Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the literature of ancient Greece, from the foundation of the Socratic schools to the taking of Constantinople by the Turks; being a continuation of K.O. Müller's work"

See other formats













VOL. I. 



[rAe Author reserves the right of Translation.'] 

r 1-1 

5 0S2_ 








Bart., M.P. 

My dear Sir, 

In inscribing this work witli your name, I discharge 
at once a public and a private duty : a public duty, because the book, 
which I have attempted to complete, owes its commencement to your 
suggestion, and its first appearance in an English form to your labours 
as translator and editor ; a private duty, because I have been associated 
in this labour only through you and as your substitute. If, however, 
you had been unconnected with this publication, I could hardly have 
found an English scholar to whom a history of Greek Literature would 
be more appropriately dedicated. Your important contributions to 
Classical Learning, from which your political engagements have not 
altogether withdrawn your attention, have placed you by general 
consent in the foremost rank of English philologei-s, and I should seem 
to be guilty of flattery if I attempted to give expression to the uni- 
versal estimate of your exact and comprehensive erudition. 

Believe me. 

My dear Sir, 

Very truly yours, 


a 2 


WHEN K. O. Mullcr died in 1840, tlic Society for the 
Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, for which I was trans- 
lating the History of Greek Literature from the author^s nianu- 
script, commissioned me to complete the work, and a few pages 
of my continuation had been published, when the Society came 
to an end. From that time until rather less than three years 
ago, I heard no more of the book ; but the present publishers, 
having become possessed of the copyright, have requested me to 
complete my original undertaking, and the following pages are 
the result. 

In thus accepting a task, perhaps the most laborious, in pro- 
portion to its extent, that I could have undertaken, I have been 
induced by two motives : first, a wish to fulfil an obligation 
to the public, and to perform a promised duty to the memory 
of a distinguished scholar ; secondly, a conviction that this 
book, if completed with tolerable success, would fnrui>li :m aid 
to the classical student which has not been and is not likely to 
be superseded. 

^Vith regard to the first of these motives, I am quite aware 
that there are many who feci a respect for the memory of 
K. O. ^Miillcr, and who wish that his last and not least im[)or- 
tant work should be completed according to his plan, and that 
among these there are some who are at least as competent as I 
can pretend to be to write a history of Greek literature. But, 
on the other hand, I have every reason to believe that the 
])ul)lie announcement of the fact, that one of the translators 
had been appointed to continue the work by the Society, for 
which ^Miiller himself was writing it, must have deten-cd his 
friends in Germany and England from attempting to perform 
the same good olficc. In point of fact, the work is still a 
fragment; and though two editions have been published iu 


(Irrnianv, no one has essayed to take np the broken thread of 
Miiller's narrative. Among his colleagues and successors at 
(Jiittingen, Schneidewin, who at one time wished to finish the 
liistory, and K. F. Ilcrmaun, who was as weU quabfied to write 
on tlu>' subject as any German professor, have both been re- 
moved bv death within the last year or two. And it really 
seems that, if I had not been willing or able to redeem my 
promise, this debt due to the public and to Miiller would 
never have been paid. 

In asserting the great importance of Muller's work as an 
aid to the classical student, and in saying that it is without any 
rival, present or prospective, I hope I shall not be understood 
as wishing to reflect on any history of Greek literature, either 
])ublishcd or in the course of publication. I merely desire to 
intimate my opinion that, besides being now complete, Muller's 
is the only book on this subject which is concise without 
sinking to the level of a mere compendium, and which is 
sufficiently i)opular, while it possesses all the attributes of exact 
scholarship. A diffuse and voluminous work, whatever may be 
its merits, cannot serve the same purpose 'in the hands of 
persons commencing or pursuing the study of the Greek 
authors.'* A history of Greek literature should stimulate the 
curiosity of the classical student Avithout attempting to satisfy 
it. It must not even pretend to say all that is known about 
the Greek authors themselves : for this is best left to dictionaries 
and encyclopaedias. Its work is accomplished, as far as the 
student is concerned, if it tells him how literature rose, grew, 
and declined among the Greeks ; if it indicates how the different 
writers contributed to its development or decadence, and if it 
links together their separate biographies by the proper chain of 
cause and effect. A history of Greek literature for the use of 
students is not a collection of unconnected notices ; it is not a 
catalogue of all the works written in the Greek language, like 
that which we owe to the diligence of Fabricius ; it is not an 
elaborate review of the separate writings of eminent Greeks, 
like those which find their place in the Prolegomena of critical 
editions ; it is not a history of philosophy, except so far as 

See the Translators' Preface to the first volume of this work ; below, p. xxxi. 


philosophy is a development of literature. It should serve as a 
guide to those "oho are engaged in reading the Greek authors 
themselves ; it shoiild be a sort of index map to eonneet the 
detailed surveys of particular districts ; and for all beyond this 
it must refer the student to the original texts or special treatises. 
Such a book was ]Muller's as far as it went, and I know no 
other of precisely the same kind, cither in English or in any 
foreign language, either already published or in the course of 

For my own part, I have endeavoured, to the best of my 
ability, to carry out the plan on which ]\Iiiller commenced this 
work. Besides the general principles laid down in his intro- 
duction, I have had before me the follo\nng list of the chapters 
which he had intended to Avrite, with the numbers Avliich he 
originally attached to them : — 




Plato's Sokratische Dialogen. 


Demosthenes' Beredtsamkeit. 

Demosthenes' Zeitgenossen unter den Rednern. 


Historiker aus Isokrates' Schule. 





Alexandrinische Epopoen : Kallimachos, Ajmllonios, Rhianos, 


yjJi rHEFACE. 


Jdilllen, ttnd clegische Dichter derselben Schule. 


7v'/77/A- iind Grammatik in Alexandrien. 


rjh'ge der Wissenschaften uhcrhaupt. Eratosthenes. 


Schulen der Philosophie. 


Ausbildung der Theorie der Rhetorik. . 


Behandlungsweise der Geschichte. Polybios. 

Griechische Literatur in Rom eingeburgert. 


Historische Gelehrsamkeit in der Angustischen Zeit. 


Erdkunde und Wissensch(tft uberhanpt in derselben Zeit. 



Neuer Avfschwung der Rhetorik im zweiten Jahrhundert. 


Philosophie. Neuplatonische Richtung. 


Entgegengesetzte Richtung. Lucian. 



Historikcr in dcr Zclt der Antoninen. 

JV'ufsenschaftliclie Gc/c/irte. Ptulcmceos, S^c. 


Literarisc/w Sammlcr. Athenccos, S^-r. 


Letzte Ztiten des Heidenthums. Heidnische Rhetoren und 



Antar/onismus der Christlichen. SchriftsteUcr gegen die 



NdchkUinge der alien Literatur. Romane. Epos des Nonnus. 


Uberblick des Betriebs der Literatur in Byzanz. 

It will be observed that, in filling up this brief outline, or 
rather in writing on this series of themes, I have closely fol- 
lowed ^liiller in all that relates to the plan and arrangement 
of the book. "While I have completed the history in the sixty 
chapters which he originally assigned to it, I have added two 
to those which are given in this list — namely, those ' on the 
Socratic schools^ and ' on the writings of Hippocrates.' But 
I have arranged the four chapters assigned to Alexandrian lite- 
rature in two : I have also combined Miillcr's fortv-ninth and 
fiftieth chapters, and his fifty-fifth and fifty-sixth chapters, in 
one chapter for each pair ; and have thus, as I conceive, given 
greater distinctness to his classification of the subject. 

The period which is comprised in these narrow limits is more 


tlian ciglitccn centuries ; and I need hardly say that I do not 
pretend to give new or original information on all parts of this 
extensive survey. There are several snbjeets whieh I have 
made my own by sjjceial study, but an equal attention to all 
the autliors would have involved the unprofitable labour of a 
Vhalceiitinis or BibHolathus. I have therefore considered it 
my duty to avail myself of recent as well as ancient learning, 
and lor this reason I have referred more frequently than 
]\Uillcr did to modern authorities. Every special obligation 
has been carefully acknowledged in the notes. But I have 
been constantly indebted for suggestions, guidance, references, 
and other assistance more or less valuable, to the Bibliotheca 
of Fabricius, to the literary histories of Scholl, Wester- 
mann, and Bernhardy, to the philosophical researches of H. 
Hitter, Hegel, and Schleiermacher, to the Fasti of the late 
Mr. Clinton, and to the dictionaries of Drs. A. Pauly and 
AV. Smith. It has often been of great advantage to me to be 
able to refer to the learned volumes of Dr. Thirlwall and 
Mr. Grote ; and I have much regretted that the latter scholar 
lias not yet published his promised discussions on Greek philo- 
sophy. The greater part of Mr. Mure's valuable work treats 
of the authors who had been previously reviewed by Miiller : 
and my own chapters on Xenophon and the minor historians 
were written before I had an opportunity of seeing his fifth 
volume, in which alone he has traversed some of the ground 
surveyed in my continuation. 

In conclusion, I have only to express my hope that this 
supplementary labour will contribute, at least in some degree, 
to realize the intended usefulness of Miiller's unfinished work, 
and thus to fulfil the wishes of the excellent Society, by which 
it was so far advanced during the lifetime of its lamented 
author, and to which I owe my first connexion with the under- 

J. W. D. 

Camlridr/c, 2^th June, 1858. 





KARL OTFRIED MULLER was horn at Bricg in Silesia on 
the 28th of August, 1797. The only name, which was given 
to hira at l)aptisin, was Karl, and he assumed the second name 
Otfried, as a hteraiy prrcnomen to distinguish him from many 
other Karl M'ullers, on the publication of his first important 
work in 1 8 1 9. He received the rudiments of his education from 
his father, at that time a young Lutheran pastor. At Easter 
18 10 he was entered in the fourth class of the gymnasium at 
Brieg, and remained there until he had reached the head of the 
school, with a great reputation for classical scholarship, especially 
Latin verse composition, at Easter 18 14, when he was removed to 
the Univei'sitv of Breslau. Here he enioved the great advan- 
tage of receiving instruction in classical philology from J. G. 
Schneider, the editor of Xenophon and Theophrastus, and the 
father of improved Greek lexicography in Germany, and from 
L. F. Heindorf, who had been an eminent member of Nicbuhr's 
coterie at Berlin, and who is well known by his commentaries 
on Plato and Horace. For the latter scholar, who showed a 
very early appreciation of his talents, and gave him encourage- 
ment at a time when such a stimulus to his exertions was most 
efficacious, Miillcr formed a strong attachment, which contri- 
buted, when he went to Berlin, to increase his prejudice against 
the celebrated F. A. Wolf, who had been Heindorfs teacher, but 
had yielded to the feelings of jealousy, which tutors of a certain 
temper entertain towards their successful pupils, and had 
endeavoured, in a very unhandsome manner, to disparage 


Ilrindorfs merit as a critical interpreter. Although philology 
was till- iiiaiu imrsuit of Miiller at Brcslau, especially after he 
liad hcconio Mcll acquainted with Heindorf, he engaged in 
almost all the other studies of the University. Philosophy, 
uhich lie learned in the lecture-rooms of StefFens, Kayssler, 
and Thilo, seemed likely at one time to withdraw him from 
classical scholarship. Another of his favourite studies was 
botanv, in which he found an admirable teacher in Link. He 
read mathematics up to a certain point under Jungnitz, attended 
the theological lectures of Augusti and Gass, heard Kaumer on 
the French Revolution, and made some progress in Hebrew and 
Syriac under IMiddeldorpf. But with all this diversity of 
reading he was growing more and more devoted to that which 
became the special study of his life — classical antiquity in its 
widest range and compass. And in order to gratify his in- 
creasing love for this branch of learning lie removed in 
the spring of 1816 to Berlin, which enjoyed at that time 
the highest reputation among the Universities of Germany. 
Although he studied only for a year at the Prussian capital, for 
he passed as Doctor in Philosophy at Easter 1817, this short 
residence at Berlin produced an important influence on his 
career. His exertions were indefatigable, and at no period 
during his laborious life did he spend a greater number of 
hours in intense study. In a letter written to his brother Edward 
on the eighteenth of February iSiy/'^ he describes himself as 
surrounded by books : fifteen to tAventy folios mostly open 
were lying on chairs, on the sofa, or on the ground, intermixed 
with countless borrowed books, which in spite of tluTatened 
fines he could not return to the public libraries. His excellent 
constitution sustained his bodily health in the midst of these 
cfibrts to amass learning, the more so, as he did not neglect 
to take exercise in the open air, to \vhich his love for 
botany furnished a constant inducement, and he left Berhn 
a taller and stronger man than when he commenced his 
studies there. The fruits of his reading were shown in 
the inaugural dissertation 'on the history and antiquities of 
yEgina' which he drew up as an exercise for his Doctor's 

Eduard MuUer, Biogrciphische Erinnerungen an K. 0. Miiller, p. xviii. 


degree ami piiblislicd shortly afterwards ia an expanded form 
with the followini; title : 

' /Egincticorum lihcr. Scripsit C. Miiller, Silesius, Dr. 
Phil. Bcroliui. 1817. E. librariu lleiiiiariaiK'i.' 

This little book was dedicated to Augustus Bockh, in whose 
school of classical philology ^Nliillcr had finally enlisted himself, 
and who, recognizing in him a congenial spirit, became his firm 
friend to the end of his life. There arc many indications in 
^Mlillcr's writings of the high esteem in which he held this great 
]5erlin Professor, and on the other hand Bockh contributed more 
than any one to the early reputation and professional success of his 
admiring pupil, by writing a friendly review of the JEginetica 
and taking every opportunity of recommending him for edu- 
cational appointments. 

Miiller's career as a teacher commenced in Januaiy 1818, 
when he was appointed assistant-master in the ]Magdalena3um, 
a public school at Breslau, then under the management of 
MausOj the well-known author of a book on Sparta. In this 
office, with no higher promotion than from the seventh to the 
sixth mastership in the school, he remained until June 18 19, 
when Heeren, influenced ehicfiy, as it seems, by ^liiller's 
^ginelica, and Bockh's laudatory review of that book, wrote to 
invite him to Gottiugen as adjunct professor {Professor extra- 
ordinarius) of ancient literature, and joint director of the 
Philological Seminary, a vacancy having been occasioned by 
Welcker's removal to Bonn, lie accepted the flattering pro- 
posal with undisguised satisfaction. ' Gottiugen,' he wrote to 
his parents, ' is the place of places for me !' And his gratifi- 
cation was increased by the liberality of tlie Hanoverian 
government, which, in addition to his promised salary of 600 
dollars, allowed him 400 dollars to defray the expenses of a stay 
of eight weeks at Dresden, where he had long wished to study 
the monuments of ancient art. This opportunity, of which he 
diligently availed himself, not only gave fixity to his views on 
the arclucolofrv of the fine arts, which to the end of his life was 
one of his favourite subjects, but also cultivated his natural taste 
for the fine arts in general ; and lie speaks with as much enthu- 
siasm of the great masters of the Italian schools, who are reprc- 


scntcd by masterpieces in tlic Dresden Gallery, as of the 
candelabra and bas-reliefs which he saw in the Museum there. In 
a letter to his mother he says :* ' I often stand by the half-hour 
toi^fther before that painting of paintings, the Madonna of 
Kaphael, and come continually hack to it, in spite of my wish to 
"•o on to other pictures. The majesty of the head of the infant 
Christ, who seems to be teeming with the work of redemption, is 
bevond all description. He has in truth ten Jupiters in his head.' 
Notwithstanding his youth, Miiller was treated with great dis- 
tinction at Dresden, and formed a lasting acquaintance with 
Bottiger and other eminent men in the Saxon capital. 

On his arrival at Gottingen he was warmly received by 
Dissen and the other philological professors, and soon became 
one of the most active and popular lecturers at that seat of 
learning. The special and immediate sul^ject of his lectures was 
* the archeology and history of ancient art / but his various 
courses branched over nearly all the topics of classical erudition. 
During the first winter he discoursed on ancient oracles and 
prophecies, a subject not unconnected Avitli his literary labours 
at this time. For in January 1820 he published a Latin essay : 

' De Tripode Delphico. Getting. 1820.^ 

And more elaborate investigations into the mythological lore of 
early Greece appeared soon after in the first volume of his great 
work : 

* Geschichte Hellenischer Stamrae und Stadte,' 

' Histories of Greek races and cities,' which bore the special 
title : 

' Orchomenos und die Minyer. Breslau. 1820.' 

In the same year appeared his essay : 

* Mincrvse Poliadis sacra et sedem in arce Athenarum illus- 

travit C. O. ISIiiller, Prof, in univers. lit. Gotting. 

extraordinarius. Gottingse. 1820.-' 
About the same time he contributed to Bottiger's Amalthea an 
article ' on the Tripods,' and prepared an elaborate paper ' on 
Athens and Attica,' for the general cyclopaedia of Ersch and 
Grubcr. In the midst of all these labours he retained his 

• Eduard MuUer, BioqrapJnsche Erinnerungen an K. 0. Miiller, p. xlii. 


overfiowing spirits and a cheerfulness which no book-learning 
could damp. Many stories are told of the ebullitions of inno- 
cent gaiety Avith which he amused his friends. In fact liveli- 
ness was his distinguishing characteristic. In writing to his sister 
Gottliebe, he would go on rhyming every two or three words to 
the end of the letter. The following specimen is given* from an 
epistle dated Easter, 1819: ' Licb(?lien, komm zum Biibchen, 
in mein Stiibchcn, Herzensspitzbubehen. Wir sind selig und 
"wahlig {i. e. he and his brother Julius), mitunter geht's kunter- 
bunter, ein Bischen knurrig und schnurrig. ]Mit meiuem 
Sehncn und Wiihnen und alien Pliinen ist's ein langsames 
Druckscn und ^luckscn. Wird niclits draus, mach mir nichts 
draus.^ In the same spirit of innocent pleasantry we are told 
how he and his immediate intimates at Gottingcn acted charades 
of the most ludicrous ingenuity. For example, in representing 
the word ' Iphigenie/ the tallest of the party would appear 
holding his hat over his head to indicate the capital ' 1/ with its 
dot ; another on all fours would exhibit a ' Yieh/ (7>Ai) ; and a 
third with fantastic gestures would imitate the ge7iie of the last 
syllables. t The excitability of Miiller's temperament often 
relieved itself with exclamations, and a ludicrous story is told 
of a mistake occasioned by his frequent ejaculation ' Ilimmcl, 
O Ilimmcl/ when he was much delighted. A Silesian lady of 
his acquaintance invited him to hear her daughter's splendid 
performance on the pianoforte. ' Ilimmcl, O Himmel !' cried 
the enraptured listener. ' No,' interposed the gratified parent ; 
' it is not Ilimmel but Hummel, who composed that piece.' 
The strength of Miiller's imaginative powers was shown not 
only by poems of a somewhat higher aim, but by dramatic 
talents of no inconsiderable order. While quite a child he 
delighted in all the details of a little puppet tlieatre, and as a 
young man, when he visited his parents during the Gottingcn 
vacations, he would occasionally organize family gatherings after 
the fashion of an ancient Greek festival. | 

In the summer and autumn of 1822 the liberality of the 
Hanoverian government enabled ^Midler to undertake a journey 
to Holland, England, and France, chiefly for the purpose of in- 

• E. Miiller. Biograph. Erinn. p. xxxii. t Hid. p. xlix. X Ibid- p. xlvi. 


^ncctinj^ imisciims, and so increasing his knowledge as a teacher 
of archicology. The eminent persons whose acquaintance lie 
nindc during this tour, and who received the young philologer 
with kindness and forwarded his studies with friendly interest, 
Mcro, in Holland, Rcuvens, professor of archaeology at Leyden; 
in Englaiul, Dr. Herbert Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough, Mr. 
ravnc Kniirht, and Colonel Leake ; and in Paris, Letronne and 

On his return to Gottingen, he applied himself with in- 
creased diligence to the continuation of his ' Histories of Greek 
races and cities,' and the fruits of his labours appeared in 1824, 
in two further volumes of that work which bore the separate 
title : 

' Die Dorier/ 

Of all Midler's works, there is no one which has produced a 
greater influence on the studies of his contemporaries, or more 
largely contributed to the establishment of his European 
reputation. Perhaps, indeed, there is no one product of 
German learning which exhibits a greater mass of w^ell- digested 
erudition. In combination with Niebuhr's ' History of Rome,' 
which in its improved form first appeared in English in 1828, 
jMiiller's 'Dorians' gave a new direction to the classical studies 
of the country. With the author's sanction, and with many 
additions from his pen, which made it equivalent to a new 
edition of the original,* this work was published in England as : 

' The History and Antiquities of the Doric race, by C. O. 
Miiller, translated from the German by Henry 
Tufnell, Esq., and George Cornewall Lewis, Esq. 
Oxford, 1830.' 2 vols. 8vo. 

This translation also contained, in the form of an appendix, 
"Miiller's essay on the settlements, origin, and early history of 
the Macedonian nation, which had appeared at Berlin in 1825, 
as a separate treatise, with the title : 

'Uebcr die Makedonier. Eine ethnographisehe Unter- 
suchung, von K. O. Miiller.' 

See the Trauslators' Preface, p. ii. 


The great ^vork on the Dorians Avas republislicd in German 
four years after the author's death, under the superintendence 
of Schneidewin, and with additions from ]\Iuller's papers. 

In the year 1823, Milller deelincd a very eompHmentary 
invitation to join the University of BcrHn, and he was this 
year raised to the rank of Professor Ordinarius. Tiioroughly 
cstabHshed at Gottingcn, and with a sufficient income to meet 
the humble demands of German housekeeping, he was enabled 
to marry the daughter of the celebrated jurist Hugo, a young 
lady for whom he had conceived a warm affection. The 
wedding took place on the 8th September, 1824, and the newly 
married couple, with the bride's father, set out on a tour to the 
Rhine-land to visit the family of the Hugo's, in Baden. On 
this occasion, ^Miiller made the acquaintance of Niebidir and 
A. W. Schlegel at Bonn, and of Umbreit, A'oss, and Creuzer at 
Heidelberg ; on his way back to Gottingen, he paid a visit to 
Platner. His establishment as a married man at Gottingen is 
described by his friends as a model of elegance and comfort, 
especially after he got into his new house. ' It always gave 
me the greatest pleasure,' says Liicke,* ' to visit at his house, 
especially tlie new one, with its beautiful garden, which he had 
arranged himself, with a view to hospitality, with the best 
practical judgment and with refined taste, in a style which, as 
we used to say by way of l^anter, was not that of Gottingen, 
but Grajco-Silesian. The cheerful happiness which reigned 
there, without any pride, the managing and kindly wife, the 
lustre shed upon them by the reputation of her father, Hugo, 
the loveable children, the tasteful but solid comfort, the 
elegance without any false adornment, in short, the whole had 
in my eyes always a classical tone.' 

The year 1825 witnessed the publication of one of jMiiller's 
most original and important works : his ' introduction to a 
scientific system of mythology,' or in its German title : 

' Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen ^Nlythologie.' 

Like ' The Dorians ' this work has been translated into 
English, the author of the version being Mr. John Leitch. 

• Erinnerungcn an K. 0. Midkr, von Dr. Fricdrich Liicke. Gottingen. 
1841. p. 35. 


xviii ON THE life and writings of 

Tlu- IxK.k takes a -sober view of the subject, and endeavours to 
,nc-<llutc between tlic extreme theories of Creuzcr and Lobeck. 
Ab.)ut the same tlnu-, the Royal Academy of Sciences at Bcrhn 
proi)osetl the following subject for a prize essay : ' To explain 
and exhibit critically the nature and constitution of the trammg 
of the Etruscan nation, both generally and in reference to the 
several l)rauchcs of the activity of a cultivated nation, in order 
as far as possible to ascertain which of them really, and in what 
(h>giec each of them, flourished in this celebrated people.' 
:\Iuller competed for this prize, which was awarded to him on 
the 3rd July, 1826. In preparing for the press the work which 
obtained this distinction, he considered himself entitled to give 
it a greater extension than this programme seemed to presume, 
and it appeared two years afterwards as a complete treatise on 
Etruscan antiquities with the title : 

' Die Etrusker. Vier Blicher von K. O. Miiller. Breslau. 
iSaS/ 3 vols. 8vo. 
In this work he showed that his knowledge of Italian antiquities 
•was not inferior to his Greek learning, and the book will 
always occupy a high place in the department of research, which 
Thomas Dempster opened, and which is not yet closed to the 
inquisitiveness of scholars. Just before he obtained the Berlin 
prize on the i ith June, 1826, Miiller's domestic affections were 
gratified by the birth of a daughter, and he seemed to have realized 
every wish which his affectionate heart or his literary ambition 
could have prompted. While the two volumes on the Etruscans 
were preparing for the press, Miiller published his excellent 
essay : 

'Dc Phidise vita et operibus. Gotting. 1827.' 

His popular ' Manual of Ancient Art' was published about 
the same time as the English translation of ' The Dorians,' with 
the title : 

' Ilandbuch der Archa^ologie der Kunst. Breslau. 1830.' 

The second edition appeared in 1835, and the third was 
edited by AVclcker in 1847. This work has been translated 
into English by ISIr. Leitch, whose version has been reprinted. 
An Italian translation has appeared at Naples, and a French 
version was published by Nicard in 1841. Eor methodical 


learning and completeness, there is no better book on the 
subjeet of aneient art. The ontlinc illnstrations to this treatise 
have appeared in a scries of parts commeucing iu the year 
1832, with the title : 

' Dcukmaler der alten Knnst nach dcr Auswahl nnd 
Anordnung von K. O. Miiller, gczeichnet und radirt 
von K. Ocsterley.' 

In 1(831 he drew np a geographical supplement to his work on 
' The Dorians ' with the title : 

' Zur Karte des nordliehcn Griechenlands. Beilagc zu dem 
Werke dess. Verf. : die Dorier.' 

And he has shown his familiarity Avith the land of Hellas in his 

* Bemerkungen zu Rienaeker's Bearbeitung der Leake- 
sehen Topographic. Halle. 1829.' 

In 1833 his studies in Latin philology, which liad been stimu- 
lated by his Etruscan researches, bore their first fruits in a 
critical edition of A^arro's essay on his mother-tongue. The 
title is : 

'M. Terenti Yarronis de Lingua Latina Librorum quae 
supersunt emendata et annotata a C, O. jNIucUero.^ 

Thus far his numerous writings had been received with general 
applanse or with fair and moderate criticism. But his edition 
and translation of tlie Eumenides of ^schylus involved him in 
a bitter controversy, which was a source of great discomfort to 
him during the year which followed its publication. He had 
commenced this book and announced it in the -winter of 
1826-27, and had read the translation to his brothers in the 
summer of 1828, but for some reason he kept the Avork iu his 
desk, and he did not give it to the public till 1833, when it came 
out Avith a complete apparatus of explanatory essays, as : 

'iEsehylos Eumcniden griechisch und deutsch niit erljiu- 
ternden Abhandlungcn iiber die aussere Darstellung 
imd iiber den Inhalt und die Composition dieser 

INTUllcr had formed a A\arm attachment to Dissen, who was at 
this time a great invalid, and had shared in his friend's indig- 

h 2 


luitioii at the manner in which the renowned Godfrey Hermann 
of Lc'ipsi-j; had attacked Dissen's Pindar, (see his Opuscula, 
vol. \ 1. pp. 3— '^'y)- ^^ seemed to Miiller and to other 
philolo^'cr-s of Bockh's school, that Hermann had usurped 
the position of a literary dictator, and was unwilling to allow 
to otiiers a free expression of opinion on questions of 
Greek scholarship. With the frankness, then, of his noble 
nature, and with a due sense of his own position in the literary 
world, ^Miiller could not enter on a field esj^eeially appropriated 
by the Leipsig scholar, without proclaiming his own inde- 
l)cndence, and anticipating an attack which perhaps a humbler 
mode of proceeding would not have averted. He concludes his 
preface to the Eumcnides with the following words : * Unfortu- 
nately I cannot indulge in the hope of successfully recommend- 
ing a renewed consideration of many points to the distinguished 
j)liilologer from Avhom we have long been expecting a new 
edition of yEschylus, because this scholar seems to be determined 
beforehand to l)reak his stick over that Avhich modern researches 
jiroduce in certain directions, which are out of the reach of his 
own studies, and especially wdien they concern ^schylus. I 
do not cherish the imagination that I shall form an exception 
to this general rule. But I must enter my most decided 
protest beforehand against Hermann's setting me right before 
the public with a dictatorial sentence, like a judge who has 
been asked his opinion, before he has as yet convinced us in the 
slightest degree that he really possesses a clear conception of the 
connexion of thought and of the plan of one tragedy of ^sehylus, 
or in general of any one work of ancient poetry — a conception 
to the attainment of which, in our opinion, the efforts of philo- 
logy at the present day ought principally to be directed.' These 
remarks Avere regarded as a sort of challenge by Hermann and 
liis adlicrents; and Miiller's book on the Eumenides v/as sharply 
attacked by Hermann himself in the Wiener Jahrbiicher, vol. 
LXIV. (reprinted in his Opuscula, vol. VI. pars II. pp. 9 — 
215), and ])y his pupil F. W. Fritzche in a tract entitled: 
' Recension des Buehes ^Eschylos Eumeniden von K. O. 
Miiller, von einem Philologen. Leipsig. 1834-35.' To 
these criticisms Miiller replied in a spirited and vigorous 
manner ('Anhang z. d. B. YEseh. Eumeuid. Gottingen. 1834.' 


* Erkllirung.' 1 855) ; and it must be allowed at any rate that 
tlie Guttinj^cn professor came forth from the conflict wiili 
undiminished reputation. 

In the mean time rMLiller was receiving from the government 
of Hanover those distinctions Avhich generally fall to the lot of 
distinguished literary men in Germany, In 1830 he had been 
appointed member of the ' Scientific Committee of Inquiry ;' in 
1 83 1 he became 'Member of the Academical Senate/ and 
chairman of the committee just mentioned ; in 1832 he received 
the title of ' Aulic Councillor' {Ho/rath) ; in 1834 he was made 
Knight of the Guelphic order by William IV. ; and in 1837 his 
salary was largely increased. As a general rule ^liillcr took 
but little interest in politics, and although he was director of 
the news rooms, he was often a fortnight behind the date in his 
acquaintance Avith the public journals.* He was intimately 
connected witli the seven eminent professors who protested 
against the subversion of the Constitution of 1834 by an edict 
of King Ernest (our Duke of Cumberland), and he did not 
conceal his general agreement with them. But he took no 
public steps in opposition to the Government, and retained his 
place in the University, when Grimm and Dahlmann and 
Ewakl felt it to be their duty to seek another home. 

It was soon after the termination of his controversy with 
Hermann that ^Nluller was induced to engage in the work which 
we have undertaken to complete. The Society for the Diffusion 
of Useful Knowledge had been for some few years established 
in London by a number of eminent men, who combined liberal 
sentiments in politics with an earnest desire to promote the 
literary culture of the country. Although the works, whicli they 
issued in parts, were intended to be for the most part of a 
general and popular character, as far as the execution was con- 
cerned, they entered from the first upon some of the highest 
domains of literature and science. And in some of their books 
no attempt was made to refrain from displaying the apparatus 
of classical learning. Thus altliough jNlr. F. ^lalkin's History of 
Greece contained no marginal references, in compliance no doubt 
with M'hat was the original intention of the Society, the elaborate 

Liicke, Erinnerungen, p. 37. 


History of Konir uiulcrtakcn in different departments by Mr. 
Mal.lcu, Mr. Donne, and Mr. C. Merivale, in the few parts to 
nhich it is unfortunately limited, exhibited an array of erudition 
uhich is not suri)assed by the most learned productions of the 
Tnivcrsity Press at Oxford or at Cambridge. It was not there- 
fore at ali suriirising that a History of the Literature of Greece 
should occur to the Committee, including as it did some of the 
best scholars in England, as a work which might be published 
under their auspices. The credit of having first suggested this 
undertaking is due to Mr. (now Sir) George Cornewall Lewis, 
\\lio proposed to the Committee to employ Professor Miiller to 
write the history, and, having obtained their consent, was 
enabled by his previous acquaintance with the author of ' The 
Dorians,' to engage him in this important work. Besides these 
good offices, Mr. Lewis took upon himself all the trouble of 
making the arrangements Avith Miiller ; the manuscript of the 
successive numbers of the work was transmitted to him by 
]\Iiiller, and he made the transLation and carried it through the 
press, exercising, with the author's consent, a discretionary power 
as editor, up to the spring of 1839, when, having received a 
public appointment which engrossed all his time, he transferred 
his task to the present writer. 

]\Iiiller was given to understand that a work of popular cha- 
racter, specially designed for Engbsh readers, was expected 
from him. In accepting the undertaking, he expressed some 
. diffidence as to his powers of treating such a subject in a 
popular manner, which he had never attempted, all his previous 
works having been written exclusively for learned readers. 
It is to be regretted that he was induced by this considera- 
tion to Avithhold a full display of his exhaustless learning, but 
the consequence of the limitations Avhich he imposed on himself, 
and of his efforts to write popularly, especially assisted as he 
was by the editorial labours of his translator, has been the 
l)roduction of a work which, while thoroughly scholarlike, is 
infinitely more readable than any similar production from the 
pen of a German philologer.* Miiller bestowed great pains 

• Bernhardy, in his remarks on MuUer's History {Grundriss der GriecMschen 
Lii(ralur, vol. II. pp. x. xi.), indicates sufficiently the contrast between his own 
work and that of its immediate predecessor. 


upon this work, which, tliough undertaken for a foreign public, 
interested liis literary ambition, and was in itself a labour of 
love to him. He told his translators, to mention one instance, 
that he had rc-peruscd the whole of Euripides before he wrote 
liis chapter on that poet ; and any competent reader may see 
that he prepared himself by similar study for his examination 
of every considerable author. If he had been spared to com- 
plete the work, there can be little doubt that it would have 
l)cen accepted by the learned world as one of the happiest 
efforts of his genius and learning, and that it would have 
obtained for him in this country an established place among 
those who teach by their writings the classical students of our 
great schools and universities. 

The ' History of the Literature of Greece' was published in 
German, after the author's death, by his brother Edward, with 
the title, 

' K. O. Miillcr's Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 
bis auf das Zeitalter Alexanders. Nach der Hand- 
schrift des Yerfassers herausgcgeben von Dr. 
Edward Mlillcr. 3 Bdc. Brcslau. 1841.' 

More than one edition of this form of the work has already 
appeared. In his memoir of his brother,* Edward ]\Iiiller 
states briefly that Karl Otfried ' laboured since 1835 at his 
History of Greek Literature, in the first instance for England, 
{zundckst fur England).' But in his list of K. O. MUller's 
works,t he does not mention the English edition of this history. 
It is ditlicult to see how this is in accordance with any strict 
sense of propriety. Edward Miiller must have been aware of the 
relations between his brother and the Society for the Diffusion 
of Useful Knowledge ; he could hardly have been ignorant that 
the history was written for the ' exclusive use ' of that Society, 
and that its author had received a very liberal remuneration 
on the appearance of each successive number. In suppressing 
these facts his conduct has been, to say the least, unhaiulsome. 
And he has not consulted his brother's literary reputation in 
publishing the book from the rough drafts ; for the transcrib(;d 


p. LXIl. t I'P- LXXVI.— LXXVllJ. 


anil corrected manuscript is in li^ngland, a considerable portion 
of it hvh\'^ in the possession of the present writer — to say 
nothiuf; of the editorial labour bestowed upon the book, in cor- 
respondence with the author, and with his express sanction and 

The only other separate publications of K. O. Miiller were 
the following ; — 

' Antiquitatcs Antiochenrc. Commentationes duse. Got- 
tingse. 1839. (Comment, prior ab auet. reeitata in 
consessu soe. reg. d. XIV. Junii a. 1834. Comment, 
altera d. YIII. Junii a. 1839).^ 

' Scxti Porapei Eesti de verborum significatione quae 
supersunt cum Pauli epitome emendata et anuotata. 
Lipsise. 1839.' 

lie also, in 1836, lent his name and contributed a preface to 
the architect R. Wicgraann's interesting little book : ' Die 
]\Ialcrei der alten in ihrer Anwendung und Technik insbesondere 
als Decorationsmalerei.^ 

The edition of Festus, which he undertook at the solicitation 
of Booking, and which is dedicated to his father-in-law Hugo, 
* antiquorum IMuciorum et Sulpiciorum in explanando 
Ixonianorum jui'c civili alumno et semulo,' makes an epoch in 
this department of learning, not only from the soundness of 
tlie criticisms of which it is the vehicle, but also because it 
gives for the first time a comparative view of the original 
Vocabulary of Festus, as far as it has survived, and its epitome 
bv Paul us Diaconus. 

It only remains to narrate INIiiller's journey to Italy and 
Greece, and its unfortunate conclusion. A visit to the homes 
of classical antiquity had long been an object of hope to Miiller 
liimself, and had been desired for him by those who thought 
that one who was so familiar with ancient life might bring back 
much to instruct the world, if he had an opportunity of 
travelling to these countries, and especially to Greece. Speak- 
ing of the Bavarian mission of Professor Thiersch, Dr. 
Thirlwall remarked, in 1832:* 'Much as this intelligence 

* Philologkal Museum, I. p. 309. 


promises, it would have been a still more agrceaLlc piece of 
news if we had heard that K. (). ]\Iiiller liad been enabled to 
spend a year or two in ocular inspection of the country where 
he has lived in spirit so long, and with which he is already 
more familiar than most men are with their own. Should it 
ever happen that a person possessing in an equal degree all the 
qualities and requisites of an accomplished traveller in Greece, 
has the means of visiting it, and of pursuing his researches with 
all the assistance that a liberal government can afford to such 
undertakings, what hopes of the result could l3c deemed too 
sanguine ?' The long desired opportunity of undertaking such 
a tour presented itself in the summer of 1H39. Arrangements 
were made for the performance of his academical duties in his 
absence, and though he took upon himself the expenses of his 
journey, the government furnished him with a draftsman at 
their cost. Accompanied by this artist and two friends, he 
started from jNIunich, the place of rendezvous, spent three 
months in Italy, attended the Winckelmann festival on the 9th 
December, then travelled through southern Italy and Sicily, 
and finally sailed for the Pirajus. He spent some time at 
Athens, travelled for forty days in the Peloponnesus, and after 
a second stay at Athens, set out for an exploration of northern 
Greece, in the heat of the summer of 1840. Exposure to the 
sun, while copying inscriptions at Delphi, liability during the 
night to the unhealthy exhalations of the Copaic fens, and 
excessive fatigue of body and mind, overcame the vigour of his 
constitution. He was seized with a nei'vous bilious fever, 
aflccting both his secretions and his brain, was brought back to 
Athens senseless, and died there on the ist August, 1840, at 
four o'clock in the afternoon. The place of his interment is a 
hill near the Academus, where a monument has been erected 
to his memory. The funeral oration was spoken in Greek by 
Philippus Joannes, professor in the University of Athens, and 
his funeral was attended by a large assembly. 

ISIiiller left behind him a wife and five young children. The 
manner in which the tidings of his death reached his friends 
has l)ccn described in a touching uuniucr l)y his friend Liicke.* 

Erinnerungcn, pp. 45, 46. 


TlKn- had heard that his return might be expected. His wife 
and chiUhcn liad gone to Silesia to meet him there. Hugo 
Mas iMvpariiig for tlie reception of the re-united pair at 
Gi)ttin<'-en. Liicke liimself, who had sustained a severe domestic 
iilllii'tiou, was k)ngiiig for the comfort which he hoped to find in 
MidkM-'s society. On the 27th of August, Miiller's birth-day, 
the tidings came Hke a thunder-stroke to Gottingen, that the 
crcat scliolar was no more ! Hugo himself was the first to 
read the intelligence. Liicke hastened to him and found him 
overwhelmed with distress. The old man, bowed down with 
sorrow, silently referred his visitor to the words of Schiller's 
ll'allenstein .* 

' I shall grieve down this blow — of that I'm conscious : 

For what does not man grieve down ? From the highest, 

As from the vilest thing of every day, 

He learns to wean himself: for the strong hours 

Conquer him. Yet I feel what I have lost 

In him. The bloom has vanished from my life. 

For O ! he stood beside me, like my youth, 

Transformed for me the real to a dream, 

Clothing the palpable and familiar 

With golden exhalations of the dawn. 

Whatever fortunes wait my future toils, 

The beautiful is vanished — and returns not.' 

Of the character of Karl Otfried Miiller, it is no exaggeration 
to say that, as far as human judgment is concerned, it was 
blameless. In all the relations of life he showed himself ' a 
man four-square, and wrought without reproach.' As a son, a 
brother, a husband, and a father, he merited and obtained the 
love of his nearest connexions. His other friends felt for him 
that attachment which his frank and noble nature could not 
fail to conciliate. His religious sentiments did not exhibit 
themselves in connexion w ith any dogmatic system of theology, 
but many traits have been preserved which show that he was a 
s-incere and earnest Christian ; and his younger brother, Julius, 
who is still living, and has attained the very highest place 
among the profound divines of Germany, is well able to answer 
for the speculative orthodoxy of the whole family.f As a 

* Act V. Sc. I. 
t It m.ay perhaps be said that Die cliristliche Lehre von der Siinde, by Julius 
MuUer, is at once the ablest and soundest product of modern German theology. 


classical scholar, we arc inclined to prefer K. O. ^liillcr, on the 
whole, to all the German philologcrs of the nineteenth century. 
He had not Niebuhr's grasp of original combination ; he was 
hardly equal to his teacher JJuekh in some branches of Greek 
philosophy, antiquities, and palicography ; he was inferior to 
Hermann in Greek verbal criticism ; he was not a comparative 
philologer, like Grimm and Bopp and A. W. Schlegcl, nor a 
collector of facts and forms like Lobeck. But in all the dis- 
tinctive characteristics of these eminent men, he approached 
them more nearly than most of his contemporaries, and he had 
some qualifications to which none of them attained. In liveli- 
ness of fancy, in power of style, in elegance of taste, in artistic 
knowledge, he far surpassed most if not all of thcra. Ancient 
mythology and classical geography were more his subjects than 
those of any German of his time; he will long be the chief 
authority on ancient art ; and he laid the foundations for a new 
school of Latin criticism. He was always ready to recognize 
the truth, when discovered by processes Avith which he was less 
familiar ; and did not, like too many of his countrymen, sur- 
round himself with a wall of national prejudice beyond which 
he could sec nothing excellent or admirable. Both for the 
great qualities which he possessed, and for the faults which he 
avoided, we would concede to K. O. jMUller the place of honour 
among those who, in the German imiversities, have promoted 
the study of ancient literature since the commencement of the 
present centuiy. 









jgjL,!^ § 1. Socrates ; his literary importance i 

2. Aristocratic tendency of Athenian literature during the Peloponnesian war 2 

3. How far Socrates was the founder of dialectical reasoning and moral 

philosophy 6 

4. Imperfect Socratic schools ; Euclei des and the Megarics 12 

5. Antisthenes and the Cynics 14 

6. Ar istipp us and the Cyrenaics 18 



§1. Life and adventures of Xenophon 23 

Jr- 2. The practical design of his writings 25 

3. His Grecian History ; its merits and defects 27 

4. The Anabasis 29 

5. The 3/fTOoWa?5 and -4poio«7y of Socrates 31 

6. The Cyropcedia and Agesilaus 33 

7. Xenophon's minor tracts 37 

8. The leading characteristics of his style 39 

9. Ctesias, a contemporary of Xenophon ; his works 40 



§ 1. Importance of Plato's writings even in a literary point of view .... 42 

2. Life of Plato 44 

3. His political character and conduct 51 

4. His literary relations to his contemporaries and predecessors 54 



§6. Why he wnHo ill iliiilogucs 57 

6. Chn>ii..loj;iavl t>nlcr uiul scientific arrangement of his works 59 

7. rUto's dialectics ^^ 

8. Hi» rthical systoin ^^ 

P. His jihysicnl sjieculations 9^ 

10. reculiaritica and excellences of bis style 9° 



§ 1. Life of Aristotle loo 

2. General view of his writings 113 

3. His metaphysics and psychology 118 

4. Logic 124 

5. Rhetoric and criticism 128 

6. Moral philosophy 1 34 

7. PoUtics 139 

8. Natural history and general physics 143 

9. Miscellanies 14? 

10. Form and style of his writings 148 



§ 1. Life of Demosthenes 151 

2. Harangues to the people, chiefly relating to Philip of Macedon .... 165 

3. Orations on public causes 1 70 

4. Speeches against ^schines 174 

5. Speeches in the law courts on private causes 180 

6. Style and characteristics of Demosthenes 182 



§ 1. The contemporaries of Demosthenes, with the exception of Isseus, may be 

classed as patriots and Macedonizers 188 

2. Orators of the Alexandrian canon. Isseus i8g 

3. Party of the patriots (a) Lycurgus loj 

4. (b) Hypereides ir^g 

r>. Macedonian party (o) ^schines 20^ 

6. (b) Deinarchus 209 





§ 1. Connexion between Rhetoric and History. School of Isocrates . . . . 212 

2. Euhoinis 214 

3. Theopompus 217 

4. Sicilian school : Au_ti2Cliii3 222 

5. Flul4«^tt8 224 

6. Writers of the Atthides 228 



§ 1. Life of Hippocrates 237 

2. Origin and growth of medical literature among the Greeks 242 

3. Genuine works of Hippocrates 2^6 

4. Doubtful works 24S 

5. Spurious works 250 

6. Publication of the Hippocratic collection 2.^2 

7. Style and literary merits of Hippocrates 253 




§ 1. Alexandria and the Ptolemies 257 

2. Alexandrian poets ; their proper classification and arrangement . . . 260 

3. Philetaa in Alexandria, and Aratus in Macedonia 262 

4. CiJlimachus 269 

5. L YC9p hron and the tragedians 275 

6. The epic and didactic poets, Apollonius, Rhianus, Eu])liorion, andNicander 281 

7. The bucolic poets, Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus 2S9 

8. The parodists and phlyacographers 302 



§ 1. Classification of the prose writers of Alexandria : Dn metrl^ s the Phalerian 306 
2. (a) Grammarians and critics : ZenodoUis of Ephcsus, Ar istouh anes of 

Byzantium, and Aristarchus of Samothrace 309 



8 8. Tho recension of Homer ^ ^ 

4. (b) HisUirians luul clironologistB •' 

6. Translations of Kgyrtiiin, Chaldean, and Hebrew annals . . . • • • 3^ 
6. (<•) Pure and ni.).licd mathematics : EucUd, Archimedes, Apollonms of 

IVrgft, Eratosthenes, and Uipparchus I- --' • 3^+ 


Page 76, line 11, for ' Gorgias' read 'the Gorgias.' 

Page 154, lines 23, 24, for 'eight or nine' read ' eighteen. 

Page 227, note r, hne 2, for ' "A^avts' read ' "Aduvis.' 

Page 330, note 4, add: ' All that is known about Megasthenes and his 

book has been collected by Lassen, Jndische AUerthumskunde II. 

pp. 209, sq., 663 sqq. 




SECOND PERIOD (Continued). 




§ I. Socrates; his literary importance. § 2. Aristocratic tendency of Athenian 
literature during the Peloponnesian war. § 2. How far Socrates was the 
founder of dialectical reasoning and moral philosophy. § 4. Imperfect Socratic 
schools ; Eucleides and the Megarics. § 5. Antisthenes and the CjTiics. § 6. 
Aristippus and the Cyrenaics. 

§ 1. A LTIIOUGII Socrates left no writings behind him, and 
-LA. perhaps does not, strictly speaking, deserve a place 
among the contrilmtors to Greek literature, yet when we con- 
sider that the history of a nation's literature is the history also 
of its intellectual developemcnt, when we reflect how the intellect 
of Greece was aftcctcd by au extension of the principles of So- 
cratic philosophy, and especially when we remember that the 
greatest literary genius that ever appeared in Hellas owed 
much, if not most, of his mental training to his early inter- 
course with Socrates, we caimot well proceed any farther in our 
inquiries without bestowing a few pages on this great master, and 
the minor schools of philosophy "which claimed him as their head. 
SoCKATEs, the son of Sophroniscus, au Athenian sculptor, 
and of Phtcnarete, a midwife, was born in 01. 78, 1. 15. c. 
468. He was brought up to his father's profession, which he 
practised with some success, though he did not by any means 
make it his principal occupation. A strong natural tendency 
to philosophical speculation, fostered and encouraged by fre- 
quent opportunities of intercourse with the eminent teachers of 
the day, soon drew him away to more congenial pursuits, and 
he became known, at an early period, as one devoted to the 



acc.uircnuMit of kuowlclgc, and not only willing, but eager, to 
converse uitli any one on those subjects which were con- 
sidered nu)st interesting to the original thinkers of his day. 
Though .tron-lv opi'.osed to the tenets of Protagoras and Gor- 
gias he was regarded by many of his countrymen as one of the 
same class of speculators : Aristophanes represents him as a 
misehievous innovator in education ; and, many years after- 
wards, .Eschines did not hesitate to speak of him as ' Socrates, 
the Sophist." After having served his country as a gallant 
soldier during the Peloponncsian war, and having survived the 
frightful anarchy which succeeded that struggle between derao- 
eriu-y and oligarchy, he was, shortly after the restoration of the 
oUrconstitution at Athens, brought to trial charged with im- 
piety and with corrupting the minds of the rising generation ; 
and, partly in consequence of his own proud and unbending de- 
meanour at the trial, was sentenced to death, and condemned 
to drink the cup of hemlock, in 01. 95, 2. b.c. 399. 

The circumstances which led to this catastrophe are, after all, 
those which render Socrates most particularly an object of inte- 
rest iu a literary point of view. We are not so much concerned 
about establishing the excellence of his moral character, or vin- 
dicating his claim to the first place in Greek philosophy, as about 
clearly understanding and explaining his influence on the litera- 
ture and speculation of Greece, as they appeared after his time. 
§ 2. If we were asked what constituted the difference between 
the Greek literature of the fifth century b.c. and that of the 
preceding ages, we should be justified in answering, that litera- 
tm-c was Hellenic before that time, but that during the fifth 
century it became more and more exclusively Athenian.^ Dur- 
ing this period almost every branch of literature was cultivated 
at Athens to a much greater extent than in all the rest of 
Greece : the drama was peculiarly her own ; oratory was 
nowhere so powerful as in the Pnyx ; the Attic prose style was 
a model for every Greek writer; philosophy, Avhether native or 
fcji'cign, flourished only by the banks of the Ilissus ; and, 
in every sense, Athens was the Prytaneum of Greek wis- 

* vEschincs, c. Tiiaarch., p. 24 : Iweid' v/xeis, u> 'Adyjvaioi, 2 WKpdrTyf rbv ao- 
<f>iaTr)v aireKTeivaTc. The connexion of Atrometus witli the party of Thrasybulus 
(.Esch. Fals. Lcj. p. 47), would partly account for his son's unfavourable opinion of 
one who abrank from joining the liberators. ^ See above, ch. XX. § 2. 


tlom,' whore the ccutnil fire Ijhizcd on its own altar, niini.stcring, 
however, Hght and uarmth to all the lauds of Greece. Yet, 
though this great Attic literature had spruug up iu the midst 
of democracy, and would, no doubt, have been checked iu its 
free developemcut by any other form of government, it con- 
tained within itself a principle of antagonism which soon placed 
it in open opposition to that very political freedom in which it 
took its rise. In order to understand what this principle was, 
we must enter somewhat more deeply into the subject. 

AVhen literary exertions are occasioned by something in the 
state of a country — its religion or its political constitution — as 
Avhen the worship of Bacchus gave rise to the drama, or, more 
generally, the worship of Apollo necessitated some species or 
other of choral lyric poetry, or when the democratic constitutions 
of Greece created a school of oratory, — we may remark, that a 
conviction of the importance of the object in view stiHes all 
literary vanity, and the poet is more apt to exult in the thoup:ht 
that he is a minister of the god or an influential servant of the 
state, than to take pride in the efforts of his genius. He is, in 
fact, rather a prophet than an artist. As time, however, wears 
oi\, the business of the literary man becomes more and more 
professional." The poet begins to feel conscious of his own 
importance, and communicates this sentiment to others, till, at 
last, the writer of the song or hymn is more in the thoughts of 
liis readers and hearers, than the deity in whose honour lie has 
composed the poem. We remark something of this even in 
Pindar, for though he regards his superior endowments as na- 
tural rather than acquired,* he is not the less disposed to maintain 
his professional superiority.^ But the tendency is more strikingly 
shown in the cultivation of prose. From the first beginning of 
artificial prose, in the time of the Sophists, down to its perfec- 
tion by Isocrates, we have seen that its prevailing feature is 

^ PLato, Protagoras, p. 337 C. : ffweXrjXvdSTas rrjs 'EWdSos els aiVi t6 irpvTa- 
veiov TTJi (TO (pi as. 

" Plato makes Protagoras say that all the Srj/J-i-ovpyol, or professional men, in the 
Homeric sense of the term, poets, physicians, and teachers of music, were sopJi ists, 
who shrouded their one trade under the veil of these dlHVrent accomplishments 
{rah T^x^'tt's Tai>Tatj TrapaTreTd(rfJ.acnt> expTiicavTo. Protay. p. :}i6 E.K 

.' 01. II. 86. * 01. 'l. 115, 1,6. 

n 2 


solf-conscioiisiicss. 'riic. prosc-writcr commences with an ac- 
knowlcd-iiuMit that he has a craft or art of his own— he is vain 
of his skill— and, cither hy his oral Icctm-es, or by drawing up 
a Ti\y>i, or manual, professes to communicate to others the 
adroitness on which he prides himself.' From this conscious- 
ness of skill, or the power of doing what others cannot do so 
well, another feeling immediately results, namely, a sense of 
snperii)rity in the exclusive possession of art. Hence the lite- 
rary man feels himself professional, or belonging to a class, in 
contradistinction to which all others are merely private in- 
dividuals, laymen, or 'i^uotcu, as they were somewhat contemp- 
tuously called ; and at last literature, which was the type and 
the product of free democratical Athens, becomes aristocratic 
and exclusive, and paves the way to ohgarchy, or, failing in this 
result, shrinks from all participation in the duties of citizenship, 
and consoles itself with the construction of imaginary and im- 
practicable forms of government, in which the philosopher alone 
is to guide and govern the state. 

This tendency developed itself more especially during the 
Peloponnesian war, which may be defined to have been the 
great critical struggle between the democratic and aristocratic 
parties in Greece. It was while Athens Avas outwardly con- 
tending against the aristocracy of birth, that this aristocracy 
of talent sprung up within her walls. The name by which the 
oligarchical party all over Greece delighted to be called — 
KaXoKuyaOoL — properly implied education or accomplishment, 
as well as bu'th.-* But we remark, that the Spartan nobles 
delighted more in being ayaOo'i, ' well-born,^ than in their other 
title of KaXo'i, ' well-educated.' Indeed, although they usurped 
the Avhole name as one epithet of honour," the former part of 
it was not unfrequently used by them with rather a contemp- 
tuous application.^ With the literary aristocrats of Athens the 

^ See above, chapter XXXII. § 3. 

" New Cratylus, §§ 322—325. 3 Thucyd. IV. 40. 

* Find., Pyth. II. 72: jxadCjv KoKbs roi wiOwv irapa waKrlv, where see the com- 
mentators, and for the proper reading compare the note on Sophocles, Antigone, 
714, p. 192. It was perhaps with some such contemptuous reference that Thera- 
menes, when flrinking the hemlock, exclaimed, Kpiriq. tout' ^aru t^j /caXo? (Xenoph., 
Helten. II. 3, § 56). 


case was quite otherwise. Their i)riiieij);il renown was to 
be the pre-einiueutiy kuXoI, or ' aeeoiiiplished/ and they 
cared little or nothing for the distinctions of Ijirtli. They 
felt that they constituted, as, in fact, tliey did, a sort of 
niichlle class,' whose interests were identical neither with 
those of the old nobles nor with those of the democracy. 
It would be difficult to name any very prominent literary 
man of this sera, with the single exception of Aristophanes, 
who did not belong to the literary aristocrats. Euripides, 
Avhose connexion with Socrates has long been sufficiently 
understood, expressly declares, that of the three classes iu the 
state the middle one saves the city;" Sophocles was one of the 
TTfjojiovXoi, or commissioners, who were selected as agents in 
the middle-class movement which preceded tlie oligarchy at 
Athens;^ and Thueydides does not hesitate to say, that, in his 
opinion, this movement, which is generally known as the 
government of the Five-thousand, was the fii'st good constitu- 
tion which the Athenians had enjoyed in his time.^ The poli- 
tical personage who was at the head of this movement in favour 
of the middle classes was Theramenes, and all the hopes of those 
who conceived it possible to have a government of the KaXoi, or 
educated men, without falling into oligarchy, rested iipon this 
versatile and not very honest statesman. Critias, on the other 
hand, was for upholding the principles of the old oligarchies, 
and cared as little for the claims and interests of the middle 
classes as he did for those of the great mass of his fellow- 
citizens. This opposition between the parties of Critias and 
Theramenes — between the old-fashioned oligarchy and the aris- 
tocracy of talent — appears to us to solve the whole problem as 
far as Socrates and his literary affinities are concerned. That 
Socrates disapproved of the views of Critias,^ and would not 
contribute to carry out his nefarious measures for the aggran- 
dizement of his party," is established by the most express testi- 

^ Tliat is to say, they were neither t6 (pav\ov, 'the illiterate,' nor t6 Tavi' aspi^a, 
'the minute philosophers' (Thucyd. VI. iS). For (pavXoi as an epithet of the 
common people, see Eurip., Bacchic 431 ; iEschin., c. Ctesiph. p. 65, i. 

" Suppl. 247 : TpiQu oi /xoipCov ri'u fiiai^ aJi^ei irdXiv. 

» Thucyd. VIII. I. Aristot., lihctor. III. 18, § 6. 

* Tliucyd. VIII. 97. ' Xenophon, Mem. I. a, § 32. 

' Plato, Ajiologia Socr. p. 32, c. 


mony. At the same time, he remained at Athens during the 
wholV prri.xl of the anarchy, and never joined the patriots of 
IMiyh-. 'riic inference from this is plain : he agreed with many 
juui most of the principles of the educated party— the KaXo'i— 
and, upon tlie whole, preferred an aristocracy of talent and 
knowledge to the old constitution of his country ; and, though 
he made a courageous effort to save the head of his party, 
Tlieramenes, from the vengeance of his great rival,' and would, 
no doubt, have contributed what he could to give a blow to the 
schemes of Critias and Charmides, he preferred his own Gi- 
rondist theories to the revived democracy which succeeded 
the downfal of the oligarchs ; and the knowledge of this, coupled 
with the belief, however erroneous, that he was still a mis- 
chievous agent of the middle-class party, not unnaturally 
induced Anytus, one of the leaders of the party of Thrasybulus, 
to indict him before the popular tribunal, and led the Athenians 
to involve themselves in the crime and disgrace of persecuting 

§ 3. These remarks on the political tendencies of the literary 
party at Athens, in which Socrates occupied such an influential 
and prominent position, were necessary to a right understanding 
of the new direction given to literature by Socrates and his 
associates. As self-consciousness was the distinguishing feature 
of this party, so we see that egoism, in forms more or less pro- 
nounced, is the strongest mark of the post-Socratie a;ra of 
literature and philosophy. In philosophy this has long been 
recognized. It is well known that, as the speculations of the 
older philosophers, especially those of the Ionic school, were for 
the most part confined to physics, and therefore treated only of 
the outer world, so the business of Socrates and his followers 
was eliiefly with man himself, considered as a thinking subject ; 
in other words, they were all, in some form or other, ethical 
philosophers.^ The celebrated precept inscribed on the temple 

Diotlor. Sic. XIV. c. 5 : HuKpdTTjs 5i 6 <pi.\bao<po% Kal 5vo tCiv oiKeloiv irpocxSpa- 
fi6vT€z (V€X€lpovi> KuiXveiv Toiis virTjpiTas, 6 5e Q7)pap.ivv,i k.t.X 

* Mr. Maurice thinks that the Athenians were unable to tolerate Socrates, 
because he did not put forth specific opinions, but was merely a seeker of truth 
{Annent Philosophy, p. T19). This view seems to us to be contradicted by the 
t<;rma of the indictment, and by the antecedents of the prosecutors. 

» See Eusebius, Prmp. Evang. pp. 25, 26, 853. 


at Delphi, — ' Know tliysclf {yiuoOi aiavrov), — by which So- 
crates uudei'stood that sort of self-scrutiuy, which leads to a 
conviction of our practical deficiencies/ — was constantly on his 
lips, and served not only to remind him of his own duty as he 
conceived it, but also furnished him with a text to justify his 
cross-examination of others. Plato makes him excuse himself 
for not engaging in literary studies, by saying r ' I cannot as 
yet obey the Delphic inscription, which bids me know myself ; 
and it seems to me absurd for any one to inquire into that 
which does not concern him while he is still ignorant of this.^ 
In applying this precept to others as well as to himself, Socrates 
not only repressed any self-satisfaction on his own part, but 
also exposed and rebuked the self-conceit of others. And in 
making the inquiry after self-knowledge a test of moral progress 
or political competency, Socrates generally started from the 
admitted difference between the acquaintance with a particular 
subject possessed by the professional man as distinguished from 
those who had not specially studied it. He urged that, while 
every artist and artizau enjoyed the professional self-conscious- 
ness to which we have already referred, while he could tell how 
he came by his knowledge, while he felt himself safe and strong 
in the exercise of it, and could, if necessary, teach it to another, 
the case was strikingly different in regard to those far more im- 
portant principles by which men are guided in their social 
and political conduct, — the principles, in fact, of ethical philo- 
sophy in all its applications ; here every one professed to be as 
Mise as every one else ; all were ready to undertake the most 
important duties ; and yet no one could give an account of 
his supposed qualifications ; could say how he acquired them, 
or how he would communicate them to others.^ It was by 
means of conversation, by a searching process of question and 
answer, amounting, in many cases, to a skilful cross-examination, 
that Socrates endeavoured to lead his associates, and all whom 

^ Xenophon, Mem. TV. 2, %% 24 — 26. ' Self knowledge,' he says, 'consists in a 
knowledge of our capacities, with regard to the usefulness of man as such ;' 6 iavrbv 
iiTiffKexf/diJievos oirotoj iffri npbs ttiv a,vdpwirivr}v xpelap, iyvuKe Tr\v iavTOV ovvafiiv. 

^ Plato, Phadr. p. 229 E. 

' See Plato, ^ympos.Y>- 221 E. Protagoras, p. 319, 320. Gorgias, p. 491 A, &c. 
This chapter was written and partly printed in 1842. Mr. Grote has since given 


lir liiul nn o])])(irtnnity of interrogating, to a consciousness of 
their own i',nioranco, and thus to stir up in their minds an 
auxii-ty to obtain more exact views. By his peculiar skill in 
I'oiidueting tliis system of questioning, he raised it to the rank 
of a scientific process, and 'dialectics^ {^laXeKTiKri) or 'talk^ 
hccnmc a name for the method of reasoning and the science of 
loijic. This method of sifting the truth had been practised 
before him by some of the Eleatic school, especially by ' the 
asking and answering Zeno,' as he was called.' But it assumed, 
under the skilful management of Socrates, a more directly 
practical application, and a more systematic form; and the 
statement that there were ten distinct schools of Socratic phi- 
losophers'- shows, at all events, how important was the influence 
of Socrates on the thinkers of his generation, while the ten- 
dency exhibited by Plato and others to frame schemes for an 
Utopian polity, in which the wise and good alone would exercise 
authority, proves that the self-consciousness of superior or pro- 
fessional knowledge was still operating on the civic character 
as it did in the latter years of the Peloponnesian war. 

As far as Socrates was himself concerned, it may be said 
briefly, that he first awakened the idea of science, and first 
treated moral philosophy according to scientific principles. 
^^'itll regard to the combination of his scientific with his moral 
principles, it may be stated that his leading idea was a conviction 
of the unity of virtue and a consequent belief that it was teach- 
able as a matter of science ; so that with him the scientific and 
the moral run into one another. Thus he held that a true 
knowledge of what is morally right leads of necessity to corre- 
sponding conduct, since no one wilfully departs from that which 

due prominence to the characteristics of Socrates, which are mentioned in the text. 
He says (vol. VIII. p. 597), < there was no topic on which Sokrates more frequently 
insisted than the contrast between the state of men's knowledge on the general 
topics of men and society, and that which artists or professional men possessed in 
their respective special crafts. So perpetually did he reproduce this comparison, 
that his enemies accused him of wearing it threadbare.' 

* Aristotle, Sophist. Blench, c. X. § 2. 
_^ Diog.Laert., II. §47, p. 1 1 9, Casaubon : Tu>v8i BiaSi^a/ihojvaiTovTQv'KeyoiJiivuv 
^UKpaTiKu'v, oi Kopv<pai6TaTot fih JlXdTwv, 'S,evo4>G)v, ' ±\.vTLcreh7)%- tCov U (Pepo/jL^vuv 
diKa ol o.a(7,M6Tarot r^affapes, klaxivvh *ct'5«^ E^-zcXeiS,??, 'AptVrtTr^ros. The Phffido, 
here mentioned, was the founder of the Eretrian school, which was virtually sub- 
orrlu.ate.1 to the Megarics by its second founder Menedemus. Phtedo is best known 
by the di.tlr,^„o of I'lnto which b.-ars his name. 


lie knows to be good. Accordinj^ly the moral philosophy of 
Socrates was a deduction from his theory of consciousness, and 
his exposure of ignorance assumed the form of a moral rebuke. 
' This waking of the idea of science/ says Sehleiermacher/ ' and 
its earliest manifestations, must have been, in the first instance, 
what constituted the philosophical basis in Socrates ; and for 
this reason he is justly regarded as the founder of tliat later 
(rrcok philosophy, which in its whole essential form, together 
with its several variations, was determined bv that idea. For 
by what other means could he have been enabled to declare 
that which others believed themselves to know to be no know- 
ledge, than by a more correct conception of knowledge, and by 
a more correct method founded ui)on that conception ? And 
everywhere, when he is explaining the nature of non-science 
{ai'iTrinTi]f.i.oavvr]) , one secs that he sets out from two tests : one, 
that science is the same in all true thoughts, and consequently 
must manifest its peculiar form in every such thought : the 
other, that all science must form one whole. For his proofs 
always hinge on this assumption : that it is impossible to start 
from one true thought, and to be entangled in a contradiction 
with any other, and also that knowledge derived from any one 
point, and obtained by correct combination, cannot contradict 
that which has been deduced in like manner from any other 
point ; and while he exposed such contradictions in the current 
conceptions of mankind, he strove to rouse those leading ideas 
in all who were eapal)le of understanding or even divining his 
meaning.' The irony of Socrates has been well described by 
the same writer, as the coexistence in him of the idea of science 
with the want of clear and complete views on any object of 
science — in a word, as the knowledge of his ignorance. ' It 
is clear,' says an English scholar,'- ' that Socrates possessed, 
consciously to himself, an idea of scientific method, and that his 
repeated asseveration, that he knew nothing, was grounded on 
the comparison of his own attainments with that idea.' The 
procedure, which Socrates derived from this self-consciousness. 

^ Translated by Dr. Thirlwall in the Philological Museum, II. 549. We have 
quoted this passage and that which follows (from Schleiermachcr's Philoiioj)h. 
Werke, III. 4. 9), in the Penny Cydopadia, a. v. * Socrates.' 

' Professor Thompson, note on ^[xiler' s Lectures on Anci^U Philosophy, vol. I. 
P- 370- 


was n system of induction, by which he reduced under some 
oiiL' idea, a multitude of separate particulars combined with a 
system of delinitious, by which he divided the genus into its 
sm^eies ; and this is the procedure which is described in the 
Vfuvih-us of IMato.' Tlie subject matter of this procedure was 
not physical but moral science, considered w ith special reference 
to politics. Both the method of Socrates and this application 
of it h;i\c been fully recognized by Aristotle. With regard to 
the latter he remarks:'- 'in the time of Socrates, moral and 
political philosophy was extended, and physical speculation 
ceased, and philosophers turned their attention to the virtue 
Mhich was useful to individuals and communities.' And in 
another passage he states both the method and the object of 
the Socratic dialectics : ' as Socrates,'^ he says, ' busied himself 
about the moral virtues, and endeavoured first of all to give 
general definitions of these, — for Democritus and Pythagoras 
attempted only a few definitions — he consistently investigated 
the quid est {to t'i iariv), the general idea. For he sought to 
draw logical conclusions {<TvX\oyiti<^dai) ; but the general idea 
is the basis of logical reasoning. At that time the faculty of 
dialectic did not yet exist, so that he should have been able to 
investigate opposites independently of the general idea, and so 
to see whether the science of opposites is identical. There 
are two things which one may justly attribute to Socrates, — in- 
duction and general definitions, both of which belong to the 
first principles of science.'^ We cannot then give a briefer, and 
at the same time more correct account of what Socrates did 
for the philosophic literature of Greece, than by saying that he 
founded a system of dialectical reasoning resting on real defini- 

Prof. Thompson says, u.s. ; 'Induction was the bridge by which Socrates led 
his hearere from the common notion to the right conception implied in a term, pro- 
ceeding by the rejection and exclusion of that which was irrelevant or proper to 
the individual, or the subordinate species, ^cr rejectiones et exclusiones debitas 
(B;vcon, Nov. Org. I. 105). The two counter- processes of the dialectician are dis- 
cussed with great elegance in the Phcedrus, 265 D., fol. (i.) Induction, or the 
gathering under one form the multitude of scattered particulars. (2.) Division, or 
the dissection of the general into its subordinate species, /car' dpOpa y wicpvKev, by 
a natural not an arbitrary classification.' 

Dc Part. Anini. I. i, 44; ^^i ZuiKparovs tovto (ikv V^^v&v, to Si i'Tjre'iv to. irepi 
^i/ff««j (\t,^(, xpbi hi Trivxp-h(Jup.ov dpeTT^VKai ttjv Tro\iTiKT]v dTT^KXivav oi <pi\oao^ovvT€S. 

Mctaphyg. M. (XIII.) 4, p. 1078 b. 17. 
* iKayos 5i tvXiryws i^rrni rb ri ianv. (rvWoyi^ecrda,. ykp i^-iiTei, apxh Sk tQiv 


tioiis^ and that he applied this practical logic to a common-sense 
estimate of the duties of man, both as a moral being and as a 
member of a community ; so that while on the one hand he 
gave intensity to the feeling of professional self-consciousness, 
on the other hand he induced men to exact from themselves 
and their associates a higher standard of {|nalification, and to 
seek the good government of the state as well as the morality 
of tiic individual, in an increase of mental discipline and useful 
knowledge. His especial position as a speculative teacher is 
best indicated by the statement to which avc have already 
referred, that no less than ten schools of philosophers claimed 
him as their head. It is true that the majority of these very 
imperfectly represented his method and its applications. But 
by his influence on Plato, and through him, on Aristotle, he 
has constituted himself the founder of the philosophy which is 
still recognised in the civilized world. 

Reserving for special discussion the works of Xenophon, 
Plato, and Ai'istotle, which are the most striking literary repre- 
sentatives of Socrates and his teaching, in their effects on his 
own and the succeeding generation, we must here consider those 
imperfect Socratic schools, Avhich either exaggerated the views 
of Socrates in regard to the relations of science and virtue, or 
distorted his teaching by subordinating, on contradictory prin- 
ciples, the speculative truth to the moral obligation. As, on the 
one hand, Socrates had insisted that virtue was dependent on 
the highest kind of speculative knowledge, one of the ablest of 
his disciples, Eucleides of Megara, who had previously adopted 

avWoyicFiiQiv rb ri effriv, SiaXsKTLKr) yap Iffxi'S ovwo) tot rjv, iliaTe Suvacrdai Kal X'^P'S 
Tov tI icTTL TavavTLa CTTiaKoiriiv, Kal tCov ivavTiwv ei i] avrrj eiricTT-q/xr]. 5vo yap icTiv cL 
Tis B.V airobolri ZuKpaTCi diKaiws, tovs t i-rraKTiKoiis \6yovs Kal t6 opl^effOat Kad6\ov. 
TavTa yap icriv &fx<pu} Trepi cLpxriv (TricrTrifXTji. In this iiiiportant passage evX&yui 
means consistently, or in strict acconlance with the definition. Thus in the Metaph. 
A. I. p. 989, a. 2 : Kal wepl t^s tS)v kivov/jl^vuv ahlas, irbTepov iv ^ 5i/o BiTiov, oih' 
6p9u!i ovT€ fv\6yios oir]T(ov dpTjcdai. TrafTeXQs. Bonitz explains the adverb: ' de 
moventium causaruiu numero, utruni una statuenda esset an dua^, Enipedoclem 
disputasse ait nee recte (oOt' dpOQi), siquidem unum debere esse t6 kivovv a.Klvr)Tov 
Aristoteles persuasum habet, nee sibiniet ipsi constantem (oiV ev\(>yo3i), quoniani 
utriusque principii munera non potest ita, uti distinxit, servare distincta.' The 
consistency of Socrates depended on his sticking to his definition of terms, as 
Xenophon tells us VC17 plaiidy ; Man. IV. 6, § 1 : tDv iveKa ffKoirCiv avv Toh avvovcri, 
tI 'iKaarov ftrj tGiv 6vtwv ovd^iroT iXrjye. Arrian. Epictct. I. 17, ii: ijpxfTO dirb 
T^s Tuv 6vop.d,T(xiv iiruXKixpew: tL ffijixalvei 'iKa<jTov. This is the \6yov 5i56vai, which 
Simmias, in the Phwdo, p. 763, is made to attribute exclusively to Socrates. 


till' ti'Hcluiif; of the Elcatic school^ exaggerated this proposition, 
and siihstituted for the ])ractical ethics of Socrates a system of 
logical rcfiiuMiuMits, involving a series of perplexities not unlike 
thosr which the schoolmen of the middle ages substituted for 
tlic simple lessons of Christian theology. As, on the other 
liand, Socrates had maintained that there was a necessary con- 
nexion between virtue and happiness, two of his hearers made 
this cqnation the basis of two opposite systems of morality; for 
while Antisthcues asserted that virtue was happiness, Aristippus 
maintained that happiness was virtue; and while the former 
compelled the mind of man to surrender all its inclinations, the 
latter called upon nature to submit to the cravings of human 
appetite. The speculations of the Megaric school, duly sifted 
and criticised, paved the way for the idealism of Plato ; and 
the Cynics, who claim Antisthenes for their founder, and the 
Cyrenaics, who took their rise with Aristippus, were represented 
with certain modifications by the Stoics and Epicureans re- 
spectively, the former being also the inheritors of the Megaric 
teaching of Stilpo. 

§ 4. EucLEiDEs, of Megara, or, as Diogenes tells us some- 
what doubtingly, of Gela, in Sicily, was one of the most devoted 
associates of Socrates, and not only encountered some danger 
in order to enjoy the advantage of his teaching,' but was among 
those who attended him in his last moments.^ When the 
tragedy was accomplished, he opened his house at Megara as an 
asylum for those of his fellow-students^ who found Athens no 
longer a safe or pleasant abode, and, among others, entertained 
Plato, who was destined to be the most distinguished ornament 
of the school. Before the period of his connexion with Socrates, 
Eucleides had made himself acquainted with the doctrines of 
the Eleatics ; and the peculiarities of his system, which regarded 
speculative science the summum bonum or moral end of man, 
must ])e attributed to the fact, that, under the influence of his 
previous associations, he endeavoured to combine the Parme- 
mdean with the Socratic theory, and eagerly pursued the dia- 
lectics, while he neglected the practical ethics of his last teacher. 
Diogenes tells us that he wrote six dialogues, of which he gives 

* Aulus Gollius, N. A . VI. ,0. 2 pi^^. p^^^„ ^ ^^ j^ 

'■* Diog. Laert. II. 108. 


US the titles;' but not a fragment of his works has been pre- 
served, llis viewSj however, arc criticized iu the SopJiiates, 
Politicus, Purmenides, and Philehus, of Phito, and tlie doc- 
trines of llis school are often referred to by ancient writers. 
Starting as an Elcatic pliilosophcr, from tlie conception of 
unity, Eucleides maintained that it was ' the good/ though he 
designated it by different names, — sometimes calling it ' pru- 
dence,' at another time ' God,^ at another time ' intellect,' and 
so forth.- This alone had being, and it was unalterable.' Its 
opposite, therefore, or evil, was non-existent.^ This optimism 
was, of course, purely metaphysical, and was not regarded in 
its practical result. Even the dialectics of Eucleides were 
logically unpractical. He rejected all reasoning by analog}', all 
comparisons, all formal demonstrations ; and in arguing syl- 
logistically, for he seems to have invented the syllogism, he 
used to admit the premises and combat the conclusion.^ 
Whatever may have been the value of his teaching as a dis- 
cipline of the intellect, it was incapable of producing any im- 
portant results, and appeared as nothing but an endless logo- 
machy, fruitful only in ingenious quibbles. These idle sophistries 
assumed a worse form under Eubulides, the successor of Eu- 
cleides, who flourished about 340 B.C., and who is known as the 
inventor of the seven false or captious syllogisms so celebrated 
in the history of logic, namely, the -^iv^oj^nvoq or ' liar,' the 
k-yKiKa\v^ij.iii'oq or 'veiled,' the Kiparivijg or 'horned,' the 
■qXtKTpa or * unknown friend,' the (paXuKpoq or ' l)ald,' the 
auip'iTiiq or * heap,' and the ^ia\avQavu}v or ' hidden.'" Much 

^ II. § 108. They were called Aafiirpias, Mffx^vq's, ^olvi^, Kplruv, 'AX/cijStaSi;?, 


^ Diog. Laert. II. io8 : ?u rb ayadbv airecpalvero ttoWoIs dfbfiaat. KaXov/ievov 6t€ 
fikv yap (ppbvT](Xiv, Sre 5^ debv, Kal dXXore vovv Kal to. Xonrd. 

^ Cic. Acad. Qu. II. 42 : 'id bonum solum esse [Megarici] dicebant, quod esset 
unum et idem semper.' 

■* Uiog. Laert. u.s. : rd 5^ avTiKflfieva t^ dyaOif avripet, /u-fj elvai (pdffKUV. 

" Id. ibid. : rah diroSel^ean' iviffraro oi Kara \ dWa kut' iirKpopdv. Profes- 
sor Thompson remarks (Butler's Lectures, I. p. 40:): 'if, as Deycks supposes, 
these terms were invented by Eucleides, to him will belong the honour of having 
discovered the form of the syllogism, Xri/xfiara being equivalent to the Trpordaeis, 
ixKpopb, to the cvfj-tripaap-a of Aristotle.' 

* These seven sophisms may easily be reduced to four. Tlie ' veiled,' the 'un- 
known friend ' and the ' hidden ' are all the same, namely, they are dejiendent on 
the quibble that Admetus or Electra would not know Alcostis or Orestes, if they 


the same was the procedure of the later Megarics, Diodorus 
('konts and S', Avho flourished about 300 B.C., the former 
of whom (kniied motiou, and the latter maintained that only 
identical propositions were true. Such a school well deserved 
to be called eristic or contentious. The Megarics were, in 
fact, as Schleiermacher has remarked,^ the overseers and critics 
of the formal proceedings of others, and they did this in the 
true Socratic spirit, which they had apprehended in its most 
positive form. Their imperfections consisted in their neglect of 
real knowledge ; but it may be said that wherever the Cynics 
were negative as Socratic philosophers, the Megarics were posi- 
tive, and so the two schools at last united in that of the 
Stoics, for Stilpo, who lived as a genuine Cynic of the higher 
kind, was a pupil of Crates, and the teacher of Zeno. 

§ 5. The Cynics, who were thus the counterpart and supple- 
ment of the Megarics, derived their doctrine and principles from 
Antisthenes, who has been well described" as a caricature of 
his teacher Socrates. Originally a scholar of Gorgias, Anti- 
sthenes devoted himself to Socrates, and was, like Eucleides, one 
of those who attended him in his last moments.^ Two decla- 
mations of doubtful authenticity, the Ajax and Ulysses, are still 
preserved as specimens of his rhetorical skill.'* But his philo- 
sophical writings, which were voluminous, and distinguished by 
various excellencies of style and matter, are entirely lost, with 
the exception of a few fragments.^ These works, as we learn 

were veiled or otherwise concealed, so that one might be said to know and not to 
know the same person at the same time. This fallacy is as old as Eucleides, for 
Plato refers to it in his Thecetetus, p. 165 B. : \^yu Stj rb Seivdrarov ipdiT-rjfxa, 
dtbv T€ Thv avrhv eldora tl tovto 8 oWe fir] eidipai. The 'bald' and the 'heap' are 
only the reversed forms of the same sophism ; they argued on the admission that the 
loss of a hair does not constitute baldness, or the addition of a grain make a heap. 
The 'homed' argues that you have what you have not lost— horns for instance. 
And the ' liar ' maintains that if you say you lie when you speak the truth, you both 
lie and speak the truth at the same time (Cic. Acad. 11. 29., Aristotle, Soph. El. 
XXV. 3). Tliis fallacy, which depends on a confusion in the meaning of the 
predicate, furnished Chrysippus with the theme for six volumes of commentary, 
and was probably developed by Eubulides in his attack on the fieaSrvs of Aristotle's 

^*^";^- ^ Werl-ezurPkilosophie, II. J. -p. g6. 

By Schleiermacher, u.s. p. 91. 

^ ^Xen. Mem. HI. u, 17, H. 5. Sympos. II. 10, III. 7, IV. 34. Plat. Phcedo, 

* Westermann, Gesch. d. Gr. Beredtsamleit § 33, note 2. 
\N inckelmann, Antisthcnis Fragmenta, Turici 1842. 


from Diogenes, were collected in ten books, and consisted chiefly 
of dialogncs.' Some of these were polemical criticisms, if they 
did not amount to personal and libellous attacks. Thus, we 
read of two dialogues called Cyrus, in the second of which 
he inveighed against Alcibiadcs, of his Politicus, in which he 
lampooned all the statesmen of Athens, of his Archelaus, in 
which he criticized Gorgias, of his Aspasia, in which he ca- 
lumniated the sons of Pericles, and of his Satho, in which Plato 
w^as scurrilously assailed.- With the latter he was in constant 
antagonism, and we find traces of this in the Platonic dialogues. 
There" can be no doubt that Antisthcncs is aimed at in well- 
known passages of the Sophistes and Philebus? Cicero informs 
us that, in his book called o (pvaiKog, Antisthenes maintained 
the important proposition tliat, though there were many gods in 
the popular polytheism, there was only one real deity.' Although 
Theopompus ventured to insinuate that Plato was indebted to 
Antisthenes for many of his thoughts,' it seems that the latter 
was remarkable rather for his wit and acuteness than for the 
elevation of his sentiments f and his general character would 
lead us to expect sarcastic humour rather than refined elegance 
in his writings. The same affectation which induced him to 
substitute ascetic extravagances for the natural simplicity and 

^ Diog. Laert. VI. 15. 

^ Athen. V., p. 220, C. D. Satho was a vulgiir substitute for Plato's own 
name : Acat JIXdTojj'a 5^ fierovofjiciffas ^dduifa d<n'pQs Kal (popriKws rbv Tavrijv ^x""'"'* 
TTji* iiriypa(f>r]v e^^oioKe kclt' avTov. 

' Soph. ?5i B., 358 E., 259 D. Ph'deh. 45 D. c. Aristot. Ethica Nicom. X. i. 
Professor Thompson (in a paper read before the Cambridye Philosophical Society in 
Nov. 1857) has rendered it probable that of the two parties in the gigantomachy 
(Soph. p. 246 A.) the gods represent the Megarics, who, as idealibts, arc called 
rnxipixrrepoL, 'more civilized' or ' moie humane ' than their materialistic opjtoneiits, 
whereas the giants denote the school of Antisthenes, who, says Plato, think 
nothing real but tliat which they can take liold of with both their hands (Soph. 
247 C.) and whom he elsewhere (Thccetet. 155 E.) terms 'hard,' 'stubborn,' 'quite 
illiterate' (ffKXrjpoL, dm-lrviroi, p.d\' ev dp-ovaoi), the second of these epithets referring 
(as Mr. Tliompson holds with Winckelniann) to the name as well as the character 
of Antisthenes, and the last being quite justified by the language of Aristotle, 
Metaphys. Vii. 3. 7 : ol '' Apt la dive 101. Kal ol ourwj diralSevToi. 

* Cic. De Nat. Deor.l. 13,32: 'Antisthenes, in eo libro (|ui7>/(.'/«/c«.'! inscribitur, 
populares deos multos, naturalem unum esse diceiis, toUit vim et naturam dcuruui.' 
Cf. Clem. Al. Strom. V. p. 601. 

' Athen. XI., p. 508 D. The same claim is made on behalf of Aristippus and 

* Cic. ad Alt. XII. 38 : 'homo acutus magis quani eruditus.' 


contempt for luxury, wliicli were so conspicuous in Socrates, 
must have appeared in his literary compositions, and we may be 
8\u-c that they were not deficient in the caustic bitterness which 
is attributed to his conversation/ His personal habits were 
cmiuently oflcnsive. So far was he from attracting a crowd of 
admirers, that he drove away all his pupils except Diogenes, who 
was a man of similar stamp. He always appeared in the most 
beggarly clothing, with the staff and wallet of mendicancy ; and 
this ostentation of self-denial once drew from Socrates the ex- 
clamation that he saw the vanity of Antisthenes through the 
holes in his garments," It has been supposed that the appel- 
lation of * the dog/ or the ' cynic,^ which is especially bestowed 
on Diogenes,^ and which furnishes a designation for the school 
founded by Antisthenes, was derived from the snarling temper 
and shameless effrontery of these philosophers. In all proba- 
bility, this name, which was found to be so appropriate, was 
suggested in the first instance by that of the Gymnasium of 
Cynosarges at Athens, where Antisthenes taught, close by the 
temple of his favourite deity Hercules.^ The philosophy of the 
Cynics, if it deserves to be called so, was a resolute maintenance 
of the principle that nothing was good but virtue. And by 
virtue they understood only firmness, and the abnegation of all 
natural desires. They even went so far as to identify pain with 
virtue, and to make physical discomfort a condition of moral 
felicity. Even infamy and despair might be regarded as 

^ The following are some of his sarcastic witticisms as recorded by Diogenes : TrpbsTo 
IlovTiKbv /xeipaKiov, /xeWov (poi.Tai> avri^ /cat Trvdo/xevov tLvuv avT(^ Set, ^Tjcrl ^i^Xiaplov 
Kaivov {kuI vov), Kal ypa(peiov Kaivov (/cat vov), /cat TrivaKidiov KaLvov {Kal vov), 
rov vouv Trapefx<paii'oit'. — Trpos tov epwTwixevov TrodaTTTjv yiq/J-ll, ^<p7j, clv jxiv KaXrjv 
tsf'S KOivr/v, &v Si alcrxpav ejets iroLv-qv. — KpeiTTOP iXe-yev ev rais xpetais ei's 
KOpaKas i) els /cAXa/cas i/jLTrecrelv oi fih yap veKpovs, oi Si ^wvtus ecrOLovcTLV. 
Aristoiiliancs, by the way, has punned upon these last words, Vesp. 43 — 45. 

Uiog. Laert. VI. 8, p. 370, Casaubon : arpixpavTos ai/TOv rb Sieppwybs tov rpi^wvos 
els TO ■jrpo({>avis, SwKpaTTjs ISuif (pTjaiv, ' bpCi aov Sia. tou TpijScovos ttjv <pi\oSo^iav.' 

^ e. fj. Aristot. Ehd. III. 10, § 7. 

* The Kvv6<Tapyes was a temple and gymnasium of Hercules, east of the city, and 
before the gate Diomea. It was desig-ned for the use of illegitimate or base-born 
Athenians and foreigners (Dem. c. Aristocr. 692. 18). Hercules was the favourite 
god of Antisthenes, not only because he was himself, like that divinity, half-god, of good 
extraction by the father's side only, his mother having been a Thracian or a Phry- 
gian, but also because Hercules was the representative of a laborious life. The 
Cynosarges was so called from the oracle about ^ kvwv ij XevKV (Pausan. I. 19, § 3). 


blessings,' and madness was better than vicious pleasure." Tlie 
virtue, which they regarded as the sumnium bonum, Mas, according 
to the Socratie principle, capable of being taught.^ But it was 
only Antisthenes, the founder of the school, and Zcno, who 
received instruction from Crates the disciple of Diogenes, tliat 
paid any attention to science as such. Even in the hands of Anti- 
sthenes science was really a denial of scientific principles. 
According to Aristotle,^ he said ' that it was impossible to 
define the substance of a thing (for that the definition was but 
a long description), but that you may teach what kind of a thing 
it is ; for example, you cannot say what silver is, but you may 
say that it is like tin.' According to the same authority,' he 
insisted upon an identity of expression in speaking of the same 
subjects, so that he denied the possibility of contradiction, and 
almost of falsehood. It was therefore in a very different sense 
from Socrates that Antisthenes maintained that all instruction 
depended on an examination of words." For while Socrates 
insisted upon scientific definition, Antisthenes intended to insist 
only upon a fixed use of conventional terms. On the whole it 
may be said with truth, that the philosophy of the Cynics was 
a travesty and misrepresentation of that of Socrates, just as its 
founder was a caricature of his great teacher. And if Socrates 
may be called a Girondist, it is equally clear that Antisthenes 
and Diogenes were Sansculottes. The latter indeed was, either 
on his own account or that of his familv,' an outcast from his 
native city of Sinope ; his asceticism was, in all probability, 
a refuge for his forfeited respectability and civic useful- 

^ Diog, VI. II, p. 371 : rr]v 5^ aho^lav ayadbv /cat laov tQ ir6vt{j. 

^ id. VI. 3 : ij.av(lr]v fiaWov ^ rjcdeirii', 8 : irpbi rbv iiraLvovvra Tpu(pi^v, ix^P^" 
TrarSes, i(pr), Tpv(py)cr€ia.v. 

^ id. lO, p. 371 : biZaKTy)v direSeiKUve Tijv aperfiv. 

* Metaphys. VIII. 3: p. 1043, b. 24 : wore ■^ diropla fjv 01 ' AvriaBiveioi. Kot ol 
oCtwj airaLbevTOL rjiropovv ^^f ' Tiva Kaipbv, on ovk '4(Jti t b t i ^ cr t tv bpicaaOai (rbv 
yap Spof \6yov dfai p-aKpbv), dWct irdlbv ri icrrii' evbex^-TO-t *>'"' biod^ai, uicnrep 
Apyvpov tI fi^v i(XTiv, oi<, 6ti 5^ olov Karrlrfpos. 

^ Metaphys. V. 29, p. 1024, b. 3 l : 6 5^ ^6i;5r)s X670J ovOevos iariv aTrXu'j \o7os" 6id 
' X.vTL<jdivy]i i^fTO evrjOws p-rjOiv a^iuiv \4y€<rOai ttXtjv rb oUeiLfj \byip iv (4>evbi' i^ iliv 
avvl^aivf. fiij elvai dvTiKiyeiv, (Tx^Sbv 5i fir]5i xj/evbeadoLi. 

® .\rrian, Divert. Epictcti, I. 17. 12: ' Avri.adivrj'i o'ov \4yei; Kai t/s iaTtv b 
yeypa(pCji Srt dpxv iraioevcrewi i] tCiv dt'oiidruv ^iriffK(\f'ii ; 

' Diog. Laert. VI. 20, p. 377. 



ncss ; 

:'ss; and Ihv socialism, wliich lie openly preached, seemed to be 
inspired hy tlic recklessness of a man who had no character to lose. 

§ 6. 'riic opposite school of the Cyrenaics had at least the 
merit of cschewinjjj all hypocrisy, and although the undisguised 
pursuit of selfish gratification is utterly repugnant to our higher 
moral sense, it is at least more natural and more honest than 
the affected austerity, which the Cynics used as a cloak for tlieir 
maliiriiitv, or as an excuse for their shamelessness.' The 
peculiar character of Akistippus, the founder of this school, 
seems to liave impressed itself on his followers. He was, in 
modern language, a selfish man of the world, who was willing to 
barter his real independence, and to let out his social and in- 
tellectual qualities, in order to obtain the largest possible amount 
of present enjoyment, and to escape as far as possible the ordinary 
troubles and annoyances of life. He believed, with all this, that 
he had made himself superior to the outer world, and was in- 
dependent of external circumstances." ' I possess, but am not 
possessed by things," was the maxim by which he expressed his 
indifi'crentism in regard to all things which he could not bring 
under his control. But his career shows that he was merely 
enabled by his want of a high moral character and fixed prin- 
ciples to accommodate himself to any circumstances, and so make 
tlie best of life.^ 

Aristippus was the son of Aritades, an opulent merchant of 
Cyi'ene. He came to see the Olympic games, which, from 
Pindar's time had been a favourite resort of his countrymen, and 
was led by the encomiums of Ischomachus, whom he met there, 
to extend his journey to Athens for the purpose of making the 

1 Cic. de Officiis, I. 41 : ' Cynicorum natio tota ejicienda est; est enim inimica 
verecundiae, sine qua nihil rectum esse potest, nihil honestum.' 

" His avowed principles are well expressed in the lines of Horace, I, Epist. I. 

Nunc in Aristippi fartim preecepta relabor, 
Et mihi res non me rebus subjungere conor. 
3 txw dXV ovK ^xof^ai. Diog. Laert. II. 8, 75. This was said especially with 
reference to Lais. 

* So Horace says of him (i. Epist. XVII. 23) ; 

Omnis Aristippum decuit color et status et res, 
Tentantem majora, fere prsesentibus tequum. 
Diog.^ Laert. II. 8, § 66 : 9}v 5^ kavbs apfibaacTdai nal rdTry Koi xp^vip Kal wpoffwinp 
ical Traaav irtplaraaiv apfiovlus viroKpivaffdat. 


acquaintance of Socrates.' He attached himself to this phi- 
losopher, and was one of his regular associates till the time of 
his death ; but his fellow-pupil, Plato, who had never much 
toleration for him, seems to intimate that, being close at hand, 
he allowed some inadequate excuse to prevent him from attending 
his master at the time when he drank the hemlock in prison.' 
Although his native city has given its name to the school which 
he founded, Aristippus lived very little at Cyrene. Indeed he 
did not hesitate to avow to Socrates himself that he lived away 
from home in order to avoid the duties of a Greek citizen. His 
time was spent either at Athens, where he was a student, or at 
Corinth, where he lived with the notorious courtezan, Lais,"* or 
at Syracuse, where he was the obsequious parasite of the tyrant 
Dionysius."* It is said that he was once taken prisoner by 
Artaphernes the satrap.'* In his later years he returned to 
Cyrene, and spent the remainder of his long life there, being 
principally engaged in communicating his system of philosophy 
to his daughter Arete, by whom it was taught to her son, Aris- 
tippus," and he is supposed by some to have completed and 
systematized the doctrines of his uncle. The highest praise 
that can be bestowed upon the character of Aristippus is that 
he seems to have enjoyed, either from natural temperament, or 
from diligent self-control, a very remarka1)le calmness and tran- 
quillity, which Avould have done credit to any philosopher." And 
though he justified his self-indidgenee, he declared that he should 
be able at any moment to relinquish his pleasures without a 
sigh.* If the long list of his writings, Avhich is given by 

^ Plutarch, de Curios. 2, vol. III., p. 79, Wyttenbach : Plutarch says here, with 
regard to the philosophy of Socrates, ^j ^v tAoj iiriyvQpai to. eavrou KaKo. Kal 

^ Phado, p. 59 D : tI dal ; ' Aplcrrnnros Kal KXedfi^poros iraptyivovTO ; ov drjra' 
iv Al-yiv-Q yap eX^yovro elvai. 

' Athenajus, XII. p. 544. XIII. p. 588. Two of his works were entitled 
Trpos Aa'iSa and npits \at8a wipl rod KardirTpov (Diog. Laert. II. 84). 

■* Diog. Laert. vitaAristippi, passim. ^ Brucker, Hist. Phil. II. 2, 3. p. 5S9 note u. 

® Puidas, s.v. Zi-qKovce di avrov i] Ovydrijp'ApriTT), atp' tJs 6 ttoij ai'nrjs b vloi ' Apl- 
ffTtwTTOs 8s iKXrjdr] yirjTpoSioaKTos. Cf. Diog. L. II. 86, from whom this is taken, 
and .iElian, Hist. Anim. III. 40. 

' This is shown by the numerous aiiocilotes in Diogenes. 

* This is implied in the saying quoteil by Diog. Laiirt. II. 69, p. 134 : fiauliv troTe 
et'i iralpas oiKiau . . . ov rb (IcTeXOfly, f<prj, X"-^^'"'^'') aWa rb fir) Si'vaffOai i^eXffeiv. 

C 2 


Din-cues Laortius, is ut all correct, he must have been an iu- 
(Instrions man of letters. Sosicratcs of Rhodes said that he 
wrote iiothin-, but the catalogue of his works is given on the 
authority of Sotiou and Panretius.' Besides philosophical 
treatises ou 'virtue/ 'education/ 'fortune/ &c., a history of 
Lil)ya, in three books, is attributed to him. It is diflficult to 
(liscViHiiuatc between the doctrines which were developed by 
Aristii)[)us himself, and those which were elaborated by the 
other teachers of the Cyrenaic school. Aristotle, who mentions 
Aristippus as a Sophist,' attributes to Eudoxus, and not to hira, 
the exaltation of pleasure to the rank of the summum bonum, 
which he combats in the tenth book of his Ethics.^ In general, 
it may be said, that Aristippus confined himself to a sort of 
moral philosophy which maintained that happiness [ev^aiinovia) 
and pleasure (j'jSoi'//) were convertible terms; and which, by 
seeking the end of life in the materials of the world of sense, 
naturally led to atheism, as was shown by the surname Athens, 
which is given to Thkodoiius, one of this school. The five 
points of the system of Aristippus, which some have attributed to 
his nephew/ are as follows :' (i.) ' Concerning things to be chosen 
and avoided' (TTfjOt aiptTUJv /cat (pivKrCov) : under this head he 
maintained that the end of life was transitory pleasure ; for that 
the present alone belongs to man, the past being no longer 
available, and the future precarious. (2.) ' Concerning the 
affections' (tte^J TradCov) : under this head he gave his definition 
of pleasure. There were, he said, three conditions : pleasure, 
which he compared to calm and even motion, as when a vessel 
is borne to its haven by a gentle and favouring breeze ; in- 
difference, which he compared to a dead and windless calm ; 

' Diog. Laert. II. 85, p. 144 B. 

^ Metaph. B. (III.) p. 996 a, 32 : tCov <xo(pL(TTuiv rivis olov 'ApiiXTLTnros Trpoeirr]- 
XaKi^ev avrds. In one point at least Aristippus approximated to the Sophists, that 
he took fees for his teaching. Suidas, s.v. 

3 £(h. Me. X. 2, I. 

* Professor Tliompson (Butler's Lectures, I. p. 452) says : 'Aristippus the elder, 
though the fact of his authorship is disputed (Diog. L. II. 8, 84), was undoubtedly 
the inventor of the Cyrenaic .system. He must even have developed it in a logical 
and systematic form.' This is argued from the references to his views in the 
Theatelus and Philebus, where they are made the subject of formal refutation. 

^ Sextus Empiricus, Lib. VII. § ii. Achevsus Logicos, p. 372, ed. Fabricius. 


paia, ulik'h lie coinpaixd to a storm, in nhich the vessel is 
driven from its port, and exposed to danger. In this definition 
he stands directly opposed to the Epicureans, who insisted that 
pleasure was the state of absolute rest. (3.) ' Concerning 
actions' (tte^j/ tt jHi^iMv) : here he maintained that actions were 
neither good nor bad in themselves ; that ^^rtue consisted in 
that which conduced to pleasure of any kind ; and he perverted 
the Socratic connexion between 'knowing' and 'doing' by making 
his virtue a sort of common sense, or presence of mind (^^joi-fjcrtc), 
which, as he said of Idmself, enabled the philosopher to live 
happily anywhere. (4.) ' Concerning causes' {irtpl aiTioiv) : in 
speaking of causes the Cyrenaics did not mean physical causes, 
but merely the outward occasions of our bodily sensations. In 
regard to these man is merely passive ; and as it is the business 
of the wise man, in the Cyrenaic sense, to get the greatest 
amount of pleasure out of the world around him, he must as far 
as possible transform disagreeable sensations into sources of en- 
joyment, either by evading or by modifying them. In this part 
of his theory Aristippus is quite as much the object of Plato's 
criticisms in the Tliecetetus, as Protagoras, who is mentioned 
there by name, and of course no one will doubt that the theory 
of pleasure, which it is one of the objects of the Philebus to 
controvert, must have been systematically put forward by the 
founder of the Cyrenaic philosophy. (5.) ' Concerning proofs' 
[iTifn wiOTtoiv) : of the Cyrenaic views on this subject we have a 
definite and intelligible account in the pages of Scxtus Em- 
piricus.' From this statement it is quite clear that the school 
of Aristippus admitted no criterion except the senses : and 
these gave a different result for every man. In some respects 
they have found a modern representative of their views in Home 

1 Lib. VII. adv. Loijlcos, §§ 191—200. We agree with Fabricius {ad Scrt. p. 
371,) that this passage refei-s to the wI(tt(is of the Cyrenaics. Some have thought 
that he is speaking irepi airiuv, but he says at tlie beginning § 191, that the Cyre- 
naics make the wady) the KpiT,)pia, and tliat these alone are conceivable and not 
fallacious : tCiv Se Tmroi-qKOTWv to. irddi] {i.e. the alna) fj.7]div eTvai KaraXTjirrbv firfSi 
d^f/evarov, and at the end of his explanation he remarks, §?oo: irdi'Tuv ovv tQv 
6vTuv TO, irdBt) Kpir-qpid iffTi Kal rArj" fcD^uef 5^, cpaffiv, iir6fi.ivoi tovtois ivapyiti/, 
fxiv Kara. rh. &\\a nddr] eOdoKi'jaei 5i Kara ttjv iiSov/iv. So that he is clearly speaking 
of the evidence of the senses, and not of that which produces sensation. 


Tooke,' ill dIIu rs Bishop Berkeley is in agreement with them. 
AVhon the ultni-noiniiiiilistic philologer declared that truth is 
only whixi each man trovvcth, he said much the same as the 
Cyrcuaics, who maintained' that ' there was no common cri- 
terion for men, but that common names were used to designate 
tlieir iudopcudcnt judgments/ And when Berkeley denied the 
dcmoustralilc existence of an external world, he did not differ 
from the Cyrcnaics, who declared' that ' it is only the affection 
or sensation which appears to us, and that what is -without us 
and is the cause of the sensation, may perhaps exist, but does 
not appear to us.' 

The doctrines of Aristippus and his nephew were farther de- 
veloped by Hegesias, Theodorus, and Anniceris,^ and ulti- 
mately merged in the system of Epicurus. 

As a matter of literary curiosity, and for the light which they 
would have thrown on the criticisms of Plato and Aristotle, we 
must regret that we have no remains of the doctrinal writings 
of Eucleides, Antisthenes, and Ai'istippus. In themselves, how- 
ever, these philosophers can be regarded only as the authors of 
systems M'hich pushed to extravagance the broad and distinctive 
features of the teaching of Socrates, and they perhaps produced 
the oidy permanent effect of which they were capable, when they 
exacted a formal refutation of their views from the searching 
dialectics of their great contemporary Plato. 

^ See New Cratylus, § 6r. 
Sext. Emp. VIJ. § 195: ivdev ovbi KpiTr>pi6p cpacriv etvai KOivbv avdpdiruv 
dvofnaTa 5i KOiva rldeadai tols Kplfiaci. 

' id. § 194: /xoJ'Oj' t6 Trddos v/xiv ecrrl ^aiv6/xevov rb 5' ektos /cat toC irddovs iroi-q- 
TiKhv rdxa- txiv iariv 6v, ov (paivofievov bk 7]fuv. 

* It is worth while to notice that Aiinieeris, who differed from Aristippus by- 
maintaining the unselfish virtues of patriotism, friendship, &c., exhibited the prac- 
tical result of this improved philosophy by ransoming Plato from slavery. 




§ I. Life and adventures of Xenophon. § 2. The practical design of his writings. 
§ 3. His Grecian History ; its merits and defects. § 4. The Anabasis. § 5. 
The }ftmonals anil Apology of Socrates. § 6. The Ci/ropccdia and Agesilaus. 
§ 7. Xenoplion's minor tracts. § 8. The leading characteristics of his style. 
§ 9. Ctesias, a contemporary of Xenophon ; his works. 

§ I. VENOPHON, the son of Gryllus, \vas born at Athens, 
-/V probably about 01. 84, 2. B.C. 443.' Of his early years 
we know nothing beyond the fact that he fought in the battle of 
Dcliutn (B.C. 424,) anioug the Athenian cavalry, and that his 
life was saved by Socrates, who, after he had fallen wounded 
from his horse, carried him for some distance from the field of 
battle. He had accidentally met with this philosopher, who 
was struck with his handsome and intelligent countenance, and 
almost constrained him to join his society. Another of his 
intimates was Proxenus, a Boeotian, and a disciple of Gorgias, 
who afterwards exercised an important influence on his destiny.- 

^ The date of Xenophon's birth is still, as it has always been, a doubtful point. 
It is very difficult to resist the general impression conveyed by the Anabasis, where 
he seems to be always spoken of as a comparatively young man, in B.C. 401, But 
the chief passage in that work (III. i § -25 : ovd^v irpo<pa.ffl^oiJLai Trjv -nXiKiaf, dXXd 
Kal aKfid^fLV Tiyov/xai epvKecv ciTr' efiavrov ra KaKO.) is rather for than against the 
supposition that he was then above 40 (see Thucyd. V. 26, and comp. ch. XXXIV. 
§ I, p. 89 note), and the combination pointed out by Schneider, of the passages 
in Xen. Simpos. IV. § 25, and Mem. I. 3, § 10, proves that Xenophon must have 
been a young man in 01. 89, 4. B.C. 421 ; consequently, he was bom about B.C. 
442 or 443, and might therefore have been present at the battle of Dehum, as 
Strabo expressly tells us that he was (p. 403). The statement of Pseudo- Lucian 
(Macrob. c. 21), that he was more than 90 years old when he died, combined with 
the statement of Stesicleides (Diog. Laert. II. 56), that he died in 01. lo^, i. B.C. 
359, would imply that he was born even earlier than 01. 84, 2 ; but there is reason 
to believe that Stesicleides is in error, and that Xenophon's death did not take place 
till some years later than B.C. 359. 

^ An anecdote mentioned by Philostratus {vil. Prodici, p. 496) implies that 
Xenophon spent some time as a prisoner of war in Bojotia, and it has been sug- 
gested that this must have been after the taking of Oropus by the BcKotiaus in 01. 
92, 1. B.C. 41 :. Did tills event lead to his intimacy with Proxenus ? 


W liat vNus ilu- tenor ol' his cmijloyments during the first forty 
yi-ars of his life, mc do not know, but we can easily guess. It 
is quite elear that his chief wish was to become a well educated 
man, (k«X(k; ^ayriOo'f) according to Socratic principles,' and that 
hr fi-lt vi-rv little inclination to act a part in the important 
political events which were then taking place. That he was no 
friiMul to the Dcraus appears both from his subsequent career 
and also from the fact that he was unmolested by the Thirty. 
It is not improbable that it was immediately after the restora- 
tion of democracy by Thrasybulus, that he set down on paper 
the events of the last six years of the Peloponnesian War, and 
of the few years that succeeded ; and the memoirs which he 
then composed form the first two books of his Hel/enica, or 
Grecian history; a work which he afterwards conthmed in a 
very different spirit ; for, though we do not detect in the first 
part any great partiality to the patriots of Phyle, and may, 
perhaps, remark a strong feeling in favour of Theramenes, it is 
at least free from that bitter animosity to the institutions of 
his country which he afterwards displayed. In the year 401, 
B.C., he received a letter from his friend Proxenus, who had 
entered into the service of Cyrus, urging him to come to Sardis, 
and pay his court to the Persian prince, whose favour, he, Proxe- 
nus, valued far more highly than any advantages which his native 
land could offer him. The prospect thus held out to him of 
acquiring riches and honour in a foreign land was too tempting 
to a daring and restless character, to whom Athens, under its 
revived democracy, was already, perhaps, sufficiently distasteful ; 
and though he made a show of consulting his friend Socrates 
on the subject, it is clear that Xenophon had already deter- 
mined to accept the proposal of Proxenus : for, when Socrates 
pointed out to him the probable effect which would be produced 
upon the minds of the Athenians in general by his attachment 
to the cause of one of their greatest enemies, and recommended 
him to consult the Delphian oracle, Xenophon merely asked of 
the god what preliminary sacrifices he ought to make in order 
to secure success in his undertaking, having made up his mind 
to brave all risks rather than lose such a promising chance.^ 

• Diog. Laert. 11. 48. 2 Anabasis III. i, § 6. 


Accordingly, he joiued the Greek mercenaries of Cyrus, as a 
volunteer, and after the battle of Cynaxa became virtually their 
leader. The part which he played on the retreat belongs to 
Greek history, or rather to the history of the world, for it is 
not too much to say that he first demonstrated the problem 
which was practically solved some sixty years later by Alexander 
the Great. But the consequences of the step which he had 
taken were justly foreseen by Socrates. Instead of returning 
to Athens to resume his rights of citizenship, and to enjoy the 
riches and reputation which he had obtained by his courage and 
abilities, he was condemned to exile from his native city, and 
came back to Greece as a soldier in the army of Agesilaus. After 
fighting against his countrymen in the battle of Coronea, he 
took up his abode at Scillus in Elis, Avhere the Lacedaemonians, 
to reward his services, had given him, together with the proxetiia, 
a grant of land and a house ; and he subsequently purchased 
some ground in the neighbouring vale out of the proceeds of 
the votive tithe of his Asiatic booty. Here he built a small 
temple, dedicated to Diana of Ephesus, in whose honour he 
celebrated an annual festival, much frequented by the people of 
the neighbourhood. The temple was surrounded by meadow- 
lands, and forests rich in game, which enabled Xenophon to 
indulge in his favourite pastime of hunting. This exercise, the 
society of his friends, and the labours of authorship occupied 
all his time, and he died at a very advanced age, either at 
Corinth or in Athens, to which city he is said to have returned 
in consequence of a revocation of the edict of banishment passed 
against him many years before.' 

^ 2. ^Ve must regard Xenophon, chiefly if not entirely, as a 
literary man. Great as were his exploits in Asia, we should 
scai'cely have heard his name had it not been for his own 
writings. And yet it must be admitted tbat his talents were 
not literary, or in general speculative, but, on the contrary, ex- 
clusively practical. The intellectual bearing, and the philoso- 

^ If Xenophon was born in B.C. 4.^3, and died at the age of 90, as the Pseudo- 
Lucian {ie. Phlegon of Tarsus) tells us, the year of his death will be 01. J 06, 4. 
B.C. 353, and as he mentions the death of Alexander of Phene, B.C. 357, (Udkn. 
VI. 4, § 35), and the beginning of the Sacred war B.C. 356, 355, {de Vectig. V. 
§ 9), his death could not have taken place much before this. 


phical consequences of the doctrines of Socrates, he seems tb 
hftve l)(>cn utterly incapable of appreciating, or even thoroughly 
coinprclicnding : but no one was better able to understand the 
practical application of the rule that every man should discover 
and follow after that which was most for his happiness. Only 
it is to be feared, that if he did not, with some of the Cyrenaies, 
sacrifice morality to his love of pleasure, he at all events did 
not allow any patriotic feelings to interfere with his pursuit of 
the profitable. If the awakening of the idea of science gene- 
rated the perfection of subjective reflection in the case of Plato, 
the yvujOi aeavTou of Socrates did not fail to produce in his 
other gi'cat disciple a notable concentration of practical selfish- 
ness. We observe traces of this in every one of his writings ; 
in fact it is their prevailing characteristic. Without such a love 
of self and the vanity which accompanies it, the works of Xeno- 
phon would most likely never have seen the light. They seem 
to have been, with one or two exceptions, designed to justify 
the author's conduct : to explain to the world the causes which 
led to the failure of his selfish plans. A man like Xenophon, 
possessed of great abilities, but yet without moral strength, is 
fretfully careful about the opinion of the world : and we can 
readily imagine, that, little as he esteemed Athens, he would feel 
himself in a false position after his banishment, and wovild em- 
ploy his long years of leisure in giving the world some account, 
as favourable a one as he could contrive, of the circumstances 
which had led to his exile from the land of his birth. The 
great bulk of his works are memoirs and tracts more or less 
referring to this. Not to speak of his minor treatises, it is 
probable that he composed them in the following series. The 
first two books of the Hellenica, called by later writers the 
Para/ipomena of Thucydides, appear to us to have been composed 
between b.c. 403 and 401. His history of the Anabasis, or 
expedition of Cyrus the younger, and the consequent retreat of 
the Ten Thousand Greek mercenaries, was probably the fruit of 
the first years of leisure which he spent at Scillus. The Memo- 
rubilia of Socrates were not written till some time after the 
death of that philosopher, but were certainly prior to the 
Cyrojjadia, a political romance relating to the founder of the 
Persian empire, not finished till after 01. 104, 3. b.c. 362, and to 


the last five books of the Hel/enica, whicli were written after the 
beginning of 01. ig6, u. c. ^^6, and were therefore one of the 
lust, if uot the very last of his works. In speaking of the 
separate Avorks, we shall treat of them in this order, with the 
exception of the Hellenica, whieh it will be more convenient to 
consider in its present state, that is, as one work. 

§ 3. Nicbidu- was the first to point out the marks of time 
whieh prove the separate composition of the first two and of 
the five subsequent books of Xenophon^s Greek History.^ At 
the end of the second book, the author, speaking of the termi- 
nation of the expedition against Eleusis, says : ' and having sworn 
to an amnesty, they still live together as fellow citizens, and the 
Demus abides by its oaths.' - Now it appears from the termi- 
nation of the foui'th chapter of the sixth book, that this part of 
the work was composed during the reign of Tisiphonus, the 
tyrant of Pherae,^ which was forty-four years after the termina- 
tion of the anarchy. Consequently, it is scarcely conceivable 
that Xenophon could have Avritten or published for the first 
time the first two books at the same time with the latter books 
thus referred to 01. 106 ; otherwise he must have expressed 
himself very differently with regard to the observation of the 
amnesty, by the dcmocratical party which had banished himself, 
punished Eratosthenes, condemned Socrates, and had not, for a 
long time after that period, forgotten all its old animosities ; 
though perhaps, in the end, it recalled Xenophon himself from 
exile. But, besides these marks of time we cannot mistake the 
strong internal evidence by Avhich they are supported. The 
style and tone of the first part is totally at variance Avith that 
of the second, and we may see from the former, clear indica- 
tions of the fact that he must have composed his continuation 
of Thucydidts at Athens, and under the eyes of his fellow 
citizens. It is indeed stated, that he was the editor as well as 
the continuer of Thucydides,' and this is a sufficient proof that he 
must have written the continuation in his native city. Now he 
left Athens to join Proxenus in b. c. 401, and did not return 

^ See the Philolog. Museum, Vol. I. p. 485. 

' II. 3, § 43 : ?Tt Kal vvv ofiov re TroXiTevom-ai Kal roii 6pK0i% in/x^vei 6 SiifJ-Oi. 
^ dXP' °^ ^^^ o \670y ^ypd<p€TO, Ticr/^oyos — rrji* apxv'' f^X^ • 

* Diog. Laert. II. 57 : "K^yerai 5' 6ti. Kal to, tov OovKvdlSov /3(/3X/a XafOdvovra 
v(t>(.\ia9aL Swdnd'os avrbs ei's So^av ijyayti'. 


thitluT till towards tlic (Mid of his life. Since, then, it is pro- 
bable that Thucydidcs died soon after his own reeal from exile,, 
in i(. 1-. 403, and since his history Avould certainly be published 
soon after his death, it follows that Xenophon must have edited 
the history together with the continuation down to B.C. 403, 
sonic time between that year and b. c. 401. The first two books 
of the HeUcnica, which formed this continuation, are certainly 
very far superior to the last five, but they are not to be men- 
tioned in the same breath with the work of Thucydides. There 
is not in any one of the writings of Xenophon a real developement 
of one great and pervading idea. In all of them there is singular 
clearness, and a certain picturesqueness of description which 
occasionally reminds one of Herodotus ; but he has none of the 
dignity of history, and his most tragic scenes are painted less Avith 
the genius of a poet than with the minute precision of a collec- 
tor of anecdotes. The speeches which he has introduced are 
seldom long or' laboured, and are clearly not inserted systema- 
tically like those of Thucydides : but some of them are very 
animated, especially those of Thrasybulus, in the second,^ and 
of Procles in the sixth book.- But he is more excellent in his 
dramatic sketches of isolated occurrences : his description of the 
interview between Agesilaus and Pharnabazes,^ and his account 
of Cinadon^s conspiracy ^ are peculiarly effective in this respect. 
His mind seems to have dwelt upon minor particulars, and he 
hunted up trifling incidents with all the avidity of a modern 
book-maker. He is careful to give us the metrical despatch of 
Hippocrates;' and, though with a half apology, the dying witti- 
cism of Theramenes f he makes Leotychides and Agesilaus dis- 
pute in Spartan Doric,' and would, no doubt, have made his 
Satraps talk Persian, if either his readers or himself had been 
familiar with that language. These features of his history, 
combined Avith the facility and simplicity of his style, will 
always make him an entertaining author, and gain for him the 

1 II. 4, g 40, seqq. a yj. 5, § 38, seqq. 

» IV. I, § 29, seqq. 4 III 3^ g 5^ geqq 

* I. I, g 23. The first words are incorrectly written and explained by most, if 
not all, of the commentators. "Eppet rd Ka\a (not rd /caXd), means 'the ships are 
lost ;• comp. Aristoph. Lysist. 1253. Ion, apud Athen. p. 412 b. 

* li- 3, § 56. Above, p. 164. 7 jii 2, § 2 


admiration of those who do not look hclow tlic surface of 
things ; !)ut criticism cannot allow him a place among great 
historians, and the scholar will hardly concede to Lucian that 
he was an impartial writer : ' his devotion to Agesilaus, liis love 
for Sparta, and the animosity with which lie regarded the de- 
mocratic party at Athens, did not allow him to take a fair view 
of a contest, in which his hero played the principal part, and in 
which the city that cast him forth from her bosom was opposed 
to the state which had given him shelter and hospitality. 

The period included in the seven books of Xenophon's 
Hdhiiica extends from 01. 92, 3. b.c. 410 to 01. 104, 3. b.c. 
362. He does not mark the succession of events very accu- 
rately, but when he does so he adopts the notation of Thucy- 
dides, and counts by summers and winters. In the first two 
I)ooks we find also the names of archons and ephors and the 
num]}ers of Olympiads, but these are clearly interpolations of a 
later date. He sometimes gives the year of the Peloponncsian 
war, like his predecessor, but great errors have crept into his 
numbers in this respect. 

§ 4. The name of Xenophon is most favourably known from his 
Aiiab(isis, or ' expedition up the country' of Cyrus the younger, 
where the author has described, in the most lively and pleasing 
manner, the celebrated retreat of the Ten Thousand, in which 
he bore so prominent a part. That this work Avas written by 
Xenophon is proved not merely by the style, but liy the express 
testimony of Plutarch" and Diogenes Laertius;^ it was pub- 
lished, however, imder the name of Themistogcnes of Syra- 
cuse,' and is quoted by Xenophon himself under that title.* 
It is stated tiiat there was an author of this name, and that he 
wrote other works relating to Sicily ;'"' but it is more probable 
that Xenophon invented the name which he assumed.' The 

^ Lucian, Be ConscribendA Historid, § 40, p. 52. 

2 De Glor. Alh., p. 345. s yif^ Xenoph. II. § 57. 

* Plutarch, uhi siipr.; Schol. ad Tzetz. Epist. XXI : uawep Kal Aevo4>u)viir^ypatpe 
Trjv Ki'pot; dvd^aaiv Qe/jLiffroyiveL ^vpaKOvcrli^}. ' HcUcn. III. i, § 2. 

** Suidas, s. v. : Q€fxiaTO-)ivr]s "ZvpaKOVcnos IcrTopiKSs. "Kvpov dvd^affiv, t^th iv tois 
'S,ivo(pQvT05'EWr]fiKois (piperai, Kai dXXa Tiva ircpl riji iavrov irarpldo!. 

^ It has been suggested that the name means, ' a son uf right, who became a 
SjTian (i.e. served tlie barliarian) against hia wiU.' Niebuhr tliinks tliat the name 
refers to Dionysius and hia princely birth. 


reasons which induced him to write this history of his Eastern 
canii):iii,Mi also operated witli him in withholding his name. It 
was dcsijiued as a justification of his conduct, and as a proof to 
the Athenians that they had deprived themselves of the services 
of a brave and skilful officer; and it is clear that such an 
apology would come with the best grace from a stranger's pen. 
A Greek Lexicographer' speaks of it as having formed part of 
the Hellenica : and it has been suggested by Niebuhr that, as 
the first two books of the Hellenica, added to the eight of 
Thucydides, formed the number ten, one in which the Athenians 
deliglitcd, so the remaining five of the Hellenica added to the 
seven books of the Anabasis formed the number twelve, also of 
great importance in the arrangements of Ionic states. In addi- 
tion to this we may observe that every book of the Anabasis, 
after the first, with the exception of the sixth, which seems 
to have sufifered some loss at the beginning, commences with a 
recapitulation of the preceding part of the narrative, and we 
may remark something of the same kind at the commencement 
of the thii'd book of the Hellenica : so that the last five books 
of the latter may have been originally appended to the Anabasis, 
and were not till afterwards attached to the continuation of 
Thucydides. Although Xenophon has called this history of 
his adventures the Anabasis, or expedition of Cyrus, that expe- 
dition, as far as Cyrus was concerned, finishes Avith the first 
book ; and the six remaining books are occupied with the far 
more interesting account of the manner in which the Greek 
mercenaries escaped from their perilous situation in the heart 
of the Persian empire, and, after fighting their way through 
hosts of barbarians, in Kurdistan and elsewhere, arrived at the 
Euxine, and so proceeded along the sea-shore till they came to 
the coast of the ^Egsean. It is difficult to describe the charm 
which this book has always had for the modern reader ; the 
minuteness of detail, the picturesque simplicity of the style, 
and the air- of reality and truth which pervade it, have made 
it a favourite with every age : and it is still eminently interest- 
ing and instructive to the military reader and the geographer. 
But at the time when it appeared it must have been looked 

» Suidas, s.v. Qe^LCToyhris. 2 phUol. Mus. I., p. 488. 


upon as practically one of the most important works ever 
written, and many a Greek general and statesman, till Philip 
resolved on, and Alexander undertook, the proof of the proposi- 
tion, must have reflected on the author's assertion, that ' the 
kingdom of Persia, though powerful from its extent and popu- 
lation, was yet by reason of the distance between one place and 
another, and the dispersion of its military force, weak as against 
an active general." 

§ 5. After having attempted to justify his own proceedings in 
Asia by the recital of his adventures, Xenophon seems to have 
thought it his next business to undertake the defence of his 
friend and teacher, Socrates, who had suflered the puuisliment 
of death during his absence from Europe. This he has done in 
two works, a slighter and more trivial essay called the Defence 
of Socrates, and a larger work, in four books, entitled the 
Meiiwriah of Socrates. The latter seems to have been com- 
posed some little time after his return : he speaks of the death 
of Socrates in the same terms which he uses in speaking of the 
amnesty of Thrasybulus in his second book of Hellenica^ which, 
we have seen, must have been written within two years of the 
events there narrated; and the general tone of the work would lead 
us to conclude that it could not have been published long after 
the death of the philosopher. In this work, as in his Anabasis, 
he justifies rather by narrative than by argument. In the first 
book, indeed, he attempts a series of answers to the five diftcrcnt 
points in the accusation, but few critical readers will think that 
he has made good the grounds of his defence. In general, he 
seems to have misunderstood the theoretical importance of the 
doctrines of Socrates, and to have wilfully misrepresented their 
practical bearing, which he so well understood and acted upon. 
It is agreed by scholars and philosophical writers that no 
adequate idea of the worth of Socrates as a philosopher can be 
derived from the Memorials of Xenophon. In regard to the 
higher matters of philosophy, the author of this book can only 
claim the dubious merits of a Boswell, who seeks to record, to 

^ Anabas. I. 5, § 9. 

^ Memor. TV. 8, § 1 1 : tQv bk 21. -yi-yvijjCKbvrwv, oros fiv, oi operas i(pU^ieuoi irdm-e^ 
in Kai vCv SiarcXoOffi wavruv fidXiara iroOovvm tKflvov, wj u(pe\inwTaTov 6i>Ta 
irpb% dptTrjs iwifi.i\fiav. 


thobcst of liis iibllity, the conversations of a very superior man, 
Avhicli h(> admired and listened to, but did not thoroughly com- 
l)ri-heii(l. ^Vith very little toleration for philosophy in general, 
and no accurate conceptions as to the Socratic system of 
dialectics, it is not to be expected that his work should be a 
good exponent of the teaching of his master. At the same 
time, it is possible to gather from isolated passages some frag- 
ments of the moral philosophy of Socrates ; and the method 
which results from a combination of these may be profitably 
compared Avith that which forms the basis of Plato's ethics. 
Thus we find traces of the four-fold division of virtue which is 
so prominent in the writings of Plato. There is, however, this 
remarkable distinction between the Socratic opinions on the 
cardinal virtues as set forth by Xenophon and the same as 
developed by Plato. In Xenophon's Memorials, Socrates is 
introduced as acknowledging three separate virtues — temperance, 
which is the foundation of them all,' courage/ and justice,^ and 
these are all included in the virtue of wisdom or prudence.^ 
This seems to be quite in accordance with the Socratic doctrine 
of self-consciousness as we learn it from Aristotle. For with 
Socrates there was always an interweaving of the scientific with 
the moral : in other words, knowledge is the moving cause of the 
will, and good is the final cause of knowledge ; hence the 
knowledge of what justice is must lead to the being just, for no 
one would of his own accord relinquish what he knows to be 
good. Plato, on the other hand, makes Socrates acknowledge 
three separate virtues — temperance (which in his earliest 
dialogue he seems to consider as the basis of all virtue), 
courage, and prudence or wisdom ; while the harmony or 
unison of these constitutes justice. In this particular^ we 
must admit that Xenophon has given us a truer representation 
of the teaching of Socrates than his more philosophical brother 
disciple. And this may perhaps serve as a specimen of the 
manner in which Plato has enlarged and modified the Socratic 
clement in his philosophy. Both Socrates and Plato started 
from the four- fold division of virtue, but the theory of Plato's 

' 1- 5. § 4 • '"'J" iyKparuav dperij! elvai Kprjirlda. 

" ''^'•^'•^ 'o- 'IV. 4. §12 §2t, seqq. 4TII. 9, §5. 


Utopia necessitated a subordination of all virtue to justice^ while 
the Socratic doctrine of knowledge or science assumed that all 
the virtues sprung from wisdom or prudence. The little allcgoiy 
generally known as the Choice of Hercules, which has been often 
selected from Xenophon's Memorials of Socrates as most pecu- 
liarly worthy of admiration, was probably an actual abridgment 
of the celebrated Epideixls of Prodicus, to whom Xcnophon 
attril)utes it. Later writers speak of it as the Xcno])liontcan 
or Socratic Hercules,' perhaps because the original work was no 
longer extant, and because every one was famiUar with the 
apologue as given by Xenophou. At all events, we know that 
Prodicus wrote such an allegory, and the manner in which 
Xenophon has introduced it, bears no analogy to Plato's intro- 
duction in the Phcedrus of a speech composed for Lysias to 
characterize and expose the peculiar defects of his style. 

The Apology of Socrates is a short and rather feeble tract, 
referring more immediately to the cause of that philosopher's 
condemnation to death — namely, his contumelious behaviour 
after the verdict had been given against him. Xenophon 
endeavours to excuse this, by showing that Socrates really pre- 
ferred death to life, and that his consciousness of his own 
innocence prevented him from naming any punishment as due 
to the offence of which he had been con\'ietcd. The modern 
reader will smile at the impotent malice with which he has 
recorded the intemperance of the son of Any t us. 

§ 6. From the data at the end of the Cyropcedia, it appears 
that this treatise was written after 01. 104, 3. b.c. 362.- That 
the work did not lay claim to be considered as a history, but 
^vas only a political and moral romance, like the Telemaque of 
Fenelon, is not only sufficiently clear from internal evidence, 
but is expressly acknowledged by many ancient writers.'' 
It was in fact the only mode in which Xenophon, with his habits 
and pccuUar bias, could draw up and set forth a theory ai 
government, in accordance with the practice of most of the 
eminent post-Socratic writers. Some of the ancients tell us 

' Cicero, ad Fam. V. 12. V.arro, ap. N^on. p. 168, 539, 542. 
^ VIII. 8, § 4, where he alhides to circumstances which took place during the 
-Egyptian revolt against Artaxerxes Mnemon. 
■' e.g. Cicero, ad Quint, fr. I. r, 8, 13. 


that the Ctjropfpdia was written in opposition to the Republic 
of IMato.' ' AVhatcvcr avc may think of this, it is at least clear 
that there is a remarkable contrast between them. This con- 
trast we consider as flowing immediately from the opposition 
between tlie characters and destinies of the two authors, though 
they both worked out the Socratic principle, each in his own 
way. Political theories were a prominent feature of the litera- 
ture which sprung from the Socratic school. It seems indeed 
to have been a natural consequence of the selfish system which 
was one practical result of that philosophy. In the older and 
simpler times of Greece, the member of a Greek community 
was quite content to perform the duties and enjoy the privileges 
of citizenship. To fight for his country in her militia, and to 
vote in her public assemblies, was the end of his wishes and the 
limit of his ambition. The general disorganization, however, 
produced by the Peloponesian war, swept away in its vortex 
l)oth the citizen soldier and the citizen statesman ; and while 
the warrior thought himself justified in letting out his strength 
or his skill to the best bidder, without any regard to the interests 
of his native land, the man of letters, full of his self-conscious- 
ness, and exulting in a sense of his superiority, framed political 
theories at variance with the constitution of his own city, and 
endeavoured to recommend, by fiction or by argument, his 
own abstract speculations respecting the best form of govern- 
ment. The older philosophers had busied themselves with exist- 
ing constitutions, holding public offices and administering the 
laws with a view to the amelioration of the actual state of 
things. But although Socrates had sought to work on Athens 
itself through the medium of his individual disciples, those of 
his scholars, who thought and wrote for themselves, were far 
from taking any state as their model or as the ground-work of 
their labours. They first formed for themselves some concep- 
tion of a perfect state, and then set about realizing their con- 
ception without reference to the institutions of any Grecian 
commonwealth. Thus Plato believed that the happiness of a 
state depended upon its having a philosophical ruler, under 
whose mild and beneficent government every part of virtue 

1 Diogen, La«rt. Plato, (III. § 34.). 


would receive its due dcvclopmcut : liencc, his earnest and 
repeated attempts to give a right direction to the mind of the 
younger Dionysius ; hence his iutercourse with Dion ; and 
hence the attempts of his scholars Euagoii, Chieron, and 
Timaius. Xenophon's partialities were those of the mercenary 
soldier rather than those of the philosopher. IMditary men, with 
some traits of generosity and moderation to soften the asperity 
of their character, were the only heroes for him. He was quite 
prepared to idolize the younger Cyrus, as we see from his men- 
tion of various particulars connected with the fratricidal expedi- 
tion of that prince. But after his return from Asia, the Spartan 
Agesilaus was the sole object of his enthusiastic admiration; by his 
side he fought against his own country, and for his sake he 
eulogized the Spartan constitution, while he depreciated that of 
Athens. As, however, no man, not even Agesilaus, and no state, 
not even Sparta, quite came up to the idea which he had formed 
of a country under the absolute government of a wise and warlike 
but perfectly virtuous prince, he turned back to Persia and its 
first Cyrus, and, with reference no doubt to the younger Cyrus, 
whom he had wished to place on the Eastern throne, drew an 
elaborate picture of the various successes of the first Persian 
kinsr, and the various measures which he took to secure the in- 
terests and happiness of his people. Feeling that his strong 
point Avas narrative, and considering himself entitled, as a cele- 
brated Persian traveller, to say something on the affairs of the 
East, he has not scrupled to mix up with his theory a good 
deal that is historical, and he concludes with remarks on the 
actual degeneracy of the Persians, as a sort of apology to his 
Greek readers for the selection of Persia as a model for a per- 
fect constitution. There is no doubt, however, that Xenophon, 
as well as Tsocrates and many other Greeks, looked upon Persia 
as the new materials out of which such a government might be 
constructed, and considered it the duty and the proper business 
of Greece to conquer it : and it is equally clear that, if the great 
pupil of Aristotle had enjoyed a longer life, he would have 
attempted to give a comprehensive reality to schemes, which, at 
the time of his birth, were but dimly seen in the distant futhrc. 
In his Panegyric on Agesilaus we perceive, even more clearly 
than in the Cyropfedin, what sort of a king Xenophon would 

D 2 


liav(^ jilacod at the head of the great military commouwealth 
of t J recce. In that tract, he tries his hero by the Socratic 
model, as it is set forth in his Memorials. He shows that 
Agc.>ih'ms was very attentive to the duties of religion/ and that 
he possessed in an eminent degree the four cardinal virtues ^ of 
justice/' temperance/ fortitude/ and wisdom.'' He tells us, 
however, that the wisdom for which he praises him was rather 
practical than speculative/ rather that of the statesman and 
Avarrior than that of the philosopher, and we may be sure that 
he Avould never have agreed with Plato in placing the philoso- 
phical above the military caste in his state. It is with great 
significance too that he remarks on the fondness of Agesilaus 
for Greece in general, and his hatred of the barbarians in general, 
and of the Persians in particular.® When Agesilaus heard that 
nearly 10,000 Greeks of the party opposed to Sparta had fallen in 
the battle of Corinth, instead of rejoicing at the victoi'y which his 
friends had obtained, he exclaimed, according to Xenophon, ^Alas 
for Hellas ! those who have now fallen would have been sufficient to 
conquer all the barbarians,** — a manifest allusion to Xenophon^s 
celebrated retreat, and to the hopes of Eastern conquest in 
which so many Greeks indulged. 

The literary merits of the Cyropcedia are by no means of a 
high order. The harangues, which are introduced on every 
occasion, important or unimportant, are exceedingly tedious. 
The whole work is pervaded by a feeble and mawkish tone which 
now and then degenerates into absolute childishness. The 
jests between Cyrus and his soldiers are vulgar and indecorous ; 
and many of the narratives are prolix and uninteresting. There 
are indeed several redeeming passages. There is much simple 
pathos in the episode of Panthea and Abradatas /" the address 

1 Agesil. c. 3, § 2. 

2 It is remarkable that the panegyric on Love put into the mouth of Agatho, in 
Plato's Symposium, (p. 196, B.), is made to attribute to that deity these four human 
excellences. It is just possible that Plato may have had in view the encomium of 
Agesilaus in this passage, as he is supposed to have had his eye on Xenophon's Sym- 
fiosium in his own rival composition. 

^ c. 4- * c. 5. ^ c. 6, § I, seqq. ^ c. 6, § 4, seqq. 

' c. 1 1, § 9 : Ktti <TO(f>iav ipyt^ fidWov rj \6yoLS ■fj<rKet.. 

* c- 7- « c. 7, § 5. 

'" VI. I, § 45, 4, § 2. VII. 3, § I, seqq. 


of Cyrus to his sous is a pretty moral essay;' and his account 
of the soul's immortality has more of exalted reasoning than 
we should expect to find in any work of Xenophon.- On the 
whole, however, we cannot share in the admiration with which 
this work was regarded by many illustrious liomans — especially 
Seipio ^Emilianus and Cicero.' 

§ 7. Sevei'al ancient writers have referred to the rivalry or 
jealousy supposed to have subsisted between Xenophon and 
Plato ; and though modern scholars are disposed to reject the 
allegation that there was any open m.isunderstanding between 
these eminent Socratic writers, there can be no doubt that Plato 
in his Laics has directed son^e censures against Xenophon's 
Cyropcedia,^ and perhaps there is some truth in the assump- 
tion of AtheuBeus that Plato had Xenophon's Banquet in his 
eye when he wrote his own work bearing the same name/ 
Xenophon's Symposium or Banquet relates what happened at a 
feast given by Callias, at his house in the Pirseus, in honour 
of a victory obtained at the Panathenaea by the young and 
handsome pancratiast, Antolyeus. The guests, among whom 
are Socrates and Antisthenes, amuse themselves with the ab- 
surdities of a jester and the feats of a Syracusan stroller and 
his company, who performed, among other things, the ballet of 
Bacchus and Ariadne : but there is no method in their conver- 
sation ; no one idea is worked out by the interlocutors ; and 
■with all its grace and elegance it falls far short, even in these 
respects, of the rival w ork of Plato. 

Xenophon's (Econoniicus, a treatise on agricultui'c and the 
management of a household, is conceived more in the spirit of 
Socrates than any of his minor writings. It is a dialogue 
between Socrates and Critobulus, which, but for its length, 
might have been introduced into the ' ATro/Livrji^iovni/iiaTa, for it 
begins abruptly, like the diflerent chapters in that book, with : 
riKovaa irore avTov StaXtyo/titVou, ' I once heard him convers- 
ing.' Like many of Plato's dialogues, it is principally taken 
up with the narration by Socrates of another conversation hchl 
by himself and one Isehomachus on the same subject. In tliis 

1 VIII. 7, §8, seqq. =» VIII. 7, § 17. 

^ Cicero, ad Famil. IX. 25, t. Tiiscul. i)/.f//!t/. II. 26, 62. 

* Plato, LiDf/. III. p. 694, G. * Athen. XI. p. 504, K. 


secondary dialogue, Xenophon is careful to show, that, in his 
oi)inion, the KaXoKayaOoc: was one, who, while he paid due 
reverence to the gods, hestowed all his time and talents on the 
work of promoting and securing his own interests. In fact, 
even in Xcnuphon, there are few more candid avowals of the 
selfish principle, which, as he elsewhere expresses it, is simply 
this, that the KaXov is identical with the uxpiXiixov. We also 
see in this little work strong proofs of the practical bias of 
Xenophon's mind, and his decided preference of the military 
man and the farmer above the literary man and philosopher. 
The incident related of Cyrus the younger ' is another indica- 
tion, among many, of Xenophon's enthusiasm for this young 
and ambitious barbarian. He concludes the work with insist- 
ing on the importance of intellectual and moral training to 
every one who Avished to rule over others without offering any 
violence to their inclinations — an object which he seems to 
have considered as the one most important to the practical phi- 
losopher, and Avhich was certainly the point aimed at in all his 
political theories. 

The Hiero must be considered as a sort of qualification of 
the author's general approbation of military government and 
the employment of mercenaries. It is a dialogue between the 
tyrant of Syracuse and the poet Simonides^ and its object is to 
show, on the one hand, that the lot of the tyrant is far from an 
enviable one, and, on the other hand, that there are ways of 
obviating the inconveniences and disadvantages attendant on 
the possession of absolute power; that it is possible to rule 
despotically without forfeiting the affections of subjects ; and 
that even mercenaries may be so employed as to become 

Of his remaining treatises little need be said. His tracts on 
horsemanship and hunting are interesting to the antiquarian, 
and his Hipparchichus , or ' cavalry tactics,' must have had its 
practical value at the time. His essays on the constitutions of 
Sparta and Athens are principally remarkable for the uncandid 
and partial views which the author seeks to defend, and for 
which he has but poorly atoned in the feeble pamphlet on the 

^ c. 4. § I 7, seqq. 


revenues of Athens, said to Jiavc been written by him after liis 
return from exilc^ as an offering of peace to his forgiving 

§ 8. The diction of Xenophon corresponds in its main 
features witli the simple or plain style [cKpcXrjt^ X6yo(^) of Lysias ; 
but in his historical works especially he has tried to imitate the 
unpcriodic diction [Xt'^ic; t'lpof-iivr]) of Herodotus, whom he seems 
to have taken as his model, as far as was possible, both in his 
style and in his mode of treating his subjects.' The ancient 
rhetoricians, Aristidcs, Dionysius, and Ilcrmogeues, agree in 
considering Xenophon as a designedly plain and simple writer. 
The latter says that he is plain {a(j)t\>ig) to the highest degree, 
and that he aljounds in this characteristic more than all others 
of the declamatory style, insomuch that even when he attempts 
anything sublime in the conception, he softens it down to his usual 
plainness and simplicity {KaOaipei Kai ftia^irni ttjooc t-o atpiXer). 
This peculiarity of Xenophon's style is perhaps not altogether 
designed. The wandering life which he led, his long absence 
from his native land, and his constant intercourse with 
foreigners, would tend to remove from his language the dilli- 
culty and idiomatic raciness of the Attic dialect, and as Lysias, 
a foreigner living at Athens, adopted this plain style in the 
orations which he wrote for the Attic courts of law, so Xeno- 
phon, an Athenian residing in the Peloponnese, might naturally 
employ the same means of making himself understood to foreign 
readers. In fact, we see in Xenophon, more than in any of his 
contemporaries, a first approximation to the common dialect 
{koivi) ciuXcKToc) which became afterwards the universal language 
of Greece. The selfish, unpatriotic character of the man has 
deprived his language of any national individuality of colouring, 
and thus, although many of the later writers in particular have 
commended Xenophon's style as the perfection of Attic Greek 
— calling him the Attic muse, the Attic bee, and so forth' — 
there is more of critical accuracy in the remark of Helladius, 
that ' it is not a matter of wonder that a man like Xcno- 

^ Dionysius Hal. JJe prccclp. histor. W . p. 777, Itciske : Sfo^tDv fi.iv '/afj 
Hpoddrov fV;\w7-7js iy^vero /car' a/j.<f>OT^pous rovs x°-P''-'^'''VP°-^> '''^*' '"^ Trpay/jiaTiKOv Kai 
rbv XeKTiKdv. 

* Diog. Laert. II. § 57. Suidas, s.v. Sewi^iiv. Coiiii). Cicero, Urat. 9, 32, 19, 62. 


l>hon, who spent his time in military service and in intercourse 
witli foreigners, should occasionally adulterate his mother- 
tongue ; on wliich account no one should consider him as an 
antliority in Atticism." 

iS o. It seems desirable to mention in connexion with Xeno- 
phon a contemporary Greek historian, who also took service 
with the Persians, but, being on the winning side at the battle 
of Cynaxa, had an opportunity of writing about the country 
from observation and documents, instead of drawing on his ima- 
gination for a romance like the Cyropcedia. Ctesias of Cnidus, 
the son of Ctesiochus or Ctesarchus, was brought up to the 
profession of medicine, of which Cnidus was one of the regular 
seats, and was probably induced by the promise of substantial 
advantages to take up his residence at the Persian covu't, where 
Greek physicians had been in great request since the time of 
Democedes. He became the body-surgeon of Artaxerxes 
Mnemon, and treated him for the wound which he received at 
Cynaxa." As it is stated that he returned to liis native country 
in n. c. 398, after seventeen years residence in Persia,^ he must 
iiave taken service with Artaxerxes in b.c. 415. It was pro- 
bably after he was again settled at Cnidus that he drew up, in 
Ionic Greek, according to the old rule, the w orks for which he 
had obtained the materials during his sojourn in the east. 
These were: (i.) A history of Persia iJlcpaiKa) in twenty-three 
books, derived from the royal archives [^i^Qipal (iaaiXiKai). The 
first six books treated of the great Assyrian monarchy. The 
remainder of the work carried the history of Persia down to 
the year b.c 599-* Besides some fragments in the more recent 
writers, an extract from the later books has been preserved by 
Photius.' Whatever may have been the faults of Ctesias,*' it is 
mucli to be regretted that we have lost this early contribution 
to oriental history. (2.) An account of India (IvSiKa), i. e., 
of the Punjab most probably. From this also we have an ex- 

1 Helladius ajpud Phot. Cod. CCLXXIX. p. 1589., Hoeschel. 

" Xenoph. Anab. I. 8, § 26. 3 piodor. XIV. 16. 

* Strabo, XIV. p. 656. Diodor. XIV. 46. = Cod. LXXII. 

« See the passages quoted and examined by Biibr, Ctesim Cnidii Reliquice, 
Francof. 1824, pp. 35 sqq.; and for the strictures on his 'IvSikol, cf. Muller, in 
Didot's collection of the fragments, p. 


tract ill Pliotiiis. As the materials were prol)al)ly derived from 
Persian iuformatioii, that is, at second hand, it was not more 
authentic than the accounts given us iu Herodotus, though 
perhaps it entered into greater details. His other works were : 
(3.) A coasting-voyage of Asia {riefjiirXovt; 'Aaiag) ;' (4.) On the 
tributes of Asia {ircfH nov Kara t»;i' Acruiu (jxjpun') f (5.) On 
mountains {Tripl opujv) f and (6.) On rivers [irtfn Trora/iwi')/ A 
reference in Galen' has led to the infereuce that Ctesias also left 
some medical works, of which, however, there are no traces ; and 
not even the titles have been preserved. The style of Ctesias 
is highly commended by Demetrius Phalereus'^ and Photius', and 
his diction is compared with that of Xenophou by Dionysius of 

^Ve shall see in a future chapter' that ^Vrrian took the 
parallel publications of Xenophon and Ctesias as the models for 
his principal works, writing his Epictetus, his Anabasis, and his 
treatise on hunting in imitation of Xenophou, and in the Attic 
dialect ; but making Ctesias his copy, and the Ionic dialect his 
diction, in the treatise on India, and also following Ctesias iu 
his Perijjlus. 

^ Steph. Byz. s.w. Kocti'Tt?, ^lyvvos. 

^ It is supposed by Miiller that this work was only an extract from the IlepffiKd. 

^ Two books are mentioned Plut. Dejlainis, ■21. ■* Id. i6. 19. 

5 V. p. 652, 1. 51, ed. Basil. ® De Elocutione, § 218. 

7 Cod. LXXTI. 

^ De Coinp. Verb. 10, p. 53. Eeiske : rj Si ye rod Kvidiov cniyypatpius Kri]<rlov 
[Xi^ts] Kal T) ToO ^UKpuTiKoO Sevo<pu!VTOS r/S^wy /a^v [(nry/ceiTaij u)S Ivi fidXicrra, ov 
/jltiv KaXQs ye e<{> Scrov ?8ei. 

'■' Below, chapter LV. § 2. 




§ I. Importance of Plato's writings even in a literary point of view. § 2. Life of 
Plato. § 3. His political character and conduct. § 4. His literary relations to 
his contemporaries and predecessors. § 5- Why he wrote in dialogues. ^ § 6. 
Chronological order and scientific arrangement of his works. § 7. Plato's dia- 
lectics. § 8. His ethical system. § 9. Hi^ physical speculations. § 10. Pecu- 
liarities and excellences of his style. 

§ 1. rr^HE year 429 b.c. is distinguished by two events of tlie 
J- greatest importance in regard to the literary glory 
and political power of Athens. On the 21st of May in that 
year the city gave birth to the most illustrious writer in all the 
catalogue of Attic authors, and in the following autumn the 
great statesman Pericles died at an advanced age, after having 
administered the affairs of his country in peace and war for 
forty years. By the latter event Athens lost her best hope of 
continuing that sovereignty, which took its rise in the glories of 
the Persian war, and was dissipated by the treason or incapacity 
of those who took the place of Pericles at the head of the 
government. By the former she became the founder of a 
literary empire far more extensive and durable than any which 
she could have established by the aid of her hoplites and triremes ; 
for there can be little doubt that the higher culture of Europe, 
since the days of Plato, has been directly or indirectly the re- 
presentative of that moral and intellectual philosophy, of which 
the teaching and writings of this great Athenian were the first 
definite expression.^ The place which Plato occupies among 
the leaders of humau thought, the multifarious relations which 
connect his speculations and criticisms with those of his pre- 

' Mr. Archer Butler, in his able and eloquent Lectures on the History of Ancient 
Philosophy (vol. II. p. i), says that Plato's philosophy 'whether regarded in itself, 
or with reference to its influence upon the history of reflective man, rises before us 
in all the dignity of the mightiest and most permanent monument ever erected by 
uuaasisted human thought exercised upon the human destinies.' 


decessors, and with the long scries of his successors down to the 
present time, and the many forms in uhich Platonisni is still 
an influential element in the religious and moral theories of 
Europe, "would seem to indicate that a review of his -writings 
Mould be a more appropriate suljjcct for a separate treatise than 
for a chapter in the literary history of Greece. Fortunately, 
however, we arc not required or expected on the present 
occasion, to deal with any of those subjects which have given a 
lasting and ever-present importance to the views which were 
originally expounded in the Academy. It is our business merely 
to tell who Plato was, what were the nature and development 
of his literary activity, and what were the leading characteristics 
of his genius as a Avriter. These points, and these only, we 
shall be able to discuss satisfactorily within the limits imposed 
upon us by the present work.' 

But even setting aside philosophy, and regarding Plato's 
writings merely fi*om a literary point of view, it Mould be 
difficult to over-estimate his importance. AVe have seen that 
Socrates, Avho introduced the great revolution in philosophy, did 
not himself leave behind him any literary memorials of those 
discussions Mliich he carried on so perpetually in the streets of 
Athens. And the same remark applies to the imperfect So- 
cratic schools. For Avhatcver may have been the value of the 
Cynical or Cyrenaical systems, as partially representing the 
moral philosophy of Socrates, and Avhatever may have been the 
merits of the ]Megaric school, as an exponent of his dialectics, 
the leaders of these movements have no important position in 
the literature of Greece. We are obliged to learn what Ave 
know of them from scattered notices in various authors, or from 
the reviews which Plato has left us in the form of dialogues. 
It M as in this, as in almost every effort of creative genius. The 
thought struggles for the literary expression. Great teachers 
go about among their felloM-men. They give oral instruction ; 
they awaken dormant ideas; they do and suffer. But their 

^ Tlie .luthor is to a certain extent prepared for this task by the more general 
survey of Plato's philosophy which he contributed to the Penny Cyclopadia in 1840, 
Art. Plato, a paper to which he presumes a tacit reference in the present chapter ; 
for the subject and the writer being the same, even an occasional repetition of his 
own words has been inevitable. 

44 PLATO. 

iiilhiencc is cither confined to their own generation, and be- 
comes for i)ostcrity nearly as though it had never been ; or it 
iiiuls soiur man of literary genius, who casts the preacher's 
tiioughts in his own mould, and gives them a permanent form, 
and an indelible expression. This constitutes the literary im- 
portance of Plato. We should have known from Xenophon 
who Socrates was, and, in fact, the nature of his teaching. But 
we owe it to Plato that his ideas, or rather, the thoughts which 
he awakened, have been made the germ of one of the grandest 
systems of speculation that the world has ever seen, and that 
they have been conveyed to us in literary compositions, which 
are unequalled in refinement of conception, or in vigour and 
gracefulness of style. 

§ 2. According to the most definite and consistent accounts, 
Plato was born on the 7th day of Thargelion in 01. 87, 3, in 
the archonship of Apollodorus, that is, according to our reckon- 
ing, on the 21st May, 429 b.c. ; and his admirers used long 
afterwards to keep the anniversary of his birthday, which was 
also the natal feast of the Delian Apollo. His lineage was one 
of the noblest at Athens, for he traced his descent on the 
mother's side to the family of Solon and Codrus. His father 
was Ariston, the son of Aristocles, and it is stated that Plato 
was originally called after his grandfather, his ordinary designa- 
tion, which was not uncommon among the Athenians at that 
time, being a surname derived from his broad chest or his 
expansive forehead, or, as some have imagined, from the breadth 
of his style, whatever may be the meaning of that phrase. 
When he changed his name is not known. But if modern 
scholars have rightly adopted the opinion of Diogenes and the 
old grammarians,' that Aristophanes in his EcclesiazuscB ridicules 
Plato's proposal for a community of property and wives, and 
that the philosopher is directly alluded to in that play and the 
Plutus, which Avere acted in 392 and 388 b.c, under the con- 
temptuous diminutive ArishjUus, it would seem that the name 

1 Morgenstern, Commentafio de Repullica Platonis, pp. 73, seqq. Meineke, 
Jihtoria Critica Comicorum Grmcorum, pp. 287, seqq. The authorities quoted are 
Diog. Laert. III. 23, Aristoph. Ecdes. 646, Plut. 313, Eustath. p. 989, Herodian, 
upud Etym. M. p. 142, F : ' KpiarvWos : 6vofj.a irapk ' Apiarocpdvet, eipy^rai U 
VTroKopi,TTiKw o'ApiaTOKXTJs. Cf. Fischer, ad Weller. II. p. 33. 



by which he is now known liad either not been adopted^ or was 
not his famibar ai)pcnation at the time when, as wc shall sec, 
he wrote his most important works. Some of Plato's relatives 
were very well known men. Critias, the leader of tlie tyran- 
nical oligarchy at Athens, was a cousin of his mother's, and her 
brother Charmides fell fighting by the side of Critias in the 
straggle with Thrasybubis in the Peirujus. It has been gene- 
rally supposed that Glancon and Adcimantus, who play a pro- 
minent part in the great dialogue of the Republic, were Plato's 
brothers, who are known to have borne those names ; but 
C. F. Hermann' has made it probable that these interlocutors 
belonged to an earlier generation ; and the following may be 
accepted as the most probable representation of the philosopher's 
family, and of his descent from the father of Solon : — 


Solon. Dropides. 

Critias I. 

Antipho L 

Aristocles I. 



' I 
Critias II. 

Glauco I. = daughter. Aristo I. Pyrilampea. 


Glauco II. Antipho II. 
Adeimantus I. 


Aristo II. 

I I 

Plato (Aristocles II.), Glauco III., Adeimantus II. 

It is more than probable that Solon and Dropides were not 
brothers ; indeed Plato himself - speaks of them merely as 
intimate friends and connexions ; and the claim of a direct 
descent from Exeeestides was probably set up in later times, 
when Plato's admirers lost no opportunity of exalting the family 
and person of a man whom they invested with almost godlike 
attiibutes. On the other hand, an attempt has been made to 

* Platonische Philosophie, p. 24. 

' Timceus, p. 20, E., where Critias is made to say of Solon : ^v fiiv oSi> olKetot 
Kal <r<p68pa (piXos tj/uuv ApuTridov toO Trpoirdinrov, KaOairtp X^ya. 7roX\d\'iy Kal avrds 
iv r-i} woiTjaei, and the Scholiast on the passage remarks : X^yovrai yd.p oUttoi Kal 

46 PLATO. 

deprive tlie ^Tothcr-city of the lionour of having given birth to the 
greatest man in lier literary liistory. About the time of Plato's 
birth, tlie Doric island of iEgina was stript of its inhabitants, and 
colonized by Athenian settlers {KXyjpovxoi), among whom was 
Aristophanes, the comic poet; and it has been stated' that 
riato's family had emigrated also. But this seems to be a 
groundless tradition. 

Connected as he was with the most distinguished family at 
Athens, it is not surprising that Plato received the best educa- 
tion Avhich was then attainable in Greece ; and Ave are told that 
he exhibited at an early age those qualities which raised him to 
literary eminence. He learned the elements of reading and 
writing {ypa/.ifiaTa) in the school of one Dionysius ; Ariston, 
an Argive wrestler, instructed him in gymnastic exercises ; his 
music-masters were Draco of Athens, a pupil of the famous 
Damon, and Metallus, or Megallus, of Agrigentum, whom some 
identify with Megillus," a Pythagorean writer on the theory of 
numbers.^ It is stated that he contended successfully as a 
wrestler in all the great games of Greece ; and that he com- 
posed dithyrambic, lyric, elegiac, tragic, and epic poems. These 
are all lost ; for there can be no doubt that the thirty epigrams 
in the Anthologia, which are attributed to him, are a later 
fabrication. When we come to speak of his style we shall see 
that he retained to the last the traces of that poetical fancy 
which suggested the form of his earliest compositions. There 
is no improbability in the statement that he also applied him- 
self to painting, to which he refers in his dialogues in the 
language of an amateur.'' 

We learn from Aristotle that Plato commenced his philo- 
sophical studies under the guidance of the Heracleitean 
Cratylus,* who appears to have been a friend of Socrates. With 

1 Diog. III. 3. 

^ See Henuann, Platon. PJdlos. p. 99. 

^ His work irepl dpcdfiwi' is cited in the Theologumena Arithmeticce, p. 27, Ast., 
and the quotation shows that Plato may have derived some of his arithmetical 
fancies from this source. 

*^ See for example Thecetet. p. 208, E., Resp. X. p. 602, C. 

Aristot. Mctaphys. I. c. 6 : e'/c veov avyyevbixevos irpCorov KparvXcp Kal rats 
'RpaK\€iT€lais 56^aii. Apuleius, De dogm. Plat. p. a : ' et antea quidem Heracleiti 
sectsl fuerat imbutus.' 


wliat other philosophical systems he made acquaintance before 
the year 410 u.c., wlicn he first attached himself to Socrates, we 
have no means of knowing. Diogenes, indeed,' asserts that 
Herraogenes, who maintains the Eleatie opinions in the dialogue 
called the Crafijhts, was Plato's instructor in that philosophical 
system ; but this is in all probability nothing more than an 
inference from tlie statement al)out Cratvlus, and from their 
appearance in the same imaginary conversation. The circumstance 
which produced the greatest influence on his subsequent studies 
and pursuits, was undoubtedly the fact that he became one of the 
regular associates or pupils of Socrates at the early age of nine- 
teen or twenty, and did not leave his teacher until that martyr 
of intellectual freedom, or literary and philosophical insubordi- 
nation, drank the fatal cup of hemlock. He was present at the 
trial,^ and was prevented by illness only from attending his 
master in his last moments.^ Of his relations to his fellow 
pupils we are not able to speak with any certainty. The 
supposition that he was on unfriendly terms with Xenophon is 
not supported by any definite evidence.^ He does not refer to 
Aristippus and Antisthenes in favourable terms,* but in most in- 
stances he speaks respectfully of the other disciples of Socrates. 
That the great teacher regarded Plato with kindly feelings of 
esteem may be inferred from the only passage in Avhich 
Xenophon mentions our philosopher ; for he says that Socrates 
retained a lively interest in Glauco on account of Charmides 
and Plato. "^ 

The execution of Socrates in May, b.c. 399, was immediately 

^ III. 6. ' Ajioloff. p. 34, A. : ovToal TlXdrwi'. 

3 Phccdo, p. 59, B : IIXaTwi' 5^ otfiai ijaOivfi. 

* There is a well-known treatise on this subject by A. Bockh, Commentatio Aca- 
demica de Simultatc, qua Platoni cum Xenophonte intcrccssisse fcrtur. Berol. 

® The absence of Aristippus from the death-scene of Socrates is merely mentioned 
in the Plicedo, u.s. According to Demetrius, this was intended as a reproach [De 
elocutione, c. "288) : olov u)s 6 YlXdrwy ' Apicrrnnrov Kal KXeS/x^porov XoiSopTJffai 
6e\Ti)(Tai iv Aiylvri 6ypo(payovvTa^ Se5f/j.ivou 'ZwKpd.Tovs 'AOrjvrjffiv ivl toXXAj r)p.ipa% 
Kal fjLT)\iV(TavTa^ tjs rbv iralpov Kal diSdcKaXov. Plato manifestly glances at 
Aristippus in the Philebus, pp. 53, C. 54, D., and at Antisthenes in the Sophisia, 
pp. 251, B., 259, D. See above, p. 175. 

^ Xen. Mem. III. 6, § i : SojAfparTjs 6^ ei^vovs uiv ai-rip 5id re 'Kap/xld-qv t6v 
rXavKuvos Kai dii. UXdrwva. 

48 TLATO. 

fallowed l)v the rctircmcvit from Attica of those who had most 
Avarndy attached themselves to his person ; and Eucleides, who 
liad l)ceii one of those who attended the philosopher in his last 
moments, opened his house at Megara as an asylum for those 
wlio found it no longer safe to stay at Athens. Here^ Plato 
resided for some time, and his dialogues show that he availed 
liimself of his intercourse with Eucleides to make himself 
thoroughly acquainted with that combination of Eleatic and 
Socratic doctrines which is known as the Megarie philosophy. 
He afterwards proceeded to Cyrene, on a visit to the mathema- 
tician Theodorus, who Avas also a friend of Socrates. It is 
worthy of remark that, while he professes to derive from a written 
report by Eucleides the three connected dialogues known as the 
Theeetetus, the Sophistes, and the Politicus, the scene of which 
is laid at Athens, immediately before the trial of Socrates, 
Theodorus is represented as being present at all three conver- 
sations, and in the first of the three advocates the doctrines of Pro- 
tagoras, in opposition to the searching criticisms of the Athenian 
philosopher. From Cyrene Plato is said to have travelled to 
Egypt, where we are told that he spent thirteen years in the 
study of all that the priests could teach him/ and even in 
Strabo's time the house, in Avhich Plato and his companion 
Eudoxus had lodged, was exhibited among the things worth 
seeing at Heliopolis." This journey to Egypt is also vouched 
for by Cicero,^ and it is not in itself improbable that he might 
have taken the opportunity while resident at Cyrene of making 
a tour in that Avonderful country. But, independently of the 
known date of his return to Athens and of his journeys to 
Sicily, it is not at all likely that he spent there any consider- 
able time, and it is absurd to suppose that his residence extended 
to so long a period as thirteen years. His writings give no 
evidence of such a familiarity with Egyptian usages as would 
have resulted from such a lengthened sojourn.' And it is not 
improbable that the subsequent cultivation of his philosophy at 
Alexandria led to exaggerations on the subject. Still more 

^ Lactant. InsfU. IV. 2. Clemens Alex. Protrept. p. 46, A. 

2 Strabo, p. 806, C. 

^ DeRepuhl. I. 10. 

* See Professor Thompson's note on Butler's Lectures, II. p. 15. 


apocryphal arc the stories about Pkito's intercourse with tlie 
Magi of Persia in their own country. lie might have obtained 
some knowledge of their dualism without travelling into the 
heart of Asia. And the adoption of Plutonic ideas by the early 
(,'hristians was quite a sufficient inducement for them to invent 
or believe the story that he had borrowed some of these coin- 
cident views from the Divine revelation of the East. Plato's 
Italian and Sicilian voyages are sullicicntly authenticated. 
\\'hether we acquiesce, with Dr. ]3entlcy' and Mr Grote/- in 
the genuineness of the epistles attributed to Plato, or, with 
Ast^ and other critics, pronounce them to be spurious, we cannot 
deny what one of these latter writers^ admits, that ' they are iu 
all i)robal)ility the work of comparatively early authors, who 
may have been exactly informed of the historical particulars 
referred to in them.' Now these epistles minutely describe 
Plato's intercourse Avith the despots of Syracuse, Dionysius and 
his son, and with Dion the uncle of the latter. It appears that 
he paid three several visits to Sicily — the first in b.c. 389, 
when, having offended the elder Dionysius, he was, at the 
instigation of that tyrant, sold as a slave by PoUis the Spartau 
ambassador, in whose ship he was returning to Greece, but was 
redeemed from slavery by Anniceris of Gyrene, one of the 
scholars of Aristippus. Notwithstanding this treatment, he was 
induced in n.c. 367 to pay a second visit to Syracuse, at the 
request of Dion, avIio wished to secure his advice and instruc- 
tions for Dionysius the younger. This hopeless and thankless 
office was soon abandoned, for Dion was barnshcd ; and Plato 
returned to Greece after a four months' sojourn in Sicily. 
His third and last visit, for the purpose of reconciling the un(;le 
and nephew, was undertaken in b.c 361, and he escaped from 
a place, which had become both dangerous and disagreeable, at 
some time in the following year. The interest which he took 
in Dion, is perhaps also indicated by the fact that Spcusipjius, 
Plato's nephew, who had been his companion on his second 

^ Remarks on Freethinking (in Randolph's Enchiridion Thcoloyicum, II.. jiji. 
458, seqq.). 

* History of Gi'cece, X., p. 603. 

' Pillion's Leben nnd Schriftcn, \>\>. 504, sf[i[. 

* Brandis, Ilandbuch, II., \>. 145. 


50 TLATO. 

journey to Sicily, joined as a volunteer the body of adventurers 
by whose aid Dion, iu B.C. '^^y, succeeded in establishing himself 
at Syi-acuse. With the death of that chieftain in b.c. q,^^, 
Plato's dealings with Sicily came to an end. His visit to 
Magna Grjccia, in the south of Italy, was probably contem- 
porary with the first of his Sicilian journeys. He had no 
doubt gained some knowledge of the philosophy of Pytha- 
jroras, and become familiar with the other Italian schools of 
philosophy at a much earlier period. As Philolaus had resided 
at Thebes where Simmias and Cebes heard him,^ and as Eche- 
crates was at Phlius about the time of the death of Socrates/ 
Plato had abundant opportunities of making acquaintance with 
the leading Pythagoreans of the day, without going to Italy for 
the purpose. Still he might have felt some temptation, when 
in Sicilv, to extend his travels to Tarentum, where he had the 
advantage of making himself personally known to Arehytas and 
Eurytus, and learning from them many particulars of those spe- 
culations which entered so largely into his own system. How 
great was his interest in this development of philosophy may be 
learned from the statement that Plato induced Dion to buy for a 
large sum of money the treatise in which Philolaus for the first 
time expounded the doctrines of Pythagoras.^ It has been conjec- 
tured,'' on the strength of a passage in the Theeetetns,^ that 
Plato travelled to Ephesus, the birth-place of the Heracleitean 
philosophy in order to converse with the representatives of a 
school in which he had received very ample instructions from 
Cratylus, and a tradition speaks of his having been in Caria.'' 

The journeys which we have described, with the exception of 
the voyage to Cyrene and the probable visit to Egypt, were 
undertaken after his return from Megara to Athens, which 
took place about four years after the death of Socrates, that is, 
not later than b.c 395. There can be no doubt that his most 
celebrated Avorks saw the light after this time, and in his native 

^ Cicero, De Finihus, V. 29. Diog. Laert. VIII. 46. 

" Phado,^. ST A. Cicero {De Finibus, u.s.), and Valerius Maximus (VIII. 
7, ext. 3), consider Echecrates as a teacher of Plato. 
3 Bockh, Philolaos, pp. 18, sqq. 
* By Ast, Platon's Leben und Schriften, p. 23. 
' P- '79 E. 6 Plutarch, De deem. Soci: p. 579 B. 


city. According' to Cicero lie carried on liis literary labours 
till the day of his death/ and except when interrupted by such 
absences from home as the journeys to Sicily which we have 
enumerated, he was engaged as a puljlic lecturer on philosophy 
throughout the latter half of his life. His lectures were at fiist 
delivered in the garden of the Academia, to the north-west of 
Athens, and afterwards in a neighbouring garden between the 
Academia and Colonus which he had [)urehased ; and it has 
been observed, that these gardens 'have left a proof of their 
celebrity in the structure of language, which has derived from 
them a term now common to all places of instruction.' - En- 
gaged in these philosophical and literary pursuits, Plato died at 
the advanced age of eighty-one, in 01. io8, j. b.c. 347. lie 
was succeeded in his school by his nephew Speusippus, though 
he had left Heraeleides of Pontus as his representative at the 
Academy when he took Speusippus with him on his second journey 
to Sicily. Athenseus'' and Plutarch^ give us counter lists of tyrants 
and good statesmen who received part of their training from 
Plato, and there were few eminent men of the day who are not 
stated to have been among the number of his hearers. 

§ 3. This general survey of the life of Plato would l)e in- 
complete without some inquiry respecting his political character 
and conduct, which have been made the subject of sharp criti- 
cisms. Nicbuhr has said,' that ' Plato may have been pre- 
judiced against his native city, in its constitutional form of 
government, by the warm feelings of his youthful heart, but it 
is not the less true that, if so, he was not a good citizen.' V\q 
have mentioned in a previous chapter,® that it was a prominent 
characteristic of the post-Socratic philosophers, to reject the old 
forms of civil polity and to seek an ap})roximation, at least, to 
an aristocracy of talent and knowledge. The state of the case 
in regard to Plato in particular, has been adequately exhibited 
by an eminent English scholar,' Avho has compared the state- 

' Dc Scncctute, c. 5. " Butler 3 Lectures, II., p. iS. 

' XI. p. 508, sqq. * Adv. Colot. p. 11 26. 

' Klcine Schriftcn, p. 479. Philological Musaim, I. p. 494. 

« 8ec chapter XXXYII. § 2. 

^ The Rev. W. H. Thompson, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of 
Cambridge, in liis lectures on the Gorr/ias, delivered in 1854. By the kindness of 
Professor Tlionipson we have been jiennitted to quote from his manuscript notes. 

K 2 

52 PLATO, 

nicnts of Plato himself, if he was the writer of the seventh 
Platonic epistle, with the feelings and principles so clearly dis- 
played in the Gorgias and Republic, which, it is with reason 
contended, nnist have been composed soon after Plato's first 
retnrn to Athens, in b.c. 395.' In that elaborate epistle, Plato 
is made to describe the successive disappointments which pre- 
vented him from taking a part in politics ; his disgust with the 
oligarchs; his still greater indignation when the leaders of the 
restored democracy procured the condemnation of his friend 
Socrates ; and how at last he arrived at the conviction that all 
existing forms of government were radically wrong ; and that 
the crimes and misery of mankind would never come to an end 
until cither the highest class of philosophic thinkers should step 
into the seats of power, or until the existing rulers should, by 
some divine miracle, become endued with a true philosophic 
insight.- The sentiments thus expressed by Plato, or put into 
his mouth, find their echo most especially in the Gorgias and 
Republic ; and while the latter elaborates the theoretical recon- 
struction of the political fabric, the former may be considered 
as an 'ATroXoym TWaTwvoQ, an exposition of his reasons for pre- 
ferring the contemplative to the active, the pliilosophic to the 
rhetorical life. The manner in which Plato performed the 
duties of citizenship on his first return, his services as a soldier 
in the battles of Tanagra, Corinth, and Delium,^ possibly his 
cultivation of rhetoric, with a view to his appearance as a 
public orator,* — all this may have induced his friends to hope 
that he was reconciled to the existing government of Athens, 

^ It appears to us that the description in Resp. 496 B. of the vvo (pvyi^s Kara- 
\-q(j)6iv yevvaiov /cat ed redpafifxivov 9jdos k.t.X., is a description of his own case, which 
Plato would hardly have written, except at a period shortly subsequent to his 
return from Megara. 

2 Epist. VII., pp. 324 B., sqq. See especially the end of the paragraph, p. 
326 A. B. 

3 Diog. Laert. III. 8. ^lian, V.H., VII. 14. 

■* Professor Thompson remarks : ' The intimate knowledge which the author of 
the Phwdrus displays of the writings of the leaders of both the great schools of 
oratory, the Attic and the Sicilian, may lead to the conjecture that he had at one 
period of his life studied rhetoric with a view to its public practice ; and it is hard 
to doubt that, under moderately favourable circumstances, his success as a speaker 
would have been brilliant.' 


and was willing to take an active part in the adiniiiistratiou of 
aftairs;' and no doubt many a well-wisher among the democrats 
gave him warnings, like those which Callicles, in the Goi'f/ia.s, 
addresses to Socrates.- To show that his dislike of the existing 
constitution was unconquerable, and to justify his abstinence 
from political action, he could not have taken a Ijcttcr method 
than that which is indicated in the supposed conversation with 
the veteran rhetorician of Leontini and Ins two admirers, — 
whereas the Rcjjub/ic fully developes those views of the neces- 
sity of a philosophical government, founded on the principles of 
eternal justice, which he would hold u}) to the politicians of 
the day as the best proof of the irreconcilable hostility between 
his views and those on which statesmen of the Callicles type 
professed to act.' That the Guryias and the Republic may be 
safely referred to the time when Plato, after his first return to 
Athens, had to consider seriously whether he could consistently 
take a part in the public aftairs of his own country, has been 
argued on the following grounds : The warning of Callicles, 
and the prophecy of his own death, put into the mouth of 
Socrates,^ could not have appeared in a dialogue written before 
B.C. 399, and the reference of the Goryias exclusively to Athenian 
life leads to the conclusion that it must have been written at 
Athens, and therefore after the writer's return in b.c. 395. 
Again, the statement in Athenseus,^ that Gorgias himself read 

^ That these ideas on the part of his friends might have been very justifiable is 
clear from his own expressions {Ep. VII. p. 325 A.) in regard to his feeUngs on 
the re-estabUsliment of the democracy by Thrasybulus : ira\i.v ^pahvrepov /xiv, eiXxe 
5^ fee Sfius, 7] Trepi rb TrpaTTeiy to, kolvo. koX to. voKitiko. iTriOv/j-ia. 

^ Gortjias, p. 521 C. 

3 Compare tlie Republic, VI. pp. 488 sqq. with the passage referred to above, 
p. 212, note 2. 

* Gorgias, p. 521 D : ovoh ye Sltowov ei dwoddi'oifjLi. The idea of the helplessness 
of the philosopher, when obliged to defend himself in a court of justice, ia beauti- 
fully worked up in a well-known passage of the Theatetiis (p. 1 74 B. sqq.), which must 
have been published soon after Plato's return from Megara, and therefore, accord- 
ing to Mr. Thompson's view, at the same epoch as the Govjias. He says that he 
had these views at the time of his first journey to Italy and Sicily : Ep. Vll. p. 
326 B. 

* Athen. XI. p. 505 : Xiyerai 5^ uis Kai 6 Topyias avrbs d>'a7»'oi'S t6v omovvfiov 
oi/rtp diaXoyof wpbs Toui jvi'TjOm i<P''), '^^s KcCKuii olbt IWdriiiv ia^/iij'eti' — dWoi oi 
fpaffiv lis dvayvovs 6 Vopyias rbv IVKdrdivos StdXovof 7rp6s TOv^jirapbvTo.'i dirti> on. 
ovdiv TovTWV ovTe flirfv ovre iJKOVCf. 

.") 1 PLATO. 

thi' dialogue, and the reasonable inference' that the great rhe- 
torician died shortly before b.c. 388, oblige us to conclude that 
till- ilialognc was written before Plato started for Sicily in b.c. 
389, which will fix the date of this treatise approximately for 
some time within the limits of Plato's first residence at Athens 
after the death of Socrates. With regard to the Republic, if, 
as we have mentioned above, the Ecclesiazusce of Aristophanes, 
with its commonwealth of ^vomeu, is a satirical attack on 
Plato's speculation, it will follow that the first sketch, at all 
events, of that long dialogue, was written and known to the 
public before B.C. 392, and this date for the Republic will affect 
that of the Gorgias also. Accordingly, in the first three years 
after his return to Athens, Plato had not only formed for him- 
self, but he had communicated to the world, a determination to 
take no part in the public business at Athens. The principles 
of the literary aristocracy, to which we have referred in a pre- 
vious chapter," were carried out by Plato to their fullest extent. 
But finding no probability that these principles Avould ever take 
root and genninate at Athens, he was content to do his best to 
instil his own convictions into the minds of those, who must 
sooner or later become politicians, and confine his practical 
politics to a share in the legislation of other states, or to an 
attempt to philosophize the minds of the adventurers who had 
made themselves masters of the fairest Greek city in Sicily. 

§ 4. The position which Plato thus assumed, as a writer 
rather than a speaker or practical politician, was in accordance 
with his whole career as a literary man, in the strictest sense 
of the term. He was not only a writer himself, but he was 
one of the earliest collectors of books,^ and was professedly a 
reader and reviewer of the writings of others. We have already 
seen how much pains he had taken to make himself acquainted 
with all existing systems of philosophy. ' On the death of 
Socrates,' says Cicero,' ' Plato first w ent to Egypt to add to 
his stock of knowledge, and afterwards travelled to Italy and 
Sicily in order to learn thoroughly the doctrines of Pythagoras ; 

^ Foss supposes from various data that Gorgias was born about B.C. 496, and 
died about B.C. 3S8. 

" Above, chapter XXXVII. § 2. 

3 Proclus in Tim. I. p. 28. Diog. VIII. 15. * De RepuU. I. 10. 


lie had a great deal of intercourse witli Arcliytas of Tareutum, 
and ^rith Timicus the Locriau, and procured the commentaries 
of Philolaus; and as Pythagoras then enjoyed a great reputa- 
tion in that part of the world, Plato applied liiui.sclf to the 
society of Pythagorean philosophers and to the study of their 
system. xVccordingly, as he was devotedly attached to Socrates, 
and wished to put everything into his mouth, he interwove the 
elegance and subtlety of the Socratic mode of arguing with the 
obscurity of Pythagoras and the many branches of learning 
which the Pythagorean philosophy included.' This account, 
though containing much that is true, is very far from describing 
the extent and variety of Plato's studies or the use which he 
made of his acquired knowledge. Of the importance of the 
Socratic and Pythagorean elements in Plato's philosoj)hy there 
can be no doubt. But he transmuted all that he touched into 
his own forms of thought and language, and there was no branch 
of speculative literature wliich he had not mastered, Epi- 
charmus, the great comedian, who was also a renowned Pytha- 
gorean philosopher, was one of his favourite authors, and Plato 
may be said to have fulfilled his prophecy, — that some future 
writer would confute and overthrow all opponents, by adopting 
his sayings and clothing them in a different dress.' Sophron, 
the mimographer, was constantly in his hand, and he is said to 
have had a copy of the Mimes under his pillow when he dicd.- 
He was also familiar with Empcdocles,^ who stands half way 
between the Pythagoreans and the Elcatics, and who, as Dr. 
Thirhvall suggests,^ may probably be regarded as the predecessor 
of Plato, in his eclectic view of philosophy. Besides these 
Sicilian Avriters, Plato was thoroughly conversant with all the 

^ Above p. 57, note. That Epicharmus the poet and Epicharmus the philosopher 
were the same person is fully shown by Clinton, Fasti Hellcnici II. p. XXXVI. 
note fj. Plato sometimes quotes Epicharmus by name, and in one passage {Theatct. 
152 E.) names him and Homer as the two chief poets, the one of comedy and the 
other of tragedy. 

2 Quintil. Inst. Orat. I. 10, § 17. 

' The doctrines of Empedoclesare directly referred to in the Sophutcs, p. 242 D. 
G. Hermann recognizes the very words of this philosopher in the Pkadvus, p. 246, 
B.C., and has endeavoured to restore them to their original form (Opusc. VII. p. 
106). It is doubtful wliether Enipedocle.s or Anaxagoras is alluded to in the Lysis, 
p. 214 B. See Heindorf and Stallbaimi on the passage. 

* II isturij of Greece, II. p. 139, note. 


woiUs of i'hilolaus, Arcliytas, Parmenides, Zeno^ Heracleitus, 
Anaxagoras, and Protagoras; whatever was committed to writing 
1)V tlie Sophists had come into his hands; he did not neglect 
his own contemporaries of the Socratic school ; and many of 
liis dialogues may be regarded as reviews or controversial tracts, 
referring to the published opinions of such writers as Aristippus, 
Antisthenes, and Eucleides. It would, however, be a great 
mistake to suppose that because Plato was so actively cognizant 
of the speculations of his predecessors and contemporaries, he has 
therefore forfeited his claim to be considered as a man of ori- 
ginal genius. If this were the case there could be no such 
tiling as literary originality. Every man who writes gives an 
expression, under a new form and with new developments, to 
thoughts which have been growing up in the society to Avhich 
\i2 belongs. Every age leans upon the preceding age, and the 
man of most creative genius can only work with the materials 
committed to him.^ It would be as preposterous to deny the 
originality of Shakspere because his plays derived their plots 
from histories, poems, and novels, as to suppose that Plato 
thought and wrote only at second-hand. We have only to com- 
pare the dialogues of Plato with the tame appearances of 
Socrates in the Memoirs of Xenophon, if we wish to see how 
much is due to the dramatic power, poetic fancy, analytical 
skill, and exhaustive learning of the former. Fully conceding 
the postulate, that Socrates first awakened the idea of science, 
and laid the foundations of dialectics, on which a main part of 
the philosophy of Plato was built up,^ and recognizing the im- 
portance of the great ideas which Plato had learned from the 
Eleatics, the Heracleiteans, and the Pythagoreans, we must still 
claim for him the master-mind which extracted from all these 
systems their common truths, rejected their specific errors, and 
from the \vhole elaborated and expounded, in the finest language 
ever spoken by man, the great theory of the opposition between 
the law and the facts, between the general and the particular, 
between the objects of reflexion and the objects of the senses. 

1 Arsfene Houssaye has well remarked: 'le plus souvent le g^nie u'est qu'un 
dcho Lien dispose.' 

2 See this distinctly stated by Ari.stotle, ilfetepA. XII. 4, § 5, 

THE DIALOG ui:s. 57 

between the world of abstract thought and the world of visible 

«^ 5. With the exception of the epistles, if any of these are 
genuine, and the philosophical dcfiuitious, which are undoubt- 
edly spurious, all the extant writings of Plato are in the form 
of dialogues, and in all these dialogues, with the exception of 
the Laws, Socrates is either an interlocutor, or in some way 
interested in the conversation. In this species of composition 
Plato was preceded by Alexamenus of Teos, and perhaps by 
Epicharmus, Zcno of Elea, and others.' Aristotle says : ' ' We 
cannot deny the name of discourses and imitations to the 
mimes of Sophron and the dialogues of Alexamenus of Teos, 
which were the first written of the Socratic dialogues.' With 
regard to Zcno, we have the more doubtful statement of Dio- 
genes ;■' * they say that Zcno of Elea was the first to write 
dialogues ;' and a mere inference from Aristotle's description of 
' the answering and questioning Zeno.'^ Whatever may have 
been the force of precedent, there can be no doubt that Plato 
"was led to employ the form of dialogues from the nature of the 
case. The mere fact that he adopted the dialectics of Socrates 
and the Eleatics is sufficient to account for his exhil^iting his 
reasonings in accordance with that method of questioning by 
which his great teacher and the school of Parmenides had 
tested the doctrines and opinions of those with whom they came 
into contact. A professor of dialectics was, by the nature of the 
case, a professor of conversation ; the verb StaXt'-yfrrOot means 
simply * to converse,' and the common w^ord to denote conversa- 
tion, namely, ^laXiiir, is used by Aristophanes to denote 

^ The following wiiters of dialogues were contemporar}' with Plato : JEschines, 
Antisthenes, Eucleides, and Phaedo. 

^ Athenseus XI. p. 505 B. : avrbs {IVKaTwv) rods SiaXdyovi fiinrjTiKws fpaipas, div 
TT)^ lMa% ov5' avrbs evperi^i iJTiv. wpb yap airroO Tovff eSpe t6 erSos 6 Ttjios 'AXe^a- 
p.€t>6s, dis Ni/ctas 6 ^iKaevs 'KXTopei irepl ^ojrlwy. 'ApicrroT^Xrjs 0^ iv t>^ Trepl TroLryrCiv 
o'tus ypdcpei' ' ovKovf ovS^ i/xfi^Tpovi tous Ka\ovfi4vovs "^uxppovoz ilL/xovs p.i] <pu>p.ev 
eli'tti X6701/S Kal p.Lp.r)ijeis, ■^ toi)s 'AXefa/xevoO tov Tritou roiis irpuTOus ypa<pivTa% 
rCiv 'ZwKpariKdv Sia\6yuv.' Where Bergk reads toi>s irpdrepoif. On the general sub- 
ject see Brandirf, in Niehuhr's Iikci)i Mas. I. 120. 

^ III. 47, p. 215 A. Casaub. : dia\6yous roivvv (paal irpQirov ypatf/ai Z^vwva rof 

* ::3Jl>fii<st. Elciich. c. lo, §2:6 a.troKp^'os koX 6 epuruii' Zjjvaiv. 

58 PLATO. 

' dijiloctics' or 'logic/' The definition by which Socrates^ 
according to Xcnophon, reduces SiaXeyeadni to its active form, 
and sui)poses it to mean the analysis or subdivision of things 
according to their f/enei^a and species,^ is, of course, one of those 
l)Iays upon words which merely indicate the non-existence of 
jihilological criticism among the Greeks. To examine and 
cross-examine appeared to Socrates the only means of arriving 
at the truth or confuting error, and to keep close to the ques- 
tion was in the strictest sense of the term ' to argue SiaXe/crt/cwc-^* 
The convenience of this method for an object such as that 
Avhich Plato proposed to himself is obvious.^ Wishing to review 
and criticize the various systems of philosophy then current in 
Greece, and also to test various opinions of political or social 
import, no better plan could have occurred to him than that of 
supposing their authors and advocates to meet with Socrates in 
the course of his daily life at Athens, and submit their views, 
with the best arguments which had been advanced in support of 
them, to his searching elenchus. In this way, Plato, as the 
anonymous reviewer, was enabled to substitute the well-known 
person of Socrates for the conventional 'we' of our modern 
critics, and instead of extracts from the works under review, 
Avith inverted commas and other marks of quotation, which, in 
this age of writing and printing, are expedients as convenient as 
they are universal, he produced the living forms of the authors 
themselves, or of some friendly Theodorus,' who had said, or 
was likely to say, a good word on their behalf. In this way, 

Nub. 317 : a'inep yvdj/j.7iv /cat SidXetij/ Kal vovv TifxXv Trapixovatv. 
Mem. IV. 5, § 12 : gcp-rj 8e Kal rb dLaXiyeaSai ouofiaaeTjuai e'/c tov awiovras 
KOify ^ovXfOeadai SioK^yovTas /card yefTj rb. Trpdyi.iaTa. 

3 The words oiHucUbras (I. 3, 1255 sqq.) accurately describe the dialectic process : 
' The quirks and cavils thou dost make 
Are false and built upon mistake. 
And I shall bring you with your pack 
Of fallacies to elenchi back ; 
And put your arguments in mood 
And figure to be understood. 
I'll force you by right ratiocination 
To leave your vitilitigation, 
And make you keep to the question close, 
And argue dialecticws.' 

J/vv7 '' ^^,'^'^f^'-" justification of Plato's method in Mr. Kingsley's Phaethon, 
2ua liaition, Cambridge, 1854. 

' VVho undertakes the defence of Protagoras in the Thecetetus. 

ORDER OF Plato's works. 59 

too, Plato was able to gratify his own dramatic genius, and his 
almost unrivalled power of keeping up an assumed character, 
a power in whicli Shaksperc alone can claim to be his equal. 
The natural bent of a man, who transcribed Epicharmus' and 
kept Sophron under his pillow,- must have been strongly 
towards tliis habit of impersonation, to say nothing of the 
pleasure of doing that which we do easily and well ; and if this 
had not been the case, it would be difficult to show what other 
method of controversy and literary or philosophical criticism 
would have been available to him in an age when he stood 
almost alone as a collector and possessor of books written by 
his contemporaries. 

§ 6. The chronological order of Plato's works, and their 
arrangement according to the subject matter, have occasioned a 
good deal of discussion. There is another question connected 
with this, namely, whether any and how many of the dialogues 
attributed to him are not genuine. With regard to this latter 
question, Avhich must precede any inquiry as to the order of the 
dialogues which really proceeded from Plato, we feel disposed 
to agree with those who grant the critical passport to all but 
certain of the minor works. The following will be either 
received with doubt or rejected without hesitation ; the Axiochus 
and Eryxias (sometimes attributed to the Socratic philosopher, 
yEschines), the EjnnoDiis (probably written by Philip of Opus), 
the first and second Alcibiudcs (the latter attributed to Xeno- 
phon), the first and second Hippias, the Tlieayes, Ion, Anterastie, 
Hipparchus, Minos, Cleitopho. On the other hand, we must 
maintain, against Ast, the genuineness of the Laws, the Meno, 
Euthijdcmus, Charmides, Lysis, Laches, Menexenus, Euthypliro, 
Apology, and Crito. And we cannot consent even to enter 
upon an argument with Socher as to the genuineness of the Par- 
menides, Sopliistes, and Foliticus, which seem to us as undoubt- 
edly Platonic as the Thecetetus, or the Philcbus.^ The earliest 

^ Alcimus quoted by Diogenes (III. i8) says that Plato transcribed most of the 
writings of Epicharmus. ^ Quintil. Inst. Orat. I. lo, § 17. 

* Hocher, iibcr Ptaton's Schriftcn, Miinchen, 1S20. These views have been p.irtly 
adopted or supported by Dr. Whewell in some interesting papera read before tlic 
Cambridge Philosophical Society (Transactions, vol. IX. pt. 4, vol. X. p. i). As 
far as the Sop/iistcs and Polilicus are concerned, the question been set at rest 
by Professor Thompson in the elaborate paper to which we have alreaily referred : 
above, p. 175. 

60 PLATO. 

inctliodical arrangement of Plato's dialectics is that of the 
Tetralogies drawn up by Thrasyllus, a grammarian, who flou- 
rished in the time of Tiberius.' Of these nine Tetralogies there 
are only three which are partially accurate in classification. 
Tlirasyllus could not avoid putting together the Theatetus, 
Soplnstes, and Politicus, but he spoils the connexion by prefix- 
ing the Cratylus, instead of appending the Parmenides. With 
similar want of judgment he makes the Cleitopho a preface to 
the Republic, Timams, and Ci'itias, which are really connected. 
There is a possible coherence in the Parmenides, Philebus, 
Symposium, and Phiedrus, which constitute his third class ; but 
this arrangement will not bear examination. In modern times 
the most important classification of the dialogues is that which 
was drawn up by the great philosophical theologian Schleier- 
maclier, Avho was the first to submit the whole of Plato's works 
to an acute and careful examination in regard to their coherency 
and the connexion of thought which runs through them. He 
divides them into three classes : (A) the elementary dialogues, 
or those which contain the germs of all that follows, of logic as 
the instrument of philosophy, and of ideas as its proper object ; 
these are the Ph(Bdrus, Lysis, Protagoras, Laches, Charmides, 
Euthyphro, and Parmenides ; to which Schleiermaclier subjoins, 
as an appendix, the Apology, Crito, lo, Hippias minor, Hip- 
parchus, Minos, and Alcibiades II. (B) Progressive dialogues, 
which treat of the distinction between philosophical and common 
knowledge in their united application to the proposed and real 
sciences, ethics, and physics; these are the Gorgias, Theatetus, 
Meno, Euthydenius, Cratylus, Sophistes, Politicus, Symposium, 
Phcedo, and Philebus ; with an appendix containing the Theages, 
Erasta, Alcibiades L, Menexenus, Hippias major, and Cleitopho. 
(C) Constructive dialogues, in which the practical is completely 
united with the speculative ; these are the Repiiblic, Timccus, 
and Critias, with an appendix containing the Laws, the Epistles, 

^ The following are the Tetralogies of Thrasyllus as given by Diogenes Laertius, 
II. 56, p. 221, Casaubon. I. Euthyphro, Apologia, Crito, Phcedo. II. Cratylus, 
Thccetetus, SopUsta, Politicus. III. Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phwdrus. 
IV. Alcibiades prior, Alcibiades alter, Hipiparchus, Anierastce. V. Theayes, 
Charmides, Laches, Lysis. VI. Eathydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno. VII. 
Hippias major, Hippias minor, lo, Menexenus. VIII. Cleitopho, Respublica, 
Timceus, Critias. IX. Mijws, Leges, Epinomis, Epistolce. 

ORDER OF Plato's works. 61 

&c. Without catering upon a criticism of this arrangement, 
which is, as we conceive, iu accordance neither with the chrono- 
logical order of the dialogues, nor with the main divisions of 
the subjects discussed in them ; we will endeavour brielly to 
ascertain the periods in Plato's life at which the principal 
dialogues were written, and the literary connexion of the more 
important treatises with one another.' 

It seems to us extremely unlikely that many works were 
published by Plato during the lifetime of Socrates, or that he 
composed at this time any of the more elaborate dialogues. It 
lias indeed been very generally assumed that the Pltcedrus ap- 
peared at this epoch, and was in fact the first of his works. 
We are much more disposed to accept the conclusion of 
C. F. Hermann,- that this dialogue belongs to the final period 
in Plato's literary career. Some of the reasons for this view 
have been briefly summed up by an English scholar.'' They arc 
— (i) its Pythagorism ; (2) the multifarious learning displayed 
in it — a leai'niug of which there are few traces in his youthful 

^ Tlie most recent hypothesis with regard to the arrangement of Plato's dialogues 
is that of E. Munk {Die naturliche ordnuiuj der Platon. Schriftcn, Berlin, 1857), 
who conceives that their natural order is that which is indicated by the age of 
Socrates at the time when each conversation is supposed to have taken place : 
thus the Parmenides is the first, because it introduces Socrates as a boy, and the 
Pluedo is the, because it represents the closing scene in the philosopher's life! 
The following are his subdivisions : — 

A. Socratic Cycle I. Socrates' initiation as a philosopher, and his cojitests with 
false wisdom (time of composition, 389—384). 

I. Parmenides (time of action, 446). 2. Pro^aflroras (434). 3. Charmides {432), 
&nd Laches (421). 4. Gorgias (420). 5. Ion, Flippias I., Cratylus, Euthydeinus, 
(420). 6. Symposium (417). 

II. Socrates teaches the true wisdom (time of composition, 383 — 370). 
I. Phcedrus; 2. Philebus ; 3. Republic, Timams and Critias (410). 

III. Socrates proves the truth of his doctrines by a criticism of the antagonistic 
opinions and by his death as a martyr (composed after 370). 

I. Meno (405); 2. Thcatctus (on the day of Meletus's accusation); 3. Sophis- 
tes and Politicus (one day after the Theittetus) ; 4. Eixthyphro (on the same day aa 
the Tlieatetius) ; 5. Apology (at the trial) ; 6. Crito (two days before the death of 
Socrates) ; 7. Phccdo (on the day of his death). 

B. Platonic writings which do not belong to the Cycle. I. Juvenile Writings 
(composed before the death of Socrates), i. Alcibiades I.; 2. Lysis; 3. Iliji- 

jnas II. 

II. Later Writings, i. 3/e»f.renua (after 387) ; 2. Xaics (begun about 367). 
3 Platon. Philosophic, pp. 373 Sfjq. 

' Professor Thompson, note on Butler's Lectures, TI. p. 44. 


works ; (3) the maturity of its ethical views, contrasted Avith 
the Socratic crudity of the Lysis, Protagoras, &c. ; (4) the 
clear exposition of the principles of philosophical method, and 
the advanced views of the nature of ideas implied in the great 
mythus ; (5) the exquisite perfection of the Phcedrus as a work 
of literary art. The tradition_, which assigns an early date to 
the Phcedrus, is possibly due to the fact that it was the first 
book published by Plato, when he finally established himself as 
a teacher in the Academy. The favourable notice of Isocrates/ 
and the criticisms on Lysias/ need occasion no difficulty. He 
may have entertained a higher opinion of the former than he 
did when he wrote the Euthydemus, if the description of the 
conceited rhetorician in that dialogue really refers to Isocrates ; ^ 
aud the importance attached to Lysias would be most appli- 
cable to the time, when that orator enjoyed the Panhellenic 
reputation consequent on his Olympiac speech."* Now this was 
in B.C. 388, just about the time when Plato, being ransomed 
from his bondage, set up his school at Athens, and when Iso- 
crates was in great repute. If any one of the extant dialogues 
can claim to be really the first written, the Lysis is perhaps 
the best entitled to this primogeniture. For there is not only 
a distinct tradition to this effect,^ but the style and subject- 
matter bear a stamp of juvenility and unpractised authorship. 
Closely connected with this we have the Charmides and the 
Laches ; and other short dialogues, if they are genuine, belong 
to the same epoch ; such are the Hippias major, the Alcibiades /., 
and the lo. After these, aud perhaps shortly before the time 
of the death of Socrates, we have two transition dialogues, in 
which the Sophists are so fully exhibited, namely, the Prota- 

1 Phadrus, p. 279 A. 2 /j/^; p ^34 D. sqq. 

^ Euthydemus, p. 304 D. : dvijp ol6/J.evos irdw elvat crowds, tovtwv tis tQv Trepl tovs 
\6yovs Toiis et's rh SiKa<7T-^pta deivuv. When Plato wrote the Protagoras and 
Euthydemus, it seems to have been his wish to contrast Socrates with those sophists, 
and he might therefore take a less favourable view of Isocrates on that account, for 
this rhetorician was a pupil of Protagoras. 

* Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, II. p. loi. Mr. Grote (vol. X. p. loi) supposes that 
the Olympiacus of Lysias and the Panegyricus of Isocrates were deUvered at suc- 
cessive Olympic festivals in B.C. 384 and 380 respectively. 

Diog. Laert. III. 35 : ^acrt 5e ical 'EuKpdTrjv aKovaavra tov Awlv dvayiyudia-KOUTOS 
n\aTO>vos, -Hpa/cXeTj, eiwe-c,^, cl.s woWd fiov Karar^eCSerai 6 peavlaKOS. 


goras and Euthydeinua} While he was at Mcgara, and very 
soon after the death of Socrates, he pro1)ably published and 
sent to Atlieus the Apology and the Ci'ito.- When he returncfl 
to Athens in n.c. 395, we conceive, for the reasons which we 
have qnoted from Professor Thompson, that he wrote the 
Gorgias, and the first edition of the Republic. Being also fresli 
from his instructive intercourse with Euclcides at ]\Icgara, he 
most probal)ly published at this time also the trilogy of 
dialogues which are supposed to be narrated at that philosopher's 
house — namely, the Thexeietus, the Sophisies, and the Politicus — 
and are stated to have taken place at the time when Socrates 
was indicted by jMcletns.'^ The battle of Corinth, mentioned at 
the beginning of the The(Btetus, must have been that in which 
Plato took a part, in the year of his return to Athens, b.c. 395 ;* 

^ Stallbaum seems to have shown satisfactorily that the Eiithydenius must have 
been written about the beginning of 01. 94, i.e. about E.c. 404. Its object is 
evidently the same as that of the Protar/oras, namely, to mark the essential dis- 
tinction between the principles and conduct of Socrates and those of the Sophists, 
with whom he was so often confounded. To the assumption of a corresponding 
date for the Protagoras the chief objection, which occurs to the reader, is the 
resemblance between this dialogue and the Si/mposium, which all are agreed in 
regarding as one of Plato's most matured works. Both of these dialogues introduce 
Eryximachus and his friend Phsedrus, Agatho and his admirer Pausanias, Alcibiades 
and his relations to Socrates, with remarks of a very similar kind, and there are 
unmistakeable resemblances of style and allusion, as, for instance, in the reference 
to the same line of Homer {Protagoras, 348 D., Symp. 174 D.). But the purport 
of the two dialogues and the indications of a more mature and thoroughly Platonic 
philoso[)hy in the latter, must lead us to seek for the natural explanation of these 
resemblances in that tendency to reproduction which is common to all authors. 
The introduction of Critias in the Protagoras and Charmides need create no dif- 
ficulty. If they were composed after the death of the tyrannical oligarch, the 
amnesty was so faithfully observed by the democratical party that no mischief could 
accrue to Plato from such an allusion to his relatives. 

^ This may be inferred from the natural wish of Plato, who was prevented from 
defending Socrates at his trial, to send to Athens a written vindication of his 
master, and an account of his noble unwillingness to evade the sentence of the 

' In the introduction to the Thecttctus, Eucleides is led by the mention of that 
brave J'oung philosopher, who had been wounded in the battle of Corinth, to re.-ul 
to his friend Terpsion a written report of the imaginary conversations in which 
Theaetetus took a part, and at the end of the first dialogue Socrates says that 
Meletus had indicted him. 

* For the battle of Corinth see Grote, IX. p. 425. We know nothing about the 
battles of Tanagra and Delium at which Plato fought ; probably, as Clinton suggests, 
they took place in the Corinthian or Thcl>an war. 

64 PLATO. 

and there can be little doubt that these dialogues were written 
shortly after that event. A fourth dialogue, which is unmis- 
takeably referred to' in the three supposed to have been detailed 
at T^Ic"-ara, and which is manifestly connected with them in 
subject, is the Parmenides, which is supposed to have been held 
in the younger days of Socrates, but is really a Platonic review of 
the Eleatic system considered in its connexion Avith the Megaric. 
In this class, too, we must include the dialogue which gets its 
name from his first teacher, the Heracleitean Cratylus. When 
Plato returned from his first peregrination and the bondage 
which concluded it, and established himself as a public teacher 
in the neighbourhood of Colonus, he seems to have published 
the Phcedrus, as an introductory treatise, followed by the 
Menexenus, in direct rivalry of Lysias, whom he had criticized 
in that previous dialogue ; and at intervals after this he must 
have given to the world his Symposium, which treats, like the 
Phcedrus, of love, his Phado, which discusses the immortality of 
the soul, not without reference to the doctrine of transmigration, 
so clearly stated in the Phcedrus, the Philebus, which argues the 
moral question in a Pythagorean spirit, perhaps the Meno, with 
its theory of reminiscences," and certainly the second or com- 
plete edition of the Republic, with its full development of all 
these ideas, and its substitution of the three classes in the State 
for the charioteer and horses of the Phadrus, as a representa- 
tion of the tripartite division of the soul. This last was followed, 

1 The Parmenides is distinctly alluded to in the ThecEtetus, p. i8o E., and it is 
inferred from the Sophistes, p. ■217 C, 253 E., 254 B., and from the PoUticus, p. 
257 A. B., that the Parmenides was the sequel of the two latter under the title of 
the Philosophus. 

2 Both C. F. Hemiann and StaUbaum are inclined to class the Meno with the 
earlier dialogues. The latter, adopting the views of Socher, thinks that Plato 
would not have dealt so gently with Anytus, if he had written this dialogue after 
his teachers death, but sees in it indications of ill-will between Anytus and Socrates. 
Accordingly he places the dialogue about the middle of the 94th Olympiad. But 
this ai-gument would only apply to the supposition that the Mc7io was written 
while the Socratic school entertained a fresh recollection of the part which Anytus 
had played, and there would be no more difiiculty in a cahn exposure of Anytus 
many years afterwards than in making Aristophanes and Socrates boon companions 
at the same feast. The reference to Ismenias, p. 90 A., places the dialogue after 
01. 96, I., B.C. 396 (Cf. Xen. HeU.llI. 5, § 1.) ; and the doctrine of reminiscences 
is too Pythagorean to allow us to separate the Meno from the Phcedrus. 

ORDEU OF Plato's works. 65 

proljablv after an interval, bv the Tiimeits and Critias. And 
the Laws were undoubtedly written after liis last return from 
Sieily, and when he had chanj^cd the general method of liis 
teacliing and writing. Notwithstanding the diii'erenees of style 
andthe«//Y/<:'o/«//(«or grammatiealineonseqncneeswhieh are found 
in the Lmvs, to an extent of which wt- h:i\e no exanii)lc; in the 
other works of Plato, the non-introduction of Socrates, and the 
discrepancies in detail between the Laivs and the Jicj/iz/j/ir, \\v 
entertain a perfect conviction that we have here a genuine work 
of Plato. The faults of the style may be explained by the fact 
that the Ldics had not received the last touches of the author's 
pen ; for Philii)pus of Opus is said to have transcribed the work 
from the waxen tablets [kv KifpoigY and to have copied it out. 
With regard to the non-introduction of Socrates, this is surely 
a peculiarity which the author was at liberty to adopt if he 
pleased. AVhat would have been said if it had not been in the 
form of a dialogue at all ? The discrepancies in details between 
the Laws and the Republic are explained by the different 
purport of the two treatises. The author himself tells us that 
the former is not intended to represent a perfect state, but 
merely one that is relatively perfect ; and the discrepancies do 
not affect any leading principles in Plato's ethical system. But 
even if the ol)jections were of much more weight than they 
seem to be, they would be overthrown by Aristotle's direct and 
positive testimony to the geiuuneness of the work.- 

It does not appear that Plato made any formal division of his 
writings according to their subject-matter. Generally it may l)e 
said that they represent the dialectics and el/iics, to which So- 
crates confined his attention, and in a less elaborate form, the 
jjJiysical philosoplnj of the older speculators. This tripartition 
of philosophy was recognized in Plato's time, and is said to have 
been expressly adopted by Ai-istotle, Xenoerates, and the Stoics,^ 

^ Diog. Laert. III. 25, who also mentions that this Opuntian disciple of Plato 
was the author of the Epinomis attributed to his great master. 

5" Polit. II. 6, § I. 

' Sextua Enipiricus, adv. Mathem. VII. 16 : ivriKiartpov 5i irapk tovtovs oJ 
etTTOvrej t^j (pLXo<TO(plas t6 /J-iv ri elvai (pvaiKov, rb 5i rjOiKdv, rb 5i XoyiKbv. wv SwdfJ-fi 
fiev HXdruv iarlv apxvy^^t ""epi iroWwi' fxiv (pvcriKuiv, wepl voWuiv 5i rjOiKwv, oiiK dXlyuv 
5i \oyiKU!v diaXexOeii' p-qTbrara 5^ ol wepl rhv ^ivoKparrj Kal oi airb rov IlfpiirdToi', In 
oi oi dirb tt)s ^Todi fx°*'^°-'- ■'"^"'Sf t^s diaip^crwi. 



but Cicero tells us that it was contemplated also by Plato,' and 
it may be discerned in his dialogues as we have them. In 
accepting, hoAvever, this formally-scientific classification of 
Plato's dialogues, we shall be obliged to exclude all those which 
were written before his return to Athens in b.c. 395, for none 
of these can be considered as contributing directly to the de- 
velopment of Plato's system. They are rather examples of his 
dramatic genius and dialectic skill applied to the exhibition of the 
views peculiar to Socrates, or they are intended as justifications 
of that philosopher, giving a favourable representation both of 
his method and of the ethical principles which he adopted, and 
contrasting him, in both respects, with the Sophists, in opposition 
to the common prejudice at Athens, that he was only a Sophist 
himself.- If we take even the most elaborate of tiiese early 
dialogues, the Protagoras, and compare it with any one of those 
which he published after his return from ISIegara, even the 
Gorgias, which is the least scientific of that group, we shall see 
that the former is entirely Socratic, while the latter uses the 
person of Socrates merely to justify the opinions of Plato. It has 
been well remarked by an English scholar, who is an authority 
in all that relates to this subject,^ that 'the speech of Callicles in 
the Gorgias is throughout more applicable to the circumstances 
of a comparatively young man, who, like Plato, on his first re- 
turn to Athens, had his profession to choose, than to an elderly 
and inveterate dialectician, such as Socrates must have been 
considered at the time, when this conversation is supposed to 
take place ; that no reader of Plato need be at a loss for parallel 
instances, in which the contemporaries of Plato would recognize 
the author under the mask of his hero, or in which the opinions 
of the parties and personages of his own time are antedated by 
some twenty or thirty years ; and that certainly no Callicles, 
however well-intentioned, or however sanguine, could have 
hoped to win over Socrates to a profession for which he was so 
ludicrously disqualified by the absence of every one of those 
gifts of nature which are commonly regarded as essential to 

^ Acad. Post. I. 5, § 19. 

2 Above, Chapter XXXVII., § i. Xen. Mem. I. 6, § 15, I. 1, § 49, sqq. 
* We quote from Professor Thompson's MS. Lecture on the Gorgias, to which 
we have been permitted to refer. 

0KDI:K Ol' I'LATo's WOKKS. 67 

success in public life, whereas Plato had already given indi- 
cations of an intention of taking that part in the public de- 
liberations which he declined to assume, for reasons adequately 
explained in tlie Gorgius and Rcpuhllc' In the Protarjoras, on 
the other hand, "vve have Socrates, as he was, opposed to a group 
of the most eminent Sophists, who are drawn from the life, with 
all the accuracy of a photograph, and exhibiting not only a most 
favourable specimen of his peculiar dialectics, but also arguing 
for that identification of virtue with knowledge which we have 
seen' was the special characteristic of his moral philosophy. 
The compliment to Socrates, and the prediction of his future 
eminence, with which Protagoras concludes the dialogue, seem 
to us to intimate very clearly that in this dialogue it was the 
object of the zealous disciple to meet a growing prejudice 
against his master, and to induce the Athenians to recognize 
his present usefulness and future eminence. Protagoras is 
made to say :" ' For my part^ Socrates, I commend your zeal, 
and your skill in developing an argument ; and I have often 
said of you, that of all who fall in my way, I admire you most, 
certainly by far the most of those of your standing, and that I 
should not he siu-prised if you were to gain a place among dis- 
tinguished philosophers.^ 

Omitting then, for these and the like reasons, all the dia- 
logues, which were probably written before b.c. 395, ^ve shall 
get the following general results for a scieutifie classification and 
subdivision of the genuine works of Plato. We may fairly con- 
clude that Plato's first object, in developing his own peculiar 
views, would be to vindicate the principles of moral and political 
speculation, which led him to the conclusion that no state could 
really succeed until the rulers became philosophical, or philoso- 
phers were placed in the seats of power. In thus maintaining 
the importance of philosophy, he prepared the way for a dis- 
cussion of those theories on which, as he thought, mental and 
moral philosophy depend. Accordingly, we infer that he began 
his systematic works by publishing the Gorgias and the first 
sketch of the Republic? These works were not only his propa- 

' Above, Chapter XXXVII. § 3. ' Protay..  . \-. 361 D. 

^ It is too generally forgotten, in histories of ancient literature, that, in the case 
of long-lived and prolific authors, the works wliich wo have are very often trans- 

F 2 


di'iiiic, (^r inaugural discourses, but also his means of setting him- 
self right' \\\i\\ those of his fellow-citizens who claimed from him 
a more direct participation in their own every-day affairs. After 
these he would naturally publish the dialectical reviews from 
the Theceti'Uis to the Parmmides, in which the principles of 
al)stract reasoning are controversially established. These are 
emphatically the dialectical treatises, though the results appear 
also in the later dialogues. Making a new start with the Ph(B- 
dnis, on opening his school after his release from bondage, he 
reverts to the moral principles urged in the Gorgias and Re- 
pumic, and discusses the philosophy of rhetoric with direct 
reference to his most eminent contemporaries, Lysias and 
Isocrates ;" and in a series of dialogues, terminating with a 
revised and completed edition of the Republic, he blends together 
his dialectical and moral principles, and gives us adaptations of 
that Pythagorism with which he had made more accurate ac- 
quaintance at Tarentum. These dialogues then, with the later 
treatise on the Laws, represent generally the ethical system of 
Plato. In the Phado he had glanced at the bearing of these 
questions on natural philosophy, and the play with numbers in 
the Republic had reference as much to the physical as to the 
political theories of the Pythagoreans ; but he has given a formal 
development of his views on these matters in the Timcsus, which 
may therefore be regarded as a sample of Plato's physical phi- 
losophy. According to this subdivision, we will now examine 
the general results of his system. 

§ 7. The dialogues, in which Plato discusses more particularly 
the science of dialectics, are a series of reviews representing, 
partly by way of example, the faults of the counter-systems of 

mitted to us in a revised or improved form, even if tliey are not entirely remodelled. 
Among Plato's dialogues, we see this most clearly in the Republic and the Parme- 
nides, the latter of which is probably a new and separate edition of the treatise ' on 
the philosopher,' which is the pronused sequel to the SopJdstes and the Politicus. 

1 In the German plirase, Plato orientirte sich in the Gorgias and the first sketch 
of the Republic; See Classical Schol. and Learning, p. 215. 

2 Leonard Spengel, in an elaborate paper on Aristotle's Rhetoric {Munich Trans- 
actions VI., 1852, pp. 465, sqq.), shows that the Phcedrus gives Plato's views on 
scientific rhetoric ; that Aristotle was immediately indebted to Plato's exposition 
on tliis subject; and that in his Rhet. IT. 1—17, his wdO-n Koi ijdr) are a direct refe- 
rence to Plato's \pvxayuyia. 


Parmciiides, as developed in the Mcgaric seliool, and of ilera- 
eleitus, as Plato had learned these opinions from C'ratylns, and 
))erhaps also studied them at Ephesus.' The opposition l)et\veen 
these two systems consisted^ as is \\c\\ known, in their anta- 
gonistic theories respecting the law and the facts, the in- 
telligible and the sensible, the form and the matter, tlie idea 
and the phenomenon, the one and the many, the permanent and 
the variable, that which is {t(TTi), and that which becomes, is 
produced, or comes into being [yiyi'tTui). The Eleatics of the 
school of Parnienides, and after them the Megaries of the school 
of Eucleidcs, rested on the formulae (i) that all is one, and that 
there is no multiplicity or multeity of things; (2) that all is 
one immutable being, and that there is no becoming {yevtaig), 
no change, no alteration, augmentation and decay. According 
to the Eleatics, the outward world of sense only seemed to be — 
it had no real existence. Parnienides himfblf declai'cd in his 
high-sounding verses :' ' Nothing except Being either is or will 
be ; for fate has fixed this at least — that the name to Be belongs, 
alone and nnchangcable, to the All, in regard to whatever mor- 
tals, in their confidence that such things are true, have set down 
as coming into existence and perishing, as being and yet not beings 
as undergoing change of place or change of aspect.' To this 
Unitarian doctrine of Being was directly opposed that of the 
Ionian school of Heracleitus, which asserted that there is no 
unity, no being, no permanence ; that all is pku'ality, coming 
into being {yiuiai^), and fluctuation. This doctrine, modified 
into the dogma of Protagoras, that ' the individual man is the 
standard of all things' {Travriov /.urpov avOfnoTroc), amounted to 
an assertion that all kuowleilge is sensation, that there are no 
i-ealities in the woidd except those which meet us in the changing 
objects around us, and that cv^en the names of things are as ab- 
solutely true as the objects which they arc supposed to denote.'^ 

' Seethe expressions iu 7'heietetus, p. 179 E. 

^ Siiiiplicius, ad Arislot. Phijs. I. p. 31. 

^Trei t6 7£ "Mdlp (Tric-qfftv 
otov aKlvrp-bv t efi^vat ry ndvr' 6voix' 'Kcrri 
offaa ppoTol KariOevTo irewoidore^ ilvau dXrjOi), 
yiyveaOai re kuI 6\\v<T6ai, elvai re Kai oi-xi, 
Kal TOTTOV dWaffaett' 5id re XP""- 'P"-*'^" dfici^ctv. 

^ Pl;ito, Thecetet. p. 151 E. sqq. 

70 TLATO. 

llricfiy stated, the Eleatic doctrine was that the formula for the 
\uiivcrsul is one only ; that of the Heracleiteans was that the 
universe can be regarded only as many. 

Plato, perceiving that ueither of these propositions was ex- 
clusively true, but that there was truth in each of them ; that 
the Eleatics were wrong in annihilating the sensible world, and 
so depriving science of its materials, and the Heracleiteans 
equally wrong in denying the intelligible world, and so depriving 
science of its form ; that philosophy was neither confined with 
the former to a problem of logic, nor with the latter to a regis- 
tration of phenomena ; — Plato, being convinced of this, adopted 
as the symbol of his own system the following comprehensive 
proposition — that the formula for the universal is neither one 
only, nor many only, but one and many (tV Kai TroXXa), i. e., the 
subject of which many predicates may be asserted, and which 
therefore appears as manifold.' According to this view, the o?ie 
and the many are terms which do not exclude, but rather pre- 
suppose one another; the one is many and the many one, for 
the general idea may be analyzed and divided into its sub- 
ordinate ideas, the genus into its species, the one into the 
many ; and conversely, we may ascend from the individual to 
the species, and the species to the genus, from the many to the 
one.- Thus we see that Plato's system, as distinguished from 
that of the two schools which he undertook to criticize, rests 
upon a proper conception of that which Leibnitz called ' the 
definition real.'^ The definition, as Socrates too had seen, con- 
sists in generalization and division, i. e., it is made per genus et 
differentiam ;^ and to reason scientifically, it is necessary that we 
should be able to generalize and classify (/car' ci'S)/ aKoirtiv and 
naru -y^voq SinKpiveiv).^ Science then depends on dialectics, 
dialectics on the definition real, and the definition real on this 

^ See Phileb. p. 14 C. sqq., and vSydenham's note 51, pp. 86, sqq. Cf. Repuhl. V. 
p. 476 A. Sophist, p. 251 A. Parmenid. p. 129 E. 

^ This is what is meant by the avvayutyrj and 8iaipeais mentioned in the 
Phccdrus, p. 265. 

* Nouveanx Essais sur V Entendement hwmain, Liv. III. Chap. III. pp. 252, sqq. 
Phcedrus, p. 249 B. : del yap dudpuiirov ^vvtevai. Kar elSos XeyS/Jievov sk iroWCjv 

ibv aiaOrjo-iuv els ^v Xoyia-fjLi^ ^waipo^fxevov. Cf. ibid. 273 E., where the phrase is 
KUT elSij re dLaipeicrdai to. bvra kuI p-iq. ideq. Kad' ev 'inacFTov TrepL\ 

* Sojihist. p. 253, 3 D.E. Pkileb. p. 25 B. sqq. Phcedr. p. 265 D. 


power of syutlicsis and analysis.' So that Plato's ideas arc, 
strictly speaking, nothing more than general terms, and Plato's 
dialectics necessarily rest on his examinations — the first that 
had been attempted — of the syntax of the Greek language.' 
His procedure is as follows. He perceived tluit every pro- 
position or enunciation necessarily consisted of a subject or 
name of a thing (oro/ta), which assumes its behiy or entitij 
{ovfTia), and of a predicate or assertion (fjij/ut), which aflirmed 
or denied something of the subject. He says, however, that 
words, whether subjects or predicates, express neither entity 
nor action, neither being nor becoming, unless they are joined 
together in a sentence ; and then some tense of becoming is 
predicated of some state of being — or the many are predicated 
of the one — for then it is that we have a declaration concerning 
existing things (subjects) as becoming, or having become, or 
being about to become, and then we have not merely names 
or subjects, but conclusions derived from the connexion of the 
su1)jeet with the predicate.^ But how do avc get the assumption 
of entity in the subject or name? Because the act of naming 
or atKxing a general name, the name of the genus, is the first 
step in classification, and in itself gives a fixity to things, which 
is opposed to generation or becoming. The name is true and 
accurate in proportion as it rests upon the definition real, of 
which the main part is some general term including a multi- 
plicity of objects, and the secondary part is an exi)lanation of 
the dift'ereuce between this object and others which belong to 
the same genus. This secondary process, or the per diffe- 
rentiam, is subordinate to the per genus, and the dialectician's 

^ Phcedr. p. 266 B. : tovtwv Sri lyityye aurbs epaar-q's, twv Siaip^jfwv Kal 

^ See New Cratylus, § 59, where we have given reasons for believing that PLvto 
was, strictly speaking, a nominalist. This is shown incidentally by a comparison be- 
tween the gentle reproacii to the youthful SocratC'^ in the Parmcnidc^, p. 130 A.-C, 
for supposing that the science of names is not independent of any want of dignity 
in the objects which the names denote, and the distinct statement which we have 
quoted below from Sojihislcs, p. 22~ A. 

^ So2i/tUt. p. 262: brav dirrj rts ' dvOpoiwos /xavdavei' Xdyof (Ivai (prii toOtoi' 
iXd-XLarbv re Koi wpurov ; fyurye. SriXoi yap i}5r] vov t6t€ vepl tCjv 6vto3v fj yeyovdrbiv 
ij iJ.{W6i>T0}V Kal oi'K 6vop.d^€i. p.6vov, &.W6. ti vepaluft, <\iKiov to. ^ r} /x a t a Toh 
ofi/jLacriv, Sib \4yfLV re avrbv dX\' ov novov 61'op.di'eii' dirofi-fi'. Kal cih kuI ry 7r\/-,- 
/Ltari TOVTi() r6 fivo/xo ecpOey^dnev \6y ov. 

72 PLATO. 

fjroat object is to ascertain what are those general terms which 
are the objects of thouglit. They cannot belong- to the objects 
of sense — the phenomena — w4iich are in a constant state of 
transition, but must of necessity be included among those things 
which we know by means of reflexion {Siavoia), through the un- 
derstanding (\oyi(Tfi6g, vovg, voricng) ; for these things, being 
fixed, may be referred to entity {dva-'ia), and made the objects 
of science {eirKTrij/j-ri), or certain knowledge.' 

This, then, is Plato^s theory of ideas, considered as a recon- 
ciliation of the counter-propositions of the Eleatics and Hera- 
cleiteans. Asserting against the former that the sensible is true, 
he conceded that it is so only by partaking of the intelHgible 
[kutq jxiQt^iv Tov ovTog) ; and while this is expressed dialec- 
tically by a system of scientific classification, it is metaphy- 
sically an effort to ascend to the supreme idea, which has in it 
nothing that is capable of being comprehended by the senses ; 
for the subordinate ideas are but hypothetical notions from 
M'liich we reach the true elevation by means of continually 
higher assumptions f until at last we come to God, as the 
supreme idea; and thus the common standard of all things 
is not man, as Protagoras asserted, but God alone.^ 

In order to understand fully the manner in which Plato 
works out controversially this dialectical theory, it is necessary 
to read carefully the series of dialogues, which he seems to have 
written at brief intervals after his military service at Corinth, 
and in ^vhich he has immortalized the young philosopher and 
geometrician,' who was wounded by his side, when the Lace- 
daemonians outflanked and crushed the left wing of the Athe- 
nian hoplites." We must content ourselves with a general 
sketch of this ingenious collection of criticisms in the form of 
dialogues. The first three, a report of which Eucleides reads to 

1 See Parmen. p. 129 E., Phced. 65 C, Resp. VII. p. 532 A. According to 
V\a,io {ThecEtetus, p. 187 A.) science must be sought iu eKebq, ry dpSjULari otl ttot' 
^Xe' V ^vxv, ^rav avrr] KaO' avrr^v Trpay/j.aT€vr]Tai irepl ra 6vTa. 

2 Rcsp. VI. p. 511 B., comp. Phcedo, p. 100 A. Philehus, p. 20 D. Resn. p. 
6ro C. 

3 Leges, IV. p. 716 C. 

* Theffitetus was the founder of the geometrical school, in which the great Euclid 
was formed ; see below, ch. XLVI. § 6. 
' Thecettt. p. 142. See Grote, History of Greece, IX. p. 427. 


his friend Terpsion, arc represented as consecutive parts (jf a con- 
ference commenced between Socrates and Tlieodorns, the niathi- 
maticiau of Cyreue. Tlie latter havinj^ spoken in high terms of a 
young Athenian named Thea?tetus, of Sunium,\vho resembled So- 
crates in person, and who had probably been Plato's friend and 
fellow-exile at Megara, introduces him to Socrates, who at once 
engages him in a discussion on science {tiriaTiiinr}). The object 
of the dialogue called Thetetetus^ is to refute three definitions of 
this term, which are put into the mouth of the young student 
of philosophy : (I.) tiiat science is sensation {aifrOijair), whieli, as 
Socrates says, is much the same as the dogma of Protagoras, 
'the individual man is the standard of all things;' (II.) that 
science is right conception (tj aXy]Bi)(^- So^h), from which we get 
a most subtle disquisition on the nature of false conception, 
with particular reference to the fallacies of the ]\Iegarics and 
Cynics, and with the celebrated illustration of memory as a waxen 
tablet;- (III.) that science is right conception combined with 
accurate definition or reasonable explanation (?'/ ^itra Aoyoi* 
a\t]Oi)(; ^o^ft).^ The result of the dialogue is purely negative; 
it consists in showing that no one of these definitions of science 

^ We have given an analysis of this dialogue in our article on Plato in the Penny 
Cydopwdia, and we recouuiiend the dialogue itself to the careful cotisideration of 
any young student, who wishes really to comprehend the dialectics of Plato, or the 
effects of his philosophy on the theories of his successors and the rival schools of 
philosophy. There can be little doubt, for example, that the speculations of Car- 
noades have a direct reference to the Thecetetus of Plato; see below, chap. XLVIl. 

^ Professor Thompson remarks (Butler's Lectures, vol. II. p. 103 note, § 25) 
that 'to this part of the dialogue Locke's celebrated chapter on memory presents 
a striking parallel (Essay, B. II. chap. X. §§ 4, 5).' 

^ There is some difficulty as to the interpretation of \670s in this third descrip- 
tion of iirKTrrj/xr). The elucidation added by Theaitetus, where he gives this des- 
cription at second-hand (201 D), uiv tirj ecm \670s, ovk €Tri(TTt]Ta elfai, and the whole 
course of the argument which follows, show that X67oy must mean, as we have 
rendered it in the tc^ct, definition or explanation. So Stallbaum translates fifrdi 
\6you, cum eu-plicalione V€j-(jis expressd (Prolcff. p. 27), Schleiermacher ' die mit ihrcr 
Erkliirung verbundene richtige Vorstellung,' and Mr. Butler {Lectures, II. p. 104) 
says, ' Science is pronounced to be opinion fiera \6yov — a qualification, which 
seems from the subsequent tenor of the di.scussion, to signify judgment with cj^-jtli- 
cation.' The subdivisions carried on in the Sophistcs are j)robably illustrations of 
that explication, which Plato meant by \670r, as distinguished from the definition 
real. The locus chisslcus for the dislinclion between the oi'cria, the \6;os. ■iiid tiio 
dfo/xa, is in the Laws, X. pp. 895 — 6. 

7t PLATO. 

is ctipahlc of being sustained ; but the author more than suggests 
in the course of the disquisition the positive result which he 
Avonld substitute for these exploded hypotheses^ namely, the 
metliod of true classification and real definition as the basis of 
dialectics. The abrupt termination of the The<Etetus is excused 
by Socrates on the ground that he is obliged to attend at the 
porch of the king archon, and meet the indictment of Meletus ; 
but he appoints the following morning for the adjourned dis- 
cussion with Theodorus and his pupils. In accordance with 
this arrangement the mathematician of Cyrene comes to the 
rendezvous, bringing with him a foreign philosopher of the 
Eleatic school, and the second dialogue in this series, which is 
called the Sopliistes, from the general subject of the definitions 
which it attempts, is mainly carried on between this Eleatic 
stranger and Theretetus, Socrates sitting by rather to watch 
and preside over the dialogue than to take any active part in 
it. The stranger, who is represented as a man of conspicuous 
moderation and courtesy, does not go to any great length in 
maintaining the principles of his school, but he is allowed to 
exhibit some of the trifling, in which the Eleatics, and, after 
them, the Megarics, were wont to indulge ; and it was, no doubt, 
Plato's object to show that all the hair-splitting of these subtle 
analytical disputants,* with their perpetual bisection of the suc- 
cessive subdivisions, was, after all, only a play with words, which 
did not necessarily issue in a real definition, that, in fact, the 
ideal theory required the use of reflexion {^iavoia) and under- 
standing (Xoytc^ioc), and was not attained merely by definition 
in words (Ao-yog), which led only to a sort of prima facie clas- 
sification. On the whole, then, we may say, that, as the Tkeoi- 
tetus was designed to confute more especially the opinions of 
Protagoras and Heracleitus, so the Sophistes was intended, less 
directly but quite as intelligibly, to exhibit the deficiencies of 
the Eleatic and Megaric schools, into which Plato had passed 

1 Another Butler, not the Professor at Dublin, has very happily described the 
kind of explication by way of subdivision, which is exhibited in the Sophistes 
{Iludibras, I. i, 65): 

' He was in logic a great critic 
Profoundly skilled in analytic ; 
He could distinguish and divide, 
A hair 'twixt south and south-west side.' 


from that of tliclleraclcitcau Cratylus;' to show, in fact, that if the 
Ilcracleitcaus were wron*^ in their aimihihition of the iutelli^rihle 
worhl, neither were the Elcaties riglit in confining all truth to the 
predication of entityand unity. That his dissent from the philoso- 
pher, wiiose hospitality he had so reccntlyenjoyed, was less marked 
than that which separated hira from his first teacher, Cratylus, 
is shown by the general tone of the dialogue and by tlie manner 
in which he occasionally allows the Eleatic stranger to expi'css 
his own thoughts and opinions. For example, he would not have 
repeated in the PolUicus,- his assertion ' that in scientific classi- 
fication we have nothing to do with the dignity or meanness of 
the subject-matter,^ unless he had attached some importance on 
its own account to the statement in the Sophist es'* that ' the 
science of definitions does not pay more or less attention to the 
art of purgation externally by the sponge than to that of i)ur- 
gation internally by medicine, because the benefits of the latter 
are more important ; for, as its object is to understand the affi- 
nity or dissimilitude of all arts, in regard to their definition, 
this science attaches equal value to them all in this respect, and 
does not regard one art as more ridiculous than anotlier in 
regard to that w hich they have in common ; for example, it does 
not consider the man who illustrates the art of captm'ing by 
means of generalship more dignified, but only more ostentatious 
and pretentious, than the man who illustrates the same art by 
catching vermin.^^ Tliat in the midst of all his persijiage he 
intended to define the Sophist as contrasted with the true States- 
man, whom he depicts in the Politicus, and the true Philo- 
sopher, whom he indirectly exhibits in the Purmenides, must be 
clear to all attentive readers. In the Politicus, Theaitetus, 
A\ho resembles Socrates in person, makes way for a younger 

* There is a direct comparison of the two schools in the Sophistcs, p. 242 C. 

^ p. 266 D. ' p. 227 A. 

■* The connexion in thought between this passage and that in the Parmciiidts 
(p. 130 C), when the question is raised, whether there is such a thing as the abstract 
idea of a hair, or mud, or filtli, or any other of the vilest and most contemptible 
objects, appears to us to indicate not only the genuineness of the Parmtnidts, but 
also its connexion with the Politicus and the Sophistcs. Aristotle's reference to 
the Politicus, which we have quoted below, is sufficient to establish the authen- 
ticity of that dialogue, and the connected works, must, .as wo think, stand or full 

7(; TLATO. 

Socrates, a namesake of the great pliilosopher, who, as in tlie 
former dialogue, takes no aetive part in the discussion. Al- 
thoui^h we have here also a sample of the same Eleatico-Megarie 
subtleties of successive subdivision, it is clear enough that the 
writer seriously intends to define the true — that is, the philoso- 
l)liical — Statesman, such as he or his imitator describes m 
the 7th epistle, such as he indirectly adumbrates in the 
Goryias, such as he elaborately exhibits in his ideal Republic, 
such as he presents, in relation to the universal frame of 
nature, in the Timceus. Developing what Plato had already 
written in the almost contemporary dialogue of Gorgias, 
and in the first edition of the Republic, — if they pre- 
ceded, as seems most probable, the publication of the Politicus, 
— and anticipating the views of the. Timceus, which is manifestly 
one of the latest of Plato's works, this dialogue is a glimpse 
of Plato's ethical philosophy in the midst of his dialectical 
criticisms. Out of the fifty- four pages of which this dialogue con- 
sists, about one- half ai^e purely dialectical,^ the rest being eithei- 
on the politico-ethical subject, or ha^dng reference to the ori- 
ginal condition of man and his relations to the divine theocracy. 
That the author does not regard his dialectical minutise as un- 
instructive trifiing is clear from the apology which he puts into 
the mouth of the Eleatic disputant :'- ' Our discourse bids us 
regard, not in the first, but in the second place, in point of im- 
portance, that length of the investigation which is suitable to 
the subject under discussion, namely, that we may find the 
object of our search as early and as speedily as possible ; but in 
the highest degree and in the first place it recommends us to 
honour on its oAvn account the scientific procediire (yutOoSoc), 
namely, the being able to divide the genus into its species 
{kut' e'lSr] ^laipa'iv) ; and with regard to the discourse, if, on the 
one hand, by being spoken at great length it shall make the hearer 
more inventive, we are enjoined to pursue it zealously, and not 

^ The dialectical part is from p. 258 C, to p. 268 E., and from p.274E.,top 291 C. 

^ Politicus, p. 286 D. We must compare with this passage, Plato's candid ad- 
missions of his voluntary and intentional discursiveness in the Republic, VI. p. 487 
B, and Thecetetus, p. 173 B, and the recommendation to the youthful Socrates which 
puts into the mouth of the venerable Parmenides: e\Kvcrov aavrbv Kal yvfjLvacrai 
fidWov oia. T7JS SoKowTjs dxpWTOV dvai Kal Ka\ovfj.epT]s virb tu:v iroWG>v dSoXeo-x^ay, 
?W5 in vio^ d (Parmen. p. 135 C). 


be aimoyecl by its prolixity; and similarly if it be more con- 
cise. Moreover, the person, who eomplaius of prolixity in 
discussions of this kind, and disapproves of round-about ar;^ai- 
nientation, must not so very quickly and at once dismiss the 
argument with the complaint that it is lengthy, but must show 
besides that, if it were shorter, it would render the disputants 
better dialecticians {^la^eKTiKoiTtpovi;), and more inventive in 
the art of exi)laining realities by means of language.' This 
passage should be iu the recollection of modern readers when 
they find fault with what appears to them sometimes the pur- 
poseless and tedious perplexity of discussions which the ancient 
logicians valued on that very account and for their own sake. 
Plato's dciinition of the statesman's art is very plainly given in 
the Politicus. The faculty of the statesman (/j tov ttoXitikov 
Sm'o/ijc) is, he tells us, that which rules and presides over all 
laws and public deliberations and guides them to their proper 
end,' and the best of all governments is that form of monarchy 
in which the state is ruled by a really wise and virtuous man." 
If all states were equally bad, it would be best to live under a 
democracy; if all Averc equally good, the monarchical form of 
government would be most eligible. But the ideal state, in 
which the virtuous philosopher is the living interpretation of 
the law, is far better than any actual monarchy in the world.' 

It is only an inference,^ but we believe it to be a well-founded 
inference, that the Parmenides is the dialogue to which the So- 
pliistes and Politicus refer as the coming discourses on 'the philo- 
sopher.' The passages, ou which this conclusion depends, are those 
in the TJiecctetus and Sophistes, in which distinct reference is 
made to tiie fact that Socrates, when very young, held such a 
conversation with Parmenides as is represented in the dialogue 
so named,' those in the Sop/tistes,^ in which the character of the 
philosopher is described, just as that character is fully exhibited 
in the Parmenides, and those in the Sophistes and Politicus, in 

^ p. 304 D. The direct reference to this <lialogue at the very beginning of Ari- 
stotle's Politics (I. I, § 2, comp. with Phito, Politicus, p. 258 E.) shows the importance 
of tlie work in those days. ^ p. 301 D. * p. 303 A. 

* Tliis inference is due to Stalllmum, Prulcffom. ad Panncn. ^Lips. 1839), p. 334; 
Prole;/. adSopkisl. (Gotha?, 1840), p. 52 ; Prolcg. ad Politic. (Gotha^, 1841^ p. 33, 
and to Zellur, Plalonisc/ie Studien, p. 236. 

' Thcatct. p. 183 E. !<ophist. p. 217 C. • Sophist, p. 25.^, i>, E. 


\\\nc\i a discourse on the philosopher is promised as a neces- 
sary sequel." The chief difficulty in accepting this conclusion 
is occasioned by the fact that in the Parmenides, as we have it, 
tliere is no mention of Thesetetus, Theodoras^ the Eleatic 
stranger, and the other persons present in tlie three connected 
(lialo"-uc3. In the Parmenides, as it stands, Cephalus, the 
Clazomeuian,- begins at once, without a word of preface, and 
without any intimation of the persons whom he is addressing, 
to narrate liow, on his arrival at Athens from his house at Cla- 
zomense, he fell in with Adeimantus and Glauco, and was by 
them taken to Antipho's house, who told them, on the autho- 
rity of Pythodorus, the details of the conversation between 
Socrates and Parmenides, when the former was quite a young 
mau,^ and the latter sixty-five years old. The other parties to the 
dialogue, thus reported at third hand — for Pythodorus tells 
Antipho, Antipho relates it to Cephalus and his two com- 
panions, and Cephalus recounts it to his unknown auditors — 
are Zeno, the philosopher, and Aristoteles, who was afterwards 
one of the thirty tyrants. To the difficulty occasioned by 
the independent preface to the Parmenides it has been 
thought a sufficient answer that, as we are not told to whom 
Cephalus recounted the dialogue, there is nothing to prevent us 
from supposing that his hearers were the persons who had 
taken a part in the three connected dialogues. And to this 
solution there is no chronological objection ; for the Thecetetus 
and its associated dialogues are represented as taking place in 
B.C. 399, and Cephalus, the Clazomenian, is made to speak of 
the conversation, which he relates, as having happened very 
long before the time when he repeats it.* Our conclusion is 

1 Sophist, p. 216 E. sq., 254 B. Polit. p. 257 A. 

2 The mention of Glauco and Adeimantus, who appear in conjunction with 
Cephalus, the father of Lysias, in the EepuMic, might lead us to conclude that the 
Cephalus of the Parmenides was the same person. But the latter was a Clazo- 
menian, probably one of the school of Anaxagoras, like his companions who are 
described as /xdXa (pi\6(To<poL {Parmen. p. 126 B.), and the former was a Syi-acusan, 
who had lived 30 years at Athens (above, ch. XXXV. § i), whereas the Clazo- 
menian bad not been at Athens since he was a boy. 

3 Synesiua {Calv. Enc. 17) says, he was then 25 years old. 

* He says he was a boy when he first came to Athens, 7ro\i>s 5e ■^St? xpovos air 
iKdvov, and he speaks of the X670i;s ovs irore S. Kal Z. Kal H. Biekix^riaav, and 
implies that Antipho recollected them {awofivt^fioveveL) from frequent repetitions. 


this : as the Elcatic stranger is indicated as tlie pci'soii from 
Avhom we are to expect the description of the i)hilosoi)her, and 
as the pliilosopher introduced is one of liis own school, we 
must suppose tliat he reads the report of Cepliahis from some 
manuscript left in his possession hy that respectable old man, 
and the loss of the connecting prefatory matter must })c ex- 
plained in the same way as the similar omission in the lie- 
jm/j/ir, where we are left to conclude from the Timaus and 
Critias, who are the persons favoured with this narrative of a 
conversation in ten hooks. AVe have mentioned above' some of 
the reasons for supposing that the RcpKblic, as we have it, in 
its lengthened form, but Avithout any introduction, was the 
revised and enlarged edition of a work originally written al)out 
the same time as the Gorgius ; and wx are convinced that the 
Parmeiiides, also, in its present state, was the result of the re- 
casting and almost re-writing of a dialogue, "which had been pub- 
lished long before, as the PJdlosopher, and as a connected sequel 
to the Thecetetus, Sop/iistes, and Politicus ; and that the loss of 
the introductory matter, in this as in the Republic, is due to the 
fact that Plato was still at "work about them both at the time 
of his death. If we had the preface to the Parmenides, it 
would probably tell us tiiat Socrates left to the Eleatic stranger 
the task of narrating the conversation, because he professed to 
forget what he had heard and said so many years before. It 
would be impossible to give any idea, to a person who has not 
read the dialogue, of the subtle and elaborate reasonings of the 
Parmenides, "which is perhaps the most remarkable specimen of 
dialectical power to be found in the whole range of philosophical 
literature. We must be satisfied with saying- that the Par- 
nienides discusses at length the various fonns and consequences 
of the hypothetical propositions which rest on the suppositions : 
(i.) 'If the One is •' (2.) * If the One is not ;' the apodosis or 
conclusion being an answer to the question — ' what are we to 
understand by the One and by the things other than One V 
There are nine forms, according to this dialogue, of the apodosis, 
five for the positive, and four for the negative assumption ; or 

^ See above, § 6. 

^ In the text we have followed Rcnouvier's account of the Parmenides, which 
gives perhaps the simplest .•uialysis of this subtle dialogue ; sec Manud dc Philo- 

80 PLATO. 

if wc I'Cgard the tliird as merely a natural consequence of the 
second, -we shall have four of each. Now the last four, or the 
results of tlie negative hypothesis, are a reductio ad absurdimi 
of those Avlio maintain the theory of multiplicity without the 
real unitv, the ttoXXo without the Iv — of the Heracleiteans, in 
fact; for the 7th and 9th propositions compel them to deny the 
existence of plurality, while they reject even the name of 
unity, and the 6th and 8th propositions oblige them to recognize 
in the One and in other things the same properties con- 
trary to those which they Avould have if the One existed really. 
And the first four (or, if we prefer it, five) propositions are di- 
vided between the Megarics and Plato. The first and last of 
this set (propositions ist and 5th) reduce the Megarics to a 
profession of nihilism, because assuming the tv without the 
TToAAo, they place each of the ideas by itself and deny their 
participation in one another. The intervening propositions (2, 
3 and 4) contain the system of Plato. The One exists and 
partakes of being, and the other ideas partake of it, so that 
Unity as well as Plurality — the tv koI ttoXXo. — both belong to 
existence or entity, which thus combines the apparent contra- 
dictions. Considered then as an exhibition of the ideal philo- 
sopher, the Parmenides shows that this ideal is not to be found 
either in the Eleatico-Megaric or in the Heracleiteo-Cratylean 

Sophie Ancienne, II. pp. 24, 25. The following is his statement of the nine hypo- 
thetical propositions: 

Positive Assumptions. Negative Assumptions. 

If the one is : If the one is not : 

1. There is no science, sensation or 6. There must be contradictory pre- 
opinion of this one, when it is absolute. dications. 

2. There is science, sensation, &c., of 7. There can be no science, &c. 

tlie one, if it admits of logical predica- 8. Other things must exist, because 

tions or may be distributed in predicates; we speak of them; and therefore they 
80 that the one is combined with the both exist and do not exist. 
many. g. Nothing exists. 

3. There is a coordinate possibility of 
similitude and dissimilitude, &c., in the 
latter case. 

4. Also a compatibility of contraries. 

5. But when the many and the one 
are absolutely contrasted and opposed, 
there is no possibility of logical predica- 


school, but nii^lit be manifested by one, wlio, like liiinsclf, 
brought to a review of these systems the dialectical nuthod of 
Socrates and the abstract speculations of the Pythagoreans. 
It seems to us that Plato had a special object in giving this 
development of his philosophical principles in a dialogue which 
represents his teacher Socrates, Avhile still a young man, in 
direct intercourse with Parmenides, from mIiosc school, com- 
bined with that of Socrates, the Megaric philosophers derived 
their doctrines. The compliments paid to Socrates by the 
veteran philosopher, the warning to him to avoid the iuliiiences 
of current opinions, and the recommendation to examine the 
negative as well as the positive assumption in his hyi)othctical 
reasonings, all seem to show that Plato wished to represent 
Socrates as the true founder of his own school, no less than of 
the Megaric, and to indicate the importance of the rules which 
Socrates had not applied, which the Megarics had deliberately 
set aside, and which he adopted as the clue to the solution of 
the problem respecting the One and the Many. The sequel 
and supplement to this series of four dialogues is the Cratyhis. 
Although it was the natural tendency of Plato's system to 
make general terms the proper objects of reasoning and the 
materials of science, although he was, like his predecessor So- 
crates, a nominalist rather than a realist, he was not the less 
on this account opposed to the extravagances of ultra-nomi- 
nalism. And when he found the two schools, which lie made 
the chief objects of his criticisms, the Eleatics as well as the 
Heracleiteans, engaged in etymological researches, which pre- 
sumed that truth and science were to be discovered in sounds 
and signs, the spoken elements of a living language, especially 
when he saw that Aristippus had given a still more i)ernicious 
extension to these theories,' he felt himself obliged to add to 
his general review of the two counter-systems an exposure of tlir 
absurdities Mhich had resulted from an attempt to deal pre- 
maturely w ith the great problem of language.- As the Eleatics, 
in this and in other matters, were much less opposed to Plato's 
views than the Heracleiteans, we find that Cratylus, the origin;d 

1 Above, chapUr XXXVII. § 6. » See New Cratyhis, § 6o. 


82 PLATO. 

instructor of Plato, \vho gives his name to the dialogue, is made 
to hear the chief brunt of the irony and ridicule; Avhile Her- 
mogeucs, the brother of Callias, who appears as a supporter of 
the Elcatic doctrines, is allowed to speak contemptuously of 
I'rotagoras' book called 'Truth.' The general result of the 
dialogue is that, as words are merely the images of thhigs, it 
would be nuich better, even if we could learn the nature of 
things from their names, to make the truth a criterion as well 
of itself as of its image.' 

§ 8. The moral and political philosophy of Plato rests entirely 
on his dialectics. Indeed the ethical and political dialogues are so 
interspersed with logical and metaphysical disquisition that it 
would be impossible to separate the method of language and 
thought from its practical applications.- It may be said, how- 
ever, that if Ave add the Gorgias, the Republic and the Laivs to 
those works which Plato published after opening his school in 
the Academia, we shall have the bulk of what he wrote respecting 
the nature of virtue, the objects of life, and the duties of man 
as an individual and a citizen. Our limits will not permit to 
give a lengthened analysis of this long series of elaborate essays, 
but it will not be difficult to indicate the general views which 
they develope, and the many details in whicli they contribute 
respectively to the ethical theory of Plato. 

The main principles, which form the basis of these speculations 
are, — that the soul is independent of the body, — that it is tri- 
partite, — and that its three divisions, w ith their due combination, 

^ Cratylus p. 439 A. : el oCc ecrr: /x^v 6tl ixaXcara Si dvofiaTwv to, irpdyfiaTa juav- 
Odveiv, ^ari Sk Kai 81 avTuiv, Trorepa af dr] KaWlwv Kal <7a<peaTepa i] /xdOrjais ; e/c t^s 
{Ik6vo^ fiavBdveiv ai'T-qv re avrrju, el KaXws etKaffrai, Kal ttjv aX-qdeiav fjs Jjv i] eUwv, 
i) fK TTJs dXrjddas avrrjv re avrrjv /cat ttjv eUova avTijs, el wpeirovTOJS ei'pyaffTai. ; 

^ There are in fact many passages in which Plato recognizes a suboi dination of 
virtue in general to wisdom, on the true Socratic principle ; see especially Plicedo 
p. 69 A, where even the other three cardinal virtues dvSpeia, <rw(ppoavvri, Si.Kaio<xvvT], 
are to be purchased by the fourth (ppovrjais as the only true coin— dW y eKetvo 
fj.ovov rb v6fj.Lafj.a opdov, dvff ov Set dtravTa ravra KaraWdTTeadai, (ppovrjaLS, Kal 
TOVTOV p.iuTrdi'Ta Kal jxeraTOVTOv wi'ovfj.evd re Kal TrnrpacTKOiJLeva ti^ 8vti rj, Kal dvdpeia 
Kal ZiKaioaivq Kal ^v\\-iiP8y]v dXTjdqs dperi) y ,u.eTd (ppovqaeuis. So that this one 
virtue plays the part of virtue in general in the lines of Euripides (CEdipus fr. IX. 
Dind.), attributed to Sophocles by Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. p. 574, Potter : 

otJrot vopiKTpLa XevKos dpyvpos fiovov 

Kal xpi'cos eciTLv, dXXd XVP^'''V jSporoh 

v6(/.iap.a Kelrai vdcnv y XPVC^'^'- XP^'^f- 


arc indicated by the relations of the four cardinal virtues. This 
view, which is supported throughout by sugj^estious derived 
from the Pythagoreans, is opposed, like his dialectics, to the 
counter systems of the Hcracleitcans aud Elcatics, and in many 
respects also to that of Socrates. While he at once discards 
the notion that pleasure resulting from sensible impressions can 
be the highest good — for this would l)e to admit morally what 
he had denied scientifically in the Theatetas, namely, the para- 
mount influciicc of the senses, — he also rejects the claim of 
knowledge alone to be considered as the chief good, which 
would have brought him back to the views of the Elcatics, the 
Megarics, and some other Socratic schools. 

The allegory or mythus in the Plicedrus opens the way to a 
comprehension of the principles which Plato wished to enforce.' 
The soul, we are told, is immortal, because it is self-moved ; it 
not only does not perish with the body, but it existed before it 
was enveloped in any bodily frame. It is god-like also ; but 
the human soul differs from tliat which belongs to the deities 
in one of its three parts. For the soul may be compared to a 
charioteer driving a pair of winged steeds. Now the horses 
and -drivers of the gods are all both good themselves and of good 
extraction ; but, in the case of men, the charioteer, the Reason, 
has to drive two horses of opposite descent and opposite cha- 
racter; one of them is well-bred aud well-trained, and the other 
quite the reverse r the quiet horse, — the Will — is obedient to 
the rein and strives to draw its wilder yoke-fellow, — the Appe- 
tite — along with it, and to induce it to listen to the voico of 
the charioteer, the R:!ason : but they have much pain aud 
trouble with it, and the whole object of the charioteering is lost 
if it contrives to get the better of them. In this allegory it is 
intimated that the Reason exacts obedience from the lower 
faculties, not merely for the sake of that subordination which 
constitutes the moral goodness of man, but also because it is 
thus cnal)led to take a calm view of abstract truth, and to gaze 
on the eternal realities, which in this world are clothed in the 
garb of space and time. According to the allegory, the soul in 

^ Phcedrus, p. 245 sqq. 

^ In the elaborate description of tlie unruly steed {P/ucdr. p. 2^i E), we should 
adopt Porson's unpublished emendation wepl to, wto \a<n6KU<f>os for \d<xiot, K<i}<p6s. 

G 2 

84 TLATO. 

its previous state of existence, traverses the circuit of the uni- 
verse, in the train of the gods, with Zeus at their head, and if 
tlie Reason can control his restive steed so far as to be able to 
raise his own head above the heavenly vault, he is borne round 
by the revolution of the celestial sphere, and though sore en- 
runibered with his horses, sees, however faintly and imperfectly, 
the essences of things, which are there disclosed to his gaze ; 
for 'real existence, colourless, formless, and intangible, visible 
only to tlie intelligence which guides the helm of 'the soul, and 
with which the family of true science is conversant, finds its 
abode in that region.' ' And it is the remembrance of this gaze 
which furnishes the soul of man with its ideas of the true and 
the beautiful after it has descended to this lower world and 
become united with a body. This figurative picture contains the 
germs of the thoughts which are developed in the connected 
dialogues. The doctrine of the soul's reminiscences in a pre- 
vious state, becomes the argument for its immortality in the 
Phcedo, and it helps to solve the question as to the teachableness 
of virtue in the Meno. The same Phsedrus, who evokes the 
discourse about love in the dialogue called by his name, is 
declared to be the father and founder of the argument" in the 
Symposium, where the guests at Agatho's table make a series 
of panegyrics on love, which are finished off by the discourse put 
into the mouth of Socrates, but attributed to the Arcadian 
prophetess Diotima; and here we have the same doctrine as in 
the Phcedrus, that virtue and science spring from that true love 
which is produced by the contemplation of ideal beauty. ' What 
efiect,' says Diotima,^ 'would the sight of beauty itself have 
upon a man were he to see it pure and genuine, not corrupted 
and stained all over with the mixture of flesh and colour, and 
suchlike perishing and fading trash, but were able to view that 
divine essence, the beautiful itself, in its own simplicity of 
form ? Do you not perceive, that in beholding the beautiful 
with that eye with which alone it is discernible,^ thus and thus 
only could a man generate not the images or semblances of 
virtue, but virtue itself, true, real, and substantial, by conversing 

rhrrdr. p. 247 C : i) yap dxpuifiarSs re Kal d.(Txv/^°'Tia-TOS Kal dva^jjs ovcia 6vtus 
ovffa i^i-x^s Kvp(pvriTrj (.idvoj dearri v(^, wepl rjv to rrjs aX-ndovs em<TT7iiLi.7js yevoi, rovrou 
IXf^rbv rbr-w. 2 Synipos. p. 177 D. 3 jn^^ p. 21 f D. 

•» bpwvTi V oparbv rb Kokbv i.e. vi^. Phcedr. p. 247 C. 

MORAL AND rOLITICAL I'll 1 Li »S( )1'1I V. S5 

with and cmbnicing that wliich is real and triu'. 'I'hiis, Ije- 
gettiug true \irtiu- and bringing her up to maturity, he wouhl 
become a favourite with the gods, and at length he would i)e, it 
man ever was so, himself one of the immortals.' 

13ut the [)ractical development of these lofty and transcen- 
dental views of morality is to be found most fully in the 
Republic, and their metaphysical elaboratiun is reserved for the 
Philcbiis. The criticisms on the rhetorical school of Lysias, 
Thrasymachus, and Gorgias, bring the Phcedrus into one contact 
with the Gorgias and the Republic, which are connected also 
by the general objects referred to above, and by their eschutology 
or doctrine of retribution in a future state.' But we think that 
the Republic, most probably iu a later edition,- was intended 
especially to developc the connexion between the tri|)artite 
division of the soul, and the four cardinal virtues, to which so 
much importance was attached. According to Plato,^ moral 
virtue is the due subordination of man's lower faculties to his 
reason; in other words, man is virtuous when the IVill acts as 
the servant of Reason in controlling the Appetile.* Considered 
as an individual, man is righteous and just, or generally 
virtuous and good, in proportion as this subordination is com- 
plete. In his social capacity, as a state or republic, man 
attains to this perfection in proportion as the guards, or military 

^ Among the striking similarities of the Republic and the Gorgias, we may men- 
tion particularly the refutation of Polus in the latter as compared with the Republic, 
p. 445, where at 13 we ought to read ewiiirep ivraOOa (Xr]\v0afj.€v ottov for 6(X0V. 

^ One of the most decisive proofs that the Republic, as we have it, is a second 
and enlarged edition of a work originally published some years previously, is fur- 
nished by the manner in which the discussion in the 5lh book is introduced. 
Socrates there says that he would have been satisfied with a brief statement of his 
views respecting the community of women and children, ancl it would appear as if 
souie criticisms had compelled him to elaborate tliis part of his theory. It seems 
probable that the sixth book was the conclusion of the Republic in its original fonn : 
at least there is a trace of this in p. 506 D, where GLiucon says to Socrates, firj 
wpbs Aios, uxrirep iiri WXet we dirocTTys. •* Raspublica, IV. pp. 427 s<|q. 

* Plato's phnises are rb XoyitrriKiu, rb dufioeiSis, rb iTndvfiriTiKbv (p. 439 D). The 
second of these, representing the better steed in tlie Phadrux, is sometimes ren- 
dered the 'irascible principle,' and Cicero translates it by iracundia (dc Repiibl. 1. 
38): but Hooker and Hemsterhuis the younger more properly render it ' the will,' 
la vdkite ; for it is the natural auxiliaiy of the reason (rb 0i>nofi8ii iiriiiovpov t<^ 
XoyiffTiKi^ (pvati Rcsp. IV. p. 441 A), and the idea of spirit and courage implied in 
tlie word dvixbs is well illustrateil by the figurative statement that when a sedition 
arises in the soul, the will draws itself up in battle array by the side of tlie rca.son 
iv rfi TTJi ^I'XV^ (TTdfffi ridfadai to. oir\a trpbz tov XoyiiXTiKOv, Hf^p. IV. p. 440 E). 

80 PLATO. 

caste, representing the Will, subserve the philosophical rulers, 
representing the reason, in controlling the turbulent populace, 
representing the Appetite. Now, the four cardinal virtues, by 
Avhieh, aecorfling to the ancients, the whole province of morality 
was exhausted, were — (i.) Prudence or Wisdom, {(pp6vn(Ti^) ; 
(2.) Courage or Fortitude, {ai'Sptia) ; (3.) Temperance, or Self- 
control, {a(jj<ppo(rvi'i]); (4.) Justice or Righteousness, [SiKaioavut]). 
In the individual the first is the virtue of the Reason, the 
second of the Will, and the third of the Appetite, Avhile the 
fourth represents the state or condition resulting from the 
harmony of the whole. In the republic or society, the first is 
the virtue of the rulers, the second of the valiant standing- 
army, the third of the well-conducted populace ; and the re- 
maining virtue is the virtue of the whole, the principle and 
cause of the existence of the three others, compelling each por- 
tion of the commonwealth to keep to its own business, and to 
abstain from all interference with the affairs of the other depart- 
ments, (that is, in the Greek sense, to avoid TroXvTrpayiuoavvr])^ 
So then in the virtuous man and in the righteous republic, the 
Reason is full of wisdom, the \M11 is strong in fortitude, and 
the Appetite under the healthy influence of self-control ; and 
all these are kept together in one concert or harmony by justice, 
just as the musical harmoiiy combines the highest, the lowest, 
and the middle sound." This due subordination and harmony 

1 IV. p. 434 B, 443 D, 444 B. 

IV. p. 443 D : ^wapixbaavra rpla Svra wairep Spovs rpeis apfioylas arexvCo^, 
vear-qs koI inraTTjs Kal p-ia-qs. It is now admitted that Shakspere must have been 
acquainted, by means of some translation, with this passage, and that he was not 
merely following Cicero's imitation when he wrote {Henry V., Act I., so. II.) : 
Exeter. While that the armed hand doth fight abroad 

The advised head defends itself at home : 

For government through high, and low, and lower, 

Put into parts, doth keep in one concent, 

Co-greeing in a full and natural close 

Like music. 
Canterbury. Tlierefore doth heaven divide 

The state of man in divers functions, 

Setting endeavour in continual motion, 

To which is fixed, as an aim or butt, 

See the note in Knight's Pictorial Sholsim-e, p. 328. There is also something 
more than fortuitous in the correspondence between the praise of love in the 
Sympos. p. 196 B, and that in Loves Labour's Lost, Act IV. sc. III. 


arc necessary to tlie [)ropcr contemplation of tlic idea ul' tlie guoii, 
Mhieh, witli I'lato, is the essence of true religion.' On this 
subject, Plato has expressed his meaning in a remarkable pas- 
sage of the Republic. The sun, he says, is a visible image of 
the idea of the good. For while the other senses, such as the 
hearing, need nothing intermediate or additional, in order to 
the perception of objects, the sight, on the other hand, does need 
the intervention or mediation of light, otherwise the colour and 
the form will not be visible. Now this light is derived from 
the sun ; and the benefit, which our sight derives from the sun, 
is analogous to the benefit which our reason derives from the 
idea of the good; for, as the eye cannot see without the inter- 
vention of light, so the reason cannot discern the things of the 
ideal world wdthout the liglit of truth. Consequently, the idea 
of the good is that which imparts truth to the objects of our 
reason, and the power of discerning truth to the reason itself. 
The idea of the good, therefore, is far above truth and the 
knowledge of truth; and as light and the faculty of vision arc 
akin to the sun, but not identical with it, so truth, and the 
knowledge of truth, arc related to the idea of the good, but are 
not identical with this idea. The sun is also an image of the 
idea of the good in another way. As the sun not merely enables 
the eye to see, but likewise supplies nourishment and growth 
to the visible objects, so the idea of the good not merely enables 
t!ie reason to discern and know, but likewise gives to the ide;is 
of the reason their being and reality. Accordingly as the sun, 
in Milton's phraseology, ' looks from his sole dominion like the 
god ' of this lower world of sense, so the idea of the good, the 
sovereign good, even God himself, reigns supreme in the higher 
world of ideas, which is cognizable only by the reason. 

It does not fall within our province, in writing a history of 
Greek literature, to discuss the visionary proposal for the 
arrangement of a commonwealth, which forms a tlistinct feature 
in the treatises on the Republic and the Laics. We are willing 
to admit that the former at least is a genuine Utopia — a place 
which is no place,' — and that some ol its provisions amount to 

1 Rcsp. VI. p. 507 a. 

^ The word Utopia, OuroirLa, is ionned like OvKaXtyuiu aiii siniihu- negative 
woids, and signified a WeUsnichtwo or Kcnnaquhair ; sec A'ciu Vrutyluf, J i8y. 

88 PLATO. 

licartlcss socialism, inconsistent alike with morality and civili- 
zation.' And it is much to be regretted that Plato should have 
added these details to a general view of the constitution of man 
which approves itself to our best instincts, and is confirmed by 
till' teaching of Christianity. Leavmg these fruitless dreams of 
a dissatisfied politician, we have to examine the machinery by 
means of which Plato had intended to connect his Republic 
with three other dialogues — the Timaus, which is complete, the 
Critias, which is a mere fragment, and the Hermocrates, which 
is lost. Socrates is supposed to narrate to the interlocutors, 
who were to give their names to the other three treatises, a 
long conversation which took place at the house of old Cephalus, 
the father of Lysias, on the preceding day, when he had gone 
down with Glauco to see the Bendideia at the Peirseus; and, 
in return for this, Timceus undertakes to explain how men such 
as they ought to be came into being ; Critias is to show that 
such men really existed, and to describe, on the strength of an 
old family record derived from Egypt, the golden age of prime- 
val Athens, and the overthrow of the wonderful island of Atlan- 
tis; and Her77iocrates is to finish with an essay on nature and 
nourishment.- We cannot see our way to any explanation, 
which will remove the anachronisms and impossibilities from 
this dramatic framework. We have already mentioned the 
reasons which render it probable that the Republic in its first 
form was written or published along with the Gorgias, i.e. soon 
after u.c. 395. That it did not then reach its present form, 
and was not connected with the other dialogues of the tetralogy, 
is shown not only by the story that the beginning was found in 

1 The socialism of Plato's Repuhlir. is severely, but by no means fairly or ade- 
quately criticized in the first five chapters of Aristotle's second book of Politics. 
A modern writer, Mr. Mitchell, in the preliminary discourse to his translation of 
Aristophanes denounces Plato's fifth book as 'lying,' 'absurd,' 'unfeeling,' and 
' guilty,' — lying, because it makes the useful the measure of the honourable ; ab- 
surd, because it stifles the natural instincts of humanity ; unfeeling, because it 
obliterates the domestic affections ; and yiiilttj, because it makes lying a statutable 
virtue in the governors. Many of the criticisms on the RcjnMic would be obviated 
if we could believe with Morgenstern {Commentat. de Plat. Republicd), that it 
had no political reference, Ijut was merely an allegory of the human soul, like 

^ Timceus, p. 20 A. 


the author's tablets, with various transpositions of the words,' 
and by the faet tliat tlie third dialogue is an untinished fragment, 
and the fourth non-existent, but also by many internal evidenees, 
such as the Pvthagorisni, the unmistakeable references to 
Uionysius, and the like. There is also a distinct tradition, 
preserved by Aulus Gellius, that the Republic originally appeared 
iu two books only, and in that form was controverted by Xeno- 
phon.- But no conclusions respecting the date of the work will 
remove the objections to the machinery, otherwise than by the 
supposition that at the end of his life Plato's historical recollec- 
tions had become somewhat hazy and indistinct. It has been 
mentioned above that the imaginary conversation recorded in 
the Republic has been referred by Bockh to the year 411 b.c.;^ 
and intercourse between Socrates and Critias at this time was 
possible enough. But Timseus, whom Plato had to seek in 
Itah'^, was not very likely to have been at Athens at the time 
when the Athenians were in the midst of their difficulties after 
the Sicilian disaster; and it is, of course, quite impossible tiiat 
Hermoerates should have been there, Avhen we know he was 
commanding a fleet against Athens in the ^-Egean. C. F. Her- 
mann would place the fictitious date of the supposed discourses 
about the time of Plato's birth, in n.c. 429, i.e. in Ol. 87, 2 
or 3. But the appearance of Hermoerates at Athens at any 
time after the breaking out of the Pcloponnesian war involves 
the utmost improbability, and an earlier date would not be con- 
sistent with the extreme old age of Cephalus,'' to say nothing of 
the statement of the scholiast on Thucvdides, that Hermoerates 
was a young man b.c. 415.^ We can only conclude that Plato 
was either very oblivious or very careless of historical verisimi- 
litude. His selection of Hermoerates as his mouthpiece is even 

' Quintiliau VIII. 6, § 63. Dionys. Halicaruass. Dc Conipositione Verboruin, 
p. 208, Reiske. 

^ Nodes Atticcc XIV. 3: 'Xenophou incluto illi operi Platonis, quod tie Optimo 
statu reipublicse civitatisque ailmiuistraiiilse scriptum est, lectia e.x eo duobus fere 
libris, qui primi iu volgus exieiant, opposuit contra scripsitque diversum regiie 
administrationis genus, quod Tratoetas Kvpov iuseriptuni' 

* See chapter XXXV. § i. 

•* Reap. I. p. 32 S E : ivubrj ivravda ijdr) d rrji r}\iKiai 8 Stj (tI •yrjpaos oi)5^ <pa<jii' 
tlvai oi TToirjTai. 

^ ad Thiuijd. VI. 38. 

!)() PLATO. 

less i)atriotic than his choice of Critias iu the character of lau- 
dator leiiiporis acii. But it is very explicable on the supposition 
that his frequent visits to Sicily, in spite of the misconduct of 
Dionysius, vho represented the party of this valiant oligarch, 
and had married his daughter, had enabled Plato to form a very 
high opinion of his character, and, perhaps, induced him to be- 
lieve that, if Hermocrates had succeeded in establishing himself 
at Syracuse, he would have introduced a form of government far 
superior to that of the Dionysii, and even of Dion. 

While the Republic gives us more directly Plato's solution 
of the great problem of moral philosophy, the Phihbus is one 
of Plato^s critical revievi's of the svstems of his contem'poraries 
and predecessors in regard to the chief good of man, which was, 
Avith the ancients, essentially an ethical question. There can be 
no doubt that the Republic, in its present form, makes direct 
reference to the P/dlebus,^ and we should conclude that the latter 
was written expressly as an introduction both to the ethical spe- 
culations of the Republic, and to the psychological physics of 
the Timceus. The general purport of the Philebus is thus given 
by a modern writer :' — ' The Pythagoreans, as interpi'etcd by 
the redacteur of their doctrines, Piiilolaus, looked npon the 
infinite [to airHpov) as the mere rude material element of tiie uni- 
verse, which, naturally devoid of all definite limits, measure, and 
rule, must receive its form, and so its positive existence, from the 
finite or limitmg {to irkpaq ^X.^''' ''"•^ Trapan'ov, ro TrETrcpacr^fi'oi'), 
which is likewise the natural element. The ideas of finite and 
infinite are also, and more commonly, represented by the terms 
" the one" and " the many," especially in the Platonic philosophy. 
Plato, who borrowed the Pythagorean doctrine, but extended 
and enlarged its sphere, in his elaborate inquiry into the nature 
of the summum bonum in tlie Philebus, in like manner places 
the infinite (or particulars as opposed to general notions), in 
Avhich pleasure is found to consist, at the bottom of his gra- 
duated scale of moral perfection, the finite {to ir^paq ixov), 
including sciences, arts, and right opinions, occupying the place 

Resp. \ I. p. 505 B, where the ot TroXXot are Aristippus and the general public to 
whose lower vi«ws of happiness he pandered, and the KoiJ-xporepoi are Eucleides and 
his school. 

^ Mr. E. M. Cope, iu the Cambvidcje Essays for 1S56, p. 146. 


next above them ; the hij^liest place of all being assigned to 
" measure, and that which is in due measure and due season" 
(to /.liTpioi' k:(ii tu Ka'ifiiov),^ by which Plato seems to mean the 
highest and universal moral law, which embraces all subordinate 
laws, regulates the entire system of things, and assigns to all 
their due place and order.' The doctrines,'- which Plato submits 
to his searching criticism in the PIdlebus, are those of the two 
Socratic schools, who took the most opposite views on the sub- 
ject of the highest good — the Cyrenaics, who held that it was 
pleasure, and the Megarics, who maintained that it was intelli- 
gence in its various manifestations. The former are represented 
in the dialogue by Philebus and his friend Protarchus, the latter 
by an unknown person, probably Eucleides himself. Plato, 
speaking in the person of Socrates, maintains that the highest 
good is not to be found in either of these states, but in one 
which he proceeds to investigate in a most elaborate and com- 
plicated argument. First of all he developes the meaning of 
' the One' and ' the Many,^ showing tiiat this formula denotes 
the relation of monads {i.e., iileas or universals), to sensiijlcs 
(to yi-yi'oyufi-a Kul cnreipa), and then argues that it is the dia- 
lectician's first problem to find ' the One' in ' the ^lany,' his 
second task to find ' the How Many,' or definite quantity in 
' the One.' For example : voice is one, but voices are innu- 
merable. And between this One and the:5e innumerables 
intervenes a definite number of kinds of voice, which the gram- 
marian and musician ascertain and classify. Now the formula 
of the One and the Many is equally applicable to the ideas of 
pleasure and intelligence, the manifestations of both being 
unlimited, but their species limitablc. Applying this to the ease 
before him, Socrates maintains that, as the Good must be con- 
ceived as self-sufficing and perfect ; and as neither pleasure nor 
intelligence is by itself self-sufficing and perfect, we cannot find 
the good in cither of them separately, but must seek it in a life 

For the etymi)logy of Kaip6^, and its connexion in meaning with ixirpov see our 
note on Pindar, 01. IX. 3S, 39, and Varronianus, j). 392 note ; and for Plato's identi- 
fication of fi^Tpov and Kaif.6s, see Politicus p. 284 E: ojriffat irpds t6 fiirpiov Kal t6 
■wpiwop Kal TOP Kaipbv Kal to blov Kal iravd' oTtoca fis rb fxiaov o.-Ki^Ki<jOrf TiZ'f rVxcirwi'. 
- Here we have to acknowledge our obligations to Professor Thompson's 
introductory lecture ou the PUikbus, delivered at Cambridge, in Uctober, 1855. 

92 PLATO. 

wliich blends pleasure with intelligence. Consequeiitly this 
mixed life is better than either of the other two. But if we 
wish to fix the relative places of pleasure and intelligence, we 
must start with a tetrad of forms or principles (ci'S>/) ; namely : 
(i.) TTEpai;, limit; (2.) cnrupov, unlimited; (3.) to ^v/n/niGyo- 
fxivov { = yii>taiQ i'tg ovcriav), the concrete, created being, or 
procession into being ; (4.) a'lriov, the cause, which makes up 
the third by mixing the former two. Now the mixed life is 
evidently referable to the third form — that of the genesis, or 
coming into being ; as pleasure is unlimited m respect to less 
and more, the lite of pleasui'e must belong to the second form, 
or that of the unlimited ; and as intellect plans the order of 
the universe, the intellectual life must fall under the fourth 
form. ' By these distinctions,^ says Sydenham,' ' the phi- 
losopher leads Protarclms to recognize the superior excellence 
of the science of mind above all others — a science conversant in 
those subjects only, which are the same for ever. In the third 
and. last argumentative part of this dialogue, those moral truths 
are shown, which it is the whole intent of it to show, in the 
following order : the first is, that neither pleasure alone, nor 
theoretical wisdom or knowledge alone, is sufficient for the 
happiness of any man ; the second is, that the best and happiest of 
all human lives is that life in which the best and highest science, 
the knowledge of true good, produces the moral virtues ; the 
third is this, that in a life where pleasure and knowledge are 
thus amicably joined, and operate together for the good of the 
Mhole man, symmetry, harmony, and beauty appear throughout ; 
the last and highest truth, no less theological than moral, is this, 
that the cause of happiness found in such a life is the same with 
the cause of harmony, symmetry, and beauty through the uni- 
verse ; and the same with the principle and essence of moral 
virtue, namely, measure itself and truth itself, the idea of good, 
the great object of the divine mind, in w hich universal idea the 
true measures of all things are contained.' 

§ 9. The physical speculations of Plato would have very little 
interest for us, if we were obliged to regard them as contri- 
butions to natural philosophy in the modern sense of the term. 

^ Translation of the Philebus, London, 1779, PP* '^7~'^9- 


It cannot be said, liowcvcr, that Plato ever proposed to liiinself 
any such object. To him researches into the visihh; pheuoniena 
of natnre liad no special value except as enablinj^j him to show 
liow tlu- idea of law and order and numerical symmetry is to be 
detected in the complex machinery oi" tlie outer world, so tliat 
here also, we discern the One in the ^Nlany, and may separate 
science from the province of opinion. 

We have some hints as to the manner in which Plato read 
the book of nature in the Pluedu,^ some in the Republic •- his 
general views are involved in the argumentation of the Phi- 
lebus ;^ and he gives us a strangely fanciful theory respecting 
the counter revolution of the globe, and its effects on the 
inversion of human life, in the Po/iticus.^ lint his book 
expressly written on this subject is the Tinueus, which forms 
the second part in the intended tetralogy of dialogues begin- 
ning with the Republic. This work is professedly a fictitious 
Kn(T/.i(i7rouci, or history of the creation. The contemplation 
of mntal)le nature is taken up as a relaxation and amuse- 
ment by the abstract philosopher, and the results assumed 
merely pretend to be as probable as any others which have been 
stated." And in freely indulging his fancy, Plato takes as 
the basis of his speculations the details which were well known 
to the students of natural science in his time. The numerical 
system of the Pythagoreans plays a prominent part in the 
Timaus f' he makes direct reference to the theories of Ilera- 
cleitus, Anaxagoras, and Empedoeles ; and here, as elsewhere, 
the unitarian hypothesis of the ]']leatics is subjected to his cri- 
ticism.^ Plato, following Parmcnides, supposes the existence 
of two worlds — the world of matter and the world of mind — the 
oparog tottoq, or visible world, and the ro'/roc tottoc, or ideal 
world — the former being on the model of the latter.^ Now 
Plato argues that as the visible world is within the domain of 

^ Phcedo, pp. 97 C, q8 B. ^ Jiespuhl. X. pp. 614 A — 621 A. 

^ P/iihbus, pp. 27 B sqq. * Polilicus, pp. 26() D seqci- 

* Tinueus, p. 2y D: 6 X^yoiv iyili vfj.eii re oi Kpirai (pvenv avOpunrivqv Ixofxei', uj<rre 
vepl TOVTUiv rbv el k or a pvdov awodexo/^^i'ovi irpiirei tovtov /xt/S^v in, iripa ^rjTflv. 

•* Ibid. p. 34 C sqq. 

^ See Professor Thompson's note on Butler's Lccturcn, II. ]'. 189. 

* Tima'us, p. 29 E sqq. 

94 TLATO. 

the senses^ it is for this reason one of the things 'ohich are 
liable to generation and decay. It must therefore have been 
created, i.e., it must have come into being. And its maker 
could be no other than the One, to jV, of the Ionics, and this 
is the Entity, to ov, of the Eleatics, -which reduced to order the 
infinite plurality of visible substances, and so exhibited itself as 
the formative principle. From the symmetry and order dis- 
cernible in this lower world, it is clear, Plato says, that the 
Creator must have constructed it after the model or pattern of 
a perfect and eternal world, and in order that this might be 
done in the most perfect manner possible, he made it ' a living 
animal, gifted with intelligence, by enduing it with a living soul.'' 
The body of this animal was composed of the four elements (and 
here Plato combines and modifies the theories of Empedocles 
and Anaxagoras)," and the soul of the world was not, as the 
Eleatic pantheism w^ould have maintained, God himself, but an 
emanation and product of that intelligence M'hich is the cause of 
all things.^ 

Both in the Timceus and in the Philebus Plato speaks of in- 
telligence as very near akin to the causative principle. In the 
Philebus he saj^s :'* ' We find that fire, water, air, and earth must 
naturally be in the composition of all bodies. These elements, 
which we find in individual bodies, receive their being from the 
elements which we find in the universe, and this little body of 
ours owes its nourishment, and all that it has received or 
possesses, to the great body of the world. Now these bodies 
of ours are animated by souls • and from whence should they 
derive these souls, if the great body of the universe, which has 
all the same elements with them, only in far greater purity and 
perfection, did not possess a soul as our bodies do ? Since then 
we admit in all bodies four sorts of being — the limit, the un- 
limited, the compound of these, and the cause — and since we 
find in the part of the universe to which we belong that there are 
causes which create souls, produce health of the body, and effect 
cures for diseases of the body, and causes, which put together 
other compositions and amend them when impaired, all of these 

1 Timaus, p. 30 B. 2 ji{^ pp_ ^i B— 32 C, 53 C— 56 C. 

3 Ibid. p. 35 A. 4 pkilebus, p. 29 A. 


causes luivlui^ iimucs which betoken some kiu'l of wisdom or 
skill, — this being the case, we cannot but think tliat the whole 
heaven, possessing the same four sorts of bcing>, but possessing 
them pure and undcpraved, has for its cause the nature of those 
things which are m')st beautiful and no!)le, a cause which mav 
most justly be called wisdom and mind ; and as wisdom and 
mind cannot be without soul, it follows that the world has a 
soul and mind fi'om the power of the cause, and that mind is 
of the nature of the cause of all things/ In thus allowing a 
cause and beginning to the w'orld, Plato naturally maintained, 
in opposition to Parraenides, the reality of time.' As the 
multiplicity of things {to. ttoXXu) presumes the universal {to 
ev), and as the limit controls the infinite, so there must bo 
time as the image and product, the limitation or bound of 

The recognition of an analogy between the soul of man and 
the soul of the universe, and the perception of a harmony in 
each, is naturally connected in Plato's speculations with the 
view of the Pythagoreans that numbers are the principles and 
essence of all things, and that the world sul)sists by a numerical 
harmony,"- a view which Heracleitus adopted inider a modified 
form.'^ The system of the heavenly bodies is, according to this 
view, represented by the intervals of the musical scale, these 
intervals making Avhat is called the Platonic tefracfi/ft, branching 
from unity on one side by doubling, and on the other side by 
trebling the preceding number; thus: i, 2, 4, 8, and 1, 3, 9, 
27.^ He estimates the durability of his Republic l)y a still 
more complicated numerical process, involving, however, the 
mean proportionals 12 and 18 between the last two terms in 
these series, and introducing the ya/.tt]\iov Siaypa/.i/Lia or right- 
angled triangle, of which the sides are 3, 4, and 5.' Even in his 
Laws we find that Plato limits his citizens to 5040 ' for the sake 

^ See Timrcus, pp. 37 A, 38 B, &c. 

^ Aristotle, Metaphijs. A. I. c. 6, p. 9S7, b. 1 1. 


^ Plato, Synipos. p. 187 A. 

•* See Stallbaum's note on the Timceua, p. i-, B. The figure 

presumed is '^^~Jz 7s^ ^!f 

" The writer of these pages has examined the celebrated passage {Rcspublica, 

s4 A 

96 PLATO. 

of a fitting; number/' this number being the continued product 
of the tirst seven digits, a calculation having the same mystical 
value as the discovery that 27, the last of the seven terms in the 
double tetractys, is both the sum of the other six terms, and 
also equal to the sum of the first six digits after unity. There 
is the same sort of arbitrary fancy in the astronomy of Plato, 
as exhibited in the Tijneens f and, on the whole, we must admit, 
with a modern writer, that ' the Tinians is a physical romance, 
with a mighty moral.' ^ At the same time, the speculations of 
Plato, wild and fanciful as they seem to us, have very often 
made nearer approximations to the truth than the more 
elaboi'ate and serious investigations of his pupil Aristotle ; as, 
for example, ' in his notions of a centripetal force, of the causes 
of gravity, of antipodes, and of the nullity of the popular dis- 
tinction of vp and down.' ^ And if his separate conjectures had 
been entirely devoid of truth, or even plausibility, we could not 
fail to recognize, as quite worthy of a great philosopher, the 
general principles of his theory, and the grand truth with which 
he starts, that the moving cause of creation was the unenvying 
goodness of the Creator, and His wish that all things shoukl as 
far as possible resemble Himself.^ 

§ TO. The style of Plato is in every way w^orthy of his posi- 
tion in universal literature ; and the critical taste of modern 
scholars has fully confirmed the general encomium of Aristotle, 
that ' all his dialogues exhibit extraordinary aeuteness, elabo- 
rate elegance, bold originality, and curious speculation.'® 

VII. p. 546), in a special essay ' on Plato's Number' in the Transactions of the Phi- 
lological Society, Vol. I. No. 8, and has shown that the number itself is 216 = 6^, 
and that the calculations involved are the proportion 8:12 :: 18:27, and the equa- 

^^and(-x5J = 

2^ , /4 N^ (48 + 5 + 27)100 2^ 


tions I — X 5 ) = 100 X -2 and — x s = = 1000 x 

\3 / 3 V3 ^/ 27 3 

^ Plato, Leges, V. p. 737: apiOtiod tlvos 'iveKa irpoffriKovTos. In the RcpitU'ic, 
IX. p. 587 C, because the tyrant is nine times as wretched as the oligarch, g^ or 
729 represents his misery. 

^ Timceus, p. 35 B. 

^ Butler's Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, II. 196. 

^ Professor Thompson's note on Butler's Lectures, II. p. 171. 

^ Timceus, p. 29 I), E. 

^ Aristot. Pol. II. 6, 5: to fxev oSv TrepLTTov 'ixovai Travres ol tou HwKpaTovs Xoyot 
Kalrb KOfiypbv Kal t6 Kaivorop-ov koI rh ^r]TrjTiK6p' koXQs 8^ iravra icrcos xa^fT6j'. 
The last words show that these expressions are not ironical. Mr. Congreve says, 


Paiuctius used to cull him the lloiucr otpliilosophors,' and otlicr.s 
declared that, if Jupiter liiinsclf had spoken (Ircek, he would 
have adopted the majestic dignity of the Platonic eloquence." 
Tiie celebrated critic, Dionysius of Ilalicarnassus, though he 
reserves the highest stretch of his admiration for Demosthenes, 
is inclined to admit that no master of eloquence could success- 
fully compete for the second place with Plato.^ He considers 
him, in fact, as the best example of the middle or mixed style 
of composition, which was initiated by Thrasymachus, and 
systematically taught and exempliticd by Isocratcs.' This inter- 
mediate or mixed style combined the simple diction of Lysias 
with the more ponderous eloquence of Thucydides and Gorgias, 
and the process in the case of Plato is thus described by 
Dionysius :' ' He was nurtured in the Socratic dialogues, meagre 
and exact as they arc in the fullest sense, but did not abide 
in them, being enamoured of the language*^ of Gorgias and 
Thucydides ; accordingly, it is not surprising that he accjuired 
some of their characteristic faults as well as their excellences.' 
The same critic classes the style of Plato with that of Herodotus 
and Demosthenes,' as exhibiting in the highest degree those 
pauses and changes of rhythmical structure, and that variety of 
elegant figures, which he considers as the greatest perfections of 
style ;" and he places the philosopher below the great orator 

in his Dote on the passage: 'This just and high compUment on his master's 
writings is not easy to translate. It bears witness, if such were needed, to Aris- 
totle's careful study and correct appreciation of their beauties, as well as their 
more solid merits. I venture the following translation : All the dialogues of Plato 
alike are characterized by brilhaucy, grace, originality, and profound inquiry.' 

1 Cic. Tmc. Disp. I. 32, § 79. 

' Cic. Brut. 31, § 121: ' quis enim uberior in dicendo Platone? Joveni aiunt 
philosophi, si Grsece loquatur, sic loqui.' Dionys. Hal. de adm. vi die. in Don. 
xxiii. p. 1024, Eeiske: ijOT] S4 rivuv iJKOvaa tyw "Keybvruv, u)s d Kal irapi. dtoii 
Sia\€KT6s iffTiv, fi rb tGiv dvOpJiTrwu k^xPV'"-^ yivo^, ovk <JXXws 6 Pa<n\(v% Civ ain-Qv 
5ia\^yeTai 6'.bs [1. Zevs] ^ ws JlXaTwv. 

^ De adm. vi Dem. p. 1043: nXdrwi/ yap iffriv 6 ravra ypd<pwv 8$ tl fit] Kal rd 
irpwTua ot<T€Tai t^s X^^ius, irepi ye tOiv ZevTfpdwv irdXiiv ayCiva irapi^u rois SiapLiX- 

* Id. ibid. pp. 958, 1083. " Id. ibid. p. 968. 

* Karaa-Kevri, i.e. tlie apparatus of words .as distinguished from their arrangement, 
their copia vcrborum in fact; see .above, chapter XXIV. § 3, iwte. 

' De Compos. Verborum, p. 133. 


<)8 TLATO. 

chiefly because the former departs occasionally from tliat 
jiulioious choice of words by wlilcli Demosthenes is dis- 
tiuiiuishcd. ' Plato/ he says/ ' was most admirable in per- 
ceivin"- the harmony and rhythm of style, and if he had been 
as excellent in the selection as he was in the composition of his 
words, he might have outstripped Demosthenes, or made his 
superiority doubtful; as it is, he commits some faults in his 
choice of expressions, especially when he aims at a lofty, 
elegant, and elaborate {k^Kardaictvov) phraseology.' In comparing 
these two masters of Greek eloquence, Dionysius has given us 
a very felicitous analogy. ' It seems to me,' he says/ ' that we 
should not err if we compared the diction of Plato to a meadow 
gay with flowers, and furnished with pleasant arbours and 
transient gratifications; whereas, the language of Demosthenes 
might be likened to a fruitful field, rich in produce, and want- 
ing neither the necessaries of life nor the superfluities of enjoy- 
ment.' Although these remarks of Dionysius will be endorsed 
by most of the critical readers of Plato in our days, it Avill be felt 
that in some respects he has not done full justice to the literary 
merits of the great philosopher. In Plato the powers of the 
imagination were just as conspicuous as those of reasoning and 
reflexion ; he had all the chief characteristics of a poet, espe- 
cially of a dramatic poet ; and if his rank as a philosopher had 
been lower than it is, he would still have stood unrivalled, 
except by Shakspere, in the power of exhibiting dramatically, 
and in the form of dialogue, a consistent development of cha- 
racter, and so giving to his interlocutors all that is required in 
a lifelike representation of the personages whose opinions he 
wishes to combat or defend. The slightest touch sometimes lends 
a finish to the picture, as when the equestrian Antipho is found 
in the act of ordering a bit,^ or the bare-footed Socrates either 
in his ordinary^ or his exceptional attire.^ The more elaborate 
and fanciful pictures which he introduces are not less remark- 
able for their descriptive power, than tlie dramatic incidents are 
for their vivid reality. Nothing can be better told than the 

1 De Compos. Verborum, p. 117. ^ De adm. vi die. in Dem. p. 1056. 

3 Pariaenides, p. 127 A. * Phadrus, p. 229 A. 

' Sympos. p. 174 A. 


strange story of the world's inverted rotation in tlie Polit'irns,'^ 
or the allegory of the eavern/ and the tale of Er, the Arnieuiaii, 
in the Republic,^ or the fable about the soul's state after 
death iu the Gorijius.^ The periodical structure of the sentence 
in Plato is principally distinguished by an intentional laxity, and 
by the frequent introduction of explanatory circumstances, 
which, either following or preceding tlie main predication, give 
to the whole an appearance of grammatical irregidarity.^ ]\Iany 
of the pccidiarities of Plato's style are due to his adoptiou 
of the language of ordinary conversation, with its conventional 
words and phrases, and its abrupt transitions/' He has few 
technical words, and none of any importance, except the terms 
by which he designates the typical forms of things and the 
general conceptions by which they are represented iu the mind.' 

^ P(jHt p. 269 D sqq. ^ Resp. VII. pp. 514—517 B. 

3 Ihid. X. pp. 614 A— 621 A. ■* Gorg. pp. 523 A— 526 C. 

' See Dissen's Essay de structurd penodorum oratorid prefixed to bis edition of 
Demosthenes Be Corond, pp. LXX. sqq. 

** As for example his use of avrlKci, iroWaKLS for i'crwy, KivSwe^u for ?oi/ca, dWori 
for &X\o Ti ij, his asyndeton in the adverb TrdpTus, &c. 

' In Plato's language elSos is the mental apprehension, and /5^a its counterpart 
in nature, but the words are often used as synonyms. See Professor Thompson's 
note on r>utler's Lcctin-es, vol. II., p. 127. 





§ I. Life of Aristotle. § i. General view of his writings. § 3. His metaphysics 
and psychology. § 4. Logic. § 5. Rhetoric and criticism. § 6. Moral philo- 
sopliy. § 7. Politics. § 8. Natural history and general physics. § 9. Mis- 
cellanies. § 10. Form and style of his writings. 

§ J. ' ^HE Master of them that know/ as Dante calls Aris- 
J- totle/ occupies a position among the leaders of human 
thought^ scarcely inferior to that which we have claimed for his 
teacher Plato. Indeed^ one modern writer has not hesitated to 
say that every man is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian/ 
meaning by this that Plato and Aristotle represented the two 
modes in which men philosophize^ if they philosophize at all. 
It would, however, be more true to say, historically, that the 
influence of Aristotle's writings has been felt directly or in- 
directly, wherever it is not anticipated or superseded by a 
method of reasoning which may be traced back to his great 
teacher. To treat, therefore, of Aristotle in a manner suitable to 
his importance, would involve a distinct literary effort not less con- 
siderable than that which would be implied in a similar treatment 
of Plato's writings ; and there are not a few works on the subject 
to which the student might be referred with great profit to him- 
self.^ For our present purpose it is sufficient to deal with the 

^ Inferno, IV. 131 : 

Vidi '1 maestro di color che sanno 
Seder tra filosofica famiglia: 
Tutti I'ammiran, tutti onor gli fanno. 
2 Coleridge, Table Talk (.July 2nd, 1830, I. p. 182) : ' Every man is born an Aris- 
totelian or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that any one born an Aristotelian 
can become a Platonist ; and I am sure no born Platonist can ever change into an 
Aristotelian. They are the two classes of men, beside which it is next to impossible 
to conceive a third. The one considers reason a quality or attribute ; the other con- 
siders it a power. I believe that Aristotle never could get to understand what 
Plato meant by an idea.' 

2 As for example, the works of Stahr, Jourdain, and Brandis. 


questions of literary history wiiich arc luvolvcd in a general 
survey of Aristotle's life and labours. 

The materials for Aristotle's life are very scanty, and all the 
ancient biographies of the philosopher are full of exaggerations 
and misstatements. Nevertheless the dates are toleral)ly accu- 
rate, and wc can form to ourselves a general picture of his 
career which is sufficient for all the purposes of literary history.' 
Aristotle's life may be divided into five epochs ; the first in- 
cludes the period of his boyhood and youtli ; the secoiul, his 
residence at Athens, as a pupil of Plato ; the third, his three 
years' sojourn at Assos after Plato's death ; the fourth, his esta- 
blishment in Macedonia, as tutor to Alexander; and the fifth, 
his final settlement at Athens, as a teacher, during the last 
tliirtecn years of his life. 

First Pei'iod — Aristotle was born at Stageirus, or Stageira, 
one of the Chalcidian cities on the Strymoniau gulf. Originally 
an Andrian colony, it had received an accession of population 
from Chalcis, in Euboea, and though not in itself a place of any 
importance, it was a member of tiie Olynthian league, and 
shared in the destruction of those Greek cities which resisted 
the ambition of Philip. Aristotle's father, Nicomachus, be- 
longed to the clan or guild of the Aselepiads, and was therefore 
a member of a family in which the medical profession was here- 
ditary.- His skill as a practitioner and his reputation as a 
man of science had recommended him to Amyntas, the father 
of Philip, at whose court he lived as the king's medical ad- 
viser and confidential friend.'^ Phrestis, the mother of Aris- 
totle, was descended from one of the Chalcidian colonists of 
Stageirus, and it is worthy of remark that Aristotle died at 

^ In the account of Aristotle's career which is given in the text, the author feels 
that he is greatly indebted to the admirable lectures on the Ethics and Politics 
which Dr. Thirlwall delivered at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1833, and which 
were prefaced by an elaborate discussion of Aristotle's literary history. Mr. 
Blakesley, who probably enjoyed the advantage of hearing these lectures, jiubli.shed, 
in 1839, a very clear and able Life of Aristotle, including a critical discitstion 
of some questions of literary hislorij connected with his wurks. To this book the 
writer has occasionally referred with much profit. And he had i>efore him 
HtsXxr^ A ristotdia (Halle, 1830), which is quite a storehouse of niHtcrials. 

^ See below, chapter XL1\'. § 1. 

' Diogenes says : (tvv(§Iu 'A/xi/jt^i t<^ yiaKtoSyuv /3o<ri\et iarpov Kal tplXov XP^^9- 


Clialcis, the metropolis of his maternal relatives. Aristotle was 
born in 01. 99, i. B.C. 384, two years before his great contem- 
porary Demosthenes,' and he died in the same year with that 
orator and his rival Hypereides. We do not know when his 
parents died. It appears that they were dead when he went to 
Athens, at the age of eighteen, and it is also probable that he 
had lost both his father and mother at a mnch earlier period ; 
for we are told that he was for some little time under the guar- 
dianship of one Proxenus of Atarneus. That his education 
was at least partly undertaken by his father may be inferred 
from the fact that he had acquired some practical acquaintance 
with the hereditary art of medicine ; and the partiality, which 
he exhibited in his later years, for all subjects connected with 
natural history, may have been due to his early initiation into 
this branch of study. His estate must have been well managed, 
for we find him, as a young man, at Athens, living in perfect 
leisure, and not only so, but able to collect books, to dress well, 
and indulge in gaiety and luxiuy. He retained a deep sense 
of the obligations conferred upon him by his guardian, for he 
afterwards adopted Nicanor, the son of Proxenus, and appointed 
him joint guardian with Antipater of his own son Nicomachus. 
And his will gives directions for the setting up of a statue in 
honour of Proxenus and his wife. 

Second Period. — Without noticing the contradictory accounts 
that have been given of Aristotle's early life, — that he squan- 
dered his property, and became a soldier or a vender of medi- 
cines,' — Ave pass on to the first visit to Athens in b.c. 367, when 
Plato had just started on his second journey to Sicily. This 
latter circumstance explains the statement of Ammouius that 
Aristotle first studied under Socrates, a statement obviously 

' This is the usual opinion, adopted by Clinton, Fasii Eellenici, p. 104. Other 
scholars have come to the conclusion that the great orator and the great philoso- 
pher were born in the same year. See Stahr, Aristotelia, p. 31 ; Thirlwall, 'On the 
birth year of Demosthenes,' Philol. Mm. II. pp. 389 sqq. 

2 Athenseus VIII. p. 354 ; ^Han, V.H. V. 9 ; Aristocles apud Euseb. Prcvp. 
-^''- ^ V . 2, p. 791 A. : Trws 701/3 olbv re viov /xiv 6vTa KarafpayeTv avrbv T7\v irarpi^av 
oucrtai', sireLTa di iirl rb arpaTeijeaOai crvvOxraL, KaKus S^ wpaTTovTa iv toutols eTrl 
Td (papnaKOTTwXe'iv ekdtlv, eVetra a.vaTreirTap.evov tov XlXdrw^os wepLTrdrov ird<n 
irapa^aXdv avrdv ; fj irQs 8.V ris dvoSi^aiTO Ttixaiov tov Tavpo/JLeveLrov Xeyovros 
ev rais iaropiaLS ddo^ov Ovpas avrbv larpdov Kal ras rvxavcrai 6\pk ryjs T]\iKia^ 

LIFE OF AUisiorLi:. lo;', 

inconsistent with chronology, but quito explicable oii the sup- 
position that the story meant to inform us, that he studied iu 
the school of Socrates, and not under Plato iu the first instance. 
For in Plato's absence his school was conducted by Ilera- 
cleides of Poutus, and Aristotle may have received his first 
lessons from this Socratie philosopher.' There is no doubt, 
however, that on Plato's return, Aristotle became his regular 
hearer, and indeed the chief ornament of his school. That the 
characters of the master and pupil were quite uncongenial, and 
their intellectual tendencies diametrically opposed, is sufficiently 
well known. But beyond this there is no foundation for the 
report that Plato and Aristotle were personally on bad terms, 
and that the latter was not only unfriendly but ungrateful to his 
teacher. On the one hand, it is clear that Plato used to 
express a very high opinion of Aristotle, whom he called ' the 
soul of his school,'- and whose house he designated as ' the house 
of the reader.'^ On the other hand, we are told that Aristotle 
erected an altar to Plato after his death, with an inscription 
describing him as ' a man whom the bad could not even praise 
without sacrilege;'^ and in opposing the Platonic doctrine of 
ideas in a passage of the Nicomachean Ethics, which has 
become proverbial as an expression of the duty of preferring 
our conscience to our private predilections,' Aristotle says ^' that 
he feels himself obliged to enter on this discussion, ' although 

^ Mr. Blakesley (p. i8, note) supposes that Xeiiocrates was mentioned as Aris- 
totle's first instructor, and that his name has been carelessly or officiously altered 
into that of Socrates. 

^ vovs TTjs 5ta7/>£,3^x (Philoponus, De ceternitate mtindi adversus Proclum). 

^ ol/cos a.vayv(li<TTov, Pseudo-Ammonius. 

■* Bufibv' ApiffToriX-qs ividpvaaro rdvoe IIXaTWfOS 
afOpbs 5v ov5' aivelv Toiffi Kanoiai defiis. 

' The usual form of the proverb is * Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis 
auiica Veritas.' It is stated that Plato himself used to confess : <pi\i)i fniv 
'ZijiKpoLT-qs, dWd (piXTaTT) i] dXrjdeia. He makes Socrates remark (in the J'/iado, p. 
91 B) : cr/JiiKpdv (ppovTiffavTes ^WKparous, ttjs di aXijOeias iroXi) /xaXXof. AndlieaLiu 
sayn, in the Jicjuiblic, X. p. 595 B : Kal toi (pt.\ia 7^ rls fie Kal aiSuis A' rraiSdi 
ixovtra ir€pl'Op.rjpou diro/cuiXi/et X^/eiv — dXX' ou yap irp6 yt ttjs dXrjOtlat Tifir]T^os 
dv-qp, which is just the sentiment expressed by Aristotle. Probably this pasKage 
or that in the Phwdo was the reference which Sulir could not recal (p. ^<j). 

* Ethica Nicom. I. 6, § i. Mr. IJlake.sley suggests that the plini.'ie ra. oiKtla 
dfaijoeti' is an allusion to such cases as that of Iphigenia (p. 27); <>thui-s supjiosc 
that the philosoplier is referring to opinions, U'>t to iicrsons. 


the inquiry is repugnant to our feelings, because the doctrine 
of ideas was introduced by persons whom we regard with affec- 
tion (^j'Xowc cu'Spac) ; but it would seem to be better, and indeed 
our duty, to sacrifice even our own children for the vindication 
of truth, especially as we are philosophers ; for between two 
friends it is a religious obligation to prefer the truth/ There could 
have been no animosity in the mind of a man who approached 
a speculative discussion in such a spirit as this. The story that 
Xenocrates was mixed up in a quarrel between Plato and Aris- 
totle is sufficiently refuted by the circumstance that, after the 
death of the former, Aristotle and Xenocrates travelled together 
at Atarneus. 

During the period of nearly twenty years which Aristotle 
spent at Athens, he was not merely a hearer of Plato and a 
learner. 'The house of the reader^ fully justified its name; 
Aristotle was engaged continually in the most profound and 
varied studies, and was laying the foundations of that encyclo- 
paedia of learning, which he considered it as his special vocation 
to elaborate. It was at this time, in all probability, that he 
drew up his lost work on the various systems of rhetoric which 
Lad appeared before his time.^ Perhaps, too, he now wrote his 
book on the principles of government adopted by different 
states,- and commenced, at all events, his grand historico-political 
work on the Constitutions of 255 dififerent Commonwealths.^ 
Anecdotes are preserved which tell of his intense application 
to his studies. But he was anything but a book-^vorm, and in 
his hours of relaxation he exhibited an attention to dress and 
a love of pleasure, which were not usually observed in pro- 
fessed philosophers. He was a public teacher, too, as well as a 
writer ; and it seems that he adopted the profession of a rhetori- 
cian, which was the ostensible avocation of the Sophists, and was 
then practised with eminent success by ' the old man eloquent,' 
Isocrates. Indeed it is stated, and we see no reason to doubt 

1 2wa7W77j TexvQ>v. Cic. de Oratore, II. 38, de Inventlonc, II. 1. The nature 
of such a work is well exemplified by Spengel's essay under the same title ; Stutt- 
gardt, 1828. 

^ AiKaiicfiara iroKiwv, Diog. Laert. V. 16. 

^ See Neumann, Aristotelis Rerumpuhlicarum Reliquice, reprinted in the 
Oxford edition of Aristotle's works, vol. X. pp. 233 sqq. 


the tnith of the story, that Aristotle set up his rhetorical school 
ill direct opposition to that of Isocratcs.' Cicero says distinctly' 
that ' when Aristotle saw Isocratcs ilourishing and snrronnded 
by the most illustrious pupils, having transferred his disputa- 
tions from forensic and popular subjects to the mere cultivation 
of an elegant style, he suddenly changed the whole form of liis 
teaching, and by a slight alteration in a verse of the Pluloctetes, 
where the poet said : '' it was disgraceful to hold one's peace, 
and suffer barbarians/' — he said : " and suffer hocrates to 
speak." Accordingly, he adorned and embellished the whole 
science of rhetoric, and combined a knowledge of things with 
the practice of speaking/ The celebrated quotation in refer- 
ence to Isocratcs, thus put into the mouth of Aristotle, is taken 
from a scene in the PIdlucletes of Euripides/ in which an em- 
bassy from Troy offers that hero the throne ; and when the 
foreign orator has concluded his speech, Ulysses begins his 
reply by saying, that, whatever may be his deficiencies, yet, on 
behalf of the Greek armament, it is disgraceful to leave all tlie 
speaking to a barbarian. And though the Stagirite, himself a 
resident alien at Athens, could not Nvith propriety class the 
native Athenian Isocratcs with the un-Greek orator of the 
play, still he may have regarded the affected style of the veteran 
rhetorician as tending to corrupt the purity of the Hellenic 
idiom, and so he might say — combining in one sentence both 
the word which he omitted and the proper name which he 

substituted : — 

When Greece at large demands a bold reply, 
'Tis great disgrace to sit in silence by, 
And leave Isocratcs unchecked to teach 
The outlandish jargon oi his fulsome speech. 

^ See Spengel, "Zwciydr/ri Tex"'"^") P- 167 sqq. 

2 De Oratore, III. 35, § 141 (cf. Orator, c. 13. Quintil. Inst. Or. III. i, 14). 
Cicero's words are : ' Itaque ipse Aristoteles, quum florere Isocratem nobilitate 
discipulorum videret, quod ipse suas disputationes a caussis forensibus et civilibu.'* 
ad inanem sermonis elegantiam transtulisset, mutavit repente totam fonuam 
prope disciplinae suae, versumque quendain Philoctetfe pauUo secus dixit. lUe 
enim turpe sibi ait esse fucere, quum barbaros ; hie autem quum Isocrattm patcrttur 
dicere. Itaque omavit et illustravit doctrinani illani omnem rcrumque cogni- 
tionem cum orationis exercitatione conjunxit.' 

^ Plutarch, Mor-d. p. 1108 H, Diog. Lai-rt. V. 3. Tlie words are : 
vir^p ye fj-dyroi vavrbi ' EWrivwv ffTparov 
atVx/'dt' aiuTrai'. ftap^dpovs 5' (av \^ycw. 


For he may have considered the rhetoric of Isocrates as de- 
praved by some of the florid ornaments of the Sophistic schools, 
and it must be admitted that even the language of this pupil of 
Gorgias and Tisias is not always free from a taint of foreign 
idiom, -which is shown in the occasional adoption of unusual 
forms and inflexions. The other story, that it was Xenocrates, 
and not Isocrates, whom he introduced into this sarcastic 
parody, is set aside by the friendly relations between him and 
that teacher, and by the inapplicability of the verse to any but 
an orator. It seems, too, that in his treatise on rhetorical 
systems he handled Isocrates very severely, insomuch that the 
rhetorician^s scholar, Cephisodorus, or Cephisodotus, thought it 
necessarv to come forward in his defence w ith a treatise in four 
books, which not only met the criticisms but attacked the 
nioi-al character of the assailant.' Why, with all this, Aristotle 
so often quotes from Isocrates in his later treatise on rhetoric, 
we shall see when we come to speak of that work. 

Thh'd Period. — On the death of Plato, in b.c. 347, but not 
necessarily in consequence of that event, Aristotle accepted an 
invitation from Hermias, the tyrant of Atarueus and Assos, to 
visit him in one of those INIysian cities, Hermias, who had 
been the eunuch, and probably chief minister, of Eubulus, a 
Bithynian banker who had established an independent mo- 
narchy in Mysia, had spent some time at Athens, and had 
studied there under Plato and Aristotle ;" and his invitation to 
Aristotle, in which Xenocrates was no doubt included, probably 
originated in a wish for literary society and a renewed acquain- 
tance with his two fellow-students. Their residence at the 
court of Hermias was of short duration. In b.c. 345 the 
Persians, under a Rhodian captain of mercenaries, named 
Mentor, advanced against Atarneus ; Hermias was decoyed by 
the treacherous promises of tliis leader, sent up to Susa and 
strangled there; and his cities fell into the hands of the 
Persians.^ The two philosophers made their escape to ]Myti- 
lenc, taking with them Pythias, the sister and adopted daughter 

^ Aristocles apud Euseb. Pr. Ev. II. p. 792 A ; Athenseus, II. p. 60 E. 

^ Stiabn, XIII. p. 126. 

^ Strabo, ihbi supra; Diodor. XVI. 52-54. 


of llcnnias, whom Aristotle married in {gratitude and frieudshi[>, 
and iu order to protect her under the destitution in which the 
death of Ilermias had left her.' This connexion exposed 
Aristotle to the most virulent calumny, and lie was obliged to 
explain and defend his marriage in a letter to Antipater, which 
is still extant, and docs him the greatest credit. Pvtliias died 
not long after, leaving Aristotle one daughter, and it is a touching 
circumstance that, in his will, he directs the bones of his wife to 
be taken up and laid iu his grave, wherever he might be buried, 
according, as he says, to her injunctions. He honoured the 
memory of Ilermias in a scoUum, or drinking-song in praise of 
virtue, which is still extant,' and also erected a statue to his 
memory at Delphi, with an inscription stating how he had been 
slain, not in open fight, ' but because he had trusted to the 
honour of a perfidious villain .^^ 

Fourth Period. — While residing at ]\Iytilene, in b.c. 343, 
Aristotle received from Philip of Macedon, with whom he had 
some previous acquaintance, and to whom he was at all events 
recommended by the intimacy between Amyntas and Xieo- 
machus, an invitation to go to Pella, and undertake the literary 
education of Alexander, who was at that time thirteen years 
old. This charge lasted about three years. The previous 
teachers of the young prince had been Lysimachus, an Acar- 
nanian, and Lconidas, a relation of his mother Olympias ; the 
latter a rough soldier, and the former a dexterous flatterer. 
Under the discipline of the one he gained the contempt of 
danger and luxury which always distinguished him ; under the 
management of tlic other he became intolerant of the truth. 

^ Aristocles apud Eusehium, uhi siqira. In the letter to Antipater, the per- 
sonal qualities of Pythias are mentioned as an additional reason for the marriage ; 
Aristotle says she was ffw(ppu}v Kai ayadi), and the circumstance mentioned in the 
text shows that her husband was really attached to her. 

" Athenaeus, p. 696 ; StobiEUS, Serm. I. p. 2 ; Diog. Laert. V. 2. He com- 
pares his hero to Hercules, the Dioscori, Achilles, and Ajax : ' they died for thee, 
O virtue, and for the sake of thy dear form lie, too, who w;i3 reared in the lap of 
Atarneus, renounced the brigiit beams of the sun.' 

3 The in.scription runs thus {A ntkol. Pal. appendix 8) : — 

T6>'5f TTor', ovx oaLus irapafias (laKipuv difi-iv d^Ki}^, 

oil (paffpios X67X?' 'povioLS cv d") licrt KpaT-f^aa^ 
dW avdpbs iricrTet xpr)adp.tvoi ioKiov. 


and eager for servile complianees, even to the extent of deifi- 
cation. From neither of them could he get much of literature 
or philosophy. All his love of books and science was due to 
the better tastes with which Aristotle inspired him. He might 
have got to the Punjab without the education which he had re- 
ceived from Leonidas and Lysimachus^ for he had all the ele- 
ments of a conqueror in his nature. But it was Aristotle who 
made him Avhat Plutarch describes him as being — a lover of 
language, learning, and literature.' It was Aristotle's corrected 
edition of the Iliad which was Alexander's travelling companion, 
and was placed with his dagger under his pillow at night."- The 
literary tastes which Aristotle instilled into him are exhibited 
in the letter to Harpalus, in which Alexander, at that time in 
the extremity of Asia, requests that a collection of historical, 
dramatic, and lyrical works should be sent to him.^ That 
Aristotle had introduced Alexander to the more abstruse parts 
of philosophy is shown by the celebrated letter in which the 
king complains of the publication of the esoteric works.^ It is 
clear too that Aristotle took great pains to enlarge Alexander's 
ideas of government. For this purpose he wrote for him a 
treatise on monarchy. Not that Alexander's liberal policy is to 
be referred to the influence of the philosopher. On the contrary, 
Plutarch tells ns that Alexander's attempt to amalgamate the 
Greeks and barbarians was in spite of the advice of Aristotle, 
who recommended him to treat the Greeks like a general 
(iiye/joviKtog) and the barbarians like a master {SscnroTiKojg),^ 
and in his Politics Aristotle recognizes an essential distinction 
between the Hellenic world and all without it. In the in- 
structions which he gave to his illustrious pupil," Aristotle did 
not forget his hereditary profession of medicine, which the king 

^ Plutarch {Vita Alexandri, c. 8), attributes this to Alexander's natural dis- 
position : 9iv 5^ Kal <j>v<T€i (pi\o\6yos /cat (pi\o/j.adris /cat (piXavayvuxTTrjs. But these 
tastes are acquired and not inherent * 

^ Plutarch, c. 8, on the authority of Onesicritus. 
The books sent to him were the works of Philistus, many of the tragedies of 
Euripides, Sophocles, and ^schylus, and the dithyrambs of Telestes and 
Philoxenus (Plutarch, ubi supra). 

* Plutarch, Vita Alex. c. 7; Aulus GelUus, A^. A. XX. 5. 

^ Plutarch, De VHd et Fort. Alexandri, p. 329. 

llutarch, Vita Alex. c. 8: 5o/ce7 M /xoc ^ac to ^iXiarpe^u ' AXe^di'dpu} trpocr- 


sometimes praetiscd lor the bcuelit ol liis Irieuds ; ami it seems 
that Alexander had a decided predilection for natural liistory 
in general. 

Aristotle made nse of his influence with Philip to induce 
him to rebuild his native city of Stageirus, and to restore it to 
more than its former splendour. Plutarch says that he built 
a temple to the Nymphs, which served for a Lyceum.' Aris- 
totle drew up a constitution for the resuscitated community ,- 
and occasionally retired thither from Pclla. There were some 
Malks and seats at Stageirus called after Aristotle, and in after- 
times the inhabitants celebrated an annual festival called the 

It is not probable that the tuition of Alexander lasted more 
than two or tlii'ee years. ^A'hcn about sixteen the young prince 
had sovereign power at court during the absence of Philip. He 
fought at Chseroneia in 338 b.c, and afterwards engaged in 
state intrigues till his father's death in \t,6 b.c, so that the 
connexion between the tutor and pupil could not have been 
uninterrupted after the latter had attained his sixteenth year. 
Callisthencs, who accompanied Alexander to Asia, INIarsyas, the 
brother of Antigonus, afterwards king of Lycia and Pamphylia, 
and Theophrastus, Aristotle's successor at Athens, were either 
fellow-pupils of Alexander, or at least received some instruction 
from Aristotle at this time.'* 

Fifth Period. — AVhcn iVlexander crossed the llcllcspont, in 
B.C. 334, Aristotle returned to Athens. AVe are told that the 
Athenians invited him on the death of Spcusippus, and as his 
friend Xenocrates was established at the Academy, Aristotle 
opened his school in a gymnasium called the Lyceum, from the 
neighbouring temple and grove of Apollo Lyceus ; and here 
he used to deliver his lessons, not sitting down, but walking to 
and fro ;'' and from these lounges or saimters {TTip'nraToi), his 
scholars were called the peripatetics, or sauntercrs.'"' Aulus 

Tpl\pa(xeai /xdWov ir^puv'AptaTOT^Xrjs- ov yap ixbvov t^v Otuplav rf) dirr]fffv dXXA nal 
vocrovffiv i^oy^Oei. roh <pi\ois, k.t.X. 

1 Vita Alex. c. J. ^ Flut. adv. Colot. pd fin. 

' Pseudo-Ammoniua and Vita Lathia. 

* Suidas, s.v. Mapiri'as ; Diog. Vita Theophrasti, 39. 

' Cicero, Academ. Post. I. 4. 

« Diogenes (V. p. 301 C, Ciwaubon), says that Aristotli- got iuto tlie practice of 


Gcllius gives us some interesting particulars respecting the orga- 
nization of this school. There were two classes of pupils. The 
morning lounge {etoOivog TTip'nraToq) was designed only for the 
higher and more advanced students^ and at the evening saunter 
{^iiXivoQ Tnp'nraTOQ) he used to give a more popular lecture for 
the benefit of those who had not passed through the preparatory- 
discipline. The former of these were called acroamatic dis- 
courses, and comprised theological, physical, and dialectical in- 
vestigations ; the latter were termed the exoteric disconrses, and 
comprehended rhetoric, sophistic disputatious, and politics.' We 
do not know whether his lectures were formal, or merely con- 
versational ; but we may infer that he did not adopt the cate- 
chetical method to any great extent. To keep up a friendly 
and instructive intercourse with his hearers, Aristotle had 
periodical entertainments after the manner of Xenocrates, and 
at these banquets of the wise there were rules for decency of 
dress and decorum of manner which contrasted favonrably with 
the noisy vulgarity of the usual Greek symposium." lie also 
imitated Xenocrates in the institution of scholastic disputations 
under the presidency of a moderator, who held office for ten 
days.^ This practice formed the basis of the teaching and 
examination in the universities of Europe during the middle 
ages, and it is not yet extinct at Cambridge. 

It was during this second residence at Athens that Aristotle 
composed most of his extant works. And his situation during 
the greater part of the time must have been very enviable. We 
are told by Athenseus that Alexander placed at his disposal, prin- 
cipally with a view to his collections in natural history, a sum of 
no less than 800 talents, about i£ 200,000 of our money ;"• Pliny 
informs us that some thousands of men were employed by 
Alexander to procure specimens for his museum, and the ma- 
terials for his great work, and that Aristotle wrote fifty volumes 

teaching while taking his exercise, from his habit of walking about with Alexander 
during his convalescence after some illness, on Ik v6(tov irepiirarovvTi 'AXe^drSpt^ 
ffvfiirapwv SuXeyero drra. 

^ Aulus Gellius (yodes Atticce, XX. 5), is our only authority for this statement. 

^ Athenaeus, p. i86. 

3 Diog. Laert. V. 4, p. 302 C : ev ryj crxoXij vo/xo0€Te7v /xt/j.ov/j.fvov ^evoKparyiP, 
(bare Kara Se'/ca rj/xepas dpxofra iroieiv. 

* IX. p. 398 E. 


Oil the subject.' That these iiKiuiries in natural history had 
commenced at an earlier period is indicated by ^Elian's state- 
ment- that Philip had sui)[)lied Aristotle with money for the 
prosecution of these researches. But these happy days of sun- 
shine and tranquillity were destined to be speedily overcast. On 
the one hand it is clear that some estrangement of Alexander 
from Aristotle took place towards the end of the philosoplur's 
stay at Athens ;'' and on the other hand, his residence in this 
city was suddenly terminated by the threat of a prosecution for 
impiety, which might have produced a second edition of the 
death of Socrates. The misunderstanding with Alexander 
seems to have been connected with the downfall of his ])upil 
and relative Callisthenes, who had accompanied the king to 
Asia. This Callistheues, who was a rhetorician of considerable 
ability, but sadly deficient in common sense/ had opposed him- 
self to Anaxarchus, and the other flatterers who followed in the 
train of the ^laccdonian conqueror, and gave expression to his 
o[)inions with an unreserved and ofl'ensivc bluntuess, which was, 
imder the circumstances, eminently imprudent.* He also 
alloAved himself to talk very foolishly to Alexander's pages, 
which led to his implication in their conspiracy against the 
king.'"' According to some he was put to death by Alexander's 
express orders." Others say that he was abandoned to his 
enemies, in whose hands he perished by violence or neglect.* 
Now it seems that for some reason Alexander conueeted Aris- 
totle with the unjustifialjle language of his kinsman ; ])erhaps 
because Callisthenes had hinted to Philotas, one of the pages, 
that Athens would furnish a safe refuge to tyrannicides f perhaps 
Alexander's mind had been poisoned by Olympias, who was vio- 
lently opposed to Aristotle's friend Antipater. Plutarch men- 
tions a letter from Alexander to Antipater, in which he alludes 

1 Hist. iXat. VIII. 17. " Var. Hist. IV. 19. 

8 The words of Aristotle in the Nicoui. Eth. YIII. 7, where he spciks of too 
great inequality as a bar to friendship, have been supposed to refer to the interrup- 
tion of liis friendly relations with Alexander. 

* Aristotle is reported to have said of him : 8rt KaWiadivrji Xirfifi fiiv Jjv ivvarhi 
Koi fi^as, vovv o'oCiK fTx^v. (Hemiippus apud Phit. tit. AIcjt. c. 54.) 

« Plutarch, c. 52. *, IV. i.^, 14. 

" Curtius, VIII. 8, § 21. * I'lutarch, c. c,c.. 

" Idem, ibid. 


to the conspiracy of the pages, and states that they had been 
stoned by the ^lacedonians, bnt that he intended to punisli the 
Sophist, and those who had sent him out, and those in the cities 
who had harboured conspirators against him.^ The same bio- 
grapher tells us, on the authority of Chares, that Alexander in- 
tended to have Callisthenes re-tried in the presence of Aristotle. 
Be this as it may, Alexander took no steps against Aristotle, 
and the story that the philosopher availed himself of the fact 
that one of Antipater's sons was Alexander's cup-bearer, to 
poison him with the water of the Styx, is a silly fiction.' On 
the contrary, it is obvious that the death of Alexander rendered 
Aristotle's position at Athens less secure, and exposed him to 
risk of religious persecution. Eurymedon, the hierophant, aided 
by Demophilus, indicted him for blasphemy, on the pretext that he 
had paid divine honours to Hermias, and his own wife Pythias.^* 
The charge was contemptible in itself, but Aristotle knew that 
the Macedonian party at Athens had lost the power to protect 
him, and that it would be easy enough to induce the Athenians 
to treat him as they had treated Socrates. ' Let us not give 
them,' he said, ' a second opportunity of committing sacrilege 
against philosophy.' Accordingly, he retired betimes with all 
his property, not forgetting his batterie de cuisine,^ to Chalcis in 
Euboea, the native place of his maternal ancestors, where, no 
doubt, he had some personal friends. In his absence the 
Athenians rescinded a decree which had been made in his 
honour, and added the insulting imputation that he had acted 
as a Macedonian spy.' This derogatory treatment he received 
in a spirit worthy of a great philosopher. ' My mind is so 
constituted,' he said, ' that I neither care very much about these 
things, nor on the other hand do I altogether disregard them.'^ 

^ Idem, ibid. : ol /xh TraTSes inrb twv 'SlaKeSovwv KaTekevad-qaav tov hi ao^iarrjv 
iyib KoXdffoi Kdi rovs eKir^ixxj/avTas ainbv koX tovs v-rroSexo/J.^vovs rats iroXecn Toi/s ifiol 

2 Diodorus, XIX. 1 1 . Plutarch, tili supra. 

3 Phavorinus apud Diog. 5, p. 303 C. ^lian, Var. Hist. III. 36. Aristocles 
apud Euseb. Prcep. Ev. XV. 2. Oiigen c. Celsum I. p. 51. 

* It is said that he took no less than 75 copper saucepans to Chalcis (Aristocles 
apud Eusebium, ubi supra). ^ Aristocles, u.s. 

^ iElian, Var, Hist. XIX. i : oi'Vcos ^x'^ '^^ /xi^Te hol (x<p6dpa iMiXeiv vrrep avrdv 
firjTe fi7]Siv fjL^Xeiv. 


It was in u.c. 323 tlmt Aristotle retired to Euboca, and lie lived 
there only a few months, for he died of some illness, probuljly 
a disease of the intestines,' in the following year, shortly after 
his great contemporary Demosthenes, also an e\ile from Athens, 
was obliged to save himself from a worse fate by taking poison 
at Calauria. It is scarcely worth Avhile to notice the absnrd 
stories that xVristotle also committed suicide by drinking hemlock, 
or ])y throwing himself into the Euripus, because he could not 
discover the cause of the seven tides there. By his wife Pythias 
be left behind him a daughter named after her mother, who 
married (i.) Nicanor, son of Proxcnus, and adopted son of 
Aristotle ; (2.) Procles, a lineal descendant of the Spartan 
king Dcmaratus, by whom she had two sons, Procles and De- 
nuuatus, both scholars of Theophrastus ; (3.) Metrodorus, a 
physician, by whom she had a son called Aristotle. Aristotle 
also left au infant son called Nicomachus, by his concubine 
Ilerpyllis ; he became a scholar of Theophrastus, and died in 
battle at an eai'ly age. 

An abstract of Aristotle's will, or a codicil to it, is preserved 
by Diogenes. It is a very interesting document. It makes no 
mention of his literary property and his valuable library, which 
Strabo tells us" were left to Theophrastus. Antipater, Theo- 
phrastus, and four others are designated as provisionary execu- 
tors, until Nicauor's return to take possession. 

Aristotle's person is described by Timothcus.'' He had some 
bodily defects or deformities, and made the most of himself by 
a diligent attention to his dress. In fact, he was no Cynic. 
In his private character he was extremely amiable and exemplary. 
Ilis worth as a philosopher will be best exhibited if we take a 
general siu'vey of his writings. 

§ 2. In looking at a mere catalogue of the works of Aristotle, 
we must be struck at once with the vast range of his knowledge. 
He aimed at nothing less than the completion of a general 

' Censorinus {De die natali, c. 14) speaks of his ' natur.ilein stomachi infimiita- 
tem crebrasque niorbidi corporis ofFensiones ' as of lony duration. 

3 XIII. p. 124. 

3 TTfpi^tWapud Diog. V. p. 300 B. 'He h.vl a lisping utter.incc, thin leg^ 
little eyes, but wore a handaorae dress, and rings, and shaved carefully.' 


cncyclopaMliii of philosophy.' He hr.d divided the collective ac- 
quirements of his age into their several branches, and had formed 
his own opinion on every one of them. In all this mass of 
leaining his originality is as remarkable as his powers of re- 
s(\ai-ch. He uas, in fact, the author of the first scientific 
cultivation of each science, and he digested all the materials 
that he found so as to reproduce them in a manner peculiar to 
himself. There was hardly any quality distinguishing a philo- 
sopher as such, which he did not possess in an eminent degree. 
We cannot indeed compare him Avith Bacon and the experi- 
mental philosophers of modern Europe; and any such com- 
parison would be quite unfair. But he was undoubtedly a 
great observer, and in this respect he stands in favourable con- 
trast to all who preceded him, not excepting Plato. Above all, 
we must be struck with the great sobriety of his speculations, a 
sobriety which is found in none of the elder schools, and is set 
at nought by the poetical genius of the great founder of the 
Academy. This indeed is so marked a feature in Aristotle, 
that some have reckoned it among his defects, and have at- 
tributed to it the dryness of his style, and the jejuneness of his 

The interest which, from an early period, attached itself 
to the works of Aristotle, led to the adoption of a very strange 
story about their preservation. They are said to have been 
buried under ground, and not brought to light for some 200 
years after the writei-'s death. This story rests mainly on a 
passage in Strabo," which Plutarch partly confirms,^ Ihough 
perhaps only on the authority of Strabo himself. This geo- 
gra[)her tells us that Aristotle's works were sold by the de- 
scendants of Neleus of Scepsis, who had got them from Theo- 

1 It ii.ust be remarked that, though Aristotle has attempted the thing, the 
barbarous name ennjdopadia is not due to him. The eyKmXios iraiSeia, or orlis 
doctrine (Quintii. Inst. Or. I. lo, § loi), corresponding generally to the seven 
liberal arts of the middle ages, was first described in these teims by the later Greek 
writers. Aristotle uses e7/c!5/cAtos in the sense of 'trivial, vulgar, common-place, 
routine, ordinary' (see Pol. I. 7, § 2, Meteor. I. i). The idea that Aristotle wrote 
a treatise ' on the elements of general knowledge' (yrepl r^s ijKVKXlov TratSdas) 
seems to be a mere inference of Diogenes and the commentators from such passages 
as Eth. Nic. I. 5. § 6 : Ikuvws yap Kal ^v to?s eyKVKXiocs dp-qTu irepl avrQv, where 
the reference is to the \6701 e^urepiKol. 

8 XIII. p. 124. 3 Yita Sulice, c. 26. 


plirastus, to one Apcllicon of Tcos, a ])ook collector, after they 
liad been lying for many years iu a cellar under ground ; tliat 
immediately after the death of Apcllicon, Sulla, having taken 
Athens, got possession of Apcllicon's library, and scut it to 
Rome, where Aristotle's books fell into the hands of 'ryraunio 
the grammarian, mIio undertook an edition of them. Plutarch, 
who repeats the principal part of this story, adds that Andro- 
nicus the Rhodiau published tables of the contents of Aris- 
totle's works (TTtVa/cfc) from the edition of Tyrannio. This is 
the whole authority for the story, which is completely over- 
thrown both by direct testimony, and by valid inferences. In the 
first place, we have the statement of Athenaius, a learned and 
diligent collector, who, as an Egyptian Greek, was well ac- 
quainted with Alexandrian bibliography, and who says' that 
Ptolemy Philadelphus bought the whole of the works of Aris- 
totle from Neleus, who had preserved them, and carried them 
away to his beautiful Alexandria. This statement is con- 
firmed bv the fact that Aristotle was included in the canon of 
classical writers. Then, again, the Scholia on Aristotle, which 
were compiled out of a variety of works of the Alexandrian 
school, often refer to the w^orks of Aristotle, coupled with the 
name of an Alexandrian writer ; and this amounts almost to a 
direct proof that Aristotle's works were known at Alexandria. 
Then, again, the eneycloptedic form of Aristotle's writings 
shows that they would be published altogether, if published at 
all. Then, again, the polemics of Xenocrates, wlio defended 
Plato's doctrine of ideas against Aristotle, and of Chrysippus, 
who attacked many of Aristotle's doctrines, show that Aristotle's 
works must have been extant and available. Lastly, Cicero 
makes such frequent mention of Aristotle, and so directly 
refers to the degeneracy of the later Peripatetics," that he 
could not have failed to allude to the recent appearance of 

^ Atben. I. p. 3 D. After mentioning a number of book collectors, including 
Aristotle, be aids: Kal rbv to. tovtwv SiarripricTatn-a pi^Xla yijX^a' Trap' ov irdirra 
irpidfjiet'os 6 rj/xedaTrbi jiaffiKevi llToXffjLaloi, i'L\dd(\(pos 5^ iirlKXrjv, fitrdt rCiv 
' Aer]i'7]d€i' Kal tCiv ivb'Vb^ov fls ttjv Ka\T}v'A\e^d»dpfiav utri^ayt. 

* De Finibiis, V. =, 12, 13: ' teneamus Aristotelem et ejus filiuin Niconi.iclnun. 
Theophraatum taraen adbiljeainus ad pleraque. Siinua igitur confenti bis ; nani- 
que horum poster), meliores illi quidem quam reliquaruni pliilosoi)hi disciplinarum, 
sed ita degenerant, ut ipsi ex se nati esse videantur.' 

1 2 


Aristotle's works, if the want of this source of information had 
been tlic true explanation of the fact, that the successors of 
Theophrastus exhibited no family likeness to the founder of 
the school. Still there must have been some grounds for 
the story which finds a place in the pages of such an accurate 
writer as Stral)o ; and we may conclude Avith safety, that 
Apcllicon of Tecs really became possessed of an autograph of 
Aristotle's works, and that the later Peripatetics knew but little 
of the works of their master, not because they were in a cellar 
at Scepsis, but because they were more common at Alexandria 
than at Athens, and because they were considered too abstruse 
and too voluminous for general use. 

In speaking of the arrangement of Aristotle's works as they 
have come down to us, we are first led to the well known distinc- 
tion of the esoteric and exoteric writings, by which we generally 
understand the more scientific and recondite, as opposed to the 
more popular and superficial treatises. It was in reference to 
this division of Aristotle's works that Lucian, in his auction of 
lives, puts the philosopher up for sale as ' a double man,'* 
and Cicero often refers^ to the exoteric works of Ai'istotle. 
There is no use of the word esoteric in the writings of Aris- 
totle himself, and when he employs the word exoteinc, he 
does not refer to a special class of his writings, but to a dis- 
cussion which is extrinsic and foreign to the subject before him, 
so that the phrase, ' this has been treated of in the exoteric 
discourses,' merely means 'this has been discussed elsewhere.'^ 
It is true that in the Eudemian Ethics, which were drawn up 
by his pupil Eudemus, the epithet exoteric is opposed to the 
definition, ' according to philosophy,' i.e. ' scientific.'^ And there 
can be little doubt that, after the time of Andronicus of Rhodes, 

^ Vitaruni Auctio, c. 16 : Emtor. Troios Se rts iari ; Merc, fj-erpios, iirieLK-ris, 
apfidSios Ty piifj, rb S^ fi^yiffTOv dnrXovs. Emtor. ttQs \(y(is ; Merc. dWos fj.h 6 
iKToadev <paiv6/J.evos, fiWos 5^ 6 'ivTocOiv tlvai 8oKei' oicrxe 7}c Trphj avrbv fi€/j.v7]ao tov 
fikv icrurepiKdu, tov 5^ e^urepLKbv KoKdv. 

2 De Finibus, V. 5, § 12. ad Att. IV. 16, § 2. et alibi. 

' EtJi. Nic. I. 13, § 9. Met. M. p. 1076 a 28 : TedpiiXX-qTai. yap to. ttoWo. kuI 
virb Twv i^urepLKiov \6ywv. 

•* Eth. Eadcm. I. 8, § 4 : iir^aKeTTTai di iroWoh vepi avrwv rpbirois Kal (v rots 
i^wrepiKOis \byois Kal ev roh /caret <pi\o<To4>iav. 


the works of Aristotle were tecliuically distiiiguislicd into the 
acroamatic, or auioprosojnc writings, which were systematic 
treatises, achh-essed to duly prepared hearers, and deUvered in 
the writer's own person, and the exoteric, or diuloyical , which 
were occasional and desultory essays, in the ibrui of dialogues. 
This division does not apply to the works as we now have 
tiicm, for they arc all in the writer's proper person, and all 
more or less scientific and methodical. We have only one 
original specimen of the Aristotelian dialogue, in a ipiotation 
of about thirty lines, preserved hy Plutarch.' Cicero has given 
us translations of two other fragments.- We can see that in 
these light popular essays Aristotle adopted a style more like 
that of the Seolium on Virtue than that of the Nicoraachean 
treatise on the same subject, and justified the expression of 
Cicero, who speaks of his ' pouring forth a golden stream of 
language.'^ In seeking a proper arrangement of the acroamatic 
wt)rks which have come down to us entire, we may either 
adopt the classification of Ammonius or Simplicius, or make 
one for ourselves. These commentators, who agree in the 
main, the latter having been a pupil of the former, adopt a 
primary division of Aristotle^s works into ' the particulai*' 
[to. fuspiKa), 'the general' (ra kuOoXov), and 'the mixed' {to. 
/iiiaa or TO. /.ura'^v) ; the first being confined to the Epistles, tlie 
third to the Natural History, and the second including most of 
the extant writings. In this second class, the hypomnematic 
works, or draughts and notes of books, which Cicero calls com- 
vientarii,* are distinguished from the syntaymatic, or com- 
plete and formal treatises ; and these latter, again, are dis- 
criminated as exotei-ic or dialogues, and acroamatic, autoprosopic, 
or treatises delivered propria persona ; then these latter, again, 
are theoretical, practical , and organicul, i.e. referring to language 
as an instrument of thought. The theoretical arc, physiolo(/ical, 
mathematical, and theological. The practical include the trea- 
tises on ethics, politics, and economics. The oryanicul com- 

^ Comolatio ad ApoUon. p. 1 15 B ; cf. vita DionU, c. 22. 

2 De Naturd Deorum, II. 37. l>e Ojjiciis, II. r6. 

3 Acad. Prior. II. 38 : ' veniet flumon orationis aureum fundens Aristotelea.' 
* Cic. JJc Fin. V. 5. 



prise the logical, rhetorical, and critical treatises.' It seems 
to lis that the order most convenient, in a general review of this 
great and diversified contribution to Greek literature, will be 
one analogous to that which we have adopted in discussing the 
works of Plato. Yv e shall first consider Aristotle's treatises on 
the history of philosophy, and the books in which he directly 
exhibits his own views of metaphysics and psychology. This 
includes what he calls theologia, and ' the first philosophy.' We 
then pass on to the logic, which he substituted for the dialectics 
of the Socratic School, and the rhetorical and critical discussions, 
which he considered as correlative to it. In the next place, as 
in Plato's system, we shall consider his ethical and political 
writings. Then will follow his speculations in natural history 
and general physics; and the miscellaneous works may be 
considered in the light of an appendix. 

§ 3. The title of Metaphysics {/neTo. ra (pvaiKa) was con- 
ferred, long after Aristotle's time, on a collection of treatises 
more or less connected, in which the philosopher had given a 
sketch of the ^dews of his predecessors, and expounded his own, 
on some of the primary subjects of general speculation. The 
name denoted merely the place ' after the physical treatises,' 

^ The following is the arrangement of Simplicius (Stahr, Arisfotelia, II. p. 260) : — 
I. TO. fiepiKd. II. TO, iJ-eaa. • 

(As the treatise on Monarchy.)  (As the Natural History.) 

III. T& KadoKov. 

I. VTrofiV7)ixaTiKd. 

2. cvvTayfiariKa. 

a. iiovo€i8rj. b. TTotKiXa. 

a. avToirpoffUTra. h. StaXo7iKd. 

a. OeuprjTtKa. 

a. OeoXoyiKoi. 
/3'. (pvaLoXoyiKci. 
7'. nadtj/xaTiKci. 

p. irpaKTiKd. 

d. TjOiKa. 

j3'. oiKOVOjJUKd. 
y . TToKlTLKd. 

y. dpyaviKd. 

I . . 
d, irepl T^s diroSeiKTiKrjs 

/xed6dov. (Analyt. 

/3' . Trepl tQv irph ttjs aTTO- 

deiKTiKTJs fiedodov. 

(Analyt. pr. In- 

terpr. CategoriEe.) 
y' . vepl tQv ttjv diro- 

dei^Lv VTToBvofiivwv. 

(Topica. Sophist. 

Elench. Rhet.) 


assigned to this book in certain arrangements of the jjhilosopher's 
works/ but has become a general designation for formal treatises 
on the subject of mental philosophy, and lor that branch of 
study itself. If Aristotle liad given a name to all these treatises 
he would perhaps have included them under the general head 
of ' wisdom/ {(To(j)ia), by which he meant ' the theory of the 
first elements and causes of things, including the good and the 
motives of action / - and this would be our definition of the 
modern term MetapJiijsics, namely, the ' investigation of the 
causes and principles of things, as far as reason can penetrate 
and arrange thera/ ^ Considered as the first and highest of all 
branches of speculation, Aristotle would term this ' the first or 
mother science,' (/; Trfnorr} aoip'ia, (piXoaocji'ia, iiriaTijfiri), and with 
reference to its supremacy he woidd identify it with Ikculoyij, 
{i} OfoXo-yi/c//)/ though perhaps, in the order of study, he would 
})lace it, like his commentators, after the contemplation of visible 
nature.^ That there is no iiiconsistcncy in thus viewing the 
question from two sides, he has fully explained in a remarkable 
passage. He says -S' ' If there is no existence distinct from the 
concrete realities of nature, physics must be the first science. 
But if there is an immutable existence, it must take precedence 
of the former, and its science must be the first, and because it 
is the first it must also be the universal science. And it must 
pertain to this philosophy to contemplate existence as sucli, 
both in its proper deiinition and in its essential attributes.* 
Accordingly, what we call the Metaphysics of Aristotle includes 
what Plato meant by his Dialectic and the theory of ideas to 
which it led. Aristotle, however, used Dialectic in a much 
narrower sense than Plato. In one passage, he says that ' dia- 
lectic is merely tentative, where philosophy is cognizant, and 

1 Especially in that of Andronicus the Rhodian. See Michelet, Examen Cri- 
tique lie i'Owvrafje d'Arlstote intitule Metaphi/siqtie. Paris, 1836, p. 20. 

^ Met. I. 2, p. 98 2, b 9: del yap TavTrjv (<To<pLav) tQv wpuiTuv apxi^" f*i alriuir 
elvai Oeti)pr)TiK7)V Acat ydp Tayadbv Kal t6 oS iveKa if tCjv alrluv iarlv. 

^ Butler's Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, I. p. 74. 

* Met. XL 5, p. 1061, b 5. 

5 He gives the three speculative sciences in this order : Mathematics, Phijxica, 
Theolofjii (Met. VI. r, p. 1026, a 19^ : aurre rpdi B.v fUf (f>i\o<ro<t>lai OfwpijTiKal, 
IJ.a0r)fiaTLKTi, (pvcriK-f), OeoXoyiKi). 

^ Met. V. I, p. 1026 a 29. 


sophistic merely assumes an appearance while it abandons the 
reality.' ' In another he defines the dialecticians as merely 
* those who syllogistically develope the contradictions implied in 
popular notions/ and even makes dialectic one of the four 
methods of conversational discussion, (to SiaXiytaBai).' The 
metaphysical specidations of Aristotle reduce themselves in a great 
measure to a refined system of scientific terminology. Indeed, one 
of the fourteen books in our collection is confined to definitions, 
and may be even considered as a special tract on the subject.^ 
In discussing the theories of others, he tests them by their 
views respecting the four principles of things, namely the formal, 
the material, the efficient, and "the final. The four causes are 
thus described :" ' One of these causes we call the substance, 
(ovain), and the what-it-was-to-be (to t'i riv eivai), for the tvhere- 
fore (to ^la Ti) is the last point in the definition, though it is 
really the cause and the first principle, because it is necessarily 
antecedent ; ^ the second cause we call the material [v\i)), and 
the subject [vTroKuf-uvov) ; the third, we call that whence is the 
beginning of the movement ; the fourth, the opposite of this, 
namely, the motive {to ov evtKa) and the good, — for this is the 
end of all generation and change.' We thus see that the formal 
or ideal cause is the ' definition real,' which forms the basis of 
Plato's theory of ideas. And the phrase ' the what-it-was-to-be,' 
which Aristotle invented to describe the abstract or general 
term, which was antecedent to any particular or concrete exis- 

^ Met. IV. 2, p. 1004, b 25 : icrrl Se i] diaXeKTiKr] neipacrTLKi] Trepl 2iv i] 4>iXo(ro<pia 
yvupLariK/j, -q de aorpiariKT] (patvoixivr], ov<ra 5' oil. 
" Sophist. Elcnch. 1. 

3 Aristotle seems to refer to Met. TV. [V.] under the title of ra trepl rod troaaxCis 
Xiyerai, cf. Met. V. [VI.] 4, 1028, a 4 ; VI. [VII.] i, 1028, a 10; IX. [X.] i, 
1052, a 15. 

^ 3Iet. I. 3, p. 983, a 26. Mr. E. L. Ellis observes in a note to Bacon, De Aug- 
mentis Scientiarum, lib. III. cap. IV. p. 550 : 'These four kinds of causes may be 
divided into two classes, extrinsic and intrinsic, the efficient and foial belonging to 
the first class, the material axxd formal to the second. It is obvious that these dis- 
tinctions involve the postulate of what has been called the theory of physical influ- 
ence, that is, that one substance really acts on another, and must at least be modi- 
fied, if we adopt any such theory on this subject as that of Leibnitz or of Herbart. ' 

1. 28.: dvayeraL yap rb 5ia t'l eh rbv \6yov ^axo-rov, airiov 5e Kal dpxv to dia tI 
trpwTov. Here it is obvious that eaxaro;' is a secondary predicate and must be con- 
strued with avdyerai, and that Trpwroi^ is to be similarly taken with t6 Sia ri, ' the 
wherefore, as being the first, is the cause and the first principle.' 


teuce, merely indicates the TrptoTi} ova'in or abstraction which 
belongs to uU things capable of detinition.' By the u^c ol' the 
past tense in this phrase, Aristotle indicates that the formal 
cause has only an inferential existence," whereas by the phrase 
* the what-it-is ' {to ri ftrrt), he implies not only the formal 
cause or abstract idea, l)ut all the particulars of the deriiiition, 
all, in fact, that is included in the category o{ ciitity or qu'uld'ilij.^ 
It is also a special part of Aristotle's business in these specula- 
tions, to establish the distinction between the virtual or potential 
and the actual state of things. The eighth book of the Meta- 
physics is mainly occupied with this discussion. A thing exists 
potentially or virtually (Sui'a/iEi), when it may be made to exist 
actually {kvipyt'ia). Thus the statue is virtually in the wood 
before it is actually a representation of Hermes or any other 
god.^ From this opposition of the virtual to the actual, com- 
bined with the view w'hich Aristotle takes of the formal cause, 
we get his celebrated term Entelechy {kvT^Xiyjiin) or complete- 
ness, which is, to a certain extent, synonymous with substance 
(oucrt'o), distinguished from actuality (Ivip-yua), and opposed to 
matter (i"X>?). The formal cause is an entelechy, the definition 
of. that which exists potentially is an entelechy, and the soul is 
the primary entelechy of a natural body virtually alive.^ 

The proper arrangement and mutual relations of the books 
called the Metaphysics of Aristotle have formed the subject of 
much discussion among scholars. The following conclusions, 
adopted by the latest editor, seem, on the whole, to be quite 

^ Met. VI. [VII.] 4, p. 1030 a 6 : rb tI fjv tlvai iariv 8(Twi> 6 \6yos iarlv 6piafj.6s. 
io,',o b 4 : eKeivo Sk (pxvepbv on 6 irpdiTiii, Kal ixTrXuJs opicrfibs nal t6 tI yv 
elf a I Tbjv ovulCiv icrriv. 

2 See New CratijliLS, §§ 192, 343, 344. 

3 Met. VI. [VII.] 10, p. 1035 a 2 : ovaia. f) re HXrj, kclI rb elSos, koI rb iK tovtuv. 
•» Met. VIII. [IX.] 6, p. 1048 a 30. See New Cratylm, § 341. 

5 See the passages quoted in the Xew Crafylits, §§ 337—344- Perhaps the word 
' completeness' is the only single term which can be accepted as an equivalent for 
ivTeX^X^ia. If we were not restricted to'a single term, we might call it 
uiziug force.' Mr. M.j.nrice s^iys (Ancient PhUosophi/, p. 191): '«f5oje.\pr 
substance of each thing viewed in repose — its form or constitution ; ivip^tia^ its 
substance considered as active and generative ; ivrtXix^ia seems to be the - 
or harmony of these two ideas. The cj^ectio of Cicero therefore rei)resents t 
imporUnt side of it, but not tlie whole.' We fear that this explanation will not be 
very intelligible to an ordinary reader. 



satisfacton'.' The fourteen books of the Metaphysics are gene- 
rally distinguished by the first tliirteen letters of the Greek 
alphabet ; the first and second, however, being designated as '^A 
j.ultov and a eAarroi^." Now it appears that Books A, B, T, E, 
Z, H, O, exhibit a continuous and connected development of one 
and the same argument. Book A treats of ' wisdom' {(jo<pia), 
and of the principles Avhich it involves, and criticizes the systems 
of the philosophers who preceded Aristotle. Book B discusses 
seventeen problems in ontology. Book T treats of the unity 
of science. Book E investigates substance or entity. Books 
Tj, H, and 0, are occupied with concrete reality, the substantial 
form, the universal actuality and virtuality. The subject of 
Books B, r, E, is briefly sketched in Book K, chapters i — 8. 
The same discussion is also the subject of Books I, M, and N, 
which treat of unity, ideas, and numbers. Book A, which 
treats of God or ' the good,' does not belong to the general 
question of the primary philosophy, but contains a special trea- 
tise. Book A is a genuine tract of Aristotle, but does not 
belong to the metaphysical works. It is inserted among these 
books, and immediately before Book E, which refers to the 
discussion inpL tiov Troaayjoq \iyojxiviov, because it seemed to 
be a convenient appendix or supplement to them. It is by no 

^ Aristotelis Metaphysica recognovit et enarravit Hermannus Bonitz. Bonn. 
1848. The views maintained by Bonitz are, in the main, the same as those put 
forth by Brandis. 

^ The following table will show the different arrangements of the Metaphysica, and 

see Blakesley's Life of Aristotle, p. 156. 

the different modes of citing the books 
Greek MSS. Du Val. Petitns 

























M xm. 

















Diogenes Laertius. 
irepl dpx^f d. 
irepl eTriaTrj/jLuv d. 
irepl dpx'j^v j3'. 
irepl eiriffTTj/xiov j3'. 
irepl tQ)v irocrax^s Xeyoixivwv. 

irepl eldCiv /cot yevLcv. 

irepl i/\7)s. ") not mentioned 

irepl ivepyeias. ) by Diogenes. 

rj eKKoyrj twv evavTiwv. 

irepl iiriffTrifiris. 

irepl (pi\o(TO(pias d. 

irepl <f>L\o(70(pias p' . 

irepl <j)iKoao<pias y' . 


means certain that Book a was written bv Aristotle, and some 
have attribnted it to his scliolar Pasielcs the Rhodian ; at any 
rate it is out of its phice in tliis collection, and is merely a brief 
essay on truth. The latter half of Book K, chapters 9 — 12, 
is an extract carelessly made by some later writer from Aris- 
totle's P/n/sica Aiiscaltatlo. On the whole, then, it may be 
said, that we have seven continuous books, interpolated with a 
tract probably written by some scholar of Aristotle, and with 
a book of definitions by Aristotle himself; that these are 
followed by a book (I,) connected, but not immediately, with 
them, by a recapitulation (K, 1 — 8) of the three which follow 
the first (B, T, E,) by a careless extract from the physical 
works (K, 9 — 12), by a special treatise on theology (A,) and 
by two books, (M, N,) Avhose place in the first seven cannot be 
accurately determined.' 

Aristotle's mental philosopln', in connexion with his physical 
science, forms the subject of a special treatise concerning the 
soul {wipl ?/'ii^f)c) in three books." In this work, as in his Meta- 
physics, the philosopher begins with a criticism on the systems 
of his predecessors, which occupies the greater part of the first 
book. In the second book he enters on the distinction between 
soul and body, and all the principal questions connected with 
the theory of sensation. And here we are at once brought 
back to the phraseology on which he dwells so much in the 
metaphysical books. A body, from its conformation, has a 
potentiality or virtuality of existence.^ Its entelecJiy or com- 
pleteness is the soul. But even when animated by the soul, 
and so, completely alive, it may have a dormant instead of an 
operating activity, it may have entelechy (tireXt^fta) without 
energy {evipyeia), completeness -without actuality. The soul 
then is the primary or antecedent completeness of the body, 
which is virtually alive ;^ it is that which informs the material 

^ Mr. Maurice has drawn up an able review of the Metaphysica in his Ancicnl 
Philosophy, chapter VI. § 5, pp. 178 — 19S. 

^ There is a full analysis of this book in Butler's Lectures on Ancient Philosoply, 
II. pp. 370 foil. 

^ All substance consists of matter and form, and the matter is a SiVa/xis "i 
capacity, but the form is an cntdcchy or completeness (I>c Anima, II. i, 1). 

* 5i6 ^puxv i(TTiv fVT€\ix(La tj irpuiTr} auinaro^ (pvffiKov Svydfin fw^jf ^X"**^"*) 


(r»X>/), and makes the actuality of life inevitable, wlienever tliere 
is the corresponding exertion. If the eye were an animal, the 
faculty of vision would be its soul, its entelechy, or completeness, 
and this \vould not be less real and complete if the eyelid were 
closed over it, though in that case it would not actually see. 
Without its entelechy, the eye could not be truly called by this 
name, but only homonymously so.' The soul, then, is some- 
thing necessarily pertaining to the body, and ' each soul is in 
its OAvn proper body ; for such is the nature of things, that the 
entelechy or completeness of each thing is in that particular 
thing which virtually exists;'' and thus the form (Jgoc) is 
always necessarily inherent in its own proper matter (wAjj). 
These definitions at once connect themselves witb Aristotle's 
views respecting the gradations of organic beings, and his 
subdivisions of the human soul into the vegetable, the rational, 
and the partly rational,^ The intellect he regards as both 
passive and active [vovq iroinriKoq, vovq TraOririKog).^ The latter 
makes, the former becomes all things. Taken together, he 
regards it as recipient or susceptible of general impressions or 
forms. But the soul is so connected with the body that it 
cannot act without the aid of the senses, or of that imagination 
which retains the pictures of perception without the materials 
(liXj?). As we are not writing a history of Greek philosophy, 
it is sufficient merely to indicate the tendency of these psycho- 
logical speculations, and to show how diametrically they are 
opposed to that doctrine of the soul's independent existence 
which forms a key to the philosophy of Plato. 

§ 4. From a consideration of the soul and its functions, we 
pass on to language as the instrument of thought. By his labours 
in this field — his organic works, as they are called — Aristotle has 
obtained the foremost place among those who have attempted 
the solution of the problem of logic ; and though in the appli- 

TOLovTo U bhv ^ dpywLKbv {Dc Auimd, II. i, § 5) ; and again : d h) ti koivov ewl 
TraaT]s fvxvs Sei X^yeiv ei'ij Sli> ivTe\4x(i.a 7} irpwrr) aw/xaros (pvcriKov opyai'iKOv (ibid. 

Ibid. % g: el yap 9jv 6 6(pea\ tvof i^^Xh "" ¥ o.urov -rj o^pts k. t. X. 

• '^' o '4) 15: Kai 5id rovTO iv awfiari virapxei Kal iv aw/jLaTi tolovtu) 
.... fKacTTOV yap 17 ivreXixei-a ev ti^ Swd/xfi virdpxovTi. Kal rrj oUdq. bXt) iricpvKev 

=* See WW, §6. ' * I)eAninid,lU.f,. 

LOGIC. 125 

cation of his principles of reasoning to the discovery of triitli 
l)y indnction, Aristotle's system was altogether defective, and his 
Organon was necessarily superseded by the Novum Orgnn'tn of 
Francis Bacon/ his regulation of the laws of speech is still ad- 
mitted to be sound and valid, and his analytical treatises are 
the basis, at all events, of all that modern science lias attempted 
in the same field. We have seen- how Plato Avas led to his 
dialectical conclusions by an examination of the opposing 
systems of the Hcraclciteans and Eleatics, and that his main 
object was to obtain a criterion of truth and science. Among 
those who admitted that there must be such a criterion, he 
found that some, like Heracleitus and Protagoras, maintained 
that every man was to himself the standard of truth ; others, 
like ParmenideSj required a scientific cultivation before any man 
could come to a true judgment. Plato inclined to this class, 
and Aristotle would not accept the famous maxim of Protagoras 
except on the condition that the sense and reason were in a 
perfect and healthy condition.^ Still less could Aristotle adopt 
the Heracleitean hypothesis, that all things were in a state of 
perpetual flux or motion, so that nothing could be considered as 
in the same state for two successive moments. If this were so, 
the primary axiom of reasoning — the same thing cannot be and 
not be^ — would fail to establish itself, for we might connect con- 
tradictory predicates with the same subject at inapprccial)le 
intervals of time. Aristotle's logic, then, like Plato's dialectic, 
rested upon a previous examination of the general questions of 
ontology, hypothesis, axioms, and causation. But while Plato 
considered dialectics as including metaphysics or philosophy as 
well as the principles of reasoning, Aristotle, as we have seen, 

* The A'oruni Organon had an antagonistic reference to the Organon of Aristotle, 
just as the New Atlantis entered into professed rivahy with the Critia.i of Plato. 
On Bacon's design in his gieat philosophical works, the English reader can now 
consult the admirable introductions of R. L. Ellis, and J. Spedding. 

a Above, chapter XXXIX. § 7. 

3 Met. X. I, p. 1053 a 35. XI. 6, p. 1062 b 12. 

* Met. III. 3, p. 1005, b. -23 : dSvvoLTOv 6vrii>o0i' raiTbv i-iroXaii^dveiv tTvai Kal 
fiTj dvai.. Anali/t. Pr. I. 40: <pd<ns Kal d.ir6(pa<Tii oi'x viripxovaiv ai avTind^ifva^ 

&fji.a Tt^ avTui Kara Travrbi evbi rj <l)d(ns ^ d-ir6<pa(Tii dXrjOrii. A nali/t. Ptul. 

I. 25 : 5td ydp rrjv KaTd<t>a,<Tiv i) dirb(pa.ais yvtbpifxoi Kal irporlpa i) KaTd<paffis iSfftrtp 
Kal rb (Ivai rov fir) flvai. 


discxisscd the primary philosophy in a separate work, and 
examined the laws of reasoning by themselves. 

The logical works of Aristotle consist of the following 
treatises : — The Categories, the book on Interpretation, the 
former and latter Analytics, the Topics, and the Sophistical 
Proofs. These five treatises, together Avith Porphyry^s intro- 
duction to the first of them, are generally called the Organon. 
The Categories are a list of the ten most general forms nnder 
which separate terms may serve as the subject or predicate of a 
proposition.' This list seems to be founded chiefly on gram- 
matical considerations ;* and the categories, according to the 
instances which Aristotle has given of them, are merely a 
syntactical arrangement of certain parts of speech. The first, 
or the category of substance or quiddity, includes nouns sub- 
stantive; the next three, quantity, quality, and relation, are 
different sorts of adjectives ; the 5th and 6th are adverbs of 
place and time ; and the last four are verbs considered as in- 
transitive (7th), perfect passive or the effect of action (8th), 
active (9tli), and passive (loth). Adrastus wished to regard the 
Categories as an introduction to the Topics [ra wpo rwv ToiriKtov), 
and the latter does contain an enumeration of the six categore- 
mata or predicables which are supplementary to the ten 
categories or predicaments ; but Porphyry rejected this appella- 
tion, and it seems better to consider the Categories as the 
treatise on separate terms, which precedes the Interpreta- 
tion or treatise on propositions, and forms a preface to the 
whole body of logical books. This essay on Interpretation is 
a discussion of nouns and verbs considered as the necessary 
parts of an enunciation or sentence. We have seen that this 

^ Hitter says that ' the categories according to Aristotle are the most general 
forms of that which is denoted by the simple word ;' Hegel defines them as ' simple 
essences, universal designations' (Bestimmiivgen); Biese as brief definite data 
(Angahen), which ai-e to be considered in the investigation of the question; Quin- 
tihan (II. 6. § 23) says: ' Aristoteles eZemeiito decem constituit circa qua? versari 
videatur omnis qusestio.' According to Waitz, the last editor of the Organon, 
Kar-qyopia in Aristotle means (i) quodcunque prcedicatur, (2) genera eorum quce 
'proidicantur, (3) ipsa prcedicandi ratio, (4) propositio simp)leon. Karriyopla and 
KaTriy6pyi/j.a are sometimes used as synonj'ms ; Simplicius, fol. 36, distinguishes 
them as X^Jtj aiid irpdyp-a. See also Plotinus, De cat eg. Ennead. IV. i. 

2 New Cratylus, § 125. Trendelenburg, Gcschichte dcr Categorienlehre, Berlin, 
1846, pp. 384 foil. 

LOGIC. 127 

analysis of tlic sentence was adopted by Plato, and that oi-o/ui, 
the ' name' or ' noun,' uas the original designation of the 
subject, and /ofj^ta, the ' assertion' or ' verb/ was the original 
designation of the predicate. From the complete sentence he 
passes on, in 'the former Analytics^ [Analytica Priora), to a 
discussion of the syllogism, 'which implies the combination, by 
means of a middle term, of the three complete sentences, uhich 
involve the two premisses and their conclusion.' Here he falls 
back on the first principles of his metaphysical reasoning ; for 
' the principle involved in all syllogism is the clichmi de oinm 
et nu/lo, which is identical with the axiom or the principle of 
contradiction.'- The former Analytics, then, were well de- 
scribed in their old title, ' On the Syllogism' {-n-epl avWoyta^iov). 
The latter Analytics are entitled ' On Demonstration' [Trtfil 
aTToSf/^fw?) ; and the whole work may be described, in the 
words of an English commentator, as falling into three divisions : 
(A) the generic branch, which treats of reasoning in general, 
whether the result is Opinion or Science; (B) the specific 
branch, which treats of reasoning, the result of which is Science, 
Inductive or Dcdiictive ; (C) the specific bi'anch, which treats 
of Dialectical reasoning, the result of which is Opinion. Or, 
as Induction is not sufficiently confined to scientific reasoning 
by Aristotle, whose topics are lax, and whose observation of 
phenomena was scanty and careless, we may say that the 
Oryunon may be ' divided into four parts — General Logic, the 
Logic of Deduction, the Logic of Induction, and the Logic of 

1 Aristotle's account of induction in the Prior A nahjtxcs was criticized by Dr. 
Wliewell in 1850 (Trans, of the Camhr. Phil. Soc. vol. IX. part i), and the text 
and reasoning of the philosopher were defended by Mr. H. A. J. Munro, of Trinity 
College, in a very able paper, which has not, we believe, been publi.shed. Mr. 
Munro says (p. 9) : "The object of Aristotle in his Prior Analytics is to give a 
technical exposition of the syllogism and its various moods and figures. In the 
concluding chaptei-s of the work he maintains, in order to give his treatise a formal 
completeness, that any kind of proof may be put into the syllogistic form,' and thus 
he ' does not say that induction is a syllogism, but that any proof, and therefore 
induction, may be put into a syllogistic fonn.' 

3 The Posterior Analytics of Arist<itle, by Edward Poste, O.\foni, iS'so, p. 8. 
Mr. Poste atlds : ' When Dugald Stewart observes that the wliole of the science of 
syllogism is comprised or implied in the terms of one single axiom, his as.scrtinn is 
quite correct, the doctrine of syllogism merely detcnniniiig, on the authority of the 
axiom itself, under what conditions the axiom is applicable. * 


Ol)iiiion ; tlic tliird not sufficiently articulated and disengaged 
from the fourth, and hence the necessity of a Novum Organon.'^ 
The Topics, which Cicero had studied so carefully that he was 
ahlc to make an epitome of the book from memory in the course 
of a voyage from Velia to Rhegium/ is an examination of the 
diflcrent dialectical maxims or secondary axioms, from which we 
derive the middle terms of our syllogisms, and so frame the 
demonstrative argument ; and the treatise on Sophistical Proofs 
{■mpl ao({)i(TTiKwv sX^yy^wvY is an analysis of the different forms 
of f}\llacy, with a view to their detection and confutation. 

The Organon, as it has come down to us, does not include 
all or nearly all the books which Aristotle wrote on logic. The 
old commentators mention forty books attributed to the philo- 
sopher, many of which they rejected as not genuine.'' Diogenes 
Laertius enumerates about twenty logical treatises besides those 
that we have ; he says that there were eight, or, as one manu- 
script has, ten books of the former Analytics^' The Methoclica, 
in eight books, which are quoted in the Rhetoric,^ may have 
been this very collection, and perhaps the same work is referred 
to in the Nicomcichean Ethics. 

§ 5. The treatise on Rhetoric which has come down to us 
is apparently one of the latest of Aristotle's extant writings. 
His earlier work on the subject — the 2ui'a-yw-y7} Te^j-wi' — was 
rather a history of Rhetorical Literature, than a philosophical 
essay like that which we have, and was written probably during 
his first residence at Athens. Our present book refers to the 
Politics, which Avere a continuation of the Ethics, were Avritten 
after the Poetics, and mention the death of Philip / and it has 

^ Poste, Posterior Atudytics, pp. 8, 32, 36. 

2 Cic. Topica, I. 5 : ' itaque hsec, quum mecum libros non haberein, inemori4 
repetita, in ipsa navigatione conscripsi.' Mr. Maurice remarks {Ancie7it Fhilo- 
sojiJiy, p. 174): 'To understand Aristotle rightly, the Topics should be read together 

with the three books on rhetoric It (the Metorica) is closely connected 

with this work on probable arguments. The To2ncs are to it what the six books of 
Euclid are to a treatise on practical mechanics.' 

3 ' This work has a natural connexion with the Topics, as Aristotle himself re- 
marks in the beginning of the last chapter of the second book."— Blakesley, Life of 
Aristotle, p. 144. 

* Blakesley, u.s. M 23. 6 i_ 2, § to. 

'' That the Rhetoric was written after the Poetics appears from the latter, c. 19 : 
if ToTs nepl pTjropiKTJs Keiadoj. That the Politics followed the Poetics appears from 

RHETORIC. 1-2 '.I 

therefore been inferred l)y :i modern eritic tliat the IVtctorlr 
must have been written about 330 k.c.' But althonj^h the 
existing treatise 1)elongs to the last years of Aristoth^'s Hterary 
aetivity, it is quite clear that its subject was one of the earliest 
which engaged his attention both as a teacher and as a writer. 
It is also certain that he regarded it as a necessary supplement 
to his dialectical treatises. The book l)egins by defining 
rhetoric as the correlative {avriaTporpoi^) of dialectic ;"' and the 
author is at great pains to show how the rhetorical euthymeme 
{iydv/iiT}/.ia) is related to the logical sijUogism, the two modes 
of reasoning, though identical in their form, being difTcrent 
in their matter, because the topics or commonplaces of rhetoric 
do not admit of strictly scientific demonstration.* Aristotle, 
however, justly claims to have raised rhetoric to the rank of an 
applied science, or at least of an art resting on scientific 
principles. ' Those,' he says,^ ' who have hitherto composed 
treatises on rhetoric {tclq Tiyi'aq tujv \6yon>) have introduced 
but little art into their systems. For the discussion of proofs 
(TTtcrrctc) is the only part of their treatises that can be regarded 
as belonging to the art (a'Tc^i'oi-) ; all the rest consists in 
merely accessory matter {TrpoaQuKai). Besides, they say 
nothing about enthymemcs, Avhich are the substance of proofs, 
and busy themselves generally with extraneous discussions.' As 
might be expected from a work on which Aristotle has bestowed 
the results of his mature knowledge and literary experience, 
and the subject of which had always occupied his attention, 
the Rhetoric is one of the most perfect of his compositions. 
Diogenes quotes only two books, and it is possible that the 
first two were originally a separate treatise, to which the third 

Pol. VIII. 7. B, 41. b, 39. Tlae mention of the death of Philip in the PolUica is 
in 8 (V.), 10. § 16. 

^ L. Spengel, Munich Transactions, VI, for 1852, ji. 496. 

^ RJict. I, I : ■}] pT)TopiKr) iffTiv avTlffTpotpos ttj Sia\€KTiK^- dfi(f)6repai yap wtpl 
ToiovTUV TLvCbv dffiv , & Koivo. Tp6irov Tj>/tt oiirainuv iari ~fvwpi^ti.v Koi oi'Sf^'os ifi- 
aTf)lxrii a(p(j}pi(T/ji^vr]s. He defines rhetoric (I. 2, § i) as : Si'iva/iii vepl inaffrov roO 
Oiwpijcrat rh ivSfx^p.evov nidavdv, and says, I. I, § 14 : oi) rd xdcrai (pyov aiVvi AXXA 
t6 Ihe^v TO. virdpxovTa widafo, irepl iKaffToi/. 

3 I. 2, § 8. The relation of the cntki/nieme to the syllogisn ia well discusse«l in a 
paper on rhetoric in Blackwood's Magazine for December, 1827. 

^ I. r, § 3. 



was subsequently added as an appendix. This view is borne 
out by the divisions of the work.' The first two books treat 
of the doctrine of proofs {tt'kttsiq), which Aristotle regarded as 
the most scientific part of his subject ; and the third discusses 
the rules of diction (Xi'^ig) and arrangement (ra^tc). So that 
the first two teach iv/iat the rhetorician ought to say ; the third 
/low he ought to say it; and the three together comprise the 
three departments known to the Roman teachers of rhetoric 
as inventio, elocutio, and dispositio." According to Aristotle, 
rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectics and politics :^ of the 
former, because the enthymeme or oratorical syllogism, Avhich 
is intended only to persuade, rests upon its dialectical parent, 
which is calculated to convince ;^ of the latter, because a know- 
ledge of ethical philosophy is essential to the artificial prepara- 
tion of an argument. As the enthymeme is an application of 
the syllogism, so the example {TrapaSciyjua) is the oratorical 
form of logical induction.^ The inquiry about dispositions and 

^ Tlie following is the general analysis of the Rhetoric of Aristotle. 

Books I. and II. (a) e/c tLvujv at TriVrets icrovTai. 
I. I, '2. Definitions. 

3. Three provinces of rhetoric — deliberative, forensic, epideictic, 
4-8. The deliberative. 
9. The epideictic. 
10-14. The forensic. 

15. (a) Formal and inartificial proofs {6.t€xvoi iriareis) — laws, witnesses, 
agreements, torture, oaths. 
II. I. (/3) Artificial proofs {^vrexvoi Trlareis) : dependent (I) on the character 
of the speaker and the state of the hearer, (II) on the speech 
I- 1 7. (I) Theory of the affections. 
18-26. (II) The common proofs {KOival TriaTeis). 

Book III. {b) irepl ti]v \e^ip. 
III. r-i2. General remarks on oratorical .style. 

(c) irCis XPV Ta^at rb, ixlpyj rod \b'yQV. 
13-19. On the parts of the oration. 
2 Spengel, u.s. p. 477. 

* I. 2, § 7 : ciVre (n'/.L[3aiveL Tr]i> pr)TopiKrjv oXov Trapacpvh ti t^s diaXetcriK^s (Tvai 
Ktti T^s irepl TO, Tjdr] Trpayfiarelas, t^v diKaidu eari irpoaayopeveiv iroKiriK-qv' 5t6 /cat 
I'TroSi'erai virb rh crxVf^oL rb tt}s ttoXltiktjs t] p-rp-opiKri. 

* Aristotle tells us that the yvdofi-q, or general sentiment, is ixipos iv9vpi.-fiij.aTos 
(II. 20, § i); for the causal sentence with yap, added to the yviip-Tj, makes an 
enthymeme or rhetorical argument (II. 2T, § 2). 

I. 2, § 8 : Ka\u> 5' ev9vfn]fj.a pkv p-qropLKhv (rvWoyL(r/j.6v Trapdd€typ.a Si e7ra7W77;i' 


characters, which occupies the first seventeen chapters oi the 
second book, is a valuable addition to Aristotle's moral philo- 
sophy ; and it is a just tribute to tlic accurate observation of 
the Greek philosopher and the English dramatist, when attempts 
are made to exemplify the precepts of Aristotle by examples 
taken from Shakspere.' 

It is interesting to consider the relations between the rhe- 
torical system of Aristotle and those of Plato and Isocrates. 
Throughout the rhetoric there is a tacit reference both to the 
Goryias and the P/uedrus.' The latter especially, which con- 
tains Plato's views of scientific rhetoric, anticipates Aristotle's 
views in so many respects, that it Mould be surprising that he 
docs not directlv refer to it, if this circumstance were not ex- 
plicable, according to the ancient rules of citation, by the fact 
that Aristotle so completely agreed with its general scope. 
When Plato says^ that, ' as the power of speaking is just a sort 
of soul-leading (;/-u)(^aywy£a), he who would be a rhetorician 
must know all the forms of the soul/ he states generally what 
Aristotle discusses in detail in the second book of his rhetoric' 
And throughout the latter work we see a general recognition of 
the principles laid down by Plato. The great discrepancy between 
the master and pupil on this subject is suggested by the oppo- 
sition between the favourable opinion respecting Isocrates, which 
is expressed in the P/uedrus, and the well known antagonism 
between Aristotle and that orator. We have noticed above the 
reasons Avhich have been advanced against the common opinion 
that the P/uedrus was one of the earliest, if not the very earliest, 
of Plato's dialogues, and that therefore the opinion about Iso- 
crates was really a prophecy, which he never fulfilled.* Plato 
and Aristotle might very well entertain different opinions 

pi)TopiKriv. The different kinds of examples are discussed in II. 20, and the 
entliymemes are considered in II. 2\ — 26. 

1 We believe that a little book illustrating Aristotle's JRlicton'c by extracts from 
Shakspere appeared at Oxford some twenty years ago. 

^ See Spengel, ubi supra, pp. 45S sqq. 

^ P/uudrws, p. 271 C : ^ireioij \6yov diiva/xii ruyxdvei \f/uxay(>>yla oiVa, rbv fi^Wotrra 
p-rjTopiKbv iatffdan. dvdyKr] eldivai, ^vxv Saa ildrj i'x". Cf. 261 A : dp oir oil rh fiiv 
6\oi> 7) f>T]TopiKr] &.V etr) \pvxo-y(^^io. th 5ia \6yuv ; 

* H/tef. II. 1-17. Cf. Spengel, u.s. p. ^C^O. 
Above, chapter XXXIX. § 6, pp. 2? i, 222 [fn, 62]. 

K Z 


respecting this orator, and their personal relations with liim 
niight have contributed to this discrepancy. There is no reason 
to doubt that Plato and Isocrates were on friendly terms; and 
it is distinctly stated that this was far from being the case with 
the latter and Aristotle. We have seen how Aristotle spoke of 
Isocrates,' and it has been inferred that the orator glanced at 
Aristotle in the passage of his Panathenaicvs, Avhere he speaks 
of ' certain vulgar Sophists of the Lyceum that professed to 
knoAv everything,^- and in his fifth epistle, which is considered 
genuine, there is a direct attack on the philosopher.^ It will 
be remarked, however, that there are no symptoms of hostility 
in the many references to Isocrates which are found in the 
Rhetoric. This frequency of citation has been explained by the 
fact that Aristotle was not himself a professed orator, like 
Anaximcnes, and did not make examples -^ so that he w ould 
naturally take his illustrations from the best known and most 
available specimens of the art.^ 

Diogenes Laertins gives a list of six rhetorical treatises attri- 
buted to Aristotle ;" one is the collection (Svi^a-yoy?)) already 
referred to, another is a book called Gryllus, another is the 
Rhetortc to Theodectes, which is quoted as the Tlieodected' in the 
third book of the great work, and the remaining three are 
merely designated as ' the art of rhetoric in two books,' ' the 
art in one book,' and ' another art in two books.' Diogenes 
does not mention the Rhetoric to Alexander, which is still 
preserved among Aristotle's writings, and which has been proved 

^ Above, p. 265 [105]. Spengel considers that the reproach in EtU. Nic. X. ro, 
1 181, 12, refers to the Antidosis of Isocrates, § 83. 

^ Panathenaicus, % 20, p. 236 D: diravTrjcravres ydp Ti.vhfJ.oi tuv iirLrTjdeiiov 
^'Xfyov (is iv T(p AvKeiijj (rvyKadel^ofiivup rpels ■^ rerrapes twv dyeKaiuiv <70<piaTQ>v 
Kal wavTa <pacrKbvTLov eidevai /cai rdxews iravTaxov yiyvofievuiv. This speech was not 
finished till B.C. 340, when Aristotle was at the court of Philip, so that the reference 
to Aristotle and his friends must be quite general and perhaps retrospective. 

3 Spengel, uhi supra, pp. 472 sqq. ■* Spengel, p. 474. 

^ Demosthenes is quoted twice only, II. 23, § 3 ; III. 4, § 3. Lysias is referred 
to only once (III. 10, § 7), and^schines, Antiphon, Andocides, Isseus, Hypereides, 
and Lycurgus, are not mentioned at all. He refers to orators of inferior reputa- 
tion, like Cleophon, Mcerocles, Autocles, &c. 

^ See I. T. Buhlii Argumentmn lihroram Aristotclis de Ehetorica, prefixed to 
the Oxford edition, 1833 ; Spengel, u. s. p. 476. 

^ III. 9> § 9- '^^ ^' opxo'' TU!V TrepL6^u>v ffxeSoJ- iv Tols QeoScKTeiois i^-r]plOfJ.riVTat. 

miETOuic. 133 

to be the work of his contemporary Aiiaxiincues of Lanipsacus.' 
It has been inferred also that the Theodccfea Avas not written 
bv Aristotk', but l)\- his iViciid mid s.'liolar Theodcetes.' TIil- 
Grijllus, whieh is entirely lost, is cited by (luintilian as fur- 
nishing examples of Aristotle's subtlety.' 

Aristotle's essay on i\ic Poetic Art {wifn TroniTtKiitj) is a mere 
fragment, abounding in interpolations.' Some have supposed 
that it is an excerpt carelessly made fi'om the two books o/i 
Poet.f, quoted by ^laerohius.' It seems, however, that in its 
complete and original form it inu^i huve been (juite as niethodieal 
and scientific as the Rhetoric. And it is a remarkable fact that, 
imperfect and fragmentary as the work now is, the I'octlc was 
accepted as a sort of critical gospel at the very time when 
Aristotle's philosophical reputation was at its lowest point. His 
briefly expressed doctrine that poetry takes its rise in the 
tendency to imitation which is natural to man,'' his hint that 
the drama originated in the recitations of the dithyrambic 
leaders,'' and the laws of unity which he prescribed, were made 

^ This was first shown by Victorinus and Majoragius, and has been abundantly 
proved by Spengel {Artium Scriptores, p. 182 sqq.), who has edited the treatise, as 
' Anaximenis Ars Rhetorica, quae vulgo fertur Aristotelis ad AlexanJruni, Turiei 
et Vitoduri, 1844.' 

2 That Theodectes wrote a t^x^V is well known. It is referred to by his con- 
temporary Antiphanes, the comic poet («^). Atlien. IV, p. 134 B) : 

6 Ty)u QeooiKTov ix6vq% d.i'evpijKws rixv)" '■ 
and is said by Suidas to have been written in verse : fypa^pe 5i Kal rix"''!" f'V'opi-- 
K7)i' if ixirpu). Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. <i>d(rv;\is. But the book was attributetl to 
Aristotle at an early period ; Qulntilian speaks doubtfully on the sulgect (II. 15, 
§ 10). The words in the spurious letter to Alexander (prefixed to the t^x^V "f 
Anaximenes, p. 4, 1. 23, Spengel) are quite unintelligible: ' aut ego stupidus, ' 
s;iys Spengel, ' et talpa ctecior sum, qui nidluni horuni sensum videam, aut iiiep- 
tus fuit auctor, qui quae nemo intelligere posset scriberet.' On Theodectes in 
general the reader may consult Marcher, De Theodectis Phaselitce Vitd et Scriptit 
Commcntatio, Vratislaviae, 1835. 

^ II. 17, § 14: ' Aristoteles, ut solet, quaerendi gratia quajdam subtilitatis 
argumenta excogitavit in Gryllo.' 

* See F. Hitter's edition of this tract, Colonue, 1839, and our reprint of Twining's 
translation in the TJieatre of the Oreckg, ed. 6 ; and compare SiKJiigcl's essay in the 
Munich Transactions, 1837, II. pp. 209 sqq. 

Saturnalia, V. 18, § 19, p. 460, Janus ; and cf. Stsdir, Ariitol. b. d. Ji"m<r, 
pp. 190 sqq. 

* I. § 2 ; see Raumer, in the Berlin Transact ions for 1828. 
7 IV. § 12 ; see Theatre of the Greeks, ed. 6, pp. 13 aqq. 


the texts for long disquisitions and complete works on the 
subject, at the time wheu Bacon's inductive philosophy had 
driven Aristotle's Organon out of the field, and stigmatized him 
as the author of a false and erroneous method. In spite of its 
mutilated condition/ this relic exhibits the genuine style of 
Aristotle, and justifies in a great measure even the exaggerated 
importance which has been attributed to it. 

§ 6. Three works on the subject of moral philosophy are in- 
cluded in the extant collection of Aristotle's writings. They 
are generally distinguished as the Ethica Nicomachea, the 
Ethica Eudemia, and the Magna Moralia. Their comparative 
genuineness has formed the subject of a good deal of discussion. 
Cicero's supposition that the Nicomachean Ethics were not 
written by Aristotle, but by his son Nieomachus,- was probably 
occasioned merely by the title, which may be explained in many 
ways, and is, in itself, quite insignificant. Sehleiermacher be- 
lieved^ that the Magna Moralia were a genuine work, and that 
the Eudemian Ethics were a report of Aristotle's lectures pub- 
lished by his pupils. All these treatises are noticed by Dio- 
genes, and it is clear that they are all three of great antiquity. 
The most probable conclusion^ is that the Nicomachean Ethics 
contain the authentic and original system of the philosopher 
himself ; that the Eudemian Ethics^ were the work of his pupil 
Eudemus of Rhodes ; and that the Magna Moralia were merely 
a later extract from this second work. 

Of all Aristotle's writings there is no one which retains its 

1 If we compare the tract as it stands with the design as stated in the first 
section, we shall see that the book originally contained discussions on comic and 
lyric poetry, which are now lost. To the lost remarks on comedy, Aristotle him- 
self refers, m his Rhet. III. iS, § 7 : e'ipyjTai wbaa elbri yeXoiwv icmv iv tols wepl 
TIoi7,TiK7Js. 2 2)e Finibus, V. 5, § 12. 

3 Werke, III. Abth. zur PMlos. vol. III. pp. 306 sqq. 

* This is Spengel's view {Munich Transactions, vol. V. pp. 458 sqq.) 

s The genuineness of books V. VI. VII. of the Nicomachean Ethics, which cor- 
respond to books IV. V. VI. of the Eudemian Ethics, has been well maintained by 
Bendixen in two articles on the seventh book of the former, in Schneidewiu's 
Philologus for 1855, pp. 199, sqq., 263, sqq. He has called attention, inter alia, to the 
perpetual reminiscences of the seventh book in the Politics of Aristotle (p. 290), and 
this applies particularly to the main stumbling-block, Eth. Nic. VII. cc. 14, 15, 
for there is a distinct reference to c. 14, p. 1153 b 7—18 in the Politics IV. 11, 
p. 1295 a 35 (see Bendixen pp. 201, sqq.). 

MOUAL rillLOSOrilY. I '■'>') 

value and importance more entirely than the Nicoiiiachfun 
Ethics, es])eeially if we consider them in connexion with hi> 
Politics. indeed, this branch of philosophy has Ijcen retro- 
grading rather than advancing. in ptjint of systematic con- 
nexion the Ethics may hold a idaee hv the side of anv modern 
book on the sulyect, and the searching logic, with which it is 
sifted in the Suiauia of Thomas Acpdnas, shorts the exactness 
and coherency of its framework. The great distinction IjeLween 
Aristotle and his predecessors, in regard to the discussion of 
moral philosophy, consists in the thoroughly practical view 
which he takes of happiness and virtue. Altogether rejecting 
the doctrine of Socrates, a doctrine partly adopted by Plato, 
that virtue consisted in the knowledge of what was right, Aris- 
totle believed that a general knowledge of what was good might 
perfectly well consist with doing what was wrong in particular 
instances, under the inllueuce of passion or inclination. And 
herein consists the distinction, on which he lays so much stress 
in his seventh book, between the man who is incontinent 
{uKpuTno), that is, habitually unable to control his inclinations, 
and the man who is intemperate (a/coAoo-rug), that is, inten- 
tionally devoted to self-indulgence ;' the former being much less 
vicious than the latter, more likely to regret a misdoing, and 
more open to correction and amendment.^ 

The NicomacJiean Ethics are divided into ten books. It has 
been supposed by a German critic that the eighth and ninth 
books, which treat of friendship, formed a separate work, and 
that the discussion about pleasure in the tenth book was an 
addition by Aristotle's son, Nicomachus.^ And an English 

^ In Eth. Nic. "VII. 4, § 6, he says : ' souiu act iioiu deliberate choice (irpoai- 
povvrai), but otliers do not : so that the name of intemperate (aK6\aaTos) shuuld 
rather be given to him who, either without a passionate impulse, or with only a 
moderate one (oVrts /i'?5' ewiOvixOiv 7) ijpefJ.a), pursues excessive pleasures, and eschews 
moderate annoyances, than to him who does this under a strong inclination ; for 
what would the other do, if a violent impulse were superadded, and some over- 
powering feeling of uneasiness in regard to necessary wants V 

2 Eth. Nic. VII. 8, § 1 : Icrrt S^ 6 /xiv dvoXatrros, wairtp iX^x^^v, ov fi(Tafj.(\7rnK6s , 
iti/iivei. yap t^ irpoaLp^aef 6 5' dKpaTrjs fxfra/JLtXrjTiKbi Trds' dib oi'x uffirtp ^xopij- 
ffa/xev, oihci) Kal ^x^'' oXX' 6 p-iv dviaros, 6 5^ larSs, 

' Pansch, De EthicU NicomuchcU, Bonn, 1833. Tlie eighth and ninth books of 
the Ethics have been published separately, as : "ApkttotAjjs xtpl ^(X/oi, by A . T. 
H. Fritzsch, Gisscc, 1847. 


scholar' has quite recently advanced the theory that the fifth, 
sixth, and seventh books were borrowed from the Eudemian 
Ethics to supply a gap which was observed in the treatise which 
bears the name of its editor Nicomachus, and that the essay on 
friends^hip, though by Aristotle himself, is an unessential ad- 
junct, originally in the form of a special essay. 

But tliese are mere conjectures, and it is not difficult to see 
that the work, as we have it, is a continuous essay, in three 
main subdivisions. The first part, which comprises the first 
and second books, and five chapters of the third, treats of the 
chief good and virtue ; the second part, which includes the re- 
mainder of the third book, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth, dis- 
cusses the different virtues; the third part, which contains the 
seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth books, investigates the out- 
ward furniture of virtue, namely, continence, which belongs to 
the rational part of the soul, friendship, which pertains to the 
social appetite, and pleasure, Avhich is referred to the instinct of 
self-preservation. And these points being discussed, the author 
returns to the subject of the first book, namely, happiness, and 
with an accurate recapitulation on this subject he passes on to 
the treatise on Politics.'^ 

The Nicomachean Ethics begin with an inquiry respecting 
the ends of human action. The chief of these ends being ad- 
mitted to be happiness, it is of course the main point to de- 
termine wherein happiness consists. It cannot be limited to 
pleasure, honour, or intellect, for these, though desirable on 
their own account, are chiefly sought on account of the felicity 
to which they contribute. Admitting the importance of external 
adjuncts, as the necessary furniture of good fortune, Aristotle is 
content to define happiness as ' an activity, operation, or function 
of the soul, in accordance with perfect virtue^ (rj iv^aifxov'ia 
fan -ipvyjiq ivipyna tiq Kar aperriv TeXciau).^ And hence it 
follows that the question respecting the ends of action resolves 

^ Sir Alexander Grant, in the introduction to his edition of the Ethics, London, 
1857, p. 4i. See also Mr. Munro's paper in the Journal of Philology for 1855, 
pp. 68 sqq. 

^ The student will find a good analysis of the Nicomachean Ethics, especially 
with reference to Aristotle's treatment of ustice and friendship, in Mr. Maurice's 
Ancient Philosophy, pp. 200 — 208. 3 Eth. Nic. I. 13, §1. 

MORAL nilLOSOrilY. 137 

itself into ail inquiry respecting the nature of virtue. As tlie 
seat of virtue is the soul, the moral philosoiihcr is required to 
have some knowledge of mental philosopliy. Ari>totle indicates 
that the soul is bipartite.' Considered as the \ ital jjrinciph-, it 
is either rational or irrational. As far as it is merely iiTational, 
it is common to men and brutes, and therefore does not enter 
into the question about human virtue and haj)piness. So far, 
however, as it partakes of, or is capable of listening to reason — 
that is, so far as it belongs to appetite and desire — the irra- 
tional part of the soul may be regarded as constituting the seat 
of a particular class of virtues. Accordingly Aristotle distin- 
guishes between the intellectual virtues [apiToi ^lai'orjTiKai), such 
as wisdom, understanding, and prudence, which belong strictly 
to the rational part of the soul, and the moral virtues {apiTal 
riOiKa'i), such as liberality and temperance, whicli are referred 
to the commendable habits (t'sEic eiran>tTa'i) of the irrational 
or merely appetitive branch of the soul. Passing on to the 
definition of virtue, Aristotle gives us an elaborate discussion in 
support of his view, that virtue is a mean between two extremes 
of vice ; that it always stands half-way between the too much 
and the too little. Thus true courage is a mean between temerity 
and cowardice. The two opposites, and even the vu'tucs them- 
selves," are not always recognized or indicated by names in 
ordinary language, and sometimes those who are guilty of one 

^ The following is the subdivision suggested iu the Nicomaclican Ethics I. 13 ; 
see Pol. 4 (VII.) 15. 




0X0701' aXoyov tJ.eTe\ot' ttt) Koyov Ao-yoi/ txov 

(dpejTTucoi', {eiTi0vfirjri.K6v, I , , 

it>\mK6v) opcKTiKov) iiacoTjTucai aptrai 

J. , I . . I . 

1 fiofouTTcieoK 

.'. . . ' . .1 I I . ' 

</jVcriiCT) aptTq ij Kvpia 0poi-i)(Tit | I t«x»t) 

. I . .1- 

nricmjfii), oo^ta, tvv^ 

" Thus there is a nameless virtue, which boars the same relation to mai^ianiinity 
tliat liberality does to magnificence, .and wliicli ob8er\-c8 the proper mean bctwevn 
the excessive and defective pursuit of honour : L'lh. Nic. IV. c. 4. 


or tlic other extreme consider their vicious opposite to be the 
man who adheres to the goklen mean of virtue. Still this defi- 
nition is the necessary result of a scientific analysis of every 
moral virtue. This analysis Aristotle vuidertakes iu the second 
part of his work^ examining the moral virtues in general in the 
third and fourth books, and justice in particular in the fifth; 
because, as avc have seen, Plato had made this the regulative 
pi-iuciple of all morality, and, also, because justice is not, like 
the other virtues, a mean between two opposite extremes of vice, 
but rather belougs to that which is the mean between the too 
much aud too little of a man's rights, whereas injustice belongs 
to both extremes in this respect.' The sixth book is devoted 
to the intellectual iirtues. He then, as he says, makes another 
besinnins: in the seventh book, aud treats here of continence 
and incontinence, the general result of his investigation being 
given in the words which Dante puts into the mouth of Yirgil. 
' Do you not remember,' says the poet," ' those words in which 
your Ethics thoroughly discuss the three habits or dispositions 
which are offensive to heaven, incontinence {ciKpaaia), malice 
{KaKia), and low brutality (Ojyptorr/g), and how it is that incon- 
tineuce incurs the least blame of the three ?' In fact, Aristotle 
regards incontinence rather as a weakness incident to the com- 
posite nature of man, than as a vice springing from a depravity 
of will or choice, and, therefore, makes great allowances for it. 
These three important discussions on justice, the intellectual 
virtues, and incontinence, which occupy the fifth, sixth, and 
seventh books of the Nicomachean Ethics, re-appear, in extenso, 
in the fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the Eudemian Ethics ; 
and there is no doubt that they were regarded by the followers 
of Aristotle as constitutiug one of the most characteristic and 
instructive portions of his moral philosophy. The eighth aud 

^ Eth. Nic. V. 9 : r/ Se St/catocrtV?; /jLeaorrjs ov tov avrbv rpoirov rals trporefjov 
dperais, dW on /jLecrou iariv' i] b' ddiKia twv dKpuv. 
2 Inferno XI. 79 : 

Non ti rimembra di quelle parole 

Con le quai la tua Etica pertratta 

Le tre disposizion ch '1 ciel non vuole, 

Incontinenza, malizia, e la matta 

Bestialitade ? e come incontinenza 

Men Dio offende e men biasimo accatta ? 


ninth books contain an interesting inquiry respecting friend- 
ship, in which it is shown not only that virtue is essential to 
true friendship, but also that true friendship is essential to per- 
fect happiness. In the first part of the tenth book, we have 
an essay on pleasure, practically considered ; and, while it is 
admitted that pleasure is a good, it is proved that it cannot be 
regarded as the summuin bonuin. Aristotle defines pleasure as 
that which perfects the operation (rtXetot Tt]v iyip-yunv i) 
?;§oi'j/),' for, as pleasure is found by the side of every sensation, 
and in like manner may be produced by every exertion of tlie 
intellect and every speculation, that which is most perfect and 
complete is also most pleasuraljle. From pleasure he returns 
to happiness. As happiness is not a habit (t^ic), but an ac- 
tivity or operation {ivepyeia) in itself desirable, and as the 
best of these operations is that of the intellect itself, he con- 
cludes that the highest of all happinesses is the contemplative 
{0hop7]tik{]). This is superior to active happiness, for, -while 
the latter is human, the former is divine. In the epilogue to 
the whole work he shows that, Avith a view to the practice of 
virtue, not only moral discipline, but civil government, are ne- 
cessary, and so paves the way for the political theory which is 
the proper supplement to his moral philosophy. 

The tract On Virtues and Vices, Avhich is printed among xVris- 
totle's writings, is obviously the work of some later Peripatetic. 

§ 7. It is now generally admitted that Aristotle's important 
treatise on Politics, in which he carries out the views pro- 
pounded in his Nicomachean Ethics, has come down to us in a 
very confused arrangement of the eight books of which it con- 
sists. The following is the order which best preserves the 
sequence of thought in the work ;■ — the first three books retain 
their original places; they are followed by the seventh and 
eighth ; the sixth place is assigned to the fourth book of the 
manuscripts ; and the work is concluded by the sixth and fifth 
books in this inverted position.'' ' The new arrangement,' says 

1 Eth. Nic. X, 4, § 7. 

^ See Spengcl, in the Munich Trausactioiti for 1S49, ■^"'^ ^^^^ introductory matter 
to Mr. Cougrove's editiou of the Poliiic.f, Oxford, 1855. 

3 Marking the books of the older editions by Uoman letters, and those of the 


the latest editor of the Politics,^ ' brings into elose juxtaposition 
two books, 6 and 7 (IV. VI.), whose separation is clearly the 
result of some accident, and whose re-arrangement is advocated 
even by the staunchest opponents of the change in general. 
Again, by placing 4 and 5 (VII. VIII.) immediately after 
3 (III.), the new order makes Aristotle's aristocracy, or ideal 
state, the second of the two correct forms of government, follow 
directly on his treatment of monarchy or the first, and precede 
his treatment of Politeia or the third. Whereas, in the exist- 
ing arrangement, this third form is interposed between the first 
and second. Lastly, after the analysis of the two first ideal 
forms has been gone through, he proceeds, by a separate treat- 
ment of the elements of the third form, to prepare a way for 
the treatment of those elements in combination — in other Avords, 
for the treatment of that third form. Its discussion over, he 
goes through the problems connected with existing governments, 
their formation and their organization — he elaborates, that is, 
the statics of Greek Society. Then, in the absence of any 
theory or expectation of change, there is nothing left for him 
but to treat of the diseases to which that society was liable, its 
chronic state of dissension, its acute one of revolution.^ 

The first book of the Politics is a general introduction, con- 
necting this work with the Nicomachean Ethics. It is, in fact, 
a discussion on the principles of (Economics, on which we have 
a separate treatise in our collection of Aristotle's works. Aris- 
totle passes briefly over the relations of male and female, as the 
origin of social union, examines at great length the questions 
relating to slavery and property in general, and finishes with a 
summary review of the family relation, and the qualifications 
and duties of the governed. It is his theory that the female 
and the slave are essentially and naturally inferior to the male 
and the master. ' Nature,' he says, ' makes nothing in a 
niggardly manner, as the cutlers make the Delphic knife to 
serve a variety of purposes,^ but everything is made separately 

iiDproved arrangement by Arabic numerals, they will stand thus : i (I), 2 (11), 3 
(III), 4 (VII), 6 (VIII), 6 (IV), 7 (VI), 8 (V). 
' Mr. Congreve, Preface, p. V. 

Pol. I. 1 : oijdev yap i] (pvcris iroul toioOtoi' olov xaXKOTi^TTOt TTjf AeX</)t/cr;y /idxat- 
pav irevixpws dXX' Iv Trpbs ^v. A good deal has been said by the commentators about 
this AeXi^iKTj p.d.xaipa. Gbttling has a strange notion as to its being made of 

rOLiTics. Ml 

with a view to its special and pro[)er work.' One cannot read 
without astonishment the arguments Ijy which Aristotle endea- 
vours to justify shivery. Considering that this rehitionsliip so 
often sprung from the accidents of war^ and that the most cul- 
tivated Athenian might at any time hecomc the slave of an 
uncivilized foreigner, it seems ditlicult to understand how Aris- 
totle's acutencss and common sense could acquiesce in the sopliis- 
tical and fallacious reasoning, that there was an analogous 
difference between the Greek and the Ijarbarian, between the 
master and the slave, between the soul and the body, and his 
notion of government as presuming a regard for the interest of 
the governed is sid^vcrted by the fact tliat the state of slavery 
can never be beneficial to the slave. However, these opinions, 
strange as they seem to us, were really entertained by Aris- 
totle, and are involved in his famous recommendation to Alex- 
ander, to treat the Greeks as their general {i)yc/j.oi>iKWQ) and 
the barbarians as their master (SteTTrort/cwc:).' 

The second book is, in one sense, an episode, which might 
have been dropped without nmch injury to the general course 
of the reasoning. But Aristotle considered it necessary, per- 
haps, to prefix to the statement of his own theory on the sub- 
ject a review, not only of former speculations, but also of exist- 
ing polities. The first five chapters examine the RcpubHc, the 
sixth the Laws of Plato ; he then passes on to the proposed 
constitution of Phaleas the Chalccdonian, who argued for an 
equalization of property ; to that of Ilippodamus of Miletus, 
with his minute and refined distinctions ; then to those of the 
Spartans, Cretans, and Carthaginians ; and finishes the book 
with miscellaneous remarks on Solon and other lawgivers. 

In the third book, Aristotle undertakes a development of his 
ow n ideal. After a preamble, in five chapters, defining the citizen 

different materials. It was manifestly used for more than one purpose, ami, 
in all probability, a fi^o/idxa'P", having a straight edge and point at the back, and 
a concave edge in front. The Romans had a complicated instrument of the sanie 
kind called the /«/.<• rinitoria, wiiicli was furnished with a variety of edges in onlcr 
to meet the various operations required in vine-pruning. Plato refers to the 8|>ecific 
use of the fj-dxa-tpi as distinguished even from that of the hpiiravov in 7?<-/iy). I. j>. 
353 A. The story of the Delphic priest Macharcus, who killed Neoptolcnius with 
his /idxatpa (see commentators on Find. X. ^'1I. 42), shows that this instrument 
had its special use in that temple. ' Above, p. 168 [loS]. 


and the identity of the state, and discussing the questions 
Avlicther the good man and the good citizen are one and the 
same, and whether the mean handicraftsman {(^cwavaoq) can 
be regarded as a citizen, Aristotle proceeds to consider the 
difterent kinds of government. According to the unity, plu- 
rality, or multeity of the governing body, the state is a 
monarchv, an aristocracy, or a commonwealth (TroXirt/a), and if 
these act up to their true principles, they consider the interest 
of the governed ; otherwise, the monarchy becomes a tyranny, 
the aristocracy an oligarchy, and the commonwealth a demo- 
cracy. All these varieties are adequately examined, and the 
philosopher gives the preference to an aristocracy in which the 
ruling body is duly qualified by moral and intellectual edu- 
cation ; and this, as we have seen,' is the established conclusion 
of the Socratic schools. 

As the third book concludes by referring the best form of 
government to the best and most desirable life (7r|Ooc rriv 
alp^TMTarrjv Icviiv),^ the fourth book (4, VII.) in the improved 
arrangement begins with inquiring what this best life is. The 
discussion of this is expressly regarded as a preface ;^ and then 
follows the detailed argument about the best form of the state, 
the number of its citizens, the geographical features of the 
country, the situation of the city, the character of the people, 
the castes and constitution, and, above all, the education of the 
burgesses. This last and most important question is pursued 
in the following book (5, VIII), which is unfortunately left 
in a fragmentary state, and it has been conjectured that this in- 
completeness has been one of the reasons why the fifth book 
has been placed at the end of the w^ork in the old arrangement. 

In the last three books [6, TV., 7, VII., 8, V.), Aristotle applies 
his practical observations and philosophical theory to a considera- 
tion of the actual governments of Greece. Tyranny being 
much less common than oligarchy and democracy, it is of 
these two that he chiefly speaks. Like the literary men of the 

1 Above, chapter XXXVII. § 2. 

* Pol. III. 18 : eirel Se rpeij (pafxev eluai ras dpOas voXiTelas, tovtiov 6' dvayKaTov etvai rrjv inrb dplcTTUiv olKovofxovfJ.ei'riv, TOiaijTT} 5' eariv ev y av/m^e^riKev rj eva 
ffVjj.TrdvTUJi' Jj yii'os 6\ov rj ttXtjOos i'lripexov eivac Kar dperrjv, twv fi^v dpxecrdai 
dwa/xipuv Twv 5' dpx^t-v Trpbs tijv alperoir aT-qv '^wqv. 

' Pol. 4, VII. 4 : ^Trei 5^ ■wecppoip.laffTaL to. vvv dpy)p.iva. 


preceding century, he thought that tlie best average government 
was that in which the rulers were found in the niicUUe chiss ;' 
and between oligarchy and democracy, he gives the preference 
to the latter; showing, at length, that the tendency to faction 
{<TT(i(Tiij) and revolution (^uTuftoXt]) was less in democracy than 
in oligarchy, and therefore that the former was practically the 
most healthy and permanent of existing constitutions. The work 
terminates rather abruptly with some strictures on the Rcpuhlic 
of Plato, in regard to the laws of revolutionary change laid 
down in that dialogue. 

The main points of the science of (Economics are discussed 
in the first book of the Politics, but we have a separate ti'catise 
on this subject in the collection of Aristotle's works.-' A 
quotation in the fragment of Philodemus found among the 
manuscripts at Herculaneum attributes the first book to 
Theophrastus f and Niebuhr has shown that the second book 
was probably written in Asia Minor after the death of Ophelas, 
in 01. II 8, 1, B.C. 308.^ 

§ 8. In comparing the literary remains of Aristotle with 
those of Plato, we cannot but be struck with the extent and 
importance of the physical speculations in which the former 
engaged, and the very small and suljordinate value assigned to 
natural philosophy by the latter. Whereas the Timceus is the 
only dialogue in wdiich Plato enters professedly on a theory 
respecting the ■s'isible world, we find that Aristotle composed 
many elaborate works — some of the most important being no 
louger extant — on every detail of physical science ; and even 
his work On the Soul, which we have considered with reference 
to his metaphysical speculations, was probably connected very 
intimately with this series of treatises. So that it has been 
said with justice by an ancient writer that while Aristotle 
physiologizes in his metaphysics, Plato's physiology is but an 
application of his metaphysical reasonings.* 

The physical works of Aristotle may be considered as forming 

» Pol. V. 6, IV. I r. See .above, chapter XXXVII. § 2. 

* OtKovoniKu'v d, /3'. ^ Ifcrcitliiiinis. rolnmina, III. p. vii. find xxviii. 

* ^iehuhr'a Klci)ic Schriflen, pp. 412 — 416. 

" Schol. ArUtot. 26, 27 : 'AokttotAtjs fi-iv ad OtoKoyCjv <f>vffio\oytij HXdruir 5i 
afl (pvffioXoyuiv 0eo\oyet. 


the integral parts of a regular and systematic series, and the 
following suggestions have been made for their arrangement :' — 

I. The introduction is formed by the eight books of ' the 
physical lectures' {(pvaiKi) uKpoaaig, naturalis auscultatio), which, 
as Ilcgcl says, are ' a metaphysic of physics/ They treat of 
principles (ap-^^^ai) and their number, of motion, of space and 
time, of the first immoved moving power [irpioTov kivovv 
aKiv7]Tov), the perpetually moved {clukivtitov) , which is neces- 
sarily circular, and according to the ancients realized in the 
lieaven ; and here we have a transition to : — 

II. The four books 'concerning heaven' (ttejoJ ovpauov, de ccelo). 
According to Aristotle, this heaven is an unchangeable region 
(aft TavTov Koi loaavTwq \yoi>), the first of all bodies [to Trpwrov 
TUiv (jM/iiuTwv), which, being itself indestructible, is the opposite 
of all that is corruptible. 

III. Next in succession to the treatise on heaven, we have 
the two books ' on generation and destruction' [irepl yevecreojg 
Kai (}>9opag). Here he developes his theory that the first prin- 
ciples are not the four elements which were supposed, after the 
time of Empedocles, to produce life and death by their inter- 
mixture, but composite nature itself, the fundamental properties 
being the hot, the cold, the dry, and the moist; and of these, 
the mixture of hot and dry makes fire, that of hot and moist 
makes air, that of cold and dry makes earth, and that of cold 
and moist makes water.^ 

IV. The further prosecution of these speculations is found in 
the four books ' on meteorology' dueraMpoXoyiKa, de meteoris), 
or rather in the first three of them ; for the fourth book does 
not stand in any real connexion with the others, and it has 
been conjectured^ that it was a separate tract entitled 'on the 
consolidation of bodies' (7r£|0( Ti]g twv awarwi' avaTctofw^). 

1 SeeSpengel, iiber die Eeihenfolge dernaturwissensch. Schriften des Aristoteles : 
Munich Transactions, 1849, PP- i43 sqq. There is also a good summary of 
Aristotle's labours in physical philosophy, in Dr. WheweU's History of the Inductive 
Sciences, vol. I. section 2. 

2 De Gener. et corrupt. II. 3, § 2 : to /xev yap irvp depixhv /cat ^-nphv, 6 5' drip OeppLov 
Kal iiyp6v (olov dxyuts yap 6 drjp), rh 5' uowp \pvxpov Kai vypbv, r} 5e yij ■\pvxpov Kai 
^■qp6v, (haT €v\6yws 5iavep.e(T0ai. rds 5i.a(popds Tols wpdiTOLS awp-acrt. /cat to TrXrjdos 
avTuiv ehat /cara X6yov. 

3 Spengel, u. s., p. 156. This title is indicated in several passages ; for instance, 


V. The treatise ' on the universe' {Trtfn Koafiov), which 
follows next in the Parva Naturalia, is generally admitted to be 
an extraneous addition to Aristotle's works. It is, in fact, a 
general review of the books ' on heaven/ ' on generation,' &c., 
and ' on meteorology' (II., III., IV.) ; and its rhetorical style 
and stoical tone show that Aristotle could not have written it. 
Various suppositions have been made respecting the authorship. 
One eritic attributes it to Chrysippus.' Another writer main- 
tains that it is the Greek translation of a work with the same 
title by Apuleius ;- and, conversely, the latest editor of 
Apuleius^ regards the Greek as the original, and the Latin as 
the translation, 

YI. We are informed that Anstotle wrote no less than fifty, 
or, as one writer says, seventy treatises on his favoin'ite subject 
of zoology.^ Of tliese we have but a small portion. It has 
been shown that the general introduction was furnished by the 
first of the four books, still extant, under the title ' on the 
parts of animals' (irepl t<[)'^i' /topt'wp).' In the sixth chapter 
we have an expression which seems to furnish the transition 
from the discussion of indestructible substances {acpOapraY to 
those of the world of life; and it would be in accordance with 
Aristotle's general procedure that he should discuss the parts 
or elements before he examined the composite structure or the 
animal as a whole. 

VII. For a similar reason, he probably intended his treatise 
' on the generation of animals' [inpl t<[>'<'i' "y£i'£o-£wc)j i'l hve 
books, to be a preparatory treatise on the causes (Storj) of 
organic natural Ijodics, without which he could hardly discuss 

c. 8: CK fi^v ovi> vSaTos Kal yij^ to, 6/j.oi.oiJ.epri aufxara cvvla-TaTai ; c. lo : e^ uv 
ijSr] ffvvi<TT7)Ke to. o/j-OLOixep^ ; c. 12: ^x^Mf y^-P ^s '^'' ^ '"'^'' ifJ-oiofitpQv 
<f)vcn.i ff\iviffTy)Ke , . . . bTfKwOivrwv 5^ tovtuiv to, firj onoiofiepij OewpriTiov koa. t{\o% 
TO iK TOVTuv (TweiTTUTa, olov ivOpwirov, ^vrdf, Kal T&Wa to, rota Pro. 
^ Osann, Beitr. 2. Gr. u. Mm. Litt. Gesch. I. pp. 14I — 283. 

2 Stahr, A rist. bci den Romern, p. 165. 

3 Hildebrtind, Prol. ad Apukium, I. pp. XLI. sqq. 

* Pliny, H. N. VIII. 17, 66. 

' Titze, de Aristolclis operum $crie, p. 55, 8. 

* iird Si irepl iKfivwv {tQv a(f)ddpTwv) di-n\Oofxei> X^yovTfs to <f>aiv6fi(foy -hf^iy, 
\onr6v irepl riji fwu-^s (pvcreus dire'iv firi5iv vapa\nr6vrai e«s Svyafiw fiTiTt Arifiditpov 
/xrfTe TifjLidjTepov. 



ill a satisfactory manner the phenomena {on) themselves. 
Passages may be cited' to a contrary effect from the books 
themselves ; but if these passages are carefully examined, they 
will be found to justify the inference that with Aristotle the 
general speculation preceded the description of life as it exists f 
and the books on natural history are full of references to his 
theory of generation, as if some previous acquaintance "vvith it 
was implied. 

VIII. Of the great work ' on the history of animals' {irepi 
t({)wv laropia or ^wjkij laTop'ia) we have Only nine books com- 
plete. There are diiferent opinions respecting the tenth book, 
which is added in the manuscripts and the usual editions. 
Scaliger proposed to insert it between the seventh and eighth 
books; according to Camus, it was the treatise mentioned by 
Diogenes under the title ' about non-productiveness' [v-wlp tov 
firj jEwav, de non gignendo) ; Schneider questions its genuine- 
ness ; and it is attributed to the Latin recension of Aristotle's 
works in a notice which appears in several manuscripts. This 
work of Aristotle's is in many respects a wonderful performance. 
And its author may be regarded as the first founder of zoology 
and comparative anatomy. The books which we have contain 
a methodical description of the different varieties of the animal 

^ See Spengel, u.s. p. i6i. 

^ One of the most important passages is the following ; De c/en. Aiihn. V. i, § 5 : 
wcnrep yap iX^x^V i^"-'''' o,pxa.s iv toIs irpiLroti 'K6'yois oii Sia, rb yiyveaOai eKaarov 
iroT6v Ti 5id rovro irotbv tl eari, ocra Teray/xiva, Kal wpiafiiva ^pya rris 0i/<rews eoTiv, 
dXXa p-aWov Sia rb eTvai TOiabl yiyvfrat Toiavra' ry yap ovaLq. t) yiveai^ cLKoXovOfl 
Kal TTJs ovcrias ^veKo, ecrriv, dXX' ovx avrr] ry yepicret. Now the TrpwTT] (piKoco(pLa 
is expressly a consideration of the doctrine of causes, and the very fact that, as 
we have seen, the aoiixaTwv cvaracns is considered after the elements have been 
discussed, would seem to show that the description of the animal, as a particular 
aiiffTaaii, would follow the general theory of its procreation. Otherwise we must 
infer that even the Politics were antecedent to the books on generation ; for 
Aristotle says {Pol. 4 [VII.], 15) : <pavep6v St] tovt6 ye wpwTOV p-ev Kaddnep iv 
TOis dWois, ws 7] y^veffis air'' dpxv^ ecrrl Kal t6 t^Xos dir6 rivos dpXV^ &\\ov Ti\ovs. 
For if the birth of the child is not the first step in the process of education, this 
can only be understood by substituting importance for priority. The unfinished 
state of the natural history is some argument for the conclusion that these details 
were prosecuted subsequently to the foundation of the principles, and references 
like the following may be very well understood as applying to investigations still 
in progress; De partibus Animal. III. 5, 18: rb Si yuer' uKpipeias ws ?xov<tiv al 
(pXi^fs Trpbs dW-rjXas ^k re tQv dvarofjLiwv Set deupeiv Kal €K ttjs fwtK^s Lcrroplas. 


kingdom ; and the various animals are exhibited according to 
their characteristic features, with especial reference to their 
mode of life, instinctive habits, and the reproduction ot" tlic 

Aristotle's other works on natural philosophy are an essay 
' on the motion of animals' {irifn t,i{)(jw Kiviiaaoq), a scries of 
tracts on memory, sleep, dreams, and divination in dreams, 
longevity, youth and age, respiration, life and death, which are 
collected together as his Parca Naturalia, and a fragment ' on 
colours' {iTcfH ^ptof^utTiov). The two books 'on plants' (7rf^>J 
(})VTU)v) seem to be descril)ed in ' the prologue of the interpreter' 
{irpoXoyog rov fp/.ir)vuog) as a translation from the Latin version 
of an Arabic edition of the work.' Although Theophrastus is 
better known by his performances as a botanist, there can be 
little doubt that Aristotle was the real founder of botany as a 

It is usual to class the three books ' on the soul' with the 
physical works of Aristotle, and there can be no doubt that they 
may be regarded strictly in this connexion. But the work belongs 
also to his theory of the philosophy of mind, and we have 
preferred to consider it with his metaphysical treatises. Aris- 
totle's writings on anatomy, to which he frequently refers, and 
one of which, in eight books, is mentioned by Diogenes, are 
entirely lost. 

§ 9. Besides the treatises on the main liranches of philo- 
sophy which we have considered in this brief review, Aristotle 
has left a number of miscellaneous works, which cannot be 
included in the general classification. Thus, we have a col- 
lection of ' Problems' (7rpo|3X»'j/jnr«), in thirty-six sections, 
which abound in acute suggestions on almost every department 
of knowledge. They are put in the form of questions ; thus :"- 
' Wiiy docs an tuiknown road seem to be, ceteris purihu.'^, 

* E. H. F. Me3'er maintaina that tliia book is a compilation by Nicol.os of 
Damascus from the writings of Aristotle and Tlieophrastus, and so published 
it: Nicolai Damasccni de PUcntis libri duo ArisMdi ridgo adicrii>ti. Lips. 1841. 
see p. XVIII. 

' Problem. XXX. 4: 5ia tL doKfl ij^juv 7r\(iix>v tlyai t] oSii, Srav ^irj tiSircj 
irdcrij Ti$ (ffTi /SaSi'j'w/icv fidWoy ^ Brav ti56T(i, iiw rd AXXa o^jioLtiii ri^x «/**•' 
(XOVT^^ ; 

T, 2 


longer than one with which we are acquainted? Or is it 
because our knowledge of it is a knowledge of number ? For 
that which is indefinite and that which is unnumbered are one 
and the same; and the indefinite is always more than the 
finite/ and so on. Abelard's treatise called Sic et Non is an 
analogous work, but in this the cases are stated pr'o and contra 
with reference only to authority. The ' surprising stories' 
[Qavfiiaaia aKova/naTa) are a collection of anecdotes chiefly 
relating to the curiosities of natural history. It is not at all 
certain that this tract was written by Aristotle. From the 
commencement of the ' Mechanics' {/uij^apiKuY it would seem 
that this tract had some connexion^ at least in the minds of 
those who arranged Aristotle's works, with the Oav/naaia 
aKoixy/iiara, which it follows in the editions. Its form, how- 
ever, is that of the ' Problems.' 

Andronicus of Rhodes had collected twenty books of Aris- 
totle's letters,' and there was a later collection by Artemon in 
eight books.^ These are all lost; and the six letters now 
attributed to the philosopher are spurious.'' His speeches also 
have not been preserved. We have already referred to his 
poem on virtue, and to the epigrams attributed to him.* 

§ lo. Aristotle's mtI tings are not less remarkable for their 
peculiar style and literary form than for their extent and the 
importance of their subjects, which he was the first to treat in 
a methodical and scientific manner. The parsimonious diction 
and the strict regularity with which the thoughts and facts are 
marshalled justify the remark of the poet Gray, that, when we 
are reading Aristotle, we feel as if we were studying a table 
of contents. And a more recent writer has accounted for this 
peculiarity by a reference to the characteristics which distin- 
guish Aristotle from his great teacher, Plato. ' To collect all 
possible facts, to arrange and classify them, was his ambition, 
and perhaps his appointed function; no one is less tempted to 
find any deep meaning in facts, or to grope after it. In like 
manner, to get words pressed and settled into a definition is 

^ davfid^erai tQv fxev Kara (pvcnv ffv/ui.paiv6vTuv k.t.\. 

^ Demetiiufl, De Elocutione, § 231. ^ David, Categ. p. 24. 

* See Stahr, Aristotelia, II. pp. 167 sqq. ^ Above, § i. 


his highest aim; the thought that there is a life in words, that 
they are connected with the life in us, and may lead at all to 
the interpretation of its marvels, never was admitted into his 
nund, or at least never tarried there.'' If the philosopher's 
chief recommendation had heen his stylo, he would have had 
few readers. He has nothing to attract those, who prefer the 
form and outer cmhcllislnncnts of a work to its suhject- matter 
and the scientific results which it jjrescnts. Like liishop 
Butler, one of the best of our Knglish moralists, he rc[)els all 
those who open his books with any other view than a desire ol 
obtaining knowledge and amassing the materials and the results 
of thought. Those especially, who come to the study of 
Aristotle after contracting a familiarity with Plato, cannot but 
l)e impressed with the feeling that they have entered upon an 
entirely new phase of the Greek language — that they have 
passed, as it were, from a sunlit garden, gay with tiowers, 
to a dark and chilly reading-room. But although Aristotle's 
language is in the highest degree jejune and nnornamented, he 
is never really obscure except when this arises from excessive 
brevity. And it may be inferred, from the fragments of his 
dialogues, and from his scolium ou virtue, that the sobriety of 
his diction did not arise from any inability to express himself 
in more florid language, and that he adopted deliberately, and 
perhaps by an effort, a mode of writing which he considered 
more appropriate to philosophical investigations than the 
exuberant and often redundant phraseology of the conventional 
rhetoric. The importance Avhich he attached to conciseness 
and fixity of expression is shown by the fact that he has 
introduced a considerable numl)er of well-defined Avords and 
phrases, which often obviate the necessity for circumlocution.' 

^ Maurice, Ancient Philosophy, p. 163. 

^ The following are some of the words and phrases which Aristotle either intro- 
duced, or used with some precise and original distinctness of meaning : ^»t£\^x*"i> 
if^fyyeia, Suya/xn, Ifij, &\oyos, ixeffbTt]^, Karrjyopla, ffvWoyt(Xfi6s, ivdufiijfia, wapd- 
deiyfjLa, (waywyri, w/)6racrts, I'Xt;, t6 i'^roKel/xevoi', pij/J-a, ivo/xa., (rvvwi-vp.os, iawvvfios, 
irapwfu/J.os, d^/jdnj?, d/ciXacrroj, ovcia, tL ecrri, t6 tL ^v elyai, SiKaiuifAa ; and to 
these many others ruiglit be added. Bacon says that Aristotle ' nova arliuni 
vocabula pro libitu cudendi liccntiam usurpavit' {Dc An(;m. Sclent. III. 4, p. 584, 
ed. Ellis, where the reader will see Bacou's comparison of the correlative ambition 
of Aristotle and his pupil Alexan<ler). 


Aiul, as we have already mentioned, one of the works included 
in his Motaphijsica is an elaborate investigation of many terms 
and notions which seemed to him to require a more accurate 
definition.' There are some to whom this logical precision, 
and scrupulous exactness in the employment of terms, will 
seem more than an equivalent for the graces of style and the 
golden flow of elocution, which Aristotle might have exhibited, 
if he had chosen to write like his contemporaries ; and it wall 
be maintained that it is easy to extract, even from his most 
methodical works, many passages of rare power and singular 
felicity. But we must admit that we belong to the number of 
those who are disposed to refuse to this great philosopher the 
humbler praise of having always written his best ; and we must 
express our regret that his literary fame is not supported by 
adequate remains of his more popular and attractive compo- 

^ Metaph. A, wepl rQiv •Koaa.x'^^ Xeyofi&uv. The terms or notions examined 
are: i. dpxv, 'principle;' 2. airtov, 'cause;' 3. aroixe'lov, 'element;' 4. <pv<ns, 
'nature;' 5. ava'yKalov, 'necessary;' 6. t6 'iv, 'unity;' 'j. t6 6v, 'entity;' 8. 
eiiaia, 'substance;' 9. raxnb, 'identity;' 10. dvTi.Kdp.ev a, 'contraries;' 11. 7r/)6- 
repa koL Harepa, ' antecedents and consequents;' 12, bvvafxis, dSijvaTov, dvvarSv, 
'potentiality, impossibility, and possibility ;' 13. ttoctov, 'quantity;' 14. iroibv, 
'quality;' 15, irpos ti, 'relation;' 16. riXeiov, 'perfect;' 17. wepas, 'limit;' 18. 
Kad' avTo, ' self- existence ;' 19 — 22. diddeais, ^^is, Trddos, (TTep-rjais, 'disposition, 
habit, affection, privation;' 23. ^x^"*? 'state;' 24, €K tivos eTvai, 'matter, cause,' 
(fee; 25, 26. p-epos, 6\ov, 'part and whole;' 27. koXv^ov, 'mutilated;' 28. 7^;'os, 
' genus ;' 29. i/zeOSos, ' falsity ;' 30. avp^e^tjKds, ' accident.' 




§ I. Life of Demosthenes. § i, Harant;ues to the people, cliiefly relating to Philip 
of Mace Jon. §3. Orations on puMic causes. §4. Speeches against -Kschines. 
§ 5. Speeches in tho law courts on private causes. § 6. Style and chanictcris- 
ties of Demosthenes. 

^ 1. TT^llOM the two greatest philosophers of ancient Greece, 
JL we pass to the orator, whose eminence, as a master 
of eloquence, is quite equal to theirs as masters of human 
thought ; and it is not a little remarkable, that such men as 
Aristotle and Demosthenes should have been, in every sense of 
the term, contemporaries. It is certain that they died in the 
same year, and it is very probable that they were of the same 
age when they died. The caution, Avith which we entered on 
a brief sketch of the two great philosophers, must be repeated, 
ill a corresponding form, at the beginning of the present 
chapter. As we then reminded the reader that we were 
wi-iting the history of Greek literature, not that of Greek 
philosophy, so Ave must now beg him to remember, that we are 
not engaged Avith that political history of Greece, in Avliicii 
Demosthenes AA'as one of the most prominent actors. The 
space Avhich this orator occupies in the pages of Tiiirlwall and 
Grote, to say nothing of the fact that he furnishes the subject 
for at least one separate Avork' of considerable extent, may 
Avell excuse us from any attempt to trace the events in Avhich 
he bore a part, and to estimate fully his character as a states- 
man. It will be quite sulHcicnt for our present purpose, if avc 
give a short account of his personal biography, and of his 
speeches considered as literary compositions. 

1 For example, A. G. Becker's Demosthenes als Slaalsmann und Redna; 
2 volumes, 8vo. Halle, 1815, 1816; the same wrilcr' a JJcmosthcnis als Siatils- 
biirgcr, Redncr tmrf Schriftatdlcr, Qucclllnburg, 1830— 1S34 ; A. Sdiiifer's Demo- 
athaict u/nd acinc Zcit, Leipsig, 1856, 1S57. 


It is still a matter of controversy in what year Demosthenes 
was bom.' The earliest date is OL 98, 4. b.c. 385; the 
latest 01. 99, 4. B.C. 380. His father, who bore the same name, 
apparently not an uncommon one at Athens, was an opulent 
citizen of the demos of Pajania, who carried on a thriving 
business as a cutler and cabinet-maker, and was also engaged 
in commercial transactions to a considerable extent." His 
mother was not of pure Athenian descent, though there is no 
reason to doubt that she was, on both sides, of Greek extraction. 
She was one of the two daughters and co-heiresses of Gylon, a 
banished Athenian, who had ingratiated himself with a Greek 
prince on the Cimmerian Bosporus, had received from his 
patron a town named Cepi in the island to the east of that 
inlet of the sea, and had there married a rich woman, probably 
the heiress of some Greek settler in that well colonized region.' 
The two daughters of Gylon were sent to Athens with large 
dowries, and married two Athenian citizens; the younger 
became the wife of Demochares, and the elder, Cleobule, was 
tlie mother of Demosthenes. 

The ample property of his father, increased by the handsome 
portion of his mother, seemed to destine Demosthenes to a life 
of opulent obscurity. It happened, however, that he lost his 
father while only seven years old, and was left with a younger 
sister under the care of three guardians, Aphobus, the son of 

^ The earliest date, 01. 98, 4. B.C. 385, is maintained by Dr. Thirlwall {Hist, of 
Gr. V. p. 248, Philological Museum, II. pp. 389 sqq.). Mr. Clinton {Fasti 
Hellenici, II. Append. -20), C. K. Hennann {de anno nutali Demosthenis, Gott. 
1846, reprinted in Dindoi-f s Demosthenes, vol. VI. pp. 730 sqq.), and Mr. Grote 
(Hist, of Gr. XI. p. 369) adopt the year 01. 99, 3. B.C. 382, 381, and Bohnecke 
{Forschungen, pp. 1-94) agrees with Dionysius {ad Ammceum, 4) in dating the 
orator's birth in the archonship of Demophilus, 01. 99, 4. B.C. 380. We incline to 
Mr. Clinton's date. 

^ Dr. Thirlwall (V. p. 247) calls him a merchant on the strength of I. Aphob, p. 
816. The nature of his property may be seen in the calculations reprinted from an 
English translation of Voemel in Dindorfs Demosthenes, VII. pp. 1053 sqq. 
Juvenal's intimation (X. 127 — 132) that the orator's father was a working black- 
smith is an exaggeration or a mistake. 

3 Plut. Demosth. 4, ^sch. adv. Ctesiph. p. 78, Dem. II. Aph. p. 835. Cepi 
(K^TTot, 'the gardens ') was a Milesian settlement and a considerable town (Plin. 
H. N. VI. 6). It lay in the modern island of Taman, in the sea of Corocondame 
(Strabo, p. 495) over against Kertch and Jenicale. 


his father's sister, who was to marry Clcohiile witli a dowry of 
li talent, Dcmophou, the son of his father's brother, who was 
to marry the daughter when she came of age, and to receive 
at once her portion of two tah>nts, and an ohl friend, Tlierip- 
pides, who was to enjoy the interest of i i talent till Demo- 
sthenes came of age.' Those guardians seem to have beliaved 
as Greek guardians too often did.- Tlicy neglected the con- 
ditions of the will, and squandered the property confided to 
their charge to such an extent that out of fourteen talents, 
which the father left at his death, they paid less than two 
talents to the son on his completing the age of i8, when he 
was legally entitled to undertake the management of his own 
property.' After vainly attempting to obtain an amicable 
settlement of the accounts, he brought an action against 
Aphobus, and obtained damages to the amount of ten talents,' 
part of which he must have received, as he appears to have 
performed some of the most expensive liturgies or public 
duties.* But there can be little doubt that the injustice to 
which he was exposed at first starting in life, and the fear of 
losing all, or nearly all, his patrimony, stimulated him to 

1 Dem. I. A}i7i. pp. 814, 816, II. 840. 

' It was almost a fixed phrase in cla.ssical Greek to say of the orphan that he 
was ' torn in pieces' by his guardians ; see Soph. Ajcur, 505 sqq. : 

otKTCipe 5', w Vaf, iraida rbv abv, el vias 
Tpo<pris (TTeprjOcls, (rov Siolfferat (xdvos 
vir' 6p(pat'icrTwi/ /xri (piKuiv. 

Cf. Herod. III. 53 : rhv oIkov tou narpos hiacpoprfOivTa. Dem. I. Stcph. 1120. 
25: virb TOVTou Kal Tuiy ToiovTWv 5La<po pride [s. Dio Chrys. XLIII. fo''", C : ('Trb 
tQiv ^>iyy^vCiv koI tQv iiriTpinruv diacriraffdijvai. 

^ Dem. I. Ax'h. pp. 812, 832, 815. Onctor, p. 865. 

* See Westermann, Prolegomena ad Orationes Tidorias, reprinted in Dindorfs 
Demosthenes, pp. 1045 sqq. 

5 JEschiues insinuates (adv. Ctesiph. 78) that by the expensiveness of these 
liturgies, coupled with his own profligate extravagance, he reduced himself to the 
necessity of writing speeches for liire : Trepi 5^ tt]v kolO' ijn^paf Siairav tU iffTW ; Ik 
rpiTjpdpxov \oyoypd<pos dve<pavq, to. iraTpc'm Karaye'KdaTois xpo^fxevoi. \^ e are 
surprised by Mr. Grote's remark (XI. p. 372) that he does not ' clearly understand 
what is meant ' by these last wonls. Is the diffic\dty in the adverb Kara- 
yeXdffTws, which means 'in a profligate manner' (..lisch. c. Timurch. p. 5, 13^ or 
in the verb wpoUaOaL, which is regularly used in the sense ' to part with one's 
money' {e.y. pro Pliorm. p. 946, 10, c. Dionysod. p. H97, 14)? 


commence those laborious studies which ultimately made him 
the greatest orator of ancient or modern times. 

It docs not appear that, while the guardians of Demosthenes 
were wasting or embezzling his property, they neglected to give 
him an education suitable to his supposed circumstances. He 
charges his guardians with not paying his teachers ;^ but in 
contrasting his early advantages with those of his rival ^Eschines, 
he boasts that while the latter was a teacher in a low school, 
he was himself a regular attendant at some place of elementary 
instruction.^ The tradition, that he received instruction from 
Plato and Isocrates,^ may have arisen from a not unnatural 
wish to connect the greatest orator with the principal literary 
men of the age immediately preceding his own. There is 
probably more foundation for the statement that he was taught 
rhetoric by Isseus, and was assisted by that orator in the com- 
position of his speeches against his guardians.^ His first 
beginnings in a study of rhetoric, and his ambition to become 
a public speaker, are generally attributed to the fact that he 
was taken by his tutors, while still a boy, to hear the cele- 
brated Callistratus, the well-known friend of Iphicrates, defend 
himself and Chabrias on the charge of surrendering Oropus to 
the Thebans. This is supposed to have been in the year b.c. 
'>fi(), when Demosthenes was certainly not more than eight or 
nine years old.^ Whatever may have been the extent of literary 
cultivation which he received in his youth, it appears that 
Demosthenes did not enjoy the gymnastic training which 
formed an equally essential part of the early discipline of young 
Athenians. It is supposed that his delicate constitution, and 
his mother^s anxiety for the health of her only son, prevented 
him from joining in the exercises of the palsestra.® This 

1 I. ApTi. p. S28, 6. 
De Corona, p. 312, 22: ipiol /x^v toIvvv vwrip^ev, TratSt fj-kv 6vti (potTav els to. 
irpocT7)K0VTa SiSacTKaXua /cat ^xetv Sera XPV '^°'' /^V^^" alffxpof iroutjcovra di ^vdeiav, 
Ihid. p. 315. 8: edlda<TK€s ypdfji.iJ.aTa, e^w 5' ((poiTici'. 

=* Plut. Don. 5, Vit. X. Orat. 837, 844, Cic. Brut. 31, &c. 

■* Plut. Vit. X. Ovat. 839, 844. Liban. Vit. Bern. p. 3. Argiun. ad Orat. c. 
Onet. p. 87 5. 

Plut. Bern. 5. Vitoi dcceiii Orator um, p. S44. Hermippus ajmd Aid. Gell. 
III. 13. 

" Thirlwall, V. p. 248. 

nis LIFE. 155 

deficiency, coupled uitli his lisping articulation/ want of nius. 
cular vigour, and cHcniinatc attire, obtained for him the name 
of BaraAoc, * the infantine babbler/ ■' a name which had also 
another meaning in the nursery,^ and was used to countenance 
an imputation of the vilest impudicity/ AVithout any duuble 
signification, the powerful coterie, which espoused the cause of 
his guardians, contrived to fix upon him the name of ' Af)-^at:, 
' the viper,^ '" as though he had turned round and l)itten the 
nurturcrs of his youth. 

The success which attended the prosecution of Aphobus, Ijy 
no means guaranteed his eminence as a public speaker. The 
orations are still extant, and exhibit so much talent that they 
have beeu attril)uted to Isajus himself, who probably assisted in 
their composition, just as Demosthenes wrote many of his 
speeches to be delivered in court by the parties themselves. It 
docs not appear that any great merits of elocution were expected 
in these forensic harangues. Indeed, in many cases, they may 
have been read to the dicasts or jurymen. At any rate, 
Demosthenes had no natural advantages as an orator. A feeble 
frame and a weak voice, a shy and awkward manner, the 
imgraceful gesticulations of one whose limbs had never been 
duly exercised in the palrestra, and the defective articulation to 
Mhich we have already referred, Avould have deterred most men 
from even attempting to address an Athenian assembly. He 
had the additional discouragement of failing on his first 
attempt,'' Worst of all, he was not fiuent as an extempore 
speaker, and even in his best days, he required preparation, 
and was liable to break down if he spoke under novel circum- 

^ He could not piX)nounce the letter p till he had conquered his natural thickness 
of speech by long practice ; Cic. Div. II. 46, § 96. 

^ See Dissen and ISchaefer, ad Oral, dc Corond, p. 288, 17. Naeke, dc Battaro 
Catonis, Rhcin. Mus. for 1828, pp. 113 sqq. 

' Harpocration, s.v. : EHiroXn Si rbv TrpwKrbv fi6.ra\ov\iy€i- fi-fi irar^ o^v fvOtv 
Toi-s KLvaiSovs ^ardXovs Xiyovai. Cf. ^Esch. c. Tim. p. 17. 42 : Tat}Tr]v i^ vttoko- 
piff/xaTOi rlrdris Trjv inuvvfilav fx'^- 

* /Esch. Fals. Leg. p. 41. 13: ev irmal p-kv wv (KXrjOT) 5i' at<rxpovpytai> rifa ^ai 
KifaiSiaf BaraXos. 

* .rEschines, ibid.: ex naidwi' 5' dTraWaTTdp-fvoi Kal SeKaraXdjToui Sinai (KciffTCfj 
Twv ^iTLTp6iriiiv Xayxoivcjv'Ap-ydi iK\i)Orj. 

•• Plutarch, Dcm. 6 : t6 irpCnov eVnryxctfWf t<P Sij^v Oopv^oit wtpUwiwrt ko-I 
Ka.Tiye\SiTo 6c' di^^etai' tov \6yov. 


stances, as when he first addressed Philip of Macedon in the 
presence of liis court. But the ambition and resolute perse- 
verance of Demosthenes enabled him to triumph over every 
disadvantage. He improved his bodily powers by running j 
his voice by speaking aloud as he walked up hill, or declaimed 
against the roar of the sea at Phalerura. He practised grace- 
ful delivery before a tall looking-glass, and controlled his unruly 
articulation by speaking with pebbles in his mouth.' His w^ant 
of fluency he remedied by diligent composition, and by copying 
and committing to memory the works of the best authors. Of 
these his favourite was Thucydides, and it is said that he wrote 
out the eight books of that historian no less than eight times," 
and could almost recite him from memory. Moreover, he 
read carefully all the r^y^vai, or treatises on oratory, that he 
could procure.^ And he prepared himself for the public exer- 
cise of his talents not only by writing declamations for practice 
on all the great subjects of the day, but also by composing 
speeches for the parties in private suits and public prosecutions. 
In this way he gradually surmounted all his difficulties. The 
friendly actor Satyrus was at hand to correct the faults of his 
delivery/ and old men in the assembly began to say that his 
speeches reminded them of the school of Pericles.^ And at 
last he came forth as the acknowledged leader of the assembly, 
and, even by the confession of his deadliest enemies, the first 
orator in Greece. 

The period, during which the name of Demosthenes identifies 
itself with the history of Athens, was eminently critical both 
for that city and for the whole of Greece. It was a time when 
an able and patriotic statesman, like Demosthenes, might have 
done greater service than any of his predecessors, if the people 
w^ould have listened to his advice, and acted energetically in 
carrying out the counsels which he gave them. Unfortunately 
this was not the case. When Demosthenes delivered his first 

1 Plutarch, Bern. 4—9. 2 Lucian, adv. Indoctum, c. 4. 

3 Plut. Dem. c. 5. Vit. X. Orat. p. 844 B. 
Plut. Dem. c. 7. Satyrus made him recite a speech from Euripides or 
Sophocles, and then delivered it himself with all the graces of histrionic action. 

^ Eunomus the Thriasian is mentioned as one of those who told Demosthenes 
that he had rbv \6-)ov bp.oioTaTov ti$ UepiKkiovs, Plut. {Dem. c. 6). 


) i 

political oratioiij that on tlio Sijinmoria, or companies for the 
payment of the property-tax, in the year 354 n.c.,' Persia was 
still the only ohject of apprehension to nnited Greece, and 
Philip of Maccdon was not rcgardid with the suspicions which 
he aftcrsvards so fully justified. He had taken no part in the 
Social war, and had not interfered with the proceedings of 
Athens either in the Thracian Chersonesus or in Euhoea. Only 
three years after this the Phocian war broke out, and was 
closely followed by that between Philip and Olynthus ; and 
while tlie latter led to misunderstandings between Philip and the 
Athenians, and compromised their interests in the north, the 
former ended in bringing Philip to Boeotia, and enabled him, 
as the victor at Ch?eronca, to dictate liis own terms at Athens. 
While these events were in progress, the independence of 
Athens was staked on her policy in regard to the king of 
JVIacedon. And though a large and influential party were 
unwilling to oppose themselves actively and openly to the 
ambitious designs of Philip, others, who saw the danger, were 
anxious to encounter any risk rather than acquiesce in aggres- 
sions, which could have only one eff'ect on the power of their 
country. To this auti-^Iacedonian party, Demosthenes con- 
sistently belonged. Some of those who advocated the cause 
of peace at any price, such as Phocion, were well-meaning, but 
mistaken politicians ; others, such as Philocrates and /Eschincs, 
were probably, or rather certainly, influenced by corrupt 
motives. Whatever doubt may be cast on the character of 
Demosthenes," there can be no question as to his general 
patriotism ; and his faults, whatever they were, must be regarded 
as cancelled by his banishment and death, the consequences of 

^ See Grote, Hist, of Greece, XI. p. 398. 

' See Thirlwall, Hist, of Greece, V. p. ■255. The mere fact that 
places Demosthenes and Cicero on the same footing in regard to the imputations 
on their character as men and citizens, shows that he did not accept these imputa- 
tions as a serious deduction from their merits. He says (XII. i, § 14) : ' Orator 
ergo Demosthenes non fuit ? Atqui malum virum accepimus. A'o;i Cicero! atijui 
hujus quoque mores multi reprehenderunt. Quid agam ? Magna responsi invidia 
subeunda est, mitigandie sunt prius aurcs. Mihi hinc nee Demosthenes tarn 
gravi morum dignus videtur invidii, ut omnia, qua? in cum ah inimicis congesta 
sunt, credam, cum pulclierrima ejus in repuhlicii consiUa, et finem vitie clarum 
legam ; nee M. Tullio defuisse video in ullA parte civis optimi voluntatem.' 


the opposition to the Macedoiiiau power, which had distin- 
guished him through life. 

The career of Demosthenes, so far as it contributes to explain 
his position in the history of Greek literature, may be described 
very briefly. His guardians seem to have belonged to a party 
of opulent and profligate men at Athens, who set the laws at 
defiance, and, trusting to their wealth and influence and mutual 
support, treated their poorer fellow-citizens as though they 
belonged to an inferior class. Among these persons, who were 
an active cause of the ruin of Athens, were Midias, Androtion, 
and Timocrates ; and Demosthenes came into contact with the 
first of these on his own account, while he furnished a fellow- 
citizen, Diodorus, with the means of attacking the other two, 
who were partners in iniquity.^ About three or four days 
before the trial of Aphobus came on," Midias and his brother, 
Thrasylochus, had rushed into the house of Demosthenes, and 
making him an offer to exchange properties, or to undertake 
the trierarchy,^ proceeded to deal with his effects as if they were 
already transferred to themselves ; and even gave Aphobus a 
release from the action against him.^ Besides all this, they 
insulted in the grossest manner the female members of his 
family.^ Having relieved himself from this manoeuvre by a 
payment of twenty minse for a deputy trierarch, Demosthenes 
brought an action for insulting language against Midias, and 
obtained judgment by default.^ Although entitled to execution, 
he abstained from touching the eff*eets of the powerful culprit, 
and brought an action of ejectment,^ which he was prevented 
from trying by the evasions of the defendant. At last, the 
hostility of Midias assumed the form of a public outrage. He 
assaulted Demosthenes in the almost sacred character of 
Choragus at the Dionysia; and in accordance with the rule in 

1 With the selfish inconsistency of Greek party-men, Midias, on one occasion, 
stood in opposition to Androtion ; Dem. c. Androt. p. 596, 9. 

2 Dem. in Mid. p. 539, 26. 3 dvTt5tS6i'Tes Tpn/jpapxlav. 

* TOLS Si/cos (i)s avrCiv oilaas 7]<pi€<Tav Tots iTriTp6Trois, 
' In Mid. p. 540, 5. 

* Ihid. 540, 2 1 : SIk7]v 5i Toirwv Xax^iv varepov t'^s KaKrjyoplas eV\ov ipT^firjv ov 
yap ainfjVTa. 

^ 1. 23 : Xa/3wi' 5' virep-qixepov kclI ^xwv ovdevbs i}\f/d/j.7]v irunroTe twv tovtov dXXd 
Xaxdjj' i^ovKyji irdXiv ovhiirw Koi Trj/aepov elaeXOe'iv Se5vpr] 

ins LIFE. 150 

such cases, the matter was brouglit before the popular assembly,' 
and ou a show of hands the oflender was ordered to be prose- 
cuted.- The speech which Demosthenes composed i'or the 
occasion is extant, but was never delivered, as Midia.s com- 
pounded the cluu"<^e by a payment of half a talent.' The 
charges against Androtion and Timocrates were also stimulated 
by their ill-usage of the accuser Diodorus, but the grounds 
alleged are entirely of a public nature. About the same time, 
Demosthenes appeared as the advocate of Ctcsippus, the son of 
Chabrias, to prosecute Leptines, who had in 356 n.c. passed a 
statute for the abolition of hereditary exemptions fi-om the 
public burdens, Chabrias having been one of those to whose 
family this privilege had been granted. And in 352 b.c., he 
composed a most elaborate speech for Euthyclcs, who indicted 
Aristocrates for moving a decree in favour of the adventurer, 
Charidemus, which contained a clause making his person in- 
violable. He also composed at this time a great many orations 
for suitors in private causes. His most important efforts, 
however, were the series of public speeches referring to the 
proceedings of Philip of ^Nlacedon, and known to the ancients 
as the twelve PhiUppics, a name which has become a general 
designation for spirited invectives.^ These speeches extended 
over the period from 352 to 339 b.c. But he was not merely 
a statesman — that is, in the Athenian sense of the term, an 
influential speaker in the senate and in the public assembly. 
He was also an active diplomatist, and when not thwarted by tlic 

^ Dem. Mid. 514, 6: irpov^akbu'qv avrhv aOiKciv. The vpo^oKr] or 'plaint to 
the assembly,' as Mr. Kennedy rfenders it (Dem. against Leptines, Midias, &c., 
P- 365), ' was an application to the people for leave to prefer a criminal ch.arge ;' 
see Meier and Schumann, A It. Pro:, p. 271. 

' lb. p. 515, 1 : fJ.1^ yvufiTi KaTex^i-pofhvrfaev avrov. 

3 ^schines says distinctly (c. Ctcsiph. 6i, 64), that Demosthenes airidoTo rpid- 
Kovra p.vCiv a/xa T-qv re ft's avrhv v§piv koI rr)v rod 5)}/iou Karaxf-i-poTOvlav fjv iv Ato- 
vvffov KaT€xtipoT6vr]<Te Meidiov. Plutarch, who recognizes the fact, attributes it to 
a, belief, on the part of Demosthenes, that he could not cope with tlie influence of 
Midias ( I'fV. Dem. c. 12). Mr. Grote suggests that ' he nuay have delivered the 
discourse and obtained judgment in his favour ; and then afterwards — when the 
second vote of the dicasts was about to come on for estim.ation of tlio jHjnalty — 
may have accepted the offer of tlie defendant to pay a moderate fine, in fear of 
exasperating too far the powerful friends around Midijis' (Hist, of Greece, XI. 
p. 479). * See e.g. Juvenal, X. 139. 


miscoiifluct of iudolent or corrupt colleagues, he performed the 
most important services to his country in this capacity. He was 
one of the ten ambassadors who were sent to Philip at the end of 
347 n.c. His colleague, Jjlschines, whose words we are obliged 
to receive with the greatest caution, tells us' that on this 
occasion, when he appeared for the first time in the presence 
of the king of Macedon, whose designs he had so often de- 
nounced at home, his presence of mind entirely failed him ; and 
that, in spite of some good-natured encouragement from Philip,^ 
who was no doubt curious to hear the most renowned speaker 
of the anti-Macedonian party, he was unable to deliver more 
than a few confused and incoherent sentences. It is not 
impossible that this story rests on a foundation of facts, dis- 
torted, of course, by the malignity of a rival politician. Either, 
as Mr. Grote suggests,^ Demosthenes was really intimidated by 
his new and formidable audience, or his common sense assured 
him that this was not an occasion on which fine speaking could 
produce any practical results, and so he contented himself with 
a very brief address. When it was agreed that peace should 
be made with Philip, Demosthenes was again one of the ten 
ambassadors sent to take the oaths from him." The majority 
of his colleagues, probably bribed with Macedonian gold, de- 
layed their journey, so as to enable Philip to complete his 
Thracian conquests, and even to prepare for the immediate 
invasion of Phocis. The ruin of their unfortunate neighbours 
opened the eyes of the Athenians to the treacherous counsels 
by which they had been misled. Philocrates, the proposer of 
the peace, was impeached by Hypereides, and fled from Athens.* 

1 Fals. Leg. p. 32. 

^ Ihid. 1. 44 : l^uiv 5e 6 ^i\LTnro% ws SiiKeiTO Oappeiv re wapeKeXeieTO Kal /it] vo/mi- 
^€LV, {bcrirep iu tois Oedrpois, Sia tovto o'deaOal tl ireTovdivai, k.t.X. 

3 XI. p. 530. He inclines to believe ' that Demosthenes was partially divested 
of his oratorical powers, by finding himself speaking not only before the enemy 
whom he had so bitterly denounced, but surrounded by all the evidences of Mace- 
donian power, and doubtless exposed to unequivocal marks of well-earned hatred, 
from those Macedonians who took less pains than Philip to disguise their real 

4 See Thirlwall (Eist. of Greece, V. pp. 356 foil.), and Grote (XI. pp. 556 foil), 
whose accounts of all these proceedings are accompanied by a criticism of the con- 
tradictory explanations, given by Demosthenes and .^schines. 

^ Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 376 ; Hypereides, Pro Euxenippo, col. 39, 1. 7 foil, 
ed. Babington. 

HIS LIFE. 101 

The accusation of yEschincs, wliich Demosthenos and Timarclms 
liad nndcrtaken, was delayed l)y the successful attack made !)y 
iEschines on the latter/ and by his procrastination in sub- 
mitting to the usual scrutiny,- It came on^ however, in n.c. 
343, and the two great speeches of the rival orators an? still 
extant. /Eschines, with the help of Eubulus and Phocion, was 
acquitted by a majority of 30 votes/ This partial check did 
not interfere with the growing innuence of Demosthenes. lie 
was the life and soul of all the opposition which Athens raised 
to the restless intrigues and attempts of Piiilip. It was by his 
counsels that embassies, in which he took a part, were sent to 
the Peloponnesus, to the Ionian Isles, to Illyria, Thessaly, the 
Chersonese, and Byzantium/ He recommended the expe- 
dition to Eubcea, which detached that island from Macedon.' 
And when the war was renewed between the Athenians and 
Philip, it was he who induced his countrymen to send a fleet to 
the relief of Byzantium, in b.c. 340, and thus to bring the 
Thracian campaign to a successful issue." His greatest 
triumph was the alliance which he brought about between 
Athens and Thebes,^ when the insane proceedings of iEschines" 
had stirred up a second sacred war, and introduced Philip into 
Boeotia. Although the unfortunate issue of the battle of 
Chseroneia in b.c. 338 overthrew the independence of Athens, 
the active patriotism of Demosthenes had saved his country 
from a greater disaster,^ and he maintained his position in spite 
of that event. The death of Philip, in b.c 336, opened an 
avenue for successful exertion, but the Athenians, under the evil 
influence of Phocion, took no advantage of it. The destruction of 

' See Thirlw.'vll, VI. pp. 28 foil. The success of .^schines was due to the 
notorious profligacy of Tiniarchus, which enabled him to dispense with witnesses. 
On this account Demostheries says, with express reference to the prosecution of 
Timarchus, the only public indictment which had, up to that time, been brought 
forward by yEschines : 6s yap dyuvai Kaivovs uxrirtp Bpafiara Kal tovtovs dfidp- 
TV pas vpbi diaiJ.ep.eTpri/j.iui]i> Trjn rjp.ipav aipfis biuKuy dijXov 6ti irdi'den'os it tis (Dc 
Fah. Lerj. p. 578). 

3 Thirlwall, VI. p. 26. « Below, § 4, p. 336 [17*^]. 

■• Grote, XI. pp. 626 Sfjq. ' De Coroml, p. 252. 

* Ibid. pp. 254, 304-308. " /''/(/. pp. 286, 7. 

* .i-Esch. c. Ctes. pp. 69 foil. 

* i.e. an invasion of Attica from Elatea in B.C. 339; see Tliirlwall, VI. p. f<i, 
Grote, XI. p. 671. 



Thebes was followed by Alexander's demand for the extradition 
of Demosthenes and the other anti-Macedonian leaders.' 
Although Phocion recommended compliance, the Athenians 
magnanimously rejected the demand, and Alexander was induced 
to modify it.- Demosthenes, thougli no longer a leader, still 
retained considerable influence at Athens, which was shown by 
the results of his second great contest with ^Eschines, in b.c. 
330. This arose from the proposal made by Ctesiphon, in b.c. 
338, not long after the battle of Chseroneia, that Demosthenes 
should be rewarded with a golden crown and an eulogistic 
proclamation at the great Dionysia, specially for his exertions 
and expenditure in repairing the city walls, and generally for 
his patriotic and able conduct as a statesman.^ This proposal 
was indicted by ^Eschines, as the representative of the Mace- 
donian party, nominally on various technical grounds, but 
really as an impeachment of the political life of Demosthenes. 
The circumstances of the intervening years had prevented the 
Macedonizers from bringing on the case ; but when the death 
of Agis, in 330 b.c, had made their cause stronger than ever,"* 
they thought that a favourable opportunity had arrived for 
effecting the ruin or discredit of their chief opponent. The 
speech by which iEschines supported his prosecution, and the 
triumphant answer of Demosthenes, are still extant, and are 
perhaps the best specimens of Greek oratory which we have. 
The latter is by universal consent an unequalled effort of 
human eloquence. ^Eschines did not obtain the fifth part of 
the votes, and in bitter mortification withdrew from Athens.* 
But this was the last happiness of Demosthenes, so far as we 
know his history. For the next five or six years we read 
nothing of his proceedings. But in the year 324 b.c, Har- 
palus, the satrap of Babylonia, sought an asylum in Attica 

^ The persons demanded were, Demosthenes, Lycurgus, Hypereides, Polyeuctus, 
Chares, Charidemus, Ephialtes, Diotimus, and Mcerocles (Arrian, Anab. I. 10, 
§ 6. Plut. Dejn. c. 23, mentions Demon instead of Diotimus, and Callisthenes 
instead of Hypereides). 

^ He was satisfied with demanding the suiTender of Charidemus and Ephialtes, 
who fled from Athens and took service with the Persians. 

^ In the terms of the proposed decree. 

* Thirlwall, VI. p. 257. 

^ See the remarks of Grote on the causes of the exile of ^schines (XII. p. 395). 

nis LIFE. 1G8 

with a considerable treasure, of wliich tlie Athenians took 
possession in trust for Alexander. On conntinjjf over the 
money, it M'as found to be much less than ilarpalus said that 
he had brouj2^ht with him, and Demosthenes was charged I)y 
Hypereides with having embezzled, or received as bribes, some 
portion of the deficit. Although it seems to us in the highest 
degree improbable that there shonhl l)e any solid foun(hiti(jn 
for such a charge, fear of the Macedonians, or some other 
political motives, indnced the Athenians to find Demosthenes 
guilty.' He was thrown into prison, but allowed to escape to 
iEgina and Troezen, where he resided, gazing with tearful 
eyes on the coast of Attica," till the death of Alexander, 
and the renewed opposition to Macedon, which led to the 
Lamian war, restored him in triumph to his native land. In 
the vigorous measures, which had nearly led to the ruin of 
Antipater, Demosthenes was the prime mover. But these 
bright prospects were soon clouded by the death of the 
Athenian general Leostheues, by the loss of the battle of 
Crannon, and by the subsequent disunion of the allied Greeks. 
And when Antipater marched into Boeotia, in B.C. 322, Athens 
was prostrate at his feet. Besides demanding the overthrow of 
the democratical constitution, he insisted that the anti- 
Macedonian orators should be given up to him. They lied 
from Athens, and Demades in their absence induced the 9000 
citizens, to whom Antipater had left the right of voting, to 
condemn them to death. This sentence was passed against 
Demosthenes, Hypereides, Aristonicns, and Himcrans, the 
brother of Demetrius of Phalerum. One of the otiieers of 
Antipater, Archias, an Italian mercenary of Thurii, ' the exile- 
hunter ' as he was called,^ tore the last three of them from the 
sanctuary of ^Eacus, in /Egina, and sent them to Anti])ater, who 

^ Grote has given good reasons for his conclusion, that ' the verdict against him 
was not judicial but political, growing out of the embarrassing necessities of the 
time' (XII. p. 113). Thirlwall comes to the similar result, 'Demosthenes 
fell a victim to political intrigues, which derived their chief strength from the 
critical position in which Athens was placed by her resistance to Alexander's 
decree for the restoration of the exiles' (VII. iG\). 

* Plut. Dcm. 17: ijveyKe 5i ttjv <pvy7]v fJLa\aKws iv Aiyivr) Kai TpoiiTjvi tca9ti;6- 
fxevoi ra iroXXa *rat irpbs ttjv 'ArrtKrjJ' airo^Xl-irosv SeSaKpvfi^vos. 

* Plut. Dfm. ■28: 'Apxlaf 6 tcXiqftfU 4>i'ya5of)^pai, i. e., 'the bkKHl-hound." It 

X 2 


l)ut them all to death. With a band of Thracian soldiers, 
Archias tracked Demosthenes to his place of refuge, the temple 
of Poseidon, in the isle of Calauria, near Troezen, where he had 
spent part of his year of exile. Archias, who had been an actor, 
and a student of rhetoric, tried to induce Demosthenes to quit 
the sanctuary by some promises of mediation couched in high- 
flown and theatrical language.' Demosthenes obliged him to 
throw off the mask by an irritating reference to his former 
employment as a stage-player, and the agent of Antipater 
broke out into undisguised and angry menaces. ' Now,' said 
Demosthenes, ' you speak the true words of the Macedonian 
oracle— before yon were but acting.' He then asked Archias 
to wait till he had written home, and withdrawing to the inner 
part of the temple, took a dose of poison which he carried 
about his person. Having waited till the effects began to be 
felt, he rose up and staggered to the door of the temple, where 
he fell dead. His last words were : ' You may at once, O Archias, 
enact the part of Creon, and cast out this body unburied. O 
dear Poseidon, I quit thy temple still alive, but Antipater and 
the Macedonians have not allowed even thy sanctuary to be 
uncontaminated,' " 

Such was the miserable end of this great orator. It was 
not very long before the Athenians returned to their appre- 
ciation of the man who had served them so well for more than 

appears that he had been a pupil of the celebrated actor Polus, and of the rheto- 
ricians Lacritus and Anaximenes. It is worth noticing that Lacritus, who had been 
a pupil of Isocrates, is severely handled in one of the private orations of Demo- 
sthenes, below, § 5. 

1 We cannot agree with Mr. Grote (XII. p. 441) in his rejection of Plutarch's 
account of the death of Demosthenes. It appears to us not only very vivid and 
natural in itself, but also not improbable, for Archias would be likely to recollect 
and recount incidents in which he imagined that he had played a creditable part : 
such a statement as 'ApxI-ov iroWa. <pi\dvdpuiva 5iaXex^e''''"os (Plut. Dem. 29) could 
hardly have proceeded from any other informant, and if we compare the moderate 
language in which Demosthenes alludes to the histrionic antecedents of this tool of 
tyranny with the taunts which he flings out against ^schines, we may almost sup- 
pose that Archias softened down some unpleasant things that were said to him. 
The reference to Creon is quite in the spiiit of Demosthenes: see De Corond, 
p. 288, 1. 19 ; and Archias was literally the representative of a tyrant. 

^ Plut. Dem. 29 : ovk clv (pddvoLS ijSr) rbv e/c ttjs rpayipSias viroKptvofxevos Kpiopra 
Kal TO (TuifMa TOVTO piiTTUv aracpov. eyu3 5', cD 4>l\e JlbcreL^ov, ^tl ^Qv i^avicTTa/xai rod 
iepov' TO) 5^'AvTiwdTpui Kal MaKiSocriv ov5' 6 abs fads Kaffapbs dwoX^XenrTai. 


thirty years. His nephew^ Dcmocharcs, lived to propose ami 
carry a decree,' Ijy which his eldest descendant for tiie time 
being had reserved to him a seat at the public table in the 
Prytaneuni; and a statue of bronze was erected in his honour 
both in the agora at Athens and in the temple at Calauria, where 
he died." The former bore the plain-spokeu iuseription :' — 

Had but thy power, Demosthenes, mated thy prudent mind, 
No chains of warlike Macedon would free- born HcUas bind ! 

His countrymen were pleased to see that a just retribution 
punished the immediate authors of his death. Archias died iu 
poverty, and universally detested.^ And one of the last acts of 
Antipater was to order the execution of the corrupt and 
treacherous Demades.' To these feelings on the part of the 
Athenians, when they looked back, a few years afterwards, on 
the completed career of Demosthenes, we lend a ready sym- 
pathy. It is our present business to regard this great man in 
his literary rather than his political capacity, but we cannot 
refrain from recording our concurrence in the sentiment so 
strongly expressed by Niebuhr, that Demosthenes was politically 
a saint, that we do not envy the man who judges him dilic- 
rently, and that his whole political life, and all that concerns 
his honour as a statesman, are without spot or change." 

§ 2. The sixty-one speeches which have come down to us 
under the name of Demosthenes, probably include all that he 
left in writing." And the collection contains besides many 
that he did not compose or deliver. They are generally 
divided into three classes — the harangues to the people 
{S)]jiit]yofJtai), the orations on public causes (Sjj^tocrtot Xoyot), 

1 Vit. X. Orat. p. 847 D. a Pausauias, 11. 33, § 5. 

^ etirep Icr-qv pibfiiju yi/wfiri, ^rj/xdaOeves, (Ix^^j 
oijiroT' &,v 'EW-^ivuv fjp^ev 'Aprjs Ma/c^5wv. 
Plut. Dcm. 30 ; who speaks of it as t6 iiriypaixp.a t6 dpuWoi'/ifvov. 

■* Arrian, cq). Phot. cod. XCII. p. 21S: 'Apx^as 6 Qovpios iv icrx<^Tr) irtW^ Kal 
OLTifilq. diaTpl\pa^ iTeXevrrjce rbv §lov. 

•'■' Diod. XVIII. 48. Arrian, u. s. Athen. XIII. 591. It w".« Cassander who 
executed judgment on Demadcs according to PluUirch, Dan. 31, Phoc. 30. 

^ Phihdorjical Museum, I. j>p. 487, 497. 

7 See Clinton, F. H. II. p. 355. Photius (rod. CCLXV.) says: (p^povrai \&yoi 
■)vi'i<noi e^-qKovra irivri, but, as Mr. Clinton remarks, it is not explained what this 
list of sLxty-fivc contained, and it might include some spurious pieces. 


and the spccclics upon private causes {'iBiwtikoi Xoyoi).^ We 
shall consider them according to this division, but we shall 
place by themselves the two great speeches which he made 
against ^schines, both because the corresponding orations of 
the rival orator are still extant, and also because these com- 
positions have a distinct historical and oratorical value. 

We have fifteen parliamentary speeches or harangues addressed 
to the popular assembly, and this is the number recognized 
by Dionysius.- Of these, twelve relate more or less directly to 
the proceedings of Philip, and, as we have already mentioned, 
are called the Philippics. This title, however, is generally 
restricted to five of them, the first and fifth being contained in 
one. Three others are called the Olynthiacs, and the 
remaining four have special designations — ' On the Peace,' 
' The Halonnesus,' and ' The Chersonesus.' The three other 
public speeches are these — ' On the Symmorise,' ' For the People 
of Megalopolis,' and ' For the Rhodians.' 

It has been already stated that the first in point of time of 
this collection of parliamentary addresses was the speech 
respecting the Symmorice, in b.c. 354. The object of this 
speech was to show that, although there was no immediate 
occasion for a special confederacy of the Greeks to resist the 
king of Persia, it was still necessary that Athens should be 
well prepared for any eventuality. With this view he brings 
forward an elaborate and well-conceived scheme for the classi- 
fication of the I2CO wealthiest citizens in the twenty companies 
[ pica), two for each tribe, which were required, each in 
its turn, to advance the special war contribution or property-tax 

The next in order was the speech for the people of Megalo- 
polis, delivered in b.c. 353. In this oration, as in the preceding, 
Macedon and Philip do not enter into the speaker's thoughts. 
The principle which he lays down is, that it is expedient for 
Athens that both Sparta and Thebes should be as weak as 
possible. And, as Thebes at this time was sufficiently enfeebled 

^ They are arranged according to their dates, and in these classes, by Mr. 
Clinton, II. p. 360. 
2 Ad Ammceum, p. 744, Eeiske. 3 g^e Grote, XI. pp. 398 foil. 

THE I'llILirPICS. 167 

by her contest witli the Pliocians, the orator rcconmieiuls his 
countrymen to accept the alliance of Megalopolis, and so to 
check the'designs of Sparta in the south.' 

The first Philippic was spoken in u.c. 352. Here we liave 
Demosthenes in the character which he sustained to the b\st — 
the sagacious discoverer of the dangerous designs of Philij), the 
energetic statesman who roused his indolent countrymen to a true 
sense of their perils and their duty, lie boldly throws the blame 
on the people no less than their advisers ; and calling upon the 
Atheniaus to serve in person instead of leaving the military 
functions of the free citizen to l)e performed by mercenaries, 
he proposes to equip an adeqiiate standing force, and to provide 
the means for paying the soldiers and sailors by a financial 
scheme which has not come down to us." 

In B.C. 351, he delivered his speech about the freedom of 
the Khodians, urging the Athenians to support the democratical 
party in that island, and obviating the fear that either the 
queen of Caria, dr the Persian king, would espouse the cause of 
the ruling oligarchy. The former, he shows, w^ould probably 
abstain from all interference, and the king of Persia was 
not by any means so formidable an opponent as Philip of 
Macedou, whom some affected to hold cheap.' 

The three Ohjntltiac speeches were delivered in the year n.c. 
349. The chronological order of these vigorous harangues has 
been made the subject of learned discussions by able scholars.^ 
On the whole, there seems to be good ground for acquiescing 
in the conclusion of Stiive and Mr. Grote, that the third 
Olyuthiac should retain its old place, and that the order of the 
first and second sliould be reversed. According to this view, 
the earliest of these speeches considers the aflairs of Olynthus 
as only one element in the genei*al opposition to the designs of 
Philip, and dwells rather on the advantage of an alliance ^ith 
that important city than on the risk to which it was exposed, 

1 See Grote, XI. pp. 406 foil. " Id. pp. 431 foil. » Thiilw.ill, V. j). 304. 
■* See Mr. Grote's Appeucli.v to his 88tli cliaptor (vol. XI. pp. 499 — 504). Tlio 
three arrangements are : — 

Edited order T. TI. TTI. 

Order of Dionysius . . . II. Ill (. 

Stueve and Grote II. I. HI. 


and the consequences whicli the success of Philip in that 
quarter would probably entail.' In the next Olynthiac speech 
— that which is first in the ordinary an^angement — Demosthenes 
enlarges upon these special considerations. Olynthus is in 
danger, and if Philip conquers it, he "will soon be able, instead 
of fighting the Athenians in the north, to transfer the war to 
their own soil. And under the emergency, as he presents it to 
them, he recommends an adequate armament, both military and 
naval, which must be provided for, if necessary, by even an 
appropriation of the public- spectacle money — the theoricon, as 
it Avas called." The Athenians partially acted on this ad\dce, 
and their troops gained some trifling success which led them to 
indulge in overweening exultation. To repress this feeling and to 
point out the real state of the case, Demosthenes delivered the 
third Olynthiac oration.^ And he is so far from encouraging 
them in the belief that they had the game in their hands, that 
he insists upon the necessity of increased exertions, and goes so 
far as to suggest the immediate appointment of a board for a 
revision of the laws with a view to the application of the 
theoricon to the purposes of the war.^ This third Olynthiac is 
one of the noblest of all the speeches of Demosthenes. 

The speech on the Peace, which was delivered in B.C. 346, 
after the ruin of Phocis, and the promotion of Philip to the 
Amphietyonic dignity, contains a calm and statesmanlike view 
of the question, whether Philip's newly usurped honours 
should be recognized. Disapproving of the peace, he did not 
think that either the time or the cause wan-anted an appeal to 
arms. It would be foolish, he said, and absolutely monstrous, 
when they had so demeaned themselves with the separate states 
in regard to their dearest interests for the sake of peace, to 
go to war with them all collectively for the sake of a seat in 
the shady nook at Delphi.'^ 

In B.C. 344, the second Philippic was spoken. Philip had 
sent ambassadors to Athens, probably the mission in which the 

^ Grote, XI. p. 457. ^ Olynth. I. p. 15. 

3 Grote, XI. p. 468. ^ Olynth. III. pp. 31, 32. 

* De Pace, p. 63, 1. 23 : ovkow e{lr)9es Kal KOfiidy axerXiov irpos eKaarovs KaO' eVa 
oiiTu} irpoffevrjveynivovs irepl tQv dvayKaiwv Kal avayKawTO/ruv, wpos wduras wepl ttjs 
£i> Ae\<poLs ffKLas vvul iroXenijacLi, 

THE pniLirpics. IGf) 

Byzantine orator Pythoii took a prominent part, and, as Dr. 
Thirl wall suggests,' it ' seems to have been the speech with 
which Demosthenes prefaced a motion for the answer which he 
proposed to give to the ambassadors.' It is directed in great 
measure against the Philippizing Orators,-' and it warns the 
Athenians to be on their guard against the Macedonian king, 
and to form alliances against him. 

The oration 'about the Ilalonncsus,' which was delivered in 
B.C. 343, is wrongly attributed to Demosthenes. There is good 
reason for believing that its author was Ilegesippus, an orator 
of the anti-^Iacedonian party.^ Demosthenes spoke on the 
occasion, but his harangue is lost.' 

The oration on the Affairs of the Chersonesus' and the third 
Philippic were both delivered in b.c. 342, wlien the peace 
between Philip and the Athenians was growing more and more 
nominal, and the rupture becoming gradually more inentable. In 
the former, which is a masterpiece of eloquence, the orator depre- 
cates the reeal of Diopcithes,'' an active leader of mercenaries, 
who had engaged in unauthorized hostilities with Philip, and had 
levied contributions from his subjects in Thrace, and even appre- 
hended an envoy sent to treat with him.'' In both orations lu> 
deals immediately with the aflairs of the Chersonesus, and it 
has been supposed"* that the third Philippic had reference to a 
request for protection from the sul)jccts of Athens in that 
quarter. The Philippic boldly states that the nominal peace 
had been really a state of war, as far as Philip's actions were 

1 ThiilwaU, VI. p. 10. 

^ There is a special allusion to Philoorates in p. 73, 1. 2, for it was this corrupt 
orator who reviled Demo.sthenes as a teetotalist ; see Fals. Lty. p. 355. 1. 25. 

^ See iEsch. c. Cics. 65, and the arguments of Wiuiewski and Voniel, cited, the 
former at length and the latter briefly, in Dindorfs .J (Uioto^/oHcs (Oxford, 1849, 
vol. I. pp. 139—142). 

* Libanius, Arfjuni. : 6 fj^v toO Ar]fj.o(rOit>ovs \6yos 6 irfpl ttjs ' AXovfijcrov firjOth oi" 
ath^erai, iKtivov bk ovk 6vtos rbv evpid^vra irpoaithaav avrifi. 

® There is a spirited translation of this speech in Lord Brougham's Works, vol. 
VII. pp. 73 foil. 

^ Diopeithes has another contact with Greek literature as the father of the poet 

^ Kpist. Philippi, p. 159, 1. 13. 

8 By Winiewski {ad Oral, dc Corond, p. 176), on the strength of the expression 
T&Wa 6(ra d^ioOei, Phil. III. !>. 129, 1. 28. 


concerned, and both speeches insist on the necessity of sending 
embassies and organizing a confederacy to check the king's 
increasing ambition. 

The fourth Philippic is generally regarded^ as a spurious 
composition, made up of passages taken from the genuine 
orations of Demosthenes. Scholars have come to a similar 
conclusion respecting the speech on the Letter of Philip, and 
the Funeral Oration. That on the Arrangement of the Republic 
{irtpl avvTa^ihyq) has been pronounced by F. A. Wolf to be a 
patchwork made up in great measure of extracts from the third 
Olynthiac, and the speech against Aristocrates.^ 

§ 3. A general reference has been already made to the 
speeches against Androtion and Leptines, delivered in b.c, ^^^, 
against Tiraocrates in b.c. 353, against Aristocrates in b.c. 352, 
and that prepared for delivery against Midias in b.c 348. 
They are distinguished by the same characteristics — great 
knowledge of the laws and history of Athens, acute reasoning, 
and powerful declamation. That against Leptines was a 
special favourite with the ancient critics. Dionysius says that 
of all the speeches of Demosthenes, this oration on the immu- 
nities has the greatest polish and literary finish;^ and the 
eminent rhetorician, Aristides, has left us a formal imitation 
of it. Cicero specially praises it for its subtlety,'' and the great 
modern scholar, F. A. Wolf, assigns it the next place in point 
of excellence to the noble speech on the CroionJ" The accuracy 
of the language is very remarkable, and we have some examples 
of refinements and distinctions, which evince the most laborious 
and careful preparation.® 

^ See Dindorf, Annot. I. p. -202. 

^ Wolf, Proleg. ad Leptineam, p. 74 : ' si quid video, oratio quae inscribitur irepi 
avvTOL^eus seu de Eepublica ordinanda, Demosthenis non est, sed ex aliis ejus, 
maxirao Oljaith. III. et Ai-istocratea, ab aliquo declamatore consutis pannis 

^ Ad AmmcEum, p. 7*24: 6 Trepl tCiv dreXeiCj!' \6yos xapt^crraTos d:rd;'rw;' tQv 
\6ywv Kal ypacpiKibraTOi. 

* Orator. 31: 'niultse sunt Demosthenis orationes totse subtiles, ut contra 
Leptinem : multse totse graves ut qusedam Philippicse : multse variae, ut contra 
x-Eschinem falsse legationis, ut contra eundem pro caussa Ctesiphontis. ' 

' Prolegomena in Lept. p. 42. 

® As in the refined distinction between d.<paipeiy and d<paipeia9ai, p. 462, i, 3. 


TIic orations against Androtion, Tiniocratcs, and Aristo- 
cratcs, are marked by a similarity of subject and a rescmljlancc 
of style, which sometimes amounts to a repetition of the same 
arguments and even the same expressions. This parsimony, 
or at least economy of diction, is j)articularly observable in 
the two former speeches, which are written for the same 
accuser, and virtually directed against the same offending party. 
It is interesting to examine the relations between Demosthenes 
and the persons who figure in these two orations. Androtion, 
the son of Andron, was an orator of no mean eminence. He 
had been a pupil of Isocrates,' and has received commenda- 
tion from Aristotle, who preserves a fragment from one of 
his speeches." At the time when this action was brought 
against him, he had been a leading politician for more than 
thirty years, and had held many offices of great responsibility.^ 
But he seems to have been a selfish demagogue, and his 
j)rivatc character was on a par with his political reputation. 
It has been supposed, and, as we shall see, not without 
reason, that he was the same person as the historian Androtion, 
who wrote the Althis.^ lie is attacked in the cause, for which 
the speech of Demosthenes was written, by Euctemon and 
Diodorus, both of whom he had wronged in the most signal 
manner, on the ground that he had illegally proposed the usual 
honour of a crown to the council of the five hundred, although 
they had not performed their prescribed duty of building some 
additional triremes. This was in b.c. ^j^, and we do not 
know precisely the result of the action. Tn b.c. ^^^, the same 
Androtion is the cause of the attack made by Euctemon and 
Diodorus against Timocrates. lie hud been sent as ambas- 
sador to Caria, and on the wav the trireme in which he sailed 
had captured a merchant ship of Naucratis, and l)ronght her 
into the Peirseus. The ambassadors had sold and appropriated 
the captured goods, which really belonged to the state, and had 
been summoned to refund the proceeds. In order to screen 
them, Timocrates, a hireling orator, had proposed a law, which 

^ Deni. c. Androf. p. 594, 15. 

* Rhet. III. 4, § 3. He compared his adversary Iilrieus to an unchained and 
savage dog. 

3 Dem. c. Timocr. pp. 734, 5. ■* Bolow, chapter XLIII. S (y- 


would have relieved Androtion from the usual penalties. And 
in arguing against this law, Demosthenes has to take a course 
the very opposite to that which w^as necessary in the attack on 
Leptines. It is curious to observe how the personal relations 
of these public men varied at different times in their career, 
fully justifying the saying of Bias, quoted by Sophocles, that 
the harbour of political partizanship was not a safe place of 
refuge, and that we must limit our animosity by the thought 
that our enemy may one day be our friend." In the speech 
against Midias, which was delivered in B.C. 348, we find that 
Euctemon had become one of the party of that insolent enemy 
of Demosthenes. ' Now,^ he says,^ ' Polyeuctus, Timocrates, 
Euctemon, that dirty fellow (o Kovioproq), are the protectors of 
INIidias. These and others too are his hireling attendants, a 
confederate association of witnesses, not indeed troubling you 
openly, but without any scruple expressing their assent 
to falsehoods. By heaven, I do not believe that they 
derive any advantage from him, but they have a surprising 
habit of surrendering themselves disgracefully {(pdeipeaOai) 
to the rich, and following at their heels, and giving testimony 
for them.' Another Euctemon is mentioned with great com- 
mendation in the same speech,^ and has been identified with 
the prosecutor of Timocrates and Androtion; but the fact 
that Euctemon takes the lead in an attack on such a for- 
midable antagonist as the latter, seems to show that he was, 
like the other Euctemon, an orator and public man, as in- 
deed we know he was ; and the friendly relations, which after- 
wards subsisted between Polyeuctus and Demosthenes, are at 

^ Soph. Ajax, 678: 

eyui 5' eTriffrafiat yap dprius on 
6 r' ixdpos i]/Mv es roadvd' ixdaprios 
cl's Kal <piK'i](Twv aWis' ^s re tov <pi\ov 
TOffavd' VTTOvpyQv ti^eXeij' pov\rj( 
cos aUv ov /nevovvTO,' rois iroWol^cn yap 
^porCiv dwicTTos ead' iraipelas Xifj.rji'. 
Cf. Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 660, 24, who expresses this sentiment in bis own words, 
and see Arist. JRhet. II. 13, § 4 ; Cic. Lcel. c. 16. 

^ C. Mid. p. 560, § 2. It is the opinion of Euhnken that the Polyeuctus 
here was the sane as the orator of Sphettus, but Bohnecke and Dindorf tbink 
this improbable. 

3 a Mid. p. 56S, 1. 24. 


least as inconsistent with this passage as the association here 
of Euctcmon and Timocratcs. 

The eialiorate oration against AristocrateSj in n.c. 352, was 
composed for one Euthyclcs, who had served as a trierarch ou 
the coast of Thrace, and had ai)pearcd on former occasions as 
an accuser.' The oration is interesting from the information, 
wliich we derive from it, respecting the laws of Athens and the 
affairs of Thrace, and though it generally exhibits an elaboration 
of arguments rather than the energy of fervid eloquence, there 
are here and there some very striking passages, as, for cxami)le, 
that in which he compares the selfishness of the contemporary 
statesmen with the patriotism of such citizens as !Miltiades, 
Themistoclcs, and Aristidcs. ' In those days,' he says," ' the 
people was the master, now it is the ministering slave of the 
public men. They, who propose such decrees — who accustom 
you to think lightly of yourselves, and to hold in reverence some 
one or two individuals, — are to blame for all this. They it is 
who have stepped into the inheritance of yom* glory and your 
possessions, whereas you have not the least advantage from them, 
but witness the prosperity of others ; having no share in anything 
— except being cheated. And yet what would be the groaning 
of those great men, who died for glory and for freedom, and 
left behind the records of many noble deeds, if by any possi- 
bility they could be aware tluit the city has now degi-adcd itself 
to the form and office of a dependent, and is actually debating 
whether it is right to protect the person of Charidemus. Of 
Charidemus ! out upon him !" 

The investigations of modern scholars have confirmed the 
opinions of the old critics, that the orations against T/ieocrincs* 
and Neara, and the two speeches against Aristogeiton, are not 
the genuine works of Demosthenes. The first of these, which 

1 C. Ariitocr. p. 622, 1. 27. * Ibid. p. 690, 1. 10. 

' The conclusion deserves to be quoted in the original : KaLroi rrrfKiKov tL tot ' 
hv (TTfva^eiav ol &vSpfs iKeivoi, ol virkp d6^y]S Kal iXevOeplas TeXei/TTjcrocrfs Kal iroWum 
Kal KaXQf Ipyui' inronvqiJiaTa KaTaXnrdfTes el &pa ataOoivTO 6ri fOf ij r6\iS eU 
v-rrriph-ov ffxfifJ-a. Kal rd^iv irpoeXriXvde, kuI Xapid-rjfMov el xph <Ppovpeiv /3oi/\f i/f rat ; 
Xa/jiSv/iOJ' ; otpLoi {c. Aristocr. p. 690, 1. 17). For tlie force of oT/iot, see Soph. 
A ntif/. 86. Aristoph. ^rcs, 145. 

* The Tlieocrines, in this c-^se, was perhaps the loud-voiced .and histrionic 
speaker mentioned in the Orat. de Coron. p. 329, 26. 


was delivered in b.c. 333, is an fVSa^tc brought by one 
Epicharcs, and is distinctly attributed to Deinarehus by 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus.^ The second was probably classed 
with the works of Demosthenes, because it was drawn up for 
Apollodorus, the son of Pasion, for whom Demosthenes com- 
posed so many forensic addresses. It is referred to the year 
B.C. 340. Its genuineness is doubted by Phrynichus/ Photius/ 
and Athenseus/ chiefly on account of its style. The majority 
of modern critics have agreed in discarding it. The two 
speeches against Aristogeitoyi are rhetorical exercitations by 
later sophists analogous to that which Aristides composed on 
the same subject as the Leptinean oration.^ It is a fact that 
Demosthenes took a part, apparently a secondary part, with 
Lycurgus, in the prosecution of Aristogeiton in b.c. 331 ;" and 
we have still the speech in which the same individual was 
attacked by Deinarehus in b.c. 324. And this was a sufficient 
reason for the selection of this cause for an exercise by some 
rhetorician. But it is probable that Demosthenes, who followed 
Lycm'gus, had not much occasion to make an elaborate speech, 
and that he did not think it worth while to publish what he 
had spoken. 

§ 4. The two great speeches against ^schines, the un- 
successfol attack in the speech on the Embassy in b.c 343, and 
the triumphant defence in the speech on the Crown in b.c 330, 
are the most elaborate and important of all the orations of 
Demosthenes; and in studying them we have the peculiar 
advantage of possessing the correspondmg addresses of the rival 

Both in literary merit and in real power, the speech on the 
Embassy appears to us conspicuously inferior to that on the 
Crown. In the former, Demosthenes seems to feel throughout 
an imperfect confidence in the goodness of his cause. That 

^ Be Dinarclio, p. 652 ; Reiske. Of. Harpocration, s.vv. dypacpiov and QeoKpiv)]^. 

^ p. 225, Lobeck : 5td re to. dWa inriinrTevd-q fir] elvai Arj/uiocrO^vovs Kal Sia rd 
Toiavra tCiv ddoKL/JLiov dvo/Mdruv. 

3 Cod. CCLXV. 4 XIII. p. 573 B.: el yv-^aio?. 

' See WesteiTaann, Qucest. Demosthen. pars III., reprinted in Dindorf's Anno- 
tationes, II. pp. 1012-1020. 

« I,iban. Argtm. p. 769, Phot. Cod. CCLX\^. 


riiilocratcs had been giiilty of corruption and trca.son ini^lit he 
regarded as an established fact. But tlie anti- Macedonian 
party had no sufficient evidence to bring home the same charge 
to .'Escliines. There can be little doubt that ^Eschincs, like 
Phocion and Eubulus, was inlluenced at first by the general 
tendencies of the Athenian people, and by a wish to make 
political capital in following the stream of pul)lic opinion, 
rather than by any corrupt motives ; though in all probability 
these were superadded when ^Eschincs came under the imme- 
diate pressure of Macedonian seductions. Demosthenes, too, 
may have felt that he liad been too ready himself to accept the 
peace, and that he had not spoken out on some points so })lainlv 
as he ought to have done.' Perhaps, too, the ruin of Timarchus,- 
Avho had been originally associated with him in the prosecution, 
may have damped his ardour, or at least that of his supporters. 
Be this as it may, there is certainly a want of cogency in many 
parts of this speech ; it is comparatively lax in its order and 
arrangement; there are repetitions, as though the author 
thought that a re-assertion was equivalent to an additional 
argument ; and in some parts the evidence seems to liave 
broken down altogether.^ Nevertheless, its general tendency 
is to explain and justify the policy which Demosthenes con- 
sistently adopted ; and w hen the orator speaks more of the 
general corruption of the age than of the particular faults of 
iEschines, his eloquence is irresistible. Nothing, for example, 
could be finer, than the passage in which he describes the 
morbid state of political morals in Greece :' ' A disease, men of 
Athens, a dreadful and violent disease, has fallen on Greece — 
one that exacts on your part extraordinary good fortune and 

^ See the criticisms of Giote, XI. pp. 553 folL 

^ De Fills. Legal, p. 341 : rbv fxiv dvrjpTjKe tQiv iiri ras evOvvas eKOdi'Tuii'. 
this means the disfranchisement and not the death of Timarchus i.s clear from the 
glosses in Bekker's Anccdota, pp. 27, 16, 402, 23, and the passages quoted by Mr. 
Shilieto, Pals. Ley. p. 432 ; Mid. p. 548. 'According to one account,' says Dr. 
Thirhvall (VI. p. 29), ' lie put an end to his life — a sign of greater sensibility than 
might have been expected from so profligate a man.' This other account is given 
in the V'ltcE X. Oratorum, p. 841 A. 

^ As in the story of the Olynthian woman. C'f. Dem. FaU. Ley. p. 40:, with 
iEsch. Fals. Leg. sub initio, and i)p. 48, 49. 

* Fal.<<. Leg. p. 424. 


unusual care. For the men of most consideration in the par- 
ticular cities, and those who are entrusted with the manage- 
ment of affairs, betraying their own freedom, the unfortunate 
men ! are bringing on themselves a voluntary servitude, calling 
it by the flattering names of correspondence, association, inti- 
macy with Philip, and the like ;^ while the rest, and whatever 
ai'e the governing bodies in the several cities, whose duty it is 
to punish these men, and put them to death on the spot, are 
so far from doing any such thing that they admire and envy 
them, and would willingly act in the same way, every one for 
himself.^ The story, too, about the Olynthian woman, though 
unsupported or rather contradicted by evidence, is a masterpiece 
of criminatory narrative. And the speech, as a whole, must 
have produced a great effect. For though ^Eschines made an 
admirable defence, and was supported by men of great influence, 
though the allegations of Demosthenes were often false or 
inaccurate, and though he laboured throughout under the dis- 
advantage of bringing an invidious charge against a colleague 
with whom he had acted with general harmony and agreement, 
^schines did not obtain a triumphant acquittal, but could only 
command a majority of thirty votes," which in so numerous a 
jury was quite inconsiderable; and we do not find that he 
afterwards regarded his victory with much satisfaction. 

To the universal admiration with which the oration on the 
Crown has been regarded we have no qualifications to make. 
As an effort of oratory it is unsurpassed by any composition in 
ancient or modern times; and it has been justly remarked that 
it ' has an historical value as a funeral oration of extinct 
Athenian and Grecian freedom.^ ^ The grounds, on which 
^Eschines impeached Ctesiphon^s proposal to crown and eulogize 
Demosthenes, not only justified but exacted from the latter a 
complete review of his whole political career. The accuser 
maintained that Ctesiphon had broken the Athenian laws in 
three points: (i) because it was unlawful to crown a public 
functionary before he had rendered an account of his conduct ; 

■• ^tXiTTTTOi; ^eviav Kai eratplav Kai (piXiav Kai roiavd' inroKOpi^6fiivoi. 
^ Plutarch, Dem. 15, on the authority of Idomeueus of Lampsacus, who was 
nearly a contemporary of Demosthenes. 
3 Grote, History of Greece, XII. p. 393. 


(2) because it was unlawful to proclaim the distinction ut the 
Dionysian festival, the proper place being the Council-hall, if 
the Council awarded the crown, and the Pnyx, if the assembly 
decreed it ; (3) because it was unlawful to state a falsehood in 
a puljlic document, and it was false that Demosthenes had 
deserved any reward, as was stated in the decree, JJoth the 
speech of /Eschincs and the re])ly of Demosthenes discuss the 
legal arguments witli compai'ative brevity, and direct all their 
efforts to the esta])lishmcnt or refutation of the statement that 
Demosthenes had deserved a public recognition of his virtue 
and patriotism.' In the oration for the defence, which is now 
before us, it is the main object of the speaker to show that the 
l)olicy, which he had consistently pursued, had been designed 
and calculated to strengthen Athens, and to defeat the machi- 
nations of foreign enemies, especially Philip of Macedon ; and 
acknowledging that he had failed, he shows that his failure had 
not been occasioned by any lack of exertions on his part, and 
that his fellow-citizens had, in the midst of their disasters, 
gained more glory than they would have obtained by the 
highest success, if they had followed the converse policy. That 
the Athenians felt this is proved by the result of the trial — a 
result not less honourable to the judges than to Demosthenes 
himself. For in spite of the bitter memories of Chicroneia, the 
near approach of danger after the downfal of the Thebans, aiul 
the subsequent growth of Alexander's power, the men of Athens 
had the magnanimity to re-affirm their approbation of the anti- 
^Macedonian policy, by such a complete acquittal of Ctesiphon 
as amounted to a direct censure of his prosecutor. .Eschines 
did not obtain the fifth part of the votes, and feeling that his 
influence at Athens was at an end, at least so long as the 
commonwealth retained its freedom of deliberation, he retired 
from the scene of his discomfiture, and went over to Asia in 
the hope of obtaining fresh countenance and support from 
Alexander — a hope which the king^s death soon dissipated ; and 
he passed the remainder of his life as a teaciier of rhetoric at 

' This issue is fairly challenged in the words of the decree (Aiyuin. p. 11^): 
iireiSr] StareXet Ar)jj.ocrd^v7is 6 Arjixo<TBivovt wap' 5\oy Tbi> ^lov ivvoiOM (ii tjjv ir6\ii> 



Our limits do not allow us to attempt any Icngtliened analysis 
of this great oration, or to exhibit its peculiar beavities by 
adequate specimens. It must be read as a whole by those who 
would thoroughly appreciate it. Still, it is impossible to 
mention it without referring to some of the brilliant passages, 
which are cited invariably as the best illustration of the orator's 
peculiar genius. Nothing, for example, can surpass the passage 
in which he maintains the wisdom of facing death in the 
unselfish pursuit of glory.^ ' Death is to all men the end 
of life, even though one should keep oneself shut up in a cage ; 
but it is the duty of good men to aim at all that is noble, 
holding ever before their eyes a hope for the best, and en- 
during in a manly spirit whatever the Deity may impose.^ 
In a similar strain we have the celebrated passage in which he 
assures the Athenians that his policy was in accordance with 
their own true instincts, and that it would be an insult to 
them to say that he instructed them in sentiments worthy of 
their ancestors; but that if they convicted Ctesiphon they 
would convict themselves, not their adviser, of an erroneous 
policy. ' But it is impossible,^ he cries,^ ' it is impossible that 
you have erred, men of Athens, in taking on yourselves the 
risk for the freedom and safety of all Greece ! No ! I swear 
it, by those of your ancestors who placed themselves in danger's 
van at Marathon, by those who joined the line of battle at 
Platsea, by those who fought in the ships at Salamis and 
Artemisium, and many other brave men who are laid to rest 
in the public monuments, all of whom alike the city interred, 
thinking them all worthy of the same honour, ^schines, and 
not merely those among them who had succeeded and were 
victorious. Justly ! for that which was the duty of brave men 
was done by all of them, and the fortune which they expe- 
rienced was that which the Deity assigned to each of them/ 
Other passages of the most fervid eloquence, which are gene- 
rally cited from this speech, are the description of the excite- 
ment at Athens, when the news came that Philip had occupied 

■* De Corond, p. 258 : iripas yap airaaiv dvOpwirois icrrl rod ^iov Odvaros k&v ev 
oIkIctkci} Tis avTov KaOeip^as Trjpfj' Set 5^ toi)s dyaOovs dvdpas eyx^i-petv /xiv aTraaiv del 
TOis KaXoh TTjv dYa^Tji/ irpo^aWo/x.^vovs iXirida, ip^peiv 6^ 6'rt dv 6 6ebs Sid(^ yevvaius. 

- De Corond, p. 297. 


Elatca/ that in which Demosthenes MKiiutaius that he has fortiliecl 
Atlicns, not with material walls only, but with armaments and 
fleets," that in which he asserts the high principles by which his 
public life had been actuated/ and that in which lie contrasts the 
motives by which the Athenians were bound to be inllucnccd 
with those of the semi-barbarous Philip, wlio was wiUiuf^ to 
sacrifice any part of his body which fortune chose to take IVoni 
hinij provided he mij^ht live in honour and glory with what 
remained/ Nor is the oration remarkable oidy for passages of 
an elevated character. Its sarcasm and invective are un- 
equalled. His elaborate comparison of his own respectability with 
the humble early life of his rival,* and his attack on the father 
of TEsehines as not only a slave, but a runaway slave, on his 
mother as not only a harlot, but a shameless onc'^ — whatever 
we may think of their taste or even of their strict veracity — 
are unsurpassed as efforts of withering scorn and overwhelming 
contumely. The speech, too, abounds in those figures of diction 
which by their pungency leave the sting in the memory, as when 
he speaks of ' the crop of traitors, and bought statesmen, and 
heaven-hated wretchcs,^^ avIio had sprung up as the aiders and 
abettors of Philip ; or where he says,** that ' Avhencver anything 
untoward happens, yEschines is sure to come forth, just as 
fractures and sprains are most felt when the body is attacked 
by some disease.' 

Great as are the literary merits of the oration on the Crown, 
they were very much enhanced by the splendid action with 
which it was delivered ; and a story is told that, when /Eschines 
read the speech to his hearers at Rhodes, and when some of 
them loudly expressed their admiration, the defeated accuser 
could not refrain from exclaiming, ' what would you say if you 
had heard the villain himself speak it ?'* 

1 Dc Corond, p. 284. ' Ibid. p. 325. 1. 22. 

3 Ibid. 1. 4. * Ibid. p. 247. 

° Ibid. p. 315. Cf. Milton, Smectymnuus, p. 80 (prose works, in one volnmc). 

® p. ■270. 

^ p. •245. 1. 16 : (fiopa TrpoSoTwv Kal dupo56Kuiv Kal dtoh ix^pCiv dyOpwwwy. 

8 p. 294. 1. 21. 

» Cic. dc Oral. IIT. 56. Quintil. XT. 3, § 6. riulnstrat. Vii. Sophitt. I. 19. 
5. Vit. X. Omt. Photiua. Cod. CCLXIV. \alcr. Max. VIII. 10. p. 840 D. 
Plin. H. N. VIII. 30. Plin. Epist. 11. 3- 'O- 

X 2 


§ 5. Of tlio thirty-one private orations of Demosthenes 
which have come down to us, only four are regarded with any 
doubt by the ancient grammarians — that against Euergus and 
Mnesibulus, which is questioned by Harpocration ;' that against 
Phcmij)pus concerning the Exchange, which the author of the 
argument tells us was by some not referred to the great orator ;' 
that in answer to the Demurrer of Lacritus, which the author 
of the argument tells us was regarded by some as not genuine, 
but on very feeble arguments ;'* and that against Nicostratus, 
which Harpocration seems to doubt.^ But the evidence in 
favour of the authenticity of the last two of these speeches 
outweighs that in the contrary scale. Of the remaining 
twenty-seven, five are the speeches against his guardians 
{iTTiTpoTTiKoi Xojoi), to which we have made reference already, 
and no less than eight had reference to the litigations in which 
Apollodorus was engaged. All these private speeches have a 
general interest for the scholar, not only as furnishing specimens 
of the legal knowledge and argumentative ability of the writer, 
but also as contributing in no small degree to our knowledge 
of the public and private economy of Athens. The speeches 
composed for Apollodorus demand a special notice, on account 
of some critical questions which affect not merely the chrono- 
logical arrangement of these orations, but also in some measure 
the moral character of Demosthenes himself.^ 

Apollodorus was the son of Pasion, an eminent banker at 
Athens, who died in b.c. 370," leaving two sons by his wife 
Archippe, namely, Apollodorus, who was then twenty-four, and 
Pasicles who was a minor. He consigned his wife and the 
guardianship of Pasicles to Phormio, his freedman, who had 

^ s.vv. iKaXiffrpovv, jJTTjfx&rju. He says he feels disposed to assign it to 

" p. 1037. 21 : 6 fxev X670S ouK avacpiperai irapd tlvuiu eh tov Arjfioadivrjv. 

3 p. 923. 1. 10 : ovK dpdws 5^ Tives evd/jLiaav rbv \6yov /xtj yvqdLov elvai dfivSpoTs 
dirarrjOivTes TeK/xyjplois. 

* s.v. diroypacprj : kv T<j3 Arj/iotr^eVovs Trpos NiKocrrpaTOP irepl tCjv ' Apedovalov 
avSpawSSuv, el yvrjcnos. 

^ The relations between Apollodorus and Demosthenes are discussed by Beels in 
his Diatribe in Demosthenis Orationes, I. et II. in Sfephanum, Lugd. Bat. 1825, 
from which there are some extracts in Dindorf s Annotationes, III. pp. 1226 — 1233. 

^ Dem. in Steph. II. p. 1132. 1, 25. 


hired the managcinent ot" his bunk. ApollodDrus was at that 
time absent from Athens, as the eommander of a trireme, and 
being dissatisfied with las mother's marriage, he commenced an 
action against Phormio, whicli w;us dropped j)artly on her 
intercession.' For the rest of his motlier's Hfe lie remained on 
good terms witli Phormio. Archippe died in B.C. 360/" imme- 
diately after the return of Apollodorus from the protracted 
trierarcliy which led to his action against Polycles, and to 
the speech ^vhich Demosthenes composed for that prosecution. 
The death of his mother brought Apollodorus into other dis- 
putes with Phormio, which were compromised by a payment 
from Phormio of 5000 drachraie, and the parties were reconciled.' 
Notwithstanding this, in the year b.c. 350, Apollodorus brought 
an action for twenty talents, the capital {inpit f)f.iii) of the bank, 
against Phormio,' who entered a demurrer {Traf)ay(m(pii], and 
by this means was enabled to take the initiative in the suit, 
and, by establishing the fact of the compromise, to nonsuit the 
plaintiff Apollodorus.' Here Ave find Demosthenes opposed to 
his old client, and the speech /or Phormio was that which gave 
success to the demurrer or cross-action. The litigious son of 
Pasion was not satisfied with this decision, and brought an action 
for perjury against one of the witnesses, Stephanus, in support of 
which Demosthenes composed the two extant orations against 
Stephanus ; and we find that Demosthenes was engaged for 
Apollodorus when he wrote the speech against Xicostratas, 
about the same time as the prosecution of ^lidias in b.c. 348.* 
Now it was in reference to this acceptance of a brief for 
Phormio, probably tiie only occasion on which Demosthenes 
wrote a speech against Apollodorus, that /Eschincs, in his 
speech on the Embassy, in b.c 343, taunts him with treachery 

1 in Steph. I. p. 1102, II. p. 1135. ' adv. Polychm. p. 122.';. 

^ Pro Phormione, pp. 948 sqq. 

* Ibid. pp. 945, 949. 

' Beels erroneously supposes that Demosthenes wrote a speech yrpbi ^opuli.n'a 
for Apollodorus, .is well as the speech virip 4>opn[wvoi, which is found jiniong his 
works. But this rests on a misunderstanding of the words of Plutarch, who, in 
speaking of the tovs irpbs ^oppilojfa Kal "Zritpavov \byovs, merely moan.-j the two 
speeches against Stephanus, which were virtually .against Piiormio ; sec Dindorf. 
Annot. III. p. 1230. 

" Dindorf, ad Dem, Nicosir. p. 1:47, 6. 


not to Apollodorus, but to Phormio/ and both ^schines and 
Deinarclius" insinuate that the opulence of Phormio enabled 
him to purchase the services of the venal orator. It appears to 
us most probable that at the time of the final quarrel between 
Apollodorus and Phormio, Demosthenes was equally intimate 
with both parties, but was shortly after led to associate him- 
self more closely with Apollodorus, by their common opposition 
to Eubulus, the supporter of Midias and the patron ot 
yEschines. It must not be forgotten that it was about this 
time that Apollodorus made the patriotic motion about the 
Theoric fund, in opposition to Eubulus, and in accordance with 
the opinion of Demosthenes, and that he was prosecuted for it 
in a most vindictive manner by a man named Stephanus/ 
perhaps the very Stephanus against whom Demosthenes wrote 
the speech. This union in public matters would be quite 
sufficient to account for the conduct of Demosthenes, and for 
the mode in which iEschines alludes to it. At any rate, there 
is not the slightest ground for the opinion which has been 
derived from Plutarch,^ that Demosthenes wrote speeches both 
for Phormio and for Apollodorus in one and the same 

§ 6. The style and characteristics of Demosthenes have fur- 
nished the ancient critic Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, with the 
materials for a special treatise ; and a great modern orator. Lord 
Brougham, has made this master of ancient eloquence the theme 
of more than one glowing tribute of praise. As Thucydides 
was the historian, and Homer the poet of the old grammarians, in 
a special and emphatic sense, so Demosthenes was their orator, 
par excellence.^ Hermogenes places him at the head of all 

^ ^sch. Fals. Legat. p. 50, 1. 23 : S.pd, 76 ovx 1^^ (^v tois iprvyxdvovat Kal 
Tnarevaaai Kexpvc'^'-j Xdyovs eh SiKaarripia ypd<povra fiicrdov tovtovs iK(f>4peiv rots 
dvTLdlKOis ; 'iypaipas \6yov ^op/xluvi tc^ Tpaire^'iTri xpvi^o-Ta Xa^uv. toOtov e^-^veyKas 
'AwoWoSiipix} ry irepl tov cnb/xaros Kplvovri. 'bopp.Lwva. Cf. in Nicostr. p. 1251, i. 

^ In Bemosth. p. 104, 1. 19. ^ Grote, XI. p. 485. 

* Plutarch, De7n. 15 ; see Clinton, F. H. II. p. 358, and note 5 in the preceding 

^ Anonym, ad Aphtlionium, Rhet. Gr. II. p. 16, 10, Walz. : xar' e^oxhv eiprj- 
Tat .... iicrirep Kal t6v Arj/xoadevrju prjTopa Xeyofxev. Doxopater, Homil. in 
Aphthon. II. p. 515, Walz: avyypa<f>ia 6 'A. rbv QovKvdlSrjv (pijcrl Kara rb i^alperov, 
wffirep Kal ttoitjttjv rbf "Ofj.7}p6i> <pa/jLev Kal prjTopa 6/xoius rbv ArjfiotxO^vrjv. 


political speakers,' aiul tlie same was the opinion ol' Tlieon.- 
Cicero calls him the prince of orators/' and (leelares that nothing 
was wanting to his perfection.' He was not inferior, says the 
Homan master of eloquence, to Lysias in suhtilty, to 
llyi)erei(les in ingenuity and acuteness, or to J'^schines iu the 
exquisite finish and brilliancy of his style. ^ 

Dionysius, as we have already mentioned,' places Demo- 
sthenes and Plato at the head of the most ix-rfect writers in 
that middle or mixed style, which combined the simplicity of 
Lysias with the weightier eloquence of Thucydides and (Jorgias, 
and which Thrasymachus was the first to introduce. That 
Demosthenes was a diligent student of Thucydides is sulliciently 
attested by the fact, if it is a fact, that he copied out the history 
eight times.' His direct imitation of Thucydides has been 
recognized by Dionysius, "^ who also saw tliat his enthymemes 
or rhetorical arguments were the same as those of the histo- 
rian.^ At the same time it is observed that he followed closely 
in the steps of Isocrates and IsEeus,'" being especially indebted 
to the latter." The extent to which Plato contributed to form 
the style of Demosthenes has been differently estimated. 
Cicero says, distinctly cnongh, that Demosthenes was not 
merely a diligent reader of Plato, but that he had been one of 
his hearers, and that he had admitted this in a letter.'-' This 
is also stated by Plutarch^ on the authority of Hcrmippus, who 
adds that Demosthenes was much benefited in his oratorical 

^ Hcrmogcnes, irepl idfwv, III. p. 366, 18, Walz: &piffT6i tc yap ttoXitikwv 
\6yb)v 6<r6eviK6s, 6 re oC ArifMOcrdefiKb^ \670s Tuiv noXiTiKuiv Apiaroi. 

* Theo. irpoyviJ.vdfffx.aTa, I. p. 200, 6, Walz. 

^ Brulus, 37, § 141. 

•« Hid. 9, § 35 ; ^e Ch-aiore, I. 13, § 58. 

^Orator. 31, § no: 'Demosthenes . . . nihil Lysiae subtilitate cedit, nihil 
argiitiis et acuniine Hyperidi, nihil levitate ^Eschini et .siilendi)rc vcrboruni.' 

« Above, c. XXXIX. § 10. 

^ Lucuvn adv. indoctum, p. 102. 

8 De Thuq/d. judicium, p. 944, Rciske. 

^ Ad Pomp, dc prwcip. hint or ids, p. 777, Ileiske. 

1" Dionys. Hal. de Demosth. et Aristot. p. 723, Reiakc. 

" Dionys. Hal. de Isceo, p. 586, 592, 61 t. 

1^ Brutus, 3r, § 121 : ' kctitavisae Platonem studiose, .ludivisse etiam Demo- 
sthenes dicitur, idque apparet ex genere et granditate verborum ; dicit etiam in 
• luadaui cpistolA hoc ipse do sejc' Cf. Dc Omloir, I. :o. Ik ({/?iVi/.<, I. i. 


style by the lessons which he received from Plato.' And a 
modern Dutch scholar, who is an enthusiastic admirer of the 
great philosopher, not only maintains that the style of Demo- 
sthenes was framed on the Platonic model, but even discerns in 
his speeches some genuine fragments of dialogues and dramatic 
scenes in direct imitation of Plato." On the other hand, 
Dionysius more than once asserts that the composition {avuOiaig) 
of Demosthenes was decidedly superior to that of Plato,^ and 
tells us that the orator was not an imitator of any style or 
any man, thinking that all his predecessors had only gone 
half-way, and were incomplete, but that he selected from all of 
them what was best and most useful, and wove it into one 
texture, making from them all one new dialect at once rich and 
simple, elaborate and ordinary, novel and common, showy and 
solid, grave and gay, vehement and tranquil, pleasant and bitter, 
moral and impassioned, exhibiting in fact as many changes as 
the fabled Proteus.^ It appears to us that the main characteristic 
of the eloquence of Demosthenes — that, in fact, which explains 
the wonderful effects produced by it onpopular assemblies — is this, 
that he used the common language of his age and country, that 
he took the greatest pains in choosing and arranging his words, 
that he aimed at the utmost conciseness, making epithets, even 
common adjectives, do the work of a whole sentence, and that 
he was enabled, by a perfect delivery and action, to give the 
proper emphasis and the full effect to the terms which he had 
selected with so much care, so that a sentence, composed of 
ordinary terms, sometimes smote with the weight of a sledge- 
hammer. His rival, iEschines, who sometimes admits inci- 
dentally this wonderful power of Demosthenes in putting his 

' Plut. Vita Demosth. 5 : "Ep/jlittttos 6^ (priaiv ddea-ir6Toii virofiv-qfiaatv ivrvxeiv, 
iv oh eyiypa-TTTO rbv ATj/xocrdivr] crwecrxoXaK^fat HXdrui'i, Kal TrXeterov els rovs 
}\.6yovs wcpeXTJadai. 

^ P. W. van Heusde, Tnitia Philosophic Platonicce, vol. II. part I. pp. 151 sqq. 
He says : ' exstant in ejus orationibus coUoquiafomia et ratione prorsus Platonica,' 
and he cites, Cherson., p. 98 D ; Philij^p. TV. p. 150 A ; Phil. I. p. 43 A. Cf, 
Phil. IV. 138 B. C. 

2 De Compos, verborum, p. 117, Reiske. 

* De admir. ri dicendi in Dem. p. 974, 5, Tleiske : fiiai' €k ttoWCiv SLoXeKTov 
iireriXei, fxeyoKoTrpeirrj, XittjV wepi.TT'rjv, dir^piTTov e^T]Wayp.&7]i', avvrjOT]' irav-q- 
yvpiKrjv, dXrjOii'rii'' avcrryjpdv, IXapdv avvTOvov, dveip-h-qv rjhelav, VLKpdv -qOiK-rfV, 
vad-qTiKTjv, K.r.X. 


words togetluM-,' in one passaj^c charges him witli using the 
most uncouth uutl oUcnsive figures of speech." He wonders 
how the Athenians eouhl tolerate such ex^jressions as ' some 
people are vinedressing the state/ ' some have amputated the 
vine-twigs of the people/ ' our affairs have heen hamstrung/ 

* we are being stitehetl into baskets/ ' some persons are inserting 
themselves like needles into the interstices/ and then exclaims, 

* what are these expressions, you fox ? arc they words or 
wonders?' Dionysius seems to be justified in treating this 
statement as a calumny, and says that although Demosthenes 
has left 50,000 or 60,000 lines of his writing, no such expres- 
sions arc to be found in any of his speeches.* yEschincs knew 
as well as any one that the strength of Demosthenes did not 
consist in tumid extravagances like these. In the last speech 
Avliieh he heard Demosthenes deliver, Demosthenes inveighed 
with deliberate and concentrated virulence against the parents 
of his opponent, and contrived to express the most cruel impu- 
tations, Avithout using any extravagant compounds. 15y a 
skilful use of the simplest terms, he tells the Athenians that 
the father of Jjlschines was the runaway slave of a poor school- 
master in the worst part of the town, and that his mother 
combined shameless profligacy with the most abject poverty.^ 

^ Dionys. Hal. De adm. vi dicendi in Dem. p. 1064. 

^ yEsch. adv. Clesiph. p. 77, § 166: ov fxifivrjadt aiVoD tA /xtapi Kal airlOava 
^■q/jLara, 4 TrtDs Trod' v/j-fis, w ffiS-qpfOi, iKaprepuTe aKpow/xtvoi ; 6r' f<pr) ■irap(\Oil:v 
' a/j.Tre\ovpyov<Ti Tives -nfu iroXiv,' ' avarh'fnjKaa-l rives rd KXifi/j-ara tov drifiov,' ' inror^ 
TfirjTai TO. vevpa tQv Trpay/j.dTitiv,' '<popiJ.o^pa(povp.f6a,"iTrl to. arevi rives iaiTovs Ciairep 
rds ^e\6vas Sielpovci.' raiTa 5i ri icrri, Cb KlvaSos ; ^rj/iora rj Oavp-ara ; We have 
here emended irpuirov in the last phrase attributed to Demcsthenea, and have sub- 
stituted iavTovs to explain the comparison ; for Sielpeiv ^eXovas was the regular 
phrase, as we see in the passage of Galen quoted by Buda^us : SuKlSdWeiv Kal 
Sielpeiv rr)V ^eXovrjv iv ry yacrrpo^pcKfiig.. That <^oppoppa(povixe6a iirl rh. areva. is not 
the construction is shown by the citation in Dionysius, p. 1126, who puts /cat after 
the verb. 

' uhi supra p. 11 26. 

* Be Corond, p. 270. Tlic insinuation against the father of .Eschines is exagge- 
rated by every turn in the expression : ' he was a slave — in the house of an ele- 
mentary schoohuaster — near the Thescum — and wore fetters and a colhir I' So 
also of the mother : ' She lived by her broad daylight espousals — in a tem]>nrary 
hovel— close by the shop of Hero the quack- doctor !' Tlie reference to the k\1<tiov 
reminds one of Latly Wishfort's vitupinition of her maid, whom she found 'dining 
behind a traverse rag in a shop no bigger than a bird-cago' (Congrcvc, Way of the 
World, act V. sc. I.). 


And he excuses liimsclf from any further prosecution of the 
subject : ' Really/ he says, ' j3i]schines was not even the son of 
merely commonplace parents; he springs from those who are 
included in the public execrations with which we commence our 
meetings/' In such a passage as this, and there are many like 
it, we see that he had carefully considered every word, and that 
a good deal of the effect must have been due to the delivery. 
The elaborate painstaking which characterizes the composition 
of Demosthenes explains the repetitions of striking passages 
which we find in his speeches. ' Practised as he was,^ says 
Lord Brougham,' ' and able surely, if any man ever was, by 
his mastery over language, to pour out his ideas with facility, 
he elaborated every passage with almost equal care. Having 
the same ideas to express, he did not, like our easy and fluent 
moderns, clothe them in diflerent language for the sake of 
variety, but reflecting that he had, upon the fullest deliberation, 
adopted one form of expression as the best, and because every 
other must needs be worse, he used it again without any 
change, unless further labour and more trials had enabled him 
in any particular to improve the workmanship.' The same 
eminent modern orator has, as it seems to us, most accurately 
described the general characteristics of Demosthenes in -another 
passage of the same essay, where he says,^ that ' there is not 
any long or close train of reasoning in the orations of Demo- 
sthenes, still less any profound observations or remote and 
ingenious allusions, but a constant succession of remarks, 
bearing immediately on the matter in hand, perfectly plain, and 
as readily admitted as easily understood. These are inter- 
mingled with the most striking appeals, sometimes to feelings 
which all were conscious of, and deeply agitated by, though 
ashamed to own ; sometimes to sentiments which every man 
was panting to utter, and delighted to hear thundered forth — 
bursts of oratory, therefore, which either overwhelmed or 

^ oi)5^ yap Siv iTVX'^v 9iv dW oh 6 drj/xot KarapSiTai. The reference is to the public 
prayers and execrations proclaimed by the herald, a sort of bidding-prayer, before 
the commencement of business in the Athenian ecclesia. 

2 Rhetorical and Literary Dissertations and Addresses, WorJcs, vol. VII. p. 192. 

^ Hid. p. 196. 


relieved the aiulicncc. Such hits, if we may use such a liomely 
phrase (for more dij^uificd lauguage has no \\ov(\ to express tlic 
thing), are tlie principal glory of the great coiul)atant ; it is 
hy them that he carries all before him, and to these that he 
sacrifices all the paltry graces which are the delight of the 
Asian and Italian schools.' 




§ 1 . The contemporaries of Demosthenes, with the exception of Isaeus, may be 
classed as patriots and Macedonizers. § 2. Orators of the Alexandrian Canon. 
Is»us. § 3. Party of the patriots (a.) Lycurgns. § 4. (b.) Hypereides. 
§ 5. Macedonian party (a.) yEschines. § 6. (b.) Deinarchus. 

§ I. A IMONG the orators who are regarded as the contem- 
-lJL poraries of Demosthenes, we must count Isaeus, from 
whom he received instruction and assistance at the beginning 
of his career, and Deinarchus and Demochares, whose chief 
activity on opposite sides belongs to the period succeeding the 
death of the great statesman. In the long interval between 
the first and the last of these public speakers — an interval which 
extends from the days of Lysias to those of Demetrius 
Phalereus — the most prominent subject of discussion was the 
opposition between the interests of Macedon and Athens ; and 
we may therefore divide all the contemporary orators, with the 
exception of Isajus, into two great parties — that of the patriots, 
who devoted themselves to the good work of denouncing Philip, 
and endeavouring to contravene his machinations, and that of the 
Macedonizers, who either corruptly, or from an unwise love of 
peace at any price, opposed all warlike and vigorous measures, 
and contributed to the downfal of their country's honour and 

The orators of the patriotic party, besides Demosthenes, 
who was the soul of the party, and his nephew Demo- 
chares, who maintained or revived it after his death, were 
Lycurgus, Hypereides, Polyeuctus,' Hegesippus/ Moerocles, 

^ There were two contemporary orators of this name, one of the demus Cydan- 
tidifi, who is known to us particularly in connexion with the newly-discovered frag- 
ments of Hypereides, and the other of the demus Sphettus, who is alluded to in the 
text, and whose speech against Demades is quoted by Longinus (IX. p. 544, Walz.). 

^ Hegesippus defended Timarchus against ^schines. who nicknamed him /cpw- 

iSiEUs. 189 

Diopliantus,' Aristoplioii, uiid a uunibcr of others of less abilitv 
and influence. The orators of the ^Macedonian party, besides 
^schincs, who was their leader, were his orij^inal patron 
Euhulus, Philocrates, Dcmades/ and Deinarchus, and a munber 
of less known demagogues. In selecting some names from this 
list for special notice, we may take the criterion of the Alex- 
andrian canon of the ten orators, which ranks Isrcus, Lycurgus, 
llypereides, yEsehines, and Deinarchus, with Antiphon, Lysiius, 
Isocrates, and Demosthenes. We shall thus have to discuss 
the teacher of Demosthenes, the two chief orators of his party, 
and his two principal antagonists. 

§ 2. Very little is known of the biography of, and we 
cannot even fix with accuracy the dates of his birth and death. 
All that we know is, that he flourished between the 90th and 
iO(Sth Olympiads, n.c. 420 — 348 f that either he or his father, 
Diagoras, Mas a native of Chalcis, in Euboea ;' that he came to 
Athens at an early age, received instruction from Lysias and 
Isocrates,' and gained both reputation and profital^le em})loy- 
ment as a teacher of rhetoric, and as a composer of speeches for 
the law courts. His chief distinction is tiie circumstance 
referred to in the preceding chapter, that he was the instructor 
of Demosthenes, and probably his counsel in the action against 
his guardians. ^Micther he may claim the additional merit of 
having trained this gi'cat pupil without receiving any remune- 
ration, or Avhethcr he exacted a very exorbitant fee for his 
lessons, is an open question in the ancient authors." 

Isajus left behind him 64 orations, and of these 50 were 

^v\os. The speeches about the Halonnesus, and on the treaty with Alexander, 
wliich are included in the collection of the orations of Demosthenes, were probably 
by him ; above, chapter XLI. § -z, p. 3'29 [if>9]- 

^ Diophantus is mentioned by Demosthenes as a very eminent orator ( FaU. Leg. 
pp. 368, 403, 436 ; Lept. p. 498). 

^ This unprincipled demagogue was a man of briUiant abihties, and generally 
spoke extempore. The fragment of the speech, irepl SudeKaerlai, which is printed 
in the more recent collections of the Attic orators, m considered to be of doubtful 

3 Dionys. Hal. de Iswo judicium, p. 586. Plut. p. 839. 

* Harpocration s.v.'\<jalos. Suidas «. «. Anonym, ap. Reisk. Dionys. p. 5S6. 

5 Phot. cod. CCLXIII. 

« PluLarch dc glor. Athcn. p. 350 c. Piiot. «. s. Thit. p. 839. Cf. 837 D. 
Suidas s. n. : oDroy iirdivuTdi. Kal us ftrjTup kuI wi Arjftoffdiyrjv a.y.icOl wpoayafiliv. 


recognized as genuine.' We have still tlie titles of ^6, in- 
cluding the eleven ^vhich have come down to us.^ All these 
extant speeches were composed for suits relating to inheritances 
{■jrepi KXiipov), and they are interesting chiefly as contributions 
to our knowledge of the old Attic law on these points.^ Until 
the end of the last century we had only ten of the orations of 
Isffius, and the speech about the inheritance of Cleonymus wanted 
more than half. The number of eleven speeches was made up 
by the discovery in the Laurentine library of the speech about 
the inheritance of Menicles, in 1785/ and the Cleomjmus was 
completed by the publication, in 1815, of the greater part of 
this speech, which was found by Mai in the Ambrosian library 
at Milan.*^ In addition to his speeches, Isseus wrote a rkyvt}, 
or methodical treatise on rhetoric, in which he has the credit 
of being the first to distinguish rightly the difierent figures, 
and to give a political turn to oratory." 

The style and characteristics of Iseeus have been accurately 
discussed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in a special tract on 
the subject, in which he compares Isseus with his teacher 
Lysias. He says' that the diction of Isseus is more artificial 
and accurate than that of Lysias, the composition is more 
elaborate, the figures more varied, and it excels the style of 
his master in the power and weight of its phraseology as much 
as it falls short in ease and gracefulness. The style of Isseus 
is in fact the fountain of the power of Demosthenes. In the 
subject-matter of Isseus, the critic finds a great deal of artifice. 
Dionysius remarks,^ that ' he deals unfairly with his adversary, 

1 Plut. p. 839. 

2 See Westei-mann, Geschichte der Beredtsamlceit in Griechenland und Horn. p. 293, 
Leipzig, 1833. 

2 With this view they were translated by Sir W. Jones. 

* It was edited by Thomas Tyrwhitt, Lond. 1785. 

" It was pubhshed at Milan in 18 15. 

^ Plut. p. 839 F., quoted by Spengel, (XwayuyT] rexvi^i', p. 181 : KaraX^Xonre . . . 
Kal ISias T^xi/as. irpQiTOS be Kal (rx'>7M'^'''^ff "' "Ijp^o-To Kal TpiweLv iirl rb iroXiriKbi' ttjv 
St.dvoiav, 5 ixaXiara /MefiL/XTp-ai hrjixoadiv-qs. 

^ De IscEO judicium, p. 590, Reiske : r/ 5^ 'Iffaiov X^|ts rexf-Kuir^pa dd^eiev av 
ehai Kal aKpifiecnipa Trjs Avaiov, Tr)v re ai/vQeciv irepiepyoTipa ris Kal crx'j/uaTt- 
a/xoh SieiXrj/jLfjLifT] TroiKiXois' Sffou re diroXeiveTai ttjs xapiros eKeivrjs, toctovtov virepixfi- 
Trj beivdTTjTi ttjs KaracrKevTJi' Kal wqyq tls Sj'tws (cttI t^s Ar}/J.O(T6&ovs Svud,a€W$. 

^ Ibid.l. 18: irpos fi^v tqv avridiKov bLawov-qpeverar roiis 5i diKaaras Karaarpa- 


and out-manocuvrcs the jurymen.' And he informs us,' that 
' liis contemporaries had conceived a suspicion of his ehcatery 
and imposition, as though lie were a nuiu i^kilful in the artful 
pervci'sion of arguments to the worst purposes, and he was 
inculpated on this account.' The sort of deception practised 
by Isajus, as contrasted with the elegant simplicity of Lysias, 
is illustrated by a very ingenious analogy. The style of Lysias 
is compared to the ancient paintings which have accurate 
drawing, but very little shading and colouring, whereas Isieus 
is like the more modern pictures, which arc not so well 
finished in the outline as their predecessors, but have a greater 
mixture of light and shade, and are more highly colourcd.- 
In proof of these discriminations, Dionysius gives us a number 
of exami)les.' 

§ 3. Next to Demosthenes, the most honest, consistent, and 
efficient of the anti-Macedonian party was Lycurgus. He was, 
indeed, rather a minister of finance than a parliamentary 
speaker ; but, by his incorruptible and scrupulous accuracy in 
his administration of the revenues, he gave new life to the 
resources of Athens, and rendered possible the execution of 
those vigorous measures which were recommended bv the 
eloquence of his great contemporary. It was he, too, who, 
more than any, co-operated with Demosthenes in preventing the 
revenues, Avhich were needed for the defence of the country, 
from being squandered on the amusement of the people ; and 
he, like Demosthenes, stood in constant opposition to reckless 
and profligate demagogues, like their common enemy, Demades. 

No one eoidd bring against Lycurgus the reproach so often 
flung against Demosthenes, that he was but half Athenian. 
Ilis father, Lycophron, belonged to the deme of Butadje, and 
to the priestly house of the Eteobiitadae, or genuine stock of 

^ De Isceo judicium, p. 591 : ^v irepl airrov 56^a toU tStc yorjrtlat Kal dxdr-ijs, u'l 
Seivbi avyjp TexviTfvffat \6yovs ivl ra Troi'rjpSrepa. 

^ Ibid. : eC>ypafj./xoi p.kv ffTTOv i^fipyacrn^vai di ndWov <XKi(f re Kai (ptirrl ToatX\6- 
fxivai. Kal iy tQ wX-qOn tQv fiiyfidTCov t7;v iaxi'^ fx"^''^"-^- 

^ It may be worth while to mention that Juvenal's 'semio pronijttus et Ikto 
torrentior' (III. 73, 74) does not refer to our Attic orator, but to a later rhetorician 
from Assyria, who was a contemporary of the Ivoman satirist. Sec I'hilostr. Vil. 
So2>higt. I. 20; Plin. L'2>ift. II. 3. 


Butes,' and traced back their descent to the national hero 
Ercchthcus, probably another form of Poseidon or Neptune^ to 
whom Lycurgus and his family were devoted as hereditary pnests. 
The Avails of the Cella in the beautiful Erechtheum, or temple of 
Ercchtheus-Poseidon, were adorned with pictures of the 
Butadie who had held the priestly office. Lycurgus left this 
priesthood to his son Abron, who resigned it to his brother 
Lycophron^ and there was a highly finished picture by 
Ismenias in the Erechtheum, which represented Abron handing 
the trident or symbol of priestly power to his brother." The 
conduct of his ancestors was worthy of their origin. One of 
them, Lycomedes, had been buried at the public expense, and 
the orator's grandfather, Lycophron, was one of the victims of 
the thirty tyrants. The birth-year of Lycurgus is not known. 
He was older than Demosthenes/ and it is inferred that he 
was born in the 96th Olympiad, b.c. 396 — 393. He enjoyed 
an education corresponding to his birth and fortune. ' Lycurgus,^ 
says the most eloquent of his panegyrists,^ ' had studied in the 
schools both of Plato and Isocrates, but had not learned from 
the one to withdraw from active life into a visionary world, nor 
from the other to cultivate empty rhetoric at the expense of 
truth, and of his country.' Of the earlier part of his life we 
know nothing. There is insufficient evidence for the state- 
ment, not improbable in itself, that he was the colleague of 
Demosthenes and Polyeuctus in their embassy to the Pelopon- 
nesus, 01. 109, 2, B.C. 343.^ As we have already intimated, the 
public activity of Lycurgus was chiefly directed to the adminis- 
tration of the finances at home. Towards the end of Philip's 

^ Butes, the Argonaut, who succeeded Pandion as priest of Athena and of 
Erechtheus Poseidon, is generally distinguished from his Thracian namesake ; but 
there are many points of contact between the Erechtheidse and the house of 
Boreas, and we must not neglect the fact that the name Lycurgus, so common in 
the ButadsB, is that of the step- brother of the Thracian Butes. 

^ See F. Thiersch, iiher das Erechtheum, Erste Abhandlung, p. 145 {Munich 
Transactions, vol. III). 

^ Liban. Arg. Orat. c. Aristogit. See Clinton, Fasti Hell. II. p. 151. 

* Dr. Thirlwall, who has introduced into his History of Greece (VIII. pp. 140 — 
1 48), an admirably written episode on the life of Lycurgus. 

* Plutarch, Vit. Lye. p. 841 E. Tliis is probably borrowed from Dem. Phil. III. 
p. 1 29, 19, where the namea of Clitomachus and Lycurgus are omitted in the best 


roign, he became 'treasurer of llic imhlic revenue' (r«/t('u(; rJic 
Koiviig 7r/>o(ToSoi>), an ofliee tenable only for a pentiieteris, or 
four years,' l)ut lu-hl by Lycurgus, under tbe names of otlicr 
persons, for three snceessivc pentaeterids, or twelve years. - 
Tlie period oceupied by this financial administration has been 
made tlie subject of discussion among scholars,^ If he was 
ambassador in u.e. 343, the most proljalile interval, as he died 
before ii.c. 326, Mould be 01. 109, 3 — 112, 3, u.c. 341 — 329. 
In this period 1400c, or as some say, 19000 talents passed 
through his hands, and he raised the reguhir revenue of Athens 
from 600 to 1200 talents. At the end of each ([iii.iliit nnuil [uTioil 
he gave in an account of his receipts and expenditure, and no Haw 
was found iu it. Not satisfied with tliis, he had his accounts en- 
graved on stone, and set up the inscription in the PaUcstra, which 
he had recently erected. It seems probable that a fragment of this 
inscription is still extant.'' Just before his death he had himself 
carried into the Metroum or Council-chamber, and challenged a 
scrutiny of his whole administration ; and when Menesicchmus, 
w horn he had once proSeeuted, attemj)ted to make exceptions, lie 
at once refuted all his charges.* Of his measures for nursing tlie 
revenue Ave have no account. With regard to the expenditure 
which he directed, we learn that, besides building four hundred 
triremes, and forming a great magazine of arms, he erected a 
theatre, a gymnasium, a pakestra, and a stadium. He also, in 
imitation of Pericles, filled the store-room in the citadel with a 
number of gold and silver ornaments and utensils, which were in 
effect a reserved fund for emergencies. 

Plutarch enumerates five laws of which Lycurgus was thcpro- 

^ Bockh, Public Econ. of Athens, II. § 6. p. 165, Lewis. 

* Plut. p. 852 B, quotes a decree in which Lycurgus is described .ts ytvhfitvoi 
TTjj Koivris irpoffdSov rafxlas rfj 7r6Xfi iirl rpe7s TreuTaeTtjplda^. Diod. X\'I. S8, 
says : duScKa irr) rds irpocrdoovs r^s 7r6Xewx SioiKTjcras. 

^ See Bockh, Slaatshaiishaltinig, II. p. 245, orig. ed. and the authors cited by 
Westennann, Ocschichtc d. licrcdtsamkcit, p. lor, and in Pauly's RcalEncyclopddie, 
vol. IV. p. 1269. See also Dr. Thirlwall's note, p. 146. 

* Bockh, Corpus Inscrifilioiium, no. 157. It refers to the years of Ctcaiclcs And 
Nicocrates, 01. in. 3, 4, B.C. 334, 333, which fell within the .vlniiiiistration of 
Lycuryus, and mentions particularly the b^pixariKitv, for which H.iri)ocrati<>n citca 
the defence of Lvcurgus ag.ainst the cavils of Menesaichmus. 

' Plutarch, p. 842 F. 



poser: (I.) To revive the obsolete contest of the comedians at the 
Chytri, on the third day of the Aiithesteria, with the additional re- 
gulation that the victor should^ without any further trial {liKpiTOQ), 
be admitted to the competition at the great Dionysia.' (II.) That 
bronze statues should be erected to the three great tragedians, 
TEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides ; and that authenticated 
copies of their plays should be laid up in the public archives, 
and strictly followed in the public representations. Ptolemy 
Euergetes dishonestly possessed himself of these original manu- 
scripts, for which, however, he had to forfeit a deposit of 
fifteen talents." If it had not been for this enactment of 
Lycurgus, it is probable that the text of the Greek dramatists 
would have been much more corrupt than it is. (III.) That, 
to prevent the kidnapping of free citizens, no one should buy a 
slave without the warranty and authorization of a former 
master.^ (IV-) To establish in honour of his family god, 
Poseidon, at least three cyclical choruses in the Peirseus ; and to 
give to the victors not less than ten minse as a prize, besides 
second and third prizes of eight and six ininse. (Y.) To punish 
with a penalty of six thousand drachmae any woman who drove 
to the Eleusiniau festival in a chariot and pair :'' it appears 
that his own wdfc, Callisto, transgressed this law, and Avas fined 
accordingly. If we understand the notice in Plutarch, he held 
some odice analogous to that of a police magistrate," and in 
this capacity exhibited no little vigour and severity. As a 
public accuser, too, he often appeared in the courts; and at 

^ There is some obscurity in the short notice of Plutarch [?], p. 841 F : rbv irepl 
Twv KU}/xiii5Qv dyQi'a rots "KvTpois iinTeKeiv €<pdfj,L\\ov ev ry dedrpi^ Koi rbv viKi^aavTa 
elv dcTTV KaraXiyecrdai irpbrepov ovk e^bv, dvoKaix^dvuiv rbv dywva. eKKeKonrbra. By 
d(jTV he must mean to, ev dtcrret d^iovvaia. The practice refeiTed to is probably 
that explained explained in Photius, Suidas, Hesychius, s.v. veii-fjaeis vwoKpiTuv. 

2 See Bockh, Gr. Tray. Prhic. pp. 12, 13. 

3 This must be the meaning of the words of Plutarch, which again are somewhat 
obscure from their brevity (p. 842 A): p-riSevl i^eipai 'AdTjvaiwv /M-r]5i tQ>v oIkovvtup 
'Ad-qvijcnv eKeidepov awfia irplaadai. eivl 5ov\eiq. e/c tQv oXictko/jl^vuv dvev rrjs tov 
irporipov beairbrov yvupLTis. 

* In illustration of this see Dem. c. Mid.Tp. 565. 

5 yElian, V. H. XIII. 24. 

" p. 841 D : i(rx^ 5^ /cai tov dareos ttjv (pvXaKTjv Kai twi> KciKovpyuv ttjv (TiXk'r]\pLv 
oOs e^i7Xacrei' dirapTas, <lis Kai tuv (TO(pi<TTU)v iviovs 'Keyeiv AvKovpyov ov /i^Xan dXXd 
Oavdrcp xc'f'^vTa rbv KaXafiov /card rwv TOVTjpGsv ovtcj (jvyypd4>av. 


least in two ra^^cs — tlioso of Lnocratos and Diphilns — lio oh- 
taincd a sentence of death against notorious olfendcrs. He 
was sufiicicntly known as a member of the anti-Macedonian 
party to obtain the perilous lionour of biiiig inehuhd with 
Demosthenes in Alexander's demand for the extracbtion of 
certain orators, a danger wliicli the firmness of his coun- 
trymen enabled him to escape.' The year of his death is not 
known, but he did not survive tlie downfal of the i)atri(jtic party. 
For Plutarch tells us that he was not alive when llypereides 
accused Demostliencs in the business of Ilarpalus,'- and it seems 
extremely probable that Lycurgus died soon after the termina- 
tion of his third qnadriennial swvice as public treasurer — /'. e. 
in B.C. 329 or 328.^ lie was buried at the public ex})ensc on 
the road to the Academy, on the spot which was afterwards 
occupied by the garden of the philosopher ^Slclanthius.' In 
his lifetime he had often been honoured with crowns, statues, 
and a seat in the town-hall^ and the last privilege was made 
hereditary in his family. lie left three sons, Abron, Lyeurgns, 
and Lyeophron^ of whom the first two died witliout issue, but 
the third Avas represented by lineal descendants to a later 
period.^ A statue in honour of Lycurgus was erected some 
time after his death (in B.C. 307) near those of the ten Eponymi 
in the market-place." 

Of the twenty speeches of this eminent statesman, of which 
the titles are preserved, we have only one complete oration, 
that against the fugitive Leoeratcs, who had returned to Athens 
eight years after the battle of Chreroneia, when he had forsaken 
his country, although by a laAV, passed immediately after the 
battle, emigration was forbidden under pain of deatli. This 
speech is in strict accordance with all that we know of the 
character and habits of Lycurgus. AVe are told" that he was 
very diligent in preparing his speeches, and not able to express 
himself extempore ; and so anxious was he to note his thoughts 

• Arrian, I. lo, 4; Diodor. XVII. 15. 

3 Plut. Vita Ilyperid. p. 848 F. 

8 See Plut. Vita Lye. p. 842 F. It is inferred also as his sons were released 
from prison on the intercession of Demosthenes who was then in exile, 
Lycurgus must have been dead some little time. 

' Plut. p. 842 E. » /(/. p. H43 A. 

« Id. p. 85 2 P, ; Pausan. I. 8, 2. ^ PluUrch, p. 841 C. 



fis they occnrrod to liira that his writing materials were always 
placed by his bed-side. We see the traces of this elaborate 
preparation in the speech against Leocrates, which is full of 
historical reading and poetical quotations, the latter sometimes 
running to a considerable length/ And we have no doubt that 
Herniogencs was justified in saying of all his speeches that he 
often indulges in a frequency of digressions to fables, histories, 
and poems.' One of the most pleasing of his references to old 
stories is the anecdote which he tells of the young man who 
stayed behind to carry oif his old father during an eruption of 
Mount ^tna, and round whom the lava flowed innocuously, 
while it destroyed the other fugitives.^ There is almost a 
Demosthenic vigour in the passage in which he describes the 
trembling inquiries of the women and the old men preparing 
for the defence of the city after the disaster of Chffironeia,^ and 
that in which he checks any appeal to pity on the part of the 
accused.* On the whole, although we cannot place Lycurgus 
in the first rank of orators, Ave may regret that we have not a 
few more specimens of the compositions of such an eminent 
and popular statesman. 

§ 4. Closely connected in his general policy with Lycurgus 
S,nd Demosthenes, though occasionally opposed to one or the 
other, Hyperides, or Hypekeides,*' the son of Glaucippus/ of 

^ There are fifty- five lines of Euripides quoted in p. 161, and thirty-two of Tyr- 
tseus in p. 163. The quotation from the unknown poet in p. 159, belongs to a 
numerous class of passages embodying the sentiment q^lem Detis vult perdere 
dementat prius. See Wyttenb. on Plut. de audiendis poetis, p. 17 B ; Ruhnkeu on 
Veil. Paterc. II. 57. 

^ irepl Ibeuiv, II. I T, p. 389, Walz : xPVto-i- 5^ iroWah ttoWolkis Kal rats vapeK- 
paaecnv iwl fivOovs Kal laTOpias Kal Troiij/xara. Lycurgus is quite conscious of this 
tendency. In one passage, he begins a lengthened reference to the old mythology 
of Athens, by saying : Kai roi (XKiipacrOe, 5i dvdpes' ou yap dTroaTriao/ tQv TraXaiuv. 
c. Leorr. p. 160, § 100. 3 p_ j^^ 

* P- i5.^> § 40- There is something very vivid in the picture of the veterans eirl 
y^pws 6S(3 Trepi^deipofievovs, StTrXa ra IfiaTLO. ifnreirop'irrjfiii'ovs. 

« p. 168, § 147. 

^ The name is written 'Tirepeidrjs in some of the best MSS. of Demosthenes, de 
Corona, p. 302, 26 ; Feds. Leg. 376, 17. The grammarians give us both 'TTrepi'Sijs 
from 'TTrepos, like 'TWldrjs from "TXXos {Etym. M. s. v.), and 'TirepelSrjs from 
TTrepevs, like JlrjXeldrjs from IlijXevs {Phryniclms, p. 454, Lobeck). Both as a 
common word and as a proper name virepos is the more common. 

' Hypereideshad a son, Glaucippus, who obtained some reputation as a speaker. 


the (Icnius Collytus, was one of the active leaders in that aiiti- 
MaccJouiaii iiatriotisni, to which lie was ultimately a martyr. 
The year ot" his birth is not known, but it is pi'oljabk' that he 
was not much younger than Lycurj^us. Plutarch inilecd says 
that he was a hearer (u/vy^'x'T'/c) of Lycurgus, but this must be 
a mistake, unless he means that he heard him S|)eak in jxiblic, 
for that great financier was not a teacher of rhetoric. There is 
every reason, however, to Ijclieve that he was a fellow-iJiipil of 
Lycurgus as a disciple of Plato and Isocrates.' He seems to have 
belonged to the more opulent class, for he not only enjoyed the 
best education, but appears to have been able to contribute in the 
most munilicent manner to the ])ublic expenditure of his country. 
For example, in the year B.C. 358 he got up, by public sub- 
scription, an equipment of forty triremes for the war against 
Philip in Euboea, and undertook himself the fitting out of two 
of these ships, one in his own name, the other in that of his 
son;- and when he served as trierarch at Byzantium in n.c. 
340, he bore the expenses of the Choragia in his absence.^ 
Notwithstanding his opulence, he was for some years en 
gaged as a writer of speeches in private causes. His public 
services were as follows: — In b.c. 351 he undertook an embassy 
to Rhodes;' in u.c. 346 he successfully prosecuted the venal 
and traitorous Philocrates ; ' when Philip occupied Elatca in 
ij.c. 338 he was one of the ambassadors who persuaded the 
Thel)ans to join with Athens against the invailcr ;" and after 
the battle of Clueroneia he proposed the high-spirited decree to 
give the franchise to the resident aliens, to restore the degraded, 
to manumit the slaves, and send down the women, children, and 
sacred objects to the Peirceus.^ This decree was not carried out, 
but was so far approved as to give the sycophant Aristogciton a 
pretext for indicting him for unconstitutional proceedings (7r«/>«- 
v6/j.tL)u). He was acquitted; and it was on this occasion that, 

1 The statement of Plutarch will simply amount to this, if we reatl (i>. 848 D) : 
d/cpooT7j! 5^ nXciTWfos yev6ixevos tov tpi\o<T6(pov dfia AvKovfy)<^ (for AvKOVfrnov) , koI 
'IffOKpaTovs TOV prjTopos. 

a PluUirch, p. 849 F. 3 Id. p. 848 E. * Id. \K .S50 A. 

= Demosth. dc Falad Lc<j. p. 376, 17 " '<'• ''<^ Corvnd, p. 191, 6. 

7 Lycurg. c. Ltocratim, § 41 I I'lut- !'• ^4^ ^". ^-i'J -"^ ! I'scudo-Ucni. c. Ariiioij. 
II. p. 6oi. 


being charged with having overlooked many of the established 
laws, he said, * My eyes were darkened with the shadow of the 
Macedonian arms ; it was not I who wrote the decree, but the 
battle at Chseroneia/ ' His active opposition to ISIacedon never 
ceased, and he was one of the orators demanded by Alexander 
after the capture of Thebes. This peril, which he narrowly 
escaped, did not damp his patriotic ardour, for we find that he 
opposed Alexander's demand for an Athenian fleet to help him 
against the Persians.' The unfortunate afiair of Harpalus seems 
to have obliged Hypereides to come forward as the accuser of 
Demosthenes, for whom he had once obtained a golden cro\vn.^ 
We do not know all the circumstances. Plutarch intimates 
that he was publicly appointed to this invidious office, because 
he was the only orator not suspected of being bribed.^ As 
Demosthenes was allowed to escape, it is not impossible that 
the whole proceeding was a collusion devised by the patriots to 
enable them to temporize with Macedon. Be this as it may, 
we find Hypereides warmly united with Demosthenes in the 
prosecution of the Lamian war.^ He was one of the most 
active agents in stimulating that hopeful insurrection against 
the Macedonian domination, and was selected to deliver the 
funeral oration in honour of those who fell with the valiant 
Leosthenes." When the battle of Crannon, in b. c. 322, over- 
threw the last hopes of Athenian independence, Hypereides was 
obliged to fly from Athens with the other proscribed orators. 
He took refuge with Aristonicus and Himerseus, in the shrine 
of iEacus in ^gina, whence he was torn by Archias and sent as a 
prisoner to Antipater, by whom he was put to death with cir- 
cumstances of great cruelty and brutality." 

The titles of sixty-one orations, attributed to Hypereides, 
were preserved by the ancient authorities, who tell us that of 
seventy-seven speeches which bore his name, fifty-two were 

^ Plut. p. 849 A: ' e7r€(r/c6re:,' ^(prj ' /j.oi to, Ma/ccSoz'w;' SirXa* Kal ovk iyu rb 
\l/ri(pi(Xfj.a 'iypax^a, i] 5' iv XaipwveLg, fJ-a-xr].' 

a Plut. p. 848 D ; cf. 847 C. 3 gee Dem. de Corona, p. 302, 

p. 848 E : fxbvos yap ^fxeivev ddwpoSdKijros. 

« Plut. Phocion, c. 23 ; X. Orat. p. 848 E, 849 F ; Justin, XIII. 5. 

« Diodor. XVIII. 3. 

^ Plut. Don. c. 28 ; Phocion, 29 ; X. Orat. S49 C ; Photiu.s, p. 496 ; Grote 
Hist, of Qreecc, XII. p. 440. 


genuine.' Till within the hist few years, Ibrtnne hud (icait 
more roughly with his remains than witii those of any one ol" 
the ten orators; for while even Lycurgus and Deinarehus are 
represented by one or more complete liarangnes, Ilypereidcs 
was lost altogether, with the exception of a innnher of frag- 
ments which were individually of little importance/ The 
present generation lias been permitteil to rehabilitate him in 
Greek literature. In the spring of 1H47, ]SIr. A. C. Harris of 
Alexandria found some fragments of j)apyrus, written over with 
Greek characters^ at Thebes in Upper l'^gyi)t, and puljlished 
tliem in a lithographed facsimile in the autunni of 1848, Au 
arrangement and translation of these fragments was communi- 
cated to the London Philological Society in I'ebruary, 1849, 
by Mr. Samuel Sharpc;"^ but though jNIr. Harris had suggested 
that the fragments probably belonged to the speech of llype- 
reides against Demosthenes in the matter of Harpalus, Mr. 
Sharpc seemed rather to think that they belonged to some rhe- 
torical exercise on the sul)ject. !Mr. Churchill BaI)ington, in 
November, 1849, made a communication to the Iloyal Society 
of Literature, in which he showed that these fragments were 
quoted by Harpocration, Photius, and Suidas, and that they 
must be considered as belonging to the genuine oration of 
Hypereides; and at the beginning of 1850 he publis'ed a 
learned edition of these remains, with an introduction and com- 
mentary.^ They had been previously edited, but without Mr. 
Babington's knowledge, by Bockh and Sauppe. These pieces 
of papyrus, though interesting in themselves, were chiefly 
valuable because they led to the publication of another manu- 
script of the same kind, which Mr. Joseph Arden had procured 
at the same place in January, 1847. Some of the fragments 
discovered by ]Mr. Harris evidently did not belong to the 
speech against Demosthenes, and it turned out that they were 

1 Plutarch, p. 849 D ; Phot. p. 495 B ; Westermann, Gesch. d. BcrcdUanikcU, 
P- 307) gives a list of all the titles. 

^ See Kiessling, De Uypcride Comment. II. Hildburgh. 1S37. 

' Proccedinrjs of the Philolor/iad Society, vol. W . no. 79. 

* The Oration of Uijperidcs a'jainst Dcmos(hcnc$ respecting the treasure of /far- 
2>alus; with a preliminary Dissertation and Xotes, an<l a facsimile of a }xirti<in of 
the MS. By Churchill Babingtou, M.A., Fellow of St. Johu's Collcgo, C.un- 
bridge, 1850. 


a portion of the speech of Hypereides for Lycophron, of which 
Mr. Arden secured fifteen continuous columns. And the 
same papyrus contained the complete oration of Hypereides for 
Euxenippus. These remains were published by Mr. Churchill 
Babington, with a facsimile of the original manuscript and a 
learned commentary, in the spring of 1853;^ shortly after- 
wards the late Professor Schneidewin of Gottingen edited them 
in a revised text, with critical notes, and prefixed the Harrisian 
fragments of the apology for Lycophron ; ^ and since then Mr. 
Babington has discovered the funeral oration of Hypereides, 
nearly complete, among some papyri lately purchased by the 
British Museum.^ We are thus enabled to deal with Hyper- 
eides as an extant Greek author, and to estimate his title to 
a place among the ten orators. 

The fragments of the speech against Uemosthenes are not 
sufficiently complete to furnish the materials of a literary criti- 
cism, but the other fragments, published by Mr. Babington, 
furnish a good example of the style of Hypereides, and quite 

' The Orations of Hyi^erides for Lycophron and Euxenippus, now first printed in 
facsimile; with a short account of the discovery of the original MS. at Weste7-7i 
Thebes, in Upper Egypt, in 1847, by Joseph Arden, Esq.: the text edited, with 
Notes and Illustrations, by the Rev. Churchill Babington, Cambridge, 1853. 

'^ Hyper idis Orationes duw ex papyro Ardeniano editce ; post Ch. Babingtonem, 
emendavit et scholia adjecit F. G. Schneidewin, Gcitting., 1853. 

^ The papyrus was brought from Egypt by Mr. Stodart, in 1856. Mr. Babing- 
ton has given an account of it in the Cambridge Journal of Classical and Saard 
Philology, No. X. p. 81, and he has favoured us with the following notice of the 
rediscovered speech, which he is about to edit : — ' The eTrtrd^tos was delivered 
towards the close of the year 323 B.C. over Leosthenes and his comi'ades who fell 
in the Lamian war. Hyperides was appointed as the orator on this occasion by a 
public vote. Not only is a long fragment of his speech preserved by Stobaeus, but 
a considerable part, possibly the greater part, exists in MS. in the British 
Museum, written on a very early papyrus, apparently of the second or third cen- 
tury after Christ, and brought from Egypt in 1856. The topics of praise in his 
oration are threefold : the city, the deceased warriors, and their general Leosthenes, 
He enlarges much on the bravery, tactics and policy of Leosthenes, and introduces, 
in the course of his remarks, various historical allusions to the Lamian war. 
Further on he apostrophizes the deceased soldiers, who have filled all Greece with 
their glory, and whose memory will be recalled by every scene of public and social 
life. The epilogus (preserved by Stobseus) is designed to comfort the survivors, 
and expresses a hope, though neither sure nor certain, that the departed warriors 
are still in being and in enjoyment of a blessed immortality. This oration was 
considered by the ancients to be one of the happiest productions of Hyperides.' 


justify tlic account wliicli the ancients liavo given ns of liis 
peculiar characteristics. 

The accuser of Lycophron was no less a person than Lycurj^us, 
Avho brought an ufrayytXia, or special itnpcachincnt,' a;^ainst him, 
for adultery and other crimes, and fragments are still extant of 
his two orations on the subject ; the first, to which answer is 
made in the speech which llypcreides composed to be spoken 
by the defendant, and wliieh procured a conviction ; and the 
second, in which tlic damages were discussed. From the men- 
tion of Dioxippus/ the celebrated wrestler, who died in n.c. 326,' 
but was in the prime of life when this oration was delivered, it 
is iiiferred that it was written quite at the beginning of Alex- 
andci-'s reign. 

In the oration for Euxcnippus, which is probably of about the 
same date as that for Lycophron,' llypcreides speaks in his own 
person, and as the second advocate for the defendant, who has 
also two accusers, Polyeuctus of Cydantidaj — not the well-known 
orator of Sphettus, but a man of some consideration at Athens^ 
— and Lycurgus. In this case also Hypereides had to answer 
an uaa-yyeXia, and one of his arguments is, that this form of 
proceeding is not applicable to such a frivolous charge brought 
against a private individual." The case arose out of the assign- 
ment to Athens, after the battle of Cha>roneia, of the territory 
of Oropus. This territory consisted of five hills (»'*/>»/), of which 
each was assigned by lot to two Athenian tribes. The hill which 
thus fell to the tribes Acamantis and llippothoontis was claimed 

* The ei(ra77eX/a was adopted in the case of undefined and extraordinary offences 
against the public {Kvpius i] ntpl KaivQv Kal STifjLocriwv a5iKr]fj.dTuv dcafonivr) SIktj 
virb rCiv 'Upvraviwv, Suidas). It was a favourite mode of proceeding witli LycurguH, 
who adopted it against Leocratcs, and was recommended by the advantage that it 
did not bring any penalty on the unsuccessful prosecutor. Hypereides himself 
availed himself of this process in his impeachment of Philocrates and Diopeithes 
(yjro Euxcnipp. col. 39). 

a Col. 5. 

* Atben.-Eus, VI. c. 57 (I. p. 546, Dindorf.), Curtius, IX. 29, quoted by Babing- 
ton, p. XIV. 

* The manner, in which Olympias and Alexander are mentioned together (col. 
31), points id the beginning of Alexander's reign. 

" Schneidewin p. 34. In col. 27 rolyeuctus is aildres8c<l .as di ov fi6yof Orip 
ffeavTOu Swao-at eiwciv dXXd Kal fiXj; TriXei irpd-y/iaTa irapix^i-v Uavbi il. 
« Col. 18. 


for the hero Amphiaraus ; and, to quiet all doubts on the subject, 
Euxenippus and two others were deputed to sleep in the temple 
of Amphiaraus at Oropus, in the hope of being favoured with a 
dream in reference to the claims of the oracular hero. It seems 
that they reported a vision iinfavourable to the occupation of the 
consecrated hill by the two tribes. "Whereupon Polyeuctus pro- 
posed that the other eight tribes should make compensation 
for the loss. This proposition was rejected, and its proposer 
fined twenty-five draehmse. Polyeuctus endeavoured to avenge 
himself on the reporter of the dream by indicting him for a false 
and suborned account of his vision, and, as usual in such cases, 
he rakes up a number of other matters against him, especially 
with reference to some dealings in the silver mines. The co- 
operation of Lycurgus was probably secured by the charge of 
Macedonizing, which is brought against Euxenippus, because he 
had aided Olympias in the dedication of a patera in the temple 
of health at Athens. 

If we compare these orations with the criticisms of the 
ancients, we shall find that they justify the favourable expecta- 
tions which we were induced to form respecting this orator. 
Cicero calls him a highly finished speaker,* and says that he 
was acute," subtle,^ and facetious.^ Quintilian* defines him as 
pleasant and acute, but better suited to conduct causes of 
inferior importance. Dionysius declares*' that in cunning irony 
he was unrivalled, that he sticks to the necessary points before 
him, that he is full of pleasantness, and that while he seems to 
be simple he is not deficient in power; and his chief pecu- 
liarities are said to be'' strength of diction, simplicity of com- 

^ De Oratore, I. 13, 58: 'perfectus in dicendo et perpolitus.' 

3 Ibid. III. 7, 28: 'acumen habuit.' 

^ Brutus, 17, 67: 'delectantur ea subtilitate quam Atticam appellant — Hype- 
ridse volunt esse et Lysiae. Laudo.' 

^ Orator. 26, 90 : ' satis in orationibus facetus. ' 

^ /. 0. X. I, 77 : 'dulcis in primis et acutus Hyperides, sed minoribus causis ut 
non dixerim utilior, magis par.' 

^ De vet. Script, cens. p. 434, Reiske : ry rrjs eipuveias iravovpylq. iravras {virep- 
77pKws), ?rt 5^ Tov Kpi.vofj.ivov diairavrbs ^xerai, Kal rots dvdyKais rod Trpdy/xaros 
ifiiricpuKe Kal avviaei iroWrj KexopvyVTO-h Kal xaptros fieards icmv' Kal Sokwv dir\ov$ 

OVK dTTTjWaKTai 5€lv6TrjTOS. 

Id. ibid. p. 643 : TO. p-iyiara idia ttjs p,h Xe^ews t6 lax^'P^v, ttjs 5e avvOicecos rb 
aTTMvv, Tuv 5^ Trpayfidroiv to evKaipov, ttjs 5e KaracrKeu^s to ixr\ rpayiKov /xrjde oyKCjSes. 

^SCllINES. 203 

position, propriety in the selection of liis suhjcct-mattcr, and 
the absence of all pomposity in his hmguaf^c. And Lonj^inus 
dwells' cinphutically on his mastery of sarcasm, irony, and well- 
bred faeetiousness. All these characteristics may be exemplilied 
in the orations. For example, there could not be a better 
instance of sarcasm than his reljud' to Polyeuctus : ' If you had 
been acquitted, my client would not have given a false report 
about the god ; but since it so happened that you were con- 
victed, Euxeuippus must needs be ruined !'■ The private cha- 
racter of Hypercides was by no means irreproachable. His 
love for the beautiful was by no means abstract or Platonic, 
and the most famous hetteraj of the day counted the orator 
among their lovers.'' There is a story that when his elocpience 
failed to defend the beautiful Phryne from a charge of inijjiety, 
he moved the hearts of the heliastie by an appeal to her charms.* 
He was also a noted epicure, and the comic poets ridiculed his 
fondness for expensive dishes of fish.'^ 

§ 5, By far the most eminent of the Macedonian party was 
^scHiNES, who, in some qualifications, did not fall far short of 
his great rival Demosthenes." He was born b.c. 389.' His 
origin and early history are presented to us under very diflcrent 
aspects by Demosthenes and himself. The former, in a burst 
of invective, to which we have already referred,"' declares that 
the father of /Eschines, originally called Tromes, but styled 
Atrometus by his son, was the worthless slave of a poor school- 
master, and afterwards kept a small school himself; and that 
his mother, originally called Empusa, the hobgoblin, but digni- 

^ De Suhlim. 34, p. 284, Spengel: Acparot trepl aOT6i' eiaiv acrTeiiXfiol. /ii/rrijp to\i- 
TiKurraTos, eiryiveia, t6 /card rdj elpwvelas eviraXaiarpov, aKwp.fiaTa ovk &ij.ovct(l, 5ia- 
avpiJ.6s re iind^^ios, /cat iroXii to KOJ/jLiKbv, Kal, /xeTo. iraioids ev<rT6xov Kivrpov, ap-lp-rirov 
5^ eliretv rb iv TrScrt tovtol^ iTracppoSirov. 

* Col. 30 : etr' ei fiiv dTr^<pvyes ttjv ypa(p-qv, ovk Sw Ka.T(.\j/(.v<xaTO oitos tov OioO, 
iireidri o^ ffwi^ij <joi aXwvai, Ei'^eVtTnrov Set a.iro\u}\ivai. 

3 Alciphron Ep. I. 30 — 32. 

* This story is best told in the supplement to Barthdlomy's A nacharsc, entitled 
FCtes et Courtimnes de la Grdcc, Paris, iSoi, vol IV. p. 18S. 

' Timoclas, ajnid Athen. VIII. 34 1 F, 343 A. 
« Dionys. Hal. De culm, vi die. in Dem. p. 1063. Cic. Orat. 9, 19. 
^ In his speech afjainst Timarchus, p. 7S, which wad delivered in U.C. 345, ho 
says that ho was then in his forty-fifth year. 
'' DeCorond, p. 270, alwve, chapter XLI. § 6. 


fied by her son with the majestic name Glaucothea, was the 
cast-oiF concubine of a galley-piper^ who afterwards became a 
Bacchanalian priestess of the lowest class ; and we are told that 
iEschines in his early life assisted in the humble and degrading 
occupations of both his parents.' In his speech on the Embassy,' 
iEscdiines lays claim to the most creditable antecedents in all 
respects. Pointing to his father, who was present, as nearly 
the oldest of the Athenian citizens, having attained the advanced 
age of ninety-four years, he tells his hearers that Atrometus, 
before he lost his property, was an athlete or competitor in the 
public games ; and that after his banishment by the Thirty he 
served as a mercenary soldier in Asia. He asserts that the 
family belonged to the clan of the Eteobutadee, which counted 
Lycurgus among its members, and that his father enjoyed the 
more substantial credit of assisting Thrasybulus to restore the 
democracy at Athens. His mother, too, who had shared in 
her husband's exile, was originally and properly called Glaueis 
or Glaucothea,^ being the daughter of a respectable Athenian 
citizen, Glaucias of Acharnse. The respectability of the family 
is farther attested by the fact that his brothers, Philochares 
and Aphobetus — whose name, by the way, seems to show that 
the father was really called Atrometus, and not Tromes^ — had 
filled very eminent positions in the military and civil service 
of their country. The former had served with distinction under 
Iphicrates, and had been thrice elected to the office of general, 
i. e. one of the ten commissioners for managing the war 
ministry at Athens. The latter had gone as ambassador to 
Persia, and had held some financial appointment at Athens.* 
With regard to himself, ^schines tells us that he served in 
the army from his earliest youth, first as one of the TrifiiiroXoi 
or patrols, who guarded the frontiers, and afterwards as a pro- 
bationary or supplementary soldier in foreign expeditions." In 

^ De Corond, p. 313. ^ p. 47. 

^ Libauius calls her Leucothea, See Taylor, Prcef. ad jEsch. Epist. p. 653 sq. 
In his speech on the Embassy, p. 431 Demosthenes is content to define his 
opponent as rbf ' ATpo/xrjTOv rod ypafi/uLaTLarov Kai TXavKodias rrjs tovs Oidaovs cvva- 

5 ^sch. Ec E. Leg. p. 48. 

Id. ibid. p. 50 : irpuTtp 5' e^fXdwv arpardav r^v iv roU p.epicn Ka\ovfiii>7]v . . . 


t]\h waj' ho. fon::jlit at Plilius in n.c. Y^H, and at "Mantiiioia in 
B.C. 362. And in the battle of Tamynie in Knbfca, in ».c. 349, 
he exliil)itod such con-^piouous valour that he was crowned on 
the field by Phocion, and sent to announce the victory at 
Athens. With all this, his means were very limited, and he 
was obliged to maintain himself by turning his natural advan- 
tages to the best account. Having a robust and active frame,' 
he was employed to assist in the exercises of the gymnasia ;- and 
as his voice was powerful and harmonious, he found emi)loyment 
as a tragic actor, thougli he did not rise to the highest ranlc in 
the histrionic art,^ and on one occasion was hissed oil" the 
stage in the character of ffinomaus.^ Having ac(iuircd, either 
in his father's writing-school or elsewhere, a great command of 
liis pen, he was employed as a public clerk or secretary, and in 
this capacity he served first Aristophon," and afterwards Eul)ulus,'' 
to whose party he was afterwards attached as an orator. So 
far as this, there may have been sufficient foundation for the 
personalities of Demosthenes. But there can scarcely be any 
doubt that the aspersions in the oration on the Crown, which 
go much farther tlian those in tlie speech on the Embasay, are 

Kal To.'S (S\Xa5 ras Ik Stooox^s i^65ov% ras iv rdii iwuvv/xoii Kal rois filpcaw i^rfKOov. 
Tlie phrase iv toIs fjiipeai-v is explained to mean ' iu the safe parts of the battle,* 
i. e., in the rear ranks of the phalanx. Suidas, s. v., repdpela: 5ti (Oos ^i> toi>s 
i(p7)f3ovs fj.€Ta t6 yeviaOai ireptwoXovs ttjs x^pas aTparevecrdat pjev el avfi^airj T6Xf/xoi, 
fxi] p.ivT0i. fiera twv dWuv, dXX* IZLq. iv ixipeai tois CLKivovvOLi t^s /«£x'7J. The 
OTpaTiia iv roh iiruvvfiois refers to the practice of counting the years of militiry 
service from eighteen to sixty by the names of the dpxovres iirdwfioi of the forty- 
two years, and then selecting soldiers for special expeditions from a certain num- 
ber of years. This appears from the passage of Aristotle quoted by Suidxs, s. v. 
ffTparela iv rots iiruvvfion (p. 3416 B. Gaisford) : 6ra.v rfKiKlav iKTrifiwuffu/, irpou- 
•ypacftovffiv airb rlvos'Xpxovro^ 'ETrwviy/xoi/ fJ-ixf- '''^voi dei ffTparcvejOai. 

^ He seems, however, to have been of short stature. Demosthenes calls him 
KoKbs ivSpidi, which implies a doll or puppet (see our note on the Theatre of the 
Greeks, ed. 6, p. 16 r), and the plirase ftra ^alvt^vTlvOoKKtl (Dem. Pah. Leg. p. 44a) 
has more point, if we understand it of a diminutive person walking stride for stride 
with one much taller. Ulpian says expressly that .i^schines waa a little man (ad 
Or. de Cor. I. I.). 

* Plut. p. 840 xV : vioi 5i Civ Kal i^piiinivoi t<^ awfj-ari irtpl ra yvnyiffia irivti. 
^ He was generally TpiTaywvuxr-^i. Dem. De Corond, pp. 270, 315. 

* Dem. De Corond, pp. ?88, 314, 315. 
^ Anonym. Vita ..Hsehiuis, p. 245. 

' Photius Cod. LXI. For the intimacy between yEschincs and Eubulud, and 
the relations of the former to Aristophon, see Dem. Pah. Leg. p. 434. 


grossly exaggerated, perhaps wantonly invented by an exaspe- 
rated enemy, who was confident of success, and knew that he 
would have the last word. 

The first appearance of ^Eschines as a public speaker was 
two years before his military distinctions at Tamynee.' He had 
stored his mind with legal and political knowledge acquired 
iu his intimate relations with Aristophon and Eubulus, and 
very soon became an infiuential statesman. In the spring of 
B.C. 347, he was sent to the Peloponnesus as one of the 
ambassadors, appointed, on the motion of Eubulus, after the 
fall of Olynthus, and he spoke before the Ten Thousand at 
Megalopolis in opposition to the envoys of Philip, but without 
success,' Soon after this, he seems to have despaired of 
resisting the power and policy of the Macedonian king, and we 
find him among the warmest advocates for peace at any price. 
He was one of those who were sent to negociate with Philip at 
the end of b.c. 347. His intercourse with the wily monarch 
seems to have ended in the sacrifice of his character as a 
patriot and an honest man. And there can be little doubt 
that from this time he employed his influence and talents 
mainly in recommending measures opposed to the best interests 
of his country. Notwithstanding his somewhat narrow escape*^ 
from the prosecution brought against him by Demosthenes for 
his corrupt misconduct in the embassy, we find him persisting 
in the same course, and it was he who was the main cause of 
the second Phocian war,"* which led to the battle of Chseroneia 
and the downfal of Greek independence. Always opposed 
and in many cases thwarted by Demosthenes, his political and 
personal animosity against that statesman finally exploded in 
his prosecution of Ctesiphon ; and his signal defeat in that 
attempt to ruin his antagonist induced him, as we have already 
mentioned,^ to retire from Athens and seek the support of his 

1 ^sch. E2yist. XII. 

2 Dem. Fals. Leg. pp. 344 — 438. ^sch. Fals. Leg. p. 38. 

' Plut. p. 840 C : rpLCLKOVTa \l/-q(pois diricpvyev. Vita Bern. c. 15, on the authority 
of Idomeneus. 

* He gives his own account of the proceedings, in a most vivid description, in 
his speech against Ctesiphon, pp. 69, sqq. See Thirlwall VI. p. 55. Grote XI. 
p. 650. '' Above, chapter XLI. § 4. 


foreign friends. The deatli of Alexander prevented his in- 
tended journey to the court of that nionarcli.' He l)ecanie 
a teacher of rhetoric in Ionia, Caria, and Rhodes, and may be 
regarded as the founder of the Rhodian school of elo(|ucncc, 
which occupied a middle place between the old Attic aud tlic 
more recent Asiatic schools.' Towards the end of his life he 
removed to Samos, where he died in h.c. 314.^ 

Of the niuncrous speeches which yEschines must have 
delivered,^ only three have come down to lis. One other was 
known to the ancient critics, but rejected by them as not 
genuine.^ The paucity of his public speeches is accounted for 
by the fact that he was regarded as almost the inventor of 
extempore speaking, and prided himself on liis nnprcmeditatcd 
fluency.*' We have also twelve epistles attributed to liim, of 
which nine were known to Photiiis^ who calls them the Pluses, 
as he also termed the three speeches of yEschines the Graces.' 
IModern scholars are agreed that the epistles are not genuine." 
His erotic poems, which would have illustrated a passage in his 
speech against Timarchus,'* are entirely lost, together with the 
ancient commentaries on his writings.'" The three extant 
speeches arc that ar/ainst TimarcJnis, which he delivered in B.C. 
345 ; that on thUj^inbassy, which is supposed not to have been 
spoken as we have it, in n.c. 343, but to have been written 
and published as a defence of his policy and character ;" and 

^ Plutarch, p. 840 D. : koI iXOeiv eis "^(jxaov tos AX^^avSpop' rov W TcXfimJo-aiToj 
rapaxv^ olVt;? aTr^pas els ttjv 'P65of ivravda trxoXTji' KaracrTrjffdfia'Oi ioloacKCV. 
Phot. Vit. Soph. p. 509. 

* See Westermann, Gesck. d. BeredtsamJceit I. § 81. 

3 Phitiu-ch, p. 840 E. Pliotius, Cod. LXI. Clinton, F. II. y. 171. 

* Dem. Dc Fals. Leg. p. 344. 

' It was calle(16A7;\ia/c6sr6Aios. See Plut. p. 840 E. Philostr. I. 18. ApoUon. 
Vit. p. 248. Photius, Cod. LXI. attrihutes it to a contempomrj' of the same name. 

^ Philostr. Vit. Soph. p. 482 : oi 5^ klaxi-vov 4>a.<n t6 ai>T0(rx£5ic{j'fii' €vptjfj.a, p. 
509 : air' Al^x^vov 5' ijp^aTo O€o<popr]r(^ opP-^ auro(rxt5u£fo»Toy. 

7 Phot. Cod. LXI. 

8 See Taylor {praf. p. 651), and Markland (ibid. p. 666, 679), who sixjaks 
favourably, however, of the third Epistle. 

9 p. 19. 

10 He w.-vs made the subject of special discussion by Ciccilius, by Dulymus, an«l 
by Aspasius. 

^1 Plut. Vit. Dan. c. 15 ; Uermogenes, irtpX twv (rraciuv, \i. 28, cd. Walz. 


that against Ctcsvplioii, spoken in n.c. 330. All these arc 
extremely lively, and full of interesting details. He seems, 
indeed, to have been quite a master of narrative. For example, 
there are few better specimens of description than the picture 
which he gives us of the offended gravity of Autolycus, the 
Arcopagite, in the speech against Timarchus,^ or his account, 
whether true or false, of the failure of Demosthenes before 
Philip in the speech on the Embassy,^ or that in the speech 
against Ctesiphon,^ in which he depicts the religious phrensy of 
the Amphietyons. ^schines is well characterized by Dionysius 
as less distinguished by art than by natural facility — our first 
impression is, that he is merely graceful and elegant, but we 
find on examination that he is full of spirit and vigour/ 
Hermogenes says that he combines grandeur with rhetorical 
elegance.'' Cicero opposes his noisy declamation (sonitus) to 
the power {vis) of Demosthenes," but attributes to him, as 
special characteristics, a smoothness of diction and a brilliancy of 
stjle,^ and not only paid him the compliment of translating 
his speech against Ctesiphon,^ but twice imitated, by an almost 
literal adoption of the passage, the well-known description of 
the torments of the guilty in the speech against Timarchus.^ 
Quintilian, indeed, intimates by a strong metaphor that 
^schines is distinguished rather by turgid verbosity than by 
solidity of argimicnt.'" But most of those who have 
read his remains will share the regret, expressed by Dionysius, 
that ^schines had so little occasion to compose formal speeches, 
and that he could say with truth, in his speech against Timarchus, 

^ p. 12. 2 p, 33. 3 p_ yo 

^ De Vet. Script. Ccns. p. 434 : 01) Trdt'i; fih ^vrexvos, rfj d^ wapa ttjs (pvcreus 
evxepelq. Kexopriyrj/nevos .... Kal iidvs fj.kv avrbdev ii'TVx6vTi, ccpodpbs 5' e^era- 

' irepl idewv p. 384, Walz: rtp fieyiOei /nera rov Kara (rx^^a KaWovs irXeovdi^uiv. 

" De Oratore, III. 7. 

^ Orator. : 'levitas et splendor verboruni.' 

s Hieron. Ep. loi ; Sidon. Ep. II. 9. 

^ p. 27. The imitations are in the speeches 2yro Sexto Eoscio Amerino, and in 
L. Calp. Pisonem; see Lord Brougham's Inaugural Discourse, Works, vol. VII. 
p. 121. 

^^ /. 0. X. 1,77; ' plenior Machines et magis fusus et grandiori similis, quo 
minus strictus est: carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum.' 


that he had not previously indicted or called to account auv oi' 
his fellow-citizens.' 

§ 6. Deinakchus, the latest in point of time, and the lowest 
in point of eminence, among the ten orators of the canon, was 
born at Corinth somewhere about 01. 104, 4, n.c. 361.- He 
came to Athens at a very early age, and devoted himself to the 
study of rhetoric, which was then flourishing more than at any 
previous time, llis principal teacher was Theophrastus, but 
he also enjoyed instructive intercourse \\ith Demetrius of 
Phalerura.-^ Being excluded from the debates of the assembly 
by his imperfect citizenship, he employed himself as a speech- 
writer for the public courts, and seems to have made a consider- 
able fortune in this way.' As far as he was allowed to cuter 
on the field of politics, he attached himself to the ^Macedonian 
party. Dionysius' and Plutarch" agree in fixing the commence- 
ment of Alexander's reign as the time when Deinarehus first 
appeared as an orator. We find him taking an active part in 
the prosecution of Demosthenes, which was occasioned by the 
disputes about Ilarpalus and his treasure in b.c. 324; and when 
the issue of the Lamian war had deprived Athens of its 
greatest orators, Deinarehus remained without a rival, and 
from the death of i^cmades, in u.c. 318, to the expulsion of 
Demetrius of rhalcrum, by his namesake, the Poliorcetes, in 
B.C. 307, he was the chief, if not the only representative of 
Attic eloquence ; but his inferiority to his great models was 
generally felt, and he was called ' the rustic Demosthenes,'" and 
designated as one who bore the same relation to his predecessor 
that beer does to wine.^ On leaving Athens, he fled, like 
Aristotle, to Chalcis, where he resided till n.c. 292, when the 

' Pholius, Cod. LXI. 

2 Dionys. Hal. Dc Dinarcho judicium, p. 638, Eeiske. SuiJ.-is s.v. s.ij-s : i-iis 
rivoi iffTiv oi'X l(XT6pr}Tai, and Plutarch states (p. 850 B), that liis fatlier w.-ui 
Socrates or Soatratus. Dionysius mentions the latter only. 

3 Dionys. p. 633 ; Plut. p. 850 C. •• Plut. ibid. 
5 Dionys. p. 638. « Plut. p. 8.^0 B. C. ; see Clinton. P. 11. p. 15 1. 
^ Dionys. p. 647 : &ypoiK6v rives ^-qy-oaOivriv i<})aaav elrot. 

^ Hermogenes, Trapl iheC)v, II. 5, p. 384, Walz : war' /|5»j Kal trpoairaliovTrs 
avrbv oi'K axoLpi-Tws KpiOivov \rip.o<TOivr)v ilp-f)Kaai. The schnliast undorslAniln this 
as 01) aiTivov (vol. V. p. 560, Walz), and the phrase liordcaritu rhetor, applied to 
L. Plotius by Suetonius, De Clar. Jl/icf. 2, is pencrally understood in a similar 



friendly exertions of Theophrastus obtained permission for him 
to return.^ One of the last efforts of his oratory was a speech 
against his faithless friend Proxenus^ who had taken advantage 
of his failing sight to rob him of some money while lodging 
in his house in the country." It is stated that this was not 
only his last speech, but his first appearance in a law coiu't.^ 
The year of his death is not known. 

The number of orations ascribed to Deinarchus varies in the 
difi*erent lists which have come down to us. Demetrius, of 
Magnesia, claimed for him no less than 1 60 f in Plutarch" and 
Photius® we read of 64 genuine speeches ; and Dionysius, of 
Halicarnassus,'' admits the authenticity of 60 out of the 87 
which bore his name. The three, still extant as his, refer to 
the business of Harpalus, and were spoken against Demo- 
sthenes, Philocles, and Aristogeiton. To these we must in all 
probability add the tv^ui^iq against Theocrines, printed among 
the orations of Demosthenes, but distinctly attributed to 
Deinarchus by Dionysius, and quoted as his by Harpocration.^ 
As this speech is referred to b.c. o^^q^, it must have been one 
of the earliest works of this orator. 

We have little reason to regret the loss of so many speeches 
of Deinai'chus. Even Dionysius, who has paid him the com- 
pliment of writing a special treatise on his characteristics, 
admits that he was neither the inventor of a special style, nor 
the perfecter of that which was invented by others,^ and declares 
that his position cannot be easily defined, because he has 
neither anything in common with the other orators, nor any- 
thing peculiar to himself."' In fact he was neither an original 

sense : but surely the opposition must be that between beer and wine, as in ^sch. 
Suppl, 930, I : 

dXX' Apcrepds tol rrjade yrji oiKi^Topas 

evpricreT' ov TrivovTas iK KpiOCov jxedv, 

and in the Epigram of Julian, Anthol. Pal. IX. 368, II. p. 128. 

1 Dionys. p. 634 ; Plut. p. 850 D ; Phot. Cod. CCLXVII, 2 Dionys. ibid. 

3 Dionys. p. 635. * Dionys. p. 632. 5 p_ 550 E. 

« Cod. CCLXVII. 7 pp. 651 sqq. 8 Above, p. 334 [174]. 

^ p. 629: 8ia t6 firiTe evpeTrji' idiov yeyov^vai x^-PO-KTTJpos rbv di'dpa fi-^re tQiv 
evprifiivuv iripoLi reKeiurrjv. 

^^ p. 639 : Kaipbi ijdt] Kal irepl tov xa/JaKr^/sos avTov Xeyew. ^ari Si hvahpiffrov. 
oiiSh ycLp oilre KOi.vhv ovt' tdiov ^ffx^"' 


man nor a good imitator;' aiitl altliough Bidymus and llcron 
did not disdain to write commentaries on liim,- lie Mas treated 
with negleet by the grammarians of Alexandria and Pergainus/ 
and some of the critics left him out of the canon of tiie ten 
orators.^ It is admitted by his most favonra])le critics that 
his style is rugged, careless, and monotonous.' And we can 
see this in the few remains which have come down to us. There 
is a wearisome recurrence of the same rhetorical artifices. For 
example, he endeavours to produce an impression by repetitions 
of the same Avord," which is the favourite figure with young 
composers. On the whole he must be regarded as a second- 
rate rhetorician, who would have obtained no distinction at 
Athens, if the military power of Maccdon had not succeeded in 
stifling the political freedom of the city, and in removing from 
the st^ige of public life all those whose eloquence was calculated 
to roq^ and guide the energies of the people. 

^ Dionya^^kcalls him however the best of the imitators of Demosthenes (p. 646). 

^ Hari)oci^fc|.v. /iarpvXe'LOV ; Suid. s.v. 'Yipuv. 

3 Dionys. fWjo. ■• Bibl. Coislin. p. 597. 

* Herniogeiii38^^^ him Tpaxi>s thrice in his short notice (vol. III. p. 384, 
Walz) ; so also ■||^^^> where this quality is also predicated of Aristogeiton. In 
the scholia on iflBOR'^s Deinarchus is called rpoxi'J Kal p.ovoeihrj% (vol. VI. p. 
319, AValz), and Tt-is said his style, like that of Thucydides, aK\r)p6s Siv kolI 
Tpaxi'S diroKvaUi ttjv aiffdrjaiv. 

^ Thus, in the speech .against Demosthenes we have, at the beginning of difft-rcnt 
paragraphs, such tame repetitions as: dlKaia p.kv ovv SiKaia rplnrov yt Ttva 
wdffxii- Tb ffvv^Spiov {p. g\ , 18); fiiadwrb^ ovtos, S) 'A6T]i>aioi, madurbt oit6s 
((TTi ira\alo% (p. 93, 37); ttoXXo/, w AvSpa, iroWol rwv iroXiriDv. 

P 2 




§ r. Connexion between rhetoric and history. School of Isocrates. § i. Ephorus. 
§ 3. Theopompus. § 4. Sicilian School: Antiochus. § 5. Philistus. § 6. 
Writers of the Atthides.^ 

§ I. rpHERE is no doubt that the first beginnings of history 
X among the Greeks were connected with the literary 
efforts of the epic rhapsodists.^ While the Ionic dialect, which 
was the conventional language of the epos, M'as also adopted by 
the historian, even though he might belong to the DoricPtown of 
Halicarnassus- or Cnidus,^ we know that these pros^arratives 
of facts, mixed up with fables, were publicly recited m acted — 
for this word is used — just in the same way as the rhapsodes 
delivered the poems of Homer and the other poets of that 
school." In the course of time, the rhapsodisLwas represented 
by the sophist, as the regular type of the*;p^fessional author 
and teacher,^ the dramatic element was snper^3ed by an effort 
of rhetoric, and the historian was no longer a writer of prose 
epics, but a finished product of the schools of rhetoric and 
sophistry. Thus we have seen that Thucydides was emphatically 
a rhetorical historian. His style was not formed on the model 
of the old epic poets and annalists, but directly derived from 
his teacher Antiphon." And the elaborate speeches, which he 
incorporates with his narrative, are in fact the soul of his 
history.^ It was not, therefore, without reason that Demo- 
sthenes made Thucydides the subject of his special study,^ and 

1 See chapter XVIII. 2 Chapter XIX. § 7, 

8 Chapter XXXVIII. § 9. 

* See the passages which we have quoted in the Theatre of the Greeks, ed. 6, 
p. 40. 

» Above, chapter XXXVII. § 2. « Chapter XXXIV. §§ 10, 11. 

7 Jlid. §§ 8, 9. 8 Above, p. 343 [183]- 


formed on this model liis own simi)lc and energetic style. The 
connexion, however, between rhetoric and history was never 
more distinctly and formally acknowledged than in the relations 
which connected Isocrates with the historians who were formed 
in his school. That rhetorician was not merely a professed 
artist of language, but he studiously abstained from the more 
immediately practical exhibitions of his art in the law-courts 
and public assemblies, and Avrote elaborate pampldcts on sub- 
jects of general and political interest.' To him, therefore, it 
was a more ccjngcnial' occupation to educate the philoso{)hical 
historian, than to form the style of the forensic or parliamentary 
speaker. Accordingly^ we find that Isocrates not only trained 
in'ofessed rhetoricians, like Naucrates and Theodectes, and 
orators like Isaeus, Lycurgus, and Ilypereides, but also writers, 
who,*Uke Ephorus and Theopompus^ employed the facilities of 
composr^n which they had acquired under his teaching in the 
compilatiTO of elaborate and artistic narratives of past events ; 
and so, iifijyLfclicitous language of Cicero, from the school of 
Isocrates, Urareni the Trojan horse, none but princes of Greece 
issued forth,^^me of whom, however, were resolved to become 
illustrious oii^IBi the parade, while others sought distinction 
in the field of b?tttlc." We are told that Isocrates not only 
formed the style and regulated the character of Ephorus and 
Theopompus, applying, as Cicero says in several passages, the 
spurs to the former, who was bashful and hesitating, and 
curbing Theopompus, who was apt to overleap all bounds in the 
extravagances of his diction,^ but that he even selected for them 
the departments of historical investigation which were best 
suited to their different abilities, advising the former to confine 

^ Above, chapter XXX VI. ^ 6. 

^ JJe Oratore, II. 22, § 94: 'ecce tibi exortua est Isocrates, magister istorum 
oinnium, cujus [v. qui ejusj e ludo tamquam ex equo Trojano meri i)riiiciiica exio- 
runt : sed eoruui partim in pompa, partim in acie illustrca ease volucruiit. 

3 l>e Oratore, III. 9, § 36 : ' quoJ dicebat Isocrates, doctor 8iugul;u-is : mi cal- 
caribus in Ephoio, contra autem in Theopunipo frunis uti soleru. Alicrum cuiiu 
exsultauteni vurboruni audacia repriiuebat, alterum cuncUmlcni ct tjuasi vervcuu- 
dantem iucitabat.' Cf. Brat. 56, § 204; ad Atticum, VI. i, u; Suid.-w, 8.v. 
''E<popos : 6 70OV 'Ia-oKpdrT]i rbv /xiv [e(6iroiJ.irov] ((pv [xaXivov bdaOai, riv 5^ 'E<popo¥ 



himself to the annals of early times, and the latter to under- 
take tlie more recent and exciting periods.' 

§ 2. Ephorus, of Cumjfi, or Cyme, the chief city of ^olis 
in Asia Minor, was the son of Demophilus,- and was born in 
01. 93, 4. B.C. 407. He was sent to Chios, where Isocrates 
had opened a school, in order to learn rhetoric with a view to 
its practical applications. But when he returned to his native 
city, it was found that he had made but little progress in 
oratory, and that his natural abilities held out no prospect of 
distinction as a public speaker. Accordingly he, went back to 
liis teacher, and endeavoured to supply his natural defects by 
renewed diligence, and was so far successful that he was crowned 
along with Theopompus, as one of the best pupils of the Chian 
school.^ It is inferred from a passage in Seneca^ that Ephorus 
actually engaged in forensic employments, and was induced to 
withdraw from this by the advice of Isocrates, wh(^aw that 
his talents were better fitted for a literary life^^nfith. the 
exception of PlutarcVs statement, that Ephoru^jSRlined an 
invitation to visit the court of Alexander the Great, perhaps to 
accompany him to the East,^ we know nothingJm|Ee of the life 
of this historian. ^Hr 

The works of Ephorus were the fon^ing. (I.) A- 
general history of Greece in thirty books, from the return of 

■^ Phot. Cod. CCLX. : yey6va(nv avrov [^laoKpoLTOvs] &KpoaTal QeiTrofiiros 6 
X(os Kal'Ecpopos 6 Ki»;UaiOj ols Kal rais IcrropiKaTs crvyypcKpais irpovrpixpaTO XP'H'^^' 
crdat Trpbs rriv iKdcrrov <pv(Ti.v dvaXdyus Kal rds vTTod^creis rrjs iffToplas avrois diavei- 
fidp-evos. Cod. CLXXVI : Kal rdj icTTopiKas 5^ virod^ffets tov di5d<XK0VTa avrois 
[ E<p6p({i Kal QeoTrdfiTTcp] Trpo^oKetv tixs p.iv Uvu tuv xp^f^f '^<P^PV> OeoTro/iTry 5^ rds 
fiera OovKvSidTjv 'EXXTjviA.'dy, vpbs rrjv cKarepov (pvaiv Kal t6 ^pyov dp/j.oadfj.evov. 

^ Suidas, s.n,, mentions Antiochus as, according to some accounts, the name of 
his father : but this may have arisen from some confusion with the Sicilian 
historian of that name, and C. Miiller, to whom we are indebted for most of the 
materials of this sketch, has reasonably inferred that Demophilus was really his 
name, because Plutarch states this, and because it was the name of his son {Frag- 
menta Historicorian Grcecorum, ed. C. et T. Miiller, Paris, 1S41, p. LVII.). 

^ Menander, irepl eiriSeiKTiKwv, p. 262, Walz : wawep "'E(popos iarecpavovTO Kal 
QeoTTo/jLTTos ol fiadfiTal 'laoKpdrovs ws Siacpipovres rdv dXXuv. 

* Be tranquill. Aniin. c. 6 : ' Isocrates Ephorum injecta manu a foro subduxit, 
utiliorem componendis monumentis historiarura ratus.' 

^ Plut. De Stoic, repugn, c. 20 : KaWicrOiveL rives iyKaXovaiv 6ri irpbs 'AXi^av- 
Spov ^wXevaev .... "'E^opov 5^ Kal 'ZivoKpdrrjv Kal Mevidrj/xov iwaivovcri, wapairrj- 
(Tap-ivovs rbv ' AXi^avbpov. 

Kl'lIOllUS. 21') 

the Heraclcidic' to the takinj; of Perinthiis, in n.c. 341.' TWih 
work was completed by his son, Dcinophihis,^ and continued by 
Diyllus down to the death of IMiilip.' It apj)ears that each 
book was complete in itself, and had a sj)Ocial title ; for 
example, the fourth book was called Europa." The titles of 
the other books cannot be fixed with certainty, but the 
numerous fragments and references enable ns to sec that the 
first three books discussed the early migrations and settlements 
of the Greeks ; that the lifth book was devoted to Asia and 
Africa ; that the sixth and seventh books treated of the Pelopon- 
nesus and Sicily ; the eighth and ninth contained the history 
of Croesus, Cyrus, and iJarius ; the tentii and eleventh gave 
the history of Athens from Marathon to Salamis ; the twelfth 
and thirteenth carried on the general history of Greece to the 
87th Olympiad ; the fourteenth narrated the Poloponnesiau 
war; the fifteenth and sixteenth contained Hannibal's invasion 
of Sicily, abd the domination of the thirty tyrants at Athens ; 
the seventeai^h was devoted to the expedition of Cyrus the 
younger ; the eighteenth descz'ibed the campaigns of Thimbron, 
Dercyllidas, ai^ Agcsilaus, in Asia jNIinor ; the nineteenth 
contained the etOTits from the Corinthian war to the peace of 
Antalcidas ; and in books 20 — 29 the history was carried down 
to the beginning of the Sacred War. We have already men- 
tioned that the thirtieth book, describing that war, written 
by Demophilus, after the death of his father. 

(II.) A treatise on discoveries [-Trip] tvpn^idron') in two books. 
It has been supposed" that this work may have been extracted 

1 Diodor. IV. i : to. iwb ttjs 'UpaKXeidCiv Ka065ov ffwra^diJievos, ravr-qv dpxv" 
iTroii)aaTO t^s IffToplas. 

^ Id. XVI. 26 : 'Ti(popos tt]v laroplav ivOdSe KaT^ffTpotpev is rijv HeplyOov iro\i- 

•* Id. XVI. 14: Ar]iJ.6<f>i\os 6'E(f)6pov toO IffTopioypdtfiov vl6s rbv ■jrapa\ci(f>0iyTa 
ir6\(/xov vwb Tov irarpbs dvop-affdivra hk Upbv ffwreray/j^voi. 

* Id. ibid. : Ak^XXos ok 6 'A^7;j'aros ^pKrai t^s iffTopias dirb ttjs iepoav\'^<T(us Aoi 
yiypaipe ^t^Xlovs dKoai koL 'iirra, avp-irfpiXa^Hiv irdaaz rdt iv roll XP^voi% toi'twi 
yevo/iivas irpd^ets. Diyllus was continued in thirty books by rsaon, of PlaUra ; 
Creuzer, Ilistor. Kunst. p. 322. 

' Strabo, I. p. 59 : "Etpopos iv rip irepl t^s Ei'/jtiTT?? \6n/i(). 

" C.Miiller, Fragmenta Uistoricorum Gnrconim, \t. LXI.: 'scd vidc-w an non 
postea aliijuis hiec invcnta ex hist4iriaruni libris cxccrpserit ciquc conii>cnciio 
Ephori uomeu pra^tixerit.' 


by some later author from the history of Ephorus, but it is more 
probable that it was a supplementary collection of antiquarian 

(III.) An essay on domestic matters [avvTayfxa iTn\ojpioi>). 
In this book he seems to have collected a good deal of in- 
formation respecting the native celebrities of Cumse^ mixed up 
with particulars relating to the literary history of Greece in 

(IV.) A treatise on diction {Trepl \e^£iog). This was one of 
the many treatises on rhetoric which were superseded by the 
more methodical work of Aristotle. The title shows that it was 
confined to a mere department of the subject/ and the refe- 
rences to the work by Cicero' and Quintilian^ tell us only 
that he laid down specific rules for the rhythmical structure of 

(V.) A collection, in twenty-four books, of particulars 
respecting good and evil things (ttcjoi ayaOCov /cat kukwu (3ipXia 
K^), attributed to him by Suidas, is supposed ta/»tave been a 
series of extracts from his history. 

(VI.) An account of the remarkable thi%s in different 
countries, in fifteen books {Tnpl tCjv iKaarayov TTapaBoS,(jjv 
(5i(3Xia u), was either a work preparatory to his history, or a 
Supplement to the geographical portion of it.^ 

The numerous fragments of Ephorus, and the frequent 
references to him in the pages of ancient writers, especially in 
the accurate and judicious work of the geographer Strabo, 
enable us to form a sufficient estimate of the loss which we 
have sustained in him. Strabo says' that he makes great use 
of Ephorus on account of his careful investigation of local par- 
ticulars, and that he is a writer of considerable authority. 
And Polybius, whom Strabo quotes, attributes to Ephorus a 
marked superiority over Eudoxus, and admits his excellence as 
a describer of the foundations of cities, the affinities of nations, 

1 See above, chapter XL. § 5. ^ Cic. Orator. 57. 

3 Quintil. IX. 4, 87. 

* See Marx {apud Miiller, Fragm. p. LXL), who compares the irapaSd^uv iduv 
ffwayuy-^ of Nicolaus Damascenus. 

' p. 422 : "E^o/jos y t6 irXelaTov xp^/J-fSa Sto. ttji' irepl ravra eTrL/MiXeLau KctOditep 

KUi IloXl'/StOS p.apTVp(hv TVyX°-^^h 0,VT}p d$i6\o70S. 


their emigrations, and their ancient wortliies.' Pulyhius also 
concedes to Ephorus the honour of being the first writer of 
universal history,' and Strabo gives him the credit of being 
the first to separate the historical element from the pnrely 
geographical, and of liaving made the latter depend on real in- 
vestigations.^ Some of his descriptions, sucli as that of IJocotia/ 
or that of Crete,^ fully justify tlie praises bestowed upon him 
as a geographer, and it is clear that, in drawing \i\) liis details 
of historical events, he availed himself of all the l)est authorities, 
not neglecting inscriptions and other authentic documents,'' and 
correcting many errors of his predecessors.^ This diligence has 
rendered him liable to a charge of plagiarism,^ Init there seems 
to be no reason for believing that he intentionally concealed his 
obhgations to older writers. From the more general accu- 
sations of Timajus he is formally vindicated by Polybius ;'' and 
though not free from errors,"' Ephorus has furnished us, espe- 
cially through compilers like Diodorus Siculus, with very much 
of oui- knowledge of Greek history. Ilis style, as might have 
been expected from his rhetorical training, was highly coloured 
and artificial," and, according to Dionysius,'- only he and 
Theopompus among all the historical writers wrote in a 
perfectly accurate and finished diction. This, at least, seems a 
more probable judgment than the harsh statement of Duris of 
Samos,'^ that both Ephorus and Theopompus were entirely 
inferior to their predecessors, liaving no power of imitation 
or beauty of language, and behig anxious only about their 

§ 3. Theopompus, who is generally regarded as the pendant 
to Ephorus in the portrait gallery of Greek literary history, 
was born at Chios in 01. 100, 3, b.c. 378. His father, 

1 Polyb. XXXIV. I, 3 ; Strabo, p. 425. 

3 V. 32, 2. 3 p 322. * Rtniho, pp. 400, ^.[.1. 

= pp. 479, sqq. " p. 4<J3- 

' e.g. of Hellanicus, Joseph, c. Apion. I. 3. 

^ PoqihjT. ap. £usib. Prap. Evavg. X. 2. * XTF. 23. 

1" Diodor. I. 39; Strabo, pp. 303, 422, 464. 

" Polyb. Xli. 28; Dion. Hal. De fscco judic. p. 626; Dio Chrys. XVIII. 
p. 256, Mor. ; Philostr. Vit. Soph. I. 17 ; Cic. Oral. 51. 
'i> Dion. Hal. Dc Ooinp. Verb. p. 173. 
" Phot. Cod. CLXXVI. p. 393, Hocschcl. 


Damasistratus, was expelled from Chios by the Lacedsemouians 
while the future historian was still a child, perhaps an infant.^ 
It is quite impossible, then, that Theopompus could have 
received instruction from Isocrates in his native island of 
Chios,^ and it is probable that the travels of his earlier years 
included a visit to Athens, where he enjoyed a lengthened 
intercourse with the great rhetorician. Having received a 
complete training in this school, and being relieved by his 
ample patrimony from the necessity of writing for the law 
courts, he devoted himself to the composition of set speeches 
{iiridci'^eig) , in imitation of his master, which he delivered in 
every considerable city, and obtained great renown by these 
displays,^ especially in b.c. 353, when he won the prize, against 
Naucrates and Isocrates, in the competition instituted by Arte- 
misia for the best speech in honour of her deceased husband, 
Mausolus.'* Satisfied with the applause which he had gained by 
these oratorical efforts, he followed the advice of Isocrates, 
and applied himself to the composition of history,^ a task for 
which he was especially qualified by the knowledge which he 
acquired in his travels, and by his political experience. For 
it appears that on his return to Chios, in consequence of the 
letters of Alexander the Great, calling on the people of that 
island to restore their exiles, and probably written in b.c. ^^^, 
Theopompus took the lead in the government of his native city. 
As long as Alexander lived he was maintained at the head 
of the aristocratic party, in spite of his overbearing and 
haughty temper, and the bitter and formidable attacks of the 
eminent rhetorician Theocritus.® On the death of his protector 
he was again banished from Chios, and took refuge in Egypt, 
where, however, he did not obtain a friendly reception from 
Ptolemy, who would have put him to death as a meddlesome 
and dangerous character, had not Theopompus been protected 

^ It is supposed that this expulsion took place in 01. loo, 4 ; see Diodor. XV. 

^ This is stated, however, by the author of the Vitw X. Oratorum, p. 837 C, 
and by Photius, Cod. CCLX. 

3 Phot. Cod. CLXXVI. ; Quintil. X. i ; Dionys. Hal. ad. Pomp. p. 131. 

* A. Gellius, N. A. X. 18; Vit. X. Drat. p. 838 B ; Euseb. Proep. Evang. 
X. 3. 

« Phot. Cod. CCLX. 6 Strabo, p. 955. 

TiiEoroirrus. 219 

by the intervention of powerful friends.' Ptolemy did not 
assume the title of king till u.c. 306, and if the story tliat he 
fled to king Ptolemy is to be understood as indieating a period 
subsequent to this, Theopompus must have been very much 
advanced in years when he finally left his native city. Of the 
remainder of his life, and of his death, which probably followed 
soon after this l)anishment, we have no account. 

The works of Theojjompus, which arc ail lost, were chiefly 
historical, and we arc informed that he had devoted a con- 
siderable part of his ample fortune towards procuring accurate 
information in regard to the particulars which he commemo- 
rated. His diligence and trustworthiness arc attested by many 
of the ancient critics,* and his style is said to have been lucid, 
ornate, and elegant, though deficient in vigour,^ His greatest 
fault, according to the ancient writers, was attributable to the 
vehemence of his temper. They intimate that neither in prai!*c 
nor in vituperation could he keep his language within due imunds. 
And he has been classed with Timieus as conspicuously given 
to defamation.^ On the other hand he has been defended by 
an eminent modern scholar, who says :' ' Theopompus has been 
described as censorious for having painted from the life the 
dissolute manners of a corrupt age; for most people are in- 
clined to look at every thing on its fairest side, especially if 
they view it from a distance, when all the passions are silent, and 
the ])eucvoicnt feeling which is implanted in the heart of man 
is not contradicted by immediate and personal cxi)crience ; but 
honour is due to the historian who knows how to distinguish 
the covering from the surface, and, like the judge of the 
infernal regions, drags the soul before his judgment-seat, naked 
and stripped of all pomp and pageantry.' 

^ Phot. Cod. CLXXVI. : nroXefiaiov 5i ov irpoffUaOai rhv AvSpa, dXXA Kal wj 
TToXvirpdyfiova aveXelf iOeXijcrat, el fxrj riues tCiv <f>l\uv irapairr]<Td/J.(i'Oi Sifffwffayro. 

** Athenjtus, III. 18 ; Suidas, s. v.'E<popos. 

3 Dionys. Hal. Lpist. ad Pomp., p. 132: KaOaph. 17 \i^ii koX Muni) Kal <ra<t>-^t, 
i'\pr]\-^ re Kal ixeyaXoTrpeirr)! Kal rb irofMiriKby #x<"^<''* ""oXi'-, avyKtipi^vrj rt ward riji* 
p.i(jy}v app-oviav, t/S^ws koI /xaXoK-uis p^ovffa. 

* Corn. Nepos. Alcib. c. 1 1 ; Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 3i^> ;, Qnomodo 
hist, conscrib. c. 59. Polyb. VIII. ii ; AtLejueus VI. p. 154 E. 

5 Biickh, Public Economy of Athens, IxKjk II. chapter XXIV. p. ■293, 
Eng. Tr. 


The following is the list of his writings. 

(I.) An abridgment of Herodotus {sTnTOjULrj riLv Hpo^orov 
laropihjv, which certain modern scholars* have attributed to 
some later writer. 

(II.) A History of Greece in twelve books, in continuation 
of Thucydides (Sm'ra^tc 'EAXjji^ikwi'), which contained a period 
of seventeen years from the battle of Cynossema to that of 
Cnidus. Of this work very few fragments remain." 

(III.) His history specially so called (laTopiai kut l^oyjiv), 
also designated as his Philippica {^iXnnriKa), which in fifty- 
eight books contained an elaborate history of Philip of Macedon, 
with frequent digressions, recounting the contemporary events 
in different countries.^ The first book gave the earlier years of 
Philip; the second, his Illyriau, Pseonian, and Thracian wars; 
the third book discussed the war with Amphipolis, and took 
occasion to digress into the history of Sesostris and the 
Scythians ; in the eighth book he described the social war, with 
many digressions on wonderful occurrences of various kinds ; 
the ninth gave Philip's Thessalian campaign, with much sup- 
plementary information about the scene of action ; the tenth 
prepared the way for the war between Philip and the Athenians, 
by an account of the early history of Attica and of the old 
Athenian statesmen ; the eleventh book probably brought down 
the history of Philip to his attempt on Thermopylae in b.c. 352 ; 
books 13 to 18 seem to have contained an account of the wars 
waged . by the Persians against Cyprus, Phoenicia, and Egypt ; 
the nineteenth and twentieth books returned to the affairs of 
Philip, with especial reference to his dealings with Thessaly and 
Thrace ; in the twenty-first book there was a discussion about 
Dionysius and the affairs of Sicily, and this subject was renewed 
in the thirty-ninth, fortieth, and forty-first books; in books 
22 — 38, 42 — 51, the history of Philip was carried down to the 
battle of Chseroneia, which was described in book ^^ ; the 
fifty-second book contained the expedition of Archidamus in 
aid of the Tarentines; and the remainder of the work com- 

^ E. g. Vossius (De Hist. Gh: p. i6, 31.) 

^ In the eleventh book he borrowed Xenophon's lively account of the interview- 
between Agesilaus and Phamabazus (ApoUonius apud Etiseb. Pnep. Evang. p. 465). 
3 Diodor. XVI. 3. Phot. Cod. CLXXVI. 

THEOPOjrpus. 221 

pleted the history of Philip down to his deatli.' From this 
sketch of the contents, we may see that the J*/ti/ijj/ji(u of 
Theopompus was a very miscellaneous eon»pilation, not much 
distinguished hy method or unity of purpose. It has been 
supposed tliat this work, tof^ether w ith the twelve 1)ooks of the 
Syntaxis, made up a continuous history in seventy Ijooks ;' hut 
this view has been sufiicicntly refuted l)y Mr. Fynes Clinton.^ 
The digressions, which formed so large a part of the book, were 
omitted at an early period by those who were cliielly interested 
in the history of the king of Maccdon j and Philip III. in this 
way reduced the number of books from fifty-eight to sixteen/ 
In the time of Photius, however — tliat is, in the ninth century 
of our ?era — there Avcre still extant all the fifty-eight books, 
except the sixth, seventh, ninth, twentieth, and thirtieth ; and 
the same five books in all probability were wanting in the time 
of Diodorus Siculus. Of the original extent of this work and 
the Syntaxis we may form some idea from the statement of 
Photius, on the authority of Theopompus himself, that the two 
together contained 150,000 lines.'^ 

(IV.) Orations, chiefly Paueg}'rical and Deliberative, in- 
eluding, besides the eulogium on IMausolus, the panegyrics on 
Philip and Alexander, and the address to Alexander on the 
affairs of Chios. 

(V.) An attack on Plato (Kara TlXartovo^ Star/x/3/;). 

(YI.) On religiousness {-irepi evatfttiag).^ It is supposed that 
these two may have been extracts from his great work on 

1 There is a full analysis of the Philippica of Theopompus, as far as the 
ments supply the necessary data, in Miiller's Fraym. Hist. Or. pp. LXX. — LXXII I, 

2 Suidas, s. V. GeoTTO/xiroj. ^ Fuati lldlcnicill., j)p. 374, 375. 

* Phot. Cod .CLXXVI. : irXefcrrais fj^v ofv irapeK^dfffffi irayroSairTJi iarofxiat roit 
IffTopiKovs avTOv "Kdyovs G^otto/xttos wapaTfli/fi. di6 Kal ^'/Xtiriros 6 irp^f 'PoJMa'oi'i 
iro\fix-q(Ta% i^eXCcv ToiTas Kal rdj ^i\L-n-irov ffwra^dfievoi irpd^ett at <TK0x6i tlai Gto- 
Trbp.w(ii (is iKKalScKa ^l^Xovs fubvas fj.-r}Zh trap ' iavTov irpoaOtU fl iipfXdiP irX^ w» 
etpTjTai Tuiv irapeKTpoTTwv, rai irdaas aTTTiprifffv. 

' Phot. ibid. : oC/k iXarrbvuiv p.kv i) biap-vpiwv iirCiv rovi ^Ti5f irrurori tCiv \6ywp 
ffiryypa\j/apUv(i) wXdovs di f) ireirreKalSeKa fivpidSas iv cli rds t( ruii''EXXT)i'Wi' Kal 
Pap^dpuiv irpd^eii M^X/" ^^''' diray)(\\o/j.^vai tern Xo^er»'. 

6 Muller, u. s., p. LXXIII. Kulinken {I/ist. Cr. Gr. Or. p. 37 1) conjcctui-t^ 
that, in the case of No. VI. the name of Theopompus lias been sulMtitutetl for thiit 
of Theophrastus, who wrote a book repi fvae^dai U'i"g- L.»irt. V. |). i:fit. 


Aimximcnes published a work entitled TpiKapavoq or Tpnro- 
XiTiKOQ,^ under the name of Theopompus, in order to injure the 
character of the rival rhetorician. 

§ 4. The Sicilian School of Corax, Tisias, and Gorgias/ of 
which Isocrates may be regarded as the Attic representative/ 
gave rise to an historical school of its own^ the most important 
member of which, Philistus, was a contemporary of the Athenian 
rhetorician. At one time, indeed, it was a common opinion 
that Philistus had been, like Ephorus and Theopompus, a pupil 
of Isocrates. This belief was derived from a passage in Cicero, 
where Theopompus, Ephorus, Philistus, and Naucrates, are 
mentioned together as having proceeded fi-om the school of 
Isocrates, just as the Greek captains came forth from the 
wooden horse at Troy.'' But as Cicero himself, in another 
passage of the same work, seems to distinguish between 
Philistus and the scholars of Isocrates,^ it has been judiciously 
suggested" that we ought to read Philiscus instead of Philistus 
in the former reference to the Isocratean historians. For there 
was a Philiscus of Miletus among the scholars of Isocrates, and 
he, though not himself an eminent historian, was the teacher of 
Timseus, a later historian of the same school as Philistus ; and 
in two separate notices Suidas has confounded the two writers.^ 
It is also interesting to observe, with reference to the notice in 
Cicero, who immediately after Philiscus mentions the eminent 
rhetorician Naucrates, the competitor with Theopompus for the 

^ Pausan. VI. 18. The three cities referred to were Athens, Sparta, and Thebes. 

2 Above, ch. XXXII. § 3. 3 Above, eh. XXXVI. § r. 

* De Oratore, II. -23, 94 : 'itaque et illi Theopompi, Ephori, Philisti, Naucratse, 
multique alii naturis difFerunt.' 

^ Ibid. II. 13, 57: ' hunc consecutus est Syracusius J'/tz'Ks^MS, qui, quum Dionysii 
tyranni familiarissimus esset, otium suum consumpsit in historiA. scribenda, maxi- 
meque Thucydidem est, sicut mihi videtur, imitatus. Postea vera, quasi ex 
clarissimS. rhetoris officinS, duo prsestantes ingenio, Theopompus et Ephonis, ab 
Isocrate magistro impulsi, se ad historiam contulerunt.' 

^ By Goller, De sitit Syracusarum, pp. 108 — 118. 

' The following are the corresponding parts of the two notices in Suidas : — 

^i\l<rKos t) ^IXiffTos, SujOttKOi/trtos, ^IXiaros 'NavKpariTTjs t) '^vpaKoi'aios, 

IffTopiKds. ^f Se ffvyyevrjs Aiovvaiov toO 'Apx^oviSov vl6s, fiaOTjTrjs S^ ^t> Evriyov 

Tvpdvvov 'ZiKeXias Kal ev ry vpbs tovs toD iXeyeioTroiov 6s Trpdros Kara prjTopi- 

KapxvSoviovs vav/xaxtif ireXeijTijcre. /xa- Kr}v t^xv^v Icropiav ^ypa^pe. 
6r]T7ji oi 7}v Fjiirivov rod iXeyeiOTTotoO. 


Mausolean prize, tliat Suidas not only seems to ititerclianj^c 
* Naucratcs the J'rvthni'au' uith ' ]'>vtlineus the Niiucratitc," 
but really says of Pliilistus that he was ' cither a Xaueratite or 
a Syracusan,' having no doubt I'uinul Philisciis and Nauerates 
mentioned together, as Cicero mentions them, among the 
scholars of Isocrates. Admitting, then, the connexion between 
Isoerates and the rhetoricians of Sicily, and between his pupil 
Philiscus and Timajus, we must consider the Sicilian historians 
Antiochus and Pliilistus as belonging to a manifestation of 
Greek historiography, which stands entirely by itself. 

Of Antiochus we have veiy scanty remains, and the loss of 
his writings is much to be dei)lorcd, for it cannot be doubted 
that he was well acquainted with the traditions of his own 
countiy and Italy, and that he gave many details, which arc 
now transmitted to us, if at all, in merely a secondary form. 
For example, the particulars into which Thucydidcs enters at 
the beginning of his sixth book are most probably derived from 
Antiochus, and to the same source Aristotle was indebted for 
his references to Sicilian history.- IIow far Diodorus has 
copied or abridged Antiochus cannot be determined ; but he 
sometimes quotes him by name.' The Syracusan historian 
was also one of the authorities of Dionysius of Ilalicarnassus^ 
and Strabo,' and he is quoted by a late -writer for the curious 
statement that Rome was fomided before the Trojan \\ar in the 
time of King ]Morges, the successor of Italus, and the mythical 
representative of the Sicilian ]Morgctes.'^ AVe know nothing 
about Antiochus, except that he was the sou of Xcnophancs of 
Syracuse; that although of Dorian extraction, like Herodotus, 
lie followed the old fashion and w rote in the Ionic dialect ;' and 

^ Suidas, s. v. 'IcroKpaTijs : oitoj Kal QeoS^KTy Kal Q(^} &fj.a rcjj 'EpvOpaU(> 
"^avKpaTirri SirjyuviaaTO ; cf. s. v. Oeoo^KT-qs : o'tos Kal 6 'EpvOpatos 'SavKpdTiji. It ifi 
clear from the position of the article that wo have only an error of the copyist in 
the former passage. 

2 Niebuhr, Hist, of Rome, vol. I. pp. i6, 17, Engl. Tr. 

3 e.g. XII. 71. ■» I. 40. et al. ' p. 39'- ^*- »J- 

8 Syncell. p. 364, Dind. : 'AptIoxos di 6 Si/paxiffiot Kal rpbTpuiKwi' (fnjal t^p 
"Pwfji.r]v iKTicrdai. PaffiXevovros yi6pyr]T0i 'IraXiat aird Tdpavroi AxP^ rTocftdwWat 
fiera. rbv TrpCirov \ey6fifvov 'IraXov /SaffiX^a KaTaycyT}paK6Ta. 

7 The commencement of his work is thus citetl by Dionysius, I. 1 2 : 'Aktioxoj 
Aevotpdveoi rdde (n<viypa\pe irtpl 'lTa\iai ^k Tuiy apxaiwv \6',wv to. TiaTdraTa *ai 
ca(pi(TTaTa. rrjv yr)v Tavryjv, 7;rts vO^'lraXia KaXftrai. r!< raXaiiv ilxoy Olyorrpoi. 


that his Sicilian liistory, which was comprised in nine books, 
was earned down to the year 423 b.c.^ 

§ 5, Like Thucydides, whom he selected as his model, 
Phtlistus was a man of consideration in his own country, and 
took an active part in public affairs. The year of his birth is 
not stated, and it is even uncertain whether his father's name 
was Archonides, as Suidas says," or Archimenides, as Pausanias^ 
tells us. As he was a very old man at the time of his death, 
in B.C. ^S^,* as he had been an eye-witness of the arrival of 
Gylippus at Syracuse in b.c. 415,^ and made a prominent public 
appearance in B.C. 406,'' he was probably born not later than 
the commencement of the Peloponnesian war in b.c. 432. His 
apparent connexion Avith Hermoerates, who, aided by Gylippus, 
had enabled his countrymen to repel triumphantly the formid- 
able invasion of the Athenians, led him to espouse the cause of 
Dionysius, when that daring adventurer came forward as the 
representative and successor of the anti- popular chieftain. 
When the conduct of the Syracusan generals at Agrigentum, in 
B.C. 406, excited the bitter indignation of their fellow-citizens, 
and Dionysius was fined for the intemperance with which he 
attacked them in the assembly, Philistus at once paid the fine, 
and urged Dionysius to pursue his invectives in the same strain, 
promising to meet all the penalties which might be imposed 
upon him.^ Having thus contributed not only to the restora- 
tion of the Hermocratean party, but also to the establishment 
of Dionysius as despotieal ruler of Syracuse, Philistus naturally 
occupied a prominent place in the new administration of affairs. 
Por a long time he was the confidential friend and lieutenant of 
the tyrant, insomuch that he was intrusted with the command 
of the citadel, on which the safety of Dionysius depended. At 
length, however, he excited the jealousy of that ruler by 
privately marrying one of the two daughters of his brother 

^ Diod. U.S.; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, p. 69. 

2 See above, p. 382 [222], note 7. ^ X. 23. 

4 Plut. Dion. c. 35. ^ Id. Nic. c. 19. 

6 Diod. XIII. 91. 

' Diodorus, XIII. 91 : tCiv 5' apxifTuv ^hjiiiovvtuiv top Aiov6cnov Kara tovs 
v6fiLcvs ws Oopv^ovPTCL, $tXt(TTOS 6 Tcts icTToplas varepov avyypd<J/as ovalau ^x'^" M'tyd- 
\7]v i^^TLffe TO. irpbffTifJ.a., Kal t(^ Aioj'i/cr/y irapeK'eXei'ero X^yeiv Sera Trporjpeiro, 


piiiLiSTus. 225 

Lcptincs, and was in couscciucnce banished from Syracuse 
about B.C. 386,' He settled first at Thurii, for so niany years 
the residence of Herodotus, and afterwards removed to A(bia. 
Here his enforced leisure furnished to him, its it had done to 
Thueydides, the o[)i)ortunity and the inducement to compose 
his historical work. At the same time he continually endea- 
voured to procure his recal from exile, and sometimes, it is 
said, had recourse to flatteries unworthy of his character, in the 
hope of inducing Diouysius to relent." Jhit as long as the 
elder tyrant lived, he pleaded in vain. On the accession of the 
yomigcr Dionysius in 13. c. 367, a cabal was formed 
Dion and his friend Plato, and, to counterl)alancc their influence, 
riiilistus was iuvited to Syracuse.^ Here he resumed all his 
authority, and became the chief minister of the tyrant, whom 
he induced to dismiss Plato, and banish Dion. Till the year 
B.C. 357, he enjoyed a position at Syracuse scarcely second to 
that of Dionysius himself, and by his military experience and 
vigorous character sustained that feeble despot on his throne. 
Unfortunately for him and Dionysius, Dion did not take the 
usual course when he sailed from Zacynthus to Sicily ; 
Philistus, who was waiting to intercept him in the waters of 
Tarentum, had no opportunity of meeting him at sea, and 
Dionysius had foolishly absented himself from the capital, so 
that Dion was enabled to possess himself of Aehradina and a 
great part of Syracuse; and Ileracleidcs luiving come with a 
fleet to his assistance, all the hopes of liic dynasty were centred 

^ Diodorus merely says (XV. 7), that Philistus and Leptincs were among tho 
number of his friends whom Dionysius was led iirl \l/tvSf(Tw alrian a.vt\tiv. Ho 
implies, too, that Philistus and Leptincs were both reconciled to the elder Diony- 
sius and restored to his favour. Cut Plutarch, iu liis life of Dion (c. 1 1). distinctly 
says, that Philistus was banished because Leptines had given him one of hi« 
daughters in marriage /X7;5^ <ppdcras irpbs Aiofi'irioi' : that Dionysius imprisoned hiB 
niece, and banished his old supporter, who did not return toO rptajivTipov j'wjtoi. 
It is also clear, from what Philistus said of his wife's degnulatioii (npud PlxU. 
Timof. 15), that Leptines also must have remained a long time in banishment. 

'^ Pausan. I. 13, § 9. 

8 Com. Nepos, Dion, 3 : ' quumque Dion non desineret obsecrarc DionjTiium, 
ut Platonem Athenis arcesseret et ejus consiliis utcretur, ille, qui in ;dinu.1 re 
vellet patrem imitari, riiilistum historicum Synvcusas rcduxit, hominein amicum 
non ma^'is tyraniio quam tyrannidi.' Plutarch {Dion, 36), nays, tliat Philintus wna 
(piXoTvpafviTUTos dvOpJjiruiv. 



in Pliilistus, who, after undertaking an expedition against the 
revolted Leontini, and after several skirmishes with the enemy 
at Syracuse, engaged Hcracleides in the great harbour, was de- 
feated, and had his ship driven ashore.' To escape imprisonment, 
he stabbed himself; but the wound was not mortal, and he 
fell into the hands of the enemy, who stripped him, and, after 
insulting him, cut off his head, dragged him by the leg through 
the streets of Syracuse, and finally flung his body into the 
Latomise." Such was the miserable end of this courageous and 
energetic supporter of the Sicilian usurpers. As he was nearly 
eighty years old, he could not have engaged in active life for 
many years longer, and if he had escaped with his life from 
the troubles of the counter-revolution, he must have encoun- 
tered again the banishment which he bore with so much impa- 
tience. Mr. Grote has well remarked^ that ' the last hopes of 
the Dionysian dynasty perished with Philistus, the ablest and 
most faithful of its servants. He had been an actor in its first 
day of usurpation — its eighteenth Brumaire : his timely, though 
miserable, death, saved him from sharing in its last day of 
exile — its St. Helena.' 

In his confused and blundering notice of Philistus, the 
lexicographer Suidas mentions a number of works which must, in 
all probability, be divided between him, Philiscus, Naucrates, and 
perhaps several other writers.'' There is no reason to believe 
that he wrote anything himself, except the great Sicilian history, 
on which his literary reputation depends. This was divided 
into two distinct portions. The first part, in seven books, 
comprised the history from the earliest times to the capture of 
Agrigentum, in b^.c. 406, a period of more than 800 years. The 
second part, in four books, contained the history of the reign of 

1 Diodor. XVI. 9-ri, 16; Plutarch, Dion, 25, 35. Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. M[i.y} 
from the fortieth book of Theopompus. 

2 According to Plutarch, Dion, 35, Ephorus stated Cos oXLaKOfxiv-qs t^s veCos 
eavTov dviXoi, but Timonides, an eye-witness, gave the account which is repeated 
in the text. 

3 XI. p. 139. 

■* Of the works which Suidas attributes to Philistus, it may be concluded that 
the Tex^'n pVTopiKri and ^■qfj.-qyopion should be assigned to Philiscus, who was also, 
perhaps, the author of the reply to the TpiKcipavos of Anaximenes. The treatise 
7re/u ^oiviK-qs was probably written by Philinus of Agrigentum, who flourished in 
the time of the first Punic war. 

rniLiSTUS. 227 

the elder Dionysius. In a supplement of two books he nar- 
rated the events of the first five years of Dionysius tlie yonn<^cr, 
thus carrying down his contemporary memoirs to within seven 
years of his death. The remainder of the reign of Dionysius 
the younger was written by Atiiams' of Syracuse. 

The contents of tlie eleven books, which Vhilistus wrote 
before he returned from exile, are thus assigned by a modern 
scholar -.■ — The first book contained the history of (,'ocalus -^ the 
second described the foundation of the various Greek colonics;* 
the third carried down the history to the times of Oelo :' tlie 
fourth probably contained the reigns of Thero and Thrasybulus ;* 
the fifth comprised the most flourishing period of Sicily, after 
the expulsion of the tyrants / the sixth following closely in tlie 
steps of Thucydides' narrated the war with Athens ; the seventh 
was devoted to the legislation of Diodes and the wars with the 
Carthaginians;' the eighth book described the rise of Diony.sins 
and his operations against Carthage ;'" the ninth the establish- 
ment of the tyranny and the peace with the Carthaginians ;" 
the tenth the second Carthaginian war ;'- and the eleventh the 
third war with Cai'thagc, that with Rhcgiuin, and the death 
and funeral of Dionysius the elder.''' 

All the ancient critics are agreed tliat Philistas was an 
imitator of Thucydides, and was very infeiior to bis model." 
The attempt, however, to rival the Attic historian led at lea-^t 
to one consequence, the adoption of the Attic dialect, which 
was becoming more and more the literary language of Greece. 
It may be inferred from several circumstances that the literary 
talents of Philistus were not eminent, and that his merits eon- 

1 Thib seems to be the true spelling of the name, whicli is sometimes corrupted 
into 'X0a.vL%, 'AOdv-ns, 'Addvai. Cf. Diod. XV. 94 ; Plut. TimrA. cc. 13, 37 ; 
Athen. III. 98 D ; and see Creuzer, Hislor. Kriiist. d. Gricdien, 2nd ed. i>. 308. 

* GoUer, De situ Syvacusarum, pp. 125-132. 

3 Diod. V. ^-e. * Stniho, VI. p. 409. 

6 Diod. IX. « Id. XI. 38-68. 

7 Id. XI. 67, 68 ; XII. 82. 

8 Theo, Frogymn. p. 9 : rbv 'AmKhv 6\ov Tr6\efiov Iv roh ^LKtXiKoit U too 
QovKvSldov fierevrivoxf- Cf. Plut. Nic. c. i. 

9 Diod. XIII. 34-96. '' '•^- ''"^- 9' 'o8- 
" Id. Ihkl. ro8 ; XIV. 10. u /j. XIV. 14-76. 
'3 Id. XIV. 76 ; XV. 74. 

'^ Quiutil. X. I ; Dionys. Hal. vol. V. p. 4:7 ; VT. p. 77.; sq.]. 

^^ 2 

228 RnETomcAL historians and antiquaries. 

sistcd in the accuracy of his facts, and in the soundness of his 
practical judgment, rather than in the form or style of his 
narratives. These last qualities he must have possessed in a 
considerable degree, for Cicero not only calls him ' a miniature 
Thucydides/ but designates him by epithets which, if they do 
not all convey definite ideas, are at least significant of no little 
praise ;' and the history of Philistus was included in the select 
list of books which Harpalus sent to Alexander the Great while 
he was in Asia." On the other hand, we are told that his 
works were neglected at an early period,^ and perhaps were not 
finally included in the Alexandrian canon •,'^ that his narratives, 
and the speeches introduced into his history, were dull and 
monotonous ; and that he did not diversify the regular parade 
of his facts by any of those amusing digressions which were 
found in the histories of his predecessors and contemporaries/ 
The compilations of Diodorus, however, cannot stand in the place 
of authentic contemporary history like that of Philistus, and we 
must, therefore, regret that the rhetorical fancies of the Alex- 
andrian school have prevented us from possessing at least the 
latter half of his Sicilian annals. 

§ 6. By the side of the rhetorical historians, who made 
the narration of events an excuse for displaying their skill in 
the construction of periods, a different class of writers sprung 
up, whose object it was rather to preserve and exhibit the 
authentic materials of history, namely, the old traditions which 
were interwoven with the social and political usages of a nation, 
and the documents contained in inscriptions and other records. 
These monographies, or special treatises on history and an- 
tiquities, were generally confined to the discussion of the aflairs 

^ Cicero sa,ja {ad II. 13) : 'itaque ad Callistlienem et ad Philistum 
redeo, in quibus te video volutatum. Callisthenes quidem vulgare et notum ne- 
gotium, quemadmodum Grseci aliquot locuti sunt. Siculus ille capitalis^ creber, 
acutus, brevis, psene pusillus Thucydides.' The meaning of this passage is fully 
discussed by Muretus (var. lect. II. 5) who shows, against P. Mauutius, that capi- 
tcdis is a synonym for ingeniosus. See also Creuzer, u. s. p. 310. 

2 Plut. Alex. c. 8. 3 Cicero, Brut. c. 17. 

* C. Miiller {Fr. Hint. Gr. p. XLIX.) expressly states — 'Philistus in Alexan- 
diinum historicorum canonera non estreceptus.' On the other hand, Creuzer {u. s. 
1>. 304) says : ' was nun den Philistos betrifft, so gehort er allerdings unter die 
lianonischen Historiker.' 

^ Theo, Progymn. p. 44. 


of Attica, aiul every one of the writers of this class composed 
an Atthis (XtO'u;), — an adjective wliich denotes ' an Attic 
history' (XtHh: cTvyypa(j)li). This was the luune whieli, at a 
later period, Pausanias gave to the particular section of his 
Pei-ieyesis in M'hieh he treated of Attica, and it is snjjposed 
that the Atthis of jNIclesagoras, or Amelesagoras of Chalcedou, 
was a similar com[)ilation, by a writer of the Alexandrian 
school, from the older works of whicli we are now speaking.' 
These older Att///f/< s may be compared with works like those 
of John Stow, AVilliam Camden, and Sir AVilliam Dugdale, and 
the modern county histories which have succeeded them. The 
nature of the original Atthides has been described and imiUitcd 
by ancient and modern writers. Dionysius of llaliearuassus 
says that he has not endeavoured to give his work a form Mike 
those mere annals, which the writers of the Atthidi's have 
elaborated, for these are very monotonous, and soon otl'end the 
hearers.'- Niebuhr thought that the writers of the Alt /tides, 
' who wrote the history of the oldest times diplomatically, with 
reference to laws and public decrees, and in chronological order,' 
would have been of inestimable value to us.^ And C. O. 
Miiller considered Bockh's Public Economy of Athens as a 
specimen of ' what an Atthis would be, according to the style 
of the old writers of the Atthides, who treated as an essential 
part of history all that is most important in political und 
religious antiquities, if it were carried out with the enlargeil 
views and comprehensive learning of modern times.' ' 

Of these special chroniclers and anti((uaries, eight are known to 
us by name — Cleidemus or Cleitodemus,' riianodemus, Demon, 
Androtion, Philochorus, Ister, Audron, and Melanthius. The 
last two are merely cited once or twice, and we know nothing 
about them. The other six have left fragments more or lci>s 

1 Muller, Pr. HUt. Gr. p. LXXXI. 

' Andq. Rom. I. 8, p. 23, Reiake : (rx^A"* 5^ diroSiSufjii tj irpayfiaT(l<f .... 
oCre rah xpoviKois irapairX-qaiov ds i ^i^ u Kav oi ras 'ArtftSaj ■rpa•)^^.aTlvl)^l.t.vol.^ nofoti- 
Sets yap ^Kfivat re Kal raxv irpoffKTTa./j.evai roh dKOuovffw. 

3 Kkinc Schriftin, I. {>. 225. 

* Orchomcnos und die Miitycr, p. 13. 

' Both names occur, and are both represcnttxl under the corrupt readings kal 
Atjixos and k&I 6 ArjfjLos, which :ipi>o:ir in citntions from lliis vsriltr ; liut the t>abn<i. 
of authority ia rather in favour of tlic shorter fonn. 


numerous in the works of ancient historians, scholiasts, and 

Cleidemus, the most ancient writer of an Atthis, was a 
native of Athens,' and seems to have been a contemporary of 
Isocratcs and Plato. We learn at least that he spoke as an 
eye-witness of the expedition to Sicily," and that his Atthis 
referred in the third book to the Sijmmoria at Athens/ which 
were not instituted till the archonship of Nausinicus, in B.C. 
378, the year of the death of Lysias. It does not, however, 
result from this that the whole work was first published after 
the year of Nausinicus. If M-e adopt the reasonable inference 
that the book called Protogony {J\pwToyovia) was really the 
first part of the Atthis,"^ which in its complete form consisted of 
at least twelve books,^ we may conclude that this at least was 
published by itself, and probably at an earlier period. We are 
almost disposed to think that Plato, in his Ph(edrus, makes a 
direct reference to the first book of this Protogomj, or first 
part of the Atthis, of Cleidemus." If so, and if, as we have 
suggested, the Phadrus was published soon after Plato's 
ransom from bondage in b.c. 387,' the Protogony was a new 
book about that time. Besides his Atthis, Cleidemus is said 
to have written an ' Exposition' or ' Rationale ' ('Es>?-y>}Tt/coi^), 
in verse, of the old customs of the Athenians, and a book 

^ He is mentioned among Athenians only in Plutarch De glor. Athen. II. p. 345, 
and he is quoted for the word vvij^, which is said to occur only in Attic writers. 
Harpocr. s. v. UvvkL 

^ Pausan. X. 15. 

^ Photius s. V. 'NavKpapia. The writer of the article Cleidemus, in Smith's 
Dictionary of Biography, &c., I. p. 782, says : ' We cannot fix the exact period at 
which Cleidemus flourished, but it must have been subsequently to B.C. 479, since 
Plutarch refers to his account of the battle of Platsea (Plut. Arist. 19) !' 

^ Creuzer {Hist. Icunst. d. Gr. p. 353) says : ' Protogonia, hochst wahrscheinlich 
keine besondere Schrift, soiidern das erste Buch der Atthis.' But there were three 
books of the Protogony (Harpocr. s. v. UvvkI), and it is in the third book of the 
Atthis that we find the reference to the SymraoriEe. We presiinie then that the 
Protogony in three books was published first, and that additions were made when 
the work was completed at a subsequent period. 

^ Hesych. Ayafxep.vdi'eta (ppiara. K\€ldr]/j.os iv rfi i/3' Trjs 'AtOiSos. 

* Cleidemus is quoted in the first book of his Atthis (Pausan. Grammat. ap. 
JBelhcr. A need. -p. 326 sq.) for some information about the site mentioned in the 
Phctdrus, p. 229 C. 

1 Above, ch. XXXIX. § 6, p. 221 [61]. 


called ' The Uctunis ' (iNoaroj), in uhich iho vicissitudes of 
Peisistratus >verc narrated at length. There can be little 
doubt that Cleidemus was a careful and accurate anticjuarian. 
lie is praised by Plutarch for the originality and ingenuity 
with which he treated the old legends, and the same writer 
attributes to him the wish to investigate every particular with 
the minutest diligence. We can recognize these (pialities in 
the fragments which have come down to us, and can discern 
in him that faculty of reconstructive rationalism which traces 
the foundation of fact under the most elaborate superstructure 
of mytholog}\ 

PuAXODEMUS, who was probably a native of Icus, one of the 
Cyclades, seems to have becu a contemporary of Tlieopompus, 
who is said to have written against liim.' Besides an Atthis 
in at least nine books,- he wrote special treatises on the islands 
of Delos (A»;Xiofca) and Icus ('I/ctaKa). AVe infer from the 
references to him that he was distinguished by considerable 
learning and critical aeuteuess. In giving an account of 
Cimou's victory in Cyprus, he estimates the Persian fleet at 
600 ships instead of 350, the number given by Ephorus f but 
this does not prove, as has been rather hastily assumed,^ that he 
was guilty of patriotic exaggeration. 

Demon was a contemporary of Philochorus, who wrote his 
own Atthis to correct or oppose that of Demon.' This author 
does not seem to have enjoyed much reputation for judgment, 
and even his good faith has been doubted. For example, what 
he says about the oracular kettles at Dodona* is regarded as 
a wilful fable." Demon's Atthis was at least in four books," 
and the few fragments which remain are chiefly references to 
mythology and religious observances. Besides the Atthis, he 
wrote a book o\\ Proverbs (Tre/Jt iraQoif.uiov) and another on 
Sacrifices [irtpl Ovauoi'). 

It seems to be an almost general opinion that Anukotion, 
the writer of the Atthis, was not the same person as the orator 

1 Proclus ad Platonis Tiimeum, p. 30. 

3 The ninth book is quoted by Harpocration, s. v. XcuKbptiov. 

3 riut. Cimon, 12. ■* By Milllor, p. LXXXVII. 

» Hiiqiocration, a. v. "HeriuiWa. ' Frufjm. 17, 18. 

7 Miillei, p. LXXXVII. '^ ^Tiixwviv TtTdpTv'ArWSot. Athcn. p. 96 1>. 


of that name, for whose impeachment Demosthenes wrote an 
oration.' But the biography of Isocrates^ identifies the orator 
with the historian, and the school of Isocrates, to which the 
orator Andi'otion belonged, was also, as we have seen, a school 
for histoi'ical writers. And not only is there no antecedent 
improbability in this identification, but it tends to explain the 
fact mentioned by Plutarch, that among the eminent writers 
who composed their histories in exile, Androtion, the Athenian, 
wrote his at Megara.^ For, from the writers mentioned along 
with him, we should infer that Androtion the historian was a 
man of some political eminence, like the pupil of Isocrates, to 
whom Demosthenes was opposed. If he was the same person, 
we have a very unfavourable record of his character and con- 
duct in the speeches of Demosthenes against him and his par- 
tizan Timocrates. The Atthis of Androtion, which comprised at 
least twelve books,'' and was carried down to the 96th Olympiad,^ 
if not to a later year, did not differ in kind from the other 
works of this class. He is classed with Philochorus as having 
written xexy completely (a'rtAfcyrara) about the municipal 
scrutinies (Biaipricpiaiig).'^ His authority is cited doubtfully by 
^lian'' and Pausanias,^ and he indulges in speculative mythology 
like the rest of his school. It appears that he arranged his 
history according to the archons at Athens." 

Philochorus, who was perhaps the most eminent writer of 
his class, was a native of Athens,'" and took an active part in 
the political affairs of that city from b.c. 306, when, in his 

1 Above, ch. XLI. § 3. 2 p. XI. Dindorf, 

^ De Exilio, p. 605 C, D. p. 439 Wyttenb. : Kal y&p rois TraXaioTs us ^oiKey ai 
MoOcrat TO, KdWiara twp <tvvt ay fidTwv Kal doKi/J-diTara (pvyrjv Xa^ovcrai awepybv 
iweTikeaav. And after mentioning that Tliucydides of Athens wrote his history 
at Soaptesyle, Xenophon at Seillus, Philistus in Epirus, Timseus at Athens, he 
adds : 'AvSporiuv 'Ad7)va?os iv Meydpois. 

■* ws 'Avdporlwv iv duiSeKdrri 'ArdiSos, Harpocr. s. v. 'A/jL(f>lwo\is. 

^ He is quoted by Harpocration, s. v. KeviKbv eu 'Koplvd(^, for a fact which is 
referred to 01. 96, 3. 

^ Harpocr. s. v. Sia\pi]<picreis. 

' V. If, VIII. 6 : raOra 'AvSporluv \4yei, et tw in<XT6s. 

^ VI. 7 : el ^k t6i> 6vTa ettrev 'AvSporiuv Xoyov. 

" Schol. Aristoph. Niihes, 549. 

^^ The notice in Suidas is : ^iXdxopos, K^kvov, 'AOrjvaios, p-dpTis Kal UpojKdiros. 

riiiLOciiORus. 233 

capacity as a public seer, lie interpreted tlic appearance of a 
dog in the Parthenon as indieatin*^ the return ol the exiles,' 
down to the year u.e. 260, when Anti}^onus (jonatas took 
possession of Atliens, and had IMiiloehorns put to death as an 
adhcrcut of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who had aidid the city iu 
its opposition to the Macedonians.- From these scanty par- 
ticulars we can infer that Philoehorus belonj^ed to a priestly 
family, that he was, as far as the times admitted, a zealous 
patriot, directly opposed to the tyranny which Demetrius 
Poliorcetes exercised under the cloak of freedom, and that he 
fell a sacrifice to his anti-Macedonian efforts when Antigonus 
Gonatas restored his father's influence iu the city. 

"We have a long list of the \\ritiugs of Philoehorus. They 
were as follows : 

(I.) Ilis Atthis (AtO'h:, also called 'ArO/?fr and 'laroo/m), a 
history of Attica from the first beginnings of the human race 
to the time of Antiochus Theus, in seventeen books. ^ The 
first two books are devoted to mythology, and the explanation 
of religious observances ; the next four carry down the history 
to the author's times, and Bockh has conjectured that these 
first six books formed a separate work, published originally by 
itself. The remaining eleven books are occupied with contem- 
porary history. Philoehorus enjoyed the highest reputation 
for laborious accuracy and sound critical judgment, and the 
numerous fragments, which arc still extant, show that he 

'fWT) 5i ^v avT^ 'Apxi(^TpdT-r]. Kara S^ tovs xpi5»'oi's yiyovev 6 <I>. 'EparoffWvoi'j u>t 
i-jTipaXfiv irpeff^vTrj viov 6vra 'EparoaOivn. It ia clear that tbis statement of the 
relative ages of Philoehorus and Eratosthenes must be wrong ; for the event 
referred to is the occupation of Athens by Antigonus Gonataa, in B.C. 161, ami 
Eratosthenes died an old man in B.C. 196. It is, therefore, proposed to reiMl in 
Suidas : Kara roi>s XP'^^'OI^S 7^7- 4>. 'Eparotrf^tVous, ws iiri.^a\ilv Trpca^vrri vtavlav or 
viov 6vTa. 'Eparocrditnjv. 

1 Apud Dionys. Hal. Dc Dinarcho judicium, p. 637, Reiske : TjfitTs 5" ipurrv 
6ivTe^ virip re tov (Trj/xHov Kal tov (pafTdcpLaros (is 6 (p^pti, <pvyddw» icdOoOov l<f>anif 
Trpoffrj/xalveiv dficpdrepa. . . . Kal rqv Kpiffiv ivirtXeffdiivai avvifir). 

2 Suidas : iT€\€vn\c€ 5i ifcoptidfls inrh 'Avriydvov 8t(. 5tf/9Xi}^Tj irpoCKiKXmiyaL 
T^ UroXepiaiov ^aciXeig.. 

3 In Schol. Vict, ad Horn. II. S. 570, we read : ^ 5^ kotA Kiyof Iffropla rapi. 
^i\ox6p<i> laropelTai iv ry id'. But Biickh (Di PhUochoro, IV-rul. iS.^j), propose* 
to read iv r-g 'AT0Ldi. And this may be a reference to the trwitise xtpi ivpi^fidTur, 
perhaps an appendix to the Atthis. 


spared no pains in the collection of his facts, and that he 
expressed himself in elegant and unaffected language. 

(II.) An abridgment of his Atthis {sTriTOfxri rrig i^iag 'AtOi^oq). 
It may be doubted whether this is not the same book as the 
epitome of Philochorus drawn up by Asinius PoUio of Tralles, 
probably a learned freedman of the celebrated Roman of the 
same name.' Some have accounted for the existence of two 
abridgments by supposing that one was made by Philochorus 
himself for the use of his countrymen, the other by the later 
Greek writer for the use of the Romans. But it seems to us 
very unlikely that Philochorus would think it worth his while 
to engage in a work, which would probably have superseded 
his more elaborate book, as Justin^s epitome has superseded the 
longer history of Trogus Pompeius ; and it is clear that our 
fragments are taken from the fullest form of the Atthis, which 
must therefore have been in the hands of the comparatively 
recent writers to whom we owe these citations. And, on the 
whole, we are inclined to think that the only epitome was that 
of Asinius Trallianus. 

(III.) A confutation of the Atthis of Demon (ttjooc rrjv Ar/^w- 
vog 'ArOi^a, or 17 Trpog Ayi/iuova avTiypa(pii),' which was probably 
criticism of the rival history, and not another name for the 
elaborate Atthis of Philochorus. 

(IV.) On the Athenian Archons from Socratides (b.c. 374) to 
Apollodorus (b.c 350 or b.c. 319, probably the latter) {irepi 
rwu A9i]vy}(n ap^avrwv airo Sw/CjOar/Sou j^i-^\pi ' A7ro\Xo^<l)pov). 
This was, perhaps, one of the accessary labours of his Atthis. 
If it went down to the time of the later Apollodorus, it was 
probably the introduction to the last eleven books, which were 
devoted to his contemporary history, and may have followed 
the publication of the six preceding books.^ 

(V.) On the Olympiads (OXv/^ma^tg kv (5i(5X[oiq (5'). It 
seems that Philochorus, who paid great attention to chronology, 
was not satisfied with the dates as given by the years of the 
Archons, but afterwards, perhaps following the example of 

^ Suidas, UwKLiiiv, 6 ^Aalvios xpTj/xaricras, TpaWiavSs, (70<pi(rTT]s /cat (piXocrocpos' 
<ro(f)i(TT€Vffas eV 'Pci/x?; inl Ilo/JiTn]tov toO fieyaXou Kai dtade^dfievos rryi' ax^^V" '""i' 
li/xayevovs, ^ypaxpev i-mro/Mijv ttj^ ^iXoxopou 'ArOiSos, k.t.\. 

2 Harpocration, s.v. 'UeTiuvla. ^ Milller, p. LXXXIX. 

ISTER. 235 

Tiraieus, investigated the succession of the Olympiads, and 
published the results of his researches in tlicse two books.' 

(VI.) On the four cities, (l-hioe, Marathon, Probalinthus, and 
Trycorythus {irtpl rijr TtTp(nruXnoc), a monograph on the 
mythology and religious observances of these places, wliich , 
may, after all, have been an extract from the first two books 
of his Atlhis.- 

(VII.) A collection of Attic inscriptions [iiTiypu^inaTa Ar- 
TiKo), intended most probably as a documentary appendix to his 
great work, and forming the first collection of the kind which 
liad appeared in Greece. From the nature of the case, it is not 
probable that these were ' only poetical inscriptions/ as Bik-kh 
once supposed,* and as those of Polemo appear to have been. It 
is more hkely that they were decrees and treaties, and, as Bockh 
now says, ' varii generis inscriptioncs.' ' 

The other sixteen titles of works attributed to Philochorus 
refer to publications, partly of an antiquarian description,* 
partly belonging to his professional occupation as a priest and 
soothsayer,'' partly treating of subjects of litcraiy criticism and 
biography.' From this brief survey wc can see that i'hilo- 
chorus was a most important writer, and it is perhaps impos- 
sible to estimate the amount of information which we have 
received at second-hand from him. 

To complete the list of these writers, we must nKntiou Istku, 
who belongs, however, to the Alexandrian school. He was a 
native of Cvrene, the slave and afterwards the friend i)f 

^ Miiller, ibid. ; Creuzer, Ilistor. Kuns/. p. 357. 

^ We have a specimen of this book in Suicbs, s.v. TtraWSa y^i/, where Attica in 
said to have been the abode of Titenius, the only Titan who did not make ..n 
the Gods. 

3 Public Economy of Athens, book II. c. 8, p. 197, Lewis' Transl. Suida-s sayn, 
s.v. iwlypafifia' iravra to. iTiypa<p6iJ.evd riffi K$iv /ir] iv lUrpois dpT\niva, ixiypdfi- 
fiara Xiyirai. 

* Corpus Inscript. prjcf. p. VIII. 

" As the six works, 'HirupoyriKo., ArjXiaKd /S', irtpl twv 'AO^^vijai ayuvuv ij", rtpl 
ioprCiv, Trepl rip.epuv, 1,a\a/xivos ktIjis. 

" As the six works, wepi OuffiQf, ircpl nayTitciji 0' , irtpl KaOapuwv, rtpl ninmtpiwy 
Tuv 'A6i]f>j<n, i] TTpbs 'AXvirov iinaToKi}, ^titom^ t^s Aiovvalov xpayfiarflat vtpl 

' As the four treatises, irtpl 'A\^■/^d^'05, wipl tQv -(xponX^ovt fii-Owy fiifiXla if, 
irtpl Evpiiridov, (rvvayuiyii'UputSui' 7)701 UiOayoptiui' yvvainuii'. 


Callimaclius, whom he accompanied to Alexandria. He lived 
therCj or at Paphiis in Cyprus, at that time part of the Egyptian 
monarchy, in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, between b.c. 250 
and 220. He was^ like most of the Alexandrian writers, a 
poet and grammarian, as well as a compiler of histories* 
Besides an AttMs, in at least sixteen books/ he wrote a variety 
of works on local history, religious traditions, and literary 
criticism. It was he w^ho gave to the censorious Timajus the 
appropriate nickname 'ETriTi/uiaiog." He was himself severely 
criticised by Polemo, the celebrated collector of inscriptions,^ 
who said that he deserved to be immerged in the great river 
from which he derived his name.'* 

^ Hai-pocration, s.v. Tpaire^o(p6pos. ^ Athenseus, "VI. p. 272 B. 

^ He was called (tttjXokStttjs, 'the tablet picker,' and was 'a sort of Old Mor- 
tality, who used to go about copying the inscriptions on public monuments' 
(Liddell and Scott, s.v.), 

■* Athenseus, IX. p. 387 F : Uo\ 6 irepi-qyijTTjs "la-rpov rbv KaWifidxeiov 
ffvyypa<pia els top 6ixwvvij,ov KaTeirdvTov TroTaubv. 





§ I. Life of nippociates. § 2. Origin and growth of mo«lical literature among the 
Greeks. § 3. Genuine works of Hippocrates. § 4. Doubtful works. § 5. 
Spurious works. § 6. Publication of tho Hippocratic collection. § 7, Style 
and literary merits of Hippocrates. 

§ I. T)EFORE wc take leave of the classical period, avc must 
-U go back to a contemporary of Socrates, who ctijovs 
a reputation not unlike that of Homer; for while he represents 
a complete department or school of Greek literature, his personal 
existence is very shadowy and unsubstantial, and his claim to 
the writings, which are attrilnited to him, must in many cases 
be rejected, and in others admitted with no little dou])t and 
uncertainty.' Among those who, with different olyects, en- 
deavoured to improve or acquire a rhetorical style by attending 
the lectures of Gorgias, was Hippocrates, the son of 
Hcracleidcs and PliKnarete," the hereditary chief of a renowned 
school of medicine, which had long been established in the 
island of Cos. One at least of his predecessors, and some 
three or four of his successors, bore the sauic name, and being 
the most eminent of the family and school, he has perhaps been 

^ The best modern authorities for the literary biography of Hippocrates, which 
are known to us, are the elaborate introduction to E. Liltrc's CL'uvrtii CumjtlrtfM 
d'llippocratc, vol. I. Paris, 1839, and the excellent articles by Biihr, in Pauly's 
Real' Eiiciidopddie, vol. III. Stuttgart, 1844, and by Dr. Orcenhill, in Smith's 
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Bioyraphy and Mythoh>yy, vol. II. L<^nd. 


^ By one of those fortuitous coiuciilences, which amu.iie if they do not 
instruct, the mother of Socrate-s, the father of later (Jreek phil'iRophy, and 
of Hippocrates, the founder of medical literature, bore tho same name. Th<">i»e 
who believe that talent is inherit<'d from tln^ mother, and that mother-wit 
is not an idle phrase, will perhaps think that both of tho Pfurnarftf's juslific«l 
their name. 


made responsible for the actions and writings of the whole race/ 
The contemporary references to him are very scanty, and only 
sufficient to establish his existence, and we are left for all 
details to a late biography attributed to Soranus — a name 
belonging to many medical writers from the time of Trajan 
downwards,- — and to a number of legends which have sprung 
up in the various countries, where Hippocrates has been received 
as the father of the art of healing. 

The following particulars constitute the biography of the 
great Hippocrates. He was born 01. 80, i. b.c. 460, on the 
26th day of the month Agrianus, which the inhabitants of Cos 
celebrated as his natal day.^ He claimed descent from the two 
deities, who were regarded as the helpers and healers of man- 
kind, being the nineteenth, or, as some say, the seventeenth,^ 
in the direct line from ^sculapius, the god of medicine in 
general, and the twentieth from Hercules, the heroic cleanser of 
infested neighbourhoods/ the maker of roads," and the patron 

^ The following table is given by Dr. Greenhill : — 


Gnosidicua Cbrysus 

_J 1 

Hippocrates I. Podaleirius ^neius Jilapnus 

Pbsenarete = Hippocrates II. Cadmus Hippolochus. 

Sosander Hippocrates II. = Uxor 


I.I I 

Thessalus Filia = Polybus Dracon I. 

I I I Hippocrates IV. ? 

Gorgias Hippocrates III. Dracon II. 

Hippocrates IV. ? 

Dracon III. 

2 Tzetzes {Chiliad. VII. c. 155) merely bon-ows from Soranus. The article in 
Suidas, which is more than usually distinct and consistent, seems also to be derived 
from Soranus, or from the same sources. The coincidences are pointed out in 
Kuster's notes. ^ Soranus, p. 1297 ad fin. 

■* Soranus makes him the 19th, and Tzetzes, who gives his genealogy, the 17th. 

^ Hence the story of Augeas. ^ Aristot. trepl davna<7iwv aKovcrfjiaTUv, c. 85. 

iiirrocRATES. 239 

of medicinal springs." His professional otluoation was, no doiiht, 
conducted in the priestly college at Cos, his special instructors 
being his own father, and the celebrated Ilerodicus, of St.'lynibria, 
in Thrace, who combined gynniastie training with the medical 
treatment of his patients. It wa-s probably in consequence of 
his literary tastes that he became a puj)il of the great sophists, 
Prodicus and Gorgias. His intercourse with Democritus of 
Abdera, who was born in the same vear with himself, is rather 
indicated than esta])lishcd by a fictitious correspondence, of 
which two letters, the j)roduction no doubt of a later, 
are still extant ; and it is clear that they were rather friends 
than related as teaclier and pupil.- It is stated, and the state- 
ment is not improbable, that Hippocrates left Cos at an early 
period, and spent a great part of his life in travelling. His 
reputation among his contemporaries, and the familiar mention 
of his name by Athenian writers, seem to show that his 
activity was not confined to the little island off Ilalicarnassus. 
There is a familiar allusion to him in the Thesmophoriazusce of 
Aristophanes, which was acted in B.C. 411,^ and Plato expressly 
mentions Hippocrates of Cos as the most eminent medical man 
of the day in the Protafjorasi, which, as we have seen, was j)ro- 
bably written a short time before the death of Socrates.' There 
is also reason to believe that Plato was acquainted with the 
writings of this physician, to one of which there is a special 
reference in the Phadrus:' On the whole, we cannot doubt 

1 Diodorus, V. 3. Schol. Soph. Tracldn. 635. 

' Suidas : ovtos /xadrjTTis "^iyove rb iJ-iv trpwrov tov irarpSi, fiera. di ravra 'TlpoSUov 
rod SrjXvlipiavoO Kal Topylov tov Afovrlvov p-fjTopos kuI <pi\o(T6<f>ov' ojs 5^ rifd 
AtifJ-OKpiTov TOV 'A^Sijp'ltov (^TTt^aXeiJ' yap avTbv vitf irpeff^vT-^u [they were of the 
Barae age], ws 5^ Tives Kal TIpodlKov. With the exception of Prodicus all these 
names are mentioned by Roranus and Tzetzes. 

3 Thesmo2)h. 270 : 

Ei'p. 6fivviJ.i ToLvvv alOip', otKijaiv At6s. 

Mf. tI fjLaWov rj TTjv 'l-n-iroKpaTovs ^vfOiKlav ; 

Ei'p. 6nvvtJ.i Tolvvv wainas &p5r]v rovi Otovs. 

This is obviously an allusion to the oath of the school of Hippocrates, which 
begins as follows (Hippocr. vol. IV. p. 632, Littr^ : diivvfu 'AxiXXwra l^rpii' nal 
'AcrKXriiriov Kal 'Tyuiav Kal Uai'aKdav Kal dtovs rdyras t( Kal Td<roi, i<TTopa% wonC- 
fievos fVtTeX^o Troi-qffdv /card SiVa^i;- Kal Kplffif Ift-h^ SpKOV rdvSf Kal ^ifyypaipijv H\r^. 

* Protagoras, p. 311 B. See above, ch. XXXIX. § C\ p. UJ [61]. 

» Phwdrm, y. 370 C Tt liad alw.ayH been thought, on the authority of G.ilcn 


that Hippocrates aimed at and obtained a panliellenic reputation 
even in liis lifetime ; and the best way to effect this would be 
to make himself personally known to the leading commimities. 
After a residence of many years in Thasos and at Abdera, he 
spent some time at Athens, and was honoured by an invitation 
to the Prytaneiunij by the full franchise, and by initiation at 
Eleusis. It is stated that these honours were the rewards for 
his services during the great plague ; but Thueydides, who 
gives such a minute account of that pestilence, makes no men- 
tion of Hippocrates, who says nothing of this disease in his 
writings. It is more likely that his residence at Athens com- 
menced after that time, and continued till his country fell off 
from the Athenian alliance, some time after b.c. 411. He 
then took up his abode in Thessaly, and was condemned, in his 
absence, on an indictment preferred against him by Antiphon.* 
Whether the professional and literary labours, which occupied 
the remainder of his long life, were carried on chiefly in Thes- 
saly, or in his native island of Cos, cannot be ascertained. It 
is stated, however, that he died and was buried at Larissa in 
Thessaly,' and there are reasons, which do not seem to have 
occurred to any of those who have written about Hippocrates, 
for concluding that his connexion with that district was more 
than casual. The name of Hippocrates is more likely to have 

(Tom. v. pp. 2, 16 ed. Basil.), that Plato was here referring to the treatise by- 
Hippocrates on the nature of man, or that the work to which he alludes is lost ; 
but Littr^ argues that the reference in the Phcedrus should be compared with two 
passages, one in the treatise ' on regimen,' and the other in that ' on ancient 
medicine' ((Euvres (T Hlppocrate, I. pp. -299 sqq.). 

^ In the text of tlie Vitce X. Oratorum, p. 833 D, it seems uncertain whether 
we should read ' iTnroKpaTovs rod larpov, or toO dTparriyov : but Photius {Cod. 
CCLIX.) has larpov only. 

2 The following extract from a recent number of the Medical Times shows that 
this fact in the necrology of Hippocrates is likely to be supported by documentary 
evidence of the best kind : 

' A good deal of interest has been excited on the continent by the supposed dis- 
covery of the tomb of Hippocrates near Larissa in Thessalia. We have the au- 
thority of Soranus for the belief that Hippocrates died at Larissa, and that his 
tomb was shown between that town and Gyrton. It appears that in 1826 some 
peasants discovered a sarcophagus near Larissa, after an inundation ; and two 
Greek gentlemen, named Andreades and CEconomides, discovered an inscription on 
the lid, the letters IIIIIOKPAT being plainly visible. Nedjib-bey, the Turkish 
governor, had the tablet carried off, and some coins and a gold chain which were in 


belonged to a uoble Thessaliuu lUuiily tliim to an Asclcpiad of 
Cos. We know, from Pindar, tliat Ilippocleas, a very shndar 
name, was borne by a wealtliy young Thcssulian of Pebnnieum, 
wbose victory iit Delphi was celebrated at Larissa.' TIk; leail- 
ing family in that place, the Aleuadie, boasted, like Hippo- 
crates, that they were Ileraeleidie. ^sculapius himself was 
claimed by the Thcssalians.-' Tiie principle, according to which 
the name of the son is the epithet of the father,' gives a special 
value to the fact that the elder son of Hippocrates was called 
Thessalus, while his younger son, Draco, was called after the 
serpent of ^Esculapius. From all these circumstances, we arc 
disposed to infer that the family of Hippocrates properly 
belonged to Thcssaly, and that their connexion witli the medical 
school at Cos may have been originally a result of their choice 
of that celebrated scat of the worship of their hereditary god. 

the sarcopliagus were stolen. This year Dr. Samartsides found the tablet in the 
house of the bey, and copied the following inscription in ordinary Greek characters : — 

.... innOKPAT . . . KO . . . . AFAAO* . . . 


• nOAEI ME TEAEZ* . . . 

ArAGH APE .... ENEKA .... 


' He says he concludes from the form of the letters that they are vcrj' ancient. 
There are traces of effaced letters in the spaces marked by dota. The sarcophagi* 
remains perfect in the spot where it \v;i,s found. It remains for some j>rofea8ed 
antiquary to restore the lost lettei-s, and seek for their interjireUition ; but nothing 
satisfactory can be done without an exact copy of the inscription cither by pho- 
tography or a mould, as it is by the form of the letters and tlie mode in which they 
are cut, that the age of the inscription must be detennined. The niune Hippocrates 
is, and has been, a very common one in modern as in ancient Greece, and we want 
something more than the mere inscription of this name upon a stone before it can 
be decided whether the tomb found near is or is not that of the fatlier of 

The copy of the inscription here given can hardly be quite correct. At least the 
words x/"?"^''^ X^^'pf should be written together as in Btickh, Corj>. /iwcr., No. 
554, I, p. 491, pp. 866, 867, &c. The Ime before seems to have been dya0y rCrxV 
d.p€r9js iv€Ka. Aglaophon (' Ar^XaotpQiv) , which seems to be implietl in the first line, 
was aThasian name, and may have referred to some Thasian friend of Uipi>ocratca. 

1 Find. Pyth. X. 

» Find. Ptjth. III. 14. ApoUodor. III. 10, § 3. Strabo, XIV. ].. 647. Euwb. 
Prep. El', p. 124 A. 

» Miiller, Dor. I. 3, § 10, note F. Tiio fact that Cimon's sou was called Laa- 
dcemoniiis is the strictest parallel. 



The year of his death is uncertain; it is fixed by different 
ancient writers at 01. loo, 4. b.c. 377; 01. 102, 1. b.c. 372; 
01. 104, I. B.C. 364; 01. 105, 2. B.C. 359; Mr. Clinton' adopts 
the year b.c. 357, which makes him 104 years old at the time 
of his death. The celebrity of Hippocrates had made him almost 
a mythological personage. His journeys to Illyria, Macedonia, 
and Persia," though possible in themselves, were probably sug- 
gested by incidents in the lives of Democedes and other famous 
physicians; and the well known story about his discovering 
the love-sickness of Perdiccas II. of Macedon is confuted by the 
chronology ; for the incident refers to a time when Alexander, 
the father of Perdiccas, was still on the throne, and Hippocrates 
was a mere child at the time of that prince's death.^ 

§ 2. In order that we may appreciate the collection of 
writings attributed to Hippocrates, we must take a brief survey 
of the circumstances under which medical literature sprang up 
among the Greeks. 

There can be no doubt that medicine was at first regarded 
as a branch of the priestly or prophetic office. To ward off or 
alleviate disease was considered as something superhuman. At 
all events, an immediate appeal to heaven was generally pre- 
sumed and required, in order to impart sufficient confidence to 
the patient ; and the superior education and studious habits of 
the priests would naturally make them the first in this as in 
other branches of scientific research. Whatever knowledge the 
priests thus acquired, they communicated only to those who 
were initiated into the mysteries of their temples ; and when a 
special deity had been introduced to preside over the relief of 
human ailments, his priests would constitute a medical college, 
in which only those who were connected with the same worship 
would be permitted to graduate. It is clear that these priestly 

^ F, H. 11. p. 125. 

2 The letter of Artaxerxes about Hippocrates, which is found among the epistles 
of the latter, and is also given by Suidas, is interesting in itself, and may represent 
as genuine a tradition as the letter which Themistocles is said to have addressed to 
the great king. Ctesias at all events received and accepted an invitation to the 
Persian court. 

* It seems most probable that Alexander died about B.C. 454 (Clinton, F. H. II. 
p. 222), i.e., only six years after the birth of Hippocrates. 


physicians first appeared iu Egypt.' The <^od of inodicine 
originally belonged to the elementary worship of that country 
and Syria.-' lie was the sou of the god of light, and repre- 
sented the atmosphere necessary to the life and health of nian.^ 
At a very early period this divinity was adopted l)y the (Jreek.s, 
who assigned to him a Thessalian origin, and gave liim a (Ireek 
name indicating that he was a rrometheus, or god of fore- 
thought, the inventor of those mild remedies which preserved 
men from pining away in sickness.^ His sons, Pod;ileirins and 
Machaon, Avhose names admit of a surgical interpretation/ 
belonged to the heroes of the Trojan w:ir. And thongli 
iEseulapius Avas slain by a thunderbolt for restoring a dead 
man to life/' he became himself a recognized divinity. 
Asclepeia, or temples of this divinity, were opened for the cure 
of diseases in many parts of Greece, especially at Epidanrus, in 
Rhodes, Cos, and Cnidos, and in the Libyan colony of Cyrenc ; 
and the priest-physicians very soon found it convenient to 
claim descent from the god of healing himself. The mode of 
treatment adopted in these curative establishments was a 
mixture of science and imposture, and, like most medical 

^ The pliysicians formed a caste in Egypt, and were divided into a-s many scctiona 
as the medical men in a modern metropolis. See Herod. II. 84. 

2 Crcuzer, Si/inboUk II., pp. 55S s<pi. 

3 Sickler, die Hieroglyphen in deni Mythut dcs ^EsciUap (apud Crcuzer, ii. s. \\ 


■* Whatever may be the oriental affinities of the god of hwdtli, it is clear the 
Greeks fabricated their name for bun, and that its elements are contained in the 
well-known lines of JEschylus {Prom. 478 sqq.) : 

ei Tij ei's vhaov w^aot, 
ovK yv aXi^Tifj.' oi'Sif, oi're ^piLcnixov, 
0X1 x/"0"''d»', oOre Triarbv, dXXd <paptia.Kwv 
Xpei'^t KaTfOKiWovro, irplv ^701 ff<plau> 
Idei^a Kpdcreii Tjiriwi/ dKecrixaTwy. 

The ancient gr.nmmarians saw in the accentuation of tlie word ' AaxX-^rioi .1 tr.uo 
of its connexion with ijirios (see Biickh, Not. Crit. ad Find. Pyth. III. 6), and tlio 
first part of the compound is do-zcfX?;?, an Homeric word, wliicli cont.iinH tlic ro<it of 
KancTKiWovTO in the passage just quoted, ami is opposed to the Homeric 5if/>6f, 
'juicy, full of the sap of life.' So also in ^Eschylus (Choeph. 794) the victim of 
wasting death is described as : KaKQiz TapLX^vOii-Ta Trap-^tOdprif) p.tpi^. 

'^ Podalcirius implies the ready aid, and Machaon tl»e surgical knife of tho 

6 Find. Pyth. III. 97. 

R 2 


quacks, the Asclepiads relied in part on influencing tlie 
imagination of their patients. The sick man, who made aj^pli- 
cation for a cure of his disease at any one of the more cele- 
brated temples of iEsculapius, -nas subjected to a prolonged 
regimen under the name of religious purification. A sort of 
■skater-cure was combined with fasting, unction, and aperient 
medicine. "When the head of the college thought that he was 
adequately prepared for the final remedy, the patient was 
admitted to the temple, where he passed the night, and the 
priests took care that the necessary treatment was prescribed to 
him in the form of a well-arranged theophany.^ The success of 
the treatment adopted was generally aided by the locality chosen 
for the Asclepeion, which was situated either on some healthy 
sea coast, or in some cool and sheltered grove, so that the 
change of air and other concomitants assisted in the cure. 
Frequented as they were by invalids from all parts of Greece, 
these priest-colleges gradvially acquired a large amount of 
empirical science, which was duly committed to writing and 
preserved for the use of the corporation." These records of 
cases and their treatment furnished the physicians with a 
sufficient induction for certain generalizations, which were 
eventually published in the age immediately preceding Hippo- 
crates, in the form of aphorisms. To this class belonged ' The 
Cnidian Sentences ' [ai Ki't^mt yvw/nai), against which an im- 
portant treatise of Hippocrates is directed. This transference of 
medical knowledge from the mysterious sanctity of the temple 
to the outer world of literature and science was farther assisted 
by the physical speculations of philosophers like Melissus, 
Parmenides, Empedocles, and others. One of these, Alcmseon 
of Crotona, combined the speculative philosopher with the 
practical surgeon, and introduced the indispensable adjunct of 

^ There is an elaborate caricature of one of these scenes in the Asclepeia in the 
Plutus of Aristophanes (vv. 660 foil.). First we have the priest sacking the cakes 
and dried figs from the altars (ravd' ijyi^eu els crdKrav two). Then the representa- 
tive of ^sculapius appears with his two daughters, laso and Panacea, and pre- 
pares remedies for the patients ; and the scene is closed by an apparition of the 
tame snakes, whose tongues are supposed to be the immediate agents in the cure. 

2 Pliny, H. N. XXIX. i, § 2 ; Tzetz. CMl. VII. 150 ; Petersen, Hippocratis 
tiomme quce circumferuntur scripta ad tcmporum rationem disposita, Hamburg, 
1839, p. 42, note. 

gri:eiv riiYsiciANs. 245 

all scicntillc auatoniy — the dissection ut" animal.^.' About the 
same tinie^ the regular Aselci)ia(ls l)egau to practise a.s travelliuj^ 
physiciaus {Trt^ioSiuT(u), and without any reference to the 
sanitary cstabhshments, with their hydropatliy and incubations, 
at the temples of the god. As early as the time of Darius, a 
Greek physician, Uemocedes of Crotona, \v;i.s in higli favour at 
the Persian court, to the discomfiture of the Egyptians pre- 
viously established there,"' and the first foundations were laid of 
that fame of (Ircek physicians in the east which made liukrdf, 
as the Arabic writers call Hippocrates, an oriental celebrity even 
in the middle ages. Tiien, again, llerodicus of tSelymbria, the 
teacher of Hippocrates, introduced the curative treatment of 
the Asclcpeia, so far as it depended on Ijudily exercises, into 
the regular gymnasia or places of training, and he is re- 
proached by Plato^ as having introduced a system of nosotrophy 
for the benefit of feeble frames, to which a prolonged existence 
did not of right belong. Thus ventilated in every way — by the 
philosophical school, the travelling physician, and the pahcstra 
— medicine was certain to establish itself as a branch of lite- 
rature ; and the circumstance, which probably gave Hippocrates 
his epochal position, was simply the fact that he was the first 
regidar Aselepiad who was enabled to get a complete literary 
and rhetorical training, and so to enlist the muses in the cause 
of his special profession. In the succeeding age, as we have 
seen,' Aristotle, the greatest literary man of Greece, came forth 
from the schools of the Asclepiads, and starting with the 
jihysiological accjuiremcnts peculiar to his school, combined 
with this all the knowledge of his age, and sounded all the 
depths of natural and moral science. 

Hippocrates himself, though he professed to be a philosoplicr, 
never digressed from his own proper subject-matter, and being 
the first who gave raedicuic a recognized and important position 
in literature,' it was not unnatural that he should in a sub- 

1 Littrd, I. p. 14. - II.n..l. 111. 130 .-qq. 

3 BcsjmUica, III. p. 406 A, sqq. •* See above, cli.ipter XL. § 1. 

" Cieoro seems to consider elegance of stylo a not cliaracUTistic of 
medical writers : 'si, id quod m utt I, medicus dc morbis discrtc dixcrit' (/'<■ Ora- 
tore, IT. 9, § 38). It was this acquisition of the literary frauciii-- "'■■■•h '"^'v l.o 
especially attributed to Hippocrates. 


sequent generation monopolize the credit due to a large body 
of fellow-workers in this department, and so become invested 
■with the authorship of the principal works on disease and its 
remedies which were published in his time, or immediately 
before and after him. And this tendency would be increased 
by the wish of the library-collectors at Alexandria and Pergamus 
to get as many as possible of his works, a demand which of 
course increased the supply, when the only labour imposed 
upon the bookseller was an alteration of the title of the 

§ 3. The Hippocratic collection of medical treatises is 
divided, according to the usual classification in such cases, into 
three classes — the genuine, the doubtful, and the spurious. 
The books belonging to the first and third of these classes are 
received or rejected with a certain amount of confidence; the 
doubtful works are those of which it can only be said that they 
W'Cre perhaps written by Hippocrates. It Avas necessary, even in 
early days, to draw up a canon distinguishing the authentic 
works of Hippocrates from those which were falsely or erro- 
neously attributed to him, and the critics of Alexandria had 
comprised the former in a little tablet {jLiiKpov tth'o/ci'Sioi').^ 
This list is unfortunately lost. Erotianus, who dedicates the 
work to Andromachus, Nero's chief physician, drew up a cata- 
logue of the wTitings of Hippocrates, not exactly corresponding 
to those Avhich have come down to us, and also compiled a 
glossary to the Hippocratic writings {tmv irap 'iTnroKpuTu 
Xe^scov (jvvayioyi}). In the reign of Hadrian, two learned 
physicians, Artemidorus Capito, and Dioscorides, undertook 
a critical edition of the Hippocratic works, but this is 
knoAvn to us only by name. Galen, in the second century 
after Christ, announced a treatise on the subject, Avliich is not 
found among his numerous writings. He was followed by 
Palladius, in the seventh century, who recognized only eleven 
works as genuine. The scholars who have Avritten on the 
subject since the revival of learning have come to various con- 
clusions, according to the difterent principles by Avhich they 
Avere guided in their discrimination of the genuine and spurious 

^ Galen, De Bijic. Eeqjir. II. ji. 182. 


works. Ilicrouymus ^[ercuriulis' admitted ninctpon works jls 
having proceeded from Hippocrates himself, Ilaller recognized 
fifteen genuine writings, (iruner^ reduced this Hst to ten, and J. 
H. Fischer' to seven. According to the hitest investigations, the 
following works may be accepted as those best entitled to bair 
the name of Hippocrates. 

(i.) The first and third books of the treatise 'on ei)idcmic 
affections' (Trem iirieii^mov), in which he describes the local 
diseases which he had observed in Thasos, Thessaly, and else- 
where. The dinsion into chapters is due to Mncmon, who 
sold the third book to Ptolemy Euergetcs. The remaining five 
books arc recognized as genuine by Erotianus, and probably 
contain many germs of Ilippocratic teaching, so that they have 
been sometimes attributed to Thessalus, whom Galen however 
expressly excludes from the authorship of the fifth and seventh 

(2.) The treatise * on prognostics' {Trpoyv'ixrTiKu) is generally 
regarded as a genuine and early work of Hippocrates, though it 
is obviously subsequent to the two genuine books on cpidcnnics. 

(3.) The treatise * on regimen in acute diseases' (Tre^J 8mtV>;<; 
o^eioi') is accepted as genuine, with the excci)tiou of the bust 
part, manifestly an interpolation. This l)ook is sometimes 
styled ' against the Cuidian sentences' {irpoc; rac Kviciaq 
yvio/.iac), sometimes 'on barlcy-watcr' (TrepJ Trrtfrnrj/c). 

(4.) The books ' on atmospheres, waters, and localities' {irtni 
atpiov, v^uTwv, T'jTTwu) \s ouc of thc most universally recognized 
works of Hippocrates. It seems to be alluded to in the Chuda 
of Aristophanes, which was acted in n.c. 423,' and there is a 
resume of its contents in Aristotle's Politics.- 

(5.) The essay ' on wounds of thc head' (rrfo/ ti'iv iv KiffxiX)) 

1 Censura Operitm Hippocratis, Venet. 1583. 

3 Artis Mediclnce Principla, torn. IV. Prief. Lausanne, 1769-17S4. 

3 Cemura librorum Uippocraticovum, qud vera a faUU, intojri a lupi-otUts 

iegregantw, Vratisl. 1772. 

* Disscrtatio dc Hippocratc cjmquc srr'tptis, Coburg, 1777. 

' Fabriclus, Bibl. Gr. II. pp- ^(^1 f"^"- 

« Schol. adAristoph. Nub. Hi: iarpor^x^as : Kal larpol rtpl d^pw.' koI Coarot 
ffvveypaiau. vdara 0^ clai Kal ai y«pi\ai. crrWay^a 5^ imy-lTwoKpdToif ^'^. 
d^pwf, T6Tr(j}v, Kal vbaTUV, 

7 4 O'll.), 7, 2 ; sec LittnS L P- .^3.3. 


rp(i)^turw»') is accepted by all the critics, except Grimm, as a 
genuine work of Hippocrates. 

(6.) The treatise ' on fractures' {irepl ayfxCjv) is also generally 
accepted, though a modern critic^ supposes that only a part of 
the work actually proceeded from Hippocrates himself. 

(7.) 'The aphorisms' [cKpo^iai^ioi), perhaps the best known 
of all the Hippocratic books, are confidently placed in the first 
class. This work contains more than four hundred short sentences 
of a practical nature, either culled by Hippocrates himself at a 
late period of his life from his other works and from the 
memoranda of his medical practice, or formed by some writer of 
his school soon after his death. In this respect, the doubt is 
much the same as that which we have expressed regarding the 
epitomes attributed to certain historical writers,- though it is 
more likely that a practical physician would make a collection 
like ' the aphorisms' of Hippocrates, than that a writer of 
history would abridge the details which it was his professed 
intention to record. We are of opinion that this treatise, 
which contains the germs of all the doctrine of Hippocrates, 
and which is still not without its value in medicine, is a some- 
what interpolated edition of a work which the great physician 
committed to writing himself, and which he intended to bear 
the same relation to his practice that the temple-archives of the 
Asclepeia did to the experience acquired by the managers of 
those establishments. It was such a work as a modern phy- 
sician might compile from his case-book. 

§ 4. The doubtful works, or those which were perhaps 
written by Hippocrates or published from his materials, in- 
clude a number of treatises, which have been admitted into the 
first class by one or more critics. They are as follows : — 

(i.) 'The oath' (o^/coc) is recognized by Erotianus, and we 
have seen that it is manifestly referred to by Aristophanes.^ 
Whether it was drawn up by Hippocrates himself for the 
corporation to which he belonged, or was a later document 
formed on the same model, may be doubted. In its original 

^ Petersen, Htppocr. nomine quce circumferuntur scrijita ad Um'px>. rati, dispo- 
sita, Hamburg, 1839, p. 13. 

^ For example, see above, chapter XLIII. § 6, p. 394 [234]. 
3 Above, p. 399 [239]. 


form, at all events, it belonged to the (jldest part of the 
Ilippocratic collection. 

(2.) 'The law' (j-o^joc) has been admitted by Erotiainis, and 
is maintained by Littre as a necessary supplement to ' the oath' 
in the frcemasonrv of ancient medicine.' \)v. (Jreenhill.- on 
the contrary, thinks that ' the oath' and ' the law' belong to 
diftercnt periods, ' the former having all the simplicity, honesty, 
and religious feeling of antiipiity, the latter somewhat of the 
affectation and declamatory grandilcKiucncc of a sophist.' 

(3.) 'On ancient medicine' {rrefn <io;ya('>/r i/;ro(A.-r;<,). Most 
of the entics arc agreed that this treatise was not written by 
Hippocrates ; but Erotiauus recognizes its genuineness, and 
Littre has entered npon a strenuous and elaborate vindication 
of its claim to a place in the first part of the Ilippocratic 
collection. lie relies very much on the fact, which he con- 
ceivcs he has discovered, that the reference to Hippocrates in 
the Phcedrus of Plato can be verified in this treatise, in op[)o- 
sition to the less tenable opinion of Galen that this reference 
applied to the treatise ' on nature.'^ The book ' on ancient 
medicine' is, at all events, an early and important treatise, and 
it is not at all improbable that it is a new edition of a work by 

(4.) 'On articulations' {Tnpl aoOnwv). This treatise is ad- 
mitted bv Erotiau and Galen, it Mas commented on bv 
Bacchius and Philinus, pupils of Herophilus, and is strenuously 
maintained by Littre.' Other critics reject it. 

(5.) * On the instruments of reduction' (/.loy^XiKur). This is 
directly admitted by Galen and others. Ijittre has shown that 
it was an abridgment of the book 'on articidations.'* Li the 
old collections it was combined with the fragment * on veins' 
{we^ii (pXijjiov).' 

The remaining treatises of this class owe their position to 
the apparent admixture of gennine fragments with additions 
by the followers of Hipi)ocrates : (^.'i ' On ulcers' {irt^l t\K<.>r^ ; 

^ (E^ivres dT/ippocrate,!. p. 344. * Smitli's Dictionary, TI. p. 4S7. 

3 (Euvres d'llippocratc, I. p. 299 sqq., .is cited above, p. 400 [1^0], 

* Ibid. p. 333 Sfiq. ' f''"l- V- .UO. 

^ Ilapa<TTd.Tas' rds eViSi5fyu/oas tV rip Tfpi ^XcjSwv fl Tp6<TK(tTai 7(p ^oxXi*>". 
Gloss, s.v. vapaffTaTas, cited by Liltro, p. 341. 


(7-) 'on fistulas' [irtpl avpiyyivv), and Miemorrlioids' {wepl 
tui.iof')f)oi^(vi') ; (8.) 'on epilepsy' {irtpl lepi^g vodaov) ; (9.) 'on 
the surgery' [kut' ir^rpHOp), >Yhicli is closely connected with 
the treatise ' on the instruments of reduction.'^ 

§ 5. The spurious works of the Hippocratic collection have 
been subdivided by Dr. GreenhilP according to the following 
classification. They are either (I.), older than the time of 
Hippocrates ; (11.), contemporary, or nearly so ; (III-)j later 
than Hippocrates. 

(I.) In the first of these subdivisions we have only two 
treatises ; * the prognoses of Cos' (Kwa/cal Trpoyi'(l)(7Hg), and 
'the predictions, Book I.' [irpopprjTiKou A). It has been sup- 
posed'* that these very ancient writings contain, in part at least, 
the notes taken by the Asclepiadce in the temples, which fur- 
nished, as we have seen, a starting-point to the medical litera- 
ture of Greece. If so, they belong to the class of books to 
which Euripides makes reference in his Alcestis,^ a tragi-comedy 
performed, according to a recently-discovered authority, in b.c. 

(II.) The works supposed to belong to the same age as Hip- 
pocrates are again distinguished, as (a) those whose authors 
may be assigned with some probability, and {b) those whose 
authors are altogether unknown, (a) The treatise ' on the 
nature of man' [-mpl (pixriog auOpojirov), and its supplement 
' on the healthy regimen' {Trepl Sm(T^/c vyunnK), are attributed 
to Polybus, the son-in-law of Hippocrates, because a passage 
quoted fi'om Polybus by Aristotle is found verbatim in the 

^ Littr^, I. p. 367. 2 Smith's Dictionary, II. p. 486. 

^ Grimm, German Translation of Hippocrates, II. p. 508; Littr(^, I. p. 351. 
* vv. 962 sqq. : 

iyCj Kal 5ta /loCaas 

Kai ixerdpcrioi if^a, Kal 

irXeiffTuv axpafievos X67W;' 

Kpeluffov ovhev dvajKas 

eupov, ovSi Ti (pap/xaKOv 

Qprjffcrais iv craficnv, ras 

'Opcpeia Kariypaxj/ev 

yyjpvs, ov8' ocra ^otjSos 'A- 

crK\r]TnddaLS ^SuKev 

(papfioLKa. iro\vwbvoi% diTLTefiwv ^poTolcrw. 

5 See Dindorf, Pnef. Ed. Oxon. 1834, p. 7. 


former of these treatises.' llcfcreiu'cs by (lalcii iiiui SoraiiuH 
have led to the inference that tlic celebrated I'hiryphoii of 
Cnidus was the author of the second and tliird books of the 
treatise ' concerning maladies' {Trem vovatov), and of the essay 
'on the nature of ^Yomen' {Trun yvvniKinjr (pvaiwq)^^ and Littrt- 
has conjectured/ on the strengtli of a citation in Aristotle,* 
that a certain unknown Tjcoplianes or Clcophanes was the 
author of the treatise * on superfrtation' (7rtr>i iTnKtn']Tioc). (A) 
Anu)ng the works by tudvuown authors, which are supposed to 
have proceeded from the contemporaries of Hippocrates, that 
'on diet' is fixed to a period subse(|uent to h.c. :}<Si by a coin- 
cidence with the calendar of Eudoxus, to which Dr. Grccidiill 
has directed attention/ Tlic other books of this class, such an 
the second, fourth, and sixth books of the Ejndemia, and those 
' on humours' [-n-irn ■^vf.uov), and ' the use of li([uids' [tthh vyniov 
\r>\](n<)(-) , are generally collections of notes and extracts, which 
have found a place in the Ilippoeratic collection, for the want 
of any definitely assigned authorship. 

(III.) The spurious works admitted to be later than IIi[>po- 
crates arc sufficiently numerous, and arc dixidcd by the latest 
critics into three distinct classes : («) those w Inch arc authentic 
but not genuine, i.e. not wilful forgeries, and these again into 
(ttj) works by the same author, or («.) books by dillercnt 
authors; and [h) those which arc wilful forgeries. Of the first 
class of these (a,), Littre infers*"' that they were anterior to Aris- 
totle, and were all the works of some one writer, who announces 
that he had also written ' on peripneumony' (vrfoi Tnnnrx'ivfm- 
»'/>;(,), and ' on the diseases of young women' (TrtoJ irHni)i\'n'n' 
vov(70)v), treatises which arc quite lost. The essays which we 
liave are 'on generation' (ttcoJ yovin:) ; 'on the nature of the 
infant' {-rrcpi (pvcriog TraiBiov) ; the fourth book ' on maladies' 
[iTipi I'ovaoju TO TiTdorov) ; ' on the maladies of females' {irtnt 

1 Aristot. HUl. Anin. III. 3: n6\i'/3os 5^ wSc k.t.X., comiL-uxMl with IIi| 
vfpl <f>v<Tios, p. 23, Froben. 

'•Galen, Comment, in Illppocr. dc Murb. Vulg. \J. 1. 79, Litln^, I. j-p. 47, 
363 ; Ennerius, De Rat. Vict, in Mvrb. acul. pp. 363, 9. 

•* CEuvrcs d' II i ppocvate, I. p. 381. 

•» DcGcna-at. AnimuUmn, IV. c. r. » 6u\xl\i i Dictionuyu, II. im^?. 

'' CLuvns d'llippucratc, I. pp. 373 — 37<> 


-ywi'atKfiwv o, /3') ; ' on the diseases of girls' {irt^l TrapOiviwv) ; 
'on barren women' {w^pl a(j)6p(i)u). In the second class («„) we 
have the fifth and seventh books of the Epidemia, a second 
book of ' the predictions/ and a number of minor treatises, 
including one ' on the weeks' {iripl ift^o/na^wv), which exists 
only in a Latin translation, and one ' on the nature of the 
bones' {ircpl oareMv (jyvcfiog), which is made up entirely of 
extracts from other works in the Hippocratic collection. In 
the last class (b), we have epistles, speeches, and other non- 
medical works, which are obviously due to the ingenuity of 

§ 6. A discussion of the time and manner of the publication 
of the Hippocratic books involves some questions of general 
interest in reference to a history of Greek literature. These 
questions have been adequately examined by Littre,^ and we 
shall here content ourselves with an exhibition of the general 

This collection, as far as the medical works are concerned, 
is authenticated, as consisting of treatises anterior to the year 
B.C. 300, by the fact that it was commented upon and cited by 
Hierophilus who flourished about that time, and by his imme- 
diate successors, Baccheius and Philinus. We have also seen 
that Aristotle quotes, by the name of Polybus, one of the 
works now included in this collection, and that we have, among 
these, others which can be assigned inferentially to persons who 
were contemporary with Hippocrates, or lived shortly after his 
time. It is also clear that we have in the collection some 
writings which are not entitled to be considered as independent 
or complete works, such as series of extracts and abridgments, 
notes and compilations. Finally, it is stated, that the Alexan- 
drian grammarians themselves did not accept, without discrimi- 
nation, the works presented to them as the productions of 
Hippocrates, but that ' the separators' (ot ■)(0)pi'CovT£c), as they 
were called, placed only those, which appeared to them au- 
thentic, in a special class, under the name of ' the book of the 
little table' {to. ek tov fxiKpov TrivaKi^lov).^ From all these 
considerations, it may be inferred that the Hippocratic collec- 

^ CEuvres d' IJippocrate, I. pp. 262 — 292. 
2 Galen, III. p. i8i, ed. Basil. 


tion was formed at some time subsequent to Aristotle, and ante- 
rior to Ptolemy Euergetcs ; tiiut at fust it was re^^ardcd as 
made up of genuine works classed by themselves, and of other 
medical treatises brought to Alexandria at different times, and 
placed in the library beside Hippocrates; and tliat, ultimately, 
the line of demarcation, between the books of the little tabic 
and the rest of those medical works which a less critical or 
more ignorant age ceased to distinguish from them, wa-s removed 
and forgotten. And the whole list of books came into the hands 
of the later critics and commentators, and was by them given 
forth to tlie world, uiuler the great name of the father of medi- 
cine. There was nothing peculiar in this. The same thing luus 
happened to all the great writers of antiquity, whose works were 
sufficiently famous and sufficiently voluminous to admit of this 
mixture of the genuine and the spurious. Aristotle, Dcmo- 
sthcueSj and in a smaller degree Plato, have given their names 
to books or speeches included in the collections of their works, 
but certainly not written by them. And even the Canon i)i 
the New Testament is exhibited with an obliteration of the three 
distinctions known to Eusebius.' In the case of Hippocrates, 
it is sufficient to know that we have an adequate sample of his 
genuine writings, and can gather from them what he was both 
as a literary man and as a medical philosopher. 

§ 7. It docs not belong to our present business to discus.^ 
the medical science of Hippocrates; but we must not conclude 
Avithout a few observations on his style, dialect, and literary 


In many particulars we must regard Hippocrates as standing 
in a similar position to Herodotus. IJoth born in Dorian 
colonics, — for Cos and Halicarnassus are separated only by a 
few miles of sea, — they were both resident for a considera))I(^ 
time at Athens, or in communication Avith Athenians ; and we 
find that both of them wrote a form of the Ionic dialect nearly 
approximating to the old Attic, and that both of them imitated 
some favourite Attic author, Herodotus taking some of his 

1 Tlie three classes distinguished by Eusebius {IlUt. Eccha. 111. :■;, pp. •J4-4 "iq-. 
Hciniciicn), namclv, the bno\o-,o{'^n'a, the diT.\f7^M<»'a, 7»'^piA'a «' o.V «/^<^ roii 
■KoWoh, aud the ^<J6ia— might furuiah uamca to the three chiascs of the Hipi»icraHc 


most striking passages from the great poet Sophocles/ and 
Hippocrates selecting the great historian Thuey elides as, in a 
certain sense, his pattern. With regard to the dialect of 
Hippocrates, it is clear that he adopted it as a conventional or 
fashionable idiom. Just as Herodotus wrote Ionic in imitation 
of the historians, who immediately preceded him, so Hippo- 
crates conformed to the practice of the natural philosophers, 
whom he emulated in his own particular branch of physiology. 
He was not influenced by any desire to please Democritus, 
but he wished to adopt a style common to him Avith Parme- 
nides, Anaxagoras, Melissus, and Diogenes of Apollonia. The 
manuscripts of Hippocrates, as they have come down to us, 
exhibit gi'eat inconsistencies in the orthography, but the 
general impression is that of an artificial and conventional 
lonism, deliberately adopted as the most appropriate phraseo- 
logy of science. Whether Thucydides, during his exile at 
Scaptesyle in Thrace, had any immediate intercourse with 
Hippocrates, who is said to have been resident at the same time 
in the island of Thasos, immediately opposite to that part of 
Thrace, or at Abdera on the same coast, cannot be determined ; 
but it is more than probable that two such men Avould fall in 
with one another, and form the usual relations of literary inter- 
course. The account of the plague in Thucydides exhibits a 
minute detail of symptoms, which would almost persuade us 
that he had submitted his description to some medical man f 
and as he does not mention Hippocrates, who, on the other 
hand, does not refer to this epidemic, it is not altogether 
unnatural to conjecture that Hippocrates may have revised 
this account derived from a sufferer ; and that having done so, 
he did not repeat elsewhere what Avas so graphically told in the 
contemporary history, and was known to himself only from this 
source. Be this as it may, Littre, who has studied Hippo- 

^ See Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. I. p. i6i. 

2 The description of the plague in Thucydides is so minutely accurate and cir- 
cumstantial, that a modern physician has been able to infer from the words of the 
historian that the malady was in reality a very violent scarlatina, probably aggra- 
vated by the crowded state of the city, and other depressing circumstances ; see 
Dr. C. Collier's History of the Plague of Athens, translated from Thucydides , • 
with remarks explanatcry of its Pathology. London, 1857. 


crates Avitli tlio most intelligent attention, reeogni/.es a close 
alHnity between his style antl tli:it (;f 'rimcydiiles,' thouf^h he 
attributes it to the general l;i\v that writers of tho same epoch 
naturally fall into the same moile of tliiiikiiig anil cxprcnsing 
their meaning. The extreme brevity, which Oalen notices as a 
remarkable characteristic of Hippocrates, ' is also a conspicuous 
feature in Thucydidcs. It is in consc(iuencc of this that so 
many of the sententious phrases of Hippocrates have taken their 
place in the habitual language of civilized Euroi)e. His state- 
ment at the beginning of his Aphurisins, that ' Life is short and 
ai*t long, that time tlies, that experience is deceitful, and that 
judgment is ditUcidt,'^ not only suj)i)lies rules for the medical prac- 
titioner, but furnishes common proverbs for every society ; and 
it is repeatedly quoted by the Greek rhetoricians a.s a specimen 
of pregnant brevity.^ In his style, no less than in his medical 
system, Hippocrates acts on the principle which is expressed, in 
very Thucydidean language, in a well-known passage of the 
treatise ' on articulations,^ and he regards affected verbi.-ige 
Avith the same contempt which he expresses for medical 
quackery and charlatanism. ' If it were possible,' says he,* 
' to make men healthy in various ways, it would be best to 
choose that Avhieh is least troublesome ; for this is both more 
honest and more scientific, unless one aims at vulgar imposition.' 
We see in his style that complete ai)propriation of all the 
resources of language which mai'ks the great writer, whatever 
his subject may be. Thus, a common verb is made to bear in 

^ (Euvres d'llippocratc, I. p. 474: ' iilus j'ai meditd sur lo style <le I'un et ilo 
I'autre, et cherchd a p(in^trer les procedc's, la fonne, et Ic sentiment, plus aussi jo 
me suis convaincu qu'il existait entre ces ucrivaina une <;troite aiKnito — ainsi e«t-cc 
h Thucydide qu'il faut comparer Hippocrate,' &c. 

3 IV. p. II, ed. Basil. : 'linvoKpirris ft-iv iv Toh 5rXc/<rrotj rwy iavrov ai'^-ypafi- 
fidruv eVxci7"ws ^paxi'^oyo^ ut>. 

3 ApUor. I. § I : 6 /3idj ^paxvs, t) U t^x*^ MOf/"}, 5^ Kaiphi ^Ji'i, ^7 5^ rtlpa 
ff<pa\€pri, i] 5^ Kplffis x*^^""^- 

•* See Demetr. irepi ipHTjvdas, vol. IX. p. 3, Walz. ; Jo.-vnn. Sioul. Schol. in 
Ilcrmog. vol. V'l. p. 236, Walz. 

' Be Articul. p. 837 F: tl Si iroWoiffi Tp6iroiau> ol6v re (trf ir/Uai iroKir, rhw 
aoxKbrarov XPV alp^ecdat. Kal yap avbpayaOiKu/Tfpov toCto «rol rcxvixuTtpof, 3<mf 
^Tj fTTidv/xtei. or]fj.oci5ioi Ki/JoT;\/t;s. llie wonl dv5paya0iK6s, which Kccnw tn be 
peculiar to Hippocrates, reminds one of the Tlmcydidean verb, drSpayaeii;ofuit 

(H. 63, in. 40). 


its varied inflexions the meanings of the teehnical noun which 
is derived from it.' He docs not hesitate to give emphasis to a 
passage by the introduction of a new but appropriate compound." 
The technicaUties of his subject are constantly relieved by an 
elegance of phraseology which is almost poetical.^ And there 
is scarcely a beauty of simple and emphatic Greek prose which 
may not be exemplified in the oldest writings of the Hippocratic 
collection. On the whole, it may be said, with truth, that 
whatever may be the value of these old medical books to modern 
disciples of ^sculapius, no student of Greek has seen all the 
varied excellences of that wonderful language, if he has never 
made acquaintance with the original text of Hippocrates. 

^ For example, Kpivofxai is used in the medical sense of Kpluis, Aphor. I. 20 : 
TO, Kpiv6fxeva koX to. KSKpi-ixiva dprlus /xt] Kivieiv, jj-riM veuTepowoiew firjre 
fpap/xaKeiiia-i. ixtjt' dWoicni' €p€6icr/j.o?at.v dXX' iav. II. ■z, 3 : to. 6^ia tGiv vova-Tjfj.d.TOji' 
Kplverai. ev recrcrapecrKaiSeKa TifMipycriv. 

^ Aphor. II. 44: ol wax^es cr(p6Spa /caret ^vaiv TaxvOdvaroi ylvovrat, fxaWof 
tCov tVxj'cDi'. 

3 As in the use of the verb ^vvavoOvfiaKeiv of an incurable complaint, Aphor. V. 
7, or of the verb XvfiaiveaOai., to express the sufferings caused by a useless surgical 
operation, De Articul. vol. IV. p. 25-2, 1. 14, Littr^; cf. the Xv/JLavdiv 5^/xas of 
^schylus, Choepih. 288, 


) < 

THIRD i>Ei;ror) or gri-i:k i.rn-i:.\Ti kk 


THE SCHOOL oi' alkx.vndkia — roKTs. 

§ I. Alexandria and the Ptolemies. § 2. Alexandrian poetM ; their proiKT cLi":i"i 
cation and arrangement, g 3. PhiletM in Alcxandri.-i, and Anitus in M:ic«-(l..iii.-i. 
§ 4. Callimachus. § 5. Lycophron and the tniyi-dians. § 6. The ij-ic and 
didactic poets, ApoUonius, Rhianus, Euphorion, and Nicander. g 7. Tlio 
bucolic poets, Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus. § 8. The paroduita and 

§ I. AS the literary predominance of Athens, which gave a 
-L\. special character to the second period of Greek 
literature, was due mainly to the political importance of Attica, 
it was a natui-al consequence that the downfal of Athenian 
independence should bring witli it first a deterioration, anrl 
ultimately an extinction of that intellectual centralization 
which had for more than a century sustained and directed tlio, 
best eftbrts of Ilcllenic genius and culture. Hut wliilc the 
living literature of Greece was thus dying away, an incidental 
result of the oriental conquests of Ahwander jirepared a new 
home for the ]\Iuses on the coast of that wonderful country, to 
Avhich all the nations of antitjuity had owed a part, at, of 
their science and of their religious belief.' In Egypt, as in 
other regions," Alexander gave directions for the foundation of 
a city, which was to be called after his own name. This new 
city of Alexandria, which soon tilled all the space l)etwecn the 
lake Mareotis and the sea at the (\anopic mouth of the Nile, 

1 There is a very lively and interesting account of the foundation of Alexandrin, 
and the character of its literature, in Mr. Kingsley's Alcrandria and her ScAoiJ*, 
Cambridge, 1854. 

2 There were more than twenty cities named Alexandria, or McxandrnfirJit, 
and of these Candahar and Scandcroun still bear traces of their Greek nnnic. ami 
Herat is still a place of con8ideral)lc imjwrtance. 



and was connected with the island of Pharos by a great mole^ 
on which the modern town has sprung up, was built by Cleo- 
mcnes of Naucratis/ after the plans of the architect Dinochares, 
and became not only the most magnificent city of the Hellenic 
world, but the capital of a Greek kingdom, and the residence of a 
family who attracted to their court all the living representatives 
of the literature of Greece, and stored up in their enormous 
library all the best works of the classical periods which we 
have hitherto discussed.^ It was chiefly in the reigns of the 
first three of these Ptolemies that the city of Alexandria was 
made a new home of Greek literature. Soter, who ruled from 
B.C. 306 to B.C. 285, under the inspiration of Demetrius 
Phalereus, the last of the Athenian orators, laid the founda- 
tions of the library, which was kept partly in the temple of 
Serapis, and partly in the Brucheium adjoining the palace; 
and also instituted the INIuseum, or temple of the Muses, where 
the literary and scientific men of the age were maintained by 
endoAvments not unlike our fellowships or lay canonries, and 
Avliere they enjoyed collectively the advantage of a reference to 

^ See the plan and description in Parthey's valuable monograph entitled, Das 
Alexandrinische Musextm, Berlin, 1838, pp. 18 — 34. 

2 The chief authority, or rather the most definite statement respectmg the 
library at Alexandria, is a Latin scholium on Plautus, discovered by Professor 
Osann in 1830; see Welcker, Der Epischer Cyclus I. p. 8; Ritschl, Die Alex- 
andrinischen Bibliofheken, p. 3. The author quoted from is Ccecius, and W. 
Dindorf has shown [Rhein. Mus. 1836, p. 232) that this must be a classical sub- 
stitute for Tzetzes, the Scholiast on Aristophanes, who sometimes calls himself 
K^/cor, or KiKKos. The following is the statement concerning the library : 'Nam 
rex ille [Philadelphus] philosophis affertissimug [Ritchl reads differtissimus, and 
Thiersch {De Penfat. Vers. Alex. p. 9), proposes affectissimus] et ceteris omni- 
bus auctoribus claris, disquisitis impensa regise munificentiae ubique terrarum 
quantum valuit voluminibus opera Demetrii Phalerii phzxa senum [Ritschl reads 
preJicnsa semiin, and Bernhardy : et LXX. senwrn], duaa bibliothecas fecit ; alteram 
extra Regiam, alteram autem in Regia. In exteriore autem fuerunt milia voluminum 
quadraginta duo et octingenta. In Regias autem bibliotheca voluminum quidem 
conmiixtorum volumina quadringenta milia, simi>licium autem et digestorum milia 
nonaginta, sicuti refert Callimachus aulicus Regis bibliothecarius, qui etiam 
singulis voluminibus titulos inscripsit.' From this statement we gather that the 
library contained — (a) in the Brucheium, which was the primary place of deposit, 
.1.00,000 rolls of duplicates and other unsorted books, and 90,000 separate works 
properly arranged; and (h) in the Serapeum 42,800 volumes, probably the ultimate 
selection, or most valuable books in the whole collection. The value of this 
scholium consists mainly in the presumption that it was derived by Tzetzes from 
the genuine writings of Callimachus and Eratosthenes. 


books, wliicli, as wchave seen, Aristotle had provided (or hiinself 
individually at a very great expense. This encouragement of 
literature -was carried ou witii still greater earne«tnc.s.s hy 
Philadelphus (u.c. 285 — 247), who had the celebrated C'alli- 
machus for his librarian, and not only bought up the whole of 
Aristotle's collection, l)ut transferred the native annal.s of 
Egypt and Jud;ea to the domain of (Jrcek literature, l)y employ- 
ing the priest r^Ianetho to translate the hieroglyphics of his 
own temple archives into the language of the court, and by 
procuring from the SanluMlrim at Jerusalem the first part of 
that celebrated version of tlic Hebrew sacred l)ooks which w;ls 
completed after the time of IMiilometor, and was called the 
Version of the Seventy, from the number of the Council which 
sanctioned it. Euergetes (h.c. 247 — 222), whose literary circle 
boasted of the great name of Eratosthenes, increased the 
library, not only by fair means, but also by somewhat dis- 
honestly, though at a heavy cost to himself, depriving the 
Athenians of their authentic edition of the great dramatists, 
which Lycurgus had laid up in the public archives.' One of 
the plans which he adopted was to require from all merchants 
and navigators, who came to Alexandria, the loan of any books 
which they happened to have with them. A copy was made 
and given to the proprietor, but the original was dci)osited in 
the library, with the inscription, ' a book from the ships' (ro Ik 
Tiov irXoiwi').- The tendency of all this hot-bed encouragement 
of literature was to produce a few eminent men of science, a 
reasonable supply of second-rate and artificial poets, and a host 
of grammarians and literary pedants, who indulged in specula- 
tions more or less intelligent on sul)jeets of literary criticism, 
hermeueutics, and bibliography. This grammatical ti-ndcncy 
began in the time of Philadelphus ; and Callimachus, Alexander 
the yEtolian, Lycophrou, Zcnodotus, Aristarchus, and Aristo- 
phanes of Byzantium, compiled editions, glossaries grammars, 
and commentaries, which had the eflect of fixing the (Jrcek 
lansruaire in a erenerallv intelligible and uniform state or con- 
dition. The process was much the same as that adopted by 

1 Above ch. XLII. § 3, p. 354 ['94]- 

a Galen, vol. V. p. 412, cd. B.-vsil. ; F. A. Wolf, /V./, /-,,.. y. CLXX\ II. , 

' Littrc, Uippucrulcs, vol. I. pp. 274 SQI- 

s 2 


the Jewish Masorethee after the return from exile/ or by the 
grammarians of King Vicramaditya's court in India." The 
oldest writers suffered most under the Procrustean operation, 
and the Homer of Aristarchus appears in a modernized form, 
under which only the critical genius of Bentley could perceive 
the original and obsolete forms, with their digammas and 
primitive assibilations. In the course of time, the library 
founded at Pergamus by Eumenes, which multiplied pergament 
or parchment copies in rivalry of the papyrus or paper books 
of Alexandria, was transferred to Egypt ; and however little we 
may be indebted to Callimachus and his successors for their 
remodelling of ancient works, we must always thank the 
Ptolemies for preserving to our times, in a form more or less 
complete and authentic, all the best specimens of Greek litera- 
ture which have come down to us. 

§ 2. In speaking of the literary productions, which were 
fostered or forced in the hot-beds of Alexandrian learning, we 
naturally begin with the poets. And here it is scarcely possible 
to classify the writers according to the older divisions of Greek 
poetry. For some of the most eminent of the Alexandrian 
men of letters tried their strength in many, some in all these 
departments. Callimachus, indeed, who was the head of the 
school, was not only a writer of all kinds of poetry, but also 
a critic, grammarian, historian, and geographer — one, in fact, 
who was a living representative of the great library over which 
he presided. It will be most in accordance then with the 
general objects of this work, and with the convenience of the 
reader, if we exhibit the Alexandrian poets in their distinct per- 
sonality as a portrait gallery, arranged rather in chronological 
order than according to the subject-matter of their writings."* 
In this way we must begin Avith Philetas, who was the tutor, 
not only of the second Ptolemy but also of Theocritus, the 
most charming poet of the Alexandrian Court in the reign of 

^ Vail der Hooght, Prcef. in Bill. Jlcbr. § 24. As we shall show in the next 
chapter, the Hebrew Masorets were not uninfluenced by the contemporary scholars 
of Alexandria. 

^ This was by far the most recent of these grammatical epochs of literature, as 
it began, according to Ideler's calculations, in the year B.C. 58. See Lepsius, 
Chronologic der JEgypter I, p. 4. 

3 The first six librarians of the Alexandrian collection were Zenodotus, Callimachus, 



Philadclplms. With liim wc .shall associate his contemporary 
Aratus. In the next place, we must present Calliinachus, uho 
is also distinguished hy his success as a teacher of others, and 
who was not only the greatest niau dI" letters under Phihi- 
delphus and Energetes, but counted among his pupils the most 
eminent epic poet of the school, his successor, ApoMonius Kho- 
dius, besides the jihilosopher Eratosthenes, the historian Ister, 
and the grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium. We shall 
assign the third representative position to Lyco[)hron, who 
retains his place in all the dillerent versions of the Pleiad, or 
list of the seven tragedians of Alexandria, and who wa.s n con- 
temporary and fellow-labourer of Callimachns in the Museum. 
Tn tlic fourth compartment we shall class together the epic 
poets Apollouius, Ivhianus, and Euphoriou. In the fifth group 
we shall have the writers of idyls, Theocritus, Bion, and Mos- 
chns. And in the sixth place, we shall glance at the disrepu- 
table family of Sotades, and the sinographies of Timon. 

Eratosthenes, ApoUonius, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus (Ritsulil, AUx. litU. 
p. 19 sqq., cf. Parthey, Alex. Mas. pp. 71 sqq.), and the following talile gives tho 
chronology of these writers and their contemporaries (Ritschl, u.s. pp. 89, 90). 

f*hilip of Macedon. . . 01. J Philetaa bom. 

Ptolemy tioter T [ Zenodoius bom. 

Callimachus bom. 

Ptolemy Philadelplius 
Antigonus Gonatas . 


117, 3 Ptolemy Philadelphua bom. 

} Aratus bom. 

121, I Demetr. Phal. comes to AlexJindria. 

'^■^ ( Library founded. Zcnodottu librarian. 

Aratus goes to Macedonia. 
126 L'ratosthaics and Euphorion bom. 

'^ } Amlloniiii horn. 
12"] \ "■ 

"'' t Arinlojihancs boru. 

131 ApoUonius gojs to Rhodes. 

133 C(dliinachn^\\hr.vT\iin. 

133, 2 Eratosthenes summoned to Alcx.andria. 

Ptolemy Euergetes . 

Attalus I J -^H Z-ra/oar/iciuJ librarian 

Aristarchus bom. 

Ptolemy Epiphancs . 

'■'•'' '• .1 i)oZ/o»iMM .^m/op/wH** librarian. 
147 \ 

Eumeneall ^^ J J mtu»c/i«M librarian. 


§ 3. As far as we can learn, the founder of a school of 
poetry at Alexandria, and tlie model for imitation not only to 
those who immediately succeeded him in that city, but also to 
the Roman writers of elegiac poetry, whose names are familiar 
as household words to all educated Europeans, was Philetas of 
Cos, the son of Telephus, whom Ptolemy Soter invited to his 
Court, and made the tutor to his favourite son and successor 
Philadelphus.' This educational appointment was due less to 
the poetical eminence of Philetas than to his repute as a gram- 
marian and critic, and he was associated with Zenodotus of 
Ephesus, not only in this office, but also in the work of editor- 
ship, which formed a great part of the literary business at 
Alexandria. The dates of the birth and death of Philetas are 
unknown. Suidas speaks of him as having lived in the time of 
Philip and Alexander, but this is hardly consistent with the fact 
that he was a contemporary of Aratus,^ who flourished at the 
Court of Antigonus Gonatas, and of Theocritus,^ who must have 
been at the height of his reputation in B.C. 270. The extreme 
emaciation of his person, which exposed him to the joking im- 
putation of wearing lead in the soles of his shoes lest he should 
be blown away,'' and which is attributed to a perplexing study of 
the Megaric subtleties,^ — a study said to have shortened his life" 
— would seem to indicate a feeble constitution^ quite incon- 

^ The notice in Suidas is: #tX7?Tas, KcDoy, vibs TrjXirpov, &>v iwi re ^iXiTnrov Kal 
'AXe^dvSpov, ypa/x/jLaTiKbs [/cat], KpiTiKds' Ss iVx''W^ets iK rod ^riTeiv rbv KoXovfievov 
\l/evd6fji.€P0i> XSyof, airedavev, iyivero Si Kal SidduKaXos rod devr^pov IlTo\€/j,aioV 
iypaypev 'ETrLypd/jLfj.aTa, Kal '^Xeyeiat, Kal &XXa. 

^ Vit. Arati, apud Clinton, F. H. s.a. a.c. ■272: "Aparos . . . ffwi^K/JLaae Si 
' AXe^dpSpijj ry AiVwXy Kal ^iXrjTq:. 

^ Theocritus spealis as though Philetas were still living in his VII. Id. 40, where 
he is coupled with Asclepiades of Samos ; with reference to this passage we are told : 
aKOvcTTTjs Si yiyove $tX?;Ta Kal ' KaKX-qindSov &v fjLvr]p.oP€V€L (QeoKp. yivos); and the 
same statement has been extracted by Wiistemann (Theocr. p. 106) from a corrupt 
passage in Choeroboscus (fol. 176, Gatal. Bihl. Coislin.) : <i>tX?;Tas [vulgo $tX(7r7ras] 
6 SiSdcKaXos QeoKpLrov. 

4 Plut. AnSeni &c. p. 791, E. ; Athen. XII. p. 552, B; ^lian, V. H. IX. 
14, X. 6. 

^ Suidas, U.S. 

^ In Athen. IX. p. 401, F., we have the following epigram : — 
^iive, ^iX-qras elfiL' X6yu}v 6 tl/evSdfiepbs fie 
coXeae Kal vvktuiv (ppovriSes iairipioi. 

' Plut. U.S. speaks of Prodicus and Philetas as viovs fxiv Icrx^ois Si Kal voauSeis 
Kal TO. TToXXa KXiPOTrereis 6t' appcjariav 6vTas. 

niiLETAs. 2r,3 

sistent with longevity. AH tlioso considerations slionld 
induce us to fix the period of his hii-th at abont ».c. 330, 
and liis deatli shortly before the accession of Philadelplms 
in B.C. 285. 

Philetas was cliiefly celebrated as an elegiac poet, and in 
this branch of litcvutnre he occupied the highest \)\iwv ahjiig 
with Callinns, Minnicrnins, and Calliniachns.' \\ ith the 
latter, he formed the chief model for the Latin elegiac poets. 
Propertius, in particular, constantly refers to Philetas a.s the 
source of his inspiration, once, according to an ingenious 
emendation, in conjunction with Mimnermus, more frecpiently 
coupled with Callimaehus, to whom, however, he seems, on the 
whole, to have preferred him.- The style of his poetry, which 
is partly indicated by the fragments, is sufficiently represented 
by these Roman imitators, llis elegies were occupied with the 
languishing sentimentalities of an eager or complaining lover. 
A particular mistress, or the feigned name of one, Bittis, 
Battis, or Batto,^ plays the same part as the Cynthia and Delia 
of his Romau imitators. The high esteem in which he was 
held by his contemporaries is indicated by the manner in which 
Theocritus mentions his name,' and by the ellcct which he 

^ Proclus, CJircstomath. p. 379, Gaisford. 

^ The following are some of the references to Philetas in Propertixis ; III. 36, 31 : 
Tu satius memorem Musis imitere Philetain, 
Et non inflati somiiia Callimachi, 
where Scaliger reads : Mum mcUorem, and llertzburg : Tu soc'tua MutU Mimncrmt. 
Id. IV. I, I : 

Callim.achi Manes et Coi sacra PhileU-c 
In vestrimi, quteso, me sinite ire nemus. 

/d.IV. 3, 51 
M V. 6, 3: 

Talia Calliope lymphlsque a fonte petitis 
Ora Philetcea nostra rigavit aqu!l. 


Cera Philet^eis certet Romana corymbia 
Et Cyrenreas uma minintret aquas. 
Callimaehus and Philetas, and their three Roman imitators, are c1 
by Stotius, S'dv. II. i, 252 — 255. 

3 BiTT-ij, Hermesian. apud Athcn. p. 598, F, v. 77. Bdrru, Ov. Trist. I. 6, 1 ; 
Ep. ex Ponlo, III. i, 58. The name Btrrw occurs in inscriptions, and Lachniann 
proposes to rea<l Battds from BarTw, in Proji. TIT. 26. 31. 

* Theocr. VII. 40: ov yap irw Kar' ifidv ciioi' ovSi rbv i<f6\6r 
TLiKiXioav viK-n/xi rbv iK Zdfiu o&rt *t\iiTaP 
aiiSwf ^drpaxos 5i tot' axplSai ws tci qAaiu. 

264 THE SCHOOL of Alexandria — poets. 

produced on the fasliionablc literature at Alexandria and the 
imported poetry of Rome ; and there cannot be any doubt that 
he was an admirable specimen of that ingenious^ elegant, and 
harmonious versification which takes the place of higher poetry 
in a refined and artificial age. Besides these elegies, Philetas 
Avrote sportive epigrams on Bittis {waiyvia, Stobseus, iTriypajn- 
/.lara, Suid.),' a poem in elegiac verse on the lamentations of 
Demeter for her daughter,^ which may have served as a model 
for the laments of the Bucolic poets, and a poem in Hexa- 
meters, called Hei-mes,^ which is described by Parthenius^ as relat- 
ing to a love affair of Ulysses. An attempt has been made to 
refer to this poet an elegiac couplet quoted by Strabo from the 
Hermeneia of Philetas,^ but as he was a grammarian by profes- 
sion, it is not at all improbable that the work referred to Avas a 
critical treatise on interpretation full of quotations from various 

Besides his labours as a poet Philetas was an eminent com- 
mentator and grammarian. In conjunction with his colleague 
Zenodotus, he wrote notes on Homer, which were sharply criti- 
cized by Aristarchus.'' His principal contribution to grammar 
was a book of miscellanies {araKTa or araKToi -yAwatraj)/ a 
work of such general notoriety that the comic poet Strato 
refers to it as a well known anthority for the meaning of words.® 
It is also combined with a reference to his love poems by Her- 
mesianax,^ and is perhaps to be sought in an emendation 

^ Hertzberg, Qucest. Propert. p. 208. 

2 Stobffius, Florileg. CIV. 11, CXXIV. 16. 

3 Id. Flor. CIV. 12, CXVIII. 3; Eclog. Phys. V. 4. 4 ^^^^^ 2. 

^ Strabo, III. p. 168 : kol ^cXijTas re ip ''E^pfi-qveiq., where it is proposed to read 
iv 'Ep/ iXeydg,. 

^ Schol. Veyiet. ad II. II. m. 

"^ Cited by Schol. Apoll. Mod. IV. 989, as iv drd/cTots yXdaaais : by Etym. M. 
s.v. 'EKivSs, as ev yXdiaaais. The emendation of Schweighsuser in Athen. XI. 
467, of ws $iXT7Tas (pTja-lv ip 'AraKTOLS for ip'ArTiKois is generally admitted. 

8 Athen. IX. p. 383, B: 

uare fie 
tQp toO ^lXtjtS. \a/x^dpoPTa ^i^Xlup 
ffKOTretp (Kaara rl dvparai tup ptj/xaTWV. 

9 Athen. XIII. p. 598, F: 

BiTTida p-oXird^ovra dorjp wepl Travra ^iXrjrdv 
prjixara Kal irdcrap pv6/JL€P0P XaXlrjp. 


of an epigram l)y the grammarian Crates which comhiiics the 
glosses of Philetas with his Homeric studies.' The h)gieal 
studies of Philctas arc attested hy the extravagant story, to 
which wc have ahcady referred, that hi* wasted his feeble 
frame in vain attempts to solve the ^ivcoftn'ot: of the Megaric 

The immediate successors of Philctas as an elegiac poet were 
his friend IIlrmesianax* and Phanocles, whose a;;c is not 
kuown.^ But if wc would understand his iini)ortanee with 
reference to the school of Alexandria, and the cflccts which the 
patronage of the Ptolemies produced on the formation of nn 
artificial and exotic literature in that great city, wc nnist com- 
pare him with his contemporary Akatus, who was court poet 
to another successor of Alexander in ^lacedonia itself. No 
eftbrts on the part of the Macedonian kings seem to have suc- 
ceeded, in creating a love of learning in the country, to the 
neighbourhood of which the Greeks referred the primitive 
poetry of Orpheus. Archclaus gave a welcome to Euripides ; 
Philip committed the education of his son to iVristotlc ; and 
Antigonus Gonatas entertained Aratus at his court. But no 
lasting fruits were produced, and Macedonia, which contributed 
so much to the Hellenism of Asia, remained to the last only 
partially Greek itself. 

Aratus, the son of Atlicnodorus, was born in Cilicia, ac- 
cording to some authorities at Soli, according to others at 
Tarsus,^ and was a contemporary, perhaps a friend, of Philctas. 
He went to Athens at an early age, and there became a hearer 

1 Anthol Palat. XI. 218: 

XoipiXos 'AvTifj.6.xo\> TToXi) XeiTrerot, dW iirl iraai-v 

XoiptXoj' 'E,i<(popiii)v eixe 5ia (rrdfiaros, 
Kai KaTdyXwffcr' iirdet rh iro-fifj-ara, xal t4 <f>iX7;Ta 
irpcK^us ifSef Kal yap 'Ofir]piKdi ^v. 
The common reading ia to. (piXrjTpa, wliich makes no sense in tlxia connetion. 

* There is a considerable fragment of Hermesianax iu A then. XIII. p. 597. 
It is part of the third book of his poem, addressed t<i his mistress Lcontium, and 
has been repeatedly edited in a separate form. 

3 The style of Phanocles belongs to the same class with that of Philctaa, 
HermesiaiKix, and Callimaclius, and he prol>ably their cut. 

* There are four lives of ^Vratus (' A/xiroi' jiios, (qmd liuhi. I. I » Iru, 1 1. 
pp. 429 — 445), besides the article iu Wuidas. 


of the Stoic philosopher Perseus/ whom he eventually accom- 
panied to the court of Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius 
Poliorcetes. Here he was so well entertained that he spent 
the remainder of his life in Macedonia. At the request of his 
patron he composed the poem which gained him his chief 
celebrity. It was an ingenious versification of the two books 
entitled ''Evowrpov and Oafi^o^tm^ by which Eudoxus of Cnidus 
had made Egyptian astronomy and meteorology popular in 
Greece. And Aratus, who was not himself an observer, or, 
indeed, a scientific man in that sense, so completely superseded 
Eudoxus, that a great work of Hipparchus was a commentary 
more immediately on the poem of Aratus than on the scientific 
treatise from which its materials were derived.^ Aratus divided 
his poem into two parts corresponding to the two works of 
Eudoxus, the first called ^aivojueva, Phtsnomena, in 732 verses, 
being an essay on astronomy, and the second called Aiotrrj^itra, 
or, more properly, Aioaij/nia,^ Prognostics, in 422 verses, being 
a treatise on the changes of weather and their effects. This 
latter poem was not only taken from Eudoxus, but also bor- 
rowed in good measure from Aristotle^s Meteorologica and 
Theophrastus^ De signis ventorum. The great popularity of 
this work, as a pleasing compendium of the existing knowledge 
on the subject, is shown not only by the fact already men- 
tioned, that a really scientific man like Hipparchus made it the 
text of his learned commentaries, but also by the high repute 
which the work enjoyed among the educated Romans. Cicero, 
who was quite aware that Aratus was only a versifier of a sub- 
ject which he did not thoroughly understand,^ thought it worth 
while to translate the poem into Latin verse, and the same task 

* According to Suidas he was also a pupil of Menecrates of Ephesus, of Timon, 
and of Menedemus. 

^ Tlie title of the work of Hipparchus is : tQiv 'Apdrov Kal Ey56|ou (paivofxivuv, 

^ The word Aioa-^fjiia occurs in Aristoph. Acharn. 171, and elsewhere : there is 
no authority for AioaTjpLela, and Grauert maintains (ilber die Werke des Dichters 
Aratus von Soli, Niebuhr's Rhein. Mus. 1827, p. 336, foU.) that even the former 
could not have been the title of a work or part of a work by Aratus. 

* De Oratore, I. 16, § 69 : 'si constat inter doctos hominem ignarum 
astrologife Aratum omatissimis atque optimis versibus de ccelo stellisque 
dixisse,' &c. 

ARATUS. 267 

was afterwards undertaken 1)y the Emperor Domitian' and Ijv 
Avicnus.- Ovid says^ that the fame of Aratus will he as la.stiii{^ na 
the sun and moon ; and the Apostle Paul, when speaking in the 
Areopagus, cites him to the Athenians as one of their own poctH, 
for the saying at the hcginning of his ])oem, that we are all the 
oMspring of the chief of the gods/ besides llippardius, ^iio 
wrote on the l)ook on account of its scientitic contents, it 
formed the subject of numerous critical and granimaticul com- 
mentaries, commencing with the time of Callimachus and 
Attains of Rhodes, who were nearly contemporaries of Aratns, 
and going on to Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus, and 
Achilles Tatius. A Mork, which attracted so much notice, 
must have had some special merit, in addition to its popidar 
treatment of a generally interesting and diilicidt subject. Hut 
we cannot profess much enthusiasm for the specimens preserved 
in the Latin translations, or for the magniloquence of such lines 
as this : 

* Deep from the marsh where they lie croak forth the fathers of tadpoles.' ' 

Besides the two books, which became so poj)ular, it seems that 
Aratus wrote several others on the subject of Astronomy, which 
are quoted under the titles of AaTooOtnia and o kuvioi'.'' In a 
connnentary on Hesiod, the grammarian Tzetzes ciuotcs the 
fifth book of the AffTtuKa of Aratus.^ And a modern scholar, 
who does not believe that Aratus wrote a book called AionZ/^un, 

^ It is generally supposed that tlie C?esar mentioned as the translator of Aratua 
was Germanicus, the father of Caligula, hut Janus Rutgursius {Var. Lccl. III. 
p. 276, quoted by Grauert u.s. p. 347) has proved that the tran8laU)r must have 
been Dcinitian. 

^ Aratea Phcenoinciia, and Aratca Prognoslica, printed iu Lcmaire's edition of 

' Amorcs I. 15, 16 : 

Nulla Sophocleo vcniet jactura cothonio, 

Cum Sole et Lunii semper Aratus erit. 

* ActaxwW. iS: tJs Kai rifes twc KaO' vnas voirjrwv dp-fiKavw ToO -ydp Kal 

yivo^ ifffiiv. 

^ Diosem. 946: 

aiTddtv (^ iiSaros iraript^ fioouxTi yvftlywy. 

« Schol. Arat. v. 450; Suidas a. v. ; Achillea Tatius ap. I'etav. Pocfr. Trmp. 

III. C.I 5. 

" Ad lies. 0. d U. I. p. 6, Ileins. : 'A/>aros if tji wtuwr^ rwi> Ai/T/HAuy. 

268 THE SCHOOL of Alexandria — poets. 

but that tlie book so called got this erroneous name from a 
second title, irpoyvwaug Bta crj/^tEtwi-/ has conjectured that in 
the original form of the work called ^aivo/iuva several books 
were interposed between the two which became so famous, so 
that the whole poem was of very considerable extent." Aratus 
is also said to have written elegies, like his contemporary 
Philetas/ Avhom he emulated, too, as a critic and commentator 
on Homer, having published a recension {SiopOwaig) of the 

From all this, it is clear that Aratus was a poet and 
grammarian of the same mark and likelihood as his contempo- 
raries of Alexandria, and that he really belonged to the school 
in which he found his chief admirers and expositors, Theo- 
critus, whose life was spent between Syracuse and Alexandria, 
addresses a poem to Aratus, and speaks of him as a familiar 
friend,^ and could hardly have made his acquaintance vmless 
Aratus had been to Alexandria, or had met Theocritus in Cos, 
in the school of Philetas, for he was not likely to have travelled 
to Sicily. We venture, therefore, to consider Aratus, as a 
corresponding member of the school of Alexandria, as an out- 
lying appendage to that body of writers;^ and we regard the 

^ This title is given to the second work in the life of Aratus ( Vita II.). 

2 G-rauert, u.s. It is the opinion of Grauert that the 'AaTpiKa of Aratus was a 
poem in five parts, comprehending two parts of the Phcenomena, the 'Aa-rpodeffia 
and the l^vvavaTeWivTwv kuI avvSvvdvTuv, or 'AvaroX-^ (which Hipparchus at the 
beginning of his commentaries calls ZvpavaToXai), then the Kdvwv, and after this 
the Prognostica or Atoo-Tj/xja. The Canon of Aratus is farther discussed in an 
excellent paper by Bockh, De Arati Canone, 1828, reprinted in the Philological 
Museum, II. pp. 1 01 foil. He says (p. 103): 'Aratum in Canone sonorum 
musicorum designationem et cum h^c spheerarum concentum et aliquid fortasse de 
motu docuisse liquet, conjiciasque illud sphserarum systema harmonicum, quod a 
musicis excogitatum refert Achilles Tatius, ex Arateo esse Canone petitum.' 

3 Judging, however, by the specimen in Macrobius {Sat. v. 20, 8), thestyle was 
not Philetaean : 

ald^w A16TIIJ.OV Ss ev ir^TpaKn KdOrjrai 
Tapyapiwv iraialv /S^ra Kal dX^a X^yw;/. 
^ The sixth Idyll of Theocritus is addressed to Aratus, and in the seventh, of 
which the scene is laid in Cos, Aratus is mentioned several times, once as the 
^eivos of the poet {v. 119, cf. vv. 97, 122), and there is good reason for the con- 
jecture of Wiistemann {ad Theocr. p. 108) that Theocritus and Aratus were fellow 
pupils of Philetas in his native island. 

^ Athenodorus, the brother of Aratus, defended Homer against the attacks of 
Zoilus, and was probably a resident at Alexandi-ia. 


fact that he had no followers in Macedonia as a proof df the 
ungeuial nature of the soil to uliicli he was transplanted, and 
as an additional tiibute to the zeal and ;,M)od management 
by which the Ptolemies converted their At'riean eity into a 
second Athens. 

§ 4. The established type of an Alexandrian man of letters, 
the most finished specimen of what might he elleeted hy dis- 
tinguished talents, unwearied learning, and the mere ambition 
to obtain the j)raisc of contemporaries, when backed by the 
active patronage of a court, may be seen in Callim.vciius, who 
was the librarian of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the head of his 
museum, the teacher of Apollonius the poet, Eratosthenes the 
philosopher and historian, and Aristophanes the grannnarian 
and critic, and himself the literary dictator and universal 
genius of his age. The following i)articulars, maiidy derived 
from Suidas,' contain all that is known of his life. He was a 
native of Cyrene, son of Battus and Mcsatmc, and belonging to 
the founder's kin or clan of the Battiadse. His grandfather, 
also called Calliraachus, had hcen general of the Cyreneans.' 
Educated by the grammarian Hermocrates, he established him- 
self as a schoolmaster in a suburb of Alexandria, called Elensis, 
and gained such reputation by his varicnis writings that he was 
appointed to the place of chief lilirarian, when it became vacant 
by the death of Zenodotus, about 11. c. 260; and he filled this 
othee for the remainder of his life. The year of his death is 
not known, but Aulus Gellius says that he was still flourishing 
at the commencement of the first Punic war,^ and it is known 
that he was alive in the reign of Euergetes.^ It is pretty clear. 

^ KaWlpLaxo^, f'^s Bdrrov Kal Mfffdrfias [^leyaTinas Hernsterli.], Kvpi^vatm, 
ypaix/xariKSs, fMa6T]Tr}s'EpnoKpd.Tovs toC 'Idfff toy, ypannaTiKov, ya/xtrr)v ^trx^jKu.'! tj)!- 
EiKppaTov Tov ^vpaKOVffioD Ovyar^pa, oirrw 5^ yiyovfy ^Tri^eX^ffTaroj wv 7/)d^ot fiiw 
TTOi-qp-aTo. ih irav fi^Tpov, crvvTci^ai 5i Kal KaTa\oyd5rji> irXdara, koL (ctIv aiTi^ t4 
y(ypap.p.iva pijSXia virip to. w' (iri 5i tCjv xpi''<^'' ^'' UTo\(^lalov tov '^l^a5A0ol». 
irplv Si ffvaraO^ t^ /Sao-jXei ypdnfiara iSiSa^ev iv 'EXtvc'ivi KUfiv5pl(f) ttjs 'AXt'ai^ 
5pdas. Kal wapiTdve p.^xPi- '^O'' EvtpytTov KX-qO^yroi llroXeftalov. 
3 Calliin. £pi<j): XXII. Antlwl. Pal. VII. 515 : 

aoTis iixbv vapb. ffijfia <plpcis ir6Sa KaWifidxov fit, 

tffdi Kvp-qvalou naidd re Kal ycvtrijy. 
elSelr)^ 5' <l/u0w Kfy. 6 p.iy Kort trarpidos 6ir\uy 
^p^fV 6 5' fjeifffy Kpiaaova (iaffKoylrij. 
3 Nodes Atticcc, XVII. 4 1 , c: i • * HxmiM, u. •. 

270 THE SCHOOL of Alexandria — poets. 

at any rate, that he did not die before 01. 133, b.c. 248 — 245.' 
His wife was a daughter of Euphrates of Syracuse ; and his 
sister Megatimc^ who married Stasenor, had a son Callimachus, 
who wrote an epic poem ' on the islands^ (Trtpt vi^aiov)," and is 
distinguished from his uncle as Callimachus the younger. 

Few writers have been more prolific than Callimachus. 
Living in the midst of books, and engaged in incessant study, 
he seems to have thought himself obliged to write in verse or 
prose on every subject which he had read about ; and he believed 
at last that he was not only omniscient, but enjoyed a monopoly 
of knowledge. Hence we find that some of his works are 
expressly directed against literary men of rising eminence, whom 
he regarded as poaching on his manor, and his own pupil, 
ApoUonius of Ehodes, was a special object of his jealousy. 
It is stated by Suidas that his works Avere eight hundred in 
number. This means, of course, that every separate poem and 
pamphlet was counted as a distinct work ; and, with the 
exception of the Hecale, which he wrote to show that he could 
manage to compose a lengthened poem, Callimachus used to 
justify, by his own practice, his saying, which has become so 
celebrated, that ' a great book is a great evil.^^ It was his 
object, as he tells us in answer to ApoUonius and the other 
critics, who thought nothing of a poet unless he could pour 
forth an ocean of words, to give little, but pure and undefiled 
drops from the sacred fountain.^ And it is therefore possible 

^ Clinton, F. H. s. a. B.C. 256, extends his life to B.C. 230, but see Merkel in 
the Prolegomena to his edition of ApoUonius Rhodius, Lips. 1854, pp. XI. seqq.  

2 Suidas : KaWl/xaxos Kvprjvaios eTroTroids, ddeXcpiSovs toD Trporipov, vibs Xracrri- 
vopos Kal TAe-yarlfxa's t^s a^eKcpris KaXKifiaxov. And in the former article : dSeXcpyjs 
di avTov irdls ^u 6 v^os KaWl/Maxos 6 ypd^as vepl vricroiv 5t' iiruv. The writer of the 
article Callimachus in Smith's Dictionary, calls his father Stasenorus, which is not 
a Greek word. 

3 Athen. III. p. 72 A : 6ti KaWljj.axos 6 ypafifiariKhs r6 yu^ya ^i^Xioy icov, 
eXeyev, etvai ry jxeydXifi KanQ. 

^ Hymn, ad Apollinem, 105 sqq. : 

6 ^d6vos 'ATrdXXwfos eir' oiiara XdOpios eiTrez'" 
'oiiK dyafiai rbv doidbv 8s ov8' ocra TrbvTos deidei.' 
rbv <^d6vov dnrbXXwi' wobi t' ijXaaeu w8^ r' ^enrew 
' 'A-ffavpLov ■n'ora/j.oio //,^7as pbos, dXXd rd TroXXd 
X'Lip.ara yTJs Kal iroXXbv e<j) vbari <Tvp(j>erbv eXKei. 
A7]o2 5' ouK dirb nai'Tbs iiSup <pop4ov<j(. MiXiaaai, 


that lie may have made up the hir}i:e nunilK-r of writiiif^s 
attributed to him iu the shape of hymns, elef,'ies, epifj^ruius, and 
fugitive pieces in prose. Of all these writings, we have onlv 
a few poems; and one of these is extant merely in a Latin 
translation by Catullus, a man of greater poetieal genius than 
Callimaehus, but who took the Alexamlrian poet as his modi-i 
for taste and style. The prose writings of this great gram- 
mariau Avould have been very instructive from the recoiulite 
reading in which they abounded. But they arc all lost ; and 
his poetry fully justifies the accurate criticism of Ovid, that 
his celebrity was assured, though he was distinguished by skill, 
and not by genius.' 

The extant poems of Callimaehus are : — 

(i.) Six hymns: five in hexameter verse, and in imitation 
of Homer, namely, ' To Zeus,' ' To Apollo,' ' To Artemis,' ' To 
Delos,' and ' To Dcmctcr ;' and one iu Doric hexameters ami 
peutameters, ' On the Bath of Pallas.' These poems are little 
better than mythological scholia in ingenious and musical verse. 
In the last, the poet describes rather pleasingly how Pallas in- 
flicted blindness on Teiresias, who came upon her while bathing 

dW ijTts KaOapri re Kal dx/'dorroj OLvipirti 
irlSaKOi i^ leprjs dXlyrj Xi^ds, aKpdv {Luitov.' 
Xaipe, &va^- 6 5^ ^Iw/xos, Xva <(>0opos, fvOa vioiro. 
This passage is of some importance in regard to tlio literary history of Call! 
machus and ApoUonius. It seems from v. 67 : 

Kal u/xofff Tflxeo. Suiativ 
7)fj.€Tipots ^a<n\iv<rLv, did 0' cvopKo^ 'At6XXw»» — 
that the hymn to Apollo was written for the feast in honour of that God institute*! 
by Phil.idelphus (Titruv. Prof. libr. YII.\ about the time when Eiiergotes ni.irri«-<i 
Berenice, the daughter of Magas, king of C'yrene. This would fall about the time 
when ApoUonius published the first part of his Argonautics, and as the poem w in- 
scribed to Apollo, it may have been recited at the same fcvst. The criticinm to 
which Callimaehus here replies, in an epilogue manifestly added aflcr^va^dH, w.ia 
probably that of ApoUonius. This is shown by the manner in which ApoUonius 
parodies the words of Callimaehus, Arr/on. III. 932 s(\<\. : 

axXei-qi 86e ^id^rts oj ovd' 6aa iraiht's Icracrw 
oI5e vbifi (ppdccracrOai. 
And it is not unlikely that ApoUonius wrote these words at Rhwles, whore ho wm 
composing his third book, and the /xf ioTjcre 5^ MA^oj 6.Kovaai (v. 93S) shows ll1.1t he 
no longer entertained any bitter animosity against his old teacher. Sec Mrrkcl 
{Prd. in Ax>ollon. yy. XII. XVIII. XIX.). 
' Amor., 15, 14 : 

Battiades semi>er toto cantabitur orbo : 
Quamvis ingenio non valot, arte valet. 


with her chosen companion his mother Chariclo, but consoled 
him on her account with the gift of prophecy. This poem was 
translated into Latin elegiac verse by the celebrated Angelo 
Poliziano, who wished to be the Catullus of revived classical 

(2.) Seventy-six epigrams, which have very considerable 
merit, being in fact among the best of their kind. They are 
preserved in the Anthologia, sometimes, however, attributed to 
other writers, such as Simonides, Bacchylides, Leonidas of 
Tarentum, or Tymnes. The 76th is preserved in a Latin 
translation, and may be the production of some modern poet. 
The epigrams of Callimachus were commented on by Archibius 
soon after that poet's death, and paraphi'ased. in iambic lines 
by Marianus, who flourished in the reign of Anastasius, and 
performed the same office for the epic poems of Callimachus 
and Apollonius, for the idyls of Theocritus, and for the 
Thcsnomena of Aratus. 

(3.) Elegies, which exist only in fragments, or in imitations 
by the Roman poets. We have seen that Propertius con- 
stantly couples Philetas with Callimachus, as his models, and 
the great objects of his admiration. It is supposed that the 
20th of 0\'id's Heroidum Epistolce is borrowed from the 
Cydippe of Callimachus. And it is known that the Coma 
Berenices,^ which appears among the elegies of Catullus, is a 
close translation, sometimes word for word," of a poem in which 
the court poet of Alexandria recognized among the stars the 
beautiful tresses, which Berenice, the wife of Ptolemy Euergetes, 
had suspended in the temple in performance of a vow, but 
which had been sacrilegiously abstracted. This poem, which 
is perhaps the most far-fetched effort of court flattery in 

1 Merkel has shown {Prolegom. ad Apollonii Argonautica, Lips. 1854, p. xii.) 
that the Berenice in question was the daughter of JNlagas, king of Cyrene, who 
was married to Ptolemy Euergetes, and that the cajptam Asiam ^gypti finibus 
addiderat of the poem refers to the conquests of the third Ptolemy in Asia Minor, 
when he founded the city of Berenice in Cilicia, and named it in honour of this 

^ The following are some of the fragments of Callimachus, which correspond 
exactly to the translation of Catullus : — 

Idem me ille Conon coelesti munerevidit 
E Berenices vertice csesariem. 


existence, represents tlie lost tresses aa describinp; tlicir own 
deification. They have tlic extravagance of Pope's Rnjjf of tin- 
Lock, Avithont its wit or consistency. Yet they attracted tlic 
admiration of Catidhis, one of the most original of the Latin 
poets, and, at the revival of letters, Salviano of Florence en- 
deavoured to reproduce the Greek original from the Latin 

The lost writings of Callimaclius included two epic i>ocra8, 
the A'jTta and the '\Lku\i], to which we have frequent references. 
The former, which ]\Lirianus jjaraphrascd, was an anticpiarian 
poem in four books, on the causes and origin of mythologies, 
religious usages, and other curiosities of literature, and may he 
regarded as bearing the same relation to the more general 
disquisitions of Ephorus and Theopompus that the Ilirule did 
to the Atthis, properly so called. This latter poem, the frag- 
ments of which have been submitted to a searching exami- 
nation by an eminent modern scholar,' derives its name from a 
hospitable old woman,- who entertained Theseus with supper 
and mvthologv when he was on his way to encoimter the 
Marathonian bull. The work, which his contemporary I'hilo- 

Fulgentem clare : quam multin ille Deorum 

Levia protendens brachia poUicita est. 
fl fjie Kovwv l^Xf^pev iv rjipi rbv Ti€p(vlKr}% 

^birrpirxfiv bv Kclmr) iraciv fOrjKe Oioh. 

Theo in Aral. J'han. 146. 

Adjuro teque tuumque caput. 
(TT^v re Kiptiv dp-offa abv re ^Lov. 

Elym. M. 450, 32 . 

Juppiter ut Chalybum oninc genus percat. 
ZeO Trdrep, uis XaXv^wf nav aTrdXoiTO -^ivos. 

Schol. Ap. Rh. I. 1313. 

It has been supposed that the fragment in the E'l/m. M. s.v. 'Affffvpioi: ^ (Xt', 
(Blomfield ^t' i-rr'), 'Affffvpluv 7)p.i^airr] (TTparir) corresponds to the linea in CatuUua : 
Quit rex tenipestate novo auctus hymenieo 
Vastatum fines iverat Assyrios. 
But the version is hardly close enough, unless wc adopt the other that 
Catullus sometimes departed from the letter of his : «oo N:ik.'. RJuin. 

il/iw. 1837, P- «3- 

1 A. F. Nake in the RheinUckcs Mtuseum, 1834, pp. S.o<)—sSb; ii>i^, i>\>. 509— 

588; 1837, PI'- 1 — 100. 

3 On the name of 'E«d\77, see New Cratyliu, § 270. 


274 THE scnooL of Alexandria — poets. 

chorus wrote on the Tetrapolis of Marathon, may have fur- 
nished Callimachus with some of the materials for this versifi- 
cation of legends. The long episode about Visvamitra, which 
Janaca tells llama on a similar occasion, in the Sanscrit 
Epos, represents, in spirit at least, the aged Hecale's out- 
pom'ings of Attic lore.' The Galatea and Glaucus were pro- 
bably epic poems of a similar description. Of the tragedies, 
comedies, and choliambics of Callimachus we have not a trace. 
The Ibis, so called from the Egj^tian bird, sacred to Thoth 
or Hermes, which was worshipped for its services in keeping 
down the plague of serpents and other dangerous reptiles,"^ 
would have furnished a chapter on the quarrels of authors. It 
was written expressly against Apollonius, the quondam pupil of 
Callimachus, whom his master from literary jealousy had 
begun to regard with the most rancorous animosity. We 
have an imitation of it in the attack which Ovid wrote under 
the same title against Hyginus or some other literary opponent. 
The numerous prose works of Callimachus are lost altogether, 
and if they had been extant we must have reserved the con- 
sideration of them to the following chapter. It is sufficient to 
mention here the work, which would have been most serviceable 
to us, and which was most intimately connected with the general 
business of Callimachus as head of the great library at Alex- 
andria. This was a sort of encyclopsedia of Greek literary 
history, a Catalogue Raisonne of all the books in the Alex- 
andrian Bibliotheca. It extended to 120 books or rolls of 
papyrus,^ and was no doubt the result of the labours attributed 

^ Rdmdyana, I. cc. 50-65. 

2 It is difficult to see why Apollonius was called by the name of this bird, or 
what reproach was involved in the designation. Its services as a scavenger were 
meritorious, and its religious connexion with Hermes was eminently respectable. 
There may have been some pungent irony in the appellation, just as we might 
call a pedantic scholar ' an owl,' from the bird of Minerva. Or it may have been 
intended to intimate the want of a power of judicious selection which Callimachus 
seems to impute to ApoUonius in the words quoted above from the epilogue to 
the Hymn to Apollo : 

ro. voWa 
Xifiara yijs Kal iroWbv i<p'' vdari avpiperhv eKKei.. 

^ Suidas : irlvaKes tuv iv irdarj waiSeiq. diaKafxtj/dvTuv Kal Ssv avviypa\pav iv BlSKIols 
k' Kal p'. See Bemhardy, Ch'undriss der Gnech. Literatur, I. p. 134. 


to Callimaclms by the author of the fraf^montary .scholium ou 
Plautus, — namely, tli:it lie wrote the titles of nil the hooks in 
the library — for tliis would presume that he made himself ac- 
quainted with their couteuts. A similar work was his Mujieum, 
which probably gave an aceount generally of the literary esta- 
blishments of Ptolemy, and of the persons connected with them. 
§ 5. Next to Callinuiehus, us a representative of the learned 
poetry of Alc.\an(b-ia, wc must place the dramatist and drama- 
tologist, Lycopiikon. Notwithstanding his great celebrity, we 
know but few particulars of his career, and, 113 we shall sec, 
some of the most eminent scholars of the present century have 
raised the question whether his extant poem is not to be 
referred to a later writer of the same name. Suidas informs 
us that Lycophron was a native of Chalcis in Euboca, that his 
father was Socles, and that he was adopted by Lycus of 
Rhcgium,' an historian who flourished iu tlic time of Alex- 
ander's immediate successors, and was an o])ject of animosity 
to Demetrius the Phalerian.-' It is to be inferred from this 
adoption that he spent some time among the Eubocan colonies 
of jNIagna Grrecia, whicli would account for his familiar 
acquaintance with the affairs of Italy. As his adoptive father 
Lycus wrote among other works a history of Libya, we may 
easily conceive the manner in whicli Lycophron became con- 
nected with the court of Alexandria. To compose such a 
work, Lycus must have visited and perhaps established liiiusclf 
in Egypt, and the plot against him attributed to Demetrius 
would seem to imply that they were both at the court of 
Ptolerav, and that the l)anished Athenian used his inlluencc 
with the king to procure the ruin of a rival author, lie that 
as it may, we know, on the authority of the Scholium on 
Plautus, which has been already cited,^ that Lycophron was 

1 Suidas: AvK6(f>pwv XaXKt5£i>s air6 Ev^olas, vids ZwatX^oki, 6^<T€i 5i AOkov rov 
'Vrf/lvov, ypafx/xaTiKbi (cat TotrjTTjj Tpay(fi5iwv. Tzctzes, C7ti7. VIIT. 481, sayB Uiat 
he was really the son of Lycus. 

3 Suidas: Avkos 6 Kal BovOvpas, 'Trty'woi, laropucSs, TaHjp Au»6^/>orot roD 
Tpa.-fi.KOv, iirl tCjv Staoix'^'' 7f70^'ws ^al iirifiouXevOtU v^b SrjuTp-plov rov <i?aXffp^m. 
ovTOi iypa\p€v Iffropiav Atjivrjs Kal irtpl ^iK(\ias. 

3 Scholion Plautinuiii apud Ritbchl, Alex. Bill. \>. 3: 'A!exan«lcr .KuOuii ct 
Lycophron Chalcidensis ct Zenodotua Epliwius imi.ui.mi rv)ps I', PliiU- 
delphi cognomento, qui miruru in inoduni favcbat iiigeniix et fiim.T d.K:t<iniin 

T 2 

276 THE SCHOOL of Alexandria — poets. 

one of the learned men employed by Ptolemy Philadelphus to 
form a collection and arrangement of the Greek poets; and 
while Alexander the ^Etolian undertook the tragedies, and 
Zenodotus the poems of Homer and other illustrious poets, the 
comedies were assigned to Lycophron. As a result of these 
labours in the library, we are informed that he composed a 
very valuable work on Greek comedy,' abounding as it seems 
in anecdotes respecting the authors, which, to judge by a 
specimen in Athenseus," must have been lively and entertaining. 
But although Lycophron wrote on comedy, his own poetical 
compositions were chiefly tragic dramas. Suidas gives us a 
list of twenty of these plays,^ and Tzetzes attributes to him 
forty-six or sixty-four tragedies. The fragment of his Pelopidce 
quoted by Stobseus is a simple statement of the common 
thought that death, though prayed for by the unfortunate, is 
never welcomed when it really comes.^ He also wrote a 
satyrical drama called Menedemus, in which he makes his 
eminent countryman, the head of the school of Eretria, appear 
in the character of a temperate Silenus, teaching the doctrines 
of total abstinence to a chorus of Satyrs.* The caricature 
must have been received by the philosopher as good-natured 
and fi'iendly criticism, for we are told that he was very fond of 
Lycophron." By these compositions, Lycophron obtained a 
place in the pleiad of Alexandi'ian tragedians, and his name 

homiiiuin, Grsecse artis poeticos libros in anum collegerunt et in ordinem redegerunt ; 
Alexander tragcedias, Lycophron comcedias, Zenodotus vero Homeri poemata et 
reliquorum illustrium poetarum.' 

^ See Meineke, Hist. Crit. Com. Gr. p. loo. 

a XIIL p. 555. 

^ They are the ^olus, Andromeda, Alefes, bolides, Elephcnor, Hercules, Sup- 
Xilices, Hippolytus, Cassandreis, Laius, Marathonii, NaupUus, (Edipus I. II., 
Orbus, Pentheus, Pelopidce, Socii, Telegonus, Chrysippus. 

* Stob. Flor. iig, 13: 

dXX' 7]vIk hv [ikv ■§ Trpbffu rh KarOaveiv 
^Srjs irodeiTai toIs ZebvcrTVxV'^offiv. 
brav S ' i<pipir-Q Kv/xa Xolcrdiov /Stoi; 
TO ^Tjp TToSovfieV ov yap icT^ avTov Kbpos. 

^ See Athen. X. p. 420. 

® Diog. Laert. II. p. 177 C: Tjaird^ero 5^ /cat 'Aparov Kal AvK6(})pova tov t^j 
Tpayu}dlas noiriT-qv. 



appears in all the lists jiIom-^ with iroiiurus und IMiiliscuH.' 
His ingenuity was shown by the ooinpositiou of aiuigninis, two 
of them being tlie conversion of WroXtfuuixj mU) anu filXiTut:, 
and of Afxiivoi] into 'lov'llonij/ complimentary transpositions 
mIucIi M'cre highly appreciated by the courtiers. All the works 
of Lycophron are lost with the exception of tiie oracular poem 
called Alfxaitdra or ('ass(iii(lr<i,^ in 1474 regular tragic; 
trimeters, which has olitained for it.s author and itself the 
name of ' the dark or obscure ' {\vKn<pniov o nKornvor, to 
OKOTeivov 7rot/?/ia).' The dates of the birth and death <jf Lyco- 
phron are equally unknown. Ovid, in the //y/.v, whieh he wrote 
in imitation of Callimaehus, intimates that Lycophron was 
assassinated by being shot through the lieart with an arrow," 
but why or by whom we are not told. 

There is no jjoem of the Alexandrian schoid which has been 
more honoured Ijy the attention of ancient and modern scholars 
that the Alexandra of Lycophron. The great number of the 
manuscripts shows that it has always been in demand, and it 
may have been adopted at one period as a text-l)ook of 
mythology and geography." An epigram intimates that it was 

' The following are the four different versions of the Pleiad : 

Schol. I. Schol. II. 

Homerua Homerus 

Sositheus Sositheus 

Lycophron Lycophron 

Alexander Alexander 

Philiscus /Eantides 



Dionysides Sosii)hane3 

yEautides Philiscus 

See CUnton, P. H. III. p. 502. 

* See the note in the appendix to BehSquc's edition and translation of tlio 
Alexandra, Paris, 1853 (pp. 68, 69). 

3 'AXe^dvdpa is the only name known to the ancients, Cassandra being a uiodcni 

* Suidas. Hence Statiua says {SUv. III. 5. '5'') : 

Tu pandere doctus 
Carmina Battiadx' tenebraaque Lycophronis atri. 

' Ibis, 531 : 

Utque cothumatum cecidisse Lycophrona narrant, 
Haereat in fibris fixa sagitta tuis. 
« Boissonade, Blogr. Universcllc s. n. LYCorilBOJJ. Canter KJiys (in I-r 
Prokfjom. p. VI.) : ' affirmare ausini, (luicunque hoc poem.o, licet par>um, dilig. . . 


caviar to tlic multitude,' And besides the scholia of Duris^ 
Theon, and Orus, it has been voluminously commented on by 
John Tzetzes. Since the revival of letters^ it has been fre- 
quently re-edited, and in England it was published in Greek 
at the beginning of the eighteenth century by one of our most 
learned archbishops/ and was translated into harmonious 
English verse, about fifty years ago, by an accomplished young 
nobleman.'* Notwithstanding this celebrity, the identity of 
the author is still a matter of doubt. For while Aristotle 
attributes to a rhetorical sophist of his own time, who bore the 
same name, a love of compound and glossematic words exactly 
like those which we find in Lycophron the poet/ Lord Royston,* 
our great orator C. J. Eox/ and the historian Niebuhr,^ have 
argued, from certain allusions to Rome and Macedon in the 
Alexandra itself, that it could not have been written in the 
reign of Philadelphus, but must have proceeded from some 
author who wrote after the downfal of Perseus at the latter 
end of 01. 152, b.c. 169. To these objections another eminent 
scholar, F. G. Welcker of Bonn, has replied by the suggestion, 

perlegerint, eos et historiarum et poeticarum fabularum partem non exiguam probe 
perfecteque esse cognituros.' 

1 Anthol. Pal. IX. 191 : eh t^v §l^\ov A.vKbcppovo's — 

el bi (xe (plXaro KaWloTri) XdySe /x' es x^pas' ^l 5^ 
vTJ'Cs i<pvs Movffiuv, x^po't ^dpos (popieis. 

2 Om-d et Operd Joannis Potteri, Oxonii, 1697 and 1702. 

^ ' Cassandra, translated from the original Greek of Lycophron, and illustrated 
with notes, by Viscount Royston, Cambridge, 1806.' The translator perished 
in the Maelstroom a year or two after the publication of this version, which 
does the greatest credit to his learning and poetical talents. There are few 
translations of Greek poets into English which exhibit a greater command of 
language, or a more sustained power of versification. We have a copy in- 
cluding some of the proof sheets, which show with what carefulness the author 
revised his work. 

* Rhet. III. 3, 1—3. 

5 In the Classical Journal, vol. XIII. No. 25, XTV. No. 27, and in the preface 
to his translation. 

6 Correspondence of Walcefield and Fox, published in 1813. Fox states the 
objection first in a letter dated 12th March, 1800 (p. 129), and gives his conclusion 
the 26th Jan., 1801 (p. 171). 

' Rheinisches Museum, 1827, pp. 108 — 117. 

LYcornRON. 270 

tluit the passages in (jucstiou are ^jrobablv interixilations. 
' If/ he says/ ' iiiterpohitions may he expected aiiywht-re, a \oui^ 
oraeular poem is the most probable phiee for tlieiii ; and if any 
subjeet could lead to the eoutinuation (jf such proplieciea, 
surely the morning-dawn of the empire of the world wouhl be 
most likely to do so.' ^^'itllout entering at lengtli into the 
controversy, wc may be ])erinitted to say tliat certain inth-xions 
and forms of uords in the Alcxaiidra- indicate rather a 
Hellenist of the later Alexandrian sclujol, who wrote acc(jrding 
to new-fangled analogies, tlian a Greek fresh from tlte Kub(can 
colonies of Italy, and from the study of the best Attic come- 
dians. On the other hand, there is nothing to have prevented 
an attentive observer, who had been in the south of Italy in 
the interval between the invasion of Pyrrhns and the first 
Punic war, from drawing a formidable picture of the increasing 
power of Home. If then the orij^inal edition of the A lent ml ra, 
which is universally attrilmted to Lyeophron of Chalcis, con- 
tained any references to the prowess of the Romans, whom 
Leonidas of Tarentum had called 'invincible' in ii.c. 279,' 
the later editors of the work, whose hands are indicated by tlie 
grammatical peculiarities to which we have referred, would feel 
an irresistible temptation to add some prophecies after tlic 
event to the ominous presages of the contemjiorary of Phila- 
deli)hus. That the prophecies referring to the glory of Home,' 
and the downfal of ]Macedon,* are such additions, is shown 
by the fact that the former is inserted after the account of 

^ IHe Griech. Trag. pp. 1259 — 1263. 

2 Such as icrxo-to<Tav for taxo-tov (v. ^i), iri<ppiKav for Tre<f>piKa<ni> (v. 152), Ac, 
which belong to tlie language of the Septuagint : see iSlurz, (/< I>!alict. Murttl. d 
Alcxandnnd, p. 58. 

3 In the inscription on the spoils t.iken in the battles uf IIenu.Ua ami .\sciiliiiii, 
B.C. ^So, 279, which i.s preserved in Latin Satumi.ins. See Niebuhr, //. R. III. 
note 841, and Varronianus, p. 228, ed. 2, where an attempt ia made to rcprtxluco 
the original. 

* vv, 1226— 12S0. The reference to the hlirrvxoi rUoi Mucrwr ivaKTot, Tdpxup 
re Kal Tvpffrjvos (i 245— 1 248), indicates a considerable knowledge of the etbnogT»phy 
of Italy, and is quite in accordance with the preaent writ^ -y iw to the 

distinct origin of tlie Etruscans and Tyrsenians : see I'l/ p. 71. and 


5 vv. 1446— 1450. 


the disasters of Idomeneus and his family, aud before the 
lines : — ' 

Such woes, so hard to bear, shall they endure 
Who soon will devastate my native land. 

And the definite reference to the overthrow of Perseus as sixth 
in descent from Alexander is the close of the poem, where such 
an addition would naturally be appended. 

With regard to the poetical merits of this extraordinary 
production, the most diverse opinions have been expressed. 
The German critics will not allow it to be called a poem. One 
of them^ terms it ' a grammatical monster, in which a store- 
house of nomenclature, consisting in mythical and geographical 
names of rare occurrence, in glossematical words from ^Eschylus 
and other poets, and in bombastic compounds, is employed, 
without any gain to mythology,' and tells us that it has no 
spirit, and cannot be read with any pleasure; and Niebuhr 
thinks that the word ' poem' would be misapplied in speaking 
of the Alewandi'aJ^ On the other hand, a great English orator 
is soothed by its melancholy strain, and an eminent scholar 
reads it again and again with increasing gratification f and we 
have an English version of it, which, if it is obscure and 

* V. 1281 : 

ToaavTo. fikv SiJcrrKriTa Trelaovrai /ca/ca 
ol T7]v ifi7]V niWovres aiaruffeiv irdrpav. 

^ See Lord Eoyston's Preface, p. X., where the six generations are counted from 
Alexander the Gieat, in the persons of the five lineal descendants of Antigonus, 
namely, Demetiius, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius II., Philip V., Perseus. 
Deheque counts 207 years from the expedition of Xerxes, B.C. 480, to the treaty 
between the Romans and Ptolemy Philadelphus, in B.C. 273, to which bethinks 
the six generations refer. 

^ Bernhardy, Grundriss d. Gr. Lit, II. p. 1027. 

^ Rhcin. 3Ius. 1S27, p. 112. Schlegel calls the Alexandra, 'einen endlosen, 
weissagenden mit dunkler Mythologie tiberladenen Monolog,' and Wachler terms 
it, ' ein verkiinstelt-dunkles propbetisch-episches Monodrama.' 

^ Gilbert Wakefield says, in a letter to Charles James Fox (u.s. p. 120) : 
' Lycophron by all means read — a spirit of melancholy breathes through his 
poem, which makes him, with his multitude of events, as delightful to me as 
any of the ancients. I have read him very often, and always with additional 
gratification. His poem is delivered in the form of a prophecy, and therefore 
affects an enigmatical obscurity by enveloping the sentiment in imagery, mytho- 
logical allusions, and a most learned and elaborate phraseology. You cannot fail, 
I think, after the first difficulties are surmounted, to like him very much.' Fox 
replies (p. 1 28) ; ' I have lately read Lycophron, and am much obliged to you for 

LYCOrilRON. 281 

enigmatical like the original Greek, is at least conceived in 
the highest elevation of poetical hmguage. We are not able to 
compare the poem with the AiVia of (,'alliniachus and other 
versifications of mythology, but it appeai-s to us that for the 
kind of thing which it i)retends tcj be, and for the sj)ceial 
taste which it was intended to gratify, it is neither an lui^kilful 
nor an unpleasing eoni[)osition. Tiie oracular (d)scurity \v;ts of 
course intentional ; and it afforded, no doubt, eonsidrrable 
amusement to the ingenious s(;holars of Alcxanilria to interpret 
familiar allusions clothed in enigmatic phrascolog}'. The iHieni 
begins with a few lines addressed to Priam by the guard wiiom 
he had set over Cassandra, in which there is an apology for the 
length of the predictions. And then we have in CzLssandra's 
own words the prophecy which she uttered when Paris wa.s 
setting sail for Greece. This i)rophecy begins with a reference 
to the exploits of Hercules, whose Phoenician mythology wa.s 
not unknown to the poet. It passes on to the history of 
the Trojan war and its immediate results in the wanderings 
and other misfortunes of the Greek leaders. It then reverts 
to the old legends of enmity between Asia and Europe, of which 
the Trojan war was a special develoi)ment, and the counter- 
invasions of Xerxes and Alexaudi-r the final consummation. 
After all this, Cassaudra checks herself abruptly with tin- re- 
flexion that no one will believe her presages. And the i)oem 
concludes with a prayer from the guard on behalf of his master's 
house : — 

But oh! may all these woes be turned to joy ! 
Still may the God who watches o'er thy house 
Spread rouud thy bosom his protecting shield, 
And guard with anns divine the Phrygian throne I 

On the whole, we are inclined to think that Tivcophrou lias 
left us a favourable specimen of the versified and di\ersilied 
learning, which delighted the courtiers of Ptolemy i'hiladelphus. 
§ 6. The Alexandrian poets, whom we have hitherto dis- 
cussed— Philetas of Cos, Callimaehus of Cyrene, and Lycophron 
of Chalcis— were foreigners attracted to Alexan(b-ia by the 

recommending me to do so; besides there being some very ch.inninK' p-iiry in 
bim, the variety of stories is very entertaining.' An.l in .inotlier ktUr ho M\a 
(p. 137) : ' to my mind nothing was ever more soothing, iu the meUucholy stmn, 
than many passages in Lycophron.' 


literary fame of the city and the prospect of royal patronage. 
We now pass on to one who was a native Alexandrian^ educated 
in the Museum, and brought up in the philosophic court circle 
of Philadelphus, but compelled by the jealousy and ill-will of 
Callimachus to leave his native place, and" not welcomed back 
again until he had achieved a reputation in the distant island 
which has given him his usual epithet. Apollonius, generally 
known as ' the Rhodian/ was the son of Silleus or Ulcus of 
Alexandria, where he was born some time in 01. 126, 127, 
B.C. 276 — 269, being a contemporary of Eratosthenes, whom 
he ultimately succeeded in the librarianship. Athenseus calls 
him ' the Rhodian or Naucratite,' ' and is followed by iEHan.^ 
The former collector may have had no other reason for con- 
necting Apollonius with his own city Naucratis than the fact 
that the poet wrote a book on the foundation of that place, 
from which Athenseus is quoting in the particular passage. 
This would be an equally good reason for assigning him to 
Caunus or Canopus, for he wrote on the origin of those cities 
also. It is expressly stated that Apollonius was not only an 
Alexandrian,^ but belonged to the tribe called Ptolemais in that 
city.^ He was a scholar of Callimachus ; but it appears that 
some early misunderstanding between the teacher and his pupil 
soon developed itself into a deadly quarrel between them. The 
particulars are not known to us, and we are left to the con- 
clusion, which is supported by incidental statements, that the 
younger poet either rejected the dictation of the veteran critic, 
or excited his jealousy by attempting a more ambitious style of 
poetry, or entered into direct rivalry with him by reciting his 
Argonautica at a feast of Apollo, for wh h Callimachus had 
prepared his own hymn to that god.* There are many examples 
in the history of literature of this opposition between the head 
of a school and some prominent disciple ; and we have seen in 
the case of Aristotle that there is a tendency to impute this 
feeling of conscious rivalry even when it does not exist — a 
proof, at least, that the antagonism is not considered unnatural. 

"^ Athen. VII. 283 D : ' AwoWuivios 6 'PoStos rj 'NavKparlrris iv Naf/c/jdrews 

2 Hist. Aniin. XV. 3. 3 strabo XIV. p. 655. 

■* Suidas. 5 Above, p. 431 [271] note, 

AroLLONius. 283 

As far as wc can jiulgc from the few rircumstanros known to 
us, the quarrel lietwcen Calliniaehus and Apollonius orij^inateil 
in some discrepancy of opinion with regard to the subjects and 
mode of treatment best suited for epic poetry. The chief effort 
of Callimachus in this Hehl was his poem called Alna ; and an 
epigram attributed to Apollonius is still extant, in which a 
most abusive reference is made to this work of the older poet.' 
On the other hand, Apollonius had selected for his subject one 
which admitted of a more purely Homeric treatment, and in 
which the book-learning of the Alexandrian school would 
become subservient to the elaboration of a well-known and in- 
teresting story. The antagonistic principles of the younger poet 
were perhaps exhibited in the familiar discussions of the Museum 
with little deference to the veteran librarian who guided the taste 
of the court and of the city. And when Apollonius pul)lished his 
poem in the usual way, namely, by a public recitation of it, and 
in this particular instance, at a feast of Apollo,- it was probably by 
the influence of Callimachus that it was condemned and rejected. 
The young poet was so mortified by this failure, and his literary 
prospects so blighted by the ill-will and ojjposition of the head 
of the Alexandrian school and his partisans, that he left his 
native city and established himself as a teacher of rhetoric in 
the island of Rhodes, which was in some sort a rival to 
Alexandria as a scat of learning. Here his genius and attain- 
ments were adecjuately appreciated, and he became the most 
renowned man of letters in his adopted country. The Uhodians 
honoured him with the full franchise and some other distinctions 

1 Anthol. Pal. XI. 275 : 'XiroWwviov ypafifiariKoi^— 

KaWi/xaxos rb ndOapfia, rb Tralyvioi', 6 ^vXivoi vovs, 
atrios, 6 ■ypd'^a^ Atria KaWiiiix^^- 
Merkel supposes very ingeniously {Proloj- ad Apollon. p. XXI.), that Apollonius 
here uses the word KdOapfia, in the sense of 'mythological rubhish' (Nicbuhr, 
//. li. II. p. 19), and with a plaj-ful reference to the word KdTapy^a, which, lu ho 
conjectures, may have been used in the Atria, na the Axpos dwToi of the Uymn to 
ApoUo, V. 112, cf. Etym. M. p. 53, L ^l- The fourth book of the Afria trvatod of 
rites and usages ; among these may h.avc been the iirinpriyia ' ' - 

AdKujcrii', Hesych.), to his treatment of which C.-illim.-ichu3 [ ; 

epilogue to Hynm to Apollo, 1 10 : 

At/o? 5' ovK dirb wairrbs C'Suip ipopiovffi /UXurcai, 
3 Above, p. 431 [2 7 1 J, note. 


— ^perhaps a seat in their senate — and he took from thenceforth 
the name of Rhodian, It is expressly stated that he revised 
and considerably improved the epic poem^ which was so ill 
received at Alexandria, but there is no doubt that in plan and 
conception it was substantially the same, and it still retains 
the dedication to Apollo, which was probably due to the 
recitation of the poem at the feast of Apollo, instituted by 
Philadelphus, when Ai)ollonius and Callimachus were brought 
into rivalry with one another.* From his independent position 
in the island of Rhodes he was enabled to make Callimachus 
feel the effects of his vindictive criticism. The old poet retorted 
by an obscure and scurrilous poem, in which he assailed Apol- 
lonius as an Ibis or devourer of reptiles and vermin,- and showed 
by more than one incidental allusion how he smarted under 
the blows of his rival, and feared the posthumous consequences 
of his detraction. The established reputation, which Apollonius 
gained by his epic poem, led to his recall or voluntary retm-n 
to Alexandria. This was certainly after the death of Calli- 
machus, perhaps not till the reign of EpiphaneSj when the 
librarianship again became vacant by the decease of Eratosthenes, 
whom Apollonius was appointed to succeed in b.c. 194. How 
long he held this office, and when he died, we are not informed. 
He was most probably librarian at the time of his death, about 
01. 147, 4. B.C. 193 — 189; and, according to one account, was 
buried in the same tomb as Callimachus. 

Apollonius wrote grammatical works ' on Archilochus," and 
' agaiust Zenodotus/'' and a number of poems relating to the 
foundations (/crto-fic) of various cities. That ' on Canopus' 
seems to have been composed in choliambic verse.^ Of his 
epigrams we have only the one on Callimachus, which has been 

^ See above, p. 431 [271], note. 

^ On the title of this poem Merkel remarks (Prolegom. in Apollon, p. XXI. ) : 
* scriptam olim conjiciebam, quo tempore Apollonius Ehodii cognomen adsumpsisset, 
quod biographus testatur, p. 532, 27: ut Callimachus patriam minus illustrem 
Naucratin ei objecerit.' As we have already mentioned, the reference to 
Naucratis as the birthplace of Apollonius is probably due to the wish on the part 
of Athenseus to claim the poet for his own native place, and the Ibis would not 
refer him to Naucratis rather than any other Egyptian town. 

3 Athen. X. p. 451, D. * Schol. II. v, 657. 

® See Steph. Byz. s.vv. x^P^i K6^ty^os. 


already cited. Ills reputation depends on his epic poem * on 
the Argouautic expedition' ( Apym-avTiKti) in four Ixxiks, of 
which the fourth is the longest, and containing altogether 5^:55 
lines. This poem has come down to us complete, — indeed, 
with traces of its two distinct recensions Ijy the author,' — and 
illustrated by elaf)orate scholia of a very early date, which arc 
a rcpertorium of information on many points of antitpiarian 
interest. Apollonius could hardly have chosen a better subject 
for a poem, which was to combine the properties of the old 
epos witli an opportunity for displaying the erudition of an 
Alexandrian scholar. The fourth Pythian ode of Pindar hail 
developed some of the cjjic qualities of the Argouautic 
legend, and had connected it with the establishment of a (ireek 
colony at Cyrene. And it w.os perhaps on this account, among 
others, that Callimachus i-cscnted the choice of such a subject 
bv his scholar, when he had himself neglected or declined to 
commemorate the legendary glories of his own family, lie- 
sides having a good love-story, and a plentiful supply of super- 
natural incidents, the expedition of the Argonauts enabled a 
learned poet to introduce any amount of geograidiical or mytho- 
logical episodes. The heroes themselves belonged to a period 
immediately preceding the Trojan war, in which their sons took 
a prominent part, and had appeared in the old ei)ic, lyric, and 
dramatic poems of the classical period. And their popularity at 
Alexandria is indicated by the use which Theocritus has made 
of some of their adventures. The subject, then, in spite of 
Callimachus, could not fail to be attractive ; and it cannot be 
denied, that Apollonius has treated it with considerable skill, 
and, all things considered, with wonderful freedom from afhc- 
tation.- The language is the conventional epic style founded 
on a careful study of Homer, whose words are not always used 

1 This subject has been fully discussed by Gerh.ird, Ltctioncs ApoUoHian<r^ 
Lip. 18 16. See also Bernhardy, Grundriss, II. pp. 235 sqq- 

2 Our great orator, Charles James Fox, h.vl a high opinion of Apollonius. When 
he bad only read a portion of the Argonautica, he \vri)tc U) Wakefielil (u. s. p. 109) : 
'from what I have read, he seems to be held far too low by Quintilian [X. 
I, § 54], nor can I think the aqualls maliocrltas to be his ch.-vractor.' What he h»d 
read appeared to him 'as fine poetrj- aa can l>e.' An.l wlun lu- h.vl ntudied tho 
whole poem, and compared it with the imiUtions by Virgil and Ovi.i (p. 194), ho 
was still able to say (p. 2u): 'there arc some jxirts of Apollonius, such as Lib. 


iu their original signification, as it has been established by the 
researches of modern philologers. The eflfect is much the 
same as if an English poet of the nineteenth century were to 
imdertake a poem in the style of Chaucer, or, to adduce an 
actual case, it was the same as if Chatterton had published his 
forgeries in his own name instead of assuming that of the old 
monk Kowley. ApoUonius has the usual fault of imitative 
poets — a liability to artificial exaggeration, instead of that 
natural wonder which belongs to an earlier form of civilization.^ 
For example, no ancient Epopoeist would have said of Jason^s 
cloak that the eye could easier gaze on the noontide sun than 
on its brilliant scarlet.^ Such an exaggeration would have been 
reserved by Homer for the blaze of golden armour wrought by 
Vulcan.^ There is great inequality in the delineation of cha- 
racter. The impersonation of Jason, who is the hero of the 
piece, is very indistinct ; but the love of INIedea is painted in 
very vivid colours, and nothing can be prettier or more natural 
than the embarrassment of the maiden, when she is left alone 
with her lover in the temple of Hecate;* and there is exquisite 
tenderness in the passage where she tells Jason how she shall 
think of him when he is far away, and how she will know, by 
some instinct or omen, whether he remembers his deliverer.^ 
There is also a good rough trait of Hercules, when the heroes 
look to him as their leader, and he tells them that the man 
who mustered the crew ought to be captain f and the sulkiness 

III. from 453 to 463, and from 807 to 816, that appear to me unrivalled.' Lon- 
ginus calls him S-ivtoitos {De Subl. XXXIII. 4). 

1 We find special examples of this in the florid rhetoric of Lucan. What Homeric 
hero would have been made to act like the historical Scseva? (Pharsal. VI. 217.) 

2 Argon. I. 725, 6 : 

TT]S iJ.kv prjtrepbv Kev is rjiXcov avibvTa 
6<X(re ^dXois ^ Keivo /xeTa^Xixf/eias ^pevdos. 

3 Iliad XVI. 70, XVIIL 610. 

* Argonaut. III. 962 — 965, 1008 sqq. 

* Ibid. 1 109 sqq. : 

dW olov TVVT] jxkv ifiev, Sr'IuXKbv 'iKrjai, 

pLvdieO, <T€10 S' iytj) Kal i/MUV diK7]Tl TOKr](i}U 

HV-qffOfiac fKOoi 5 iifilv dirbvpoOev iji tis 6affa, 
iji Tis dyyeXos opvis '6t iKXekdOoio i/j,eio. 

* I. 343 : 

6 5' avTodev, ivda nep ^aro 

be^i/riprjv dm xeipa Tafi/crcraro (pw-qciv re' 


of Idas is well described.' The poem is full of cpij^ramiiKitic 
prcttiucsscs aiul neatly turned coaiinonpliu-i's ; ;us when lie 
expresses the trite seutimeut that luortul joy is ever uiivwl 
with anxiety,- or when he paints, in a few Ujuches, the stillness 
of night.' He sometimes rises to a higher strain, as when he 
makes Medea meditate on suieide' and combat the thought 
with reflections on the sweets of life/ in a strain not alUjgcthcr 
unworthy of a great dramatist. On the whoh?, we arc not dis- 
posed to underrate this edbrt of the Alexandrian school, and 
we think that it deserves more attention than has been paid to 
it by classical students in this country. The value whicii was 
set upon the work by the ancients is shown by the anti(|uity of 
the scholia, which are derived from nearly contemporary com- 
mentaries by Lucillus of Tarra, Sophocles, and Theon,' and 
by the attempts to translate or imitate the poem which were 
made by the learned llomaus P. Tercntius \'arro Ataeinus, 
and Valerius Flaccus. At a later period Mariauus para- 
phrased the poem in iambic trimeters. 

EuPHOKiox of Chaleis and Uuianus of Crete, who obtained 
considerable reputation as epic poets, and represented the jirin- 
ciplcs and taste of the Alexandrian school, though the former 
does not appear to have visited the city of the Ptolemies, have 
not left any adequate specimens of their writings. We have 
two specimens of didactic versification from the pen of Xicandeh 
of Colophon, wlio lived in the reigns of Ptolemy Epiphaucs 
and the last Attalus (b.c. 185, 135). 

Rhianus and Euphorion flourished in the latter part of the 
third century b.c, and were, therefore, contemporaries of Era- 

' ti-fj Tis i/J-ol riSe /c05os 6irdifTW ov yi,p lyijfye 
ireiaofJ-ai, ware Kal &Wov avacrTrjcrccrOai (pv^u. 
airr6s, oris <rvydy£ip(, Kal dpxfi'Oi Ofidooio.' 

1 I. 462 sqq.. III. 556 sqq. 

2 IV. 1 165 sqq. : 

dXXi ydp oi^iroTe <(>v\a ovT]iraOdu}i> ii-Opuixuv 
TfpirwX^s i-iri^rip.iv oXv too/" avv ii tis aitl 
TTiKpri irapfM^fji^XwKev i'v(()poavvij<Ji.v avlrj. 

3 III. 746—750. * Ibid. III. 77' *n- 
6 Ibid. III. Su sqq. 
« Vit. ApoUon. : napaKeiTai t4 (TxAX'o ^k '"<*''' Toi* AovkIWov Tapfxilov koI 2 . 

k\^ovs Kal Q^ojvo^. Cf. Scliol. Ariatopli. Nub. 397. SU'i»h. I5yz. 8. vv. 'A^o^rot, 


tosthenes. The former was an epic poet' of the same kind as 
Panyasis, whom he probably imitated in his Heracleia, a poem 
of mythological incidents in fourteen books. His Achaica in 
four books, his Eliaca in three books at least, his Thessalica in 
sixteen books, and his Messeniaca in about six books, were 
historical romances in verse, and the latter especially kept so 
close to the facts that Pausanias appeals to it as an authority." 
Rhianus has left eleven epigrams of an erotic character which 
are extremely elegant and vivacious. He was also a commen- 
tator on Homer. Euphorion was born in 274 B.C., and, after 
spending the best part of his life at Athens, where he became 
very opulent, entered the service of Antiochus the Great as 
librarian, and died at Apamea in Syria, or, according to some 
writers, at Antioch.^ We have some twenty titles of works 
written by him,^ including mythological epics, satirical or con- 
troversial poems like the Ibis of Callimachus,* and elegiac poems 
of an amatory kind, which were imitated in Latin by Proper- 
tius and Tibullus, and in Greek by the Emperor Tiberius," and 
at a later period by Nounus, and were very popular at Rome 
in Cicero's time.^ Like his countryman Lycophron, Euphorion 
was considered eminently obscure,^ and encumbered by the 

^ Athenreus calls him 'Pta^os 6 ewoirolos (XI. p. 499 D). 

^ IV. I, § 6, 6, § 2, 15, § 2, esp. 17, § II ; dr]\ol Kal rdSe vwb 'FiaPoO ireiroii)- 
fj-ha is Toiis AaKeSai/jLovlovs — 

oUpeos apyevvoto Trepl irrixo-s iffTparduvro 
Xd/Mard re iroias re Bvu) Kal etKoai. irdcras — 
Xei/J-dvas yap Kal dipt] KariXe^e, irotas elTrwv rbv yXoophv (jItov Kal dXlyov irpb d/iriTov, 

3 Suidas, s. v. 

* There is a full account of Euphorion's writings in Meineke, De Euphorionis 
Vita et Scriptis, Gedani, 1823. 

® Of this class the most important were his dpa[, ■?) iroTripioK\iirTy)s, which sug- 
gested the Dirce of Cato and Virgil, his x'^'^Ses, which probably supplied the name 
of the well-known collection of John Tzetzes, and the dvTiypa(pal vpbs OeuplSap 
(or QeoSiaplSap), which is supposed to have been part of a grammatical controversy 
in verse. 

6 Suetonius says {Tiber. 70) : ' fecit et Graeca poemata imitatus et Euphorionem 
et Rhianum et Parthenium, quibus poetis admodum delectatus, scripta eorum et 
imagines publicis bibliothecis inter veteres et jDraecipuos auctores dedicavit.' 

'' Cic. Tusc. Disp. III. 19, § 45 ; of Ennius : 'o poetam egregium, quamquam 
ab his cantoribus Euphorionis contemnitur. ' 

^ Id. De Divin. II. 64, § 132 : ' poeta nimis obscurus. At non Homerus. Uter 
igitur melior ?' 


excessive ventilation of his learning. Tn the epijirani, wliich 
we have already quoted from Crates of Malius,' Muphorion is 
deseribed as an imitator of Chocrilus, and, if tiio rcadiiiir sul'- 
gested is eorreot, of Philetas also. His prose works were chiefly 
on antiquarian and grammatical sul)jccts. 

Nieander was a medical man and naturalist, and his poems 
have no value except as contributions to the history of these 
branches of science.'- Besides a number of works in prose 
and verse, which are known to us onlv bv their titles and 
some fragments, he wrote two poems which are still extant, 
one in 630 lines on the remedies for |)oisons ('AAtii</in^j;in*.n), 
and one on the bites of venomous beasts (()>/o(n*:a) in 95.S Hues. 

§ 7. Of all the writers of the Alexandrian school, the bucolic 
poets have enjoyed the most universal and permanent iM)pu- 
larity. The first beginnings of pastoral i)oetry among the 
Greeks are to be sought in the primitive life of the shepherds 
and husbanduien, especially in those countries which fell under 
the dominion of the Dorian tribes ; and it assumed a definite 
form in Laeonia, where it was connected with the worship of 
the Doric i\Ttemis, and in Sicily, where this goddess was 
honoured by special festivals at Tyndaris and Syracuse.' 
Epicharmus had mentioned the bucolic strains of the Sicilian 
shepherds/ and Stesichorus had given a lyric form to this 
species of poetry.* But this was rather an application or 
accommodation of the thing than its genuine or natural con- 
dition. Bucolic poetry, as it exhibits itself in Greek literature, 
cannot be reduced strictly under any one of the three heads 
of epic, lyric, or dramatic poetr}'. It appeared originally as a 
set of alteruating strains sung in rivalry- by the shepherds, who 
were candidates for the rustic prize, and these amocbean poems 
(a^to(/3orat ooiooi), as they were called, are not only reproducetl 

^ Above, p. 425 [265]. 

' Plutarch says of Nieander, Empedocles, and Parmonidea, that the vemo i« ).ii» 
a vehicle for the prose of their thouglits {Dc atidimdU Pottis, p. 61, WyttJ 

3 See Miillcr, Dorians, IV. 6, § 10. Bemhardy, CrnindrUs, II. p. 915. 

* Athen. XIV., p. 619 B : Atojuos h' f)v 6 ^ovKoXot lufXtumjj 6 t/juH-oj fi>u» tA 
elSoj- fivrifiovtvei S' airrov 'EirixapfJ-oi <?>' AXjci'if* /coJ iv'OSvffati itava',i^. 

" .(Elian, V. II. X. 18. Stesichorus wrote a paatflral poom cJilIo«l .id^ct ; Tlit-o- 
critus, VII. 72 ; see above, ch. XIV. § 6, p. 202. 



among the most polished compositions of this class^ but were, 
till lately, extant in some parts of Southern Italy and Sicily.' 
As we have it in the writers whom we are about to examine, 
the bucolic poem is generally epic in metre, Doric in dialect, 
dramatic in form, and elegiac or erotic in character. Thus it 
combined the characteristic refinements of the artificial poetry 
of Alexandria with subjects and a mode of treatment borrowed 
from the fresh green pastures and wooded mountains of Sicily ; 
and we can readily imagine what a charm this must have had 
for the courtiers and citizens of Alexandria, hemmed in as they 
were between two seas, and having no access to rural scenery. 
' One can well conceive/ says an able English writer," ^ the 
delight which ' this bucolic poetry ' must have given to those 
dusty Alexandrians, pent up for ever between sea and sandhills, 
drinking the tank-w^ater, and never hearing the sound of a 
running stream, whirling, too, for ever in all the bustle and 
intrigue of a great commercial and literary city. Refreshing, 
indeed, it must have been to them to hear of those simple joys 
and simple sorrows of the Sicilian shepherd, in a land where 
toil was but exercise, and mere existence was enjoyment.^ To 
this we must add, that the bucolic poetry of the Alexandrians 
was dressed out in the court colours; and though the shep- 
herds and shepherdesses did not appear in. the drawing-room 
attire of the ladies and gentlemen of Watteau's pictures, their 
language and sentiments are those which breathe in the refined 
elegiacs of Philetas or Asclepiades, and in the love scenes of 
Apollonius ; and the Doric is just broad enough to give a zest 
to the elegancies of the metre and diction. These pastoral 
poems were called by a name significant of their pictorial and 
descriptive character — Idyls {i'l^rj, e'l^vWia),^ i.e., little pictures 
of common life, a name for which the later writers have some- 
times substituted the term Eclogues (e/cXoyai), i.e., ' selections,' 
a name applicable to any short poem, whether complete and 

^ Swinburn's Travels m Sicily, I. p. 480. Eiedesel's Eeise nach Sicilien und 
Grossgriechenl., p. 175, quoted by Pauly, L p. 1188. 

^ Kingsley, Alexandria and her Schools, p. 46. 

^ WlZiiWlov is a diminutive of elSoy, which might signify a poem like the odes of 
Pindar : elbvWiov Xiyerai 8ti eXdds iariv, birolov eari \6yos' viroKopiiTTiKus S^ eiprjrai 
eiSiWiov, Prolegom. in Theocr. 


original, or a])|)cariii<,' as an elegant («.\traet.' Tlie hlijl, ur 
' picture poem,' is a refinement of the old niinics of Sophron, 
being both descriptive and dramatic, and appearing a.s a little 
drama in a framewoik (;f narrative. Now and then we have u 
bright hurst of mciTv humour ;-' here and there we listen to the 
melancholy strains of a dirge or a lover's elegy;" but the general 
elfcct is warm and sunny, or fresli with the cool breezes which 
play at eventide among the rustling leaves. Such is the iHK-try 
uhich made Tlieocritu.s a favourite both with lliero and 
Ptolemy; which Virgil imitated in his clioicest hexameters 
under Augustus ; and which we still read with undiminished 

TuEocRiTus, who gives his name to the most important of 
tlie extant bucolic poems, is said by Suidas to have Ixicn the 
son of Praxagoras and Philinna of Syracuse,' and this i.s eon- 
firmed by an epigram attributed to him, ami by Moschus.* 
According to another account, he was a native of Cos, and 
only a resident at Syracuse, and his father's name was not 
Praxagoras, but Simichidas or Simichus. This statement hius 
perhaps no better fomulation than an inference from the 
apparent fact that Theocritus resided in Cos as a pupil of 
Philetas, and from the language of the seventh idyl, which i.s 
narrated in the person of one Simichidas of Cos, It is not nt 
all improbable that Theocritus may have called liimself by the 
pastoral name Simichus or Simichidas with reft'rence to the 
fTj/torj;c of the goat," just as Virgil represents himself as a 

^ The term iK\oyi] is applied primarily to the short paaaage considenxl .18 an 
extract (Athen. XIV. p. 663 C : ?x" ^V V ffvfjuraffa iKXoy)] ovtus) ; but it aJiio 
<lenates the shortness of tlie passage, whether prose or verse, without any referpnco 
to the idea of selection or borrowing ; see Suetonius, Vi/a J ford/, p. 50. e«|. F. A. 

' As in Theocritus, Id. X. 3S sqq. * As in Tlicocritus, Id. I. (>^ iu\n. 

* OfdKpiTos, Upa^aydpov Kal 'PiXlyvrjs' ol oi ^Hifi/jiixov, ^vpOKoi'^ioi' oi W ^a<ri 
Kifov, fieTtjiKriffe di iv ^vpaKOvaais. 

* Epifjr. 22 : 

fiWot 6 Xtoj' iyui Si 0(6Kpiros 8j rdS' lypa\^a 

fh iirb tCiv troWCiv dpi 'Zvpr)K6aio%, 
vlb% Upa^ay&pao irf/)««cXfiT^s re ^iXlwijt' 
p.ov(Tav 5' dOfdv oiVor" ^<f>t\Kvadfiriy. 
So also Moschus, Epitaph. Bionh, 10^: iv bi ZvpaKwrtoKTi 0t6KptT0t. 

6 Cf. Theocr. III. 8, VI IT. 50 ; TUto, ThcfcUt. y. t},},, K; 5yw/...' ' ' ' 

V 2 


Tityrus, which was the Laconian and Sicilian name for the 
leading goat or ram of the flock. ^ The general impression left 
■upon the reader of his poems is that Theocritus was a native 
Dorian from Syracuse, and this is especially apparent in pas- 
sages like that in the Adoniazusa, where he speaks somewhat 
proudly in the person of a Syracusan woman.^ The dates of 
his birth and death are unknown. It is stated in the argument 
to his fourth idyl that he flourished in 01. 124, b.c. 284 — 281 f 
his fourteenth^ fifteenth, and seventeenth idyls were manifestly 
written at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
and he is referred to the same period by his relations with 
Philetas and Aratus ; while the sixteenth idyl, which is an en- 
comium on Hiero the son of Hierocles, was probably written 
about the time when that personage was raised to the throne, 
i.e., in b.c. 270.'* As in this poem he speaks of being in 
search of a patron,^ it may be inferred that he returned from 
Alexandria shortly before this time, and spent the remainder of 
his life in his native island. 

Our imperfect and uncertain information respecting the 
biography of Theocritus is supplemented by considerable doubts 
as to the authorship of the thirty poems which bear his name. 
An epigram attributed to Theocritus would lead us to con- 
clude that he had himself made a collection of his writings." 
Another, which bears the name of Artemidorus, a pupil of 
Aristophanes of Byzantium, speaks of a general collection of 
the bucolic poets.^ To prove that the thirty poems ascribed to 
Theocritus were not all written by him, appeal is made to great 
differences of style and character, and these are most conspicuous 
in the compositions which stand at the end. Then it is known 

^ Miiller, Dor. TV. 6, § 10, note e. That the name Simichidas was a general 
designation of a shepherd is shown by the line in the Syrinx 13: 7ro;tta Udpis diro 

^ XV. 90-95. We do not of course overlook the comic force of the passage. 
^ 0e6/cpiTos 6^, uKTirep idel^a/xev /card T7]v k8' (read /)k5') '0\v/j.indSa. ■fJKixa^ev. 
* Wiistemann, Theocritus, p. 244. ^ XVI. 5, 13 al. 

^ Above, p. 451 [291], note 5. 

^ Anthol. Pal. IX. 205 : 'AprefiiSd^pov toO ypa/x/xariKov eTrt ttj dOpolcrei rCiv 
§ovko\ikQiv troiTjfj.druv : — 

^ovKo\i,Kal Molcrai criropdSes ttokcl, vvv 5' ajxa. irdaai 
iyrl /jLias /xdwdpas, ivrl /ittSs dyiXas. 


that many Alexandrian grammarians wrote commentaries ou 
Tlicocritus/ which form the basis of our extant scliolia. But these 
scholia do not extend beyond the eighteenth idyl. From these 
and similar considerations we should infer that a number of mis- 
cellaneous poems have been bound up at the end of a collection 
containing some of the genuine works of Theocritus. On the 
other hand, it is clear that he wrote many poems which do not 
aj)pear at all in our collection. Athenseus has preserved a frag- 
ment of his Berenice,' and Suidas says that he wrote WpoiTictc, 

of which only the ''Y/a-oi can be identified with the poems 
which we still have. From all this it would appear that the 
Theocritean poems correspond in a smaller degree to the 
Hippocratic collection, and contain portions of the various 
writings which were accepted at Alexandria as belonging to the 
same class with the works of Theocritus. 

The collection, however, is as miscellaneous in its subjects 
and character as it is in authorship. Only the first eleven 
poems, and the twenty-seventh, are in any sense Imcolic poems 
of the Sicilian stamp, and of these the second, called ^\>apna- 
Kevrpia, or ' the Sorceress,' is not so much a pastoral 
poem as a scene from common life, borrowed, we are told, 
from one of Sophron's mimes.^ The fourteenth, fifteenth, and 
twenty-first are three dramatic scenes of the same kind ; the 
second being laid in the city of Alexandria, and the last being 
a dialogue between two fishermen. The twelfth, nineteenth, 
twentieth, twenty-third, and twenty-ninth, are erotic poems, 
of which the twentieth approaches nearest to the bucolic 
strain. The thirteenth and the eighteenth are derived from 
epic subjects.^ The sixteenth and seventeenth, though in 
hexameter verse, belong to the same class as the encomia of 

1 For example, Theon, Amarantus, Asclepiades of Myrlea, Munatus, Neo- 
ptoleinus, N leaner of Cos, and Amerias. 

2 Athenseus, VII. p. 283 A. This Berenice was the naother of Philadelphua, 
not the wife of Euergetes, whose hair is honoured by Calliinachus. 

3 ffypoth. Gr. : tjjv 6^ QeurvXida 6 QibKpiros dirapoKdXm ^k rQv T^tixppovos 
fierriveyKe Mifxuv. 

4 The Scholiast tells us that the eighteenth idyl, or the hyinona^al song of 
Menelaus and Helen, was an imitation in many places of a poem l.y Stcsichorua 
ou the same subject. 


the old lyric poetry. The twenty-second^ twenty-fourth^ twenty - 
fifth, and twenty-sixth, are fragments of epic poems of the 
Alexandrian school. The twenty-eighth is an occasional poem 
on an ivory distaff which the poet was about to take with him 
as a present to Theagenis, the wife of his friend Nicias, a phy- 
sician of Miletus, to whom the eleventh and thirteenth idyls are 
inscribed. The thirtieth is an anacreontic poem on Adonis. 
This classification will show how much diversity there is in the 
Theocritean collection. We proceed to examine the separate 
poems in detail, with a view to a proper estimate of their 

The first criterion is the dialect, the second the subject. If 
we rightly interpret the profession of Theocritus himself, he 
wrote only in the Doric dialect, and only on subjects which 
admitted a legitimate application of the Doric hexameter.' 

Both of these considerations will exclude the twelfth idyl, called 
'Air rig, or ' the beloved yoiith,^ which has nothing in common 
Avith the bucolic style, and is written in the Ionic dialect. It 
is more likely to have been composed by Theocritus, the sophist 
of Chios, than by his namesake of Syracuse. The second 
criterion, or that of subject, aflPects most strongly the assumed 
authenticity of the epic or quasi-epic fragments (twenty-second, 
twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty- sixth), two of which (the 
twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth) have been attributed by some 
writers to Peisander or Panyasis.^ In a lesser degree this objec- 
tion applies to the half epic fragments (the thirteenth and 
eighteenth). The peculiar relations of the poet might explain 
the deviations from the usual topics and mode of writing in 
such poems as the addresses to Hiero and Ptolemy (the six- 
teenth and seventeenth), and the envoy of the distaff (twenty- 
eighth). The subject will overbalance the mode of treatment in 
the twentieth idyl, called BovkoXictkoq or ' the young herds- 
man •/ but the other erotic poems, the nineteenth, twenty-third, 
and twenty-ninth, are not at all in the style of Theocritus. The 

In Epigr. -22, I. 4 : 

/Movaav 5' ddvelTjv oiiiror'' i(pe\KV(7dfj.r]i/, 
where odvetos must mean strange or foreign in reference to Theocritus, as a Dorian 
of Sicily, and a bucolic poet /car' e^oxv"- 

2 This was Eeiskv's opinion. ^ ggg y. ScLIegel, Vcn-lcs. vol. I. p. 201. 


Soplironic mimes, the second, fourteenth, fifteentli, and twonty- 
first, must be retained on account of their style and mode of 
treatment, although, as we have said, they are not strictly 
bucolic. It has been conjectured' that the first part of the 
eighth idyl is an unskilful addition by some later hand, and 
that this and the ninth idyl, which have the same interlocutors, 
should be melted down into one poem. 

Supposing then, according to this discrimination, that wc 
recognize as genuine works of Theocritus all those poems which 
are WTitten in the new Sicilian Doric, and which are either 
bucolic, mimic, or demonstrably related to the special circum- 
stances of the poet's life, we shall be able out of these 
materials to form an adequate estimate of his peculiar 
talents : and we shall say that Theocritus has had few equals 
in his power of appreciating and describing scenery, and in 
the happy faculty of portraying characters by a few distinc- 
tive touches. The former quality of his poems is of course 
most seen in those Avhich are strictly bucolic ; the latter is 
most conspicuous in those which belong to the same class as 
the Sophronic mimes. Picturesque descriptions are found in 
all the idyls of the first class. For example, nothing can be 
prettier than the opening lines of the whole collection, where 
even the cadence of the metre imitates the sweet whispering of 
the pine tree which murmurs beside the fountain.'- Again, we 
have a rustic prettiness in the serenade of the third idyl, Avhere 
the amorous shepherd wishes he was a humming bee, and 
could come into the grot of his Amaryllis, penetrating through 
the ivy and fern which mantled around it.^ Similarly in the 
fifth, w^e have a charming picture of the oaks and the cypcrus, 
the swarms of bees in one continued humming, the two cool 
fountains, the birds chirping on the boughs, the unrivalled 

1 By Reinhold {Degenumis Tkeocriti carininibus et supposUiciu, Jenae, 1819). 

2 I. init. : 

3 III. 12: 

d5(; TL TO xf/iOupia/J-a. kuI a nirvs, aiirdXe, rrjva, 
3. TTori rah Trayaicri fieXlcoerai. 

aWe yefolfjiav 
a ^ofi^eva-a /i^XKTcra Kal ^s rebv Avrpov Uolixav, 
rbv KKjcbv 6ta5i)s Kal rav irripiv ^ tv TrvudaSri. 


shade, and the fir-cones falling from on high.^ But the most 
complete of all these landscapes is furnished by the seventh 
idylj of which the scene is laid in Cos. The poet, who here 
calls himself Simichidas, is going with two friends, Eucritus 
and Amyntas, to keep the feast of Ceres by the river Halens 
with Phrasidamus and Antigeues, the sons of Lycopes.^ When 
about half-way, they are overtaken by a Cretan shepherd, 
Lycidas, whose attire is minutely described.^ ' Whither,' he 
says, ' are you dragging your feet at midday, when the lizard is 
sleeping on the dyke, nor are the crested larks on the wing ? 
Are you invited to some feast or vintage ? As you march 
along every stone rings against your thick-soled boots.' * The 
poet greets his friend with compliments, and invites him to 
join in bucolic strains. Whereupon Lycidas bursts forth into 
a pastoral song in praise of his favourite Ageanax, who has 
sailed for Mitylene.^ Simichidas in return describes the love 
of Aratus for young Philinus.'' Here Lycidas leaves the 
party, having first presented Simichidas with his shepherd's 
crook, as an acknowledgment of his poetic skill.^ The three 
friends arrive at the country place of Phrasidamus, and take 
their seats on prepared heaps of sweet lentisk, with black 
poplars and elms nodding over their heads, and the sacred water 
running close by them in a bubbling brook from a grotto of 
the nymphs ; the sun-burnt cicadas are chirping on the branches, 
farther off the woodlark murmurs in the acacia, larks and 
linnets are singing, the turtle dove is cooing, the bees are 

1 V. 45 sqq, : 

rovTel Spves, <S5e Kiireipos, 
cD5e KoKbv ^o/x^euvri irorl a/naveffai fx4\i(T(rai, 
ivd' vBaros ^vxpCo Kpdvai 5vo' ral d' iwl Mvbpwv 
Spvixe? \a\ayevvTf Kal a aKia ovdiv ofioia 
T^ vapd. tLv /SdXXet 5^ koI a wItvs v\f/ode kuivovs. 

2 VII. 1—4. 3 V. lo sqq. 
Jbid. vv. 21 sqq. : 

TlifMixlda TT^ St; ti> fieaafi^piov TrSda '^\k€is, 
aviKa dr] Kal cravpos eip' alfiaaiaKTi Kadevdei, 
ov8' eTnTVU^ldcoi Kopv8a\\L5es ■fjXalvoi'Ti ; 
rj fj.eTa Saira /cXijrds eTrelyeai ; ij twos dcrTUJv 
XiXvbv eTTidpuicTKeis ; w$ rev woal vei.affOfi4voi.o 
irdcra \l6os TrraLoicra wot dp^vXideiraii' deidei. 
s J bid. Vv. 52 sqq. « Ibid. 96 sqq. 7 j^^i ^y_ jjS gqq. 


fluttering about the streamlets — everywhere tliere is the smell 
of fruitful autumn;' pears, and apples, and plums arc strewed 
around them in the greatest profusion, and the cask of four- 
year-old wine is broached for the occasion.- It is one of those 
cheerful scenes which we find in Walton's Anijkr, only that wc 
have the more gorgeous colours of a landscape in the 

The mimetic or dramatic power of Theocritus is most con- 
spicuous in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and twxnty-first idyls. 
In the first of these, ^schincs, a country farmer, accounts 
for his neglected person and dress by detailing to his friend 
Thyonichus how his jealous temper had led him to strike his 
mistress Cynisca at a drinking-bout, in consequence of which 
she had forsaken him ; and he is recommended to take service 
under Ptolemy, whose character is drawn in very flattering 
colours,^ and the farmer become soldier is painted most accu- 
rately with a few strokes of the pen. The well- buckled cloak, 
the lengthened stride, and the firmness of the disciplined 
phalangite are all brought before our eyes in a line or two.^ 
The fifteenth idyl takes advantage of a sumptuous feast, in- 
stituted by Arsinoe in honour of Adonis, to praise Ptolemy and 
his whole family. The machinery is very ingeniously con- 
trived. Two Syracusan women of the lower order, Praxinoe 
and Gorgo, who have migrated to Alexandria witli their 
husbands, are introduced just as they are starting in their 
smartest dresses to see the spectacle. The Avhole of the intro- 
duction is a little comedy. The crowd is described with all the 
exaggerations of female terror.^ The amiable women abuse their 
husbands," deceive their children,' and scold the maid-servant.^ 

^V. 143: 

•Ko.vr' CbaSev Oipeos fidXa nlovos, uiade 5' dirupris. 
2 Ibid. V. 147 : 

rerpdepes 5^ irlduv dTreXwero Kparbs &\€i(pap. 
» XIV. 58—67.. 
* Ibid. 63—65 : 

ei' roi Kara Se^ibv Sip-ov dpiaKO. 
XwTTOj S.Kpov wepovda-dai, iir' d/x^oripois Si ^e^axajs 
ToXfiaaels eTTidfTa p.iviiv dpacvv dairtdiJiTav, 
q. rdxos eh Aiyvirrov. 
5 XV. 4-7. " vv. 9-20. '■ vv. 14, 40. * vv. 27, 31. 


Praxinoe's gown is admired and priced.' They are frightened 
out of their wits by the king^s led horses.^ An old woman 
gives them oracular encouragement as they are forcing their 
way into the palace.^. They are separated from their waiting- 
maids and get their dresses torn.^ One person in the crowd 
protects them and is praised f another rebukes their incessant 
gabbling/ and is proudly told that they are Syracusans, origi- 
nally from Corinth, ' the country of Bellerophon, if you please, 
sir,' and that they exercise their undoubted privilege of talking 
the pure Doric of the Peloponnese.^ The piece terminates 
with a song in honour of Adonis by the prima Donna of Alex- 
andria, and Gorgo returns home to face an angry husband, 
who has not yet had his breakfast, and is not very approachable 
under such circumstances.^ The tAventy-first idyl, addressed to 
Diophantus, begins with a minute description of a poor fisher- 
man's establishment on the seashore, and then introduces us 
to Asphalion the angler,^ who beguiles a sleepless night by 
relating to his partner how he had dreamt one afternoon that 
he had caught a golden fish^ and had sworn never to go fishing 
again. He is prudently reminded that his oath is as unsub- 
stantial as his dream, which will find its best accomplish- 
ment if he plies his rod and line without dozing. ' Seek,' 
says his friend, ' the fish of flesh, lest you die of hunger, 
with all your golden dreams.' '" It seems that this idyl is com- 
posed in direct imitation of Sophron, who wrote two mimes 
about fishermen, the 'AXuvq and the QvvvoOi)^aQ. This 



34 sqq. 






















90-93 : 

T^vpaKoaiais iTriTd<T<reis ; 
cbj elSys /cot tovto, Koplvdial et/xes dvwdev, 
(lis Kal 6 BeXK€po<p(av. HeXowovi^acriaTi XaXev/xes' 
Aupladeiv 3' i^eari SoKui roh Awpt^eaai. 
8 VV. 147, 148. 

^ The man is represented as fishing with a rod (XXI. 43, 47), and his name 
'Aa(paXiu}v points to the word dcrTraXievT-qs, about which we hear so much in the 
So2)histes oi F\a,to (pp. 218 E, sqq.). 
'" VV. 65-67: 

el 3' vTrap ov Kvwaauv ri) to, xt6/5ia ravra /xaTeijaeii 
iXTrls tQ>v virvuv idrei rbv adpKivov ix^^'^t 
firj ffi) Odv-Qs Xi/xy kuItoi xpv(To2<nv ovelpois. 


poem is unusually corrupt in the copies wliicli luivc conic 
down to us. 

Besides these longer compositions, twenty-two ejjigrams hear 
the name of Theocritus, and he is made the author of a fantastic 
little poem called the Syrinx, in which twenty verses are so 
arranged that complete and catalectic lines succeed one another 
in couplets, passing from the hexameter down to the dimeter 
dactylic metre, so as to represent the successive lengths of the 
reeds in a Pandean pipe. T\\\9, jeu cV esprit is attributed with 
more justice to Simmias of Rhodes, who composed similar 
copies of verses in the shape of an egg, an altar, and a double- 
edged axe or pair of wings. It is not improbable that Theo- 
critus wTote most of the epigrams. But, on the one hand, the 
tenth epigram of Erycius is attributed by a manuscript to 
Theocritus ; and, on the other hand, the seventeenth and 
tenth epigrams of Theocritus are assigned to Leonid as of 
Tarcntum by the modern editor of the Antholoyij. 

There can be no doubt that Theocritus had an original 
genius for poetry of the highest kind. The absence of the 
usual affectation of the Alexandrian school, the constant appeal 
to nature, the perception of character, the power of description, 
the keen sense both of the beautiful and of the ludicrous, con- 
tribute to indicate the highest order of literary talent, and 
account for the universal and undiminished popularity of an 
author whose sera was not that of original men. His conspicuous 
superiority to Yirgil, who directly imitates him, shows that the 
greatest skill as a writer of verses would not have enabled him 
to produce these effects, if he had been merely a second-hand 
writer of idyls. At the same time, it is quite clear that he had 
many models to guide him or suggest his subjects to him. 
Philetas, Aratus, and Asclepiades, were his immediate teachers. 
Sophron and the older writers of his own country were con- 
stantly before him ; and there are evidences of a careful study 
of the great Attic poets, especially Soi)hoclcs.' But with all 

1 For example, the following coincidences in one chorus of the Antiyone can 
hardly be fortuitous : 

Soph. Antig. 585 : 


Olva Kai bvadveiioi/. 


this, his position may have been as independent as that of our own 
Sbakspere, who had the stories of his plays ready to his hand 
in Italian novels, English annals, and translations of Plutarch, 
but made everything new as it passed through the alembic of 
an imagination, with which, it must be owned, Theocritus had 
much in common. 

The two other bucolic poets of the Alexandrian school were 
BioN of Phlossa near Smyrna, and his pupil Moschus of 
Syracuse. A sort of elegy by the latter poet, which is extant 
as his third idyl (ETrircKpiog B'koi'oq), is our chief authority for 
all that we know about Bion's personal history. It appears 
that he migrated from Asia Minor to Sicily, the home of 
bucolic poetry, where he was poisoned, and where just punish- 
ment overtook his murderers.' The appeal to the Bistonian 
nymphs to bewail the Dorian Orpheus"^ does not at all prove 
that Bion had \dsited Macedonia. The passage, from which it 
was concluded that he was a contemporary of Philetas, Ascle- 
piades, Lycidas, and Theocritus, is justly considered as an 
interpolation borrowed from the seventh idyl of the last-named 
of these poets.^ As, however, Bion was the friend and, as it 
seems, the teacher of Moschus, who was an acquaintance of 
Aristarchus,'' and therefore flourished about the middle of the 
second century b.c, and as he died prematurely, he must have 
lived in the generation immediately succeeding Theocritus, and 
was therefore a contemporary of Apollonius and Eratosthenes. 
The poems of Bion, which used to be mixed up with those of 
Theocritus, consist of a lament of Adonis, with a continual 

Theocr. VII. 58 : 

e^pov 6s ^ffxo-ra ipvKla KiveT. 

Soph. Antig. 600: 

oUt' a.KdfJ,aTOi Oeup [1. diovres] /JLrjpes. 
Theocr. XVI. 71 : 

oSww fiTJvas dywv ^Kafi oiipavbs oSt iviavTovs. 
^ Epitaph. Bioiiis, 136: 

(papfMCLKOP 9j\de, Biuv, ttotI (tov arbp-a, <pdpp,aKOV, elSes. 

Ibid. 136: 

dXXd Aka kIx^ irdvTas. 

^ Ibid. 16, 17, 

etirare iracrats 

BtiTToi'/ots pvp.<paicnv, dwuXeTo Adpios 'Op(f>evs. 
' See Hermann, Bionis et Moschi Carmina, Lipsise, 1849, pp. 77, 78. 
* Suidas s.v. : MicrxoSj SupaKoi/crtos, fpap-pariKbi, 'Apiarapxav yvwpipos. 


refrain/ not nnlike that in the first idyl of Theocritus, or the 
elegy on himself by INIosclius; and eighteen other fragmentary 
idyls, including the KiipioKXeim]^, uhicli occupies also the 
nineteenth place among the idyls of Theocritus, but -svliich 
Hermann has added to the poems of Bion in accordance with 
the suggestion of Yalekcnaer.- Bion writes harmonious verses 
with a good deal of pathos and tenderness ; but he is as inferior 
to Theocritus as he is superior to ]\Iosclnis. From the L'ltter 
we have the following poems: (i) 'Runaway Love' {towtj 
dpmrtTTjg), a little piece in twenty-nine lines, also included in 
theAnthoIoffia, and written in the style of the later Anacreontics ; 
(2) 'Europa,' in 169 lines; (3) 'The Elegy on Bion' already 
mentioned; (4) ' jNIegara the wife of Hercules,' in 127 lines; 
to which are added three short fragments from Stol)ffius, and 
an epigram from the Anthology of Planudes ; and Ilermaim 
Las also appended to his edition of ]\Ioschus ' the Conversation' 
(Oapi(TTvg) between Daphnis and the Nymph, which appears 
as the twenty-seventh idyl of Theocritus.'* Of these remains 
of Moschus, the two poems on Europa and Megara are not 
bucolic, but fragments of epic poems of the Alexandrian class, 
and they are written in the Ionic dialect. The style of Moschus 
is very artificial, with occasionally very imusual transpositions 
or inversions of the natural order f and in his imitations it may 
be sometimes doubted whether he understood the figures which 
he borrowed.^ Altogether, he is rather the learned versifier 

1 alal Tav KvOipuav, airdikero /caX6s "ASwnj ; so also in the Epitaph ius Bionis: 
&px^Te liKeXiKal tw irivOeos, &px^'''^ Moio-at, and in Theocritus I. 64, &c.: dpxtrt 
jSwKoXtKas, Mwo-at ^tXa:, dpx^T' dotSay. 

2 Hermann, p. 63. 

3 Jacobs says : ' sunt qui Moschum auctorem existiment. Quae opinio ut minime 
absurda est, ita certis firmisque argumentis destituitur.' Tliere is a pretty general 
agreement among critics that, whether Moschus was the author or not, this poem 
cannot be justly ascribed to Theocritus. 

4 For example, IV, 19, ■20: 

ov S^ ff(pip SvvdiJ.r)v aSivbv KoX^ovo-iv ip^^ai 

fi'TjT^p e^v, 
for Kokiovaiv firirip' i-qv: and similarly in vv. 85, 93. 

5 In IV. 58 : 

TO. 5e ol OoKepdirepa ZaKpva p.riXuv 

K6\irov ii Ip-epoiura Kara ^\£(pdpuv ix^ovTO — 
Moschus seems to have imitated the strong metaphor in Theocritus XIV. 38: 
T-flvi^ ra aa SdKpva. p.a\a piovri, without exactly understanding it. 


than the true poet^ and more exactly represents his friend 
Aristarchus than his predecessor Theocritus. 

§ 8, We must not conclude this account of the Alexandrian 
poetry without a few remarks on an inferior species of it, 
belonging, like the bucolic poems which we have just discussed, 
to the old carnival sports and rude burlesques of the Dorian 
rustics.' These efforts of the merry-andrew class were called 
sometimes IXapoTpayiv^iai or ' tragi-comedies/ sometimes 
irapoj^iai or ' travesties/ and sometimes (pXvaKeg TpayiKol or 
' tragic fooleries/ whence the class of writers is termed the 
Phlyacographers {<p\vaKoypa(^oi). The founder of this style of 
writing was Rhinthon of Tarentum, called also a Syracusan, 
who flourished in the reign of the first Ptolemy, and who gave 
the earliest literary expression to the old farces of the Dorians. 
The merit is claimed for him in an epigram of Nossis in rather 
humble terms/ and he does not appear to have set much value 
on his own performances.^ It is pretty clear, from the subjects 
of the plays attributed to him, that he particularly delighted 
in travesties of Euripides. He was succeeded in his own par- 
ticular style by Sopateb, Sciras, and a Campanian named 
Bl^sus, and was well known to the Romans, insomuch that 
Lucilius made him a model for imitation.^ Parodies on Homer 
had been made at an earlier date, and we have a long fragment 
from a poem of this kind by Matron of Pitana/ who was at 
the latest a contemporary of Alexander the Great. As Rhin- 

1 Miiller, Dor. TV. 7, § 7. 
^ Anthol. Pal.Wl. ^1^: 

Kai Kairvphv yeXdcras wapa/jLei^eo Kal (piXov eiTrihv 

pTJ/j.^ eV ifiol. 'Vivdojv 5' el/x' 6 ZvpaKdcrios, 
Movffdcov dXiyr] tis driSovls' dXXd (pXvaKUv 
iK TpayiKUP idioi' Kicrabv e^pexj/ajj-eda. 
8 He seems to have expressed his disregard of metre even in the middle of his 
poems. Tlius Hephsestion says (p. 9, Gaisford) : 'Vlvduiv fxh yap /cat iv idiM^<fi 
iTTLcrrj/JLaaias Tj^lucre rb tolovtov, h yap 'OpicrTy Spd/j.aTi iprjaiv 
ws ak Aidvvcros avrbs i^wXrj Oelrj 
rb /liTpov 'iTnTuivaKTOs' ovS^v /xoi fi^Xei, 
where he seems to have been writing iambic trimeters, and to have allowed a choli- 
ambic to slip in inadvertently. The common reading is eW 'Itttt. rb fx., where eXd' 
is probably a gloss on the ws in the line above. 
* Lydus I. 41. 
^ Athen. IV. pp. 134-137. He is called Matreas in Athen. I. p. 5 A, 


tlion and Matron burlesqued the tragedians and Homer, so 
TiMON of Plilius, a contemporary of Pliiladelplius, in his three 
books of EiAAoi or * mockeries/ ' satirized and ridiculed all the 
schools of philosophy, except that of the Sceptics to which lie 
belonged. This work Avas in hexameter verse, and the second 
and third books were in the form of a dialogue between himself 
and Xenophon of Colophon.'- From the specimens it seems to 
have been a poem of considerable merit, and was made the 
subject of special commentaries by Apollonides of Xicuia, 
Antigouus Carystius, and Sotion of Alcxandna. 

With these ^I'XXot of Timon, Diogenes of Lacrte inmic- 
diately connects KivaiBoi or ' obscene poems,' as having been 
written by this satirist of the philosophers,^ and the same 
degraded class of writings is connected with the *\>\vaKe<;, in an 
article by Suidas^ respecting Sotades and Alexander the ^Eto- 
lian, who were the authors of this lascivious versification. The 
other AATiters mentioned by Suidas are Pyrkuus the ^Milesian, 
Theodorus, or Theodoridas, Timocharidas, and Xenarchus. 
Alexander the ^tolian, as we have already seen, was a respec- 
table grammarian and poet of the Museum at Alexandria, and 
not only undertook the editorship of the tragic writers, but 
obtained a place in the Pleiad by his own tragedies ; and it 
must be hoped, that his contributions to the class of writings 

^ There is a difficulty about the etymology of this word. Some compai-e it with 
aifi6s, and it must be remarked that <Tifj.C{)5bs, from the Dame of the Magnesian poet 
Simus, was a synonym for iXapwoSs, Athen. p. 620, D. ^lian ( V. H. III. 10) 
connects it with 2et\7;i'6s, and adds: rhvhi. (jCKKhv ^poyov Xiyovcri fMcra TratStaj 5v<T- 
apicTTov. Others derive it from i\X6s (see Schoell, Hist, de la Lift. Gr. III. p. 179). 
Something may be said for each of these derivations. With regard to the last opinion, 
as Apollonius of Khodes was the son of SiUeiis or lUeus, we may easily account for 
the moveable s ; and as IWi^w {=diapevu, Suidas) and iwiWl^u occur, especially 
in writers like Apollonius, in the sense of KaTa/xojKaffOai (cf. A rgonaut. I. 486, and 
especially III. 791, where iiriWl^ovaiv is followed hy p.wix-f](jovraL), it docs not seem 
at all unlikely that aiWos and its verb aiWaivu {=Sia(Tvp€w or /lUKaaOai, Hesych.) 
really involve the same root. This at least is quite in accordance with the descrip- 
tion given of Timon's book, Diog. Laert. IX. in: iv oh {(xiWois), lij Slv ckc- 
TTTiKbs &P, iravras XoiSopel Kai (riWaivei tovs SoyfiariKoiis iv ira/j^S/as doei. 

2 Diog. Laert. IX. in. The first book was avToSi^yrjroi, or iJ.ovoirp6<runros, 
and began : iairere vvv fioi 8<roi irokvirpdynove^ iari aocpLaral. 

3 Hid. no: Koi yap iroirifxaTa ffvviypa\p€ Kal ^ttt), Kal rpayijidias Kal (rarvpoii 
Kal Zpap-ara kw/xiko. rpiaKOvra, rpayiKO. 5^ i^TjKOVTa, ffiWovi re Kai KivalSov^. 

4 s.Y.'Z.wrdSrjs; cf. Athen. XIV. p. 620, from whom Suidas gets this infor- 
mation, and Strabo, XIV. p. 648. 


under consideration approximated rather to the ^XvaKig of 
E-hinthon than to the Kivai^oi of Sotades. This latter, who 
was a Cretan from Maronea, carried the extravagances of his 
indecency so far that Suidas called him ' possessed of an evil 
spirit^ {^ai/iiovKyOeic:); and he has the main discredit of the 
cinsedological poetry, which is called after him the 'E,(x)TdSeia 
a(T/iiaTa. The subjects of his poems are chiefly mythical/ and 
they were probably travesties like those of Rhinthon, only com- 
bined with unrestrained obscenity, and applied to purposes of 
personal satire and defamation. He had the audacity to attack 
both Lysimachus and Ptolemy Philadelphus ; and having pro- 
voked the anger of the latter by a gross allusion to his marriage 
with his sister Arsinoe, he was obliged to abscond from Alexan- 
dria, after having sustained a grievous imprisonment there, and 
being overtaken at Caunus by Patroclus, one of Ptolemy's 
generals, was inclosed in a leaden case and flung into the sea.^ 
He wrote both in the Ionic dialect and in the so-called Ionic 
a majore metre, which bore the same relation to the choriambic 
that the Ionic a minore did to the anapsestic.^ The general 
tone, in spite of the indecency, was borrowed from the common- 
places of morality, and Sotades had many imitators, including 
the Roman poets Ennius and Accius ; but his name became a 
by-word of reproach, and in the same way as the intolerant 
churchmen of the middle ages combined an imputation of un- 
natural lust with the charge of heresy so frequently alleged, 
the opponents of Arius thought themselves bound to accuse 

1 The titles given are 'ASuyis, 'A/x.d^o)v, eli "Aidov Kard^acns, els 'Be\e(rrlxriv, 
'IX/as, n/)i'7?7ros. 

3 Athen. XIV. pp. 620 F— 621 B. 

^ The Ionic a majore was really a dactyl with an anacrusis, and the rhythm of 
the tetrameter brachycatalectic line used by Sotades was generally choriambic : for 

might be divided as : 

which is quite in the choriambic cadence. The following are specimens (Stob. 

Flor. XCVI.) : 

avTosyap iCcv vavToyiprjs 6 iravra yevvQp 
oil Kpivd diKaiws to. /car' dvOpiowov 'iKacTOV. 


him of imitating the style of the Sotadean poems.' The life 
of Sotades was written, and his works commented on, by his 
son Apollonius, and by Carystius of Pergamus. 

* Select Treatises of Athanasius, translated by J. H. Newman, Oxford, 1847: 
p. 94 : ' he drew up his heresy on paper, and imitating, as if in festivity (ws ^v 6a\l(f), 
no grave wiiter, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone of his metre, &c.' ; 
and p. 179 : 'and for Moses and the other saints, they have made the discovery of 
one Sotades, a man whom even Gentiles laugh at.' See Newman's note on the 
former passage. 




§ I. Classification of the prose writers of Alexandria: Demetrius the Phalerian. 
§ 2. (a) Grammarians and critics : Zenodotus of Ephesus, Aristophanes of By- 
zantium, and Aristarchus of Samothrace. § 3. The recension of Homer. § 4. 
(b) Historians and chronologists. § 5. Translations of Egyptian, Chaldean, and 
Hebrew annals. § 6. (c) Pure and applied mathematics : Euclid, Archimedes, 
Apollonius of Perga, Eratosthenes, and Hii^parchus. 

§ I. ri^HE multifarious studies and avocations of the book- 
JL learned men of Alexandria render it almost as difficult 
to classify the prose writers as it has been to arrange the poets, 
whose productions have characterized this epoch of Greek 
literatm-e. Very many of the most eminent poets were also 
prose writers, and not only so, but they exhibited their versa- 
tility by writing on almost every subject of literary interest. 
Callimachus, as we have seen, composed numerous books on 
criticism and history, which are now lost, and Eratosthenes, 
who must be, in some sense, the hero of our present chapter, 
not only composed original and important works on geography, 
chronology, literary criticism, mathematics, and philosophy,* 
but was also the author of a poem called Hermes, which was 
probably an exposition of astronomy, like that of Aratus," and 
a mythological poem called Erigone, which Longinus pro- 
nounces faultless.'' This being the case, it is obvious that a 
mere arrangement of the principal prose writers, whether they 

1 The following enumeration of the works of Eratosthenes has been drawn up by 
Bernhardy {Eratosthenes, p. XVI.): ' (i) Geographica; (2) Mercurius, Poema ; 
(3) Libride Mathematicd disciplind; {^) Ciibi duxjlicatio ; (5) Opera philosophica ; 
(6) De antiqud comosdid; (7) De chronographiis.' He omits the Erigone, the 
epistles, the Arsinoe, and the treatise ' on good and bad things.' 

^ The commentary on Aratus, which is attributed to him, is a later work ; see 
Bernhardy, Eratosthenes, pp. 117, 185. 

^ De Subl. XXXIII, 5 : 'EoaTOff^^cTjs ev rrj 'Tlpiy6vrj (Sia iravTui' yap dp(Iifj.7]Tov 
rb TTOirj/juiTiov). 


were also poets or not, according to their chronological succes- 
sion, would not correspond to a methodical classification of the 
subjects on which they wrote. It seems best, therefore, that 
we should endeavour to ascertain the departments which were 
chiefly studied by the scholars of the Museum, and the order 
or succession in which these studies were developed, uiid that 
we should then treat of the authors individually according to 
the branch of study in which they obtained the greatest repu- 
tation. An able writer on this subject' has divided the per- 
formances of the Alexandrian writers according to three epociis. 
In the first and earliest of these periods, he finds a prepon- 
derating number of poets, and an active criticism of tiic ancient 
writers. In the second, which he regards as the ripe maidiood 
of the Alexandrian school, he recognizes a development of the 
severer sciences, not unconnected with their application to prac- 
tical matters. And in the third, which he considers the period 
of decline, he places the speculations of the Eclectics and Nco- 
Platonists. This subdivision is generally true. Accordingly, 
reserving for a future chapter the consideration of the last of 
these three epochs, we must inquire what is the proper and 
methodical arrangement of the authors who have rendered the 
two former pei'iods illustrious ; and having already discussed 
the poets who preponderate in the first of them, we shall find 
that the progress of development was from grammar and criti- 
cism, the firstfruits of book learning, to the more elaborate and 
learned treatment of history and chronologv^ and from the 
ancillary questions of space and time, of distances and dates, 
involved in such an examination of ancient annals, to observa- 
tions and speculations in pure and mixed mathematics, perhaps 
not altogether unconnected with researches in the ancient lite- 
rature and learning of Egypt. The eminent Athenian, to 
whose arrival at Athens the literary tendencies of the active 
and warlike Ptolemy Soter are generally attributed, was likely, 
from the nature of his previous avocations, to give precisely tiiis 
direction to the studies of the Egyptian Greeks. Dkmi-tiuis 
the Phalerian, the disciple of Theophrastus and the friend and 

1 Parthey, Das Alexandrinkchc Museum, pp. ii'^ sqq. 

2 See below, chapter LIIT. 

X 2 


fellow-pupil of Menander, had governed Athens as the head of 
the Macedonian party, from 01. 115, 4. b.c. 317, to 01. ii8_, 2. 
B.C. 307, when his power was overthrown, and he took refuge at 
the court of Ptolemy Soter, over whom he acquired great influ- 
ence, insomuch that he engaged the king in that formal patro- 
nage of literature with which we are now concerned, and was even 
indulged with the favourite occupation of a philosopher, the forma- 
tion or revision of a code of laws.' Having given advice unfavour- 
able to the pretensions of Philadelphus, he was banished to Upper 
Egypt Avhen that monarch came to the throne, and died in exile 
(from the bite of an asp) some little time after b.c. 283." 
During the long period which Demetrius thus spent at Alexan- 
dria,^ he was occupied in the composition of works belonging 
to the class which we regard as specially characteristic of the 
first period of Alexandrian prose literature. We are told that he 
wrote on history and politics, on the poets, and on rhetoric, 
publishing also some of his own speeches ; and that besides this 
he prepared collections of vEsop's fables.^ He made, therefore, 
a first beginning of the grammatical and critical literature of 
his adopted country. As he had distinguished himself, while 
still in power at Athens, by a re\dval of the taste for epic 
poetry, and by a restoration of the old rhapsodical recitations of 
Homer,' it is not improbable that he stimulated the labours 
which bore so much fruit in the hands of Zenodotus and Aris- 
tarchus. As an Athenian, who never forgot his native land,^ 
it may be supposed that he took a special interest in the old 
history of the country which sent forth the legendary Cecrops, 
and which the conquerors of Xerxes had endeavoured to make 
an appendage of Attica." And it is not at all improbable that 

1 ^lian, r. E. III. 7. 

^ Diog. Laert. V. 78 : i/ir' daTrldos ttjv x^^P"- STjxOeis. 

3 Cic. Bejin. V. 19, § 54. 

* Diog. Laert. V. 80, gives a long list of his writings, iSv, lie says, iari to. /j^v 
icTTopiKa, TO. 5i TToXtTi/cd, TO, Si TTcpl TTOtTjTQv, TO, di pTjTopLKa, dr]fjii]yopi,Qi> re Kal 
Trpea^eiwi', dXXd ij.7]v Kal \6y(i:v AlffWTreiwv crvvayuyal Kal dXXa TrXe/w. 

^ Athen. XIV. p. 620. Eustath. ad II, p. 1479. 

^ Plut. De Exili-K., p. 601, F. : oSros fihyap iv ' AXe^avSpeia, fj.era ttiv <j)vyqv, irpioTOi 
&V Tov IlToXefiaiod (pVKoiv, ov fiovov aiirbs iv d<p66vois diyjyev, dXXa Kal to7s ' A67}valoii 
5wpeds ?ir€p.Tre. 

" Thucyd. I. 104, 109. 


he may have given the first suggestion for those translations of 
the hieroglyphic annals of Egypt which are connected with the 
names of Maiietho and Eratosthenes. A similar impulse of 
curiosity may have led him to wish for a version of the myste- 
rious books of the Jews, and an old and consistent tradition 
carries back the commencement of the Scptuagint translation 
of the Old Testament to the period when the advice of Deme- 
trius was still respected in the Museum, which he did so nmch 
to found.^ The school of Alexandria followed the impulse thus 
given to it. From grammar and criticism, which dealt with 
words and with books, it passed to history, which treated of 
events ; and from Greek history, it passed, in a scholar-like 
spirit unknown to the earlier Greeks, to researches in the old 
Egyptian and Hebrew annals, to which the peculiar position of 
Alexandria directed the attention of the learned men of tlie 
Museum. And the peculiar genius of a few eminent mathema- 
ticians found a ready transition from these subjects to the 
further prosecution of those geometrical studies for which the 
ancient Egyptians had always been remarkable. We can 
hardly adopt a more methodical arrangement of the prose 
writers of Alexandria than that which is thus suggested by the 
predominant influence of such a man of letters as Demetrius 
the Phalerian. 

§ 2. The earliest grammarians and critics of the ^Museum 
were, as we have seen^ Alexander of .Etolia, Lycophron ot 
Chaleis, and Zenodotus of Ephesus ; and while we are told by 
the scholiast on Plautus that the two former especially under- 
took the recension of the tragic and comic poets respectively, 
the great epos of Homer and the other illustriotis poets 
were assigned to Zenodotus. We have already mentioned 
Alexander and Lycophron among the poets of Alexandria, 
and we know little or nothing of their prose writings. But 
Zenodotus, who wrote little or no poetry himself, deserves a 
special notice here, as the leader of the professed critics e.f 

the Museum. 

The ancient lexicographers and scholiasts mention three, or, 
as some think, four critical scholars of the name of Zenodotus 

1 Valckenaer, Diatribe dc Aristohulo, cc. XVI. sq<i. p. 47 ^^VV 


— tlie Epliesian/ the Alexaudrine,- the native of Mallus/ the 
disciple of Crates/ ¥. A. Wolf * identifies the last three with 
one another^ conceiving that the disciple of Crates of Mallus 
was of the same place as his teacher, but w as called the Alexan- 
drian from his settlement in Egypt. Be this as it may, it is 
clear that the Alexandrian Zenodotus wrote in opposition to the 
Homeric criticisms of Aristarchus/ to whom Crates of Mallus 
was especially opposed ; and it is not absolutely impossible that 
the name of the great Zenodotus, the first editor of Homer, 
may have been assumed as a nom de guerre by any man of 
Alexandria or Mallus, who wished to impugn the subsequent 
editorship of Aristarchus. We have seen that the Ephesian 
Zenodotus w^as the colleague of Philetas, as the tutor of Phila- 
delphus, and as the editor of Homer. Some have made him 
the pupil of Philetas, and the preceptor of the children of 
Philadelphus, It is not impossible that he may have taught 
both the father and his sons, and it is clear that he floiirished 
in the reign of the second Ptolemy as well as under the son of 
Lagus. Although Suidas calls Zenodotus an epic poet [airo- 
ttoioq), and though the Anthology contains three epigrams 
attributed to him,' which may, however, be the work of another 
and later writer of the same name, it seems pretty clear that 
Zenodotus did not, like Callimachus, indulge in poetical compo- 
sition, but that he devoted himself heartily and unreservedly to 
the business of a grammarian and critic. Besides the EpitonKS^ 
and historical memoirs^ quoted by Athenseus, which may have 
been the works of the Alexandrian Zenodotus,'" and the collec- 

Suidas: ZrjvdSoTos, '^(picios, iwoiroibs Kal ypa/ifMaTiKSs, /j.adr)TT]s rod ^LXrjrd, 
irrl JlroXefialov yeyovciis rod Trpwrov, 6s Kal TrpQnos tQp 'O/J-rjpov Siopdurr^s eyivero, 
Kal tQu iv 'AXe^avdpeig, ^i^\iodriKQiv wpoiiaTri Kal tovs valdas TlToXe/j,aLov 

^ Id. : Zr]i>6SoTos 'AXe^avdpevs, ypa/jL/jLaTiKds, 6 iv dffrei KXrjOeis. 

3 Theon, ad Arai. Phcenom. 33: Zt/jvoBotos 6 MaXXwTTjs. 

■* Schol. ad. II. XXIII. 79 : Ztjvoootos 6 KparrjTeLos. 

* Prolegom. Horn. p. CXCIX. 

^ Suid. : TTpbs TO, vtt' 'Apiarapxcv dOeTOv/xeva rod ttoitjtov. 

'■ Stob«us (Senti. 2, 61) gives a few iambic lines attributed to Zenodotus. 

^ Athen. X. p. 412, A. 

" Id. III. p. 96, A : iu iaropiKois viro/jLvrj/jLaffi. 

1" This is the opinion of Kfinesius and other scholars. 


tions of unusual words (yXwcrcrat)/ and foreign phra^L's [Xi^ng 
eOviKci'i),- which undoubtedly belonged to the E[)hcsian critic, 
the first librarian of the Museum published an elaborate edition 
of all the chief poets, the tragic and comic Avritcrs only 
excepted. Among these we hear of a recension of Pindai-^ and 
Anacreon/ and a collection of the poets of the Epic Cycle.' 
But his greatest work, and that on which his reputation mainly 
rests, was his edition (Ik^octii;) or revision {^i6f}0o}CTic) of the 
text of Homer. Ilis main object seems to have been the com- 
parison of the different manuscripts brought together in the 
library at Alexandria, and the establishment of a consistent text, 
by expunging or obelizing the doubtl'ul verses, by transposing 
the lines, or by introducing verbal alterations, in accordance 
W'ith certain principles wliich he had laid down for himself.'^ 
The scholia mention about 400 readings due to Zenodotus, 200 
introduced by Aristophanes, and 1000 corrections of Aristarchus. 
It does not appear that Zenodotus Avrote any commentary on 
Homer, but the lexical works referred to above may have been 
connected with his Homeric studies, and he is supposed to have 
been the author of the calculation of the days of the Iliad, 
which is found in the Ilian table, and was prefixed to his 
edition of Homer.'' 

The path opened by Zenodotus was pursued in a more com- 
prehensive spirit of philology by his pupil Aristophanes, 
the son of Apelles of Byzantium, who succeeded Erato- 
sthenes and Apollonius in the management of the Alex- 
andrian library, and flourished about b.c. 2C0. There was 
hardly any department in the labours of Zenodotus, in whicli 
he was not followed by Aristophanes, -who was, like his 
master, an editor of Homer and the other great poets,^ and, 

^ Schol. Ax)ollon. Rliod. II. 1005. 

^ Galen, Gloss. Hippocr. s.vv. iri^ai, iriWa. 

^ Bockh, Prwf. ad Schol. Pind. p. IX. sqq. 

^ Bergk, Anacreont. Carm. Belliquice, p. 25. 

5 Heffter, Be Zenodoto ejusque studiis Homericis. Brandenburg, 1839. 

^ See Clinton, F. II. III. pp. 491 sqq. 

'' Duntzer, De Zenodoti Studils Homericis. Gottingen, 1848, pp. 194 se.jq. 

8 He was especially an editor of Pindar. Thomas Magister says in his life of 
Pindar (p. XLV. Donalds.): bU iirLvlKLOs ov rj dpxv, "ApiffTov nii> v5up,' rpo- 
TiraKTai vwb ' Api<TTO<pdi'ovs rod crvvrd^avTOS to. llivdapiKa. 


like hina, compiled collections of unusual or foreign words 
{yXCoaaai, Xt^ng),^ and wrote memoirs or commentaries {vtto- 
fxvi)ixaTa). But Aristophanes took a wider range in his studies. 
He was a philologer in the largest sense of the term, and may 
be regarded as the great Masoret of Greek literature ; for he 
invented the system of accentuation, which, for so many years, 
preserved the original pronunciation of the language f he intro- 
duced punctuation, and the divisions of words in the lines f and 
by his various writings prepared the groundwork for our revival 
of scholarship in modern times. He not only endeavoured, by 
the aid of the manuscripts, to establish a good text of the best 
writers, but also criticized them with regard to their subject- 
matter, and their taste and judgment in handling it. Nor did 
he, like Zenodotus, confine his attention to the poets. He 
edited Plato^ and Aristotle, and wrote an abridgment of the 
work by the latter ' on the nature of animals.^ JNIany of the 
arguments of the ancient dramas are due to him, and he is con- 
stantly quoted in the scholia. His independent works were a 
commentary on the tables of Callimachus,'^ an elaborate trea- 
tise, in several books, on the courtesans of Athens,'' and some 
historical monographs, especially on Thebes or Boeotia.' To 
Aristophanes belongs the honour of having first founded a school 
of grammar ; he counted among his pupils the far-famed Aris- 
tarchus, Agallias of Corcyra, Diodorus, and Callistratus ; and 
it was from this school that the canon of Greek writers ema- 
nated ; so that Aristophanes and Aristarchus nearly succeeded 
in doing for Greek literature what the scribes of the Great 
Congregation effected for the sacred books of the Jews.^ 

* A portion of his X^fets is still extant, and is printed in Boissonade's edition of 
Herodian's Partitiones. 

^ See Foster's Essay on Accent and Quantity, p. i8i sqq. 

^ Id. ibid. p. 1 86, sqq., ' Before his time the words were written, uno ac jwr- 
petuo ductu, the letters of the same and of diflferent words at exactly the same 
distance, without any mark of a pause to distinguish either sentences, or members 
of sentences, or words from one another.' 

* He arranged the dialogues of Plato in Trilogies, Diog. Laert. III. 6i. 
5 Athen. IX. p. 408. 

•" Ibid. XIII. pp. 567, 583. He enumerated no less than 535 of them. 
'' Suid. s.v. ofjLoXuil'os Zei^j. Plut. JJe Malign. Herodoti 31. 33, Steph. Byz. s.v. 

® Cicero {De Oratvfe, III. 33, g 132) mentions Aristophanes and Callimachus 


The complete establishmcut of the Alexandrian school of 
grammar and criticism is attributable to Aristakchus of 
Samothrace. Having succeeded his teacher Aristophanes both 
in his lecture-room and at the library, he was intrusted by the 
sixth Ptolemy, Philometor, with the education of his son, and 
also had Ptolemy Physcon for his pupil.' The period of his 
greatest eminence was about b.c. 156. In the decline of his 
life he was so dissatisfied with the treatment which he received 
from Physcon (who commenced his sole and undisputed reign in 
B.c 146,) that he retired to Cyprus, where he died at the age of 
seventy-two, having, it is said, starved himself to death because 
he was labouring under incurable dropsy.- He left two sons, 
Aristagoras and Aristarchus, who were also grammarians, but he 
was succeeded in his school by Ammonius.'* He counted no less 
than forty scholars, and his school flourished for a long time at 
Alexandria, and afterwards at Rome. There can be no doubt 
that Aristarchus deserves the reputation which he enjoys as the 
greatest critic of ancient times. He carried to the highest 
point of perfection and refinement the traditions which he 
derived from Zenodotus and Aristophanes, and occupied himself 
mainly with the objects which they had pursued — the correc- 
tion and elucidation of the texts of the ancient authors in 
general, of the poets in particular, and above all of Houut. 
Suidas says that he wrote no less than eight hundred memoiis 

among the most eminent men in different branches of literature and science ; Pliny 
{H. iV. V. 5) calls the former ' celeberrimus in arte grammatica ;' and Mr. Foster, 
who has elaborately vindicated his reputation, says (Essay on Accent and QuaiUity, 
p. 191): ' On the whole, in regard to this man's real character and merit, I cannot 
help repeating what has been said above, and declaring even more, that posterity 
hath been more truly and essentially benefited by the ingenuity of this learned 
Greek, than by the writings of any one profane author of antiquity.' He refers 
particularly to the invention of punctuation, of which he had said (p. 187) that ' he 
should not scruple to prefer the muit of it to that of the best critical or gnmiina- 
tical treatise that was ever written, not excepting Aristotle's and Quinctilian's 
great rhetorical works.' 

1 Athen. II. p. 71, B. 

2 Suidas, s.n.: reXevrq. 5e iv KiV/Xf) iavrbv inre^ayaywv tvSfiq. Tpo<p^s i'6<rii) rj 
vdpcoTri \r;(p6eis. 

3 Suidas informs us respecting the sons of Aristarchus: Sfi(pw Si ifivovro 
fVTjdeLS w(TT€ Kai iwpddt) 6 • ApiffTapxos- ' Aerivawi 6e i\06in-a wap' aiToU (^uHf 


or commentaries {yTrofxvnjj.nTa),^ but unfortunately all his works 
are lost, and we are left to form a judgment of his wonderful 
acuteness and accuracy from the fragmentary extracts scattered 
through the pages of Eustathius and the scholiasts on Homer. 
His great object^ like that of our modern critics of the Por- 
sonian school, was to reduce everything to fixed principles and 
definite rules, and this led him to mark with the obelos a great 
number of passages in Homer which did not square with his 
Procrustean criterion of genuineness.^ Against these rude 
remedies of fire and steel there was much reclamation among 
his contemporaries^ and the younger Zenodotus, Callistratus, 
and others^ wrote against his principles of rejection. On more 
general grounds, he was involved in more than one controversy 
with Crates of Mallus, the head of the school and library of 
Pergamus. Crates wished to favour the allegorical interpre- 
tation of Homer, which was for a long time fashionable,^ and 
which has revived in modern times; but Aristarchus insisted 
on a literal understanding of the narratives in the epic poem. 
And the strict principles of uniformity in usage and construc- 
tion, which were maintained by Aristarchus in his treatise 'on 
analogy ' [irEpl avaXoyiag), were directly combated by Crates in 
an essay 'on irregularity' [wepi ai'(i)/.in\iag).* We may infer 
the love of form and order, which was so characteristic of 
Aristarchus/ from the fact that he was at the pains to arrange 
the two great Homeric poems in exactly twenty-four books 
each, in accordance with the number of letters in the com- 
plete or later Greek alphabet, a process which must have 
been quite arbitrary, and must have increased his predilection 
for limitations and exclusions. The same process must have 

^ \eyerai S^ ypdipai. virep u> ^i^Xla vwop.v7ffxa.Tuiv fidvov. See the list of his 
writings in Clinton, F. H. III. p. 530, note f. 

2 See Lehrs, De Aristarchi Studiis Homer ids, Konigsberg, 1833. 

^ On the theories and works of Crates, see Wolf, Proleg. p. CCLXXVI. 
Clinton, F. H. III. p. 528, note e. 

^ A. Gellius, Nodes Atticce, II. 25: 'duo autem Grceci granimatici illustres 
Aristarchus et Crates summa ope, ille avoKoyLav, hie dvufxaXiav defensitavit. ' 

^ This love of order and symmetry was not exhibited in his person, for Aris- 
tarchus was a notorious sloven. Athen. I. p. 21, C: KaWiarpaTos 6' ApKTTOcpd- 
veios ' Apiffrapxov iv avyypdp.p.aTL /ca/cws eiprjKe iirl T<p p-T) fvpvdpus dp.irix^'^^'>'h 
(pepovTos Ti Kal Tov ToiovTOV TTpbs TraiSeias e^iraffiv. 


been adopted in his dealing with tLe canon of Greek writers in 
general. It seems that this canon or rule for the exclusion of 
all unworthy writers from the list of first-rate or classical 
writers, was first conceived by Callimachus. It was comi)lctcd 
by Aristophanes of Byzantium, and the list was most rigorously 
revised by Aristarchus, who struck out of the canon at least all 
writers of his own time. It is not possible to restore the list 
which met with the approbation of Aristarchus. Dilicrcnt 
authorities give us difl'erent enumerations of the canonical 
writers, amounting in all to 109 names, and it is clear that 
many of these must have been omitted by the fastidious head 
of the Alexandrian school. The numerous grammarians of 
Alexandria, who followed Aristarchus, were less particular. 
Indeed, they seem to have preferred commenting on poets 
who were almost their contemporaries, and there can be little 
doubt that the canon ultimately contained every Greek writer 
Avho succeeded in obtaining any reputation or popularity.' 

Aristarchus was regarded by his immediate successors as the 
leader of grammarians (o Kopvcpcuog tCov y^aid/.iaTiKiov), the 
arch-grammarian of Greece (/> ypajnimaTiKMTaToq), and Panretius 
considered that his wonderfid sagacity amounted to a kind of 
inspired divination." He stands far above the numerous tribe 
which followed in his steps — the scholiasts, writers on points 
of syntax, etymology, metres, and music, the lexicographers, 
and the laborious collectors of peculiarities of dialects, 
whose numerous works are still extant, whereas we know 
Aristarchus only by the reflex of an universal reputation. 

§ 3. The chief employment of Zenodotus, Aristophanes, 
and Aristarchus, and that which was common to all three of 
these early scholars, was the revision and settlement of the 
text of Homer. And as the form, in which these only re- 
maining specimens of the epic cycle have come down to us, is 
mainly that which was finally established by i\j'istarchus, the 
subject deserves a special notice in a history of Greek lite- 

^ Vide Ruhnkeii, Hist. Or. p. XCIV., Parthey, Dan Alccaudriiiischc Museum, 
pp. 125—128. 

" Athen. XIV. p. 634 C: 'Apicrapxos 6 ypa/xfiariKdi, 6v fj.dvTiv (KaXei IIoca^ 
Tios 6 'P65i.os <pLKb(jo<pos dia rb p(}5lws Kara/xavrfveaOai ttJs tQ'v woirjTwv diavolas. 


The scholiast on Plautus, to "whom we have more than once 
referred^ tells us that the first collection of the previously scat- 
tered poems of Homer was made in the time of Pisistratus by 
Conchylus and Onomacritus of Athens, Zopyrus of Heraclea, 
and Orpheus of Croton, and that the work which they began 
was finally completed by Aristarchus.^ By the side of this 
statement respecting Pisistratus and his edition of Homer, we 
have the regulation of his contemporary Solon, that the 
rhapsodes who recited the Homeric poems at the Pauatheneea 
should do so according to the regular succession of the 
subjects," and should be kept to the authorized text by a 
prompter appointed for that purpose. These traditions taken 
together show that at a very early period the same step had 
been taken with regard to the Homeric poems in particular, as 
was adopted with regard to all the epic poems of the Greeks 
when they were formed into the epic cycle, which was an 
arrangement of the poems according to the succession of the 
events recorded iu them. How far we are to agree with the 
y^uyp'itovTig or separators, who referred the Iliad and Odyssey 
to different authors, how far these poems, as they were arranged 
in the time of Solon and Pisistratus, corresponded to the text 
which we have received fi'om Aristarchus, how far the 
^ia(XK£va(TTai or interpolators began their work in the days of 
Orpheus and Onomacritus, how far the ' Wrath of Achilles ' and 
the ' Iliad,^ properly so called,^ were melted down into one whole 
before the Athenian recension, are questions which we cannot 
expect to settle with the data now accessible to us. Thus much, 
however, may be concluded with tolerable certainty. Aristar- 
chus, with his love of uniformity, and with that pedantic 

1 Ritschl, Alexandr. Bihl. p. 4 : 'Pisistratus sparsam prius Homeri poesim ante 
Ptolem^um Philadelphum annis CC. et eo etiam amplius sollerti cura in ea quae 
nunc extant redegit volumina, usus ad hoc opus divinum industria quattuor cele- 
berrimorum et eruditissimorum hominum, videlicet, Conchyli, Onoraacriti, Atheni- 
ensiuni, Zopyri Heracleotse, et Orphei Crotoniatse. Nam carptim piius Homerus 
et nonnisi difScillime, legebatur. Quinetiam post Pisistrati curam et Ptolemsei {i.e. 
Philadelphus, who employed Zenodotus) diligentiam Aristarchus adhuc exactius 
in Homeri elimandam coUectionem vigilavit.' 

^ Diog. Laert. XXI. 57, quoting Dieuchidas ; Welcker, Ep. Cycl. p 378. 

^ See Midler, above, chapter V. §§ 5, 6. C4rote, History of Greece, II. pp. 
236, foil. 


accuracy which led him to insert the accents throu>j;liout the 
poems of Homer, did not allow any incongruities either of lan- 
guage, style, or subject, so far as he could discover them. He 
therefore reduced the two poems to one dialect, and as he ar- 
ranged them in a number of books exactly corresponding to 
the letters of the Greek alphabet in his own time, he must 
have dealt with the subdivisions in a somewhat arbitrary 
manner. Perhaps it was he who first insertctl some of tlie 
episodes in order to make up the number of books which his 
fondness for symmetry suggested to him as the most appropriate. 
Originally the separate rhapsodies were arranged merely in 
accordance with their subjects — thus, what arc now the fifth 
and sixth books of the Iliad were originally called ' the prowess 
or paramount excellence of Diomed ;' the second book was 
divided into two rhapsodies, ' the dream,' and ' the catalogue j' 
and the ninth was called ' the supplications.' Crates of 
Mallus, the opponent of Aristarchus, adopted an arbitrary divi- 
sion of the Iliad and Odyssey, suggested by that of Herodotus, 
according to the number of the nine muses, for he arranged 
each poem in nine books.' In taking the greater numljcr of 
books of unequal length, Aristarchus must have wished to in- 
corporate all that was contained in the different editions of 
Homer, as they appeared in the Alexandrian library. Of these 
editions there were two classes, the public texts, as they were 
received in the different cities, which had from an early period 
encouraged the recitation of Homer's poems (ot iroXiTiKai, Kara 
TToXuq, eK TToXeojv)'' and the editions revised by certaui eminent 
individuals {al kht' av^pa). Of the former, the best known 
were the Massilian, Chian, Argive, Cyprian, Sinopic, Cretan, 
and yEolic, the most highly esteemed being the ]Massilian, 
which Avas imported at a very early period from Phociea to the 
south of Gaid, and the Chian, which claimed a transmission from 
an original school of the Homerida. Of the individual texts, tlie 
best known was the recension by Antimachus of Colophon, who 
flourished at the same time as Plato,^ that which the great 

1 Suidas s.v. Kpdrris: aw^Ta^e SiSpduKXtv 'IXlaSoi Kai '05v<r<nlat iv ^i^Moit 0'. 
3 Wolf, Proleg. p. CLXXV. ; Villoison, Pro!, ad Sc/iol. Vcnet. p. 26: Muro, 
Hist, of Lit. of Or. I. p. 190. 
* Above, ch. XXX. § 5. 


Aristotle prepared for the use of Alexander/ the edition of the 
Odyssey by Aratus/ and that of both poems by Rhianus/ a con- 
temporary of Eratosthenes. All these copies must have been 
accessible to Aristarchus, and there is no reason to think that 
he either introduced his OAvn conjectural emendations into the 
text, or that he omitted any passage which he regarded as 
ungenuine. Thus, though he agreed with Aristophanes in 
considering that the Odyssey properly terminated at 1. 296 of 
book XXIII. / he did not hesitate to publish all the twenty-four 
books as they now are, and though his aOin^aH^ or dis- 
allowances of passages were of constant occurrence, he did not 
expunge any of the lines to which he objected. He contro- 
verted the doctrine of the •y^oypitovrcg or separators, who, 
originating it seems with Xenon, and supported by Hellanicus 
of the school of Zenodotus, wished to assign the Iliad and 
Odyssey to two diflferent poets.' In general we may conclude 
that Aristarchus claimed for Homer all that had been attri- 
buted to him on any competent authority, and though his love 
of regularity induced him to impose upon the language and 
metres of Homer a modernized uniformity of orthography and 
dialect, beneath which we have to seek for the language of the 
old poems as they were recited by the rhapsodists before the 
invention or common use of writing/ and though he ar- 
ranged his collection in an arbitrary and fanciful number of 
books, we are indebted to his critical sagacity and literary 
honesty for a teictus receptus of these oldest relics of Greek 
poetry, which has preserved and transmitted to us a record of 
the concurrent traditions respecting the Homeric rhapsodies, so 
far as they were known at Alexandria in the second century 
before our era. 

§ 4. It was not likely that a literary community, such as that 
which flourished under royal patronage at Alexandria, would 

1 Above, ch. XL. § I. '' Wolf, Prol. p. CLXXXVI. 

3 Id. p. CLXXXVII. * Schol. Buttraann. ad loc. 

5 Mure, I. p. 192, II. pp. 119, foil. 

6 For example, he writes fe'ws for the old §.Fos, where the metre requires a 
trochee, though the existence of ds in Pindar and Aristophanes, and the analogy 
of \as, \io3S and Xaos, viu}% and vab<s, might have induced him to leave the old 
word: see New Cratyliis, % ^^ ; Varronianus, p. 288, where this was first 


undertake the composition of histories like those of the classical 
period. Neither the state of public affairs nor the opportu- 
nities enjoyed by these scholars would have enabled them to 
write original histories like that of Philochorus, to say nothing 
of the greater works of Herodotus, Thucydidcs, and Pliilistns. 
The only writers of this class belonging to the Ptolemaic period 
were some of the kings themselves. Ptole:my Sotkr, in par- 
ticular, Avrotc a history of the wars of Alexander the Great, in 
which he took an active and distinguished part; and Arrian, 
to whom we are indebted for our best account of the battles, in 
which the jNIacedonian conqueror overthrew the power of the Per- 
sian Empire, often speaks in high terms of the information which 
he derived from the memoirs of Ptolemy. He mentions them, 
along with those of Aristobulus, as the most trustworthy autho- 
rities for the events which he recorded, and it is almost certain 
that the military details in Arrian, which have quite the air of a 
contemporary description. Mere derived directly from the soldier- 
like narratives of Ptolemy in particular. It is clear, from 
some passages, that Ptolemy was as careful to abstain from 
claiming a share in exploits in which he had no share, as he 
was in narrating the facts which fell under his own cognizance.' 
There were other historians of Alexander the Great, who 
flourished in the time of the earlier Ptolemies, but were not, as 
far as we can learn, connected with the Alexandrian school of 
literature. Such were Anticleides of Athens, whose books 
on Alexander and other historical subjects are often cited ; 
Anaximenes the rhetorician of Lampsaeus, who wrote Philip- 
pica, or the history of Philip and his son; Callisthexes, the 
nephew of Aristotle, who published a history of Alexander and 
other memoirs; Nearchus the admiral, and his pilot Onesi- 
CRiTus of ^gina, Hieronymus of Cardia, Chares of Mytilcne, 
Cleitarchus of ^olia, Duris of Samos, and Ny.mphis of 
Heraclea, all of whom composed histories of the whole or part 
of Alexander's expeditions, and some of whom wrote about his 
successors." Their works are lost, and we can only say that 

^ See for example Arrian, Anab. VI. ii, §§7, 8. 

2 See a list of these writers in Sclioell's Histoirc de la Litterature Orcqiic profane, 
III. pp. 199, seqq. The fragments have been collected by C. Miiller, .is a sup- 
plement to Diibner's edition of Arrian, Paris, 1846. 


they belonged, more or less, to tlie same class with the writings 
of Ptolemy Soter and Aristobulus of Cassandria, though they 
do not seem to have possessed the same value and authenticity. 
The majority of the Alexandrian writers on history were 
book-learned compilers from the written materials to which 
they had such ready access. They belonged to precisely the 
same class as the Atthidists, whom we have discussed in a 
previous chapter, and one of these, the Callimachean Ister, 
was an Alexandrian grammarian. The Alexandrian compilers, 
however, did not confine themselves to Attic history, or even, 
as a general rule, make this the basis of their investigations. 
On the contrary, as we have already seen, some of the most 
eminent of them wrote on the antiquities of the Greek towns 
in Libya, and others discussed questions relating to Boeotia 
and other provinces of old Greece. Their mythography, too, 
was very general. The favourite form which they gave to 
their researches was that of poetry, and this again furnished a 
vehicle for learned commentaries in explanation of the allusions 
which served the same purpose as the special investigations of 
the Atthidists, Sometimes, however, they wrote systematic 
treatises on mythology, and so endeavoured to bolster up the 
popular belief, which had been sorely shaken by the levity of 
the comic writers, and had received a very questionable support 
from the rationalistic ingenuity of the Cyrenaics. One of this 
school, EvEMERUS Or EuHEMERUS, who was living at the court 
of Cassander in b.c. 3J6,' had published a book of 'sacred 
records' {lepa avaypac^ri), in which he endeavoured to deprive 
the ancient mythology of all its supernatural elements, and to 
represent the gods of Hellas as human beings who performed 
ordinary, or at least possible, exploits." This procedm'e found 
no favour with the learned men of Alexandria, and Eratosthenes 
treated Euhemerus with great contempt. And the old poetical 
machinery is revived in a treatise of the Alexandrian school, 
which has come down to us, at least in part. This is the 

1 Euseb. Prcep. Evang. II. 2, p. 59 sqq. (I. p. 130, Gaisford; p. 67, Heinichen,) 
Clinton's Fasti Hell. III. p. 481. 

2 Plut. Is. et Osir. c. XXIII. p. 360; Lactant. Inst. I. XI. 33; Cic. De Nat. 
Deor. I. II, 119; Varro, R. R. I. 48, 1; and especially see Hieron. Columna, in 
his edition of Ennius, Neap. 1590, pp. 479-505 ; Creuzer, Symholik, I. 113, sqq., 
II. 54, 258, III. 143, IV. 667. 


Bibliotheca of Apollodorus of Atlicns, wlio was, for a Ion? 
time, tlie pupil of Aristarchus/ and flourislied iu the second half 
of the second century B.C.- This work, which is in three bocjks, 
and which has not been preserved without many mutilations 
and corruptions, contains a general sketch of the mythic legends 
of the Greeks, derived directly from the old chroniclers and 
poets, especially from the lost poems of the ejjic cycle.' The 
accuracy with which the author followed the traces of his old 
books, is shown by the frequent occurrence of purely poetical 
phrases in the midst of his prose,^ and on this account the 
work is of considei'able value to us. The first book begins 
with six sections about the theogonies and cosmogonies of tlie 
ancients, and then passes on to the oldest Hellenic myths, 
especially those of the yEolic tribes ; we have the groundwork 
of many an epic poem ; the stories of the Aloidcs, of jNIarpessa, of 
CEneus, Ino, and Athamas, Peleus, Neleus and Nestor, Bias 
and Melampus, the hunt of the Caledonian boar, and the 
voyage of the Argonauts. The second book contains the his- 
tory of the families of luachus and Perseus. From these the 
author passes on to a full account of Hercules and his adven- 
tures ; and the book closes Avith the return of the Ileracleida;, 
and the mythic history of the Peloponnesus down to the time 
of ^Epytus. The third book takes up the family of Agenor, 
■which it discusses in seven sections, beginning with the Cretan 
legends, going on to those of Thebes, Avith a special episode 
about Bacchus, and a brief exposition of the Theban war and 
the fate of Alcmseou. In the next two chapters it treats of 
Arcadian myths, and goes through the seven daughters of 
Atlas. Taygete introduces us to Lacedscmonian, and Electra 
to Trojan legends. We have then somewhat abrupt transitions 

^ Suidas s.v. 'A7roXX65wpos* eh rCov UavairlovTov 'ToSlov tpi\off6(f>ov Kal 'Apicrrdp- 
Xov ToO ypa/jL/xaTiKov /xadijrQv, 'AOi^vahs t6 y^voi. Scyniiu. Chius v. 22: avyt- 

(TXoXaKdjs 6e iroXvv 'ApiaTdpxv XP^"^*"- 

2 He dedicated his Chronica to Attalus Philadelphus, who died in B.C. 138, and 
the work came down to B.C. T43. Hence it is concluded that Apollodorus was 
known as a writer between 01. 150-160. 

3 He mentions expressly Stesichorus, Pindar, the tragedians, especitvUy 
Euripides, Pherecydes, Herodotus, Acusilaus, Anielesagoras, Philocrates, Denia- 
ratus, Asclepiades, Castor, besides Homer, Hesiod, the poets of the epic cycle, 
and ApoUonius of Rhodes. 

* Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. p. XL. 



to the ^acidse, and the stories of Attica ; and the book breaks 
off in the history of Theseus, although we know that Apollo- 
dorus discussed the Trojan war and the return of Ulysses.^ 
ApoUodorus writes in a simple and unaffected style, though 
sometimes with a brevity which becomes obscure. The work, 
as we have it, is undoubtedly incomplete, but there is no evi- 
dence or reason for concluding that it is a mere compendium 
or epitome of the book originally pu.blished by ApoUodorus. 
The title of Bibliotheca, or ' library,' which is given to this 
treatise in all the manuscripts, was probably not prefixed to it 
by ApoUodorus himself."^ It seems more probable that this 
title belonged to a collection of works by ApoUodorus, of which 
we have only the separate names — ' concerning the gods,' ^ ' con- 
cerning the ships in the second book of the Iliad' "* ' a chro- 
nicle,'* in iambic verse, containing the annals of 1040 years 
from the taking of Troy down to b.c. 143, and a gazetteer in 
comic verse, like the treatises still extant by Scymnus and 
Dionysius." The epigram applied by Photius to the Bibliotheca, 
as we have it,^ would more truly describe this comprehensive 
collection of treatises. Besides these books, ApoUodorus wrote. 

^ According to Welcker {Der Epische Cyclus, I. p. 92), the following is the 
succession of the epic poems as they were arranged by ApoUodorus. Book I. 
The Theogony, with the Titanomachy and Gigantomachy, the Heroogony, Thebais, 
Corinthiaca, Melanipodia, Argonautae. Book II. The Phoronis, Danais, the 
Heraclea of Peisander, the Minyas, the taking of (Echalia, jEgimius. Book III. 
Europe, Dionysiaca, CEdipodia, the Epigoni (as distinct from the Thebais), the 
Hymn to Mercury, the Cypria, the Trojan war as far as the Odyssey, and 
perhaps the Telogonia, with which Dictys ends. That the book included the 
adventures of Ulysses we know from I. 3, 4: SejpTji'es irepl Siv iv tojs Trepl 'OSt'cr- 
cews ipov/jLef. Photius, Cod. CLXXXVI. : eTrtrp^x'^^ '^''^ ''''^'' '^'"'o Tpo'^s TrXd^'as 
TLvds, iJ.d\iffTa 5' 'OSi;<r<r^ws, els dv avT<^ kuI tj apxaioXoyla KaraX-riyei. 

^ This is the opinion of Clavier, in the preface to his edition of Apollodoi'us, and 
of Welcker, J}). Cycl. p. 89. See also Muller, Fr. Hist. Gr. pp. XXXVIII. sqq. 

' Trepl 6eu>p, in at least twenty-four books, in which he explained the mythology 
by means of allegories and etymologies, after the Stoic fashion. 

■* Trepl veQiv KaraKhyov, in twelve books, partly derived from Demetrius of Scepsis 
(Strabo VIII. p. 522), and Eratosthenes (id. p. 457). 

^ XpovLKT) crvvra^is. Scymnus of Chios, v. 16 sqq. 

^ Trepl 717?, or TrepLrjyTjais, in at least two books ; see Steph. Byz. s.v. 'A/3i/XXot 
et alibi. 

' Cod. CLXXVI. : ^x^' ^^ "''*' eTrlypafx/JLa rb ^i^Xtoddpiop ovk aKOfitj/ov rSSe' 
aluivos OTveipiifxar' d(pv(7ffdfj.evos utt' ifielo 
Trai5eir]S fiiidovs ypwdi 7raXai7ej'^os* 


like Aristophanes of Byzantium and Eratosthenes, ' on the 
courtesans of Athens ;" he eontributcrl to the literary liistorv 
of Sophron'- and Epicharmus ;^ and sliowcd liis connexion uith 
the school of Aristarchus bv a treatise ' on ctvmolo'rics.' ' 

The most valuable characteristic of tlie liistorical ]earnin<r of 
Alexandria was the attention which these schohirs paid to chro- 
nology. The Atthidist Philochorus, Avho was, no doubt, in some 
sense their model, had set them an example iu this respect, and 
he had been preceded by Timseus.* But the first foundation 
of scientific chronology was laid at Alexandi-ia by the great 
Eratosthenes, whose various labours we shall discuss at the 
end of this chapter. Besides the works of Philochorus and 
Timseus, Eratosthenes had before him the chronological compu- 
tations of his own teacher and countryman Callimachus, and 
his views were adopted and presented in a metrical form by 
Apollodorus, the pupil of Aristarchus, in the chronological work 
dedicated to Attains, of which we have just spoken. That the 
chronology of Apollodorus was based entirely on that of Era- 
tosthenes is distinctly stated by Strabo /' a Byzantine chrono- 
grapher of the ninth century a.d., Gcorgius, who is generally 
known by his title of Syncellus or colleague and associate of 
the Patriarch Tarasius, in giving the lists of Theban kings 
which he found in Apollodorus, speaks as if it were merely an 
extract from Eratosthenes,^ and modern Egyptologers have so 
regarded it.*^ The main effort of Eratosthenes was to establish 
the Trojan rera, which he, and Apollodorus after him, fixed in 
1 1 83 or 1 184 B.C., and the greatest modern authorities arc 
agreed in regarding this as merely ' a conjectm-al date origin- 

/iTjS' h'OfJ.r]peiT]v creXlo' ffj-^Xeire, fj.tj5' ^Xeydrif, 

1X7] TpayiKT)v /jLovaav /xtjS^ /xeXo-ypa^/jjc, 
fiT) kvkXIuv 'i-rfii wokvdpovv (ttIxov diifik b'aOpuiv 

evpT^creis (v ip-ol irdvd' baa k6<t/j.os ^x^'- 

1 Athen. XIII. p. 567 A, 583 D. ' J'l- HI. p. .-9 A 

3 In at least six books, Suid. s. v. Kap^LiJoTTuv. ' AroXUSwpoi iv fim^ rtpl 


* irepi iTvuoXoyiZf or iTvp.oXoyoi'/x^vcoi', in at least two books. Ath.n. II. r. 63 D. 
6 Above, chapter XLIII. § 6 ; below, chapter XLIX. § i. 

6 Strabo, VII. p. 298 sqq. 

7 SynceUus, Chronogr. p. 91, quoted by Bunsen, ^Ey'/i-'"', IM I'^'i 

8 Bunsen, jEcjypten, I. p. 158- 

V 2 


ally fixed by Eratosthenes, and derived from him to succeeding 
chronologers.'^ But, although the actual year of this starting 
point in Greek chronology may be regarded as approximate 
only, and resting on probable inference rather than on absolute 
certainty, we are not the less indebted to Eratosthenes for the 
laborious studies by which he arrived at his conclusions. And 
Mr. Clinton, who has reminded us that a conjectural date can 
never rise to the authority of evidence, has been careful to 
record his opinion^ that ^ the chronology of Eratosthenes, 
founded on a careful comparison of circumstances, and approved 
by those to whom the same stores of information were open, 
is entitled to our respect.^ 

§ 5. The want of documentary evidence, which thus qualifies 
the value of the Greek chronology of Eratosthenes and ApoUo- 
dorus, is not to be alleged in disparagement of the chronological 
lists of the Egyptian kings Avhich were drawn up by Erato- 
sthenes and Manetho from the copious and authentic records 
of the wonderful country of Avhich Alexandria had become the 
capital. The practice of committing to writing the chronicles 
of their native monarchs which the Egyptians had adopted 
from the first dawn of their history,^ the lasting significance of 
their hieroglyphic symbols, the durability of the material on 
which they were carved, and the dryness of the climate which 
rendered these stony archives indestructible,"* had provided Egypt 
with records of the past unrivalled in antiquity and genuine- 
ness. The Ptolemies, who gladly accepted the flattering homage 
of the Egyptian priests, and allowed themselves to be addressed 
as the successors of the ancient Pharaohs/ eventuallv conse- 
crated temples to Ammon, Phre, and Phtha, as well as to the 

1 Clinton, F. H. I. p. 123; II. p. IV. Bockh, Corp. Inscr. II. p. 328. Cf. 
Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Grcec. p. 568 ; Grote, Hist, of Greece, II. pp. 47 sqq. 

s F. H. I. p. 138. 

' It has been shown that the system of hieroglyphic writing was quite complete 
in Egypt in the fourth dynasty, that is, in the fifth century of the kingdom, and 
even the names of kings of the third dynasty are written according to this system 
(Bunsen, I. p. 363). 

* See the remarks of Lepsius, Chronologie der ^gypter, I. pp. 28 sqq. 

^ Thus, on the Rosetta Table, Ptolemy is glorified as 6v 6 "H^ato-ros edoKlfiaffev, 
tp 6"HXios i5o}K€v T7]v vIk7]v, (lkwu fcDcci Tov Ai6s, vibs Tov 'HXlov, oiW6/3toy, ij'^airT]' 


Sarapis of Alexandria, and our clue to the interpretation of tlie 
ancient hieroglyphics is derived from a tri-lingual inscription, 
in which Ptolemy Epiphancs is commemorated, not only in his 
own Greek, but in hieroglyphic and demotic versions of it.' 
Under these circumstances, it was quite natural that, on the 
one hand, the Greek scholars of the INIuscura would make 
themselves acquainted with the old language of Egypt, and the 
hieroglyphic system of writing in which the records of the 
country were locked up ; and, on the other hand, that l^gyp- 
tian priests and scribes would become familiar with the language 
of the court, and Avould display their own inherited learning in 
what had become the general idiom of the civilized world. In 
regard to the history and chronology of Egypt we have two 
remarkable examples of these counter processes. For before 
the great scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene learned the old Egyp- 
tian of the hieroglyphics in order that he might draw up 
lists of the Pharaohs, and approximate to the chronology of the 
ancient dynasties, Manetho of Sebennytus, a native Egyptian 
priest, who flourished in the reigns of the first two of the 
Ptolemies, had become a master of the Greek language, per- 
haps under the teaching of Timotheus, the interpreter of 
Ptolemy Soter, and had Avritten, for the edification of the new 
masters of his country, on the history and chronology of 
ancient Egypt, and on the religion and science of the Egyp- 
tians." From what sources Dictearchus, the scholar of Aristotle, 
had derived his statements with regard to the ancient history 
and chronology of Egypt, for a knowledge of which we are 
indebted to the Alexandrine scholia on Apollonius of Rhodes,' 
we have no means of ascertaining ; but there is no doubt that 
the researches of Eratosthenes, which we know through AjjoIIo- 
dorus and Georgius Syncellus," rested on a study of the original 

1 The Rosetta table, now in the British Museum, was discovered by the French 
artillery officer Bouchard, in 1 799, and became the property of England when the 
French were expelled from Egj'pt. 

2 Euseb. Prcep. Evaiujd. Froam. ad Lit. II. p. 44 c. (p. 52 Heinicheu) : raaaw 
fikv ovv rriv AlyvirTiaK7)v laroplav els ttXcitostuiv 'EXXtJi-wv ixerelk-nifx ipuyjjt, ISlut 
re Kal to. wept ttjs kut avrovs deoXoylas "MavfOihs 6 AiyviTTLos iv rt p (ypa\f€y I«p<i 
/S^pXy Kal ev eripois auroD ffvy-ypdnnaciv. 

3 See the passages quoted in Bunsen, ^gyptcn, III,, ['rkundcnbucJi, pp. 68. 
* Id. ibid, pp. 61 sqq. 


monuments of Egypt, and though they are confined to the 
Memphito-Thebaic kings, they are still our chief authority for 
the restoration of the first thirteen dynasties; and all that 
modern investigation has attempted for the exhibition of a con- 
sistent view of old Egyptian chronology is deduced from a com- 
parison between the fragments of Eratosthenes and Manetho, 
and the names of the kings still preserved in the hieroglyphic 
tables of Carnak and Abydos. 

The illustrious Manetho, whose name Ma-n-thoth or Thoth- 
ma, ' given by Thoth or Mercury,^ is a synonym of the Greek 
Hermodotus or Hermodorus,' although belonging to the compa- 
ratively late period of Alexandrian literature, has come down to 
us shrouded in a mist of legend.^ And while his genuine works 
exist only in fragments and quotations, or in epitomes of doubtful 
accuracy, his name has been given to an astronomical poem in 
six books, called aTrortAta^arfKa, which has been proved to be as 
late as the fifth century a.d.,^ and to a book on Sothis, or the 
dog-star, intentionally forged for the purpose of reconciling the 
old Egyptian chronology with that of the Jews and Christians/ 
There can be no doubt, however, after the elaborate researches 
of Bunsen and others, that Manetho of Sebennytus was a real, 
historical personage, who flourished in the reigns of Soter and 
Philadelphus, and deserved what he obtained, the highest 
reputation for judgment and learning. An old tradition, 
' which is not certain but cannot be refuted,^ ^ places him in the 

^ This is Bunsen's opinion {^gypten, I. p. 91). Lepsius (Chronol. I. p. 405), 
with whom Partbey confidently agrees (ad Plutarch. Is. et Osirid. p. 180), says that 
the Egyptian form was Mai- en- Thoth, ' beloved by Thoth.' Fruin {Maneth. reliqu. 
1847, p. XXVIII.) supposes the original form to have been Ma-net or Ma-Neith 
= quiNeith (i.e., Miner vam) amat. 

^ Bockh {Manetho und die Hundssternperiode, Berlin, 1845, p. 394) says: ' na- 
mentlich ist mir niemals ein verwirrterer Gegenstand der Betrachtung, als dieser 
Manetho vorgekommen,' 

3 See Heyne, Opuscul. I. 95. Rigler and Axt, Comment, in Manethonis Apoteles- 
matica, Colon. 1832, pp. III. sqq. XXXIV, 

* Bunsen, jEgypten, I. pp. 256 sqq. Lepsius, Chronologie, I. p. 4(3 sqq. 

* Bockh, Manetho, p. 395. This tradition is shown by the dedication of his 
Sothis, which has been fabricated in consequence of the old belief, and by the 
mention of Ptolemy and Arsinoe in the Apotelesmatica. Hengstenberg, who 
always reasons with a set purpose, and with the one-sidedness of an advocate, con- 
tends that Manetho was not an Egyptian, and probably lived under the Roman 
Emperors (die Bilcher Moses und ^gyptten, pp. ^237 sqq. 256, 264). 

MANETllO. 327 

reigii of Philiulclphus, and the auccdote about the iiitroductioa 
of the god Sarapis, which is ahnost our ouly certain detail 
about his life, falls, accordiug to Cyril, in 01. 124 (284 — 2H1 
B.C.),' and may therefore be placed at the very end of Soter's 
life. This story, which is told by Plutarch in the book on 
Isis and Osiris,- mostly taken, as Bunscn thinks,^ from the 
theological works of ;Mauctho, is as follows. Ptolemy Soter 
saw in a dream the Sinopic statue of Pluto, which ordered the 
king to transfer him with all speed to Alexandria. Ptolemy, 
who had never seen the image itself, and did not know where 
it was to be found, was enabled to identify it by the description 
of a traveller named Sosibius, and got it from Sinope to Egypt. 
When it arrived it was recognized by Timotheus, the king's 
interpreter, and Manetho, as Sarapis, the Egyptian Pluto, or 
the Osiris and Dionysus of the lower world ; and this new god 
was accordingly established at Alexandria, and his worship 
ultimately superseded that of the older divinities. This cir- 
cumstantial narrative exhibits ]Mauetho to us in important 
relations with the king and the Greek religionists of his court, — 
for Timotheus was an Eumolpid,^ — and we may infer from it 
that he not only introduced the Greeks to a knowledge of the 
Egyptian religion and annals, but conspired with the liberal 
Timotheus in establishing a form of worsliip which was not 
exclusively Greek or Egyptian, but partook of both systems of 
mythology. The genuine works of Mauctho were ( i ) his ' holy 
book' {lepa /3t/3Xoc), which discussed the religion of Isis, 
Osiris, Apis, Sarapis, and other deities, and was probably the 
basis of Plutarch's well-known treatise, our most valualde 
authority on the subject f (2) his ' sketch of natural historj' ' 
{(pvaiKUJv tTTiTOfin, or (^vaioko-yiKo), which seems to have 
explained the elementary origin of the Egj'ptian religion, as it 

1 Cyrillus Alex. In Julianum, p. 13 Spanh. 

2 c. 28, p. 361 Xyl. It ia also given by Tacit. Ilist. IV. 83, 84 ; Clemens 
Alex. Protrept. IV. 48, p. 42 Potter. 

3 Bunsen, jEgypten, I. p. 95. 

■* Tac. Hist. IV. 83 : 'Timotheum Atheniensem, egent« Euiuolpidarum, quein ut 
antistitem ceerimoniarum Eleusine exciverat.' 

5 Eusebius, Pr. Ev. II. p. 44 c. Cf. Theodoret. Serni. II. Ik ThcrapctU. vol. 
IV. p. 753 : Maj/^^ws 5^ rd irepl'lffiSoi Kal'Offipidos Kal'ATioos Kai ZapdriSot Kal 
TUP fiXXajf Oewu tC>v AlyvwTlwv if/.v0o\6yr]<T(. 


stated, among other things, the identity of Osiris and Isis Avith 
the sun and the moon j' (3) ' on a love of antiquity and piety ' 
[irepl ap-)(^a'i(7f.iov Kcii £vae(5tiag), which seems to have been a 
treatise on the old religious usages of the Egyptians ;" (4) ' on 
festivals ' {irepi eopTwv), of Avhich we know nothing beyond a 
short notice in Laurentius Lydus f (5) ' on the fabrication of 
the different kinds of sacred incense^ {Trepi KaraaKevrig twv 
Kixpiiov), a work having reference to a specialty of Egyptian 
ritual, for Plutarch tells us* that the ingredients of the Kvcpi 
were not mixed at haphazard (ottwc iTv-^ev), but according to 
fixed sacerdotal receipts ; (6) ' against Herodotus ' {Trpog 
'Hpo^oTov),^ a criticism apparently of those parts of Herodotus 
which treated especially of Egypt ; but Bunsen supposes" that it 
might have been an extract from the next Avork, made by those 
who wished to impugn the accuracy of the Greek historian ; 
(7) ' commentaries on Egypt ^ (AiyuTrna/ca or AtyuTrrta/ca 
viroj.iv^j.iaTa'^), in three books. In this book, which has 
furnished the modern Egyptologers, Rosellini, Wilkinson, 
Bockh, Bunsen, and Lepsius, with the materials for their 
criticisms, Manetho, besides dealing with the astronomical 
periods of the ante-historical mythology, elaborately reckoned 
up '^S55 years, from Menes to the death of the younger 
Nectanebus, and in doing this formed a chronological canon, 
which must have influenced the calculations of Eratosthenes 
and Apollodorus.^ In drawing up this chronology, it is clear 
that he did not content himself with adding together the sums 
of the years in the different reigns, for this Avould have given a 
much greater number of years, biit that he learned, by an 
examination of the traditions, that many of the kings in the 
lists were contemporary rulers, and that the general resiilt was 

^ Diog. Laert. Prooem. §§ 10, 11. Suidas calls it (pvaioXoryiKa. It is referred to 
by ^-Elian, Hist. An. X. i6. 

2 Porphyr. De Abstinentid, II. 55 ; Euseb. Pr. Ev. IV. 16, i, p. 164, Heinichen. 
3 p. 91, Bekker. * De Iside et Osir. c. 81. 

5 Joseph, c. Apion. I. 14 ; Eustath. ad II. X' p. 857 ; Etym. M. s. v. 'KeovroKdfios. 

® ^gypten, I. p. 100. 

'■ That the latter is the true title is conjectured by Bockh {Manetho, p. 395) from 
the Latin version of the Armenian Eusebius, which cites it as Manethi uEgyptiaca 

^ Bunsen, ^gypten, I. p. 122 sqq. 


to be estimated on independent grounds. When the Egyptian 
learning of INIanetho had been followed by the scientific chro- 
nology of which Eratosthenes was the founder, Greek literature 
had passed througli all the ei)oclis of its dealings with the 
history of the Pharaohs. In Herodotus, as has been well 
observed/ we have the genial Greek, in ^^anctho the dry and 
documentary Egyptian, and in Eratosthenes the critical Alex- 
andrian, and in the combination and intermixture of these three 
sources of information, we obtain all the reliable information 
which we can derive from ancient times to aid us in the inter- 
pretation of the half understood hieroglyphics. 

HECATiEUS of Abdera, who is often confounded with his 
older namesake Heeatseus of Miletus, travelled as far as Svria 
in the train of Alexander the Great, and seems to have accpiircd 
the language of the Jews,'- whose history he wrote. He was 
also a writer on Egyptian history, and had travelled up the 
Nile as far as Thebes. A work on the Hyperboreans is attri- 
buted to him,^ but we know little or nothing about it. 

A contemporary of Manetho, Bekosus [i.e. Bar-Oseas) of 
Babylon, performed the same good otfice for the history of his 
own countrymen that the Egyptian priest had undertaken in 
regard to his own sacred archives.'' It cannot be determined 
whether this Greek version of Assyrian and Babvlonian histt)rv 
Avas suggested by what had just been done in Egypt, or whether 
it was a similar result of similar causes. Berosus had the 
charge of the temple of Belus at Babylon, and, as he had actpiircd 
the Greek language, it was quite natm'al that he should en- 
deavour to recommend himself to the Greek dynasty, which 
was established in his country, by a version of the archives 
which were under his care, and which enabled him to show both 

^ Bunsen, jEgypten, I. p. i 76. 

2 Whether the work 'about Abraham and the Egyptians,' from which Clemens 
Alexandrinus (Strom. V. p. 717, Potter) quotes a fragment of Sophocles, wm 
included in the histoiy of the Jews (Joseph, c. Apion. I. ■22 ; cf. ^ iit. I. 7), or in the 
history of Egypt (Diod. I. 47), it seems to presume an .-vctiuainUincc with O'tn. 
XII. 10 sqq., or the document from which that narrative was derived. 

3 Diodor. II. 47 ; ^lian, IT. A. XI. i, alii. 

4 Lepsius, Ckronol. I. p. 10: 'He dedicated his history to Antiochus Soter of 
Syria, a little before Manetho had dedicated his Egyptian hisUiry to Ptolemy 


his own learning and the ancient glory of the Babylonians. 
The work, which he published in three books, and which is 
known to us only from the fragments preserved by the later 
writers, is sometimes quoted as his ' Babylonian annals ' 
i^a(iv\(i)viKa), sometimes as his ' Chaldaeau history ' (XaXSai/ca, 
yiaX^aiKai laTop'iai).^ It brought his history down to B.C. 269, 
and had derived dates from the inscriptions on the bricks, 
probably cuneiform, which enabled him to carry back his 
chronology to an astronomical period of 480,000 years ; and his 
work contained an account of the cosmogony and deluge, which 
are probably reflected in the annals of the Jew^s." Abydenus, 
who wrote on Assyrian history, has been considered by some 
to have been a scholar of Berosus, with whose works he was 
undoubtedly acquainted.^ He also quotes from Megasthenes, 
a friend of Seleucus Nicator,^ who wrote a work about India in 
four books. Whether this work was derived from native 
documents is unknown. It was regarded as a standard autho- 
rity by Arrian and other later writers on the subject of India. 
Pliny" mentions that one Dionysius was sent by Ptolemy 
Philadelphus to pursue his researches in India, while Mega- 
sthenes was there ; we do not know what were the results of this 
mission. It is quite uncertain when Menander published the 
Phoenician histoiy from native sources which is quoted by 

While the Greeks at Alexandria and elsewhere thus gained 
a knowledge of the annals and religious books of the nations 
to which the conquests of Alexander the Great had carried 
their victorious arms, the same curiosity gave birth to a trans- 
lation which has exercised a more lasting infl.uence on the 
civilized world than that of any book that has ever appeared 
in a new tongue. There is a tradition, attributed falsely to 

^ Athen. XIV. p. 639; Clemens Alex. Strom. I. p. 392, Potter; Protrept. 
p. 5 7, Potter. 

^ See Niebukr's Lectures on Ancient History, I. p. 18, and compare Chr. Orthod. 

pp. 131, -221. 

3 Cyrill. Alex, in Julianum, pp. 8, 9. 
■* Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 360, Potter. 

^ H. N. VI. 17, 58: 'sicut Megasthenes, et Dionysius a Philadelijho missus ex 
ea causa, vires quoque gentium prodidere.' 

« c. Apion. I. 18 ; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 140. 


Aristeas, and generally rejected as fabulous,' tiiat when Deme- 
trius Phalereus persuaded Ptolemy to get the Jewish books 
translated into Greek, Aristeas suggested an expedient by 
means of which the high priest of Jerusalem was induced to 
send the king scvcnty-two picked translators, six from each 
tribe (ten of the tribes having vanished long before this time !); 
and that in seventy-two days the work was accomplished with 
miraculous fidelity, each of the translators having been shut 
up in a separate cell, and each having executed the whole 
version in the same words and letters ! '" There is only one 
circumstance more wonderful than this story, namely, that any 
men of sense and learning should have given it a moment's 
attention.'^ The origin of the iVlexandrine version of the Old 
Testament, and the cause of the name — ' that of the seventy,' 
or Septuagint — by which it is still known, can only be inferred 
from a careful study of the translation, and an examination of 
the literary history of the Jewish books themselves/ The 
Jewish collection of sacred books was gradually formed, after the 
return from the captivity, in the three didsions, still recognized 
by the Jews themselves — namely, (a) the Law or Pentateuch, 
i.e. the five books attribnted to Moses; [b) the historical and 
prophetical books ; and (c) the miscellaneous works called 
Hayiographa, sometimes designated from the book of Psalms, 
itself a miscellaneous collection in five parts,* which was 
placed at the head of this division of the Jewish literature. 
This collection of the Jewish books themselves was going on 
from B.C. 446, Avhen the Jews were restored, to b.c. 131, the 

' It was first doubted by Lud. Vives in a note on August. C. D. XVIII. 41, 
and by the great Scaliger on Eusebius Chron. p. 133. The complete rejection of 
the story is due to Humphry Hody, who wrote a tract on the subject in 1685, and 
returned to it in his great work, De Bihlior. Tcxtibus Orlfjiiuilibug, Oxon. i 705, 
pp. I.— XXXVI.; see also H. G. J. Thiersch, Be Fcntatcucki Vcrsiouc Alf.ntn- 
drina, Erlang. 184T, pp. 6 sqq. 

2 The statement of the separate cells is Justin Martyr's story ; Epiphanius is 
contented with thirty- six cells, one for every two of the translatore. 

3 The fiction is defended by Usher, Voss, Walton, and even to some extent by 

■* We have discussed this question at lengtii in a book entitled Chnstian Ortho- 
doxy reconciled with the Conclusions of Modern Biblical Learning, London, 1857, 
pp. r89-26i. 

'= See Jashar, Berolini, 1854, pp. 315, 333. 


thirty-eighth year of Euergetes II. ^ when the son of Sirach speaks 
of the Greek version as complete.' Now, the Greek version of 
the Pentateuch, which seems to be the work of one writer," corre- 
sponds remarkably to the Samaritan text, which was taken from 
Jerusalem by Manasseh in the reign of Darius Codomannus (b.c. 
33^ — 33^) f ^^^ ^s the name of ' the seventy' may very well 
refer to the number of members in the Jewish Sanhedrim, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the renegade priest adopted a text 
which was at that time formally sanctioned at Jerusalem, and that 
the same text, with the same sanction, formed the basis of the 
version made for the use of the numerous Jews whom Alex- 
ander settled in Egypt soon after the time of Manasseh and 
Sanballat. The Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, made by 
Nathaniel a little before our era, and the Targum of Onkelos, 
who flourished about the same time, also concur in many points 
with the Septuagint, where it differs from the Masoretic text, so 
that this agreement alone would not prove the early date of 
the Septuagint Pentateuch. But the necessities of the Jews at 
Alexandria, the step already taken by Manasseh, the natural 
curiosity of the Greeks of the Museum, stimulated by the 
labours of Manetho and Berosus, justify the conclusion that 
there must be a basis of truth in the tradition that the be- 
ginning of the Greek version of the Jewish books was made in 
the reigns of the first two of the Ptolemies. The rest of the 
translation was of course not undertaken or authorized until 
the original books had found a place in the Jewish canon. 
Attention has been directed to marks of time in the separate 
books. A Gallic word {yaiaog) found in Joshua^ has been 
taken for an evidence that this book was not translated till 
after the Gallic invasion of b.c. 277. It is inferred from the 

^ 'Eo^la "Zelpax, TrpdXoyos, vv. 6, i6. He counts from the beginning of the 
joint sovereignty of Physcon in B.C. 169. 

2 Hody entertained a contrary opinion: ' sed istam Hodii opinionem,' says 
Thiersch, u.s., p. 12, 'Sturzius quidem, uti dictum est, negavit, qai Pentateuchi, 
inquit, versio ab uno auctore videtur profecta esse, nemo autem, quantum novimus, 
refutavit,' and he proceeds to prove that there is, at all events there was, an uni- 
formity of plan and method in the version of the Pentateuch. 

■^ Joseph. Antiqu. XI. 7, §2, 8, §2, 4, 6. See Gesenius, De Pentateuch. Samar. 
origine, indole, et auctoritate. 

■* Joshua VIII. 18: ^KTeivov ttjv x^^P^ "''"' ^'' '''V Ta'cy t(^ iv ry x^'-P^ aoviirl tt)v 
■Kb\iv. Cf. Athen. VI. p. 273, and see Hody, p. 178 sqq. 


termination of the book of Esther' that it was not translated 
till the reign of Philometor (u.c. i8i — 146), and other in- 
dications are remarked in others of the later books. The 
Pentateuch and the book of Proverbs are the most carefully 
translated, but, at the best, we find great defects in the ver- 
sion. Its authors reading the Hebrew rolls without vowel 
points, which were a later invention, and apparently with an 
imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, which had ceased to be their 
vernacular language, adopted strange corruptions of the original 
words," or sometimes indulged in the rashest conjectures." 
The book of Job was translated by a man who was well 
acquainted with Greek, and had l)ut a smattering of Hebrew; 
the Psalms and Prophets were rendered by Jews who had no 
literary merit, and whose knowledge of the sacred language 
was very imperfect;^ and the Septuagint translation of the book 
of Daniel, probably the latest work of the Jewish canon, is so 
unlike the Masoretic text, that the Christian Church adopted 
the later version of Theodotion." But with all its inequalities 

• Esther X. 43 — 47. 

• ^ For example, the common confusion of resh and daletk, together with che 
substitution of the ordinary meaning of the preposition -'tt for a more refined 
and idiomatic usage of the word, led them to read on or Cin for ctt in Lent. 
XIX. 26, and to render it /ir] iaOtre itri tuv dpiuv, instead of inl T(p aifnari, wliicli 
is, after all, a good Greek idiom. 

' See, for example, the strange confusion which they have made of Gen. IV. 7. 

* Eichhom, Einleitung, § 166. 

^ Jerome, Prcefat. in Danielem: 'Dan. juxta LXX. interpretes Dom. Salv. 
Ecclesise non legunt, utentes Tlieodotionis editione ; et cur hoc accident ne.scio ; 
hoc unum afSrmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordat, et recto judicio 
repudiatur.' The Greek version of Daniel is interesting, as exhibiting to us 
the process of editorship, while it was still going on, and before the Masoretic 
texts were fixed in their subsequently unalterable foiTO. It is clear that there 
were two editions or recensions of the book of Daniel concurring in many points, 
but differing in a sort of reciprocal avoidance of the most startling impossiliilities. 
That followed by the LXX. omits the strange story about the ni.igi, who were 
ordered to describe the dream, as well as to interpret it (Dan. IV. 3—6); also 
the speech of Daniel in V. 17—22. On the other hand, the Masoretic text 
omits the equally improbable prayer of Asariah, and the song of the three intended 
martyrs in the midst of the flames, where there is a manifest gap after the twenty- 
third verse of the third chapter. That the LXX. was in this and other a«!ditions 
a 6o« (J /fZe translation of a Hebrew-Chaldee original, is clear from the rcAsons 
given by Rosenmiiller (Procemium, § VII.). These indications of the process ..f 
literary revision, in the case of one of the latest canonical books, support the infe- 


and defects, this Alexandrine translation of the Jewish books 
exercised a wonderful influence on the world at large. 

The Masoretic editorship of the Jewish schools continued in 
active operation down to the year 506 a.d.; and till the publi- 
cation of the Massorah in that year, the Hebrew text was liable 
to constant emendation. But the name of the ^eptuagint 
seems to point to an early canonization by the Sanhedrim, to 
the exclusion of other books wTitten in Greek, but not trans- 
lated from the Hebrew, which we now call by their Greek 
name, the Apocrypha} All the references by the earliest 
Christian writers are to this version rather than to the HebreAv 
text, and we can conceive that it was regarded with a veneration 
which was not paid by the Hellenizing Jews to the unknown 
tongue of the original. It had, in fact, received the impi'imatur 
of the Greek Jews of Alexandria, who claimed the same 
authority as their brethren at Babylon and Tiberias, and spoke 
and wrote a language intelligible to the civilized world; and it 
was connected with the general renown of the grammarians of 
the Museum, and was probably influenced by the contemporary 
school of Aristarchus, for it can hardly be doubted that the 
arrangement of the canonical books in twenty-four parts, which 
was completed about the time when Aristarchus similarly 
divided the Homeric poems according to the number of letters 
in the Greek alphabet, was suggested by this arbitrary method 
of the Alexandrian scholar, and that the subsequent change to 
twenty-two parts, according to the number of letters in the 
Hebrew alphabet,^ was merely a correction made by the 
Masorethffi to accommodate their subdivision to the rationale 
of the Alexandrian critics, which they had previously adopted 
without understanding its meaning. 

§ 6. It can hardly be said that the Egyptian researches. 

rence that something of the same kind took place with all the publications of the 
Jews after their return from exile. The intimate acquaintance which the writer of 
Daniel shows (in the eleventh chapter) with the history of Egypt under the 
Ptolemies, indicates his connexion with Alexandria. Tlie story about Alexander 
and the book of Daniel (Josephus, Antiqu. XI. 8, § 5, p. 56, 1. 9, Eekker) is a 
transparent fiction. 

^ See below, chapter LIII. § i. 

2 See the two arrangements as given by Bishop Beveridge, Works {Anglo-Cathol. 
Libr.) vol. VII. pp. 202, 209. 


which produced such important effects on the historical and 
chronological knowledge of the scholars of the Museum, led 
also to the wonderful advance in pure and applied mathematics 
which took place at Alexandria, or was mainly due to the 
learned men who settled in that city. Herodotus, indeed, is 
careful to tell us' that in his opinion the Greeks derived 
their knowledge of geometry from the Egyptians, just as they 
learned from the Babylonians the concave hcmisi)herical sun- 
dial (ttoXo^), the means of ascertaining the period of noon 
{yvoj/iiu}v), and the division of the day into twelve ctjual parts ; 
a similar belief was entertained bv Plato:' and Anticleidcs made 
Pythagoras only an improver of the geometry of Mceris.^ Laud- 
surveying was known in Egypt at a very early period,^ mathe- 
matics and their applications were discussed in the sacred books 
of Hermes,' and the hieroglyphics give us some specimens of 
the geometrical knowledge of the people.'^ On the other hand, 
we have stories which show that the Greeks were before the 
Egyptians in many applications of exact science. According to 
Hieronymus/ Thales astonished the Egyptians by the simple 
method of determining the height of the Pyramids from the 
measurement of their shadows. The Pythagorean theorem, as 
it is called, though connected with some mysterious speculations 
of the Egyptians,^ may have been discovered geometrically by 
Pvthagoras himself, who undouljtedly may claim the demon- 
stration of the musical intervals;^ and the quadrature of the 
lunula and the properties of conic sections seem to belong to 

1 II. ,09. * Phadrus, p. ^74, C. D. 

^ Diog. Laert. VIII. 1 1 : tovtov Kal yewfieTpiav ini vipai Aya-ytiv, Mo/ptoj rpio- 
rov €vp6vTos ras apxas tQv aroixf^^^v avrrjs, uis cp-qaiv 'AvrtKXelSrjt iv S(vHpif> Ttpl 
'AXe^dvSpov. * OoicsisXLyU. 20. 

5 This appears from the remarkable passage in Clemens Alex. Slrotti. VI. pp. 
757 sqq. Potter, on which see the remarks of Lepsius, Clironologle, I. pp. 45, 46. 

"fi See Lepsius, iihcr eine Hierorjlypldache Inschrift am Temjicl von Edfu, B«.>rlin, 
,855, who shows how the Greek geometry was expressed in the language of ancient 


7 Apud Diog. Laert. I. 27 : 6 5^ 'lepwvv/xos Kal iKfierprjffai (prjffiv aiTby tAi xvpa- 
fjilSai, iK TTJs aKiSiS TrapaTripriffavTaSre r) IffOneyiOfts elai. Pliny, //. A'. XXXVI. 
12 § 17: » mensuram altitudinis earum omnemque similem deprehendere invenit 
Thales Milesius umbram metiendo, qufi hor.l par esse corpori solet.' 

8 On the yafirjXwp 5idypafJLfJ.a, see Plut. de Isidc et Osir., p. 373 E, and above, 
ch. XXXIX. § 9. ' Bockh, Philolaut. pp. 65—89. 


Greek geometers. And although Eudoxus of Cnidus visited 
Egypt_, and is said to have brought his theory of the planets 
from that country/ the respect which was paid to his talents in 
the land of the Pharaohs" shows that he imported at least as 
much knowledge as he carried away with him. At any rate^ the 
great geometers of the Ptolemaic period owe their reputation to 
their own original methods of investigation^ or to the skill and 
clearness with which they expounded the doctrines of their 
predecessors. They rather brought their science to Egypt than 
found it there. 

The greatest mathematicians of antiquity, Euclid, Apollonius 
of Perga, and at a later period Diophantus, Pappus, Theon, 
and his daughter Hypatia; the most eminent mechanicians, 
Archimedes of Syracuse, Ctesibius of Asora, and Hero of 
Alexandria ; the illustrious astronomers, Timochares of Alexan- 
dria, Aristyllus of Samos, and Hipparchus of Nicsea; Erato- 
sthenes, the founder of scientific geography, and Claudius 
Ptolemseus, who systematized his labours, were all connected, 
either indirectly or immediately, with the school of Alexandria. 
We must confine ourselves to a notice of those who occupied 
an initiatory position in regard to specific branches of pure 
mathematics or their applications. 

EucLEiDEs, or, as we call him famiKarly, Euclid, the prince 
of geometers, whose name is almost a synonym for the science 
he taught so well, and whose classical work is still a manual of 
instruction in the chief mathematical school of this country, 
furnishes us with few materials for a literary biography. There 
is no distinct statement in the Greek authorities respecting the 
place of his birth. Oriental traditions make him the ofi'spring 
of Greek parents settled at Tyre, perhaps a confusion with 
Gyrene, Avhere Theodorus had an eminent school of geometry. 
Like his namesake Eucleides of Megara, with whom he used to 
be confounded, he stands in a certain relation to The^tetus,^ 

^ Seneca, Qucest. Natur. VII. 3. 

^ This is implied in the story about the ox Apis licking his garment (Diog. Laert. 
VIII. 90, 91.) 

3 It is not at all improbable that the story told by Valerius Maximus (VIII. 12) 
has substituted the name of Euclid either for that of Thesetetus, or for that of 
Eudoxus, both of -whom were pupils of Plato, and both predecessors, and perhaps 
teachers, of the geometrician of Alexandria. 

EUCLID. 337 

the hero of Plato's dialogue of that name, which, a.s wc have 
seen, is supposed to Ije narrated by the Mcgaric philosoijlicr 
about the time of the battle of Corinth, n.c. 395. Tliis 
Thesetetus, who was remarkable for his personal resemblance to 
Socrates, is said by Plato, and is understood by Diogenes 
Laertius,' to have had some instructive intercourse with that 
great philosopher just before his death, when Thcsetctus was a 
mere boy; he was a favourite pupil of Tlicodorus, the great 
geometrician of Cyrene ; and from the lauguage of Proclus,- it 
appears that Euclid, whether or not a Cyrcniean himself, was 
settled at Athens, and not only became an attached disciple of 
Plato, but in a certain sense continued and completed the 
geometrical works of Thcretetus, and systematized what had 
been done by Eudoxus of Cnidus. He came to Alexandria in 
the reign of the first Ptolemy, and almost the only incident of 
his life which is known to us is a conversation between him 
and that king ; for Ptolemy having asked if there was no easier 
method of learning the science, Euclid is said to have replied 
that ' there was no royal path to geometry' (^jj ilvai j3a(n\iKi)v 
arpaiTov ~poq ynoniTpiav)? But though we know so little <jf 
Euclid^s personal history, we cannot doubt that he foundeil a 
famous school of geometry at Alexandria, and pro(hiced the 
greatest influence on men like Eratosthenes and Archimedes, 
the latter of whom refers to him by name. 

The work for which Euclid is most famous is his Elements 
{(TToi-)^£7a) of Pure MatJiematics, which consist of thirteen books 
written by Euclid himself, and two attributed to Ilypsiclcs of 
Alexandria in the second century of our era.^ The want of a 

^ II. 29 : uffwep rbv QeairyjTov irept iiricT-qixT}^ SiaXcx^f'S fvOtov dirixffi'f/t «to(?ct 
Kal nXixTw;' (prjclv. 

2 Proclus in End. II. 4, p. 19, ed. Basil. 1532: bijjyov Si ovroi ner' cLXXtJXuj' 
iv ' AKa57]p.ela KOivas Troiov/J.evoi ras ^TjTrjffets. 'Ep/j-drinos Sf 6 KoXo^wmoj rd i-irip 
Ei)56|o(; TrpoT]viroprifi^va Kal OeaiT^rov wpor)yay€v iiri ir\iov Kal tCiv aToixdi^v ToXXd 

dvevpe Kal tCiv tSttuv rtvh ffvviypa\l/ev ov iroKv M tovtuv y(urrtp6i icrip 

'EvKXeioTjs, 6 TO, (TTOix^ta crvvayaywi', Kal -rroWd p-iv tCjv Ei'5(5fou avvri^ai, ToXXd W 
Tuv QeaiTrjTOv TeXeucrdpefos, Irt 5^ rd paXaKuJTepov SeiKvi'/xeva roti ifiTpocOiv tit 

dveX^yKTOvs diredei^en dvayaywv Kal rn wpoaipiffei Si nXoTWfwii iari koI rp 

<pi\o(TO<plq. TavT-Tj oIk€los. 

^ Proclus, U.S. 

■* Mr. De Morgan, who concludes that Hypsick-s did not write earlier than 
A.D. 550. makes the following remarks respecting the two books of the Eletnenfs 



convenient system of arithmetical notation obliged tlie Greeks 
to treat many subjects geometrically, which we deal with by 
means of our Arabic numerals or algebraical symbols ; and in 
all ages it has been a subject of wonder that Euclid and his 
predecessors should have been able in almost every case to 
adopt the best method that is open to the geometrician. The 
first book begins with definitions {opoi) and postulates (air?j- 
/LiaTo), containing all the necessary assumptions to which Plato 
refers in his well-known distribution of the domains of thought ;' 
these are followed by the common notions {koivui yvoiai), 
which the translators of Euclid have classed with the first 
three of the postulates, and distinguished by the name of 
axioms, a common and proper Greek term/ but not used by 
Euclid in this case. We have then forty-eight propositions 
rising from the simplest constructions to the properties of the 
right-angled triangle. The second book treats of the properties 
of rectangles contained by the parts of divided lines, with tacit 
reference to the doctrine of incommensurables (aXoya). The 
third book treats of the properties of the circle, and the fourth 
of regular rectilineal figures from the triangle to the quin- 
decagon. And thus the first four books contain the doctrine 
of plane figures, and may be supposed by a reasonable con- 
jecture to contain an improved exposition of the geometry of 
Theatetus. The fifth book, which he is said to have derived 
from Eudoxus,^ treats of proportion, and the sixth applies this 

attributed to this mathematician (Smith's Dictionary, II. p. 542) : ' It is clear 
enough that Euclid did not write them, because they begin with a preface, a 
thino- which is not found even at the commencement of the Elements, because 
that pi-eface makes mention of Apollonius, who came after Euclid, and because the 
author states himself to be the pupil of Isidore,' who, according to Suidas, was 
the teacher of Hypsicles. 

1 De Repuhl. VI. p. 511 A : tovto toIvw vo7)rhv nkv to erSos iXeyov, virodiaeai 
S' avayKa^oiiiv-qv ypvxhv XPV<^^°-'- '"'^P^^ '^V^ ^rjTTjatv avrov k.t.X. Mavdavu, ^<p7}, 8ti 
t6 inrb rats yewfj-erpiais re Kal tols ravrais ddeXtpais rix^us Xiyeis. See Dr. 
Whewell's paper ' on Plato's survey of the sciences,' Trans, of the Cambridge 
Philosoph. Soc. vol. IX. part IV. 

2 Aristot. Analyt. Post. I. 2, § 7 : •^j' 6' avdyKt) ^x^lv rbv otlovv (jLaO-qabfj-evov, 
d^iui/ia' i(TTi yap ^vta roiavTa' tovto yap jidXiaT eirl Toh tolovtols eiw0aiJ.ev 6vofia 

3 It is attributed to Eudoxus in one of the MSS. See Fabric. £ibl. Gr. IV. 
p. X2. 

EUCLID. 339 

theory to the results of the first four books, cli.Ncu.s>iiig the 
doctrine of similar figures, and involving geometrically the rules 
of quadratic equations. The seventh, eightli, and ninth books 
treat of the properties of numbers; the tenth considers in 
detail the question of irrational quantities;' the eleventh and 
twelfth books give us the elements of solid geometry ; and the 
five regular solids arc discussed in the last three l)ooks, two of 
which, as we have said, arc attributed to llypsiclcs. This 
great work became the subject of special clucidatious even in 
ancient times, and the commentaries of Proclus, with extracts 
from the lectures of Theon of Alexandria, have often been 
printed with the Greek editions of the text. 

Next in repute to the Elements stand the Data {BiSo^uva) of 
Euclid, a sort of introduction to analytical geometry, consisting 
of ninety-five geometrical propositions, showing that, if certain 
properties or ratios are given, others nuiy be detluced conse- 
quentially. Professor De ]\Iorgan speaks slightingly of this 
work," but it was a favourite with Sir Isaac Newton. It is 
generally published with a preface [TrpoQcwpia] by ]\Iarinus of 

The Phenomena [^^aivoyuva], or principles of aslronomy 
(^hpyoX cKjTpouoinia^), discuss some of the geometrical pro- 
perties of the sphere, especially with reference to the demon- 
stration of the risings and settings of the stars. The work is 
cited as Euclid's by Pappus, and is highly commended by 

Two treatises on music, namely, the introduction to harmonics 

^ There is a passage in Plato's Thecetetus which might lead us to conjecture that 
in this part of the work Plato's friend had furnished Euclid with some of hw 
materials. Thecetetus is made to say (p. 147 C): Kivdvviveis ipioTav olov Kal avroli ^payxos eltryjXOe diaXeyo/JL^vois, ifj-ol re Kal T(p ff(fi bfiuvvfUf) toi't^ 
Sw/cpdret. Compare the words which follow with the language of Euchd at tho 
beginning of his tenth book. Proclus (u.s.) attributes to Plato the introduction of 
the term irpofiriKris {Thecetet. p. 148 A, Tim. p. 73 D), who may, however, have 
adopted it from Thesetetus. 

3 Smith's Diet. II. p. 68 : ' there is not much more in this book of Data than 
an inteUigent student picks up from the L'lcmcnta themselves, on which account wc 
cannot consider it as a great step in geometrical analysis.' 

3 Hist, de V Astron. Anc. I. p. 51 : 'co livre est precieux conime monument 
historique, et comme un d<^p6t qui doit f-tre h peu prbs complet des connaissancea 
qu'on avait en Gr^ce \ cette ^poque.' 

Z 2 


(fto-aywyrj apfiioviKi]), and the division of the scale [KaraTo/jiri 
Kai'ovog),^ and two essays on optics and catoptrics {otttiko. Kal 
KaTOTTTpiKa), are the only other works still extant in Greek 
which are attributed to Euclid. The first of these is assigned 
in some of the manuscripts to Cleonidas. The others have 
been rejected by various editors, either on account of their 
want of vigour or from other reasons, more or less valid. 

The following works attributed to Euclid are either lost or 
exist only in translations or re-translations from the Arabic. On 
the division of surfaces {Trepl Siaipicmov) , from the Arabic of 
Mohammed of Bagdad ; de levi et ponderoso, a Latin fragment 
only; four books on conic sections {kowikmv (3i(3\ia S') men- 
tioned by Pappus; three books of corollaries or deductions 
{TropKTjLiaTtov (3i(3\ia y')' mentioned by Proclus and Pappus, and 
discussed in a special essay by Robert Simson, the celebrated 
translator of the Elements ;^ tivo books on plane loci [to-kmv 
kTrnre^iov |3') mentioned by Pappus ; two books on the relations 
between loci and a given surface {towmv irpog e7Ti(l>cn'£iap (3i(5Xia 
j3') mentioned by Pappus and Eiitocius ;* and a treatise on fal- 
lacies (TTfjOt \pev^api(i)v) referred to by Proclus. 

Archimedes, who is scarcely less celebrated than Euclid, 
though much less studied, was a native of Syracuse, and, as it 

^ These two works are printed in Meibomius, Antiqiice Musicce auctores septem, 
Amstel. 1652. Of the KaraTOfj-Tj Kavbvos, Bockh says {De Arati Canone, p. 102): 
'constat canonis sectionem, canonices musicse opus, nihil esse aliud nisi musiconim 
certi aUcujus systematis sonorum in monochordo designationem, quse secundum 
longitudinem chordarum instituatur.' 

2 Montucla (Hist. d. Mathem. I. p. 215) thinks that the Porismata must be 
reckoned as the most profound work of Euclid, and that it would have been most 
honoured, if it had come down complete to our times. 

3 Tractatus de Porismm. ; Roberti Simsoni opera qucedam reliqua, Glasg. 1776, 

p. 315- 

* This title is rightly rendered by Commandine loci ad superfidem, for 

iiTL^aveia means the upper or illuminated surface of any plane (see Euclid, Elem. 

I. i : iTrL<pdv€ia 5^ iffTi 8 fiiJKos Kal ttXcitoj ijl6vov ^x^'- Cf. Polyb. VI. 23. 3. 

Aristot. JI. A.l. 16). Professor De Morgan says (Smith's Diet. II. p. 70) : ' what 

these T6iroi ir. e. were, neither Pappus nor Eutocius informs us ; the latter says 

they derive their name from their own ISidrrjs, which there is no reason to doubt. 

We suspect that the books and the meaning of the title were as much lost in the 

time of Eutocius as now.' It appears to us that this treatise differed from that on 

plane loci merely in this, that the former discussed the relations of loci in the same 

plane, this the relations of loci to a given plane. 


seems, a man of humble origin.' lie was born, acconliiif^ to 
Tzetzes, in b.c. 287, for he was seventy-five years ohl when he 
lost his life at the storming of Syraeuse by Marcelhis in u.c. 
212." According to Proclus, he travelled to Egypt at an early 
age, and studied mathematics there in the school of Euclid, or 
under Conon the Samian. At a later period he constructed au 
enormous vessel for Iliero, king of Syracuse, which was pre- 
sented to Ptolemy Eucrgctes.'' This ancient Lfviutlian was 
launched by means of a screw invented by Archimedes,^ and a 
water-screw was also contrived by him for pumping the water 
out of the hold. It seems that he sailed to Alexandria in the 
ship, and that he taught the Egyptians the application of his 
water-screw to the annual business of irrigating the Delta.* 
His connexion with the school of Alexandria is farther shown 
by his sending the problem about the oxen of the sun in a 
letter to Eratosthenes." The greater part of his life, however, 
was spent at Syracuse, where he not only distinguished himsell" 
as a pure mathematician and astronomer, and as the founder of 
the theory of Statics, but applied his knowledge to the con- 
struction of machines, and not only those which were of use 
for peaceful purposes, but also and especially of those engines 
of war, the necessity for which applied the first stinudus to the 
mechanical ingenuity of the Greeks. The siege of Samos by 
Pericles is said to have given rise to the first improvement in 
this artillery / it received a special development under Deme- 
trius Poliorcetes, in whose time Diouysius of Alexandria is said 
to have contrived for the Rhodians a catapult for shooting 
volleys of arrows at the same time (TroAi'/ioAoc /vdrdTrtAri/c)-* 
But Archimedes has the credit of carrying this application of 

1 Cic. Tusc. V. ■23, § 64 : 'ex eadem urbe humilem homunculum a puU-cre et 
radio excitabo, Arcliiuiedeni.' Plutarch seems to have imagined that he waa Ji 
relation of king Hiero. He says (Vit. Marcelli, 14. p. 305 fin.): 'ApxiM-'^Sris'Upwri 
T(^ /SacriXet ffvyyevrjs wv kol <pi\os. 

'2 Tzetzes, Chil. II. 105. ^ Athen. V. p. 206 1). 

4 Id. p. 207 A : Karaa-Kevaffas yap iXiKa rb Tr)\iKOVTov <rKd<pos (is rrjy 0d\Mca* 
Karriyaye- Trpwros 5' 'Apx^M^V^ ^vpe ttjv ttjs iXiKOi KaTa.aK(iri]v. 

5 Diodor. I. 34. Vitruv. X. 11. 

6 See Hermann, De Archiimdis Problcmaie Bot-ino, Opusc. IV. pp. 318 sqq. 

7 Ephonis (Fra^rOT. 117, Miiller) apud Pint. Pericl. 27. Sec, however, Grotc, 
Hist, of Gr. VI. p. 38, note. 

8 Diodor. XX. 48. Philo. in Math. vet. pi). 73, 76. 


ingenuity mncli farther than any of his predecessors or con- 
temporaries, and his engines were so powerful that he is said 
to have obliged Marcellus to convert the siege of Syracuse into 
a blockade.' The story about his burning the enemy^s ships 
by reflections from a mirror is probably a fiction.'* 

The great discoveries of Archimedes were the following : — 
(i) He demonstrated the first principle of Statics by 'establish- 
ing, on true grounds, the general proposition concerning a 
straight lever, loaded with two heavy bodies, and resting upon 
a fulcrum.^ The proposition is, that two bodies, so circum- 
stanced, will balance each other, when the distance of the 
smaller body from the fulcrum is greater than the distance of 
the other in exactly the same proportion in which the weight 
of the body is less.^ ^ This theory of the lever, which was the 
foundation of all that was known of Statics till the seventeenth 
century, was fully appreciated, in all its consequences, by 
Archimedes himself, and he is reported to have said : ' Give me 
a locus standi, and I will move the whole world with my stil- 
yard.^^ (2) He invented the planetarium or orrery ; there are 
many references to his contrivance for representing the move- 
ments of the heavenly bodies, but we have no particular 
description of it.*' (3) He discovered the ratio {\) between the 
area of a great circle and the surface of a sphere, and that (f ) 
between the volumes and surfaces of the sphere and cii'cum- 
scribing cylinder. To the latter he attached so much impor- 
tance, that he directed a sphere inscribed in a cylinder to be 
placed on his tomb, and his wish was attended to ; for Cicero, 
when quaestor in Sicily b.c. 75, found his tomb with this figure 
upon it, overgrown with briars and unknown to the Syracusans 

1 Plut. Marcell. 15—18. Liv. XXIV. 34. Polyb. VIII. 5—9. 

^ See the authorities quoted in Smith's Dictionary, I. pp. 270, 271. The possi- 
bility of the story is discussed by Montucla, Uist. d. AJath. I. p. 233 sqq. 

^ It is clear that Aristotle did not understand the principle of the lever, for he 
takes the water as the weight and the rowlock as the fulcrum of the oar {Mechanica, 

0. 4). 

^ Whewell, History of the Indicctive Sciences, I. p. 97. 

^ Tzetzes apud Wallis, III. 537, 545 : 56s irov <ttw /cai x'*/"<'"''''w»'t rav ydv Kiv^au 

6 Cic. De Nat. Deorum, 11. 35, § 88. Tusc. I. 25, § 6^. Ovid, Fast. VI. 277. 
Claudian, Einyr. XXI. in sjt/ucram Archimedis, &c. 


themselves, near one of the city gates.' (4) He solved tlie 
theorem of the centre of gravity of a triangle, of the quadrature 
of the parabola, and of the dimensions of the circle. (5) He 
invented the water-organ, the pulley, and the hydraulic screw. 
(6) He discovered the relation between the weight of bodies 
and the displacement of the water in which they are immersed. 
There is a celebrated account of the circumstances which led 
him to this discovery. Hicro suspected that there was an 
admixture of silver in a golden crown which he had received 
from his goldsmith, and Archimedes undertook to ascertain it 
without interfering with the metal of the crown. The method 
of investigation was suggested to him by observing, while in 
the bath, that a body immersed in water loses weight in i)ro- 
portion to the displaced volume of the water. In his joy he 
rushed, naked as he was, into the street, shouting, ' I have 
found it, I have found it' {ivpi]Ka, ivfjt]Ka), woi'ds which have 
become proverbial for sudden discoveries.-' 

When Syracuse was taken by surprise MarccUus gave in- 
junctions that Archimedes should be spared. But one of the 
soldiers, finding him engaged in his studies, and irritated by 
bis request that his mathematical instruments might not be 
touched, slew him in the heat of the moment. Marccllus 
regretted his death, and treated his family with kindness and 

The works of Archimedes, written in the Doric dialect, are 
as follows:^ (i) on the sphere and the cylinder iu two books; 
(2) on the dimensions of the circle, in which he shows that the 
ratio of the periphery to the diameter is less than y and greater 
than j^ ; (3) on the equilibrium of planes and their centres of 
gravity; (4) on spheroids and conoids, in two books, in which 
he proves that the surface of the ellipse is to that of the cir- 
cumscribed circle as the minor axis is to the major, which is 

1 Cic. Tusc. V. 23, §§ 64 — 66. He bad some of the underwood cleared away, 
and prides himself very much on his discovery. ' Ita nobilissima Gnrci;e civitajj, 
quondam vero etiam doctissima, sui civis unius acutissimi monumentum ignorassct, 
nisi ab homine Arpinate didicisset.' 

2 Vitruv. IX. 3. Proclus in Eucl. II. 3. 

3 Plut. Marcell. 19, who gives three accounts of the circumstances of the death 
of Archimedes. 

* See Torelli's edition, Oxon. 1792, and Peyrard'e French translation, Paris, 1808. 


also the diameter of the circle ; (5) on spirals ; (6) on the quad- 
rature of the parabola ; (7) on the number of the sand (^/^o^t^ti- 
Ttjc;), in which he shows that it is possible to give a greater 
number to the grains of sand than would be included in a ball, 
bounded by the sphere of the fixed stars; (8) the epigram on 
the number of the oxen of the sun (7rjoo|3Xrjjita (3osik6v). 

The most eminent Alexandrian mathematician of the school 
of Euclid was Apollonius, born at Perga in Pamphylia, in the 
reign of Euergetes, and distinguished as a writer in the capital 
of Egypt, under Philopator (b.c. 221 — 204).' His commen- 
tator, Eutocius, calls him ' the great geometer,' and he enjoys 
the reputation of having perfected the doctrine of conic 
sections." His predecessors considered the cone as cut by a 
plane perpendiculai'ly to one of its sides, and therefore required 
three distinct cones, right-angled, acute-angled, and obtuse- 
angled, in order to obtain the parabola, ellipse, and liyperbola 
respectively; whereas Apollonius derived these conclusions 
from the sections of any cone with a circular base by varying 
the inclination of the cutting plane. Of his great work on the 
subject, the conic elements {kojuiko. (ttoi-^ho) in eight books, 
only the first four have come down to us in Greek. The 
eighth is lost altogether, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh were 
recovered, in the seventeenth century, from two Arabic manu- 
scripts at Leyden and Florence. The eighth has been restored 
by our countryman, Edward Halley,^ from the lemmas of 
Pappus. We are told by Eutocius that Heraclius, in his life 
of Archimedes, accused Apollonius of appropriating the un- 
published conic sections of the great mathematician of Syracuse ; 
but, as Geminus remarked, neither Archimedes nor Apollonius 
discovered conic sections, and no one can deny to the latter^ 
the great improvements in the discussion of this branch of 

^ Eutoc. Comm. in Apoll. Con. I. Photius Cod. CXC. 

^ Euhnken, Oratio de Grcecid artiuvi ac doctrinarum inrenfrice, p. 95 : ' Archi- 
medi turn alios, si libet, adjicite, turn imprimis prcestantem arte su^ hominem, 
ApoUonium Pergseum, qui primus omnium, quantum scimus, latentes anteliac et 
obscuras conicarum sectionum proprietates in lucem protulit et scienter deela- 
ravit. ' 

3 Apollonii Pergcei Conicorum, Lihr. VIII., Oxon, 17 10. 

* Montucla {Hist. d. Mathem. I. p. 246) does not hesitate to pronounce the Conic 
Sections of Apollonius ' un des ouvrages les plus pr^cieux de 1' antiquity. ' 


mathematics to which we have already adverted. It was 
Apollonius^ too, who invented the name of ellipse and 
hyperbola for the sections of the acute-angk-d and obtuse- 
angled cone. The section of the right-angled cone was 
called parabola by Archimedes,' who, as we have seen, wrote 
upon its quadrature. It was Apollonius also, who distinguished 
the diameters from the axes of the other two conic sections, 
and restricted the term axis in the parabola to the line which 
passes through the vertex and the focus. 

Besides the conic sections, we are informed by Pappus that 
the following works were written by Apollonius of Perga : (i) 
how to cut segments from two given lines in a given ratio 
{TTtpi Xo-yoi> airoToixr]Q), and SO as to contain a given rectangle 
(ttcjoi -^(opiov a7roTOyii?}g); (2) on the determinate section {-Kifn 
cuopiaf^iiin^q to/.ii]q); (3) on plane loci (Trtpt TuTTiov tTrnricuir): 
these subjects have been discussed by 11. Simson, the editor of 
Euclid, who has endeavoured to reproduce the solutions of 
Apollonius ;- (4) on tactions {Trtpl iiracptjv); (5) on inclinations 
{■jrepi vivcF£(i)v). 

We have already referred in general terms to the diversified 
labours of Eratosthenes, and to his special merits as a chrono- 
loger. Before we attempt to explain what he did in more 
than one application of mathematical science, it will be right 
to state what is known of his personal history. Euatostiii:;nes, 
the son of Aglaus^ of Cyrene, was born b.c. 276, and died 
about B.C. 196, it is said of voluntary starvation, because his 
sight was growing dim.^ He was, therefore, a younger con- 

1 Originally wapa^oXT) was a general term synonymous with /ifpicrfibi and signi- 
fying division as opposed to multiplication. It was applied to the division of the 
cone, when there was onlj' one section for the same cone. In later Greek -wapa- 
/SoXt) signifies any excentric curve : thus we have in Plutarch {Araltis 22) : dta. 
iroWQv eXLyp-Qv Kal TrapajBoXQv irepaivovros irphs rb Tuxoi. The terms t\\(i.\pLS ami 
vwep^oky] are the well known expressions used l>y Aristotle to denote the two vicious 
extremes of excess and defect {Eth. Nic. II. 6 : rd 5' laov p,iaov ti iirep/3oX^s Kal 
eXXeti/'fws), and it was applied to the two conic sections between which the circle 
was regarded a sort of mean. 

2 vepl rdirwy iirnr^Swv. A treatise in two books on Plane Loci. Restored by 
R. Simson. Glasg. 1749. 

3 According to Suidas some called his father Ambrosius, but the best authorities 
are in favour of the other name. 

* Suidas : d7rocrx6/iefos Tpo^^s Oiarb dp.^\vu)TTUV. 


temporary of Archimedes^ who, as we have seen, was his friend 
and correspondent, and he flourished in the reigns of the third, 
fourth, and fifth Ptolemies. He studied philosophy at Athens 
under Ariston of Chios, and the academician Arcesilas, and laid 
the foundations of his grammatical and critical knowledge 
under Lysanias of Cyrene and his countryman Callimachus. 
And he was himself the teacher of Aristophanes of Byzantium, 
and other less known men of letters. It is stated that Ptolemy 
Euergetes summoned him from Athens to Alexandria,' and he 
became the successor of Callimachus, and the immediate pre- 
decessor of Apollonius of Rhodes, as the head of the library. 
Of all the Alexandrians whom we have mentioned, Erato- 
sthenes stands decidedly the highest. Comparing him with 
Callimachus, who alone can vie with him in the versatility of 
his mind, Strabo says that ' Callimachus indeed was both a 
poet and a grammarian, but that Eratosthenes was not only 
these, but attained also to the highest excellence in philosophy 
and mathematics.^ " He used to be called the second or new 
Plato {^evTspoQ Tj viog Tl\aTO)v), and certainly no one except 
Aristotle could be compared with him in the compass and 
accuracy of his knowledge.^ He was ' the admirable Crichton ' 
of ancient learning, and was called ' the Ilei'TadXog/ or ' quin- 
tuple athlete,^ from the name of the champion in the public 
games who excelled in all the five manifestations of bodily activity. 
It is said that he was also called /3/}ra, because he attained to 
the second place of excellence in all the sciences,^ and if this 

^ Suidas : nereviixipdr) i^ 'Ad-ijvwi' virb rou rpirov TlToXe/xalov Kal SUrpiype /U^XP' 
rod TrifiTTTOv. 

^ XVII. p. 838 A : 6 /i^v iron]TT]i &/j,a Kal Trepl ypa/xfjLariKrjv icrirovSaKdis' 6 5^ Kal 
ravTa Kal Trepl (pi.\oao<plav Kal to. /j.adrjfj.aTa ei' res dXXos dta<pipwv. 

^ Bernhardy, Eratosthenica, Berol. 1822, pp. XIII. XIV. : ' sive enim accura- 
tissimum requiras doctrinarum complexum, sive eruditionem minutissima qujeque 
adhibentem ac suis in locis reponentem, rations, judicio subtilissimo, sagacitate 
moderatam, sive humanitatem, quis in angustiis aut anguli natura concessi aut 
disquisitionum minime defixa, veritatem unice investiget, et adjustam ac liberalem 
gentis humanse sese emergat sestimationem ; artiorem harum virtutum consocia- 
tionem prseter Aristotelem nemo ex antiquis auctoribus Eratosthene perfectius 
instituisse deprehendatur.' 

* Suidas, as corrected by Meursius; Artemidor. Ephes. ap. Marc. Heracl. in 
Geogr. min. ed. Hudson, I. p. 62: Kal fier' iKelvov 'EparoffO&rjs 6f ^ijra eKaXeaav 
oi ToO Movaeiov irpocrravTes. Chrestom, ex Strabone, ibid. II. p. 5 : on 'Eparo- 


was the concession of his envious rivals, it is an admission of 
little less value than that of the difi'ercnt Greek states when 
they agreed to place Themistocles second to their own hero at 
Salamis.' But it is not certain that this was the meaning of 
the distinctive affix. At any rate, there are two brandies of 
science in which Eratosthenes must be regarded as second to 
none. ' He founded two sciences/ says one of his modern 
admirers,- ' both of which he found in their infancy — astro- 
nomical geography, and chronology. His calculation of the 
magnitude of the globe was recognized by modern science as 
the most correct that has ever been made. His investigations 
into the synchronisms of the Olympiads, and his indication of 
the leading points in general Greek history, upwards to the 
return of the Heracleidse, and downwards to Alexander the 
Great, became and remained the foundation of all the chrono- 
logical researches of the ancient world. In geography he was 
the guide and authority of Strabo and Ptolemy, in chronology 
of Apollodorus and the later inquirers. He founded the 
historical criticism of the primitive Greek history.' As 
Pythagoras was the first who bore the title of ' philosopher,' so 
Eratosthenes was first honoured with the name of ' philologer,' ■* 
a name which now includes every application of book know- 
ledge, and which, according to one modern wTiter,^ implies 
the knowledge of the known. But he was also an observer, a 
collector of facts, an inductive philosopher, and his reputation 
depends more on his discoveries, which have been duly recorded 

adiv-qs oSt€ tuv diraibevTUv ^u, cure rdv yvrjcws (pCKo(TO(j>oiivTwV 6id koX ^fija 
eKaXelro, us to, devrepda (pipeiv Sokwv iirl irdari iraiBdq.. Other letters were used 
as surnames ; see Jonsius, Hist. Phil. p. 147; Lehrs. Quasi, cp. p. 19, quoted 
by Farthey, Alex. Mm. p. 53, who cites from Simon Dc Mar/itilris, p. 563, 
two explanations of the /S^ra : ' potuit enim Eratosthenes dici /3^o, quod Senipei 
bil)liotheca3 prssesset, quae secunda habebatur, aut .Egyptio nomine a Gnpcis 
delinito, dictus fuit (Sairid {ypvxh xal Kapola).' Apollouius of I'erga was called 
e from his fondness for observing the moon, which, in its crescent form, resembled 
that letter. 

1 Herodotus, VIII. 123. 

2 Bunsen, JEfjypten, I. p. 158. 

3 Bernbardy, Eratosthenica, p. XIV. ; Wyltenbach, ad Plutarch, dc audiendis 
Poetis, p. 2 2 0. [p. 226]. 

* Steinthal, I)e pronomine relativo, p. 5 : ' itaque una viri doctissimi aUjue cla- 
rissimi Bockhii definitio mihi videtur recta : phUoloyiam case cogniti cognitionan.' 


and transmitted to us^ than on his literary labours, which are 
represented only by a few fragments. 

The works of Eratosthenes fell into two main classes, the 
mathematical and the literary ; to the former belonged his 
geographical and mathematical treatises, his astronomical poem 
called Hermes, and probably also his poem Erigone ; to the 
latter, his treatises on the old comedy and on chronology, a 
dialogue called Arsinoe, a book about Ariston, and a treatise 
on moral philosophy (tte/oi ayadiov Kal kukiov).^ His epistles, 
too, are often mentioned. The historical works ascribed to 
him, such as the treatise on the Gauls {TaXaTiKo), of which 
the thirty-third book is cited by Stephanus," were probably 
written by another author of the same name, and the treatises 
' on freedom from pain ' {irepl aXviriag), and ' on riches and 
poverty ' {irefji ttXovtov Kal TTci'tag), may have been parts of 
the work on moral philosophy, which we have already men- 

The geography of Eratosthenes {ye(Dypa(piKaY was in three 
books."* In the first, after a general survey of the labours of 
his predecessors, he gave his theories respecting the form of 
the globe, and the changes which have taken place on its sur- 
face. In the second, he discussed mathematical geography. 
In the third, he collected all that was known of political 
geography, and all that travellers had stated respecting the 
different countries. This work was accompanied by a map, in 
which he introduced for the first time a system of parallels of 
latitude. The great achievement in this work was the dis- 
covery of a correct method of determining the magnitude of 
the earth.* This he effected by a combination of geodsesy with 
astronomy, namely, by comparing the distance from Alex- 
andria to Syene with the corresponding arc of the meridian. 
He had ascertained the obliquity of the ecliptic by means of 

^ Clem. Alex. Strom, p. 496. 

^ s. V. "Tdp7]\a ; see Bemhardy, u. s. p. 109. 

^ See the collected fragments in Bernhardy, pp. 1-109. 

* ' Geographica Eratosthenes tribus tantum libris complexus est, quorum ulti- 
mum, neque eum totum, regionibus per capita describendis addixerat.' Bern- 
hardy, u. s. 

' Varenius, Geographia, ed, Newton, Cambridge, 1681, p. 25. 


the armiUa, or great circles, which he inchiced Ptolcniy 
Euergetes to set up in the porch at Alexandria,' and had stated 
that the interval between the tropics was ^ of the circuin- 
ference.^ Having learned that deep wells at Sycne were illu- 
minated to the bottom at the summer solstice, he concluded 
that this place was on the tropic,' and assuming that Alexandria 
and Svene were on the same meridian, because the Nile was 
supposed to flow from south to north, he found that as the 
zenith of Alexandria w^as distant from that of Sycne by £ of 
the circumference, and as the distance of the two places was, 
in round numbers, 5000 stadia, the circumference of the earth 
must be, in round numbers, 250,000 stadia. The exact result 
should have been 2 1 6,000 stadia/ The error of Eratosthenes, 
however, was not in his method, which is that still adopted, 
but in his assumptions, for the longitude of Alexandria diflcrs 
3° from that of Syene, and the distance of the two places is 
not exactly measured. Pliny tells us'^ that Eratosthenes 
himself altered the result to 252,000 to give an exact number 
of 700 stadia for the degree, which increased the error, for the 
degree is 694^ stadia.'"' He made another oversight in 
neglecting the diameter of the sun's image in the well. But 
besides hitting on the right method, his results were much 
nearer the truth than those of Aristotle" and Archimedes/ wlio 
made the periphery 400,000 stadia, and 300,000 stadia re- 

The mathematical treatises of Eratosthenes are for the most 
part lost. We have still his letters to Ptolemy, with the 
accompanying epigram, on the solution of the Delian problem. 

1 Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, I. p. ?to. 

2 Dr. "Whewell says (u. s, p. 215) : 'it is probable that his observation gave him 

47| 143 11-13 II ,. , • 1 " ' 

471 degrees. The fraction 3-5!= F^ 8^ = 7^8^ =8^^ ^^"^^ '« ^'^^ "^'"'y Vi 

3 Thelat. of Syene, the modem Assouan, is 24° 10' N.. and ita long. 32° 59' E. 
See De Morgan in Smith's Dictionanj II. p. 45. 

* Parthey, Alex. Mus. p. 193. 

5 H. N. II. 108, § 247 : 'universura autem circuitiim Eratosthenes in omnium 
quidem litterarum subtilitate, et in hac utique prteter ceteros soUers, quern cunctia 
probari video CCLII. milium stadiorum prodi.lit.' 

6 De Morgan, u. s. ' De Calo II. 14 fin. 
8 Aren. II. init. 


or the duplication of the cube/ and Nicomachus- has described 
his ingenious arithmetical contrivance called ' the sieve ' 
{koctkivov), for detecting the prime numbers. 

In the poem called Hermes, Eratosthenes used the mythology 
of this Greek deity, in combination with that of his Egyptian 
representative Thoth, as a convenient vehicle for the exposition 
of the descriptive astronomy and its bearing on the calculation 
of time, which were said by the Egyptian priests to have been 
first taught by that divinity.^ The work called KaTaaTipiajjLo'i, 
which is still extant, is a compilation from Hyginus/ who 
probably made use of the Hermes of Eratosthenes. Erigone, 
who gave her name to the constellation Virgo, was also in all 
probability the subject of an astronomical poem. 

Of the purely literary works, the most important were the 
Chronographies, of which we have akeady spoken,^ and the 
treatise on the old comedy, in twelve books, which, following 
critically in the steps of Lycophron and Callimachus, not only 
investigated with the greatest accuracy the history of the 
authors and the arguments of the plays, but gave details re- 
specting the arrangements of the theatre, the costume of the 
actors, and the whole mise en scene, which we are now obliged 
to derive from secondary sources." Of his works referring to 
the philosophy of the Athenian schools, we must regret the 
loss of the book which he wrote about his own teacher, Ariston 
of Chios, from which Athenseus' quotes the lively expression of 
Eratosthenes, ' I have ah'cady detected this man (the stoic 
philosopher), who digs a hole in the party-wall between 

^ Eutocius ad Archimedis sphwram et cylindrum, pp. 21, 22, ed. Basil. Bern- 
hardy, Eratosthenica, p. 175 sqq. 

2 Arithmet. p. 17, Wechel. Bernhardy, p. 173, 

3 Catasterism. c. 20 : to npCiTov (XTOixelov 'Epfiov Oevros 6s tov diaKOfffiov tup 
dcyrpajv iTroirjaaTO. ' Ex opinione modo memorata, quse non omnino ab Erato- 
sthene conficta esse videtur sed potius secundum j3Egyptiorum disciplinara 
numinis Thot inventa Grsecanico deo magnam imposuit partem.' Berahardy, 
p. HI. 

* ' His inter se collatis et perpensis liquere opinor non Hyginum Catasterismos 
expilasse, sed illi hos originem debere." Bernhardy, p. 129. 

5 Above, p. 483 [323]. 

^ Meineke, Hist. Crit. Com. Gr. p. 11. Bernhardy, p. 203 sqq. 

'' Athen. VII. p. 281 C. : ^St; 5^ Trore Kal tovtov TrecpthpaKa rov r^s ^Sovj); Kal 
dperiis fxeadroixov diop^TTOvra Kai ava(paLvbp.evov irapa rrj ijSovy. 


pleasure and virtue, aud makes his appearance in the abode of 
the former.' 

From the founder of mathematical geograjjliy, we pass to 
the father of exact astronomy, and we have in this case also to 
repeat the regret that his greatest works are known to us only 
at second hand. IIipPAKcnus of Nicrea, in Bithynia, who 
flourished in the middle of the second century u.c., and died 
about B.C. 125, some seventy years after Eratosthenes,' spent 
the greater part of his life at Rhodes. His connexion with 
the school of Alexandria, which has been generally taken for 
granted, and which is not improbable in itself, cannot be 
established by direct evidence." It is certain that his imme- 
diate forerunners, Timochares of Alexandria, and Conon of 
Samos, were connected with the court of the Ptolemies, and 
this is also surmised with regard to Aristyllus. Ilipparchus 
must have been influenced more or less directlv bv the 
works of Eratosthenes,^ and one of his earliest works, which is 
still extant, namely, a commentary on the Phcenomena of 
Aratus, is a book of the Alexandrian order, and indicates a 
course of study not unlike that of the Museum.^ His great 
work, the catalogue of the fixed stars,^ may have borne a 
similar relation to the Hermes of Eratosthenes, and the dis- 
covery of the precession of the eqidnoxes, to which it led him, 
had been anticipated in a rude way by the Egyptian astro- 
nomers,'' from whom the Pythagoreans borrowed it." But if 

^ Suidas : "IwTrapxos, NtKaei^s, <pCK6co(po'5, yeyovCis iirl tQv viraTuv. On which 
Reinesius observes : ' melius dixisset, floruisse Perseo Romanis capto et tempore 
belli Puniei 3. et Numantini. Voss. de Scient. Mathem. c. 33.' It seems that the text 
of Suidas omits the names of the consuls (Cirarot), by whose year of ofl&ce his birth 
was fixed. 

2 See Delambre, Histoire de I'Astronomieandenne, I., Discours priliminaire^ pp. 
xxi. xxiv. II., p. 108. 

3 A commentaiy on Aratus, written neither by Eratosthenes nor by Hipparchus, 
is attributed by some to the former, by others to the latter. Delambre supposes 
that it may have been an extract from a work by Eratosthenes (Hiit. de tAstr. 
anc. T. p. 173). 

* See a full analysis of this commentary in Delambre, Hist, de VAstr. anc. I., 
pp. 106 sqq. 

5 Delambre u. s., pp. 290 — 3. He was the first author of the planisphere : Id, 

P- 315- 

" Lepsius, Chronologic der lEijypten, pp. 196 sqq. 

^ Id. ibid. p. •206. 


we had less reason than we have for numbering Hipparchus 
among those who derived their training from the school of 
Alexandria, we owe our acquaintance with his discoveries so 
entirely to the work of Claudius Ptolemseus, in which they are 
incorporated, that we can hardly place him in any other con- 
nexion. As a question of Greek literature, the system of 
Hipparchus must be treated in connexion with that of Ptolemy;' 
a full account of his discoveries belongs to the history of 
mathematics, astronomy, or the inductive sciences in general, 
and he has been duly honoured by the greatest writers on 
these subjects, Montucla, Delambre, and Whewell. It will be 
sufficient in this place to mention briefly what were the 
general results of his labours. 

Hipparchus discovered by his own observations, which ex- 
tended from B.C. 162," when he first observed the autumnal 
equinox, to b.c. 127,^ assisted by those of Aristarchus of Samos, 
that the ordinary solar year of ^6^i days was five minutes too 
long, and corrected the period of Callippus by deducting the 
day of excess from the 304 years. He was the first to observe 
accurately the anomaly of the sun's motion, and constructed 
solar tables by means of which the sun's place with respect to 
the stars could be correctly found at any time. In connexion 
with this he established the theory of epicycles, or, what is 
much the same thing, determined the orbit called the eccentric. 
He made some progress in similar calculations with regard 
to the path of the moon. By an ingenious contrivance, known 
as the Diagramma Hipparchi, he determined the magnitude and 
relative distance of the heavenly bodies. It was he, as we 
have already mentioned, who first undertook a catalogue of the 
fixed stars.'' He thus enumerated 1080, and indicated their 

1 Below, chapter LVI. , § i . 

2 He observed the autumnal equinox on the 30th of Mesore in the 17th year of 
the third Callippic period = 27th Sept., 162 B.C. Clinton, F. H. III. p. 87. 

3 According to Ptolemy {Syntaxis III. pp. m, 112) he took observations 
at Rhodes on the 22nd March, B.C. 128, on the 4th Aug., B.C. 128, on the 
2nd May, B.C. 127, and on the 7th July, B.C. 127. See Clinton, F. H. III. 
p. 119. 

■» PUny in a remarkable passage {H. N. II. 26, § 95) says that Hipparchus was 
led to form this catalogue from the observation of a new moving star, probably a 

HiprARCiius. 353 

places in a KaTa(TTEf)i(T/.iug, or celestial map.' It was in the 
course of this labour that he determined, nliat was previously 
known to the old astronomers/- the precession of the e([uinoxes,^ 
and he wrote a special treatise on this subject. At first he 
confined this movement to the stars in and near the zodiac, 
but he eventually found that it was general. Having only 
the imperfect observations of Timochares and Aristyllus to 
compare with his own/ he was obliged to content himself with 
fixing the minimum of this movement at ;^6" per annum, in- 
stead of 50" 12, at which it is now estimated. He com- 
pleted the method of determining the latitude and longitude 
of places, to which Eratosthenes had made a first approxi- 
mation ; he calculated longitude by the eclipses of the moon, 
and gave rules for predicting the eclipses both of the moon 
and of the sun. Of the instruments with which he performed 
all these observations, Ptolemy gives us no account. But it is 
clear that he had few, if any, of the resources of a modern 
observatory,^ and the Greek system of arithmetical notation 
must have increased his difficulties in no slight measure. 
What steps he took to obviate this inconvenience is not known, 
but' it may be inferred from an incidental notice in Plutarch 
that he had cbawn up a system of arithmetic, or had written 
on the subject.'' The operations undertaken by Hippar- 
chus show that he was acquainted with stereographic projec- 
tions, and with the methods of plane and spherical trigo- 

^ He intended that his celestial map should represent the concavity of the 
sphere. Delambre {Hist, de I'Astr. anc. I. y>. hi) says: ' Attalus a voulu disculper 
Aratus, en disant que le Dragon dtait peint tel qu'on le verrait de dehors. 
Hipparque rejette cette excuse, en disant qu'on dessine les constellations pour 
notre usage, telles que nous les voyons et tourn^es vers nous, ce qui est ^ 

^ Lepsius, Chronologic der jEgyptm, pp. 196 — 209. 

^ Delambre u. s. I. 175, II. 103. 

* Ptolem. Synt. VII. c. i — 4. Ideler, Uandhuch, I. pp. 27, 193. 

5 Ruhnen {de Grcecia, &c., p. 96): ' erudita ilia Graicorum gens ultra, quo 
progrederetur, vix habuit, turn aliis caussis impedita, tum omni fere supellectile, 
quse sideribus observandis inserviat, destituta. ' And he adds : ' quo niagis 
saepenumero veterum sagacitatem admiror, qui, quae recentiores tuborum ope cog- 
norint, eadem, tanquam divini, raril et singular! ingenii vi conjecerint.' 

8 De repugnantiis Stoicis, p. 1047 D, V. I. p. 269, Wyttenb. : Xpixriirirov bk 
Trdcres ^Xiyxovaiv ol apiO fxr^TLKoi, S>v Kal 'lTnra.px(>^ iffTiv, dTroSfiKvvwv t6 
SidiTTU/xa Tov Xoyiff/JLOU irafxixiyedf^ avru yeyovds, 

A A 


nometry ;' and as no mention is made of these branches of pure 
mathematics before his time, he must have the honour of the 

The only extant works of Hipparchus are his juvenile com- 
mentary on Aratus and Eudoxus (rwi/ 'Aparov /cat 'Ev^o^ov 
^aivo/iievMv L^ijyijaewv /3tj3Xto -y'), to which we have already re- 
ferred, and which may be compared, in some respects, with 
Newton^s first publication — the reprint of the Geography of 
Varenius r and the catalogue of the fixed stars {^sKOecng acrrepi- 
anCov, or TTzpl Tojv cnrXavujv avaypa<pai), which is quoted verbatim 
in Ptolemy^s Syntaxis? The following works are mentioned, but 
are entii'ely lost : (i) on the magnitude and distances of the sun 
and moon (ttejoj jneyEOcov kciI cnrotTTyi/naTwv) :* we know that he 
fixed the sun's distance from the earth at 1 200 radii of the earth ; 
that of the moon at 59 radii ; the diameter of the sun was 5^ 
diameters of the earth, and the diameter of the earth was 3I 
diameters of the moon ; (2) on the movement of the moon in 
latitude {Trepi rrjc Kara irXaTog /nrjvia'iag rfjc crfXjji'rjg Kivi^aitog) f 
(3) on the length of the month [Trepl ^trjvtaiou -^povov) ;" (4) on 
the length of the year {irepl iviavaiov peysOovg) f (5) on the 
retrogradation of the solstitial and equinoctial points {irepl rijc 
lii£Ta7rT0j(JcU>g Ttou rpoTriKwu Kai laiif^i^piviov ar)/niiun') f (6) on 
intercalated months and days {-Trfpi i/ajSoXipiov nrjvwu re Kai 
i]piph)v) f (7) on the theory of the straight lines in a circle 
[iTcpl Ti^Q Trpayf.iaTi.iaQ tCjv kv kvkXu) cvdsiiov), probably a 
treatise on plane trigonometry ;'" (8) on gravitation {-n-epl twv 
Sia (5apog KUTU) (l>epopei'oji>) ;" (9) on eclipses of the sun {irspi 
£/cXei!//£wv i]\iov Kara ra kirra KXifiara)'^" (lo) a criticism on the 
geography of Eratosthenes, of which Strabo quotes the second 

^ See Delambre, Mist, de I'Astr. anc. I. p. 117. 

2 Berlin. Vareni Geographia gencralis, ab Isaaco Newtono, Math. Prof. Lucas . 
apud Cantabrigienses, ed. II. Cantabr. 1681. 

3 Ptolemy, VII. 5. Perhaps this work included the two mentioned by Suidas as ; 
wepi TTJs T. a. crvvTOL^euis Kai KaTacTTepiaixov. 

* Ptolemy, ihid. ^ Mentioned by Suidas and Eudocia. 

" Mentioned by Galen. "^ Ptolemy, III. 2. ^ Id. 

^ Ptolemy, Syntaxis, III. 1, p. 63, quoted by Clinton, F. H. II. p. 339, note 
V. , who has shown how nearly Hipparchus approximated to the true time. 
^^ Theon, Comment, in Almagest. I. 9. 
^^ Simplicius, de Ccelo, I. p. 61 B. 
1"^ Achilles Tatius, Isagog. in Arat. Phcenom. 19. p. 139. Cf. Plin. IT. N. II. X2. 


book,' The diligence and accuracy of this review are highly 
commended by Pliny/ but Strabo thinks that Hipparchus was 
somewhat unfair in bringing his accurate geometry to bear on 
the rough and general views of his illustrious predecessor.^ 

Such was the great Hipparchus, of whom Pliny says that he 
is never sufficiently praised/' and whom he places by the side of 
Thales, as a man of more than human ability ;' Avhom even the 
fastidious Delambre considers ' one of the most extraordinary 
men of antiquity, the very greatest in the sciences which require 
a combination of observation with geometry/" If the patronage 
of the Ptolemies had produced no result beyond the encourage- 
ment which it aflforded to labours like his and those of 
Eratosthenes, we must regard it as the best bestowed muni- 
ficence that ever graced the throne of a military sovereign. 
And Alexandria mav thus claim, in addition to its services in 
fui'nishing warehouse-room for the literature of Greece, and 
mustering a troop of careful editors and commentators, the 
distinction of having encouraged the first beginnings of the 
greatest of inductive sciences. It is only to be regi'etted that 
we have so often saved from the ruins of the librarv the results 
of scholastic industry and ingenuity, instead of those efforts of 
original genius which have left their impress on the intellectual 

1 II. p. 69. 

2 H. X. II. 108, § 247 : ' Hipparchus et iu coarguendo eo et in reliqud omni 
diligently mirus. ' 

^ II. p. 79 : ayvuiixovuv Srj SS^eteu S.i' 6"lTnrapxos irpbs Tr]v Toiavrrjv oXocrx^pet-o." 
yeio/j.€rpi.KQs avTiXeyuiv. 

^ H, N. II. 26, § 95 : 'Idem Hipparchus, nunquam satis laudatus, ut quo nemo 
magis adprobaverit cognationem cum homine siderum animasque nostras partem 
esse cceli.' For the sentiment, cf. II. 12, §§ 54, 55, and 11, § 49, 

5 E. N. 12, §§ 53-55, 

® The words of Delambre deserve to be quoted in the original (Hist, de VAstr. 
anc. I. pp. 185, 6): 'quand on reunit tout ce qu'il a invente ou perfectionn^, 
qu'on songe au nombre de ses ouvrages, k la quantity de calculs qu'ils supposent, 
on trouve dans Hipparque un des hommes les plus dtonnans de I'antiquitt^, et le 
plus gi-and de tous dans les sciences qui ne sont pas purement speculatives, et qui 
d^raandent qu'aux connaissances geomdtriques on r(5unisse des connaissances de 
faits particuliers et de phi^nomenes dont I'observation exige beaucoup d'assiduit6 
et des instrumens perfection n^s.' For the value of this praise, see Whewell's 
Jlistory of the Inductive Sciences, I. p. 191. 







Donaldson, John William 

A history of the liter- 
ature of tncient Greece 








m r- 

«»■ t.