Full text of "The Classical review"

See other formats

NaH Sty cp ania ἌΡ Ove 
Seah ἘΝ ΕΟ ΝΗ 


rs he 


Ten ak eee - 


κὰν odin ed 


poms fants ome “ 4 κα, ἐφ Ὅς ας τ 
—— τὰν ἀφο ων ον τας τα rs et erm παεστν ΣΑΣ ΤοῈ 


yer a 


OF ) . »- | Se ΡΣ 


THE } 4, 


@LASSICAL 
REVIEW 


ΕἸ Dy ΒΥ VV ede at ee ees 
AND) (A. Do GODLEY 


BOARD OF MANAGEMENT: 


Pror. R. 5. CONWAY, Litt.D. (Chairman) 
Pror, J. F. DOBSON, M.A. (Hon. Treasurer) Pror. A. C. CLARK, Litt.D., F.B.A. (Hon. Secretary) 
Pror. GILBERT MURRAY, LL.D), D: Litt, F.B.A., F.R.SiL.; Prom, Co) FRAMSTEAD 
WALTERS, M.A.; CYRIL BAILEY, M.A.; Pror, W. RIDGEWAY, D.Litt., Litt. 
ΘΟ VLE. D.., F. Bia: 

With the co-operation of—Pror. W. GARDNER HALE, University of Chicago ; PRINCIPAL 
Sir W. PETERSON, LL.D., C.M.G., McGill University, Montreal; Pror. T. G. 
TUCKER, Litt.D., University of Metbourne. 

, 


VOLUME XX ΧΙ υ 


PUBLISHED FOR THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION 
LONDON 
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 
BOSTON, MASS. 
GINN AND COMPANY, 15, ASHBURTON PLACE 


τ 


IgI8 


pL aU ἐπ eae OS 


er’ 


ΤΥ Leet sf 


ΤΩΝ 
tel ΑΓ Me Rs 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Nos. 1, 2. ’ 


Original Contributions: 
Πολύχρυσος Μυκήνη. A, SHEWAN . 
The ‘Mole’ in Antiquity. D’Arcy 
WENTWORTH THOMPSON . 
Ovidiana. Εἰ. H. ALTon 
The Prospective in Subjective 
Clauses. E. A. SONNENSCHEIN 
Priscianus Lydus and Johannes 
Scottus. M. EsposiTo 
The Four-Line Stanza in the ἘΞ 
of Horace. J. P. PostGaTE 
Terence, Andvia, 434 (II. vi. 3). 
J. S. PHILLIMORE ες 
XXXIV. XXXV. 


Horace, Od. L., 
ἘΡΕΙ͂: ΑἸ ΝΝΝ 
Notes: 
Vireil; Eclogue VII. 52. A. G. 
PESKETT 
Cicero, Ep. ad ὝΕΣ IX. 20. τ 
A. G. PESKETT . : 
Virgil, Aeneid ΧΙ. yh af Ε. Ἂν 
WRIGHT - 
Latin Vowels before gu. J. Ξ 
A Phrase-Book of St. Colum- 
ban (9). W. M. Linpsay. 
Reviews: 
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. R.G. 
Bury ? ; ς 
ahe Greek Anthology. AE Be 
POWELL : : 
Original Contributions: 
The Greek Winds. D’Arcy 


WENTWORTH THOMPSON . 
Three Passages in Hesiod’s Works 


and Days. T. L. AGAR 
Ovidiana: Notes on the Fasti. Il. 

E. H. ALTon ἢ ϊ : 
Notes on the Lydia. W. M. 


LINDSAY 


PAGE 


| Reviews—continued : 


The Cambridge Songs. W.H.D. 
RousE 


Theophrastus’ Seientiie πη νῆα; 


ἐν CLIFFORD ALLBUTT : : 
Plotinus: The Ethical Treatises. 
20 R. G. Bury ; 
Captain Mago’s Naventames W. 
21 Hi. D. Rouse. . : 
Apuleius: The Golden ne M. 
23 HESELTINE 
Short Notices: 
28 La Science Francaise. L.C. . ἢ 
Gardner, The Lascarids of Nicaea. 
29 Aus Je) ἜΡΙΣ 4 s 
|  Scvivener’s Greek Testament. A. J. 
| B, G. : : 
31 ᾿ς Jastrow, The Cue, of ‘Bhd 
loma and Assyria. A. J. B.G. 
31 | Flosculi Rossallienses. R. BLL. . 
Kyriakides’ Pocket English- Greek 
31 Dictionary of Idioms, Proverbs, and 
31 | Phases... Wo. Day Re), : 
Duckett’s Studiesin Ennius. Ἐς ἊΝ. 
21| Hai 
Arnold’s War-Time eae J. S R. 
Bowie’s Caesay’s Wars with the 
| Gevmans. Σ : 2 ᾿ : 
32 
Paraphrases. WALTER LEAF . 
33 | Notes and News 
Nos. 8, 4. 
Original Contributions—continued : 
49 Horace: Seymones 1.6.126. 10. Α. 
SLATER 
1: Two Virgilian Bird-Notes. W. 
WarDE FoOwLerR 
58 
The Indicative in Relative Clauses. 
62 E, A. SONNENSCHEIN 


34 
36 
38 
40 


41 


43 
43 
44 
44 
44 
45 


45 
46 


46 
47 
48 


64 


65 


68 


iv THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Notes: 
The Title of Isidore’s Etymologies. 
W. Μ. Linpsay : 
Portus πο. E, E. GENNER 
Reviews : 
History of Ancient Coinage, 700- 
300 B.c. H. BROWNE 
Eastern Versions of the Ramanes 
of Alexander. FRANK GRANGER 
Poeti Alessandrini. ADELA MaRIoNn 


ADAM . Ἔ . . 
Modern Greek in Asia Minor. 
W..H. D: Rouse ©. é : 
Postgate’s Lucan, Book VIII. 


W. B. ANDERSON 
De Ciceronis Libro ΠΣ ΤΉΝ 
ALBERT C, CLARKE 
The Verb ‘to be’ in Tee eGine 
~W.E, P. Pantin 


Original Contributions : 
Euripides the Idealist. KR. B. 
APPLETON . 
The Birds of ΠΡ ΤῊ 
WENTWORTH THOMPSON 
Note on the Pervigilium 


D’Arcy 


Veneris. 


J. A. Fort : : 
Terentiana. Ϊ. 5. PHILLIMORE 
Notes on Aeneid VIII. J. W. 

MACKAIL ᾿ : : : 
Plautus Stichus 1 566. W. M. 

LINDSAY - 

Notes: 
Euripides, Tvoades 226 ff R. B. 

APPLETON Ξ ᾿ : : 
Callimachus, Sik Bay eee. 

Brooks. ς ; 
Thucydides VJI. 21. 3. M. KEAN 


᾿Ακαλανθὶς Ἄρτεμις. ARTHUR SYKES 
Ausoniana. HuGu G. EvEeELyn- 
WHITE 


Reviews : 
R. Accademia Scientifico-Lettera- 
ria in Milano. B. P. GRENFELL 
A Grammar of the Greek New 
Testament in the Light of His- 
torical Research. T. Nickiin. 


Short Notices : 


PAGE 
The House-Doov on the Ancient Stage. 
69 Hucu G. Evetyn-WHITE 
70 
‘Died of Wounds.’ W. G. W. 
Obituary : 
a Henry Montagu Butler 
William Walter Merry 
13 Mrs. Sellar. J. W. Μάοκαιι, 
75 | Queries. A. SHEWAN 
77 | Notes and News: 
Northumberland and Durham Clas- 
te sical Association 
82 | Correspondence 
83 | Books Received 
Nos. 5, 6. 
| Reviews—continued : 
Theophrastus and the Greek Phy- 
89 siological Psychology before 
Aristotle. CLirrorD ALLBUTT. 
g2 Harvard Studies in Classical Phil- 
ology. G. W. BurrerwortH . 
g7 | Demosthenes as a School Author. 
98 W. E. P. Pantin 
The Paravia Corpus Sorintarnn 
103 | Latinorum. I, W.M. Linpsay. 
ILE. Hiv ALtony( ΤΟ ce 
106 Crark. IV. A. G. PESKETT 
Stampini: Studi dt “Lettevatura ὁ 
Filologia Latina, S, GASELEE 
| Tertullian’s Apology. C. H. 
eet EVELYN- WHITE 4 
Aeneas at the Site of Rome. i: 
Ἐπ HusBanD . 
110 
t10 | Short Notices: 
The Religious Thought. of the Grecks. 
ee R. G. Bury : : 
Achilles Tatius. Μ. HEsELTINE 
The Boblical ae of Philo. 
R..G. Bury : § 
112 | School Books. Σ.: 
| Latin Prose for Middle Forms 
| The Gevmania, with Introduction 
114 and Notes 


PAGE 


BLY 


120 


122 


123 
126 
127 
129 
131 
132 
132 
15 


199 


THE. CLASSICAL, REVIEW 


Short Notices—continued : fea 
Latin Selections illustrating Public Notes and News 
Life in the Roman Commonwealth 


: é Correspondence 
in the Time of Cicero 
Caesar’s Campaign in Britain . 134 | Books Received 
Nos. 7, 8. 
Original Contributions : Reviews—continued : 
Bee Elciva' of Baa joa: Patristic and Biblical Translations. 

SHEPPARD . 137 G. W. BuTTERwoRTH ν 
The Problem of τὰς ΠΟ The New Greek Comedy. A. Y. 

What did Sophocles write? CAMPBELL 

J.J. Mureuy . ἀπ τί ἜΣ Millers Claylccey: T. L. Nene 
The Homeric Hymns. ΧΙ. ΔΕ ΕΣ The Greek Mee J U. 

AGAR 143 POWELL 
Notes on some Texts in Plate aid Platonism. R. ἃ: Bury 

Marcus Aurelius. R.G. Bury 147 | Greek Ideals. R. G. Bury . 
Note on the Symposiacs and some Prolegomena to Ausonius. J.S. P. 

other Dialogues of Plutarch 150 Livy, Book XXIII. W. E. P. 
Ovidiana: Notes on the Fastz. III. PANTIN - - 

E. Ἡ. ALron ἢ 153 Select Latin fasma neous ἘΠ 
Livy and the Name heehee FLAVERFIELD . 

Lity Rose TaybLor . 158 | Short Notices : 

Latin Poetic Order, with Special The Annual of the British School at 

Reference to Horace Epodes 5. 19. Athens, XXI. W.H.D. R. 

H. Darniey NayLor - 161 Iphigenie in Aulis. W. E. P. 
Jests of Plautus, Cicero, and Tri- PANTIN 

malchio. A. E. Housman 162 | = Lucian’s Atticism : the ΤΡ of 
Two Notes on Virgil and Horace. the Verb. W.E. P. Pantin 

C. A. VINCE . «+ 164] The First Year of Greek. W.E.P. 
‘Statius, Poggio, and Politian.’ PANTIN 

Ὁ. Δ. 5. 166 Bernini and other ΓΝ in the Hes 

Notes: tory of Art. W.H.D.R. Ἶ 
TIEPISKEAHS. 5. W. Grose 168 | Lhe Equestrian Officials of Trajan and 
The Military Roads of Agamem- Hadrian. Theiv Careers, with some 

non. A. SHEWAN 169 | Notes on Hadrian's Reforms. 
General Relative Clauses in Grete J.S.R.. 

A. W. Marr k ; . 169 Lost Mosaics and πρώ of Rome é 
Thucydides II. 48.3. A.W. Marr 170 the Mediaeval Period. H.S. Jones 
Mie Ach VILL. g0..E. ἢ Linguistic Change: An Introduction 

Brooks . 170 to the Historical Study of Hoe 
Cicero, ad. Att. VII. 4. ᾽ν. Kaas 171 R. Β. APPLETON ΐ 
Livy XXIV. 26 A.G.PrskeTT 17! Patriotic Poetry. FR. B. A. 

Revi ; Storia della lettevatura | vomana. 
eviews : 

De Plutarcho Scriptore et Philoso- foe ee 

pho. A. O. PrickaRD ae Notes and News 
Obst’s Dev Feldzug des wie Correspondence 

J. WELts . 178 | Books Received 


INDEX 


«3 


180 


182 
184 


186 
187 
189 


190 


IgI 


192 


194 
194 
195 
196 


196 


197 


197 


198 
198 


198 


199 


199 
200 


201 


haan 
LN ee 


@ 
ῃ 


_ the Law see Zimmern, 


The Classical Review 


FEBRUARY—MARCH, 1918 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


ΠΟΛΥΧΡΥ͂ΣΟΣ MYTKHNH. 


THE Homeric poems and_ Schlie- 
mann’s excavations alike attest the 
wealth of Mycenae in the age to which 
the fortress has given its name. If we 
ask how it acquired this wealth, we 
have two theories to choose between. 
Bérard, in Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée, 
i. 11 and 78, suggests that the lords of 
Mycenae amassed their riches by the 
taxation of goods in transit past their 
mountain stronghold. He finds, in 
fact, in its position an illustration of his 
Law of the Isthmus, according to 
which traders in those early days 
avoided the perils of the promontories 
of the Aegean, and at the same time 
shortened journeys by sea, by unloading 
goods on one side of an isthmus and 
reloading into ships on the other. The 
merchants who carried on the trade 
which he believes existed between the 
east and the west of the Mediterranean 
shrank from the dangerous route round 
the capes in the south of the Pelopon- 
nesus, and preferred to land their wares 
at Nauplia and have them transported 
by land to Corinth, past Mycenae, 
which took generous toll of the traffic. 

It cannot be doubted that, if there 
was such a trade and its volume was 
considerable, there is here a simple and 
reasonable explanation, in part at least, 
of the greatness of Mycenae. Dr. Leaf, 
however, in Homer and History, 215 ff., 
denies the existence in Mycenaean days 


1 Cf. Murray, A.G.Z.? 57f. For criticism of 
The Greek Commion- 
- wealth, 24 and 312; on the application of the 
theory to Boeotia, Mr. Gomme in J&.S.A. 
xviii. 189 ff. ; and for a modern portage—across 
the Isthmus of Hierapetra in Crete—Hawes, 
Crete the Forerunner of Greece, 90. 


NO. CCLXVIII. VOL. XXXII. 


of any maritime commerce dependent 
on the Isthmus of Corinth. He even 
denies the existence of Corinth itself in 
those days, and of trade by land of any 
importance between the Peloponnesus 
and the north of Greece. Nothing but 
purely local commerce could have 
passed Mycenae, and as there was little 
or none, Mycenae ‘derived nothing 
from the taxation of caravans.’ He 
argues that Agamemnon was king of 
all Greece, both the continent and the 
islands, and that Mycenae owed its 
dominance and resources to its political 
and military position. He and Bérard 
are thus in conflict, and it may be use- 
ful to inquire if further light can be 
thrown on the main point, the traffic 
past Mycenae. 

Much depends in this matter on the 
view that is taken of the political con- 
ditions in Greece towards the end of 
the Mycenaean Age. These have been 
investigated by Dr. Leaf in the chapter 
entitled ‘The Realm of Agamemnon,’ 
from which I have already quoted, but 
careful examination of the numerous 
propositions which he there seeks to 
establish will, it appears to me, leave 
the reader unconvinced on practically 
every point. I venture to think that 
decisions on the principal questions 
raised all make for confirmation of 
Bérard’s position. 

One of these questions relates to 
Agamemnon. The view that he was 
king or emperor of the whole of Greece, 
including the islands, is difficult of 
acceptance. I have discussed the 
question at length in C.Q., xi. 146 ff., 
and have nothing to add here. Further, 
I submit, on another cardinal point, 

A 


2 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


that the delimitation of the realms of 
Agamemnon and Diomede given by the 
‘Cataloguer,’ as Dr. Leaf calls the 
author of the Bototia, is a reasonable 
one. Dr. Leaf thinks it absurd, and ridi- 
cules the picture presented by that late 
composer, in which we see Agamemnon 
excluded from Argolis and confined to 
a strip of wretched country on the Gulf 
of Corinth, while Diomede the vassal is 
given a far superior domain. That is 
a comparison which requires detailed 
investigation, but it will clear the 
ground if, before making it, I notice 
the new, or practically new, suggestion 
regarding the non-existence of Corinth 
and of trade between east and west in 
Mycenaean times. 

Undeterred by Mr. Allen’s warning 
in J.H.S. xxx. 297, Dr. Leaf has gone 
so far as to prophesy that evidence of 
occupation of the place in Mycenaean 
days—evidence, that is, not in the shape 
of ‘a few chance sherds’ but of ‘a real 
Mycenaean layer ’—will never be dis- 
covered. But it is just such a layer, to 
judge from the references in American 
periodicals to the recent operations of 
their Archaeological School at Corinth, 
that has now been found, and it will be 
for Dr. Leaf to explain away the im- 
portance of this new find. Until he 
has done so, the value of his essay on 
Agamemnon’s realm is very greatly 
reduced. A perusal of his chapter will 
show how useful the disappearance of 
Corinth is for his purpose. If there 
was no ἀφνειὸς Κόρινθος in Mycenaean 
days, it is one more nail in the coffin of 
the Cataloguer, whose whole scheme 
must be discredited when we find him 
‘projecting into the past an epithet 
which belonged only to his own time.’ 
If there was no Corinth ‘to act as a 
magnet,’ there would be no land trade 
with the south, and no opportunities, 
the sea trade between east and west 
being rejected, for the king of Mycenae 
to wax fat on transit dues. If there 
was no Corinth, Agamemnon’s dominion 
as described by the Cataloguer is, with 
other disadvantages stated, but a poor 
thing. If there was no Corinth, it is 
easy to avoid the conclusion that 
Agamemnon dominated such trade as 
passed along the Isthmus or across it. 
And soon. But all this must be denied 


Dr. Leaf for the present, and till he 
succeeds in banishing from archaeo- 
logical ken what is described as the 
‘promising Mycenaean settlement ’ 
recently uncovered at Corinth. 

Support for the case for the abolition 
of Mycenaean occupation is also sought 
from the Homeric text. First, the only 
passage in the Iliad outside the Cata- 
logue in which Corinth is named, viz. 
Il. xii. 660-672, is ruthlessly ejected, 
and Dr. Leaf hopes, but hopes in vain, 
I feel sure, that the strictest unitarian 
will not be shocked if he says ‘that the 
mention of the name shows that this 
episode is post-Achaian.’ That seems 
to beg the question at issue, and the 
only other reason given, that the 
episode is not in ‘ organic connection ’ 
with what precedes or follows, need not 
be regarded. Secondly, some assistance 
is claimed from the remark of the 
ancients, that, when the poet speaks, 
he calls the city Κόρινθος, while his 
πρόσωπα ‘always’ use the name ’Ed@vpn. 
As a matter of fact, Corinth is called 
᾿Εφύρη (twice, as it happens) by one 
πρόσωπον in the course of one speech, 
and Κόρινθος once by the poet. That 
is about as poor a basis for the generali- 
sation as could be imagined, and there 
is no Other help to be got from the text 
of the poem. 

As to trade in Mycenaean days 
between east and west, that, so far as 
my search has gone, appears to be 
generally accepted.! Dr. Leaf himself 
admits (Appendix G to Homer and 
History) that long before the Mycenaean 
age ‘there existed conditions which 
would explain the occupation of the 
site of Corinth as an emporium. That 
is to say, there is evidence of a wide 
and active commerce between the 
Aegean basin on the one hand and 
Sicily and southern Italy on the other.’ 
See Mr. Peet in B.S.A. xiii. 405 f. But 
this trade, we are to understand, ceased, 
and the emporium of Corinth vanished, 


1 See, for instance, Tsountas and Manatt, 
358 f. (‘ the larger Mycenaean world the clear- 
ing-house of culture for all the Mediterranean 
lands’); Hall, Oldest Civilisation of Greece, 30, 
217 ff., 224 f., and 234 ff., and 283 n.; Busolt, 
History of Greece, 1. 51; Meyer, Gesch. d. Alt. 
ii. 208; Schuchhardt, English Translation, 96, 
122; and Beloch, History of Greece, i. 173 f. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


in Mycenaean times. That is hardly 
likely. And no reason for it, in the 
political and other conditions of the 
day, is suggested, unless it be that 
Corinth was in abeyance. But Corinth, 
it must be maintained for the present, 
was there all the time. Moreover, even 
if the trade with Italy and Sicily stopped, 
there would surely be some from the 
east with the northern and southern 
shores of the Gulf, with the Ionian 
islands outside it, and with the western 
coast of the Peloponnesus. No other 
authority, so far as I can discover, has 
gone so far as to say Corinth had ceased 
to exist. Some have thought it was of 
comparatively little importance in the 
Mycenaean age, but these have now to 
reckon with the results of American 
spade-work, and will probably revise 
their opinions.? 

The little trade with the far west that 
may have existed was perhaps, Dr. Leaf 
thinks, carried on by the Phoenicians 
as intermediaries. But the presence of 
that people in the Greek sphere at that 
early date seems to be extremely doubt- 
ful. See, for a recent statement on the 
point, Mr. Wace in the Companion to 
Greek Studies, 33, and cf. 518. Busolt, 
loc. cit., accepts the Phoenicians, while 
Mie ΕΠῚ11 Ὁ τ: 234 ff., says all the 
evidence points to a post-Mycenaean 
date for their first entry into the 
Aegaean. So Dussaud, Les Civilisations 
Préhelleniques*, 199. But, even grant- 
ing their presence, it remains only a 
conjecture that the trade between east 
and west was in their hands. 

I now revert to one of the principal 
matters argued in Dr. Leaf’s chapter. 
Before he can establish the proposition 
that Agamemnon was king of Greece 
and the islands, it is necessary to dis- 
credit the Cataloguer’s distribution of 
the north-eastern portion of the Pelo- 
ponnesus between Agamemnon and 
Diomede. It is contended that the 
Cataloguer has produced an egregious 


11 may refer to Hall, of. cit., 290 (greatness 
of Corinth exclusively post-Mycenaean), and 
Ancient History of the Near East, 523 (so far 
as we know, not a place of importance) ; 
Burrows, Discoveries in Crete‘, 189 τι. (Corinth 
insignificant in Mizoan times) ; and Meyer, of. 
cit., τι. 155 (saga and remains do not indicate 
that Coriath played any part in the o/des¢ times). 


3 


misrepresentation of the real conditions 
in assigning to Agamemnon only a poor 
region on the Gulf, ‘bare hills and 
worthless pebble-beaches,’ the king’s 
access to which, when coming from the 
east, is by rounding Malea and sailing 
up the western coast of the Pelopon- 
nesus, as his subordinate Diomede 
blocks the simpler approach by the 
Saronic or the Argolic Gulf. 

The truth seems to be that Aga- 
memnon is given a far better territory 
than Diomede. To begin with Mycenae 
itself, nothing requires us to believe 
that he possessed only the rock and 
castle and the town at its foot. The 
mere existence of that town implies 
that there was, as in historical times, a 
tract of the cultivable plain attached 
to it. Agamemnon may in fact have 
owned—it cannot be proved, but neither 
can the possibility be denied—the upper 
part of the Argolic plain, and what that 
was in those days may be gathered 
from the often quoted description of 
Aristotle (Meteorol. i. 14). In the days 
of the Troica, he says, it was much 
superior to the lower, marshy tract on 
the sea. And there were good springs 
there, a ‘ great treasure in the thirsty 
plain of Argolis’ (Edinb.. Rev. cccxi. 
192; cf. Bérard, i. 11, auprés de sources 
constantes, chose rare en cette contrée aride, 
dans cette Argolide de la Sotf, πολυδίψειον 
"Apyos).2. Argos and Tiryns are in the 
lower part of the plain, and the Cata- 
loguer assigns to Diomede nothing north 
of the former. 

But then, to digress for a moment, 
we are to believe that such a division of 
the plain could not have been, for Pro- 
fessor Meyer has decided that it is 
‘impossible to cut up the plain region’ 
(or ‘the control of the plain’—das 
Gebiet der Ebene) ‘in this way’ (op. cit. 
ii. 184).2 The Professor’s reason is that 


2 Agamemnon’s name was connected with 
irrigation in the well-known expression 'Aya- 
μεμνόνεα φρέατα, and Eustathius (461, 14) says 
of him, φρεωρυχίᾳ φιληδεῖν ἱστόρηται. Perhaps 
he maintained the artificial water-supply sup- 
posed to be implied in the story of Danaos and 
the Danaids. “Apyos ἄνυδρον ἐὸν Δαναὸς ποίησεν 
ἔνυδρον. 

3 Meyer is much too dogmatic, and ποῖ a 
safe guide. I had come to that conclusion, on 
the number of cases in which I had found his 


4 THE..CEASSICAL) Ray few 


the Mycenae of the Urzevt is ‘ unthink- 
able without active connection (rege 
Verbindung) with the sea.’ That can 
be conceded at once. The reply is 
that Mycenae had such connection at 
Corinth, as the remains of the roads 
between the fortress and the emporium 
show. Dr. Leaf follows Meyer, adding 
that ‘the division which makes Argos 
a capital town while Mykene is still 
fortified, and the stronghold of a rival 
state, is impossible.’ Again, ‘im- 
possible’! But why? Havetwo hostile 
or rival strongholds or cities never main- 
tained themselves in the same plain or 
river-valley ? Such a proposition can- 
not be accepted. If the Turks had 
held on to Baghdad, they would have 
been faced by Basra in hostile hands. 
But we need not leave Greece. Tegea 
and Mantinea were in the same plain 
of the Arcadian tableland, and we know 
what their history was. Must we not 
say that Orchomenos and Thebes could 
not have existed as separate powers in 
Boeotia? The commonest natural 
boundaries of states are doubtless rivers 
and watersheds, but the needs and 
passions of their populations are con- 
stantly leading to changes. In the 
Argolid of Achaean days we have two 
fortresses, one on or near the sea and con- 
trolling communication by Nauplia, the 
other at the northern extremity of the 
plain, just inside the mountains and 
commanding the passage to the Gulf, 
and we know that in the tradition and 
in history alike it was not ‘ impossible’ 
for them to preserve separate jurisdic- 
tions under different rulers... To add, 
as Meyer does, that the Heraeum shows 
Argos, Tiryns and Mycenae were under 
one and the same jurisdiction does not 
advance matters, unless we are prepared 
to admit that communities subject to 
powers independent of each other have 


dicta contested by other authorities, before I 
read Dr. Mahaffy’s letter in the 772,65 Literary 
Supplement of April 13, 1916. Meyer is one of 
those who believe that Agamemnon was only a 
Spartan god. 

1 There was a tradition (Eustath. 288, 36) 
that after Adrastus’ death Agamemnon subju- 
gated Argos. If the Cataloguer’s opponents 
accept that story for their own purposes, the 
impossible division of the plain had evidently 
been in existence before the conquest. 


never worshipped at a central shrine of 
some great godhead. 

But to resume. The Cataloguer also 
gives Agamemnon the fertile valleys 
in the mountains, especially those of 
Cleonae and Phlius, the latter specified 
in the Catalogue by ‘pleasant Arai- 
thyrea’: ᾿Αραιθυρέξα ἡ νῦν Φλιασία, 
Eustath. The king has also ‘ wealthy 
Corinth’ with what Mr. Zimmerman, 
op. cit. 367 n., calls its ‘ good cornland,’ 
referring no doubt to the plain between 
it and Sicyon. And he has the whole 
of the coastland or riviera—Alyiadov 7 
ava tavta—from the Isthmus to Elis 
on the west. But this latter we are 
asked to believe was worthless—a poor, 
arid region with a harbourless coast 
and an intolerable climate. It may be 
so in these days,” but it can hardly have 
had these defects three thousand years 
ago, or the tract between Corinth and 
Sicyon would never have become pro- 
verbial as an example of agricultural 
richness—ein μοι τὰ μεταξὺ Κορίνθου καὶ 
Σικυῶνος. The defects noted are the 
inevitable results—conspicuous in parts 
of India, in modern Greece generally, 
and in other countries—of the denuda- 
tion by man and beast of the hills to 
the south from which the streams 
descend to the Gulf. We are not to 
assume that, when these hills were 
covered with jungle and the streams 
ran quietly from perennial springs, the 
plains were ill-watered, or the harbours 
silted up,as Lechaeum now 15, with the 
copious detritus from bared hillsides. 
As to climate, Dr. Leaf quotes Phillip- 
son in Frazer’s Pausanias, ill. 20, as 
showing that nowadays the winds make 
the Corinth region intolerable, so bad 
indeed that, if conditions were the same 
of old, it is a wonder the site was ever 
selected or that a city rose to wealth 
and fame on it. But on the same page 
Frazer says Diogenes the Cynic ‘ praised 
the summer climate of Corinth.’ Now 
it is said to be ‘ extremely unhealthy in 
the summer and autumn in consequence 
of the malaria, for which it is difficult 


2 Dr. Leaf quotes Neumann-Partsch as to 
present day conditions, That the land in the 
immediate vicinity of Corinth itself was rough 
and οὐκ εὔγεως σφόδρα in ancient times one can 
well believe. But it is too much to speak even 
there of ‘the barrenness of the soi!.’ 


HPO leASo LOA La EV LEW. 5 


to account, as it receives the sea-breezes 
from either side.’ This seems to be all 
that the article in Smith’s Dictionary 
of Greek and Roman Geography contains 
as to the climate. There is nothing 
to indicate that it was very bad in 
antiquity. Malaria, it may be added, 
is not an uncommon phenomenon in 
deserted sites. To sum up, we should 
require much stronger evidence from 
antiquity to prove that the old con- 
ditions were bad. It is not an extrava- 
gant suggestion that the present con- 
dition of the riviera in question is 
almost as unlike that in Achaean days, 
as the state of famine districts in India, 
where the hills were long ago rendered 
useless to man and beast, differs from 
that of forest-clad regions and their 
vicinity not fifty miles away. 

So much for Agamemnon’s realm, as 
given by the Cataloguer, from the point 
of view of local productiveness. What 
then of Diomede’s? Hehad the Argolic 
plain, but probably no more than the 
central portion between the territory 
appertaining to the city and fortress of 
Mycenae and the marshland on the 
coast. He also had the Akté, the 
Argolic peninsula on the east, but that 
was mountainous. Frickenhaus and 
Miiller have investigated it thoroughly, 
and in one of their papers (Klio x. 390) 
Miiller says it ‘lacks plains.’ Surely 
even as regards agriculture one might 
say Agamemnon’s country was not 
inferior to Diomede’s. 

But turn now to commerce. We 
have first to consider who commanded 
the Isthmus in Agamemnon’s time. 
According to Dr. Leaf, Agamemnon 
did, as he was emperor of the whole 
country, but this important possession 
was apparently of no use to him, except 
perhaps as already a ‘ fetter of Greece.’ 
It is also assumed to have been the 
starting-point of an imagined ‘ system’ 
of military roads into northern Greece 
of which no trace now remains, or 
remained to classical authors.1_ But for 
purposes of trade, to which it afterwards 
acted as a magnet of power, this ‘un- 
rivalled geographical position (Hall), 
this site ‘incomparable for trade and 


1 These will be considered more fully in 
another paper. 


navigation’ (Bursian), this ἐμπόριον 
“EAAdbos—-but why repeat the praises 
bimaris Corintht >—was useless, because 
such commerce as existed was insignifi- 
cant. To that point I shall return, but 
meantime what is important for us is to 
see to whom the Cataloguer gives the 
Isthmus. He gives it to neither Aga- 
memnon nor Diomede, for he does not 
expressly mention it, strange as the 
omission would be in a writer of the 
Logographer age who knew Corinth as 
‘wealthy,’ and must have known what 
gave her her then wealth and impor- 
tance. Nor does he mention Megara. 
But when he says that Agamemnon 
possessed Corinth, and that Corinth 
was already distinguished for wealth, 
and by consequence for power, he surely 
meant that Agamemnon dominated the 
Isthmus. It is inconceivable that he 
meant to give that advantage to any 
other power, with a strong Corinth and 
its impregnable citadel at one end of it. 

Dr. Leaf hardly discusses the point. 
Mr. Allen in C.Q. iii. 8g had expressed 
the opinion that the Cataloguer ‘ views 
the Saronic Gulf generally up to Salamis 
(and its Peraea) and Athens as the 
property of the Argolid monarchy,’ and 
Dr. Leaf at once accepts the view that 
the Cataloguer gives no port on the 
Saronic Gulf or the Argolic to Agamem- 
non, who, to get home from Troy, must 
sail round the Peloponnesus to Sicyon 
or.Corinth. But he did not know, when 
he wrote, that there was a Mycenaean 
Corinth, and a Corinth, as may be con- 
fidently asserted, in possession of the 
south-western end of the Isthmus. That 
being so, it was possible for Agamemnon 
to reach his home by sailing to and 
landing at Cenchreae. It is true this 
place, like the Isthmus itself, is not 
mentioned in the Catalogue, but its non- 
existence may not be inferred. Many 
ports are omitted. Nauplia is, and no 
one will say it did not exist. Athens 
was occupied, we are assured, for ages 
before the Mycenaean, and must have 
had a haven, but is not given one. Nor 
is Sparta, unless Helos in its marshes 
does duty for one. So for other places. 
It will not, I suppose, be denied that 
the poet, when he composed the Cata- 
logue or adapted it to his 1144, had the 
right to accommodate it, in point of 


6 THE ‘CLASSICAL REY LEW, 


length and detail, to the rest of the 
poem. As Eustathius says of his omis- 
sion of an enumeration of the seventy- 
four Athenian demes, or the most famous 
of them, οὐκ εἶχε πάντας εἰς μετροποιίαν 
κατατάξειν. That πολλοὺς σιυγηθῆναι 
τόπους, as the same authority observes, 
the poet himself shows in respect of 
Crete, and may be inferred from his 
description of Elis and other localities. 
But even if Cenchreae was not in 
existence as a port with an évetipevov 
πτολίεθρον, the haven was always there, 
‘a bay protected by two promontories 
on the north and south,’ and would cer- 
tainly be used by the power in posses- 
sion of that end of the Isthmus. It 
was connected with Corinth by a road 
that had ‘long walls’ provided by 
nature. As for Agamemnon’s return 
home, on which see the note of Merry 
and Riddell on Od. iv. 514 and Seymour, 
Life in the Homeric A ge, 66, the difficulty 
in interpreting the narrative does not 
concern us. It is not necessary to 
believe in a journey round the penin- 
Sula. -Mr. Allen, it may be added, 
appears to have reconsidered, in J.H.S. 
Xxx. 297, his original view of the matter. 
Dr. Leaf’s argument suffers from the 
assumption, for his own purpose, that 
Mr. Allen has shown that Agamemnon 
had no ground on the Isthmus, and 
could not land there, but had to return 
round Malea, and sarcasm is expended 
on the Cataloguer’s folly in putting the 
emperor in such a plight in relation to 
his vassal at Argos. It seems to be 
assumed, as in the matter of the adapta- 
tion of the Catalogue to the Iliad— 
‘where so good a unitarian as Mr. T. W. 
Allen leads no unitarian need hesitate 
to follow ’—that any conclusion of Mr. 
Allen’s must be accepted by all those in 
agreement with him on the question of 
unity, and that Dr. Leaf may treat them 
as bound by it. Mr. Allen may be 
trusted to defend his views with full 
knowledge and ability, but he certainly 
will not urge that they are res judicatae 
to any section of Homeric inquirers. 
What then resulted to Agamemnon 
from command of this most important 
locality, situated, like Crete, on trade 
routes between north and south and 
east and west? It was a puzzle to me, 
when I first read Bérard’s book, how 


shippers from the east or south-east, 
bound for the west and anxious to avoid 
the détour by Malea, should have come 
to the Argolic Gulf, unloaded at Nauplia, 
and sent their goods thence on beasts 
of burden, through a mountainous tract, 
more than thirty miles to the Gulf of 
Corinth, instead of coming up the 
Saronic Gulf to the haven on the 
Isthmus known to later times as 
Schoenus, and having the merchandise 
sent across there, a journey of only three 
and a half.! If Bérard is correct, then 
Mycenae must, for no other power 
could, have closed the Isthmus to com- 
pel traffic to go to Nauplia and pass 
the fortress and pay toll. The alterna- 
tive view is that of traffic across the 
Isthmus. In either case that locality 
was, as we must hold on other grounds, 
within the dominion of Mycenae. I 
pass the possibility that Mycenae, by 
virtue of greater power or through 
arrangement with Argos, had facilities 
at Nauplia or Epidauros, but certainly 
from Corinth it commanded the ,Corin- 
thian Gulf and the trade thence with 
the west, as well as the land traffic, 
which I shall deal with presently, 
between the Peloponnesus and northern 
Greece. : 

Here lies the secret of the greatness 
of Mycenae as exhibited by excavation. 
Dr. Leaf tells us truly, in B.S.A. xviil. 
310, that ‘if we want to explain by 
economic facts the greatness of a city, 
we must fix our minds on the staples of 
human intercourse—on the wheat and 
timber, the wine and oil, the hides, 
wool, linen and hemp, the metal ores, 
the fabrics, felted or woven, and the 
slaves, who are the instruments of pro- 
duction.’ Agriculture alone could never 
have given Mycenae her great wealth, 


1 We hear of no dio/kos in very ancient times. 
But if the progress of research discloses reason 
for believing there was one we need not be 
surprised. The enormous advantage to sea- 
borne traffic can hardly have been overlooked, 
and the ships of that early age were small and 
easily hauled. See the Odyssey and Bérard, 
passim. Odysseus himself—all unaided, but 
δεινὸν τὸ ἡρωϊκόν---ἐδιόλκισε (if 1 may coin a 
word) in Od. v. 261, on which see the note of 
Merry and Riddell. I think no one will now 
use against me the outworn pr-nciple that 
because Homer does not mention a thing he 
does not know’ it. 


Pe, τ υσὉ"Ὁ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


any more than Ilios, also πολύχρυσος, 
could have got hers from what Bérard 
calls les pauvres marécages du Scamandre 
(cf. Troy, 255). It was on trade that 
her lords grew opulent. The very exist- 
ence of such fortified centres of exchange 
argues a wide trade (R.G.E.” 60 f.). 
So does the gold in which Mycenae 
abounded, for the authorities tell us 
this could only have come from Asia, 
and it is not likely that her kings owned 
gold mines there. If we bear in mind 
the facts that Greece was oppressed by 
what has been termed ‘ radical poverty,’ 
and that foreign trade was a necessity 
to her, that Mycenae itself seems to 
have been the centre of a pottery in- 
dustry, which was of an extent to be a 
source of much gain (Bury, History of 
Greece’, 36; Busolt?, i. 112), that she 
commanded the sea commerce of east 
and west, and the land traffic between 
north and south, and that transit dues 
—Adam Smith’s ‘ duties of passage ’— 
are a common element in the finance of 
primitive authorities, such as Turkish 
Beys and Indian Rajas and petty chiefs 
of the olden time, we cannot doubt that 
Bérard’s theory is correct. It was thus 
that Sybaris grew wealthy (Zimmern, 
op.cit.27). Strabo knew that such dues 
contributed to the riches of Corinth, 
but the source had been in existence 
much longer than he had any idea of. 
If we now turn to Diomede’s realm, 
and consider it from the same point of 
view, we see he had a number of small 
but good harbours in the Akté besides 
Nauplia on the Argolic Gulf, and Dr. 
Leaf refers to roads from those parts to 
Tiryns, which he conjectures was built 
to protect trade from these ports in the 
east, as well as to cover Nauplia. But 
I have searched for mention of these 
roads through the mountains of the 
Akté in vain. There was certainly one 
from Epidaurus to Tiryns, which was 
no doubt a line of traffic. Assuming, 
however, that there were roads from 
the other ports, what was the traffic 
from them, and what opportunities had 
Argos for levying dues on it? She 
might levy on commerce using her ports, 
but on how much of it? At full rates, 
only on trade from the east for her own 
wants or for the south of the Pelopon- 
nesus. On trade between east and west 


7, 


availing itself of the short cut, whether 
by Nauplia or the ports of the Akté 
and Mycenae, she would be entirely 
dominated by the lord of Mycenae, who 
could stop that trade altogether to the 
ports of Argos, if he chose, by refusing 
transit past Mycenae and opening the 
Isthmus. Mycenae had the whip hand, 
and again her superiority, not to mention 
her levies on the land trade between 
north and south, is fully apparent. 

Altogether it seems clear that the 
Cataloguer was not guilty of the folly 
that is imputed to him. He has given 
the king of men a much finer domain 
than he has given Diomede, and the 
superiority is accurately reflected in the 
hundred and sixty ships provided for 
Troy by Agamemnon roAvvavs—just 
double the Argive fleet. The Cata- 
loguer is fully justified, and there is no 
need for us to resort to the new hypo- 
thesis, incapable of proof, that Agamem- 
non was emperor of Greece. 

But trade over a land route between 
the north and the Peloponnesus has so 
far only been assumed. It is now neces- 
sary to consider it. Dr. Leaf thinks it 
it impossible, for ‘the sea would be an 
overwhelming competitor.’ Even the 
local trade from Arcadia and Sparta 
‘would naturally be passed on east- 
wards through Nauplia and perhaps by 
Epidauros,’ and would not go north to 
pay transit dues at Mycenae. 

The first point is as to the magnitude 
of this trade, and of this we must jucge 
on what the archaeologists tell us of the 
prehistory of the Peloponnesus. First, 
as to Arcadia. Dr. Leaf thinks it was 
not under the sway of Mycenae, the 
monarchs of which thought its wild 
hillmen were best left to themselves. 
These did not even use civilised 
weapons.) The suggestion is there would 
be little trade with sucha country. But 
Arcadia is not to be dismissed so lightly. 
Its people, whatever προσέληνοι May 
mean, were certainly a very ancient 
community. It sent out colonies to 


1 This on //. vii. 132 ff—Lykoergos the κορυ- 
yarns. The inference from one hero’s armature 
is rash. That he was ‘called κορυνήτης because 
he did not use bow or spear’ points rather the 
other way. Will the historian of the future deny 
civilisation to our friends the enemy because 
they have used clubs in trench warfare ? 


8 THE CLASSICAL “REVIEW 


Cyprus—not to mention Oinotros and 
Italy—at least as early as the eleventh 
century B.c. (Sir A. Evans in J.H.S. 
xxxii. 288), it was ‘penetrated with 
Minoan ideas’ and had ‘assimilated a 
form of Minoan worship.’ Mycenaean 
remains have been found at Tegea, 
and Mycenaean influence was probably 
spreading into the country towards the 
end of the Mycenaean period (Mr. 
Thompson in Liverpool Annals, iv. 132). 
There were routes to the coast in many 
directions, including one to Argos, the 
road from which to Sparta across the 
Arcadian plains was a much frequented 
one in later, and we may well believe in 
early, days. The tableland contained 
fertile valleys and plains. Orchomenos? 
is πολύμηλος in the Catalogue, Man- 
tinea is ἐρατεινή, and for Tegea Eusta- 
thius quotes the saying, εὐδαίμων ὁ 
Κορίνθιος, ἐγὼ δ᾽ εἴην Τεγεάτης. The 
dwellers in the low country surrounding 
Arcadia would provide a market for 
agricultural staples peculiar to its cooler 
climate, for its timber and other forest 
produce, for its sheep and cattle, and 
for the asses for which it was famous, 
and which would be an important export 
for purposes of carriage in Achaean 
Greece, dependent as it was on mere 
tracks for inland transport. We do 
not know that Arcadia provided mer- 
cenaries to other powers in those early 
days as in historical times, but the 
manning of sixty ships for Agamemnon, 
according to the Cataloguer, is in 
harmony with later practice. It cannot 
be granted that Arcadia was as foreign 
to the world around it as Dr. Leaf 
suggests. 

3eyond Arcadia was Laconia, for- 
merly called, like Crete, ἑκατόμπολις. 
It was certainly a centre of Mycenaean 
civilisation. In addition to other sites 
a ‘settlement of some size and impor- 
tance’ has recently been found near the 
Menelaion (B.S.A. xvi. 11). And then, 
not to mention the western territory, 
which could be reached through Arcadia, 
or” Apyos’Axatixov οὖθαρ ἀρούρης, which, 
wherever it may be located, was cer- 


+ The Orchomenos of Od. xi. 459, mentioned 
with two other chief towns of the Pcloponnesus, 
may be the Arcadian, and some connectioa with 
the Atridae is implied. 


tainly in the’ Peloponnesus, there was 
Mycenae itself, πολύχρυσος from trade 
by sea, and a centre of manufacture, as 
already stated. And there was ‘wealthy 
Corinth.’ In the north there were, 
omitting Attica and the western states 
and naming only the chief northern 
centres, Orchomenos and Thebes in the 
πίειρα ἄρουρα of Boeotia, one of the 
few tracts in Greece equal to the pro- 
duction of a surplus of food available 
for poorer neighbours. On its then 
agricultural wealth see Mr. Gomme, 
lc. 209 f. The richness in legend of 
both Argos and Thebes implies, as Dr. 
Leaf observes, a long history, during 
which trade would surely develop be- 
tween the two tracts. One cannot, in 
short, doubt that there would be com- 
mercial intercourse inside the Pelopon- 
nesus between the Argolid and the states 
to the south and west, and outside it 
with northern Greece past Mycenae, 
with its τελώνιον in the pass through 
the mountains. The danger to the 
traffic on the narrow road along the 
Isthmus is reflected in the legend of 
Theseus, the Attic Herakles, who clears 
the countryside of robbers—Sciren, 
Sinis, Kerkyon and others. 

But for the interchange of commcedi- 
ties between north and south, the sea, 
it is argued, would be an overwhelming 
competitor. On that point also Dr. 
Leaf is in conflict with M. Bérard, who 
seems to be right.2, When considering 
the point, one must forget modern 
conditions. Dr. Leaf’s illustration, in 
B.S.A. xviii. 308, from railways and 
steamers and their passengers, when 
ships almost prehistoric, beasts of 
burden, and goods are in question, is 
not a happy one. We must try to 
realise the conditions in Achaean Greece, 
helped, if possible, by our knowledge of 
a tract of a more recent world which 
may be said toreproduce them. Bérard 
is right in laying stress on the fear of 
promontories in those days.* All ancient 


2 Op. cit. 170, la vote de mer reste la plus 
cotteuse et la plus longue.—The usual reaction 
has set in against Bérard after the very enthu- 
siastic reception accorded to his great book, 
and must be allowed to spend itself. 

®* It may no doubt be exaggerated. See Pro- 
fessor Myres in 716 Geographical Aspects of 
Greek Colonisation, 55, on the ‘graces’ that 


πα rh ς ὙΠῸ 


THE CLASSICAL: REVIEW 9 


literature testifies. But there is another 
point. From seaport to seaport water 
carriage might be preferred. But from 
inland site to inland site much will 
depend on the distances of these from 
the coast. The journeys to and from 
the sea will operate against navigation, 
especially if there is a dangerous head- 
land to be negotiated and if there is 
cheap land carriage. A trader sending 
goods from the middle of Boeotia to 
Mycenae, Tegea, Sparta or Pylos, would 
not choose the long sea-route round 
Sunium to Epidaurus or Nauplia, with 
two land journeys added, but would take 
the cheap route overland. And I main- 
tain that it would be cheap, extra- 
ordinarily so. The conditions as to 
cultivation and waste, forest and pas- 
ture, water and tracks, which I venture 
to assume for the Greece of the Pelo- 
pidae! obtained in the wilder parts of 
India till comparatively recent times, 


made Aegean navigation ‘easy’ in the fair 
season. Of course, in a case in which there 
were alternative routes—as round the Euboean 
headlands or through the Euripus—the capes 
would always be avoided. 

1 There is not much on this point to be found 
in the books. But I do not think that the most 
liberal estimate of pre-Homeric civilisation will 
insist that the pressure of population had caused 
an absorption of cultivable land to such an 
extent that pasture and forest were not still 
abundant. Reference may be made on the 
subject of cultivation generally to Péhlmann, 
Die Feldgemeinschaft bei Homer; Ginther, Der 
Ackerbau bet Homer ; Ridgeway in /.H.S. vi. 
319 ff.; and the handbooks of Buchholz and 
Seymour. But they contain little that is useful 
for present purposes. 


indeed within my own experience in the 
west. The carrying trade in such parts 
was in the hands of Vanjaris (‘ Forest- 
traversers’) and other gipsy tribes, who 
owned large numbers of bullocks, buffa- 
loes, ponies and asses. The cost of 
upkeep was practically nil, for one man 
sufficed to look after many animals, and 
feeding cost nothing or very little, as 
pasture in forest or other uncultivated 
ground was everywhere available, and 
it was free. And transit duties, levied 
by every blackmailer who had the 
opportunity, did not stop this traffic. 
For one thing, payment of such mail 
always ensured a certain amount of 
protection, and, for another, the levying 
cateran was careful not to kill trade by 
excessive demands on it. ‘The ‘ fire- 
carriage’ and the ‘fire-ship’ have killed 
or are killing it now, but anyone who 
has known intimately a bit of old India, 
and there are such bits still, or were 
forty years ago, is helped to under- 
stand, what puzzles so many, the exist- 
ence of great trade-routes across Europe 
in prehistoric times, when conditions 
prevailed which at first sight would 
seem to render the safe transport of 
property impossible. 

To sum up, the possession of Mycenae 
and Corinth, both of which the Cata- 
loguer assigns to Agamemnon, gave 
that potentate command of two great 
trade-routes, and explains most satis- 
factorily his richness in gold. 


A. SHEWAN. 
St. Andrews. 


THE ‘MOLE’ IN ANTIQUITY. 


THERE has been much discussion as 
to what ἀσπάλαξ, σπάλαξ, etc., mean 
in the various passages where these 
names occur. The early commentators 
—and with them Camus and Strack— 
were content to take them as meaning 
the common mole; and the question 
then often arose whether Aristotle and 
the rest were right in saying that the 
mole was blind. This difficulty was 
apparently disposed of when Paolo Savi 
showed (as had been alleged before) 
that the Tuscan moles (T. caeca) differed 
from ours in several minute characters, 


and in particular that they were totally 
blind, with their eyes completely covered 
by skin (‘Sopra la talpa cieca degli 
Antichi,’ Memorie scientif., Pisa, 1828, 
Ρ- 29; the two species are beautifully 
figured by Prince C. L. Bonaparte in 
his Iconografia d. Fauna Italica, 1832- 
41). Savi’s opinion that the classical 
allusions refer to T. caeca soon com- 
mended itself both to naturalists and to 
the commentators. Bell adopted it in 
his British Quadrupeds (and ed., 1874, 
p. 138), as Blasius had done in his 
Saiigethiere Deutschlands (1857, p. 114): 


10 THE CLASSICAL. REVIEW 


‘Es erleidet keinen Zweifel dass Aristo- 
teles ihn unter dem Namen Aspalax 
erwahnt.’ Karsch, and  Sundevall 
(Thierarten des Aristoteles, p. 58), took 
the same view without hesitation. 
After all there is but little difference 
between the two species, save in matters 
of degree. It has been asserted that 
even in T. caeca the tiny eyes are at 
least sometimes visible; and some 
naturalists even deny that it is any- 
thing more than a local race or variety 
of the common mole (Camerano, Zool. 
Anzeiger, vill., 1888, p. 295; Mem. R. 
Accad. Sci. Torino [2], xxxvii., 1886, 
Pp. 445). 

But there is another and a very 
different animal which has also been 
identified with ἀσπάλαξ, though on 
hitherto insufficient grounds—the little 
blind-rat, Spalax typhlus. This is a 
little burrowing rodent, somewhat larger 
than a mole and looking like a small 
marmot, widely distributed from Poland 
to Northern Africa, and occurring in 
Greece and Asia Minor though not 
in Italy. It is totally blind, and it 
burrows and makes ‘runs’ just as a 
mole does, frequenting fertile and cul- 
tivated soils. But it differs from the 
mole in one striking feature: it is a 
vegetarian, living on roots and especi- 
ally bulbous roots, whereas the moles 
live on a diet of insects and worms, 
principally the latter. By this simple 
criterion we learn that, in Theophrastus 
at Jeast, the blind-rat is meant for 
certain. Speaking (H.P. vii., 11, 3) of 
the sweet roots of φάσγανον, the corn- 
flag (Gladiolus segetum), he tells us that 
πολλὰς δὲ εὑρίσκουσιν ἐν ταῖς σκαλο- 
πιαῖς " χαίρει γὰρ καὶ συλλέγει τὸ ζῶον. 

We have not a great deal of informa- 
tion about the habits of this animal ;! 
but we shall find enough for our pur- 
pose, and very much to the point, in a 
paper by Dr. John Anderson (Proc. 
Zool. Soc. 1892, p. 472) on its occur- 
rence in Egypt. An Arab pointed out 
to him its burrows and little hillocks by 
the side of a barley-field, in a meadow 


1 Cf. Rzaczynski, Auctuarium Hist. Nat. 
Poloniae, 1745, p- 326; Giildenstadt, in λον. 
Comm. Ac. Sci. Petrop., xiv. 1770, pp. 409-440; 
Pallas, Zoographia Rosso-asiatica, i. p.159, 18115 
and especially G. A. Olivier, Voy. dans l'Empire 
Othoman, etc., iv. pp. 198-209, An 12 (1793-94). 


abounding in asphodels and hyacinths. 
They ,began to excavate the labyrinth 
of runs, and ‘in following one of them 
to the depth just mentioned (eighteen 
inches) we came upon a domical 
chamber full of bulbs :?... they reached 
the number of sixty-eight. Adjoining 
this chamber was another, quite empty, 
which the Arabs said was the sleeping 
apartment,’ etc. There need, I think, 
be no doubt whatever that Theophrastus 
was speaking of this very animal, even 
in spite of the fact that some old texts 
give a different (and now discredited) 
reading. (Gaza, for instance, rendered 
the passage ‘ permultas juxta eam scolo- 
pendras reperiunt’; but Gesner, accord- 
ing to J. G. Schneider, detected the 
error, and proposed to read παρὰ ταῖς 
σκαλοπιαῖς, ‘circa terrae cumulos a 
talpa_ excitatos’: which rendering 
Schneider in his turn altered to ‘cu- 
bilia talparum subterranea.’) Bochart 
(Hieroz. i. p. 1023) quotes Syriac and 
Arabic writers to precisely the same 
effect: ¢g., a certain ‘ Agricultura Per- 
sica apud Abembitarem,’—‘ Alchold, 
animal caecum sub terra arborum 
radices comedens, quodque cepae et 
porri odore ita delectatur ut eo allectum 
exeat a latibulo suo’—where Alchold 
is the Hebrew choled, the ‘mole’ of 
Levit. xi. 19, 30. (May the same Semitic 
word perhaps lurk in the Hesychian 
λωτ᾽ ἀσπάλαξ») The Egyptian σπάλαξ 
of Horapollo (ii. 63) can have been no 
other than this same creature; and Otto 
Keller tells us that it appears, among 
other Egyptian animals, on a Pompeian 
fresco in the Naples Museum. 

The question then remains whether 
this animal, so clearly designated by 
Theophrastus, was also indicated by the 
other ancient writers. As for Aristotle, 
O. Keller (Ant. Thierwelt, i. p. 23) 15 
very clear to the contrary: ‘Dass A. 
selbst unter ἀσπάλαξ den: Syrischen 
Blindmoll verstanden habe, wie man 
schon gemeint hat, ist durchaus unwahr- 
scheinlich.’ On the other hand, both 


2 Cf, Olivier, p. 208; ‘Il est trés ΤΠ ΣΤ οἰ ἘΣ ee 
d'un colchique ἃ fleurs blanches, trés-nom- 
breuses, qui fleurit au premier printems.. - 
Il se nourrit également de la racine de presque 
tous les végétaux qui croissent spontanément 


ou qui sont cultivés dans les lieux οὐ il est 
étabu.’ 


THE WGLASSICAL REVIEW II 


Schneider and also Aubert and Wimmer 
lean to the view that the Aristotelian 
ἀσπάλαξ was the blind-rat. Aubert 
and Wimmer do so on the ground that, 
while nothing was known to them of 
true moles in Greece (save only that 
Bory de St. Vincent had seen ‘ mole- 
hills’ of some sort or other in the 
Morea), Erhard (Fauna d. Cycladen, 
p. 21) had found Spalax typhlus (τυφλο- 
ποντικός) in the Cyclades, and Wagner 
(Schreber’s Saiigethiere, Suppl. iii. p. 362) 
reported it from Greece itself.1 Held- 
reich (F. de la Gréce, 1878), who 
identifies ἀσπώλαξ with Talpa caeca, 
declares that this animal (also called 
τυφλοποντικός) does occur in Greece, 
though not abundantly, at least in 
Attica; but Heldreich is not always 
to be depended on, and Mr. Oldfield 
Thomas (of the British Museum) tells 
me (while this paper is passing through 
the press) that ‘we have no evidence 
that moles occur in Greece,’ and that 
he does not ‘believe they are found 
anywhere in the Balkan peninsula.’ 
At best, however, the geographical 
evidence does not carry us very far, 
considering how little the Greek fauna 
has been explored, and considering also 
the fact that the older naturalists— 
Aristotle, Theophrastus, and the rest— 
dealt with a much wider range of 
country than continental Greece. 
Schneider (in Arist. H.A., vol. 1. 
p. 234) arrives at the same result as 
Aubert and Wimmer by a very different 
argument, drawn from Suidas 5.0. 
ἀσπάλαξ: .. . ἔχει yap ὀδόντας μιαρω- 
τάτους, καὶ ῥύγχος ὥσπερ γαλῆς, καὶ 
πόδας ὡς ἄρκτου. He holds that the 
epithet μιαρώτατος could not apply to 
the minute teeth of the mole: ‘ Igitur 
merito genus aliud intelligi suspicari 
oportebat, quod in Syria demum re- 
pertum descripsit Gallus Olivier [1.6. 
Spalax typhlus}| in Itinerario et cum 
Aristotelico comparavit nomine graeco 
appellatum.’ Schneider’s argument and 
conclusion were probably sound enough, 
for, vague though the epithet may be, 


1 Mr. Oldfield Thomas tells me that speci- 
mens have been sent home lately, by officers of 
the R.A.M.C., from Salonika. Recent writers 
distinguish many species of Spalax, two of 
which are recorded from Greece (cf. 8.77. Cat. 
of Mammals of W. Europe, 1912, pp. 887, 1000). 


yet μιαρώτατος might be applied not 
inaptly to the long incisor teeth of the 
little rodent, which inflict severe wounds, 
and of which I find, in Beddard’s 
Mammals (p. 482), ‘the lower incisors 
are more developed [even] than in 
other rodents.’ Neither Aubert and 
Wimmer, nor Schneider, nor yet Otto 
Keller, say a word about the really 
important and crucial point, the vege- 
tarian, bulb-collecting habits of the 
blind-rat, as opposed to the mole’s diet 
of worms. 

The teeth are briefly referred to by 
Aristotle, e.g. H.A. iv. ὃ, 5338 15, where 
he says that πόροι lead past the orbits, 
τελευτῶντες ELS τοὺς ἄνω χαυλιόδοντας ;* 
with which passage cf. Ael. xi. 37, 
χαυλιόδοντα δὲ, τὰ ὑποφαίνοντα ἔξω τοὺς 
ὀδόντας, ὗς ὁ ἄγριος, σπάλαξ. Here 
Schneider (ad loc. Ael.) says, ‘ Talpam 
habet etiam versio latina. Mihi vero 
novum atque inauditum accidit talpam 
respectu dentium exsertorum cum apro 
comparari. Videndum an olim λάταξ 
lectum fuerit.’ But Schneider had not 
heard of Spalax when he edited his 
Aelian in 1784. Blasius (op. cit. p. 402) 
would seem to have been influenced by 
the same argument, when he says that 
in this passage ‘Aristoteles hat die 
Blindmaus mit dem Namen Aspalax 
bezeichnet.’ 

Again, while Aristotle’s general state- 
ment that the mole has eyes (de. An. 
iii. 1, 425a τι, φαίνεται yap καὶ ἡ σπάλαξ 
ὑπὸ τὸ δέρμα ἔχουσα ὀφθαλμούς, with 
which cf. Plin. H.N. xi. 32, Galen iv. 
160 K) might refer to either animal, his 
more elaborate description of the sub- 
cutaneous eyes in H.A. iv. 8, 5338, 
cannot well apply to the tiny bead-like 
eyes of the mole, but may very possibly 
turn out to be an intelligible description 
of the somewhat larger eyes of Spalax. 

There is one remarkable passage in 
the De Mirab. 176, 847b 3, ἐν Αἰτωλοῖς 
φασὶν ὁρᾶν τοὺς ἀσπάλακας ἀμυδρῶς, 
καὶ οὐδὲ σιτεῖσθα. γῆν ἀλλ’ ἀκρίδας. 
Here the allusion to a diet of insects 


2 These wo por were doubtless the large nerves 
passing through the sub-orbital foramina, on 
their way to the muzzle. My note ad Joc. in the 
Oxford translation of H.A. is wrong ; for χαυλιύ- 
Sovres are not necessarily ‘eye-teeth’, but may 
quite well apply to the tusk-like incisors of 
Spalax. 


12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


might suggest that the mole itself was 
referred to, and was for once dis- 
tinguished from the ordinary and better 
known ἀσπάλαξ; but description and 
text are alike unsatisfactory. As for 
the Boeotian ‘moles,’ whose skins came 
to the Athenian market (Ar. Aci. 887, 
Schol. Antig. 11, cf. also Plin. viii. 226), 
there is nothing in the story to tell us 
to which species they belonged. The 
curious account in H.A. viii. 28, 605b, 
and elsewhere of the haunts of the 
Boeotian moles, may not improbably 
be accounted for by the known predi- 
lections of Spalax (cf. Olivier, p. 208, 
1] évite toujours les endroits pierreux, 
et ceux qui peuvent facilement étre 
inondés.’) Lastly, it may be that 
Seneca (Q.N. 111. 16, 5) associates and 
distinguishes the two animals, ‘ pleraque 
ex his caeca, ut talpae et subterranet 
mures, Quibus deest lumen, quia super- 
vacuum est.’ 

The vegetarian diet is alluded to, and 
therefore the blind-rat is clearly meant, 
in Opp. Cyz. il. 612, οὐ μὲν θὴν odd’ 
ἀσπαλάκων αὐτόχθονα φῦλα | ποιοφά- 
γων, ἀλαῶν, μέλπειν ἐθέλουσιν ἀοιδαί ; 
and also in the fragment of Stesimbro- 
tus (sometimes ascribed to Stesichorus) 
in Suidas, ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς τυφλωθῆναι, διὰ 
τὸ φθείρειν τοὺς κάρπους. The legend 
is expanded by Oppian (l.c.), ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ 
ὡς Φαέθων χόλον εὔνασεν, ἀλλὰ μὲν 
aia | ἀσπαλάκων ποίησε γένος μὴ 
πρόσθεν ἐόντων | τούνεκα νῦν ddadv τε 
μένει καὶ λάβρον ἐδωδαῖς ; and a remark 
οἱ Seyffarth’s, quoted in Leemann’s 
Hovapollo, would suggest that the myth 
had an Egyptian origin. 

There are plenty other references to 
the destructiveness of talpae, or ἀσπά- 
λακες. They eat chestnuts, according 
to Columella (iv. 33); roots accord- 
ing to Timotheus (40); and were 
destructive to cardueta, 1.6. fields of arti- 
chokes, according to Palladius (iv. 9, 
4). Cf. also Simocatta, in Epistolis (cit. 
Bochart), τί δῆτα περὶ τῶν ἀσπαλάκων 
λέξαιμι; φοβερὸν γὰρ τῷ γεωργῷ τὸ 
KGKOV, καὶ δυσανταγώνιστον τὸ πολέμιον" 
also Hieron. in Isai. 2, 19, ‘Talpa est 


animal absque oculis, quod semper 
terram fodit et humum egerit, et radices 
subter comedens frugibus noxium est.’ 
In the Talmud it is regarded as so 
destructive that it may be killed even 
on days of festival (Lewysohn, Zool. d. 
Talmud, 1858, p. 102). Indeed, one is 
even tempted to wonder whether the 
lasting persecution of the mole (which 
robs us of nothing) may be due all the 
while to the evil reputation of the pre- 
daceous, root-devouring animal with 
which it was anciently confused. 

The mole’s dwelling is mentioned by 
Aristotle (H.A.1, 9, 488a 21); and here 
again the brief reference might apply to 
either animal, for the mole makes an 
underground nest for its young. But 
the mole’s nest is an obscure and im- 
perfect structure compared with the 
elaborate domicile of the blind-rat: it 
is only a little hollow, with a few leaves 
and straws for a bed. Was Virgil 
describing in the Georgics (i. 83) what 
he had himself seen of the Italian moles, 
‘aut oculis capti fodere cubilia talpae,’ 
or was he handing on an older story of 
the more elaborate cubilia of the blind- 
rat? 

A final word as to the name ἀσπάλαξ 
and its origin. We may safely take it 
that ἀσπάλαξ, σπάλαξ, σφάλαξ, σκά- 
Aoy, are all the same word, and mean 
the same thing; and it is at least 
probable that ἀσπάλαξ or σπάλαξ was 
not only the commoner but also the 
older form (cf. 2g. Et. M. σκάλοψ, ὁ 
σπάλαξ λέγεται παρὰ ᾿Αττικοῖς, ὡς λέγει 
Νικόκλῆς; cf. also Schol. Ar. Ach., 
σκάλοπας " μύας τινὰς, ὥς φαμεν σπά- 
λακας). But the old derivation, σκάλοψ, 
ἀπὸ TO σκάλλειν, ἢ σκαλεύειν, a fodiendo, 
is more than doubtful, though it is 
upheld both by Curtius and by Corssen. 
I suggest that the root (quasi slapax) 
lies in the Russian cxrbuoii (slyep-ote), 
blind; and as a matter of fact, accord- 
ing to Pallas and others, the Russian 
name of the animal is slapaz (slapétz, or 
slyepétz), literally the ‘ blind man.’ 


D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 13. 


OVIDIANA:-NOTES ΟΝ THE BASTI. 


I. 181-227. 


JANUS appears to Ovid, who is at 
first frightened (97, 98), but the god 
reassures him and proceeds to explain 
his nature, office, and the meaning of 
his double face (101-144). The poet 
plucks up courage and begins to inter- 
rogate the deity: 

147 sumpsi animum gratesque deo non terri- 
tus ΘΡῚ 
verbaque sum spectans pauca locu- 
tus humum. 

The first question Ovid asks is ‘ why 
does the year begin with January, and 
not, as might be expected, with 
Spring?’ As our text stands, this 
first question occupies twelve lines 
(149-160) ; Ovid’s remaining eight ques- 
tions are each expressed in a distich or 
less. This anomaly is accentuated 
when we compare the verba pauca of 
148 with the words which follow Janus’ 
answer. 


148 


I6I quaesieram multis. non multis ille 


moratus 
contulit in versus sic sua verba duo. 

Editors have tried to emend fauca ; 
Merkel reads facta, Riese suggests tarda 
or larga. Algermissen proposes flura, 
which is approved by Ehwald, and read 
by Davies. 

But the difficulty is not confined to 
these two lines (148, 161). After the 
sixth question and answer, Ovid says: 


162 


227 finierat monitus. 
ante 
clavigerum verbisadloquor 1058 deum. 


The incongruity of the poet address- 
ing placida verba to Janus will strike 
most readers. According to the Hein- 
sian apparatus five inferior MSS. read 
monitis, punctuating after placidis. 
Hoffmann punctuates after jimerat, 
taking monitus as a participle. This is 
apparently the first hand of Cod. Παγί. 
2737. But verbis is so placed as to 
make the construction monitus placidis 
verbis intolerably harsh. The noun is 
appropriate (cf. III. 167), and we have 
an almost decisive parallel— 


placidis ita rursus ut 


228 


Finierat monitus. dictis tamen ille repug- 
nat (Met. 11. 103). 


Baehrens proposed to read properis, 
and in his last two editions Peter reads 
pavidis (so Cornali). I confess that the 
picture of Ovid ejaculating his queries 
amid recurrent (rursus ut ante) spasms 
of terror appears to me extremely ludi- 
crous. Wunsch (Rhem. Mus. LXVI., 
IQOI, pp. 395, 396) suggested that 
lines 151-160 were added by Ovid 
when he was revising the first book just 
before his death, and that originally 
the first question consisted of the two 
lines . ; 

149 dic age frigoribus quare novus incipit 
annus 

qui melius per ver incipiendus erat ? 
Consequently Wiinsch holds that Ovid 
in his first draft wrote quaesieram pauicis 
in 161; when he revised the poem and 
added 151-160 (modelled on III. 235- 
242), he changed paucis to multis, but 
overlooked paucain 148. Before I read 
Wiinsch’s article, I had come to the con- 
clusion that we should read paucis in 
161. I had started with the puzzling 
placidis in 227, and was looking for the 
reference (vursus ul ante), and it seemed 
to me that it could only refer to the 148 
(verba pauca locutus) and to 161 which 
must be changed to paucis, and the 
same word was required to give point 
to. 227. In the first draft, therefore, 
Ovid wrote: 


148 verbaque sum spectans pauca locutus 


humum 

I6I quaesieram paucis. 

227 finierat monitus. paucis ita rursus, ut 
ante, 

clavigerum verbis adloquor ipse deum. 
I do not think, however, that it was 
Ovid who altered pfaucis in 161 to 
multis, and he certainly did not make 
the clumsy substitution placidis for 
paucis in 227.1 Such bungles belong to 


1 Placida verba would imply that Janus 
was enraged, but he has shown throughout 
a benevolent demeanour—perfect ‘placidity,’ 
in fact. The interpolator was guided by 
Met. I. 399 ‘ placidis Epimethida dictis | 
mulcet,’ cf. IV. 652. The interpolator of 
the Cod. Maz. in Fast. 1. 121 was helped by 
these lines and possibly by Met. XV. 657 
(‘placido tales emittere pectore voces’): 
as a result we get pacem placidis emittere 
dictis. 


14 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the school of ‘ Legi meum et prout potui 
sine magistro emendans enotavi.’ One 
is tempted to see a reminiscence of the 
true reading of 227 in desicvat paucis 
of the Cod. Maz., line 183.1 


IT. 193-243. 


I do not propose to discuss all the 
difficulties in Ovid’s account of the 
Fabii and the Cremera. I wish to 
question a reading, which has been 
generally accepted, of line 201. 

In Peter’s latest edition we have: 


201 Carmentis portae dextro® est via proxi- 
ma iano: 

ire per hanc noli, quisquis es: omen 
habet. 

illa fama refert Fabios exisse trecentos. 

(porta vacat culpa, sed tamen omen 
habet.) 

ut celeri passu Cremeram_ tetigere 
rapacem 

(turbidus hibernis ille fluebat aquis), 

castra loco ponunt, destrictis ensibus ipsi 

Tyrrhenum valido Marte per agmen 

eunt. 


The Poria Carmentalis was south of 
the Capitol; one passed through it 
from the forum boarium to the forum 
holitorium. Close by was the fanum 
(Solinus I. 13) and an altar of the god- 
dess (Dionys. I. 32; cf. Serv. den. 
VIII. 337). The Fabii left the city by 
this gate: ‘infelia via, dextro iano 
portae Carmentalis profecti ad Cre- 
meram flumen perveniunt’ (Liv. 11]. 
49, 8). The senate that sanctioned the 
expedition met in the temple of Janus 
just outside the gate: ‘religioni est 
quibusdam porta Carmentali egredi; et 
in aede Jani, quae est extra eam, sena- 
tum haberi; quod ea egressi sex et 
trecenti Fabii apud Cremeram omnes 
interfecti sunt, cum in aede Jani sena- 
tus consultum factum esset, uti pro- 
ficiscerentur ’ (Fest. 285). Hence the 


gate was named foria scelerata (Fest. 
335, Serv. l.c., Liv. L.c.). 

For centuries editors have dwelt on 
Ovid’s indebtedness to Livy.* There 
are not a few dissertations and articles 
on this theme, and so many instances 
apparently have been collected that at 
times Ovid seems nothing more than 
Livy in verse. But the writers have 
gone too far; Ovid obtained material 
from Livy, but there are many others 
to whom he was indebted, especially 
Verrius,! whose remarks on the porta 
Carmentalis are probably preserved by 
Festus (J.c.). 

To the ordinary reader 


Carmentis portae dextro est via proxima iano 


will seem a very clumsy sentence; he 
may even be inclined to doubt the 
Latin; he may go as far as to say that 
Ovid did not write these words. Com- 
pelled to translate, he will say that the 
meaning is—‘ the nearest way is through 
the right arch of the Gate of Carmen- 
tis.. Nearest to what? The answer 
is at first sight—‘to the Cremera.’ 
This answer until recently passed 
muster. But topographers have shown 
that it is absurd, and we have no 
reason to assume that Ovid knew as 
little about the environs of Rome as he 
knew about the stars. ‘ Hoc dicimus, 
Livii Ovidiique consensu standum esse,’ 
says Vahlen (Ind. lect. Berol., 1893, 
p. 11), and he proceeds to instruct the 
ordinary reader in the correct transla- 
tion—‘ If you (i.e. Ovid’s reader) find 
that your shortest way (when your 
destination, whatever it is, lies outside 
the city) is through the right arch of 
the Gate of Carmentis, avoid that 
route; it is unlucky.’ Vahlen quotes a 
number of what he conceives to be 
similar cases of conditional proposi- 
tions; I give two as typical: 


1 A recent examination of the cod. Maza- 
yinianus inclines me to believe that it is a direct 
copy of a MS. of which a portion survives— 
the fragm. Ilfeldense, see Merkel. p. cclxxiii. 
The Zulichemianus may be a collation of the 
same MS., which Merkel assigns to the twelfth 
century. 

2 dextvo is found in Zmfss; ‘it is estab- 
lished beyond possibility of doubt by Becker, 
R.A., p. 138" (Peter, app., p. 28). It is 
approved by Heinsius, Ehwald, Vahlen, and 
many others. 


3 On Ovid’s debt to Livy, see Neapolis, 
Heinsius, and early editors; also K. Schenk], 
Ztscht. f. dstey. Gymn. XI. (1860), pp. 401 f., 
E. Sofer, Livius als Quelle von Ovids Fasten, 
Wien, 1900. 

4 See H. Winther, ‘de Fastis Verrii ab 
Ovidio adhibitis, Bevol., 1885. Winther’s 
view that Verrius is the only source of Ovid’s 
information is, of course, quite untenable, as 
Ehwald (Jahresb., XLII. p. 172) and 
Wissowa (Anal. Rom. Top., Munich, 1904, 
p- 271) show. 


THE ‘CEASSICAL” KEVIEW 15 


Fast. II. 433 
orta dies fuerit: tu desine credere ventis. 
321 florebant oleae: venti nocuere protervi: 
florebant segetes: grandine laesa Ceres: 
in spe vitis erat: caelum nigrescit ab 
austris. 

These examples have satisfied Vahlen 
(and Peter and others) that est via in 
201 is equivalent to sz {δ᾽ fuerit via. 
I am perhaps too exacting; I am still 
of opinion that if Ovid meant what 
Vahlen says he meant, he could have 
written fuerit via (almost certainly 
adding i7bi), but he would not have 
written est via. Est via is no more 
conditional in the present passage 
than it is in line 679.1. And look at 
the next line (202). If all the em- 
phasis is on dextro iano, how are we to 
explain ‘ive per hanc noli’? The in- 
expert translator expects ‘ per hunc ᾽2 
Let Vahlen speak—‘ neque enim est 
quod per hunc legamus ut pronomen ad 
ianum referatur sed per hanc interpre- 
tamur scilicet eam quae dextro iano 
ducat, quemadmodum alibi loquitur 
Ovidius,’ 6, 604 ‘ibat per medias alta 
feroxque vias: omen autem habere nihil in- 
terest utrum 176 dicaturanvia.’ Trans- 
lation and explanation leave me cold. 
I hold that the-way through the porta 
Carmentalis (take either the right or the 
left arch—the difference could not be 
more than a few feet) is not the shortest 
way to the Cremera nor to Vahlen’s 
Nowhere and Anywhere; and I have a 
prejudice against any translation which 
divorces proxima from iano, to which 
it is married in the sight of Common 
Sense. 


1 Of course, a fact is sometimes presented 
as a condition, e.g., em. 567, 568, ‘est tibi 
rure bono generosae iertilis uvae | vinea: ne 
nascens usta sit uva time.’ But in such 
cases the real condition, qualified by the 
expressed fact, is understood. In the Rem. 
it would be ‘si tu, cui est vinea, non vis 
amare.’ If we accept Vahlen’s view of the 
passage in the Fasti, the context does not 
provide the general condition (‘si vis loca 
ominosa vitare’). The hypothetical pro- 
position is sprung on us without any warn- 
ing, and the abruptness is accentuated by 
the categorical form and the omission of the 
logical subject, for which we have to wait 
till we reach ‘ quisquis es.’ 

2 Even Ehwald feels the difficulty; he 
proposed formerly to read ‘per hunce’ 
(Jahresb. XLIII., p. 171). Is not proxima, 
moreover, a curious way of describing a road 
passing through an arch ? 


As an alternative we might fall back 
on the old reading 


Carmentis portae dextra est via proxima Iano. 


This version has a respectable history,? 
but ‘ the right way of the Gate of Car- 
mentis is nearest to (the temple of) 
Janus’ seems to postulate a via scel- 
vata not a porta scelerata. The order 
of the words, moreover, and the con- 
struction are not above suspicion. Let 
us turn to our oldest MS. (R). It gives 


Carmenti porte est dix ut proxima iano. 


Apparently nonsense; but the key to 
the riddle is to be found in the trick 
which the copyist had of substituting 
the familiar for the new or illegible in 
similar word-groups. In I. 447 he had 
to transcribe from his crabbed original, 
which was full of abbreviations, 


nam dis ut proxima quaeque. 


In the present passage he had before 
him 

Carmenti porta est duX via proxima iano. 
Any copyist might give us dix for dux 
(=duxit); we have Plautus, Οὐδέ. 177 
“dux Ji dix E> for duxt.* And ΘΝ 
via is not impossible. I believe, how- 
ever, that it was the word-group in 
I. 447 which determined the character 
of the blunder here. But Ovid did not 
write ‘ Carmenti porta est: duxit via 
proxima Iano.’ What Ovid wrote was 


Carmentis porta duxit via proxima Iano. 


‘Through the Gate of Carmentis their 
way led them close by the temple of 
Janus.’ Ovid’s version of the story is 
that which is given by Festus (/.c.). 
porta for per portam as Ovidian, cf. 11. 
985" AV. (345, Vi 7: Met: 33; 
and elsewhere. It is to an early cor- 
rector that we owe Carmenti porta est. 
There are several ways in which this 
change might be made. We have 
many examples in the Fast ; a notori- 
ous case is 1. 245, where R has ara mea 


3 Dextra est is the reading of V and the 
majority of the MSS. It is in such early 
editions as I have seen, and is retained by 
Merkel, Riese, Paley, Hallam; see Winther, 
op. cit. pp. 50 £. Jordan (Top. I. 1, 239, foot- 
note) suggests that dextro iano in Livy, /.c., 
means ‘ with the temple of Janus on their 
right ’; cf. Hermes, IV., p. 234. 

4 See Havet, Man. de C. V., p. 180. 


16 ‘THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


est colli for arx mea collis erat That 
this temple of Janus did not exist in 
the time of the Fabii? is no objection to 
the view that tano here=templo Iant (so 
glossat. cod. berol.). Ovid was not likely 
to be better informed than Verrius. 
That the temple of Janus was meant, 
not the arch, is rendered almost certain, 
firstly, by Ovid’s practice of determin- 
ing the sites of temples by their con- 
tiguity to the gates (IV. 871, VI. 192, 
Rem. 540, cf. Fast. V. 673); secondly, by 
the fact that Augustus had undertaken 
the restoration of this temple.* In his 
first draft of the Fast, it was to 
Augustus that Ovid paid all his atten- 
tion. The poem was the incense offered 
to avert the wrath to come: 

saepe Iovem vidi, cum iam sua mittcre vellet 

fulmina, ture dato sustinuisse manum. 

If we must at all costs satisfy the Livid- 
lans, in the historian’s account of the 
Cremera occurs— duxit via in editum 
leniter collem.’ Without wishing to 
commit myself unreservedly to a ‘ con- 
sensus Propertii Ovidiique,’ I shall 
venture to cite El. 11 175: 


si te forte meo ducet via proxima busto 
esseda caelatis siste Britanna iugis.* 


1 The distich perhaps was 
“arx mea collis erat, quem cultum nomine 
nostrum 
nuncupat 
vocat.’ 


haec aetas Ianiculumque 


Quem vulgus codd. The hill was in olden 
days the arx Iani, over against the arx 
Saturni (cf. Aen. VIII. 357): in Ovid’s day 
it was called the collis nomine Iani cultus, 
1.6. the Iani-culum. vulgus is a gloss on 
haec aetas. If Heinsius is right in his view 
that Carmens was an adjective=Carmen- 
talis (see his note on IV. 875), we could read 
Carmenti porta duxit v. p. 1. But I cannot 
find any support for Carmens. 

2 Mommsen suggested that the porta 
Ianualis (=Ianus Geminus of the forum 
Romanum) of the original legend was con- 
founded with the dexter ianus of the porta 
Carmentalis, see Jordan, l.c. 

3 It is to this temple that Ovid refers in 
I. 223-226. It was the only real Temple 
of Janus in Rome. It had originally been 
vowed by Duillius at Mylae: Augustus had 
undertaken its restoration, and the new 
foundation was dedicated by Tiberius in 
17 A.D. See Wissowa, Rel. τε. Kult., p. 106; 
Jordan, Top. I. 1, p. 347; Jordan-Huelsen, 
I. 3, p. 508; Richter, Top., p. 194. 

* For Ovid’s echoes of Propertius, see 
Zingerle, Ovidius τι. sein Verhdliniss zu den 
Vorgangern u. gleichzeitigen vim. Dichtern, 
Pt. I., Innsbruck, 1869. Of course Ovid 


he 772. 

Ovid is telling the story of the Fishes. 
Dione, flying from Typhon, sprang with 
Cupid in her arms, into the Euphrates. 
The Fishes rescued the goddess and her 
son—fisces subieve gemelli. The next 
line is dark, and we have a multitude 
of counsellors, viz.: 


A. pro quo nunc cernis sidera nomen habent 
(βαρεῖ R) RVM. et codd. plurimi : so many 
early editors (Aldines, Bersmann, and others): 
so Peter third and fourth editions. 

B. pro quo nunc dignum sidera munus 
habent BCm, et alii nonn.: so Modius’ lost 
Cologne MS.: so the texts of N. Heinsius, 
Cnipping, Burman, and others. 

b. pro quo nunc dignum sidera nomen 
habent aliquot codd. interpolati. 

C. pro quo quae cernis sidera nomen habent 
‘Nauger., Petav., Zulich., et tres alii’ 
(Heins.:)5 so in the edition of Rubeus and 
the Gryphian. 

(a.) pro quo nunc, cernis, sidera munus 
habent—J. F. Gronovius, followed by Gierig, 
Lemaire, and others. 

(8.) pro quo nunc cerni sidera munus 
habent—an emendation of Heinsius, which 
has been accepted by Merkel, Riese, Paley, 
Hallam, Davies, and others. 


We are inclined to exclaim in Ovid's 

words: 

‘sic, quia posse datur diversos reddere versus 
qua ferar, ignoro, copiaque ipsa nocet.’ 
Like Dione we are beginning to 

drown, but here are two fishes—I hope 

that they are not merely straws—to help 
us: (1) In similar ‘catasterismi’ Ovid 
seems to describe an actual change, the 


derived much profit from Propertius, es- 
pecially from the Roman elegies; see Schanz, 
Ῥ. 147, Peter, Introd., p. 14. ; 

I have confined myself in the foregoing 
note to the discussion of line 201. I must, 
however, add that I share the views of those 
(against whom Vahlen fulminated) who 
regard lines 203, 204 as spurious. The 
distich is omitted by R and the first hand of 
V. The interpolator versified what were, 
perhaps, in his MS. only explanatory glosses. 

5 By the Cod. (or Codd.) Naugey. Heinsius 
meant just the text of the third Aldine 
edition (1533). Heinsius seems to have 
forgotten that the editor was Fasitelius, not 
Navagero. Merkel (praef. p. ccxci) is mis- 
leading). In two cases (here and V. 701) 
Heinsius’ reference to Naugerius 15 appro- 
priate, for the reading is taken from the list 
of ‘ variae lectiones’ given by Navagero in 
the second volume of the 1516 Aldine, a 
list which Fasitelius copied incorrectly in 
the third volume of the 1533 edition, though 
he paid little or no attention to these readings 
in choosing his text. ‘ Petav.’ is a slip for 
‘ Petavianus alter,’ as Heinsius ’’ MSS. notes 
(in Merkel) show. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 17 


earthly body becomes an astral body, 
the metamorphosis is an ‘ apasterosis.’ 
(2) Kriiger! seems right in insisting 
that the weight of testimony is in 
favour of nomen habent. It is the 
reading of the best MSS., and it is 
the ‘lectio difficilior.’ 

Examine B first. It is, if translated 
‘they (1.6. the Fishes) have (or occupy) 
the stars as a well-earned reward,’ in 
itself unobjectionable and may be sup- 
ported by V. 114 ‘caelum praemia .. . 
habet, A.A. 1.557 munus habe caelum.’ 
Munus habere like nomen habere is 
very frequent in Ovid. But how did 
dignum become cernis in our best MSS. ? 
And the best MSS. favour nomen habere. 
The alternative translation ‘ they (the 
Fishes) have as stars their appropriate 
reward ’ is forced, for the obvious sub- 
ject of habent—viz. sidera—is dispos- 
sessed by the mentally supplied pisces ; 
and there are the palaeographical diffi- 
culties as in the case of B. Version b 
is hardly worth discussion; it is a child 
of A and B, and is more faulty than 
either of its parents. 

Version C seems to suggest that the 
stars are merely commemorative of the 
Fishes, vid. supra (1). And how did 
quae (easy) become nune (difficult) Ὁ 

Gronovius’ version (a) suffers from 
some of the defects of B or b: the 
parenthetic cernis is also a difficulty. 

Heinsius’ version (8) is, I think, in- 
felicitous. It claims consideration only 
on Aristotelian grounds τυγχάνει δὲ 
λόγου διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς τῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκδό- 
σεων ὁμογνωμονεῖν τῷ πάνυ. Heinsius 
thought so little of it that he did not 
put it in his text. It should be removed, 
with similar malformations (e.g. III. 
229, 230) to a museum of grammatical 
pathology. The writer, at least, cannot 
believe that it ever came from Ovid’s 
peu 


1 P. 23, de Ovidi Fastis recensendis: diss. 
inaug. Suerini, 1887. 

2 Heinsius’ alternative suggestion—nunc 
caelum sideva munus habent—is neat though 
improbable. The crude cerni sidera munus 
habent (‘have as reward the right to be seen 
in the form of stars ’) is matched only by the 
equally doubtful distich 


“inde diem, quae prima, meas celebrare 
Kalendas 
Oebaliae matres non leve munus habent’ 
(III. 229, 230), 


NO. CCLXVIII. VOL. XXXII. 


Version A still remains—the reading 
of our best MSS., which Peter has 
adopted. One would naturally trans- 
late ‘in recompense therefor the 
stars—you see them—are named the 
Fishes.’ But Peter, aware of Ovid’s 
practice (vid. sup. i.), warns us that the 
words mean ‘in recompense for which 
they nowadays—you see them—as stars 
have a great name.’ In our school- 
days we used to talk of ‘ translating 
through a stone wall.’ There is, I 
think, a murus aeneus between Peter 
and the meaning that he wishes to 
seize. Old scholars knew this: they 
felt that you must get appropriate 
Latin before you can get the appropriate 
meaning, and having less awe of MSS. 
than we moderns have, proceeded to 
“castigate’ those refractory servants 
until they assumed a correct Latin 
demeanour—hence the neat variants 
B and C. The objections to Peter’s 
interpretation are two: firstly, sidera, 
which by right of position is the sub- 
ject of habent, is ousted by a mental up- 
start (fzsces), and suffers further in- 
dignity at the hands of another mental 
upstart (wi); secondly, the abruptness of 
the interjected cernis is unexampled, at 
least, | think, in our author. To illus- 
tratecernis! Petercites1V. 936 (vidimus). 
He could have given a page of examples 
like vidimus, which comes naturally to 
the lips of the speaker. But parenthe- 


which Heinsius, Burman, Merkel (Reim.), 
and others read. I hope to discuss the 
whole passage later. At present (cf. VI. 101) 
I am inclined to think that Ovid wrote some- 
thing like— 


‘inde dies data prima deae: celebrate Kalen- 
das 
Oebaliae matres, non leve nomen habent.’ 


nomen R ; for confusion of meas and deae cf. 
Il. 782; celebvare—celebrate is a very common 
blunder, cf. IV. 865, 759, 11. 533, 557. Data 
was perhaps abbreviated in the archetype. 
The root of the mischief was the charge of 
deae to meae—wmeas ; cf. 11. 782 where R has 
meusque for deusque. I overlooked the 
reading of the 1629 Elzevir (Dan. Heins.) 
‘pro quo nunc, cernis, sidera numen _ ha- 
bent.’ numen is found, according to the 
Heinsian apparatus (Merkel) only in one 
second class MS. The objections to this 
reading was obvious. Ovid uses numen 
habere to indicate that a person or place is 
“ possessed ’ by a deity, not to describe an 
apotheosis or ‘ apasterosis.’ 


zB 


18 Ἶ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


tic categorical remarks consisting of a 


verb in the present indicative second 


person, without a qualifying particle are 
hard to find; certainly, it is extremely 
hard to find a case like the cerns here. 
However, there is apparently an exact 
parallel, which Peter has overlooked, 
viz. 

dat simul et iaculum, manibus quod (cernis !) 

habemus (Met. VII. 756). 

But there is a great citference between 
the two cases. In the Metamorphoses 
the subject (Cephalus is speaking to 
Phocus), and the object of cernis are 
known. The object is twice mentioned 
prior to cermis, and quod which precedes 
immediately is in the accusative, so 
that the sentence readily expands into 
quod cernis, qucd manibus habemus. In 
the Fasti the object (sideva) is men- 
tioned after cernis ; it 15 mentioned 
only to be snatched away, because it 
is wanted in the nominative as sub- 
ject to habent, or to serve in the 
nominative as a predicative to the un- 
expressed subject. Hence the mental 
jolt in the Fast: ; in the Metamorphosis 
there is a slight brachylogy, but the 
thought is smooth and logical.1 The 
latter passage is possibly sound—I 
shall leave the question open; the line 
in the Fasti I regard as certainly cor- 
rupt. If compelled to accept a paren- 
thesis, I would include in it sideva and 
translate—‘ wherefore they (the Fishes) 
—you see the stars—have great re- 
nown. 

A monosyllabic preposition cannot 
be separated from its case by the break 
in the pentameter. An opinion, I 
think, existed and exists that this rule 
holds also for dissyllabic prepositions. 
But we have— 


1 Some inferior MSS. have quod nos ut 
cernis habemus or manibus quod cernis habere 
(cf. Fast. 111. 116); the former is the reading 
of the 1533 Aldine, the latter of the 1502 
Aldine and the editions of Gryphius, Bers- 
mann, and others. Heinsius thought of 
manibus quod cernis haberi, but finally agrees 
with Gronovius (Obb. IV. c. 18) in accept- 
ing quod cernis habemus. He cites Aen. 
VI. 760 ‘ ille, vides, pura iuvenis qui nititur 
hasta | proxima sorte tenet lucis loca,’ where 
the object of vides is easily supplied by the 
preceding 1116, almost like ille quem vides; 
the speaker here also as in Met. VII. 756 isa 
definite person (Aeneas). 


A.A. I. 230 est aliquid praeter vina, 
quod inde petas. 
A.A. III. 418 saepe vagos extra limina 
ferte pedes. 
inclusam contra iusque pi- 
umque tenet. 


Flex. NUL ta 


Cf. Tibullus, I. 6, 30 contra quis ferat 


arma deos ?2 


Somewhat similar is the allocation of 
the preposition and its case to the hexa- 
meter and the pentameter respectively; 
an arrangement of which Ovid is very 
fond. I think, therefore, that it is not 
improbable that Ovid wrote 

pisces subiere gemelli, 

pro quo nunc inter sidera nomen habent. 

If we look at the group nuncinter- 
sidera, we recognise that the transposi- 

ion of letters was not unlikely? τ 

think, however, that the change may 

have occurred owing to a correction 

made to distinguish the ‘inter’ from 

the ‘in’ symbol (vid. Lindsay, N.L., 
t 


er 
p. r1zr)—thus 7 But psychological 


conditions were present; cevneve and — 


sideva are perpetually connected in 
Latin—e.g. line 671 (vid. Havet. Man. 
p- 141 ‘ suggestion bilatérale ’). 

As a reward for rescuing Dione the 
Fishes ‘ have renown among the stars.’ 
Kriiger (/.c.) was at pains to show that 
Ovid was fond of the phrase nomen 
habere=gloria floreve: he might have 
added that in this sense the words have 
very frequently a local reference—l 
cite a few examples: 


Fast. 111. 66 pudet in paucis nomen habere 
casis 
187 iamque loco maius nomen 
Romanus habebat. 
V. 225 tu quoque nomen habes cul- 
tos, Narcisse, per hortos. 
Ex Pont. 111. 2, 96 in Scythia magnum nunc 
quoque nomen habent. 
IV. 13, 20 et placui (gratare mihi) 
coepique poetaet 
inter inhumanos  no- 
men habere Getas (cf. 
Her. XVI. 142.) 


2 Cf. Ex Pont. Ill. 7,.8° né tomes compaa 
quam rapit amnis eam,’ and 4.4. 11. 182: 
and perhaps Fast. V. 348 ‘illa cothur- 
natas inter habenda deas’: Am. I. Τί, 2 
‘docta neque ancillas inter habenda, Nape.’ 
Nor would we expect lines like ‘ iustaque de 
viduo-paene querela toro ’ (Tvist. V. 5, 48). 

3 Prof. Housman gives a useful list of 
similar transpositions, Manilius, Bk. I, 
Introduction; see especially pp. lviii, lix. 

4 Query poeta ἢ 


i iit χω te EE 


a 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 19 


When Callisto became the Great Bear, 
‘intumuit Iuno, postquam iter sidera 
paelex fulsit’ (Met. 11. 508). Not un- 
frequently Ovid’s language in describ- 
ing such metamorphoses is very terse 
and simple—e.g. Lif. 808 ‘attulit illi | 
miluus et meritis venit in astra suis.’ 
Hyginus, Asty. 11. 41, has—‘ (Piscis 
Notius) quondam Isim servasse exist- 
imatur: pro gio beneficio simulacrum 
piscis, et eius filarum de quibus antea 
diximus, iter astva constituit. Itaque 
Syri complures pisces non esitant et 
eorum simulacra inaurata pro diis Pena- 
tibus colunt.’ Hyginus has many re- 
miniscences of Ovid, and perhaps he 
had our passage beiore him in this 
instance. But I do not feel certain, as 
he uses the words inter astra several 
times in other connections. 
Il. 749, 750. 


postmodo victa cades. melioribus, Ardea, 


restas, 
improba, quae nostros cogis abesse viros. 
R has-vesias, V has rvestat. Three 


inferior MSS. have postea, and one has 
the rather neat Ardea signis.1_ Lucretia 
is apostrophising Ardea, and reproach- 
ing it for persisting in a_ hopeless 
resistance. The usual translation is— 
* You will soon be vanquished and fall. 
You are resisting better men than 
yourself, Ardea—wretch that you are 
to be keeping our husbands from their 
homes.’ There is no fault to be found 
with the sentiment, but can we derive 
it fairly from the words before us? 
Heinsius says ‘ Versus de mendo sus- 
pectus. Cogitabam aliquando dum- 
modo victa cadas, melioribus, Ardea, 
vyesta, ut sit voventis.’ There is no 
doubt that restarve=vresisteve is found 
occasionally in Latin authors. Butcan 
anyone supply an example from Ovid 
of alicut vestare=alicut resistere. Ovid 
uses vestare very frequently, usually as 
equivalent to maneve. I have noticed 
three cases where vestavye implies ob- 
stinate lingering (resistance)—viz. Met. 
Iil. 626 (‘is mihi, dum resto, iuvenali 
gutture pugno | rupit), VII. 411 (‘re- 
stantem ... Cerberon extraxit’), XIII. 
047 (‘ nec potui restare diu’).2 But in 

1 From line 721 ardea votis would perhaps 
be better (cf. IV. 895). 

2 There is, however, a difference between 


vestave and vesisteve: the former connotes 
rather passive than active resistance. 


every case where vestare is construed 
with a dative, it means manere. I give 
a few examples: 


Fast. 11. 151 restant tibi frigora, restant! 
ill. 44 restabant nitido iam duo signa 
deo. 
V. 388 iussaque restabant ultima paene 
viro. 


Met. I. 728 ultimus inmenso restabas, Nile 
labori. 
11. 655 restabat fatis aliquid, cf. XIII. 
379- 
V. 208 bis centum restabant corpora 
pugnae. 
V. 639 ne quod facinus tibi, perfide, 
restet. 
XIII. 507 soli mihi Pergama restant 
(cf. Her. I. 51 diruta sunt aliis, uni mihi 
Pergama restant). 


The above examples are selected from 
a long list, and will show that for Ovid 
at least alicut restare means alicw 
manere, not alicui resisteve. 1 believe 
that vestas is sound.? The sins of Rand 
of its archetype are not, as a rule, sins 
of commission; but sins of omission are 
not very rare. Corrections which pos- 
tulate the loss of a word are always 
suspect, so it is with some trepidation 
that I suggest that Ovid may have 
written something like this: 


victa cades—victis melioribus, Ardea, restas? 
inproba, quae nostros cogis abesse viros ! 


For the punctuation, cf. TV. 857, 858. 
Tarquin had aspired to be a great con- 
queror—‘ ceperat hic alias, alias evert- 
erat urbes’ (689). Livy tells us that he 
had already taken Swessa Pometia 
and Gabi: (Livy I. 53, cf. Fast. 11. 690. 
What hope was there then for Ardea ἢ 
Viclis was omitted after victacades.* 
Postmodo or postea was possibly a com- 
pletive gloss, see Havet, pp. 271 f. Punc- 
tuated as above, rvestare will have the 
notion of obstinacy that is seen in the 
first three examples cited above. It is 
possible, however, to take captis m. 7. as 
a statement—‘ better cities than you 
have fallen, you are the last to be 
conquered.’ 


3 Otherwise one might suggest certas for 
vestas. 

4 Captis or caesis (cf. 709) may have been 
the missing word, but victa—victis is more 
Ovidian. 

(To be continued.) 


Ε. He AETON, 


20 THE /CEASSICAL REVIEW, 


THE PROSPECTIVE IN SUBJUNCTIVE CLAUSES. 


I WELCOME Mr. Goodrich’s article 
in the last number of the Classical 
Review as a valuable contribution 
to an important problem on which 
further light is needed; and 1 desire in 
the present note to indicate how far I am 
in agreement with Mr. Goodrich’s theory, 
and to correct or supplement his state- 
ment (p. 84 note) as to the relation in 
which his theory stands to my own. 

In the main Mr. Goodrich is clearly 
right ; the past? subjunctives to which the 
calls attention refer to the future from a 
past point of view; they are past 
prospectives, expressing the idea of what 
was to be, had to be, was likely to be, etc. 
Their essential characteristic is that they 
stand in past time but look forward from 
the past to the then future. They might, 
therefore, be called ‘futures in the past.’ 
Thus, to take Mr. Goodrich’s first 
example, quam praedicant in fuga 
fratris sui membra in eis locts qua 56 
parens persequeretur dissipavisse (Cie. 
de Imp. Cn. Pomp. Q, 22), the meaning of 
the relative clause with the subjunctive 
is ‘where her father was to (was likely 
to, was going to) follow her’; we might 
also translate by ‘would follow her, 
using the word ‘would’ in the same sense 
as in ‘I knew that he would come’; or 
‘A few days were to bring on the fatal 
fight of Edgehill, where the slain would 
be counted by thousands’ (Mark Lemon), 
2.6. to denote futurity in the past. This 
use of the word must, however, be care- 
fully distinguished from its use in a sen- 
tence like ‘He would come, if I asked 
him,’ where ‘would come’ stands not in 
past time but in present time, and 
denotes what zs likely to happen. 

But I cannot follow Mr. Goodrich 
when he proceeds to say that the past 
subjunctive in his instances denotes not 
pure futurity (from a past point of view) 
but ‘contingent futurity,’ z.e. what I have 
called ‘ conditioned futurity.’, Mr. Good- 
rich has himself rightly insisted (p. 84) 


1 I employ the term recommended by the 
Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology 
for what is commonly called the ‘imperfect 
subjunctive.’ The superiority of the term ‘ past 
subjunctive’ for the purpose of this discussion 
is manifest. 


that the tense used in his instances (e.g. 
persequeretur) ‘cannot be reconciled 
with the accepted rules governing con- 
ditional sentences ; for according to these 
the imperfect subjunctive refers either to 
present or past time, never to future time 
either from the present or the past.’ Why, 
then, does he think it necessary to regard 
his instances as expressing the same idea 
as is expressed in the main clause of a 
conditional sentence with the subjunc- 
tive? No doubt, as he says, there is a 
condition implied in some (the minority) 
of his instances, e.g. in No. 2, propter 
vitae cupiditatem, quae me manens con- 
ficeret angoribus, dimissa molestus 
omnibus liberaret (Cic. Phil 11. 17. 37); 
here the participles manens and dimissa 
are equivalent to if-clauses. Yes, but 
they need not represent if-clauses with 
the subjunctive. The whole difficulty of 
the tense is got over by regarding 
manens conficeret and dimissa liberaret 
aS expressing in past time the same 
meaning as is expressed in present time 
by manens (or st manebit) confictet and 
dimissa (or sz dimissa erit) liberabit. In 
other words, these past subjunctives 
express not conditioned futurity but pure 
futurity ; and this brings them into line 
with Mr. Goodrich’s other instances (the 
majority), in which no sort of condi- 
tion is expressed or implied, e.g. per- 
sequeretur, ‘would pursue’ (correspond- 
ing in past time to perseguetur, ‘will 
pursue, in present time). 

I regard Mr. Goodrich’s instances, 
then, as containing what I call ‘ prospec- 
tive subjunctives, and I should put them 
under § 339 of my New Latin Grammar. 
Mr. Goodrich is mistaken in saying that 
I confine the prospective subjunctive to 
temporal clauses. He has not noticed 
that I explicitly include adjective clauses 
(z.e. relative clauses) as well as other 
kinds of adverb clauses in ὃ 339; see, too, 
my ὃ 542 (sz proderent). Herein I am 
quite consistent with what I have said on 
former occasions. In the article in the 
Classical Review (Vol. VIL, 1803, 
pp. 7-11) in which I proposed the term 
‘prospective’ I quoted two instances in 
relative clauses (Virg. Aen. III. 653 and 
Hor, Saz. 11. 8. 75), and in my Unaty of 


THE CLASSICAL, KEVIEW 21 


the Latin Subjunctive (1910, p. 35) 
several more, among them gua incederet 
‘where he was to pass’ (Tac. Aun. XIV. 
13)—an instance very similar to Mr. 
Goodrich’s No. 1. I have since then col- 
lected other instances, e.g. Virg. Aex. 1. 
20 guae verteret ‘was to overthrow,’ and 
Tac. Germ. 29 in quibus pars imperi 
Romani frerent ‘were to become’—an 
instance which Draeger (Hist. Syntax, 
Theil IV., p. 503) says he cannot under- 
stand—and Aun. XIV. 63 zx qua unthil 
nist luctuosum haberet ‘was to have’ 
The following instances have a co- 
ordinating relative, and an implied con- 
dition, like some of Mr. Goodrich’s 
instances: Czc. pro Mur. 15, 33 qua 
effracta tota pateret provincia ‘was 
likely to be exposed’; de Offic. III. 11, 
12, guo facto frangi Lacedaemoniorum 
opes necesse esset ‘it was likely to be 
necessary.’ 


There may be some to whom the doc- 
trine that a past subjunctive may have 
the same meaning in past time as a 
future indicative has in present time may 
seem strange. May I commend to their 
attention the article by Mr. A. C. Pear- 
son in the current number of the 
Classical Quarterly (pp. 57-68), in which 
he withdraws without reserve his pre- 
vious objection to my view? Asin Latin 
the past subjunctive, so in Greek the 
optative may bea past prospective owing 
to its inherent meaning. This I have 
recognized in my Greek Grammar, 
§ 504¢ (e.g. ἕτοιμος ἣν ταῦτα ποιεῖν ἃ 
εἴποις, ‘the things which you should 
say’); for the corresponding meaning in 
present time see Demosth. de Pace 11: 
πλὴν δι’ ἃ ἂν ὑμῖν εἴπω δύο, ‘the two 
things which I shall tell you,’ where ἄν 
with the subjunctive expresses pure 
futurity, not generality. 

E. A. SONNENSCHEIN. 


PRISCIANUS:LYDUS AND JOHANNES SCOLITUS: 


IN 529 Justinian brought his persecu- 
tion of the adherents of the old pagan 
religion to a climax by the issue of an 
edict enforcing the suppression of the 
philosophical schools at Athens, where 
the study of ancient philosophy had been 
kept alive by a long series of Neo- 
Platonic philosophers. 

Asa result of this display of Christian 
intolerance seven Neo-Platonic teachers 
left Athens and sought refuge with 
Chosroes, king of Persia, who was an 
enlightened man and interested in the 
study of Aristotle and Plato. The names 
of these philosophers were Damascius, 
Simplicius, Diogenes, Hermeias, Isidorus, 
Eulalius, and Priscianus of Lydia. We 
possess, unfortunately, no details of their 
doings in Persia, but their visit was not 
unprofitable, for in 533 when Chosroes 
concluded peace with Justinian, he ex- 
pressly stipulated in the treaty that the 
philosophers were to be allowed to return 
to Greece and to live without molestation 
in the enjoyment of their religious beliefs 
and in the pursuit of their philosophical 
studies.‘ As Chosroes commenced to 


1 Agathias, H7zst. 11. 30; Zumpt, Ueber den 
Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen 
in Abhi. der k. Akad. zu Berlin, 1842, pp. 60- 


reign in September 531, the period of 
their voluntary exile falls between the 
end of that year and the peace of 533. 
The fruits of the intercourse between 
Chosroes and one of these seven sages, 
Priscianus Lydus, who is said to have 
been a pupil of Damascius,? have been 
preserved in the form of a treatise con- 
sisting of a number of dissertations on 
philosophical and _ scientific su iects 
designed as answers to a series of ques- 
tions put by the king. The original 
Greek text of this work has disappeared,® 
but we possess a Latin translation which 
was discovered by Jules Quicherat* in a 
MS. at Paris. The text of this MS., 
which is incomplete owing to the loss of 
several folios, was published for the first 


63; Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant. Litt.,? 1897) 
pp. 5-6; Diehl, /zst2nten, 1901, pp. 562-564 ; 
Sandys, Ast. Class, Schol. i.,2 1906, p. 375; 
Holmes, The Age of Justinian, ii., 1907, pp. 
432-439. 

2 See Christ, Gesch. der griechischen Litt. 
11.5, 1913, p. 870. 

3 The only Greek work of Priscianus now 
known to exist is the Meragpaots τῶν Θεοφράστου 
published by Bywater (Prisctani Lydi Quae 
E-xtant, in Supplementum Artstotelicum, vol. i., 
pars. 2, Berolini, 1886, pp. 1-37). 

4 Bibl. de [Ecole des Chartes, 3° série, t. 4, 
1853, pp. 248-263. 


22 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


time by F. Dibner. Some years later 
a portion of the missing matter was sup- 
plied from two later MSS. at London by 
V. Rose,? and the complete work was 
finally edited for the Berlin Academy by 
Ingram Bywater® in 1886. The Latin 
translation, which is anonymous, bears 
the title, Prisciani Philosophi Solutiones 
Eorum De Quibus Dubitavit Chosroes 
Persarum Rex. It was conjectured by 
Quicherat* that the translator was 
Johannes Scottus (Eriugena), a writer® 
who flourished at the court of Charles 
the Bald c. 845-870. This view was 
adopted by Traube® and apparently also 
by Manitius.’? While admitting that the 
translater may have lived in the Caroline 
period Bywater® rejected the ascription 
to Johannes. I shall endeavour to show 
that the translation was made in the 
sixth, or at latest in the seventh century, 
and that it was not even known to 
Eriugena. 
Quicherat states his reasons thus :° 


Le manuscrit est du neuviéme siécle, et 
exécuté certainement en France. . Je ne 
crois pas me tromper en attribuant également ἃ 
la France et au neuviéme siécle le travail de 
traduction. La raison que j’ai de le croire 
est que cette traduction étant nécessairement 
Vceuvre d’un littérateur latin qui vivait entre le 
sixiéme et le neuviéme siccle, pour toute cette 
période on ne trouve qu'un homme dans I’Occi- 
dent qui ait ini la science du grec a l’intelligence 
de la philosophie néoplatonicienne: et cet 
homme est notre Jean Scot, que d’autres 
appellent Hrigéne. Aussi bien l’idée du méme 
auteur, se présente encore a l’esprit quand on 
voit les solutions de Priscien précédées dans le 
manuscrit par le traité de Scot sur la Pré- 
destination. 


1 Plotini Enneades, Didot, 1855, pp. 553-579. 

2 Aristoleles Pseudepigraphus, Lipsiae, 1863, 
pp. 338-341; and Amecdota Graeca et Graeco- 
latina, i., Berlin, 1864, pp. 53-58. 

3 Prisciant Lydi μας Extant, pp. 41-104; 
cf. Jackson, /ngram Bywater, 1917, pp. 96-98. 

4 Loc. cit. supra, p. 253. 

_ 5 For an account of him cf Esposito, Studies, 
li. 1913, Pp. 505. 

6 Ap. Rand, Johannes Scottus, Miinchen, 
1906, p. ix n. Traube offers no proof of his 
view, nor of his alternative suggestion that a 
certain Fergus of Saint-Amand may have been 
the translator. 

7 Gesch. lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, 1.) 1911, 
pp: 331, 338. 

8 Loc. cit. supra, p. xi. The Caroline period 
was suggested also by Usener (Rhein. Mus., 
N.F., 25, 1870, p. 607) and by Diels (Doxographt 
Graect, 1879, p. 77). 


9 =e fg AS Ps μ᾽ 
9 Loe. cit., pp. 25 Sf. 


The second of the above reasons, the 
fact that the Solutiones are immediately 
preceded in the Paris MS. (daz. 13386) by 
the Liber De Praedestinatione of 
Johannes proves nothing, for the MS. is 
a composite ore made up of a number of 
different fragments. Thus ff. 103-159 
containing the De Pracdestinatione are 
in a hand of the end of the ninth century, 
and ff, 160-207 containing the Solutzones 
are a portion of another MS. written in a 
different and somewhat earlier ninth- 
century hand.1° The juxtaposition of 
the two treatises is thus a matter of mere 


chance and it does not occur in the three 


later MSS. (Two at London, one at 
Mantua). 

As for the first statement that between 
the sixth and the ninth centuries 
Johannes Scottus was the only man in 
the West who had sufficient knowledge 
to produce such a translation, it is 
entirely contrary to the facts. In the 
sixth and seventh centuries a very con- 
siderable number of Greek scientific and 
theological works were translated into 
Latin,!! and in the ninth under the influ- 
ence of the Carolingian renaissance other 
scholars besides Johannes were able to 
acquirea knowledgeci Greek.'? Indeed, 
the Hellenic culture of Johannes Scottus 
has been repeatedly over-estimated. He 
was surpassed in this respect by his con- 
temporary Anastasius Buibliothecarius, 
translator of several Greek theological 
works.!?. Moreover the translation of 
the Pseudo-Dionysian writings under- 
taken by Johannes had to be sent to 
Anastasius for revision and correction 
before it could be published,** a fact 
which proves that Anastasius was 


10 Cf. Traube, A/on. Germ. Hist., Poetae, iii., 
p- 522. In this work, published in 1£96, Traube 
merely admitted that the translation may have 
been produced during the Caroline age. 

11 For example, Dioscorides, Galen, Oribasius, 
Soranus, etc., cf. Teuffel, Gesch. rn. Lit.,5 1890, 
δδ 400, 463, 480, 483, 487, 489, 494, 4985 
Schanz, Gesch. rim. Litt., iv., 1904, pp. 273, 386. 

12 I hope to deal with this question ona future 
occasion. 

13 Cf Manitius, Gesch. der lat. Lit. des Mittel- 
alters, i., pp. 678-689. To the works of Anas- 
tasius enumerated by Manitius must be added 
the Latin version of the Historia Mystica, attri- 
buted to 8. Germanus of Constantinople, of 
Brightman, Journ. Theol. Studies, ix., 1908, pp. 
249-50. 

14 Manitius, Joc. czt., pp. 682, 687. 


| 
| 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 23 


admitted to have had a more competent 
knowledge of Greek than Johannes. 

The argument, however, which ap- 
pears to me conclusive as upsetting 
Quicherat’s theory that Johannes 
Scottus was the translator of the Solw- 
tzones is drawn from the Latinity of the 
work (the study of which is much facili- 
tated by Bywater’s excellent Index Ver- 
borum). -This Latinity 15 frankly 
‘barbarous, in which respect it bears a 
close similarity to that of the numerous 
Graeco-Latin translations of scientific 
works which appeared in the sixth and 
seventh centuries.1 Equally deficient is 
the translator’s knowledge of Greek, and 
as a result the text of the Solutzones is 
frequently incomprehensible or can only 
be understood by writing down the 
Greek phrase of which the Latin is 
evidently a word for word reproduc- 
tion.” The Latinity and general style 
of Johannes, on the other hand, are of 
a different type and bear the evident 
stamp of the Carolingian grammatical 
reform. It is in the highest degree un- 
likely that the author of the translations 
of Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus 
Confessor, and of the De Divisione 
Naturae, could have produced the cor- 
rupt jargon of the Solutzones. 

Of great importance also is the fact 
that though in one of his latest works, 
the De Divisione Naturae, Eriugena 
frequently treats of the same scientific 
phenomena as are discussed in the Solz- 
tiones of Priscianus, yet he never refers 
to the latter work by name nor is there 
a particle of evidence to show that he 


1 The vocabulary supplies a large number of 
words not found in the Thesaurus Linguwae 
Latinae, e.g. acherdos, affectabilis, antmativus, 
cation, circulariter, cognitivus, cotnclinare, cont- 
moderatio, compassibilitas, compressura, concor- 
rumpere, connaturaliter, connaturalitas, conne- 
bulatio, consummativus, contemperantia, dtsct- 
flinatus (noun), factivus. 

2 Bywater, ed., p. xi., Gemini Elementa 
Astronomiae, ed. C. Manitius, Lipsiae, 1898, 
pp. 250-51. 


had the smallest acquaintance with it. 
Johannes was fond of parading the 
views of Greek writers and it is incon- 
ceivable that had he known—not to say 
translated —the Solutzones he would 
have abstained from quoting the refer- 
ences* to Aristotle, Theophrastus, 
Geminus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Strabo, 
Posidonius, etc., with which the pages 
of Priscianus abound. This difficulty 
might, it is true, be evaded by suppos- 
ing that the Solutzones had only come 
into Johannes’s hands after he had com- 
posed his other works, and that his 
translation of it was one of his latest 
productions,‘ but this would net explain 
the barbarous nature of the Latin. 

It is finally worth noting that the 
translator of the So/utzones has prefixed 
no dedicatory preface, an omission con- 
trary to the practice of Johannes.° 

The above considerations lead us to 
the conclusion that the translation of the 
Solutiones of Priscianus Lydus cannot 
in any way be connected with Johannes 
Scottus, and that it is in all probability 
to be assigned to the sixth or to the 
seventh century. 


3 Cf on the sources of the Soliéiones, Diels, 
Doxographi, pp. 77-78 ; Bywater, Cas, ὨΣΊ: 
C. Manitius, Gemznus, pp. 239, 259. 

4 In this connection it may be recalled that 
the Paris MS. is of the ninth century, and that 
Bywater (ed., p. x) has shown that it is not the 
original MS. of the transiation but a copy. In 
the Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Britannica 
of Schenkl we are told (No. 2911) that MS. 103 
of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, contains 
among other things Prisciand Physict Solutiones. 
This MS. has been missing from Cambridge for 
many years, but it is not lest as supposed by 
James (Western MSS. in Ε mmanuel College 
1904, Pp. xiii) ; it is now in the British Museum 
as Harley 3969 (cf Esposito, English Historical 
Review, xxx., 1915, p- 468). : 

5. Cf. the De Praedestinatione and the versions 
of Dionysius and Maximus (Migne, Patrol. Lat., 
vol. 122). 

M. ESPOSITO: 


Lausanne. 


THE FOUR-LINE STANZA IN THE ODES OF HORACE. 


THE question whether Horace com- 
posed everyone of his Odes in stanzas of 
four is ultimately a question of the dis- 
tribution of equal metrical quantities 
or, if the phrase be preferred, of equiva- 


lent metrical units. Leaving out of 
sight the odes which from the nature 
of their construction cannot be other- 
wise divided, that is to say 37 Alcaic 
odes, 25 or including the carmen saecu- 


24 THE -CLASSICAL ‘(REVIEW 


lave 26 Sapphic odes, g so-called Fourth 
Asclepiads and 7 so-called Fifth Ascle- 
piads, a total of 78, or including the 
carmen saeculare of 79, 24 poems are 
concerned. They fall into three groups: 
(a) 17 poems made up of distichs, 12 of 
which are so-called Third Asclepiads ; 
(b) 6 poems made up of single lines, 
3 being ‘Lesser’ and 3 ‘Greater’ 
Asclepiads ; (c) the unique composition 
SET ott. 

A preliminary point must be touched 
on. The supposed arrangement in 
fours must not be attributed to an 
innate liking of Horace for this distri- 
bution or to an innate aversion to 
single sequence or to couplets. Of 16 
epodes in distichs 8 have an even 
number of couplets and 8 an odd 
number, and the 17th epode, which is 
in single sequence, has 81 lines. The 
preference in the Odes for composition 
in multiples of four cannot have been 
instinctive. If not accidental, it must 
have been deliberate. 

The first question arising over the 
groups (a) (b) and (c) is whether it is 
possible that the grouping of the lines 
in fours should be merely numerical or 
quantitative, viz. expressive of nothing 
more than is expressed by the number 
of lines in the poems. Editors have 
naturally been reluctant to admit that 
the sections initio which they have 
divided the poems are nothing but 
blocks of lines or blocks of feet. We 
may regard with personal dislike a 
hypothesis so crudely material; but in 
the lack of information we have no 
right to call it impossible. 

It will be best to begin with III. xu. 
This, the only poem of its kind in 
Horace and the only complete one that 
has come down to us from antiquity, 
consists of 40 Ionic aminore feet or 
συζυγίαι of pyrrhics and spondees, suc- 
ceeding each other in the strictest 
synaphea. The peculiarity of this metre 
is noted by Hephaestion de poemate, c. 2 
(§ 123, Westphal) in an instructive 
passage where he says that the inex- 
perienced might suppose that the poem 
of Alcaeus beginning ἐμὲ δειλάν, ἐμὲ 
πασᾶν κακοτάτων πεδέχοισαν Was merely 
a succession of similar feet (ἐξ ὁμοίων), 
but that the expert can detect the cor- 
respondences which show that it is 


written in decameters, ἡμεῖς δὲ, ἐπειδὴ 
κατὰ δέκα ὁρῶμεν αὐτὸ συξυγίας 
καταμετρούμενον, κατὰ σχέσιν αὐτὸ 
γεγράφθαι φαμέν. 

The decameters of Horace’s ode the 
last Teubner editor has had the courage 
to print as single lines of fifteen to 
seventeen words apiece ; but it has been 
the custom to divide each decameter 
into sections, whether of 2 trimeters 
and 1 tetrameter as the Latin gram- 
marians, or of 2 tetrameters and I 
dimeter as Bentley and a number of 
modern editors. If these sections are 
regarded as separate verses, the four- 
line theory cannot be applied to this 
metre. If they are regarded as deca- 
meters, it can, supposing the whole 
poem to be a single stanza; it can also 
in a sense, if it be a pair of distichs. 

This latter possibility takes me to 
another point. The Greater Asclepiad 
measure of I. xi/> xvine, GV. κ, πα 
already been employed by Catullus in 
his thirty-first poem (14 lines) written 
in distichs, as I agree with Ellis (in the 
critical note in his large edition), after 
the pattern of Sappho’s compositions 
in the same choriambic metre, as to 
which Hephaestion is again instructive, 
de poemate, cap. 2, § 120, where he treats 
of the difficulty in determining the 
question whether in the third book of 
Sappho which consisted of choriambic 
poems (Manual, cap. 10. 66) the com- 
position was by single lines or by 
couplets. He there says that the fact, 
that ‘in old copies’ the verses are 
marked off in twos and that no instance 
of an uneven sum of lines is found lead 
us to think that the poems were written 
κατὰ συστήματα. On the other hand 
the likeness of the lines in each pair 
and the possibility of the authoress 
having composed all in even numbers 
by simple chance might induce people 
to maintain that they were written cata 
στιυχον. 

The considerations which these facts 
suggest are not without their bearing 
on our problem. In the first place the 
improbability of the four-line grouping 
being due to simple chance is materially 
decreased if the normal basis of the 
metre happened to be two lines. In 
the second place there is an important 
difference between the distichs of (a) 


“που τ ὙὙὙΔΛΛΛΌΏ a. Oe uk 


THE: ‘CLASSICAL KEVIEW 25. 


and the couplets in the Greater Ascle- 
piad. In the latter there is complete 
correspondence between the two mem- 
bers; in the former there is not. In 
the one case you obviously gain some- 
thing in unity by making a pair, but 
nothing apparently by going on to a 
four ; while in the other case you obtain 
a further unification by treating the 
corresponding distichs as though they 
were single lines. It is suggested in 
fact that the principle at work is that 
of pairing, whether the pairs consist of 
single similar lines or single similar 
couples of dissimilar lines. 

Of the odes written in the Lesser 
Asclepiad metre I. i. (36 lines) and 
III. xxx. (16 lines) are divisible by both 
2and 4. But IV. viii. is divisible only 
by 2. And though conformable to the 
principle of construction adopted by 
Sappho and Catullus in the Greater 
Asclepiad, it has been rejected in whole 
or in part on the ground that its con- 
struction is not Horatian. So far as 
metre is concerned, the presumption 
that it cannot have come from Horace 
as it stands is now seen to be based on 
the improbability, of whatever magni- 
tude this may be, that Horace should 
have written five of his extant Asclepiad 
poems with an even number of distichs 
and not have written the sixth with an 
odd number of distichs. This improba- 
bility, as will appear in the sequel, cannot 
be considered overwhelming. 

The problem of the four-line group 
has been in general taken too much 
in the lump, and this not only in its 
numerical but also in its significant 
relations. I propose then to consider 
in detail whether the several sections of 
four show any traces of either (a) 
external or (0) internal unity. 

If external unity exists, we may expect 
it to reveal its existence in a closer 
nexus between the components of the 
separate systems; or in other words 
verse I of any ode in question should 
stand nearer to verse 2, verse 2 to 
verse 3, and verse 3 to verse 4 than 
verse 4 stands to verse 5. We can test 
the value of this argument in the case 
of the Alcaic and Sapphic stanzas. If 
everything in these odes but the bare 
endings and beginnings of the lines 
were destroyed or removed, we could 


still infer the unity of the stanza. The 
synaphe or the absence of hiatus would 
speak for itself. To estimate this we 
need a norm. I will take as this norm 
the frequency of hiatus between the end 
and the beginning of hexameters in 
10 epistles of Horace, Ef. I. iii. to xil., 
and of trimeters in Epod. xvii. 378 hexa- 
meters furnish 37 examples and 8o tri- 
meters furnish 12, the total being 49 in 
418 lines, last lines of poems being of 
course excluded from the count. The- 
numbers for the Sapphic odes are 34 
in 786 lines, a discrepancy that obviously 
needs accounting for. We analyse 
further and we find that the examples. 
are distributed as follows, within the 
stanzas 16 in 615 lines, but between the 
stanzas 18 in 180 lines, almost exactly 
the ratio of the ro epistles. Inthe Alcaic 
odes hiatus occurs within the stanzas 
23 times in 951 lines and between the 
stanzas 25 times in 280 lines. It is 
obvious then that the difference between 
the prevalence of hiatus within the 
stanzas and between the stanzas fully 
accounts for the difference of the 
Sapphic and Alcaic stanzas. In the 
‘biform’! Asclepiad stanza (Fourth 
Asclepiad) the total is 10 in 243 lines, 
and the distribution 4 in 54 lines 
between the stanzas and 6 in 18g lines 
within the stanzas. In this metre the 
figures indicate connexion between the 
constituents of the stanza, but it is 
much less marked than in the two pre- 
ceding cases. In the ‘triform’ Ascle- 
piad stanza (Fifth Asclepiad) it seems 
to be absent or at least not provable. 
The total is 6 in 153 lines, and the 
distribution 1 in 33 lines between the 
stanzas and 5 in 120 lines within the 
stanzas. Herr Vollmer’s statement, 
Teubner text of Horace, p. 337, that 
there is synaphea between the third 
and fourth lines (the pherecratean and 
and the glyconic), ‘except in I. xxii. 
3. 7,’ is hasty. The last syllable of the 
pherecratean is always Jong; but that is 
a different matter. 

Unity however might be shown in 
another way. The system of four lines 
in all or in most cases might carry the 
expression of a complete thought or 


1 For the meaning of ‘biform’ and ‘triform 
see p. 26. 


26 THE ‘CLASSICAE “REVIEW 


mental picture; in other words, the 
sense might in general be completed 
with the fourth line, the end of the 
system. For the Alcaic, the Sapphic 
and the four-lined Asclepiadean stanzas 
this is not necessary: their metrical 
unity is clear without it. Accordingly 
we find that a large or a considerable 
proportion. of odes in these metres 
show the sense and the construction 
overrunning from one stanza into the 
next. I give the figures as they may 
interest some of my readers. I have 
not counted cases where, though a 
sentence is not completed, there is a 
sensible pause. The Alcaic ‘ triform’ 
stanza shows 60 overrunnings out of a 
possible 280, the Sapphic ‘ biform’ 
stanza 13 out of 178,! the ‘triform’ 
Asclepiad stanza 8 out of 33, the ‘ biform’ 
Asclepiad stanza 9 out of 54.2. The 
case however is very different with the 
group of odes we are now considering. 
How can the four-line unity be detected 
if all external marks of such unity are 
absent and our only clue is that of the 
multiplication table Ὁ 

Are there any indications of a four- 
line stanza to be discovered in our 
poems? Let us examine them in detail. 
The 12 in Asclepiad distichs claim atten- 
tion first. Excluding III. ix. (24 lines), 
the celebrated duologue of Horace and 
Lydia, of which more anon, these 
poems present one case of elision, 
between an odd and an even verse 
(IV. i. 35-36), and 17 instances of hiatus 
in 278 lines. Analysing further we find 
these are distributed as follows: 4 in 
144 odd lines and 13 in 134 even lines, 
from which it appears that the odd 
lines adhere to the following even lines. 
Analysing yet further we find that out 
of these 13 examples 10 occur at the 
end of fourth lines. It would seem then 
that in these odes distribution into 
jours, or into pairs of couplets, is indi- 


1 If we exclude the carmen saeculare, the 
ratio is 13 out of 160. 

ΓΤ use ‘biform’ and ‘triform’ for the stanza 
according as it has two or. three metrically 
difierent components, It will be noticed that 
both of the ‘triform’ stanzas have a higher 
proportion of overrunnings than the ‘biform.’ 

3 This had to be pointed out inasmuch as in 
the Introduction to Kiessling’s Horace (ed. of 
1001) it is actually contended that overrunning 
15 an argument for a four-lise stanza. 


cated by the facts. Corroboration is 
furnished by III. ix. which is divided 
between two speakers into 6 complete 
parts of 4 verses, a mark of construction 
so plain that it may be held to over- 
power the possibility of construction 
by couplets simply which might be 
gathered from the hiatus at the end of 
Vio 22: 

Of the remaining 5 odes in distichs 
of various metres 1 (Od. I. vii.) is in 
a metre already used in the Epodes, xii., 
that is, in a composition whose total of 
lines is indivisible by four; and the 
remainder, [εν νην 1h aviv. 
vii., by their metres or general spirit 
seem to suggest the Epodes rather than 
the Odes. To come to particulars, they 
yield the following results : 

I. vii. (32 lines). Hiatus at end of 
8, 25, 28, 29, 4 instances in 31 lines (or, 
analysing, 2 out of 7 fourth lines, 2 out 
of 24 non-fourth lines). In addition 
to this ef with previous elision appears 
at the end of 1. 6. These figures are 
quite compatible with a four-line ora 
double couplet theory. Two only out 
of the 7 fourth lines, to wit 4, 24, end 
with a stop; but 4 out of 8 second 
lines. 

I. vili. (16 lines). Hiatus after I. 3, 
I instance in 15 lines. Nothing there- 
fore to show whether the poem is 
written in twos or in fours. Out of 
3 fourth lines there is a stop at the 
end of 12 and a pause at the end of 4; 
none after the 4 second lines. 

II. xviii. (40 lines). Hiatus after 5, 
8, 18, 30, 4 instances in 40 lines (the 
same ratio as in the Epzstles); or, 
analysing, I in g fourth lines, 3 in 30 
non-fourth lines. Three only out of 7 
fourth lines end with a stop. This 
poem clearly lends no support toa four- 
line construction. 

IV. vii. (28 lines). Hiatus none in 27 
lines and so no external indication of 
construction in fours. On the other 
hand we must note that there is a stop 
or pause in 6 fourth lines out of 6; 
though also in 5 out of the 7 second 
lines. 

I. iv. (20 lines). Hiatus after 9, 
I instance in 19 lines. Three out of 4 
fourth lines end with a stop, and 3 out 
of 5 second lines end with a stop or 
a pause. 


THE CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 2 


Here the evidence is but scanty and 
indecisive and helps us little towards a 
definite solution of the problem. 

To pass to the Asclepiads. The 3 
Greater Asclepiads are I. xi., xviii. and 
IV. x. 

I. xi. (8 lines). Hiatus after 7, I 
instance in 7 lines ‘inuida aetas’ in 
flagrant disregard of synaphea. There 
is a brief pause after 4 but none after 
any other line. The poem gives one 
the impression of being an indivisible 
whole. 

I. xviii. (16 lines). A composition 
clearly based on the Greek, the first 
line being an almost literal translation 
from an ode of Alcaeus in the same 
measure. Hiatus after II, 14, 153; 3 
instances in 15 lines. Analysed 2 out 
of 8 odd lines, 1 out of 4 second lines, 
o in 3 fourth lines. There are stops or 
pauses after x fourth line out of 3 and 
after 3 second lines out of 4. 

EV. xe (Gr lines): «Hiatus: after 2, 
I instance in 7 lines. There is a light 
pause after every line. The poem, like 
I. xi., impresses us as an indivisible 
whole. 

We have now examined all but the 
Lesser Asclepiads; I.i., III. xxx. and 
the recalcitrant IV. viii. 

I. i. (36 lines). Hiatus after 11, 18, 
2 instances in 35 lines. None out of 
8 fourth lines, 1 out of 9 second lines, 
I out of 18 odd lines. This evidence, 
as far as it goes, is against a four-line 
construction. Stops or pauses after 2 
fourth lines (8, 28) out of 8, after 7 
second lines (2, “Ὁ: 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 
34) out of 9, which is distinctly in favour 
of a composition by distichs. In the 
interests of the four-line theory it has 
been proposed to regard the first two 
lines and the last two as additions made 
when the rest of the poem had been 
written in fours. But do poets work 
in this way ? 

III. xxx. (16 lines). No hiatus; and 
so no external indication. No stop or 
pause after the 3 fourth lines, a pause 
after r second line out of 4, and stops 
after 2 odd lines out of 8. The evidence 
does not favour any subdivision of the 
poem. 

AV. vii. (34 lines). This much- 
disputed composition I have for clear- 
ness kept to the last; but it must of 


course be considered before our investi- 
gation is complete. Three views have 
been held about it: 
_ I. That it was written by Horace as 
it stands. Then the four-line theory 
goes by the board. 

2. That it was not written by Horace 
In this case it is no evidence either for 
the four-line theory or against the four- 
line theory. 

3. That it was written by Horace, 
not however as it stands but in accord- 
ance with the four-line mode of con- 
struction. This is the prevalent view. 

Such evidence of its composition as 
can be gathered from its inspection is 
as follows. Hiatus after 17, 24, 2 in- 
stances in 33 lines. No comparison 
can be made between second and fourth . 
lines, unless theory 3 is to be ruled out 
as inadmissible. For if the poem was 
written in fours, the present numbering 
will be wrong, and we shall have no 
means of determining where the errors 
reside. But, taking the lines as they 
stand, we get stops or pauses after 
ro second or fourth lines out of 16, to 
Wit, 2. ὅ, 8.10. 22; 16,24, 26, ΟΝ sie 
(where the double succession should be 
observed) as compared with the 3 brief 
pauses and 1 stop after 4 odd lines out 
of .16,:to wit 5, 13))21,.27-2) & meter Is 
thus much better support for an arrange- 
ment in distichs than any of the numer- 
ous reconstructors have been able to 
extract from the poem for the four-line 
theory by all their alterations. 

It is not my intention here to discuss 
the poem at length with the object of 
proving or disproving any of the rival 
theories. It is enough to have pointed 
out the consequences flowing from the 
acceptance of any one of them which 
affect the four-line hypothesis. But the 
following observation may be allowed. 
As to τ᾿, it would seem that the poem 
was known to Censorinus the author of 
the de die natali (1. 5) as I have pointed 
out in the Classical Quarterly V1. p. 43: 
But this does not show that it was the 
work of Horace but only that it had 
found its way at an early stage into his 
book. As between 2 and 3, we may 
note that, in addition to the attractions 
of four-line reconstructions, 3 seems 
to have found favour from the idea that 
the removal of a part was a more 


28 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


probable remedy than the removal of 
the whole. But this is not the case 
when there is profound disagreement 
among the surgeons as to the part to 
be amputated. Perfectly unprejudiced 
judges will probably feel that the com- 
position is all of a piece, that what 
is cut out by the various excisers is no 
worse than what is allowed to remain, 
and that insufficient reasons have been 
produced to show why any of the 
assumed insertions should have been 
made. The impression which, taken as 
a whole, the ode leaves upon my mind 
is that, whether it was written by 
Horace or another, its workmanship is 
inferior to that of the rest of the book. 

To sum up the results of a somewhat 
barren, though not superfluous, investi- 
gation, for the great majority of the 


Odes of Horace the four-line hypothesis 
is true but devoid of significance. In 
the case of odes in distichs composed 
of two dissimilar single lines the four- 
line construction is either an accident 
or a mark of preference for pairs of 
couplets. In the case of single line 
odes it may, in the odes where it really 
exists, show the same preference for 
pairs of distichs, or again it may be a 
a freak of chance. Anyhow, excepting 
the four-line stanzas and the Asclepiad 
distichs, we cannot find that it has left 
any distinct traces on the metrical treat- 
ment or arrangement; and to such an 
extent is it negligible that an editor of 
Horace does ill to regard it in the 
printing of his text. 


J.P. Posteare: 
Liverpool. 


TERENCE, ANDRIA, 434 (II. Vt. 3). 


Quid Davos narrat? 
quidem. 
THROUGHOUT the last scene Davus 

has been prompting Pamphilus, who 

after astonishing his father by his 


Aeque quicquam nunc 


acquiescence, now goes off, leaving 
Davus and Simo alone. This scene 
opens thus: 


DA. (aszde) Hic nunc me credit aliquam sibi 
fallaciam portare et ea me hic restitisse gratia. 


The question then for Simo is ‘ Why has 
D. stopped behind here? What game 
is he up to?’ He accosts him, with an 
ironical politeness, in the 3rd person. 


Quid Davos narrat ? 


So far good: but from this point all is 
darkness in the remainder of the verse; 
the text goes off into nonsense— 


Aeque quicquam nunc quidem. 


Who speaks these words? They are 
variously assigned by various editors. 
Donatus remarks Vzdetur 2112 blandius 
locutus esse. Umpfenbach and Spengel 
print the unmeaning words as a ques- 
tion, Spengel giving them to Simo. 
These two critics compounded with their 
consciences for a mark of interrogation to 
justify the guicguam,; but nonsense it 


remains, only the crudity a lttle abated. 
Wintersfeld conjectured Negueo guic- 
guam nunc quidem (giving it to Davus), 
which Fleckeisen followed. 

This is one of those conjectures which 
dazzle at first sight: they are so cheap 
palaeographically. It is so tempting to 
leave the author half-inept, sub-frigid, 
hyposolecistic in order that the copyist 
may be acquitted of any but the slightest 
error. Regularly the author is sacrificed 
to the copyist. A curious revenge on 
the earlier fashion which presumed in 
every monkish copyist, gua monk, the 
grossest errors. Why has the all-but- 
inerrability of copyists become an as- 
sumed principle? What has happened 
to reverse the major premiss of textual 
criticism? No argumentative decision, 
but the discovery that collation is much 
easier work for the brain than criticism. 

However, to return to Wintersfeld. 
Though there is no reason why a scribe 
should not mistake zxegueo for aegue, 
there is good reason why zegueo should 
not have been there for him to mistake. 
This conjecture will not do, because in 
Terentian Latin zegueo denotes impos- 
sibility. Now Davus might conceivably 
say Non est quod dicam or non habeo 
guod dicam, but it is absurd to make 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 29 


him say zegueo quicguam (dicere), for 
this means ‘I am unable to speak, my 
feelings are impossible to be expressed.’ 

As usual in this most even and self- 
coloured of styles, one must go to Terence 
sound to heal Terence corrupt. In him 
you can often recover a lost phrase by 
the echoes. Our passage may be mended 
on the pattern of Hawz. 896 (V. 1. 24). 


CHR. Mira narras. Ne 


Quid Syrus meus? 
is quidem quicquam? 


MEN. Nihil. 


See how a sentence of this model suits 
our case. It is agreeable alike to the 
person and the situation for Simo to ask 
‘What’s Davus’ version? Can even he 
give us no explanation?’ Even he, be- 
cause, like Syrus in Haw. Davus in 
this play is the type of a slave whose 
tongue never runs down and his wit is 
never bankrupt. It is nonsense to make 
Simo say even now, or just at present: 
the point is, Pamphilus may be mysteri- 
ously reserved, but Davus is sure to have 
a key to the mystery. 

If then we have found the general type 
of what our context requires, how far 
can we pursue the inference in detail? 
The passage from Haut. has a xzhil 
by the other speaker for a last iambus. 
And not merely this example but a 
closer inspection of the words which 
follow in our Azdria dialogue itself per- 
suades me that here also, since Simo con- 
tinues and Davus reiterates 


SIM. Nilne? hem? DAV. Nil prorsus. 


there must have been a preceding xzhzl. 
Do not both Simo’s words and Davus’ 
prorsus indicate it ? 

I suggest then that the mischief in the 
text should be diagnosed as deranged 
order of words: the case is frequent in 
Terence; and no wonder, considering 
that by Donatus’ time already the science 
of comic metres was virtually extinct. 
Suppose then you read 

SIM. Quid Davos narrat? 
quicquam? DA. Nihil. 

SIM. Nilne? hem? DA. Nil prorsus. 
Had the MSS. offered this in so many 
words it could hardly have come into 
suspicion: which is one test. But the 
faible of the solution is that it hardly 
accounts for aegue in the tradition. An 
alternative, which would do so, is 


SIM. Quid Davos narrat? 
quicquam ? DA. Aeque nihil. 


that is to say aeqgue ac Pamphilus. 

Some people may feel it to be a difficulty 
that the same phrase should receive dif- 
ferent metrical treatment in the two 
places—in Haut. 896 and here. But to 
this it may be answered that the one pas- 
sage 15 trochaic, the other 1ambic; and 
the words in themselves can hardly be 
taken to have been a set phrase so hard- 
ened as to be indissoluble—like t¢a-me- 
di-ament and ita-mé-d1-béne-ament, etc. 
Accordingly I would propose this as the 
likelier reading. 


Ne is quidem 


Ne is quidém 


J. S. PHILLIMORE. 
Glasgow University. 


HORACE, OD. I, XXXIV.-XXXV. 


THE remarks of Mr. H. J. Rose 
on these odes (Classical Review, 
XXX. 7, 192) seem to me worthy of a 
little comment. Gruppe (Mzzos, 383 ff.) 
mentions the significant fact that the 
grammarian Diomedes, whose metrical 
catalogue of the odes is, according to 
him, older than the earliest extant MS. 
of Horace, omits Ode XXXV. The 
authority of Diomedes is not conclusive, 
since he omits other odes, among them 
the undoubtedly Horatian Juteger Vitae. 
Possibly Diomedes’ copy of Horace 
was itself incomplete. However, Servius 


(Gramm. Lat. IV. 470) also omits Ode 
XXXV.1 

Peerlkamp believed that these two odes 
were originally one, thinking that the 
copiers mistook the invocation of a deity 
(O diva) for the beginning of a new ode. 

Gruppe was led to his conclusion by 
his hunt for interpolations. He believes 
that some foreign hand so lengthened 
Ode XXXIV that it finally fell into two 
pieces. 


1 This on the authority of O. Keller and 
L. Mueller. 


30 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


The classic discussion of Ode XXXIV 
is still that of Lessing (Retiungen des 
Horaz). He rejects the idea of a conver- 
sion from Epicureanism, arguing that 
Stoics no less than Epicureans recog- 
nised natural causes for phenomena. He 
thinks that Horace’s usually frivolous 
thoughts on religion received a rude 
shock from the experience of a sudden 
and terrific thunderstorm. Horace merely 
chronicles the thoughts evoked by a 
short spasm of terror. Any lasting philo- 
sophical recantation is out of the ques- 
tion. 

This obvious and natural view he pre- 
fers to subtler exegesis, as, for instance, 
that Horace, impressed by the legend 
that as Augustus was returning from 
Apollonia a thunderbolt from a clear sky 
struck the tomb of Julia, Caesar's daugh- 
ter, recognised the Divine sanction of 
Augustus’ rule. Yet I believe a political 
source underlies the ode. 

Both Pliiss (Hovazstudien, Ὁ. 6 ff.) and 
Oesterlen (Studien zu Virgil und Horaz, 
p. 47 ff.) believe that the fall of Antony is 
symbolised. 

It is probable that Horace admired 
Antony’s brilliant and captivating per- 
sonality far more than that of the cold 
and reserved Augustus. He saw in 
Antony’s fall a tragic irony, the great 
man worsted by a lesser opponent. In 
this way Fortune lifts the obscure. 
Horace took some little time to under- 
stand and admire Augustus, and the 
reconcilement can hardly have taken 
place by the time of Actium. 

Moreover, the fall of Antony was a 
spectacle of severe drama, for Antony 
had revealed the tragic flaw. Huis dream 
of Eastern empire had drawn on him the 
Divine envy. Fortune snatched from 
him the afex of the Eastern Kings. 

The fine possibilities of Antony bring 
the pathetic note from Horace. He was 
the friend of a tyrant, but after avenging 


his friend he might have been the first 
of Roman citizens. Cleopatra had caused 
in him this flaw. Against her the Poet’s 
execration and triumph burst out in 
Ode XXXVILI. 

In the light of this interpretation Ode 
XXXIV would not be pointless. But 
what becomes of Ode XXXV?_ If it be 
referred to 27 or 20 B.C., when Augustus 
is reported to have planned the invasion 
of Britain, why does it come between 
XXXIV and XXXVII ? 

Considering that the invasion of 
Britain was never more than a mere pro- 
ject, we cannot tell when it was first 
mooted. Augustus, immediately on com- 
ing to power, may have wished to 
administer a political sedative, by hold- 
ing out promises of a campaign which 
would abolish internal discord by 
uniting Rome against a common enemy. 
Such an idea would have met the dearest 
wishes of Horace. He could, therefore, 
pay his tribute to Augustus’ project 
without any great enthusiasm for 
Augustus himself. Accordingly, while 
his prayers for the fraternal unity of the 
younger generation are warm, his men- 
tion of Augustus’is frigid. 

Ode XXXV has the same solemn tone 
as Ode XXXIV. There is the same 
indefiniteness of political reference, but 
reference is there. Surely the meretrex 
(l. 25) is Cleopatra and the volgus 
infidum her crew, contaminato grege 
morbo. It was by a desertion at a criti- 
cal moment that Actium was lost to 
Antony. It was these wassailers, with 
their courtesan Queen, who proved false 
friends to Antony, and for their reward 
vanished before the fortune of Augustus. 
Still, there is half regret for the brilliant 
failure, and a commendation of Caesar 
only in so far as prudence dictated. 


te BO ACLEN: 


Teachers College, Sydney. 


«τ Oe a ne PS -- 


SS a er 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 31 


NOTES 


NOTE. ON. VERGIL, ECLOGUE 
ΜΠ τῶν 
hic tantum Boreae curamus frigora, quantum 
aut numerum lupus aut torrentia flumina ripas. 
THERE seem to be two fatal objec- 
tions to the word numerum, first that 
Vergil could hardly have used such a 
slipshod expression for numerum ovium, 
and secondly that one requires a word 
to indicate some material obstacle in the 
way of the wolf as the bank is an 
obstacle to the torrent. I suggest that 
Vergil wrote murvum, which of course 
can be used of any enclosure. If an 
early copyist wrote merum by mistake, 
perhaps with a half-conscious thought 
of past or coming refreshment, and then 
altered the first syllable to mu, thus, 


mu 
merum, a subsequent scribe might easily 
suppose the word to be nuwimerum. This 
suggestion may have been made before, 
but I have’ no remembrance of having 
seen it. 

A. G. PESKETT. 


CICERO, EP. AD FAMILIARES 
TX 209) ὃ 2: 


Nos iam ex artis tantum habemus, 
ut Verrium tuum et Camillum (qua 
munditia homines, qua _ elegantia !) 
vocare saepius andeamus. 

Wesenberg’s exquisitae artis is usually 
accepted. I propose exactae artis, which 
suits the sense and accounts better for 
the corruption. 

orks EE SKE ΤΙΣ: 


A NOTE ON VIRGIL, AENEID 
ΧΙ, 336-7. 
tum Drances idem infensus quem gloria Turni 
obliqua invidia stimulisque agitabat amaris. 
‘THE poisoned stings of sidelong 
envy’ represents something like the 
usual version of line 337, and certainly 
it may be defended. But it would be 
hard to find a better instance of inversio, 
with epithets doubly transferred; the 
trope κατ᾽ ἀνάλογον, which Aristotle de- 
fines—(Poetics 1457b) ‘ Analogy is when 


the second term is to the first as the 
fourth to the third: we may then use 
the fourth for the second or the second 
for the fourth.’ Aristotle, speaking of 
nouns, takes for his illustration ‘The 
war-god’s beaker and the wine-god’s 
shield’: Virgil extends the trope to 
adjectives. 

Obliquus and amarus, as they stand, 
admit of metaphorical translation; 
transferred, they have the clear physical 
meaning which Latin poetry loves. In- 
vidia 15 really amara; for of all emotions 
it is, as Costecalde knew, that one which 
most surely disturbs the bitter bile. 
The most effective stimulus is really 
obliquus ; for with the goad, as with all 
thrusting weapons, an oblique cut is far 
more painful than a straight thrust. 

F. A. WRIGHT. 


LATIN VOWELS BEFORE GN. 


SOME authorities tell us that in Latin 
a vowel is long before gv. Some of them 
were originally short, and the reason for 
the lengthening is not manifest. If we 
pronounce gm” as in our ‘cognate,’ 
moderns at any rate have no difficulty in 
pronouncing a short vowel before the 
combination. If however we give the 
Italian sound to gn, a long vowel is 
spoken with more ease than a short. It 
seems a possible inference that the 
Italian sound of the combination came 
at any early period and that we should 
use it in Latin. fines. 

Westmtnsici: 


A PHRASE-BOOK OF. SYP: 
COLUMBAN (?) 


THE distinguished Italian palaeo- 
grapher to whom we all owe the 
privilege of studying at home the 
treasures of the Bobbio scriptorium has 
put at the beginning of his collection of 
photographs (Cipolla, Codici Bobbiesi 1. 
taf. 1) the page which contains (in 
Bobbio minuscule of c. 700) a listentitled 
Latimtates or De Latinitate. The list, 
printed by Goetz at the end (pp. 660 
ff.) of vol. v. of his Corpus Glossariorun 


32 THE ‘CLASSICAL KEVIEW 


Latinorum, has been already noticed 
in a Jena programme (of 1888) by 
Goetz and in Arch. Lat. Lex. 9, 142 
by Woelfflin; but both these notices 
seem to leave the explanation incom- 
plete. I suggest that it is a list of 
phrases for Latin (prose) writing, and 
that St. Columban, who founded Bobbio 
in 614, may have been the compiler. 
For our extant record is clearly a copy 
made after the list had gone out of use. 
The form of the original was, I take it, 
that of Synonyma, e.g. ‘amat perditim 
et perdite, disperit eum.’ But the 
stupid transcriber has omitted all that 
he could not easily decipher and re- 
arranged the rest in alphabetical order, 
so that in his copy the first of this pair 


stands in Goetz’ apograph at 660, 15 
(in the A-section), the second at 661, 37 
(in the D-section). Since the abbrevia- 
tion-symbols are Irish (expand Goetz’s 
‘dx’ at 661, 29 to ‘ dixit’), some thick- 
headed Paddy may be charged with 
this literary murder. Sometimes St. 
Columban (?) took the phrases from 
classical authors; e.g. 661, 58 (‘ emunc- 
tae naris') from Hor. Sat. 1. 4. 8; 
660, 33 (‘ brevi crevit’) from Sall. Cat. 7. 
Sometimes he seems to have invented 
them, ¢.g. ‘disperit eum’ (quoted 
above); although deperit is so used by 
many authors (even by St. Jerome in 
the Vulgate, 2 Reg. 13, 2 ‘ deperiret 
eam valde’). 
W. M. LINDSAY. 


REVIEWS 


MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS. 


Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Translated 
by Ὁ HAINES.; One vol. > Svo: 
Pp. xxxii+ 414. Frontispiece (Tri- 
umphal Panel). W. Heinemann, 
41, Bedford Street, W.C. Cloth, 
5s. net; leather, 7s. 6d. net. 


Mr. Haines’ Loeb edition of Marcus 
is a very creditable piece of work, the 
result of much careful and independent 
study. In addition to a complete text, 
with English rendering on the opposite 
page, of the Meditations, Speeches, and 
Sayings, we are supplied with an 
admirably concise account of the 
Emperor’s stoic tenets, and with a 
review of earlier translations, in an 
Introduction of some twenty pages. 
Eight or nine pages at the end of the 
book are devoted to an interesting 
‘Note on the Attitude of Marcus towards 
the Christians,’ in which there is a 
valuable discussion of ‘his supposed 
uncompromising attitude towards the 
Christians’; ‘nothing has done the 
good name of Marcus so much harm’ 
as this. Apropos of Mr. Haines defence 
of the Emperor in this matter, we may 
notice his mention (p. xx) of Mr. Jack- 
son’s recent version, in which he says: 
*The book would have been more 


acceptable without the introduction by 
Dr. Bigg, which gives a most unfair 
and wholly inaccurate view of the life 
and character of Marcus.’ Another 
scathing allusion to Dr. Bigg will be 
found on p. 213 note. Mr. Haines also 
supplies us with three Indexes—of 
Matters, of Proper Names and Quota- 
tions, and a Glossary of Greek Terms— 
which are evidently compiled with much 
care, and add greatly to the usefulness 
of the book. 

As regards the translation—which is, 
after all, the main matter—here is what 
the translator himself says about it in 
the Preface: ‘No trouble has been 
spared to make the translation as 
accurate and idiomatic as possible. I 
have preferred to err, if error it be, on 
the side of over-faithfulness, because 
the physiognomy of the book owes so 
much to the method and style in which 
it is written. Its homeliness, abrupt- 
ness, and want of literary finish (though 
it does not lack rhetoric) are part of 
the character of the work, and we alter 
this character by rewriting it into the 
terse, epigrammatic, staccato style so 
much in vogue at the present day. 
Another reason for literalness is that it 
makes a comparison with the Greek, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


printed beside it, easier for the un- 
learned.’ For accuracy and faithful- 
ness, in the sense of closeness to the 
original, there is no doubt, I think, that 
Mr. Haines surpasses all his competi- 
tors. None the less, I imagine that 
most English readers, innocent of 
pedantry and of Greek, would vote for 
Dr. Rendall’s version as the more 
attractive and the more impressive. If 
we admit that Marcus is commonly 
abrupt, it does not seem so much amiss 
to render him in a somewhat staccato 
style; while if a literal ‘crib’ style of 
translation is needed for the edifica- 
tion of the ‘unlearned,’ an_ ultra- 
censorious critic might ask why our 
translator in Book VII. τὸ starts his 
sentence with ‘a little while and’ to 
render τάχιστα, and in VII. 20 uses the 
same phrase to render ἐγγύς ; and he 
might cite a number of other instances 
of back-sliding from the creed and cult 
of literal exactitude. 

In the construction of the text Mr. 
Haines has had the advantage of being 
able to use Schenkl’s editio major 
(printed in 1913), and he acknowledges 
his debt ‘to Professors Leopold and 
Schenkl for advice and help on various 
points.” The traditional text, as he 
tells us, ‘is often difficult, and in many 
places corrupt beyond cure.’ Mr. 
Haines is careful to mark the places 


THE GREEK 


The Greek Anthology. With an English 
translation by W.R. Paton. In five 
volumes: Vol. II. Pp. 517. London: 
William Heinemann; New York: 
G. P. Putnam’s Sons (Loeb Classical 
Library, Vol. LXVIII.), MCMXVII. 


5s. net. 


Mr. W. R. PaTon’s edition of the 
Greek Anthology, of which this is the 
second volume, comes out appropriately 
at a time when the Anthology has been 
recelving much attention, especially 
from scholars in Italy, such as Veniero, 
Rostagno, Setti, Calderini, Cessio, and 
Colangelo, and in Germany. The text, 
based upon Duebner in the Didot edi- 
tion, contains some of Stadtmueller’s 
NO. CCLXVIII. VOL, XXXII. 


33 


where the Greek is obviously wrong, 
but he rarely ventures on bold restora- 
tions. He retains, ¢.g. ἤπερ ἐστὶ τὸ 
ὑπηρετοῦν (III. 3), and συμπεφορημένος 
μέν, ἀλλὰ κόσμος (IV. 27, where, as I 
have elsewhere observed, his rendering 
seems to me to make nonsense). On 
the other hand, he adopts Rendall’s 
brilliant τοκεώνων in IV. 46, and Gata- 
ker’s ἀνίαν (for αὐτήν) in IV. 3; in 
III. 12 he makes the plausible sug- 
gestion μηδὲν ἐν παρεμπορεύματι, and 
the locus desperatus in VII. 24 he patches 
up with «δ ὅταν πολλάκις ἐνῇ, ἀπο- 
θνήσκει δὴ tmpdcynua—which is ἰη- 
genious enough, and at least as likely 
as most of the previous guesses. On 
the whole, Mr. Haines’ text may be 
described as soundly conservative, 
though quite up to date. 

A feature which is most useful for the 
study of Marcus’ thought is the system 
of cross-references to parallel passages 
which Mr. Haines has added to his 
footnotes. 

I have noted only a few misprints, 
all of minor importance; but there is 
at least one place (IV. 30) where the 
Greek and the English seem discordant. 

There is a pretty topical touch about 
the frontispiece which represents (from 
a panel of a triumphal arch) the 
Emperor ‘ receiving German prisoners 
in the field.’ 

K. ἃ. Bury. 


ANTHOLOGY. 


results and some of Mr. Paton’s own 
suggestions. The volume contains 
Book VII. of the Anthclogy (the 
Sepulcral Epigrams), and Book VIII. 
the Epigrams of Gregory of Nazianza, 
for whom Stadtmueller presumably 
cared little, since he omitted the book 
in his edition, although the Didot 
edition contains it. The theologian 
had a ready pen and a gift of facile 
expression; though Dr. Gildersleeve 
in his irrepressibly cheerful way has 
lately told us that he does not want 
‘to read fifty-two Epigrams on the 
blessedness of giving up the ghost in 
church, and thus exchanging a tem- 
porary slumber for the eternal sleep.’ 
One welcomes the witty American 
Ὁ 


34 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


scholar’s epigram ; but, strictly speak- 
ing, the exchange is not possible in a 
Greek church, because there are no 
comfortable pews, whatever there may 
be in Boston. Still, perhaps the collec- 
tion may lead readers to make a closer 
acquaintance with St. Gregory’s poetical 
writings—for instance, the poems De 
Se Ipso, which, though prolix, are his-~ 
torically valuable as well as diverting. 

Nothing need here be added to what 
was said about the translation in the 
review of the first volume (C.R. XXXI. 
142); but since we have not yet reached 
an entirely satisfactory text of the 
Anthology, even in the latest selection— 
that of Veniero (1903)—a few criticisms 
may not be out of place. Among Mr. 
Paton’s emendations may be mentioned 
VII. 51. 6, Adaeus, ἐμβάδ᾽ ἐρειδομένας, 
which may very likely be right; and so 
may émixpotos for the unintelligible 
ἐπίρροθος in Archimedes’ (?) well-known 
poem on the style of Euripides, 
VII. 50. 3; but the credit for the first 
suggestion of it must be given to 
D’Orville; πολλάκι for πολλαῖς in 
VII. 212. 3, Mnasalcas, is an elegant 
correction. One had hoped for more 
light on the strange epigram of Leonidas 
of Tarentum in VII. 472, where Reitzen- 
stein has in Epigramm und Skolion, 
Ρ- 154, perpetrated an astonishingly 
careless false quantity. 

To turn to other passages in the 


text. In VII. 267. 4, Posidippus, 
Νικήτην οἵτινες oixtipere cannot be 
right: Hecker’s ὠκτίσατε (or oi-) is 


demanded by the metre and the sense. 
In VII. 215. 4, Anyte, ποιφύξω for 
ποιφύσσω is demanded by ἀναρρίψω in 
l.2. VII. 492. 5, Anyte, νυμφίον ἀλλ᾽ 
"Aiénv should go together, as Reiske 
and Jacobs saw. VII. 490. 3, Anyte, 
ἐπὶ πάντων can hardly mean ‘in the 


case of all,’ which would be ἐπὶ πάντας. 
Perhaps we should take ἀπὸ πάντων or 
Meineke’s προπάντων; ἐπὶ may have 
got in from ἐπὶ πολλοὶ in |. 1. In 
VII. 23b it is a good idea of Stadt- 
mueller’s to insert this distich in 
VII. 31, Dioscorides. In VII. 37. 12: 
Dioscorides, Stadtmueller’s conjecture 
οὖν suits the corrupt σὸν better than 
the usual correction καί. VII. 240. 1, 
Adaeus, ἀδηλῇ gives a better sense. In 
VII. 240. 6, Diotimus, the lacuna is 
best filled by od χορὸν, which may have 
fallen out from the similarity to οἶδ᾽ 
᾿Αχέρων. VII. 718. 2 ἄνθος ἀμησόμενος 
of Jacobs is attractive, and Scaliger’s 
Πατρέων for πατέρων in VII. 438. 1, 
Damagetus. In VII. 484. 2, Dios- 
corides, Reiske’s οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς ovat’ amo 
should be accepted for MS. ὠνάσατο, 
which has little or no authority ; and 
in 1. 3 Meineke’s ἀριστεύουσα for ἀρίστη 
ἐοῦσα. VII. 656. 4, Leonidas Tar. 
opinions will differ: Meineke’s ἥν ποτ᾽ 
ἐγὼ δήϊον is certainly clever, but 
Geffcken’s ἣν ποτ᾽ ἐγὼν ἤριον gives a 
good point. VII. γ40: :2; Leonidas, 
Kaibel’s ἐγχθόνιος σποδιά for ἐν χθονίοις 
is certainly right ; he compares σποδιὴ 
κειμένη ἐγχθόνιος from an inscription of 
Teos, and thinks that the phrase is an 
imitation of Leonidas. And 1. 5 ὁ πρὶν 
-τί πλείω μυθεῦμαι ; ὁ πᾶσι μακαρτός 
is impossible in so correct and so early 
a writer as Leonidas, owing to the 
break at the trochee in the fourth foot 
(see C.R. XXIX. 48. This piece of 
bad rhythm dies hard; the fact is that 
it is not Greek, but Latin, and confined 
to writers of the bilingual era of the 
Empire, and not common even then. 
It is a favourite rhythm with Ovid, and 
is perhaps due to his influence. 


j.°U. POWELL. 


THE CAMBRIDGE SONGS. 


The Cambridge Songs. A Goliard’s Song 
Book of the Eleventh Century. 
Edited from the unique MS. in the 
University Library by K. BreEuL. 
Cambridge University Press, 1915. 


THE Cambridge Songs have long been 
known to scholars; but the problems 


which they involve are so various, 
touching as they do upon music, 
religion, philosophy, and mediaeval 
history, besides textual criticism and 
language, that very few libraries would 
contain the whole material for studying 
them. Part of this work is a digest of 
this material, not so made as to repro- 


THE ‘CLASSICAL REVIEW 35 


duce it, but to indicate to the special 
student where he must go to find out 
more. Quite enough direct help is 
given to enable the reader to understand 
the songs without further trouble; the 
specialist alone will have to go farther, 
but for him also the book offers an 
important help in the photographs. 
For the whole MS. has been photo- 
graphed in the same size, and the re- 
productions, admirably done as are all 
such of the Cambridge Press, !enable the 
student to work almost as if he had the 
MS. before him. This is most impor- 
tant, since very few of those who have 
discussed the MS. have ever seen it; 
and after the fashion of scholars, they 
discuss each other’s emendations with- 
out making sure whether they are 
possible. Opposite each page of MS. 
is a transliteration, the abbreviations 
being given in full, but by the usual 
convention in italics. These photo- 
graphs alone would make the book 
indispensable to the student. 

From certain allusions, and from 
parts of certain songs which are written 
in a Rhenish dialect, it would appear 
that the book from which they were 
copied was compiled ‘in the country 
about Treves and Cologne.’ It was 
then copied into the MS. which contains 
them, with other matter, which MS. 
belonged to the monastery of the 
Augustinians in Canterbury. It came 
to Cambridge soon after 1670, by pur- 
chase. Most of it is legible; but some 
poems which offended the pious monks 
have been defaced or blotted out. The 
chapter which describes the MS. has 
also a table showing how to find each 
song in the MS., references being added 
for each to the chief places where each 
has been printed. 

Besides this Dr. Breul has grouped 
the songs according to subject: religious, 
historical and personal, ‘ novelistic ’’ and 
humorous, poems on spring and love, 
didactic, classical, and ‘some uncon- 
nected lines that appear to be nothing 
but metrical experiments.’ The poems 
are reprinted in full, with a few correc- 


tions of spelling; and thereto notes 
are added. Bibliography, alphabetical 
index, and general index complete the 
work. 

Probably the most remarkable of the 
collection isa macaronic historical poem 
de Henrico, on Henry of Bavaria, per- 
haps the oldest of the historical songs. 
Half of each line is in Latin, half in the 
North Middle Franconian dialect. Its 
interpretation depends on the reading 
of one word, which older scholars give 
as bruother, but later scholars have been 
unable to read the word. One avers 
that he saw bringt, but only γι can now 
be seen.1 The editor is unable to make 
up his mind; but his one piece of new 
evidence, that th and p/ are not separ- 
ated between lines, is strongly against 
bruother. The exact occasion therefore 
remains in doubt; but it is one where 
an Emperor Otto shows honour to a 
Henry of Bavaria. The editor inclines 
to refer its subject to the year 948. 
The Modus Ottine, a fine specimen of 
the ‘sequence,’ praises the Saxon 
Emperor Otto III. (963-1002). Passing 
by the other historical poems we come 
to an amusing tale of Sacerdos et Lupus, 
which the poet declares to be true: a 
iocularis cantio, meant to be sung to a 
hymn-tune. Alfrdd, which also reads 
like a true story, tells how an old lady 
tried to rescue her pet she-ass from a 
wolf. A Carmen Aestivum, in Sapphics, 
is found only in this MS. ; Luscina is 
a charming song on the nightingale, in 
rimed verse. A woman’s song to the 
Spring is pathetic and graceful. This 
group of poems will be the most attrac- 
tive to the reader who cares less for 
theology or mediaeval German history ; 
they are simple and full of charm. 


1 It seems that Mr. Priebsch in 1894 was 
allowed to use a ‘chemical reagent’ which has 
obliterated even what was once seen there. Dr, 
Breul wanted to do it again, but the Librarian 
very properly forbade it. I trust that our 
treasures may be preserved with all care in the 


future. 
Wi Η. Ὁ. Rouse: 


36 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


THEOPHRASTUS’ SCIENTIFIC ΕΝ ΘΙ. ΕΚ ΒΕ. 


Theophrastus’ Enquiry into Plants and 
Minor Works on Odours and Weather 
Signs. With an English Translation 
by Sir ARTHUR Hort, Bart., M.A. 


I2mo. -Two vols.: I. xxvill+475; 
II. ix+4g99. Portrait Bust of Theo- 
phrastus. London: Heinemann ; 


New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. 
MCMXVI. 


THE scientific insight of the Ionian 
mind, and therewith its almost silent 
scorn of magical and monstrous alloy, 
is one of the marvels of history. The 
searching influence of it purified medi- 
cine in Greece, Alexandria, and the 
Roman Empire, down to the end of the 
fourth century. This contemptuous 
shedding of thaumaturgy, already per- 
ceptible in the guileless irony of Hero- 
dotus, in Theophrastus is fuily manifest. 
Moreover, the ancient cullers of simples, 
much bigger men than the druggist 
slaves in Rome, took care, as did the 
traders in spices and other precious 
wares, to surround the sources of their 
raw materials with walls of terror. As 
the spice gardens were protected by 
serpents, flying scorpions, and ants 
rather larger than foxes but not quite so 
large as dogs, as again the modern beach 
comber scares other rovers with hideous 
masks and sulphurous fumes, so were 
medicinal herbs protected by bogeys. 
From his vast collection of materials, 
much of which must have come by 
hearsay from persons apparently expert 
—as Aristotle gathered information 
from hunters, fishermen, and shepherds 
—Theophrastus repeats here and there 
rather ‘tall’ stories, as narrated to him 
by druggists and herb-diggers; saying 
of them τὰ μὲν ἴσως οἰκείως τὰ δὲ καὶ 
ἐπιτραγωδοῦντες λέγουσι (IX. vill. 5); 
and a little farther on, before reciting 
some terrible warnings against the 
gathering of certain herbs, such as 
peony, too rashly, he sets aside τὰ 
τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπίθετα καὶ πόρρωθεν. 

Aristotle, interested as he was in 
plant physiology, did not concern him- 
self intimately with systematic botany ; 
but no doubt he collected the materials 


of botany and materia medica with the 
prodigious industry which he gave to 
the animal world. Of his great library 
and vast accumulations of notes, and of 
his distribution of these materials 
amongst his literary executors—such 
as Eudemus, Theophrastus, Straton, 
Menon, Aristoxenus—in these pages I 
need say nothing. To Theophrastus 
he committed the edition of his 
botanical record, with certain minor 
subjects outside our present considera- 
tion. On plants Theophrastus wrote 
two books, the one 7. φυτῶν ἱστορίας, 
which is now before us, the other 
bearing the title 7. φυτῶν αἰτιῶν which 
to us sounds odd; but here by ‘ causes’ 
he meant the growth or propagation 
of plants, from which spontaneous 
origin (γενέσεις αὐτόμαται) is not ex- 
cluded. The author cautiously includes 
however growth from seed or slip ὥσπερ 
yap αὐτόμαται καὶ αὐταί. An acceptance 
of spontaneous origin does notwith- 
standing reappear many times in the 
a. putov—e.g. the engendering of gall 
insects from the seeds of the fig—but 
in one place (III. i. 4) he quotes the 
remarkable words of Anaxagcras—that 
the air contains the seeds of all things, 
and that these carried down by the 
rain produce the plants. And a little 
later (i. 6) he thoughtfully ponders 
‘ whether there were seeds in it (the soil) 
already.’ 

To trace plant lore backwards to its 
sources, even in summary, would carry 
us far beyond these columns; but pass- 
ing over the ancient trade of Eygpt 
and Phoenicia with Ceylon, we shall 
more immediately call to mind the 
scientific results of Alexander’s expedi- 
tion to the East, who, probably thereunto 
advised by Aristotle, carried with him, 
like a Scott or a Shackleton, a small 
army of scientific explorers. Hence 
the descriptions of plants by Theo- 
phrastus are not limited to the flora of 
Greece and the Levant; he owed, says 
Sir Arthur Hort, to the reports of 
Alexander’s followers accounts of such 
plants as cotton, banyan, pepper, cinna- 
mon, myrrh, and frankincense. In 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


other places he seems to be ‘referring 
to reports from districts visited by 
students of the Peripatetic School.’ 
Pythagoras, also a botanist, like Demo- 
critus after him, who had travelled 
widely in Persia, Arabia, Egypt and 
Ethiopia,? had written on the virtues of 
plants; and from Pythagoras Theo- 
phrastus took some of his material. 
But the first herbal in Greek of which 
we have any definite knowledge was the 
“Puforourxdv of Diocles, a very distin- 
guished Hippocratean physician of the 
first third of the fourth century. As 
Diccles is mentioned by Theophrastus 
in his tract 7. λίθων (c. ν. 344), we may 
presume that he had that herbal before 
him, and was more or less indebted to 
it. In those days, as we know, literary 
spoils were rarely acknowledged. 

The story of plants, and somewhat 
later of minerals, as remedies and 
poisons, and earlier still of the venoms 
of animals (iology), runs, as we might 
expect, all through the history of medi- 
cine, and forms a very important clew 
to its traditions. Apollodorus, the 
‘father of iology,’ was a contemporary 
of Theophrastus, but, although in the 
am. φυτῶν we find some toxicology, 
iology of course lay outside its scheme. 
Presumably because Theophrastus was 
in the main a botanist, and a_phar- 
macist only by the way, his treatises 
on plants were not carried into the 
central current of pharmacy. Thus 
they seem in some measure and for a 
while to have escaped attention. It 
would have been to the advantage of 
Dioscorides had he known more of 
Theophrastus.? The work of Crateuas, 
the physician and toxicologist to the 
arch-poisoner Mithridates Eupator, was 
more definitely medical, and thus be- 
came rather the source for succeeding 
pharmacists and toxicologists such as 
Nicander, Sextius Niger, Dioscorides, 
Galen, Marcellus (c. 395 #.D.); and so 
on to Cassiodorus and the remoter West. 
Unhappily from the credulous Mar- 
cellus, John of Gaddesden, Mirfield, 


1 See Pliny, ΖΔ. XXV. c. 2. 

* See Frag. Dioclis,ed. Wellmann. 

3 Some passages drifted into Dioscorides 
and into Galen (De wictu att.); e.g. from 
Book IV. as Kalbfleisch pointed out about 
twenty years ago. 


37 


Bernard of Gordon, derived the tradi- 
tion in Great Britain. The first scien- 
tific botanist of modern time was Nehe- 
miah Grew (1641-1712). 

The enthusiastic reports of Tourne- 
fort and of later travellers in the Levant, 
who have declared that the descriptions 
of Theophrastus are so accurate as to 
serve at once to identify the plants of 
that region, are more generous than 
justifiable ; in fact the descriptions are 
often meagre, and the identifications 
far from obvious. Theophrastus men- 
tions indeed only about 450 out of 3,000 
or more species now in Greece. For us 
the interesting features in the perusal 
of this, as of other works of the greater 
scientific ancients, are not instruction 
in detail, but evidence of a _ broad 
rational insight into, and handling of 
their subjects ; and instances of remark- 
able observation and analysis. As in his 
apprehension of the influence of exter- 
nal conditions upon life Hippocrates 
anticipated Buckle and Taine, so with 
like breadth of reason, insight, and 
practical grip Theophrastus pointed out 
the effects of ‘ milieu’ upon plants and 
trees; upon the species themselves and 
the selection of species. For instance, 
he says that the wood of the silver fir 
when grown in damp places is not of 
such close grain nor so comely as when 
grown in a sunny position. In like 
manner, he indicates the species or 
varieties which belong to the moun- 
tains, others to the plains. Moreover, 
he grasped the idea of geographical 
botany. The discussion (in IV. xi.) on 
the growth of reeds, and especially of 
the reed used for musical pipes, with 
the season and method of cutting and 
fashioning the reed for the mouth- 
piece, is an interesting example of his 
manner; so again his description of the 
uses of hemlock and of wolf’s-bane 
as poisons (II. ix. 16); the discussion 
of acquired immunity (II. ix. 17). 
When by habituation the constitution 
has accepted them and prevails over 
them, poisons cease to poison. Theo- 
phrastus tells a story of a quacksalver 
at whose tolerance of poisons the popu- 
lace marvelled ; but a passing shepherd 
cunning in herbs consumed a whole 
bundle of the stuff, and so quenched 
the pedlar’s reputation. 


38 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


The 7. φυτῶν then is a very thorough 
and laborious piece of work; and, see- 
ing that such technical books in Greek 
are hard reading, as I presume even 
for scholars, a translation such as this, 
really an edition as well as a transla- 
tion, is more than welcome to botanists 
and medical historians. In a few 
passages to which I had occasionally 
referred I had found Wimmer’s Latin 
translation slight; and in more general 
terms Sir Arthur Hort says that ‘it 
slurs the difficulties.’ Besides the 
technical language of the book, the 
style of Theophrastus, like that of 
Aristotle, is often rough, allusive, and 
curt, as of notes for lectures; or it may 
have been a ‘ Master’s Book’ from which 
he himself, and his disciples after him, 
preserved memoranda for teaching, 
and for perpetuation of 4 tradition 
chiefly oral. Thus to the literary reader 
the treatise is the less attractive. Except 
for experts, these laborious details are 
less inviting than wider speculations on 
the cosmos, on atomism, on the pneuma, 
and so forth. 

Haeser says that J. G. Schneider 
first made the botanical treatises of 
Theophrastus available for literature 
(Leipzig, 1818-1821); and, if by the 
lexicon’ of this great scholar we may 
estimate his peculiar equipment for 
that task, we may so far rely upon his 
edition. Unfortunately,as Sir A. Hort 
points out, the Codex Urbinas was not 
known when that edition was published. 
Kurt Sprengel, in his ‘monumental 
edition,’ has the credit of bringing to 
his work more of botanical science than 
of scholarship; but I see in his preface 


1 As being something of a dilettante in 
lexicons, may I say that J. G. Schneider’s 
Greco-German. Worterbuch (third edition, 1819) 
is very valuable, as it contains many curious 
and out-of-the-way words, especially in science. 


that Wimmer is not cordially of this 
opinion. He says of Sprengel not only 
‘certi subtilisque interpretis laudem non 
meruit,’ but also ‘neque in plantis 
determinandis satis felix.’ It is interest- 
ing to note that even upon this tangled 
department of scholarship the great 
Scaliger had descended, and written a 
brilliant commentary.” At present, as 
a complete edition of Theophrastus’ 
scientific works, that of Wimmer (in the 
Didot series, 1866) holds the field. In 
the botanical detail of the translation Sir 
Arthur Hort has had the invaluable aid 
of Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, to whom also 
we owe the compilation of the appended 
Index of Plants. In his text Sir Arthur 
has very wisely given the English 
names, so far as possible. Upon every 
page it is apparent how onerous must 
have been the labour bestowed by him 
upon these volumes, both in respect of 
the text, the scientific details, and the 
notes, all of which are brief and to the 
point. The mere verification of the 
references must have been an exacting 
task. Of the translation itself, coming 
as it does from so accomplished a 
scholar, it becomes me to speak only 
as a general reader; I have found it 
not only to throw much light upon the 
Greek, but also to be very readable as 
original prose. 
CLIFFORD ALLBUTT. 


P.S.—By a fortunate coincidence, 
since Sir A. Hort’s edition was pub- 
lished, Professor Stratton, of the Uni- 
versity of California, has edited the 
Περὶ αἰσθήσεων of Theophrastus, with 
a translation, under the title of Greek 
Physiological Psychology (London and 
New York, 1917); an able and very 
interesting study. 


2 Commentary, etc., on the 7. φυτῶν, Leyden, 
1584; and on the zm. αἰτιῶν, Geneva, 1566. 


PLOTINUS: THESE THICAL TREATISES: 


Plotinus: The Ethical Treatises. Trans- 
lated by STEPHEN MACKENNA. Vol.I. 
Large crown 8vo. Pp. 158. Lon- 


don: Philip Lee Warner, 1917. 
16s. net. 


As the title-page informs us, this first 
volume of Mr. Mackenna’s translation of 


Plotinus contains ‘the treatises of the 
First Ennead with Porphyry’s life of 
Plotinus, and the Preller-Ritter extracts 
forming a Conspectus of the Plotinian 
system.’ In addition, sandwiched be- 
tween the First Ennead and the ‘ Con- 
spectus,’ there are about twenty-five 
pages of ‘ Bibliography and Explanatory 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 39 


Matter.’ This arrangement strikes one 
as rather awkward: one would have ex- 
pected the introductory matter—includ- 
ing the ‘ Conspectus,’ if such a thing is 
necessary—to have its place at the begin- 
ning, so that the translation of Plotinus 
might run on continuously from volume 
to volume. This, however, is a minor 
matter. The great matter is that here 
at last Plotinus has found a capable 
translator, and that the English student 
can peruse him at his leisure with com- 
fort and satisfaction. For the volume 
itself is a pleasure to handle: the 
paper is of high quality, the type clear 
and well spaced, the margins ample, 
and the binding pleasing with its 
‘Michalet boards, canvas back, and 
paper label.’ 

As regards the style and method of 
Mr. Mackenna’s translation opinions 
may differ. He pours scorn on the 
‘arbitrary principles laid down by 
translators of a formally precise school,’ 
and he warns us that ‘readers who desire 
their translations to serve as an unfail- 
ing treasury of illustrations to “ X on 
Greek Idioms” are not asked to like 
this version.’ ‘ The present translator,’ 
he tells us, ‘has not thought of his 
probable readers as glossary-bound 
pedants. . . The first aim has been the 
utmost attainable clearness in the faith- 
ful, full and unalloyed expression of the 
meaning; the second aim, set a long 
way after the first, has been the repro- 
duction of the splendid soaring passages 
with all their warmth and light.’ After 
this dressing-down of the critics, he 
would be a bold man who would ven- 
ture to play the part again. None the 
less, one may ask whether the word 
‘complement’ (p. 33, 1. 3) is not a mis- 
print for ‘ couplement ’—a word I can- 
not take to, though it is Mr. Mackenna’s 
regular equivalent for τὸ συναμφότερον 
or κοινόν. In Enn. I.i. 3, when the Greek 
runs 6 τι περ ἂν περὶ σῶμα πᾶν γίγνηται, 
the version has ‘every other affection 
that belongs to the body,’ as if πᾶν 
were absent. In the same section it is 
difficult to see how, ‘if the soul uses the 
body, it is separate from it,’ represents 
χωρίζει γοῦν ὁ τὸ χρώμενον διδούς. 


Towards the close of I. i. 4 (μᾶλλον ἂν 
τῷ σώματι κ.τ.λ.}1 cannot make out how 
the translator wishes to take τῷ μέντοι 
τοιούτῳ, τῷ φυσικῷ when he writes 
‘their natural seat is the material 
member,’ etc.: a pedant might suspect 
here a blunder in construing. In the 
Ritter-Preller extracts we miss any 
indication of the places where the trans- 
lator (after Volkmann) corrects the text 
(6. g. ἣ χορηγεῖ for ἢ χορηγῇ, V. 1. 2); 
and here, too, there are renderings which 
raise a doubt in the pedantic mind, 
as when ἐλθοῦσα εἰς σῶμα οὐρανοῦ 
(V. i. 2) is turned into ‘when it 
comes to body.’ In rendering obscure 
passages a certain amount of expansion 
may be necessary, but even a ‘ faithful’ 
and ‘ literary rather than literal ’ version 
might furnish a more compact equiva- 
lent for ἀλλὰ τὸ ζῴον μᾶλλον (I. 1. 4 
ad fin. than ‘all this is rather in 
the province of something which we 
may callthe Animate.’ Nor can I feel 
at home with ‘ Authentic-Existents ’ 
(for ὄντως ὄντα), ‘ Ordinary Mentation,’ 
‘the Animate-Entity,’ and so forth: 
they are awkward pieces of mental 
furniture. ‘ Plotinus,’ says Mr. Mac- 
kenna, ‘was pouring quite a new wine 
into very old bottles!’ Mr. Mackenna 
has some new bottles for the new wine; 
but one is still inclined to say, of bottles 
as of wine, ‘the old is better!’ This 
may allbe pedantry and prejudice, but 
—it will out. 

But enough of such carpings. To 
commend the book and point out its 
merits is a much more pleasing task, 
and there can be no question as to the 
labour and learning which Mr. Mac- 
kenna has bestowed upon the produc- 
tion of this handsome volume. It 
contains much that is helpful towards 
the understanding of the doctrine of 
the greatest Neo-platonist, and it is 
eminently successful in one, at least, of 
its aims—namely, ‘the reproduction of 
the splendid soaring passages with all 
their warmth and light.’ And the fact 
that Plotinus has been so greatly 
neglected by English scholars and 
translators makes it doubly welcome. 

R. G. Bury. 


40 THE CLASSICAL. REVIEW 


CAPTAIN MAGO’S ADVENTURES. 


Pericla Navarchi Magomis sive expeditio 
Phoenicia annis ante Christum mille. 
Opus Francice scripsit Leo Cahun, 
in Anglicum vertit Helena E. Frewer, 
Latine interpretatus est Arcadius 
Avellanus: Mount Hope Classics. 
Vol. I. $5. New York City, 37 Wall 
Street. 


Tuts. book is one of several stories, 
translated into Latin by that original 
scholar, Dr. Avellanus, and apparently 
used by Mr. E. Parmadee Prentice, 
(who writes a preface) for the instruc- 
tion of his children. The King of the 
Golden River has already appeared as 
Rex Auret Rivi, and there has been a 
considerable demand for it. 

The idea isadmirable. It isnot new, 
for Robinson Crusoe has already been 
published in Latin; but it has not hither- 
to found favour for various reasons. 
One is, the pedantic method of teach- 
ing dear to the hearts of schoolmasters 
—or at least, if not altogether dear to 
their hearts, for in an expansive mood 
they will at times utter heretical senti- 
ments, at least it is sacred in their 
practice. Another is, that the trans- 
lators are not careful enough to adapt 
their style to the needs of schoolboys. 
Robinson Crusoe erred somewhat in this 
respect, and our readers will see that 
the learned translator of Mago’s adven- 
tures is not free from it. 

But first let me say that the story is 
quite the best of its kind I have ever 
read. It is not one of those horrid 
shams like Becker’s Gallus, which give 
a little rivulet of story in the midst of 
Alpine precipices of excursus; where 
the story is in itself thin, often dull, 
and however good it might be, it would 
be spoilt by the duty looming in the 
background, that those excursus must 
be read. No: it is an admirable tale 
of adventure, which would enthral any 
schoolboy, which has enthralled hosts 
of French schoolboys, and the reader 
soon ceases to care that the hero’s 
name is Mago and not Crusoe. There 
is plenty of learning in it and plenty of 
information, but it is given so artlestly 
and with so nice a judgment of time 


and proportion that I believe the 
schoolboy will be quite pleased to have 
it. I can judge from my own memories 
that the schoolboys consule Planco would 
have read it with avidity, and I believe 
the same of the days consule Georgio, in 
spite of John Bull, Sherlock Holmes, 
and picturedromes. The schoolboy does 
not really object to information; he 
only hates to be bored, and so do I 
still. If any schoolboy sees these lines, 
he may take my word for it that he will 
not be bored with Mago. 

He will however find the Latin more 
difficult than it has any need to be. 
The rules of classical usage are not 
always followed: 6. g. ‘ac tandem, quin 
ulla amplius verba fecisset, discessit ;’ 
‘nautae armati, lanceis in manibus;’ 
‘ut se Horo pro reliquo vitae tempore 
devoturus esset,’ ‘melius quam quis- 
cunque vestrum,’ ‘ plecti curavi,’ ‘ vel 
quicquid aliud,’ all from the first few 
pages. This is the most serious objec- 
tion to the book, and one which could 
easily have been removed; for it is not 
wise, and certainly not necessary, to 
deviate from correct usage. The 
other objection, less important, is to 
the vocabulary. For the translator has 
used numbers of rare, poetic, or late 
words, such as ignivomus, hartlatio, 
argentifodinis, many of which are quite 
easily understood, some of them even 
ornaments, but they serve to recal the 
style of Apuleius or Petronius rather 
than Cicero. And yet Cicero, when he 
tells a plain tale, and really wants his 
hearers to understand him, is incom- 
parable, and his vocabulary is large 
enough for schoolboys. However, this 
is a minor point ; it is the syntax which 
is the serious one. If Dr. Avellanus 
should think fit to modify his practice 
in this respect, the old words would 
really hurt nobody. Schoolboys have 
quite a genius for forgetting. In one 
other respect a change would be useful ; 
if the speaker’s name and any descriptive 
matter were put before each speech, 
instead of interrupting the speeches in 
the middle, not only would Latin 
custom be followed, but the narrative 
would be clearer. 


THE. CLASSICAL REVIEW 41 


The book is too expensive to be used 
in England as a class-book; but a 
cheaper reprint, with the suggested 
changes, would make it a very welcome 
school-reader. As it is, it may be 
recommended cordially to teachers of 
Latin. They will certainly enjoy it 


themselves ; and they may find ways of 
using it, or parts of it—for example by 
reading aloud, which will make the 
name of Avellanus agreeable to the 
minds of our youth. 


W. Η. ἢ. Rouse. 


APULEIUS: THE GOLDEN ASS. 


Apuleius: The Golden Ass. Being the 
Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius. 
With an English Translation by 
W. ADLINGTON (1566). Revised by 
S. GASELEE, Fellow and Librarian 
of Magdalene College, Cambridge. 
Frontispiece, portrait of Apuleius on 
a Coin. One vol. Pp. xxiv+608. 
London: William Heinemann; New 
York: The Macmillan Co., 1915. 
5s. net. Loeb Classical Library. 


In the introduction to a translation of 
the Metamorphoses of Apuleius pub- 
lished seven years ago, Professor Harold 
Butler very modestly stated as a justifi- 
cation for his work that “‘ there exists 
only one English translation of the 
Golden Ass that repays reading. That 
is the translation of Adlington, which, 
for all its beauty, is inaccurate and, 
what is more serious, exceedingly hard 
to procure.’ Since these words were 
written a reprint of Adlington’s trans- 
lation has been issued at a moderate 
price, but the enterprise of the Loeb 
Classical Library enables English 
readers for the first time to enjoy a 
masterpiece of Elizabethan prose with- 
out straying so widely as Adlington 
himself from the ‘ strange and absurd 
words,’ the ‘ new invented phrases’ of 
the original. The present writer has no 
authority to speak of the textual diffi- 
culties which the Metamorphoses pre- 
sent, or of the skill with which Mr. 
Gaselee has exercised his discretion in 
choosing between many variants. But 
the revision of Adlington’s version has 
been so excellently carried out that 
scholars of every degree, and the public 
who have lost their Latin, are certain 
to find in this edition the most con- 
venient form in which Apuleius has yet 
been made available to Englishmen. 
This is not the place to pursue an 


inquiry into the extent of inaccuracy 
which can be admitted without spoiling 
a version, for there can be no question, 
as Mr. Charles Whibley has shown in 
his admirable tribute? to Adlington’s 
qualities as a translator, that ‘ The 
XI Bookes of the Golden Asse’ were in 
their matter but a shadow of the Latin. 

It is no less beyond dispute that the 
conjunction of Apuleius, forcing a great 
language into shapes which have the 
metallic brilliance of a crystal about to 
break down into decay, and Adlington, 
exulting in the copiousness of the re- 
vivified English which admitted words 
from innumerable sources, was singu- 
larly happy. A comparison of Mr. 
Gaselee’s revision with Adlington’s 
1639 edition and the Latin shows that 
nothing has been lost of the energy of 
the first inspiration, and numerous 1m- 
provements added without bringing 
to the reader’s touch a sense of patches 
in the many-coloured garment in which 
Adlington fancifully exercised himself. 
Our own language has only once known 
that exuberance which gave Adlington 
phrases like ‘a rich Chuffe called 
Chriseros’ for Chvyseros quidam nummu- 
larius (IV. 9), or ‘ thus we began our 
subtilty’’ for ad hunc modum prion- 
bus inchoatis (IV. 16), or ‘ thou trifling 
boy, thou Varlet ’ where Venus calls 
Cupid nugo et corruptor (V. 29); and 
turned /ic (IX. 35) into ‘ this young 
royster,’ avidis animis (VIII. 28) into 
‘the greedy whoresons,’ and bellis- 
simus ille pusio (1X. 7) into ‘ the minion 
lover.’ But Mr. Gaselee, with admir- 
able vivacity, seizes openings which 
Adlington missed. He has ‘the old 
trot’ for senile illud facinus (IV 12), 


1 In his introduction to the reprint of the 
edition of 1639 in the Tudor translations 
(David Nutt, 1893). 


42 


Adlington having used ‘ old witch, old 
trot and strumpet’ with wild inaccuracy 
in IV. 7. With rare ingenuity he 
takes the well-known ‘ rope-ripe’ for 
cruciarius ille, merely rendered ‘ the 
servant’ in the 1639 edition, in X. 7, 
and much less properly fathered upon 
puer ille peremptory meus by Adlington 
in VII. 24. In IV. 14 ‘ their wrecks ’ 
for ferina naufragia, is his, Adlington 
having ‘them’; and for narvationibus 
lepidis anilibusque fabulis (the words 
describing the story of Cupid and 
Psyche) he gives us ‘a pleasant old 
wives’ tale’ for Adlington’s ‘ a pleasant 
tale. In V. 31, the spirited words 
‘entirely close and shut up that factory 
where the natural faults of women are 
made,’ and in VI. 16 the malice of ‘ my 
poppet ’ for mea pupula, find no place 
in Adlington. The anti-Christian allu- 
sion latent in salutaves vere equidem 
illas aguas (1X. 4) is well brought out 
by the substitution of “that water, 
that was truly water of salvation to me’ 
for Adlington’s ‘ the wholesome water 
of my life.’ 

But at least for modern readers the 
main test of a translation of the Meta- 
morphoses will always be the rendering 
of the story of Cupid and Psyche, and 
it may be well to indicate how the 
present version compares at certain 
points both with Adlington and with 
Walter Pater’s paraphrase. Mr. Gase- 
lee does well to retain the magical 
insertion ‘ inhabiting in the West parts ’ 
of the Elizabethan opening. For ser- 
monis humani penuria (IV. 28), Adling- 
ton’s ‘no earthly creature’ 15 altered 
to ‘ no earthly tongue ’; Pater’s ‘ men’s 
speech was too poor’ seems better. 
The opening words of Venus in IV. 30, 
rerum naturae prisca parens, are given 
a due Lucretian weight by Mr. Gaselee’s 
‘the original of nature’ as against 
Pater’s ‘ ancient parent of nature’ and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Adlington’s compression of the first 
and second phrases in the Latin into 
‘the original parent of all the ele- 
ments.’ In V. 2 Pater unnecessarily 
elaborated vox gquaedam corporis sut 
nuda into ‘ a voice as it were unclothed 
of bodily vesture’’; Mr. Gaselee prefers 
Adlington’s ‘a voyce without any 
body.’ Similarly in V. 4 Pater turns 
clemens quidam sonus into the modern 
and mystical ‘a sound of a certain 
clemency ’; Adlington seems to have 
read somnus, and translated ‘ the sweet 
sleep came upon her,’ ignoring the diffi- 
culty of aures etus accedit ; Mr. Gaselee 
has the simple and adequate phrase, 
‘a sweet sound came about her ears.’ 
In V. 6 all the translations miss the 
effect of sic tlle novae nuptae precibus 
veniam tvibuit, an early example of a 
theory which has become a novelist’s. 
commonplace. Pater omits the phrase, 
and Mr. Gaselee accepts Adlington’s 
‘whereat at length he was contented.’ 
In V. 9 Mr. Gaselee’s ‘ now already she 
holds up her countenance, now she 
breathes the goddess,’ for cam 1am sur- 
sum rvespicit et deam spirat mulier does 
better justice to a fine phrase than 
Adlington’s feeble ‘such was her 
countenance, so she behaved herself,’ 
or Pater’s blank verse ‘ she looks aloft 
and breathes divinity.’ ; 

These examples are perhaps suffi- 
cient to show how far Mr. Gaselee has 
gone beyond Adlington in ministering 
to scholarship, while preserving the 
aim of the first enthusiastic translator, 
who turned his difficult author into 
English ‘to the end that amongst so 
many sage and serious works (as every 
man wellnigh endeavours daily to in- 
crease) there might be some fresh and 
pleasant matter to recreate the minds 
of the readers withal.’ 


M. HESELTINE. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 43. 


SHORT NOTICES 


La Science Francaise. 2 vols. 8vo. 


Larousse, Paris. 


Tue French Ministry of Education 
having been invited to the Universal 
Exhibition held at San Francisco in 
1015 sent there a library of books re- 
lating to all kinds of sciences and dating 
from the sixteenth century onwards. 
The catalogue contains what is con- 
sidered as the most representative works 
of French science in all branches, and 
is now published with a notice for each 
section which sums up the historical 
development of every branch; there are 
altogether thirty-three different sections, 
the first volume being especially devo- 
ted to pure science, the second to litera- 
ture, history, and philology. 

The great fact which strikes one at 
a first perusal is that the French have 
acted as pioneers in nearly all branches 
of modern science. M. Lucian Poin- 
caré, in his general introduction, may 
well write that ‘ the very fountain-head 
from which fresh streams of human 
knowledge have sprung forth has often 
the name ofa great Frenchman attached 
to it.’ If we inquire why and how it is 
so, he will tell us that it is because ‘ in 
every domain, whether scientific or not, 
France has been the most revolutionary 
of nations.’ But as has been rightly ob- 
served, revolution would have no mean- 
ing in a country of revolutionary 
unanimity ; revolution in a French mind 
often means reaction, and always comes 
from an indefatigable curiosity, a happy 
audacity of questioning everything 
afresh, and making a clean sweep of all 
that is convention, artifice, or tradition. 
In no branch does this appear more 
clearly than in philosophy, as M. 
Bergson easily shows in his short and 
yet very comprehensive account. The 
tabula rasa, it is well known, is the very 
starting-point of Descartes, the father 
of modern European philosophy; but 
all the great initiators, at different 
periods, partake of the same spirit: 
Rousseau, Comte, Claude Bernard. 
Again, if such revolutionary tendencies 
do not, however, imply the dangers 
which they might involve, the French 


thinkers owe it to the fact that they 
unite philosophy to concrete science ; 
they want indeed to assure themselves 
that they do not indulge in a mere play 
of ideas. Another feature just as re- 
markable is the constant introspection 
which accompanies their researches and 
makes of them, not vaporous abstracteurs 
de quintessence, but great psychologists 
and moralists. 

These characteristics of the genius of 
France become manifest in all branches 
of science; but another point will also 
detain the attention of the reader: he 
will see that in many branches, and es- 
pecially in historical and_ linguistic 
sciences, the studious collection of facts, 
commonly attributed to modern Ger- 
many, was first practised in France 
during the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries: good workmen, more or less 
renowned, from Scaliger to Dom Ma- 
billon and the Benedictines, had thus 
paved the way to modern researches. 
True, the heritage sometimes was 
abandoned by the French; others have 
seized on it. However, during the last 
century a revival in such studies took 
place ; let it be our confident hope that 
everywhere the rank to which French 
genius has been shown to have a right 
will not be lost again, and the qualities of 
clearness, concreteness, and humanity, 
which this genius can impart to studies 
which otherwise may seem to some 
overdry or futile, will all turn to the 
benefit of the world. 


1- Ὁ: 
The Lascarids of Nicaea. By ALICE 
GARDNER: 51 volt ὄνον ; Pp 59τὸ: 


London: Methuen and Co. 7s. 6d.net. 


Miss GARDNER has availed herself of 
all the new material that the labour of 
many scholars in the last generation 
has made accessible to write the history 
of the Lascarid dynasty. The intro- 
ductory chapters tell concisely the 
familiar story of the diversion of the 
Fourth Crusade to the overthrow of 
the Empire at Constantinople. Then 
in 200 pages a clear way 1s found 


44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


through the half-century of intrigue, 
diplomacy, and war, during which the 
Lascarid family reigning at Nicaea 
maintained itself against the efforts of 
Turks, Latins, and rival Greeks. Every 
student will be grateful to Miss Gardner 
for the light she throws on these dark 
places of history. The concluding 
chapter describes the art and literature 
of the Nicene Empire and the import- 
ance of the work done by its statesmen 
and scholars in ‘keeping alive the fire 
of Hellenic culture till the world in 
general was ripe to receive its genial 
and reviving influences.’ 


ἈΠ]: ΒΕ: 
Scriveners Greek Testament. Cheaper 
Students’ Edition. 2s. 6d. net. 


THIS is a reprint of the fourth edition 
(1906) revised and corrected by Pro- 
fessor Eb. Nestle. Printed on thin 
paper and bound in limp cloth, it can 
be carried comfortably in the pocket. 


Anctent Times: A History of the Early 
World. By J. H. BReastepD, Pro- 
fessor in the University of Chicago. 


1 vol. 8vo. Pp. 742. Numerous 
maps and illustrations. Ginn and 
Co. Os.6d. net. 


TuIs text-book of ancient history, in- 
tended for use in secondary schools, 
differs in several ways from most of its 
kind. It covers the whole ground of 
ancient history from the dawn of civili- 
sation to the fall of the Roman Empire, 
giving about 200 pages to the history of 
the peoples of the East, 260 to that of 
the Greeks, and 230 to that of the 
Romans; it deals less with political 
events and much more with social life, 
industry, commerce, religion, and 
culture; and it has an unusual wealth 
of pictorial illustration, each picture 
being accompanied by a valuable ex- 
planatory note. 

Only experiment can show whether 
Professor Breasted has escaped the 
common error of attempting too much 
in so small a space, but the book is 
attractive and deserves to be tried by 
those who have found the present text- 
books unsatisfactory. 

Ae ΒΕ: 


The Civilisation of Babylonia and Assyria. 
By Morris JASTROW, Professor in 
the University of Pennsylvania. 
1 vol. Royal 8vo. Pp. 515. Map. 
164 illustrations. Philadelphia and 
London: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1915. 
25s. net. 


Tus volume is intended to give ‘the 
larger public’ a general view of the 
civilisation of Babylonia and Assyria. 
The first two chapters tell the story of 
the excavations and of the deciphering 
of the cuneiform inscriptions. The third 
chapter narrates the history of the 
Oriental States from the beginning to 
their conquest by Cyrus. The remain- 
ing five chapters describe their re- 
ligions, temples, lands, commerce, art, 
and literature. 

Professor Jastrow has made a wise 
selection of material, and he writes in- 
terestingly froma fulness of knowledge. 
The numerous photographic reproduc- 
tions and the translations from the 
tablets are a valuable addition to a 
useful book. 

The price of the book will put it 
beyond the reach of many general 
readers, but schools and colleges would 
do well to place a copy in their libraries. 
It is dificult to imagine a more at- 
tractive introduction not only to the 
study of Oriental history, but also to 
the methods by which the nineteenth 
century recovered what had so long 
been buried and forgotten. A pocket 
edition of this book would be a welcome 
gift to many soldiers of the Mesopo- 
tamian Expeditionary Force. 

As: 7] ΒΕ Gs 


Flosculi Rossallienses. Pp. viii + 256. 
Cambridge: University Press. 7s. 6d. 
net. 


THouGH no doubt it is true enough 
that the refinements of Greek and Latin 
composition are for the few, and that 
the time which used to be devoted to it 
in past generations was largely wasted, 
the classical scholar who has had the 
training and has profited by it will 
heartily welcome this volume. It con- 
tains versions of all sorts; Latin and 
Greek prose and verse of every con- 
ceivable metre—all of a high level of 
merit. 


THE CLASSIGAL REVIEW 45 


The haphazard method by which the 
book has been arranged gives it an 
added charm. The order of the pieces 
has been determined by alphabetical 
sequence, based on the opening word 
of the English passages, and the result 
is a happy blend of many generations. 
Two Porson prize compositions appro- 
priately bring the collection to a close. 

The question is often’asked whether 
the art of versification is not dying out: 
the fact that this volume contains com- 
positions by boys who had just left 
school when the war broke out is suffi- 
cient to show that this is not true of 
Rossall. At the same time we think 
the most scholarly of the versions are 
those of the older generation; and 
though it may be invidious to select 
one out of more than sixty contributors 
we are inclined to put W.W.W. first. 

Composition masters will find the 
book an invaluable storehouse of models, 
while those of us who amuse ourselves 
in spare moments with efforts at versifi- 
cation will find much material to prac- 
tise upon, and much to stimulate us in 
its pages. 

ReaD: 


Pocket English-Greek Dictionary of 
Idioms, Proverbs, and Phrases. By 
A. KyRIAKIDES. Cyprus: Nicosia, 
1g16. 


M. KyRIAKIDES is the author of a 
modern Greek dictionary, and this book 
is a supplement to it. He has indeed 
collected an enormous mass of material, 
and the book is most useful to one who 
knows how to use it. But the author, 
like most Greeks, is uncritical. He 
has mixed up spoken Greek with the 
bastard newspaper Greek that no 
tongue ever speaks, and they are not 
always kept distinct ; sometimes there 
are words or phrases which are very 
ancient. Modern proverbs and idioms 
are often enclosed in commas; but it 
is necessary to know modern Greek in 
order to use the book properly. With 
idioms, he does not always find a cor- 
responding Greek idiom ; sometimes he 
simply translates the English literally, 
or gives the bare sense. Thus: ‘ food 
for powder’ is rendered στρατιῶται; 
‘his work is cut out for him,’ τὸ ἔργον 


Tov εἶνε προδιαγεγραμμένον, which is 
wrong, on p. 126, but on p. 890 he has 
learnt what it means, and gives an 
idiom εὑρῆκα τὸν peda pov. With 
these reservations, we recommend the 
book. 

WH De: 


Studies im Ennius. By ELEANOR 
SHIPLEY DUCKETT. Bryn Mawr, 
Pennsylvania, IgI5. 


In this learned and clever little treatise 
the authoress considers(1) Ennius’ place 
among writers of history and (2) his 
influence on the Chorus of Roman 
Tragedy. She deals first with the 
theory started by Ranke and developed 
by others, that the legends of Rome, as 
given by the earliest Roman annalists, 
were borrowed from the praetextae of 
the early dramatists, who either, in- 
vented them or imported them from 
Greek literature. We think she shows 
clearly that the scanty remains of these 
plays do not support the theory built 
upon them, while there is evidence from 
coins and works of art to show that one 
legend at any rate (that of Romulus 
and Remus) was current long before 
Naevius took it as the subject of his 
praetexta. The conclusion is drawn 
that Ennius in his Azmnales recounted 
the legends of the Regal period merely 
as legends and without any attempt to 
embroider them. In the historical 
period of his work his account is full 
and authentic. 

The second part of Miss Duckett’s 
treatise is a criticism of Leo’s view that 
the chorus in Ennius’ plays had ceased 
to sing as a whole, but was represented 
by the recitative in some stichic metre 
of the coryphaeus or others. Here we 
are not quite sure whether Miss Duckett 
appreciates the significance of the 
scanty evidence afforded by the frag- 
ments. She quotes the Jpiigenia and 
the Medea Exul, where the chorus give 
expression to their feelings in trochaic 
septenarii, and adds, ‘ these two frag- 
ments are the only certain ones extant 
which show non-lyric metre given by 
Ennius toachorus in his plays.’ True: 
but they ave certain; and it is surely 
most significant that the passage from 
the Medea is in lyric metres in Euripides; 


-46 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


while the ‘lyric’ fragments of Ennius 
are most uncertain and, even if admitted, 
-do not require to be spoken by the 
whole chorus. We still feel that there 
is much force in Leo’s contention that 
Ennian tragedy and Plautine comedy 
ran upon parallel lines. Greek tragedy 
confined the dialogue almost entirely to 
the trimeter and found variety in the 
lyrics of the chorus. Ennius, like 
Plautus, seeks for variety in long tro- 
chaic and long iambic lines delivered in 
recitative. . 

With Miss Duckett’s final contention 
that Ennius allowed the chorus to par- 
ticipate in the life of the plot to a 
greater extent than did his predecessors 
we should be inclined to agree. The 
fragments certainly show that the 
chorus frequently intervenes, and as she 
remarks, ‘the Romans learnt Greek 
drama of the Hellenistic type prevalent 
in Magna Graecia.... It is not sur- 
prising that the original mind [οἱ 
Ennius] should have turned away from 
the familiar Alexandrian school to 
follow more closely the old tragic poets 
in his plays.’ 

Foi) Wo EAL L. 


War Time Lectures. 
London, 1916. 


OF the three sections into which this 
volume is divided, only one, the first, is 
within the province of the Classical Re- 
view. It consists of two lectures, entitled 
‘Trade Unions and Friendly Societies 
of the Roman Empire. They refer 
almost entirely to the western half of 
the Empire. It is always tempting to 
apply such designations as ‘Trade 
Union’ and ‘Friendly Societies’ to the 
Roman collegia, but none could well be 
less appropriate. Many collegza were 
indeed composed of members of the same 
craft, but they pursued aims far different 
from those of the modern Trade Union. 
For example, the ‘strike’ is a phenomenon 
alien to ancient civilisation, with rare ex- 
ceptions. Even less suitable is the phrase 
‘Friendly Society.’ Some of the colle gia 
resemble our ‘Burial Clubs,’ but other- 
wise there is but small trace of the prin- 
ciple of mutual assistance. Again, the 
ancient associations were institutions 
restricted to particular towns; there were 


By E. V. ARNOLD. 


hardly any widely extended societies 
having branches in different communi- 
ties. The chief exception is that of the 
association of Dionysiac artistes. When 
collegia in different towns bore the 
same name they were still independent. 
Like some who have preceded him, 
Prof. Arnold does not sufficiently insist 
on these wide differences. The subject 
is of course intricate and has extensive 
ramifications and is not easy to expound 
in small compass. He has produced a 
lucid and serviceable general account 
conveying information which the Eng- 
lish reader will not easily find elsewhere. 
In so rapid a survey of so difficult a field, 
an occasional want of precision was 
almost unavoidable; but there are few 
things here which challenge dissent. On 
p. 35 guinquennales are mentioned as 
though they were functionaries holding 
office for five years. It is hardly the 
case that the so-called collegza illicita 
existed ‘in defiance of the law’ (p. 20). 
The Roman Government treated many 
things with a toleration which seems 
illogical to moderns. It was well under- 
stood that a collegzum would not be sup- 
pressed if it were harmless. This applies 
to religious societies, of which it can 
hardly be said that ‘religious brother- 
hoods were forbidden’ (p. 28). They 
were destroyed if thought to be danger- 
ous; otherwise they were neglected. 
There is only one statement in the book 
which seems to call for a vigorous pro- 
test—viz., that ‘corn was not grown in 
Italy after 200 B.C’ (p. 44). This belief 
is far from being peculiar to Prof. 
Arnold. It is to be found in many books 
and articles and threatens ἢ England 
at least) to become a canonical error. 
Plenty of positive evidence to the con- 
trary is scattered about in the records. 
Nor can it be accidental that we have no 
testimony to the dependence on im- 
ported grain of any ancient Italian city 
excepting Rome. 
JSR 


Caesar's Wars with the Germans, ed. 
by W. C. Bowie (Blackwell, 86 pp., 1s. 6d. 
net), is rather elementary. Caesar’s 
text is in the first ten pages broken up 
into easy detached sentences, in the next 
eleven it is slightly simplified, in the 
remaining twenty-one pages it is not 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 47 


modified. The notes on language are 
short, clear and sound. The common 
uses of the cases are well distinguished. 
The subject-matter is treated very 
briefly. 

We have two other books for the same 
stage of progress, both of which have the 
merit that they are much easier than the 
texts on which they are based. S. E. 
Winbolt’s Caesars Belgian Campaign 
(Bell, 107 pp., Is. 6d.) is successful in 
preserving some of the interest of the 
stirring story of B.G. II. The introduc- 
tion is not very hopeful. There are short 
notes at the foot of the page, exercises 
and a vocabulary. In his Books of 
Britain and the Emperors: Book 1, 
Julius Caesar to Agricola (Bell, 96 pp. 
Is.), E. C. Marchant has attempted a 


more difficult task. The book lacks 
unity of interest. We have stories of 
Julius and Augustus and many others, 
but we do not hear enough about any of 
them to become really interested. With 
Claudius we turn our attention to 
Britain, but, as the editor says, ‘owing 
to the vagueness of the ancient historians 
it is impossible to follow the campaigns 
closely.’ However, we are glad to see 
someone trying a new experiment. Let 
us add that the book is remarkably well 
produced; the print is large and clear, 
there are two maps and some well-chosen 
pictures. There are some misprints which 
will give a little trouble, e.g. finitimibus 
gentis for finitimis gentibus. 
>. 


PARAPHRASES. 


Μάρκου ’Apyevtapiov. 
‘Howddou ποτὲ βίβλον ἐμαῖς ὑπὸ χερσὶν ἑλίσσων 
ΠΠύρρην ἐξαπίνης εἶδον ἐπερχομένην " 
βίβλον δὲ plyas ἐπὶ γῆν χερί, τοῦτ᾽ ἐβόησα" 
ἔργα τί μοι παρέχεις, ὦ γέρον Ἡσίοδε ; 
The point of the epigram lies of course in the 
double sense of ἔργα παρέχεις, ‘Why do you 


worry me?’ and ‘ Why offer me your Works 
(and Days) ? 


Νικάρχου. 


εἰς Ῥόδον εἰ πλεύσει τις ᾿Ολυμπικὸν ἦλθεν ἐρωτῶν 
τὸν μάντιν, καὶ πῶς πλεύσεται ἀσφαλέως " 

χὼ μάντις, πρῶτον μέν, ἔφη, καινὴν ἔχε τὴν ναῦν, 
καὶ μὴ χειμῶνος, τοῦ δὲ θέρους ἀνάγου. 

τοῦτο γὰρ ἂν ποιῆις, ἥξεις κἀκεῖσε καὶ ὧδε, 
ἂν μὴ πειράτης ἐν πελάγει σε λάβηι. 


Μελεάγρου. 
Σφαιριστὰν τὸν "Ἔρωτα τρέφω, σοὶ δ᾽, ἩἩλιοδώρα, 
βάλλει τὰν ἐν ἐμοὶ παλλομέναν κραδίαν. 
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε συμπαίκταν δέξαι ἸΠόθον" εἰ δ᾽ ἀπὸ σεῦ με 
ῥίψαις, οὐκ οἴσω τὰν ἀπάλαιστρον ὕβριν. 


ἀπάλαιστρον, a happy emendation of the 
meaningless ἀπαλαιοτέραν of the original hand, 
clearly.means (rudeness) ‘against the rules of 
the game.’ 


᾿Αδηλον. 


Ἐξ ὧραι μόχθοις ἱκανώταται " αἱ δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτὰς 
γράμμασι δεικνύμεναι ZHOI λέγουσι βροτοῖς. 
ΖΗΘΙ is ‘7, 8, 9, 10,’ ‘expressed in letters,’ 


the numbers following the six hours to be given 
to work. 


I pored on Milton one fine day, 
When dearest Anna passed my way; 
Her dainty form I spied. 
Straight on the floor the book I tossed ; 
‘ My paradise shall not be lost 
For yours, old John,’ I cried. 


To an astrologer there went 

A merchant on a voyage bent. 

‘ Consult the stars, and let me know,’ 
Said he, ‘ how safest I may go.’ 

A horoscope the wizard cast, 

And pondered long, and spoke at last— 
‘ The stars direct that you be shipped 
On a stout vessel well equipped. 

In summer, not in winter, sail ; 
Select a calm, avoid a gale. 

If you obey, no harm befalls you— 
Unless a pirate overhauls you.’ 


LOVE-TENNIS. 


Love is my partner, dear, to serve 
My bounding heart to you; 

Be Cupid yours, to watch the curve 
And take my service true. 


Put me not rudely out of court ; 
Beware, or ‘ fault’ I’ll call. 

My court is made in more than sport ; 
So play the game—Love all ! 


BIRTHDAY THOUGHTS OF A 
SPELLING REFORMER. 
Soe tu-dai I’m fifti-for ; 

Aul dhe best ov lyf iz o’r. 
Stil, my yeerz a kumfort giv ; 
For dhair numberz bid me LIV. 


WALTER LEAF. 


48 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


NOTES AND NEWS 


At the December meeting of the 
Northumberland and Durham Branch 
of the Classical Association, the Rev. 
E. Pelham Pestle, M.A., read a paper 
on ‘Classics and the Boy : Some Recent 
Tendencies. The standpoint was that 
of one whose schooldays had been 
spent in elementary and secondary 
schools of the twentieth century and 
whose classics had been hardly come 
by. Endeavouring to bring his apolo- 
getic up to date, Mr. Pestle advocated 
an active offensive on behalf of classics, 
taking due account of (a) fossils who 
believe only in the ‘ old-fashioned clas- 
sical education,’ (b) cynics who say one 
subject is as good as another for 
educative discipline, (ὁ) snobs who hold 
that Classics are for the ‘ Classes,’ not 
for the masses. Two excellent recent 
books, Professor Burnet’s Higher Edu- 
cation and the War and Mr. Living- 
stone’s Defence of Classical Education 
seemed to have an inadequate per- 
spective of the field of education: to 
the lecturer it appeared that, though 
there is a ladder of a sort from primary 
school to University in mathematics 


and science, the ladder does not exist 
in the humanities. Four proposals were 
submitted for discussion: (1) Greek 
might be taught sometimes in secondary 
schools without Latin as a previous 
discipline ; (2) modern history would 
be more intelligible if some ancient 
history were taught first; (3) methods 
of English teaching in primary schools. 
should be dictated by the methods of 
teaching classics in the secondary 
schools; (4) premature specialisation 
in science should be discouraged, and 
for those who find out their mistake in 
such premature specialisation the study 
of Greek ab initio should be made 
possible at the University. 

The discussion which followed was 
taken part in by Canon Cruickshank 
(Durham), who presided, Dr. Dawson 
Walker (Durham), Mr. R. Y. Welch 
(Gateshead), Miss Stafford Smith 
(Durham High School), Miss Ashley 
(Darlington), Professor J. H. How 
(Durham), Dr. Gee (Durham), and 
Professor J. Wight Duff (Newcastle- 
upon-Tyne). 


The Classical Review 


MAY—JUNE, 1918 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


THE GREEK WINDS. 


In the orientation ot the Greek 
Winds—that is to say, in the interpre- 
tation of the Greek ‘ wind-rose,’ or 
compass -card — there lies a pretty 
problem, which to my thinking is but 
little understood by scholars. The sub- 
ject has been touched on of late by Sir 
Arthur Hort in his translation of Theo- 
phrastus De Signs, and by Mr. E. 5. 
Forster in his Oxford translation of the 
Ps. Aristotelian Ventorwm Situs et A ppel- 
lationes. Both writers borrow their 
statements and their diagrams from 
W. Capelle’s paper on the treatise De 
Mundo (‘Die Schrift von der Welt,’ 
Neue Jahrb. xv. 1905), as Capelle in 
turn had followed for the most part in 
the steps of Kaibel (‘ Antike Windrosen,’ 
Hermes, Xx. pp. 579-624, 1885). Our 
scholars, in short, have followed the 
Germans, and these Germans (as I hope 
to show) are wrong. 

The wind-rose of the Greeks, as 
interpreted by Katbel and Capelle and 
copied by Forster and Hort, is unsym- 
metrical, or has at best a curiously 
imperfect symmetry (Fig.1). It shows 
us (1) the four cardinal winds, N., S., 
E., and W.; (2) next, and midway in 
the four quadrants, the N.E.,S.E.,S.W., 
and N.W. winds; and, lastly (3), four 
more winds intercalated midway in the 
two northern and two southern octants, 
so that the whole circle is divided into 
twelve sectors, of which four are large 
and eight are small, the eight small 
ones being each just one-half the size of 
the other four. In other words, our 
circle of 360° is divided into four sectors 
of 45°, and eight sectors of 224° each. 
The main point is that the four winds 


NO. CCLXIX. VOL. XXXII. 


Caecias, Eurus, Lips, and Argestes 
(Z, A, I’, E) are (on this interpretation) 
set midway between the four cardinal 


Fic. 1,—Capelle and Kaibel’s interpretation of 
the Aristotelian wind-rose. 


winds. They are described as N.E., 
S.E., S.W., and N.W. winds respec- 
tively; and they are so defined in 
Liddell and Scott, with no manner of 
doubt or hesitation. 

Now Aristotle’s account, as set forth 
for instance in the Meteorologica (2, vi. 
3634), is very different from this ; more- 
over it is very plain and simple,’ and 
all the more so if we be careful to read 
and interpret it in the light of Aris- 


1 Save only for a textual difficulty in a single 
sentence (364a 13), pointed out by Salmasius 
and by Ideler. Ideler’s restoration of the text 
(Arist. Meteor. 1834, vol. 1.) p. 576) was subse- 
quently rediscovered by Mr. F. H. Fobes, in 
C.R. 1916, p. 48.4 


D 


50 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


totle’s repeated statements that the 
winds are dependent on the sun (cf. 
e.g. op. cit. 2, ν. 361b, ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος καὶ 
παύει Kat συνεξορμᾷ τὰ πνεύματα). 

He bids us construct our compass- 
card as follows (Figs. 2, 3): Let A be the 


Fic. 2.—The Aristotelian division of the compass- 
card; showing sunset and sunrise at the 
equinox (A, B): also at the winter solstice 
(I, A), and at the summer solstice (Ε, Z), as 
seen (approximately) from the latitude of 


Athens. (The dotted lines represent the 
tropic and arctic circles), 


place of sunset, and B of sunrise, at the 
equinox, the δυσμὴ καὶ ἀνατολὴ ἰσημε- 
ρινή, when the sun rises and sets due 
E. and W. (in accordance with the 
very definition of these terms); here 
we have what Milton, and the Italians, 
call ‘the Levant and the Ponent winds.’ 
A diameter H®, cutting AB at right 
angles, then gives due north and due 
south; and our four cardinal points are 
thus determined. The next step is the 
remarkable one: [ἔστω] τὸ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οὗ Z 
ἀνατολὴ θερινή, τὸ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οὗ BE δυσμὴ 
θερινή" τὸ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οὗ Δ ἀνατολὴ χειμερινή, 
τὸ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οὗ Τ' δυσμὴ χειμερινή. The 
eight winds, blowing from these eight 
points, are as follows: A, ξέφυρος " 
B, ἀπηλιώτης" T, A: A, edpos: E, 
ἀργέστης (ὀλυμπίας, σκίρων, ἰάψυξ in 
the De Mundo): Z, καικίας " H, βορέας 
or ἀπαρκτίας - Θ, νότος. ; 
The third and last step consists in 
subdividing four of these eight sectors, 
viz. the two northern and the two 
southern ones (i.e. the sectors HE, HZ, 


ΘΙ;, @A), so as to give four new points, 
I, K,, M,N: “Only, -according Ὁ, ἘΠῸ 
account in the Meteorologica, while the 
winds θρασκίας and μέσης are hereby 
defined as blowing from I and K re- 
spectively, it so happens that opposite 
to these (viz. at M and N), no winds 
actually occur, or none at least are 
conspicuous in Nature. As to the 
original eight, they go in pairs, dia- 
metrically opposite: οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οἱ 
κατὼ διάμετρόν τε κείμενοι ἄνεμοι, καὶ οἷς 
εἰσὶν ἐναντίο. The rest have no an- 
tagonists—no winds diametrically oppo- 
site to them—é€tepo δ᾽ εἰσὶ καθ᾽ ods 
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναντία πνεύματα. And these 
are, as we have already said, Thrascias 
and Meses: ἀπὸ μὲν yap τοῦ I, ov 
καλοῦσι θρασκίαν, οὗτος yap μέσος 
ἀργέστου καὶ ἀπαρκτίου " ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ K, 
ὃν καλοῦσι μέσην, οὗτος γὰρ μέσος 
καικίονυ καὶ ἀπαρκτίου: ἐναντία δὲ 
τούτοις οὐκ ἔστι τοῖς πνεύμασιν, οὔτε τῷ 
θρασκίᾳ οὔτε τῷ μέσῃ. But, after all, 
Aristotle immediately proceeds _ to 
qualify this statement, and to suggest 
that, at the point N., opposite to 
Thrascias, there may be found a certain 
wind, Phoenicias (Euronotus in Theo- 
phrastus and the De Mundo): εἰ μὴ ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπ᾽’ ὀλίγον πνεῖ τις ἄνεμος, 
ὃν καλοῦσιν οἱ περὶ τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον 
φοινικίαν. We must go to other writers 
(including the author of the De Mundo 
and the Ventorum Situs) for the denom- 


βορέας 
Gp ασκίας 


apyeorns 

Lepupo ς ἀπηλιωτῆς 
AW εὗρος 
λιβονότος φοινικίας 


νότος 


Fic, 3.—The Aristotelian wind-rose, according to 
the construction shown in Fig. 2. (The wind 
λιβονότος is interpolated from Theophrastus). 


ination of the missing twelfth wind, 
opposite to Meses—the wind termed 
Libonotus in the De Mundo by Theo- 
phrastus, by Pliny and by Lydus (De 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 51 


Menss. c. 3), and Leuconotus by the 
author of the Ventorum Situs, by Posi- 
donius (Strabo, i, p. 29), and by Seneca. 

In all this not a single word is said 
about dividing the four quadrants into 
halves, and so fixing the positions of 
N.E. and S.E., N.W. and S.W. winds; 
but, on the contrary, there is a clear 
and unmistakable injunction that the 
places of the four secondary winds are 
to be determined, like those of the 
cardinal winds, by a certain direct, if 
more complicated, reference to the sun. 
Obvious as this point is, there are few 
writers who appear to have noticed it. 
One is the learned Ideler; another is 
H. C. Genelli, who wrote (not without 
help from Ideler) a very good paper, 
‘ Ueber die Windscheiben der Alten,’ in 
F. A. Wolf’s Analecta (ii., pp. 461-500, 
1820); a third is Mr. James G. Wood, 
author of a too much neglected transla- 
tion of the Theophrastean De Signis 
and De Ventis (London: Stanford, 1894). 
Part of my object, indeed, in writing 
this note is to recall attention to Wood’s 
work, which has fallen into such com- 
plete oblivion that Sir Arthur Hort has 
translated the De Signis over again, 
unaware that Wood had done it all 
before, and had done it uncommonly 
well. But we shall come back in a 
little while to these scholars. 

Another man of learning whose con- 
tribution must not be overlooked is 
Coray. In his French translation of 
Hippocrates περὶ ἀέρων κ.τ.λ. (Paris, 
1800, Discours prélim. pp. |xviii-lxxxiii), 
he gives a good account of the winds, 
and adds to it a still more admirable 
table, showing the various classifications 
of the winds and divisions of the com- 
pass from Homer to the moderns. He 
does not say a word about the solar, or 
astronomical, definitions of the winds; 
he merely indicates in his text (p. xix) 
that to the four cardinal winds ‘on 
ajouta dans la suite quatre autres, qui 
sont le καικίας, Nord-est ; l’edpos, Sud- 
est,’ etc.; and that ‘Aristote ajoute a 
cette rose trois autres vents, qui sont le 
μέσης, placé entre le Nord-est,’ etc. 
And then, without any further explana- 
tion, he seems to take it for granted 
that, once the wind-rose of twelve winds 
was established, these twelve winds 
would take equal shares in the division 


of the compass-card, and so he repre- 
sents them in his table and diagram. 
That is to say, in his final reference to 
the modern compass-card of thirty-two 
points, or thirty-two ‘winds,’ he says 
that ‘la plupart des vents de cette rose 
ont di étre divisés par fractions, pour 
correspondre aux roses anciennes, et 
principalement a celle de douze vents, 
dont chacun ne pouvoit comprendre 
que deux vents et quatre-sixiémes de 
vent de la rose moderne (i.e.32+22=12). 
He gives them their places, accord- 
ingly, in a compass-card of equal and 
symmetrical interspaces or sectors. In 
much the same way Salmasius had 
arranged the twelve winds in a regular 
dodecagon, though, like Coray, he also 
had missed the essential point (which 
we are now about to discuss) of the 
ἀνατολὴ θερινή as defining the place of 
καικίας. But Salmasius’ learned treatise 
on the Winds (Exercitat. Plinian. pp. 
1244-1253) is more than we can do 
justice to here. To return to Aris- 
totle: 

When Aristotle tells us that a certain 
wind blows from the ἀνατολὴ θερινή or 
χειμερινή, We may safely take it that he 
means the midsummer or midwinter 
sunrise, the rising of the tropical or 
solstitial sun, in direct relation and 
contrast to what he had said of the 
equinoctial sun immediately before. 
Now, as Philemon Holland puts it 
(Pliny, 18, 34): ‘The Levant varieth 
every day, for that the Sun never riseth 
the morrow morning from the same 
point just that he rose the day before: 
which I note lest haply any man should 
take one certain line for to point out 
the Sun rising or the East, and make 
his quadrant or compass therebye.’ And 
so, to understand the place where the 
sun rises or sets at the tropic (or any 
other day of the year), we need the 
help of a very little elementary astron- 
omy, just such astronomy as our grand- 
mothers learned from ‘the use of the 
globes.’ For, by the way, that obsolete 
but time-honoured subject of feminine 
education was no laughing matter; it 
harked back to the Middle Ages, it was 
a direct inheritance from the scholastic 
astronomy of the days before the tele- 
scope, the astronomy that Chaucer and 
George Buchanan and Milton knew. 


52 


We know that the ecliptic cuts the 
equator at an angle of about 234°; and 
at precisely that angle, then, to the 
north and south of East or West, does 
the sun rise or set at its midsummer 
or midwinter solstices, as seen from the 
equator itself. But we also know that, 
in our northern latitudes, the mid- 
summer sun visibly rises and sets a very 
great deal farther to the North, and 
that, when we reach the Arctic Circle, 
234° from the pole, the midsummer sun 
neither rises nor sets at all. 

Without attempting to explain the 
trigonometrical reasoning by which the 
formula is arrived at, let us take it from 
the astronomers that the apparent 
direction (or angle of azimuth) of the 
solstitial sunrise (or sunset) is given by 
the expression 


sin ¥=SIN ὦ, COSEC 5, 

where is the angle of the ecliptic 
(235°), 5 is the co-latitude (or go° —X) of 
the place in question, and x is the sol- 
stitial azimuth required. (If we under- 
stand ‘ the use of the globes,’ we can do 
the whole thing practically in a minute 
or two; and if we happen to be yachts- 
men we shall not calculate it at all, but 
shall look it all out in Birdwood’s A zi- 
muth Tables.) Now Athens lies in lati- 
tude 38° N., almost exactly; and, 
working out our equation from this 
value, we find that the midsummer sun 
rises just about 30° 24’ to the North of 
East, or (in round numbers) has a ‘north 
amplitude’ of 30°. And though we go 
as far south as Northern Egypt or as 
Babylon (say 32° N. latitude), or as far 
north as Thrace (say 40° N.), the 
amplitude, or azimuth, of the mid- 
summer sun will not vary more than 
from about 273° to 312°: it will still 
be, very approximately, one-third of the 
way round from East to North. (The 
value for Rome is 324°, for Greenwich 
close on 40°, and for Dundee, where I 
write, 463°.) 

So, coming back to our compass- 
card (Figs. 2, 3), we perceive that 
when Aristotle (or whoever it may 
have been) had found from the sun 
the places of his four secondary (or 
as we may now call them solstitial) as 
well as his four cardinal winds, these 
secondary or solstitial winds lay just 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


one-third of a quadvant on either side 
of east and west, and left therefore 
vacant sectors towards the north and 
south of precisely twice this magnitude. 
And finally, therefore, when these latter 
sectors came to be divided in half, the 
compass-card was found to be equally 
and symmetrically divided into twelve 
sectors, each of 30°. 
Ideler, Genelli, and Wood all pu 

their finger on this simple explanation ; 
but Ideler seems to have fought shy of 
it before he was done. Though he ‘is 
somewhat hard to follow, it seems plain 
that Ideler comes at last to the con- 
clusion that by Aristotle’s midsummer 
sunrise we are to understand not the ap- 
parent sunrise at any particular locality, 
but the theoretical angle of the ecliptic 
(Fig. 4). And this he assumes definitely 


Eop. 
Ay Bek alee | μές. 
Ζ \ ἊΝ 


Fic. 4.—A hypothetical wind-rose, as conceived 
(é.g.) by Ideler: in which the solstitial winds 
blow from the theoretic angle of the ecliptic, 
that is to say from the solstitial sunrise and 
sunset as seen from the equator. 


in his note on Meteor. 2, vi. 363b, where 
Aristotle tells us that the points I, K 
(the positions of the winds Thrascias 
and Meses) coincide nearly, but not 
precisely, with the Arctic Circle: ἡ δὲ 
τοῦ IK διάμετρος βούλεται μὲν κατὰ τὸν 
διὰ παντὸς εἶναι φαινόμενον, οὐκ ἀκριβοῖ 
6é.—‘ Recte, nam ex nostra divisione 
Meses spirat ex puncto quod respondet 
ο 


67 =56° 30 lat. bor. Cuirculus 


2 
arcticus contra 67° lat. bor.’ (Ideler, in 
Meteor. 1, p. 575-6). As a matter of 
fact, our symmetrical orientation of 
Meses, at 60° N., brings it still nearer 
to the Arctic Circle (Fig. 2), and into 


23°+ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 53 


still better harmony with Aristotle’s 
statement. 

Mr. Wood wrote independently, with- 
out knowledge of Ideler’s work or of 
Genelli’s; and his conclusions are, in 
general, those which I here adopt and 
advocate. That is to say, after pointing 
out clearly that the ‘secondary’ winds 
are defined by reference to the solstitial 
sunrise and sunset, he goes on to say 
(p. 82) that there are reasons against 
placing the supposed observer at the 
equator, and that ‘altogether it seems 
most reasonable to suppose that, writing 
at Athens for Greeks, he (Aristotle) took 
Athens as his centre of observation.’ 
This is the whole gist ‘of the matter. 
The reader may be a little perplexed 
(as I was) by the fact that, in the end 
(p. 91), Mr. Wood sets forth the direc- 
tion, or orientation, of the several winds 
according to Aristotle in a table of 
which the following is a part: Boreas, 0°; 
Meses, 33° 15’+; Caecias, 66° 30+; 
Apeliotes, go°. But here Mr. Wood 
(as he now tells me) was only giving 
the benefit of the doubt to other possible 
alternatives: ‘I did not think myself 
justified’ (he says, im litt.) ‘in putting 
down my own view as the only possible 
solution of Aristotle’s expression.’ 

While we may confidently dismiss 
the current view, the view of Kaibel 
and Capelle and their followers, that 
the four secondary winds, Caecias, etc., 
blew from the N.E. and so on, we 
are bound to pay due respect to the 
other element of doubt, viz. whether 
Aristotle took them as blowing from 
the theoretical, or from the actual 
visible sunrise. I believe (just as Mr. 
Wood believes) that Aristotle (or who- 
ever introduced the system) was think- 
ing of the actual sunrise, just as he was 
thinking of an actual wind; he was not 
thinking of an observer at the equator, 
where no Greek had ever been; and 
moreover he would be the less apt to think 
of, and guard against, the influence of 
locality, inasmuch as even considerable 
differences of latitude make compara- 
tively little difference in the particular 
latitudes in question. Again, as a 
further argument, it seems to me that 
the choice of the ecliptic angle (233°) 
would have led naturally to a division 
of the quadrant into four coequal parts 
(for a quarter of go° is 223°), just as 


the choice of the solstitial azimuth at 
Athens (30°) must lead naturally to a 
division of the quadrant into three. | 

We come, then, to the following 
conclusions: (1) That the Aristotelian 
classification of the winds was based 
originally and directly on a meteoro- 
logical theory of their connection with 
the sun. (2) That this same.-classifica- 
tion, and the corresponding division of 
the compass-card, was a duodecimal 
one—a method precisely akin to the 
duodecimal or zodiacal division of the 
ecliptic, and for that very reason (as we 
may perhaps venture to say) more than 
a little suggestive of Babylonian origin 
or influence. (3) That this division 
was a symmetrical one, into twelve 
co-equal sectors, an arrangement which, 
in the latitude of Athens, happened to 
harmonise precisely (or within a fraction 
of a degree) with the solar hypothesis, 
and which would still agree with it very 
approximately within any part of the 
area of Hellenic or pre-Hellenic civili- 
sation. 

This duodecimal classification of the 
winds held the field, though not with- 
out competition, for a very long time. 
It was in all probability old, even 
apart from our conjecture regarding 
its Babylonian origin. We seem to 
find in it (as Mr. J. G. Wood has told 
us) the origin and meaning of the 
Homeric myth of the twelve colts, 
begotten by Boreas of the mares of 
Erichthonius (IJ. xx. 225): αἱ δ᾽ ὑπο- 
κυσάμεναι ἔτεκον δυοκαίδεκα πώλους | al 
δ᾽ ὅτε μὲν σκιρτῷεν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρου- 
ραν, | ἄκρον ἐπ’ ἀνθερίκων καρπὸν θέον 
οὐδὲ κατέκλων; and we have it again, in 
the Odyssey, in the six sons and six 
daughters of Aeolus, though in the Iliad 
Homer only mentions three winds by 
name (Il. ix. 5, XXi. 334, XXiii. 195, etc.),* 
and in the Odyssey four (Od. v. 295). 
We have the duodecimal classification 
in Aristotle and Theophrastus; and 
again in Varro and Seneca,’ both of 
whom discussed and appreciated the 


1 In the Old Testament also we have but 
three winds, N., E., and S.3; cf.C. Kassner, 
Meteorologie der Bibel, Das Wetier, x. 1892, 
pp. 25-37; Meteor. Zettsch. 1894, p. 400. ; 

2 Cf also Veget. Mzlit. 5,8; Auct. epigr. in 
Anthol. Lat. 2, p. 381; Philarg. ad Virg. 
G. iv. 298, omnes autem venti, praeter enchorios, 
sunt duodecim. 


54 


underlying relations to the sun (cf. 
Seneca, Nat. Q. v. 16: Quidam illos 
duodecim faciunt: quatuor enim coelt partes 
in ternas dividunt, et singulis ventts (1.6. 
ventis quatuor cardinalibus) binos subprae- 
fectos [or collaterales, as late writers, ¢.g. 
Isidore of Seville and Bartholomew the 
Englishman call them] dant. Hac arte 
Varro, vir diligens, illos ordinat, nec sine 
causa. Non enim eodem loco semper sol 
oritur et occidit, sed alius est ortus occa- 
susque aequinoctialis, bis autem aequinoc- 
tium est, alius solstitialis, alius hibernus. 
Ab ortente solstitiali excitatum 
καικίας Graect adpellant, apud nos sine 
nomine est, etc.). We have it in marble 
in the ‘Table of the Winds’ on the 
Belvidere Terrace adjoining the Museo 
Clementino of the Vatican—a monu- 
ment of the second or perhaps third 
century of our era, of which a photo- 
graph is to be found in Mr. Wood’s 
book. And it survived, through Aga- 
themerus, Adamantius and Isidore of 
Seville, into and even beyond mediaeval 
times. Bartholomew (De Proprietati- 
bus xi. 2) retains it; so does Joachim 
Camerarius, in his Aeolia and Prognos- 
tica (Niiremberg, 1535); and, as Wood 
tells us, we find it (together with the 
comparatively modern division of the 
compass-card into thirty-two points’) in 
Vincenzo Coronelli’s Epitome Cosmo- 
grafica (1693). In our own older school- 
books on ‘ The Use of the Globes’ (for 
instance Moxon’s, 1659, and probably 
in others much later still) we have the 
very same thing: ‘The two other circles 
[on the wooden horizon of the Globe] 
are the Circles of the Winds: the inner- 
most bearing their Greek and Latin 
names; which by them were but twelve ; 
and the outermost having their English 
Names, which for more preciseness are 
two and thirty.’ 
A still more interesting case is that 
of the Emperor Charlemagne, who, 


1 The ‘modern’ compass-card of 32 points is 
of medieval origin ; it came first into use in the 
Mediterranean, where its history is involved 
with that of the compass itself. This subject 
has a copious literature of its own. ( (e.g.-) 
D’Avezac, Apercus historiques sur la Boussole, 
Bull. Soc. Géogr. Parts, (4) xix. 1860; Ap. 
histor. sur la Rose des Vents, Bollet. Soc. Geogr. 
Ital., xi. 1874; P. Tim. Bertelli, Studi storici 
int. alla Bussola nautica, Mem. Accad. d. N. 
Lincei, ix. 1893, etc. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


according to Eginhard (Vita Karoli 
Imp., cap. 29, p. 92, ed. Theulet) gave 
distinguishing names to the twelve 
winds, of which up to his time it was 
‘scarcely possible’ to find [Frankish] 
names for four. (Wood suggests, by the 
way, that this reform may have been 
due to the learmed Alcuin of York, 
afterwards Abbot of St. Martin of 
Tours.) These Old High German names 
were such as the following: the east 
wind (subsolanus) is called Ostroni ; the 
next wind towards the north (? Vul- 
turnus, 1.6. καικίας), Ostnordroni; the 
next again (7.e. μέσης), Nordostront ; and 
the north wind itself (Septentrio), Nor- 
dront. Now these Carlovingian names, 
and their fellows, remind us that we 
ourselves are still in a verbal difficulty 
as to the naming of the winds under a 
duodecimal system. Our Saxon fore- 
fathers had a nomenclature precisely 
corresponding to that Frankish one 
which has been ascribed to Charlemagne 
(cf. the seventh century Corpus College 
Glossary, A 46 Ab Euro: eastansudan ; 
A 89, Ab Africo: sudanwestan, etc.; also 
Abbot Alfric in Wright-Wiilcker’s AS. 
Vocab., 1884, p. 144; of. also ‘circius: 
uuestnorduind,’ etc., in C.G.L., v. 355, 
72); but we have no corresponding 
appellations, and the thirty-two points, 
or ‘rhombs,’ of the compass do not serve 
our purpose. We cannot call (with 
Liddell and Scott) the wind καικίας, 
whose bearing is 30° North of East, a 
North-East wind. It actually lies be- 
tween E.N.E. (223°) and N.E. by E. 
(33%° N.); a sailor would probably call 
it N.E. by E., easterly. Charlemagne 
and Abbot Alfric called it an ‘ East- 
North’ wind, which is not the same as 
their ‘ North-East’ wind; while our 
North-East lies midway between their 
two. We are reduced to periphrasis, 
or better to the retention of the un- 
translated classical names. 

Let us note in passing that neither 
the later Greeks nor the Romans, any 
more than Homer himself, seem to have 
thought of describing any particular or 
temporary wind in terms of the precise 
quarter from which it happened to blow. 
They still thought of the winds as a 
certain limited number of individualised 
things, each having its own particular 
domicile in the heavens; and the primi- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ἘΞ 


tive state of mind which this betokens 
is one which we ourselves have by no 
means got rid of. 

In addition to, but later than, the 
duodecimal classification of the winds, 
we also find a well-established method 
of octants, such as is the basis of our 
own compass-card. The chief ancient 
monument on this plan is the cele- 
brated Tower of the Winds at Athens, 
otherwise known as the Horologium of 
Andronicus Cyrrhestes, of the second 
century A.D., which is described by 
Vitruvius (i. 6) and elaborately drawn 
to scale in Stuart and Revett’s Antiqut- 
ties of Athens (vol. i. pls. I-19, 1762; cf. 
also Le Roy, Ruines des plus beaux 
Monuments de la Gréce, 1770, 11. pp. 7-10, 
50-51; and G. Hellmann in Himmel u. 
Erde, ii. 1890). Seneca, in the Aga- 
memnon (v. 469 f.), likewise speaks of 
eight winds, and so does Pliny (H.N. 
ii. 46). But it by no means follows 
that these eight are to be identified 
with the eight octants of the Tower of 
the Winds. Rather may we take it 
that both by Seneca and Pliny, and 
certainly by the latter, the duodecimal 
classification was by no means aban- 
doned, only that the four subordinate 
winds were left out of account. Thus 
Pliny’s eight winds are clearly defined 
(with a slight exception in the case of 
Aquilo) as blowing (1) from the north 
and south; (2) from the equinoctial 
sunrise and sunset, 7.6. from east and 
west ; and (3) from sunrise and sunset 
at the solstices. He goes on to say that 
some persons add four others to this 
list, viz. Thrascias, Caecias,! Phoenicias, 
Libonotus, these being the remaining 
four of the full duodecimal or Aristo- 
telian classification. And lastly, we 
may perhaps supplement this brief 
account of Pliny’s classification by a 
quotation from Agellius (ii. 23; cit. 
Salmasius, p. 1245b): ‘Eae duae 
regiones caeli Orientis Occidentalisque 
inter se adversae sex habere ventos 
videntur. Meridies autem, quoniam 
certo atque fixo limite est, unum Meri- 
dialem ventum habet; Septentriones 


1 There is some confusion here, with which 
we cannot stop to deal. Caecias is out of place; 
and Pliny has no wind from sunrise at the 
summer solstice, where Caecias ought to be. 


autem habent ob eandem causam unum.’ 

The foregoing paper is little more 
than a note on a particular though 
fundamental point, and is a very long 
way short of an attempt to discuss the 
whole subject of the Greek and Roman 
winds. Every point that I have touched 
might easily be enlarged upon, and 
there are many interesting questions 
which I have wholly omitted or to 
which I have scarcely referred. Thus, 
for instance, we might make an attempt 
to deal with the origin of the Aristotelian 
and Ps.-Aristotelian views (cf. e.g. 
Eugen Oder, ‘ Antike Quellensucher,’ 
Philol. Suppl. vii. p. 363; Genelli, 
Kaibel, etc., of. citt.); with what Posi- 
donius had to say on the matter, or 
what Timosthenes, or what Thrasyalces 
(Strabo, i. p. 260). We might deal 
with the very complicated synonymy of 
the winds, and the overlapping or con- 
flicting nomenclature of some of them ; 
with why, for instance, Pliny and Seneca 
set Boreas or Aquilo to the eastward of 
Septentrio or Aparctias, or why ‘ Vi- 
truvius Solanum dicit qui aliis est 
Eurus, et Eurum qui aliis Volturnus,’ 
and with other kindred difficulties of 
nomenclature and identification in very 
many authors, from Herodotus (vil. 
188) onwards. Again, with the various 
winds which do not come within the 
more general classification, such as the 
Etesian and Ornithian winds; or the 
πρόδρομοι, the N.W. winds which 
heralded the rising of the Dog-star; or 
the land-breezes and sea-breezes (aurae, 
venti altant), the ἀπογεῖαι and τροπαῖαι; 
or the trade-winds and monsoons—such 
as the wind Hippalus, whereby men 
‘navigant diebus quadraginta ad primum 
Emporium Indiae Muzirim.’ With the 
νόθοι ἄνεμοι, ‘venti enchorii,’ or ‘ venti 
locales et certarum tantum regionum 
peculiares, (Adamant. apud Aetium) ; 
with these and other geographical 
appellations, such as Olympias, Helles- 
pontius, Strymonius, (cf, ¢.g., F. Um- 
lauft, Ueber die Namen der Winde, 
Meteor. Zeitschr., xxix. 1894); and with 
their bearing on the question of where 
the writers dwelt who make mention of 
them. With the interesting question 
of the grouping of the winds, and 
why, for instance, Aristotle brought 
them all down at length to two groups, 


56 


of Northerly and Southerly winds 
(Meteor. ii. 6; cf. Strabo i. p. 29). 
With the endless folk-lore tales and 
familiar epithets of the winds, in old 
Greece and in new: how the North 
Wind is Βασιλεὺς ἀνέμων in Pindar, and 
Κὺρ βορεᾶ to this day, and Τέρο Bopea, 
the Old Man of the North, to sailor- 
men; how men raised altars to Boreas 
and to Zephyrus, and to these alone ;! 
how the Father, or the Mother, of the 
Winds treated their blustering sons; 
and how Sirocco, cruellest of them all, 
comes home calling, ‘I smell the blood 
of an [English]man ᾿--- Ἦχι, μητέρα, 
ἀνθρωπινὸ κρέας." 3 A minor theme would 
be to inquire into the continued modern 
usage of certain of the ancient names, 
of which we have an interesting case, 
as Ideler tells us, in the Provengal cers 
(circius) for the Mistral (in Narbonensi 
provincia-clarissimus ventorum, nec ullo 
violentia inferior), of which Strabo 
gives us a vigorous description. And, 
lastly, there would still remain the 
whole mass of meteorological considera- 
tions connected with the _ seasons, 
characters and properties ascribed to 
the several winds,’ including the many 
interesting and strictly scientific ques- 
tions raised in the twenty-sixth book of 


1 Od. xxiii. 195; cf. Maury, Hzst. des Relig. 
de la Gréce, i. p. 167. 

2 N. 6. Polites, Anpedeis μετεωρολογικοὶ μύθοι, 
Athens, 1880, p. 32. 

3 Cf. (int. al.) A. Mommsen, Neugriechische 
Bauernregeln, Schleswig, 1873. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Aristotle’s Problems—why, for instance, 
at Cyrene and the Hellespont the North- 
wind, but in Lesbos the South-wind, is 
the rain-bringer; or why a miser is 
said ‘to gather gold as Caecias gathers 
clouds.’ In which inquiry some ques- 
tions would soon arise of a very technical 
kind; but in regard to others we should 
be content to recognise the faithful 
witness of familiar lines. Then we 
might call to mind ‘ Sirocco and Libec- 
chio’: this, protervus, creber procellis, the 
*‘Sou’wester’ of the mariner, decertans 
Aquilombus: that, (with little doubt) 
Horace’s pestilens Africus, and (of a 
certainty) Ovid’s ‘madidis Notus alis, 
Terribilem picea tectus caligine vultum. 
It is ‘il vento pellegrin, che l’aer turba’ ; 
or ‘Afer, black with thunderous clouds 
from Serraliona.’ It penetrates to the 
Euxine, it drove Ovid to despair: ‘ Ter; 
vibilisque Notus jactat mea dicta, precesque, 
Ad quos mnuttuntur, non sintt tre deos.’ 
Here too Ovid felt the blind fury of 
Boreas ‘romping from the North’— 
‘nunc gelidus sicca Boreas bacchatur ab 
Arcto’: as it blows, harsh and cold, in 
the Tramontana of Piedmont and in 
the Bora of the Adriatic, and blew (as 
some take it) in St. Paul’s Euroclydon. 
Or we might think again, in happier 
recollection, of the soft Atlantic winds 
of Portugal, (or of Galway), where αἰεὲ 
ξεφύροιο λιγὺ πνείοντας ἀήτας | ᾿Ωκεανὸς 
ἀφίησι. 
D’ARcY WENTWORTH THOMPSON. 


THREE PASSAGES IN HESIOD’S WORKS AND DAYS. 


I HAVE read with great interest Mr. 
A. S. F. Gow’s notes on The Works and 
Days of Hesiod in the July number of 
the Classical Quarterly. He has discussed 
many passages with admirable candour 
and judgment, and if one could accept 
the tradition as perfect or even approxi- 
mately correct, which is far from being 
the case, one might be disposed to agree 
with most, if not all, his conclusions. 
For example, I think he is quite success- 
ful, when dealing with 18 f., in rescuing 
Zeus from the suburbs of Tartarus, in 
spite of the scholiasts who would place 
him there, as does Paley rather half- 


heartedly. Still I submit it is hardly 
right or possible to make Hesiod consign 
the good Eris, or the bad one either, to 
the same undesirable residential area. 
Hesiod is far from doing so. He says 
expressly (11) : 


ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ γαῖαν εἰσὶ δύω " 


However, I do not rely on this argu- 
ment, good asitmayseem. Let us look 
at the whole sentence referring to the 
good Eris. It stands thus (Rzach) : 


τὴν δ᾽ ἑτέρην προτέρην μὲν ἐγείνατο Νὺξ ἐρεβεννή, 
θῆκε δέ μιν Κρονίδης ὑψίζυγος, αἰθέρι ναίων, 
γαίης ἐν ῥίζῃσι, καὶ ἀνδράσι πολλὸν ἀμείνω 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 57 


(τ᾽ ἐν MSS. 7 del. Gurzet). Mr. Gow 
accepts this as it stands, and Zeus is 
represented as placing Eris in this dis- 
trict ‘at the roots of the earth’ and 
making her ‘ much better for mankind.’ 
To begin with, the concurrent double 
construction of θῆκε, first with the pre- 
positional phrase and then with the 
adjective, is hardly admissible ; and if 
we ask whether Zeus did either of these 
things, the answer in the first case is 
certainly, and in the second case prob- 
ably, negative. How could Zeus place 
Eris ἐν γαίης ῥίξζησι when that was her 
birth-place ? He might detain her there 
or send her back there, neither of which 
he did; neither of which could well be 
described by θῆκε. 

It follows, I think, inevitably that the 
three lines fail to convey the poet’s 
meaning, and the reason for this failure 
is not an unfathomable mystery. 
Hesiod must be held responsible for two 
lines only : 

τὴν δ᾽ ἐτέρην προτέρην μὲν ἐγείνατο Νὺξ ἐρεβεννή 

γαίης ἐν ῥίζησι καὶ ἀνδράσι πολλὸν ἀμείνω " 

They convey reasonable information. 
The second Eris is the child of Night. 
She was born in the lower regions. She 
is the elder, and more than that she 
renders far better service to mankind. 

Then comes in the interpolator, a 
character whose work no intelligent 
reader of Hesiod can fail to be conscious 
of, though its extent may be, or rather 
must be difficult to gauge. In this 
case he seems to have been somewhat of 
a religious enthusiast, bent on doing 
honour to Zeus, and impressing us with 
the unlimited extent of his power to 
control the forces of the universe. He 
inserted then from the best of motives 
the intermediate line, 

θῆκε δέ μιν Κρονίδης ὑψίζυγος αἰθέρι ναίων, 


gaining his end indeed, but throwing 
Hesiod’s statement into its present con- 
fusion. Cf. 4, 79, 99 (a very clear case) 
and probably 105, Theog. 465, 1002, etc. 
Still greater is the confusion that pre- 
vails in the ‘notorious crux,’ as Mr. 
Gow calls it, the passage beginning 314: 
δαίμονι δ᾽ οἷος ἔησθα, τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι ἄμεινον, 
εἴ κεν ἀπ’ ἀλλοτρίων κτεάνων ἀεσίφρονα θυμὸν 
εἰς ἔργον τρέψας μελετᾷς βίου, ὥς σε κελεύω. 
The difficulty is almost wholly in the 
first line. Mr. Gow does not seem in- 


clined to accept ἔησθα and the rendering 
‘ whatever be your fortune,’ and I think 
he is right; but not so when he proposes 
to remove the comma after ἔησθα and 
place it after ἐργάζεσθαι, accepting the 
absurd statement of Hesychius that 
δαίμων is the same as δαήμων. Archi- 
lochus is a very different authority, but 
I do not for a moment believe that the 
line from fr. 3, 


ταύτης γὰρ κεῖνοι δαίμονές εἰσι μάχης, 


was thus written by Archilochus. He 
almost to acertainty said ἔδμονες, and in 
later times, unwilling to tolerate the 
seemingly ghastly hiatus, the copyists 
put the delta first and easily produced 
δαίμονες. Mr. Gow might indeed read 
ἴδμονι here , but this makes the difficulty 
of τό before ἐργάζεσθαι still greater. 
But what reason is there to suppose 
that Perses was either a skilled work- 
man or a demon for work? Hesiod 
evidently thought he was an idle rascal ; 
and if he possessed any skill, why did 
the poet give him so much information 
that must in such a case have been 
superfluous? He would simply be 
carrying coals to Newcastle. 

I see but one way out of the diffi- 
culties of this extraordinary line, and 
that is to make it plain and intelligible 
by some slight correction. We ought, 
I think, to read it thus: 

δαιμόνι᾽, εἷος ens, τόφρα ἐργάζεσθαι ἄμεινον, 


‘ My good fellow,’ says Hesiod, ‘ while 
you live it is better to work ail the while.’ 
Aatpovie conveys a sort of hint that 
Perses was not altogether a satisfactory 
character, but perhaps a little abnormal. 
Then comes the couplet, εἴ nev... 
κελεύω, which is really an epexegesis of 
ἐργάξεσθαι : Perses will be doing real 
work if he gives up trying to get other 
people’s property and attends to his 
farm. 

For the sequence εἷος... τόφρα v. 
> 16 f. » 327 f. Naturally the first 
syllable of τόφρα is always in arsis, and 
therefore long, but there is nothing to be 
urged against the same syllable being 
short in thesis. It is an interesting 
question and may at another time claim 
attention, but is not of vital importance 
to my suggestion for the rehabilitation of 
this line except so far as τόφρα affords a 
very probable starting-point in the pro- 


58 


cess of the corruption it has sustained. 
The perplexities of 416, 
μετὰ δὲ τρέπεται βρότεος χρὼς 
πολλὸν ἐλαφρότερος, 

are ably stated and discussed by Mr. 
Gow. He concludes rightly enough 
that χρώς here means ‘ skin’ rather than 
‘body’; but his resultant translation, 
‘the skin of men becomes less burden- 
some by far,’ is really not materially 
better than Mair’s ‘the flesh of men 
turneth lighter far,’ or Goettling’s long 
rigmarole Longe magis agile et vegetum 
ad obeunda negotia surgit humanum corpus. 
The body might feel lighter, but the skin 
cannot. The weight of the latter is not 
felt by any human being at any season 
of the year or at any period of life. On 
the other hand, Hesiod is not likely to 
to have said that the body feels lighter 
or more-active and vigorous in the 
autumn : many have remarked that this 
phenomenon occurs in the spring, as 
of course it does, not in man alone but 
in all animal and vegetable life. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Once more the fault lies not with 
Hesiod, but with those who have trans- 
mitted his words to us. The punctua- 
tion, and the punctuation alone, has 
made nonsense of the passage. Hesiod 
wrote it thus: 

μετὰ δὲ τρέπεται βρότεος χρώς" 

πολλὸν ἐλαφρότερος δὴ γὰρ τότε Σείριος ἀστὴρ 

βαιὸν ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς κηριτρεφέων ἀνθρώπων 

ἔρχεται ἠμάτιος, πλεῖον δέ τε νυκτὸς ἐπαυρεῖ " 
Πολλὸν ἐλαφρότερος, “ much less op- 
pressive,’ is descriptive of the Dog-star, 
and occupies an emphatic but legitimate 
position in front of δὴ yap τότε, which 
under ordinary circumstances would 
stand first, cf. σαώτερος ὥς κε vénat (A 32). 

Five results, four physical, one 
economic, follow the disappearance of 
the intense midsummer heat : (1) sun- 
burnt human beings lose their tan (416) 
because Sirius is less active ;(2) v. 420 ; 
(3 and 4) v. 421; (5) wood-cutting be- 
comes the farmer’s incumbent duty 
(422). 

T. L. AGAR. 

August 3, 1917. 


OVIDIANA:: NOTESION TRE RAST. 
ἯΙ: 


ΠῚ 970: 
769 Carpitur attonitos absentis imagine 
sensus 
ille. recordanti plura magisque pla- 
cent: 


“ sic sedit, sic culta fuit, sic stamina nevit, 
neglectae collo sic iacuere comae, 
hos habuit vultus, haec illi verba fuerunt, 
hic color, haec facies, hic decor oris 

erat.’ 


Tarquin 15 infatuated and is recount- 
ing to himself the various charms of 
Lucretia. The MSS. are almost unani- 
mous with regard to line 770. M has 
iamque, and a few inferior MSS. vary 
between ila and atque for ille. One 
late MS. has pulchra for plura, and a 
few read placet. Heinsius suggested 


illa recordanti pulchra (or plusque) magisque 
placet. 


I feel certain Ovid wrote 


116. recordanti plurima, plura placent. 


‘As he thinks of her many charms, 
many more occur to charm him.’? 
For the word play, compare 


ΤΕ 212 et cum possideant plurima, plura 
petunt. 
Ibis, 119, 120 dignusque puteris 
qui, mala cum tuleris plurima, 
plura feras. 


Ovid delighted in such tricks of phrase; 
we have many in the Fasti (e.g. IV. 


1 It is possible that there is a similar word- 
play in IV. 441, where Ovid may have written 
plurima lecta rosa est, plures sine nomine 

flores. 


‘Many a rose is gathered, more still the name- 
less flowers’ (sunt et sine R, et sunt sine V, 
lecti sine Bentley, sumpti sine Riese). The 
assimilative type of blunder is very frequent in 
MSS. of our author, and ‘ flores sine nomine 
flores’ may have emerged here. In the vulgate 
we have a correction of some such blunder, or 
possibly the intrusion of a completive gloss (et 
sunt). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 59 


24+ ef. A:A: ρον 310; ‘Trist. “TIF: 
5, 21). By a peculiar irony of fate, 
such triumphs of neat expression 
suffered most at the hands of copyists 
and), correctors: (cf. Tvist.: Ls ἘΠ 223 
Rem. 484.1 The stages of corruption 
were I, plurama pflura, 2, plurama, 
and our corrector regarded the latter 
as=plura magis ; he had little scruple 
about adding a q;? 


171. 713-718. 


Tertia post idus lux est celeberrima Baccho. 
Bacche, fave vati, dum tua festa cano. 
nec referam Semelen, ad quam nisi fulmina 

secum 
Iuppiter adferret, spretus inermis erat, 
nec, puer ut posses maturo tempore nasci, 
expletum patrio corpore matris opus. 


So Peter reads, adopting Riese’s 
spretus for the parvus of all MSS. In 
715 V,M, and nearly all the remaining 
MSS. read nisi : this word is added sup. 
lin. in R. One second class MS. (T) 
has cum, which is a v.l. in E. In 716 
we have inherbis eras R, inhermis erat 
Ἐς: inermis erat V: tnermis eras M.® 
The following attempts have been 
made to restore the passage: cum f. s. | 
I. a., partus acerbus eras (Koch), cum 
f.s. | I.a., partus inermis eras (Heinsius, 
Madvig), nisi f. s. | I. a., sarcina matris 
evas (Merkel): Riese’s suggestion is 
given above. Here R gives us, as he 
often does, apparently nonsense. The 
copyist was ignorant and somnolent, 
but he is none the less useful because he 
fails to concoct a plausible forgery. 
Observe (1) that he omitted a word 
after guam (I suggest that it was added 
by another hand or that it was omitted 
by the first hand of R’s original); 


1 Of course some critics remain uncon- 
vinced. Merkel is unable to receive the 
reading of an inscription (Gruter, 637, 5 
CIL. VI. 2 n. 9632) against the MSS. in the 
Tristia; Ehwald clings still to P’s quaerenti 
in 


‘credite: credenti nulla procella nocet’ (Am. 
1 rie τὴ 


2 For plurama from plurima, see Havet, 
Pp. 134: plura would drop out after plurama. 
Thus nube is omitted after nubere (Her. IX. 
32) in P, and we have only nubere pari. 

3 Merkel’s statement that parvus inermis 
evat is the reading of ‘ vett. ed.’ is hardly 
accurate. Except the Ed. Venet. Rub., such 
old editions as I have seen read parvus iner- 
mis eras. — 


(2) that he wrote eras, that he wrote 
parvus followed by inherbis which is 
unmetrical and nonsense, but still a 
sign that the writer is more concerned 
with copying than improving his text. 
Let us proceed on the hypothesis that 
a word dropped out after guam, that 
R’s inherbis is a blunder, and that R’s 
eras is right. Evas seems to be right. 
Ovid is addressing Bacchus, and it is to 
Bacchus that we would naturally expect 
the parenthetical clause introduced by 
ad quam to refer. The whole sentence 
occupies the two couplets 715-719. 
The two direct objects of referam 
(Semelen and expletum opus) are en- 
larged by supplementary remarks; the 
subject of the second of these remarks 
is Bacchus (posses) ; structural sym- 
metry would suggest that the subject 
of the other remark was also Bacchus. 
Apart from this point, I feel that in 
Riese’s emendation the inermis is feeble 
and otiose (=sine fulminibus), and 1 
think that Ovid would not in this parti- 
cular instance have put the subject of 
evat in the nisi . . . adferret sentence, 
but would have observed the more 
natural order (nisi f. 5. adferret, Iup- 
piter spretus erat). And erat in V can 
be explained. The coypist had before 
him something very like R’s parvus 
inherbis eras. He was certain to make 
the obvious correction inermis for im- 
herbis. But even without imermis he 
could hardly help thinking of lines 
437-448: ‘lIuppiter est iuvenis.. . 
fulmina nulla tenet . . . primo tempore 
(=parvus) inermis erat . . . vesca parva 
vocant . . . cur non ego Veiovis aedem 
non-magni (=parvi) suspicer esse 
Iovis.’ Here in 715, 716 was a passage 
dealing with Iuppiter and his fulmina ; 
whether it was parvus produced im- 
ermis or inermis produced parvus, one 
thing seems certain to me—that the 
reminiscence of the earlier passage 
produced erat. Once the copyist 
formed the theory that inermis was a 
predicate of Iuppiter, nist and no other 
word would fill the gap in 715. Let us 
see, therefore, if we can make anything 
for ourselves out of R’s‘ad quam... 
fulmina secum Iuppiter adferret parvus 
inherbis eras.’ Retain evas, assume 
that inermis is the correct emendation 
(it is the most obvious one) of inherbis. 


60 


Parvus will then be a blunder (due to 
the suggestion of the earlier passage for 
some noun! or past participle of pos- 
sibly similar appearance. Now Ovid is 
very fond of prendere and deprendere. 
He uses the former in a literal (catch), 
the latter in a figurative (=detect) 
sense, but this distinction is not always 
observed.2, And deprendere inermem 
seems to be peculiar to Ovid. We 
have: 


Am. 11: το, 3 perte decipior: per te depren- 


sus inermis. 
Am. III. 7,71 per te deprensus inermis 
Rem. 347 


improvisus ades, deprendes tutus 
inermem. 


In our present passage Ovid is in- 
dicating, in quick touches, the all 
victorious career of Bacchus, the con- 
queror of the Orient, of Scythia, and 
Thrace, the god who was so present to 
help his friends and punish his enemies 
(713-724). But sceptics had scoffed at 
the story of his birth and had suggested 
that Semele had been punished by 
Jupiter for blasphemous falsehoods. 
How is it, they would say, that this 
all-powerful and victorious god could 
not save his own mother from a miser- 
able death? Ovid meets this re- 
proach; he apologises for Bacchus’s 
one failure? (and not for Jupiter’s 
cruelty, as Riese thinks). I think we 
might restore the passage thus: 


nec referam Semelen (ad quam cum fulmina 
secum 
Iuppiter adferret, prensus inermis eras), 
nec, puer ut posses maturo tempore nasci, 
expletum patrio corpore matris opus. 


Jupiter destroyed Semele—true, but 
at the time Jupiter found Bacchus help- 
less and unarmed.‘ There is a tacit 


1 Parvus can hardly be used as a noun, see 
Burman on II. 385: he forgot this note when 
he read parvus here. 

a: Big: A.A. I1.>' 557-559 deprendere 
parcite vestras . . . crescit amor prensis ?’ 

3 Bacchus made reparation by bringing up 
Semele from Hades: Diod. IV. 25, Apoll. 
Ill. 38, Hyg. Fab. 251. The ascent was 
through the Alcyonian Lake at Lerna, 
Paus. II. 37, 5. It is to this descent into 
Hades that Horace alludes in Ode II. 19, 29. 
The legend was an old one; Pindar describes 
Semele living amongst the immortals, Ol. 
Pes ΡΥ. KI: 1 

4 Pyensus ineymis is more appropriate than 
deprensus ineymis, for Bacchus is actually 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


implication that Jupiter would not 
care to provoke the Victor Bacchus of 
later life.® This conceit partakes of 
impiety as regards Jupiter, but Ovid 
had few qualms where a story or even 
a dialectical point was concerned. 

Cum was likely to be omitted after 
quam, especially if abbreviations were 
used in the archetype (I have several 
reasons for believing that there were).® 
The substitution of parvus (puus) for 
prensus (pnsus) is not in itself unlikely, 
and would be rendered almost inevit- 
able for a copyist who remembered the 
earlier passage. 


TV O17. 
813‘ nilopus est’ dixit ‘ certamine’ Romulus 
“ullo: 
magna fides avium est. experiamur 
aves.’ 
res placet. alter init nemorosi saxa 
Palati, 


alter Aventinum mane cacumen init. 
817 sex Remus, hic volucres bis sex videt 
ordine. pacto 
statur, et arbitrium Romulus urbis 
habet. 


Lines 817, 818 are found as above in 
most editions. Pacto is read by R, 
and apparently V; M and a very large 
number of second class MSS. have 
facto. One MS. has ordine fecit, another 
has ordine frater. In 818 statur et is 
supported by the mass of MSS.: alter et 
(from 816) in a few MSS., imstat et in 


caught in the storm of Fire, without resource 
or helper (cf. A.A. III. 359 ‘ bellatorque suo 
prensus sine compare bellat ’’). His plight is 
somewhat analogous to that of the sailor 
caught in a sudden squall, * in patenti prensus 
Aegaeo ’ (Hor. c. II. τό, 2). 

5 The warlike side to Dionysus’ character 
is sometimes forgotten, but his followers 
gloriedinit. Infidels scoffed at the defence- 
less stripling (‘ puer inermis,’ Met. 111. 553), 
and the effeminate debauchee (see Eur. 
Bacch. 223-238), but he was potent on the 
battlefield, both as an inspirer of panic 
(Eur. 301-305) and as a real rival of Ares 
(Bacchus Ἐνυάλιος cognominatur, Macr. 1. 
19, 2). His triumphs rivalled those of 
his sire: ‘Dionysus praeter Iovem solus 
omnium deorum triumphavit’ (Lact. Inst. 
1. το, 8). See Brandt’s note on 4.A., I. 190. 
Most modern editors (except Dr. Gow) differ 
—perhaps rashly—from Bentley on Hor. 
c. Ἷ. 12, 21, and aseribe to Liber the epithet 
proelits audax. 

6 I speak with some diffidence on such 
matters, but see Lindsay, N.L., p. 41 and pp. 
215-218. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 61 


one, and frater et in another MS., seem 
mere blunders. 

‘Vera Jectio,’ says Heinsius, ‘ quic- 
quid turbant codices nonnulli,’ and he 
cites Met. 11. 818 to confirm facto 
statur. And ordine in itself seems all 
right, whether you take it to mean 
‘in turn’ (cf. V. 513), or ‘ duly ’ (ef. 
IV. 159, or ‘ one after the other’ (οἵ. 
V. 727) But I think we may learn 
something from the variants. They 
were introduced by correctors who felt 
that the strong pause after the fifth 
foot should not be followed by a pause 
after the trochee in the first foot of the 
pentameter. I think that we should 
make a slight correction 


sex Remus, hic volucres bis sex videt: 
omine pacto 
statur, et arbitrium Romulus urbis habet. 


In Met. VI. 448 all the good MSS. read 
ordine : the correct and accepted read- 
ing omine appears only in the margin 
of M. Ovid did not make fine distinc- 
tions between omina and auguria ; 
we have, a few lines later: 


tonitru dedit omina laevo Iuppiter.. . 
augurio laeti iaciunt fundamina cives 


(833-835). 


VI. 345, 346. 


Ovid is narrating the αἴτιον of the 
honour paid to the ass during the 
Vestalia. By connecting Vesta and 
Priapus he is able to construct a muliz 
fabula parva ioct, finding at the same 
time the reason for the Roman regard 
for the ass and the sacrifice of that 
animal at Lampsacus. The scheme of 
this fable is the same as that of Priapus 
and Lotis (I. 391-440), for which it 
probably formed the model. Priapus 
was foiled by the braying of the ass: 


343 territa voce gravi surgit dea, convolat 
omnis 

turba: per infestas effugit ille manus. 

345 Lampsacos hoc animal solita est mactare 
Priapo 


1 It was the number not the mode of 
flight which was important. Each vulture 
signified a saeculum. Professor Housman’s 
‘Roma supremas desperavit avis’ (Carm. 
Bucol. Einsidl. 11. 34; see 6.0. IV. τ, p. 47) 
is certain. On the subject of these auguries, 
see S. Reinach, Une prédiction accomplie, in 
C.M.R. Ill. pp. 302-310. 


apta asini flammis indicis exta damus 
quem tu, diva, memor de pane monilibus 

ornas: 

cessat opus, vacuae conticuere molae. 
The MSS. are practically agreed on 
lines 345, 346. A few inferior codices 
have Hinc asini in 346, and I have 
found this in many of the early edi- 
tions. The Ed. Venet. Rubei (1474) has 
Lampsacos hunc soli solita est, which 
appears also in the Gryphian text. 

Heinsius characterised the distich as 
spurious ‘ ab aliquo homine male feriato 
hic praeter rem inculcatum.’ Burman, 
Cnipping, Merkel (Teub. ed.) bracket 
the lines. Burman had some qualms, 
for he saw that if we omit the lines, 
Quem (347) must refer to Silenus (510). 
Riese, Davies, Peter, and others accept 
the distich as it stands. Now the lines 
cannot be omitted; omit them, and 
quem must refer to ile in 344, aad Pria- 
pus will become a Bottom. Moreover 
we require an explicit statement of 
the αὔτιον of the sacrifice. Finally, 
Lactantius paraphrases this very coup- 
let: “δρυΐ Lampsacum Priapo litabilis 
victima est asellus cuius ratio im Pastis 
haec redditur ’ (Inst. 1. 21, 25 Brandt). 
Lactantius narrates the assault on 
Vesta, and proceeds (27) “ hac de causa 
Lampsacenos asellum Priapo, quasi in 
ultionem, mactare consuevisse: aput 
Romanos verum eundem Vestalibus 
sacris in honorem pudicitiae con- 
servatae, panibus coronari.’ 

But we cannot accept the couplet as 
it stands. A statement that ‘ We (7.e. 
the Romans) sacrifice asses to Priapus ’ 
is not only false but stultifies Ovid’s 
story. Madvig (Adv. II. p. 108) sug- 
gested L. ἢ. a. 5. 6. m. Priapo fata: 
‘asini f. 1. ὁ. damus.’ Bergk (op. 1. 
664 ff.) proposed L. hinc a. 5. 6. m. 
Priapo, a. a. f. 1. 6. domans. Burman 
had already suggested L. hinc a. 5. hoc 
m. Priapo: hine asint f. 2. ὁ. damus, 
Ehwald and Peter commend Bergk’s 
hinc animal (it really belongs to Bur- 
man), but are not satisfied with the 
proposed corrections of line 346. Hoc 
seems to be sound, cf. I. 439, 11. 473 
hoc genus (=pisces), IV. 711 gens haec 
(=vulpes). Apart from the absurd 
damus there are other objections to 
the pentameter: (1) the elision is 
suspicious ; (2) the position of asim 


346 


62 THE CLASSICAL: REVIEW 


is strange—it intervenes between apia 
and its construct, and compels one to 
think of, if not to translate, ‘ the flames 
of the tell-tale ass.’ If we can draw 
any inference from the following line, 
diva . . . ornas suggests a deus whose 
action is expressed by a verb in the 
present tense. I think it not impossible 
that Ovid wrote: 


Lampsacos hoc animal solita est mactare 
Priapo: 
apta putat flammis indicis exta deus. 
quem tu, diva, memor de pane monilibus 
ornas. 


Accidents were sure to happen to apia 
putat : it might become aptat, aputat, 


NOTES ON 


THERE can be no reasonable doubt 
that the poem which follows the Dzzae 
in MSS. is indeed the ‘Lydia doctorum 
maxima cura liber, the famous work of 
that teacher whom Bibaculus called 
‘unicum magistrum, summum gramati- 
cum, optimum poetam, that Professor 
of Poetry who had the πουὲ poetae (and 
Virgil too) for his pupils, who intro- 
duced Alexandrian versification to 
Roman literature, the great ‘Cato gram- 
maticus, Latina Siren, qui solus legit ac 
facit poetas” In the first place, as has 
often been remarked, no rival or imitator 
would steal the name Lydia for the 
heroine. That name was by literary 
convention the property of Valerius 
Cato as much as ‘Highland Mary’ is 
the inalienable property of Burns. And 
further, the Lydza is eminently a profes- 
sorial poem, packed with illustrations of 
the new mannerisms which Cato taught 
to his class, e.g. (1) Σπονδειάζοντες, 
33, 47, 67, (2) Transposition of gue, 71 
tristi turpabatque mala fuligine barbam 
(for ‘tristi malaque turpabat’), (3) 
Parentheses, 18 (currite lymphae), 27. 
Just as the Dzvae with its parentheses 
(e.g. Dir. 96 mec. mor.), (4) Parataxis, 
Dir. 41 (non iterum dices, crebro ‘tua 
Lydia’ dixti), and soon. The last men- 
tioned line (along with Dir. 89, 95) shows 
us that the arrangement of the two poems 
in MSS. was alphabetical, not chrono- 
logical. The Lydia was composed be- 
fore the Divae and was the first attempt 


aputa (is there a trace of this in E’s 
apata ?), or simply apta. The blank 
was filled by the gloss asini, which be- 
longed to indicis. A verb was re- 
quired in place of the defunct putat, 
and a copyist took it on himself to 
change deus to damus ; he may have 
regarded ds as a legitimate contraction 
of damus in this line. 

I do not know if attention has 
been called to the fact that to Ovid the 
unforgivable sin was tattling; he in- 
veighs again and again against this. 
vice in the Fasti and Metamorphoses 
(cf. Am. L.c.). ES BS yALTon: 


(To be continued.) 


TAB LD EA: 


to reproduce in Latin the ‘linked sweet- 
ness’ of the Alexandrian Pastoral, that 
recurrent cadence imitative of a shep- 
herd’s flutings, as in the Scotch song 
‘T’ve heard them lilting at our ewe-milk- 
ing, Lasses a’ lilting before dawn of 
day. That is the effect Cato aims at by 
his repetition of formosa (1-2 Invideo 
vobis, agri formosaque prata, Hoc for- 
mosa magis mea quod formosa puella, 
etc.), of dulcis (57-60), of the syllable aur 
(26-28), by the Lydia ludit (4). The 
Greek bucolic caesura indeed he uses 
only once (in line 18), as sparingly as 
Virgil (dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus ? | 
an Meliboei?). It must have been un- 
suitable to the Latin hexameter, for 
Cato avoids monotony of rhythm and 
exhibits a great variety in his eighty 
lines. But the ‘echo-lines’ (e.g. invideo 
vobis agri I, 8, 20; cf. 24, 41; cf. 50, 95), 
that represent in words the recurrent 
theme of melody, are in the Greek pas- 
toral style, and even the boorish jest in 
line 69. The Lydia is the most careful 
and finished of poems. We should 
admire it more if Virgil had never 
written the Eclogues. 

In line 3 Cato may possibly (though 
Virgil would not) have begun with the 
interjection s¢ (persistently written esz in 
MSS.) ‘I envy you, fields and meadows 
fair, the more fair that ’tis to you my 
fair—hush !—is sighing low her love for 
me,” At any rate vobis suspirat amorem 
has the same construction as 30 (silvis 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 6a 


mugire dolorem). MHeinsius’ zz (est 
MSS.) voézs is adopted by Vollmer, who 
also alters the traditional text at 22 and 
68, finding the transition of thought too 
abrupt. But since 21 ends mea guae 
fuit ante voluptas, there is no need of 
mihi (a word like nunc would have a 
better claim) in 22: ‘at male (mzhz 
Vollmer) tabescunt morientia membra 
dolore” And in 68 gvandia is so suit- 
able to the Queen of Heaven that the 
only change needed is bracchia for 
gaudia, a change confirmed by Catullus’ 
imitation (64, 332) of the same original : 
‘levia substernens robusto bracchia collo.’ 
It is hardly possible that the gaudza of 
the MSS. can be right, an imitation of 
some novel word used by Callimachus; 
although more than one curious expres- 
sion in the poem seems due to a Greek 
original, e.g. 63 (of metamorphosis) 
‘Iuppiter ante, sui semper mendacia 
factus’; 80 (‘a shadow of my former 
self’) ‘ut maneam quod vix oculis cog- 
noscere possis.’ In 43 /aurus must, I sup- 
pose, be printed Laurus ‘of Daphne’: 
‘Phoebe, gerens in te Laurus celebrabis 
amorem’; and the ‘gerens in te, sup- 
ported by 45 ‘secum sua gaudia gestat,’ 
seems to suggest a myth that a sun halo 
(or the like) was Daphne, as the ‘man in 
the moon’ was Endymion, 41. 

The pretty passage about the Moon 
and the Sun has received a new charm 
from Dr. Mackail. Everyone knows 
(‘nisi silvis Fama locuta est’) the sug- 
gestion in his Oxford lectures that a 
‘Volkslied’ underlies 41-42 (Luna, tuus 
tecum est; cur non est et mea mecum? 
Luna, dolor nosti quid sit; miserere 
dolentis) ‘Luna, tuus est ut tecum, cur 
non est et mea mecum? Luna, quid sit 
dolor sentis; miserere tu dolentis.’ This 
charming contribution from one Profes- 
sor of Poetry to another has, I hope, come 
to stay. Severe accuracy will frown it 
away, for this type of ‘Volkslied’ is 
rather medieval than pre-Augustan; but 
it adds to the pleasure of the reader, and 


the Lydia was written merely to please. 
The passage begins with a description 
of the sky after sunset (39): ‘sidera per 
viridem redeunt cum pallida mundum’ 
(mundus ‘sky’ again in 46), after which 
we should, I think, read (40): ‘inque 
vicem Phoebo curres aeque aureus orbis 
(Phoebi currens atque edd.). The omis- 
sion of est in 44 (et quae pompa deum 
‘and all the Pantheon’) finds a parallel 
in 76 (infelix ego, non illo qui tempore 
natus); so no alteration is needed. But 
2112 in line 70 must be altered to dllic (‘in 
officina’), unless there is a change of sub- 
ject (id illi?) from Volcanus to opus; 
and in line 45 scz¢is has become siéis, 
then estzs, ‘you, my readers, know all 
these stories of mythology.’ 

The poem has not been too severely 
handled by time, and the (comparative) 
accuracy of its tradition gives a palaeo- 
grapher little chance of guessing at its 
“Ueberlieferungsgeschichte.” An inter- 
change of ἢ and wv always points to a 
Spanish (rather than Italian or French) 
scribe; but we do not find it at line 61. 
For zmfpia vota (if it really has been sub- 
stituted for zzvida fata) would be the 
scribe’s reminiscence of the recurrent 
phrase in the Dzvae which he had just 
been transcribing. And in line 79 vita 
(‘my love, my life, 2.6., Lydia) should 
not be altered to fata. Ellis, who assigns 
this meaning to vita, also retains im fia 
vota. 

For convenience, I append a list of the 
alterations (not all new) here proposed 
of Vollmer’s (the latest) text: 22 male 
(not ‘mihi’); 40 Phoebo curres aeque 
(not ‘ Phoebi currens atque’); 43 Laurus 
(not ‘laurus’); 44 quae (not ‘qua est’), 
silvis (not ‘ vilia’); 45 scitis (not ‘estis’); 
65 (delete full stop at end); 68 grandia 
(not ‘Cypria’); 71 turpabatque mala 
(not ‘turpabat malam ac’); 79 vita (not 
‘Fata’). Can gue in line 48 be used 
for guoque? 

W. M. LINDSAY. 


64 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


HORACE (SERMONES, I. 6. 126). 


rabido si tempore signi. D 

capt lusitq. trigonem. ἃ 

Campum lusumque trigonem V 
rabiosi (rapiosi R) tempora signi ce¢z. 


fguio 


StincE Bentley the editors have 
almost unanimously! adopted, with or 
without some slight modification, the 
reading of V. Further, there has been 
a tendency to consider the sharp diver- 
gence between VG (representing class 
B=Mr. Garrod’s 8) on the one hand 
and the rest of the MSS. (including 
class A=a) on the other hand, so 
marked as to suggest the possibility 
that we have here traces of an after- 
thought introduced by Horace himself 
in a second edition. A, it is argued, 
represents the first and B the second 
thoughts of the writer. ‘The two read- 
ings cannot be corruptions of one and 
the same original.’ This belief was 
questioned by Palmer,” but only in a 
half-hearted way. 

My object in what follows is to press 
the point which Palmer raised, and to 
show, as I think it can be shown 
almost to demonstration, that the 
‘archetypes’ of the two classes, A and 
B, differing far less than their descen- 
dants, read respectively, (1) ‘ fugio 
rabido si temporis igni’ A, and (2) ‘fugio 
rapidum si temporis ignem’ B. 

(1) The text of D has been vitiated 
(a) by the alteration of one letter only, 
and (Ὁ) by a ‘prava continuatio ver- 
borum,’ the exact counterpart of which 
is to be found in the oldest extant MS. 
of Horace, Bernensis 363 (which un- 
fortunately fails us in the Satzres after 
i. 3. 134), at Carm. iv. 2. 19, where for 
‘centum potiore signis munere donat’ 
it has (see the Leyden photographic 
reproduction) ‘centum potiores ignis’ 
6.4... D in fact divided its original 
TEMPORISIGNI wrongly, and made the 
common mistake of changing an7 to an 
e. Otherwise its text is tenable. The 
ablative without a preposition is bold, 
but not, I take it, impossible. If it 
were, either si a temporis or rabidos- 


* Keller and Holder, followed by Dillen- 
burger, keep ‘rabiosi tempora signi’: but see 
Palmer, of. cz¢., Ὁ. 207. 

* Horace, Satires (1905), p. 38. 
Holder and Dr. Gow. 


See also 


ignis might be proposed. ‘ Rabiosi tem- 
pora signi’ represents a futile attempt 
to correct the text of D: the original 
error is kept and others are added to it. 

(2) I have taken D as the least cor- 
rupt member of the A family; in regard 
to the B family it is better to deal with 
the text of G—which we have—rather 
than with that of V, which we have 
lost, and of which there remains only 
Cruquius’ report. Here it is to be 
noted that, in minuscule, confusion 
between wl and 7d is easy and not infre- 
quent; and we must also remember 
that hardly any error is more common 
than the omission or addition of the 
conjunction ‘ que.’® But ‘capacis’ and 
‘rapacis’ are confused in the MSS. of 
Ovid at Metamorphosis 8. 243 ; and, bear- 
ing these points in mind, we see that 
‘capt lusitq. trigonem’ may not im- 
probably be derived from ‘ vapidi sit[q.] 
trigonem.’ Now ‘trigonem’ is uncom- 
monly like ‘ignem,’ preceded by some 
compendium—say ‘tis’ (cf. Prou’s 
Manuel, p. 331)—for ‘temporis’; and 
when the specialists assure us that the 
B class of MSS. had undergone emen- 
dation at the hands of a learned scribe,* 
I confess that, with the collateral evi- 
dence of the A class reading to guide 
us, it seems to me more than likely 
that the original reading of the B class 
was ‘ fugio rapidum sitemporis ignem.’® 

Instances of confusion in MSS. 
between ‘rapidus’ and ‘rabidus’ are 


3 Very striking instances occur in Ovid, 
Met. 5. 386 and 669. Cf also Lucretius 5. 342, 
and the Vergilian Cafalefton 1.1 and 3. In 
Sat.i. 5. 37 read, perhaps, ‘In<gwe>’ Mamur- 
rarum. A conjunction is needed, and there is 
no reason why Horace should have lengthened 
the first @ which in Catullus 15 short. 

* See note 6 7u/ra. ‘The second class’ [ze. 
the B class] ‘they’ [z.e. Keller and Holder] ‘hold 
to have come from a good codex, but one which, 
being illegible in places, was corrected by a 
learned man, the emendations in this class 
being rather of a rhetorical or poetical character 
than grammatical’ (Palmer, p. xxxvii). The 
mention of the ‘trigon’ appears to involve an 
anachronism, as if an editor should introduce 
an allusion to ‘pingpong’ in the text of Praed. 

5 ‘Si,’ on the assumption that the ¢ (in ‘sit ’) 
comes by dittography from ‘temporis’; ‘si’ 
and ‘sit’ are confused in the MSS. at 222. 
i. 3. 30 and 16, 54. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 65 


as plentiful as blackberries. Very much 
to the point here is Ovid, Metam. 
viii. 225, where, against the ‘rapidi 
vicinia solis’ of the majority, one good 
MS., Parisinus 8001 (olim Berneggera- 
nus), offers us ‘rabidi vicinia solis.’ 
Horace himself prefers the epithet 
‘rapidus’ at Carm. il. 0. 12. 

The ‘time’ (‘tempus’) is the time 
of day (cf. the ‘amicum tempus’ of 
Carm. iii. 6. 44). The punctuation will 
need modification—a comma, not a full- 
stop, at the end of the line. Then the 
whole—commonplace—paragraph will 
run thus: 


ad guartam iaceo. post hanc vagor (aut ego 


lecto 
aut scripto quod me tacitum iuvet ungor 
olivo .. .) 
ast ubi me fessum sol acrior ire lavatum 
frabido si temporis igni, 
\rapidum si temporis ignem, 
pransus non avide, quantum interpellet inani 
ventre diem durare, domesticus otior. 


‘After the fourth hour first a stroll (or 
the alternative), then the bath; then— 
if I want to take cover from the heat of 
the day, if, that is to say, like Sybaris, 
I feel ‘‘impatiens pulveris atque solis”— 
then a light lunch and an afternoon at 
home.’ 

If this theory is right, the trouble 
arose partly from a blurred original, in 
which the last two words were not 
easily decipherable, and partly perhaps 
from some doubt in the scribe’s mind in 
connexion with the rare use of ‘ignis’ 
for ‘ aestus,’ which we need not stay to 
illustrate here. 

In conclusion, let me stress three 
points: 

(a) The evidence of the numerous 
ancient scholiasts—Acron, Porphyrion, 


admonuit, fugio 


and the rest—cited by Keller and Holder 
ad loc.: (i.) Not one of them knew or 
recognised the ‘Campum .. . trigonem’ 
reading. (ii.) The notes of all (with 
their references to the dog-star) are 
consistent with the view that their texts 
had ‘rabido (sve rapidum) . . . temporis 
igni (sive ignem),’ and that they took 
‘temporis’ to denote the dog-days—.e. 
the time of year instead of the time of 
day—a natural error. 

(Ὁ) But for the change of a single 
letter (and that only an ὁ for an e) 
‘rabido si temporis igni’ is the lection 
of a representative MS. of the a class, 
in regard to which Mr. Garrod (S.C.B.O., 
Praefat.) writes: ‘stirpem a generi alteri 
longe praestare et ab a precario dis- 
cedi Horatianae criseos prima lex.’ 

(c) The 8 variant (offered by GV), 
far from being, as is commonly asserted, 
something su generis, distinct and diver- 
gent, does admit of explanation, almost 
stroke for stroke,’ as a variant (an easy 
and perhaps a preferable variant) from 


the text of the other family. 


This is a strong case. Surely—in 
spite of Bentley and his flock—the 
‘bright jewel’ of V is only paste after 
all? But—remembering Mr. Wells’s 
‘Dedication’ to his critics—I ask the 
question with all due diffidence and 
restraint. 


1 At Juvenal vi. 93 P has ‘ignium changed to 
Ionium’ (Duff), Here V’s exemplar had ionem 
corrected to ignem: hence (see Lindsay on 
Martial xi. 106. 1)‘ igonem,’ which, preceded 
by the compendium for ‘temporis,’ might 
only too easily give rise to the anachronistic 
‘trigonem.’ At Ars Poetica 393 the B class 
(z.e. VB) have ‘radidos’ as against the ‘ rafidos’ 


of the rest. 
D. A. SLATER. 


TWO VIRGILIAN BIRD-NOTES. 


AENEID X. 262 FF. 


clamorem ad sidera tollunt 
Dardanidae e muris, spes addita suscitat iras, 
tela manu iaciunt, quales sub nubibus atris 
Strymoniae dant signa grues atque aethera 
tranant 
cum sonitu, fugiuntque Notos clamore secundo. 


THERE has been trouble about this 
passage owing to the word ‘ Notos,’ 
which is usually supposed to mean a 


NO. CLXIX. VOL. XXXII. 


stormy wind from the south; thus the 
cranes are imagined to be flying north- 
wards on their spring migration, though 
this is by no means implied in the 
parallel passage in Iliad 111. 4 ff. But 
birds in spring are not apt to fly before 
storms ; they wait for fine weather, and 
profit by it when they get it. 

This does not matter for the general 
sense, for the point of the simile is of 

E 


66 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


course the comparison between the noise 
made by the birds as they fly, evidently 
a cheerful noise, and the hopeful shouts 
of the Trojans when they see the great 
shield of Aeneas on the leading ship. Mr. 
Page’s word exultant is, I think, a little 
too strong, but as usual he seizes the 
real point of the passage—e.g., he notes 
that Virgil mentions thrice the noise of 
the cranes: ‘dant signa, cum sonitu, 
clamoresecundo.’ ‘Dant signa’ simply 
means, I think, that they are calling to 
each other, after the manner of flocking 
birds, not, as Henry thought, providing 
omens of bad weather, which would 
falsify the simile. 

There would be no difficulty if it 
were not assumed that the cranes are on 
migration. I used to think so myself 
(see A Year with the Birds, chap. vii.), 
but I now believe that they are con- 
ceived by Virgil as simply flying before 
a big black local storm, as they cer- 
tainly are in Georgic i. 373: 

nunquam imprudentibus imber 
obfuit ; aut illum surgentem vallibus imis 
aeriae fugere grues ... 


the 


Both passages suggest to me 
the 


sudden appearance ofa storm in 
Mediterranean region; the words sub 
nubibus atris especially point to the 
deep black clouds of a thunderstorm.* 
Cranes, let us note, move about like our 
rooks or starlings, which also often fly 
before a storm, or on their way to rest. 
Canon Tristram, whose knowledge of 
Mediterranean birds was both extensive 
and accurate, writes as follows: “ In the 
southern wilderness, south of Beersheba, 
the cranes resort in immense flocks to 
certain favourite roosting-places during 
the winter. . Their whooping and 
trumpeting enlivened the watches of the 
night, and till dawn we could hear the 
flocks passing overhead on their way to 
their quarters close by.” It would be 
interesting to know whether any of our 
officers on the front from Gaza to Beer- 
sheba has made similar observations. 

I may add a word about ‘ Notos.’ 
The true Latin word for the south wind 
is ‘ Auster, as may be clearly seen in 
Pliny’s elaborate account of the winds 
(N.H. ii. 119 ff.). ‘ Notus’ is a Greek 


1 Cf. ix. 668 ff. 
2 Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 240. 


word (see Iliad xvi. 765, or Strabo, bk. 1.» 
p. 62), and has in Latin a less definite 
meaning than in Greek. On Aen. 1. 575 
Servius notes that ‘ Notus’ may either 
be any wind, or the true ‘ Notus’ 
which blows from the Syrtes to Car- 
thage—that is, south-east. In xil. 334 
the horses of Mars in Thrace ‘ ante 
Notos Zephyrumque volant.’ The plural 
as Virgil uses it in this passage and 
x. 266, points perhaps to local and gusty 
winds. One or two passages of Proper- 
tius also suggest this, though he uses the 
singular : ¢.g., ii. 5-11 ff. : 
non ita Carpathiae variant Aquilonibus undae, 
nec Aubio nubes vertitur atra Noto, 
quam facile irati verbo mutantur amantes : 
Here we have a black storm-cloud 
again associated with ‘ Notus.’ In book 
ii. 9, 34 we have another comparison of 
‘Notus’ with the fickleness of lovers ; 
and in iv. 6, 28 we find ivatos Notos. The 
poet’s idea of the wind seems to have 
been that it was sudden, stormy, and 
fickle, by no means such a wind as blows 
steadily from any one quarter. I think, 
then, that Virgil uses the word in this 
same sense, and that the cranes are not 
going steadily on migration either in 
spring or in autumn, but simply chang- 
ing their feeding-grounds on account of 
a local storm. 


AEN. ΧΙ. 271 FF.: DIOMEDEAE AVES. 


nunc etiam horribili visu portenta sequuntur, 

et socii amissi petierunt aethera pennis, 

fluminibusque vagantur aves (heu dira meorum 

supplicia!) et scopulos lacrimosis vocibus im- 
plent. 

Latinus had sent an embassy to 
Diomede in Apulia to ask him for help 
against the Trojans; and in the course 
of his reply Diomede brings in one of 
the favourite old Mediterranean legends 
of the metamorphosis of human beings 
into animals. He himself, he says, was 
driven into exile after the fall of Troy, 
and his companions were changed into 
birds. In the story he reached the 
coast of Apulia between the Aufidus 
and the promontory of Garganus, where 
his comrades suffered this fate. At the 
end of Heyne’s commentary on Aen. xi. 
there is a very learned excursus on this 
legend and its various forms, and those 
who wish to examine it as a whole will 
do well to consult him. I am here only 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 67 


concerned with one feature of it—the 
miraculous change into birds, and the 
inviting question what birds these were, 
which I am inclined to think I can 
answer with some confidence. Heyne 
has laboured hard to do so, diving into 
ancient and modern zoological writers 
from Pliny and Aelian to Aldrovandus 
and Willughby.! Unluckily this really 
learned man was not an ornithologist, 
and missed the one almost certain clue 
we have to the identification of these 
birds. 

Strabo (vi. p. 284) tells us that there 
were two small islands off the promon- 
tory of Garganus; one was inhabited, 
the other desolate, and in this latter were 
the birds of Diomede even in his own 
day—.e.,a little later than Virgil’s life- 
time. About these birds Pliny has an 
interesting passage, which is taken 
from Juba the learned king of Numidia, 
who lived about the same time as Strabo. 
Here are Pliny’s words :2 


And I will not omit the birds of Diomede, 
which Juba calls Cataractae, telling us that they 
have teeth and fire-coloured eyes, but otherwise 
are white. They always have two captains, one 
to lead the band, the other to bring up the rear. 
These birds dig furrows with the beak, then 
cover them with wattlework, and hide this with 
the earth thrown out at first; in these places 
they breed. Each furrow has two openings, one 
facing east, by which they may go out towards 
their feeding-grounds, the other facing west, by 
which they may return. They always flutter 
out to disburden the belly, and against the wind. 
In one place only of the whole world are they to 
be seen—namely, that island which we have set 


1 He also refers toa writer unknown to me— 
Vervard, Account of Divers Choice Remarks 
made in a Journey, p. 359 (1701)—but adds 
“sed nec is scientia naturae satis fuit instructus.’ 

2 Pliny x. 126-7. The translation is that of 
our oldest English ornithologist, William 
Turner, whose work was edited by Mr. A. H. 
Evans at Cambridge in 1903. The original 
Latin of the important sentence is as follows: 
‘ scrobes excavare rostro, inde crate consternere 
et operire terra quae ante fuerit egesta: in his 
fetificare. My friend, Mr. O. V. Aplin, de- 
scribed the nesting of our Shearwater in the 
Zoologist for 1902, p. 16: ‘ They breed chiefly 
in a steep grassy cliff . . . some in holes under 
the rocks, where they emerge from the turf; 
others in long clefts in and winding passages 
among the rocks.’ This was in Bardsey Island, 
North Wales. In St. Kilda the birds make 
their own burrows, as they seem to have done 
in Italy, but if they find a rabbit-burrow to hand 
they ὯΣ it (Seebohm, Zggs of British Birds, 
p. 72). 


down as famous for the tomb and shrine of 
Diomede, over against the shore of Apulia. 


Stripped of a few freaks of fancy, 
this account is credible in one im- 
portant point, namely, that these birds 
nested in holes or burrows. ‘The only sea- 
bird of the Mediterranean which does 
this is the representative in that basin 
of our own Manx Shearwater, of which 
the burrowing habit has been often 
described by British ornithologists. 
These Shearwaters (Puffinus kuhli) have 
the habit of frequenting small islands off 
a coast, and are not uncommon in such 
places on the Italian coast and else- 
where; I well remember seeing them in 
the Straits of Bonifacio, where there 
are many sinall islands. In his book 
on the birds of Italy Professor Giglioli 
mentions several places in which they 
are found, and says that in Istria they 
still bear the name Artena, by which 
the birds of Diomede seem to have 
been known in the sixteenth century 
(Heyne, p.621).1 It would be interest- 
ing to know whether the Shearwaters 
nest at the present day in the islands 
off the coast of Apulia, but Giglioli has 
nothing to tell us about this. 

I will only add that the Shearwater 
seems to have acquired a ghostly repu- 
tation in the eastern Mediterranean. 
‘From their restless habits and dark 
sombre plumage they are believed 
by the Moslems to be tenanted by the 
souls of the condemned,’ says Tristram, 
Nat. Hist. of Bible, p. 211; and in 
another place he speaks of them as ‘ the 
mysterious ghost-birds of the Bos- 
phorus.’ Can this be a survival of the 
same old form of legend which we find 
in the story of the birds of Diomede? 
I think it possible that the real reason 
for this ghostly reputation may be 
found in the dismal noises made by the 
Shearwaters, especially at night. ‘The 
keepers said they heard them at night 
making a noise ‘ like a child sobbing in 
trouble.’ Another described the noise 


1 Willughby (edited by Ray) has a chapter 
on the ‘ Artenna of the Tremiti Islands,’ which 
comes through Aldrovandus from Gesner, who 
seems to have seen a specimen. Aldrovandus’ 
description suits the Shearwater very fairly 
well: upper parts dusky or dark ash, under 
parts white, bill hooked, size that of a ‘good 
corpulent hen.’ 


68 


as sounding like a deep-drawn out repe- 
tition of the words ‘it’s your fault,’ the 
emphasis on the word ‘ your’ (Forrest’s 
Fauna of North Wales, p. 415). 

The word ‘fluminibus’ in Virgil’s 
lines suggests that the birds did not 


THE INDICATIVE IN 


PROFESSOR J. A. SMITH has raised a 
question as to the use of the indicative 
mood in relative clauses (C.R. for May 
and June, 1917, pp. 69-71), and appealed 
to those who have made a special study 
of Greek syntax for an answer. Is it 
possible for a relative clause with the 
simple és and an indicative to ex- 
press generality? No answer has yet 
appeared, so I feel moved to attempt 
one. Professor Smith has been guided 
by Goodwin, and I do not wonder that 
the use of the terms ‘indefinite’ and 
‘definite’ in the Moods and Tenses 
(δὲ 515-518 and succeeding sections) 
should have given rise to difficulties. 
Goodwin nowhere defines these terms; 
for I cannot regard it as a definition to 
say that a ‘definite antecedent’ is found 
where the relative pronoun refers to a 
definite person, thing, time, or place, 
and an ‘indefinite antecedent’ where 
the relative pronoun refers to an indefi- 
nite person, thing, etc. What is a 
definite person (thing, time, or place) ? 
I suppose by ‘definite’ Goodwin means 
‘having clearly marked features of its 
own, so that it may be recognised with 
certainty,’ like a picture with clearly 
marked outlines. But surely there may 
be all degrees of definiteness in this 
sense. ‘John Smith’ stands for a very 
definite person to me if I know him; so 
too ‘my wife.’ ‘ Your wife’ is some- 
thing less definite to me. Still more 
indefinite is the subject of the main 
clause in ‘The man whom I saw 
arrested seemed to be a foreigner; but 
I could not see his face or hear what 
he said.’ More indefinite still is the 
subject of ‘The man (ov A man) who 
has no music in his soul,’ etc. How 
about ‘Whoever has no music in his 
soul?’ Is that more indefinite than 
‘The (ov A) man who,’ etc., or is it 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


confine themselves to islands, but might 
stray up rivers, ¢.g. the Aufidus, and 
this is true of the Shearwaters. Pro- 
fessor Giglioli says that one was taken 
at Terni in Central Italy in 1877. 


ὟΝ. WARDE FowL_Ler. 


RELATIVE CLAUSES. 


not? Perhaps I may be told that 
questions are of the nature of those 
objectionable ones which ‘ would upset 
any theology.’ But they force them- 
selves upon any reader of Goodwin 
who tries to see how his rules apply. 
Why, for instance, does he put Demo- 
sthenes De F. [,. (δ 262) under the definite 
category? The meaning of τηνικαῦτα 
ὅτε οὐδ᾽ 6 TL χρὴ ποιεῖν ἕξετε is Sat a 
time when you will not even be able to 
do what you ought,’ the time of this 
event being surely as much unknown 
as that in ‘ The day will come when 
sacred Troy will (shall) fall,’ ὅτ᾽ ἄν ποτ’ 
ὀλώλῃ Ἴλιος ἱρή (Il. IV. 164), where 
the construction of the relative clause 
is quite different. It is in connexion 
with the last two of the above-men- 
tioned types of sentence that Professor 
Smith’s question arises, and it relates 
particularly to the interpretation of 
Plato, Rep. X. 596 A, περὶ Exacta τὰ 
πολλὰ οἷς ταὐτὸν ὄνομα ἐπιτίθεμεν. Can 
this mean ‘in connexion with each 
group of particulars to which we apply 
the same name’ (Adam’s translation) ? 
Now a reference to examples like those 
contained in Goodwin, M.T. 534, 
would not answer Professor Smith’s 
question. Nor would examples like 
the following, which naturally suggest 
themselves : “Ov οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν ἀποθ- 
νήσκοι νέος (Menander, quoted by Sto- 
baeus, Flor. 120. 8). Νέος δ᾽ ἀπόλλυθ᾽ 
ὅντινα φιλεῖ θεός (Stobaeus 120. 13), 
which, whether metrical or not, is at 
any rate good Greek for ὅντιν᾽ ἂν φιλῇ 
θεός. Ὄλβιος ὃς τάδ᾽ ὄπωπε, etc. 
(Homeric Hymn II. 480-2). Ὄλβιος 
ὅστις ἰδὼν ἐκεῖνα κοίχαν εἶσιν ὑπὸ χθόνα 
(Pindar, Frag.8). For Professor Smith’s 
query relates to instances which have 
an antecedent expressed, like ἕκαστα 
τὰ πολλά in the Republic passage. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 69 


This antecedent is to be defined by a 
clause introduced by ὅς (not ὅστις). 
Such an antecedent will necessarily be 
incomplete, as needing definition; in 
other words, it will be in one sense 
indefinite (1.6. undefined). In such 
cases it is usual in English to use no 
comma before the relative pronoun. 
But Greek sentences like ‘ This is the 
house that Jack built’ would not be to 
the point; for the antecedent of the 
relative must apply to all or everyone 
of a class. I have not made any sys- 
tematic search for Greek examples 
having these characteristics, but I sug- 
gest that instances like the following 
might easily be multiplied: (1) Plato 
Gorg. 450 Β ἑκάστη αὐτῶν περὶ λόγους 
ἐστὶ τούτους οἱ τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες περὶ τὸ 
πρᾶγμα οὗ ἑκάστη ἐστὶν ἡ τέχνη. Here 
there are two examples, and they may 
be contrasted with ταύτην ῥητορικὴν 
καλεῖς ἣ ἂν ἢ περὶ λόγους (ibid., below); 
Jowett’s translation makes no difference 
between the clauses with the indicative 
and the clause with the subjunctive. 
(2) Phaedo 65 E αὐτὸ ἕκαστον περὶ οὗ 
σκοπεῖ. (3) Soph. Ajax 812 ἄνδρα γ᾽ 
ὃς σπεύδει θανεῖν, where English would 
have the ¢ndefinite article, ‘a man, who 
is bent on death.’! An example with 


1.1 agree with Professor Platt (C.Q. V. 
p. 28) in reading σπεύδει (not σπεύδῃ), but not 
for the reason which he gives, viz. that avdpa= 


the negative μή may be even more 
conclusive: Plato Rep. 605 E τοιοῦτον 
ἄνδρα οἷον ἑαυτόν τις μὴ ἀξιοῖ εἶναι. It 
is a curious fact that examples to the 
point are in grammars conspicuous by 
their absence ; it would seem that they 
have been thought to need no notice. 
But I am inclined to agree with what 
Mr. A. C. Pearson says in the Classical 
Quarterly for April of this year (pp. 66, 
67), that in the interests of clearness 
a more exact classification of relative 
clauses is required. Among other 
things we must consider whether the 
character of the antecedent as either 
incomplete (in the sense indicated above) 
or self-contained (as, for example, when it 
is a proper name) is of importance for 
the grammatical construction of the rela- 
tive clause; and we may well raise the 
question whether the distinction of 
‘definite’ or ‘indefinite’ ought not to 
be replaced by something a little less 
indefinite. 
E. A. SONNENSCHEIN. 


Ajax. A clause with the indicative may follow 
an incomplete antecedent just as well as an 
antecedent which is self-contained, though its 
function differs in the two cases. With Jebb’s 
note in support of σπεύδῃ compare his note on 
1160 of the same play, where he rightly prefers 
the indicative. The two passages are parallel— 
the one with, the other without, an antecedent 
expressed. 


NOTES 


ἘΠΕ TITLE: OF ISIDORE’S 
ETYMOLOGIES. 


PROFESSOR ANSPACH, who is to edit 
Isidore for the Vienna series (but 
when ?) has declared (Deutsche Literatur- 
zeitung, 1912, col. 1628) that the time- 
honoured alternative title of Isidore’s 
great encyclopaedia, Origines, should be 
dropped, and the more cumbrous title 
substituted, de Origine Quarundam Rerum. 
Why? Because, in a preface written for 
the (abortive ?) publication of the work 
in Sisebut’s reign, Isidore thus describes 
its nature and contents: ‘en tibi, sicut 
pollicitus sum, misi opus de origine 
quarundam rerum,’ etc. 


I would enter a caveat against dis- 
carding the familiar Ovigines, 1f no better 
argument can be found. For an 
author’s account of a bookin a letter to 
a friend is one thing, the title under 
which he handed the manuscript over to 
the bookseller is another. To take one 
example out of many, Cicero writes 
about his A cademics to Atticus (13, 16, 1): 
‘illam ἀκαδημαϊκὴν σύνταξιν totam ad 
Varronem traduximus.’ But who would 
dream of arguing that this Greek phrase 
was the title (or a title) which Cicero 
assigned to the book or by which his 
friends and contemporaries referred 
to it? 

Let me take this opportunity of asking 


70 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


anyone who has a copy of the Oxford 
edition of Isidore’s Etymologiae (sive 
Origines) to correct an extraordinary 
mistake in its first line of text. The 
prefatory Epistle A should begin dum 
amict litteras. 

W. M. LINpsay. 


PORTUS 1710S. 


On re-reading recently Dr. Rice 
Holmes’ argument in Ancient Britain for 
the identification of Portus Itius with 
Boulogne, it occurred to me that the 
apparently most improbable point in 
that theory has an almost exact parallel 
in modern times. He believed that to 
the native settlement of Gesoriacum 
(or rather to its harbour) the Romans 
first gave the name Portus Itius, indi- 
cating the spot as the port of the district, 


and later the name Bononia, which was 
brought from Italy, though not strictly 
Latin. The theory involves the sup- 
position that the term Portus Itius died 
out, while the other two names lasted 
on together for a time, till Bononia 
finally alone survived, and has remained 
to this day. So to the locality called 
by the natives Tekwini we have given 
the name, first of Port Natal, and then 
of Durban, which, though not English 
but French in origin, is an importation 
from Europe; and while the Zulu 
word is known, not by Kaffirs only, but: 
by many Europeans on the spot, 
‘Port Natal’ is to-day rarely used there, 
and in England it is hard to find, in 
ordinary company, people who know 
that Port Natal and Durban are iden- 
tical. 
E, E. GENNER. 
Jesus College, Oxford. 


REVIEWS 
HISTORY OF ANCIENT COINAGE, 700-300 Buc. 


History of Ancient Coinage, 700-300 B.C. 
By PERcy GARDNER, Litt.D., Pro- 
fessor of Classical Archaeology in 
Oxford. Pp. xli+463. Clarendon 
Press, 1918. 


ΙΕ in the near future we are to expect 
an improvement in Classical teaching 
with corresponding increase of interest 
in the ancient learning, then Professor 
Gardner’s work on Greek coinage is a 
timely publication. His _ previously 
published essays on the Ionic Revolt 
and on the earliest issues of Hellas 
Proper had thrown such a welcome 
flood of light upon difficult and complex 
problems, that the announcement of 
the larger work seemed perhaps to 
raise our hopes to a dangerous height : 
they were not, however, doomed to 
disappointment. 

Experts will find plenty of important 
suggestions to ponder over: but the 
real merit of the new volume lies in its 
method. It is not too much to say 
that, for those who merely regard 
numismatics as a branch of general 
archaeology or rather as a necessary 


adjunct to the study of ancient history, 
the book will mark an epoch. It is 
impossible to exaggerate the importance 
of placing the whole subject of Greek 
coinage in a new and clear light: 
Previously it was extremely difficult 
or impossible for the outsider or novice 
to get any proper grasp of numismatic 
facts or their bearings upon the broad 
flood of history. The facts indeed were 
there in great number—too great, for it 
was impossible to see the forest for the 
trees. The ‘ Historia Numorum’ was 
a mine of information, not narrowly 
regarding coins only; but then you 
necessarily found little or no co-ordina- 
tion between the facts relating to 
individual city states. Everything was 
detached, everything farto seek. Head 
attended to his own business, which 
was numismatics: Dr. Gardner, no 
mean numismatist, is above all the 
historian—and one withal who com- 
bines judgment with imagination to a 
quite unusual degree. And so he has 
for the first time treated the subject as 
a simple and organic unity. 

We find two outstanding features in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 71 


this work. First of all the writer 
attacks the really difficult problems— 
those connected with the east and 
north-east of the Aegean area. Pre- 
viously he had cleared away the fogs 
that surrounded the origin and early 
history of money in the Greek main- 
land and especially in Athens, which 
had seemed before he wrote to present 
almost insoluble difficulty. But the 
perplexity, the confusion, the haziness 
in which the coinage of Asia Minor 
and Thrace had appeared to be en- 
veloped was something indescribably 
bad: it was little wonder that the 
ordinary student of Greek and Greek 
history found himself excused from 
the “obligation of trying to pierce for 
himself this appalling region of plus- 
guam-Cimmerian gloom. Now Gard- 
ner takes you by the hand, shows you 
what were the main forces operating at 
various epochs in the Near East, and 
how they would have affected the issue 
and circulation of various sorts of 
money. A method like this cannot 
be, and does not claim to be, infallible 
—but when applied with knowledge 
and discretion it becomes thoroughly 
enlightening and encouraging to the 
groping student. He at least seessome 
facts in their proper setting: he learns 
what is the true perspective of numis- 
matic study. In every science it is the 
judicious use of hypothesis that counts. 
In every science, the true guide, while 
he uses hypothesis is yet continually 
warning us against the abuse of it, 
which consists in straining evidence 
beyond its due limit. 

The other main characteristic of 
Professor Gardner’s treatment seems 
to lie in his extraordinary insistence 
upon the importance of standards as 
distinct from types, symbols and in- 
scriptions. No one knows better than 
he how difficult and elusive is this 
aspect of numismatic study. Yet it 
seems to the present writer that from 
the outsider’s point of view, it is a 
great boon te have assistance in this 
matter not merely on account of its 
difficulty, but also because of its impor- 
tance. Naturally the beginner is 
drawn (was not Gardner drawn when 
he wrote his Types of Greek Coins ?) to 
study those features in money which 


first strike the eye, those which can 
also be reproduced in the photograph 
or electrotype, and which bear a direct 
relation to art as well as to history. 
All the same, Dr. Gardner has done 
well to remind us in his new work that 
weight is the real standard of value, 
and that if we are to proceed with coins 
beyond the merely dilettante stage we 
must be prepared to deal with varieties 
of standard quite as readily or more 
readily than with the more attractive 
varieties of type and symbol. 

For the English reader who has 
previously gone to Head for his infor- 
mation about standards and numis- 
matic history, it will be a distinct 
reassurance to find how closely Gardner 
is in accord with the earlier authority. 
It is true that he gained his numis- 
matic knowledge under Head during 
the sixteen years he spent as a member 
of the British Museum staff. On 
the other hand, Gardner’s mind is so 
independent and his whole outlook so 
original that to see his confidence in 
Head’s theories (speaking generally, of 
course, because there are also numerous 
instances to the contrary) will tend to 
increase the reader’s reliance upon both 
writers. 

Another interesting feature in Gard- 
ner’s work is his attempt, often very 
convincing, not merely to connect 
the general trend of history with the 
facts and tendencies of numismatic 
output, but also to date numismatic 
issues exactly by reference to known 
events. For instance, he gives reasons 
for asserting that the Olive Crown, 
which appears on Athena’s helmet on 
all but the very early tetradrachms of 
Athens, was adopted in honour of the 
victory of Marathon. This of course 
is particularly interesting to the student 
—and the book positively teems with 
similar suggestions, which it would 
take too long to enumerate. 

We may, however, refer to a few 
points in the work which seem to offer 
special difficulty or ground for respect- 
ful criticism. It seems a pity that Dr. 
Gardner, in his enthusiasm for Greek 
art, is at all times inclined to write 
slightingly of the Minoan civilisation, 
or at least its influence upon later 
Greek culture. Many students think 


72 


about Evans’s work, and probably he 
thinks himself that (next perhaps to 
his attention to problems connected 
with early writing) his theories on 
Minoan weights and standards consti- 
tute his most important contribution to 
learning. Now, the origin of the most 
truly Greek coin standard, which is the 
Aeginetan, has always been a great 
difficulty to numismatists, and Evans 
claimed to find at Gnossos the secret 
of this problem. Gardner was free to 
reject this theory, of course. But he 
seems to do so on very slight grounds, 
and chiefly on account of the a prtort 
impossibility of Gnossos having influ- 
enced later Greece. Quod erat proban- 
dum. Nor does he appear to attach 
sufficient importance to Mr. Hogarth’s 
arguments for the existence of coins in 
Ionia long prior to 700 B.c. Again, 
though it is a much smaller point, as 
regards the derivation of the coinage of 
Corcyra from the Aeginetan standard, 
Gardner does not appear to be clear. 
Unless we have quite misunderstood 
his meaning, the account given of the 
matter in pp. 139-140 appears to be 
contradicted on pp. 169 and 375. 

To revert once more to the Athenian 
currency, Dr. Gardner’s reading of the 
much-discussed passage in the Frogs of 
Aristophanes is different from that of 
Head. And Gardner seems to think 
that the expression χάλκια πονηρά does 
not refer to a bronze coinage of any 
sort, but to the gold coins, to the issue 
of which as a war necessity the poet is 
objecting. This appears to strain the 
text, and as Head speaks of the exist- 
ence even in the British Museum of 
plated bronze tetradrachms of this 
period (giving a reason for their rarity) 
we think the author might reconsider 
his explanation. Again, on p. 226, 
remarking on the slowness of the 
change at Athens from very small 
silver to bronze, he gives as a reason 
for this that they often carried their 
change in the mouth, and that the 
taste of bronze would be unpleasant. 
Is it possible to believe that there was 
anywhere a custom of carrying bronze 
in the mouth? It is said that silver 
was so carried, evidently on account of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


its extreme tenuity and the consequent 
risk of its loss. But it appears to the 
present writer extremely unlikely that 
bronze would ever have been so carried, 
and that perhaps Aristophanes in the 
‘Ekklesiazousai’ was joking when he 
suggested the existence of the practice. 

We should also like to ask whether 
our author does not insist too much 
upon the distinctness of the Attic as 
compared to the (original) Euboic 
standard? That Peisistratus did raise 
the standard from about 130 to 135 
grains, and that he forced up the Euboic 
standard at Corinth and elsewhere, we 
take as sufficiently proved in the earlier 
essay of Dr.Gardner. And the reasons 
given by him for believing there was 
elsewhere a previous standard of 135 
grains are weighty. But all the same 
the main reason which Gardner himself 
holds for the raising of the standard— 
namely, the increased supply owing to 
the discovery of silver at Laurium— 
would seem to suggest the issue of 
heavier coins of the old rather than the 
adoption of a brand-new standard. It 
is perhaps to some extent a matter of 
words, but the multiplication of distinct 
standards is to be avoided where un- 
necessary, and elsewhere Gardner speaks 
of mints uttering heavy coin for suffi- 
cient reasons, though undoubtedly the 
changing of standards in the opposite 
direction would have been commoner. 

We think on the whole that the 
author did right in not bringing down 
his treatise beyond Alexander the 
Great, or approximately the end of the 
fourthcentury. The succeeding periods 
may be interesting,and even enormously 
so; but the interest is different, and 
the relation of numismatic to historical 
study not perhaps so vital. We are 
informed, however, that possibly in the 
future a work on the later period will 
be forthcoming; and if so, we may 
safely predict that neither the student’s 
admiration nor the weight of his obli- 
gation to Dr. Gardner will be thereby 
diminished. 


H. BROWNE. 


Lnziversity College, 
Dublin. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


73 


EASTERN VERSIONS OF THE ROMANCE OF ALEXANDER. 


Die Chadhirlegende und der Alexander- 
voman. By I. FRIEDLAENDER. Pp. 
Xxlv + 338. Berlin: Teubner. M. 12. 


PROFESSOR FRIEDLAENDER of New 
York has undertaken and carried 
through a task of considerable import- 
ance. He has traced the history of the 
chief figure in Mohammedan legend, 
Chadhir, from various sources, of which 
he finds the chief in the Romance of 
Alexander. In his regress he halts for 
an interesting moment at the eighteenth 
Sura of the Koran, in which Mohammed 
repeats a legend about Moses, which is, 
in turn, an echo of the adventure of 
Alexander with his cook, as told by the 
Pseudo-Callisthenes. The cook one day 
was called upon to prepare a salted 
fish for the table, but the fish came to 
life again as the cook began to wash it 
in a certain spring. When the foun- 
-tain of life was thus discovered, the 
cook, without telling anybody of his 
discovery, took some of the water for his 
own consumption, and so became im- 
mortal. But the immortality thus 
gained was of no value to him, for 
Alexander had a stone tied round the 
neck of the immortal cook and threw 
him into the sea, where he still lives 
as a sea-spirit. In the Koran, the 
Alexander of this story reappears first 
as Moses, and soon after as the Two- 
horned. The cook may perhaps be 
traced in Chadhir who, although he does 
not appear under his own name in the 
Koran, is identified with a servant of 
Moses mentioned in the same eighteenth 
Sura. 

Such are the bare outlines of the 
theme. The author has treated it ina 
masterly manner, both from the stand- 
point of literary history and from that 
of folk-lore. He has surveyed and 
described the literary sources—Greek, 
Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic—not to 
speak of Ethiopian and Persian—in such 
a way that the reader has before him 
an illuminating outlook upon the 
Eastern world of legend.1 Dr. Fried- 
laender’s Jewish training has made it 


1 C.R. 1890, pp. 259-261. Margoliouth’s 
Feview of Budge’s Pseudo-Callisthenes. 


doubtless the easier for him thus to 
control the rich Semitic literatures to 
which Hebrew furnishes perhaps the 
best key. It must be my partial 
excuse for having so long delayed this 
notice, that I have been tempted to 
verify, in some cases at least, the refer- 
ences which are so adequately furnished. 
In particular, we may notice the exact- 
ness with which the Arabic historians 
have handed down through long chains 
of records the first authentic state- 
ments (p. 133). 

Not less admirable is the method of 
the author who points out that the 
details of a legend are mainly important 
so far as they converge upon the lead- 
ing figures (p. 35 n.). For Dr. Fried- 
laender proceeds upon the principle 
that in folk-lore mere resemblance does 
not prove that one of the parties to the 
likeness is related historically to the 
other. While the same details recur 
in various stories, only definite his- 
torical tradition can justify us in de- 
claring that one form of a legend is 
derived from another in which the 
leading figure is different. There is 
only one case in which, I venture to 
suggest, the author’s caution in this 
respect has carried him too far. The 
striking resemblances between the Ko- 
mance of Alexander and primitive Baby- 
lonian legends fail, for the author, in 
convincing him that Babylon influenced 
the writer of the Romance. Neither 
Dr. Friedlaender nor Ausfeld in his 
study of the Romance? has taken 
account of the history of Berosus, who 
opened out to the Greek world for the 
first time an adequate knowledge of 
Babylonian traditions. I am the more 
surprised that Dr. Friedlaender should 
have given us no help in this quarter, 
because our knowledge of Berosus, is 
largely due to the references which 
Josephus makes to him. In fact, the 
Jewish scholarship, which at Alexan- 
dria culminated in the translation of 
the Septuagint, has for its pendant a 
scarcely less important attempt at 
Babylon to bring the Semitic traditions 


Σ ΘΟ 1910, ps 70: 


74 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


before the surrounding non-Semitic 
world. Unfortunately, for the present, 
we must be content to take note of the 
proselytism which so much enlarged 
the Jewish community. In the absence 
of further knowledge, we may regard the 
book of Jonah as the chief monument 
of the fruitful contact of the Jewish 
mind with the spiritual life of their 
gentile neighbours. For the author of 
Jonah, in the form of a Midrash, deals 
with the circumstances of the Jewish 
community, as they appeared about 
300 B.c., and his book is an appeal to 
his fellow religionists to spread the 
faith of Yahweh in the empire of 
Alexander. It is not surprising, there- 
fore, that the Babylonian Talmud 
should furnish evidences of familiarity 
with the legends which grew up round 
Alexander already while he was still 
alive. But it is also probable that the 
account which the Babylonian Talmud 
gives of the great king did not depend 
only upon oral tradition, as Dr. Fried- 
laender suggests, but also upon Greek 
literary. sources: (pp. ’-42 1: “The 
encyclopedic character of the Talmud 
has been somewhat disguised by the 
later Jewish particularism against which 
Jonah protested. 

The problem thus presented is so 
difficult that, in the light of it, we may 
well hesitate before we admit the direct 
influence of the Indian East upon Greek 
culture, before the time of Alexander. 
When did Dionysus pay his first visit 
to India ? 

In his account of the Syrian sources 
for the later form of the legend, the 
author omits an interesting contribu- 
tion to the Romance which is found in a 
Syriac version, but has not yet been 
traced to a Greek original. It closes 
fragmentarily with a description of the 
gorgeous temple of Dionysus at Nysa; 
steps of sapphire, golden statues of 


1 Cf. Roediger, Chrestomathia Syriaca’, 
Ppp. 103 ff. 


dancers and musicians, show us an 
oriental imagination playing round the 
fact that Alexander’s army recognised 
in their march eastwards through the 
Khyber pass a worship which reminded 
them of Dionysus, not only in the de- 
tails of ritual, but in some of the local 
place-names. 

Just before I received this interesting 
book for review, I had visited at Rome 
the church of S. Pietro in Vincoli and, 
like so many other visitors, had been 
perplexed by the horns upon Moses’ 
head in Michael Angelo’s monument to 
Julius Il. The Vulgate translation in 
Exodus xxxiv. 35, faciem Moysi esse 
cornutam, explains well enough for the 
moment, and should have been noted 
by the Old Testament Revisers. For 
if we go behind the Vulgate, we find 
that Aquila—Jerome’s authority for the 
reading ‘was horned’ rather than 
‘shone’ —claimed to translate the 
Hebrew text with more accuracy than 
the Septuagint had done. Aquila prob- 
ably represented the opinion of the 
Palestinian school (an opinion held 
also, it would appear, by the Jewish 
instructors of Mohammed) that Moses 
was horned after his interview with 
Yahweh. We are reminded irresistibly 
of the horned Alexander upon the coins 
of Lysimachus and Ptolemy,? who in 
his turn had met the ram-god Amen 
face to face. Even if we suppose that 
the horns of Moses stood in some rela- 
tion to the ancient symbolism of the 
bull under which form Yahweh was 
worshipped, we are left with the pro- 
found idea that the worshipper who 
sees his God becomes like him. Dr. 
Friedlaender has confined himself to 
literary evidence, but there opens out 
before us an artistic history which might 
serve as an appendix to this admirable 
piece of work. 


FRANK GRANGER. 


2 G. F. Hill, Hist. Greek Coins, pp. 121, 158. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 75 


POETI ALESSANDRINI. 


By AvucusTo Ros- 
Fratelli 


Poeti Alessandrini. 
TAGNI. Pp. 368. Turin: 
Bocca, 1916. Lire 5. 


THIS is a very interesting and well- 
knit book. The author holds a definite 
theory about the character of Alexan- 
drian poetry in general. He has read 
widely in the scattered German, French, 
Italian and English books and papers 
on the subject, and supports his state- 
ments by notes placed at the end of 
each chapter. If he seems inclined, 
like many present-day scholars, to make 
his bricks with the straw of bad evidence 
in default of good, or it may be on 
occasion with no straw at all, it would 
at any rate need a critic of much learn- 
ing to confute him, and the freshness of 
his interest in third-century poetry and 
the world from which it sprang throws 
much light on the political, literary, 
country and town life of the period. 
His habit of constantly inverting the 
subject and object of sentences makes 
his style somewhat difficult to an 
English reader, and the Italian language 
is apt to be more lavish of words than 
our own, but his power of making the 
charm of the authors whom he discusses 
felt is unquestionable, his translations 
are full of grace, and even the vivid 
pictures of Theocritus are enhanced by 
his descriptions. 

In the fourth century, as Greek poetry 
declined, prose advanced, being, in 
Signor Rostagni’s opinion, the appro- 
priate means by which the scientific 
spirit of the age could express itself. 
But this spirit of intellectual curiosity 
needed an outlet for the imaginative 
portrayal of human life, which it could 
not find in the strict forms of classical 
poetry. Euripides had, it is true, 
given a new colour to the traditional 
framework of myth, but, as a rule, the 
fourth century, which had broken with 
the past, found the conventions of 
hymns, paeans, elegies, and tragedies 
artificial and hampering. For a time 
poetry withered ; only scanty fragments 
have come down to us, but if we had 
lost none of the great quantity that 
was produced, we should still, says 


Signor Rostagni, feel ‘a sense of void,’ 
as though these works, ‘ suffering from 
the effect of an unfavourable climate, 
had only come to birth out of respect 
for tradition’ (p. 25). 

Euripides, Antimachus, and Choerilus 
show a consciousness that society and 
art in their day had detached them- 
selves from the society and art of the 
past. This consciousness ‘created the 
atmosphere necessary for the reflor- 
escence of poetry.’ Artistic fiction, in 
the opinion of Signor Rostagni, is the 
distinctive quality of this reflorescence. 
The poets of an earlier age would com- 
pose a hymn or an epithalamium for a 
special occasion, to be sung by a 
special chorus; Theocritus and his con- 
temporaries invent a scene, a marriage 
or a festival, describing the actors and 
their surroundings in detail, and intro- 
ducing imaginatively the songs that 
they would sing in such situations. If 
we follow Signor Rostagni, we shall 
look on the art of the Alexandrians not 
as a decadence, but as a transition to a 
modern attitude of mind, which cheer- 
fully takes the whole spectacle of 
human affairs, great and small, for its 
province, with a decided tendency to 
dwell on οἷς χρώμεθα, οἷς σύνεσμεν. 
Euripides felt pain in the process of 
coming down from the heroic to the 
ordinary world, but Theocritus wears 
his scepticism lightly, and all the Alex- 
andrian poets reveal that they breathe 
the air of ‘perfumed salons and comfor- 
table libraries’ (p. 41). 

Signor Rostagni sums up Theocritus 
as the poet of all aspects and hues of 
life” who enjoys its many-coloured 
picture with a quiet sense of pleasure 
(Ρ. 94). It is a mistake to look upon 
him as the typical poet of the country 
as opposed to the town, for he is fully 
as much, if not more, at home in the 
streets of Alexandria, as in the pastures 
and hills of Sicily and Magna Grecia 
(where Signor Rostagni conjectures 
that he may have lived for a while, 
before going to Cos), or in the literary 
circle of Cos. His natural bent is for 
the things of ‘la piccola umanita,’ and 
though he casts his eye over anything 


76 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


and everything with intelligence, he 
does not take everything equally to 
his heart; hence a certain frigidity, 
when he deals with court and heroic 
themes. All through his work we can 
descry Theocritus himself enjoying the 
spectacle that he has created for us, 
whether it be Simaetha’s passion, the 
littérateurs of Cos masquerading as 
shepherds, and betraying their know- 
ledge of art and music, or the hints to 
Aeschines of blemishes in the character 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Herein lies 
the distinction between Theocritus and 
Herodas: ‘ Theocritus we know, but we 
could never know Herodas, except 
negatively, because he has never gone 
beyond the surface of the things that 
he describes’ (p. 84). The lay figures 
of Herodas, in their own lack of vitality, 
disclose. nothing of their inventor’s 
temperament. 

The handling of the Daphnis myth 
in popular legend, and in literature 
from Stesichorus downwards, gives 
Signor Rostagni the opportunity of dis- 
covering what he takes to be the true 
nature of literary pastoral poetry. 
With Maass, he finds the origin of the 
legend in Euboea, and believes that it 
was transplanted to Sicily by Ionian 
colonists. One form prevailed round 
about Himera, another in the regions 
of Leontini and Catana, and the Ionian 
Daphnis, spreading his sphere of 
influence, came into contact at 
Syracuse with the Dorian bucolic hero 
Diomos, and superseded him in popu- 
larity. Rustic legends and _ songs, 
peasant life as represented in these 
songs—such was the natural material 
for third-century poets to seize eagerly 
in their revolt against the rigidity of 
classical restrictions. In _ particular 
the myth of Daphnis, with its romantic 
story, provided Hermesianax, Sositheus, 
and others, including above all Theo- 
critus, with a theme after their own 


hearts, which reappears again and 
again. Alexandrian bucolic poetry is 
many sided; sometimes it depicts 


country folk in their ‘rudezza origin- 
ale’; sometimes it shows us town poets 
playing at being Arcadian shepherds (in 
Watteau’s sense), and again it develops 
the lyrical and emotional side of current 
legends as a means of expressing ‘la 


propria poesia della natura e del cuora’ 
(p.162). Signor Rostagni might have 
referred to D’Annunzio’s La Figlia di 
Iovio, as a splendid example of the 
Theocritean spirit in our own day. 

In a chapter on Asclepiades and his 
school in Samos, the same tendencies of 
the Alexandrian age are set forth. 
Humour, scepticism, a lively interest in 
the world at large, and especially in 
themselves and their emotions, charac- 
terised these poets, and they, one after 
another, made play with the myth of 
Glaucus just as another group used 
Daphnis for a poetical air and varia- 
tions. But the part of the book which 
is the most likely to attract attention 
and challenge controversy is the treat- 
ment of Callimachus in Chapter V. 
The author holds that the six Hymns 
are inspired by one design, and all date 
from 280-270. The Hymns to Demeter 
and Pallas stand somewhat apart from 
the rest, in being free from current 
politics, but all six are literary composi- 
tions, not songs intended to be sung at 
actual festivals. As other Alexandrian 
poets paint town or country life, so 
Callimachus chooses to set before us 
‘the sacred ceremonies which in a 
certain degree satisfy his tastes as an 
artist and a learned man’ (p. 256). 
Along with this wish to ‘hold up a 
mirror to the religious hymns of the 
past’ (p. 261), Callimachus unites, in 
the Hymns to Zeus, Delos, Artemis, 
and Apollo, the purpose of celebrating 
his king, Ptolemy Philadelphus, and 
Arsinoe II. Signor Rostagni finds that 
the parallel between Zeus or Apollo and 
Ptolemy runs throughout the poems, 
and does not merely crop up incidentally 
in the few passages where it is distinctly 
announced. In order to support his 
views, he discusses several chronological 
questions, notably in an appendix on 
the dominion of Ptolemy in _[Ionia, 
which he considers to have lasted from 
about 274 to shortly after the death of 
Arsinoe. At the end of the Hymn to 
Apollo he holds Apollonius Rhodius to 
be the poet ‘ as vast as the sea,’ to whom 
Callimachus objects, and thinks that 
the date of the hymn is approximately 
that of the time when Apollonius left 
Alexandria, owing to the failure of the 
first book of the Avrgonautica to win 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 77 


royal favour; from this position it is an 
easy step to see in the peroration of 
the hymn the triumph of Callimachus 
over his discomfited rival. 

Besides chronology, some questions 
concerning Theodorus Syracusanus, 
Rhinthon, Dosiades of Crete (who is 
the Lycidas of Theocr. VII., according 
to Signor Rostagni), and the debt of 
Propertius IV. 6 to Callimachus are dis- 
cussed in appendixes. A confusing slip 
inverts Dorians and Ionians on p. 143. 


Though on his own showing, Epi- 
charmus, Menander, not to speak of 
Euripides, Antimachus and many more, 
have qualities which would be called 
Alexandrian in third-century writers, 
Signor Rostagni is a very persuasive 
advocate, and has a great body of 
learning at his command, whether to 
call witnesses to his aid or to overthrow 
his opponents. 


ADELA MARION ADAM. 


MODERN GREEK IN ASIA MINOR. 


Modern Greek in Asia Minor: a Study 
of the Dialects of Silli, Cappadocia, and 
Pharasa. With grammar, texts, trans- 
lation, and glossary. By Κα. M. Daw- 
KINS, M.A., late Director of the British 
School at Athens. With a chapter 
on the subject-matter of the folk- 
tales by W. R. Hatuipay, B.A., 
B.Litt., Cambridge University Press. 


THIs is a book of real importance for 
the student of Modern Greek. Mr. 
Dawkins has an extraordinarily acute 
ear, and he takes the most minute 
care in his transcriptions; probably no 
one has ever recorded Modern Greek 
sounds with such exactitude. He has 
also chosen a district of which very 
little was known, at a time when the 
dialects were dying out from natural 
causes, and it is not likely that many of 
them or those who speak them will 
survive this war. In the summer of 
1014 the Turks were already persecu- 
ting their Greek subjects and driving 
them from their homes by the thousand, 
with murder and robbery, as I happen 
to know from reading hundreds of cap- 
tured letters ; and what they have done 
since we may easily guess. Very little 
has been printed before about these 
dialects; what there is, Mr. Dawkins 
has used. 

Besides the linguistic matter, the 
book contains a good deal of information 
as to population, local buildings, and 
the way the people live, with several 
photographs. There are most extra- 
ordinary underground houses and even 
churches ; the practice of living under- 


ground is mentioned by Xenophon. 
One is reminded by such a sketch as 
Fig. 2, p. 16, of the tomb of Christ, 
with a stone rolled along for a door. 
The forms of these dialects are all 
carefully tabulated and critically ex- 
amined. The dialects are in them- 
selves less attractive to the literary 
student than those of the Greek main- 
land or the islands: they are degraded 
and corrupt, and contain an unusual 
number of Turkish and Latin loan- 
words. The Turkish influence, as one 
might expect, is very strong, and here, 
as elsewhere, the influence of the local 
schools is very bad. I have found in 
my own travels that the schoolmaster 
is generally a pedant, whose literary 
style is dreadful; but providence gives 
us a compensation in the schoolmaster’s 
wife, who is delightfully primitive, 
speaks a good dialect Greek, and knows 
the local tales and superstitions. Mr. 
Dawkins sums up the characteristics of 
the dialects in a special section (p. 192). 
One remarkable feature is the borrowing 
of Turkish verbs, for verbs are not bor- 
rowed until dialects begin to fuse. 
More than half the book is occupied 
by the text and translation of folk-tales, 
and this alone would give it a permanent 
value. As stories, the tales are dis- 
appointing ; they are told in a bald 
style, and are not in that respect equal 
to those we already know. But they 
are full of interest, not only for the 
student of folk-tales, but still more for 
the student of life and manners. They 
are a fairly representative collection, 
and the largest collection yet published 


78 


in English. Mr. Halliday analyses 
their contents, showing the analogies 
with other Greek tales, and some 
parallels from other fields; he also 
adds a bibliography. There are hardly 
any classical echoes ; the Cyclops story 
is probably not an unbroken tradition, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


but there are not wanting classical 
episodes, such as the floating box. 
Each tale has its authority given. 
Finally, there are dialect glossaries, 
Greek and Turkish, an index, and 
sketch-maps; the indices fill 115 pages. 
W. H. D. Rouse. 


POSTGATE’S LUCAN, BOOK VIII. 


M. Annaet Lucani de bello ciuili. Liber 


VIII. Edited by J. P. PosTGATE, 
Litt.D,, ΒΑ. One vol, Svo. Pp. 
cxii +146. I map. Cambridge: 


University Press, 1917. 3s. net. 


A coop explanatory edition of the eighth 
book of Lucan was badly wanted. 
Professor Postgate has supplied the 
want in an edition which no one who 
loves Lucan or Latin can afford to 
neglect. It pours out in liberal measure 
the results of many a year’s devotion 
to ancient literature, and one may say 
with full confidence that no one will 
read it without finding in it both en- 
lightenment and stimulus. There is 
probably no book of Lucan which affords 
more room for differences of opinion 
than Book VIII. In several places I 
cannot quite see eye to eye with the 
present editor. A few of these passages 
will be noticed here; others do not 
admit of discussion within the limits of 
a short review. But one can learn a 
great deal from Professor Postgate’s 
notes even when one does not agree 
with him, and no amount of disagree- 
ment could avail to shake one’s ad- 
miration for this edition, which bears 
on every page the unmistakable stamp 
of the great scholar. The introduction 
is a fine piece of work, with a valuable 
discussion of historical, literary, geogra- 
phical, and ethnographical questions; 
it will be particularly welcome to those 
who wish to sift the ancient evidence 
for ‘the last days of Pompeius.’ The 
critical notes are very different from the 
usual dry-as-dust compilation. Of the 
commentary I have already spoken, but 
a special word of praise must be given 
to the apt illustrations with which it 
abounds. It was a happy idea to add 
a small portion of Book IX., containing 


the apotheosis of Pompey and Cato’s 
famous eulogy. 

A few comments may now be made 
on some points in the explanatory 
notes. 

V.1. -que. I do not quite under- 
stand the references to Virgil. Aen. 1. 
672 is a wrong reference; Aen. 2. 99 
does not seem to be to the point. 
2. deserta petens dispendia siluae. Stat. 
Theb. 2. 496 f., which is probably a 
reminiscence of Lucan, illustrates very 
well the difference between dispendia 
and compendia, and might have been 
quoted. 38 wectoy (in sense corre- 
sponding to uehi; cf. 4. 133, 5. 581). 
Not quite ‘an isolated use’; cf. ges- 
tator (Mart.). Lucan uses uector also 
in the other sense, 6. 392. 67. am- 
plexibus ambit in Claud. Id. 5. 35. 
97 accipe poenas. A note perhaps advis- 
able. Cf. Claud. Raft. Pros. 3. 425, etc. 
Ib. sed. Some indication of the fre- 
quency of this use might have been 
given for the benefit of the younger 
student. 100 mari dative or ablative? 
See Heitland, Intr., p. civ. 108 sicca 
. .. Thessaliae. Can such a use of the 
dative be paralleled ? It seems much 
safer to read the ablative. Codex V. is 
often in the right. 117 omnia=cetera. 
It might have been mentioned that this 
natural licence occurs as early as 
Plautus. Cf. Luc. 2. 52, 589; cumetis, 
5. 509. 134 It seems possible that 
nauem(-im) has dropped out between 
yepina and cum wm Flor. 2: Ὑ1: ὃ. 
137 nocentes sc. uos. A good parallel is 
4. 363 securumque (sc. te) orbis patimur 
post terga relict. 157 nullt grauis. To 
the examples from Carm. Epigr. add 
226. 2. 157 f. (of Cornelia in Lesbos) : 
quod submissa nimis nulli grauis hospita 


turbae Saas ; ; 
stantis adhuc fati uixit quasi coniuge uicto. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


I have given the text as Professor 
Postgate prints it. There are variants 
animts, for nimis, and (poorly supported) 
turba. The expression nimis .. . tur- 
bae is translated ‘a humble sojourner 
with a retinue overburdensome to none.’ 
The puzzling stantis adhuc fati may be, 
as the editor suggests, a strained use 
of the genitive of description, but the 
meaning cannot be ‘she lived (as 
one) of a still unfallen fortune.’ This 
gives no sense in its ΕΘΠΈΘΣΕ: the only 
meaning which will suit is ‘while she 
was still of unshaken fortune she lived 
as if her husband were already con- 
quered.’ Liv. 21. 1. 4 offers perhaps as 
good a parallel as can be found: fama 
est Hanmibalem, annorum fere 
decem (when he was about ten years 
old), . .. wre turando adactum. But 
here, as in the examples quoted by the 
editor, the noun in the genitive denotes 
time or a person’s age, and it is 
doubtful if Latin would allow such an 
extension as is here attributed to Lucan. 
It really seems a less violent course to 
read turvba and to take stantis adhuc fatt 
as depending on it: ‘oppressing none 
with the retinue that her still unshaken 
fortune gave her’ (more literally ‘the 
retinue that belonged to her still stand- 
ing fortune’). It can hardly be denied 
that this use of the gen. is possible; it 
certainly seems less harsh than that 
which the other view of the passage 
entails, and it is only a short step 
beyond the similar fortunae apparatibus 
suae (Liv. 9. 17. 16), ‘the sumptuous 
appointments belonging to his high 
station’ (cf. Curt, 3. 12. 12, apparatu 
pristinae fortunae). Possibly Lucan was 
prompted by a somewhat vague recol- 
lection of Ov. Trist. 1. 5.34, cetera 
fortunae, non mea, turba fuit, which 
refers to the crowds of friends who 
surrounded the poet in his days of 
prosperity. Should neither of the above 
explanations satisfy we must resort to 
emendation. A possible solution will 
occur to any scholar who will look 
at Claud. Get. 318, which looks like a 
reminiscence of the present passage. 

208 terrarum dominos. The fact may 
well be that the ambiguity of Hor. C. 
I. I. 6, terrarum dominos euehtt ad deos, 
which is noticed by Ps.-Acron, caused 
Ovid (Pont. 1. 9. 36) and Lucan to 


79 


interpret the line in different ways, Ovid 
taking dominos as in apposition to deos, 
Lucan understanding it as object to 
ewelut and as referring to the princely 
victors at the Olympic games [ Riihl in 
Rh. Mus. 67 (1912), p. 153]. 223 duros 
aeternt Martis Alanos. As the idea 
that a genitive of description cannot 
depend on a noun to which an adjective 
is attached has not quite disappeared, 
some illustrations might have been given, 
e.g. 5. 468 and probably 198. 263 
instar. For English readers the article 
in Nettleship’s Contributions to Latin 
Lexicography might have been cited; 
its conclusions are very similar to 
Wolfflin’s. 288 Romana. Add 9. 1075. 
306 sq. fiducia ... tm. Cf. 447; Luu. 
10. 306 (with Friedlaender’s note). 
Lucan usually prefers the gen. 337 
auersos . . . polos ‘the S. pole.’ 1. 54 
ought to have been quoted. 387 I 
must here thank Professor Postgate for 
supplying an instance (Sil. 6. 194) of 
arvtus=‘ hemmed in,’ which I tried in 
vain to find when writing a note on 
9. 449 (C. 0. X. pp. 155 f.). My artans 
must give way to his avtum. 391 tanti 
St sss Ub se st Δ δοῖθι would have 
been useful. 444.No note on hinc—inde: 
cf. I. 116 (inde—hine), 2. 54, 9. 337, 
Stat. Theb. 2. 5, Aus. Mos. 165, Rut. 
Nam Ὁ. 194, Plor.4:.27-500 in Lues τὶ 
173 and 176 inde and /hinc are not 
contrasted. Lejay’s note on 1. 116 
gives some other instances and some 
useful references. 449-451. Contrast 
281 f. 462 transuerso uertitur. For 
other examples see Hosius, Praef., p. 
yeild Bue. SAR segurn ὦ. 
secundo. Dicitur dixisse occurs not only 
in the passage of Seneca cited in the 
note, but at least twice in Livy (4. 48. 6, 
9. 7. 2). Some of Lucan’s sound-com- 
binations are very harsh to a modern 
ear, ¢.g. dum nondum, 2. 60, nam tam, 
9. 317. 485 f. ‘ Dat poenas laudata fides 
cum sustinet,’ inquit, ‘ quos fortuna premit.’ 
The wording of this reminds one of 
Livy, who is fond of saying that the 
fides of barbarians depends on the 
fortuna of one side or the other (22. 22. 
6, qualia plerwmque sunt barbarorum 
ingenia, cum fortuna mutauerat fidem ; 
28. 17. 7, barbaris, quibus ex fortuna 
pendet fides. It is very likely that he 
used this favourite sentiment in narra- 


80 


ting the incident that Lucan is here 
portraying. This passage may there- 
fore be added to the many other indica- 
tions that Livy is Lucan’s chief source. 
496 non impune ... contempsertt. As 
contempserit is (rightly) said to be perf. 
subj., it might have been pointed out 
that on (not ne) goes closely with 
impune; cf.5.756; contrast 2.50. 513- 
526. All explanations of this passage 
seem to have suffered from not noticing 
that the lines are an explanation of 
guerellae (512). In them Pothinus 
suggests a form of ‘complaint’ which 
Ptolemy might reasonably address to 
Pompey. This is made quite clear by 
vers. 518. f. and especially by vers. 520- 
524, words which are senseless as well 
as incredibly presumptuous if considered 
as an utterance of Pothinus in his own 
person. At ver. 527 Pothinus resumes 
his own speech, the change being 
facilitated by the tu, Ptolomace of ver. 
528. Thus the reason given in the 
critical note for changing the punctua- 
tion of ver. 518 scarcely holds good, 
and in the note on 523 it would be 
better to write ‘Ptolemy’ for ‘the 
Egyptians’ and ‘he’ for ‘they’ (bis). 
522 malueram. Other examples of this 
rarity occur in Calp. 6. 30, Aus. Epitaph. 
26.2. 533 cognita fata. Haskins’ strange 
error shows that an explanation would 
not be out of place. 533-5 Lucan here 
recalls 485-7, where the same sentiment 
is found in different words. 593 ad 
depending on anxia. This is, according 
to the Thesaurus, the only instance in 
Latin. 608 See Carm. Epigr. 249. Ig, 
with Biicheler’s note. 626 Is not probaris 
fut. perf.ind.? 640 It might have been 
pointed out that awia Lesbos has the 
force of an abstract noun with the gen., 
or of a noun-clause,= quod L. ama erat ; 
Of. I. 79, 5: 53, 913,19. 583,ete.” Wsucan 
is notably fond of the pres. part. in this 
USE, 2.2. I. 72,2. 490, 708, 3. 213, 5. 154. 
693 sceptris cessure sorort. Cf. Stat. Theb. 
I. 29 f. 735 protectis armis. Protectis 
seems best taken as ‘flung from them’ 
—a vivid expression for ‘ renounced,’ 
as often. The maerens exercitus would 
have no heart to fight under another 
general. 749 st guid sensus post fata relic- 
tum. Compare also Cic. Arch. § 30,795 ff.; 
Fam. 4. 5.6; Carm. Epigr. 179. 1, 180. 2, 
1147. 3. Asimilar sentiment (perhaps 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


borrowed from Lucan) is expressed in 
Mart. 5. 74. 818 f. super alta deorum 
culmina. It is ingeniously suggested 
that super means ‘ high up on,’ and the 
use of pro in pro vostris, etc., is compared. 
Possibly this is right; the use of sub in 
expressions like sub montis vadicibus 
(Livy), ‘down at the base of the 
mountain,’ is a slightly better parallel 
than the use of fro. But I am not sure 
that Lucan did not write limina ; the two 
words are confused elsewhere. 860 f. 
nunc est pro numine summo hoc tumulo 
fortuna tacens (so Professor Postgate 
prints the sentence). I fondly imagined 
that the meaning and construction of 
these words were demonstrated beyond 
all reasonable doubt in a recent paper 
(C. Q. VIIL., pp. 109 f.), and itwas a 
great disappointment to find that the 
present edition ignores the view there 
given and proposes (or rather resusci- 
tates) in its stead one which involves 
much difficulty and uncertainty. Hoc 

. dacens is translated ‘he whose 
portion it is to be in so poor a grave,’ 
and Hor. Ep. 2. 1. 191 trahtur.. 
vegum fortuna, and some other passages 
containing that well-known but untrans- 
latable idiom are cited as parallel. All 
these examples, however, have a genitive 
depending on fortuna, and if an idiom 
requires an accompanying genitive, that 
genitive cannot be omitted, even by 
Lucan. My interpretation, without 
doing violence to the Latin, obtains by 
a different punctuation the very mean- 
ing that Professor Postgate desires, 
with the effective addition of a taunt 
flung at Fortune, as in ver. 793 and 
elsewhere. 

My allowance of space does not admit 
of detailed comments on the interesting 
critical notes. The note on ver. 638, 
however, must be dealt with, as it 
contains a question which is really 
addressed to me. In the Classical 
Quarterly X. (1916), pp. 104 f., I argued 
that in 637 f., at non tam patiens Cornelia 
cernere saeuum quam perferre nefas, the 
word patiens is, according to a usage 
frequent in post-Augustan authors, 
independent of the time of the main 
verb, and that the phrase merely gives 
us Lucan’s opinion of Cornelia’s charac- 
ter, that she was less able to bear the 
sight of cruel wrong done to others 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 81 


than to suffer it in her own person. 
‘But,’ asks Professor Postgate, ‘on 
what occasion did Cornelia quail at the 
sight of a barbarous outrage (saewune 
nefas) such as the murder of Pompey ?’ 
This challenge makes me realize, with 
much regret, that in the effort to 
emphasise the ‘timeless’ meaning of 
patiens 1 used language which was liable 
to be misunderstood. Had I expressed 
myself clearly, Professor Postgate would 
no doubt have seen that, although a 
contemporary might have asked Lucan 
for an answer to the above question, 
it would not be quite fair to call me to 
account for what the poet chooses to 
assert. If Lucan wishes to record his 
opinion that Cornelia was that sort of 
woman, he has, of course, a_ perfect 
right to do so, even if he give no other 
instances to prove it. But it may be 
suggested that the poet had good 
grounds for believing that Cornelia had 
been a horrified spectator of many a 
saeuum nefas. It is sufficient to think 
of the many revolting acts of pillage 
and murder which took place openly in 
Rome from 58 to 52 B.c., and if we 
remember Cornelia’s family connexions, 
including the Crassi, the Caecilii Metelli, 
and Pompey himself, all of whom were 
concerned in the Clodian or anti-Clodian 
proceedings, we shall realise that those 
horrors were brought very near to her. 
It is not unlikely that a saewuwm nefas 
was presented to her eyes as early as 
59 B.c., when Metellus Celer, who was, 
I presume, some sort of relation, died 
mysteriously, poisoned, as was believed, 
by the infamous Clodia. Lucan may 
have known all this, but whether he 
did or not, his statement in vers. 637 f. 
is, I venture to think, quite plain. 
Moreover, a passage in Book V. repre- 
sents Pompey as expressing an opinion 
of Cornelia similar to that which Lucan, 
as I believe, expresses in the passage 
under consideration. Toward the end 
of that book we find Pompey deciding 
to send Cornelia for safety to Lesbos 
before the real fighting begins. He 
tries gently to break #he news, and one 


NO. CCLXIX. VOL. XXXII. 


of the arguments he uses is that, unless 
love has blinded him to his wife’s real 
nature, she is not the sort of person 
who could bear to look on (spectare) 
the horrors of civil war (5. 748 f.; the 
question of reading does not affect the 
present argument). In the early part 
of Book VIII. the Cornelia who faints 
at the sight of the haggard fugitive is 
prepared to undergo the cruellest death 
for his sake, in order to remove the ill 
luck which seems to dog those who 
attach themselves to her. This truly 
womanly combination of gentleness 
and fortitude, weakness and strength, 
is what Lucan tries to sum up in 
vers. 637 f. 

With regard to ver. 306, where 
Professor Postgate, with friendly blunt- 
ness, declares that my interpretation, 
which would keep the tanta of the MSS., 
‘cannot be extracted from the Latin,’ I 
can only plead that I am not the only 
person who has extracted it. The 
question is one of individual feeling, 
and scarcely admits of argument, so 
that Professor Postgate is thoroughly 
justified in confining himself to a direct 
negative. His attractive emendation, 
tota, will, I have no doubt, find many 
supporters. ᾿ 

In the Introduction, § 2, mention 
might have been made of Rossbach’s 
theory that Florus did not borrow from 
Lucan, but both writers used a historical 
work of the elder Seneca. On p. xxiil, 
among the scholiast’s citations from 
Livy the very interesting one in the 
commentum on VIII. gt (Usener, p. 259) 
is inadvertently omitted. 

I have noticed very few misprints ; 
the most important are manebit for 
manebat, note on 157, and patit for petit, 
note on 321. In the commentary on 
ver. 402 there should be an asterisk 
after the number of the line. Footnote 
3 on p. xxxiii refers to a non-existent 
annotation. 

W. B. ANDERSON. 


The University, 
Manchester. 


82 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


DE CICERONIS LIBRO CONSOLATIONIS. 


De Ciceronis libro Consolationts. 
T. νὰν WAGENINGEN. Pp. 
Groningen, 1916. 


By 
I-54. 


ΙΝ this modest and unpretending work 
the writer has endeavoured to recon- 
stitute, so far as possible, the contents 
of Cicero’s lost work, the Consolatto, 
which he wrote in B.c. 45 to comfort 
himself after the death of his dearly- 
loved daughter Tullia. The subject 
has already been treated by other in- 
quirers, notably Corssen (1881), Buresch 
(1887), and Pohlenz (1909), who have 
put together the materials which Pro- 
fessor van Wageningen has arranged 
and utilized in this dissertation. Cicero 
claims to have read all the existing 
works on the theme which he could 
find (Att. XII. 14. 3), but his chief 
source appears to have been the work 
of Crantor περὶ πένθους. We are told 
by Pliny (Nat. Hist. Praef. 22) that 
Cicero’s work was a literal translation 
of Crantor. Elsewhere (Ac. II. 135) 
Cicero speaks of Crantor’s treatise as 
short, but of pure gold, and quotes a 
saying of Panaetius that everyone ought 
tolearnit by heart. The few fragments 
of Cicero’s own work survive in quota- 
tions, or references, in Tusc. J. and III., 
written very shortly afterwards, and in 
quotations of Lactantius and Augustine. 

Recent writers have shown that 
much further information can be 
gained from similar Consolationes, either 
founded on that of Crantor himself or 
drawn from Cicero’s lost work. The 
chief of these is a treatise included 
among the works of Plutarch,' written 
to Apollonius on the death of his son. 
The writer quotes Crantor (φησὶν ὁ 
ἀκαδημιακὸς Κράντωρ, p. 102 c-d) for a 
view which is also cited by Cicero as 
that of Crantor in Tusc. III. 12. There 
are many similarities of a striking kind 


1 Wageningen, for the sake of convenience, 
quotes the work as that of Plutarch, but does 
not suggest that it is genuine. It is generally 
held to be spurious. 


between Plutarch and passages in the 
Tusculans—e.g. in Tusc. I. 115 Cicero 
quotes from Crantor a story about 
Terinaeus, a native of Bruttii, which 
also appears, without reference to 
Crantor, in - Plut. 109 b-d; so in 
Tusc. III. 129 he cites a fragment 
from Euripides which is also found in 
Plut. 112 d. It was suggested by 
Pohlenz that the order of Crantor’s 
work, and therefore of Cicero’s imita- 
tion, could be recovered from Plutarch. 
Wageningen goes further, and holds 
that the work itself is practically pre- 
served by Plutarch. This is somewhat 
bold, since Plutarch, while using Cran- 
tor, may well have drawn from other 
sources. 

Further evidence is yielded by other 
imitations, notably those of Jerome in 
Ep. LX. on the death of Nepotianus, 
and of Ambrose on the death of his 
brother, Book II. Jerome refers to a 
number of ‘bright, particular stars in 
Roman history’ (quorum virtutibus quast 
quibusdam stellis Latinae micant Iustoriae) 
whose bereavements were described by 
Ciceroin his Consolatio. Ambrose, who 
in § 50 ascribes to pagan authors the 
tripertita divisio, which he has adopted, 
refers to Crantor and Cicero. Various 
passages in Jerome and Ambrose cor- 
respond closely with passages in Plu- 
tarch, or references to the Consolatio 
in the Tusculans, and it seems a fair 
inference that they were founded on 
Cicero’s lost work. 

With the help of these materials 
Wageningen has made an interesting 
attempt to reconstruct Cicero’s treatise 
by combining existing fragments with 
passages in Plutarch and imitations in 
Jerome, Ambrose, and other writers. 
These are arranged according to the 
order which is furnished by Plutarch. 
The reconstruction which is given is 
very plausible, and the work, which is 
written in excellent Latin, is distinctly 
useful. 

ALBERT C. CLARK. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 83 


THE VERB “TO BE” AN HERODOTUS. 


De la Phrase a Verbe " étre’ dans l’Ionien 
d’Hérodote. Par D. BARBELENET. 
Onevol. 93”x6}"”. Pp.114. Paris: 
Champion, 1913. 


PROFESSOR MEILLET has organised the 
study of ‘la phrase attributive’ in a 
number of languages. ‘ Dans tous ces 
travaux,’ says M. Barbelenet, ‘ on 
examine avant tout la présence ou 
absence de la copule et sa place par 
rapport a l’attribut.. M. Marouzeau’s 
elaborate work on this type of sentence 
in early Latin was reviewed in C.R. 
XXVI. (1912), p. 129 ff. The book 
before us was published in 1913, but 
has only recently come into my hands. 

The author draws an important 
contrast between Greek and Latin: 
‘ Cette différence entre les deux langues 
tient a ce que e/us a une force bien plus 
grande que sum. Les formes du présent 
sont beaucoup plus pleines qu’en latin. 
En latin toutes, méme l’infinitif, sont 
devenues enclitiques. En _ grec les 
particules atones ou accentuées vien- 
nent, comme en indo-européen, aprés 
le premier mot de la phrase, fit-ce 
Yattribut et établissent ainsi une sépara- 
tion mécanique entre le verbe et |’at- 
tribut quand celui-ci commence la 
phrase, ce qui est fréquent. Aussi le 
groupement attribut-verbe ne pouvait 
devenir presque automatique, et els 
ne pouvait prendre de _ place fixe. 
D’ailleurs par analogie les formes accen- 
tuées a Pépoque historique tendaient a 
donner de l'indépendance aux formes 
du présent, et enfin la liberté de 
la construction a été assurée par |’exist- 
ence en grec d’une forme toujours 
tonique, qui n’a pu se _ maintenir 
dans le systéme de la conjugaison 
latine, ἃ savoir le participe présent.... 
En grec au contraire wy est extréme- 
ment fréquent et a une valeur trés forte 
a en juger non seulement par les dérivés 
ὄντως ‘‘réellement” et τὰ ὄντα ‘la 
réalité,’’ mais encore par la proportion 
trés considérable des cas oii 1] précéde 
l’atribut.’ 

Hence εἰμί is more independent than 
swum and its connexion with the pre- 
dicative word is less close. In Latin 
these two elements become so nearly 


inseparable that, apart from a few fixed 
expressions, the omission of the verb 
‘to be’ is unusual. In Greek, on the 
other hand, the ‘ phrase nominale pure,’ 
very common in Indo-European, has 
a longer life. ‘Dans les poemes 
homériques l’absence du verbe est au 
moins aussi fréquente que sa présence 
a la 3° personne; elle n’est pas rare aux 
deux premiéres. I] n’est pas un seul 
dialecte ot elle ne se constate.’ In 
Herodotus it has a more limited use 
than in Homer, but there are various 
types of sentence, carefully classified 
and very fully illustrated by M. Barbe- 
lenet, in which the verb was not usually 
introduced, and some of these types are 
familiar to us from Plato, Aristophanes, 
and other Attic writers. Thus Demos- 
thenes says (O.L. 1. 5) καὶ ὅχως 
ἄπιστον, οἶμαι, ταῖς πολιτείαις ἡ τυραν- 
vis, just as Croesus says (Hdt. ili. 36) 
σοφὸν δὲ ἡ προμηθίη. 

More commonly Herodotus expresses 
the verb, and the greater part of the 
book is occupied with the study of the 
differences of meaning produced by 
varying the normal order shown in ὁ 
θρόνος χρύσεός ἐστι. ‘Il enrésulte que, 
réserve faite d’exceptions nombreuses 
dues en général a la forme d’un des 
éléments, chacune des six dispositions 
correspond a une différence didée ou 
de sentiment.’ It would not be possible 
to give any satisfactory summary of 
this part of the book without going to 
great length and quoting many ex- 
amples. But to show the skill with 
which M. Barbelenet distinguishes 
subtle difterences of meaning I quote a 
few sentences from the excellent chapter 
on ‘ Le Verbe d’Existence’ : 

“Ἔστι “il ya” précéde le sujet quand 
la phrase introduit quelque chose de 
tout a fait nouveau: détail dans une 
description, affimation dans une dis- 
cussion, fait dans un récit.... lL ordre 
inverse sert ou bien a situer un objet 
dont il a déja été question ou, plus 
rarement, a rattacher un nouvel objet 
a un autre dont il a été parlé antérieure- 
ment. ... Quelques passages oti les 
deux ordres sont juxtaposés permettent 
d’en distinguer la valeur respective. 
Hérodote décrit I. 183 un temple de 


84 


Babylone. Ce temple contient divers 
objets en or notamment καὶ ὁ θρόνος 
χρύσεός ἐστι, ordre banal. L’autel 
placé en dehors du temple est également 
enor. Iln’ya pas la de détail vraiment 
nouveau, tout temple impliquant |’ex- 
istence d’un autel: ce qu’il y a d’insolite, 
c’est la magnificence de cet autel et 
ladjectif qui l’exprime est mis en 
vedette par hyperbate, mais le verbe 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


suit encore le sujet: ἔξω δὲ τοῦ νηοῦ 
βωμός ἐστι χρύσεος. Plus loin Hérodote 
doit décrire un nouvel objet: il com- 
mence par en indiquer l’existence ἦν δὲ, 
puis il le localise a la fois dans l’espace 
et dans letemps: ἐν τῷ τεμένεϊ τούτῳ ETL 
τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον pour ne le nommer 
qu’ensuite, καὶ ἀνδρίας δυώδεκα πηχέων 
χρύσεος στερεός." 


W. E. P. PANTIN. 


ee IN 


SHORT NOTICES 


The House-Door on the Ancient Stage. 
A Dissertation presented to the 
Faculty of Princeton University in 
Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor 
of Philosophy. By W. W. Mooney. 
Pp. 105. 25x17°5 cm. Baltimore: 
Williams and Wilkins Company, 


1014. 


In this monograph Mr. Mooney has 
collected and brought up to date all 
available evidence bearing upon the 
door in the back-scene of the ancient 
theatre. The subject is, indeed, more 
important than might at first be sup- 
posed ; for without an intelligent appre- 
ciation of the stage-action one cannot 
fully understand the situation in the 
ancient drama and more especially in 
the New Comedy and its vigorous 
Roman continuation. 

By careful consideration of all the 
relevant passages the author shows 
conclusively (as we think) that the 
house-door inserted in the back of the 
stage was single; and that we cannot 
assume (with Lambinus and his modern 
following) an outer and an inner door 
at either end of a passage-way.’ He 
argues with equal weight that this door 
was normally kept closed. 

Mr. Mooney’s second main point is to 


1 It is with diffidence that I disagree with 
Mr. Sargeaunt’s contrary view stated on p. vill 
of the Introduction to his Terence (Loeb Classtcal 
Library). 


‘DIED OF 


She hath fluttered away on her sable wing, 
The pale, scared Angel of Pain ; 

For a greater than she hath looked on her, 
And she never will vex thee again.’ 


dismiss the quaint notion that an actor 
knocked at the door before coming out. 
ψοφεῖν, crepare and concrepare, therefore, 
refer to the accidental sounds made in 
opening a door, as opposed to κόπτειν, 
pultare, pulsare, which are used for 
knocking to attract attention and gain 
admittance. A modern writer may be 
usefully cited in analogy. In Kid- 
napped (ch. xxix.) Stevenson writes: 

‘For some time Alan volleyed (=/z/savit, 
percussit) upon the door . . . At last, however, 
we heard the creak (ξε ψόφος, crepitus) of the 
hinges’: similarly in ch. iii. we have—‘ Pre- 
sently there came a great rattling of chains and 
bolts (giving another meaning of ψόφος, cre- 
pitus), and the door was cautiously opened.’ 

The author shows further by archae- 
ological and literary evidence that the 
stage-door opened outwards, and not 
inwards as we might have expected from 
the arrangement of the real house-door. 
May this not have been due to lack of 
space behind the scenes ? 

The last section of this study is 
devoted to the use of the stage-door and 
of the parodoi in the plays; and two 
elaborate tables of the vocabulary show- 
ing its relative distribution amongst 
the Greek and Roman dramatists are 
appended. 

It would be difficult to praise too 
highly the minute and laborious in- 
dustry with which Mr. Mooney has 
treated his subject. An Index of the 
principal passages discussed is added. 

HucH G. EvELyYN- WHITE. 


WOUNDS.’ 


᾿Ωχρίοωσα Θεὰ μελανόπτερος ἐκσεσόβηται, 
ἡ πασῶν ὀδυνῶν πότνι᾽, ἀτυζομένη " 
σεμνότερον γὰρ ἱπεῖδεν ἐπισκοπέοντά τιν᾽ ἄλλον " 
εὗδ᾽, ὁ καμών, μαλακῶς . οὔ σε μέτεισι πάλιν. 


W. G. W. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 85 


OBITUARY 


HENRY MONTAGU BUTLER. 


In the Master of Trinity Cambridge 
has lost a scholar of a type once more 
common than it is at present. Dr. 
Henry Montagu Butler was a product 
of the palmy days of the Classical 
Tripos, and maintained throughout his 
long life the best traditions of that ex- 
cellent course. To have a wide and 
thorough knowledge of the Greek and 
Latin authors of the ‘best’ periods of 
Greece and Rome—to understand their 
language, accept its rules or customs 
as the climax of excellence, and by 
close study of them to obtain some skill 
in imitating the diction of the great 
masterpieces—that was the ideal. It 
was an ideal congenial to the Master’s 
own mind; and circumstance most 
happily placed him at the head of a 
great school which had for long pre- 
served traditions of good classical teach- 
ing. Here he followed the practice, 
more common in the nineteenth century 
than to day, of taking most of the work 
of his own sixth form. ‘ Dr. Butler,’ 
one who knew him well writes in the 
Journal of Education, ‘was emphatically 
a great teacher, one of the old order, 
now disappearing, of headmasters who 
looked on teaching, rather than the 
framing of syllabuses and time-tables 
and new curricula, as their prime 
business and duty.’ He was not what 
is called an ‘educationist, but he was 
a much better teacher than many edu- 
cationists. Naturally, his prime achieve- 
ment as a form-master was instruction 
in ‘pure scholarship.’ Himself an artist 
in expression (whether in English, 
Greek, or Latin), all his life long aiming 
at perfection of language, an enthu- 
siastic student of the most polished 
period of English oratory, he did his 
best to encourage something like his 
own artistry in his pupils. He was an 
unfailing judge of elegance and grace 
in composition, but it must always be 
founded on sound knowledge of grammar 
and idiom. He himself was devoted to 
the practice of verse composition in 
Latin and Greek. Whether in the 
intervals of his day’s work at Harrow, 
or on a railway journey, or during a 
walk, he would have some passage in 
his mind for translation; and whether 


the original was easy or difficult, the 
version was always a model of correct- 
ness and grace. Most of his composi- 
tions were collected and published in 
1914 in Some Leisure Hours of a Long 
Life—a volume which contains some 
extraordinarily clever tours de force : for 
instance, the twenty-two alternative 
translations of Herrick’s What Needs 
Complaints ? or the twenty-one versions 
of Crossing the Bar—where each some- 
how seems to have caught, not only the 
style, but the mood which one associates 
with the metre in which it is composed. 

Dr. Butler published nothing else 
relating to the Greek and Latin classics. 
But if style and finish be worthy objects 
of education, then he was undoubtedly 
a great educator. To speak of his 
striking and attractive personality, and 
of his varied activities, would be beyond 
the province of this Review. 


WILLIAM WALTER MERRY. 


On March 5 of this year died Dr. 
William Walter Merry, Rector of 
Lincoln College, and for nearly thirty 
years Public Orator in the University 
of Oxford: a scholar whose name will 
always be honourably associated with 
the classical learning of his University. 
Few in our days have done so much to 
facilitate and in the best sense to popu- 
larise the study of Greek and Latin. 
He was an editor of unwearying activity. 
The large edition of the first half of the 
Odyssey, begun by James Riddell of 
Balliol, and continued by his friend Dr. 
Merry, is likely to remain for a long 
time the standard English commentary : 
the Rector was responsible for three 
quarters of this volume, and entirely for 
the shorter or school editions of the 
whole twenty-four books. Like all his 
work, these are models of lucid and care- 
ful exposition. His editions of Aristo- 
phanes (Acharnians, Clouds, Frogs, 
Knights, Birds, Wasps, Peace) have been 
familiar to many generations of students. 
Their learning is not, nor is it intended 
to be, that of an Ellis or a Munro. 
But they are quite erudite enough, full 
of sound scholarship, and _ spiced 
with congenial humour—‘learning put 
lightly, like powder in jam’: exactly 


86 THE CLASSICAL’ REVIEW 


what most readers of Aristophanes 
want. Dr. Merry also published Selected 
Fragments of Roman Poetry in 1891. 

He was a good editor; but he was an 
ideal Public Orator. No one could be 
better equipped for the position. He 
was an effective public speaker ; he had 
a fine presence, a lively humour, and a 
rich vocabulary of Latin. At Oxford, 
the Creweian Oration—dealing with the 
events ofthe academic year—is delivered 
at alternate Encaenia by the Public 
Orator and the Professor of Poetry. 
The Rector’s Creweian Orations were 
always popular. They managed to 
combine the dignity proper to an 
academic exercise, with direct and 
unfailingly successful appeals to the 
gallery. Dr. Merry could turn the 
diction of Cicero to the topics of the 
day in such a way as. to make it some- 
how quite intelligible to undergraduates 
who had little Latin, and ladies who 
had none. These orations have been 
collected and published. They are 
always entertaining, and very useful 
contributions to the history of the 
University. Learning and the ameni- 
ties of scholarship suffer by the Rector’s 
death. 


MRS. SEELAR. 


THE death of Mrs. Sellar, in a great 
and beautiful old age, took place on 
February g last, at the house which 
had been her home for more than half 
a century, and had during all that time 
been a meeting-place for the many 
classical scholars who had the privilege 
of her friendship. It should not pass 
unnoticed in a journal dedicated to the 


support and study of the classics. No 
scholar herself—her own incursions into 
the classical languages were chiefly in 
the direction of making Latin puns— 
she had lived among scholars from her 
youth, and gave more than she received 
in that intercourse. For the survivors 
of many generations of Sellar’s pupils, 
first at St. Andrews and then at Edin- 
burgh, her memory is an undimmed 
brightness. Nor is it less precious 
among the dwindling remnants of the 
Oxford friends of long ago. The 
brilliant group of her husband’s con- 
temporaries has ceased to exist; but 
from them onward, a perpetual succes- 
sion of younger scholars found a 
welcome in her home and a place in 
her heart. Her death removes almost 
the last link between the present 
generation and that mid-Victorian age 
in which, with all its defects or limita- 
tions, humane letters were a potent 
influence, and simplicity and purity of 
living were combined with high ideals. 
The scholars of that age took their 
rank less from profound investigation 
or original research than from elevation 
of character and distinction of per- 
sonality. She stands beside them, as 
she lived among them, in virtue of 
qualities of her own no less remarkable 
than, in their conjunction, they are rare: 
ceaseless kindness and pungent wit, 
tender sympathy and unconquerable 
gaiety. She seemed, almost until the 
end, endowed with immortal youth. 
᾿Οκτὼ ἐπ’ ὀγδώκοντα βιώσασ᾽ ἐξετέλεσσεν 
ὄλβια σὺν μούσαις καὶ χαρίτεσσιν ἔτη " 


τούς ποτ᾽ ἔθελξε νέους ἔτι γηράσκοντας ἔτερπε, 
νῦν δ᾽ ἥβην αὐτὴ σώζει ὑποχθόνιος. 


J. W. MAcKAIL. 


DODWELL, in his Tour through Greece, 
i. 36, mentions atradition that Colchians 
settled in Corcyra in 1349 B.c. He 
quotes no authority. Is there any ? 

Were the Colchians and Minoans 
kin? According to Herodotus the 
former were of Egyptian extraction, 
and it is said there was in the Egyptians, 
as in the Minoans, an Armenoid strain. 
The Colchians also were no doubt 
Armenoid. 

The most likely settlers from the 
East in Corcyra in late Minoan days 


QUERIES — 


would be Minoans. Could they have 
been converted into Colchians through 
the influence of the Argonaut saga ? 
Mure’s view that the Phaeacians 
were a real people is correct. He 
believed they were a colony of Φοίνικες, 
and Φοίνικες are to modern archaeolo- 
gists the Minoans. Phaeacia is not in 
fairyland, nor is it the lost Atlantis. 
It is Corcyra, and Scheria is a Minoan 
settlement there. The proof will be 
published in detail. A Cie τὰ 


St. Andrews, March 13, 1918. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 87 


NOTES AND 


NEWS 


NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION. 


THE two Spring meetings of the 
Northumberland and Durham Classical 
Association were held alternately in 
Durham and Newcastle. At the former, 
Canon Cruickshank’s paper on ‘ The 
Problem of Euripides’ Bacchae’ led to 
an interesting discussion, taken part in 
by Dr. Dawson Walker, who was in the 
chair, Miss E. F. Stevenson (New- 
castle), Miss A. M. Ashley (Darlington), 
Mr. E. P. Pestle, Professor How, and 
Dr. J. Wight Duff. After the statutory 
business of the sixth general meeting 
of the branch, held on March 23 at 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Mr. R. Bousfield 


(Bishop Auckland) gave an account of 
excavations which had been conducted 
from time to time at the Roman station 
of Binchester (Vinovia), and exhibited 
an admirable set of large coloured plans 
in illustration of the-site as a whole, as 
well as of the buildings, bathing-tanks, 
and hypocausts. Copies of the chief 
inscriptions recovered in the nineteenth 
century at Vinovia were also shown. 
Dr. J. Wight Duff, who presided, 
recalled details of the archaeological 
visit paid by the society to Binchester 
in 1014. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


To the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


I HAVE read with much interest the article 
by Mr. Shewan on Πολύχρυσος Μυκήνη in your 
last number, and will try to profit by his argu- 
ments. But unfortunately I must begin by 
knocking away the foundation on which they 
all rest, and thereby depriving him of his 
fancied triumph over me. Mr. Shewan seems 
to think that the new Mycenaean site found by 
the Americans is at Corinth. He is mis- 
informed, It is not at Corinth. 

I said in Homer and History (p. 217) that 
Ephyre—the name which we must give to the 
new site—was the nearest town in the Sikyonian 
territory, and a few miles away from Corinth. 
The new site is in fact a few miles from Corinth, 
in the direction of Sikyon. Itlies on the coast 
of the Gulf, somewhere near Lechaion. No 
Mycenaean remains have been found at Corinth 
to confute me. Any ‘value of my essay on 
Agamemnon’s realm’ is not greatly reduced, 
but greatly strengthened by this confirmation 
of my assertion that the Mycenaean Ephyre 
was not at Corinth, but a few milesaway. My 
prophecy may have been a foolish gamble ; 
but it has the merit of fulfilment. 

The information about the site of the Myce- 
naean Ephyre I owe to Mr. Wace. 1 wish it 
were more detailed ; but letters to Athens were 
very uncertain when | wrote on the subject 
three years ago, and either my enquiry for 
further particulars or his reply to it must have 
gone astray ; and we are all too busy on more 
urgent matters to spend much time on such 
things. But it is possible that one part of 
what I have said may have to be modified. 
With all reserve, and even open scepticism, I 
thought that there might be something in what 
Strabo said about an ‘Ephyre on the Selleis’ 
in Sikyonian territory. Now I cannot ascertain 
that the new site is on any stream ; if it is not, 


then what Strabo says as to this particular 
Ephyre may have to go with the other fables 
he talks about the name of Ephyre (Homer and 
History, 178). This of course affects him, and 
not me. My argument is only based on the 
fact that there never was a Mycenaean settle- 
ment at Corinth ; the negative evidence is now 
confirmed by our knowledge of the place where 
the settlement was. It was on the northern 
coast, and therefore unsuited to fulfil the con- 
ditions which placed an important town where 
Corinth stood. To all appearance it was 
dependent on Sikyon. 
Yours faithfully, 
WALTER LEAF. 


To the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


I CANNOT but be happy over the generous 
praise bestowed upon Plotinus: The Ethical 
Treatises, in Class. Rev. February-March, 1918. 

I ask permission, however—for the few who 
may be interested in the interpretation of 
Plotinus—to touch very briefly on the friendly 
reviewer's animadversions. I take them 
seriatim : 

1. ‘Complement’ is a misprint for ‘ couple- 
ment.’ 

2. The πᾶν in the context is not necessary, 
nor any English equivalent ; but, with Mueller 
and Kieffer, I take it as strengthening ὅτι. 

3. The steps, I find, by which the form of 
my version developed were : (a) ‘ Anyone that 
allows the sow/ to be the user (of the body) 
separates it.’ (ὁ, etc.) ‘If the sozd is (allowed) 
to use the body, it is separate.’ In the context 
I take that twist and condensation to be quite 
laudable. 

4. It was only after long search that I dis- 
covered the reviewer’s implication, if I grasp it 
yet. My first rough draft (to which the final 
adheres in entire content) was: ‘We must 


88 


make over the common affections (or the affec- 
tions of the couplement) to the body—that is, 
to the part appropriate to such affections—the 
material (“physical”) element.’ Mueller and 
Kiefer differ, but not on the point in question. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


_5. The omission of οὐρανοῦ was a pure over- 
sight, induced, I imagine, by the fact that the 
context shows clearly the celestial nature of the 
‘body’ concerned. 

STEPHEN MACKENNA. 


ErRRATUM.—P. 47 (a) line 14: for ‘hopeful ’ vead ‘ helpful.’ 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


All publications which have a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered tn this list of they are sent for 


review. 


The price should tn all cases be stated. 


** Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


Ageno (F.) Periculum criticum Ovidianum : 
Heroidum loci aliquot emendati, explanati, 
tentati. 9$”x63"”. Ῥρ. 22. Pavia, Tipogra- 
fia e legatoria co-operativa, 1918. 

Amatucct (A. G.) Storia della Letteratura 
Romana. In two vols.: I. Dalle Origini 
all’ Eta Ciceroniana, pp. xii+244. II. Da 
Augusto al Sec. V., pp. vilit+206. 8}” x55. 
Napoli: Francesco Perrella, 1916. L. 2 per 
volume. 


Armstrong(M.E.) The Significance of Certain 
Colours in Roman Ritual (Dissertation for 
Doctorate). ΟΣ Χ δὲ". Pp. 52. The Col- 
legiate Press, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1917. 

Boéthius (Axel). Die Pythais: Studien zur 
Geschichte der Verbindungen zwischen 
Athen und Delphi (Inaugural Dissertation). 
4” x 6h". Pp. 172. Upsala: Almquist und 
Wicksell, 1918. 

Box (G. H.) The Apocalypse of Abraham and 
the Ascension of Elijah (Translation of Early 
Documents). 7$”x5" Pp. xxxiv+65 and 
xxvit+ 36. London: S.P.C.K., 1918. Cloth, 
4s. 6d. net. 

Cambridge (Historical Register of the Univer- 
sity to the Year 1910). Edited by J. R. 
Tanner. 7: Χ5΄, Pp. xili+1186. Cam- 
bridge University Press, 1917. Cloth, 12s. 6d. 
net. 

Ciceronts Orationes (Pro Milone, Caesarianae, 
Philippicae). Bibliotheca Oxoniensis. By 
A. C. Clark. Second edition. 8’x 5%”. 
Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1918. Paper, 3s.; 
cloth, 3s. 6d. 

Cudworth (W. H.) The Odes of Horace, 
Englished into Rimed Verse corresponding 
to the Original Meters. 74”x 43”. Pp. xv+ 
161. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1918. Cloth, 
$1.50 net. 

De Sanctis (G.) and Pareti (L.) Contributi 
alla Scienza dell’ Antichita: Vol. II., Storia 


di Sparta Arcaica. Parte I. 10”x7". Pp. 
iv+276. Firenze, Libreria Internazionale, 
1917. L. Io. 


Eitrem (S.) Beitrage zur griechischen Reli- 
gionsgeschichte: IJ. Kathartisches und 
Rituelles. 10}”x7". Pp. 50. Kristiania : 
Jacob Dybwad, 1917. 

Fitzhugh (Thomas). The Indo-European Super- 
stress and the Evolution of Verse. Univer- 
sity of Virginia, Bulletin of the School of 
Latin, No.9. 9”x6}". Pp. 114. Anderson 
Brothers, Charlotteville, Va. $2.50. 


Gardner (P.) A History of Ancient Coinage, 
700-300 B.C. 9”x 6". Pp. xvi+464, with 
11 plates. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918. 
Cloth, 18s. net. 


James (M. R.) The Biblical Antiquities of 
Philo (Translations of Early Documents). 
7t"x5", Pp. vit+280. -London ; S.P.C.K., 
1917. Cloth, 8s. 6d. net. 


Jastrow (M.) The War and the Bagdad Rail- 
ways. 71 53”. Pp.160, with 14 illustrations 
andamap. London: J. B. Lippincott Com- 
pany, 1917. Cloth, 6s. net. 


McLemore (J. S.) The Tradition of the Latin 
Accent (a Dissertation submitted to the 
Faculty of the University of Virginia, 1917). 
1o}”x 7". Pp. 96. University of Virginia. 


Missions Scientifigues (Nouvelles Archives). 


Tome XXII. Fasc. 1. 9?’x6j”. Pp. 131, 
with 6 plates. Paris : Imprimerie Nationale, 
1917. 


Modern Hebrew Literature. 83’x5}". Pp. 20. 
London: Jewish Chronicle. 9d. 


More (P.E.) Platonism (Lectures delivered a} 
Princeton University). 83”x 54". Pp. xiit+ 
308. Oxford University Press (for Princeton 
Press), 1918. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net. 


Plutarch’s Select Essays (Vol. 11.) Translated 
by A. O. Prickard. 7”x4j}. Pp. xix+ 336. 
Oxford University Press, 1918. Cloth, 3s. 6d. 
net. 


Schiitte (G.) Ptolemy’s Maps of Northern 
Europe: A Reconstruction of the Proto- 
types. 10$”x7". Pp. xvit+150, with 32 
maps. Copenhagen: H. Hagerup, 1917. 

Stawell (F. M.) The Price of Freedom: An 
Anthology. Illustrated. 63” 4}”. Ρρ. 168. 
London: Headley Brothers, 1918. Paper 
boards, 3s. 6d. 


Thackeray (H.St. J.) The Letters of Aristeas 
(Translations of Early Documents). 73" 5". 
Pp. xx+116. London: S.P.C.K., 1917. 
Cloth, 2s. 6d. net. 


Value of the Classics: Addresses at Conference 
on Classical Studies at Princeton University, 
1917. 8." Χ οἱ". Pp. viii + 396. Oxford 
University Press (for Princeton Press), 1918. 
Half cloth, 6s. 6d. net. 


Wassilevsky (J.) Chassidism: A Résumé of 
Modern Hebrew Mysticism. 84”x54”. Pp. 
31. Blackburn: Toulmin and Sons. Is. 


The Classical Review 


AUGUST—SEPTEMBER, 1918 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


EURIPIDES THE, IDEALIST: 


Dr. THOMSON in his Euripides and 
the Attic Orators takes up a position, as 
regards the religious views of Euripides, 
which may be described as lying some- 
where between the positions maintained 
by, Dr. Verrall and Professor Murray 
respectively. He sums it up in these 
words: ‘ There were thus three main 
periods in the development of Euripides’ 
ideas relatively to religion—the first 
period, up to the beginning of the 
Peloponnesian War, when he acquiesced 
in the generally accepted beliefs; the 
second period, beginning with the Pelo- 
ponnesian War and lasting some twenty 
years, when he was at open enmity 
with these beliefs; and, finally, the 
period of his latest dramas, when, 
though he never returned to his original 
position, he came to look on his cam- 
paign as labour lost, and desisted from 
his attempt.” It is the object of this 
paper to cast some light upon the subject 
of Euripides’ religious .views—and, 
incidentally, to explain how such en- 
tirely different ideas with regard to 
them can have been maintained as those 
which we associate with the names of 
Professor Murray and Dr. Verrall—by 
suggesting that it is wrong to attempt 
to define any such three clearly-marked 
periods in the development of the poet’s 
thought, and that—even if there be any 
such periods—the first and the third of 
them are periods very different from 
those described by Dr. Thomson. 

That there is development in the 
religious thought of Euripides, as, 
indeed, there is in that of every 
great religious thinker, none will deny; 
the very discrepancy of interpretation 


1 Euripides and the Attic Orators, p: 38. 
NO, CCLXX. VOL. SX, 


which it has occasioned among different 
scholars is sufficient indication of the 
fact. But it is a development, and not 
a change amounting to a recantation at 
the end; it may be a development into 
something very different from what it 
began with—an ἀλλοίωσις, if you like 
—but it is not a μεταβολή. Rightly 
regarded the Alcestis and the Medea— 
the two earliest plays—show us Euripi- 
des as acritic of the received religion 
from the very start. In the first of 
them Apollo rescues Admetus from the 
death to which he was doomed by 
deceiving the Fates* and is expressly 
rebuked by Thanatos for this wrong 
done to the rights of the recognised 
powers that be,*and in the second there 
is no lack of implied scepticism and 
doubt about the justice of the constituted 
order of things which finds explicit 
expression at least once: 

ἄνω ποταμῶν ἱερῶν χωροῦσι παγαί. 

καὶ δίκα καὶ πάντα πάλιν στρέφεται. 

ἀνδράσι μὲν δόλιαι βουλαί, θεῶν δ᾽ 

οὐκέτι πίστις ἄραρε." 

This criticism is not, cf course, so 
violent as it is later to become; but it 
is there from the very outset, although 
implicit more often than explicit. We 
must not forget that Euripides was 
writing for the contemporary stage— 
indeed, actually competing for prizes to 
be allotted by a popular vote—and that 
he would naturally, as a new writer, 
feel his way very carefully at first, and 
try not to alienate his audience by an 
overt attack upon what they held sacred, 


2 Μοίρας δολώσας, Alcestis 12. 
οὐκ ἤρκεσέ σοι μόρον ᾿Αδμήτου | διακωλῦσαι, 
Μοίρας δολίῳ | σφήλαντι τέχνῃ ; Alcestis 33. 
4 Medea 410-413. 


G 


go THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


but gradually to educate them up to 
views which he himself, quite possibly, 
only gradually came to realise as so 
completely inconsistent with the re- 
ceived religion. At any rate, it is rash 
to state that the Alcestis and Medea are 
the work of a poet who ‘acquiesced in the 
generally . accepted beliefs’; and a 
careful reader will find no greater 
difference between them and the Jhi- 
gema Taurica or the Bacchae than he 
will find between the earlier and later 
work of a great modern artist—say 
between Thomas Hardy’s Under the 
Greenwood Tree and his Tess of the 
D’Ubervilles. As Euripides gradually 
‘gained a footing’ on the Athenian 
stage, and as his own inner life de- 
veloped, and he gained a clearer and 
clearer conception of religious truths, 
his criticism of received religion became 
more outspoken and more violent. 
This attack has gained him the name 
of ‘rationalist’; and we are forced to 
conclude that such a ‘ rationalist ’ could 
never have written that glorification of 
Dionysus represented by the Bacchae 
except as a palinode, by way of recan- 
tation, that is to say. But there is no 
such difficulty if we recognise that the 
rationalism of Euripides is only that 
rationalism which is a substratwin, as it 
were, of all idealism. All idealism is, 
of course, rationalistic in so far as it 
finds the sanctions for its morality 
internal, rather than based on external 
authority. Such rationalism—to those 
who cannot understand the personal 
idealism to which it leads—seems, in 
itself, akin te materialism. The attack 
upon received religion is regarded as 
purely destructive—as, indeed, an act 
of impiety ; much in the same way as 
the tenets of a modern idealist, who 
does not believe in the account of the 
Creation given in Genesis, are regarded 
as impious by the conventional mind. 
It was just in this way that Aristo- 
phanes attacked Euripides; he found 
the conventional religion assailed, and 
either could not, or would not, follow 
Euripides to the higher ground of the 
personal religion which he: wished to 


—$—_$_ 


4 Dr. Verrall’s treatment of the A/cestzs in 
his Euripides the Rationalist is sufficient proof 
of this. 


substitute for it. Let us admit that 
rationalism is not fer se impious; it 
may lead and, indeed, with smaller 
minds, generally does lead, to some sort 
of materialism; but it is also the only 
route to idealism through a popularly- 
received religion. Now, there are in 
Euripides plenty of expressions of what 
we may call ‘personal idealism ’—but 
can we take them as expressions of the 
poet’s own views? What about the 
danger of taking any saying of any 
dramatis persona as voicing the poet’s 
personal feeling? Decharme? has pro- 
posed the application of two principles. 
—that if an idea occurs several times in 
plays of different- periods, especially if 
it seems to be one of which the poet 
was peculiarly fond, and that if the 
idea seems brought in for its own sake, 
as it were, without any great relevancy 
either to the dramatic situation or to the 
character of the speaker, then we may 
conclude that such an idea is represen- 
tative of the poet’s personal views. I 
propose a simpler test than this 
thorough-going and scientific mode of 
procedure. We may take as the per- 
sonal views of Euripides any remarks by 
a dvamatis persona with whose attitude he 
has succeeded in making us sympathise. 
Indeed Decharme adds that another cri- 
terion is to be found in our knowledge 
of the character and situation of the 
dramatis persona. Every work of art is 
designed as a whole; any ‘ message” 
which it may contain, any doctrine 
which it may strive to inculcate, will 
not be confined to this or that verbal 
expression, but will be part and parcel 
of the whole effect which the artist 
attempts by his work to produce upon 
the reader. If this or that play of 
Euripides has any effect upon us when 
we read it, inclines our sympathies 
either to this side or that, then we 
may take it that Euripides was enough 
of an artist to have intended that 
effect; and sentiments which are con- 
ducive to that effect, πὸ matter by what 
‘dramatis persona’ they may happen to be 
expressed, may rightly be taken as senti- 
ments expressing the personal views 
of Euripides. On this criterion we 
find a remarkable agreement—in views 


2 Euripide et 1 Esprit de son Thédtre, p. 25 fle 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW gl 


about the gods, etc.—in the remarks of 
all! those dramatis personae for whom 
Euripides succeeds in winning our 
sympathies. Such remarks all tend to 
the discrediting of received religious 
views, but at the same time to the estab- 
lishing of a higher personal standard of 
morality, or of religion, than was ex- 
hibited by the received view; they ex- 
hibit that rationalism which is at the 
bottom, not of materialism, but of 
idealism; they will find the sanctions 
of right and wrong not in any external 
authority of a state-accepted religion, 
but in the φύσις of man himself, in his 
own inner light. If the gods act 
shamefully, they are not gods,” and so 
we cannot believe the disgraceful things 
which the legends attribute to them: 


τὰ Ταντάλου θεοῖσιν ἑστιάματα 

ἄπιστα κρίνω, παιδὸς ἡσθῆναι βορᾷ. 

τοὺς δ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὄντας ἀνθρωποκτόνους, 
εἰς τὴν θεὸν τὸ φαῦλον ἀναφέρειν δοκῶ " 
οὐδένα yap οἷμαι δαιμόνων εἶναι κακόν," 


says Iphigenia. So Heracles, even in 
his agony, will not believe things 
unworthy of them: 

ἐγὼ δὲ τοὺς θεοὺς οὔτε λέκτρ᾽ ἃ μὴ θέμις 

στέργειν νομίζω, δεσμά τ' ἐξάπτειν χεροῖν 

οὔτ᾽ ἠξίωσα πώποτ᾽ οὔτε πείσομαι, 

οὐδ᾽ ἄλλον ἄλλου δεσπότην πεφευκέναι. 

δεῖται γὰρ ὁ θεός, εἴπερ ἔστ᾽ ὀρθῶς θεός, 

οὐδενός - ἀοιδῶν οἵδε δύστηνοι λόγοι." 


Euripides rejects these δύστηνοι λόγοι 
ἀοιδῶν for exactly the same reasons as 
Plato in the Republic rejects them. 
They are inconsistent with man’s innate 
ideas of morality—with that ‘god’ 
within each of us,® to which Theonoé 
appeals: 

ἐγὼ πέφυκά 7’ εὐσεβεῖν καὶ βούλομαι, 

φιλῶ τ᾽ ἐμαυτήν, καὶ κλέος τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς 

οὐκ ἂν μιάναιμ᾽, οὐδὲ συγγόνῳ χάριν 

δοίην ἂν ἐξ ns δυσκλεὴς φανήσεται. 

ἔνεστι δ᾽ ἱερὸν τῆς δίκης ἐμοὶ μέγα 

ἐν τῇ φύσει" 8 - 
and which enables us to accuse the gods 
themselves of injustice, as Creusa does 
in the Jon - 

ὦ Φοῖβε, κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδ᾽ ov δίκαιος εἶ 

ἐς τὴν ἀποῦσαν, ἧς πάρεισιν οἱ λόγοι 

ὃς οὔτ᾽ ἔσωσας τὸν σὸν ὃν σῶσαί σ᾽ ἐχρῆν, 

οὔθ᾽ ἱστορούσῃ μητρὶ μάντις cy ἐρεῖς. 7 


* For the moment I exclude the Bacchae. 
2 εἰ θεοΐ τι δρῶσιν αἰσχρόν, οὐκ εἰσὶν θεοί: 
Fr. 294. 
S 7.) 7. ΤΣ 38). 4 Her. F. 1341-6. 
ὁ νοῦς yap ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἐν ἑκάστῳ θεός, FY. 1007. 


8 Hel. 998. 7 Ton. 384. 


And the conclusion to be drawn from 
Ion’s exclamation 
οὐκέτ᾽ ἀνθρώπους κακῶς 
λέγειν δίκαιον, εἰ τὰ τῶν θεῶν καλὰ 
μιμούμεθ᾽, ἀλλὰ τοὺς διδάσκοντας τάδε 8 

is, of course, not that the gods are 
immoral, but that man has in his own 
φύσις a moral sense higher than that 
attributed to the gods by the δύστηνοι λόγοι 
ἀοιδῶν. Apart from such travesties, we 
see their true nature in their punishment 
of evil-doers,® their hatred of violence,!° 
and the victory of justice over injustice." 
From such passages we may conclude 
that Euripides himself, while disbeliev- 
ing in the anthropomorphic religion of 
the popular imagination, yet believed in 
some divine power manifested in the 
universe. Whatever this power is, it is 
not anthropomorphic; and it is both 
just and righteous. Sometimes he 
speaks of it much as a Pantheist might 
do 


ὁρᾷς Tov ὑψοῦ τόνδ᾽ ἄπειρον αἰθέρα 

καὶ γῆν πέριξ ἔχονθ᾽ ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις ; 

τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ᾽ ἡγοῦ θεόν" 13 
though he is more often content to leave 
its nature quite undefined 


ὅστις ποτ᾽ εἶ σύ, δυστόπαστος εἰδέναι, 

Ζεύς, εἴτ᾽ ἀνάγκη φύσεος εἴτε νοῦς βροτῶν 13 
for it is difficult for man to attain 
certainty in such matters.4 


Now idealism of this nature very easily 
passes—especially with a poetic tem- 
perament—into mysticism ; and this is 
peculiarly likely to happen as a man 
approaches old age. Just as a base 
nature in the hey-day of youth, in all the 
glory of its arrogant strength, finds it 
easy to scoff at the gods, but—as Plato 
tells us—when the thought of death 
approaches, is tortured with fear lest 
there may be something after all in the 
stories about punishment in the next 
world, so a nobler nature will fearlessly 
follow the promptings of its ideal φύσις, 
even when those promptings lead to a 
rejection of commonly-received religious 
truth, so long as the confidence of 
strength is with it; but with advancing 
years it loses something of its confidence, 
and feels, more and more often, those 
doubts and questionings to which the 


8 7024. 449. 9 Troad 885. 
10 Her. Fur. 62. 11 Jon 1117-18. 
12 Fr, 941. 13 Suppl. 504.7 ‘4 Hel. 903. 


92 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


well-known chorus in the Hzppolytus 
gives expression 
ξύνεσιν δέ τιν᾽ ἐλπίδι κεύθων 
λείπομαι ἔν τε τυχαῖς θνατῶν καὶ ἐν ἔργμασι λεύσσων " 
ἄλλα γὰρ ἄλλοθεν ἀμείβεται, 
μετὰ δ᾽ ἵσταται ἀνδράσιν αἰὼν 
πολυπλάνητος ἀεί.1 
At such times such a nature is likely to 
find a symbolical, or mystic, truth in 
doctrine which, upon a cruder and more 
literal interpretation, it rejected outright 
in the confidence of younger years.? 
Such is the spirit of the Bacchae 
σοφὸν δ᾽ ἀπέχειν πραπίδα φρένα τε 
περισσῶν παρὰ φωτῶν" 
τὸ πλῆθος ὅ τι τὸ φαυλότερον 
ἐνόμισε χρῆταί τε, τόδ᾽ ἂν δεχοίμαν "8 
and it is best to see what is good in 
acknowledged doctrine and not try to 
set oneself up above it 
οὐ 
_ yap κρεῖσσόν ποτε τῶν νόμων 
γι γνώσκειν χρὴ καὶ μελετᾶν. 
κούφα γὰρ δαπάνα νομί- 
ζειν ἰσχὺν τόδ᾽ ἔχειν, 
ὅ τι ποτ᾽ ἄρα τὸ δαιμόνιον, 
_ τό τ’ ἐν χρόνῳ μακρῷ 
νόμιμον ἀεὶ φύσει τε πεφυκός. 
Passages such as theselead Dr. Thomson 
to say that Euripides ‘wearied with 
questionings and heart-searchings which 
led to no definite or satisfactory issue, 


1 Hipp. 1103. 

2 Cf. the rejection by thinking undergraduates 
of some Christian dogmas which a maturer 
judgment and riper reflection leads theologians 
of equal intellectual sincerity to retain. 

3 Bacchae 417. 

.* Bacchae 890. 


seems to have come to the conclusion 
that his task was a bootless one and his 
labour lost, that his philosophic doubt 
was barren of benefit either to himself 
or to others, and that even an avowedly 
imperfect religion was perhaps better 
than none.’® But this, I submit, is to 
give a wrong emphasis to things, to 
imply that Euripides had no religion 
before he wrote the Bacchae (which is 
not true) andto take the religious fervour 
of that play as the abandonment of 
despair rather than the glorious outburst 
of fruition. 

There is one more point that I steal 
like to add. It seems to me that the 
moraland religious teaching of Euripides 
is in conformity with that of contem- 
porary philosophical speculation as 
represented by Socrates and Plato. 
But he is said to be ‘opposed to the 
dictum οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν κακός. If we mean 
by this that man has no moral responsi- 
bility for his vice, but is helpless in the 
hands of ἀνάγκη, then, of course, 
Euripides is opposed to it; but if we 
mean by it what Socrates and Plato 
meant—that no man, who thoroughly 
understands what being κακός implies, 
would voluntarily choose to become 
such—then Euripides is by no means 
opposed to it. 

R.. B. ALE eee 


5 ἌΓΕΝ andl the Altic Or ἜΣ p- a, 
6 W.H.S. Jones, Zhe Moral Standpoint of 
Euripides, p. 31. 


THE BIRDS OF DIOMEDE. 


LeT me add a note or two to Dr. 
Warde Fowler’s article in the last 
number of the Class. Rev., and let it be 
done in a spirit of penitence, for I dealt ill 
by the Birds of Diomede when I wrote my 
Glossary of Greek Birds some five-and- 
twenty years ago. That Dr. Fowler is 
right in identifying these birds with 
Shearwaters I thoroughly believe; but 
after all, though various commentators 
have gone astray,} the roots of this 
identification are old. 


——— 


1 Otto Keller (Antike Thierwelt, 11. |p. 235) 
dentifies the bird with the Sheldrake (ites 
Lair L.), his argument being (like that of 


The Shearwaters of the Diomedean 
Islands, or Isole de’ Tremiti, were well 
known to a society of Augustinian friars 
resident of old upon the islands, and it 
was they who sent the bird to Gesner, 
and again afterwards to Aldrovandi; we 
may take it that they were interested in 
and attached to their birds all the more 
that S. Augustine had more than once 
referred to them in the De Civitate Det. 
Aldrovandi is not quite certain that 
these are the original Birds of Diomede, 
for after refuting various other opinions 


Dr. Warde Fowler) that the Bhetdaiee makes 
its nest ina burrow. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


(such as Belon’s that they were pelicans) 
he adds ‘ea forte avis quam . . . Can- 
onici regulares D. Augustini Laterani 
nonnullis abhinc annis mihi trans- 
miserunt Diomedea fuerit’; and then 
he goes on to describe and to figure the 
Shearwater in unmistakeable fashion 


(Ornith. ili. p. 58, 1637); Gesner had _ 


likewise described it as the Bird of 
Diomede, in the Paralipomena to his 
Ormthology (111. p. 771, 1555). Beck- 
mann, in his edition of the De Mirabili- 
bus Auscultationibus (clxxx), was well 
aware of this identification, and Heyne 
also was inclined to accept it, though 
he desired more information and 
evidence. Linnaeus was not far off 
the mark when he gave the name Dio- 
medea to an Albatross; and lastly Mr. 
A. H. Evans, in his edition of Turner 
(1903), says of Pliny’s story of the Birds 
of Diomede, that ‘apparently Shear- 
waters of some species are meant.’ 

‘We may perhaps go a little further 
than Dr. Fowler has done in the way 
of bringing the ancient accounts of the 
Birds of Diomede into relation with the 
known habits of the Shearwater: and 
firstly, as to Pliny’s account, given on 
the authority of Juba. The passage 
is a much better description of the 
Shearwater’s nest than appears from the 
version quoted by Dr. Fowler; and, by 
the way, Dr. Fowler has made a curious 
slip in ascribing this to ‘our oldest 
English ornithologist,’ instead of to his 
recent editor and translator. The bird 
does not ‘ dig furrows with his beak, and 
cover them with wattle-work;’ for 
scrobes are (of course) holes, such as 
one plants trees in, just as scrobiculi are 
little holes to dibble bulbs in ; and these 
holes were not roofed in, but bestrewn, 
or lined, or floored with some sort of 
loose twiggy stuff, crate constrati. ‘ They 
make a slight nest,’ says Hewitson, ‘of 
dry plants, usually about the depth ofa 
man’s arm from theentrance of the hole, 
although sometimes a good deal beyond 
hisreach.’ The laborious construction 
or excavation of this bird-city of sub- 
terranean dwellings is aptly likened by 
Lycophron (y. 601) to the fabled build- 
ing of Thebes, ἀγυιοπλαστήσαντες ἐμ- 
πέδοις τομαῖς}, πυκνὰς καλιάς, Ζῆθον 
ἐκμιμούμεναι. As to Pliny’s (or Juba’s) 
statement that the birds have teeth (e7s 


s 


93 


esse dentes, oculosque igneo colore), it is a 
hard saying, and devoid of all cor- 
roboration; the sense is bad, and the 
Latin of the sentence is not very good. 
I am inclined to question the text, and 
I think we might consider some such a 
reading as <ccan>dentes oculos; this 
would agree with Aldrovandi’s state- 
ment, ‘oculi autem Artennae nostrae 
mirum quantum ad instar flammae 
splendeant.’ Their lamentable cry, the 
fact that ‘scopulos lacrymosis vocibus 
implent,’ is abundantly confirmed. To 
Colonel Fielden at Malta it sounded 
like 6wyah, dwyah.t Lord Lilford mis- 
took it for the lowing of a pack of seals ; 
it is the same wailing nocturnal cry that 
makes the Turks at Constantinople call 
them ‘damned souls’ (as Dr. Stanley, 
the bird-loving Bishop of Norwich and 
many others have told us); and Berna- 
detto Cochorella, in his description of 
the Isole de’ Tremiti (quoted by Beck- 
mann), uses almost the very Virgilian 
words, ‘sub primum noctis crepusculum, 
scopulos aestate clamoribus implent : earum 
garritus velutt vox vaginantis infantult,’ 
etc. Gesner tells us how a certain 
Duke of Urbino, visiting the monastery, 
‘cum noctu harum avium vocem audi- 
visset, infantium esse vagitus putavisse 2 
so that the good friars fell under his 
displeasure, ‘donec ave ab illis illato, et 
praesentis audito clamore, se deceptum 
intellexisse.” 

The gracious welcome which the 
birds extended to Greek visitors, 
stripped of fable, means no more than 
that they were tame and _ fearless. 
They sit so close on their one egg that 
they may be lifted off by the hand. 
And Professor Angelini, describing the 
great flocks fishing in the Straits of 
Messina (‘una scena ed uno brulichio 
indescrivibile’) goes on to say ‘Colla 
mia barca mi spinsi in mezzo a loro, e 
non si mostravano per nulla timorosi.’ 
Only after many had been shot did the 
rest move slowly away. ‘At night they 
circled round the yacht like great bats,’ 
says Colonel Fielden; and we are 
reminded (without pressing the parallel 
too far) of Ovid’s ‘ numerisque et agmine 


+ Hence the name of ‘ Cahow-bird,’ applied 
to a species of Shearwater once immensely 
abundant, now extinct or nearly so, in the 
Bermudas. 


94 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


maior | Subvolat et vemos plausis circum- 
sonat alis’ (Met. xiv. 506). 

Lastly, it is a very curious and 
exceptional habit of the Shearwaters to 
dive with outspread wings and to rise 
again with wings still fully extended, 
and so to repeat the manoeuvre again 
and again.! This isa pretty point for us: 
for it is nothing less than the origin and 
explanation of the legend that they 
asperge or besprinkle with water the 
temple and the tomb of Diomede, 
‘aedemque eam quotidie . « . madentibus 
pennis perluunt et purificant’ (Pliny). 

In my Glossary, I took the Birds of 
Diomede to be herons, 7.e. ἐρωδιοί 
(sensu stricto), influenced, however 
wrongly, by various considerations: 
by the definite statement of Aelian 
(H.A.i,.1) καλεῖταί τις Διομήδεια νῆσος, 
καὶ ἐρωδιοὺς ἔχει πολλούς: by the 
similar statement of Antigonus; by the 
authority of S. Augustine, of Isidore, of 
Servius and of Tzetzes; and also by 
certain apparent coincidences in the 
mythology of ἐρωδιός. But ἐρωδιός, 
and ardea also, are very difficult words, 
much more so than we are apt to think 
them—as difficult indeed as fulica, or as 
mevgus; and it is more than probable 
that in classical times, as well as later, 
they were applied to various birds, in 
various places, times, or circumstances. 
Aldrovandi is within the mark in saying 
(op. cit. p. 365) ‘ Eandem tamen dictionem 
alii aliter vertunt. Etenim Erodium 
aliqui putarunt esse avem ex us quas 
Romam Diomedeas vocant ; et Ornitholo- 
gus [t.e. Gesner| Diomedeas . . . ex 
Ardearum genere esse contendit, etc.’ 
That the Diomedean Birds, or Shear- 
waters, were actually called ardeae, and 
perhaps also ἐρωδιοί, is in part indicated 
by the survival of the name Artenae— 
‘tanguam ardeae’ as Gesner says. And 
if Avtena seem somewhat remote from 
ardea, we find the nearer form A rdenna 
still in use in the neighbourhood of 
Ancona, as Giglioli tells us.” 


1 Cf. (e.g.) ἘΞ. A, Wilson, Report of National 
Antarctic Expedition, Aves, iv., p. 80, 1907. 

2 Giglioli (Juchiesta ornit. in Italia ; parte 
seconda, Avifauna Italica, p. 527) gives Artera 
as the vernacular name at present in Southern 
Italy (Puglio, Bari) : may one not suspect here 
a misprint for Artena? Reichenbach, in his 
Systema Avium (1850-52, p. iv; cf also his 


But Giglioli also gives us, as the 
common popular name of this sea-bird 
at Naples and at Lucca, the word 
Pallante, or Fallante in the island of 
Giglio in S. Italy. There is no end to 
the interest which lies, as it seems to 
me, in the rich vocabulary of Italian 
bird and beast names, and the surviving 
links in Southern Italy with the old 
language of Magna Graecia are innu- 
merable. Pallante can scarcely be other 
than the ‘Bird of Pallas,’ or Pallas 
herself ; and so, coming back to ardea 
and to ἐρωδιός, we are led to think of 
that ἐρωδιός in the Iliad, which Pallas 
Athene sent as her messenger to Odys- 
seus and to Diomede: τοῖσι δὲ δεξιὸν 
ἧκεν ἐρωδιὸν ἐγγὺς ὁδοῖο | ἸΙΠαλλὰς 
᾿Αθηναίη. The heroes only knew it by 
its harsh cry, τοὶ δ᾽ οὐκ ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσι. 
| Νύκτα δι’ ὀρφναίην, ἀλλὰ κλάγξαντος 
ἄκουσαν: and 50 commentators, deter- 
mined to make it out a Heron, have 
suggested the Night-heron (Ardea Nyctt- 
corax, L.). But now it seems to me 
likely, perhaps even plain, that it was 
after all the self-same Shearwater, at 
once a bird of Athene, and a bird of 
Diomede. 

We may go, though it may seem 
venturesome, farther yet. What was 
that mysterious ὄρνις ἀνοπαῖα in the 
Odyssey, in whose likeness Athene flew 


away? Ithink it may very well have 
been the same FPallante, or Shear- 
water; and if so there may be 


more than we thought for in the old 
Grammarian’s explanation of the word, 
παρὰ τὸ διατρίβειν ἐν ταῖς ὀπαῖς--- 
which brings back Pliny’s description 
of the subterranean dwelling once more 
to our minds. i 

Though Virgil describes so aptly the 
lamentable crying, the vox lacrymosa of 
thesbird, it by no means follows that 
he was well and fully acquainted with 
it; itis possible enough that he bor- 
rowed this as so many other similes: 
as he took, for instance, from Theo- 
critus his ἔστενε τρυγών, and drew from 
Aratus his weather-prophecies of the 
birds. His phrase ‘ fluminibusque vagan- 
tur aves’ suggests to Dr. Fowler’s mind 


Synopsis Avium, pl. ix. figs. 768-770), mentions 
‘ Ardenna, Aldrovandi,’ as aname of the Shear- 
water. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 95 


that ‘the birds did not confine them- 
selves to islands, but might stray up 
rivers, 6.5. the Aufidus.’ For my own 
part I am rather inclined to suspect 
that Virgil was just a little confused as 
to his bird; and that here he was 
mixing it up with the real -Heron, or 
ἐρωδιός, which, in Aristotle’s words, 
Tapa Tas λίμνας Kal τοὺς ποταμοὺς 
βιοτεύει, and whose ποίας paludes Virgil 
knew very well. 

The identification of the Birds of Dio- 
mede is tantamount to an identification, 
so far as Juba and Pliny are concerned, 
of the καταῤῥάκτης. This is a most 
perplexing bird-name, and has_ been 
ascribed by commentators to all sorts of 
birds, to the Cormorant, the Solan 
Goose, the Eared Grebe, etc. The 
accounts are largely intermixed with 
fable, and are otherwise obviously 
inaccurate, but I fancy that the Shear- 
water was at the bottom of most of 
them. 

Another of the curious modern Italian 
bird-names is Apu, applied (according 
to Giglioli) to the Shearwater and also 
to a certain kind of Gull. I think 
it just possible that an echo of αἴθυια 
lingers in the word. Ai@ua is a very 
hard word, and (like Catarrhactes) its 
meaning has all along perplexed and 
puzzled the commentators. We have 
very little evidence to go upon, for the 
many references to Ai@ua are almost 
all poetical and vague, and however 
accurate we may find the poets now and 
then, I fancy that often enough they 
cared little, and possibly knew less, of 
the bird to which this or that name 
belonged; one bird was well-nigh as 
good as another, and you need not ask 
too many questions: sz volucrum quae 
sit subttarum forma requiris Ut non 
cycnorum sic albis proxima cycnis, etc. 
But we are told by Pausanias (i, 5, 3; 
1, 41, 6) that αἴθυια was a title or epithet 
of Athene—a close parallel to ‘ Pallante.’ 
Again, the αἴθυια was, as we all know, 
the bird into which Ino turned, ἣ πρὶν 
μὲν ἔην βροτὸς αὐδήεσσα. And lastly, 
the flesh of αἴθυια, as Galen tells us (De 
fac. simpl. med., xi) and also Philostratus 
(Icon. 2, 17), was peculiarly unsavoury 
or nauseous, as we have been assured, 
ever since Gesner’s time, that that of 
the Shearwater (save only as a nestling) 


is. The reputation of αἴθυια in this 
respect was precisely that of mergus— 
‘si quis nunc mergos suaves edixerit 
assos,’ etc.; and Giglioli tells us (of. czt., 
p. 316) that margin is nowadays the 
local name for the Shearwater at 
Spezzia. We may take it that in all 
probability the Shearwater was at least 
one of the birds which went by the name 
of Mergus in antiquity,’ as it is one, 
and only one, of the birds which do so 
to-day. And the more we think of the 
references to mergus, the more we shall 
find among them allusions and phrases 
which suit the Shearwater very well: 
even such as the familiar lines ‘Cum 
medio celeres revolant ex aequore mergi, 
Clamoremque ferunt ad littora.’ 

And so it seems that we have easily 
brought together, by various criss-cross 
threads of evidence (to which I might 
add a few more, if space permitted), a 
whole string or group of bird-names, one 
more puzzling to scholars than another, 
and not one of which admits of safe and 
simple definition by direct evidence. 
But every one of them points, whether 
clearly or obscurely, somehow to the 
Shearwater, either as a specific meaning 
or as part of a looser and more general 
signification. For my own part the 
simple fact is that, when I wrote my 
Glossary, I was little aware of the 
important réle which the Shearwaters 
play in the Mediterranean, and little 
acquainted with their many striking 
peculiarities. They passed in all prob- 
ability under various names, some local 
some poetical, in ancient times as they 
still do in modern Italy; and some of 
these names, apparently specific, were 
undoubtedly applied to more birds than 
one, as we-again find to be the case (for 
instance in the various derivatives of 
mergus) in vernacular Italian. Our little 
group of bird-names includes, among the 
rest, ἐρωδιός and αἴθυια, ardea and iergus. 
Precisely these names (together with the 
more or less generic λάρος) are constantly 
mixed up by the glossographers. Thus 
we havein Philoxenus (Goetz, 11. 24, 
etc.), ‘ardea: ἐρωδιός, λάρος; again 


1 Mergus, in Plin. x. 65 (47), is a Skua Gull: 
‘inter aquaticas mergi soliti sunt devorare quae 
cetera reddunt.’ In Plin. x. 48 (33) it is a 
Cormorant : ‘ mergi et in arboribus nidificant,’ 
etc, 


96 -s THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


‘ fulica glossed by λάρος, ἐρωδιός, αἴθυια, 
etc.; again ‘mergus: αἴθυια, αὐτὴς ὄρνις, 
and so forth. At first sight there seems 
to be almost indiscriminate ascription 
anda very tangle of error; but in reality 
_ there is a genuine thread of interconnec- 
tion, of which we can now, in part at 
least, discern the clue. 

A singularly interesting case is the 
Abstrusa gloss ‘mergi: corvt marine’ 
(Goetz, iv. 538, 1). Up to now we have 
talked of the Shearwaters in a general 
way, without attempting to discriminate 
between their species, of which the chief 
(for our purposes) are the large Pujfinius 
kuhli, and the little P. anglorum, our 

»Manx Shearwater.? Both are abundant 
in the Mediterranean, and pass, for the 
most part, under identical vernacular 
names. But Giglioli tells us that in 
Genoa the Little (or Manx) Shearwater, 
much darker in colour than the other, 
is called, precisely, crovo dit ma (corvo 
di mare) negro ; and there can be little 
doubt that it is to this bird that the 
Abstrusa gloss applies: with which 
gloss we may also compare the 
Hesychian κορῶναι Ceiv>adat: αἴθυιαι, 
κολυμβίδεςς. In like manner, Canon 
Tristram suggested (Cambridge Comp. 
to Greek Studies, 1904, p. 32) that κορώνη 
ἡ θαλάσσιος was the Little Shearwater, 
as against my hesitating suggestion 
that it might be the Little Cormorant, 
Phalacrocorax pygmaeus. A flood of new 
light is immediately thrown on a number 
of passages, hitherto obscure, by this 
evidence of a connexion between the 


1 No group of birds is more puzzling to the 
systematist than the Shearwaters, and ornitho- 
logists are not agreed as to the specific dis- 
tinctions. 20. ἀμ 42 is the representative in the 
Mediterranean of our great Shearwater, a large 
light-coloured bird. The small Shearwater of 
the Mediterranean, black upon the back, is 
usually distinguished as 20. yelkouan; but 
Giglioli and others consider it identical with 
our Manx Shearwater. 


Birds of Diomede and the Sea-crow, 
and by the implied suggestion of a 
discrimination between names (such as 
αἴθυια) for the Large, and others (such 
as κορώνη ἡ θαλάσσιος and its equiva- 
lents) for the Little Shearwater. We 
can now understand the association of 
mergus and cormx in such passages as 
Claudian’s ‘ Heu nimium segnes, cauta 
qui mente notatis, Si revolant mergi, 
graditur si littore cornix ’ (De B.G. 492). 
We understand also the κορῶνα: εἰνάλιαι 
of the Odyssey (v.66), τανύγλωσσοι . . - 
τῆσίν τε θαλάσσια ἔργα μέμηλεν ; and 
the simile of the Iliad (xii. 418, etc.) οἱ 
δὲ κορώνῃσιν ἴκελοι περὶ νῆα pédawwar | 
κύμασιν ἐμφορέοιτο. Weare confirmed 
in our suspicion that it is no common 
crow or jackdaw, but is this seabird of 
ours that ‘plena pluvium vocat improba 
voce, Et sola in sicca secum spatiatur 
avena’; and we follow the same clue 
still more confidently -among the 
weather-prophecies of Theophrastus, 
Aratus, and others; for instance in the 
Geoponica (i. 3, 7), where we also note 
the nocturnal habit of the bird: καὶ 
κορώνη ἐπ᾽ αἰγιαλοῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν δια- 
βρέχουσα, ἢ πᾶσα νηχομένη, καὶ νυκτὸς 
σφοδρότερον κρώζουσα, ὄμβρους προμη- 
VUEL. 

Lastly we rediscover, in Arrian’s 
Periplus, a manifest allusion to the 
Shearwaters—the two Shearwaters— 
under the names αἴθυιαι and κορώναι, 
for their peculiar habit is recalled of 
dropping water from their outspread 
wings, under the guise of a legend pre- 
cisely similar to that of the Temple of 
Diomede: οὗτοι of ὄρνιθες θεραπεύου- 
σιν τοῦ ᾿Αχιλλέως τὸν νεών. ἕωθεν ὁση- 
μέραι καταπέτονται ἐς τὴν θάλασσαν" 
ἔπειτα ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης βεβρεγμένοι 
τὰ πτερὰ σπουδῇ αὖ ἐσπέτονται ἐς τὸν 
νεών, καὶ ῥαίνουσι τὸν νεών. 

D’ArRcy WENTWORTH THOMPSON. 

St. Andrews. 


THE CLASSICAL, REVIEW |! 97 


NOTE ON THE PERVIGILIUM VENERIS. 


TuoseE who wish to enjoy this splendid 
poem must read it in one of Professor 
Mackail’s Versions (the last one is to 
be found in Mr. S. G. Owen’s Catullus, 
Loeb Classics) and study it in Mr. 
Clementi’s edition (Blackwell, Oxford). 
It is presumptuous for a casual reader 
to try even to supplement their labours ; 
and yet, though we have now a better 
text of the poem than the world has 
seen for 1,200 years at least, the reading 
of the facsimiles of the two existing 
MSS., which are given in Mr. Clementi’s 
volume, makes it clear that we still 
have not secured our final version of 
this charming composition. Both of 
these MSS. were copied from a faulty 
original, the same or of the same type 
for both copyists as Mr. Clementi shows, 
and both contain also many errors for 
which the writers are themselves re- 
sponsible. Examples of the former 
class of error are ‘ Pervirgilium’ (for 
‘ Pervigilium’) in both superscriptions, 
‘gazas’ or ‘gaza’ (for ‘casas in v. 5), 
‘floribus ’ (for floridis ’ in v. 13), ‘ vernis’ 
(for veris’ in v. 60), ‘fletus’ or ‘ flaetus’ 
(for ‘ foetus’ in v. 62), almost the whole 
of v. 50, ‘Romuli matrem’ (in v. 74), 
above all ‘aonii’ (for ‘tauri’ in v. 81); 
in all of these places the readings found 
in both MSS. are clearly impossible, 
and in all of them the right readings 
can be recovered with almost complete 
certainty. As examples of the second 
class of error, it is sufficient to point 
out that neither clerk succeeded in re- 
producing the refrain correctly through- 
out the poem, the writer of S failing 
in this respect twice and the writer of 
T four times in a total of eleven lines. 
The general result is that the two 
clerks, copying from the same or nearly 
the same MS. and sometimes agreeing 
in copying errors, yet differ from each 
other in the case of at least 150 words 
though the composition contains only 
93 lines. 

And yet it is clear that each clerk 
tried honestly to copy the MS. before 
him, for it is impossible to explain 
otherwise the occurrence in both MSS. 
of such phrases as ‘et micanat’ (or 
*mecanat ’) for ‘en (or ‘et’) micant,’ 
‘facta (or ‘fusta’) prius de’ for (I 


think) ‘facta de ipsius,’ and ‘ explicat 
aonii’’ for ‘explicant tauri.’ No one 
can read the facsimiles and the collation 
of the two MSS. given by Mr. Clementi 
without realising the necessity for 
drastic emendation of both texts, and 
yet I believe that such emendation 
should be attempted within certain 
limits only; I believe that the MSS. 
retain always some shadowy form or 
ghost of the right reading, and especially 
that they preserve, except in the case 
of one or more probably of two lines, 
the original order of the composition. 
Inconsistently, then, I suggest two 
amendments of the text; there is no 
doubt about the meaning of v. 23 which 
begins in both MSS. ‘ facta (or ‘ fusta’) 
prius de cruore,’ and which is amended 
by reading ,.for.,, prius,'!,, \Cypridisy:. 

(Buechner) ‘ Veneris’? (Mackail) or 

‘Paphies’ (Clementi); but surely the 

‘ prius ’ conceals ‘ ipsius’ (since ‘ Venus’ 

is ‘ Dione’ or ‘ipsa’ throughout the 

poem), and, if so, the author wrote 

‘facta de ipsius cruore,’ which, in order 

to avoid the elision of a monosyllable 

(cf. v. 91), was changed to ‘ipsius de’ 

and then corrupted. My other sugges- 

tion is in regard to a more difficult 

passage, ‘Romuli matrem ’of v. 74. 

Transposition has been freely attempted 

in order to amend the paragraph wv. 

69-74. 

‘ipsa Trojanos nepotes in Latinos transtulit ; 
ipsa Laurentem puellam conjugem nato dedit; 
moxque Marti de sacello dat pudicam vir- 

ginem ; 
Romuleas ipsa fecit cum Sabinis nuptias ; 
unde Ramnes et Quirites proque prole pos- 
terum 
Romuli matrem crearet et nepotem Caesarem ?’ 
Professor Mackail amends to ‘ Romu- 
lum patrem’ in the last line, and both 
he and Mr. Clementi re-arrange the 
lines in various ways. But all the 
transpositions fail to remove the diffi- 
culties of the passage ; for the ‘ Ramnes’ 
and ‘Quirites’ were descendants of 

Romulus’ soldiers and the Sabine 

women more properly than they were 

descendants of any other personages 
mentioned in the paragraph, and in the 

MSS. version the events are stated 

according to the strict chronological 

order ; the author in vv. 69-72 mentions 


98 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


four historical (or legendary) events in 
their proper sequence, then in wv. 73, 
74 he seems to be summing up the 
whole course of Roman history. The 
original phrase, of which ‘ Romuli 
matrem’ is a corruption must have 
applied to some person or persons who 
was or were representative of the period 
of the Roman Republic. ‘Romulum 
patrem (Mackail) does not seem to clear 
up the difficulties of the paragraph, 
wherever lines 73, 74 are placed, and I 
suggest that the author wrote ‘ Romuli 
Patres’ or, with less probability, 
‘Romulam gentem.’ In the former 
case the translation is ‘ that she might 
bring into existence the Ramnes and 
Quirites, and as descendants of Romu- 
lus afterwards the Senators and Caesar, 


his latest descendant’; in the latter . 


case the-author (whose familiarity with 
classical writers is pointed out by Mr. 
Clementi) is recalling Horace C. IV. 5, 
1, C.S. 47, and a very easy translation 
results : ‘ Romulus’ would be the proper 
adjective with ‘ gens’ as ‘ Romuleus’ 
would be with ‘nuptiae.’ ‘ Romulo 
Patres (for rhythm) and‘ posteram 
Romuli gentem’ (for lucidity) are very 
attractive alternatives for these two 
suggestions. 

Yet I plead for accepting the form of 
the composition as given by the MSS. 
with a minimum of’ rearrangement. 
There is one undoubted case where a 
line must be transposed, viz. v. 58 
(‘et recentibus,’ etc.), an error whose 
source is explained by Mr. Clementi, 
and the line is undoubtedly restored 
to its right place when it is inserted 
between vy. 39 and 4o. The succeeding 


line of the MSS. v. 59 (‘cras erit quum 
primus Aether,’ etc.) should probably 
be transposed also, and, if so, it should 
stand, as most editors place it, between 
vv. 8 and g; but I cannot see that any 
further transpositions improve the text 
in any way ; I do not trust the writers 
at all in such a matter, but I do not 
find that any of the suggested transposi- 
tions improve the logical sequence of 
the thoughts expressed, while all of 
them seem to me to impair the poetical 
representation of them. In especial I 
believe that the two clerks placed, 
though they could not copy, the refrain 
correctly; in’ Virgil, Catullus, “and 
Theocritus a refrain regularly occurs at 
unequal intervals, marking (except in 
its last occurrence at the end of the 
poem) the beginning of a new paragraph 
in the composition; and this seems to 
be the method used in the Pervigiliwm. 

The poem clearly had a great vogue 
for several centuries; it will be read 
again largely whenever it becomes 
known, as it has become accessible, and 
when its text again assumes a settled 
form. 


P.S.—The possibility of retaining the 
MS. reading with the substitution only 
of ‘ prosperam’ for ‘ posterum’ in v. 73 
should also be considered. A _ better 
scholar than myself doubts whether the 
Latin can be translated as IJ translate it, 
but the result, if it is possible, is attrac- 
tive ‘that she might bring to life the 
R. and Q., and make fortunate in their 
offspring both the mother of Romulus 
and his descendant Caesar.’ 


Jc AP ORT: 


TERENTIANA. 


THE QUESTION OF PLAGIARISM IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE Euwucuus. 


AFTER the aediles had bought the 
rights of Terence’s play, Luscius 
managed to be present at the rehearsal 
and interrupted the performance with a 
loud protest : 


23. Exclamat furem, non poetam, fabulam 
dedisse et nil dedisse uerborum tamen : 


Colacem esse Naevi, et Plauti ueterem 
fabulam ; 
Parasiti personam inde ablatam et militis. 


Ver. 25 has long been matter of dispute. 
Some have held that the Colax was 
produced in collaboration between 
Naevius and Plautus; others, that 


THE CLASSICAL’ REVIEW 99 


Plautus modernised Naevius’ version. 
The former view seems unlikely, because 
the fact is unexampled (Fabia); the 
latter because Plautus only outlived 

Naevius by fifteen years: a play would 

hardly go out of date so soon. The 

punctuation which I have given above 
represents Vissering’s explanation: viz., 

‘the Colax is by Naevius, and there is 

an old play by Plautus: it is from these 

that Terence has stolen the characters 
of the Parasite and the Soldier.’ This 
accounts for the plural eas fabulas in 

ver. 33. . 

But Fabia objects that it would be 
odd of Luscius to name Naevius’ play 
and only vaguely to designate that of 
Plautus. The objection is not insoluble, 
for it would be evident enough what 
play of Plautus’ was intended, and 
Terence actually uses the words mules 
gloriosus in ver. 31. It seems to me 
more credible that Luscius’ protest, or 
Terence’s report of that protest, was as 
Vissering took it, than that Plautus 
should have modernised one of Naevius’ 
pieces, and the piece be described as 
belonging to them both. 

Such then was the charge; what is 
Terence’s reply? ‘If there is a fault, 
itis a fault of inadvertence.’ And he 
proceeds to justify this defence : 

30. Colax Menandri est ; in east parasitus colax 
et miles gloriosus. Eas se non negat 
personas transtulisse in Eunuchum suam 
ex Graeca ; sed eas fabulas factas prius 
Latinas scisse 5656, id uero perneygat. 

35. guod si personis eisdem huic uti non licet, 
quid magis licet currentem seruom scribere, 
bonas matronas facere, meretrices malas 


[parasitum edacem, gloriosum militem], 
etc. 


(The last verse is bracketed by Loman, 
Dziatzko, and other modern editors.) 
That is to say: 


“The Colax belongs to Menander—not to 
Naevius. From the original Greek, and not 
from Naevius’ Co/ax, I borrowed not only the 
character of Gnatho but also that of Thraso, 
my mzles gloriosus, who does not derive from 
Plautus’ wetus fabula. The borrowing from 
Menander I do not deny: it is a case of con- 
taminatio, which is allowed: what I do most 
stoutly deny (fernego) is . . . what?” 


Οὐχ text makes Terence deny that he 
knew of the existence of Naevius’ ver- 
sion of Colax and Plautus’ Miles Gloviosus. 
This is so absurd that Fabia (Introd. 


pp. 65-6) roundly accuses Terence of a 
clumsy lie. Is such enormous clumsi- 
ness credible, even if Terence’s veracity 
were no higher than Fabia rates it? 
For mark how he continues: ‘if stock 
characters may not lawfully be used, 
then what becomes of your seruos 
currens, οἷς. Ὁ And in fact the New 
Comedy is all made of stock characters. 
Whether or no he knew of Naevius’ 
and Plautus’ plays, his line of defence 
is unimpaired: then why go out of his 
way to deny? Is it not inconceivable 
that a man of letters could tell his 
audience that he had never heard of 
Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus? And what 
about his noble collaborators ? 

The real suspicion then falls not on 
the word fabulas in ver. 33, which 
Fabia, following Ritschl, alters to ab 
aliis, but on scisse in 34. And just here 
it jumps with a palaeographical sus- 
picion, for (taking Umpfenbach’s appa- 
ratus) we find: 


As) SCISSE SESE prius SE induxtt 
4077. FCC. 
D. scisse se™. 
Β(Ο ?)EP: scissé se. 
G. scisse se. 


The reading of G (Decurtatus) indi- 
cates an archetypal SCISSE: first SE, 
then SESE was thrown in to fill upa 
hole in the metre. The hole was caused 
by the shrinking of 

LATINAS ASCIVISSE or LATINAS SE 
ASCIVISSE into LATINAS SCIVISSE. 


If Terence wrote this, his argument is 
at least consistent, and he cannot be 
accused of lying: ‘he has borrowed 
personae from Menander’s Colax, but he 
has not appropriated the pre-existing 
Latin versions (eas fabulas factas pris 
Latinas) of Colax by Naevius or of 
Alazon by Plautus. 

For the offending scisse sese one might 
also suggest astulisse, which would agree 
well with ablatuwm in ver. 26; but the 
corruption does not thus explain itself 
so readily. 

On the other hand, no other instance 
of ascisco is found in Terence or in 
Plautus; if the tragic poet quoted by 
Cicero, Tusc. II. τὸς 23, 


louisque numen Mulcibré adsciutt manus 


I0o 


be Accius, he is the earliest author who 
can be cited for the word; otherwise 
the record goes no higher than Cicero 
himself. He has it often, and the 
archaising school (Sallust, Fronto, 
Apuleius) affect it. Rescisco is of course 
common in Terence. 


DL 
Heautontimorumenos 600-607 (and 
Ad. 216: 
SyR. .. . Fuit quaedam anus Corinthia 


Hic: huic drachumarum haec argenti 
mille dederat mutuum. 
CHR. Quid tum? 


SYR. Ea mortuast : 

reliquit filiam adulescentulam. 
Ea relicta huic arraboni est pro illo 

argento. 

CHR. Intellego. 

SyR. Hanc secum huc adduxit, ea quae est 
nunc apud uxorem tuam. 

CHR. Quid tum? 

SYR. Cliniam orat sibi ut id nunc det : illam 


illi tamen 
606. Post daturam: mille nummum poscit. 
Et prosit quidem. 
CHR. Hui! 
Syk. Dubium id est? ego sic putaui. 


In 606 the MSS. read: 


( et poscit 
et poscet 
ὶ et posciet 


ex poscit 


guidem. 


and assign the words to Chremes; 
Dziatzko read et possit, which he con- 
strued as an impersonal, on the analogy 
of four passages, viz. : 


flaut.677 At sic, opinor. 

Phorm. 303 Non, non sic 
potest. 

Ad. 568 Non potuit melius. 

Phorm. 818 Quo pacto id potuit ? 


Non potest. 


futurumst. Non 


But even if these examples (all nega- 
tive or interrogative, and all present 
or perfect indicative) could support the 
inference, et possit has no aptitude here. 

Syrus’ cue is to recommend the pro- 
posed arrangement to Chremes as good 
business. This he does by saying et 
prosit quidem (‘and it really would pay ἢ). 
To this Chremes answers with a Hu 
of utter incredulity, which Syrus meets 
with a remonstrance, Dubium 1d est ? 
(for which cf. Haut. 911). 

The use of /iaz! is just like Ad. 216: 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


SYR. - Age, 5615 quid loquar ? 


pecuniam in loco neglegere maximum 
interdumst lucrum. 
Hui! 

where the editors make nonsense by 
giving the word to Syrus. Hw is 
Sannio’s expression of astonishment at 
this incredible new doctrine of Syrus’: 
‘Come now, I’m telling ye. Sometimes 
nothing pays better than to let money 
take care of itself.’ ‘Whew!’ says 
Sannio. 


SAN. 


i OB 
Phormio 368. 


Phormio has been letting his imagi- 
nation run free on the merits of the 
departed Stilpo. 


367. 
ῬΗΟΚ. At quem uirum! quem ego uiderim in 
uita optumum. 
tuideas te atque illumf ut narras! 
I’n malam crucem ἢ 
nam ni ita eum existimassem, num- 
quam tam grauis 
ob hanc inimicitias caperem in uostram 
familiam, 
quam is aspernatur nunc tam inlibera- 
liter. 
Pergin ero absenti male loqui, im- 
purissime ? 
Dignum autem hoc illost. 
Ain tamen, carcer?.. e, 
... bonorum extortor, legum con- 
tortor! .. 


GETA. 
PHOR. 


GETA. 


PHOR. 
GETA. 


For Geta’s words in ver. 368, the 
MSS. offer no variant. The com- 
mentators invite us to believe that 
they have a meaning. ‘Just look at 
yourself and him, as you describe him” 
(Ashmore, p. 211). It isa meaning of 
a sort, but quite at odds with the tenor 
of the dialogue; neither is Phormio’s 
retort relevant, nor Geta’s rejoinders 
pitched in the same key. Phormio’s 
retort mam ni implies that Geta has 
doubted his word; and Geta’s rejoinders 
are a series of bad names, wmpurissime, 
carcer, etc. The sense will be restored 
by reading for 

VIDEASTEATOQVEILLVMVTNARRAS 

QVID, STERQVILINVM, narras? 


Geta applies the same term to Dorio 
in ver. 526. Quid narras? is too common 
a formula of incredulity to need illus- 
tration. Phormio answers the bad 
name with an oath, and the disbelief 
with an asseveration 1am. 


THE CLASSICAL’ REVIEW 


IV. 
Eun. 317. 
Haud similis uirgost uirginum nostrarum quas 
matres student 


demissis umeris esse, uincto pectore, ut gracilae 
sient. 


Siquae est habitior paulo, pugilem esse aiunt, 
deducunt cibum ; 

tametsi bonast natura, reddunt curatura iunceas: 

dtague ergo amantur. 

Donatus read this line as we read it, 
and laboured to explain it: either itaque, 
inguit, nemo illas amat, 1.6. ironically, or 
atque ita fit ut amentur non naturae merito 
sed industria, 1.6.. ἔργῳ. 

Fabia notes that itaque ergo occurs 
inivyyls σαν 25. LU xxx. 5, etc. It 
does, as a resumptive formula of nar- 
rative in certain (archaistic) passages, 
with the sense, ‘ Well, so . . . I invite 
anybody who in his secret heart sees in 
the would-be irony of ztaque ergo amantur 
nothing but a flat piece of stupidity, to 
consider whether Terence did not prob- 
ably write: 

ITA QVERCORANTVR (guercer— 
guerguerantur), 
meaning, ‘Any girl that is naturally a 
jolly creature they reduce by treatment 
till they’re only the thickness of a rush 
—so aguish do the girls become.’ 

The existence of an adjective quer- 
querus is attested by the grammarians 
with quotations from Lucilius : 
<febris> 


guerguera 
dolores 


conseguitur capitisque 


and 2 
tactans M@ ut febris guerquera... 
and Plautus frag. Frivolariae, 
ts mthi erat bilis, agua intercus, guerqueratus, 
where the editors read 
guerquera tussts. 


Out of the ruins of a page of Festus 
(ed. Lindsay, p. 308) glimmers the fact 
that Santra derived the word from a 
Greek κάρκαρον. Hesychius has the 
glosses 

κάρκαροι. 

καρκαίρει. ψοφεῖ 

κάρκαιρε. ἰδιώμα ἤχου 

ἐκάρκαιρον . ψόφον τινα ἀπετέλουν. 

The last three refer to the Homeric 
verb=to rattle, to clatter, to crack. 
There seems to be no attestation of 
such a verb in Latin, but one may 
venture to say that, considering καρ- 
«atpe, its existence is theoretically 


τραχεῖς 


ΙΟΙῚΙ 


probable. The onomatopoeic origin 
indeed seems to require a verb. 

For its deponent form cf. conscreor, 
murmuror, mussor, ructoy ; for the fashion 
in meagre anaemic beauty cf. the use 
of febriculosus in Catull. VI.’ 4 and 
Lucr. IV. 1155 ischnon eromenion tum fit 
cum uruerc non quit prae macte; rhadine 
uerost 1am mortua tusst. And add Mar- 
tial I. x. 4 for the cough as a synonym 
for phthisis. 


V. 
Eun. 1011: 


nunquam pol hominem stultiorem uidi nec 
uidebo. Ah, 


non possum satis narrare quos ludos praebueris 
intus.° 


At etiam primo callidum et disertum credidi 
hominem. 


Thus Pythias, making merry at Par- 
meno’s expense. Unfortunately the 
current of her wit is interrupted by a 
block of gibberish, for etiam primo has 
no sense. The commentators furnish 
a delicious example of exegesis in 
agonies for want of the simplest emen- 
datory operation. Mons. Fabia, whose 
book is in general a model of a Teren- 
tian play well edited, here notes that 
‘etiam porte sur credidi ‘je suis allée 
jusqu’a croire.’’’ If ettam bore on credidi, 
why should not the line have run 


Aft etiam credidi hominem primo callidum et 
adisertum. 


No: etiam must bear upon primo, and 
etiam primo can only mean ‘even at 
first,’ which here is nonsense. Mr. 
Ashmore remarked that ‘the additory 
force is weakened to the point of being 
untranslatable, except by a vocal stress 
upon the modified word (primo); “and 
yet) I formerly ‘took you, etc.’?” * But; 
to begin with, primo does not mean 
‘formerly’; and, once the ‘mind is 
degermanised, it sees that when the 
force of a word, whose function is to 
give emphasis, is weakened to the point 
of being untranslatable, then the sense 
of a phrase is weakened to the point of 
being nonsense. Sense and Nonsense 
doubtless meet in a higher Stoj. It is 
not impossible that Terence wrote non- 
sense, but very improbable; much more 
improbable that he wrote nonsense than 
that his words have been misreported. 


102 


Read: 


At Parmenonem callidum et disertum credidi 

hominem. 

Parmenonem was misread into primo 
a compendium of etiam. The resulting 
primo etiam would not scan: remedy— 
transpose the words; read rapidly, 
without close attention, etiam primo will 
keep for a long time. 


ΝΠ: 


Eun. 326. 


The vulgate text violates a law of 
Terentian scansion in each of these 
places. 

324. CHAEREA. 

nec quemquam ego esse hominem arbitror 
cui magis bonae felicitates omnes auorsae sient. 

326. Quid hoc est sceleris? Perii. PA. Quid 

factumst? CH. Rogas ? 
So the editors give it, lengthening hoc ; 
but it can be shown by the following 
collection of instances that the intensity 
of the interrogative always abbreviates any 
following case of ‘hic.’ Such of course 
is usually'the effect of interrogative 
intensity on a following Zste, zstzc, and 
tlle; whether without exception is a 
point which I pass by for the present : 
but it may be hoped that the twenty- 
two examples here produced will be 
sufficient to prove that the unique 
exception to the rule of quis hic is 
corruptly reported : 

quid hic uolt ? Amd. 184. 

quis hic loquitur? 26. 267 (aad 783, also 
H. 517, E. 86, P. 739). 

quid hic respondent, zd. 419. 

quid hic uolt ueterator sibi? zd. 457. 

quid hic sensisse ait ? 26. 470. 

quid héc morbist ἢ vz. 225. 

sed quis hic est qui huc pergit ? zd. 228. 

quid ?? hinc non uides? 20. 463. 


1 This is exceptional, since Quzd? is here an 
interjection. I suspect zc is interpolated, as 
a word sometimes has been, to explain what, on 
the stage, a gesture made plain enough with- 
out. It is hard to believe that A2xc could be 
shortened after the intervening pause. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


quid héc hominis? quid hic ornatist ? 26. 546. 

sed qtid hdc quod timida, zd. 642. 

quis hic est homo? 2d. 677. 

quid hic conterimus operam? P. 209 (26. 215 
doubtful). 

quid hic coéptat ? 20. 626. 

quid hic narret, 24. 846. 

sed quid héc negotist, Hec. 97. 

quid hoc est? tace, 2. 314. 

quem ego hic audiui loqui? 2d. 453. 

quid hic hic est rei? 2d. 807. 

quid hoc reist? Ad. 175. 

quid hdc malum infelicitatis? nequeo satis 
decernere, 20. 544. 

quid hic hic negotist ? 2d. 638. 

quid hic negoti, zd. 642. 

For hdc to be lengthened, a word 
must come between it and quid: e.g. 

quidzam hoc est rei? Azad. 457. 
quiszam hic adulescens, “azz. 403. 


Ver. 326 should accordingly be read 


quidzam hic est sceleris? etc. 


VII. 


Eun. 978. Here we are concerned 
with another instance of the shorten- 
ing effect that interrogative intensity 
exercises on the next word, viz. the 
phrase quid est quod. Our texts give 
quid ést quod trepidas? satine salve? dic mihi? 
which is impossible, for quid st quod is 
always an anapaest or a tribrach, e.g. 
mdne mane quid ést quod tam a nobis grauiter 

crepuerunt fores? Haut. 613. 

Chaérea, quid &ést quod sic gestis? Azz. 558. 
quid ést quod laetus es? 20. 550. 
quid st mihi quod malim quam quod huic 

intellego euenire? /ec. 794. 

For est to be lengthened, after quid, a 
fullstop is necessary, 6.5. 

Quid est? te mi ipsum iam dudum optabam 

dari, Haut. 758. 

Or, a passage which certifies the obvious 
correction of 978: 
Era quid est? Quid trepidas? Ad. 323. 


Read then here : 


Quid est? Quid trepidas? 
J. S. PHILLIMORE. 


The University, Glasgow. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


103 


NOTES ON AENEID VIII. 


Mr. WARDE FOWLER'S last contribu- 
tion to Virgilian studies, like its prede- 
cessors, not only throws new light on 
the poet’s exquisite art and on the 
wealth of learning and thought behind 
it, but quickens our intelligence, and 
makes us read Virgil for the hundredth 
time with closer attention and keener 
appreciation. Some notes are here 
offered on points which seem, on 
reading Aeneid VIII. once more in the 
light of his commentary, to invite 
remark. 


I. The voyage of Aeneas up the Tiber, 
11. 26-101. 

This episode is thought out in all its 
details with extraordinary accuracy ; 
and there is no word in the description 
which is not significant. We can 
follow it closely from hour to hour. 

Aeneas had fallen asleep on the river- 
bank late at night (30) in the hastily 
fortified camp by the water’s edge, the 
position of which is fully described in 
VII. 29-36, 157-9, and 201. It wasa 
little way up the river (fluvio succedit 
opaco, flumims intrastis ripas) but in the 
natural harbour formed by its mouth 
(portuque sedetis). From this point up to 
the site of Rome, the time required to 
row the two biremes would depend on 
the state of the river. I have myself 
rowed over the course in the reverse 
direction, with the help of a fairly strong 
current, and would judge from my rather 
imperfect recollection—for it was thirty 
yearsago—that in quiet water the journey 
up would take about five hours (or more 
if there were a rest half-way). Against 
a normal current it would of course be a 
good deal longer, and if the river were 
in flood might take any time, or even 
be impossible. For Aeneas’ sake the 
supernatural stilling of the stream had 
been going on all that night, ea quam 
longa est nocte (86) ; and by the time he 
started, the river lay as smooth as a 
standing pool or a marsh lagoon (88). 
Consequently, not only were the crews 
in the position remo ut luctamen abesset 
(89), but the channel was brimful by 
the banking up of the water (refluens 
substitit, 87), so that they could 


straighten out and shorten the course 
by slanting across the reaches, instead 
of having to follow the bends of the main 
channel in order to avoid grounding. 
This is the force of ripis et recto flumine 
(57): and in particular view of this 
point, I think the case is very strong 
for the Servian interpretation of viridis 
secant placido aequore silvas (96). As 
they cut the corners, the ships would 
have the overhanging boughs actually 
overhead (95), and the prows would 
cleave their reflections in the still water 
below. No difficulty need be raised by 
viridis ; for in glassy water the reflec- 
tions of trees keep their full colour, and 
it is difficult if not impossible to trace 
by eye alone the dividing line between 
the real and the reflected foliage. In 
further support of this, note should be 
taken of Virgil’s distinctive use of the 
ablative. Placido aequore silvas in his 
language is practically equivalent to 
placidas aequoreas silvas, just as pictas 
abiete puppes is to pictas ablegnas puppes, 
or vasta voragine gurges to vastus 
voraginosus gurges. As to the alleged 
‘modernity’ of the thought, what was. 
not too modern for Servius was certainly 
not too modern for Virgil. 

Aeneas’ vision was in the small hours 
of the night. When does he start on 
the voyage? The River-God tells him 
to make his supplication to Juno primus 
cadentibus astris (59). He wakes and 
rises forthwith (67) and at once proceeds 
to give orders for the ships and crews 
to be made ready, and simultaneously 
(for this is implied by the abrupt 
insertion of 81-85) to make the sacrifice 
to Juno. This done, they start without 
delay (eter inceptum celerant, go), and 
remigio noctemque diemque fatigant (94), 
arriving towards midday (07) in sight 
of Evander’s town, with its walled fort 
on the Palatine and its scattered out- 
dwellings on the low wooded ground 
later occupied by the Velabrum; the 
landing-place for the settlement would 
be the natural creek formed by the little 
stream that came down the marshy 
valley and was afterwards covered over 
and became the Cloaca Maxima, just as 
was done to the Fleet River in London, 


104 
the lower part of which was the original 
port of London. The settlement would 
come in sight as soon as the ships 
opened it round the corner of the 
Aventine, procul (98), from between 
half and three-quarters of a mile off. 

The only point here which is not at 
once clear is the noctemque diemque of 
94. It is generally assumed that the 
start was not made until after sunrise: 
then what is the relevance of moctem ? 
But this assumption is based on a hasty 
misunderstanding; and Virgil’s actual 
words demand careful study. 

The sacrifice was to be made, and 
was made, primis cadentibus astris, ‘ when 
the stars begin to fade,’ say from two 
to three hours before sunrise. Much 
confusion would have been saved, here 
and elsewhere, by realising that surgere 
and cadere as used of the stars by Virgil 
have not only their astronomical mean- 
ing of rising and setting, but that of 
appearance and disappearance with the 
end and beginning of daylight. Cadere 
may in such passages be translated ‘to 
pale,’ and surgere ‘to shine out.’ Thus 
the cadentia sidera of Aen. II. g and 
IV. 81 are the paling stars. Thus too 
the quotiens astra ignea surgunt of 
IV. 352 is a reinforcement of the words 
that precede, guotiens wmentibus umbris 
nox opertt terras, and does not refer to a 
different time of night; and _ those 
perturbed dreams of Aeneas are, in 
accordance with the orthodox doctrine, 
placed before midnight, while the serene 
vision of the passage we are considering 
is before dawn.’ The start then might 


1 Had attention been paid to this Virgilian 
meaning of swrgere, we should have been spared 
the criticism of the famous primo gui surgere 
mense Aut videt aut vidisse putat per nubtla 
Junam, that it represents the new moon as 
rising. Virgil, even if his astronomy be not, 
like Milton’s, impeccable, was a keen and 
accurate observer of Nature ; and here not only 
the truth, but the beauty and imaginative value 
of the simile lie in the picture of the pale 
crescent ‘emerging,’ becoming visible though 
yet faintly and uncertainly, in the lingering day- 
light through a gap in the cloud-drift. So like- 
wise the beautiful 2221 desertt Hesperus Oetam 
of Ec/. VIII. 30 has been made into nonsense 
by translators (‘ Hesper from Oeta’s summit for 
thee sails into the night’ is Lord Bowen’s 
rendering), though Keightley long ago had 
indicated the true sense in a brief note— 
‘ deserit, leaves, Ζ.6., sinks behind it after the 
sun.’ Lovers of English poetry will remember 


THE CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 


be made say an hour before sunrise ; and 
the noctemque diemque of the voyage, 
closely coupled as the nouns are by the 
duplicated que, might almost be rendered 
‘while night passes into day.’ 

It may be objected that spectans 
orientia solis lumina (68) indicates the 
hour of actual sunrise, and that Virgil 
is inconsistent. But this is a mistake. 
The phrase is simply an enriched and 
pictorial way of saying ‘facing East,’ 
like the simpler contra ortentem in the 
Acta Fratrum Arvalium. So in the 
Servian note on Aen. II. 693, ad 
orientem, ‘ facing the rising stn,’ and ad 
ortum, ‘facing the risen sun,’ are used 
indifferently and in exactly the same 
sense. For ritual purposes, it did not 
matter whether a sacrifice was per- 
formed before or after sunrise: Cen- 
sorinus, 23. 4, says of the sacra publica, 
‘st quid post mediam noctem et ante lucem 
factum est, eo die gestum dicitur qua eam 
sequitur noctem’: the ‘ day,’ that is, like 
our own civil day, ran from midnight 
to midnight. 

With the whole passage should be 
read the dialogue in Julius Caesar, 
Act II. sc. i, beginning ‘ Here lies the 
East: doth not the day break here?’ 
and with cadentibus astris it is interesting 
to compare Milton’s 

The stars grow high, 

But night sits monarch yet in the mid sky ; 
where there is a different image for the 
same phenomenon, the fading or paling 
of the stars before dawn being pictured 
—which is what in fact it looks like— 
as their retreat to a greater distance. 


2. The genealogical passage in Aeneas’ 
speech to Evander, ll. 134-142. 

Mr. Warde Fowler mentions, and 
seems partly to admit, the charge made 
against the passage of being ‘cheap 
mythology and genealogical nonsense.’ 
He points out indeed, and convincingly, 
the stress which Virgil lays, on larger 
grounds than those of mythology, upon 


Wordsworth’s When down behind the cottage 
voof At once the bright moon dropped, and his 
sonnet beginning, / watch and long have watched 
with calm regret. 1am not here concerned to 
explain or defend Horace’s mec vespero surgente 
nec fugiente Solem; but the whole matter 15 
lucidly put in Heyne’s excellent note on £¢/. 
Vill. 30. 


THE), CLASSICAL REVIEW 


the doctrine of a common origin for 
Greeks and Trojans such as is now 
substantiated by archaeology. But 
the passage contains another element 
of the highest importance to which he 
does not expressly call attention. The 
allegorical or ethical content of mytho- 
logy was to Virgil, as to that whole age, 
something real and vital. The concep- 
tion of type and antitype, though not 
obtruded, is inherent in the whole 
structure of the Aeneid. Atlasis, in this 
allegorical (or we might rather say, 
mystical) conception, the common 
parent, the ancestral genius, of both 
the Greek and the Trojano-Italian 
stock, that is to say, when translated 
into actual terms, of the Graeco-Latin 
Empire and civilisation. Now notice 
the enormous emphasis thrown on the 
function of Atlas as the world-bearer 
by the doubled reference in the two key- 
lines of this passage: Atlas aethertos 
umero qut sustinet orbis (137); Atlas, caeli 
qut sidera tollit (141): and then turn to 
the last line of the book (that ‘ glorious 
line’ as Mr. Warde Fowler well calls 
it), attollens umero famamque et facta 
nepotum. Do not the two passages 
flash a wonderful light on each other? 
Aeneas, the antitype of Atlas, is also 
the type of Augustus; not the ‘ weary 
Titan,’ so much as the unwearied 
strength of a divine Power incarnate: 
and all three are successive links in a 
continuous chain of fame and fate 
binding and sustaining the world. And 
so of all three it may be said, in Mr. 
Housman’s no less noble words : 


Their shoulders held the sky suspended ; 
They stood, and earth’s foundations stay. 


3. The scene of the departure of Her- 
cules, 11: 213 ff. 

There is only one point in this 
brilliant bit of narrative which seems 
to cause any trouble, but it is worth 
while to follow the topography rather 
closely in order to appreciate the vivid- 
ness of the way in which Virgil realises 
the scene. 

As far as I can ascertain, there is no 
detailed tradition extant of the route 
followed by Hercules on his return 
from Spain with the oxen of Geryon. 
But it must have been in any event 
‘down the Italian peninsula from north 

NO. CCLXX. VOL. XXXII. 


105 


to south, winding up either at Lacinium 
or at Tarentum, at both of which 
places there was a local tradition of his 
arrival. 

We must suppose, then, that Hercules 
had crossed the Tiber somewhere 
higher up at a ford, and approached the 
site of Rome across the Campus Mar- 
tius. Skirting the Capitoline on the 
low ground between hill and river, he 
stopped for the night and laagered the 
oxen (sfabulis, 213) on the spot where 
Evander is speaking, the site of the Ara 
Maxima, near the river, and between 
the mouths of the two converging 
valleys of the Velabrum and the Circus 
(vallemque amnemque tenebant, 204). 
The cave of Cacus is thought of as at 
or close to the north-west corner of the 
Aventine, just above the Porta Trige- 
mina, where the cliff closely overhung 
the river. Its mouth is at the base of 
the cliff and at the top of the short 
grass-grown slope of detritus between 
the cliffand the water’s edge. Within, 
it expands and heightens so much that 
when the projecting rock on the cliff- 
edge is torn away by Hercules, it leaves 
a hole in the cave-roof, down which 
Hercules first (250) hurls boughs and 
heavy stones, and then (256) leaps him- 
self. When Cacus is killed, Hercules 
is able to pull back from the inside the 
rock-portcullis which blocks the mouth 
of the cave, and to reopen the entrance. 

The cave then is within a very few 
hundred yards of the cattle-laager, and 
the lowing of the oxen as they are 
being collected for their journey can 
easily be heard and replied to by their 
fellows in the cave. But what is the 
exact meaning of colles clainore relingud ? 
how can the oxen be said at this point 
to be ‘ leaving the hills’? Thesugges- 
tion has been made that the words 
must be taken in a sense different from 
this natural and obvious meaning— 
for instance, that the lowing ‘died 
away beyond the hills.’ But there 
seems no real difficulty if we look at the 
words more carefully. 

In resuming his’ journey from the 
neighbourhood of the Forum Boarium, 
Hercules would naturally (indeed, as a 
matter of course) proceed up the valley 
of the Circus Maximus, and then, con- 
tinuing almost straight forward as he 


H 


106 


emerged from between the Palatine and 
the Aventine, follow the line of the 
great trunk road of later times which 
left the city through the Porta Capena, 
and a little way on branched into the 
Appian and Latin Ways. The present 
infinitive relingui has here, as often, 
a sort of inceptive force; what Roby 
in his Latin Grammar calls ‘ the present 
of an action extending over some time 
including the time of speaking,’ or 
more particularly, ‘the present of an 
action about to be commenced’ (οἱ. 
abitumque pararet, 214). When the oxen 
were collected and ready to move, this 
is the exact description of the state of 
things. The oxen were lowing while 
‘on their way to leave,’ ‘about to com- 
mence leaving,’ the group of hills at the 
foot of which they had passed the night; 
but were still opposite Cacus’ cave, or 
just beginning to move away and leave 
it behind them. 


Two more notes may be added on 
phrases the exact meaning of which is 
discussed, but left undetermined, by 
Mr. Warde Fowler. 

Stricturae chalybum, 1. 421. Strictuva 
means, I think, not the actual ingot or 
‘pig’ of metal, but the mould of sand 
into which the molten metal is run, 
and in which it is squeezed together, 
stringitur, 1.6. is confined while it soli- 
difies. This satisfies both sense and 
etymology. Any one who has seen 
iron-founding knows both the hiss or 
scream (stridunt) of the liquid metal 
as it runs into the moulds, and the 
shower of sparks, Lucilius’ crebrae 
scintillae in stricturis, with which its 
flow into them is accompanied. 

Mediis aedibus, 1. 467. There is 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


nothing in these words inconsistent 
with the meeting and conversation 
being, as the whole run of the passage 
implies it is, in the open air. It 15. 
not necessary to suppose Aeneas and 
Evander ‘ meeting in the open air and 
then returning to the house of Evander 
and sitting just within the doorway; ἢ 
nor was there any reason why they 
should do so in the freshness of an 
early hour on a fine summer morning. 
Mediis aedibus simply means amid the 
cluster of buildings—the thatched huts 
and sheds grouped round a courtyard. 
In one of these huts (which probably 
contained only a single room each) 
Evander had put Aeneas to sleep (366) : 
himself he slept in another. Both are 
early astir independently (455, 465): 
they meet in the courtyard, sit down on 
a seat or bench there, and rise from it 
(541) when their talk is over. The 
thunder-shower and the vision of 
armour, 524-9, come from a sky which» 
is elsewhere clear (528), and need not 
have driven them indoors; indeed, from 
within a hut such as is described they 
could not have looked up into the sky 
as they do in 527. With the whole 
setting of the scene it is useful to 
compare the description of the farm- 
buildings—for it is these and not a city 
mansion that are described—in the 
swallow-simile of Aen. XII. 473-7, 
where the domini divitis aedes are simi- 
larly the huts, sheds, and barns grouped, 
together with the well-to-do farmer’s 
own house, round a courtyard and a 
pond. In both passages, it is pleasant 
to believe that Virgil had in mind the 
home of his own boyhood.’ 


J. W. MackalL. 


PLAULUS STICHSasoo: 


THE opening Canticum of the Stichus, 
a duet of the sisters Panegyris and 
Pamphila, is worth a close study, 
although it has been already handled 
in excellent style by Leo (Riem. Mus. 40, 
200; Plaut. Cantica, p. 55), for it can 
throw welcome light on Plautine *fetre. 

The keynote of the first part is given 
by the first line: 


PAN. Créd(o) ég6 misérém. 


This is the metre so often{found in 
Glyconic choruses of the Greek Drama 
(-v'| -Lu | -), eg. Eur. Ale. 900. παῖδες 
ἐν θανάτῳ. This line of the Alcestis 
appears in this context : 

κλαίων τοὺς φθιμένους ἄνω, 


καὶ θεῶν σκύτιοι φθίνουσι 
παῖδες ἐν θανάτῳ, 


where the first of the trio is the ordin- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


ary! Glyconic verse (—“ | —uv | -ὦ--), 
the second is the full acatalectic form 
of the Glyconic (—¥ | του | -u | -v). 
In the antistrophe the line opens with 
a spondee (v. 1001 éxBaivwy τόδ᾽ ἐρεῖ), 
the variety approved by Horace, e.g. 
Maecenas atavis. 
The next four lines offer the same 
metre, but with Anacrusis 
(2 | πὸ | -ve | -), 
the Anacrusis being a short syllable in 
three of the lines, a long in one: 
fii-Issé Pénélopaém, 
s6-ror sti(o) éx Animo, 
quae tam div vidtaé 
vi-ro sto caruit. 
The a of vidua was pronounced short 
in Plautus’ time, as later, so that 
Synaphea is out of the question, In 
the Oxford text—alas!—and in my 
large edition of the Captivt (Methuen, 
1900) all these five lines are labelled 
‘ Dochmiacs.’ 
The sixth line does not announce 
itseif so unmistakably : 
nam nos ei(u)s? animaim. 
At first we think of the Maecenas atavis 
type. It certainly seems natural to 
find in the line the same variety of v. 1 
(credo ego miseram) as v. 4 (quae tam 
diu vidua) is of vv. 2, 3 and 5 (fuisse 
Penelopam, etc.). But the three follow- 
ing lines are undoubtedly Versus 
Reiziani; so that, on second thoughts, 
we declare for a Colon Reizianum,? that 
favourite colon of Plautus which dis- 
plays as bewildering a variety of form 
as the Dochmiac in Greek Tragedy. 
It here marks the transition from 
‘Glyconic’ to the new metre. 


1 No one, surely, in the land of Bentley and 
Porson has been perverted by that horrid 
heresy, the scansion cui flavim ré|ligas 
comam. See Amer. Journ, Phil. 37, 37. 

* The colloquial form of the Gen. Sing. of zs 
and guz was a monosyllable (at any rate, of two 
‘morae’) in Plautus’ time as in Cicero’s (cf 
Munro on Lucr. 1, 149) and Virgil’s (to judge 
from Catal. 9, 35 non cuius ob raptum pulsi 
liquere penates). 

3 Editors of Euripides seem to call such a 
line as Bacch. 863 a Colon Reizianum. But 
surely it is a syncopated Pherecratean (θήσω 
more λευκόν) in this context, just as in 868-9: 

ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν φοβερὰν φυγῇ 
θήραν ἔξω φυλακᾶς, 


the second line is syncopated ‘ Glyconic.’ 


107 


The three Versus Reiziani (in which 
an Iambic Dimeter is followed by this 
colon) are: 
dé nostris fac]tis ndscimis, 

hinc ab|siint, 
quarumqué n6s | négdtils :: 
ut €/quémst, 
sOllicitaé ndc[tés δὲ diés, 
sém |pér. 


τ: quaériim | vir(i) 
&bsént(um), | it(a) 


soror, | sumi’ 


In the first of the trio hinc, an un- 
accented long syllable, is shortened 
under the Breves Breviantes Law (what 
the Germans call the ‘ Jambenkiirz- 
ungsgesetz’), owing to the precedence 
of the short syllable vi. (Viri hinc 
absunt is a pronunciation like caléfactus.) 
In the second the minuscule MSS., 
whose archetype had a habit of mud- 
dling such combinations as aequomst, 
factumst, bonust (see the Oxford Plautus, 
vol. I. Preface, p. viii), offer ut est 
aequom for tta ut aequomst. It is a mere 
accident that this miswriting too would 
suit the metre, @bsént(wm), | at est aé}- 
quom. 
Now come two short lines: 

PAM. NOstr(um) Officitim 

nos facér(e) aéquomst. 
If there were not two, but the first 
stood alone, we might perhaps think of 
making it a syncopated variety of the 
cred(o) ego miseram type, the opening* 
long syllable nost being prolonged to 
the time of three ‘morae’ (nd-st). As 
it is, we must make them Anapaestic 
Monometers. The greater part of this 
Canticum (from v. 24 to the end) 
consists of Anapaestic Dimeters (see 
below); so that Plautus seems here to 
be giving a preliminary signal. 

Then another pair which I would 

class with vv. 2-5 and write thus: 

néq(ue) | id ma[gis faci[mts 

quam | nds mo[nét pié}tas, 
(for magis, instead of magi’, is not 
unlikely in a Canticum of this sort), 
although in the Oxford text they 
appear as Cola Reiziana: 

néq(ue) id | magi’ faci|miis 

quam nos | monét pié]tas 
(with the final syllable of monet short- 
ened under the Breves_ Breviantes 
Law). 


4 Of course the final 7z must be elided in 
Plautus as in Virgil. 


τοῦ 


An unmistakable Versus Reizianus 
comes next (with the long final or of 
Plautus’ time) : 
séd hic, sorér, | @dsidé dim; :: 

téJcum. 

The archetype of the minuscule MSS. 
had mea soror.for soror,a reading which 
can also suit the metre. The first foot 
would then be a proceleusmatic (vvvv), 
std hic, méd soror, the long syllable /ic 
being shortened after the short syllable 
sed, under the Breves Breviantes Law ; 
or rather (since hic was_ probably 
accented in this sentence) the second 
foot would be the proceleusmatic, séd 
hic, méa sdvév, the long unaccented 
syllable vor being shortened after the 
short syllable so. However soror, pater, 
etc., in this idiomatic form of address 
or reference, are liable to be altered to 
mea soror, meus pater, etc., in MSS. of 
Plautus. 

The next batch of lines offers the 
chief difficulty of the Canticum. Their 
second half is clearly the Colon Reizi- 
anum. And yet they are not Versus 
Reiziani, for their first half is not an 
Iambic Dimeter. In the rough-and- 
ready! phraseology of Priscian or other 
Grammarians of the Empire it would 
indeed be styled an ‘Iambic Dimeter 
Brachycatalectic.’ But there is no 
such thing. It is not without design 
that the first line was broken up into 
its two parts and written as two lines 
by the ancient editors : 

loqui de re viri. 
PAN. Salven’, amabo? 


multa vo[l6 


A hint was thereby given to the reader 
that a novel type confronted him. 
What type is it? Nota mere synco- 
pated variety of the Iambic Dimeter, 
loqui~de-re virt, like Eur. Orvest. 1463 
κασιγνήτου προδούς in this context: 

κακός σ᾽ ἀποκτείνει dots 

κασιγνήτου προδοὺς 

ἐν "Apyet θανεῖν “γόνον 
(where the first of the three is un- 
syncopated, the second line has double 


1 When Nonius labels virum, nummum (in 
such phrases as ¢rium virum, trium nummum) 
as ‘Acc. Sing. for Gen. Plur.,’ it is unfair to say 
with Lucian Mueller, ‘nugatur Nonius.’ That 
is merely a rough-and-ready teaching-formula 
like our ‘At a place is expressed by the Gev. 
Sing. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


syncope xaci~yv7-, the third has single - 
"Ap-). For the other lines would not 
all admit this treatment. Rather 
should we compare the metre of Eur. 
Hipp. 532, (now ἐκ χερῶν, appearing in 
that chorus whose first strophe begins 
with (v. 525) "Epes, Ἔρως, ὁ κατ᾽ 
ὀμμάτων (Glyconic with Anacrusis), 
and whose second strophe with (v. 545) 
τὰν μὲν Oiyanria (the credo ego miseram ᾿ 
type). In this context: 
ol-ov τὸ τᾶς ᾿Αφροδίτας 
ἵησιν ἐκ χερων 
Ἔρως, ὁ Διὸς παῖς, 
where (if the line-division is right) the 
first of the trio would seem a Phere- 
cratean (—v | -οὐ | -- -- with Anacrusis, 
and the third a Colon Reizianum. In 
the antistrophe the second and third 
are (542-3): 
ἰόντα συμφορᾶς 
θνατοῖς, ὅταν ἕλθῃ. 
If logut de ve virt is rightly regarded as 
a variation of the fuisse Penelopam type, 
the batch of lines should be presented 
SO: 
16]qui dé | τὲ vi}ri. 
:: PAN. Salvén’, | Aama[bo ἢ 
PAM. Spé[rd quijd(em) δὲ vo]l6; :: séd hoc] 
soror, criici]6r 
pa[trém {τὴ mé]tmq(ue) :: 
q(ui) GJnis : 
cilvibiis éx | Gmni]biis : : probis | pérhibé |tir, 
é[im niinc | impré|bi : : vir(i) Of]fici(o) a[ti. 
The shortenings sorér and wnicé are like 
the modd and nesciO(quis) of classical 
Latin, the cavéand commoda of Catullus. 
The equidem of the Palimpsest, for qut- 
dem, is a common mistake. 

Not merely the dactyl, but also the 
trochee, is effaced in the first half of 
the next line (whose second half is a 
Colon Reizianum), véris qui tdantdas. 
Presumably it too is a Colon Reizi- 
anum. And yet this Canticum, like 
so many Greek Choruses, seems to 
accumulate variations of the cu: flavam 
veligas comam, the Maecenas atavis, the 
edite regibus types, etc. An Ephymnium 
in Eur. Jon offers (v. 501) a parallel 
(but with the first syllable long), 
συρίζεις, ὦ 11άν, in this context : 

ὑπ᾽ αἰόλας laxas 
ὕμνων, ὅτ᾽ ἀναλίοις 
συρίζεις, ὦ Πάν, 
τοῖς σοῖσιν ἐν ἄντροις, 
where the first pair show the /uzsse 
Penelopam type, the last pair provide 


ideo), ἃ] εἴς 


THE (CLASSICAL REVIEW 


together a parallel to the single line in 
question (for the ancient editors seem 
to have made a single line of it): 

viris qui tantas : : absén]tibi’ nost|ris. 

A more familiar variation appears in 

the next pair: 

facit Injiarias | Imméri/td 

nosq(ue) ab ὅ]15 &b|diicéré | volt. 
(Iniuvits like μοῦ. The second line 
begins with a trochee if we substitute 
és for eis.) In other contexts they 
would be labelled ‘Dactylic Tetra- 
meters Catalectic.’ Here they should 
rather be regarded as dactylic variations 
of the Glyconic type, set here by 
Plautus as a stepping-stone to the 
second part, the Anapaestic part, of the 
Canticum. We may compare lines 
like: 

(Eur. £7. 125): 

ἴθι τὸν αὐτὸν ἔγειρε γόον, 
(Eur. £7. 439): 
κοῦφον ἅλμα ποδῶν ᾿Αχιλῆ, 

(Eur. Jom. 117) : 
ἵνα δρόσοι τέγγουσ᾽ ἱεράι (with οὐ θνατοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἀθανά- 

τοις in the antistrophe), 

(Eur. Ovest. 831-2) : 

τίς νόσος ἢ τίνα δάκρυα Kat 
τίς ἔλεος μείζων κατὰ γᾶν ; 

Plautus now abandons lyrics and 
writes the rest of the Canticum in his 
favourite Anapaests. But in two lines, 
one near the beginning, the other near 
the end of this second part, he recalls 
an echo of the ‘Glyconic’ portion. 
We may scan the first halves as tro- 
chaic or thus: 


(5 27): 
fac quod | tibi [05 pa|tér : : facéré minatir, 
(V. 50) 
né quid'| magi’ sit, | Omni]|bis :: Obnix(e) 
opibus 
(Sit was a long syllable in Plautus’ 
time.) These two (whose second 
halves are Anapaestic Monometers) 


support and defend each other against 
all the critics. 

This article, though it adds little that 
is really new, may serve to remind us 
that Plautus was a far more artistic 
metrician than is often supposed, and 
that a Canticum is to be edited correctly 
neither by capricious alteration of the 
traditional text, nor yet by imputing to 
the ‘ pura oratio’ of the old comedian 


10g 


impossible pronunciations (cf. Burs. 
Jahresb. 167, 24) like améabo, opdriet, 
verberart (nor even verb’rart), mart mis 
(for maritumis !), amisha (for amicttia !!) ; 
but rather by recognition of the fact 
that some of Plautus’ types of metre 
have not yet been discovered. The 
discovery of the Maiden’s Lament (cf. 
Grenfell, An Alexandrian Erotic Frag- 
ment, 1896), a character-song in Doch- 
miacs, suggested to Wilamowitz (who 
first recognised its metre) that Plautus 
modelled his Cantica after ‘ Variety 
Theatre’ songs of this kind. It was 
taken for granted that the New Comedy 
could not furnish him with models. 
But Marx, who calls attention (in the 
Teubner Stobaeus) to the complicated 
metre of some Diphilus fragments, may 
possibly in his forthcoming edition of 
the Rudens modify our notions of the 
metrical scope of the Greek Comedians 
whose plays Plautus adapted for the 
Roman stage. (See also Class. Quart. 
ΜΠ τὴ 

The exaggerated views of the irregu- 
larity of Plautine prosody I ascribe in 
great part to perverted editing of 
Cantica. Even Leo, the ‘sospitator 
canticorum,’ scans fac quod ἰδὲ (Stich. 
27) as four short syllables! He and 
others forget that the Breves Brevi- 
antes Law postulates the precedence of 
a short syllable. And, I repeat and 
insist, this law is ‘a law) of: Latin 
Phonetics, not a mere curious con- 
vention of Early Latin Poetry. It is 
responsible for the uncertainty in the 
scansion of a list of words in Augustan 
Epic verse, etc. (¢.g., οἵδ, modo), and 
naturally of a much larger list in Re- 
publican Dramatic verse, where imita- 
tion of every-day (refined) pronunciation 
was aimed at. Thus cavé, as opposed 
to cavé, and voliptatem, as opposed to 
voliiptatem, resemble our ‘I'll, as 
opposed to ‘I will. While Virgil 
recognises widen ut, a Dramatist natur- 
ally extends recognition to vidés, etc. 
When Terence writes ex Graecis bonés 
Latinas fecit non bonas, it is not because 
he could not think of any other more 
accurate setting of the line, nor because 
his imperfectly trained ear could not 
detect the difference between a Cretic 
and a Dactyl. He deliberately selects 
this scansion bonis as the closest echo 


110 


of the actual pronunciation of the word 
in this sentence, just as a writer of a 
poem in Punch deliberately uses such a 
form as ‘I'll, although, if he were 
writing an Epic, he would limit him- 
self to ‘I will.’ 

In all the discussion of Dr. Bridges’ 
interesting attempt to determine the 
quantity of English syllables and to 
write English quantitative (I dislike 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


‘quantitive’) verse I miss a reference 
to the uncertainty of Roman poets 
(especially the pioneers in this Greek 
form of verse-writing) regarding the 
quantity of some Latin syllables. For 
example, Ennius ends a Dactylic Hexa- 
meter (in a homely poem) with glau- 
cumque apud Cumas (aptid Cumas like 
caléfactus). 
W. M. Linpsay. 


EURIPIDES, TROADES 226 rr. 


ἃν ὑγριαίνει καλλιστείων 

ὁ ξανθὰν χαίταν πυρσαίνων 

Κρᾶθις ζαθέαις πηγαῖσι τρέφων 
εὔανδρόν 7’ ὀλβίζων γᾶν. 

ὁ ξανθὰν χαίταν πυρσαίνων is gener- 
ally taken, after the scholiast, as a 
purely /iterary description ‘ which dyes 
the hair auburn.’ Could Euripides 
have meant ‘ which brings the crops to 
a golden ripeness’? Like coma in 
Latin, χαίτη is, of course, used for the 
foliage of trees: e.g. Strabo speaks of 
βύβλος... ἐπ’ ἄκρῳ χαίτην ἔχουσα 
(c. 799), and Theocritus (vi. 16) uses it 
of the ἀκάνθη with the epithet καπυρός, 
which is not far from what ἕανθάν 
might mean here. It is, no doubt, 
difficult to understand χαίταν of crops 
without any such addition as γῆς, but 
in its context, where Euripides is 
speaking of the irrigation of fertile 
land, it might stand even by itself, 
especially when we notice how awkward 
such an addition would be in view of 
the fact that γᾶν occurs twice already, 
once three lines before, and again two 
lines after, this particular expression. 
If it had not been for the scholiast, 
should we not have interpreted it so? 


R. B. APPLETON. 


CALEIMAGHUS, ‘2 PIGR? 5: 


Kéyxos ἐγὼ, Ζεφυρῖτι, παλαίτερος: ἀλλὰ σὺ νῦν pe, 
Κύπρι, Σεληναίης ἄνθεμα πρῶτον ἔχεις 

νανυτίλον, ὃς πελάγεσσιν ἐπέπλεον, εἰ μὲν ἀῆται 
τείνας οἰκείων λαῖφος ἀπὸ προτόνων, 

εἰ δὲ Tadnvain, λιπαρὴ θεός, οὖλος ἐρέσσων 
ποσσίνιν, ὥστ ἐργωι τοὔνομα συμφέρεται 

κιτ.λ. 


VARIOUS alterations have been sug- 
gested in lines I to 5 without any 
obvious necessity. 


NOTES 


Need οὖλος be altered? It will stand 
well enough either in sense of ‘vigorous,’ 
cf. οὖὗχος ἔρως Apoll. Rhod., or ‘ curly,’ 
‘twisted,’ cf. οὖλα σκέλη, οὐλόπους, and 
οὐλάς. In line 6 read ποσσίν, ἕνῳ 7 
ἔργῳ τοὔνομα συμφέρεται. ‘And my 
name corresponds to my bygone occu- 
pation’: I am called nautilus because 
in old days I was a sailor. 

évos ‘old,’ ‘ bygone,’ sen(ex). 

évat apxai ‘last year’s magistrates,’ 
Dem. 775. 25- 

ἘΣ [i BROOKS: 


THUCYDIDES Vilivzrs2. 


ξυνανέπειθε δὲ καὶ ὁ ᾿ὩΙρμοκράτης οὐχ 
ἥκιστα, τοῦ ταῖς ναυσὶ μὴ ἀθυμεῖν ἐπι- 
χειρῆσαι, πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους λέγων 
οὐδὲ ἐκείνους πάτριον τὴν ἐμπειρίαν... 
ἔχειν. 

The MSS. read ἐπιχειρήσειν. 
Dobree ἐπιχειρῆσαι. 

The present writer suggests ἐπε- 
χείρησιν, which is nearer the MSS. 
reading than ἐπιχείρῆσαι. If ἐπιχείρη- 
ow is taken, it should go with πρὸς 
τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους. 

For the accusative case after ἀθυμεῖν, 
cp. Thucydides V. 91. I οὐκ ἀθυμοῦμεν 
τὴν τελευτήν. 


M. KEAN. 


"AKAAANOIS ἌΡΤΕΜΙΣ. 


Aesch. Ag..140.: _ 
τόσον περ εὔφρων, a καλά. 
Aristoph. Av. 874: 
οὐκέτι κολαινὶς ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Ακαλανθὶς ΓΆρτεμις. 
PossIBLy a clue to the soubriquet 
applied by Aristophanes to Artemis 


THE)! CLASSICAL (REVIEW. 


might be found in the line from the 
Agamemnon. 

If so, the conjectural reading ἀκαλά, 
which is in harmony with the spirit of 
the invocation, would seem to be appro- 
priate and worthy of support; or, at 
any rate, of favourable consideration. 

ARTHUR SYKES. 


AUSONIANA. 


[NoTE.— The references are to Peiper’s 
(Teubner) edition of 1886.] 


τ. Ephemeris VIII. ad init. 

The beginning of this poem on 
dreams is lost. The following lines 
may be suggested to complete the frag- 
mentary sense of Il. 1-2: 

a [Discutiunt nobis placidos portenta sopores, 

6 Qualia miramur cum saepius aethere in alto 

¢ Conciliant vario coetu vaga nubila formas] 

1 Quadrupedum et volucrum, vel cum terrena 
marinis 

2 Monstra admiscentur, etc. 


2. Profess. XIX. 15 f. 


Vossianus (as reported by the Lyons 
edd.) gives the two final verses in tele- 
scoped form: ‘Sed velit nolit famae 
Burdigalam referet.’ The couplet may 
perhaps be restored: 
Sed [quid conquerimur ? 


et illos] ; 
Fama, velit, nolit,! Burdigalam referet. 


1 Query : ‘velit, nolizt.’ 


eel VELY. 21. 


Vossianus reads ‘ fulgor tetrigono 
aspectus,’ altered by Vinet to ‘fulgor 
tetragono adpectu (9). This reading 
is adopted by Peiper. 

But the sun is at this point in the 
fifth sign, and regards the ‘momentum 
conceptionis’ with a triangular, not a 
quadrilateral, aspect. Read, therefore, 

Fulgor e¢ trigono aspectu vitale coruscat. 


For ‘ trig6n6’ cf. 1. 40. 
Aa eel, XXV I. ΧΆ. 


Tanta supra circaque vigent umi flamina mundi 


is the reading of Vossianus. Peiper 
follows Reise in correcting the corrupt 
sum to.‘ vi. But; what are ‘these 
‘flamina mundi’? The _ resumptive 
‘tanta’ shows they can only be the 


Longum post tempus 


IIL 


signs named above. It is needless to 
dwell upon the inappropriateness of so 
designating the stars. No violent altera- 
tion is required if we read: 

Tanta supra circaque viget vzs flammea mundi. 


Cf. Lucretius II. 215 (‘vis flammea’), 
I. 1089 (‘ totum circum tremere aethera 
signis’), 1. 1102 (‘flammarum moenia 
mundi’). 


5. Bissula 111. 5 f. 


Of the MSS. Tilianus has ‘ nescitere 
i(m)p(er)ium’ (abbreviated), Maglia- 
becchianus, ‘nescit ere imperium.’ The 
ed. pr. has ‘nescivit herae imperium.’ 
It is clear that ‘imperium’ is a fragment 
of the lost pentameter. The Lyons 
edd. restore |. 6: 

Imperium, domina vult domina esse manu. 
Scaliger suggests, 

Imperium domina libera facta manu, 


The meaning appears rather to be that 
Bissula, though she herself is free from 
the domination of anyone of her own 
sex, tyrannises over the poet’s house- 
hold, which had no mistress to overlook 
it. We might read then : 


Matre carens nutricis egens [quae] nescit erai 
Imperium, [domini nunc regit ipsa domum.] 


6. Epist. XIII. 25. 


The missing hexameter might be 
replaced by something like 


{Ursule Caesareos pro strenis accipe nummos}, 


the omission being due to the recurrence 
of ‘Ursule’ at the beginning of both 
25 and 26. 


7. Epist. XXVII. 69 ff. 


Peiper follows Schenk] in marking 
lacunae before and after 1. 70. The 
following may restore the general trend 
of the passage: 

[Me nivibus fluviisque suis Hispania tellus. 
Laedis et ipse tuos qui deseris, ultro relictis] 
Moenibus et patrio forsan quoque vestis et oris 
[ More, interque novos qui nunc versaris amicos, | 
Quemque, etc. 

If ‘me nivibus (laedit)’ is right, it 15 
easy to see how the first lacuna occurred. 
‘More’ too is sufficiently like the first 
syllable of ‘moenibus’ to account for 
the second. 


HucuH G. EvELYN WHITE. 


L122 


THE ‘CLASSICAL. REVIEW 


REVIEWS 


R. ACCADEMIA SCIENTIFICO-LETTERARIA IN MILANO. 


Rk. Accademia sctentifico - letteraria in 
Milano: Studi della Scuola Papiro- 
logica I., II. Milano: U. Hoepli. 
1015, 1917. 


A WELCOME sign of the marked pro- 
gress in the study of Greek papyri in 
‘Italy is the establishment of a school 
of papyrology at Milan, under the 
energetic leadership of Professor A. 
Calderini, assisted by Professor P. de 
Francisci and Dr. G.. Castelli. The 
first-fruits of the new school, which, 
like the Florentine Socteta Italiana per 
la ricerca det Papiyt, numbers several 
ladies among its members, are two 
handsome volumes, each divided into 
four sections, of which the first consists 
of unpublished texts. The times are 
of course unpropitious for obtaining 
papyri from Egypt, and at present 
Professor Calderini and his helpers are 
dependent for new material upon the 
generosity of the Florentines, who for- 
tunately have a large collection, or 
upon papyri passed over by previous 
editors. Thus P. Fay. 204, a briefly 
described fragment of a collection of 
maxims, was cleverly identified by 
Calderini as belonging to the Aphorisms 
of Hippocrates, and is published in 
full (No. 1). A third-century letter 
(No. 2), for which the same editor is 
responsible, clearly requires consider- 
able revision, the text being untrans- 
latable as printed. In 1.4 καὶ ἔστι δ᾽ 
ἐν ποσίν, πραχθήτω should probably be 
καὶ εἴ τι δέον ἐστίν, Tp. The following 
sentence (ll. 5-6) μάθε Διονυσίου τὰς] 
βουλιτὰς πράξ(εις) περὶ τοῦ κατ᾽ αὐτόν 
can hardly be right: τί βούλεται 
πρᾶξ(αι) is expected. In 1.7 ἀ[σκ]ῶν 
is an unlikely restoration: the context 
suggests a[vr]@e or a proper name in 
the dative. καὶ ἅπαντος ἐγράφησ]α 
φροντιστ[ῇ] ἡμῶν in Il. 9-10 is unsatis- 
factory, especially since ἔγραψα occurs 
in 1. 13, and the divisions of words 
between two lines are elsewhere cor- 
rect. If the initial a in 1. 10 is right, 
ἀφροντίστ[ ὡς] suggests itself, and some- 


thing like καὶ ἅπαντα δὲ γράψον ἀφ. 
ἡμεῖν Would be appropriate. προσαγό- 
peve τῷ παιδὶ τὰ ἡμῶν καὶ πάντας TOUS 
ἡμετέρους is an impossible construction, 
and τὰ παιδία ἡμῶν must have been 
meant, whatever was written. ἀρίστους 
in 1. 13, ὥστε τοῖς περὶ ap., is probably 
a proper name, ᾿Αριστοῦς, not ἀρίστους: 
The next sentence (ll. 14-6) is unintel- 
ligible, but apart from the original can 
hardly be restored. In 1. 19 Ildous 
εὔχομαι, which follows εἰ ἔτους after the 
conventional salutation ἐρρῶσθαί σε 
εὔχομαι πανοικησίᾳ, is presumably a 
misreading of Παῦνι (or Nayar) ἑβδόμη. 
The other texts in Part I. are Byzan- 
tine, the most interesting being No. 5, 
edited by Francisci, of which a facsimile 
is given. Thisisa badly spelled petition 
to a comes from the inhabitants of the 
Arsinoite village of Atvvews (cf. P. Tebt. 
ll. p. 375), aS appears from ll. 4-5, 
where |. πα[ρὰ τῶν ἀπὸ (κώμης 3) | 
Aiv’vews for παί--- | δυνάμεως. The 
preceding clause belongs to the titles of 
the comes, and after κώμ[ετε a word like 
βοηθῷ is to be restored before τῶν σὸν 
δουλον (sic: the v of δουλον was written 
above the line, not omitted). . The loss 
of the right-hand half of most of the 
lines obscures the sense throughout; 
but apparently the villagers were in 
difficulties as regards both food and 
water (χρεία is to be supplied at the 
end of |. 25), and wanted the comes to 
appoint a person called Solomon (ll. 7, 
ro) to look after them, and to come 
himself (weprratncev and φρωντισεν in 
ll. 17 and 190 seem to represent περιπά- 
τῆσον and φρόντισον).  Oavuatlopev 
τὴν σὴν | μεγαλωπρέπιαν is a probable 
restoration of ll. 5-6, and the following 
word was most likely dpw[vticev as in 
]. 19.) fev'in 1.7 as: for τοῦ. In τὰ 
]. πάλι(ν) tas for παψίας, and similarly 
πάλ[ι(ν) for παίψιας ὃ in 1. ro. The 
restoration κυρι[ακοῦ in |. 13 is unsatis- 
factory, for a letter visible after ἡ seems 


to be ζ. In 1. τὸ esénvate προτευσε 
means εἰ δύναται. πρωτεῦσαι (SC. 
Solomon). The papyrus has ἑξῦς not 


THE CLASSICAL) REVIEW 


ἑξῆς in 1. 20, where μυήσεω]ς is a 
possible reading (traces of several letters 
at the end of this line are ignored) ; but 
the supposed references in this letter to 
Christian religious ceremonies are all 
very uncertain. In the curious sen- 
tence (ll. 22-3) θέλομεν αὐτὸν (se. 
Solomon) ἕως τοῦ σώματος τοῦ δεσπότου 
ἡμῶν, the δεσπότης is more likely to be 
the comes himself than the Deity; cf. 
l. 29, where 1. δέσποτα ἡμῶν followed 
by a cross, marking the conclusion of 
the petition. Line 25 is to be read -αν 
(the @ was a later insertion) εἰς τὴν 
κώμην εἰ (=) δύλωσον (= δήλωσον) 
αἰὐτῷ. That the corrupt μωσησα at 
the beginning of 1. 27 contains a refer- 
ence to the Jewish law-giver is improb- 
able: Moses and Solomon were common 
Byzantine names in Egypt. In 1. 28 
1. καὶ τὸν θεόν cov, χαρισεν (i.c. χάρισον) 
ἡμῖν τὰ do[—. In No. 4, an account 
of barley, in which several passages 
have still to be deciphered, μεσορῆς in 
11. 9 and 12 should be divided Μεσορὴ ¢, 
as is shown by 1. 13, where Μεσορὴ 16 
occurs. The members of the school 
would do well to revise each other’s 
copies to a greater extent than they 
seem to have done. Few cursively 
written papyri can be deciphered quite 
accurately by a single pair of eyes until 
much experience has been obtained. 

The second section consists of articles 
by various members of the school, 
chiefly commenting upon literary frag- 
ments published in P. Soc. [tal. I.-II. 
(17 epigrams, 55 index of the Digest, 120 
collection of aphorisms, 131 epic, 136 
comedy), a few dealing with juristic 
points (βιβλίον and βιβλίδιον, συνεστώς 
and συμπαρών). The third section, 
which is much the longest, is a lexicon 
suppletorium to the papyrus. fragments 
of Sophocles (soon to be increased by 
the fragments of the Jnachus in P. Tebt. 
ill.), with a collection of the various 
restorations which have been proposed 
—a very useful piece of work, which 
reflects great credit on the industry of 
the new school. Reviews of recent 
papyrological publications conclude the 
volume. 

Part II. is mainly concerned with 
private letters, elaborate classifications 
and indices of the existing material 
being provided by Professor Calderini 


113 


and Signora M. Mondini; while three 
interesting articles deal with some 
more general aspects—Calderini on 
‘Thought and Sentiment, Signora Mon- 
dini on ‘Women’s Letters,’ and G. 
Ghedini on ‘ Pagan Religious Elements.’ 
The new texts are also letters, being 
three British Museum papyri published 
by Calderini from photographs. Having 
revised the originals of these, I append 
my copies of two of them, which differ 
somewhat widely from the editor’s 
readings (e.g. in No. 6. 3-4 he has ἔχει 
᾿Ιχλαρίων σου ἐπιστολὴν ὡς ὑπαινεῖς καὶ 
“Hasodapos ἡ δ μων ος ? .. .). 6 (P. 
Lond. 852),,as he rightly points out, 
belongs to the same series as P. Amh. 
88 and 131-5, and was written about 
130. 7 (P. Lond. 853a) is contemporary 
with 6, and, though the hand is appar- 
ently different, very likely refers to the 
same two individuals. Another papyrus 
belonging to this group is P. Lond. 840 
(Kenyon-Bell, Catal. 111. 169). 

6. 1 Ettuyidns ᾿Ηλιοδώρῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ 
2 χαίρειν. 3. ἐχάρη(ν) λαβών cov ἐπιστο- 
λὴν ὡς ὑγιαίνεις 4 καὶ ἀπρόσκοπος 
γέγονας (or -νώς). παρακα- ὃ λῷ οὖν 
σε συνεχῶς ἡμεῖν ὃν (9) διεσ- © τειλά- 
μηίν ἢ σω.η( +). Ἰἔρρωσο. On the 
verso ὃ Ἡλιοδώρῳ τῶι ἀδελφῶι. For 
ἀπρόσκοπος in the sense of ‘ unharmed’ 
cf. .P: Gaessen\ 177, etc.) i he reading 
of the four words before ἔρρωσο is uncer- 
tain; but ἡμεῖν is preferable to ἡμέραν, 
and though διε! rez 1s possible, the prece- 
ding word is not ἐν. One of the last two 
words must be an infinitive, but σῶσαι 
is not satisfactory, and in both words 
the final letter seems tobe a large ἢ 
above the line, like that of éydpn(v). 

7. 1[Edtuxidn(?) |s Ἡλιοδώρωι τῶι ἀδελ- 
gar 3 χαίρειν. ὅ.[8 1.]reus (?) ἐπιλε- 


λῃσμένος ἡμῶν “ [8 1.1.ς οὐδὲν ἧττόν σε 


[νῦν ἀσπά- © [ζομαι. σ]υνεχέστερον 
δ᾽ ἂν ἣν τοῦτο, εἰ μὴ 5 [τι 1. π]ερὶ τὸ 
σῶμα συμβέβηκε. Τ1[121.Ἱνι οὐδεν! δ]ς (Ὁ) 
ὠλιγώρησα, 8[1τ2 ἰ.Ἱμανικὰ (?) ἀπὸ 
μέρους, καθὼς 59.[1τ2 1.}].ς προσαντι- 
βέβληκα 19 [9 1.]. pa πλοίων περὶ τῶν 
η- “6 1.Περ[.]ν μόγιᾳ αἴρω (9) σοι τὴν 
τετάρ- ᾿1ξ[ τη ]ν (9), καὶ ἤδη ἡ a ?>yopa 
ἣν καὶ ἀπεστάλκειν 13 [ἂν] εἰ (2) μὴ 
ἔμελλεν διορθοῦσθαι πρὸς τὴν [5 1.] 
εἰαν. καὶ γὰρ ἐμαυτῶι κατασκευ- 15[81.] 
εἰ τε τ ν᾽ ΜΈΝΗ ποῦ ἢ 
μενου.7. ς ἔχω σπου- Ὶ 


114 


before the papyrus breaks off. The 
length of the lines is fixed by the 
tolerably certain restorations at the 
beginnings of Il. 5 and 12. For 
προσαντιβάλλειν (‘compare’; 1. 9) cf. 
B.G.U. 970. 4. The second a and the 
v of κατασκευ- have been corrected, the 
former from ε (unless κατεσ- corrected 
from xatao- be read). While both 
Nos. 6 and 7 are rather difficult, No. 8 
(P. Lond. 963) isclear. In]. 1]. Anpn- 
τρίος, not Δημητρίῳ. Ἰ]λουτίων Βάκχω 
is for Πλουτίωνε Βάκχου, as appears 
from the address on the verso, which 
seems not to have been supplied to 
Calderini. This runs ἀπόδος is (= εἰς) 
᾿Αποί ) Πλουτίωνε Βάκχου, but the 
place-name is uncertain, 7 having been 
corrected, and there being perhaps 
another letter after o. Possibly (e)és 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


πόλ (ιν) was intended. The provenance 
of the papyrus is unknown. In 1, 3 
. t (=et) δὲ μή, πέμψον ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (= ἡμᾶς) 
for ἰδὼ(ν) ἢ πεμ. ἐφ᾽ ὑμ. The letter is 
doubtfully assigned in Kenyon-Bell’s 
Catalogue to the third century, but more 
probably belongs to the Domitian- 
Trajan period. 

A valuable juristic article by G. 
Castelli is the re-edition with a full 
commentary of the Latin will of a.p. 
131 published in 1914 by de Ricci, and 
there is an excellently arranged biblio- 
graphy of recent papyrological publica- 
tions, which is very complete for 1915, 
but necessarily less so for 1916. The 
volume concludes with obituary notices, 
among which we regret to see recorded 
the death of one of the most promising 
members of the school, Attilio Cosattini, 
who fell at Cima Lana in December, 
IgI5. 

B. P. GRENFELL. 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT 
OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH. 


A Grammar of the Greek New Testament 
im the Light of Historical Research. 
By Professor A. T. ROBERTSON. 
One vol. 10° 8". ) Pp. xl-+-1360. 
London: Hodder and Stoughton. 
No date. 205. net. 


THIS massive and monumental volume 
should have received earlier notice, had 
not imperious duties caused by the 
present war made it impossible to give 
to the work the consideration it de- 
manded. The delay has not been un- 
productive of good: it has allowed 
many readers to test by experience 
what its worth is. Interchange of 
opinions has served to confirm the 
reviewer’s single judgment. 

It is something to have at hand a 
work which has taken account of 
modern grammatical researches and of 
the material hurled upon us from the 
Press since Egypt began to yield up 
her buried treasures. But when this 
has been said, it has first to be deplored 
that the work should have been pro- 
duced as a ponderous single tome 
instead of as two handy volumes. The 


large print is welcome and the ample 
margins, but it remains that the book 
is not a delight to the user. This 
regret is accentuated by two defects in 
the Index. There the columns of refer- 
ences do not have at the top of every 
page the name of the particular book in 
the New Testament which is in question. 
As a result the reader turns over e.g. 
the ten pages of references from the 
Acts uncertain what book it is that the 
figures concern, and time and patience 
are lost. More than that, when a 
passage is run to earth there is nothing 
to distinguish a page of the text which 
deals casually with a problem from 
those pages which fully discuss it. 
Further there is considerable repetition, 
and even discrepancy, in different parts 
of the book—a natural failing in so 
large a work, but none the less irrita- 
ting. Some who have used the book 
have summed up these criticisms by 
saying frankly that they can never find 
what they want. 

So much for complaint, or rather for 
deploring that the author has not given 
us more than he has. But in the other 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


scale must be set that the author has 
produced something promptly, while 
others have only been accumulating 
stores in preparation, and what he has 
produced shows a stupendous industry, 
a facility of assimilation, amazing eru- 
dition, and a generally sound judgment. 
Only one misses the gift Dr. Rutherford 
had for lucid simplification and for the 
reduction of much learning to the terms 
of humble students. Sometimes indeed 
one is tempted to doubt whether the 
author himself has an absolute mastery 
of his material, whether he has not com- 
piled a thesaurus of the views of others 
instead of composing a work of inde- 
pendent authority. 

In so vast a field human nature may 
perhaps justifiably claim indulgence if 
details escape full attention, if incon- 
sistencies creep in, or if the different 
parts of the work are not brought into 
entire accord. The range of study and 
reference is so enormous, the multi- 
plicity of facts to be considered and 
correlated so great. It must be said 
however that practical acquaintance 
’ with the work has shown that the inter- 
locking of the different parts might 
have been made more complete, and 
the index does not make good this defi- 
ciency. Complaint indeed has been 
made that it 1s difficult to get quickly 
at the author’s view on a particular 
point, the index giving many references 
which touch only incidentally on the 
desired topic, while there is nothing to 
indicate where the heart of the matter 
appears. Obviously we can here merely 
mention one or two details in the 
grammar which have caught the re- 
viewer's attention. 

On p. 348 we have the easy dictum 
“Ἤξα occurs a few times instead of the 
common ἤγαγον, as ἐπάξας (2 Pet. 2.5), 
ἐπισυνάξαι (Luke 13. 34). One would 
like to know if any other instances can 
be adduced, and to have some fresh 
consideration of the evidence. As to 
the 2 Peter passage J. B. Mayor in his 
edition, p. 123, gives no parallel but (by 
mistake) Acts 14. 27, and refers to 
Veitch. Veitch’s texts however were 
before Rutherford and others had 
worked on the Greek dialects, and 
Dr. Robertson’s footnote stating that 
Mayser finds the sigmatic aorist in the 


II5 
papyri hardly grapples with the diffi- 
culty. Why should St. Luke give us 
ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι and St. Matthew 
ἠθέλησα éemicvvayayeiv? The late 
Professor Moulton used to argue that 
the sigmatic form was in Q, and, because 
the words were utterances of our Lord, 
St. Luke kept the unclassical form, 
and he inferred from this the superior 
fidelity of St. Luke, at least in such 
utterances, where the First and Third 
Gospels were drawn from the non- 
Marcan common source. This view 
however encounters many difficulties, 
and an alternative suggestion may be 
made, regard being had to the numerous 
symptoms of Ionic infiltration into St. 
Luke’s language. The one passage 
quoted from Herodotus, vii. 60, § 2, for 
the sigmatic aorist runs as follows: 
cuvayayovtes ἐς ἕνα χῶρον μυριάδα 
ἀνθρώπων καὶ συνάξαντες ταύτην ὡς 
μάλιστα εἶχον περιέγραψαν ἔξωθεν κύ- 
κλον. Reiske has been followed by 
modern scholars in here reading συννάξ- 
avtes, and it may be suggested that 
this is the word intended by St. Luke. 
It would then be a matter for further 
investigation whether the corrupt spell- 
ing was posterior to his penning his 
Gospel, or due to him, whether he took 
it from Q or himself used it in trans- 
lating an Aramaic original, and whether 
in the latter case the First Gospel has 
used St. Luke’s Greek translation. 
On the other hand the use of the form 
in 2 Peter, the style of which, Professor 
J. B. Mayor (cbzd. p. lix) says, in some 
respects is ‘more classical than that 
of most of the books of the New Testa- 
ment,’ challenges further investigation 
as to why St. Matthew should have 
substituted the other form. 

On p. 779 we have statements and 
quotations as to the position of the 
article or rather of pronouns inside or 
outside the article which are vitiated 
by an appearance of inacquaintance 
with the Attic practice. The author 
writes: ‘The personal pronouns illus- 
trate either order, except that pov is 
nearly always outside (but see τῶν 
πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων Galo 1: τὴς 
and ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ Ν Tim. 
4. τὸ): He does not apparently recog- 
nise in these two instances the accord 
with the ordinary Attic usage. This 


116 


leads to his not sufficiently bringing 
into prominence the peculiarity of ¢.g. 
Rom. 3. 24 ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ 
χάριτι, Col. I. 8, THY ὑμῶν ἀγάπην 
τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ Gal. 6. ὃ. In 
fact he nowhere, as it would appear, 
distinguishes between μου, ἡμῶν, K.T.X. 
and ἑαυτοῦ «.7.X. in this matter of 
Attic practice, so that it is impossible 
to tell instantly what New Testament 
passages show a different use. 

Another question is the rule for the 
tense used in indirect discourse. The 
author begins (p. 887) correctly enough 
with the statement that ‘the imperfect 
in indirect discourse represents an im- 
perfect of the direct discourse,’ but he 
moderates the stringency of the rule by 
prefixing the words ‘In general.’ As 
is well known, there is some divergence 
of opinion on the universality of the 
rule in Attic of the maturest, but I will 
confess to my own adhesion to ‘the 
straiter sect.’ In Arist. Wasps 283 
ἡμᾶς διεδύετ᾽ ἐξαπατῶν λέγων ὡς καὶ 
φιλαθήναιος ἣν καὶ τἀν Σάμῳ πρῶτος 
κατείποι, I have for many years taught 
that the sense is ‘that he had been a 
pro-Athenian.’ This would be a better 
plea than any protestations as to his 
sympathies at the time of his trial. 
Thus I regard Mr. Graves’ note on the 
passage (‘the man said φιλαθήναιός 
ejut’) as an ill-advised acceptance of 
Goodwin’s verdict. It is perfectly true, 
as Mr. E. C. Marchant has shown, that 
Thucydides occasionally after verbs of 
perception continues the old construc- 
tion plentifully preserved in Homer (as 
on p. 1029 the author notes), but Dr. 
Robertson—if I rightly understand a 
somewhat perplexed paragraph—has 
certainly extended the purview of this 
exception beyond what is legitimate 
when after writing ‘sometimes with 
verbs of perception it is relative time, 
and refers to a time previous to the 
perception ’—which seems to agree with 
his previous statement, though he con- 
nects the two with a ‘But’—he goes on 
to quote instances which suggest that 
he interprets the past tenses as not 
referring to a time previous to the 
perception. Some of these quotations 
are interesting enough to receive dis- 
cussion. In St. John: ΟΣ 22. 25) we 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


have τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς 
πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδον ὅτι πλοιάριον 
ado οὐκ ἣν (‘had not been’ the day 
before, as I understand it) ἐκεῖ ef μὴ 
ἕν (in which the disciples had put off), 
καὶ ὅτι ov συνεισῆλθεν (‘had not entered’ 
the evening before) τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ 
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς TO πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οὗ 
μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον ue had gone 
away ᾿,τ-ἀλλὰ ἦλθεν πλοιάρια κ.τ.λ.-- 
ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν ὁ “ὄχλος ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ 
ἔστιν (‘was not’ on the morrow, when 
they reached this conviction) ἐκεῖ KT A. 
Again in St. Mark 11. 32 εἶχον τὸν 
sey ae ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης Hv, the 
tense, there can be no doubt, indicates 
that John was dead and ‘had been a 
prophet.’ Similarly in St. John 8. 27 
quoted on p. 1029 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι... 
ἔλεγεν, the sense is ‘he had been speak- 
ing.’ There is however a well-known 
Attic use of the imperfect which seems 
to have seduced the author into relax- 
ing the rule. This is the use exempli- 
fied in the familiar ὅδ᾽ ἣν dpa ὁ ξυλλα- 
Bov pe of Soph. Philoct. and of con- 
stant occurrence in Plato. It is possible 
that we should understand in this way" 
Ske Luke’ 8 ἐπεγίνωσκον αὐτόν, ὅτι οὗτος 
ἣν ὁ πρὸς τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην καθήμενος 
(Acts of Apost. 3. 11), though it seems 


‘better (in contrast to the ἐσ τη in 9. 8) 


to take it that the meaning is ‘he had 
been the beggar.’ In other words the 
people said, ‘This was the beggar.’ 

Dr. Robertson apparently thinks that 
ἣν might here have been ἐστίν, since 
after quoting the passage he adds ‘ while 
in 4. 13 ἦσαν is rightly antecedent to 
ἐπεγίνωσκον.. This reference is par- 
ticularly interesting, since we have 
both tenses side by side and distin- 
guished as in Attic “καταλαβόμενοι ὅτι 
ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί εἰσιν καὶ ἰδιῶται, 
ἐθαύμαξον ἐπεγίνωσκόν TE αὐτοὺς ὅτ [η σὺν 
τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἧσαν. In Acts 16. 3 ἤδεισαν 
γὰρ ἅπαντες ὅτι “ἴλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ 
ὑπῆρχεν, the interpretation ‘ had been’ 

harmonises best with the general tone 
of the passage, which suggests that 
the father was dead. If οὗτος ἦν ὁ 
εἰπών be the right reading in St. John, 
Gospel I. 15, it is hard to see how any- 
thing else could stand for ‘ this— John— 
was the man who said it,’ though the 
author writes ‘ Our idiom more natu- 
rally calls for ἐστίν here.’ Without an 


THE CLASSICAL (REVIEW 


exhaustive examination of all the rele- 
vant passages, it seems that we are justi- 
fied in saying that the syntactical rule 
of mature Attic prose is the rule in the 
New Testament, the grammarian need- 
ing however to keep in mind the idiom 
just mentioned as common in Plato. 
One passage indeed might excite sus- 
picion as to the validity of the state- 
ment just made. St. John g. 8 has οἱ 
γείτονες καὶ of θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ 
πρότερον ὅτι προσαίτης ἦν, but Bishop 
Westcott writes ‘here, however, ‘‘ be- 
cause” suits the context better: because 
he was a beggar in a public spot, they 
were familiar with his appearance.’ 
Connected with this question of the 
tense-use in indirect discourse in the 
New Testament authors is another. 
Dr. Robertson (p. 1043) tells us that 
‘occasionally one does see’ change in 
tense in indirect questions when the prin- 
cipal verbis secondary. The contention 
may be hazarded that in one passage 
at least the true solution is rather this, 
that the interfusion of use between the 


117 


interrogative tis and the relative ὅς is 
responsible for an exception to the rule 
about the retention in indirect questions 
of the tense proper in the direct. Might 
we not thus explain St. John 6. 6 αὐτὸς 
yap ἤδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν, and in that 
case 12. 33 and 18. 32 σημαίνων ποίῳ 
θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν, when com- 
pared with 21.19 σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ 
δοξάσει τὸν Θεόν, may be thought to 
carry us back to the Divine intention 
in the Incarnation rather than be taken 
as precisely equivalent to μέλλει. Dr. 
Robertson quotes also St. John 2. 25 
αὐτὸς yap ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἣν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, 
and says ‘the direct form would have 
ἐστιν, but it appears to give a fuller 
sense if we understand the ἦν as mean- 
ing rather ‘was all along and was now 
revealed as being’ in men’s hearts—the 
use mentioned above. 

Misprints are happily to seek. I 
have noted only p. 885, note 2: for the 
reference to Abbott, p. 338, read 339. 


T. NICKLIN. 


THEOPHRASTUS AND THE GREEK PHYSIOLOGICAL 
PSYCHOLOGY BEFORE ARISTOTLE. 


Theophrastus and the Greek Physzological 
Psychology before Aristotle. By GEORGE 
Matcotm STRATTON, Professor of 
Psychology in the University of Cali- 
fornia. Londonand New York, 1017. 


In the Classical Review of February- 
March, 1918, we welcomed the scholarly 
and very useful edition and translation 
by Sir Arthur Hort of the Plants of 
Theophrastus ; itis a happy chance which 
about the same time has given us Pro- 
fessor Stratton’s edition and translation 
of the Essay on the Senses, also a 
~ very scholarly and thorough edition, if 
of a less interesting and useful treatise. 
The treatise on Plants is a work rich in 
contents and scientific in tenor; in the 
π. αἰσθήσεων Theophrastus undertook 
_ to deal with an impossible subject. 
_ The great Italo-Ionian thinkers, in 
siving wing to their superb imagina- 
tions, had before and around them the 
glory of immeasurable space, and the 
outward compass of the human eye was 


in some correspondence with the reach 
of the mind; for them the infinity of 
extension was not inaccessible; but of 
the infinity of the little they could not 
in the nature of things form any notion. 
For such penetration they were not 
armed, and could not be armed. But 
the restless Ionian mind was untame- 
able, and sprang at every apprehensible 
problem. And what lay nearer to its 
threshold than the nature of the very 
faculties by which man was hearing, 
seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling ! 
The results were pathetic: a shore 
strewn with the wreckage of thought. 
All speculation on the five senses, with- 
out the means of penetrating into the 
secrets of the infinitely little, were 
doomed to failure. Yet even on this 
bootless errand the mighty minds of 
those sages have left a few high-water 
marks; as for example in the broad 
conception of Empedocles, and after- 
wards of Aristotle, that all the special 
senses must be a modifications of that of 


118 


touch;! a conception lost again until 
ourowntimes. However, on the whole, 
the results of these wrestlings with what 
were then vain endeavours were as 
worthless as the researches in natural 
history and descriptive anatomy were 
solid gain. Not even indirectly did 
those efforts serve to develop the 
human faculties, but rather to dissipate 
them ; the prophets beat their wings in 
the void. By all the speculations of 
Alcmaeon, Pythagoras, Empedocles, 
Democritus, Heraclitus, Plato, Anaxa- 
goras, and even of Aristotle, on the 
special senses, scarcely a handbreath of 
territory was won. 

It will be urged, and rightly, that this 
treatise—fragment as it is—is valuable 
and almost unique as history, whether 
of the author’s own opinions or those of 
others. No doubt; yet, even in our 
dearth of controls, we cannot but per- 
ceive that the tone of it is not such 
as to command the historian’s ready 
assent. Skilful as the summary is, it 
is often perverse, onesided, or, where 
we have any controls, even astray.? 
For .instance, Theophrastus surely 
misreads the Tumaeus, wherein Plato’s 
notion of vision is evidently not of 
transmitted substances—the dmoppoat 
of Empedocles, etc. —but of trans- 
mitted motions (Stratton). Moreover 
his treatise is written in a polemical 
spirit, and with a determined aim to 
establish the author’s own opinions 
against the rest; opinions however 
not a whit more valid. Thus the 
modern historian does not know what 
to accept and what to reject. We must 
remember of course that canons of criti- 
cism were then unrecognised, as we see 
only too clearly in Pliny and Galen— 
Galen, who in talents and attainments 
was rich enough to have been more 
evenhanded. Perhaps the Prooemium 
of Celsus is the only critically balanced 
summary of scientific history we possess 
by an ancient author; but Theophrastus 


1 Arist. De Sens. IV. 443a. And touch he 
regarded as a complex of sensations, the sense 
of temperatures, for example, being rightly 
separated. 

* This I say with great respect, and indeed 
with diffidence, as Professor Stratton, with 
whose researches herein mine cannot be com- 
pared, takes an opposite view. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


himself shows more of the critical 
faculty in The Plants, where he worked 
under the dominion of facts, than he 
does in skirmishing with questions to 
which at that time no answers were 
possible. 

But these preliminary reflections may 
seem ungracious to Professor Stratton, 
by whose labours indeed we are better 
enabled to make them. On this philo- 
sophical and quasi-scientific side the 
work is well and most conscientiously 
done; the text is taken with little altera- 
tion from that of Diels in the Doxi- 
grvapht Graect. The fair and open mind 
of the editor is seen on every page; 
especially in the use he has made 
throughout of the generous annotations 
of Professor Taylor of Aberdeen, of 
whom Professor Stratton speaks quite 
as a collaborator in the work. No less 
frankly he acknowledges his debt to the 
great industry and acumen of Pro- 
fessor Beare.2 And of course the 
standard Vorsokratiker of Diels had not 
been forgotten. The translation itself 
seems to me, as a general reader, to be 
excellent ; both readable and _ faithful. 
As to scholarship we are supplied with 
sixty-six pages of very careful notes, I 
had almost said by both the editor and 
Professor Taylor; so carefully have 
these two scholars discussed together, 
and often elucidated, obscure phrases 
and textual puzzles. Where, as occa- 
sionally, these able commentators differ 
the reader has an opportunity of using 
his own discretion. 

The history of the science of the 
Senses began with that venerable shade 
Alcmaeon, of the great school of Croton. 
He, with the earliest Hippocratic 
authors, has the honour of being the 
first to regard the brain—that cold, still 
and bloodless mass of later physiolo- 
gists, not only as the centre of the 
special senses but also as the seat of the 
mind. Aristotle of course dethroned 
the brain, to be a mere cooler of the 


3 Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition, 
by John J. Beare, Oxford, 1906. Cordially I 
concur with Professor Stratton’s criticism, that 
‘no one who has not gone over this book 
almost line by line . . . can sufficiently appre- 
ciate the scholarly care and expository judg- 
ment’ (of it) And, I may add, the more 
thankfully to be received, as much of it, though 
a necessary, was rather a duil job. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


innate heat, and put the heart to reign 
in its stead. The heart, he said, was 
especially cognitive of touch. Alcmaeon 
initiated those physical hypotheses of 
sensation which, although at that era 
indeterminable, were notwithstanding 
on the true way of interpretation. 

Among the physical ideas which held 
the attention of the ancients none was 
more prevalent than that of ‘pores,’ 
minute passages between the finest 
particles of the bodily tissues, or indeed 
of matter generally.’ A salient example 
of this idea was the common belief of 
the time in cutaneous respiration. 
Thus Empedocles eminently, but also 
more or less in agreement with him 
Democritus, supposed that particles 
(amroppotat) flew from the perceptible 
object to penetrate the pores—of the 
eye, for example; the results varying 
as the pores were straight or contorted, 
etc. The εὐθύτροπα were διαυγῆ (see 
Plato, Menon). It was also an ancient 
Italo-Ionian and Platonic belief—an 
impression founded on the occurrence 
of flashes in the eye—that the eye 
contained fire, whereby it saw; the 
ὠγύγιον πῦρ which issuing forth il- 
lumined the object ; but how the ingoing 
and the outgoing particles met and com- 
bined we are not told. Pythagoras and 
Empedocles thought that something 
issued from the eye as well as entered 
it, but Alemaeon, Diogenes, and Anaxa- 
goras seemed to hold only action from 
the object to the eye: no reverse 
current. Other physiologists, such as 
Diogenes of Apollonia and Democritus, 
laid more stress on the water in the eye, 
water which served as a mirror wherein 
objects were reflected; though of course 
the principles of reflection were not 
known. Κόρη, for these physiologists, 
was not the pupil but the lens; the 
retina was unknown. 

Democritus was the first to discuss 
colour vision,” but his conjectures there- 
on, into which he wove the four ele- 
ments, are far too intricate even for 
allusion. But, like all these sages, he 
based his interpretations upon physics. 
He thought colour to be a purely sub- 


‘ The postulate of pores was not earlier 
than Empedocles (Stratton). 
2 Theoph. De Sens. 72-8 ; and Diels, Vorsoz. 


119 


jective percept; Aristotle thought it 
depended in part on the qualities of the 
object. In his acceptation of black and 
white as the two primaries, by the 
blends of which the other colours were 
derived, Theophrastus reminds us of 
Goethe. In the main of course the 
views of Theophrastus, independent 
thinker as he was, were Aristotelean. A 
curious phase of the theory of vision 
was the ἀποτύπωσις of Democritus and 
others, the object being by them sup- 
posed to stamp itself on the air, the air 
being ‘stamped and compressed’ so as 
to form a mould which floated up to 
the eye. Theophrastus mocks at this 
notion, replying that such models would 
enter the eye backwardwise. However 
hypotheses of this kind, vision by means 
of εἴδωλα, differing only in detail, long 
held the assent of the thinkers of the 
age. Yet other counter arguments were 
many and obyious—that the air would 
be a wilderness of jostling εἴδωλα, that 
they would be unable to go round 
corners, would damage each other in 
passing, would evanesce, and so on. 
The sense of hearing lent itself some- 
what better than vision to this kind of 
guessing. Alcmaeon tried sagaciously 
to explain this sense by regarding the 
structures of the ear as responding to 
external motion as a resonator to sound 
waves; and him in the main Empedo- 
cles followed. Philolaus tells us that 
Pythagoras had determined the prin- 
cipal harmonic ratios,? but had not 
realised the functions of frequency and 
amplitude of the vibrations. Plato and 
Aristotle supposed that flights of air 
fell on the ear like missiles. If Plato 
and Aristotle, like Pythagoras, regarded 
sound as incorporeal it was only in this 
sense, that they regarded surfaces—z.g., 
as of the air—as incorpozeal. Professors 
Stratton and Taylor translate κώδων not 
as ‘gong’ (Beare) but as the bell of a 
trumpet. There was no definite idea of 
vibrating air as a medium of sound 
before Heracleides or Strato (Beare). 
Indeed after these earlier philosophers 
the ear fell to the place of a mere 
conduit. Democritus, as we might 
guess, supposed the movements of the 
atoms in sound to vibrate all through 


3 See Arist. De Sems. iil. 4390, 31. 


120 


the body ; but probably he did not mean 
that we heard with the whole body, a 
notion which Theophrastus promptly re- 
jects as nonsense. He is right however 
in saying that this would be equally 
true in their degrees of all the senses, 
a universal motion which probably 
Democritus would have been quite 
ready to accept. The postulate of 
certain special parcels cf air about the 
ear and brain (ὁ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ anp—the 
‘air of hearing’ in the head), and 
the seat of memory and reminiscence as 
the media of apprehension of sounds 
were obscure, and rather incidental 
notions of little historical interest. 

A curious controversy, one rather of 
logic than of physics, ran through some 
centuries; namely, whether impres- 
sions, such as the ἀπόρροιαι should effect, 
acted upon perceptive surfaces like 
themselves or unlike themselves? The 
‘likeness’ party, such as Alcmaeon, 
Empedocles, Diogenes (doubtfully), and 
others, held that if particulate structures 
are to act one upon another they must 
be of corresponding quality—of like 
nature; on the other hand, the ‘un- 
likeness’ party, of whom Heraclitus and 
Anaxgoras were the chief, argued that 
if like engaged with like there would be 
no grip—no ‘engrenage,’ but slip. How, 
then, would come the ἀλλοίωσις ἢ Plato 
wisely looked rather to the relative mo- 
bilities of particles, the mere arrivals of 
differential movements in consciousness 
(Stratton). Aristotle and Theophrastus 
sat on the fence. The alternative is of 
course assimilation. 

It is true that Theophrastus taught 
the relativity of sense perceptions 
(p. 49); bat so had many of the older 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


sages—e.g., Empedocles, Diocles, Par- 
menides. 

Finally how these several adits of im- 
pressions from without are harmonised 
in the body—where the clearing-house 
may be, the seat of the ‘ Sensus com- 
munis,’ Theophrastus does not formally 
discuss; so that we are deprived of an 
elucidation of the history of this syn- 
thesis by Professor Stratton. We see 
with, but also through, the five senses. 
The elder sages, unless it were Alc- 
maeon, seem scarcely to have per- 
ceived the need of this development of 
αἴσθησις into νοῦς. Plato, one may 
guess, was perhaps the first to grapple 
with this deeper problem in_ the 
Theaetetus ? And then followed Anaxa- 
goras, who made the brain the market- 
place of all the senses, and νοῦς to 
contain psyche, 1.6. cognition and syn- 
thesis. Then the dispersion of the 
three souls diverted philosophers from 
concentrating on the ‘Sensus com- 
munis,’ and the unfortunate usurpation 
of central government by the heart 
under the captaincy of Aristotle, which 
ruled all through the Middle Ages down 
to Harvey, and then by him was only 
transferred to the blood, still more 
perplexed and scattered psychological 
speculation. Even to-day we stand upon 
the confines of a scientitic psychology. 

Of this large fragment of Theophrastus 
on the Senses Professor Stratton has 
probably presented to us the final 
edition ; it was worth doing, and if we 
take it with Professor Beare’s work we 
may suppose that herein there is nothing 
more to be said. 


CLIFFORD ALLBUTT. 


HARVARD STUDIES IN 


Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 
Vol... X XVII... Pp... £83) Harvard 
University Press (London: Oxford 
University Press), 1916. 6s. 6d. net. 


PRoFESSOR C. P. PARKER contributes 
to this volume a short paper on ‘The 
historical Socrates in the Light of Pro- 
fessor Burnet’s Hypothesis.’ It is an 
interesting reminder that the views of 


CEASSIGAL PHI EGEOGY: 


Burnet and Taylor are gaining ground. 
Professor Parker accepts Burnet’s posi- 
tion ina general way, but differs from 
him in some details. The chief of these 
is concerned with the age at which 
Socrates came to hold the doctrine of 
ideas. Professor Parker thinks that the 
doctrine was suggested by Anaxagoras’ 
theory of Mind; Socrates, in fact, was 
trying to discover how Mind (or 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Thought, as Professor Parker calls it) 
acted as the cause of things. But 
Socratescould not haveread Anaxagoras’ 
book before 435, since the influence of 
Diogenes of Apollonia (which must pre- 
cede that of Anaxagoras) can hardly be 
placed more than twelve years before 
423, when the air-theory of Diogenes 
was burlesqued in the Clouds. Professor 
Parker concludes that Socrates was at 
the very least thirty-five years old before 
he began to develop the ideas. Accord- 
ing to this, the Parmenides is unhis- 
torical ; for Socrates in extreme youth 
(σφόδρα νέος) could not possibly have 
discussed the zdeas with Zeno and Par- 
menides. This is a serious difficulty, 
for Burnet has shown how naturally the 
Parmenides fits in with his hypothesis. 
And if Plato could depict a purely 
fanciful and impossible situation in one 
dialogue, how can we be certain that he 
is not doing the same in all? This is 
quite different from a development of 
Socrates’ teaching. 

Mr. R. K. Hack discusses ‘ The Doc- 
trine of Literary Forms.’ He maintains 
that literary criticism has taken the genre 
theory far too seriously, forgetting that 
poetry cannot be confined within rules 
or explained by them. The doctrine of 


genres can be traced back through’ 


Horace and Cicero to its real author 
Plato, for it is nothing more than an 
illegitimate application of the ideas to 
literature. Plato so applied them 
because he disliked poetry; and Aristotle, 
while trying to save poetry, treated it 
with scientific precision as a purely 
external product, rather than a free 
and spontaneous creation. From Aris- 
totle’s time onward criticism has too 
often busied itself about the classifica- 
tion and dissection of literary works, 
rather than an understanding of their 
authors’ meaning. Mr. Hack instances 
the Ars Poetica of Horace, and shows 
into what absurdities critics may 
be led if they insist on classing the 
poem as, 6.5. an Introduction, or an 
Epistle, and interpreting or altering, 
praising or blaming it accordingly. 
Much of Mr. Hack’s criticism is refresh- 
ing and quite necessary. The great 


NO. CCLXX. VOL. XXXII. 


121 


classical writings would have been far 
better known and valued to-day if 
scholars had interpreted them with more 
sympathy and insight, and less scientific 
analysis. Whether the fault is really 
Plato’s is open to doubt. Mr. Hack 
calls Plato a thorough logician with an 
antipathy to all emotion. But he was 
also an ethical teacher, and some, at 
least, of his objections'to poetry are 
ethical in origin. ‘Imitation’ is a bad 
enough term, and Aristotle has done 
harm by perpetuating it; but even 
Aristotle speaks of imitating men ‘as 
they ought to be,’ which should warn 
us that his meaning is wider than we 
might think. 

The remaining paper is on ‘The 
Chorus of Euripides,’ by Mr. A. E. 
Phoutrides. Mr. Phoutrides sets out 
to prove, in a careful and sympathetic 
study, that Euripides cannot be charged 
with reducing the réle of the chorus 
or diminishing its importance. An 
enumeration of the choral parts in all 
extant plays shows that Sophocles and 
Euripides are about equal in the average 
proportion of lines assigned to the 
chorus; Aeschylus, of course, has a far 
higher proportion than either. A too 
confident reliance on the dictum of 
Aristotle, that the chorus ought to 
share in the action μὴ ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδῃ 
ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ Σοφοκλεῖ (if that is really 
what Aristotle wrote), has undoubtedly 
led critics to neglect to examine the 
Euripidean choruses for themselves. 
Mr. Phoutrides brings ample evidence, 
as Decharme has already done, that the 
choruses make their appropriate con- 
tribution of sympathy or reflection, and 
even of discussion and action. Nor 
can a theory of gradual decline be sub- 
stantiated ; for what is its value if the 
Bacchae and the Suppliants, to name no 
others, must be admitted as brilliant 
exceptions? An interesting section on 
the Hyporcheme is added. Most critics 
can find none of these elusive ‘dance- - 
songs’ in Euripides; Decharme: saw 
three or four, but Mr. Phoutrides 
detects a considerable number. 


G. W. BUTTERWORTH. 


122 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


DEMOSTHENES AS A SCHOOL AUTHOR. 


The Olynthiac Speeches of Demosthenes. 
Edited by J. M. MACGREGOR. Pp. 
lii+ ror. Cambridge University Press. 
2s. 6d. net. 


ΤῊΙΒ is an excellent school edition. 
‘I have aimed,’ says the editor, ‘at 
showing these speeches in their due 
relation to Demosthenes’ whole career, 
and at providing the student with the 
means for an effective understanding of 
them.’ He gives accordingly the story 
of Demosthenes (thirty-six pages), with, 
at the foot of the page, abundant quota- 
tions from the original authorities; an 
Analysis of the Speeches; a carefully 
prepared and well-printed text, based 
on that of Blass, but adhering more 
closely to the MSS.; fifty-eight pages 
of Notes; Appendices on the Order of 
the Olynthiac Speeches, and on the 
Theoric Fund; and Indices. He is 
really interested in Demosthenes and 
his time, and makes him interesting to 
his readers. The Notes are careful and 
clear. They are evidently intended for 
those who have not read much Greek, 
and they pass over nothing which is 
likely to puzzle such a student. It 
seems to us that they err just a little in 
the other direction: the same note is 
too often repeated; attention is drawn 
to points which anyone who has suff- 
cient knowledge of Greek and energy of 
mind to read Demosthenes should notice 
for himself: ¢.g. I. 8 ἡμεῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 
αὐτῶν. ‘ Observe the emphasis of the 
repeated pronoun “on behalf of our- 
selves.”’ II. 15 δόξης ἐπιθυμεῖ. ‘ Verbs 
signifying desire (with the exception of 
ποθεῖν) are followed [? preceded] by the 
genitive case.’ But these are not very 
important points. It is worth men- 
tioning that anything notable in the 
language is illustrated as far as possible 
by quotation from the Olynthiacs. 

As one reads these speeches one 
cannot but feel that they are peculiarly 
suitable for study in our schools just 
now. ‘ Turn to a later page, * says Pro- 
fessor Conway in his lecture ‘ Education 
and Freedom ’4+—‘ turn to a later page of 
the story of Athens, her struggle with 


a Published in theiG Contemporary Review, 
June, r916. 


Philip of Macedon; that is, against a 
military monarchy, competent, cen- 
tralised, half-barbarian, aiming at a 
domination over civilised communities. 
In this struggle Athens fell, no longer 
the Athens of the fifth century; too 
civilised, too fond of pleasures, though 
pleasures of a not ignoble type, to set 
freedom above comfort. But the decay 
of the old spirit was not universal—one 
man, at least, was still in love with 
freedom, and he held back the coming 
humiliation for thirty years. Let us 
note two brief passages from the appeals 
of Demosthenes to his countrymen, and- 
consider if any part of them seems out 
of date to-day.’ And he quotes Ol. I. 4-5, 
and part of the First Philippic. 

In Germany a different view of 
Demosthenes, an opinion of him which 
is partly new, has been put forward by 
Professor E. Drerup, who has a special 
knowledge of that period of Greek 
history. In the advertisement in which 
his book Aus emer alten Advokaten- 
vepublik (Demosthenes und seine. Zeit) is 
partly summarised it is maintained that 
the speeches of Demosthenes should be 
banished from the Gymnasium. The 
traditional view of the orator as the 
champion of freedom, as the patriot 
whose words inspire love of country, 
the view of Spengel, for instance, can 
no longer be held. The battle of Sedan 
and the policy of Bismarck have 
changed all that. It is worth while to 
quote the following passage: ~ 


Doch erst der gewaltige Krieg, in den die 
halbe Welt durch die Ranke und Liigen von 
Pariser und Londoner Advokatenpolitikern 
hineingehetzt worden ist, hat vollends die 
Maske von dem Gesichte jenes chauvinistischen 
Demagogen herabgerissen, der nun als ein 
wirdiger Vorganger und Gesinnungsgenosse 
der Asquith und ‘Lloyd George, Poincaré und 
Briand, Veniselos und Jonescu sich zeigt, von 
dem klassischen Lande des Treubruchs ganz 
zu schweigen. 

Wer im Lichte des Weltkriegs die Reden 
des Demosthenes, unbeirrt durch ihre pathe- 
tische Geste, als zeitgeschichtliche Dokumente 
priift und den Demosthenes selbst als Politiker 
und Fithrer der Advokatenpartei nicht nach 
seinen eigenen selbstgefalligen Urteilen, son- 
dern nach den harten Tatsachen der geschicht- 
lichen Entwicklung wertet, wird in ihm gar 
bald den Meister der klingenden Phrase 
erkennen, der durch seine auszerordentliche 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


rednerische Kunst—einem Asquith ahnlich— 
den Mangel fruchtbarer politischer Ideen und 
die Skrupellosigkeit seiner politischen Methoden 
zu verdecken versteht. Gar haufig auch wird 
er tberrascht sein durch die auffallenden 
Parallelen, die der Kampf der radikalen Advo- 
katenrepublik Athen gegen Kénig Philipp von 
Makedonien, das Balkan-Preuszen jener Zeit, 
mit den weltgeschichtlichen Ereignissen unserer 


123 


Tage bietet. Wer wiirde es z. B. vermuten, 
dasz die phrasenhafte Begriindung der Kriegs- 
erklarung Italiens an Osterreich durch Demos- 
thenes und seinen Parteifreund Hegesipp fast 
wortlich vorweggenommen ist? Nicht minder 
interessant ist der Vergleich, den die Rolle des 
gewaltigen Perserreichs in jener, des russischen 
Kolosses in unserer Zeit hervorruft. 


W..E. Ῥ. PANTIN. 


THE PARAVIA CORPUS SCRIPTORUM LATINORUM. 


I. 


Vergilu Bucolicon liber; accedunt More- 


tum, Copa. Recensuit CAROLUS Pas- 
Garo ehorind: li. B.°-Paravia.”) Lire 
os. 

Plauti Stichus. C.O.ZuRETTI. Ditto. 
Lire 1.50. 

Plauti Captivi. C. Pascar. Ditto. 
Lire 1.50. 


[Vergilit] Catalepton, Maecenas, Priapeum 
‘ Quid hoc novi est.” REMIGIUS SAB- 
BADINI. Ditto. Lire 1.25. 


THANKS to the enterprise of an Italian 
publisher, Italy has begun a series of 
clearly printed, cheap texts of the 
Latin classics, each provided with a 
very brief apparatus criticus and preface 
on the MSS. and the bibliography, not 
to mention occasional notes and (in 
the case of the last of the above quar- 
tette) an Index of Words. A series 
like this is welcome, for it proves that 
Latin has not lost its hold of readers; 
and it has an educative influence on the 
younger editors as well. There is of 
course a danger. A young scholar may 
fancy a new reading, a decidedly poor 
thing but his own; his mention of it 
to a friend may, through friendship or 
ignorance, meet with no rebuff. Possibly 
he may gather a number of friends 
round the festive board and broach it, 
with the wine, to this ‘copia narium 
emunctarum.’ No great harm is done. 
But once let him become an editor, and 
then 

Professor C. Pascal is editor-in-chief 
and will guard the Paravia series from 
this danger. A glance at his edition of 
the Eclogues shows that he has not 
moved Camarina. And that is some- 
thing to be thankful for in these days, 
when the never-ending stream of emen- 
dation (the unmethodical or ‘feet-on- 
the-hob’ variety of emendation) in our 
classical reviews and quarterlies and 


journals carries too often a line of 
Virgil with it. Do these ‘emenders’ 
of Virgil really believe that his text is 
as precarious as the text of the Appendix 
Vergiliana ? Or do they avow with 
the editor of Juvenal ‘for a warning to 
editors’ that they have ‘no inkling of 
Ueberlieferungsgeschichte’? (Quid pote 
stmplicius ?) 

The text of the plays of T. Maccius 
Plautus is up to date, and rightly dis- 
cards the Scene-divisions (at least does 
not number them) and those accent- 
marks which suggest that ictus and 
accent-stress are the same thing. If 
one must find a fault, one may say that 
Dr. Zuretti’s zeal for Leo has outrun 
discretion in the scansion (with Leo) of 
fac quod tibi (Stich. 21) as a proceleus- 
matic. Fac a short syllable when 
followed by quod! Quod a short syllable 
when followed by t7bz /_ If the line is to 
be made an Anapaestic Dimeter tuus 
must be dropped. 

The best thing about a series like 
this is that it may attract some scholar 
who has made a special study of an 
author and has treasures to reveal. Do 
not we think with complacency of the 
Oxford text of Cicero, of Plato, of 
Homer? Professor Pascal has been 
lucky enough to get Sabbadini (with a 
name so far-famed the title may be 
dropped) to edit Virgil’s youthful ‘ vers 
d’occasion,’ the Catalepta. Now the 
discovery of the Corsini MS. showed us 
the true reading of Culex 366 (‘cul 
cessit Lydi timefacta potentia regis’), 
where our MSS. have this: ‘ legitime 
cessit cui facta potentia regis.’ And 
the Gyraldus fragment showed us the 
true reading of Aetna 1g1 (‘mille sub 
exiguom venient tibi pignora tempus’), 
where our MSS. have this: ‘ mille sub 
exiguo ponent tibi tempore vera.’ It is 
clear that much of the Appendix Ver- 
giliana text is in a parlous state, past 


- 


124 


hope from conjectural emendation. A 
new MS. is needed or a collation of a 
lost MS. When it appears it may 
indeed show that this or that guess has 
been a lucky guess. And in our joy 
over the one that has hit the mark we 
may forget the ninety-nine that did not, 
and exclaim: ‘ Really there is some- 
thing after all in conjectural emendation 
at haphazard.’ Failing a new MG., the 
elucidation of the Ueberlieferungs- 
geschichte may bring some sound foot- 
ing or some guide-post for future 
progress. The great merit of the re- 
edition of Baehrens’ Teubner text is 
that the classification and description 
of the MSS. are at last presented 
adequately. The new editor, Vollmer, 
had for colleague Traube, whose genius 
made a science of Ueberlieferungs- 
geschichte. But since most of these 
MSS. are Renaissance recastings, Sab- 
badini is the one man who can help us. 
In this small volume we have his last 
word on the subject he had treated in 
Scoperte det Codici, 1914. 
W. M. Linpsay. 


TA: 


P. Ovidi Nasonis Artis Amatoriae. Libri 
tres. Recensuit, praefatus est, ap- 
pendicem criticam addidit C. Mar- 
CHEESE. 112.55. 

P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristia. Recensuit, 
praefatus est, brevi appendice critica 
instruxit CAROLUS LANDI. 


ITALIANS are determined not to depend 
on foreign publishers for their texts 
of Latin authors, and Messrs. Paravia 
have made arrangements with Professor 
Pascal to superintend the issue of an 
extensive Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum. 
To judge by these two volumes the 
enterprise is likely to be successful. 
The scheme seems sound. The books 
are handy in size and pleasant to read. 
The critical appendices are concise, 
and, speaking generally, adequate. 

For a recension of the Avs, R is of 
supreme importance. Unfortunately 
M. Marchesi has not been able to 
collate this MS. His knowledge is 
derived ‘ex N. Heinsii et praecipue 
R. Merkelil, R. Ehwaldii, et N. Hous- 
manni (sic) adnotationibus.’ He has 
examined twenty inferior MSS. in 
Italian libraries, but, as -he admits, 


* 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


without any result. For O, which he 
rather unduly depreciates, he has used 
Ellis’ excellent collation, and he quotes 
the readings of Merkel and Ehwald for 
the Guelferbytanus and the Bernensis 
respectively. But R is sacred, almost 
a fetish, for M. Marchesi, and his loyalty 
to that manuscript has, I fear, clouded 
his judgment. However there is much 
good work in the notes, which are on 
the whole sound. I have noticed at 
times a certain carelessness in ascrip- 
tions. Burman, for instance, gets the 
credit of several of Heinsius’ conjec- 
tures. 

The Tristia has been carefully edited. 
As regards manuscripts, Mr. Owen has 
left little to be done by subsequent 
editors, and Mr. Landi has drawn upon 
Mr. Owen’s data and accepted his con- 
clusions regarding the tradition. Mr. 
Landi has made some researches in 
Italian libraries. He cites readings 
from a number of secondhand MSS.; 
the following list is nearly exhaustive : 
Marcian. XII. 55, IV.1, 85 lateo=L, 
V. 7, 29 nomen et umbra; Marcian. 
MIT. ΒΟ, ΝΕ 12,: 28 vacwott: | Danek 
wirezs.| 124, 113. 45°43 lounge, TV tne 
laxat, IV. 3, 19 praesentis inhaeret,, 
V. 12,'28 vacavit; Laur.\36,'2, ΝΞ. Φ 
num; Laur. 36, 33 (=Owen’s’ £), 
IV. 3, 83 functa est ; Ambros. F 87 Sup., 
V. 12; 28. vacavit ;* Ambros: 1.18" Inte 
III. 8. 36 luenda, 111. τὸ, 47 Τὴ Ittore, 
This last manuscript has a flagrant 
interpolation of four lines in place of 
ΤΙ1- Ὁ. 39; 40: 

The text adopted and the critical 
notes approximate very closely to Mr. 
Owen’s recent edition. In most cases 
where Mr. Landi adopts a different 
reading he makes a return to the text 
of Mr. Owen’s larger edition (1889). 


ἘΣ ALONG 
Trinity College, Dublin. 
Ji hi 
Cicero: de Re Publica. Ed. C. Pascat, 
xoxo.) Li 2.75. 


Cicero: pro Milone, pro Archia. Ed. 


S. COLOMBO, 1917. 1.2: 


THE materials for the criticism of these 
works vary a good deal in character. 
For the greater part of the de Re Publica 
we have nothing except the palimpsest 
discovered by Cardinal Mai, and re- 


THE CLASSICAL 


examined by a number of collators. 
For the pro Archia we have two 
moderately good MSS. and a number 
of detevioves, which add little to our 
knowledge. The criticism of the pro 
Milone has entered upon a new phase 
in recent years owing to the emergence 
of the Harleian MS. 2682, and the evi- 
dence concerning the readings of the 
lost Cluniacensis supplied by the mar- 
ginalia in Par. 14749 (2). 

Professor Pascal, the general editor 
of the series, is responsible for the text 
of the de Re Publica, while Dr. Galbiati 
has composed the Preface and a collec- 
tion of testimonia. The Preface is a 
careful piece of work, in which a very 
full account of the bibliography is to 
tound. One omission of some impor- 
tance is to be noticed, viz. the valuable 
transcript of the palimpsest published 
by Van Buren in the Supplementary 
Papers of the American School in 
Rome, vol. ii. (1g08). Pascal’s revision 
of the text is thoroughly scientific. 
His treatment of passages omitted by 
the first hand in the palimpsest is 
especially satisfactory. In opposition 
to Halm and some other editors, who 
supposed that supplements of the second 
hand were due to conjecture, he holds 
that they were added by a corrector 
who had before him the model from 
which the palimpsest was copied. He 
has also made several interesting sug- 
gestions. The edition, therefore, can 
be warmly recommended. 

Dr. Colombo has made ample use of 
the material furnished by Harl. 2682 
and the Oxford editions founded upon 
it. His own method is eclectic, and 
generally conforms with that followed 
by Klotz in the new Teubner edition 
(1915). It is somewhat singular that 
he makes no reference to the new light 
furnished by the Cluniacensis, especially 
as its readings are fully quoted in recent 
German editions, including that of 
Klotz, which he has used. His Preface 
to the pro Archia contains a reference 
to a new editign of the speech (1915) 
by Professor Emile Thomas of Lille, 
the doyen of Ciceronian scholars. Pro- 
fessor Thomas, according to informa- 
tion received by the reviewer, was in 
Lille at the time of the German occu- 
pation, and presumably is still there. 
It is pleasant to think that the veteran 


REVIEW 125 
scholar has found solace in literature 
during so dark a period. 


A. C. CLARK. 
Corpus Christi College, 
Oxford. 


IV. 


C. Iulit Caesaris Commentarit de Bello 
Civili. Recensuit, praefatus est, 
brevi appendice critica instruxit 
DomMINIcus BasslI. 


THIS is a neat well-printed edition, 
forming a volume of a new Corpus 
Scriptorum Latinorwm, published by 
Ty ΒΥ Paravia | of Turin, under’ the 
general editorship of C. Pascal. It 
contains a short critical appendix and 
an index of proper names. The text 
suffers from the limitations that Signor 
Bassi imposes on himself: ‘7 hac 
editione curanda codicum lectionem quan- 
tum potut secutus sum, hominum doctorum 
contecturis quam minime indulgens. A 
few instances may be given. In I. 3 
he reads laudat Pompetus atque, etc., 
with no mention in the appendix of 
promptos, which most, if not all, recent 
editors place before, after, or for, Pom- 
petus. 3° completur et[ius] comitium, no 
mention of Madvig’s et ipswim or of the 
ingenious clivus of Linker, Menge, and 
du Pontet. 45 adulatio atque ostentatio 
sut et potentiwm, which seems senseless. 
My edition records Dr. Reid's plausible 
emendation potentia eorum for potentium. 
II. 35* nothing to show that prohibebat 
is) not jini the MSS.) ΠῚ Signor 
Bassi, though attaching considerable 
value to E, notwithstanding the judg- 
ment of Heinsius on that MS. confirmed 
by Mr. du Pontet, rejects its probably 
correct reading biduo (or biduum) in 
castris stativis moratus for biduum castris, 
yet oddly enough in 76’, where DET 
have veteribus swis castris consedit. he 
prefers the im castris of LUVF. 42° he 
reads frwmentumque omne... per equttes 
comportavit, disregarding all the MS. 
readings, though E has rightly wm Petra 
(=Petram) comportavit and others im 
porta. In III. 54° he retains in the text 
apparently without a qualm of con- 
science the unknown word vespectartis. 
Enough has been said to show that the 
text is often unsatisfactory, and the 
critical appendix too brief to be of much 
value to the serious student. 
A. G. PESKETT. 


126 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


STAMPINI: STUDI DI LETTERATURA E FILOLOGIA LATINA. 


Ettore Stampini: Studi di Letteratura e 
Filologia Latina. One νοὶ. 8vo. 
Pp. xii+ 448. Turin: Fratelli Bocca, 
TOI7.. 0 lire: 


THE collected studies of a veteran 
scholar have a particular interest for the 
historian of classical studies: it is pos- 
sible to trace not only the development 
of the writer’s individual opinions, but 
something of the course that scholarship 
has pursued in his country and time. In 
the present volume an unusual con- 
sistency of standard may be observed : 
and this does not mean that Professor 
Stampini did not grow in knowledge 
and power as years passed, but that he 
began to write with a remarkable store 
of learning and grip of the language he 
was studying, which only needed still 
wider reading and finer polish, no 
radical change of method, in approach- 
ing his subjects. The first article in this 
volume, on the metrical consciousness of 
the great Roman poets, is a remarkable 
achievement for a young man of 
twenty-five, and as readable to-day as 
on its appearance at Turin in 1880. 

The earliest of four Virgil studies is a 
sensible little treatise on the orthography 
of the poet’s name. . The subject is fresh 
in the mind of English readers, for it 
was very fully ventilated of late in the 
Literary Supplement to The Times: and 
Professor Stampini comes to the conclu- 
sion which, as it seemed to the present 
writer, won the day in the late newspaper 
debate—that the name was quite cer- 
tainly Vergilius, but that this affords no 
reason for abandoning the form fixed in 
national literatures, Vzrgilio or Vzrgil. 
The next is an elaborate study of the 
story of Dido and Aeneas in Latin litera: 
ture, and the other two deal with the 
Eclogues—a general introduction, and 
some notes on the first five of term. 

Lucretius shares with Virgil the hon- 
our of space. Two studies, written in 
1902 and 10915 respectively, bring 
together a series of notes, mostly on the 
text; but the interest of these, though 
they contain some valuable discussions 


(e.g. on the lengthening of a final short 
vowel before a word beginning with two 
consonants), is surpassed by the treatise 
on the traditional account of the 
madness and death of Lucretius, which 
dates from 1896. This is perhaps the 
most careful examination in existence of 
the slender and puzzling evidence, and 
no Lucretian scholar can afford to neg- 
lect it: Prof. Stampini lays rather more 
stress than others on the internal evi- 
dence of Lucretius’ state of mind which 
may be adduced from the poem—traces 
of opinions that he may have held on 
suicide and possible allusions to his mar- 
ried state. 

There are two more shorter essays in 
the volume—one on the scurrilous and 
often obscene verses recited at a Tri- 
umph to turn away supernatural envy, 
like the Fescennina locutio at a mar- 
riage, and the other, dating from only 
two years ago, on the painter Marcus 
Plautius, who executed the frescoes in 
the Temple of Juno at Ardea, involving 
exegesis of a difficult epigram quoted by 
the elder Pliny. 

The last ninety pages of the volume 
are occupied by Prof. Stampini’s Latin 
writings. Two of his opinions as adju- 
dicator for the Vallauri prize show a 
workmanlike use of the language for a 
practical end: the inscriptions and 
addresses are in a lapidary style rather 
less concise than the models which are 
followed in England, but none the less 
neat and clear. The bibliographer may be 
recommended to note the eulogy of 
Bodoni—much ingenuity was needed to 
put with detail into anything approach- 
ing good Latin the excellencies of his 
typography. _ 

The book is well and accurately 
printed. Some of the references might 
have been revised, in view of the fact 
that the articles are reprints from a 
periodical, and no longer a part of it, so 
that ‘in questa Rzvzsta’ might have been 
changed to ‘nella Rzvista dz Filo- 
logta.... It 15 ἃ collection with which 
the student of Latin poetry cannot easily 
dispense. 

S. GASELEE. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


127 


TERTULLIAN’S APOLOGY. 


Q. Septimt Florentis Tertulliant Apolo- 
geticus. The Text of Oehler Annota- 
ted, with an Introduction, by JoHN 
E. B. Mayor, M.A., Professor of Latin 
in the University of Cambridge, 
with a Translation by Alex. Souter, 
B.A., Regius Professor of Humanity 
in the University of Aberdeen. Pp. 
xx + 496. Cambridge: University 
Press. 12s. 6d. net. 


BisHop Kaye characterises the writer 
of the Apology as ‘the harsh, the fiery, 
the unpolished Tertullian.’ That those 
aspects of his disposition are by no 
means lacking there can be little doubt, 
but the portrayal is assuredly over- 
drawn. Tertullian’s writings show such 
an honesty and strength of purpose as 
greatly to modify any such impression. 
In the Apology he is seen contending 
with an intolerant magistracy, moved by 
blind prejudice to exterminate Christi- 
anity by the vilest forms of attack. So 
determined a force called for stern re- 
sistance, and Tertullian did not hesitate 
to use every available weapon in his 
armoury in order to counteract the un- 
toward influence. Under all the trying 
circumstances it does not appear that 
Tertullian ever stooped to any device un- 
becoming a zealous:‘Christian advocate. 
The Apology is a remarkable survey of 
the conditions under which paganism 
was practised, while as a body of 
Christian evidence it is of considerable 
value, and stands out in sharp contrast 
with the then prevailing heathen 
customs. Tertullian’s allusions to pagan 
rites and myths are intensely vivid, and 
reveal the faith ofa man of deep convic- 
tion. With much fiery invective and 
bitter sarcasm Tertullian was withal sus- 
ceptible of real tenderness. 

The Apology is addressed to the 
Governors of Proconsular Africa, and 
was, in all probability, written and pre- 
sented at Carthage somewhere about 
A.D. 200. In it Tertullian refutes the 
charges brought against the Christians 
with an eloquence and fervour that dis- 
tinguish him as the foremost among the 
Apologists. It would appear that the 
Apology was in the main directed to 
counteract the many influences that 
were at work for the repression of 


Christianity, especially the charge of dis- 
loyalty towards the Roman Enmpire. 
This was the more necessary owing to 
the arbitrary sway exercised by those 
who governed the subject dependencies. 
On the ground that they owed primary 
allegiance to God in Christ, the 
Christians set at nought the social and 
religious institutions of the State as in- 
consistent with their Christian profes- 
sion ; hence they were regarded with the 
utmost suspicion as enemies of the State. 
Tertullian meets this in his masterly 
appeal, adducing the orderly life and un- 
selfish aims of the Christians, which he 
contrasts with the corrupt institutions 
and degenerate condition of the existing 
order. 

When: Rome imposed her language 
on the conquered province she thereby 
endowed Carthage with an imperishable 
possession in the form of those 
Christian classics associated with the 
names of Tertullian, Cyprian, and 
Augustine, which throughout the ages 
have redounded to the glory of the 
Church universal. 

The Apology does not lend itself 
readily to the skill of the translator, who 
has to deal with provincialisms that in- 
volve a rudeness of language and style 
often difficult tomaster. It is not with- 
out reason that Tertullian has come to 
be regarded as ‘the most obscure of 
writers, and the least capable of being 
accurately represented in translation.’ 

It is impossible in a short review to 
give anything like adequate treatment 
to the well-nigh exhaustive edition of 
Tertullian’s greatest achievement which 
we owe to the learning and skill of such 
scholars as the late Professor Mayor and 
Professor Souter. It is in every way a 
highly satisfactory work. The late Cam- 
bridge Professor of Latin is known to 
have made a very close study of the 
A pologeticus, upon which he frequently 
lectured ; the outcome of his researches 
is embodied in the volume before us. 
To the annotated text of Oehler there 
is added an Introduction (from the 
Journal of Philology) which might have 
been advantageously extended. Pro- 
fessor Mayor touches very slightly the 
subject of patristic Latin : a fitting op- 
portunity of dealing with the Latinity 


128 


of the African Fathers has been missed. 
Professor Souter’s translation is admir- 
able. The frequent tendency to para- 
phrase is an indication of the difficulty of 
translation, but easy flowing English is 
not sacrificed. Professor Mayor’s vol- 
uminous notes are largely supplemental 
to those of Havercamp, Oehier, and 
others; they are rich in critical and 
illustrative matter and merit the eulogy 
of Professor Souter when he says that 
they form ‘ by far the best commentary 
on the Apology ever published.’ The 
several emendations are judicious and 
valuable. 

A few points of some interest in the 
translation remain to be noticed. Ter- 
tullian mentions (cap 39) pro mora 
πὶ as a petition in the Christian 
liturgy, translated by Professor Souter 
‘for the- postponement of the end.’ 
Bingham (Christian Antiquities) renders 
it ‘for the continuance of the Empire’; 
Chevallier reads ‘ for the delay of final 
judgment’; Dodgson (Library of the 
Fathers) translates more correctly ‘ for 
the delaying of the end.’ It was a 
time of crisis; Tertullian, in common 
with the faithful, saw the passing away 
of the world and the approach of the 
Antichrist; it is to this outlook un- 
doubtedly that reference is made. Else- 
where Tertullian calls the future day of 
judgment (which he regarded as immi- 
nent) dies expeditionts. Amidst the cal- 
amities that had befallen the world, 
it would appear that the final overthrow 
which awaited the Roman Empire was 
but veiled in the request for delay in 
the infliction of the chastisement. 
The particular judgment was held to be 
coincident with the destruction of the 
Roman power, kept back by the respite 
granted at the instance of Christian 
prayers. 

Tertullian introduces the subject of 
the relation of the Christian man to 
military service, concerning which he 
makes a fine distinction that seems 
to express mihi non licet militare quia 
Christianus sum. The military service 
involved subscription to idolatrous oaths 
and created asituation of some difficulty. 
It would also appear that Tertullian’s 
views underwent some modification 
especially upon his becoming a Mon- 
tanist. 


THE CLASSICAL “REVIEW. 


What seems a somewhat strained 
rendering of the passage (cap. 3) Quae 
mulier! quam lasciua, quam festiua! 
Outs tuuenis ! quam lasciuus, quam ama- 
situs ! is, ‘ What a fine woman! How 
merry, how debonair! What a fine 
fellow, what a sport, what a gallant!’ 
As examples of paraphrasing debito 
poenae nocens expungendus est, non ext- 
mendus (cap. 2) is rendered: ‘The 
guilty man must be struck off the roll of 
the accused by the punishment which 
is his due, and not saved from punish- 
ment.’ Again, In metalla damnamur 
is translated, ‘We are condemned to 
the mines and quarries.’ An interesting 
note is given by Professor Mayor in 
explanation of what he terms ‘the art 
of the tripod and divination as practised 
by magiciahs,’ cap. 23 mensae diuinare 
consuerunt). He refers to the table- 
lifting practised by the Jews in the 
seventeenth century; thisis followed by 
some illuminating notes on the power 
of exorcism, and demonology generally. 

In referring to Tertullian’s Latinity, 
Bishop Kaye remarks that only one 
critic known to him had ventured to 
speak of it with commendation. He him- 
self characterised it as deficient in taste, 
discrimination and judgment, and as 
containing words marked in dictionaries 
as inelegant and of: suspicious author- 
ity, when they really were the- most 
genuine remains of the most pure 
Roman composition. African Latin 
abounds in these strange forms of dic- 
tion, which are not without interest. 
The unusual phraseology of many pas- 
sages inthe Apology, the copia verborum, 
and their distribution, are remarkable. 
Technical expressions are frequent, old 
legal and military terms and phrases 
are often used, while the use of meta- 
phor, partiality for antithesis, and a 
play upon words, abound. Often. ex- 
pressions can only be interpreted from 
the context or by reference to parallel 
passages. In point of grammatical 
construction of sentences no_ serious 
ground of complaint need be raised. 
There is some reason to suppose that a 
double edition or version of the Apology 
existed, and it has even been surmised 
that Tertulltan’s two books, ad Nattiones, 
formed an early basis for the work. 
This may to some extent account 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


for varied readings of doubtful signi- 
fication. 
The oldest MS. of the Apology (ninth 


129 


century).is in the Imperial Library at 
Petrograd. 
C. H. EvELYN- WHITE. 


AENEAS AT 'THE 


Aeneas at the Site of Rome. Observa- 
tions on the Eighth Book of the 
Aeneid, by W. WARDE FowLER, M.A., 
LL.D. (Edin.).. Crown 8vo. Pp. 129. 
Oxford: B. H. Blackwell, Broad 
Street. 4s. 6d. 


Lovers of Virgil will welcome gladly a 
volume to follow The Gathering of the 
Clans, and in Aeneas at the Site of Rome 
they will find no disappointment. Dr. 
Warde Fowler has made it clear here 
to any who still needed such teaching 
what prompted him once to confess: 
‘The study of Virgil is for me one of 
the things that make life worth living.’ 
His clearness of vision seizes and inter- 
prets the elements in Virgil’s work that 
are of permanent value to humanity, 
the catholicity of appeal which entitles 
Virgil to be ranked with Homer, with 
Shakespeare, and with the great re- 
ligious teachers of mankind. 

‘Those who are members of a great Empire,’ 
he writes, ‘now struggling for the principle of 
liberty and civilisation, conscious of a great 
mission in the world, and of an overwhelming 
claim upon them to blot out the shortcomings 
of the past by a sense of duty even more 
enlightened, will recognise that the philosophy 
of the Aezezd and its religion are not things 
peculiar to Hellenistic Greece or Imperial Rome, 
but represent the finest instincts of human 
nature striving to realise the will of God by 
faith and obedience. They are not merely 
matters of curiosity and research, but stand for 
an abiding principle of human life.’ 


It is always a delight to read Dr. 
Warde Fowler’s works. His profound 
learning is guided by delicate and 
imaginative insight, which is perhaps 
the highest of all gifts for interpreting 
a poet so subtle as Virgil; and his wide 
knowledge of all things Roman enables 
him to judge the Roman world from 
something like a contemporary’s point 
of view. By his original yet always 
judicial exposition we learn, for in- 
stance, to realise the importance of the 
Greek element in the Empire of Augus- 
tus, and how the conviction of this 
influenced Virgil himself in the Aenezd 
(p. 5, 51-6). It is this same ‘ inside 


ΘΙΤῈ OR (ROME. 


knowledge’ which makes Dr. Fowler 
a guide like no other in this ‘the most 
Roman’ of its Books, because he can 
interpret the appeal that the poem 
would make to Romans of Virgil’s own 
day, (pia: etc.). 

In the Gathering of the Clans Dr. 
Warde Fowler dwelt on the Italian 
policy of Augustus. In his new essay 
he depicts Augustus as the restorer of 
order and morality, and traces the 
subtle relation between the mission of 
Aeneas and the chosen task of Augus- 
tus: Aeneas, the divinely appointed 
stranger bringing with him the gods of 
his fathers ‘ by the will of Iuppiter and 
the decrees of Fate to rescue Italy from 
chaos and barbarism,’ and Augustus, 
who made it his task to restore order 
and the worship of the gods after the 
chaos of the civil wars, and whose 
victory at Actium was a ‘ triumph over 
barbarians who were menacing the 
Roman system—the new Augustan 
system—of peace and morality.’ 

The analysis of the Shield at the 
conclusion of the book can only be 
called masterly. Attention may be 
drawn to the fact that in the very first 
line of the description there is the same . 
identification of Italy with Rome as 
Dr. Fowler marks elsewhere (cf. foot- 
note p. 102): 


Illic res Italas Romanorumque triumphos 
Fecerat Ignipotens (1. 606). 


So in VII. 643 ff., the opening lines of 
the Catalogue, the same note is struck: 


_ Quibus Itala iam tum 
Floruerit terra alma uiris. 


Dr. Warde Fowler emphatically denies 
the reality of the frame-work of the 
Shield. It is indeed futile to endeavour 
to divide its surface into separate com- 
partments. But, on the other hand, it 
seems fairly obvious that Virgil had the 
events he records crystallised in his 
mind as pictures actually on the Shield. 
There are many indications of this 
[1. 643.‘ distulerant’ (Tense); 655 
‘auratis, argenteus;’ 697 ‘geminos 


130 


angues.’ These last are onlyin place 
on the Shield—not ina narrative. Cf. 
too 711 ‘ Corpore Nilum,’ 728 ‘ Rhenus 
bicornis,’ etc.]. Dr. Warde Fowler, 
however, would seem to imply that 
Virgil meant us to see not a mere 
representation on metal, but the events 
of Roman history ‘actually going on, 
as it were, under our eyes.’ If the 
spirited? description of the shock of 
battle in ll. 688-96 seems to suggest 
reality rather than pictorial representa- 
tion, this would merely be an additional 
argument in support of the view, so 
convincingly set forth in this book, that 
this passage is part of an adaptation of 
an earlier poem in celebration of the 
victory at Actium. 

In more than one place Dr. Warde 
Fowler shows the vanity of imagining 
one has fathomed Virgil’s meaning by 
complacently quoting the Greek or 
Latin ‘original’ of an expression or 
simile of Virgil’s without further 
examination. On 35 he marks 
some of the points of contrast between 
Virgil’s simile in ll. 22 ff. and that of 
Apollonius Rhodius (III. 756). One 
might add that in both similes an 
alternative description is put forward, 
but with what different results. In 
Apollonius the alternatives are a λέβης 
and a γαυλός, where the second part 


adds little or nothing to the picture.. 


3ut Virgil is not interested in the 
nature of the vessel. Such common- 
places merely clog the imagination. 
With a most characteristic touch Virgil 
contrasts the reflections of moonlight 
and sunlight, and suggests a picture of 
the moonlight streaming through a 
window or perhaps the compluvium of 
a house, as he must often have seen it, 
and glancing on the water beneath 
whence ‘Summi ferit laquearia tecti,’ 
another happytouch. The rich ceiling 
is lit up as one may see to-day a frag- 
ment of panelled roof in a cathedral 
brilliantly lit up from a single upper 
window by a burst of fitful sunshine.” 


1 Cf. however I. 475 ff., where there is the 
same graphic change of tense as here from the 
pictorial imperfect to the historic present. 

2 It is perhaps not irrelevant here to adda 
note that has occurred to me in connexion 
with an observation of Dr. Fowler's in the 

Gathering of the Clans, and Professor Conway’s 
᾿ comment upon it in the Classical Review 
(February, 1917). In VII.Il.699-705 Dr. Fowler 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Dr. Warde Fowler’s comment on 
ll. 621 ff. is a typical case of the way 
in which his ciose observation of 
natural beauties has been applied to 
interpreting Virgil. He is contrasting 
the simile with the original in Apol- 
lonius (IV. 125), and I cannot refrain 
from quoting the whole observation : 


Apollonius likens the fleece to a cloud ‘that 
blushes red with the fiery beams of the rising 
sun. Virgil is not thinking of a fleece, but of 
a supernatural breastplate of bronze ; and bronze 
is a material that (even without being super- 
natural) can take a variety of tints according to 
the light in which it is seen. Thus Servius 
thought of the rainbow in the cloud, and the 
idea is worth consideration. But, on the whole, 
I think that what the poet’s mind saw was a 
grey-blue ground colour shot through with 
blood-red light. Apollonius thought of a red 
cloud at sunrise ; Virgil thinks of a dark cloud 
with ruddy light flashing through it. 


The notes on the naming of Aeneas 
by patronymic terms (Anchisiades) are 
inspiring, since they reveal fresh poetic 
meaning in what had passed as a mere 
mechanism of diction. Indeed, the 
whole subject of the epithets of Aeneas 
is well worth studying. They are 
seldom haphazard or otiose. An ex- 
amination of the contexts where pzus 
occurs shows that it generally, if not 
always, aids the narrative by empha- 
sising some aspect of Aeneas’ faithful- 
ness, whether to the gods, or his com- 
panions, or his mission. The epithet 
pater in almost every case marks the 
clanlike relationships between Aeneas 
and the Trojans. One wishes that Dr. 
Fowler had added a note on ‘ Laome- 
dontius heros” 11- 18). 1 venture 9 
suggest that Virgil, after just describing 
Aeneas in the words of Turnus, is still 
for the moment influenced by their 
hostile point of view. He is in their 


would excise the second simile, supposing that 
it was written by Virgil merely as an alternative, 
and was put into the text by Varius and Tucca. 
Professor Conway, however, showed that the 
second simile was not a mere alternative, but 
compares the appearance of the host to that of 
a flock of birds, while the first compares them 
in point of noise. Now Homer introduces his 
Catalogue (11. 455-73) with five similes one 
after the other—one of appearance, one of noise, 
two of number, one of the marshalling of the 
host. Did not Virgil here set the two similes 
side by side on purpose in imitation of Homer? 
In both cases the similes illustrate the Ca/elogue 
of Warriors, and one of those used by Virgil 
is actually similar in substance to one of those 
of Homer. 


THE: CLASSICAL (REVIEW 


eyes ‘Laomedontius,’ a breaker of 
bonds, and the reputation is therefore 
one of the difficulties he has to overcome. 
Cf. the well-known curse of the Harpy 
(III. 248), also IV. 542. In VIII. 158 
and 161 ‘Laomedontiaden’ is natural 
enough of Priam in Evander’s speech, 
but I admit that in VII. 105 ‘ Laome- 
dontia pubes’ may seem a mere variety.’ 

Examples of Dr. Warde Fowler’s 


1 Professor Conway, whom I consulted on 
this point, suggests that since Laomedon was a 
builder of Troy as well as a breaker of contracts, 
it is perhaps not fanciful to see in the epithet in 
both VIII. 18 and VII. τοῦ an appropriate 
reference to the task which they had come to 
Latium to carry out—to found a new city. 


131 


enlightening observations could be mul- 
tiplied. The brilliant and, if I may be 
allowed to say so, complete elucidation 
of Virgil’s view of the Tiber basin 
(ll. 31. 80), his exposition of the geo- 
graphy of Evander’s city, his analysis 
of Virgil’s use of Fate, are perhaps the 
most notable of many delightful studies, 
all of which are substantial additions to 
our knowledge of the poet. Dr. Warde 
Fowler leaves his readers hungry for 
more. He has begun a task which it 
will be difficult to leave off; for even 
now we eagerly await ‘ Observations on 
Book *X.,’ ‘not ito add); Book) ΠΥ 
venture rather profanely to misquote 
his own quotation: ‘ We live in hope.’ 
J. HUSBAND. 


The Religious Thought of the Greeks. 
By CLIFFORD HERSCHEL ΜΟΟΕΕ. 


mm vol. 8vo. ) Pps) \vi+ 385. Cam- 
bridge: Harvard University Press, 
1916. 


In this book the Professor of Latin at 
Harvard has embodied a series of 
Lectures delivered at the Lowell Insti- 
tute, Boston, and at various American 
Colleges. It is no light task to trace 
the history of Greek religious thought 
for a period of ten centuries, ‘from 
Homer to the triumph of Christianity,’ 
within the limits of ten Lectures or some 
360 octavo pages, but Prof. Moore has 
undoubtedly achieved this task with a 
large measure of success and produced 
a very handy and useful textbook. 
Although it contains little, perhaps, that 
is new to students of the subjects, yet 
the book has its value in putting to- 
gether in concise form the main conclu- 
sions of a number of special treatises 
and more elaborate studies, and thus 
rendering easily available a quantity of 
material that is hardly to be found else- 
where within the compass of a single 
volume. Thus, for example, readers 
already familiar with Homer and the 
Attic poets will find their knowledge 
supplemented by short up-to-date 
accounts of Orphism and Eleusinianism 
as well as of the theology of the philo- 
sophic Schools from the days of Herac- 
litus to those of Aurelius and Plotinus; 


SHORT NOTICES 


while those who have already made 
acquaintance with these matters—in the 
pages, it may be, of Campbell or of Caird 
—will still find something of novelty 
and interest in Prof. Moore’s chapters 
on Oriental Religions and on Christi- 
anity. In details, no doubt, some of his 
valuations may be open to dispute; but 
in the main he has made judicious use, 
as it seems to me, of the best authori- 
ties, and exercised sound judgment in 
the shaping and presentation of his 
material. There is a useful bibliography 
at the end of the book (in which, how- 
ever, I miss for one thing Hicks’s valu- 
able Stoic and Epicurean, as well as 
Davidson’s book on Stoicism), and also 
a good, though not impeccable, Index. 
One is tempted to write more at length 
on a book dealing with so large and 
important a subject, but in these days 
prolixity in print is criminal,and I con- 
tine myself to just one final observation. 
Valuable as such a book as this may be 
for the Classical student, the College- 
man and the devotee of Culture in 
general, the readers who stand to profit 
most by it are the professional teachers 
of religion. The authorities of our 
Clergy-schools and Theological Col- 
leges might find here the text-book 
they are looking for—if they are looking 
for it. Anyhow—as a kind of minor 


‘compliment to an Ally University—I 


cordially commend it to their notice. 
R. G. Bury. 


᾽ 


132 


Achilles Tatius. With an English Trans- 
lation by S. GASELEE, M.A., Fellow 
and Librarian of Magdalene College, 
Cambridge. Onevol. Pp. xvi+ 461. 
London: William Heinemann ; New 
York: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1917. 
5s. net. 


Mr. GASELEE has enlarged the oppor- 
tunities of English students of the novel 
by this translation of an author whose 
return to popularity remains impro- 
bable. The adventures of Leucippe 
and Clitophon no longer quicken the 
normal pulse, and it is not easy to share 
the illicit excitement of the monastic 
scribe, so brilliantly brought to life in 
Jacobs’s introduction to his great edition, 
as he hurriedly copied the text of Achilles 
Tatius between the respectable sheets of 
Christian writers. But one may reflect 
with satisfaction that the novel is one 
of the few experiments in which man 
has bettered his achievements as the 
centuries have passed; and as an early 
example the book is full of interest. 
The heroine, in whom Nature copied 
Art, for she 15 compared on her first 
appearance to a picture of Europa at 
Sidon, starts into life when the author 
in the enumeration of her charms speaks 
of ὄμμα γοργὸν ἐν ἡδονῇ ; and throughout 
the book the elements of a deeper 
analysis of the thoughts and feelings of 
man can be discerned. We learn (I. 8) 
the theory underlying a joke which is 
unhappily not dead: ‘ How wretched is 
a bridegroom—he looks to me like one 
being sent off to the wars’; and (V. 13) 
why love laughs at rations: ‘ To lovers 
there is no delight save in the object of 
love, which occupies the whole of their 
soul, and leaves no place in it for the 
pleasures of the table.’ The lovely 
Melitte expounds (V. 25) the doctrine 
afterwards compressed into a phrase 
about ‘a woman scorned,’ and storms 
Clitophon’s virtue by the fluttering of 
her heart; and in VI. 19 there isa com- 
parison of love with anger which Mr. 
Gaselee (an editor rigid in impartiality 
towards his author) stigmatises as ‘ ex- 
tremely tiresome to modern readers.’ 
Achilles Tatius was indeed oppres- 
sively well-informed. The study of 
rhetoric had given rise in the uncritical 
public of Alexandria to that thirst for 
general information to which English 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


literature of the seventeenth century 
sometimes seeks to minister. The 
characters are therefore liable on small 
provocation to set the match to a train 
of description, whether of flowers (1. 15), 
the loves of the viper and the lamprey 
(I. 18, a remarkable story known to Sir 
Thomas Browne), the Phoenix (III. 24), 
the crocodile (IV. 19), or the hippopo- 
tamus, who in IV. 3 is prettily termed 
‘the elephant of Egypt.’ 

By far the best character in the book 
is the bishop whose oration (in VIII. 9), 
upon the topic of profane love, is pre- 
faced by the words, not unworthy of 
Peacock: ἣν δὲ εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἀδύνατος, 
μάλιστα δὲ τὴν ᾿Αριστοφάνους ἐζηλωκὼς 
κωμῳδίαν. Mr. Gaselee’s translation is 
smooth and agreeable throughout. It 
is pleasant to learn that the unique copy 
of the version of Achilles Tatius made by 
W. Burton in 1597 has come to rest in 
hands which have laboured so well in 
the cause of the classical languages and 
of our own. It is to be hoped that in 
the future Mr. Gaselee may find the 
time, and a publisher the paper, to make 
this book generally available. 

M. HESELTINE. 


The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. By 
M. R. JaMzs. Octavo. Pp. 280. 
ΘΒ. ΚΟ δε 6d.) net 


Dr. JAMEs’s translation of Philo forms 
one of the first series of the ‘ Transla- 
tions of Early Documents’ now being 
issued by the S.P.C.K. under the joint 
editorship of Dr. Oesterley and Canon 
Box. Special importance attaches to 
the present volume as being the first 
translation ever made from the Old 
Latin version, and the book is interest- 
ing in itself as a curious specimen of 
the work of the Jewish school which 
produced Fourth Esdras and the Afo- 
calypse of Baruch in the later decades of 
the first century. The contents of the 
book are sufficiently indicated by the 
alternative title, The History of Philo 
from the Beginning of the World to King 
David, which shows that it covers much 
the same ground as the Bible story 
from Genesis to Samuel. Dr. James 
suggests that Philo largely modelled his 
work on the Book of Chronicles, and 
that his main purpose was to supple- 
ment existing narrations. Of his sup- 


THE CLASSICAL: REVIEW 


plements or inventions the most notable 
is the account he gives, with much 
detail, of Kenaz, the first of the Judges, 
who—from being vox et praeterea nihil 
in the Bible narrative—is exalted to a 
place second only to Moses as warrior- 
prince and prophet-judge in one, and 
this at the expense of Othniel. Philo 
is great, too, at fabulous genealogies, 
and he has no compunction 1n throwing 
over Bible tradition, as in the story of 
Micah, when the spirit so moves him. 
In his learned and elaborate Introduc- 
tion (75 pp.) Dr. James discusses the 
text and its history, the author and his 
style, the contents of the work and its 
relation to contemporary writings; and 
two Appendices deal with various read- 
ings and the vocabulary of the Latin 
version. A serviceable Index adds to 
the completeness and convenience of 
the volume. Ki.) Gi BURY. 


SCHOOL BOOKS. 


Latin Prose for Middle Forms. By 
W. H. SPRAGGE and A. SLOMAN. 
Cambridge University Press. Pp. 147. 
3s. net. 

‘THIS book is intended for the use of 

Middle Forms, to enable them to begin 

writing Continuous Prose at an earlier 

stage.” Part I. consists of twenty-five 

chapters, in each of which we have (1) 

some syntax, (2) a list of phrases or sen- 

tences illustrating differences between 

Latin and English idiom, (3) an exercise 

of detached sentences, and (4) an easy 

continuous passage composed to give 
practice in the use of the new material. 

In Part II. there are fifty continuous 

pieces of a rather more difficult type. 

Many of them are translations from 

Latin authors, rendered with a certain 

freedom so that the pupil will have 

plenty of work to do to turn them into 

Latin paragraphs. There is a vocabu- 

lary to Part I. In Part II. some of the 

words needed and occasional para- 
phrases are given in brief notes ; we think 

a little more talk about the structure and 

connexion of the sentences would be use- 

ful here. The exposition of syntax in 

Part 1.15 in general correct and intelli- 

gible enough, though it strikes us as 

rather too elementary for this stage. But 
in places we have noticed rather puzzling 


statements; e.g. the note on p. 83 (ap-. 


° 


133 


pended to the sentences, ‘O.R. Rhenum 
nunc transeo, O.O. Dixit se tunc Rhenum 
transire’). ‘The so-called Present In- 
finitive includes the Imperfect usage’ 
seems to us a very dark saying. It is 
well to encourage the use of zego, but it 
is a pity to tell the student that ‘ Dico is 
not found coupled with a negative word.’ 
This is quite untrue. Cicero, for instance, 
has a number of sentences such as 
‘Epicurus iocetur . .. et dicat se non 
posse intellegere’ (Nat. Deor. 11. 46), 
‘nam vos quidem nihil esse dicitis a 
sapiente tam alienum’ (Acad. II. 132). 
There is a well-known instance in 


Livy XXL. 9, 3. 


The Germania, with Introduction and 
Notes. By D. R. STUART, Professor of 
Classics in Princeton University. 
The Macmillan Company, 1916. Pp. 
XX111+139. 35. net. 

THIS 15 an excellent school edition. 

It forms part of a series in which it 

is intended that the notes should be 

‘brief and concise, not encumbered with 

any matter which a young student will 

not easily understand. Brief and con- 
cise they are not. There are 112 pages of 
notes to 24 of text, but we do not regret 
that. For the Germania needs a full 
commentary and the editor is well fitted’ 
to write one. He is really interested in 
his subject, he has an extensive know- 
ledge of the literature connected with it, 
and he keeps steadily in mind the 
capacity and resources of young stu- 
dents. Not that the notes are childish; 
they are in fact full of interest for mature 
scholars. But he does not refer his’ 
readers to German periodicals and 
books of reference, and he translates quo- 
tations which are likely to present any 


difficulty. 


Latin Selections illustrating Public Lijc 
in the Roman Commonwealth in the 
Time of Cicero. By A. A. HOWARD. 
Pp. vi+113. Ginn. 

THE editor has done a useful piece of 

work in putting together in a small and 

handy volume a large number of pas- 
sages from various sources (e.g. Cicero, 

Varro, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Festus) 

which throw light on legal and constitu- 

tional questions. The selections are nct 

‘intended to exhaust the possibilities of 

Roman public life, but merely to furnish 


134 


a limited amount of pertinent reading 
matter supplementary to the study of 
that subject, and to direct the attention 
of the student to the great mass of 
information . . . relating to it which 15 
scattered through Latin literature.’ We 
think that such a student would be 
be greatly helped if a few notes were 
added, for many of the passages contain 
special difficulties of language or matter. 
It is perhaps difficult, if one begins to 
annotate, to avoid writing a large book; 
but we believe that the sort of help which 
most students need could be put quite 
briefly, and that their time could be 
saved by showing them where to look 
for the necessary technical information. 


Caesar's Campaign in Britain. Edited 
by T. Ric—E Hotmes. Clarendon 
Press, 1916. 160 pp. Is. 6d. 


THE Oxford Press offers us in this book 
a great deal fora small sum. We may 
have, in the same clear type as in the 
school edition of the separate books, 
the text of chaps. 20-38 of B.G. iv. and 
the whole of B.G. v., together with Dr. 
Holmes’s Notes and Mr. Loane’s 
Vocabulary to the Gallic War. The 
book includes two maps and three 
illustrations. By way of Introduction 
there is a short epitome of the preced- 
ing books. 

The Notes are stimulating. Dr. 
Holmes obviously spares himself no 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


trouble to find out the answers to the 
questions: What is the exact meaning 
of Caesar’s words and how would an 
English writer express that meaning ? 
What did happen and where and when 
did it happen? He puts the evidence, 
so far as it can be put shortly, before 
the student and expects him to think 
for himself. And many, we think, will 
respond. But a boy will not get the 
full benefit of the editor’s labours unless 
he reads with this book the history of 
the two expeditions in Dr. Holmes’s 
Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius 
Caesar and some of the discussions in 
the Second Part of that work. Ata 
school prize-giving not long ago Mr. 
Fisher said that he thought text-books 
were one of our great dangers. ‘ My 
advice is,’ he continued, ‘read books, 
the great human books, the long books, 
the interesting books, the books which 
are not specially made to enable young 
people to pass examinations.’ Ancient 
Britain appeals to all sorts of boys, 
scholarly and unscholarly, from quite 
early years. Some will not do more 
than read the vivid narrative chapters, 
but if they merely do this, they realise 
that Latin authors sometimes at least 
tell a story which, if one can under- 
stand it, is full of interest at the present 
day. But many boys will go further 
and enjoy the elaborate studies of the 
evidence on which the narrative is 
based. >. 


NOTES AND NEWS 


AT its last meeting, held in May, the 
Northumberland and Durham Classical 
Association discussed methods of teach- 
ing Latin. Dr. J. Wight Duff sum- 
marised data obtained in his recent 
circular addressed to schools’ in 
Northumberland, Durham, Cumber- 
land, Westmoreland, and the North 
Riding concerning the employment of 
the Direct Method. Replies were re- 
ceived from fifty-eight of the ninety- 
eight schools circularised. Four schools 
answered ‘ Yes’ to the query whether 
they employed the Direct Method, but 
even the one which most adopts it 
introduces ‘some English.’ Thirty- 
nine schools said ‘No,’ and of these 
some had tried and abandoned the 


method. The fifteen remaining schools 
use ancillary oral methods, but, though 
they may approve of a Latin question- 
natre, they do not confine explanations 
to Latin. 

Among opinions commonly expressed 
in the replies as to the Direct Method 
were these: (1) It stimulates interest, 
and does so most successfully with 
quite young pupils; (2) for success it 
demands more time than most secondary 
schools assign to Latin; (3) for success 
it depends, more than most methods 
perhaps, on the personality of the 
teacher; (4) it does not sufficiently 
develop acquaintance with the literary 
vocabulary, and often produces dis- 
appointing results in grammar. 


THE. CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Brief notes were then read by 
various members on books exemplifying 
methods: By the Rev. Professor Cruick- 
shank on Primus Annus and Praeceptor ; 
Mr. Widdows on Decem Fabulae ; Miss 
Taylor on Via Nova; the Rev. E. P. 
Pestle on First Latin Lessons; Dr. 


135 


Hepple on Scott and Jones’ First 
Course and Second Course ; and Professor 
Wight Duff on a Belgian handbook, 
Linguam Discito Lingwa. The notes 
and the discussion aroused a great deal 
of interest. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Lo the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


DEAR SIR,—May I ask for a little space in 
order to obviate misapprehensions that may 
arise on some of the points touched upon by 
Professor Anderson in his generous notice of 
my edition of Lucan VIII.? 

(1) 158 stantis adhuc fati uixit | understood in 
the sense which he says will alone suit the con- 
text. In my translation ‘she lived (as one) of a 
still unfallen fortune’ I used ‘as’ for ‘in the 
capacity of’ ‘in the position of,’ so e.g. ‘as king,’ 
‘as private citizen, not noticing how easily it 
might be misunderstood. It had better be re- 
placed by ‘ when.’ 

(2) 513-526. I thought it was obvious that 
these lines were an expansion, or ‘ explanation,’ 
of guerellae 512, which Professor Anderson 
says has not been noticed hitherto. In my note 
on 498 I refer to 518 as an example of the 
speaker associating himself in pleader’s fashion 
with the Kjng, their interests being identical. 
This is nothing presumptuous but a common 
forensic use (the advocate’s ‘ we’ for ‘ our side’) 
both in Latin and English. Professor Ander- 
son’s view is at bottom not very difterent. 

(3) I see now that on 637 f. I criticised Pro- 
fessor Anderson's explanation under a miscon- 
ception, and I tender him my apologies. He 
has given the only reasonable interpretation of 
the traditional text. J. P. POSTGATE. 


June 2, 1918. 


To the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


DEAR SiRSs,—It is necessary for me to refer 
once again to the subject of my last letter in the 
Class. Rev., as 1 have just received a further 
letter on the subject of Mycenaean remains at 
Corinth from Mr. Wace, and this may materially 
modifythe situation. The following is an extract 
from his letter : 

‘I wish you could come and visit it (Corinth) 
this spring, when the Americans go down. 
They have discovered that the whole of the 
Temple Hill is a big prehistoric site, probably 
reaching from the earliest times to Mycenaean, 
though rather cut up by the Temple foundations, 
much as Troy was spoilt by the later builders. 
When I come home (when ?) I will be able to tell 
you all about it. Of the ten prehistoric sites 
found by the Americans I have seen seven. 
One they have not yet excavated—Aietopetra— 
is a fine early Acropolis to the west of old Corinth 
guarding the road west of Acrocorinth coming 


from Cleonae. All this country is too far east to 
have anything to do with Sicyon.’ 

This does not make it quite clear to me that 
the Mycenaean period is represented on the 
Temple Hill; the word ‘ probably’ seems to 
apply to this; and of course the Mycenaean 
period is the only one with which I am con- 
cerned—earlier periods were abundantly repre- 
sented before, and there never was any doubt in 
my mind that for a considerable period of 
prehistory Corinth was an important settlement. 
If it should turn out that the Mycenaean period 
itself is represented on the Temple Hill, of 
course what I have said will have to be put 
aside; and I lose no time in recognising publicly 
the possibility of this. . 

The existence of a Mycenaean acropolis 
guarding the road to Cleonae in no way surprises 
me ; it is merely another link in the chain of 
hill-forts of which several have been found 
in connexion with Mycenae itself. The only 
point at issue is the existence of an actual 
Mycenaean settlement at Corinth itself. As to 
this we must await further information. 

Yours faithfully, 
WALTER LEAF. 
June το, 1918. 


To the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


IN your review of Dr. Dawkins’ book you refer 
to fhe pedantism of the Greek schoolmasters. 
Your remark is just, but their pedantism is due 
to the pernicious system which forces them to 
teach in an artificial language. Last month, 
however, an act was passed by Mr. Venizelos 
making demotic compulsory in primary schools. 
This is the first step towards an official admis- 
sion of the value of demotic, and its use is sure 
soon toextend and prevail. When that isaccom- 
plished, pedantism will be a thing of the past, 

ALEX PALLIS. 


To the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


I AM desirous of purchasing a complete copy 
of the Corpus [nuscriptionum Latinarum, or as 
many of the volumes as I can get, for the 
Birmingham University Library. If any of 
your readers have any of these volumes and 
would like to dispose of them, I shall be glad to 
hear. 

E. A. SONNENSCHEIN. 


The University, Birmingham. 


136 


THE ‘CLASSICAL, REVIEW 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


All publications which have a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered in this list tf they are sent for 


VEVIEW. 


The price should in all cases be stated. 


* * Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


Beardslee (J. W., jun.) The Use of Φύσις in 
Greek Fifth- Century Literature (Dissertation 
for Doctorate). 93" x x6s". Pp. 126. Uni- 
versity of Chicago ἘΠ: 1918. 

Bell’s One Term Classics. Cicero: Pro Milone 
(C. E. Laurence), pp. xiit+54. eek Veii 
and the Etruscan Confederacy (S. E. Win- 
bolt), pp. xii+72. 6”x4”’. London: George 
Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1918. Limp cloth, 
Is. 3d. each. 

Brackman (C., jun.) Miscella Tertia. 9” x 6”. 
Pp. 48. Lugduni Batavorum : Brill, 1917. 
Burton (E.D.) Spirit, Soul and Flesh, Ν.Τ. 
Historical and Linguistic Studies. Second 
Series, Vol. III. Chicago : University Press, 

1918. $2. 

Clark (A. C.) The Descent of Manuscripts. 
93"x6". Pp. χνι- 464. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press, 1918. Cloth, 28s. net. 

Corpus. Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum. 
Moderante Carolo Paseal. 73’ 5". Turin: 
in aedibus I. B. Paraviae et Soc. Flexible 
boards. M. Minucii Felicis πο ΗΝ ἡ 1:29): 
Q. Valerii Catulli Carmina (L. 2.25). Cor- 
nelii Taciti De Origine et Situ Germanorum 
liber (L. 1.25). C. luli Caesaris Commen- 
tarii de Bello Civili (L. 2.75). M. Tullii 
Ciceronis De Re Publica (L. 2.75). T. 
Macci Plauti Stichus (L. 1.50). Cornelii 
Taciti de Vita Iulii Agricolae liber (L. 1.25). 
M. Tullii Ciceronis Pro Milone, Pro Archia 
(L. 2). P. Vergilii Maronis, Bucolicon liber, 
accedunt Moretum, Copa ees 1.25). Cornelii 


Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus (ΕΟ 
P. Ovidii Nasonis Tristia (Tu: (2.50). Artis 
Amatoriae, Libri 111: (L. 5)! T°. Macei 


Plauti Captivi (L. 1.75). L. Annaei Senecae, 
Thyestes et Phaedra (L. 2.50). 

Dempsey (T.) The Delphic Oracle : its Early 
History, Influence, and Fall. 73”x5". Pp. 
xxili+200. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell, 1918. 
Cloth, 6s. net. 

Dennison (\V.) A Gold Treasure of the Late 
Roman Period. University of Michigan 
Studies : Humanistic Series XI]. 11. 11”X0”. 
Pp. 86-174. New York: The Macmillan 
Company, 1918. Cloth, $2.50. 

Flickinger (R. C.) The Greek Theater and 
its ‘Drama.’ σι. x64". Pps (xxvill 4) 353. 


Chicago: University Press, 1918. Cloth, 
$3 net. 

Geibie (Sir A.) John Michell. A Memoir. 
8’x 5" Pp. νι τ τοῦ, Cambridge: Uni- 


versity Press, 1918. 

Herford (C. H.) The Poetry of Lucretius. 
A Lecture. 10}”x63". Pp. 26. Manchester : 
University Press, 1918. Paper boards, Is. net. 

Jastrow (M.) The War and the Coming 
Peace. 73”x5". Pp. 144. Philadelphia : 
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1918. Cloth, 
$I net. 

Lankester (Sir R. and others). 
and the Classical System in 
74" x 43". Pp.x+268. London: 
mann,1gi8. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net. 


Natural Science 
Education. 
W. Heine- 


Lautand (L.) Manuel des Etudes Grecques 
et Latines. Fasc. V.: Littérature, Latine. 
g’x 53". Pp. 489-622. Paris: A. Picard, 
ΤΟΥ͂Θ. Hr) 2.50. 

Loeb Library. Juvenal and Persius (G. G. 
Ramsay), pp. Ixxxii+416. The Greek An- 
thology (W. R. Paton, vol. iv., pp. xii+ 400 ; 
vol. v., pp. vit+422. Xenophon’s Hellenica 
(C. L. Brownson), pp. xiv+493. 63” 44". 
London: W. Heinemann, 1918. Cloth, 6s. 
net each. 


Matthaez (L. E.) Studies in Greek Tragedy. 


oi” x 6". Pp. xiit220. Cambridge: Uni- 
versity Press, 1918. Cloth, 95. net. 
Murray (G.) Religio Grammatici. Presiden- 


tial Address to the Classical Association. 
London: Allen and Unwin, 1918. 15. net. 

Peake(A.S.) The Quintessence of Paulinism. 
103" x δ". Pp. 32. Manchester : University 
Press, 1918. Paper boards, Is. net. 

Phillimore (J. S.) Things New and Old. 
74"x 5". Pp. villt+1go. Oxford : University 
Press, 1918. Cloth, 5s. net. 

Plautus (Menaechmi). Edited by P. Thoresby 
Jones. 722" Χ 5". Pp. 226. Oxford: Claren- 
don Press, 1918. Cloth, 4s. 6d. 

Royds (T. F.) Virgil and Isaiah: A Study of 
the Pollio, pp. xiv+122, 5s.net. The Beasts, 
Birds, and Bees of Virgil (second edition, 
revised), 4s.) 6d.. met. 74" x 5".))' Oxford’: 
B. H. Blackwell, 1918. 

Sanders (Henry A.) The New Testament 
Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. Part I1.: 
The Washington MS. of the Epistles of St. 
Paul. Pp. iv + 251-316, 8 plates. New 
York: Macmillan and Co., 1918. 

Szzoo (A.) De Plutarchi qui fertur de liberis 
educandis libello (Doctor’s Dissertation). 
9" x6z”. Pp. vilit102. Amsterdam: A.H. 
Kruyt, 1918. 

Siampint (E.) Rivista di Filologia e di In- 
struzione Classica. Vol. XLVI. Fasc. 1 
and 2. 9$’x6". Pp. 152 each. Torino: 
E. Loescher, 1918. 

Statius (Silvae). Edited by J. 5. Phillimore. 


Oxford text. Second edition. 74” x 4?” 
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918. Cloth, 
3s. 6d. 

Texts for Students. (2) Selections from 


Matthew Paris; (3) from Giraldus Cam- 
brensis. 7”x5". Pp. 64 each. London: 
S-PIGiK.,) 1918:) od. netieach( 

The Classical Association of Ireland. Proceed- 
ings for 1918, with Rules and List of Members. 
o"x 84". Pp. iv+126. Dublin: Brown and 
Nolan ; Hodges, Figgis and Co. 

Van Leeuwen (J.) Enchiridium Dictionis Epi- 
cae. Editio Altera, aucta et emendata. 
ΟΣ x62". (Pp. xx 432.) Leyden: Ano We 
Sijthoff, 1918. ΕἸ. 6.50. 

Whtte (H. J.) Select Passages, illustrative of 
Christianity in the First Century Texts for 
Students,s Now). (72 <i e ΕΒ. 10: 
London’: S;P.Cik.) 1918s sdamet. 


The Classical Review 


NOVEMBER—DECEMBER, 1918 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


DLHE /EEECT ERA 


In the Choephoroe (140) Electra prays 
that she may be σωφρονεστέρα πολὺ 
μητρὸς... χεῖρά τ᾽ evacBectépa. The 
use made of this combination by Sopho- 
cles, who founds his tragedy on the 
notion that decency and piety to her 
father make it impossible for Electra 
to be modest-minded or pious to Cly- 
taemnestra, entitles us to assume that 
the σωφροσύνη and εὐσέβεια of Electra 
had become proverbial As for the 
former trait, we have an independent 
witness in Aristophanes, whose com- 
parison of his comedy to Electra pro- 
ceeds from the allusion to the proverbial 
lock of hair to the equally proverbial 
ὡς δὲ σώφρων ἐστὶ φύσει. . . (Nub.537). 
Of course the εὐσέβεια of Electra is, 
for orthodoxy, her piety to her father; 
her σωφροσύνη is connected with her 
name ‘unwedded’; she is ‘ the chaste 
Electra.’ 

Now there are many allusions in the 
Electra of Euripides to the prayer of the 
Choephoroe. Compare Cho. 132-139 with 
Bur Bl. 165, 1090," 110, 1008," 4x4, 
ἸΟΟΙ, 594,” and you will see that the 
external circumstances of Electra’s 
humiliation, as conceived by Euripides, 
are carefully modelled on the details 
cited by Aeschylus, and are presented in 
phraseology which is deliberately imita- 
tive. But what has happened to the 
most striking characteristics of his 
model ? - What about the prayer for 
piety and the modest mind ? 


1 See my paper on ‘ The Tragedy of Electra 
according to Sophocles,’ Class. Quart. April, 
1918, Vol. XII. p. 80. 

? Nor do these passages exhaust the list of 
reminiscences. With Cdo. 131 (read φῶς ἄναψον 
with W. Headlam) cf. ἘΔ. 587. The phrase δίκῃ 
νικηφύρῳ, Cho. 148, inspires the remarkable 
scene, Eur. £7. 859 ff. 


NO. CCLXXI, VOL. XXXII, 


OR EURIPIDES. 


The answer is somewhat startling. 
Euripides has transferred these pro- 
verbial characteristics of the romantic 
Electra to the working-farmer whose 
questionable privilege it is to become her 
nominal husband. Not only does Electra 
herself describe the man as εὐσεβής 
(253) and σώφρων (261), but the first 
scene of the play is designed to bring 
out precisely these two aspects of his 
character. At line 50, having described 
the delicacy of his consideration for his 
unequal consort, the peasant owns that 
he may be thought foolish by some 
persons, but only, he thinks, by those 
who ‘measure τὸ σῶφρον᾽ by base 
standards, and are themselves lacking 
in modesty. And again, at line 78, he 
tells us that, with the advent of morn- 
ing,’ he will drive his oxen to the fields 
and work, because ‘no idler, who is 
always doing lip-service to the gods, 
could get together a livelihood, doing no 
work.’ These two reflections are not 
simply the tags which some critics are 
never tired of abusing as impertinences 
of Euripides. They are the structural 
pillars of the prologue, and have an im- 
portant relevance to the subsequent 
development of the drama. Quite de- 
liberately Euripides, whose main pur- 
pose is to bring us down (or up) from 
romantic flummery to the stern facts of 
life (in order first that we may judge 
justly, and secondly that we may feel 
human sympathies) has introduced into 
the drama of royal passions and re- 
venges a humble creature from real life 
whose notion of self-restraint is prac- 


3 This wholesome reference to the morning 
as the time for work is a subtle Euripidean 
modification of the old romantic theme, de- 
veloped in very different fashion by Sophocles. 


K 


138 


tical, but also noble, and whose piety 
consists not in talk about the gods, but 
in earning his bread honestly. Mr. 
Murray has rightly remarked that this 
peasant is the only person in our drama 
who is not somehow tainted with blood- 
madness. He stands for the simple 
humanity which Euripides preaches, 
-and which, if we once understand it, 
makes romantic talk about the degrada- 
tion of poor clothes, menial labour, and 
a cottage instead of a palace, dwindle 
into insignificance. At the outset 
Euripides challenges the romantic con- 
vention by showing us that the root of 
the matter is better understood by this 
peasant than by the great ones of the 
earth. He stands for the realities of 
life as it should be lived, realities which 
the other characters of the drama tragi- 
cally failto know. Hehasawholesome 


conception of the value of riches, and’ 


also of their comparative unimportance. 
For him, enough is better than a great 
abundance. Yet it is well to have 
enough to share with friends, enough to 
meet the emergencies of sickness... All 
that (424-432) is not irrevelant moral- 
ising. It provides the decent human 
standard against which the tragic error 
of the ‘ nobly born’ heroes and heroines 
stand out in sharp relief. It is pre- 
cisely because men ‘ measure with base 
standards’ such things as work and 
poverty, respectability and birth, that 
tragedies as grim as that of Electra 
occur every day. 

These themes are as old as Solon, and 
much older. But by stating them in 
this way Euripides challenges the 
slovenly practice of ordinary convention. 
He is like a modern clergyman who 
should deem it his duty to commend 
the unmitigated practice of Christian 
morality, as expounded in the New 
Testament. And, like such a clergy- 
man, he earns the reputation of pro- 
fanity. On each point on which the 
peasant is profoundly right Electra 
takes the conventional view, and Electra 
is tragically wrong. The sum of the 
conventions means, in her case, a 
poisoned soul. She seriously thinks 
that her marriage to the peasant is 
θανάσιμος (247). She does not know 
that real nobility is a matter of char- 
acter, not birth. Observe this point, 


THE ;CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


and you will no longer think of lines 367- 
390 as undramatic. She seriously thinks 
that, by carrying the waterpot herself, 
she makes the wickedness of Aegisthus 
evident to the gods. True, she has the 
decency to conceal her thoughts from 
her excellent protector. But look at 
line 307, and consider what it implies 
about her state of mind. She dwells on 
externals, like her clothes, her humble 
lodging; she is humiliated at the thought 
that she must entertain strangers in 
such a place and with such modest fare. 
The peasant knows better than she the 
really valuable things of this world. 
She harps on good birth. It will lead 
to a disappointment when Orestes 
comes. And similarly, though with a 
more tragic significance, the thought of 
her thwarted womanhood, her enforced 
virginity, takes colour from her con- 
ventional sense of propriety. The study 
is very subtle, and repays analysis. In 
the main, she is the daughter of her 
mother, as Wilamowitz says, but not ex- 
actly frivolous—as conventional people 
go. Rather she is a person with great 
natural capabilities for sympathy and 
good sense, bullied and thwarted, never 
educated, blind to the real values. 

One thing, however, she cherishes, 
and it isnoble enough. It isthe thought 
of Orestes, the son of a great king, 
surely himself as bold, as splendid, as 
his race. When the actual Orestes 
appears, it is no wonder that she is slow 
to recognise him. He is, in fact, cautious 
beyond measure, weak, indecisive—but 
also, if she only knew it, something 
better than a bold fine figure of a noble- 
man, a youth of gentle instincts. That 
is the key to the recognition scene. 
Although I think the spectator is in- 
tended to draw an inference about the 
superior technique of Euripides, I 
cordially agree with Mr. Murray that it 
is a mistake to treat this scene as 
primarily or exclusively a criticism of 
Aeschylus. Electra has imagined 
Orestes as a hero of melodrama. She 
finds him a very simple, ordinary human 
being. It is not through clumsiness, 
nor by an oversight, that Euripides 
makes his Electra say, ‘If you think my 
brave brother was so afraid of Aegisthus 
that he came to the country secretly, 
you are saying what is unworthy of a 


THE) CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW: 


man of sense.’ That is precisely what 
Orestes, the real human Orestes, had 
done. Andthesame sort of imagination 
has made Electra suppose that her 
brother’s hair would be altogether un- 
like her own, his footprints large and 
manly.} 

Frankly, I believe that a spectator of 
the play would see, and would be ex- 
pected to see, that Electra is disap- 
pointed in Orestes. And Orestes, if I 
am not mistaken, is also disappointed 
in Electra. He is charmed with the 
peasant (262), and more startled than 
edified by the savage assurance of his 
sister that she is ready and eager to do 
the killing of Clytaemnestra herself 
(282). When the brother and sister 
have been forced by the old servant to 
the mutual recognition, instead of the 
romantic ecstasy which, perhaps, the 
sentimental reader would desire, we get, 
I think, something more true to life, a 
sort of puzzled embarrassment. There 
is a note of apology in the reply of 
Orestes to her question (581): 


EL, ἐκεῖνος εἶ σύ; OR. σύμμαχός γέ σοι μόνος. 


After which, though the chorus provides 
the jubilation, Electra remains silent 
until, at line 648, she breaks into the 
planning of the two men with her 
characteristic proposal : 


ἐγὼ φόνον γε μητρὸς ἐξαρτύσομαι. 


The heartlessness of the device which 
she actually adopts is characteristic. It 
is explained, though not excused, by the 
thwarting of Electra’s sex. 

The Electra of Sophocles is, as I have 
tried to show, suggested to the poet by 
the prayer of Electra in the Choephoroe 
that she may be more pious and more 
modest-minded than her mother. Her 
instincts are towards normal piety and 
modesty. Her situation makes her 
violate those instincts daily, and the 
tragic clash of circumstance and tem- 
perament culminates in the scene in 
which she actually triumphs in the 
murdering of her own mother—just re- 
tribution as it is, and, in the absence of 


ἘΠῚ confess this does not explain lines 5309 ff., 
and here I am constrained to admit that, in my 
opinion, the poet elaborates the familiar themes 
too much. In line 546 read ἢ τις δεσπότου 
σκοποὺς λαθών (Gf. 66, 97, 798). 


139 


law-courts, according to the standards 
of heroic antiquity, a pious and a proper 
consummation. The early scenes of the 
play, by their insistence on the heroine’s 
sense that loyalty to her father means 
the violation of her own instincts of 
‘piety and modesty,’ prove that the 
consummation is tragic. The result is 
not by any means a tract in favour of 
Apollo, though it is also not a tract 
against his oracle. Simply, it isa study 
of human tragedy. Electra is like so 
many of us poor creatures to-day, forced, 
in order not to violate the sense of 
righteousness and duty to whatever gods 
there ‘be, to violate instincts which 
normally we regard as the final criterion _ 
of right. Circumstance makes tragedy. 
The tragedy of the Euripidean Electra 
is different. She is not indeed a monster, 
but she is a thwarted woman, which is 
often much the same thing. In her 
dealings with Clytaemnestra there are, 
until the tragedy is consummated, none 
of those signs of moral uneasiness which 
explain the character of the Sophoclean 
heroine. Simply, she hates her mother, 
and is anxious for revenge. Orestes 
feels the scruples. Cruelty and the 
thwarting of her womanhood have made 
Electra sour. She does not feel, like the 
Sophoclean heroine, a passionate and 
spiritual devotion even to the murdered 
father, whom she lives to avenge. The 
vengeance she wants is vengeance for 
her own spoilt life. The one person she 
loves is Orestes, and an imaginary 
Orestes, the strong man who will come 
to her aid. Whereas in Sophocles 
Electra becomes the devoted slave of 
Orestes, and forgets herself in him, as 
soon as he is recognised, in Euripides 
she takes the lead. She urges him on, 
when he would avoid the crime. Her 
tragedy is that she is thus warped and 
embittered; what distinguishes her, 
however, from a wicked woman of melo- 
drama is precisely her love for Orestes. 
But that love she only discovers too 
late, when she has already been guilty 
of thrusting him over the precipice, 
forcing him to the crime which will ruin 
his life. Of course, this implies that 
Euripides treats the oracle of Apollo as 
indubitably criminal. But the purpose 
of his play is not to prove this 
doctrine. It is to exhibit the results of 


140 


human cruelty, and to awaken human 
sympathies. 

I venture to think'that this reading of 
the character of Electra throws light on 
many details, which appear, at first 
sight, puzzling or irrevelant. We have 
already seen how important the réle of 
the peasant-husband becomes, and how 
the general conception of the tragedy 
makes relevant the moralising speeches 
which he delivers or inspires. Let us 
now consider the choral odes, which 
have been described as ‘ Embolima,’ 
and which look like mere decoration. 
That they are, as decorative embroidery, 
fairly relevant is not, I think, disputed. 
But, to appreciate their dramatic value, 
we must notice how they are, poetically 
and imaginatively, related to oneanother. 
The terms of the invitation to the 
festival of Hera, with which the chorus 
first approaches Electra, have a poetical 
value in connexion with the assembly 
to which a herald summons the 
Mycenaeans in the ode on the Golden 
Bambe (070) di.) 706 dt). iaibere jas ia 
poetical connexion, undefined but im- 
portant, between Electra’s cry to‘ Night, 
the nurse of golden stars’ (54, another 
reference to the traditional motif of 
‘morning after night’), the sun and 
dancing stars on the shield of Achilles, 
which are to turn Hector to flight 
(465 ff.), and the sun and stars which 
are turned from their natural courses by 
the impiety of Thyestes (726 ff). All 
that lends value to Electra’s cry at 866. 
And the importance of the stars in the 
drama is not unconnected with the τό] 
of the Dioskuri (see, for example, 901). 
Thirdly, there is poetical value in the 
Nymphs (447) and Nereids (434) in 
connexion with the circumstances of 
Aegisthus’ death (625). But why should 
the poet think fit to make his chorus 
sing irrelevant songs about the arms of 
Achilles? He is using art to conceal 
art. What looks like a celebration of 
Agamemnon and Achilles is, in effect, a 
suggestion of the traditional, romantic, 
heroic, view of Orestes. The chief 
emblem on the shield of Achilles is 
the figure of Perseus, accompanied by 
Hermes, carrying the Gorgon’s head. 
Even so does Electra imagine her 
Orestes. The connexion of these two 
romantic monster-slayers is traditional. 


THE CLASSICAL |, REVIEW 


In Aeschylus (Cho. 808-830) the chorus 
pray that Hermes may assist Orestes, 
and that Orestes may have the spirit of 
Perseus in him. That is why Perseus 
is worked into the devices of Achilles’s 
weapons here, and the point becomes 
tragic at line 856. It is not the Gorgon’s 
head that will turn Electra to stone, 
but the body of Aegisthus ‘whom she 
hates.’ And when he comes to slay his 
mother, Orestes cannot bear the sight 
of her face. He veils his eyes (1221). 
The tragic relevance of the chorus is, I - 
submit, established. See also line 1174, 
with its reminiscence of 456, 469, and 
possibly 711. The full value of the 
symbolism depends on a great number 
of details, including, for example, the 
‘ fire-breathing lioness’ of line 472, re- 
called in lines 1162-4, and again, I 
think, tragically in line 1183. 

As for the episode of the Golden 
Lamb, its relevance depends on the fact 
that it marks the beginning of the 
tragedy and sin, forming a dark prelude 
to the scene of exaltation in which 
Orestes is hailed as‘ victorious,’ crowned 
as rightful prince and conqueror, and 
then thrust over the precipice by Electra. 
That is its main value, and the denial 
of the ancient story that the course of 
nature was changed by mortal sin is 
meant to suggest the poet’s denial that 
the actions of Electra and Orestes are 
mysteries, not to be judged by ordinary 
human standards, and not caused by 
normal human motives. The details also 
are dramatic. The Mycenaean festival 
(see above) leads up to the dances which 
welcome Orestes, and to the sinister 
greeting with which Clytaemnestra is 
hailed as ‘a happy Queen.’ In the 
light of all this, we shall perceive that 
there is tragic irony in the moralising 
of Electra when she indicts the dead 
Aegisthus. The short dialogue in which 
Orestes bids her speak freely, without 
fear of the φθόνος either of gods or men 
(goo ff.) tragically recalls the tempta- 
tion of Agamemnon by Clytaemnestra 
in Aeschylus. Throughout this part of 
the drama, we should notice, the chorus 
is swept away into a rapture which 
bodes ill for the sequel. 

Finally, when the critical moment 
comes, Orestes feels ‘pity’ for his 
mother, and would draw back from the 


THE: CLASSICAL’ REVIEW 


fatal act (967-8). He sees plainly at 
that moment that Apollo has spoken 
ἀμαθίαν (971). But Electra stifles his 
scruples by her question, ‘If Apollo be 
evil-minded, who are the wise?’ Look 
at lines 294-6, and you will admit that 
Euripides uses his moral reflection with 
an eye to dramatic effect. Orestes, in 
his own sound mind, knows 


ἔνεστιν οἶκτος ἀμαθίᾳ μὲν οὐδαμοῦ, 
σοφοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν. . .. 


141 


In the final scene, which is externally 
conventional, the Dioskuri blame Apollo 
for lack of wisdom. And when Orestes, 
in a poignant cry, which recalls the 
most tragic moment of the Choephoroe 
(923), bids his sister (1325) 

πρόσπτυξον σῶμα" θανόντος δ᾽ 
ὡς ἐπὶ τύμβῳ καταθρήνησον, 
the Dioskuri touch again the theme of 
pity for human trouble. 
J. T. SHEPPARD. 


THE PROBLEM OF THE ANTIGONE: WHAT DID SOPHOCLES 
WRITE? 


WHEN Jebb in his famous edition 
decided against the genuineness of the 
suspected lines in the last speech of 
Antigone, he supported his decision by 
arguments which are still unanswered, 
and, with the present interpretation of 


the text, are likely to continue so. Yet 
there are several difficulties in his 
treatment of the problem. He cuts 


out line 904 to 920, a matter of nearly 
one-third of the whole speech, so that it 
runs: 
. viv de Πολυνείκης TO σὸν 

δέμας περιστέλλουσα τοιάδ᾽ ἄρνυμαι 

ποίαν παρεξέλθουσα δαιμόνων δίκην ; 

To account for such an interpolation 
he merely repeats the suggestion that 
Iophon, in a revision of his father’s 
plays, inserted the suspected lines in 
the text. Why lophon, or any other 
poetical editor, should be guilty of such 
a literary atrocity he does not say. 
Moreover, though in Jebb’s version the 
lines run smoothly enough, the parti- 
ciple παρεξέλθουσα coming naturally 
after the indicative ἄρνυμαι, from an 
aesthetic view-point it is extremely 
forced. The great appeal against 
inexplicable fate contained in the single 
line ποίαν παρεξέλθουσα δαιμόνων 
δικὴν, comes as a splendid finish to 
the lines 

καὶ νῦν ἄγει με διὰ χερῶν οὕτω λαβὼν 

ἄλεκτρον ἀνυμέναιον οὕτε τοῦ γάμου 

μέρος λαχοῦσαν οὔτε παιδείου τροφῆς 

ἀλλ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἔρημος πρὸς φίλων ἡ δύσμορος 

ζῶσ᾽ εἰς θανόντων ἔρχομαι κατασκαφάς, 
which express so vividly the sadness 
and horror of her early death, and 
almost make her believe that the gods 
have forsaken her, who thus reward 
her obedience to their divine laws. 


Coming after the prosaic τοιάδε it 
would be much less effective, in fact 
almost bombastic. 

The received interpretation of the 
passage left Jebb no alternative but to 
reject it entirely. Antigone seems to 
say, ‘ Never would I have taken up this 
task if it had been my husband or 
children that lay mouldering in death.’ 
Such a startling statement needs justi- 
fication, which is supplied by a ‘ primi- 
tive sophism’ taken almost bodily out of 
Herodotus. But does Antigone really 
say this? Let us forget for a moment 
the received interpretation, and, taking 
the Greek as it stands, try if it is 
capable of some other more satisfactory 
interpretation. The first thing that 
strikes us is that Antigone never 
actually refers to the death of her 
children as a case in which she would 
not have deemed: the divine law binding, 
in fact she never mentions it at all. 
Herwordsare: ‘ Never, if I had been the 
mother of children... 

This has been taken as a poetic way 
of saying ‘if my children were dead’; 
but surely in a solemn statement of 
such great importance to the whole 
aspect of the play, and one which the 
poet admits to be in need of explanation, 
it would be absurd to increase the 
difficulty by involving it in a poetic 
disguise, which is certainly liable to 
another interpretation. Evidently there 
is something wrong somewhere, and 
where such perplexity arises it is 
extremely probable that the clear brain 
of Sophocles is not alone responsible 
for the text. 

Jebb objects rightly to the line τίνος 


142 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


“14 


νόμου δὴ ταῦτα πρὸς χάριν λέγω, 85 
‘strongly suggestive of the interpolator 
who bespeaks attention for his coming 
point.” It certainly has not the 
spirit of Sophocles, so we may reason- 
ably arrest it on suspicion, on Jebb’s 
informations, till we secure its accom- 
plices. We shall still follow Jebb in 
making a clear sweep of the four lines 
containing the‘ primitive sophism’; but 
as the principal objection to the 
following three depends on the sense of 
the preceding eight, and as there is 
nothing in the technique to show that 
they are not Sophoclean, we must let 
them stand till-we see how the others 
are to be treated. 

Let us now suppose the remaining 
verses written in the Athenian script of 
the fifth century B.c., with no accentua- 
tion, punctuation, or division of words. 
What is more likely than that an editor 
or revisor reading over the Antigone, 
forty years after its first production, and 
coming to the words 


ουγαρποτουτανειτεκνωνμητηρεφυν 
ουτειποσιςμοικατθανωνετΉΚεΤο 
βιαιπολιτωντανδανηιρομηνπονον " 


should have been misled by the ovtes 
catching his eye at the beginning of the 
second line and taken ovray in the first 
to be the corresponding negative 
followed by the particle dv. To him, 
then, the text presents the strange 
problem of an extraordinary statement, 
qualifying the whole aspect of the play 
and absolutely unsupported by any 
stated reasons. 

In accordance with the well-known 
rule of rhetoric, soon afterwards to be 
formulated by Aristotle, he proceeds to 
supply the deficiency, aided by the 
remembrance of a supposed parallel 
instance in Herodotus which the 
unusual word ἐκπροτιμήσασα may have 
helped him to recall. This happy 
thought he expresses in four jogging 
senaril, and goes on his way rejoicing. 

Now this very word ἐκπροτιμήσασα 
does not give the required sense to the 
present form of the text. Antigone did 
not honour her brother beyond her 
husband or ‘children, for the simple 
reason that such a comparison would be 
unmeaning. She was dying ἄλεκτρος 
ἀνυμέναιος, and knew it too well to for- 


get it even in the depth of fraternal love. 
She might have said that she would have 
honoured her brother more than them, 
but the interpolator, content with a loose 
connexion of thought, preferred to keep 
the poet’s actual words as far as possible, 
than to secure his own position by any 
further changes which might involve 
more tampering with the text than his 
conscience would allow, or his own 
limited powers could undertake. 

Let us now consider the alternative 
interpretation. If we divide the first 
line so as to give 


ov γάρ ποτ᾽, οὔ τἂν, εἰ τέκνων μήτηρ ἔφυν, 


the next line falls naturally into a 
parenthesis since οὔτ᾽ εἰ must mean ‘ not 
if,” not ‘nor if,’ since there is now 
no corresponding ‘neither. Then the 
third line takesup the first and completes 
the conditional sentence, and thus we 
obtain an entirely new meaning with 
practically no change in the text. The 
passage will then run: 

καίτοι σ᾽ ἔγω᾽ τίμησα τοῖς φρονοῦσιν. εὖ. 

οὐ γάρ ποτ᾽. οὔ τἂν, εἰ τέκνων μήτηρ ἔφυν 

--οὔτ᾽ εἰ πόσις μοι κατθανὼν ἐτήκετο---- 

βίᾳ πολιτῶν τόνδ᾽ ἂν ἠρόμην πόνον. 

τοιῷδε μέντοι σ᾽ ἐκπροτιμήσασ᾽ ἐγὼ 

νόμῳ Κρέοντι ταῦτ᾽ ἔδοξ᾽ ἁμαρτάνειν 

καὶ δεινὰ τολμᾶν, ὦ κασίγνητον κάρα. 

καὶ νῦν ἄγει με κ-.τ.λ. 
‘And yet I honoured thee in the eyes 
of those that are wise, well. For never, 
no never, had I been the mother of 
children—not if it were my husband 
that lay mouldering in death—would I 
have taken on myself this labour in 
defiance of the citizens. Yet though 1 
held thee first in honour by such a law I 
seemed to Creon to be wrong and dare 
unlawfully, brother mine. And now he 
leads me to my death, etc.’ 

This is the νόμος which Antigone 
quotes as the authority for ‘ honouring 
her brother above all.’ Not above 
husband or children, for they are not for 
her, but above the commands and 
threats of Creon, the persuasions of 
Ismene and the example of blind obedi- 
ence given by public opinion as expressed 
by the chorus. The force of this law, 
the reason why she mentions it, and the 
light which it throws on the play, must 
next be considered. 

Antigone is dying before she has got 
what is due to her out of life. The 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


perfection of the natural life being in the 
Greek ideal, the joy of marriage and 
offspring, she is scarcely to be considered 
as having lived at all. She is but asa 
child—a pure spirit clothed in a garment 
of flesh, touching this world for an 
instant and shrinking from the cold 
blasts of misfortune which have been her 
portion during her brief existence. Yet 
she does not want to lie down and sleep 
away in death the memory of her 
sorrows. She has found love, and her 
young heart is full of unspeakable long- 
ings after happiness, sweeter because 
only half-guessed. And now all this is 
torn from her by the most cruel stroke 
of all. On the edge of her living tomb 
she pauses and thinks of what might 
have been, of wedded love, and the sweet 
duty of παιδεῖος τροφή, the nurture of 
children. 

‘Ah then,’ she says, ‘I could have 
lived ; even if it were my husband that 
lay unburied. I need not have faced 
the violence of men, for my duty to my 
children would have first claim. But 
now my dead brother holds the first 
place and I could not do otherwise. 
Yet Creon thinks me wrong, though he 
knows that I acted under this law and 
from no choice of mine, and now he 
leads me desolate to death. I do not 


) 


143 


know; I cannot understand why the 
gods permit such things. But why 
disquiet myself in vain? I shall soon 
know all, and I trust to the justice of 
Heaven to justify me on earth by punish- 
ing my judges if they have done wrong.’ 

Thus the virgin-martyr goes to her 
doom, not lifted above the earth in 
an ecstasy of devotion and already 
enjoying a foretaste of Heaven, but with 
one long sad glance at the fair joys she 
can never share she faces an unknown 
world full of doubt and darkness, with 
her brave heart alone sustaining her in 
the firm belief that she has done her 
duty and that it will not be in vain. 

Surely this new interpretation reveals 
a trait in the character of Antigone 
hitherto almost unsuspected—her deep 
tenderness and immense capacity for 
love. Nowhere else in the play do we 
get such striking proof of the words the 
poet puts into her mouth at the begin- 
ning of the action, thus giving a hint at 
the truest and most beautiful aspect of 
her character. 


οὔ τοι συνέχθειν ἀλλὰ συμφιλεῖν ἔφυνς 
J. J. Murpny. 


University College, 
Dublin. 


THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 


ΧΙ: 
Eis ᾿Απόλλωνα. 


Ir is a small matter to read ἀνέρας 
εἰσορόων for ἄνδρας τ᾽ εἰσορόων in 154, 
and it is perhaps not extravagant to 
regard 155 as the ambitious, albeit 
rather wooden, interpolation of a 
meddlesome rhapsodist ; but it may be 
a shock to the thick-and-thin supporters 
of hiatus licitus to be told that 


156 πρὸς δὲ τόδε μέγα θαῦμα, ὅου κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται 


should be corrected by introducing Too, 
the uncontracted form of tod, instead 
of the barbaric diectasis ὅου (-Ξδο). 
The couplet 159-60, 
αὖτις δ᾽ αὖ Λητώ τε καὶ Αρτεμιν ἰοχέαιραν, 
μνησάμεναι ἀνδρῶν τε παλαιῶν ἠδὲ γυναικῶν 
presents greater difficulty. Δητώ for 
Λητόα and the hiatus μνησάμεναι ἀνδρῶν 


are a sufficient indication that some- 
thing is amiss. A deliberate attempt 
has been made, unless I am mistaken, 
by a little omission and the trans- 
position of seemingly unimportant 
words to exalt Apollo and to dissociate 
his praises from the laudation of his 
mother and sister, as if the singers sang 
two or even three separate hymns, one 
for each person. The present hymn 
itself shows that the assumption is 
improbable. So far Leto and her 
troubles have been dwelt upon in nearly 
a hundred lines out of 160, and in 165 
we read 
ἱλήκοι μὲν ᾿Απόλλων ᾿Αρτέμιδι ξύν. 

Moreover, if we adopt the theory of a 
separate Delian Hymn ending at 178, 
Leto is the last word. I suggest then 
that the true reading of 158-61 may be 
approximately— 


144 


αἵ τ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἂρ πρῶτον μὲν ᾿Απόλλων᾽ ἀργυρότοξον 

Λητόα δ᾽ ὑμνήσωσιν ἰδ᾽ Αρτεμιν ἰοχέαιραν, 

αὖτις δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τε παλαιῶν ἠδὲ γυναικῶν 

ὕμνον ἀείδουσιν θέλγουσι δὲ φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, 
or μνησάμεναι δ᾽ for αὗτις δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ in 160. 

In this arrangement the Hymn to 
the god is one and indivisible a true 
προοίμιον, as Thucydides calls it, a 
prelude not to a recitation from Homer, 
as is commonly said, but a ceremonial 
opening of all the festival from begin- 
ning to end, the next item ‘on the pro- 
gramme being apparently a selection 
from the κλεέα ἀνδρῶν, which Achilles 
is recorded as singing in I. 189. The 
Hymn is more than an overture to a 
musical entertainment. Like the Pre- 
lude to Faust, it imparts tone and 
colour to all that follows. 

163 μιμεῖσθ᾽ ἴσασιν - φαίη δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕκαστος 

φθέγγεσθ᾽ - ᾿ 

The MSS. read μιμεῖσθαι without 
elision. The elision is due to Barnes, 
whom all editors have followed. The 
tradition is certainly right and Barnes 
as certainly in error. 


ἔργον ᾿Ομηρείοιο τόδ᾽ ἔπλετο Bapvectouo, 


and like his celebrated αὐτὰρ ἀποπτανέ- 
ουσιν (= ΤΟΙ) only helps to obscure the 
true reading, which may by the sub- 
stitution of φαῖτο for φαίη still be 
recovered, v. 151. My suggestion is 
μιμεῖσθαι ἴσασ᾽ - αὐτὸς δέ κε φαῖτο ἕκαστος. 

‘They know how to imitate the voices 
and the clacking of all men: each one 
would think his very self was speaking.’ 

*Clacking’ is a word current in 
Lancashire meaning ‘chatter,’ ‘gabble,’ 
‘jabbering,’ in French caquetage, and 
corresponds exactly to κρεμβαλιαστύν 
here, cf. Goldsmith’s She Stoops to 
Conquer, ‘I’m called their agreeable 
Rattle,’ nor is the meaning much 
different if we read the variant Bap- 
βαλιαστύν. 


169 ὦ κοῦραι, τίς δ᾽ ὕμμιν ἀνὴρ ἥδιστος ἀοιδῶν 

ἐνθάδε πωλεῖται, καὶ τέῳ τέρπεσθε μάλιστα ; 

- ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εὖ μάλα πᾶσαι ὑποκρίνασθαι ἀφήμως" 
Perhaps τῷ καὶ τέρπεσθε with τῷ as 
the relative and καί laying stress on 
τέρπεσθε is right, ‘ Who, as ye think, is 
the sweetest singer in whom ye most 
delight?” Τέῳ -- τίνε (Hymn Dem. 404) 
is unique for the early epic, and the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


“indefinite τεῳ is suspect, v. Homerica, 


p 364. 

The crux, however, of this passage 
is 171. The reading given is that of 
Allen and Sikes, 1904, but in the 
Oxford text, 1913,) Mr. Allen has 
adopted very unwisely an exquisitely 
bad conjecture of F. Marx, Rh. Mus. 
1907, 

ὑποκρίνασθ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἡμέων, 
‘make answer about me.’ Not only is 
the metre made poor and the poetry 
marred by this unhappy change, but. 
the whole effect of the next line, the 
little pleasantry of revealing himself 
while using the third and not the first 
person, οἰκεῖ, is obliterated by this 
premature and unseasonable ἀμφ᾽ ἡμέων. 

The better MSS. of Thucydides 
(ili. 104) give ἀφήμως, the later εὐφήμως 
obviously to save the metre. The 
MSS. of the Hymns present a more 
degenerate ἀφ᾽ ἡμέων and still worse 
ἀφ᾽ ὑμέων. All seem to read ὑποκρί- 
νασθε save M ὑποκρίνεσθ᾽, which as far 
as the elision goes is right enough, as 
in Hymn Dem. 332 q.v. 

My suggestion involves little change, 
ὑποκρίνασθ᾽ ἰαφήμως, ‘answer him with 
one voice,’ ‘ with one prophetic voice,’ 
for this is the sense of φήμη. The 
adverb would be a compound of ἴα 
‘one’ (N 354 ἠδ᾽ ia matpn) and φήμη. 
If the form be accepted under warrant 
of ἀφήμως, it affords a complete solution 
of the variations of the tradition, and 
also justifies Barnes’s very sensible 
ἀριστεύσουσιν (173) wrongly excluded 
by Allen and Sikes. Otherwise we 
should have to fall back upon ὁμοφώνως, 
a recognised but poetically much 
weaker alternative form, which deviates 
very seriously from the tradition. 

* * = ake 

177 αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν οὐ λήξω ἑκηβόλον ᾿Απόλλωνα 

tpvéwy ἀργυρότοξον, ὃν ἠύκομος τέκε Λητώ. 

The metrical flaw, non-existent in 
the later language, is the result of a 
transposition, accompanied by the least 
possible modification of one epithet. 
Let us restore 

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν οὐ λήξω ᾿Απόλλων᾽ ἀργυρότοξον 
ὑμνείων ἑκάεργον 
and compare this passage with Hymn 
VI.°18-9 discussed in the June number 
of the Classical Review, 1916. Here the 
primary motive for the change would 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


be to remove the obsolete form ὑμνείων, 
cf. 190, corrected without remark ν. 81 
(No. X.). 


181 αὐτὸς δ᾽ αὖ Δήλοιο περικλύστοιο ἀνάσσεις. 


The strong case for περικλύστοιο as 
against περικλύστης OF περικλύστου 
μέγ᾽ was fairly stated in Class. Rev., 
November, 1896. For αὐτός no satis- 
factory defence has yet been offered. 
I venture to suggest αὐτῆς. Insistence 
on the importance of Delosas compared 
with other localities is natural enough. 
The greatness of Apollo may be taken 
for granted throughout. Perhaps 179 
should begin and did begin ὦ av’, ὃ καὶ 
Λυκίην, leaving 181 to stand alone as 
principal sentence. The loss of the 
relative in this form has occurred I 
think in several cases, e.g. A 37, 
κλῦθί μευ, ᾿Αργυρότοξος, ὃ Χρύσην ἀμφιβέβηκας. . . . 
Hymn Dem. 347, 


κυανοχαῖτ᾽ ᾿Αίδης, ὃ καταφθιμένοισι ἀνάσσεις, 


and similarly in this Hymn, 199, we 
should read 
“Apreuts ἰοχέαιρ᾽, 7) ὁμότροφος ᾿Απολλωνι, 

and let hiatus licitus go by the board 
once more. 

** ** Ἔ 
201 παίζουσ᾽ - αὐτὰρ ὁ Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων ἐγκιθαρίζει.... 

Certainly ὁ Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων is in- 

admissible. Either ὁ should be ex- 
cluded, or, as I should think, more 
probably the intruder in Φοῖβος which 
has displaced τῇσιν, not tolerated 
because it occurs in the preceding line, 
but really shown to be necessary by 
ἐγκιθαρίξει, a compound which in Hymn 
Herm. 17 15 quite out of place, and 
μεσσημάτιος κιθάριζεν (Schneidewin) a 
necessity. 

* ἐς Ἔ 


208 ἦέ σ᾽ ἐνὶ μνηστῇσιν ἀείδω καὶ φιλότητι 
ὅππως μνωόμενος ἔκιες ᾿Αζαντίδα κούρην. . .; 


Surely not, as Allen and Sikes say, 
‘in thy love of brides,’ whatever reading 
weadopt. No hymn-writer could have 
been so audaciously irreverent. The 
poet probably wrote 

ἢέ σ᾽ ἐν ἀδμήτῃσιν ἀείδω καὶ φιλότητι, 
‘amid loving maidens.’ A _ delicate 
compliment to Apollo as what we call 
a lady-killer. See Milman’s Newdigate, 
1812, on the Belvedere Apollo. 
In the next line for éxues we may 


145, 


without hesitation read κίες eis, cf. ξ 127 
ἐλθὼν ἐς δέσποιναν ἐμὴν ἀπατήλια βάζει. 
The corrupt lines which follow I 
would write tentatively thus, in the 
hope that such suggestions as are here 
made may be of service and lead to 
better developments in the future : 
Ἴσχυ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἀντιθέῳ ’Edariovldn εὐίππῳ, 
ἢ Φόρβανθ᾽ ἅμα Τριοπίδῃ γένος εἰς ᾿Αμάρυνθον, 
ἢ σύ γ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ᾿Αρσίππῳ ἐς Λευκίπποιο θύγατρα 
πεζὸς ἐών, ἵπποισι σὺ δ᾽ οὐκ ᾿1δα᾿ ἐνέλειπες, 
ἢ ὡς δὴ πρωτον χρηστήριον ἀνθρώποισι 
ζητεύων κατὰ γαῖαν ἔβης, ἑκατηβόλ᾽ "Απολλον ; 
So written the question begins with 
he (208), surely not ἠέ, and continues to: 
the end of 215. In 211 neither ’Epevdet 
nor ’EpexOe? is metrically allowable : 
εἰς ᾿Αμαρύνθου ‘to the house of A.’ 
(Αμαρύνθω marg. L} II) is possible, but 
very uncertain. L. 214 might begin 
(cf. 209) ἢ ὅππως πρῶτον. 
In 223 ἀπὲκ τοῦ (cf. 110) is probable 
for ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. 
* * * 
231 ἔνθα veoduns wos ἀναπνέει ἀχθόμενός περ. . - - 


Allen and Sikes explain ἀναπνέει 
‘gains new life’ through the inspiratiom 
of the horse-god. A recurrent miracle 
here seems to me a needless assump- 
tion. The verb ordinarily means 
‘recovers breath,’ ‘has a breathing- 
space’ (ἀνάπνευσις). The colt is out of 
breath, ‘blown’ as they say technically, 
with pulling the car, and gets relief 
because the wise driver jumps out of 
the car and walks, χαμαὶ δ᾽ ἐλατὴρ . . - 
ὁδὸν ἔρχεται. 

This is the rationale, the sensible 
basis, of the custom, but there was 
added for its enforcement in very early 
times a religious sanction involving a 
definite penalty for its breach. The 
whole passage has caused much dis- 
cussion, and stands thus: 

ἔνθα νεοδμὴς πῶλος ἀναπνέει ἀχθόμενός περ 
ἕλκων ἅρματα καλά, χαμαὶ δ᾽ ἐλατὴρ ἀγαθός περ 
ἐκ δίφροιο θορὼν ὁδὸν ἔρχεται " οἱ δὲ τέως μὲν 
κείν᾽ ὄχεα κροτέουσι ἀνακτορίην ἀφιέντες. 

εἰ δέ κεν ἅρματ᾽ ἄγησιν ἐν ἄλσεϊ δενδρήεντι 
ἵππους μὲν κομέουσι, τὰ δὲ κλίναντες εῶσιν " 

ὡς γάρ τε πρώτισθ᾽ ὁσίη γένεθ᾽ - οἱ δὲ ἄνακτι 
εὔχονται, δίφρον δὲ θεοῦ τότε μοῖρα φυλάσσει. 

Here οὗ δὲ τέως μεν must be a 
modernisation, and probably of οἱ δέ οἱ 
ἵπποι, cf. O 452, Ψ 474. In 235 ἄγῃσιν 
is the reading of the MSS. There is 
no need to suppose that the empty car 
could not rattle without being broken 


ὃ 


146 


as most editors by adopting Cobet’s 
aynow seem to imagine. In 236 I 
would read ἀγκλίναντες, cf. A 113, σ 103, 
and most certainly in the next line yap 
τε as above for yap τὰ (πρώτιστα), 
possibly also εἰ δέ for οἱ δέ. The trans- 
lation is to this effect : 

‘There a new-broken colt, distressed 
with pulling the smart chariot, has a 
breathing-time, for the driver, a sensible 
man, springs from the car and wends 
his way afoot. His horses losing his 
guidance rattle along the empty carriage. 
But if one drive a chariot within the 
woodland grove, his men lead off just 
(μέν) the horses, the chariot they tilt 
and abandon. For this was the taboo 
in earliest time; but for those who 
pray to the lord of the grove, then the 
god’s dispensation ensures the chariot.’ 

The meaning seems to be that any 
vehicle passing the temple must slow 
down, and, in fact, is not to be driven 
at all. Before entering the sacred 
grove the driver must descend, and 
proceed on foot until he quits it. If, 
on the other hand, he should persist in 
driving his team anywhere within the 
limits of the grove, he and his fellows 
take home the horses, but are obliged 
to leave the vehicle behind as a punish- 
ment for the offence they have com- 
mitted. There is just one possibility 
of escaping the penalty. Petition or 
prayer may be made to Poseidon, and 
following that the god’s award may 
prevent the forfeiture of the car. 


*K * * 
246 στῆς δὲ μάλ᾽ ἄγχ᾽ αὐτὴς. ... (=378). 


_ In these two lines the true reading 
is very probably τῆς δὲ μάλ᾽ ἄγχι στῆς 
(στῆ). Cf. ὃ 370 ἡ δέ μευ ἄγχι στᾶσα. 
x * * 
252 χρησόμενοι" τοῖσιν δέ 7’ ἐγὼ νημερτέα βουλὴν 
πᾶσι θεμιστεύοιμι (= 292-3). 

Read θεμιστεύωμι with Ilgen’s κ᾿ for 
Tt. A speech that opens with the 
dominant and decided ἐνθάδε δὴ φρονέω 
could not end in the if-you-please atti- 
tude of θεμιστεύοιμι, and would probably 
be all the better for the omission of 
250-I (=290-1), in which (1) Iledo- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ~ 


πόννησον, (2) Etpeémnv, and (3) κατά 
are more or less questionable. 


x * * 
263 ἀρδόμεναί 7’ οὐρῆες ἐμῶν ἱερών ἀπὸ πηγέων " 


This line and ® 312 ὕδατος ἐκ πηγέων 
throw great doubt upon the value of 
the observation that in Homer and in 
the early epic the noun πηγή was only 
used in the plural, never in the singular 
number. If thisrestriction had existed 
for the early poets the two lines quoted 
could not have been composed at all, 
for they would necessarily have said 
and sung πηγάων. Obviously the 
authors of our line and of ® 312 wrote 
ἐμῆς ἱερῆς ἀπὸ πηγῆς and ἐκ πηγῆς 
respectively. The metre and language 
prove this conclusively, in spite of 
traditional appearances and the most 
unenlightened numerical observation. 

Are we to consider Aeschylus a daring 
experimentalist when he wrote πηγὴ 
πυρός (Prom. 110) and πηγὴ κακῶν 
(Pers. 743), and that Sophocles, Plato, 
Xenophon, and others followed his 
lead? Or is there some natural plu- 
rality about springs and wells? Unless 
these questions can be answered affirma- 
tively with some show of reason, we 
may accept quite confidently πηγῆς as 
the true and original reading. 


* * ἧς 


275 ὡς εἰποῦσ᾽ “Ἑκάτου πέπιθε φρένας, ὄφρα οἱ αὐτῇ 
Τελφούσῃ κλέος εἴη ἐπὶ χθονὶ, μηδ᾽ ‘Exarovo. 


Probably no one at the present day 
would hesitate to accept the slight 
reconstruction ὧς εἰποῦσ᾽ ἔπιθεν “κάτου 
φρένας [cf. I, 45, 56, 157, 229 (ter), 474 
of this Hymn, and my remarks on 177], 
save for the peculiar ending of the next 
line μηδ᾽ “Exatovo, for which the remedy 
is not so obvious, though perhaps not 
unattainable. 

Leaving graphical considerations out 
of account for the moment μηδέ tev 
ἄλλου would be a tolerable substitution 
for the tradition, but as it seems possible 
to get an acceptable reading without 
changing more than two letters of the 
vulgate, I prefer to suggest μηδ᾽ dpa 
τοῖο OF μηδ᾽ ἔτι. 


ἜΤ AGAR. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


147 


NOTES ON SOME TEXTS IN PLATO AND MARCUS AURELIUS. 


Euthyd. 303D εὖ γὰρ οἶδα ὅτι “τούτους 
‘TOUS λόγους πάνυ μὲν ἂν ὀλίγοι ἀγαπῷεν 
ἄνθρωποι ὅμοιοι ὑμῖν, οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι οὕτω 
νοοῦσιν, ὥστ᾽ εὖ οἶδα ὅτι αἰσχυνθεῖεν ἃἂ ἂν 
μᾶλλον ἐξελέγχοντες τοιούτοις λόγοις 
τοὺς ἄλλους ἢ αὐτοὶ ἐξελεγχόμενοι: 

The questionable word here is vo- 


ovow, the MSS. wavering between 
νοοῦσιν (B) and ἀγνοοῦσιν (T). Gifford 
defends νοοῦσιν, which he renders 


‘have such a notion of them,’ ‘so 
conceive of them,’ citing Rep. 508D 
(τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς yéet) and Phaedr. 246c 
(οὔτε ἰδόντες οὔτε νοήσαντες θεόν) ; but 
these instances are not really similar 
and do nothing to support his case. 
Among what Gifford calls the ‘ needless 
conjectures ’ already proposed are 
Stallbaum’s ἀτιμάζουσιν and Orelli’s 
ἀπωθοῦσιν; and more recently ΜΙ ΧΗΣ 
Richards, holding that ‘neither νοοῦσιν 
nor ἀγνοοῦσιν makes any sense,’ has 
suggested δυσχεραίνουσιν as a suitable 
word. None of these corrections, how- 
ever, is close enough to the traditional 
lections to be very plausible. In 
attempting an emendation we may, I 
think, assume that ἀγνοοῦσιν is a mere 
correction of the difficult νοοῦσιν, so 
that the letters a y may be neglected. 
We have to deal, then, only with 
voovow, or let us rather say with the 
series of letters formed by the two 
words οὕτω νοοῦσιν. A frequent cause 
of error is haplography or lipography : 
assume its action here, plus the common 
contusion of τ and 7, and there emerges 
οὕτως ς ὑπο >voobaw. This word is 
milder in sense than the words pfo- 
posed by Richards and the rest, but it 
seems quite sufficiently strong. True 
it is not acommon Platonic word, but 
its use here may be supported by Laws 
3. 679 c where we have ψεῦδος ὑπονοεῖν 
in contrast to τὰ λεγόμενα ἀληθῆ 
νομίζειν: in both cases the object of 
suspicion is a statement or argument. 
Epist. 8. 354A ὃ δέ μοι φαίνεταί πῃ 
τὰ νῦν, ἐγὼ πειράσομαι πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ 
καὶ κοινῷ TLVL δικαίῳ λόγῳ χρώμενος 
δηλοῦν. ᾿χέγω γάρ δῆ διαιτητοῦ Twa 
τρόπον διαλεγόμενος ws δυοῖν, τυραννεύ- 


σαντι τὲ καὶ τυραννευθέντι, ὡς ἑνὶ 
ἑκατέρῳ παλαιὰν ἐμὴν συμβουλήν. 

On this Richards comments, ‘ Should 
not twa be twos and δικαίῳ probably 
δικαίως τ᾽ Certainly the first sentence 
is curious: why is it not κοινῷ Kat 
δικαίῳ λόγῳ, or rather why κοινῷ at 
all, since it is his own superior counsel, 
icy τί, that the writer is proposing 
rather pompously to produce? Here 
again I suspect a corruption due to the 
same fertile cause, haplography, and in 
place of κοινῷ I would write κοινωνῷ. 
The sense then will be—‘ taking δίκαιος 
λόγος to be my assessor (or fellow- 
counsellor), so to speak’; for which 
use of κοινωνός one may compare Laws 
810 Ὁ “πρὸς δὲ δὴ κοινωνοὺς ὑμᾶς ὄντας 
περὶ νόμων ἀνάγκη. . φράζειν. More- 
over, the case for κοινωνός in an official 
or semi-legal sense is supported by the 
occurrence = of διαιτητοῦ, συμβουλήν and 
σύμβουλος in the clauses immediately 
following. In the sentence λέγω yap 
δὴ «td. I cannot quite make out how the 
ordinary text ought to be rendered: the 
double ὡς seems to me very awkward. 
It looks as if one ought to read some- 
thing like this: λέγω yap δὴ, διαιτητοῦ 
τίνος τρόπον διαλεγόμενος καὶ δυοῖν, τυρ. 
τε καὶ τυρ., (ὡς ἑνὶ ἑκατέρῳ πάλαι) τὴν 
ἐμὴν Pai ae But possibly it may 
suffice to leave the words as they stand 
with the single minor alteration of ὥς 
for the second GSAS = να ΟΝ 


Epp. 8. 3540 οἱ καὶ τοὺς δέκα στρατη- 
γοὺς κατέλευσαν βάλλοντες ἐλ κενὴ ΚΠ ξὰ 
νόμον οὐδένα κρίναντες, ἵνα δὴ δουλεύοιεν 
μηδενὶ μήτε σὺν δίκῃ μήτε νόμῳ δεσπότῃ, 
ἐλεύθεροι δ᾽ εἶεν πάντῃ πάντως. 

Richards’ note on this runs thus : 
‘The sense of μήτε σὺν δίκῃ μήτε νόμῳ 
δεσπότῃ i is very unsatisfactory, until we 
read μήτε <avOpore > σὺν δίκῃ, com- 
paring 3340 μὴ δουλοῦσθαι Σικελίαν 
ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώποις δεσπόταις. .. ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ 
νόμοις, and even then σὺν δίκῃ seems 
out of place.’ Certainly σὺν δίκῃ is 
objectionable, both from its position 
and because the preposition is un- 
idiomatic. δίκῃ, like νόμῳ, ought, one 
thinks, to agree with the other datives, 


148 


instead of being adverbial. The first 
thing to be done is to cancel σύν : this 
done, δίκῃ and νόμῳ in agreement with 
Scondrn are natural enough ; we need 
only assume a kind of semi- personifica- 
tion. But the question remains—how 
did the otiose σύν manage to intrude 
. Itself? One might think of the com- 
pared word συνδίκῳ, but it would be 
clumsy to speak of a σύνδικος as a 
possible δεσπότης. The simplest cor- 
rection is to read οὖν for σύν. For the 
combination μήτ᾽ οὖν in one of two 
negative alternatives, see Madv. Gr. 
Synt., § 266 and cp. Od. 6. 192 οὔτ᾽ 


οὖν ἐσθῆτος δευήσεαι οὔτε τευ ἄλλου. 


Eryx. 401A ἢ ἐστιν ὅτι χρώμεθα πρὸς 
ἀλλήλους τῷ p διαλέγεσθαι καὶ τῷ βλάπτειν 
καὶ ἑτέροις πολλοῖς ; 3 dpa ἡμῖν ταῦτ᾽ ἂν 
εἴη χρήματα: καὶ μὴν χρήσιμά γε φαίνε- 
ται ὄντα. It seems scarcely possible 
to keep βλάπτειν as an example of 
χρήσιμα, and on the same footing with 
the innocuous business of ‘conver- 
sation” Proposed corrections are 
“γράφειν vel βλέπειν Clericus, παλαίειν 
vel πλάττειν Horreus, θάπτειν Orelli.’ 
«ἃ 53θλ«. αἱ" ἅπτειν (cp. πάλην ἅπτειν) 
would be near in point of letters; 
but I should prefer βουλεύειν, although 
its corruption is less easy to explain. 


Clitoph. 409E τὴν δὲ ὁμόνοιαν ἐρωτώ- 
μενος εἰ ὁμοδοξίαν εἶναι λέγοι ἢ ἐπιστή- 
μην, τὴν μὲν ὁμοδοξίαν ἠτίμαξεν. . τὴν 
δὲ φιλίαν ἀγαθὸν ὡμολογήκει πάντως 
εἶναι καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἔ εργον, ὥστε ταὐτὸν 
ἔφησεν εἶναι ὁμόνοιαν καὶ ἐπιστήμην 
οὗσαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δόξαν. 

This is the MS. reading of the last 
clause (ὥστε κτλ.), but obviously there 
is something amiss. Burnet follows 
Bekker and the Zurich editors in 
cancelling the καί before ἐπιστήμην, 
whereas Hermann adds a word (é¢xato- 
civnv) between καί and ἐπιστήμην. 
The latter is a heroic remedy, while as 
to the former one does not easily see 
why καὶ should have been inserted. 
With Bekker’s reading, ὁμόνοιαν is, I 
presume, to be taken as the subject 
with ταὐτὸν as predicate, but it is 
equally easy to regard τὴν φιλίαν as 
the subject of both clauses, in which 
case we must turn ὁμόνοιαν into a 
dative after ταὐτὸν, and suppose that 
καί is, as often, a corruption of ὡς. 


THE CLASSICAL) ‘REVIEW 


M. Aurel. if. 12s ἐὰν τοῦτο συνάπτῃς. 

Ary ov λέγεις καὶ φθέγγῃ ἡρωικῇ' 
ἀληθείᾳ ὁ ἀρκούμενος, εὐζωήσεις. 

ἡρωικῇ has been the object of much 
suspicion. Rendall would read εὐροϊκῇ, 
but Marcus does not use this form 
(only εὔρους), and in any case the word 
applies better to an idea like Bios than 
to ἀληθεία. Richards’ 'Ῥωμαικῇ is. 
ingenious but hardly more. I should 
agree with the Loeb translator, Mr. 
Haines, in Keeping ἡρωικῇ ἀληθείᾳ in 
the sense of ‘old-world truth.’ It 
may be difficult to produce a precise 
Greek parallel, but the Ciceronian use 
of heroicus in such phrases as heroica 
tempora, heroicae aetates (e.g. ‘vetus 
opinio est, iam usque ab Meroicis ducta. 
temporibus,’ Div. I. 1. 1) sufficiently 
demonstrates that heroicus was practi- 
cally a synonym for antiquus ; and once: 
this is granted, the rest of our defence 
is easy, since antiquitas to the ‘ antic” 
Roman mind connoted the ideal of 


- probity and honour; cp. Ter. Adelphi 


3. 3. 88 homo antiqua virtute et fide 
(and other passages quoted by L. and 
Spy 11} δὴ)" 


lil. 16. 2. τῶν θεοὺς μὴ νομιζόντων . . « 


lal 74 \ / 
‘Kal TOV ποιούντων, ἐπειδὰν κλείσωσι TAS 


θύρας. Something with the sense of 
αἰσχρά evidently needs to be supplied 
before ποιούντων. Mr. Haines adopts 
Coraes’ insertion of «πᾶν», while 
Schenkl prefers τί od. Either of these 
does well enough, but why should we 
not assume a still closer case of haplo- 
graphy and write τῶν «ποῖ᾽ ov > ποιούν- 
tov: ‘they stopped at no sort of 
iniquity’? Of “ποῖος οὐ interrogative 
equivalent to ἕκαστος affirmative 
various examples will be found in L. 
and S. 


iv. 27. ἤτοι κόσμος διατεταγμένος ἢ 
κυκεὼν συμπεφορημένος μέν, ἀλλὰ κόσμος. 

Haines marks the words συμπ. . . - 
κόσμος with notes of doubt, but allows. 
himself (much like Long) to put this. 
nonsense in his translation —‘ Either 
there is a well-arranged order of things. 
or a medley that is confused, yet still 
an order.’ Rendall makes better sense 
with his—‘ Either an ordered universe 
or else a welter of confusion. Assuredly 
then a world-order’; but to get this he © 


RHE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


has to alter the punctudtion and trans- 
pose μέν, ἀλλὰ into ἀλλὰ μήν : and be- 
sides this he needlessly changes συμπ. 
to συμπεφυρμένος, for the former word 
is, as Haines points out, sufficiently 
defended by Platonic usage. Reiske 
contented himself with one small 
change κόσμῳ for κόσμος, but this of 
itself does but little to ease matters. 
Schenkl’s ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κόσμος is, if possible, 
worse: to say solemnly that a κυκεών, 
“ἃ jumble,’ is not a κόσμος, is too 
absurd even for a Stoic. Better than 
these is Lofft’s συμπεφυραμένος" οὐ μήν, 
ἀλλὰ κόσμος. I had once thought we 
might read simply ἀλλ᾽ ἀκόσμως: but 
there is no true antithesis between 
συμπεῷ. and ἀκόσμως. Moreover the 
run of the next sentence seems to show 
that our sentence ought to convey a 
decision in favour of the κόσμος alterna- 
tive—as Rendall and Lofft saw. I 
now propose, by applying again our 
master-key of haplography, to read 
ἤ κυκεὼν συμπεφορημένος«΄. συμπεφο- 
pnuévos > μήν, ἀλλὰ κόσμῳ (or, possibly, 
κοσμίως). This explains the corrup- 
tion, and it makes quite good sense— 
for it is not the συμφορεῖσθαι that 
Marcus wants to deny but the ἀταξία 
or κυκσᾶθαι: he admits that this world 
is an assemblage of things, but not that 
it is a κυκεὼν. 

V. 1%. πρὸς τὸ ἥδεσθαι οὗν γέγονας, 
ὅλως δὲ σὺ πρὸς πεῖσιν ἢ πρὸς ἐνέργειαν; 

Schenk! follows Schmidt and Four- 
nier in giving ov for the οὐ of the 
MSS. Also, the MSS. vary between 
πεῖσιν (A D) and ποιεῖν (T); for which 
Coraes proposed <(To> ποιεῖν, and 


Wilamowitz ποίησιν. Further, for 
ὅλως δὲ Wilamowitz has proposed 


ὦ λῶστε, and Schenkl ὅλως γε: and 
Upton suggested οὐ for ἢ. As all the 
talk in the context is of the duty of 
action as opposed to hedonistic inaction 
—my duty to do ποιεῖν ὧν ἕνεκεν γέγονα 
—lI take it that any mention of πεῖσις is 
out of place. But if τὸ ποιεῖν or ποίησιν 
is right, it seems strange to add ἢ 
πρὸς évépyecav,-which is hardly a real 
‘alternative; and in fact we need no 
alternative, as our talk is of only one 
thing. Now if we assume, for once, 
that T’s reading is better—nearer the 
archetype—than A’s, and if we allow 


149 


once again for haplography, then from 
πρὸς ποιεῖν ἢ we can without difficulty 
educe the words πρὸς «τί» ποτ᾽ εἰ μὴ: 
to what end wast thou born save that 
of activity.’ ἐνέργεια is not an alterna- 
tive but a substitute for τὸ ποιεῖν. 


Vi. IO τί δὲ μοι καὶ μέλει ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ 
τοῦ ὅπως ποτὲ aia γίνεσθαι; Haines 
prints aia γίνεσθαι with quotation marks, 
with a reference to Hom. 7]. vii. gg in 
the footnote; but if Marcus really had 
Homer in mind, why did he not write 
ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα γίνεσθαι ἢ Richards sug- 
gests τέφρα for aia, but a likelier word 
here is σποδιά, supposing the first three 
letters to have been lost through lipo- 
graphicerror. Perhaps we should write 
ὅπως To< TE δεῖ oro > bia γίνεσθαι. 

ix. 28 ἢ ἅπαξ᾽ ὥρμησεν (sc. ἡ τοῦ 
ὅλου διάνοια) τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κατ᾽ ἐπακο- 
λούθησιν Τκαὶ τί ἐν tint τρόπον γάρ 
τινα ἄτομοι ἢ ἀμερῆ. 

Schenkl marks καὶ τί ἐν tive as cor- 
rupt, and in his note approves the 
correction of Coraes καὶ τί ἐντείνῃ ; 
which is supported by x. 31 (as Mr. 
Haines observes). Mr. Haines obelises 
the same words and also ἢ ἀμερῆ, with 
the note ‘ Possibly ἀμερῆ is a gloss, or 
ὁμοιομερῆ Should be read.’ ὁμοιομερῆ 
is an old conjecture of Schultz; others 
are μέρη Reiske, ἀμερές Couat, ἡ εἷμαρ- 
μένη Rendall. Schenkl supposes that 
‘verba haud pauca excidisse.’ Now it 
seems idle to suppose with Haines that 
ἢ ἀμερῆ is a gloss, for what is there 
here to gloss? And none of thé other 
conjectures are at all plausible, at 
least if we accept Coraes’ correction. 
For the exhortation, ‘Why do you 
strive ?? ought to be followed, not by a 
general statement about the world at 
large, but by a personal argument 
which touches the ‘you’ that is thus 
exhorted. Such a point there would 
be if the sentence ran—‘ Why do you 
strive, for you are just a particle in the 
stream of matter, you must ézaxo- 
λουθεῖν like the rest, the atoms that 
flow unresistingly.’ To secure some 
such pertinent sense I would read— 
τρόπον γάρ τινα ἄτομοι εἶ ἀμελεῖς (or 
ἄτομα . ἀμελῆ, but Marcus seems to 
prefer the other form). 

R. G. Bury. 


150 


THE. CLASSICAL REVIEW 


NOTE ON THE SYMPOSIACS AND SOME OTHER DIALOGUES 
OF: PLUTARCH. 


In two of the more elaborate dia- 
logues of Plutarch, the De Defectu 
Oraculorum and the De Facie quae in 
orbe Lunae apparet, the principal 
speaker, who controls the discussion, 
and himself maintains the Academic 
position, is ‘Lamprias’; Plutarch is not 
introduced by name. As this speaker 
uses the first person of himself, and is 
addressed by others as ‘Lamprias, the 
compiler of the lists of speakers (appar- 
ently Wyttenbach) has rightly placed 
that name upon them, and it is taken to 
refer to Plutarch’s. brother of that 
name. Mr. John Oakesmith remarks 
as to the De Defectu that ‘Lamprias 
here is clearly a thin disguise of 
Plutarch himself’? (The Religion of 
Plutarch, p. 76. See also p. 149.) I do 
not wish to question this opinion, but 
to emphasise it, and to suggest that the 
brother is not present at all, having 
perhaps, as seemed probable to Arch- 
bishop Trench, died early, and that the 
name is here used of Plutarch himself. 
I shall refer to the other works, and 
especially to the Symposiac Dialogues, 
for light thrown upon the personality 
of the brothers. 

The Symposiacs are arranged in nine 
books, which fill the greater part of a 
Teubner volume, all dedicated to Sossius 
Senecio, Consul in a.D. 99, and in some 
later years. Each book was intended 
to contain ten dialogues, but the last in 
fact contained fifteen, mostly on literary 
subjects which were discussed in 
Athens, during the year of office of the 
philosopher Ammonis in that city. But 
four out of Book IV. and five out of 
Book IX. are lost to us, being only 
represented by their .headings, and by 
one short fragment the right placing 
of which we owe to M. Bernardakis. 

A few points may be noted as to the 
whole collection: 

(1) There is no reference to any 
public event, or any matter of current 
talk, which might suggest a date. We 
hear of incidents in Plutarch’s life, such 
as his return from a visit to Egypt, and 
the marriage of a son; and, in some 
cases, the year of office of local Greek 
officials is mentioned; but we have no 


materials for following out these clues. 
Dr. Mahaffy has acutely pointed out 
that the De tranquillitate animi belongs 
to a date before Vespasian’s death, be- 
cause it contains a remark that no 
Roman emperor had been succeeded by 
his son. It is just such an indication 
for which we look in vain through all 
these pages of free and varied talk. As 
there is no appeal to Sossius Senecio 
as a high personage, it seems likely that 
all the books appeared successively 
before A.D. 99. On the other hand, 
Plutarch, born about A.D. 50, cannot 
have had a married son (see IV. 3) much 
before the end of the century. In VIII 6, 
sons of Plutarch, apparently of school- 
boy age, are introduced, and again in 
VIII. το. Ammonius, who was a philo- 
sopher of authority in A.D. 66 (see the 
De E in Delphis) seems to be in much 
the same position throughout this series. 
Nothing can be inferred as to the date 
of any particular dialogue from that of 
the book in which it is placed. 

(2) Though the question is raised at 
the outset whether ‘ Philosophy’ may be 
talked over wine, and answered by the 
question ‘why not?’ there is little or no 
discussion which can be called philoso- 
phical, in our sense of the word. Stoics 
and Epicureans are not confronted, and 
the Summum Bonum is left alone. 
‘What Plato meant by saying, if he did 
say, that “God geometrises”’ was a 
tempting subject to discuss on Plato’s 
birthday, and some light is thrown on 
the Zzmaeus. The heading of one lost 
dialogue, ‘As to our not remaining the 
same, while being is always in flux,’ 
sounds really ‘stiff. Many questions 
of Natural History arise, and there is a 
well-marked group of medical dialogues, 
in each of which a physician takes part; 
such problems as ‘ Whether new diseases 
can arise and from what causes’ (VIII. 
9), ‘Whether a varied or a simple diet is 
better for the digestion’ (IV. 1), ‘the 
causes of Bulimus’ (VI. 8), are dis- 
cussed with knowledge and freedom by 
professionals and laymen alike. 

(3) Nothing in these dialogues sug- 
gests the future writer of the Zzves,; who 
was to interest posterity in human char- 


τ eS τ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


acter as seen in action upon a great 
scale, in thé shifts of ‘Fortune’ and the 
unconquerable mind of man. 

(4) These are essentially conversa- 
tions over wine, and we hear a good 
deal about the properties of wine, and 
the etiquette of wine-parties. There is 
none in which any unseemliness due to 
drink is mentioned or suggested. An 
apparent exception is noticed below. 
Nor do we have the connoisseur’s views 
on different vintages, such as we may 
gather from Horace or Martial for those 
of their own day and country. 

(5) The charm of the Symfoszacs lies 
in the simple good faith of the narrator ; 
each dialogue is the report from memory 
of a real conversation between real per- 
sons; a topic raised in one is often car- 
ried on into the next, and discussed by 
the same speakers, perhaps with one or 
more added. The persons named as 
taking part in them are some ninety in 
number, without making any allowance 
for the lost dialogues. They fall into 
groups; we have Plutarch’s near rela- 
tions and connections by marriage, 
physicians, grammarians, Roman gen- 
tlemen, philosophers, sophists, and so 
on. I only wish now to call attention 
to Plutarch’s two brothers, Lamprias 
and Timon. 

Timon (II. 2, 11. 5), of whom Plutarch 
speaks elsewhere with much affection 
(De Fraterno Amore 487 E), does not 
appear in the later books. Volkmann, 
who identifies him with the person 
named in a letter of the Younger Pliny 
(I. 6), thinks that Timon settled in 
Rome. Of Lamprias, with whom we 
are now concerned, Trench has writ- 
ten—I add a few references to support 
his points: ‘Evidently a character, a 
good trencherman, as became a Boeo- 
tian (II. 2, IV. 5), one who on occasion 
could dance the Pyrrhic war-dance 
(IX. 15), who loved well a scoff and a 
fee oy bile’ 74),. and. who, 1f he 
thrusts himself somewhat abruptly into 
discussions: which are going forward 
(I. 2), was quite able to justify the 
intrusion. The last point may be a 
' httle enlarged. In the De E in Delphis 

we have the report of a discussion which 
took place at Delphi in A.D. 66, ‘many 
years ago, in which Ammonius took 
part and the brothers Lamprias and 


ΤΗΣ 


Plutarch, both, no doubt, very young 
men. Lamprias (p. 386 A) calls atten- 
tion to the ‘received opinions’ about the 
letter in question. Ammonius, a teacher 
of authority, and a man of tact and 
humour, an ὠγαθὸς προβατογνώμων who 
knew all about the young men of his 
day, gave a quiet smile; Lamprias could 
δὲ trusted’ to. produce. ’'a,. ‘received 
opinion’ made on the spur of the 
moment upon any problem. This facility 
seems to have been inherited from his 
grandfather, a genial and learned man, 
full of old memories, quoted in the Life 
of Antony, c. 28 for the bewilderment 
of a young medical friend, a Boeotian, 
at the vast resources of Antony’s larder. 
In IX. 2, p. 738 B ‘my grandfather’ is 
quoted for a somewhat hazardous theory 
about the letter Alpha. From the tense 
used, we may suppose that the old man 
was then dead. 

Plutarch’s father, who is never men- 
tioned by name, was a very different 
person. When a question was raised 
on a point of stable terminology (II. 8,. 
p. 641 F), the father ‘ being the last man 
to extemporise an opinion on fine points 
of language’ but having always owned 
winning horses,’ settles it from his prac- 
tical knowledge. 

One other trait must be mentioned to 
the credit of Lamprias. On one occa- 
sion at Delphi (VII. 5) some young men 
of the chorus came in elated by their 
own performance, and were noisy and 
rather troublesome. It is Lamprias who 
calls them to order, whether chosen to 
do so on the principle of the φὼρ δεινός, 
or, as we would rather believe, because 
he was, in essentials, a man of char- 
acter. He explains to them, with gravity 
and tact, that intoxication may be the 
result of over-indulgence in ‘music,’ as 
surely as of that in wine. 


1 The text has ἥκιστα περὶ τὰς ἰσηγορίας. 
αὐτοσχέδιος ὦν. ἰσηγορίας can hardly be right, 
though Volkmann suggests a forced sense. 
προσηγορίας, ἱστορίας, ἱπποτροφίας have been 
proposed. But there is no reason why the 
scribe should have stumbled over any of these, 
and he generally goes wrong upon less familiar 
words. I would venture to suggest εὑρεσιλογίας 
as possible. It isa rare word, used half a dozen 
times by Plutarch, once (682 B) in the plural, 
and in the sense required here, see Wyttenbach’s- 
note on 31 E. From the variations in the spell- 
ing of the word it seems to have given trouble. 


152 


Lastly, so far as Lamprias was any- 
thing serious, he was a Peripatetic (II. 2, 
635 B). 

Now was this a suitable person to act 
as Moderator, and to speak on behalf of 
the Academy, in two learned and elabor- 
ate works, equally with the Symposzacs 
reports of real discussions among real 
speakers, though, unlike them, arranged 
with considerable literary skill? No 
doubt Lamprias may have been a 
graver person in later life than he was 
in Nero’s reign, and may have changed 
his nominal philosophic allegiance; but 
it seems incredible that one of so 
marked personality should be intro- 
duced without any touch of personality, 
while other friends, as Theon, Sylla, 
etc. are just what we know them. 

If Lamprias were really dead when 
these dialogues were written, may not 
Plutarch have himself taken up the old 
family name? We are assured by 
Demosthenes (πρὸς Βοίωτον περὶ τοῦ 
ὀνόματος) that no Athenian ever called 
two sons by the same name, and this 
may have been true of Boeotian usage 
also. But this does not make it clear 
that a dead brother’s name might not 
be assumed; and the practice of some 
royal lines supplies instances. Indeed 
the very issue in the case argued by 
Demosthenes suggests some freedom in 
the transference of a name. However, 
it is not necessary to assume anything 
so formal; it would be enough if 
Plutarch’s intimates chose, ‘for love and 
for euphony, to keep in use a name 
pleasant on the lips from its liquid syl- 
lables, and endeared to them by asso- 
ciations. We have other instances, in 
these dialogues, of people for one rea- 
son or another ‘called out of their 
name.’ 

This hypothesis assumes that the 
Symposiacs, as a whole, were earlier 
than the two dialogues mentioned at the 
outset; and it may be convenient to 
notice references in Plutarch’s other 
works, to the Symfosiacs or their con- 
tents. In the Life of Marcus Brutus 
we read that Brutus had an attack of 
‘the distemper called Bulimia, after a 
march over snow to Dyrrachium. After 
describing the symptoms, ‘But this,’ 
writes Plutarch, ‘I have, in another 
place, discussed more at large,’ referring 


THE ‘CLASSICAL (REVIEW 


to the passage in the Symposiacs 
(VI. 8) mentioned above. Brutus had a 
considerate enemy; for the food 
required by his curious complaint was 
supplied from the town which he was 
attacking, a courtesy which was not for-’ 
gotten when he entered it as a con- 
queror. 

In the De Facie (939 F) the phe- 
nomenon of putrefaction accelerated 
by moonlight (of which an interesting 
account will be found in Captain 
Marryatt’s The King’s Own, chap. xxii.) 
is briefly mentioned; it is discussed in 
detail in the Symosiacs (III. 10). Dr. 
Max Adler, of Vienna, in his careful 
and valuable examination of the De 
Facie and the De Defectu (Disserta- 
tiones Vindobonenses, vol. X., 1010) 
infers that the more elaborate discussion 
is the later. The same scholar finds 
reason to think that the De Facie is 
earlier than the De Defectu, but he 
reserves his proof, which 1 have not been 
fortunate enough to find in such sub- 
sequent numbers of the Dzssertationes 
as seem to have reached this country. 

One of the lost Symposiacs (IX. 10) 
dealt with the question ‘Why the moon 
is more often eclipsed than the sun’ 
This apparent phenomenon (for the fact 
is the other way) is considered in the 
De Facie (p. 932 C.). 

Another instance is supplied by men- 
tion of Plato’s view as to liquids pass- 
ing into the lung (Sympos. VII. 1, com- 
pared with 1047 C.). 

The case of the De Pythiae Orvacults, 
the second of the ‘ Delphian dialogues, 
on the question why responses are not 
now given in verse, is somewhat dif- 
ferent. It is dramatised, not narrated ; 
at least the narrative comes from 
Philinus, one of the speakers in a pre- 
liminary drama, and Plutarch is not 
present. Philinus describes the tour of 
a party round the sights of the temple, 
the fussiness of the guides, and the 
naive remarks of the young Dio- 
genianus, son of a friend of the same 
name who figures in the Symfoszacs 
(which illustrate the severity of the 
judgments of youth, a trait not un- 
marked by Plutarch). Then follows a 
sit-down debate on the main question, 
concluded by a long and authoritative 
speech of Theon, who refers to his own 


ἘΠΕ CLASSIGAL REVIEW 


services and benefactions to Delphi and 
the adjoining Pylaea. M. Chenevieére, 
in his attractive study on Plutarch’s 
friends, remarks that, under whatever 
name, the leading speaker always con- 
veys Plutarch’s views. I do not doubt 
that this is so here, but not in the sense 
that Theon’s personality is merged in 
that of Plutarch. In the Symposiacs 
‘Theon our comrade, to be distin- 
guished from ‘Theon the grammarian, 
appears as a very intimate friend, and 
always in dialogues held at Chaeronea 
or Delphi. He is present at the mar- 
riage of Plutarch’s son (IV. 3), and in 
the Consolatio ad Uxorem, Timoxena 
is reminded of the delicate sympathy 
given by her to Theon’s wife in a 
domestic sorrow. Theon is appealed to 
when a quotation is wanted, and is full 
of literary knowledge, and may there- 
fore easily be confused with his name- 
sake the Grammarian. In the De Facie 
Theon plays a bright and important 
part, and in the zon posse suaviter he 
is in charge of the Academic position 
against the Epicureans. Probably he 
was a rich neighbour, and had endowed 
the temple and town in the manner 
mentioned. 

The De Genito Socratis is another 
dramatised dialogue, but the events 
and speeches belong to history, and 
to a time some four centuries back. 
Capheisias, brother of Epaminondas, 
narrates to an audience assembled at 
Athens the fine exploit of Pelopidas 
and his fellows (Epaminondas holding 
himself in reserve), in recovering the 
Citadel of Thebes, wrongfully held by a 
Spartan garrison. Long discussions on 
the nature of the ‘Spirit’ of Socrates, 


153 


to which Simmias, a young Pythagorean 
delegate, and others, contribute, fill up 
the intervals in the main action re- 
counted. This intermixture of strenu 
ous action with profound and curious 
speculation is very interesting. The 
first speaker in the dialogue is made to 
draw out an analogy between the 
painter and the historian, and to call 
for a story to satisfy the true enthusiast 
in works inspired by that great Art 
Virtue. In the opening of the 1276 of 
Pericles we find a similar figure, and a 
warm protest against the theory of ‘ Art 
for Art’s sake, 

May we suppose that at some definite 
time Plutarch began to feel the triviality 
of always discussing such themes as 
“Whether the number of the fixed stars 
is likely to be odd or even, and ‘Why 
mushrooms grow after thunder, and 
set himself to find a more strenuous 
motive in ‘Virtue’ and Action? Is it 
fanciful to suppose that his researches 
into Theban traditions about Socrates 
led him to the great character of 
Epaminondas, and the noble severity of 
the early Pythagorean brotherhood, and 
so to the undertaking of the Lives? Or 
was it the other way? It is hard to 
guess the answer to such questions on 
a priort grounds. We should welcome, 
if we could have it, any clear link be- 
tween the author of the Lives and the 
author of the writings which Southey, 
perhaps too fondly, placed on Daniel 
Dove’s shelves, as ‘the worthier half’ of 
Plutarch’s works. 

These works are an_ imperfectly 
charted ocean, but, as Plutarch has 
reminded us, 


“ , ΕΝ 
Θεοῦ θέλοντος κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοις. 


OVIDIANA: NOVESION ΗΝ PASTE, 
ΠΙ. 


VI. 419-4306. 
Moenia Dardanides nuper nova fecerat [lus 
(Ilus adhuc Asiae dives habebat opes): 
creditur armigerae signum caeleste Minervae 
urbis in lliacae desiluisse iuga. 

cura videre fuit: vidi templumque locumque. 
hoc superest illic: Pallada Roma tenet. 

consulitur Smintheus lucoque obscurus opaco 
hos non mentito redditit ore sonos: 

“ aetheriam servate deam, servabitis urbem: 
imperium secum transferet illa loci.’ 


NO. CCLXXI. VOL. XXXII. 


servat et inclusam summa tenet Ilus in arce, 
curaque ad heredem Laomedonta redit. 

sub Priamo servata parum. sic ipsa volebat, 
ex quo iudicio forma revicta suaest. 

seu genus Adrasti, seu furtis aptus Ulixes, 
seu pius Aeneas—eripuisse ferunt: 

auctor in incerto, res est Romana. tuetur 
Vesta, quod assiduo lumine cuncta videt. 


The passage is printed as above in 
Peter’s latest edition; the first hand 
L 


154 


of V gives illi in line 424 and gener in 
433. The last four lines are hardly as 
Ovid wrote them. Lines 433, 434 lack 
a principal verb; Peter, following 
Madvig (Adv. 11. p. 109), thinks that 
the predicate to genus Adrasti, Ulixes 
and Aeneas can be supplied mentally 
from eripwisse. Heinsius says ‘ Vix 
Latinitatis ratio constabit huic versul 
nisi cum Sarraviano codice (p) evipu- 
isse datur rescribas. Unus Farnesianus 
eam. an, evipuere deam? He read in 
his text datur, and many editors! have 
followed him (including Merkel? in his 
earlier editions). It. seems, however, 
rash to assume that Ovid would use 
datur—narratuy. Riese and Davies 
read evipuisse fervunt in parentheses. 
The next two lines are even more per- 
plexing, for we cannot discover any 
sequence or meaning. Leaving aside 
uctoy in incerto, which is probably the 
apodosis of the seu-seu-seu clause in 
433, 434, how are we to interpret 
yes... videt. The lines were for a 
long time a puzzle to Gronovius and 
Heinsius. In 1637 Gronovius drew 
Heinsius’ attention to Scaliger’s vetus- 
que (for twetur),and he himself suggested 
reading iuncta for cuncta in 436 (Syll. 
vol. III. p. 25). in his notes in 1661 
Heinsius pronounced the lines to be 
spurious, and he bracketed them in his 
text. He questioned res est Romana, 
and said that we would expect rather 
yes est Tyoiana. But such a change 
would not, I think, held us much. 
All the commentators that I have seen 
take ves est Romana to mean ‘the 
Palladium is at Rome.’ But to Roman 
ears could anything be suggested by the 
Latin except the Res Romana—viz. the 
Roman State? It is thus that Ovid 
uses the words ves Romana (Met. XIV. 
800), just as he talks of the res Latina, 
the ves Danaa, the res Troiana. Ii 
the littera scripta of the MSS. is as 
fixed as Theseus, let us translate ‘ It, 


1 Including Paley and Hallam. 
2 He now brackets 433, 434. 
3 He suggested, however, reading: 
‘auctor in incerto. Praeses (or Praestes) 
Romana tuetur 
Vesta, quod assiduo lumine iuncta videt.’ 
Vesta iuncta ‘ quod videt iunctum Vestae 


Palladium, nempe quod eodem templo est 
sub Romanae Praesidis Vestae tutela.’ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


the Palladium, is (1.6. represents) the 
Roman State.’ But how shall we 
proceed? What is the point of the 
following words—‘ Vesta watches over 
it, because she sees everything with her 
flame that never dies ’? 

Vesta herself—or rather the opinions 
about her current in Ovid’s day—may 
enlighten our darkness. Everything 
connected with this goddess was for the 
ordinary Roman particularly holy, and 
the holiness was enhanced by the 
mystery which enshrouded the goddess 
and her temple. She was essentially 
the rerum custos intimarum (Cic. Nat. 
Deor. Il. 27),© and ves intimae are not 
for the common gaze. The aedes 
Vestae was arcana (Fast. 111.143). Her 
holy Fire (arcanae faces, Claud. de 
laud. Stilich. 111. 69) were hidden from 
every man except the pontifex maximus. 
Holier than the Fire was the penus 
Vestae : even the pontifex maximus was 
not ‘permitted to touch or see the 
objects contained therein; these objects 
were Sacra, non adeunda viro (450). 
In the inner part of this penus was a 
Holy of Holies, which contained the 
most treasured sacra of the State 
(τὰ ἐντὸς ἄθικτα, Plut. Cam. 20; ἱερὰ 
ἀπόρρητα Dion. Hal. Il. 66). Among 
them were the original di penates 
bp. R. Q., which poets and antiquarians 
alleged had been brought by Aeneas 
from Troy. And there also was the 
Palladium,® an object so holy that it 
was popularly believed that it could be 
seen only by the virgo Vestalis maxima 
(‘ vittata sacerdos, Troianam soli cui 
fas vidisse Minervam,’ Lucan, I. 508; 
cf. IX. 993). When in the reign of 
Commodus the aedes Vestae was burnt, 
this holy object was exposed to the 
vulgar gaze: τῆς Ἑστίας τοῦ νεὼ κατα- 
φλεχθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς γυμνωθὲν ὥφθη 
τὸ τῆς Παλλάδος ἄγαλμα ὃ σέβουσί τε καὶ 
κρύπτουσι Ῥωμαῖοι κομισθὲν ἀπὸ Τροίας, 


4 For Vesta and the penus Vestae, see 
Wissowa, R.K., p. 159, Warde-Fowler, R.F., 
pp. 145-154, R. E., p. 136; on the Palladium, 
see especially Marquardt-Wissowa, p. 252, 
muds Preller-Jordan, R.M., I. pp. 298, 299. 

5 The penus in which her sacra were kept 
is described as ‘ locus intimus in aede Vestae ’ 
(Fest., p. 250). 

6 «Hic locus est Vestae qui Pallada servat 
et ignem’ (Trist. ITI. 1, 29). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


ὡς λόγος. ὅ τότε πρῶτον καὶ μετὰ τὴν 
ἀπ᾽ Ἰλίου ἐς Ἰταλίαν ἄφιξιν εἶδον οἱ καθ᾽ 
ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωποι (Herodian, I. 14, 4-5). 
Such were, I think, the popular views 
about Vesta and the Palladium in 
Ovid’s day. Ovid’s knowledge was 
perhaps even less than that of his con- 
temporaries. He was surprised to find 
his preconceived ideas about Vesta to 
be unfounded (VI. 296, cf. 253). Just 
as he had thought that there was a 
statue of Vesta, so when he was at 
Troy he thought that there would be 
no difficulty in seeing the Palladium. 
He was reminded by his cicerone that 
it was at Rome. He gives a sketch of 
its adventures, assuming that Aeneas 
᾿ΕΝ ἘΣ hen, 928 >) ATT wae? VI. 365) 
brought it with the other sacra Troiana 
to Italy. We donot expect him to say 
again that it is now in Rome; he has 
already told us so (424). But we do 
expect him to say that he attempted 
to see it at Rome (cf. 423), or at least to 
explain his failure to do so. And his 
reticence is all the more remarkable in- 
somuch as he goes on to tell of the 


memorable occasion when the Palla- . 


dium was seen and handled by a man 
—a pontifex maximus! at that (437- 
454). Now this curious break in Ovid’s 
narrative is occupied by the words ‘ res 
est Romana. tuetur | Vesta quod 
assiduo lumine cuncta videt.’ If you 
ask why Vesta has charge of the Palla- 
dium, you might answer in the words 
of Cicero (see above) ‘ quod Vesta est 
rerum intimarum custos,’ and that is 
what Ovid means by ‘ quod Vesta 
cuncta videt ’: nothing is a res intima 
for Vesta, for she sees everything. 
There are taboos for the multitude, for 
men, even for women and Vestals, but 
not for the rerum custos intimarum. 
Now we have a Major Premiss ‘ Vesta 
beholds all ves intimae’ and a Conclu- 
sion ‘ Vesta beholds? the Palladium.’ 
The missing Minor Premiss seems to 
be ‘ The Palladium is a res intima.’ If 


1 Ovid tactfully ignores the fact that 
Metellus was blinded for his presumption 


in looking at the goddess (Pliny, N.H. VII.: 


141, Juv. VI. 265). Otherwise the com- 
parison between Metellus and Augustus 
(453-457) would be ill-timed. 

2 Tuetur (435) includes the notion videt 
(436). 


155 


we had an explicit statement of this 
sort, we would understand at once why 
Ovid did not see the Palladium at 
Rome, and we would understand, 
moreover, the sequence of thought 
which leads him to tell of the only occa- 
sion on which the Palladium was seen 
at Rome by a man. 

It is unlikely, if this interpretation 
of the passage is correct, that Ovid 
failed to make such an explicit state- 
ment, and itis unlikely that the principal 
verb is to be supplied mentally in lines 
433, 434. Supposing that Ovid wrote 
seu genus Adrasti seu furtis aptus Ulixes 

seu rapit Aeneas (et rapuisse® ferunt), 
auctor in incerto, res est arcana: tuetur 

Vesta, quod assiduo lumine cuncta videt 
it is not hard to account for the text as 
in V. We need postulate only a 
copyist obsessed by two ideas: (1) that 
Aeneas was pious; (2) that the Palla- 
dium was at Rome. Such a copyist 
has his excuse. Aeneas is, to school- 
boys at least, indecently pious. Ovid 
took pains, especially in the Fasti, to 
confirm the title conferred by Virgil. 
In I. 527 and III. 601 we have iam pius. 
Aeneas... 9 in IV. 799 hunc morem 
pretas Aenea fecit; in 11. 543 hunc 
morem Aencas, pretatis idoneus auctor, | 
attulit im terras. Our copyist was not 
unique; in III. 424 some copyists in- 
sisted on writing piws for gravis, for 
which change there is less optical cause 
than for converting vapit into pius.4 
Once vafit had disappeared, the mean- 
ingless et was absorbed, and erapuisse 
became evipuisse. We have innumer- 
able examples of such transformations, 
there are a number to be found in the 


3 Et vaputsse is more likely than hunc 
vapuisse ; the affirmative δέ (like namque, 
enim, etenim) is not uncommon in parenthe- 
tical remarks—here are a few from a large 
number that I have noticed in Ovid: 
‘credor (et ut credar pignora certa dabo),’ 
Fast. 111. 74; ‘nec potes (θὲ velles posse),’ 
Rem. 298 ; ‘ sicut erant (et erant) culti,’ Am. II. 
5,45; ᾿ visadea est movisse suas (ef moverat) 
aras,’ Met. IX. 782. aut rapuisse is also 
not impossible, cf. Met. VIII. 513 ‘seu dedit 
aut visus gemitus est ille dedisse,’ cf. Fast. 
NAL 52: 

4 In Hor. Odes IV. 7, 15 I am content to 
side with Bentley against Keller and 
Holder’s Class I. and Class II. Pius has 
here ousted the more appropriate pater, 
see Bentley ad loc. 


156 


MSS. of the Fast. In the change of 
aycana to romana, the optical sugges- 
tion of the letters was even greater, 
and the influence of the context (of the 
Fasti as a whole as well as of this parti- 
cular passage) hardly less. Roma, 
Romanus -are perpetual words in this 
poem. A few lines above the copyist 
had read that ‘the Palladium was at 
Rome (Pallada Roma tenet) ; he reads 
that it had been taken from Troy by 
Aeneas— to Rome’ he adds in his 
mind, and he is prepared to see and 
write vomana. We perceive, psycholo- 
gists tell us, what we wish to perceive. 
Our copyist wished or at least expected 
to see pius (‘ hunc morem pietas Aeneia 
fecit !’) and romana, and he saw these 
words.! And even if he did see ves est 
avcana, and thought about the words, 
he might think it a strange, if not a dis- 
respectful way of referring to a deity; 
he would hardly remember that Janus 
could describe himself as a res prisca 
(1. 103), that Ovid in his heyday was a 
ves magna in his wife’s eyes (77st. 
IV. 3, 59), that Ovid said of the man of 
whom he stood most in awe 765 est 
publica Caesar (Trist. 1V. 4, 15). Evyer 
condition was’ against the strange 765 
est arcana and in favour of the familiar 
ves est romana. 

A res arcana is a res secreta et sacra. 
In Met. IV. 223 ves arcana est is equiva- 
lent to ves secveta est, but the secret is 
such as only a mother can discuss with 
a daughter. In our present passage, if 
I am right in restoring the word, there 
is also the notion of secrecy; the Palla- 
dium is a secret for Ovid and for all 
men, and for all except one woman. 
Hence he did not see it; hence he is 


1 The substitution of pius and Romana 
was largely due to the ‘Suggestion de 
l'ensemble du contexte,’ assisted by optical 
resemblance, see Havet, Man. de C.V., 
pp. 142, 144. In III. 880 R has vome 
(yore), IV. 753 vomulucum (vamo lucum), 
and there are other blunders of this kind. 
It is not impossible that piws was an ex- 
planatory gloss. Medieval commentators 
regarded Pius as part of Aeneas’name. The 
Commentator Oxoniensis says on IV. 41, 
42: ‘ Silvius Eneas qui fuit natus de Lavinia 
uxore Pii Enee et Postumus dictus quia 
post humfanjationem patris natus est,’ 
showing that for the writer ‘ Pius Aeneas’ 
was on a par with ‘ Silvius Aeneas.’ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


led to tell of the one man who had 
seen it—Metellus. But the word im- 
plies also a mystic secrecy, which 
attached as we saw to everything con- 
nected with Vesta, and a fortiori to the 
holiest of her ves intimae.? 

The sequence of thought may now be 
restored: who did the deed, whether 
Diomed or Ulysses or Aeneas (Rumour 
says he did), is uncertain, the Palladium 
is a thing sacred and hidden from the 
eyes of men; Vesta sees it and guards it, 
because nothing is hidden from her 
eyes. I have punctuated so as to 
attach ves est avcana to the apodosis. 
This is indicated, I think, by the omis- 
sion of est ; in other places where Ovid 
uses the words 17) incerto and in similar 
expressions (like 7m dubto), it seems to 
be his rule to insert est. Here there is 
a rhetorical antithesis between the un- 
certainty regarding the auctor rapiendi, 
and the complete mystery surrounding 
the ves rapta. 

With regard to the rest of this pas- 
sage which I have printed according to 
Peter’s text, we should read 2lli (adv.) 
with Davies in 424; it is the reading of 
V, and the form is Ovidian, see Owen’s 
noteion Tvzst. I) 1, 17. Theschangeot 
gener (V,) to genus (V,) seems desirable 
though Apollodorus (I. 8, 6) may be 
quoted in support of gener—Avopndns 
.. + ynuas Αἰγιάλειαν τὴν ᾿Αδράστου, 
<> ὡς ἐνίοι pact, τὴν Αἰγιαλέως. 
Aegialeus was son οἱ Adrastus (I. 9, 13). 
But I cannot believe that all is well 
with line 432: 

sic ipsa volebat 
ex quo iudicio forma revicta sua est. 


The absence of any qualification for 
iudicio, the position of this word after 
ex quo (=ex quo tempore) from which 
it must be separated in construing, 


2 Lactantius Placidus has an interesting 
note: ‘arcanum nunquam inspectura pudo- 
vem: arcanum pudorem dicit aut eius simul- 
acrum verum, id est Palladium, quod | 
illicitum erat cernere—quo quidam quondam 
viso privatus est visu—aut virginitas,’ etc. 
(Theb. 11. 740). This Lactantius, like his 
namesake of Nicomedia, was well acquainted 
with the Fasti—he quotes twice from the 
Sixth Book—and his note may be based 
on a reminiscence of our passage. 

The inscription, first cited by Neapolis, 
Or. 2494, is spurious. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


and the remarkable rvevicta for υἱοία 
rouse one’s suspicions.! A solution will 
be found if we look at lines 43, 44 of 
this book— 


causa duplex irae: rapto Ganymede dolebam, 
forma quoque Idaeo iudice victa mea est. 


These lines have been bracketed rightly 
by Giithling, Davies, Peter, and others. 
They interrupt in an intolerable fashion 
the sequence (41 ‘tum me _ paeni- 
teat,’ 45 ‘paeniteat,’ 47 ‘ paeniteat,’ 
51 ‘sed neque paeniteat’); and the 
quoque for the simple copula has evi- 
dently been regarded as unsatisfactory 
(see the variants in Merkel). But 
Idaeo iudice is good.2 I find it hard 
to believe that the ordinary interpola- 
tor (to judge from his handiwork in the 
Fastt) could have evolved the neat 
‘forma .. . Idaeoiudice victa mea est,’ 
just as 1 feel unwilling to saddle Ovid 
with the lame ‘ex quo iudicio forma 
revicta sua est.’ I suggest that our 
interpolator in 43, 44 built up his dis- 
tich out of the correct version of the 
pentameter 432, which he probably 
found added on the wrong folio of his 
MS. What he found was 


forma quod Idaeo iudice victa sua est. 


In its proper context misfortune had 
befallen the line: the copyist of our 
archetype may have found 


forma quod iudicio iudice victa sua est. 


If a schoolboy was asked to build forma 
ls haps quo) iudicio victa sua 


ral ea ae Housman proposed to read ab 
hoste vevictum for the impossible ab Hectore 
victum in Hey. I. 15: he cited this passage to 
establish the use of vevincere=vincere in 
Ovid, seeC.R. XI. p. 103. The only possible 
instance of vevictus =victus in Prof. Hous- 
man’s list is Lucr. I. 593 (vevicta =simply 
} but éven im that place 
yevicta seems to contain the notion vicissim 
victa ; all composite bodies are vanquished 
in turn and changed into other substances 
—alid ex alio rveficit natura. Suppose, says 
Lucretius, that the atoms were like com- 
posite bodies, that they could be vanquished 
in turn and changed into other things— 
“si primordia rerum | commutari aliqua 
possent ratione revicta.’ Revicta belongs to 
the assumption which he makes only for the 
sake of argument, and in this connection it 
is aS appropriate as commutari. 

2 Cf. IV. 121 " Caelestesque duas Troiano 
iudice vicit.’ 


157 


est into a pentameter, he would in all 
probability reproduce the line that dis- 
figures our texts. JIudicio iudice for’ 
tdaeo (ideo) wudice would be classed by 
M. Havet as “ Anticipation amorcée— 
substitution aprés l’amorce’ (Man. 
p. 135). There are many examples to 
be found in MSS. of the Faséz. 
We have a transposed interpolation 
in VI. 407, 408: 
saepe suburbanas rediens conviva per undas 
cantat et ad nautas ebria verba iacit. 


I have not been able to see why 
editors have accepted this couplet 
without comment. In its present con- 
text it 15. quite meaningless, and it 
is not hard to discover its genesis. 
Some interpolator was at work on the 
passage describing the festival of ‘Fors 
Fortuna’ (771-790), and evolved the 
above lines as an improvement on 


785, 780: 


ecce suburbana rediens male sobrius aede 
ad stellas aliquis talia verba iacit. 


He may have been puzzled by ‘sub- 
urbana aede (=templo Fortunae)’: it 
is not unlikely that he thought the 
remark about the rising of Orion’s 
Belt would be addressed more fitly to 
Sailors than to the stars (cf. 715, 716). 
The interpolation is clever and not in 
itself unworthy of Ovid. It seems to 
contain a reminiscence of V. 337-340. 
But it did not succeed in ousting the 
genuine lines, and it owes its present 
position in our texts to some injudi- 
cious copyist. 

Glosses as distinct from interpola- 
tions are not uncommon in the text of 
Fasti. I have suggested that we have 
such intrusions in II. 203, 204, 749; 
VI. 346, 434. A gloss will enter even 
in defiance of metre. A number of 
MSS. read. in TE 714: 


qui dederit primus oscula victor erit, 


and this barbarism has not lacked 
supporters.? In II. 638 our two best 
MSS. have: 


3 Ciofani, Neapolis, and Barth (* perperam 
notant grammatici Ovidium mediam ,pent- 
ametri syllabam nunquam corripuisse,’ Adv. 
XXXVIT: to). Carrio (Em. TH, 10) points 
out that primus (714) and dederunt (715) are 
only glosses for princeps and tulerunt. 


158 


et ‘ Bene vos, bene te, patriae pater, optime 
Caesar’ 
dicite suffuso in sacra verba mero. 


Another class of MSS. (m, D. C, and 
others) read sint bona verba, but editors 
weary themselves trying to emend im 
sacra verba of the older MSS. The ex- 
planation of this variant is obvious if 
ve look at the fragm. Iif. (also C 3). 
There we have apparently: 


i. sacra 
dicite suffuso sint bona verba mero. 


I have no doubt that the archetype 
of R and V was glossed in the same 
way, and that some copyist interpreted 
1. sacya as a correction (1 sacra). The 
right reading is to be deduced from 
sint bona verba ; it is possibly sic bona 
verba (Baehrens), though I would sug- 
gest sub bona verba. 

When a gloss accommodates itself 
to the metre, the danger of its intru- 
sion is great. In VI. 99, 100 the MSS. 
have: 
ite pares a me. perierunt iudice formae 

Pergama. plus laedunt quam iuvet una 

ΠΠΘΘΣ Ὁ 
Ovid is not adverse to using the abla- 
tive of instrument of persons; see 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Palmer,\) Her, V;. ὅθ. Sal, τό ιν πω 
Draeger II. p. 548. But I do not 
think there is an instance to match 
‘ perierunt iudice formae Pergama,’ nor 
do I feel satisfied that Ovid wrote 
‘ite pares a me.’ Now some commen- 
tator—not the original glossator—has 
written at the bottom of the page in 
C, illustrating line V. rr0 ‘in libro 
inferiori (1.6. VI. 99, 100) eiusdem sen- 
tentiae versus 


Pergama Troiano perierunt indice formae: 
laedere plus possint quam iuvet una duae.’ 


Is it possible that the writer has pre- 
served the true version of VI. 99, 100 ? 
Ite pares a me may be only a gloss on 
line g98—‘ res est arbitrio non dirimenda 
meo.’ The glossator could have bor- 
rowed ite pares from A.A. III. 3 (‘ite in 
bella pares’), or he may have been think- 
ing of Calpurnius, ΠΟΙ. 11. 99 (este 
pares’). The gloss would oust the first 
words of line 99, and the lines would owe 
their present shape to the patchwork of 
a subsequent corrector. 


EE... ALTon. 
Trinity College, 
Dublin. 


LIVY AND THE NAME AUGUSTUS. 


LIkE the great writers of the Augustan 
Age, Livy was a warm supporter of the 
Emperor and his policies. He touches 
but very slightly (I. 3. 2), to be sure, on 
the connexion of the Julian house with 
Aeneas and the tradition of the origin of 
Rome which the Aenetd brought into 
popular knowledge some years after 
Livy wrote his first book. It may even 
be doubted whether the more immediate 
ancestry of Augustus was the subject of 
panegyrics in the later books of the 
historian who praised Pompey so highly 
that the Emperor dubbed him.a Pom- 
peian,! and who questioned whether the 
birth of Julius Caesar had brought more 
good or more harm to the Roman state.” 
But Livy’s attitude toward Augustus 
himself is clearly attested by the evi- 
dence for the warm personal relations 


1 Tacitus, dam. 1V. 34. 
2 Seneca, Wat. Quaest. V. 18. 4. 


that existed between them and, better 
still, by several references to the 
Emperor in Livy’s history. Indeed 
every one of his definite allusions to 
events of his own day—there are only 
five—is concerned with the achieve- 
ments of the Emperor.? Except in one 
case, where the statement that Germany 
was but lately a pathless wilderness 
(IX. 36. 1.) makes indirect allusion to 
the prowess of the Emperor’s arms, 
Augustus is mentioned by name. He 
is ‘templorum omnium conditor ac 
restitutor’ (IV. 20.7); in his reign the 
temple of Janus was closed for the 
second time since its foundation 
(I. 19. 3); under his auspices the 
troublesome province of Spain was at 
last thoroughly subdued (XXVIII. 


ΓΖ. 12); in connexion with his new 


3 Cf. Dessau, Festschrift fiir Otto Hirsch- 
Jeld (1903), p. 164. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


marriage law he is represented as read- 
ing in the senate the speech in which 
Quintus Metellus Macedonicus made a 
similar proposal a hundred years before 
(Per. LIX.). To these explicit refer- 
ences Professor Dessau has made the 
not improbable suggestion that two 
others may be added. He sees in the 
statement of the Praefatio, ‘donec ad 
haec tempora quibus nec vitia nostra 
nec remedia pati possumus perventum 
est,’ an allusion to the marriage law 
which Augustus proposed in 28 and 
then withdrew (Propertius, II. 7).} 
He thinks that the discussion in IV. 20 
of the circumstances in which the sfolia 
opima were dedicated by Aulus Corne- 
lius Cossus may have been dictated by 
a desire to explain the refusal of the 
right to dedicate spolia opima to Marcus 
Licinius Crassus 1n 27 B.C.” 

In this connexion it seems worth 
while to call attention to a striking use 
in Livy of the word augustus in contrast 
to humanus which, though without 
definite allusion to the Emperor, is 
apparently an intentional commentary 
on the meaning of the title which the 
Octavian assumed in 27 B.c. The five 
cases of the use all occur in the first 
decade. Now Livy was writing the 
first book between January 27, when 
the Emperor took his new title, and 
25 B.c., and it is very probable that 
the first decade was completed within 
the next few years. The references 
come therefore shortly after the Em- 
peror began to be called Augustus. 
The passages are: I. 7. 9 (of Hercules) 
‘habitum formamque viri aliquantum 
ampliorem augustioremque hwnana’; V. 
41. ὃ (of the appearance of the old men 
waiting in the Forum for death at the 
hands of the Gauls) ‘ ornatum habitum- 
que huwmano augustiorem’; VIII. 6. 9 (of 
a vision appearing to Decius and Man- 
lius), in ‘quiete . .. visa species viri 
maioris quam pro huwmano habitu augus- 
tiopisque’; VIII. 9. 10 (of Decius pre- 
paring for the devotio): ‘aliquanto 
augustior humano visus sicut caelo missus 
piaculum omnis deorum irae.’ The 


1 Cf. Dessau, Festschrift fiir Otto Hirsch- 
fSeld (1903), pp. 461-466. 

2 Dessau, Livins und Augustus, in Hermes, 
XLI. (1906), pp. 142-151. 


159 


contrast is less direct in Praefatio 7: 
‘datur haec venio antiquitati ut mis- 
cendo humana divinis primordia urbium 
augustiora faciat.. Although augustus is 
constantly used in a religious sense, the 
only close parallel to this use is found 
in a passage of Valerius Maximus that 
may well be an echo of Livy: I. 8. 8 
(of a description of the vision of Julius 
Caesar that appeared to Cassius at 
Philippi): ‘quem ... vidit humano 
habitu augustiorem purpureo paluda- 
mento amictum.’ The similarity between 
these passages and Cassius Dio’s defi- 
nition of the new name is marked: 
(53. 16. 8) Αὔγουστος ὡς καὶ πλεῖόν τι 
ἢ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ὧν ἐπεκλήθη" πάντα 
γὰρ τὰ ἐντιμότατα καὶ τὼ ἱερώτατα 
αὔγουστα προσαγορεύεται. 

Livy seems to be defining the new 
name as if he feared that its true sig- 
nificance might not be understood. 
Later in a passage that refers explicitly 
to the Emperor Ovid does the same 
thing in somewhat different terms. 
Here, too, there is a suggestion of the 
contrast between augustus and humanus. 
Fasti; 1. 605-612: 


Nec gradus est ultra Fabios cognominis ullus : 
illa domus meritis Maxima dicta suis. ~ 
sed tamen humanis celebrantur honoribus 
omnes, 
hic socium summo cum Iove nomen habet. 
sancta vocant augusta patres: augusta vo- 
cantur 
templa sacerdotum rite dicata manu. 
huius et augurium dependet origine verbi, 
et quodcumque sua Iuppiter auget ope. 


Suggestions as to the reason why 
augustus was the title selected by 
Octavian have recently been made by 
Professor Haverfield and Professor W. 
Warde Fowler. The former, noting 
the close association of the words 
augustus and augur, thinks that the 
abbreviation AUG. for augur, found on 
coins of Mark Antony that must have 
been in circulation in 27 B.c., may have 
suggested to Octavian the title Augustus 
which is also frequently abbreviated 
AUG. Against this suggestion which 
seems in general improbable it may be 
particularly urged that the abbreviation 
AUG. for Augustus, though common on 

3 Haverfield, Journal of Roman Studies, V. 
(1915), pp. 249-250. 


160 


later coins, cannot be dated befcre 
ΤΌ B.c.1 On the early coins and on 
nearly all the inscriptions of Augustus 
the name is written in full. Professor 
Fowler, in his new book Aeneas at the Site 
of Rome, hazards a most illuminating 
conjecture. He would read as an 
attribute the word augustus in the line 
(Aen. VII. 678): ‘ Hinc augustus agens 
Italos in proelia Caesar.’ Following 
a suggestion of Nettleship that the 
account of the battle of Actium in the 
description of Aeneas’ shield was origin- 
ally written as a separate poem shortly 
after the battle, he was very tentatively 
suggests that the line quoted from that 
description ‘ may in fact have been re- 
sponsible for the famous name.’ 

But an adequate explanation of the 
choice of augustus seems to be provided 
in the special religious connotation of 
the epithet which exactly fitted the 
Emperor’s needs.2. Although he did 
not actually claim personal divinity, 
Octavian must already have appreciated 
the aid in legalising his power that was 
rendered by the worship which his 
oriental subjects and, to a far lesser 
degree, his western subjects as well 
were ready to accord to him and to his 
house.* In styling himself divi filius 
as early as 37 B.c. he was probably not 
unconscious of the effect of such a title 
in establishing his rule. After Actium 
there was need of a new name to indi- 
cate his peculiar position of pre-eminence 
in the reconstituted state. It was both 
safer and more effective to take a name 
of religious import that would indicate 


1 The abbreviation Azg. occurs first on coins 
dated after the dedication of the altar of 
Fortuna Redux, December 15, 19 B.c. Cf 
Grueber, Cozus of the Noman Republic in the 
British Museum, 111., p. 30. Professor Haver- 
field cites no case of the abbreviation Awg. 
in inscriptions earlier than the Wonumentum 
Ancyranum. 

2 On the name Augustus see Cassius Dio, 
53-105 -ouet. Ang. °7 3 Moni Amc cian 
C/L. 13, pp. 307 f.; Censorinus, De die natalz, 
21.8; Velleius, 2. 91. For further references 
see Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit, 
pt. 2, pp. 297 f. 

3 Cf Pelham, The Domestic Policy of Au- 
gusius in Essays on Roman History (1911), 
pp. 109-113; W.S. Ferguson, Legalised Abso- 
lutism en route from Greece to Rome in Am. 
ffist. Rev. XVi11. (1912-1913), pp. 29-37. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


the ‘germ of a deity in him,’* rather 
than to call himself Romulus as he 
wished but dared not do.® The 
Emperor, therefore, had recourse to 
the old custom of having the senate 
vote a descriptive title °—one that 
differed, as Ovid shows, from the titles 
that were voted to the heroes of old in 
that attributed to him not human but 
divine characteristics. In the Greek 
σεβαστός he found an impressive title 
that may well have been coined for the 
occasion, for it occurs first, it would 
seem, in the history of Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus (II. 75) published in 
7 B.C., and is rarely used except in 
references to the Imperial family. 
Cassius Dio’s statement about the word 
indicates that it was unfamiliar: 
(53. 16. 8) καὶ σεβαστὸν αὐτὸν καὶ 
ἑλληνίζοντές πως, ὥσπερ τινὰ σεπτόν, 
ἀπὸ τοῦ σεβάζεσθαι προσεῖπον. 

The Latin augustus, on the other hand, 
is used often by Cicero, regularly in a 
religious sense,” and frequently as a 
synonym of sanctus and religiosus.8 Of 
these words religiosus was unsuitable 
for a name because of its ambiguity, 
and sanctus, the word that the Christians 
later made peculiarly their own, was 
too common to be distinctive. Dzivinus, 
regularly the opposite of humanus, 
would have seemed to make too expli- 
cit a claim to divinity, though the em- 
perors of the third century did not 
hesitate to apply it to their families. 
The choice naturally fell on augustus, a 
word which, through its etymological 
connexion with augere and perhaps 
with augur? too, had a particularly rich 


4 Warde Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity (1911), 
p- 126. 

5 Cassius Dio, 53. 16.7 ; cf Florus II. 34. 36: 
‘Tractatum etiam in senatu an quia condi- 
disset imperium Romulus vocaretur ; sed sanc- 
tius et reverentius visum est nomen Augusti ut 
scilicet iam tum dum colit terras ipso nomine 
et titulo consecrareturt.’ 

§ Cf Mommsen, S¢éaatsrecht, 111. pp. 


213. 
7 


212- 
Only in Brutus 295 does Cicero use the 
word in the sense of magnificus, admirabilis, 
common in later times. See the 7hesaurus. 

8 Cicero, Har. Resp. 12, satis sanctum, satis 
augustum, satis religiosum. Cf. also Verr. 
Mi 286, 5 ΠΕΣ: ΤΠ IO WT. .62:,90 ΠΣ 
Tusc. V. 36. 

9 See the Thesaurus and Walde’s Latein- 
isches-etymologisches Woerterbuch. The con- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


connotation. Professor Conway has 
noted that the conception οὗ physical 
superiority, natural from the connexion 
with augere, is strong in the word in 
Aeneid VII. 678. He thinks that it 
probably indicated a certain enlarge- 
ment in the figure of Augustus in 


nexion with augur is maintained by Zimmer 
mann, Archiv fir lateinisches Lexicographie, 
VII. pp. 435 f. Cf Professor O. L. Richmond’s 
interesting comments, Journal of Roman 
Studies, 1V. (1914), p. 216. 


ΤΟΙ 


Aeneas’s shield.? It is worthy of note 
that the same idea of physical superi- 
ority, not often predominant in the 
word, as a glance through the cases 
cited in the Thesaurus willshow, is 
strongly emphasised in four of the cases 
which I have cited from Livy. 
Liny Koss TAYLOR. 
American Academy in Rome. 


1 Quoted by Warde Fowler, Aeneas at the 
Site of Rome, p. 112. 


LATIN POETIC ORDER WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
HORACE EPODES s5.: τῷ. 


I HAVE for some years been making a 
close study of word-order in Horace’s 
Odes and Fpodes. The conclusion has 
been forced upon me that the order of 
words is no more negligible in poetry 
than it is in prose. It is true that 
orders occur in poetry which would not 
be equally common in prose; and yet 
such non-prose orders are surprisingly 
few. One common type, however, 
with rare parallels in prose, merits 
special attention. It has ἃ psycho- 
logical interest which may be thus 
illustrated. Suppose we enter a room 
and see upon a table a red flower in a 
silver bowl. What makes more im- 
pression on the mind? Is it the anti- 
thetical colours, red and silver, and the 
antithetical objects, flower and bowl ? 
Or is it the antithesis of the combina- 
tzons, red flower and silver bowl? Eng- 
lish decides for the latter; Latin 
poetry, more often, for the’ former; 
and, with rare exceptions, the two 
colours (literal or metaphorical) are put 
first and the two objects last. Thus 
while prose might write flos purpureus 
stat 11, lance argentea, poetry will prefer 
the grouping purpureus argentea stat flos 
im lance, or chiastic orders such as 
argentea purpureus stat flos in lance, etc. 

This grouping, as I have said, is in 
prose very rare. I know one case in 
Cicero, viz. De Off. 2. 7. 23, veliquorum 
smiles exttus tyrannorum, and two cases 
in Livy, viz. 6. 34. 7, parvis mobili 
rebus animo muliebri, and 22. 2. 3, omne 
veterant robur exercitus (where, however, 
the MSS. show variations); and, doubt- 
less, other parallel instances may be 


found. But in poetry the device is a 
commonplace. 

The neatest type is seen in the 
formula adj. A, adj. B, verb, noun A, 
noun B. Compare Lucr. 5. 1068, sus- 
pensts teneros imitantur dentibus haustus ; 
Verg. Aen. 7. 10, proxima Circaeae 
vaduntur litora terrae; Ovid. Her. 4, 
80, 81, exiguo flexos miror in orbe pedes ; 
seu lentum valido torques hastile lacerto 
and passim. 

Less common is the formula adj. A, 
adj. B, verb, noun B, noun A, as in 
Hor. Odes 3. 7. 25: niveum doloso credi- 
dit tauro latus. 

These two types, with the verb in 
the centre, we will call types a1 and a? 
respectively. The formula adj. A, adj. 
B, noun A, noun B, and the verb any- 
where, we will call 6+; the formula 
adj.. A; adj...B, noun 5. noun Ay or 
adj. B, adj. A, noun A, noun B, both 
with the verb anywhere, we will cail 
8. -All four types occur in Horace’s 
Odes and Epodes, and make a total of 
nearly 200 instances. 

Of type αἱ the first case in the Odes 
is I. 2. 11,12, supertecto tumidae natarunt 
aeqnore damae; of type a, I. 3. 10, 
fragilem truct commisit pelago ratem; of 
type β', τ. 3. 23, tmpias non tangenda 
rates transiliunt vada; and of type 3, 
I. 1. 14, Myrtoum pavidus nauta secet 
mare. 

A notorious line in Lucan (8. 
should, I think, be regarded as a 
of type 8”, viz.: 

quem captos ducere reges | 
vidit ab Hyrcants (A) Indogue (B) a litore (B) 
silvis (A). 


343) 
case 


162 


Had Lucan written aque Indo in 
place of the slight chiastic variety 
Indoque a, there would have been no 
need to quote the line as a ‘ rare hyper- 
baton’; and much the same defence 
might be raised for Manilius I. 429, 
discordes-vultu (A) permixtaque (B) cor- 
pora (B) partus (A). 

But to return to Horace—the im- 
portance of ‘bearing in mind these types 
is seen clearly when we face such a ‘ de- 
rangement of epitaphs’ as is provided 
by the commentators on Efod. 5. 19: 


tubet (Canidia) cupressos funebres 

et uncta turpis ova ranae sanguine 19 
plumam@que nocturnae strigis ... 
fiamants aduri Colchicis. 


Here the editors offer a bewildering 
variety of interpretations. The most 
favoured dogma appears to be that ova 
and plumam belong to strigis, and that 
we should translate by ‘an owl’s eggs 
and feathers smeared with blood of 
hideous toad. Gow and Page have 
their doubts, and well they may; for if 
the conventional interpretation be cor- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


rect, Latin order is a Chinese puzzle, 
and school-boys should not be per- 
mitted to spend valuable time on this 
exhilarating game. But if we follow 
the principles of Latin poetic order as 
demonstrated above, we shall arrive at 
conclusions less complimentary both to 
Horace and to Latin poetry. 

The grouping uncta turpis ova ranae 
is simply that of type β'. I submit 
that these words must be read by a 
Roman as ‘eggs anointed of foul toad,’ 
and that vanae goes with both ova and 
sanguine, for it lies between them. We 
may, if we like, in the Horatian manner, 
supply wnctam sanguine (strigis) with 
plumam. : 

Dr. A. 5. Way, in his translation 
(Macmillan, 1898), says rightly : 


‘And the spawn a loathly toad had voided, 
smeared with blood, 


And the feather of a screech-owl, bird of 
gloom.’ 3 
Η. DARNLEY NAYLOR. 


The University, Adelaide, 


JESTS OF PLAUTUS, CICERO. AND TRIMALCHTO- 


Plaut. rud. 766-8. 

L. ibo hercle aliquo quaeritatum ignem. 
1). quid quom inueneris? 

L. ignem magnum hic faciam. 
humanum exuras tibi ? 

L. immo hasce ambas hic in ara ut uiuas 
comburam, id uolo. 

On inhumanum, which he marks as 
corrupt, Leo observes ‘ quid fuerit apud 
medicos quaerendum’; Professor Lind- 
say refers his readers to C.R. XVIII 
p. 402, where he cites the verse as 
evidence for the pronunciation of gm in 
Latin and says ‘Clearly this strange 
reply is due to the resemblance of tgnem 
magnum in pronunciation to imhuma- 
num.+ That hardly diminishes any 
strangeness it may have; and I believe 
that the problem can be solved without 


D. quin in- 


1 In the same note he cites for the same 
purpose Cic. de rep. IV 6 (Non. p. 24) ‘ censoris 
iudicium nihil fere damnato obfert nisi ruborem. 
itaque, ut omnis ea iudicatio uersatur tantum- 
modo in nomtne, animaduersio illa ignominia 
dicta est, and comments ‘So Cicero pronounced 
Zgnominia more or less as “ innominia.”’ Non 


researches in the abyss of ancient 
medicine or hypotheses about the pro- 
nunciation of gz. 

When one speaker announces his 
intention of going about to make a 
great fire, and the other thereupon 
enquires ‘What for? to burn the 
churlishness (or something of that sort) 
out of you?’ this insult at first sight 
appears to have two incongruous faults: 
it is both clumsy and mild. It does not 
seem to arise naturally, as a good insult 
should, from the previous conversation, 
and it is not nearly so offensive as a bad 
insult, unconfined by any requirements 
of neatness, might easily be. Why 
should the proceedings of Labrax sug- 
gest the notion of burning any element 
out of anybody? and why should the 
particular element be znhumanum ? 


sequitur: the only inference which can_ be 
drawn from Cicero’s words is that he derived 
ignominia, quite rightly, from momen: there is 
no indication that he made the mistake of 
deriving it from 222 2102)11716. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Because men once went about to 
‘make a great and famous fire which 
had for its purpose to burn out of a 
‘certain person the element of humanity ; 
and that person’s name was casually 
and inadvertently mentioned by Labrax 
when he made use of the interjection 
hercle. Minuc. Oct. 22 7 ‘ Hercules, ut 
hominem exuat, Oetaeis ignibus con- 
crematur’, Ouid. met. 1X 250-3 (Jove is 
the speaker) ‘ omnia qui uicit, uincet, 
quos cernitis, ignes | nec nisi materna 
Vulcanum parte potentem | sentiet: 
aeternum est, a me quod traxit, et 
expers | atque inmune necis nullaque 
domabile amma’, 262-5 ‘interea, quod- 
cumque fuit populabile flammae, | Mul- 
ciber abstulerat, nec cognoscenda re- 
mansit | Herculis effigies, nec quicquam 
ab imagine ductum | matris habet tan- 
tumque JIouis uestigia seruat’, Sen. 
H.O. 1966-8 (Hercules to Alcmena) 
‘ quidquid in nobis tui | mortale fuerat, 
ignis euictus tulit ; | paterna caelo, pars 
data est flammis tua.’ Fire was used 
with the same intent though not with 
the same effect by Thetis on Achilles, 
Apollod. bibl. II] 171 ὡς δὲ ἐγέννησε 
Θέτις ἐκ Πηλέως βρέφος, ἀθάνατον 
θέλουσα ποιῆσαι τοῦτο, κρύφα Πηλέως 
εἰς τὸ πῦρ ἐγκρύβουσα τῆς νυκτὸς ἔφ- 
θειρεν ὃ ἣν αὐτῷ θνητὸν πατρῷον, Apoll. 
Rhod. IV 869 sq. ἡ μὲν “γὰρ βροτέας αἰεὶ 
περὶ σάρκας ἔδαιεν | νύκτα διὰ μέσσην 
φλογμῷ πυρός, and by Demeter on 
Demophon or Triptolemus, Apollod. 
bibl. I 31 βουλομένη δὲ αὐτὸ ἀθάνατον 
που σι τὰς νύκτας εἰς, πῦρ κατετίθει τὸ 

Βρέφος καὶ περιήρει τὰς θνητὰς σάρκας 
αὐτοῦ, Ouid. fast. IV 553 sq. ‘inque 
foco corpus pueri uiuente fauilla | obruit, 
humanum purget ut ignis onus’. Labrax 
therefore may be making a bonfire with 
a view to such self-improvement as the 
nature of hiscase allows. Burning him 
alive will not indeed turn him into a 
god, but it may perhaps turn him into 
a human being. 

Both interlocutors are at home in 
mythology: Daemones at 604 recalls 
that swallows are the descendants of 
Philomela ; Labrax at 509 is expected 
to know who Tereus and Thyestes 
were, and with the life of Hercules he 
seems to have been thoroughly familiar, 
for we owe to him our knowledge of a 


163 


detail recorded by no other authority, 
489 sq.: 


edepol, Libertas, lepida es, quae numquam 
pedem 
uoluisti in nauem cum Hercule una imponere. 


Macrob. Saturn. II 3 16 Cicero... 
cum Piso gener mollius incederet, filia 
autem concitatius, ait filiae ‘ambula 
tamquam uir’, <at genero ‘ambula 
tamquam femina’>. et cum M. Lepi- 
dus in senatu dixisset patribus con- 
scriptis <‘ego non tanti fecissem simile 
factum >, Tullius ait ‘ego non tanti 
fecissem ὁμοιόπτωτον᾽. 

These supplements of the defective 
text are those of early editions, and they 
are approved by the latest editor Eyssen- 
hardt. The second, though manifestly 
quite uncertain, is not manifestly false ; 
for fecissem . .. factum would seem to 
come within Quintilian’s definition of 
ὁμοιόπτωτον inst. IX 3 78, though ib. 80 
he refers ‘non minus cederct quam cesstt’ 
to a distinct and different figure ‘qua 
nomina mutatis casibus repetuntur’. 
But it is so inconspicuous and inoffen- 
sive a specimen of its class that it can 
hardly have elicited Cicero’s raillery ; 
and from the emphasis of ‘ patribus 
conscriptis’ following upon ‘in senatu’ 
I should infer that Lepidus had slipped 
into some expression unfit for the ears 
of his audience, like that cited in ad 
fam. 1X 22 2 ‘memini in senatu diser- 
tum consularem ita eloqui, ‘ hanc 
culpam maiorem an illam dicam?” 
potuit opscenius?’ This however is 
likewise uncertain: about the first of 
the two witticisms there should be no 
similar doubt. The supplement above 
given is wrong, and Cicero’s own words 
can be recovered. 

Piso had a mincing gait and Tulliaa 
rapid stride: Cicero, displeased with 
these peculiarities, is supposed to say 
to his daughter ‘ walk like a man’ and 
to his son-in-law ‘ walk like a woman’. 
That is what they did already and 
what he wished to break them of doing ; 
and the form of εἰρωνεία which consists 
in saying the opposite of what one 
means is much too common and simple 
to constitute a pleasantry or to win a 
place among the dicta Ciceroms. The 
contrast between the pair suggested to 


164 


their sprightly relative a whimsical way 
of conveying his reproof. When he 
said to his daughter ‘ ambula tamquam 
uir’, what he meant was ‘walk like 
your husband’. And what he said to 
his son-in-law was ‘ambula tamquam 
Uxor ’. 


Petron. 41 6-8 dum haec loquimur, 
puer speciosus, uitibus hederisque re- 
dimitus, modo Bromium, interdum 
Lyaeum Euhiumque confessus, cala- 
thisco uuas circumtulit et poemata 
domini sui acutissima uoce traduxit. 
ad quem sonum conuersus Trimaichio 
‘Dionyse’ inquit ‘LIBER esto’. puer 
detraxit pilleum apro capitique suo im- 
posuit. tum Trimalchio rursus adiecit: 
‘non negabitis me’ inquit ‘ habere 
LIBERVM patrem’. laudauimus dictum 
Trimalchionis et circumeuntem puerum 
sane perbasiamus. : 

I print this passage as Trimalchio 
would have wished it to be read. Our 
current texts, with their ‘liber esto’ 
and ‘Liberum patrem’, would show 
him that half his labour had been lost 
and half his wit wasted; and if he 
could consult the translators and com- 
mentators he would be grievously dis- 
appointed with most of them and 
thoroughly satisfied with none. 

It is likely that many readers have 
understood the pun in ‘me habere 
LIBERVM patrem ’, and it is not impos- 
sible that many translators have done 
so; but only two or three of them give 
proof that they understand it, and 
a larger number give proof that they 
do not. Trimalchio is happier dead 
than if he had lived to see such 
interpretations as ‘dass Bacchus mein 
Sohn sey’, ‘the god of liberation is 
my father’, ‘I have freed him who 
frees us from’ care’, ‘on ne peut pas 
nier. σα ἃ présent Bacchus ne dépende 


THE, CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


de moi (iocus inter Liberum Patrem et 
seruum liberum)’. But as to ‘LIBER 
esto’, few even suspect that it contains 
a pun; few of those who suspect it can 
explain what the pun is; and nobody, 
not even W. K. Kelly, explains it in 
terms which would assure Trimalchio 
that he had not been casting pearls 
before swine. 

There comes in a boy, Dionysus by 
name, as the sequel tells us, wearing a 
wreath of vine and ivy, handing round 
grapes, and declaring himself now 
Bromius, now Lyaeus, now Euhius. 
‘Dionysus’, says Trimalchio, ‘LIBER 
esto’: that is, assume the character 
of the indigenous wine-god; be, not 
Bromius nor Lyaeus nor Euhius, but 
our Italian Liber. The boy, instructed 
beforehand, feigns to take the proper 
name for an adjective and to recog- 
nise the formula of manumission; he 
snatches the cap of liberty from the 
head of the lately enfranchised boar 
and claps it on his own. By this pun 
in action he has performed his master’s 
bidding to the letter: LIBER est, and 
by logical consequence also pater: Seru. 
georg. 11 4 ‘pater licet generale sit 
omnium deorum, tamen proprie Libero 
semper cohaeret, nam Liber pater uaca- 
tur’. Trimalchio’s way is now clear to 
his next pun, ‘non negabitis me habere 
LIBERVM patrem’: in the words’ first 
sense as they fall on the ear, ‘father 
Liber is of my household ’,—and there 
stands Dionysus with his eap on to 
prove it; in their after-meaning, as 
they reach the mind, ‘I am a freeman’s 
son’,—false within the knowledge of 
the whole company, and yet not 
deniable. 


A. E. HousMAN. 


Trinity College, 
Cambridge. 


TWO NOTES ON VIRGIL AND HORACE. 


Aen 1. 467): 
Sunt lacrimae 
tangunt. 


rerum et mentem mortalia 

The key to the exact meaning of 
this famous verse, in the current inter- 
pretations of which rerum seems to 
mean anything or nothing, is to be 


found in the observation that the geni- 
tive of mortalia is mortalium rerum. 
The two clauses are arrows shot at the 
same mark, in the manner familiar to 
us in the Psalter; not common in Latin 
poetry, yet not to be disallowed in any 
literature. They are: (1) sunt lacrimae 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


mortalium rerum; (2) mentem mortalia 
Zangunt. ‘Mortality hath its meed of 
tears: yea, it toucheth the heart to 
compassion.’ 


Hor Epis. Wier ΤΟΥ fi..: 


Serus enim Graecis admouit acumina chartis 

et post Punica bella quietus quaerere coepit 

quid Sophocles et Thespis et Aeschylus utile 
ferrent. 


There must be something wrong 
with the text here. The sentence has 
no subject ; sevus has nothing to qualify. 
It is incredible that Horace expected 
us to cast back for a nominative, to 
overleap two finite clauses, and find our 
subject in the object, férwm uictorum, of 
156-7. In fact, if the text stands, we 
are required by elementary grammar to 
adopt numerus Saturnius from v. 158 as 
the subject, which is absurd. Further, 
the missing nominative has to carry on 
for at least three verses more, and to 
serve four more verbs. Of the ensuing 
sentence “Dr. [5 5: Reid writes’ (ina 
note contributed to Wilkins’s commen- 
tary): ‘It is almost impossible to 
believe that vv. 166-7 were not written 
with reference to some person. Ennius 
Pacuvius or Attius must have been 
taken as a specimen of the Roman 
tragic writers.’ This seems unques- 
tionable, and it follows that the corrup- 
tion is deep-seated, and calls for heroic 
surgery. 

Is there any other fault in the 
sentence as it stands which may help 
us to locate the error? I submit that 
the word acumina is unsatisfactory ; 
not merely because we have to suppose 
that Horace wrote acumina for acumen 
with no better excuse than metrical 
convenience, but for a graver reason. 
If we translate, ‘ He (sc. the ferus wictor) 
applied his mind ‘to Greek writings,’ 
we are ignoring the metaphor; which 
we do the more readily because we 
happen to have borrowed the word 
acumen in its metaphorical, but not in 
its primary or physical, sense. To a 
Roman, however, familiar with the 
primary meaning of both verb and 
noun, the phrase admouere acumina (cf. 
admouere stimulos in Juv. X. 329, Cic. 
Tusc. III. 16, 35, etc.) “must have 
suggested the image of an insect ad- 
vancing its sting with intention, or a 


165 


man prodding somebody or something 
with the pointed end ofa spear or goad; 
and this is clearly inapplicable to a 
diligent Roman (even though also ferus 
and wctor) enlarging his mind by the 
study of foreign literature. 

If then acumna is suspect, and if the 
sense demands one of the three names 
mentioned, we may perhaps find a 
hopeful clue by noting that, if the name 
Pacumus lost its initial, by an accident 
not improbable in the hands of a scribe 
who did not know who Pacuvius was, 
the remnant would correspond, in 
respect of four of its seven letters 
(acu .t..), with acumina; and that the 
triple « might favour further mutilation, 
leaving a residue which would be readily 
expanded into acumina to make out the 
metre. Pacuutus chartis is indeed im- 
possible as the ending, and looks: like 
the beginning, of a hexameter. But 
the following verse has, by reason of an 
uncommon caesura, a beginning metric- 
ally transferable to the end; indeed, if 
post Punica bella quietus survived as a 
fragment, we should naturally suppose 
ourselves to be reading the latter half 
of a hexameter verse. Before trying 
the transposition, however, we have to 
deal with admouit, a transitive verb 
which, for Pacuvius’ sake, we have 
robbed of its object. I'suggest, with 
diffidence, admotus,; asking whether 
-tus, -ust, -wit is not a possible sequence 
of corruption; and whether Graccis 
admotus chartis might not carry the 
meaning, introduced to, or, attracted by, 
Greek manuscripts. 

Let us then suppose that Horace 
wrote : 


Serus enim Graecis, post Punica bella quietus, 
Pacuuius chartis admotus quaerere coepit ; 


that a scribe, whose eye fell from -ἴς to 
-is immediately below, made it 


Serus enim Graecis admotus quaerere coepit, 


but supplied the two half-verses he had 
omitted at the foot of his page; and 
that the next man, mistaking the refer- 
ence marks, placed theend of 161 at the 
beginning of 162, and vice versa. A 
third copyist, doing his best to sort the 
jumble, might produce something very 
like the traditional text. 

As for sense, serus and post Punica 


166 


bella quietus go very well together. 
‘Late in life’ (betterthan ‘late in Roman 
history ’), ‘in the leisure that followed 
the Punic Wars, Pacuvius, having his 
attention turned to Greek literature, 
began to enquire whether Sophocles, 
Thespis, and.Aeschylus were of any use 
to him. He also tried his hand at 
translation,’ etc. The scholarship here 
attributed to Pacuvius explains the 
compliment already paid to him (v.56): 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


aufert Pacuuius doctt famam 
compare also senis with serus. 

Reconstructions which postulate a 
long series of blunders are rarely accept- 
able, and I hardly dare expect accept- 
ance of this one. It is published in the 
hope that some critic, better versed in 
the mysteries of the craft, may reach a 
more satisfactory conclusion from the 
same starting-point. 


sents > 


C. A. VINCE. 


‘STATIUS, POGGIO, AND POLITIAN.’ 


UNDER the above heading Mr. Garrod 
in 1019 contributed to this Review! 
what he described as ‘a new piece of 
evidence,’ which, after being singled 
out for special notice. by Professor 
A. C. Clark in The Year's Work for 
1914 (p. 56) as an interesting statement, 
has now made its way into Professor 
Phillimore’s new edition of the Szlvae 
(S.C.B.O., Praef. p. xii) as an ascer- 
tained fact, ‘ . id quod felicissimus 
harum tenebrarum explorator Garrodius 
comperit.’ 

For students of Statius the mystery 
of Poggio’s V(etustissimus) and what 
became of it, has the same perennial 
fascination that the mystery of Edwin 
Drood has for students of Dickens; 
and any scholar might well be forgiven if 
in dealing with it he let his imagination 
run away with him. But just for that 
reason sober criticism should be on the 
alert to test every ‘piece of evidence’ 
propounded. To some of us the new 
theory is particularly attractive, for it 
brings in Heinsius. 

Mr. Garrod begins with a supposi- 
tion. (a) ‘It is usually supposed that 
the Vetustissimus ... was found by 
Poggio in the monastery of St. Gall....’ 
‘This is not certain,’ he adds, ‘but it 
is probable, and only so far as .it is 
probable . . . is the piece of evidence 
of which I speak cogent.’ He then 
proceeds (b) to argue from three pas- 
sages in Burmann’s Sylloge? (1) that 
V. was still at St. Gall in the time 
of Nicolaus Heinsius and that N.H. 


1 C.R. vol. xxvii. p. 265 f. 
2 Vol. 111. pp. 283 and 345, and vol. v. p. 532. 


secured access to it for Lucas Langer- 
mannus in the year 1651: (2)—this 
is not explicitly stated, but it appears 
to be clearly implied—that the MS. 
was duly collated by Langermannus 
for N.H., who in 1655 was ‘still* 
meditating an edition of the Szlvae,’ 
when the collation was unfortunately 
lost at sea, with other papers, in a 
shipwreck. 

What an ‘intriguing’ theory! It 
reads like a page from a romance. 
First the rediscovery of the long-lost V’., 
then four years of full fruition (which 
yet have ‘left not a wrack behind’), 
and then—then the shipwreck, and the 
precious collation goes down, carrying 
with it ali the fruits of study to the 
bottom of the deep blue sea. Even the 
memory of the treasure-trove perishes 
so completely from the not unretentive 
mind of Heinsius that fourteen years 
afterwards we find him asking a friend 
to examine for him, not the Vetustss- 
stmus at St. Gall, but the deteriores in 
the Vatican, to clear up his dubztationes 
on a score of passages from the Szlvae. 
But to resume. 

On (a) Mr. Garrod, while regarding 
the supposition as probable, speaks—be 
it noted—with the utmost caution. But 
it is and it remains a mere supposition, 
nothing more. Professor Clark—a very 
weighty authority on all that relates to 
the literary discoveries of Poggio—takes 
the opposite view, and with far less 
reserve: ‘I have never,’ he writes,? 
‘seen any reason for supposing that 


3 Why ‘still’? Is there any definite state- 
ment that he ever did meditate an edition? 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Poggio got his copy’ [of the Silvae] 
‘from 'St. Gall.’ A verdict of ‘Net 
Proven’ is the only verdict possible on 
the facts. 

In regard to (Ὁ) it would seem that 
{πὴ} 1 the: crucial pomt.: ‘ Langer- 
mannus,’ writes Mr. Garrod, ‘had col- 
lated a MS. of the Silvae’ (my italics) 
‘lent him by the monks of St. Gall.’ 
But Heinsius does not say so. Mr. 
Garrod quotes the ipszsstma verba him- 
self; and here they are: ‘Statium etiam 
vetustissimum contulit, 6.4.5. ‘ Statium ’ 
—so scholars constantly wrote in re- 
ferring to the Thebaid—not ‘Silvas 
Statianas,’ the phrase which elsewhere 
—e.g. in Mr. Garrod’s other passages 
from the Sylloge (III. 345 and V. 532) 
—N.H. uses to describe the less known 
and less quoted work, the Silvae. And 
a Statius Vetustissimus there was and is 
still at St. Gall—a MS. of the Thebaid, 
not of the Si/vae—bound up with a 
mediaeval poem (Oedipus on the Death 
of his Sons), No. 865, saec. xii. For? 
this information and for what follows 
about St. Gall I am indebted to the 
kindness of Professor Clark, to whom, 
being deeply interested myself in the 
problem of V, I went for enlightenment, 
and who instituted an inquiry into the 
matter on the spot. The monastery, 
he tells me, also possessed in the ninth 
century® both a Thebaid and an Achil- 
led, and later another twelfth-century 
Thebaid, now at Zurich,* which might 
also be entitled ‘ vetustissimus.’® 

As for ‘ vetusti ’—let alone a ‘ vetus- 
tissimus’—of the Silvae, Heinsius 


* In a letter (dated November 21, 1915) 
which he permits me to quote. 

2 Cf. Verzeichnis der MSS. der Stiftsbzbl. 
von St. Gallen.” G. Scherrer (Halle, 1875), 

. 298. 

3 Cf Weidmann, Bibliothek von St. Gallen 
(St. Gallen, 1821), p. 422 : ‘Statius in Thebaide. 

. In alio libello idem in Achilleidos.’ 

4 “The Zurich MS. C. 62 (saec. xii.) has the 
St. Gall mark on ff. 195, 207, and appears to 
be the MS. which is described by Scheuchzer 
(1713) in a MS. catalogue (c. 366) of books 
removed from St. Gall to Zurich. It contains 
Stat. Thebais, Servius Honoratus de jinalibus, 
Lheobaldus de natura primarum syllabarum, 
Martyrologium Bedae. 

® Thus N.H. describes as ‘veterrimt,’ Urbinas 
341, Saec. xi.-xil.; and Vatican. Palat. 1669, 
saec. ΧΙ]. fartis prioris; and as antiquissimus 
Parts. 8001 (olim Berneggerianus), saec. xii.- 
xiii. The dates given for the three MSS. are 


| 


167 


speaks for himself in the third of Mr. 
Garrod’s passages from the Sylloge, viz.* 
v. 532, to which allusion has already 
been made. The letter is undated but 
seems to belong to 1669. It isaddressed 
to a friend in Rome, ‘ Falconerius,’ and 
the relevant sentences run thus: ‘ Per- 
currebam Silvas Statianas nuper, ad 
quas 1am olim complura observavi, sunt 
enim mendosissimae etiamnum. Codices 
vetustos etus Poematis nullos omnino in 
Bibliothects inveniri opinor ; notae recen- 
tioris nonnullos, et si rariores et illos, 
scio hic illic extare. Vaticanos quinque 
cum vulgatis libris in meos usus Lan- 
germannus commiserat ante annos xv. 
sed schedae illae naufragio nobis paullo 
post periere. Cum Vaticanum alia de 
causa adieris, rogo, codices illos, et si 
qui alii postea accessere, inspicias, 
consulasque super locis hic a me anno- 
tatis,” ¢.¢.s. Not a word about the 
Vetustissemus. Not a hint of what 
might have been. No suggestion ‘ that 
there hath passed away a glory from 
the earth,’ only a pathetic request for 
the littera scripta of inferior copies, as 
the best evidence the writer can hope 
to obtain on the text. 

In regard to (0) 2, it is self-evident 
that the chief Sz/vae papers lost in the 
wreck were the collations of these 
Vatican copies ‘notae  recentioris,’ 
which in 1659 N.H. is seeking to 
replace. What the ‘meae aliaeque illius 
lucubrationes’ (Sylloge III. 345) were, 
we can only conjecture, but after what 
has been said it would seem to be 
in the highest degree improbable that 
they included anything at all relating 
to the ‘ Vetustissimus Poggii.’ 

The Sylloge is a badly indexed book, 
and between the covers of its five bulky 
volumes it may contain other evidence 
on the point.© My inquiry has been 
confined to the three passages indicated 
at the outset. It is a thankless task to 
spoil a good story which one would be 
only too happy to believe; but on the 
evidence before us Mr. Garrod cannot 
yet be said to have made out a case. 

Di Aes. 


those assigned to them by Dr. H. M. Bannister, 
Mr. J. P. Gilson, and M. Omont respectively. 

6 Professor Phillimore in a footnote refers to 
‘ Sylloge v. p. 265’; but this must be a mis- 
print ; v. p. 265 contains no mention of Statius. 


168 


THE CLASSIGAL REVIEW 


NOTES 


ΠΕΡΙΣΚΈΛΗΣ. 


Tue following note first appeared in 
an article dealing with ancient coin 
dies which was published in the Numus- 
matic Chronicle for 1916.1. It has been 
suggested that readers of the Classical 
Review would be interested in a point 
which is of a literary and philological 
rather than of a strictly numismatic 
interest, and I have accordingly made 
an extract from my longer article, with 
certain additions and changes. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἴσθι τοι TA σκλήρ᾽ ἄγαν φρονήματα 
πίπτειν μάλιστα, καὶ τὸν ἐγκρατέστατον 
σίδηρον ὀπτὸν ἐκ πυρὸς περισκελῆ 
θραυσθέντα καὶ ῥαγέντα πλεῖστ᾽ ἂν εἰσίδοις. 
Antigone 474-476. 

Creon says: ‘ Yet I would have thee 
know that o’er- stubborn spirits are 
most often humbled; ’tis the stiffest 
iron, baked to hardness in the fire, that 
thou shalt oftenest see snapped and 
shivered.’ So Jebb translates, and in 
his note gives ‘ tempered to hardness’ for 
ὀπτὸν... .. περισκελῆ. Bliimner, Tech- 
nologie 1V. Ὁ. 348, has similarly—and 
almost wilfully—gone wide of the mark 
in saying that we must not assume 
a knowledge of technical detail in 
Sophocles, that Creon’s words refer 
not to steel in the making but to the 
finished article, and that the meaning 
is that the hardest steel is often most 
easily broken.? 

It is curious that neither Bliimner 
nor Jebb saw a flaw in this explanation, 
for they both wrote at some length on 
Ajax 640 f.: 

ἅπανθ᾽ ὁ μακρὸς κἀναρίθμητος χρόνος 
φύει τ᾽ ἄδηλα καὶ φανέντα κρύπτεται" 
κοὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἄελπτον οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἁλίσκεται 
xm δεινὸς ὅρκος καὶ περισκελεῖς φρένες" 
κἀγὼ γάρ, ὅς τὰ δείν᾽ ἐκαρτέρουν τότε, 
βαφῇ σίδηρος ὥς, ἐθηλύνθην στόμα 
πρὸς τῆσδε τῆς γυναικός * 
Ajax 646-652. 


Sophocles knew the technical details 
perfectly well—whom better might we 


t A Dekadrachm by Kimon and a note on 
Greek coin dies (Numismatic Chronicle, 1916, 
pp. 113-132). 

2 Dean Plumptre’s translation also gives ‘the 
rigid steel baked in the furnace... .’ ‘ Tem- 
pered’ and ‘steel’ both give δὴ erroneous 
impression, ‘steel’ being quite indefensible. 


expect to know them than the son of 
Sophillos the rich armourer ?—and I 
am unwilling to believe that by ὀπτὸν 
. . . περισκελῆ in the passage from the 
Antigone he meant, as Jebb and 
Bliimner held, the finest tempered 
steel, as though he had written ὀπτὸν 
καὶ ἐκ τῆς βαφῆς περισκελῆ. But in the 
passage of the Ajax the technical know- 
ledge which enables him to use Rady 
of the bath for tempering steel would 
of course tell him that an earlier process 
of heating the metal was implied, and 
would be understood by all who could 
understand this meaning of βαφή. 

The fact is that iron merely hardened 
in the fire and not tempered by im- 
mersion is left brittle, and this, I ven- 
ture to suggest, is the meaning of 
περισκελής ; hence 

θραυσθέντα καὶ ῥωγέντα πλεῖστ᾽ ἂν εἰσίδοις 

—not an encouraging commentary on 
the work of the ancient smiths and a 
bad advertisement for the family 
foundry if it really referred to the 
finest tempered steel which they could 
produce. Besides, ‘tempered steel’ as 
a translation for ὀπτὸν . . . περισκελῆ 
in the Antigone passage makes Creon’s 
onslaught lose point, as he is concerned 
with his obstinate and undisciplined 
citizens, not those who, like Ajax, are 
of a finer metal. 

Translate περισκελῆ, then, in the 
Antigone by ‘ brittle’: ‘Stubborn spirits 
are often humbled just as hard iron 
passing through the fire becomes brittle 
and is easily broken.’ For this mean- 
ing the words σκεέλετός (skeleton) and 
ἀσκελής (dried), which come from the 
same root, are apt comparisons; and 
compare ‘brittle’ with the metaphoircal 
meaning ‘stubborn,’ which has cor- 
rectly been used to render περισκελεῖς 
φρένες in Ajax 649, where Jebb quotes 
our line from the Antigone, and says: 
‘Thus the associations of the word lead 
naturally to his next thought.’ Possibly 
so: but certainly not because περι- 
σκελής when used in this association 
means ‘finely tempered’; for in that 
case the metaphorical equivalent would 
not be ‘ stubborn’ but a word meaning 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


‘hard’ in some good sense—e.g. daunt- 
less or morally strong. 
S. W. GROSE. 


THE MILITARY ROADS OF 
AGAMEMNON. : 


EvIDENCE for the kingship of Aga- 
memnon over the whole of Greece is 
found in the existence of what are 
called military roads. Remains of 
roads have been discovered in the 
-vicinity of Mycenae, but .Dr. Leaf, 
admitting that it involves ‘ passing 
beyond the actual evidence into infer- 
ence,’ argues for a ‘system’ of such 
roads leading to the more distant parts 
of Greece (Homer and History, 224n). 
That, he.thinks, need not surprise us, 
seeing that such highroads are really a 
necessity of central government. 

The remains are described in the 
works of Schliemann, Schuchhardt, and 
others. There are traces of three roads 
leading north to the Isthmus, and of 
one leading south to Tiryns. But 
there seems to be no’ground for saying 
they extended beyond the Isthmus. 
The remains—of paved roadway, cul- 
verts, and protecting fortifications— 
are of the ‘Cyclopean’ kind. If there 
were such roads outside the Pelopon- 
nesus, some traces must surely have 
survived, but no reference is quoted, 
even from classical authors. 

A system of roads of such calibre, so 
to speak, could hardly have escaped 
notice. A Cyclopean highway along 
the Isthmus past the Scironian Rocks 
must have been famous. Nor is it 
stated that made roads for chariots 
were found to be a necessity in any of 
the other ancient empires, as Assyria 
and Egypt, in which this particular 
machine was used in warfare. On the 
other hand, that such roads were not a 
necessity to an ancient empire 15 clearly 
shown from India. It has been said, 
and there is no reason to question the 
assertion, that Moghuls and Marathas 
alike never had a mile of made road 
away from their capitals, nor had their 
early predecessors who, like Agamem- 
non, used war chariots. And again, it 
must not be forgotten that a system of 
roads converging on Mycenae would 


NO. CCLXXI. VOL. XXXII. 


169 


constitute a danger to its rulers. It 
would help, and even suggest and 
invite, a coalition against the central 
power, the wealth of which, in times 
when the hand of every tribe or state 
was against its neighbour, would of 
itself tempt those of inferior status and 
resources. I read in the Contemporary 
Review for March, 1917, p. 377, that it 
was the great roads which Rome con- 
structed across the Brenner that proved 
her undoing by facilitating the passage 
of the barbarian hordes from the north. 
And again, Agamemnon, if Emperor of 
Greece, would have had in his fleet, 
which could have landed troops at any 
of the good harbours on the northern 
shores of the Gulf of Corinth, a simpler 
means than by the long détour by land 
through the Megarid and Boeotia of 
reaching unruly subordinates in Central 
or Northern Greece, or of hampering 
or cutting the communications of an 
invading force. 

We must conclude that the roads 
were for a merely local purpose, and 
the one which we can conjecture con- 
sists with Bérard’s theory. The roads 
were made to help traffic from the 
southern and eastern seas through the 
mountains to the Gulf of Corinth and 
the western seas beyond, and we may 
see in the fact that three led north 
from Mycenae, an indication of the 
extent of the trade. One roadway 
would suffice in the plain, where the 
passing of animals going in opposite 
directions would be a simple matter. 
It would be different in the hills, as 
anyone can understand who has had 
experience of mountain tracks regularly 
used by strings of pack bullocks. Cp. 
p- 58 of the Rise of the Greek Epic. 

A. SHEWAN. 

St. Andrews. 


GENERAL RELATIVE CLAUSES 
/ IN) GREEK. 


In Classical Review XXXI. Nos. 3-4 
(1917) Professor J. A. Smith raised a 
question to which I have hesitated to - 
reply, not from any dubiety as to the 
answer, but rather because I doubted 
whether I correctly understood him. 

1. In connexion with Plato Rep. X. 
596 A εἶδος yap πού τι ἕν ἕκαστον εἰώ- 

M 


170 


θαμεν τίθεσθαι περὶ ἕκαστα τὰ πολλὰ, 
οἷς ταὐτὸν ὄνομα ἐπιφέρομεν, Professor 
Smith asks: ‘ Isit possible fora relative 
clause with the simple ὅς and its verb 
in the indicative to express generality 
or specify a group of groups ?’ 

Certainly. Not only so, but ἄν with 
the subjunctive, which Professor Smith 
seems to desiderate, would have a 
different, and here totally inappropriate, 
meaning. There is no difference in 
point of generality between the indicative 
and the subjunctive: only the indica- 
tive assumes a fact, the subjunctive 
makes a hypothesis. ‘All S is P’ is in 
Greek, if S is ‘a fixed collection of 
groups,’ & ἐστιν &, and not at all ἅ ἂν 7. 
I do not wish to labour a point which 
almost any page of Plato or Aristotle 
would illustrate. I take a text at 
random. It happens to be the Ethics, 
and in the opening chapter I read ὧν 
δ᾽ εἰσὶ τέλη τινὰ παρὰ tas πράξεις, ἐν 
τούτοις βελτίω πέφυκε τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τὰ 
ἔργα. To appreciate the point let any- 
one contrast Plato Phaedo 75 D περὶ 
ἁπάντων οἷς ἐπισφραγιζόμεθα τὸ ὃ ἔστι 
with Plato Legg. 855 E τῶν δὲ ῥηθέντων 
ὅσα ἂν εἶναι καίρια δοκῇ. 

2. Professor Smith further doubts the 
translation of ταὐτὸν ὄνομα as ‘a com- 
mon name,’ which he thinks would 
rather be κοινὸν ὄνομα, and he suggests 
that it means ‘ the same name as before.’ 
This is wholly mistaken. See, for 
example, Plato Phaedo 103 E ἔστιν dpa 

. περὶ ἔνια τῶν τοιούτων, ὥστε μὴ 
μόνον αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος ἀξιοῦσθαι τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
ὀνόματος. . . ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλο τι, ὅ ἔστι 
μὲν οὐκ ἐκεῖνο, ἔχει δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μορφὴν 
ἀεὶ ὅτανπερ 7: Which is precisely paral- 
lel to the Republic passage and where 
no pedantry could suggest ‘the same 
name as before.’ The fact is that the 
‘common name’ is expressed indif- 
ferently by κοινόν, ἕν, ταὐτόν. 

To avoid misunderstanding I should 
note that, undér certain circumstances 
into which I cannot here enter, the use 
of & with the indicative tends to en- 
croach upon ἅ with ἄν and the subjunc- 
tive even in hypothetical generality. 
This is especially the case in sententiae 
and so in poetry, but is by no means 
confined to poetry. Soph. O. T. 1409 
ἀλλ᾽ ov yap αὐδᾶν ἔσθ’ ἃ μηδὲ δρᾶν 
καλόν. Aristotle Eth. N. I. 3 (1οορ4Ὁ) 


od \ 7, fa δ 
E€KACTOS δὲ KPLWEL καλως ὦ. γίγνώσ κει, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


precisely as Plato Afol. VI. ἃ μὴ οἶδα 
οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι. In all these cases 
ἅ with ἄν and the subjunctive would be 
possible: whereas in the passage of the 
Republic in question it would, in any 
appropriate sense, be inconceivable. 


A. W. Marr. 
Edinburgh University. 


THUCYDIDES TL 48.48. 


αὐτός τε νοσήσας Kal αὐτὸς ἰδὼν 
ἄλλους πάσχοντας. Discussed by 
Richards (C. Q. VII. 245), who proposed 
for the second αὐτός to read πολλούς, 
and by Rhys Roberts (C. Q. VIII. 16), 
who defends the text; lastly by Post- 
gate (Cl. Rev. XXVIII. [1914], p. 84) 
who proposes αὐτὸ ἰδών. 

Professor Rhys Roberts rightly de- 
fends the text. He might have made 
it a little clearer that αὐτὸς --ἰδών is an 
‘eye-witness,’ so that αὐτός in no way 
repeats the first αὐτός. 

Most of us are familiar, like Professor 
Postgate, with the curious Thucydidean 
use of αὐτό in general reference : But— 

I. Its position here would be in- 
tolerable. 

2. αὐτὸ. .. πάσχοντας is not Greek 
for ταύτην τὴν νόσον νοσοῦντας. 

3. πάσχοντας is precisely right. As 
ὁ παθών means the ‘victim,’ so 6 πάσ- 
χων means the ‘patient.’ I need not 
accumulate examples—e.g. Plato Re- 
public 410 A τοὺς μὲν εὐφυεῖς. 
θεραπεύσουσι, τοὺς δὲ μή. . . ἀποθνήσ- 
κειν ἐάσουσι, τοὺς δε κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν 
κακοφυεῖς καὶ ἀνιάτους αὐτοὶ ἀποκτε- 
νοῦσιν; To γοῦν ἄριστον, ἔφη, αὐτοῖς τε 
τοῖς πάσχουσι καὶ τῇ πόλει οὕτω 
πέφανται: which is just the use in 
Thucydides. 


A. W. MArr. 
Edinburgh University. 


VIKGILSAEN. VIII. go: 

Ergo iter inceptum celerant rumore secundo. 
Labitur uncta vadis abies ; mirantur et undae. 

CONINGTON’S note says ‘rumore 
secundo’ is rightly taken by Cerda to 
mean the cheering of the crews. But 
was it a time for ‘prosperous cries’ 
(Mackail), or even for ‘the cheerful 
strain of the rowers’ chant’ (A. Sidg- 
wick)? “War has ‘broken ‘out, all 
Latium is ablaze; Aeneas is hurrying to 


MEE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


get assistance, first from Evander, then 
wherever else he can. He must row his 
two biremes quickly up the river to 
Pallanteum, without advertising his 
whereabouts to alland sundry any more 
than need be. The editors tell us that 
line go was already a puzzle in the time 
of Servius, who mentions with appro- 
bation the reading ‘vwmone secundo’ 
—Rumo being, he says, an old name for 
the Tiber. Ti. Donatus fancied that 
yumor meant the noise of the waters. 
That is to say, the ancient commenta- 
tors didn’t know what to make of 
yumore secundo. But in Mosella 22 
Ausonius has ‘amoena fluenta | subter- 
labentis tacito rumore Mosellae.’ That 
is to say, Ausonius took rumore in Aen. 
8. go to mean the rushing flow of water. 
In this instance the poet is better inter- 
preted by the poet than by the com- 
mentator. Rumore here means ‘ with 
flow of waters.’ But why then secundo ? 
Father Tiber has smoothed his waters 
for Aeneas; but Aeneasis still voyaging 
up-stream, not down. Therefore secundo 
here must mean ‘second’ ‘next after’ 
‘astern. Who put the full-stop at 
secundo? Not Vergil, I suspect, but 
some librarius, some more or less 
modern editor. The stop should be at 
celevant, and not a full-stop even there, 
for vumore secundo, ablative absolute, 
goes mainly indeed with labitur of gi— 
, glides on, with rush of waters in the 
wake ’—but also connects quite closely 
with celerant of go: the waters ‘swept 
behind ; so quick the run’ (Tennyson, 
The Voyage, Stanza 2). 

Translate: ‘So then the voyage 
begun they quickly speed: with purling 
wake the well-pitched keel glides on the 
waters.’ 

E. J. Brooks. 


CICERO AD! ATL: VIL 4. 


Dionysius quidem tuus potius quam noster, 
culus ego cum satis cognossem mores, tuo tamen 
potius stabam iudicio quam meo, ne tui quidem 
 destimonii, quod ei saepe apud me dederas, 
veri/us superbum se praebuit in fortuna, quam 
putavit nostram fore. 


Tue difficulty in this passage is the 
use of ‘ vereri’ with the genitive. 
In Tyrrell’s edition, Cicero in his 


171 


Letters, p. 252, Reid suggests that some 
word on which ‘testimonii’ depended 
has most likely dropped out, and 
remarks that possibly ‘verba’ has been 
lost before ‘ veritus.’ 

The present writer suggests the in- 
sertion of ‘ verttatem’ before ‘veritus,’ 
so that the passage would read: 


ne tui quidem testimonii. . 
tOSie 
The jingle in ‘ veritatem veritus’ is not 
difficult to ‘parallel in Latin. The 
following instances may be given: 
Cicero : 
(2) Judices, quos fames magis quam fama 
commovit (4¢z. IV. 15). 
(0) Facie magis quam facetiis ridiculus (A7Zz.° 
Taig 2 
(c) Moles molestiarum (De Ογαΐ. I. ὃ 2). 
(4) Pleniore ore (Ve Of. τ. 18. 61). 
(e) Ciceroni in Epistulis excidit, mihi res 
invisae visae sunt, Brute (4d Brutum). 
Terence: 
(7) Inceptiost amentium haud amantium 
(Andria, 1. 3. 13). 
Plautus : 
(5) Hodie hunc dolum dolamus (7711. Gi. 


3. 3- 64). 


. veritatem veri- 


Livy: 
(x) Oneratus magis quam honoratus (27. 
_ 30. 4). 
Lucretius: 
(2) Penitus penetralia (I. 529). 
Also : 
(7) Acer acerbus. 
(4) Non honos est sed onus. 
M. KEAN. 
Collegiate School, 
Liverpool. 


TEL Yu Xe a6te: 


Aversis auribus animisque Cassae ne tempus 
terrerentur ferrum quosdam expedientes cerne- 
bat tum omissis pro se precibus puellis ut 
saltem parcerent orare institit. 

Tuis is the reading of P. Some later 
MSS. have tereretur for terrerentur. It 
is generally agreed that the last syllable 
of this word conceals the wt which 
seems to be required with cernebat. 
The editors rewrite the sentence in 
various ways, but none of them make 
anything satisfactory out of cassae. I 
believe that cassae is the mutilated relic 
of imcassum: with this alteration and 
the generally accepted adoption of 
terevet ut and the easy omission of tum 
between cernebat and omussis a reason- 
able sentence results: ‘On their turning 
a deaf ear to her entreaties, to avoid 


172 


fruitless waste of time, when she saw 
some of them drawing their swords, 
she ceased to plead for herself and 
implored them at least to spare her 


young 
redundancy of incassum ne tempus tererct 
cp. X. 29” vana incassum tactare tela. 


THE CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 


daughters.’ For the slight 


A. G. PESKETT. 


REVIEWS 
DE PLUTARCHO SCRIPTORE ET PHILOSOPHO. 


De Plutaycho Scriptore et Philosopho 
Scripsit J. J. Hartman, Lit.Hum. 
Dr. in Universitate Lugduno- Batava, 
Professor Ordinarius Lugduni Bata- 
yorum: }/')\Octavoe:))/'Onel μοὶ: Bp. 
ΧΙ 600, Leyden: E.\J./ Brill, 1976: 


On January 12, 1807, an explosion on 
a barge in the river at Leyden caused 
the pen to drop from the hand of David 
Wyttenbach, when his continuous 
commentary on the Moralia of Plutarch 
had nearly reached the end of the 
De E apud Delphos (p.392 D). Wytten- 
bach has described the incident in 
several letters; the pen was never 
resumed for Plutarch, unless to add to 
the Index Graecitatis, which appeared 
in 1821, a year after the author’s death. 
He had already (1795-1800) completed 
the laborious task undertaken in 1788 
for the Oxford University Press, by the 
completion, under difficulties caused 
by the European War, of a complete 
text, with revised Latin translation and 
critical notes. He had also, in 1772, 
brought out a detailed commentary on 
the De sera numinis vindicta, which 
was reprinted at Oxford in the last 
volume of the general commentary 
(1821). In Wyttenbach’s own judg- 
ment, this was a work more suited to 
his power than that larger undertaking, 
intended to cover the whole of Plu- 
tarch’s works. 

In the century which has intervened 
much has been excellently written cn 
Plutarch the man and the moralist. 
On the literary and philological side of 
his works as a whole there has been 
little to help, with the exception of 
Volkmann’s study on the life and 
writings (1869), which is philosophical 
in scope, but includes a very careful 
study as to date and authenticity, of all 


the principal pieces of the Moralia, 
and the Teubner text (1888-1896). 
There has been nothing of the complete- 
ness of Professor Hartman’s present 
volume, which supplies ἃ detailed 
estimate of each piece in itself, and in 
relation to Plutarch’s life and other 
works, not omitting the Lives, and 
several pages of critical notes on each. 
M. Hartman is an enthusiast, and 
views his author in relation to modern 
ideals and to the personalities which 
are most alive for himself. Besides 
papers, literary and critical, which have 
appeared in Mnemosyne, he has written 
much in the vernacular on Plutarch, 
and has translated many of his works. 
His new book, and especially the 
Epilogus, which he charges his readers 
to take up first, may be taken to be a 
recapitulation or revision of the sub- 
stance of De Avondzon des Hetdendoms 
(2 vols., Leyden, 1910), now served up 
for the benefit of the residuum ‘ qui 
Belgice nescimus,’ and will be heartily 
welcomed. The author writes the 
sound and attractive Latin which we 
expect from a pupil of Cobet, and a 
successor to the traditions of Hemster- 
huys, Ruhnken, and Wyttenbach. 

We have in the Moralia a tangled 
mass of writings of different authenticity 
and value—eighty-three pieces in all, 
besides fragments. Many readers will 
be content with Montaigne’s method, 
which was that of the Danaids, to dip, 
and throw to waste, and dip again. It 
was recommended to him by Plutarch’s 
light touch, the liberality with which 
he suggests a train of thought and 
passes on. The intrinsic importance 
of some of the dialogues and the charm 
of the author set us seeking for a more 
definite clue, if one is to be found. 
We look to chronology, but it is just 


WHE CLASSICAL .REVIEW 


here that there is little to help us. It 
is agreed that Plutarch was born about 
A.D. 50, and was living about A.D. 125, 
but within those limits little can be 
stated as definite fact. It is agreed 
also that the Lives, as a whole, were 
written at Chaeronea and in later life, 
in the main after the Moralia were 
complete. A few pieces supply their 
own date. The De tranquillitate animti 
must, as Dr. Mahaffy has pointed out, 
be earlier than the death of Vespasian, 
because it contains a remark that no 
Roman emperor had so far been suc- 
ceeded by his son. So the De sera 
nunuinis vindicta must be later than 
that event. Such indications are 
surprisingly few in so discursive and 
unreserved a writer; they are fewest 
when he writes most at his ease, in the 
Symipostacs. 

Volkmann haslooked to philosophical 
content fora clue. Professor Hartman 
has found one in the conception of 
Plutarch as a ‘ Physician of the Soul’ 
(‘mentium medicus’). The phrase is 
used by Plutarch himself in the De 
tranquillitate animi, but the metaphor is 
of course much older. It has been 
applied to him by M. Charles Léveque 
in an article which appeared in the 
Revue des Deux Mondes of 1867 (vol. 71, 
p- 725), being a review of M. Gréard’s 
work De la morale de Plutarque, inspired 
by a recent visit to Boeotia, a sympa- 
thetic and beautiful study. M. Gréard 
had shown in his concluding chapter 
that Plutarch’s lofty morality stopped 
at the individual, and did not rise to the 
larger conceptions of the later Stoics or 
of Christianity. M. Lévéque finds in 
him a moralist born, with an unfailing 
tact in discerning and treating the 
infirmities of other men, which he 
applied to the amelioration of his own 
courtrymen in an age of decadence 
(M. Hartman will not allow that phrase 
to pass, see p. 661), by reawakening in 
them the triple sense of domestic 
virtue, of patriotism, and of religion. 
M. Hartman adopts the formula and 
gives it a somewhat concrete applica- 
tion; it becomes a nucleus about which 
the scanty records of Plutarch’s life take 
form and substance, and the works fall 
into areasonable order. The definition 
is made to cover several vocations; 


173 


those of schoolmaster, tutor of resident 
pupils, family adviser and referee, and 
composer of manuals to meet special 
moral needs. Nor were these services 
gratuitous; we are to think of the 
young Boeotian as making his way 
among other Greeks who reached the 
capital, and were rewarded by the 
liberality of leading Romans, whether 
directly given, or by facilities for profit- 
able publication, rather than as the 
amateur member of a wealthy family to 
whom professional gains were matter 
of indifference. 

The sketch which is presented to us 
of Plutarch’s career is stated with much 
conviction, somewhat as follows: 

He was born at Chaeronea in A.D. 47, 
and, after spending parts of his youth at 
Athens and in general travel, reached 
Rome at the age of thirty, and stayed 
there till he was forty-five (A.D. 77-92), 
with the exception of a short return 
to his home about the year 80. Soon 
after his arrival he brought himself 
under the notice of leading Romans by 
lectures of a ‘ sophistical’ type, of which 
the De fortuna Romanoruwm and the De 
Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute 
are specimens. When he returned to 
Chaeronea for good, he left behind him 
in Rome a school, or institution, of 
which his brother Timon remained as 
president. Timon’s wife Aristylla (to 
be identified with the Arionylla of Pliny 
(Ep. I. 5) was the friend and corre- 
spondent of Plutarch’s Timoxena. At 
Chaeronea Plutarch devoted himself to 
study, especially that of the Roman 
language and literature, and composi- 
tion. He also undertook municipal 
duties, and became a-priest of the 
temple at Delphi, probably as a suc- 
cessor to his close friend Theon, with 
whom he had co-operated in the work 
of restoration and endowment. It was 
no period of decadence, indeed pro- 
vincial life was in its golden age under 
the emperors of the later first century. 
Plutarch had never heard of a bad 
emperor Tiberius or a bad emperor 
Domitian (p. 489 ff.). The few refer- 
ences to these emperors are enume- 
rated, but one mention of Domitian 
(Vit. Publicolae c. 15), which shows 
little reverence for his memory, is not 
‘among them. 


174 


M. Hartman offers an interesting ad- 
dition to our knowledge of Plutarch’s 
family circle. We hear much of his 
grandfather, his two brothers, and his 
sons, but little of his father, who is not 
mentioned by name. We knowthat he 
was a sportsman, the owner of winning 
horses, with no taste for discussions on 
etymology, with a habit of offering the 
sacrifice at the family meal, and a pre- 
ference for an orderly arrangement of 
places, and that on one occasion he 
gave his son a piece of shrewd advice 
worthy of a place in Bacon’s Georgic of 
the Mind or Sir Henry Taylor’s States- 
man. We are now told that his name 
was Autobulus, which was borne by one 
of Plutarch’s sons. An Autobulus is a 
speaker in the Azatorius, whom M. 
Hartman would like to identify with the 
son; at any rate it cannot be the father. 
An Autobulus takes part in the pre- 
liminary dialogue of the De sollertia 
animalium, and denounces, somewhat 
in the vein of Lucian, the Stoic doctrine 
that a sharp line is to be drawn between 
man and the other animals, and that 
man has no duties towards his fellow- 
creatures. This Autobulus speaks of 
himself as passionately fond of sport, 
and mentions a son who is a Platonist, 
and has found a new method of exposi- 
tion. Why may not this Autobulus be 
the father, and Plutarch the son ? 
Having raised the question, M. Hart- 
man inserts the name in the family tree 
and challenges contradiction. A diffi- 
culty is that an Autobulus is associated 
with Soclarus, apparently a friend of 
Plutarch’s own age, in both the dialogues 
named. If this Autobulus be really 
Plutarch’s father, it is a pity that we 
have not more discourses by one who 
could argue so well. 

Which pieces among the eighty- 
three may we leave out of account as 
spurious? M. Bernardakis has starred 
fifteen in his first six volumes. As to 
most of these Volkmann and M. Hart- 
man agree. They agree in approv- 
ing Wyttenbach’s elaborate argument 
against the De liberis educandis, and 
agree in thinking his judgment of the 
Consolatio ad Apollontum much too 
favourable. M. Hartman will not hear 
of any doubts as to the Septem sapien- 
tium convivium, rejected by Volkmann, 


THE CLASSICAL: REVIEW 


and does not refer to the obzter dictum 
of Erasmus touching the De sera 
numinmis vindicta. He would himself 
reject the De Exsilio, and perhaps 
the De amore prolis. He defends the 
De vitando aere alieno in a vigorous 
argument, and also the De malignitate 
Herodoti. He justifies Plutarch’s ap- 
parent want of sympathy with the great 
historian, on the ground that con- 
temporary writers were following his 
lead in decrying Boeotia, and that there 
is in Herodotus a ‘levity’ to which he 
himself finds a counterpart in Ovid. 

The criteria may be thus stated : 

1. The final test of spuriousness is 
the feeling of those long conversant 
with the author. 

2. No external test, such as that 
of ‘hiatus,’ is of certain application. 
Plutarch has derided excessive scrupu- 
lousness in avoiding the concurrence of 
vowels, but he is usually careful to avoid 
it himself, and cases of neglect of the 
rule are mostly found in works which 
are otherwise under suspicion. But 
this cannot be erected into an absolute 
law, least of all as applied to ‘collec- 
tions’ made for future use. 

3. Any work of intrinsic merit comes 
from the writer under whose name it 
passes, since no one would have allowed 
such a work of his own to go abroad 
‘wanting a head.’ 

4. In almost all works ascribed to 
Plutarch there is much which is 
Plutarch’s. This principle may be ap- 
plied to the Lives of the Orators, or to 
the Placita Philosophorum, as to which 
important work our author has a word 
to say in rejoinder upon H. Diels. 

' An instance of the application of these 
principles will be found in the defence 
of the second treatise on the De vita et 
poest Homeri (for the first so entitled is 
felt to be spurious). The author’s 
learning (a favourite point of M. Hart- 
man’s) is shown by his correct appre- 
ciation of Homeric words, and by his 
quoting a line so as to give its true 
value to the digamma (which Aris- 
tarchus had failed to do). Then there 
is sound sense in his grasp of the plot of 
the Iliad. Altogether the work is too 
good to have been allowed to pass under 
any name but that of its real author. 
Volkmann’s arguments on the other 


- 


HE! CLASSICAL “REVIEW 


side are considered seriatim. To that 
drawn from style M. Hartman, with his 
usual fairness, capitulates, so far as to 
agree to the modified verdict that the 
treatise is not Plutarch’s 77) «ts present 
form, but contains matter which is 
thoroughly Plutarchian, provided that the 
significant words be duly stressed. 

The order in which pieces are ar- 
ranged is not wholly fortuitous. It may 
be due to Plutarch himself that we have 
the De superstitione following the Con- 
vivium, as a corrective to views about 
the miraculous. 
the De amore prolis finds a place after the 
De fraterno amore upon a _ hasty as- 
sumption that the contents were homo- 
geneous. The three pieces, two long 
and a shorter one, against the Stoics 
balance a like set of three against the 
Epicureans. The three ‘Delphic 
Dialogues ’ were written about the same 
time and form a series. 

Lucianic character has been already 
noticed in the De sollertia animalium, 
and,it is very striking in the little 
Grylius which follows it. 

The detached notes on points of text 
which follow the general introduction to 
each piece are a very valuable part of 
the volume. There is much difficulty 
in the manuscript text of the Moralia, 
which varies greatly in different pieces, 
and reaches its climax in the De [5146 et 
Osirvide and the De facie. Where the 
matter is outside the knowledge of the 
copyist he is content to leave a gap, or 
to write in some commonplace words. 
Wyttenbach has shown insight and 
good sense in seeing through the ob- 
scurity, and often recasts a sentence in 
the critical notes, embodying the result 
in his revised translation. M. Hartman 
starts with the Teubner text; he often 
complains that the editor might have 
shown greater boldness in placing in the 
text emendations which he mentions 
as suggested by Reiske or Wyttenbach, 
or by Emperius, who is spoken of as a 
Reiske come to life again, or by himself. 
M. Hartman’s own corrections often 
take the form of an omission of words 
which clog or obscure the sense, or of a 
plausible transposition ; but we must 
thank him at the outset for the admir- 
able caivovtos for θανόντος, of the dog 
Argus (457 A), where there is a vera 


On the cther hand, 


175 


causa for the copyist’s blunder in his 
ignorance of Homer. Every note 
touches a real point, and all should re- 
ceive the careful attention of any future 
editor. Whether any particular sug- 
gestion is to be adopted into the text 
must be settled by the conscience of the 
editor, in view of the ascertained habits 
of the copyist. 

The late lamented Herbert Richards 
contributed to the Classical Review 
(Vols. XXVIII. and XXIX.) a series of 
critical notes, not nearly so numerous 
as those of M. Hartman to the Moralia, 
extending to 602 B. Vol. XXVIII. 
contains also a valuable paper by M. 
J: H. W. Strijd on the De Pythae 
ovaculis; and for the three Pythian 
Dialogues we are assisted by Mr. W. R. 
Paton’s critical edition. It would be 
too much to expect a frequent con- 
sensus of these eminent scholars as to 
the passages treated or the mode of 
treatment; it would carry great weight 
wherever it existed. Richards speaks 
with approval of M. Hartman’s very 
attractive ὁποῖός κα ins (for καθίσης) in 
243 Ὁ, known to him through Mnemosyne. 
The point taken by himself on 397 B, 
and supported by a weighty argument, 
has not elicited a comment from the 
others. 

If a few scattered passages may be 
mentioned where an editor might per- 
haps wisely leave well alone, it is done 
merely in the cause of an academic 
ἐποχή: it is a great help, in all cases, 
that the point should have been raised : 

397 Ο: καθόλου δ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ὑμᾶς τοὺς τοῦ Ἔπι- 
κούρου προφήτας (δῆλος γὰρ εἶ καὶ αὐτὸς ὑποφερό- 
μενος) οὐκ ἔστι διαφυγεῖν. 

M. Hartman writes: ‘sensu cassa haec: 
insere ἐκεῖσε post αὐτός, aptissimam habetis 
hanc sententiam : apparet te quoque ad illam 
delabi philosophiam.’ M. Strijd would strike 
out καὶ αὐτὸς as inappropriate, and substitute 
πρὸς αὐτούς. Now Wyttenbach’s Index renders 
ὑποφέρεσθαι by ‘labascere in vitium,’ with three 
instances from the Moralza (the first is 72 C), 
where the verb is used absolutely, and so else- 
where, ¢.g. in medical writers. Here it is 
surely more telling, and more in keeping with 
the character of Boethus, and with the tone of 
Theon’s appeal to him, to say: ‘They are all 
Epicureans now; why, you yourself are on the 
downward trend,’ then to add the logical, but 
unneeded, ‘ towards the Epicureans.’ 

[In Sympos. V.2 Boethus is ‘the Epicurean’ 
simply; from which M. Hartman elsewhere 
infers, quite fairly, a relatively late date for the 
Symposiacs.| 


176 


So above, 397 B: ἡμεῖς δὲ, ὦ Bonde, κἂν 
φαυλότερα τοῦ Ὃμήρου ταῦτα τὰ ἔπη, μὴ νομίζωμεν 
αὐτὰ πεποιηκέναι τὸν θεόν. Wyttenbach would 
insert κἂν βελτιόνα, Mr. Paton κομψότεραι, after 
φαυλότερα ; the Teubner editor would prefer to 
read κἂν ἢ κἂν μὴ ἢ, M. Strijd κἂν 7 simply. 
Μ. Hartman remarks: ‘Rectissime B. κἂν 
μὴ ἢ, non enim periculum est ne mali sed ne 
egregil versus a deo facti videantur.’ Is not 
Theon’s tone of quiet irony best maintained if the 
text is left unchanged? Even if the verses are 
below the standard of Homer, it does not follow 
that the god is the axzthor (of the worthless 
verses). The appeal to handwriting which 
follows is parallel. 

555 D: καὶ γὰρ εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο φαίη τις ἂν ἐν 
τῷ βίῳ καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ ὑπάρχειν κακόν. .. 
‘Dirum soloecismum removit Naberus ἐν pro 
ἂν legendo.’ This appears to be a normal case 
of ἂν in the protasis, where the protasis is itself 
the apodosis of an incomplete hypothetical sen- 
tence, as in Plato Proz. 329 B. See Goodwin, 
M. aud Τ᾿. 5. 506. 


575 E: ἡμεῖς δὲ παρὰ Atow τὸν ἱερὸν σπουδά- 
ζοντες οὕτω διεφάνημεν. So the Teubner editor 
from an admirable emendation of C. F. Her- 
mann, for which he gives no reference (it does 
not appear to be in that scholar’s collected 
papers). M. Hartman finds the intended mean- 
ing obscure; is it not, like παρὰ Σωκράτη τὸν 
ὑμέτερον above, ‘on account of Lysis’? The 
Thesaurus recognises παρὰ as equivalent to διὰ, 
and the Lexicon of Bonitz has many Aristotelian 
instances. An English vulgarism, ‘I have had 
trouble enough along of you,’ suggests a 
parallel. M. Hartman says above that Archi- 
damus was a Spartan, but Capheisias is speak- 
ing at Athens and to an audience mainly 
Athenian. 


579 C: Plato had said that δυεῖν μέσων 
ἀνάλογον λῆψιν was a task for a highly trained 
geometrician. This appears to be regular 
Greek for ‘the finding of two mean propor- 
tionals’ between two terms, here 1 and 2 
(1:@::@:6::6:2); δ 718 F and the Vita 
Marcellt, c. 14. 


563 D: Aridaeus asks εἰ βέλτιον βιώσεται τὸν 
ἐπίλοιπον βίον. The answer is ὅτι πράξει βέλτιον 
ὅταν ἀποθάνῃ. Certainly the verbs had better 
change places. But a delicate question arises. 
Is it the copyist who intermixed them, or is it 
Plutarch himself, and, if so, may we, without 
impertinence, correct him under cover of cor- 
recting his copyist? Again, in 813 E, καὶ 
βλέπειν ἀπὸ τοῦ στρατηγίου πρὸς τὸ βῆμα. Kallt- 
wasser emends ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος πρὸς τὸ στρα- 
τήγιον, Whick must be what Plutarch meant to 
write. But did he write it ? 

M. Hartman is always careful in his acknow- 
ledgments, and will wish it to be pointed out 
that his excellent suggestion of σκιάμαχοι in 
741 Cis to be found (ai τοιαῦται σκιαμαχίαι) in 
Wyttenbach’s note. 


Turning from Plutarch the writer to 
Plutarch the philosopher, we have seen 
that he deals equal measure ‘to the 


THE CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW . 


Stoics and the Epicureans, but he deals 
it with a difference. He has little fault 
to find with the Stoic tenets, unless e.g. 
where he, as an animal-lover, finds 
them hard and repulsive, but he cannot 
abide the Stoics. He hates the 
Epicurean system, its denial of a 
Providence, and the rank hedonism 
associated with it, but he likes many 
Epicureans, and is aware that they have 
brought grace and cheerfulness into 
life. He was himself an Academic, of 
the pattern which was at once the 
oldest and the newest, that of Plato 
himself as revived by Antiochus of 
Ascalon (Vita Luculli c. 42). He was 
himself recognised as the highest living 
authority on Plato, whose works he 
knew so well that he could venture a 
negative statement, with a wealth of 
positive knowledge behind it: ‘ Plato 
has nowhere written that God geome- 
trises’ (718 C sup. 389). More than 
this, his aim is to be the Plato of his 
own day. In one instance he has over- 
done his part by introducing a Platonic 
myth into the De sera numinis vindicta. 
This is true criticism; the reader does 
not, as he reads, see the details des- 
cribed, and the myth lacks the noble 
severity of that in the Gorgias. It 
might perhaps be fairer to Plutarch to 
look to the ingenious and interesting 
myth in the De facie or to that in the 
De genio Socratis. In all his philosophy 
Plutarch looked first to edification ; 
on the subject of the Antipodes he 
may have exercised a curious economy, 
not wholly disbelieving, but afraid of 
the possible shock to people of weak 
nerves (p. 560). 

Diroco¢ias τέλος θεολογία. The words 
are spoken by Cleombrotus the Lace- 
daemonian (410 A), a man of ample 
means and an enquiring spirit, and may 
be taken as coming from Plutarch him- 
self. In a kindred phrase, borrowed 
from Menander, Philosophy is the 
‘Mystagogue of Life, who stands by a 
man at his Initiation (765 A). This 
mystagogue assisted Plutarch in the 
grim details of the De Iside et Osiride, 
hard writing, as is truly remarked, and 
hard reading. The term is admirably 
developed in the eighth and following 
chapters of Mr. John Oakesmith’s, The 
Religion of Plutarch. That religion 


THE (CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 


nowhere finds finer expression than in 
the fragment De anima, preserved by 
Stobaeus under the name of Themistius, 
but rescued for Plutarch by Wytten- 
bach. It bears a close relation to the 
De sera numinis vindicta, the speakers 
being the same. ‘In a_ beautiful 
passage,’ writes Mr. Oakesmith (p. 118) 
‘Timon compares death to initiation 
into the Great Mysteries—an initiation 
in which gloom and weariness and 
perplexity and terror are followed by 
the shining of a wondrous light, which 
beams on lovely meadows, whose 
atmosphere resounds with sacred voices, 
that teil us all the secret of the mystery, 
and whose paths are trod by pure and 
holy men. Timon concludes with 
Heraclitus that, if the soul became 
assuredly convinced of the fate awaiting 
it hereafter, no power would be able to 
restrain it on earth.’ 

‘Si usquam,’ writes M. Hartman 
(p. 685), ‘ hic ipsum Plutarchum agnos- 
cimus, illius Ammonii discipulum qui 
litterae E Delphicae praeclaram illam, 
ne Christianis quidem indignandam, 
dederit explicationem.’ He refers to 
the glowing confession of the unity and 
permanence of God, specifically of the 
Apollo of Delphi, in contrast with the 
ephemeral condition of man (p. 392 A). 
He finds a parallel in history for this 
fine outburst. He never reads it, he 
tells us (p. 167), without recalling an in- 
cident at the Conference of Poissy, 1561. 
There the representative Reformers, 
headed by Th. Beza, met their opponents 
in the presence of the Queen-Mother 
and the Court. When admitted, before 
entering upon points of doctrine and 
discipline, they fell on their knees and 
recited a confession of profound 
humility, in a form already brought 
into use at Geneva by Calvin. How 
far the spirit of the two confessions 
agrees theologians will decide ; the com- 
parison is a strikingone. The incident 
is recorded by Beza himself in the first 
Volume of his History. 

In connexion with this fragment, two 
interesting points are raised, as to which 
we must ask a serious question. M. 
Hartman quotes the lines of Lucretius 
(III. 31-58), in which the poet refers 
not only the general enfeeblement of 
human life and the lowering of motives, 


177 


but also specific crimes, to the fear of 
death. Sellar mentions this as a diffi- 
culty (Roman Poets of the Republic, 
c. XIII.), and appears to give it up. As 
Thucydides, in his account of the plague 
at Athens, ascribes both neglect of 
duties and also positive misdoings to 
the fear of imminent death, is it possible 
that, if the end of the poem had reached 
us in a complete form, some clue would 
have been given? However that may 
be, is there really anything in this 
fragment to suggest the same train of 
thought? And again, does the thought 
of a self-sought death underlie the 
words quoted from Heraclitus, or those 
of Plutarch? The fragment is short 
and readily accessible, and the two 
questions may be left to readers. 

M. Hartman is clear (see p. 114) that 
Plutarch was wholly uninfluenced by 
Christian thought. Nor does he sug- 
gest, if we may venture a negative 
statement about so intricate a volume, 
that he gave any lead in the direction of 
Neoplatonism. 

We have in this volume an invaluable 
guide to all the works of the ‘ Mentium 
Medicus.’- M. Hartman’s own pre- 
ference is with those which convey a 
direct moral, with the Now posse and its 
attractive picture of the life of simple 
duty, the De vitando aere. alieno and its 
warning to a small municipality against 
overborrowing, with the De tranqwilli- 
tate animi and the De garrulitate; and 
it is just on these that the reader needs 
the helping hand of an enthusiast. We 
are grateful to M. Lévéque for the key 
phrase, and to M. Hartman for its de- 
velopment. It may not touch every 
side of the mental activity of this 
‘Boeotian Squire,’ as Dr. C. Bigg has 
called him, but it will help us to become 
familiar with his love of the Greeks, his 
admiration of the Romans, and his 
charitableness to all, with his en- 
lightened views about women, his de- 
light in animals, the cheerfulness of his 
religion, his recoil from pretence and 
unreality, and his occasional and ami- 
able inaccuracy. 

A short list of Errata is appended, but 
even a superficial reading shows that 
this must be multiplied many times. 
Most of the errors are trivial, and only 
affect the eye, though when ‘qui’ is 


=78 


printed for ‘quin’ (p. 389, 1. 15) or 
‘minor’ for ‘miror’ (p. 658, last line) 
the mind receives a slight check. In 
p- 502, 1. 10 from bottom, we should 
surely read ‘locus.’ Personal names 
are several times interchanged. In 
Ρ. 505, l. 4, Herodotus, and in p- 657, 
1. 19, Homer, seem to have ousted 
Plutarch himself. The name Autobulus 
is several times replaced by Aristobulus, 
and once (p. 458, l. 5) by Autolycus. 
These are small matters, but so excellent 
a book will no doubt be soon called for 
again, perhaps in a time of less stress 
than the present, and an experienced 


THE. CLASSICAL: REVIEW 


press-reader could set them right in a 
day. He would callattention toa point 
of prosody on p. 285, 1]. 7 from bottom. 
The punctuation and numeral references 
are correct and careful throughout ; of 
the latter perhaps the only misleading 
instance is in the list of Errata itself, its 
first item should run ‘p. 15, l. 6.’ 

The tables and indices appended are 
very useful so far as they go; a fuller 
index, especially of persons as‘ Boethus,’ 
but also of subjects as ‘ Antipodes’ or 
‘suicidium,’ would be of greatassistance. 


A. O. PRICKARD. 


OBST’S DER FELDZUG DES XERXES. 


Der Feldzug des Xerxes. Von E. OBsT. 
Klio. Zwolftes Beiheft. 1913. 


A SURVEY of the whole evidence for the 
Persian War in the light of modern 
criticism would certainly be welcome. 
It is now sixteen years since Dr. 
Grundy’s book appeared, and much has 
been done in the interval. Hence Obst’s 
book seemed likely to be useful, although 
some of his previous contributions to 
Herodotean criticism (as to the account 
of the hippopotamus in Klio XIV., and 
as to the Scythian Bridge) were the 
reverse of happy. 

He has certainly studied the works 
of his predecessors, and has paid well- 
deserved respect to the contributions of 
English scholars (with one important 
exception to be mentioned later); not 
only Dr. Grundy and Dr. Macan’s big 
books, but Mr. Munro’s articles in the 
Journal of Hellenic Studies are constantly 
quoted. 

But it must be said at once that his 
work is most disappointing, and that 
from his 218 large pages, it is only here 
and there that any thing of value can 
be gained. As specimens of new points 
may be mentioned an ingenious conjec-. 
ture as to the Aeginetan contingent 
(Hdt. VIII. 46, pp. 70, 71) and the 
suggestion as to Sciathus, p. 96. 

It would be unfair to expect of him 
any contribution to History in the wide 
sense; his aim is ‘ Quellenforschung.’ 


But it may be remarked that his his- 
toical insight into a situation can be 
gauged from his remark about the 
pathetic story of Thersander (Hdt. IX. 
16), ‘Der heulende Reiser ist eine gar 
zu komische Figur’ (p. 180), and his 
power of gauging probability from the 
fact that he believes that Xerxes’ project 
of a mole from the mainland to Salamis 
was a serious operation (pp. 15, 154). 

His treatise must be judged, how- 
ever, as a criticism of our evidence in 
detail, and especially of that of Herod- 
otus. It may be said at once that his 
arrangement is very unfortunate. He 
begins with a sketch of the whole cam- 
paign (twenty-four pages), which in 
some places can only be understood by 
a reference to the later sections (this at 
least was my own experience), and 
follows this with ten pages of ‘Quellen- 
abriss.’ All the points in these thirty- 
four pages, 7.6. nearly a sixth of the 
whole book, might either have been 
taken for granted, or worked in later— 
as in fact many of them are. 

Even as a criticism of the evidence 
Herr Obst’s book is very unsatisfactory. 
His two main aims seem to be to show 
how much Herodotus is indebted to a 
supposed ‘ schriftliche Vorlage,’ and to 
vindicate the value of the later authori- 
ties—e.g. of Diodorus, Plutarch, and 
even Ctesias—against Herodotus. 

With regard to the first point (for the 
‘ Vorlage’ we may refer to pp. 58-60, 


THE, CLASSICAL) REV IENV 


134), he has of course been antici- 
pated by, otherse.2. by EE.’ Meyer 
(Forsch. II. 23-2). Special importance 
is attached by Obst to it for the section 
dealing with Xerxes’ march (Hdt. VII. 
26-132). But elsewhere he continually 
refers to ‘ Vorlagen,’ which were common 
to Herodotus and to Ephorus (e.g. 
p. 55 as to the march to Tempe). He 
never attempts, however, to deal with 
the real difficulty as to these sugges- 
tions. What were these ‘ Vorlagen,’ 
which survived so long, to which Hero- 
dotus owed his excellence, and to which 
his additions are ‘ worthless’? A pas- 
sage on p. 98 may be quoted as typical 
of Obst’s method: ‘The clearness of 
the geographical information and the 
description of the weather and the 
storm is excellent, so that the whole 
chapter may be assigned to the “ Vor- 
lage”; in VII. 189-191 the worthless 
tradition begins again.’ 

It is difficult to believe in excellent 
written authorities which survived to 
the next century, and which yet have 
left no trace in Greek literary history. 
Herodotus’s many ancient critics would 
surely have told us something as to 
these authentic sources if they had 
existed. 

With regard to the second point, 
Obst carries to an extreme the modern 
tendency to exaggerate the value of 
secondary sources. Grote’s history 
might have been thought to settle once 
for all the question between the ‘ good 
cloth’ of Herodotus and the ‘trans- 
parent gauze’ of Diodorus and Plutarch 
{to quote the phrases of, Jowett); but 
‘the methods of ‘ Quellenforschung,’ 
while they lead to mutually contradic- 
tory results, are supposed to have upset 
Grote’s common-sense methods. One 
instance only of Obst’s preference for 
later authorities can be quoted: Hero- 
dotus’s account of the battle of Mycale 
is dismissed as ‘ ein leeres, athenisches 
Phantasie-gebilde’ (p. 216), while that 
of Diodorus is accepted; and yet, as 
he himself says on the same page, that 
account (XI. 36) is made up of two 
hopelessly contradictory stories. To 
put it frankly, criticism on these lines 
is equally arbitrary and absurd. 

Another less prominent feature of 
Obst’s work is his fondness for cut- 


179 


ting out whole passages that seem to 
him improbable. The luxury of the 
Persian army train (Hdt. VII. 83) is 
made to be a mere invention of Hero- 
dotus, because it would ‘hinder’ and 
not ‘ facilitate mobility.’ It would do 
such critics of Herodotus good to study 
the accounts of Oriental armies in the 
field which have been given by English- 
men who have seen and conquered 
them. But has a German professor 
ever been known to quote this kind 
of authority? Still more bold is the 
excision of the whole story of the first 
mission of Sicinnus (pp. 140-I),and what 
is the most reckless of all, the denial of 
the encircling movement of the Persian 
fleet outside Salamis (pp. 150-1). This 
second fact, which is related by two 
contemporary authorities and which is 
denied by none, must have rested on 
the evidence of hundreds of eye- 
witnesses. Yet it has to go because it 
will not square with Obst’s theory of 
the Persian numbers. 

But such arbitrary methods of criti- 
cism are believed in by many; it is old- 
fashioned to question their value. It 
remains then to give evidence that Obst 
does not practise his own methods well. 
In the first place he does not show 
an adequate knowledge of his authori- 
ties; two instances may be given, one 
ancient, one modern. ‘The former is as 
to the Persian-Carthaginian alliance 
(pp. 40-1); he accepts it as a fact, but 
he never even refers to the evidence of 
Aristotle against it. The latter is as 
to the site of the Battle of Salamis; he 
accepts the old view that it was fought 
actually in the Bay, but has never 
heard apparently of Goodwin’s paper 
in the Journal of the American School of 
Athens, which proved almost conclu- 
sively that the old view was impossible. 
It certainly does not inspire a student 
with confidence in Obst’s knowledge of 
his authorities, when he is found quoting 
the inscription on the Corinthian dead 
at Salamis from Bury! In the second 
place his quotations always need verifi- 
cation; they are often incomplete or 
inaccurate. He quotes Grundy (p. 151) 
as saying that the Egyptian squadron 
at Salamis was too far off to take part 
in the fight; but he omits the other 
part of Grundy’s statement, that the 


180 


squadron completely barred the Greek 
retreat. He quotes E. Meyer as refuting 
the statement that the Athenians ‘ were 
very unpleasantly surprised’ that the 
Peloponnesians did not after Thermo- 
pylae meet Xerxes in Boeotia (p. 135) ; 
but what Meyer refutes is the idea that 
such strategy was wise or possible 
(G. des A. III. p. 384). He charges 
Herodotus with inconsistency in IX. 
cc. 99 and 107, because, having said 
the Milesians were posted on the heights 
at the time of Mycale, he yet allows 
the Persians to. escape over those 
heights ; but Herodotus in the later 
chapter expressly says that only ‘a few’ 
escaped (ἐόντων οὐ πολλῶν), which is 
exactly what his own narrative would 
lead us to expect. 

The above may serve as specimens of 
omission. The following examples of 
inaccuracy may be given. Obst says 
that Hydarnes was ‘ Feldherr,’ but not 
‘Befehishaber’ (presumably he means 
στρατηγός and ἄρχων) ; but though the 
usual words for Hydarnes are στρατηγός 
and otparnyéw, yet ἄρχω is used of his 
command in VII, 21z. 1. And Obst is 
absolutely without authority for making 
him ‘commander of the Asiatic coast 
peoples before the campaign.’ This is 
not only never stated, but is in itself 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


improbable. (These mistakes are made 
in an attempt to discredit what is 
probably the best method for estimating 
the numbers of Xerxes’ army, viz. the 
ingenious suggestion of Dr. Macan and 
Mr. Munro that it consisted of thirty 
corps of 10,000 each.) 

Again on p. 89, Hdt. VII. 40, 41, ar 
quoted to prove that the whole cavalry 
of Xerxes ‘at most numbered 12,000’; 
but Herodotus expressly says these 
12,000 were all ‘ Persians,’ pointedly. 
implying there were other contingents. 

On p. 139 Herodotus is not only 
misquoted but mistranslated. ‘The 
Greeks at Salamis ‘‘ waren nicht in 
sorgst um sich, sondern sorgten sich 
um den Peloponnes”’ is given as a 
rendering of VIII. 74 οὐχ οὕτω περὶ 
σφίσι αὐτοῖσι δειμαίνοντες ὡς περὶ TH 
I}. ; the omission of οὕτω ὡς completely 
alters the sense. 

The subject of the Persian Wars is 
one of perennial interest. It seemed 
worth while therefore to show in some 
detail the failure of this recent attempt 
to rewrite the history of them. The 
up-to-date summary which will com- 
bine respect for evidence and rational 
criticism has yet to be written. 


J. WELLS. 
Wadham College, Oxford. 


PATRISTIC AND: BIBLICAL (TRANSLATIONS, 


(1) The Treatise of Ivenaeus of Lugdu- 
num against the Heresies. A transla- 
tion of the principal passages, with 
notes and arguments, by F. R. Mont- 
GOMERY, HircHcocn,’ ΜΙΆ. 1D. D. 
(2) Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. 
Macrina. Translated by W. K. 
LOWTHER CLarKE, B.D. (3) The 
Wisdom of Ben-Sira. Translated 
by W.) 0.) “OnsTeriey, ΠΗ 
(1) Two vols. ; (2) one vol.; (3) one 


vol. .Pp: (2) 146, vol. iis τοι (2) 
79; (3) 148.0 © London) /S'PiG- it 
Ig16. (I) 2s. net per vol.; (2) Is. 


het; (3) 2s. 6d. net. 


Dr. MONTGOMERY HITCHCOCK’s two 
volumes are meant to serve, together 
with his previous work on Ivenaeus of 
Lugdunmum, as an introduction to the 
study of Irenaeus. They consist of 


extracts from the treatise Against the 
Heresies, linked up in many places by 
short summaries of the intervening 
passages. A general idea is thus given 
in brief compass of the whole treatise, 
and many readers will doubtless find 
these volumes useful, in spite of their 
necessarily scrappy character. As a 
work of scholarship, however, they are 
not satisfactory. The translation is 
free, at times to the point of being 
loose. Words, clauses, and even con- 
siderable sections of the original, are 
omitted without warning, so that what 
is left is often no more than a para- 
phrase. There are literally scores of 
inaccurate references to Irenaeus, the 
figures being usually not more than one 
or two out, though far enough to waste 
a great deal of the reader’s time if he 
attempts to compare text and transla- 


THE, CLASSICAL, REVIEW 


tion. Many Beek are given, some of 
them valuable, but not a few so 
obscurely written as to be very hard to 
understand (¢.g. 11.17,n. 1; li. 39, n. 1; 

{1 58.. Dit,2 and n. 4; where I Kings 
should be 1 Samuel for English readers, 
and calceamentum is wrongly spelt with 
ah 7/3) 11. OO, Ne Ber 68. N.'4)3, 11s 120, 
n.1). Other notes are spoilt by wrong 
or missing references (¢.g. 1. 70, n. 1; 
i. 81, n. 1; i. 86, n. 1, where Iren. iv. 34 
should be iv. 20; i. 117, n. 2, where 
Adv. Marc. 11. 17 should be ii. 17; 
i. 123, n. I, where Iren. ii. 13, 5 should 
SE ANG ah 1 ie GAM oa Oe 0 Ae ΖΘ. ΠῚ; 
where Judges Va) 20, should) θεν τα; 
i. 138, n. I, where Clem. Alex. Strom. 
ie TAZ should be RAS SW QO Π «de 
where the reference should be to Igna- 
tius ad Rom. iv., as shown by Eus. 
A H... ins, 36): 
there are inaccurate references, even to 
the Scriptures (e.g. i. 70, Mark xiii. 13, 
ΘΠ. ters Cori νὰ ἘΠ for me EU 
ee Acts, xvin 3h far ae. i more, 
where -for English readers Dan. xiv. 
should be Bel and the Dragoni.). In 
i. 57, ‘who ignore God’ (ignorantibus 
Deum) should be ‘who are ignorant of 
God,’ as the same phrase is translated 
on the previous page; i. 71, ‘ dissolved 
in matter’ (corpora in materiam resoluta) 
should be ‘resolved into matter’; in 
i. 78 and ii. 44, ‘conversed with’ or 
‘held converse with’ for conversatus 
cum... (which renders the Greek 
συναναστρέφεσθαι, and means ‘dwell 
among’), gives a wrong impression, if 
not a positively wrong meaning, in 
English; in the quotation from Plato 
(Laws iv. pp. 715e-716a) in i. 146 the 
phrase et Deus quidem, quemadmodum et 
vetus sermo est, stands for ὁ μὲν δὴ Θεός, 
ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, and should be 
rendered ‘God, as the ancient saying 
has it,’ not ‘God, as He is the ancient 
Word.’ The Latin translator, to whom 
we owe most of our text of Irenaeus, 
may have misunderstood the phrase, 
but a glance at Justin Martyr, Cohor. ad 
Graec. xxv. (where the ‘ ancient saying’ 
is said to mean the law of Moses), 
shows that the Christian Fathers inter- 
preted it rightly. In iu. 45- -6 percipiunt 
does not mean ‘ perceive,’ but ‘ partake 
of,’ a fact which the Greek (μετέχουσι), 

extant in this passage, makes clear. 


In the translation also’' 


181 


‘Rhine’ is given for ‘ Rhone’ in 1. 33; 
‘Lord of God’ for ‘Lord of all’ in 
i; Too: “the Sony of) God? ini i933 
should be ‘a son of God,’ as the Greek 
shows; and in 11. 83, ‘ How can one be 
God? .. .’ should be ‘a god’; instead 
of ‘ given,’ in i. 136, read ‘forgiven’; in 
ii. 95 ‘Almighty’ is too strong for 
δυνατός, which would be better repre- 
sented by ‘mighty’ or ‘ powerful.’ The 
foregoing examples, to which others 
could be added, are enough to show 
that for the serious study of Irenaeus 
these volumes will need to be used with 
caution. 

The Life of St. Macrina was written 
by one of her brothers, Gregory, Bishop 
of Nyssa, and is a touching tribute to 
an honoured sister. Her eldest brother 
was Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, 
in Cappadocia, from 370 to 378 A.D. 
Undér his guidance and inspiration 
Macrina established a monastery for 
women on the banks of the Iris in 
Pontus, while yet another brother, 
Peter, ruled over an adjoining monastery 
for men. Gregory visited his sister at 
this retreat just before her death, and 
the greater part of the Life is taken up 
with the details of this visit and of 
Macrina’s death and burial. Mr. Low- 
ther Clarke has translated the Greek, 
on the whole faithfully, into free and 
clear English. A few points of criti- 
cism may be mentioned. To say 
‘perfect in every department of virtue ’ 
(p. 32, for τελεία τοῖς κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν ἅπασιν) 
instead of ‘every form of virtue,’ or 
‘extend to an unconscionable length’ 
(p. 46, for πρὸς ἄπειρον ἐξετείνετο μῆκος) 
instead of ‘an endless length,’ is very 
like committing the fault of florid 
writing which the translator condemns 
in his author. ‘Imperturbability’ is 
hardly the equivalent of τὸ ἀνένδοτον 
(p. 32), ‘indomitable spirit’ would be 
better. On p. 38 we read, ‘it was 
about this time that the mother died, 
honoured by all, and went to God,’ 
which i is not only a very lax rendering 


of ἐν τούτῳ εἰς γῆρας λιπαρὸν προ- 


ελθοῦσα ἡ μήτηρ, πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν μετα- 
νίστατο, but one which obscures the 
Homeric allusion in γῆρας λιπαρόν. 
On p. 53, ‘in the hope of the Resur- 
rection’ seems to be a mistake for ‘in 
the expectation of her departure (Jit. 


182 


change),’ 1.6. her death (ἐπὶ τῇ ἐλπίδι 
τῆς μεταστάσεως; cf. Milton, Comus, 
1. το, ‘after this mortal change.’ ‘ Gulf’ 
instead of ‘chasm’ for χάσμα, and 
‘spot’ instead of ‘defilement’ for 
σπίλος (p. 56), would remind readers of 
the allusions to St. Luke xvi. 26 and 
Rphs νας ΟὟ 

The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, commonly 
called (from its title in the old Latin 
Bible) Ecclesiasticus, has come into 
special prominence of late years. 
Written originally in Hebrew, it had 
been known for many centuries only in 
the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions. 
In 1896 fragments of the Hebrew began 
to come to light, and by 1g00 about 
three-quarters of the book in its original 
language was in the hands of scholars. 
There were some, however, who main- 
tained that.these discoveries were not 
the original Hebrew, but a retranslation 
depending ultimately upon the Greek. 
The problem thus arising as to the 
exact relationship between Greek, 
Syriac, and Hebrew, has proved an 
extraordinarily intricate one. It is now 
held to be certain that the new manu- 
scripts give us a genuine Hebrew text, 
though at the same time they are in a 
far from pure condition, and the Greek 
- and Syriac yersjons have preserved 
many true readings. Dr. Oesterley is 
an authority on this subject, and his 
translation of the Hebrew will be of 
great value to English readers who find 
their Revised Version largely obsolete. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


A few instances will give some idea of 
the changes made by the Hebrew. In 
vii. 23, where we were formerly told to 
bow down the necks of children from 
their youth, we are now told to ‘give 
them wives in their youth’; in ix. 13, 
the difficult phrase, ‘ walkest upon the 
battlements of a city,’ becomes ‘ treadest 
among nets,’ which agrees with the 
previous clause; in xxxviil. 21, ‘forget 
it not’ becomes the more appropriate 
‘remember him not’; in l. 3, ‘in his 
days the cistern of waters was dimin- 
ished’ becomes ‘in his days a reservoir 
was dug.’ Where Dr. Oesterley depends 
solely upon the Greek, he challenges 
comparison with the Revised Version, 
not always to his advantage. In the 
prologue, ἱκανὴν ἕξιν περιποιησάμενος, 
‘having acquired sufficient familiarity’ 
is less pleasing than the Revised Version, 
‘having gained great familiarity’; and 
συγγράψαι τι does not mean ‘to take a 
part in writing something,’ but simply 
‘to compose’ (R.V. ‘ write’). The ex- 
pression ‘to be wrath’ is possibly a 
misprint, though it occurs twice (xx. Ζ 
and xxviii. 7); it is surely not English. 
The last clause of xx. 16, ‘ How oft— 
and how many they are—men laugh 
him to scorn,’ is not sense (Gr. ποσάκις 
καὶ ooo...) Read’ ‘she for, ΠΟΥ 
in’. (E56 say) for do’ may waxy sea 
“hear” ‘forbear: 1Π| xxix. 25; fear: 
for ‘seek’ in xxxiv. 14 (R.V. ver. 13). 


G. W. BuTTERWORTH. 


THE NEW GREEK;COMEDY: 


The New Greek Comedy—xopodia νέα. 
By Professor Ph. E. LEGRAND. 
Translated by James Loeb, A.B. 
With an Introduction by John 
Villiams, να, “PhoD... ToEsp: 
Heinemann, 1917. 1858. net. 


Tus is an English abridgment of a 
French work, whose author himself 


reduced it to about one-third of its 


original bulk before committing it to 
the translator. In its present form it 
is mainly intended for ‘ general readers 
in America and England.’ Of all Mr. 
Loeb’s noble endeavours to popularise 


the classics, this is by far the least 
fortunate. . That.) the ‘needs ofthe 
general reader have been taken into 
consideration at all, it is almost impos- 
sible to believe; no treatment could be 
more unsuitable. First and foremost 
such a book should be made interesting, 
and of these 530 pages almost every one 
is deadly dull. The chief reason is that, 
fragmentary as are the Greek remains, 
they are here chopped up beyond intelli- 
gibility. Even in the véa, bad as it 
was, the play’s the thing, and an even- 
ing or two with the Loeb Terence 
or Plautus would teach anybody more 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


about it than this book would in a year. 
No single account of the plot of any 
play is given anywhere! Countless 
allusions and references appear, but 
extremely few quotations, and _ those 
sometimes left untranslated. What is 
given, and given ad nauseam, it is im- 
portant for everyone to remark, because 
it represents a widely prevalent tendency 
in modern dramatic ‘scholarship’—a 
tendency for which there is but one 
word, devastating. Here a classifica- 
tion of characters (where they naturally 
appear extremely characterless), there a 
categorising of adventures—where they 
allseem tame. Here aslice of realism, 
there a sample of psychology; in one 
place a chip from a situation, in another 
place a chunk of plot ; now a bundle of 
soliloquies (or rather of references to 
them), and now a bale of moralisings, 
all admittedly commonplace. Even 
the jokes are solemnly catalogued, and 
if the chapter on the Comic element is 
boring to tears, that on the Pathetic is 
not even amusing. Nor does the writer 
make any real use of most of these 
classifyings. Generalisations, indeed, 
he draws in plenty; but with a very 
few exceptions these are all either so 
obvious that they might be said of any 
branch of literary activity; or so wide 
that they become meaningless. 

But that is not the worst. For my 
own part, if asked by an intelligent non- 
classic to explain in two words the place 
of the véa in ancient Greek dramatic 
literature, I should say that it was the 


voluminous decadence, and remind him’ 


of the similar phenomenon in our own 
history; or in two sentences, I should 
add to this that while many superficial 
characteristics remained more or less 
the same, generally speaking all the 
poetry had gone out of the verse, and 
all the imagination from the matter. 
Incredible as it may seem, throughout 
the whole of this book neither of these 
last statements or anything correspond- 
ing to them is ever made, nor is any 
general impression of this kind once 
conveyed. Not that Professor Legrand 
can praise New Comedy; when he 
tries, his instances confute him, he is 
disobeyed by the very ass he rides; 
but to do him justice, he tries but 
seldom, and frankly admits, even to 


183 


diffuseness, that to a great extent it 
was a wretched business. His real 
crime is this—that over and over again, 
after making that admission, he apolo- 
gises for the νέα in a way which implies: 
that the fifth-century dramatists were 
just as incompetent.! For the general 
reader such passages are of course 
pernicious in the extreme. Lest it be 
supposed that this implication is invol- 
untary, and more the writer’s misfortune 
than his fault, let me explain that he 
supports it sometimes by sheer contra- 
diction of fact, at other times by falla- 
cious reasoning. One frequent defect 
of these playwrights was their slowness. 
in ‘exposition’; he tells us that they 
got this from Sophocles. Every school- 
boy knows that Sophocles is the last 
dramatist of whom such a criticism can 
sanely be suggested ; and every student 
of drama ought to know what Lewis 
Campbell wrote about O.T. I—I50. 
Now for his other method. We are 
assured (p. 454) that 

‘Taken as a whole, the véa was not irreligious ; 
it did not spread ungodliness,’ 

and that its irreverences, of which in- 
stances are given, are 

‘quite harmless and quite discreet when com- 
pared with the outrageous parodies and the 
biting ridicule with which the stage of the fifth 
and fourth century had riddled the dwellers in 
Olympus.’ 

The real point is of course that those 
had been spirited and these are vulgar ; 
that is where the degeneracy comes in; 
that is what constitutes the demoralising 
influence. Again, he admits that narra- 
tive monologue was often employed with 
the barest and most slovenly disregard 
for probability, but excuses this on the 
ground that the speeches of the Tragic 
ἄγγελοι overstep the bounds of proba- 
bility quite as much. Even if they did, 
who that has common sense, whether 
or not he has read anything of the 
Poetics, but knows that the criterion of 
probability cannot be applied similarly 
to heroic and realistic drama, and that 
in any case it is not, by a long way, the 
main criterion? On technique, his 
conclusion is characteristic: 


‘The analysis I have made shows that the 
technique used by writers of New Comedy was 


? Occasionally that they were worse! See 
p- 492, first eight lines. 


184 


not very strict or always satisfactory from the 
point of view of modern taste.’ 
[It really shows that it was very poor. | 

‘In more than one respect they went on 
repeating the defects of tragedy and of earlier 
comedy.’ 

Well ! And not one of these 
instances but’could be paralleled several 
times over. 

This habit of assessing drama by its 
mere externals, and of applying me- 
chanical and superficial tests, is much 
in vogue at present, and especially in 
ne It has never yet been ‘dropped 
on’; hence its deplorable increase. 
ΜῈ ee Legrand’s book reveals the 
same naive and infantile obliviousness 
of any particular distinction between 
good literature and bad, which charac- 
terised, for example, Professor Brander 
Matthews’ Study of the Drama. The 
only distinction is that Professor 
Legrand’s indifference is the more good- 
humoured. One of his chapters is 
entitled ‘ Didactic Purpose and Moral 
Value of New Comedy,’ and with the 
utmost equanimity he pursues these 
subjects through twenty-four large 
pages, although the upshot is that both 
are nil. Has he never heard the story 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


of the chapter about ‘Snakes in Ice- 
land’? 

The fact is that for the genera 
reader the New Comedy is not worth a 
whole book. It is only significant as a 
part of the history of drama, where i 
would appear as a short study of degener- 
ation and a warning to the dramatists of 
posterity. When a real scholar sets 
out to write us such a book, let it be 
acknowledged that he may find Pro- 
fessor Legrand’s laborious compilation 
not without its uses as a work of refer- 
ence. Often it may give him scent he © 
might otherwise have difficulty in find- 
ing. On several points of minor impor- 
tance its conclusions are original and 
seem sound. It is generally helpful ,and 
occasionally even acute, in arguments 
for or against the Greek parentage of 
passages in Terence or in Plautus; that 
is in fact its main value. There is a 
very good Introduction by the late 
Professor John Williams White, which 
has just the ‘ general’ appeal so con- 
spicuously absent in all else. 


A. Y. CAMPBELL. 
St. John’s College, 
Cambridge. 


T. W. ALLENS ODYSSEY. 


Homerit Opera recognovit T. W. ALLEN. 
Tom. iii. Odyssea I-XII.  Editio 
altera. Oxonii e Typographeo Clar- 
endoniano, 1917. Cloth 3s. 


Mr. ALLEN makes amends for his 
shortcomings as a critic by his unques- 
tionable merits as a collator of MSS. 
In this field, as I have always been the 
first to acknowledge, he has with 
chalcenteric industry rendered most 
conspicuous service. He hascontinued 
the work on which I congratulated him 
so heartily in the Clas. Rev., March, 
1009. I then mentioned with commen- 
dation the grouping of the MSS. -into 
families indicated by small letters. 
There were twenty-four of these groups, 
and they have now become twenty-five. 
The new one s consists of the Matri- 
tensis which he has now been able to 
examine and classify, Riz ἃ recon- 
sidered placing, and the Monacensis 


m. 2 taken out of d. Another addition 
to his long list is a MS. belonging to 
the Earl of Leicester, and latinised 
uncouthly as Holkhamius. 

The compendious value of these 
‘familiae’ is unquestionable, but there 
is also a serious drawback involved in 
their use. Family resemblance cannot 
mean exact identity. In each group 
there is necessarily, if I may use Ovid’s 
words, 

facies non omnibus una 
Nec diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum. 
So it may happen that in a group 
named as supporting a particular variant 
there are but few MSS. actually showing 
the reading : its support may be in the 
main sporadic and outside the group 
limit, less in fact in the group than 
elsewhere. 

To take a concrete instance « 360, the 
consensus of MSS. is in favour of 


ὡς par’: αὐτάρ ol αὖτις ἐγὼ πόρον αἴθοπα οἶνον, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


which I take to be right and of high 
importance, because it presents the 
only known instance of the preservation 
of an elided οἱ in the tradition, a pre- 
servation due, of course, to the mistaken 
idea that it was not elided at all but 
formed a dactyl with αὐτάρ. Our texts 
generally give either 

ὡς φάτ᾽ " ἀτάρ οἱ αὖτις ἐγὼ πόρον 

(Ameis-Hentze, Merry) 

or 

ὡς ἔφατ᾽ " αὐτάρ οἱ αὖτις πόρον 

(Ludwioh, Allen). 

Neither will scan and the second is as 
melodious as acreaking gate. Bentley 
alone suggested a metrical but rather 
violent remedy, ὡς φάτ᾽ " ἀτάρ οἱ ἐγὼν 
αὖτις. Monro in the Oxford Homer 
has the true ad plenum reading which 
Professor A. Platt first printed in his 
text with the digamma and the elision, 
adopting it from a self-neglected sug- 
gestion of van Leeuwen. The omission 
of ἐγώ seems to have started from an 
obiter dictum of Hermann’s ‘sed delen- 
dum videtur ἐγώ, Orph. 779. Ludwich 
found it omitted once after a correction 
in Flor. 52 by the second hand: but 
Mr. Allen gives us this: ‘ αὖτις πόρον 
d. g.j.p: αὖτις ἐγὼ vulg. em. Bentley.’ 
Now family d contains 14 MSS., g con- 
tains 12, 6 and f 6, a total of 38 MSS. 
Are we to believe that ἐγώ is omitted in 
38 MSS.? Or are we misled by this 
new family arrangement ? 

Mr. Allen says in his Preface: 
‘genitivos in oo desinentes quod res- 
puimus nonnulli admirati sunt.’ It 
seems to me hardly credible that any- 
one has expressed surprise at these 
genitives not being printed in the text. 
In 1g0g I expressed surprise, not at 
their exclusion—why should I or why 
should anyone?—but at Mr. Allen’s 
attempt to justify Αὐδλου, etc., on the 
untenable plea, akin to a ‘ legal fiction,’ 
of metrical license or as he calls it in 
mongrel phrase ἄδεια metrica. He is 
still where he was in 1909, though he 
has changed the previous form of state- 
ment. He now rather grandiloquently 


NO. CCLXXI. VOL, XXXII. 


185 


issues this challenge to the world at 
large: ‘quis spondet ipsum Homerum 
jam eis (genetivis) usum esse neque 
potius ἀδείᾳ quadam epica Αἰόλου κλυτά 
ita ut in codicibus iegimus scripsisse ?’ 
Well, as I intimated on the previous 
occasion, there is the late Sir R. Jebb 
for one, Dr. Monro for another, Dr. 
Leaf (see the notes on the passages in 
the Iliad), Professor Platt most certainly, 
and indeed every one who has considered 
the facts of the case. There is even a 
very good MS. Palatinus 454 which 
reads 00 in a 70 as his own critical note 
tells us. He adds an audacious temere 
and corr. m. altera, but cannot thus 
upset the evidence of the MS. I am 
really afraid that in this large appeal to 
metrical licence Mr. Allen is likely to 
stand a solitary figure in a densely 
caliginous halo of glory. 

There is a curious statement on 
p- vi of the preface that προφανεῖσᾶς 
exhibits to us a primitive form (‘sermonis 
velut faciem antiquiorem’). Is it not 
rather a common and late Dorism 
introduced to get the original feminine 
dual form προφανέντε out of sight ? 
Who can entertain a doubt ? 

᾿Αποέργαθεν is preferred to ameépya- 
θεν, because our editor evidently be- 
lieves that éépyafev is an augmented 
form which it certainly is not; neither 
is συνέεργον. 

Though he has altered ἦρχε to ἄρχε 
in ε 237 ex analogia, for all the MSS. 
are against the change, Mr. Allen still 
thinks he has sternly resisted ‘ analogy ’ 
(‘analogia vero ut flecterer non mihi 
permisi’), because he has retained 
ἥρει, ἤτει, OKEL, ηὔδα, ἥνδανε, ὦρσε, ὦρτο, 
of which list three ἥρει, κει, ἥνδανε are 
unquestionably illegitimate and unepic. 
Oddly enough ἅνδανε still appears in 
y 150 with this critical note, "ἥνδανε 
codd.’ So also besides @xes we get 
οἴκεον (t 400). Evidently the editor is 
against consistency and analogy alike. 
Perhaps he thinks they are one and the 
same. They are not quite. 

T. L. AGar. 


186 


THE CLASSICAL, REVIEW 


THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY. 


The Greek Anthology. With an English 
Translation by W. R. Paton. In 
five volumes: Vol. III. The Loeb 
Classical Library, No. 84. London: 
William. Heinemann; New York: 
G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917. 5s. 


Tus volume contains Book IX. of the 
Greek Anthology, and brings the end of 
Mr. Paton’s edition in sight. But we 
may hope that, when he has finished it, 
he will give us more results of his 
studies; for one gets from these volumes 
an impression of knowledge in reserve, 
and of matured judgment based upon 
it, and this edition does not give him 
a wide enough scope. For instance, a 
comparison of the Planudean text and 
of that given by Suidas with the Pala- 
tine would be useful. We should also 
like a chapter on the history of the 
Epigram, much as Reitzenstein has 
given in the article ‘Epigramm’ in 
Pauly-Wissowa, and especially a dis- 
crimination between the original and 
the imitative writers. Having expressed 
this hope, I will now, as in the notices 
of Mr. Paton’s previous volumes, Class. 
Rev. XXXI. 142; XXXII. 33, turn to 
the text of some passages. But first 
let me correct the name of the Italian 
scholar in Class. Rev. XXXII. 33: it 
should be Cessi. 

In IX. 144, 4 Jacob’s μειδιάει for 
δειμαίνει is probably right, and in 
314, 4, Schaefer’s ὑποπροχέει seems the 
best correction of ὑποιάχει: ψυχρὸν 
without ὕδωρ is found in Hdt. II. 37, 
Theog. 263. 

563, 6 Mr. Paton conjectures ἀβλή- 
του, but Geffcken’s ἄκρητον is attractive. 
744, 2 Geffcken’s πὰρ λοφιᾶν is a likely 
correction of the corrupt παρολκίδαν. 
300, 3 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ὡρμήθη πρηὼν ἅτε, of 
a bull, hardly means ‘like a mountain,’ 
but rather, as Reiske explains, ‘instar 
rupis avolsae.’ 316, 6 Mr. Paton’s 
conjecture ξυνᾷ is worth considering; 
and 340, 6 his conjecture ἔδειρεν may 
help towards the final restoration of a 
corrupt passage. 159, 6 one is glad 
that he leaves eis ᾿Αἴδην ἐκολάζετο 
untouched. 

The future editor of the Anthology 


. style. 


will have to include the Epigrams which 
have been discovered of late years, and 
it may be convenient here to enumerate 
and classify the recent additions from 
Papyri and other sources. It will be 
noticed that most of them are new, and 
belong to a good period, early or middle 
Ptolemaic, and are written in a classical 
I have given references to the 
articles in which they are discussed. 


List of Addenda to the ‘Greek Anthology.’ 


I. New writers: 


1. Amyntas. Two Epigrams nearly complete : 
Oxyrh. Pap. \V. No. 662, probably of Augustus’ 
time. Grenfell and Hunt place him in the 
second century B.C., for the first Epigram deals 
with the same person as a poem by Leonidas 
of Tarentum, 4.?. VII. 163, and one by Anti- 
pater or Archias, 4.P. VII. 164; and the second 
refers to the capture of Sparta by Philopoemen 
in 188. In the seventh line of the second 
Epigram παρ᾽ Ἑὐρώταο may be the reading ; so 
also Wilamowitz. 

2. Poseidippus of Thebes, an elegy of twenty- 
six lines nearly complete, but with debased 
forms ; on a wax tablet in Berlin: R. Ellis in 
American Journal of Philology, XXI\. 76; 
H. Diels in Sztz. Preuss. Akad. 1898, LIV. 
p. 1; Crénert in Archiv f. Papyrusf. 1. 517. 
First century A.D. 


2. New poems by existing writers: 


I. Poseidippus, the Alexandrine Epigram- 
matist. H. Weil, Un Papyrus inédit de la 
Bibliotheque d. M. Ambroise Firmin Didot, 
1879, p. 28, of the Ptolemaic age; Blass, Rhezn. 
Mus. XXXV.90; P. Schott, Postdippi Epigram- 
mata, 1905. Two Epigrams complete ; one on 
the Pharos, the other on a temple dedicated to 
Arsinoe-Aphrodite by Callicrates, the com- 
mander of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ fleet. 

2. Leonidas of Tarentum. Two Epigrams, 
fragmentary : Oxyrh. Pap. 1V. No. 662; date 
as in I. 1. 

3. Alcaeus of Mitylene (?). One Epigram, 
fragmentary, from a Florilegium of Epigrams: 
Tebtunis Papyri 1. No. 3; of about 100 B.C. 

4. Antipater of Sidon. One complete Epi- 
gram: Oxyrh. Pap. 1V. No. 662: date as in 
Tu: 

5. Fragments of an Epigram perhaps by 
Meleager: Berlin. klass. Texte, V.1,75 ; Papyrus 
about first century A.D. 


3. New anonymous poems: 


1. An Epigram on Philikus or Philiskus of 
Corcyra, one of the Alexandrine ‘ Tragic Pleiad.’ 
Korte in Archiv f. Papyrusf. V.547 says: ‘this 
poem of a contemporary makes the form Φίλικος, 
thrice used in Hephaestion, 1X. 4, certain, instead 
of the usual Φιλίσκος. The writing is of the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


middle of the third century B.c., and therefore 
only a short time after Philikus, for he was a 
priest of Dionysus at Alexandria in the great 
festivities of 275/4. See Wilamowitz in Weues 
von Kallimachus: Siizb. Preuss. Akad. 1912, 
547- 

2. Elegiac lines in Berlin. klass. Texte, 
V.1,77,to a dedicated statue: early Ptolemaic. 

3. Ten elegiac lines complete, containing 
an address to Supmdra, Berlin. klass. Texte, 
V. 2, 262. A Papyrus of the early third cen- 
tury B.C., resembling the Papyrus of Timotheus’ 
Persae. 

4. Epigram on Homer, from an ostrakon. 
Wilcken, Ostraka, No. 1148; Berlin. klass. 
Texte, V. 2, 62. 

5. Epigram on the subject of the lame 
Spartan king Agesilaus from δὴ ostrakon, 
published by Professor Grenfell (Journ. Eeyft. 
<irch. 1918, p. 16). It is in a classical style, but 
with atrocious spelling, and was probably given 
to a class to be written out as an exercise. 

6. Rhetorical school exercises, fragmentary, 
of the τίνας ἂν εἴποι λόγους type (cf A.P. 
IX. 451 ff.). These were first published by 
Dr. Graves, Bishop of Limerick, in Herma- 
thena, V. 237, and A. Ludwich reconstructed 
out of them lines which he called Carminis 
Iliact relliguiae. He was quite wide of the 
mark ; and the first to detect their nature and 
to reconstruct some with certainty was R. Reit- 
zenstein, in Hermes, XXXV. 103. This type of 
exercise is of the Imperial period. 

7. Six sepulchral Epigrams, poor, on one 
Euprepius ; the papyrus is perhaps of the third 
century A.D. Vitelli, Papzri Greci ὁ Latini, 
Vol. I. (1912), No. 17. 

8. Epigram from a wax tablet in the British 
Museum, Egyptian Department, No. 29527. 
H. Diels, Sztz6. Preuss. Akad. 1898, LIV. 1. 
‘The writing is of the second or third century 
A.D. 

9. Fragments of an Epigram by an author 
whose name ends in t]rmov: Poseidippus or 
Hermippus (Grenfell and Hunt). Zedtunis 
Papyri 1. No. 3, 1. 21; about 100 B.c. 

10. Fragments of an Epigram by an author 
whose name ends in Παδὴς : Asclepiades or 
Philiades (Grenfell and Hunt). TZedbtunis 
Papyrt |. No. 3,1. 26; about 100 B.c. 

11. Portions of eighteen lines from a Hellen- 
istic poem celebrating the simple life of men in 
primitive times. Its mutilated condition is 
regrettable. Oxyrh. Pap. 1. No. 14; H. Weil, 
kévue des Etudes grecques, 1898, p. 241 ; Wila- 
mowitz in Gott. gelehrte Anz. 1898, p. 695. 


187 


4. Existing poems by existing 
authors : 


1. Fragments of an Epigram by Leonidas of 
Tarentum, Oxyrh. Pap. 1V. No. 662. 


2. Two fragmentary Epigrams by Antipater 
of Sidon, one in Oxyrh. Pap. 1V. No. 662, the 
other in Tedtunzs Pap. 1. No. 3. 

3. Fragments of Meleager, 4.P. V. 151, 
XII. 76, 77, 78, 106; Berlin. klass. Texte, 
V.1,75. See Korte, Archiv, V. 547. 


5. Epigrams from Inscriptions. Since 
Cougny added Epigrams from this 
source to the Paris edition of the 
Anthology, some Epigrams of a good 
period from inscriptions may be added 
here; but my list is probably incom- 
plete : 


1. Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique, 
XIX. 392. An Epigram of the third century B.C. 
found at Amphissa, probably referring to the 
invasion of the Gauls in 278. In the last line 
ἀσπίδ᾽ ἀείρας should be read; P. Perdizet trans- 
literates it as ἀσπίδα εἴρας. 

2. Bulletin de la Soc. Archaeol. 1V. 81; 
Wilamowitz in Sifzsb. Preuss. Akad. 1902, 
XLIX. ; Herwerden, Lexicon Graec. Suppl. ον. 
πηγός. An Epigram of the third century B.c. 
Caunus, the station of the fleet under the 
Ptolemies, is referred to. 

3. W. H. D. Rouse in Journ. Hell. Stud. 
1906, p. 178; cf W. Crénert in Rhein. Mus. 
1910, 636. An Epigram of the close of the 
Hellenistic period found at Astypalaea. 


This last class however is more fitted 
for a continuation of Kaibel’s Epigram- 
mata a laprdibus collecta, a piece of work 
which in 1913 was contemplated by 
Belgian scholars at Brussels. It is to 
be hoped that they survive and will 
carry out their intention. If there are 
any omissions in classes 1 to 5 above, 
I should be glad to be informed of 
them. I have not included Lyric 
addenda, since they do not properly 
belong to addenda to the Anthology. 


J. Us ROWEEE, 
St. John’s College, 


Papyrus probably of second century A.D. Oxford, 
PLATONISM. 
Platonism. By PauL ELMER More. —profess to cover the whole ground of 
Octavo. Pp. 307. Princeton Uni- Platonic doctrine; it deals mainly (in 


versity Press, 1017. 7s. 6d. net. 


As Mr. More explains in his Preface, 
this book does not—in spite of its title 


the writer’s words) with ‘the ethical 
theme that runs through all Plato’s dis- 
cussions, and is certainly the main- 
spring of his philosophy.’ And behind 


¢ 


188 


it there is a definitely practical aim. In 
an age when ‘the dogmas of religion 
have lost their hold, while the current 
philosophy of the schools has become in 
large measure a quibbling of specialists 
on technical points of minor import- 
ance, or, where serious, too commonly 
has surrendered to that flattery of the 
instinctive elements of human nature 
which is the very negation of mental 
and moral discipline,’ Mr. More would 
recall us to the truths which Plato ex- 
pounded ‘in the troubled and doubting 
days of Greece.’ It is to be hoped 
that his presentation of unadulterated 
Platonism will achieve this admirable 
aim and prove in some measure ‘a cor- 
rective of the disintegrating forces of 
society.’ 

To explain Plato we must go behind 
him to Socrates, and to Socrates the 
first chapters of the book are devoted. 
In his estimate of Socrates (‘ historic’ 
or ‘ Platonic’) Mr. More expressly dis- 
sents both from Gomperz and from 
Professor Burnet. ‘To assert that a 
man could write the Republic without a 
definite philosophy of his own is to run 
pretty close to a pedantic absurdity, and 
it is not much better to maintain that 
there was no rationalism in the teaching 
of Socrates than that there was no 
mysticism in the teaching of Plato.’ 
The Socratic doctrine, as Mr. More 
contends, comprised in one three veins 
of thought -— intellectual scepticism, 
spiritual positivism, and the identifica- 
tion of virtue and knowledge. The 
unique combination in one mind of 
rationalism and mysticism is what con- 
stitutes ‘ the Socratic Paradox.’ 

According to Mr. More’s exposition, 
the paradox of Socrates lies at the root 
of the dualism of Plato. In chapters on 
‘The Platonic Quest,’ ‘ The Dualism of 
Plato,’ and ‘ Psychology,’ he endeavours 
to show how both ‘knowledge’ and 
‘virtue’ are terms used in two senses, 
and how failure to distinguish between 
these senses has led to misapprehension 
of the true Platonic position. For 
behind the specific virtues there is a 
higher ‘ virtue,’ which is the ‘ moral im- 
pulsion’ called ‘ justice’ in the Republic 
and ‘ wisdom’ inthe Laws ; while above 
the ‘knowledge’ which Socrates identi- 
fied with virtue stands the knowledge 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


which is independent of calculation, the 
immediate, intuitive gnosis ‘ by which 
we confirm our spiritual affirmation.’ 
Other subjects dealt with in these 
chapters are the problems of free-will 
and of evil, and the Platonic distinction 
between pleasure and happiness. In 
his discussion of the doctrine of Ideas, 
Mr. More rejects the assumption of ‘a 
radical break in Plato’s doctrine,’ and 
the theory of a later Platonism of 
‘natural kinds.” He would distinguish 
two quite different categories of Ideas, 
the rational and the ethical; of which 
the latter were, for Plato, the more 
fundamental and important. Thus ‘the 
true Platonic ideas’ are described as 
‘imaginative projections of the facts of 
moral consciousness. In dealing with 
‘Science and Cosmogony,’ it is con- 
tended (against some modern interpre- 
ters) that ‘the whole argument (of 
the Timaeus) is founded on a radical 
dualism,’ and that it is quite wrong ‘ to 
reduce the Platonic Ideas to mathe- 
matical entities. Mr. More’s penulti- 
mate chapter on ‘ Metaphysics’ is 
mainly concerned with that baffling 
dialogue, Parmenides. Mr. Benn argued, 
in a recent book, that ‘ Plato uses the 
One and the Many . . . in order to cut 
out the transcendental theory by the 
roots.’ Mr. More, on the contrary, con- 
tends that ‘the main intention was to 
bring relief to Plato’s own doctrine of 
Ideas’ by showing the limitations of 
rationalistic metaphysic. The well- 
known passage in Sofi. 248 is held to 
confirm this view, and to indicate on 
Plato’s part ‘an unwavering affirmation 
of the reality of moral Ideas, united 
with an unwavering scepticism.’ 

In brief space it is impossible, of 
course, to do justice to the views set 
forth ; but enough has been said to in- 
dicate that Mr. More holds very definite 
views regarding the kernel of Plato’s 
Idealism, and that he has the courage 
of his convictions. One may suspect 
that he has been influenced by the 
teaching of his countryman, Professor 
Shorey, who also is a strong exponent of 
the continuity of Plato’s thought, and a 
bulwark of what we may, perhaps, call 
the Tory side in Platonic controversy. 
The strength of the writer’s convictions 
makes the book all the more readable 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


and interesting, and besides its protreptic 
value it undoubtedly contains much 
that is true and important for the 
student of Ancient Thought—amongst 
other things this: ‘the silly allusions to 
enigmatic teaching and the statement 


189 


that Plato never had written and never 
would write down his true principles 
are sufficient to prove the so-called 
Platonic Epistles a forgery’ (p. 199). It 
is a pity the book has no Index. 

R. G. Bury. 


GREEK IDEAES. 


Greek Ideals: A Study in Social Life. 
By C. DELIsLE Burns. One vol. 
Octavo. Pp. ix+275-.. London: 
G. Bell and Sons, and Macmillan Co., 
1017. 5s. net (and $2.00). 


Mr. Burns has taken for his book a 
subject highly attractive but hardly less 
elusive. For, as Mr. Lowes Dickinson 
once put it (in his excellent little book 
on The Greek View of Life), ‘there is 
nothing so misleading as generalisation, 
specially on the subject of the Greeks. 
Again and again, when we think we 
have laid hold of their characteristic 
view, we are confronted with some new 
aspect of their life which we cannot fit 
into harmony with our scheme. There 
is no formula which will sum up that 
versatile and many-sided people.’ This 
versatility which renders definition so 
difficult is fully recognised by Mr. Burns, 
who says in his Preface that ‘ the versa- 
tility of the Greeks is more emphasised 
(in his book) than any single idea such 
as ‘‘harmony’”’ or ‘‘ beauty ”’ to express 
the Greek ideal’; but the point he most 
emphasises and regards as most char- 
acteristic is that ‘in all their ideals 
what is most prominent appears to be 
sociability.” By ‘Greek’ Mr. Burns 
means mainly Athenian, and his earlier 
chapters are devoted to an account of 
Athenian religion and the chief festivals 
connected with it. He teaches us once 
again how the folis is fundamentally a 
religious institution ‘ having very close 
likeness to a democratic church ’—a 
church without clergy or congregation 
or sacred book. We used to be taught 
hat Homer was ‘ the Greek Bible,’ but 
Mr. Burns tells us that that is ‘ false,’ 
since ‘no one was compelled to “‘ believe 
in’ Homer.’ He does not tell us, how- 
ever, what other English book can be 
compared more adequately with Homer. 


After religion and politics, Mr. Burns 
turns mainly to philosophic literature 
for his illustrations of the Greek social 
ideal. He has useful chapters on ‘ The 
Fifth Century’ and ‘ The Old School,’ 
as well as on Socrates, Plato, and 
Aristotle ; and his last chapter, entitled 
‘The After-Glow,’ is mainly concerned 
with the views of the Stoics and Epi- 
cureans, concluding with what we may 
call the application of the moral to the 
men of to-day. As regards Socrates 
and Plato, it 15 interesting to compare 
and contrast the views here set forth 
with those expressed in Mr. P. E. More’s 
Platonism. Whereas Mr. More will have 
none of the Socrates limned by Pro- 
fessors Burnet and Taylor, or of their 
emasculated Plato, Mr. Burns enthu- 
siastically accepts both. His Socrates, 
as Form-Theorist and Orphic-Pytha- 
gorean-Brother, is ‘a much greater 
Socrates than historians have generally 
supposed to exist’; while as for Plato, 
‘although the new view may seem to 
make him less original as a thinker, it 
makes him much more skilful as an 
artist’ (p. 147). .How, we wonder; 
would Plato appreciate this compliment! 
‘ All great men’ (we quote again from 
Mr. Burns, p. 243) ‘must be astonished 
at their followers: and δ᾽ quis prorum 
animus locus, in some other sphere the 
original author must often stand aghast 
at what his commentators make him 
say’—and still more aghast, we may 
suppose, must stand the original author 
who wasn’t an author. However, Mr. 
Burns has the highest admiration for 
his bean-eschewing Socrates, as well as 
for his Boswellised Plato, and that, after 
all, is the main point. Unlike Mr. 
More, he says curiously little of the 
Socratic daimonion; but on the other 
hand he has much to say about the 
educational and political views of Plato. 


190 


The general reader will find in this 
volume much to interest as well as to 
instruct: it is written brightly and with 
constant reference to the needs and 


PROLEGOMENA 


Prolegomena to an Edition of the Works 
of Decimus Magnus Ausonius. By 
SISTER M. J. Byrne, Ph.D., Professor 
of Latin in the College of St. Eliza- 


beth. Octavo. One vol. Pp. viii+ 
tor. New York: Columbia Univer- 
sity Press, 1916. 5s. 6d. 


PROFESSOR ByRNE’S book was no 
doubt written as a thesis: it is issued 
with the imprimatur of the Department 
of Classical Philology of Columbia 
University. Itisacareful and thorough 
digest of information about Ausonius, 
his life, his works, and the expository 
accretions of learning thereupon. Are 
they Prolegomena to an ideal edition, 
or to an edition actually designed ? 
We are not told. A new text is much 
needed. Schenkl’s reputation has been 
blown by Mr. Garrod: Peiper is an 
ugly and awkward work. Would that 
Fr. Martindale’s long-promised contri- 
bution to the Oxford Classical Texts 
showed any signs of appearing! Pro- 
fessor Byrne’s references are made to 
Souchay ; but we are not made aware 
of this until p. 83: it ought to have 
been done on the front page. Schenkl 
and Peiper having introduced disorder 
into the order of the poems, all reference 
becomes sinfully confused. But prob- 
ably most scholars would have been 
grateful for a direct page-reference to 
Peiper. 

There are theses literary or specula- 
tive, and theses of which it may be 
brutally asserted that the perfect form 
is an index verborum; as it stands, this 
present work suffers a certain disadvan- 
tage. It reveals no ambition to rival or 
to supersede the literary critical esti- 
mates of Ausonius which are already to 
be found in Boissier, La Ville de Mir- 
mont, Pichon, Plessis, etc.; indeed, such 
estimates, by their nature, do not go out 
of date. And yet, lacking an index, it 
is not very convenient for consultation 
as a repertory of materials. Reviewers 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW : 


ideals of the modern folites. I have 
noticed only two misprints (pp. 184, 
185); but the Index is over-scanty. 

Re. Go BpRY, 


TO AUSONIUS. 


have a vile trick of constructing two 
stools and placing one on each side of 
the victim, who is then accused and 
found guilty of falling between them. 
But in this case are not the two stools 
real, and no mere instruments of the 
carnifex? A finished literary judgment 
by your Boissier or your Plessis has 
value; and a book lying wholly within 
the banausic part of literature, such as 
Teuffel, the Bradshaw of Latin, whose 
judgments are of course altogether 
negligible, has value as a great piece of 
clerkwork. Is there room for such a 
book as Sister Byrne’s between the two ? 
Yes, on condition that these be really 
Prolegomena. Read _ strictly in con- 
nexion with an edition in one indexed 
volume together, these chapters would 
fully justify their utility, which for the 
nonce remains somewhat fragmentary 
or provisional. 

Ausonius was par excellence the poeti- 
cal Don, a professor in whom the study 
of expression had quite outrun an im- 
potent imagination and an atrophied 
heart. He isa far less real and inter- 
esting person than Paulinus or Sidonius 
Apollinaris. The Mosella is a read- 
able poem, with feeling enough and 
historic substance enough to keep it 
alive. Otherwise the only real thing 
about the writings of this magnificent 
prototype of a Head of a House (a 
hundred years ago) is the breach with 
Paulinus. This is a bit of Oxford 
Movement: to draw out the parallel 
would be an interesting essay. It is 
an episode of tragical pathos—two 
friends who no longer speak the same 
language. Baudrillart’s S. Paulin de 
Néle should be added to the Biblio- 
graphy. 

One may criticise a few details in the 
chapter on Metre and Prosody. It is 
to be regretted that the authoress con- 
tinues to use the discredited equivoque 
of arsis and thesis. Havet’s substitutes 
‘temps fort’ and ‘temps faible’ will go 


THE) CLASSICAL, REVIEW 


quite nicely into English as the ‘ forte’ 
and the ‘ faible’ of a foot. On p. 89, 
examples are given ‘ of the way in which 
A. sometimes violates quantity.’ These 
include Padlatia, which is Statian, at 
any rate; récidit and réligio, which are 
both Augustan; and wtrdque, nomina- 
tive singular feminine, an interesting 
case of accentual stress producing quan- 


ΙΟΙ 


titative length (codex V. ninth century 
is actually recorded as having an accent 
on the vowel). Such a note is too 
indiscriminate. 

However, with a few reservations of 
detail, and supposing always an edition 
to follow, the book deserves to be 


praised and welcomed. 
1 Evie i ee 


LIVY,, BOOK XXITT. 


Livy, Book XXIII. Edited by A. G. 
PESKETT. Pp. xxiv+159. Cam- 
bridge University Press, 1917. 


Tuis book gives much useful help, 
especially on the subject-matter. Mr. 
Peskett has studied the works of Soltau 
and Kromayer-Veith to good purpose, 
and he puts the results of their labours 
before his readers concisely and intelli- 
gibly. More frequent references from 
the Notes to the continuous narrative 
of the Introduction would be welcome. 

On the language the Notes seem to 
us less satisfactory, mainly for two 
reasons. First, the editor has tried to 
provide for the needs of too wide a 
range of students. He has in view, he 
tells us, the teacher as well as the 
school-boy, and he seems to include the 
boy who has read very little Latin. It 
would be better, we think, to assume 
that the student has read books XXI.- 
XXII. and grown accustomed to the 
more ordinary difficulties of historical 
prose. In that case it would not be 
necessary to say, as Mr. Peskett says 
more than once, that a historic present 
may be followed by the historic tenses 
of the subjunctive, or that in oratio 
obliqua a pluperfect subjunctive may 
represent the future perfect indicative of 
the oratio recta ; and it would be possible 
to give fuller information on many inter- 
esting questions of language and history. 
For example, on 6, 2 neque controversiam 
fore, quin, cum. . . deportet, Italiae impe- 
rium Campanis relinquatur it would be 
well to note that relinquatur is a future 
tense, especially as beginners are some- 
times taught that futurum sit ut relin- 
quatur is idiomatic Latin. Mr. Peskett 
translates ‘is left,’ Church and Brodribb 


more correctly ‘the empire of Italy 
will be left in the hands of the Cam- 
panians.’ On 16, 16 the note on the 
subject-matter might well be expanded, 
for not one reader in a thousand will 
have access to the books referred to. 
Secondly, the Notes on language need 
some revision. 15, 12, ‘The actual 
words of the speaker were somewhat as 
follows: multt qui cum te _ stipendia 
fecerunt referunt. Obviously  tecum. 
10, 8 “ capta Capua=si Capua caperetur. 
Rather capta esset. ὃ, 5, ‘interdum “ now 
and then”: this use of interdum must 
be distinguished from the more common 
meaning ‘‘ meanwhile.’’’ There is no 
fear of confusion ; the word is not used 
in the sense of ‘meanwhile’ till much 
later times, and most readers will not 


have seen it with that meaning. ΤΙ, 3 
Mr. Peskett calls the imperatives 
mittitote etc. ‘old-fashioned.’ Surely 


we may infer from their frequent use 
(with a future subordinate clause) in 
Cicero’s speeches and letters that in his 
time, as in that of Plautus, the second 
person, singular and plural, were on 
everyone’s lips. One does not easily 
realise this till one sees all the examples 
put together, as in Lebreton’s Etudes 
sur la langue et la grammatre de Cicéron, 
p- 195 f. It issometimes supposed that 
there is something formal and solemn 
in the use of these forms. Yet Cicero 
uses them in his most familiar style ; in 
writing to Atticus, for instance (I, 12, 
4), St vem nullam habebis, quod in buccam 
venerit, scribito; or to Tiro (Fam. 16, 6, 
1), quantum poscet, promitti iubeto. The 
note on 3, 3 accipite solos, inermis. nec 
quicquam .. . temere egeritis says ‘notice 
positive command accipite followed by 
prohibition me [a confusing misprint 


192 


for nec] egeritis perfect subjunctive. 
In earlier times neve would be more 
common than nec.’ A similar statement 
may be found in some of the older 
grammars but is corrected in the more 
recent books. In the first edition of 
Kiihner’s Grammar it is said that when 
a prohibition is to be connected with a 
positive command ‘ neque is allowed in- 
stead of the usual eve,’ but in the 
second edition (II. 1. p. 193) Stegmann 
says that neque (mec) is in such cases 
the regular connecting link and that 
in Early Latin meve (mew) is at any rate 
very rarely so used. Cf. Bennett, 
Syntax of Early Latin, I. p. 168 ff. ‘ Neve 
(ew), ordinarily regarded as the normal 
connecting negative with the prohibi- 
tive, is relatively much less frequent.’ 
For a full collection of the evidence 
from ‘the earliest times down to 
Apuleius, see the article by Dr. E. B. 
Lease (‘der unermiidliche Lease’ as 
Schmalz calls him) on ‘ Neve and neque 
with the Imperative and Subjunctive’ 
in the American Journal of Philology, 
vol. 34 (1913). Mr. Peskett’s remark 
may suggest that Livy is doing some- 
thing unusual. It would be better 
to impress on the student that he is 
writing normal Latin like Cicero, Ait. 
10, 18, 2, perge, quaeso, scribere nec meas 
litteras exspectaris. 

It would add to the value of this and 
similar books if the editors would say 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


what are the best English books on 

the history, and on constitutional and 

similar questions. It is perhaps assumed 

that readers will turn of themselves to 

such books as Smith’s Dictionary of 
Antiquities, the Cambridge ‘Companion’ 

and Dr. Gow’s ‘Companion’; but it 

saves valuable time if they are told 

where they will find a question well 

treated. Mr. Peskett often refers to 

Marquardt and Mommsen’s‘ Handbuch.’ 

Such references might well be cut 

down; they are of value to very few. 
readers, and such readers will easily 
find their way to the best foreign books. 

There are a good many notes of the 

type ‘ This use is archaic and poetical 

and therefore attractive to Livy.’ Such 
remarks would have more interest if 
they were connected together by an 
Appendix on the strong and weak points 
of Livy’s style. It is a pity that Mr. 
Peskett has not brought out more fully 
Livy’s merits both as a historian and as 
a writer of Latin, He gives him a few 
words of praise on p. x. but more often 

he is content to point out his faults. 
Perhaps some readers will finish their 
study of the book with the feeling that 

his history is worthless and that he did 

not quite understand the art of writing 

Latin Prose. 


W. E. P. PANTIN. 


St. Paul's School. 


SELECT LATIN 


Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Vol. 111., 
pars 2. EdiditH. Dessau. Berolini, 
apud Weidmannos, 1016. 


THE first volume of Dessau’s Select 
Latin Inscriptions appeared late in 1802, 
and successive volumes have followed 
at intervals. The first half of the third 
volume came out in 1914, just before the 
war, and contained the beginning of 
the indices. Now the rest of that 
volume is before me, and the work 15 
complete after nearly thirty-five years. 
The reputation of the whole book is so 
great that Latin scholars in England 
may perhaps care for a notice of the 
appearance of this concluding part, of 
which the preface is dated April, 1916. 


INSCRIPTIONS. 


As now complete, the publication 
consists of three volumes in five parts, 
volumes two and three being each 
double; the price, at pre-war rates, 
seems to amount to rather less than 
£4 10s. The work has many merits, of 
which I would emphasise two. First, 
it contains a very large selection of in- 
scriptions, nearly 10,000 (to be accurate, 
9,522), which include almost all the 
notable Roman. inscriptions discovered 
up to date. It is, therefore, a larger 
selection than that given in the well- | 
known older work of A. Wilmanns,. 
completed in 1873, which contains 2,885 
items, and larger even than that of 
Orelli-Henzen, which was issued in 
1828-56, and contains 5,076 items. It 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


is, indeed, a miniature Corpus in itself. 
The only recent work which forms in 
any sense a rival to itis the series which 
has been annually issued by the leading 
French epigraphist, Professor Cagnat, 
under the title Année Epigraphique, with 
admirable regularity during the last 
thirty years. This, however, is not in- 
tended to serve quite the same purpose 
as Mr. Dessau’s volumes, nor does any 
one index run through it. The reader 
who would be sure that an item is not 
to be found in the Année Epigraphique 
must consult a variety of indices before 
he can feel safe. This brings me to the 
second merit of Mr. Dessau’s work. It 
is provided with a very full and most 
excellent index, issued partly in vol. iii., 
part 1, and partly in vol. iii., part 2. 
As now complete, this index fills 954 
pages, and it is so arranged that it can 
be extracted from the text of the work, 
and bound up separately. I remember, 
long years ago, almost before Mr. 
Dessau’s book was begun, meeting in 
Budapest a foreign epigraphist, even 
then of much eminence, who carried 
with him, as his standby, a separately 
bound copy of the index to Wilmanns, 
which fills 432 pages. This went con- 
veniently into any bag, and this he con- 
sulted when confronted with any new 
inscription which was hard to decipher 
or to interpret. The wandering epi- 
graphist, and, no less, the historical 
student οἵ the Roman Empire, will, I 
think, provide himself in future with the 
1,000 pp. of Mr. Dessau, and will find it 
an invaluable ‘ hand-book.’ | 

Thirdly, so far as I can judge, after 
having for many years used the previous 
volumes, this selection has, as a selec- 
tion, extraordinary merits. It is ob- 
viously based, as we might expect, on a 
very thorough knowledge of the masses 
of Roman inscriptions with which its 
editor has been busy all his life. He 
has, I think, succeeded in giving a 
completeness to his collection, which 
renders it not merely indispensable, but 
also an uncommonly useful book of re- 
ference. Even his index excels in this. 
The pages devoted to‘ Consules aliaeque 
anni determinationes’ form almost a 
hand-book of ‘ Consular fasti’ of the 
middle and later Republic, and still 
more of the Empire, right into later 


103: 


days. Again, in selecting his inscrip- 
tions, Mr. Dessau has most wisely 1n- 
cluded many of those longer texts, 
which lie in a sense outside the strictly 
epigraphic borders. Thus, he gives us 
the speech made by Claudius in A.D. 48. 
on the grant of Senatorial rank to 
various Gauls (212) and also the ‘ frag- 
mentum legis quae dicitur de imperio 
Vespasiani’ (244), and he gives extracts. 
from the records of the Arval College, 
and a copious supply of the so-called 
‘diplomata militaria ’ (1986). Here we 
find also Hadrian’s speech to his troops 
in Africa (2487), all the chief Municipal 
laws, ‘lex Ursonensis, etc.’ (6087 f.), 
the ‘lex Metalli Vipascensis’ (6891), 
even the ‘lex Iulia Municipalis’ (6085) 
and other documents which technically 
are inscriptions, but actually in modern 
life would be issued in blue-books, or 
otherwise in print. Not a few scholars 
(I for one) have planned a small volume 
of ‘imperial documents’ which would 
contain such literary rather than 
lapidary matter; Mr. Dessau has given 
us it in his stride. His selection 15, 
indeed, so arranged as to form an ad- 
mirable basis for a study of most 
branches of Roman Imperial history, 
pursued apart from the literary texts 
with which we usually carry it on. If 
anybody desires to know what inscrip- 
tions record about any important reli- 
gious cult in the Roman Empire, he 
will find it set forth in chapter xi., a 
section of 288 pages in vol. ii., where 
are treated typical records not only of 
the ‘numina romana’ but also of 
Mithras (pp. 152-164), and of the local 
gods of most provinces, as of Gaul, 
Germany, and Britain, and much more 
on the same lines. Further on, he will 
meet (p. 276) the Arval Hymn, ‘enos 
lases iuvate.’ In short, there is very 
little that a student could wish to know, 
about any branch of Roman life and 
history, which inscriptions deal with, 
which is not somehow handled in these 
volumes. 

It is needless to add that the handling 
is throughout excellent. Everyone who 
has ever had to do with Professor 
Dessau’s work knows that he is a past- 
master in completeness, minuteness, 
and accuracy. One might as well look 
for errors of details in his writings as 


194 


in those of Theodor Mommsen. How- 
ever, I will mention two slips which I 
owe to the keen observation of a friend : 
(1) In 5892. 2 for cdemque read eidemque. 
The interest of the correction is that 
the word is written zdemque in 5892. I; 


therefore 7.and et were sometimes in- 


THE CLASSICALV REVIEW 


terchanged, in Cicero’s time. (2) In 
No. 23, the number of miles opposite 
Muranum seems to be ten too little. 
But in general Mr. Dessau’s accuracy is 
superb. 

F, HAVERFIELD. 


SHORT NOTICES 


The Annual of the British School αἱ 
Athens, XXI. Sessions 1914-15-16. 
With 15 photos and many illustra- 
tions. Macmillan. 215. net. 


Ir is not surprising that the British 
School at Athens has less to give us 
than in the days before the war; the 
wonder is that there is anything. This 
volume contains not only the usual 
scholarly fare but a charming little 
poem in Modern Greek, recited by a 
peasant of Euboea, with a graceful 
translation in English. To some this 
grain of mustard seed will give more 
pleasure than the rest of the book, good 
as it is in its own way. But I will not 
transcribe it: you must pay your guinea. 
Another page contains the names of 
five old students of the school who have 
given their lives for England: of them 
there is no need to say, Requiescant in 
pace. 

Mr. Dickins opens with a study of 
some imitators of Praxiteles, and re- 
minds us that there is no evidence fora 
‘school’ of Praxiteles in the proper 
sense. Mr. Wace identifies the site of 
Olynthus with Myriophyton, and Meky- 
berna with Molivopyrgos, and Dr. Leaf 
discusses some sites in the Troad. Miss 
Lamb has notes on Seljouk buildings in 
Konia. Miss Hutton and Mr. Buckler 
deal with inscriptions, two of which 
come from Suvla Bay. The indefati- 
gable Mr. Hasluck discusses Stone 
Cults in the Grzco-Turkish area, and 
the geographical distribution of the 
Bektashi sect. Dr. Leaf discusses the 
Inscription relating to the Locrian 
maidens, and concludes that it records 
the final settlement of the tribute, which 


thereafter ceased to be paid, ‘the 
solemn and final ending of the thousand 
years’ curse.’ Probably the most im- 
portant article in the volume is Mr. 
Tillyard’s on Rhythm in Byzantine 
Music, a subject which he has made 
peculiarly his own. It is to be hoped 
that he may be able to continue his 
study of this, since it is likely to be 
fruitful for those who are interested in 
the music of ancient Greece. 
ΝΗ 9.1: 


Ausgewahlte Tragédien des Euripides fiir 
den Schulgebrauch erklairt, von N. 
WECKLEIN. Vol. XII.: Iphigenie in 
Aulis, mit einer Tafel. Pp. xvii+93. 
Teubner, 1914. M.1. 80. 


TuHouGH this is a school edition, it 
is not without interest for maturer 
scholars. Dr. Wecklein discusses at 
some length the authorship of those 
parts of the play which seem by their 
language or their thought not to be the 
work of Euripides. After excluding 
lines 1578 ff. as obviously a much later 
addition, he finds that there are seven 
such passages (not to speak of shorter 
interpolations), viz. 1-48, 231-302, 413- 
441 and 454-468, 619-637, 773-783, 
III5-1123, 1532, or perhaps 1510, to 
1577. Theauthor of all these passages 
may .well be the same person. He 
wished to avoid two peculiarities of 
Euripides which had been ridiculed by 
the comic poets, the prologue begin- 
ning abruptly and the deus ex machina. 
He sought to heighten the effect by 
introducing the little child, of whom 
we are told more than once that he 
cannot yet talk. Lastly he added a 


WHE CLASSICAL; REVIEW 


new attraction in the κατάλογος νεῶν. 
Wecklein thinks that we have the play 
‘substantially as it was produced in 405 
B.c., and that these passages were the 
work of the younger Euripides. To 
him he would also ascribe the Rhesus. 
Among the points of similarity between 
the Rhesus and the interpolated parts of 
the Iphigenia he mentions the following : 
(1) The style of the opening anapaests: 
Rhes. XO. βᾶθι πρὸς εὐνὰς τὰς “Extopéous 
... θάρσει. EK. θαρσῶ. Iph. ATA. ὦ 
πρέσβυ, δόμων τῶνδε πάροιθεν στεῖχε. 
ΠΡ. στείχω. (2) The lines about the 
Pleiads (Rhes. 529, [ph. 7) and the break 
of day (Rhes. 546, Iph. 9). (3) The 
repetition of the word πωλικός. It 
occurs four times inthe Rhesus, three in 
Iph. 619-623. (Wecklein says four times 
in 613-623, but the occurrence in 613 is 
not to the point, as he does not regard 
613-618 as the work of the younger 
Euripides). (4) The use of epic forms 
Iph. 782 ἐσεῖται, Rhes. 525 δέχθαι. Dr. 
Wecklein has an extensive knowledge 
of the work produced in countries other 
than his own; he knows the _ best 
English editions of the Iphigenia, and 
in his note on lines 231-302 he refers to 
Mr. T. W. Allen’s article in this Review 
Cave TOOL, pe 346" ff). 1 will be 
noticed that he comes to a different 
conclusion on the Rhesus problem from 
that reached by several scholars in this 
country in the last few years. (See the 
article by Mr. G. C. Richards in C.Q. 
δ τῦτο; 15... 12 ff.) + Dr. Wecklein’s 
Preface is dated 1913, the year in which 
Professor Murray’s Rhesus and Mr. 
W. H. Porter’s article in Hermathena 
were published. 
WE, Pl PANTIN: 
St. Pauls School. 


Lucian’s Atticism : the Morphology of the 


Verb. By R.. J. DEEERRARI. ‘One 
vol. g}”x6}”. Pp. ix+85. Prince- 
ton: University Press; London: 


H. Milford, 1916. 


“Tus dissertation presents the first 
results of an extended study of Lucian’s 
language, both in relation to his fellow 
Atticists and the κοινή. . . . I have 
confined myself to the morphology of 
the verb, as containing perhaps the 


195 


greatest number of MS. problems, and 
as showing certain general and typical 
tendencies and motives of the author.’ 
Certain pieces have been omitted, but 
for the mass of writings included in the 
Lucianic corpus ‘it is hoped that the 
material has been completely collected 
and presented in sufficient detail.’ The 
author’s general plan is to state briefly, 
with references to such works as those 
of Kiihner, Meisterhans, Mayser, Blass, 
what forms are found in Attic literature 
or inscriptions, in the papyri, and in the 
New Testament; then to summarise 
the usage of the other Atticists; and 
finally to give statistics of Lucian’s 
usage and, in most cases, complete 
references to the passages in which the 
form occurs. Thus we have in a com- 
pact form the result of much laborious 
research. ‘Probably ΠΟ significant 
variant has been missed, even if the 
evidence for and against it is not 
full.’ 

The book will undoubtedly be help- 
ful (as the author hopes) to future 
editors of Lucian. It will also serve as 
a supplement to the larger reference 
books on grammar. 

The last chapter, in which Mr. Defer- 
rari sums up the conclusions at which 
he has arrived, is of more general in- 
terest, as a few quotations will show: 

‘This investigation of Lucian’s verb 
morphology as compared to that of 
other exponents of the same literary 
movement has greatly increased our 
respect for Lucian as the most strict, 
yet the least stiff, of the Hellenistic 
Atticists. Lucian has many variations 
from good Attic, some extensive and 
some isolated; but practically all are 
the result of a definite purpose, not of 
ignorance. . . Ὁ They are due in the 
main to three factors: a sense of 
dramatic fitness, a desire to avoid 
obscurity, and a desire to avoid pro- 
nounced pedantry. This deliberate 
abandonment of true Attic is further 
evidence of Lucian’s great command of 
the Attic dialect, and is responsible for 
the naturalness of his style.’ 

‘We believe that on the whole the 
tradition faithfully represents Lucian’s 
usage — modified, however, by the 
insertion of a small number of Atticisms 
and a much greater number of vul- 


196 


garisms. Lucian was more Attic, not 
less Attic, than as we now know him.’ 
It is a pity that such a solid piece of 
work is marred by occasional misprints : 
¢.g., p. 49, ‘ Although correct in eleven 
cases of the aorist of σημαίνω, yet in 
73-36 L. has éonunva.’ Here ἐσήμανα 
is meant, as is shown on p. 50. The 
Attic form of the imperfect of ἐργάξομαι 
(sic) is stated on p. 12 to be εἰργαζόμην, 
on p. 13 ἠργαζομην. 
W. ἘΠ P. PANTIN. 


The First Year of Greek. By J. T. 
ALLEN, Associate Professor of Greek, 
University of California. Pp. 375. 
New York: The Macmillan Com- 
pany. $1.30. 


ΤῊΙΒ is a-book of a new kind and we 
commend it to the notice of all whom 
it may concern. Its author’s aim is to 
provide for the needs of ‘students of 
college age’ who, as he says, ‘do not 
desire, and should not be expected, to 
begin the study of a language in pre- 
cisely the same manner as children of 
fourteen or fifteen.” As many of them 
will not be able to give more than a 
year or two to Greek, ‘ the course must 
be more compressed; the content of 
the first year richer.. Just so far as is 
possible in so brief a period the student 
must be given the opportunity of read- 
ing in their original form choice por- 
tions of Greek literature.... The 
selections have been chosen for their 
intrinsic merit and graded with greatest 
care, and deserve to be read and re-read 
many times. In fact, there are only a 
few that are not worthy to be mem- 
orised, which indeed was one of the 
chief considerations in determining 
their choice. For in learning a lan- 
guage like Greek there is hardly any 
exercise more helpful than memorising 
suitable passages both in prose and 
verse.’ 

_ The author has chosen with good 
judgment and from a wide range of 
authors. The pieces are interesting 
and varied and are not too hard for 
their place in the book if the learner 
goes slowly, revises often, and learns 
many passages by heart. In the 
earlier lessons we have, among other 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


attractive material, a few verses from 
the gospels, a line or two from some 
poet, Euclid’s axioms. Single lines of 
Menander, many of which are easy (e.g. 
Ἢ γλῶσσα πολλῶν ἐστιν αἰτία κακῶν), 
are often introduced. After a time we 
have short pieces from Plato, then 
longer selections from the Lysis and 
Protagoras, short extracts (3 or 4 lines) 
from the tragedians, the Anthology, etc. 

There are comparatively few exercises 
for translation into Greek. Those 
given are well planned to give practice - 
in the words and types of sentence 
which occur in the reading. It is 
suggested that they should be expanded, 
and this will probably be found neces- 
sary in order to make the student 
thoroughly familiar with the common 
words and inflexions. 

The editoris a scholar. Hedoes not 
expect his pupils to be able to enjoy 
Greek literature without learning to 
distinguish fine shades of meaning. He 
does not rewrite the selections (except 
those from Herodotus) to make them 
easier, but he chooses carefully passages. 
which contain cnly common words and 
standard constructions. The grammar 
(123 pages) is clear and thorough; the 
syntax is perhaps rather too much com- 
pressed; here and there the general 
statement is scarcely clear without an 
example. 

The paper, print, and binding are 
admirable. 

W..E. P. PANTIN. 


Bernini and other Studies in the History of 
Art. By RicHarp Norton, Museum 


of Fine Arts, Boston. With 69 
plates. New York: Macmillan 
Company. 


Tuis volume is an admirable example 
of the aesthetic criticism of art. It 
touches the classical student in three 
chapters: the Art of Portraiture, 
Pheidias and Michel Angelo, and a 
Head of Athena found at Cyrene. 
Mr. Norton analyses the principles of 
portrait statues in Egypt, Greece, and 
Rome, and compares the portrait in 
statuary and in painting. The painting 
depends for its impression chiefly on 
the eyes, the carving chiefly depends on 
the: mouth, since the peculiar power of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


the two branches of art lies in colour and 
in form respectively. Egypt, Greece,and 
Rome are all realistic in portraiture, but 
they all try to represent character rather 
than physical peculiarities merely—until 
the time of decadence comes, and char- 
acter gives place to sensation. But the 
character which the Greek sought was 
that of the whole man as he was, his 
inner self embodied in the form and 
moulding it; the Roman sought to 
depict a man as he appeared to his 
contemporaries: in the Greek, thought 
predominates, in the Roman, action. 
The second essay compares the genius 
of the two sculptors, which in itself 
seems to be not unlike, under the 
different influences of their religion and 
their moral ideas. In both the author 
sees the conception of a work of art as 
a whole, its parts and its decorations 
belonging naturally to the whole, and if 
separated from it losing their value. The 
Cyrenean head was discovered by Mr. 
Norton himself in the American excava- 
tions. He discusses its style in detail, 
and comes to the conclusion that it is 
by a local artist of the fourth century, 
and that it shows local influence. 

The volume has a peculiarity which 
is welcome to the amateur, if that word 
be used in its true sense: it is free from 
art jargon, and expresses its thoughts 
with perfect clearness for any intelligent 
reader. The author’s competence is 
obvious: no less his good sense and 
thoughtful penetration. 

Wie Et’ Be. RA 


The Equestrian Officials of Trajan and 


Hadrian. Their Careers, with some 
Notes on Hadrian’s Reforms. By 
Ro ἘΠ LACEY... ‘Princeton, 1017: 


THIS is a dissertation presented for the 
doctorate in Princeton University, and 
it is of more than average merit. In 
effect, the writer re-edits those items in 
the ‘Prosopographia” which bear upon 
his subject, with necessary additions and 
corrections and full comments, accom- 
panied by abundant references to the 
opinions of scholars on disputed points. 
The author is not merely a compiler; 
there is good criticism of divergent 
views. Inaccuracies are few. Among 
them is a statement on p. 60 that 


197 


‘Hadrian received the tribunician power 
the second. time τ. the third time/ 
Naturally the balance of probability will 
sometimes seem to the reader to incline 
in a different direction from that as- 
sumed by the author. It is hard to 
believe, for instance, that the title le gatus 
turidicus was ever applied to the inde- 
pendent governor of a province (p. 49). 
Such an officer must have been normally 
subordinate to a governor, though he 
may have been acting governor in an 
emergency, as the quaestor was on occa- 
sion in the Republican age. Momm- 
sen seems to have been right in holding 
that promagister could not apply to an 
imperial officer of finance (p. 43). There 
is no real difficulty in supposing that a 
man who at one time was an official of a 
societas publicanorum became later on- 
an imperial grocurator. Misprints in 
the thesis are rare. On p. 5 modera- 
tionem in a quotation should be modera- 
torem and on p. 49 vegion is an error for 
vetgn. A full index adds to the value of 
dissertation. 


WSR 


Lost Mosaics and Frescoes of Rome of tha 
Mediaeval Period. By C. R. Morey. 
One’ vol: Small 4to, “rolx« 72". 
Pp. 70. Seven full-page plates, 
seventeen figures in text. Princeton 
University Press, Princeton; London: 
Humphrey Milford, 1915. 


THE subject of this book causes it to 
fall outside the proper scope of the 
Classical Review; but it is of no small 
importance to students of mediaeval 
Rome, and furnishes a good illustration 
of the value of the study of drawings of 
Roman monuments. The author shows 
that amongst tke drawings collected 
by Cassiano dal Pozzo, now preserved in 
the Royal Library at Windsor, there is 
a group which may be attributed to one 
Antonio Eclissi, a protégé of the Bar- 
berini, representing several of the 
mosaics which suffered restoration at 
the hands of Urban VIII. The study 
of these drawings enables us not only 
to recover details which the restorers 
obliterated or altered, but also to deter- 
mine the true text of fragmentary in- 
scriptions. It will be of interest to 
epigraphists that even so competent a 


198 


scholar as Wilpert was wide of the 
mark in his restorations of such in- 
scriptions as those on the mosaics of 
S. Pudenziana. H. S. JONEs. 


Linguistic Change: An Introduction to 
the Historical Study of Language. By 
E. H. STURTEVANT. 7$"x52”. Pp. 
x+184. University of Chicago Press. 
$1.00 net. 


Lincuistic study has _ considerably 
advanced since the days when Voltaire 
could scoff at it as a science in which 
the consonants count for little and the 
vowels for nothing ; and Mr. Sturtevant 
is nothing if not modern—we really 
feel at times as though we had been 
admitted into the laboratory of the 
professor of phonetics in Shaw’s Pygma- 
lion! For much stress is given to 
influences, such as those which we 
know colloquially as ‘Spoonerisms,’ 
and the sort of phenomena collected by 
Meringer in his Aus dem Leben der 
Sprache, which play a very important 
part in linguistic development—a part 
inclined to be neglected by philologists 
of the older school. Sometimes, per- 
haps, Mr. Sturtevant’s scientific enthu- 
siasm leads him to adduce somewhat 
trivial instances from the American 
language ; but we must forgive him the 
vices of his ultra-modernism for the 
sake of its benefits, and perhaps he 
would remind us of Socrates’ rebuke of 
the young Theaetetus to the effect that 
nothing—not even hair and mud—is 
φαῦλος to the philosophic mind. What 
is of more importance is a certain lack 
of critical spirit which accepts as well- 
established facts conjectures such as the 
derivation of breviter from breve iter; 
had Mr. Sturtevant only remembered 
that caution of Swift’s about deriving 
apothecary from the pot he carries, philo- 
logists would have found fewer causes 
of quarrel with the present volume. 
But in spite of these, somewhat serious, 
defects it is a stimulating little book, 
which treats in a very simple way the 
important effects of the living voice 
upon the history of a language, together 
with such things as change of form and 
of meaning in isolated words and in 
general syntax. 
R. B. APPLETON. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Patriotic Poetry. Greek and English, by 
W. Ruys ROBERTS. Pp. vili+135,. 
with four illustrations. London: 
Murray, 1916. 3s. 6d. net. 

WHAT the preface calls the ‘more mar- 
tial’ portions of this volume were de- 
livered as an address on St. Crispin’s. 
day 1915 to the Literary and Historical 
Society of Leeds University. To this. 
Prof. Roberts has added some sixty 
pages of notes and references which pro- 
vide an excellent collation of Greek and 
English patriotic poetry from Shake- 
spear and Homer down to William Wat- 
son and Constantine Rhigas, who was 
shot by the Turks at Belgrade in 1708. 
(Part of his splendid appeal to the 
Greeks is quoted in the notes and is one 
of the finest poems among them.) The 
book is not intended mainly for classical 
scholars, but for boys, and the. English 
reader who has little or no Greek ; which 
explains the general simplicity, and an 
occasional crudity, of comment ; but even 
the classical scholar will find it stimu- 
lating to find how often Prof. Roberts 
can give a modern application to old 
familiar words. Perhaps these stand out 
at times in too vivid contrast with the 
author’s somewhat ephemeral commen- 
tary, but who can expect what is frankly 
a book of the day to be written in im- 
mortal words? One would certainly 
have welcomed upon so fascinating a 
theme a rather more fully-digested work 
than this somewhat hasty compilation, 
but even as it stands it is a remarkable 
illustration of the fact that the words 
and thoughts of the ancient Greeks are 
as true and as valuable to-day as they 
were over two thousand years ago. 


Ἰὸς Boa 


Storia della letteratura romana. By 
A.G. AMATUCCI. Napoli (1912, 1916). 
4 lire. 
THE first part of this work appeared 
some years ago; the second, which 
deals with the period from Augustus to 
the fifth century A.D., although com- 
posed shortly afterwards, was first pub- 
lished in 1916. The author writes for 
Italian schools and Universities, and 
expresses a hope that his book may be 
kept for reference by students after they 
have completed their courses. In his 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Preface he claims some originality for 
his work, and states that it is written 
from an Italian point of view. The 
originality is not obvious, and the literary 
judgments, though sane, are not strik- 
ing. The strength of the author appears 
to lie in his power of compression, the 
skilful use which he has made of his 
materials, and his great industry. He 
has drawn chiefly from Teuffel and the 
‘monumental’ work of Schanz, and 
made great use of the reviews and 
notices to be found in Bursian’s Jahres- 
bericht. He gives a selection from the 
monographs which have appeared in 
recent years upon the various authors, 
and claims to have studied them him- 
self. The text-is accompanied by notes 
arranged in three classes: (a) To eluci- 
date and amplify the text; (>) dealing 
with the fontes; (c) giving the chief 
MSS., critical editions, transactions, 
etc. The notes are not given at the 
foot of the page, but succeed the text, 
and it is often necessary to look back 
several pages in order to find the re- 


199 


ference. This method has some incon- 
veniences. Thus I. 239 we find 


(28) A. E un delle migliori opere dt 
Cicerone, la migliore tra le filosofiche. 


The name of the treatise is not given, 
and it is necessary to look back to 
p. 229 to find that (28) = De Finibus. 
There are some natural omissions in 
the lists of authorities. Thus the 
Harleian MS. 2682, though mentioned 
for other speeches of Cicero, is not given 
as an authority for the text of the 
Milomana. The subject of rhythm in 
Latin prose-writers, which has been so 
much discussed in recent years, re- 
ceives only scanty reference. It will be 
gathered that Professor Amatucci’s 
work is likely to be of use to students 
outside of his own country. No other 
book of its size contains so much infor- 
mation, and its cheapness is quite 
extraordinary. 
ALBERT C. CLark. 


Corpus Christz College, Oxford. 


NOTES AND 


ALTHOUGH it bears only indirectly 
upon our work, we wish to call atten- 
tion to the Classical French Theatre 
Association, which has just issued an 
attractive programme of drama, music, 
and lectures. These help our under- 


NEWS 


standing of one of the chief heirs of 
Latin culture in Europe. Further par- 
ticulars may be had from the Comte 
de Croze, 8g, Fitzjohn’s Avenue, 
London, N.W. 3. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


To the Editors of the CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Dr. LEAF’S second letter in your August- 
September number makes it unnecessary for 
me to repeat what I said in a reply to it which 
waited too long for information from Athens, 
and so was too late for that issue. I will only 
observe that it was he, not I, who was ‘mis- 
informed.’ I had known for some time that 
nearly a dozen sites had been discovered, not 
one only, and that there was reason to believe 
that a settlement ‘at Corinth’ was Mycenaean, 
like the rest. Dr. Leaf hopes it was not. We 
shall soon know for certain. 

Meantime, however important his particular 
point may be for his prophecy, it does not seem 
to matter to those who oppose his latest view of 
the Catalogue. For already thus much is clear, 
that there was in Mycenaean times effective 
occupation of the region of Corinth, and that 
there were—I quote the Classical /Journal— 


‘extensive trade relations with Crete and the 
Aegean Islands, and with settlements in Argolis 
and in Central Greece.’ The soil and climate, 
which Dr. Leaf has misdescribed in his book in 
terms so disparaging that one must marvel that 
a great city was ever founded and flourished 
there, did not deter the Mycenaeans. They, 
like their predecessors and successors, appre- 
ciated the importance of the locality for trade. 
We always knew that there was a ‘natural 
harbour at Cenchreae,’ but we now know it was 
a Mycenaean port. About Lechaeum also I 
believe Dr. Leaf is wrong. There is in the 
tradition a claim by the Corinthians that it was 
the first artificial port ever created. It may 
well have been created in Mycenaean times ; 
its creation would surely have been a trifle to 
the builders of Mycenae. But, be that as it 
may, the fact is, in spite of what Dr. Leaf has 
written to the contrary, that the shore in the 
vicinity is well adapted to shipping of the 


200 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Mycenaean kind. Trade thence across the Gulf 
to Central Greece appears to have been active, 
and, personally, I do not doubt there would be 
some trade along the Isthmus, however δύσοδος 
the route may have been. The whole region 
was evidently dominated by the lords of Myce- 
nae. They could either permit traffic to cross 
from Cenchreae to Lechaeum, or constrain it to 
Nauplia and the route past their great τελώνιον 
in the mountains to Corinth and the Gulf. 
Perhaps in this restraint of trade they only 
imitated their great predecessor, Sisyphus. 
‘There is a hint in the tradition about that 
κέρδιστος ἀνδρῶν, who is said to have ‘ promoted 
navigation and commerce.’ He made the 
Isthmus impassable by rolling stones down on 
travellers, and that procedure may reflect some 
embargo on the land traffic designed to favour 
the direct route between the then Lechaeum 
and Northern Greece. 

The ‘foundation of my arguments’ has not 
been ‘knocked away’—yet. So far as one can 
judge at present, it seems. they have been 
strengthened, and that Unitarians, pitied by 
some reviewers of Homer and History, have 
good ground for awaiting without trepidation 
ἃ full statement of the results of these excava- 
tions, and the light it is anticipated they will 
throw on the prehistory of the Peloponnesus. 
Whatever the issue of Dr. Leaf’s prediction, 
there seems to be good reason for believing 


that ‘Homer’ and the Ca¢alogue are sound in 
regard to ἀφνειὸς Κόρινθος. His excision of the 
passage in ‘Homer’ in which it 1s mentioned is 
arbitrary and negligible.—Yours, etc., 
A. SHEWAN. 
St. Andrews. 


To the Editors of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Professor Housman says (Class. Rev. XVII. 
390) that only one certain emendation has 
ever been made in the text of Persius. May 
I through the medium of your columns present 


~ him with another? The Epigram that does 


duty for Prologue is, as they print it, halt and 
maimed, without a leg to stand on; in fine, 
no epigram at all. And who's to blame? Not 
Persius, but the monk (God rest his soul !) who 
expurgated the poem for the fastidious reader— 
the St. Jerome ‘—of his day. Give the poor 
thing its due: write in the last line ‘cacare 
for ‘ c&é/are’ (2.6. cantare), and it may become 
less prim and proper, but at least it will stand 
on its own legs again. And anyone who has 
chanced to pass through a rookery in spring 
will admit the force and aptness of the expression 
as a set-off against its coarseness and bear the 
precocious author no lasting ill-will. 
I am, sir, etc., 
‘IUS SUUM CUIQUE.’ 
September 11, 1918. 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


lil publications which hav 
review. 


* * Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and 


Barker (E.) Greek Political Theory: Plato 
and his Predecessors. Newedition. 9” x6”. 
Pp. xiv+4o04. London : Methuen and Co., 
1918. Cloth, 14s. net. 

Begbie (H.) Living Water: Chapters from the 
Romance of the Poor Student. 73x05". 
Pp. 210. London: Headley Bros., 1918. 
Paper boards, 2s. 6d. net. 

Benton (P. A.) A Book of Anniversaries. 
ox 4k”. Pp, 170. Oxford: University 
Press, 1918. 35. net. 

Byrne (L.) The Syntax of High School Latin. 

“Revised edition. 9” x6". Pp. xii + 60, 
Chicago: University Press, 1918. Cloth, 
75 cents net. 

Fowler (W. W.) Virgil’s Gathering of the 
Clans. Second edition, revised. Pp. ν᾽ Ὁ οὗ. 
Aeneas at the Site of Rome. Second edition, 
revised. Pp. x+130. 8"x5". Oxford: 
Blackwell, 1918. Cloth, 4s. 6d. net each. 

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 
Vol. XXIX. 87x53”. Pp. viiit-178. Har- 
vard Press and Oxford University Press, 
1918. Paper boards, 6s. 6d. net. 

Leopold (H.M. R.) De Ontwikkeling van het 
Heidendom in Rome. 10’ x 63". Pp. xvi+ 162. 
Rotterdam: W. L. and J. Brusse. 
‘achmanson (E.) Erotiani vocum Hippocrati- 
carum Collectio, cum Fragmentis. 9x 5". 
Pp. xxxii+156. Géteborg : Eranos’ Forlag; 


6. a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered in this list. if they are sent for 

The price should in all cases be stated. 

Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


London: Williams and Norgate, 1918. 
Kr. Io. 

Roehl (H.) Epistula Novi Mariti. Prize Poem 
and others, highly commended. Also Report 
on the foregoing. to”’x63”. Amsterdam: 
J. Muller, 1918. 

Stampini (E.) Rivista di Filologia e di Istru- 
zione Classica, Anno 46, Fasc. 3. οὐ" x 61". 
Pp. 305-384. Turin: G. Chiantore, 1918. 

Thomas (M. A.) Notice sur le Manuscrit 
Latin 4788 du Vatican, contenant une traduc- 
tion de la Consolatio Philosophiae de Boéce. 
11}”x9g". Pp. 66. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 
όχι Fr 3. 

Translations of Christian Literature. Series 1.: 
St. Dionysius of Alexandria: Letters and 
Treatises (C. L. Feltoe). Pp. 110. 3s. 6d. 
net. The Lausiac History of Palladius 
(W. K. L. Clarke). Pp. 188. 5s.net. 73”x 5”. 
London: S.P.C.K., 1918. Cloth, 5s. net. 

Verrua (P.) L’Eloquenza di Lucio Marineo 
Siculos)) (1e}"« S$", Pps 28:,) Pisa: ἘΝ 
Mariotti, 1918. 

White (N. J.D.) Libri Sancti Patricii. Texts 
for ‘Students, ° Now) 40). 77 es... Ppec 32s 
London: S.P.C.K., 1918. 6d. net. 

Whittaker (T.) The Neo-Platonists. Second 
edition, with a supplement on the Commen- 
taries of Proclus. 9”’x6". Pp. xvi+320. 
Cambridge: University Press, 1918. Cloth, 
125. net. ‘ 


INDEX 


Ι-- GENERAL INDEX. 


A. 


Accademia Scientifico-Letteraria in Milano, noticed, 


112 ff. 
Adam (Adela Marion), notice of Rostagni’s Poeti 
Alessandrini, 75 f. 
Aeginetan coin standard, the, 724 
Aeneas’ voyage up the Tiber, 103 f. 
Aeneid VIII., notes on, 103 ff. 
Agamemnon, military roads of, 169 
and Diomede, realms of, 3 ff. 
Agar (T. L.), notice of Allen’s Odyssea I.-XII., 
184 f. 
the Homeric Hymns (continued), 143 ff. 
three passages in Hesiod’s Works and Days, 
56 ff. 
"AxadavOis”* Aprejus, 110 Ff. 
Allbutt (Sir Clifford), notice of Hort's Theophras- 
tus’ Engutry into Plants, 36 ff. 
notice of Stratton’s Theophrastus and the Greck 
Physiological Psychology before'Aristotle, 117 ff. 
Alexander, Eastern versions of the romance of, 


731. 
Allen, (le H.), Horace, Od, 1 XXXIV.-XXXV., 
201. 
Allen’s (J. T.) The First Year of Greek, noticed, 196 
Allen’s (T.) Odyssea I.-X7TI., noticed, 184 f. 
Alton (E. H.), notice of Landi’s P. Ovidi Nasonis 
Tristia, 1246 
notice of Marchesi’s P. Ovidi Nasonis Artis 
Amatoriac, 124 
Ovidiana: Fasti I, (161-227), 13 ff., 58 ff., 
153 ff. 
Amatucci’s Storia della letievatuya yomana, noticed, 
198 
Anderson (W. B.), notice of Postgate’s M. Annaei 
Lucani de bello civili, Liber VIII., 78 ff. 
Annual of the British School at Athens, noticed, 194 
Antigone, the problem of the, 141 ff. 
Antony, Horace’s view of, 30 
Appleton (R. B.), Euripides the Idealist, 89 ff. 
note on Euripides’ Troades (226 sqq.), 110 
notice of Sturtevant’s Linguistic Change, 198 
Arcadia, prehistoric, 7 f. 
Arnold’s Way Time Lectures, noticed, 46 
Asclepiad odes of Horace, 24 ff. 
ass, honoured at the Vestalia, 61 
sacrifice of, at Lampsacus, ib. 
Atlas, Virgil’s conception of, 105 
Ausoniana, 111 
Ausonius, 190 
Avellanus’ Pericla Navarchi Magonis, noticed, 40 f. 


B. 


Barbelenet's de la Phrase ἃ Vérbe ‘ étve’ dans UIonien 
@ Hévodote, noticed, 83 ff. 

Bassi’s C. Iulii Caesavis Commentarii de Bello Civili, 
noticed, 125) 


NO. CCLXXI. VOL. XXXII. 


Bérard’s Les Phoeniciens et l'Odyssée, τ, 8 
bird-names, Classical, and modern Italian, 94 ff. 
birds of Diomede, the, 66 f., 92 ff. _ 
blind-rat, the, in ancient writers, ro ff. 
Books Received, 48, 88, 136, 200 
Bowie’s Caesay’s Wars with the Germans, noticed, 46 
Breasted’s Ancient Times, noticed, 44 
Breul’s The Cambridge Songs, noticed, 34 f. 
‘ breves breviantes’ law, 109 ὃ 
Brooks (E. J.), Callimachus (Epigr. 5), 11ὸ 
Virgil, den. VIII. (90), 171 
Browne (H.), notice of Gardner’s History of Ancient 
Coinage, 70 ff. 
Burns, Greek Ideals, noticed, 189 f. 
Bury (R. G.), notes on some texts in Plato and 
Marcus Aurelius, 147 ft. 
notice of Burns’ Greek Ideals, 189 f. 
notice of More’s Platonism, 187 ff. 
notice of Haines’ Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 


32 f. 
notice of James’ Biblical Antiquities of Philo, 


1320 f. 
notice of Mackenna’s Plotinus: the Ethical 
Treatises, 38 f. 
notice of Moore’s Religious Thought of the 
Greeks, 131 
Butler, Henry Montagu, obituary notice of, 85 
Butterworth (G. W.), notice of Harvard Studies in 
Classical Philology, 120 f. 
notice of Hitchcock’s Treatise of Ivenaeus against 
the Heresies, 180 f. 
notice of Lowther Clarke’s Gregory of Nyssa: 
the Life of St. Macrina, 181 f. 
notice of Oesterley’s The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, 
182 
Byrne’s Prolegomena to an Edition of the Works of 
Decimus Magnus Ausonius, noticed, 1go ἢ, 


C. 


C. (L.), notice of La Science Francaise, 43 
Cacus, the cave of, 105 
Callimachus (Epigr. 5), 110 
the Hymns of, 76 
Campbell (A. Y.), notice of Loeb’s The New Greek 
Comedy, 182 ff. 
Cato Grammaticus, 62 ᾿ 
Choephoroe, allusions to the, in Euripides’ Electra, 


138 
Cicero, ad Att. VIII. (4), 171 
Ep. ad Fam. IX. 20 (2), 31 
Clark (Albert C.), notice of Amatucci’s Storia della 
lettevatuva vomana, 198 
notice of Colombo's Cicero : pro Milone, pyro 
Archia, 125 
notice of Pascal's Cicero : de Re Publica, 124 f. 
notice of Wageningen’s de Ciceronis libyo Con- 
solationis, 82 


401 O 


202 INDEX 


Cleopatra in Horace, 30 

Colombo's Cicero: pro Milone, pro Archia, noticed, 
124 f. 

Conway (R. §.), restorations and emendations in 
Livy VI.-X., 1 ff. 

Corinth in Mycenaean times, 2 

Correspondence, 87 f., 135, 199 f. 

Cranes, habits of, 66 


dD. 

Daphnis myth, the, 76 
Dawkins’ Modern Greek in Asia Minor, noticed, 77 f. 
Deferrari’s Lucian’s Atticism, noticed, 195 f. 
Dessau’s Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Vol. III, 

pars 2), noticed, 192 ff. 
Diomede, the birds of, 66 ff., 92 ff. 
Duckett’s Studies in Ennius, noticed, 45 f. 


E. 
Electva of Euripides, the, 137 ff. 
Eris, the good, 56 f. 
Esposito (M.), Priscianus Lydus and Johannes 
Scottus, 21 ff. 
Euripides the Idealist, 89 ff. 
note on Tvoades (226 sqq.), 110 
Evelyn-White (C. H.), notice of .Mayor and 
Souter’s Q. Septimi Floventis Tertulliani Apolo- 
geticus, 127 f. 
Evelyn White (Hugh G.), Ausoniana, 111 
notice of Mooney’s Zhe House-Door on the 
Ancient Stage, 84 


F, 
Fabii, the, 14 
Fishes, the Sign of the, in Ovid, 16 ff. 
Flosculi Rossallienses, noticed, 44 
Fort (J. A.), note on the Pervigilium Veneris, 96 ff. 
four-line stanza in the Odes of Horace, the, 23 ff. 
Fowler (W. Warde), two Virgilian bird-notes, 65 ff. 
Fowler’s (W. Warde) Aeneas at the Site of Rome, 
noticed, 129 ff. 
Friedlaender’s Die Chadhivlegende und der Alexander- 
voman, noticed, 73 f. 


G, 


G. (A. J. B.), notice of Breasted’s Ancient Times: a 
History of the Early World, 44 
notice of Gardner’s Lascarids of Nicaea, 43 f. 
notice of Jastrow’s Civilisation of Babylonia and 
Assyria, 44 
notice of Scrivener’s Greek Testament, 44 
Gardner’s (Miss Alice) Lascarids of Nicaea, noticed, 


43 1. 
Gardner's History of Ancient Coinage, noticed, 70 ff. 
Gaselee (S.), notice of Stampini’s Studi di Letteva- 
tuva e Filologia Latina, 126 
Gaselee’s Apuleius : the Golden Ass, noticed, 41 f. 
Achilles Tatius, noticed, 132 
genitives in o0-, Homeric, 185 
Genner (E. E.), Portus Itius, 70 
Granger (Frank), notice of Friedlaender’s Die 
Chadhirlegende und dey Alexanderroman, 73 f. 
Greek Anthology, list of addenda to the, 186 f. 
Greek, general relative clauses in, 169 f. 
See Vo]. XXXI., Nos. 3-4. 
Greek Winds, the, 49 ff. 
Grenfell (B. P.), notice of R. Accademia Scientifico- 
Letteravia in Milano, 112 ff, 
Grose (S. W.), note on περισκελής, 1682 


ἘΠῚ 


Haines, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, noticed, 32 f. 
Hall (F. W.), notice of Duckett’s Studies in Ennius, 


451. 
Hartman’s de Plutayvcho Scriptore et Philosopho, 
noticed, §172 ff. 


Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, noticed, 120 f. 

Haverfield (F.), notice of Dessau’s Inscriptiones 
Latinae Selectae, 192 ff. 

Heseltine (M.), notice of Gaselee’s Achilles Tatius, 

132 
notice of Gaselee’s Apuleius: the Golden Ass, 41 f. 

Hesiod’s Works and Days, three passages in, 56 ff. 

Homeric Hymns, the (continued), 143 ft. 

Horace, on a famous ‘crux’ in (Sermones I. 6. 126), 

64 f. 
four-line stanza in the Odes of, 23 ff. 
note on Epp. II. 1 (161 sqq.), 165 
on Od. 1. xxiv.-xxxv., 29 f. 

horns of Moses, the, 74) 

Hort’s (Sir A.), Theophvastus’ Enquiry into Plants and 
Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs, noticed, 
36 ff. 

Housman (A. E.), jests of Plautus, Cicero, and. 
Trimalchio, 162 ff. 

Husband (J.), notice of Warde Fowler's Aeneas at 
the Site of Rome, 129 ff. 


My 


indicative in relative clauses, the, 68 f. 
Iphigenia in Aulis, interpolations in the, 194) f. 
Isidore’s Etymologies, the title of, 69 f. 


IIe 
James’ Biblical Antiquities of Philo, noticed, 132b f. 
Janus, 13 
Jastrow’s Civilisation of Babylonia and Assyria, 
noticed, 44) 
jests of Plautus, Cicero, and Trimalchio, 162 ff. 
Jonah, the book of, 74a 
Jones (H. 8.), notice of Morey’s Lost Mosaics and 
Frescoes of Rome of the Mediaeval Period, 197 


K, 


Kean (M.), Cicero, ad. Att. VIII. (4), 171 
Thucydides VII. 21 (3), 110 
Kyriakides, Pocket English-Greek Dictionary o \f Idioms, 
Proverbs, and Phrases, 45 


L. 


L. (R. B.), notice of Flosculi Rossallienses, 24 f. 
Lacey's Equestrian Officials of Traian and Hadrian, 
noticed, 197 
Landi’s P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristia, noticed, 124) 
Latin poetic order, with special reference to 
Horace, Epodes 5 (19), 161 f. 

vowels before gn, 31 
Leaf (Walter), paraphrases, 47 ᾿ 
Leaf’s view of the Realm of Agamemnon, criti- 

cised, 1 ff. 

Lindsay (W. M.), notes on the Lydia, 62 f. 

a phrase-book of St. Columban, 31 fe 

the title of Isidore’s Etymologies, 69 f. 

Plautus, Stich. (1 sqq.), 106 ft. 

notice of Pascal’s Vergilii Bucolicon Liber, 123 ff. 
Livy XXIV. (2619), 171 f. 
Livy and the name Augustus, 158 ff. 
Locrian maidens, the tribute of, 194 
Loeb’s The New Greek Comedy, noticed, 182 ft. 
Lucian, verb morphology of, 195 
Lydia, notes on the, 62 τ 


Μ. 


Macgregor’s Olynthiac Speeches of Demosthenes, 
noticed, 122 
Mackail (J. W.). notes on Aeneid VIIL., 103 ff. 
obituary notice of Mrs. Sellar, 86 


Mackenna's Plotinus : the Ethical Treatises, noticed, | 


38 £. 


INDEX 


Mair (A. W.), general relative clauses in Greek, 

TOO Ey) 

Thucydides II. 48 (3), 170b 

MSS. of the Odyssey, 184 f. 

Marchesi’s P. Ovidi Nasonis 
noticed, 124 

Marcus Aurelius, notes on, 148 f. 

mares of Erichthonius, the, 53) 

Mayor and Souter’s Q, Septimi Florentis Tertulliani 
A pologeticus, noticed, 127 f. 

Merry, William Walter, obituary notice of, 85 f. 

‘mole’ in antiquity, the, 9 ff. 

Mooney’s The House-Door on the Ancient Stage, 
noticed, 84 

More’s Platonism, noticed, 187 ff. 

Morey’s Lost Mosaics and Frescoes of Rome of the 
Mediaeval Period, noticed, 197 

Murphy (J. J.), the problem of the Antigone, 141 ff. 

Mycenae, source of its wealth, τ ff. 


Artis Amatoviae, 


Ν, 


Naylor (H. Darnley), Latin poetic order, with 
special reference to Horace, Epodes 5 (19), 161 f. 

Nicklin (T.), notice of Robertson’s Grammar of the 
Greek New Testament, 114 ff. 


Norton's Bernini and other Studies in the History of 


Art, noticed, 196 
Notes, 31 f., 69 f., 110 ff., 168 ff. 
NoTEes AND News, 48, 87, 134, 199 
Notus, 66 


(Oy 
Opituary, 85 f. 
Obst, der Feldzug des Xerxes, noticed, 178 ff. 
Oesterley’s The Wisdom of Ben-Siva, noticed, 182 
Olynthus, site of, 194 
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS, I ff,, 49 ff., 80 ff., 137 ff. 
Ovidiana: notes on the Fasti, 13 ff., 58 ff., 153 ff. 


ἘΝ 
Pacuvius, 166 
Pantin (W. E. P.), notice of Allen’s The First 
Year of Greek, 196 
notice of Deferrari’s Lucian’s Atticism, 195 f. 
notice of Barbelenet's de la Phrase a Verbe 
‘étve’ dans VIonien a’ Hérodote, 83 ff. 
notice of Macgregor’s Olynthiac Speeches of 
Demosthenes, 122 
notice of Peskett’s Livy, Book XXIII, ror f. 
notice of Wecklein’s Iphigenia in Aulis, 194 f. 
PARAPHRASES, 47 
Paravia Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum, the, notices 
of, 123 ff. - 
Pascal’s Ciceryo: de Re Publica, noticed, 124 f. 
Vergilit Bucolicon Liber, noticed, 123 f. 
Paton'’s Greek Anthology (Vol. 11.), noticed, 33 ἢ ; 
(Vol. IIL.), 186 f. 
περισκελής, note on, 108 
Pervigilium Venervis, note on the, 96 ff. 
Peskett (A. G.), note on Cicero, Ep. ad Fam, IX. 
20 (2), 31 
note on Livy XXIV. (26:0), 1710 £. 
note on Virgil, οὶ. VII. (52), 31 
notice of Bassi’s C. {εἰ Caesavis Commentarii 
de Bello Civili, 125) 
Peskett’s Livy, Book XXIII, noticed, τοὶ f. 
Phillimore (J. S.), notice of Byrne’s Prolegomena to 
Ausonius, 190 f. 
Terence, Andria, 434 (II. vi. 3), 28 f. 
Terentiana, 08 ff. 
phrase-book of St. Columban (?), a, 31 
Plato and Marcus Aurelius, notes on some texts 
in, 147 ff. 
Plato and Platonism, 188 f. 
Plautus, Stich, (1 sqq.), τοῦ ff. 


203 


Plutarch, note on the Symposiacs and some other 

_ dialogues of, 150 ff. 

ΠΟΛΥΧΡΥΣΟΣ ΜΥΚΗΝΗ, r ff, 

Porta Carmentalis, the, 14 ff. . 

Portus Itius, 70 

Postgate (J. P.), the four-line stanza in the Odes of 
Horace, 23 ff. 

Postgate’s M. Annaei Lucani de bello civili, Liber 
VIIL., noticed, 78 ff. 

Powell (J. U.), notice of Paton's the Greek Anthology, 
(Vol. II.), 33 f. ; (Vol. III.), 186 f, 

Prickard (A. O.), notice of Hartman's de Plutarcho 
Scriptore et Philosopho, 172 ff. 

Priscianus Lydus and Johannes Scottus, 21 ft. 

prospective in subjunctive clauses, the, 20 f. 


Q. 


R. 


Reid (J. S.), notice of Arnold’s War Time Lectures, 46 
notice of Lacey's Equestrian Officials of Trajan 
and Hadrian, 197 
REVIEWS, 32 ff., 70 ff., 112 ff., 172 ff. 
Rice-Holmes, Caesar’s Campaign in Britain, noticed, 
134 
Robertson's Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 
noticed, r1q ff, 
Rostagni’s Poeti Alessandrini, noticed, 75 f. 
Rouse (W. H. D.), notice of the Annual of the British 
School at Athens, 194 
᾿ notice of Avellanus’ Pericla Navarchi Magonis, 40 
notice of Breul’s The Cambridge Songs, 34 ἴ. 
notice of Dawkins’ Modern Greek in Asia Minor, 
7 Ὁ 
notice of Kyriakides' Pocket English-Greek 
Dictionary of Idioms, Proverbs, and Phrases, 45 
notice of Norton’s Bernini and other Studies, 196 


QUERIES, 86 


9, 


Σ, notice of Bowie’s Caesar's 
Germans, 46 
notice of Rice-Holmes’ Caesar’s Campaign in 
Britain, 124 
notices of schoolbooks, 46 f. 
8. (J.), Latin vowels before gn, 31 
St. Columban, a phrase-book of, 31 f. 
schoolbooks, noticed, 46 f , 133 f. 
Science Francaise, la, noticed, 43 
Sellar, Mrs., obituary notice of, 86 
shearwater, the, 67 f., 92 ff. 
Sheppard (J. T.), the Electra of Euripides, 137 ff. 
Shewan (A. ), the military roadsof Agamemnon, 169 

ΠΟΛΥΧΡΥ͂ΣΟΣ MYKHNH, t ff. 

queries, 86 
SHORT Notices, 43 ff., 84, 131 ff., 194 ff. 
simile, contrasted use of a, by Virgil and Apol- 

lonius, 130 
Sirius, 58 
Slater (D. A.), on a famous crux in Horace (Ser- 
mones 1. 6, 126), 64 f. 

‘Statius, Poggio, and Politian,’ 166 f. 
Socrates, Burnet and Taylor's view of, 188a, 189 
Sonnenschein (E. A.), the indicative in relative 

clauses, 68 f, 

the prospective in subjunctive clauses, 20 f, 

Stampini’s Studi di Letteratura ὁ Filologia Latina, 
noticed, 126 i 
‘Statius, Poggio, and Politian,’ 166 f. 

See Vol. XXVII., p. 265 

Stratton’s Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological 
Psychology before Aristotle, noticed, 117 ff. 

Sturtevant’s Linguistic Change, noticed, 198 

Sykes (Arthur), ᾿Ακαλανθὶς λρτεμις, 110 f. 


Wars with the 


204 INDEX 


a 
be bo ye ee Ross), Livy and the name Augustus, 
158 ff. f 

Terence, Andria, 434 (II. vi. 3), 28 f. 

his alleged plagiarisms, 98 f. 
Terentiana, οὗ ff. 
Thompson (Darcy Wentworth), the 

Diomede, 92 ff. 

the Greek winds, 49 ff. 

the ‘mole’ in antiquity, 9 ff. 
Thucydides II. 48 (3), 170 
Tower of the Winds, the, 55 
trade-routes, prehistoric, in Peloponnesus, 7 ff, 


V. 
Vesta and the Palladium, 144 ff. 


Vince (C. A.), two notes on Virgil and Horace, 
164 f. 


birds of 


I].—INDEX 


Aelian :— 
XI. (37), 110 
Anthologia Graeca :— 
VII. (50. 3, 51. 6, 212. 8), 344; IX. (144. 4, 
563. 6), 1864 
Aristophanes ;— 
Aves (874 coll, Aesch. Ag. 140), t10b f. 
Aristotle :— 
de An, III. τ. (425a, 11), 110 
H.A. IV. 8. (5334, 15), 11b; VIII. 28. (605)), 124 
de Mirab. 176 (847, 3), 110 
Ausonius :— 
Bissula 111. (5), r11b 
Ecl, VIII. (21); XXVI. (14), 1114 
Ephem. VIII. (1 sqq.), 1114 
Epp. XIII. (25) ; XXVIL. (69 sqq.), τττὸ 
Profess. XIX. (15), 11a 


(ΘῈ 

Callimachus :— 

Epigy. (5), 1104 
Cato Grammaticus :— 

Lydia (3), 62b; (22, 41 544., 68), 63 
Cicero :— 
ad Att, VIII. (4), 171 
ad Fam. IX. 20, (2), 314 


ἘΣ 
Euripides :- 
Troades (226), ΤΙΟΩ͂ 
lak 
Hesiod :— 
Works and Days (11 sqq.), 56 £.; (314 $99.) 57; 
(416), 58 
Homeric Hymns :— 
Apoll. (154 544., 159 544.), 143; (163, 169 544.) 
144 ; (177 sq.), 144; (181, 208 sqq.), 1454; 
(231 544.), 1450 ; (246, 263, 275), 146) 
Horace :— 
Epod. V. (19), 162 
Epp. 11. τ. (161 $qq.), 154 
Odes I. (xxxiv.-xxxv.), 29 ff. 
Serm. 1, 6. (126), 84 f. 


L. 
Livy :— 
XXIV. (261°), 1710 
Lucan :— 
VIII. (157 sq.), 780 f.; (513 sqq.), 80a; (638 
sq., 860 sq.), 8ob f. 
M. 
Macrobius :— 
Saturn. II, 3. (16), 1630 


Virgil, notes on, 31, 65, 103 ff., 164, 170 f. 
Virgilian bird-notes, two, 65 ff. 


W. 


Wecklein’s [phigenie in Aulis, noticed, 194 f. 
Wells (J.), notice of Obst, der Feldzug des Xerxes, 
178 ff. 


_ W. (W. G.), ‘Died of Wounds,’ 84 


Wageningen’s de Ciceronis libro 
noticed, 82 
wind-names: 
Aristotelian, 50 
Carlovingian, 54 
Pliny’s, 55 
Winds, the Greek, 40 ff. : 
Wright (F. A.), note on Virgil, Aeneid XI. (336-7), 
31 


Consolationis, 


LOCORUM. 


Marcus Aurelius :— 
1Π|. (12), 330, 148b, (16. 2), 148); IV. (27), 
148) {.; VI. (10), 1498; VII. (24), 3393 
IX. (28), 149) 


Ο. 
Oppian :— 
Cyn. II, (612), 126 
Ovid :— 
Fasti 1. (181 sqq.), 133; 11. (193 544.), 14 ff., 
(472), τοῦ ff., (479 54..,), 19 ; (605 544.), 1590, 
(770), 583 III. (713 544.), 59 £.; IV. (817), 
6ob f.; VI. (99 54.), 158, (407 54.), 1579, 
(345 sq.), 61 £., (419 544.}), 153 ff. 


Ῥ. 
Pervigilium Veneris (23, 69 sqq.), 970 f. 
Petronius :— 
41 (6-8), 164 
Plato :— 


Eryx (401A), 148) 
Euthyd. (303D), 1474 
Rep. X. (596A), 169) f. 
Plautus :— 
Rud. (766 sqq.), 162 f. 
Stich. (τ sqq.), τοῦ ff. 
Pliny :— 
N.H. X. (126 sq.), 674 
Plutarch :— 
Mor. (397¢), 17503 (555D, 563D, 575E, 5790), 
176a 
S. 
Sophocles :— 
Ajax (646 sqq.), 1684 
Antig. (474 sqq.), 168 ; (904 sqq.), 141 ff. 


T; 
Terence :— 
Andria 434 (II. vi. 3), 28 £. 
Eun. (23 sqq-), 98 £.; (317), Tota ; (326), 102; 
(978), 102b ; (10r1), τοτὸ 
Heaut. (600 sqq. coll, Ad. 216), 1ooa 
Phormio (368), toob 
Thucydides :— 
II. 18. (3), 1700 
V. 
Virgil :-— 
Aen, 1. (462), 164; VIII. (90), 170b f. ; X. (262 
coll. Georg. I. 373), 65 f.3 XI. (271 59g.) 
66 ff. ; (336 54.}, 316 
Ecl, VII. (52), 314 


205 


αἴθυια, 950 

ἀκαλά, I11a 

ἀσπάλαξ, σπάλαξ, ο ff. 
δαιμόνιε, 570 

ἐρωδιός, 94a 

? ἰαφήμως, 144 

? κάρκαρον, 95a 


καταῤῥάκτης, ib. 
κρεμβαλιαστύν, 44a 


acumina, 165a 
ardea, 94a 


A, 


avtus =‘ hemmed in,’ 79b 


augustus, 159 ff. 
heroicus, 148b 
legatus iuridicus, 197b 


mergus, 95b f. 
mundus =‘ sky,’ 630 


omnia=cetera, 78b 


patiens, 80b 
promagistey, 1976 


Η. 


Ι, 


Μ. 


INDEX 


HII.—INDEX VERBORUM 


FALLING AND SONS, L 


A.—GREEK. 


ὄρνις ἀνοπαῖα, Q4b 


περισκελής, 168 
πηνή, 146b 
προφανεῖσαᾶς, 185) 
πωλικός, το54 


σεβαστός, 150 


χάλκια πονηρά, 70a 


B.—LATIN. 


querquevus, Iota 


ves Romana, 154a 
restare ulicut, 
xumore secundo, 171a 


strictura, 1o6a 


O. 


M 


S: 


ate 


tempus =‘ time of day,’ 65a 


vector, 78b 


TD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD, ENGLAND. 


V. 


OD? 


, en 
\ 


ΤῊΕ 


(τ λοι 
REVIEW 


EDITED BY W. H. D. ROUSE 
AND -A“ Di GODLEY 


BOARD OF MANAGEMENT : 


Pror: R: Θ᾽ CONWAY, Litt.D. (Chairman) 
Pror, J. F. DOBSON, M.A. (Hon. Treasurer) ProF. A. C. CLARK, Litt.D., F.B.A. (Hon. Secretary) 
BROK GLEBE το ἢ MURRAY, ἘΠ De, ΘΙ PBA) E.R.S.1)s PRors Cy PEAMSTE AD 
WALTERS, M.A: ; (CYRIL |/ BAILEY, M_A.;* Pror. W. RIDGEWAY, ΠΡ Eitt, Litt.» 
Sc.D ΓΟ) BBA: 


With the co-operation of—Pror. W. GARDNER HALE, University of Chicago ; Principat 
Sir W. PETERSON, LL.D., C.M.G., McGill University, Montreal; Pror. T. G. 
TUCKER, Litt.D., University of Melbourne. 


VOLUME XXXII. 


PUBLISHED FOR THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION 


: LONDON 
PORN: MURRAY, “ALBEMARLE STREET, W- 


BOSTON, MASS. 
GINN AND COMPANY, 15, ASHBURTON PLACE 


1919 


TABLE OF 


Original Contributions: 
A Noble Anatolian Family of the 


Fourth Century. ΔΝ. M. Ram- 
SAY 

The Art of Beaipides.: in he Hippo: 
lytus. J. A.S. 


The Meaning of ὩΣ OION TE. 
G. W. BuTTERWoRTH 
A Supposed Fragment of nen 


phrastus. C. M. Mutvany 
Phaedrus and Seneca. J. P. Post- 
GATE . : : : 5 
Notes: 
IMANTEAITMOY®. D’Arcy WENT- 
WORTH THOMPSON . ! 
Anth. Pal., Book V., No. 6. M. 
PLATNAUER, B.E.F. : 
Anth. Pal: XII, 3. F. A. Fveres 


Soph. Antigone, 471-2 
Aeschylus, Ewmenides, 864-5. R B. 


APPLETON . A 
Recula. W. M. Dien : 
Martial XIV. xxix. 2. W. ΝΜ: 
LINDSAY : Γ ἷ : 
Plautus, Cas. 416, 814. W. M. 
LINDSAY : : : 
Metonymy in Horace, Odes, 
Rooke 1 Σ1: 0}. Α΄. SMITH’. 
Virgil and Gregory of Tours. 
H. W. Garrop 


‘Quis aquam nili.. Dina Port- 


way DoBson 


PAGE 


CONTENTS 


Nos. 1, 2. 


| Notes—continued : 


Ne) 


26 


28 


28 


iil 


Aen. XJ. 45 f.and 1521. M.A.B. 
HERFORD . 
Virgil, Aen. I. 460. 


SON 


H. WILLIAM- 


Reviews: 


Van Leeuwen’s Enchividium. A. 
SHEWAN ᾿ 

Selected Essays of Platten! mM Cc: 
PEARSON 

The Greek Ἄν 
POWELL . 

The Geography of Seana ο. 7. Ε. 
HowarTH 

H. Sjogren: M. Tall Chane Epp. 
ad Atticum I.-1V. ALBERT Ὁ. 
CLARK 

The Eclogues of Faves Aide! 
linus and Ioannes Arnolletus. 
5. G. OWEN 

Juvenal and Persius. 


Short Notices: 


The Platonism of Plutarch. 
Bury 
Plato’s Cee Nusahee aay 


Rew: 


S. G. OWEN 


ReG: 


the Comment of Proclus. R.G. 
Bury ᾿ ; 
Teucer and the ἀδδαςτῖ: a Si 


Notes and News 
Justice 


Books Received 


hae 


PAGE 


29 


30 


31 
33 


35 


36 


37 


40 
42 


44 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Original Contributions: 


Graeco-Roman Ostraca from 
Dakka, Nubia. Hucn ἃ. 
Eve.Lyn WHITE 

On the Date of the Herafles οἱ ΠῚ 
pides. J. A. SPRANGER 

Additions to the Greek Anthology. 
J. U. PowELL : 

Nihil in Ovid. A. E. Howe 

Phaedrus and Quintilian I. 9, 2.— 
A Reply to Professor rane 
F. H. CoLson : . 

Virgil, Aeneid 6. 859θ. Η. iE. 
BUTLER : : 


Notes: 


Thucydides II. 48. ARTHUR PLATT 

Emendation of Theophrastus, 
Characters. H.G. VILJOEN 

The Reading in Aristophanes, 
Ach. 912. M. Kean. 

Euripides, ‘Hecuba, i J M. 
SING . 

Horace, Sat. 1. ix. 39-40. M. rene 

Queries to Article on Plaut. Stich. 
ff. Class. Rev., September, 1918. 
E. J. Brooks : 

Augustus. F. ἘΠΕ aD 

Mandalus. Recula. Malacrucia. 
W. M. Linpsay. 


Original Contributions : 


The Homeric Hymns. XII. T.L. 
AGAR ; 4 : 4 
Some Notes on the Religious 
Character of Apollo. S. E1ITREM 


On the New Fragments of Greek 


Poetry Recently Published at 
Berlin. J. U. PowELi : 
In Propertium Retractationes Se- 
lectae. J. 5. PHILLIMORE 
A Metrical Peculiarity of the Culex. 
W. WarDE FowLer : 
The ‘Prospective. Frank H. 
FOWLER b 


Nos. 8, 4. 
sack. | Notes—continued : 
et on Cicero, Pvo. Rab. Post. 7. 17. 
E. G. Harpy 
4y Note on Virgil, ἍΤ IM: Ἐδ ff. 
W. WarDE FOWLER. 
54 ‘Mule nihil sentis’ (Catullus, 88, τ 
H. W. Garrop . : 
55 Virgil, Aen. XIJ. 473, 519. δὴ Ξ, 
56 Pompey’s Compromise: Cicero, 
Ad Fam. VIII. 11, 3. TENNEY 
FRANK 
59 Miss Matthaei on Tracey Ἢ Τ. 
SHEPPARD . : 
61 Plutarch’s Lives. G. W. Buea 
WORTH : : 
Euthymides and his Fellows, W. 
63 Lams 
A History of Grek imeonaenne 
63 Thought. A. Ὁ PEARSON 
Gaetano de’ Sanctis: Storia de 
63% Romani. Aveta Marion ADAM 
Catalogue of Arretine Pottery in 
64 the Museum of Fine Arts, 
64 | Boston. W. Lams 3 
The Descent of Manuscripts. C. 
FLAMSTEAD WALTERS 
me Notes and News 
2 Bolshevism. T. C. WEATHERHEAD . 
66 | Books Received 
Nos. 5, 6. 
Notes: 
Epimenides and ‘ Maxanidus.’ 
85 E. W. Brooks ‘ 4 : 
The Acts xv. 29. H. H. Joun- 
88 SON . : Ἶ : ἱ 
Horace C. I. 14. C. A. VINCE 
Sevm. II. 1, 886. Epp. II. 3, 120-3. 
go JEFFERSON ELMORE . : ; 
Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. XV. 9. 
gI H. W. M. Burp ᾿ 
Virgil, Aen. VII. 7. 641 ff. ie M. 
95 Cook. : 
Virgil, Aen. VIII. 23: eee 
97 | FRANK 


PAGE 
66 
67 
67 
68 
68 
69 
wa 
73 
74 


79 


78 


79 
84 
84 


84 


I0o 


100 
Io! 


IOI 
103 
103 


104 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Notes—continued : 


Two Passages of Virgil. H. W. 
GaRROD : f : 

Catullus 39, 11 Parcus Umber. 
W. M. Linpsay 


The Derivation of Latin Ὁ τ 
quast Singlestick. Epwin W. 
Fay : : : 

Livy ITI. 30. 4. M. rane 

Livy XXI, 48. 3. M. Cary 

Quintilian 1. 9.2. J, P. PostcaTr 

Pompey’s Compromise. M. Cary 

Nostrum Nobis. Epwin W. Fay 


Reviews: 

The Price of Freedom. G. W. 
BuTTERWORTH . 

Natural Science and the Classen 
System in Education. Frank 
GRANGER . : : : 

Die Pythais: Studien zur Ges- 
chichte der Verbindungen zwis- 


chen Athen und Delphi. G. C. 
RICHARDS . ' : 2 
Greek Political αἰ ἤδον Plato 
and his Predecessors. A. Ε. 


ZIMMERN 


Original Contributions : 


The New Lyric Fragments—III. 
J. M. Epmonps 


XIII. 


The Homeric Hymns. 
TL. Acar : : : 

Δαίμων in Homer. ϑάμσυει, Ε. 
BassETT : : 

Euripidea. A. W. Mair 

Virgil. .W. H. D. Rouse 

Harley MS. 2610, and Ovid, Met. 
Ι 544-546. D. A. Slater . 

The ‘ Prospective.’ E. A. Sonnen- 
SCHEIN 


‘Virgil, Aen. VII. ee Nee 
BAe i i 

Classical Bonehine. 
LEY 


H. Ῥ. Glee 


PAGE 


Reviews—continued : 


Dreams in Greek Poetry. J.T.S. 
105 A Gold Treasure of the Late 
Roman Period. F. H. M. : 
105 Xenophon, Hellenica 1. V. E, Ὁ. 
MaRcHANT 3 
Two Tragedies of Seneca if 
106 Wicsat DuFF : 
107 Cicero’s Letters to ἈΠ ᾿ 
107 JACKSON 
108 
109 | Short Notices: 
19 The Old Testament MSS. in the 
Freer Collection 
The New Testament MSS. in the 
IIO Freer Collection 
Translation of Christian License 
| The Value of the Classics. FRANK 
IIo | GRANGER . Ξ 
| The Letter of Aristeas . 
Notes and News: 
113 ; 
Greek Music 
114 | Books Received 
Nos. 7, 8. 
| Notes: 
| Note on Herodotus III. 104. M. 
125 | Cary : - 
|  Statius, Silvae I. vi. 7, 8. G. M. 
130 | Hirst : 
Notes on Avistapleunes! Pa Se 
134 | BalILeEy 
Ἢ Homer, Odyss. VIL 2ay, Ee ‘Ss. O. 
| RoBERTSON-LUXFORD 
138 |, On the Suggestion Hopxeéa in the 
| Acts ‘of the Apostles xv. 20, 29. 
140 | J. U. Poweit 
An Uncial Fragment of Plautie 
141 W. Μ. Linpsay . 4 
| A Passage of Fronto (Naber, 
144 | p. 203). J. W. E. Pearce 
| Notes on Latin Authors. A. 
145 | SouTER 


122 


124 


151 


151 


152 


i 


153 


vi 


Reviews: 

Attic Red-Figured Vases in Amerti- 
can Museums. E. M. W. T. 

A Handbook of Greek Vase Paint- 
το | MS AV τ: : 

A Handbook of Attic Red- Fosarea 
Vases. ROME Wil? 

Gratti Cynegticon Quae supersunt. 
G, E. Κα. BRauNHOLTZ 

The Paravia Editions of the Meee 
Works of Tacitus. J. WicHT 
DuFF : 


Boethius. C. H. EveEtyn-WHITE 


Short Notices : 


Patriotic Poetry, Greek and Eng- 
lish 1. : : : 


INDEX 


PAGE 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Short Notices—continued : 
The Neo-Platonists. ΚΕ. 6. B. 
Manuel des Etudes grecques et latines. 
E. E. GENNER . 
' Translations of Early Docume 
(1) The Book of Jubilees, or, 
The Little Genesis 


Bolshevism. T..C. WEATHERHEAD . 


Obituary : 
Professor F. Haverfield. J. G.C 
ANDERSON. 5 : 
By Ba kogers,?) (Te AGary 


| Notes and News 


| Books Received 


PAGE 


164 


164 


164 
165 


165 
167 


167 
168 


169 


The Classical Review 


FEBRUARY—MARCH, 1919 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


A NOBLE ANATOLIAN FAMILY OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 


THE two following inscriptions were 
intended to form part of an article in 
the forthcoming number of /].H.S., 

which however became too long. Taken 
in conjunction, they offer a glimpse into 
the life of one of those great Anatolian 
provincial families on whose importance 
in the development of Byzantine Asia 
Minor I have for many years been col- 
lecting information from scattered and 
inadequate sources. In an article in 
the Quarterly Review, 1895 (republished 
and much enlarged in Pauline and Other 
Studies in Religious History, p. 376 8), 
and again in “Luke the Physician and 
Other Studies in the History of Religion, 
Ρ. 187 ff., some facts are collected bear- 
ing on the family system, the household 
life, the great mansions (τετραπύργιαϊ) 
in which they lived, and the architec- 
tural character of those buildings. The 
typical figures exemplifying the in- 
fluence of those great landed families 
on Christian organisation are Basil and 
Gregory Nazianzen, who show the 
effect which the possession of money 
with the possibility of education at one 
of the great universities produced in a 
remote part of Cappadocia. Gregory 
Nyssen, the brother of Basil, exemplifies 
the way in which a less able member of 
such a family looked down on certain 
members of the Christian Church, 
sprung from humbler origin and strug- 
gling for a livelihood. I have not been 
struck with any sign that the same 
contempt for the vulgar was shown or 
telt by the greater personalities of 
Basil and Nazianzen; but I speak from 
very insufficient knowledge. Gregory 


Nyssen, however, incidentally illustrates 


Dace also Cob Par 11, pe τὸ £,)‘and 
Rostovtsev Stud. z. Gesch. ad. Kolonates, p. 253. 


NO. CCLXXII. VOL. XXXIII. 


the attention that was given to Christian 
education during that century (see 
Pauline and Other Studies etc., p. 373 f.). 

A proof that the facts seen in the 
families of Basil and the Gregories were 
not confined to one part of the country 
is furnished in the two following in- 
scriptions, which show the standard of 
education in an Antiochian family of 
high social standing, and confirm the 
inferences drawn many years ago from 
a study of the letters of the three Cap- 
padocian Fathers. These inscriptions 
also add further information, wholly 
unexpected, with regard to the origin 
of some such families. It has become 
more and more clear, as the study of 
social and family life in early and 
Byzantine Anatolia progresses, that the 
great priestly families of the pagan 
period frequently survived through 
the centuries in possession of influ- 
ence and considerable wealth, and 
on the whole deserving this position, 
so far as the evidence goes, by their 
character. In the fourth century, to 
judge from the evidence here presented, 
some at least of those families became 
Christian, and yet preserved their old 
quality and their social eminence. 
When we consider further the signs of 
the deterioration of education during 
the fifth century (as 6.5. when a bishop 
at the Council of Constantinople in 449 
was obliged to employ a friend to sign 
for him because he was ignorant of 
letters, and yet was considered qualified 
to make laws for the universal Church?), 
we must ask what was the reason way 
such deterioration on the Central 
Plateau became widespread. Another 


2 17.G.A.M. p. 92. 


2 THE. CLASSICAL |REVIEW 


trace of this deterioration appears in 
the biography of St. Hypatius (A.A.S.S. 
June, IV., p. 249). 

That subject is not one to enter upon 
in publishing two inscriptions. I men- 
tion that, while many factors con- 
tributed to it, one important cause lay 
in the terrible massacre by Diocletian, 
which was perhaps worst in the central 
parts of Asia Minor (especially in 
Phrygia, where one Christian city was 
_burned with its entire population, a 
fact vouched for on the highest con- 
temporary evidence, but discredited by 
the determinedly ignorant scepticism of 
some modern authorities). Massacre is 
a dangerous weapon. Not merely does 
it always produce a deteriorating effect 
of profound significance on the authors 
and agents of the massacre, but also 
sometimes, when it is carried suffi- 
ciently far, it eliminates the best ele- 
ments in the body which suffers 
massacre, and does away with that 
tendency to generous liberality and en- 
hgntened toleration which are required 
as a sweetening influence in social life : 
the survivors of the massacre are made 
hard and intolerant, even when enough 
of them survive to preserve corporate 

life and unity (C.B.Phr. II. pp. 505 ff.). 
_ The inscriptions belong to about 
340-380. 
1. 


This is the epitaph on C. Calpur- 
nius Collega Macedo, who died at the 
age of thirty, and was buried by his 
father. He was a member of the curia 
of Pisidian Antioch and the representa- 
tive of an eminent and wealthy family, 
possessing the Roman citizenship since 
about A.D. 72, and clinging to the civitas 
as a mark of old family dignity even 
when the devotion to the Roman system 
of personal nomenclature was weakened 
and disappearing around. This inscrip- 
tion was found at Pisidian Antioch, in 
the courtyard of a house in Yalowadj. 
It was copied by Calder and me in 
1012, and again by me in 1914. The 
right-hand side is broken, and about 


41 am indebted to Professor A. W. Mair 
for many suggestions, most of which I have 


adopted : also, as usual, my debt to Professor 
W. M. Calder is great. 


8 els [ο]ὐρανὸν ἐξ 


nine or ten letters are lost at the end of 
each line. The surface is worn and 
even broken in parts; and the lettering | 
is very faint in some places, but on the 
whole the text is certain, except in 9 
and at the ends of lines. It is there- 
fore unnecessary to print an epigraphic 
text, as type never satisfactorily repre- 
sents any difficult point. The inscrip- 
tion is correct and free from ligatures, 
in the ordinary rounded form of letters. 


LT. Katz. Κολλῆγαν Μακεδόνα βουλευτὴν ἄνδρα 
ἀξιόλο[ γον ἥρωα ? 
ὃς ἐγένετο ἐν πάσῃ ἀρετῇ ὥς φησιν ὁ dpxalios? . 


ποιητής 2 
ῥήτορα ἐν τοῖς δέκα ᾿Αθηναίων πρώτοις κλ[ῆρον 
ἔχοντα ? 
4 φιλόσοφον τὰ Πλάτωνος καὶ Σωκράτους ἔτι α[ἱρού-- 
μενον ὃ 


ἀρχιατρὸν ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις τὰ Ἱπποκράτους 
το[Ἀμήσαντα ὃ 

γενόμενον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἔτη τριάκοντα καὶ ἡμ[έρας ... 

θεοῦ προνοίᾳ καὶ ἱερῶν ἀνγέλων συνοδίᾳ με[τοικη- 
σαντα 

ἀνθρώπων, θᾶττον. ἢ ἔδει τοὺς 
ylewamevous ὃ 

καταλιπόντα, τὸν [πήλ]ινοῖν χ]ήιτῶνα ἐνταυθοῖ περι- 
δυσάμενον. 

κατασκευάσας τὸ ἡρῷον τῷ γλυκυτάτῳ καὶ ποίθινο- 
τάτῳ 

καὶ [θεοφιλεστάτῳ τέκνῳ] TV. ΚΚαλπούρνιος Μακεδών. 


I. βουλευτής was used at Antioch in 
the fourth century as corresponding to 
curtalis, and did not imply that the old 
Hellenistic βουλή had been substituted 
for the Curia of the Colonia. The use 
of hero and herodn in 1 and ΤΟ is quite 
consistent with Christian origin: herodn 
is frequently mentioned in the early 
Christian inscriptions of the third and 
fourth centuries (see Waddington on 
Leéebas Wil: No. τάδ: ὦ BP pike 
pp- 387, 518). The superlative degree 
in the final adjective ἀξιολογώτατον 
might be substituted for ἥρωα, but it 
can hardly be justified, as a curtalis 
had not the superlative title. 


2. Tn‘) igr4 al, {copied (A eA anor 
APXAIP (last letter doubtful); but 
apyalios (suggested by Mr. Lobel) 
seems a probable correction. I sub- 
mitted the line to Sir J. E. Sandys, 
who replied by return of post that, if 
we assume the restoration as printed, 


'*the poet’ is necessarily Homer, that 


the original probably contained not 
mas but παντοῖος, and that therefore 
the line was Iliad XV. 641, τοῦ yéver’ . 
ἐκ πατρὸς πολὺ χείρονος vids ἀμείνων» 


THE CLASSICAL, REVIEW 3 


παντοίας ἀρετάς. We had ἀρχάν[γελος] 
in mind at first, seeking some Christian 
reference, but in 1914 I convinced 
myself that N was not on the stone: 
ἀρχάνγ[ελος] however would be a pos- 
sible correction of the copy, but I 
cannot find that any known Christian 
book connects an archangel with this 
or a similar saying. 


3. The: stone has: K-A: K- is fre- 
quently used in local epitaphs for xe, 
either as a separate word «(ai), or asa 
syllable, but this epitaph seems to avoid 
such devices as uneducated: therefore 
I take the mark after K as accidental. 
I had thought of the meaning ‘who 
acquired fame as an orator on the same 
rank with the ten leading orators of the 
Athenians,’ restoring at the end a par- 
ticiple like κλ[εόμενον), but κλ[ῆρον 
ἔχοντα] or κλ[ηρονόμον] (A.W.M.) seems 
preferable. It seems feasible to take 
the preposition évin this sense. Calder 
suggests «é[Avtioyéwy], but I dislike κὲ. 


4. ἔτε alipovpevor], ‘still choosing 
as a follower the teaching of the old 
philosophers,’ is perhaps possible: it is 
defended by αἵρεσις, a philosophic sect 
or school, and preserves the normal 
length of the line: ére ἀκολουθοῦντα 
with accusative instead of the usual 
dative is defended by a quotation in 
L.S. from Menander, and the accusa- 
tive is an easy variant from dative in 
the article neuter plural. We saw no 
reason to doubt the reading ETI; but 
TI and I are hardly distinguishable on 
a broken surface: ἐπαγγελλόμενον, ‘ pro- 
fessed,’ would give good sense, but is 
rather long: ἐπακολουθοῦντα (A.W.M.) 
would also suit well, but is no shorter. 


5. I supposed that the concluding 
participle was τολμῶντα, ‘ venturing to 
do (or imitate) a thing’ (usually with 
infinitive or participle), but this is rather 
short, and not wholly satisfactory. 
Calder suggested τε[λοῦντα], but, this 
also is short, and in 1014 I felt con- 
fident that O (broken), not E, was on 
the stone (which is well preserved here 
at the edge of the break). το[λμήσαντα 
* would be of the right length. (σ)τοζι- 
χήσαντα] (A.W.M.) (assuming haplo- 


graphy) appears most probable.! It’ is 
common in the N.T. and papyri (where 
it takes the dative); the use of the 
accusative is no real objection, as similar 
variation occurs with other verbs, 6.5. 
ἀκολουθεῖν, παρακολουθεῖν. 


6-8. ‘ Living among men thirty years 
and [twelve] days, through the provi- 
dence of God and in the convoy of the 
holy angels changing his home to 
heaven from among men, leaving his 
parents more quickly than was right, 
putting off the mantle of clay (to con- 
sign it) to this place.’ The precise 
statement of the age of the deceased is 
a common and widespread Christian 
custom, which hardly occurs in pagan 
epitaphs. In the present case the 
months are omitted, showing that the 
deceased had exceeded thirty years by 
less than a month. Similarly in the well- 
known Christian inscription found in 
the catacombs dated by the Consuls of 
A.D. 237 (one of them incorrectly named) 
the dead child was eight years and a 
few days old: he had been sick for a 
hundred and twelve days, and the long 
anxiety of the parents nursing him from 
hour to hour is expressed in counting 
the time by days alone. The passage 
is definitely Christian, after a well- 
established type. The phraseology in 
9 is evidently Christian, and the allu- 
sion to the ‘ Providence of God’ occurs 
in Lycaonia during the fifth century. 
Hence 7 and g are restored with 
Christian touches. The cumulation of 
endearing adjectives at the end is 
common in Christian epitaphs ; it is of 
course not confined to them, but I 
remember nothing so extreme on any 
pagan stone as is here the case. 


7. The allusion to the angels accom- 
panying the departed spirit to heaven 
perhaps alludes to the subject of a © 
sculpture accompanying the epitaph, 
and if so has a bearing on the develop- 
ment of Christian art. με[τοικήσαντα!] 
(A.W.M.) is right. [hada less typically 
Christian compound. 


The genitive -zov is barred out by Σωκράτους 
above : that form, common in late inscriptions, 
is below the Greek standard of this epitaph. 


4 THE: CLASSICAL: REVIEW 


8. The lines ended with a word mean- 
ing parents; but yovéas is too short. 
Either it was followed by some short 
word, or perhaps the more poetic term 
τοὺς η[ζειναμένους] was employed. It is 
difficult to determine exactly in this 
inscription the exact number of letters 
lost at the end, because often a new 
subject begins in the new line, and 
there may have been a certain space 
left free at the end of the preceding 
line; but in this case, 8-9, there is no 
break in the sense, and there is no 
reason to think that an unwritten space 
would be left at the end of 8. 


g. Part of the surface is much worn. 
The adjective before χυτῶνα is the diffi- 
cult point. It seems to begin with an 
upright stroke, eg. I or II or T: A 
(or A) is the letter before IN. These 
conditions exclude Adwov or γήινον. 
Both in 1912 and in 1914 the reading 
πήλινον seemed most probable, but 
there seemed bare room for such a long 
word, and this happened to be in our 
minds (assuming a Christian idea ‘ put- 
ting off the garment of clay’). On 
further consideration I abandoned the 
thought of a Christian idea here, and 
saw another tag from ‘the poet’: the 
writer, who was educated in epic poetry 
and remembered Homer’s expression 
λάινον ἕσσο χιτῶνα about a person who 
being stoned to death put on a garment 
of stone, applied this idea to his son, 
who was buried in a clay (or stone) 
sarcophagus inside the family mauso- 
leum, and thus clothed himself in a 
garment of either clay or earth περι- 
{ducdpevov]; but Professor Mair recon- 
verts me to the former opinion, point- 
ing out that περιδύω is commonly used 
in the sense of ‘ taking off a garment,’ 
and that this usage, while quite frequent 
in later Greek, is also employed in 
good Classical Greek, e.g. Antiphon 
Tety. I. 2, 5,,and Hyperides fr. 263 
(Blass) quoted from Pollux VIII. 44, 
and even in Iliad XI. 100 (disputed by 
Dr. Leaf and Mr. Keane, who quote 
German authority; but probably incor- 
rectly).1 At any rate, it is admitted 


1 περιδύω is rare in the sense of putting on. 
Professor Mair thinks that it was used of 
removing the inner garment, ἀποδύω of putting 
off the outer cloak. 


that the word in Iliad. /.c. was commonly 
understood in the sense of ‘ taking off’; 
and this sense was therefore familiar to 
the composer of this Phrygian epitaph 
both from Homer and from common 
usage in later Greek. I therefore recur 
to the Christian idea that Collega put 
off from himself the mantle of clay, 
depositing it in the grave here (ἐνταυθοῖ) 
while he himself changed his home from 
earth to heaven. At the same time 
Homer’s περίδυσε χιτῶνας might be in 
the writer’s mind, turned to Christian 
use, probably combined with a vague 
thought of 2 Cor. V. 3 f. 


10-11. The construction is involved. 
The idea is that C. Calpurnius Macedo, 
in constructing the tomb for his sweetest 
and dearest son beloved of god, (did 
honour to him); and on this unex- 
pressed verb (ἐκόσμησεν or ἐτίμησεν) 
depends the whole series of accusatives 
in I-g. The expression at the end, 
retaining a trace of the old pagan idea 
of the tomb, belongs to the period 
already indicated, c. 350 A.D. 

This inscription presents several 
features of unusual interest. It is 
Christian, and its Christianity belongs 
to the time of freedom, not to the older 
period of concealment and veiling of 
religious feeling. It is written in better 
Greek than was usual in Anatolian, 
especially Christian, epigraphy, better 
even than the epitaph of Bishop Eu- 
genios of Laodiceia, which is almost 
contemporary, and to which it shows 
various points of analogy. 

The writer, father of the deceased, 
belonged to the old native aristocracy 
of Antioch, and possessed education 
and wealth. His education imparts 
literary quality to the epitaph (which is 
filled with sympathy for old literature, 
and yet is thoroughly Christian), and 
induced him to give his son the best 
education possible. The fond parent 
sees in his son a many-sided distinction 
of excellence, which placed him as an 
orator on the level of the ten leading 
famous orators of the Athenians, and 
as a philosopher made him a professed 
exponent of the teaching of Plato and . 
Socrates ; while as a leading physician 
he ventured to repeat the achievements 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ν patie 


of Hippocrates,’ both in prescriptions 
as a physician and in operations as a 
surgeon. The form of this laudation 
_ gives a favourable impression of Chris- 
tian society in Antioch during the 
fourth century, when leading Anatolian 
Christians, such as Basil and Gregory, 


were studying at the University of 
Athens. 


ΤΙΣ 


This very difficult text, in the outer 
wall of the mosque at Oerkenez, four 
hours south-east from Antioch, is pub- 
lished by Sterrett E.J. 182 from the 
copy of the late J. H. Haynes without 
transcription: it was recopied by Mrs. 
Hasluck with Calder and myself in 
1g11. There remain difficulties at one 
or two points, especially in g. The 
first letter of every line on the stone 
except 7 15 injured or lost. Each hexa- 
meter gets two lines (like the epitaph 
of Avircius Marcellus) : 

Κολλῆγαν, μάκαρός τε Maxnddvos ἤδ᾽ iepoto 
3.4. βλαστὸν Κολλήγου, ἀρετῆς θάλος ἀθανάτοιο. 
τὸν νέον ἀμβρόσιον μνήμης συνέφυνε παλαιοῖς 
7-8 μήτηρ δ᾽ εὐώδειν δυσαριϊστ]οτόκειά τε Μάγνα 
ἢ] γεν[ἐτῃ τε κάσει τε μέλος παρακάτθετο ἡδύ 
11-12 7|dv σοφὸν ἰητρὸν εἰκοστὸν ἄγοντα ἔτος. 
There are several ligatures, 5 NMNH, 
7 MH, 9 HTEK (difficult and uncer- 
tain). In 7 εὐώδιν is quoted from 
Anth. 

This epitaph was erected by the 
widow of Calpurnius Collega, whom the 
first epitaph commemorates, in honour 
of their son, who took the cognomen 
Collega as his sole name Kollegas. In 
the interval, evidently about twenty 
years or a little less between the two 
inscriptions, the Roman system of per- 
sonal nomenclature had been abandoned 
(if we may trust the usage of a metrical 
epitaph), and the Byzantine system, 
which approximated more to Greek 
usage, had become common, and was 
adopted even in an old family where the 
Roman usage had been maintained to 
the middle of the fourth century. Both 
the son and the father are here called 
Kollegas,? whereas the father and the 
grandfather were spoken of twenty years 
previously by full Roman designation. 


1 τολμήσαντα : (σὴ)τοιχήσαντα would mean 
acting according to.’ 
2 A second name in one case at least. 


This epitaph is more ambitious in style 
than the other and not so successful 
from any point of view. It wants 
the simplicity that characterises the 
former epitaph, in which the strong 
family affection displayed fully atoned 
for the evident partiality and tendency 
to exaggerate the excellence of a lost 
son. The second epitaph is metrical, 
though the scansion is awkward and 
not always correct. The construction 
is highly involved, but is grammatically 
quite defensible provided that the word 
δέ is omitted in 1. 7. The lady, Magna, 
is probably the real composer of the 
epitaph, which is not got from the local 
schoolmaster, but shows personal feel- 
ing and family affection. She was evi- 
dently a person of good education, 
though not completely mistress of the 
Greek language. 

The meaning seems to be ‘ Kollegas, 
son of blissful and holy Collega Macedo, 
scion of undying excellence, his mother 
giving him birth added the young 
immortal to the ancient of history, 
bearing one who was best though born 
only to die, Magna, mother of a noble 
son, who laid beside his father and 
brother a loved sweet member of the 
family, the skilful physician, who was 
in his twentieth year.’ Evidently the 
father Collega Macedo was already 
dead (μάκαρ), and the mother Magna 
alone erects the tomb of her son: there 
is a reference to the epitaph of the 
father in the statement that the son 
was a scion of immortal excellence, for 
the father is there said to be ‘born in 
all excellence.’ The thought of her 
husband is evidently in the widow's 
mind when she speaks about their son 
as ‘the new immortal.’ He has been 
conjoined by right of birth with the 
members of an historic holy and old 
family, and the mother is privileged in 
having given birth to such a son though 
born only to die. The reference to his 
training as a physician is noteworthy, 
and is explained by the family history 
as stated. 

The lady Magna who composed the 
epigram uses H in the second syllable 
of Makedon, apparently with the inten- 
tion of making it long, showing that 
difference was still felt between the 
length of eta and epsilon about 370 A.p. 


6 + 


in Phrygia by the writers of one epitaph, 
not merely by authors of literature. 
The facts regarding the use of efa in 
different parts of the country are of 
some interest. Forms with H are used 
occasionally in poets (also by Eusta- 
thius) in the names of the country and 
the inhabitants. The lady Magna was 
much better educated than ordinary 
Phrygians, and though she was not 
likely to be acquainted with Calli- 
machus IV. 167, yet she may have been 
familiar with some of the late epigrams 
and the Anthology, in which this quan- 
tity is known. At any rate she was 
sufficiently acquainted with Greek 
quantities to employ a spelling here 
that justified her scansion. 


1. The second word paxap is a 
poetical variation of the ordinary 
Christian μακάριος, ‘ the blessed dead.’ 
Compare Euripides Alc. 1002 f., atta 
ποτε προὔθαν᾽ ἀνδρός, viv δ᾽ ἐστὶ 
μακαίρα δαίμων. Pagan usage tended 
rather to prefer μακαρίτης, μακαρῖτις, 
than μακάριος ; the latter became 
characteristically Christian and the 
former tended to be pagan (as exempli- 
fied in an inscription, No. I., in my 
article in the recent number of J.H.S. 
1018) : compare Theocritus II. 70, 
Herondas VI. 55. These examples are 
suggested by A.W.M., and confirm the 
tendency to this distinction, which I 
have stated in the article in ].H.S. 
At the same time this tendency cannot 
be said to be a law, as exceptions cer- 
tainly occur. 


5. There is some temptation to regard 
Ambrosios as a second name of the young 
deceased Kollegas. The construction 
μνήμης παλαιοῖς seems possible though 
undoubtedly bold; the reading seemed 
to us certain. She bore this son to be 
conjoined in the same family with the 
ancient members who played a part 
in history. There is here probably a 
reference to the ancient descent of this 
great hieratic family from priest-dynasts 
and a god, according to the common 
Anatolian custom (which is illustrated 
by many examples in the article already 
mentioned, J.H.S. 1918). 


7. The word δέ breaks the construc- 
tion, and is probably due to a mere 


THE**CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 


slip. The mother in 7 is required as 
the nominative to the verb συνέφυνε 
in the preceding line. The adjective 
ev@ouy is quoted also from the Anthology, 
from Nonnus, and other late writers. 
The following adjective δυσαριστοτόκεια 
isa happy quotation from Iliad XVIII. 
54: 


9. I follow here A.W.M., having 
myself thought of [εὐ]γενέτη (for εὐγενέ- 
TeLpa) Toxas, Which seemed suitable to 
the text on the stone, but does not offer 
such good sense, and is a ἅπαξ eipy- 
μένον. My restoration involved the 
error εἴτε by the scribe for εἶτα. 


10. The expression μέλος ἡδύ might 
indicate the metrical epitaph which was 
placed on the tomb, but there seems no 
possibility of making good construction 
if the words are taken in this sense. 


11. The Ionic form intpos is probably 
used also at Apollonia in a metrical 
epigram of great interest, but the word 
there is incomplete, though I have long 
restored it in this way. Perhaps the 
Ionic form is due to ancient medical 
influence from the great schools of 
medicine attached to the temples on 
the west coast. Hippocrates used the 
Ionic dialect in writing. 


11-12. It looks as if there were space 
for something more than TON at the 
beginning of 12; possibly there was 
also an I at the end of 11 and [ἕκ]τον at 
the beginning of line 12:1 but more 
probably the last line was engraved 
rather loosely as the space was abun- 
dant, and the lady when it came to 
a matter of numbers was exceptionally 
careless in her scansion. She might 
have made a much better line if instead 
of ἔτος she had used the word ἐνιαυτός 
(for she apparently does not attempt to 
conclude with a pentameter). The 
twentieth year is rather frequent in this 
sort of epitaph, and was perhaps used 
as a pathetic touch without regard to 
strict accuracy in time; but the lady 
Magna stands apart from the stock 
formulae of local metrical epitaphs, and 
probably would not imitate them even 
in such a detail. 


1 The text would then be εἰκοσι ἕκτον. 


ΠΕ /CEASSICAL REVIEW Wh 


In Epitaph I. no reference is made 
to the mother of the deceased except in 
the implication of 1. 9, that she like the 
father was living when the son died. 
The deceased, thirty years old, was 
married, as might be taken for granted 
in Phrygia; but his wife is not men- 
tioned. From the second inscription 
we learn that his wife was called Magna, 
and the Latin name suggests that she 
too probably belonged to a family pos- 
sessing the civitas, though this is not 
certain, for Magna perhaps had passed 
into the common stock of Anatolian 
personal nomenclature. We learn also 
from the second epitaph that she and 
her husband, the writer οἵ Epitaph I., 
had another son who died very young. 
Magna was qualified to make the tomb 
and the following epitaph for her son, 
though she does not appear as taking 
part in the erection of the epitaph of 
her husband. At first she was not in 
any sense κυρία or οἰκοδεσπότις, but 
was only a Nympha residing in the 
family mansion of her father-in-law 
after the old Phrygian fashion. There 
she was under a very mild form of 
patria potestas, not like the strict Roman 
usage but according to the Phrygian 
custom, on which inscriptions of 
Phrygian Lycaonia throw much light. 
See also in Studies in the History of the 
Eastern Roman Provinces, pp. 148 ff., 
373 f., also 71, 82, 121 ; Hist. Comm. on 
Epist. Galat., pp. 338 ff., 352 ff., 374. 

It must always be remembered in the 
study of Anatolian custom that both 
Pisidian Antioch and Iconium (with the 
cities of Lycaonia to the north of it) 
were in the strictest sense Phrygian 
cities, inhabited mainly by a Phrygian 
population, amid which the use of 
Phrygian as a home language lasted 
till a comparatively late date. Hence 
the inscriptions of this Phrygian region 
of Lycaonia throw light on, and receive 
much light from, the inscriptions of the 
Tembris valley, a very rustic, unedu- 
cated part of north Phrygia, where the 
true old Phrygian custom lingered 
longest. On the other hand central 
Phrygia was hellenised in great degree 
at a much earlier time, and the epitaphs 
of the Roman period in that part of 
Phrygia attest generally a different state 
of family custom. The gradual hel- 


lenisation of Anatolia, proceeding east- 
ward (especially from the Maeander 
valley) along the great roads, sometimes 
leaving untouched districts which lay 
off the lines of communication, necessi- 
tates a careful consideration and classi- 
fication of the epigraphic evidence as 
bearing upon native custom. All should 
be studied in the light of Mitteis’ Rezchs- 
recht τι. Volksrecht and his other works. 

Apparently the two epitaphs were 
engraved on stones which formed part 
of a large family mausoleum. One of 
these has been carried to Oerkenez, 
and the other to Yalowadj (where it 
was said to have been brought ‘ from 
the fields). The mausoleum therefore 
was probably somewhere between these 
two places; in other words it was not 
far from Gemen (1% Μηνός),1 which 
was (as we infer on various grounds) 
the district specially connected with 
the upkeep of the sanctuary of Men, 
and therefore probably associated with 
the priestly family. The priesthood 
had been taken away from this family 
by Augustus in 25 B.c., but he did not 
degrade or destroy the family (as has 
sometimes been falsely inferred from 
the language of Strabo 577); and prob- 
ably this was the family to which the 
mausoleum at Gemen belonged, for 
the study of medicine was apparently 
hereditary in the holy family, and closely 
connected with all great Anatolian 
religious centres. This ancient hieratic 
tradition then furnishes a probable ex- 
planation of the epithet ‘holy’ in the 
second epitaph. Even though the 
family had become Christian and no 
longer retained its priestly connection, 
still the holy and the medical tradition 
remained in the family. 

Among the Christians of the third 
and fourth centuries the profession of 
medicine was highly honoured, and a 
large number of Christian physicians 
are known. The subject has been fully 
treated by Harnack mainly on the 
literary evidence. Basil of Caesareia 
writes a noble eulogy of the medical 
profession. ‘To put that science at 
the head and front of life’s pursuits is 
to judge reasonably and rightly’ (Esist. 


1 Gemen two hours south-east of Yalowadj, 
two hours north-west of Oerkenez. 


ὃ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


189). It is true that the practice of 
medicine was not purely scientific, but 
was mixed up with charms, religious 
incantations, and the prayers of hermits, 
and also relied on the relics of martyrs 
as a curative influence (Efist. 49) ;1 but 
this does not prove that scientific 
tradition was forgotten or ignored. 
The mob laid stress on the religious 
side of the treatment. It is worthy 
of note, although possibly it is a 
mere coincidence, that the great-grand- 
son of Sergius Paullus, governor of 
Cyprus about A.D. 46, used to attend 
the medical demonstrations given by 
Galen in Rome. According to the Acts 
of the Apostles the governor of Cyprus 
was, if not converted to Christianity, at 
least very favourably inclined to it. 
There seems no possibility that the 
great-grandson was also Christian; 
Christianity seems to have died out in 
the family; but there are many remark- 
able facts, showing a certain inclination 
towards serious religious thought and 
even towards Christianity, and a certain 
relationship with other noble families 
suspected of Christianity, which appear 
among the Sergii from time to time 
(see the facts collected in my Bearizug 
of Discovery on the New Testament, 
Ch. XII., and later discoveries in an 
article in the Expository Times, April, 
1918). To these must be added as 
deserving registration the medical 
studies of the great-grandson. 

The Roman system of personal names 
is decaying in the three generations 
covered by the two inscriptions. The 
grandfather, C. Calpurnius Macedo, 
writing Greek, is fully Roman: so also 
the son, C. Calpurnius Collega Macedon; 
but in the case of the grandson, if we 
may judge from a metrical epitaph, 
Kollegas is treated as not specifically 
Roman, but merely a hereditary name 
in the family. The family clung late 
to the pride of old descent, but gradually 
forgot the Roman system of the triple 
name. This marks the middle of the 
fourth century in Lycaonia.?_ Probably 


1 See the writer’s Pauline and Other Studies 
in Early Christian History, pp. 380 f. 

* This criterion of date is emphasised in the 
writer's paper on ‘The Church of Lycaonia in 
Century 1V.’ (Luke the Physician, and Other 
Studies in the History of Religion, p. 336 f.). 


the family obtained the civitas under 
Vespasian, when Calpurnius Asprenas 
and Pompeius Collega were successive 
governors of the province. Macedo 
became a stock name, which lasted 
through the centuries after Seleucid 
times. The Roman name was fre- 
quently determined according to the 
reigning emperor or governor at the 
time when the civitas was attained: 
sometimes the conjunction of the names 
of emperor and governor proves the 
date very precisely. The second cogio- 


men was often individual, showing the 


native origin. There is no reason to 
connect the second cognomen with C. 
Larcius Macedo, who governed Galatia 
under Hadrian. 

The date c. 350 A.D. is indicated by 
another consideration. Less stress is 
laid on the constructor of the tomb 
and more on the deceased, a charac- 
teristic feature of that period: earlier 
epitaphs in Phrygia began by naming 
and describing the constructor of the 
grave: gradually during the fourth 
century less and less prominence was 
given to the constructor, and the 
deceased was mentioned first, while the 
constructor was described briefly at the 
end; and at last it became usual to 
mention only the deceased.* In this 
change there is involved the transition 
from the pagan sepulchral custom to. 
the Christian. To the pagan Anatolian 
feeling the construction of the tomb is 
a duty of supreme religious significance. 
It is the construction of a home for the 


3 I have conjectured in Bearing of Research 
on New Testament, p. 157, that L. Sergius 
Paullus governed Galatia between Asprenas 
and Collega; but deft it open as a possibility 
that Sergius was already governor under Nero. 
I now believe that the latter alternative is more 
probable, that Sergius died in office young, and 
was succeeded by Calpurnius Asprenas, A.D. 68. 
This supposition suits Tacitus’ expression ἡ pro- 
vincias regendas permiserat Galba (Asprenati)” 
(Hist. 11. 9). When Sergius Paullus died, the 
governor of Pamphylia was directed to take 
over Galatia also, and thus exceptionally the 
Galatian governor ruled the coast that year. 
Other reasons for suspecting that this Sergius 
died young are stated in my article on the 
Sergii Paulii in Expos. Times, April, 1918. 

4 The facts as an argument of date are stated 
more fully in my paper ‘The Fourth Century 
Church in Lycaonia’ (Luke and Other Studies 
wn the History of Religion, p. 336 f.). 


ὃ — 
———s OO αα... 


tt REESE OS 


FHE CLASSICAL: REVIEW 9 


deceased, who at death becomes the 
god; and thus his home is a temple, 
and his worshippers meet in his temple 
to perform the ritual annually in honour 
of the new god identified with the god 
of the locality to whom he returns in 
death. The Christian custom ceases 
to lay stress on the construction of the 
tomb, but lays all the emphasis on the 
deceased, whose body is consigned to 


1 Sepulchral Customs tn Ancient Phrygia, 
J .71.S., 1884, p. 261, more developed in Studies 
in E. Rom. Prov. p. 271 fi. 


the tomb, though his real self is not 
there. This thought is expressed with 
exceptional and eminent clearness in 
the highly educated Epitaph I. Metri- 
cal epitaphs were little influenced by 
custom and law. 


[NoTE.— Since this article was 
printed, the proof that a hieratic family 
at Antioch bore the name Calpurnius. 
has been strengthened by further epi- 
graphic evidence. | 

W. M. Ramsay. 


be ART OF WURIPIDES IN THE HIPPOLYTUS. 


if 


IN the Alcestzs and the Jon there are 
50 many apparent deficiencies of compo- 
sition that Professor Verrall has been led 
to seek for an explanation and has found 
a very brilliant and plausible one in the 
‘rationalistic’ idea of Euripides.' 

According to Professor Verrall’s argu- 
ment the plays mentioned cannot be 
considered the work of anyone but a 

_‘dullard’ and a ‘botcher, unless we 
admit the ulterior motive, the ‘moral’ 
which he reads in them, when they be- 
come very remarkable tours de force of a 
master hand. 

The ‘moral’ that he reads in them is, 
firstly, that ‘the gods’ do not exist; 
and, secondly, that the prophecies and 
worship of the Delphic Apollo are a farce. 

Professor Verrall’s book must be read 
in order to appreciate how far he has 
proved his point. 

In the Hzppolytus we find no such 
apparent lack of cohesion as would lead 
us to condemn it a 2γ2ογὲ as the work of an 
inferior artist. The scenes are well com- 
posed and the story runs fairly smoothly. 

The ex hypothesz moral of the story is 
a warning against extremes in love: woe 
to those who love so passionately as 
Phaedra, woe to those who avoid love 
soentirely as Hippolytus! Moderation, 
moderation in all things, is best.? 

We are going to find that there is 
probably an ulterior motive in the Hzpfo- 
lytus, a second and more subtly pointed 


1 Euripides the Rationalist, by A. W. Verrall. 
2 LI. 261-6. 


‘moral’; but it does not contradict the 
ex hypothest one. On the contrary, we 
shall find that the theme of moderation, 
moderation in all things, is only strength- 
ened and confirmed by it. 

Let us now look through the play and 
see if there is anything to attract our 
attention away from the ex hypothesi 
moral, and if so, what that may be to 
which our attention is directed. 

The piece begins with a prologue by 
Aphrodite. She tells the audience who 
she is, and mentions that while she 
advances those who respect her power, 
she destroys whoever does not.’ 

Follows the story of Hippolytus and 
of the love for him that she has placed 
in the heart of Phaedra.* 

She explains that Hippolytus is to die 
for his disrespect of her decrees—is to 
die by the word of his own father, who 
will call on Poseidon to fulfil, by slaying 
Hippolytus, one of the three wishes he 
had granted to Theseus. 

She adds that Phaedra, though a noble 
nature, 1s to die too: 


τὸ yap τῆσδ᾽ οὐ προτιμήσω κακὸν 
τὸ μὴ οὐ παρασχεῖν τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἐμοὶ 
δίκην τοσαύτην ὥστ᾽ ἐμοὶ καλῶς ἔχειν. 

She departs, advising the audience of 
the approach of Hippolytus, all unsus- 
pecting of his impending fate. 

And now comes a surprise. Instead 
of addressing the audience in the usual 
iambic trimeters, Hippolytus calls in 
lyric measure upon his attendants to sing 


Ei Baan ΞΡ] 28% 


10 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


a hymn to Artemis, which they accord- 
ingly proceed to do.? 

This is the only instance, in all the 
plays of Euripides that we possess, of a 
lyrical hymn preceding the entrance of 
the chorus: for Hippolytus’ followers do 
not constitute the chorus, which is formed 
of Troezenian women, and is to appear 
later on. ote: 

We cannot admit that Euripides com- 
mitted such a breach of usual custom 
without some definite object; but what- 
ever that may have been, and we shall see 
later, the effect on the audience could be 
one only—namely, to rivet their attention 
to what immediately follows. 

What does follow is the dedication by 
Hippolytus of a wreath to the statue of 
Artemis: not apparently a very relevant 
incident, except as a continuation of the 
short ode that his attendants have just 
finished singing. 

It seems curious that the grammarians 
should have fixed upon this incident to 
give this play the name— Στεφανηφόρος 
—by which they distinguished it from 
another Hippolytus by the same author, 
which they called καλυπτόμενος. 

One of the followers of Hippolytus 
now addresses him, in a line containing 
an apparently unnecessary and almost 
exaggeratedly reverent reference to the 
gods. ‘The servant asks him if he would 
listen to good counsel, and on his assent, 
asks him if he knows a certain law of 
men. 

IVI. οὐκ οἶδα " τοῦ δὲ καί μ᾽ ἀνιστορεῖς πέρι ; 
OEP. μισεῖν τὸ σεμνὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ πᾶσιν φίλον ; 

Now this is hardly a law, or a rule 
even. It is at most a way of thinking 
common to most men. 

IILIL., ὀρθῶς γε" τίς δ᾽ οὐ σεμνὸς ἀχθεινὸς βροτῶν ; 

OEP. ἐν δ᾽ εὐπροσηγόροισιν ἔστι τις χάρις ; 

[ΠΠ1. πλείστη γε, καὶ κέρδος γε σὺν μόχθῳ βραχεῖ. 

OEP. ἢ κἀν θεοῖσι ταὐτὸν ἐλπίζεις τόδε ; 

ΠῚῚ|. εἴπερ γε θνητοὶ θεῶν νόμοισι χρώμεθα. 

The follower proceeds to apply this 
to the case of Hippolytus and Aphrodité, 
but instead of laying stress, as we should 
expect, on the proud aloofness of Hippo- 
lytus which tends to make him disliked 
by Aphrodité, he continues to refer to 
the ‘dignity’ of the goddess herself. 

Hippolytus expresses a very casual 
sort of adoration for her, and departs 
with words that might be translated : 


1 11]. 61-72. 


‘As for that Aphrodite of yours, just 
give her my love!’? 

The man bends in worship before the 
statue of the goddess, remarking that 
one must make allowances for youth, and 
the whole prologue ends with his words : 

σοφωτέρους yap χρὴ βροτῶν εἶναι θεούς. 
After the choral ode, at 1. 176, the 
action of the play proper begins. 

It is made clear that all Phaedra’s 
efforts at self-control have been rendered 
useless by the influence of the Cyprian 
goddess. 

When the nurse, under oath of secrecy, 
reveals her mistress’s love to Hippolytus, 
we have him threatening to denounce 
her in his righteous anger, till she re- 
minds him. of his oath. He then bursts 
out with the famous line (1. 612): 

ἡ γλῶσσ᾽ ὀμώμοχ᾽, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος, 
but keeps his promise, nevertheless. 
Phaedra hangs herself, and then 
Theseus arrives. He finds the tablet 
hanging from her wrist. 

OH. ᾿Ιππόλυτος εὐνῆς τῆς ἐμῆς ἔτλη θιγεῖν 
βίᾳ, τὸ σεμνὸν Znvos ὄμμ᾽ ἀτιμάσας. 
ἀλλ᾽ ὦ πάτερ Πόσειδον. ἂς ἐμοί ποτε 
ἀρὰς ὑπέσχου τρεῖς, μιᾷ κατέργασαι 
τούτων ἐμὸν παῖδ᾽, ἡμέραν δὲ μὴ φύγοι 
τήνδ᾽, εἴπερ ἡμῖν ὥπασας σαφεῖς ἀράς. 

The chorus beg him to withdraw these 
words. 


887 


BHD. οὐκ ἔστι καὶ πρός γ᾽ ἐξελῶ oe τῆσδε γῆς, 
δυοῖν δὲ μοίραιν θατέρᾳ πεπλήξεται “ 
ἢ γὰρ ἸΤοσειδῶν αὐτὸν εἰς Αἰδου πύλας 
θανόντα πέμψει τὰς ἐμὰς ἀρὰς σέβων, 
ἢ τῆσδε χώρας ἐκπεσὼν ἀλώμενος 
ξένην ἐπ᾽ αἷαν λυπρὸν ἀντλήσει βίον. 

This is indeed a strange way of calling 
on Poseidon to fulfil an obligation he has 
solemnly undertaken! First Theseus 
adds, ‘If the oaths thou swearedst be 
true, and then, to make sure in case they 
are not, he pronounces the sentence of 
exile so that if one punishment does not 
succeed, the other will. Scant respect for 
his ocean father, truly ! 

Hippolytus now enters, and _ his 
father’s wrath breaks loose upon him. 
The accusation and sentence of exile are 
repeated, but not the curse of Poseidon, 
which, it is worth noticing, Hippolytus 
himself has therefore not heard, since it 
was pronounced before his entry on the 
scene. 


2 L. 113: τὴν σὴν δὲ Κύπριν πόλλ᾽ ἐγὼ χαίρειν 
λέγω. : 


THE: CLASSICAL REVIEW II 


He defends himself as well as he can 
without breaking his oath of secrecy to 
the nurse. In the midst of his father’s 
invective he remarks (1. 1041): 

καὶ σοῦ γε κάρτα ταῦτα θαυμάζω, πάτερ" 

εἰ γὰρ σὺ μὲν παῖς ἦσθ᾽, ἔγὼ δὲ σὸς πατήρ, 

ἔκτεινά τοί σ᾽ ἂν κοὐ φυγαῖς ἐζημίουν, 

εἴπερ γυναικὸς ἠξίους ἐμῆς θιγεῖν. 
This shows quite clearly, should any 
doubt remain, that Hippolytus had not 
heard the curse pronounced against him. 

Theseus answers that death were too 
easy anend for suchasinner. He points 
to the testimony of the tablet. Huippo- 
lytus cries (1. 1060). 

ὦ θεοί, τί δῆτα τοὐμὸν οὐ λύω στόμα, 
ὅστις γ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, ods σέβω, διόλλυμαι ; 
οὐ δῆτα - πάντως οὐ πίθοιμ᾽ ἂν οὕς με δεῖ, 
μάτην δ᾽ ἂν ὅρκους συγχέαιμ᾽ οὕς ὥμοσα. 

The dialogue continues. He calls 
on the very walls to witness for him. 
Theseus replies (1. 1076): 


εἰς τοὺς ἀφώνους μᾶρτυρας φεύγεις σοφῶς * 


and orders the servants to cast him out. 
With a farewell to his fatherland, Hippo- 
lytus departs. We notice that since the 
beginning of the action at 1. 176 the oath 
of Poseidon has only been mentioned 
once, in the verses we have quoted above 
(ll. 887-898). 

But now a Messenger arrives, telling 
how that oath has been fulfilled. 

Hippolytus, it seems, was driving 
along the road to Epidaurus and had 
reached the shore of the Saronic Gulf, 
when a great wave from the sea rushed 
at his chariot, and out of this wave came 
a bull-shaped monster that kept coming 
in front of his team, until the horses 
bolted in a panic, broke one of the 
chariot-wheels against a stone, and 
dragged Hippolytus, who had fallen 
entangled in the reins, until he was mor- 
tally injured. The monster then sud- 
denly vanished. 

Theseus orders that Hippolytus be 
brought in. A brief choral song to Eros 
the terrible and his mother Aphrodite 
brings us to the epilogue proper. 

Artemis appears. 

She explains to the astonished and 
awestruck Theseus how his wife had been 
enamoured of his son; how she had tried 
to control her passion, but revealing it 
to her nurse had been ruined by the well- 
meant plans of the old woman; how 
Hippolytus, being sworn to secrecy, had 


not disclosed the fact even when reviled 
by Theseus for a crime he had not com- 
mitted; how Phaedra had written the 
lying tablet and had thus ruined Hippo- 
lytus by her wiles, succeeding in per- 
suading Theseus of his guilt. 

Theseus at this point remarks: ‘Woe 
is me!’ Artemis continues, telling him 
there is worse to come. She reminds 
him that he had called on Poseidon to 
fulfil one of the three wishes : 

(1. 1318) πατὴρ μὲν οὖν σοι πόντιος φρονῶν καλώς 
ἔδωχ᾽ ὅσονπερ χρῆν, ἐπείπερ ἤνεσεν" 
σὺ δ᾽ ἔν 7’ ἐκείνῳ κἀν ἐμοὶ φαίνει κακός, 
ὃς οὔτε πίστιν οὔτε μάντεων ὅπα 
ἔμεινας, οὐκ ἤλεγξας, οὐ χρόνῳ μακρῷ 
σκέψιν παρέσχες, ἀλλὰ θᾶσσον ἤ σ᾽ ἐχρῆν 
ἀρὰς ἐφῆκας παιδὶ καὶ κατέκτανες. 
She goes on, however, laying the re- 
sponsibility for all these disasters on 
Aphrodite. 
(1. 1328) θεοῖσι δ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἔχει νόμος " 
οὐδεὶς ἀπαντᾶν βούλεται προθυμίᾳ 
τῇ τοῦ θέλοντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφιστάμεσθ᾽ ἀεί. 
Otherwise, of course, if she had not 
been afraid to ask Zeus, she would have 
intervened to save her beloved Hippo- 
lytus. 

A most interesting glimpse of the 
internal economy of Olympus this, cer- 
tainly; but where is the self-respect 
of a goddess who can thus excuse herself 
before a mortal ? 

Hippolytus is brought in and Artemis 
speaks a few words to him, repeating 
that Aphrodité is to blame, regretting she 
may not weep for him, and making a few 
trite remarks. 

Hippolytus turns to his father and says 
he is far sorrier for him than for himself. 
Then he suddenly observes : 


(1. 1411) ὦ δῶρα πατρὸς cod ἸΤοσειδῶνος πικρά. 


Now, as we have seen,! Hippolytus 
cannot know that his father called on 
Poseidon to slay him, so this reference to 
the matter in his mouth looks like a very 
unfortunate oversight—a bad piece of 
‘botching’ on the author’s part. 

OHS. ὡς μήποτ᾽ ἐλθεῖν ὥφελ᾽ εἰς τοὐμὸν στόμα. 

III. τί δ᾽ ; ἔκτανές τἄν μ᾽, ὡς τότ᾽ ἦσθ᾽ ὠργισμένος. 

OHD. δόξης γὰρ ἣμεν πρὸς θεῶν ἐσφαλμένοι. 
Hippolytus expresses a wish that the 
human race could curse the gods. 

Artemis cannot and does not approve 
of this; she warns him that if he is not 


12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


her wrath even in Hades, but attempts to 
console him by telling him that she is 
planning a nice revenge on the Cyprian, 
that he, Hippolytus, will always be 
honoured in Troezen, and that, as long 
as men make poetry, Phaedra’s love for 
him will not be forgotten. 

In view of the efforts of Euripides, 
Seneca, Racine and D’Annunzio, it may 
be admitted that as far as the last item 
goes Artemis has been a true prophetess 
up to date. 

Artemis now departs, for she may not 
stand in presence of the dead, and, after 
a brief dialogue, in which Hippolytus 
forgives his father for causing his death, 
he passes away, and the play closes with 
the well-known lines supposed to be com- 
memorative of the death of Pericles 


(Il. 1459-1466). 
Te 


We would suggest that the moral of 
the Hippolytus is that ‘circumstances 
alter cases, and that this moral 15 pointed 
by two instances, one of a man, the other 
of a god, who, by neglecting to take this 
true saying into account, bring about 
disastrous results exactly contrary to 
their original intentions and desires. 

The man is Hippolytus, the god, 
Poseidon. Hippolytus, the chaste and 
true, is loved by his stepmother Phaedra, 
who confides the fact to her nurse. The 
nurse, having extracted an oath that he 
will not repeat it, tells the fact to Hippo- 
lytus. Phaedra overhears the pious 
horror of Hippolytus. Her love for him 
turns to hate, she fears the dishonour of 
a revelation, and so hangs herself, leaving 
a letter in which she accuses Hippolytus 
of having outraged her. Theseus, her 
husband, finds the letter, and bitterly 
upbraids Hippolytus, whom he sends into 
exile as a punishment for his immodesty 
and treachery. 

Had Hippolytus, after Phaedra’s death, 
only broken his promise and spoken, he 
could have cleared himself and all would 
have been well. 

This is the story of the man: a purely 
human story, with no gods in it any- 
where. 

Now for the other. 

The god Poseidon had granted his son 
Theseus, as a gift, three wishes which he 
had sworn to fulfil, whatever they might 


having outraged Phaedra, 


be. Theseus, on reading the letter 
falsely accusing his son Hippolytus of 
calls on 
Poseidon to fulfil one of his wishes and 
slay Hippolytus that very day. Posei- 
don, having sworn, does so: thus bring- 
ing deep sorrow on his own son Theseus. 

Had Poseidon, who, as a god, of course 
knew the truth of the matter, only broken 
his promise and stayed his hand, all 
would have been well. 

We would also suggest that Euripides 
had begun by pointing the moral in one 
story only, that of Hippolytus, leaving. 
out Poseidon altogether: but that he 
had been rather too outspoken, and the 
ending, which left Huppolytus 511] 
under the accusation, was objected to by 
the critics. 

He accordingly made a few alterations 
in the play, but to ensure the original 
point not being missed by the audience, 
he added the story of Poseidon, grafting 
it into the original tale and adding a 
last scene in which Huippolytus 15 
absolved completely of all blame. 

The play, thus modified, won the first 
prize. } 

We do not possess the piece in its 
original form, which was known to the 
grammarians as Ἱππόλυτος καλυπτό- 
μενος; but a few surviving fragments 
may serve to give an idea of the stand- 
point adopted by its author : 

ἔγωγε φημὶ, Kal νόμον γε μὴ σέβειν 

ἐν τοῖσι δεινοῖς τῶν ἀναγκαίων πλέον. 

ὁρῷ δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖσιν ἀνθρώποις ἔγὼ 
τίκτουσαν ὕβριν τὴν πάροιθ᾽ εὐπραξίαν." 

φεῦ, φεῦ, τὸ μὴ τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἀνθρώποις ἔχειν 
φωνὴν, ἵν᾽ ὦσι μηδὲν οἱ δεινοὶ λόγοι. 

νῦν δ᾽ εὐρύθμοις πιστώμασιν τἀληθέστατα 
κλέπτουσιν, ὥστε μὴ δοκεῖν ἃ χρὴ δοκεῖν. 


ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ ὀρθῶς ταῦτα κρίνουσιν θεοί. 5 


The piece as we have it, the Ἱππόλυτος 
Στεφανηφόρος, 15,85 we have seen, nowhere 
quite so plain-spoken, but it must have 


1 Hippolytus, ὑπόθεσις " 

ἔστι δὲ οὗτος Ἱππόλυτος δεύτερος, καὶ STEPANIAS 
προσαγορευόμενος. ἐμφαίνεται δὲ ὕστερος γεγραμμένος" 
τὸ γὰρ ἀπρεπὲς καὶ κατηγορίας ἄξιον ἐν τούτῳ διώρθωται 
τῷ δράματι. 

2 Fragm. 436 (Nauck). If we read σθένειν 
for σέβειν with Gomperz, it does not perceptibly 
alter the sense. The preceding context: may 
have accounted for some apparently missing 
word. 

3 Fragm. 440. 

4 Fragm. 442. The text given follows that 
quoted by Stobaeus. 

5 Fragm. 448. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 7 13 


_ been quite clear to its hearers that the 
moral it pointed was the same, and an 
outcry against such an opportunist view 
of the sanctity of oaths and promises was 
the inevitable result. 

It was made the main head of an 
accusation of impiety against the 
author.? 

It is now for us to show how our sug- 
gestion would account for the points we 
have raised in our rapid survey of the 
play as we have it. 

If we remove the lines 887-808, the 
whole story of Hippolytus is contained 
in Il. 176-1101; a complete tale, with no 
mention of the oath of Poseidon in it 
at all. 

If to this we add at the beginning the 
prologue of Aphrodité slightly modified 
(of course removing Il. 43-46) and at the 
end the choral ode following the depar- 
ture of Hippolytus into exile and the first 
part of the epilogue spoken by Artemis 
to Theseus (ll. 1285-1312), we have a 
play practically complete in itself, with 
prologue, action, and epilogue.  ~ 

Something like this may have been 
the original version. 

The fragment (438): 


τί δ᾽, ἣν λυθῇς me διαβαλεὶς, παθεῖν σε δεῖ ; 


sounds just like what Hippolytus might 
have said to the nurse after the death of 
Phaedra. 

In the play as we have it the nurse 
vanishes after ordering the servants to 
lift up the body of Phaedra, which has 
been cut down from the noose;* but it 
would have been only natural for Hippo- 
lytus to approach her and ask her to 
testify in his favour when under the 
terrible accusation. 

As it is, Theseus does not give him the 
chance of doing so: Hippolytus arrives 
at the palace, hears of Phaedra’s death 
from Theseus himself, and is called upon 
to defend himself without preparation of 
any kind. To have the nurse called in 
as a witness would be to publish the very 
thing he had sworn to keep secret, for it 
would be equivalent to admitting that 
he—and she also—knew something that 
was being kept back. 

It would appear that in the Ἱππόλυτος 


1 Aristophanes, Frogs, ll. 102 and 1471, etc. 
2 Aristotle, Rxez. 111. 15. 
3 1786-7 


καλυπτόμενος this situation was dealt with 
otherwise. 

Let us now suppose the original story 
modified and the Poseidon part grafted 
in— prologue, epilogue, and the lines 
887-898. We must admit that thus the 
whole Poseidon story has been intro- 
duced with a minimum of alteration to 
the body of the original play. The 
beginning and the end of an Euripidean 
drama were always notoriously outside 
the real action and not meant to be taken 
seriously by the audience, and the 
addition in the middle is a mere inter- 
polation not involving any change in the 
scenes either before or after. 

Having introduced this story the 
attention of the audience had to be 
directed to it, and to the fact that it was 
in some sort a parallel among the gods 
of what the rest of the play itself was 
amongst men. How was this to be 
effected ? 

Unless some very drastic step was 
taken, the Athenian public, now thor- 
oughly used to the methods of their 
Euripides (it was now ten years since the 
Alcestis had been first performed, we 
may remember), would certainly give but 
scant attention to the prologue; looking 
for the interest to begin after the first 
song of the chorus. Something had to 
be done. And it was done. 

The arresting lyric we have previously 
noticed was introduced ! 

This, which marks the difference 
between the original Hzppolytus and this 
amended version, was therefore fixed 
upon with reason by the grammarians as 
a means of distinguishing the two: hence 
Στεφανηφόρος. The name καλυπτόμενος, 
assuming that Hippolytus died in the 
original version as he does in the one we 
possess, might of course apply to either. 

To return to the prologue of our play. 
The two lines spoken by Hippolytus’ 
follower are calculated to fix the atten- 
tioy even more.4 Then comes: the 
mention of a law, a law of men, which 
we are to notice may or may not apply 
to gods as well. Now what is this law? 
It is obviously not the thing the man 
speaks of: we have already noticed that 
that cannot be called a law or even a 
rule, and in any case he proceeds at once 
to misapply it in a way that does not 
emphasise its point—if it has one. 


4 LI. 88-9 


14 THE CLASSICAL REV DEW 


But then why attract the attention of 
the audience to it so carefully ? 

We have probably said enough already 
for the reader to have realised, what the 
Athenian public would very quickly dis- 
cover, that the law referred to is none 
other than that of the sanctity of oaths 
and’ promises, binding to men as to 
gods.! 

And in interpreting this law, as in 
other things, σοφωτέρους χρὴ βροτῶν 
εἶναι θεούς." 

This last phrase receives great em- 
phasis: no less than that of being the 
last line of the prologue, before the 
entry of the chorus. 

The line in which Hippolytus pro- 
fesses himself unbound by his oath must 
have at once made a deep impression on 
his hearers; and their feelings must have 
been of unmitigated condemnation, for 
there is no excuse whatever for Hippo- 
lytus to break his word here, except to 
pose as an unusually pure-minded man 
—we should say, to behave like a prig. 

It is possible that later on in the 
play, when difficulties hedge him about 
(1. 1060), the audience will call to mind 
this sudden exclamation and be perhaps 
almost inclined to admit that if Hippo- 
lytus acted on it then he would be doing 
well. 

Now we come to the point where the 
finding of the fatal tablet brings up the 
Poseidon episode.. It is this which 15 
going to bring about the death of Hippo- 
lytus, but at the same time it must be 
interpolated so as not to interfere with 
the story as it stands—with sentence of 
exile as the punishment imposed by 
Theseus on his erring son. If Theseus 
calls on his father Poseidon to perform 
an oath he has solemnly sworn to him by 
slaying Hippolytus in fulfilment of one 
of the three wishes, there is obviously no 
necessity to pass a sentence of exile on 
him as well. 

But Euripides knows what he is 
about. This is where the neat thrust 


1 Paul Decharme, Euripide et 2 Esprit de son 
Théitre,p. tor: ‘ Cette obligation (du serment) 
passait jadis pour si forte quelle Ra eR 
disait-on, les dieux eux-mémes.’ He quotes 
Theog.793 in'support, but overlooks the Poseidon 
episode in the Hzppolytus. 

cab ( OF Ai ON st A Be ee Fee 

οὗ γὰρ ἀσύνετον τὸ θεῖον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχει συνιέναι 

τοὺς κακῶς παγέντας ὅρκους καὶ κατηναγκασμένου-. 


at Poseidon, the god of Delphi, is to 
come in. He makes Theseus doubt 
whether the god will keep his word! 
The masterly skill of this piece of inso- 
lence—one can call it no less—is worth 
considering. 

Firstly, it does away at a stroke with 
the necessity for making any further 
mention of the oath in the body of the 
play, even to Hippolytus himself; for 
why should Theseus take any further 
notice of an imprecation uttered sud- 
denly in a moment of stress and of whose 
power to harm he 1s himself doubtful ? 

In the second place, it points out in 
the neatest manner possible the uncom- 
fortable position of Poseidon: for either 
he stands by his oath, and in that case 
he is sending to his death a man whom 
he, as a god, knows to be innocent and to 
have fallen under the curse owing to a 
misapprehension on Theseus’ part; or 
else, availing himself of the superior 
wisdom of a god (σοφωτέρους yap χρὴ 
βροτῶν εἶναι θεούς 1), he stays his hand, 
and so doing breaks his own solemn oath. 

It is a situation calculated to make the 
intellectual Athenian chuckle with joy as 
soon as it dawned upon him: and the 
doubt expressed by Theseus in so many 
words was just what was required to 
make him realise it. 

A few moments later we behold Hip- 
polytus in a similar quandary (1. 1060): 
if he keeps his mouth shut he goes into 
exile under the accusation, apparently 
proved up to the hilt by the tablet and 
practically unanswered by himself, of 
treachery and immodesty—the two sins 
of all that he holds to be the worst, as 
we know; if he speaks, he breaks his 
oath. 

His reflection that even if he did speak 
he could not convince his father is 
obviously inserted by Euripides to point 
out the direct contrary: for was not his 
father even then discussing the matter 
with him, and was not the nurse a living 
witness of the truth? Theseus’ words 
about ‘voiceless witnesses’ must have 
sounded very bitter. 

With the departure of Hippolytus into 
exile and the entry of the Messenger and 
recital of his cock-and-bull —or, rather, 
wave-and-bull—yarn, the audience must 
have realised that the human part of the 
play was at an end. 

In fact, Artemis appears. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 15 


Her statement of the facts is divided 
by Theseus’ exclamation just at the point 
where the human story ends and the 
‘divine’ story—the Poseidon part—is 
about to begin. Attention is thus 
brought to it again. 

The line of action adopted by Posei- 
don in abiding by his oath and sacrific- 
ing the innocent Hippolytus is ironically 
approved, as is that of Hippolytus. in 
keeping silence and sacrificing himself : 
the whole blame is for a moment—and 
most reasonably too—put on Theseus 
himself for pronouncing the curse in such 
a hurry in the first place. 

But no, after all, it’s really Aphrodite’s 
fault, not his, so he needn’t worry about 
it. This is the epilogue, and ‘the gods,’ 
as usual, are having a bad time of it. 
The Athenians are smiling. 

Having three times already drawn 
attention to the Poseidon story by bits 
of sheer bravado—first in the lyric ode in 
the prologue, then by making Theseus 
openly doubt the god’s solemn oath, and 
lastly by making him interpose an appar- 
ently casual exclamation in Artemis’s 
discourse, Euripides now gives us what 
is perhaps the most daring and clever 
piece of stage work in the whole play. 

Hippolytus, who knows nothing what- 
ever of the curse Theseus has called down 
upon him, suddenly cries out : 

ὦ δῶρα πατρὸς σοῦ ἸΠοσειδῶνος πικρά. 
He could not be thinking of the three 
wishes. What did he mean? The 


explanation is really obvious. He has 
recognised in the wave-cum-bull com- 
bination—as who would not?—some 
device of the sea-god’s, and hence his 
own accident as a ‘bitter gift of Posei- 
don’! 

And the.remark of Theseus, who, like 
the audience, thinks at once of the three 
wishes, 


ὡς μήποτ᾽ ἐλθεῖν ὥφελ᾽ εἰς τοὐμὸν στόμα 


comes as a veritable bombshell to him. 
He only now realises what Theseus 
has done. 


τί δ᾽ ; ἔκτανές τἂν μ᾽, ws TOT ἦσθ᾽ ὠργίσμενος, 


which we would translate: 

What? Wouldst thou have slain me? 
Thou wert then so much angered!’ 

Theseus groans, ‘The gods deceived 
me.’ Hippolytus, in the sudden revela- 
tion of the injury which has been done, 
expresses a lively desire to curse the gods 
at laree—and no wonder ! 

The effect of this culminating scene on 
the quick Athenians must have been 
electrical, and the tumult of cheering 
that broke out at the end, though grace- 
fully taken by Euripides as a tribute to 
the memory of Pericles, must have been a 
whole-hearted testimony, confirmed by 
the bestowal of the first prize, to one of 
the finest pieces of work of the most con- 
summate artist of the antique stage. 


TAS. 
Capreae, 1918. 


THE MEANING OF ΩΣ OION TE. 


In Clement of Alexandria, Protreptt- 
pus (vols i.) ps 21, lt 17-8, Stahlin’: 
24 Potter), we read, Ἄρης γοῦν ὁ καὶ 
παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς, ws οἷόν Te, τετιμη- 
μένος, which the Ante-Nicene Christian 
Library (Clem. Alex. i. p. 37) translates 
thus: ‘Mars, accordingly, who by the 
poets is held in the highest possible 
honour.’ This is closely related to the 
Latin version in Migne, ‘ Mars, qui a 
poetis summo in honore habitus est,’ 
but it seems clearly wrong. For Ares 
is not conspicuously honoured in the 
Greek poets; least of all in Homer, 
whom Clement has specially in mind 
at this point, since he goes on to quote 


Iliad vy. 31 and 385-7, lines which con- 
tain the epithets βροτολουγός and μιαι- 
φόνος, to which Clement himself adds 
avapovos and the Homeric ἀλλοπρόσ- 
αλλος. Further, this rendering makes 
ὡς οἷόν te the equivalent of ὡς οἷόν τε 
μάλιστα. But ὡς οἷόν τε occurs, as a 
separate phrase, in two other places of 
Clement, il. Strom. (Stah. ii. 208, 
22-3: 524 P) and iv. Strom. (Stah. ii. 
249, 15-6: 564 P). The first of these 
runs, Tapayapdocovtes τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 
μᾶλλον δὲ κατασκάπτοντες ὡς οἷόν τε 
αὐτοῖς : ‘falsifying the truth, or rather, 
uprooting it so far as they can.’ The 
second is, καὶ τὰ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων παρα- 


16 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


τιθέμενοι καὶ ὡς οἷόν τε ἡμῖν διαλύεσθαι 
πειρώμενοι: “ quoting the opinions even 
of the heretics and trying, so far as we 
can, to demolish them.’ In each of these 
passages ὡς οἷόν τε has a limiting force: 
it suggests the attempt to do some- 
thing which cannot be done completely, 
stress being laid rather on what is im- 
possible than on what is possible. 
There is no need, therefore, to insert a 
superlative in the rendering, which for 
our first passage should run, ‘Ares, 
for instance, who is honoured, so far 
as that is possible, in the poets...’ 
Clement is in a satirical mood, and he 
means that the poets do their best to 
honour Ares, in spite of his unattrac- 
tive character. 

The phrase is used several times by 
Lucian, the older contemporary of 
Clement. In Imagines 3 we read: τὸ 
εἶδος ὡς οἷόν τε ὑπόδειξον τῷ λόγῳ, 
‘describe (her) form as best you can.’ 
Again, in Nigrvinus 32: εἰ yap τοι, 
ἔφη, τῇ πνοῇ τῶν ἴων τε καὶ ῥόδων 
χαίρουσιν, ὑπὸ τῇ ῥινὶ μάλιστα ἐχρῆν 
αὐτοὺς στέφεσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτὴν ὡς οἷόν 
τε τὴν ἀναπνοήν, 1.6. the fittest place 
ἴογ. garlands would be below the nose, 
‘as close as you can get to the 
breath. So in Charon 22 Hermes 
is asked why men are burning 
food in front of the tombs. He 
answers: πεπιστεύκασι γοῦν Tas ψυχὰς 
ἀναπεμπομένας κάτωθεν δειπνεῖν μὲν ὡς 
οἷόν τε περιπετομένας τὴν κνῖσαν καὶ τὸν 
καπνόν, πινεῖν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ βόθρου τὸ 
μελίκρατον. Fowler translates (Lucian 
i. p. 181), ‘ But the idea is, that the 
shades come up, and get as close as 
they can, and feed...’ Here the stress 
is laid on the nearness of the shades’ 
approach; and in fact a μάλιστα has 
been supplied, because ὡς οἷόν Te is 
taken with περιπετομένας. It seems, 
however, to belong to δευπνεῖν, which it 
limits in the same way as we have 
seen in the former examples — ‘the 
shades come up from below, flit around, 
and feed as best they can on the steam 
and the smoke...’ Hermes feels how 
odd it is to talk of disembodied spirits 
feeding,! so he adds ὡς οἷόν τε asa 
reservation. ‘Two other instances from 
Lucian give the same meaning: De 


1 So Charon in the next sentence: ’Exeivous 
“ἔτι πίνειν ἢ ἐσθίειν, ὧν Ta κρανία ξηρότατα; 


mervcede conductis 42---ψιλὴν ὡς οἷόν τέ 
σοι ἐπιδείξω τὴν εἰκόνα---- (since I can- 
not find an Apelles or a Parrhasius), I 
will sketch the picture for you in out- 
line as best I can’: and Icaromenippus ΤΙ, 
ὡς οἷόν τε ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ THY σελήνην ... 
συνεπισκόπει τὴν ὅλην τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς διά- 
θεσιν--- do your best to get up to the 
moon, and join me in surveying all the 
affairs of earth.’ 

From Clement, who was steeped in 
Plato,2 and Lucian, a master of Attic 
Greek, we should naturally expect 
to travel back to the great classical 
writers. There is a clear example in 
Aristotle, Politics, ε 1313 A 39: ἔστι δὲ 
τά τε πάλαι λεχθέντα πρὸς σωτηρίαν, 
ὡς οἷόν τε, τῆς τυραννίδος, τὸ τοὺς ὑπερέ- 
χοντας κολούειν κιτιλ. The Berlin Aris- 
totle attaches a critical note: οἷόν τε] 
nonne olovrar?—but the suspicion is 
needless. Welldon translates (Politics 
viii. c. 11): ‘I refer to the measures 
mentioned in an earlier part of this 
treatise for the preservation of tyranny, 
as far as is possible, viz. the practice of 
cutting off the prominent characters 
... Jowett gives the same meaning 
(Politics, v. c. 11), ‘in so far as this 15 
possible.’ Newman, in a note on the 
passage (Arist. Polttics, vol. iv. p. 451), 
says, ‘as much as is possible.  Ste- 
phanus’ Thesaurus refers us to Demos- 
thenes (s.v. οἷος : ὡς οἷόν te ap. Dem., 
quod exp. Pro virili parte), but I 
can find only a single example in 
him, though ὡς οἷόν te with a superla- 
tive is common enough. The one 
example is, however, interesting. In 
the speech On the Chersonesus 75 we 
read: εἰ δ᾽ ὁ μὲν εἶπεν ὡς οἷόν TE 
τὰ ἄριστα, ὥσπερ εἶπεν, K.T.A. _Cobet 
bracketed τὰ before ἄριστα, and 5. Η. 
Butcher in the Oxford text (Dem. 
vol. i. p. 108) follows him. But the 
τὰ is surely needed. λέγειν or εἰπεῖν 
τὰ βέλτιστα OF TO βέλτιστον OCCUrSs NO 
less than five times in the last three 
pages of this speech, as a description 
of the orator’s work. τὰ ἄριστα is an 
alternative for this,2 and ὡς οἷόν τε stands 


2 An illustration of Clement’s dependence on 
Plato will be found in my article on ‘ Clement 
of Alexandria’s Protrepticus and the Phaedrus 
of Paid in the Classical Quarterly, October, 
1916. 

2 λέγειν or εἰπεῖν τὰ βέλτιστα is Common 
throughout Demosthenes. Apart from the in- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 17 


by itself as a limiting phrase. The 
passage should therefore be rendered: 
‘if the orator had given, so far as in 
him lay, the best advice, as in fact he 
did, ...’ This is supported by the 
closing words of section 75, of which 
the general sense (the text is probably 
corrupt) is thus given by C. R. 
Kennedy: ‘for action look to your- 
selves, to the orator for the best in- 
struction 7m his power’; and by A. W. 
Pickard-Cambridge: ‘for the actions 
you must look to yourselves; from the 
speaker you must require that he give 
you the best counsel he can.’ Whether 
this meaning is in the text as it stands 
-τὰ μὲν ἔργα παρ᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ζητεῖτε, 
τὰ δὲ βέλτιστα ἐπιστήμῃ λέγειν παρὰ 
τοῦ mapiovtos—or whether we must 
resort to conjecture for it, it seems to 
correspond exactly to the εἶπεν ὡς οἷόν 
τε Ta ἄριστα a few lines above. 
Turning to Plato, we note a well- 
known passage, Rep. iii. 387 B-C., 
given as follows in Burnet’s Oxford 
text: οὐκοῦν ἔτι καὶ τὰ περὶ ταῦτα 
ὀνόματα πάντα τὰ δεινά τε καὶ φοβερὰ 
ἀποβλητέα, ΚΚωκυτούς τε καὶ Στὺῦγας καὶ 
ἐνέρους καὶ ἀλίβαντας, καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα 
τούτου τοῦ τύπου ὀνομαζόμενα φρίττειν 
δὴ ποιεῖ ὡς οἴεται πάντας τοὺς ἀκούον- 
τας. For ὡς οἴεται there is a reading 
ὡς οἷόν τε, supported by Bekker’s g and 
four inferior MSS. Hertz and Adam 
expunge ὡς οἴεται altogether, as the 
gloss of some Christian reader, meaning 
‘as he (ze. Plato) imagines’: the 
author of the gloss wished to show that 


stance under consideration, τὰ ἄριστα or τἄριστα 
occurs four times in the De Corona, but not 
elsewhere. Demosthenes uses it in these places 
with πράττειν, not with λέγειν or εἰπεῖν. But 
that the distinction is of the slightest is shown 
by De Corona 57, πράττοντα καὶ λέγοντα τὰ 
βέλτιστα, which 15 followed in 59 by λέγειν καὶ 
πράττειν τὰ ἄριστα. In Chersonesus 75 Demos- 
thenes may well have departed from his usual 
custom, both for the sake of variety, and, more 
especially, because he is here maintaining that 
the orator’s words are a necessary part of the 
citizens’ act (οὐκοῦν εἶπε μὲν ταῦθ᾽ ὁ Τιμόθεος, 
ἐποιήσατε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς" ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων τὸ 
πρᾶγμ’ ἐπράχθη). When words are regarded as 
deeds, the speaker may fitly adopt for the one 
ie construction that he usually reserves for the 
other. 


he could read such names without 
shivering. Jowett and Campbell (vol. 
lil. pp. III-2) consider ὡς οἷόν τε 
probably genuine, and its meaning to 
be the same as ὡς οἷόν τε μάλιστα found 
elsewhere in Plato (cp. Prot. 349 E). 
Liddell and Scott apparently take this 
view (s.v. οἷος iii. 3), and Davies and 
Vaughan’s translation is based upon 
it: ‘the mention of which makes men 
shudder to the last degree of fear.’ But 
why should μάλιστα be omitted? The 
phrase will stand without it, and bear 
its usual and well-defined meaning. 
Plato is not likely to have said un- 
reservedly that the names of certain 
mythical terrors and monsters make all 
men shudder. He qualifies his state- 
ment. That is their aim and tendency. 
They do their best to terrify the hearers. 
In the case of children, whose educa- 
tion is now under consideration, they 
would certainly terrify, and cause the 
children to grow up timid. Of course 
they would not frighten philosophers. 

The confusion between οἷόν te and 
οἴονται in MSS. is well known (see 
Adam on Plato, Rep. ii. 358 E, where 
he refers to Schneider on Ref. i. 329 E. 
See also Isaeus xi. 20, p. 157 Wyse). 
οἴονται would readily change to οἴεται, 
where the sense seemed to demand it. 
It would be easy to conjecture οἴονται 
for οἷόν τε in Clement, Protr. p. 21, 
ll. 17-8 (Stah.), the instance from which 
we started; but it is more likely that 
where ὡς οἷόν τε, a comparatively rare 
phrase, has remained, it represents the 
original text, than that the plain and 
simple ὡς οἴονται should have been 
changed to it. The examples of ὡς 
οἷόν te which I have adduced above 
from classical Greek are few, but it 
seems probable that they are far from 
exhaustive, for others may be found 
lurking under ὡς οἴονται in MSS. They 
are enough, however, to show that the 
phrase, though not common, is well 
authenticated, and that it bears a 
meaning of its own, quite distinct from 
that which it has when joined to a 
superlative. 


G. W. BuTTERWORTH. 


NO, CCLXXII. VOL, XXXIII. 


18 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


A SUPPOSED FRAGMENT OF THEOPHRASTUS. 


MODERN editors of the Nicomachean 
Ethics give a quotation from: the Ethics 
of Theophrastus, which ‘is distinctly 
an amplification of a sentence in one of 
the disputed books,’ viz. VII. 14, 6 
(1154b, 13 -I4): ἐξελαύνει δὲ ἡδονὴ 
λύπην ue τ᾽ ἐναντία καὶ ἡ τυχοῦσα ἐὰν 
ἢ ἰσχυρά (see Burnet, pp. xv and 342 
also Stewart, II. p. 258). 

But examination of the source of 
this quotation, viz. Aspasius on E.N. 
VII. 14, 5-6, sug gests a doubt. Aspasius 
15 discussing ἀεὶ πονεῖ TO ζῷον (54b, 7). 
He attributes this view to Anaxagoras, 
and after declaring that it is mentioned 
here, not as true, but for our informa- 
tion, continues, as the text stands in 
Heylbut, p. 156, 

ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἐδόκει γε αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ ἐν πόνῳ 
eivat τὸ ζῷον. καὶ τὸν ᾿Αναξαγόραν 
αἰτιᾶται Θεόφραστος ἐν ᾿Ηθικοῖς λέγων 
ὅτι ἐξελαύνει ἡδονὴ λύπην and So on, as 
in Burnet and Stewart. 

The passage from Theophrastus 
should, therefore, refute the doctrine 
of Anaxagoras. But it has, in fact, no 
bearing on that doctrine at all; while 
it is just what we might get from 
Aspasius himself as comment on the 
text ἐξελαύνει ἡδονὴ λύπην K.T.r. I 
would suggest, then, that the quotation 
from Theophrastus has been lost (its 
purport may be gathered from his de 
Sensibus, §§ 31-33, in Stratton, Greek 
Physiological Psychology, pp. 92-5); and 
that the passage in Aspasius should be 
printed with the mark of a lacuna 
before what is now supposed to be 
the quotation from Theophrastus : i 
ἀεὶ yap πονεῖ TO ζῷον, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ 
ὁ γὰρ ᾿Αναξαγόρας 
ἔλεγεν ἀεὶ πονεῖν τὸ ζῷον διὰ "τῶν 
αἰσθήσεων. ταῦτα δὲ οὐχ ὡς συγκατα- 
τιθέμενος λέγει ἀλλ᾽ ἱστορῶν " ἐπεὶ οὐκ 
ἐδόκει γε αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ ἐν πόνῳ εἶναι τὸ 
ζῷον. καὶ τὸν ᾿Αναξαγόραν αἰτιῶται 
Θεόφραστος ἐν ᾿Ηθικοῖς λέγων ὅτι «΄... 

Φ» ἐξελαύνει ἡδονὴ λύπην ἥ γε 
ἐναντία, οἷον ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ πίνειν τὴν ἀπὸ 
τοῦ διψῆν, καὶ ἡ τυχοῦσα, τούτεστιν 
ἰσχυρά, ὥστε ἐνίοτε 


φυσιολόγοι λέγουσιν. 


A 9 x Μ 
ΤΙΣ ovv ἂν εἴη 


1 See Heylbut’s Aspastus, p. 156, ll. 13-22. 
J underline the words that, in my opinion, repre- 
sent the text of £./V. 


πεῖναν ἐξελαύνει καὶ ἀκοῆς ἡδονή, ὃ ὅταν 
ἄσμασιν ἢ ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀκούσμασι δια- 
φερόντως χαίρωμεν. καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἀκό- 


λαστοι γίνονται ἄνθρωποι" 


iv’ ὅλως γὰρ 


μὴ λυπῶνται μηδὲ ἀλγῶσι, μεγάλας καὶ 
σφοδρὰς ἡδονὰς ἑαυτοῖς πορίξουσι. 

That the words ἐξελαύνει κ-.τ.λ., which, 
as the text is printed, depend on λέγων 
ὅτι, must be comment of Aspasius, not 
quotation from Theophrastus, would 
seem to have been felt by Diels, who 
proposed (see Heylbut, zbtd.) to insert 
ὡς before Θεόφραστος. The meaning 
would then be (I presume), 

‘And Aristotle, like Theophrastus in 
his Ethics, censures Anaxagoras, saying 
that pleasure drives out pain,’ etc. 

But this reading is open to the same 
objection as Heylbut’s text—it uses the 
sentence of E.N. ἐξελαύνει ἐς . loyupa 
to refute ἀεὶ πονεῖ τὸ ζῷον, a use which 
is not warranted by logic nor in any 
way suggested by our text of E.N, 

No doubt, if ἐν ᾿Ηθικοῖς is correct, 
Theophrastus did deal with this view 
of Anaxagoras in his Ethics, as well as 
in the de Sensibus ; and so the passage 
in Aspasius, even as I propose to alter 
it, still testifies to correspondence be- 
tween the Ethics of Theophrastus and 
this tract: ΣΝ ΜΙ cc, τ ἘΞ ὍΝ 
Pleasure. Yet, if there was close cor- 
respondence between the Ethics of 
Theophrastus and our E.N. and Aspa- 
sius had access to Theophrastus’s work, 
it seems strange that he made so little 
use of it: from Heylbut’s index (p. 243) 
he appears to mention Theophrastus 
only three times in the extant portion 
of his commentary. It is true that 
this may be by no means the full measure 
of his debt to Theophrastus; and from 
the same index it appears that he makes 
less mention of Eudemus and the Eude- 
mian Ethics. Still ἐν ᾿Ηθικοῖς may’ be 
a blunder, either of the MSS. or of 
Aspasius, replacing a reference to the 
de Sensibus. The passage in Heylbut, 
P- 150, 3-30 (on 1153}, 1), 

Σπεύσιππον δέ φασιν οὕτω δεικνύειν 
ὅτι ἡδονὴ ἀγαθὸν ἐστιν κιτ.λ., does not 
seem to show a great knowledge of the 
history of the subject. 

However this may be, we should, I 


THE CLASSICAL, REVIEW): τῷ 


submit, suppose a lacuna after λέγων 
ὅτι (Heylbut, p. 156,17), which has lost 
us the quotation from Theophrastus; 
and probably not only this but also the 
comment of Aspasius on the first part 
of c. 14, § 6 (1154b, 9-13) opoiws 8 


ἐν... εἰσίν, a passage on which a 
commentator might reasonably have 
something to say. 

C. M. Mutvany. 


3 
Queen’s College, 
Henares. 


PHAEDRUS AND SENECA. 


THOSE who whether from duty or 
inclination have to busy themselves 
with the ragged text of Phaedrus will 
not consider it superfluous to inquire 
whether any help may be won from 
consideration of the writings of one 
who in respect of age of metre and toa 
certain extent in subject-matter and 
tone stands nearest to their author. 
M. Havet has subjected the treatment 
of the iambic trimeter by the fabulist 
and the tragedian to a strict comparison. 
With this I do not deal. What he has 
noted outside this sphere will be in- 
cluded in my collections if relevant and 
distinctive enough for my purpose. I 
shall submit my material first and 
reserve comments and deductions for 
the sequel. Its illustrative value will 
thus be unimpaired, and its evidential 
force in no way prejudged. 

The agreements between Phaedrus 
and Seneca that I shall register are 
firstly those of substance, that is of 
thought or subject-matter; and secondly 
those of form, that is of expression and 
vocabulary. The few in which there is 
agreement of both will naturally come 
in between. On the agreements to 
which an asterisk is attached something 
more will be said below. 


Phaedrus I. xxiii. 3 sq. ‘nocturnus 
cum fur panem misisset cani | obiecto 
temptans an cibo posset capi.’ 

Seneca de Constantia Saptentis 14. 2 
‘illum, quisquis erit, tamquam canem 
acrem obiecto cibo leniet.’ 

Phaedrus III. viii. 14 sqq. ‘ “‘ Cotidie”’ 
inquit “speculo uos uti uolo; | tu 
formam ne corrumpas nequitiae malis ; | 
tu faciem ut istam moribus uincas 
bonis,”’ cf. ib. τ ‘praecepto monitus 
“saepe te considera.’ 

Seneca N.Q. I. 16. 4 ‘inuenta sunt 
specula ut homo ipse se nosset, multa 


ex hoc consecuturus, primum sui noti- 
tiam, deinde ad quaedam consilium; 
formosus ut uitaret infamiam, deformis 
ut sciret redimendum esse uirtutibus 
quicquid corpori deesset’ e.q.s. (Imita- 
tus fortasse Phaedrum Seneca, Havet ad 
loc). 

Phaedrus III. xv. The subject of this 
fable, the Lamb in quest of its foster- 
mother the Goat, is ‘facit parentes 
bonitas, non necessitas’ (v. 18). 

Seneca de Beneficiis III. 29. 3-31 
examines in the same spirit and with 
the same results the view that the mere 
gift of life is no claim upon the gratitude 
of a child. 

Phaedrus III. xviii. and Appendix ii. 
5 sqq. enumerate the characteristic 
excellences of various animals. The 
moral is that we should be content with 
what is assigned to us by Providence. 

Seneca de Beneficiis 11. 29. 1 sq. (cf. 
Epist. Moral. 124. 22) has a similar 
enumeration; and his moral is the 
same. 

Phaedrus III. epil. 10 ‘nam uita 
morti propior est cotidie.’ 

Seneca Epist. Moral. 120. 17 ‘nihil 
satis est morituris, immo morientibus. 
cotidie enim propius ab ultimo stamus." 

*Phaedrus IV. vii. g ‘ fabricasset 
Argus opere Palladio ratem.’ . 

Seneca Med. 365 544. ‘non Palladia | 
compacta manu regum referens | in- 
clita remos quaeritur Argo.’ 

Phaedrus IV. 10. 1-3 ‘ Peras impo- 
suit Iuppiter nobis duas: | propriis re- 
pletam uitiis post tergum dedit, falienis 
ante pectus suspendit grauem.’ 

Seneca de Ira II. 28.8 ‘aliena uitia 
in oculis habemus, a tergo nostra sunt.’ 

Phaedrus IV. vii. 25 sq. ‘hoc illis 
dictum est qui stultitia nausiant | et, 
ut putentur sapere, caelum uituperant.’ 

Seneca Epist. Moral. ro7 fin. ‘at 
contra ille (animus) pusillus et degener 


20 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


qui obluctatur et de ordine mundi male 
existimat et emendare mauult deos quam 
se.’ For the ‘ querellae nausiantis ani- 
mi’ see de Constantia το. 2. 

Phaedrus IV. xvii. fin. ‘ Parce gau- 
dere oportet et sensim queri, | totam 
quis uitam miscet dolor et gaudium.’ 

Seneca Epist. Moral. 110. 4 ‘ si sapis, 
omnia humana condicione metire: 
simul et quod gaudes et quod times 
contrahe.’ 

*Phaedrus IV. xxil. (xxill.) 14 ‘ ‘‘ me- 
cum ”’ inquit “‘mea sunt cuncta”’ (cf. 
25 sq.), the words of Simonides. 

Seneca de Constantia Saptentis 5. 6 
‘Megara Demetrius ceperat cui cogno- 
men Poliorcetes fuit. ab hoc Stilbon’ 
(should be Stilpon) ‘et philosophus 
interrogatus num aliquid perdidisset ; 
‘Nihil; inquit ‘omnia mea mecum 
sunt,” and so again in Epist. Moral. 9. 18 
sq. at somewhat greater length (com- 
pare Diogenes Laertius 2. 11. 4). 

Phaedrus ibidem 14 sq. ‘tunc pauci 
enatant | quia plures onere degrauati 
perierunt.’ 

Seneca Epist. Moral. 22. 
cum sarcinis enatat.’ 

Phaedrus IV. epil. 3 sq. i‘ Sed tem- 
peratae suaues sunt argutiae, | immo- 
dicae offendunt.’ 

Seneca de Constantia Sapientis 16 fin. 
‘iocis temperatis delectamur, immo- 
dicis irascimur.’ 

Phaedrus V. vi. 1 sqq. ‘Inuenit 
caluus forte in triuio pectinem. | acces- 
sit alter, aeque defectus pilis. | ‘‘ Heia!” 
inquit ‘fin commune quodcumque est 
luc.” ” 

Seneca Epist. Moral. 119 init. ‘ Quo- 
tiens aliquid inueni, non expecto donec 
dicas “in commune :” ipse mihi dico.’ 

Phaedrus Appendix Perottena ii. 1 sq. 
‘Arbitrio si Natura finxisset meo | genus 
mortale, longe foret instructius.’ 

Seneca Oedipus 882 (903) sq. ‘ Fata 
si liceat mihi | fingere arbitrio meo.’ 


12 ‘nemo 


‘*alte cinctus’ Phaedrus II.-v. 11. 
So Seneca Epist. Moral. 33. 2, 92. 35. 

‘auocare’ ‘distract’ Phaedrus App. 
P. xiv. 26. So Seneca ad Polybium 
17. 6 and elsewhere. 

‘delicium’ Phaedrus IV. 1.8. ‘de- 
licium’ and ‘deliciolum’ Seneca Epist. 
Moral. 12. 3. 

‘fatigare caelum’ Phaedrus IV. xx 


(xx1.) 24. Seneca ‘ fatigare deos’ Epist. 
Moral. 31. 5. 
‘immolare=occidere’ Phaedrus IV. 
Vine. voeheca INO. lic: Ὁ Ὡς 
‘ *inuoluere ingenium ’ Phaedrus IV. 
vil. 14. Seneca ‘cor inuolutum’ N.Q. I. 
Praef. 6. 
‘*meliusculus ’ 
drus App. xv. 7 
1500: 
‘nasute’ or 
ΠΑ τοὶ 
ΝΟ: Ὁ 
‘persto’ of slaves kept standing at 
their posts Phaedrus App. ΤῈ xviii. ὃς. 
So Seneca Ε 157. Moral. 47. 8. 
‘petra’ Phaedrus Ap. xx. 2. 
Agam. 468. 
‘*prospicere’ ‘catch sight of’ ‘get 
a glimpse of’ Phaedrus Aff. xili. 16. 
Seneca Epist. Moral. 79. 12, 83. I. 
‘retorridus’ Phaedrus IV. ii. 16: 
(Met.). Seneca Epist. Moral. 12. 2 and 
other places (Summers ad loc.). 
‘*strigare’. \Phaedrus). TIT. τ Ὁ. 
Seneca Epist. Moral. 31. 4. 
‘stropha’ Phaedrus I. xiv. 4. Seneca 
Epist. Moral. 26. 5. 


of good looks Phae- 
Seneca de Beneficits 


Phaedrus IV. 
Seneca de Beneficiis 


‘nasuté ’ 
‘ Masute. 


Seneca 


The tragedies of Seneca present in 
two or three instances iambic lines 
which in expression and structure recall 
senarii of Phaedrus. M. Havet cites 
‘irato impetu’ ending a verse in 
Phaedrus III. 11. 14 (‘horrendo im- 
petu’ in I. xi. 10) and Seneca Tyvoad. 
1159. Similarly ‘scelere funesto domum’ 
111. το. 50 and ‘ caede funesta domum ’ 
Seneca Phaedra 1275. Also III. prol. 
58 ‘qui saxa cantu mouit et domuit 
feras’ and seneca Medea 229 ‘qui saxa 
cantu mulcet et siluas trahit.’ Another 
correspondence is noticed below. 

The following observations arise out 
of the material. In IV. vil. 9 ‘opere 
Palladio’ has been changed by L. 
Mueller and others to ‘ opera Palladia’ 
on the ground that Pallas is not 
generally represented as working at the 
Argo. M. Havet has defended the text 
by Claudian Bell. Pollent, 18. The 
parallel from Seneca is nearer. 

Consideration of IV. xxii. (xxiii.) 
raises an interesting question. The 
dictum ‘omnia mea mecum sunt’ is 
given by the fabulist to Simonides and 
by the philosopher to Stilpon. Is this 


THE: CLASSICAL REVIEW 21. 


due to independent use of different 
sources or is the philosopher consciously 
correcting a predecessor? This would 
certainly be in the Annaean manner ; 
compare what is said about Lucan 
in my Introduction to Book VIII. 
Ῥ. Xxxvi, ἢ. 4. The true authorship of 
the mot it is not very easy nor vastly 
important to determine. The poet may 
be right in ascribing it to a poet, and 
the philosopher to whom the philoso- 
pher assigns it may have borrowed or 
repeated it. It is not altogether irrele- 
vant to add that Seneca shows himself 
aware of the difference between two 
notabilities, Demetrius Poliorcetes and 
Demetrius Phalereus, whom our author 
has confused in a passage corruptly 
given in our texts. V.I.1 sq.: 


Demetrius qui dictus est Phalereus 
Athenas occupauit imperio improbo. 


Even with the present reading of ver. I 
the blunder (the converse form of which 
appears in Aelian Var. Hist. 9. 9, so 
that it may have been taken over by 
Phaedrus from some Greek) is un- 
deniable ; compare in addition to ver. 2 
the ‘tyrannus’ of ver. 14 and the ‘qua 
sunt oppressi manum’ of ver. 5. But 
it comes into clearer light when that 
verse is corrected. The vulgate reading 
is faulty on two accounts. In the first 
place, it neglects an important part of 
the MS. evidence. ‘ Demetrius qui’ is 
the reading of the Pithoeanus and the 
Perottine MSS., but in the lost Remen- 
sis vex was added after ‘ Demetrius,’ and 
that this is no corruption 15 shown by 
its appearance in the heading of the 
poem in the Pithocanus ‘ Demetrius Rex 
et Menander Poeta.’ In the second 
place the scansion Phalerétis (from 
Greek Φαληρέυς) is -unexampled in 
Latin verse. 

Professor Housman on Manilius I. 
350 has already disposed of all the 
examples by which M. Havet (ad loc.) 
has sought to defend it; and it only 
remains here to write in conformity 
with the indications of the MSS.: 


Demetrius rex qui Phalereus dictus est. 


Changes of the order of words to one 
more easy or more familiar are common 
enough in the tradition of Phaedrus. 

‘ Alticinctis ’ is the received reading at 


11. v. 11 ‘ex alticinctis unus atriensibus.” 
It is however weakly supported by the 
MSS.; for both P and R divide it < alti 
cinctis’ and the MSS. of Phaedrus 
confuse 6 and ὁ perpetually. Apart 
from this the word has nothing to rest 
on except a gloss of uncertain origin 
and value “ ἀνεσταλμένος, alticinctus’ 
Corp. Gl. II. 226, which can hardly be 
set against the consistent usage of 
Horace, Seneca, whom I cite because 
M. Havet says ‘sic metro coactus Hor. 
S. II. 8. το, and Petronius. Phaedrus 
shows no liking for such compounds as 
alticinctus as we may infer from his 
“sus nemoris cultrix’ II. iv. 3 by the 
side of Catullus’s ‘cerua_ siluicultrix 
. aper nemoriuagus.’ 

IV. vii. 14 ‘saeuum ingenium uariis 
inuoluens modis’ has been altered in 
various ways, Guyet and Heinsius con- 
jecturing euolwens and M. Havet con- 
woluens. But Seneca’s phrase seems to 
show that-it may stand, though dolis 
(Heinsius) would be an improvement 
on modis. 

App. xv. 7 ‘adeone per me uideor 
tibi meliuscula?’ M. Havet’s uenustula 
is elegant and has proved attractive. 
But that it is not necessary on the 
ground of metre he admits himself, and 
meliusculus, like bonus (Catullus 37. 19 ; 
cf. Propertius II. 28. 12 and elsewhere) 
was colloquially used of ‘ good’ looks. 

In Afp. xii. 16 ‘paulum reclusis 
foribus miles prospicit’ the usage of 
Seneca, and especially that in Ep. 83. 1 
‘tamquam aliquis in pectus intimum 
prospicere possit,’ leads me now to 
doubt my ‘ perspicit,’ although accepted 
by Dr. Gow and commended by Pro- 
fessor Housman (C.R. XIV. p. 467). 

In II. v. 23 ‘tum sic iocata est tanta 
maiestas ducis’ Pithou’s tanti has been 
widely accepted without — sufficient 
reason, aS we may see from Seneca 
Herc, I’. 721 sq. ‘in quo superbo digerit 
uultu sedens | animas recentes dira 
mavestas dei’ (with Leo’s repunctuation) ; 
cf. for the metrical turn Phaedra 915, 
‘ubi uultus ille et ficta mazestas wiri.’ 
M. Havet’s citation of ‘tanto duce’ 
from Martial XI. 8. 6 by no means 
shows that in a writer with Phaedrus’s 
weakness forabstract nouns fata cannot 
agree with mazestas. 

ΠῚ. vi. 9 tricandum is the reading 


22 


generally adopted from PR, but the 
meaning of ‘shirking’ is neither pro- 
perly attested nor sufficiently appro- 
priate to the passage, nor again does it 
explain the tardandum of N (an explana- 
tion of stvigandum) nor the saltandum 
of V. It appears to be simply a cor- 
ruption easy enough of strigandum (the 
conjecture of Gruter and Salmasius) 
for which compare App. Vergiliana 
Catal. 10 (δ) το. : 

On sine mercede in IV. i1.8 ‘hoc ne 
locutus sine mercede existimer, | fabel- 
lam adiciam de mustela et muribus’ 
which has driven the commentators to 
most contorted interpretations. I briefly 
wrote in the Classical Quarterly of April, 
1918, p. 91: ‘Sometimes the gloss may 
be detected by its senselessness. So 
**sine mercede’’ IV. 2.8 which should 
be gratuito. My view was that Phaedrus 
here meant to say he would show in 
his accustomed manner by means of a 
fable that the dictum ‘appearances 
deceive’ was no uncalled-for and idle 
utterance, and that the gratwto which 
he used in the sense of ‘ causelessly’ 
‘without motive’ ‘unwarrantably’ (c/. 
Sallust Cat. 16. 3 ‘ gratwto potius malus 
atque crudelis erat,’ ‘ gvatuitum odium’ 
Seneca Epist. Moral. 105. 3 and ‘ gratis 
‘anhelans’ of the officious and uncalled- 
for attentions of the atriensis in II. v. 3) 
was misinterpreted by some scribe; 
whose infelicitous comment ‘ without 
fee’ or ‘remuneration’ had crept into 
the text. This might well have hap- 
pened. But that Phaedrus may here 
have deviated from his practice and 
have represented the following fable as 
a ‘fee’ or payment for attention to his 
moralising seems also possible when 
we compare a curious procedure of 
Seneca in the first three books of his 
Moral Epistles. At the end of all but 
every letter he adds an ‘aureum dictum’ 
as we might call it, some pithy or 
weighty saying which he frequently 
calls its ‘mercedula,’ ‘ peculium,’ ‘ mu- 
nus’ or ‘munusculum.’ It is enough 
to quote 8. 7 ‘sed iam finis faciendus 
est et aliquid, ut institui, pro hac epistula 
dependendum,’ 10. 5 ‘ut more meo cum 
aliquo munusculo epistulam mittam,’ 
12. 10 ‘sed 1am debeo epistulam in- 
cludere. sic’ inquis ‘sinc ullo ad me 
feculio_ueniet,’ 15.9 ‘una mercedula et 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


unum graecum ad haec beneficia ac- 
cedet, ecce insigne praeceptum’ 6.4.5. 

Having thus set out not indeed the 
whole but probably the greater and 
most noteworthy part of the correspon- 
dences between Seneca and Phaedrus, 
and having considered their value to. 
an editor of the fabulist, we may turn 
to the question of their inner sig- 
nificance. We may note two facts to 
begin with. They are almost all to be 
found in the books that follow the first. 
We cannot indeed assign to their 
proper places the fables contained in 
the Perottine Appendix; but thus much 
we know, that the imperfect manuscript 
from which they were drawn contained 
no fable earlier than II. vi. Next the 
similarities in diction seem to be largely 
colloquialisms, and as such might be 
due to Seneca and Phaedrus using a 
common style. Are we to stop here 
and neither assert nor deny that they 
indicate that the Fables were known to 
the philosopher? Before we can decide 
we must consider the other factors in 
the question. 

Martial was aware of Phaedrus III. 
20. 5 ‘an aemulatur improbi iocos 
Phaedri?’ Our conviction that this 
verse refers to our Phaedrus is not 
shaken by the astounding declaration 
of Friedlaender, ad loc. that the Fables 
are neither ‘ioci’ nor in any sense 
‘improbi.’ That the Fables were not 
‘ioc1’ to Friedlaender is a matter of no 
importance; we know that Phaedrus 
thought them such; Prologue to Book I. 
‘duplex libelli dos est quod riswm 
monet | et quod prudenti uitam consilio 
mouet ...| fictis Ἰοοαγί nos memi- 
nerit fabulis.’ Andif some of his pieces 
are not ‘improbi’ Ag. I. xvill., xxix. ; 
TET. ΠῚ xi se V eS XV xvi vita Otlrers, 
it is hard to see what sense attaches to 
the word. But indeed there is no neces- 
sity to argue the question; for Martial 
according to a custom by no means rare 
in the literary references of Roman 
poetry has pointed his allusions to the 
works of Phaedrus by using words zocus 
and izmprobus, that his readers would 
recognise as special favourites of that 
writer. Of this ‘semi-quotation,’ as 


1 zocus with its congeners occurs some eleven 
times, z#zprobus (with zprobitas) some seven- 
teen times in the extant Fables. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 23 


we may call it, Statius has more than 
one example; Siluae I. 2. 252-255 (of 
Propertius and Tibullus) and several 
passages in II. 7 (the birthday ode to 
Lucan). 

Quintilian will be our second witness. 
For we can hardly doubt that the poeta 
of Inst. Or. I. 9. 2 who composed 
‘Aesopi fabellas . . . sermone puro et 
nihil se supra modum extollente’ and 
whose ‘ gracilitas’ is to be reproduced 
in the school exercises was Phaedrus.? 
The Fables then, or rather a selection 
from them, were a schoolbook at Rome 
towards the end of the first century A.D. 
When they attained to this deadly dis- 
tinction we cannot say. For some 
forty years previously there is no men- 
tion of them or sign of their existence. 
In this dearth of data the hungry critic 
has turned to a well-known passage in 
one of the Dialogi of Seneca addressed 
to Polybius, the powerful freedman of 
Claudius, in the hope that he would 
use his influence to get the philosopher 
permission to return to Rome. The 
words are ‘non audeo te eo usque pro- 
ducere ut fabellas quoque et Aesopeos 
logos, intemptatum Romants ingentts opus, 
solita tibi uenustate conectas’ 8. 3. 
This has been rightly held to show that 
Seneca, writing from Corsica circa 43, 
the probable date of this ‘ dialogue,’ 
either did not know the Fables or 
chose deliberately to ignore them. 
What we know from the Fables them- 
selves about the times of their com- 
position may be summed up in a 
sentence: Phaedrus had written fables 
which, if not published, had obtained 
such currency as to bring him under 
the notice of Seianus some time before 
the fall of the Prefect in 31; and he 
continued to do so till after 37, the 
year of Tiberius’s death. It is possible 
that he was writing under Claudius, as 
IV. xiv. (a fragment in our MSS. of 
which the Paraphrasts have preserved 
the continuation) is naturally taken to 


1 No argument can be based on the use of 
the common instead of the proper name. The 
use is both natural (cf ὁ mourns in Greek) and 
appropriate. Phaedrus himself called his fables 
Aesopiac, and as only a selection from them 
would be included in the school anthology, 
there was no special call to give his name. 


refer to Caligula. But we cannot point 
to anything that proves he was writing 
later than 41, the year of Seneca’s 
banishment. The theory then that to 
this exile should be ascribed Seneca’s 
seeming ignorance of his work lacks all 
solid foundation. An earlier absence 
in Egypt, the date of which cannot be 
determined, might be used to explain 
the paucity of coincidences with the 
first book of Phaedrus; but that in 
43 the philosopher should have been 
wholiy ignorant of the existence of the 
Fables is undeniably strange. If he 
were not, the statement that Aesopean 
Fable was a form of literature ‘ un- 
essayed by Roman talents’ is hardly 
less astonishing. Does it mean that to 
Seneca Phaedrus, in spite of his pre- 
tensions (II. epil. g), did not count 
because he was not a native Roman ἢ" 
An odd argument for an immigrant 
from Spain to address to a Greek or 
Asiatic freedman! Or is it a conscious 
perversion of fact to open the way for 
a compliment to the powerful favourite ? 
It would not then be out of keeping 
with the adulations of the Empress 
Messalina and the freedmen of Claudius, 
which we are told by Dio Cassius 
(61. το. 2) Seneca afterwards out of 
mere shame did his best to suppress 
(ἀπήλευψεν).ὅ 

To sum up, it seems antecedently 
very improbable that Seneca should 
have remained without knowledge of 
all the five books of the Fables from 
the time of their publication to the end 
of his life, and the resemblances between 
the fabulist and the philosopher are, so 


2 There is little in the idioms or diction of 
Phaedrus to suggest the foreigner. His use of 
abstract nouns is certainly pushed beyond the 
Latin norm. Of sefhercules in the mouth of 
Minerva, III. xvii. 8, M. Havet writes with 
reason satis mitra uox tn ore et femineo et 
diuino, Gell. X1. 8. 3 (Gellius says it is not so 
used ‘apud idoneos quidem scriptores, but he 
might perhaps have excused it from an un- 
doubted virago). Gruzs tor grus I. 1. 7 offends 
us more. It would certainly have made Pris- 
cian ‘gasp’; cf. Neue-Wagener /ormeniehre I. 
p- 278. One is sorely tempted to suggest 
‘tandem persuaswzzst iure iurando gruz.’ 

3 The questions arising out of the passage of 
Seneca have been carefully and soberly dis- 
cussed in W. Isleib’s de Senecae Dialogo Vn- 
decimo, a Marburg degree dissertation of 1906. 


24 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


far as they go, not inconsistent with this 
conclusion. On the other hand our 
data are so meagre and elusive that we 
are not warranted in assuming that 


when he wrote to Polybius in 43 he 
was already aware of their existence. 


J. P. PosTGATE. 
Liverpool. 


NOTES 


IMANTEAITMOS. 


AT our fairs and racecourses we may 
make acquaintance with certain arts 
and mysteries of great subtlety and 
immense antiquity, though of this 
antiquity we have all too little actual 
proof. A learned mathematician showed 
us very lately that the gipsy trick of 
fitting five round discs on to a little 
round table (I saw it only the other day 
at our ancient fair of St. Andrews) is a 
matter involving very | complicated 
geometry, and this geometry (I believe) 
is closely akin to that of problems which 
perplexed Pythagoras. I shouldn't 
wonder at all if the professors of 
thimble-rigging and the three-card trick 
had their little side-shows at the Olym- 
pic Games, just as at Epsom; and there 
is at least one of their mysteries of 
which we know what the Greeks called 
it. Its name is ἱμαντελιγμός, and we 
find it in the Onomasticon of Julius 
Pollux. Many of us are quite familiar 
with the pastime uf I may so call it), 
and yet the word would seem to be 
little known and less understood by 
classical scholars. The expert lays 
upon a table a loop or aoublet of thin 
strap-leather, and then, folding and 
winding it into flat labyrinthine coils, 
he invites the curious to ‘prick the 
tape’; that is to say, to insert a pin or 
little pointed stich (παττάλιον) amid 
the coils in such a manner that it shall 
be found entangled in the loop when 
the coils are resolved. It would seem 
that little skill were necessary for so 
doing, and that the chances of success 
were at least even; nevertheless, it is 
found on trial that, when experience 
twists the tape and innocence directs 
the pin, the tape ¢mvariably comes 
away loose without implicating the pin. 
Pollux’s description is lucidity itself: 
ὁ δὲ ἱμαντελιγμὸς, διπλοῦ ἱμάντος λα- 
βυρινθώδης τίς ἐστι περιστροφή" καθ᾽ 


ἧς ἔδει καθέντα παττάλιον τῆς διπλόης 
τυχεῖν. εἰ γὰρ μὴ λυθέντος [? λυθέντι] 
ἐμπεριείληπτο τῷ ἱμάντι τὸ παττάλιον, 
ἥττητο ὁ καθείς. Τί 15 noteworthy, how- . 
ever, that the lexicographer throws no 
light upon the secret of successful 
operation. 

The subject is alluded to by Eusta- 
thius as διπλοῦ ἱμάντος σκολία τις 
εἵλησις and is briefly discussed by 
Meursius and by Bulangerus in their 
well-known treatises De Ludis Grecoruim 
Veterum,; but neither the Leyden Pro- 
fessor nor the Jesuit Father show any 
personal acquaintance with the subject, 
and Bulengerus goes obviously astray 
when he interprets παττάλιον as ‘clavum 
vel pessulum ligneum, qui indebatur πέ 
solveret complicationem.’ Nor does Hem- 
sterhusius come nearer to the point: 
‘hic mihi venit in mentem nodi Gordil, 
qui simili modo forsitan fuit involutus, 
similique solvendus ?’ Liddell and Scott 
give the brief and unsatisfactory defini- 
tion ‘vope-twisting, a game’; from which 
we may surmise that these authors also 
had never been invited to ‘prick the 
tape.’ They consequently fail equally, 
I think, to appreciate the meaning of 
the derivative ἑἱμαντελικτής, in Plutarch, 
which word they define as a ‘ twister of 
ropes, or, metaphorically, a knotty sophist.’ 
That is all very well; but I imagine 
that the epithet, as one sophist used it 
of another, was more caustic and less 
polite. It is indeed possible that the 
one philosopher only meant to tell the 
other that he was a maker of paradoxes; 
but I very much fear that he had it in 
mind to call him a low gipsy vaga- 
bond, a card-sharper, and a thimble- 
rigger. Regarding which latter mys- 
tery, by the way, 1 take it that scholars 
are sufficiently informed. 


D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON. 
St. Andrews. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 25 


-ANTH. PAL., BOOK V., No. 6. 


Αὐχνε, σὲ yap παρεοῦσα τρὶς ὥμοσεν Ηράκλεια 

ἥξειν, κοὐχ ἥκει" λύχνε, σὺ δ᾽ εἰ Θεὸς εἴ, 

τὴν δολίην ἀπάμυνον - ὅταν φίλον ἔνδον ἔχουσα 

παίζῃ, ἀποσβεσθεὶς μηκέτι φῶς πάρεχε. 

THE σέ of line 1 is clearly the accu- 
sative of the thing sworn by. The 
δολίη swore by the lamp, and Ascle- 
plades, stung by the ἐπιορκία, calls 
upon this same lamp, if it really is a 
god and can be sworn by, to take 
vengeance upon her. 

This is satisfactory enough, but what 
does παρεοῦσα mean? Mr. Paton in 
the Loeb edition translates ‘in thy 
presence, as though the participle 
governed, or half governed, σέ. This, 
of course, it cannot do, and παρεοῦσα 
taken alone (the only way it can gram- 
matically be taken) can only mean that 
the lady was present when she swore— 
a fact which no one would be likely to 
dispute. 

The only object of whose presence 
there is any question is the lamp. ‘ She 
swore in thy presence’ is exactly the 
meaning we should like to extract from 
the line, and if for παρεοῦσα we read 
παρεόντα, this is exactly the meaning 
we get. 

The frequent confusion between va 
and v7 scarcely needs a mention. 


M. PLATNAUER, 
B.E.F. 


[Stadtmiller reads πτάραντα from 
VI. 333. 1.—Eb. C.R.] 


AUN Dd otk Ades OLN 3s 


Τῶν παίδων, Διόδωρε, τὰ προσθέματ᾽ εἰς τρία πίπτει 

σχήματα, καὶ τούτων μάνθαν᾽ ἐπωνυμίας. 

τὴν ἔτι μὲν γὰρ ἄθικτον ἀκμὴν ἔλαλου ὀνόμαζε: 

Ἑκωκωτὴν φυσᾶν ἄρτι καταρχομένην " 

τὴν δ᾽ ἤδη πρὸς χεῖρα σαλευομένην [Χέγε] σαύραν " 

τὴν δὲ τελειοτέρην, οἷδας ἃ χρή σε καλεῖν. 

In line 4 the right reading would 
seem to be κώπην τὴν φυσᾶν. κώπην 
τὴν became κωτήν by haplography, and 
then κω was doubled to fill up the line. 

There is a similar use of κώπη by 

- ᾿" \ 
Automedon in Anth. Pal. ΧΙ. 29 τὴν 
κώπην μηκέτ᾽ ἔχων ἐρέτης. Cf. the use 
οἱ δικωπεῖν in Aristophanes, Eccl. ΤΟΟῚ, 
and the double entendre in Raw. 197, 
κάθιζ᾽ ἐπὶ κώπην. 

‘*[Mentulam] clauum nauis uocant 


Itali paedicones, il temone’ (Menag. 
Addit Chardo); “‘ Hodie quidem reggere 
il timone, guider le gouvernail”’’ (Diib- 
ner, Anth. Pal. Vol. U1. p. 431). 

There is little doubt that XaXov con- 
ceals the first name of the προσθέματα, 
but no satisfactory emendation has been 
madé. Faute de mieux I would propose 
σωλῆν ovouate, which has little to 
recommend it palaeographically, but 
gives good sense. The ov of λαλοῦ may 
be merely a duplication of the ov of 
ὀνόμαζε, and with Aad we have little to 
build upon. 


/ A A Yrs J nm ᾿ > 
. τάσσεται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μορίων. 


(Hesych.) 
FY AL PROCTOR: 


Corpus Christi College, 
Oxford. 


“σωλῆνες. 


SOPH. ANTIGONE, 471-2. 


(Chorus, interposing in Creon-Antigone 
Dialogue. | 


471 δηλοῖ τὸ yévynw ὠμὸν ἐξ ὠμοῦ πατρὸς 

472 τῆς παιδός εἴκειν δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπίσταται κακοῖς. 

THE insertion of a period (.) at the 
end of the first line without any other 
change in the text would remove (1) the 
intolerable difficulty and harshness of 
the first sentence, with which all the 
commentators have wrestled. (2) The 
strained use of δέ, where, with the 
traditional punctuation, the reader 
expects yap or καί. 

τῆς παιδός - becomes an exclamatory 
genitive, ‘Poor child!’ to which τῆς 
δοσσεβείας (!) in Euripides’ Bacchae 263, 
affords a sufficiently close parallel. We 
may point the two lines as follows: 

471 δηλοῖ τὸ γέννημ᾽ ὠμὸν ἐξ ὠμοῦ πατρός. 

472 τῆς παιδός! εἴκειν δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπίσταται κακοῖς. 
yielding the very satisfactory meaning, 
suitable to the attitude of the Antigone 
Chorus, and avoiding the scarcely 
Sophociean anacoluthon of the com- 
monly accepted renderings : 


The uncouth offspring shows its uncouth 
parentage. 

Poor child! but she is all unskilled to bow 
before calamity. 


(Cf νεάτον γέννημα, 1. 628.) 


26 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


AESCHYLUS, EUMENIDES 864-5. 


θυραῖος ἔστω πόλεμος, οὐ μόλις παρών, 
ἐν ᾧ τις ἔσται δεινὸς εὐκλείας ἔρως. 

THESE lines are generally taken as 
an encouragement of foreign (as distinct 
from civil) war, to provide an outlet for 
the martial spirit of the citizens: 7.6. 
‘Let there be foreign war, and let it 
come without stint, for those who feel 
the grim desire of glory,’ ἐν ᾧ being 
equivalent to ἐν ἐκείνῳ ᾧ and that phrase 
a poetical singular for plural, and the 
epithet δεινός a mere literary or con- 
ventional one. I should like to delete 
the comma of the Oxford text at παρών, 
to take ἐν ᾧ as while, and translate ‘ Let 
there be foreign war, which comes 
readily enough so long as men feel the 
grim desire of glory.’ 

R. B. APPLETON. 


RECULA: 

CHARISIUS (Gram. Lat. 1,6,7,11) men- 
tions the diminutives nubecula (nubes), 
specula (spes), vecula (res). The last 
may occur in the Moretum (65), where 
Simylus’ small garden-plot is described : 


nec sumptus erat ullius [opus| sed recula curae, 


1.6. ‘it was a little holding that involved 
no expenditure of money but only of 
diligence.’ The MSS. have regula. 


W. M. LINDSAY. 


MAR TTALXAIV 2 xxix 2? 

THE maxim of the fifteenth and 
sixteenth century scholars in tran- 
scribing or collating a MS. was " divi- 
nare oportet, non legere, 1.6. ‘ re-cast as 
you write.’ We rightly prefer the apo- 
graph for such purposes. And even in 
editing a text our maxim is ‘Stick to 
the MSS.’ All maxims are bad if they 
turn the human mind into a roasting- 
jack that does not know when to stop. 
But, to vary the metaphor, the limpet- 
tactics have approved themselves in the 
case of the Martial text—a text for 
which we have the evidence always of 
two, and often of three, ancient editions. 
Professor Housman has vindicated the 
traditional reading of III. xciii. 20, 
‘prurire quid si Sattiae velit saxum ? 


(C.R. 22, 46); Professor Heraeus that 
of XII. lxxxii. 11, ‘ fumosae feret ipse- 
προπεῖν de faece lagonae’ (Rheut. 
Mus. 70,1). What of XIV. xxix. 2 (ac- 
companying the present of a sunshade 
hat or bonnet), for which we have the 
evidence of three ancient texts (a, 8, 7) ? 
The couplet runs: 
in Pompeiano tecum (tectus y) spectabo theatro. 
mandatus (nam ventus y) populo vela negare 
solet. 

Mandatus may be right. ‘ The magis- 
terial order (mandatum ?) has an irri- 
tating habit of forbidding the use of the 
huge roof-awnings on windy days 
when they are likely to be damaged.’ 
‘When planning a visit to the theatre 
one is usually annoyed to find a notice 
(in a newspaper or on a bill) “* Noawn- 
ings to-day. By order.’ But—to defy 
another maxim and explain ‘ obscurum 
per obscurius’—I would at least call 
attention to a gloss in the Cyrillus 
Glossary (C.G.L. II. 346, 38) ‘“Katoxos : 
mandalus.. The word (of unknown 
scansion) was used of the fastening of a 
door (C.G.L. III. 190, 61). May it not 
also have been used of the catch which. 
when released, allowed the awnings to 
be spread? The populace would owe 
it a grudge. 

W. M. Linpsay. 


PLAUTUS CAS. 416; 814. 


THAT mala crux was practically (like 
male factum) a single word in Latin is 
seen from the treatment of the phrase 
by Plautus, who allows an Iambic 
Senarius, εἴς, to end with malam 
cricém, and often adds a qualifying 
adjective, e.g. maxumam malam crucem. 
Was there an actual compound mala- 
crucia? There is some trace of it in 
Cas. 416 (in the Scene where the lots 
are drawn). Olympio, when Cleustrata 
draws his lot and thereby assigns 
Casina to him, exclaims mea <ea> est 
‘she (z.e. )GaSina) “is. mine.’. If the 
MSS. are right, Chalinus, his defeated 
rival, caps his exclamation with mala- 
cructas<t->> quidem, ‘the gibbet is 
yours,’ just as Olympio had capped 
Chalinus’ exclamation at v. 382: Cu. 
quod bonum atque fortunatum sit mihi 
—OL. magnum malum, etc. Some 


THE CLASSICAL) ‘REVIEW 


may think the ‘riposte’ would be 
sharper if Olympio got no further than 
mea ea and the est of the minuscule 
MSS. were an error. (The palimpsest 
is not in evidence.) 

The second half of Cas. 814 was 
made an ‘aside’ of Chalinus (dressed 
up ‘as Casina) in C.R: XIX. 110. ‘The 
objection (ibid. 315), that a new Scene 
would not begin in the middle of a line, 
cannot stand. Beside this line: 


Ly. di hercle me cupiunt servatum. (Sc. iv.) 


CH. iam oboluit Casinus procul, 
we may place such Greek lines as: 


Eur. /ph. Aul. 414: 
MEN. φίλους τ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλους. 
ἄναξ, 
Menand. “22 γεῤ. 165 : 


ZY. Badr’ εἰς τὸ προκόλπιον. 
τερον, 


ATT. ὦ Πανελλήνων 


ΟΝ, μάγειρον βραδύ- 


and in Plautus: 


Truc. 914: 
PH. accipe hoc atque auferto intro, 
ubi mea amica est gentium ? 


STRAB. 


In all these examples a new-comer 
appears and (by convention) a new 
Scene begins at the middle of a line. 
Of course the division of an Act into 
Scenes is, in the case of ancient drama- 
tists, an arbitrary, editorial thing, done 
for the convenience of readers. Often 
it is more of a hindrance than a help 
(see the Oxford Plautus, vol. I. p. i 
of Preface), as in another passage of 
the Casina which may be added to our 
list (vv. 278-280) : 
Ly. propter eam rem magis armigero dat 
operam de industria ; 
qui illum di omnes déaeque perdant! 
uxor aiebat tua— 
me vocare. Ly. ego enim vocari iussi. 
eloquere quid velis. 
If we put the Scene-heading (‘ Sc. iv. 
of Act II.) at qui illum, we interrupt 
the flow of Lysidamus’ invective. If 
at te uxor, we spoil Chalinus’ ‘ riposte.’ 
W. M. Linpsay. 


CH. té 


CH. 


METONYMY IN HORACE, 
ODES, BOOK I. x1. 


Epirors of Horace have amused 
themselves by speculating why the lady 
to whom this ode is addressed bears 
the name of Leuconoe. (It is assumed 


27 


that the name is not the real name of a 
real person.) There appears to be a 
general agreement that it isa compound 
of λευκός and νοῦς (corresponding to a 
masculine λευκύνους). There is nothing 
impossible about the form (cf. Πραξινόα). 
But there is a difference as to whether 
the compound means (a) clara or can- 
dida mente or (b) ‘empty-minded,’ and 
whether it was intended to be com- 
plimentary or the reverse. No parallel 
to the sense of λευκός required by either 
view has been adduced, and it is as 
difficult to understand what would be 
meant by the compound as if such a 
poem was addressed in English to 
‘Miss Wan-wit’ or ‘ Miss Blank-wit.’ 

I have never come across either 
Aevxovén or Δευκόνους as personal 
names, nor the adjective either. as 
masculine or as feminine. But there 
is a masculine adjective which is 
variously spelt as Λευκονοιεύς or Λευκο- 
vooevs (the latter being pretty certainly 
the correct Attic form). It was not 
exactly a proper name, but an Attic 
δημοτικόν (and, therefore, of course 
with no corresponding feminine form). 
There are some interesting points con- 
nected with it. Harpocration s.v. says 
that the name of the deme was Λευκό- 
votov; so Dindorf prints it, but adds in 
his note (without any reason) ‘ Recta 
nominis forma esse videtur AMevxovon.’ 
Cobet (Collectanea Critica) points out— 
in my opinion correctly—that the name 
should be printed Λευκὸν Oiov—t.e. that 
it isone more case of Οἷον as part of the 
name of an Attic deme. If this is 
right, it is probably that Leuconoe too 
has nothing to do with νοῦς. 

The δημοτικόν is best known in Greek 
literature as that of the justly respected 
uncle—by marriage—of Demosthenes, 
Demochares the son of Laches, and it 
is because of this that it occurs in the 
lexicon of Harpocration. But there 15 
one other person—and, as far as I know, 
the only other—to whose name in Greek 
literature this δημοτικόν 15 attached, 
viz. the geometrician or astronomer 
Meton, the son of Pausanias, the well- 
known reformer of the Attic calendar 
(B.C. 433/2). He is familiar to us from his 
appearance in the Birds of Aristophanes, 
but where his deme is not mentioned, 
the scholiast on 1. 997 quotes two lines 


28 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


from the Μονότροπος of Phrynichus 
(which was acted in the same year as 
the Birds, B.c. 414), in which he is 
called Μέτων ὁ Λευκονοεύς. It is at 
least a singular fact that he shared 
with Horace’s Leuconoe an interest in 
astronomy. Might we venture to go 
further, and connect his forebodings 
about the failure of the Sicilian ex- 
pedition with his astronomical interests ? 
Is it in any case not more probable that 
by Leuconoe Horace meant not ‘ Miss 
Blankwit’ but ‘ Miss Newton’? 

But as a further flight of fancy, 
where controlling facts are so few, it 
occurs to me to suggest the possibility 
that the young lady is herself a myth, 
and that the original readings were 
Leuconoeu (1.e. Meton) and _ (conse- 
quentially) credule. The invitation vina 
liques seems not very appropriate as 
addressed ito a young lady. But why 
should Horace have addressed his 
advice to that ancient mathematician ? 
Without attempting to explain this, I 
may be permitted to call attention to 
the singular parallel of I. xxviii. 
Perhaps in both cases Horace is trans- 
lating or imitating a Greek original. 
This seems not unlikely where he is 
experimenting with rather uncommon 
metres. Do not phrases like οὐ θεμιτόν 
and ... Aevxovoed, μὴ Βαβυλωνίους | 
ζητήσης ἀριθμούς almost shine through 
the Latin? There are curious parallel- 
isms with the language of the poems of 
Alcaeus in the greater Asclepiad poems 
(SaxtUNos apépa, ἔγχεε Kipvals K.T.X.). 
Of course Alcaeus cannot here be 
Horace’s direct original (more probably 
Callimachus ?). 

But that way perhaps madness lies. 


J. A. SMITH. 
Magdalen College, Oxjord. 


VIRGIL AND GREGORY OF 
fOD ES. 


Greg. Turon., Zz Gloria Martyrum, Praef., 
p. 448, Arndt-Krutsch : Taceo Cupidinis emis- 
sionem; non Ascanii dilectionem, hymenaeos- 
que lacrimas vel exitia saeva Didonis, non 
Plutonis triste vestibulum, zon Proserpinae 
siuprosum raptum, non Cerberi triforme caput, 
non révolvam Anchisae colloquia, non Ithaci in- 
genia,non Achillis argutias, non Sinonis fallacias; 
non ego Laocoontis consilia, non Amphitryonia- 


dis robora, zon Jani conflictus μέρας vel obitum 
exttiabile (m) proferam. 

THE Preface of Gregory from which 
I have excerpted these sentences (cor- 
recting in passing the odd spelling of 
the saint—or of his most recent editors) 
is often quoted or referred to in works 
upon scholarship where it is desired to 
illustrate the mediaeval attitude towards 
secular literature. This may be my ex- 
cuse for directing the attention of the 
readers of this journal to an author 
more often read (or so it is supposed) 
by the historian than by the scholar. 
The two clauses which have italicised 
have caused difficulty to Gregory’s 
editors. Arndt and Krutsch are at a 
loss to find any passage of Virgil in 
which there is mention of the rape of 
Proserpine. But which rape? They 
suppose Gregory to have had in mind, 
not any passage of Virgil, but Ovid, 
Met. V. 395, though of knowledge of 
Ovid he shows nowhere else any trace. 
In any case Pluto was not the only 
personage of ancient mythology who 
was guilty of a raptus Proserpinae ; nor 
do I know that he was ever charged 
with a stuprosus raptus. The really dis- 
creditable raptus Proserpinae was that of 
Theseus and Pirithous; and to this 
crime Virgil does refer unmistakably at 
Aen. VI. 397-402, and 601. 

Our editors’ other difficulty is also, I 
think, lightly resolved. The A ened con- 
tains no word about any conflictus, fuga 
or obitus of Janus. They accordingly 
suggest Turni as a correction of Jani. 
But they do not tell us what they then 
understand. by conflictus. Surely the 
true correction of Jani is indicated by 
the reference in the preceding clause 
to ‘Amphitryoniadis robora.’ Surely 
Gregory wrote, not Jani, but Cacz.! 
What conflictus, then, means may be 
seen from Aen. VIII. 259-261. 

H. W. GARROD. 


‘QUIS AQUAM NILI τες 


TuHosE to whom, like myself, the 
war has brought correspondence from 
Egypt may have been puzzled, as I 


aa 


a Ribbeck quotes from Probus, 772:52, tantum 
for Cacum at Aen. VIII. 259. For the con- 
fusion of C and J cf. Aen. V. 453, iasu AZ for 
casu. 


/ 


PHE) CLASSICAL REVIEW 29 


have been, by the motto οἵ Shepheard’s 
famous hotel at Cairo. On all note- 
paper and envelopes, under a design of 
lotus blossoms, it runs: ‘Quis aquam 
mili bibit, aerum bibet.’ No classical 
authority available here could throw 
any light on the meaning of aeruwm, and 
it was not until I came across a proverb 
in one of Mr. Algernon Blackwood’s 
tales of Egypt that the solution was 
obvious: ‘He who has drunk of the 
water of the Nile shall return to drink 
of it again!’ Therefore zterwm was the 
word intended, and a little experiment 
will show that with either a plain 
capital or cursive 7, it may be made 
closely to resemble a if the upright 
stroke of the ¢ is short, and the cross 
continued backwards. It is strange 
that none of the scholars who must 
constantly visit the hotel should have 
pointed this out—not to mention the 
doubtful gquwis—for as it stands the 
motto is nonsense. 
Dina Portway Dosson. 


AEN. XI. 45 f. AND 152 f. 


IT is difficult toadd anything to what 
Dr. Warde Fowler has said of Aeneas’ 
relationship to Pallas and Evander 
(Aeneas at the Site of Rome, on VIII. 
520-524, especially pp. 87 f. on contuber- 
nium and go f. on hospitium). But two 
passages in Book XI., which he has 
not touched upon, so strongly confirm 
what he there says, that it seems worth 
while to consider them inthisconnexion: 

Aen. XI. 45: 


non haec Euandro de te promissa parenti 
discedens dederam.... 


Ibid. 152: 

non haec, o Palla, dederas promissa parenti, 

cautius ut uelles saeuo te credere Marti. 

The verbal correspondence between 
these two passages can hardly be acci- 
dental. One might even expect some- 
thing of the kind: in both cases the 
words are those wrung by grief and pity 
from older men who are looking on the 
dead boy Pallas—from Aeneas, as he 
bids farewell to the body on the field, 
and from Evander as he receives it 
home. 

But far more significant than the 
likeness is the difference—the far-reach- 


ing, Virgilian difference made by the 
substitution of dederas, addressed as it is 
to Pallas, for the dederat, referring’ to 
Aeneas, which might have been ex- 
pected : for Aeneas had, with character- 
istic chivalry, taken upon himself (de- 
devant) precisely the responsibility which 
Evander here refuses to attribute to him. 

All that has gone before tends to 
make this change the more remarkable. 
The fact that Aeneas was, in a sense, 
responsible for Pallas, and certainly felt 
himself to be so and was so regarded by 
others, has been repeatedly brought 
home to us—e.g. where Evander entrusts 
his son to Aeneas’ care and guidance, 
and says he is to learn 

sub te tolerare magistro 

militiam et graue Martis opus (VIII. 510). 
and where Turnus, after slaying Pallas 
on his first day of battle, bursts out 
with the truth in its most brutal form: 

haud illf (sc. Euandro) stabunt Aeneia paruo 
hospitia (X. 491). 

Above all, Aeneas himself, even before 
the death of Pallas is known to him, is 
represented as strangely, not to say 
abnormally, preoccupied with the 
thought of the household in whose lives. 
he played so fateful a part : 

Pallas, Euander, in ipsis 
omnia sunt oculis, mensae quas aduena primas 
tunc adiit, dextraeque datae (X. 515). 

This deep-seated sense of responsi- 
bility on Aeneas’ part suddenly finds 
poignant expression in the lines quoted 
above (XI. 45) andin their continuation 

hi nostri reditus, exspectatique triumphi ? 

haec mea magna fides? 


It was a masterly stroke which, in 
using the very words spoken in self- 
accusation by Aeneas, converted them, 
on Evander’s lips, into the tenderest of 
reproaches to the dead, for whom, in 
truth, such a reproach could only be 
another form of praise. 

There could be no more perfect ex- 
pression whether of Evander’s trust in 
Aeneas, or of the exquisite nobility of 
feeling, on both sides, which made such 
a trust possible. It is something of a 
quite different order from the merely 
outward and formal considerateness of 
his words to the Trojan strangers 
standing by 


nec uos arguerim Teucri (20, 164) 


30 THE CLASSICAL (REVIEW 


and from the more deliberate tribute he 
pays to Aeneas later on 

quod uitam moror inuisam, Pallante perempto, 
dextera causa tua est (zd. 177). 

It was, we are told, largely from 
Classical writers that the mind of the 
Renaissance drew its conception of 
perfect courtesy, or ‘ courtlinesse,’ as ‘a 
happy cheyne of vertues’ in which, 
‘besides greatnesse and courage, there 
are also lincked liberalitie, sumptuous- 
nesse, the desire to save a man’s estyma- 
tion, pleasantnesse, courtesie in talke,’ 
and withal ‘a soft and lovelye kind- 
nesse’ (Castiglione, The Look of the 
Courtier, translated by Hoby, 1561). 

Virgil’s Evander deserves, no. less 
than his Aeneas, to have been among 
the types that inspired such an ideal. 

M. A. B. HERFORD. 


Manchester. 


VIRGIL AEN? i. 460: 


sunt lacrimae rerum, et mentem 

tangunt.—Virg. “4671. 1. 460. 

Has any line of poetry, ancient or 
modern, been so often quoted or so com- 
pletely misunderstood? Dr. Mackail, 
in his Latin Literature, writes: ‘In the 
most famous of his szmgle lines he speaks 
of the ‘‘tears of things.” ’ Professor 
Wight Duff, in his Literary History of 
Rome, translates it: ‘ Tears haunt the 
world: man’s fortunes touch man’s 
heart.’ Professor Tyrrell, in his Lectures 
on Latin Poetry, speaks with admiration 
of ‘Dr. Henry’s refined and scholarly 
interpretation of the word “‘ rerum” as 
meaning ‘‘in the world”: “there are 
such things as tears in the world”; 
ἐς tears are universal, belong to the con- 
stitution of nature, and the evils of 
mortality touch the heart ””’: and then 
goes on to suggest a meaning ‘ far more 
definite, weighty, and distinguished,’ 


mortalia 


viz. ‘E’en things inanimate can weep 
for us, and the works of men’s hands 
have their own pathetic power.’ Such 
aversion as ‘ this is a vale of tears’ is by 
no means unusual, and may indeed be 
taken as fairly representative of the 
sense in which this most quoted line of 
Virgil is usually understood. The most 
cursory glance at the context proves 
that all these interpretations are wide 
of the mark. 
en Priamus. 
laudi, 
sunt lacrimae 
tangunt. 
solve metus: feret haec aliquam tibi fama 
salutem. 

‘This is a vale of tears, therefore be 
not afraid!’ The writer is reminded of 
a friend, a scholar and a man of first- 
rate ability, who had by constant 
repetition hypnotised himself into the 
conviction that the greatest thought in 
Hamlet, if not in the whole of Shake- 
speare, was ‘ Denmark’s a prison!’ Can 
there be any question that in our 
passage a comma only should be printed 
after ‘laudi,’ and ‘ hic etiam’ carried on 
to the following line? Apart from the 
requirements of sense, the double ‘ sunt’ 
forces it on the ear. Aeneas, ship- 
wrecked on an unknown shore, comes 
with his companion to the newly-built 
Carthage, and on the doors of the 
temple sees depicted scenes from the 
siege of Troy. These he points out to 
his companion with the reassuring re- 
mark that they are evidently in a 
civilised country, where ‘men can weep 
for human sorrows.’ Alas for Professor 
Tyrrell’s ‘Rerum is the lonely word in 
which flowers all the charm of all the 
muses.’ We are driven to the unhappy 
choice of either dethroning Virgil’s 
‘greatest line’ or charging him with 
writing great nonsense. 

H. WILLIAMSON. 


sunt zc etiam sua praemia 


rerum, et mentem mortalia 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 31 


REVIEWS 


VAN 


Enchiridium Dictionis Eptcae, scripsit 
J. vAN LEEUWEN, J.F. Editio al- 
tera aucta et emendata. One vol. 
οὗ" x62". Pp. xx+431. Lugduni 
Batavorum: A. W. Sitjhoff, 1918. 
Fl, 6.50. 


THE first part of the first issue, of this 
handbook was noticed by Professor 
Platt°in CR. Vil. 359.) Those) who 
have been aware for some time that 
a second edition was in preparation 
will perhaps be disappointed with it in 
one respect. Some of them had hoped 
that it would be a largely expanded 
treatise, embodying the principal dis- 
cussions which have appeared of recent 
years, such as Witte’s papers in Glotta 
on the versification, Wackernagel’s on 
the Atticisms, Mr. Drewitt’s on the 
Augment, and many, many others. Dr. 
van Leeuwen has, however, kept to his 
original object, to provide a librum 
tuntorum praesertim philologorum manibus 
destinatum, so that strictim tangenda quae 
spissa sibi poscerent volumina. Too much 
was expected. If ever a comprehensive 
treatise on the subject is planned, it 
will have to be encyclopaedic like Pauly- 
Wissowa’s Lexikon, but men now living 
need not hope to see such a Thesaurus 
completed. 

The changes in detail in this new 
edition are, if I may judge from the 
sections tested, mostly unimportant. 
Thus, in the list of digammated words, 
though there are numerous trifling 
alterations, testifying to the care with 
which the revision has been done, the 
only difference worth noting seems to 
be the omission of βελεῖν. In fact 
there appears to be no modification of 
the author’s attitude, except in the 
Praefatio, where, as one had anticipated, 
his conversion to the Unitarian faith 
rendered the recasting of parts of his 
statement dz origine et compositione car- 
mindrum epicorum inevitable. He main- 
tains his conclusions with the confi- 
dence of a master. Of controversy 
there is comparatively little, though 


LEEUWEN’S ENCHIRIDIUM. 


some theorisings of Fick, Cauer, and 
others are sharply exposed. 

Detailed criticism, however tempting, 
of the contents of the book is here 
impossible, and it is difficult to criticise 
them even in a general way without 
touching fundamental questions which 
are discussed incessantly by the experts, 
τέλος δ᾽ οὔ πώ TL πέφανται. As is well 
known, its author’s efforts, through 
many laborious years, have aimed at 
the production of a Homeric Library 
in parvo. He has edited both poems 
twice; in his Commentationes he has 
provided a Wegweiser on the Homeric 
Question and interesting papers on 
other: Homeric matters; and in the 
present work he constructs a basis for 
his text. His object here is to get as 
near as possible to that text in its 
original form, and that of course re- 
quires copious emendation of the textus 
veceptus. The limits of such procedure 
are debatable, and have indeed been 
much debated by editors. He himself 
is among the thoroughgoing purgers. 
But these all go too far, and make 
trouble for themselves. A Fe ora Γ᾽ is 
inserted which is not quite consonant 
with Homeric practice, and even, it 
may be added, unnecessary, considering 
the marked freedom with which Homer 
omits a pronominal form, or a fourth 
trochee is abolished and replaced by 
what proves to be only a ‘ Wernicke.’ 
And then the digamma; there is surely 
too great readiness to improve what 
are called ‘neglects’ of F. They 
cannot all be easily and acceptably 
emended; you can only work away till 
you reach a point when you have to 
say the rest are in lines that are spurious, 
or corrupted in a way that cannot be 
discovered, and that is a thoroughly 
unsatisfactory conclusion. But are 
they neglects—the work, that is, of a 
generation who knew not the digamma? 
That has still to be decided. Take the 
class, numbering more than a third of 
the total, of cases in which the com- 
bination v (very susceptible to modifi- 


32 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


cation), s (mobile, weak, and easily 
degenerating into the aspirate), or p 
(with δύναμις φωνήεντος), plus F (only 
a semivowel and not in its first youth), 
fails to make position. Need we wonder 
at this, when a short vowel at times 
is not in position, with little or no dis- 
cernible excuse, and without rousing 
suspicion, before a combination of con- 
sonants such as yA or tp? And in the 
one case as in the other there is no 
ground for objection to the many occur- 
rences in which there is a pause in the 
line or sense. But it is even possible 
that, in all these three combinations, 
assimilation produced FF, which became 
vocalised into a simple v, as in evade, 
αὐέρυσαν, καυάξαις. Such forms, Monro 
has suggested, were probably more 
frequent in the text at one time. There 
is something to be said for that view, 
and more still against the ultimate 
condemnation of passages, which the 
mere mixture of observances and 
neglects forbids. The cases of elision 
in spite of F, which are more numerous, 
present even less difficulty. In the 
third class the ‘neglects’ are few. Of 
course much depends on the degree 
of vitality to be ascribed to the F of 
Homer’s day. As to that, one of the 
two extreme views is Jebb’s, quoted by 
Dr. van Leeuwen, that it was a mere 
soni umbra. The other is his own, that 
it was sonus vegetus et florentissimus, but 
surely that is in conflict with the facts 
that many words had already lost the 
sound, and that it was weak in com- 
pound and derivative words, in proper 
names, in initial δὲ, and generally 
inside words. The Verwitterungsepoche 
or Uebergangsstufe—what Mr. Agar calls 
the ‘in and out’—theory of other 
authorities seems to be the safest. It 
cannot be said that it is successfully 
refuted in the present treatise. For 
all the learning that has been bestowed 
on it, the Homeric digamma is still, in 
the words of the epitaph made for 
Joshua Barnes, expectans judicium. 
Meanwhile, that it was, whether 
vigorous or senescent or quite moribund, 
the same to all the bards of the critics, 
their latest as well as their earliest, is 
one comforting result of recent research. 

Another all-important matter for the 
constructor of a pristine text is that of 


Contraction and Synizesis. How far 
is he to resolve contracted forms? Dr. 
van Leeuwen is all for resolution, and 
starts from the position that, as the 
original form of γένεος was γένεσος, 
therefore γένους or γένευς was alienunr 
a priscis carminibus. But that, even 
admitting the sequitur, does not help, 
for the prisca carmina were separated 
by a long interval from the two poems 
with which we are concerned. All we 
seem to be justified in saying is that, 
in this as in other respects, Homer’s 
age was one of ‘overlap.’ Contracted 
forms were well established, but the old 
open forms had still a preference, with 
the to us very pleasing result that for 
every spondee there are three dactyls. 
There is too much abhorrence of con- 
traction and synizesis. It seems to 
be a matter in which Ludwich’s dictum 
that Méglichkeit ist nicht Nothwendigkett 
should be borne in mind. It is interest- 
ing, by the way, to note the perplexity 
of those who amend freely, when they 
are ‘up against’ a harmless, necessary 
line such as καί μιν φωνήσασ᾽ ἔπεα 
πτερόεντα προσηύδα, and find them- 
selves between the devil of a digamma 
and the deep sea of synizesis. 

There are, as is well known, a number 
of other points on which a straining 
after complete uniformity has proved a 
weakness of Homeric linguistic inquiry. 
The remark might be extended to 
include Homeric criticism also. A 
practice or rule is detected or assumed, 
and attempts are made to show that it 
is absolute and subject to no exception. 
These never succeed without a free use 
of the obelus for a residuum of passages 
that resist inclusion in the formula. 
Such a desire to effect perfect consis- 
tency has not been confined to Homeric 
research; it has been noted and con- 
demned in the province of language 
generally. 

Apart from such matters, the value 
of the book and the debt which all 
φιλόμηροι owe to its author are to be 
warmly acknowledged. The pains be- 
stowed on making the contents com- 
plete and accurate are everywhere 
apparent. The references to _ the 
Homeric text are abundant, the cross- 
references within the work itself are 
extremely numerous, and the discus- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


33 


sions, always clear and sure, are greatly the Menis, εἴ ποτ᾽ ἔην ye, what a puzzle 


strengthened by constant quotations 
from the inscriptions and by indications 
of development in later Greek. An 
enormous amount of matter has been 
compressed into the volume, but its 
bulk has been, by various means, con- 
siderably reduced. The sections are 
numbered as before, so that the quota- 
tions of them, which are so useful a 
part of the author’s editions of the 
poems, are not affected. The Index is 
not as full as the book deserves. In 
the old edition it sometimes failed me 
when hunting for a word or form. 

But the book is an excellent one 
on a most fascinating subject. It is 
written, this examination of the dry 
bones of a language, in a style so bright 
and enjoyable, that I have known a 
Homeric student read it, not for the 
first time, for pure pleasure, as well as 
profit, in a summer vacation. That 
says something for its author’s style 
and method, as well as for the charm 
of the marvellous language and verse 
of Homer. Happy the poet who had 
such instruments at his command, and 
happy we who have 28,000 lines of his 
matchless poetry on which philologians 
can work! Had only a single episode 
of the Iliad survived, or no more than 


the language and verse would have 
remained, and what masses of volumes 
would have been devoted to the eluci- 
dation of the problems presented by 
the meagre materials! οὐδ᾽ dy νηῦς 
ἑκατόζυγος ἄχθος ἄροιτο. And they 
would have left us little wiser. As it 
is, the student is well provided, though 
ne would give his ears for a few frag- 
ments of pre-Homeric Greek, and sur- 
render even more for a well-grounded 
assurance that that was the tongue the 
Minoans spake. Scholars have done 
their duty. The schoolboy has excel- 
lent summaries of the grammar and 
versification in the editions of the poems 
prepared for his use. At college he 
finds a most admirable introduction in 
the late Professor Seymour’s Homeric 
Language and Verse, and he passes on 
to the Homeric Grammar and the En- 
chiridium. In his riper years he will, 
if he has the hardihood to ‘wallow 
beneath such thorny shade,’ find a 
lifetime’s occupation in the philological 
journals, and will end his days, as he 
ought to strive to end them, by having, 
to use our author’s words, Homerum ut 
digitos suos cognitum. 
A. SHEWAN. 


SELECTED ESSAYS CF PLUTARCH. 


Selected Essays of Plutarch. Vol. 11. 
Translated with Introduction by 
A. O..PRICKARD. Pp. xx + 330. 
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918. 
3s. 6d. net. 


THIS is a companion volume to that 
published by Professor Tucker in 19173, 
and it deserves a hearty welcome. It 
is to be feared that Plutarch has not 
many readers nowadays, and few from 
this small company penetrate beyond 
the Lives. Yet the Moralia are in many 
respects, as was recognised by Southey 
in the quotation which Mr. Prickard 
places on his title-page, the more 
valuable half of Plutarch’s writings. 
Their value is to be attributed not so 
much to their literary merit, although 
many of these essays are pleasing 
NO. CCLXXII, VOL, XXXII. 


examples of skilful composition ; nor to 
their scientific and philosophical sig- 
nificance, although they are among the 
most important authorities which we 
possess for our knowledge of the later 
Greek schools, and especially of the 
Stoa, as to the vividness of the picture 
which they present of the state of 
Graeco-Roman culture in the first 
century of our era. Plutarch himself 
is the best possible representative of 
his age. Born of a good family, he 
had received the most thorough educa- 
tion which was open to him; and he 
had a broad and liberal intelligence, as 
well as some practical experience in the 
administration of affairs. The variety 
of his interests is exhibited in the many- 
sidedness of the Moralia, whose title is 
justified only in so far as a considerable 
c 


34 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


proportion of its contents treats of 
ethical subjects. 

The present volume contains several 
of the most interesting of the essays, 
including three specimens of imagina- 
tive myths inserted in the course of a 
dialogue, in which proceeding Plutarch 
followed the example of his master 
Plato, without copying his workman- 
ship in detail. The dialogues in which 
these myths occur are the most im- 
portant, as well as the most attractive 
in the volume. In the first, On the 
Genius of Socrates, the discussion of the 
δαιμόνιον is incidental to the main sub- 
ject of the dialogue, a dramatic narrative 
of the conspiracy of patriotic Thebans 
which led to the recovery of the Cad- 
meia. The dialogue on Delay in Divine 
Punishment, in which Plutarch himself 
undertakes the réle of chief exponent, 
is a defence of the workings of Provi- 
dence directed against the ridicule of 
the Epicureans. The version of the 
tract On Superstition, which may be 
regarded as an appendix to the last- 
named dialogue, is followed by a reprint 
of the short discourse on the same 
subject by John Smith of Emmanuel 
and Queen’s Colleges, an almost {or- 
gotten associate of the Cambridge 
Platonists. The third of the above- 
mentioned dialogues, On the Face which 
appears in the Orb of the Moon, is of 
a somewhat different character. It 
mentions a variety of opinions concern- 
ing the substance and movements of 
the moon and its relations to the other 
heavenly bodies, and may be summarily 
described as an Academic assault on the 
Stoic conception of the structure of the 
Cosmos. Finally, we have the three 
Delphic dialogues, in which Plutarch’s 
attitude towards the traditional religion 
is determined by practical common- 
sense combined with reverence for old- 
established belief. 

The difficulties which attend a trans- 
lation of Plutarch’s Movalia arise not 
only from complexity of style and 
obscurity of subject-matter, but chiefly 
perhaps from the undoubted corruption 
of the text. Unfortunately the critical 
basis has not yet been surely laid, not- 
withstanding the labours of Wyttenbach 
and Bernardakis, and the contributions 
in detail of other workers in the same 


field. So far as his material permitted, 
these difficulties have been successfully 
overcome by Mr. Prickard. His trans- 
lation is at once clear and idiomatic, 
as well as scholarly in method. The 
reader of the dialogues who uses Mr. 
Prickard’s book will be grateful to him 
for the clearing up of many dark 
passages, for the explanatory matter of 
the Introductions and Notes, and for 
the uniformly candid presentation of 
his own doubts. 

Mr. Prickard has used Wyttenbach’s 
text as his basis, and professes to record 
all deviations from it in his footnotes. 
But sometimes this has not been done, 
as may be seen at 589F, 559D, and 933A, 
where the conjectures of other scholars 
have been rightly preferred. I regret 
that in de anim. 2 (p. 214) Wyttenbach’s 
καμπῆς has been accepted without 
question in place of κάμπης (καθάπερ 
ἐκ κάμπης τινὸς ἀνείσης οἷον ἐξάττειν 
καὶ ἀναθεῖν τὴν ψυχήν), with the quaint 
translation ‘ the soul darts out and runs 
upward, as though a bent spring had been 
veleased’ (my italics). The question 
recurs at 611F, where also the critics 
strangely adhere to καμπῆς. I have 
already defended κάμπης in Journ. 
Phil. XXX. 214, by showing that the 
release of the soul from the body is 
compared to the escape of the butterfly 
from the chrysalis into which the cater- 
pillar has passed. It should be added 
that the parallel of 636c, where the 
butterfly Psyche is mentioned, puts 
Plutarch’s meaning beyond all doubt. 

I will conclude with some suggestions 
on points of detail. 580F: perhaps 
‘insight’ rather than ‘wit.’ 591A, B: 
this passage is unintelligible without a 
note, and the translation is not clear. 
The course of the Styx is circular (ἄνω 
κάτω), and κορυφῇ is to be explained 
by Il. 8. 369, Hes. Theog. 786. 593B: 
χαράξαντες not ‘extracting’ but ‘mark- 
ing off’ (branding). 549D: why is 
τῷ αὐτομάτῳ rendered by ‘an auto- 
maton’ rather than by ‘chance’? In 
549E (and again in 920F) the force of 
the proverbial ἀφ᾽ ἑστίας ἄρχεσθαι is 
not brought out. 556C: προβάλλονται 
(‘censure’) is over-translated by ‘spurn 
their own life away.’ 563E αὐγὴν τόνον 
ἔχουσαν : ‘ray of a tonic force’ requires 
explanation for a reader who is not 


THE: CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 35 


acquainted with the Stoic theory of 
tension. 3800 n.: it is very unlikely 
that Heraclitus spoke of διακόσμησις 
and ἐκπύρωσις. p. 214 (de anim. 1): 
εἰ μὴ vy Δία means not ‘unless, of 
course,’ but ‘ but indeed,’ as in 670E 
and elsewhere. 167D: the translation 
requires correction. The moon is treated 
not as the claimant, but as the object 
of litigation (ἐπίδικος). 926D: ἐν ταὐτῷ 
is hardly ‘in a moment’s flight’ but 
‘unchanged’=xata τὸ αὐτό. g28c: the 
words περὶ ἑαυτὴν ἀναδίδωσιν (‘ad se 
extollit’) are very strangely rendered. 
Q4I1E: ἐπιεικῶς is not “ quietly,’ but, as 
often in Plutarch,= fere. 942D: the 
words ‘latter’ and ‘former’ appear 
to have been accidentally transposed, 


bringing confusion into the passage. 
9438 : the reference to Plat. Tim. 318 
is irrelevant. It should have been 
explained that μονογενής was a current 
ἐπίκλησις of Persephone (Apoll. Rhod. 
3. 848), and that it is here mystically 
interpreted. 

Plutarch is full of quotations and 
reminiscences, expressed and concealed, 
and many of the references are supplied. 
But more use might have been made of 
the collections of Diels and von Arnim, 
as ¢.g. at 922C, 9258 (where Panzer- 
bieter’s reading is much better than the 
text adopted), and g29c. Sometimes 
the references given require correction : 
See pp. 1933, 289), 302). 

A. C. PEARSON. 


THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY. 


The Greek Anthology. With an English 
Translation by W. R. Paton. In 
five volumes: Vol. IV. London: 
William Heinemann; New York: 
G. P. Putnam’s Sons, MCMXVIII. 
Vol. V.thesame. The Loeb Classical 
Library. 


THESE two volumes complete Mr. 
Paton’s task,.and it is the pleasing duty 
of a reviewer to congratulate him and 
his publishers on its uninterrupted pro- 
gress and its rapid completion. Vol. IV. 
contains Books X., XI., XII. of the 
Anthology; Vol. V., Books XIII. to 
XV., including in a miscellaneous col- 
lection the curious arithmetical puzzles 
and riddles of Book .XIV., the epigrams 
of Nicarchus, whose tone reminds one 
of Martial, the Τεχνοπαίγνια, and the 
Planudean Appendix. 

Some passages in the difficult Teyvo- 
“παίγνια may be considered. In Simias’ 
Alae 4 (A.P. XV. 24) Mr. Paton prints 
with the editors πάντα δὲ Tas εἶκε 
φραδαῖσι Avypais, but 1. 3 τῶμος ἐγὼ 
yap γενόμαν, ἁνίκ᾽ ἔκραιν᾽ ᾿Ανάγκα would 
be inconsistent with this. Should we 
not.read here πάντα δὲ Tas κ.τ.λ., ‘to 
her decrees,’ 1:5. to ’Avayxa? In ll. Ὁ, 
Io there is no need to accept the two 
emendations of Wilamowitz ὠκυπέτας 
οὐδ᾽ “Apeos for ὠκυπέτας δ᾽ ἀέριος of Pal., 
and mpatroyo δὲ πειθοῖ for πραὔνω of 


Pal.; all that is wanted here is πραῦὔνόῳ, 
as Bergk saw. 

In Dosiadas’ Ara (A.P. XV. 26) 11 
and 15, instead of the corrupt ἀνιειύξας 
and ἀεὶ λινεῦντ᾽ which Mr. Paton prints, 
we may accept Salmasius’ aiv’ ivéas 
and Hecker’s αἰλινεῦντ᾽. 

Corrections seem necessary also in 
Dosiadas’ Ovum. L. 12 is incomplete 
with ἴχνει θενὼν τὰν παναίολον Πιερίδων 
μονόδουπον αὐδάν : perhaps τὰν should 
be altered to γᾶν, and παρθένων may 
have fallen out after it from its similarity 
to devev. And certainly Jacob’s ὁμό- 
δουπον is preferable to μονόδουπον. 

In 1. 16 βλαχαὶ δ᾽ olwv ... ἔβαν, 
βλαχαὶ must go the way of the ‘ bloody 
bleatings’ in Aesch. Sept. 335; as 
Verrall restored βλαχᾷ there, so 
Mr. Edmonds rightly restored βλαχᾷ 
here. Mr. Paton’s translation ‘ with a 
bleat’’ has nearly led him to the same 
correction. 

In the same line τανυσφύρων és ἀν’ 
ἄντρα Νυμφῶν both prepositions cannot 
be right: neither is in Pal., and perhaps 
ὑπ᾽ is better than either. 

In 1. 20 something has gone wrong: 
κλυτός is translated but κλυτᾶς stands 
in the text. The metre too seems to 
require ταῖς δὴ δαίμων κλυτὸς ica θοοῖς. 

Mention should be made of a special 
feature in this concluding volume. It 
is enriched by eighty illustrations from 


36 


marble and bronze statues, reliefs, 
paintings, and coins, selected by Dr. 
Salomon Reinach and drawn by Made- 
moiselle J. Evrard. It was a happy 
thought to draw upon the wealth of 
Greek art and apply it to the Anthology, 
which affords a great variety of subjects 
fitted for illustration from these sources. 
The previous volumes of Mr. Paton’s 
Greek Anthology have been reviewed in 
C.R.XXX1, 142, XXXIT 33,786, 


Additions to the ‘ List of Addenda to the 
“Greek Anthology,’ C.R. XXXII. p. 187. 


To sect. 3 add the pentameter in 
Etymol. Gen. p. 237: 


Tis νικᾷ Παφίην ἐνθάδε λουομένην ; 


Miller ad loc. suggests that this may 
be added to the Epigrams on the same 
subject after A P. IX. 608. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Sect. 5. 3. Dr. Rouse published this. 


Epigram in 1906 (four years before ~ 


Cronert in Rhein. Mus.), Journal of 
Hellenic Studies, XXVI. p. 178. His 
punctuation makes much better sense 
than Crénert’s in ll. 1, 2; but in 1: 3 
Crénert is perhaps right in correcting 
μνήμης te to te. With the subject of 
the Epigram A.P. XI. 8, Kaibel Epigr. 
a Lap. collecta 646b, and Strato A.P. 
XI. 19, may be compared. 

Sect. 3. 1. Reitzenstein, Epigranivm 
und Skolion 219, wishes to see in an 
epigram in a Coan inscription (Paton. 
and Hicks, 218), where the name of one’ 
Philiscus occurs, apparently the author 
of the Epigram, the Philiscus mentioned 
in this section. But if his name has 
now been shown to be Philicus, how 
can he there call himself Philiscus ? 

J. U. POWELL. 

St. John’s, Oxford. 


THE GEOGRAPHY OF STRABO. 


The Geography of Strabo. With an 
English translation by Horace 
LEONARD JONES, A.M., Ph.D. (Loeb 
Classical Library); Vol. 1. 64" x 41". 
Pp. xliv+531, I coloured map and 
diagrams. London: Heinemann ; 
New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1917. 
5s. net. 


On one obvious ground this edition 
of Strabo’s Geography is welcome. So 
far as geographical research is con- 
cerned, the temperament of English- 
speaking peoples has expressed itself, 
until quite recent years, in the direction 
rather of exploration and discovery than 
in that of historical or analytical 
research. The results of this tendency 
are visible in the publications of our 
own Royal Geographical Society and 
others of its kind. They are also 
illustrated by the fuil bibliography 
furnished in the edition under notice. 
Among the names of textual critics, 
commentators, and students of Strabo’s 
work, there are extraordinarily few 
British or American names: the vast 
majority are German. 

This in itself is a commentary on an 
outlook over geographical study which 


is of quite recent growth even in 
Germany and Austria, but is still 
younger, and as yet less fully developed, 
in Britain and America. It is a broad 
view of the subject which appraises its 
value not merely in the direction of the 
discovery of lands, but in that of assess- 
ing their worth when discovered, in 
collecting evidence of the effects of 
natural environment upon human ac- 
tivity, and in applying the knowledge. 
gained in one region of the world to 
the elucidation of the problems of 
another. And this broad viewis Strabo’s. 
In his introductory paragraphs he in- 
sists at length upon the importance of 
geography to rulers, politicians, and 
soldiers, as well as its educational value 
for all men—lessons which circum- 
stances are teaching us insistently at 
the present moment—and he also 
recognises the relations of geography to 
cognate sciences more fully than many 
a modern geographer has understood it. 

This aspect of Strabo’s work is. 
touched upon (though not elaborated) 
in a short introduction, in which also the 
translator summarizes the career of the 
geographer and historian, and among 
other points, decides in favour of the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


earlier of the two dates for the publica- 
tion of the Geography, which have been 
so warmly discussed. As for the trans- 
lation of the work itself, it deserves 
great praise,and when completed it will 
be a very notable addition to English 
texts. It preserves a certain air of 
meticulous nicety in the choice of words 
which seems to. permeate the original, 
as if the writer was one whose pen was 
none too ready, and whose manner of 
speech was slow and precise. Strabo’s 
¢riticism, as for instance of Hipparchus, 
seldom generates more than a gentle 
heat: his enthusiasm, as for Homer, 
does not lead him to extravagance of 
language, and the translation closely 
follows his mood. 

Dr. Jones carefully records diver- 
gencies of reading in the different texts, 
and is often at pains to explain the 
exact shade of meaning of words whose 
equivalents in English are imperfect. 
He also briefly elucidates geographical 
problems which arise, and an excellent 
feature is supplied by the diagrams 
which illustrate Strabo’s arguments 
concerning distances as estimated by 
Eratosthenes and MHipparchus, and 
other points. Great care has been 
exercised by the translator in adapting 
modern terms to Strabo’s usage. Only 


ΑΞ 


once, so far as has been observed, his 
results are perhaps open to criticism, 
when in the passage ... σφαιροειδῆ 
μὲν τὸν κόσμον, σφαιροειδῆ δὲ καὶ τὴν 
ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς γῆς the epithet is ren- 
dered ‘ spheroidal,’ with an explanatory 
note that the literal sense, ‘ sphere- 
shaped,’ is intended, and not the geo- 
metrical. But the geometrical figure of 
the spheroid is so intimately associated 
with the study of the figure of the Earth 
after Richer’s observations towards the 
close of the seventeenth century, that 
for the rendering of a text seventeen 
centuries older the term might have 
been better avoided. 

The present volume contains two out 
of the seventeen books of Strabo’s 
geography, and the translation is to be 
finished in eight volumes. For their 
excellence of appearance no less than 
for the scholarly work of the translator 
the complete series will be very welcome. 
It should be added that Dr. Jones 
points out that the introduction and 
bibliography in the present volume 
remain substantially as they were left 
by the late Professor J. R. S. Sterrett, 
who originally undertook the work, and 
that the translation of the two books 
contained here owes much to him. 

O. J. R. HowartTu. 


H. SJOGREN: M. TULLII CICERONIS EPP. AD ATTICUM, I-IV: 


M. Tullit Cicerons Epp. ad Atticum, 
I-IV. By H.SjOGREN. Pp. xxvili+ 
198. Upsala, 1916. Kr. 4.25. Tul- 
liana, ἘΝ. (ex Evani, vol. xvi., seorsum 


expr.). 


THE eminent Swedish scholar, Dr. 
Sjégren, has already won a great repu- 
tation for his work upon the Corpus 
which contains Cicero’s Letters to 
Brutus, to his brother Quintus, and to 
Atticus. His previous publications 
have been Comimentationes Tullianae 
(1910), Epp. ad Brutum (1910), ad Quin- 
tum Fratrem (1911), accompanied by 
three articles, Yudliana, I., II. IIL., 
‘printed in Evanos, and also issued 
separately. He has now published a 
first instalment of the Letters to Atticus, 
together with a fourth article. 

The Letters to Brutus and Quintus 


are not deficient in problems for the 
textual critic, but in point of general in- 
terest they do not appeal to the reader 
in the same way as those to Atticus. 
Sjogren, therefore, after traversing a 
somewhat arid zone, has now reached 
the most interesting part of his subject. 

Previous editors of these Letters have 
been handicapped by the fact that the 
MSS. had never been properly collated. 
Sjégren in his Commentationes remarks, 
neque exstat editio critica neque adhuc 
potuit perfict. Until recently only one 
MS. had been thoroughly collated, viz., 
M.(=Laur. XLIX. 18), and it was 
looked on as the'chief authority for the 
text. A great step forwards was made 
by C. Lehmann,' who distinguished 


1 De Ciceronis ad Atticum Epistulis recen- 
sendis et emendandts (1892). 


38 


between two groups of Italian MSS., 
viz. A, to which M belongs, and Σ, the 
chief member of which is 12, the oldest 
MS. now extant, having been written at 
the beginning of the fourteenth century. 
Both > and A, however, were shown to 
be inferior to a Transalpine family of 
MSS., the chief members of which were 
C (Codex Cratandv1) and Z (Tornae- 
stanus). Our knowledge of C is derived 
from the marginal readings in the 
edition of Cratander, a printer of Bale 
(1528), while the tradition of Z survives 
in the citations of Turnebus, Lambinus 
(1565), and Bosius (1580). C and Z 
are both lost, and we have only a few 
leaves from a MS., cent. x1./xil., now at 
Wiirzburg (JV), to represent this family. 
Lehmann’s work, broken off by his pre- 
mature death, was taken up by Sjogren, 
who has recollated the MSS. and proved 
the truth of Lehmann’s contentions. 
His publications have been received 
with universal approval. Thus Dr. 
Purser, the best of judges, says of him: 
‘The critical edition of the Epistles 
which he has now well in progress seems 
as if it would be almost the last word to 
be said in the settlement of the text, so 
careful, learned and ingenious is the 
author.’? Such generous praise, coming 
from one who has himself done so much 
for the study of Cicero’s Letters, must 
have awakened in Sjégren’s breast the 
joy of which Naevius speaks in Cicero’s 
quotation (Fam. XV. 6.1) Laetus sum 
laudari me abs te, pater, a laudato viro. 
The new instalment of Tulliana con- 
tains a short discussion of various 
symbols prefixed to readings given in 
the margin of the ed. Lambimana, pub- 
lished in 1573, after the death of that 
great scholar, followed by an elaborate 
dissertation upon a number of passages 
in A?t.I.-I1V. Sjégrenshowsconclusively 
that a number of readings to which L 
(i.e. Lambinus) is praefixed are taken 
from MSS., and are not conjectures. 
The passages which he proceeds to 
treat are chiefly interesting to students 
of grammar, ¢.g. the use of me in prohi- 
bition, the subjunctive of command, 
addressed to an individual (ciures ut 
sciam), the future in exhortation (non 
relexerts), usages of dices, inquis, miguies, 


ι Tyrrell and Purser, ed. ili. 


stor 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


of asyndeton bimembre, of denique after two 
substantives, of wt ef . . . et for e¢ ut 

. et, of vent as the perfect of eo, etc. 
His discussion is marked by great 
learning and subtlety, and his collec- 
tions of similar passages are always. 
valuable. As a rule he inclines to 
defend the reading of the MSS., where 
most editors have accepted an emen- 
dation. 

Sjogren’s methods as a critic have 
already been discussed in the pages of 
this Review,? and I will only indicate δ᾽ 
few passages in which his conservatism 
seems excessive. Some are taken from 
his Tulliana, others from the notes to 
his text. 

I. 1. 4. Vides enim in quo cursu 
sumus et quam omnes gratias non modo 
retinendas verum etiam adquirendas 
putemusMSS.,Sjégren. Editorsgenerally 
read simus, a simple correction, which 
seems demanded by putemus. Sjégren 
defends swmus by Att. II. το, where he 
reads, with most MSS., nune fac ut 
sciam quo die te visurt sumus (simus edd.). 
Here, however, we have not the evi- 
dence given by the subjunctive putemus 
which follows in I. 1. 4. Also, the im- 
portant MS. £ and two other MSS. of 
the = group have szmus. 

To Bre. 3s) SXPELLUSHESL.< ya. SIEGE 
studium nec tibi defuisse MSS., Sjogren. 
Here editors generally insert sec 5107 
before nec tibi. The omission of words 
between ec . nec, Gut. . . Aut, 
partim . . . partim, etc., is extremely 
common. Thus in Very. V. 121 we have 
the variants neque illis neque tibi V: 
neque tibt dett.: neque tibi neque illis R. 

I.20. 2.nullam rem tanti existimassem 
MSS., Sjégren, who explains by an 
ellipse of esse. Editors generally read 
aestimassem. The confusion of aestimo 
and existimo is constant in MSS. 

III. 8. 2. scribis . . . audiri fore ut 
acrius postularet MSS., Sjogren. 

The reference is to a pending prose- 
cution of Q. Cicero. No prosecutor is 


mentioned, so previous editors read 
postularetur. Sjogren explains ut . 
postularet (Clodius). The name of 


Clodius, however, does not occur in the 
letter. 
IV. 15. 4. nos verbum nullum, verita 


2 Classical Review, XXV. (1911), ae 149-154. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW | 39 


est enim pusilla, quae nunc laborat, ne 
animum Publi offenderet MSS., Sjogren. 
Previous editors correct to offenderem. 
Sjogren explains by an ellipse, 51 ego in 
hac causa verba dixissen. 

The problem is without doubt diffi- 
cult. Itisindisputable that the Latinity 
of Cicero in his Letters differs from 
that employed in his speeches and philo- 
sophical treatises, especially in the use 
of ellipse, archaisms, and colloquialisms. 
On the other hand it is to be remem- 
bered that the MS. evidence for these 
Letters is weak. We haveno old MSS. 
except the few leaves of W, and. all our 
MSS., including C and Z, are descended 
from a single archetype, which Lehmann 
calls XY. In most of the great cruces C 
and Z fail to help. The existence of 
this common archetype is definitely 
proved by dislocations common to all 
the MSS. in the Letters to Brutus, in 
Book II. of those to Quintus, and in ad 
Atticum ἘΝ. Such an archetype must 
have had proprit errores, and we must 
always bear this possibility in mind. 
The solution which a particular critic 
will adopt in cases of doubt is largely a 
matter of temperament, and Sjogren is 
above all things cautious. 

Some interesting remarks are made 
about double readings in the archetype, 
aes 11. τῷ... 2. where the’ MSS. vary: 
between lJaute and recte (p. xix). In 
IV. 17.3 the MSS, give 

de ea re ita censuerunt comitia primo quoque 
tempore haberi censere. 

Sjégren says, ‘ fort-censere ut glosseina 
delendum.’ It seems probable that 
censere = censuere, a variant for censuerunt, 
which has got into the text in the 
wrong place. I would suggest a similar 
explanation in 11. 21.6, where the MSS. 
give 

spero nos aut certe cum summa gloria aut 
etiam sine molestia discessuros. 


Most editors read aut cum... aut 
certe. Sjogren accepts the explanation 
of Siipfle that certe belongs to both 
clauses (=jedenfalls entweder . . . oder 
wenigstens noch). It is simple to sup- 
pose that the archetype had aut cum 


certe 
. .. aut etiam, and that certe was in- 
serted after the first aut. 


I now take a notorious passage, 
1.1. 5. Most editors print as follows : 


inconstantiam eius reprehendi, qui Romae 
tribunatum pl. peteret, cum in Sicilia aedilita- 
tem se petere dictitasset. 


There is great confusion in the MSS. 
The most important variants are here- 
ditatem sepe hereditasset (M1), acdilitatem 
sepe dictitasset (M*, plerique), heraedilt- 
tatem (Z). Lehmann read with M1, ex- 
plaining that Clodius by changing his 
gens had lost his right to receive in- 
heritances from gentiles who died in- 
testate (cf. Dom. 35 iure hereditatum 
yelicto), an ingenious, but far-fetched 
explanation. Sjégren gives hereditatem 
saepe dictitasset, 1.56. ‘had frequently 
talked about an inheritance,’ which 
seems very obscure. The corruption in 
Z is Clearly due to a conflation of heve- 
ditatem and aedilitatem, which must 
have been variants in the archetype. 
Also, hereditasset and dictitasset seem to 
be doublets. The ordinary reading, 
that of most MSS. with the simple cor- 
rection se petere for sepe, givesan admir- 
able sense. 

I conclude this notice with a few dis- 
jointed remarks. 

Fresh light has been thrown upon the 
provenance of C by a recent discovery. 
Previously it was supposed to have 
come from Lorsch. Sabbadini, how- 
ever, now assigns it to Fulda.2 The 
evidence is supplied by a new docu- 
ment, viz. Niccolo Niccoli’s memo- 
randum, written about 1430, in which 
occurs 


In monasterio Fuldenst. . . M. Tulliz Cicero- 
nts volunen epistolasum ad Acticum quod in- 
cipit Cum hec scribebam res existimatur esse, 
etc., “γέ. Cicero Capttonz. 


The symbol c® prefixed to certain 
marginalia in M, ascribed by Schmidt 
to Coluccio, has been much discussed. 
Schmidt’s explanation that it stands for 
Colucius is impossible, since it occurs 
elsewhere, 6.9. in the transcripts of 
Asconius made by Poggio and Sozome- 
nus. It is generally taken to stand 
for corrigas, while Sjogren mentions 
with approval a suggestion of Leo that 
it=codices. Light is thrown upon the 
point by a plate in Steffens’ collection 


1 Cf Sternkopf in Hermes XL. (1905), XLVI. 
(1911). 


2 Le scoperte dei codici latini e grect, vol. ite 
Ρ- 214 (1914). 


40 


of facsimiles (No. 75), taken from a 
MS. of Seneca, cent. xi./xil., in which c® 
(=corrige) occurs five times. Sjégren 
has not used the Ravenna MS. (Rav.), 
since he considers that its tradition is 
adequately represented by V (Vat. Pal. 
1510), a MS. written at the end of the 
fifteenth century. I see on comparing 
my collation of Rav. with the readings 
of V given by Sjégren that the two MSS. 
are closely connected: thus both omit 
IV. 5—13, and 15, and a passage in 
I1V.1.2. It is, however, clear that Rav. 
is prior to V. Thusin IV. 18. 2 nemo 
enim in tervis,most MSS.absurdly insert 
(after enim) AKPPIC, a word which 
occurs in XIX. 1. Sjogren says ‘fort. 
libvarius archetypi duo folia verterat, post 
primam vocem scriptam se erravisse senstt.’ 
Rav. has a lacuna after enim, while V 
omits the lacuna. Soll. 24. 3. qu eum 


emtsisset, Rav. has gut quom for gut euzit, 
while V has gi before a lacuna. 

As I once made a hurried collation of 
E, I venture to add a few readings 
taken from my notes which do not 
figure in Sjégren’s Apparatus. Only 
two of them are at all important, viz. : 


THE) CLASSICAL REVIEW 


I. 13. 2. ipse parvo animo et pravo 
tamen cavillator genere illo moroso. 
For tamen many read tantum with ed. 
Tens. E has tm (2.6, tantum), not tz 
(= tamen). 

IV. το. 2. ea quae Cyrea sint, velim 

. Invisas. 

For sint Wesenberg reads sunt. E 
has s?, which should represent swzt, 
not sint. 

The other cases are: 

I. 3. I. verita sit] veritas sit, 2 ad 
alios]. ad alias, 3 de te] ad te, 8.- 2. 
Megaricis, ut tu ad me scripseras, curavi. 
Hermae tui Pentelici cum capitibus 
aeneis, de quibus ad me scripsisti, iam 
nunc me] megaricis et cum iam me 
nunc med. om., ib. velim] velis, 14. 6. 
fecit] facit, 16. 1 spectatorem] inspecta- 
torem, 3 umquam] usquam, 5 refertur] 
refferretur (sic), 18. 2 tuum discessum}| 
discessum tuum. 19. 4 quid emerit | quid 
est, 6 invidia| invidiam, 10 facilius] ov-., 
ib. praetermittatur| intermittatur, 11. 
24. 4 Q. Considi] om. iii. 15. 2 scindam | 
sentiam. 

ALBERT C. CLARK. 


Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 


THE ECLOGUES OF FAUSTUS ANDRELINUS AND IOANNES 
ARNOLLETUS. 


The Eclogues of Faustus Andrelinus and 
Toannes Arnolletus. Edited, with in- 
troduction and notes, by WILFRED 
P. MusTarD, M.A., Ph.D., Professor 
of Latin in the Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, Baltimore. The Johns Hop- 
kins Press, 1918. Price $1.50. 


Dr. MustTarp has made the pastoral 
poetry of the renaissance his peculiar 
province. To his two scholarly editions 
of the Eclogues of Baptista Mantuanus 
(1911, reviewed C.R. XXVII. 241) and 
the Piscatory Eclogues of Sannazaro 
(1914) he now adds one of those of 
Andrelinus of Forli and Arnolletus of 
Nevers. Mantuanus and Sannazaro 
are recorded in the second volume of 
Sandys’ History of Classical Scholarship ; 
these two lesser lights, now rescued 
from oblivion, must be included in 
a new edition of that work. Of the 


two writers the Italian Andrelinus is 
more interesting than the Frenchman 
Arnolletus. A pupil of Filelfo and 
protégée of Ludovico Gonzaga, Bishop | 
of Mantua, he went early in life to 
France, where he became popular both 
as a humanistic teacher and as a poet, 
and was for many years professor at 
Paris, enjoying the patronage of the 
King and Queen. He was moreover 
a friend of the illustrious Erasmus, who 
calls him ‘vetus congerro meus,’ and 
speaks highly of his character and 
attainments. Erasmus addressed to 
him the amusing letter in which he 
praised the beauty and amiability of 
the young women of England, and 
especially their pleasant fashion of 
kissing on all occasions. The twelve 
eclogues of Andrelinus are written in 
smooth and fluent verse. They show 
descriptive power and poetical feeling, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 41 


especially in passages relating to the 
beauties of nature. This work of 
Andrelinus, published at Paris in 1496, 
and the eclogues of his imitator 
Arnolletus, published at Paris in 1524, 
derive special interest from the fact 
that both authors show familiarity with 
Calpurnius and Nemesianus, at a time 
when those poets’ were little read, 
having been first. published shortly 
before in the -editio princeps, which ap- 
peared at Rome in 1471. The fifth 
eclogue of Andrelinus is modelled on 
the fifth eclogue of Calpurnius; and 
Dr. Mustard’s commentary gives evi- 
dence of careful study of the two 
Roman bucolic poetsthroughout. There 
is a good deal of autobiographical 
matter in the poems; there are many 
complaints of the difficulty of making a 
living by literature and of securing 
noble patronage. Perhaps the most in- 
teresting, if the least agreeable, of the 
eclogues of Andrelinus is the eleventh, 
an invective against a rival Italian 
scholar Hieronymus Balbus, who, 
having been befriended by Andrelinus, 
had perfidiously requited him by ac- 
cusing him of apostacy from the Chris- 
tian faith, in those days ἃ serious 
charge. The worthy humanist in this 
eclogue retaliates with an energy and 
scurrility more suggestive of Juvenal 
or Claudian than of the soft bucolic 
singers. There are direct reminiscences 
of Juvenal, not noticed by Dr. Mustard, 
in XI. 52 et casu volvete vices nulloque 
movert aeternos rectore polos, luv. XIII. 
87 et nullo credunt mundum _ rectore 
movert, XI. 82 maiori faenore dicunt 
offenst dilata det tormenta ventre, luv. 
XIII. 100 ut sit magna, tamen certe 
Jenta ira deorum est. In this connexion 
I notice that X. 25 vano in corde senesctt 
recalls Iuv. VII. 52 aegro in corde 
senescit, and Arnolletus ecl. IV. 214 
Franciscus cervt Clivensis tempora vivat 
is inspired by Virg. Ecl. VII. 30 vivacts 
cornua cervi and luv. XIV. 251 longa et 
cervina senectus. The style of Andrelinus, 


though vigorous, is sometimes obscure, 
sometimes even ungrammatical; thus 
VII. 68 passum labovem seems to be in- 
tended to mean ‘labour that has been 
endured.’ The prosody of Andrelinus 
is generally correct, though he care- 
lessly shortens the final-o following the 
later Latin parts. Occasionally he 
lapses into false quantities, as in IX. 2 
agrestti matorva statu; XI. 37 pingur 
saginata popina; XII. 118 extinguibiles 
avte. But as regards prosody he con- 
trasts favourably with his imitator 
Arnolletus, some specimens of whose 
blunders I append: III. 19 contrive 
tempus apinis; 1V. 22 st datus tis rerum ; 
ibid. 146 cottidie mulctram, 152 hwus 17: 
dcerbam, 156 nostra scatentia, 183 essé 
scelestum, 184 plebs δὲ ignobile vulgus,and 
this last contained in one of the worst 
hexameters ever concocted; IV. 105 
mortuus est Xerxes, et mortuus tlle Darius. 
The scansion IV. 115 Stymphdalidas vicit 
volucres (IV. 115) is excusable, being 
borrowed from Ausonius, Monosticha 
de aerumnis Herculis, p. 106. 5; Peiper, 
Stymphalidas pepulit volucres. 1 note in 
passing that the whole of the passage 
IV. 104-126 is modelled on that poem 
of Ausonius, which Dr. Mustard might 
have pointed out in his notes. The 
eclogues of Arnolletus have been added 
by Dr. Mustard ‘as a sort of appendix.’ 
They are poor stuff. Their author was 
a schoolmaster of Nevers, whose ac- 
curacy was not equal to his piety. His 
vocabulary is as questionable as his 
prosody, being disfigured by forms and 
expressions such as indubte, fausttter, 
clarorum doxa virorum, paediae dulce 
levamen, ventripotens. It would have 
added to the value of this edition if 
Dr. Mustard had examined and criticised 
the prosody and language of these two 
poets, who fall far below the standard 
of such great Italian lLatinists as 
Politian, Sannazarius, Flaminius, and 
Vida. S. G. OWEN. 


Christ Church, 
Oxford. 


42 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


JUVENAL AND PERSIUS. 


Juvenal and Persius. With an English 
translation by G. G. Ramsay, LL.D., 
Litt.D., late Professor of Latin in 
the University of Glasgow (Loeb 
Classical Library). London: William 
Heinemann; New York: G. P. 
Putnam’s Sons, 1918. 6s. 


Tuis translation is a useful addition to 
the convenient series of which it forms 
a part. It is the work of a skilful 
scholar, who is a master of English 
style. Those who know little Latin, or 
have partially forgotten what they once 
knew, are provided with a version which 
is masculine and vigorous, and which 
passes easily from the grand to the 
colloquial manner, that constant and 
baffling characteristic of the Roman 
satirists’ style. The brightly written 
introduction summarises what is known 
of the lives of the two satirists, and 
contains a brief history of Roman 
satire and some information about the 
manuscripts of the two authors. Some 
of the views adopted are rather obsolete. 
Thus the statement on p. xii that 
Juvenal’s ‘satires were originally pub- 
lished in five books’ is open to miscon- 
ception, since Friedlander’s elaborate 
examination of the chronology of the 
satires establishes that the five books 
were published separately in chrono- 
logical order. Also the brilliant hypo- 
thesis of Leo, advanced originally in 
two papers in the Hermes and employed 
by him as the basis of his revision of 
Biicheler’s text (1910) makes it probable 
that the first four books were published 
by the poet in his lifetime, which same 
books, as revised by the poet himself, 
with the addition of the unfinished fifth 
book, were published as a second edition 
by his executors after his death. This 
acute theory satisfactorily accounts for 
the presence in the Oxford manuscript 
of the strange passage discovered by 
Mr. Winstedt in Sative VI., and, besides 
shedding light on the numerous double 
equally probable variants, helps inci- 
dentally to settle other difficulties, such 
as the repetition of the name Corvinus 
in VIII. 5,7. Juvenal’s memory could 
not have been so poorly stored as to 
force him to use Corvinus twice over as 


a type in his catalogue of worthies when 
he could have avoided the tautology by 
introducing Fabricius (found actually 
in some manuscripts) or plenty of other 
personages. But if our text is complete, 
and exhibits here the two editions side 
by side, the riddle is solved. On the 
same page the statement that Satire 1. 
‘was written last, or at least after the 
rest of Book I.’ seems to imply that 
Satire I. may have been written last 
of all the sixteen satires, which is for 
many reasons impossible. Also the 
statement (p. xxxix) that ‘the earliest 
form of satura was of a dramatic kind’ 
takes no account of the researches of 
Hendrickson and Leo, who seem to 
have succeeded in proving that the 
supposed dramatic satura never had 
any existence at Rome, but is due to an 
hypothesis of some early Roman critic, 
possibly Accius, which was designed to. 
bring the history of the Roman drama 
into conformity with that of the Greek, 
and which was incorporated by the un- 
critical Livy into his history. 

The translation, excellent in style, is , 
not always quite faithful. Thus Juv. I. 
36 a trepido Thymele summissa Latino the 
meaning of swmmissa is ‘ despatched’ 
rather than ‘made over.’ I. 75 crum- 
inibus debent hortos praetoria mensas not 
‘high commands’ but ‘ palaces’ is the 
meaning of praetoria. II. 37 ubt nunc, 
lex Iulia 3 dormis ‘ What of your Julian 
Law? Has it gone to sleep?’ renders 
not dormis but dormit, a conjecture of 
the late Mr. H. Richards. III. 32 
siccandam eluviem means not ‘ for cleans- 
ing drains’ but ‘for draining flood- 
water. III. 94 Dorida nullo cultam 
palliolo means not ‘ the nude Doris’ but 
Doris, the ancilla, dressed in tunica 
alone, without the pallium worn over it 
by her mistress. III. 193 urbem tenur 
tibicine fultam is strangely translated 
‘propped up by slender flute-players,’ 
explained in the note as ‘statues used 
by way of props.’ This seems to be 
based on a misunderstanding of Paul. 
Diac. 366 M. quoted by Mayor. The 
tibicen was a support to prevent the wall 
from falling outwards. Ov. F. IV. 695 
stantem tibicine villam. 111. 249 nonne 
vides quanto celebretur sportula fumo 


THE ‘CLASSICAL -KRE VIEW 43 


cannot mean ‘see now the smoke rising 
from that crowd which hurries for the 
daily dole,’ as the presentation of the 
sportula in the form of food was at that 
time obsolete. IV. 45 cumbae linique 
magister ‘the master of the boat and 
line’ mistranslates lini, which means 
‘net,’ asin V. 102 temeraria lina, which 
Dr. Ramsay translates ‘the daring 
fisherman.’ V.143 viridem thoraca pro- 
bably means a child’s tunic, made after 
the cut of that worn by an auriga of the 
fashionable ‘green’ factio. I do not 
know Dr. Ramsay’s authority for 
translating ‘ cuirasses of green rushes.’ 
VI. 515 cut rauca cohors, cur tympana 
cedunt, plebeia et Phrygia vestitur bucca 
tiara is translated ‘before him the 
howling herd with the timbrels give 
way; his plebeian cheeks are covered 
with a Phrygian tiara.’ This is the 
ordinary stopping and rendering. I 
now think that the comma should be 
removed after cedunt and placed after 
plebeia. The tympana plebeia are the in- 
ferior herd of timbrel-players who are 
subservient to the chief Gallus. Cf. Ov. 
Ibis 81 plebs superum faunt satyrique 
. laresques. VI. 606 hos favet omni tnvol- 
vitque sinu ‘she fondles them all and 
folds them in her bosom’ renders not 
omni, the reading in the text, but onzes, 
the variant which Professor Ramsay 
apparently intended to have printed in 
the text. But omni has been sufficiently 
defended by Friedlander and others. 
VII. 15-16 faciant equites Asiant |quam- 
quam et Cappadoces factant equatesque 
Bithyni,| altera quos nudo traducit Gallica 
talo. It is not explained why 1. 15 is 
enclosed in brackets, for which there is 
no cause. The words are translated 
‘Leave that to the Knights of Asia, of 
Bithynia, and Cappadocia—gentry that 
were imported bare-footed from New 
Gaul.’ This is open to serious objec- 
tions. Knights from Cappadocia, which 
lay inland south-east of Galatia, and 
from Bithynia, which lay on the sea- 
coast north of Galatia, could hardly be 
said to be imported from Galatia, which 
lies inland in the centre of Asia Minor. 
Traducere, in Juvenal at any rate, does 
not mean ‘to import.’ Altera Gallica 
could hardly stand for Galatia, though 
altera Gallia, the reading of most manu- 
scripts, might mean that. The reading 


gallica, spelt without a capital, seems to 
be correct and is capable of explanation. 
VII. 219 cede Palaemon means‘ submit 
Palaemon’ not ‘never mind Palaemon.’ 
VIII. 105 inde Dolabella atque linc 
Antonius, inde  sacrilegus Verres is 
rendered ‘But after that came now a 
Dolabella, now an Antonius, and now a 
sacrilegious Verres.’ But the series mde 
hinc inde cannot mean ‘now, now, now’ 
though inde inde inde might mean 
that. Also Dolabella with the final a 
lenghtened in hiatus involves a false 
quantity requiring emendation, of which 
various sorts have been proposed. 
VIII. 195 finge tamen gladios inde atque 
hinc pulpita pont rendered ‘And yet 
suppose that on one side of you were 
placed a sword, on the other the stage’ 
misses the force of gladios, which signi- 
fies ‘execution.’ VIII. 240-241 tantuim 
igitur muros intra toga contulit all 
nominis ac tituli, quantum in Leucade. 
Here the reading 17 retained in the text 
involves a false quantity ; various re- 
medies have been suggested. Also 
though Leucade (without 17) ‘at Leucas ’ 
might signify ‘at Actium,’ the battle of 
Actium cannot be said to have been 
fought ‘in Leucas’ (so Dr. Ramsay 
translates), which was an island in the 
vicinity of Actium. X. 94 vis certe pila 
cohortes egregios equites et castra domestica 
is rendered ‘ You would like, no doubt, 
to have Centurions, Cohorts, and Illus- 
trious Knights at your call.’ Pzla does 
not mean ‘centurions’ but the‘ pikes’ 
with which the Praetorian cohorts were 
armed. It is difficult to see how 
Sejanus, the prefect of the Praetorian 
guard, could be said to have ‘ Illustrious 
Knights’ at his call, though the troopers 
of the Praetorian cavalry being under 
his command might be so described. 
XI. 137 Tryphert doctoris ‘the learned 
Trypherus’ insufficiently indicates that 
Trypherus was a teacher of cookery. 
XI. 139 the English for Scythicae 
volucres is ‘pheasants’ rather than 
‘Scythian fowls. XIII. 28 nona aetas 
agitury is adopted instead of the better 
supported nunc actas agitur. The 
meaning of the latter is simple, that of 
the former barely intelligible. It makes 
Juvenal announce ‘ We are living in a 
ninth age.’ Ninth from what point of 
view ? the reader asks, and Dr. Ramsay 


44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


has no note to answer the question, 
though fanciful answers have been 
given. The obvious series of ages are 
the five of Hesiod (Op. 109) or four of 
Ovid (M. I. 89), but neither of these 
throws any light on a ‘ninth age.’ 

I have left little space for Persius, the 
translation of which is on the whole 
closer than that of Juvenal, though in 
some places it might be improved, as 
III. 3 tndomitum Falernum means rather 
the ‘fiery ’ than ‘indomitable Falernian’ 
wine. III. 73 disce, nec invideas quod 
multa fidelia putet in locuplete penu is 
rendered ‘learn these things, and do 
not envy your neighbour because he has 
a jar going bad in a larder well stored 
with gifts.” Multa is omitted; with 
invideas should be supplied discere, 1.6. 
‘ grudge not the trouble of learning.’ 

As with Juvenal, Dr. Ramsay’s text 
of Persius is based on Biicheler’s edition 
of 1893; why he should not have based 
it on Leo’s improved edition of 1910 I 
do not understand. But in choosing 
readings he exercises his own discretion, 
in doing which perhaps more weight 
might have been given to P as against 
AB. In III. 44-47, for instance, P has 

saepe oculos, memini, tangebam parvus Olivo, 


grandia si nollem morituro verba Catoni 
dicere non sano multum laudanda magistro 


as I printed in my Oxford text. AB 
have morituri—Catonts discere et insano. 
Dr. Ramsay combines the two readings 
mortturi—Catoms dicere non sano, for 
which there is little to be said. The 
one set of readings or the other should 


be accepted entire. Now the passage 
as preserved in P means ‘I used often, 
I remember, as a boy to smear my eyes 
with oil if I did not want to deliver 
a grandiloquent speech to the dying ~ 
Cato which should be greeted by the 
applause of my idiotic master.’ Thisis 
preferable to the tradition of AB, which 
means ‘ to learn the speech of the dying 
Cato,’ for the reason that the pupils in 
the school of rhetoric (from which the 
poet when a boy represents himself as 
playing truant) were concerned not so 
much with learning and_ repeating 
speeches of worthies long dead, as with 
themselves composing and delivering 
speeches addressed to departed worthies 
in particular situations, conveying ad- 
vice to them. Such were Suasoriae. 
Thus Juvenal ‘ counselled Sulla to retire 
from public life.’ I. 15 et nos consilium 
dedimus Sullae, privatus ut altwm dormiret. 
The dative morituro Catoni is more ap- 
propriate than the genitive moriturt 
Catonis, for Cato is the recipient of the 
advice. 

There are some misprints, thus 
Leeper’s translation, described as 
‘Strong and Leiper’ (p. v) is published 
not by the Clarendon Press but by 
Macmillan (p. lxxix), Jahn’s edition of 
Persius was published in 1843 not 1845 
(p. Ixxx). P. 4 Syllae should be Sullae. 
P. 33 Saburra should be Subura; Umbrt- 
tius should be Umbricius. P. 317 note 
C.R. shouldbe Ὁ  S. G. Owen. 


Christ Church, 


Oxford. 


SHORT NOTICES 


THE PLATONISM OF 
FLUTARCH.: 


The Platonism of Plutarch. 
MILLER JONES. One vol. Large 
Svo. Pp.153. The Collegiate Press: 
George Banta Publishing Company, 
Menasha, Wisconsin, 1916. 


So far as I know but little has been 
done in the way of published work on 
the philosophy of Plutarch since the 
Studies of Volkmann and Gréard some 


By ROGER 


fifty years ago. There is plenty of 
room, therefore, for special investiga- 
tions such as this of Mr. Jones. Dividing 
his dissertation (written for a Doctor’s 
degree at Chicago) into three chapters, 
Mr. Jones discusses first the general 
character of Plutarch’s thought, and 
secondly the more particular question 
of his method of interpreting Plato; 
while the last chapter supplies what 
purports to be a complete list of parallels 
between Plutarch and Plato. The most 


THE CEASSICAL REVIEW 


important section of the first chapter 
_ is that which deals with the eschato- 
logical myths, with special reference to 
the views of Heinze, Hirzel, and Adler, 
though there are useful observations 
also on Plutarch’s relation and attitude 
towards other schools—Aristotelians, 
Stoics, and Neo-Pythagoreans—as well 
as to the national religion. For Plu- 
tarch’s reference to the derivation of 
the name Apollo from ἀ-πολύς as the 
negation of plurality, Mr. Jones might 
have cited the similar derivation in 
Plato, Cratyl. 405c, as well as Chrysippus 
and the Neo-Pythagoreans. In the 
beginning of his second chapter Mr. 
Jones has a good deal to say about 
that difficult passage in the Tiimaeus 
(35a ff.) which describes the composi- 
tion of the world-soul, and ends by 
adopting Professor Shorey’s view, which 
regards ‘the most general categories 
cognised by the soul as the constituents 
of the substance of soul,’ so that Plato 
here ‘takes account only of the cognitive 
faculties, not the motive.’ 
pretation seems unlikely a priori in face 
of the favourite definition of the soul 
as the ‘self-movent.’ This chapter 
contains also some acute criticisms of 
Altmann’s theory that Posidonius is the 
source of the doctrine of the soul’s 
nature set forth by Chalcidius, as well 
as of Heinze’s ascription of Plutarch’s 
creation-theory (in the de Iside, etc.) 
to Xenocrates. In the collection of 
parallels between Plutarch and Plato 
it may be noted that the text of the 
new parallels (not indicated by Wytten- 
bach or Bernardakis but unearthed by 
the author) is set forth at length. 

Altogether, Mr. Jones’s production 
is a very good specimen of its type; it 
is clearly and methodically composed, 
and gives evidence of independent 
judgment and careful study of the 
literature of the subject. It contains 
but few obvious misprints, but, like 
most dissertations, it lacks the con- 
venience of an index. 

eG) BURY 


This inter-- 


45 


PLATO’S GEOMETRICAL 
NUMBER AND THE COMMENT 
OF PROCLUS: 


Plato’s Geometrical Number and the Coni- 
ment of Proclus. By A. G. Lairp. 
One vol. Large 8vo.. Pp. 29:. Wis- 
consin: The Collegiate Press, Me- 
nasha. 


IN twenty-nine pages Mr. Laird gives 
us, first, a discussion of Procius 7 Plat. 
Rem Publicam, pp. 36-7 (Kroll), and, 
secondly, an interpretation of the 
notorious passage in Plato, Rep.546B, c, 
describing what Mr. J. Adam termed 
‘the Nuptial Number.’ The most con- 
cise way to indicate the results of Mr. 
Laird’s dissertation will be to reproduce 
his rendering of the Republic passage : 
‘For a human creature (there is a 
number) in that figure in which first 
products that are squares and rectangles, 
equaling and being equaled, if arranged 
in a proportion with 3 intervals and 
4 terms, the terms being sides of the 
squares and sides of the rectangles, 
both if they are increasing and if they 
are decreasing, showed all in propor- 
tion and rational to one another; of 
which the 3-4-5 type, if the numbers 
are made solid, furnishes 2 harmonies, 
the one a square with its side multiplied 
by 100, the other equal in area to the 
former but oblong, one side of 100 
squares of rational diameters of 5, each 
lacking I, or of irrational diameters, 
each lacking 2, the other side of 100 
cubes of 3.’ This translation will be 
seen to differ considerably from Adam’s. 
(Rep. 11.) pp../205 ff). EB ea Mire Baard 
rejects the view that αὐξήσεις δυνάμεναε 
τε καὶ δυναστευόμεναι Can mean ‘root 
and square increases, 7.6. cubings,’ 
arguing that δυναστευόμεναι means rect- 
angles. While accepting Adam’s solu- 
tion (3600%= 2700 x 4800), he maintains 
that ‘his method of reaching the 36007 
is wrong, and his interpretation of the 
sentence ἐν ᾧ πρώτῳ .. . ἀπέφηναν as 
far from the truth as it well could be. 
This sentence, instead of containing a 
number, contains a general definition of 
the geometrical truth of which the second 
sentence with its 36007=2700 x 4800 
gives a particular example. It states 
that if a square is equal to a rectangle, 
then the side of the square is a mean 


46 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


proportional between the sides of the 
rectangle, 1.6. if a? is equal to bc, then 
b:a equals a:c.’ Thus ἐν ᾧ πρώτῳ 
and ὧν are both taken to refer to a 
figure such as that in Euchd VI. 8. 
On Mr. Laird’s view, the number 216, 
on which Adam set such store, seems 
to disappear, and with it, apparently, 
much of the pertinence of the whole 
passage to the subject of ‘better and 
worse births.’ . 

While one may hesitate to subscribe 
hastily to any solution of this Jocus 
vexatus as a whole, the views here put 
forward deserve serious consideration 
from students of Greek mathematics. 


R. G. Bury. 


TEUCER AND THE TEUCRI. 


Teukvos und Teukrer : Untersuchung der 
homerischen und der nachhomerischen 
Ueberliecferung. Von Dr. J. J. 6. 
VURTHEIM. Onevol. 10” γ΄. Pp. 44. 
Rotterdam: L. and J. Brusse, 1913. 


Dr. VURTHEIM has made a special 
study of the Ajaxes. In 1907 he pub- 
lished his De A tacts origine, cultu, patria, 
the object of which was to show that 


the two Ajaxes and the Teucer of the 
epic were originally one, and the 
mythological offspring of a _ primal 
daemon of Locris. The present work 
is an article for Roscher’s Lexikon, with 
much additional matter that could not 
be compressed into the space assigned. 
It is an expansion of the chapter on 
Teucer in the earlier work, and seems 
to include everything that is known at 
present about himandthe Teucri. The 
information is conveniently arranged, 
and the copious references to the original 
authorities will make the two publi- 
cations very useful to students of the 
careers of the sonsof Telamon. Teucer 
is a hero who was πολυπλάνητος κάρτα, 
and the facts relating to the various 
localities in which he appeared are 
separately tabulated accordingly. His 
name, variously derived, is said to be a 
title borne by priests of a great god. 
The Teucri are pronounced to be 
Lelegian, but that, like all else con- 
nected with the Leleges, requires further 
investigation. In -such research ethno- 
logical and other enquirers must find 
exhaustive monographs like the present 
one extremely handy for reference. 


NOTES AND 


At last a beginning has been made 
of the study of Byzantium and Modern 
Greek. This year a Koraes Chair is to 
be established at University College, 
London, endowed by subscription and 
supported by a grant from the Greek 
Government. The professor has not 
yet been appointed; but lectures are to 
be given by Mr. L. Oeconomos on the 
Modern Language and Literature, and 


NEWS 


courses of public lectures by Professor 
Menardos of Athens (Modern Greek 
Poetry), Professor Diehl of Paris (Les 
Causes de la Grandeur de Byzance), 
and Mr. J. Mavrogordatc, M.A. (Modern 
Greek History). Mr. Oeconomos will 
also lecture on Religious Life in the 
Byzantine Empire of the twelfth cen- 
tury. Admission to the public lectures 
is free, without ticket. 


TRANSLATED 


THE CLASSICAL 


JUSTICE. 


AND REPRINTED WITH. THE 
KIND PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR, 
Mr. RUDYARD KIPLING. 


Across a world where all men grieve 
And grieving strive the more, 

The great days range like tides and leave 
Our dead on every shore. 


Heavy the load we undergo, 
And our own hands prepare, 

Lf we have parley with the foe, 
The load our sons must bear. 


Before we loose the word 
That bids new worlds to birth, 
Needs must we loosen first the sword 
Of Justice upon earth ; 
Or else all else is vain 
Since life on earth began, 
And the spent world sinks back again 
Hopeless of God and Man. 


A people and their King 
Through ancient sin grown strong, 
Because they feared no reckoning 
Would set no bound to wrong ; 
But now their hour is past, 
And we who bore it find 
Evil Incarnate held at last 
To answer to mankind. 


For agony and spoil 
Of nations beat to dust, 
For poisoned air and tortured soil 
And cold, commanded lust, 
And every secret woe 
The shuddering waters saw— 
Willed and fulfilled by high and low— 
Let them relearn the Law. 


That when the dooms are read, 
Not high nor low shall say :— 
‘My haughty or my humble head 
Has saved me in this day.’ 
That, till the end of time, 
Their remnant shall recall 
Their fathers’ old, confederate crime 
Availed them not at all. 


That neither schools or priests, 
Nor Kings may build again 

A people with the heart of beasts 
Made wise concerning men. 

Whereby our dead shall sleep 
In honour, unbetrayed, 

And we in faith and honour keep 
That peace for which they paid. 


REVIEW 47 


AIKA. . 


Πᾶσα γᾶ πολὺ στένει, 
μυρίοις δ᾽ ἐνὶ στόνοις 
μᾶλλον ἁγὼν δέδηεν " νεκρῶν δὲ κλύζεται 
πτώματ᾽ ἀμῶν ἐπὶ 
ῥαχίας ποντίας, 
ἐργμάτων. 


στρ. α 


κλύδωνι λαμπρῶν φορούμεν᾽ 


"ANN ὑφιστάμεσθά τ᾽ ἄ- ἀντ. αἵ 
χθος κακῷν πορίζομεν 7’ 
᾽ , vA 4 A Z 
αὐτόχειρες δύας, πρὸς ξυναλλαγὰς λόγων 
εἰ καλεῖν μέλλομεν 
δαΐους ἄνδρας, ἐκγόνοισί τ᾽ ἀμοῖς μεταῦτις οἰστέας. 


᾿Αλλὰ μὴ τελεσφόρον 
pnw ἴτω νέαν βροτοῖς 
ἐκλόχευσον ἁμεράν, 
πρὶν Δίκας ἄορ λυθῇ 
κυρίας ἐπὶ χθονί, 


στρ, B 


μὴ κέν᾽ 4 τὰ πάνθ᾽ ἀφ᾽ οὗ 
βλάστεν ἐμπνόων γένη, 

καὶ παρειμένοι ῤῥέπωσ᾽ 

ἄμπαλιν βροτοὶ περὶ 

σφῶν θεῶν τ᾽ ἀνέλπιδες. 
Ξυνώμοσεν γὰρ λεὼς δυνάστᾳ 
παλαὶ κρατυνθεὶς ἁμαρτίαισιν, 
τίσεως τ᾽ ἄτρεστος ἐνδίκου 
κακουργίᾳ πάνθ᾽ ὅρον παρέκβα. 
ἸΤαροίχεται δ᾽ οὖν ὁ τῶνδε καιρός, 
δικαφόρος θ᾽ ἁμερὰ πέφανται, 
παθοῦσιν δ᾽ ἰδεῖν πάρεσθ᾽ 

ἁμὶν ἐναργέ᾽ “Atay 

κρινομέναν δικάσταις 

ἔθνεσιν ἐν πρόπασιν. 


ἀντ, β 


στρ. ¥ 


Λποινα δ᾽ ὠδῖνος ἁρπαγᾶς 7’ ἐ- 
-θνέων ὅσ᾽ ἄρδην κατεσποδηθη, 

.π- πέδον δὲ γᾶς κατήκισαν, 

νόσησε δ᾽ ἀὴρ πνοαῖσιν ἰοῦ, 

σφρίγα τ᾽ ἀθέρμανθ᾽ Ὕβρις κελευστά, 
πάθη τε ῥίγησε κρυπτὰ πόντος" 
πρόμοι δ᾽ ἔται τε βου- 

λαῖσι βίᾳ τ᾽ ἔκραναν,---- 

τῶν χάριν ἀμμαθόντων 

τὰς μεγάλας θέμιστας " 


Ὥστε μήτ᾽ ἀγὸν λέγειν 

μήτε δημόταν, ἐπεὶ 

τὰν τετιμημέναν κρίσιν κλύῃ, 
τὸν μὲν ὡς ὑπερκόποις 

τὸν δὲ μετρίαις φρεσὶν 
τἀπιτίμι᾽ ἐκφύγοι 

τᾶς δίκας ἀπαλλαγείς" 

τοὺς δὲ τῶν λελειμμένους 

εἰς ἅπαντα δὴ χρόνον 
μνᾶστιν ἴσχειν ὅπως κακουργίαι 
τὰς ξυνώμοσαν οἱ προγενν- 
-ήτορες τὸ πάλαι τελεῖν 
ἀρκέσειαν ἄρ᾽ οὐδέν "- 

᾿Αλλὰ πάντ᾽ ἀπεννέπειν 

ἐς τὸ λοῖπον, ἤν τις 7 

τῶν σοφῶν, ἤν τε μαντικὰν νέμων 
ἢ τυραννικὸν κράτος, 

μὴ τρέφειν λεὼν φύσει 
χρώμενον λύκων, πρὸς ἄν- 
dpas δ᾽ ἀλωπέκων τρόποις" 
τοὺς δὲ φιλτάτους καθεύ- 
δόντας ἐν τάφοισιν 7- 

μας τίειν καρδίᾳ φερεγγύῳ, 
πίστιν δ᾽ αἰδομένους σέβειν 
ΕἙἰρήνας ὄπιν εἰσαεὶ 

τάνπερ οἵδ᾽ ἐπρίανπο. 


στρ. δ΄ 


ἀντ. δ' 


48 THE CLASSICAL |REVIEW 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


All publications which have a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered in this list af they are sent for 


γδοέτο. 


The price should in all cases be stated. 


** Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


Conway (R.S.) The Venetian Point of View 
in Roman History. - 10}’x 63". Pp. 22. 
Manchester: University Press, 1918. Paper 
boards, Is. net. 


Enk (P. J.) Gratti Cynegeticon quae super- 
sunt. Part I.: Prolegomena and Text. 
Pp. 102. Part II.: Commentary. Pp. t54. 


g3’”x 64". Zutphen: W. J. Thieme, 1918. 

Foster (F. M. K.) English Translations from 
the Greek: a Bibliographical Survey. 8” x 55”. 
Pp. xxix+146. Oxford University Press for 
Columbia Press, 1918. Cloth, 6s. 6d. net. 

Freese (J. H.) The Octavius of Minucius Felix, 
Translations of Christian Literature, Series 
II. 73x 42”. Pp. 102. Bondon:S:PC.K. 
1909. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net. 

Goad (C.) Horace in the English Literature 
of the Eighteenth Century. Yale Studies in 
English. LVIII. 8}"x 52”. ῬΡ. vilit 641. 
Oxford University Press for Yale University 
Press, 1918. Paper, 12s. 6d. net. 


Groot (A. W. de) A Handbook of Antique 
Prose Rhythm. I. History of Greek Prose- 
Metre: Demosthenes, Plato, Philo, Plutarch, 
and others, Bibliography, Curves, Index. 
Wolters (J. B.) Groningen, the Hague, 1918. 
81) χ 64”. Pp. xii+ 232. [No price given. | 

Holtzhausser (Clara A.) An Epigraphic Com- 
mentory on Suetonius Life of Tiberius. 
Philadelphia, Pa., 1918. 48 pp. gh" x 64". 

Laird (A. (4) Plato’s Geometrical Number 
and the Comments of Proclus. 9”x6". 
Pp. 32. Wisconsin: Madison, 1918. 

Laurand(.) Manuel des Etudes Grecques et 
Latines. Fasc 1. : Géographie Historique : 
Institutions Grecques. Pp. xii+§§$ 187+8. 
Fasc. VI: Grammaire historique latine. 
§§ 651 + pp. 41-48. 9” x 52”. Paris: 
A. Picard, 1918. Fr. 3.50 each. 

Leopold (H.M.R.) De Spiegel van het Ver- 
leden. 93x63". Pp. viiit82. Rotterdam: 
W. L. and J. Brusse, 1918. 


Loeb Library. Pausanias. Vol. 1. (W.H.S. 
Jones.) Pp. XxVili+-457.—Plutarch’s Lives. 
Vol. VI. (B. Perrin.) Pp. ix+478.—Virgil. 
Vol. 1. (ΗΠ. R. Fairclough.) Pp. viii+552. 


Boethius. (H. F. Steward and E. K. Rand.) 
Pp. xiv+420.—Cicero’s Letters. Vol. III. 
(H. E. Winstedt.) Pp. χ 456. London : 
W. Heinemann, 1918. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net. 

Léfstedt (E.) Kritische Bemerkungen zu Ter- 
tullians Apologeticum. Lunds Universitets- 
Arsskrift N.F. Ἄνα. 1. Bd. 14. Nr. 24. 
10”x 63”. Pp. 120. Lund: Gleerup, 1918. 

Messer (W. S.) The Dream in Homer and 
Greek Tragedy. 9” x 6”. Pp. x + 105. 
Oxford University Press for Columbia Press, 
1918. Cloth, 5s. 6d. net. 

Munz (R.) Quellenkritische Untersuchungen 
zu Strabo’s Geographie (Doctor’s disserta- 
tion). 9”’x6}”. Pp. 64. Basel: E. Birk- 
hauser. 

Nilsson (M. P.) Die Entstehung und religidése 
Bedeutung des griechischen Kalendars. 
Lunds Universitets Arsskrift N.F. Avd. 1. 
Bd. ΤΑ \\ Nr.21..’) '0" x ΡΒ: 66.) ema: 
Gleerup, 1918. 

Persson (A. W.) Die Exegeten und Delphi. 
Vorstudien zu einer Geschichte der attischen 


Gezetzgebung, I. Pp. 86. 9x03". Lund : 
Gleerup. 
Rivista di Filologia. Vol. XLVI. Fasc. 4. 


9?” x62". Pp. 385-464. Torino: ἃ. Chian- 
tore, 1918. L. 5 per number. 
Rowland(W.T.) On the Position of ze and 
ué in certain Latin Documents. 93” x 63". 
Pp. viiit44. Oxford University Press for 
Columbia Press, 1918. 4s. 6d. net. 


Shirreff (A. G.) and Panna Lall. The Dream 
Queen, a translation of the Svapnavasava- 
datta’ of ;Bhasa. | 72" x 42". (Pp. ov 155- 
Allahabad: The Indian Press, 1918. 12 ans. 


Verrua (P.) Un Sepolcro auspicato nei Sepol- 
cri del Foscolo (Extract from Rivista Abruz- 
gese). 1o'+7". Pp. 16. Teramo: A. de 
Carolis, 1918. 


Zander (C.) Versus Saturnii: tertiis curis - 
collegit’ et recensuit et examinavit C.Z. | 
Lunds Universitets Arsskrift N.F. Avd. 1. 
Bd.14. Nr.23. 10’x 62”. Pp.64. Lund: 
Gleerup, 1918. 


ERRATUM. 


P. 172, col. 1: Read ‘Daniel’ for ‘David’ Wyttenbach. 


αἵ 


The Classical Review 


MAY—JUNE, 1919 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


GRAECO-ROMAN OSTRACA FROM DAKKA, NUBIA. 


ΙΝ 1909 the ancient cemeteries in the 
neighbourhood of Dakka, the Graeco- 
Roman Pselcis, were explored by Mr. 
C. M. Firth and his colleagues of the 
Archaeological Survey of Nubia.! Apart 
from the Egyptian and indigenous 
remains discovered, these exeavations 
produced results which may be of some 
interest to students of Roman military 
affairs. In the first place a consider- 
able part of the wall of the Roman 
fortress at Pselcis was cleared. As 
Mr. Firth reports, ‘the wall of the 
Roman camp [fortress] which protected 
the temple [of Dakka] on its south and 
west sides was cleared, and the south 
and west gates opened. These latter 
were protected by bastions, in the 
lower stories of which were rooms. .. . 
The legionary corn-mill (?) and part of 
a military inscription were recovered 
from the south gate.’ A proof (for 
which I have to thank Mr. Firth) of 
the plan of the fortified enclosure 
shows, however, that the southern gate- 
house was flanked by solid bastions, 
with a semicircular projection beyond 
the face of the curtain-wall. The 
western gate is much better preserved, 
and shows a small guard-chamber in 
each of the flanking bastions, with an 
entrance giving upon the interior of the 
fortress and not upon the gate-passage. 
In this case, however, the projecting 
semicircular bastions have been con- 
verted by the later addition of a heavy 
external casing into rectangular towers. 


1 See the Bulletin of the Archaeological 
Survey of Nubia, No. 5 (Cairo, 1910), pp. 7 f. 
I do not know whether Mr. Firth’s definite 
report has yet been published. 

NO. CCLXXIII. VOL. XXXIII.. 


The fragmentary inscription men- 
tioned by Mr. Firth reads as follows: 
EDV Ab Havens 
ΒΒ.» Gi [Vat ah ee. 
Ὁ @& RAMM[... 
MIE ΓΕΘ ὩΣ ΠῚ 0: 
ET ΘΟΕ ἃ εἶ: 


The legion referred to can hardly be 
other ‘than that known as Cyrenaica, 
which was transferred after long service 
in Egypt to Bostra under Trajan.? 

Nearer the Nile, and some 500 metres 
north of the Temple of Dakka, Mr. 
Firth was led by the character of the 
brick-work to examine a small mud- 
brick building which Muslim piety had 
transformed into ἃ sheikh’s tomb. 
When cleared, this structure proved to 
be a two-roomed building ‘ with a stair- 
case leading to a small upper platform.’ 
To the west, ‘was a huge mass of 
Roman pottery. ... There were two 
hundred or more amphorae, both broken 
and unbroken, together with pots and 
jars of other shapes, and a number of 
bowls of fine blue-glaze. It is possible 
that the small building represents a 
customs-house or store at which cargoes 
were disembarked.’ From this structure 
and from the neighbourhood of the 
temple about 300 Greek ostraca were 
recovered. 

The nature of the ostraca found 
suggests that the building was rather 
the office, and presumably store-house 
of an official charged with the issues of 
certain supplies to the troops at Pselcis. 
Nearly all the fragments which Mr. 


2 Cp. Hardy, Studies in Roman History 


(Ser.’1.);, p. 225: 
D 


τῇ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Firth handed over to me for publica- 
tion are receipts or ‘chits’ handed in 
by soldiers in return for wine issued to 
them. Many are so small as to show 
no more than a few syllables of the 
stereotyped formula, and therefore not 
worth printing; the remainder are here 
reproduced. by way of supplement to 
the ostraca found at Pselcis by Gau in 
1819,1 and edited first by Niebuhr,? 
then by Franz,’ and more recently by 
Wilcken.‘ 

I should express my very deep in- 
debtedness to Professor B. P. Grenfell 
who deciphered one badly worn but 
important piece (No. 2), reread several 
others, and aided my inexperience by 
supplying a number of references. Sir 
Frederic Kenyon also was good enough 
to check my copy of No. I. 


The present series contains only two 
non-military pieces. The first of these 
(No. 1) is unfortunately incomplete, but 
is important as recording a sttologos of 
Pselcis (?) and the upper toparchy of 
the Dodekaschoinos—a region hitherto 
regarded as not organised on civil lines 
as a nome.© The second (No. 2) is a 
list of payments of κολλύόροβοι--ἰ.ο., 
‘eum-plants,’ which is at least interest- 
ing as containing a word unknown to 
lexicographers® 

All the remaining examples are 
military receipts. These, with two ex- 
ceptions (Nos. 16, 19), are epistolary 
like the receipts of the earlier series 
found by Gau; but whereas Gau’s 
ostraca are addressed to an optio and 
relate almost entirely to dry rations 
(corn), Mr. Firth’s examples introduce 
another, and hitherto almost unknown, 
official, the cibariator, and acknowledge 


1 Neu entdeckte Denkmaler von Nubien, 
pls. viii., ix. 

2 Ap. Gau of. cit. pp. 18-20. 

5: 0 7 Ὁ WUC 5100; 1:3... 

4 Griechische Ostraka \1., Nos. 1128-1146. 
Wilcken’s conjecture that 1265 came from 
Dakkeh seems to be confirmed by the re- 
appearance of Petronius the cz/ariator in the 
present series. 

5 Milne, Hist. of Egypt under Rom. Rule, 


+923" 

6 What is meant by τὸ κολλόροβον which 
Sagittarius holds in his right hand (Hipparchus, 
ad Phaen. 1. 16 ap. Migne, P. G. XIX. 1037 A) 
is not clear: Sophocles doubtfully suggests 
‘club.’ 


the issue of wine or its equivalent. The 
bare formula used in these documents 
is as follows: ‘A, soldier (or trooper) in 
the century (ov squadron) of B, to C, 
the cibariator, greeting. I received from 
you out of the cibariwm x (quantity) of 
wine, value y denarii, z obols. Year a, 
month 8... Except in certain necessary 
cases (see below) this formula is only 
twice varied ὁμολογῶ εἰληφέναι (No. 3), 
and ἔσχον (No. 4) being substituted for 
the normal ἔλαβον. 

The soldiers who wrote these receipts 
seem to have been mostly Graeco- 
Egyptian and Hellenistic, names like 
Besarion (No. 7), Dioscoros (No. 4), 
Nilos (No. 6), Ammonios (No. g) being 
the most usual; in some instances a 
Roman name is prefixed (Nos. 6, 7, 8). 
Naturally most of the writers are 
privates (στρατιώτης) or troopers 
(ἱππεύς); but other ranks are some- 
times mentioned, such as a_ custos 
armorum,’ in No. 8, a tesserarius in 
No. 6, a signifer in No. 9, an optio® in 
Nos. 10, 11, a dromadarius® also twice 
occurs (Nos. 12, 13). 

Unfortunately the names of the units 
stationed at Pselcis are never mentioned 
in the ostraca, individuals being identi- 
fied merely by the century (usually 
abbreviated X; once #, occasionally in 
full κεντουρία) or the turma (always 
symbolized by ¥) to which they be- 
longed; the officers name _ being 
always added. Officers appear to have 
been sometimes of western origin—if 
the names Sabinus (Nos. 5, II, etc.), 
Antonius (No. 7), Longinus (Nos. 12, 
13), are any guide—and sometimes 
Hellenistic or Grzco-Egyptian—e.g., 
Glycon (Nos. 13, 17), Hermeinos (No. 
14), Alexander (No. 8). 

The official addressed was styled 
κιβαριάτωρ, a title representing a Latin 
cibariator; neither form is to be found 


7 Cp. Bates, Rock Inscrs. near Dakka (in 
Bull. of the Arch. Survey of Nubia, No. 5), 
Station 1, Nos. 6-7 ἀυρηλις | Ἑρμεινια [νος 
appopo | κουστορ σταΪτιωναρις. Also P. Hambd, 
39. p. 175; Ὁ. G. U. 344, 14; and Lesquier, 
L’ Armée Romaine, p. 229, and App. I., Inscr. 13 
(=Maspero, Amn. du Service des Ant. IX. 
267 ff.). 

8 Cp. Wilcken’s Nos. 1130 ff. 

9 Cp. Eph. Epigr. VII. 463; P. Oxyr. 1652 
(unpublished); 4.G.U. 696, 14, 30. and 827 
verso. 


——— ee 


Eee eeEeEeEOoeEEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEE 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 51 


in the Lexica.! In the present series 
there is a good deal of variance as to 


the orthography of the Greek form, 


which is spelt (in the dative) κεβαριατορι 
(No. 6), κιβαριατωρι (No. 9), κειβαρια- 
twpt (No. 8), κιβαρειατορι (No. 7), and 
once κε]βαριατωνί. The second « is 
represented in all examples save one 
(No. 5), and Wilcken? therefore appears 
to be mistaken in judging that κιβαρά- 
toap—cibarator are the true forms. 
Similarly the department administered 
by this official is variously rendered (in 
the genitive) xiBapiov, κιβαρειου, and 
κειβαριου, reproducing the Latin czba- 
γί. The function of the czbariator 
was to issue wine (or money for the 
purchase of wine, see below) to troops 
from whose pay the price was deducted.? 
In No. 10 he is distinguished from the 
optio, who was responsible for ‘dry 
rations.’ Yet from No. 14 it appears 
that he also dispensed salt, lentils and 
vinegar—the last named article being 
also mentioned in No. 16. 

The amount of wine issued is deter- 
mined (a) by its value alone (see 
Nos. 4, 9), or by the vessels in which it 
was contained, the value being added 
in this case also. Two such vessels— 
obviously of standard capacity—are 
mentioned: (1) The tpsxépapov* (ab- 
breviated τρί", see Nos. 15, 19), always 
a neuter noun (Nos. ΤΟ, 11), seems to 
be otherwise unknown; for the form 
Cp. τρίχυρον, τριμάτιον, τριχοίνικος. AS 
the dsmdoxépapos® was equivalent to 
two κέραμοι or κεράμια, so the τρικέραμον 
had the capacity-of three κέραμοι. Its 
value seems to have fluctuated; in 
No. 10 it 15 worth 3 denarii and -20 
obols, while in No. 13 two τρικ. are 
valued at 5 denarii and 9 obols. (2) The 
κολοφώνιον (abbreviated xo*, see Nos. 7, 


1 The word has not previously occurred 
except in Wilcken’s Nos. 1142, 1265. 

me 

3 Rations were issued to troops; but unlike 
the modern rations their value was deducted 
from the soldiers’ pay. John the Baptist (St. 
Luke iii. 14) may therefore have had reason to 
advise the soldiers to be content with their 
rations (ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις ὑμῶν). 

4 Τὴ Wilcken’s No. 1129, 1]. 4, τρικέραμον 
κοπτικόν is probably to be read. Presumably 
it was a vessel of standard shape and size 
manufactured at Coptos (the modern Kift, some 
distance north of Luxor). 

5 See Wilcken, I., p. 759. 


16) again had a definite capacity, as 
Wilcken® after some hesitation re- 
cognises. Once more the value is 
uncertain; in No. 5 two colophoma are 
worth 4 denarii and 15 obols, in No. 7 
one colophonion is priced at 3 denarii, 
in No. 8 at 2 denarii and 2 drachme, 
in No. 17 at 3 denarii and 6 obols. 

In some instances (Nos. 14, 18, 20 7) 
the receipt is not for wine, but for a 
sum of money paid over by the cibaria- 
tor to soldiers to purchase their own 
supplies; in others (Nos. 6, 6*, τι, 22) 
the issue is in kind, but the price is left 
undetermined ‘ until the value is fixed.’ 

Where the recipient was illiterate, 
his receipt could be written for him by 
a comrade, who usually added his own 
name and the unit to which he be- 
longed (No. 7 is exceptional), some- 
times stating that the author of the 
receipt ‘did not know letters’ (Nos. 
S21): 

The receipt ordinarily closes with the 
date, in terms of the regnal year (L= 
ἔτους) of the ruling Emperor,’ followed 
by the day of the (Egyptian) month. 

Certain subscriptions often follow the 
main text, such as the formulze συνεὺυ- 
δοκῶ (No. 23°), σεσημειῶμαι (Nos. 4, 
21°), the countersignature dua . . 4 
(Nos. 17, 19, 20); the directions τοῖς 
λιβραρίοις (No. 18), τοῖς κουράτορσι 
(Nos. 15, 193). Finally the amount of 
wine issued, or the value, are frequently 
summarised below, no doubt to facilitate 
reference (Nos. 16, 18-21). 


I. Πετεησις Ueddsov σιτολογος [Ψελ- 
κεως ? 
καὶ ανω τοποὺ της LB σχοινοῦυ ἴδια... 


81. p. 764; cp. No. 1265 (in No. 1166 kod 
perhaps=xodoponov). No doubt the term 
originally denoted a peculiar type of wine 
vessel exported from Colophon; but this re- 
stricted sense is quite absent in this ostraca. 
An exact analogy is provided by the term 
κνίδιον οἴνου in an anecdote concerning the 
Egyptian monk Sisoes (see Apophth. Pair. : 
Sisoes VIII.) : cp. Wilcken I. 765. 

7 Cp. Wilcken, Nos. 1142, 1265. 

8 The persons named in this and the earlier 
Dakka series are often the same. Presumably 
therefore Wilcken’s dating (I. 705) for the 
earlier series applies equally to the later. ~ 

9 See Wilcken, I., p. 83: B.G.U., 834, 24. 

10 See Wilcken, I., p. 83, Nos. 1131, 1132. 

11 For the significance of this, see Wilcken, 
I. 128. 


52 


Quis W 


‘THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 
vuxou Πετεφίλου Ce >yxLdovT0s [τινα 


μερη 3 
της σιτολογίας ἐμετρησεν Ουχατεΐς 
νουφισυ υ(περ)ὴ ονοματος Ψενπανΐ 


τιαπις ο»ς υ(περ ?) Μετακωλυσεωςΐ 


ve L καί |x 
TOmov =Tomapxtas. ῖ 
Ξε εγχειρίζοντος. 
νουφισυ (526). 
Μετακωλυσεως (5Ζε) : 


place-name. 


2. 


A list of payments of κολλοροβοι (otherwise 


Απολλως πολλωτος Kat a- 
δελῴος κολλοροβοι ἕ 
Ἀρεωτης αλιεὺυς ὕπερ ναυ- 
λου κολλοροβον ἃ 
Τοχαμανις ΤΠ]ετερμουθου 
και Τανουβις Αθασιδος 


ΕΊΣ. 


Πασεῴφαυς Ασκλατος κολλο- 
ροβοι γ. ἶ 


unknown) or ‘ gum-plants.’ 


2. 


eal 


[. . . -] ewty αἰδης ἢ στρα-] 
[Tew | της αὶ Ποσ[ειδω-] 
νιου κιβαρει [ατοριῇ 
χαίρειν * ὠὡμολογίω εἰλη-] 
φηναι Tapacov εἶκ του 
[κιβ]αρειου owov |. . . 

Ul is) is 


ae 


X= kevToupias. 


Avocxopos Δί 
Πετρωνιω [χαίρειν *] 
εσχον παρα σίου απο) 
Tins οινου δηναρι- 


α δυο Lim 
[ 1ιβ 
εσημιοσομὴν 


See Wilcken, I. 83, and cp. No. 21 (below). 


lovAsos Teppavos στρατιω(της) 

x YaBewos lletpwviw κιβαρατορι 
χαίρειν  ἐλαβον Tapa σ(ου)οινου 

κολοφονια δυο δηναριων 

τεσαρων οβ(ολων) τε 1, ὃς ὃ οβ. τε 
L uf 7 Exayopevo(v) ὃ Πασιον. 


κιβαρατορι (522) : cp. Wilcken, No. 1265. 
L=yiyvera, ‘total.’ »* -- δηναρίων" 
Ιουλις Neros emm[evs] 

ἘΞ Aovytve Are[Eavdpo] 
κιβαριατορι χαιίρειν " ελαβον) 
mapacov δινου κ[οὁλοφωνιον Eas | 
συντιμιθη β.1. .. 

τεσσεραριοΐς εγραψα ὑπερ αυτου] 


Grenfell suggests a 


6%. . . . .]ὴς ἐππεὺυς F Γεμέλλου 


κ)ιβαριατωρι yarpew 
ἔλαβον ta|pa σου εκ Tov κιβαρ- 
tov οινου] κολοφωνιν ev ews συΐν- 
τιμηθη] L in 7 Φαοωφι K 
leypayra 


ὃὁρασαῖ Liu). %e 

λεων Βησαριων 

ὑππεὺς F Αντωνι(ου) 

Πετρωνίω κιβαρειατορι 

χαιρειν ᾿ ἐλαβον Tapa cov εκ του 
κιβαρειου οἱ" κοὶ εν X Υ 

Lif 2 Μεχειρ ta 

Τρρισκος Appo- 

νίανος eypa- 


ψα. 


6 --οινί(ου) κολ(οφωνιον)ὴ ev (δηναριων) (τριων). 


8. 


Io. 


II. 


M Αυρηλις Ασκληπίαδης Ep . . 

X Αλεξανδρου Ἰ]ετρωνιου (sic) κειβα- 
ριατωρι. 

χαίρειν ἔλαβον παρα σου owov 
κολοφονιν 

εν δηναρίων δυο δραχμας δυο Μαρκ 
[os ? | 

Αυρηλίος Ὥριων Σαραπίων appwpe 
(v) 

KovoTwp εγραψα u(mep) avTov μὴ 
pooros... ἢ pias 

ypappata L κ 95 Mecopn t8 


Appovis Appovis onpe- 

adopos Αλεξανδρω κιβαρια- 

τωρι Katpey * ἔλαβον εκ TOU 

κιβαριου owov δηναρια 

οκτω οβολί(ων) οκτω * ἢ οβολ ἢ 

αν ον 
. εγαψ[α] L om Mao 16 


Νεφερως Νεῴφερωτος 
οπτίων Αλεξανδρῳ κει- 
βαριατορι χαίρειν * ἔλαβον 
παρα TOV OLVOU τρικεραμον 
εν ὃς τρίων οβολων εἰκοσι 
L τὴ 4 Φαμενωθ x. 


[ Ἴδίανος X Σαβινου 
... κιβαριατ)οριχαιρειν᾽ eXaBov 
Hie σου οἰνου τριΐκεραμον ev axpt 
συν- ia re 

[ 11, ιζ 7 Φαμενωθ ta 


[ 7. eweus οπτίων εγραψα 


3 axpe ovv-|[apoews? (cp. Wilcken, No, 1135: 


5. 


aypt Noyou συναρσεως). 


12. 


13: 


14. 


15. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Αντωνις ἱεραξ δρομαδαρί(ιος) ¥ [Aov- 


γεινου] 

Πετρονίω κιβαριατορι χαιρίειν " 
ελαβον] 

παρα σου εκ του κιβαριουΐ 7 


και τρικαίραμον εἶν δηναριων TpLov ? | 
oxt@ οβολίων 


Αντωνιος Ἱεραξ δρομί αδαριος] 

+ Λονγεινου Πετρων ω κιβαρια- 
τορι] 

χαίρειν " ἔλαβον παρα ἴσου ex του] 

κιβαριου οινου τρικεραῖΐμα β (3) 


δηνα- hi 
ρίων πεντε οβο(λων) @ [ ] 
νιδης στρα(τιωτης) Χἅ [ἴ᾿λυκίωνος 
εγραψα!] 


Πρίσκος Ιίαυλος ππεὺυς 
Ἔ Ερμεινου Ἀπολλοτι κει- 
βαριατωρι χαίρειν * ehaBov 
παρα cov απὸ Tins φακου 
Kal ados και οἕεος δηναρι- 
a τεσσερα οβολοι 
οκτο Ly 4 Tupi γ 

ypa (510) 


εγραψα] ιδια χιρι 
δὲ ρμινος Tupavos 
κουραῖ TPL" ἃ 
κουραῖ τρι" ἃ 


Ξε κουρατορσι (curatoribus) τριίκεραμον ev. 
Iletpwus χιριστη- 


ς κοὶ ἃ οξιδιν 
α 


2 οξιδι -ο:- ν, a jar of vinegar. 


17. 


18. 


[. . . .] δοντης στρατιωτης [Χ] 
λυκωνος Iletpaviw τω 
κιβαριατωρι χαιρειν * ἔλαβον 
παρα cov εκ του κιβαριοῦυ οἰνου 
κολοφωνιίον εν δηναρίων 
τρίων οβολί(ων) ζ αυτος [εγραψα) 
Liav Ered . 

δὲ ρμίεινου ᾽] 


Δίδυμος Παχωμ[ιου ? 

Αλεξανδρω κιβαριαΐτορι χαίρειν " 
ἐλαβον] 

[rapa] σου απο τιμης owl ου δηναρια 


ὃ (2)] 


53 
L ty 2 Τυβι τ eypalyra ιδια χείρι ἢ 
τοις λιβραριοις 
θὃ 
5 Second hand. 
6 --δηναριων ἢ τεσσαρων (third hand), 
19. Πὸοσιτος κοινωδις 
τοῖς L°” tpt a 
δια ἸΠισαν (second hand) 
a 
2 Perhaps=rots κουράτορσι : cp. No. 15. 
20. Eppeuvos A Laure στρατιωτης] 
X ΤρουννιουΪ. .. κιβαρια-] 


Tope χαιρειῖν * ἔλαβον παρα] 
σου ὑπίερ) τιμίης owov δηνα-] 
ρίων δυο oB[or... . 
Avocxopos [Ιαλ΄ 
δια Tpovv<v tou 
6B 


8 (Second hand)=68nvapiwy δυο. cp. No. 18. 


21. : : Ὁ : 
[- . . «Jove Epper| 
pe xatpew * ἔλαβον πίαρα σου 
ex Tov xiBapuov . . . [ 
owvou * B Kpputov 
VLoS aUTOU εγραψα ὑπερ αὐτου 
μη ειδίοτος) γράμματα 
[11] τε Tawvar ὃ 
*B 
σεσημίο- 
pe (sic) 
9-10 Ξεσεσημειῶμαι : see Wilcken, I., p. 83, 
and cp. No. 4. 


22. | |rer [ 

[ΑλεξΊανδρου κιΐ βαριατορι χαιρ-] 
[εἰν eda|Bov παρα σου baleen 
[tptxepa] μον ev LZ 

[ ] ¢ ews συντιμηθν (510) 


[κιβαριατοΊ]ρι χ[αιρειν ᾿ ehaBov Tapa 
σου 

[οἱνου κο]χλοφωνι(ον) εν δ[ηναριων 
τεσ- ti 

[σαρων 1, 1 Emig κ Ἰουλιος [ 

[συνε]υδωκω καὶ εγραψα [ 

[- - (])ς συνευδωκω και εγραψα 

[. .] lepa& κι (sic) 

κ Ko’ β. Δυρηλις Eppl 
δὲ 


HucH G. EVELYN WHITE. 


54 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


ON THE DATE OF THE HERAKLES OF EURIPIDES. 


THE Herakles of Euripides is one of 
those plays concerning the date of 
whose first performance the gram- 
marians are silent,! but study and con- 
jecture have done much to remedy this 
defect,? placing the date almost cer- 
tainly between 425 and 418% and 
probably between 423 and 420,2 one 
editor at least giving it as his opinion, 
‘if a definite year is to be named,’ that 
the play was first performed in 423.° 
We would submit a series of considera- 
tions tending to confirm these con- 
jectures, and to place the date of the 
performance of the Herakles in 422. 

Firstly, the opening scene shows us 
the suppliants at an altar—the altar, 
we are definitely informed, of Ζεὺς 
σωτήρ! the locality, though not in 
Thebes itself, is in the territory so 
called,”? and the spot represented is an 
open space in front of the present home 
of Herakles and his family. 

Now in the territory of Thebes there 
were probably several sanctuaries and 
images of Herakles in the fifth century 
B.c.; there certainly were many in the 
time of Pausanias;® but of images of 
Zeus the Saviour in that region there 
is, as far as I know, only mention of 
one—namely, that at Thespiae.® At 
Thespiae there was also, in Pausanias’ 
time, a sanctuary of Herakles,!° and if 
the image and sanctuary existed in the 
fifth century, the combination of the 
two would have been calculated, we 
may reasonably suppose, to bring 
Thespiae to the minds of the audience 
who attended the performance of the 
Herakles in the theatre of Dionysus. 


1 The Hypothesis may have contained these 
particulars, but it is not complete in the MSS. 

2 See especially Miss Grace McCurdy’s 
Chronology of the Extant Plays of Euripides 
and Wilamowitz, Herakles, 13, p. 134 ff. 

3 Euripides, Heracles, with introduction and 
notes by O. R. A. Byrde, M.A. Oxford, 1914. 

4 Euripidis Fabulae, ed. G. Murray, Vol. 11., 
Heracles. 

5 0. R. A. Byrde, of. cit. 8 1. 48. - 

* Four Plays of Euripides, by A. W. Verrall, 
p. 142. 

® Pans. TX. ἀτὸ 4 and 635 ΙΧ 240.38 Ix 25.4? 
IX. 26,50 27. Ὁ ἀπ 8); Txgss2.-2cand tae 
ἘΝ 34.55: 1%.'38..6. 


® Paus. IX. 26. 7. 10 ΡΟ ΘΙ ἡ 27. θὲ 


Now we submit that the fact that 
Pausanias not only states the existence 
of an image of Zeus the Saviour and of 
a sanctuary of Herakles at Thespiae, 
but goes at some length into their 
respective rvatsons d’étre is enough to 
justify a strong presumption that the 
image and sanctuary were of some 
renown and of considerable antiquity in 
his time. 


It is true that the altar to Zeus the © 


Saviour, at which Amphitryon is a 
suppliant, is said by him to have been 
raised by Herakles in thanksgiving for 
his victory over the Minyans;" but of 
this altar, if such a one ever actually 
existed, we appear to have no historical 
record, whereas the image at Thespiae 
was apparently well known in_ later 
times. 

Now in the summer of the year 423, 
“Θηβαῖοι Θεσπιέων τεῖχος περιεῖλον, 
ἐπικαλέσαντες ἀττικισμὸν, βουλόμενοι 
μὲν καὶ ἀεὶ, παρεστηκὸς δὲ ῥᾷον, ἐπειδὴ 
καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους μάχῃ ὅ, τι ἣν 
αὐτῶν ἄνθος ἀπολώλει. "2 

The battle referred to is the engage- 
ment at Tanagra in 424, in which the 
Thespians suffered most severely : ‘ uzro- 
χωρησάντων yap αὐτοῖς τῶν παρατετα- 
γμένων, καὶ κυκλωθέντων ἐν ὀλίγῳ, οἵπερ 
διεφθάρησαν Θεσπιέων, ἐν χερσὶν ἀμυνό- 
μένοι KATEKOT NO AV. και τινες καὶ τῶν 
᾿Αθηναίων, διὰ τὴν κύκλωσιν ταραχθέντες, 
ἠγνόησάν τε καὶ ἀπέκτειναν ἀλλήλους. 15 

If the Thebans had long wished to 
punish the Thespians for atticism, we 
must assume they had some reason for 
doing so, especially in view of the brave 
stand the latter had made at Tanagra; 
in other words, the Thespians must at 
some time have given help to the 
Athenians. It would, under the cir- 
cumstances, be only natural for a 
strong feeling to prevail at Athens that 
the Athenians ought to march out 
against the Thebans and help the 
Thespians, who at some previous time 
had given succour to the Athenians 
and thus incurred ruin on their ac- 
count. 


ΠΣ 


12 Thucydides, IV. 133. 
13 Thuc. IV. 96. 


> 


ee ee ee ae ee 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 55 


Signs are not wanting to show that 
the Herakles may well have been a play 
with a partly political motive—namely, 
the encouragement of the feeling 
against the Thebans and in favour of 
the Thespians. 

Reading the lines 217-235, we see 
they might well have been spoken by 
some aged Thespian, powerless to de- 
fend his city from the dishonour im- 
posed upon it by Thebes: 


ὦ γαῖα Kdduou: καὶ yap és σ᾽ ἀφίξομαι 
λόγους ὀνειδιστῆρας ἐνδατούμενος " 

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀμύνεθ᾽ Ἡρακλεῖ τέκνοισί τε ; 

ὃς εἷς Μινύαισι πᾶσι διὰ μάχης μολὼν 
Θήβαις ἔθηκεν ὄμμ᾽ ἐλεύθερον βλέπειν. 

οὐδ᾽ ᾿Ελλάδ᾽ ἤνεσ᾽.- οὐδ᾽ ἀνέξομαί ποτε 
σιγῶν---κακίστην λαμβάνων ἐς παῖδ᾽ ἐμὸν, 
ἣν χρῆν νεοσσοῖς τοῖσδε πῦρ λόγχας ὅπλα 
φέρουσαν ἐλθεῖν, ποντίων καθαρμάτων 
χέρσου T ἀμοιβάς---ὧν ἐμόχθησας χάριν. 

τὰ δ᾽, ὦ τέκν᾽, ὑμῖν οὔτε Θηβαίων πόλις 
οὔθ᾽ Βλλὰς ἀρκεῖ" πρὸς δ᾽ ἔμ᾽ ἀσθενῆ φίλον 
δεδόρκατ᾽, οὐδὲν ὄντα πλὴν γλώσσης ψόφον. 
ῥώμη γὰρ ἐκλέλοιπεν ἣν πρὶν εἴχομεν, 

γήρᾳ δὲ τρομερὰ γυῖα κἀμαυρὸν σθένος. 

εἰ δ᾽ ἢ νέος τε κἄτι σώματος κρατῶν, 

λαβὼν ἂν ἔγχος τοῦδε τοὺς ξανθοὺς πλόκους 
καθῃμάτωσ᾽ ἅν, ὥστ᾽ ᾿Ατλαντικῶν πέραν 
φεύγειν ὅρων ἂν δειλίᾳ τοὐμὸν δόρυ. 


Other passages of this nature are not 
wanting in our play.? 

It may be objected that the Athe- 
nians would hardly wish to help men 


who, like the Thespians, had fought 
against them, and fought bravely and 
well. To this the latter part of our 
play may perhaps furnish some answer: 
‘The moment’s madness when Athe- 
nians fought against Thespians (aye, 
and Athenians against Athenians too!) 
on the field of Tanagra, is past! 
Thespiae has paid for it, and paid 
dearly, by the loss of the flower of her 
sons! Shall Athens let her go down in 
utter ruin, that Thespiae who helped 
her in other days? Surely it is in- 
conceivable.’ 

We think we are justified in seeing 
some trace of such an idea in the play 
before us, and in applying it in support 
of the contention that the Herakles was 
performed at the City Dionysia of 422. 

Another slight indication, apparently 
pointing in the same direction, may 
perhaps be found in ll. 1303-1310, and 
in other slighting references to the 
goddess Hera, passim, in view of the 
fact that the temple of that goddess at 
Argos was burnt down in the summer 
of 423;” but this is more likely to be a 
chance coincidence. 

J. A. SPRANGER. 

Florence, 1919. 


1 E.g., ll. 312-326, 498-502. 


2 FhucwEVe 233: 


ADDITIONS TO THE 


PROFESSOR GRENFELL has kindly 
given me some further references to 
Greek Papyri, which complete the 
additions to the Greek Anthology up to 
the present time. See the classification 
in Classical Review, XXXII. 187, and 
XXXITI. 36. 

Additions to Class 1: P. Petrie ii. 
XLIX. (δ). p. 158, ed. Mahaffy. Of the 
third century B.c. ; inthe Bodleian; the 
first of the series of Anthologies which 
have been discovered. It contains 
fragments of four-lined poems by writers 
named ([Sosi-?]phanes, Aristarchus, 
[ Pol-? ]ydamas, (or [Ast ]ydamas, Gren- 
fell), Cratinus: this is more likely than 
that the poems are addressed to these 
persons. 

Additions to Class 3: P. Freiburg; 
W. Aly in Sitzungsb. Heidelberg Akad. 


GREEK ANTHOLOGY. 


1014. Fragments of two anonymous 
Epigrams in which Erginus, the helms- 
man of the Argo, is mentioned, and 
also under the title of ᾿Ηρακλεώτης, 
Idmon; see Schol. Ap. Rhod. ti. 845. 
Aly quotes Callim. Fr. 197, “Epyivos 
Κλυμένου ἔξοχος ἐν σταδίῳ, and since 
*Epyivos in the Papyrus stands as the first 
word in a pentameter, and the next and 
only letter is a doubtful σ, he sees an 
‘attractive coincidence,’ and thinks that 
this may be a fragment of Callimachus. 

Revue de Plulologie, XIX. 177=P. 
Brit. Mus. 256, by F.G. Kenyon; Papy- 
rus of the first half of the first century ; 
H. Weil, zbid., p. 180. An anonymous 
elegiac poem of fourteen lines on the 
conquest of Egypt by Augustus, and 
in commemoration of the battle of 
Actium. Since the title Σεβαστός ap- 


56 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


pears, the epigram was not composed 
before 27 B.c. The author was pro- 
bably a Greek of Alexandria. The 
poem contains some bold and striking 
expressions, such as εἰρήνης εὐώπιδος, 
and αἰῶνος στόμασιν βεβοημένε. 

A Papyrus at Hamburg, published 
by Wilamowitz in Sitzungsb. preuss. 
Akad. 1918, p. 736, of the middle of the 
third century B.c. Seventeen mutilated 
lines of an elegiac poem giving the 
account of the interview of an envoy 
witha king. Since θοῦρος ἀνὴρ Γαλάτης 
is mentioned, with a description of the 
Gauls’ hardy life, the poem seems to 
have narrated some incident of the 
Gauls’ invasion of Asia and their settle- 
ment: These references point to Atta- 
lus I., and, if one may conjecture the 
name of the author, it might be Musaeus 
of Ephesus, who, according to Suidas, 
wrote poems on Eumenes and Attalus 
(not necessarily Attalus II., as Susemihl 
suggests). Wilamowitz however thinks 
that the pressure of some danger points 
to the king being a Seleucid. The 
style is vigorous, but not quite as 
polished as the best Alexandrian. Since 
we know so little of this period of Greek 
history, this fragment is particularly 
tantalising. 

P. Petrie ii. XLIX. (a), p. 1573; in 
the British Museum. Fragments of a 
Hellenistic poem, called by O. Crusius 
in Philologus, 1894, p. 12, ‘ein Hoch- 
zeitsgedicht ?’ It exhibits all,the signs 
of the Callimachean school, recondite 
allusion, rare words, polished metre. 

P. Oxyrh. 15, third century. Short 
songs for the flute ending with the note 
αὔλει μοι, as Wilamowitz has rightly 
divided αὐυλειμοι: Gott. Gel. Anz. 1808, 


695. The lines appears to be ἑξάμετροι 
μειούροι. ἊΝ. Cronert in Archiv f. Pap. 
Το 15: 


Additions to Class 3, 6: Fragments 
of Epigrams of the τίνας ἂν εἴποι λόγους 
type, P. Oxyrh. 671. ‘The abbrevia- 
tions ἐν or vw may give the name of 
the poet, c.g. Nicarchus’ (Grenfell and 
Hunt). 

Mélanges Nicole, p. 615=P. Heidel- 
berg 1273, edited by G. A. Gerhard 
and O. Crusius; of the sixth century. 
Six exercises on mythological subjects, 
‘the most trivial school mythology.’ 
With them may be compared the seven 
Hexameters in Philologus, 1905, 145, of 
Nonnus’ time= Bull. Corr. Hellén. 1904, 
p- 208. ; 

Addition to Class 4: P. Freiburg 4, 
of the first century B.c.; W. Aly in 
Sitzungsb. Heidelb. Akad. 1914, p. 58, 
containing fragments of the Epigram 
of Posidippus in Anth. Pal. XVI. 119. 
The author’s name 15 conjecturally 
inserted by Aly; it is a pity that it 
has disappeared from the text, since it 
might have thrown light on the question 
who the author was, for in the view of 
P. Schott, the editor of Posidippus, p. 53, 
it was not Posidippus. 

Addition to Class 4, 3: Fragments of 
Meleager’s Epigram in Anthol. Pal. V. 
151 (152 Paton); Wilamowitz in Szt- 
zuntsb. preuss. Akad. 1918, p. 750. It 
is a small fragment which joins on to 
the end of the Epigrams by Meleager 
published in the Berlin Klass. Texte, V. 
I, 75. It is interesting as confirming 
the conjecture of Pierson and Graefe, 
accepted by Mr. Paton, but not by 
Stadtmueller or Duebner, dopa, for 
δοραῖς of Pal. 

J. U. POWELL. 


NIHIL IN OVID. 


In the Classical Quarterly for 1916, 
vol. X pp. 138 f., 1 considered Lach- 
mann’s doctrine of the Ovidian prosody 
of mil together with the evidence 
alleged against it, and concluded that 
judgment on the controversy must be 
held in suspense. Before proceeding 
further let me rehearse the facts and 
contentions. It is Lachmann’s precept, 


delivered in Ki. Schr. 11 p. 59 and at 
Lucr. I 159, that Ovid used only με 
and nihil, not πῆμ. For nthil he ad- 
duced 


met. VII 644 in superis opis esse wzfz/. at in 
aedibus ingens, 

trist. V 14 41 morte whi? opus est pro me sed 
amore fideque, 

ex Pont. III τ 113 morte w#zhz/ opus est, n(ih)il 
Icariotide tela ; 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 57 


to which I added 


met. XIV 24 fine mihzl opus est ; partem ferat 
illa caloris, 


where the main tradition of the MSS is 
corrupt and gives fineque mil or rather 


et neque ml. The one instance of nihdl 
which he found, 


her. XIX 170 exiguum, sed plus quam #zhzi, 
illud erat, 


he reckoned among the features assign- 
ing that epistle to another hand than 
Ovid’s. Merkel opposed him with 


frist. V ὃ 2 te quoque sim, inferius quo xzhil 
esse potest, 


and Lucian Mueller with 


trist. 1V 8 38 mitius inmensus quo zzfz/ orbis 
habet ; 


but I remarked that the distich con- 
taining the former of these two examples 
is on other grounds suspect, and that 
the latter could, if need were, be re- 
moved by an easy and even plausible 
transposition. Wherever else in Ovid’s 
text the form nil is followed by a 
vowel, the metre allows nil; and the 
spelling of MSS, which often offer nihil 
where only zz is metrical, has no claim 
to represent the spelling or pronuncia- 
tion of the author. 

I can now settle the question by 
means of an observation which I ought 
to have made before, and so indeed 
ought Lachmann. I have collected all 
the verses in which this word, call it 
ml or nihil, constitutes the latter half 
of the first. foot. There are twenty 
examples, or, if a suspected epistle is 
included, twenty-one; and they are 
these. 

her. XVII 127 sed zzhz7 infirmo. 
art. 1 519 et zhz7 emineant. 
art. 11 280 si mzzZ attuleris. 
remed. 410 et 1212} est. 
met. V1 465 et 22hz/ est. 
met. VII 830 quod zhi est. 
met. 1X 628 ut 2zhi/ adiciam. 
met. X 520 et nzhil est. 
met. XIII 266 at "22 inpendit. 
fast. 1 445 sed 222 ista. 

- trist. 1 ὃ ὃ et 22.122} est. 
trist. V αὶ 51 si mzfzl infesti. 
trist. V 14 26 et nzhzl officio. 
ex Pont. 11 2 56 an uzhz/ expediat. 
ex Pont. 11 3 33 te zzhzl ex. 
ex Pont. 11 7 46 et uzhzl inueni. 
ex Pont. III i 47 ut wzhz7 ipse. 
ex Pont. Il 1 127 qua 7217} in. 


ex Pont. \V 8 15 at nzhzl hic. 
ex Pont. 1V 14 23 sed zzhz/ admisi. 
Lb. 284 cui 7111 rethei. 


Eighteen where the MSS have nzthil, 
three where they have mil. But, with 
the single exception of the last instance, 
the word, however spelt, is always fol- 
lowed by a vowel; and that exception 
is of the sort which proves a rule. In 
the couplet 


nec tibi subsidio praesens sit numen, ut illi 
cui nil rethei profuit ara Louis, 


vethet, which can only be interpreted 
Rhoetet, is rejected by the sense, which 
demands Hercet; and so vanishes the 
consonant. Now this perpetually at- 
tendant circumstance can be no result 
of chance. Words having the metrical 
properties of nl are often placed by 
Ovid in this part of the verse with a 
consonant after them: remed. 138 ‘ haec 
sunt iucundi’, 426 ‘non sunt iudiciis’, 
507 ‘nec dic blanditias’, 694 ‘nec dic 
quid’, 701 ‘nec mos purpureas’. zl 
itself is so placed by other poets: 
Luer: II’) 7 “sed, nil dulets 76 
‘si mJ praeterea’ (in both of which 
instances the MSS have wzhil), Hor. 
serm. I i 49 ‘qui mil portarit’, Mart. 
I 98. 2: ‘sed ‘al patrono.”; TE ΘΝ 2 
‘si ml Cinna’. Ovid must have had a 
motive for saddling himself with this 
restriction ; but if he meant the word 
for a monosyllable he can have had 
none. His only imaginable motive was 
to procure a dactyl instead of a spondee 
for the first foot. mzhil therefore in the 
eighteen verses where it occurs is a 
pyrrhic, and ml in the three others 
should be changed to mhil. This may 
be done without scruple; for although 
scribes are less prone to write ml for 
mhil than nihil for nil, the error is both 
common and early: Band R are two 
of Horace’s best and oldest MSS, yet 
the one at carm. I 28 12 and the other 
at IV 2 37 gives mil where the metre 
proves that Horace wrote nihil. And 
mhil was printed in all our three verses 
by Heinsius, who carried into practice 
the rule which Seruius tried and failed to 
formulate at Virg. Aen. VI 104,} and 


1 “si pars sequens orationis a uocali inchoet, 
nihil dicimus, ut (11 402)  heu zzAz7 inuitis fas 
quemquam fidere diuis”; si autem a conson- 
ante inchoet, 2227 ponimus, ut Iuuenalis (IV 22) 


58 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


read nijil wherever metre gave him the 
chance, without regard to the spelling 
of the MSS. Merkel’s practice on the 
other hand was to preserve the spelling 
of the MSS unless metre forbade him ; 
and at met. XIII 266 and fast. I 445 he 
has been followed by all subsequent 
editors in retaining uz/, which Guethling 


and I retained also at 710. 284 when 


changing rethei to Hercei, because it was 
irrational to introduce mt/ul in this verse 
and not in the other two. But the 
facts which I have just set forth put a 
new complexion on the case, and show 
that Ovid wrote nihil in all three places. 

In the second and third and fourth 
foot of the hexameter the case stands 
otherwise, and Ovid unquestionably 
admitted ml, as at met. XV 92 ‘terra 
creat, mil te nisi tristia mandere saeuo ’, 
amor. II 1 1g ‘ Juppiter, ignoscas: nal 
me tua tela iuuabant’,-ex Pont. 117 ‘a 
quotiens dixi: certe mil turpe docetis’. 
But yet verses where a vowel follows 
and leaves the form of the word in 
doubt are much more numerous: met. 
VII 567 ‘utile enim nihil est’, XV 177, 
tvist: 11 295, L114 51, ex Pont. 1 2 65; 
amor. III 8 29 ‘mil esse potentius 
AUFO NM, Farts 11 e305, 500. 6 ΜΝ ἸΖΖῚ, 
VI 25, 305, VII 67, XIII 100, XIV 730, 
XV 165, 620, fast. V1‘ 177, trist..1 2 23; 
Τ1 25. If 259; LI] 1:9, τῷ 23,' ex: Pont. 
Ill r 113, her. XX gq; met. III 590 
‘nthil ille reliquit’, V 273, VI 685, IX 
75. 0% Pont, Vx 20.7225... he MSS 
or the best part of them (except that at 
met. XV 165 authority is about equally 
divided) give mil in all these verses, 
and so does Heinsius; Merkel and his 
followers diverge at one place only, 
trist. III 13 23 ‘nihil exorantia diuos’, 
where all of them except Guethling 
print ni, though four out of the five 
best MSS have mil. In two verses 
mil is certainly to be preferred, met. V 
273 ‘sed (uetitum est adeo sceleri zhzl) 
omnia terrent’ and VI 685 ‘ast, ubi 
blanditiis agitur hil, horridus ira’, 
where nil would create a rhythm less 
acceptable to Ovid. Some might say 


“nil tale expectes : emit sibi. multa uidemus”’. 
One sees what he wants to say, though he has 
not said it: he does not really mean that he 
writes or pronounces ‘te sine #z/z7 altum mens 
incohat’ in georg. III 42, nor ‘ille 221, nec me 
quaerentem uana moratur’ in Aen. 11 287. 


that at three other places we have guid- 
ance for our choice: that in met. XIII. 
100 ‘luce mhil gestum, nihil est Diomede 
remoto’ and XV. 629 ‘temptamenta 
mhil, nihil artes posse medentum’ the one 
nihil defends the other, and that in art. 
II 365 ‘mil Helene peccat, mhil hic com- 
mittitadulter’ / in the first place recom- 
mends nil in the second. But any such 
expectation of uniformity is shown to 
be fallacious by Catull. 17 21 ‘nzl uidet, 
nilil audit’, 42 21 ‘sed nil proficimus, 
πῆ] mouetur’, 64 146 ‘ml metuunt 
iurare, nihil promittere parcunt’, Virg. 
buc. II 6 f. “ο crudelis Alexi, zhi] mea 
carmina curas? [il nostri miserere?’, 
Sen. Med. 163 ‘ qui nil potest sperare, 
desperet nihil’, Mart. II 3 1 ‘Sexte, 
miul debes, nil debes, Sexte’, Iuu. VI 
212 f. ‘mil umquam inuita donabis 
coniuge, uendes| hac opstante mzhil.’; 
and it is manifest that nothing, neither 
nihél nor nil, can bring about uniformity 
in ex Pont. III 1 113 ‘ morte nihil opus 
est, nthil-Icariotide tela’. 

Ovid’s practice in respect of the first 
foot appears to be that of most dactylic 
poets later than Lucretius. Even in 
Horace and Martial, who allow a con- 
sonant to follow, a vowel is much more 
frequent, and it is invariable in Catullus, 
Virgil, Tibullus, Propertius, Manilius, 
Persius, Calpurnius, the Aetna, Lucan, 
Silius (if I can trust a rapid examina- 
tion)! and Juvenal, though in many of 
them the number of examples is too 
small to establish a rule. 

About Juvenal I have a short story 
to tell. The disputed word forms the 
latter half of the first foot in three 
verses, VI 331 ‘si mtiil est’, VII 54 
‘qui mil expositum’, XIII 18 ‘an 
mul in melius’. Inall three the MSS, 
or most of them, give the form mzhtl, 
and so did the editions down to 1886. 
In that year Buecheler introduced ml 
from the Pithoeanus at VII 54, leaving 
nihil in the two other verses ; and his 
sheep followed him as their tails did 
them. He was disregarding authority 
as well as reason, for m/l is given at 
VII 54 not only by the most and best 
of the inferior MSS but by the lemma 


1 In Valerius Flaccus and Statius I have 
noticed no example of z/z/ or wz in this situa- 
tion. 


THE) CLASSICAL 'REVIEW 59 


of the ancient scholia, which is as good 
a witness as the Pithoeanus itself; but 
reason and authority together are no 
match for that passion of love which is 
inspired in modern scholars by MSS 
whose names begin with a P. In my 
edition of 1905 I made a brief remark 
on the circumstances and restored nihil. 
The result of my action deserves to be 
put on record as exemplifying the 
customs of classical scholarship in the 
twentieth century. Buecheler, though 


placing mz/ in his text, had exhibited in 
his apparatus criticus and in his ex- 
cerpts from the scholia the facts which 
I have stated, ‘nihil S w’, ‘qui nihil 
expositum’. It was safe to print this 
evidence so long as nobody took any 
notice of it; but as soon as I gave it 
effect by promoting zzhil to the text, 
the case was altered. The fetish was 
in danger, the facts must be suppressed, 
and Leo in his edition of Igio sup- 
pressed them. 
A. E. HOuUSMAN. 


PHAEDRUS AND QUINTILIAN I. 9. 2. 
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR POSTGATE. 


In the February—March, 1919, num- 
ber of the Review, Professor Postgate 
writes as follows: 


‘We can hardly doubt that the poet of Ist. 
Or. 1. 9. 2 who composed “ Aesopi fabellas .. . 
sermone puro et nihil se supra modum extol- 
lente” and whose “gracilitas” is to be repro- 
duced in the school exercises, was Phaedrus. 
The Fables then, or rather a selection from 
them, were a schoolbook at Rome towards the 
end of the first century A.D.’ 


With the implied interpretation of 
the passage in question I entirely dis- 
agree. The question whether Phaedrus 
was used as. a school-book at Rome 
is another matter. On this, too, I differ 
from the writer, but I speak with less 
confidence. I may add that the whole 
of the ninth chapter is important in the 
history of ancient schools and well 
worth elucidation. 

The whole passage runs thus: 


‘igitur AESOPI FABELLAS, quae _ fabulis 
nutricularum proxime succedunt, narrare ser- 
mone puro et nihil se supra modum extollente, 
deinde eandem gracilitatem stilo exigere con- 
discant: VERSUS primo solvere, mox mutatis 
verbis interpretari: tum paraphrasi audacius 
vertere, qua et breviare quaedam et exornare 
salvo modo poetae sensu permittitur. quod 
opus, etiam consummatis professoribus (? pro- 
fectibus) difficile, qui commode tractaverit, 
cuicunque discendo sufficiet. SENTENTIAE 
quoque et CHRIAE et ETHOLOGIAE | (? aetio- 
logiae) subiectis dictorum rationibus apud gram- 
maticos scribantur, quia initium ex lectione 
ducunt: quorum omnis similis est ratio, forma 
diversa.’ 5 


This ninth chapter deals with the 
‘progymnasmata’ or forms of exercise 
in original composition, of which we 
have full accounts in Hermogenes (with 


- Aesop or not. 


Priscian’s translation), Aphthonius and 
Theon. All these exercises were, strictly 
speaking, ‘rhetorical,’ being prepara- 
tions for the full dress declamation. 
But Quintilian complains that through 
the laches of the ‘ rhetores’ they had 
fallen into the hands of the ‘gram- 
matici,’ and his object in this chapter 
is to suggest a compromise by which 
the more elementary exercises, and 
these only, might be retained in the 
lower school. From the dozen or more 
in vogue we may say that he selects 
two as suitable for this purpose. The 
first is the μῦθος or, more exactly, μῦθος 
Αἰσώπειος, for our Greek authorities 
are careful to say that what we call 
fables are all known by the name of 
Aesop, whether they were attributed to 
The other is the ‘ Chria’ 
and its varieties the γνώμη or ‘ senten- 
tia’ and the doubtful ‘ethology.’ All 
these are evidently little moral essays, 
founded on some saying or significant 
action, and it will be convenient to 
speak of them under the single name 
of ‘Chria.’ Another exercise, the 
διήγησις, he only accepts under the 
limitation ‘narratiunculas a poetis cele- 
bratas notitiae causa non eloquentiae 
tractandas puto.’ That is, if we come 
across an allusion to Orpheus in our 
books, the ‘grammaticus’ may set the 
boy to write out the story of Orpheus, 
in his own words, to see that he knows 
it, but it should not like the other two 
be used as a set composition. From 
this point of view it is reserved for the 
higher school. 


60 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Now I think it is perfectly clear from 
the words themselves that the injunc- 
tion that boys should learn to tell or 
write fables ‘sermone puro’ or ‘ gracili’ 
has nothing whatever to do with Phae- 
drus or any other fabulist, but merely 
refers to the style required from the 
pupil. And this is confirmed by the 
Greek parallels. Hermogenes says that 
the style in the μῦθος must be περιόδων 
ἀλλοτρία τῆς γλυκύτητος ἐγγύς. Theon, 
who on other grounds puts the χρεία 
before the μῦθος, says that in the latter 
the style must be ἁπλουστέρα than in 
the former. I think Dr. Postgate may 
have been misled by the ‘eandem.’ The 
meaning is, I take it, that the ‘fable’ 
composition has two stages—the first 
oral (what the Germans, I think, calla 
Vortrag), the second written, but in both 
cases the same simplicity of style is 
required. : 

We have now to note that between 
the ‘Aesop fable’ and the ‘Chria’ 
Quintilian interpolates another exercise, 
which is not, strictly speaking, one of 
the ‘ progymnasmata.’ Take a piece of 
verse,! he says, and (1) write it out in 
prose order, (2) suggest synonyms, (3) 
paraphrase, précis, or expand it, while 
retaining the writer’s meaning. The 
directions bear a close resemblance to 
a question which I have often set as an 
examiner in Shakespeare in the Cam- 
bridge Locals, the formula of which 
runs thus: ‘ Put the following passage 
into modern prose so as to bring out 
clearly the full meaning.’ 

When I say that paraphrase was not, 
‘strictly speaking,’ one of the ‘ progym- 
nasmata, I mean that, while it does 
not appear in the detailed accounts, 
Theon does dwell on it in his prefatory 
matter, and it was clearly practised in 
the rhetoric school, though rather as a 
parallel and auxiliary to the declamation 
than as a preliminary. Some surprise 
may be felt that Quintilian, who tells 
us that it is a difficult job even under 
the crack rhetoricians* (much more 
under the ‘ grammaticus’), should advo- 


1 ‘versus’ and ‘ poetae’ of course, because 
no prose was ‘apud grammaticos’ at Rome at 
this time. 

* So Spalding takes ‘ consummatis professori- 
bus,’ but, as he says, it is harsh; on the other 
hand, if we take it as dative the statement seems 
exaggerated. I am much inclined to Sarpe’s 


cate it at this early stage. I suspect 
that he shared the belief which still 
makes me advocate it. The candidates 
often make a terrible mess of it, but I 
hold to it as the best antidote against 
reading poetry without thought for the 
exact meaning. 

I believe then that the words ‘ versus 
.. . permittitur’ have nothing to do with 
the ‘fable.’ It is true that, as the con- 
struction after ‘condiscant’ runs on, 
we have to print them in the same 
sentence, but that is not a real considera- 
tion.? It is, however, true that nothing 
which I have said at present argues 
against the possibility that Phaedrus 
(and I presume Babrius, for Quintilian 
has been legislating for Greek studies 
as well as Latin) were used for para- 
phrasing. I will deal with that later, 
but at any rate there is no reason to 
think that they are exclusively meant. 
It is hardly credible that the exercise 
should begin and end with the fabulists. 

It may indeed be asked why, seeing 
that the ‘fable’ and the ‘Chria’ are 
both in a way original compositions, 
while the paraphrase is of a different 
nature, it is placed betweenthem. The 
answer is, I think, that Quintilian 
names the exercises in the order in 
which he thinks they should be taken 
up. It is very noteworthy that he 
grounds his approval of the Chria, etc., 
on the fact that they ‘initium ex lec- 
tione ducunt.’ In other words he 
believes in the correlation of studies, 
and wishes the composition subjects, 
when possible, to be connected with the 
literature. The reading in Homer and 
Virgil might easily supply the periodical 
‘Chria.’ It is true, however, that most 
of those reported to us come from prose 
sources which would not enter into 
class reading in the grammatical school. 
But I presume a little ingenuity might 
easily forge a connection between them 
and the poets read. A very favourite 
‘Chria’ seems to have been ‘ Isocrates 
said that the roots of παιδεία were 
bitter, but its fruits sweet.’ This might 
easily be connected with a story of a 


‘ profectibus’=highly advanced pupils, a phrase 
which has good parallels in Quintilian. 

3 It may be observed that each exercise is 
introduced by its leading noun, which I have 
indicated by printing them in capitals. 


THE CLASSICAL) REVIEW 61 


hero who was chastened by misfortune 
into wisdom and happiness. Odysseus 
or Aeneas would do for the purpose. It 
was perhaps some such reminiscence of 
his youth which induced the ‘ Auctor ad 
Hebraeos ’ to introduce this very Chria 
into his twelfth chapter @ propos of the 
divine παιδεία of the Church. 

I imagine then that Quintilian wished 
the ‘Chria, etc., as a composition 
exercise, to be taken up when the class, 
having been trained in literary appre- 
ciation on the admirable principles laid 
down in the seventeenth section of the 
previous chapter, had arrived at some 
idea of the ‘laudandum in sensibus.’ 
The easiest form of paraphrasing could 
be started earlier, and the ‘ Aesopi 
fabella’ was, I suggest, pre-literary. 
Its groundwork lay in simple children’s 


stories just above the ‘ nutricularum 
fabulae,’ and the style was intended to 
correspond. And the inference I draw 
from the way in which Quintilian 
speaks of it, as compared with the 
other two exercises, is that neither 
Phaedrus nor Babrius, nor any other 
poetical fabulist, was used in the schools. 
This is in itself, no doubt, a speculative 
argument, but it is confirmed, I think, 
by two solid facts. If Phaedrus was 
read, we should have expected some 
mention, if not of his name, at any rate 
of his type, in the eighth chapter. And, 
if the indices are to be trusted, not a 
single quotation from him is to be found 
int he whole body of extant ‘grammatici’ 
and ‘rhetores.’ Is this compatible with 
his use as a school text? It seems to 
me very doubtful. 
F. H. Corson, 


VIRGIL, AENEID 6. 859. 


Adspice ut insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis 

ingreditur uictorque uiros supereminet omnes. 

hic rem Romanam magno turbante tumultu 

sistet eques, sternet Poenos Gallumque re- 
bellem, 

tertiaque arma patri suspendet capta Quirino. 


Marcellus, according to Plutarch, 
Marc. 8. and Propertius, 4. 10, dedi- 
‘cated the spolia optima, won from the 
Gallic chief Virdomarus, to Jupiter 
Feretrius. Why then does Virgil make 
him dedicate them to pater Quirinus ? 

The answer is to be found in Festus 
and Plutarch. Servius saw dimly where 
the truth lay, as his note shows. 

Servius. After a futile attempt to 
explain capta Quirino as qualia et Quirinus 
cepit, id est Romulus (patrt on this view 
=Iou), he continues ‘possumus et, 
quod est melius, secundum legem 
Numae hunc locum accipere, qui prae- 
cepit prima spolia opima Ioui Feretrio 
debere suspendi, quod iam Romulus 
fecerat; secunda Marti, quod Cossus 
fecit; tertia Quirino, quod fecit Mar- 
cellus.. Quirinus autem est Mars qui 
praeest paci et intra ciuitatem colitur: 
nam belli Mars extra ciuitatem templum 
babuit. . . . uarie de hoc loco trac- 
tant commentatores, Numae legis im- 
memores, cuius facit mentionem et 
Liuius.’ 


For this lex Numae we must have 
recourse to Plutarch and Festus, Livy’s 
reference to the law having apparently 
been made in one of the lost books. 

FESTUS, p. 202 Lindsay, ‘opima mag- 
nifica et ampla, unde spolia quoque quae 
dux populi Romani ducihostium detraxit: 
quorum tanta raritas est ut intra annos 
paulo (lacuna of nineteen letters) trina 
contigerint nomini Romano: una quae 
Romulus de Acrone; altera quae Cossus 
Cornelius de Tolumnio; tertia quae 
Marcellus Ioui Feretrio de Virdomaro 
fixerunt. M. Varro ait opima spolia esse 
etiam si manipularis miles detraxerit 
dummodo duci hostium sed prima esse 
quae dux duct neque enim quae a duce 
captat non sint ad aedem Iouis Feretri 
poni: testimonio esse libros pontificum 
in quibus ait: “‘ pro primis spoliis boue, 
pro secundis solitaurilibus, pro tertiis 
agno publice fieri debere: i esse etam 
Pompili regislegem opimorum spoliorum 
talem: ‘cuius auspicio classe procincta 
opima spolia capiuntur, Ioui Feretrio 
darier oportet, et bouem caedito; qui 
cepit, CCC darier oportet. secunda 
spolia in Martis ara in Campo, solitaur- 


1 Words in italics conjecturally supplied by 
Hertzberg. 


62 THE CLASSIGAL REVIEW 


ilia utra uoluerit caedito ; qui cepit, ei 
aeris CC dato. tertia spolia Ianui 
Quirino agnum marem caedito; C qui 
ceperit ex aere dato. cuius auspicio 
captum dis piaculum dato.’”’’ 

PLuTARCH, Mare. 8: 

καίτοι φασὶν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν Νουμᾶν ἸΤομπίλιον 
καὶ πρώτων ὀπιμίων καὶ δευτέρων καὶ τρίτων μνημονεύειν. 
τὰ μὲν πρῶτα ληφθέντα τῷ Φερετρίῳ Διὶ κελεύοντα 
καθιεροῦν, τὰ δεύτερα δὲ τῷ “Ape, τὰ δὲ τρίτα τῷ 
Κυρίνῳ, καὶ λαμβάνειν γέρας ἀσσάρια τριακόσια τὸν 
πρῶτον, τὸν δὲ δεύτερον διακόσια, τὸν δὲ τρίτον ἑκατόν. 
ὁ μέντοι πολὺς οὗτος ἐπικρατεῖ λόγος ὡς ἐκείνων μόνον 
ὀπιμίων ὄντων, ὅσα καὶ παρατάξεως οὔσης καὶ πρῶτα καὶ 
στρατηγοῦ στρατηγὸν ἀνελόντος. 

From the above passages it is clear 
that prima, secunda and tertva were used 
in two different senses in connexion 
with the spolia opima; (1) with regard 
to chronological order and reference to 
the three occasions on which Roman 
generals won them; (2) in the sense of 
first, second, and third class. Norden, it 
is true, gives a different interpretation : 
‘Nach einer anderen Tradition, die auf 
ein Gesetz des Numa zuriickgefiihrt 
wurde, war die Ehre nicht in diesen 
engen Grenzen eingeschlossen, sondern 
die drei ersten Soldaten, die je einen 
Feind spolierten, brachten die drei 
Spolien der Reihe nach dem Jupiter 
Feretrius, dem Mars und dem Quirinus 
dar.’ This interpretation, however, is 
improbable from every point of view, 
and is not borne out by the statements 
of Festus and Plutarch. The obvious 
interpretation of the passages in ques- 
tion is that given by Hertzberg, to the 
effect that there were three classes of 
spolia opima won by (1) the actual 
general, (2) officers other than the 
general, (3) a common soldier, and 
the rewards and the place of dedication 
varied accordingly (see Philologus, τ. 
p. 331). That officers other than the 
general could win sfolia opima is borne 
out by Florus (2. 17. 11, ‘ Vaccaeos de 
quibus Scipio ille posterior singulari 
certamine, cum rex fuerat prouocator, 
opima rettulerat’), and by Valerius 
Maximus (3. 2. 6, ‘eodem uirtutis et 
pugnae genere usi sunt P. Manlius 
Torquatus et Valerius Coruinus et 
Cornelius Scipio. hi nempe ultro prouo- 
cantes hostiam duces interemerant, sed 
quia alienis auspiciis rem gesserant, spo- 
lia Ioui Feretrio non posuerunt conse- 
cranda’). Cp. also Dio Cassius 51. 24. 


It is also clear that the term sfolia 
opima had come to be generally accepted 
only as referring to the first class. 
Further, both Cossus and Marcellus had 
actually dedicated their spolza to Juppiter 
Feretrius. See Livy. (4. 20), who had 
actually seen the spoils dedicated by 
Cossus, Plutarch (Marc. 8.), and Proper- 
tius (4. 10). It may, therefore, be 
assumed that the second and _ third 
classes of spolia opima provided for by 
Numa’s law had become obsolete. 

How then account for Virgil’s state- 
ment that Marcellus was destined to 
dedicate his spoils to Quirinus? That 
the statement is historically false can 
scarcely be denied, though it is con- 
ceivable that other traditions may have 
existed. But Virgil, being, as he was, 
passionately devoted to ancient lore and 
acquainted with the lex Nwmae, deter- 
mined to accept its authority. He mis- 
took the meaning of prima, secunda, and 
tertia, and assumed that they referred 
to the chronological order of the win- 
ning, and not to the class of spoil won. 
It would not be difficult to misinterpret 
the lex Numae. Or it is possible that 
Virgil did not make the mistake him- 
self, but followed some older authority 
who had committed himself to this not 
unnatural misinterpretation. No other 
interpretation of the passage would seem 
possible in face of the evidence. Identifi- 
cation of Quirinus with Jupiter Feretrius 
is unwarrantable, as is the assumption 
that there was a statue of Quirinus in 
the temple of Jupiter Feretrius; even if 
there were any evidence for this last 
supposition, it would not justify Virgil’s 
statement. 

Who is pater Quirinus? The lex 
Numae tells us that he is Ianus Quirinus, 
another name for Ianus Geminus, the 
two-faced Ianus of the Forum, whose 
gates were closed in times of peace: cp. 
Hor. Od. 4. 15. 9, Mon. Anc. Lat. 2. 
42, Suet. Aug. 22. But pater Quirinus 
would more naturally refer to the 
ancient deity Quirinus, who forms one 
of a triad with Jupiter and Mars, a fact 
which suits the context in the lex 
Numae admirably well: cp. Serv. ad. 
Aen. 8. 663, ‘salios qui sunt in tutela 
Iouis Martis Quirini;’ Livy 8. 9, ‘ Iane, 
Jupiter, Mars, pater Quirine;’ 5. 52, 
‘Mars Gradiue, tuque Quirine pater.’ 


THE VCLASSICALY REVIEW 63 


That Quirinus was at any rate in some 
aspects a war-god is clear from Macrob. 
τ 9. τὸν. PlutRom: 29, Dion. Hal."2: 
48 (--: Ἐνυάλιος). But the whole ques- 
tion of the functions of Quirinus is so 
obscure that it is impossible to deter- 


mine, with any precision, his relations 

either to Ianus or to the spolia opima 

(see Wissowa, Rel. und Kult. p. 139). 
Hy EB. “BUTLER. 


University College, 
London. 


NOTES 


THUCYDIDES II. 48. 


> / 7 \ > \ > \ YA 
αὐτός TE νοσήσας καὶ AUTOS ἰδὼν ἄλλους 
4 . . 

πάσχοντας. Since Mr. Mair has yet 
again called attention to this vext 
passage, I take the opportunity of de- 
fending by some parallels that innocent 
double αὐτός, which has been so un- 
justly assailed by distinguished scholars. 
Plato, Politicus, 268 A, αὐτὸς τῆς ἀγέλης 
\ «ς Ν > | \ 2) \ > x 
τροφὸς ὁ βουφορβὸς, αὐτὸς ἰατρὸς, αὐτὸς 
οἷον νυμφευτὴς. Lysias XII. 68, αὐτὸς 
ἐπαγγειλάμενος σώσειν τὴν πόλιν αὐτὸς 
ἀπώλεσε. Aeschines III. 10, εἰ φανή- 
σεται ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει, 
τυχὸν δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτῷ, πρώην 
μέν πστε ἀναγορευόμενος. .. ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς 
ἀνὴρ μικρὸν ἐπισχὼν ἔξεισιν : cf. Din- 
archus I. 86. Xenophon, Hell. 11. 3, 28, 
νῦν δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν ἄρξας τῆς πρὸς Λακεδαι- 
μονίους πίστεως καὶ φιλίας, αὐτὸς δὲ τῆς 
τοῦ δήμου καταλύσεως. Ibid. 32, αὐτὸς 
οὐκ ἀνελόμενος ὅμως τῶν στρατηγῶν 
κατηγορῶν ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτοὺς ἵνα αὐτὸς 
Δ εἰ Ν 
περισωθείη. Anab. III. 2, 4, αὐτὸς 
> ῃ Gua SAN \ \ > \ 
ὀμόσας ἡμῖν, αὐτὸς δεξιὰς δοὺς, αὐτὸς 
ἐξαπατήσας συνέλαβε τοὺς στρατηγοὺς. 
At first sight Galen, vol. xix., p. 371, 
οἷόν Te αὐτὸ ἣν καὶ αὐτὸ συμμιχθὲν 

> , SU he 
ἀπεκρίθη, looks similar, but that sen- 
tence is corrupt: qu. οἷον δὲ (or καὶ 
οἷον) τοῦτο 7#v? The emphasis gained 
by doubling αὐτὸς varies in these pas- 
sages, but certainly the Greeks have no 
objection to emphasising their meaning 

by such a method. 


ARTHUR PLATT. 
University College, 
London. 


EMENDATION OF THEOPHRAS- 
Osi CHARACTERS: 


In Theophrastus, Characters, No. V., 
Jebb’s edition, v. 17 ff., the MS. text 
reads : 


καὶ τὸ ὅλον δεινὸς τῷ τοιούτῳ 
τρόπῳ τοῦ λόγου χρῆσθαι" οὐ πιστεύω" οὐχ ὑπολαμ- 
βάνω " ἐκπλήττομαι᾽ καὶ λέγει ἑαυτὸν ἕτερον γεγονέναι, 
καὶ μὴν οὐ ταῦτα πρὸς ἐμὲ διεξῃει ᾿ παράδοξόν μοι τὸ 
πρᾶγμα ἄλλῳ τινι λέγε' ὅπως δὲ σοὶ ἀπιστήσω ἢ 
ἐκείνου καταγνῶ ἀποροῦμαι᾽" ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα μὴ σὺ θᾶττον 
πιστεύεις. 

This passage has called forth a large 
number of emendations. Editors seem 
to be agreed that the corruption is con- 
cealed in the words: καὶ λέγει ἑαυτὸν 
ἕτερον γεγονέναι. Of these again, ἕτερον 
is clearly suspect. We cannot defend 
it with Casaubon. To change ἕτερον 
γεγονέναι into ἑτέρου ἀκηκοέναι with 
Petersen and Jebb is too violent a 
remedy and cannot be defended on 
palaeographical grounds. 

Read ἑταῖρον for ‘érepov and put a 
stop after ἐκπιλήττομαι and a colon after 
γεγονέναι. The Ironical Man’s line of 
reasoning isas follows: This man whom 
you claim to have told you this extra- 
ordinary piece of news has been a close 
friend of mine. Surely, of all people, 
he would have told me about it. But 
he has kept me in total ignorance, 
hence I do not-know what to make 
of it. 

HG. VanjoEn: 

University, Stellenbosch, 

S. Africa. 


THE READING IN ARISTO- 
PHANES, ACH. 912. 


AIK. Kat μὴν ὁδὶ Νίκαρχος ἔρχεται φανῶν go8 

BOI. μικκός ya ἱμᾶκος οὗτος. AIK. ἀλλ᾽ ἅπαν _ 
κακόν. 

ταυτὶ τίνος τὰ φορτί᾽ ἐστί; BOL. τῶδ᾽ ἐμά 

Θείβαθεν, irrw Δεύς. AIK. ἐγὼ τοίνυν ὁδί 

φαίνω πολέμια ταῦτα. BOI. τί dat κακὸν 
παθών gi2 

ὀρναπετίοισι πόλεμον ἦρα Kal μάχαν. 


In line 912, the reading of the MSS. 
is τί δαὶ κακὸν παθών. So Paley, who 


notes that Elmsley rejected κακόν as a 
gloss and read... tavtayi: BOI. τί 


AIK. 


64 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


δαὶ παθών ; «.7.r. Bentley (followed 
by Meineke and Ribbeck) reads τί δὲ 
κακὸν παθών ; Paley suggested καὶ τί 
κακόν, κιτ.λ. But none of these changes 
accounts for the reading in the MSS, 

The present writer suggests ri δ᾽ 
ἄδικον παθών; the corruption would 
arise as follows: 

ΤΙΣ AAIKON “> (TL AATKON > 
TI AAI KAKON, the syllable KON 
becoming KAKON 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 Scholiast on 
line gI2 says τί ἠδικημένος. 

M. KEAN. 


Collegiate School, 
Liverpool. 


EURIPIDES, HECUBA, 854-6. 


εἴ πως φανείη γ᾽ ὥστε σοί τ᾽ ἔχειν καλῶς 
στρατῷ τε μὴ δόξαιμι Κασάνδρας χάριν 
Θρῇκης ἄνακτι τόνδε βουλεῦσαι φόνον. 

THE meaning is clear: the speaker 
(Agamemnon) wishes to gratify Hecuba 
while safeguarding his own reputation. 
But the method of expression, as in the 
text, is confused, and the first τε (follow- 
ing σοι) 15 meaningless. 

Parallel clauses depending on ὥστε 
are required, and these are obtained by 
reading δόξαι we in place of δόξαιμι. 

J. M. Sine. 


HORACE, SAT. I. IX. 39-40. 


“δὶ me amas,’ inquit, ‘paulum huc ades.’ 
‘Inteream si 
Aut valeo stare, aut novi civilia iura.’ 


How is stare to betaken here? (The 
bore has been telling Horace that he 
had to attend court, and begs him to 
wait for him.) The traditional inter- 
pretations of stare in this passage make 
Horace say: (1) That he cannot appear 
as an advocate; or (2) that he cannot 
stand so long in court; or (3) that he 
cannot interrupt his walk. 

With reference to (1), it may be 
pointed out that the bore, who has 


evidently waylaid Horace in order to 
get an introduction to Maecenas (vide 
lines 45-47 of the Satire), would most 
likely know that the poet did not belong 
to the class of advocate. 

To take (2), who can tell how long 
any lawsuit is going to last? Has the 
bore actually appealed to Horace to 
enter the court with him? Has he 
not rather merely asked him to wait 
for him ? 

The third interpretation is somewhat 
more Convincing, for Horace has already 
explained that he had a long distance 
to cover (vide line 18). Porph. says, 
‘Negat se posse eum exspectare.’ 

The interpretation now suggested is 
to take stare as meaning ‘to be suc- 
cessful.’ Horace knows the fellow is a 
defendant, and feeling a little sympathy 
he may be imagined to say: ‘I swear 
by my life that I haven’t a leg to stand 
on in a law court; in fact, I don’t know 
a word about law.’ 

This use of stave is found in Horace, 
Sa. Ts x tz; and 2p.) 10 i> 176: 

M. KEAN. 


QUERIES TO ARTICLE ON 
PLAUT. STICH.. ih hE Cl Awan 
REV. SEPTEMBER, 1918. 


‘THE a of vidua was pronounced 
short in Plautus’s time, as later, so that 
Synaphea is out of the question.’ Is 
‘short’ mistake for ‘long’ here? How 
can it be said that Synaphea is out of 
the question, when all four lines scan 
with Synaphea, ‘-am fu-, -4m_ so-, 
-m6 quae, vidua vi-, -Wit nam?’ Syna- 
phea is observed in every line quoted 
from this Canticum in this article. 

Is Synaphea a mistake for Synizesis? 

‘Colon Reizianum, that favourite 
colon of Plautus.’ Is it so frequent in 
Plautus? How many examples of it 
can be quoted from the whole of 
Plautus’s plays all put together ? 

‘Editors of Euripides call Bacch. 863 
a Colon Reizianum. But surely it 
is a syncopated Pherecratean.’ Colon 
Reizianum is the same thing as a syn- 
copated Pherecratean 


συμπτύ κΊτοις | ἀναπαίσ[ τοις 
-- . . 5 
qua|rum | viri hinc ab]sunt. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 65 


‘miulta | volo télJcim...’ Isthea 
of mulia an ‘ irrational’ short standing 
in place of a long, or is this an example 
of neut. acc. plur. -@ sometimes found 
in early Latin verse, e.g. omma, gravid ? 

The Colon Reizianum is equivalent 
to the ending of a Hexameter, sixth 
and fifth foot and part of the fourth, 

4 5 
qui | primus ab | une 
quajrum viri hinc | absunt. 

The versus Reizianus with Iamb. 
Dim. first half is similar to the Iambe- 
legus: 
tu vina Torquato move || consule | pressa melo 

(Pentameter ending) 
quarumque nos negotijis ab]sentum ita ut | 

equomst 

(Hexameter ending) 
except that, whereas the two halves of 
Iambelegus are dve-]-evypéva, the two 
halves of versus Reizianus are dove- 
tailed, συνημμένα, the last long syllable 
of Iamb. Dim. being also the first long 
syllable of fourth foot of Hexameter. 

[Why is ‘ita ut equomst’ spelled with 
é-, but ‘nos facere aequomst’ spelled 
with ae- ?] 

The anacrusis of the Colon Reizianum 
may be either uu-, —-, or --, or 
?—w multa? 1.6. either four morae or 
three. With any of these, except — vu, 
the Colon Reizianum=end of a hexa- 
meter 


4 5 6 
vul|—-vovul-- 
—-{-vvl-- 
uo|-vuol-- 

but —v |v. v—]| -will not fit the fourth 


and fifth foot of the hexameter. There- 
fore ‘mult@ volo tecum’ is more prob- 
able. 


soror | sumu’ sed hoc | s6r6r crucil or 
sem|per | And In Middleton and 
Mills, Companion to 

but Latin Authors, St- 
chus 18 is scanned :— 
haec rés | vitae | me soror 


| saturant. 


sed hic sor6r 
| adsidedum 

In view of old Lat. melior, and 
‘stultidr es barbaro Poticio,’ etc., it is 
difficult to believe that soror was here 
pronounced -dr ; and the proceleusmatic 
vu vv that results is unlikely in either 
line, especially in the second half of 
anapaestic dimeter 

haec res vitae || me s’ror | saturant 

sounds better. 


NO. CCLXXIII. VOL, XXXIII. 


So in Stichus 26 


iit ’stuc | faciat | quod tu | metius 
is more likely than ‘ ut isttc|.’ 


= yy 


facit in jiiirias | immerito. 

The -ds, acc. plur., is not easily swal- 
lowed. Why not synizesis ‘in ]itirias|’ ? 

‘ade(o) ἃ] πἴοξ q(ui) a|nus’ is still 
more indigestible. Fennell’s edition, 
1893, reads ‘4deo qui unus tnice.’ Was 
the real original ‘adeo unus qui unus’? 
‘unu’ qui unus’ like ‘an qui amant’ 
(V. Ecl. 8, 108). 

E. J. Brooks. 


AUGUSTUS. 


I VENTURED lately to suggest in the 
Journal of Roman Studies, that the name 
Augustus, given to Octavian in 27 B.C, 
might have been suggested by the ab- 
breviation Aug. for Augur on coins of 
Octavian’s late rival, Mark Antony, 
which coins must have been in fairly 
common circulation in or just before 
27 B.C. My idea was that the name 
Augustus, abbreviated to Aug., would 
thus automatically absorb the descrip- 
tion of Antony on these coins, in a 
manner very characteristic of the state- 
craft of Octavian. In the latest number 
of the Classical Review (Nov.-Dec., 1918, 
p. 158), Miss L. R. Taylor, of Rome, 
finds this theory improbable, particu- 
larly because the abbreviation Aug. for 
Augustus, while common in later times, 
first occurs on coins of 10 B.C. but on 
early coins and early inscriptions the 
name is written in full. Miss Taylor 
adds that she prefers a view of Mr. 
Warde Fowler, that in Aez. VII. (szc) 678 
‘hinc augustus agens Italos in proelia 
Cesar’, the word augustus should be 
read as an epithet, not as a proper 
name. It is thought that the account of 
Actium, to which this line belongs, may 
have been written as a separate poem 
soon after the battle, and that the line 
quoted may indicate a certain enlarge- 
ment in the figure of Augustus, on the 
shield of Aeneas. 

I do not wish to argue the point, 
which, indeed, is far too mixed up with 
conjectures to be capable of proof. It 
depends on a string of guesses which 

48 i 


66 THE ‘CLASSICAL (REVIEW. 


are not unattractive individually, nor 
perhaps singly, unlikely, but for which 
positive evidence is altogether wanting. 
Ι might, of course, observe that Miss 
Taylor throughout quotes the wrong 
book of the Aezezd—vVIIL., instead of 
VIII. But the argument is not affected 
by that slip. I am more concerned to 
suggest that her demurrer, in respect of 
the date of the abbreviation, is a little 
over-strained. Naturally the abbrevia- 
tion Aug. would not be so common for 
Augustus in the first few years after 
27 B.C. as it would be rather later on. 
But its occurrence (and not once only) 
in the monumentum Anc, which I 
noted, is sufficient proof that it was not 
an impossible or altogether unfamiliar 
abbreviation in the Augustan age, and 
the argument that it does not occur on 
coins till 19 B.C. appears to me by no 
means to prove that it could not be or 
was unlikely to be used about 27 B.C. 1 
do not think that kind of chronological 
argument is really permissible. If the 
abbreviation Aug. never occurred else- 
where in the Augustan period, it would 
be a different matter. But Miss Taylor’s 
rigid time-test appears to go too far for 
the intelligent dating of Roman inscrip- 
tions on coins or stones. It is not as if 
the abbreviation Aug. were absolutely 
unique in the period about 19 B.c. As 
anyone can see who looks; e.g., at Cohen, 
it occurs several times on the legends of 
coins minted between 19 B.C., and 10 B.C. 
Moreover, that Octavian had an eye on 
the title Awgur used by Antony is indi- 
cated by a coin of 27 B.C., in which he 
calls himself Augur. 

I will conclude with the observation 
that if, in Aez. VIII. 678, Augustus is to 
be interpreted as denoting that the 
shield of Aeneas showed the figure of 
Augustus  disproportionately _ large, 
Virgil expressed himself more obscurely 
and briefly than is his wont. But here 
one passes into the region of opinion, 
where direct proof ceases to be possible. 

F. HAVERFIELD. 


MANDALUS. RECULA. . 
MALACRUCIA. 
My contributions to the last number 


(C.R. XXXIII. 26) were unlucky. 
Mandalus of the Glossaries is merely a 


Latin form of Greek μάνδαλος and un- 
suitable for Martial XIV. xxix. 2. 
Recula has been already suggested in 
the Paravia text of Moretuwm (line 65). 
As regards the malacrucia of the MSS. 
of Plautus at Cas. 416, it may be men- 
tioned that Pers. 574 shows that mala 
crux was not the invariable phrase: 


I sis [in] malim cruciatum. I sane tu—hanc 


eme ; ausculta mihi. 


W. M. LInpsay. 


CICERO, ΒΘ ΑΒ. POST yo. 


In stating the equestrian case against 
a proposed law to make the order liable 
to the charge of judicial corruption, 
which, first by a lex Sempronia and later 
by a lex Cornelia, had fallen only on the 
senatorial or official class, Cicero intro- 
duces an imaginary dialogue between a 
senator and an eques. ‘Tam es tu iudex 
[6465] quam ego senator,’ says the 
former. ‘Ita est,’ retorts the latter, 
‘sed tu istud petisti, ego hoc cogor. 
Qua re aut iudici mihi non esse liceat, 
aut lege senatoria non teneri.’ I do 
not raise the question here whether this 
dialogue fits the situation in ΟἹ B.C., to 
which Cicero refers it, or whether, as 
seems to me more probable, it is a 
reminiscence of his own advocacy 
against the well-known proposal of 
Cato in 60 B.c. I am only concerned 
with the antithesis between ‘stud’ and 
‘hoc.’ There are, I find, scholars who 
authoritatively declare that ‘istud’ can 
only mean ‘to be a senator,’ and ‘hoc’ 
‘to be a iudex.’ Surely this distorts or 
destroys the antithesis, misses the point 
of the argument and leaves ‘cogor’ un- 
explained. If the senator had said 
‘you are as much a zudex as 1 am a 
senator, no doubt ‘istud’ and ‘hoc’ 
would have the meanings suggested 
above. But what he says is, ‘you, 
being an eques, are as much a iudex as I 
am, being a senator.’ The subject of 
discussion therefore, to which both 
‘istud’ and ‘hoc’ must be referred, is 
not the fact of being a senator, or the 
fact of being an eques, but solely the 
fact or condition of being ἃ wudex. 
The senators point is that this is 
common to himself and the eques. 


THE (CLASSICAL REVIEW 67 


That of the egues is that there is an 
antithesis between the senator’s posi- 
tion as iudex and his own. ‘Istud’ 
therefore means ‘ your position as sena- 
torial iudex ; ‘hoc’ means ‘my position 
as equestrian tudex.’ ‘Petistr’ and 
‘cogor’ then explain themselves. Sena- 
tors, in spite of their liability to the 
lex Sempronia, had eagerly sought the 
position between 122 and 81 B.C. 
Equttes had of course also desired the 
position, but both in gt and 60 B.c. 
they were confronted with compulsory 
liability to a charge from which they 
had so far been exempt. Is there a 
flaw, which I do not detect, in this 
interpretation, either in respect of 
Latinity or logic? Of course the 
equestrian point, whether made by 
Cicero or: the equites themselves, is 
sophistical, but that is another matter. 
E. G. Harpy. 


VIRGIL, ECLOGUE IV. 60 FF. 


_ THE following passage, which has 
just been sent me by a friend, may 
throw some light on the much disputed 
question whether the smile in the last 
four lines of Virgil’s fourth eclogue is 
that of the infant or the mother. It 
comes from Sketches of the Rites and 
Customs of the Greco-Russian Church, by 
H. C. Romanoff, p. 8 (Rivingtons, 
1868), with an introduction by Charlotte 
Yonge, who tells us that the writer was 
an English lady married to a Russian 
officer stationed in a remote province. 

‘Roman throve beautifully ; his first 
smile and first tear, which are con- 
sidered by the Russians as harbingers 
of reason in an infant, were quite 
epochs in the family history, so much 
was said about them.’ 

W. WARDE FOWLER. 


‘MULE NIHIL SENTIS’ 
(CATULLUS; 88; 3). 


Wuy does Catullus call Lesbia’s 
husband a mule ἢ “ Quia nihil sentiebat,’ 
say some. But nowhere in Latin is 
mulus used as a synonym for ἀναίσθητος. 
At Juvenal 16, 23, mulino corde Vagelli, 


Mayor supports the reading muulino 
(against the Mutinenst of the majority 
of MSS. by a reference to Plautus, (δέ. 
4.12, 2. So does Friedlaender, and so 
does Ellis on this passage of Catullus. 


. One may edit a classical author and yet 


keep a light conscience—for the phrase 
mulo inscitior occurs nowhere in Plautus 
(whose plays, incidentally, rarely contain 
twelve Scenes to the Act), though it is 
alleged to do so by Forcellini’s Lexicon. 

Others would have it that Catullus 
calls Lesbia’s husband a mule ‘sterili- 
tatis causa.’ The union with Lesbia is 
said to have been a childless one. But 
it is difficult to find any pertinence in 
an allusion here to this misfortune. 

Umpfenbach, cited by Ellis, would 
read, with the MSS., ‘ Mulle ’—under- 
standing an allusion to the acute hear- 
ing‘of mullets, a fact of natural history 
not more familiar, we may suppose, to 
the average Roman of Catullus’ time 
than it is to the average Englishman 
of our own. 

Now, if Lesbia was Clodia, her 
husband was Q. Metellus Celer. The 
name Metellus was both a proper name 
and what the grammarians call a 
‘common’ name. If we could find out 
what the common noun metellus means 
we should, perhaps, be in the way of 
discovering why Catullus called Metel- 
lusa mule. The word metellus occurs 
only in one passage in Latin literature. 
Festus preserves for us (p. 132, Lindsay) 
this line of Accius : 


calones famulique metellique caculaeque (cau 
| leque codd.). 


calones and caculae are some kind of 
soldier-servant or groom. Festus 
understands metelli apparently in much 
the same sense—he renders it by merce- 
navit. But apart from Festus there is 
no authority for this explanation, and 
it obviously rests on an absurd etymo- 
logy—Festus has derived metellus from 
metallum. 

We must take the word in connexion 
with another rare and obscure word, 
metella. Metella 4150 15 ἃ military word : 
meaning in Vegetius (Mil. 4, 6) a 
species of wooden basket (de ligno 
crates) employed in sieges: the besieged 
filled these baskets with stones and 
emptied them on the heads of the 


68 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


besiegers. It is supposed that the word 
is the ‘feminine of an adjective, some such 
noun as ‘machina’ subauditur. Τί this 
be correct metellus similarly should be 
an adjective; and it should naturally 
also have some connexion with baskets. 
I would conjecture that the substantive 
to be understood with metellus is equus. 
The‘ basket-horse’ will be a pack-horse, 
a military baggage-animal. I would 
then restore to Accius 


calones mzz/ique metellique caculaeque. 


I can find no example of famulus in the 
sense of a military servant: it should 
naturally mean a household servant. 

Accordingly, when Catullus wrote 
‘Mule, nihil sentis,’ his friends knew 
very well that the ‘mule’ was the 
pack-horse, the metellus—just as at 
0: τ Laespius, test: ΡΠ ΠΟΙ they 
readily took the allusion to ‘ Pulchellus.’ 

Metellus is, perhaps, like other pieces 
of Roman vocabulary in connexion 
with horses, carriages, etc.—caballus, 
cantherius, essedum, petorritum, ploxenum 
—a foreign word. Such imported 
words are natural in the language of 
the camp. 

H. W. GARROD. 


VIRGIL, AEN. XII. 473. 519. 


Nigra velut magnas domini cum divitis aedes 
pervolat et pinnis alta atria lustrat hirundo, 
pabula parva legens nidisque loquacibus escas, 
et nunc porticibus vacuis, nunc umida circum 
stagna volat. 

Dr. Royps tells us that, although to 
many Englishmen ‘swallow’ means 
anything from a swift to a sand- 
martin, Virgil probably distinguished 
the species. Thus ‘hirundo’ must be 
taken as a generic, not a specific, name. 
Until the days of Gilbert White the 
swift was generally believed to belong 
to the same genus as the swallow and 
the martin, and doubtless Virgil so 
classed it. In the passage quoted does 
not the poet mean the swift ἢ Heseems 
to mark this by the opening epithet, for 
the blackness has no part in the com- 
parison with the movements of Juturna, 
while the swift on the wing appears to 
be black, and has none of the lighter 
feathers of the true hirundines. The 
movements described are precisely those 


of the swift. I have seen swifts flying 
in this way over and round the piazza 
of Volterra, the flock dividing into three 
when it came to the medieval tower, and 
some flying on either side and some 
through the unglazed windows. 


Westminster. 


POMPEY’S COMPROMISE: 
CICERO, AD |FAM. Viliz age: 


HARDY, in his recent examination of 
‘Caesar’s Legal Position in Gaul’ (Jour. 
of Phil. XXXIV. 161-221) has disposed 
of the hypotheses of Hirschfeld (Kio 
IV. 76 ff.) and Judeich (Rhein. Mus. 
LXVIII. 1 ff.) and has proved quite con- 


clusively that Caesar’s term.in Gaul 


‘extended to March 49 B.C. with the 


implied right of holding his command 
throughout the year 49. However, all 
the disputants have found difficulty in 
comprehending the purport of Pompey’s 
offered compromise to permit Caesar the 
privilege of remaining till the Ides of 
November (Ad Fam. VIII. 11, 3). I 
would offer what seems to me a plausible 
explanation, which incidentally adds a 
point in favour of Hardy’s contention. 
The passage in question is found in a 
letter of Caelius written to Cicero in 
April or May of 50 B.c., after Curio had 
foiled the attempt of the Pompeian party 
to abbreviate Caesar’s term. The lines 
read: ‘in quam adhuc incubuisse cum 
senatu Pompeius videtur ut Caesar Id. 
Nov. decedat ; Curio omnia potius subire 
constituit quam id pati, Scaena 
rei totius haec: Pompeius, tamquam 
Caesarem non impugnet sed quod illi 
aequum putet constituat, ait Curionem 
quaerere discordias, valde autem non 
vult et plane timet Caesarem cos. desig. 
prius quam exercitum et provinciam 
tradiderit.’ 

The old explanation of Zumpt 
assumed that the Ides of November was 
the anniversary of the day on which the 
law was passed which gave Caesar his 
second quinquennium in Gaul, but Lange 
has shown that this was impossible since 
the day was a holiday on which laws 
could not be passed. Hirschfeld and 
Judeich, without attempting to explain 
the choice of the Ides of November, tried 
with little success to show that the year 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 69 


50 B.c. was referred to; Holzapfel (Kio 
V. 113) rightly refers the proposed date 
to the year 40, but fails to show how the 
offer could in anyway be called aequum 
to Caesar. Hardy (doc. cit. p. 208) says 
“Why this date was chosen is not clear.’ 

Since Pompey’s proposal was, accord- 
ing to Caelius, an offer that pretended 
to be fair to Caesar, Pompey apparently 
undertook to prove that it gave Caesar 
his legal term in the province. His offer 
_ therefore probably contained a clause 
which was to restore in February of 49 
the forty-five days that the calendar had 
lost by two previous failures to insert 
intercalary months, for if these were 
restored there would be exactly 365 days 
en the year 49 before the Ides of Novem- 
ber. It is apparently on the basis of 
such a clause that Pompey could claim 
that his offer was fair to Caesar. The 
reason why this and other details did 
not appear in the letter of Caelius is that 
complete copies of the bills and speeches 
accompanied the letter (Ad Fam. VIII. 
II, 4). 

Curio refused to accept the com- 
promise, since it would expose Caesar to 
legal action for six weeks. Indeed, as 
Caelius well comprehended, Pompey had 


offered it merely for the purpose of 
making an impression of moderation. 
Ultimately he had no intention of per- 
mitting Caesar to stand for the consul- 
ship 272 absentia. Unfortunately for 
him, his pretence of moderation only 
weakened his supporters, and when the 
real test of strength came a few days 
later the senate refused to challenge 
Caesar’s claims (Ad Fam. VIII. 13, 2). 

If this is the solution of the difficulty, 
the offer must apply to the year 40, for it 
was made in April or May of the year 
50, and there could hardly be a question 
of intercalation before February of 40. 
Hardy’s contention that Caesar had a 
legal right to his province throughout 49 
is therefore supported by this passage. 
Let me add that in Cicero’s answer (Ad 
Fram. II. 15, 3) to this letter from Caelius : 
“Faveo Curioni, Caesarem honestum esse 
cupio, we should probably read hoxes- 
tatum for honestum, for in the light of 
Ad Fam. VIII. 11, 3, the second clause 
seems to be explicative. Cicero’s answer 
seems to mean: I support Curio’s conten- 
tion, and I wish Caesar to win his consul- 
ship. 

TENNEY FRANK. 
Lryn Mawr College. 


REVIEWS 


MISS MATTHAEI ON TRAGEDY. 


Studies in Greek Tragedy. By LOUISE 
M. MATTHAEI. Demy 8vo. Pp. x11 + 226. 
Cambridge: University Press. Price 
gs. net. 


THIS book is written with enthusiasm 
and sincerity. That is its great merit; 
and, although the style is somewhat 
laborious, so that the book is not very 
easy to read, the effort is worth making, 
because it is always worth while to listen 
to a serious person talking honestly about 
Greek tragedy. Miss Matthaei never 
- makes the mistake, into which some pro- 
fessors, who would be edifying, fall, of 
condescending to the ancient poets; nor 
does she follow the bad custom of making 
Aeschylus and Euripides the excuse for 
a cheap display of ingenuity. Such 


orginality as her book claims, is the result 
of an honest attempt to understand her 
authors, to report what she finds in them, 
not to use them as a peg on which to 
hang some new and brilliant theory of 
her own. 

Therefore, her book is worth reading. 
But I must be honest myself, and must 
admit that, with all its sincerity, and 
although it bears the evident traces of 
careful, independent thinking, it seems to 
me to suffer from a grave defect of 
method. She tells us she has simply 
taken four plays which interested her, 
and has tried to show by analysing them 
‘what are the qualities which make the 
Tragic Spirit.’ I wish she had been con- 
tent to show the qualities which make the 
four plays interesting to her. That is 


70 THE CLASSICAL. REVIEW 


the first and most important thing to do. 
If you set out to discover ‘the qualities 
which make the Tragic Spirit, you may 
fall into dangerous assumptions, by 
which Miss Matthaei is not the first critic, 
and will not be the last, to be misled. 
You may.be hypnotised by the thought 
that ‘there are definite general prin- 
ciples’ which underlie the plays you 
happen to be analysing, and, ‘indeed 
every true example of the tragic art.’ In 
demonstrating that the play which in- 
terests you conforms in fact to some 
arbitrary definition of ‘the tragic art,’ 
you may read into it some tendency or 
purpose which neither the poet nor his 
audience (nor you yourself, when first you 
found his work worth analysing) had in 
mind. Explain exactly why the play 
seems interesting, and you may perhaps 
contribute something to the body of 
evidence which will some day be con- 
sidered by the philosopher who shall find 
leisure, and sufficient abstraction from 
more pressing and more valuable pur- 
suits, to propound a theory of ‘the tragic.’ 
But read your play with the object and 
intention of defining tragedy, and you 
will probably find that you have missed, 
or, at any rate, misrepresented, the very 
qualities which first attracted you to 
your play. Like Aristotle, Miss Matthaei 
is tempted by the prospect of a defini- 
tion. She is at her best when she con- 
trives to forget her search for the Tragic 
Spirit, and has leisure to explain the 
drama of Aeschylus or of Euripides. 
And, indeed, her search is itself no such 
free adventure as she seems to think. 
When she tells us, at the outset, that 
‘every true tragedy turns on a conflict,’ 
we hang a little on the word ‘true,’ and 
suspect that we shall meet the names of 
Hegel and of Bradley in her argument. 
And, sure enough, we are to hear in due 
course that every tragedy turnsnot only on 
aconflict whether of principle or of persons, 
but also on a conflict in which each of the 
opposing forces is compounded duly of 
evil and of good. Tragedy isa conflict, 
not between black and black, black and 
white, white and white (which would 
doubtless be impossible), but always, if it 
be ‘true tragedy,’ between black and 
white and white and black. It seems so 
helpful, and it fits in so well with a par- 
ticular sort of cheerfulness about the uni- 


verse. It is not surprising that many 
honest readers are content to let Hegel 
and his followers confuse their minds. 
But the doctrine, which is harmless 
enough when you apply it to the Przome- 
theus, and which does little more than 
introduce a note of vagueness in our 
author’s treatment of the Hzppolytus, has 
disastrous results when we try to foist it 
on to an appreciation of the Jon or the 
Hecuba. With Miss Matthaei’s elucida- 
tion of the Prometheus J have no quarrel. 
Her conception of a progressive Zeus, 
who, like his victims, has something to 
learn, and ultimately learns it, I believe 
to be in conformity with the ideas of 
Aeschylus. Her interpretation, though it 
is not altogether new, is, I think, a valu- 
able contribution to the study of a play 
whose theology is a test, and a stumbling- 
block, to many of the modern ‘ orthodox.’ 
Her analysis of the Hzppolyzus is, on the 
whole, both just and sympathetic, with 
its appreciation of Phaedra, whose 
tragedy derives from an excess, ποῖ "ἃ 
defect, of a certain sort of modesty of 
mind. But her general theory of tragedy 
leads her, I venture to suggest, into 
serious, almost ridiculous, error, when 
it makes her treat Apollo, one of the 
tragic antagonists of the Joz, with 
an exaggerated metaphysical respect. 
Apollo, we are to understand, represents 
in that play not merely a disreputable 
aspect of popular mythology, but also, as 
by a mystery, the inscrutable element in 
circumstance, the tragic riddle which 
forms the background of all human life. 
Whither this sort of theorising leads us 
we realise, with something of a shock, 
when Miss Matthaei gravely infers, from 
the obvious effectiveness of Ion’s final 
insistence on an answer to the question 
of his parentage, that Euripides, you see, 
was not a determinist! Similarly, since 
the Hecuba, if it be a ‘true’ tragedy, must 
involve a conflict between two principles 
or persons, each of which is partly good 
and partly bad, we are seriously asked to 
believe that the sacrifice of Polyxena in 
that play stands for the tragic assertion 
of the good of the community, as over- 
riding the good of the individual, while 
Hecuba’s appalling treatment of Poly- 
mestor represents the tragic issue of the 
counter assertion of the injured indivi- 
dual’s personal claim. The theory is not 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW at 


so crudely stated; but that is essentially 
Miss Matthaei’s view. I suggest that, if 
she had never theorised with Hegel and 
with Bradley, she might (as her apprecia- 
tion both of Polyxena and of Hecuba 
seems to show) have given us a better 
interpretation of the tragedy. She is 
right in thinking that the play has unity 
of conception. She is right in thinking 
that the key to that unity is in the 
contrast between Polyxena, the willing 
victim, and Hecuba, the fury, turned, in 
the very moment of perfected vengeance, 
into a wild beast. But Euripides, I 
suggest, was not thinking of the conflict 
between ‘the good of the community’ 
and ‘the good of the individual’ He 
was showing something more moving, 
more important. Whatever other human 
beings may inflict on Polyxena, they can 
not really hurt her spirit. Hecuba, who 
takes the way which most of us would 
take, can have her vengeance, it is true. 
She can torture her enemy, as he deserves, 


we think, to be tortured. But the effect 
on herself is, that she loses her humanity ; 
she becomes a beast. 

The chapter on ‘Accident’ has the 
defects and the merits of the book. The 
tendency to look for generalisations, 
classifications, and a system, will prob- 
ably attract some readers, because most 
English readers, though they would be 
surprised to be told it, really care a good 
deal more about philosophy than they 
do about art. For my own part, I find it 
difficult to believe that either Aristotle 
or his modern followers do much service 
to literature by laying down rules for 
artists or their critics. But) here, as 
throughout the book, there is someffing 
attractive, if I may say it, something 
digne, about Miss Matthaei’s work, which 
makes me want to treat it respectfully, 
even when I am most doubtful as to the 
direct assistance it will give me in the 
understanding of Greek tragedy. 

J. T. SHEPPARD. 


PLU TARCHSiLIVES. 


Plutarch’s Lives. With an English 
Translation by BERNADOTTE PERRIN. 
Vol. V. (Loeb Classical Library.) 
Pp. ix+544. London: Heinemann, 
1017.1, 7S. Od: 


A TRANSLATOR of Plutarch’s Lives has 
in many respects a happy task. His 
subject has long ago proved its power 
to attract and to charm a wider circle 
of men than any other classical writing. 
The warriors and statesmen, presented 
to us by the prince of biographers, 
appeal to common humanity in a way 
that philosophers or even poets can 
never do; and the public affairs in 
which they played their part bear 
continuous resemblance to the events 
of any and every age. The translator 
has therefore few dull pages to trouble 
him, and he can count upon readers 
who are predisposed to welcome his 
work. In the fifth volume of the Loeb 
Plutarch, now before us, there is a 
profusion of entertaining matter. Pom- 
pey, Marcellus, Agesilaus, and Pelopidas 
are all characters of strong human 
interest, as well as of historical im- 
portance. In the Life of Pompey we 


are reminded of recent events by the 
menace of the pirate ships, which, like 
the elusive submarines of to-day, seri- 
ously hampered the commerce of the 
Mediterranean and made food scarce at 
Rome. When Pompey was appointed 
to the supreme command against the 
pirates, prices immediately fell, a fact 
which the populace duly appreciated. 
In the Life of Marcellus we read how 
Archimedes defended Syracuse with 
his wonderful military engines. This 
defence is described in the Greek with 
a vividness which almost makes us feel 
that the account came originally from 
the pen of some ancient war corre- 
spondent. Professor Perrin’s transla- 
tion at this point is a good piece of 
work, picturesque, clear, and vigorous. 

In preparing his translation, Professor 
Perrin has consulted the previous 
English versions of the Lives, and as a 
rule to good effect. He writes fluently 
and naturally, and does not all the 
while suggest to us the scholar labori- 
ously trying to keep in touch with his 
original. He can turn the Greek neatly 
into idiomatic English, and he avoids 
harsh and ill-sounding sentences. The 


72 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


translation gives evidence of skill and 
care. Here is a fair specimen, taken 
from the Life of Pompey, ch. xxiil., 
p- {738 

For life in the robes of peace has a dangerous 
tendency to diminish the reputation of those 
whom war has made great and ill-suited for 
democratic equality. Such men claim that 
precedence in the city also which they have in 
the field, while those who achieve less distinc- 
tion in the field feel it to be intolerable if in the 
city at any rate they have no advantage. 
Therefore when the people find a man active in 
the forum.who has shone in camps and triumphs, 
they depress and humiliate him, but when he 
renounces and withdraws from such activity, 
they leave his military reputation and power 
untouched by their envy. How true this is, 
events themselves soon showed. 


Given the space, one could take 
many such passages and show, by 
comparing them in detail with other 
translations, the advance that Professor 
Perrin has made upon his modern 
predecessors. Besides this, a grateful 
word is due from all lovers of Plutarch 
for the extreme convenience of this 
edition, which gives the Greek text and 
English version side by side, with many 
useful notes and cross-references, and a 
valuable index, containing in brief 
compass much information about the 
persons and places mentioned in the 
book. In these respects the Loeb 
Plutarch stands alone. What we miss 
in it, and in other modern versions too, 
is dignity. We are badly in need of a 
translation suited to the twentieth cen- 
tury, as North’s was suited to the 
sixteenth. The language of such a 
translation must be the common speech 
of to-day, but it must not be common- 
place. Dignity comes, partly at any 
rate, from the use of simple, direct 
utterance. If we say ‘subsequently’ 
for ‘later’ or ‘afterwards’ (p. 365), 
‘frequently’ for ‘often’ (p. 475), ‘dis- 
patch’ for ‘kill’ (p. 367), ‘stationed 
himself’ for ‘ took his stand’ (καταστάς, 
p- 243), ‘superiors’ in a context where 
‘betters’ would fit the sense (p. 401), 
‘assistants’ (ὑπηρέται, p. 19) Where 
‘underlings’ would give just that touch 
of scorn which the passage demands, 
or if we use cumbrous phrases like 
‘under the circumstances’ (p. 277), we 
take the edge off our speech. Dignity 
depends also upon the respect which 
the translator feels for his author. It 


would be impertinent to say that 
modern translators of Plutarch do not 
respect him, but certainly their writing 
does not often glow with any warmth 
or enthusiasm. There is in Plutarch, 
heavy though his style may sometimes 
seem, an undercurrent of real eloquence 
which is part of the man’s own kindly 
and earnest nature. Much of this elo- 
quence may be lost if the translator is 
not alive to its presence, and does not 
value it and make an effort to repro- 
duce it. North’s great work, judged 
simply as a translation, would hardly 
be accepted by scholars to-day, in view 
of our strict notions of what a transla- 
tion should be; but his spirit is worthy ~ 
of all imitation. ‘ Now for the author,’ 
he says in his preface, ‘I will not deny 
but love may deceive me, for I must 
needs love him with whom I have taken 
so much pain.’ Would not a little of 
North’s frank admiration and affection 
put life and fire and dignity into the 
somewhat cold pages of our more 
scholarly versions ? 

Two other points may be mentioned. 
The use of the second person singular 
is usual with us in the scriptures and 
liturgical language, and also in poetry ; 
but it is not our common speech, and 
no one nowadays uses it in prose. It 
would seem better, therefore, to avoid 
it in translation, except perhaps where 
there is danger of ambiguity. Professor 
Perrin is not consistent on this point, 
and any reader who compares for 
himself the spirited report of conversa- 
tion on p. 239 or p. 461 with the stilted 
speech on p. 21 or p. 411 will judge 
which form is preferable. It is a great 
gain, too, if poetical quotations can be 
turned into verse. The effect of the 
original is needlessly lost if iambics or 
hexameters are reproduced in pseudo- 
verses which possess neither the irregu- 
lar rhythm of prose (for they are made 
to stand apart from the surrounding 
prose) nor the regular rhythm of verse. 
This point ‘may be thought small in 
itself, yet a translator who aims at a 
high standard of work cannot afford to 
neglect it. 

The following misprints occur: p. 20, 
note, Hidew, no accent or breathing; 
p. 68, rote cuvnywvia, no accents; p. 84, 
χώρα for χώρᾳ; p. 172, μέτ᾽ for μετ; 


THE CLASSICAL / REVIEW 73 


p. 175, Asclepias for Asclepius; p. 188, 
Extopa, no accent or breathing; p. 217, 
‘legitimate,’ misspelled; p. 307, last 


two lines, final letters wrong; p. 437, 
Marcu for Marcus. 
G. W. BUTTERWORTH. 


EUTHYMIDES ‘AND HIS FELLOWS. 


Euthymides and his Fellows. By JOSEPH 
CLARK Hoppin. Octavo. Pp. xvi+ 
186, with 48 plates and 36 illustrations 
in the text. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press, 1917. $4.00. 


THE group of vase painters here 
described consists of Euthymides, the 
central figure, of Phintias, and ‘ Kleo- 
phrades,’ in all probability his partner 
and pupil, and of Hypsis, whose relation 
is less easy to determine. To the 
student, usually condemned to search 
for the material he desires among 
numerous periodicals and repertories, 
the book will be indeed welcome; not 
only is it the first of its size to be 
sufficiently illustrated, but it contains 
also condensed and valuable information 
on most of the questions involved. To 
the expert it will afford pleasant matter 
for controversy ; some thirty unsigned 
vases are attributed to the several 
painters, and various problems of the 
early R.F. period considered. 

Dr. Hoppins’ method is to discuss 
each artist in three sections: the signed 
vases are first given a description 
equivalent to that of a catalogue; the 
evidence they afford is then summed up 
and the individual peculiarities of 
drawing minutely analysed; thereby 
the reader is taken into the author’s 
confidence, and can watch how the 
evidence is applied in the final section 
which deals with the attributed vases. 

Euthymides is treated somewhat more 
fully than in the earlier monograph. 
Emphasis is laid on his consistent use 
of the proportion 1 : 7 for head and body, 
and the comments he inscribed on his 
own pots are pleasantly characterised 
as an ancient attempt at advertisement. 
Ten vases and fragments are assigned 
to him in addition to the original ten ; 
these include the Vienna pelike with 
the murder of Aegisthos (after Furt- 
wangler) and three small kylikes, attri- 
buted by Hartwig to Phintias, one at 
Athens bearing the signature Φιντίας 


ἐποίησεν. If the hand that painted it 
was really that of Euthymides, not only 
would his partnership with Phintias be 
attested by inscriptional evidence, but 
he would appear in a new light as one 
of the more skilful of cup painters. 
Was he capable of a pose so free from 
awkwardness and a composition so 
ingenious? Unfortunately the Bocchi 
plate, which might have guided us, 
survives only in fragments. 

Phintias is considered to be ‘ inferior 
in technical skill,’ but ‘ possessing the 
elements of a bigger style.’ It would 
appear that his development was 
arrested by the good fortune that placed 
him at the head of an atelier. The 
fact that his drawing became stereo- 
typed, though regrettable from an 
artistic point of view, makes reconstruc- 
tion of his work on the lines of this 
book most satisfactory. With Hypsis 
it is otherwise. His work is, on the 
whole, individual, and his people like 
demure children with big heads and 
feet, but its details are more elusive. 
Therefore theattribution of the Amphora 
B.M. E. 253, on the strength of its 
details and without regard to the 
general impression, is unconvincing. 
From the productions of the Kleophrades 
painter are selected six, illustrating 
Euthymides’ influence. 

The author does not purpose to speak 
much of the relation between Euthy- 
mides’ circle and its contemporaries, 
apart from the rivalry with Euphronios 
and a suggested connextion between 
it and the ‘‘ Andokides” group. This 
connexion is cited in favour of the 
theory that the four painted in B.F. 
technique: nevertheless, except in the 
case of Phintias’ early kylix, their style 
shows too great an advance on that of 
Andokides to allow any resemblance 
to be used as proof. With reference 
to Andokides, is not the heterogeneous 
nature of his wares too much empha- 
sised ? 

In the preface is mentioned the 


74 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


impossibility of discussing the work of 
Euthymides apart from that of his 
colleagues. This is not only because 
they are allied in style, but because 
several of the unsigned vases are 
believed to be by two painters. Col- 
laboration of this kind has_ been 
advocated by various scholars, but one 
has the impression that it is too often 
appealed to, and that the appeal is the 
outcome of insisting too strictly on 
uniformity of drawing. That the back 
or shoulder of a vase should be left to 
a subordinate is quite probable, in the 
case of an equal the process would have 
little to recommend itself, and neither 
a kylix of the ‘ Kleinmeister’ type 
nor the British Museum Pamphaios 
kylix amounts to evidence. 


One cannot be too grateful for the 
various tables and résumés the book 
contains. The analyses of composition 
by a scheme of essential lines are an 
interesting experiment, though naturally 
they neglect what is an equally good 
criterion, the spaces. Apart from the 
value of the illustrations in relation to 
the text, they are illuminating as a 
collection of works entirely of one 
period. 

For a long time the science of vases 
has needed more books to come between 
the monograph on the one hand and the 
monumental folio on the other. Just 
such a book is Euthymides and ius 
Fellows: it would be well if other 
painters could be chronicled in the same 
way. 

W.. Lame. 


A HISTORY ΘΕ (GREEK 


A History of Greek Economic Thought. 
By ALBERT AUGUSTUS TREVER. One 
vol. 9f”x63}”. Pp. 162. University 
of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 
Ig16. 3s. 6d. net. 


TuIs book is a dissertation submitted 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
at Chicago University. It is planned 
as a history of the theoretical views 
entertained by those of the Greeks— 
philosophers for the most part—who 
have attempted a scientific investiga- 
tion of economic subjects. It excludes, 
therefore, the history of Greek economic 
conditions, even where these may be 
regarded as the expression of a settled 
conviction. Three-fifths.of the book 
are properly devoted to Plato and 
Aristotle, the only considerable authori- 
ties for whose beliefs information in 
sufficient detail is forthcoming. The 
remainder, apart from the introductory 
and concluding chapters, discusses pre- 
Platonic thought, Xenophon, the Ora- 
tors, and the minor Socratics and post- 
Aristotelians—the two last being some- 
what inconveniently grouped together 
under the description of ‘ Minor Philoso- 
phers.’ It is, I think, unfortunate that, 
in the case of Xenophon, nq attempt 
has been made to distinguish the views 
of Xenophon himself, chiefly contained 


ECONOMIC THOUGHT. 


in the minor treatise on Ways and 
Means (πόροι), from the opinions of 
Socrates, for which, in this sphere at 
any rate, Xenophon is our main source. 
The consequence is that, though there 
are many references to the Socratic 
point of view, what Socrates himself 
maintained is nowhere explicitly set 
forth. Some estimate of Socrates’ con- 
tribution should have been formed; and, 
ifthe Cynic and Cyrenaic outgrowths 
had been examined in the same con- 
nexion, a clearer light would have been 
thrown on Plato’s own development. 

The chapters devoted to Plato and 
Aristotle are written clearly and care- 
fully, and provide a useful compendium 
of the economic principles which are 
discussed or adopted by these writers." 
Several of the passages which Mr. 
Trever examines have been vigorously 
debated by previous critics, and, even 
though his conclusions may not be 
accepted in every case, his arguments 
are presented with fairness and modera- 
tion. 

The exposition of the thought of the 
earliest and latest periods is less satis- 
factory, and seems to have been written 


1 An error on p. 38 arises from the omission 
of ἕνεκα in the quotation from Aes. 371 B ; and 
on p. 39, Laws 918 B is very imperfectly cited. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


with the object of rounding off the 
central portion of the book.t Mr. 
Trever has pointed out that economic 
science was not developed by the Greeks 
as an independent branch of know- 
ledge; and he is aware that it is seldom 
justifiable to read an economic signifi- 
cance into popular maxims or the frag- 
mentary sayings of philosophers. Never- 
theless, he has sometimes included 
matter which would have been more in 
place in the companion volume on 
economic conditions which he has 
promised to undertake. Scattered quo- 
tations, bearing on wealth or labour, 
from poets such as Hesiod, Theognis, 
and Euripides, are not of much value, 
unless the character and purpose of the 
writings in which they occur are care- 
fully explained. Similar considerations 
apply to the philosophical schools. The 
statement (p. 132) that Antisthenes, 
‘though despising wealth, upheld the 
dignity of free labour,’ is altogether 
misleading. It is based on Diog. Laert. 
VI. 2, which is a good instance of 
Cynic paradox. Inasmuch as no one 
doubted that grinding labour (πόνος) 
was an evil thing, it was a disturbing 
message to learn that the greatest of 
the Greek heroes proved the contrary 
by his habitual selection of discomfort 


1 The inference is suggested by the character 
of Chaps. III. and VI. as compared with the 
rest of the book. On p. 77 there is a reference 
to the chapter on Aristotle as having been 
already written. 


GAETANO DE SANCTIS: 


Storia det Romani. Vol. ΠΙ.: L’Eta 
delle Guerre Pumche. By GAETANO 
De Sanctis. One vol. in two parts. 
8vo. grande. Part ‘1. xi+432; 
Part 11. viiit+728, with 8 maps and 
plans of battles. Turin: Fratelli 
Bocca, 1916 and 1917. Lire 30 for 
the two parts. 


In 1908 Dr. H. Peter, reviewing with 
respectful admiration in the Berliner 
Philologische Wochenschrift the first two 
volumes of Professor De Sanctis’ Storia 
dei Romani, doubted whether the author 
could continue his work on the vast 
scale of its early stages. It seems a 


75 


in preference to ease. The treatment 
of the Stoics is equally inadequate. It 
is impossible to understand their posi- 
tion without some reference to the 
theory of ἀξία, the supremacy of ἀρετή, 
and the range of the καθήκοντα in cor- 
respondence with the various ἀδιάφορα. 
There are also some positive errors, 
such as the fixing of Zeno’s birth in the 
year 320 B.c., and the assertion that he 
‘eulogised poverty,’ which is based on 
a misapplication of Cic. Fin. V. 84 
(δ: £39) nn. 8. ro): 

By his frank confession of possible 
errors the author goes far to disarm 
criticism. It must, nevertheless, be 
stated that the formal defects of the 
book are serious. The misprints, espe- 
cially in the Greek quotations, are too 
numerous to mention. Other mistakes, 
such as ‘ Dichaearchus,’ ‘ Hippodamas 
of Miletus,’ ‘Isomachus’ (for Ischo- 
machus), ‘Thucydides Mythhistoricus,’ 
‘Plato’s Politics’ (for Politicus), suggest 
by their repetition that the printer is 
not alone to blame. The system of 
cross-reference is loose, as in the con- 
stantly recurring ‘cf. infra,’ and often 
inaccurate (¢.g. p.17,N.1I}; p. 79, 0. 4). 
Several of the quotations are carelessly 
made, and, as they stand, are mis- 
leading or unintelligible. Besides those 
already mentioned, examples occur at 
ps τὸ nn! 7) 125 \p. 3a naan aed 
p- Τάτ, n. 12. It is obvious that the 
book required a more searching revision 
than it has received. 

A. C. PEARSON. 


STORIA DEI ROMANI. 


novelty to find a German critic quailing 
before the magnitude of a learned work, 
but if the present instalment of the 
Storia has reached Dr. Peter, he must 
feel reassured concerning the staying 
power of Professor De Sanctis. Over 
I,;150 pages are devoted to the First 
and Second Punic wars, and of the 
letterpress a good half is in the small 
print of notes and appendices, revealing 
a study of astonishing minuteness 
and precision, which takes account of 
the period in every aspect, mili- 
tary, political, antiquarian, topographi- 
cal, and chronological, and is perhaps 
above all valuable for its most searching 


76 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


analysis of the sources. But Professor 
De Sanctis is never one of those who 
fail to see the wood for the trees. His 
narrative is of a rare freshness. If all 
the notes and critical matter were taken 
out and published separately for the use 
of students, probably no Roman history 
in existence is so likely as this to rouse 
and hold the interest of the general 
reader, leading him with a sure hand 
through the details of campaigns and 
Roman politics. The author in his 
preface shows a certain anxiety lest 
those who do not know his other work 
should think him inclined to tell a tale 
rather than to trace and estimate re- 
ligious, intellectual, or economic move- 
ments, and explains that war was the 
predominant element in the life of 
third-century Italians, so that the main 
business of their historian is to relate 
their wars; but wherever Professor De 
Sanctis finds occasion to summarise 
large tendencies, he does so with a 
masterly touch, and with a conciseness 
altogether admirable. 

The book opens with a clear and very 
interesting account of the Carthaginian 
republic, its origin, the geography of its 
territory, its constitution, and civilisa- 
tion, with a full discussion of the 
ethnology of North Africa and the re- 
lations existing between Carthage and 
the tribes subject to her, as well as her 
connexion with the mother city of Tyre 
and the growth of her hegemony over 
the other Phoenician colonies in the 
west. In oneof the‘ Statistical Notes’ 
which form part of his first Appendix 
(I. p. 87), Professor De Sanctis, at- 
tempting to calculate the population of 
the Libyo-Phoenician cities, rebukes 
Beloch and others, who seek ‘ to belittle 
the importance of the Punic wars, de- 
claring that the Phoenicians in Africa 
were too few ever to have succeeded in 
making the west a Semitic region. 
They were certainly not less numerous 
than the Latins, who for their part 
knew how to Latinise the country. The 
difficulty of assimilating the natives lay, 
not in the numbers of the Phoenicians, 
but, if anywhere, in their self-regarding 
attitude of isolation among their sub- 
jects. In this respect Phoenician im- 
perialism differed from Roman, and was 
more akin to Anglo-Saxon rule, which 
has often been wrongly compared 


to that of Rome. But we cannot say 
that this isolation would have lasted for 
ever, if conditions had changed.’ 

After this sketch of the origin and 
growth of Carthage the history goes 
straight to the opening of the first 
Punic war. The gravity of the Roman 
decision to intervene at Messina is very 
well brought out. No one in Rome 
foresaw the winning of sea-power, the 
conquest of Sicily and thereafter of the 
world, or the terrible struggle in store 
for the city. ‘Perhaps many of those 
who gave their vote would have been 
disposed to withhold it, had a clear 
vision of the future been before them.’ 
But in any case ‘ war between Carthage 
and Rome was inevitable. ... Only 
if the Italian federation had allowed 
itself to be permeated by Greek culture, 
and if the progress of industry and 
commerce had made it less ready to 
take up arms could a way have been 
found for the peaceful existence of the 
two western powers side by side,.and 
for Mediterranean civilisation to develop 
on a basis of reciprocal balance between 
a few large states, differing in nationality 
but “similar in Οὐ ΓΘ {1} pi erex): 
Two moments, one at the beginning of 
the first Punic war, the other before the 
battle of Zama (which Professor De 
Sanctis bids us call Narragara, though 
force of habit is once too strong even 
for him, and in the errata we find, 
‘p. 555, for Zama read Narragara’), are 
selected as turning Rome irrevocably 
into the pathway of imperialism. The 
first was when M. Valerius resolved to 
march against Syracuse, thereby starting 
Rome on a career of conquest, whereas 
her previous wars for the unity of 
Italy had been ‘ defensively-offensive ’ 
(I. p. 114); the second incident was 
Scipio’s rejection of the peace pro- 
posals of Syphax in 204, ‘one of those 
occasions which mark out a nation’s in- 
evitable course, without contemporaries 
or perhaps even the principal actors 
being aware of what they were doing’ 
(II. p. 526). ‘ Would Rome,’ asks the 
author at the end of the book (II. p. 560) 
‘have the strength to resist temptation ? 
Would she be able to take up once 
more a sober and quiet life, and put a 
curb on the militarism which was 
flourishing after seventeen years of war- 
fare? The immediate future of Italy 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 77 


and civilisation depended on the answer 
to such questions. And the answer had 
already been virtually given by the ad- 
vance of M. Valerius beyond Messina, 
and of P. Scipio beyond the Castra 
Cornelia.’ 

In other passages the author seems to 
credit the Roman capitalist and Junker 
class with an excessive clearsightedness 
in their imperialistic aims. It may be 
doubted whether in the year 241 even 
‘the most hide-bound capitalists ’ wel- 
comed peace because they perceived the 
necessity of ‘ husbanding the robust 
class of Italian peasants,’ if they were 
to have armies wherewith to achieve 
foreign dominion (I. p. 195). If, in the 
author’s opinion, the first steps towards 
empire were taken unconsciously, it 
only needed the first Punic war, the 
Roman request to Seleucus Callinicus 
on behalf of their kinsmen the people of 
Ilium, and their diplomatic intervention 
on the Acarnanian question, to create 
a full-blown spirit of unlimited aggres- 
sion in the east (I. p. 278). But in 
general the moderation and well- 
balanced character of his judgement is 
remarkable; at the same time he never 
fails to come to a definite conclusion, 
after reviewing apparently the whole of 
the literature, ancient and modern, on 
the several points with which he deals. 
To confute him would require in almost 
every case a learning equal to his own. 
There can be very little in any of the 
chief European languages relevant to 
his purpose that has escaped his watch- 
ful eye. He cites articles in English 
and American periodicals constantly, 
but is possibly unfair to larger consecu- 
tive English works, such as those of 
Freeman, Bevan, or Heitland, in com- 
parison with the notice accorded to the 
corresponding output of France and 
Germany. 

A very important essay on the com- 
position and structure of Polybius, 
which Professor De Sanctis rightly con- 
siders indispensable for the understand- 
ing of his observations on the sources 
and chronology of both Punic wars, is 
found at the end of I. chap. iii. The 
final summary of his critical work on 
all the sources (continued systematically 
at each stage of the book) is that, except 
wheretraces can be found of the earliest 
annalists, ‘very little is trustworthy 


that does not come to us directly or in- 
directly from Polybius. This proves 
that, however ruinous and reprehensible 
* polibiolatria ’’ may be, there is no less 
danger in criticism which places and 
discusses on the same level contradic- 
tory passages of Livy and Polybius, or 
worse, of Polybius and Appian or 
Cornelius Nepos. Anyone who has 
formed a clear idea of the stuff that the 
younger contemporaries of Polybius 
put forward in Rome as history, may 
discuss and criticise Polybius, but 
cannot fail to respect him asa historian ’ 
(II. p. 671). Towards Livy’s ‘buon 
gusto’ and ‘buon senso’ the author is 
affectionate (II. p. 656), but while full 
of sympathy for his tendency to ‘live 
Over again in the past the drama of 
his own age, with profound sincerity’ 
(II. p. 194), and making every allowance 
for the difficulties in his way, he shows 
no mercy for the shallowness of Livy 
in research and his other infirmities. 
Polybius also comes in on occasion for 
censure, as ‘his thought is frequently 
quite the reverse of profound, but 
this lack of profundity does not permit 
us to introduce arbitrary corrections 
into his text’ (II. p. 147), after the 
manner of various modern scholars. 
With the ‘perversity’ (secentismo) of 
Laqueur and other textual and higher 
critics Professor De Sanctis has little 
patience, though ready enough to 
accept reasonable emendations and 
theories of second recensions; he 
describes the attitude of these writers 
as ‘ the tendency to substitute in investi- 
gation the idle play of ingenuity and the 
pursuit of novelty at all costs for the 
cautious and leisurely sifting of data’ 
(II. p. 99). He considers that it would 
be useful to attempt a reconstruction of 
Caelius Antipater, in order to complete 
and verify previous analyses of sources, 
and thinks that the hypotheses put for- 
ward by him in the sixth Appendix to 
to II. chap. vi. would form a starting- 
point for part of this work, although he 
does not wish to undertake it himself, 
and does not approve of the efforts of 
Wolfflin, O. Gilbert, and Sieglin in this 
direction. 

The book contains careful studies of 
vexed questions, such as the reform of 
the comitza, the Roman calendar (which 
the author thinks was not very different 


78 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


‘in the third century from the Julian 
calendar) and the topography of all the 
battles. The maps and plans are ex- 
cellent in their clearness. Two slips 
not in the short list of evvata are (1) 
I. p. 219 ‘Ol. 104, 1’ where 140 should 
be read, and (2) II. p. 465 : Cartagena is 
not on the ‘sponda occidentale’ of 
Spain. Others can hardly fail to lurk 
in awork of so great a size, but they do 
not obtrude themselves. The index 


has been tested and not found wanting. 
There is a clear and detailed chrono- 
logical conspectus,and but one desideratum 
seems lacking—namely, a bibliography 
of the modern authors cited. Italy 
should receive the highest congratula- 
tions on herself producing a memorial 
of her national story, which is complete 
and complex without degenerating into 
lengthiness. 
ADELA MARION ADAM. 


CATALOGUE‘OF ARRETINE POTTERY) IN THE MUSEUM: OF 
BRINE J ARTS, BOSTON. 


Catalogue of Avrvetine Pottery in_ the 
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. By Pro- 
fessor GEORGE H. CuHass, Ph.D. 
Quarto. Pp. xii+112, with thirty 
plates-and two figures. Boston and 
New York: Houghton Mifflin Com- 
pany, Ig16. $10. 


CONSIDERING that there exist so few 
Catalogues of Roman and Arretine 
Pottery, it is pleasant that their quality 
should exceed their quantity. In 1908 
the Loeb Catalogue appeared, a pioneer 
so splendid that one expected it would 
be unique; nevertheless the book under 
discussion, by the same author, and 
indebted ina large measure to Mr. Loeb’s 
generosity, is on an almost equally 
sumptuous scale. Since the publication 
of the Loeb and British Museum Collec- 
tions little has been added to our know- 
ledge of these wares beyond articles on 
some isolated examples and an inacces- 
sible German treatise: we have here an 
accession of valuable material, partly 
new, partly familiar, and all the more 
welcome because, of the Arezzo Collec- 
tion itself no catalogue is as yet in 
existence. 

The method differs very slightly from 
that adopted in the author’s earlier work. 
The classification is according to subject, 
moulds and vases being described in the 
same section, and accompanied by very 
illuminating notes on artistic parallels, 
questions of epigraphy, etc. An enter- 
taining feature of Arretine Pottery is 
the way in which the ingenious potter 
by permutations and combinations, 
achieved a variety of designs from a 
limited number of stamps. Dr. Chase 


makes a point of this in the Introduction, 
and, when describing the vases, points 
out and letters those that occur more 
than once. As the types are so impor- 
tant in the case of figures, it would have 
been interesting to add a list of the ones 
in this collection, both for future refer- 
ence and for comparison with the original 
list of Dragendorff. But the book 
includes no form of index, a fact incon- 
venient in a catalogue as full of in- 
formation as this, and regrettable from 
the point of view of catalogues yet to be 
written. 

On the other hand the reader, accus- 
tomed to emulate Oliver Twist where 
illustrations of archaeological books are 
concerned, has here no excuse for so 
doing: the thirty plates are beautiful 
in themselves, and reproduce, often more 
than once, the principal pieces in the 
collection. 

Including vases, fragments, and mis- 
cellaneous objects, the collection com- 
prises 143 items. There are many 
excellent and almost complete examples 
of the more common types; others 
which have a special point of interest, 
as the mould No. 1, with Nike, Artemis, 
and Apollo (the Greek names seem in 
spite of certain protests to have stuck to 
the Roman potter’s handiwork), which is 
the first instance in pottery of a subject 
familiar elsewhere; others again which 
appear to be unique, such as the well- 
known mould with the death of Phaethon 
by Bargates (No. 66) and the Egyptian- 
ising fragment (No. 62): there are none 
however which, like the ‘Birth of 
Dionysos’ in the Loeb Collection, recon- 
struct as whole scenes what had 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 79 


previously been known by fragments 
only. The signatures belong to some 
nine different workshops, the largest 
proportion, of course, to that of M. 
Perennius: one inscription, RHITV PISA, 
is believed to occur for the first time on 
No. 60. 

Our historical outlook has altered very 
little since Oxe’s more rigorous system 
of dating was adopted, and since the sup- 
posed slave Tigranes was given the 
credit of being identical with M. Peren- 
nius himself. Hence the introduction 
to this, the Boston Catalogue, is a 
modification of that of the Loeb Cata- 
logue. Itcontainsa short history of the 
finds of Arretine Pottery and their 
chroniclers from the fifteenth century 
downwards; a description of the tech- 
nical processes involved in making the 


pots ; an account of the potters repre- 
sented in the collection, and some 
remarks upon the forms of art influenc- ἡ 
ing and influenced by Arretine Pottery, 
with the suggestion that some of the 
Renaissance work should be included 
under the latter heading. 

When one turns the pages of the 
book for the first time, noticing the 
uniform print and long paragraphs, one 
has the impression that it is a catalogue 
disguised as a treatise ; closer inspection 
shows that is not only a catalogue, but, 
save for the question of indices already 
noted, a most businesslike one. More- 
over, an account of this kind and of 
objects so dainty and attractive cannot 
fail to be a source of enjoyment as well 
as of information. 

W. LAMB. 


REE. DESCEN, FOB MANUSCRIPTS: 


The Descent of Manuscripts. By A. C. 
CLARK. Oxford: at the Clarendon 
Press, 1918. 28s. net. 


{N this country we are growing richer 
in works on palaeography, pure and 
applied, and textual emendators are 
acquiring a habit of appealing to. its 
principles to justify their suggestions 
(which as likely as not they have reached 
by quite other processes) ; emendation 
by intuition, such as belonged to the 
Italian scholars praised by Ellis in his 
Commentary on Catullus, is not pos- 
sible for us alien workers; it is for us 
painfully to acquire knowledge of the 
ways and habits of scriptoria under the 
guidance of a Lindsay or a Traube, to 
mark down the lurking ligature or the 
ensnaring i-altum, before we can hope 
to emend texts even plausibly, and 
even then, as Professor Housman re- 
minds us, it is necessary to be a textual 
emendator. Most of the books, however, 
have dealt with minuscule scripts and 
only cursorily with majuscules; and yet 
it is about the dark days of majuscules 
that we have most to learn, for it was 
in this period that our texts seem to 
have suffered most loss—not from de- 
liberate corrections (for that fiendish 
art was probably rare and little known 
before the eleventh century and still 


rare then’), but from accidental blunders, 
omissions, and misreadings, incorpora- 
tions of marginal matter and such like; 
errors due to human frailty and stupid- 
ity rather than to human wickedness 
and bumptiousness.” It is really, though 
not intentionally and solely, on pre- 
Caroline days that Professor Clark’s 
book throws much-required light; he 
hsows us what we have to learn from 
the length of the line, the number of 
lines in a page or column, and in general 
the shape of the book and the past 
history of a text, so that in fancy we get 
appreciably back nearer to the author’s 
own days. 

‘The general object,’ says Professor 
Clark, ‘of this book is to show how 
internal evidence furnished by MSS. can 
be utilised to cast light upon the filiation 
of codices, and in some cases upon the 
archetype from which they are derived ; 
also to apply such knowledge to the 
criticism and emendation of the text.’ 
This evidence of the MSS. themselves 
is obtained by omissions, when they 


1 p2 in Livy’s third decade is such an ir- 
responsible, ignorant meddler who writes a 
self-satisfied ‘recognobi’ after each book, but it 
is a problem where he got his right corrections 
from, if they are his. 

? Shipley’s Certain Sources of Corruptions in 
Latin MSS. isa very useful guide for the passage 
from uncials to Caroline. 


80 . ΓΗ CLASSICAL REVIEW 


are of known length, and by repetitions 
(dittographies), and by transpositions ; 
together they show, as a general rule, 
the length of a line, z.e. certain point in 
one line to the same or nearly the same 
point in a line below of the MS. copied; 
frequently there is a contributary cause, 
viz. ὁμοιότης ; sometimes valuable evi- 
dence as to line-omission is obtained 
from supplements in the margin. When 
lines thus discovered vary in length they 
testify to the presence of more than one 
ancestor. In uncials, for instance, a 
two-columned form with 16 to 18 
letters in the line is common; but 
some of the earliest majuscules, as 
the palimpsest of the de Republica 
fragments, average τοῖς letters; when 
omissions show a. number of such 
lines, z.e. with ro} letters as a unit, 
they point to an ancestor of this 
kind. Of course, some omissions must 
be made by mere accidents, especially 
by a scribe with roving eyes; but the 
larger number of omissions—I would 
venture to say the vast majority of them 
—are due to the eye passing from one 
point to a corresponding point in another 
line. Not only a line or two but a 
column, a page, and even a quaternion 
can be calculated, as Professor Clark 
has done. But caution is necessary : 
‘it is only when we have a large 
number of facts all tending in the same 
direction that chance becomes unlikely 
or impossible.’ 

It may be said that this is a very 
interesting study for the leisured, but of 
what advantage is it for textual emenda- 
tion? Apart from considerations men- 
tioned above there are others: if a 
reading is found in one family of MSS. 
and absent from another family (or only 
found in the margin of one), this prin- 
ciple supplies a test for its genuineness, 
for, as Mr. Clark says, ‘an interpolator 
would not have been so cunning as to 
conceal his inventions by a device in- 
tended to show that their omission was 
palaeographically possible.’ For in- 
stance, I applied the principle to a case 
of transposition as we believe it to be in 
Liv. 4. 2, reminiscerentur—amplioremque, 
to see how the passage would stand the 
test in the matter of length; the number 
of letters concerned is 18 x 8—a result 
surprisingly satisfactory, it would seem. 
Moreover, with the support of the prin- 


ciple of the line, we have restored two 
passages to the text of Livy 6-10: 
one a passage which Gelenius found in 
his codex and is in part found in the 
margin of M; the second, or rather 
a second and a third which are quoted 
by grammarians; in both the fall from 
the text was natural, owing to ὁμοιότης. 

Single lines, varying as they do in 
length, are however not so telling as 
long passages where the average comes 
in, and the longer passage in Bk. 4 
is of greater value than the shorter ones, 
especially in the matter of transpositions, 
where these are necessary or suspected; 
the value of the principle appears below 
with reference to Livy and in this work 
in the chapter on the pseudo-Asconius. 

Otto Rossbach (Berl. Phil. Woch., 
October, 1916) has applied with happy 
results the method of the 18 lettered 
line to some readings of Spirensis in 
Livy’s third decade; in fact, no textual 
critic can afford to ignore the leading 
principles of this book, whether he ap- 
proves of them or not. He is hardly 
likely to command attention, unless he 
applies the principles or offers some- 
thing better to account for his emenda- 
tions. If he fills a gap, existent or 
supposed, in his text (for instance, in 
the manner of the late Moritz Mueller’s 
‘free composition ’), his labour will be 
lost, as being unsupported; if he makes 
a transposition, he must strengthen it 
scientifically. Furthermore, the value 
of the method appears in dealing with 
slight repetitions, with variants, doub- 
lets, and ‘voces nihili,’ that invade the 
texts; sometimes they are from lines 
above, sometimes from the margin, 
which very often or rather more fre- 
quently get into the wrong place, even 
into the wrong column. These are well 
known, but Professor Clark has done 
service by showing how this may have 
happened; he has treated these ques- 
tions scientifically: instead of saying 
‘inserted from above,’ or ‘from the 
margin,’ in the old slipshod way, he 
has shown exactly how this may have 


happened.? For instance, he shows how 
1 Cf. Preface to vol. 2 of Liv. 6-10, when it is 
published ! 


2 In the Medicean of the first decade of Livy 
marginal supplements are often far above or 
below the right place ; evidently the scribe found 
them in the margin with or without marks for 
reinsertion. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW δὲ 


Cic. Phil. xiv. 13 appears after an in- 
terval of 951 letters at ὃ 15, and how in 
Cic. Phil. ii. 106, a ‘vox nihili’ is due 
to a doublet in § 104 after an interval 
of 953 letters. Livian texts bear this 
out in various ways. A remarkable 
‘vox nihili’ appears in the text of some 
MSS. in 7. 1. 8, nemo sic, which ulti- 
mately was fully developed into a com- 
plete sentence ; uti pluribus, 26. 48. 12, 
is another; of repetition of part of a 
word (for such it appears to me) I may 
quote 45. 2. 5; Vindob., our sole 
authority, goes back 51 letters to pau- 
corum and repeats a mysterious pauct 
which puzzles editors ; Vindob. seems to 
be copying a MSS. which resembled 
itself, a MS. containing 25-26 letters to 
the line. 

Further, we can get an understanding 
as to what happened in making ‘ shorter 
texts ;’ this is illustrated by shorter texts 
of Horace, Demosthenes’ Midias, and 
the Acts, and particularly Cic. ad Fam. 
vi. 9. I-10. 6on pp. 147-153. All this is 
worked out in detail with considerable 
patience and consummate skill: in the 
first three chapters omissions, omission 
marks, and marginalia are dealt with, 
which ought to be read by all who have 
even so much as handled an ancient 
text; this is followed by evidence from 
Primasius’ Commentary on the Apoca- 
lypse; chapters 5-11 have, what we 
expect from Professor Clark, a masterly 
account of Ciceronian palimpsests, texts 
of various Ciceronian works, and Asco- 
nius—chapters dealing specially with 
the subject under review, which are 
packed full of exceedingly interesting 
and valuable matter, and giving incon- 
trovertible testimony of the truth of the 
doctrines enunciated; chapters 12 and 
13 treat of MSS. of Plato and the Paris 
MS. of Demosthenes. An ‘ Addenda’ 
illustrating the various points from 
English (in addition to those given in 
chapter I) and other MSS. will be 
interesting to students of English texts. 
Full Indexes complete the volume. 

I have noticed only one misprint : 
on p. 264, Livy 31. 3 cannot be right, 
as Bk. 31 has nothing to do with Vindob.; 
tracing it to Heraeus, I find he has “114. 
31. 3, 1.¢. 26. 31. 3, but neither is it 
theres 

It will perhaps be suitable to set 


NO. CCLXXIII. VOL. XXXIII. 


forth a number of examples of omission 
from Livian MSS. of the third decade. 
The examples are taken at random and 
are not complete. In the second half 
of the decade, where we have the Spir- 
ensian tradition (called S here) as well 
as Puteanus, I have noticed among 
smaller omissions the following on the 
part of P (P has an average of 17 or 18 
letters in his line, sometimes he falls to 
I4 or I5, sometimes, but rarely, rises to 
20 or 21; he has incomplete lines, too, 
marking real or sham paragraphs) : 
Letters 


omitted. 
28. 14. 9 ne aperirent (6) 11 
28. 15. 2 die iure etiam (ὁμ.) 13 
27. 7. 4 supplicationes 14 
28. 23. 4 ab tergo in gente (ὁμ.) 14 
29. 21. 5 quod suum noh esset (ὁμ.) 16 
29. 35. 14 deuexam equitatus (ὁμ.) 16 
29. 1. 10 atque exercendorum (ὁμ.) 17 
27. 7. 9 praefuisset urbanus (6p?) 18 
27. 12. 2 non iter quietos facere (ὁμ.) 20 
28. 23. 1 iure belli in armatos re 20 
30. 4. 6 hasdrubal ab syphace ab (ὁμ.) 20 
30. 12. 18 institit deinde reputa 20 
28. 11. ὃ metu. . . minime (ὁμ 3) 25 
20.3 5 9 garamantum omne tempus usque 
(6p. 25 
29. 1. ΤΙ multisque proeliis rem publicam 28 
30. 17.9 donis. . . dedisse (6p?) 35 
(18+17) 
26. 51.8 nunc. . . decurrebat (double ὁμ.) 54 
(3 x 18) 
29. 26. ὃ nauigantibus. . . silentio (6u.) 54 
(3 x 18) 
29. 12. 9 retinenda. . . Hispania (6u.) _ 63 
(3x 21) 


and in 24. 32. 9 postero die servi ad 
(17) are omitted by P but added by P? 
(z.e. P himself) in the margin; here he 
seems to have omitted a line but noticed 
it (there is no op.). 

In 30. 33. 15 there is an omission of 
17 letters, in 30. 35. 9 of 25 (which 
could be shortened to 21) and in 
30. 37. 10 of 18, all without ὁμ., by CB, 
and evidently therefore by P (but here 
P is lost). 

Of these, in 28. 11. 8 if in agros, 
which I suspect for other reasons, is a 
marginal addition, the line is reduced 
to 18 letters; on “the contrary, in 
28. 23. I there is an acknowledged loss 
of a word or words before ture, which 
may or may not have been in P’s 
model; 29. 33. 9, P’s model, may have 


1 | have discussed some of the first decade in 
the Preface of the forthcoming vol. 2. 


F 


82 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


gone wrong on Garamantum and tele- 
scoped ftempusq. 29. I. 11 is clearly 
reducible by writing vemp. or rép. 

In 27. 32. 7 there is an omission and 
distortion : 

S* had omnes copias | ad propinquum 
Eliorum | (19) castellum Pyrgum uocant | 
(18) eduxit; P has castellum pyrgum 
uocant copias onmes before eduxit. It 
would seem that P’s model had copias 
omnes eduxit only, but the omitted 
words castellum Pyrgum uocant (18) in 
the margin. P naturally inserted them 
wrongly; I see no other way of ex- 
plaining the phenomena. 

It seems then that P’s model was of 
much the same shape as P, but longer 
and not so dumpy; the shorter lines 
rather suggest a predecessor of the 
line-length of the palimpsest of the de 
Rep.; the few (if there are really any) 
of 25-26 letters would be two of these. 

The larger omissions of P (27. 2. 11- 
A730 ὍΤΙ about) TE20)) (EOI 62) 
letters, seem to point to the loss of a 
page of two columns; if so, the model 
resembled the Veronese palimpsest (first 
decade) or the Vatican fragmentary 
palimpsest of Bk. g1, which have thirty 
lines of two columns to a page. The 
larger omission (26. 41. 18-26. 43. 9), 
of which S (as shown by the Supple- 
ment in Agennensis) has preserved two 
folios, or four pages,? to judge by the 
size of the loss of Pin Bk. 27. (It would 
seem by the matter that there is complete 
loss of another folium still.) 

A recognised distortion in P is 
22.10. 2. He hasinserted between Quiri- 
tium and guod the words quod duellum— 
Alpes sunt (corrig. Lipsius)—1.e. exactly 
four lines of 18 letters; for P writes 
PR for populo Romano and qui πὶ for 
gut; it would seem that the words 
had fallen out into the margin and 
were reinstated in the wrong place. In 
22. 18. 10 Luchs has changed ab con- 
tins cladibus ac respirasse to ac respi- 
rasse ab continus cladibus (as C’s cor- 
rector apparently did long before); 
Valla’s correction is less likely, if we 
realised that 1g letters are concerned ; 


1 For S’s lines see below. 

* In the Medicean of 1-10 there are two dis- 
tortions of the text, probably due to the displace- 
ment of quaternions in the predecessor of M ; 
similarly in O a quaternicn appears to be lost 
after 4. 30. 14 


P, confusing ab and ac, wrote ac 
vespirasse, discovered his omission, and, 
‘more suo,’ then wrote ab continuds 
cladibus (and said nothing about it?), 
or P’s model was responsible. 

In 22.320) δ ΣΝ 2a0'3. Pt seers 
§§ 3, 1, 2. Valla (in A*) marked the 
passage, and Claude du Puis (in his P) 
suggests a transposition; Grynaeus 
(ed. Frob. 1531) transposed as now 
accepted; there are 18x10 letters in 
§§ r and 2 and 18x20 in §3. It looks 
as if part of a column got in before the 
other part. 

In a list of dittographs which I have 
made in Bks. 23, 24, 25 there are ten 
normal lines (or multiples) repeated, 
one slightly exceeding, seven of 24-26, 
but all, I think, showing a normal line 
-++ a repeated word or words, and six of 
29-31, which are abnormal, but suggest 
that the line is the cause of the repeti- 
tion. I think they are all due to P 
himself, not a predecessor; but we 
must remember that P (and perhaps 
P’s model) has incomplete lines, 
making paragraphs even where con- 
tinuity of writing is required (cf. 
Clark, p. 46). 

T'imust: ‘add. one: ‘irom 26, 20 τος 
imicum | extra sortem conlege optionem 
dart provinciae iniquum |, with difference 
of spelling (not unusual in P): 47 letters 
(16+17+14 actually) repeated. 

But on the whole I am not inclined 
to set much store by these repetitions ; 
I believe the line-principle fixes their 
‘terminus ad quem,’ but nothing limits 
their ‘terminus a quo’; the scribe may 
or may not go back to any starting- 
place. 

The Spirensian tradition, on the 
other hand, has omissions: in 30. 28. 11 
S omitted pulsos se Hispania (op.) or 16 
letters, but P has it twice, to make up 
for S’s deficiency; this would suggest 
that S and P are descended from an 
ancestor of like shape. In 29. 21. 6 the 
Turin palimpsest (classed as of the same 
ancestry as 9) omitted originally restituc 


3 This is P’s way : he does not call unneces- 
sary attention to his mistakes and he does not 
like to mess his beautiful parchment ; when he 
repeats half a word from a line above he quietly 
goes on as if nothing had happened (I am not 
sure that the larger repetitions are not corrected 
by him); Vindob. seems much the same. 

4 See Class. Quart. XI (1917), pp. 154 ff., 
“The Codex Agenensis and Valla.’ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


.. . Locrensium (ou.) or 59 (3 X 20) letters, 
and similarly in 29. 21. 5, st quid 
vepeteret (ou.) 33, where T? gives con- 
praehenderet. 

S omits in 27. I1. 12 concedente 
collega 17; in 28. 29. 4 quid optaverint 
(ὁμ.) 14; in 29. 37. 7 tpsorum colonia- 
rum 17. ἢ : 

Longer omissions by S are mentioned 
by Rhenanus at 27. 7. 14 and 26. 43. 6 
of uncertain length, as he does not give 
details (he says a page, but means a 
folio); these are apparently due to the 
scribe, not to wanton destroyers; but 
the Munich folio of S—viz. 28. 39. 16— 
28. 41. 22! shows 4,000, more or less, 
letters in the folio, so if the losses are 
due to the scribe, the uncial MS. from 
which S is descended was rather smaller 
than P’s model. 

But the evidence of C, as being a 
direct copy of P, and of other copies of 
P, is instructively bearing on Pro- 
fessor Clark’s principle of omission 
based on ὁμ. and line or line only (or 


thereabouts). C omits 22. 22. 21-23. 1 
quogue—in Hispania (no ὁμ.), 76 (4 X 19) 
letters. Here P has 

Romanos quoque et 

Dat attatalig vets (3 lines) 

haec in Hispania quo 

que 


with a deleted quogue between Cartha- 
gimienses and concedere; in 22. 39. 21 


1 (Miinchen. Cod. Lat., 23491). The late 
A. H. Kyd copied this remaining (if it does 
remain now) folio of S entirely out for me 
shortly before his lamented death. 


83 


C omits metuit agentem (op), 
37 letters, which looks like 18+ 19, but 
actually P has | metuit... mt|hil... 
agen|tem te ratio. My second example 
is still more instructive: in 22. 55. 3 
clamor mortuique (op. of que, 
58 letters—i.e. 3x19, but P has 
clamor | lamentantium mulilerum . . 

pa(|lam mor |tuique, lines of 18 
(ending with clamor), 16, 14, 15 letters). 
In 26. 2. 10 C omits praesidio . . . essent, 
35 letters. P has essent in middle of 
second line under essef. We must in- 
terpret the canon rather liberally in 
some of these; but we are dealing with 
small amounts, against which Professor 
Clark warns us. Moreover C is copy- 
ing majuscules into minuscules, and 
evidently -read somewhat ahead in 
making his copy. ! 

In 30. 38. 12-39. I C omits reddita 
Claudium (no ὁμ.), 15 letters; in 
30. 42. 17 victis quam vincendo (op.), 
18; and in 30. 45. 2 militum ... per, 
26; but we have no means of know- 
ing what P had here (Luchs’ Proleg. 
p. lviii). 

B omits ex duobus exercitibus (Ig or 
17), without ὁμ., in 30. 41. 5, and the 
Munich fragments has dittograph in 
23. 40. 2: after periculo essent the 
scribe goes back and repeats alterum 
ut quae in naues (IQ or 20).” 

C. FLAMSTEAD WALTERS. 


2 As A. H. Kyd, who sent me notice and 
readings of these fragments, pointed out, this 
was due to the essemt, with which P ends both 
lines. : 


RECONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS, 21: THE CLASSICS IN 
BRITISH EDUCATION: 


Reconstruction Problems, 21: The Classics 
in British Education. London: Pub- 
lished by His Majesty’s Stationery 
Office, Imperial House, Kingsway, 
W.C. 2, etc., 1919. Price 2d. net. 


THIS is an admirable pamphlet, tem- 
perate yet thorough, summarising in 
‘fourteen points’ just what the keen 
but (sometimes) inarticulate friend of 
the Classics needs to know, if he is to 
take up his parable and give cogent 
reasons for the faith that is in him. 


The writer takes a broad view, and he 
avoids ‘ fine writing.’ Salient features 
are the valuable references to the Book 
of the Princeton Conference (with some 
of its most striking facts in précis) and 
to the statement on the Greek question 
by M. Albert Mansbridge, representing 
the W.E.A. The claims of Greek are 
convincingly put, and the importance 
of Latin as a ‘ pivotal’ subject is not 
neglected—in particular on the lin- 
guistic side; an argument that might 
be clinched in one word if we agreed 


84 


to call a spade a spade and Latin 
(not Latin but) European, as being the 
one language on which all the other 
languages that matter in modern Europe 
are alike based. 

The pamphlet deserves the heartiest 
welcome and the closest attention that 


THE: CLASSICAL. REVIEW 


all friends of the cause can give it. If 
the Classics are to survive as an effective 
force in the reconstructed scheme of 
national education, it must be on some 
such lines as those advocated here: ἐν 
τούτῳ VLKNT OVAL. 


DD: ARS. 


NOTES AND 


AT the Annual General Meeting of 
the Northumberland and Durham 
Branch of the Classical Association, 
held on February 22, it was decided 
to invite the parent Classical Associa- 
tion to visit Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 
1920, as it is hoped that the buildings 
of Armstrong College may at an early 
date be evacuated by the military 
authorities. 


NEWS 


At the last ordinary meeting of the 
Branch in 1918, the Rev. Dr. Dawson 
Walker, Durham, read a paper on ‘ The 
Influence of the Stoic diatribe on the 
style of St. Paul’s Epistles,’ and at the 
first meeting of 1919 Dr. J. Wight Duff, 
Newcastle, read a paper on ‘ Velleius 
Paterculus as a representative of Silver 
Age prose.’ 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


All publications which have a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered in this list if they are sent for 


veVIEW. 


The price should in all cases be stated. 


* * Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


Andreades (A. M.) Sir Charles Dilke and 
Greece. 83x6". Pp. iv+58. Athens: A. 
Raphtane, 1918. Dr. 2: On Money and the 
buying Power of the Precious Metals in the 
Byzantine Empire. δὲ" χα". Pp. ii4-42. 
Athens: Tarousopoulos, 1918. [No price 
given.] Constantinople: its Population and 
Wealth in the Middle Ages. 83"x6". Pp. 
vit+249—ii+ 297. Athens: Sakellarios, 1918. 
[No price given.} The Economic System of 
Greece, from Heroic Times till the Establish- 
ment of the Kingdom of Greece. Vol. 1.» 
Part 2, of 7!) 'Pp), xiu+e624.), Athens : 
A. Raphtane, 1918. [No price given.] 

Beazley (J. D.) Attic Red-Figured Vases in 
American Museums. 110 Χ 8". Pp. x+236. 
Oxford University Press (for Harvard Uni- 
versity), 1918. Half cloth, 30s. net. 

Fowler (W. W.) The Death of Turnus: Ob- 
servations on the XIIth Book of the Aeneid. 
7 x 5". Pp. vin + 1s. Oxford? B. oH. 
Blackwell, 1919. Cloth, 6s. net. 

Greece before the Conference. By Polybius. 


74x δῇ". Pp.xxvi+120. London: Methuen 
and Co., 1919. Cloth, 5s. net. 

Hermathena(No. XLI.) 9”x53". Pp. 1x+175 
—330+iv. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis and Co., 
1919. 45s. 

Janssen (J.) C. Suetonii Tranquilli Vita Do- 
mitiani (Doctor’s Dissertation). 93” 62". 
Pp.iv+96. Groningen: J. B. Wolters, 1910. 

Koperberg(S.) Polybii Historiarum Liber XXX, 
quoad fieri potuit restitutus (Doctor’s Dis- 


sertation). οὐ". Pp. vilit104. Am- 


sterdam. J. H. Kok, 1919. 


Lofberg (J. Ὁ.) Sycophancy in Athens (Dis- 
sertation for Doctorate). 93”x 63". Pp. 
xii+1o4. University of Chicago Libraries, 


Chicago, Illinois, 1917. 


Moore (C. H.) Pagan Ideas of Immortality 
during the early Christian Centuries. 
63” x 43”. Pp. viiit64. Oxford University 


Press (for Harvard University) Cloth, 


3s. 6d. net. 


Murray (G.) Aristophanes and the War 
Party: A Study in the Contemporary Criti- 


cism of the Peloponnesian War. 63” x 4". 
Pp. 48. London: George Allen and Unwin, 
I9I9. Is. net. 


Oxyrhynchus Papyri XIII, Edited by Drs. 
Grenfell and Hunt. 85 χ τοὶ". Pp. iv+236, 
Cloth. 

Sandys (J. E.) Latin Epigraphy: an Intro- 
duction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions. 
73" x 5h’. Pp. xxiv+ 324. Cambridge: Uni- 
versity Press, 1919. Cloth, 12s. 6d. net. 


Thompson (T.) and Sraw/ey (J. H.) St. Am- 
brose ‘on the Mysteries’ and the treatise 
‘on the Sacraments.’ (Christian Literature 
Series.) 73” x4#". Pp. 144. London: 
S.P.C.K., 1919. Cloth, 4s. 6d. net. 

Wright (H. G.) The Life and Works of 
Arthur Hall of Grantham. 9”x53”. Pp. 
x+233. Manchester: University Press, 
1919. Cloth, ros. 6d. net. 


The Classical Review 


AUGUST—SEPTEMBER, 1919 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 


XII. 


Eis ᾿Απόλλωνα. 


286 


The suggestion of ἦρχέ τε μύθου 
would remedy the metrical defect of 
this line, but there is room for an alter- 
native course by which εἶπέ te μῦθον 
might be maintained and the preceding 
ἐπήρατον found guilty of trespass. 

There is no need for any severe treat- 
ment of the supposed offender. It is 
only the unmetrical termination that 
would suffer if we were to read 


ἐπήρεα εἶπέ TE, 


νηὸν ποιήσασθαι ἐπήρατον εἶπέ τε μῦθον. 


᾿Επήρης may be fairly inferred from’ 


εὐήρης reinforced by κατήρης, with which 
it would be fairly synonymous, ποδήρης 
and δυσήρης, which last indeed might 
be the true reading in 1. 64. 

It is no derogation to the temple that 
it should be described as ‘ fitting,’ the 
word being put in the mouth of Apollo. 
The vaguely inadequate epithet ‘lovely’ 
(ἐπήρατος) suits neither the character 
of the locality as represented in the 
Hymn, nor of the god himself. In 521 
Nitzsch’s ‘lofty,’ ‘elevated,’ seems pre- 
ferable, and the possibility of two 
separate words being confused together 
cannot be left out of account. 

In 295 ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς represents an earlier 
ἐπί σφι, and there can be little doubt 
that the true reading of 297 is: 

vie "Epyivov, φίλω ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι" 
*k Ἕ * 

299 κτιστοῖσιν λάεσσιν, ἀοίδιμον ἔμμεναι αἰεί. 

As the temple itself would be κτιστός 
and not the stones, the material of 
which it was built, most editors adopt 


NO. CCLXXIV. VOL, XXXIII. 


Ernesti’s £eorotow, and Mr. Allen has 
suggested but not adopted τυκτοῖσιν as 
well as ῥυτοῖσιν. He has certainly in- 
serted in his text many worse conjec- 
tures, notably and most recently Marx’s 
miserable ἀμφ᾽ ἡμέων in 1.171. Here, 
in view of the frequent confusion of 
m and ¢ (v. remarks on 1. 13), we should 
perhaps read, as closer to the tradition, 
κμητοῖσιν, cf. πολύκμητος. The simple 
adjective is not found, as is expressly 
stated in the Etym. Magn.; but though 
this fact accounts in some measure for 
the corruption here, only the most arid 
pedantry could object to κμητός on that 
account. The stones are ‘ worked,’ as 
we say ‘dressed,’ with hammer and 
chisel. 
Ἕ * * 

316 αὐτὰρ ὅ γ᾽ ἠπεδανὸς γέγονεν μετὰ πᾶσι θεοῖσι 
παῖς ἐμὸς Ἥφαιστος, ῥικνὸς πόδας, ὃν τέκον αὐτή 
ῥίψ᾽ ἀνὰ χερσὶν ἑλοῦσα καὶ ἔμβαλον εὐρεί πόντῳ" 

For γέγονεν ‘is’ we should certainly 
read γεγόνει ‘was born.’ The mal- 
formation was clearly the cause and not 
the effect of the fall. Here was deter- 
mined not to rear a cripple and she 
takes no blame for her conduct. On 
the contrary, she still (321) blames 
Thetis for her rescue-work. 

It follows that the pathos of ὃν τέκον 
αὐτή is quite misplaced, and the dog- 
matic judgment of Allen and Sikes 
who say the words ‘are not to be 
touched’ is again mistaken. Ruhnken 
was right in the main. The words are 
a very simple and easy corruption of 
ὅν τε καὶ αὐτή, which is naturally and 
smoothly followed by ῥίψ᾽ ava χερσὶν 
ἑλοῦσα. Of course, after the appearance 
of τέκον the smooth sequence is broken, 


G 


86 THE CLASSICAL) REVIEW 


and Demetrius Chalcondyles in 1488 
showed his perception of the difficulty 
by a remark on the margin " λείπει. 
Fortunately he did not immediately 
proceed to fill up the supposed lacuna 
by concocting a line of his own, as Mr. 
Allen has done to the misleading of one 
editor already. 

The ruthlessness of Here expressed 
by the words καὶ αὐτή should not be 
missed. Some revolt against its open 
avowal probably enough caused the 
appearance of the affectionate and 
loving but most inept τέκον. 


ok * ok 


324 οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ τεκόμην ; Kal σὴ κεκλημένη ἔμπης 
ἣά ῥ᾽ ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν, ot οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι, 

We have here a deplorable instance 
of ill-advised retrogression. Messrs. 
Allen and Sikes say in their note, 
‘editors after Demetrius have read ἣν 
ap’ as third person; “even if I had 
borne her, she would have been called 
thy daughter.” ’ They are obliged to 
admit that the sense is excellent. Yet 
they will have none of it, but adopt a 
doubtful emendation of Matthiae’s, in- 
volving a forced emphasis on κεκλημένη, 
a misapplication of ἔμπης, and the neces- 
sity of understanding ἄλοχος or ἄκοιτις, 
for which there cannot be found any 
justification. Σή alone makes Here, 
the dignified matrona Iuno, talk like a 
young married lady in the honeymoon, 
‘Only, only call me Thine.’ They 
explain thus, ‘I had at least the ἐσ 
of your wife (although I have been 
neglected).’ It might fairly be tasked 
when she lost that title, for otherwise 
εἰμι Would be better than ja in every 
respect. Lastly this view completely 
disables καί, which cannot well join a 
question to an affirmation. 

To avoid doing any injustice to 
Messrs. Allen and Sikes it is only fair 
to say that they make two objections 
which they call serious to ἦν the third 
person: (1) κεν or av would be re- 
quired, (2) the MSS. are unanimous in 
reading ἢ with variations of accent. 

The second objection cannot avail 
much, seeing that they themselves do 
not adopt ἢ and moreover admit that 
ἣν ἂρ is found in I m. 2, while their 
ἄρ in answer to Hermann simply 
wives the case away. 


Perhaps the best answer to the first 
objection, which entirely depends on 


an erroneous punctuation that conceals © 


the proper correlation of the sentences, 
would be to present them in a more 
readable form. The alteration of the 
tradition is but slight : 

οὔ Kev ἔγὼ τεκόμην, Kal σὴ κεκλημένη ἔμπης 

ἢεν ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν, οἱ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι ; 
‘Might not I have borne her, and 
would she not have been called among 
the immortals who occupy the wide 
heaven thy daughter all the same ?’ 


Ov κεν or οὐκ av, if a traditional error 
is to be preserved, belongs equally to 
Texounv and to ἦεν: καί hitherto use- 
less is rehabilitated : ἣεν ἐν accounts by 
a lipography of ἐν for the traditional 7, 
not ἦα, and we are quit of the stopgap 
pa or dpa, which can hardly be right 
after no fewer than five words in its 
clause. 


I am inclined to suspect that παῖς 
ἐμοί rather than παῖς ἐμός is the true 
reading in 327, ἐμός comes from 317; 


but this is a small matter compared - 


with the difficulty presented by 329 f.: 
οὐδέ τοι εἰς εὐνὴν πωλήσομαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ σεῖο 
τηλόθ᾽ ἐοῦσα θεοῖσι μετέσσομαι ἀθανάτοισιν. 

I note in passing that the τηλόθεν 
οὖσα of the MSS. has been rightly 
abandoned, not by Mr. Allen (v. Vol. V. 
Homeri Opera, 1012), but more recently 
by Mr. Evelyn-White in the Loeb 
Classical Library edition. This how- 
ever is only a question of form that any 
intelligent schoolboy might be trusted 
to decide. 

The real difficulty is that the goddess 
is made to declare : 


θεοῖσι μετέσσομαι ἀθανάτοισιν 


‘J will consort with the immortal gods,’ 
when it is clear she has no such inten- 
tion, and in fact does the very opposite 
(331): 
ὡς εἰποῦσ᾽ ἀπονόσφι θεῶν κίε χωομένη κῆρ. 

and that there may be no shadow of 
doubt as to her whereabouts the hymn- 
writer specifically adds (343): 


ἐκ τούτου δὴ ἔπειτα τελεσφόρον εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν 

οὔτε ποτ᾽ εἰς εὐνὴν Διὸς ἤλυθε μητιόεντος 

οὔτε ποτ᾽ ἐς θῶκον πολυδαίδαλον, ws τὸ παρός περ 
αὐτῷ ἐφεζομένη πυκινὰς φραζέσκετο βουλάς - 

ἀλλ᾽ ἥ γ᾽ ἐν νηοῖσι πολυλλίστοισι μένουσα 

τέρπετο ols ἱεροῖσι βοῶπις πότνια “Ἥρη. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 87 


In spite of this explicit declaration 
Messrs. Allen and Sikes insinuate 
vaguely that there is no contradiction 
in 330, or if there is one, they say it 
may be attributed to the author’s care- 
lessness. Never was criticism’ more 
ill-founded. The carelessness belongs 
to the two critics not to the author. 
What has happened is plain enough. 
The tradition is at fault here, as often, 
owing to well-intended but stupid inter- 
ference on the part of some rhapsodist 
or pietist. I take it as certain that the 
author wrote, what his own words prove 
him to have written, μετέσσομαι ἀνθρώ- 
ποισιν. The goddess does exactly the 
same as Demeter under different con- 
ditions had done in the preceding 
Hymn (Ὁ. 92-3, 319, 331-2; 354-4, 384-5)- 
She retires to her temple, her boudorr, 
among men. But why then do we find 
Gcotat... ἀθανάτοισι. Simply because 
the respectful and reverent rhapsodist 
could not allow the dignity of Here to 
be lowered by mixing with the baser 
sort. She must mix with her peers, the 
Det maiorum gentium, not. with mere 
human beings. Certainly not. It would 
be an ἀπρεπές. Consequently ἀνθρώ- 
Tota must give way to ἀθανάτοισι, which 
is further secured by reading θεοῖσι for, 
it may be, an original βροτοῖσι, but it 
would probably be more pleasing to the 


palaeographic mind to think that he 
merely changed 


ἀλλ᾽ ἀπο σεῖο. . . θεῶν Te. 

Compare with this passage Hes. 
Op. 202, where as I have elsewhere 
suggested λαῷ. . . φρονέοντι καὶ αὐτῷ 
has, for the sake of respectability and 
social exclusiveness, been turned into 
an impossible and irrelevant 


βασιλεῦσι. . . φρονέουσι καὶ αὐτοῖς. 


In the quoted lines 343-9 for ὡς τὸ 
πάρος περ αὐτῷ ἐφεζομένη I would read, 
ᾧ τε πάρος περ 
αὐτὴ ἐφεζομένη (αὐτή, ‘in state’), 
The traditional αὐτῷ is an evident 
᾿ modernisation which should not be 


maintained, and another modernisation 
presents itself in 


335 Ἰιτῆνές τε θεοί, τοὶ ὑπὸ χθονὶ ναιετάοντες 
Τάρταρον ἀμφὶ μέγαν, τῶν ἐξ ἄνδρες τε θεοί τε, 


where Allen and Sikes with strangely 


mistaken dogmatism pronounce Ilgen’s 
ναιετάουσιν ‘quite impossible.’ They 
are too rash. 1 agree that “τοὶ is of 
course a relative pronoun. They can 
see this; but they cannot see that 
everyone after the early epic period, for 
many centuries, readers and transcribers 
and hearers alike, would naturally be 
glad to take it as the article, and for 
this purpose to change any vaserdovat 
into the more familiar and usual par- 
ticiple, so producing the recognised 
elementary ὁ πράττων construction 
known now to every schoolboy, but 
necessarily quite alien to the old epic 
speech. 

In 337 αὐτόθι νῦν is undoubtedly the 
true reading. It is clearly the classical 


and earliest example of Mr. Asquith’s 
‘here and now.’ 


* * * 
3061 πυκνὰ μάλ᾽ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ἑλίσσετο, λεῖπε δὲ 
θυμὸν 
φοινὸν ἀποπνείουσ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ ἐπεύξατο Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλ- 
λων" 


Gemoll says the words λεῖπε. ., 
ἀποπνείουσ᾽ are extremely difficult. 
Allen and Sikes declare with foolish 
dogmatism that suspicion of the text is 
quite unwarranted. The key to the 
difficulty is to be found in the observa- 
tion that in the early epic the θυμός 
(and the ψυχή may be included) in 
articulo mortis invariably quits the 
creature or man, never the man the 
θυμός. Ruhnken realised this and 
Matthiae at first, though the actual 
conjectures they based on it were most 
unsatisfactory, λεῖβε δὲ φοῖνον, θυμὸν 
ἀποπνείουσ᾽ (Ruhnken) and ele δὲ 
θυμὸς Φοῖβου ἀπὸ νευρῆς (Matthiae). 

Now to suppose that λεῖπε δὲ θυμόν 
can be justified in spite of Homer by 
Pind. Pyth. III. 180 and by Virg. 
Aen. IX. 349 is idle, and a mere misuse 
of authorities, useful often enough in 
Homeric criticism, but on such a point 
totally useless, against A 470, M 386, 
II 410, 743, T 406, γ 455, > 221, μ 414, 
which I must beg my reader to accept 
as quoted. 

It remains to be seen whether any 
more simple and convincing restoration 
than Ruhnken’s and Matthiae’s can be 
made. 

My contribution is certainly more 


88 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


simple and direct ; whether more con- 
vincing I leave others to decide: 

πυκνὰ μάλ᾽ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ἑλίσσετο, κεῖτο δὲ θυμὸν 

φοινὸν ἀποπνείουσ᾽, 
‘It lay breathing out its life in blood.’ 
The clause is a most telling iteration 
and enforcement of 358, the final stage 
of 358: 

κεῖτο μέγ᾽ ἀσθμαίνουσα κυλινδομένη κατὰ χῶρον. 
The poet has varied κυλινδομένη κατὰ 
χῶρον into ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ἑλίσσετο and 
also pey’ ἀσθμαίνουσα into the later and 
intenser stage of θυμὸν φοινὸν ἀποπνεί- 
ovea, and some foolish rhapsodist 
probably thought it was left for him to 
intensify κεῖτο into, as he would sup- 
pose, a more fatal and mortal λεῖσε. 


374 αὐτοῦ rice πέλωρ μένος ὀξέος ᾿Ηελίοιο. 


There is no point in emphasising the 
preceding κεῖθε by αὐτοῦ. Still δεινὸν 
(Schneidewin) and αἰνὸν (Bergk) are 
too remote. Αὔτως (v.on H. Dem. 371) 
is probable, involving practically the 
change of one letter only. 


390 οἱ θεραπεύσονται ἸΤυθοῖ ἔνι πετρηέσσῃ. 

If the line be genuine (in my opinion 
it is an interpolation to explain dpyiovas 
and should be bracketed, not rearranged 
as by Matthiae and Hermann, together 
with the equally spurious 393-6, which 
interrupt the story by anticipating the 
end). Πυθοῖ should for the metre’s 
sake be Πυθῶν᾽, 1.6. ἸΤυθῶνι, of. Hymn 
Herm. 178 eis Πυθῶνα, B 519. The 
Same correction is required in 1]. 405. 
Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ (8 81) is, of course, 
perfectly metrical. 

I will remark further that Gemoll’s 
attempt to defend these lines by a 23-4 
is not in point. There we have geo- 


graphical information which is not, and 
could not well be, given elsewhere. 
This is not the case here. 

In 391 ταῦτ᾽ dpa ὁρμαίνων is im- 
possible. Either ταῦτ᾽ dp: ὅ γ᾽ or some 
other simple avoidance of this needless 
gap is called for. Contrast 20r where 
o 1s pure surplusage. Such are the 
vagaries of the tradition. Ταῦτ᾽ dp’ é 
ὁρμαίνων ἐνόησε might be suggested, 
1.€. εἰς ενόησε. 

Not unfrequently a question arises 
between tradition and usage. Here is 
one in which the meaning is much the 
same either way : 

419 ἀλλὰ παρὲκ ἸΤελοπόννησον πίειραν ἔχουσα 
Ht’ ὁδόν, πνοιῃ δὲ ἄναξ ἑκάεργος ᾿Απόλλων. . . 

For ἔχουσα, which certainly cannot 
be defended, as Allen and Sikes sup- 
pose, by the very different usage of 
y 182 αὐτὰρ ἐγώ γε Πύλονδ᾽ ἔχον, 1 
would read ἰοῦσα (Baumeister’s ἑκοῦσα 
will notscan). An even better instance 
for my purpose is ἤϊ᾽ ὁδόν, against which 
I adduce 


435 νηῦς ἀνύσειε θέουσα θαλάσσης ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ. 


(Note in passing that θέουσα is in 
favour of ἐοῦσα.) and 
Ὕ 406 ἦνον ὁδόν" 


which make it highly probable that the 
true reading here is Barnes’s ἦνεν ὁδόν. 

Gemoll in his commentary roundly 
and wrongly condemns ἦνεν as a ‘ very 
bad’ conjecture, “ because in y 496 the 
journey is at an end, but here it is not.’ 
This is a good specimen of empty 
dogmatism. Barnes was often enough 
in the wrong, but not in this instance. 
Not only is ἦνεν a legitimate imperfect 
here, but ἦνον (y 496) is probably the 
same (‘sought to finish their journey,’ 


M. and R.). 
ΓΕ ΑΘ ΝΣ 


SOME NOTES ON THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF APOLLO. 


I. AS commonly known, the’ per- 
sonal names of the Greeks offers to us 
a nearly inexhaustible, at least not yet 
by far exhausted, source of information 
as to the Greek religion. Greek families 
have in innumerable cases in their name- 
giving given expression to the intimate 


relation in which they stood to some 
definite cult or deity. In these lines 
I want to call the attention to two 
personal names found in the edition of 
the inscriptions from Priene by Hiller 
von Gartringen. In nr. 313 he has 
collected all the tozos-inscriptions in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW | 89 


alphabetical order, and here we read 
1. 93: ὁ τόπος ᾿Απολλᾶδος τοῦ Γαλέου. 
The editor seems to hesitate whether 
to take the name as ᾿Απολλᾶς ὁ T'adéou 
or as ᾿Απολλᾶς ὁ Γαλεός (cp. the Index), 
but surely the former view 15 the better, 
if you consider the form of the other 
To7ros-inscriptions. This Apollas is 
consequently the son of Tanéas (cp. e.g. 
Κυκνέας derived from κύκνος Ditt. Syill.?, 
83, 3, Tavpéas from ταῦρος sim.) or of 
Γαλεός. As far as I see, F. Bechtel, in 
his newly-published, extremely useful 
book, Die /ustor. Personennamen des 
Griech. bis zur Katserzett (1917), does 
not mention the name. This name 
can only be satisfactorily explained if 
you refer it to the γαλεοί and the im- 
portance of these animals for the art of 
vaticination that the Greeks of his- 
torical times attached to Apollo. In 
Sicily we have (in Hybla) the family 
named Γαλεοί or Γαλεῶται (cp. F.H.G. 
ee rao. ΠΟ 5300; Hesych: s-v:ietc:), 
their Heros Eponymos was Galeotes, 
the son of Apollo and the ‘ Hyper- 
borean’ Themisto, cp. further the 
Praxitelean Sauroktonos and the Apollo 
Boason (I cannot agree with the nega- 
tive results of Kjellberg in his article in 
the Realenc. VII. 592, the very name of 
Hybla ἡ Τερεᾶτις or Γελεῶτις referring 
to the Γαλεοί, or perhaps to the animals 
themselves, the yadeoi). The attribute 
of Apollo and of Dionysos σμίνθος 
recurs in the personal name Σιμίνθος 
(ίνθις, cOivas, ἰθων), known from Thes- 
piai, Megalopolis, Melos, Mytilene (all 
inscriptions from the sixth to the fourth 
century B.c.), v. Bechtel, J. J., p. 587. 
But a Vandeos (Cadeds) from an Ionic 
city isa novelty. It gives evidence to 
the fact that the use of γαλεοί in the 
‘Apollinic’ forms of divination extended 
to the far East of the Greek world. 

2. In the same inscription from 
Priene, nr. 313, 1. 597, we read: ὃ 
τόπος Llocidwviov τοῦ IIpakiov καὶ 
᾿Αναξιλάου Τ᾿αλέου or (better, cp. H. v. 
Gartr.) ᾿Αναξιλᾶ [τ]οῦ Tadéov. In the 
index of the editor you find very often 
the name ᾿Αναξίλαος (Avaéinas), but 
I especially call attention to ᾿Αναξίλαος 


᾿Απολλωνίου and Ildmapos, a son of 


᾿Αναξίλαος. The relation of this Anaxi- 
laos to the cult of Apollo seems 
probable, if the name IIdmapos may be 


referred to the same cult of Apollo. 
ἸΠάπαρος is no singular name in Priene: 
nr. 313, 1. 580; 70.1. 581, ὁ τόπος Παπάρου 
τοῦ ᾿Αναξιλάου, ib. ὁ τόπος ἸΤαπαρίωνος 
(twice), ὁτόπος Ποσειδωνίου τοῦ Παπάρου, 
1. 581 ὁτ. Παπάρου τοῦ ἸΤαπάρου,]. 5824 
ὁ τ. ᾿Παπάρου τοῦ Καλλιμάχου ; especi- 
ally noteworthy in this connexion is 
l. go ὁ τ. ᾿Απολλᾶ τοῦ Ἰ]Παπαρ ov}. 
Elsewhere the name is, so far as I 
know, only met with in Inschr. v. Per- 
gamon, nr. 569, p. 359, Παπαρίων. 
Usener, Kl. Schr. IV. 183, conjectures 
that ἸΤαπαρίων here might be corrupted 
from Π}ασπαρίων, but such an inac- 
curacy in writing the inscriptions of 
Priene of course make impossible. But, 
in fact, the name Idmapos may be con- 
nected with Πασπάριος, if you only let 
the etymologising of Usener (deriving 
it from the Indogermanic roat o7ap, 
cp. crap, omar) and his light-god out 
of account. We read in Hesych. s.v. 
Πασπάριος, ὁ ᾿Απόλλων παρὰ Tlapioss 
καὶ Περγαμηνοῖς. The existence of this 
god in Pergamon is proved by Juschr. v. 
Perg., nr. 434, where the Πασπαρειταί 
are mentioned. On the other hand, 
Lobeck (Pathol. I. 167) was probably 
right in comparing the word with Πάρος 
(or far better with the Ionic colony 
Parion on the Hellespont). This 
Πασπάριος again Wernicke, in his 
article on Apollo in the Realenc. 11. 63, 
connected with πασπάλη, and he 
thought this Apollo Pasparios to be 
a tutelar god for the cereal crop and 
the flour (cp. the Apollo Smintheus 
in even the same Asia Minor). Good 
reasons seem to favour this view of 
Wernicke, you only have to assume as 
a starting-point the identity of the roots 
map and παλ (σπαρ and oman, cp. ¢.g. 
στέγος and τέγος); the reduplications 
[σ]πασπάριος and παι-πάλη would be 
regular (cp. Brugmann-Thumb, Gr. 
Gram., § 301, 1; to the examples there 
mentioned you may. add παι-φάσσω and 
Σαι-σάρα, the daughter of Kelbos in 
Eleusis, according to the appropriate 
etymology of Kirchner, Attica et Pelo- 
ponnesiaca, diss. Greifsw., 1890, 52). 
The mountain IIdprapos in Argos 
Plin. #. h. I1V..17 and Hesych. s.v.) 
with its holy games might belong to 
the same root (Usener /. ἰ. 192), but 
the reduplication [la-vap-os then re- 


go 


mains a difficult one, unless you think 
of ‘dissimilatorischer Schwung’ as the 
late ὑδράγυρον -- ὑδράργυρον, or if you 
do not recur to the reduplication of the 
onomatopoietica βα-βάζα, πα-φλάξω 
sim. 

At any case, in the face of a—prob- 
ably Apollinic—Ildmapos in Priene and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Pergamon and of an Apollo Uaczrapios 
in Parion and Pergamon, we incline to 
take the two words as referring to the 


same cognomen of Apollo in Asia — 


Minor, whether this cognomen be origin- 
ally Greek or not. 
S. EITREM. 
Kristiania. 


ON THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF GREEK POETRY RECENTLY 
PUBLISHED: AT (BERLIN: 


SOME exceedingly interesting frag- 
ments of Greek poetry have been pub- 
lished lately by Wilamowitz-Moellen- 
dorff in the Siizwngsberichte der preus- 
sischen Akademie, 1918, p. 730 ff Among 

em occur new fragments of an elegiac 
poem by Tyrtaeus, shown by the writing 
to be of the third century B.c., dealing 
with a war against the Gauls, and 
therefore a contemporary document 
bearing upon their invasion of Greece 
or Asia Minor; some fragments of 
pseud-E picharmea, like those published 
by Greniell and Hunt from the Hibeh 
Papyri, and those in the Berlin. Klass. 
Texte V.; a glossary with poetical 
quotations; and fragments of a Paean 
and of two other poems supplied with 
a vocal score, and separated by short 
pieces of music simply with the instru- 
mental score: the date of this unique 
musical papyrus is the second cen- 
tury A.D. 

I offer a few suggestions upon two 
of these. 

I. The Hamburg Papyrus, the date of 
which is the middle of the third cen- 
tury B.C., containing seventeen incom- 
plete lines of a Hellenistic elegiac poem, 
is provokingly mutilated. We have 
the account of an envoy delivering his 
report toa king. Danger is threatened 
by θοῦρος ἀνὴρ Ταλάτης, whose hardy 
lite is contrasted with that of the 
Medes: they do not live softly: v. 17, 
ἀλλὰ χάμευνα Διός τε καὶ αἰθριάα[ι] 
evel. We may accept Wilamowitz’ 
restoration of the first part of the line, 
but not his év[avtév]: what is required 
is some form of évavew: αἰθριᾶν here 
appears to be used in the sense of 
αἰθριοκοιτεῖν. Lines 11 and 12 run: 


‘We have enslaved braver men before, 
and these shall pay ταύτης μισθὸν 
ATACOGNAS WEL, τ in ih ie een ene 
ὑβρισταί te καὶ ἄφρονες᾽ (v. g): the 
gap is plainly to be filled by ἅνερες. 

We have clearly here ἃ contemporary 
document treating of the invasion of 
the Gauls into Greece and Asia Minor, 
of which we get echoes in Callima- 
chus IV. 175 ff. and the Delphic Hymns 
to Apollo; or of something arising out 
of it. 

We can only guess who the king 
was, but we know that Attalus I. took 
the title of king from his victory over 
the Gauls, and we might provisionally 
suggest Musaeus of Ephesus as the 
author of the poem, since Suidas states 
that he wrote poems in praise of 
Eumenes and Attalus: ἔγραψε Ilep- 
σηΐδος βιβλία Kat (« ὕμνους» Wachs- 
muth) εἰς Εὐμένη καὶ "Ατταλον. There 
is no need to place Musaeus, as 
Susamihl does, in the time of Attalus 11. 
Wilamowitz however thinks that the 
pressure of danger points to the king 
being a Seleucid. Yet a reference to 
the plot of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ 
Gallic. mercenaries (Paus. I. 7, 2) is not 
excluded. 

2. Upon an ostrakon in writing of the 
third century B.c. are explanations of 
unusual words, with quotations from 
an unknown writer, from Homer, Anti- 
machus, and Hipponax. I extract the 
words with which we are here con- 
cerned, ll. 4-8: 
σουσασχοινία ομήρου κειτοδυπαιθουσί 
νεοσαμφιελισσησ βυβλινον wiTe πεδησε 

θυρασ 
λυθεν αὐτοσ αντιμάχου ενδιστον θηκεν 

λαιφεσι de 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ΟἹ 


λινεοισι σουσα ετιθει πταντοια Gea ποδασ 
Noe καλωὰσ 
ενδυπερασστρεπτασ οπλατε παντα νεώσ 


That is: 


σοῦσα, σχοινία" Ὅμήρου" 

κεῖτο δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αἰθούσῃ] νεὸς ἀμφιελίοσ- 
σης 

βύβλινον, ᾧ τε πέδησε θύρας [ | λυθεν 
avuTos. 

᾿Αντιμάχου" 

ἐν δ᾽ ἱστὸν θῆκεν, λαίφεσι δὲ λινέοις 

σοῦσ᾽ ἐτίθει, παντοῖα θεά, πόδας ἠδὲ 
κάλωας 

ἐν δ᾽ ὑπέρας στρεπτὰς ὅπλα τε πάντα 

Ψνεῶως. 

The lines from Homer are Odyssey 
ᾧ 390, 391, where our texts have ὅπλον 
in the first line, and és δ᾽ ἤιεν in the 
second; the ostrakon obviously had 
és δ᾽ ἤλυθεν. In the first line Wila- 
mowitz would restore the new word 
σοῦσον, and suggests σούσῳ ἐϊστρεφεΐ 
in & 346, where our texts have 
ἔνθ᾽ ἐμὲ μὲν κατέδησαν ἐῦσσέλμῳ ἐνὶ νηὶ 
ὅπλῳ ἐὐστρεφεέϊ. 

The question of altering these two 
-passages I leave to Mr. Allen and Mr. 
Agar; I am more concerned with this 
strange word codcov. It will be found 
in the Lexicon with the meaning ‘ lily,’ 
and is called by Fick a Semitic word. 
But I am inclined to think that there 
is a mistake in the ostrakon. In the 
first place it is incredible that any 
member of the Liliaceae could be used 
for the purpose of making a rope; they 
are too brittle in all their parts. But 


that a rare word was being explained 
and illustrated by the person who wrote 
on the ostvakon is certain. I strongly 
suspect that the word should be οὖσον, 
and that it appeared in the text of 
Homer from which the writer quoted, 
and in his text of Antimachus. Hesy- 
chius has the gloss οὖσα " σχοινία, νεῶς 
ὅπλα, and the word occurs in literature 
in the fragment of Alexander Aetolus 
preserved in Parthenius, Εγοί. XIV. 21: 


- / 

γαῦλός μοι χρύσεος. . . 

νῦν ὅγ᾽ ἀνελκόμενος, διὰ μὲν κάλον 
ἤρικεν οὖσον. 


Οὖσον is certain there, although the 
reading of the rest of the line is not; 
in the last half I take Lord Harberton’s 
suggestion of κάλον (=Kxddor) for MS. 
κακόν, translating it with him ‘the 
withy handle frayed through the rope.’ 
In lines 2 and 3 of the ostrakon 
another poetical quotation occurs, 


|etepa ηιωρουντο.] 
ἐνεσείσατο δὲ σφιν δεῖ... 7.α.} 


the name of the author being lost. 
Wilamowitz gives πτερὰ ἠωροῦντο ; and 
it is a curious thing that in a fragment 
apparently of Antimachus of Colophon, 
published by Wilamowitz in Berlin. 
klass. Texte III. 27, πτερά appears to 
be used with a plural verb: πτερὰ 
προσπεφύασι is his restoration. There 
is then a possibility that this quotation 
on the ostrakon is also from Anti- 
machus. 
J. U. Powe tt. 


INVPROPERTIUM RETRACTATIONES SELECTAR. 
(SEE Class. Rev., 1916, p. 39; 1917, p- 87.) 


Fite ὃ: 
talis uisa mihi mollem spirare quietem 
Cynthia non certis nixa caput manibus. 


What are non certae manus? Certa 
manus is familiar enough in the sense 
of ‘a. good shot.’ When Ovid speaks 
of drinking and dicing, 

nec iuvat in lucem nimio marcescere uino, 


nec tenet zzcertas alea blanda manus 
(Ex Ponto 1. v. 46), 


the gambler’s hands are incertae because 
he is marcidus. I see in the context no 


implication that Cynthia’s slumbers are 
drunken; the images (Ariadne, Andro- 
meda, or Maenad) merely describe the 
deep sleep of utter fatigue. Perhaps 
the poet wrote 

consertzs nixa caput manibus. 


In the literal sense (‘to clasp hands’) 
this phrase is very much less common 
than in the metaphorical (=pugnam - 
conserere), but it is sufficiently attested. 
As for the plastic type, most of the 
examples catalogued by Reinach (‘ Ré- 


92 


pertoire, s.v. Ariane, Ménade,’ etc.) 
show the sleeping woman with one 
hand beneath her head and the other 
extended by her side (so Philost. 
Imag. I. 14) or drooping. But since in 
this case Cynthia’s head is resting on 
her hands, does not the plural suggest 
that they cannot be otherwise than 
consertae ? 


Τ: τῷ; ΖΟ: 


sed sic intentis haerebam fixus ocellis 
Argus ut ignotis cornibus Inachidos. 


41 hesitated, stuck, with gazing eyes, 


as Arpus:.).. .. ~ lo) describe 6, yiman 
staring in amazement Ovid (Epist. 
VI. 26) has: 

haesit in opposita /umzna fixus humo 
Virgil : 


Turnus ad haec ocu/os horrenda in uirgine χης. 


Fixus (which, for some unknown reason, 
Lewis and Short call ‘ very rare in the 
literal sense) is used for ‘stuck, rooted, 
riveted,’ of the whole person : 

talia perstabat memorans fixusque manebat 

(Aen. II. 650). 

In our passage intentis ocellis is adver- 
bial to haerebam rather than to /ixus. 
Now the simile of Argus is in point 
only if it is Propertius who is itentis 
ocellis ; and the horns (ignotis cornibus) 
no less evidently belong to Io. The 
question is: could even Propertius, who 
notoriously makes the ablative a maid- 
of-all-work, contrast (within a couplet) 
a pair of ablatives in such widely dis- 
parate senses? ‘haerebam intentis 
ocellis ut Argus (haesit) ignotis cornibus.’ 
Creda: Hertzbergius that any Augustan 
wrote such unsymmetrical perversity. 

We want something to express that 
it was when confronted with, at the 
appearance of the horns, that Argus was 
fascinated. Jn with the ablative ex- 
presses this, and the alteration of a 
single letter gives us: 

Argus ut 27 gvatis cornibus Inachidos 


for the use of nascor cf. 
quam cuperem fronti cornua zafa tuae (Ov. 
Ars. I. 308) 
and for the rest, 
nec minus inter 
ille tot ignoti socias gregis haeret in una 
defixus (Val. Fl.. V. 376). 
Apropos of Io’s horns let me digress 
for a moment to 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Virg. Aen. VII. 789: 

at leuem clipeum sublatis cornibus Io 

auro insignibat, iam saetis obsita, iam bos. 
Sublatis cornibus means ‘with uplifted 
horns,’ ‘ tossing the head’: a grotesque 
beginning for the process of transforma- 
tion. Of zam bos it makes a bathos: 
iam is absurd after sublatis cornibus. 
Virgil is here amusing himself with one 
of those virtuosities of ecphrasis when 
it is pretended that plastic art has the 
successiveness which belongs only to 
language. In these verbal ‘films’ not 
merely an exact moment of time 15 
described, but transition. Ovid’s Meta- 
morphoses abound in examples. 

I hope it will not be thought irreverent 
or blasphemous if, rather than suppose 
the poet capable of sublatis, I venture to 
hint that here a copyist has for a 
moment eluded the particular provi- 
dence which has safeguarded the text 
of Virgil from such errors as have crept 
into the text of, say, Milton or Dickens, 
and gone wrong by just one stroke. 
Read not SUBLATIS but SUBNATIS 
CORNIBVS. ‘Io, relieved against the 
field of polished metal, showed horns 
just budding—and now she had a coat 
of hair—and now she was_ bovine.’ 
That is: the eye is imagined to follow 
the phases of metamorphosis till it is 
consummated—zam bos. 


/ 


I. vil. 16* 


te quoque si certo puer hic concusserit arcu 

quoi nolim nostros euigilasse deo. 

So I suggest that these lines be read. 
The pentameter is admittedly corrupt. 
The palaeographical cheapness of the 
conjecture will not be denied: quot for 
quod, euigilasse for euiolasse, deo for ἦδος 
—these are the changes asked; and ex 
hypothesi the corruption deos was in- 
evitably consequent on the other cor- 
ruptions. 

By these words is to be understood : 
‘Let once the boy to whose divine 
vigils I would be sorry to see my friends 
devoted, strike you with his unerring 
markmanship, and—farewell to your 
epics |’ 

From the proposed pentameter hic 
puer gains definition, which it greatly 
needs: for as Amor has not been named 
in the poem, the vagueness of the words 
is strange and offensive. Also the awk- 


τς 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 93 


ward unbalance between protasis and 
apodosis is righted by bringing the 
pentameter into the construction, in- 
stead of leaving it as an exclamatory 
interruption. 

Euigilare ‘to watch through’ is in 
Tibullus I. viii. 24. Propertius offers 
a near parallel in I. ix. 28: 
quippe ubi nec liceat uacuos seducere ocellos 

nec uigilare alio numine, cedat Amor? 
(Brouckhuyzen’s punctuation.) MSS. 
nonune, but the correction seems to be 
imposed by Silius XI. 409: 


aut nostro uigiles ducat sub numine noctes 


(Venus Is speaking.) 

Euigilare = peruigilare = παννυχίξειν. 
The dative cut (quot) . . . deo is like 
παννυχίζουσιν θεᾷ in Aristoph. Ran. 445. 

The perfect infinitive is not, as often 
in Ovid, to be accounted for metri 
gratia, but by the nolim: for the idiom 
of nolim and uelim with this tense there 
are multitudes of examples ranging 
from archaic texts, like the Consular 
Letter regarding the S.-C. de Baccha- 
nalibus (Ernout, Recueil, p. 63) ; decrees 
ap. Aul. Gell. X. 3, XIII. 13; Cato, 
ites Vo? Ler. Hee. 563 5 Lucer. 111: 68 
to rer, Sa@z.'.Do τ|5 28; Ih. ΠῚ: ΕΒ; Ov. 
am. 1 ive 38: Sil. Ital.’ X1I1., 318: 

I. vili. 13-16. I suggest that this 
vexed quatrain should read : 

ergo ego nunc uideam tali sub sidere uela 

cum tibi prouectas auferet unda ratis, 

et me defixum uacua patietur in ora 


crudelem infesta saepe uocare manu ? 
sed quocumque modo κ.τ.λ. 


In 13 I substitute ergo for atque (aut €) 
on the supposition that ergo has fallen 
out by haplography and the gap has 
been stopped with atque. Heinsius 
similarly supplies a missing ego in 
II. viii. 13: 
ergo ego iam multos nimium temerarius annos 


(For this ergo of desperate resignation 

Cpe le xxi. 17. 

ergo ego nunc rudis Hadriaci uehar aequoris 
hospes ?) 

nunc for the non of the MSS. is as old 

as Bapt. Pius. 

For wentos I read uela. ‘So I must 
needs behold this unseasonable sail- 
ing, at the hour when your ship shall 
have reached the harbour-mouth, and 
the waters bear it away, bear you away, 


and leave me rooted on the empty beach, 
shaking my fist and crying “ Cruel "ἢ 
Videre uela is Propertian: 


at tu, saeue Aquilo, nunquam mea wela uzdedbis 
(III. vii. 71), 


and Ovidian : 


ut te non poteram, poteram tua wela uidere 
(Zpist. XIII. 19) 
ut qui Theseae fallacia e/a carinae 
utait (Jézs 492). 
To take sub sidere as preposition and 
noun was Heinsius’ view, anticipated 
by the correctors’ hands in F and V 
(sub sydere). Of the five examples that 
I find in Latin poetry, three give a 
geographical determination: 
sub stdere Cancri (Virg. Ecl. X. 68) 
alio sub sidere (Lucan 11. 294) 
nostro szb s¢dere (Juvenal XII. 13) 
and two an astrological : 
sub stdere tal (Manilius V. 46 and 231). 


I admit that the direct Virgilian pro- 
totype of our verse has no sub : 


quin etiam hiberno moliris sidere classem ? 
(Ae. IV. 309), 


but it will hardly be objected that sub 
stdere cannot bear the sense of ‘ season 
and weather’ which sideve bears in 
Dido’s line and in the first verse of the 
Georgics. Dido’s line seems to give the 
key for vv. 9-16 of our poem: it is 
heartless of C. to go off to Illyria at 
all; particularly heartless to go regard- 
less of weather, wento quolibet (4) and 
now tali sub sidere: 


Encor si la saison s’avancait davantage ! 
Attendez les zéphyrs. 


ΤῚΣ. 24-4c 
nullus Amor cuiquam facilis ita praebuit alas 
ut non alterna presserit ille manu. 


Certainly Ovid’s lewitas sua praebutt 
alas (Met. XIII. 606) means ‘lightness 
lent wings’; but it does not follow that 
Love lends a man wings here. Dr. 
Postgate’s and Mr. Butler’s explana- 
tions seem to depend on this. Roth- 
stein’s general view of the passage 
seems to me more probable: ‘never did 
Love offer his wings readily to any 
man (to catch him by) without his 
presently turning on him and crushing 
him :’ although his note goes off into a 
mist of delusions and confusions. This 
view of praebuit alas is vindicated by 
such parallels from Propertius as: 


94 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


flammae Zectora practent (111. xiii. 21) 
cum ux tangendos praecbuzt illa pedes 

(IV. viil. 72) 
et caput argutae fracbeat historiae (III. xx. 28) 
ah nimium faciles aurem praebere puellae 

(11: xxirr5) 


which may be abundantly reinforced 
from the Ovid index with aurem, aures, 
bracchia, capillos, colla, manwm, manus, 
etc., praebere : all in the sense of yield- 
ing or offering passively. 

Suppose then an ordinary Cupido 
ales allowing his wings to be stroked 
like a tame bird: faciles means ‘un- 
resisting, at your disposal, and answers 
to the gerundives in praebut tangendos 
pedes, pectendos capillos, etc. Just as 
you think you have him quite tame as 
a pet, the other side of the creature 
comes out. In what action? Does 
alterna manu simply mean wicissim, as 
editors since Hertzberg have generally 
held? In that case the whole contrast 
must be conveyed in presserti. But 
premere is an exceedingly vague word, 
unless the context determine it. 

In the couplet which Rothstein 
adduces (III. xxi. 5) 

omnia sunt temptata mihi quacunque fugari . 
possit ; at ex omni me premit iste deus, 


the strategic metaphor in fugavi gives 
strategic colour to premit. Here there 
is nothing to determine presserit. 

It is necessary then to examine the 
words alterna manu. 

In Prop. I. xi. 2 ‘alicrnae facilis 
cedere lympha manu’ refers to swim- 
ming; Ovid has likewise ‘ alternaque 
bracchta ducens,’ of a swimmer (imitated 
by Manil. V. 424); in Statius Theb. 
VI. 860 ‘et iam alterna manus frontem- 
que umerosque . . . lacessit’ describes 
boxing; in Theb. IX. 62 ‘alterinaeque 
manus =rixa.’ 

Nonnus affects ὡμοιβαῖος in similar 
phrases: 

Αὐτονόην πληγῇσιν ἀμοιβαίῃσιν ἱμάσσω (boxing) 
(XLIV. 138) 
ποσσὶν ἀμοιβαίοισιν ὀπίστερον ὥθεεν ὕδωρ (swimming) 
(VII. 189) 
ποσσὶν ἀμοιβαίοισιν ἀνεσκίρτησεν ἀλωεύς (dancing) 
(XLVII. 64) 

Alterna inanu can mean ‘ictssit, as 

in Ov. Fasti I]. 234: 


uolneraque c/ferna dantque feruntque sa72, 


though it has been shown above that 
such is not its most usual meaning. 


Why make more ado about it? Because 
the vagueness of presserit is not the only 
difficulty. Restat scrupulus: is not ille 
in the pentameter just to indicate that 
the subject of the second verb is not 
amor but the other party? Unless 
alle means the mortal, the cuzquam of 
the preceding verse, is not the expres- 
sion gratuitously misleading ? 

But if zile is the victim, presserit is 
not merely vague but nonsensical—and 
corrupt. 

If we choose the most obviously 
appropriate amongst the senses of 
alterna manu above detailed, viz. boxing, 
the man who takes punishment in 
boxing may be said sentive alternam 
manum (or alternas manus) : 

tuas sentiat illa manus (11. x. 18) 


Reading ‘ut non alternam senserit 
ille manum’ the postulated error 
amounts to ‘ féferit’ misread as ‘pfferit,’ 
which is not enormous in a mediocre 
tradition such as we are dealing with. 

The idea then is this: you think him 
a cherub, but you find you have’caught 
a bruiser. 

Children as boxers are shown in 
Reinach’s Répertoive de la Statuazre, 
Vol. I., p. 541; but I cannot produce 
a palpable Eros pyktes. 

| Be Ue 

ecquis in extremo restat amore locus? 

Mirum profecto loquendi genus, as 
Lachmann remarked. His uneasy noite, 
which is in great part concerned with 
refuting Passerat’s conjecture externo, 
makes interesting reading. He points 
out that Propertius uses extvemus for 
MINIINUS 2 

Haec sed forma mei pars est extvenza furoris 
(I. iv. 11) 
and adduces Stat. Szlv. I. 11. 100 (where 
most editors read hesterna), and Neme- 
sianus Cyneg. 231. So far good; but 
he proceeds to pronounce that the MSS. 
reading must be retained and rendered 
ecqua miht parua amoris tut pars residua 
est? The difficulty has not been faced. 
Is it Propertius’ Latin—a extremo 
amore for in extrema parte amorts tut ἢ 

I cannot discover that any commen- 
tator cites the phrase from Terence 
which is most nearly germane to our 
passage: 


a. «νὸ = 


THE CUASSICAL REVIEW | 95 


certe extrema linea 
amare haud nil est 

(Eun. 640) 
(Donatus ad loc. nicely distinguishes 
the quinque lineae amorts.) 
which is illustrated by Thraso’s appeal: 

i perfice hoc 
precibus pretio ut haeream in parte aliqua 
tandem apud Thaidem (£27. 1055). - 

Here we have the idea of marked 
grades in love: it seems to have become 
proverbial, for Lact. Plac. has: 

puellam extrema amoris linea diligens satis 
animo solo faciebat aspectu (ad. Stat. Thed. 3. 
283). 

3 , a IAN ὑπ gi) ὰ 

The dpa μένει στοργῆς ἐμὲ λείψανα: 
motif of Meleager (A.P. V. 165) takes 
on a spatial metaphor which is not 
uncommon in Latin (Greek offers such 
instances as Plato Legg. VII. 823 6 
μηδ᾽ εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον ἐπέλθοι νοῦν 
dwac@a). Locus and pars are ex- 
changed, as e.g. in the following: 

quod siquis inter hos Zocws mihi restat 
; ᾿ (Priap. XXXVI. 10) 
pers in amore meo uita tibi remanet 
(Apul. de AZag. IX.) 


and Lucan’s 


uliusne in cladibus istis 
est Jocus Aegypto? (VIIT. 545.) 


What remains unvindicated is im ex- 
tremo amore: nothing is alleged which 
can persuade me that extremus amor can 
mean anything but a last love. Surely 
the governing phrase in Terence and 
all other indications point to this: 
ecquid in extremo restat amare loco? 


i.e., extrema linea amare. This means 
both the furthest out-of-the-way and 
the least dignified station. 

Thus in early days, when protocol was 
allat sixes and sevens, before the powers 
of Precedence and Deference had ar- 
ranged for proper ceremonies in heaven, 


Tethys extremo saepe recepta Zoco est 
(Ov. Fast. V. 22). 


I add an instance from St. Augustine: 


si ergo aliquis magnus procurator offendat et 
poena domini sui (uerbi gratia) fiat ostiarius in 
aliquo extremo loco... (Euarr. in Ps. CiI1., 
p. 1674, edit. Bened.). 
Once amare became amore, loco was 
bound to become locus, and ecgwid be 
changed to ecquis. Read so, extremo 
loco here answers to pars extrema in 
1 Ἰν τ: 

J. 5. PHILLIMORE. 


University of Glasgow. 


AMET RICAT. (PE CUMIARTIY ΘΕ ΕΗ Cie exe 


Tue chief glory of the Latin hexa- 
meter; as brought to perfection by 
Virgil, lies in the constant subtle vari- 
ation of the last two feet, in close 
connexion with the fourth. Only now 
and then, and almost always with 
special intention, does the poet intro- 
duce what may be called a startling, 
or seemingly awkward, variety of these 
last two feet, such as ‘ procumbit humi 
bos,’ or ‘simul hoc animo hauri’ (Aen. 
XII. 26), and other lines of which the 


‘Poet Laureate has recently reminded us. 


But there is one peculiar line-ending 
which is almost entirely absent from 
Virgil’s most finished work; I mean 
that where, with or without a pause or 
full stop at the end of the fourth foot, 
the first syllable of the fifth isa 
monosyllable, and sometimes a weak 
one: ¢.g. ‘Si nescis, meus ille caper fuit: 
et mht Damon’ (Ecl. Ill. 23), This 
monosyllable is usually either an ‘et,’ or 


‘nam,’ or an interrogative pronoun, 
which gives the line 8. certain awkward- 
ness, depriving it of the majesty which 
we have come to expect in the hexa- 
meter. In Lucretius, who as a rule 
was more anxious about his matter 
than his metre, this ending is extremely 


‘common: there are few pages of his 


poem in which it is not to be found. 

I happened lately to notice that there 
are a good many lines in the Culex with 
this ending: in fact I found that my ear 
had always associated it with the Culex, 
chiefly on account of the lines 37-39, 
which have a special interest for me: 
haec tibi, sancte puer, memorabimus, haec tibi 

restet 
gloria perpetuum Iucens mansura per aevum., 
et tibi sede pia maneat locus, et tibi sospes... « 
Out of curiosity I went through the 
poem, counting the lines of this kind, 
and found about twenty out of. 414. 
Then I went on to the Cirvis, where, as 


96 THE CLASSICAL’ REVIEW 


I expected, the result was quite 
different: I could only find three ex- 
amples (or four including a corrupt 
line) in all the 541 lines.} 

I then went on to the Eclogues and 
Georgics; but before I say anything of 
the real and undoubted Virgil, 1 will 
quote some of the most notable lines in 
the Culex which show the peculiarity I 
am speaking of: 
mente prius docta fastidiat, et probet illi (59). 
ima oar repetebant ad vada lymphz 

105). 
αὐτῆς opibus data vellera, si nitor auri (63). 
ereptus taetris ex cladibus; at mea manes (214). 
sed tu crudelis, crudelis tu magis Orpheu (292). 
When we find this line again in Virgil, 
it has become ‘crudelis tu quoque 
mater’ and is repeated in line 51 (of 
Ecl. VIII.); this is an immense im- 
provement, if my ear does not deceive 
me. In 349 ff. we have— 
omnia turbinibus sunt anxia. iam maris unda 
sideribus certat consurgere, iamque superne 
corripere et solis et sidera cuncta minatur 
ac ruere in terras caeli fragor. hic modo lae- 

tans. ... 

At the end of the poem we find a 
number of examples: lines 386, 391, and 
398, which ends with ‘hic et acanthos,’ 
followed in 402 by ‘hic rododaphne,’ 
and in 406 by ‘hic amarantus.’ About 
the reading of these passages there is 
practically no doubt, I believe. 

After this examination, I felt fairly 
well satisfied that the author of the 
Culex, unlike the author of the Curis, 
must have had his head full of Lucretius: 
that in spite of the almost Virgilian ‘care 
and finish’ in some passages, which Mr. 
Mackail has emphasised in Classical 
Review, 1908, p. 72, the poet was by 
no means perfect master of the hexa- 
meter: and thirdly, that if, as I myself 
believe on other grounds, that poet was 
the very youthful Virgil, the influence 
of Lucretian versification only bears out 
the evidence of other Lucretian influ- 
ence, which has often been noticed, e.g. 
by Skutsch, of. cit. p. 127 note, and 
129: and Miss Jackson in Classical 
Quarterly, τοῦτ, p. 167. But 1 will 
now go on to give the results of an 


* Skutsch does not refer to this ending, but 
only to the spondaic one, in his Ver-gi?’s Friihzett, 
I. p. 74. In the highly finished AZoretum there 
is no example of this line-ending. 


examination of Virgil’s maturer work 
in respect of this same metrical feature. 

In the Eclogues, which together con- 
tain about double the number of the 
lines in the Culex, there are just the 
same number of examples of our line- 
ending; and none of them are so bald 
or weak as a few of those in the earlier 
poem, unless it be the ‘ Linus’ line in IV. 


‘56, ‘nec Linus, huic mater quamvis 


atque huic pater adsit.’ In Ecl. IX. 
there are an unusual number, six in all; 
but if these be examined (lines 17, 33, 
51, 53, 59, 00), it will be seen that they 
all come in smoothly and naturally, 
without offending the ear. In Ecl. X. 
there is only one, where the word ‘nam’ 
is repeated with some effect: ‘Nam 
neque Parnasi vobis iuga, nam neque 
Pindi Ulla moram fecere,’ as the word 
ἢ 15 repeated in the original (Theocr. I. 
66). 

Thus the evidence of the Eclogues 
seems to prove that the author was 
more experienced and skilful than the 
author of the Culex, and less under the 
influence of Lucretius. This is exactly 
what we should expect, if the poet of 
the Culex was really the young Virgil. 
The evidence of the Georgics shows 
again a clear advance. There are more 
than 2,000 lines in the four Georgics, 
and only about twenty examples of our 
line-ending (i.e, one per cent.), none 
of which would be likely to trouble a 
fastidious reader.?. In II. 486 the poet 
has found out how to make a beautiful 
effect with this usually most ineffective 
ending: let me quote the whole lovely 
passage : 
sin has ne possim naturae accedere partes 
frigidus obstiterit circum praecordia sanguis, 
rura mihi et rigui placeant in vallibus amnes, 


flumina amem silvasque inglorius. O w67¢ campt 
Spercheusque.... 


Another beautiful instance is IV. 498, 

not quite the first example I have met 

with as yet of its enchanting rhythm : 
feror ingenti circumdata nocte 


invalidasque tibi tendens, heu non tua, palmas. 
(cf: 11. 820) 


The almost perfect versification of the 
Georgics, which first in Latin poetry 


2 Geo. 1. 29, 150, 380; 11. 308, 321, 447, 486 ; 
III. 8, 35, 176, 260, 416, 496, 499; IV. 84 (a 
noticeable instance), 418, 498. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 97 


showed how the last two feet of the 
hexameter are the supreme test of a 
poet’s power to express his feeling by 
his rhythm, has absorbed into its ever 
varying structure what has so often 
been an almost ugly ending, and com- 
pelled it here and there to put on a 
peculiar beauty of its own. 

It was hardly necessary to carry 
the enquiry further, but out of curiosity 
I looked through most of the books of 
the Aeneid. In the first six books there 
are about 4,700 lines, and only about 22 
of them show our ending—z.e., about ὦ 
per cent. The only remarkable ones 
are II. 530, where the use is obvious 
and effective: 


illum ardens infesto vulnere Pyrrhus 
insequitur, 1am lamque manu tenet et premit 
hasta, 


and IV. 336 ‘dum memor ipse mei, dum 
spiritus hos regit artus.’ In the sixth 
book (123) we have ‘ab Iove summo’ 
(cp. Geo. III. 35), and one or two 
others in the first half of the book, e.g. 
277, ‘tum consanguineus Leti Sopor 
et mala mentis Gaudia,’ where I do not 
suppose that anyone will quarrel with 
the stress on ‘ et,’ so different from simi- 
lar stressed e?’s in the Culex. In the 
last half of book VI., unsurpassed in 
Latin poetry, I have not found a 
single example. 

In the last three books the versifica- 
tion is less smooth and finished than in 
the first six: this is particularly so in the 
tenth book, as the late Mr. F. W. H. 


Di Cjros lie S55) ft 


Myers noticed.2— Now in this book I 
have counted no less than seventeen 
examples of our ending: fair evidence 
that the book was left in need of re- 
vision. On the other hand, in the first 
200 lines of book XI., which are some 
of the most beautiful and finished in 
the whole poem, I can only find one 
example, and that a very harmless one. 
So too in the last two hundred lines of 
book XII. On the whole we may infer 
that it was the deliberate aim of Virgil 
in careful revision to eliminate as far as 
possible all commonplace or meaning- 
less examples of this line-ending, using 
it only when it could produce an effect 
either striking cr beautiful, as the sense 
required. But where we have his un- 
finished work, they are sometimes little 
more than tibicines, or stop-gaps, which, 
as Mr. Myers says, ‘ suggest a grotesque 
resemblance to the style of the fourth- 
form boy.’ 

The Culex was never revised, but only 
made use of in later days for thoughts 
and pictures which could be clothed in 
really beautiful language by a more 
mature artist. We may perhaps see in 
it, better than in any part of the later 
poems, the raw material with which the 
great master of the hexameter began all 
his work. Such at least is my view of 
it: and I hope that this little investi- 
gation of a small point in its structure 
may be convincing to others also. 


W. WARDE FOWLER. 


2 Classical Essays, p. 138. 


THE! PROSPECTIVE? 


SoME recent discussions! ot ‘ prospec- 
tive’ subjunctives in Latin, and those 
of earlier date as well, seem to involve 
certain misconceptions. 

In the first place, these discussions 
ostensibly deal with a modal meaning ; 
but really the notion conveyed by Mr. 
Sonnenschein’s term ‘ prospective’ is a 
temporal one, that of futurity; indeed, 


1 Sonnenschein, C.R. XXXII, p. 20; The 
Years Work for 1917, pp. 36 ff.; Goodrich, 
C.APKXXI. pp. 83 πὸ; Pearson, C.Q, ΧΙ: 
pp. 66 f. 


in his first article on the ‘ prospective ’ 
he speaks of this subjunctive as a ‘future- 
equivalent.’ Of Mr. Hale’s term ‘antici- 
patory’ the same thing should be said. 
More frank is the term ‘ futural’ used by 
Kroll and others. Now these so-called 
‘prospective’ subjunctives are not 
equivalent to future indicatives; they 
all possess a definite modal meaning ; 
and for their proper understanding a 
correct conception of the relation be- 
tween temporal and modal ideas in 
modal expressions is necessary. 


98 


If the study of modal syntax had 
started with the periphrastic modes of 
English or of some other language, 
more than one misconception might 
have been avoided. Consider English 
modal expressions with the auxiliaries. 
In ‘I can go’ the assertion is directly 
made concerning the notion of ‘can,’ 
that is to say ability is asserted. Of 
the idea of going nothing is directly 
asserted.1 A temporal meaning is, of 
course, expressed, but it is ‘can,’ the 
modal idea, that is placed in present 
time. Of the time of ‘go’ nothing is 
said. From the nature of the case, 
however, its time can not be before the 
time of ‘can.’ By implication, and 
implication only, the time of ‘go’ is a 
non-past. Only factors of context can 
make its time more definitely present or 
future. : 

If the expression is put into the past, 
‘I could (was able to) go,’ it is the ability 
again that is placed in the past time 
sphere; and the time of ‘go’ is left 
indefinite, as in the case of ‘I can go.’ 

What has been said may be applied 
to our ‘compulsive’? expression or 
expression of ‘ external determination,’* 
as I prefer to callit. In ‘Iam to go,’ 
‘I was to go,’ the temporal meanings 
belong to ‘am’ and ‘was.’ In neither 
case is the time of ‘ go’ expressed. 

The dictum that the temporal mean- 
ng of a modal expression is the time of 
the modal idea, not that of the verbal 
idea, should be applied to the modal 
forms of Latin,* and of other languages 


1 This, by the way, is the background of 
truth in the conception of the subjunctive as 
the mode of the act conceived, of pure thought, 
etc. In anzy modal expression the act itself, 
since its existence is not asserted, is in a sense 
merely thought of. 

2 See Sweet, Mew English Grammar, ἃ 2297. 

3 The term ‘determined futurity’ which | 
employed in two articles in Classical Weekly 
(X. pp. 178-181 and 185-188 and XI. pp. 161- 
164 and 169-172) is objectionable because it 
implies that the subjunctive expresses futurity. 
With the English ‘compulsive’ cf the use of 
est and infinitive in Augustine C7v. D.7. 3 ‘nam 
seminibus nasci in terra et ex terra est’ and the 
use of Aaéeo and infinitive, the forerunner of the 
Romance future and conditional. See Draeger, 
FTist. Syn. 2, § 414. 

_ 4 It has an important bearing on several 
important problems in Latin modal syntax, for 
example, the problem of the difference in mean- 
ing between prohibitions with the present sub- 


THE: CLASSICAER REVIEW 


as well. A volitive subjunctive, as 
factamus, expresses the will of the 
speaker in regard to a contemplated 
action. It places in the present time 
sphere not that contemplated action 
but the idea of willing. The time of 
doing is no more expressed than it is in 
volo facere. Butin a clause of motive, 
since the act of the clause can not take 
place until the act of the antecedent 
clause has taken place, a future impli- 
cation exists. In a sense consistent 
with this fact the subjunctive in a motive 
clause is ‘ prospective.’ 

Now the modal meaning of a large 
number of independent subjunctives 
and of the majority of subjunctives in 
subordinate clauses is not volitive or 
optative; it is ‘compulsive,’ ‘ of external 
determination.’ Whether in independent 
sentences or in subordinate clauses the 
time expressed is that belonging to the 
modal idea. In Trin. 496 ‘ubi mortuos 
sis, ita sis’ (the time of being dead) is 
left entirely indefinite. In subjunctive 
questions as ‘ Quid faciam ?’ (What am I 
to do?) there may be a somewhat more 
definite ‘ prospective ’ implication. 

In subordinate clauses there are 
opportunities for a contextual implica- 
tion of futurity. In the priusguam and 
antequam and dum clauses the conjunc- 
tions themselves tend to place the act 
or situation in the future in relation to 
the act of the main clause. The sub- 
junctive does not place the act in the 
future; it expresses a modal idea. The 
‘ priusquam conetur’ of Cic. De Or. 2. 44. 
186, means ‘ before he is to attempt.’ 
The present time indicated by the tense 
of the verb has reference to the modal 
idea just as in the equivalent English 
expression the time expressed is the 
time of ‘is.’ So in ‘priusquam manus 
consererent, of Tusc. 4. 22. 49, the past 
time expressed is the time of the modal 
idea, “was.’ In both cases there is a 
‘prospective’ implication for the act of 
the clause. “ Delitui dum vela darent ’ 


junctive and those with the perfect and the 
problem of the sequence of tenses. 

5 When we assign to the subjunctive of the 
priusquam and anteguam clauses the meaning 
of external determination, the difficulty met 
with in such examples as the following vanishes. 
Liv. 5. 33. 5, ‘ducentis quippe aunis antequam 
Clusium oppugnarent in Italian transcenderunt., 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 99 


or Virg.Aen. 2., 136, means 1 Jay in 
hiding under the circumstances that 
(= till) they were bound to be sailing.’ 
The past time of ‘they were bound’ is 
expressed by the imperfect tense. That 
the act of sailing lies in the future is 
a necessary implication of the context. 

The same subjunctive appears in the 
so-called clauses of ‘actual’ result ;4 
but the ‘prospective’ implication 
appears in but few cases. In Οἷς. Am. 
9. 29, ‘tanta vis probitatis est, ut eam 
etiam in hosti diligamus,’ the time of 
loving is altogether indefinite, now or in 
the future. But in Rud. 730 ‘ita ego te 
hinc ornatum amittam tu ipsus te ut 
non noveris, the ‘ prospective’ implica- 
tion is clear. In both cases the time 
expressed (present) is that of the modal 
idea. 

Nor in relative clauses is there such 
a thing as a ‘ prospective’ subjunctive. 
in relative clauses Latin frequently 
chooses to speak of an act as (because 
of circumstances) bound to happen, 
rather than as happening; using, there- 
fore, the subjunctive of external deter- 


Clearly the act of offugnarent was not ex- 
pected or anticipated or in prospect ; but it was 
to be. See Hale, Anticipazary, p. 86 f. 

1 The real character of the subjunctive in 
these clauses has been quite clearly stated by 
Mr. Sonnenschein, Unzty, pp. 36 ff. ; but what 
he sees as the fundamental and unifying mean- 
ing of the Latin subjunctive—‘ obligation ’—is 
nothing but the essential character of modal 
ideas in general. It belongs to the Greek opta- 
tive and to the English periphrastic modal 
expressions. The meaning of external deter- 
mination is as distinct from the volitive mean- 
ing as either is from that of capacity, meaning 
of English ‘ can.’ To place volitive and com- 
pulsive subjunctives under one head, as Mr. 
Sonnenschein does, is to neglect the most 
important distinction in Latin modal syntax. 
The failure to make this sharp distinction keeps 
him from seeing that in a purpose clause we 
have to do with a clause of wed result, while 
in a ‘result’ clause we have to do with an 
externally determined result. 


mination. In Tuse. 1. 18 ‘sunt qui 
censeant’ Cicero says, ‘there are those 
who are (bound) to be holding the 
opinion.’ The time of the modal idea 
is present and is expressed by the tense 
of the verb. Nothing in the context 
places the time of censere in the future. 
But when Horace, Od. 1. 32 says ‘si 
quid . . . lusimus tecum, quod et hunc 
in annum vivat et plures,” the phrase 
‘hunc in annum et plures’ gives a 
‘prospective’ implication. There is no 
shift in the nature of the subjunctive. 
So in Liv. 21. 42. 2 ‘se quisque eum 
optabat, quem fortuna in id certamen 
legeret,’ the meaning of optabat serves to 
place the act of legerct in the future; 
but the time of the modal idea is, as it 
should be, past, the time indicated by 
the imperfect tense. The subjunctive 
in the so-called relative clauses of 
purpose has as good right as any to be 
called ‘ prospective’—Caes. B.G. 2. 17 
‘exploratores mittit qui locum idonem 
castris deligant,’ ‘who are to select.’ 
The ‘ prospective’ implication is given 
in the same way as it is in the true 
purpose clause. 

In cum subjunctive clauses we have 
the same situation. There, too, the 
Roman often preferred to speak of the 
act as bound to happen rather than as 
happening; and sometimes the context 
will indicate that the act or situation of 
the clause lies in the future relative to 
the time indicated by the tense of the 
subjunctive. So, for example, in Virg. 
Aen. 7. 427. 

What has been said may easily be 
applied to Greek subjunctives and opta- 
tives. They, too, are strictly modal in 
meaning; but we should expect to find 
that occasionally the context places the 
contemplated act in the future. The 
optatives discussed by Mr. Pearson are 
‘ prospective’ only in this,sense. 

Frank H. Fow er. 


I0o 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


NOTES 


EPIMENIDES AND 
‘“MAXANIDUS.’ 


In Vol. XXX. pp. 33 ff. and pp. 139 
ff. of this Review, there are articles by 
Mr. Nicklin and Mr. Powell dealing 
with the discovery by Dr. Rendel 
Harris! in the Syriac commentary on 
the Acts of Isho‘dad of Merv of a 
passage cited from ‘ Minos son of Zeus,’ 
in which occurs not only the line 
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θήρια, γαστέ- 
pes ἀργαί (Tit. i. 12), but also the 
words ‘in thee we live and move and 
have our being’ (Acts xvii. 18),? and 
the further discovery by the same 
scholar that in his commentary on 
Titus the author states that the line 
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται x.7.d. is the work 
of a Cretan poet or prophet variously 
called MKSNNYDWS and Minos,’ In 
these articles Mr. Nicklin agrees with 
Dr. Harris in taking MKSNNYDWS to 
be a corruption of ᾿Επιμενίδης, and 
supposing the citation to be derived 
from the Minos of Epimenides, while 
Mr. Powell disputes this conclusion, 
and is inclined to accept the conjecture 
of Professor Margoliouth that the name 
is a corruption of Καλλίμαχος ἐν ὑμνοῖς, 
based upon Clement, Protrept. 11. 37, 
in which these words occur. None of 
those who have discussed the point has 
however noticed that the strange name 
also occurs in the so-called Zacharias 
Rhetor I. v. (Land, Anecd. Syr. III. 
p. 16, 1. 25; transl. Kriiger and Ahrens, 
p. 18%, 1. 10),4 where we find the follow- 
ing passage: ‘As he said, according 
ἰοῦ (?) MKSNYDYS a prophet of their 
own, ‘*‘ The Cretans are always liars, 
etc.”’ The letters KSN are very indis- 
tinct in the MS., but the passage in 
Isho‘dad leaves scarcely any doubt 


1 Expositor, 7th ser., 11., pp. 305 ἢ, III., 


pp. 332 ff.; 8th ser. IV., pp. 348 ff, IX., 
pp. 29 ff.; see also Introduction to Mrs. 
Gibson’s edition of Isho‘dad vol. IV., 
pp. xii ff. 


2 Ed. Gibson, IV., p. 4c; transl. p. 29. 

3 Jd. V., p. 146; transl. p. 99. 

4 In my new text of ‘Zach.’ for the Co7#. 
Scr. Christ. Orient. p. 19, 1. 15. 

5 Or ‘of.’ The text is perhaps corrupt. 


that Land (who had the advantage of see- 
ing the MS. fifty years earlier) has read 
them correctly. ‘Zacharias’ wrote in 
569, and the: chapter in which the 
citation occurs consists of a supposed 
letter attributed to Moses of Ingila, the 
translator of the Glaphyra of Cyril, 
who lived about 550, and forming a 
preface to the version of the Book of 
Joseph and Asenath ascribed to Moses. 
That Isho‘dad followed ‘Zacharias ’ 
we cannot suppose; for, even if we could 
believe that he used Monophysite 
authorities, a commentator would not 
be likely to take an isolated passage 
from a historical writer ; and both must 
therefore have drawn directly or in- 
directly from a common source, which 
was probably either a Syriac version of 
a Greek commentary on the epistles 
or a corrupt text of a Syriac commen- 
tary. Professor Margoliouth’s sugges- 
tion as to the origin of the name is 
ingenious and attractive; but, if we 
accept it, we have to take the identity 
of the last five letters with the last five 
letters of ᾿Επιμενίδης (more conspicuous 
in the text of ‘Zacharias’) as a mere 
coincidence ; and as Greek words and 
names often appear in the strangest 
disguises in Syriac, the theory that 
MKSNYDYSis a corruption of ’Ezripe- 
νίδης seems much more likely, though 
it is possible that the name has been 
formed by running together the names 
of Callimachus and Epimenides, who 
are mentioned in conjunction by Jerome 
and other commentators.” 


E. W. Brooks. 


THE ACTS,. e220; 


The Quarterly for January, 1010; p. 12, 
discussing W. E. Gladstone’s con- 
jectural emendation for Acts xv. 29, 
ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωχλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος Kat 


6 When sending my text to press, I did not 
know of the passage in Isho‘dad, and have 
therefore left the three letters blank as too un- 
certain to print. 

7 See above, vol. XXX., p. 35: 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


mviKT@V καὶ πορνείας, where he 


wished to read 7 0 px et as, thus making 
the whole verse 29 dietetic, like a 
modern rations card, says the word 
πορκεία is not in L. and 9. πόρκος, 
however, is, with the reference to Plut., 
Popli., and πορκεία comes as easily from 
Topkos as πορνεία from πόρνος. The 
eating of pigs’ flesh in this connexion 
is aS congruous to the context as 
πορνεία is abhorrent. 


H. H. JoHNson. 


NOTES ON HORACE. 
τὴς: 

O navis, referent in mare te novi 

fluctus ἢ O quid agis? fortiter occupa 

portum ! 

Horace often begins a sentence with 

a comparative adverb: parcius, i. 25, 1; 
latiwus, li. 2, 9; vectius, ii. 10, 1, and 
iv. 9,46. In such cases a comparison- 
essential to the sense, is justly empha, 
sised by position.  Fortiter occupa 
portum, however, is the only sentence 
in the Odes that begins with an 
adjectival adverb not in the compara- 
tive degree. The word fortiter is there- 
fore marked as exceptionally significant. 
Why, then, is it ignored in translations ? 
Lytton: ‘ What wouldst thou? Make 
fast, O, make fast for the haven!’ 
Calverley : ‘ What dost thou? Seek a 
haven and there rest thee.’ Coning- 
ton: ‘Oh, haste to make the- haven 
yours!’ What instinct constrains these 
faithful translators to strike out an 
adverb so highly distinguished by the 
poet? The answer seems to be that 
they were aware, consciously or sub- 
consciously, not that fortiter is otiose, 
but that it is ruinous to the sense. 
The virtue displayed by a skipper who 
runs for harbour because his ship is no 
longer seaworthy is prudentia, not Jorti- 
tudo; and the purpose of the ode is to 
commend to statesmen a cautious and 
pacific rather than a courageous policy. 
Fortier is therefore exactly the wrong 
word. 


1 avicrov V. 1. (LTTr) mvexrod. 


NO. CCLXXIV. VOI. XXXIII, 


ΤΟΙ 


Sense may be restored by amending 
the punctuation : 


O quid agis fortiter? Occupa portum ! 


‘ Why this untimely display of courage ὃ 
Make harbour!’ It will be objected 
that the rhythmical balance is upset ; 
that the unqualified occupa portum! is 
intolerably abrupt; that it sounds like 
a shout—an effect suitable to a ballad 
(as Scott’s ‘Charge, Chester, charge!’ 
or Macaulay’s ‘ Grasp your pikes! close 
your ranks !’) but not agreeable to the 
suave movement of a Horatian ode. I 
reply (1) that, in any case, the stanza 
is exceptional, representing in its 
asyndeta and sharp transitions the 
excitement of one who watches a ship 
in distress; (2) that the shouting effect 
is repeated with greater abruptness in 
cave! below, a sudden imperative for 
which the reader is in no way prepared 
by the protasis misi ventis debes Iudi- 
brium. 
ΟΥ̓ A VINGE. 


Servm. II. 1, 886: 


Solventur risu tabulae, tu missus abibis. 


The poet wishes to feel free to attack 
individuals after the manner of Lucilius. 
His friend Trebatius, the lawyer, dis- 
suades him, pointing out that he would 
be liable to prosecution. The question 
is, what would be the outcome of sucha 
trial? Trebatius, on hearing Horace’s 
proposed defence, thinks he would get 
off, expressing the manner of his escape 
by solventur risu tabulae. 

It is apparent from visu that a part of 
the imagined proceedings was the read- 
ing to the court of the incriminating 
verses. They would be found to be of 
excellent literary quality, and directed 
only against those who deserved re- 
proof (the author being of blameless 
character). It is also clear from the 
use of missus (instead of absolutus) that 
the poet, as the result of his wit and 
cleverness, would be let off, but not 
formally acquitted. This implies that 
the trial was brought to a halt and the 
case abandoned. This could come 
about through the retirement of the 
accuser from the case, his mere absence 
from the court being sufficient. Several 


H 


102 


instances of this kind are known,’ so 
that there is no inherent difficulty in the 
matter of procedure. It is quite possible, 
however, that the case came to an end 
with the mere rising of the court, which, 
of course, was one of the quaestiones 
perpetuae.2 In the older trials before the 
people the assembly might be broken 
up by the disappearance of the flag 
from Janiculum, as in the case of 
Rabirius,® or by internal tumult. It is 
the latter situation which Horace in 
harmonious fashion may be seeking to 
re-echo, visu arousing associations with 
tumult. 

We are now in a position to consider 
the meaning of tabulae, which is 
taken variously as indictment (Palmer), 
writing tablets (Orelli), benches of the 
jurymen (Porphyrio), the satires them- 
selves (Zeune), the laws (Schiitz), and 
the praetor’s formula in the case (Lejay). 
‘The exact meaning of tabulae,’ says 
Morris, ‘cannot be determined.’ If, 
however, one has occasion to busy him- 
self with legal texts he receives an 
abiding impression of the frequent use 
of tabulae in governmental administra- 
tion. On looking more closely he finds 
they are kept by quaestors, praetors, 
censors, election officers, and municipal 
senates, and are nothing more or less 
than official records. In the lex Actlia 
vepetundarum the tabulae contain the 
names of the jurors and the attorneys. 
That they were also records of the pro- 
ceedings in court is shown by an im- 
portant (but overlooked) passage in a 
letter of Caelius to Cicero describing a 
case against Servilius.® The jury was 
evenly divided, and the praetor there- 
upon gave a verdict for the defendant. 
Thinking later that he had misinter- 
preted the law ‘he did not enter the 
defendants on the records as acquitted, 
but merely wrote out the verdicts of the 


1 Cf. Lex Acil. 70 (Bruns’ Fontes, p. 70) for 
ways of hindering a trial, and see the cases of 
retirement of accusers cited by Greenidge in 
Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, Ὁ. 468, n. 1. 

* Cf. also Orationes Claudiz, Bruns, pp. 98-9.. 

2 Cic. pro Balb. 28, 65 : ‘Cum omnium pecca- 
torum quaestiones sint,’ quoted by Greenidge, 
Ρ. 427. 

* Strachan-Davidson, Roman Criminal Law, 
i. 201 ; Botsford, Aoman Assemblies, Ὁ. 258. 

t See 26, Bruns, p. 64. 


5 2 Fam. vii. 8, 3. 


THE ‘CLASSICAL REVIEW: 


several decuriae ’—‘ in tabulas absolutum 
nonrettulit, ordinum iudicia perscripsit.’ 
It is evident from this not only that 
tabulae were court records, but also 
(what seems not to have been recognised 
hitherto) they were kept by the pre- 
siding praetor. In our passage tabulae 
are the records of the proceedings in the 
case against Horace. When the court 
adjourns the hearing in its amusement 
at his witty verses, they are cancelled 
(soluentur®); the case, as we Say, 15 
stricken from the docket, and the poet 
walks out a free man. 


Epp el 3. 120.3: 

Scriptor honoratum si forte reponis Achillem, 

Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer 

lura neget 5101 nata, nihil non arroget armis. 

The point I wish to discuss here is 
the use of honoratum. On the ground 
that Achilles is not honoured in the 
Iliad and, that if he were, it would be 
unsuitable to speak of him as zracundus, 
etc., Bentley conjectured Homereum and 
printed it in his text. In this he was 
followed by Munro in 1869, and later by 
L. Miller, who read Homeriacum. How- 
ever, honoratum is now usually retained, 
though the medium assigned to it varies. 
Kriiger thinks it should be completed 
by fama ; Wilkins takes it as ‘when in 
receipt of his due honours,’ Rolfe as 
‘vestored to honour in distinction from 
his situation at the beginning of the 
Iliad.’ The latest discussion of the 
passage by Frederick Pollock brings 
out this same point. He says, ‘ve of 
veponis must mean something. It 
cannot mean to restore to the stage in 
the modern theatrical sense of re- 
vival, for the whole passage deals with 
the treatment of stock motives and 
characters. The emphatic position of 
honoratum has been overlooked. The 
dramatist undertakes to restore Achilles 
to his worshipful standing: there- 
fore, I would translate, In case you 
take for your subject Achilles’ Worship 
Restored.’ 

All this is to make a difficulty of what 
would seem to be simpleenough. Hono- 


ΟΣ Cie. der OF ΤΙΝ δῶν 255. LES) a tote 
risuque dissolvit. 
Quint. v. 10, 67 : cum risu tota res solvitur. 
Class. Rev. XXXI. 52 (March, 1917). 


Ιοςο 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


vatum is the use, common enough in 
the Augustan age, of a perfect participle 
in agreement with noun to express a 
verbal idea. Thus Livy (XXI. 46, 10) 
says servatt consulis decus, and huius 
belle perfectt laus. The idiom is fre- 
quent in Horace, and in an article! on 
Sat. I. 6, 126, I have brought together a 
virtually complete collection of the 
examples. It is somewhat strange how 
scholars have stumbled over this con- 
struction, a classic example being the 
great Ribbeck’s comment? on Juvenal 
X. 110. In answer to the question: 
What overthrew men like Pompey and 
Crassus and Caesar? Juvenal writes: 
‘Summus nempe locus nulla non arte 
petitus,’ whereupon Ribbeck remarks: 
‘ Wie kann der héchste Stand oder der 
Gipfel der Macht Jemanden zu Boden 
sturzen?? In our passage honoratum 
. . . Achillem means ‘the honouring of 
Achilles,’ the reference being of course 
to the embassy. Achilles was certainly 
honoured on this occasion, whatever be 
his treatment in the rest of the Iliad. 
If a writer wishes to portray him after 
Homer (hence veponere), he must be 
true to type—‘ Famam sequere aut sibi 
convenientia finge,’ as the poet remarks 
in verse 11g. Specifically Horace has in 
mind the behaviour of Achilles at the 
embassy, although the description he 
gives of him there might also apply to 
his character in general. 


JEFFERSON ELMORE. 
Stanford University. 


CICERO’S LETTERS TO 
ATTICUS, XV. 9. 


[No. 742 in Tyrrell and Purser’s 
Edition. | 


Di immortales ! quam me conturbatum tenuit 
epistulae tuae prior pagina? Quid autem iste 
in domo tua casus armorum ? 

THE explanations of this passage 
suggested in that fine edition of Cicero’s 
Correspondence, from which I copy the 
above passage, do not seem quite satis- 
factory. It is, as the editors suggest, 


* Class. Rev. X1X. 400 ff. (November, 1905). 
* Der Echte und der Unechte Juvenal, p. 54. 


103 


unlikely that there should be a ‘ fracas’ 
in such a sedate establishment as that 
of Atticus. On the other hand, the 
emendation casus armariorum, ‘fall of 
cupboards,’ would hardly explain the 
very remarkable sentence that pre- 
cedes; unless we take Cicero’s alarm 
to be counterfeited and suppose the 
sentence to be jocular. This does not 
seem very likely, for the rest of the 
letter is in a vein of deep despondency. 
A few days later he says “βλάσφημα 
mittamus,’ and less than a fortnight 
from the present date he writes ‘ mihi 
res ad caedem et eam quidem propin- 
quam spectare videtur.’ 

Is it not possible that the phrase 
casus armoruim means simply ‘the fall of 
arms ’—1.€., Some weapon, or weapons, 
in Atticus’s house fell down without 
apparent reason, and this was taken by 
both Atticus and Cicero as an omen of 
war? This would explain the alarm 
expressed in ‘ Di immortales! quam me 
conturbatum tenuit. . . .’ It would 
also account for the anticipations of 
war that Cicero now begins to indulge 
in. Superstition, of course, was part 
and parcel of Roman life, and it is not 
likely that Cicero was entirely exempt 
from it. If this view is correct, we 
have an exact parallel in Scott’s Lady 
of the Lake, Canto I., stanza 27, where 
Douglas’s sword falls to the floor 
at the approach of Fitzjames. In 
Canto II., stanza 15, the old minstrel 
explains this as an omen οἵ the 
approach of a secret foe. 

When we find Livy, in spite of a sort 
of apology, carefully reporting weari- 
some crops of prodigies every year, we 
need not hesitate to ascribe superstition 
to Cicero. 

Η. W. M. Burp. 


VIRGIL, AEN. VII. 7. 641 ff. 


Mr. WARDE FOWLER in his interest- 
ing book, Virgil’s Gathering of the Clans, 
says (p. 42), ‘there is no very intelli- 
gible geographical order in the show.’ 
But there 7s a method of arrangement, 
which I, or perhaps one of my pupils (I 
forget now), detected some time ago. 
Mezentius leads—the impious Mezen- 


\ 


104 THE: "CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


tius against pious Aeneas, as Servius 
said; and it is natural enough that 
Turnus and Camilla should close the 
procession. But what of the eleven 
chiefs who come in between? It 15 
enough to set down their names in the 
order they are given: Aventinus, Catillus 
and Coras, Caeculus (Messapus), Clausus, 
Halaesus, Oebalus, Ufens, Umbro, Vir- 
bius. The order is obviously alpha- 
betical. Messapus, however, is out of 
place. Ido not imagine that the poet 
set any store on this alphabetical 
arrangement, or would have cared about 
disturbing it. But the difficulties of 
the Messapus-passage are great; the 
awkward zeugma (habent acies and arces), 
the unfinished line (pulsa palus), and the 
almost comic effect of the two similes in 
juxtaposition (canoros, raucarum); not to 
mention that Messapus is in another 
way out of place—the eponymous hero 
of Messapia with such followers. The 
paragraph was at least left by Virgil in 
an unrevised state, perhaps at the foot 
of the page or in the margin, and the 
editors were troubled. I should like to 
transpose them to the alphabetical 
place after Halaesus, for one would 
thus restore what I fancy was the in- 
tention—to mention the arms of the 
followers, beginning with Mezentius 
down to Virbius, only in every other case. 
It is true that special arms should be 
given to Umbro’s troops, but the para- 
graph ends in a broken line. It may 
well be that for the time Virgil was 
puzzled as to what arms to give them, 
when he had already had recourse even to 
aclydes—boomerangs, as Mr. J. Y. Powell 
has shown. I would add on the ques- 
tion of unfinished lines that both Mr. 
Mackaii (C.R., December, 1915) and 
Mr. Fowler (p. 93) have missed two; 
there -are''57, not!!55 of ‘them: fhe 
missing two are, I suspect, 2,787 Dardanis 
et divae Veneris nurus, and 5,815 unum pro 
mulirs dabitur caput. A. M. Cook. 


VIRGIL, AENEID, VII. \23) | 


IN his Aeneas at the site of Rome 
Warde Fowler has again explained many 
obscurities in Virgil, but he has left the 
old crux of VIII. 23, with an admission 


-- 


of its difficulty. The lines in question 
are: 

sicut aquae tremulum labris ubi lumen aenis 

sole repercussum aut radiantis imagine lunae 

omnia pervolitat late loca. 

Some commentators assume a mixed 
figure that borrows the language of the 
mint (percutio nummum), others a con- 
fused picture caused by the poet’s 
carelessness in referring the point of 
veflection to the sun instead of to the 
water. But the precision of Virgil’s 
visual sense can seldom be questioned 
with impunity. Perhaps the difficulty 
will vanish if we read the passage with 
the Epicurean conception of light in 
mind. From Siro and Lucretius Virgil 
had learned that light was a succession 
of particles emitted from its source in a 
constant stream. Indeed, he may here 
have had in mind the striking lines of 
Lucretius, IV. 189, 190: 

suppeditatur enim confestim lumine lumen 

et quasi protelo stimulatur fulgure fulgur. 
At any rate the Epicurean theory under- 
lies such phrases of Virgil as ‘aera . . 
sole lacessita’ (VII. 527) and ‘quaerit 
pars semina flammae abstrusa in venis 
silicis (VI. 6). 

The simple form percussum would 
have caused less difficulty, but the prefix 
ve does not necessarily mean ‘back’ or 
‘again. It sometimes has the force of 
‘down’ (reclents, reclzvis), it may be 
intensive as in vedundo, or it may 
imply continuity as in vespiro, revereor, 
vedolere. The passage seems therefore 
to mean: As when light, emitted by sun 
or moon, shimmering on the water, flits 
about. 

I may add that except for the strange 


Pythagoreanism’ of the sixth book, 
which was apparently assumed for 


reasons of plot, the whole of the Aexezd 
is best comprehended as the work of an 
Epicurean poet. And in so far I would 
question Warde Fowler’s discussion of 
Fate (zbzd. pp. 122-9). Virgil’s inconse- 
guential Fatum may be understood in 
the light of Lucretius II. 250-307, and 
his histrionic divinities are explained by 
Lucretius IT. 600-660. 
TENNEY FRANK. 

Bryn Mawr, Penna. 

1 The poet, of course, did not seriously 
believe in an abode where souls appeared 
before birth in their future attributes. 


ΤΩ Ξ 


Ως τὸ ΞΘ 


a ἀρ 


+ 
᾿ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


TWO PASSAGES OF VIRGIL. 
Aen. VIET. 376-378: 


non ullum auxilium miseris, non arma rogavi 

artis opisque tuae, nec te, carissime coniunx, 

incassumve tuos volui exercere labores 
378 incassumque 777. 27. maz. 

‘As it seems to me, a very ill- 
elaborated passage, both in respect of 
sound and sense,’ says Henry of the 
whole of 377-381; and it must be 
allowed that we have here a rough 
patch which wanted the poet’s ultima 
manus. All the more, therefore, does 
it behove us not lightly to call in 
question the correctness of the text 
offered by our MSS. Despite this, and 
despite the fact that, from the very 
nature of the Virgilian tradition, the 
textual critic pipes always to readers 
who will not dance (nor do I very 
much blame them), | am moved to 
make a suggestion upon the text of 
line 378. ' 

It is Latin, and it is Virgilian, to say 
labor aliquem exercet (see Aen. I. 431). 
It is Latin, and Virgilian, to say labore 
aliquem exerceo (see Aen. VIII. 412). 
It is Latin, though the phrase does not 
occur in Virgil, to say aliquis exercet 
laboves: Virgil has vires, 1745, vices, 
exercere, all of which are analogous; 
nor are choros, cantus, exercere much 
dissimilar. hwmum  exerceo, taurum 
exerceo are Latin and Virgilian. But, 
unless one is addressing a field, or a 
beast of the field, is te exerceo Latin for 
‘I make you work, I work you’? and 
is exerceo tuos labores Latin for it either? 
or are the two together, with a con- 
necting -ve (or even a -gue), Latin for 
it? No editor seems to feel any doubt 
of it in this passage; and that the con- 
junct phrase, as = te tuis laboribus 
exerceo, is impossible it would be rash 
to affirm. But it is at least question- 
able. 

A small change would rid us of all 
difficulty. I would suggest that the 
true reading in 378 is incassum vetitos 
volut: ‘1 did not desire (indeed it had 
been vain) that you should labour at 
forbidden toils.’ The conjecture de- 
rives support from Vulcan’s reply in 
lines 395-404. ‘If you had asked me 
for arms,’ he there says in effect, ‘when 
Troy was about to fall, you would have 


105 


found that the labour you call forbidden 
could have been allowed: 
similis si cura fuisset 


tum quoque fas nobis Teucros armare fuisset ; 
nec pater omnipotens Troiam nec fata veza- 


bant 398 
stare, decemque alios Priamum superesse per 
annos.’ 


nec vetabant in line 398 lacks point 
(and is even obscure) if Venus has not 
referred to a supposed decree of fate 
making it nefas for Vulcan to make 
arms for Aeneas at Troy.  vetifos in 
378 supplies the required reference. 
nec... vetabant is rendered by Coning- 
ton ‘the fates did not forbid (if you 
had only known it).’ With vetitos it 
will mean ‘you were wrong when you 
said that the fates forbade.’ 


Aen. XII. 93-97: 
validam vi corripit hastam, 
Actoris Aurunci spolium, quassatque trementem 
vociferans : ‘nunc, onumquam frustrata vocatus 
hasta meos, nunc tempus adest : te maximus 
Actor, 

te Turni nunc dextra gerit.’ 

gO. ‘te maximus Actor: understand 
antea gessit,’ says Conington. But is 
Actor here a proper name? or should 
we write actor (te maximus actor nunc 
gerit)? Statius has actor habenae (Ach. 
II. 134); and actor hastae is equally 
natural. Statius may very well have 
borrowed actor in this sense from 
Virgil. The play on the proper name 
Actor is quite in Virgil’s manner. 
Thus at III. 183 he has cassws Cassandra 
canebat (cassus Postgate: casus codd.), 
and at VII. 791 argumentum ingens et 
cusios virginis Argus. 

H. W. GARROD. 
Merton College, Oxford. 


CATULLUS 39, 11 PARCUS 
UMBER. 


IN 1894 were published some extracts 
from the Liber Glossarum, a huge ency- 
clopaedia-dictionary which 1 believe (but 
cannot prove) to have been compiled 
at Corbie in the abbacy of Adelard 
(from about the year 775). Since they 
appeared in vol. V. of the Corpus 
Glossariorum Latinorum they have been 
ignored in this country, where Latin 


τοῦ 


Glossaries are by common consent rele- 
gated to the Gentiles’ Court as things 
remote from the orthodox devotion of 
English Latinists, devotion to the con- 
jectural emendation of the text of a few 
Latin poets. Yet they contain things 
that should ‘interest all of us. They tell 
us, for example (on the authority of a lost 
Vita Vergiliana), that Virgil was called 
to the bar but held only one brief (C.G.L. 
V. 249, 17 ‘togam est consecutus; egit 
causam non amplius quam unam’). And 
they emend (without conjecture’s precari- 
ous aid) a line of Catullus. One of the 
sources used by the Corbie compiler 
was a Collection of Examples (of the 
meaning of words) from Authors. The 
meaning of fimguis was there illustrated 
by Catull. 39, 11: 

aut pinguis Umber aut obesus Etruscus, 

a very suitable line, sincé it contrasts 
pinguis with obesus, the sleek embon- 
point of the dairy-farmer of Sassina with 
the unhealthy ‘undistributed middle’ of 
the sensual Etrurian. How did farcus 
find its way into our MSS. of Catullus? 

In that ‘editio illepida’ of a lepidus 
poeta, that warning example how 
palaeography should zo¢ be used by an 
. editor, the Teubner commentary of 
Friedrich, it is declared that Catullus 
wrote pastus, of which parcus is a faulty 
transcription and finguis a gloss. But 
that Catullus wrote pzmguis is, we May 
say, proved by the pzmguibus Umbris of 
Persius (3, 74). Parcus may be a con- 
jectural emendation of some miswriting 
of pinguis, or it may be a deliberate 
alteration by some Umbrian scribe of the 
archetype. Ellis thinks it may belong 
to a second ancient recension. 

In the apparatus of the Oxford (Script. 
Class. Bibl.) text we find ‘. . . pinguis 
Gloss. Vatic. in Maii Class. Auct. VII. 
574 Pinguis: grassus; nam obesus plus 
est quam pinguis: Catullus ait “Aut 
pinguis,”’ etc. But how meaningless all 
this is to a reader! How differently it 
impresses him when he is told that Mai 
found the gloss in an inferior MS. of the 
Liber Glossarum; that the compiler of 
the Liber Glossarum took it from a 
Collection of Examples from Authors 
which is quite as likely to have been 
an ancient collection (like Arusianus 
Messius’ Quadriga) as a Carolingian 
(like Mico’s Prosody), since much of its 


THE) CLASSICAL REVIEW 


lore can be traced to Donatus (Class. 
Quart. XI. 128). And how necessary it 
becomes to elicit from the chief MSS. of 
the Liber Glossarum all possible infor- 
mation about this lost work! Goetz has 
published only extracts. But we must 
get all the items of the Liber Glossarum 
published which have come from this 
source. 

And that is the object of this article. 
Are there half a dozen teachers of Latin 
in this country who have enough zeal for 
research to be willing to spend their 
forenoons for a week (or, still better, a 
fortnight) in one or other of the follow- 
ing libraries, where are the oldest MSS. 
of this Corbie dictionary: the Bublio- 
théque Nationale of Paris, the Vaticana 
of Rome, the Bibliothéque de Ville of 
Tours, the Stadtbibliothek of Berne, the 


-K6nigliche Bibliothek of Munich, the 


Ambrosiana of Milan? If there are, 
and if they will write to me, so that their 
labours may be distributed and directed, 
the thing will be done. 

W. M. LINDSAY. 


The University, St. Andrews. 


THE DERIVATION OF LATIN 
‘RUDIS? \CUASI SINGLES MER 


IT is deplorable to go backward in our 
scientific knowledge, but this is what has 
happened in regard to the etymology of 
Lat. zudis. Stowasser, in his Latin 
lexicon of 1900, explained the noun 7wds 
by adding after it ‘sc. μέγα hasta’; and 
under the adjective he cited the Virgilian 
instance, viz. Aenezd IX. 743, 

ille rudem nodis et cortice crudo 
intorquet . . . hastam. 


This passage certainly suggests that the 
vudis was first a sort of knobkerry or an 
unwrought singlestick. This good ex- 
planation was silently withdrawn in 
Skutsch’s revision of Stowasser in IQIO. 
In 1915 Zimmerman, in his etymological 
lexicon, revived the suggestion—but, if 
I may say so, very coldly. Walde has 
disdained even to mention it. 

One interested in root derivation 
might be disposed to connect the noun 
vu-dis directly with 7vu-crum and ruta- 
bulum, from a root ru (see Walde s.v. 
7u0), to scratch, so that the original 
sense of rutrum rutabulum will have 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


been ‘scratcher, digging stick” Even 
then it seems to me that Lat. vudzs 
(rough<‘scratching) is earlier than 7udzs, 
knobkerry. Latin (from Greek) ruta 
(rue) will have meant, to start with, the 
rough plant or the plant of rough taste 
(cf. Lat. asper, of wine, brine). The root 
of rudzs will be ultimately not different 
from the root of Eng. rough, Lat. rau-cus, 
rough of voice. This raises the question 
of the ultimate cognation of 7udzs 
(rough) and γαῖ (howls). Did the sense 
of ‘grating’ come from ‘howling’ or con- 
versely ? We should be cautious not to 
disbelieve the one or the other if we recall 
that, in point of derivation, Eng. smooth 
meant, to start with, ‘creamy.’ 

But waving all question of the remoter 
cognates, I. wish to record myself as 
entirely satisfied with Stowasser’s deriva- 
tion of the noun 7udis (sc. uirga hasta) 
from the adjective 7wdis (rough). C7. 
the Spanish noun largo (billiard cue), 
from Lat. largus (broad, expansive), 
though Jarvgus must in Spanish have got 
the sense of ‘long’ prior to the develop- 
ment of the nominal sense of ‘cue.’ 


EDWIN W. Fay. 
The University of Texas. 


DIV Y Il 30," 4. 


sed curae fuit consulibus et senioribus 
patrum, ut imperio suo vehemens mansueto per- 
mitteretur ingenio. 

As the above passage stands in the 
MSS., there is no subject for ‘ permit- 
teretur.’ This difficulty is fully discussed 
by Professor Conway in his edition of 
Livy II. (C.U.P. 1912, p. 134), who takes 
Moritz Miiller’s suggestion and prints 
MAGISTRATUS between ‘ vehemens’ and 
‘mansueto.’ It seems evident that some 
word closely akin to ‘imperio’ and 
‘magisiratus’ has dropped out of the 
text, probably through haplography. 
Professor Conway mentions two pro- 
posals that have been made, but does 
not accept them. They are: (1) ‘Zimperit 
vis vehemens’ (Madvig); (2) ‘ Imperium 
sua vt vehemens’ (Frigell). Each of 
these proposals involves ἃ twofold 
tampering with the text, apart from 
Professor Conway’s objection (loc. cit.). 

The present writer suggests the inser- 
tion of MUNUS after ‘ vehemens.’ MUNUS 


107 


would be more likely to fall out between 
VEHEMENS and MANSUETO than would 
MAGBS, (abbreviated for ‘ magistratus’). 

For MUNUS used in connexion with a 
magistracy, cp. est proprium munus 
magistratus, intellegere, se gerere per- 
sonam civitatis (Cicero, De Off. I. 
34. 124). M. Kean. 

Collegiate School, 

Liverpool. 


ΕἸ xx 45:9: 


‘Nummis aureis quadringentis Dasio Brun- 
disino praefecto praesidii corrupto, traditur 
Hannibali Clastidium.’ 


With hardly an exception, commen- 
tators have fallen foul of the words 
‘nummis aureis.’? On the authority of 
a statement of Pliny” they declare that 
gold coins were not struck in Rome 
before 217 B.c.,> and conclude that 
Livy’s allusion to them in connexion 
with events. of 218 B.c. must be an 
anachronism. 

This anachronism, if it be one, cer- 
tainly does not stand alone in the pages 
of Livy, whose antiquarian accuracy 
was not above reproach. Yet Livy was 
certainly aware that in the earlier days 
of the Roman republic large sums of 
money were paid by weight.*- And the 
knowledge of this fact is not likely to 
have slipped from him in the present 
case, for in the above passage his method 
of expression is somewhat stilted and 
gives the impression of aiming at a 
studied effect. Our author therefore 
was on the alert, and we should think 
twice before we reproach him with a 
careless blunder. 

But on second thoughts the objections 


1 Nash (1874); Capes (1878); Dowdall 
(1885); Dimsdale (1888) ; Tatham (1889); 
Trayes (1899); Allcroft and Hayes (1902). 
Westcott (1892) tries to evade the difficulty by 
translating ‘an amount of gold of the value of 
4oo aurei.’ But this does excessive violence to 
Livy’s language. 

2 Hist. Naturalis 33. 47: aureus nummus 
post annos li. percussus est quam argenteus. 

3 This date, which some schoiars reject in 
favour of 218 Β.6., has recently been rehabili- 
tated by Leuze (Zeitschrift fiir Numismatzh, 
1915, pp- 37-46). : 

4° £.g., 22. 23.3 : argenti Zomdo bina et selibras 
in militem praestaret. 


τοῦ 


to Livy’s version lose all their force. 
For one thing, it is by no means certain 
that Pliny’s date for the first emission 
of gold coin at Rome is correct. Some 
leading numismatists have used the 
evidence of style—which is a safer 
criterion in expert hands than a second 
or third-hand snippet from Pliny—to 
date back the earliest extant gold pieces 
from the mint at Rome to the last years 
of the First Punic War, or to some 
other period anterior to the Second 
Punic War.! Again, it is quite arbitrary 
to assume that Hannibal’s choice of 
gold coins was limited to the issues of 
the Roman moneyers. Indeed, if he 
paid in coin at all, he probably did not 
use Roman pieces. The earliest Roman 
gold coinage, whatever its date, was 
almost certainly an emergency issue. It 
was intended to cope with a stringency 
of money in Rome itself and therefore 
would not circulate widely outside the 
City.) it is: unlikely, ‘therefore; that 
Hannibal could have hoarded a suffi- 
cient stock of these aurei to liquidate 
his transaction with Dasius. We should 
look beyond Rome for the provenance 
of the four hundred gold pieces. 

Now if we take a survey of those 
mints whose coins might possibly have 
come into Hannibal’s hands, we shall 
have to travel over quite a wide field. 
In Italy alone gold coins of the third 
century are known to have been struck 
at Volsinii, Capua, Heraclea, Taren- 
tum, and among the Bruttii. In Sicily 
issues in the same metal were not un- 
common in the fifth century, and in the 
third century the mint of Syracuse 
was singularly prolific of gold pieces. 
Carthage too issued gold currency in 
the early and middle part of the same 
century, and even some of the tribes of 
Gaul had followed suit.2, Of the mints 
in the Eastern Mediterranean, it may 
suffice to mention that of the great 
Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander. 

Gold coins, therefore, were plentiful 
enough in Hannibal’s time. And we 


1 Grueber, Cotus of the Roman Republic, 
introd. p. lv; vol. i., p. 12. Hill, Héstorical 
Roman Coins, pp. 40-43. Hill’s date (c. 242 B.C.) 
commends itself strongly on historical grounds. 

2 Cf. Head, Aztstoria Numorunt and the 
British Museum Catalogue of Coins. 


THE: CLASSICAL REVIEW 


need not doubt that—setting aside the 
case of emergency issues—they had a 
wide circulation among the armies of 
that period, for they would be far more 
convenient to carry than the bulky 
silver pieces. Indeed some of the 
principal gold coinages, such as those 
of Syracuse and Tarentum, of Macedon 
and Carthage, and the pieces struck 
under Roman authority at Capua, were 
evidently meant in the first instance for 
military use. Their emission usually 
coincided with some important military 
effort, and was on such a scale as to 
exceed by far the needs of the local 
market. Almost any and every one of 
the issues above mentioned would have 
served Hannibal’s purpose. The coins 
of Carthage would presumably be the 
easiest for him to come by; those of 
Macedon, and, in a less degree, of 
Syracuse and Tarentum, enjoyed the 
greatest international reputation; and 
the last-named were probably the most 
familiar to the recipient, a native of 
Brundisium. 

But it is useless to break our heads 
in endeavouring to find in what par- 
ticular species Hannibal paid Dasius. 
Suffice it to say that he probably had 
plenty of ‘nummi aurei’ of one sort or 
another at his disposal, and that there 
is no warrant for accusing Livy of inac- 
curacy in his description of Hannibal’s 
bargain. M. CARY. 


University of London. 


QUINTILIAN I. 9. 2: 


I THINK it should be stated that the 
interpretation of this passage repre- 
hended by Mr. F. H. Colson in the 
last number of the CLASSICAL REVIEW 
is assumed by M. L. Havet on p. xvi of 
his edition of 1895, where it is cited 
amongst the ‘ testimonia de Phaedro.’ 


J-P\ROSPGATE- 


3 The inconvenience of silver money to an 
army in rapid motion is amusingly illustrated in 
Oman, History of the Peninsular War, vol. 11.» 
Ρ- 348. 

4 This is particularly true of the copious 
issues described in Evans’ Horsemen of Taren- 
Zum, pp. 81-2, 97, 140-1. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


POMPEY’S COMPROMISE. 


PROFESSOR TENNEY FRANK’S sug- 
gestion’ that Pompey’s offer to prolong 
Caesar's command in Gaul till Novem- 
ber 13, 49 B.C., was coupled with a 
provision for the insertion of two inter- 
calary months in the early part of that 
year receives support from the following 
passage in Cicero’s correspondence: 
‘leuissime enim, guia de intercalando 
non obtinuervat (Curio), transfugit ad 
populum’ (Ad Familiares 8. 6. 5. 
Written by Caelius to Cicero in March, 
50 B.C., some two months before 
Pompey made his offer to Caesar). 

This passage shows that the question 
of calendar reform was in the air at 
the time when Pompey made his offer 
to Caesar. We do not know what 
attitude Pompey adopted towards 
Curio’s scheme at the outset; but once 
Curio had abandoned his motion and 
left a free field to Pompey the latter 
had a double interest in reviving the 
question of intercalation. Not only, 
as Professor Frank points out, would a 
manipulation of the calendar enable 
him to make a specious offer to Caesar, 
but it would place his antagonist Curio 
ina dilemma. If Curio accepted Pom- 
pey’s calendar reform, he would preju- 
dice the interests of his patron Caesar. 
If he opposed it after himself intro- 
ducing a similar or identical scheme, 
he would lay himself open to the charge 
of inconsistency. The second of these 
results, moreover, was one which Pom- 
pey was anxious to attain. His general 
policy of riposte against Curio at this 
time was to pretend that he, Pompey, 
and not Curio, was Caesar’s true 
friend, that Curio was a mere irre- 
sponsible mischief-maker.? 


1 Classical Review, May-June, 1919, pp. 68-9. 

2 Ad familiares ὃ. τι. 3: Pompeius, tam- 
quam Caesarem non impugnet, sed quod illi 
aequum putet constituat azt Curionem quaerere 
adiscordias. 


109 


There is, therefore, good reason for 
believing that Professor Frank has 
offered a valid explanation of a diffi- 
culty which has long baffled historians. 


M. Cary. 
University of London. 


NOSTRUM NOBIS. 


In Archiv 15. 47 (anno 1908; cf. 
Kleine Schriften, p. 321), in a paragraph 
entitled Ersatz des Komparationskasus, 
Skutsch wrote as follows: Woher dies 
quam gekommen ist, lasst sich mit 
einem Worte sagen—und doch ist es 
nirgends gesagt. Genau so ist 
im Lateinischen hic clarior est quam tlle 
statt clarior est illo eingetreten nach der 
Analogie von hic tam clarus est quam ille. 
But in the Classical Review 8. 458 (anno 
1894) I had written: A very transparent 
origin for the Latin guam (than) can be 
made out, e.g. tam ego fut liber quam (sc. 
liber) gnatus tuus (Plautus, Cpt. 310); it 
is but a step to liberior quam gnatus tuus. 
Also in my edition of the Mostellavia 
(anno 1902) I presented the case for 
interaction between comparison of 
equality and comparison of inequality 
at least as thoroughly as Skutsch. To 
my examples I may now add from 
Wycherley’s Gentleman Dancing Master 
(i. 2), Thou hast made the best use of 
three months at Paris as ever English 
squire did. In his small volume on 
Horace (ch. vi., p. 110 of the Lippincott 
edition) Sir Theodore Martin got two 
types of comparison of inequality into 
confusion, viz. in the sentence: ‘the 
wife so chosen seems to have been at 
pains to make herself more attractive to 
everybody rather than to her husband.’ 


EpwIn W. Fay. 


University of Texas. 


110 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


REVIEWS 


THE PRICE OF PREEDOM 


The Price of Freedom: An Anthology 
for All Nations, chosen by F. MELIAN 


STAWELL./ 75% 44... Pp./205..5 24 
illustrations. London: Headley 
Brothers. Price 3s. 6d. net. 


Miss F. M. STAWELL, in her interesting 
collection of extracts from the poets 
and thinkers of many nations, does not 
shrink from contemplating the harsh 
and cruel sides of life, which emerge 
so often in the age-long struggle for 
freedom. Her little book may thus 
prove a useful corrective to the serene 
beauty-of Mr. Bridges’ great Anthology, 
which inspired it. Twenty-four illus- 
trations are added, most of them being 
happily chosen, though Rembrandt’s 
‘Anatomy Lesson’ might well have 
been omitted. Miss Stawell draws on 
German writers (chiefly Goethe and 
Nietzsche) and also, rather largely, on 
Walt Whitman and Browning, all of 
whom were passed over by Mr. Bridges. 

For the Classical Review the main 
interest of the book lies in its‘quotations 
from the classics. We are struck by 
the entire absence of Latin, except for 
a few lines from Spinoza. Is there 
nothing to be found in Livy or Tacitus, 
Virgil or the Roman Stoics, to hearten 
the world in its fight ‘pulchra pro 
libertate’ (Aen. VI. 821)? It is note- 
worthy that Mr. Bridges also allows 
classical Latin literature to be repre- 
sented by a single passage from the 
Aeneid. Some lover of Latin ought to 
fill up this gap, if it can be filled. The 


Greek quotations are nearly all well- 
known ones. Unfortunately only four 
out of fifteen appear with an absolutely 
accurate Greek text: mis-spellings and 
wrong accents abound. It is a pity 
that such mistakes should have been 
allowed to survive the proof-sheets. 
The translations are generally Miss 
Stawell’s own: that of the Thermopylae 
epitaph—‘ Stranger, tell the Spartans 
that we have obeyed their orders, and 
have fallen here’—reads very flat: the 
emphasis is on τῇδε κείμεθα, ‘here we 
lie,’ and the noble lines almost demand 
a couplet in verse. Antigone’s answer 
to Creon (Soph. Antigone 523) is admit- 
tedly a difficult line, for which a perfect 
rendering has perhaps not yet been 
found; but Miss Stawell’s lengthy 
paraphrase sadly weakens it. For the 
Athenian battle-song in the Persians 
(402-5) Browning’s rendering is used. 
In spite of Browning’s name, one misses 
the steady rhythm of the Greek, and a 
printer’s slip in punctuation does not 
improve matters. Plato furnishes but 
one quotation, of six words only; 
Thucydides none. Altogether the Greek 
extracts grip the reader far less than 
they ought to do. 

It is only fair to add that the Greek 
forms a very small part of the book, and 
that the translations from the Frenca 
and German are well done, especially 
two fine prose passages, one from Zola 
(p.78) and one from Victor Hugo (p. 90). 


G. W. BUTTERWORTH. 


NATURAL SCIENCE AND THE CLASSICAL SYSTEM IN 
EDUCATION. 


Natural Science and the Classical System 
in Education: Essays New and Old. 
Edited by Sir RAy LANKESTER. One 
volume. Pp.) x+2608:"\4 bondom: 
Heinemann, 1918. 25. 6d. net. 


THE Committee on the Neglect of 
Science have entrusted to Sir Ray 


Lankester the publication of essays on 
‘Natural Science in Education,’ by the 
Master of Balliol ; on ‘ The Case against 
the Classical Languages’ and ‘A Modern 
Education,’ by Mr. H. G. Wells; on 
‘Science and Educational Reconstruc- 
tion, by Mr. F. W. Sanderson; and 
‘The Aim of Education, by the editor. 


THE CLASSICAL“ REVIEW: 


The last essay is a trumpet-call, as loud 
as possible, intended to rally the friends 
of science against their supposed enemy, 
the tradition of classical teaching. 

In discussing the value of these essays 
I shall try to set out the lists for the 
encounter between the combatants as 
accurately as is needful. It might have 
been hoped that the champion of science 
as against the classics, the editor, 
would have anticipated the necessary 
explanations. But his command of 
scientific procedure is not adequate for 
the discussion before us. 

We must begin by taking account of 
the several sciences. If we start with 
the more abstract sciences and proceed 
to the more concrete, we shall put 
mathematics first. Then in order will 
follow physics, chemistry, physiology 
both botanical and animal. Aswethus 
proceed, each science takes for granted 
the results of the more abstract sciences 
which have preceded it. When, how- 
ever, we leave physiology to go on to 
᾿ psychology, we find that it is only partly 
true that psychology demands a know- 
ledge of its predecessors. A new ele- 
ment comes in. In the other sciences 
we study processes from the outside; in 


psychology we indeed study some pro-_ 


cesses from the outside, for example 
when we try to interpret the conscious- 
ness of animals. But the most charac- 
teristic part of psychology is that which 
is reached from the inside, by intro- 
spection, when consciousness expresses 
itself. It is at this point that we can 
enter fully upon anthropology, the 
scientific study of man, and not before. 
Not before this stage do we enter upon 
the subjects included under humanism. 
And when we do so enter, we find that 
we are no longer confined to the judg- 
ments of facts which make up the posi- 
tive sciences, or, as Sir Ray Lankester 
calls them, the natural sciences. Sir 
Ray Lankester introduces an element of 
confusion when he removes the obvious 
and convenient distinction between 
those studies which are specially con- 
cerned with man such as folklore, com- 
parative religion, history, literature, and 
so forth, and those studies such as 
physics and chemistry, which do not 
regard man as distinguished from the 
rest of the universe. So far as man is 


ὙΠ 


something more than an animal, so far 
as the natural sciences with their judg- 
ments of fact need to be supplemented 
by humanist studies with their judg- 
ments of value, to that extent only (I 
must point out to Sir Ray Lankester) is 
man a spiritual being, as imperfect as 
you like, but still spiritual. When the 
editor was reprinting so large a part of 
the ‘Essays on a Liberal Education,’ 
why did he omit Wilson’s paper ‘On 
Teaching Natural Science in Schools’? 
Theexplanation is not fartoseek. Wilson 
agrees (p. 256) that ‘an education in 
science alone would not be the highest,’ 
that ‘in order to train men education 
must deal mainly with the feelings, the 
history, the language of men.’ Such 
was the verdict of the one ‘scientific ’ 
contributor to the volume in question. 
We must therefore, in our systematic 
study of the problem, call in the assist- 
ance of human psychology and human 
ethics. It is the business of education, 
in the light of these sciences, to en- 
courage the individual to form good 
habits of thinking, feeling, and acting. 
Perhaps the most effective, although 
not always the most satisfactory, means 
to this end is found in social opinion, 
social pressure, and social example. 
The boy who goes to school or the man 
who earns his living, needs, as far as he 
can, to understand and to value rightly 
these social forces, if only because he 
himself is a contributory element. And 
the individual cannot thus take his part 
effectively unless his imagination is 
exercised upon human affairs. Here, 
the natural sciences leave us at the 
threshold. They lack the watchword, 
the ‘open sesame.’ But the boy who in 
Latin has struggled as far as Caesar’s 
Gallic War, or in Greek as far as the 
Anabasis of Xenophon, has had to con- 
struct in his own mind a picture, im- 
perfect indeed, but yet a picture, of 
another age and another civilisation. 
Here we have a hint of the services of 
the classics in developing the boy’s im- 
agination: more than a hint is unneces- 
sary. Now it is an ascertained fact 
that the development of the imagination 
accompanies to a very striking degree 
the development of the sense of language 
values. The Spirit comes often by way 
of the Word. Not all are susceptible 


ἜΤΟΣ 


of this development to a very great 
extent, but there is reason for holding 
that to a small extent all human beings 
are thus susceptible. It has yet to be 
shown that English and modern lan- 
guages, other than English, offer the 
like discipline to the imagination and 
the speech faculty, which is furnished, 
say, by the Greek New Testament. 
English teaching, under scientific in- 
fluences, fails to apply judgments of 
value. I still smart under the injustice 
of being compelled for an English ex- 
amination to learn by heart when a 
boy a second-rate poem like Parnell’s 
‘Hermit.’ And the case of English 
studies is no better in these latter days. 
The classical authors—‘ splendors of 
the firmament of time’—whom Sir Ray 
Lankester characteristically describes 
(p. 264) as ‘more or less ignorant and 
deluded,’ rarely condescend to the level 
of thought and expression which is 
found when students of natural science 
leave their proper province. And this 
leads me to my third point: the classical 
tradition puts a boy in the way not only 
of a cultivated imagination and an 
increased susceptibility to the exact use 
of language: he is familiarised, as he 
tries to enter into the varied styles of 
the classical writers, with the applica- 
tion of a standard of beauty. This 
exercise of taste isa common possession 
of all modern literatures, so far as they 
derive from the classics. 

So far as the classical tradition has 
disappeared in craftsmanship, to that 
extent our English surroundings have 
become barren, stale, unprofitable. The 
Victorian age is in this respect a by- 
word. The application in England of 
science to industrial processes from 
about 1760 marked the beginning of the 
end. Since that time the world has not 
only become uglier day by day so far as 
human production is concerned, but the 
human mind has lost for lack of exercise 
the power of responding to the appeal 
of the beautiful. The craftsman and 
' the artist live out their careers in an 
alien world. Mr. Wells (p. 187), in his 
capacity of a prophet of to-day, rightly 
interprets the mind of to-day when he 
says that ‘ beautiful writing or painting 
is educational by reason of its thought 
and illumination, and not. by reason 


THE CLASSICAL) REVIEW 


of its beauty.’ I had been waiting for 
‘thought and illumination.’ I now 
understand why the ‘ educationalist ’ 
empties the House of Commons, com- 
mittees, public meetings. He speaks 
for a world from which beauty is 
left out. 

The exclusive pursuit of natural 
science narrows the imagination by 
concentrating it upon non-human facts. 
It leaves undeveloped, or cramps or dis- 
torts the power of expression. A col- 
league of mine unkindly complains that 
Huxley was the last scientific man who 
wrote English. 

The industrial revolution, with science 
for its guide, has destroyed the beauty 
of human surroundings. And English 
scientific men are in the main uncon- 
scious of the external amenities of life, an 
unconsciousness which they share with 
their business contemporaries. But the 
workman has awakened to his loss in 
this respect, his ugly dwellings, and his 
mean streets. He has been exploited 
spiritually by his isolation from the 
ancient and lovely traditions of the ex- 
terior world. And if he ‘rots inwardly 
and foul contagion spreads,’ who shali 
say how far the guilt les with those who 
have taken from his home the last 
touches of beauty ? 

Mr. Wells is better than his word. In 
a passage (p. 206) which doubtless 
escaped the notice of the editor, Mr. 
Wells proposes that the ‘common arch 
of the whole system’ of education should 
rest upon the two pillars of classical 
and scientific studies. And there I 
should be content to leave it. The 
widened sympathies of the classical 
student can find room and a welcome 
for the renaissance of science, especially 
when, as in Mr. Sanderson’s pages, he 
catches echoes of the glorious Lionardo. 
In schools with an engineering side a 
boy, not infrequently, goes over from 
the classical fifth to the engineering 
side, and the classical boy in one year, 
often, so I am assured, catches up and 
passes the engineering boy who starts 
with a two years’ advantage in his 
special subject. But there is no funda- 
mental hostility between the classical 
and the scientific curriculum. They 
find room in: turn and in their due order 
for the development of those varied in- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ELS 


dividualities which, in proportion to 
their rich difference, contribute to the 
meaning of the world. 

I wonder what the Master of Balliol 
thinks of the concluding essay of the 
editor? Unhappy turns of speech like 
‘the dismal fatuities of grammarians’ 
(p. 259), or ‘overgrown staff of “ unable” 
teachers’ (p. 267), are matched by the 
elaborate identification of knowledge 
with wisdom (p. 254) and the un- 
scientific confusion between the natural 
and the human sciences. Sir Ray 
Lankester has indeed given away the 
whole case of science so far as he is 
concerned. Wisdom is not the inevit- 
able companion either of classical or 
scientific knowledge. It stands above 
them both, for it determines the ends to 
which man must direct not only his 
knowledge but his actions. But the 
Master of Balliol must be careful of the 
company he keeps. The spiritual life 
of man would indeed be starved if its 
main food were confined to the excite- 


ments of the unusually distant, say, 
Saturn and his rings, or the movement 
of the blood corpuscles as seen under a 
microscope (p. 3). I say nothing of the 
consolations of religion. But a quota- 
tion from another Oxford writer shall 
be set against Mr. A. L. Smith and the 
interesting reprints from ‘ The Essays 
on a Liberal Education’: 


The words of some classic author .. . pas- 
sages which to a boy are but rhetorical common- 
places . . . at length come home to him, when 
long years have passed, and he has had ex- 
perience of life, and pierce him, as if he had 
never before known them, with their sad 
earnestness and vivid exactness. 


Not even Mr. Sanderson's delightful 
exhibition of two years ago (p. 225) 
could give me the comfort which 
Newman and less eloquent souls have 
found in the loved pages of Virgil and 
Horace. 
FRANK GRANGER. 
University College, 
Nottingham. 


DIPS PY TAAIS::“STUDIEN ZUR GESCHICHTE: DEK 


VERBINDUNGEN ZWISCHEN 


Die Pythais: Studien zur Geschichte 
der Verbindungen zwischen Athen und 
Delpii. Inaugural-dissertation von 
AXEL BoETHIus. Uppsala, 1918. 


THE author, a pupil of Professor Sam 
Wide, has made a very useful study of 
the Athenian sacrifice at Delphi, which 
was offered from time to time and 
called ἡ Πυθαΐς. His conclusions, which 
are based on a careful examination of 
the Delphic inscriptions, are as follows: 
at some early period, in response to a 
request from Athens, the oracle ordered 
that the sacrifice should be sent, when 
Zeus lightened above Harma (on Mount 
Parnes), and this led to the foundation 
of a sort of college of Pythaistae, who 
watched for the lightning three days 
and three nights in three months of the 
year. But sod seldom did they observe 
it that ὅταν d:’" Appatos ἀστράψῃ became 
proverbial by the time of Pericles for 
‘seldom’ or ‘late,’ as a comedian 
adapted the phrase to Pericles ὅταν διὰ 
Πυκνὸς ἀστράψῃ. The observatory was 


ADHEN« UND) DE PEM: 


‘on the wall between the Pythion and 
the Olympion’ (Strabo). In passing let us 
observe that this is one more refutation 
of the theory of Dérpfeld that the name 
Pythion was anciently applied to the 
north-west corner of the Acropolis. Mr. 
Boethius is also definitely against con- 
necting Euripides, fon 285, with the 
lightning on Harma and the watch of 
the Pythaistae. When the sacrifice was 
actually performed, it took place with 
the ancient ceremony, alluded to by 
Aeschylus, Eumenides 12, in which axe- 
bearers led the way. Mr. Boethius 
thinks it most probable that the axes 
were originally votive, like the Tenedian 
axe. Either this was the case, or they 
were relics of the ancient ritual, as 
observed in the case of the Buphonia. 
Attic legend connected the ceremony 
either with the coming of the god from 
Delos to Delphi or with Theseus clearing 
the land of robbers (Schol. Med. 1 and 2). 
The route taken was via Oenoe and 
Cithaeron, not via the Tetrapolis and 
Tanagra, according to Mr. Boethius, 


II4 


who however deals fully with the quasi- 
independent religious connexions of the 
Tetrapolis with Delphi and Delos, a 
subject treated by Philochoros. Special 
ceremonies of the Pythais were the 
Pyrphoria and Tripodophoria, in which 
Mr. Boethius rightly sees the acknow- 
ledgment of the original foundation of 
the Pythion at Athens from Delphi. 
After 330 B.c. there was a long interval 
during which the sacrifice was not 
offered. It was always quite distinct 
from the Panhellenic Pythia, and was 
an Athenian function performed at 
Delphi. In 138 3B.c. the custom was 
revived, without the old watch for the 
lightning, and at first without the 
Pythaists. Between this year and 97 B.c. 
the processions can be reconstructed 
with the aid of Delphic inscriptions as 
having taken place four times. In 128 
the well-known Paean of Limenius, to 
which the musical notes are attached, 
was sung, relating the old story of the 
coming of the god from Delos by way 
of Athens. In these years deliberate 


THE CLASSI@AL ΕΝ 


archaism led to the restoration of the 
Pythaistae both adults and boys (an 
Icarian relief of the fourth century, of 
which Mr. Boethius gives an illustra- 
tion, shows four such boys accompanied 
by an adult), while every effort was 
made by the Athenian state to lend 
dignity to the occasion by official repre- 
sentation. Even the Athenian guild of 
actors co-operated, and they were not 
only thanked by the Delphians, but a 
statue was erected with a compli- 
mentary inscription for their perform- 
ances. Into the details of these later 
celebrations of the Pythais it is un- 
necessary to enter, but the general im- 
pression left by Mr. Boethius’ work is 
that he has carefully studied the evi- 
dence and arrived at the best conclu- 
sions. His chief service is definitely to 
distinguish the Pythais from the Pythia, 
the Panhellenic festival, to which e.g. 
Demosthenes (xix. 128) refers. Why is 
a dissertation by a Swede written in 
German ? G. C. RICHARDS. 
Oriel College, Oxford. 


GREEK POLITICAL THEORY = “PLATO/AND: HIS PREDECESSORS: 


Greek Political Theory: Plato and lis 
Predecessors. 8vo. One vol. Pp. xiii+ 
403. London: Methuen and Co., 
September, 1918. 


Mr. BARKER’S volume is a recasting— 
indeed almost a rewriting—of the first 
part of his book on The Political Phil- 
osophy of Plato and Aristotle published 
in 1906. The writing of it, as he says, 
has been ‘ pure pleasure,’ and he will 
take it asa compliment that the read- 
ing of it, pleasurable in itself, should 
have sent the present writer back to the 
even greater pleasure of communing 
with the spirit of their common master. 
He will forgive him then if this notice 
should refrain from dealing in detail 
with the virtues and occasional defici- 
encies of what will undoubtedly become 
a standard book for students of Greek 
political thought, and should dwell on 
one particular aspect of Plato’s work, 
to the full significance of which this 
latest study, like others, has not done 
full justice. 


‘A city, we must remember,’ says Mr- 
Barker in his second chapter (p. 24), in 
a passage.added since the earlier volume, 
‘always meant to the Greeks a com- 
munity of persons rather than an area 
of territory. They spoke in terms of | 
men where we... tend to speak in 
terms of acres’ or rather of square 
miles. The contrast here drawn is not 
only true, but fundamental, and its 
implications are a good deal deeper 
than Mr. Barker and other modern 
students of Plato appear to have 
realised. For if Plato’s city is not a 
territorial unit, like a modern state, but 
a spiritual unit, resembling rather a 
college or a church, much of his teach. 
ing will be inapplicable, or applicable 
only after careful allowance has been 
made, to modern political conceptions 
and conditions. Neglect of this obvious 
fact has led to much confusion of 
thought. Two examples from Mr. 
Barker’s volume must suffice. The © 
word law, he points out (p. 39), implied 
to the Greeks an inherited moral 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW - I15 


sanction, while to us it means merely 
‘a set of regulations.’ True, but on 
p. 208, forgetful of the distinction, he 
tells us that ‘ Plato’s insistence on the 
rule of law within a system of politi- 
cally independent states entitles him to 
rank as a forerunner of international 
law. Of international morality, of 
Sittlichkeit, yes; but of the Permanent 
Court of Justice at the Hague, a tribunal 
suspended in vacuo above states and 
peoples of varying outlook and moral 
standards—emphatically ‘no.’ Plato 
never fell into the current modern error 
of thinking that a moral relation be- 
tween diverse groups, whether tribes or 
large states, can be brought into exis- 
tence by the fiats of a few carefully- 
collected sages. 

Our other example is from a very 
different field. It concerns the much 
disputed question of Plato’s attitude 
towards art. Plato disbelieved, Mr. 
Barker tells us (p. 371), in ‘a general 
taste,’ and so he fell back, in his 
search for a controlling authority, on 
‘State regulation.’ ‘With many of his 
regulations we of this generation in- 
stinctively disagree,’ adds Mr. Barker; 
and no wonder, for the idea of a modern 
territorial state or municipality attempt- 
ing to hedge round the intellectual and 
artistic initiative of the very mixed 
body of persons within its jurisdiction 
is plainly repugnant to us. 

But if we remember that Plato is 
thinking in terms, not of a state, or 
even of a municipality, but of a society 
with an inherited social and artistic 
tradition of its own, of a ‘school’ in 
the full meaning of that word, the case 
is altered. 

In the Republic, in fact, the modern 
man finds not one but two distinct 
problems treated—the problem of 


government and the problem of what 


for want of a better term we must call 
‘nationality.’ States have no art; or, 
when they have one, it bears all the 
marks of the patron’s order or the 
parasite’s flattery. But nations, groups 
of individuals with a common racial 
and social inheritance and common 
memories and aspirations, can and do 
produce art, and, with art, a common 
standard of taste and appreciation. 
What would be frank absurdity in 
Dublin Castle and even in the Dublin 
Municipality might be quite feasible 
for the Abbey Theatre or the Gaelic 
League or even for the National Uni- 
versity of Ireland. Similarly the idea 
of an American art controlled from 
Washington merely excites ridicule, but 
readers of Miss Jane Addams’ and other 


, books on the life and activities of the 


different immigrant nationalities will 
realise how strong and life-giving a 
power resides in the artistic tradition 
which they have brought with them and 
which is sustained and nourished by 
deliberate communal action. A ‘ bazaar 
of styles’ is quite as demoralising as 
the ‘bazaar of constitutions’ which 
Plato denounces in democracy, and the 
experience of modern national groups, 
reaching out to the expression of their 
corporate consciousness in art and liter- 
ature and other forms of spiritual 
achievement, and reacting against the 
influence of a disintegrating cosmo- 
politanism, throws valuable new light 
on some of the perplexities which have 
troubled Mr. Barker and others on this 
subject. 

To develop this point would carry 
one far beyond the limits of a review, 
and an apology is perhaps needed for 
having allowed Mr. Barker’s excellent 
book to serve as an opportunity for 
suggesting it. 

A. E. ZIMMERN. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


DREAMS IN GREEK POETRY. 


116 
The Dream in Homer and Greek 
Tragedy. By WILLIAM STUART 


Messer, Ph.D. New York: Colum- 
bia University Press. London: 
Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univer- 
sity Press, r9g18. $1.25 net and 
5sod. net. : 


Tue Department of Classical Philology 
of Columbia University has approved 
this monograph as a contribution to 
knowledge worthy of publication. We 
are happy to agree, and we hope that 
Mr. Messer will be able to fulfil his 
promise of further contributions to his 
chosen subject. He was led to the 
study of the dreams in Greek literature 
by the discovery—which every serious 
student of Latin literature will make— 
that without Greek you cannot get farinto 
Latin ; for he first set out to investigate 
Roman dreams (see Mnemosyne, 45, 78- 
92). His present work is really intro- 
ductory to a more general study of the 
ancient dream, especially as portrayed 
in Latin literature. It deals particularly 
with the dreams in Homer, Hesiod, and 
the Tragedians, (1) as a part of the 
machinery, a motive force in the de- 
velopment of action, narrative, plot, and 
(2) as artistic ends in themselves, more 
or less complete, more or less refined, 
more or less natural or artificial. The 
author has collected, for his own pur- 
poses, all dreams and references to 
dreams that he can find in Greek or 
Latin literature down to the second 
century A.p., and his footnotes give 
proof of his wide reading and of the 
intrinsic interest of his materials. His 
style is somewhat inelegant, and his 
arrangement unattractive. His method 
is to plough solemnly through the whole 
field, noting and discussing each dream 
as it appears. Accordingly there is too 
much repetition, and ἃ bewildering 
abundance of cross-references. If only 
he had added a short chapter summar- 
ising his results, his work would have 
been more likely to be recognised for 
what it is—a very sound and useful 
piece of not particularly inspired re- 
search. That the author is no mere 


compiler is shown by many touches of 
just literary appreciation. He is at his 
best in pointing out that Penelope’s 
dream of geese and eagle (Odyssey XIX.) 
is unlike other dreams in Homer, an 
allegorical vision which demands inter- 
pretation, ‘a new departure for the epic, 
and a model for the allegorical dreams 
of tragedy.’ The second part, in which 
the eagle returns and announces him- 
as Odysseus, is in the manner of the 
older type, the objective dream which 
tells its own tale without any mystery ; 
and this addition, Mr. Messer thinks, is 
an indication that the poet felt uneasy 
about the introduction of the new 
technique (pp. 33-4). Excellent, again, 
is the remark (p. 57) that ‘the imme- 
diate source of the dream in tragedy is 
to be found zot in religion and cult, but 
in the literature.’ So is the discussion 
(p. 81 ff.) of the dream in Sophocles’ 
Electra, where the old literary motif is 
adapted, not so much for its mechanical 
effect upon the plot as for its value as a 
means and an excuse for the portrayal 
of character. Finally, the description 
of the dream in Euripides’ [p/igenta in 
Tauris as approximating to ‘the highly- 
chiselled miniatures in which the Alex- 
andrian period delights,’ strikes me as 
just and illuminating. Where Mr. 
Messer sticks to the literature and his 
own commonsense, his work is sound 
and useful. Sometimes, unfortunately, 
he is led, like most of us, into the " 
dangerous. by-paths of cult-conjecture. 
On p. 4, for example, after a sound sane 
statement in the text that Hermes is 
not portrayed in Homer as a god of 
dreams, and that ὀνειροπομπός as his 
epithet is not ante-Alexandrian, we are 
dismayed to read in a footnote that 
‘From Hermes ὀνειροπτομπός to Hermes. 
χθόνιος the step was_ short.’ 
Similar mental pressure produced, I 
think, the strange juggling with the 
meaning of the plain word κακόν on 
p. 12. But why, in the footnote to 
p. 16, Mr. Messer suddenly exclaims, - 
‘Add Granger . . .’ etc., I cannot con- 
jecture. 


ΩΣ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


117 


A GOLD TREASURE OF THE. LATE ROMAN PERIOD. 


A Gold Treasure of the Late Roman 
Period. By WALTER DENNIsON, 
Swarthmore College. (University of 
Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, 
Vol. XII. Studies in East Christian 
and Roman Art, Part II.). One 
volume. 11”x 8”. Pp. 87. Fifty-four 
plates and 57 text illustrations. New 
York: The Macmillan Company, 
1018. $2.50 net. 


Tuts study was completed by the author 
just before his death in March, 1917. 
An In Memoriam notice is appended to 
the volume. 

The book is a description of thirty- 
six objects said to belong to a gold 
treasure found in Egypt. The word 
‘said’ is used advisedly, for, though 
there is enough stylistic resemblance to 
connect together several of the pieces, 
the evidence relating to the discovery 
of the objects is extremely unsatisfac- 
tory. The pieces were brought at 
different times by Arabs to a ‘ well-known 
antiquary of Cairo.” They were pur- 
chased from him by four collectors, 
with the result that they are now scat- 
tered in Detroit, New York, the Anti- 
quarium in Berlin, and the British 
Museum. Four of the objects— two 
necklaces and a pair of serpent bracelets 
—are stated to have been found at 
Alexandria. They are clearly of earlier 
date (second-third century after Christ) 
than the bulk of the objects which the 
author rightly assigns to the sixth 
century. 

The volume consists mainly of a very 
detailed and accurate description of the 
objects which comprise striking but 
somewhat florid examples of the Oriental 
jeweller’s. art. Chief among them are 
two pectorals set with Imperial coins 
and medallions of the fifth and sixth 
centuries, to which were attached 
medallion pendants (in one case with 
designs depicting the Annunciation and 
the Miracle of Cana). There are other 
medallions in gold settings, necklaces 
with jewel pendants, a_breast-chain 
with openwork medallions, bracelets with 
openwork decoration and jewels, and a 
rock-crystal statuette of a woman of no 

NO. CCLXXIV. VOL. XXXIII. 


high artistic merit. The coins in the 
pectorals range from Theodosius I. 
(379-395) to Mauricius Tiberius (582- 
602). 


The ornaments were no doubt found 
in Egypt (Assidt in Upper Egypt and the 
site of the ancient Antinoé are each 
mentioned as provenance), but no re- 
liance can be placed on the statements 
made as to the find-spot. There is 
indeed doubt as to whether all the 
objects (excluding those assigned to 
Alexandria) were found together. The 
conjecture that Alexandria was the 
original place of manufacture has some 
plausibility, but there is no reason to 
suppose that there would be any marked 
difference between the products of 
Egyptian and Syrian jewellers at the 
period to which these ornaments belong. 

The objects, though primarily of in- 
terest to the student of ‘ Byzantine ’ 
jewellery, are also instructive for those 
who study ancient jewellery as a whole. 
There can be little doubt that the bulk 
of what is known as ‘ Roman’ jewellery 
owes its form and decoration to Eastern 
jewellers, primarily those of Antioch 
and Alexandria and later those of Con- 
stantinople. The pure Greek tradition 
dies out, as far as can be seen, in the 
second and third centuries after Christ 
—that tradition which laid stress on the 
exquisite modelling of gold into human 
oranimalform. Survivals of this Greek 
tradition are seen in the Rams’ head 
necklace (Plate X XIX.) and the Serpent 
bracelets (Plate XLVII.) of the present 
publication, objects which are ad- 
mittedly of different origin and of earlier 
date than the bulk of this treasure. 
The other and main portion of these 
ornaments illustrate the development 
in the ‘Byzantine’ period of features 
which can be traced back to the 
jewellery of the Hellenistic period. 
Alexander opened and Pompey reopened 
the Nearer East to the Graeco-Roman 
world. It was in the Hellenistic period 
that precious stones became a promi- 
nent element in jewellery, and from 
that period they grew in prominence 
till we arrive at overloaded ornaments 
such as the lunate bejewelled necklace 

I 


118 


of openwork shown in Plate XXXV. 
The openwork, which is so conspicuous 
in the ornaments of this find, begins on 
a modest scale in the first and second 
centuries after Christ, and is then de- 
veloped with increasing complication 
and arabesque effects. A find from 
Tunis of the third century (B. M. 
Jewellery, 2,824, 2,866-7) may be 
cited as marking an intermediate stage 
both in the use of precious stones and 
also of openwork. 

The pectorals of the present find 
show the use of coins as elements in 
jewellery—an clement foreign to Greek 
taste—carried to extremes. The coin 
as a feature of jewellery appears to have 
been introduced into ‘ Roman’. orna- 
ments under Oriental influence about 
the first century after Christ, when the 
belief in its prophylactic virtues not 
improbably assisted in popularising it. 
Incidentally it may be noted that the 
statement on p. 105 that coins of 
Caracalla are the earliest framed gold 
coins known is not quite accurate. The 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


British Museum possesses a gold neck- 
lace with a pendant in the form of an 
aureus of Domitian in a plain gold 
setting (B. M. Jewellery, 2,735: from 
Egypt). 

The way in which this interesting 
find has been scattered abroad reflects 
no great credit upon the control of 
antiquities in Egypt. A satisfactory 
control is notoriously difficult. It may 
be suggested, however, that a partial 
remedy could be found in making all 
trade in antiquities in a country such as 
Egypt a State Monopoly. The success 
of such a remedy would of course 
depend on the readiness of the State to 
pay finders the fair market price of the 
antiquities discovered. It could recoup 
itself by selling such antiquities as it 
did not require or could not afford to 
retain. 

The book is admirably illustrated by 
heliotype plates, half-tone blocks, and 


line drawings. 
ea os a 


MEPNOPHON, HE LLMNTCA TN. 


Xenophon, [Hellenica, 1. V. Translated 
by CARLETON L. Brownson. Loeb 
Series. 


Tue Hellenica in the original makes for 
tedium, and no translation could, as a 
whole, be more than tolerable. A literal 
translation is frankly intolerable; and 
unfortunately it is a literal translation 
that Mr. Brownson 15 providing. Open- 
ing the volume at random, we light on 
the following passage near the beginning 
of the Third Book: 

‘And when she had become mistress 
of the province, she not only paid over 
the tributes no less. faithfully than had 
her husband, but besides this, whenever 
she went to the Court of Pharnabazus 
she always carried him gifts, and when- 
ever he came down to her province, she 
received him with far more magnificence 
and courtesy than any of his other 
governors, and she not only kept 
securely for Pharnabazus the cities 
which he had received from her husband, 
but also gained possession of cities on 


the coast which had not been subject to 
him—Larisa, Hamaxitus, and Colonae 
—attacking their walls with a Greek 
mercenary force, while she herself 
looked on from a carriage; and when a 
man won her approval she would 
bestow bounteous gifts upon him, so 
that she equipped her mercenary force 
in the most splendid manner.’ 

Mr. Brownson might well ponder 
Chapman’s rule: ‘It is the part of 
every knowing and judicial interpreter 
not to follow the number and order of 
the words, but the material things 
themselves, and sentences to weigh 
diligently; and to clothe them with 
words, and such a style and form of 
oration as are most apt to the language 
into which they are concerted. An 
English reader, knowing Xenophon only 
through Mr. Brownson’s version, will 
surely wonder how Arrian or anyone 
else (cf. Lucian, Quomodo hist. sit 
scribenda intt.) can have thought his 
prose worthy of imitation. The student 
who wants an accurate ‘crib’ to the 


—— a ων “αὶ Φ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Hellenica will find it here; but those 
who look for something more must still 
go to Dakyns. 

I think that Mr. Brownson would do 
better to follow Keller’s text more faith- 


“11g 


fully. In disputed passages he some- 
times returns to the readings of the 
MSS., and offers conventional render- 
ings which the Greek words as printed 
cannot bear. 

E. C. MARCHANT. 


TWO TRAGEDIES OF SENECA. 


L. Annaei Senecae Thyestes, Phaedra. 
Recensuit, Praefatus Est, Appendi- 
cem Criticam Addidit Humbertus 
Moricca. Pp. i-xxvi, 1-122. Ex Offi- 
cina Regia I. B. Paraviae et Soc.: 
Augustae Taur. 1917. Lire 2.50. 


THE aim of the Paravia series, some 
volumes of which have already been 
noticed in the Classical Review, is to 
present Italy with a worthy collection 
of Latin texts revised by competent 
authorities, under the general editor- 
ship of Professor Pascal of the Univer- 
sity of Pavia. An incidental aim is to 
free Italy from the need of having 
recourse to the foreigner (vicorrere agli 
straniert), so that one perforce recalls 
the famous political motto in Italian 
history of the nineteenth century, 
‘Italia fara da se.’ It may be said at 
once that these handy volumes from 
Turin, each containing a scholarly in- 
troduction on the MSS., and a reasen- 
ably adequate, though not exhaustive, 
apparatus, are themselves destined to 
receive a welcome abroad. 

The Praefatio to the Thyestes and 
Phaedra, besides citing the testvmoma 
veterum on the tragedies, and on Seneca 
as a dramatic writer, describes the 
classes of MSS. of the tragedies (of 
which a family-tree is given on p. xix), 
and summarises the textual principles 
of previous editors, as well as those of 
the present editor himself. His own 
attitude is more catholic and, in general, 
sounder and freer than Leo’s. Signor 
Moricca agrees that the Etruscus (E) is 
the best authority, but when E is at 
fault he holds that the kindred MSS. 
M and N are to be consulted. Think- 
ing more highly of the inferior A 
class than Leo does, Moricca has very 
sensibly recorded certain readings from 
A MSS. which both Leo and Richter 
have either omitted without good reason 


or cited incorrectly. While, however, 
he thus does fuller justice to the A 
tradition, it is unfortunate that he has 
not broken with E far enough to accept 
such readings as sericus sommus for certior 
sonmus in Phaedra 520, and rosae for 
comae, 1b. 769. I agree with the late 
Mr. C. E. Stuart’s preference for these 
in C.Q., I9II, pp. 33-35 - Similarly, in 
the reference to the river Tagus, Thyest. 
355, 1 believe with him (C.Q. 1912, 
p. 20) that the MSS. ὁ and # of the A 
class certainly remove an error from the 
usual text of the passage (which is miss- 
ing in E), inasmuch as they agree with 
τ (=readings supported by Treveth’s 
commentary) in giving caro .. . alveo, 
not claro... alveo. 

Signor Moricca in his text again and 
again displays a fidelity to the MSS. 
which declines to follow the sometimes 
amusingly arbitrary deletions and trans- 
positions of lines indulged in by Leo. 
Refusing, for instance, to pull about the 
text of Phaedra 465-480 as Teutonic 
editors have done, he says wisely: ‘ Ego 
autem versus ordine tradito nulli rationi 
obstare persuasum mihi habui.’ He 
has the good sense also to eschew Leo’s 
postponement of ef... furoris from 
Phaed. 343 till after 348, which is due 
to Leo’s ignorance of the fact that stags 
bellow in the rutting season, and his 
consequent objection to mugitu in 343. 
Nor is the editor caught by every blast 
of vain emendation: he records but 
does not accept unnecessary changes 
like Leo's ex quibus utrimque for ex cutus 
ortu, Ph. 890, and his sedesque mutas for 
sedesque mutat, ib. 508 — conjectures 
which suggest that, though Seneca may 
not have been a great poet, he was not 
guilty of all that foreign scholars have 
ascribed to him. Howcould mwtas suit 
spots resonant with the songs of birds 
and rustlings of branches ? 


Printer’s errors are few. I have 


120 


noticed espressit, p. xxii, 1. 31; puchrior, 
Ρ- 76 (Ph. 743); and tumit for twmutt in 
the Appendix Critica, p. 113, on Ph. 
1,007. In Ph. 146, which reads tantum 
esse facinus credis et vacuum metu, the 
word tantum cannot be seriously pro- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


posed, but must be a misprint for ¢utum, 
the accepted reading, which is not 
mentioned. 

J. WicuT DUEF. 


Armstrong College, 
Newcastle-upon- Tyne. 


CICERO'S LETIERS tO AT TIES: 


Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. With an 
English Translation by E. O. WIn- 


SFEDI + Violsy THES, BoebviGlassical 
Library, Heinemann, 1918. 7s. 6d. 
net. 

WirH this volume—the first dates 


from 1g12—Mr. Winstedt completes 
the Loeb edition of the Epistulae ad 


Atticum. In arrangement, of course, 
the book conforms to the familiar 
scheme. The introduction deals with 


Cicero’s latter days, his manuscripts, 
and the obligations of his translator, 
in as much detail as could be reasonably 
expected within the compass of five and 
a quarter foolscap octavo pages. The 
text, ‘based as usual on Teubner,’ 15 
faced by the version and accompanied 
by a modest contingent of footnotes, 
rather a liberal proportion of which 
turn on the reduction of sesterces to 
guineas. Then comes a chronological 
table of the letters, also based on 
Teubner, together with an index nom- 
num, of the sort, unfortunately, in which 
‘Tunius Brutus (M.), murderer of Caesar,’ 
is followed by fifteen lines of Arabic 
numerals and by nothing more helpful. 

To the professional scholar Mr. Win- 
stedt does not offer much in this edition. 
Where there is obscurity he is diffident 
of all but reflected light, and his book 
contains neither a new conjecture nor 
a new interpretation; he has been con- 
tent to give the amateur a sensible and 
conventional text explained by a sensible 
and conventional rendering. Some, 
indeed, of the conventions which are 
loyally observed might with advantage 
have gone by the board, though Mr. 
Winstedt is only one of a highly dis- 
tinguished company of sinners. He 
still indulges in those anachronistic 
jocularities which, as a rule, neither 
give the meaning of Cicero’s Latin— 


or Greek — nor recapture its tone. 
᾿Αδόλεσχος (XVI. 11) has to him the 
connotation of ‘ gas-bag.’ Cicero else- 
where declines to ‘kowtow.’ At 
XII. 4, the playful de Catone πρόβλημα 
᾿Αρχιμήδειον est gives place to ‘about 
Cato, that would puzzle a Philadelphian 
lawyer’; although at XIII. 28, where 
Cicero harks back to the phrase and 
the Philadelphian is not so easily intro- 
duced, we descend to the plain and 
inexact prose of ‘an insoluble problem,’ 
which at all events avoids sullying the 
page with the name of Archimedes. 
Apart, however, from the question of 
anachronism, Mr. Winstedt has, per- 
haps, a tendency to forget that some 
epistolographers are men of letters, that 
Cicero might be informal but could not 
be amorphous, and that, whatever the 
precise shades of his familiar style, he 
would scarcely write to Atticus in the 
schoolboy argot favoured by his trans- 
lators as a refuge from the Chesterfield 
manner. This juvenility of diction—it 
is hard to call it anything else—is not 
so marked in Mr. Winstedt’s last volume 
as in the other two, but it is still over- 
much to the fore. It is traceable in 
unlicked sentences such as ‘I will write 
fuller and more about politics later, 
and do you write what you are doing 
and what is being done’ (plura et 
πολιτικώτερα postea, et tu quid agas et 
quid agatur); in useless negligences such 
as ‘let me know as soon as you know’ 
(scribes ad me cum scies) ; and in idioms 
such as ‘mess about’ (muginart), ‘go 
silly’ (τετυφῶσθαι), ‘act the giddy goat’ 
(κεκέπφωμαι), ‘is all bunkum’ (totum 
est σχεδίασμα), ‘that’s jolly good news 
about Buthrotum’ (bene mehercule de 
Buthroto). Quest’ ὁ quel Marco Tullio? 

In general, Mr. Winstedt is unduly 
cold to the airs and graces of Marcus 
Tullius, who has a habit of being airy 


THE CLASSICAL: REVIEW 


and graceful even to Atticus. In par- 
ticular, he ignores quite obvious verbal 
repetitions or variations. At XII. 14, 
Cicero no doubt reflected a moment or 
two as he wrote: Sed vere laudari lle 
vir non potest, nisi haec ornata sint, quod 
ille ea, quae nunc sunt, et futura viderit, 
et, ne fierent, contenderit, et facta ne 
videret, vitam reliquertt. Horum quid 
est quod Aledio probare possimus? It 
was worth the while to save a little 
more from the wreck than survives in 
the paraphrase: ‘ But he is a man who 
cannot properly be eulogised, unless 
these points are fully treated, that he 
foresaw the present state of affairs, and 
tried to prevent it, and that he took his 
own life by preference to seeing it come 
about. Can I win Aledius’ approval of 
any of that?’ A couple of instances, 
perfectly trivial but typical in more 
ways than one of Mr. Winstedt’s easy- 
going style, may be added. Est bellum 
aliquem libenter odisse et, quem ad modum 
non omnibus dormire, ita non omnibus 
servire: ets: mehercule, ut tu intelligis, 
magis miht istt serviunt, st observare 
servire est (XII. 49 fin.) becomes: ‘ It 
is quite a good thing to have some- 
body to hate with a will, and not to 
pander to everybody any more than to 
be asleep for everybody: though upon 
my word, as you know, Caesar's party 
are obsequious to me more than I to 
them, if attention is obsequiousness.’ 
The balance is redressed at XIII. το, 
where Cicero writes: Minime miror te et 
graviter ferre de Marcello et plura vereri 
pericult genera. Quis enim hoc timeret 
quod neque acciderat antea nec videbatur 
natura ferre ut accidere posset? Omma 
wgttur metuenda. His translator dis- 


Ι21 


dains the foible: ‘I am not at all sur- 
prised at your being upset about Mar- 
cellus and fearing all sorts of new 
dangers. For who would have feared 
this? Such a thing never happened 
before and it did not seem as though 
nature could allow such things to 
happen. So one may fear anything.’ 

This indifference to the form extends 
at times to the content, though seldom 
with more serious results than to make 
the reader wonder why Mr. Winstedt 
is not satisfied to say simply what the 
Latin says—why, for instance, he 
should turn ubt Brutuim nostrum et quo 
die videre possim into ‘where Brutus is 
and when I can see him’; or sed nulla 
iustioy quam quod tu idem alts litters 
into ‘but none of them is better than 
one you mention in your letter’; or, a 
worse example, tu de <Antiocho sctre 
poteris videlicet etiam quo anno quaestor 
aut tribunus mil. fuerit; st neutrum, saltem 
in praefectis an in contubernalibus fuertt, 
modo fuerit in eo bello into ‘ You will be 
able to find out from Antiochus of 
course in what year he was quaestor or 
military tribune: if he was _ neither, 
then he would at least have been 
among the prefects or on the staff, 
provided he was in the war at all.’ 
Unconsidered trifles of this sort, and 
there are too many of them, are a little 
apt to divert attention from the merits 
of the translation as a whole. Those 
merits are solid and unquestionable, 
and Mr. Winstedt deserves thanks for 
an edition which is a convenience to 
any reader and something like a neces- 
sity to those making their first acquain- 
tance with the letters. 

J. JAcKson. 


-- ς.-. 


SHORT NOTICES 


The Old Testament MSS. im the Freer 
Collection. Part 11.: The Washington 
MS. of the Psalms. Edited by HENRY 
A. SANDERS. 4to.. ‘Pp: 1074249, 
with 6 facsimile plates. New York: 
The Macmillan Company. Paper 
covers, $2.00 net. 


THE story of the discovery and sub- 
sequent purchase from an Arab dealer 


near Cairo by Mr. Freer, in 1906, of 
this fifth-century MS., together with 
other Biblical portions, has been already 
told. The two parts forming the 
Psalms are now respectively designated 
A and A*. They were found, as evi- 
denced by the excellent facsimiles illus- 
trating the volume, in a sadly decayed 
state, and have been skilfully restored 
by a process described at length. 


122 


Among other points of interest it may 
be noted that while the ink usedthrough- 
out is dark brown, the oft-recurring 
Septuagint word διάψαλμα, which ap- 
pears on the right hand margin, 18, 
together with its abbreviations (also 
titles and numbers), in ved, as becomes a 
rubrical direction. It occurs with some 
irregularity, possibly owing in large 
part to damaged leaves. It alternates 
with a kind of symbol which may per- 
chance point to some lost system of the 
Hebrew ‘ Selah,’ which might be worth 
following up. That διάψαλμα (a word 
of uncertain meaning) should have been 
accepted as the equivalent of the even 
more dubious term ‘ Sela’ has never 
been explained. It seems likely that 
the LXX translators viewed the term 
‘ Selah’ as conveying the idea of medita- 
tive pause, and that the Christian Church 
so used it. The MS. has characteristics 
peculiarly its own. ‘There is a singular 
plan in the division and arrangement of 
syllables and words, and some of the 
large square uncials in use are set off by 
dots and strokes of varying shape. 
There are numerous liturgical abbrevia- 
tions. Mr. Sanders offers no explana- 
tion of the series of dots and strokes, 
but the fact that the dots are generally 
found at the ends of lines, lend colour 
to the idea that suggests itself to 
our mind of some particular form of 
cadence. Many peculiarities occurring 
in Egyptian papyri are present in this 
MS. There is wellnigh a total absence 
of punctuation and accentuation. This 
irregularity in respect of later Greek 
MSS. from Egypt is worth attention. 
In a series of liturgical texts from 
Upper Egypt (now in the Metropolitan 
Museum of New York), Scripture quota- 
tions alone have accents, and these defy 
all ordinary laws. This feature may 
perhaps be explained on the theory that 
the Holy Scriptures were to be read (or 
intoned) after a customary manner. 
This fine reprint of the Greek text has 
the lacunae supplied from the Swete 
text with which the MS. is collated, 
accents and breathings being omitted, 
as in the original. Asa Psalter text A 
is now the oldest representative, and 
this edition is in every way worthy of 
such distinction. 


THE CLASSIGAL REVIEW 


The New Testament MSS. in the Freer 
Collection. Part 11.: The Washington 
MS. of the Epistles of St. Paul. Edited 
by Henry A. SANDERS. 4to. Pp. 
251+315, with 3 facsimile plates. 
New York: The Macmillan Company. 
Paper covers, $1.25 net. 


Tue MS. fragment here described is of 
sixth-century date, written in Egypt by 
an expert scribe, and has much in com- 
mon with other MSS. of this series. 
That a parchment MS., in such, a 
woeful state of decay as that described, 
could have been brought to so service- 
able a use seems wellnigh incredible. 
The text falls in well with the Alexan- 
drian group of N.T. MSS., with im- 
portant variations that lend weight to 
it. The Westcott and Hort text is 
generally used to supply missing por- 
tions, and variations are given by way of 
collation. The Epistle to the Romans 
and last part of 1 Corinthians are 
wanting. 


Translations of Christian Literature. 
Series I. Greek Texts: St. Dionysius 
of Alexandria, Letters and Treatises 
by (Ci. \PELror,,“DiDiy Ppa: 
SP: (Θά ον 3s, 6d. net: 


SoME years since Dr. Feltoe edited the 
letters and other remains of Dionysius 
in a volume of the Cambridge Patristic 
Texts, an esteemed work. The Intro- 
duction and much‘ other illustrative 
matter is reproduced in a greatly con- 
densed form in the present volume. In 
the writings of Dionysius, which are 
largely concerned with the controversies 
of the age, there is ample evidence of 
the purity of his style and literary 
attainments. The three treatises, if they 
can be so called, are fragmentary. 


THE VALUE OF THE CLASSICS. 


Value of the Classics. Edited by A. F. 
West. Demy 8vo. Pp. vilit396. 
Princeton University Press, 1917. 


A CONFERENCE on classical studies was | 
held at Princeton University in June, 
1917. The volume before us contains 
the addresses which were delivered 
there, followed by statements affirming 
the value of classical training. These 


THE CLASSICAL 


statements were made by the leading 
representatives of every side of American 
life. President Wilson, ex-President 
Roosevelt, and Mr. Lansing are in the 
vanguard of an army of experts to whom 
the general world will perhaps pay 
more attention because the striking 
statistics at the end of the book show 
that in American secondary schools the 
number of pupils who take Latin is 
continually advancing. Greek, how- 
ever, occupies an insignificant place. 

The impression left by reading this 
valuable summary of opinion is not 
only that, in practice, Latin and Greek 
develop the powers of expression and 
thereby of clear thinking, but that the 
attempt to revive before the mind the 
outlines of antique culture generally, 
strengthens in a unique manner that 
constructive imagination of which we 
are insuch pressing need. Theclassics 
along with pure mathematics offer, to 
two different types of intelligence, alter- 
native and indispensable disciplines. It 
is probable that the leadership in the 
intellectual world will remain with those 
peoples who refresh themselves at these 
ultimate springs. Unfortunately in 
England whereas physical science, as 
well as mathematics, is compulsory in 
our new secondary schools, Latin is 
falling more and more into the back- 
ground and Greek is disappearing. 

It is worth considering whether—to 
repeat a suggestion of Matthew Arnold 
—the Latin Vulgate might not be used 


REVIEW 123 
as an introduction to Latin studies. 
The Vulgate reaches back to the living 
language of the early Empire and for- 
ward tothe languagesof modern Europe. 
It is nearer also than Ciceronian Latin 
to the international language of the 
middle ages. FRANK GRANGER. 


The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix 
of Ancient Evidence on the Origin of 
the ΧΟ By Hy St. Jo PHAckeRay. 
Pp. 126. St Pe esas θα" ΠΕῚ: 


THE most ancient account of the 
Septuagint is that derived from this 
letter by Aristeas, who asserts that he 
was an officer in the service of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus (285-247 B.c.). The story 
of the LXX. translation is open to the 
gravest suspicion, and the letter abounds 
withimprobabilities and is now generally 
regarded as more or less fabulous. Its 
date may be assumed to be 170-130 
B.c. It was used by Josephus and 
probably known to Philo. The leading 
facts of the history of this version have, 
however, been widely received by early 
authorities of note. Dr. Hody (Aristee 
FHfist. Oxon, 1705) fully exposed the in- 
consistencies and anachronisms of the 
author. It clearly belongs to the class 
of Graeco-Jewish writings promoted to 
give effect to religious susceptibilities. 
These several publications, which are 
under the joint editorship of Dr. 
Oesterley and Canon Box, are highly 
commendable. 


NOTES AND NEWS 


GREEK MUSIC. 


AN ordinary meeting of the Northum- 
berland and Durham Classical Associa- 
tion was held in St. John’s College, 
Durham, on Saturday, May 24, when a 
paper was read by Mr. J. F..Mount- 
ford, M.A., Lecturer in Classics, Arm- 
strong College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 
on the subject of ‘Greek Music: 
Methods of Study and Results. A few 
illustrations on the piano were greatly 
appreciated. After questions and dis- 
cussion, in which Professor Cruick- 
shank, the Rev. C.G. Hall, Mr. Gilbert 


Richardson, and Miss C. M. Shipley 
took part, Professor J. Wight Duff 
proposed, and the Rev. Dr. Dawson 
Walker seconded, a motion of hearty 
congratulation to Mr. Mountford on 
the recent award to him, for his re- 
searches on Greek music, of the Cromer 
Greek Prize administered by the British 
Academy. 

The Society for the Reform of Latin 
Teaching, which has been in abeyance 
during the war, will hold its fourth 
summer school at Oxford, Septem- 
ber r-10. The secretary is Mr. N. 
Parry, 4, Church Street, Durham. Two 


124 


of its most active members, Captain 
J. L. Mainwaring and Captain Paine, 
have died for their country. 


Tue May number of the Geographical 
Journal contains a remarkable paper by 
Lieutenant-Colonel G. A. Beazley on 
Air Photography in Archaeology. The 
air-picture of the district round Samarra 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


disclosed the plan of an ancient city, 
with wide streets, public gardens, and 
all sorts of details. The detail was not 
recognisable on the ground. By the 
same means was disclosed the plan of 
the ancient irrigation system of the 
country, with detached forts to protect 
it. The paper and its accompanying 
plates deserve attention. 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


All publications which have a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered tn this lest if they are sent for 


γευΐζέτυ. 


The price should in all cases be stated. 


* * Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


Carra de Vaux (B.) Notes d’Histoire des 
Sciences. 9”X53". Pp. 16. . Paris: Impri- 
merie Nationale. Sur l’Origine des Chiffres 
(Extrait de ‘Scientia,’ pp. 273-282). οὐ" x 63”. 
Tableau des Racines Semitiques (arabe- 
hébreu). 11’x8i". Pp. 36. Paris: Rue 
La Trémoille, 1919. 

Classical Studies in Honour of Charles Foster 
Smith. By his Colleagues. 94” 6". Pp. 192. 
University of Wisconsin: Studies in Language 
and Literature, No. 3. Madison, 1919. $1. 


Danby (H.) Tractate Sanhedrin, Mishnah and 
Tosefta (Translations of Early Documents). 
7h" 43". Pp. 148. London: S.P.C.K., 
191g. Cloth, 65. net. 


Farnell (L. R.) The Value and the Methods 
of Mythologic Study. οὔ" Χοό1". Pp. 16. 
Oxford University Press, 1919. 1s. 6d. net. 


Foucart (M. P.) Le Culte des Héros chez les 
Grecs. 11" x9". Pp. iv+166. Paris: Im- 
. primerie Nationale, 1918. Fr. 6.20. 


Harris (R.) The Origin of the Doctrine of the 
Trinity. 93”x6}"”. Pp. 42. Origin and 
Meaning of Apple Cults. τοῦχ 63". Pp. 50. 
Manchester: University Press, 1919. Paper 
boards, 2s. 6d. net. 

Hearnshaw (J. C.) Select Extracts from 
Chronicles and Records relating to English 
Towns in the Middle Ages (Texts for Stu- 
dents, No. 8). London: S.P.C.K., 1919. 
gd-netiga 

Hellenism in Turkey. Published by the London 
Committee of Unredeemed Greeks. 93x 63”. 
Pp. 22. London: Hesperia Press, 1919. 

Herford (M. A. B.) A Handbook of Greek 
Vase Painting. 10}”x 6}". Pp. xxlit+125. 
Manchester: University Press, 1919. Cloth, 
gs. 6d. net. 

Hoppin (J. C.) A Handbook of Attic Ked- 
Figured Vases. Vol. I. 94” x6". Pp. 
xxiv + 472. Oxford University Press (for 
Harvard University Press), 1918. 
35s. net. 


Cloth, 


Horn (Fredrik). Zur Geschichte der absoluten 
Partizipialkonstructionen im_ Lateinischen. 
gh" x 62”. Pp. viiit1oS. Lund: Greerupsche 
Universitatsbuchhandlung. 

Jastrow (M., jun.) A Gentle Cynic: Being 
the Book of Ecclesiastes. 8}"x6}". Pp. 
254. London: J.B. Lippincott, 1919. Cloth, 
Qs. net. 

Kutrzeba(S.) The Rights of Russia to Lithu- 
ania and White Ruthenia. οὐ Χ 6", Pp. 12. 
Paris: M. Flinikowski, 1919. 

Laurand (L.) Manuel des Etudes grecques et 
latines. Fasc. II.: Littérature grecque. 
2° edition. 9” x 52”. Pp. 99 + 260 + xvi. 
Paris: A. Picard, 1919. Fr. 3.50. 

Lutoslawski (W.) and Romer(E.) The Ruthe- 
nian Question in Galicia. 9$”x6jz". Pp. 32. 
Paris : Imprimerie Levé, 1919. 

Lutoslawski (W.) Bolshevism and Poland. 
o}"x6}". Pp. 38. Paris: M. Flinikowski, 
1919. 

McClure (M. L.) and Feltoe (C. L.) The Pil 
grimage of Etheria (Translations of Christian 
Literature, Series III.). 73” x 4. Pp. 
xlviii+ 103. London: S.P.C.K., 1919. Cloth, 
6s. net. 

Robin (L.) Etudes sur la Signification et sur 
la Place de la Physique dans la Philosophie 


du Platon. 9%” x6}. Pp. 96. Paris: 
F. Alcan, 1919. Fr. 4.40. 
Slijper (E.) Eene_ Eigenaardigheid van 


Tacitus Zinsbouw. 8}”x 6’. Pp. 60. Kemink 
und Zoon, over den dom te Utrecht, 1918. 
Stampini (E.) Rivista di Filologia e di Istru- 

zione Classica, Anno XLVII._ Fascicolo 2°. 
oh’x 61". Pp.161+320. Torino: G. Chian- 
tore, 1919. L. 5. 
Transactions and Proceedings of the American 
Philological Association. 1914, 9%" x 63", 
vol. xlv., pp. 254+ ii; 1915, xlvi., pp. 248+ 
Ixxxii ; 1916, xlvii., pp. 234+xciv ; I9I7, 
xviii, pp. 152-++liv. Boston: Ginn and Co. 
82 each. 


{ 2° 


The Classical Review 


NOVEMBER—DECEMBER, 1919 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS 


THE NEW LYRIC 


Tue following paper contains some 
further attempts to restore the new 
Oxyrhynchus fragments of Sappho and 
Alcaeus, together with some corrections 
of the suggestions published in this 
Review in the May of 1914.1 The 
restorations are made, where this- is 
possible, by the tracing method ex- 
plained in previous articles, and all the 
doubtful letters involved both in these 
and my earlier suggestions have now 
been examined in the actual papyri and 
discussed with Professor Hunt. I take 
this opportunity of thanking him, not 
only for allowing me to inspect the 
papyri in his rooms, but for bearing 
with my interruptions for three whole 
days. 

I take the fragments in the order in 
which they appear in Vols. X. and XI. 
of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrt. 


SAPPHO 1231. I. i. 13-34. The Anac- 
toria fragment :? 


In 1. 6 (18 Hunt) the traces would 
seem to admit of no alternative to 
περσκόπεισα, unless we presume a 
second-aorist form περσκέποισα, which 
would perhaps improve the syntax, but 
which without a parallel I should hesi- 
tate to print. Two lines below, κρίν[ν]ε 
κάλ{ζιστον), involving of course the 
change of κάλλιστον above to κάλιστον, 
would be more suitable than κρίννεν 
ἄριστον to the meaning of the poem as 
a whole. I offer a new solution of the 
problem of the all-important lines 15 
and 16. On inspection of the actual 
papyrus I see that οὐδὲ is impossible, 
and that probably no part of the νυ of 
my τὺ is visible; but, on the other 
hand, I feel no doubt that the scribe 


1 See also Class. Rev., June, 1916. 
2 See Class. Rev., May and June, 1914. 


NO. CCLXXV. VOL. XXXIII. 


FRAGMENTS—III. 


wrote παρεοίσας and not ἀπεοίσας 
What we want here is the application 
of the general remark introduced by 
yap two lines above, which itself arose 
out of the instance of Helen which pre- 
ceded it. Dr. Hunt’s τῆλε νῦν involves 
among other difficulties the lack both 
of a connecting particle and of a per- 
sonal pronoun. Read: 


[ἄμ]με νῦν «ΕΣΡανακτορί[α, τὺ] μέμναι- 
[σ᾽ οὐ] mapeoica<u>s, 
‘ And so mind that you, Anactoria (now 
that you have gone off to Lydia with 
your soldier-husband ?), remember us 
(Sappho and Atthis ?) when we are not 
with you.’ I take it that, owing partly 
to the unusual accusative with μέμναισο, 
and partly to the omission of an apos- 
trophe, σ᾽ οὐ παρεοίσαις became σου 
παρεοίσας -- τπ]655 indeed παρεοίσας 
may be regarded as a mere Atticisation 
of παρεοίσαις. The mention of Lydia 
suggests a connexion with the beautiful 
Berlin fragment! about the girl who 
has gone to far-off Sardis, and doubtless 
often thinks of her life with Sappho and 
Atthis, ‘when you were like a glorious 
Goddess to her and she loved your song 
the best. And now she shines among 
the dames of Lydia as, after the Sun 
has set, the rosy-fingered Moon beside 
the stars that are about her,’ etc. And 
I would now substitute Anactoria for 
Mnasidica at the beginning of that 
poem thus: 

ἴΑτθι, cot κἄμ᾽ ᾿Ανακτορία φίλα 

ει ει δ ἐνὶ] Σάρδε[σιν] on 

[vater| κτλ. 
and would suggest that in ἀελίω δύντος 
Sappho hints that if she compares her 
beloved Anactoria to the Moon, she 


1 See Class. Rev. June, 1909, and August, 
1916. 
K 


126 


might compare her still more beloved 
Atthis to the Sun. Now that the Sun 
has set—that is, now that she and 
Atthis are no longer together—Anac- 
toria’s beauty has full play. The reason 
for the elaboration of the simile thus 
becomes clearer, and the whole poem 
is seen to be in effect a delicate piece of 
lover’s flattery. But returning to the 
new ode, let me add that in the last 
stanza we should read ὃν ἀνθρώποις 
(Pap. Ἰανανθρωποισὶ, literally ‘ through- 
out mankind,’ comparing for this use 
of ava Od. 14. 286. 


1234105 

This is the fragment which contains 
the new word δόλοφυν. I have taken 
this with Professor Hunt as a by-form 
of δελφύς ; cf. φέρενα for φερνή, E.M. 
790. 42. It is apparently nominative, 
οὗ. κίνδυν fr. 161 and Φόρκυν. 


[ai δέ μοι γάλακτοῆς ἐπάβολ᾽ ἧσ[κε] 
Γτωὔθατ᾽ ἢ παίδω]ν δόλοφυν ποήσ[ει] 
Γάἀρμένα, τότ᾽ ov] τρομέροις πρ[ὸς] ἄλλα 
[λέκτρα κε πόσσι) 


5 [ἤρχομαν " νῦν δὲ] χρόα γῆρας ἤδη 
[μυρίαν ἄμμον ρύτιν ἀμφιβάσκει, 
Γκωὺ πρὸς dup’ ” Epos πέταται διώκων 
[ἀλγεσίδωρος.] 

‘If my paps could still give suck and 

my womb were able to bear children, 

then would I come to another marriage- 
bed with unfaltering feet; but nay, age 
now maketh a thousand wrinkles to go 
upon my flesh, and Love is in no haste 
to fly to me with his gift of pain.’ In 

1.6 ἔμον βρύτιν (cf. βρύτιδες Ε΄. Μ. 214: 

32) would fit, but I cannot restore 1. 7 

satisfactorily with με. 

The epithet ἀλγεσίδωρος I have placed 
here from Maximus Tyrius 24. 9 (Sa. 
125), where he is comparing Sappho 
with Socrates: ‘ Diotima (in the Sym- 
posium) says that Love flourishes when 
he has plenty, and dies when he comes 
towant. Sappho, putting these charac- 
teristics together, called him γλυκύ- 
πίκρος and ἀλγεσίδωρος. But I am by 
no means satisfied that it really belongs 
here. 


1231. 16. 2-4: 


These lines are identified by von 
Wilamowitz with fr. 12; ‘but apart 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


from the rather excessive length in- 
volved by this identification for the gap 
in 1. 3 (see Hunt ad loc.), the supposed 
cretic ὄ]ττινα[ς, if we may judge the 
length of the preceding gap by 1. 12, 
must, I think, belong to an earlier part 
of the Sapphic line and scan as a 
dactyl. 


1231. 50: 

The last two stanzas of Sappho’s 
First Book I restore very tentatively ; 
for as the gaps are on the right, the 
suggestions have not to be of equal 
written length. The poem, as Pro- 
fessor Hunt saw, is an epithalamium. 
The words φιλότατα καὶ are due to 


Professor von Wilamowitz. In 1. 7 
dccov .. . ὄσσον is equivalent to τόσ- 
cov. ... docov, as in Theocr. 4. 39 


ὅσον αἶγες ἐμὶν φίλαι ὄσσον ἀπέσβης. 
The construction is probably a survival 
from the time when the distinction 
between relative and demonstrative had 
not been fully worked out; cf. such 
constructions as ὅτε μὲν. . . ὅτε δέ. 


πάρθενοι δὲ ταίσδεσι πρὸς Gvparor| 
παννυχίσδομ[εν, πολύολβε γάμβρε,] 
σὰν ἀείδοι[σαι φιλότατα καὶ νύμ-] 

5 φας ἰοκόλπω. 


ἀλλ᾽ ἐγέρθε[ις εὖτ᾽ ἐπίησιν αὔως] 
στεῖχε, σοὶς [δ᾽ ἄγοι πόδας αὗτος 
"Eppas | 
ἧπερ ὄσσον Al upopos ἔσσε᾽ ὄσσον] 
ὕπνον ἴδωμεϊ ν.] 
... And we maidens spend all the 
night at the door singing of the love 
that is between thee, thrice- happy 
bridegroom, and a bride whose breast 
is sweet as violets. But get thee up 
and go when the dawn shall come, and 
may great Hermes lead thy feet where 
thou shalt find just so much ill-luck as 
we shall see sleep to-night.’ The playful 
conceit in the last line has its parallel 
in the latter part of the fragment of 
Sappho preserved in Julian Epp. 59— 
on the return of the beloved (Atthis Ὁ) 
—where I restore: 
χαῖρ᾽ ἄμμι, χαῖρε 
πόλλα καὶ Γισἄριθμα τόσῳ χρόνῳ 
ἀλλάλαν ἀπελείφθημεν --οΟὁ᾽ --. 


‘é 


‘Bless you, I say, thrice bless you, 
and for just so long as you and I have 


\ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


been parted.’ The present fragment is 
of peculiar interest, not only as a choral 
poem in the Sapphic metre, with which 
we may compare Horace’s Carmen 


Saeculare, but as supporting, by its - 


position among poems on various sub- 
jects in Book I., the view that there 
were two editions of Sappho’s works 
current in antiquity, one arranged 
according to metre and the other 
according to subject; for we know that 
in the edition used by Servius the Epi- 
thalamia formed a book to themselves. 
It is worth noting here that Hephaes- 
tion, 138, speaks of two editions of 
Alcaeus, one that of Aristophanes, and 
the other that of Aristarchus. 


1292: TS inO? 

Perhaps, with the short-o aorist sub- 
junctive exemplified in χαλάσσομεν, 
Alc. Ox. Pap. 1234: 2. 1. 10, we might 
read : 

Beard vate e's ἀλλ᾽ ἄγιτ᾽, ὦ φίλαι, 
[ἀοίδας ἀπυλήξομεν "] ἄγχι γὰρ ἀμέρα. 
‘But come, dear maidens, let us end 
our song; for day is nigh at hand.’ 


This may be an ἐπιθαλάμιος διεγερτικός, 
cf. Schol. Theocr. 18. 


1232. 1.11. 2. The Marriage of Hector 
and Andromache : 
Perhaps 
κάρυξ ArOle] Aol wy δυνάμει μ]ελέ[ων ἔθεις 
᾿δάοις τάδε κ[ἂ]χα φ[όρ]εις τάχυς ἄγγε- 
λος, 
‘. .. camea herald sped by the might 
of his swift legs, bringing in haste to 
the people of Ida these fair tidings.’ 
The papyrus would probably have 


δυνάμει. 
Ibid. 9: 

There seems hardly room for κάλα, 
nor do the traces quite suit it. Read: 
ia T αὖ τ[ρό]να, 

‘and smooth embroideries,’ comparing, 
for this form of λεῖα, χρύσια for χρύσεια 
or χρύσεα in the line above. 
Ibid. 12: 
Φίλοις is almost certainly wrong. 
Read: 
φάμα δ᾽ ἦλθε κατὰ πτόλιν εὐρύχορον 
Fira, 


127 


‘And the news went forth through the 
spacious city of Ilus.’ I suppose the 
true Aeolic form to have been FiAXos, 
with the single-consonant by-form Finos. 
Cf. e.g. éppavos and dpavos, and δισχε- 
λίοις 1234. 1. 8 beside χέλλιοι E.M. 
817. I and χέλληστυς Inscrr. 


Ibid. 17-20: 


I would suggest, retaining my earlier 
suggestion in l. 18: 


lam [ous] δ᾽ ἄνδρες ὕπᾶγον ὑπ᾽ apluata, 
σὺν δ᾽ ἴσαν 
π[άντἼ]ες ἀΐθεοι: μεγάλωστι δ᾽ [ἴεν μέγας] 
δ[ duos |, κἀνίοχοι φ[αλάροισ |, [Kexad- 
μέναις 
πί ὠλοις ἐ͵ξἕαγοῖν. .. . .. 
‘, . . And the men did harness horses 
to the chariots, and the young men 
went with them one and all; till a 
mighty people moved mightily along, 
and the drivers drove their boss- 
bedizened steeds out of [the city] "—to 
bring Hector and Andromache from 
the place where they had landed. 


1232. 2. 1-3. (Contination of the same 
poem): 


Perhaps 
[dra δηὖτ᾽ ὀχέων ἐπέβαν ἴκελοι θέοι[ς] 
[Ἕκτωρ ᾿Ανδρομάχα τε, σύν]αγνον 
ἀόλ[λεες] 


[Τρῶες Τρωϊαδές τ᾽ ἐράτενἾνον ἐς λιο[ν.] 


‘Then, when the godlike Hector and 
Andromache were mounted in the 
chariots, the men of Troy and the 
women of Troy accompanied them in 
one great throng into lovely Ilium.’ 
With σύναγνον compare Hesych. ayveiv* 
ἄγειν Κρῆτες and ἀναγνῶν Lasus 1 (see 
Bergk ad loc.). σύναγνον would be for 
σύναγνιον representing ouvayveov, cf. 
χρυσοτέρα for χρυσεοτέρα fr. 123. ἔλεος 
is called ἐρατεινή in Il. 5. 210. 


ALCAEUS 1233. 2: 1Π|: 2: 


For παῖσ[ε Φρύγεσσιν I would now 
suggest παῖσ[ι Tpdecow, and for Φρύγες 
re in 1.15 Tpoes te. The identification 
of the Trojans with the Phrygians 
apparently belongs toa later time. For 
the short o cf. Τροία and Tpota beside 
Τρῴα and Tpwia. 


128 


1233: 33-577: 

The metre points to these being the 
first lines of a poem, which I should 
be inclined to identify with Bergk’s 


fr. 60. I restore them thus exempli 
gratia: 


Ἔπετον Κυπρογενήα]ς tarapl| avow 

[δολομήδεσσι τύπεις  ὄπποσέ κεν γὰρ] 
[ἄλος ἢ γᾶς προφύγω, κῆσ]ε πόλων με] 
[iver Ὅρος. «Ὡς. 
‘Iam thrown by the wily arts of the 
Cyprus-born; for whithersoever on sea 


or land I flee, thither ranging hath Love 


overtaken me... .’ 


Alcaeus probably wrote πόλεις. 


ΤΆ Ξ 7: τῇ: 


This fragment, after being published 
in Vol. X., was reprinted in Vol. XI. 
with an addition comprising the begin- 
nings of several lines. Those who in 
restoring papyrus fragments rely on 
estimates of the number of letters miss- 
ing, should take warning from the fact 
that the estimates for a short gap of at 
the most seven letters have proved to 
be too great or too small in three cases 
out of five. The fragment includes the 
end of one poem and the beginning 
of another, both addressed to Zeus. 
Adopting Professor Hunt’s ἐκάβολον, 
μῖσος, and otdtnpas, I suggest the 
following restoration of ll. 2-8 and 12- 
15, that of ll. 2 and 15 being exemplt 
gratia: 


(a) 


[οὐκὶ προ]ταίρει, 


πί όη <F Sex |dBorov, πάτερ, ἀπ χά- 
νὴν τε] 
κί αρδία]ν κήνω, πάτερ, al χχλὰ πάντας] 
5 tolls κεν] ὠναίσχυντος ἐπ[ιπνέησι] 
ult loos ἄλιτρον. 


‘[As for him who] doth not take up (?) 

-, make thou far-darting, Father, 
and unerring the mind of him, Father; 
but all such as are inspired by ‘the 
shameless one, them do thou make a 
sinful thing of hate.’ 


(Ὁ) Zed πάτερ, Λῦδοι μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἀ[λλοτέρ- 
pats] 
συμφόραισι δισχελίοις στά[τηρας] 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


ἄμμ᾽ ἔδωκαν .. . 
Μ᾽ 5 5 / 
12 . . . 00 ὡς ἀλώπαξ 
ποικιλόφρων evpapea προλέξαις 
ἤλπετο λάσην 


15 [μὴ ᾿κτελέσσαις τοῖσι Βέοις πολίταις. 


‘Father Zeus, while the Lydians, in 
other men’s time of misfortune, gave 
us two thousand staters . . ., this man, 
like a cunning-hearted fox, made fair 
promises to his own fellow-citizens and 
then reckoned he would escape scot- 
free if he failed to perform them.’ For 
ἀλλοτέρραις cf. Hdn. II. 303. 23. In 
1.15 the papyrus would probably have 


TOLOLVEOLS. 


1234. 4. 6-12: 
[οὐδ᾽ αὖ odpilyars ᾧ may [τέϊκνον 
[ἀκλέων] 
[σφρίγαι τοκ]ήων és φαΐκροις [δόμοις] 
[στρώφασθ᾽ ἔδαπτε σ᾽ ἐν [δ] 
ἀσ[αἼμ[οισ᾽] 


[ὧν ἔτι «ΕΣΞοίκεος] ἦσκ᾽ ὄνεκτον. 


10 [ἀλλ᾽ ὠς] π΄ ρ;»»οτ᾽ ὕβριν καὶ μεγά- 
Bele] πτόθ]εις 
Spain] ta 7 ἄνδρες δραῖσιν ἀτάσ- 
θαλοι, 

[τούτωὴν κεν Hox’ ὄνεκτον [οὗ ]δεῖν *] 

[νῦν δ᾽ ὄϊτα πόλλακις κτλ. 
‘... Nor yet did he harm thee [the 
city] in that he itched, as every child 
of unfamed parents itches, to go in and 
out of garish houses; for being still at 
home among the obscure, he was bear- 
able as yet. But when he did the deeds 
of wicked men in wanton presumption 
and drunken with power, there was no 
bearing such things as those. And now 
that,’ etc. I retain φαΐκροις in 1. 7 
with some hesitation, as the letter- 
traces after ¢ are very doubtful. In 
l. 8 δ᾽ is practically certain. What 
looked like part of the loop of p is the 
apostrophe, and 6 exactly fits the gap. 
I translate ‘for,’ though it is really the 
idiomatic ‘but’ after a negative sen- 
tence. For ὧν in |. g Alcaeus probably 
wrote evs. For modes ‘drunk’ I have 
no exact parallel, and the letters evs are 
very uncertain. But parallels from 
Latin and other languages make it a 
reasonable extension of the use of the 
passive past participle of the verb ‘to 
drink.’ In |. 14 the papyrus must, I 


THE CEASSICAL (REVIEW 


think, have had ονορθώθημεν, not 
ονωρθώθημεν, and in 1]. 15. μέμεικται 
rather than μέμικται. 


Rag A 6. 9-153 
[κἄγω μὲν ov μέ]μναιμ᾽ " ἔτι yap πάϊς 
[ τρόφω ᾽πὶ γόνν]ῳ σμῖκρος ἐπίσδανον" 
πάτρος δ᾽ ἀκούω]ν οἶδα τίμ[α]Ἱν 

10 [τὰν ἔλαβεν παρὰ] Πενθίληος 


[κῆνος πάροιθα ‘| νῦν δ᾽ ὃ πεδέτρ[οπε] 

τυραννέοντα τὸ]ν κακοπάτριδα 

[Μελάγχρος« ον « κ)ραῦτος τ]υράν- 

VEU- 

[wv ἔλαθ᾽ ἀμμετέρας πόληος. | 
‘And as for me I remember it not; 
for I was still a little child sitting on 
his nurse’s knee; but I know from my 
father the honour yon man received of 
yore from the son of Penthilus. And 
now he that overturned the despotism 
of the traitor Melanchrus is himself, 
ere we knew it, become despot of our 
city.” The son of Penthilus is Dracon, 
whose sister became the wife of Pittacus. 
In 1. 12 τυραννέοντα represents τυραννέ- 
Fovta. Inl. 13 I have to presume the 
loss of the two bracketed letters. In 
extenuation it may be pointed out that 
the ov of μελαγχρον would come imme- 
diately beneath the ov of τυραννεοντα, 
and the « before αὖτος is not necessary 
to the sense. 


1360. I. 9-13: 
Οὐ πάντ᾽ ἧς ἀπἰάτηλος VV --ο =] 
οὐδ’ ἀσύννετος, ἄμμεσσι δ᾽ ἀΪπομ- 
μόσαις] 
βώμῳ Λατοΐδα τοῦτ᾽ ἐφυλάξα[ο] 
μή τις τῶν κακοπατρίδαν 


Μ , aA 3 “Ἶ 4 / 
5 εἴσεται φανέρα τοῖσιν aT ἀρχάῳ 


‘You were not altogether ἃ knave.. ., 

. ., nor yet a fool, but kept the oath 
you swore to us by the altar of the Son 
of Leto that none of the Children of 
Treason should know truly who it was 
to whom in the beginning...’ As 
these are the opening lines of a poem, 
1.1 probably contained a name in the 
vocative; one would also expect there 
something to express the time to which 
ἧς applies, e.g. ποτά or πέρυσιν. Inl. 2 
the papyrus has appovor, but as some- 
thing meaning ‘having sworn’ is prac- 
tically inevitable in the gap, there will 


129 


be nothing for it to agree with, and if 
it is to mean ‘our party’ Tofs is surely 
necessary. If Alcaeus could say ἄμμεσι, 
he could also, I think, have said ἄμ- 
peoot. For the ictus-lengthening of 
the second syllable of ἀπομόσας cf. 6.5. 
ὀννώρινε 1234. 2. ii. 8. The dative 
βώμῳ (Pap. βωμω), ‘ by the altar,’ is a 
rare but not unparalleled use with 
ὄμνυμι; it might, however, be regarded 
as a locative, ‘at the altar.’ In l. 4 
κακοπατρίδαν is apparently a mock-" 
patronymic, probably a substitution for 
᾿Ατρεΐδαν, that is, descendants of the 
founders of Lesbos, the clan to which 
Pittacus’ wife belonged. In 1.5 davépa 
seems to be used as an adverb like 
λάθρα. The fragment gives the earliest 
example of one of the Horatian Ascle- 
piad metres. 


1360. 2: 


This fragment could be reconstructed 
with tolerable certainty from the scholia 
if these were entirely legible. Unfor- 
tunately there is some doubt about the 
phrase νεκρῶν ἱεροὶ μύσται, so that the 
words between the brackets must be 
taken with a rather larger grain than 
usual. It should be noted, however, 
that ll. 1-4 and 1. 6 when traced out 
correspond in written length to l. 5, 
which is restored with considerable cer- 
tainty, while 1. 8, though, along with 
l. 7, it must have begun the next 
column, can be taken unchanged from 
the paraphrase. The scholia are as 
follows: on 1. 4-ὑμεῖς δὲ συγῶτε ὥσπερ 
νεκρῶν ἱεροὶ μύστας [οὐ)δὲν δυνάμενον 
ἀντιστῆναι τῷ τυράννῳ), on 1. 5---Ἢλλ᾽, 
ὦ Μυτιληναῖοι, ἕως ἔτι καπνὸν μόνον 
ἀφίησι τὸ ξύλον, τοῦτ᾽ (ἐστιν) ἕως οὐδέπω 
τυρανν[ ύει), κατάσβητε καὶ καταπαύ- 
cate ταχέως μὴ λα[μπρό͵τερον τὸ φῶς 
γένηται. I restore the text thus: 

ir eh eee 7 ὁ δὲ πλάτν 

ΠΝ Ἢ ὑπερστείχων]) κεφάλαις μάτει, 

[ὕμμες δὲ σίγατ᾽ wre μύσται] 

[τὸν κάλεσαν νέκυν εἰσίδο]ντες. 


5 [ἀλλ᾽, ὦ πόλιται, θᾶς ἔτι τ]ὸ ξύλον 
[κάπνον παρ᾽ ὕμμεσιν] προΐει μόνον, 
[κασβέσσατ᾽ ws τάχιστα, μή πᾳ] 
[λαμπρότερον τὸ φάος γένηται.] 

ἐς .. But he goes striding wide over - 

your heads, and you hold your tongues 

like initiates when they behold the dead 


130 


they have called up. Nay rather, my 
fellow-countrymen, up and quench the 
log while it but smoulders among you, 
lest the light thereof come to a brighter 
flame. The papyrus has a point before 
pare, indicating that it does not go 
closely with κεφάλαις. This restoration 
of 1. 3 just fills the gap, but the line 
might, of course, have been shorter. In 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


1. 4 Alcaeus perhaps wrote eoFudovtes. 
The form θᾶς for τέως in the sense of 
ἕως I take from 1234. 2. i. 8, where, 
however, one would perhaps have ex- 
pected tas. For ὔὕμμεσιν cf. fr. 100, 
and for ὡς τάχιστα the Berlin Frag- 
ment (Class. Rev. 1917, p. 10). 
J. M. Epmonps. 
Jesus College, Cambridge. 


THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 


MEE: 
Eis ᾿Απόλλωνα. 


In dealing with the passage 399-406 
(Class. Rev., February, 1916) I inadver- 
tently and unaccountably associated 
_ Mr. Evelyn-White with the suggestion 
for 402, ἐπεφράσατ᾽ οὐδὲ νόησεν, which 
seems to belong only to Matthiae and 
myself. I apologise to Mr. E.-W., 
who must have been much surprised at 
the attribution, as his conjecture was 
very different, ἐπεφράσαθ᾽ ὥστε νοῆσαι. 
I cannot, however, think this an im- 
provement, even if it be graphically 
possible. In this case ‘reflection’ on 
the part of the sailors could not produce 
or result in knowledge of any kind, and 
not only would the expression ὥστε 
νοῆσαι be cryptic, but ὥστε with an 
infinitive to follow, a construction so 
common in later Greek, is very doubtful 
in early epic. The two instances are 
p 21, where Lehrs would read οὐδ᾽, and 
l. 42, where ὧδε might stand or, as 
Lehrs suggests, ἀπονέεσθαι. 

Referring to my plea for σοβῆσαι, I 
find with some satisfaction that the 
eminent Dutch scholar, van Leeuwen, 
whose signal services to Homeric 
scholarship can hardly be valued too 
highly, evidently pursuing the same 
line of thought, has already suggested 
φοβῆσαι, the disappearance of which 
would however be somewhat harder. to 
explain, and if, as is likely, σοβῆσαι was 
originally σοξῆσαι, it would be slightly 
nearer to the νοῆσαι of the tradition. 


427 εὖτε Φερὰς ἐπέβαλλεν. . . . 
Possibly ἔνθα Φεράσδ᾽ ἐπέβαλλεν 
‘then it lay for Pherae.’ So also o 297. 


There is an ellipse of ἱστία ‘set sail 
for.’ 


437 ἔπλεον, ἡγεμόνευε δ᾽ ἄναξ Διὸς vids ᾿Απόλλων " 

Either omit δέ or adopt the formula 
of 514 ἦρχε δ᾽ dpa σφι ἄναξ. 

447 μέγα γὰρ δέος εἷλε ἕκαστον, 

All the MSS. but one read εἷλεν 
ἕκαστον, which is easily made metrical; 
M alone has ἔμβαλ᾽ ἑκάστῳ, which is 
obviously unmetrical, irremediably so. 
The editors with one exception all 
adopt the reading offered by the 
majority of the MSS. and dictated by 
reason, knowledge, and common sense. 
Allen and Sikes alone with singular per- 
versity blindly print what M has clearly 
borrowed from the corrupt A II μέγα 
σθένος ἔμβαλ᾽ ἑκάστῳ. But they are 
dogmatic as usual: ‘There is no reason 
to prefer the variant εἷλεν ἕκαστον." 
These great critics know not Bentley, 
neither probably do they know that the 
expression ἐμβάλλειν δέος is unknown 
to the early epic. Aéos is an active 
force in Homer: it invariably seizes 
(αἱρέει, ἐμπίπτει). 


449. ἀνέρι εἰδόμενος αἰζηῷ τε κρατερῷ τε. 

Both here and II 716 the latter part 

of this line should probably be read: 
δέμας αἰζηῷ κρατερῷ τε. 

Cf. N 45 εἰσάμενος Κάλχαντι δέμας, 
P 555). 8 208, 401,).and' ὩΣ. of this 
hymn δέμας δελφῖνι ἐοικώς. For the 
ictus on the first syllable of αἰζηῷ 
sufficient warrant is afforded by ἀλλή- 
λων and ἀνθρώπου (-ων). It is the 
traditional position here that is really 
objectionable, v. Leaf’s Iliad, Appen- 
dix N (4) ff. 


ε THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


In the next line χαίτῃ (χαίτη cod. I’) 
is, of course, right. 


456 τίφθ’ οὕτως ἧσθον τετιηότες ; . .. 


Neither Matthiae’s ἕστητε τεθηπότες 
nor Cobet’s τίπτε κάθησθ᾽ οὕτω seems 
a satisfactory solution of this absurd 
dual ἧσθον. I would suggest 

τίφθ᾽ ὡς ἧσθ' ἦτορ τετιηότες : . .. 


But Allen and Sikes are here 
thoroughly retrogressive and obstruc- 
tive. They are encouraged by the fact 
that this hymn contains two other 
specimens of this misuse of the dual 
denounced by Aristarchus. Two blacks 
make one white. Three must produce 
a quite dazzling argent. Otherwise 
they must be placing the author of 
this hymn on a level with Apollonius 
Rhodius, Aratus, and Oppian. Their 
note is a curious blend of both views. 
The latter they strongly assert (‘We 
must assume that the writer like Aratus 
and others,’ and so on), clearly showing 
that they are unable to distinguish 
between the genuine old epic and the 
later Alexandrine imitation. 

The other two corrupt places in this 
piece of unquestionable old epic are: 

487 ἱστία μὲν πρῶτον κάθετον λύσαντε βοείας 

501 εἰς ὅ κε χῶραν ἵκησθον iv’ ἕξετε πίονα νηόν. 

Kuehner reaches the height of learned 
stupidity when he defends the dual in 
487 because the sailors sit at the oars 
in two groups, one on each side of the 
ship. He might with equal cogency 
defend it in 501, because they neces- 
sarily walked on two legs. 

In 487 Cobet’s καθέμεν λῦσαι δέ 
(perhaps λῦσαί te) is highly probable 
pace Allen and Sikes, firstly because it 
conveys in clear terms the undoubted 
meaning ; secondly, and this is a con- 
sideration of great importance, because 
here graphical approximation is not 
sO paramount as in such passages as 
H. Dem. 13, or I01 or 144, or 398, or 
H. Apoll. 539, to which I am coming 
later. What is of more moment is the 
view the later Greeks would take of 
καθέμεν λῦσαι Te, Supposing that to 
have been the original reading. Καθέ- 
μὲν as an infinitive was for them obso- 
lete, and would rather suggest an un- 
augmented first plural aorist indicative. 
E 487 and of θέλοντες συγχεῖσθαι τὰ 


131 


δυϊκὰ παρ᾽ ᾿Ομήρῳ amply account for 
λύσαντε, even if we suppose that it 
preceded the natural correction κάθετον. 
The position therefore is this: we can- 
not rationally accept the traditional 
reading, and there is considerable 
probability in favour of Cobet’s emen- 
dation, sufficient indeed to justify any 
editor in giving it the preference over 
a tradition that cannot possibly be 
right. 

To those who stili believe in the 
doctrine of hiatus licittus 501 can present 
no difficulty whatever. They will see 
in ἵκησθον only a wicked interference 
with ἵκησθε, owing to the Greeks of the 
great literary Athenian epoch not being 
acquainted with the metrical views of 
a German named Ahrens. To me the 
matter is far more serious and trouble- 
some. Iam obliged to have recourse 
to transposition, and to suggest an 
original : 


* 


els 8 x’ ἵκησθ᾽ és χῶρον, ἵν᾽ ἕξετε πίονα νηόν. 


For the insertion of ἐς there is ample 
warrant in usage, cf. 


© Go οἱ δ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἐς χῶρον ἕνα ξυνιόντες ἵκοντο, 


£176, ο 186, p 539, ὦ 237, and reference 
may be made to the discussion of € 55 
in Homerica, p. 65 ff., where the loss of 
és before this word χῶρον is shown to 
have occurred in ὁ 181. 


ὁππότ᾽ av ἐκ πόντοιο. . . ἔλθωσιν. .. 


459 


There can be no object in preserving 
ommotav (Allen and Sikes) instead of 
ὁππότ᾽ av (Hermann and editors gener- 
ally), but it is quite possible that 
ommor av’ (sc. ἀνέλθωσιν) is the true 
reading. Most certainly in 461 ἵμερος 
εἷλεν is necessary, cf. H. Aphr. 57, and 
Homerica on ® 43. 


464 ἕεῖν᾽, ἐπεὶ οὐ μὲν γάρ τι καταθνητοῖσι ἔοικας, 


There is no need to exhibit on the 
printed page the two digammas of 
ἔοικας, but for all that no wise editor 
need disfigure his text with the mis- 
leading paragogic v attached to καταθνη- 
τοῖσι. A more pressing question, how- 
ever, is how to deal with ἐπεὶ... yap. 
Both cannot be: right, and the sug- 
gestion of Franke has much in its 
favour, 


ἐπεὶ οὔ τι βροτοῖσι καταθνητοῖσι. . . 


132 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Καταθνητοί is never used elsewhere as 
a noun, nor does it look like one. 

Otherwise we must at least change 
yap into δή, cf. ο 280 οὐ μὲν δή σ᾽ 
ἐθέλοντα, μ᾽ 209 οὐ μὲν δὴ τοδε μεῖζον, 
Θ 238 οὐ μὲν δή ποτέ φημι. 

472 νόστου ἱέμενοι ἄλλην ὁδόν, ἄλλα κέλευθα " 

A transposition, ἱέμενον νόστου, is 
necessary to convert the iambus of the 


third foot into a spondee. No con- 
firmation of this is required, but the 


contemplation of o 69 ἱέμενον νόστοιο 


may be helpful to editorial weakness. 

In 476 τὸ πρίν, for which πρόσθεν 
would serve, probably represents an 
archaic original πρόπριν. 


477 ἔς Te πόλιν ἐρατὴν καὶ δώματα καλὰ ἕκαστος... 


The inventor οἵ ἔς τε πόλιν ἐρατήν 
doubtless complacently disregarded the 
defect of his second foot because of his 
pretty epithet; but probably the writer 
of the hymn was more concerned for 
his metre, and wrote 

és πόλιν ὑμετέρην, 
remembering that he had already done 
justice to Knosus by a much more 
definite and descriptive epithet πολυ- 
dévpeov (475), cf. E 686. 


491 πῦρ ἐπικαίοντες, ἐπί τ᾽ ἄλφιτα λευκὰ θύοντες - 


This is a curious example of per- 
versity of judgement on the part of 
Allen and Sikes. In three lines 490- 
491 we have an injunction. In three 
lines 508-510 we have its fulfilment, 
verbatim, so far as narrative can be, 
Save in one point that in 509 δ᾽ stands 
in the tradition after πῦρ, but is omitted 
in 491 (where however a few MSS. 
MGO have γ᾽ after ἐπικαίοντες, which 
looks like the correction of an attempt 
to improve the metre by transferring 
δ᾽ to a more useful, but impossible, 
position). 

Now it is as plain as daylight—logic, 
common sense, and established early 
epic usage alike enforce it—that if δ᾽ 
be right in one of these two lines, it 
must also be right in the other. Ilgen 
saw this and duly inserted the particle 
In 491, because without it the participles 
must go with ποιήσατε (490), 1.6. the 
fire is kindled, and the sacrifice is 
offered while the altar is being built, 
which, as he says, is absurd. 


But our editors are not satisfied, and 
attain a higher level of dogmatic eccen- 
tricity than usual in the following 
spirited remarks: ‘The tense of the 
present participles need not be pressed; 
in strict logic they are hardly more 
applicable to what follows them than 
what proceeds.’ 

‘ Strict logic’ is good, but can hardly 
be invoked to prove that 

(a) Build me an altar while you are 

kindling a fire on it and burning 
white barley-meal on it, 
is a rational direction to issue, and 
involves ‘ hardly more’ difficulty than 
(0) While you are kindling a fire on 
the altar and burning barley- 
meal on it, then make your 
prayer. 

A poet is not bound to be a ‘strict 
logician,’ but we must not needlessly 
and of malice prepense make him write 
crazy nonsense (a). 

Considerations of metre indicate cat 
ἐπ᾽ for ἐπί τ’ before ἄλφιτα, and πρῶτόν 
περ (cf. ἘΞ 295) for τὸ πρῶτον in 493. 

495 ὡς ἐμοὶ εὔχεσθαι δελφινίῳ- αὐτὰρ ὁ βωμὸς 

αὐτὸς δελφίνιος καὶ ἐπόψιος ἔσσεται αἰεί. 

Here difficulties arise, of which the 
later expression ὁ βωμός is not the 
most formidable. Editors complain 
bitterly of the incompatibility of δέλ- 
φειος or δελφίνιος and ἐπόψιος, and 
violent hands have been laid on the 
former epithet with excruciating results 
of misapplied ingenuity. I cannot 
believe for a moment in Hermann’s 
αὐτίκ᾽ ap’ ἀφνειός, or Ilgen’s αὐτόθι 
advetos, or Preller’s αὐτοῦ δὴ λιπαρὸς, 
or Baumeister’s αὐτοῦ τηλεφανής, and 
for this reason. The poet has told his. 
story about the dolphin ending with 
the building of the altar on the beach. 
In these two lines evidently he sets 
himself to show that a. recognised 
epithet of Apollo and some local nomen- 
clature prove that his tale is true. We 
would rather say that the resemblance 
of Delphi to δελφίς is at the root of the 
myth, just as δελφύς has made Delphi 
the centre of the earth, the γῆς ὀμφαλός. 
The poetical view, however, the poet’s 
intention, is what I have stated. There- 
fore δέλφειος should not be tampered 
with. Even M’s deAdivios (pace Ruhn- 
ken) is to be deprecated. Aeddivios has 


Η 
7) 


THE, CLASSICAL : REVIEW 


given evidence in 495 metrically. Why 
call up the same witness again in spite 
of metre in 496? Let δέλφειος under 
warrant of nearly all MSS. appear, 
though we may not know this witness 
by sight. We cannot order him to 
stand down for that. It is ἐπόψιος that 
we should mistrust, not δέλφειος. If 
there had been a hoopoe, ἔποψ, in the 
story, the case would be very different. 
As it is, I would read: 

ὡς ἐμοὶ εὔχεσθαι Δελφινίῳ: οὗ τ᾽’ ἄπο βωμὸς 

αὐτὸς Δέλφειος καὶ ἐπάκτιος ἔσσεται αἰεί. 
The altar is ‘on the shore,’ just as the 
story said it was to be. 

In defence of οὗ τ’ ἄπο for αὐτὰρ ὁ, 
which cannot be right without some 
modification, it should be noted that it 
involves the change of two letters only, 
o for a at the beginning and π᾿ for p 
towards theend. The translation would 
be, ‘from which circumstance,’ ‘and 
that is the reason why.’ 

In 506 vm’ ἐρύσαντο should certainly 
be νῆα ἔρυσσαν, and in 517 Πυθῶν᾽ id? 
ἰηπαιήον᾽ ἄειδον might be recommended. 
In 521-2 Allen and Sikes exhibit lack 
of judgement in reverting to ἔμελλεν 
. . . τετιμένος against ‘the editors,’ as 
they say themselves. 

In 527 for τῷ σῷ I would suggest 
τὸ τεῷ or even TO γε σῷ, nor do I think 
the form dvwypev is genuine here (528). 
The poet probably made his leader of 
the Cretans say ἄνωγα, which some 
grammarian altered because of the pre- 
ceding βιόμεσθα, from which no in- 
ference can reasonably be drawn against 
the first person singular (cf. 543-4). 

529 οὔτε τρυγηφόρος ἥδε γ᾽ ἐπήρατος οὔτ᾽ εὐλείμων 
ὥς τ᾽ ἀπό τ᾽ εὖ ζώειν καὶ ἅμ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀπηδεῖν. 

There is some defect even with οὔτε 
for ἥδε (D’ Orville) and ἐπήροτος (Barnes) 
οὔτ᾽ dp’ ἐπήροτος, cf. Θ 168. In the 
next line the use of ὥστε or ὥς Te with 
an infinitive is alien to the early epic 
speech. It is astonishing that, like 
other later usages, it has not been more 
freely introduced or superinduced into 
the tradition. I suggest, therefore, 

ἧς ἄπο τ᾽ εὖ ζώειν καὶ ἅμ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀπηδεῖν. 
The words seem to me to have been 
somewhat misunderstood. The speaker 
is not thinking of ministering to man- 
kind or of helping mankind by pro- 
ducing food for pilgrims (Matthiae). 


133 


He is simply concerned about the 
future of himself and his men. ‘ From 
which we could live in comfort and do 
as other men do,’ lit. ‘ follow mankind,’ 
who till the ground and live on the 
fruits of their labour. So Apollo under- 
stands him in his reply, v. 532-3. At 
the moment the prospect before them 
is not inviting. They seem likely to 
become a sort of Swiss Family Robin- 
son, a small troop of Robinson Crusoes 
in a barren land. They wish to be 
with their fellow-men, not separated 
from them, and as it were marooned. 
Ὀπηδεῖν really means no more than 
this, cf. E 216 ἀνεμώλια γάρ μοι ὀπηδεῖ, 
0 237, H. Herm. 209. . 

Minor corrections are needed in 534, 
which with its prototype ἃ 146 should 
probably read ῥηίδιόν τι ἔπος ἐρέω : in 
535 δεξιτερῆφι ἕκαστος (Fick), in: 536 
σφαζέμεν, and in 537 ὅσσα x’ ἐμοί γ᾽ 
ἀγώγωσι are indispensable, each particle 
occupying its legitimate and proper 
position. 

538 νηὸν δὲ προφύλαχθε, δέδεχθε δὲ φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων 
ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀγειρομένων καὶ ἐμὴν ἰθύν τε μάλιστα 
ἠέ τι τηὕσιον ἔπος ἔσσεται ἠέ τι ἔργον. . . - 

So Mr. Allen, making confusion worse 
confounded by removing the fullstop 
after μάλιστα and by assuming a lacuna 
of two lines between 539 and 540. 
These two lines Mr. Evelyn-White 
most unwisely prints in his Loeb 
edition. 

The crux of the passage is, of course, 
539, which has been sadly mangled in 
the tradition, and ineffectually treated 
by many editors from D’Orville to 
Gemoll. ᾿Εμὴν ἰθύν has I believe given 
me the key to the mystery: not that I 
agree with Allen and Sikes, who say 
«ἰθύν is no doubt genuine. They are 
invariably wrong when they become 
most positive. They are wrong now. 

Let us write ἐμὴν ἰθύν in the older 
uncials 

€MENIOTN. 
This is not very far from éw’ ἐντυν. For 
10 substitute τ, and there emerges ἔμ᾽ 
ἐντύνεσθε. We find in E 761 ὃς οὔ 
τινα οἷδε θέμιστα a neuter form of the 
more usual θέμιστες . . . as. Is there 
anyone who lives so far from the sun 
that he cannot now see the true reading 


must be 
καὶ ἔμ᾽ ἐντύνεσθε θέμιστα ἕ 


134 


Even if the graphical probability be 
minimised to the utmost, and there are 
many who distrust the futilities of 
palaeography, more especially when it 
claims to be scientific, the sense of the 
words is so apt and appropriate that 
dissent becomes very difficult to main- 
tain. Apollo is explaining the duties 
that must be discharged by his con- 
scripts. This is the third duty, perhaps 
the most important of all, ‘Arrange ye 
my ordinances.’ The ordinances are 
the oracles, cf. 

mw 403 εἰ μέν kK’ αἰνήσωσι Διὸς μεγάλοιο θέμιστες. 


These oracles require embellishment ; 
they have to be put into verse. The 
verb ἐντύνω expresses this with quite 
sufficient accuracy (ΠΑΡ ΝΕ 20 
ἐμὴν δ᾽ ἔντυνον ἀοιδήν). The temple 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


authorities would be obliged to admit 
that this versification was their function, 
for they could not expect even the most 
credulous of the faithfui to believe that 
Apollo, the leader of the quire of the 
Muses, himself composed such _ bad 
verses. Read then without lacuna: 


νηὸν δ᾽ εὖ πεφύλαχθε, δέδεχθε δὲ φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων 
ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀγειρομένων, καὶ ἔμ᾽ ἐντύνεσθε θέμιστα" 
εἰ δέ τι τηύσιον ἔπος ἔσσεται, ἠέ τι ἔργον, 

ὕβρις θ᾽, ἣ θέμις ἐστὶ καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
ἄλλοι ἔπειθ᾽ ὑμῖν σημάντορες ἄνδρες ἔσονται, 
τῶν ὑπ᾽ ἀναγκαίῃ δεδμήσεσθ᾽ ἤματα παντα. 


πεφύλαχθε (538) Schneidewin. 
Lie, εἰ δέ Franke, Baumeister. The 
warning in 540 seems to me to be 
not only general, but also special in 
reference to the θέμιστα. 


Ἧς ΤΑ: 


AAIMON IN HOMER. 


THE word δαίμων has been generally 
understood to mean in the Homeric 
poems either a god or, more commonly, 
indefinite and not clearly personalised 
divine power; in the latter sense its 
use seems to have been not unlike that 
of our word ‘ Heaven’ as distinguished 
from ‘God.’ But Professor Finsler 
(Homer [1914], 268-270) tries to show 
that when used in the singular it means 
‘an evil spirit.’ ‘ Besides the Gods,’ 
he writes, ‘daemons are often mentioned. 
When they appear in numbers (three 
times, and only in the Iliad) they are 
not to be distinguished from the gods. 

The daemon is a power by itself, 
8. spirit never appearing in human form, 
never speaking, but remaining ever in 
mysterious darkness. His appearance 
usually means harm. He is rarely 
friendly. That the bounds separ- 
ating gods “from daemons occasionally 
overlap is natural, but a god who has 
been mentioned by name is_ never 
designated as a daemon in the passages 
on which our exposition is based.’ 

There are vital defects in Professor 
Finsler’s exposition. In the first place, 
one naturally queries why the plural of 
δαίμων should refer to gods, and the 
singular to an evil spirit. Again, the 
author repeatedly forces the interpreta- 


tion to support his theory. In the 
simile in which the Trojans besetting 
the wounded Odysseus are likened to 
jackals about a wounded stag (A 474- 
482), the poet adds: ἐπί τε λῖν ἤγαγε 
δαίμων. Finsler comments: ‘ The lion 
has been led there by a hostile power.’ 
But how does Finsler know that the 
poet is taking the jackals’ point of view 
rather than the lion’s? The latter 
seems at least as probable, since the 
lion is mentioned to make the com- 
parison fit also the rescue of Odysseus ~ 
by Menelaus and Aias. In 381, where 
δαίμων inspires the comrades _ of 
Odysseus with great courage, Finsler, 
while admitting that ‘the daemon’ in 
this instance is friendly, adds: ‘ But at 
the same time this the vengeance-spirit, 
helping against Cyclops.’ This, again, 
is mere assertion: we have not the 
slightest evidence that Odysseus so 
regarded δαίμων. To take only one more 
example, when Philoetius expresses the 
wish that δαίμων may bring Odysseus 
home again (f 201), Finser translates, 
‘Would that a daemon might bring 
him hither!’ and adds the comment, 
‘For the neatherd is thinking only of 
revenge, as the context shows.’ But it 
is hardly a devil who one hopes will | 
bring home a beloved master. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


These interpretations, strained as 
they seem, might have more chance of 
acceptance if they were reinforced by 
other considerations. But quite the 
contrary is true. For we may note as 
a further defect in Finsler’s discussion 
the failure to take account of a principle 
of Homeric technique, pointed out by 
Jorgensen (Hermes, XXXIX., 1904, 357- 
382), according to which the characters 
refer to the cause of some unnatural or 
unexpected action as θεός, δαίμων, θεοί, 
or Ζεύς, whereas the poet himself 
commonly tells us the name of the 
particular divinity who is acting. 
Hence the dozen or more passages from 
the Odyssey, which Finsler cites (p. 270) 
as evidence that ‘a daemon’ is an 
unfriendly power, have no weight. All 
that can be said is that in these 
instances, without exception, one of the 
dramatis personae ascribes to δαίμων the 
source of some action which seems to 
be out of the natural order of things— 
and by no means can all of these actions 
be due to an unfriendly power (cf. ἡ 248, 
169, τ 138, v 87). In the Odyssey the 
word δαίμων is used only in speeches, 
never by the poet himself in his narra- 
tive; in the Iliad, the singular is used, 
outside of oratio recta, only in the simile 
mentioned above (A 474 ff.), in the oft- 
repeated comparison, δαίμονι ἶσος, and 
in two other passages (I' 420, O 418). 
On δαίμονι ἶσος Finsler comments, 
‘Here we cannot understand a god by 
the word daemon, for that would not 
give a clear picture at all. The only 
god to whom charging warriors are 
compared is Ares; Patroclus is likened 
to Ares and to a daemon in a single 
breath (II 784, 786).’ This passage 
seems to the present writer to justify 
the equation δαίμων -- θεός. But at 
least we may say—and we_ think 
Finsler’s should have noticed—that the 
author of the Hymn to Demeter, when 
he tells us that Demophon grew in 
stature δαίμονι ἶσος, means by δαίμων 
neither a vengeance-spirit nor a devil, 
but a god. ‘ Grew like the devil’ may 
have found its way into our vernacular, 
but we cannot think of it in a Homeric 
Hymn. 

The two passages where the poet 
himself uses δαίμων not in a simile and 
in the singular, Finsler fails to mention 


135 


in his discussion of ‘ daemons ’— rather 
unfortunately, for they disprove his 
statement that the poet never refers by 
the word δαίμων to a god who has been 
named. In O 418, ἐπέλασσέ ye δαίμων, 
seems clearly to refer to Apollo (ef. 
O 259), although possibly Ameis-Hentze 
may be right in saying that there is no 
definite reference to this divinity. But 
in the other verse (I‘ 420) ἦρχε δὲ δαίμων 
unquestionably refers to Aphrodite, 
who has been mentioned by name in 
verse 413. If Finsler has failed to note 
these verses in discussing the meaning 
of δαίμων because they are not included 
‘in the passages on which his exposition 
is based’ (cf. p. 270), then his whole 
method of exposition is unconvincing. 
At the beginning of the section on 
religion (p. 220) he recognises the 
diverse religious elements that must 
have entered into the Homeric poems, 
but sees running through both J/lad 
and Odyssey, with the exception of the 
‘Olympic scenes’ of the J/iad and the 
Θεομαχία of Books XX. and XXL., 
certain uniform views of the gods, 
which, he adds, it is his task to 
portray. The excepted portions he 
regards as sufficiently distinct to warrant 
a separate treatment. These portions, 
therefore, he excludes from his exposi- 
tion and later (pp. 276-287) indicates 
the ways in which the gods are 
differently convinced by their author. 
Now in the first place he gives the 
reader no clue to the precise limits of 
the passages which he excludes. In 
the case of the omitted verses, however, 
we should be able to infer that they are 
not excluded, since he cites verses from 
the episodes of which they form a part.! 
Secondly, in his treatment of the 
excluded portions he refers to I’ 420 as 
follows (p. 284): ‘In the light of such 
views of life we comprehend the words 
of the gentle Priam that it is not Helen 
[who is to blame] but only the gods, 
who are the cause of all unhappiness. 
We understand how far above Aphrodite 
the poet places Helen, and when the 
goddess has abused her superior power 
he (z.e. the poet) angrily cries out: ‘So 


1 E-g., p. 230, note 2, of Apollo going to the 
assistance of Hector, O 237 ; p. 240, note 1; and 
p. 247, note 3, of Aphrodite’s activity in Book 


ΠῚ. (vv. 374, 439). 


136 


they departed, and the daemon went 
ahead.’ In the eyes of the poet 
the goddess is a devil. Hence accord- 
ing to Finsler himself—even if I’ 420 
belongs to a portion of the Iliad which 
shows a different conception of the gods 
—the Weltanschauung in so far as it 
concerns δαίμων is the same as in the 
other portions, and this passage should 
have prevented him from making the 
statement that δαίμων is not applied to a 
divinity who has been mentioned by 
name. To the other passage (O 418) I 
can find no reference in his whole 
discussion of religion.” 

Professor Finsler’s forced interpreta- 
tions, his failure to take sufficient 
account of Homeric technique and his 
omission of passages which disprove 
his statements, make it improbable that 
his interpretation of δαίμων will be 
accepted by scholars. Furthermore, 
the faultiness of his method in this 


THE ‘CEASSICAL REVIEW 


particular instance will tend to produce 
a sceptical attitude of mind towards his 
other conclusions—e.g., that Homer is 
the author of the Iliad, but not of the 
Odyssey ; that the Odyssey was composed 
about 600 B.c., etc. Since his book 
has already passed into a second edition 
and is meant for a somewhat wider 
circle of readers than the specialists in 
Homer, it has seemed desirable to point 
out one example of the weakness of the 
author’s reasoning, so that his book, 
useful and suggestive as it undoubtedly 
is, may be used with due caution, and 
its results tested carefully before being 
accepted. 
SAMUEL E. BASSETT. 


University of Vermont, 
Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A. 


2 I have not cited Homeric Hymn to Hermes, 
531, where the god himself is referred to as 
Θεῶν ἐριούνιε δαῖμον, because of the recognised 
lateness of this part of the Hymn. 


EURIPIDEA: 


1. Iphig. in Aul. ggo f. 
ἀλλ’ εὖ μὲν ἀρχὰς εἶπας, εὖ δὲ καὶ τέλη" 
σοῦ γὰρ θελόντος παῖς ἐμὴ σωθήσεται. 

Must we not read τέλει ἢῷἢὉ With σοῦ 
yap θέλοντος we shall then supply εὖ 
τελεῖν, cf. Aesch. Suppl. 210 κείνου 
θέλοντος εὖ τελευτῆσαι τάδε. There is 
the same confusion of τέλει and τέλη in 
Soph. Tr. 238. For the construction 
cf. Aesch. Suppl. 219 ἀλλ᾽ εὖ τ᾽ ἔπεμψεν 
εὖ Te δεξάσθω χθονί. For εὖ τελεῖν cf. 
εὖ τελεῖ θεός Aesch. Sept. 35, εὖ τελεῖν 
Pers. 225. It is regularly used of the 
right carrying out of a promise or a 
task: Soph. Aj. 528 ἐὰν μόνον τὸ 
ταχθὲν εὖ τολμᾷ τελεῖν. Cf. the use of 
the simple τελῶ in Soph. Ty. 286 ταῦτα 
γάρ πόσις τε σὸς | ἐφεῖτ᾽, ἐγώ δέ, πιστὸς 
ὧν κείνῳ, TEX, and the simple τελευτῶ 
in Eur. Alc. 374 καὶ νῦν γέ φημί καὶ 
τελευτήσω τάδε. 

I greatly doubt whether ἀρχὰς εἶπας 
in the sense which the traditional text 
demands here is justified by such a 
phrase as κατ᾽ ἀρχάς. But in any case 
surely τέλη could not have the sense 
ascribed to it. I assume ἀρχαί to be 
used much as in I[ph. in Taur. 939 
λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν - ἀρχαί δ᾽ αἵδε μοι πολλῶν 
πόνων, and it refers not to the beginning 
of Achilles’ speech as opposed to the 


end, but to his speech as a whole con- 
trasted with the carrying of his words 
into execution. 


2. Tvoades 568 ff. 


Ἑκάβη, λεύσσεις τήνδ᾽ ᾿Ανδρομάχην 

ξενικοῖς ἐπ᾽ ὄχοις πορθμευομένην ; 

παρὰ δ᾽ εἰρεσίᾳ μαστῶν ἕπεται 

φίλος ᾿Αστυάναξ͵ “Exropos ins. , 

All editors, I think, take εἰρεσίᾳ 

μαστῶν together. Apart from other 
difficulties it is extremely awkward to 
have eipecia following immediately on 
πορθμευομένην if the metaphor of a boat 
isnot kept up. εἰρεσία should naturally 
mean the car or the occupant of the car, 
and it will have this meaning if we take 
μαστῶν... φίλος together, perhaps a 
subconscious echo of Aesch. Ag. 717 ff. 
λέοντος vw ... φιλόμαστον. φίλος, 
if it stands alone, seems rather weak. 


3. Troades 562 ff. 
σφαγαὶ δ᾽ ἀμφιβώμιοι 
Φρυγῶν, ἔν τε δεμνίοις 
καράτομος ἐρημία 
νεανίδων στέφανον ἔφερεν 
Ἑλλάδι κουροτρόφῳ 
Φρυγῶν δὲ πατρίδι πένθος. 
Tyrrell in his edition (1897) reads 
“ / 
νεανιῶν for the MSS. νεανίδων and 
notes: ‘The meaning is “the young 
men butchered, alone and defenceless, 
added laurels to the crown of Hellas, 


THE CLASSICAL ‘REVIEW 


nursing mother of brave boys.” ... 
The MSS. gave νεανίδων, but this must 
be wrong. The young women would 
be carried away as captives; the young 
men who were butchered would be such 
as were surprised alone, and so could 
not offer any successful resistance.’ 

To this there are what seem to be 
quite conclusive objections. First, 
since there is no antithesis between 
σφαγαί and καράτομος, both indicating 
precisely the same kind of slaughter, 
the only antithesis must be between 
ἀμφιβώμιοι and ἐν δεμνίοις. Now it is 
impossible to conceive why the (pre- 
sumably) older men perish at the altars, 
while the young men perish in bed! 
Even if there were conscientious ob- 
jectors in Homeric times, at least they 
should have died at the altars. But 
secondly, Tyrrell’s version gives a 
wholly trivial meaning to the very sig- 
nificant turns of phrase: στέφανον 
ἔφερεν... κουροτρόφῳ, and Φρυγῶν 
πατρίδι in place of the simple Φρυγίᾳ. 
If this, then, is the best that is to be 
made of νεανιῶν, which is , Bothe’s 
emendation, we prefer the MSS. 

But even so the precise meaning is 
not easy to determine. When a Greek 
poet paints the horrors of a captured 
town, it is not the fate of the young 
men that awakes his pity. They have 
‘done their bit’—vém δέ τε πάντ᾽ 
ἐπέοικεν ἀρηικταμένῳ κεῖσθαι ἐνὶ προμά- 
χοις. What he dwells upon is the fate 
of the old men and the women and 
children, or just the old men and the 
women. And the typical fate of the 
old men isto be slain at the altar, as 
Priam was slain at the altar of Zeus 
Herkeios. It seems, then, quite clear 
that in the present passage σφαγαὶ 


ἀμφιβώμιοι refers exactly to such 
slaughter of the old men. The re- 
mainder of the passage obviously 


pictures the fate of the young women. 
Unfortunately this is expressed in 
ambiguous language. Καράτομος may 
refer to cutting off the head as in 
Eurip. Rhes. 605 f. τὰς δ᾽ “Ἕκτορος | 
εὐνὰς ἔασον Kal καρατόμους σφαγάς, 
or to cutting the hair, as in Sophocles 
Electr. 52; so in Aberdeenshire you 
may say ‘get your head cut’ for ‘get 
your hair cut.’ ἐρημία may refer to 
mere want of help, the mere absence of 
friends—as the Apharetidai apa δ᾽ 


137 


ἐκαίοντ᾽ ἐρῆμοι Pind. N. X. 72, ἔρημος 
ἐτελεύτα φίλων Plato Phaedo 58 C: 
or to the ‘single sleep’—épynywévtos 
ἄρσενος θρόνου in the Agamemnon ; or 
to absolute emptiness—edvas ἐρήμους 
Eurip. Rhes. 574: to the desolation of 
Scythia (P. V. 2 and Aristophanes) or 
Arabia Deserta (Pind. P. IV. 22). 

If now καράτομος here, as might be 
suggested by σφαγαί two lines before, 
refers to ‘cutting off the head,’ the 
meaning must be that the defenceless 
young women had their throats cut 
upon their beds, and this brought a 
garland of glory to Hellas but to Phrygia 
sorrow. I think this implies a very 
bold use of language, but I am not 
going to deny that it is possible. But 
it utterly fails to give point to the 
phrasing of the immediately succeeding 
lines. And there is, moreover, the 
objection that this is not the typical 
fate of the young women τῶν ἄστυ 
ἁλώῃ, which is to be haled into captivity 
—inmnoov πλοκάμων, which at least 
involves the retention of their heads. 

But suppose now that καράτομος 
here refers to ‘cutting off the hair.’ 
Read our passage alongside Soph. El. 
51 ff. ἡμεῖς δὲ πατρὸς τύμβον... 
καρατόμοις χλιδαῖς στέψαντες 
and Aesch. Ch. 5 f. πλόκαμον ᾿Ινάχῳ 
θρεπτήριον, τὸν δεύτερον δὲ τόνδε 
πενθητήριον. Euripides, it seems 
to me, had the first meaning, ‘ cutting 
off the head,’ clearly in his mind. But 
he deliberately adopted here the second, 
and it was the second that he developed. 
In the natural course the maidens 
would have shorn their hair and given 
their tresses as a στέφανος to their 
κουροτρόφος, to Phrygia Kurotrophos. 
As it is, ‘The Flowers o’ the Forest 
are a’ wede awa’’; and the maidens for 
whom it must always be ἐγὼ δὲ μόνα 
καθεύδω shear their locks, not for 
marriage but for mourning, and Hellas, 
not the fatherland, receives the Nurse’s 
garland: 


The old men slain the altar steps imbrue: 
On desolate bed 
The widow-maidens, never to be wed, 
With inauspicious shears 
Cut off their locks, the Nursing Mother’s due, 
For Hellas, but for Phrygia shed, 
In place of tresses—tears ! 


A. W. Mair. 
Edinburgh University. 


138 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


VIKGIEES REYT Ms: 


ViRGIL’s use of one-syllable endings 
in various rhythms has often been 
noticed, but, so far as I know, they 
have not been examined in their con- 
text. This I now propose to do for the 
Aeneid. 

The first occurs in I. 65, in the half- 
line divom pater atque héminum réx. 
This was borrowed from Ennius, and 
was therefore as familiar to his readers 
as to us are the scriptural tags which 
John Bright likes to put in place of an 
argument. No one, I suppose, would 
feel this well-known tag to be harsh; 
but it serves as a kind of hint, a pre- 
paration for some variation more striking 
of Virgil’s type. 

Sure enough, the hint is followed up 
by a real violation of the usual rhythm 
forty lines later (about four minutes in 
reading) in 105 praeruptus dquae mons, 
where the rough rhythm was doubtless 
meant to echo the sense. This device 
may easily become a cheap trick; but 
we shall see how sparingly Virgil uses 
it, and admire his self-restraint. A little 
later, in 151, at nearly the same interval 
as between the first two, the faintest 
possible echo is given by st férte virdém- 
quem, which is not really an instance of 
our type, because quem is enclitic, and 
therefore the accent falls as I have 
marked it; but it has just enough of 
variety to serve as a call upon the ear 
in the change of accent upon virum. 
Similarly s¢ quem in 180 reminds us of 
virim quem without being in any way 
abnormal. There are no others in 
Book I. 

We find the next in II. 170 aversa 
déae méns, where the sense again is 
reinforced by this back-striking accent. 
It is true that there is éx quo in 163, but 
this is normal, and I believe therefore 
that déae méns breaks on the ear sud- 
denly, and is meant to do so. In 216 
et idm is a new variety, which serves to 
emphasise tam firmly but not violently ; 
but 250 is a stroke of genius, for ver- 
titur interea caelum is from Ennius, and 
although rut océano néx is not, the 


. ? Ennius has however this rhythm: exdéritur 
σόϊ, praetérea fix, restituis rém, Servilius stc. 


suggestion is unconsciously received 
that it is, which excuses its roughness ; 
whilst the roughness itself serves simply 
the purpose of relieving the smoothness 
of the rest, like a touch of cayenne 
pepper toan oyster. In 355 15 laépz ced, 
and 647 brings in divom pater atque 
héminum véx again, as if with a spice of 
malice to insist on the authority of 
Ennius for 250. Again Ennius comes 
into our ken in III. 12 cwm 500115 natoque 
penatibus et madgnis ας, which analysed 
proves to be a greater dislocation of 
Virgil’s rhythm than any of the pre- 
ceding: Virgil is getting bold. Ennius’s 
actual words are dogue volentibus cum 
magnis dis, and it will be seen that 
Virgil, while he intends beyond a doubt 
to recall these words, keeps the exact 
rhythm, and yet avoids one roughness 
which he had deliberately discarded, 
the elided 5. In I51, quad sé is a real 
novelty in having two distinct accents ; 
but what a far-away dim echo of the 
last grating example, which of course 
has no excuse in the sense, and passes 
because of its associations of antiquity 
and dignity. It is not long before we 
receive another shock in 390 tnventa 
sub iléctbus 5115, a rhythm which recalls 
with a slightly grotesque touch’ ruit 
océano néx; and this again has a dim 
far-away echo in qué ndnc 695. 

The fourth book presents us with a 
quaint novelty in odora cdnum vis 130, 
again with no imitation of the meaning: 
so far, that device has only been used 
once. The phrase recalls Ennius’s end- 
ing 6pum vi in sound, but it seems to 
have a genial and half-comic effect.? 
But 314 dextramque tuam té is a new 
and completely successful effect, such 
as all masters of rhythm aim at, where 
the attention is held by an unusual 
rhythm. There are no more in the 


-fourth book, but there are two in the 


fifth. In the first, 481 procumbit hemi 


1 It is, of course, not possible to be sure that 
Virgil felt this as grotesque; but Horace has 
the same rhythm and the same sound in his 
certain grotesque, 77diculus mis. 

2 Ennius has other examples of this final 
rhythm : dguae vts, méum cor, férat fors, htemps 
ét, ἰδεῖς dant, rétert γέρε, homo réx. 


THE. CLASSICAL REVIEW 


δός the sense-imitation is obvious, and 
as I think obviously comic. The 
remarkable thing is that there are no 
more of this sort, although there are 
plenty of good openings; but Virgil 
knows well how easy it is to make this 
device cheap. Before and after this we 
have quz sé in 372 and 6 géns in 624, 
which by this time pass almost un- 
noticed, if Iam not mistaken. But 638 
tam tempus dgi vés is of the more intel- 
lectual type, which calls attention by a 
forced rhythm. Ennius has izvat rés, 
and he is fond of this rhythm. 

In the sixth book there is nothing at 
all (for nec te in 117 would certainly strike 
no ear) except the one solemn passage 
in which Fabius Maximus is described 
with Ennius’s own line, wnus qui nobis 
cunctando restituis rém 846. Nor is there 
anything in VII., not even one of the 
faint possible echoes, until we reach 
nutu Iunonis éunt rés 592, 14m tum 643, 
at the four-minutes’ interval, and the 
more striking zam saetis obsita, idm δός 
790, which seems to me quite perfect. 

But after this considerable interval, 
which includes the most elevated part 
of the whole poem, we have a little 
shock on meeting once more an old 
friend, the inventa sub ilécibus sus (43) 
of the third book, which is repeated in 
83, procubuit viridique in litore conspécitur 
sés, in which line the rhythm is remark- 
able for another reason. No better way 
could be found to fix on our minds that 
this is that which was to come.t To 
keep this in mind there is another echo 
of the third book in penatibus et mégnis 
dis 679. 

The ninth book, after a few trifles 
like hinc comminus atque hinc 440, hoc 
mihi dé te 491, and 52 qua 512, of which 
only the first is a variation on the 
normal accent, the last two being really 
disyllables, we come to a new trace of 
Ennius in 532 swmmaque evertere dpum 
vi,” where the cross-accent may be 
meant to imitate the sense. There is 
no shock now in this mild variant, nor 
is there in gui casus agat rés 723, already 
familiar. 


1 Méns est in 400 is not in point, since est is 
enclitic, and the same is true of phrases llke 
supra est (suprast). 

2 Ennius: summa nituntur dpum vt, see 
XI. 552. 


139 


The tenth book opens with a solemn 
old-fashioned sentence, containing the 
Ennian divom pater atque héminum réx, 
followed up by aut hés g and quam 
quisque sécat spém 107, vigilasne déum 
géns 228, ut nds 231; but pugnaeque 
parént se 259 is probably enclitic. There 
seems no particular point in any of this 


. group, but there is in 360 haeret pede 


pes densusque vtro vtr, which also is 
partly Ennius and partly Furius (pres- 
satur pede. pes, mucro mucrone, vitro vér). 
The last phrase is repeated in 734 seque 
vivo vir contulit, and actually divom pater 
atque héminum γόχ 743, which has ceased 
to attract any attention. Mole sda stat 
771 is another of those which use the 
device to attract'attention to a word 
(sua), but tectusque tenét se is normal, 
se being enclitic. Again we have the 
emphatic use in 843 pracsaga mali méns. 
There seems only a literary reason for 
aperit si nulla viam vés 864—that is, the 
alliteration and the slight variation give 
a kind of piquant touch. There is an 
unusual number of instances in this 
book, and there are other metrical 
variations besides. 

The first in Book XI. is 164 nec 
foedera néc quas wunximus hospitio dextras, 
an extra accent, but not enough to 
attract attention; similarly in 170-1 we 
have two lines of an exquisitely balanced 
rhythm, to which the extra accent on 
quam is essential : 


guam pius Aeneas, et quam magni Phryges, 
ἐξ quam 
Tyrrhenique duces, Tyrrhenum exercitus omnis. 


An admirable use of the emphatic 
accent is found in 373 étiam tu, sz qua 
ttbi vs. In 429 we have again ét quds, 
in 632 legitque virwm vir (as twice 
before). Thus there is nothing new in 
this book, only what we have heard 
already. The extra accent balancing a 
phrase in the same line, which has evi- 
dently found favour in Virgil’s ear, 
occurs in XII. 48 pro me... pro mé. 
In 360 is qué mé (unless me be enclitic, 
as it may be); the intention of mznc, 
nine 526 is quite clear. After so many 
normal abnormalities, if I may say so, 
we come at last to what my ear has 
long been craving for, another echo of 
Ennius in 552 summa nituntur dpum vt, 


140 


and anon a second 565 Iuppiter hdc stdt. 
If 850 déum γόχ be not drawn from the 
same source, it sounds as if it were. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Thus the poem ends in the same key as 
it began, with echoes of the solemn 


music of Ennius. 
W.-H. D: Reuse. 


HARLEY MS. 2610, AND 


victa labore fugae tellus ait hisce vel istam (544) 
quae fecit ut ledar (facit ut laedar ce¢¢.) mutando 
perde figuram, 

fer pater, inquit opem, si flumina numen habetis. 
vix prece finita ce¢. (547) 

It takes Dr. H. Magnus, in his recent 
edition, close upon a hundred lines of 
Latin to array the evidence here and 
to summarise the theories to which that 
evidence has given birth. He has also 
—it should be added—done students of 
the matter a signal service by append- 
ing to the note aforesaid facsimiles of 
the text of the essential pages from 
three of the leading MSS. Those who 
will may study in his book the material 
so bountifully provided. Here we have 
space only for the essentials. 

Two of these three MSS.—viz. M 
_ and N—unfortunately fail us, but not 

altogether, for the facsimiles make it 
perfectly plain that, as he says, the 
original scribes (M! and Ν᾽) recognised 
as authentic only two lines of text, not 
three. 

The reliques of ΜΙ are these: 


victa labore fugae (544) 
qua nimium placui mutando perde figuram. (545) 


The second hand, M2, has erased 
half of line 544, adding in rasura ‘ spec- 
tans peneydos undas,’ and in 545 has 
drawn the pen through the last three 
words and written above them “ tellu’ 
ait isce vel istam.’ From N! only the 
first three words of the two lines remain: 
evasa cetera. Both, as the facsimiles 
show, went straight on from the end of 
545 to 547, ‘vix prece finita.’ The 
additamenta in the margin of M and 
between the lines of N are both in 
hands so recent that they may fairly be 
ignored: they add nothing to what 
the other MSS. supply, and can claim 
no precedence. 

(2) Happily, however, there is another 
witness of first-rate importance avail- 
able here, viz. e, the Harleian MS. 2610, 
saec. X.-XI., a MS. at least as good 
—so Ellis believed and proved—as 


OVID, MET. I. 544-546. 


M and N for that portion of the poem 
which it preserves. The scribe’s spell- 
ing is often fantastic, but his bona fides 
is above suspicion. And e offers with- 
out any perplexing erasures or variants 
the text as printed at the head of this 
note} 

(3) Now the parents of Daphne were 
Earth and Water—Tellus and Peneus;? 
and some authorities credit the mother, 
not the father, with causing her trans- 
formation at the critical moment. 
Hyginus (Fab. 203) tells the story thus: 
‘Apollo Daphnen, Penei fluminis filiam, 
cum virginem persequeretur, illa a 
Terra praesidium petit. Quae eam 
recepit in se et in arborem laurum com- 
mutavit. Apollo inde ramum fregit et 
in caput imposuit.’ Ovid, strangely 
enough, does not commit himself— 
except for line 546 of εἰς text. He 
records the change—‘ Daphne in lau- 
rum ’—but not the hand by which the 
change was effected.* 

It is just because ‘ Lactantius ’"—7.e. 
Ovid’s early editor, not Ovid—in his 
prose ‘argument’ says ‘patrem invo- 
cavit,’ without expressly mentioning 
any cry of ‘ Mother !’4 that later editors 
tend almost unanimously to reject as 
spurious the manus prima of ε and to- 
accept instead the manus secunda of M, 
backed as to a certain extent it is by 
the rest—with the important exception 
of L, which Hensius ranked high (it is 
his ‘ Mediceus Primus’), and which 
Madvig and Merkel placed second only 
to M. 


1 The tourth line (‘ Qua... figuram’), which 
Dr. Magnus ascribes to e, zs mot in the manu- 
script. (Dr. Gilson, the Keeper of the MSS., 
has very kindly verified the point, and endorses 
my report.) 

* Or, according to others, Tellus and Ladon : 
see Munro on AeZéna, line 6, and the works 
there cited. ὋΝ 

5. Lines 577 to 578 might be thought to imply 
that the father had zo¢ intervened, Earth being 
apparently the agent. 

4 But cf 13. 880 (¢.v.), Et “fer opem, Galatea 
mihi, mihi ferte, Jarentes.” 


πεν. : 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


(4) Now the appeal to Tellus, coming 
as it does from a daughter of Earth, 
would in any case be singularly natural 
and appropriate here. But there is 
another point which is strongly in its 
favour. The expression is almost pro- 
verbial. It is as old as Homer: τότε 
μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθών (A. 182; Θ. 150). 
It recurs three times in Vergil: ‘ Tellus 
optem prius ima dehiscat’ (Aen. 4. 24; 
20. το. 675; 12. 883), and at least twice 
in Ovid himself. The passages are in 
the Heroides: viz. ‘ Hiscere nempe tibi 
Terra roganda fuit’ (6.144) and ‘ De- 
vorer ante precor subito Telluris hiatu ’ 
(3.63). The prayer is proper to a person 
in terrible trouble or perplexity, and we 
might a priort expect to find it followed 
by a praver to river or sea also to swallow 
up the sufferer. 

So Io, in the Prometheus Vinctus,} 
after the conventional appeal to Earth, 
‘arev’ ἃ 64!’ of line 567 (Sidgwick), 
breaks into the cry: “πυρί pe φλέξον 
ἢ χθονὶ κάλυψον, ἢ ποντίοις 
δάκεσι δός βοράν! 

But we have only to transpose lines 
545 and 546, to get just such an appeal 
here : ͵ 
‘Tellus,’ ait, ‘hisce, vel istam 
‘Fer, Pater,’ inquit, opem! si flumina numen 

habetis 
*Quae facit ut laedar mutando perde figuram "ἢ 


(5) The margins of early Ovidian 
MSS. bristle with glosses and variants, 
and the words ‘spectans peneydos 
undas’ look very like a gloss. As for 
the alternatives, ‘Quae facit ut laedar’ 
and ‘Qua nimium placui,’ there is 
really not a pin to choose between 
them. Ritschl wished to eject the 


1 Since this was written, I notice that Merkel 
in the Preface to his second edition also cites 
these two passages from Aeschylus. He keeps 


the half-line which others reject ; but his text of | 


the whole is not altogether satisfactory. 


141 


former. As however the words happen 
to be the reading of so good a MS., it 
may seem rash to agree with him. One 
really vital question is the authenticity 
or non-authenticity of ver. 546. There 
is no apparent reason why it should 
have fallen out of M and N ;! but they 
drop a score of other lines without the 
slightest provocation. 

The scribe of e, however, occasionally 
omits but never interpolates a verse. 
On the other hand, he is elsewhere, 
though very rarely, guilty of trans- 
position ;? and’as two first-rate MSS., 
F and Palat Vatican. 1669, reverse his 
order here, giving line 546 before line 
545, the arrangement proposed has 
good MS. authority. ‘Ait’ taken up 
so quickly by ‘inquit’ may or may not 
be justifiable in excited narrative; cf. 
3. 673; 5.195; 7. 681, f. If the iteration 
be unjustifiable, a good second-class 
MS. ‘e’? the Erfurtensis Prior offers 
‘aut’ for ‘ait’; and so did ‘multi ex 
antiquis Heinsii.’ This may point to 
some slight dislocation and corruption 
at the end of line 544, and tempt us, 
ut in loco vexato, to emend and read: 


victa labore fugae ‘ Tellus aut Unda dehisce !4 

‘fer, Pater,’ inquit, ‘opem !—si flumina numen 
habetis, 

quae facit ut laedar, mutando perde figuram ! 


ἢ. As SLAPER? 


Bedford College, 
University of London. 


1 If in some ‘forbear’ of theirs line 544 began 
with /essa (see 5. 618), not wzcfa, the omission 
might easily have occurred. 

2 To the two examples in Ellis (Amecdot. 
Oxon. Class. Ser. 1. 5, anni 1885) at 2. 823 and 
3, 172, add another, viz. 2. 755, which is not 
‘omitted’ but placed before 754 :—a total of 
three only in some two thousand lines and 
more. 

3 = the symbol for “ equals.” 

4 vel ‘ dehiscas !’ 


GE PE ROSBECGEIVE.) 


Mr. FRANK FOWLER’s article in the 
August-September number (pp. 97-99) 
demands an answer from me; but I 
must try to be brief. 

Inthe first place let me express mysatis- 
faction that Mr. Fowler is in such close 
touch with me, though he hardly knows 

NO. CCLXXV. VOL. XXXIII. 


it himself, as to the fundamental mean- 
ing of the subjunctive. German scholars 
generally deny nowadays that there is 
such a thing as a ‘ Grundbegriff’ of the 
subjunctive, but Mr. Fowler, though 
he substitutes the term ‘compulsion ἡ 
for my term ‘obligation,’ really means 
L 


142 


exactly what I mean, viz. that the 
subjunctive expresses fundamentally 
that something 7s to be done or was to be 
done It is true that he does not go so 
far as I do in recognising this meaning 


as the basis of ‘ volitive’ expressions ; - 


he draws:a sharp line of distinction 
between (say) faciat in the sense of 
‘let him doit’ (a command) and faciat 
in the sense of ‘he is to do it,’ which he 
calls compulsive. To my mind the only 
difference is that in the former use the 
thing that is to be done by the person 
spoken of is also willed or desired by 
the speaker; but the thing is still fo be 
done by the person spoken of. The 
person who is to act is always indicated 
by the personal inflexion; hence /facias 
‘you are to do it ’—sometimes = ‘ do it’ 
(a command in Old Latin), sometimes 
without any intervention. of the will of 
the speaker. In the case of /actas 
(second person) the person who is to 
act is the person addressed instead of 
the person spoken of. Let Mr. Fowler, 
however, if he chooses, draw a sharp 
line of demarcation between the volitive 
and the compulsive meanings. But 
what right has he to accuse me of ‘ not 
seeing that in a purpose clause we have 
to do with a willed result.’ He would 
be blind indeed who did not see that. 
I see it and have shown that I see it in 
my Unity of the Latin Subjunctive, p. 35, 
where I say that the kinship of final 
subjunctives with subjunctives of voli- 
tion is ‘obvious and universally ad- 
mitted’; alsoin my New Latin Grammar, 


§ 338, where I say ‘ Many adjective and_ 


adverb clauses with a shall-subjunctive 
denote what is desired’; cf. § 320. Never- 
theless, the final subjunctive is also an 
expression of what 7s to be done—t.e. it 15 
merely a species of the one great genus. 

Probably the source of Mr. Fowler’s 
misconception of my position is that 
I did not sufficiently emphasise in my 
Unity the distinction between the funda- 


mental meaning of the subjunctive 


and its developed usages. 


1 My ‘obligation’ is not limited to the sphere 
of either the ethical or non-ethical ‘ought’; I 
use the term in a wide sense and with full con- 
sciousness that no single term quite expresses 
the idea which I have in mind. See my Unity 
of On Latin Subjunctive, p. 19 (John Murray, 
1910). 


THE ‘CEASSICAL, REVIEW 


Now as to the prospective subjunc- 
tive in particular. Mr. Fowler denies 
that there is any such thing as a ‘ pros- 
pective’ or ‘ anticipatory’ or ‘ futural’ 
subjunctive, though he does not deny 
that there is ‘a contextual implication 
of futurity ’in many instances. I freely 
admit that contextual implication will 
explain some instances; but it cannot 
explain them all. There is no con- 
textual implication of futurity in the 
conjunctions antequam, priusquam, donec, 
dum, etc.; these may be just as well 
followed by a past tense of the indica- 
tive (denoting past fact) as by a pros- 
pective subjunction. Take one of Mr. 
Fowler's instances (Livy. V. 33. 5); 
does he mean to say that Ducentis 
guippe annis antequam Clusium oppug- 
naverunt (for oppugnarent) in TItaliam 
transcenderunt would be bad Latin or 
bad sense? The reason why Livy used 
the subjunctive oppugnarent was simply 
that he wanted to mark the action as 
to be done, not as a past fact. Yes, 
Mr. Fowler will say; but by the sub- 
junctive Livy marks the* action an 
‘externally determined’ or ‘compul- 
sive’: it is this modal idea which is 
expressed, not the temporal idea of 
futurity. Good. In this particular 
instance antequam Clusium oppugnarent 
may well be translated ‘before they 
were destined to make war on Clusium.’ 
I have myself quoted instances like 
this on p. 35 of my Unity, and I will add 
a good parallel to Mr. Fowler’s instance 
from Tacitus, Germania 29: in quibus 
pars impertit Romani fierent (‘they were 
destined to become’); cf. too Agricola 
34 in quibus ederetis (which, however, 
may be regarded as final). But when 
Mr. Fowler insists that the full mean- 
ing of external determination or what I 
call ‘ determined futurity’ or ‘natural 
necessity’ (Unity, p. 7) is present in 
all instances of the subjunctive after 
antequam, priusquam, donec, dum, etc., 
I regard this an an exaggeration, due 
to a failure to recognise that in the 
developed usages of the mood the full 
fundamental meaning suffers certain 
changes. In the large majority of 
instances of the subjunctive after one of 
the above mentioned temporal conjunc- 
tions the meaning of determined futurity 
is modified or weakened, so as to be 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


hardly distinguishable from an expres- 
sion of bare futurity. How forced it 
would be to translate Exspectare dum 
hostium copiae augeantur by ‘to wait 
till the forces of the enemy are bound to 
be increased’ (Caesar B. G. iv. 13; 
Gil. TO ine 5. 111 Tal Nog the 
Latin expression of what is to be done 
has here come to denote little or nothing 
more than is denoted by these English 
words in many instances, especially 
in old-fashioned (seventeenth century) 
English: e.g.‘ The Prime Minister 15 to 
return (=willreturn) next week.’ Here, 
then, you have my definition of a Pros- 
pective Subjunctive ; it is a subjunctive 
in which the fundamental idea of obliga- 
tion or natural necessity or determined 
futurity has been weakened into an 
expression of little more than bare 
ἐπ ΠΗ Ὁ nA \ temporal idea ?, Yes. 
There is no hard and fast barrier which 
separates modal from temporal mean- 
ing. This prospective subjunctive may 
either refer to the future from a present 
point of view, denoting what 7s to be, 
or to the future from a past point of 
view, denoting what was to be; in the 
latter case we have the past prospective 
meaning, ¢.g., delitut dum τοῖα darent. 
‘I lay hidden till they should set sail’ 
(Aen. II. 136); te, boves olim msi red- 
didisses voce dum _ terret, viduus 
pharetra visit Apollo (Hor. Od. I. Io. 
g-12), ‘Apollo while threatening thee 
unless thou shouldst have restored the 
oxen, was robbed of his quiver and 
laughed.’ Every example of a Past 
Perfect Subjunctive that represents a 
Future Perfect Indicative of oratio 
vecta iS a prospective subjunctive. 
Mr. Fowler is quite right in saying 
that the time of the subjunctive in 
Tusc. iv. 22 priusquam manus conser- 
event is past: but that does not prevent 
the tense from being prospective. It isa 
tense of past time which has a reference 
to what then lay in the womb of the 
future. I am surprised that this con- 
ception of the future in the past presents 


143 


so much difficulty to grammarians. It 
is a perfectly simple and a funda- 
mentally necessary grammatical con- 
cept, the importance of which was fully 
recognised by the Joint Committee on 
Grammatical Terminology in its report 
of 1911. There is, then, no difference of 
opinion between me and Mr. Fowler as 
to the fact that the time of expressions 
denoting what 7s to be done is present 
and of expressions denoting what was 
to be done is past. But in both of 
these expressions there is also a 
reference to the future, and in many 
instances the idea of compulsion 
practically disappears. 

I hope it will be clear that I do not 
wish to extend unnecessarily the sphere 
of influence of the prospective sub- 
junctive. On the contrary, wherever 
the full fundamental meaning of the 
mood can be discerned, the better I am 
pleased. The Latin subjunctive is 
very like the English ‘shall’; it often 
passes into an expression of mere 
futurity, but the fundamental idea of 
obligation shines through in a large 
number of instances. 

I will add that I do not fully grasp 
what Mr. Fowler means by saying 
(p. 99, note 1) ‘ What he (Mr. Sonnen- 
schein, Unity, pp. 36 ff) sees as the 
fundamental and unifying meaning of 
the Latin subjunctive—‘ obligation ”— 
is nothing but the essential character of 
modal ideas in general: it belongs to 
the Greek Optative and to the English 
periphrastic modal expressions.’ Modal 
ideas in general is a very vague phrase ; 
and English periphrastic modal expres- 
sions include some which have nothing 
obligatory about them. If Mr. Fowler 
merely means that the Greek Optative 
(so called) may also be said to express 
fundamentally the idea of obligation in 
my sense of the term, I agree with him. 
But that is a long story, into which I 
cannot enter to-day. 


E. A. SONNENSCHEIN. 


144 


ΤΉ GEASSICAL ‘REVIEW. 


‘VIRGIL, AEN. VIL. 695-6’ AGAIN. 


Hi Fescenninas acies aequosque Faliscos 
Hi Soractis habent arces FJaviniaque arva. 


Tue writer of the note on this pas- 
sage, which appeared in Class. Rev. 
for February, 1905 (Vol. XIX. p. 38), 
may perhaps be permitted to express 
his gratification at finding that Dr. 
Warde Fowler! and his most recent 
reviewer” tend to agree in the interpre- 
tation of ‘acies’ as= Edges, which was 
there, to the best of his knowledge and 
belief, put forward for the first time. 

But are these two eminent scholars 
right in challenging as they do the 
authenticity of the term, ‘ Soractis 
arces’? The poet who in the Georgics 
(IV. 461 and I. 240) characterises 
‘silver Rhodope’ and the ‘ Scythian 
hills’ as ‘ Rhodopeiae arces’ and ‘ Rhi- 
paeae arces’ respectively, may surely 
be allowed in the Aeneid a variant of 
the same phrase to describe snow-clad 
Soracte? Whether Conington’s ren- 
dering ‘mountain heights’ is altogether 
adequate is quite another matter. Per- 
haps on the whole the Biblical phrase, 
‘high places,’ might come nearer to the 
connotation of the original. For to 
Dr. Warde Fowler’s question, ‘ What 
shall we say of arces’? the answer 
would seem to be abundantly clear. 
‘Arx’ here and elsewhere stands for 
the stronghold of a god. The only 
point that admits of doubt is whether 
in this passage the ‘arces’ are the 
work of Nature or of man—a temple or 
a crag. 

‘Apollo had a temple on the top of 
Soracte’ says Conington in his note at 
Aen. XI. 785. Now (a) is Virgil allu- 
ding to that temple here, just as Ovid 
appears to be alluding to the temple of 
Venus on Mt. Eryx, when he writes 
(Am. 111. 9. 45), ‘ Avertit vultus Evycis 
quae possidet arces,’ and Statius to the 


1 See Virgil's Gathering of the Clans, Black- 
well, 1916, pp. 64 f. : 

ase TW. Mein: the .7-7..5.,- ΝΟ]. ΝΠ ΔΕΖ; 
pp. 214 ff. Yet ‘J.W.M.’ in Zhe Aeneid of 
Virgil translated into English, Macmilian and 
Co., 1885, rendered line 695: ‘These are of 
the Fescennine ranks and of Aequi Falisci.’ 
Dr. Conway did the theory the honour of giving 
it his whole-hearted support years ago: Pro- 
ceedings of the C.A.1V.29, alibi. 


temple of Iupiter (?) on Mt. Anxur when 
in the Silvae (1. 3. 86 f.) he uses the same 
word, ‘arcesque superbae Anxyris’?? 
or (ὁ) in such contexts is the crag itself 
—temple or no temple— fer se the 
stronghold? In Greek and Latin poetry 
we constantly find the gods ‘located’ 
on the hill-tops.2 The most famous 
instance is perhaps Homer’s ἀκροτάτη 
κορυφὴ πολυδειράδος Οὐλύμποιο (A. 499), 
which becomes in Virgil (Aen. I. 250) 
the ‘arx caeli’ and in Ovid (Metamm. 
II. 33 and elsewhere) ‘arx’ pure and 
simple. Clearly the word and the spot 
had religious associations,? and would 
seem to carry us back beyond the dawn 
of history to a time when primitive 
man dreaded these ‘high places’ as the 
special abodes and fastnesses of super- 
human powers, much as in the Middle 
Age the superstitious fancy of Petrarch’s 
peasants peopled the hill-tops with 
demons and spirits. 

Virgil himself (Aen. VIII. 347 ff.) 
makes Evander say of (what Tacitus, 
H. Ill. 69, calls) the ‘arx Capitolii,’ 
long before the temple of luppiter Capi- 
tolinus stood there : 

. . . ‘Hoc nemus, hunc’ inquit ‘ frondoso ver- 
tice collem 
(Quis deus incertum est) habitat deus ; Arcades 
ipsum 
Credunt se vidisse Iovem, cum saepe nigrantem 
Aegida concuteret dextra nimbosque cieret.’* 
Nor was the belief confined to Italy 
and Greece. In Exodus (XIX. 12 f.) 
Mt. Sinai is invested with a similar 
sanctity. It is from the high places 
of the mountain that God speaks to 
Moses. The parallels from the New 
Testament I forbear to quote. They 
will occur at once to every reader. 


1 At Aen. 111. 553 the meaning of arces 15 
uncertain. In Ovid, Am. III. 3. 35, ‘ luppiter 
igne suo /uwcos iaculatur e¢ arces,’ arces by itself 
seems to stand for ‘ temples.’ 

2 Aen. VI. 805, ‘ Liber, agens celso Nysae 
de vertice tigres’; Catullus, LXIV. 390 f.; 
Ovid, Metamm. 11. 219, V. 284, ‘ Virgineusque 
Helicon.’ These are only two or three of the 
numerous passages which might be cited in 
illustration of the tendency to identify gods and 
goddesses wlth particular heights. 

3 As in Horace’s sacrificial ‘Odi profanum 
vulgus et a@rceo.’ 

4 See Dr. Warde Fowler’s Aeneas at the Site 
of Rome, pp. 73-74- 


THE, CLASSICAL (REVIEW 


All this may have been pointed out 
before, but if so it has been lost sight 
of, and the case needs restating. As 
for the choice between ‘ Soracte’s peak’ 
and ‘ Soracte’s shrine,’ who would ven- 
ture to decide ? Whichever of the two 
roads we take, these ‘high places’ 
clearly harboured a community, no 
matter how small, which sent its quota 
of volunteers to the ‘ great war.’ Fur- 
ther, to this community (‘qui Soractis 
habent arces’) belonged, it would seem,? 


CLASSICAL 


AN unimportant and very recently 
elected member of the Classical Asso- 
ciation, I note that one of the objects 
of the Association is to improve the 
practice of classical teaching. 

I am perfectly ignorant of the manner 
in which the classics are taught in our 
schools at the present day, and the sug- 
gestions and remarks which follow are 
founded upon recollections of my own 
schooldays at Eton in the seventies, 
and upon three texts of Virgil with notes 
respectively by Conington, Papillon and 
Haigh, and Page, who will be referred 
to henceforward as C., PH.,and P. Of 
these I have found P. by far the most 
useful, but even he is lacking in infor- 
mation for which I have sought. I 
speak as one with no pretensions to 
scholarship, but as one who has tried to 
keep up his Latin and his Greek as far 
as Homer throughout a busy professional 
life. 

Take the Georgics to begin with; 
none of the editions concerned gives 
any explanation of what Virgil meant 
by the rising or setting of stars. or 
groups of stars as aids to the times and 
seasons for agricultural operations. No 
edition which I have come across does 
so except the Delphin. Again in the 
account of agricultural operations and 


1 Just as, in C.R. XXXIII. 30, Mr. William- 
son found it necessary to recall us to the inter- 
pretation of Aen. 1. 460, with which ‘ every 
schoolboy’ is familiar in Conington’s Transla- 
tion and Commentary, but which, since Henry, 
it has apparently been the fashion to discard 
for something more subtle and recondite. 

2 So ‘Aelius Donatus apud Servium,’ cited 
by Nettleship at dem. XI. 785. 


145 


Arruns, the slayer of Camilla, for it is 
to Apollo of Soracte that he prays at 
the crisis : 


Summe deum, sancti custos Soractis Apollo, 
Quem primi colimus... 


But this leaves us with a fresh 
conundrum. Was Arruns an _ anti- 
feminist ? Or why did he kill one of 
his own leaders? Perhaps here again 
we have traces of unrevised work. 


Diy Asse 


TEACHING. 


implements, no description or pictures 
are given of these as they exist to-day 
in the East. I never really understood 
Virgil’s account of ploughing, threshing, 
winnowing, a threshing floor and the 
like, until I was travelling through 
Transcaucasia and Northern Persia, 
where I saw a primitive plough, an 
‘area’ and the use of the ‘ tribulum’ 
and ‘trahea,’and the process of winnow- 
ing by tossing up the mixture of corn 
and chaff with a large wooden shovel 
into the wind. The heavy grain fell 
down in a heap, and the light chaff was 
blown away to fall down farther on. 

PH. on Georg. I. 164 does say that 
the tribula were weighted, roughened 
boards, and that similar instruments 
are used in the East, but it would have 
been much better to give a picture of 
the process. 

Georg. I. 2: ‘ulmisque adjungere 
vites.’ P. says, ‘elms were specially 
grown to train vines upon.’ It would 
have been better if he had added that 
they are only about eight feet high, for 
I remember how puzzled I used to be 
by this phrase when at Eton, for the 
only elms I knew were some eighty feet 
high, those in the playing fields for 
example, and not until I went to Italy 
and saw a vineyard did I understand. 

I. 164: ‘iniquo pondere rastri.’ P. 
says that the rastrum clearly differed 
from a modern hoe in being very heavy. 
Now the so-called Canterbury hoe is 
obviously the ancient rastrum, and any 
one who tries breaking up heavy ground 
or hard clods with this implement for 
ten minutes will have no doubt about 
the iniquity of the weight. 


146 


I. 81: ‘Cinerem.’ P. is the only 
commentator I have met with who ex- 
plains that these are wood ashes, and 
‘would therefore form an actual ferti- 
liser.’ His note would have been better 
still had he explained that wood ashes 
contain potash. 

Irrigation is another process upon 
which commentators are sadly lacking. 
P. does give a slight description in his 
notes on Georg. I. 106 ef seq., but not 
enough to make the matter clear to one 
who has not seen an irrigated field. 
The arrangement is difficult to describe 
in words, but it would be easy to give a 
picture and diagram of how the irri- 
gating channels are arranged and of 
how the water is let out from one 
channel into another. Incidentally such 
a diagram would explain that curious 
passage in Deuteronomy xi. 10: ‘ Thou 
wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden 
of herbs.’ I never understood this until 
I saw a cultivator in Persia watering a 
melon garden by walking along between 
the channels and now and then break- 
ing down the little walls of earth with 
his foot, so as to let the water out into 
the bed. 

Why do commentators follow one 
another like sheep, without verifying 
references ? Here is an instance; P.on 
Georg. 1. 427 says, ‘Kennedy well ex- 
plains: ‘‘ When the new moon is very 
clear, besides the bright crescent which 
reflects the sun’s rays, the rest of the 
orb is dimly seen by the rays reflected 
from the earth and back from the moon. 
This phenomenon is referred to in the 
Scotch ballad of Sir Patrick Spence: 


I saw the new moon late yestreen 
Wi’ the old moon in her lap. 


If the air is vaporous, the earth’s rays 
are lost to sight, and the moon appears 
as described by Virgil here.’”’ PH. 
give the same explanation and quota- 
tion. Kennedy must have quoted from 
memory, for the usual reading is: 


I saw the new moon late yestreen 
Wi the auld moon in her arm. 


Moreover, the whole point of the sailor’s 
remark comes in the preceding and 
following couplets: 

Now ever alack my master dear 


I fear a deadly storm. 
and, y 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


And if we gang to sea, master, 
I fear we'll come to harm. 


The phenomenon of the old moon in the 
new moon’s arms is a well-known sign 
of bad weather, as any one who lives 
in the country knows, but Kennedy and 
his followers evidently take it as a sign 
of good weather. 

Commentators’ notes often miss points 
of interest by omitting to give modern 
instances of grammatical forms. In 
Aen. I. 37, ‘Mene incepto desistere 
victam,’ both PH. and P. explain that 
the accusative and infinitive used inter- 
rogatively without a principal verb ex- 
press strong indignation, and the former 
translate: ‘I to desist, thus baffled 
from my purpose.’ There is an admir- 
able example of both the accusative with 
infinitive and the strong indignation 
in a quite modern English book which, 
were it given, would fix the meaning in 
any boy's memory—namely, in Surtees’ 
Mr. Sponge’s Sporting Tour, p. 10, 
where Peter Leather having been asked 
to put on ‘a Quaker collared blue coat, 
with a red vest, and a pair of blue 
trousers with a broad red stripe down 
the sides,’ declined, saying: ‘ Me makea 
guy of myself! Me put on sech things! 
Me drive down Sin Jimes Street !’ 

Aen. 1. 212-13: PH. say ‘“trementia,”’ 
yet quivering, this indicates their haste. 
‘“‘Veribus figunt,”’ “impale on spits,” 
rather than ‘‘ transfix with spits.” ’ 

No commentator whom I have come 
across seems to realise the force of the 
expression ‘trementia’ in this place. 
Of course they were in a hurry, for they 
were hungry, but also because, as any 
one who has travelled in wild countries 
knows, if fresh-killed meat be cooked 
before rigor mortis sets in—?.e. while 
still quivering—it is beautifully tender. 
If rigor mortis has set in before cooking, 
itis uneatably tough, until after hanging. 
What they did was to cut off small 
cubes of meat as soon as the skin was 
off, stick them on spits and grill them as 
quickly as possible. That is the mean- 
ing of ‘trementia.’ 

P., commenting on the same passage, 
pokes fun at Conington for suggesting 
that the water in the ‘aena’ was for 
washing. Surely Conington is right, 
and P., who is generally so informing, 
has made a slip. The men were tired 


ie - - 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


and had been soaked in salt water, 
which had dried on them, which pro- 
duces a most uncomfortable sensation. 
They would probably do as did Odys- 
seus and Diomede after the raid on the 
Trojan camp (Iliad X. 572-576), who 
had a bath after a preliminary wash in 
the sea. P. implies that the cauldrons 
were for boiling meat, but no hungry 
man would boil his meat. First of all 
it takes a much longer time than grilling, 
and, secondly, plain boiled meat is very 
tasteless. 

Aen. XI. 9: ‘Telaque trunca. C., 
P., and PH. explain this as the broken 
darts which had shivered against 
Aeneas’ shield (Aen. X. 882 ff). But 
Virgil says nothing about the darts 
being shivered on the shield. On the 
contrary, he says that they stuckin the 
shield until Aeneas got tired of carrying 
them about and equally tired of pulling 
them out. 

Surely the darts on the trophy were 
broken to prevent the ghost of Mezentius 
making use of them, the idea being the 
same as that pointed out by Dr. Warde 
Fowler in his delightful book on 
Aen. VIII., p. 95, in a note on line 562, 
‘scutorumque incendi victor acervos.’ 

I would like to make a suggestion 
here as to Dr. Fowler’s rendering of 
* stricturae chalybum.’ He says, p. 79, 
‘I believe, though I own I cannot prove 
it, that in each line chalybs means a pig 
of iron.’ I think that Dr. Fowler is in 
error here. A pig of iron isacast mass 
of the metal obtained by allowing the 
fluid iron to run into a mould. Now 
primitive smelting processes never, I 
believe, raised the heat sufficiently to 
melt the iron. The melting point of 
iron is from 2,500 to 3}000° KF. \'The 
process employed in early times was 
more or less as follows: The purest 
obtainable oxides of iron—e.g. haema- 
tite or the iron rag of the Sussex Weald 
—wereused. The ore was smelted with 
charcoal, and sometimes chalk was 
added as a flux, though in very early 
times the use of chalk or lime was un- 
known. As the oxide reduced, a mass 
of spongy iron formed, containing 
liquidslag, probably asilicate of alumina, 
in its pores. This slag had to be 
squeezed or hammered out until the 
metal was homogeneous. 


147 


I would suggest, therefore, that the 
‘stricturae’ were these lumps of spongy 
iron, which had to be squeezed, rolled, 
or hammered to get rid of the slag, and 
that they were so called because they 
were meant to be squeezed, just as a 
particular kind of playing card is known 
as ‘squeezers’ because they are meant — 
to be squeezed up in the hand. 

To resume the consideration of stric- 
tures in another sense. Commentators’ 
notes are often contradictory, which is 
puzzling to the youthful mind. In their 
notes on Georg. I. 328-334 both P. and 
PH. quote with approval Kennedy’s 
note on the passage, a kind of criticism 


which is now, I trust, a thing of the 


past. Having been told by Kennedy 
that ‘ille’ and the thrice repeated 
‘aut’ expresses the ‘majestic ease of 
omnipotence, the unhappy student is 
then informed by both commentators 
that in line 329 ‘molitur’ expresses 
‘effort.’ If the boy thinks at all it must 
strike him that ‘ majestic ease of omni- 
potence’ and effort are incompatible. 
To turn to more general matters in 
the teaching of the classics. Are boys 
who learn Latin now confined as they 
were in my school time to Horace, 
Virgil, Ovid, Livy, Caesar, and Tacitus ? 
At Winchester, I learn from a contem- 
porary, they also read Catullus and 
Pliny’s letters. I do not think that 
most of us at Eton had any idea that 
the great Latin authors were men of 
like passions with ourselves, who 
wrote literature such as Shakespeare, 
Macaulay, Napier, Herrick, and Milton 
wrote. We had no idea that Horace 
was a kind of combination of a poet- 
laureate and Prior or Praed, and not 
merely a juggler with metres. None of 
us realised that Latin was a living 
spoken tongue not merely in Roman 
times, but for some 1,600 years after the 
Christian era. I am sure that if boys 
were given passages from some of the 
late Roman authors, such as Statius’s 
poem on ‘Sleep,’ Rutilius’ panegyric on 
‘Rome,’ where an intelligent teacher 
could point out the similarities between 
the Roman and the British Empires, 
and in addition passages from the 
mediaeval and renaissance writers, it 
would familiarise them with Latin forms, 
and they would realise that Latin 


148 


literature is not only a matter of 
‘periods,’ ‘hypermetric lines,’ ‘ hendi- 
adys,’ ‘ oratio obliqua,’ and all the other 
fetters of grammarians. If a boy were 
allowed to read some of the mediaeval 
pilgrim journals—e.g. The Evagatorium 
of Fabri or a Renaissance Latin book 
like Caius’ De Canibus Britannicis, he 
would take much more interest in his 
Latin. All boys are made to read the 
Greek Testament ; why should they not 
be given passages from the Vulgate ? 
Mediaeval Latin is not classical Latin, 
but Alexandrian Greek is not classical 
Greek. What is necessary is that boys 
should understand that Latin is not 
only a grammatical exercise. In Greek 
the matter stands on a different footing, 
for no one can read Homer, even the 
merest tyro, without feeling that his 
poems are real living literature. 

One other point: do boys at school 
still do Latin verse, and, if so, are they 
confined in elegiacs to the ‘ dissyllabic ’ 
pentameter? This was a strict rule in 
my time, but I never could see, and 
cannot see now, why a boy should not 
be allowed to write a couplet metrically 
like, if like in no other respect : 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Cynthia prima suis miserum me cepit ocellis 
contactum nullis ante cupidinibus. 


or a spondaic hexameter such as: 


Sunt apud infernos tot milia formosarum. j 


The reform of classical teaching is 
to-day very much to the fore. I have 
been unable to follow the controversy 
thoroughly, though I have read with 
great interest Mr. Livingstone’s excel- 
lent Defence of Classical Education. But 
what I have read of the matter inclines. 
me to the belief that the views put for- 
ward are mainly those of teachers, and 
it is with the desire of making known 
the views of at least one learner that I 
have written these lines. bat at 

I may add one piece of information, 
which took me a long time to obtain, 
and that is that there is a simple account 
of the meaning of the risings and set- 
tings of stars to be found in Autolycus’ 
De Ortubus et Occastbus (Greek and 
Latin, Teubner, 1885). There is also 
an excellent passage on the same sub- 
ject in Mr. A. W. Mair’s edition of 
Hesiod (Oxford translations). 


H. P. CHOLMELEY. 


HERODOTUS ITT. 


In describing the climate of the Indus 
Valley, Herodotus says: θερμότατος 
δέ ἐστιν ὁ HALOS τουτοῖσι τοῖσι 
ἀνθρώποισι τὸ ἑωθινόν, οὐ κατά περ 
τοῖσι ἄλλοισι μεσαμβρίης, ἀλλ’ ὑπερ- 
τείλας μέχρι οὗ ἀγορῆς διαλύσιος, τοῦτον 
δὲ τὸν χρόνον καίει πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ 
μεσαμβρίῃ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, οὕτω ὥστε ἐν 
ὕδατι λόγος αὐτούς ἐστι βρέ- 
χεσθαι τηνικαῦτα. 

This story has been generally dis- 
credited by commentators, and Hero- 
dotus’ assertion that the noontide heat 
outpaced the sun like a summer-time 
clock has been taken as evidence that 
he had utterly mistaken notions of the 
shape of the earth and the sun’s daily 
course. 

But a parallel to Herodotus’ tale has 


104. 


* See Blakesley, Sayce, Stein, and How and 
Wells ad loc. 


NOTES 


been supplied by Rawlinson,’ who 
quotes a modern travel description 
relating to the Niti valley in the central 
Himalayas. In this country an in- 
tensely hot wind blows in the morning 
but abates in the afternoon, thus send- 
ing the thermometer to its highest 
point in the early part of the day. 

A similar story is told by a mediaeval 
explorer whose reputation for truthful- 
ness stands high. Speaking of the 
climate of Ormuz on the Persian Gulf, 
Marco Polo says: ‘ During the summer 
season the inhabitants do not remain 
in the city, but retire to their gardens 
along the shore or on the banks of the 
river, where with a kind of osier-work 
they construct huts over the water... - 
Here they reside during the period in 
which there blows, every day from about 
the hour of nine until noon, a land-wind 
so intensely hot as to impede respiration, 


τα ‘Herodotus, vol, II. p. 493 n. 9. 


THE CLASSICAL’ REVIEW 


and to occasion death by suffocating 
the person exposed to it. None can 
escape from its effects who are over- 
taken by it on the sandy plain. As soon 
as the approach of this wind is perceived by 
the inhabitants, they immerge themselves to 
the chin in water, and continue in that 
situation until it ceases to blow.’+ 

These variations from the normal 
curve of temperature are of course due 
to special local conditions, and Hero- 
dotus was mistaken in transferring 
them to the Indus valley. But his 
story is not a mere invention, based on 
a calamitous ignorance of geography 
and astronomy. It has a solid founda- 
tion of truth, and errs merely in ac- 
curacy of detail. 

The tale about the Indians protecting 
themselves against the heat by putting 
themselves to soak after the fashion of 
mediaeval penitents has usually passed 
unchallenged. But Professor Sayce has 
condemned it along with all the rest of 
the narrative,? and Herodotus himself 
evidently had misgivings about it, for 
he represents it merely as “λόγος. 
Nevertheless, this part of his story is 
amply borne out in later records of 
travel. Too much weight indeed need 
not be assigned to the recurrence of 
this yarn in Sir John de Mandeville’s 
description of the ‘ Ethiopians and 
Indians,” for this may be no more than 
a plagiarism on the Greek historian. 
But the passage quoted above from 
Marco Polo is based on autopsy, and 
supplies independent testimony in favour 
of Herodotus. Furthermore, recent 
editors of the Venetian traveller have 
discovered the same story of compulsory 
bathing in the works of various modern 
explorers ranging from the sixteenth to 
the nineteenthcentury.* These accounts 
prove that the custom mentioned by 
Herodotus obtains not only at Ormuz, 
but in Sind, 1.6. the very country to 
which Herodotus refers it. This part 
of his story may therefore be accepted 
as perfectly correct. 

M. Cary. 

University of London. 


1 Travels, ch. 19. 2 N. 1 ad loc. 
3 Travels, ch. 18. 
4 See the editions of Masefield (p. 65) and 


Sir Henry Yule (vol. I., p. 119). 


149 
STATIUS, SILVAE I. vi. 7, 8. 


adsint, dum refero diem beatum 
laeti Caesaris ebriamque t+ parcen.t 


So Professor Phillimore in the Oxford 
Text prints the lines described by 
Klotz as locus desperatissimus. Professor 
Phillimore’s own conjecture, aparchen, 
he relegates to the apparatus criticus ; 
it is the closest to the reading of M, 
and gives a good sense, but is appar- 
ently not quoted from any Latin author. 
A Greek word, as Vollmer and others 
have seen, is the best explanation of 
M’s parcen. Thomson’s noctem was 
printed by Markland and many suc- 
ceeding editors, and is supported by 
the general sense, as well as by the 
reference at the end of the Praefati, 
noctem illam felicissimam, etc., and by 
line 97 of the poem : 


in serum trahor ebrius soporem. 


However, Professor Slater (Journ. of 
Phil. XXX. pp. 146-7) seems right in 
saying that noctem is palaeographically 
impossible. He would read 


diem beataem 
laeti Caesaris ebrizmque Czrcum 


quoting Suet. Dom. 4, to prove that 
Domitian gave spectacula in the circus 
as well as in the amphitheatre. He 
thinks that ‘the one word absolutely 
essential is a word to indicate the 
scene of the carnival, and anticipate 
the (otherwise) abrupt allusion to the 
linea in the next verse but one. It 
would appear to me, in the first place, 
that it would be unnecessary to mention 
the spot by name, as all Rome had just 
assisted at the festival, and, in the 
second, that it is, at least, more likely 
that the scene of a celebration of such 
magnificence was the amphitheatre." 

I should like to keep Professor 
Slater’s beatam, and to propose very 
diffidently the reading, 


diem beatam 
laeti Caesaris ebriamque γαίο. 


In Virgil, Aen. viii. 317, for parcere 
parto, the Mediceus has parcere rapto 
(probably not right, of course), which 


1 See Professor Verrall, ‘The Feast of 
Saturn,’ in Collected Literary Essays, Cambridge 
University Press, 1913. 


150 


suggests that the transposition of the 
first three letters would be easy. For the 
rest, the reading appears to me to be an 
improvement on the others; it gets rid 
of the somewhat unpleasing assonance 
νον diem beatum 
... ebriamque noctem (or any other accusative) 
at the end of two successive lines. 
The sense is satisfactory, and is sup- 
ported by line 16: 
largis gratuitum cadit rapinzs, 
and lines 79, 80: 
desunt qui vapiant, sinus que pleni 
gaudent dum nova lucra comparantur, 
(where plent has perhaps a suggestion 
of ebriam). Rapto would also refer 
forward to linea in line ro, 
iam bellaria /z2zea pluebant, 
as desiderated by Professor Slater. 
Martial’s lines (vili. 78), on a similar 
occasion, should be compared, especi- 
ally lines 7, 8, 
omnis habet sua dona dies : nec /inea dives 
cessat et in populum multa rapina cadit, 
and line τα: 


nunc 27,12 4676 sinus securos gaudet. 


In Statius’s poem note also dives starsio 
(line 66). What is sparsio on the side 
of the Emperor is vapina on the side of 
the populace, and the event in this 
double aspect is one of the great 
features of the day. Statius’s fondness 
for the repetition of words has often 
been noticed; there are various other 
Instances in this poem, which any 
reader may observe for himself. 

_If it is objected that diem beatam in 
line 7 does not correspond to hic dies in 
line 98 (as well as hunc diem in line 37), 
it may be noted that in Silvae 11. vii. 
(also Phalaecian) there is in line 1, 

Lucani proprium diem frequentet 
and in line 20, 

vestra este zsta dies, favete, Musae. 
Also Silvae V. iii. 210, 


tuus tlle dies 
230, 
lla Gates, 
and in III. ii. 127, 
tlla dies. 
Doubtless other examples could be 
quoted. 


Go My Hirst; 
Columbia University. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


NOTES ON ARISTOPHANES’ 
BAX, 

72-3 ἐχθὲς δὲ μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἐκφθαρεὶς οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅποι 

εἰσήγαγ᾽ ᾿Αιτναῖον μέγιστον κάνθαρον. 

Way ᾿Αἰὐτναῖονῦ The two explana- 
tions given by the scholiast may cer- 
tainly be set aside: (1) that a large 
species of beetle was found on Etna— 
a mere inference from the text; (2) that 
the meaning is ‘as big as Etna.’ Far 
more probable is the view that the 
reference is to the famous horses of 
Etna (cf. Soph. O.C. 312, ’Avtvuias ἐπεὶ 
πώλου βεβῶσαν), and that κάνθαρος is 
then a παρὰ προσδοκίαν substitute— 
possibly for κανθήλιον as van Leeuwen 
suggests. But there is, I think, no 
evidence to show that the horses of 
Etna were a particularly large breed. 
Is not the allusion simpler, namely to 
the γηγενεῖς of Sicily, of whom Ence- 
ladus, after the battle with the gods, 
was buried under Etna? The meaning 
is then simply ‘gigantic’; ‘ Brobdingna- 
glan,’ as we might say. 

114-7 ὦ πάτερ, ὦ πάτερ, dp’ ἔτυμός γε 
δώμασιν ἡμετέροις φάτις ἥκει, 
ὡς σὺ μετ᾽ ὀρνίθων προλιπὼν ἐμὲ 
ἐς κόρακας βαδιεῖ μεταμώνιος ; 

The words per’ ὀρνίθων have been 
generally suspected by the editors, 
chiefly on the ground of the scholiast’s 
adscript ἀντὶ τοῦ μετὰ ὀρνέων on ἐς 
κόρακας. Van Leeuwen omits σὺ per’ 
ὀρνίθων altogether, and Sharpley would 
like to read ὡς σὺ μὲν ὀρφανικήν. 
Surely the text is not merely good sense 
as it stands, but μετ’ ὀρνίθων is badly 
needed to anticipate and bring out the 
point of ἐς κόρακας. Trygaeus is now 
up in the sky among the real birds, he 
will soon be going down ‘ to the crows.’ 
This I take to be the meaning of the 
scholiast’s note: not that és κόρακας is 
‘equivalent to’ μετ᾽ ὀρνέων, which is 
nonsense, but that és κόρακας is ‘in 
contrast to’ per’ ὀρνίθων : Trygaeus is 
going ‘to the crows instead of up among 
the birds.’ Grammatically the scholiast 
is not quite accurate, but he has seized 
the meaning better than the expunging 
editors. 


250 ἰὼ Σικελία, καὶ od δ᾽ ws ἀπόλλυσαι. 


Palemos is mixing the salad in his 
mortar, and throws in, as he mentions 
each state, either a characteristic pro- 
duct (garlic for Megara) or a punning 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW : 151΄ 


substitute (leeks for Prasiae). It is 
generally supposed that in this case it 
is the former—Sicilian cheese (van 
Leeuwen compares the Sicilian cheese 
which is the subject of the trial in the 
Wasps, 838, 896 ff.). May it not as 
likely be a pun on oé«vos, ‘cucumber,’ 
which in roor is one of the products 
for whose restoration Trygaeus prays 
in 1oor ἢ C. BAILEY. 


Balliol College. 


THROWING ARROWS. 
HomEr, Odyss. VIII. 229, Δουρὶ δ᾽ 


ἀκοντίζω ὅσον οὐκ ἄλλος τις ὀϊστῷ. 
This, I say, means, ‘I can throw a 
spear farther than any other man can 
throw an arrow. It is a perfectly plain 
and unambiguous line. Why should 
Homer have the grotesque absurdity 
thrust upon him of saying, or of mean- 
ing, ‘I can throw a spear farther than 
another man can shoot an arrow’? A 
man can shoot an arrow even, I believe, 
up to 400 yards. I have seen American 
Indians practising arrow throwing; 
they throw them with good force about 
60 or 70 yards. Xenophon mentions 
that his men threw, as javelins, arrows 


shot against them by the Persians. 


The practice must have been common 
in battles. And battles in ancient 
Greece seem to have been as frequent as 
strikes in England, so that the allusion 
would have been readily understood. 

Odyss. IV. 442 I always thought a 
poetical exaggeration until I read a 
passage in Darwin’s Cruise of _ the 
Beagle, where he relates ‘that he was 
rowing alongside of some rocks in the 
Southern Pacific on which seals were 
lying, crowded together like pigs. Only, 
he says, pigs would have been ashamed 
to find themselves in the filth and stench 
in which the seals lay. It was so bad, 
I think Darwin says, that he and his 
men had to fly from it. 

Now, in Homer’s time, seals were 
as plentiful in the Mediterranean as in 
Darwin’s time in the South Pacific 
probably. There are many allusions 
to them in the classics. And I’ve no 
doubt that sailors had told stories about 
the seals which Homer had heard. So 
the line is no exaggeration after all. 


J. 5. O. RoBERTSON-LUXFoORD. 


ON THE SUGGESTION IIOPKEIA 
IN ΓΗΒ ΑΘ ΒΘ OP TEE 
APOSTLES: XV ., 20; 29. 


THE note in the Classical. Review, 
XXXIII., p. 100, calls for some com- 
ment. I lopxeta is indeed not in Liddell 
and Scott, and, I am assured on the 
highest authority, will not be. If there 
were such a word, it could only mean 
‘piggishness,’ and be an abstract from 
πόρκος, like μουχεία from μοιχός, λαγνεία 
from λάγνος ; and if Greek wished to 
take the Latin word forcus, and form a 
substantive meaning ‘pork,’ the form 
would be πόρκεια (sc. κρέα), like ὕεια, 
βόεια, πουλυπόδεια, and the ghastly 
παιδείων κρεῶν in Agam. 1593, which 
mean ‘ baby,’ not, as usually translated, 
‘his children’s flesh.’ The fact is, Mr. 
Gladstone, like the originator of the 
suggestion, confused the Greek with 
the Latin way of forming words express- 
ing meats, where the singular feminine 
is used with caro supplied, like swlla, 
agnina. Buta greater scholar than he 
is involved. Bentley had already sug- 
gested χοιρείας in the passages in the 
Acts (Critic Sacra, p. 25). But he did not 
perpetrate zropxeias, though his sugges- 
tion is open to thesame objection. His 
words are: ‘lege καὶ τῆς χοιρείας pro πορ- 
vetas. Glossarium: χοιρεία, “ porcina” 
χοιρεία σάρξ, “lardum” ; μοσχεία, ‘ vitu- 
lina”; apveta, “agnina”’; vid. LXX.’ It 
is strange that he did not see that there 
are four mistakes here: three wrong 
accents, and the phrase χοιρεία σάρξ, 
which isnot Greek; for neither classical 
nor Hellenistic Greek join σάρξ with an 
adjective of this kind. His reference to 
LXX. must be to Symmachus’ render- 
ing in Isaiah Ixvi. 17, which he probably 
read in Montfaucon’s edition published 
in his day, 1713; ἐσθιόντων τὸ κρέας TO 
xotpevov (Field, Origenis Hexapl., vol. ii., 
p- 565); the only place in the LXX. in 
which χοίρειος is found, for the adjective 
used with this meaning in all other 
places is esos. 

Who first suggested πορκείας I have 
not discovered. Alford writes in his 
last edition of the Greek Testament : 
“πορκείας has also been conjectured 
(probably not by Bentley, as stated in 
Meyer, De W., and this work, ed. 1.).’ 
Wendt, in Meyer’s Commentar, says: 
‘Bentley hat conjicirt yopefas oder 


152 


πορκείας.᾽ But Wetstein mentions Bent- 
ley’s conjecture χοιρείας only, and 
‘Wetstein is the most likely to be ac- 
curate,’ Dr. Lock, to whom I owe these 
last references, tells me. But who it 
was matters little; for, as Farrar says 
(Life of St. Paul, ch. xxi.), ‘ there is not 
the faintest atom of probability in it.’ 


J. U.. POWEEL. 
St. John’s College, 
Oxford. 


AN UNCIAL FRAGMENT OF 
PLAUTUS. 


In the Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin 
Academy for May of this year are 
two papers by Professor Degering ona 
parchment leaf in uncial script, con- 
taining lines 123-147 (148) 158-182 of 
the Cistellaria. The leaf was sold by 
a Leipzig second-hand bookseller, Karl 
W. Hiersemann, to the Berlin Library, 
where it is now MS. lat. qrt. 784. 
Degering assigns to it the symbol N. 
Hiersemann’s catalogue (No. 462) de- 
clared it to have been part of the bind- 
_ ing of a twelfth-century MS. of Ovid’s 
Metamorphoses, a MS. which he has 
now sold. Both the former and the 
present home of this Ovid MS. seem to 
be ‘ wrop in mistry’; but Hiersemann’s 
catalogue (No. 460) cites from it a half- 
illegible Latin entry with mention of 
Friuli and of Fontanelle (a town in the 
Friuli district). 

Degering’s palaeographical account 
of the leaf is excellent. The Plautus 
codex must have been a noble volume 
of rather larger pages than A, but with 
some 37 lines (A has 19) to the page 
(if we allow two to the Scene-heading) 
or 38 (if we allow three) or 36 (if we 
allow one) ; and—a notable novelty— 
written in purple ink (the royal tint). 
The uncial characters seem ‘as old as 
they make them’ (Degering provides 
a good photograph); so we have now 
three Plautus MSS. of the ancient 
world, two actual: A and N, and one 
hypothetical, P (the archetype of 
BCDT). 

But Degering’s attempt at Ueber- 
lieferungsgeschichte and his ‘stemma 
codicum’ are based on the erroneous 
theory that A and P are mere trans- 
cripts of one archetype. Still he sees 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


rightly that N is nothing but a repre- 
sentative of the ‘ Palatine ’edition. It 
has lines 126-129 (omitted in A); it 
reads in line 132 p(erdita est) (where 
A has deperit), in line 144 suppositionem 
eius vet (suppositionemque eius A), in 
line 145 solae scimus (scimus solae A). 
Yet it is not without value. Not to 
mention such trivialities as its postquam 
in line 176 (where by a mere accident 
of transcription, our minuscule MSS. 
omit guam), it throws some light on 
the ‘ Palatine’ text in antiquity. For, 
like our minuscule MSS., it presents 
line 159 in this form: 


Vinulentus, multa nocte, in via, 
and line 168 in this: 


Ille clam observavit servos. 


So long as these torsos could be 
traced no farther back than the ninth- 
century parent of our minuscule MSS. 
(A lacks this portion), editors felt 
themselves at liberty to make regular 
Senarii out of them : 


<Vi>,vinulentus, multa nocte, in via (with a 
questionable hiatus after oc/e). 


and 


Ill’ clam observavit servos <qui eam proie- 
cerat>. 


But now that we find them in two 
ancient copies of the ‘ Palatine’ edition, 
the case is altered. And what of the 
omission in N of euminline 132? Is it 
an arbitrary alteration by the scribe of N 
(or the corrector of the exemplar of 
N)? Did he (like Professor Degering) 
think that ewm haec perdita est ‘ she was 
madly in love with him’ was an im- 
possible construction for Plautus? Or 
was it the real ‘ Palatine’ reading, 
while the eum of P has come from a 
suprascript entry of the ‘Ambrosian’ 
reading eum haec deperit? The last was 
Seyffert’s explanation (Berl. Phil. Woch. 
16, 285). But cf. Mal. 1253. 

It will take time to think out these 
problems, but I write at once to prevent 
the misconception that a ‘third recen- 
sion’ of Plautus has been discovered. 

W. M. Linpsay. 


St. Andrews, 
fife. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


A PASSAGE OF FRONTO 
(NABER, p. 203). 


PacE 265 of the Fronto palimpsest 
has perished entirely except for a few 
marginal notes, which show that the 
page had reference to Cato’s Origines. 
The writer of these notes was in the 
habit of repeating (generally verbatim) 
in the margin words or passages which 
struck him as noteworthy in the text. 
One of these notes is given by Naber 
(after Mai) as follows: ‘.. . im navium 
...deusal...im... tur tuendi ews 
ergo denominatus.’ 

Professor Hauler of Vienna reads the 
same passage thus: ‘Rez factae mater 
natura: in navium apparatu Apollo deus 
alitis pin<n>>-as, ut eas effingeret homo, 
natura tueri dare. Ius ergo de natura. 
Catus,’ etc. 

It is evident that many of the letters 
have had to be inferred from very slight 
indications. I suggest that the passage 
originally ran: ‘ Ret factae mater natura, 
in navium apparatum accomodans alitis 
pinnas, ut eas effingeret homo natura 
tuenda; remus igitur de natura. Catus,’ 
etc. Cf. Prop. IV. 6, 47, classis centents 
remiget alts. 

J. W. E. PEARCE. 


Grammar School, 
Manchester. 


NOTES ON LATIN AUTHORS. 


Luci tius, l. 1266 (ed. Marx): 
pro obtuso ore pugil piscinensis reses. 


This fragment comes from Festus, 
p. 213, 5, but in Festus the form of the 
fifth word is given as pisciniensis, and the 
alteration isdueto Turnébe. Aslong ago 
as 1898 I pointed out that the recorded 
form should be kept in the text, in view 
of an inscription found at Baiae with 
the words embaenttariorum piscimiensium. 
Though this note of mine appeared in 
a German periodical (Archiv f lat. 
Lexikogr. xi. pp. 130 f.), it was over- 
looked by Marx. The ὁ will not of 
course disturb the metre, being semi- 
consonantal. It says much for the 
purity of the Festus tradition that it 
should have been preserved. In Athen- 
tensis, Carthaginiensis we have words 
too well known to be misspelt, but 
Hipponiensis often appears as Hippon- 
ensis. Compare also with pzscintensts 
the exactly parallel salimensis. 


153 


Cicero, Or. post red. in sen. hab. § 29 
(1. τὸ, ed. Peterson) : 

Possum ego satis in Cn. Pompeium umquam 
gratus uideri? 

Probably it was possible for Cicero 
so to utter this sentence that it would 
be understood to be a question, but I 
venture to think that we ought to read: 
possum<ne> ego, etc. Nothing would 
be easier than for ze to fall out between 
m and e, and the sentence becomes 
easier if it be inserted. 

Virgil, Georg. II. 23-24: 

hic plantas tenero abscindens de corpore 

matrum 

deposuit sulcis, etc. 

According to Ribbeck’ssecond edition, 
all but two of his MSS. give abscindens. 
Those two give abscidens, and I think 
they are right. Does the poet really 
intend to suggest that the woodman 
tears off the twigs (that is what abscin- 
dens means)? Does he not rather mean 
simply that he cuts them off? In my 
experience, abscidere is often corrupted 
to abscindere, but I recall no instance of 
the reverse corruption. The later 
mediaeval scribes seem to have regarded 
abscido as a corruption of abscindo. 

Apuleius, Metamorphoses V. 19: 

nec enim umquam uiri mei uidi faciem uel 
omnino cuiatis sit noui, sed tantum nocturnis 
subaudiens uocibus maritum incerti status et 
prorsus lucifugam tolero. 

For subaudiens read obaudiens. Purser’s 
note will show that swbaudiens is diffi- 
cult. In fact it is everywhere else in 
Latin used as a transitive verb, in the 
same sense as subintellegere, namely 
‘to understand (something that is un- 
expressed). Here it is obedience that 
is wanted. Lest anyone should cavil 
at the spelling obaudiens, let me point 
out that it is at least as common in 
good MSS. of late authors as the other 
spelling oboediens, also that it is defin- 
itely attested for Apuleius, e.g. III. 15 
(p. 63, 1. 16, ed. Helm”), obaudiunt ; also 
at dogm. Plat. p. 1099 (ed. Valpy), the note 
concerning Brantius suggests that the 
MSS. of that treatise everywhere spell 
itso. For the type of error here, com- 
pare iudiciu sublati of six MSS. (Ps-Aug., 
Quaest. p. 337, 1. 1), for cudicits οὐαὶ of 
two MSS., the latter being the right 
reading. 

A. SOUTER. 

University of Aberdeen. 


154 


THE ‘CLASSICAL REVIEW 


REVIEWS 
ATTIC RED-FIGURED VASES IN AMERICAN MUSEUMS. 


Attic Red-Figured Vases in American 
Museums. By J.D. BEAZLEY. Har- 
vard University Press. 30s. net. 


THE task of assigning to definite 
painters some portion of the red-figure 
Attic vases, which are found in such 
numbers in almost every museum of 
classical archaeology, was begun by 
Hartwig and Klein, and continued with 
success by Furtwangler and Hauser ; 
but the honour of reducing the whole 
mass of material to order and of 
establishing the relations of the various 
groups of vases thus formed has fallen 
mainly to J. D. Beazley. The work is 
a notable one, demanding high scholar- 
ship, rare patience, ἃ peculiarly 
retentive memory, and—what is more 
rare—an artist’s eye. Possessing all 
these qualities, Beazley has succeeded 
in forming, on grounds of style, over 
fifty hitherto unrecognised groups cf 
vases, seeing in each group the hand of 
a single artist. Further, he has made 
far-reaching corrections to attributions 
already made by other scholars, and 
many additions likewise. He has com- 
pletely corrected the tendency to give 
undue attention to the signed vases in 
preference to the unsigned, by the 
discovery of anonymous artists possess- 
ing merit equal to that of any artist 
whose signature we possess. 

Thanks, therefore, to Beazley in the 
main (for other scholars have con- 
tributed notably to the study), the 
characteristics. of the most important 
painters of Athenian red-figure vases 
(down to the Meidias Painter), their 
relations to each other, in fact the real 
artistic history of Attic ceramics in the 
fifth century, have been made clear to 
any scholar who has ἃ sufficient 
acquaintance with the material. 

In saying this, I assume that Beazley’s 
attributions are in the main right. From 
such opportunities as I have had of test- 
ing a small fraction of them, I can say 
that they most certainly ave right—not 
necessarily all, but by very much the 
larger number; and I am convinced 


that the examination of any impartial 
scholar will bear me out. 

The present book contains very much 
more than the title leads you to expect. 
It is, in fact, at once a résumé of 
Beazley’s various articles on vase- 
artists and the vehicle of a mass of new 
information of a similar kind. His 
descriptions of the important red-figure 
vases in America—=interesting and 
valuable as they are in themselves— 
are but incidental in the whole book, 
the object of which is to attribute to 
their authors or schools most of the 
important known red-figure Attic vases 
from the earlier times to the Meidias 
Painter, and to trace the influence of 
one school on another. 

The bulk of the book is taken up with 
bare enumerations and attributions of 
vases, and the remarks on the style and 
position of the various artists are cut 
down to the smallest possible compass. 
In fact, the whole book is exceedingly 
compressed. But Beazley’s criticisms 
are always illuminating and very much 
to the point. They have a clear-cut 
character which leaves in the mind of 
the reader a vivid differentiation of the 
various artists. His criticism of 
Epiktetos that, ‘you cannot draw 
better, you can only draw differently,’ 
gives one at once the right way of think- 
ing about archaicart. The description 
of the Pan Painter’s figures as ‘lean, 
surprising, devilishly elegant,’ brings 
out most successfully their peculiar 
quality. Equally adequate are his 
descriptions of tendencies and influences 
—see the illuminating though brief 
description of the influence of painting 
on ceramics on page 142. 

Minor objections can be made to 
some things, to occasional preciosity of 
style (would the Panaitios Painter have 
liked to be called an ‘admirable 
anonym ’?), to the christening of some 
of the nameless painters (the ‘ London 
Death and Sleep Painter’ is certainly 
rather ludicrous), and to the arbitrary 
division of all vases inte ‘cups’ and 
‘pots’ (though here the objector should 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 155 


be prepared to suggest something 
better). 
The illustrations are admirably 


chosen and well produced. The indices 
are notably full and adequate. 

What, it may be asked, is to be the 
upshot of these new discoveries in the 
region of vase-painting ? At present, the 
information about them is possessed by 
a limited number of specialists alone, 
though Miss Herford’s Handbook of 
Greek Vase-Painting should spread it 
more widely. One looks forward to the 
time when black-figure and late Attic 
vases have been thoroughly classified, 
and one would like to see a very simple 
history of Attic pottery written from 
the artistic side, dealing with the best 
works of the best artists only—some- 
thing that would make comprehensible 
to the generally cultured public the 
style and position of such artists as, 
say, the Taleides Painter, the Berlin 
Master and the painter of the late Attic 
Peleus and Thetis pelike from Rhodes 
in the British Museum. 

A book of this kind, however, would 


not be enough in itself; the museums 
would have to co-operate. It is to be 
hoped that directors, who are satisfied 
with the attributions made by Beazley 
and others, will group and label their 
vases accordingly. To label the works 
of the more important artists only would 
be quite sufficient as a beginning. 

A. wider knowledge of Greek vase- 
painting would he the best thing to 
counteract the still-existing conception 
of the average intelligent museum-visitor 
that Greek art is best represented by 
the chalk-like Roman copies of Greek 
sculpture, which fill so much space in 
many of the museums of Western 
Europe. Even the ordinary classical 
student is inclined to labour under the 
sameimpression. ‘The intelligent study 
of Attic vases is an invaluable guide 
to what the average Athenian and 
average Athenian art were really like ; 
and for this study the wide dissemina- 
tion of the discoveries of Beazley and 
others is of the greatest importance. 


BoM. Wide 


A HANDBOOK OF GREEK VASE PAINTING. 


A Handbook of Greek Vase Painting. 
By M. A. B. HERFoRD. Manchester 
University Press (Longmans, Green 
and Co.). 9s. 6d. net. 


A sHorT book of introduction to the 
study of Greek vases has long been 
needed in English, although there is a 
good little book in German by Buschor. 
Miss Herford has made a praiseworthy 
attempt to fill this need. In many 
points she has succeeded; and at any 
rate no one can complain that she has 
not packed a great deal of solid inform- 
ation into a small space. To write a 
good introduction to so complicated a 
subject is, however, a very difficult 
thing, and I think that Miss Herford, 
by attempting to say too much, has 
written a book which, by being too 
technical and by assuming a too high 
standard of knowledge, is unsuitable 
for a beginner. It would have been 
better if she could have resolutely ex- 
cluded much matter, and arranged the 
remainder in a better and more easily 


comprehensible form. Her obvious 
interest in and acquaintance with 
questions of technique has tempted 
her to give a quite disproportionate 
space to this side of the study, to the 
neglect of the historical and artistic 
side, in which a beginner is more likely 
to be interested. Had she confined 
her remarks on technique to Part I., 
where the general condition of the 
potter’s craft, technique, shapes, etc., 
are clearly, shortly, and adequately dis- 
cussed, it would have been much better, 
but the continuity of Part II. (Histor- 
ical) is constantly being broken by 
technical discussions, which leave you 
witheno clear idea of artistic growth— 
this applies specially to the treatment 
of Attic red-figure vases. For instance, 
Chapter VI. begins with a discussion of 
the transition from black, to red-figure 
technique, in which the name of Ando- 
kides is mentioned. It goes on to 
discuss the use of xaXos-names, under 
which heading the popularity of the 
kylix is mentioned, and Andokides, 


156 


although he has no connexion with 
Kkados-names, is again discussed; and 
then refers to the ἐποίησεν and ἔγραψεν 
questions, which had already been 
treated in Part I. Such carelessness of 
arrangement is to be deplored. 

The treatment of early vases (Chapter 
IV.) ‘is clear and sufficient, but that of 
the latest Attic vases—of the Kertch 
and Cyrenaica type—and of the South 
Italian wares is not adequate. It is in- 
correct, for instance, to say (p. 103) 
that in the latest Attic wares ‘ poly- 
chromy carried all before it’; in the 
larger vases of this ware colour is merely 
an accessory. Nor is it true (p. 108) 
that of the South Italian wares Lucan- 
ian has the greatest affinity to Attic; 
the Campanian vases which Patroni 


THE CLASSICAL” REVIEW 


attributed to Saticula are generally 
much closer than average Lucanian 
work. The ‘Pronomos’ vase at Naples, 
figured on Plate 11 as Apulian, is not 
Apulian, but Attic. 

In spite of the faults alluded to, the 
book is a good guide to technical 
questions, and is likely to prove a 
useful handbook to anyone who has 
already some knowledge of Greek vases. 

I have noted one or two misprints: 
P. τὰ; ‘apotropaeic’s ° p. 98 ΠΌΒΕῚΣ 
ἄσκρος (for ἄσπρος), and: μαυρός (for 
μαῦρος); Plate 311d, Median (for 
Meidian). On p. 111, ‘Roman rule 
at Paestum, under the new name of 
Posidonia,’ ‘ Paestum’ and ‘ Posidonia’ 
have been inverted. 

FE. Manca 


A HANDBOOK OF ATTIC 


A Handbook of Attic Red-figured Vases. 
By J.C. Hoppin. Vol. 1. Harvard 
University Press. 35s. net. 


PROFESSOR Hoppin’s book is, as it 
were, a dictionary of Attic red-figure 
vases, comprising every vase which has 
been attributed to specific vase-painters, 
but wisely excluding such as have been 
quoted as being merely in the style of 
such-and-such a painter. It does not 
profess to be original, and is, in fact, a 
very valuable tabulation of all the work 
that has been done up to the present in 
grouping and attributing to different 
hands the mass of red-figure vases. 

As further attributions are made, the 
book will need supplementing, and 
probably in some degree modifying ; 
but, in spite of this, the date of publi- 
cation is timely. The fact is that the 
main work on the vases of the best 
periods has been completed by Mr. J. D. 
Beazley—to whom Professor Hoppin 
pays a just acknowledgment in his 
Introduction—and it is only the latest 
Attic vases which await a _ definite 
classification. A summing up of results, 
therefore, is likely now to have some- 
thing of a permanent value, and arche- 
ologists should be grateful to Professor 
Hoppin for having united in a single 
book all the scattered information con- 
cerning vase attributions. 


RED-FIGURED VASES. 


Professor Hoppin has chosen to make 
his book primarily one of reference, and 
has ranged the various artists, under 
whose names the vases are enumerated, 
in alphabetical, not in (supposed) 
chronological, order—quite the most 
satisfactory classification in a book of 
this kind. A summary of subjects and 
shapes is added to the list of works of 
each artist. It is a little difficult to 
tell without the indices, which await 
the publication of Vol. II., how easy it 
will be to track down single vases—for 
it is upon the indices that the service- 
ableness of a book of this kind must 
largely depend. A museum index of 
vases (with catalogue numbers) and an 
index of references to publications would 
make the book into the handiest pos- 
sible guide to a complicated and 
scattered material. 

The task of any student who wishes 
to become acquainted with the best 
vase-artists of the fifth century will now 
be immensely facilitated, although the 
illustrations, numerous though they be, 
cannot enable one to dispense with the 
more detailed publications. To the 
student looking at vases in a museum 
the book should be a most useful guide. 

[It may be noted that on p. 458 the 
Lewes Collection is wrongly located at 
Oxford instead of Cambridge. ] 

E. M. W.T. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


157 


GRATTI CYNEGETICON QUAE SUPERSUNT. 


Gratti Cynegeticon Quae Supersunt. Cum 
Prolegomenis, Notis Criticis, Commen- 
tario Exegetico. Edidit P. J. ENK, 
Litt. Class. Doctor. Two volumes. 
Royal 8vo. Pp. 102 and 153, one 
plate and seven smaller illustrations. 
Zutphaniae, apud W. J. Thieme 
et Cie., 1918. 


On page 5 of the Introduction to this 
new edition of Grattius we read: ‘ De 
Grattii opere volventibus annis diversis- 
sime iudicatum est,’ and the four pages 
which follow quote the opinions of 
scholars of all ages from Scaliger in 
the sixteenth century to Vollmer in the 
twentieth. The majority of these criti- 
cisms, more particularly those of the 
older scholars, are favourable, and some 
are even enthusiastic in their praise ; 
but English writers on Latin literature 
appear to be unanimous in relegating 
Grattius to a very humble rank in the 
company of Roman poets, and this lack 
of appreciation comes as a surprise to 
the present editor, who nevertheless 
takes the opportunity of paying English 
literary criticism a graceful compli- 
ment: ‘non placet (sc. Grattius) philo- 
logis Britannis ; quod non exspectamus, 
cum eos noverimus tantum non semper 
poetarum Romanorum aequos calli- 
dosque iudices esse.’ There is no doubt 
about the side to which the editor him- 
self belongs; he is a stout champion of 
his author, and he gallantly and for the 
most part successfully wards off the 
more violent attacks that are directed 
against him. For example, both in his 
Introduction and in his Commentary, he 
is at great pains to show that Grattius 
is not, as some scholars, especially 
Pierleoni, have sought to prove, a mere 
slavish imitator of Virgil, ‘poetam 
venaticum raro ipsa Maronis verba in 
suum transtulisse carmen,’ and again in 
the note on Grattius’ description of 
Vulcan’s cave, ‘vides Grattium hic 
quoque, verbis est specus ingens exceptis, 
alia dare atque Vergilium,’ and similarly 
in other places, see especially the notes 
on vv. 144, 377, and 410. Pierleoni, we 
readily concede, has gone to absurd 
lengths in collecting parallels in Virgil 
and Grattius, and Curcio also errs in 
NO. CCLXXV. VOL. XXXIII. 


the same direction ; on the other hand, 
in addition to several almost identical 
phrases, certain longer passages are in 
their general features so reminiscent of 
Virgil as to leave little doubt in the 
mind of an unbiased observer that 
Grattius was consciously using his 
greater contemporary as a model; 
compare especially the description of 
Vulcan’s cave, Cyn. 430-450, with 
Aeneid 6, 236-259, and also Cyn. 408 ff. 
with Georgics 3, 441 ff. But the short 
summing up on page 26 can hardly be 
termed extravagant in its claims on 
behalf of Grattius; the editor shows an 
exemplary restraint in his judgment 
‘non est magnus poeta, longe post- 
habendus Vergilio, divino illi vati,’ and 
few will dispute the justice of his com- 
plaint ‘nimis inique. de eo iudicant 
Pierleonius quique cum eo stant.’ 

In constructing his text the editor 
has carefully considered all variant 
readings and suggested emendations, 
and on the whole a judicious choice has 
been made. In v. 142, however, the 
retention of generosa is metrically very 
harsh; such a lengthening in the un- 
stressed part of the foot is, to say 
the least, unlikely, and the easy emen- 
dation to generosam, first suggested by 
Wernsdorf, is almost certainly correct. 
Nor is the editor’s conjecture sparsa for 
falsa in v. 203 likely to find favour ; it is 
very hard to believe that a careful 
versifier like Grattius (‘rei metricae 
peritissimus,’ as the editor himself tells 
us) could have ended a line with delige 
sparsa. The editor informs us_ that 
Grattius usually leaves the quantity of a 
final short syllable unaltered before two 
initial consonants in the word following, 
‘vocalis brevis ante duos consonantes 
apud Grattium fere nusquam produci- 
tur’; but in the examples adduced 
(II. 55), of the two initial consonants the 
second is invariably the liquid 7, and to 
support a proposed reading deligé sparsa 
by sanguiné crescet or excerneré pravos re- 
veals a surprising ignorance of the rules 
of Latin versification. 

The Protean variety of shape in which 
the Latinised names of several scholars 
masquerade is rather amusing, but at 
times tends to mystify the reader. 

M 


158 


Schenkl appears in the following guises : 
H. Schenkl, Henricus Schenkl, H. Schenk- 
lius, Henricus Schenklius, Schenkelius, and 
plain Schenkl. On one page we read 
‘ defendit Vollmer,’ on the next ‘ inter- 
punxit Vollmerus’; similarly ‘ Postgate 
putat, but ‘ Postgatius interpungit.’ 
Again, Vol. I. 34, 1. 25 we find apogra- 
phum (acc.), but 1. 29 of the same page 
apogvaphon (acc.). In the list of disser- 
tations (I.39) there is no obvious reason 
for interposing half a page of other 
references between different articles by 
Radermacher and by Curcio. 

Against these comparatively trifling 
blemishes, which a close revision would 
soon rectify, must be set the many 
praiseworthy features of this edition. 
Vol. I. gives us a useful introduction 
(pp- I-35) and bibliography (pp. 35-40), 
a carefully weighed text with good 
apparatus criticus (pp. 42-72)—‘ virorum 
doctorum coniecturas in apparatu critico 
multo plures commemoravi quam 
Vollmerus’ is the editor’s claim—and 
an excellent index verborum (pp. 75-100) ; 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


Vol. II. contains a very full Commentary 
(153 pages—the text and apparatus 
criticus occupy only 30 pages) with 
copious extracts from ancient and 
modern authors in illustration of the 
more difficult technical passages; the 
different methods of netting and snaring 
are carefully explained with diagrams 
and illustrations, and it is obvious that 
the editor has spared himself no trouble 
in his search for passages from Latin 
and Greek writers which can in any way 
illuminate the text he is expounding. 
Perhaps it is not altogether unseason- 
able to call attention to an excursus on 
rabies (II. 150-152) consisting of a long 
quotation from Brehm, which gives usa 
most vivid description of the symptoms 
of this ‘mala atque incondita pestis.’ 

A few misprints have been noted, 
I. 23, l. 22 saepa, I. 32, 1. 9 fllammae, 
and II. 70, 1. 11, where the reference 
should be to v. 142 (not v. 144). 


G. E. K. BRAUNHOLTZ. 
Middlesex Regiment. 


THE PARAVIA EDITIONS OF THE MINOR WORKS OF TACITUS. 


Cornelii Taciti: (1) Dialogus de Oratori- 
bus. Recensuit, praefatus est, appen- 
dice critica et indicibus instruxit 


FRIDERICUS CAROLUS WIck. Pp. 
Xxiv+60. L. 1.50. 

(2) De Vita Julu Agricolae Liber. Re- 
censuit, praefatus est, appendice 


critica instruxit CAESAR ANNIBALDI. 
Accedunt De Cornelio Tacito testi- 
monia uetera a Carolo Pascal con- 
leeta. ΡΣ +540) ria? 

(3) De Origine et situ Germanorum 
Liber. Ad fidem praecipue codicis 
Aesini recensuit, praefatus est CAESAR 
ANNIBALDI. Appendicem criticam in 
Taciti libellum, scriptorum Roman- 
orum de Germanis ueteribus testi- 
monia selecta adiecit Carolus Pascal. 
Bp. id-02.1\' Al 25) 

(Torino: Stamperia Reale di G. B. 
Paravia e Comp.) 


Ir is particularly appropriate that of 
the recent Paravia texts of the minor 
works of Tacitus two should have been 
edited by Professor Cesare Annibaldi; 


for it was he who made the momentous 
discovery some sixteen years ago of a 
manuscript at lesi containing, along 
with Dictys Cretensis, both the Agricola 
and the Germania, and including one 
quaternion considered to be a veritable 
portion of the Codex Hersfeldensis of 
the ninth or tenth century, the source 
from which are derived all known 
manuscripts of the minor works, 
whether the number be fourteen, as in 
the case of the Dialogus, or only four, 
as in the case of the Agricola. And 
even those four mark an advance. 
When Furneaux published his edition 
of the Agricola in 1898, there were 
available just two manuscripts of the 
text, both in the Vatican; but within 
a few years the find at Toledo of the 
Codex Toletanus and at Iesi of the 
Aesinus doubled the witnesses at least 
numerically, though they did not prove 
to be independent of the Hersfeld 
tradition. 

These volumes very satisfactorily 
fulfil the admirable purpose of the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 159 


series, which is to provide for Italy at 
a reasonable price a collection of Latin 
texts critically revised by scholars of 
recognised competence. Questions of 
subject-matter are, therefore, not dealt 
with except in so far as the general 
editor of the series, Professor Pascal of 
Pavia, has added to the Agricola a 
Latin life of the subject of the biography 
and a collection of the ancient infor- 
mation regarding its author, and has 
equipped the Germama with a most 
suggestive, because historically illu- 
minating, set of passages testifying to 
the opinions of the ancient world about 
the Germans. 

As all three works were contained in 
the Codex Hersfeldensis, it is natural that 
the prefaces should to some extent 
traverse the same ground, and concern 
themselves with the history and charac- 
ter of the parent manuscript and its 
descendants ; with Sabbadini’s dis- 
covery in 1gor of Decembrio’s note on 
the contents of the Hersfeldensis, and 
with the discovery of the Codex A esinus. 
As regards the date of this latter dis- 
covery, it is a remarkable slip that the 
prefaces (as it were, in neglect of Lord 
Melbourne’s famous advice) do not say 
the same thing. Wick, Dialogus, p. vi, 
after recording Sabbadini’s discovery 
‘anno IgoOI ineunte’ goes on to record 
the find of the Aesimus ‘ insequenti 
anno,’ 1.6. 1902. Annibaldi—who as 
the actual discoverer ought to know— 
in his Germania, p. vii, gives ‘ MXMII,’ 
presumably for ‘MCMII,’ but in his 
Agricola, p. vi, ‘ MCMIII.’ 

Wick’s praefatio contains a careful 
account of the earlier editions and of 
the chief manuscripts of the Dialogus. 
He also furnishes reasons for his dis- 
agreement with Gudeman’s opinion that 
the Hersfeld archetype had few con- 
tractions. It is not part of the scheme 
to discuss the authorship of the work, 
and yet, as Lipsius’ edition is men- 
tioned, allusion might have been made 
to his doubt concerning its Tacitean 
origin ; in fact, some might be misled 
as to Lipsius’ attitude by the logical 
implication of ‘reliquorum’ in the 
editor’s remark, ‘tamen ut reliquorum 
Taciti operum, sic etiam Dialog: dignam 
quae legeretur editionem primus emisit 
Antuerpiae a. 1574 Iustus Lipsius eam- 


que iterum iterumque meliorem fecit.’ 
The problems connected with a first 
and second gap in the Dzalogus are 
alluded to without any pretence at full 
discussion. 

The scale of the volume makes it 
unreasonable to demand anything like 
the ample apparatus criticus which 
Gudeman gives; as it is, the main 
manuscript variants are adequately 
reported with a fair number of out- 
standing emendations. Several conjec- 
tures by the editor are incorporated in 
the text, of which it may be said that 
some, like rveliquae illae and opportune et 
for well-known difficulties in chapters 21 
and 22, are more deserving of con- 
sideration than the counsel of despair 
which prompts for the much amended 
tsicut his . . . clam in chapter 26 the 
bare substitution of wox. One cannot 
choose but wish that the letters denoting 
the MSS. of the same text could be 
fixed, so as to simplify what may be 
called the algebra of the critical appa- 
ratus in comparing different editions. 
As things are, Gudeman’s A= Wick’s 
B; and Wick’s C=Gudeman’s D. A 
good deal of needless focusing and 
refocusing is the result of the present 
variation of sigla. 

Annibaldi’s attitude to his text is 
more conservative than Wick’s to his. 
This follows inevitably from Annibaldi’s 
belief that the Aesinus is for part of the 
Agricola actually the Hersfeldensis, and 
that the rest of the Agricola and the 
whole of the Germania were copied 
direct from the Hersfeldensis—a view 
which Wissowa does not hold. Anni- 
baldi agrees, therefore, with Sabbadini 
‘che nel codice Esino i critici dovranno 
pur riconoscere come il massimo sos- 
tegno del testo e quale unico apografo 
diretto dell’ archetipo hersfeidese.’ He 
regards the Toletanus as a copy of the 
Aesinus. Consequently these MSS., 
E and T, have for him a preponderating 
value, and he states in a note prefixed 
to the Agricola, ‘hoc curauimus ut ab 
illo uetustissimo Aesino libro .. . nisl 
cum necessitas cogeret, nunquam dis- 
cederemus.’ And certainly it is of 
interest to observe how often E and T 
confirm old emendations proposed on 
the readings of the other two MSS. 
Thus, in Agr. 15, 5, their felicibus sup- 


160 


plies the need felt by Acidalius in 
conjecturing integris; at 17, 3, subut 
written above the line in E is a cor- 
roboration of a suggested insertion by, 
Halm to account for the -que in sus- 
tinuitque ; 18, 4, ET confirm, if con- 
firmation be necessary, Gronovius’ 
change of dubiis to subitis ; 18, 5, the 
reading of E, patrius, proves Puteolanus 
right; and 19, 1, iniuriae of ET justifies 
Puteolanus’ alteration of incurzae. 
Without making extravagant demands 
on space, more of the best emendations 
might well have been reported where 
the text is specially troublesome: e.g. 
Agr. 6, 4, Lipsius’ moderationis for medio 
yationis ; and 9, 3, amaritiem for auart- 
tiam. In 15, 3, the record of the two 
MSS. readings manum and manus 15 
hardly sufficient help in a passage which 
has exercised the minds of many com- 
mentators ; and at 19, 4, where, for the 
familiar crux ac ludere pretio in AB, 
Wex’s conjecture ac luere is supported 
by ET, one would have welcomed 
mention of such conjectures as ac licert, 
ac vecludere, and auctiore. At 31, 5, for 
the impossible in paenitentiam laturt 
only Wélfflin’s in patientiam bellaturt is 
recorded; and in 42, 5, escendere for 
excedere decidedly requires a comment 
that it was Lipsius’ suggestion. This 
reticence is especially noticeable in the 
two cruces of chapter 28, where the 
note on remigante proceeds to the rather 
too summary dismissal ‘alia alii conati 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


sunt,’ and that on the ‘locus insana- 
bilis’ tad aquam atque ut illa raptis se, 
after recording Halm’s and Nipperdey’s 
prescriptions, concludes ‘cetera uirorum 
doctorum conamina omittimus.’ Prob- 
ably even a junior student wants more 
food than to be told elsewhere ‘ per- 
multi alii in diuersa abierunt.’ 

The ancient testimonia as to Tacitus’ 
life and writings will be found very 
useful, although a chronological order 
of sources might have been even more 
instructive than the alphabetical. Since 
the whole of the letters addressed by 
Pliny to Tacitus, and not merely those 
in which Tacitus’ name occurs, may be 
held to constitute testimonia in a sense, 
a list of the letters to Tacitus is 
judiciously added to the quotations. 
By some curious oversight, however, 
Pliny VII. 33 is omitted. The editors 
are to be congratulated on the proof- 
reading ingeneral. Among a fewslight 
errors noticed are longiquitas, Agr. 31; 
ad decus for ac decus, Agr. 33; and 
expunta on p. 37 of the apparatus 
criticus. Inthe critical note on Agr. 18 
‘ patrius EB Puteolanus; prius A; prius 
B; proprius Wex,’ one guesses that 
EB is wrong for ET, for B is reported 
in the same note to read prius. 


J. Wicut DUvuFF. 


Armstrong College, 
University of Durham, 
Newcastle-upon- Tyne. 


BOETHIUS: 


Boethius, The Theological Treatises, with 
an English Translation by H. F. 
STEWART, D.D., Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge, and E. K. RAND, 
Ph.D., Professor of Latin in Harvard 
University. The Consolation of Phalo- 
sophy, with the English Translation 
of ‘L.T.’ (1609). Loeb Classical 
Library. One vol. Pp. xiv+420. 
London: William Heinemann, 1910. 
7s. 6d. net. 


THE wisdom of including Boethius 
among the volumes of the Loeb Classical 
Library is fully justified by the issue of 
this admirable edition, which, besides 


the Philosophiae Consolatio (in which 
Philosophy, as a comely woman, holds 
converse with Boethius), contains the 
five brief theological treatises which are 
now, we believe, translated for the first 
time. The familiar dialogue, with the 
thirty-nine poems in a variety of metres, 
invests the Consolatio with peculiar 
interest. It contains so much that is 
beautiful in sentiment that the reader 
is instinctively moved to claim for it a 
more exalted place than its theistic 
colouring would seem to warrant. With- 
out a trace of direct Christian doctrine, 
it yet abounds in religious suggestive- 
ness; it is, in short, a philosophy that 


SS eee 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 161 


is dominated by something greater than 
itself. There is an undercurrent which 
may be fitly described as a stream of 
Christian influence that is content to 
flow without positively asserting itself. 
It isa philosophy that believes in the 
efficacy of prayer and the workings 
of divine providence—elements that 
minister to the consolation of the dis- 
tressed. It is interesting to follow out 
the relationship of a philosophy that 
sees God to be all in all, to the Christian 
theology as laid down in the Tractates, 
which addresses itself to the faith as 
well as to the intellect. The consolation 
derived from philosophy develops a 
theory that rises to the supreme’ height 
of face-to-face recognition of the Infinite, 
and places absolute dependence on the 
verities of religion, so that we may say 
the one forms the complement of the 
other, the faculty of the understanding 
being actively employed in the un- 
ravelling of divine mysteries. While 


‘the Consolatio sets forward a philosophy 


calculated to banish sorrow, the Tract- 
ates are to be distinguished as central- 
ising in a philosophy that concerns 
itself with a higher sphere. Hence we 
welcome the combined contents of the 
volume before us. The much-debated 
question as to whether Boethius was, 
at the time of writing the Consolatio, a 
professed Christian will doubtless con- 
tinue to disturb some minds; the 
exclusion, however, of. definite state- 
ments as to Christian faith and practice 
need not be held to convey the idea of 
abstension therefrom, when, for aught 
we know, prudence may have called for 
momentary reserve. The design of the 
Consolatio was, doubtless, viewed from 
a standpoint with which we are un- 
acquainted, yet, at all events, it may be 
said to approach the domain of the 
faith that inspires a Christian. The 
philosophic system that engrossed the 
attention of Boethius is deduced in 
the main from the tenets of Plato, Zeno, 
and Aristotle, which has caused him to 
to be regarded as a Stoic rather than a 
Christian. He certainly draws largely 
upon these sources, but he is to a great 
extent his own interpreter. Several 
passages in his poems are reminiscent 
of Latin authors, while one of the most 
delightful of his sets of verses (accom- 


panied by an equally dignified trans- 
lation) is founded on the first part of 
Plato’s Timaeus; indeed, two whole 
chapters in Rook IV. are a kind of 
paraphrase οἱ the Gorgias. 

The text of the Consolatio used by 
Dr. Rand is based upon the investiga- 
tions of the best authorities, with whose 
labours he is familiar. The production 
of the Opuscula Sacra in the form here 
presented is in every way a distinct gain 
to classical and theological literature ; 
they exhibit constructive reasoning and 
a deep insight of a very high order. 
Boethius is eminent among scholastic 
theologians in elucidating ‘those nice 
distinctions that distracted the minds 
of Christian controversialists in the 
days of the Arian feuds. On the 
assumption, mainly, that the Christian 
element is altogether wanting in the 
Consolatio, the authenticity of these 
theological treatises (dedicated respect- 
ively to Boethius’ father-in-law and to 
John the Deacon) has been questioned, 
but on insufficient grounds. The con- 
troverted point has now, we may 
assume, been definitely set at rest by 
the confirmatory evidence of a fragment 
of Cassiodorus, in which certain of these 
tracts are positively ascribed to his 
friend Boethius. But apart from this 
discovery, internal evidence seems to 
support the authorship of Boethius. 
A connection between the diverse 
writings of our author exists in the true 
conception of God, as set out in the 
Consolatio, when viewed side by side 
with the presentation in the Tractates 
of the One in whom unity centres and 
all fulness dwells. The divinity formu- 
lated in the philosophy of Boethius, 
while it rises to a sublime height in the 
Consolatio, only attains the summit in 
the clearer revelation of the attributes 
of the divine personality portrayed in 
the Tractates. These latter were 
written in the earlier years of Boethius’ 
life. As precise statements of cherished 
Christian dogma, designed to counter- 
act the errors of Arius and others, they 
furnish us with a clear insight into the 
sublimities of the Catholic faith. These 
views were certainly brought promi- 
nently forward, and the contentions of 
Boethius for the faith gave strength to 
the movement. In _ his theological 


162 


treatises, based in large measure on the 
writings of St. Augustine, Boethius 
freely adopted the current terms em- 
ployed in the controversy, e.g. substantia 
(ὑπόστασις), persona (πρόσωπον), sub- 
sistentia, essentia (οὐσία), etc., but with 
some perplexing variations probably due 
to Aristotelian influence. His definition 
of persona, ‘naturae rationabilisindividua 
substantia,’ was received by St. Thomas 
and the Schoolmen as classical. The 
Consolatio clearly had another object 
and purpose in view than Christian 
propaganda; faith and reason must for 
the nence be regarded apart, after the 
manner of the Schoolmen. Written as 
life was closing, in the solitude of his 
prison, Boethius may even have deemed 
it advisable, for purposes we fail to 
recognise, to do more than regard the 
philosophical side of life. This could 
be effected without disparagement of 
the higher Christian teaching, without 
ignoring or slighting it. In the lofty 
utterances of the Consolatio, wherein 
foundation truths are enforced in re- 
spect of man’s relationship to God, 
there may be found a ready means of 
access to higher things. Certainly the 
metaphysical theology of Boethius—his 
attempt to enable the finite mind to 
grasp the Infinite—is at once stimulating 
and progressive. The Tractates are 
altogether on a different level, but the 
process of reasoning is not dissimilar, 
and we arrive at the conclusion that the 
philosophy of consolation and _ the 
dictates embodied in the Christian 
religion are one and the same, in prin- 
ciple and purpose, and are directed to 
a like end. The combination of the 
Tractates in one volume with the 
Consolatio appears to us highly judicious, 
emphasising not only the individuality 
of the writer, but marking the inter- 
dependence of the several works, the 
one upon the other. No other works 
of Boethius would need to be put to 
such a test. Certain it is that the 
philosophical consolation advanced by 
him is far in advance of any system of 
the ancients that preceded him. Al- 
though there is no trace of Christian 
doctrine in the Consolatio, it abounds in 
religious suggestiveness that is very 
comprehensive, while its beautiful and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


impressive language glows with a fervour 
that is all-embracing. 

Dr. Stewart has translated the 
Tractates with singular felicity. The 
task, by no means an easy one, has been 
accomplished with exceptional vigour 
and grace. In regard to the Consolatio, 
choice has been made of the excellent 
translation which appeared in 1609, 
bearing the initials ‘L.T.’ It is bold 
and clear, and the verse portions de- 
lightful. It is not the first time that 
the Consolation has appeared in an 
edition having the Latin and an English 
translation side by side, on the plan 
adopted in the Loeb series. The Comforte 
of Philosophye, or Wysdome moche Neces- 
sary for All Men to Read and Know was 
in a similar form. It was the work of 
George Colville, printed partly in black 
letter in 1556 by John Cawoode, and 
dedicated to Queen Mary. The Con- 
solation, as translated by Chaucer, 
printed by Caxton, also appeared (in a 
somewhat attenuated dress) in Latin 
and English; only a few lines of the 
Latin verse in each section are given, 
the entire period following in the 
English prose translation, accompanied 
by a rendering of the text. Chaucer’s 
words associated with the title are 
significant: ‘In this Book are handled 
high and hard obscure Points—viz. 
The Purveyance of God, the Force of 
Destiny, the Freedom of our Wills, and 
the Infallible Prescience of the Almighty ; 
and that the Contemplation of God 
Himself is our Summum Bonum.’ The 
varied descriptions of the Consolation 
by different editors and translators is 
quite remarkable, and goes far to 
establish the wide acceptance of the 
work. The popularity of Boethius is 
fully attested by the very numerous 
MSS. and printed editions, particularly 
the Consolation, which as ‘a golden 
volume not unworthy of the leisure of 
Plato or Tully ’ (Gibbon), will assuredly 
retain its reputation in the world of 
letters as a sterling classic and a store- 
house of wise counsel. As an illustra- 
tion of the quality of the translation of 
‘L.T.,’ the following passage, taken at 
random, which is indicative of Boethius’ 
attachment to music (uttered under 
stress of adversity), may be quoted: 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


‘Musica laris nostri uernacula nunc 
leuiores nunc grauiores modos succinat’ 
(‘Let music, a little slave belonging to 
our house, chant sometime lighter and 
sometime sadder notes’). 

It is a cause for regret that the 
editors have made no attempt to supply 
a bibliography (one of the usual features 
that distinguish the Loeb volumes). 
We are well aware of the exacting 
nature of such a task, but in regard to 


- 163 


the works of Boethius it seems to be 
specially called for. The Introduction 
is brief, and the footnotes throughout 
the volume, although somewhat slight, 
are useful, particularly where the rele- 
vancy of a passage corresponding to 
related statements need to be empha- 
sised. We have observed but one 
error (p. 15, 1. 18), where ‘sun’. is a 
misprint for ‘ Son.’ 
C. H. EvVELYN-WHITE. 


SHORT NOTICES 


Patriotic Poetry, Greek and English. By 
W. Ruys Roserts,  Litt.D. Pp. 
vil-135. London: John Murray. 
3s. 6d. net. 


THIs small but very stimulating volume 
is an expansion of an address delivered 
on the Feast of St. Crispin, 1915 (the 
five-hundredth anniversary of the Battle 
of Agincourt), tothe Literary and Histor- 
ical Society of Leeds University, and to 
the boys of St. Peter’s School, York. 
Taking as his text the well-known lines 
in the Persians of Aeschylus, 
ὦ παῖδες Ελλήνων, ἴτε, 

ἐλευθεροῦτε πατρίδ᾽, ἐλευθεροῦτε δὲ 

παῖδας, γυναῖκας, θεῶν τε πατρῴων ἕδη 

θήκας τε προγόνων: νῦν ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀγών. 
and reminding his hearers that 1915 
happens to be a year of centenaries of 
events of the greatest significance in 
the history of the nations, Professor 
Rhys Roberts gives an admirable survey 
of the patriotic element in Greek and 
English poetry in general, together 
with a more specific notice of that 
element in Homer, Aeschylus, and 
Shakespeare. Having first illustrated 
the inner meaning of the word ‘ patriot- 
ism,’ and described the attitude of such 
representative patriots as Achilles and 
Henry V. towards the country of their 
birth, the lecturer proceeds to show 
how the basic national ideals for which 
the Greeks fought at Salamis were not 
essentially different from those for 
which the British nation has been 
fighting during the Great European 
War, and how the results which we 
fervently hope will accrue from our 


victory—namely, Peace, Humanity, and 
Progress—are exactly, those to which 
Aeschylus looked forward after the 
repulse of the Barbarians twenty-four 
centuries ago. 

Delivered as this lecture was during 
the dark days of 1915, when the 
shadow of Loos was looming over the 
land and our Cause did not seem to be 
prospering, it must have given renewed 
confidence and inspiration to those 
whose privilege it was to hearit. Pro- 
fessor Roberts obviously felt that at 
such a crisis he was called upon to do 
something more than give his hearers 
a mass of instructive and interesting 
information, that it was his duty to 
‘stablish his brethren’ in their hour of 
trial by reminding them of the glorious 
British traditions of service and sacrifice 
enshrined in our national literature, 
and to convey to them a message of 
hope from those war-tried heroes of 
old time, who, being dead, yet speak to 
us still from the pages of the Ancient 
Classics. The theme which he has 
chosen allows him an excellent oppor- 
tunity of giving full play to his native 
Celtic eloquence, and, if one may say 
so, he is ina position of great advantage 
in that he is a Welshman, not an 
Englishman—he can extol the English 
ideal to an extent to which an average 
Englishman, through very shyness, 
could not bring himself to glorify it. 
Although the war is now happily ended, 
this ‘war-time book’ cannot by any 
means be said to have outlived its use- 
fulness. Whatever contributes towards 
inculcating healthy national ideals in 


164 


face of the growing menace of a de- 
cadent internationalism will be wel- 
comed by patriotic Britons for many 
years to come. 

There are copious references through- 
out the book, and the reader will find 
the fifty pages of supplementary notes 
most illuminating. Ts 


The Neo-Platonists. By THoMAS WHIT- 
TAKER. (Second Edition). One 
volume. 8vo. Pp. xv+ 318. Cam- 
bridge: University Press, 1918. I2s. 
net. 


In this second edition Mr. Whittaker 
has added to the value of his well-known 
work by a considerable Supplement of 
nearly 100 pages dealing with Proclus. 
Taking advantage of the recent Teubner 
texts of the Commentaries, Mr. Whit- 
taker gives a careful and lucid summary 
of their contents, aiming to bring out 
the ‘real originality and historical im- 
portance’ of the Athenian School as 
represented by its most conspicuous 
teacher. This skilful exposition should 
do*much to redeem the reputation of 
Proclus from the charge—too lightly 
brought, and too readily believed by 
critics at second-hand—that he was 
merely a scholastic commentator, erudite 
indeed but lacking in original ability. 
New matter is also presented in the 
Appendix on ‘The Gnostics,’ Mr. 
Whittaker having modified his view of 
the relation of Gnosticism to Chris- 
tianity in the light of more recent 
studies, such as those of Reitzenstein. 
Altogether, the work in its new form 
should prove doubly welcome to all 
students of ancient thought. 


fe Gen ds, 


——— 


Manuel des Etudes grecques et latines. 
Par L. Lauranp. Fascicule ΠΝ: 
Géographie, Histoire, Institutions 
romaines, 1917; Fascicule V.: Lit- 
térature latine, 1918. Paris: Auguste 
Picard:,.-Each, “2trs τον etre in 
boards. 


PROFESSOR LAURAND, who is honour- 
ably known for his studies in Ciceronian 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


style and rhythm, is issuing in eight 
parts, totalling about 800 pages, a 
comprehensive handbook of classical 
culture. The first three numbers, which 
treat of Greek subjects, do not seem to 
have been noticed in this Review; 
Part VI. will deal with Latin grammar, 
Part VII. with metres and certain other 
subordinate subjects; while Part VIII. 
will contain full indices. The present 
two numbers contain pages 379-622 of 
the whole work. We are not attracted 
by such ‘ peptonised’ learning, nor is it 
likely to help greatly any class of 
students. But it is concise, accurate, 
up-to-date, and correctly printed. To 
English readers the only interest will 
lie in the bibliographies, which are very 
full for a work of this size, and will 
probably suggest some French works 
hitherto unknowntomost. The lists of 
English works given are good, though 
sometimes curiously incomplete: e.g. 
under Tacitus Furneaux’ Agricola is 
omitted, though his Germania is named. 
E. E. GENNER. 


Jesus College, 
Oxford. 


--- 


Translations of Early Documents. (1.) The 
Book of Jubilees, or, The Little Genesis. 
Translated from the Ethiopic by R. H. 
CHARLES, D.Litt, D:D., awit can 
Introduction by G..H. Box Pp: 
224.) S.P.C. Ky As. inet y(n 
Apocalypse of Ezra. Translated from 
the Syriac, with brief annotations by 
G, SA. Box," Pp. nas apse ee 
2s. 6d. net. (III.). The Apocalypse of 
Abraham. Edited, witha translation 
from the Slavonic, and Notes, by 
G. H. Box and J. 1. LAnpsman. Also, 
The Ascension of Isaiah, by R. H. 
CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D., with an In- 
troduction by G. H. Box. Pp. 162. 
S.P.C.K; ) 4s. ΘῈ ΠΕΣ 


THESE Hellenistic 
Jewish documents have much in 
common. Designed as they are to 
give effect to the study of Christian 
origins, they have a special value and 
importance. The authors of these 
pseudepigraphic writings probably 
sought by the free use of the names they 
bear to amplify and embellish the sacred 


and Palestinian 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


story in such a way as to create and 
_ maintain what may have been regarded 
as a waning interest in the Divine reve- 
lation. (I.) The ook of Jubilees is so 
called from a division into jubilee 
periods of forty-nine years of arevelation 
said to have been given to Moses through 
the medium of an angel. The sub- 
title is due to the narrative largely corre- 
sponding to that in the Book of Genesis. 
The matter is singularly diversified with 
all manner of fable and legend, angel- 
ology and demonology, including a 
plea for the re-constitution of the 
calendar, then a subject of controversy. 
The original was possibly the work of a 
Hebrew priest who wrote either towards 
the close of the second century B.c., or 
at latest in the first century of our era, 
andexpresses the opinions of a large and 
influential section of the Jewish people. 
The Ethiopic and Latin versions are 
based upon a Greek text. Dr. Charles’ 
translation (first published in 1902) is 
grounded upon all the known MSS. 
(II.) The Apocalypse of Ezra (2 Esdras 
iii.-xiv.) is now only extant in Latin 
and Oriental translations, severally 
based upon a non-existing Greek version 
from a lost Hebrew text, possibly of 
early second-century date. The ap- 
pended notes are of considerable in- 


165 


terest. (III.) The Apocalypse of Abraham 
has been preserved in old Slavonic 
literature, the oldest MS. (Codex 
Sylvester), taken from the Greek, being 
now in the library of the Holy Synod in 
Moscow, and is of fourteenth-century 
date. The Apocalyptic section rests 
upon the story of Abraham’s sacrifice 
and trance. The Ascension of Isaiah 
appeared in a translation from the 
original Greek in 1900, with Dr. Charles’ 
interpretation and criticism ; the prin- 
cipal extant version is Ethiopic. There 
is a remarkable description of the 
seven heavens. ‘These pseudepigraphi- 
cal writings seem to have found their 
way into Russia at an early date. They 
contain much that is curious, and 
strange are the inferences drawn from 
the canonical books. A prevailing pes- 
simistic view of the world in most of 
these documents doubtless reflects the 
then popular Jewish feeling. 


BOLSHEVISN: 


χαιρέτω evvouln καλά τ᾽ ἤθεα " πολλῷ ἄμεινον 
δήμῳ συμμαχέουσ᾽ ἁρπαγαὶ ἠδὲ φόνοι. 


T. C. WEATHERHEAD. 


OBITUARY 


PROFESSOR F. 


ProFEssOR HAVERFIELD’s sudden 
death on October 1 is a heavy loss 
to Roman studies in England, and in 
particular to the study of Roman 
Britain. We cannot write over him 
Felix opportumtate mortis. He was not 
far past the prime of life, his powers 
and his knowledge were mature, his 
work was far from done. The illness 
which overtook him at the end of 1915 
abated his natural force, but did not 
impair his mental powers nor weaken 
his intellectual interests. He even 
began new pieces of work, including 
a guide to the Roman Wall (would 
that he could have finished it!) ; but 
the times were unfavourable to serious 


HAVERPIEED: 


learned work, and the horrors of the 
war—the shattering of ideals, the 
severance of old friendships, the loss 
of dear friends, the break-up of Uni- 
versity life, the long years of anxiety— 
all told severely upon him. 

He had a strong individuality and 
a forceful personality. Warm-hearted, 
generous, and loyal, he was direct and 
incisive in thought and speech, and in 
earlier life his candour was apt to ex- 
press itself in brusqueness of manner 
when he encountered sham or preten- 
tiousness or other kinds of foolish- 
ness, but he bore no malice: honestius 
putabat offendere quam odisse. He was 
as shrewd in practical life as in his 


166 


learned work; a striking tribute was 
paid in 1908 to his sanity and _ in- 
dependence of judgment when he was 
returned as a member of the Heb- 
domadal Council in defiance of all the 
caucuses. 

It was characteristic of him to leave 
Oxford in 1884 without any special 
reputation (ability tends to go only 
where interest draws it), and to have 
established his name as a Roman his- 
torian before 1891, when he was invited 
to take up the teaching of Roman 
history in Christ Church. During his 
seven or eight years of schoolmastering 
he found his real work, and used his 
holidays to lay deep the foundations of 
his unrivalled knowledge of Romano- 
British antiquities. But he did not 
stop there. Knowing that the work of 
the Romans in Britain could not be 
understood nor appreciated without a 
thorough knowledge of the Empire and 
its civilisation as a whole, he set him- 
self to get such knowledge at first hand 
by extensive travel in Europe as far 
as the recesses of the Carpathians. 
Coming into contact with Mommsen, 
he was invited to take charge of the 
Roman epigraphy of Britain for the 
Corpus of Latin inscriptions, which had 
till then been in Huebner’s hands. His 
first contribution to the Ephemeris Epi- 
graphica was ready in 1889, his last was 
finished in 1912. 

Round this commission developed 
his study of Roman Britain. He 
carried it on in the intervals of college 
duties, both educational and adminis- 
trative, and the value of his work was 
publicly recognised before he was 
elected in 1907 to the Camden Pro- 
fessorship by his appointment as Rhind 
Lecturer in Scotland (1905-6) and as 
Ford Lecturer in Oxford (1906-7). His 
special work—not always appreciated 
and sometimes depreciated as ‘ special- 
ism’ even by University teachers— 
gave to all his teaching and writing 
that firm grip and that note of reality 
which are denied to men of mere book- 
learning. Partly to this he owed his 
great success as a lecturer, partly to 
his concise and almost Tacitean style, 
partly to the fact that he knew better 
than to fling exhaustive discourses, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


references and all, at the heads of his 
hearers. In lectures, as in business, 
he went straight to the heart of things. 

His great service to history is that 


-he put the story of Roman rule in 


Britain on a sure basis, introducing 
science where sciolism had reigned. 
Before his time, in his own trenchant 
words, ‘ prae ceteris hos nostros (anti- 
quarios) scribendi quoddam cacoethes 
invasit. Eduntur societatum archaeo- 
logicarum acta, transactiones sive 
memorias quas vocant, rudis indiges- 
taque moles et  sepulchro _potius 
archaeologiae quam monumento futura.’ 
Besides his own learned work, he did 
much to educate and stimulate local 
antiquaries, who responded by making 
him President of many of their societies. 
He was also the moving spirit in the 
foundation of the Society for the Pro- 
motion of Roman Studies. His literary 
output was considerable, but the mass 
of it is scattered (and buried) in learned 
periodicals. It is a bitter disappoint- 
ment that his Ford Lectures, so highly 
appreciated as they were, did not lead 
to the publication of a comprehensive 
account of Roman Britain. The hope 
may stili be cherished that these Lec- 
tures will see the light: later discovery 
has not materially affected them. The 
small volumes on the Romanitsation of 
Roman Britain, first published in 1905 
and now in its third edition, on the 
Military Aspects of Roman Wales (1910), 
and on Ancient Town-Planning (1913), 
are all models of precise, terse, and 
lucid exposition, bright in style and 
balanced in judgment. His other 
numerous monographs on Roman 
History and Roman Britain would 
make up several volumes. It is highly 
desirable that the more important of 
these, particularly the admirable ac- 
counts of Roman towns contributed to 
the Victoria County History and to 
learned journals, should be brought 
together. They would furnish a good 
picture of the development of town life, 
and go far to lessen the void which the 
author’s great knowledge alone could 
have adequately filled. 


J. G. C. ANDERSON. 
Christ Church, Oxford. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


167 


B. B. ROGERS. 


A SPECIAL tribute is due to the memory 
of Benjamin Bickley Rogers, M.A., 
Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, 
and Barrister-at-law, who throughout a 
long and busy professional life never 
abandoned his early-chosen literary 
work. So far back as 1852 he published 
his translation of the Clouds of Aristo- 
phanes, and finally completed his great 
edition of all the surviving comedies 
with the second edition of the same 
play in 1915. 

It would hardly be possible to praise 
too highly his achievement as a trans- 
lator. At first it was the custom for 
reviewers of his books as they appeared, 
play after play, to say that he was a 
good second to Frere. In reality his 
versions are incomparably superior in 
every point. They possess an extra- 
ordinary spirit and vigour, and possibly 
in this minor but, of course, essential 
respect Frere may be his equal. But in 
poetical power, in metrical resource, 
in delicacy of touch and melodious 
phrasing, in depth of appreciation, 
closeness of rendering, terse command 
of language, and every attribute of high 
scholarship, Mr. Rogers strands pre- 
eminent: Frere is not inthe field. For 
English readers, whether acquainted or 
unacquainted with Greek, Mr. Rogers 
has produced the one and only version 
of Aristophanes. 

To his competence as a commentator 
and critic his notes bear amplest 
witness. He was conservative in the 
best sense in his treatment of the text, 
making few alterations of his own, ever 
intolerant of nonsense, and criticising 
with unfailing perspicacity, lucidity, and 
humour the suggestions and opinions 
of others. He could not pen a dull 


line. It has even been said that his 
critical appendices were the most 
attractive and interesting part of his 
books. 

He wrote admirable Introductions to 
the several plays, and all with a charm 
of manner and style peculiarly his own. 
He highly appreciated the great English 
critics to whose penetration and judg- 
ment the received text owes so great a 
debt—Bentley, Porson, Elmsley, Dawes, 
Tyrwhitt, Dobree, etc.—nor did he fail 
to make use of more recent criticism 
whenever it appeared. With the 
wilder flights, however, of the modern 
destructive Higher Criticism, as it calls 
itself, he had little sympathy. ‘It has,’ 
he says in his appendix to the Peace, 
‘dealt gently with the old Attic Comedy. 
No one has yet discovered that a play 
of Aristophanes is a thing of shreds and 
patches put together by the order of 
Peisistratus; or that it was composed 
by Lord Bacon, or in the days of the 
Maccabees. Doubtless these things 
will come in good time; else how will 
the professorial mind amuse itself in all 
the centuries to be ?” 

I cannot do better than close with a 
single typical specimen of Mr. Rogers’ 
work: 


Wasps, 1051-9: 


But O for the future, my masters, pray ; 
Show more regard for a genuine bard 
Who is ever inventing amusements new 
And fresh discoveries, all for you. 
Make much of his play, and store it away, 
And into your wardrobes throw it 
With the citrons sweet : and if this you do, 
Your clothes will be fragrant, the whole year 
through, 
With the volatile wit of the Poet. 


TUE wAGAR 


NOTES AND NEWS 


Discovery, a new monthly periodical 
at sixpence, dealing with interesting 
points of progress in all subjects, ought 
to command the sympathies and the 
subscriptions of all our readers. It is 
supported by leading men in _ all 


branches of learning, and the board 
of management will include repre- 
sentatives of a number of specialist 
associations. But the periodical is 
intended for educated men, not for 
specialists in particular. 


168 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 


BOOKS RECEIVED 


All publications which have a bearing on Classical Studies will be entered in this list if they are sent for 


vevlew. 


The price should in all cases be stated. 


*.* Excerpts or Extracts from Periodicals and Collections will not be included unless they are also published 
separately. 


Aeschylus. Agamemnon. Translated by R. K. 
Davis. 7?”’x 5". Pp.xx7o. Oxford : Black- 
well, 1919. Half cloth, paper boards, 4s. 6d. 
net. 


Allison (Sir R.) Lucretius on the Nature of 
Things. Translated into English Verse. 
8” x6". Pp. xxxii+275. London: A. L. Hum- 
phreys, 1919. Half buckram, 7s. 6d. net. 


Andreadis (A. M.) Dilke and Greece, 9}”x 6". 
Pp. 48. London: Hesperia Press, 1919. 

Cook (Sir Edward). 
Pp. x4 350. 
Pp. xxiv+ 398. 


Literary Recreations 
More Literary Recreations. 
72" x 54”. 7s. 6d. net each. 


Dobson (J. F.) The Greek Orators. 72x 5". 
Pp. vii+321. London: Methuen and Co., 
1919. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net. 


Dottin (G.) La Langue Gauloise, Grammaire, 
Textes et Glossaire. 8}”x 53". Pp. xvilit+ 
364. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1920. Fr.10o. 


Fiske (G. C.) The Plain Style in the Scipionic 
Circle. Reprinted from University of Wis- 
consin Studies, No. 3, Pp. 62-105. 9! x 53". 


Freeman (C. E.) Latin Poetry, from Catullus 
to Claudian.  72”x 5”. Pp. 176. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press, 1919. Limp cloth, 3s. net. 


Flackett (J. ΤΆ My Commonplace Book. 
g’x6h". Pp. xxii+ 403. London: Fisher 
Unwin, Ltd., 1919. Cloth, 12s. 6d. net. 


Harrison (J. E.) Aspects, Aorists, and the 
Classical Tripos. δέχ. Cambridge 
University Press, 1919. 2s. 6d. net. 


Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und Ubungen. 
Herausgegeben von Hans Lietzmann. 8” x 5”. 
Menandri reliquiae nuper repertae, iterum 
edidit Siegfried Sudhaus, 1914. Pp. 104. 
M. 2. Cloth, M. 2.40. Novae Comoediae 
Fragmenta in papyris reperta exceptis Menan- 
dreis ed. Otto Schroeder, 1915. Pp. 78. 
M. 2. P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica cum 
auctoribus et imitatoribus in usum scholarum 
ed. Carolus Hosius, 1915. Pp. 64. M. 1. 
Cloth, M. 1.50. Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi in 
usum scholarum ed. U. von Wilamowitz- 
Mollendorff, 1916. Pp. 58. M. 1.60. 


Lewis (L. W. P.) Practical Hints on the 
Teaching of Latin. 7$’x 5". Pp. xvili4-210. 
London: Macmillan and Co., 1919. Cloth, 
5s. net. 


London Mercury. Edited by J. C. Squire. 
Vol. ΝΟΣ τὸν 103" x: 922) Pp. xxix 128: 
London: Field Press, Ltd., November, 1919. 
Paper, 2s. 6d. 


Menander. 


Minuncius Felix (Octavius). Edited by the 
Rev. T. Fahy, B.D. 7} Χ 52". Pp. ix+1096. 
Educational Company of Ireland, Ltd., 1919. 
Cloth, 6s. net. 


See Kleine Texte. 


Modern Languages. Edited by E. G. Under- 
wood. Vol. 1., No. τ 93"x ΕΠ 32, 
A. and C, Black, Ltd., October, 1919. Paper, 
Is. net. 

Oesterley (W.°O. E.) The Sayings of the 
Jewish Fathers (Pirke Aboth). 73" 5". 
Pp. xx+104. London: S.P.C.K., 1919. 
Cloth, 5s. net. 

Passages for Greek and Latin Repetition. 
Selected by Masters at Uppingham School. 
71 Χ 5". Pp. 88. Oxford University Press, 
1919. Limp cloth, 2s. 6d. net. 

Phillimore (J. 85.) ‘The Revival of Criticism. 
9” x 52". Pp. 32. Oxford : ΒΒ. He, Black 
well, 1919. Is. 6d. net. 

Plautus. Menaechmi. Edited by Clara M.. 
Knight. 62” 43". Pp. xxxvi+132. ‘Cam- 
bridge University Press, 1919. Cloth, 5s. net. 

Sheppard (J. T.) Richard Croke. 82x 52”. 
Pp. 24. Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, 1919. 
Paper, 1s. 6d. net. 

Sophocles. Ajax. Translated by R. C. 
Trevelyan. ..74 5"... Pp... 58.) kondaw : 
Allen and Unwin, Ltd., t919. Paper, 2s. 
net ; cloth, 3s. 6d. net. 


Sophocles. Ichneutae. Translated by R. J. 
Walker. 9”x63”. Pp. xviit+664. London: 
Burns and Oates, Ltd., 1919. Cloth, 


£3 3s. od. net. 


Theocritus. dylls. By R. J. Cholmeley. 
8?" x 53". Pp. vilit4s0. London: G. Bell 


and Sons, 1919. Cloth, 10s. 6d. net. 

Zhe Officium and Miracula of Richard Rolle of 
Hampole. Edited by R. M. Woolley, D.D. 
͵ x5". Pp..97. London: S.P.C.Ks, x9fo. 
Cloth, 5s. net. 

Transactions and Proceedings of the American 
Philological Association. οἱ" x6". Pp. 
xlviii+162. London: Ginn and Co., 1918. 
Paper, $2.50. 

Vercingetorix. Prize Latin Poem, with three 
others. 10”’x 63". Pp. 60. Amsterdam : 
J. Muller, 1919. 

ΡΥ See Kleine Texte. 


Viirtheim (J.) Stesichoros’ Fragmente und 
Biographie. 9}’’x 64”. Pp. xiit+ 112. Leiden: 
A. W. Sijthoff, 1919. 

Warren (E. P.) M.A. Alcmaeon, Hypermestra, 


Caeneus. 8’x 5". Pp.110o. Oxford: Black- 
well, 1919. Half cloth, paper boards, 
45. 6d. net. 


Wetskotten (H. Τὸ Sancti Augustini Vita 
scripta a Possidio Episcopo. Edited with 
revised text, Introduction, Notes, and English 
Version, by H. T. W. (Dissertation for 
doctorate). 5}”x8". Pp. 176. Princeton 
University Press and Clarendon Press. 

Westaway (F. W.) Scientific Method. 8" Χ οζ΄. 
Pp. xxii+426. London: Blackie and Son, 
Ltd., 1919. " Cloth, 1os. 6d. net. 


INDEX 


I.— GENERAL INDEX. 


A. 


Acts XV. (29), 100, 151 1. 
Adam (Mrs.), notice of De Sanctis’ Storia dei 
Romani, 75 ff. 
Aeneas, relation with Pallas and Evander, 29 f. 
Agar (T. L.), the Homeric Hymns (XII.), 85 ff. ; 
(XIII.), 130 ff. 
obituary notice of B. B. Rogers, 167 
Alcaeus, the new fragments of, 1270 ff. 
Anatolian family, a noble, 1 ff. 
Anderson (J. G. C.), obituary notice of Professor 
F, Haverfield, 165 f. 
Andrelinus, 40 f. 
Anth. Pal. V. (6); XII. (3), 25 
Annibaldi’s Agricola and Germania of Tacitus, 
noticed, 158 ff. 
Apollo, notes on the religious character of, 88 f. 
Appleton (R. B.), Aeschylus, Ewmenides (864 sq.), 26 
Aristophanes, Ach. (912), 63 
Pax, notes on, 150 f. 
Augustus, 65 f. 


B. 


Bailey (C.), notes on Aristophanes’ Pax, 150 f. 

Barker’s Greek Political Theory: Plato and his Pre- 
decessors, noticed, 114 f. 

Basil and the Gregories, 1 

Bassett (Samuel E.), δαίμων in Homer, 134 f. 

Beazley’s Attic ved-figured Vases in American 
Museums, noticed, 154 f. 

Boethius, philosophy of, 160 ff. 


Boethius’ die Pythais: Studien zur Geschichte der 


Verbindungen zwischen Athen und Delphi, noticed, 
ΕΞ: 

Bolshevism, 165) 

Books Received, 48, 84, 124, 168 

Box, Charles and Landsman’s Translations of 
Early Documents, noticed, 165 


Braunholtz (G. E. K.), Harley MS. 2610 and 


Ovid Met. I. (544 sqq.) 140 f. 
notice of Enk’s Gratti Cynegeticon quae supersunt, 
1574. 
Brooks (E. J.), queries to article on Plaut. Stich. 
τ ff., C.R., September 1918, 64 
Brooks (E. W.), Epimenides and ‘ Maxanidus,’ 100 
Brownson’s Xenophon, Hellenica 1.-V. (Loeb 
Library), noticed, 118 
Burd (H. W. M.), Cicero's letters in Atticus, XV. 
(9) 103 
Bury (BR. G.), notice of Jones’ The Platonism of 
Plutarch, 44 
notice of Laird’s Plato’s Geometrical Number and 
the Comment of Proclus, 456 f. 
notice of Whittaker’s The Neo-Platonists, 1644 
Butler (H. E.), Virgil, Aen. VI. (859), 61 ff. 


Butterworth (ἃ. W.), the meaning of ws οἷόν τε, 
15 ff. 
notice of Perrin’s Plutarch’s Lives (Vol. V., 
Loeb Library), 71 f. 
notice of Miss Stawell’s The Price of Freedom, 
IIo 


C. 


Carthaginian imperialism, compared to British, 76 
Cary (M.), note on Herodotus III. (104), 148 f. 
note on Livy xxi. 48 (3), 1070 f. 
Pompey’s compromise, 109 
Catullus 39, 11, Parcus Umber, 1050 f. 
Chase’s Catalogue of Arretine Pottery in the Museum 
of Fine Arts, Boston, noticed, 78 f. 
Cholmeley (H. P.), Classical teaching, 145 ff. 
Christian physicians, 7) f. 
Cicero, Pvo. Rab. Post. 7 (17), 66 
Cicero’s letters to Atticus, XV. (9), 103 
Clark (Albert C.), notice of Sjogren’s M, Tudli 
Ciceronis Epp. ad Atticum I.-IV., 37 ff. 
Classical teaching, 145 ff. ~ 
‘colon Reizianum,’ 64 f. 
Colson (F. H,), Phaedrus and Quintilian I. 9. 2— 
a reply to Professor Postgate, 59 ff. 
composition in Roman schools, 59 f. 
Culex, a metrical peculiarity of the, 95 ff. 


D. 


δαίμων in Homer, 134 f. 
Daphne, 140b f. 
Delphi, the Athenian sacrifice at, 113 f. 
De Sanctis: Storia dei Romani (Vol. III.), noticed, 
ff. 
Depaisen’s A Gold Treasure of the Late Roman 
Period, noticed, 117 f. 
Dobson (Dina Portway), ‘quis aquam Nili,’ 28 
dreams in Homer and Greek Tragedy, 116 
Duff (J. Wight), notice of Moricca’s L. Annaet 
Senecae Thyestes, Phaedra, 119 f. 
notice of the Paravia texts of the minor works 
of Tacitus, 158 ff. 


ἘΠ 


Edmonds (J. M.), the new Lyric fragments (111.), 
125 ff. 
Fitrem (S.), some notes on the religious character 
of Apollo, 88 ff. 
Elmore (Jefferson), Horace, Epp. IJ. 3 (120 544.), 
το ῦ f. 
Sevm, II. i, (886) τοτῦ f. 
Enk’s Gratti Cynegeticon quae supersunt, noticed, 157 f. 
Ennius, echoes of, in the Aeneid, 138 ff. 


169 


170 


Epimenides and ‘ Maxanidus,’ τοὺ (see Vol. XXX. 
pp. 33 ff., 137 ff.) - | 

epitaphs, fourth-century Anatolian, 1 ff. 

Euripidea, 136 f. ‘ 

Euthymides, 73 f. 

Evelyn- White (C. H.), notice of Stewart and Rand’s 
Boethius, 160 ff. 


B. 


Fay (Edwin W.), the derivation of Latin ‘ rudis’ 
quasi ‘ singlestick,’ 1060 f. 
nostrum nobis, 10g). 
Feltoe’s St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Letters and 
Treatises, noticed, 122b. 
Fronto, a passage of (Naber, p. 203), 1534. 
Fowler (Frank H.), the ‘ prospective,’ 97 ff. _ 
Frank (Tenney), Pompey’s compromise: Cicero, 
ad Fam. VIII. 11 (3), 68 
Virgil, Aen. VIII. (23), 104 


G, 
Garrod (H. W.), ‘ Mule nihil sentis ᾿ (Catull. 88. 3), 
67 
two passages of Virgil, 105 
Virgil and Gregory of Tours, 28 
Gauls, invasion of Greece and Asia Minor by the, 
ο 
Geaneé (E. E.), notice of Laurand’s Manuel des 
Etudes gvecques et latines, 164 
gold currency in the time of Haanibal, 108 
Graeco-Roman ostraca from Dakka, Nubia, 49 ff. 
Granger (Frank), notice of Sir Ray Lankester’s 
Natural Science and the Classical System in 
Education, 110 ff. 
notice of West’s The Value of the Classics, 
1220 f. 
Greek Anthology, additions to the, 55 
poetry, on the new fragments of, recently 
published at Berlin, go f, 


ΤΙ; 
Hardy (Ε. G.), note on Cicero, Pro Rab. Post. 7 (17), 
66 


Harley M.S. 2610 and Ovid, Met. I. (544 sqq.), 140 f. 
Haverfield (F.), Augustus, 65 
obituary notice of, 167 
Herakles of Euripides, on the date of the, 54 f. 
Herford (M.A.B), Aen. XI. (45 sq., 152 sq.), 29 
Herford’s (Miss) Handbook of Greek Vase Painting, 
noticed, 155 f. 
Herodotus III. 104, note on, 148 f. 
Hippolytus, the art of Euripides in the, g ff. 
Hirst, G. M., Statius, Silvae I. vi. (7 sq.), 149 f. 
Homer, Odyssey IV., 442, VIII. (229), 15a. 
Homeric Hymns, the, 85 ff., 130 ff. 
Hoppin’s Euthymides and his Fellows, noticed, 73 f. 
Handbook of Attic ved-figured Vases, noticed, 156 
Horace, metonymy in (Odes I.), 27 
Carm. i. (14), 101 
Epp. ii. 3 (120 sqq.), 102 f. 
Sat. I. ix. (39 sq.), 64; 11. i. (886), τοτῦ f. 
Housman (A. E.), hil in Ovid, 56 ff. 
Howarth (0. J. R.), notice of Jones’ Geography of 
Strabo (Loeb Library), 36 f. 


1: 
IMANTEAITMOS, 24 
Indus valley, Herodotus on the climate of the, 
148 f. 
inscriptions from Priene, 88 f, 


J. 
Jackson (J.), notice of Winstedt’s Cicero's Letters to 
Atticus, 120 ἴ, 


INDEX 


jewellery, ‘Roman,’ 117 f. 

Johnson (H. H.), the Acts, XV. (29), 100 

Jones’ (H. L.) Geography of Strabo (Loeb Library), 
noticed, 36 f. 

Jones’ (R. M.), The Platonism of Plutarch, noticed, 44 

‘Justice,’ Greek version of Rudyard Kipling’s, 47 


Ke 


Kean (M.), Aristophanes, Ach. (912), 63 
Horace, Sat. I. ix. (39 sq.), 64 


L. 


Laird’s Pluto’s Geometrical Number and the Comment 
of Proclus, noticed, 450 f. 
Lamb (W.), notice of Chase’s Catalogue of Avrvetine 
ied in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 
Out 
Tae of Hoppin’s Euthymides and his Fellows, 


73 1. 
landed families, Anatolian, τ ff. 
Lankester’s(Sir Ray), Natural Science and the Classical 
System in Education, noticed, r10 ff. 
Latin authors, notes on, 153 
Laurand’s Manuel des Etudes gvecques et Latines, 
noticed, 164 
Leuconoe, 27 f. 
lightning, watch kept for, 113 
Lindsay he M.), Catullus 39, 11, parcus umber, 
105b f. 
an uncial fragment of Plautus, 152 
Mandalus. Recula. Malacrucia, 66 
Martial XIV. xxix. (2), 26 
Plautus, Cas. (416, 814), ib. 
Recula, 7b. 
Livy ii. 30 (4); xxi. 48 (3), 107 f. 
Lyric fragments, the new (III.), 125 ff. 


M. 


M. (F. H), notice of Dennison’s ‘A Gold Treasure 
of the Late Roman Period,’ 117 f. 
Mair (A. W.), Euripidea, 136 f. 
Mandalus. Recula. Malacrucia, 66 
manuscripts, the descent of, 79 ff. 
Marchart (E, C.), notice of Brownson’s Xenophon, 
Hellen. I.-V., 118 f. 
Matthaei’s Studies in Greek Tragedy, noticed, 60 f. 
Messer’s The Dream in Homer and Greek Tragedy, 
noticed, 116 
Meton, 27) 
Moricca’s L. Annaei Senecae Thyestes Phaedra, noticed, 
119 f, 
MSS. of Cicero, 37 ff. 
of New Testament in Freer Collection, 122 
of Old Testament in Freer Collection, 121 
of Ovid, 140 
of Plautus, 152 
of Seneca, 119 
of Tacitus, 158 f. 
Mulvany (C. M.), a supposed fragment of Theo- 
phrastus, 18 
Mustard’s Eclogues of Faustus Andrelinus and Joannes 
Arnolletus, noticed, 40 f. 


nihil in Ovid, 56 ff. 

nolim and velim with perfect infinitive, 93a 
Notes, 24 ff., 63 ff., 100 ff., 148 ff. 

Notes AnD NEws, 46, 84, 123, 167 


O. 


Oxituary, Professor F. Haverfield, 165 f. 
Benjamin Bickley Rogers, 167 
omen from fall of weapons, 1036 


INDEX 


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS, 1 ff., 49 ff., 85 ff., 125 ff. 
Owen (S.G.), notice of Mustard’s Eclogues of Faustus 
Andrelinus and Joannes Arnolletus, 40 f. 
notice of Ramsay’s Juvenal and Persius (Loeb 

Library), 42 ff. 


1B) 


Paton’s The Greek Anthology (Vol. IV., Loeb 
Library), noticed, 35 f. 
Pearce (J. W. E.), a passage of Fronto (Naber, 
p. 203), 1534 
Pearson (A. C.), notice of Trever’s History of Greek 
Economic Thought, 74 
ne of Prickard’s Selected Essays of Plutarch, 
33 ἢ. : 
Perrin’s Plutarch’s Lives (Vol. V., Loeb Library), 
noticed, 71 f. 
Phaedrus and Quintilian 1. 9, 2—a reply to Pro- 
fessor Postgate, 59 ff. 
Phaedrus and Seneca, το ff. 
Phillimore (J. S.), in Propertium retractationes 
selectae, οἵ ff. 
Phrygian custom, survivals of, in Lycaonia, 7 
Platnauer (M.), Anth. Pal. V. (6), 25 
Plato’s ‘nuptial number,’ 45 
Platt (Arthur), Thucydides 11. (48), 63 
Plautus, Stich. 1 ff., queries to article on, in C. R. 
September, 1918, 64 
an uncial fragment of, 152 
Polybius, 77 
Pompey’s Compromise: Cicero, ad Fam, VIII. 11 
(3), 68, 109 
Πορκεία, on the suggestion, in Acts XV. (20, 29), 
151 f. 
Postgate (J. P.), Phaedrus and Seneca, τὸ ff. 
Quintilian I. 9 (2), 1086 
Powell (J. U.), additions to the Greek Anthology, 55 
on the new fragments of Greek poetry recently 
published at Berlin, go f. 
on the suggestion πορκεία in Acts xv. 20, 29, 
151 f. 
notice of Paton's The Greek Anthology (Vol. IV.), 
35 f. 
Prickard’s Selected Essays of Plutarch, noticed, 33 ff. 
Proctor (F. A.), Anth. Pal. XII. (3), 25 
Proserpine, rape of, 280 
Propertinm, retractiones selectae in, 91 ff. 
(See Vol. 1916, p. 39: 1917, p- 87) 
‘prospective,’ the, 97 ff, 141 ff. 
Punic War, the first, 76 
Pythais, the Athenian, 113 f. 


Q. 
Quintilian I. 9 (2), 1088 
_ (See p. 59) 
Quirinus, 64) 
‘quis aquam Nili,’ 28 
R. 


Ramsay (W. M.), a noble Anatolian family of the 
fourth century, 1 ff. 

Ramsay’s Juvenal and Persius (Loeb Library), 
noticed, 42 ff. 

rations, Roman soldiers’, 51 

Reconstruction Problems, 21: the Classics in British 
Education, noticed, 83 f. 

REVIEws, 31 ff., 69 ff., 110 ff., 154 ff. 

rhetorical exercises, 59 f. 

Rhys Roberts’ Patriotic Poetry, Greek and English, 
noticed, 163 f. 

Richards (G. C.), notice of Boethius’ die Pythais ; 
Studien zur Geschichte dey Verbindungen zwischen 
Athen und Delphi, 113 f. 

Robertson-Luxford (J. 5. 0.), Homer, Odyss. IV, 
442, VIII. (229) 1514 


171 


Rogers, Benjamin E., obituary notice of, 167 
Rouse (W. H. D.), Virgil, 138 ff. 
‘rudis’ guast ‘ singlestick,’ derivation of, 1060 f. 


S. 


5. (A.), notice of Vurtheim’s Teukvos und Teukrer, 
46 
8. υ, A.), the art of Euripides in the Hippolytus, 


9 ff. 
Sanders’ New Testament MSS. in the Freer Collec- 
tion (Part II.), noticed, 1220. 
Old Testament MSS. in the Freer Collection 
(Part II), noticed, 121 f. 
Sappho, the new fragments of, 125 ff. 
‘semi-quotation,’ 220 f. 
Sergii, Christian sympathies of the, 8 
Sheppard (J. T.), notice of Miss Matthaei’s Studies 
in Greek Tragedy, 609 f. 
notice of Messer’s The Dream in Homer and 
Greek Tragedy, 116 
ἀρούρας (A.), notice of Van Leeuwen’s Enchiridium, 
31 ff. 
SHort Notices, 44 ff., 121 ff., 163 ff. 

Sing (J. M.), Euripides, Hecuba (854 sqq.), 64 
Sjégren’s M. Tullit Ciceronis Epp. ad Atticum, I.-IV., 
noticed, 37 ff, ᾿ 
Slater (Ὁ. A.), Harley MS, 2610 and Ovid, Met. 

I. (544 sqq.), 140 f. 
‘Virgil, Aen. VII. 695-6’ Again, 144 f. 
notice of Reconstruction Problems, 83 f. 
Smith (J. A.), metonymy in Horace, Odes, I. (xi.), 27 
Sonnenschein (E. A.), the ‘ prospective,’ 141 ff. 
Sophocles, Antigone (471 sq.), 25 
Souter (A.), notes on Latin authors, 153 
spolia opima, the, 61 f, 
Spranger (J. A.), on the date of the Herakles of 
Euripides, 54 f. 
Statius, Silvae, 1. vi. (7 sq.), 149 f. 
Stawell’s The Price of Freedom, noticed, 110 
Stewart and Rand’s Boethius (Loeb Library), 
noticed, 160 ff. 
suasoriae, 440 


Ἵ 


notice of Rhys Roberts’ Patriotic Poetry, Greek and 
English, 163 ἴ. 
T. (E. M. W.), notice of Beazley’s Attic Red-jigured 
Vases in American Museums, 155 
notice of Miss Herford’s Handbook of Greek 
Vase Painting, 155 f. 
notice of Hoppin’s Handbook of Attic Red- 
figured Vases, 156 
Teucer and the Teucri, 46 
Thackeray’s The Letter of Aristeas, noticed, 123) 
Theophrastus, Characters, No. V. (Jebb), emenda- 
tion of, 63 
Thespians, the, 54 f. 
Thompson (D’Arcy Wentworth), ἱμαντελιγμός, 24 
Thucydides, 11. (48), 63 
Trever’s History of Greek Economic Thought, noticed, 
74 
Vv. 


Van Leeuwen’s Enchiridium, noticed, 31 ff. 
Version, ‘Justice’ (Rudyard Kipling), 47 
Viljoen (H. G.), emendation of Theophrastus, 
Characters, 63 
Vince (C. A.), Horace C. i, (14), τοῦ 
Virgil, 138 ff. 
‘Aen. VII. 695-6’ Again, 144 f. 
and Gregory of Tours, 28 
echoes of Ennius in, 138 ff. 
notes on, 29, 30, 61, 67, 68, 103, 104, 105 
one-syllable endings in, 138 ff. 
Viirtheim’s Teukros und Teukrer, noticed, 46 


172 


t Ww. 
Walters (C. Flamstead), the descent of manuscripts, 


79 Ht. 

Warde Fowler (W.), a metrical peculiarity of the 
Culex, 95 ff. 
note on Virgil, Ecl. IV. (60 sqq.), 67 

Weatherhead (T. C.), Bolshevism, 165) 
West's The Value of the Classics, noticed, 122) f. 
White (Hugh G. Evelyn), Graeco-Roman ostraca 

from Dakka, Nubia, 49 ff. 
Whittaker’s Neo-Platonists, noticed, 164 


Il.—INDEX 
A, 
Aeschylus :— 
Eximen, (12), 1130; (864 sq.), 26a 
Alcaeus :— 


Fragments (Ox. Pap., Vols. X., XI.), 
1233. 2. ii. (2), 1270; 33 (5 sqq.), 128a. 
1234 (1), 128ab; 4 (6 sqq.), 128); 6 (7 544.), 
1294. 
1360. I. (9 sqq.), 129ab; (2), τοῦ f. 
Anth, Pal.:— 
V. (6), XII. (3), 25 
Apuleius :— 
Met. V. (19), 1530 
Aristophanes :— 
Ach. (912), 636 f. 
Pax (72 Sq., 114 Sqq., 250), 150 


οἱ 
Catullus :— 
XXXIX. (11), 1050 ἢ. 
Cicero :— 
ad Ati, T. i. ἃ, 3.3. 20 (2), 386; I. i.’5; 18. 2, 
21 (6), 39; III. 8 (2), 380; IV. 15. 4, 17 (3); 
394; XV. (9), 103 
ad Fam. VIII. 6 (5), 1o9a 
Or. post red. in sen. hab. (29), 1530 
pro Rab. post. 7 (17), 66 


E. 
Euripides :— 
Hec. (854 sqq.), 64a 
Her. Fur. (217 sqq.), 55 
Ion (285), 1130 
Iphig, in Aul. (990 sq.), 1364 
Troades (568 sqq.), 136 f. 


F, 
Fronto :— 
(Naber, p. 203), 1524 


ἘΣ 
Herodotus :--- 
III. (104), 148 f. 
Homer :— 
Odyss. 1V. (442), VIII. (229), 1514 
Homeric Hymns :— 
in Apoll, (286, 299, 316), 85; (324, 327, 329, 331, 
343 544.), 86; (335, 337, 361), 87; (374, 390), 
88 ; (399 544.), 130; (419), 88; (427), 130; 
(435), 883; (437, 447, 449), 130; (450, 456, 
459), 131; (476 54., 491, 495), 132; (506, 527, 
529, 534-539), 133; (540), 134 
Horace :— 
Gal. Ga.) 27-45 (xive)) τοῦ 
Epp. ΤΙ. iii. (120 sqq.), 1020 f. 
Sevm, I. ix. (39 sq.), 64; II, i, (886), τοτῦ f. 


Li: 
Lavy -— 

II. 30 (4), 1074; XXI. 48 (3), 1070 f. 
Lucilius :— 

(1266 ed. Marx), 1534 


INDEX 


Wick’s Cornelit Taciti dialogus de Ovatoribus, noticed, 
159 

Williamson (H.), Aen. I. (460), 30 

Winstedt’s Cicero's Letters to Atticus, Vol. III. (Loeb 
Library), noticed, 120 f. 


Z. 


Zimmern (A.E.), notice of Barker’s Greek Political 
Theory, 114 f. 
Q 


ΩΣ OION TE, the meaning of, 15 ff. 


LOCORUM. 
M. 
Martial :— 
XIV. xxix. (2) 
N. 


N. T. :— 
Acts xv. (29), τοοῦ f. ; xvii. (18), 1004 
Tit. 1. (12), 1004 


O. 
Ovid :— 
Met. I. (544 544), 140 f. 


ἘΣ 
Plautus :— 
Cas. (416, 814), 26); (278 sqq.), 27a 
Cistell. (123-147, 158-182), 152 
Propertius :— 
I. iii. (8), 91; ib. (19:5g.), 92a 3 vii. (16), 920 f. ; 
ete $9q.), 93 3 iX- (23 sq.), 930 f.; xi. (6), 


940 1. 
sul Q. 
Quintilian :— 
I. 9 (2), 109) 
Se 


Sappho :— 
Fragments (Ox. Pap., Vols. X., XI.), 1231, 
I. i. (13 sqq.), 125 f.; (10) 1264; 16 (2 sqq.), 
126ab ; (56), 1260 f. ; 1232, I. 1..; (8), 1247a; 
ii. (2, 9, 12, 17 sqq.), 127ab; 1232, 2 (1 5gq.), 
ὃ 


Seneca :— 
Phaedra (343, 465 544., 508, 520, 769, 890), 119 
Thyestes (355), 119) 
Sophocles :— 
᾿ Ant. (471 sq.), 256. 
Statius :— 
Silv. I. vi. 7 sq. (coll. Aen. viii. 317; Martial, 
vili. 78), 1490 f. 


ὯΝ: 
Theophrastus :— 
Characters, V. v. 17 ff. (Jebb), 636 
Thucydides :— 
II. (48), 63a 
V. 


Virgil :— 

Aen. 1. (37, 212 sqg.), 1468; (460), 30; VI. (859), 
61 ff. ; VII. (641 sqq.), 1030 f. (695 sq.), 144 1. ; 
VIII. (23), 1043 (376 544.), 105; IX, (743), 
to7a; XI. (9), 1474; (45 54., 152 54.), 20; 
XIT. (93 sqq.), 105 ; (473, 519), 68 

Culex (37 544.), 95; (59, 63, 214, 292), 964 

Eccl, IV. (60 sqq.), 67 

Georg. I. (2, 81, 164), 1450; 11. (25 sg.), 15305 
(486 soq.), 960; IV. (498 sq.), 7b. 

Moretum (65), 26a 


A. 
Αιτναῖος κάνθαρος, 150) 

Β. 
βλαχαί, 350 A 
βουλευτής =curialis, 2b 

Ts 
Γαλεοί. Γαλεῶται, 89 

ἷ Δ. 

δαίμων, 134 fi. 
δόλοφυν, 126a 

E, 
? ἐπήρης, 85a 

1: 
ἱμαντελιγμός, 244 
ἱμαντελικτής, 240 

Κ, 
κάμπης, 340 
καράτομος, 137 
καταθνητοί, 1326 
κάτοχος, 26) 
κιβαριάτωρ, 50D 

Α. 


acies, τ44α4 

aclydes, ‘boomerangs,’ 1o4a 
actor, 1050 

alticinctus, 21b 

avx, 144 

augustus, 65D 


certa manus, QI 
cibariator, 50 


evigilare, 93b 
extremus = minimus, 940 


Η: 


hivundo, ‘swift,’ 68 
honovatum Acshillem, τοιοῦ f. 


M. 


mala cvux, 26 

Ὁ malacrucia, 26 
mandalus, 26D 
meliusculus, 216 
metella, metellus, 67b 


INDEX 


III.—INDEX VERBORUM 


A.>+GREEK. 


B.—LATIN. 


κμητός, 85b 
κολλόροβοι, 50a 


κώπη, 25a 

A. 
Λευκόνοιον, 27b 

M. 
μακάριος, 6a 
μονογενής, 350 

0. 
οὖσα, gtb 

LUI 
πασπάριος, 89) 
περιδύω, 4a 
ἢ πορκεία, 151b 

Σ. 
σοῦσον, 91a 

ΠΣ 
τετραπύργια, τὰ 

Q 
ws οἷον τε, 15 ff. 

oO. 
obaudiens, 1538 

Py; 
praebere, 930 f. 

Q. 
quam, ‘than,’ 1096 

R. 
ve-, the prefix, 104) 
vecula, 26a 

SE 


Scythicae volucres, 430 

stave, ‘ to be successful,’ 640 
stvictuvae chalybum, 147a 

sub sidere, 930 


tabulae, 102a 
tibicen, 42b 


BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD, ENGLAND 


» 


173 


ἀκ δυο . YAN CO [906 


PA The classical review 
1 

C7 

Ve 32-33 


PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET 


UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY 


pees 


ieee rita atirareate! ee 
παντᾷ mentee Beet cnn 


9
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Classical review"

See other formats
