dialect word. Under zgztur
we have ‘étymologie tres incertaine—Peut-
étre pour ftecc—itus combinaison de ἴδε, ecce
et de l’adv. ablatif jztws.’ Comment would
be wasted. The méthode evoluttonniste, what-
ever it may be, has no relation to the
scientific study of language.

S. E. JACKSON.

Le Rappresentanze Figurate delle Provincte
Romane. By MICHELE JATTA. Pp. 86.
With 4 collotype plates and 12 illustrations.
Roma: Loescher. 1908. 8 lire.

-Sicnor Jarra’s brochure is a useful piece of

work. It consists of a careful enumeration
of the monuments, with notes on the types of
the personifications of provinces and their
development, and on their dependence on
the types of cities and countries in pre-
Roman art. That art, he concludes, shows
but small creative power in respect to the
conception and types of the personified
provinces, the scenes represented and the
attributes employed. And yet, if they are
regarded as a whole, and their attributes
considered as the expression of a political
and economic idea, they reveal a life all their
own, and present an artistic phenomenon
quite foreign to earlier art, and capable of
giving a Roman stamp to the old elements
that constitute them. That, we may remark,

is a conclusion which may be applied to the
monuments of Roman art asa whole. The
illustrations are good and interesting ; perhaps
one, instead of five, of the medallions from
the Zeugma mosaic would have sufficed, since
they are purely conventional.

G:F. Ee

British Museum.

MAURICE CROISET.
Fr. 2.50,

Ménandre: T Arbitrage.

Paris, 1908. Pp. 93.
Mr. CroisET, who assisted in the edztio
princeps of the new fragments, has now
edited the scenes of the Zfztrepontes separ-
ately with critical and general notes and a
translation of his own. The critical notes
are brought well up to date by containing
many of Korte’s conclusions from the
papyrus, and the commentary is brief and
serviceable. A reviewer is bound in duty to
add that the editor’s knowledge of things
is not always to be trusted. It throws an
unwelcome light on the state of Greek
scholarship in France, if a leading and
distinguished scholar can think that a dactyl
is admissible in the second foot of an iambic
verse and a spondee in the fourth (οὐδὲν
yap γλυκύτερόν ἐστιν ἢ πάντ᾽ εἰδέναι and ἀλλ᾽
ἀπαγαγεῖν παρ᾽ ἀνδρὸς σοῦ τὴν θυγατέρα). It
would have been painful to Cobet to find
the former verse actually ascribed to him,
for Croiset fails to notice that he omitted
yap. It is an equal error at 517 to
attribute a spondee in the second foot to
Headlam. ἔστε until should not have been
introduced into the text of the prosaic
Menander. Herodotus uses it, and so does
Xenophon, who is often unattic ; but other-
wise it is poetical and not to be found in
comedy, even in lyrics. σύν also, which Croiset
inserts elsewhere, is probably found nowhere
in Menander, except in such a stock phrase
as σὺν θεοῖς. In the line immediately before
this (510) he is satisfied with τὸν φίλτατον
kat τὸν γλυκύτατον παῖδ᾽ ἐμόν, and actually
writes a note on ἐμόν without seeing that its
position in the absence of an article would
need, to say the least of it, some defence.

172

But in spite of a few such errors the book
will be found handy and pleasant. fy R,

Early Greek Philosophy. By Professor J.
BurNeET. London: A. & C. Black, 1908.
2nd ed. 12s. 6d. net.

THE first edition of this book appeared in
1892. It has been enlarged from 378 pp. to
433 pp., and the index is now much more
complete. The writer says that he has not
tried to amend the style; but in very many
places the line of thought is brought out
more clearly, either by a change of expression
or else by the addition of a few sentences.
Inaccurate or misleading statements are cor-
rected, while the increased number of notes
and quotations is not the least of the im-
provements in the new edition.

Professor Burnet now sees that the Greeks
were not such spinners of theories as is often
supposed. They understood thoroughly the
importance of prolonged observation—and
perhaps of experiment—before framing a
hypothesis ; owing to the defects of our tradi-
tion we often have only the results reached
by the early Greek philosophers, without the
preliminary study by which they were ob-
tained. Professor Burnet would have found
considerable support for this view in the
writings of Hippocrates: the ‘clinical his-
tories’ of the Zfzdemics are records of
observations unsurpassed for care, accuracy
and scientific precision. It is, however,
pleasing to note that Professor Burnet does
see the importance of paying more attention
to the light thrown upon ancient philosophy
by the history of medicine. The chapter,
for instance, dealing with the Pythagoreans
is nearly doubled in size. We now know,
through the recent publication of extracts
from the history of medicine known as
Menon’s /atrika, that Philolaus wrote on
medicine. Professor Burnet is of opinion,
and it seems a correct one, that later
Pythagoreanism differed from its earlier
form because, as leaders of medical thought
in Italy, the Pythagoreans were obliged to
take ‘elements’ into account. The theory
of ‘elements,’ alien from early Pythagorean
thought, was forced upon the school by the
study of medicine.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

For the classical student, who is not yet
acquainted with Greek philosophy, a better
text-book could scarcely be found. It makes
hard reading, but the advantages of mastering
it are well worth the pains. Less brilliant
and less suggestive than Gomperz, Professor
Burnet does not (herein differing from many
of his predecessors) presuppose a knowledge
of the data. He gives translations of the
philosophic fragments, and all who know
the extreme difficulty of these will be grateful
for the help and guidance thus afforded.

W. Η. S. J.

Athenian White Lekythoi, with outline draw-
ing in glaze varnish on a white ground,
By ARTHUR FaIRBANKS. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1907. Pp. 371.
With 15 plates and 57 illustrations in
ed i te Ce 72

Mr. ἙΑΙΕΒΑΝΚΒ has given a very interesting
and useful account of one class of the
Athenian white lekythi, those with drawing
outlined in black or yellow lustrous pigment
(oddly styled ‘glaze varnish’); those with
drawing in dull colour are reserved for a
possible second volume. ‘The examples
described cover the period 475-430 B.c., and
number some 430 in all. They are classified
in four groups according to the method of
drawing, as set forth in a table which occu-
pies the unusual position of frontispiece; each
class contains about a hundred examples.
Every specimen is fully described, and the
plates are well executed; there is also a
useful synopsis of subjects on p. 337. The
indices are complete and satisfactory, but a
table of contents is badly needed, as the.
head-lines do not help the reader sufficiently.
It may be noted that σάκκος (p. 76) is a vox
nihili, at least in the sense of a woman’s.
head-dress ; also that the genuineness of the.
inscription on p. 77 has been doubted.

Η.ἘΞ Wi
Virgil’s LEpische Technik. Von RICHARD.
HeEINnzE. B. G. Teubner, 1908. Zweite
Auflage. Pp. 498.

THE first edition of this work was published
in 1902. On the appearance of a second.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

edition it may be useful to recall the general
character of an important book. The
author’s object is to arrive at an understand-
ing of the processes which brought the
Aeneid into being. His pages do not deal
at all with the style or versification of the
Aeneid, matters of much moment for the
general effect produced by the poem, but not
for the understanding of it as a work of the
epic poet’s art. The chief object is to reveal
the artistical tendencies of the Aenezd by
means of an examination of the Aeneid
itself. The book is in two parts, the first
comprising an analysis of the larger con-

NEWS AND

THE ‘ELECTRA’

THE L£iectra of Sophocles in Greek was
given on July 15, 16, and 17 in the Court
Theatre. After all needful deductions are
made, for cramped stage and for the un-
avoidable imperfections of amateurs, the play
as a whole was very well done. By its effect
even on those who could not follow the
ancient tongue and had beforehand a very
imperfect notion of the plot, the work of
Sophocles once more demonstrated its power
as a finely constructed and great tragedy.
If the antique atmosphere is sometimes
a bar to perfect sympathy in reading,
ὄψις breaks through all that, and the
universal humanity of it reaches the
heart. And this in spite of imperfections
of rendering. The little stage allows no
room for a proper ὀρχήστρα. Perhaps one
may mention also, in the present widespread
interest in an improved pronunciation of
Greek and Latin, that vowel quantities and
doubled consonants were often quite indis-
tinct, the rhythm of lyric parts not always
clear. It is a pity, too, that yv should have
been spoken like gz in German, for which
there is really no evidence, and that ¢ should
have been sounded as sd or zd, the evidence
for which is greatly outweighed by the
evidence for dz.

The musical accompaniment, for harp and
wood-wind mainly, was composed by Mr.
Bantock, Professor of Music in the Uni-

173

nected divisions of the Aene/d in the matter
of technique. The object here is to deter-
mine what the poet found in his sources, and
what he borrowed from his models, and on
this ground to track down his transforming
and creative activities. In the second part
the results so attained are put together, and
an attempt is made to offer a complete and
systematic idea of epic technique. The
second edition is slightly modified in accord-
ance with the views expressed by Norden in
his commentary on dened VI.

S. E. WINBOLT.

COMMENTS

versity of Birmingham, and was simple but
effective. Without seeming thin, it afforded
a better hint of how the ancient combination
may have sounded than any other which the
present writer has heard. The exceedingly
difficult part of Electra was admirably done
by Miss E. L. Calkin; Clytaemnestra by
Miss Strudwick was also good; the others
were adequate; the death scene was thrill-
ingly rendered. The chorus, by the grace of
their movements, in spite of the narrow space
available, presented a series of exquisite pic-
tures which two American spectators at least
will long remember.

G.

EvurRopEan scholars may be interested to
hear how the pioneer work of classical study
is done 7” partibus. Prof. H. D. Naylor, of
Adelaide, has been lecturing in Perth to
crowded audiences, on the Platonic Socrates ;
and he had a good house even at Kilgourlie
on the Gold Fields. The Greeks of Perth,
ever ready as Greeks are to respond to a
national appeal, entertained Mr. Naylor at a
dinner and expressed their sympathy with
his efforts. Our readers know that Greek is
a dead language at the antipodes ; perhaps it
would be more correct to say that it has not
yet come to life.

In South Africa, Miss M. V. Williams has
lectured to the Classical Association on
Reformed methods of teaching Latin and
Greek.

174

TuE longest papers in the July Quarterly
are Mr. W. Scott’s on the difficult chorus in the
Helena, 1301 sqq., with an appendix criticiz-
ing Mr. Verrall’s theory of the play, and Mr.
Rice Holmes’s examination of Sign. Ferrero’s
views upon Caesar’s First Commentary. Mr.
Winstedt writes on some curious Coptic
legends about Roman emperors, Mr. Corn-
ford on Plato, Phaedo 105 A, and Mr. G. B.
Hussey on χρυσοχοεῖν in Rep. 4508. Mr.
Kronenberg has critical notes on Epictetus
and Mr. Cook Wilson one upon Clement.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Mr. Summers completes his textual annota-
tions on Seneca’s Letters. Mr. T. W. Allen
reviews Agar’s Homerica at length, and Mr.
Stuart Jones two important catalogues of
Italian Museums. There are shorter notices,
of Wenger’s Legal Representation in Papyrt
by Mr. A. 8. Hunt, and of Prentice’s /nscrip-
tions from Syria by the editor of this Journal.

Tue Editor wishes to say that the letter
on page 142 signed S. should have been
signed 2.

TRANSLATION

(THEOGNIs A. 69-86.)

Μήποτε, Kipve, κακῷ πίσυνος βούλευε σὺν
ἀνδρί,
εὖτ᾽ ἂν σπουδαῖον πρῆγμ᾽ ἐθέλῃς τελέσαι,

ἀλλὰ per’ ἐσθλὸν ἰὼν βούλευ καὶ πολλὰ
μογῆσαι
καὶ μακρὴν ποσσίν, Κύρν᾽, ὁδὸν ἐκτελέσαι.
Πρῆξιν μηδὲ φίλοισιν ὅλως ἀνακοίνεο πᾶσι"

an ΄ A ‘ ” ,
Tavpot τοι πολλῶν πιστὸν ἔχουσι νόον.

Παύροισιν πίσυνος μεγαλ᾽ ἀνδράσιν ἔργ᾽ ἐπι-

7,
χείρει,
͵ ? > » ,
μή ποτ᾽ ἀνήκεστον, Κύρνε, λάβῃς avinv.

Ν > Ἀ
Πιστὸς ἀνὴρ χρυσοῦ τε καὶ ἀργύρου ἀντερύ-
σασθαι ;
” > “
ἄξιος ἐν χαλεπῇ, Κύρνε, διχοστασίῃ.
’ὔ ε
Παύρους εὑρήσεις, ἸΠολυπαΐδη, ἄνδρας ἑταί-
ρους
Ν > »
πιστοὺς ἐν χαλεποῖς πρήγμασι γινομένους,
o a nw ε , A m”
οἵτινες Gv τολμῷεν ὁμόφρονα θυμὸν ἔχοντες
> a A r ΡΞ
ἶσον τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν τε κακῶν μετέχειν.
’
Τούτους οὐχ εὕροις διζήμενος οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντας
5 / lal
ἀνθρώπους, οὕς ναῦς μὴ pla πάντας ἄγοι,

Φ Br «᾿ς , Ν > a ”

οἷσιν ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ τε καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἔπεστιν
> / 39) > ‘ ee ed , ΝΥ
αἰδώς, οὐδ᾽ αἰσχρὺν χρῆμ᾽ ἔπι κέρδος ἄγει.

1. My son, take thou never counsel with the
wicked,

Neither put thou thy trust in him when
thou wouldest bring any worthy thing
to pass:

2. But find thee out an upright man:

Yea, even with long toil and far wandering
shalt thou seek him.

3. Commit not thy way utterly unto any
man, no, not unto thy friends,

For there be few that are of an honest
heart.

4. When thou art about a great matter put
not confidence in many,

Lest a grievous mischief come upon thee
thereby.

5. Verily a sure man is precious :

In the needful time of distress he is
beyond silver and gold.

6. Not many shalt thou find faithful of them
that company with thee,

Men that would endure to be of one mind
with thee and to share thy evil fortune
as thy good.

7. Make diligent search for such even in all
lands,

But thou shalt not find them :

8. Yea, one ship might bear all them upon
whose tongue and in whose eyes dwelleth
righteousness,

Who take no evil thing in hand for
advantage.

Hucu G. EveLyN-WHITE.

ν᾿

_Dihnhardt (Oskar) Natursagen.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 175

BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note of
the price.

The size of Books is given in inches: 4 inches=10 centimetres (roughly). They are unbound unless
the binding ts specified. ;
*,” Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Abbott (Edwin A.) The Message of the Son of Man.
9’ x 53”. Pp, xxii+ 166. London, Adam ἃ Charles
Black. 1909. Cloth, 4s. 6d. net.

Appel (Georgius) De Romanorum precationibus.
(Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten.
Band Κα. Heft 2.) 9x6". Pp. 222. Giessen,
Alfred Tépelmann. 1909. M. 7.

Aristophanes. Aristophanis Cantica, digessit stro-
pharum popularium appendiculam adjecit Otto
Schroeder. (B76. Script. Gr. et. Rom. Teub.)
74’ x 42". Pp. viiit+1oo. Leipzig, B. G. Teub-
ner. 1909. geh. M. 2.40; geb. in Leinwand, M.
2.80.

Aristophanis Pax, edidit Konradus Zacher.
Prefatus est Ottomarus Bachmann. 9}”x6". Pp.
xxxii+128. Leipzig,B.G.Teubner. 1909. geh.M.5.

Cauer (Paul) Die Kunst des Ubersetzen. Ein
Hilfsbuch fiir den lateinischen und griechischen
Unterricht. Vierte, vielfach verbesserte und ver-
mehrte Auflage. 8:15 χ 54”. Pp. viilit+168.> Berlin,

᾿ Weidman. 1909. geb. in Leinwand, M. 4.

Classical Weekly, The. Published by the Classical
Association of the Atlantic States. Edited by
Gonzalez Lodge. Vols. I. and II. 103” x8”. Pp.
iv+232, iv+248. New York. 1908, 1909. I
dollar a year.

Commentationes Philologae Jenenses ediderunt Semin-
arit Philologorum Jenensis Professores. Vol. VIII.
Fasc. posterior. 9} x 58". Pp. 184. Leipzig,
B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 8.

Eine Sammlung
naturdeutender Sagen, Marchen, Fabeln und Legen-
den. Band II. Sagen zum neuen Testament.
10” x 62”. Pp. xvi+316. Leipzig und Berlin, B. G.
Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 8; geb. M. I0.50.

De Stoop (E.) Essai sur la diffusion de Manichéisme
dans empire Romain. 93” x6}. Pp. viili+152.
Gand, van Goethem. 1909.

Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Uhre Entwicklung und
ihre Ziele. Ierausgegeben von Paul Hinneberg.
Teil I. Abt. 5. Allgemeine Geschichte der Philo-
sophie, von Wilhelm Wundt, Hermann Oldenberg,
Ignaz Goldziher, Wilhelm Grube, Tetsujiro Inouye,
Hans von Arnim, Clemens Baeumker, Wilhelm
Windelband. 104” 73". Vp. viilit+572. Leipzig
und Berlin, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 12;
geb. M. 14.

Domaszewski (Alfred von) Abhandlungen zur
romischen Religion. 9}” x6”. Pp. viii+240, mit
26 Abb. im Text und einer Tafel. Leipzig und
Berlin, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 6; geb.
in Leinwand, M. 7.

Duff (J. Wight) A Literary History of Rome, from
the Origens to the Close of the Golden Age. 9” x 6”.
Pp. xvi+696. T. Fisher Unwin. 1909. 12s. 6d. net.

Eger (Dr. Jur. Otto) Zur aegyptischen Grundbuch-
wesen in rémischer Zeit. Untersuchungen auf Grund
der griechischen Papyri. 9%” x 6}”. Pp. viii+ 212.
Leipzig und Berlin, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh.
M. 7; geb. in Leinwand, M. 8.

Euripides. The Phoenissae. Edited by A. C. Pear-
son, M.A. (Pitt Press Series.) 63" x 4%". Pp.
I(50)+246. Cambridge, University Press. 1909.
Cloth, 4s.

Friedlinder (Ludwig) Roman Life and Manners
under the Early Empire; by Ludwig Friedlander.
Authorized translation of the Seventh enlarged and
revised edition of the Sittengeschichte Roms, by
J. H. Freese, M.A.(Camb.) and Leonard A. Mag-
nus, LIB. In three volumes. Vol. 11. 8’ x5”.
Pp. xvili+ 366. London, George Routledge. 1909.
Cloth, 6s.

Gafiot (Félix) Pour le vrai latin. 1.
Pp. 174. Paris, Ernest Leroux. 1909.

Harry (J. E.) Studies in Euripides: Hippolytus.
University Studies, published by the University of
Cincinnati. Series II. Vol. iv. No. 4. Nov.—Dec.,
1908. Pp. 72. University Press, Cincinnati.

Hartmann (Nicolai) Platos Logik des Seins. (Fhi/o-
sophische Arbetten, herausgegeben von Hermann
Cohen und Paul Natorp. Band 711.) ο΄ x 64".
Pp. x+518. Giessen, Alfred Tépe!mann. 1909.
M. 15.

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Edited by a
Committee of the Classical Instructors of Harvard
University. Vol. XX. 1909. 9”x 52?” Pp. 174.
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. ;
London, Longmans, Green, & Co. ; Leipzig, Otto
Harrassowitz. 1909. Paper boards, 6s. 6d. net.

Hellenica Oxyrhynchia cum Theopompi et Cratippi
Fragmentis. Recognoverunt brevique adnotatione
critica instruxerunt B. P. Grenfell et A. S. Hunt.
(Script. Class. Bibl. Oxon.) 7%"x5". Pp. viii
+172(?). Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. Paper,
4s. ; cloth, 4s. 6d.

Hiirschy (N. C.) Artaxerxes III. Ochus and his
reign, with special consideration of the O.T.
sources. (Doctor’s Dissertation.) 10’ x 63”. Pp.
86. Chicago, University Press. 1909. Cl. 81
cents post free.

Jebb (Sir R. C.) Samson Agonistes and the Hellenic
Drama. By the late Sir R. C. Jebb,O.M. (From
the Proceedings of the British Academy. Vol. 111.)
οἵ x 6}. Pp. 8. London, Henry Frowde. 1909.
Is. net.

10” x 64”.

176

Lésch (Stephan) Die Einsiedler Gedichte. Eine
literar-historische Untersuchung. Inaugural-Dis-
sertation. 9}”x6}”. Pp. xii+88, mit 1 tafel.
Tiibingen, J. J. Hechenhauer. 1909.

Lucanus. Adnotationes super Lucanum, primum ad
vetustissimorum codicum fidem edidit Joannes Endt.
(Bibl. Script. Gr. et Rom. Teub.) 71" 43“. Pp.

xii+448. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh.
M. 8; geb. in Leinwand, M. 8.60.
Maccart (L.) La Perikeiromene di Menandro.

10?” x 8”. 1909.

Macchioro (Vittorio) 1] Simbolismo nelle figurazioni
sepolcraliromane. StudidiErmeneutica. Memoria
letta alla R. Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e
Belle Arti di Napoli. 12}’x9”. Fp.144. Napoli,
Achille Cimmaruta. 1909.

Marquand (Allan) Greek Architecture. (Handbooks
of Archeology and Antiquities.) 8" x 5". Pp. x +426,
with 392 illustrations. New York, The Macmillan
Company. 1909. Cloth, Ios. net.

Nelson (Axel) Die WHippokratische Schrift περὶ
φυσῶν. Textund Studien. Inaugural-Dissertation.
93” x 64". Pp. 120. Upsala, Almqvist und Wik-
sell. 1909.

P. Papini Stati Silvae. Varietatem lectionis selectam
exhibuit Gregorius Saenger. 7}’x53". Pp.
viili+232. Petropoli, ex Officina Senatus. 1909.

Philostratos tiber Gymmastik. Von Julius Jiithner.
(Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Kommentare 2u
eriechischen und rimischen Schriftstellern.) 92" x
61“. Pp. viiit+ 336. Leipzig und Berlin, B. G. Teub-
ner. 1909. geh. M. 10; geb. in Leinwand, M. 11.

Poland (Franz) Geschichte des griechischen Vereins-
wesens. (Preisschriften gekrint und herausgegeben
von der Fiirstlichen Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft zu
Leipzig. XXXVIII, Nr. xxiii. der historisch-
nationalokonomischen Sektion.) 113’ χ 73. Pp.
656. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 24.

Preuschen (Dr. Erwin) Vollstandiges Griechisch-
Deutsches Handworterbuch zu den Schriften des
Neuen Testaments und der iibrigen urchristlichen

Pp. 44. Trani, Vecchi e C.

Literatur. Lieferung 4. 103”x 73". Pp. 241-320
(Columns (481-640). Giessen, Alfred Topelmann.
1909. M. 1.80.

Rodenwaldt (Gerhart) Die Komposition der pompe-
janischen Wandgemilde. 9}”x 63". Pp. 270.

Berlin, Weidmann. 1909. M. 9.

Sanctis (Gaetano De) Per la Scienza dell’ Antichita.
Saggie Polemiche. 835 Χ 5”. Pp. xii+ 532. Torino,
Fratelli Bocca. 1909. Lire 6.

(Albert). Eine Gebaudegruppe in
Olympia. (Zur Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes.
Heft 66.) 11}"x8". Pp. 42, mit 5 Tafeln.
Strassburg, J. H. Ed. Heitz. 1909. M. 3.50.

Scott (J. A.) Studies in Greek Sigmation. Reprint

from a periodical unspecified, pp. 69-77, 72-77:
83" x 58”. Evanston, Illinois. 1909. Cl.

Schwarzstein

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Seneca. De Otio. Edition accompagnée de notes
critiques et d’un commentaire explicatif, par René

Waltz. ὍΣ ΧΟ Pp. 38. Paris, Librairie
Hachette et Cie. 1909. Fr. 3.
Sophocles. The Trachinian Maidens of Sophocles.

Translated into English verse, by Hugo Sharpley,
M.A. 62”x 43". Pp. 68. London, David Nutt.
1909. Is. 6d. net.

Sudhaus (S.) Der Aufbau der plautinischen Cantica.

84” x 52”. Pp. 154. Leipzig und Berlin, B. G.
Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 5; geb. in Leinwand,
M. 6.

Tacitus. The Agricola. With introduction and

notes by Duane Reed Stuart. 7”x43”". Pp.
xxvili+112. New York, The Macmillan Company.
1909. Cloth, 40 α.

Tambornino (Julius) De antiquorum daemonismo.
(Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbetten.
Band VII. Heft3.) 9x6". Pp. 112. Giessen,
Alfred Topelmann. 1909. M. 3.40.

Thackeray (Henry St. John) A Grammar of the Old
Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint.
Vol. I. Introduction, orthography and accidence.
72"x 5". Pp. xx+326. Cambridge, University
Press. 1909. Cloth, 8s. net.

Thain (Leslie)
74" x 42".
1909.

Theophrastt Characteres recensuit Hermannus Diels.
(Serzpt: Class. “ Bibl. Oxon.)- 74°x 5". ἘΠῚ
xxvili+ 68 (Ὁ. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909.
Paper, 35. ; Cloth, 3s. 6d.

Thucydides. Book III. Edited by E. C. Marchant,
M.A. 62”x4". Pp. xlii+226. London, Mac-
millan & Co. 1909. Cloth, 3s. 6d.

Tissier (Jean) Table Analytique des Articles du
Journal des Savants, 1859-1908. 103” x84”. Pp.
62. Paris, Librairie Hatchette et Cie. 1909.

Weinreich (Otto). Antike Heilungswunder. Unter-
suchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und
Romer. (Leligionsgeschichtliche Versuche und
Vorarbeiten. Band VIII. Heftr.) 9x6". Pp.
xli+212. Giessen, Alfred Topelmann. 1909. M. 7.

Zeller (Franz X.) Die Zeit Kommodians.
Dissertation. 84” x 5”.
H. Laupp, Jr. 1909.

Ziebarth (Erich) Aus dem griechischen Schulwesen.
Eudemos von Milet und Verwandtes. 82” x 52”.
Pp. viiit+150. Leipzig und Berlin, B. G. Teubner.
geh. M. 4; geb. in Leinwand, M. 5.

Zimmermann (Johannes) Luciani quae feruntur
podagra et ocypus. 9} x6”. Pp. xii+82. Leip-
zig, B. G. Teubner. 1909. geh. M. 3; geb. in
Leinwand, M. 4.

and other Poems.
Hereford, Jakeman & Carver.

Timotheus
Pp. 42.

Inaugural-
Pp. x+161-408. Tiibingen,

ERRATA.

P. 99, 2nd col., line 4, jor ‘ Analecta’ read
“ Anthologia.’

P. 135, 2nd col., line 6 from end, for ‘second
person’ vead ‘third person.’

The Classical Review

SEPTEMBER

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE POSITION OF CLASSICS IN SOUTH AFRICA.

Ir may be of some interest for those who
have been passing through the struggle for
the retention of compulsory Greek in the
older universities of England to know how
the case for the classical languages stands in
a newer country like South Africa. The
fierce contest within the senate-house at
Cambridge, resulting happily in a postpone-
ment, at least, of the evil day, has had its
counterpart here, the only difference being
that the question has been brought to a
speedier issue and that the hosts of the
Philistines have been practically too numerous
to admit of resistance.

The educational system in a colony must
always be determined largely by its peculiar
environment, and consequently as long as
the dwellers in the neighbourhood of the
Cape were mainly a pastoral, and therefore a
scattered, community, a university course
borrowed from the older universities and
relying chiefly upon books and a minimum
of up-to-date appliances was found to be very
suitable. The earliest course for the Arts
Degree in 1873 was therefore to a great extent
literary, a reflexion of the similar degree at
London, and after the fashion of the older
institution a pass in Latin and Greek was
demanded of every student that wished to
take a degree at the university. But since
that time education has spread far beyond
its original boundaries; large towns have

NO. CCIV. VOL. XXIII.

sprung up in the interior of the country, and
the development of the mining industry, the
growth of colonial industries and commerce,
and latterly the promotion of scientific farm-
ing, have largely changed the conditions of
life, and the university scheme has willy-nilly
been forced to change too. With the insti-
tution of a separate degree in science in 1883
came the abolition of compulsory Greek for
those taking a graduate course at the univer-
sity. This first concession has resulted, after
a transition period of long grief and pain,
during which instructors were forced to instil
Greek into candidates who took it up at the
last possible moment, in the abolition of
compulsory Greek even for the Literary B.A.,
that is, a student may take a so-called ‘ mixed’
degree, and substitute a science in place of
Greek.

But the hand of the destroyer has gone
deeper still. In Great Britain very few even
of the ardent reformers wish to uproot Latin
from the school and university curriculum.
Here, however, it has now become possible
for certain students to get a university degree
without the remotest suspicion of Latin.
This has been accomplished by the substitu-
tion of an examination with ‘practical’
alternatives to Latin in place of the ordinary
Matriculation for any student who wishes
to take a degree in Mining Engineering.
Simultaneously Latin has been made an

M

178

optional subject for everyone in the Inter-
mediate B.A., so that Latin now is in a fair
way to lose all interest except for the student
who has from the outset been marked out
for a literary career.

This dénouement calls forth two questions,
the answer to which may prove interesting.
The first is for the educationalists: ‘ How
far is such a policy justifiable even in the
light of compelling circumstances?’ The
second concerns the few who make the
classics their special care: ‘What steps
should be taken by the teachers of
Latin (and of Greek where such exist) to
enable their subject to hold its own and not
degenerate into a mere accomplishment ?’

In support of the action of the reformers
certain peculiarities in the present educa-
tional environment have often been adduced.
The ordinary schools of the country, many
of which are High Schools taking pupils as
far as Matriculation, provide a curious mix-
ture of primary and secondary education, z.e.,
at a certain point the secondary courses
necessitated by the lower university examina-
tions are grafted on to the primary stock, and
many a pupil who in Europe would merely
complete a primary course of instruction has
here been compelled, hitherto, to assimilate
the elements of the higher subjects at the
end of his school-life, only to discard them
immediately. Pupils who are destined for
the ordinary walks of life, who are to be
artisans, tradesmen, clerks, farmers or farmers’
assistants, have no more need of Latin here
than in any country, and a school-leaving
examination with ‘practical’ alternatives for
Latin could not reasonably be rejected for
such as these.

The real solution of this problem is, of
course, the establishment of two different
classes of schools to provide primary and
secondary education separately. But sup-
posing that to be for the present beyond the
range of practical politics, and even granting
that a number of the pupils of our schools
could gain little by the study of Latin and
would have no need of it in after life, yet
there will almost certainly be some who,
through the loop-hole of the ‘ practical’ alter-
natives, will escape a training in Latin, and
who may yet reach a status far different from

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

that of the occupations enumerated. How
many, for instance, of our farmers are obliged
by the force of circumstances to take up
important positions in later life, being elected
for Parliament and having a direct control
over the affairs of the country! Moreover,
there is no sphere of labour in South Africa
that cries out for workers more than that of
teaching, because, in the continual progress
of education, new schools are forever being
opened in more remote districts, and the
demand for teachers is a steady one. Con-
sequently many who never intended to teach,
when they are disappointed in their original
aims, try to qualify for this profession. It is
cases like these, I think, which the reformers
have not sufficiently considered ; it is here
that the new scheme will be at a disadvan-
tage. Few things could. be worse for a
country than that a large number of its
teachers should be utterly devoid of culture ;
and for the sake of such as these no subject,
least of all Latin, with its power of stimu-
lating thought, should be inconsequently
dropped. And in South Africa there is a
special reason why some training in a precise
language like Latin would benefit any whose
duty it is to aim at accuracy of thought
and expression. The large majority of the
population speak two vernaculars, Cape
Dutch and English, and with many the former
is the mother-tongue, and the latter has to
be learned as an additional language. Cape
Dutch, as everyone knows, is a dialect which
is seen at its best in humorous tales and
comic verse, a forcible instrument of expres-
sion in the domestic circle, but nothing more.
A child endeavouring to gain a thorough,
logical mastery of English would find the
other vernacular no help whatever either in
the way of mental or linguistic training,
whereas Latin, by forcing him first to think
clearly, would lead him to express himself
accurately, both in Latin, and, through trans-
lation, in English itself. Neither English
nor Cape Dutch has any merit in compelling
precision of thought, hence Latin is in this
case of supreme value, seeing that neither
French nor German is studied to any great
extent, and they are of little use in the
ordinary life of the country. If it be objected
that the teaching of Latin in the past has not

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 179

conduced to greater intellectual thoroughness
or to a better grasp of English the fault lies
with the low standard of work that has
hitherto been demanded and often with
inefficient teaching. In cases where Latin
has always been taught with thoroughness, it
has been felt that greater accuracy not only
in the use of English, but in every depart-
ment of the curriculum, has been the result.

The upshot of the whole matter is this.
If this concession to the ‘practical’ people is
but the thin edge of the wedge, and if they
mean in a few years’ time to leave Latin to
the option of every candidate for a degree,
irrespective of any special bent, the position
of the classics could hardly be worse, for a
commercial and agricultural country primarily
needs what is ‘useful,’ and a utilitarian popu-
lation inevitably prizes that which is in the
greatest demand. If the ‘practical’ alterna-
tives to Latin were once encouraged in the
schools, the latter subject would be reduced
to the position now held by Greek, and in
most cases be shelved because it would not
‘pay’ to have a teacher for it, and wherever
the schools fail to provide the teacher the
subject must inevitably go to the wall when
the population is as scattered as it is here.

If, on the other hand, the concession has
been made not as a preliminary to a complete
remodelling of the educational curriculum,
but merely to suit the convenience of a
particular section of the community, there is
every reason to hope that the position of the

classics may be improved rather than other-

wise by the change. The teacher will at
least be freed from the drudgery of drumming
the elements of Latin into pupils whose brains
were in no wise intended for it, and the
college lecturer similarly will be relieved of
the incubus of hopelessly ‘scientific’ candi-
dates in the Intermediate, whose struggles
with the more advanced work are painful to
all concerned. Being well rid of unsatis-
factory pupils, the teacher will be able to
prosecute his work with greater interest and
profit than has hitherto been possible ; and
in the interim, at any rate, until the extent of
the reform policy has become really apparent,
his best plan will be to establish the value of
his subject firmly by making it as attractive
as possible, by economising the time that is

spent on it, and by working for such a revision
of the university requirements that a more
satisfactory standard of knowledge and more
efficient teaching will be ensured.

I believe that the first two ends could
both be served if a more extensive use were
made of the ‘ Direct Method’ advocated so
strongly in the pages of the Classical Review.
Sometimes, however, classes here are too
large to admit of any approximation to the
conversational method, which can be em-
ployed comfortably only with classes of
twenty-five and under. Moreover, the
tyranny of the ‘Set-books’ at present prevents
teachers from dividing their time as they
would like. I have, however, made use of
the oral method whenever possible with the
most satisfactory results. The beginners’
class in Greek, it seems to me, can hardly be
worked well in any other way, seeing that the
whole ground-work has often to be covered
in a year. As a matter of fact, one pupil of
mine, after about five months’ work of two
lessons a week with the ‘Direct Method,’
gained a thorough grounding in Greek acci-
dence and simple syntax, together with a
great deal of intellectual pleasure, so that all
the evil accompaniments of ‘cram’ were
avoided.

The teaching of the classics, however, can-
not be put upon an entirely satisfactory
basis until the examinations, which to the
commercially-minded youth represent the goal
of study, are designed to further and not to
thwart the chief aim of classical study. That
aim, as all will agree, is to be able to read
and appreciate, to some extent, the best por-
tions of classical literature. As long as more
or less disconnected pieces of different
authors are prescribed for rigorously detailed
handling, the pupil is bound to give undue
attention to one or two works without gain-
ing any conception of the extent and value
of the whole field. Therefore if some
scheme could be introduced whereby more
extensive reading could be done, even if
some things, owing to pressure οἱ time, had
to be done, as at Birmingham University,
by means of translations, the classical course
would be productive of far greater interest
and lead to more general culture than at
present.

18ο

There are many things to encourage the
classical teacher out here.- The utilitarian
views of the elders are not innate in the
mind of the child, so that, where the teaching
is interesting, there is often an enthusiasm
for classical subjects; teachers do not find
that these subjects are disliked any more than
in England. Then, instead of the ‘intellec-
tual apathy’ of the English public school boy,
which has been deplored in recent articles,
there exists great keenness to ‘pass examina-
tions,’ an emotion in itself ignoble, but,
provided the examinations were improved,
capable of being utilised by the teacher to
further really desirable ends. For the classics,
being a literary and historical inheritance
which belongs to all people of European
origin, should claim the allegiance of both

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the races of South Africa. The stirring
memory of what our predecessors achieved
at one of the highest stages of past history
should prove an inspiration to a people who
are about to enter upon a new and important
era of progress, who are even now blending
varied characteristics into one consistent
whole. Grave problems are awaiting them,
for the right solution of which is required
not merely a knowledge of external conditions,
but a spiritual insight into the character and
history of the human race. The present is
surely not the time to discourage the study
of that literature which above all others
broadens the sympathies and enriches the
minds of men.
Mari£ V. WILLIAMS.

A NOTE ON THE TEACHING OF THE PASSIVE VOICE.

AmonG those who wish to introduce re-
forms into the teaching of elementary classics
there is considerable difference of opinion
about the most suitable time to begin the
passive voice. Many reformers are convinced
that it presents peculiar difficulties, and some
would postpone it until the second year, or
even later. It seems to the present writer
that, as the ultimate decision must depend
upon the experience of teachers, an account
of his own method of procedure may prove
of some service, even though it may be
neither the best possible, nor even nearly the
best.

Of course, the school conditions must be
taken into account. Much depends upon
the age of the learner, his capacity for
languages, and the amount of time he can
bestow upon Latin. In the present case the
boys begin Latin at about the age of twelve,
after at least one year of French, and spend
one period (three-quarters of an hour) on
Latin every day.

It is found not only possible but advan-
tageous to begin the passive voice towards
the end of the first year, very soon after the
active of the indicative mood has been
thoroughly mastered. The passive of the

subjunctive is introduced in the second year,
soon after (or even along with) the learning of
the active of that mood. The method em-
ployed is as follows.

It is pointed out that the tenses formed
from the present stem have in the passive the
endings -7, -77s, -tur, -mur, -mint,-ntur. The
passive of a// these tenses is then learnt,
especial care being given to the places where
the stem-vowel changes (vegz7s, regeris ; audit,
auditur). ‘The imperative, participle and
infinitive are simply learnt by heart. The
passives of perfect tenses are mastered in a
few minutes. Then follows a series of exer-
cises, worked both orally and in writing, in
which the active is changed into the passive
and vice-versa. Thus:

Caesar Gallos vincit, Galli a Caesare vincuntur ;

Puerum monuimus, Puer a nobis monitus est,
and so on.

These exercises are continued for about a
week, and then the class returns to the general
work of the text-book. But several times in
each lesson opportunities occur of revising
the knowledge recently acquired, until, after
perhaps a fortnight, few mistakes are made in
changing from one voice to another. It is
now time to strengthen the work already

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

done by a fresh series of exercises, consisting
of English passive sentences to be translated
into Latin. After two or three days at this
the only revision necessary is the introduc-
tion of a few passives into the composition
lesson, and the constant use of the same
voice in the Latin conversations with the
class, daily practice in which is an invaluable,
though not, perhaps, an essential part of the
‘oral method.’

181

The present writer never finds that the
passive voice causes trouble when taught in
this way, even though the amount of time
given to Latin is not great. Of course, if
Latin be begun at the age of nine or ten,
serious difficulties are bound to occur, and
three or four years may elapse before the
point is mastered.

W. H. S. Jones.

ON A REDISTRIBUTION OF THE PARTS IN AESCHYLUS,
AGAMEMNON, 1. 489-502.

Κλυ. τάχ᾽ εἰσόμεσθα λαμπάδων φαεσφόρων
φρυκτωριῶν τε καὶ πυρὸς παραλλα-
γάς, 490
Χορ. B. εἴτ᾽ οὖν ἀληθεῖς εἴτ᾽ ὀνειράτων δίκην
τερπνὸν τόδ᾽ ἐλθὸν φῶς ἐφήλωσεν
φρένας.
Φυλ. κήρυκ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀκτῆς τόνδ᾽ ὁρῶ κατάσκιον
κλάδοις ἐλαίας" μαρτυρεῖ δέ μοι κάσις
πηλοῦ ξύνουρος διψία κόνις τάδε, 495
Χορ. y. ὡς οὔτ᾽ ἄναυδος οὔτε σοι δαίων φλόγα
ὕλης ὀρείας σημανεῖ καπνῷ πυρός,
GAN ἢ τὸ χαίρειν μᾶλλον ἐκβάξει
λέγων"
Φυλ. τὸν ἀντίον δὴ τοῖσδ᾽ ἀποστέργω λόγον"
Χορ. y. εὖ γὰρ πρὸς εὖ φανεῖσι προσθήκη
πέλοι. 500
Χορ. 6. ὅστις τάδ᾽ ἄλλως τῇδ᾽ ἐπεύχεται πόλει,

αὐτὸς φρενῶν καρποῖτο τὴν ἁμαρτίαν.
. Versus secundum Script. Class. Bib. Oxon. computati.

489. Klytaemestrae notam, 501 chori, praefigunt
codd.: totum choro dat Scaliger: tribus choreutis (489,
493, 501) distribuebat Franz: de duobus cogitabat
Schneidewin: 489-500 custodi, 501 sq. coryphaeo
adsignat Keck.

499. δὴ conieci: δὲ codd.

Ir is generally accepted that the whole
passage (475-502) is divided between differ-
ent speakers. The epode must obviously be
assigned to members of the chorus: the
iambics are usually assigned to the leader
of the chorus, save the last two lines which
are spoken by another member of it. This
leaves the following difficulties in Il. 489-500.
(i) The assignment of the speech to Klytem-
estra by the MSS. is disregarded, (ii) κάσις
πηλοῦ ξύνουρος διψία κόνις τάδε is almost

unintelligible, (iii) σοι (I. 496) is a curious
use of the general 2nd person. The first
of these is not serious, but may give a clue
to the real speakers.

The arrangement given above claims to
elucidate these difficulties, and also to pro-
vide an episode in the play which is more
appropriate to the dramatic situation at this
point than the received version.

What is the situation? The chorus of Argive
elders has just sung an ode, suggested by the
arrival of the news (conveyed by a somewhat
precarious chain of beacon-fires) that ‘Troy
has fallen.’ In this incomparable poem they
first dwell on the workings of Providence.
This leads them to consider the infidelity
of Helen and the misery she has inflicted
on Menelaus and the whole army, and
finally, working themselves up to a pitch
of anger and suspicion, they openly express
their doubt as to whether the fire-borne
message has really any ground in truth. Is
it only a woman’s fancy? they ask.

The herald arrives very shortly however,
and he, presumably, will set their doubts at
rest. But expectation is disappointed, and
in the sequel he does not refer to the
beacons at all. Now the Athenians must
have been singularly lenient or singularly
indifferent, if they were content to witness a
play of which the first quarter is wholly
irrelevant or even contrary to the remainder,
and Dr. Verrall’s interpretation of the plot
is designed to meet this difficulty. Apart
from his book the view put forward in this
paper would certainly not have occurred to
me, and I assume throughout that the

182

entrance of the herald is a moment of
intense dramatic interest, mainly to Klytem-
estra. This is inevitable on Dr. Verrall’s
hypothesis in regard to the beacons, but it
appears to me also reasonable even if the
beacon-chain is really what Klytemestra
says it is. The opportunity for the assas-
sination is at hand, and it is most necessary
that the elders’ suspicions should be allayed :
the herald alone can bring this about, and
yet, if a rumour of the plot has reached
Agamemnon abroad, his agent may prove
only too ready to listen to what the elders
have to say, and to give the king warning.
Hence Klytemestra’s anxiety in any case.
While therefore I am personally a whole-
hearted supporter of Dr. Verrall’s theory with
regard to the plot, I think my view on
this particular passage fits in with other
interpretations too, though it is certainly
most applicable to his, and to my thinking
thereby commends itself the more.

I return to the concluding lines of the
epode. Now we know from Il. 590-593 that
Klytemestra either hears these words or has
them repeated to her, and the easiest sup-
position and the most convenient for the
spectators is that she issues from the palace
before the concluding words of the epode
are pronounced. It is almost certain that
the chorus would be facing the audience
at this point, and would not therefore see
her. She comes forward and is observed:
the chorus turns about and she begins to
speak. This is in accordance with the note
of the MSS.

But I should only be disposed to allow
her vv. 489, 490. These have been criticised
on account of their verbosity (by Emperius,
Bothe), but this is exactly the characteristic
one notes in Klytemestra’s speeches, ll. 281-
350 (cf. especially 312, 313) and may be due
to excitement coupled with nervousness:
notice for instance the random similes from
sun and moon in these speeches. Her
appearance from the palace at this juncture
is perhaps due to information of the herald’s
arrival, and hearing doubts expressed she
begins to answer them with a flood of words.
Then, breaking off, she goes out to meet
the herald, possibly to see if she can prevent
him from revealing her plot in its entirety.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

The next two lines come very well from
the mouth of one of the chorus, completing
the queen’s remark (when she has gone)
in a sense on which at the moment she
could hardly have ventured herself.

The absence of connection at 1. 493 points
to another speaker. A clue to his indentity
is to be found in the words μαρτυρεῖ δὲ...
Mr. Sidgwick calls the expres-
sion ‘quaint and almost grotesque,’ and
who will dispute it? Now we have already
heard the φύλαξ of the prologue make at
least one such remark: what hinders that
he should have assembled with others out-
side the palace, and spying the herald
should announce the fact in characteristic
fashion? In that case it is not necessary
to take the phrase κάσις πηλοῦ Evvoupos κτλ.
in any but the baldest sense: ‘the herald
comes from the sea-shore: the sand next the
mud (on his boots) tells me that.’ It is
true that κόνις means ‘dust’ and not ‘sand,’
but if Aeschylus cannot use ‘thirsty dust’
for ‘sand,’ he surely belies his reputation
for daring expression, and after all no dust
drinks more or more often than the sand on
the sea-shore. If the herald is near enough
for the olive wreath to be identified, the
sand may also be noted by a keen-eyed
watchman.

That the watchman is the speaker is also
clearly indicated in the next lines. The
word σοι has troubled the commentators,
but it appears to me in view of the μοι two
lines above that the difficulty is removed,
if we suppose another speaker joining in
at line 496, and answering the previous
remark. This will also give point to τάδε.
The φύλαξ, or whoever it may be, says
‘his appearance witnesses this,’ z.e. that the
herald comes from the shore. But the more
sprightly interlocutor takes him up—‘wit-
nesses,’ says he, ‘that he will give you news
not voiceless nor by kindling you a flame
of fire.’ For whom was the fire kindled in
the strictest sense, if not for the φύλαξ ἢ

Line 498 may be assigned either to the
interlocutor whom I call Chorus y, or to
the φύλαξ. If to the former we get numerical
correspondence in the lines assigned to each
speaker, and although this is not in the least
essential, where more than pairs of lines are

»ἤ /
κόνις τάδε.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

concerned, it goes for something when taken
with the fact that 1. 499 suits the grim
humour of the φύλαξ. I venture to change
δὲ to δὴ, but we may safely leave the rather
odd ἀποστέργω---“1 don’t like it,’ as we say
colloquially, to express apprehension. Keck
(1863) assigned the whole of the passage
489-500 to the watchman, arguing from the
general tone of the passage. Of this I only
became aware after forming my own view.
The remaining lines can pass without com-
ment.

The following may be taken as a rough
translation of the passage, with the necessary
stage directions, designed to bring out the
points referred to above.

The Chorus are singing the concluding lines
of the Epode. Citizens, etc., including the
Watchman are grouped on the stage, presum-
ably discussing the great news. The palace
door opens; Klytemestra appears, and glances
to the left, as tf expecting someone. She
stands unobserved for a moment: as the chorus
ceases, she comes forward and addresses them.

7. We shall soon know about the suc-
cession of torches with their burden of light,
even the beacons and the fire.

HHesitates, then exit to meet herald.

Chorus 2. Yes, whether there is any
truth in them, or whether this light, like a
dream, has come with its joyous message
and deceived her mind.

183

Watchman (excitedly). I see a herald
here, his head shaded with olive stems,
coming from the sea-shore. The sand,
neighbouring sister to the mud, tells me
that.

Chorus 3. Tells you that not without
speech nor by kindling you a flame of
mountain logs will he bring his message
in the form of smoke. But either he will
speak and bid us rather rejoice.

Watchman (grimly). I certainly don’t like
the other alternative.

Chorus 3. No, for one desires a suc-
cessful sequel to what has appeared so
favourable.

Chorus 4. Whoever makes his prayer for
the city in any other sense, may he reap
the reward of his heart’s transgression.

At this point Klytemestra re-enters in
converse with the herald, and listens with
anxiety to his words. As he proceeds, she
gets more and more at case till finally she
bursts out with a note of triumph (\. 587).

Viewed thus the passage appears to be
fairly free from difficulties of translation, and
in the multiplicity of speakers and the part
played by Klytemestra, to afford the most
natural and effective prelude to the entry
(much looked-for) of the herald.

ApaM Fox.
Lancing College.

THE ATTITUDE OF EURIPIDES TOWARDS DEATH.

In reading the closing words of the
sublime defence of Socrates one cannot but
notice the similarity borne by the attitude
which they express to that fragment of the
Polyidus : }

tis δ᾽ οἶδεν εἰ τὸ (hv μέν ἐστι κατθανεῖν
τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῆν κάτω νομίζεται ;

Another fragment which well illustrates
the opinions Euripides held with regard to
death, and which has been passed down to
us by many authors,? and was even quoted

1639 Nauck,
*Clemens Alex. Strom. iv. p. 587 59.
Plut. Mor. p. 110, F.

Stobaei Florilegium, 108, 11.

by Cicero,’ is to be found among the sur-
viving verses of the Hypsipyle. It runs:*
ἁ γοῦν παραινῶ, ταῦτά μου δέξαι, γύναι.
ἔφυ μὲν οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ πονεῖ βροτῶν,
θάπτει τε τέκνα χἅτερα κτᾶται νέα,
αὐτός τε θνήσκει" καὶ τάδ᾽ ἄχθονται βροτοί,
εἰς γῆν φέροντες γῆν. ἀναγκαίως δ᾽ ἔχει
βίον θερίζειν ὥστε κάρπιμον στάχυν,
καὶ τὸν μὲν εἶναι, τὸν δὲ μή" τί ταῦτα δεῖ
στένειν, ἅπερ δεῖ κατὰ φύσιν διεκπερᾶν ;
δεινὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων βροτοῖς.

The same idea is contained in the Alcestis
(11. 782 sg.) but in the Hypsipyle it is

*Tusc.’ 3;'255°59. 4Frgm. 757 Nauck.

184

expressed more solemnly, the words being
probably spoken by Adrastus to Hypsipyle*
to console her for the death of the infant
Opheltes, while in the former play it is
the drunken Herakles who puts forward
his arguments in favour of amusements in
general and drunkenness in particular.

More concise than the fragments quoted
above, but very similar in conception, is that
of the Temenides, known as 733 Nauck:

τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισι κατθανεῖν μένει.
κοινὸν δ᾽ ἔχοντες αὐτὸ κοινὰ πάσχομεν
πάντες" τὸ γὰρ χρεὼν μεῖζον ἢ τὸ μὴ χρεών.

We see that the thought contained in all
these fragments is essentially the same;
namely, that all mortals must die, sooner
or later, and that it is no use lamenting over
an unavoidable necessity; more especially
since we do not know whether death may
not really be the beginning of a new life.
That Euripides contemplated the notion of
resurrection after death, or of death being
a merely temporary state, is highly probable ;
he has used this as the central idea of the
Alcestis and the Iphigenia in Aulis. In the
‘case of the former, although some sharp-
witted Athenian may have supposed that
Alcestis never dies at all,? still no doubt is
expressed on the subject by the author, and
to the general public the play remains what

1These words would seem to form part of the
speech of Adrastus which is thus referred to in the
Hypothesis quoted by the scholiast of Clemens Alex-
andrinus (p. 105 sg.); “Adpacros δὲ παραμυθούμενος
τὴν Ὑψιπύλλην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ κτὲέ. ἶ

2Cf. Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist, pp. 1-128.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

it was written, the history of the death
and resurrection of the Queen of Pherae.
For the latter, doubts have been expressed
as to its right to claim the authorship of
Euripides ; one critic thinks this poet could
never have written anything so good,’ while
another,‘ curiously enough, will not accept
Euripides as its author on the ground of the
play’s incoherence and general inferiority ;
both, but for opposite reasons, fix upon
Chaeremon® as its author. Others still have
supposed the Iphigenia to be the work of
Euripides the Younger, or at least to have
been finished by him: but though these
arguments have strong foundation, still the
play has always been known as the ‘ Iphi-
genia of Euripides’ and in all probability
will continue to be so considered by the
vast majority of the reading public.

That Euripides regarded death with equa-
nimity is certain; and who may not say
that Socrates, while conversing with Cebes
and the others on the last evening of his
life, had not in mind those words of his
friend :

ἐγὼ δὲ τοὺς καλῶς τεθνηκότας
φὴν φημὶ μᾶλλον τοῦ βλέπειν τοὺς μὴ καλῶς ἢ

J. A. SPRANGER.

3Gruppe, Ariadne, p. 462: ‘Ein seltenes Kunst-
werk . . . das wenn es von Euripides kame, ihm
einen ausserordentlichen hohen Rang, einen Rang
neben Sophokles anweisen miisste.’

4 Bang.

5 On the sole authority of the quotation by Athenaeus
(13, 562, E, sg.) of lines 549-52 of the Iphigenia
(with the variant τύχᾳ for πότμῳ) as Chaeremon’s.

FLEET-SPEEDS ; A REPLY TO DR. GRUNDY.

In a paper contributed to the June number
of this Review, Dr. Grundy defends the state-
ment in Herod. 4, 183, that the Persian fleet
voyaged from Therme to the ‘Sepiad
strand’ in one day, by quoting three passages
relating to a single merchantman, another
mentioning no particular class of vessel, and,
lastly, the well-known trireme race from
Athens to Mytilene. I am quite ready to
believe that a merchantman, with a favour-
able wind, could do 6 m.p.h., and that a

trireme on occasion could attain a fairly high
rate of speed;! but what this has to do with

1From the same data different writers have deduced
the most varied speeds for triremes ; the highest is
Graser’s absurd 11-12 Eng. m.p.h. om” an average,
the lowest, I think, Cartault’s 54 kilom. I am not
going to add a new one to the number. If we knew
the tonnage of an Athenian trireme, we could pro-
bably deduce, from the known data relating to racing
eights, what is the maxzmum speed with which a
trireme could possibly be credited for a short burst
with oars alone. But we don’t.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW τᾶς

the rate of progression of a large fleet under
conditions of warfare I am at -a loss to
conceive.

Two propositions are indisputable; the
pace of a fleet is the pace of its s/owest mem-
ber, and single ship voyages are no evidence
for fleets. Most of our recorded single ship
voyages are cases of vessels carrying messages

or news, and therefore the /asfes¢ available.

The only evidence for the pace of a large
fleet is the recorded voyages of other large
fleets. To a commander expecting a fight it
was vital to keep his rowers fresh ; to a ship
carrying despatches it might have been vital
to arrive quickly, at the expense of the utter
exhaustion of the men.

Being far from books of reference, I regret
that I can only give what figures I have by me.

Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 13. Alcibiades, going
with 86 ships from Parion to Proconnesus
(50 kilom.) in search of the Spartan fleet,
took all night and up to ἄριστον next day,
which Professor A. Bauer, considering the
time of year, makes some 18 hours (/ahresh.
4 (1901) p. to1)—a good deal under 2 Eng.
m.p.h. Alcibiades insisted on his ships
keeping together.

Diod. 20, 5, 6. Agathocles, with 60
triremes, took 6 days and 6 nights from
Syracuse to the stone-quarries near the
Hermaeum promontory—about 488 kilom.
—slightly over 2 Eng. m.p.h. The voyage
began and ended with a race with Cartha-
ginian squadrons ; the story does not give him
any supply ships, but this is unlikely.

Bell. Afr. 34. Caesar’s voyage from Lily-
baeum to Ruspina has been worked out (I
think by Assmann) at τῷ knots p.h., which
supports the above.

Thuc. 6, 65. The Athenian fleet, triremes
and transports, goes from Catana to Syracuse
during the night, 2.4. starting ὑπὸ νύκτα and
arriving ἅμα ἕῳ, It is about 36 miles. We
cannot say how long the night was, as we do
not know the time of year; at 8 hours it
would be 41 Eng. m.p.h.; at 7 hours just
over 5; this for one of the finest fleets of
antiquity, going a comparatively short dis-
tance, where speed was essential (in order to
arrive before the Syracusan army), and where
there was no question of the fleet having to
fight.

Polyb. 5, 110. The fleet of Philip V.,
consisting at this time of swift Illyrian lembi
(Polyb. 5, 109), is seized with panic one
evening (ὑπὸ νύκτα) off the island Sason at
the mouth of the Achelous, and going day
and night without stopping, reaches Kephal-
lenia, taking two nights and a day and
arriving some time on the day following. If
we suppose 36 hours for what is a (maximum)
distance of 300 kilom., we get a speed of 5
Eng. m.p.h. or thereabouts.

I omit a number of instances in which the
time of starting, or arriving, or both, is hope-
lessly vague.

We have here three cases of a fleet in the
ordinary way doing somewhere about 2
m.p.h., and two cases of a fleet in a great
hurry doing somewhere about 44-5 m.p.h.
Will Dr. Grundy give me an instance of a
fleet doing (as he claims) 8 Eng. m.p.h. ?

Now, the ships of 480 B.c. were certainly
not faster than those of later times, if as fast.
Also, if a fleet could coast, it did coast, and
landed the men even for meals; and the
Persian fleet was intended to coast, “ests
velificatus Athos, and the battle off the
Peneus mouth, which shows that their scouts
were coasting. This fact, together with the
enormous size of the fleet, was bound to
make the Persian voyage excessively slow ;
why should we give them, coasting, a speed
out of all relation to the 2 m.p.h. of
Alcibiades and Agathocles, who were cross-
ing open sea? Moreover, the Persian
admirals were co-operating with Xerxes ; they
had so much time to spare that they had
given the land army eleven days’ start ; they
had, in arranging their movements, to allow
for the possibility of an adverse wind when
the time came, since the Etesian winds were
not yet blowing ;! and they had before them
the powerful Greek fleet, which imposed
upon them the absolute necessity of keeping
their own rowers fresh. ‘The idea that they
would wait at Therme till the last moment,
risking a head wind, and then make a forced
voyage, exhausting their men, when for all
they knew the Greeks might be upon them
with the next dawn, does not appeal to meas
one that will bear examination.

1Dr. Macan (2, 411) puts the voyage in June-July.
The Etesians do not blow till August.

186

But, says Dr. Grundy, I have made a
‘curious mistake’ in giving the distance as
‘perhaps 120 miles, when it is ‘an easily
ascertainable distance of go.’ We are all
liable to make mistakes ; and it has slipped
Dr. Grundy’s memory that the figure 120
is his own. I fear that I took it from
the Great Persian War;! though I had
the saving grace to add a ‘perhaps’; for
I do not know how to ascertain, easily or
otherwise, the exact distance from a known
point to an unknown one, and neither Dr.
Grundy nor I nor anyone knows where the
‘strand’ of Herodotus’ poetical source was
meant to be located. Now, to a fleet sailing
straight across the sea from Therme to C.
Sepias the distance is about goo stades,
goo stades being just under 105 miles ;?

ΤΡ, 327, note. ‘A distance . . . of one hundred
and twenty miles in fourteen hours of daylight, over
eight miles an hour.’

51 have no large-scale chart here, but such maps as
I have agree with the distance as given by Dr. Macan

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

and go miles brings us about to Zangaradhes.
Dr. Grundy is therefore now assuming that
the fleet went direct across the sea. It would
almost certainly coast. It is not easy to
measure a Coasting voyage, but it would add
on about 150 stades, making the distance to
the same point about 108 miles ; but, after
all, the poet may have conceived of the
‘strand’ as further south than Zangaradhes,
and near C. Sepias; and as C. Sepias, coast-
ing, would be about 122-123 miles, I rather
think that ‘perhaps 120’ is a good deal
nearer the mark than go. However, even
90, in view of the fleet-speeds given above,
does not seem of much use for Dr. Grundy’s

case.
W. W. Tarn.

Mountgerald, Dingwall.

(on 7, 183), ‘about 900 stades.’ I take the stade as
6062 feet. I note with interest that Dr. Macan (l.c.)
thinks the voyage took more than a day; ‘it must
have been the deliberate plan to rest a night at sea.’

NOTES

TWO NOTES ON TIBULLUS.
Dey ix. 25°S0q:

Ipse deus tacito permisit /eze ministro
ederet ut multo libera uerba mero.

Ipse deus somno domitos emittere uocem
iussit et inuitos facta tegenda loqui.

THE uselessness of the numerous con-
jectures, saepe, /ingua, lena, and the last one,
Némethy’s /aeue (voc.), will be clear from
the following considerations: Tibullus’s text
is that infidelity ‘will out.’ The god will
wring the guilty secret from an unconscious
and unwilling sleeper (note the significant
words domitos, tussit, inuitos), or from an
accomplice whose silence has been broken
down by wine. Of such an accomplice it
cannot be said that he is allowed to speak
freely, when /actfus itself proclaims that he
speaks only under stress. Zermzsz¢t then cannot
be taken with the w of the next line as every
emendation known to me requires. It must
have an object in its own line, and this will
be the temptation which the god throws in his

way. Thesimplest change seems to be wzna,
which I proposed in my Oxford text. For the
sense of the verb, ‘ give access to,’ compare
eg. Lucan 10, 330, ‘prima tibi campos per-
mittit apertaque Memphis rura,’ z¢@. 7, 124
‘arma permittit populis.’ facto mintstro is, of
course, rightly taken by Nemethy, after
Dissen, ‘ seruo qui ceterum fideliter custodit
secreta domini,’ but a parallel from Plautus,
referring to a /ena, is so instructive that I
must quote it in full. It is Crstellaria 120
sqq. The /ena says:

Idem mihist quod magnae parti uitium mulierum 120

quae hunc quaestum facimus: quae ubi saburratae
sumus,

largiloquae extemplo sumus, plus loquimur quam sat
est.

Nam illanc ego olim quae hinc flens abit paruolam

puellam proiectam ex angiportu sustuli.

adulescens quidam hic est adprime nobilis ; 125

quin ego nunc quasi sum onusta mea ex sententia,

quiaque adeo me compleui flore Liberi,

magis libera uti lingua conlubitumst mihi :

tacere nequeo misera qued tacito usus est.

Sicyone summe genere ei uiuit pater: 6.4.5. 130

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Lines 120-2 and 126-9 are undoubtedly
ancient duplicates, though 126-9 are omitted
in A; and they illuminate at once the general
thought here and the origin of the corrup-
tion. For, as I pointed |l.c., /enae, a gloss on
our passage, is easily recognisable in the
Zeue of the MSS. Glosses in corrupted form
are found elsewhere in Tibullus, e.g. a/bana
for A/bunea 11. 5, 69, where (as here) it has
expelled the genuine reading, Amzena; cf.
Pan. 55. Lenae may have been intended
for a gen. after mznistro, or as a nom. plural.
In this case it is an inapposite reference to
the bibulous habits of that class.

II. THE Vocative or VEMES/S

The second object of the love and the
muse of Tibullus he has celebrated under
the pseudonym of Nemesis: but she is never
addressed by this name. That the poet had
no rooted objection to using the casus appel-
landi towards his mistresses, his first book
shows, where Delia appears nine times in
the vocative against six times in the nomina-
tive. Why then should ‘Nemesis mea’ in
ii. 4, 59 be apostrophised as ‘saeua puella’
in ii. 4,6? Why in ii. 5, 111 should she be
‘Nemesim’ but in 114 plain ‘puella’? Why
‘Nemesim’ again in ii. 6, 27, but ‘dura
puella’ in 28? The answer is to be found
in the forms of the vocative.

In such Greek words Latin writers had a
choice of two, whose functions are distin-
guished by Charisius, 1. 17, ‘ Mysis ὁ AZyszs
Terentius ut 9. crinis funis cints. Graeci
demunt s litteram, nostri parem nominatiuo
uocatiuum custodiunt.’ The ‘ Roman’ form
was that used in prose and comedy ; but it
was not tolerated in the refined compositions
of the Hellenizing poesy. The evidence may
be seen in Weue Formenlehre i. pp. 443 sqq.
A vocative JVemesis would have had an
especial unsuitability ; Pliny, Δὲ #7. 11, 251,
quoting the gen. Vemestos, appends the note
‘quae dea Latinum nomen ne in Capitolio
quidem inuenit.’ Ausonius uses it as we
might expect. The Greek form, on the other
hand, was metrically unavailable ; Vémési
could only enter the verse by an unexampled
elision or a licentious lengthening.

1 Read before the Cambridge Philological Society,
May, 1909.

187

These forms, I may add, are liable to be
corrupted to vocatives in -e, as Perse Stat.
Theb. 4, 482 (fersace the MSS.), Zhybri
Verg. Aen. 8, 72 (-e Pal. Rom.), 10, 421 (-e
Med. Rom.), or to the more usual -zs, as
Thebai Stat. Theb. 12, 812 (thebais several
MSS.): especially if unprotected by the
metre as at end of a line, e.g. Phaseli (-is
most MSS.), Lucan 8, 251, Zhetz (-7s all MSS.)

Prop. iii. 7, 68. J. P. Posteate.

A NOTE ON DIONYSIUS.

De Demosthene, chap. 34, init.

ὀλίγα τούτοις ἔτι προσθεὶς περὶ τῆς λέξεως,
ἐπὶ τὸ καταλειπόμενον τῆς προκειμένης] θεωρίας
μέρος μεταβήσομαι, ταῦτα δὲ ἔστιν, ἃ τοῖς τρισὶ
πλάσμασιν ὁμοίως παρέπεται καὶ ἔστι παντὸς
λόγου Δημοσθενικοῦ μηνύματα χαρακτηριστικὰ
καὶ ἀνυφαίρετα.

THE phrase, τὸ καταλειπόμενον μέρος, has
been interpreted as referring to the dis-
cussion of ‘composition’ (σύνθεσις), which
occupies the succeeding chapters of the
essay. In any case it must refer to the
topic with which Dionysius was planning to
proceed when he wrote this sentence. There
is evidence, however, which indicates that at
that time he intended to treat, not ‘com-
position,’ but subject matter (τὰ πράγματα)
in the remaining part of the essay. In the
last sentence in chapter 32, he states that
he has completed his proposed treatment of
the λεκτικὸς τύπος (βούλομαι δὲ δὴ Kal συλ-
λογίσασθαι τὰ εἰρημένα ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ δεῖξαι
πάνθ᾽, ὅσα ὑπεσχόμην ἀρχόμενος τῆς θεωρίας
τοῦ λεκτικοῦ τόπου, πεποιηκότα ἐμαυτόν), and
in chapter 33 he summarizes the contents
of the work up to that point. The xara-
λειπόμενον μέρος can be nothing else than
the πραγματικὸς τόπος, which regularly forms
the second part of Dionysius’ essays on the
orators. But ‘composition,’ which is treated
in the following chapters, belongs under the
λεκτικὸς τόπος, and in fact had already been
included in the discussion of the various
authors in the preceding chapters. Our only
way of escape from the difficulty is to sup-
pose that Dionysius finished his treatment

Ἰ προκειμένης is the conjecture of Usener for a
lacuna of about ten letters in Codex Ambrosianus.

188

of Demosthenes’ style with the intention
of proceeding immediately (the expression
ὀλίγα τούτοις ἔτι προσθείς refers merely to
the remainder of the chapter) to the dis-
cussion of his subject matter, but that he
abandoned or postponed the treatment of
the latter topic, and in its place he discussed
at length the subject of ‘composition’ and
its application to Demosthenes. In order to
find a reason for this change in his plan,
we must look elsewhere.

Blass, De Dion. Hal. scrip. rhet., Bonn,
1863, called attention to the fact that the
De Demosthene has two references to the
De Compositione (τοὺς ὑπομνηματισμοὺς ἡμῶν
λαβών, obs περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων
πεπραγματεύμεθα, De Dem. chap. 49, fin. :
τὰς δὲ περὶ τούτου τοῦ μέρους πίστεις ἐν τοῖς
περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως γραφεῖσιν ἀποδεδωκώς,
ibid. chap. 50, fin.), and that on the other
hand the De Compositione has a reference
to the De Demosthene (viv δὲ περὶ μὲν τὴν
ἐκλογὴν ἔστιν ὅτε διαμαρτάνει, καὶ μάλιστα
ἐν οἷς ἂν τὴν ὑψηλὴν καὶ περιττὴν καὶ ἐγκατά-
σκευον διώκῃ φράσιν, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἑτέρωθί μοι
δηλοῦται σαφέστερον, De Comp. 77. 6. 118.
(Cf. De Dem. chaps. 5, 6.) When it is
noted that the two references in the De
Demosthene are found in the second half
of that essay (chaps. 49, 50), and that the
passage quoted from the De Composttione
refers to the first half (chaps. 5, 6), it is at
once suggested that the De Compositione
belongs chronologically between the two
parts of the De Demosthene. We are now
in a position to explain the lack of corre-
spondence between the promise found in
the passage under discussion and the actual
contents of the second half of the essay.
After finishing the first half of the essay,
Dionysius laid it aside in order to prepare
an essay on the arrangement of words, which
was to serve as a birthday gift (De Comp. chap.
I, init.) to his pupil Rufus Metilius. By a
new combination of old materials he was
able to present that subject in a manner
that marked an important advance over its
treatment in the earlier essays. With this
new grasp of the subject he returned to
the essay on Demosthenes and, instead of
proceeding according to his original plan
with a discussion of Demosthenes’ subject

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

matter, he restated his doctrine of composi-
tion as developed in the De Compositione
and applied it to Demosthenes.

The failure to recognize the unusual
relations existing between the two parts of
the essay on Demosthenes has led to some
confusion in the interpretation of the xapax-
τῆρες τῆς λέξεως discussed in the first part
of the essay and the χαρακτῆρες τῆς συνθέσεως
(ἁρμονίας), which appear only in the second
part. Jebb, Attic. Orators i. 24, n. 2
(followed by Roberts, Zhe Three Literary
Letters 18, n. 2), in his desire to make
these terms complementary restricted the
former to the choice of words (ἐκλογὴ τῶν
ὀνομάτων), thus leaving the arrangement of
words as the peculiar province of σύνθεσις.
Croiset’s statement (Histoire de la Litterature
Grecque v. 362, n. 1) is more correct in that
he makes the χαρακτῆρες τῆς λέξεως include
both the choice of words and their arrange-
ment. That this was the conception of
Dionysius would appear from the fact that
he regularly attributes to λέξις the same
scope of meaning as to the λεκτικὸς τόπος,
z.c. including both the choice of words and
their arrangement, and is more clearly shown
by the following passage from the essay on
Demosthenes: εἴρηνται μὲν οὖν καὶ πρότερον
ἤδη λέξεις τινές, ἐν αἷς τὸν ὅλον χαρακτῆρα
αὐτοῦ τῆς λέξεως ὑπέγραφον, ἐξ ὧν καὶ, τὰ περὶ
τὴν σύνθεσιν οὐ χαλεπῶς av τις ἴδοι, De Dem.
217. 18. 1079, where τὸν ὅλον χαρακτῆρα
τῆς λέξεως manifestly includes τὰ περὶ τὴν
σύνθεσιν.

The term σύνθεσις, which appears in the
title of the De Compositione (περὶ συνθέσεως
ὀνομάτων), does not retain the same con-
notation throughout that essay. In the first
division of the work, chaps. 1-9, σύνθεσις
means σύνθεσις τῶν ὀνομάτων and refers
solely to the arrangement of the given words,
after selection has been made. In the later
chapters both σύνθεσις and ἁρμονία are often
used to cover the whole field of the physical,
or rather, the musical aspects of language.
In addition to σύνθεσις τῶν ὀνομάτων we also
have ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν σύνθεσις and at τῶν
γραμμάτων συμπλοκαί (De Comp. 63. 5. 96).
In this new connotation σύνθεσις includes
not only the arrangement but also the
selection of words, so far as it is a question

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

of their sound effect upon the ear. But it
appears that such considerations were not
regarded by Dionysius as trespassing on the
territory of the ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων, which
is concerned with the semantic value of
words and more particularly the question
of the use of simple or metaphorical terms
(De Thuc. 358. 12. 862: De Comp. 124. 12.
195). On the other hand, as regards the
arrangement of words, all semantic questions
such as clearness and directness of presenta-
tion are disregarded in the discussion of
σύνθεσις, and the treatment concerns itself
solely with the musical effects produced by
the various combinations. Such is the use
of σύνθεσις in the phrase χαρακτῆρες τῆς
συνθέσεως. It is still the (partial) comple-
ment of ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων, but it can no
longer be adequately translated by ‘arrange-
ment of words,’ for we must supply not
only the limiting genitive τῶν ὀνομάτων but
also τῶν συλλαβῶν and τῶν γραμμάτων, and
on the other hand it does not include all
that we commonly denote by ‘arrangement

of words.’
R. H. Tukey.

New Haven.

NOTE ON SUETONIUS, DIVUS
SJUOLIGS 79. 2.

‘Plebi regem se salutanti Caesarem se non regem
esse respondit.’

THE above reading seems to be accepted as
a matter of course in all modern editions of
Suetonius.!

Nevertheless it involves a serious difficulty.
At the time of the event narrated the name
‘Caesar’ can only have been understood as
a personal one, in strict analogy with Crassus,
Cicero, Magnus, etc. Indeed it continued
to be nothing more than a cognomen of the
gens Julia until the Emperor Claudius usurped
it and by so doing took the first step towards
converting it into a title of office.

It follows that Caesar’s reply, as printed
above, contains a comparison of disparate
terms. ‘I am not king but Caesar’ is equi-
valent to ‘I do not hold the regal office,
but my family name is Caesar ’—a sentence

1 Ed. Weise (1845); Doergens (1864); Roth (1858
and 1886) ; Wilkinson (1886) ; Ihm (1907).

189

truly worthy of Ollendorff’s Grammar. Was
this what Caesar meant to say to the
bystanders ?

A much more plausible sense can be read
into the passage if vegem is spelt with a capital
#, being thus made to stand for a cognomen
strictly co-ordinate with Caesarem.

The point of the remark then, becomes
clear. Caesar being in a dilemma whether to
accept or disown the title sex evades the
difficulty by pretending to have heard Rex,
and informs the crowd that they are calling
him by a cognomen which isn’t his.

Readers of Cicero will be aware that puns
met with an indulgent public in the Golden
Age of Latin literature. A similar doudle
entendre is contained in Horace Sa¢. I. 7. 1:
proscriptt Regis Rupili pus atque venenum.
Again, a piece of repartee with which Cicero
brought down the Senate house on top of
P. Clodius is quite on the lines of Caesar’s
pun. ‘Quosque hunc vegem feremus?’
‘Regem appellas, cum ex tui mentionem
nullam fecerit?’ (Q. Marcius Rex had dis-
regarded Clodius in a will in which the latter
had expected to find something to his advan-
tage).— Zp. ad A7t. I. τό. το.

The MS. authority in favour of Regem is
slight, as this reading only occurs in late copies.
But the earlier MSS. print caesarem likewise
with a minuscule ¢. It would therefore be
unsafe to use their spelling as evidence
against the capital 2.

On the other hand the majuscule form is
frequently found in editions ranging from
1506 to 1800, and has the countenance
of several distinguished scholars, such as
Beroaldo, Casaubon, Graevius, Bentley,
Oudendorp and Ernesti.

M. O. B. CaspParI.

THE AEGEUS EPISODE, MEDEA
663-763.

Epitors agree in making apologies for
this scene. Various defences are raised—
the glorification of Athens as protector of
the friendless; the provision of a retreat for
Medea after the murders.

These are sound defences, but there is
more to be said. What are the murders

190

whose consequences Medea hopes to escape
by flying to some tower of refuge (1. 390)?
It always seems to be assumed that they
include the killing of her children. But in
l. 375 Medea proposes only to murder
Kreon, Jason and the bride: there is no
hint, on her part, of injury to the children.
I believe (with Von Arnim, as I have since
discovered) that the Aegeus episode is a
most important one and that the topic of
Aegeus’ childlessness suggests to Medea a
more subtle form of revenge. What if,
instead of killing Jason with his bride, she
should let him live, but brideless and child-
less too? Lines 714-716 contain the critical
moment when the new thought strikes her:

οὕτως ἔρως σοὶ πρὸς θεῶν τελεσφόρος

γένοιτο παίδων, καὐτὸς ὄλβιος θάνοις
a δ᾽ » Ὁ θ᾽ - “ 55

εὕρημα δ᾽ οὐκ otc @ οἷον ηὕρηκας τόδε.

‘So may thy life close in happiness. Nay
thou knowest not the treasure thou here hast
found.’

The tragic irony of the last line is most
effective. To Aegeus it means: ‘you little
. know the treasure you have found in me’;
to Medea and the audience it means: ‘you
little know the treasure (in a new scheme of
vengeance) you have found for me.’ At the
words: ‘so mayest thou die happy’ there
flashes the εὕρημα through her mind: ‘so
shall Jason die, but not now and not
happy ᾿--

οὔτ᾽ ἐξ ἐμοῦ yap παῖδας ὄψεταί ποτε
ζῶντας τὸ λοιπὸν οὔτε τῆς νεοζύγου
νύμφης τεκνώσει παῖδ᾽... (8ο3--ὃο5).

It is significant that as soon as ever
Aegeus has left, Medea unfolds her plan of
murder which now, for the first time, in-
cludes the death of the children (1. 792)
and excludes that of Jason.

H. DARNLEY NAYLOR.

The University, Adelaide.

ON HORACE, SZRM. II. vi. 15.

Chium maris expers. Compare Heraclides,
Allegoriae Homericae 35: ἔθος ye μὴν τοῖς
πολλοῖς, ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τοῦ διαμένειν ἀκλινῆ τὸν

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

καρπόν, ἐπικιρνάναι θαλαττίῳ ὕδατι, This
passage shows one reason why the Greeks
mixed their wine with sea-water; it was to
stop the fermentation from going too far, and
Professor Collie tells me that such would
undoubtedly be the result of this process.
This also is one of the reasons why hops
are used in making beer; the hop ‘is found
to be effective in checking continued fer-
mentation and souring’ (Lankester in Daily
Telegraph, June 20, 1908, p. 8).

There can be no doubt therefore (if marzs
here means sea-water) what was wrong with
the Chian of Nasidienus; it had gone sour
because it had not been properly treated.
So also in the imitation by Persius, sapere
nostrum hoc maris expers means that Greek
philosophy had turned sour on the hands of
the Romans.

It is true that Athenaeus gives other
reasons for the mixture (I. p. 32), but so also
you may give other reasons for making beer
with hops; the question for the Horatian
passage is ‘what was the vesu/¢ of omitting
the sea-water?’ New Chian with or without
it would be good drinking ; Chian exported
to Rome without it would infallibly go bad.

ARTHUR PLATT.

STATIUS, SZZVAE, τ. Praer. ll. 35-37
(KLOTZ).

SEquituR libellus Rutilio Gallico con-
valescenti dedicatus, de quo nihil dico, ne
videar defuncti testis occasione mentiri.
Nam Claudi Etrusci testimonium Τ domomum
est, etc.

For the corrupt domomum some word or
phrase is needed meaning ‘ready to hand,’
‘easily accessible.’ Read ‘testimonium ad
mazum est, and compare (e.g.) Livy ix. 19,
Adde, quod Romanis ad manum domi
supplementum esse¢; and Quintilian xii. 5. 1,
Haec arma hadere ad manum.

Ὁ. A. SLATER.
[This note reached us on 17 May last; the author

afterwards discovered that Sanger had made the same
conjecture. —Ed. C.2.].

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 191

REVIEWS

THE THREE ACTORS (KELLEY REES).

The Rule of Three Actors in the Classical
Greek Drama ; a Dissertation . . . for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. By KELLEY
Rees. University of Chicago Press, 1908.
Small Quarto, pp. 86. Price, $.79.

Tuts well-reasoned pamphlet raises a ques-
tion, which any one, familiar with the present
state of enquiry, might have seen to be
coming before long. What evidence is there
for the common assumption that, at the
dramatic festivals of Athens in the fifth and
fourth centuries B.c., the number of actors
performing in a tragedy (or a comedy) was
normally limited to three, or limited at all?
It is of course notorious, and is proved

‘both by extant plays and unimpeachable

testimony, that, as a general rule with
occasional exceptions, three was, in tragedy,
the greatest number of characters permitted
to take part zz the same scene and dialogue.
Even tripartite dialogue tended to fall into a
series of duos, and beyond the tripartite form
complication was not extended. Aristotle
notes the limit as matter of fact, and Horace
presents it as a precept. It was nota law;
it was not absolute or universal as a practice ;
but it was a general practice, and, so under-
stood, is unquestionable.

The practice has certain obvious advan-
tages (in securing clearness of situation and
relation, and otherwise) from the Greek point
of view. If it had not, Aristotle would not
have treated it as he does,—as a limit
natural to the type of tragedy which he
knew, and as completing finally the normal
development of that type. But, having such
cause and sanction, the limit of practice does
not prove, by its existence, the existence of
any mechanical compulsion or necessity for
it. The general preference of dialogue in
parts not exceeding three does not, in itself,
throw any light on the question how many
actors the dramatists had at their disposal.

But, for plays so constructed, performance
by three actors only (with a little help occa-
sionally to turn a difficulty) would be possible,

however many the characters, provided that
there was no limit to ‘doubling,’ that is, to
the multiplication of characters played by a
single actor. And, with the use of masks for
all parts, any amount of doubling, however
unsatisfactory or inartistic, becomes possible.

Now there is full evidence that, from the
fourth century B.c. onwards, when acting in
Greece had become a common profession,
practised for profit by private persons and
private associations, this possible economy
of players was freely used, and plays, includ-
ing those of classical tragedy (or, more
probably, acting-editions of them, cut and
garbled for the purpose), were habitually, and
perhaps regularly, performed by parties of
three.

But the use of this economy, by those for
whom economy was an essential object,
affords in itself no presumption whatever,
that such thrift was even permitted, much
less that it was imposed as a regulation, in the
public festivals of imperial Athens. And on
the other hand, the economic practice of
centuries does afford some reason for dis-
counting the testimony of scholars, named or
anonymous, who, in times near or posterior
to the Christian era, say or imply that
Sophocles and Euripides were restricted from
the first to that allowance of performers
which had subsequently been established by
commercial custom. That these antiquarians
could make mistakes is certain; and here is
a mistake which they were likely to make,
a pit prepared for their feet.

By the texts of the extant plays their
statement is (to say the least) not fortified.
It may conceivably be true, it is not strictly
impossible, that, as the ‘three-actor rule’
would require us to suppose, Aeschylus in
the Choephori meant a ‘Servant’ to be trans-
formed into ‘ Pylades’ within a few minutes or
seconds; that in the Oecedipus at Colonus
Sophocles expected to have the part of
Theseus divided, for different scenes, between
three distinct performers ; that in the /o (for
example), and in the tragedies of Euripides

192

and Sophocles generally, a whole series of
important and incongruous personations was,
by the design of the authors, to be accumu-
lated upon the least accomplished member
of a company consisting of three. These
things are conceivable; but they would
certainly not suggest themselves to a reader
of the poets; nor, as a fact, do readers really
and effectively imagine them.

And further, of what passed as testimony
for the rule, part at all events, a considerable
part, has been long seen to admit and even
require a different interpretation.}

It was high time then to raise, as Mr. Rees
does raise, the question, what precisely is
the weight of such evidence for the rule as
may be supposed to remain. His conclusion
is that the evidence is insufficient, indeed
almost nothing, and that, for anything we
know to the contrary, Euripides (and a fortiori
Aristophanes) may have commanded, at the
Dionysia or the Lenaea, as many performers
as there were characters in the play. And
for myself I have only to say, provisionally
and subject to what may be alleged on the
other side, that I agree with him. The
investigation, however slight may be its
bearing upon the enjoyment of the plays in
a book, is historically important, and interest-
ing in itself as a specimen of development in
opinion.

But it will be observed—any critic may
observe it in himself—that the impugner of
a tradition is apt to be emphatic in confir-
mation of any commonly accepted belief,
which he is not, for the moment, concerned to
deny. A heretic likes to show incidentally
that he is at all events no reckless iconoclast.
We see therefore without surprise that Mr.
Rees, whose business is to deny, so far as
concerns the original performances, the limita-
tion of classical drama to three acéors, affirms
strongly, and even with a certain solemnity,
his adherence to another modern doctrine,
which he touches incidentally, but does not
discuss. He assumes that the limitation of
the scene or dialogue to a tripartite form, a
limitation which, as he truly says, has no
inherent connexion whatever with the sup-
posed rule of ‘ three performers,’ was not only

Ἰνεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν in Hesychius and Photius.—
Rees, p. 18.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

a general and typical practice (as it was), but
almost universal ; and he repeats the common
statement, that the extant tragedies of the
fifth century exhibit no departure from it,
that there is no instance, in our three trage-
dians,?”, of a scene demanding a fourth
speaker.

This is not the fact, and is not even com-
mended, like the three-actor rule, by the
testimony of ancient, if insufficient, witnesses.
Our principal witness (Pollux iv. 109) asserts
the contrary, specifying two different kinds of
exception to the general practice, and adding
expressly that one of these exceptions is
illustrated by the Agamemnon of Aeschylus.
Soitis. The Agamemnon, rightly understood
and properly cast, could not be played by
three speakers only in addition to the principal
chorus. I have discussed the case in my
editions of the play, particularly in an appendix
to the second edition.

Nor is there any reason to think that this
exception is unique. The limitation to tripar-
tite dialogue, as a zorma/ form, has aesthetic
and artistic justification. But if it had been
applied rigidly, it would have been irrational,
inartistic, and absurd. Whatever the number
of the principal group in a scene, whether two,
three, or what else, there will be situations in
which a composer will desire and need an
incidental remark from a by-stander; and a
by-stander appropriate to the occasion could
not always be supplied from such a body as
the Chorus of Greek tragedy. There never
was any reason to doubt (and there is less
than none, so to say, if we are to accept the
views of Mr. Rees respecting the number of
performers) the ancient doctrine that in such
cases the tragic poets of Athens in the great
age obeyed common sense, and, without
thereby infringing their general principle,
introduced, and provided with words, extra-
neous and subordinate personages, when the
situation could not otherwise be well
expressed. ,

In our MSS., where the cast and distribu-
tion is everywhere slovenly and incorrect, we .
could not expect that these exceptional
discriminations would be preserved. ‘They

3 Excluding the Resus, according to the now com-
mon but dubious opinion, as a work of the fourth
century, and possibly not meant for performance.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

\ have disappeared in one case (the Agamem-
non) where we have positive testimony that
they once existed. And they have probably
disappeared elsewhere. The little parts of
the necessary ‘citizen,’ ‘guard,’ ‘servant’ or
the like, have naturally lost their designations,
and lapsed to the Chorus, or to any one
whom the copyist had in mind. ‘Thus in the
Bacchae, a speech of three verses (775 ff.) is
assigned, in despite of sense, to the Chorus.
It appears to be spoken by a by-stander, a
subject or servant of Pentheus;! and this
personage with the others present (the
Messenger from Cithaeron, Pentheus, and
Dionysus) makes a fourth. Other like
instances may be suspected, as I have
myself suggested, in the final scenes of the
Choephori and of the Eumenides. Every
such case is a matter for judgment, of more
or less probability upon the evidence. But
such did occur; and they should be sup-
posed wherever the sense, upon a fair
construction, so indicates.

Distinct, though not unconnected with the
subject, is the question of the mask, upon
which also Mr. Rees touches, but prudently
gives no opinion. If, as he thinks and I think,
the original performers of Sophocles and
Euripides were not limited in number, the
universal use of the mask is not, for those
times, a supposition necessary to make the
performances possible. But we must not,
merely for that reason, deny [1.3

1This example has been recently pointed out in
some English publication. To my vexation, I have
lost and cannot recover the reference. Will any one
supply it? To the same speaker belongs apparently
v. 847, for which no speaker can be found in the
ordinary cast.

2In P. 19. Note 1, for Phoenissae read Phoenix.

193

Cognate in subject with the dissertation of
Mr. Rees, and a product of the same active
school, is that of Mr. J. B. .O’Connor entitled
Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting
in Ancient Greece, together with a Prosopt-
graphia Histrionum Graecorum. The three
‘chapters’ deal respectively with (1) termino-
logy (the meaning and use of ὑποκριτής and
other such technical words); (2) the well-
maintained distinction between the professions
of tragic actor and comic ; and (3) the Actors’
Contests at Athens. But the most useful and
not the least interesting part is the Appendix,
a catalogue of ‘all tragic and comic actors
who are mentioned by the Greek writers
down to and including Athenaeus, and all
who are found in the inscriptions, with notes
upon each.’ It includes very properly the
name of the Emperor Nero. Qwadis arti-
Jex periret |

In the Proceedings of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences Vol. xliii. No.
17, Mr. W. P. Dickey discusses the practice
of Greek epic and tragedy in the inter-
position of ‘delays’ between the promise and
the realisation of a scene of recognition
(ἀναγνώρισις). He concludes, with some
hesitation, that this consideration favours the
genuineness of the disputed passage in Euri-
pides’ Electra (518 ff.), which recalls the
recognition in the Choephori; the passage
gives (perhaps) a more probable length of
‘delay. Whatever the strength of this
evidence, the conclusion is to be commended,
the forgery and establishment of such a
passage being not only difficult but scarcely

conceivable. A. W. VERRALL.

3 University of Chicago Press, 1908.
Price $1.06.

Pp. 144.

BUTLER’S POST-AUGUSTAN POETRY.

Tuis volume is one of several signs pointing
to a reaction against the contempt into which
Latin poetry of the Silver Age had fallen.
It had, no doubt, been carried to excess:
yet it seems impossible to believe that that

NO. CCIV. VOL. XXIII.

poetry can ever again be taken quite seriously

as a factor in human culture. Two main

causes may be assigned for the degree in

which it has regained attention. In the first

place, it is now studied not merely as litera-
N

194

ture, but in connection with the whole social
and intellectual movement of its time; of a
century, that is to say, which is one of the
most momentous and one of the most pain-
fully fascinating in history. It is part of the
problem of the Roman Empire. A second,
and a less important reason, but one of which
account must be taken, is the curious
periodic movement of fashion, which in
literature as in the other arts brings up, at
almost calculable intervals, the schools which
once held the field, and then fell out of
repute under the sweeping reproach of repre-
senting the mere product of a dead classicism,
to have their claims once more considered,
the judgment on them revised, and their
organic place and value in the history of
their art more scientifically assigned.

Mr. Butler’s volume is an attempt to do
this with the series of Latin poets from
Seneca to Juvenal. That series of writers
does not, of course, constitute any organic
whole. They represent several schools,
several movements ; and these have no unity
of convergence any more than they have
unity of substance. This is what distinguishes
the Latin poetry of the Silver Age sharply
from the Greek poetry of the Alexandrians.
The Alexandrians, along many different lines,
were feeling and experimenting towards a new
poetry, and a new relation of poetry to life.
Their achievement in this way was very
considerable, and their influence on subse-
quent literature so great that it can hardly be
exaggerated. The Latin poets of the Silver
Age on the whole—the exceptions are very
few in number and very small in bulk—
worked within a closed field. They added,
one may say with substantial truth, nothing
either to the poetical interpretation of life or
to the future development of poetry. It is
this fact which makes it impossible to regard
them with enthusiasm, or with any higher
feeling than the respect due to capable
artificers. Neglecting the minor writers, we
find eight names included in Mr. Butler’s
volume, which by the amount or quality of
their production claim detailed treatment:
Seneca, Persius, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus,
Statius, Silius Italicus, Martial, and Juvenal.
Of these eight, none are in the first rank of
Latin poets, and only three, at most, in the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

second, Statius stands out from the rest
in virtue of a real though thin poetical
quality, Juvenal in virtue of a harsh power
and violent moral earnestness that kindle his
verse to a dull red heat; Lucan, though
deeply infected by the false taste of his age,
and still more deeply by a false taste of his
own, cannot be denied high gifts of imagina-
tion and expression. But they are not, in the
full sense, ‘live’ poets: the current does not
flow through them. Except for such in-
herent poetical value as their work may be
considered to possess in itself—as to the
amount of this value opinions may reasonably
differ—it would not make any difference to
the evolution and life of poetry whether they
had existed or not. Still less would this be
so as regards Persius, the author of that little
volume of boyish essays in verse which yet
has an aromatic flavour and subtle charm of
its own: still less, and indeed not at all,
with the other two epicists, Valerius and
Silius, of whom the one might perhaps best
be criticised by saying, in a phrase inverted
from Johnson’s, that it were vain to praise
and useless to blame him, and the other is only
remarkable as the author of what has claims
to be considered as the worst epic ever
written. The two, out of all the eight, who
count in the development and progress of
the art of poetry, are Seneca and Martial.
The former had an immense influence over
the modern European drama when it came to
birth in the later Renaissance. The latter
exercised an influence as great, and even
more baleful, on the whole of those kinds of
poetry which are classed under, or attach
themselves as akin to, the general term of the
epigram. Now of these two authors, who in
this way, in the historical or organic view,
represent their period most effectively, the
poetry of Seneca is vicious alike in structural,
verbal, musical, and imaginative quality ; and
there is not a single piece out of Martial’s
fifteen hundred to which it would be proper
to apply the name of poetry at all.

Mr. Butler has approached his task not
only with knowledge and scholarship, but
with judgment and a measure of enthusiasm.
His volume is more than a mere handbook
to a period in literature; it is a serious
attempt to place that period and its product,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

to disengage and fix its value. It may be
fairly said that he has kept clear on the whole
of what is the besetting danger of such an
attempt, that of investing the authors chosen
for critical study with exaggerated merits.
Omnia nostra dum scribuntur placent, aliogui
nec scriberentur, says Quintilian ; and it is
equally true that omnes nostri dum de tts
scribimus placent, aliogui nec scriberemus.
But he has not entirely escaped it. Of the
passage in the /Pharsalia, describing the
parting of Pompeius from his wife :
Sic fata relictis

Exsiluit stratis amens tormentaque nulla

Vult differre mora. Non maesti pectora Magni

Sustinet amplexu dulci, non colla tenere,

Extremusque perit tam longi fructus amoris,

Praecipitantque suos luctus, neuterque recedens

Sustinuit dixisse ‘ vale,’ vitamque per omnem

Nulla fuit tam maesta dies; nam cetera damna

Durata iam mente malis firmaque tulerunt,

it is surely a grave exaggeration to say that
‘ with the simplest words and the most severe
economy of diction, he produces an effect
such as Virgil rarely surpassed, and such as
was never excelled or equalled again in the
poetry of Southern Europe till Dante told the
story of Paolo and Francesca.’ Or again, to
say of the simile in the Zkedazs οἱ Pluto
taking possession of his kingdom :
Qualis

Demissus curru laevae post praemia sortis

Umbrarum custos mundique novissimus heres

Palluit amisso veniens in Tartara caelo—
that ‘the picture is Miltonic, and Pluto is for
a brief moment almost an anticipation of the
Satan of Paradise Lost’ is to confuse things
which are essentially different. But, notwith-
standing such defects, which are only defects
of immaturity, and are not dangerous, one
cannot read the book without gaining from it
a clearer view of its subject. It will prove
useful and enlightening, not only towards the
focussing and defining of the impressions left
by reading the post-Augustan poets, but as a
guide towards reading them, a carte du pays
which may be studied with advantage before
undertaking the tour through a country where
the distances are long and the scenery often
very dull.

His scheme is in the case of each author

first to set forth what is known of his life,
then to give a sketch of his works, to indicate

195

their scope and method, and to discuss the
treatment in some detail, laying (as is right)
most stress upon such merits as the work
may possess, and illustrating them by well-
chosen quotations. Of passages which are
quoted an English translation is added,
usually Mr. Butler’s own, sometimes from a
verse rendering—Mr. Miller’s of Seneca,
Dryden’s and Gifford’s of Juvenal, those of
Martial’s epigrams by various hands. There
are arguments for and against this practice.
It is useful for readers who are imperfect
scholars; it may be doubted, however,
whether the translation does not sometimes
tend—as it must do with an indolent reader
—to blunt the effect of the Latin, and to
impair the more exact appreciation which it
is Mr. Butler’s object to effect. For transla-
tions, at least prose translations of poetry,
have an almost incurable tendency to be
alike. Only in the hands of genius can they
reproduce the sharp difference between poetry
of the first rank and of the second ; yet that
difference, verbally so slight, is poetically
infinite. One instance will serve for many.
A passage singled out for high praise by Mr.
Butler is that in Book II. of the Argonautica -
Ac velut ignota captus regione viarum
Noctivagum qui carpit iter non aure quiescit,
Non oculis, noctisque metus niger auget utrinque

Campus et occurrens umbris maioribus arbor,
Haud aliter trepidare viri.

He adds the following prose rendering:
‘And as one benighted in a strange place
’mid paths unknown pursues his devious
journey through the night and finds rest
neither for eye nor ear, but all about him the
blackness of the plain, and the trees that
throng upon him seen greater through the
gloom, deepen his terror of the dark—even
so the heroes trembled.’ The translation is
almost indistinguishable from a translation of
Virgil: it blurs what is the really important
thing to realise, that the Latin is merely
clever machine-made imitation, a piece of
academic and (if I may venture to differ
from Mr. Butler) of lifeless Virgilianism.

Where one is also inclined to differ from
him is on a point which is of importance as
touching on the whole basis of literary
criticism. In his interesting introductory
chapter he reveals his own point of view in

196

the words ‘ Roman literature came too late.’
This is, of course, a tenable view, perhaps
even the orthodox view. But it tends to
confuse two things which are distinct. Ex-
cept on a theory of the progressive degenera-
tion of mankind, chronological ‘lateness’
has nothing to do with inferior imaginative
quality. ‘It was hard,’ Mr. Butler goes
on to say, ‘for the imitative Roman to be
original.’ No doubt. But, cleared of the
ambiguity of terms, is this anything more
than an identical proposition ?

Apart from a certain fallacy involved (as it
seems to the present writer) in this funda-
mental point of view, Mr. Butler’s particular
criticisms are usually just and sound. One
may question a few of them. Is Ovid really
‘the most heartless of poets’? Is it the case
that ‘Alexandrian learning becomes more

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

prominent and more oppressive ’ in the post-
Augustans than it had been in the Augustans
themselves? Is it true that the verse of
Petronius ‘at its best has a charm and
fragrance of its own that is almost unique in
Latin’? But against these few judgments,
which are, to say the least, questionable, are
to be set many others which are excellent ;
and nothing could be better than Mr. Butler's
general summing-up of the period : ‘It pro-
duced a few men of genius, while even in the
works of those who were far removed from
genius, the very fact that there is much
refinement of wit, much triumphing over
technical difficulties, much elaborate felicity
of expression, makes them always a curious
and at times a remunerative study.’

J. W. Mackal_.

TWO BOOKS ON PLATONIC THEORY.

La Théorte Platonicienne de l Amour. Par
Leon Rosin, Agrégé de Philosophie, Pro-
fesseur au Lycée d’Angers, Docteur és
Lettres. 1 vol. in 8 de la Collection His-
torique des Grands Philosophes. Paris:
Félix Alcan, 1908. Fr. 3.75.

THE general reader who has questioned the
origin of the phrase ‘ Platonic friendship,’ or
‘Platonic love,’ will find the idea traced to
its source in this little volume. After a
careful comparison of the Lysis, Symposium
and Phaedrus, it is shown that "ἔρως, be it
physical or intellectual, is a pavia which
arises by divine inspiration in a soul that is
neither entirely perfect nor entirely depraved
and stimulates it to the acquisition of that
in which it is lacking, viz., immortality,
whether after the flesh or after the spirit.
To the Phaedrus we owe the particularly
philosophic view of "Ἔρως, through which it
is described as a process akin to that of the
Dialectic of Republic vi.: the soul, being
by nature partly mortal and partly immortal,
is filled at the sight of a beautiful object
with reminiscence of the idea of Beauty
which it once beheld in the Supracelestial
Region at the time of its pre-natal existence,
and, if the course of his passion be chastened
and controlled by the recollection of his

divine vision, the Lover may rise gradually,
together with the Beloved, to renewed contem-
plation of Beauty and Truth. Therefore
intellectual is superior to carnal love in
precisely the same degree as the eternal per-
fection of the idea transcends the fleeting
mutability of its copy.

M. Robin is not convincing when he
descends to the chronological problem of
the Zyszs, Symposium, Phaedo and Phaedrus,
and boldly places the Phaedrus not merely
after the Lysis, Symposium and Phaedo, but
probably the Zmaeus, ranking it with the
Laws as a product of Plato’s oldage. While
freely acknowledging that the stylometric
indications in favour of this should be dis-
countenanced as being of doubtful value, he
avows that the Phaedrus must be on the one
hand posterior to the Phaedo and Republic,
owing to its allusion to the Theban Simmias
(242 A.B.) and the tripartite division of soul
(here accepted as a matter of course), and
on the other hand contemporaneous with
the Zimaeus and the Zaws because of the
affinity of myths in the one case and the
identity of the proof of immortality in the
other. In regard to the tripartite division of
soul, one can only say that M. Robin has
here and elsewhere made too rigorous in-
ferences from the mythical element of the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Phaedrus; and the fact that the proof for
immortality in the Zaws is the same as that
of the Phaedrus need not have all the signi-
ficance he imagines. When one examines
the dialogues from the point of view of their
central metaphysical doctrine, viz., that of the
ideas, one feels that the interval between the
ideal theory in the Phaedrus and in the
Philebus or Timaeus is too great to be bridged
over by any of the ingenious arguments
adduced by M. Robin.

It is gratifying to note that M. Robin, in
spite of his prejudice in chronology, is con-
tent to make the “Epws of the Phaedrus
slightly inferior to Dialectic; Ἔρως is an
activity of composite soul functioning as
Reason and Sensation, Dialectic is the
activity proper to it in its purest form of
Reason.

One cannot but demur to a statement on
p. 137 to the effect that Plato positively be-
lieved in the existence of δαίμονες because of
the important place taken by these divinities
in the doctrines of his successors.

Apart from a few debatable points of this
kind the book furnishes an interesting study
of an aspect of Platonism that has as yet,
perhaps, been insufficiently emphasised.

MarRIE V. WILLIAMS.

La Théorie Platonicienne des Idées et des
Nombres @aprés Aristote. Etude His-
torigue et Critigue. Par Lton Rosin,
Docteur és Lettres, Agrégé de Philosophie,
Professeur au Lycée d’Angers. 1 vol.
in-8 de la Collection Historique des Grands
Philosophes. Paris: Félix Alcan, 1908,
Fr. 12.50.

THE appearance of this comprehensive work
by M. Robin, together with a promise of
further volumes dealing with the same sub-
ject, seems to speak of a revived interest in
the old problem concerning the Platonic
ideas and numbers. ‘The present volume is
the first link in a chain of evidence through
which the author hopes ‘to ascertain the
probable significance of the philosophy of
Plato.’ His point of departure is, strange to
say, a study of Aristotle and his successors,
the examination of the Platonic dialogues

-

197

themselves being reserved for another occa-
sion. By following this route he hopes to
escape from being carried away by the blasts
of modern doctrine, which have served to
blind the eyes of many an interpreter of
Plato. Whether one expects him to succeed
or not, the boldness of the scheme certainly
commands admiration, and he has assuredly
spared no pains to make his investigation as
complete as possible.

As regards the plan of the book, we find
the subject-matter conveniently divided into
books and chapters, which deal successively
with the ‘Theory of Ideas’ in general, the
Platonic theory of numbers and figures, and
the στοιχεῖα or foundation principles of the
ideas. The uniform method is to give first a
detailed reproduction of Aristotle’s exposition
of the topic, then an account of the Aris-
totelian critique, with finally a critical
examination of the critique itself. Here one
may mention the need of a shorter véswmé of
the Aristotelian evidence ; it is decidedly a
strain to be obliged not merely to read
through the almost incoherent remarks of
Aristotle, but to retain them in mind long
enough to enable one to appraise M. Robin’s
comment aright. One would welcome either
a shorter paraphrase of Aristotle, with refer-
ences to the text, or a tabulated outline of
his subject-matter as an appendix to the
paraphrase as now given.

With M. Robin’s assessment of the value
of Aristotle’s criticisms one cannot but agree.
For the most part these criticisms by their
perversity, inappropriateness, and incoher-
ence are rendered even more futile than
some of the doctrines criticised, and that is
saying much. M. Robin’s favourite device
is to refute Aristotle by a tw qguogue argu-
ment, showing that the latter’s views possess
the same vices as those he imputes to Plato ;
this does not prove, of course, that Plato was
in the right, but when one considers how
much store Aristotle set by his own doctrine,
it effectually prevents one from paying any
serious attention to his diatribe.

The general conclusion reached by M.
Robin’s research into the JAfetaphysics is
that it embodies largely a Neo-Platonic
phase of the Ideal Theory. With this no one
can quarrel, but one cannot help lamenting

198

the fact that he did not try more syste-
matically to distinguish the Neo-Platonic
and the earlier elements. The sum of his
results is contained in the ‘ Essai d’Interpre-
tation’ (Chap. III. of Book II.). The whole
of the information vouchsafed by Aristotle is
there fitted together and welded into a har-
monious whole, a restoration which strikes
one as being remarkably elaborate, though
one cannot but admire the symmetry of the
edifice. M. Robin’s first task was to account
for Plato’s supposed statement that Number
is generated out of the One and the Indefinite
Dyad of τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρόν. The dyad is
understood to be an indeterminate power of
progression and regression, upon which the
One exercises continually a limiting effect.
The progression of the dyad is seen in the for-
mation of the ideal 2, the ideal 4, etc., its
regression in that of the ideal 3, which is
obtained by the action of the limiting One
before the equalisation of the dyad in the
ideal 4 is complete. Similarly the number 5
is the result of the contact of the progression
from 4 and the regression from 6. The
numbers thus produced are all zdea/ numbers,
as opposed to mathematical numbers, which
are obtained by simple addition of units, and
they do not extend beyond to, for the
generation of the ten ideal numbers serves as
model for the generation of all other num-
bers. This ideal series of ten M. Robin
takes to be quite different from the ideas
and the ideal figures, the two latter holding
an inferior position but possessing a parallel
nature, for throughout the whole range of
existences one finds the recurring στοιχεῖα
of the ἕν and the ἀόριστος duds. To save
time, one might arrange the scheme of exist-
ence thus: (1) Ideal series of ten, (2) Ideal
Figures, (3) Ideas, (4) Mathematical Num-
bers, (5) Geometrical Figures, (6) Sensibles.
The whole elaborate exposition is crys-
tallised in the view taken of the αὐτὸ ζῶον,
the world-animal mentioned by Aristotle in
the De Anima. The universal animal is seen
in three phases, the purely intelligible, the
intermediate, and the sensible, in each of
which aspects it possesses both body and soul,
and is composed of the One and the dyad.
Such is the reconstruction of Platonic
theory made by M. Robin out of the hotch-

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

potch of gossip in which Aristotle indulges in
the Metaphysics. It does not profess to be
an explanation, or even an account, of
Plato’s own views, and therefore our judg-
ment as to its value must be withheld until M.
Robin has realised his full purpose, and given
us his final conclusions drawn from a revision
of the Aristotelian data in the light of the
Platonic dialogues themselves. Till then
the most one can do is to criticise within the
field that M. Robin has himself marked out,
and to notice one or two instances in which
his zeal for regularity and symmetry has led
him to do violence to his self-chosen autho-
rity. M. Robin has, for the most part, taken
Aristotle’s statements ez d/oc, and has erected
therefrom one consistent theory. This seems
to me to be a dangerous proceeding in face
of the various passages in which it has been
admitted that there were divergences between
the earlier and later exponents of the theory
—divergences which obviously affect several
details in M. Robin’s exposition. For in-
stance, he includes without question in his
comprehensive summary of the Platonic
system the fact that the series of ideal num-
bers went only as far as the déxas. Ought
this to be included in a general summary
when even Aristotle says: εἰ μέχρι τῆς δεκάδος
ὁ ἀριθμός, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν (M. 8. 1084 a
12)? (See also A. 8. 1073 ἃ τ8--20.)
Then, it will have been noticed that this
method admits only one possibility in regard
to the statements that the Platonists made
mathematical number distinct from ideal
number, viz., that it was a fundamental prin-
ciple of orthodox Platonic doctrine. There
is at least one other possibility, that this
particular principle was embraced by a
special sect of Platonism as a leading tenet,
and used as the stock upon which to engraft
various mathematical extravagances. Sucha
view is quite as much in accord with Aristotle
as M. Robin’s own, and none of the texts
adduced by him on p. 439 can be said to
preclude it.

The present and many another interpreta-
tion may, it seems to me, be deduced with
equal legitimacy from Aristotle’s confused
evidence; and the weakness of M. Robin’s
scheme is that he has begun on this unstable
foundation. The absolute incoherence of

»

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Aristotle’s information seems to counter-
balance the disadvantage of the prejudices
incurred by beginning the other way round.
However, the time for the final award is not

199

yet, and now that M. Robin has accomplished
the most tedious part of his performance, we
may look forward to a speedy realisation of
the rest. Marie V, WILLIAMS.

THE NUMBER NINE.

Enneadische Studien, Versuch einer Ge-
schichte der Neunzahl bet den Grtechen,
mit besonderen Leriichsichtigung des alt
Epos der Philosophen und Arste. Von
W.' H. Roscuer. Leipzig: D. 'G.
Teubner, 1907. M. 6.

Tuis work, the fourth of a series dealing
with the use of the numbers seven and nine
(viz. Die enneadischen und hebdomadischen
Fristen und Wochen der altesten Griechen ;
Die Sieben und Neunzahl in Kultus und
Mythus der Griechen; Die Hebdomaden-
lehren der griechischen Philosophie und
Arste, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
griechischen Philosophie und Medezin) puts
the study of the number nine on a
broader basis than the three previous essays.
Roscher deals with his subject in several
divisions which cover its use from Epic up
to the time of the Neopythagoreans and
Neoplatonists. In such an investigation a
great many instances must of course be
cited, and there is no lack of material. In
dealing with the cults and myths of Greece
generally, Roscher finds that seven plays a
wider part than nine; on the other hand, in
Epic poetry nine plays the wider part (e.g.
the constant formula of the Odyssey ἐννῆμαρ
φέρομην, δεκάτη de. ..). The use of the
number nine in the cult of the dead is
interesting; nine days the women of Troy
wailed for Hector, and his funeral pyre was
nine days in building ; for nine days Niobe
mourned her unburied children; and the
instances might be multiplied to great
length. In the Nekuiae the measurement of
the trench go by nines, and Roscher not
unreasonably concludes that the use of nine
in details such as these follows on its use as
a period for wailing and other funeral
observances. In connection with this one
may mention a point which Roscher brings
out in dealing with the Orphics; both

Pythagoreans and Orphics regarded the
number nine as κουρῆτις or κόρη and this, he
holds, is due to the use of nine in the cult of
the dead from which the number would
become connected with Persephone, 7) κόρη
par excellence. The use of the number
nine is traced among the Orphics and
Pythagoreans, in the dialogues of Plato,
though their use of number does not offer
a very wide field to the investigator; it
appears in many instances to be derived
from Pythagorean sources. The Hippo-
cratic writings and later books of a medical
nature such as the Φύσικος of Joannes Lydus
yield instances of the use of both seven and
nine ; the use of seven is the more frequent.
In the development of the embryo and birth
both seven and nine (also ten) were counted
auspicious numbers, but nine was the more
usual; and one may with safety conclude
that this was a not unimportant factor in
the significance of the number. Strangely
enough Roscher does not refer to Adam’s
discussion of the nuptial number of Plato, a
striking omission in view of the fact that
Adam shows that the famous number of the
Republic VITI had just the significance and
origin that is here suggested for the use of nine.

In the last chapter Roscher collects
various examples of the use of nine in
connection with husbandry, natural science,
music, etc.

It seems very reasonable to agree with
Roscher that the month of twenty-eight days
divided into three weeks of nine days each
was an important factor in the significant use
of the number.

The value and usefulness of the book are
increased by an excellent précis of contents,
an index of moderate merits and a list of
authorities. Humour and human interest
the student must provide for himself.

S. E. JACKSON.

200

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

ROMAN LIFE AND MANNERS.

Roman Life and Manners under the Early
Empire. By Lupwic FRIEDLANDER.
Authorised Translation of the Seventh
Enlarged and Revised Edition of the Sz¢ten-
geschichte Roms. By LEONARD A. MaGNnus,
LL.B. 8vo. London: George Routledge
& Sons, Limited. Pp. xxvili, 428.

PROFESSOR FRIEDLANDER has been unfor-
tunate. His Szttengeschichte has had to wait
nearly forty-seven years for an English trans-
lator, and now it has fallen into incompetent
hands. It is surely not unreasonable to ask
of the translator of a German work on a
Latin subject the ability to write sound
intélligible English, a thorough knowledge of
German and Latin, and the exercise of
ordinary care. Mr. Magnus, whose version
of the first half of the Stttengeschichte was
published a few months ago, satisfies none
of these modest demands. Here are some
specimens of his English: (p. 96) ‘The
imperial table scarcely excelled private ban-
_ quets in respect of fare, but in the dishes,
the state and the service, a difference that
scarce can have arisen before the end of the
first century, and varying at various times.’
(p. 18) ‘ But the prices of other neces-
sities of life were also very high, and such as
those of wood and food scarcely to be had
by the poor.’... (p. 229) ‘Roman fairy-
tales began like ours: ‘‘There was, once upon
a day, a king and queen.”’ Again
(p. 94) ‘Otho... dined eighty senators,
some with their wives together ’—which looks
like a literal translation of einige mit thren
Gattinnen zusammen, but is in point of fact
a quite wanton outrage on English idiom.
Such parts of the book as I have read are
full of inaccuracies, all of them unnecessary,
some of them unpardonable. Thus (p. 6):
‘All Rome, says Martial in 92 a.D., had
become one big tavern, all the streets were
taken possession of by dealers and trades-
men, butchers, publicans and barbers.’ The
context ought to have made Mr. Magnus
suspect that Martial did not say ‘tavern.’
Neither did he ; he said ¢aéerna, which here
certainly means ‘shop.’ Frdl. renders by
Taberne, a word now obsolescent, but

commonly enough used to translate the
ambiguous ‘¢aderna. Mr. Magnus did not
take the trouble to find out the meaning of
the word, but risked ‘tavern.’ On p. 19 we
are informed that the ‘shepherds’ used to
come into town to sell their milk—apparently
sheep’s milk: but Frdl. says Azrten, which is
not ordinary German for ‘shepherds,’ and
may denote goat-herds or cow-herds as well
as sheep-herds.

It is, alas! only too true that some of the
Roman Emperors were sad dogs ; but that
is no reason why the translator should speak
of their ‘amours’ (p. 30) when Frdl. uses
the innocent word Liebhabereten. Theauthor
says that the Younger Pliny gives vent to his
indignation at the arrogance of Domitian
(seinem Unmut .. . Luft macht) ; his trans-
lator, obviously reading Lust macht, ignores
seinem Unmut and renders (p. 95) ‘makes
fun of’—for which, moreover, Lust macht is
very doubtful German. /ossenreisser becomes
in this precious version (p. 95) ‘jugglers’ ;
Kleinasien is rendered (p. 14) ‘Little Asia.’
The highest commendation of Greek women,
we are told at p. 239, was ‘to occupy
their husbands’ thoughts, as little as might
be, either for good or for evil.’ Frdl. is, of
course, no less careful than Perikles to say
‘men’s,’ not ‘their husbands’,’ but once
more Mr. Magnus has made a ludicrous
mistake. On p. 236 mimes the performances
are confused with mimes the performers.

I have not hunted through this astonishing
work for faults, but have merely noted down
some of the more obvious ones that have
presented themselves in the few pages I have
had the patience to read. I have said
nothing of the many unnecessary omissions
of words and phrases. It is time that a
vigorous protest was entered against the
tendency of publishers to entrust the transla-
tion of valuable works to unqualified persons,
thereby bringing discredit not merely upon
themselves but also upon British scholarship.
And how is a University teacher to put a
translation like this into the hands of students
who are not sufficiently far advanced to wrestle
with the German for themselves? p a Τὶ

Sydney.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

201

POPULAR LATIN.

Les Eléments dialectaux du vocabulaire latin.
Par A. Ernovut, docteur-és-lettres, éléve
diplomé de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes.
Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Cham-
PiGh; oem.) Fp. 255. Fr..7,50.

Recherches sur Templot du passif latin ἃ
Vepoque républicaine. Par A. ERNOUT, etc.,
eta. \ra09.-' Pp. 62..; )Fr..5-

THE study of the popular dialects as opposed
to the literary language seems to be the only
means of escape from: the zmpasse to which
linguistic science must be said to have come.
Much can be done with the help of the
blessed word Analogy to relieve the pressure
exerted by the Ausnahmslosigkeit of the Sound
Laws, but after analogical influence has been
assumed to the utmost legitimate extent,
much still remains in the literary language
that defies explanation. When it is remem-
bered that a literary language, such as our
own, is to a large extent the result of a
mixture of dialects, each of which Sound
Laws of its own must have at one time
moulded, we are driven to the admission that
Sound Laws, however much we may accept
them in theory, do not in practice give much
assistance, A Law based on the assumption
that a certain number of words exhibiting
the same phenomenon, belong in their actual
form to one dialect, is necessarily at the
mercy of historical or other evidence to the
contrary. For example, proof that azz/lus
and fauissa were borrowed from a non-
Roman dialect would deal a staggering blow
to the law of Thurneysen and Havet. It
would therefore. seem that a phonological
treatment of a composite language—and that
means the majority of literary languages—
must be based on a knowledge of the his-
torical conditions under which they grew.
To speak otherwise of dialect influence is
merely a confession that the Sound Laws we
set up are not justified by the evidence.

M. Ernout’s study of the non-Roman
elements in the language of the City is
divided into four chapters. The first gives a
resumé of the geographical and the historical
conditions affecting the relations of the

Romans with their neighbours. Then follows
a brief account of the ancient evidence on
the subject of Italic dialects. A discussion
of a number of points in Latin phonology
is followed by a Lexicon—which makes up
the greater part of the book—with detailed
treatment of all the words in which the
author detects dialect influence. A full index
of Latin words, and an imposing, though
incomplete, list of Zvraza, close the volume.

The difficulty of the task which M. Ernout
has undertaken is immense, and M. Ernout
has certainly not solved all the difficulties he
has raised. How much the language of
Rome owed to those of the neighbouring
tribes can never be known. For our author,
naturally, an intervocalic s is a sign of a
non-Roman word, but how many words did
the Romans borrow before the middle of the
fourth century? The same difficulty will
apply elsewhere, and the alternatives are
either (1) to refuse the name ‘dialectal’ to
that portion of the Roman vocabulary bor-
rowed before a certain, and it may be,
relatively late, date, or (2) to admit that the
materials at our disposal are not sufficient
to justify such an enterprise as M. Ernout
has undertaken. Another difficulty is that of
determining the boundaries of dialect. Cf.
Meyer-Liibke, G.G.A. Feb. 1909, 138 ff.
The anecdote of Vespasian and Mestrius
Florus suggests that within the wall of Rome
itself there were dialects and dialects, and
that, consequently, when a Roman writer
employs a word that offends against a Latin
Sound Law, we are not necessarily to go to
the Sabines or to Praeneste for an explana-
tion. If the population of Rome was hetero-
geneous, it is scarcely likely that all classes in
the city changed the sounds of their language
pari passu.

To mention a few points of detail. The
name Roma is concluded to be non-ldg.,
p. 50, without any reference to its possible
connection with the names of the twin
brothers, or reference to Kretschmer’s article
Glotia i. 288 ff. (cf. more recently, Soltau,
Philologus \xviii. 154). And here one may
express regret that M. Ernout has not

202

appended a Bibliography, which in a book of
this kind is always valuable to other investi-
gators. On p. 64, climgo appears to be
connected by M. Ernout with O.E. Aving:
some proof of the interchange of ὦ and +
in western Idg.—apart from cases of dis-
similation—would be interesting. M. Ernout,
though he speaks of labiovelars, p. 71, does
not appear to make any distinction between
the different classes of gutturals. His proof
that canis is dialectal I cannot follow:
all that is apparent is that he takes the
guttural in canis and in eguos to be the
same as in tecur and seguor. In any case
canis must correspond to Skt. gunz < * hun-
and not “*“en7s.” If, with Hirt, Adlaut,
p. 102, we postulate a ,/Aexd, the explanation
of canis becomes easy. Side by side in Latin
we would have m. *cauo <* houd, *caynis,
cf. caro, carnis, and f. *cuni-s, the vowel of
which was brought into line with the mascu-
line. M. Ernout suggests, p. 81, that -dz-
become -i-, hence Zezor. What then is he to
do with vemedium and modtus? acus acerts,
Ῥ. 90, is put down as dialectal on account of its
’ vocalism, but may we not assume that to be
due to the influence of acer aceris? In the
discussion of abdomen, p. 89, which is of
course made dialectal, the absence of any
reference to Kluge’s comparison with O.H.G.
intuoma, suggests too great a reliance on
Walde. ;

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

M. Ernout has not made any material
addition to our knowledge of the subject,
but the material which he has with much
labour collected, should be useful when our
knowledge of the other Italic dialects is
sufficiently complete to make a profitable
investigation of the problem possible.

In his Recherches sur l’emploi du passif latin
the same author traces the development of
the passive verbal forms in Latin. After a
discussion of the forms, where, by the way,
one misses a reference to Zimmer, AZ. xxx,
p. 224 ff., and to Strachan, Zraus. of Phil. Soe.
1891-94, 536ff., there is given a great mass
of examples illustrating the history of their
usage. It may be noted that fertur is ex-
plained as *dferto-r, and the imperat. forms
in -mino as contaminations of the 2nd person
plu. pass. and -¢# imperatives. It is surpris-
ing that where the -zdus forms are described
as existing in no other Idg. language, p. 15,
there should be no reference to the Oscan
upsannam, sakraunas and the Umbrian
pthaner, anferener.

This work, reprinted from the Memozrs of
the Société de Linguistique, is a valuable con-
tribution to the Aistortcal Latin Grammar

of the future.
J. FRASER.

“ing’s College, Aberdeen.

CAECILIUS OF CALACTE.

Caecilii Calactini Fragmenta collegit Ernestus
Ofenloch. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Pp.
xl, 242;

‘Tuis new volume in the Teubner series of
classical texts is a daring attempt at recon-
struction. Caecilius is one of the most dis-
membered of ancient authors, and the
present editor strives industriously to piece
together his scattered remains. He collects
(or infers) these fragments from such sources
as the De Sublimitate, Athenaeus, Marcel-
linus, Plutarch (or pseudo-Plutarch), Photius,

Suidas, and various other lexicographers,
rhetoricians, and scholiasts.

The attempt is well worth making. Cae-
cilius was undoubtedly an interesting writer,
and a man of character and energy. A
Greek-speaking contemporary and friend of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus at Rome, he had
been born in Sicily, and was apparently (to
judge from certain references in Plutarch and
Suidas) a convert to Judaism. Himself
probably of servile birth, he had written a
history of the Servile Wars in Sicily. But it
was as a literary critic that he made his real

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

mark. It is in him that a definite reference
to the so-called canon of the ten Attic orators
is first found. His originality is still better
shown by the fact that he had the courage to
compare Greek authors with Latin (and
possibly with Jewish). Plutarch, no doubt,
censures the temerity of the undertaking,
seemingly on the ground that Greek writers
seldom knew Latin well. We must bear in
mind, says Plutarch (Demosth. c. 3), the
proverb about a fish out of water, which ‘the
all-accomplished Caecilius overlooked when
he had the hardihood to publish a comparison
between Demosthenes and Cicero. How-
ever, it may well be that if the saying snow
thyself were always present to everybody’s
mind, it would not have been held to bea
divine command.’ Be this as it may, it was
something to have started on the fruitful
path of comparative criticism, and we should
be only too glad to recover Caecilius’ Σύγ-
κρισις Δημοσθένους καὶ Κικέρωνος, as well as
his similar comparison between Demosthenes
and Aeschines. An even better find would
be his essay on the differences between the
Attic and the Asiatic style (τίνι διαφέρει ὁ
᾿Αττικὸς ζῆλος τοῦ ᾿Ασιανοῦ), of which the
title alone is preserved by Suidas. As we
know from the De Sudlimitate, Caecilius was
an almost fanatical admirer of Lysias, one of
the most Attic of the Attic writers; and his
treatment of Asianism must have made lively
reading.

Ofenloch’s success has been as great as the
nature of the conditions allowed. He has
gathered together the ‘disiecta membra’ of

203

Caecilius with sedulous care, and has tried to
construct from them an adequate skeleton,
where the revival of a living author is beyond
any editor’s power. Sometimes the bones
themselves cannot be identified with any cer-
tainty, as their collector scrupulously points
out. Cautious though Ofenloch generally is,
he seems to overestimate the amount of
Caecilius to be found imbedded in the De
Sublimitate. That treatise is, it is true,
polemical; and the word φησίν (which editors
have been prone to change into φασίν) may,
now and then, introduce a quotation from
Caecilius. But the writer is too individual
to quote often, and he is too much influenced
by the spirit of Plato to echo unconsciously
the language of Caecilius, who was influ-
enced no less strongly by Lysias.

In the list (pp. viii-x) of previous writings
on the same subject, reference might have
been made to F. Caccialanza’s article,
‘Cecilio da Calatte e I’ Ellenismo a Roma nel
secolo di Augusto,’ as published in the
Rivista di Filologta (xviii. 1-73). The frag-
ments of Caecilius were edited over forty
years ago at Basle by Theophilus Burckhardt
(Caecili Rhetoris Fragmenta, Basileae, 186 3)3
but this new edition was needed, and it has
been well executed.

It may be added that Grenfell and Hunt
(Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vi. p. 113) reject
decisively any notion that the newly-dis-
covered Commentary on Thucydides ii. is
from the hand of Caecilius.

W. Ruys RosBeErts.

SHORT NOTICES

Diogenis Oenoandensis Fragmenta ordinavit et
explicavit lOHANNES WILLIAM. Teubner,
1907. Pp. xlvi, 105.

THESE fragments, discovered in 1884 by
Holleaux and Paris, were first published by
Cousin in 1892. Further work was done
upon them by Usener and by Heberdey and
Kalinka in their edition of 1897. The

Teubner editor in his preface discusses at
length the problem of the order and dis-
position of the fragments, in view of the size
of the stones upon which they are inscribed,
the nature of the subject-matter and other
indications. Another section of the preface
is devoted to an enquiry as to the authorship
of the ‘Epistula ad matrem’ (/7r. 63-4),
which Cousin and Usener ascribed to

204

Epicurus: from this ascription the editor dis-
sents, arguing, mainly on linguistic grounds,
that the document must be much later in date
and may, very probably, come from the hand
of Diogenes himself. The rest of the preface
also deals with the vocabulary and style of
Diogenes, and the ‘vulgaris sermonis signa’
which they betray. The expert in inscrip-
tions will find much to interest him in the
‘restored’ text here printed, which has called
for large exercise of imaginative ingenuity,
since the originals in many cases are ‘per-
quam depravatae’; while the reader who
may frequently be puzzled to know the
author’s drift will find much helpful informa-
tion (and conjecture), especially with regard
to the philosophic sources, in the ‘ad-
notationes’ appended. RGB.

Codices Blandinitz.—These MSs. of Horace,
which include the famous V (Blandinius
vetustissimus), existed formerly at a certain
abbey ‘in monte Blandinio’ but perished in

August 1566 when the abbey was burnt by
the Flemish iconoclasts. They had been
previously inspected by J. Cruquius, who
edited Horace by instalments beginning in
1565, and published a complete edition in
1578. Cruquius says (Ed. 1578, p. 647)
that the MSS. were ‘Roma Gandavum
perlati,’ but Cruquius was a professor in
Bruges. Probably for that reason, and
because one does not look for a ‘mons’
in Ghent, English editors of Horace (includ-
ing myself) have for the last 40 years stated
that ‘mons Blandinius’ is Blankenberghe,
a watering-place which is not very far from
Ghent indeed, but nearer to Bruges. This
is an error which I am enabled to correct
by the kindness of Prof. A. Geerebaert, of
5, John’s College, Louvain. He is a native
of Ghent, and informs me that ‘the Blanden-
berg or Blandijnberg is a hill in the interior
of the city which seems to rise some 20 or
30 metres above the level of the Scheldt, on
the bank of which it stands.’ I gather from
Baedeker that this height is near the railway
station and that some remains of the abbey
are incorporated in a barrack. J. Gow.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Homer in seinen Bildern und Vergleichungen.
Von Dr. E. Wirticu. Stuttgart: J. F.
Steinkopf, 1908. Pp. 71.

In this little book Dr. Wittich has made a
rational grouping of Homer's similes, and
tastefully translated the original into German
hexameters. It is perhaps worth while to
direct attention to the great merit of this
side of the Homeric poems, and the author
aptly quotes a sentence of Dr. Oskar Jager:
‘In Homer this department reveals an
amount of feeling and creative imagination,
an originality of handling which has not
been surpassed down to our times by any
poet of any nation.’ Moreover, the collected
similes are particularly valuable as evidence
for Homeric or pre-Homeric life, because in
them the poet is off his guard and gives us
very welcome glimpses of an unknown world
about which curiosity grows rather than
decreases. The late Professor T. D. Sey-
mour’s book, Life in the Homeric Age, 15
indebted for a large proportion of its matter
to the similes. Dr. Wittich’s headings are,
natural phenomena, including sea, storms,
wind, mist, dew, and so on; the plant king-
dom with various trees ; the animal kingdom,
from the lion down to the house-dog, from
the eagle to the nightingale; while similes
drawn from human life form the third section
of the work. The result of a perusal of
these pages is chiefly the surprise of the
reader at the very wide ground covered by
the similes. Dr. Wittich’s book is a not
unsympathetic piece of systematising, which
may easily suggest fresh inferences about the
Homeric poems. - S. E. WINBOLT.

Modern Greek-English Dictionary with a
Cypriote Vocabulary. By A. KyRIAKIDES.
Second edition. 10” x 7”. Athens: A. Con-
stantinides. 1909. Pp. 16, 908. Cloth.

THE first edition of this work was published
in 1892 at Nicosia, and has proved to bea
useful book. The second, greatly enlarged,
will prove useful, although the dictionary of
Contopoulos is fuller. Both Contopoulos
and Kyriakides give but sparingly of the
spoken language, the little Greek-French

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

dictionary of Legrand being more useful for
the traveller. The present volume omits
a number of popular words that occur in
Legrand, and Legrand himself is far from
complete. On the other hand, Kyriakides
quotes many proverbs and idiomatic ex-
pressions in his longer articles, which are
omitted in both the others, and he gives the
main vocabulary of the popular language.
It is certainly a useful Greek-English
dictionary of the modern language, and it
may be recommended to the student.

The Cypriote vocabulary differs in some
respects from that of Sakellarios; the other
is much fuller, yet it omits a good many
words that are found in Kyriakides. The
vocalization differs in some words, but I
have no first-hand knowledge of this dialect,
and therefore I cannot offer any opinion as
to which is correct, or whether each is
correct for certain districts.

W. H. D. Rowse.

_ not to instruct!

205

Days in Hellas. By Mase Moore. With
numerous illustrations and coloured frontis-
piece. Heinemann. 65. net.

THIs is a charming little book. How
pleasant it is amongst the learned works sub-
mitted to the Classical Review, to find now
and again one that is meant to amuse and
The amusing books, if
written by a competent person, do also
instruct, and this does instruct as to the
human side of the modern Greek; it also
gives information about antiquities by the
way, sometimes inaccurate, once or twice we
regret to say by means of extracts from books
of scholarship or antiquities. Never mind:
we soon forget the instruction, and once more
lose ourselves in the author’s ready humour
and sympathy. Where she ceases to play on
the surface, and sounds a fuller note, she can
say things both beautiful and worth remem-
bering. We cordially recommend this book
to our readers.

TRANSLATION

COPA.

7 heard a Voice within the Tavern ery,
‘ Awake, my Little ones, and fill the Cup
Before Lifés Liquor in tts Cup be dry.’

Copa Surisca caput Graeca redimita mi-
tella,
crispum sub crotalo docta mouere latus,
ebria famosa saltat lasciua taberna
ad cubitum raucos excutiens calamos.
5 ‘quid iuuat aestiuo defessum puluere
abesse,
quam potius bibulo decubuisse toro ?
sunt topia et kelebes, cyathi, rosa, tibia,
chordae,
et triclia umbrosis frigida harundinibus.
en et, Maenalio quae garrit dulce sub antro,
10 _— rustica pastoris fistula more sonat.
est et uappa cado nuper defusa picato
et strepitans raucomurmureriuus aquae.

In her low tavern dancing, tipsy twirls

The Syrian hostess with the turban’d curls;
The castanets a-rattle on her arms,

With wanton art the lissome figure whirls.

5 ‘Why toil (she sings) and swelter on your

way,

When soft divan and wine-cup bid you
stay P

Flagons are here and roses, flute and
lyre ;

A bower of trellised rushes screens the day.

The rustic pipe from yon Arcadian cave
10 Merrily trolls its lilting pastoral stave ;—
Our country wine’s fresh-broached ;—a
rippling bass
Drones in the murmur of the rivulet’s wave.

206

sunt et * Corycio uiolae de flore corollae,
sertaque purpurea lutea mixta rosa,
15 et quae uirgineo libata Achelois ab amne
lilia uimineis attulit in calathis.
sunt et caseoli quos iuncea fiscina siccat,
sunt autumnali cerea pruna die,
castaneaeque nuces et suaue rubentia

mala,
20 est hic munda Ceres, est Amor, est
Bromius.
sunt et mora cruenta, et lentis una race-
mis,

et pendet iunco caeruleus cucumis.
est tuguri custos armatus falce saligna,
sed non et uasto est inguine terribilis.
huc Calybita ueni, lassus iam sudat asellus.
parce illi, Vestae delicium est asinus.
nunc cantu crebro rumpunt arbusta
cicadae,
nunc uepris in gelida sede lacerta latet.
si sapis, aestiuo recubans * te prolue uitro,
seu uis crystalli ferre nouos calices.
heia age pampinea fessus requiesce sub
umbra
et grauidum roseo necte caput strophio,
* formosus tenerae decerpens ora puellae
a pereat cui sunt prisca supercilia !
quidcineri ingrato seruas bene olentia
serta ἢ
anne coronato uis lapide * ossa tegi?
pone merum et talos. pereat qui crastina
curat.
mors aurem uellens
*uenio.”’

25

30

“ujuite” ait

*The text is that of Robinson Ellis’s Appendix
Vergiliana, except where asterisks mark emendations
of various editors adopted from his critical notes.
Lines 19, 20 follow lines 21, 22 in Haupt’s edition
(Leipsic, 1873), and that order is adopted in the
version.

15

21

a

25

30

35

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Corycian violets your locks shall bind,

And roses red with yellow roses twined ;
Gift of the Naiad of the virgin stream,

Lilies in osier baskets here you'll find.

Here, too, is creamy junket drained of
whey
Upon its mat of reeds; here, if you'll stay,
Are blood-red mulberries, and waxen
plums,
Ripened by genial autumn’s mellow ray.

Here are the pendent clusters of the vine,
Green cucumbers looped up with rushy
twine,
Smooth, glossy chestnuts, red-cheeked
apples sweet ;—
Love, Ceres, Bromius grace our Tavern
sign.

Guarding our cot, the lusty God stands
near,
Armed but with willow sickle—have no
fear.
Turn in, good traveller; spare your
sweating ass,—
Poor, weary ass, to Vesta he is dear.

The shrill cicala’s song bursts from the
glade,
The lizard lurks in his cool leafy shade.
Be wise, recline and drain a summer’s
glass.
Look, here are goblets new of crystal made.

Come, ’neath the vine-leaf’s shadow lay
you down,
Weave the red rose your heavy head to
crown ;
Come, rifle Beauty’s lips, e’er beauty’s
past ;—
Out on the old-world prude that dares to
frown !

Why save sweet blossoms for the un-
grateful Tomb?

Care you what garlands on your grave-
stone bloom?

Bring wine and dice!
morrow’s fears !
Death plucks Youth’s ear and whispers,

“Live, I come.”’

Avaunt, To-

H. RACKHAM.

Christ’s College, Cambridge.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

207

CORRESPONDENCE

The Editor, THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

S1r,—We trust that we shall not seem ungrateful
if we venture to offer a few comments on the review of
Limen (C.R. June).

I. Prof. Postgate describes the book as containing
‘grammar, reading lessons, questions upon them, and
exercises with conversations.’ Although the last two
points of his description are in a sense correct, they
are, we think, likely to give a wrong idea of the book ;
for, while we hold with Dr. Postgate that conversation
in Latin upon suitable topics may be made’a valuable
part of teaching, we have laid down definitely in our
Appendix that the plan of the conversations ought
to be the spontaneous work of the teacher. This
Appendix, which contains hints upon and examples
of oral exercises, is for the use of teachers only ; from
the book itself we have’ deliberately excluded any
conversations which the pupils who use it are expected
to repeat, since we have observed the deadening effect
of putting into the hands of a class questions and
answers ready made. But we have added to the
Appendix three Latin Dialogues such as a class can
perform (and these can be obtained separately) ; while
in the Reading Lessons in the book itself we have
done our best to provide topics of sufficient interest to
be the theme of questions and answers. The first
three of them, while the pupil has learnt as yet no
Cases but the Nominative, Accusative, and Vocative,
are in the form of conversations, and here Dr. Post-
gate criticises as ‘unnatural’ the boy’s exclamation,
O Juppiter (when his oar falls into the water). Our
choice was between (1) using this phrase ; (2) using
Juppiter alone, which would have been more lively
but much more difficult for a beginner; and (3), as
Dr. Postgate would prefer, using no exclamation at all.
We submit in view of the colloquial colour of passages
like Plaut. Merc. v. 2. 24, and the English school-
boy’s favourite appeal to this particular god, that we
have chosen the least evil of the three.

II. The only important point on which Dr. Postgate
would seem to differ from us is the difficult matter of
the rule for questions in Oratio Obliqua. Dr. Post-
gate’s words are: ‘The statement that rhetorical
questions, the answer to which is not known or clearly
foreshadowed, are put into the Subjunctive, is in-
sufficient. Such questions, if a first or second person
is concerned, are normally put into the Infinitive.’
(We venture to assume that in the last sentence the
word ‘second’ is a clerical error for ‘third.’) Now
this criticism scarcely represents our statement of the
rule. On page 289 we define ‘ Rhetorical’ questions
as being those ‘To which the answer is known or
clearly foreshadowed’; and these, we say, are regu-
larly put into the Infinitive. In the next sentence
we define real questions as ‘those to which the
answer is not immediately clear’ ; and these latter, we
say, are treated like Dependent Questions, and put
into the Subjunctive. To this last statement Dr.
Postgate seems to demur, and he suggests that we

ought to have introduced the criterion of the Person
who is the Subject in the question. We are glad
that our account should be ‘insufficient,’ provided
only that it is true so far as it goes, for we do not
think that a First Latin Book is the place for a discus-
sion of the complex and often inconsistent usage
of Latin authors in this matter. The difficulty of
the topic will be at once apparent to your readers if
we remind them that Dr. Postgate’s present statement
is hardly consistent with his own description of the
use [on page 192 of the Mew Latin Primer (Edition
1898)] where he gives four rules, of which the first is
that ‘Questions in the Subjunctive in Oratio Recta
remain in the Subjunctive in Oratio Obliqua’; such
questions, namely, as gud factam? ‘What am I to
do?’ which becomes, of course, guzd faceret. This
appears to us to be a Question to which the answer is
not clearly known. It is a Question in the First Per-
son, and yet, as we all know, and as Dr. Postgate
himself quite correctly stated in his Primer, it is put
into the Subjunctive. In these circumstances, we de-
cided that the right course to adopt was to put the
learner at once into possession of the real principle
which underlies the complexity, and leave him to
study the inconsistencies in its application by different
authors at a later period. That principle is that if,
and only if, the question in O. R. is equivalent to a
statement it is regularly represented in O. O. by the
construction proper to an oblique statement, Ζ.6.
by the Accusative and Infinitive. The general
principle appeared to us to be worth grasping at the
outset ; the variations of ucage ought not, we think,
to be studied by learners till a later stage. But the
serious misconception into which our critic has been
led by supposing that we used the term ‘ rhetorical’
as he has used it, namely, to include all questions of
every kind that are asked in the course of a speech,
has now determined us to discard the term ‘ rhetori-
cal’ altogether. It will disappear from our second
edition, where we contrast 7ea/ questions with artificial
questions without insisting on the use of either term.

III. As to the English derivatives from Present and
Supine-stems, are we not perhaps rather hardly treated?
By the time that the Supine was introduced, every
inch of our pages was urgently wanted for more im-
portant matters than the derivation of single English
words. But we made room in three Exercises (pp.
95, 110, 112) for this distinction, feeling confident
that when it had been clearly indicated every com-
petent teacher would from that point onwards insist
upon the difference in any derivation that he might
ask or give. If the Supine could speak, we fancy it
would be more inclined to thank us than to grumble.
For similar reasons at a more advanced stage (p. 141)
we have once given a list of English words whose
meaning has been largely changed from that of their
Latin originals, asking the learner to point out the
nature of the changes. But we have not thought it
necessary to make room for such examples at any
later point.

208

IV. Finally, we are sorry that our policy on the
insoluble question on the use of the Hyphen in print-
ing paradigms, is not entirely such as Dr. Postgate
approves. For the most part we have cut the knot
by not using it at all; but in some places it appeared
to us (as on p. 299) far more helpful to the learner to
print, for instance, the Imperfect Subjunctive thus :—

ama-

mone-

rege- rem, etc.

audi- |

cape-
than to print am-drem, mon-érem and so forth, which
is the principle that Dr. Postgate recommends. His

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

particular example is chosen from the 5th Declension,
and there we still venture to think that our division
dié-s contrasted with gradu-s in the immediately pre-
ceding pages is of some help to the learner. But we
have reserved the symbol for such cases.

May we conclude by cordially thanking Dr. Post-
gate for the praise he has given us, which we count a
welcome reward for the hard work which the book
involved ?

Yours faithfully,

C. FLAMSTEAD WALTERS.
R. S. Conway.
July 8th, 1909.

London,
Manchester,

BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note ὁ)
the price.

The size of Books is given in inches: 4 inches=10 centimetres (roughly).
the binding is specified.

They are unbound unless

*.* Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Amico Monita rebus novis adversanti. Carmen Fran-
cisci Tranquillini Moltedo Neapolitani in certamine

poetico Hoeufftiano magna laude ornatum. 10” x
63”. Pp. 16. Amsterdam, J. Muller. 1909.
_ Ashburner (Walter) Νόμος Ῥοδιων Navtixos. The

Rhodian Sea-Law. Edited from the Manuscripts
by W. A., M.A. 9”x 53”. Pp. ecxcvit+ 132. Oxford,
Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth, 18s. net. ($5.75.)
Sraun (Franz) Die Entwicklung der spanischen
Provinzialgrenzen in rémischer Zeit. (Qzellen und
Forschungen zur alten Geschichte und Geographie,
herausgegeben von W. Sieglin. Heft 17.) 9%" x 64".

Pp. 140. Berlin, Weidmann. 1909. M. 5.
Cavenagh (Francis A.) The Ethical End of Plato’s
Theory of Ideas. 9”x 52”. Pp. go. Henry

Frowde, Oxford University Press, London, New
York, Toronto, and Melbourne. 1909. 2s.
Detlefsen (D.) Die Anordnung der geographischen
Biicher des Plinius und ihre Quellen. (Qzed/en
und Forschungen zur alten Geschichte und Geo-
graphie, herausgegeben von W. Sieglin. Heft 18.)
92” x63". Pp. viiit172. Berlin, Weidmann.

1909. M. 6.

Diels (Hermann) Herakleitos von Ephesos. Grie-
chisch und Deutsch. Zweite Auflage. 93” x 6”.
Pp. xvi+84. Berlin, Weidmann. 1909. M. 3.20.

Hoorn (G. van) De Vita atque cultu puerorum
monumentis antiquis explanatio. Dissertatio In-
auguralis, 1127 x 83”. Pp. viii (ἢ) + 98+vi.
Amsterdam, J. H. De Bussy. 1909.

Horace. The Satires. With introduction and notes
by Edward P. Morris. 75 χ 5΄. Pp. 254. New
York, Cincinnati, Chicago, The American Book
Company. 1909. Cloth.

Liverpool Committee for Excavation and Research in
Wales and the Marches First Annual Report, 1908.
10}”x7}”. Pp. 86, with 16 Plates. Liverpool,
University Press. 1909.

Livy. Book IX. Edited with introduction, notes,
etc., by W. B. Anderson, M.A. (Pitt Press
Series.) 57" x4". Pp. xxiv+276. Cambridge,
University Press. 1909. Cloth.

Paulys Real Encyclopidie der classischen Altertums-
wissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung. Unter Mitwir-
kung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, herausgegeben von
Georg Wissowa. Zwolfter Halbband. Euxantios-—
Fornaces. οὔ" x63”. Pp. 769-1438 (columns 1537-
2876.) Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler. 1909. M. 15.

Pohlenz (M.) De Ciceronis Tusculanis disputationi-
bus. Ad Praemiorum a quattuor ordinibus pro-
positorum publicam Renuntiationem quae fiet die
IX Mensis Junii A. MDCCCCIX hora XII, huius
Academiae cives et qui eius studiis favent invitant
Universitatis Georgiae Augustae Prorector et Sena-
tus. 10”x7”. Pp. 38. Gottingen, Vandenhoeck
et Ruprecht. 1909.

Fostgate (J. P.) Flawsin Classical Research. (From
the Proceedings of the British Academy. Vol. 7711.)
9?” x 63". Pp. 52. London, Henry Frowde. 1909.
35. 6d. net. :

Salt (Henry S.) Some Thoughts from Lucretius.
(Reprinted from the Humane Review, July, 1909.)
84” x 54". Pp. 12.

Sex Carmina tn certamine poetico Hoeufftiano magna
laude ornata. 10" x 63”. Amsterdam, J. Muller. 1909.

Watson (Foster) The English Grammar Schools in
1660: their Curriculum and Practice. 72” x 42”.
Pp. x+548. Cambridge, University Press. 1908.
Cloth, 6s. net.

Webb (Clemens C. J.) Joannis Saresberiensis Epis-
copi Carnotensis Policratici sive de nugis curialium
et vestigiis philosophorum libri VIII, recognovit et
prolegomenis, apparatu critico, commentario, indi-
cibus instruxit C. C. J. Webb, A.M. 9}”x 52".
Tom. I. Pp. 1 (50) 368. Tom. II. Pp. viii+ 512.
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth, 36s. net.

The Classical Review

NOVEMBER

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE CONNECTION OF THE AGEAN CULTURE WITH SERVIA.

ΙΝ the current volume of the Annual of the
British School at Athens! Dr. Vassits restates
his views on the relationship of Servia to the
_ 4¥gean in prehistoric ,times, and in doing so
deals with several suggestions which we put
forward in this Review last December. He
gives an excellent summary of his important
finds, and as the result of much careful
observation, is now enabled to put forward a
scheme for arranging the early Servian
antiquities in chronological order. This we
have no intention of criticising, nor do we
dispute any of the archzological facts that he
has discovered, for we only wish to discuss
briefly in this paper some of the comparisons
he makes between the Servian finds and
those from Thessaly and Crete. Most of the
Servian finds he assigns to an age of metal,
and apparently means by a ‘ Bronze Age’ an
age in which bronze was known, but not
necessarily used for cutting instruments, the
more usual meaning. So for convenience we
will here adopt his use of the term. In the
first place, it will be.well to clear up a slight
misunderstanding ;? we have never called the
Klicevac statuette neolithic, nor classed it
with earlier figurines ; we have only pointed
out how it differs from the Thessalian, Trojan,
and Mycenean figurines.

1 Vol. xiv. pp. 319-342: cited below as 4.5.4. xiv.

2 B.S.A. xiv. p. 327; Class. Kev. 1908, pp. 237,
238.

NO. CCV. VOL. XXIII.

Dr. Vassits concludes that the prehistoric
settlements of Servia were formed under the
‘continuous influence of a south-eastern
civilisation,’ by which is apparently meant
the prehistoric civilisation of the Agean.®
Throughout the arguments used to support
this contention one feature is very notice-
able —evidence is gathered indiscriminately
from Troy, Thessaly, and the A2gean proper.
These three regions, though all to the south-
east of Servia geographically, are archzo-
logically distinct from one another. It
is, indeed, very doubtful if Troy can be
called A‘gean in the true sense at all. Pro-
fessor Doerpfeld has said,‘ ‘ After all the
correspondences, the civilisation that con-
fronts us at Troy is different from the
Mycenean. To be sure, we recognised the
influence of the latter in the Mycenean vases
(undoubtedly imported) which we find in the
sixth stratum ; but the native culture of the
Trojan rulers is a different culture.’ The
architecture also differs from that of main-
land sites. The origin of many elements of
the ‘Trojan culture is probably to be found
in Asia Minor and not in the A®gean,®
and so parallels between Troy and Servia

© Bs Ν,Α͂. χῖνο Ps 442:
*In his preface to Tsountas and Manatt, .J/ycenean
Age.
δ Cf. the finds at Yortan and Boz Eyuk, cf. C/ass.
Rev. 1908, p. 236.
oO

210

so far from supporting A‘gean influence go
against it.

Parallels from Thessaly are hardly more
conclusive. At present Thessaly and North
Greece are still comparatively new ground,
but excavations have been made at Dhimini,
Sesklo, Phthiotic Thebes, Zerelia and T zani
in Thessaly, Lianokladhi in Malis, Orcho-
menos and Chaeronea in Boeotia, where
kindred cultures have been found. Besides
these, several trial-excavations have been
made, and it is legitimate to draw certain
conclusions from the evidence already before
us. In the first place, early Thessalian cul-
ture is quite distinct and separate from the
AEgean.! A few stray Aigean objects may
occur in Thessaly, but they cannot alter the
case, and the Late Minoan III. pottery from
this region is only found either isolated or
together with the latest of the local wares.
The Minyan ware, which is somewhat earlier
in date, was imported from Orchomenos and
is the earliest sign of the potter’s wheel
in the north. The early hand-polished,
painted wares which are succeeded by a
_ period of degeneration and plain pottery,
have no likeness to any southern fabric, and
southern influence does not really occur till
the very end of the Mycenean age (Late
Minoan III.). So a resemblance between
Thessaly and Servia does not mean A‘gean
influence in Servia. Taken as a whole,
Thessalian and Servian ceramic fabrics seem
to be different ; amongst the former painted
wares are common and incised rare, among
the latter the case seems to be the reverse.
Dr. Vassits quotes some Servian ware with
red matt paint, and suggests a Thessalian
parallel.2 But the Thessalian red on white
ware is hand-polished, and quite different.
He also mentions one bichrome fragment,’
which does not seem to be Thessalian, and
is a slight proof of strong connection at best.
Thessalian wares and other objects may occur
in Servia and vice versa, but unless the quan-
tity found is great there is no proof that one
style influenced the other, especially when the
differences are so great.

1 Tsountas, Διμήνι καὶ Σέσκλο, p. 385; cf. Lzverpool
Annals of Arch. and Anthropology, 1908, pp. 120 ff.

2 B.S.A. xiv. p. 335.

3 B.S.A. xiv. p. 335, fig. 11.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Dr. Vassits quotes with approval our sug-
gestion that the Thessalian chronology needs
revision,! and points out that a type of
unpainted vase, one of which has been found
in Thessaly, occurs in Italy and Bulgaria in
the iron age. Apparently he would wish to
place the upper strata of Dhimini, to which
the vase belongs, in the early iron age, and so
equate bronze with bronze, and iron with
iron. All the evidence, however, is the other
way, and no one would dream of placing the
introduction of iron into Thessaly before the
third Late Minoan period, the zerminus ante
quem for the upper levels of Dhimini,° for
the evidence from Zerelia seems to show that
even at that date Thessaly was still in an
Eneolithic age.®

In his interesting account of the imple-
ments, statuettes, and pottery, Dr. Vassits
lays great stress on the part played by metal
prototypes from the south-east. Thus he
holds that stag-horn harpoons and hooks are
not characteristic of the stone, but of the
bronze age, and are copied from metal hooks
and harpoons from the south-east, but appar-
ently such metal prototypes have not been
found in Servia itself. The same seems to
be the case as regards the pottery which he
believes to be largely imitated from the
shapes of metal vases. Now a large amount
of pottery based on metal prototypes seems
to imply a considerable amount of metal
which, however, according to Dr. Vassits him-
self, is very rare.’ If the actual metal proto-
types are lacking, how far is it legitimate to
argue their existence from ceramic fabrics?
Metal vases are decorated in three ways: (1)
by incised patterns, (2) by raised patterns,
(3) by designs beaten out from the inside.
Of these, the first two methods are equally
natural for pottery, and without a metal
parallel cannot be taken as implying the
existence of metal prototypes. The third
method, however, if found in pottery is most
probably derived from metal. Ware showing
this technique has been found at Knossos,
and from the same site there are fragments
which exactly reproduce in clay the handles

4B.S.A. xiv. p. 3323 cf Ath. Mitt. 1908, p. 290.
5 Tsountas, of. czt. p. 362.

8 B.S.A. xiv. p. 222. 7 B.S.A. xiv. p. 340.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 211

of the Vaphio cups. Here we have both the
metal prototype and the ceramic imitation,
but are there any such certain examples in
Servia? To judge by his paper on his excava-
tions at Zuto Brdo,! Dr. Vassits considers
any sharp bend in the profile of a vase to
be a sign of metal, but this may just as well
be derived from wicker or wooden proto-
types.

The prehistoric collection of the National
Museum at Belgrade now contains, thanks to
Dr. Vassits’ energy, over a thousand statuettes
from different sites. All of these are, with
two exceptions—a bird’s head from Jablanica
and the hindquarters of a quadruped from
Vinca—of clay, and so there is no Servian
parallel to the Cycladic marble statuettes.”
The solid female figurines from the earlier

group of sites are without exception steato- _

pygous, which is not a characteristic of the
figean, though it is of Thessaly.2 The
Petsofa figurines, which Dr. Vassits often
refers to, are all painted and for the most
part male, while the Servian statuettes which
he compares to them are incised and usually
female. Throughout there seems to be a differ-
ence inthedevelopmentand history ofcostume,
for early Servian statuettes of both sexes wear
a form of loin-cloth, while in the A‘gean the
typical female costume is a bell-shaped skirt.
In the Klicevac figure, now no longer an
isolated example, an apron is still found. On
this point he refers to the parallel drawn by
Prof. Myres between the Klicevac example
and the Petsofaé figurines. But that this is
not enough to prove a continuous A°gean
influence is shown by Dr. Vassits’ further
description, ‘long garments enveloping the
whole of the lower part of the body are worn
only by figurines of the Klicevac type, and only
the ornaments of the dress are indicated, not
the dress itself, probably because it was
thought sufficiently rendered by the shape of
the body.’ ‘This is again in striking contrast
to the narrow waists, heavy belts, and bell-
shaped skirts of the Aigean that in no way
follow the natural lines of the body. To
support his contention that the Klicevac type

1 Starinar, 1907, pp. I ff.
2 B.S.A. xiv. p. 341.
’Tsountas, of. crt. p. 384.
* B.S. A. ix. p. 383.

originated in Crete Dr. Vassits also quotes
Dr. Evans.° The comparison, however, is not
convincing, for in the Knossian terra-cotta ®
the arms are separated from the body, the
waist is narrow, and the base cylindrical, not
anthropomorphic. He rightly points out that
the Klicevac type is not neolithic, though
some of his reasons are open to question. In
the cylindrical shape of the lower limbs, the
flat, solid torso, and in the head he sees signs
of a metal prototype, but he does not refer to
any of these metal prototypes that he uses to
connect Servia and the A®gean, except, per-
haps, the bronze statuette from the Troad,?
which he quotes as giving a hint of the way
by which Aégean things reached Servia. In
this example the marked flounced skirt of
the A®gean type is in direct contrast to the
Klicevac figure.

There also seems to be some difficulty in
Dr. Vassits’ comparative chronology. Some
of the Servian objects are, according to him,
much later than the Cretan prototypes from
which he alleges they were derived. For
instance, the Klicevac type, which is the
earliest statuette with the lower limbs fully
draped, is dated by him as parallel with Troy
VII.,8 and is thus later than the Knossian
terra-cotta compared with it, which belongs
to the last period of the second palace,
1400 B.C. The Petsofa figurines, which come
early in the Middle Minoan period, are com-
pared with the second group of the early
Servian figures, which, according to Dr.
Vassits, are of the age following Troy II.,°
but at Petsofa we have the fully developed skirt
and bodice.!° How is it then that Servia,
which, according to Dr. Vassits, almost
always depends on the A®gean for all new
figurines and pottery, produced no statuette
with the lower limbs fully draped before a
‘ Mycenean or Post-Mycenean age’???

We may then briefly summarise the points
we have raised. A connection with Thessaly

5 B.S.A, viii. p. 98 ; Starinar, 1907, pp. 28 ff.

5 B.S.A. viii. fig. 56.

7 Furtwangler, gina, p. 371, fig. 296; Perrot-
Chipiez, //zstotre de l'art, vi. figs. 349, 350.

8 B.S.A. xiv. p. 326.

* B.S.A. xiv. pp. 323, 341.

Contrast 2.S.A. xiv. pp. 321, figs. 1-3 with B.S.A.
ix. pls. 8, 9.

1 B.S.A. xiv. p. 326.

212

or Troy is no proof of Ζύρεδη influence. The
alleged close relationship between Servia and
the Xgean is not proved, because Servian
fabrics are so different from the Cretan, no
actual Cretan imports have yet been found in
Servia, the Servian objects are much later in
date. The argument of metal prototypes
must remain in abeyance till they are found
both in Servia and in the Aégean. The
Thessalian culture, while certainly non-
/£gean, may perhaps connect with Servia,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

figurines from Dhimini and Sesklo may show
resemblances, but the differences are far
greater ; for instance, the Klicevac type is
unknown in Thessaly, and also a type from
Zuto Brdo.! Thus for these reasons and
because, as far as we can tell, the ceramic
fabrics of Crete, Troy, Thessaly, and Servia
are so different from one another, we would
submit that Dr. Vassits has failed to make

out his case.
M. 5. THOMPSON.

but the pottery in shape and technique is on Be). Β. WAC

the whole so different as to preclude the

dependence of one on the other. Some * Rev. Arch. 1908, pp. 205 ff. figs. 1-4.
SOPHOCLES’ ANZ/GONE.

The Composition of Sophocles Antigone. Trans-
lated from an article by Prof. A. Β. DRacH-
MANN of the University of Copenhagen, in
the ‘ Hermes’ (Berlin, vol. 43, 1. 1908).

AFTER repeated study of Sophocles’ Aztigone,
a number of difficulties have occurred to me,
which, as I believe, admit of a single simple
explanation. I will first refer to the passages
in their order.

Lines 280 ff. (Jebb’s edition). After the
watchman has announced to Creon what has
happened to the body of Polyneices, Creon
expresses his suspicion that the watchmen
have been bribed, and that too by a party
among the citizens hostile to himself (pre-
sumably the followers of Polyneices). It is
not quite clear whether he means that the
watchmen themselves did the deed, or only
allowed it to be done. In either case there
is no foundation for his suspicion. If the
watchmen had been bribed, they, or those
who bribed them, would certainly have done
more than strew a little dust over the body ;
a single person could have easily done this
unobserved, if the watchmen were not paying
close attention.

Lines 332 ff: (1st Stasimon). The chorus
praises the inventiveness (δεινότης) of man,
and illustrates it by a series of examples.
But this inventiveness may be used as well
in the service of evil as of good. The chorus
give expression to their horror of the criminal,

who abuses the most splendid faculties of
man for the transgression of law. As it isa
case of just such flagrant lawlessness that
has been reported, the last words of the ode
must have reference to it: this also agrees
with the general attitude of the chorus. The
introductory remarks about δεινότης are less
to the point. What has happened argues no
particular inventiveness. It is plain that the
difficulty here is the same as in the previous
passage. The action which has just been
reported, is spoken of in a way which is
unsuited to its character. Creon’s suspicion
might be explained on the ground that he is
represented as of a suspicious disposition.
But as regards the chorus this evasive expla-
nation does not apply. For this reason the
psychological explanation cannot be accepted
in Creon’s case either. The difficulty is
fundamentally the same in the two cases, and
demands a single explanation. The same
may be said to apply more or less to the
following passages.

Lines 384 ff. (The report of the watchman
of Antigone’s second visit to the body).
Why Antigone should be represented as going
a second time to the body of her brother has
not yet, to my knowledge, been satisfactorily
explained.! The object of her first visit was

1The question has naturally been frequently dis-
cussed; I should like to refer not only to the usual
commentaries (I made use of Nauck, Ew. Bruhn,
G. Wolff, and Jebb), but also to the small discussion

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

an ἀφοσίωσις ; after strewing earth over the
corpse she is no longer ἐναγής (Schol. Ant.
255; cp. Plut. De Js. e¢ Os. p. 371; Hor. ¢.1.
Xxviil. 23 ff.) and indeed she did more than
this, she brought to him, at the same: time,
the necessary offerings (ἐφαγιστεύσας ἃ χρή
247)... This is natural enough in her case,
because she does not chance upon an un-
buried corpse,’but goes to it with the object
of fulfilling the burial rites. She has there-
fore done her duty towards the dead man,
and has at the same time escaped from
danger at the hands of the living. Her
second visit would have sufficient motive, if
she wished to bring the regular offering to the
dead. ‘That did not fall due, as a matter of fact,
until the third day after the burial: but this
Sophocles could perhaps afford to disregard.
But by reason of its very nature the offering
to the dead belongs to the ceremony of
burial. In the case of a mere ἀφοσίωσις
with regard to an unburied corpse it is neither
required nor (under ordinary circumstances)
practicable. It is useless to urge that. with-
out the second visit the whole tragedy would
come to nothing; what was it then that
compelled the poet to represent two visits
at all?

Lines 488 ff. Creon accuses Ismene of
having had a hand in the burial of Polyneices.
He gives as the ground for his suspicion the
fact that he had seen her shortly before in
a state of intense excitement. The ground
would be reasonable enough if there were
some objective basis for his suspicion, But
this is not the case. It is highly inconsistent
with the whole nature of the ceremony that
several people should share in its fulfilment.

Lines 615 ff. (Second Stasimon). After
considering the old inherited guilt of the
Labdacidae, the chorus laud the might and
eternity of Zeus in contrast with the help-
lessness and uncertainty of human life. The

between Nake and Gringmuth, in Neue Jahr. 1894,
pp. 260, 602 and 819. Jebb acknowledges frankly
that he cannot solve the problem ; Nake saw that the
second visit of Antigone has no apparent motive.
Others suggest the frightening away of wild beasts,
and other such explanations.

1 For sacrifice at burial see Rohde, Psyche", p. 231.
Sophocles had to take care that the ceremony per-
formed by Antigone should bear the closest possible
resemblance to a regular burial.

213

responsibility for sin and misfortune is attri-
buted to Hope: hope can work good, but it
entices many a man to destruction. It is
difficult not to find in this passage a reference
to the state of mind of Antigone; yet it
is not suitable to her condition, which
approaches much nearer to desperation than
to hope. (The words have also been sup-
posed to refer to Creon; to whom the
emotion of hope is particularly alien.)

Lines 696 ff. Haemon gives the verdict
of the people on Antigone’s action in the
following words :

ἥτις τὸν αὑτῆς αὐτάδελφον ἐν φοναῖς

πεπτῶτ᾽ ἄθαπτον μήθ᾽ ὑπ’ ὠμηστῶν κυνῶν
μή μη

δ τε ΤΟ Ὁ 1a" ge Bes ae a

εἴασ᾽ ὀλέσθαι μήθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ οἰωνῶν τινος.

This is a very inaccurate description of what
Antigone has really done; her ‘burial’ of
Polyneices could keep neither birds nor
beasts from his body. Jebb translates : ‘would
not leave him unburied, to be devoured,’
without a note. This is wrong, both as
regards the aorist εἴασε and the construction
of the infinitive ; but it serves to show that
Jebb felt the difficulty.

I wish to add one other remark which is
not quite on the same plane with what I
have said. It was observed long ago, that
the place where Antigone is buried reminds
one of a Mycenean domed-tomb (vide Ew.
Bruhn, Lind. pp. 32 ff.; Jebb, sud v. 1217); it
has moreover been proved (e.g. by Bruhn),
that Sophocles could have had knowledge of
such buildings. In spite of this it is remark-
able that Creon should have had such a place
ready at hand, with which to punish Antigone,
and that he should intend to use it for this
purpose.

As regards the sources from which
Sophocles drew the matter for his Antigone,
the opinion seems to have been generally
adopted recently that the plot of his tragedy
is a free invention (e.g. Corssen, Die Antigone
des Sophokles, p. 35). On the other hand,
it has for a long time been recognized
that the tradition in Apollodorus (iii. 78)
approaches very near to the Sophoclean
version, The passage reads: Κρέων δὲ τὴν
τῶν Θηβαίων βασιλείαν παραλαβὼν τοὺς τῶν
᾿Αργείων νεκροὺς ἔρριψεν ἀτάφους, καὶ κηρύξας

μηδένα θάπτειν φύλακας κατέστησεν. ᾿Αντιγόνη

214
δὲ, μία τῶν Οἰδίποδος θυγατέρων, κρύφα τὸ
Πολυνείκους σῶμα κλέψας ἔθαψε, καὶ φωρα-
θεῖσα ὑπὸ Κρέοντος αὐτοῦ τῷ τάφῳ ζῶσα
The reading in the last clause
was formerly αὐτὴν τῷ τάφῳ ζῶσαν ἐνεκρύ-
ψατο, following the inferior MSS. This
made it very difficult to judge of the passage.
Bruhn, who prints the passage with the
correct text (Zin/. p. 7), remarks with reason
that both the fact that the burial is really
accomplished, and also the exact correspond-
ence between the deed and the punishment
of Antigone, argue the superiority in age of that
form of the tradition found in Apollodorus.
In spite of this he expresses a doubt as to
whether it should be ‘taken seriously.’

If the above remarks are correct we shall
certainly have to take the passage of Apollo-
dorus very seriously indeed. It is patently
obvious, that all the difficulties which I have
exposed in the first part of the Axtgone,
are solved at one stroke, if we substitute the
story of Apollodorus for that of Sophocles.
If the body has really been buried, it is easy
to believe that Creon would suspect the
ες watchmen; for the body must have been
carried away before their very eyes. One
can understand why the chorus should speak
of human δεινότης after the report of the
watchman; why Creon should take it for
granted that Antigone must have had help,
and why his suspicion should turn immedi-
ately to Ismene; why the chorus, after the
discovery, should speak of hope, which brings
men to ruin (for the deed very nearly escaped
detection); why Haemon should speak as
if Polyneices were protected against dogs
and birds. Lastly, the second visit to the
body is also explained. If Polyneices was
really buried, then the duty of Antigone
did not end with the entombment; she still
had to bring the τρίτα and the evara, before
she could claim to have accomplished 7a
νομιζόμενα, and in doing this she was natur-
ally exposed to the greatest danger of
discovery.! Finally, I would call attention
to the manner of Antigone’s death. It is
only natural that the family burial-place of
the Labdacidae should have been a Mycenean

ἐνεκρύφθη.

1 Apollodorus does not say ἄστυ Antigone was dis-
covered ; but he implies that it was ποῦ at the burial
itself.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

domed-tomb. (As early as 1839 in the Rhem.
Mus. vi. p. 264, Mure identifies, without
further comment, the underground chamber
of Antigone with the grave of the Labdacidae.)
It is equally fitting that she should be buried
there alive.

From these circumstances we may conclude
immediately, that the form of the legend
which we find in Apollodorus must have been
well known to Sophocles. I will not trace
out the consequences of this fact in the
Theban Epics, or in the end of Aeschylus’
Septem. I will return at once to the drama
of Sophocles. The inconsistencies that are
found in the Aztigone are proof positive that
Sophocles knew of the Apollodorus version.
But they are more than this. They are only
to be explained on the hypothesis that he
also made use of it. At any rate, if similar
circumstances occurred in Homer, they would
most undoubtedly be attributed to the work-
ing over and gradual suppression of an
original version.

This is the conclusion which I wish to
draw also in this case; with the difference
that I suppose a change made by the poet
himself in course of composition. This seems
to me absolutely essential, because the whole
conclusion of the tragedy, from the Teiresias
scene onwards, rests on the fundamental
supposition that Polyneices still lies unburied
there, and shows no trace of having been
recast. There is moreover one passage
which gives a conclusive proof that the older
form of the legend was once followed in the
Antigone. 1 passed it over above in order
to be able to consider it fully at this point.

I quote from the first report of the watch-
man, lines 245-258:

τὸν νεκρόν τις ἀρτίως
θάψας βέβηκε κἀπὶ χρωτὶ διψίαν
κόνιν παλύνας κἀφαγιστεύσας ἃ χρή.

ΚΡ. τί φής ; τίς ἀνδρῶν ἣν ὁ τολμήσας τάδε:
PY. οὐκ οἷδ᾽- ἐκεῖ yap οὔτε του γενῇδος ἢν
πλῆγμ᾽, οὐ δικέλλης ἐκβολή: στύφλος
δὲ γῆ

\ ΄ 3 \ 29) > ͵΄

καὶ χέρσος, ἀρρὼξ οὐδ᾽ ἐπημαξευμένη
τροχοῖσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἄσημος οὑργάτης τις ἦν.
ὅπως δ᾽ ὁ πρῶτος ἡμὶν ἡμεροσκόπος
δείκνυσι, πᾶσι θαῦμα δυσχερὲς παρῆν.

ὃ μὲν γὰρ ἠφάνιστο, τυμβήρης μὲν οὔ,
λεπτὴ δ᾽, ἄγος φεύγοντος ὡς, ἐπῆν κόνις.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

σημεῖα δ᾽ οὔτε θηρὸς οὔτε του κυνῶν

ἐλθόντος, οὐ σπάσαντος ἐξεφαίνετο.
That this is nonsense hardly needs saying ;
the fact is admitted to a certain extent even by
those who offer an explanation ; to a certain
extent it is apparent from the attempts at
explanation themselves. Neither pick-axe
nor mattock nor waggon were in any way to
be expected from the course of events that
preceded. And the remark that no trace
of dogs or beasts was to be seen is wholly
unsuited to the context. But everything
becomes plain and simple, as soon as we
perceive that the report of the watchman
culminates in the sentence: the body had
disappeared and left no trace behind it. No
trace, because it had neither been buried
there on the spot, nor fetched away on a
waggon, nor carried off by wild beasts.

There is no place, as far as I know, where
the alteration of the plot is more apparent.
Yet it is instructive to test the scene in
detail with a view to the suggestions here
made. With the exception of the four verses
246f. and 255f. it reads as if it assumed
the disappearance of the body, and the scene
decidedly gains in point if it is read on this
understanding. The eagerness with which
the watchmen accuse one another (v. 262 ff.)
is remarkable if the deed was one that might
have been done by any passer by. The
necessity of reporting what has happened
(268 ff.) to Creon is not obvious; it would
surely have been sufficient to remove the
traces of the symbolical burial. The case is
very different if the body had disappeared
altogether.

The conjecture of the chorus, that the
deed was θεήλατος (278), is decidedly more
to the point if the body has disappeared
without leaving any trace, and not merely
been covered with dust.

Creon repeatedly supposes a number of
men’ who committed the crime. In 306, it
is true, we read τὸν αὐτόχειρα τοῦδε τοῦ τάφου.
But in 302 it is ὅσοι δὲ μισθαρνοῦντες
ἤνυσαν τάδε, and in 324 εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μὴ φανεῖτε
μοι τοὺς δρῶντας. It has already been remarked
that the whole attitude of Creon is more
natural if the body has disappeared altogether
before the very eyes of the watchmen.

It will be necessary to subject the whole

215

first part of the play, down to the Teiresias
scene, to a careful analysis, with these facts
in view. This is not the place for such a
work ; I will only remark here that this whole
part, with the exception of a few lines in the
first report of the watchman, the whole of his
second report, and lines 773 f., may be read
without inconsistency and with decided
advantage, if we presuppose the tradition of
Apollodorus. I will only refer, in passing,
to the whole first scene, and to passages such
as verses 467 and 503 f., 867, 891-904. In
my opinion the facts as they stand at present
make it quite plain that a radical alteration
has been made only in one place, namely in
the second watchman’s scene. The second
report of the watchman had, in the nature of
the case, simply to be cancelled in its original
form, and replaced by an entirely new speech.
We need not therefore wonder at the fact,
that it shows no signs of a different version.
On the other hand the whole position, as
well as particular passages (particularly v.
696 ff.), make it impossible to suppose, as we
otherwise might, that Sophocles had already
changed his plan before the second watch-
man’s scene.

I would seek in two directions his reasons
for altering the tradition. First, it was
obviously much easier to bring about a
change in Creon’s attitude, and make the
scene with Teiresias effective, if the corpse of
Polyneices still lay there unburied. Secondly,
—and this is the point on which I would lay
most stress—Antigone must, according to
the tradition, have accomplished her task
alone. That this was the case is not only
evident from Apollodorus; it is also expressly
emphasized in the description of Philostratus
(Jmag. ii. 29); and in Pausantas ix. 25, il.
it is taken for granted where the σῦρμα
᾿Αντιγόνης is dealt with.! If we may take it
that the account of Apollodorus is to be
traced back to a Theban Epic—and I cannot
see how this conclusion can be avoided—such
a trait cannot appear surprising. But such
an undertaking on the part of a woman could

1In Pausanias and Philostratus we are given to
understand that Polyneices was durned (on the same
pyre as Eteocles). In Sophocles there is no reference
to the burning of Eteocles (e.g. Ant. 241. 27f. 196,

203 f. gooff.). That is probably part of the older
tradition which is found in Apollodorus,

216

hardly have seemed either probable or fitting
to the Attic public of the fifth century. The
simplest way of getting out of the difficulty,
by giving Antigone an assistant. was not
possible for Sophocles, because the action
would have been complicated, and the
glorious theme, a woman, who stands alone,
and alone defies the power of the whole
state, would have been lost. So he may
have thought it permissible to substitute a
symbolical for an actual burial, and yet leave
unaltered the general situation and his attitude
towards the traditional material.

As far as ritual was concerned there could
obviously be no objection to such an altera-
tion. Sophocles has, throughout the piece,
treated the symbolic burial of Antigone as
equivalent to the actual deed, and has
described it as such. No one, as far as we
know, in all antiquity ever took objection to
this. From the dramatic point of view the
case is a little different. I take it that
nobody would dispute the fact that, for our
modern taste, the piece would gain consider-
ably in force, if the burial were actually
completed, while, at the same time, Antigone
would be raised above the common level of
every-day women by the physical effort which
this would imply. But this modern view
hardly affects the question. It appears, how-
ever, that even in antiquity something similar
was felt. It is generally supposed that
Sophocles’ Azzigone was followed by at least
two other interpretations of the same subject ;
first Euripides’ Antigone, which must be later
than that of Sophocles, if only because it
criticizes it; secondly an anonymous piece,
which may be reconstructed from Hyginus,
, Fab. 72, and the tradition of vases and
sarcophagi, and is placed in the time after
Euripides. However much truth there may
be in this supposition, this much at any rate
seems established, that in the versions that
followed that of Sophocles the corpse was
always actually buried by Antigone, with the
help of another. In Hyginus on the vases
and the sarcophagus-relief (Robert, 11. 60) it
was Argeia who helped her, the wife of the
dead man. The summary of Euripides’ play
(in the argument of Aristophanes to the Avzz-
gone) is defective ; but the form of expression

(φωραθεῖσα μετὰ τοῦ Αἵμονος δίδοται πρὸς

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

γάμου κοινωνίαν) points to a similar account.
Euripides was a keen critic of the dramatic
art of his predecessors, and it is likely
enough, that the weakness of the Sophoclean
arrangement did not escape his notice. Inci-
dentally the whole position is a fresh proof
that in Apollodorus we have before us the
original tradition.

Lastly we must touch upon the question
whether the suggestions here made have any
effect upon the problem of the <Avzszgone
generally. At first sight very little ; the main
difficulties for us remain the same, for we
still have the unsympathetic characterization
of Antigone and the unfavourable verdict of
her methods. Yet these difficulties appear in
a slightly different light if we take into con-
sideration the original position. Her intracta-
bility is there more flagrant, her whole manner
passes far beyond the bounds of woman’s
nature, as Sophocles was wont to picture it.
We can understand that he should have been
able to mould, out of his material, a character
like hers, and that he allowed it to stand,
when he had confined his heroine to a certain
extent within the bounds of the Attic ideal of
womanhood. With Creon it is the other
way about. His action appears in the play
as we have it to be thoroughly tyrannical and
brutal, even apart from the refusal of burial
to Polyneices. (Such a step has, in the
ancient epics, nothing objectionable about it;
what Creon did was, according to Homeric
custom, both natural and customary.) The
case is very different if Antigone is guilty of
only a formal disobedience. When Antigone
has done, precisely and in every respect, what
he forbade, there is no possible room for
retreat; he must punish relentlessly, if he is
not to appear in a ridiculous light, as the
king, the representative of the highest power
of the state, defeated by a woman. This
refrain, recurring constantly in his speeches,
is only intelligible in the light of the old form
of the legend. So in that arrangement of the
piece which I contend was the original one,
light and shade are far more evenly distri-
buted, and the treatment and expressions of
the characters have a much firmer and more
natural basis.

H, A. Ss.

New College, Oxford.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

217

THE DEFENCE OF ORESTES.

In the course of an interesting argument
Class. Rev. xxi. 163) to show that the proper

sanctuary. and proper place of trial for
Orestes was the court known in historical
times as τὸ ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ, Prof. Ridgeway
assumed that the killing of Clytemnestra, as
represented and referred to by Aeschylus,
might be called a case of ἀκούσιος φόνος.
The court in question, we know, dealt with
this kind of killing, and for this reason, as
well as for others, Prof. Ridgeway makes the
place where it lay, not the Acropolis, the
scene of the larger part of the Lumentdes.
The description of the murder as ἀκούσιος
has been accepted by Dr. Verrall in his
edition of the play. There are, however,
two or three things that may make us hesi-
tate about it.

First, have we really proof that in reference
to this court ἀκούσιος φόνος ever meant any-
thing but accidental, unintentional killing ?
Undoubtedly this is the natural and ordinary
sense of the expression. But the death of
Clytemnestra was certainly not the result of
accident.

Prof. Ridgeway means by ἀκούσιος that
Apollo compelled Orestes to kill his mother.
This, he says; is the plea by which Orestes
defends himself, while Apollo defends him
further by the plea of justifiable homicide,
because his mother deserved it. It is true
that some of the responsibility is put upon
Apollo by Orestes, by the Furies, and by
Apollo himself; but is it true that the man is
represented as acting under real compulsion
from the god? Certainly the leader of the
Furies declares in line 199 that Apollo is
not merely μεταίτιος but ravaitios. Orestes
calls him 465 κοινῇ ἐπαίτιος, and Apollo
owns 579 αἰτίαν ἔχω. Certainly he bade
Orestes kill his mother: 203 (Apollo) ἔχρησα
τοῦ πατρὺς πρᾶξαι, 595 (Orestes)
ἐξηγεῖτό μοι μητροκτονεῖν : and denounced
pains and penalties on Orestes, if he did not
kill her,
καρδίᾳ (alluded to by Athena, who knows
a little too much in 426 ἄλλης ἀνάγκης
οὔτινος (or ἄλλαις ἀνάγκαις ἢ Tivos) τρέων

ν
ποινας

466 ἄλγη προφωνῶν ἀντίκεντρα

/ > ‘ . 5
κότον ; where ἀνάγκαις must in fairness be

noticed) and the passage of some length
Cho. 270 foll.; cf. 1032 there. But does all
this amount to compulsion? We do not
need, perhaps we ought not, to take Aris-
totle’s point, that things done under stress of
threats or fear of various evils to follow are
not ἀκούσια, because after all the agent does
them of his own free will under the circum-
stances. Waiving that point, can it fairly be
said, and is it ever said in Aeschylus, that
Orestes was compelled to act as he did, that
he had no alternative? It is not so put in
any words that I recall. Neither he nor any
one for him pleads explicitly that he could
not help himself.
used, though on Dr. Ridgeway’s theory
Aeschylus would surely have made a point
of using the word at least once to connect
his story with the Palladian court. ἀνάγκη
and similar words are not used, for ἀνάγκαις
above mentioned in 426 is hardly applied
plainly and with full knowledge of the cir-
cumstances: it is in fact interrogative. No
expression at all, I think, is used strong
enough to convey the idea of compulsion.
Apollo does, on the contrary, use the much
weaker, though vague, word πείθειν in 84
κτανεῖν σ᾽ ἔπεισα μητρῷον δέμας, and so the
leader of the Furies 593, πρὸς τοῦ δ᾽ ἐπείσθης
καὶ τίνος βουλεύμασι ; and, while I cannot
find Orestes pleading that he acted under
compulsion, he does distinctly in 600-613
(cf. Cho. 988, 1027) plead justification, σὺν

΄ ΄ > ” a7 ὅτ ὁ τὰ
δίκῃ KQATEKTAVOV, οὐκ ανευ OLKNS, πάτερ ἐμὸν

ἄκων, ἀκούσιος are not

κατέκτανεν, and so on.

Finally, if we admitted compulsion, is even
that enough to make the killing ἀκούσιος ?
Not unless Orestes was of himself quite un-
willing to do it. What a man is obliged to
do is not therefore unless he
decidedly objects to doing it, and would not
do it except for the pressure or compulsion
brought to bear on him. Where is the
evidence that this could be said of Orestes?
Reluctance of a kind he may have felt.
Some scruples, heart-searchings, compunc-
tion, we may ascribe to him, though there is
little enough of them in the Choephoroe, and
not a syllable in the Lumenides. ἸΙυλάδη,

UKOVOLOV,

218

τί δράσω : μητέρ᾽ αἰδεσθῶ κτανεῖν ; is his only
and momentary word of hesitation. But we
should quite misread him if we fancied that
a strong repugnance to the act was only over-
come by the terror of Apollo’s threats.
Bidden or unbidden, the son would have
avenged his father’s death.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

If these arguments are sound, they go to
show that the defence of Orestes took the
line associated in later times with the Del-
phinium, where justification was pleaded, not

with the Palladium.
H. RICHARDS.

PLATO, PHAEDO 668.

PROBABLY no passage in Plato has been
explained in so many ways. The last clause
(τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ἀληθές) carries us back to
65. The sentence beginning with ἐκ
πάντων τούτων is merely a re-statement of the
arguments deduced and conclusions reached
in 65B~66A4 inclusive, and must be taken
closely with these to be understood. Wohl-
rab, Archer-Hind, Jowett, Bonitz, Ast,
Heindorf, Stalbaum, Schmidt, Schneider,
and others have, apparently, failed to do
this; and inasmuch as the clauses following
κινδυνεύει happen to contain so many words
(ἀτραπός, ἐκφέρειν, λόγου, σκέψει), as well as
. constructions (ὅτι...
σκέψει ὅτι) which admit of various explana-
tions, these scholars have mistaken Plato’s
meaning.

Commentators on Sophocles quote our
passage to illustrate the use of ἐκφέρει in
Ajax 7. Platonic scholars likewise cite the
Sophoclean verse. But the verb is used
in different senses by the poet and by the
philosopher, and unless this fact is recog-
nized, the reader, ἁμαρτὼν τῆς ὁδοῦ, is liable
to be led into a maze of difficulties, to
extricate himself from which he will be apt
to wrangle in tickle points of niceness and
entangle himself still more in over-wiseness.
If the Greek can be understood in so many
ways, it does not deserve to be understood
in any—if there is not something in the
context to indicate to us what is the definite
thought which Plato desired to express,
something which will brush aside at once
all these devious explanations, we may as well
give up the passage as hopelessly corrupt.

‘We assert,’ declares Socrates in 668,
‘that this (οὗ ἐπιθυμοῦμεν) is τὸ ἀληθές (an
echo of ἀλήθειαν in 658), which we shall
never get possession of (cf. κτῆσιν, 65 A)

“ Ν Lal ’
. ὅτι, μετὰ τοῦ λόγου,

so long as the soul is not free to make the
search unimpeded, so long as it is mixed
with such an evil as the body.’ But the
question propounded in 65, is: πότερον
ἐμπόδιον τὸ σῶμα ἢ οὔ, ἐάν τις αὐτὸ ἐν
τῇ (ητήσει κοινωνὸν συμπαραλαμβάνῃ; The
answer is found in 668. The body zs an
obstacle (if we take it with us in our quest
of truth!), for it leads us astray ὥσπερ
ἀτραπός, so that we go the longer way, τὴν
κατύπερθε ὁδὸν πολλῷ μακροτέρην ἐκτραπόμενοι
(Hat. τ. 104), or the wrong way, until finally,
recognizing our mistake, we exclaim: ‘ Nous
avons fait fausse route.’ The ἀτραπός leads
off (ἐκφέρει) the main road, not o# towards
the goal ; ἡ ἀτραπὸς ἀπέσχισται ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ,
as Herodotus says; or the road, like a river,
σχίζεται τριφασίας ὁδούς (2. 17), καὶ ἡ μὲν πρὸς
ἠῶ τράπεται, ἡ δὲ πρὸς ἑσπέρην ἔχει, while
ἡ ἰθέα τῶν ὁδῶν would lead us to the truth.
Borne out of our course, as Io was (ἔξω
φέρομαι Prom. 883), we grope in the dark ;
we are unable to see the οἶκος. We cannot
follow the road, because our reason is be-
clouded (ἐὰν τὸ σῶμα ἔχωμεν)---εἴκομεν τῆς
6500 καὶ ἐκτραπόμεθα (Hdt. 2. 80).2 The
verb ἐκφέρειν may mean ad exitum (Y 376 ff.)
as well as a recta via ducere ; but the context
shows that the preposition is used in the

1Note the parallel words and phrases in question
and answer: ἐμπόδιον» (ἐκφέρειν, τὸ σῶμαν (ἀτραπός,
τιϑὺ ζἡμᾶς, αὐτὸ κοινωνὸν συμπαραλαμβάνῃ» {τὸ σῶμα
ἔχωμεν, ἐν τῇ ζητήσει (ἐν τῇ σκέψει.

2The ἀτραπός is not θάνατος, as Wohlrab maintains.
The soul cannot grasp truth μετὰ τοῦ σώματος (658
and Ὁ), for the latter drags it off on a by-path (μετὰ
τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ σκέψει), whereas it should be left by
itself, to continue its march toward pure being.
Socrates is not thinking of death (in 668), but of
the philosopher’s ‘death in life’ (ὁ ἐγγύς τι τείνειν
τοῦ τεθνάναι ἐπιχειρῶν), This is proved by his
frequent use of ὅτι μάλιστα in both sections.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

local sense of ἔξω or ἐκτός (ἐκφέρεσθαι --
ἀποκλίνειν, declinare) ; and the word ἀτραπός
suggests deviation: with ἐκφέρειν it is equi-
valent to ἐκτραπὲν φέρεσθαι (Arrian, An. 7.
21. 4). So the substantive ἐκτροπή in Polit.
267 A, Polyb. 9. 43. 5. Examples of com-
pounds with similar connotation might be
multiplied : ἔκκλισις, deflection (Plut. 2. 929),
ἔκνευσις τῆς ὁδοῦ, deviation (Schol. Ar. Ran.
113, commenting on ἐκτροπάς), ἐκδρομή,
digression (Arist. 1. 92). Cf. Οὐαί. 4148
ἐκτὸς δρόμου φερόμενον, Aesch. Cho. 1022

δρόμου ἐξωτέρω: φέρουσι yap... φρένες
δύσαρκτοι. When Orestes’ mind becomes

disordered he cannot steer a straight course ;
he veers off (ἐκφέρεται). The simple pre-
position (in composition), like the German
aus, has two uses: (1) straight on (gerade
aus), and (2) fo one side (ἐκφέρειν =viae
fiectere). In the Gorgias, Plato represents
the judges in the lower world as sitting ἐν
TH τριόδῳ, ἐξ ἧς φέρετον τὼ 650, ἡ μὲν εἰς
μακάρων νήσους, ἡ δ᾽ εἰς Τάρταρον. So here
the path takes us out of the main road,
over rough ground, or to more inaccessible
places. Cf. Arrian An. 3. 21. 4 ἐκτραπέντας
δὲ ἔξω τῆς λεωφόρου ὁδοῦ ws ἐπὶ τὰ Spy ἰέναι
Plato Zpist. 7. 330D ὀρθῇ πορευομένης ὁδῷ
τῆς πολιτείας, Polit. 258C τὴν οὖν πολιτικὴν
ἀτραπὸν πῇ τις ἀνευρήσει. .. καὶ ταῖς
ἄλλαις ἐκτροπαῖς, Plut. (Stob. Mein. iv. p.
242) καὶ ὁδοῦ καὶ ἀληθείας ἀποπλανθῆναι,
Schol. B on Ψ 392 χωρὶς καὶ ἔξωθεν τῆς ὁδοῦ,
Rep. 404A ἐὰν σμικρὰ ἐκβῶσι τῆς τεταγμένης
διαίτης,

The senses are not to be trusted. But
if the soul attempts to investigate something
μετὰ τοῦ σώματος, it is diverted, that is
deceived (τότε ἐξαπατᾶται, loc. cit.). Cf.
Lysis 215C πῇ παρακρουόμεθα; dpa ye ὅλῳ
τινὶ ἐξαπατώμεθα. Even ἐν τῇ σκέψει has
been such a potent source of trouble that
scholars do not seem to have observed
that it is merely a continuation of ἐν τῇ
ζητήσει, ἐν τῷ λογίζεσθαι, ev τῷ διανοεῖσθαι,
and, consequently, does not refer to the
philosophers’ consideration of the proper
method to be adopted in their investigations,
but to the mznd’s quest, or consideration
of truth. Jowett renders: ‘‘‘ Have we not
found,” they will say, “a path of thought
which seems to bring us and our argument

219

to the conclusion that while we are in the
body, and while the soul is infected with
the evils of the body our desire will not
be satisfied?”’ Surely ἀτραπός ἐκφέρει, ἐν
τῇ σκέψει ὅτι and peta τοῦ λόγου are all
here misunderstood.

Ample preparation for the final declara-
tion ὥσπερ ἀτραπός κτὲ has been made by
the preceding words (ciprapaAapBavy, παρα-
λυπῇ, φεύγει, ἀπαλλαγείς, ταράττοντος, οὐκ
ἐῶντος) ; and while a misapprehension of the
meaning has been clearly shown to be
possible, such a distortion of the sense
would probably not have been permitted
by the ear so readily as it has been by the
eye. Read with the proper intonation the
sentence becomes as transparent as one
could wish: ‘external influences (ἀκοή, ὄψις,
ἀλγηδών, ἡδονή) distract us and mar our results
—they deflect us from the “bonne route,”
which we would not abandon, if we made
our search εἰλικρινεῖ τῇ διανοίᾳ. Cf. 648.
Eyes and ears are poor witnesses (Heracl.
fr. 4). If truth were smoke, ῥῖνες ἂν
διαγνοῖεν (37). But, as it is, οὐκ ἂν ἐξεύροιο
πᾶσαν ἐπιπορευόμενος ὁδόν (71); and since we
are turned from the right road by outside
influences (ἄλλην αἴσθησιν ἐφέλκων μετὰ τοῦ
λογισμοῦ---οΌβεῖνα the variant μετὰ τοῦ λόγου
below) and do not constrain ourselves to
get as far as possible from eyes and ears,
and the whole body (66 a)—ypupias yap ἡμῖν
ἀσχολίας παρέχει τὸ σῶμα (66 B)—we shall
never acquire what we desire. Cf. δ6όσ,
where the philosopher returns to the thought
in 65. Diseases and appetites and passions
and phantoms of all kinds thwart our efforts
and carry us away from τὸ ὄν. Cf. Parme-
nides 1-4: ταί pe φέρουσιν. . . ἐπεί p ἐς
ὁδὸν βῆσαν ἣ κατὰ πάντ᾽ αὐτὴ φέρει
. τῇ φερόμην, 45 ff. ad’ ὁδοῦ
ταύτης διζήσιος. . . ἀπὸ τῆς, ἣν δὴ βροτοὶ
εἰδότες οὐδὲν πλάζονται, Hdt. 3. 76 ἐκστάντες
τῆς ὁδοῦ.

It remains to explain more fully the
difficult expression μετὰ τοῦ λόγου. Plato
merely reverses the previous statement (65
A and B) and couches his thought in the
following language:
ἀτραπός Tis TO σῶμα ἐκφέρειν ἡμᾶς μετὰ τοῦ
λόγου ἐν τῇ σκέψει. Above, the physical
senses were spoken of as being dragged in

εἰδότα φῶτα...

, 2
κινδυνεύει τοι ὥσπερ

220

with the soul; here the body drags us—cum
ratione—out, that is, away from the road.
In 65c the conception is ἡ ψυχὴ μετὰ τοῦ
σώματος, in 668 τὸ σῶμα μετὰ τῆς ψυχῆς.
In Zysis 213 Socrates says: ταύτῃ μὲν
μηκέτι ἴωμεν: χαλεπή τις μοι φαΐνεται ὥσπερ
ὁδὸς ἡ σκέψις" ἡ δὲ ἐτράπημεν δοκεῖ μοι ἰέναι.
In the Φλαεάο we have turned off from the
best road ἐν ty σκεψει, whereas in this
passage we are represented as having made
the discovery that we must go back and
follow the road from which we turned into
the (‘reprendre la bonne route’), or, as the
orators say, when they desire to return to
the main argument after a digression, ἔνθεν
ἐξέβην (-- ἔνθεν ἐξέφερέ με ἣ ἀτραπός). Cf.
also Xen. Hed/. 6. 5. 1 ἐπάνειμι ἔνθεν ἐξέβην,
Hdt. 7. 239 ἄνειμι δὲ ἐκεῖσε τοῦ λόγου, TH
μοι πρότερον ἐξέλιπε, 4. 82 ἀναβήσομαι δὲ ἐς
In the
Zysis ὁδός and σκέψις are convertible terms ;
in the Phaedo passage the ἀτραπός is not
ἡ σκέψις, but τὸ σῶμα μετὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐν
τῇ σκέψει. From the main road lead many
paths, any of which we are in danger of
entering by mistake: πόροι τε πάντες ἐκ μιᾶς
ὁδοῦ βαίνοντες (Aesch. Cho. 72), πολλὰς ὁδοὺς
τραπόμενοι (Thuc. 5. το. £0). The body
will knock us out of the road (ἐξέπληξ᾽ ὁδοῦ,
Eur. Jon 635). The clause ἕως av τὸ σῶμα
ἔχωμεν means ἕως ἂν Tod σώματος μὴ ἀπαλ-
λαγῶμεν ὅτι μάλιστα (not, as many believe,
ἕως ἂν ἔχωμεν τὸ σῶμα μετὰ τοῦ λόγου).
That his sense may not remain obscure
Plato purposely appends the clause συμ-
πεφυρμένῃ ἢ ἡμῶν ἡ ψυχή. The soul itself
would urge us to follow the straight road,
ὀρθὴν (Ar. Av. 1) and not
περιέρχεσθαι ἀπέραντον ὁδὸν ( Zheaetet. 147 C:
cf. 200 6), wander aimlessly around (Ar.
Av. 9), where there is not even a path
(22), unless, perchance, μύρμηκος ἀτραπούς
(Thesm. 100). Cf. Pausan. 1. 44. 2 κατιοῦσι
τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς Εὐθείας. ..
ὁδοῦ, Clem. Alex. iv. p. 583 οὐκ ἔστιν ἁπλῆν
οἶμον εἰς “Avdov φέρειν, ὁδοὶ δὲ πολλαὶ καὶ

τὸν κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἤια λέξων λόγον.

ε Ἀ 57
ὁδὸν ἰέναι

> , 5) A
EKTPOTEVTA εκ TIS

ἀπάγουσαι ἁμαρτίαι.

Some may prefer to take the second ὅτι
clause as causal. I regard both conjunctions
as introductory to object clauses depending
on λέγειν, an interpretation which seems
to be supported by τοιαῦτα ἄττα. Plato’s

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

meaning may be shown by the following
punctuation: ὥστε καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τοιαῦτα
ἄττα λέγειν ὅτι “ κινδυνεύει τοι ὥσπερ. . .᾽
ὅτι “ἕως ἂν τὸ σῶμα ἔχωμεν κτέ:᾽

If the objection be raised that Plato
would not have said ὥσπερ ἀτραπός τις of
the body without giving us some hint that
the subject of ἐκφέρειν is σῶμα, my answer
is that the whole discussion from 64E on
has been περὶ τοῦ σώματος, that ἐκ πάντων
τούτων in 668 refers particularly to the
foregoing considerations respecting the body
and its unavoidable hindrances to clear
thinking, that the subject of the sentences
in 65 B-66a is naturally carried over as the
logical subject of the sentence in 668, and,
finally, that when Socrates appends a second
ὅτι clause as one of the τοιαῦτα ἄττα, he
purposely adds ἕως ἂν τὸ σῶμα ἔχωμεν (to
make his meaning clear) and reinforces this
with Evprepuppevn . . . ἡ ψυχὴ μετὰ τοιούτου
κακοῦ (namely, τὸ σῶμα, which deflects us).
To change the figure, the exfopa is away
from the road along which we are trying to
drive our horses (Xen. De Re Equestr. 3.
5); our charioteer is so unskilful that our
steeds endeavour to run away: ἐγχειροῦσιν
ἐκφέρειν (20.), Bud φέρουσιν (Eur. Hipp.
1224). Cf. Phaedr. 254A. The path dads
off at an éxtpory, where ἡ ἀτραπὸς ἐκφέρει
and 6 ἄνθρωπος ἐκτρέπεται, as, e.g. Xen. Hell,
7. 1. 29 ἐπὶ στενῷ τῆς ὁδοῦ. ἐν τῇ ἐπ’
Kitpynoiovs ἐκτροπῇ, Arrian Av. τ. 16. 2
ἐξετράπη ᾿Αλέξανδρος, Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 22
ἐκτραπόμενος κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Κρῶμνον φέρουσαν
ἁμαξιτόν, Plato, Rep. 543 σ πόθεν δεῦρο
ἐξετραπόμεθα, ἵνα πάλιν τὴν αὐτὴν ἴωμεν ("1]
faut reprendre la bonne route’), Ar. Plut. 837
ἐξετρέποντο, Lucian, Ast. Vera 107 ἀποτρα-
ἐβάδιζον, Soph. O.T7.
In the last passage
Cf. Ken:
ἐκβιβάζοντας τῶν ὁδῶν καὶ
If ἐξ ὁδοῦ ἐλαύνειν is good
Greek, so is ἐξ 6500 ἐκφέρειν. Cf. Phaedo,
77 Ὁ ἐκβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. When the
soul is making a journey (ὁδὸν ποιευμένῳ,
Hat. 5. 52), it takes another route (τὴν ἄνω
ὁδὺν τράπονται, Hdt. 5. 15), misguided by
the body, for τὸ σῶμα ὥσπερ ἀτραπὸς ἔξω
τῆς ἰθέας φέρει, and forces the mind to go
another road, rough and difficult (qe ἄλλην

πόμενο. τῆς ὁδοῦ
804 ff. τὸν ἐκτρέποντα.
we read also ἐξ
Eg. Mag. τ. 18

4 > /
ταχὺ ἐλαύνοντας.

ὁδοῦ ἠλαυνέτην.

— 7

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

NOT:: - - διελθὼν ὁδὸν τραχεῖαν καὶ
," ffian An, 3. 1. 8ὺ)}κ and) the
phi. Luers ζοὐκὸ ἰόντες τὴν ἱρὴν ὁδὸν, ἐκτρά-
movtkt (Hdt. 6. 34). There must be a
detachment of the body; otherwise the
vision of the absolute will not dawn upon
the soul. The soul must go

‘The way, which from this dead and dark abode
Leads up to God.’

221

If we turn aside into the path which bears
us away from our onward and upward
march, we shall have to retrace our steps,
and, as Plotinus says (£m. 1. 6. 7), ‘we must
mount again to the Good which every soul
craves, and with pure self behold pure
Deity.
J. E. Harry.

University of Cincinnati, O., U.S.A.

NOTES

A GEOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON
THUCYDIDES IV. 54.

οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι... τῶν Κυθήρων φυλακὴν
ποιησάμενοι ἔπλευσαν ἐς τὴν ᾿Ασίνην καὶ “Ἕλος
καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν περὶ θάλασσαν καὶ ἀπο-
βάσεις ποιούμενοι καὶ ἐναυλιζόμενοι τῶν χωρίων
οὗ καιρὸς εἴη ἐδήουν τὴν γῆν ἡμέρας μάλιστα
ἑπτα.

Tue Athenians under Nicias, in 424 B.c.,
captured Cythera and thence made descents
upon the Spartan territory on the mainland.
The two places which Thucydides mentions
as having been attacked are Helos, a city
and district at the mouth of the Eurotas
(Paus. iii. 22. 3), and Asine. The question
arises where the Asine here mentioned is to
be placed. It would be natural to conclude
from its mention here in conjunction with
Helos and the fact that the whole raid
occupied only seven days, that it lay some-
where on the coast of the Laconian Gulf ;
and the object of this note is to attempt to
prove that there was such a place on the
W. coast of the Laconian Gulf and to
suggest the site where it stood.

It has been held generally (see Smith,
Dict. of Geogr, sub. voc. Asine, Leake, Morea
i. p. 279) that Thucydides here refers to
Asine on the W. coast of the Messenia Gulf:
and attempts have been made (e.g. Curtius,
Pelop. ii. 279, 324) to explain away the
passages which imply the existence of a
Laconian Asine. This, I think, is im-
possible

It is true that Asine in Messenia is called

Laconian Asine (e.g, Xen. He//. vii. 1. 25),
because it was at that time under Spartan
rule, and, for the same reason, Neon, one of
Xenophon’s fellow-generals, who is called
indiscriminately ὁ ᾿Ασιναῖος and ὁ Λακωνικός
(4παό. vii. 2. 1 and 29), may quite as
probably have belonged to Asine in Messenia
as to a Laconian place of that name. It is
also true that Pausanias, who gives a very
full account of the W. coast of the Laconian
Gulf, does not mention any place of the
name of Asine as situated in that district.

Leaving Pausanias for the moment, we
may turn to the evidence of Strabo and
Polybius. Polybius (v. 19) relates how
Philip V. of Macedon when _ invading
Laconia was repulsed at Asine, which, he
implies, was not far from Gythion: an
engagement which Pausanias (ili. 24. 6)
represents as taking place near Las. ‘This
has been explained away on the theory that
there is some confusion with the hill of Asia,
which lay near the city of Las (Paus. Joe.
cit.); and the fact that Strabo (viii. p. 363)
mentions Asine in conjunction with Gythion
as lying on the Laconian Gulf has been
explained as due to copying the mistake of
Polybius.

This mistake of Polybius and Strabo
does not, however. recommend itself as
probable, and the theory must rely for its
chief support on the silence of Pausanias.
The key to this silence on the part of
Pausanias and at the same time to the
probable site of Asine is to be found, I
think, from a study of the route taken by

222

Pausanias in his journeys in S. Laconia.
What his route was is quite clear from an
examination of his account of this district.
He started south from Gythion (iil. 24. 6)
and visited Las, the temple of Artemis
Dictynna and Arainus on the coast south of
Las. From there he turned inland by the
pass through which the modern road runs
from Gythion to Areopolis and _ visited
Pyrrhicus (iii. 25. 3), the modern Kavalos
(see B.S.A. x. p. 160). From thence he
made another journey to the coast of the
Laconian Gulf and visited Teuthrone (iil.
25. 4), the modern Kotrones, whence he
probably took ship to Taenarum. By turn-
ing inland to Pyrrhicus and then doubling
back to the coast at Teuthrone, he missed
the inlet known at the present day as the
Gulf of Skoutari, which is separated from
the bay of Teuthrone (Kotrones) on the
south by a high range of hills running
down to the sea.

Now it is extremely improbable that the
shores of such a splendid bay as that of
Skoutari should not have been the site of
ἃ settlement of some kind in antiquity.’
And indeed in the village of Skoutari at
the head of the bay there are vestiges of
antiquity in the form of columns built into
houses and remains of Roman masonry
near the sea shore. I would suggest there-
fore that the site of Laconian Asine was
on the Gulf of Skoutari—a position which
corresponds with the accounts given by
Strabo and Polybius, and which would also
account for the silence of Pausanias. Asine
was clearly a common place-name in Greece,
since, beside Messenian Asine, there were
other places of the same name in Argolis
and (according to Steph. Byz. sab. voc.) in
Cyprus and in Cilicia: so there can be no
objection to adding to the list.

The theory here proposed, if accepted,
suits the passage of Thucydides excellently.
Nicias, instead of attacking Gythion, which
was probably too strong, made raids at two

1 Leake (Morea i. p. 278) thought it probable that
there was an ancient site on the bay of Skoutari and
conjecturally placed Aegila here, a Laconian town
mentioned incidentally by Pausanias (iv. 17. 1); but
there is no evidence at all in what part of Laconia it
was.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

points on the Laconian Guthe following
which lay on the old road from\ovs τοιαῦτο
Sparta and which was worth des -uting
since it was probably a district which
supplied corn to Sparta, and at Asine, on
the site of the modern village of Skoutari,
which was the nearest convenient landing-
place on the W. coast of the Laconian
Gulf, facing the Athenian base at Cythera.

EDWARD S. FORSTER.

The University, Sheffield.

TERENCE, AWDRIA V. τιν. 37-8
(940-1).

CH. At scrupulus mi etiam unus restat qui
me male habet. PA. Dignus es:

cum tua religione, odium, nodum in scirpo
quaeris.
Professor J. S. Phillimore in C.#. for June
would emend above thus (on the analogy of
Eun. 651):
CH. At scrupulus mi etiam unus restat
... PA. zn’ malam rem, ubi dignus
es (or guo dignus es, or ut dignus 65)

cum tua religione, odium! nodum in scirpo
quaeris.

This emendation is ingenious but seems to
me quite unnecessary. Only the punctuation
requires alteration, as follows :

PA. Dignus es cum tua religione, odium !
The meaning then would be:

CH. But I have still one scruple remain-

ing which makes me very uneasy.
PA. (aside) Serve you right, you
confounded old ass, with your
fiddle-faddles !

This seems quite good sense and quite
good Latin, Phor. 465 multimodis cum
istoc animo es vituperandus, affording a fairly
close parallel.

Secondly, it seems improbable that all the
MSS. should have altered such a perfectly
natural phrase as that suggested by Professor
Phillimore, and should all have transferred
the words called in question from one speaker
to another.

A. SLOMAN.

Godmanchester.

πόνων.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 223

NOTES ON TACITUS,
HISTORIES.

LHMistories 1. 15.

Fidem libertatem amicitiam, praecipua
humani animi bona, tu quidem eadem con-
stantia retinebis, sed alii per obsequium
imminuent ; inrumpet adu/atio blanditiae et
(blanditiae Medicean) Zess?mum veri adfectus
venenum sua cuique utilitas. This passage
occurs in the speech of Galba to Piso on
adoption: ‘in hunc modum locutus fertur.
There is a remarkable parallel in Pliny,
Panegyricus 85, quoted by Meiser, but with-
out comment: Iam et in privatorum animis
exoleverat priscum mortalium bonum, amicttia,
cujus in locum migraverant adsentationes,
blanditiae et pejor odio amoris simulatio.

‘The resemblance can hardly be accidental.
From the point of view of chronology it is
more likely that Tacitus copied from Pliny.
The date of the Panegyric is 100 a.D. The
notes of the rst and znd books of the
Histories are supposed by Mommsen to have
been in circulation about 105, 106 A.D.: on
the other hand the Panegyric was subsequently
expanded, and the passage in question may
be one of the later additions, and therefore
an imitation of Tacitus. It is also possible
that both passages may be independently
derived from some common rhetorical locus
on the disadvantages of being an emperor.
The passage in Pliny at anyrate confirms
Freudenberg’s blanditiae et, as against the

reading of the Medicean to which Meiser -

adheres.
Histories 111. 52.

Ad Primum et Varum media scriptitabat
(sc. Mucianus) instandum coeptis aut rursus
cunctandi utilitates edisserens atque ita com-
positus, ut ex eventu rerum adversa abnueret
vel prospera agnosceret.

The verb edissero is nowhere else found
in Tacitus, and is not very applicable to the
vague letters of Mucianus. Disserens should
probably be read, especially as the Medicean
gives ut ex ventu for ut ex eventu. There is
perhaps another instance of this same error
of anticipation in c. 74, where the Medi-
cean gives praemia enavatae operae petebant
clamore proximis, for praemia navatae... .
clamore e (Baiter) proximis.

Fitstories iv. 24.

Lectos e legionibus Dillio voculae duoetvi-
censimae legionis legato tradit, ut quam
maximis per ripam itineribus celeraret, ipse
navibus, invalidus corpore, invisus militibus.

The Medicean page ends with the inva of
invalidus, and I would suggest that the true
reading is ipse navibus zzvadzt, invalidus etc.
Reuz in his Additerationen bei Tacitus gives
examples of such triple alliteration.

C. D. FIsHER.

A NOTE ON THE ‘DIONYSIACA’ OF
NONNUS.

In the Album Gratulatorium in Honorem
HT. van Herwerden (Utrecht, 1902), pp. 137-
142, Kenyon described and in part published
some papyrus fragments of a late epic on the
Indian expedition of Dionysus (B.M. Pap.
273). Suggesting that the epic, as the date
of the papyrus shows that its author must
have been ‘a precursor of Nonnus, not a
successor,’ may be the ‘ Bassarica’ of Diony-
sius, he adds: ‘It must be noticed, as an
argument against the identification, that
Nonnus is known to have drawn materials
from Dionysius, while there is no trace of his
having been acquainted with our poem.
The incident here narrated does not recur in
the Διονυσιακά, and the names which appear
here,—Bombus, Prothous, Pylaon, and others
mentioned below, —are not found in the other
work. Only Deriades is common to both
poems.’

Having recently discovered what seems to
be another name common to both poems, I
think it worth while to note it here. In 1. 19
of the fragment published by Kenyon, which
in his transcript reads p.Ad....
ktX., the first word is, I think, certainly
μωδαιωι. Now in the ‘ Dionysiaca,’ 32,1. 165
(ed. Koechly) occurs an Indian of the name
Μωλαίου (also in 40, 1. 236). Koechly refers
to Graefe’s edition for a variant reading
Μωδαίου, which as a matter of fact is the
reading given both by the editio princeps
(Antwerp, 1569) and by that of Cunaeus
(Hanau, 1610). Marcellus (Paris, Firmin
Didot, 1856) reads Moppaiov as a conjectural
emendation. As none of the earlier editors

ι τανύοντα [s

224

comments on the name, it is not clear where
Moéaiov comes from ; from Koechly Μωλαίου
would appear to be the MS. reading. In any
case, as the Μωδαῖος of the B.M. fragment
was evidently an Indian (since Bombus and
other followers of Dionysus were shooting at
him), it seems fairly certain that he and the
Mwéatos—MwdAaios of the ‘ Dionysiaca’ were
the same person. Thus the reading of the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

earlier editors, wherever derived from, is
shown to be correct; and as Modaeus was
not a character of much importance, his
occurrence in both the B.M. fragment and the
‘ Dionysiaca’ is a link of some value, and
perhaps tends to support Kenyon’s con-
jecture that these epic fragments are from

the ‘ Bassarica.’
ἘΠῚ eRe

REVIEWS

NEMETHY’S CIRIS.

Ciris epyllion pseudovergilianum. LEdidit, ad-
notationibus exegeticis et criticis instruxtt
Greyza N&METHY, academiae litterarum
Hungaricae sodalis. Budapestini, sumpti-
bus academiae litterarum Hungaricae.
1909. 8vo. Pp. 159. 3 kronen.

ConSIDERING how serious a business it is to
edit the appendix Vergiliana, and how much
care and labour and capacity would be
needed to make any signal advance on the
studies of the nineteenth century, it is sur-
prising that so many scholars should think
themselves called upon to undertake the
task. The last four years have brought us
one whole edition and the best part of
another ; here begins a third, and there is a
fourth preparing. One opens these successive
volumes without expecting much, and if the
new editors merely abandoned the gratuitous
errors of the old it might well content one;
but the three last texts of the Czzzs are before
me, and in u. go they all present as usual
that time-honoured absurdity, the conjecture
Somnia sunt.

Mr Némethy, like Mr Curcio, provides
his recension with a commentary, and fully
half of it is devoted to the collection of
verbal parallels. These are very numerous,
and some of them, I suppose, have never
been adduced before: certainly some should
never be adduced again. At 141 he reads
‘nulli non’ and compares Verg. georg. iv
453. ‘non... nullius’; 432 ‘forma uel

sidera fallas’ he derives from Hor. carm. ii
8 τὸ sg. ‘fallere (¢.e. peierando) taciturna
noctis signa’; on 73 ‘coniugium .. . υ]0-
lauerat Amphitrites’ (Neptunus in Scyllae
amore) he says ‘ex Catull. 67 23-4 “‘sed
pater illius gnati uiolasse cubile Dicitur” et
Ou. am. ii 7 17-8 “Cypassis Obicitur
dominae contemerasse torum,”’ as if fathers
were married to their sons or maids to their
mistresses. He trusts to printed texts, and
they yield him parallels which are illusory.
For example on 165 he has this note:
‘gelidis Edonum Bistonis oris, ex Lucr. iv
830 (he means 545) “et gedtdis cycni nocte
oris ex Heliconis” et Calu. fr. 11 B “frigzda
iam celeri superata est Bistonts ora”’ (four
lines below he repeats this verse and calls it
‘Calu. fr. Ius 12 ed. Baehrens’ for variety).
I will give what the MSS give, and we shall
see what happens: ‘ ge/zdis Edonum Avstonts
honoris, ex Lucr. iv 545 “εἰ walzdis necti
tortis ex Heliconis” et Calu. fr. 12 B
“frigida iam celeris uergatar wistinis ora.”’
On the other hand he misses parallels which
deserve citation. At 27 ‘felix illa dies’ he
does not quote /aud. Pis. 159 or Aetn. 636.
but he does quote Manil. v 568 ‘felix illa
dies redeuntem ad litora duxit,’ though
anyone who reads that verse in its context
and attemps to make sense of it will discover
that z//a agrees with fora. At 71 ‘infelix
uirgo’ he quotes Manil. v 587, Verg. duc.
97 (he means 47 and 52), and ‘Calu. fragm.
g (ed. Lucian. Mueller),’ but he forgets 167

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

of the Ciris itself: then when he comes to
167 he forgets both 71 and his note on it,
and quotes only ‘Calu. fragm. 9,’—this time
‘(ed. Baehrens).’

In its explanatory part the commentary is
less puerile than Mr Curcio’s, but still
elementary and superficial. Nothing hitherto
obscure is elucidated (for the interpretation
of 360, though right, is not new), and grave
difficulties are let pass unnoticed or shoul-
dered aside by the rudest alterations. There
are 14 pages of ‘adnotationes criticae,’ in
which things already said in the commentary
are said over again, and parallels which were
cited at full length are cited at full length a
second time. But the MSS are nowhere
enumerated, and lections are taken indis-
criminately from all. The crudest interpola-
tions of L and U,—élandaegue for laudate,
cateruas for marinas,—are printed without
mention of a variant. Within the first
hundred lines the conjectures susfexit 7,
libeat 20, currum 26, exterrita 48, uiserit 50,
patria 53, infestare uoraci 57, castae 73, urxit
eratgue 86, are smuggled into the text behind
the reader’s back. If Mr Némethy, for any
reason or for none, is dissatisfied with the
tradition, he will change curae to sumant,
cetvs to uestros, lauro to circum, inde alias to
hinc feminis, aereas (i.e. aerias) turres to
Phoebeas t. (though there was only one ¢urris
Phoebea), ‘studio tactabat inani’ to seruabat
(in spite of Verg. duc. ii 5), and ‘diem
mortalibus a/mum’ to egtt (in spite of Aen. v
64). He says that 215 ‘caeruleas sua furta
prius testatur ad wmbras,’ which is simplicity
itself, ‘explicari nequit,’ and writes auras, as
if that were easier. He alters Az¢ to ae in
490 because ‘sensu caret,’ though it has the
same sense as in Catull. 64 269. At 508,
for e¢ tamen, correctly used, he substitutes a#
tamen, used incorrectly, in the opinion that
the latter is adversative and the former is
not. His first page will furnish a fair sample
of his procedure. ‘The verses 12-15 should
probably run somewhat as follows:

quod si, mirificum genus 0 Mes<salla decusgue>
mirificum saecli (modo sit tibi uelle libido),

si me iam summa sapientia pangeret arce,

<qguae F ‘ . . ΑΝ
quattuor antiquis heredibus est data consors. . .

o Messalla is Mr Leo’s (the MSS _ have
NO. CCV. VOL. XXIII.

225

omnes and no more), decusque (2.6. mirificum
saecli genus et, modo uelis, decus) and the
lacuna are mine. Mr Némethy avoids the
worst mistake of the current editions, edt/a
for est data, but he commits worse of his
own:

quod si. mirificum <sophiae> nemus omne </enerem>
(mirificum, Vaderi, modo sit tibi zosse libido),

si me iam summa sapientia pangeret arce,

quae tribus antiquis heredibus est data consors.. .

I need not remark on the artless violence of
sophiae and Valeri nor on the absurdity of
one man occupying a whole grove; but who
are these ¢Arvee joint heirs of the citadel of
wisdom? The three legatees of Epicurus,
‘Hermarchus, cui scholam, e¢ Amynomachus
Timocratesque, cui (he means guzbus) rem
Jfamiliarem religuit.’

But it is at 125 that he appears in the
worst light. A few years ago he proposed in
Verg. duc. iv 47 the conjecture ‘concordes
stabili fatorum zemine Parcae’ instead of
numine. It was objected that ‘concordes
stabili firmarant numine Parcae’ occurred
in the Ciris. Now therefore he corrupts
this verse to match the other, formarant
nemine, and so deprives u. 124 of its con-
struction.

Concerning the authorship of the Ciris
Mr Neémethy holds the least tenable of all
opinions: he ascribes the work to a ‘falsarius’
who wished to pass it off as Virgil’s. If I
wished to pass off as Virgil’s a composition
of my own, I should not describe myself in
its second verse as a disappointed politician,
nor besprinkle it from end to end with those
diminutive forms which Virgil did his best to
banish from poetry. Mr Némethy’s ability
to determine the authorship of a Latin poem
may be estimated from his pamphlet on
catalept. xiii. He prints in that piece these
three iambic trimeters, two of which owe
their peculiarities to his own conjectures,—

stant in uadis caeno retentae turbido,
neque in culinam ad uncta nouendialia,
cinaede Pediati tuae liquere opes,—

and he assigns it, thus embellished, to
Horace.
Works of this sort are little better than

interruptions to our studies, and Mr
Némethy was ill-advised in attempting a task
P

226

so much beyond his powers. It appears
from his preface that he is an ardent and
even flamboyant Hungarian patriot; so to
Germans and Croats his book may possibly

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

afford a pleasure whose Croatian name I do
not know, but whose German name is
Schadenfreude.

A. E. Housman.

BURY’S GREEK HISTORIANS.

The Ancient Greek Historians. By J. B.
Bury, Litt.D., LL.D., Regius Professor

of Modern Historyat Cambridge. London:
Macmillan & Co. t1gog. Pp. x, 281.
7s. 6d. net.

THIS volume, which contains the Lane Lec-
tures delivered at Harvard last year, gives ‘a
historical survey of Greek historiography
down to the first century B.c.’ It displays
the same brilliant power of expounding the
results of a mass of erudition which appears
in the author’s History of Greece ; and to
that work it forms a valuable supplement,
revealing the foundations upon which the
building was erected. Indeed, the History
may be thought to go too far in concealing
the processes of construction. For example,
the student there reads a sketch of the
politico-historical views of Theramenes and
his party—the pre-Solonian πάτριος πολιτεία,
the sequence of demagogues and the rest ;
but only from the present book will he gather
that this sketch is derived mainly from an
interpretation of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία.
Even in this book the references to the
Greek authors might with advantage be more
complete.

The reconstruction of the work of the
early Greek historians mainly concerns the
specialist, essential though it is as a back-
ground to the humanity of Herodotus and
the originality of Thucydides. But the
ordinary student will find that for the
criticism of the two great historians Professor
Bury’s three lectures supersede all previous
handbooks. Herodotus’s great service (apart
from literature) ‘consisted probably in the
collection of unwritten material concerning
modern history: this floating matter he
wrought with masterly skill into a framework
of facts constructed by predecessors.’ His

scepticism, Prof. Bury holds, is wholly pre-
Sophistic, and learnt from Ionia ; sometimes,
indeed, he takes ‘the inventions of Ionian
esprit’ too seriously. Both his faith and his
doubt are zaifand instinctive. The greatest
complaint against him is his incompetence in
military history.

Prof. Bury will have none of ‘ Thucydides
Mythistoricus.’ Mr. Cornford denies Thu-
cydides either a clear idea of causation or
the vocabulary to express it. (How, by the
way, can one translate αἴτιον δ᾽ ἦν οὐχ 7
ὀλιγανθρωπία τοσοῦτον ὅσον ἡ ἀχρηματία,
1. 11, without allowing to the writer both
the notion of cause and the recognition
of economic factors in history?) Prof. Bury
admits the shifting meanings of αἰτία and
πρόφασις, but urges that the ‘ various use of
the word does not imply any confusion of
thought; we use the word “reason” with
similar elasticity; the context decides the
sense.’ He proceeds to defend Thucydides’
account of the causes of the war. The inde-
pendence of Megara did not weigh heavily
with Corinth; on the contrary, in 433
Corinth was ready to do a deal, and sacrifice
Megara in return for a free hand in dealing
with Corcyra: this is the meaning of the
diplomatic language of i. 42. 2. War once
decided on, the grievance of Megara was
brought to the front; the alliance of Athens
with Corcyra could not be represented as
illegitimate, though it was the first effective
cause of the war. Mr. Cornford well explains
the motives of Athenian policy in regard to
Megara and Western aggrandisement ; but
as that policy never became effective,
Thucydides follows his method in saying
nothing about it. His view of history, Prof.
Bury argues, was purely rationalistic. In
style he was influenced by the drama, as by
rhetoric; but Ayéris, FPeitho, and Eros

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

belong to his style and not to the substance
of his thought. Zyche meant for him, as
for us, no mystical power, but simply the
incalculable and unforeseen. The plague was
the result of Zyche; so was the fact that
Pericles had no successor, and this is the key
to the decline of Athens. Alcibiades, Thucy-
dides implies, might have retrieved the
situation, but his λαμπρότης was distrusted.
The Melian dialogue is not worked up as an
ill-omened prelude to the Sicilian expedition
(which, according to Thucydides, was not
ill-advised in its inception); it is merely
taken as an opportunity to exhibit the real
springs of political actions—viz. not moral
ideas, but reasons of State. To display
politics in this dry light (Professor Bury
insists) is his object throughout.

Prof. Bury offers a most interesting sugges-
tion as regards Thucydides’ remarkable
variation of style. ‘Two voices are there,’—
one straightforward and clear, the other
obscure and artificial. The latter, it is
suggested, he adopts when he is speaking
for himself. This accounts for its use in
some speeches and not in others, and also in
the passage on the excesses of party-strife,
which confessedly contained the author’s own
reflexions.

In the later lectures the treatment supplies
an interest which the subject sometimes
lacks. Xenophon is dismissed as a dilettante.
The new papyrus fragment is assigned to
Cratippus, because there is nothing against
him ; and certainly it is far from echt Theopom-

THE GREATNESS AND

Ferrero: The Greatness and Decline of Rome.
Vol. V. Translated by H. J. CHAyTor.
London: Heinemann. 1909. Pp. 371.
75. 6d.

THE English translation has now overtaken
the original, and most readers will finish the
fifth volume with feelings of wonder and
alarm at the proportions the work will
assume if the tale of the decadence is to
be told to the end. By the common reckon-
ing we are, at the death of Augustus, a full

227

pisch. Water history became rhetorical and
edifying; it supplied the public with light
reading. Alexander originated official con-
temporary memoirs; but they were ignored
by the compilers until Arrian, and were
imitated only by Caesar. Of Roman his-
toriography, as a mere offshoot of Greek,
Prof. Bury says much that is suggestive.
He ends with a deeply interesting discussion
of the use of history. Thucydides first
claimed for it a practical purpose: it gives
examples and warnings, since the future will
resemble the past. With Polybius this con-
ception received definiteness from the Stoic
theory of ἀνακύκλωσις. We moderns have
learnt that history does not repeat itself.
Yet only by the past can the present be
explained, so that history remains the school
for statesmen and citizens. The ‘historical
sense’ now tempers our moral judgment of
the past, and must force us to realize the
relativity of the ideas and institutions of the
present. For cycles we have substituted a
belief in indefinite progress. Progress implies
a standard of value, which lies outside history.
But history supplies material for the standard
to test, and in this way helps us to decide
whether we have progressed in the past, and
so may hope to progress in the future.
Herein, Prof. Bury hints, is the ‘ appealing
interest’ of the study: it may even afford
“some clue to the destinies of civilisation.’

H. RACKHAM.
Christ’s College, Cambridge.

DECLINE OF ROME.

century from the golden age, and though we
cannot suspect Ferrero of entertaining old-
fashioned illusions as to the age of the
Antonines, yet he has made it abundantly
clear that the greatness is still to come.

It is possible to be well aware that the
reign of Augustus was a very difficult period,
concealing behind unparalleled splendour
and serenity, a very widespread uneasiness
and distress, without in the least accepting
the violent, almost abusive judgment which
the historian passes on the Prince and his

.

228

government. We are asked to believe that
throughout his life Augustus had before his
eyes two main objects: the regeneration of
the oligarchy which had been crushed and
scattered by the dying struggles of the
Republic, and the annexation of the unex-
plored hinterland of Gaul. The Lex Julia
and the German campaigns give the keynote
of his policy. His daughter’s infamy and
the Clades Variana give the measure of
his unsuccess. So judged, the principate of
Augustus was as calamitous as the reign
of Louis XIV. But is there any reason for
believing that Augustus ever meant to succeed
in the double policy, in which, if he did, we
must confess he most conspicuously failed ?

It is perhaps a presumptuous thing to say
of a writer who has been particularly recom-
mended to the public as being no less a
politician than a historian, but the truth is
that Ferrero does not seem very clearly to
realize the nature of political forces. In
describing the break-up of the Republican
régime, he was perfectly right in laying stress
on the play of faction and party, plot and
passion, action and intrigue, because those
were the tendencies which, when once the vast
organism of the Constitution had come to a
standstill, sapped its stability and brought it
to the ground. At the end of the Republic
we are in one of those periods when the main
current is imperceptible and the eddies fill all
the air with their noise. But if we pass from
the Empire as it was when Caesar died, to the
Empire as it was when Tiberius came to the
throne, we cannot fail to realize that between
the two lies a great constructive age. Some
great power has been at work, making for
order and union and stability, and no good
ground has yet been shown for denying that
in the main that power was the patient and
flexible genius of Augustus.

Ferrero’s answer would be that the social
and economic union of the Mediterranean
world achieved itself without direction from
any man. He even goes further, and insists
on the paradox, that the success in this
matter of the government of Augustus was
due to the weakness of his rule. If he had
possessed the power to govern the world at
all he would have governed it badly, because
what the world needed was something which

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

no statesman could give or even understand.
Ferrero says in one place with profound truth,
that Augustus knew that the power of Rome
was limited, compared with her prestige.
Augustus did know it, and knowing it he left
behind a government which retained almost
all that could be retained of the ancient form
and routine in which that prestige had been
for two centuries embodied. He also left a
new army, a new administration and a new
frontier system, none of them things which
fashion themselves out of inarticulate aspira-
tions, destinies and yearnings. Augustus did
not create the Roman union, but so far as we
can see, he and his successors who trod in his
footsteps did create the barriers behind which
and the framework within which the union
was consolidated and organized as a polity.

Augustus’ services to Rome are summed up
by Ferrero in his Gallic policy and in his
republicanism. As a result of the first the
Empire became permanently and solidly, if
not preponderantly, Western. He has very
rightly seized the fact that the Romanization
of Gaul, the first area outside the Mediterra-
nean ring to be admitted into partnership
with Mediterranean civilization, is a process of
immense historic significance. It meant in
the long run France, and France means
modern Europe. For that reason it deserved
to be treated on the largest scale. Needless
to say, the economic side of the picture is
drawn with elaborate skill. But we hear as
much about the freedman Licinus and _ his
room of gold as about Agrippa and his roads,
and as to the details of the organization, we
have to be content with a statement which is
certainly brief, and, compared with the im-
portance which the author himself gives to
the subject, is positively perfunctory.

The German policy in turn is made to
depend almost wholly on the design of
securing a permanent frontier for the Western
Egypt. Here again we are left asking for
more. Nor is it by any means clear that the
old theory is not after all the right one, that
the Empire was essentially a Greco-Italian
empire, and that its frontier had to be so
drawn that the defences of the north-west
and the north-east might be a mutual
support. From Augustus to Marcus Aurelius
the real problem seems to have been: Black

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Sea to North Sea, what is the cheapest line to
hold? In a coherent scheme of defence,
Pannonia was more important than Germany,
and when the crisis came, if Germany was
lost Pannonia was saved. The final frontier
was perhaps a second best, but the essential
points were secured, and but for the work of
Augustus, and in this connection Augustus,
Agrippa and Tiberius are one, it is difficult
to see that the Roman world would ever have
gained the material security in which its work
of universal fusion was performed.

On the question of Augustus’ relations to
the aristocracy it is difficult to say anything
new which shall not be palpably untrue.
The naive psychology of the older historians
which explained all strong measures as
tyranny and all concessions as hypocrisy is
no longer available. Augustus was a con-
servative, and probably had a genuine liking
for aristocracy. After all, he was the grand-
son of a money-lender. Succeeding to the
popularity which naturally awaited the saviour
of society and the west, he found society
passing through a phase of moral uneasiness,
not unnatural in its position and by no means
uncommon. He did not initiate, he merely
led. Hundreds of sober families must have
welcomed the Lex Julia and the social
reforms as giving official sanction to their
own view of life. But the millennium did
not happen: it never does. Out of this
simple story to invent, as Ferrero does, deep-
laid plots worthy of Robespierre for moral
regeneration, a reign of domestic terror
worthy of New England, action and reaction,
a Drusus the idol of the Puritans, an Ovid the
official spokesman of the Libertines, is simply
to misread the commonest process in national
life for the sake of a lurid social picture.

229

As to the Constitution, it is impossible for
us to express in a formula what Augustus
deliberately contrived never to express at all.
He was a republican in the sense that he was
an instinctive Tory, that he had an em-
barrassing aristocracy to manage, that as a
matter of legal routine he found it easier to
govern as a magistrate than as a sovereign.
There is no harm moreover in calling him a
republican if we remember that the cardinal
points of the republican constitution, popular
control of the elections and senatorial control
of the army, were obliterated, almost in
set terms, by the new constitution. That
Augustus meant the senate to bea real and
not merely a picturesque element in the State
we may be sure. We can only believe that
he meant it to be the predominant partner
by supposing him to be blind to the fact that
the new administration and the new army
were creating a new aristocracy. Here indeed
he failed, but the reason of his failure is still
a mystery. The Senate of the Empire must
have been an unparalleled repository of official
experience, its story as a governing body is
one of unfailing ineptitude. Individually, its
members seem to have been fully equal to
their work : collectively it was nothing. And
it shows a singular lack of insight or sense of
proportion in a historian to tell in full the
rather commonplace story of the failure of
the aristocratic revival, as if the personal
misdoings of the unemployed rich were of
importance to anyone but themselves, and
leave out of his analysis the achievement which
gives Augustus his unique place in history,
the foundation of the Imperial military and
civil service which for centuries held the fabric
of the world together. ὅς Mo Voune.

ROMAN POTTERY.

Catalogue of the Roman Pottery in the Depart-
ments of Antiquities, British Museum. By
H. B. Watters. Printed by order of the
Trustees. 1908. 4to. Pp.liv+464. Text
figures 283. Plates xliv. £2.

For more than a decade the study of Roman
pottery has engaged the attention of archaeo-

logists in Germany. The studies of Dragen-
dorff, Ritterling, and Koenen, are familiar to
all who are interested in the subject. In
France the work of Déchelette, published in
1904, has marked an epoch in the history of
such investigations. Up till now England
has lagged behind. As yet we know nothing
of the pottery found at Silchester or Caerwent.

230

At Gelly Gaer and Melandra, where some
detailed treatment has been attempted, the
material was unfortunately scanty, although it
is however precisely in such outposts of the
Empire that we may hope to obtain the
material for a chronological series of types of
Roman pottery, such as would be of the
utmost value to the excavator. In these cir-
cumstances the publication of a detailed
catalogue of the Roman pottery in the British
Museum is a particularly welcome contribu-
tion to the study. This handsome volume,
with its interesting introduction, is the work
of Mr. H. B. Walters, whose History of
Ancient Pottery is already well known. The
catalogue includes ‘the enamel glazed wares
of the Graeco-Roman period found on Greek
sites, such as Kertch, Asia Minor, Africa, and
Sardinia, the pottery of Italy subsequent to
the introduction of the typically Roman red
glaze and the terra sigillata and other orna-
mental and plain wares found in Gaul,
Germany and Britain.’ While the Arretine
vases must always attract the attention of
students as beautiful things of a great period,
-and as the models from which the vast subse-
quent output of provincial ceramic took its
beginnings, for most archaeologists the chief
interest of this volume will lie in its treatment
of this collection of ‘Terra sigillata, the
‘Samian ware’ of older writers, and of speci-
mens of Romano-British ware. Of these two
classes, some 2,800 items are enumerated,
most of them being fragments of decorated
Terra sigillata found on British sites; a very
large number of these are from London.
An exhaustive description is given of each
item, and a note is added indicating its
provenance and citing references to any
publications in which it has previously been
mentioned. Many of the potters’ stamps
are reproduced in facsimile, and there are
numerous illustrations. The finer pieces are
shown in plates appended to the volume.
We could have wished that it had been pos-
sible to reproduce a larger number of the
pieces on which the makers’ stamps appear.
The potters who produced decorated bowls
were probably fewer in number than those
who produced plain wares, and the examples
of their work frequently present distinct
characteristics of style by which their makers

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

can be distinguished. Mr. Walters classifies
the entire collection of Terra sigillata under
the three heads—Rutenian, Lezoux, and
German ware. That it should be possible
to attempt this is due to the work of Mon-
sieur Déchelette and Herr Ludowici. Such
classification is of the highest importance
in the investigation of Roman sites, and
indeed in connection with many finds of
purely native origin with which Roman
pottery is associated. It supplies a basis
of dating. Rutenian pottery indicates the
first century. For the most part Lezoux and
German wares tell of the second century. The
exact period at which the potteries of Lezoux
began to export their products to Britain and
the Rhine is still somewhat uncertain. The
pottery found at Pompei, and therefore earlier
than a.D. 79, is identified by Déchelette as
Rutenian, and it is also doubtful whether
any large quantity of the wares of Lezoux
reached the Rhine much before the end of
the first century. It is therefore interesting
to note that Mr. Walters is able to catalogue
no fewer than twenty-four fragments of Lezoux
bowls of the earliest, carinated shape (Dragen-
dorff's Type 29), all probably found in
London. The period of production of these
bowls is placed by Déchelette between the
years a.D. 40 and 75. This would appear
to indicate that the export to Britain from
Lezoux began somewhat earlier than we have
hitherto believed. We have, however, no
trace of these early Lezoux bowls among the
sherds from the vessels brought into Northern
Britain in the expedition of Agricola, indeed
the great bulk of the decorated ware in
Scotland which can be definitely assigned to
an early date appears to be Rutenian, and
there, as on the Rhine, there was probably
no great export from Lezoux before the end
of the first century. It is not always easy to
identify the wares of these different potteries,
especially in the so-called Transition Period,
and one or two of the pieces which Mr.
Walters illustrates as examples of Lezoux
might possibly be assigned by other authorities
to Rutenian potteries. Thus the lions’ heads
of Fig. 178 are classified by Déchelette as
from La Graufesenque. The fragment is in
the style of the potter GERMANVs. A similar
fragment is figured by Professor Knorr in his

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

study of the sigillata from Rottweil—the
Arae Flaviae—which was certainly occupied
in the first century, and where most of the
pottery found is early. Fig. 183 also occurs at
Rottweil as part of the decoration of a cari-
nated bowl bearing the stamp of GERMANVS.
The potter CRvCVRO, who is here definitely
assigned to Lezoux, is certainly doubtful, a
good specimen of one of his bowls which has
been carefully mended occurs at Rottweil, and
his ware has recently been found in a deep
rubbish pit belonging to the earliest period
of the fort, at Newstead, near Melrose, in
association with a platter [p. 18] of the
Graufesenque potter vITALIS. It seems pos-
sible that the beginnings of Lezoux have
usually been placed somewhat too early.
One at least of the leading potters of
Déchelette’s second period, A.D. 75 to 110,
DIVIXTvs, must have flourished far into the
succeeding period. In Scotland, where the
Roman pottery readily divides itself into two
distinct groups corresponding respectively
with the advance of Agricola and with the
Antonine occupation, the potter DIVIXTVS
attaches himself to the second. His stamp
and fragments in his style have been found
in several of the forts, notably at Birrens,
where early pottery is entirely wanting. It
is true that the fine bowl of Type D. 30,
stamped with his name in the British
Museum, bears designs that are reminiscent
of early work, but there is a coarseness in the
execution which distinguishes it sharply from
the pottery of the first century, and is sugges-
tive of that copying of earlier models which
is to be noted on many of the pieces pro-
duced in the second century prior to A.D.
139, recently found in the ditch of the early
fort at the Saalburg.

The plain wares are catalogued with the
same care as the decorated sigillata. Here
Mr. Walters has followed the well-known
classification of Dragendorff, employing the
numbered types with which archaeologists are
familiar. It is much to be desired that some
common system of terminology could be
devised to describe the different forms of
dishes. Mr. Walters for the most part
employs the term bowl, but while it is correct

σα

to describe such types as 29, 30 and 37 as
bowls, Nos. 27 and 33 are more properly
cups, and Nos. 18 and 31 platters or plates.
Mr. Walters has added to the Dragendorff
types which he figures some new pieces,
partly from Déchelette and partly from
among the late types of the Pudding Pan
Rock series. To these might be added the
shallow bowl with wide flat projecting rim,
ornamented with leaves in barbotine and
having a shallow spout, of which a specimen
is catalogued under M 2397. This is a
typical first century vessel, and differs from
Dragendorff’s Types 35 and 42.

The Romano-British fabrics, known as
Castor, the New Forest and Upchurch wares,
are responsible for some 320 items of the
Catalogue. Of these Castor ware is the only
one that can lay claim to any artistic merit.
Of their chronology we have yet much to
learn. The New Forest ware appears to have
been employed over a more limited area than
either of the others. It does not seem to
have reached Scotland. Specimens of dark
polished ware, with simple decoration, prob-
ably Upchurch wares, occur in the earliest
period at Newstead, while the Castor ware,
with its hounds and deer and winding foliage,
is mainly associated in the North with the
Antonine period. The Catalogue includes
a number of specimens of mortaria, and
reproduces some of their makers’ stamps.
The stamps of the makers of amphorae are
however wanting. It is curious that these,
so eloquent of Roman trade routes, should
be unrepresented in the British Museum
collection.

Mr. Walters gives in his introduction a
complete list of the Gaulish and German
potters’ stamps in this collection, and the
volume is furnished with a table of subjects
on Gaulish pottery and with indices, all of
which will be most useful for reference. The
British Museum is the first of the great
European Museums to issue a catalogue of
its Terra sigillata. It is to be hoped that
before long it may be followed by similar
catalogues of such collections as Bonn, Trier,

and St. Germain.
JAMES CURLE,

232

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

PRAENESTE.

A Study of the Topography and Municpal
History of Praeneste. By R. VAN DEMAN
MacorFin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1908 (being Johns Hopkins Unt-
versity Studies in Historical and Political
Science, Series xxvi., Nos. 9, 10). 8vo.
Pp. tor. 5 plates.

THE work before us is, we may hope, only a
first attempt, destined to be re-published in a
revised form. For while, on the one hand,
it represents a considerable amount of
conscientious labour and study, it betrays
inexperience both in literary composition
and in the use of evidence, and one feels
that the author is overweighted with what is,
it must be confessed, a very difficult subject.
For, despite the large amount of discussion
which has been devoted to Praeneste and its
famous temple of Fortune, and the volumi-
nous literature of the subject, nothing like
certainty as to the arrangement of the temple
itself, and the identification of its different
. parts, has as yet been attained. The recently
announced discovery by Prof. Marucchi! of
the famous /ithostroton mentioned by Pliny
(#.N. xxxvi. 184) as having been placed by
Sulla zz Fortunae delubro may provide a
solution to the problem, if it meets with
general acceptance. The work before us,
too, lacks a plan of the town, so that its
detailed descriptions are not easy of com-
prehension to anyone to whom Praeneste is
not familiar. By far the best available, I may
add, is that of Blondel (with a short but good
text, and with an elevation of the existing
remains) in A/élanges de [Ecole Frangaise de
Rome ii. (1882), pp. 168 sgg. and pl. iv. v.,
which seems to have been little used by our
author.

As I have dealt more generally with the
the book elsewhere? a few criticisms on
detailed points may find their place here.

On p. 23 the author announces the dis-
covery of a hitherto ‘mostly unknown, often
neglected or wrongly described, and wholly
misunderstood’ cyclopean or polygonal wall,

1 Bull. Com. 1909, 66.
2 English Historical Review, xxiv. 325.

running east and west through the modern
town, which was, he considers, the lowest
(southern) wall of the earliest city. This wall
is however quite clearly shown (not merely
‘a little of it,’ as our author asserts on p. 24,
n. 33) by Blondel, who points out that its
height is at several points determinable as
being six metres—not enough for a wall of
defence; and examination of it has con-
vinced me that the work, with its fine jointing
and smooth faces, cannot reasonably be
assigned to an earlier date than any of the
other walling of the kind in Praeneste.

In the same connexion he wrongly states
(p. 25) that there is no trace of cyclopean
wall stones below the Porta S. Francesco on
the west, as far as the Porta del Sole on the
east: for a piece of walling of large rather
rough blocks exists 271 sz¢u (and not relaid, as
he states in his footnote) about 60 yards
below Porta S. Francesco?: and roo yards
further down are three courses of opus guad-
ratum with irregular bossing. Nor can I
accept the distinction which he draws in
respect of date between the two portions of
the wall on the east side, that above and
that below his crosswall.

Nor is his description of the ‘main and
triumphal entrance to Praeneste,’ (p. 29 599.)
at all convincing, if examined with care on
the spot. His idea is that a road ascended
gradually, upon an intermediate terrace, both
on the east and on the west of the break in
the centre of the lowest of the various
ancient terrace walls which support the
modern town, and that they joined at the
break and thus entered the town. But this
break is on a level, not with the intermediate
terrace, but with the ground outside, as the
decorative niches on each side of it clearly
indicate. (On p. 31 for ‘a very obtuse angle
of newer and different tufa,’ we should read

3It was therefore unnecessary to accuse Nibby of
having written his note on the wall in Ama/is?, ii. 511
from memory ; and the description of the two reser-
voirs (not one) given by Nibby, though not very clear,
does not contain the statement that they were on the
hill of Praeneste. There is asa fact another on this
hill, not far from Porta S. Martino, which neither
writer mentions.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

‘an angle of modern concrete.’) Whether
the seminaria a Porta Triumphale mentioned
in 6.1.2. xiv. 2850, can be taken to refer to
this entrance is extremely doubtful—one
would naturally consider the reference to be
to the city of Rome.

Space will not permit me to carry my
examination further. In the historical portion

233

of the book, too, there are some rash infer-
ences based on little or no evidence. But
the author has obviously spent time and
trouble on his subject, and by subjecting
the work to a thorough revision and amplifi-
cation, might well produce something of
permanent value.

, T. Asusy.

GERCKE’S ‘SENECAE NATURALES QUAESTIONES.’

L. Annaei Senecae Opera quae supersunt.
Volumen II. LZ. Annaet Senecae Natur-
, alium Quaestionum Libros VI/I edidit
ALFRED GERCKE. Teubner, 1907. Pp.
xlvii + 274.

In one of his letters Seneca gravely informs
us that fowls will run from a cat, whilst the
approach of a dog leaves them unmoved,
and he tries to find an explanation for a state
of things which a very moderate amount of
investigation on his part would have shewn
him to have no existence. Perhaps his
research students misled him, as Quintilian
tells us they sometimes did ; perhaps he was
simply reproducing an authority ; possibly he
was borrowing from his rhetoric notebook,
for we know, again from Quintilian, that
Natural History illustrations were often
invented in the schools, as they were in later
times by the Euphuists, for the sake of
passing off a paradox or an epigram upon the
hearers. Whatever the cause of the error, it
tells against Seneca as a scientific observer,
and so we are not surprised to find him
writing to Lucilius who is in Sicily for a
description of Aetna instead of undertaking
the journey and the investigation himself.
Seneca would never have perished as the
elder Pliny did—or indeed as Bacon did.
In the work now before us he says, ‘Some
people say hard snow is less chilling to the
feet than slush: I’ve not tried it, and am
not going to: try the experiment on your
least valuable slave (1 Care)’: what
sympathy could he have had with the
Englishman who contracted a fatal chill from
the use of snow in a scientific experiment?

It is indeed only too obvious how ready
Seneca is in the /V.Q. to drop science and
enter on one of his moralising disquisitions :
anyone who wishes to see a typical example
of his skill in what rhetoricians labelled as
transttio should glance at IVb. 13. τ. Yet
in the Middle Ages and for long afterwards
the book took its place on the shelves along
with Mela, Pliny and Solinus. The Gesta
Romanorum quote it, Roger Bacon used it
freely, Milton in his treatise ‘Of Education’
names it with Vitruvius, Celsus and the
writers just mentioned: in Germany Martin
Opitz worked not only the parts directly
concerned with earthquakes, but also the
prologue to the first book, into his Vesuvius.
‘You shall read,’ says Walton, ‘in Seneca’s
Natural Questions, Zzd. 3, Cap. 17 that the
ancients were so curious in the newness of
their fish, that etc.’ Nowadays the book, so
far as its subject is concerned, is valuable
mainly to those who care to study the history
of the early days of science and who find
here a rich mine for the theories and dis-
coveries of the Greek physicists. But even
the most practical of modern scientists may
be interested by the details which Seneca
gives us as to the Campanian earthquake
of 63 A.D., recognising in his account of
the sheep which perished near Pompeii
the effects of the poisonous gases which

accompany the volcanic class of earth-
quake.
With the volume before me the new

Teubner edition of Seneca is complete: it is
not intended that Haase’s supplementary
volume should be revised. Gercke’s in-
vestigations into the MSS. of the Δ Ὁ. have

234

been very thorough, and the results have
been incorporated in his Seneca-Studien
(Leipzig, 1895). The preface in the
Teubner volume is mainly a summary of this
work, and is not easy reading. The hand of
Time has fallen heavily on the V.Q. It is
certain that in our MSS. two separate books,
dealing, the one with the Nile, the other with
Clouds, have been telescoped into one—not
without damage to some of the compart-
ments. There were originally at least eight
books, and in the new edition the two
sections of Book IV are numbered respec-
tively ΙΝ ἃ and IVb. Then again, the MSS.
vary greatly as to the order in which they
present the books. The bulk of the best
class ® begin with IV (at the words
grandinem hoc modo, of 3. τ, 2.6. IV b), giving
next V—VII, then I-III, and concluding
with the remaining part of IV (ze. IVa).
The order to which we are accustomed is
that of the MSS. of the careless and inter-
polated A class (many of which drop IVa
entirely) and of the composite class to which
G. applies the name “bri uulgares. The
first question with which the preface deals
‘is that as to the order in which Seneca
actually wrote the books. G. decides that
this was as follows: III, IVa, IVb, II, V,
VI, VII, I. Passages like III. 1. 2 where
the treatment of the Nile is deferred to ‘its
own book,’ and IVa. 1. 1 (‘I'll deal with the
Nile, postponed superiore libro’) enable us
to assume with confidence the priority of III
to1Va, Vto VI, VII toI. But G.’s theory
requires more than this, and he proceeds to
cite evidence which is much less convincing.
Can, ¢.g., the fact that II. 59. 5 contains a
brief version of the tale told in IVa. 2. 13 be
regarded as proving that it is in the latter
book that it is first told? Do Seneca’s
words in VI. 8. 3 ‘nescis inter opiniones
quibus enarratur Nili aestiua inundatio et
hanc esse: a terra illum erumpere etc.’ help
us in the least to decide whether he had or

1These MSS. vary also as to their numeration :
most, however, recognise a total of eight books, IV b
being numbered I, whilst V-VII=II-IV, I-III
=V-VII, and IVa becomes VIII. Roger Bacon
used a MS. of this type, for he ascribes passages, e.g.
from our VI and VII to the third and fourth books,
whilst the Nile book is with him the eighth.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

had not yet composed the Nile book?? I
think not, and, if we must have a theory,
I prefer distinctly the one given by Rehm in
the last volume of Phzlologus (pp. 374 5ΦΦ.),
which assumes that the books were written in
the order in which the best MSS. present
them. Rehm believes that the first six
books (IV b-II) were reckoned as handling
sublimia, the last two (III-IV a) as handling
terrena, the caelestia (for whatever reason)
not having been handled at all. And he
claims that he was led to his conclusions by
considerations altogether independent of the
MSS. tradition. Passing over the second
section of the preface, in which G. tries to
shew that the whole work was published by
the philosopher’s friends after Nero’s death, I
come to the section which deals with the
history of the work when edited, the most
important part of which is that in which we
learn how Lucan’s tenth book and Lydus’
fourth enable us to recover much of what is
lost of IVa.2 A fourth section begins with
an account of the Archetype, followed by an
attempt to explain how the variation in the
order of the books came about, and a fairly
full account of the MSS. G. believes that a
MS. which had the order I-VII lost eight
leaves in the centre so that the two parts
I-IV a, IV b-VII could be, and actually were,

21 must take this opportunity of protesting against
the view, held not only by G., but also by Diels and
probably others, that the prologue to III is the
preface to the whole work. Of course such a view is
very useful for G.’s theory as to the order of composi-
tion, but the words on which the view is based, ‘non
praeterit me quam magnarum rerum fundamenta
ponam senex,’ are in no way incompatible with the
view that several books (six, if Rehm is right), had
already been written. These prologues are inde-
pendent pieces of writing, and the sentiment ‘It is a
bold thing to begin writing on Natural Philosophy
late in life’ might stand in the prologue of any of the
books of V.Q. Indeed, if we are to base the order of
composition on the prologues, Book II would have a
very good claim to come first, as its prologue discusses
the sub-divisions of the subject-matter of the whole
work. Gercke is clear-sighted enough here, and his
remarks on p. viii ‘neque in ea re offendimus quod
talis scriptor dispositionem doctrinae medio inseruit
operi (Book II comes fourth in his order), sine dubio

. artificiis dialogorum ductus’ apply, szfatis
mutandis, to the prologue to Book III.

3 The passages of these writers bearing on this point
are given in the text on pp. 157 sqq.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

transposed.!_ Two brief sections ‘ De’ codi-
cum correcturis’ and ‘ De textu emendando
et edendo’ conclude this part of the work.
As for the text, a glance at it shews two
great improvements on Haase: the presence
of an apparatus at the foot of the page, and
the use of italics to mark all emendations.
The apparatus might surely (as so often is
the case) be made more serviceable by
relegating to an appendix many details which,
worthy of record in some place, are of no
importance to ninety-nine out of a hundred
scholars who will use the book. I mean
such notes as these: p. 193. 7 ‘zudempnem
plerique codd.’; 7d. 14 ‘exanimatum| examt-
natum δ; p. 194. 6 ‘auxili et solac
Skutsch’ (for -2 !); 26. 11 ‘uindicat| wendicat
AST’; p. 195. 8 ‘caput] capud AHJKMO’ etc.
etc. The actual text varies from Haase’s
mainly through the more consistent rejection
of A readings and the adoption of emenda-
tions made since his edition appeared.
Many are very desirable, such as I. 14. 3
‘intellegimus qua 26γ12} (for ferit) stella,’ 26.
17. 4 ‘multa ex hoc consecuturus’ (for
-untur), III. 18. 1 ‘languor somniculosae

1See on this Rehm, /¢., p. 393.

GREEK

Greek Dress. A Study of the Costumes
Worn in Ancient Greece from Pre-Hellenic
Times to the Hellenistic Age. By ETHEL
B. ApraHAMs, M.A. London, 1908.
Pp. 134. 54 Illustrations. Price gs.

Miss ABRAHAMS’ careful survey of the history
of Greek dress from the earliest times down
to the Hellenistic period affords a convenient
basis for the study of the various problems in-
volved, as she gives a reliable resumé of the
literature on the subject, both ancient and
modern, supplemented by diagrams and by
a very well-chosen set of illustrations. The
defect for her study is the lack of any indica-
tion of the comparative value of the data
supplied.

The opening chapter deals with the dress

of the pre-Hellenic inhabitants of the

235

inertisque luxuriae quam sero exferrectus’
(for donga 5. 1.1]. 4. 5. expressero etc.), v. 18. 3
‘fruges percogui non possent’ (for percipz),
VII. 31. 3 ‘armasurae genus’ (for --atur
egenus). On the other hand, in III. 23
praestitum cannot be right, as the meaning
required is ‘proved,’ the emendation in III.
26. 7 assumes the rare genitive ws, and there
are other cases in which Latin or Senecan
usage is neglected: e.g. I. 5. 2 where the
text is punctuated as follows: ‘sed quomodo
imago, similis reddi debet e speculo’ and a
note explains that we are to supply redditur
with zmago. A curious instance of failure to
use an emendation ready to hand is II. 59.
11 where G. prints délectione rather than
adopt A’s excellent detectione (for Seneca’s
use of which see 222. 20. 16). In III. 18. 4
ad is a misprint for da: it is the only certain
one I have noted, though I imagine the
quantity mark in dscurrére of VI. 29. 1 is a
mere survival from Haase. I notice efsi
retained in IV. pr. 20, mec . . . guidem more
than once (II. 39. 2, V. 15.1). Is Kartssime

III. 1. τ intentional ἢ
WALTER C. SUMMERS.
Sheffield.
DRESS.

Aegean lands, which consisted for the men,
of a waist-cloth, for the women, of a tight-
fitting sleeved bodice open in front and
a skirt either plain or flounced. The
absence of any apparent connection be-
tween this costume and the draped Hellenic
type fastened on the shoulders and open at
one side, points to the conclusion that a
difference of race underlies the difference of
dress, and in this connection Miss Abrahams
has overlooked an important paper by Dr.
Mackenzie (B..S.A. xii. p. 233). He traces
the Minoan ‘flounced’ skirt back to an
original waist-cloth, the typical dress of
people living in hot countries, and cites it as
a further proof of the African origin of the
Minoan race. It may, however, be noted
that in spite of the apparently radical differ-
ences between the two types of dress, another

236

student of the subject maintains that the
archaic Ionian costume is a direct outcome
of the pre-Hellenic type. Be this as it may,
the phraseology of the Homeric poems shews
that the dress described therein is of the
draped type and, in all essentials, resembled
the Greek dress of historic times.

The main developments and variations of
the two styles of this draped dress which the
ancient Greeks themselves distinguished by
the race names of Dorian and Ionian, are
very fully discussed and illustrated, and in
describing the Ionian dress of a group of
archaic female statues in the Acropolis
Museum at Athens, Miss Abrahams pub-
lishes her own theory as to the cut and shape
of the elaborate pleated himation which is
a notable feature of their costume (pp. 89).
The novel points of this theory are the
extreme length of stuff required to make the
garment, and the artificial shaping of the
upper edge of that portion of the material
which passes across the back and the breast.
This is cut out in two deep curves (Fig. 33).
From the modern point of view there is no
objection to this cutting, but all our informa-
‘tion about Greek dress whether pinned or
sewn, goes to prove that it was constructed
out of straight-edged lengths of material, and
that its effects were produced by draping the
stuff, not by shaping it. Miss Abrahams
explains that the shaping of the upper edge

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

is necessary to get rid of the superfluous
material pulled up over the band to produce
the rise in the middle of the lower edge
characteristic of this himation. But in the
early statues (cf. the “ Hera of Samos ”) this
lower edge is rendered by a continuous up-
ward curve reaching from side to side, and
manifestly due to technical inexperience ; it
is possible therefore that the ‘rise in the
centre’ is due to a conflict between a tradi-
tional rendering and the sculptor’s own better
knowledge, intensified by his desire to dis-
play his new-found skill in treating the lower
edges and folds of a pleat. On this hypo-
thesis the himation would only bea long,
narrow, straight-edged scarf, cunningly pleated
and secured by the band to which the pleats
were, as Miss Abrahams says, probably
stitched before the garment was put on. As
to the dimensions of this scarf, a comparison
of the draped model (Fig. 34) with the
statues, gives the impression that too great a
length of stuff has been used. Miss Abra-
hams is undoubtedly right in saying that the
pleated himation was a real garment, not an
invention of the sculptor, but her theory as to
its precise cut and shape, though ingenious,
is not convincing.

Miss Abrahams completes her survey of
Greek dress by an interesting chapter on
materials and ornamentation, and by two

indexes. C. A. Hutton.

SHORT

Quaestiones Veteris et
Recensuit ALEXANDER
Pp.

Pseudo-Augustint
Novi Testamentt.
Souter. Vienna: Tempsky, 1908.
xXxxv+579. Price M. 19.50.

THE unknown author of the Quaesttones and
of the Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles
which was formerly assigned to St. Ambrose
is now attracting the attention he deserves.
The commentary is being edited by the
Jesuit Father Brewer in the Vienna Corpus,
and Mr. Souter has added an excellent
edition of the Quwaestiones to his ‘Study of
Ambrosiaster’ in the Cambridge Texts and
Studies. The author’s name has not been

NOTICES

ascertained. In his former work Mr. Souter
inclined in favour of Decimius Hilarianus
Hilarius, a statesman of rank about the year
400, in whose life there are circumstances
which favour the attribution, though direct
evidence is very slight, and does no more
than give the name Hilary to the writer.
Dom Morin was the first to suggest Deci-
mius, and his name carries weight. But
there is a grave argument in favour of the
rival claimant, Isaac the Jew. A Roman of
education was so trained in rhetorical expres-
sion that his sentences inevitably fell, without
thought on his part, into rhythmical cadences,
This the periods of our author never do.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

There is no sign whatever in him of a
technical training in Latin composition.
The two exceptions, a passage borrowed
pretty obviously from some writer of the
third century (Souter, p. 419) and the close
of a homily on Easter, probably of the fourth
(p. 363), are in glaring contrast to the rest of
his work. Isaac must have been of Greek
speech, and have known Latin as a foreign
language ; and this, together with some other
considerations, seems decisive in his favour.
It is pleasant to see that Mr. Souter has
altered his judgment and accepts Isaac in his
Introduction to the Vienna text of the
Quaestiones. The question of the identity of
authorship of the two works was satisfactorily
settled in his ‘ Study.’

The contents of the Quaestiones are inter-
esting, and, as Mr. Souter has pointed out,
will reward further examination. The absti-
nence from allegory, except the inevitable
speculations about number, is very striking,

as is the usual good, if prosaic, sense of the ©

writer. But for the classical student several
attacks on paganism, and notably an
elaborate argument De Fa/o (cap. 115), are
especially important. But the variety of the
contents, exegetical essays interspersed with
controversial tracts, short addresses given
completely with others of which fragments
appear, is so wide and the arrangement, if
such it may be called, so capricious, that the
whole furnishes lively as well as instructive
reading. In his excellent index and in his
‘Study’ Mr. Souter has done much for the
Latin of his author, which is sound in the
main and free from symptoms of dissolution,
though it has some strange peculiarities, such
as de non esse for non deesse, ipse idem as
an emphatic equivalent for idem. The
editor is almost excessively scrupulous in
following his MSS., even where there are
obvious lapses of the pen; but he has done
well, in the interests of other writers as well
as of the present one, to reject the form
idolatria, and to insist on the correct spelling
of a word in which recent editions have
rashly followed MSS. of a late period. One
word of interest must be mentioned in con-
clusion. Corpulentia is once used as equal
to incarnatio. It is a not unnatural variant
for concorporatio, ἐνσωμάτωσις, the charac-

‘doubt if they really serve their purpose.

237

teristic terms of Origen and of his Latin
disciple Hilary of Poitiers. Though the
diction of a rival school prevailed, there was
for a time the possibility that the Alexandrian
expression would be generally adopted, and
‘Embodiment’ might have been our English
word instead of ‘Incarnation.’ Mr. Souter
is the only Englishman save Professor
Robinson Ellis who has taken part in the
Vienna Corpus of Latin Patristic writers,
and his work brings credit to our national

scholarship. E. W. Watson.

A History of Art. ‘By Dr. G. CarRortrTi.

Vol. 1. Ancient Art, revised by Mrs.
Strong. Pp. xxvilit+420. With 540
Illustrations. Vol. II. Part 1: Early

Christian and Neo-Oriental Art ; European
Art North of the Alps. Pp. xxii+ 376.
With 360 Illustrations. London: Duck-
worth & Co., 1908-9. 63" x 43”. 55. nett.
each volume.

Dr. CaroTti has essayed to rival, if not
to excel, M. Reinach in the latter’s own
favourite field. We confess to being some-
what tired of these tabloid books on art, and
The
one under consideration, painstaking and
trustworthy though it be, is almost unread-
able, though its excellent bibliographies make
it really valuable for reference, especially for
the elementary student. Further, it is very
questionable whether a multitude of micro-
scopic illustrations is calculated to give the
beginner a truer idea of art, Egyptian, Greek,
or Roman, than a smaller number of well-
selected photographs on a larger scale. ‘The
original author has been fortunate in ob-
taining Mrs. Strong as his πρόξενος in this
country, and the translation (by Miss Alice
Todd and Miss Beryl de Zoete) is also well
done. The indices are full, though not very
logically arranged. It only remains to note
that in Vol. I. Oriental Art is contained in
94 pages (of which 29 are allotted to Egypt,
15 to ‘Aegean’ Art, and 13 to Assyrian), as
against 136 for Greek Art and 105 for that
of Italy and Rome. H. B.W.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

TRANSLATION

From his position, his talents, and his
intimacies he seemed marked out as the one
man who could and would desire to step
forward as the saviour of his country. But
such self-sacrifice is not exhibited by men of
Scipio’s type. Too able to be blind to the
signs of the times they are swayed by
instincts too strong for their convictions.
An aristocrat of the aristocrats, Scipio was a
reformer only so far as he thought reform
might prolong the reign of his order. From
any more radical measures he shrank with
dislike if not with fear. He was a trimmer
to the core, who without intentional dis-
honesty stood facing both ways till the hour
came when he was forced to range himself
on one side or the other, and then he took
the side which he must have known to be
the wrong one. Palliation of the errors of a
man placed in so terribly difficult a position
is only just: but laudation of his statesman-
ship seems absurd. His mind was too
narrow to break through the associations that
had environed him from his childhood.
When Tib. Gracchus, a nobler man than
himself, had suffered martyrdom for the cause
with which he had only dallied he was base
enough to quote the well-known line of
Homer: ‘So perish all who do the like
again.’

SCIPIONI vero ea dignitas ea indoles eae
demum amicitiae fuerunt, ut unus omnium
quasi fato designari videretur qui ad rem-
publicam servandam cum posset tum prodire
vellet. Talium autem hominum non est
publico commodo se omnino dedere: sunt
enim acutiores quidem quam qui de republica
quae sint futura non praevideant, natura
tamen magis quam iudicio flectuntur. Scipio
igitur homo si quis alius nobilissimus ea
tantum mala de civitate tolli volebat quibus
sublatis ordo suus diutius dominaturus esset,
ab ipsa reipublicae ratione mutanda vel
odio vel timore abhorrebat. Animi enim
ambiguus ad utrasque in civitate, quoad potuit,
partes ita spectabat ut numquam non integro
animo sibi esse videretur: aliquando tamen
alterutram suscipere coactus preorem sciens
amplectitur. Condonare vero, si errasset cui
in tantis rerum difficultatibus versandum
esset, iuste aestimantis, laudare autem tan-
quam auctor reipublicae gerendae prudens
exstitisset absurdi iudicares. A puero enim
moribus optimatium assuefactus non is erat
qui alia animo concipere posset: itaque Tib.
Graccho viro generosiore pro ea causa mortuo
quacum ipse tantum lusisset, illud ex Homero
turpissime recitavit :

ὡς ἀπόλοιτο καὶ ἄλλος ὅτις τοιαῦτά ye ῥέζοι.

L. R. STRANGEWAYS.

NEWS AND

Our readers will be gratified (or not, as
the case may be), to learn that the reformed
pronunciation of Latin is spreading to Latin
tags. It has not yet been heard in the
House of Commons, we believe, but the
reason for that will no doubt present itself
unsought to the thoughtful mind. /umch,
however, hitherto most conservative in this
respect, had the following lines on Sept. 8,
addressed to Dr. Cook:

Though your tale reads like a wheeze
Told to marines by giddy middies,
I must not doubt its dona fides.

COMMENTS

ATTENTION may be called to a fourth
edition of P. Cauer’s Kunst der Ubersetzung
(Weidmann, Berlin), in which the author
treats of the art of translation. One of his
chapters is an amusing analysis of the Schu/-
jargon which has grown up around the
classical authors. We could parallel this
from English schools, where many words
and expressions are used that are never used
in speech, many mistakes in ‘idiom which
would never be made without a classical
text. Thus: ‘within our most ancient
memory, ‘these things having been accom-
plished,’ ‘by which the more’—and so

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

forth. Lattmann has written a paper on
Der Schuljargon des Unterrichts: a good
one might be compiled from the so-called
English of Latin and Greek exercise books.

Ir may be worth while to draw attention to
the journal of the Italian Classical Associa-
tion, Avene e Roma, Bulletino della socteta
Italiana per la diffusione ὁ incoraggiamento
degli studi classici (Firenze, Piazza S. Marco,
2). This journal ranges over a wide field.
Amongst recent papers are one on the Graeco-
Buddhist art of Gandhara, another on the
evil eye, while other subjects are excavations
or museums (with many pictures), Dante’s
debt to Latin poets, criticisms of Italian
translations, and matters of scholarship
proper. Even in Italy itself Latin is declared
by the vox dez to be ‘useless,’ and is assailed
in consequence. It is possible that in this
coming year classical study may receive its
deathblow in the scheme of public instruction,
and its defenders are, in the last ditch, trying
to find some way in which it can be pre-
served. They are seeking for a change of

239

method as the most hopeful way out of the
difficulty.

Mr. SPRANGER desires us to say that his
paper in the September C.#. was written
before he had access to the fragments by the
Hypsipyle discovered by Messrs. Grenfell and
Hunt. These prove that the words ἔφυ μὲν
οὐδεὶς κτλ. were addressed by Amphiaraus to
Eurydice.

At the end of 1909 the C/Zassical
Review will cease to be published by
Messrs. David Nutt, Ltd. Arrange-
ments are in progress by which it would
be published in connexion with the
Classical Association, and the Philo-
logical Societies of Oxford and Cam-
bridge. Pending their completion the
Editor is authorised by a few friends of
classical studies to announce that the
February and March numbers will
appear as usual. Full particulars of the
new arrangements will be issued to sub-
scribers and the public at an early date.

CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editor of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
A HISTORY OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP.

(1) The writer of the notice of the concluding
volumes of the above work in 716 Classical Review
for June, after stating, in his text, that the ‘ misprints
are astonishingly few and far between,’ takes excep-
tion to the author’s statement (in vol. ii p. 114), that
it was after 1539 that Cardinal Bembo ‘acquired the
once celebrated Zaéula Zsiaca (now in the Turin
Museum, a spurious product of the age of Hadrian).’
The reviewer confidently says, in his note: ‘ for
Tabula ἤείαεα (the same misprint occurs in the
Index) read //iaca.’ But it so happens that the
reviewer is wrong, and the author is right. In
Mazzuchelli’s Scrittor? d/talia, vol. 11, part ii
Ρ. 743 note, we find the statement: ‘ Uno de’ pezzi
d’antichita piu famose che ornarono il Museo del
Bembo fu la Mensa Jsiaca,’ and in Charles Knight’s
English Encyclopaedia, vol. iv of ‘ Arts and Sciences,’
Ρ. 99, we read that ‘the /szac ¢ad/e in the Turin
Museum, which is supposed to represent the mysteries
of Isis, has been judged by Champollion to be the
work of an uninitiated artist . . . probably of the age
of Hadrian.’ The same information may be found in

Westropp’s Handbook of Archaeology, in Gsell-Fels’
Ober-/talien, and in one (at least) of the earlier
editions of Baedeker’s Northern Italy (p. 54, ed.
1886). But in the issue of 1899, by a mistake
curiously identical with that of the reviewer, the
Tabula Jsiaca is transformed into the Zabuda 7έΐαεα.
‘The once celebrated Zabula Jstaca’ is certainly in
the Museum of Turin, and the s/7// celebrated 7adula
Iliaca is, as certainly, in the Capitoline Museum of
Rome. The latter Zabu/a was not even discovered
until shortly before 1683, some 136 years after the
death of Bembo, the owner of the former.

(2) My statement that Brandis edited ‘ the Meta-
physics of Aristotle and Theophrastus’ rests on the
title selected by Brandis himself: Av7stofelis εἰ Theo-
phrasti Metaphysica (1823), and similarly in the case
of two other statements criticised by my reviewer.

(3) My reviewer represents that some of my biblio-
graphical references are vague, and selects ‘as a
typical instance’ the statement, under the head of
Traube (iii 195): ‘bibliography by P. Lehmann.’
He adds that ‘few readers will guess that the author
refers to the Rendiconti . . . det Lincet, xvi (1907),
351f.’ I reply that the guess would be wrong.
When I completed my mecessarily brief notice of
Traube (a few months after his lamented death), I

240

had before me the MS of the bibliography which Dr.
Lehmann had prepared for the Aezdzconti, and not
for the Hendicont? alone. That part of my work was
immediately passed for press in September, 1907, and
the Rendicontz did not reach Cambridge until January,
1908. What more could I be reasonably expected to
say at the time, without needlessly obtruding the fact
that I had had the privilege of seeing the MS?

My reviewer has generously given my work the
credit of being (zter alia) ‘accurate.’ I trust that
my reply to some of his incidental remarks (a reply
which is not intended to be exhaustive) may serve to
show that his opinion as to the accuracy of the work,
as a whole, is not only generous, but is also just.

For other suggestions I tender him my grateful

thanks. J. E. SANpys.

Cambridge (July).

SUBFONIUS, DIVUS FOLIOS, ἢ8..2:
The Editor, THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

Si1r,—After reading Mr. Caspari’s interesting note
(C.&. September) on the above passage, I am not
quite clear whether he regards his interpretation of
this famous repartee as new or not. Most of his
remarks seem to imply that it is, but the reference to
Beroaldo, etc., in the last paragraph seems to mean
(I have not been able to consult these editions) that
Mr. Caspari’s idea has been already adopted by
several scholars of the first note.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

In any case, I think Mr. Caspari will be glad to
be reminded of the following passage of Bacon (dd-
vancement of Learning, Bk.1.): ‘Caesar did extremely
affect the name of king ; and some were set on, as he
passed by, in popular acclamation to salute him king ;
whereupon, finding the cry weak and poor, he put it
off thus in a kind of jest, as if they had mistaken his
surname: Von Rex sum, sed Caesar: a speech, that
if it be searched, the life and fulness of it can scarce
be expressed: for first it was a refusal of the name,
but yet not serious: again it did signify an infinite
confidence and magnanimity, as if he presumed Caesar
was the greater title; as by his worthiness it is come
to pass till this day: but chiefly it was a speech of
great allurement towards his own purpose; as if the
state did strive with him but for a name, whereof
mean families were vested; for Rex was a surname
with the Romans, as well as King is with us.’

Since the jest about proper names is the most
striking feature of Caesar’s reply, one agrees that
Regem is a better reading than rvegem. But, as Bacon
says, there is much more in it than this. It is a pity
that one has to choose between the two, for the
sentence has its full meaning only (when spoken or)
in a script or typography which knows no real differ-
ence between large letters and small. Perhaps one
may suggest that we print REGEM.

Yours faithfully,

G. Norwoop.
Cardiff, October ist, 1909.

BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note of
the price.

** Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Brakman (C.) Ammianea et Annaeana, scripsit
C. Brakman, J.F. 9”x6”. Pp. 38. Lugduni
Batavorum, E. J. Brill. 1909. FI. .60.

Caesar. C. Juli Caesaris commentariorum de Bello
Civililiber primus. Edited with introduction, notes
and vocabulary by the Rev. W. J. Bensly, M.A.
(Bell’s Lllustrated Classics, Intermediate Series.)
7%" x 42”. Pp. 236, with 32 illustrations and 2
maps. London, George Bell ἃ Sons. 1909.
Cloth, 2s. 6d. net.

Colvill (Helen Hester). Saint Teresa of Spain.
9” x54”. Pp. xvi+344, with 20 illustrations.
London, Methuen ἃ Co. 1909. Cloth, 75. δα. net.

Davies (W. O. P.) Junior History Examination
Papers. (/unior Examination Series. Edited by
A. M. M. Stedman, M.A.) 64"x4}" Pp. 72.
London, Methuen ἃ Co. 1909. Limp cloth, 1s.

Dickerman (Sherwood Owen). De argumentis qui-
busdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem,
obviis e structura hominis et animalium petitis.

Dissertatio Inauguralis. 8}”x6". Pp. 108. Halis
Saxonum, Wischan ἃ Burkhardt. 1909.

Homer. Opnpov Odvocea. Printed at the Oxford
University Press with the Greek Types designed by
Robert Proctor in red and black upon Kelmscott
Press Paper. (The text of the Odyssey is that of
Dr. D. B. Monro, issued by the Oxford Press in
1901.) 12”x8". London, Henry Frowde. 1909.
Linen back, paper boards. Subscription price,
£4 4s. net. Limited to 225 copies.

Koster (Dr. A.) The Stadion of Athens, by Dr. A. K.,
Royal Museum, Berlin. Translated by Jane Orr,

BvA., ἘΞΤΕῚΣ abe x54. Pp... 34. Dundalk we
Tempest. 1909.
Tacitus. L. Loiseau. Tacite. Traduction nouvelle

mise au courant des travaux récentes de la Philo-
logie. Préface de J. A. Hild. Tome II. Dialogue
sur les Orateurs.—Vie d’Agricola.—Des Moeurs
des Germains.—Histoires. 7}” x 4#’. Pp. “562.
Paris, Garnier Fréres. 1908. Fr. 3.

;
7
4
ἣ

The Classical Review

DECEMBER

1909

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE BERLIN-ABERDEEN

TueE filling of gaps in a MS is a kind of
missing-word game which has its peculiar
fascinations for the player, but may give
little satisfaction to the onlooker. Even
where the gap involves the supplying of only
five or six letters it is difficult to convipce
the critic that it is probable that the writer
of the piece used the words supplied.
Where the gap contains six out of twelve
syllables, probability must seem to him out
of the question. Still, under these apparently
adverse conditions, something may be done
beyond mere random suggestion. The

_ present fragment contains a line quoted

elsewhere. This helps us to the metre,
and, through tracing, to the actual length
of the initial gap. The beginnings of the
lines of the parallel column on the right
furnish evidence as to the angle made by
the marginal line with the line of the writing.
In three places we have a scholion which
helps us to the meaning of what is lost.
The conditions of restoration here are
surely far from adverse, unless restoration
aspire to be regeneration. Certainty we
cannot have, but probability we can have
if re will. And amid the almost total wreck
of Greek Lyric Poetry even probability is
something worth having.

The poem is one of the
Alcaeus, exiled by the tyrant Myrsilus, has

NO. CCVI. VOL. XXIII.

,
Στασιωτικά,

FRAGMENT OF ALCAEUS.

taken refuge in the Lesbian town of Pyrrha,
and writes this poem to encourage the
aristocratic party and to intimidate the
tyrant. The scholion which begins opposite
line 8 may be thus translated: ‘in the first
banishment, when after conspiring against
Myrsilus Alcaeus and Phan... and their
adherents failed in their plot and fled to
Pyrrha before they could be brought to
trial.’ Strabo says (13. 617): ‘Mitylene,
owing to internal discord, was ruled at this
period by a succession of tyrants, and the
στασιωτικὰ, as they are called, of Alcaeus
deal with this subject. Among the tyrants
was the great Pittacus, and Alcaeus abused
him as well as the rest—Myrsilus and
Melanchrus, [and] the sons of Cleanax,
and others—though he was not free from the
taint of unconstitutional aspirations himself.’

The metre is that of Horace’s first Ode,
but there are variations in the first three
syllables as in the other Asclepiad fragments
of Alcaeus.

For the Berlin part of the poem (a) I
have used the facsimile in the Sitsungsberichte
der Konigl. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften,
1902, i. p. 197, and for the Aberdeen part
(4) a new photograph kindly supplied to
me by Professor Harrower. Both fragments
are edited in the fifth volume of the excellent
Berliner Klassthertexte.

Q

242

ext:

(a) τίς τοι φρὴν ἐνέ]δυ καὶ διανοίϊα,

a τόσσον πεφόβη]σαι Χρόνον. ὦ πάΐτρι:;
θάρση: οὔ φαισι γ]ὰρ αὖτος Kpovisas [ἄναξ
δαΐω πολέμω Ἐς ae κέ σ᾽ ἔλη τρόμος

5 ovr’ ἀμφικτίον᾽ οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἄλα πήμ[ατι
ζ(άπλευσαν fg de δηῦτ᾽ exaty| βόλων
λοι ἀμφί σ᾽ ἄε]θλον πολυδάκ[ρυον,
αἱ μὴ πάντας ἀρ τῆτο ἀπυκρ[ινέξης
αὔτα τῶν σέθεν] εἰς μάκρον ἀπειμ[ένα"

10 δ τες γὰρ πόλιος πύργος apevios*
ai δ᾽ οὖν ἄλλο τις ἢ] ὡς κῆνος ἐβόλ[λετο
Ton, τοῦτον ὕμως] ΤΠ κατέσχ[εθεν
itn ee ἐ]πεί σ᾽ ἀ μὲν exe. .
αν κου τ a eas Ἴων Ζεῦς breA[. . .

Ἐν Poe a ΡΤ ὁ Ἰαύτω: τά Te. Jer. t ;
ΡΣ ree ie ls sage ay
3 ee belts tare ἢ Sele ΠΣ
reer ΘΝ yf.

ls τόδ ; inot τίοι

. Τενάγη]ς γὰρ τάδε σά[μανεν
Αἰολίων, ὃν ἄδε]λφος Mdkalp ἐγχεῖ
κατέκτεννε π]άροιθεν βαρυδαΐωι.

5 ὧν ἔγω πέρι τό]σσοῦτον ἐπεύχ[ οἸμαι"
οὔτω μήκετ᾽ ἴδΊεσθ᾽ ἀελίω ¢4[4]os,
ὄλλεσθαι δὲ τάχ᾽, ali γε Κλεανακ[τΊ]ΐδαν
ἢ τὸν χιραπόδαν] ἢ ’ρχεανα[ κτ]ΐίδαν
(Gv ἐάσαμ᾽ ἐτ᾽ ἔγω,] τὸν pedidd[eo]s

10 ἐκβάλλων πόλιος Μύ]ρσιλος ὠλε[σΊ]εν.

Critical Notes:

Running down from ca in διανοίία there was a
vertical strip of bad surface about one letter broad,
sometimes left blank by the scribe (see Schubart),
and from this at about 1. 14 a similar strip running
diagonally downward to the right; the first is
continued in (4), cutting 1. 2 after oa; the second
also may have been continued, ending in a gap
between ὃ and a in 1. 4, but this is very doubtful
and cannot be used as a means of estimating the
number of lines lost between the two fragments.
(a) 1 Scholion Jets, i.e. τί voe’s? 4 P rae 5 P ovr’
6 P prob. vaurav: P dnf.]r with da over τ, ive.
δηῦτ᾽ corrected to δαῦτ᾽ 8 Scholion (with abbrevia-
tions) κατὰ τὴν [φυγὴν τὴν πρώτην ὅ- [τ᾽ ἐπὶ Μυρσίλον]
κατασκ[ευ]ασάμενοι | ἐπιβουλὴν οἱ περὶ τὸν ᾿Αλκαῖον
καὶ [ Parl. . . οἹὐδὲ προ-] φθάσαν[τεἸς πρὶν | ἢ δίκη[ν]
ὑπο- σχεῖν ἔφ[υ7γον | εἰς ΤΙύρ[ ρ]αν 9 P ks:
10=/r. 231: P πολι]ο5 : P evil 13 P jmon 14P
feds 16 between τ and ὦ there is a space of one
letter, prob. originally blank (see above). (ὁ) Part
almost certainly of the same column, prob. of the
same poem (see above) 3 or Ja 4 Bapvdatwr

1 Bergk4,

P ant

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

if this is right there was a blank between ὃ and a
of about three letters: P w.: the letter before ὦ
may be v 60r yn: Ρ σθ’ 77 ὄλλεσθαι so P prob.,
but wrecev below: Scholion (with abbreviations) τὸν

Μυρσίλον 8 Scholion (with abbreviations) τὸν
Φιττακὸν: P np not xp 9 P μελιᾶδ: Js very
doubtful 10 P prob. exBadwy or eyBadwy: P has

upper traces of what may be ρσι but Ilé]y@:Xos is
also possible: after εἰ there must have been a blank
of one letter: Jey obscure but certain

Translation -

. What purpose or intent is in thee,
my country, that thou hast been so long
time afraid? Be of good cheer; for thus
saith the great son of Cronus himself,
whensoever fear of dread war hath seized
upon thee: never shall neighbour foeman,
nay nor one that with far-flung misery hither
on shipboard passeth the sea, compass thee
about with tearful combat, unless thou of
thyself send afar all the best of thy people,
to sunder them from thee. For ’tis men
that are a city’s tower in war. But if one
do other than Zeus did will it, him, strive
as he may, fate ever overwhelmeth. .. . .

For that did Tenages son of Aeolus
prove, whom in woeful war the spear of
his brother Macar slew of old.: Concerning
such matters? this is now my prayer: may
I no longer behold the light of the sun,
if the son of Cleanax, or yonder Split-foot,
or the son of Archeanax, be suffered yet
to live by one whom, casting him forth
from his dear sweet home, Myrsilus hath
done to death.

Commentary «

(a) 1. ἐνέδυ : cf. 71. 19. 366 ἐν δέ οἱ ἦτορ] div habs
ἄτλητον.

3. gait: grammarians quoted by Meister-Ahrens,

i. p. 175 tell us that the Aeolians said, e.g.,
γέλαιμι, γέλαις, γέλαι ; but no instance of pa
is extant, unless we admit Bergk’s gat κήνοθεν
for the MSS φοικήνοθεν fr. 36. Probably either
form could be used. Sappho uses φίλησθα fr. 22
but λύπης 111.

. ἔλη : so Papyrus, not ἔληι, see M.-A. i. p. 89.

. ἀμφικτίον᾽ : see on line 8.

ω &

6. ζάπλευσαν : “i.e. διαπλεύσαντα, see on πάν for
πάντα in my restoration of the new Sappho I. 23.

vaFlrav : for @F cf. avaray Pind. δ 2. 52.

2 or ‘men.’
The numbering is that of my article in C.R.
June 1909.

10.

12.
14.

16.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 243

8. The scholion beginning to the right of this line

is taken by the Berlin editors to refer to the
next column, of which the beginnings of the
lines are extant. Not only would this be con-
trary to custom, but the new poem which begins
at this level in the second column—as is indicated
by marks in the margin—begins further to the
right as though to leave room for something
already written there. Now there are traces
of what must be an earlier note in another hand
to the left of the first three lines of the extant
scholion—for the text could not have extended
so far,—and I take it that the second column
was displaced at this level in order to leave a
good margin between the earlier note and the
column to which it did not belong. At a later
date the extant scholion was written in, beginning,
as usual, on the level of the phrase which it
explained; but as the space it would naturally
have filled was partly occupied by the earlier
note, the writer had to make use—for his first
three lines—of the only available space at the
required level, namely that between the earlier
note and the next column. After the first three
lines he was free of the obstruction, and
accordingly began the remaining lines of his
note in their natural place further to the left.
That the extant scholion was not the cause of
the displacement of this part of the second
column, is clear from the very close proximity
of it to that column and the division of so small
a word as ὅ- [τε between two lines. Instances
of an earlier note displacing a line of a scholion
are to be seen in the MS of the Paeans of Pindar,
Oxyrh. Papp. NV. no. 841. See particularly pp.
28 and 46. The same MS has examples of the
care with which a sufficient margin was preserved
between text and commentary, a line of the
latter often beginning more to the right where a
line of the text is longer. See p. 28 and Plate II.
In the Pindar MS the only note placed on the
deft of the text is a poem-title, Δελφοῖς εἰς Πυθώ,
p. 40. The abbreviation before φθάσαντες is
obscure. The second banishment—under Pit-
tacus in 594—was the only one hitherto known
to us. The fact that they took refuge in a
Lesbian town explains ἀμφικτίονα above.

dpevios: so schol. Aesch. Pers. 347; cf. //. 4.
407, 15. 736 and Bergk’s note on this line
(/r. 23).

Uuws = ὅμως. Ϊ

Ζεῦς : the accent in the Papyrus bears out the
statement of a grammarian quoted by M.-A.
p. 36, and vindicates the authority of this MS
in matters of spelling. Cf. edy line 4, εβφερε..
below, and μελιάδεος (4) 9.

éBdepe.., z.e. Emepepe..: is there any other evi-
dence that in Aeolic the sound of ¢ was 6/4 and
not 2ὰ where it represented an original 64?

(6) 2. Tevdyns κτλ. : τάδε sc. that the abuse of

despotic power gets its reward? Macar, the
reputed founder of Lesbos, was said to have fled
there after murdering his brother Tenages. Cf.
Zl. 24. 544 Λέσβος. . . Μάκαρος ἕδος and the
scholia, on ἕδος---ἔκτισε yap τὴν Λέσβον Μάκαρ ὁ
Κρινάκου καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν αὐτῆς, and on Μάκαρος
---Ηλίου καὶ Ῥόδου. φονεύσας τὸν ἀδελφὸν Τεναγὴν
ὦικει αὐτοῦ καὶ πόλιν ἀπὸ τῆς γυναικὸς Αντισσαν
ὠνόμασεν, ties δὲ (Hesiod fr. 91 Μὴ αὐτὸν
Κρινάκου τοῦ Ὑρζιδέως τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος καὶ
᾿Αλκυόνης, οἱ δὲ μητέρα αὐτοῦ Μιτυλήνην καὶ
γυναῖκα Λέσβον. 77}αᾳεὰν' is called Αἰολίων Hom.
Hymn. Ap. 37.

σάμᾶνεν : cf. fr. 39. 5 καταυᾶνηι (Bgk.) and
such pairs as κυδαίνω κυδάνω.

3. Αἰολίων : cf. Sa. ὃς Λυδίαν.
8. χιραπόδαν : ‘with chapped feet,’ according to

Diog. Laert. 1. 81 one of the names given to
Pittacus by Alcaeus in his poems. I quote part
of the passage from Bergk, /7. 37 B: ‘ τοῦτον
(Πιττακὸν) ᾿Αλκαῖος σαράποδα μὲν καὶ σάραπον
(Cod. Cant. σύραπον, Hartung συρόποδα) ἀποκαλεῖ
διὰ τὸ πλατύπουν εἶναι καὶ ἐπισύρειν τὼ πόδε,
χειροπόδην δὲ διὰ τὰς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν ῥαγάδας
[‘chaps’] ἃς χειράδας ἐκάλουν" (cf. Zt. AZ. 810.
27): Χεῖραι, αἱ ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν payddes. καὶ χειρό-
modes οἱ οὕτω τοὺς πόδας κατερρωγότες, οἷον ῥαγό-
ποδες" nontamen propterea χειρύποδα corrigendum ;
Hartung χιραπόδην requirit)’ . . . Eust. 194. 40
prefers the form χιράς.

schol. Φιττακὸν : so on a Lesbian coin Mionnet
Suppl. vi. p. 64 (Bergk).

᾿Αρχεανακτίδαν : cf, Strabo 13. 1. 599 ᾽Αρχαι-
άνακτα (sic) γοῦν φασι τὸν Μιτυληναῖον ἐκ τῶν
ἐκεῖθεν (Troy) λίθων τὸ Σίγειον τειχίσαι.

9. ἐάσᾶμι : Aorist subjunctive, cf. λύσαμεν in the

other new fragment, C.. May, 1909.

μελιάδεος : the Papyrus shows the Aeolic ac-
centuation, cf. note on Zeis above. The word
is applied to νόστος Ud. 11. 100 and ὕπνος 7.

19. 551.

10. ἐκβάλλων : the present is necessary to the sense,

“ὧν casting out.’

Μύρσιλος : if we read Πένθιλος, the sentiment
is far weaker, for it was Myrsilus, as we know
from the scholion, who caused the poet’s banish-
ment. Of Penthilus we know from Diog. Laert.
1. 4 that Pittacus married his sister, and that he
joined the brothers of Alcaeus (and presumably
Pittacus, see Suidas) in overthrowing Melanchrus,
the tyrant who succeeded Myrsilus.

ὥλεσεν : either sarcastic ‘has—as he thinks—
destroyed,’ or more simply ‘has undone.’

J. M. Epmonps.

A correction: On p. 73 of the C.2. for May the

note.on 1. 13 should be deleted ; xdpos appears to be
always masculine.

J. M. Ε.

244

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

οὗτος AND ὅδε IN THUCYDIDES.

In a recent number of this Revzew there
appeared an article by Dr. Grundy, in which
he revived a notion started originally by
L. Herbst, that there is some difference
between ὅδε ὁ πόλεμος and ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε in
Thucydides. The use that he makes of
the evidence and the conclusions at which
he arrives appear to a grammarian like myself
so strange that it seems desirable to set
down a few facts that must be taken into
consideration in reference to the syntax of
οὗτος and ὅδε. I will state what Thucydides
does when he uses these pronouns as adjectives
with a noun, and I will compare his practice
with that of Xenophon in the /edlenica.
Scholars whose main interest lies in history
are, if I may say so without offence, rather
apt to pursue their investigations ‘regardless
of grammar.’ But before we fall to investi-
gating what difference there is between two
such expressions, we must decide whether
the laws of the language leave it probable,

not to say conceivable, that any difference
can exist between them, apart from gram-
matical distinctions. If the laws of grammar
admit of two forms, the one chosen is generally
due to the idiosyncrasy of the author. I may
say that when I read Herbst’s article many
years ago, I had a misgiving that this idea
that there is a difference of meaning according
as Thuc. writes ὅδε ὁ πόλεμος or ὁ πόλεμος
ὅδε is mere moonshine. Other authors use
ὅδε behind and before indifferently: ἐλθὼν
ἐβουφόρβουν
τόν δ᾽ ἔσῳζον οἶκον ἐς τόδ᾽ ἡμέρας ; and Thucy-
dides himself, when in iii. 104 he is to
introduce two passages from the Hymn 10
Apollo, writes first, ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι Tota de,
and then ἐς τάδε τὰ ἔπη, so that, with ἔπος
at least he felt there was no difference. But,
until Dr. Grundy’s article appeared, I had
never read Thucydides through with the
object of confirming or destroying my doubts:
still less had I ever thought of committing
such a brutal assault on the harmless
Flellenica.

In both works the adjectival οὗτος is far
commoner than the adjectival ὅδε, The
reason is that ὅδε, ‘this here,’ is somewhat

δὲ γαῖαν τήνδ᾽ ξένῳ καὶ

familiar and intimate. Except for the ‘as
follows’ use, it is suited rather to the spoken
than to the written language. This may be
seen at once from the common use of τάδε
to denote ‘what I am talking about,’ ‘the
matter in hand’ in the speeches of Thucydides
and Xenophon. Dr. Grundy is surprised:
that otros with ὁ πόλεμος is so rare in
Thucydides as compared with ὅδε. But the
explanation is quite simple. ὅδε denotes
‘my subject,’ ‘what I write about,’ the
author’s most intimate relation, his offspring.
Thus Xenophon Hell. vi. 4, 37 ἀχρὶ οὗ ὅδε
ὁ λόγος ἐγράφετο; and so Thucydides in
iv. 104 is ὃς τάδε Evveypayev. Thucydides
has οὗτος with ὁ πόλεμος in three cases only:
in each one he is talking of ‘this war’ not
as his subject, but in sharp contrast with
other wars not mentioned in particular. In
i. 21 and 23 the contrast is between the
Peloponnesian War and all the wars that
preceded it. In vii. 84 it is between the
Sicilian Expedition and the Peloponnesian
War, and this the commentator who added
Σικελικῷ saw.

In consequence of the greater frequency
of οὗτος, I will deal with it first. 1 do not
reckon instances that are direct quotations.

1. Position of adjectival οὗτος with noun.
Of course if a μέν is used to contrast ‘this’
with ‘another,’ οὗτος comes first—tavry μὲν
οὖν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Apart from this, Thucydides
affects post-position—xata τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον:
Xenophon prefers κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον.
The following figures may not be exact, but
they are substantially correct :

οὗτος before. οὗτος after.

Thue.) Gleae - seven. twelve.
Ἢ ily - - seven. eighteen.
Ἧ ill. cis SRE, twelve.
νὰ iv. - - fourteen. twenty.
_ vite five. exghteen.
jj) ce - eight. twenty.
Hellenica 1.-11. - fen. one.
F ill. - fifteen. one.
τ iv. twelve. one.
τς Υ. - cen. two.
; Vi. six none.
νὰ Vil - thirteen. four.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

2. Among the nine cases of post-position
in the He/lenica, no reason can be given for
κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον (i. 1, 32), ἡ νίκη αὕτη
(v. 2, 43), and probably ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ αὐτοῦ
ταύτῃ (vil. 5, 7). But the remaining seven
fall under the following laws:

(a) If a relative word is to follow im-
mediately, then οὗτος, when both it and its
noun precede the relative, follows the noun :

Fell. iv. 4, 8 κατὰ τὰς πύλας ταύτας ἐνθάπερ.

Fell. vii. 4, 11 τὴν γῆν ταύτην ἦν.

(4) If ὁ αὐτός is used, then οὗτος must not
precede the article:

Hell. v. 2, 60 ἐν ταῖς αὐταῖς ταύταις ναυσί.

Fell. vii. 4, τι ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς τούτοις.

(c) If one among several namesakes is to be
distinguished from the others, οὗτος follows :

Hell. iii. 1, 10 ἡ Αἰολὶς αὕτη.

(4) When the article is not used, οὗτος,
perhaps then a predicate, follows :

Flell. vii. 4, 34 ἔγκλημα τοῦτο.

These four laws are strictly observed by
Thucydides. Take for (a) ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ
τούτου ἔνθα (iv. 42). If ili. 17 is interpolated,
the interpolator was not to be caught napping,
for he started off with κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον
ὅν. The only apparent exceptions are Thuc.
i. 43 τοῦτον ἐκεῖνον εἶναι τὸν καιρὸν ἐν ᾧ,
where τοῦτον is predicative; iv. 78 ταύτῃ
μὲν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 7, for which see rule 1. ; and
ii. 102 ἐν ταύτῃ TH γῇ ἥτις, Where ταύτῃ has
to be strongly emphasised. (4), (c) and (@)
do not need illustration.

Let us now turn to the rarer ὅδε. The
Paraleipomena furnish but seven examples ;
of these six are in speeches: Jefore, κατὰ
τόνδε τὸν νόμον ὅς (i. 7, 22), "τήνδε THY
πολιτείαν (ii. 3, 25), τῇδε τῇ πολιτείᾳ (ii.
3, 39), οἵδε οἱ ἐφεστηκότες (ii. 3, 51), and
ὅδε 6 βωμός (ii. 3, 53); after, TH ἀρχῇ τῇδε
(ii. 3, 42). The other is a case of ὅδε mean-
ing ‘to this effect,’ τὴν γνώμην... τήνδε
(i. 7,9). All the examples occur in speeches.
The only case that calls for special notice is
the first, in which τόνδε stands in emphatic
contrast with a preceding τοῦτο---κατὰ τοῦτο
τὸ ψήφισμα. The remaining books of the
Hellenica give four examples only, in all of
which ὅδε precedes the article. Two are in
speeches—rtyde τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (ν. 2, 25) and τήνδε
τὴν πόλιν (vi. 5, 45): one is ὅδε ὁ λόγος,

245

‘this work of mine’; and in the other, τόνδε
τὸν ὅρκον (vi. 5, 2), τόνδε is ‘the following.’

Excluding quotations like ἥδε ἡ ἡμέρα...
μεγάλων κακῶν ἄρξει, Thucydides uses ὅδε
before a noun, other than πόλεμος, eight
times. Four cases occur in speeches; viz.
τῇδε TH πόλει (i. 144), τῇδε TH πόλει (ii. 64),
τοῦδε Tov κινδύνου (iv. το), and ἥδ᾽ ἡ ἄνοια
(vi. 16). In two 66e=‘the following,’ τοῦδε
Tov ἔπους (ii. 54) and τάδε τὰ ἔπη (111. 104),
the latter followed closely by τοῖς ἔπεσι τοῖσδε.
The only two cases in narrative are ἐν τῇδε τῇ
ἡγεμονίᾳ (i. 94) and τήνδε τὴν στρατείαν (11. 68).

Of ὅδε following a noun, other than πόλεμος,
Dr. Grundy enumerates twenty-eight examples
from Thucydides. Seven have to be added
to his list: Κερυκαίων τῶνδε (i. 37), Κερκυραίους
τούσδε (i. 43), ἡμᾶς τούσδε (i. 53), τῶν Λακε-
δαιμονίων τῶνδε (ili. 63), δικαιώματα τάδε (i. 41),
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τῷδε (Vii. 63), ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον
τόνδε (Vili. 13).

Thus, for the position of ὅδε we get these
figures :

ὅδε before. ὅδε after.
Thue. - - eight. thirty-five.
Flellenica iii. - five. one.
» Ub-vil. - four. none.

These figures are analogous to those for
οὗτος. And, what is of greater moment, the
laws (a), (2) and (4) hold good for ὅδε as for
οὗτος. Thus, for (a) the examples are Thuc.
£68 3s ivi, o5 5 vi. 12: for (6) Thue.
vii. 63; Vili. 13; villi. 99: for (d@) there are
several examples, as i. 37 and 41, and no
exceptions. Law (c) does not apply to ὅδε,
which is not used in the case. e//. i. 7, 22
κατὰ τόνδε τὸν νύμον ὅς is an apparent
exception to (a): it is the only one, and,
as I have said, it is due to a strong contrast
between ὅδε and οὗτος.

Now what about ὅδε ὁ πόλεμος and ὁ
πόλεμος ὅδε in Thucydides? The former
occurs fifteen, the latter twenty-one times.
One only of the four laws can be tested:
there are ten examples of ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε ὅν,
and none of ὅδε ὁ πόλεμος ὅν. About the
remaining twenty-six examples I draw no
conclusion but this: that the use of ὅδε with
other nouns and the use of οὗτος lend no
support to Herbst’s theory that Thucydides
consciously used ὅδέ ὁ πόλεμος in one sense
and ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε in another.

E. C. MARCHANT.

246

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

SOME NOTES.

ZESCHYLUS, Agamemnon, 1]. 1-7.

A A > “~ « >] > /
θεοὺς μὲν αἰτῶ τώνδ᾽ ἀπαλλαγὴν πόνων
φρουρᾶς ἐτείας μῆκος ἣν κοιμώμενος

’ > fr ” x /
στέγαις ᾿Ατρειδῶν ἄγκαθεν, κυνὸς δίκην,
ἄστρων κάτοιδα νυκτέρων ὁμήγυριν

\ 7 , - ἂς , ’ὔἅ
5 καὶ τοὺς φέροντας χεῖμα καὶ θέρος βρότοις
λαμπροὺς δυνάστας ἐμπρέποντας αἰθέρι,
> , a , > , nw
ἀστέρας, ὅταν φθίνωσιν, ἀντολάς τε TOV.

May we imagine that the Phulax is
supposed to have discovered a kind of star-
symbolism? To him, watching the ‘starry
host’ of the nightly skies, the thought has
perhaps suggested itself that the Greek
army camped on the fields of Troy is
symbolised in heaven, the bright princes,
the great stars, being surrounded by their
lesser companions. He has watched the
rising and setting of these stars, and he
has seen the rise and fall of many of the
princely houses. ‘Things are not well in
Agamemnon’s state—may the great star
_soon return.’ Such would be the vague
background of thought and feeling to this
description of the stars. Cf. ll. 18-21:

7 ’.3 ΝΜ “ a ΄
κλαίω TOT οἴκου τοῦδε συμφορὰν στένων
οὐχ ὧς τὰ πρόσθ᾽ ἄριστα διαπονουμένου---

Pi Vicks ΛῈΣ x ΄ ΟΞ \ ͵
νῦν δ᾽ εὐτυχὴς γένοιτ᾽ ἀπαλλαγὴ πόνων

> 4 / > os Ὁ /
εὐαγγέλου φανέντος ὀρφναίου πυρός.

In this, later passage the star of deliverance
becomes identified with the fire-signal
suddenly flaming out from the darkness of
the night.

If the interpretation suggested is correct,
l. 7, which is rejected by many com-
mentators, is both necessary and finely
expressed : how appropriate and dramatic is
the sudden change of construction after ὅταν
φθίνωσιν, indicating and expressing a sudden
change of feeling—from a dark foreboding
of evil to a kind of forced hopefulness, a
desire to believe that the star-symbol with
‘its prophecy of restoration may yet be
justified. The rhythm of the line seems
most expressive.

For the subtlety with which the thing
symbolised is suggested rather than declared,
cf. ll. 94-5,

λάμπας ἀνίσχει
φαρμασσομένη χρίματος ἁγνοῦ
μαλακαῖς ἀδόλοισι παρηγορίαις,

where the epithet certainly
alludes to the guileful persuasions of the
queen.

In the //iad, the comparison of individual
leaders of the Greek host to the greater
stars is common: cf. 721. v. 4-6; vi. 401;
xi. 62; xxii. 26-29. In ZZ. viii. 554 the
Trojan camp with its many fires is com-
pared to the starry sky.

Cf. also:

«ἀδόλοισι᾽

Hesperus that led the starry host.
MiLTon, P.Z. iv. 605.

Our bugles sang truce, for the night cloud had
lowered
And sentinel stars set their watch in the sky.
CAMPBELL.

Kings are like stars—they rise and set—they have
The worship of the world, but no repose.
SHELLEY, He//as.

Princes are like to heavenly bodies which cause
good or evil times and which have much veneration
but no rest. Bacon, Essay XX. ‘On Empire.’

This last extract (of which the passage
from Shelley is obviously a reminiscence)
may be compared more especially with
line 5.

Lucan, Pa&ars. vii. 344-346:

. totas effundite vires ;
extremum ferri superest opus, unaque gentes
hora trahit.. .

Mr. Haskins translates ‘trahit’ by ‘drags
to ruin’ and quotes a passage from Virg.
(4in. v. 709), ‘quo fata trahunt retrahunt
que sequamur,’ which seems hardly rele-
vant.

Pompey would not (whatever the fore-
bodings of his own heart might be) in his
speech to his troops say: ‘one hour drags
to ruin the peoples.’ It cannot be pleaded
that ‘gentes’ here means ‘the foreign
nations’ of Caesar as opposed to the
Roman people which Pompey claims to

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

represent: for, in ll. 360-2, Pompey states
that he has ‘gentes’ on his own side:
. . . primo gentes oriente coactae

innumeraeque urbes, quantas in proelia nunquam
exciuere manus. toto simul utimur orbe. . .

Ll. 233-4:
eripe victori gentes, et sanguine mundi
fuso, Magne, semel totos consume triumphos,

have no relation to the present passage ;
for there the poet speaks with a knowledge
of Pompey’s doom, while here Pompey is
supposed to be encouraging his troops for
battle.

The general sense is clear. ‘This is the
fateful hour; the destiny of the world is
now to be decided.’ What is the precise
meaning of ‘trahit’?

The parallel from Virgil, suggested by
Mr. Haskins, seems to afford a clue. Lucan
has here, as it were, put ‘una hora’ in the
place of ‘fatum’: that is to say, the one
short hour is represented poetically as a
kind of fate which will decide the destinies
of the peoples. ‘Trahit’ then means simply
‘draws on,’ ‘pernicies’ and ‘salus’ being
vaguely thought of as the two alternative
goals. Because in many passages this vague
sense ‘draws on’ acquires a sinister meaning
by reason of its context, commentators seem
to have been misled into the belief that in
later Latin ‘trahit’ comes to mean definitely
‘Jeads into destruction.’ The English verb ‘to
involve’ seems to be an interesting parallel.
The context often gives this word the addi-
tional idea of ruin; e.g.

Involving all the contending parties in the same
destruction.

BurKE, A Vindication of Natural Society.
and
One death involves
Tyrants and slaves.
THOMSON, Zhe Seasons.

But even in the case of these passages, it
would be incorrect to say that the verb ‘to
involve’ in itself means ‘to include in ruin.’
The associations of a word and the sugges-
tions it acquires in a particular context are
not necessarily identical with its definite
meaning.

Appended is a brief examination of those
passages quoted by Mr. Haskins in his index

247

and notes, in which he claims that ‘trahere
means definitely ‘to drag to ruin.’

LUCAN, iv. 222:
trahimur sub nomine pacis.

Under the name of peace we are being
deprived of control over ourselves—Caesar
is becoming our master and is leading
whithersoever he will. In the passage from
Virgil—En. ii. - 403, -‘trahebatur... ἃ
templo’—quoted in the note, the verb is
used in its simplest sense and may be trans-
lated ‘was being dragged.’

Lucan, iv. 738:
bellumque trahebat | auctorem civile suom.

Ze. the horse had, as it were, thrown its rider
to the ground and was dragging him after
itself. Curio had lost control over the war
he had started, and it was now his master.

Ovip, Metz. τ. 190-1:

sed immedicabile volnus
ense recidendum ne pars sincera trahatur.

i.e. lest the sound part be drawn within the
circle of corruption.

46:

fatisque trahentibus orbem.

Lucan, Vil.

?

‘the fates drawing the world to its doom.
‘Trahere’ is here neutral.

LUCAN,
LUCcAN,

vii. 346. The present passage.
vil. 654:
nec, sicut mos est miseris, trahere omnia secum
mersa iuvat gentesque suae miscere ruinae.
Sit. ITAL. vill. 335-337:

trahit omnia secum
et metuit demens alio ne consule Roma
concidat.

In both these passages ‘trahere’ means
simply ‘drag with him,’ 26. as he falls.

LUCAN, X. 427:
sed metuunt belli trepidos in nocte tumultus
ne caedes confusa manu permissaque fatis
te, Ptolemaee, trahat.

Here ‘trahat’=‘draw or drag’ to itself.
The English word ‘involve’ gives the general
meaning fairly adequately.

A. I. ELLs.

79 South Hill Park, Hampstead.

248

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

CONJECTURES.

Status, Si/vae, ii. 1. 230. Can ere here
be a scribe’s correction of eve, a relique of
Erebi, the final syllable of which might
easily be lost before the following ¢?
Statius elsewhere personifies Zvebus, and the
epithet duruvs is most appropriate to Death.
Read

‘ Insontes animas nec portitor arcet
Nec durd comes ille Ereéz :—tu pectora mulce,’ etc.

The comes or attendant will still be Cerberus.

id. ib. ii. 6. 60 sqq. Read perhaps,—with
transposition of a single letter, cuvtassent for
ructassent, —

O quam dzvztizs censugue exutus opimo

Fortior, Urse, fores ! si vel fumante ruina
Curtassent dites Vesuvina incendia Locros.

Markland’s Ζοογί (in the form Locroe,
Buecheler) for Zocros is usually accepted ;
but zuctare does not appear to occur else-
where in Statius, and the passage is full
of monetary terms,—d7v7tiae, census, fidem
. negare, Fortuna redit. It is a question of
pounds, shillings and pence rather than of
poetry. For curtare cf. Horace, Satires, 1].
3. 124, and Persius, vi. 34.

ΤΠ ν 5 τὸ in view of I> 3. 75%;
‘Phoebi frondes,’ the expression ‘ Veris
frondes’ seems not impossible, or Markland’s
‘vernis frondibus’ may be right. But
‘Annuae frondes’ is certainly prosaic.
Scribes occasionally confuse the letters 2
and d(N D), and frequently mistake 7¢ for
wz. Read

‘Nunc cuncta Veris (sive verzis) frondibus addztzs
Crinitur arbos.’

Addere is a vox Horatiana,—frequent in
Alcaics and common in Statius.

Statius, Zhebaid, iv. 665. Is solem here
a corruption of fontem (folé for foté) p—

‘Isque ubi pulverea Nemeen effervere nube
Conspicit εἴ fomztem radiis ignescere ferri.’t

An allusion to the brook Nemea might
supply that touch of poetry which Klotz, in
the new Teubner edition, complains is lack-

ing in the emendations which he cites. The
brook was a feature both of the valley and
of the story (cf. Frazer’s Pausanias’ Descrip-
tion of Greece, vol. 111. pp. 88-94); and the
glint of armour on the water would readily
arrest attention. ‘Through the bottom of
the valley . . . meanders like a thread the
brook Nemea, fed by the numerous rills
which descend from the neighbouring hills’
(op. cit. p. 89). ‘But when Adrastus and
the rest of the seven champions were march-
ing... against Thebes, it chanced that
they passed through the vale of Nemea, and
being athirst and meeting the nurse with the
child, they begged of her water to drink. .
So she led them to a spring of water which
bubbled up beside a thick bed of celery,’
etc. (ib. p. 92). It was by this spring that
Opheltes was killed.

Klotz removes the obelus from the passage;
but as it stands it must surely be corrupt.
My suggestion, frondem, which he quotes,
was prompted less by Koestlin’s sz/vam than
by Szlvae, i. 3. 6, ‘Nemeae /rondentis
alumnus.’

Plato, Republic, 365. εἰ δὲ εἰσί τε καὶ
ἐπιμελοῦνται (sc. θεοὺ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων), οὐκ
ἄλλοθέν τοι αὐτοὺς ἰσμεν ἢ ἀκηκόαμεν ἢ EK τε
τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν γενεαλογησάντων ποιη-
οἱ δὲ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι λέγουσιν «.7.A. For
the difficulties of τῶν λόγων see translations
and commentaries. Prof. Burnet (CR.
xix. ror) proposes τῶν νόμων (from F) and
would explain the corruption as arising from
the use of a compendium in the original MS.
A simpler solution would be to read Aoy<é>wv
(AOTIWN for AOFMN). The λόγιος,---
associated with the ἀοιδός by Pindar (νά.
i. 94) as is the λογογράφος with the ποιητής
by Thucydides (i. 21),—would in this context
be either the early prose-chronicler, or better
perhaps the depositary of theological tradi-
tion, as in Herodotus (ii. 4), who applies the
word to the priests at Heliopolis, whom he
consulted as the chief authorities on the
gods of Egypt—ot yap ᾿ΗἩλιοπολῦται λέγονται

Αἰγυπτιών εἶναι λογιώτατοι.

τῶν.

——

~

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Catullus, Ixiv. 241-245.
At pater, ut summa prospectum ex arce petebat,
Anxia in assiduos absumens lumina fletus,
Cum primum 7/fla¢z conspexit lintea veli,
Praecipitem sese scopulorum e vertice iecit,
Amissum credens immiti Thesea fato.
For inflati the Itali conjectured éfectz (from
225), a conjecture which some editors (e.g.
Haupt and Baehrens) receive into the text.
If, as seems more than possible, the word is
corrupt, read rather

cum primum /a/s7 conspexit lintea veli

from Statius, who twice alludes to the fate
of Aegeus, in lines apparently derived from
these, and who on both occasions applies
this same epithet (/a/sws) to the sail which
was the cause of the catastrophe. See
Thebaid, xii. 626, and Szlvae, ii. 3. 180.
Infiati is certainly otiose, and may have
come in from the influence of famine in

line 239. ads¢ would give point to credens

below.

Ovid, Aetam. x. 637.

Dixerat: utque rudis primoque cupidine tacta,
Quid seza¢, ignorans, amat et non sentit amorem.

Read perhaps

Sciat for fact (codd. omnes et Plan.) is a
very slight alteration, and the double oxy-
moron thus obtained seems to be sufficiently
rhetorical and effective. As against Ehwald’s
theory, ad doc.—i.e. that ‘Quid facit’ repre-
sents ‘Quid facio?’ (question), whereas ‘ Quid
faciat’ would represent ‘Quid faciam ?’ (de-
liberation),—cf. i. 643; vil. 679, Unde sit,
ignoro; ix. 526, Quid velit, ignorans; xi.
719; and perhaps also AHeroides, i. 71,
Quid timeam, ignoro. Timeo tamen omnia.
Merkel puts the ordinary view of the MS.
reading in a nutshell when he describes it as—
‘manifestus, quantum puto, barbarismus et
sine exemplo.’

Statius, Sz/vae, 111. 5. 281 566.
Umbramque senilem
Invitet ripis discussa plebe supremus
Vector et in media componat molliter a/ga.
Here, if the text be sound, we must, I take
it, accept Stephens’ explanation (‘Alga
cymbam substernat, qua reponat se molliter
pater traiciens’) in preference to Markland’s
view that a/ga represents the bank or shore
(cf. eg. Val. Flace. i. 252, Molli iuvenes

249

funduntur in alga); for componat can hardly
bear the meaning of ‘¢vans fluvium inco-
lumes . . . exponit’ in the lines from the
Sixth Aeneid (415-16), of which these are
an echo. Perhaps, however, we ought rather
to read ‘in media componat molliter ano,’
and compare Juvenal, iii. 265-6,
* Taetrumque novicius horret
Porthmea nec sperat caenosi gurgitis a/nwm’ ;

and Thebaid, iv. 479,'

Plena redeat Styga portitor a/no.

Virgil, G. i. 318-321.

. .. Omnia ventorum concurrere proelia vidi ;

Quae gravidam late segetem ab radicibus imis

Sublimem expulsam eruerent : ita turbine nigro

Ferret hiemps culmumque levem _ stipulasque

volantes.
The difficulties of sense and construction
which to some editors and readers this
passage presents (see Conington, ad /oc.)
would vanish if we could regard: ferret as a
corruption of vervzt. No variants appear to
be reported from the MSS., and the tradition
is so good that to propose any emendation
would seem hazardous. But it is noteworthy
that in the passage of Lucretius (1. 271 sqq.)
which Virgil had in mind—so Conington
suggests—when he wrote this description, the
word (verrere) occurs in the sense required :
‘Nubila caeli

Verrunt ac subito vexantia turbine raptant.’
The time is Autumn (316), and hiemps
seems therefore to be best understood of a
winter storm. Make the one slight change
involved by the substitution of ver7z¢ for
ferret and give this meaning to hiemps ;
then all semblance of difficulty disappears,
and Conington’s translation of the passage
will run: ‘I have seen all the armies of the
winds meet in the shock of battle, tearing
up by the roots whole acres of heavy corn,
and whirling it on high, just as a’ winter
storm sweeps ‘down its dark current light

straw and flying stubble.’
D.

1 The bold accusative (Styga) in this passage, —which
the Oxford editor is inclined to emend,—is probably to
be explained as modelled on the Virgilian ‘ Itque
reditgue viam’ (Aen. vi. 122), just as the ‘eadem dea
turbida’ of Zhebaid, ii. 208, at which so many critics
ride a tilt, is a mere reminiscence of Virgil’s ‘ Zadem
impia Fama’ (Ae. iv. 298). Statius is full of such
reminiscences as these.

A. SLATER.

250

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

PLATO, REPUBLIC 4408.

Ξ - a > ,
οὐκοῦν καὶ ἄλλοθι, ἔφην, πολλαχοῦ αἰσθανό-
a , ’, ‘ Ν Ν
μεθα, ὅταν βιάζωνταί τινα παρὰ τὸν λογισμὸν
> ᾿ a , δ): ὦ \ ΄
ἐπιθυμίαι, λοιδοροῦντά τε αὑτὸν καὶ θυμούμενον
τῷ βιαζομένῳ ἐν αὑτῷ, καὶ ὥσπερ δυοῖν στασια-
ζόντοιν ξύμμαχον τῷ λόγῳ γιγνόμενον τὸν
θυμὸν τοῦ τοιούτου; ταῖς δ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτὸν
x
μὴ

- 2. > / > xn
δεῖν ἀντιπράττειν, οἶμαί σε οὐκ ἂν

κοινωνήσαντα, αἱροῦντος λόγου
φάναι γενομένου ποτὲ ἐν σαυτῷ τοῦ τοιούτου
The sense
is: ‘We often perceive θυμός allying itself
with and fighting for Adyos against the
ἐπιθυμίαι, when these forcibly oppose λόγος.
You never perceive, through such a thing
having occurred in yourself or another, θυμός
making common cause with the ἐπιθυμίαι,
when reason decides that it (θυμός) ought to
oppose them.’

Adam, p. 271, says Richter ‘evades the
anacoluthon by defending the more than
dubious construction αἰσθέσθαι αὐτὸν κοινωνή-
σαντα; but it is scarcely ‘dubious’ here,
for the participial acc. after αἰσθάνεσθαι (not
“rare or unnatural Zev se) is employed in the
first part of this very sentence, and the
balancing principle would lead one to expect
it also in the last. What Adam probably
dislikes is the order of words implied in
Richter’s translation, but the order so implied
is justified by the additional force it gives to
the expression of the thought. There is no
real difficulty in Richter’s construction, and
there is no anacoluthon in the sentence.
like
above, gen. absolute, not gen. after αἰσθέσ-
θαι, which governs αὐτὸν κοινωνήσαντα.

αἰσθέσθαι, οἶμαι δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῳ.

ζ΄ . “
γενομένου... τοιούτου 15, αἱροῦντος

The real difficulty lies in the clause
αἱροῦντος.. None of the
suggestions mentioned in Adam’s note or
appendix seems to get rid of this. Schneider’s
interpretation implies αὑτῷ (sc. τῷ λόγῳ) after
ἀντιπράττειν, but one would naturally expect
αὐταῖς (sc. ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις). Instead of mak-
ing common cause with the ἐπιθυμίαι, ‘ θυμός
should oppose them.’ This, and not that
θυμός should not oppose reason itself,’ was
to have been expected. The vice of
Schneider’s explanation would be plainer if
we supposed αὑτῷ actually given in the text ;
for this might as well—indeed it would more
naturally—refer to θυμός, which would destroy
the sense.

Two ways out of the difficulty seem open,
or at least conceivable. If μὴ were not in
the clause at all, there would be no question
about the construction or the meaning. Can
it have been a correction for ov, the latter
having been dittographic at some early period
after Aoyov? This is one way. ‘The other
is to suppose that ἀλλ᾽ was lost after δεῖν,
also of course at a very early period. The
sense would then be ‘when reason decides
that it (θυμός) should not (sc. κοινωνεῖν), but
should oppose.’ A tradition of some strange
disturbance in this very part of the text
seems proved by the reading of g av τι
πράττειν for ἀντιπράττειν. The original may
have been AEINAAAANTITTIPATTEIN.

4
. ἀντιπράττειν.

Joun I. ΒΕΑΒΕ.

Trinity College, Dubiin.

THE ADVERBS OYXI AND NAIXI IN GREEK.

In modern Greek, especially in popular
speech, it is considered poor form to
reply curtly in short words such as vat,
yes (which still fully survives from ancient
times) and ὄχι xo (from ancient ov :),
corresponding to ancient οὐ: the form ὄχι
made its appearance in Roman antiquity,

as Bull. Corr. Hell. xvi. 9 (no. 9, 2, 10):
«τὴν οὖν ἀπόφασιν ὁρῶμεν αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ
ἡλίου) ἀλλ᾽ ὄχι αὐτόν. This ὄχι then, for
the sake of politeness (not of emphasis!)
is often amplified to ὄχι κα (26. ὄχι καλέ),
ὄχεσκε, ὄγεσκε (whence ὄϊσκε ὄσκε). In the
same way and for the same reason vat is

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

amplified to the polite form vaicxe. The
question now suggesting itself is what is the
relation of ancient οὐχι and vacxe to their
modern Greek progenies ὄχι and ναΐίσκεῦ
Ever since composing my //7stortcal Greek
Grammar (published in 1897, London), I
have entertained doubts as to the correct
accentuation of the negation οὐχι. True, I
had learned at school that the negation ovxe
was oxytone: οὐχί, while its corresponding
affirmation was a paroxytone: ναΐίχι. Sub-
sequently I found that this doctrine rests
on tradition, as handed down by such
Byzantine grammarians or scribes as Schol.
Dion. Thr. 432, 13 (ed. Hilgard): ἐνταῦθα
(ναίχι) μὲν βαρύνεται, ev δὲ TH ἀρνήσει (ὀυχὶ)
ὀξύνεται ᾿Αττικῇ (Ὁ) συνηθείᾳ. So Et. M.
315, 21. 607, 20; then again Schol. Dion.
Thr. 60, 25: τὸ οὐχὶ ἐπέκτασις μὲν ἐστι τῆς
ov... ὀξύνεται δὲ καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀποβολὴν
πάσχει. 70. 31: vaixye’ τοῦτο οὐκ ὀξύνεται ὡς
τὸ οὐχὶ, εἰ καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει ἐπέκτασιν. 565,
14: ἐπέκτασις μέντοι ἐστι τὸ οὐχὶ τοῦ οὐ.
This -ί must not be confused with the
demonstrative -ἴ (οὑτοσί etc.). Inthe adverbs
ovye and ναιχι, the suffix -« {(-κι, -χι) merely
amplifies, without intensifying, the words
admitting it. To the passages already quoted
above, add: Schol. Dion. Thr. 432 11: ναί,
vaiyu’ τοῦτο παραγωγὴν ὑπομένει διὰ τῆς
χὶ συλλαβῆς οὐδὲν πλεόν σημαῖνον, ὥσπερ καὶ
ἡ οὐχὶ ἄρνησις οὐδὲν πλέον τῆς οὐ σημαίνει.
60, 31: ναίχι τοῦτο οὐκ ὀξύνεται ὡς τὸ
οὐχὶ, εἰ καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει ἐπέκτασιν,
443, 23: τὸ μὲν οὐχι ἐπεκτέταται ὡς
καὶ τὸ ναίχι.---ϑοὸ far, then, our testimony
for the accentuation of οὐχι and vacye being
very late and unauthoritative, the question
arises: If we say οὐχί (in Homer οὐκί), why
should we not also say vacxi? or if we are
correct in saying vacyt, why should we not
be correct in saying οὔχι for there is hardly

251

any doubt that as οὐ (οὐκ, οὐχ) was amplified
to ovke or ov x1, SO was vai amplified to ναΐχι.
Now regarding the correct accentuation of
ovxt, we have the confession of Schol. Dion.
Thr. 563, τς. that τὸ οὐχι οὐκ ἀνάλογον
κατὰ τὸν τόνον ἔδει γὰρ βαρύνεσθαι ὡς καὶ
τὸ ναΐχι, which means that the accentuation
of οὐχὶ is abnormal while that of ναίχι is
regular. This remark is also confirmed by
a closer examination. For the βαρυτόνησις
of ναίχι we have a threefold proof: (1) Tra-
dition; (2) the accentuation of its modern
Greek progeny ὄχι, which, as already re-
marked, goes farther back than the testimony
to the contrary (οὐχὶ) of the Byzantine
scribes; (3) the unmistakable epigram of
Kallimachos—

Avoavin, σὺ δὲ vaixe καλὸς καλός" ἀλλὰ
πρὶν εἰπεῖν τοῦτο σαφῶς ἠχώ φησί τις ἄλλος
ἔχει,
where to the paroxytone vaéye the echo
responds by the equally paroxytone ἔχει, Ze.
nécht-écht.

On the other hand the oxytonesis of οὐχὶ
is open to grave doubts, for (1) it is declared
irraitonal by the grammarians themselves :
τὸ οὐχὶ οὐκ ἀνάλογον κατὰ τὸν τόνον᾽ ἔδει yap
βαρύνεσθαι (1.6. οὔχι) ὡς καὶ τὸ vatxe (Schol.
Dion. Thr. 563, 14f.); (2) its suffixal -ἰ (-κι,
-xt) is not intensive; (3) its parallel pro-
hibitive μήχι (in Liddell and Scott mis-
accented pn x‘) is paroxytone: Bekk. An.i. 108,
14: μήχι Os ναίχι Kal οὐχί (oye?) ὡς Εὔβουλος
Δαιδάλῳ. (4) Its modern Greek progeny,
current ever since Graeco-Roman times, is
a paroxytone ὄχι. I confess that the above
considerations have shaken my belief in the
accentuation οὐχὶ, and should propose to
restore οὔχι.

A. N. JANNARIS.

Canea, Crete.

252

HORACE,

Tum meae, si quid loquar audiendum,

Vocis accedet bona pars et ‘O Sol

Pulcher ! O laudande !’ canam, recepto
Caesare felix ;

Terque, dum procedit, io Triumphe, 49

Non semel dicemus, io Triumphe,

Civitas omnis, dabimusque divis
Tura benignis.

Te decem tauri totidemque vaccae,

Me tener solvet vitulus, etc.

Dr. VOLLMER in the Teubner text (1907)
prints at line 49 the reading of BC (teque
dum procedit) with an obelus against it,—
ignoring the ‘twque dum procedis’ of the
codd. deter. and mentioning no emendation
but his own somewhat infelicitous ‘ opinio, —
‘tensa dum procedit.’ Dr. Gow, in the ew
Corpus, suggests zoque for zeque. But even
the best friends of this suggestion will admit
that it is by no means convincing.

It may, therefore, be worth while to draw
attention to some fresh points in support of
the above conjecture, which I sent to this
Review two years ago, only to find that it
had already been proposed independently
by Mr. A. F. Howard (C.2&. ix. 110) in
1895 and by Pauly in 1855. Pauly (Dr.
Gow informs me) did no more than suggest
the reading in the aff. crit. of his edition,
and with a painful and unnecessary elision
—‘terque dum ἀξ procedit.’ But neither
Bentley's zsque nor Pauly’s ἀϊε is really
needed with Caesarve staring us in the face
from line 48.

Now, palaeographically, ¢ervgwe accounts
for the variants ¢egue of the better and twgue
of the baser MSS.; for, δι, in Statius’
Silvuae (a) at i. 4. 13 mostergue is corrupted
into mostegue and (ὁ) at ill. 5. 28 tu is
corrupted into 267, in the Codex Mairitensts.

The argument that ‘ Von seme/ is too far
away; to have any force it should be close
to Zev’ seems to be met by a comparison
with such a passage as Virgil’s (G. i.
410-11)

Tum liquidas corvi presso ter gutture voces
Aut quater ingeminant.
But the point is hardly susceptible of proof.
It is a matter of taste. ‘Whether the zon
semel is an objection I am not quite sure,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

C. vy 2240;

but it is not a fatal one,’ writes Dr. Conway,
who thinks 267. ‘very probable indeed and
far better than z.’ Some allowance, too,
must be made for the exigencies of metre—
a difficult metre—in what is after all by no
means one of Horace’s most finished per-
formances.

What seems to me, however, to tell
decisively in favour of an emendation which,
apart from palaeographical and _ literary
qualities, certainly does—by the addition of
a single letter—entirely remove all the
difficulties of pronouns and persons, that
beset the traditional reading, is the fact
that the word ¢er is not only a ‘vox
Horatiana’ but, in a context like this,
almost a ‘vox necessaria.’ A triumph was
a religious ceremony: and, in religious
contexts, as everybody knows, up and down
Latin literature,—from the ‘Enos, Lases,
luvate’ (er) of the Carmen Arvale} to the

Gaudet invisam pepulisse fossor
Ter pede terram

of the Odes,—this lucky three,—a number
bound up, as 7 Mommsen points out, with
so much of Roman ritual and organisation,
—is constantly and inevitably recurring.
The repetition of a verbal formula or a
ceremonial act three timés was thought to
please both the deities above and the
powers below, and was therefore scrupulously
observed; e.g. ?at a wedding (Casadecta,
iv. Ὁ); *at a funeral (Horace, C. i. 28. 36);
5 on a birthday (Propertius, ii. το. 4): Sat a
sacrifice (Propertius, iv. 6. 6); ‘at a harvest-
festival (V., G. i. 345); %at an invocation

1*Carmen descindentes ¢rifodaverunt in verba
haec: Enos’ etc. (Wordsworth, Fragm. and Speci-
mens, etc. pp. 158 and 391 sgg.). Cf. also tripudium.

2 Book I. chapter 4, zz¢.

3 Talassio, Talassio, Talassio.

4 Licebit

Iniecto fey pulvere curras.

5 Et manibus faustos 227, crepuere sonos.

6 Zerque focum circa laneus orbis eat.

7 Terque novas circum felix eat hostia messis.

8 Jer centum tonat ore deos. Cf. also Ovid,
Metamm. vii. 189-190; 261; and Horace, C. iii.
22. 3. Ter vocata audis.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

(V., Aen. iv. 510); 1in the performance of
acharm (Tibullus, i. 2. 54, and Horace, Sav. ii.
1.7). And if on all these occasions, much
more at a triumph would the time-honoured
rule of three be in force: for a triumph
was a great provoker of Nemesis. The
phrase ‘io Triumphe’ is, no doubt, inter-
jectional; here, however, it is not merely
the ‘three cheers’ of a modern ovation,
but also a potent charm against the evil
eye.2. The same motive that prompted the
soldiers to sing their Fescennine verses, led
the people also to observe in their salute
the number that religion (or superstition)
enjoined. We may translate: ‘And as
the Emperor passes on his way, we the
assembled people will greet him, every man
of us, with the cry of Z7zumph, uttered
not once alone but thrice’ (τρίς, οὐχ ἅπαξ
μόνον) The cry would be taken up—a
fine effect—by fresh voices all along the
route to the Capitol.

In the next stanza the Emperor has gone
by and we return to Antonius with the

1 Ter cane, ter dictis despue carminibus.
Ter uncti
Transnanto Tiberin, somno quibus est opus alto.

2Munro, Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus,
pp- 76 sgqg., edition I.

3Cf. the ovation accorded to Maecenas on his
recovery from a serious illness. Horace, C. ii. 17. 26.
Cum populus frequens Laetum theatris “ey crepuit
sonum.

4¥For the antithesis cf. Ennius, 4/edea. Ter sub
armis malim vitam cernere quam seve? modo | Parere
(Eur. AWedea, 250).

253

word which no doubt caused the MS. con-
fusion, the outstanding #,* which caught
the scribe’s eye too soon and led him to
inflict quite unconsciously an outrage on
Horace and a puzzle on his readers.

D. A. SLATER.

P.S.—Since this note was written, Dr. J. S.
Reid has very kindly furnished me with a
most interesting parallel from later Latin,
which appears to lend even greater proba-
bility to the conjecture proposed. ‘Triple
repetitions,’ he says, ‘seem to occur in the
well-known ‘“acclamations,”® more or less
rhythmical and modulated sing-songs, with
which the emperors were saluted by the
senate. A good many of these are preserved
in the Afistoria Augusta. Were is an ex-
ample from the #.A. vi. 13. 2 (Teubner
text): ‘Hane eius clementiam senatus his
acclamationibus prosecutus est: ‘“ Antonine
pie, di te servent! Antonine clemens, di te
servent! Antonine <patiens>, di te servent!”’
Cf. also xviii. 7. 1. and xxviii. 12. 8. The
triple salutation in senate may well have
been a survival—in a conservative state—of
a similar salutation at a triumph.

D. A. S.

5It seems possible that the acc/amatio preserved in
the Panegyricus of Pliny, 71 § 4, should be read, as
a similar triad, thus: Quod factum tuum a cuncto
senatu quam vera acclamatione celebratum est: ‘Tanto
<maior, tanto hu>mawior, tanto augustior au

VARIA.

Lucretius, V. 1009-10.

illi inprudentes ipsi sibi saepe uenenum
uergebant, nudant sollertius ipsi.

nunc dant (multi), nurui nunc dant (Munro).

nunc dant aliis (Oxford text).

Read ‘nunc dant sollertius id sine noxa.’

‘Sine noxa’ became ‘siuenoxa, and a care-
less scribe seeing ‘wenoxa’ took it to be a
repetition of ‘wenenum’ and omitted it,

leaving ‘idsi,’ which would naturally become
‘ipsi.’

Translate ‘now more skilfully (ze. having
learnt its medicinal properties) they administer
it without harm.’ The sense would be the
same as Munro’s contemplated ‘nunc dant
sollertius arte medentes’ (4th edition, ii.
p. 334), while the reading is surely more
palaeographically probable than any yet
proposed.

254

Troades, 270.
ΕΣ / oe 2512 / /
EXEL πότμος νιν, WOT ἀπηλλάχθαι πόνων.

Talthybius is telling Hecuba about Poly-
xena: he had said:

εὐδαι μόνιζε παῖδα anv’ ἔχει καλῶς.
She eagerly cries:
τί τόδ᾽ ἔλακες ; ἄρά μοι ἀέλιον λεύσσει ;

To which the above line is an answer.
Hecuba not understanding him (see Il. 624-5)
goes on to ask of Andromache.

As Prof. Murray has pointed out it is
almost inconceivable that anyone should after
Talthybius’ explicit statement have failed to
understand that Polyxena was dead.

Is it possible that the words ὥστ᾽ ἀπηλ-

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

λάχθαι πόνων are a gloss? and that the line
originally ran ἔχει πότμος νιν ἄπονος.

If so, we should have to conjecture the rest
of the line.

I should suggest, if such a repetition is
possible, ws ἔχει καλῶς.

For: (1) This might make Hecuba despair
of learning anything definite about Polyxena,
and so account for her passing on to inquire
about Andromache.

(2) The words would easily fall out through
being a repetition.

But the essential part of the emendation
is exclusive of this and rests on dramatic
suitability.

LEONARD BUTLER.

New College, Oxford.

APPIAN, B.C. ii. 74.

APPIAN relates that just before the battle
of Pharsalia Caesar ordered the rampart of
his camp to be dismantled and the ditch to
be filled up (καθέλετέ μοι προιόντες ἐπὶ τὴν
μάχην τὰ τείχη τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν
τάφρον ἐγχώσατε) ; and Lucan (vii. 326-7)
puts the same command into Caesar’s mouth,
but makes him add a reason which in itself
would have been sound enough,

sternite tam uallum fossasque implete ruina,
exeat ut plenis acies non sparsa mantplis.

The fable has of course been rejected ;
but while Mr. Perrin (American Journal of
Philology, v. 1884, p. 325), who supposes
that Appian copied Lucan, regards it as
a mere invention, Stoffel (Guerre civile, 11.
248) conjectures that it was based upon
fact. ‘Afin,’ he writes, ‘que les troupes
pussent sortir plus vite, il fit sans aucun
doute élargir les portes et pratiquer des
coupures dans le parapet. Bien entendu
que les cohortes laissées a la _ garde
du camp eurent 4 le remettre en état de
défense aussit6t aprés le départ de l’armée.
Tel est probablement le fait que Lucain aura
transformé poetiquement en une destruction
du camp et qui aura éte accepté ensuite
comme une vérité par Appien.’ Professor

Postgate, in his edition of Lucan’s Seventh
Book (p. xxvi, n. 1), remarks that ‘ Against
this view Mr. Perrin’s observation (l.c. p.
326) that “1 would have taken more time to
demolish the walls of a Roman camp than
for its occupants to march out of the ordinary
gates and form in order of battle outside,”
has weight.’ But Mr. Perrin was replying
not to Stoffel, but to Merivale (77st. of the
Romans under the Empire, 11. 1850, p. 293),
who accepted Appian’s statement as literally
true ; and although what he says is undeni-
able, it would have taken but a very short
time to do what Stoffel suggests was done.
‘But,’ continues Professor Postgate, ‘it is”
clear from Caesar’s words [B.C. iii. 85, ὃ 4]
“‘cum iam esset agmen in portis,” that the
arrangements for marching out had already
been made.’ Certainly; but those arrange-
ments were for an ordinary march, not for
a march against an enemy. Has not my
friend overlooked one word in Caesar’s
narrative,—expeditas (copias educit)? The
significance of this word is clear. Caesar had
determined to quit his camp altogether and
march from place to place (76. § 2). The
troops, who had already struck their tents when
he learned unexpectedly that Pompey was pre-
paring to fight, were of course carrying their

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

packs (savcinae). With these encumbrances
they could not go into action. By the single
word exfeditas Caesar gives us to understand
that the packs were laid aside and collected
(cf. B.G. i. 24, § 3). To deposit 22,000
packs, besides those of the auxiliaries, in an
orderly manner was not the work of a
moment. While it was going on the avail-
able hands would have had plenty of time
to enlarge the exits in the manner which
Stoffel describes. Mr. Perrin indeed (of. cé¢.
p. 326) argues that ‘there was nothing for
Caesar to gain by breaking a passage out of
his camp ;’ but I would ask whether there
was not time to gain, and whether, when

255
soldiers are full of stomach for a fight, it is
not wise to send them into action with the
least possible delay while their blood is up.

It is to me inconceivable that either Lucan
or Appian should have simply invented the
absurd order which they attributed to Caesar,
but quite intelligible that they should have
misunderstood the rational order which I
have no doubt that he really gave, and the
object of which Lucan states with perfect
clearness. Indeed it is not incredible that
Lucan understood the nature of the order,
though, as a poet, he expressed it with
rhetorical exaggeration.

T. RicE HOLMEs.

PHRIXUS AND DEMODICE.

A Note on PIinpDarR, /yth. Iv. 162 f.

A 3 ,ὔ
τῷ ποτ᾽ ἐκ πόντου σαώθη
ἔκ τε μητρυιᾶς ἀθέων βελέων.

It appears to me that this passage, so far
from having been adequately explained, has
not received from editors the attention which
it deserves; the reason is, I suppose, that
they have not sufficiently borne in mind the
details of the story to which it refers.

The translation ‘whereby of old he was
delivered from the deep and from the im-
_ pious weapons of his stepmother’ (E. Myers)
is so simple that it fails to awaken suspicion :
none of the moderns except Dissen,-so far
as I know, has thought it worth while to
enquire with what weapons Phrixus was
attacked by his stepmother. And Dissen’s
explanation (‘id agenti nouerca ut telis
periret’) is entirely unsupported by tradition.
Mezger thinks it enough to say that Ino was
the name of the stepmother, and Gilder-
sleeve speaks of the ‘common form of the
familiar legend.’ Similarly Christ :—‘ de
Phrixo insidias nouercae fugiente et in dorso
arietis per mare uehente omnia nota.’

Like most of the famous stories of the
heroic age, the tale of Athamas and his
children appears in many shapes; but I
presume that the version which Gildersleeve

had in his mind was that given by Apollo-
dorus (1. 80) and followed apparently by
Euripides in his Phrixus. It may be as
well briefly to recapitulate the facts. Athamas
had two children by Nephele, Phrixus and
Helle. Subsequently he married Ino, who
bore to him Learchus and Melicertes. Ino
was jealous of the children of Nephele, and
plotted to destroy them. She persuaded the
women to roast the wheat, which they contrived
to accomplish without the knowledge of their
husbands ; and when the roasted seeds did
not come up in the following season, Athamas
sent to Delphi to enquire how the dearth
might be stayed. Ino then persuaded the
messengers to declare that the oracle had
enjoined the sacrifice of Phrixus in order to
revive the fruitfulness of the soil. Athamas,
yielding to the pressure of his starving people,
led Phrixus to the altar; but at the critical
moment Nephele intervened to rescue her
children, having received from Hermes the
ram with the golden fleece. which, soaring
in the air with Phrixus and Helle on its
back, carried them far away across the sea.
The summary will serve to show how ill-
suited is the language of Pindar to describe
such a situation. Contrast the allusions of
Apollonius Rhodius to the same incident:

256 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ve! ΧΧΙΙῚ 1910

3. 191 6 δὲ καί ποτ’ ἀμύμονα Φρίξον ἔδεκτο
μητρυιῆς φεύγοντα δόλον πατρός τε
θυηλάς, 2. 1181 ws μὲν γὰρ πατέρ᾽ ὑμὸν
μητρυιῆς. The
scholiast was sensible of the difficulty, for
at the end of his note—which will presently
require a more particular notice—he says:
τὸ δὲ ἀθέων βελέων ἀλληγορικῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ
But his
method of exegesis will hardly find favour
at the present time. After all this, it is
curious to find that the clue to the true
solution has all the time been lying unnoticed
in the scholia, although the words are quoted
by Christ and referred to by others.

yap διὰ τὴν μητρυιὰν ἐρασθεῖσαν αὐτοῦ καὶ

ὑπεξείρυτο φόνοιο

βουλευμάτων ἢ λόγων ἢ πραξέων.
μάτων ἢ λόγων ἢ πρ

ἐκακώθη
ἐπεβουλεύθη ὥστε φυγεῖν. ταύτην δὲ ὁ μὲν
Πίνδαρος ἐν ὕμνοις Δημοδίκην φησίν, “Ἱππίας
δὲ Γοργῶπιν, Σοφοκλῆς δὲ ἐν ᾿Αθάμαντι
Νεφέλην, Φερεκύδης Θεμιστώ .κιτιλ. This
introduces us to an entirely different story,
of a type which is already familiar from the
legends of Hippolytus and Bellerophon. A
variant according to which Demodice was
the wife of Cretheus, the brother of Athamas,
is given by Hygin. oer. astr. 11. 20 Crethea
autem habuisse Demodicen uxorem, quam alit
Biadicen dixerunt. . Hance autem Phrixt,
Athamantis filit, corpore inductam in amorem
tncidisse: neque ab eo, ut 5101 copiam faceret,
zmpetrare potutsse: ttague necessario coaciam
criminari eum ad Crethea coepisse, quod dtceret,
ab co vim sibi paene adlatam, et horum similia
mulierum consuetudine aixisse. Quo facto
Crethea, ut uxoris amantem et regem decebat,,
permotum ut de eo supplictum sumeret per-
suasisse. MVubem autem intervenisse et ereptum
Phrixum etc. The coincidence of name
confirms the statement of the scholiast that
this is the story to which Pindar alludes, and
there is no reason why we should seek to
discredit the evidence. It is true that
Ribbeck (dm. Trag. p. 526) treats the
story of Demodice as a later invention, un-
mistakably copied from the Hippolytus-myth ;
but the assumption is purely arbitrary.

It becomes pertinent to enquire whether,
from this point of view, we can discover the
appositeness of the expression ἀθέων βελέων.
Now, it is a commonplace of Greek poetry
that the power of Love resides in the eyes,
and that the passionate glances of lovers are

the medium through which their hearts are
moved. Hence the significance of Aesch.
Ag. 427 f. ὀμμάτων δ᾽ ἐν ἀχηνίαις ἔρρει πᾶσ᾽
᾿Αφροδίτα, which has been illustrated by Em-
pedocles, fr. 86 ἐξ ὧν ὄμματ’ ἔπηξεν ἀτείρεα δῖ
᾿Αφροδίτη. Hesych. 3, p. 203 ὀμμάτειος πόθος
(Soph. fr. 733)" διὰ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ὁρᾶν ἁλίσκεσθαι
ἔρωτι. “ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ ἐσορᾶν γίνεται ἀνθρώποις
ἐρᾶν. Xenophon Ephes. i. 3 ὅλοις καὶ
ἀναπεπταμένοις τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τὸ ᾿Αβροκόμου
The flashing eye
is a love-charm which, like lightning, sets on
fire everything with which it comes into
contact: Soph. fr. 433 τοίαν Πέλοψ ἴυγγα

θηρατηρίαν ἔρωτος, ἀστραπήν Ti’ ὀμμάτων,

κάλλος εἰσρέον δεχομένη.

ἔχει: ἡ θάλπεται μὲν αὐτὸς ἐξοπτᾷ δ᾽ ἐμέ.
With this may be compared Pind. fr. 123
Sch. τὰς δὲ Θεοξένου ἀκτῖνας πρὸς ὄσσων pap-
μαρυζοίσας δρακεὶς ὃς μὴ πόθῳ κυμαίνεται, ἐξ
ἀδάμαντος ἢ σιδάρου κεχάλκευται k.7.A., Heliod.
8. 5 μεγάλην εἰς πειθὼ κέκτηται πρὸς ἄνδρας
ἴυγγα τὰ γυναικεῖα καὶ σύνοικα βλέμματα,

Achilieelate. a1

ὀφθαλμοὺς τῷ προσώπῳ.

4 καταστράπτει μου τοὺς
Similarly Aesch.
Prom. 933, Soph. Azz. 795; and see espe-
cially Plut. guaest. conv. v. 7. 2, p. 681 B.C., a
passage too long to quote. Most commonly,
however, the shaft of light which kindles
desire is conceived as a weapon which inflicts
a wound upon the victim: Aesch. Prom. 676
Ζεὺς yap bn =p eH βέλει πρὸς σοῦ τέθαλπται,
Suppl. 1003 καὶ παρθένων ed εὐμόρφοις
ἔπι πᾶς τις ee ΜΝ ὄμματος θελκτήριον
τόξευμ᾽ ἔπεμψεν ἱμέρου νικώμενος, Ag. 741
μαλθακὸν ὀμμάτων βέλος, δηξίθυμον ἔρωτος
ἄνθος, Soph. fr. 161 ὀμμάτων ἄπο λόγχας
ἵησιν, Aesch. fr. 242 βλεμμάτων ῥέπει βολή
(the text is corrupt, but this much seems
certain), Xenophon Ephes. 1. 9 φιλοῦσα δ᾽
αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, ὦ, φησί, πολλάκις με
λυπήσαντες ὑμεῖς, ὦ τὸ πρῶτον ἐνθέντες τῇ ἐμῇ
κέντρον ψυχῇ. The notion of the love-
charm is combined with that of the arrow in
Lycophr. 309 (Troilus and Achilles) ἄγριον
δράκοντα πυρφόρῳ βαλὼν ἴυγγι τόξων. The
figure of the love-wound is elaborated by
Achill. Tat. 1. 4 κάλλος yap ὀξύτερον τιτρώσκει
βέλους καὶ διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν eis τὴν ψυχὴν
καταρρεῖ, ὀφθαλμὸς γὰρ ὁδὸς ἐρωτικῷ τραύματι.
The wound is often described as a sting:
Soph. fr. 757 ὅτῳ δ᾽ ἔρωτος δῆγμα παιδινοῦ
προσῆν, Longus, past. 1. 17 ὥσπερ οὐ φιληθεὶς

el

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 257

᾿ἀλλὰ Onyx Geis, Headlam, On editing Aeschylus,

p. 102. The metaphor is also applied to the
piteous appeal of Iphigenia’s eyes as she is
led to the altar: Aesch. Ag. 250 ἔβαλλ᾽
ἕκαστον θυτήρων ἀπ᾽ ὄμματος βέλει φιλοίκτῳ.
The same tendency may be illustrated by
Achill. Tat. 2. 29 (cf. 6. 10), where the
emotions of shame, grief and anger are
fancifully attributed to the injuries inflicted
upon the soul by the weapons of speech:
λόγος δὲ τούτων ἁπάντων πατήρ, καὶ ἔοικεν
ἐπὶ σκοπῷ τόξον βάλλειν καὶ ἐπιτυγχάνειν καὶ
ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν πέμπειν τὰ βλήματα καὶ ποικίλα
τοξεύματα. τὸ μέν ἐστιν αὐτῷ λοιδορία βέλος,
καὶ γίνεται τὸ ἕλκος ὀργή" τὸ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἔλεγχος

ἀτυχημάτων: ἐκ τούτου τοῦ βέλους λύπη
γίνεται" τὸ δ᾽ ὄνειδος ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ καλοῦσιν
αἰδῶ τὸ τραῦμα. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1163 f. Is
not this evidence sufficient to prove that the
‘impious shafts’ from which Phrixus was
rescued were the seductive glances of De-
modice ?

It should be added that the earliest mention
in literature of the bow and arrows in con-
nexion with the god of Love appears to be
in Eur. “ip. 530ff.: see also 7.4. 548.
The permanence of the attribute in later
times may perhaps be ascribed to the famili-
arity of the metaphor.

A. C. PEaRsoN.

NOTES .

NOTE ON AWZ7/GOWNE 1216-1218.

ἀθρήσαθ᾽, ἁρμὸν χώματος λιθοσπαδῆ
δύντες πρὸς αὐτὸ στόμιον εἰ τὸν Αἵμονος
φθόγγον συνίημ᾽ ἢ θεοῖσι κλέπτομαι.

THESE lines were rendered by the late Pro-
fessor Jebb ‘and when ye have reached the
tomb pass through the gap, where the stones
have been wrenched away, to the cell’s very
mouth, and look and see if ’tis Haemon’s
voice that I know, or if mine ear is cheated
by the gods.’

Professor Beare in Hermathena, 1904, per-
tinently asks ‘can ἅρμός mean gap?’ He
suggests that ἁρμὸς λιθοσπαδής is the sub-
structure of the χῶμα, and renders ‘passing
through the rock-built fabric (or substructure)
of the χῶμα inwards to the very στόμιον,
remarking that ‘the great mound at New
Grange sufficiently illustrates the meaning of
χῶμα here in its general features.’ Professor
Beare has certainly put us on the right scent.
His happy suggestion of New Grange solves
the difficulty. For right in front of the
entrance to the souterrain of rough stones
under the tumulus there lies a huge stone
covered over with spiral shaped designs,
which may be said to lie at the very mouth,
στόμιον, and which may be described as
appos λιθοσπαδής. ἁἅρμός seems to mean a

NO. CCVI. VOL. XXIII.

‘filling’ of some sort and not a ‘gap’ as
Professor Jebb renders it. The cognate
words ἁρμόζω, ἅρμοσις, ἅρμοσμα, etc., do not
carry that sense. If this be correct, dppds
λιθοσπαδής would be a stone dragged against
the opening of the chamber, the Greeks
speaking of ‘a stone of dragging’ where the
Hebrews would speak of ‘a stone of rolling’

(O53 j28, Ezra v. 8), cf. Mk. xv. 44 mpo-
σεκύλισε λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.
It would be easier to roll such a stone away
than to make a gap in the wall of the tomb.
One might also suggest the removal of the
comma after ἀθήσαθ' and translate after //iad
xii. 391, βλήμενον ἀθρήσειε, observe his down-
fall. But what of δύντες, Prof. Beare says
he has found no passage in which the object
accusative (with or without a preposition) is
a mere passage. Is it not possible that the
tomb of Antigone was below the level of the
ground? It is κατασκαφής or excavated. To
approach it one would literally have to
‘go down.’ ‘The poet might, therefore, have
used this word with a grim allusion to
another descent of which Homer writes (e.g.
γαῖαν δῦναι, δόμον ’Aidos εἴσω δῦναι, εἰς ’Aidao
δύσασθαι). The entrance might also be be-
neath a low-pillared portico (παστάδα, 1203),
and the word would thus be appropriately
used of those bending low in order to
R

258 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

examine ‘ the stony entrance of this sepulchre.’
In the context Creon is hastening to the
tomb from which strange voices have been
heard. He does not yet know that any
forcible entrance has been made into the
death chamber, but he sends forward his
servants hurriedly, bidding them ‘mark well
the great stone shutter of the tomb, descend-
ing to its very jaws, and see if ’tis the voice
of Haemon that I hear or if the gods do
play me false.’

F, R. MontTGOMERY HITCHCOCK.

DEMOSTHENES, JZezdias, ὃ 158.

διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς σοβεῖ, κυμβία καὶ ῥυτὰ Kat
φιάλας ὀνομάζων οὕτως ὥστε τοὺς παριόντας
ἀκούειν.

There is little point in this instance of
Meidias’ proudness of purse if ὀνομάζων
simply means ‘naming.’ It must mean
‘having booked to him,’ ‘saying, “‘put that
down to my account.”’

See Deissmann, Lzdle Studies, English
Translation, p. 146, who quotes C.\/.G. 11.
No. 2693 6. “ γενομένης δὲ τῆς ὠνῆς TOV προ-
γεγραμμένων τοῖς κτηματώναις εἰς τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ

ὄνομα ᾿ ‘after the sale of the afore-mentioned
goods had been concluded with the pur-
chasers on account of the god.’

The Latin ‘nomen’ in _ book-keeping
phraseology is of course familiar.

ERNEST J. ROBSON.

NOTE ON SERES.

[The following note has been kindly sent
us by Prof. H. A. Strong. |

THERE is an ancient (and modern still)
word sz, 52, or sai (variously pronounced ac-
cording to dialect), meaning ‘silk’ in all
dialects, at all times. It is usually supposed
to have historical connection with Serv or
Seres, sericulture, etc.

The modern Anglo-Chinese word ‘sycee,’
silver, is really the Cantonese pronunciation
(saz-s?) of the Pekingese Asz-sz, or ‘fine
silk,’ referring to the fine lines shown in the
silver surface when it is cut with a knife or
chopper. In the same way a lady’s ¢ussore
material is 7’z-sz, or ‘local silk.’

Ε. H. PARKER.

REVIEWS

BRUGMANN’S GRUNDRISS.

Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik.
By Kart Brucmann. Vol. II. (Morph-
ology), Edition II. Part II. (Section I.
pp. 1-424. Leipzig: 1909. Price 11s.)

THE second edition of the first part of this
volume of this monumental Grammar has
been noticed recently in the Classzcal Review
(Feb. 1909, p. 18). The present continuation
will certainly receive a no less cordial wel-
come from all serious students of any one
of the Indo-European languages.

It contains the description of the following
parts of Morphology: The Numerals, Gender,
Number and Case of Nouns, Pronoun Stems,
Number and Case of Pronouns.

This section of the first edition (published
in 1899) occupied 371 pages, so that the
expansion (to 424), though considerable, is
not so noteworthy asin the first part. Indeed
a first survey leaves the impression that a
more complete digestion of the subject-matter
has in more than one place led to some com-
pression without any loss of lucidity. Thus
room has been found for an entirely new and
extremely interesting exposition of the history
of Gender (pp. 82-109), whereas in the first
edition there were only one or two scattered
pages. The marked advance in knowledge
of this puzzling section of Grammar, of which
the main lines, but only these, were stated in
the second part of the Short Comparative

—

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Grammar (Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik,
1903) is now adequately represented; and
the attention of teachers of Greek and Latin
should be especially directed to the solution
which they will find in this admirable chapter
of a number of the curiosities of Greek and
Latin Gender which are apt to puzzle sorely
even beginners.

Two out of the many points of this section
may perhaps be mentioned here as being
represented with especial frequency in Greek
and Latin. (1) Changes of Gender are most
commonly produced by the influence of some
substantive which in meaning resembles that
whose Gender is changed. Thus ardor,
which ought to be really a Neuter Noun
(cf. arbus-tum), has been made Feminine
because of the number of plant and tree
names like “ia, vinea, which were Feminine
to start with. Κόρινθος is Feminine because
πόλις was, and diés, in the meaning ‘season,’
follows ‘empestas. (2) The second and even
more important point is the fact that Feminine
Gender in the great majority of cases was
originally associated with Collective or
Abstract meaning, as in Gr. φόρα, ‘a
bearing,’ Lat. /oga, originally ‘a covering,’
Skr. mattis, Lat. méns, ‘a thinking.’ I have
no doubt that Latin γαξζῖς was originally quite
as much an Abstract Noun derived from the
root of és and reor meaning ‘a calculating,’
‘a devising,’ as the Greek φάτις or βάσις.
But it came to be used to denote something
concrete, a particular kind of device, namely,
a ‘raft’; compare the meaning of the Greek
σχέδιον, αὐτοσχεδιάζειν. When this had taken
place, or while it was taking place, the
abstract meaning once denoted by va/zs was
taken over wholly by the later formation
vati-0, rati-on-is. Let me hasten to add that
this particular example is given here for its
own sake as a conjecture, and will not be
found in the book under notice; but the
whole section throws a flood of light on what
has been hitherto one of the most wearisome
sections of school teaching, wearisome just
because what theory there was behind it,
Grimm’s romantic notion of the personifica-
tion of all things by the savage mind, was
manifestly improbable. So that the school-
boy was left to face a complex multitude of
facts which not one of his teachers under-

259

stood.!. But the reader must not infer that
this new chapter, welcome though it is, is
yet complete; still less that Brugmann speaks
of it as if it were. Here, as always, one of
the most striking features in the great master’s
work is the immovable modesty with which
he points to questions which he has not
been able to solve, or even to begin to
investigate. And it would be easy to find
several different points where the hints given
in this section should lead younger scholars
quickly into fruitful research.

In this Part no less than in the First Part
of the volume the reader will gratefully
discover a certain mellowness of judgment
accompanied by a richer and more contem-
plative style, which adds something even to
the old persuasiveness which has always
marked Brugmann’s exposition. This is
conspicuous in the section on Gender already
noticed; but it is not less perceptible in
other parts of the book ; for example, in the
brief but most suggestive introduction to
the History of Pronouns (p. 302-309).
Here the reader will find indicated some of
the most markedly primitive features of the
Pronoun system. The Pronouns were older
than Number, older than Gender, older than
Cases. JZe and we are not Cases of / but
different words. And the suggestion (which
can hardly be doubted) that in root the word
me is identical with the Sanskrit Demonstra-
tive Pronoun d@ma-, ‘this,’ so that me meant
originally, like Gr. 6 ἀνὴρ ὁδί, Lat. hic homo,
‘this man here,’ appears for the first time in
the Grundriss, having been first published in
Brugmann’s Lssay on the Demonstrative
Pronouns (Leipzig, 1904). The same per-
suasive wealth? of argument appears in the

11 must not repeat here the explanation of the
process by which the -d- and -?- suffixes took up the
meaning of female sex as one of their functions, as
readers of this Aeview will find it set out fully in
Vol. XVIII. (1904), Ρ- 413.

2 The only point I have noticed in which the rather
disconcerting brevity of Brugmann’s earliest writing
seems to reappear is the treatment of the final -7 in
Gr. obrog-i and the like (p. 321 and p. 328). Here
one would like some fuller discussion of the suggestion
that this suffix is identical with the Feminine form of
the Pronoun, but we are only referred to what is said
very briefly on p. 361 of the Short Comparative
Grammar, and the earlier discussion in Delbriick’s

260

treatment of many of the difficult Case
Problems, notably for instance, on p. 330 in
the discussion of eis and cuius, both
originally Adjectival ; and the Oscan fozzad,
springing from a similar Genitive.

I may perhaps be allowed in conclusion to
enumerate rapidly a few of the points where
the reader will find suggestions which are
either entirely new, or for the first time
included in any systematic treatise :

P. 185. An admirable explanation of the
difficult Homeric Dative πόληι.

P. 189. Of the confusion of form of
Ablative and Instrumental in Italic.

part of the Grundriss (Vergleichende Syntax, Strass-
burg, 1893, p. 469). Is it quite fair to the purchaser
of the second edition of the large Grundrzss to refer
to a shorter treatise which has appeared between the
first and second editions? This is perhaps more to be
regretted as the explanation there given (namely, that
the forms in -7 in Indo-European still retained the
collective non-sexual meaning which originally
belonged to the suffix) appears to be brilliant and
convincing. For instance, I.-Eu. *si-s¢ (from which
sprang the originals of English she and German 576)
meant to start with ‘thisness,’ ‘this group’; and
other Pronouns with the same ending had an equally
vague signification, soaring above and behind the
petty distinctions of Gender and Number. Hence
the schoolboy’s enemy the Homeric μὲν and the Attic
vw with their incorrigible uncertainty of meaning.
This example of teaching by references is very unlike
the method of the volume in general.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

P. 233. Of the short -@ in the Greek
Neuter Plural.
P. 307. Of the Demonstrative elements

in the forms of the znd Personal Pronoun.

P. 325. The recognition of the original
Pronominal forms I.-Eu. *es, *em, *ed
(side by side with * 7s, * im, and * 24) in the
meanings ‘he,’ ‘him,’ ‘it’; thus removing a
large number of supposed anomalies in old
Latin phonology.

Best of all, perhaps, is the careful addition
to the description of the Case Endings of
what is known of the nature of the Accent
that each of them bore in Indo-European,
for instance the Circumflex of the Genitive
Plural on p. 238.

The only erratum I have noticed is on
p. 84, where in the first sentence of § 89 the
Vocative should surely have been mentioned
beside the Accusative as wanting, Ζ.6. having
no separate form in Neuter Nouns.

Let me conclude by expressing, as it is a
privilege to do, the hearty gratitude which
will be felt by all students of language in this
country to our veteran master, for the wealth
of new knowledge and lucid teaching which
is given us in this further instalment of his

Grundriss.
R. S. Conway.

Manchester, August, 1909.

DOMASZEWSKI’S ROMAN RELIGION.

Abhandlungen zur Rémischen Religion. Von
A. von DomaszEwskI. Leipzig und Berlin:
Teubner. Pp. 236.

Tus is a collection of papers which owe
their re-publication to a suggestion of the
lamented Prof. Dieterich, who seems to have
often stimulated his colleagues to make the
most of their best work. When such collec-
tions are as interesting and valuable as the
one before us, they are of infinite service to
students, and especially to non-German
students, who often find it most difficult to
lay their hand on a stray piece of research
just at the moment when they most need it.
Thus Wissowa’s essays in the same region of

enquiry have been collected with great
advantage, not to speak of Mommsen’s
Gesammelte Schriften. In England a notable
example is to be found in Mr. R. R. Marett’s
Threshold of Religion, recently published,
where a series of papers are brought together
which would be almost unintelligible except
when studied as a whole.

The papers in the volume before us are
not strictly homogeneous, and the reason for
printing them together is not so much that
they are inter-connected as that they all carry
a certain weight. Their author is the
recognised authority in the learned world on
the religion of the army and the provinces of
the Empire. When he is upon these

Ὁ

,

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

subjects we know that he is not likely to
mislead us; when he leaves them for early
Rome he is always interesting, but usually
less convincing. At all times he is short and
to the point ; occasionally a little difficult to
follow.

Some three or four of these papers deal
with the writer’s special subject—the religion
of the army; e.g. I. die Tierbilder der Signa,
11. (/ustratio exercitus), with which may be
connected XXIII on the wa triumphailts,
containing an interesting discussion of the
famous scene of suovetaurilia in the Louvre,
which is explained from the figures as
representing the /ustratio of a census in the
Campus Martius. Two important essays
which have recently appeared in the Archiv
Jiir Religionswissenschaft discuss the ‘Juppiter
pillar’ recently discovered δἱ Mainz (with
photographs), and the tutelary deities of the
same city as depicted on a monument found
in 1889. Particularly interesting to English
students is the short paper on the Bonus
Eventus of Isca (C.Z.Z., vii. 97), where von
Domaszewski finds, as he is fond of doing, a
survival in a province of genuine old Roman
religious practice, free from the Graecising
tendency which had long prevailed in Italy.
The figure of Bonus Eventus here wears a
limus or apron, which was in historical times
peculiar to the fopa, 2.6. assistant at sacri-
ficial rites, who slew the victim. It may
originally have been, as our author thinks,
worn by the sacrificing priest, who beyond
doubt at one time slew the victim himself.
‘Die Gestalt des Gottes erscheint im Bilde
gehiillt in die uralte Tracht des Priesters.’
The presumption apparently is that the
monument was erected by an Italian from
some district where the old priestly dress
was still in use.

No. IX is reprinted from an Austrian
periodical which we do not usually see in
this country, and as it deals with the family
of Augustus as figured on the Ara Pacis we
are glad to find it in this volume. Mrs.
Strong has mentioned it in her book on
Roman sculpture (p. 49 note), but it has not
had the effect of modifying her statement
that Augustus in the Villa Medici fragment
is wearing ‘the cap of the pontifex maximus.’
As von Domaszewski points out, Augustus

261

was not yet pont. max. at the dedication of
the Ara in B.c. 13, and what this figure wears
is probably an afex, which should mark
him as a amen, probably a flamen /Julianus.
The tall figure with strong features, preceded
by a man carrying an axe, is identified with
Agrippa acting as pont. max. for Lepidus, as
v. Duhn suggested as long ago as 1881. I
am not aware that there is any definite
evidence that a pont. max. could be thus
represented by another member of the
college ; but it is necessary to assume that it
was so, if we consider the importance of the
office, and the long absences of Julius and
Lepidus, whose periods of office covered in

all just half a century.

Another very interesting paper is No. V
on the political meaning of the arch of Trajan
at Beneventum. But I must pass on to
those in which the writer deals with matter
more or less outside the usual sphere of his
labour. One of these, No. XI, is occupied
with the political allusions in the first six
odes of Horace’s third book. We may
accept without scruple the general conclusion
that Augustus is the central figure of these
odes, binding them together, and that
‘Augustus erscheint als der Trager der
nationalen T'ugenden, durch die er einst zur
Unsterblichkeit eingehen soll.’ That is
neatly and pithily put. But when we come
to illustrate this in detail we cannot always
follow our author, whose imaginative faculty
sometimes runs away with him. For
example, in the second ode, short and puzzling
to anyone on the look-out for personal and
political allusions, he explains the lines
beginning ‘ Virtus repulsae nescia sordidae’
as referring to Augustus’ refusal of ἃ per-
petual consulate in B.C. 23, and ‘est et fideli
tuta silentio Merces’ as an allusion to the
treachery of Gallus. Mommsen, in a paper
read (if I recollect right) to the Berlin
Academy and reprinted in his Reden und
Aufsitze, explained these same lines as
alluding to the new imperial officials and the
‘arcana imperil,’ and believed the whole poem
to refer to the new army Augustus was raising
at the time it was written, and to the wirtus
expected of it' Reading the poem again
with an unprejudiced mind, I confess myself
unwilling to narrow and fix its meaning in

262

such ways. I prefer to take it as the praise
of the military life of the young Roman of
good birth, free from the temptations of
wealth and political ambition, and far away
from the gossip of the capital; or as an
appeal to him to count the claim of the
State as stronger than that of the individual,
—the great lesson that Augustus directly or
indirectly was always trying to teach his
pupils.

I must say a word about the two or three
essays which have to do with the genuine
old Roman religion. One of them, No.
XVIII, on ‘die Festcyclen des altromi-
schen Kalenders’ is concerned with certain
technical peculiarities of the so-called
calendar of Numa which I have not space
to explain; I had something to say of this
paper in the ‘Years work in Classical
studies’ for 1907. Two other papers now
reprinted, X and XVII, exhibit our author's
imaginative ingenuity at its best. I am
entirely at one with him in his treatment
of the well-known list of paired deities in
Gellius 13. 23 (except in a few points of
᾿ς detail). It is hardly necessary to say that
he does not look on these pairs as in any
sense indicating the marriage of Roman
deities; no one does that in these days
but my friend Dr. J. G. Frazer, who in his
Adonis Attis Osiris (ed. 2), endeavoured to
confute the unanimous opinion of experts.
The most interesting of these essays on the
old religion is that dealing with ded certi and
incerti of Varro, recently published in the
Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft,—an un-
orthodox paper, as its author sadly says at
the end of it (he means that it clashes
with the views of Wissowa and his school),
and all the more refreshing for that. His
explanation of a mwmen is excellent; but
the applications of it are not very con-
vincing. The evolution of the idea of a
personal dews out of an impersonal numen
is not an easy process to track; and in my
opinion it is here vitiated by the influence,
visible throughout the paper, of Usener’s
theory that the great gods were evolved
out of ‘Sondergotter.’ Dr. Farnell has
done a good deal to show that this theory

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

does not apply to the Greek ideas of
divinity (Anthropological Essays presented to
E. B. Tylor, p. 81 foll.). As regards Rome
I can find no satisfactory evidence. When
von D. asks us to believe that Consus could
emerge from Conditor, one of the spirits
invoked in the sacrum cereale (Fab. Pictor
in Serv. G. 1. 21) we feel that there is an
anachronism in the argument. Consus is
as old as anything we know of the Romans,
while Conditor and all his strange company
are (in my view) a pontifical elaboration of
later days. Consus, too, was himself a
numen, and never, so far as we know,
developed into a personal dews. The whole
story of the evolution of the men, as
given in this paper, is charming, and would
be a solution of many difficulties if it were
only based on sound premises; as it 1s,
it is pure imagination. No elaborate litanies,
comprecationes, of a comparatively late age,
can give us any certain clue to the earliest
conception of the supernatural by the people
who invented them. This was Usener’s
mistake ; he applied the elaborate ritual of
the age of pontifical invention to explain
processes which cannot be explained at all
except by an amount of anthropological
research much more complete than it is
now. To deal fairly with the old Roman
religion we must, as far as possible, leave
the Indigitamenta alone.

I should wish to mention in the last
place that at the end of the essay on the va
triumphalis, there is a note at the end by
B. Kahle, comparing the passage of the army
through the forta t¢riumphalis outside the
walls, with the old medical practice of passing
a sick person through a hole ina tree. The
subject is interesting to anthropologists ;
there is undoubtedly magic of some kind
here. In van Gennep’s recently published
‘Rites de passage,’ ch. 2, a simpler explana-
tion will be found; the gate is the mark of
limitation between the sacred and the
profane. Probably the same idea is at the
root of the passage sab zugum of a con-
quered army.

W. WarDE FOWLER.

νας, τ

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

JEBB’S TRANSLATION OF ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC,

The Rhetoric of Aristotle. A Translation by
Sir RICHARD CLAVERHOUSE JEBB, edited
with an introduction and with supple-
mentary notes by JoHN Epwin SANDYS.
Cambridge: University Press, 1909. 8vo.
Pp. xxviii, 207. 6s. net.

Tuis translation was made more than thirty
years ago,—between the months of August
1872 and May 1873. Its author was at that
time an Assistant Tutor of Trinity College,
Cambridge ; and in this capacity he lectured
on the Rhetoric. He intended to publish
his version, but for some unknown reason
abandoned the design. It has now been
issued, some three years after his death,
under the editorial care of Dr. Sandys.
The volume also contains short footnotes,
an index of subject-matter, a marginal and
a continuous analysis, and an introduction
touching upon the history of Greek rhetoric
before the time of Aristotle and upon the
views held by certain modern scholars with
regard to the date, structure, and text of
the Rhetoric itself. These additions are due
chiefly to the editor, who has however
drawn, wherever possible, upon special
memoranda made by the translator as well
as upon the introductory pages of his “21
Orators. The editor has, further, revised
the translation and has supplied some
accidental omissions.

It would have been a serious loss to
scholarship if this version had remained
in manuscript. A translator of the Ahetoric
requires gifts but rarely united. He must
possess a mastery alike of Greek and of
English. How else can his version be, as
Aristotle might have put it, faithful and
clear without being bald and mean? Open
Jebb’s rendering where you will, you feel
that you are reading genuine English,—
terse, idiomatic, easy, vigorous. If a single
sentence seems (on p. 98) to present an
exception, it is but the exception that proves
the rule. If your attention is arrested (p.
43) by the phrase ‘elect to do harm’ and
you wonder for the moment whether that
usage has found its footing in English or

is an Americanism still on its trial, you are
not long in recollecting or discovering that
it has good authority in some standard
English authors. The style of the Rhetoric
is sometimes said to be excessively dry.
This criticism should not be too readily
allowed; and it certainly will not apply to
Jebb’s translation. To take an instance
almost at a venture:

‘When I talk of a polity being corrupted by things

proper to it, I mean that all polities, except the best,
are corrupted, both by relaxation and by tension.
Democracy, for instance, is weakened, so that it must
end in oligarchy, not only by relaxing but by over-
straining: just as the aquiline and the snub-nosed
type, which unbending brings to the right mean,
may also be intensified to a point at which the very
semblance of a nose is lost’ (i. 4: Jebb p. 17).
This brevity, force and point is Aristotle’s
due; and those who have themselves tried
to translate the Rfeforic will know how easy
it is to be fatally prolix and periphrastic, or
to write a vicious Greek-English which needs
to be further translated into Axg/ish.

One or two suggestions may be of service
to the editor, when he comes to revise
the book anew for the fresh issue which is
likely soon to be required. A few of the
‘accidental omissions’ to which he refers
have escaped his notice, and the present
reviewer will gladly furnish a list of those
which he has jotted down while reading
through the translation side by side with
the original. Most readers would welcome
renderings in verse (rather than in prose)
of the many passages which are quoted
from the poets in the AHeforic. ‘Though the
translator used prose in the lecture-room, it
does not follow that he would have done so
when presenting his work to a wider public.
A definite statement, if possible (cp. p. 78
n. 2), as to the Greek text followed by the
translator would have been useful. It is
true that Dr. Sandys has carefully inserted
references which make it easy to use the
version in connexion with any of the
principal Greek texts, and that he has
himself added many valuable critical notes.
But here and there we miss guidance. In
i. 15, for example, it might have been

264 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

mentioned that the translator clearly adopts
the reading ἀξιοῖ rather than ἀξιοῦσιν.

It is seldom that the interpretation given
by the translator seems open to doubt. But
attention may be drawn to a few passages
where still greater clearness or exactitude
might possibly have been attained: |

(1) In the definition (already alluded to)
of diction, or style, in iii. 2, neither Jebb
and Welldon in their translations, nor Cope
in his commentary, make it plain how
carefully Aristotle is adapting to the case
of rhetorical prose the definition which he
had given of poetical style in the Poetics
c. 22: λέξεως δὲ ἀρετὴ σαφῆ καὶ μὴ ταπεινὴν
εἶναι. Jebb’s rendering of the passage in
the Rhetoric runs: ‘One virtue of Diction
may be defined to be clearness. This
appears from the fact that, if our language
does not express our meaning, it will not
do its work. Again, diction ought to be
neither low nor too dignified, but suitable
to the subject. (The diction of poetry
could hardly be called “low,” yet it is not
suitable to prose.)’ The connexion of thought
in these sentences of Aristotle is: ‘The first
half of our definition in the /oefics, that
which refers to clearness, must stand (ὡρίσθω)
in reference to prose as well as poetry, since
all λόγος implies the expression of our mean-
ing (λέγειν -- δηλοῦν). But the second half
needs some addition and qualification: καὶ
μήτε ταπεινὴν μήτε ὑπὲρ τὸ ἀξίωμα, ἀλλὰ
πρέπουσαν" 1) γὰρ ποιητικὴ ἴσως οὐ ταπεινή,
GAN οὐ πρέπουσα λόγῳ. The concluding
words might perhaps be translated: ‘the
style of poetry is, no doubt (ἴσως, non
dubitantis sed cum modestia quadam asseve-
vantis), the opposite of mean, but it is not
appropriate to prose.’ Cope’s ‘for though,
it may be, poetical language is not tame,’
and Welldon’s ‘for a poetical style, although
possibly not mean,’ hardly suggest with
sufficient clearness the idea in the writer’s
mind. Aristotle recognises (/he¢. ili. cc.
I, 2), at one and the same time, that the
language of poetry was in his own day
approximating to that of prose, and yet
that ‘the diction of prose and the diction
of poetry are distinct,’ and that in prose
there are fewer opportunities of deviation
from the ordinary idiom, the subject-matter

of prose being humbler. [Notwithstanding
the absence of the article, which seems to
have troubled Cope and the translators, the
sense conveyed by ἀρετή both in the Poetics
and in the Rhetoric is ‘the excellence,—the
perfection,—of style consists in being clear
without being mean,’ etc. The excellence
which Aristotle recognises is one, though
it may have more than one side. With
regard to the presence or absence of the
article, cp. “het. iii. 12 εἴπερ ὀρθῶς ὥρισται
ἡ ἀρετὴ τῆς λέξεως, and iii. 5 ἔστι δ᾽ ἀρχὴ
τῆς λέξεως τὸ ἑλληνίζειν.]

(2) In iii. 6 would not ‘amplitude’ be a
better equivalent for ὄγκος than ‘dignity’?
The latter is the traditional and accepted
rendering, but it sorts ill with the examples
actually given by Aristotle. One of the
recipes for the attainment of ὄγκος is, ‘To
use the description instead of the name:
as by saying, not, “Circle”, but “A plane
surface, every point on the circumference
of which is equally distant from the centre.” ’
(With this we are tempted to compare or
contrast Aristotle’s Own διὸ οὐδεὶς οὕτω
| The other
instances are of the same kind: their word-
ing is the opposite of concise, as Aristotle
himself in most cases points out. The
example from Antimachus (a description by
negatives) would doubtless, if we had it in
full, illustrate the epithet ¢wmdus applied to
him by Catullus. ὄγκος, in its rhetorical
acceptation, stands on the border-line between
praise and blame. ‘Amplitude,’ or possibly
‘grandeur, may therefore serve the turn,
while ‘dignity’ can be reserved for σεμνότης

γεωμετρεῖν διδάσκει, 111. 1.)

which, as a personal characteristic, is no

worse than a ‘tempered and decent oppres-
siveness’ (μαλακὴ καὶ εὐσχήμων βαρύτης,
17):

(3) In iii. 3 Alcidamas’ description of the
Odyssey as καλὸν ἀνθρωπίνου βίου κάτοπτρον
is, as is customary, translated ‘a fair mirror
of human life.’ Perhaps it would be better,
here, to say ‘looking-glass’ rather than
‘mirror. There is nothing to startle us in
‘mirror,’ which has now become one of the
commonest metaphors in the language. But
the context shows that Aristotle is thinking
of those novel and violent comparisons
which tend to give an air of unreality to

a

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the passages in which they are found. We
cannot fully understand why he condemned
what has since proved so serviceable and
popular a metaphor. But in the same
sentence is quoted the description of philo-
sophy as ‘an outpost that threatens the
laws’ (ἐπιτείχισμα τῶν νόμων); and this
metaphor of ‘hostile fortress,’ being less trite
to us, may help us to enter into his point
of view,—that of the essential incongruity of
the things compared.

The editor (whose special competence in
this domain is so widely recognised) con-
tributes many valuable notes of his own.
In iii. r1, ὅτ he explains the words ‘this is
like the Carpathian and the hare’ as ‘a
proverbial reference to the Carpathian, who
imported a pair of rabbits into the island
between Crete and Rhodes, and lived to see
the island overrun and devastated by their
progeny.’ This explanation raises some
interesting points of natural history. And
what is the ancient Greek word for ‘rabbit’?
Is it AeBnpis? In a note on section ὃ of
the same chapter, he happily suggests ‘There
is no bearing Baring’ as an English equi-
valent for ᾿Ανάσχετος οὐκ ἀνασχετός. Baring
is not an uncommon name in English ; but,
were it otherwise, the present President of
the Classical Association would no doubt
view the pleasantry with much equanimity,
remembering that (as Aristotle hastens to

265

add) such a pun with the negative holds
good ‘only if Anaschetos is disagreeable.’

There are many details in the translation
and the notes which one would like to discuss
did space permit. And the Rhetoric itself
opens up a boundless field for comment,
with its sturdy common-sense, its splendid
love of truth, and its amazing insight into
the workings of the human heart. As an
undergraduate one is struck perhaps chiefly
by its austerity. In later years one feels
more fully the hidden warmth with which
Aristotle commends the good rhetoric that
expounds the truth persuasively, in preference
to the bad rhetoric that deludes by the
tinsel of style and by unworthy appeals to
our emotions. ‘The greatness of the Xhesoric
is best appreciated when it is compared and
contrasted with the PAeforica ad Alexandrum,
—a treatise which, after the publication of
the Azbeh Papyri, must be referred, with
even greater probability than before, to
Aristotle’s own age. To this comparison
the present writer hopes to recur in an
article, to be published elsewhere, on ‘The
Rhetorics attributed to Aristotle.’ He may
then have an opportunity of dwelling still
further upon the excellence of Jebb’s trans-
lation, which should have a wide circula-
tion not only among students of the
ancient classics but among cultivated readers
generally.

W. Ruys ROBERTS.

GAULISH BAS RELIEF.

Recueil Général des Bas Reliefs de la Gaule
Romaine. Par EmILe ESPERANDIEU.
Tome 1% (Altes Maritimes, Alpes Cot-
tiennes, Corse, Narbonnatse), Paris, 1907.
Tome 2™. <Aguttaine, Paris, 1908.

PRroFEssoR MICHAELIS, in a new edition of
his Century of Archaeological Discoveries, will
have to give in his table of epoch-making
dates the year 7907, for it saw the publica-
tion of the first volume of the great Recuet/
which Commandant Espérandieu is compiling
of all the ancient works of art of the Gallo-
Roman period. That the Recueil is not one

of those mighty works which flag soon after
inception is proved by the appearance of a
second volume at the close of 1908—at an
interval of scarce a year from the appearance
of the first. Only those who have tried this
kind of work, even on a restricted scale, can
appreciate the ‘courage’ (a word which
Espérandieu need not disclaim as ‘ excessive’
in the present instance) and the patience and
generous devotion which it entails. The
work is subsidised by the State, and has the
support of the most learned men in France,
having been—if I mistake not—largely in-
spired by. the indefatigable zeal of the

266

illustrious Curator of the Museum of Saint
Germain, yet Espérandieu alone is responsible
for the actual work and the immense prepara-
tory labour of taking or obtaining photographs
or other illustrations of every sculpture,
however fragmentary, found on the soil of
ancient Gaul. From the title the work
appears to be restricted to reliefs, but already
in the first volume Espérandieu had seen
the wisdom of adding important or unknown
works in the round. In the second volume
he so far enlarges his scope, without, how-
ever, modifying his title, as to include both
classes systematically, and promises that an
appendix shall at an early date make good
omissions from vol. i. For the work itself,
its detail, its thoroughness, the lucidity of
the descriptions, and for the. illustrations
(comparatively excellent, if we have regard to
the moderate price of the work) we can have
nothing but gratitude and admiration, feel-
ings, however, not perhaps entirely unmixed
with envy when we reflect that nothing of
similar importance and utility has been
attempted for the scattered and sadly
neglected sculptures of Roman Britain.

The words de la Gaule Romaine are in-
dicative of provenance only, not of period,
and cover all antique sculptured work found
in Gaul, whether Greek, Roman, Gallo-Greek
or Gallo-Roman, and even some examples of
native art anterior to the Roman conquest.
We may regret that Espérandieu does not
more often discriminate between the different
classes, at any rate where to do so is obviously
easy; but he is careful to forestall this
criticism by explaining that he aims solely at
a Corpus of monuments, and, as a rule, omits
archaeological discussion as being more in
place in monographs. In the main he is
right not to obscure ascertained data by
theories and controversies in a work where the
chief aim must be permanent value. Yet in
the bibliography of the Arch of Carpentras
(vol. i. p. 179) we miss any reference to
Furtwangler, Zropaion von Adambklisst, p.
503, plate xi. 3. Moreover, in Furtwangler’s
view that the splendid sculptures reflect as
late as the reign of Tiberius a living Hellenic
tradition, Espérandieu would have found his
own dating confirmed (p. 181). In the
discussion on the Arch of Orange and the

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

monument of Saint Rémy the opinions of S.
Reinach and of Ed. Courbaud are cited—
why not those of Furtwangler on the dating
of Orange, of those of Wickhoff (Roman Art,
p. 66 and p. 70) on the art of the monument
of Saint Rémy? It is impossible, by the
way, to avoid noticing with regret that, ‘ faute
d’un échafaudage,’ the sculptures of so
historic and splendid a monument as the Arch
of Orange are illustrated from unsatisfactory
photographs of casts.

The arrangement adopted is geographical.
The first volume embraces the wonderful art
of Southern Gau!—of that Greek Gaul which
Ernst Maass has lately written about so elo-
quently. This volume includes the Arch of
Susa, with its curious reliefs, which, in spite
of Ferrero and Studnizcaka, are less known
than discussed. Among the vast number of
illustrations, mostly of unfamiliar and many
of admirable works, students of all periods of
ancient art are likely to find much to interest
them. A fine piece of Greek work from the
late fifth century is given on p. 65, No. 72,
and there are important Graeco-Roman
copies like the Athena of Poitiers, discovered
as lately as 1902, and already published by
M. Audouin in Monuments Piot, 1x. (1902).
Besides the magnificent and already well-
known sarcophagi, such as that of Phaidra at
Avignon, and the grand portraiture that
includes such masterpieces as the Augustus
from Martres Tolosanes, fine pieces of
Augustan workmanship like the altar with
oak leaves at Arles, we find the impressive
series of Gallo-Roman Stelai displaying the
serious ‘frontal’ art of Roman sepulchral
art, relieved now and again by the pathetic
charm of the reliefs of children or young
people. While we get what are practically
complete and accessible catalogues of the
antiques of the larger Provincial Museums
(Marseilles, Arles, Toulouse, Bordeaux),
every minor locality has been visited and
searched. The arches of Cavaillon and
Carpentras, those of the Roman bridge at
Saint Chamas, enrich in this accessible form

1Since writing the above the date of the Arch of
Orange seems to have been fixed in the generation
before Tiberius by S. Reinach’s paper, Comptes
Rendus de [ Académie des Inscriptions, 1909, pp.

513-518.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

our picture of ancient Gaul. Everywhere we
find the massive splendour of native Roman
conceptions asserting itself by the side with
the traditions, now becoming academic and
stereotyped, derived from earlier Classic art,
as in that grand statue of a Gaulish soldier
(vol. i. p. 210, No. 271) who already has
more about him of the mediaeval knight
than of the pagan hero.

267

As Espérandieu gives many monuments
which though now in foreign museums were
found in Gaul, he should find a place in the
promised appendix to vol. i. for the fine
Roman group of the Flavian epoch and the
Roman statue, both from Apt and now in the
Chatsworth collection (Furtwangler /Journal
of Hellenic Studies, xxi., 1900, plates 14 and

15). EuGENIE STRONG.

HERCULANEUM.

. Herculaneum—Fast, Present, and Future.
By CHARLEs WALDSTEIN, Litt. D., Ph.D.,
London: Macmillan ἃ Co., 1908. 8vo.
LL.D., and LEONARD SHOOBRIDGE, M.A.
Pp. xxii, 324. 59 Illustrations. 21s. net.

Buried Herculaneum. By ETHEL Ross
Barker. London: Adam and Charles
Black, 7906. Svo. “xvi, 253... Nine
plans and 64 plates. 7s. 6d.

PROFESSOR WALDSTEIN’S book is a study in
diplomacy, the story of a coup détat that
failed. The failure of this great attempt to
bring about a complete and systematic ex-
cavation of Herculaneum, with the assist-
ance of the most skilled archaeologists of
every nation, and with strong financial
support drawn from as many sources, was
not due to lack of enthusiasm on the Pro-
fessor’s part. His enthusiasm is shown in
every line, and the correspondence in
Appendix I. is sufficient evidence of his
activity in many capitals. The attempt was
magnificent, but was it wisely conceived?
Had Professor Waldstein as intimate an
experience of Italian archaeologists as of
Greek, we doubt whether he would have so
marshalled his forces.

Both nations are proud, both are apt to
resent even advice. But the race of archaeo-
logists in Greece is yet young. They are
still willing to learn from outside, and wisely
accept competent advice. Their museums
are few, and their curators are eager for new
things. In Italy archaeologists are many, and
they want work, telling work such as news-
papers will hasten to publish and correspon-

dents will transmit to the world. The plan,
particularly as in its conception it might
appear to them, divided the vast cost, it is
true, but divided also the fame and the
applause. Further, its approach was heralded
with royal salutes, and the Italian shrank in
dismay, and, without his accustomed courtesy
we must confess, retired. But let us imagine
the plight of 27 Re d’/talia covering with his
shield an unfortunate native archaeologist
pursued by the invectives of the Kaiser and
President Roosevelt! It was unlikely, but it
was possible, and therefore it must never be.

In Part II. Professor Waldstein waxes
eloquent in his dream of the manner in which
he would have Herculaneum excavated. The
scale is great: it is the millennium of
archaeology, a very fellowship of saintly
scholars. But the details are not new, are
not in fact materially different from what
any school would plan, if only they had a
worthy site and were assured of a sufficient
sum. A central telephone office connected
with every trench would be a great boon to
many a harassed director. A fence even of
barbed wire to keep out the curious would
preserve many from the sin of wrath. Ledger
clerks to enter up the day-books would
release many a sleepy excavator who has
been at the ‘dig’ since 6 a.m. The Pro-
fessor is indeed right in insisting on a pre-
liminary survey by a competent engineer for
the tramway-lines and the position of the
‘dump.’ Olympia and Delphi have shown
archaeologists how this can be done. It is
also a question whether nations and their
archaeologists should not insist on a financial

268

guarantee corresponding to the probable
amount necessary to clear a site thoroughly.
Partial excavation destroys landmarks, deters
successors, and may mislead rather than assist
scholars.

Is Professor Waldstein right in thinking
that isolated excavation by schools as in
Greece is bad? We doubt it. Assuming
that international excavation is improbable,
and the present failure shows the improba-
bility, is it better that one nation should
excavate, as in Italy, and others stand by and
criticise with acerbity, or that each school
should dig its best and the peace of private
enterprise be upon the land ?

The interest of the book is however great,
the enthusiasm contagious, and we can
wholeheartedly admire both the magnificence
of the volume in which the afo/ogia appears,
and the magnanimity with which he treats

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

the ungrateful opposition. The plates are
on the whole good, though text and plate
mutually ignore relationship, and the items
in the ‘ List of Principal Objects which can
be identified as coming from Herculaneum’
in Appendix III. can only with some re-
search be identified with the plates in which
they appear.

In these respects Miss Barker’s book is
superior. She gives a rapid survey of the
buildings excavated, the papyri, the marbles
and bronzes, and the inscriptions found
there, a good bibliography and catalogues.
The plates are described in the text, and
their numbers are given in the catalogues.
This systematic care gives the book con-
siderable value, though much of the informa-
tion is elementary and unsuited to a treatise
on so specialised a subject.

A. M. DANIEL.

LETHABY’S GREEK STUDIES, Parts III anp IV.

Greek Buildings represented by fragments in
the British Museum. Parti, Zhe Parthe-
non and its Sculptures. Part iv, The
Theseum, LErechtheum and other works.
London: B. T. Batsford. 1908. οἱ" x 6”.
2 vols. (4 to complete). ili, 76 pages; iv,
65 pages. Many line drawings and a few
process blocks. 111, 35. net ; iv, 3s. 6d. net.

Ir the two concluding parts of Prof. Lethaby’s
series have not quite the same interest as the
other two, it is mostly by fault of subject.
Ephesus and the Mausoleum are made re-
constructive studies in a way which is im-
possible in dealing with the Parthenon and
the remaining architectural fragments of
Greek work in the Museum.

The part dealing with the Parthenon—
primarily the sculpture—is really of value
as an architectonic study. One cannot but
admire both the freshness of the treatment
and the thoroughness with which the work
is examined piece by piece.

These sculptures are surely as much to
the practical art worker as to the archaeolo-
gist, and Prof. Lethaby’s treatment of them is

that of an art worker, though he has by no
means neglected the recorded study of others
both in literature and drawings.

After all, it is just the artist’s point of
view, properly governed, which is most
wanted now. ‘There is already such a body
of appreciation and such a mass of opinion
walling round this Holy of Holies of Greek
art, that we have to turn in the end to the
kind of man who sees and feels the work as
if he had done it himself.

To be more precise, then, the value of the
present study lies mainly in its practical
and constructive analysis and synthesis of
the fragments, which is largely helped by the
illustrations. One can follow these right
through and find very few gaps.

The line treatment adopted throughout is
good, as alsc is the attention paid to
such vital matters (for the artist) as massing,
jointing, sections of material, and colour.
The illustrations, apparently by the author,
may be divided into two classes, careful and
quite admirable drawings of the metopes
and important pediment figures, and looser
but still expressive sketches, almost invariably

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

quite sufficient for their purpose. There
is often feeling in the latter, too, enough and
to spare ; see, for example, the upper hand
of Athena on p. 92.

Prof. Lethaby can also write even about
the Parthenon figures most excellently well.
‘ The pediments,’ he says, ‘ were stone books
of Genesis and the Covenant, the metopes
were chapters from the Books of Kings and
Chronicles ; the frieze, representing the pre-
sent relation of the gods to the chosen city
at the great feast of Athena, was a sort of
Psalm of rejoicing’; and again, in speaking
of the pediment figures—‘ To examine. them
from steps is a revelation, the muscular back
and shoulders of the Theseus, the soft
rounded arms of the Demeter and the wife
of Cecrops—strong, yet almost flowing, in
extraordinary beautiful curves—the bare
shoulder of one of the Fates, the startled
horses of the Sun, the perfect pose of the
llissus, the variety of texture and fold in the
draperies of the goddesses, the dainty button-
ing of the sleeve, the big folds of skirts and
mantles, the great restful forms, and the
resistless energy of the cutting are all wonder-
ful and lovely. Most wonderful of all is
the great spirit which fills out and transcends
the forms. They are not mere statues, they
are creatures proper to temples born in
marble. The Fates are as majestic as
mountains.’

Due attention is paid to the excellent draw-
ing of Pars and Carrey. The architectural
relationship of the sculptures to one another is
sufficiently explained by the account of the
building at the beginning, which serves also
to connect this section of the series with the
others, and is no more than enough for that
purpose in a part which is three-fourths
sculpture.

In the fourth section, ‘The Theseum,
the Erechtheum and other works.’ ‘here

269

are sO many ‘other works’ that the whole
becomes almost too large a mouthful to
digest, and is rather like reading a dictionary ;
but at any rate it would be difficult to get
more about the many buildings dealt with in
the space at disposal. In this and the
previous section some of the architectural
descriptions are written, as it were, in a kind
of shorthand, and leave almost too much to
the imagination.

The ordinary reader will probably find
Part IV a mass of technical information.
It is, much more than the other, written
exclusively for the architectural student, and
to him it should be most valuable.

A few of the interesting points of detail
that are mentioned may be noticed here:
Ρ. 148—The cymatium at Rhamnus (and
possibly at the Theseum?) was continued
along the flanks as a gutter: p. 154—the
Ilissus Temple, according to Stuart, had a
palmette ornament painted on its architrave :
Ρ. 158—the (earlier) anta cap of the Niké
Temple resembled when finished the similar
cap of the Erechtheum, but the result was
attained by painting, not carving: p. 164—
the bringing of the anta neck-band on to the
columns of the Erechtheum allies their
capitals with the Corinthian [V.8.—this is
not a fact only, it is an idea of great value] :
Ρ- 166—the palmettes on these capital neck-
bands are irregularly spaced, so that there are
19 palmettes to 24 flutes.

Another opinion of value is that the
Bassae Temple is probably very late fifth
century.

Attention is drawn to the insufficient
exhibition of the noble fragment of the head
from Rhamnus.

The publishers issue the booklets sepa-
rately, and also as a bound volume with a
short index.

THEODORE ΕὟΡΕ.

270
HELLENISM

Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen
Agypten: ein Beitrag sur Kulturgeschichte
des Hellenismus. Vol. 11. Leipzig und

Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1908. 8vo.
Pp. vi, 417. Unbound, M. 14; bound,
ΝΠ τ:

Tuis volume concludes Dr. Otto’s lengthy
and important monograph on the religious
organization of Egypt during the Ptolemaic
and Roman periods, of which the first volume
appeared in 1905. The present instalment
follows the lines laid down in the author’s
preface to the first volume, dealing with the
organization and the social and _ political
position of the priesthood, the revenues and
administration of the temples, and the like,
but not, except as regards single points, with
the religion itself, nor with the Jewish and
Christian churches. The author shows in
this volume the same care and thoroughness
which was evident in the first, and within the
limits observed has treated his subject exhaus-
tively. A list of additions and corrections to
both volumes is given at the end; that these
are numerous is not surprising in view of the
constant yearly additions to our knowledge
of the period covered.

The volume begins with a chapter (the
fifth) on the expenses of the temples. ‘This
is in continuation of the fourth chapter,
dealing with their revenues, with which the
previous volume concluded, and is followed
by one treating of the administration both of
the temples themselves and of their posses-
sions. The author shows an exemplary
caution in distinguishing between facts and
hypotheses, but it must be acknowledged
that in these two chapters the hypotheses
are the more numerous, and that on many
points there is at present too little evidence
to justify any very positive conclusion. Otto’s
treatment of the questions discussed fur-
nishes however an admirable summary of our
present knowledge, though doubtless not a
few of his conclusions will require modifica-
tion later. A not unimportant part of the
expenses of the temples consisted of taxes ;
and a useful list of these, alphabetically

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

IN EGYPT.

arranged, is given, with a discussion of each
item. It seems however a mistake to divide
them into ‘Gebiihren’ and ‘Steuern.’ Of
the sixth chapter a considerable portion is
occupied by the discussion of the administra-
tion of temple property by the state, in
which the author examines in detail the
evidence of ostraca and other documents.
A good deal of the argument here is some-
what conjectural.

The last two chapters, relating respectively
to the social position of the priests and to
the relations between state and ‘church’ (as
Otto justifiably terms the hierarchy), are of
most general interest. The author’s examin-
ation of the evidence as to the education and
general culture of the priests leads him to
the conclusion that these have been greatly
exaggerated by ancient, and after them by
modern, writers; and the evidence strongly
favours his view. ‘The value of his discus-
sion of the morals of the priesthood is
somewhat lessened by the paucity of
evidence; and though he seems inclined
to the opinion ‘dass man iiberhaupt deren
Moral nicht zu hoch einschatzen darf,’
the instances of irregular conduct by
members of the priesthood which he quotes
are hardly sufficient to justify any confident
conclusion, since they are comparatively few,
and, as the author admits, the documents
preserved on papyrus are such as would
more naturally mention violations of the law,
civil or moral, than its observance. The
last chapter gives an admirable outline of the
relations between the state and the religious
community, and shows clearly that through-
out the whole period covered the state was
careful to maintain the upper hand. As the
author concludes, ‘in dem Kampf zwischen
Staat und Kirche, dem wir in der Welt-
geschichte allenthalben begegnen, hat im
alten Agypten schliesslich der Staat auf der
ganzen Linie gesiegt.’

The volume concludes with full and useful
indices: of subjects, of Greek words, of gods
and temples, of the eponymous priests, and

of sources.
Jelgaliy leroities

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

NEWS AND

PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE
CLASSICAL REVIEW
AND CLASSICAL QUARTERLY.

THE arrangement foreshadowed in the
November number has now been completed.
The Classical Review and Classical Quarterly
have become the property of the Classical
Association, and will in future be controlled
by a Board of seven Managers nominated for
the purpose by the Council of the Association.
But in consideration of contributions kindly
made or promised to the Purchase Fund by
the Philological Societies of Oxford and
Cambridge, the Council of the Classical
Association will appoint one member of the
seven on the nomination. of each of the
Societies.

The Board has been constituted by the
Council as follows :

Mr. 5. H. BurcHer, M.P. (appointed
Chairman at the first meeting of the Board).

Professor ἃ. 5. Conway (appointed
Treasurer).

Professor J. W. MackaliL, Professor F.
HAVERFIELD, Mr. ERNEST HARRISON, M.A.,
were appointed by the Council de swo.

Professor W. RipGEway, has been ap-
pointed on the nomination of the Cambridge
Philological Society; and a representative
will shortly be appointed by the Oxford
Philological Society.

The Board has met and requested the
present Editors of the Review and Quarterly
to continue their office for 1910. The size
of the journals will be maintained as hereto-
fore; but some reductions in the subscriptions
are made to members of the Classical Asso-

COMMENTS

ciation and of either of the two Philological
Societies.

Full particulars of these changes will be
found in the circular which will be issued
simultaneously with this number of the
Review. Some account of the steps which
have led to this consummation, with a full
list of the friends of the Classical Association
who have subscribed to the Purchase Fund,
will be published in the next number of
either the Classical Review or the Classical
Quarterly. Among the subscribers to whom
the Board desire to render especial thanks
must be mentioned the Prime Minister, the
Lord Chancellor, Lord Collins, Lord Cromer,
Lord Curzon, and Lord Halsbury.

Books for review should be sent to Mr.
J. Murray, 50a Albemarle St., W., who has
been appointed publisher to the Classical
Journals Board.

WE hope to publish later an account of
the Wasps at Cambridge: but we should like
now to enter a protest against the encroach-
ment of music upon these plays. This is

‘not only improper because it was not so in

Greece; the music, however agreeable in
itself, sometimes interferes with the speeches
of the actors, and nearly always drowns the
chorus. When not a word of the chorus is
intelligible, this part becomes a bore; and
there is no reason why a Greek chorus
should not be intelligible when every word
sung by a chorus in Gilbert and Sullivan’s
operas is easily heard. The enunciation was
the weak point of this play. No one spoke
well, and most very badly.

BOOKS RECEIVED

Publishers and Authors forwarding Books for review are asked to send at the same time a note of
the price.

* * Excerpts and Extracts from Periodicals and Collections are not included in these Lists unless
stated to be separately published.

Aristophanes and Others. By Herbert Richards, M.A.
7?’ χ ς΄. Pp. xii+398. London, Grant Richards.
1909. Cloth, 7s. net.

Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Athens. By
Maurice Croiset. Translated by James Loeb, A.B.
9” x 52”. Pp. xx+192. London, Macmillan ἃ Co.
1909. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.

Bacon
Baconi.

(Roger) Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri
Fasc. I. Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri

ordinis fratrum minorum de viciis contractis in
studio theologie. Omnia quae supersunt nunc
primum edidit Steele. 83x53”. Pp.
viii+56. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. 5s.
net. ($1.75.)

Robert

Bacon (Roger) Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri
Baconi. Fasc. II. Liber primus communium natu-
ralium fratris Rogeri. Partes prima et secunda
edidit Robert Steele. 83" x53’. Pp. vix 138.
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. 10s. 6d. net.

272

Clark (Albert Curtis) Fontes Prosae Numerosae,
collegit A. C. C. 9}”x 52”. Pp. 48. Oxford,

Clarendon Press. 1909. Paper-boards, 4s. 6d.
net.
Dix (C. M.) First Latin Lessons, with English

Exercises based on the text.
paratory and all types of secondary schools.
62” x 43". Pp. xii+268. London, Rivingtons.
1909. Cloth, 2s.

Fitzhugh (T.) The Sacred Tripudium. University
of Virginia: Bulletin of the School of Latin, No. 3.
Second Edition. 10’x 63”. Pp. 64. Charlottes-
ville, Va., Anderson Bros. 75 cents.

For the use of pre-

ffill(G. F.) Historical Roman Coins from the earliest
times to the reign of Augustus. 9}”x 52”. Pp.
Xvilit+192. With 15 plates. London, Constable

& Co. 1909. Cloth, Ios. 6d. net.

Hoadley (H.) The Authenticity and Date of the
Sophoclean Ajax, 1040-1420. (Doctor’s Diss.)
9” x6". Pp. viiit52. Lancaster, Pa., New Era
Printing Co. 1909.

Hodges (A. L.) Caesar’s Gallic War, I.-VII. Edited
by A. L. H. (Macmitlan’s Latin Series.) 73, Χ
53". Pp. xvit+522. New York. tIgog. Cl.
$1.25 net.

Horace. Q. Horati Flacci Saturarum liber II. Edited
with introduction and notes by James Gow, Litt.D.
(Pitt Press Series.) 62" x 4h". Pp. xxvilit 136.
Cambridge, University Press. 1909. Cloth, 2s.

Kalinka et Zingerle. Commentationes Aenipontanae,
quas edunt E. Kalinka et A. Zingerle. IV. Uber-
sicht iiber philologische MSS. aus tirolischen Biblio-
theken, von A. Zingerle. Zur Wiirdigung Polzans
von G. Miiller. De Codice Aenipontano 579 quo
continetur Ovidi Remedia Amoris: J. Lechner.
93” x 74”. Pp. 104. Ad Aeni Pontem, Wagner. 1908.

Kinfur (W. E. J.) De Lysidis Dialogi Origine
tempore Consilio. (Doctor’s Diss.) 9”x6". Pp.
122. Zwollae, Willink. Cl.

A Latin Anthology. (Golden Treasury Series.)
63” x 42". Pp. xii+188. London, Macmillan ἃ
Co. t1g09. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net.

Lecker (P.) De Photis et Aretha Lexicorum Scrip-
toribus. (Doctor’s Diss.) 8?’x 52”. Pp. 92.
Bonn, University Press. 1909.

Nilsson (M. P.) Timbres Amphoriques de Lindos,
publiés avec une étude sur les timbres amphoriques
rhodiens. (Ac. Roy. des Sc. et des Lettres de
Danamark; extr. de Bull. de l’année, 1909, No.
1-4.) 9}”x 52”. Pp. 1-180, 349-540. Plates.
Copenhagen, Luno. 1909.

Oldfather (W. A.) Livy i. 26 and the Supplician

jus maiorum. Extracted from the Trans. of the
Am. Phil. Ass) XXXIX. o}” x63". Pp. 49-72.

1909.

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Ovid. Ῥ. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoseon liber III.
Edited, with introduction and notes [and with
or without vocabulary], by M. Cartwright, M.A.
(Wales). 73” 5’. Pp. 110. Oxford, Clarendon
Press. 1909. Cloth, 2s. (50 c.)

Pearce (J. W. E.) Caesar Imperator. An elemen-
tary Latin reader with vocabulary and exercises on
the text. (Dent’s Classical Series.) 62” x 43". Pp.
vili+126. London, J. M. Dent ἃ Co. 1909.
Linen boards, Is. 4d.

Peet (T. Eric) The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy
and Sicily. 9” x 52”. Pp. 528. With 275 illustra-
tions in the text, 4 maps and 6 plates. Oxford,
Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth, 16s. net. ($5.25.)

Plato. The Ion of Plato, with introduction and notes
by St. George Stock, M.A. γῇ κα". Pp. xvit+

18+26. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1909. Cloth,
2s. 6d. (60 c.)
Prentice. See Syria.

Ralli (Augustus)
72” x sit
mann.

Christians at Mecca. Illustrated.
Pp. x+284. London, William Heine-

1909. Cloth, 5s. net.

Saunders (C.) Costume in Roman Comedy.
S. Instructor in Latin, Vassar College. “75 x 5”.
Pp. 146. New York, Columbia University Press.
1909. Cl. $1.25 net.

Stdey (T. K.) The Participle in Plautus, Petronius,
and Apuleius. (Doctor’s Diss.) By T. K. S.

By C.

10”x 74". Pp. 70. Chicago, University Press.
1909. 83 cents post free.
Sy7ta. Greek and Latin Inscriptions in Syria. Sect.

B. Northern Syria. Part 2. Il Anderin, Keratin,
Marata. Part 3. Djebel Kihaand Djebel Wastanih.
By W. K. Prentice. (/uédlications of the Princeton
University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in

1904-1905.) 12%"”x10". Pp. 43-120. Leyden,
(Late) Brill. 1909.
Tesson (L.) Le Francais Fonétique. Revue Trimes-

trielle devouée a la propagation de la langue
francaise et au progres des méthodes d’enseignement.
84" x 53”. Pp. 44. Paris, Amat. Oct. 1909.
2 fr. per annum, 50 ¢. a part.

Wetse(O.) Language and Character of the Roman
People. Translated, with additional notes and
references, for English readers, by H. A. Strong,
LL.D., and A. N. Campbell, B.A. οὔ Χο", Pp.
x+260. Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner. 1909.
Cl 6s. net.

Williams (C. B.) The Participle in the Book of

Acts. (Doctor’s Diss.) 9}” x 62”. Pp. 80. Chicago,
University Press. 1909. 54 cents post free.

Zielinski (Prof.) Our Debt to Antiquity. By Pro-
fessor Zielinski. Translated, with introduction and
notes, by Prof. H. A. Strong, LL.D., and Hugh
Stewart, B.A. 62”x4}”. Pp. xvi+240. London,
George Routledge ἃ Sons. 1909. Cloth, 2s. 6a.

=

INDEX

I.—GENERAL INDEX.

A.

A. (J. D.), on the learner’s point of view, 1 ff.
Abbott’s Silanus the Christian, noticed, 1374, ὃ
Abrahams’ (Miss) Greek Dress: a Study of the
Costumes worn in Ancient Greece from Pre-
Hellenic Times to the Hellenistic Age, noticed,
ΗΠ
Acts of Thomas, the, 85a
Aegean Culture, connection of with Servia,
209 ff.
Aegeus episode (Med. 663-763), the, 189), f.
Aeschylus, Ag. 194 (= 204 Verrall), note on, 116
489-502, redistribution of parts in,
181 ff.
1146 sqq., note on, Io f.
Pers. 274 sqq., note on, Ila
Africa, sea-finds and excavations in, 140a, ὃ
Agar (T. L.), notice of Allen’s Homert Opera,
ili., iv., 50 ff.
‘ agglutinative ’ verbs, 30, f.
Alcaeus, a new fragment of, 72 ff.—
(a) commentary, 730, f.
(Ὁ) critical notes, 725, f.
(c) text, 72a, b
(4) translation, 73a
the Berlin-Aberdeen fragment of, 241 ff.—
(a) commentary, 2428, f.
(b) critical notes, 242a, ὃ
(c) text, 242a
(4) translation, 2420
the Στασιωτικά of, 241α, ὃ
‘alive’ and ‘ dead ’ languages, 2a
Allen (T. W.), notice of Ludwich’s /liad, vol. 11.,
17a, ὃ
Allen’s Homeri Opera, iii., iv. (Odyssea, i.-xxiv.),
noticed, 50 ff. : see also 255
comparisons with Ludwich’s text, 518, f.
with Monro’s (1901) text, 52a
doubtful lines and brackets, 52), f.
MSS. of, 50 f.
paragogic ν, 52b
* poetical licence ’ in metre, 52a, ὃ
suggestions for improvement, 52a, ὃ
treatment of the augment, 515
of the digamma, 51a
of the gen. in -00, 51a, ὃ
ancient philosophy and the history of medicine,
172a

Anderson-Spiers’ The Architecture of Greece and

Rome, noticed, 46 ff.
NO. CCVI. VOL. XXIII.

Anthropology and the Classics (ed. R. R.
Marett), noticed, 123 ff.
Apollodorus of Damascus, 22a, ὃ
Appian, B.C, ii. 74, note on, 254 f.
Ara Pacis, family of Augustus on the, 2614, ἢ
Arch of Orange, the, 2660 (and n.)
ARCHAEOLOGY, 26 ff., 60 ff., 139 ff.
‘ aretalogy,’ 84), f.
Aristophanes, Ach. 912, the reading in, 44a, b
the Chorus in, 90)
the ‘ Frogs ’ at Oxford, 93a, ὃ
Aristotle’s Works, transl. of (edd. J. A. Smith
and W. D. Ross), noticed, 119 f.
arithmetical principles in the construction of
poems, 132 ff.
Arnobius, notes on, 81 f.
Arnold (E. V.), notice of Bloomfield’s Vedic
Concordance, 58b
Ashby (T.), notice of Ehrle’s Roma prima dt
Sisto V.: la pianta di Roma Du Pérac-
Lafréry del 1577, 127 1.
notice of Magoffin’s Study of the Topography
and Municipal History of Praeneste, 232 f.
on an important inscription relating to the
Social War, 158 f.
Asine, a common place-name, 2226
the Laconian (Thue. iv. 54), 221 f.
assonance and variety, 1226, f.
Augustus and his policy, 227), ff.

B.

Bacon quoted, 2400, 246
Bailey (C.), on Epicurus and Lucretius, 62 f.
(see vol. xxii. 261 f.)
Barker’s (Miss) Buried Herculaneum, noticed,
268b
Basilides and dualism, 91a, ὃ
‘ Bassarica ’ of Dionysius, the, 2236
Beare (J. I.), note on Plato, Rep. 440 B, 250a, ὃ
Beare’s and Joachim’s transll. of Aristotle’s Parva
Naturalia and De Insecabilibus, noticed, 1194, ὃ
Beeson’s Hegemonius : Acta Archelat, noticed,
gia, b
Bell (H. I.), a note on the ‘ Dionysiaca’ of
Nonnus, 223), f.
notice of Otto’s Priester und Tempel im
hellenistischen Agypten, 2704, b
Birt’s Die Buchrolle in der Kunst : archodlogisch-
antiquarische Untersuchungen zum antiken
Buchwesen, noticed, 56a, b

273 9

274

Blackwood’s Magazine, paper on ‘ Dead Bones’
in, 28a, b
Blakeney (E. H.), notice of Abbott’s Silanus the
Christian, 1374, ὃ
Blass’ Die Eumeniden des Aischylos, noticed,
12 di.
Bloomfield’s A Vedic Concordance, noticed, 58)
Bonus Eventus of Isca, the, 261a
Booxs RECEIVED, 30 ff., 64a, b, 94 ff., 143 f.,
175 f., 208a, ὃ, 2404, ὃ, 271 1
Brandt’s Eclogae Poetarum Latinorum, proposed
new ed. of, 92a
Breiter’s M. Manilit Astronomica (Pars 11. Com-
mentary), noticed, 1378, f.
Britain, excavations in, 60a
British School at Rome, second open meeting of
the, 141a, ὃ
Brugmann’s Die Distributiven und die Kollectiven
Numeralia der Indogermanischen
Sprachen, noticed, 164 f.
principles of Distributives, 164a
varieties of Collective forms, 164)
various uses of both, τόσα, ὃ
Grundriss dey Vergleichenden Grammattk,

vol. ai. (ed. 2,-spart) ἸΏ; , noticed,
18 f.

(ed. 2, part ii., section 1), noticed,
258 ff

Buckland’s The Roman Law of Slavery, noticed,
116 ff.
Burckhardt-Gelzer’s Des Stephanos von Taron
Aymenische Geschichte, noticed, 45 f.
Burnet’s Early Greek Philosophy, noticed, 172a, ὃ
Bury (R. G.), notice of Beare’s and Joachim’s
transll. of Aristotle’s Parva Naturalia and
De Insecabilibus, 119a, ὃ
notice of Dittmeyer’s Aristotelis de Animalt-
bus Historia, t21a, ὃ
notice of Mommert’s Πορφυρίου ᾿Αφορμαὶ πρὸς
τὰ νοητά, 1374
notice of Mutschmann’s Divisiones quae
vulgo dicuntur Aristoteleae, 120 f.
notice of Ross’ transl. of Aristotle’s Meta-
physica, 119), 1.
notice of Rudberg’s Textstudien zur Tter-
geschichte des Aristoteles, 1216
notice of William’s Diogenis Oenoandensis
Fragmenta, 203 f.
Bury’s (J. B.) The Ancient Greek Historians,
noticed, 226 f.
‘ Thucydides Mythistoricus,’ 2260, f.
Thucydides’ ‘ two voices,’ 2274
Butler (L.), Varia, 253 f.
Butler’s (H. E.) Post-Augustan Poetry, noticed,
193 ff.

C.

Caecilius of Calacte and his works, 202b, f.
and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri Commentary
on Thucydides ii., 2036
Cagnat’s Les deux Camps de la Légion III¢
Auguste ἃ Lambése d’aprés les foutlles récentes,
noticed, 57b
Callander (T.), on Perta of Lycaonia, 7a, b
Cambridge, the Wasps at, 271b
Campbell quoted, 246)
Carotti’s A History of Art, vols. i. and 11. (part 1),
noticed, 237)
Caspari (M. O. B.), note on Suetonius, Jul. 79, 2,
189a, b: see also 2404, ὃ
Catullus and the Augustans, 90a
Charles’ The Greek Versions of the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs, noticed, 83 f.
translated from a Hebrew original, διά.

INDEX

Chase’s The Loeb Collection of Arretine Pottery,
noticed, 57a
decorative patterns in and Renaissance
work, zbid.
Cheesman (G. L.), on the date of the disappear-
ance of Legio XXI. Rapax, 1554, ὃ
chronological ‘ lateness ’ of a literature, 196a
problem of Plato’s Dialogues, 196), f.
Cicero and Demosthenes on the incident of
Cyrsilus, 38 f.
Ciceronian clausulae, 122b
Clark’s Q. Asconit Pediani Commentarit, noticed,
11:
Poggio and the Madrid transcript, 2τὸ
Classical Association’s joint committee on Ter-
minology, 59a
proposed Vacation School, zbid.
Classical Journal of Chicago, the, 28a, 925, f.
Classical Quarterly, contents of, 28b, f., 92a, ὃ,
174a, ὃ, future of, 271a, ὃ
Classical Review, future of, 239b, 2714, ὃ
Classical Society (T.C.D.), Mr. Justice Malden’s
address to, 59)
Classical study, the aims of (with special refer-
ence to Public Schools), 33 ff.
their enumeration, 34a
studies and anthropology, 123 f.
and Warren’s Death of Virgil, 97 ff.
in S. Africa, 177 ff.
Clemen’s Religionsgeschichtliche Evrkladvung des
Neuen Testaments, noticed, 166 ff.
Cluny MS. (No. 498) of Cicero, 138a@
Codices Blandinii of Horace, the, 204a@
‘ conglutinate ’ formantia, 19a
Conjectures (D. A. Slater), 248 f.
Conolly’s Nugae Latinae (ed. T. L. Papillon),
noticed, 90b
Consus and Conditor, 2625
conversational Latin, 136a, ὃ
Conway (R. S.), notice of Brugmann’s Grundriss
dey Vergleichenden Grammatik, vol. 11.
(ed. 2, parti.), 18 f.
notice of Brugmann’s Grundriss dey Ver-
gleichenden Grammatik, vol, ii. (ed. 2,
part ii., section 1), 258 ff.
Conway—Walters’ Limen: a First Latin Book,
noticed, 134 ff.
reply to review, 207 f.
Copa, translation of the, 205 f.
CoRRESPONDENCE, 62 f., 1426, ὃ, 207 f., 239 f.
Corstopitum, excavations on the site of, 26 ff.
hoard of coins at, 27)
crasis in Sappho, 100a, 156)
Croiset’s Ménandre : l’ Arbitrage, noticed, 1716, f.
Cruquius and the Codices Blandinit of Horace,
2044
Curcio’s Poeti Latini Minori, noticed, 163a, ὃ
Curle (J.), notice of Walters’ Catalogue of Roman
Pottery in the British Museum, 2209 ff.
‘cursus ’ of Latin prose, 122
Cyrsilus (alias Lycides), the death of : a problem
in authorities, 36 ff.
was the latter name a patronymic ἢ 40a, ὃ

Ώ.

Dahnhardt’s Natursagen : eine Sammlung natur-
deutender Sagen, Marchen, Fabeln und Le-
gender. I. Sagen zum altenTestament,noticed,

i
Daniel (A. M.), notice of Miss Barker’s Buried
Herculaneum, 268b
notice of Waldstein-Shoobridge’s Hercula-
neum: Past, Present, and Future, 267 f.

φῦσα φίωρα,

INDEX 275

De Witt and the Hollanders, 37)
de Zulueta (F.), notice of Buckland’s The Roman
Law of Slavery, 116 ff.
decree by a consilium through the lex Iulia of
90 B.c., 158, f.
defence of Orestes, the, 217 f.
dei certi and incerti, 262a, ὃ
‘ delays ’ in recognition-scenes in Greek epic and
tragedy, 193d
Delbriick’s Hellenistische Bauten in Latium (1.
Baubeschreibungen), noticed, 23, f.
Demosthenes and Cicero on the incident of
Cyrsilus, 38 f.
and Herodotus on the incident of Cyrsilus,
39) (and n.)
Mezid, ὃ 158, note on, 258a, ὃ
Desbriére’s Projets et Tentatives de Débarquement
aux Iles britanniques, referred to, 77a, 79a,
80a (and n.)
Diels’ Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griech-
tsch und Deutsch, noticed, 48 ff.
improvements in the 2nd edition, 482, 1.
“ Dionysiaca ’ of Nonnus, note on the, 223), f.
Dionysius, de Demosthene c. 34 init., note on,
187), ff.
two parts of and the De Compositione, 188a, b
“ direct method ’ in learning a language, 2a, 5 f.,
179)
Dittmeyer’s Aristotelis de Animalibus Historia,
noticed, 1214, ὃ
Dobbs’ Philosophy and Popular Morals in An-
cient Greece, noticed, 87a, ὃ
Dobson (J. F.), a new reading of the Hippolytus,
751.
Domaszewski’s (von) Abhandlungen zur Rémi-
schen Religion, noticed, 260 ff.
Drachmann’s The Composition of Sophocles’
Antigone, translated, 212 ff.
dual in Lesbian, the 103a, ὃ
Du Pérac, work of, 1276

E.

Edmonds (J. M.), Greek prose rendering from
R. L. Stevenson’s Walt Whitman, 1396
on a new fragment of Alcaeus, 72 ff.
on the Berlin-Aberdeen fragment of ΑἹ-
caeus, 241 ff.
on three fragments of Sappho, 99 ff.
other fragments of Sappho, 156 ff.

Ehrle’s Roma prima di Sisto V.: la pianta di
Roma Du Pérac-Lafrévy del 1577, noticed,
1 Ὁ

Ἑλληνισμός, the question of, 165), f.

Ellis (A. I.), Varia, 246 f.

Ellis (R.), notice of Unus Multorum’s Lately-dis-
covered Fragments of Menander, 125 f.

Ellis’ (R.) Appendix Vergiliana, noticed, 162 f.

English representatives of non-equivalent Latin

words, 135a, b, 207b
translations of classical authors, noticed,
54 1.
Epicurus and Lucretius, 62 f. (see vol. xxii. 261 f.)
Ernout’s Les Eléments dialectaux du Vocabulaire
latin, noticed, 201 f.
Recherches sur l’Emplot du Passif latin a
UV Epoque républicaine, noticed, 202b

jEpws (Plato, Phaedrus) and Dialectic, 197a

Espérandieu’s Recueil général des Bas-Reliefs de
la Gaule romaine, vols. i. and ii., noticed, 265 ff.

Euripides, attitude of towards death, 183 f.:

see also 239)
authenticity of the Alcestis and Iphigenia
in Aulis, 1846

Euripides’ Hel. 962-974, note on, 145 f.
Hippolytus, a new reading of, 75 f.
Evelyn-White (ΒΕ. G.), note on Herodas ii. 44 54.,

43), f.
translation of Theognis A. 69-86, 174b
“ exocentric ’)(‘ esocentric ’ compounds, Iga, b

Ε,

Fairbanks’ Athenian White Lekythoi, noticed, 172b
Ferrero’s The Greatness and Decline of Rome,
vol. v. (transl. by H. J. Chaytor), noticed,
227 ff.: see also 25b
Fisher (C. D.), notes on Tacitus, Histories, 2336, ὃ
fleet-speeds : a reply to Dr. Grundy, 184 ff.
Forsdyke (E. J.), Monthly Record, 60 ff., 139 ff.
notice of Birt’s Die Buchrolle in der Kunst,
56a, b
Forster (E. S.), a geographical note on Thuc. iv.
ΠΗ 220 te
Honttt (R. H.), on the Corstopitum excavations,
26 ff.
Fowler (W. W.), notice of Domaszewski’s Ab-
handlungen zur Rimischen Religion, 260 ff.
Fox (A.), on a redistribution of the parts in
Aeschylus, Ag. 489-502, 181 ff.
France, excavations in, 1408, f.
Fraser (J.), note on μέτασσαι, 82a, ὃ
notice of Ernout’s Les Eléments dialectaux
du Vocabulaire latin, 201 f.
notice of Ernout’s Recherches sur l’Emplot
du Passif latin al Epoque républicaine, 202b
Friedlander’s Roman Life and Manners under the
Early Empire (Magnus’ transl. of), noticed,
2004, ὃ
Fyfe (T.), notices of Lethaby’s Greck buildings
vepresented by Fragments in the British
Museum, 129 ff., 268 f.

G.

G., on a representation of Sophocles’ Electra,
173a, ὃ

Garnsey (E. R.), paper on ‘ The Fall of Maecenas,
in its bearing on the interpretation of Horace’
[read before the O.P.S.], 28

Garnsey’s The Odes of Horace: a Translation and

an Exposition, noticed, 87 f.
influence of L. Licinius Murena in over-
elaborated, 88a, b
Garrod (H. W.), notice of Breiter’s M. Manilit
Astronomica, 137), 1.
notice of Curcio’s Poeti Latint Minort, 163a,b
notice of Ellis’ Appendix Vergiliana, 162 f.

Gelzer—Burckhardt’s Des Stephanos von Taron
Armenische Geschichte, noticed, 45 f.

gender in Greek and Latin, 259a

Gercke’s L. Annaet Senecae Opera quae supersunt,
vol. ii. (‘ Naturales Quaestiones ’), noticed,
233 ff.

Goodspeed (E. J.)-Owen (W. B.), on the review
of their Homeric Vocabularies (vol. xxii. 128 f.),
63b

Gow (J.), on the Codices Blandinti, 204a

Granger (F.), notice of Gundel’s De stellarum

appellatione et religione Romana, 53a, ὃ
notice of Helm’s Lucian und Menipp, 856, f. *
notice of Reitzenstein’s Hellenistische Wun-
deverzahlungen, 84 1.
Greece, excavations in, 60 f.
Greek plays, representation of, 75a, 1410, f.,
173a, b
the deus ex machina, 76b
the prologue and the plot, ibrd.

276

Grundy (G. B.), on the rate of sailing of warships
in the fifth century B.c., 107 f. : see also

184 ff.
on the expressions ὅδε ὁ πόλεμος and ὁ πόλεμος
ὅδε in Thucydides, 146 ff. : see also 244 f.
Gudeman (A.), notice of Sandys’ History of
Classical Scholarship, 112 ff.: see also

239 f.
alleged defect in the work, 114 ff.
Gundel’s De stellarum appellatione et religione
Romana, noticed, 53a, ὃ

ΕἸ:

Hagen-Thilo’s Servizi Grammatici qui feruntur in
Vergilit carmina Commentarii, vol. 111. fasc. 2
(Appendix Serviana), noticed, 88 f.

Harrison (Jane E.), notice of ‘ Oxford Anthropo-
logical Essays,’ 123 f.

Harrower’s Flosculi Graeci Boreales : Series Nova
(Aberdeen University Studies, No. 28), noticed,
89 1.

Harry (J. E.), on κλισίαις ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων (Soph. Az. 191),

40 ff

on Plato, Phaedo 66B, 218 ff.
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. xvii.,
noticed, go f.
Heinze’s Virgil’s Epische Technik, noticed, 1720, f.
Hellmann’s Sedulius Scottus, noticed, 170a, ὃ
Helm’s Lucian und Menipp, noticed, 85), f.
Herodas ii. 44 sg., note on, 43, f.
and Menander, 1258, f.
Herodotus’ work, growth of, 16a, b
Hildebrant’s Scholia in Ciceronis
Bobiensia, noticed, 22), f.
Hill (G. F.), notice of Jatta’s Le Rappresentanze
Figurate delle Provincie Romane, 171a, ὃ
history, the use of, 2275
Hitchcock (F. R. M.), note on Sophocles, Ant.
1216 sqq., 257 1.
Holmes (T. R.), last words on Portus Itius, 77 ff.
Prof. C. Jullian’s note on, 80b
note on Appian, B.C. il. 74, 254 f.
Holmes’ translation of Caesar’s Gallic War,
noticed, 555
Homeric forms in Alcaeus and Sappho, 736
similes, 204b
vocabularies, 635
hops in beer, the reason of, θοῦ
Horace, Carm. III. i.-vi., political allusions in,
2610, f.
IV. ii. 49, criticism on, 252 f.
Sat. II. viii. 15, note on, 190a, ὃ
Housman (A. E.), notice of Némethy’s Ciris
epyllion pseudovergilianum, 224 ff.
Hudson (J.), Greek elegiac rendering from
Newman’s The Dream of Gerontius, 946
Hutton (C. A.), notice of Miss Abrahams’ Greek
Dress, 235 f.

Orationes

τ.

Jackson (85. E.), notice of Brugmann’s Die Dis-
tributiven und die Kollectiven Numeralia
der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 164 f.
notice of Regnaud’s Dictionnaire Etymolo-
gique du Latin et du Grec dans ses Rap-
ports avec le Latin d’aprés la Méthode
Evolutionniste, 1714
notice of Roscher’s Enneadische Studien,
1994, ὃ
Jackson’s (F. H.) The Shores of the Adriatic:
the Austrian side, the Kiistenlande, Istria,
and Dalmatia, noticed, 57b

INDEX

Jannaris (A. N.), on the adverbs οὐχί and ναίχι in
Greek, 250 f.
Jatta’s Le Rappresentanze Figurate delle Pro-
vincie Romane, 171a, ὃ
ideal numbers and mathematical numbers,
198a, b
Jebb’s The Rhetoric of Aristotle (translated), ed.
Sandys, noticed, 263 ff.
‘ infixes,’ 3b
inscription at Obruk, 7), f.
at Perta (Lycaonia), 7 f.
Callinicus in, 7a, 8b, 826
place of importance in Roman times, 7)
relating to the Social War, important, 158 f.
‘involve,’ to, 2474, ὃ
Joachim’s and Beare’s transll. of Aristotle’s
De Insecabilibus and Parva Naturalia, noticed,
1106, ὃ
Johns Hopkins University Classical Club per-
formance of Lucian’s Tenth Dialogue of the
Dead, 28a
Johnson (H.), notes on Arnobius, 81 f.
Jones (H. L.), two notes on Aeschylus, Io f.
Jones (W. H. S.), note on the teaching of the
passive voice, 180 f.
notice of Burnet’s Early Greek Philosophy,
172a, Ὁ
notice of Dobbs’ Philosophy and Popular
Morals in Ancient Greece, 86 f.
notice of Mulder’s De Conscientiae Notione,
quae et qualis fuerit Romanis, 86a, ὃ
‘ Iphigeneia at Aulis ’ at Cardiff, the, 1415, f.
Irish intellectual activity in the ninth century,
1704, ὃ
Italian Classical Association, journal of the,
239a, ὃ
Italy, excavations in, 61 f.
Judaism and primitive Christianity, 1674
Juvenal i. 157 and Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44, note on,
110 f.

K.
κλισίαις ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων (Soph. Az. igt), criticism on,
40 ἢ.
(M.), on the reading in Aristophanes,
Ach. 912, 44a, b

Kyriakides’ Modern Greek-English Dictionary
with a Cypriote Vocabulary, noticed, 204 f.

L.

Lafréry, enterprise of, 1275
his Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae, τ 278,3.
Lang’s (Miss) Die Bestimmung des Onos oder
Epinetron, noticed, 1376
Laurand’s De M. Tulli Ciceronis Studiis Rhe-
toricts, noticed, 58a, 121 f.
tudes sur le Style des Discours de Cicéron,
avec une Esquisse de l’Histotre du ‘ Cursus,’
noticed, 122 f.
learner’s point of view, the, 1 ff.
Lear’s ‘ Patience on a monument,’ Greek iambic
rendering of, 59a, b
Leeuwen’s (van) Menandri Quatuor Fabularum
Fragmenia, noticed, 57a
Legio XXI. Rapax, date of disappearance of,
Issa, ὃ
*s προ να in Domitian’s Danubian cam-
paigms, 155a; or
disbanded in disgrace after Trajan’s first
Dacian campaign, 1555 ;
Lethaby (Ὁ. R.), notice of Anderson-Spiers’
Architecture of Greece and Rome, 46 ff.

INDEX

Lethaby’s Greek Buildings represented by Frag-
ments in the British Museum, noticed,
129 ff., 268 f.—
(a) Diana’s temple at Ephesus, 129 f.
(Ὁ) the Mausoleum, 130 f.
(c) the Een and its Sculptures,
268 f.
(4) the Theseum, Erechtheum, etc.,
2694, ὃ
Lindsay’s Contractions in early Latin Minuscule
MSS., noticed, 24a, b
linguistic and literary criticism, 14a, b
Livy and Valerius Antias, 91b
Love-god’s bow and arrows, earliest mention of,
257b
power seated in the eyes, 256 f.
Lucian a great artist, 855
Ludwich’s Homeri Carmina (Ilias, vol. ii.), no-
ticed, 17a, ὃ
Homerischer Hymnenbau nebst seinen
Nachahmungen bei Kallimachos, Theokrit,
Vergil, Nonnos und Anderen, noticed, I 32 ff.

M.

Macan’s Herodotus vii., viii., ix., noticed, 15 ff.

Mackail (J. W.), notice of Butler’s Post-Augustan
Poetry, 193 ff.

Mackworth (A. C. P.), note on Aeschylus, Ag. 194
(=204 Verrall), 115

Magoffin’s A Study of the Topography and Muni-
ctpal History of Praeneste, noticed, 232 f.

Mahaffy (J. P.), notice of Thiersch’s Pharos
Antike, Islam, und Occident, 128 f.

Mair’s translation of Hesiod, noticed, 55a, b

Marchant (E. C.), on οὗτος and de in Thucydides,
244 f. : see also 146 ff.

Margoliouth (D. S.), notice of Gelzer—Burck-
hardt’s Des Stephanos von Taron Armenische
Geschichte, 45 f.

Marshall’s Catalogue of the Finger-Rings (Greek,
Etruscan, and Roman) in the Departments of
Antiquities, British Museum, noticed, 19 ff.

Martinon’s Les Drames d’Euripide (Traductions
en vers), noticed, 54a, b

Marucchi’s discovery at Praeneste, 232a

Maurice’s Numismatique Constantinienne,

Tome i., noticed, 159 ff.
mint-marks, 160)
portraits of emperors, 1614, ὃ
substitution of portraits, 161)
Menander, dialogue-trick of, 126a
fragments, Lord Harberton’s contribution
LO; 025) te

μέτασσαι, note on, 82a, ὃ

Michaelis’ A Century of Archaeological Discoveries
(Miss Kahnweiler’s transl. of), noticed, 136a, ὃ

Miller’s Two Dramatizations from Virgil (1. Dido.
2. The Fall of Troy), noticed, 58a, ὃ

Milton quoted, 246)

minarets, the rise of, 1280, f.

Mommert’s Πορφυρίου ᾿Αφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά,
noticed, 1374

Mommsen’s Le Droit Pénal Romain (Duquesne’s
transl. of), noticed, 916, f.

‘mons Blandinius,’ 204@

MontTHLY REcorD, 60 ff., 139 ff.

Moulton’s Prolegomena (ed. 3), noticed, 25a, ὁ

MSS., nomenclature of, 17a, ὃ

of Apollodorus Damascenus, Πολιορκητικά, 226
of Cicero, Verrines, 168a, ὃ

of Homer, Odyssey, 50 f.

of Seneca, Nat. Quaest., 234a, ὃ

of the Appendix Vergiliana, 1625, ¥

277

Mulder’s De Conscientiae Notione, quae et qualis
fuerit Romants, noticed, 86a, ὃ

Murray (G.), notice of Martinon’s Les Drames
d@’Euripide, 54a, ὃ

Mutschmann’s Divisiones quae vulgo dicuntur
Aristoteleae, noticed, 120 f.

N.

Naylor (H. D.), on the Aegeus episode (Med.
663-763), 189}, f.
Perth Lectures on the Platonic Socrates,1735
Varia, 11a, ὃ
Nemesis, et sim. in vocative, 187a, ὃ
statement of Charisius, 187a
tendency to corruption in -e or -is, 187)
Némethy’s Ciris epyllion pseudovergilianum,
noticed, 224 ff.
Nettleship on Probus’ place among Virgilian
commentators, 89a, ὃ
new editions, noticed, 25a, b
Newman’s The Dream of Gerontius, Greek elegiac
rendering from, 94a, b
NEWS AND CoMMENTS, 28 f., 59a, b, 92 f., 141 f.,
5 ιν, -230 1, SHINO
Nicklin (T.), notice of Charles’ Greek Versions
of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
83 f.
notice of Peterson’s text of the Verrine
Orations, 138a, b
on the aims of Classical study (with special
reference to Public Schools), 33 ff.
nine, the number, I99a, ὃ
Nohl’s Cicero’s Fourth Verrine Oration, noticed,
168 f.
comparison of 1908 with 1907 ed. 169 a, ὃ
Norwood (G.), on Suetonius, Jul. 79, 2, 240a, ὃ:
see also 189a, ὃ
NortEs, 10 ff., 42 ff., 81 f., 186 ff., 221 ff., 257 f.

O.

Oak Park, Π]., special classical room at, 28a

OBITUARY, 26a, ὃ

O’Connor’s Chapters in the History of Actors and
Acting in Ancient Greece, etc., 193 ὃ

Ofenloch’s Caecilit Calactini Fragmenta, noticed,
202 f.

oratio obliqua,rhetorical questions in, 1 35,2074, ὃ

ORIGINAL CoNTRIBUTIONS, I ff., 33 ff., 65 8,
97 ff., 145 ff., 177 ff., 209 ff., 241 ff.

Otto’s Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen
Agypten : ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des
Hellenismus, vol. ii., noticed, 270 a, b

οὗτος and ὅδε in Thucydides, 244 f.: see also 146 ff.

usages of and Xen. Hell. compared, 244), f.

οὐχί and ναίχι in Greek, 250 f.

proper accentuation of, 251a, b

Owen (A. S.), notice of Garnsey’s The Odes of
Horace, 87 f.

Owen (W. B.)-Goodspeed (E. J.), on the review
of their Homeric Vocabularies (vol. xxii., 128 f.),
63b

Gian (8. G.), note on Juvenal i. 157 and Tacitus,
Ann. xv. 44, 110 f.

Oxford Anthropological (ed. R. R.
Marett), noticed, 123 f.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri vi. 116 (Commentary on
Thucydides ii.), emendation in, 826

Essays

Ρ

Pais’ Ancient Italy, noticed, 131 1.

Palestrina, the ‘ courtyard ᾿ at, 24a

Parker (E. H.), communication from Professor
H. A. Strong on Seres, 258)

278 INDEX

passive voice, note on teaching the, 180 f.

Pauline Epistles, the Christological dogma in,
167)

to the Hebrews, fundamental conception of,
167a

Peake (Α΄ 5.), notice of Beeson’s Hegemonius :
Acta Archelai, 91a, ὃ

notice of Clemen’s Religionsgeschichtliche
Evklivung des Neuen Testaments, 166 ff.
Pearson (A. C.), notice of Diels’ Die Fragmente
dey Vorsokratiker, 48 ff.
notice of Schmidt’s De Hermino Peripatetico,
7b f.
Wig ae tes and Demodice : a note on Pindar,
Pyth. iv. 162 sq., 255 ff.
Pernice (E.), notice of Marshall’s Catalogue of
Finger-Rings, 19 ff.
Perta of Lycaonia, 7 ff.
Peterson (W.), notice of Nohl’s Cicero's Fourth
Vervine Ovation, 168 f.

Peterson’s M. Tulli Ciceronis Ovationes : Divi-
natio in Q. Caecilium; in C. Verrem,
noticed, 138a, ὃ

question of orthography in, 138)

®, on the ‘ Frogs ’ at Oxford, 93a, ὃ

Phillimore (J. S.), note on Terence, Andria V.
iv. 37 54. (=940 sq.), 108 f. : see also 222b

appendix, 109)
Plato, Phaedo, 66 B. criticism on, 218 ff.
Rep. 440 B. note on, 250a, ὃ
the cave in, 90)

Platt (A.), note on Horace, Sat. IDE τ 5

90a, ὃ
on te, etc., with vocatives, 105 f.

Pliny the younger and Tacitus, coincidence in,

223a

porta triumphalis, army-passage through the,

2626
Portus Ilius, last words on, 77 ff.
reasons against Boulogne, 77 ff.
reasons for Wissant, 79 ff.
Postgate (J. P.), notice of Walters—Conway’s
Limen: a First Latin Book, 134 ff.
reply of authors, 207 f.
paper on ‘ Flaws in Modern Classical Re-
search ’ [read before the British Academy],
28b
two classical parallels, 42a
two notes on Tibullus, 186 f.

Pottier’s Douris and the Painters of Greek Vases
(Miss Kahnweiler’s transl. of), noticed, 136
Powell (J. U.), note on Propertius I. xx. 32, 445:

see vol. xxii. 123)

pronouns, antiquity of, 259)

pronunciation of Latin, the, 142a, b

Propertius I. xx. 32, note on, 440

III. v. (To Cynthia concerning his Buriall),
translation of, 29a, b

pseudodipteral arrangement of temples, 48a, ὃ

Punch and the reformed pronunciation of Latin,

238a

punctuation in German edd. of Latin texts, 1694

puns in the best Latin literature, 189}

R.

Rackham (H.), notice of Bury’s Ancient Greek
Historians, 226 f.

translation of the Copa, 205 f.

Ramsay (W. M.), on Perta of Lycaonia, 7) ff.
supplementary note, 82b

Rand’s Johannes Scottus, noticed, 170b

Rees’ The Rule of Three Actors in the Classical

Greek Drama, noticed, 191 ff.

Regnaud’s Dictionnaire Etymologique du Latin
et du Gvrec dans ses Rapports avec le Latin
d’ apres la Méthode Evolutionniste, noticed, 1714

Reid (J. 5.), notice of Clark’s Q. Asconit Pediant

Commentarit, 21 f.

notice of Hildebrant’s Scholia in Ciceronis
Ovationes Bobiensia, 22b, f.

notice of Pais’s Ancient Italy, 131 f.

Reitzenstein’s Hellenistische Wundererzéhlungen,
noticed, 84 f.

REVIEWS, τῷ Τ᾿, 4/5 aie ΘΠ ity moth at Comite.
LOM 2Aath 258. ΤΕ

Richards (H.), notice of Croiset’s Ménandre :

lV Arbitrage, 171b, f.
notice of Harvard Studies in Classical Philo-
logy (vol. xvii.), 90 f.
notice of Robert’s Der Neue Menander,
560, f.
notice of Robert’s Szenen aus Menanders
Komodien, 56b
notice of van Leeuwen’s Menandri Quatuor
Fabularum Fragmenta (ed. 2), 57a
on the defence of Orestes, 217 f.
Robert’s Dev Neue Menander, noticed, 56), 1.
Szenen aus Menanders Komédien, noticed, 566
Roberts (W. R.), emendation in Oxyrhynchus
Papyvi vi. 116, 826
notice of Jebb’s transl. of Aristotle’s
Rhetoric (ed. Sandys), 263 ff.
notice of Laurand’s De M. Tulli Ciceronts
Studiis Rhetovicis, 121 f. : see also 58a
notice of Laurand’s Etudes sur le Style des
Discours de Cicéyon, etc., 122 f.
notice of Ofenlock’s Caecilii Calactint Frag-
menta, 202 f.
notice of Smiley’s Latinitas and “Ἑλληνισμός,
165 f.
Robin’s La Théorie Platonicienne de l Amour,
noticed, 196 f.
La Théorie Platonicienne des Idées et des
Nombres d’aprés Arvistote, noticed, 197 ff.

Robson (E. J.), note on Demosthenes, Med.
§ 158, 258a, b

Roman deities, marriage of (?), 262a

scenes, acting of at Chicago, 92, f.

Roscher’s Enneadische Studien, Versuch einer
Geschichte der Neunzahl bei den Griechen, nitt
besonderen Beviichsichtigung des alt Epos der
Philosophen und Arate, noticed, 199a, ὃ

Ross’s transl. of Aristotle’s Metaphysica, woticed,
PLOp sas

Rouse (W. H. D.), notice of Dahnhardt’s Natur-

sagen: eine Sammlung naturdeutender
Sagen, Mdrchen, Fabeln und Legender,

551.
notice οἵ Kyriakides’ Modern Greek-English
Dictionary, with a Cypriote Vocabulary,
204), f.
notice of Lindsay’s Contractions in Early
Latin Minuscule MSS., 24a, b
notice of Ziehen’s Leges Graeciae et Insu-
larum; 23a, ὃ
Rudberg’s Textstudien zur Tiergeschichte des
Aristoteles, noticed, 121b
Russell (W. A.), on the teaching of Latin and
the fundamental conceptions of Syntax, 65 ff.

5

S., on the ‘ Iphigeneia ἡ at Cardiff, 1410, f.
Σ., on the pronunciation of Latin, 142a, ὃ
Sandys (J. E.), notice of Hellmann’s Sedulius
Scottus, 170a, ὃ
notice of Rand’s Johannes Scottus, 170b

a eee

—

INDEX

Sandys’ A History of Classical Scholarship,
noticed, 112 ff.
reply to review, 239 f.
Sappho, three fragments of, 99 ff.—
(a) commentaries, 1014, ὃ, 102b, f., 1046
(b) critical notes, 100), 102a, ὃ, 104a, ὃ
(c) texts, 100a, ὃ, 102a, 104a
(4) translations, 101a, τοῦ, 104b
further fragments of, 156 ff.—
(a) commentaries, 156), f., 157)
(b) critical notes, 156b, 157a
(c) texts, 156a, ὃ, 157a, 158b
(4) translations, 156b, 1576
Sardinia, excavations in, 141a, ὃ
Sargeaunt (J.), on Virgil, Ecl. ix. 17, 9 1.
Savile’s Prince’s Grave, Greek elegiac rendering
of, 94a, b
Schmid.’s De Hermino Peripatetico [diss. inaug.],
noticed, 57), f.
Schneider’s Griechische
22a, ὃ
school-books noticed, 24, f.
Seaton (R. C.), Greek elegiac rendering of Savile’s
Prince’s Grave, 94b
Seneca, an emendation in, 110, f. (see vol. xxii.
216), f.)
Nat. Quaest., MSS. of and order of books,
234a, ὃ
Serves, note on, 258)
Seven Wise Men, the, 49a
Seymour (T. D.), obituary notice of, 26a, b
Shelley quoted, 246)
Shoobridge -- Waldstein’s Herculaneum :
Present, and Future, noticed, 267 f.
SHorT NOTICES, 21 ff., 55 ff., 91 f., 136 ff., 171 ff.,
203 1Ὲ, 2304.
Sicily, excavations in, 62a, ὃ
Siepmann (H. A.), translation of Drachmann’s
The Composition of Sophocles’ Antigone,
212 ff.
Silver Age poetry, contrasted with the Greek
poetry of the Alexandrians, 194a
reasons for the rehabilitation of, 193), f.
Slater (D. A.), Conjectures, 248 f.
note on Statius, Szlv. I. Praef. ll. 35 sqq.
(Klotz), 1906
on Horace, Carm. IV. ii. 49, 252 f.
Slater’s translation of Statius’ Szlvae, noticed,

Poliorketiker, noticed,

Past,

Sloman (A.), note on Terence, Andria V. iv. 37 sq.
(=940 sq.), 222b : see also 108 f.
Smiley’s Latinitas and‘E\\nucuds, noticed, 165 f.
Smith (I. G.), Warren’s Death of Virgil and
Classical studies, 97 ff.
Socrates and Euripides on death, 183a, 1846
Sonnenschein (E. A.), an emendation in Seneca,
TXB) 1.
Sophocles, Ant. 1216 sqq., note on, 257 f.
composition of, 212 ff.
the Apollodorus tradition the original
source, 213), ff.
Souter’s Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et
Novi Testamenti, noticed, 236 f.
question of authorship, 2360, f.
South Africa, position of classics in, 177 ff.
Russia, excavations in, 139 f.
Spiers—Anderson’s The Architecture of Greece and
Rome, noticed, 46 ff.
Spranger (J. A.), on Euripides’ attitude towards
death, 183 f. : see also 239b
star-symbolism, 246a, b
Statius, Silv. I. Praef. ll. 35 sgq. (Klotz),
on, 190)
Stephanos of Taron and his History, 45 f.

note

279

Stevenson’s Walt Whitman, Greek prose render-
ing from, 1396, ὃ

Stone (E. D.), Greek elegiac rendering of Wotton’s
‘ He first deceased,’ 1385

Strangeways (L. R.), Latin prose translation, 238)

Strong (Eugénie), notice of Espérandieu’s Recueil
généval des Bas-Reliefs de la Gaule romaine,
263 ff.

Strong (H. A.), communication through E. H.
Parker on Serves, 2586

Suetonius, Jul. 79. 2, note on, 189a, ὃ : see also
240a, ὃ

Summers (W. C.), notice of Gercke’s Senecae
Naturales Quaestiones, 233 ff.

“ suppletion,’ 19a

sz, st, and sat, ‘ silk,’ 258b

Τ.

T. (Ε. A.), notice of Magnus’ transl. of Fried-
lander’s Roman Life and Manners under the
Early Empire, 200a, b

Tabula Isiaca and Tabula Iliaca, 113b, 239a, ὃ

Tacitus, Ann. iv. 33, note on, 42 f.

Ann. xv. 44 and Juvenali. 157, note on, 110 ἔ.
Hist. i. 15 and Plin. Paneg. 85, note on,
223a
ili. 52, note on, zbid.
iv. 24, note on, 223b

Tarn (W. W.), on fleet-speeds [a reply to Dr.
Grundy], 184 ff. : see also 107 f.

τε, etc., with vocatives, 105 f.

teaching of Latin and the fundamental concep-

tions of Syntax, the, 65 ff.—
I. the simple sentence, 66 ff.
II. the complex sentence, 69 ff.
Tennyson and Lucan—a parallel, 42a
Terence, Andria V. iv. 37 sq. (=940 sq.), note
on, 108 f. : see also 222b
appendix, 109)

‘ terra sigillata ’ and its subdivisions, 230 f.

Theocritus, Jdyll. i. 136, note on, 43a, ὃ

Theognis, A. 69-86, translation of, 174a, ὃ

Thiersch’s Pharos Antike, Islam, und Occtdeiit,
noticed, 128 f.

Thilo—Hagen’s Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in
Vergilit carmina Commentarii, vol. iii., fasc. 2
(Appendix Serviana), noticed, 88 f.

Thompson (E. S.), notice of Macan’s Herodotus
Wiles Vill, 1x, 1 fi.

Thompson (M. S.)-Wace (A. J. B.), on the con-
nection of the Aegean Culture with Servia,
209 ff.

three, universality of the number, 2525, f.

‘ Three blind mice,’ Greek iambic rendering of,
59a, b

three fragments of Sappho, 99 ff. : see also 156 ff.

Thucydides iv. 54, geographical note on, 221 f.

οὗτος and ὅδε in, 244 f.
the expressions ὅδε ὁ πόλεμος and ὁ πόλεμος ὅδε
in, 146 ff.

Tibullus, two notes on, 186 f.

TRANSLATIONS, 29a, ὃ, 174a, ὃ, 205 f.

Traube and the age-tests of MSS., 24a

tripartite dialogue in Greek tragedy, limitation
to, 192 f.

triple acclamations of emperors, 253)

Tukey (H. R.), a note on Dionysius, 187), ff.

turma Salluttana, decrees conferring (a) citizen-
ship, (b) other rewards on the, 158 f.

two books of versions, 89 f.

classical parallels, 42a
dramatizations from Virgil, 58a, ὃ
notes on Aeschylus, to f,

280 INDEX

two notes on Tibullus, 186 f.
studies in Greek authorship, 84 ff.
Tyrrell (R. Y.), Greek iambic rendering of Lear’s
‘ Patience on a monument,’ 59)
Greek iambic rendering of ‘Three blind mice,’
ibid.

σὺν.

V. (C. A.), translation of Propertius III. v., 29a, ὃ
van Leeuwen : see Leeuwen (van)
Varia (Butler, L.), 253 f.
(Ellis, A. Τὴ, 246 f.
(Naylor, H. D.), 111a, ὃ
Vassits on the relationship of Servia to the
Aegean examined, 209 ff.
summary of reasons against, 2110, f.
Vedic suffix -sas =Greek -xas (in ἑ-κάς, etc.), 1644
Verrall (A. W.), note on Euripides, Hel. 962-974,
145 f.
notice of Blass’ Die Eumeniden des Aischylos,
12 ff.
notice of Rees’ Rule of Three Actors in the
Classical Greek Dvama, 191 ff.
on the death of Cyrsilus (alias Lycides) : a
problem in authorities, 36 ff.
VERSIONS, 594, ὦ, 94a, ὃ
VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS, 138 f., 238a, ὃ
Virgil, Ecl. ix. 17, note on, 9 f.
colloquialisms of, in diction, zbzd.
in metre, 10a
von Domaszewski : see Domaszewski (von)
Vox Urbis, monthly Latin publication in Rome,
28a
‘Unus Multorum’s’ The lately-discovered Frag-
ments of Menander, noticed, 125 f.

W.

Wabash College performance of the Oedipus
Tyrannus in English, 28a
Wace (A. J. B.)—Thompson (M. S.), on the connec-
tion of the Aegean Culture with Servia, 209 ff.
Waldstein —Shoobridge’s Herculaneum: Past,
Present, and Future, noticed, 267 f.
Walters (H. B.), notice of Cagnat’s Les deux
Camps de la Légion III* Auguste ἃ Lam-
bése d’aprés les fouilles vécentes, 576
notice of Carotti’s History of Art, 237b
notice of Chase’s The Loeb Collection of
Arretine Pottery, 57a
notice of Fairbanks’ Athenian White Leky-
thot, 172b
notice of Lang’s (Miss) Die Bestimmung des
Onos oder Epinetron, 1374
notice of Michaelis’ A Century of Archaeo-
logical Discoveries, 136a, ὃ
notice of Pottier’s Douris and the Painters of
Greek Vases, 136b

Walters’ (H. B.) Catalogue of the Roman Pottery
in the Departments of Antiquities, British
Museum, noticed, 229 ff.

Walters (W. C. F.)-Conway’s Limen: a First

Latin Book, noticed, 134 ff.
reply to review, 207 f.

oes Death of Virgil and classical studies,
97 U.

warships’ rate of sailing in the fifth century B.c.,
107 1. : see also 184 ff.

Watson (E. W.), notice of Souter’s Pseudo-
Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testa-
menti, noticed, 236 f.

Wedd (Rachel E.), note on Tacitus, Amn. iv. 33,

421
note on Theocritus, Idyll. i. 136, 43a, ὃ

Wingless Victory, the temple of, 23b

William’s Diogenis Oenoandensis Fragmenta,
noticed, 203 f.

Williams (Marie V.), notice of Robin’s La Théorie

Platonicienne de l’ Amour, 196 f.
notice of Robin’s La Théorie Platonicienne
des Idées et des Nombres d’aprés Aristote,
197 ff.
on the position of classics in South Africa,
7. ἘΝ
plea for the retention of Latin, 1780, f.
South African lectures, 173)

Williams (T. H.), notice of Ludwich’s Homerischer
Hymnenbau, 132 ff.

Winbolt (5. E.), notice of Heinze’s Vzirgil’s

Epische Technik, 172 ὃ, 1.

notice of Thilo-Hagen’s Servizi Grammatict
qui feruntur in Vergilit carmina Com-
mentarii, noticed, 88 1.

notice of Wittich’s Homer in seinen Bildern
und Vergleichungen, 204b

Wittich’s Homer in seinen Bildern und Vergleich-
ungen, noticed, 204b

Wordsworth and Apuleius—a parallel, 42a

Wotton’s ‘He first deceased,’ Greek elegiac
rendering of, 138a, ὃ

Wright (J. H.), obituary notice of Thomas Day
Seymour, 26a, ὃ

Wroth (W.), notice of Maurice’s Numismatique
Constantinienne, 159 ff.

NE

Young (G. M.), notice of Chaytor’s transl. of
Ferrero’s Greatness and Decline of Rome,
VO νι 25. ΠΣ

Ζ.

Ziehen’s Leges Graeciae et Insularum [Prott-
Ziehen’s ‘Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis
collectae ’], noticed, 23a, ὃ

——-

Il.—INDEX LOCORUM.

A.
Aeschylus :—
Ag. (1-7, 18 sqq.), 246α ; (94 sq.), 246) ;
(194 =204 Verrall), 11b ; (489-502), 181 ff. ;
(1146 sqq.), 10 f. ; (1266), 106
Eum.* (20, 21, 30, 64), 12b; (68 sqq.), 120,
14a ; (101, 125, 162 sqq., 174), 120; (178),
13a, 14b; (189), 374 (and n.) ; (195, 211),
13a; (213), 122, 14a, b; (223, 277, 294),
13a; (302), 13a, 14a; (337, 364, 408),
13a; (416), 14b; (424, 420, 435), 134;
(473-492), 14b; (493, 494, 525 544., 570,
595, 635, 641, 666 sq.), 13a; (688, 722,
754, 792, 858, 862, 863), 13b; (886 sqq.),
130, 14a; (902, 921, 933, 988, 1024, 1026,
1045), 130
Pers. (274 sqq.), 11a; (629), 105@
Prom. (88), 1054
Sept. (127), 1060
Suppl. (23), 1054
Apollodorus (iil. 78), 2130, f.
Apollonius Rhodius :—
‘Argonautica i. (1229), 440
Appian :—
B.C. ii. (74 cp. Luc. vii. 326 sq.), 254 f.
Apuleius :—
Flor. ii. (p. 146 de Vliet), 42a
Aristophanes :—
Ach. (912), 44a, ὃ
Aristotle :—
Rhet. i. (15), 2630; iii. (2), 264a, δ: (3)
264), f. : (6), 2648 : (11, §§ 8, 15), 2654
Arnobius v. 7 (180. 4), 82a; vii. 18 (252. 14),
81a, b: 50 (284. 10), 816, f.
Asconius :—
Commentarit (ὃ 3), 21b; (δ 13), 210, f.;
(§§ 32, 84), 22a
Athenaeus :—
Deipnosophistae (690 E), 1016

C.
Caesar :—
[Bell. Afr.] (το. 1), 78a; (34), 185@
de Bell. Gall. v. (8. 1), 78a
Catullus lxiv. (241 sgq.), 249@
Cicero :—
ad Att. i, (16. 10), 189)
de Off. ili. (11. 48), 38 f.
in Verr. ii. (1. 41), 138a: (4. 20, 22, 26),
138b ; iv. (125), 1685, f. : (127), 169a

D.

Demosthenes :—
de Cor. (202), 39a, ὃ ; (204), 366, ff.
in Meid. (158), 258a, b

Diodorus Siculus xx. (5. 6), 185a@

ἘΣ

Epicurus :—

Ep. ad Herodotum (55), 62a; (59 fin.), 63a
Euripides :—

Bacch. (370), 1066

Hel. (962-974), 145 f.

Herc. Fur. (739), 1066

Hippol. (246), 40a ; (1169), 105a

Med. (714 sqq.), 190a ; (663-763), 189), f.

Troad. (270), 254a, ὃ

fr. 781 (55), Nauck, 1055

H.

Hegemonius :—

Acta Archelat (c. 67), 91a

Herodas (ii. 44 sq.), 430, f.

Herodotus vii. (122), 16a : (180), 40 : (183), 1074,
108a, δ᾽ 184a, b, 185), ἘΠῚ viii. (73), 15, f.:
(140), 38a, 390 ; ix. (4), 360, ff. : (35), 16a
omer :—

Iliad iii. (276), 1056 ; xiv. (44), 52a

Odyssey i. (70, 88, 112), 51a; ii. (78 cp.
xviii. 190), 51a: (144), 524: (305), 520;
iii. (127), 51b: (182 cp. viii. 435, xviii.
307 ; 230, 256, 296, 372), 52b; iv. (2, 121,
642), ibid. ; v. (136), ibid.: (237 cp. vii.
47), 1b: (272, 290, 426), 52a; vi. (296),
ibid. ; vii. (110, 259), 52b ; ix. (200), 51D:
(221), 82a: (331), 52b: (360), 52a, ὃ:
(366, 393), 52a; x. (17, 505), 526; x1.
(221, 540), tbid.: (582, 593), 52@; Χιϊ.
(70, 75, 278), 520: (310), 51b: (415), 52a;
xiii. (238 =xv. 484 ; 363), 52b; xiv. (32),
ibid. : (222), 52a: (239), 510; xv. (334,
432 cp. xi. 94), 52b; xvi. (234), tid. :
(257), 52a: (406, 469), 52b; xvii. (479),
ibid. ; xix. (44), 52a: (62, 64, 203), 528:
(343), 524 : (406), 106a, ὃ : (539), 524;
xx. (255), 52b ; xxi. (208 =xxiv. 322 ; 222),
ibid. : (363), 52a; xxii. (181, 182, 275
52b; xxili. (348), ibid.; xxiv. (192
tbid.

* Wecklein’s numeration.

281

282 INDEX

Horace :—
Carm. IV. 11. (49), 252 1.
Epp. I. xvi. (30), 1116
Sat. Ἢ ὙΠ (i), Ι80»; ee van:
Heraclides, Alleg. Homer. 35), 1904, ὃ
Hyginus :—
Poet. astr. (ii. 20), 256a

ΠΕ
Juvenal i. (157 cp. Tac. Ann. xv. 44), 110 f.;
KV. (145), Illa
ib,
Lucan :—
Pharsalia v. (219 sq.), 42a; vil. (326 sq.),

254 1. : (344 sqq.), 246b, f.
Lucretius i. (599-634), 62 f.:
v. (1009 sq.), 253a, ὃ
Lycurgus :—
contra Leocratem (122), 360, f.

M.
Menander rv. :—
Epitrep. (264), 126a; (280), 126b; (325),
126a ; (340, 410), 1266

Periciy. (39, 114, 257, 337), 1266
Samia (18), 126

N.
New Testament :—
St. Mark xv. (44), 257)
O.

Ovid :—
Met. x. (637), 2494

124

Persius vi. (38 sq.), 190b
Pindar :—
Ol. xi. (3), 106b ; xiv. (13), 1056
Pyth, iv. (162 sqq.), 255 ff. ; xi. (1), 1050
fr. adesp. (140 Bergk), 105b
Plato :—
Phaedo (66 B), 218 ff.
Rep. (331 A), Illa;
250a, ὃ
Plautus :—
Cist. (120 sqq.), 186), f.
Mil. Gl. (1021), 1096
Pliny :—
Paneg. (85 cp. Tac. Hist. i. 15), 2234
Polybius v. (110), 1855
Propertius I. xx. (32), 440

(15. ΟΡ.

(749 54.), 634;

(365 E), 2488 ; (440 B),

S:
Seneca :—
Nat. Quaest. i. (14. 3: ὅτι 3), 225; ἯΙ»
(59. II), 2350; iil. τῇ, 2354505. Vs

(18. 3), 2350; vii. (31. a bid.
Silius Italicus :—
Punica x. (403), 21a, b ; xii. (212 sqq.), ibid.
Sophocles :—

Ait. (186), 40a ; (191), Pore

Ant. (245-258), 214), f. ; (1216 sqq.), 257 f.

El. (882), 103a

Phil. (530, 827), 106b ; (1453), 1054

Statius :—

Silv. I. Praef. (ll. 35 sgg. Klotz), 190d: iv.
(13), 2524 ; II. 1. (230), 248a: vi. (60 544.),
ἤρια.ς ΤΠ|τν {55}, 5:2 8- 281: τη)»
2496, ὃ ; IV. v. (10), 2485

Theb. iv. (479), 249Ὁ (and n.)

Suetonius :—
Tul. (72. 2), 189a, ὃ, 240a, ὃ

: (665), 248a, ὃ

ἐν
Tacitus :—
Ann. iv. (33), 42 f.
110 f. ;
Hist. i. (15 cp. Plin. Paneg. 85), 223a; iii.
(52, 74), 2btd. ; iv. (24), 2236
Terence :—
Adelph. (919), 1086
Andr. (940 sq.), 108 f., 222b
Eun. (153, 353), 109b; (651),
(1088), 1085
Hec. (134), 109a
Phorm. (465), 109b, 222b
Theocritus :—
Idyll. i. (136), 43a, ὃ ; ii. (11). 1575
Abney ae (97), 1074 ; iii. (3), 1074, ὃ : (49),
1070 ; iv. (49), zbid. ; vi. (1), διά. : (65), 1854
Tibuflus 1. ix. (25 544.), 186 f. ; II. v. (69), 1874;
III. ii. (25), 1626

3 XV. (44 Cp. fuye 1. 157)»

1094, 222b;

ν.
Virgil :—

Aen. vi. (452 544., 567), 1116

[Cir.] (12 544.}, 225a, b; (155, 185), 1634;
(169), 162a ; (218, 303), 162b ; (321, 323),
1624

[Cul.] (51 cp. Ov. Rem. Am. 178 sqq., 62,
140, 264), 162b ; (269), 1634 ; (274), 162b

Ecl. i. (31), 10a; ii. (40), ibid. ; iii. (71), 9b:
(102), 94; iv. (47), 225) : vi., 1636;
ix. (6), 9b : (17), 10a, ὃ

Georg. i. (318 sqq.), 249b

X.
Xenophon :—
Hell. i. (1. 13), 1855

III.—INDEX VERBORUM.

A.—GREEK.

A. K.
dyévas=dydvas, 1034 καί κε (apodotic), 74a
Αἰόλου ἀνεψτοῦ, 514, ὃ κάλθος, τ57ὺ
ἀκούσιος φόνος, 2174, ὃ κατὰ mpoBovNevua=senatus consulto (3), 8a
ἀμερές, 63a κατάσσειν -εκαταγνύναι, 22d
ἀμετάβατα, 62b, f. κατελίππανεν, IOld
ἄμμαρ, 730 κήθυι, 1034
ἄμμεςΞτενώ, 101a Κόρινθος, 2594
ἀνιέναι, 1450 κράτος)(κεραυνός, 124a (and n.)
ἀντί, ‘as good as,’ 74)
ἀπαρτισμός, 82) x
ἀπριγάδαν --ἄπριγδα, 74a λεβηρίς, 2654
ἀρεύϊος, 5415 λόγιοι, 248D
ἀρίς, ‘ drill’ (?), 22b λύσαμεν, 744
ἁρμός, 2574, ὃ NG, 1574
ἄτερ, ‘apart from,’ 114 ;
αὖος, ada, 730 M.
αὐσαυτᾶς, 230 μάγγανον, 22b
αὐτὸ ζῷον, 198a Μαρκιανός (Suid.), 490
αὐτοφυής, 494, ὃ μελάγκουρος, 50a

μέση στιγμή, the, 72b

B. μέτασσαι-εμεσήλικες, 82a, ὃ

βέλος, βολή (λόγχη, τόξευμα, etC.), of Love, 256 f. N.

Bbpurat, 1034, 1586 νόσος (of Love), 76a (and n.)

νοῦν ἔχων -ενοῦν προσέχων, 41a
A, νύξ (in pl.), 434

ἡ δοιοί (δοιώ), 1655
᾿} δ᾽ οὖν (apodotic), 130, 144 oO.
ἶν οἶσθας, 126a

ὄμμα, ‘eye’ or ‘ face,’ 40 f.

By ints ΒΕ, ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων, 41a
᾿ ἐάσαμι, 243} ὄμναισαι---ἀναμνῆσαι, Lod
ὶ ᾿ ἐββάλη, τ57ὺ ὄνομα, ὀνομάζειν (merc.), 258a, ὃ
᾿ ἔβφερε, 2434 ὄνος (or ἐπίνητρον), 1374
εἰλύς (Hesych.), 157) ὄργον, 74D
᾿ ἐκτροπή et sim,, 219b, 22οὐ ὄρθρος (in pl.), 434
. ἐκφέρειν et sim., 218 f., 22οὐ ὄρπε, 1040
ἢ ἕξις, 4οὐ οὑτοσί εἰ sim., 2590 (n.)
4 ἐπημένοι---ἐφειμένοι, 744
ἔππαν, 156)

II.
ἐππότεαι, 1040

πάν (acc. masc.), 1o1b
ἔστε, 171

4
) παρενρεοίσας, 103)
ὶ Δ πεποημμέναις, etc., 101)

περρέχοισ᾽, τοὺ
᾿ ζάπλευσαν, 242b εὐ φῤρδα ets, 102)
sagotraw "1036 πλεῦν, 730
Ζεῦς (sic), 2436 πολύστροφος, 111d
πρὸς .. . νοῦν ἔχων, 414
8. προτί, 74a

ι2

θεοφύλακτος δεσπότης, 74
σάμᾶνεν, 243}
σελάννα, τοὺ
il σιαγόνιον, 22
invtras, 157) σύνθεσις, 188), fF.

283

284 INDEX

ae φρῦσσον, 157)
ὕμοι-ε ὁμοῦ, 1014 guiw= φύω, 74a
ὕμωςΞεὅμως, 2434 φύσις)(νόμος, τ24α4

ὑπολαλεῖν, 220
ὑπολατρεύειν, 220

δὲ xe

ὄχθωιΞκεὄχθωι, 1570 ween kane ease

®.
φαίνω (intrans.), 157) Ψ.
φαισι, 2420 ψιάθους, 220
prjow=amabo (colloqu.), 157)
φιλοτιμεῖσθαι (Byzant.), 8a, ὃ Ω.
φορά, 2594 ὧδε, 4τὸ

B.—LATIN.

A. M.
abdomen, 202a magis (uaryls), 81a, ὃ
alterni, 165a mens, 2594
arbor, 259a -mino, imperat. forms in, 2025

mittere, ‘ make a present,’ 9b

B. modo (emphatic), 10a
bes, bessis, 1646
bint, 164 1. N

Οὲ n and 4, confusion between, 24824
cadeve in..., 10a, ὃ -ndus forms, 202b
caltha (calthum), 1576 naues soluere, 79), f.
canis, 202a -ne postponed for emphasis, 109)
capis, 81a nomen (merc.), 2 58ὃ
concorporatio (ἐνσωμάτωσις), 237a, ὃ
corniculum, τοῦ P.
corpulentia =incarnatio, 2374 patella, 159b
cum-phrases (imprec.), 1094 permittere, ‘ give access to,’ 186
curtare, 248a portus, ‘ anchorage,’ 78a

D.
dave =facere, 9b QO.

de non esse =non deesse, 2374

PES ae quaterni (quadrvint), 1654

qui=qualts, 9a

ae ee quid si, 10a

dies, 259a Be
dignus (c. dat.),90a Preis :
duplarius or duplicarius (inscrr.), 1590 pds been

γμοίαγε, 248a

Ἐν
e and 7 interchanged, 82a Σ
edisseveve, 2234 sapere, ‘ understand,’ Illa
F satius, “ better,’ 9b

‘ ᾿ scelus, ‘ misfortune,’ 10b
fre assy aay ae sinus (sinum), 81a
(OT Ὁ» spiritus)(mveipa, gla, ὃ
sub iugum, 262b

gemelus, τόξα G. sulcus, ‘ streak of light,’ 1106
Ἡ: ate
his nom. (?), 9a taurobolium, 90a
hodie, 9b terni (trint), τόσα
toga, 259a
If trahere, ‘ involve,’ 246}, f.
tdolatria, 237a tressis, 1646
in dies, 11b, f.
ipse idem =emphat, idem, 2374 τυ.
1γ6 malam crucem, 109a uesperugo, 53b

This InDEx is compiled by ὟΝ. F. R. Shilleto, M.A., sometime Foundation Scholar of Christ’s.
College, Cambridge. :

PA The classical review

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
ine κατ ον IP oe el
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

παι ............................... “......““““““ὉἴὦΠἢὃ) “ὉΠ -

&— ὡ ᾿ιῦὸῦ

a » dee cee οὐ σις ας Oly 4)

S eh tat ied

οἰ Ase Mere δ SE Oe ee WAT Tee

ΓΕ
Seprmmnistea neat ool ἐνὶ

Sree

ΩΝ

Sra