RSI IT FORNlA CME.QO Htbrte Ha&ue COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS NEW YURK I LEMCKE & BUECHNER 30-32 WEST 27 STREET LONDON : HENRY FROWDE AMEN CORNER, E. C. TORONTO : HENRY FROWDE 25 RICHMOND STREET. W. THE CLASSICAL PAPERS OF MORTIMER LAMSON EARLE WITH A MEMOIR New York 3hr Columbia SnivrrattQ 1912 All right reserved COPYRIGHT, 1912. BY THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS Printed from type. 1911. TO THE MEMORY OF SYDNEY GILLESPIE ASHMORE WHOSE UNTIMELY DEATH IS AT ONCE A GRIEVOUS SORROW TO HIS FRIENDS AND A SERIOUS LOSS TO AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIP THIS VOLUME WHICH OWES MUCH TO HIS GENEROUS DEVOTION IS DEDICATED BY THE EDITORS PREFACE This book was undertaken by a committee of Professor Earle's colleagues, consisting of Professors Knapp, Lodge, Perry, and myself, with the object of putting on record in permanent form his chief contributions to classical learning. With the excep- tion of the three plays he edited the Alcestis, the Medea, and the Oedipus Rex there will be found here practically everything left by Professor Earle, whether in papers already published or in manu- script ready for publication. The editors, knowing well Professor Earle's fastidious care in all work that he allowed to appear, were unwilling to include anything that he himself might have regarded as not sufficiently finished. Most of the papers, therefore, in the present volume have already appeared in the various learned peri- odicals. The principal new matter consists of some notes on Plato, Republic, Book I, which Professor Earle had intended to publish; a note, supplementary to his article on the Prooemium of Thucy- dides, on the Wall of Troy, all that remains of some extensive work on the Homeric Question which he had begun during the last year of his life; and some notes on the Trachinians. The editors are well aware that the arrangement of the book is open to criticism in many respects ; the diversity of the material, collected from different peri- odicals, made it almost impossible to secure complete uniformity, even in such matters as the spelling of proper names. Scholars, how- ever, will not allow these blemishes to impair their appreciation of the work. In the Appendix has been included a selection from Professor Earle's poems and translations, as well as a facsimile of his Greek script, which was exceptionally fine and clear. The memoir is the work of the late Professor S. G. Ashmore, of Union College, one of Professor Earle's life-long and most intimate friends. Thanks are here extended to the editors of The American Jour- nal of Archaeology, The American Journal of Philology, The Classi- cal Review, Revue de Philologie, Mnemosyne, and The Bookman, Vlll for their cordial permission to republish the articles of Professor Earle, which appeared in these periodicals. Professor Carroll N. Brown of the College of the City of New York kindly gave the editors the benefit of his excellent knowledge of Modern Greek, in connection with Professor Earle's poems in that language. Help in copying was rendered by Miss Lucile Kohn and Miss Pearl C. Wilson, and in the preparation of the bibliography by Miss Lucy Sherman, all former pupils of Professor Earle. The proof has been revised throughout by Professor Knapp and myself. G. M. HIRST. New York, Jan. i, 1912. CORRIGENDA P. 75, footnote, for XXIV (1903) read XXIV (1893). P. 145, footnote, for YHOCTAYOYN read YHOCTAYPOYN. MORTIMER LAMSON EARLE Martimer Lamson Earle was born in New York on Oct. 14, 1864, and died in New York, Sept. 26th, 1905 ; he was the only child of Mortimer Lent Earle of New York and his wife, Mercy Josephine, daughter of Henry Allen of Providence, R. I. The founder of the family in America was one Edward Earle, who came to this country from England in 1649, at tne a e f 2I > an d settled in New Jersey, on the island of Secaucus, where the old Earle homestead is still standing (1909), with a stone on which is carved "Edward Earle, 1689". This Edward Earle and his son Edward received various commissions from the King of England to important public offices in Bergen County, N. J., and were both of them men of wealth, position and influence. There were two other Edwards in the direct line of descent to the subject of this sketch, of whom one held a Captain's commission from King George III, the other, two genera- tions later, became well known as a physician in New York, where he sacrificed his life to the cause of duty and philanthropy during the cholera season of 1849. Edward the physician married Margaret Elizabeth Lent and was the grandfather of Mortimer Lamson Earle. In the Lent family two ancestors of Mortimer Lamson Earle dis- tinguished themselves as officers in the Continental Army. Another notable ancestor on the Lent side came from Holland to New Amster- dam in 1647 as Secretary to Governor Peter Stuyvesant. The name of this young man was Barent Resolved Waldron, Jr. He filled various public positions of trust, and proved himself to be both a true statesman and an able diplomat. The mother of Mortimer Lamson Earle was of English and New England descent and inherited all the sterling qualities of her race, independence of character, a deep sense of honour, fine sensibilities, and high religious ideals. The father was a man of business in New York and is said to have possessed a personality of unusual charm and attraction. Mortimer Lamson Earle spent the earlier years of his life in New York and its vicinity; he was prepared for college, in part at the public schools of East Orange, New Jersey, in part by private tutors, but he did much to prepare himself, without aid from others, and entered Columbia University in 1882. In his boyhood he was cut off from much of that home life which falls to the lot of most children, because he was an only child, and lacked that association with others of his own name and condition which goes far toward rendering childhood happy. He was thrown in upon himself and his own resources, and became in consequence somewhat introspective, and more than ordinarily thoughtful. Ow- ing partly to this and partly to a certain physical weakness, which he afterwards outgrew, he was averse to the usual games and sports in which children commonly engage. Yet there was nothing churlish or forbidding in his nature. His disposition was cheerful, and his very thoughtfulness was often the occasion of his becoming a leader and a favourite among his schoolmates. One thing in particular contributed largely to this result. This was his love of the beauties of nature, a sentiment which in his case was more than usually developed if we consider his years. He studied the habits of insects, made a collection of butterflies, learned the scientific names of plants and animals, and was always ready to impart his information and give his decision, whenever his play- mates came to him with questions and problems. In fact, so ob- viously did his tastes lie in the direction of nature-study that his career would probably have taken a technical and scientific direc- tion had not other influences turned his thoughts to the pursuit of literature and language. On entering Columbia College he found there a fixed curriculum. The elective system had not then developed into what afterwards rendered possible a wide choice of subjects even for the entering Freshman. Greek and Latin were prescribed from the start and to them he applied himself with diligence. His intimate friend, Mr. William Wiley, was then in the Senior Class at Columbia, and being convinced that this quiet, studious boy had in him the making of a scholar, he took the young Freshman to see Mr. Merriam, who was then at the height of his promise as Professor of Greek. Mr. Merriam was soon convinced of the abilities and scholarly tastes of his pupil and became deeply interested in his progress. The friendship that ensued continued with ever deepening intensity until Professor Merriam's untimely death. Thus young Earle XI was marked out for a scholar, whose chief interest lay in the study and interpretation of the Greek literature and language. But there was nothing narrow about his attainments; his scholarship was as broad as it was thorough, and all that he has given to the world in his writings exhibits that breadth of knowledge which implies familiarity with the collateral branches of art and architecture and archaeology, and whatever else is of genuine value to the true classicist. His performances during the Freshman year at college were note- worthy only so far as his Greek studies were concerned. He came off however with three prizes at the end of his Sophomore year one in each of the departments of Greek, Latin and History. It was during the summer immediately preceding his Junior year, when Earle was about twenty years of age, that he began a series of diaries which are remarkable for the fact that they are written throughout in a foreign tongue. No less than three languages find an important place in these records. One of these languages is Latin, another German, and the third is modern Greek. The last he learned during a visit to Greece at the time when Professor Merriam was in Athens, and in charge there of the American School of Archaeology. As his purpose in writing his diaries was merely to acquire practice in handling the languages just named, and as the subjects about which he writes are chiefly those most nearly connected with his studies and investigations, it is not sur- prising that very little is found in these interesting documents which can be said to throw light on the history of his life. Nevertheless one may gather from them indications of his trend of thought and of the general character of his reading, at a time when his mind was taking shape and his literary tastes were form- ing. For example, while he was still an undergraduate he read the New Testament in Greek, Cicero's letters and "De Fato", as well as Emerson's Essays, Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic, Darwin's Origin of Species and other books of an equally serious character, besides a definite amount of ordinary Latin which he had determined to add daily to whatever other studies his fancy might suggest. At an early period in his career he complains of lack of progress in his Latin studies, and gives expression to hh feelings in a remark which many of the Latin teachers of to-day would do well to take to Xll heart a remark which shows that he was taking his study of the Classics very seriously: "Mihi non multum in Latine scribendo progredi videor, sed multo melius scriberem, non dubito, si ver- sutum haberem magistrum, qui non aliter uteretur hac lingua quarn propria, id est Anglicana. Mihi non dubium est quin turpissimum sit magistrum in lingua docenda constituere qui cognitionem non habeat intimam linguae ei commissae." One of Mr. Earle's personal characteristics was a tendency to self-depreciation; this was undoubtedly due to despondency, to which he was subject even in his undergraduate days; he seemed troubled by thoughts which not infrequently take possession of a young man's mind at this period of his life thoughts bearing upon the position of man with reference to nature, and upon man's eternal destiny. In one of his entries he hopes to be an alumnus in two years, when perhaps he will "see more clearly what now troubles him", for "sol in animo occidere videtur" he says, after having in- terested himself in composing an imaginary dialogue between Calvin and Newman on the "Doctrina f ati liberaeque voluntatis". Moreover his high ideals rendered it difficult for him to appreciate his own at- tainments ; the latter seemed to him always to fall short of the goal. Although this tendency was a sign of merit, yet it pointed also to the habit of introspection, and did not augment his happiness. Results which would have been sources of encouragement to others were to him something of the reverse, for they indicated to his mind only the inadequacy of his efforts to secure perfection. His friends viewed these peculiarities of his temperament with wonder, for they realized that they were hardly justified by the facts. The record of his college course shows clearly that he was far beyond the average man of his years in all that is -allied to scholarship and learn- ing. He won no less than five scholarships, of which three were in Greek, one in Latin and one in History. These scholarships were prizes of one hundred dollars each. The subject of his graduating thesis was John Milton, whose writings, as he tells us in one of his Latin diaries, had had a very great influence in the formation of his spiritual beliefs. At the time of his graduation the fellowship in letters was assigned to him. This gave him five hundred dollars per annum for three years, and enabled him not only to serve as a tutor in the college, but Xlll also to become a student at the University of Bonn and at the Ameri- can School of Classical Studies in Athens. Both in Bonn and in Athens Earle made good use of his time. His knowledge of German rendered his Greek studies at the Uni- versity both easy and interesting and enabled him to absorb there with unusual rapidity all that was of immediate importance to his purpose. The Germans, from the first, have taken the lead in archaeological investigation, and Earle made full use of all the opportunities presented to him in this field. He attended lectures on archaeology both at Bonn and Berlin, made a careful study of Overbeck and other authorities, and devoted much time to the casts and originals in the great museums. It was the good fortune of the writer to meet him in Berlin in the summer of 1889 and to take note of his studies and his methods. Under the circumstances it was impossible not to observe his keen appreciation of the advan- tages offered by the archaeological resources of the Berlin collec- tion. It was an inspiration in itself to hear him talk on the subject of archaeology, to take in the points which he made in reference to ancient art, and to learn from him the distinctions which expert knowledge is wont to make in the matter of earlier and later schools of statuary and architecture. Prof. Earle's talents were well under- stood by Prof. Merriam, who, in the year 1887, was director, as has been said, of the American School at Athens. On Earle's first visit to Athens Prof. Merriam placed him in charge of excava- tions which the school was at this time conducting on the site of ancient Sikyon, and with the happiest results, for Earle not only uncovered an interesting theatre, but also a marble statue of Dio- nysos, which is now preserved in the National Museum at Athens. The statue was of life size, and a cast of it is now on exhibition in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It was this statue that Earle took for the subject of his thesis for his Doctor's de- gree. The thesis, written in Latin, was never published. 1 But in a letter to the Evening Post of February 6th, 1888, Earle speaks of the "importance of the statue as being the first considerable example of Sikyonian sculpture found on the old site". Other things also engaged his attention during the two years of '[The original copy is in the possession of his widow. See article published below pp. 234-46.] XIV his early visit to Athens, for he returned to New York bringing witli him a practical knowledge of the modern Greek tongue, which he was able not only to speak but also to write with fluency and even elegance. Such acquirements as these implied a familiarity with Greek character and Greek lands, such as few of his colleagues in the colleges of America could hope to attain in so short a time. As a consequence his services were in demand almost immediately on his return to New York. He had already received the degrees of M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University, and very soon he was appointed to a position at Barnard College, which had just opened its doors to young women who were seeking the benefits of a liberal education. From 1889 to 1895 he filled the post of in- structor in Greek at Barnard. In the latter year he accepted a call from Bryn Mawr, where for three years he bore the title of Associate Professor in Greek and Latin. In 1898 he returned to his former post in Barnard College which was then about to become a part of Columbia University. Two years afterwards he was pro- moted to the professorship of Classical Philology in Columbia Uni- versity, a position which he held until his death, in 1905. The writer can bear personal witness to the superior excellence of Professor Earle's lectures and papers, many of which he was privileged to listen to, not only in earlier days at Barnard College, but also at a later time when Earle would speak before the Classical Club in Columbia University, or at gatherings of the American Philological Association. Earle was the first appointed secretary of the Faculty of Barnard College under its newly organized relations with Columbia Univer- sity, and was chairman of its committee on admissions from the date of its establishment in 1900 till January 1905. He was secretary also of the Division of Classical Philology in Columbia till 1903, and from 1903 until his death he served as its chairman. He had been reflected chairman a short time before he died. Professor Earle's long and varied experience in teaching, both at Barnard and Bryn Mawr, will perhaps lend particular interest to his views on the education of women. Some of these views are contained in the following extract from an article by him on the education of women which appeared in the Columbia Uni- versity Quarterly 1 . . . "If the college education of women is to be 1 [For June 1900, pp. 231-234.] XV what it should be, it must be broad without shallowness, minute without pettiness ; it must be so conducted that the whole structure may be constantly regarded as well as the parts; it must be fitly framed together vertebrate, not invertebrate. We must have the star, as well as the wagon. Is not the same true of the college education of young men? In a word we have not merely an intel- lectual problem before us, but a moral problem in the truest sense. Character must be built up in college. Honest study, honest think- ing, a regard for real intellectual growth and acquisition must be stimulated. Students must be led to regard what they get into their heads and hearts, rather than how high they are rated on examina- tion reports. They must regard the weightier matters of the law, tithe the mint and cummin as they will . . . The element of sex can perhaps be as easily eliminated from education as from other departments of human activity. We all know how easy that is. It is, after all, to the common ground of intellectual life that we have principally to address ourselves in liberal education rather than to the ill-defined border land of differences based on sex. It may fairly be asked whether we have as yet defined that border land well enough to keep surely outside of it, if we so desire." The American Philological Association had enrolled Mr. Earle among its members as early as the year 1890, and elected him to the Vice-Presidency in 1902 a position which he filled with distinction for three years. His death in September 1905, alone prevented his elevation to the Presidency, an honour that could not have failed to become his at the regular meeting of the Association in the follow- ing December. Mr. Earle was a member of the Archaeological In- stitute of America, the American Dialect Society, the Egypt Explora- tion Fund, and of classical clubs in New York and Philadelphia. As a classical scholar, Prof. Earle may be ranked as one of our foremost Americans. In fact he won recognition in two continents, and had given rich promise of even greater distinction when (at the age of forty) his life was suddenly terminated by typhoid fever, contracted in Sicily after a summer spent in Dalmatia, Greece, and Crete. Abundant testimony to his scholarship and high character is afforded by his colleagues in various college faculties, and by his many other friends, in all parts of the world. Let us recall for the moment a few of the things that have been said about him by those who knew and worked with him. XVI Prof. Perry of Columbia University refers to his scholarship in the American Journal of Philology. 1 Prof. Perry's words are as follows: "As a scholar, Prof. Earle occupied a position almost unique among living Americans. While a well rounded classicist, with actual achievement in archaeological work to look back upon, his chosen field was discussion and interpretation of the text of Greek and Latin authors, and his contributions to the better understanding of Greek and Latin literature were very many. With the palaeo- graphy of Greek and Latin manuscripts and with the labours of earlier scholars in editing and interpretation he had an extraordinary acquaintance, perhaps unmatched in this country. He was in con- stant correspondence with classical scholars here and abroad, who de- lighted to ask his opinion on disputed points." Prof. Herbert Weir Smyth of Harvard University pays him the following tribute: 1 "By Prof. Earle's untimely death, the United States loses one of its most gifted scholars and Columbia Univer- sity one of its most effective and beloved teachers . . . He was intellectually honest to the core. He was possessed by the scholarly instinct to the highest degree. Critical in his attitude of thought and refined in his taste, he permitted nothing to pass that seemed to him shallow, pretentious or frigid. He was a hater of shams, above all of the sham of half knowledge. His own knowledge was varied and exact, but he made no display. His short life, filled with devotion to high ideals, will remain an inspiration to the many friends who mourn his loss." President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia refers to his death in words of sincere interest and appreciation i 1 "In the death of Dr. Earle the University and American classical scholarship lose one of their brightest ornaments. Patient, cautious and persis- tent, Dr. Earle won for himself a place in the front rank of Ameri- can classical scholars and teachers. His contributions to classical philology are numerous and important, and his work in the class- room and in the seminar was of unusual excellence. Dr. Earle was of the type of scholar that no university can afford to be with- out, for it is a type to which scholarly ideals and scholarly standards are all in all." 1 [Vol. xxxi. No. 4]. 1 [See The Classical Review for March, 1906.] 1 [See Report for 1905, p. 34.] xvn Professor Charles Foster Smith, of the University of Wisconsin, has expressed himself in the following terms in a letter to Mrs. Earle: "I always believed in him; we were all better for having known him, and traditions of his scholarship will linger, not only in Columbia, but all over America. Such a life, short, all too short, helps to keep up the standards." Earle became widely and favourably known both in Europe and in the United States by his many articles on classical subjects in general, and in particular on the subject of textual criticism. These articles were published in such learned periodicals as The American Journal of Philology, The Classical Review, The Trans- actions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, The American Journal of Archaeology, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Revue de Philologie, Mnemosyne, and a few others. He had contributed also to the volume entitled "Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler", published by Macmillan & Co., 1894. Some of Prof. Earle's papers were notable for the fact that they were written in Latin, a time-honoured custom, which in America at least has been more often honoured in the breach than in the observ- ance. As these papers are given in the body of this book, their titles will be omitted here. But his best literary work is represented in his editions of three plays of the Greek dramatists the Alcestis of Euripides (Mac- millan, 1894), the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles (American Book" Co., 1901), and the Medea of Euripides (American Book Co., 1905). Concerning the last of these and the Oedipus Prof. Gildersleeve, who is always a severe critic, speaks as follows r 1 "Prof. Earle has displayed in his edition of the Medea the same nice knowledge of Greek idiom and the same faculty of neat statement that made his Oedipus something out of the common run of college text-books. Prof. Earle has occupied an almost solitary eminence among Ameri- can Hellenists as a conjectural critic, and so we find that in his edition of the Medea he has incorporated into the text a considerable number of conjectures of his own." In The Classical Review for Oct., 1905, a further note of praise is sounded this time from across the ocean. An English scholar of wide repute has a word to say not only about Prof. Earle's edition of the Medea, but also about its author. "The book", says Dr. Ver- 1 [See A. J. P. 1905.] XV111 rail of Cambridge, "is interesting, of substantial merit, acceptable and praiseworthy ; its notes are terse, and the introduction is a cop- ious and agreeable essay in which archaeology has its turn", and again, "the American author was a well-read scholar of competent judgment," a remark implying much in the way of praise, coming as it did from a critic who is himself in the foreground of foreign scholarship, and whose nationality is least of all suggestive of a tendency to overstatement. Professor Bernard Haussoullier, editor of the Revue de Philo- logie, in answer to a request for permission to reprint Earle's con- tributions to that journal, wrote as follows : "Je f elicite ses anciens collegues de 1'idee, si juste, de reunir ses articles. Sans doute il etait homme a avoir de 1'action sur ses eleves, et son souvenir vivra dans leur coeur, mais 1'etranger saluera avec reconnaissance un volume qui le defendra centre 1'oubli. Reliquiae! Encore que ce mot renferme tant de tristesse ! La Revue de Philologie a laquelle il a fait honneur sera fiere d'etre representee dans ce recueil, et vous avez I'autorisation de reproduire dans votre volume tous les articles du maitre que vous voudrez. Vous voudrez bien me tenir au courant de la publication de ce volume, pour que je puisse 1'annoncer a mes lecteurs de la Revue de Philologie. Ce sera pour moi 1'occasion de rendre hommage a votre cher absent." Many other personal tributes to Prof. Earle's accomplishments and character might be given here, but it seems best to err rather on the side of restraint than on that of profusion; " /uTjSev ayav" would certainly have been his modest advice regarding such a ques- tion. Nevertheless one cannot forebear to quote here some re- marks of Prof. Elmer Truesdell Merrill, formerly of Trinity Col- lege, Hartford (now of Chicago University), which formed a part of the address delivered by that well known scholar in January 1906, at a meeting in Washington of the American Philological Association. Prof. Merrill, who was the president of the Associa- tion, gave expression to the general sense of mourning, for the loss of so dear a friend, in the following words : "I cannot speak to you this evening without recalling him, my senior colleague in the vice- presidency of the American Philological Association, who would, in the ordinary course of our action, have been standing where I now stand. You will also have been thinking of him ; and I do not need XIX . to speak of that marked mental power, great attainment, and unflag- ging zeal for the intellectual life which have been so prematurely lemoved from us. 'Light lie the earth upon him!' Nay, let me rather change the hopeless, though tender, pagan farewell for the noble words of the ancient Christian prayer, 'May he rest in peace, and light eternal dawn upon him/ whose course among us was ever toward the light !" These remarks have hitherto been confined to the sphere of indi- vidual appreciation of Prof. Earle's general merits and attainments. But some of the notices concerning him were of a corporate nature, as when the Classical Journal (for April 1906), for example, editor- ially regrets his loss and publishes a favourable comment on his edition of the Medea. But perhaps the most significant and import- ant of such tributes to his memory is embodied in the resolutions adopted by the Faculty of Philosophy of Columbia University, in the month of November 1905, a few weeks subsequent to the date of his funeral : "The most striking characteristics of Prof. Earle were his thoroughness of scholarship and fidelity to the duties he had undertaken, added to a singular acuteness of intellect and openmindedness, which made him accessible to a wide variety of in- terests. His teaching was thorough and exacting; he was a deter- mined foe of superficiality, and the high standards which he set be- fore his students were exemplified in his work. To advanced students his advice was invaluable, for the rich stores of his learning were unstintedly put at their disposal. He has been compared with the great scholars of Holland, an indefatigable reader with an un- usually retentive memory. His independence of judgment was very great, but he was generally his own severest critic. His real and last- ing contributions to a better understanding of Greek and Latin literature were very numerous. In his death not only Columbia University, but the whole world of scholarship has suffered a grievous loss." Such is the corporate testimony of his own University to Prof. Earle's learning and general worth, and though the reader will recog- nize a part at least of the resolutions as a repetition of what has been said by others, yet it should be borne in mind that repetition in this case is in no sense intentional on the part of the several wit- nesses. If different minds have spoken the same word on the same XX subject they have done their thinking independently a fact that enhances and strengthens the value of their testimony. Indeed one may almost say of the many tributes to the great merits and capabilities of the man whom it was the delight of all who knew him to honour, ex uno disce omnes. His qualities were such as to com- mand a most general admiration a fact that can be illustrated only by a multitude of citations. Perhaps therefore we may be permitted to quote a few lines from certain resolutions of the Class of 1886 of Columbia University, which show the esteem in which he was held by those who were his associates during his undergraduate days : " . . . We his classmates at Columbia have met to express our profound sorrow at the death of Mortimer Lamson Earle, to make record of our love for the lost friend, and to add our tribute to the (general) recognition of his genius and scholarship. We knew him for twenty-four years. We admired the nobility which won him the highest student honours ; we saw with pleasure his growing prestige, and we took pride that it was our comrade at Columbia whose ripened scholarship had placed him in the front rank of American teachers of the Classics . . . (hence) this meeting where we have gathered in memory of our friend of College days and later, who shared our sports and led us in our studies, who wrote the best college verse and best examin- ation papers. His keen and discriminating wit made him one of the most delightful of companions. He endeared himself to us in life by his human sympathies, and in his going away he is an irreparable loss." Nor can it be out of place here to repeat a few words expressed in the form of a resolution by his pupils of Barnard College, who assembled at the time of his death to do honour to his memory: ". . . We grieve at the death of our beloved teacher, and mourn a loss which, as a college, we feel most keenly. We knew his high rank among scholars ; we honoured his single-hearted devotion to pure learning. Yet to us he even more strongly represented the warm personal friend, who spared no effort to kindle his own high ideals in each individual student under his care. In return for this sympathy, we gave him that peculiarly tender affection which springs from gratitude for wider outlook and personal inspiration; and in his death each one of us is conscious of an irreparable loss." XXI One of Earle's most interesting and valuable characteristics was the influence he exerted in his daily teaching. He was not only an author and a man of research; he was also a teacher of the first rank. It is difficult to state in exact terms what it is that consti- tutes the successful teacher. Is it power or inspiration ? Undoubt- edly inspiration is a part of it. But the power to inspire may be ex- istent and yet limited, and most pupils will eventually weary of the most inspiring teachers. After making all allowances, however, we shall merely be stating a fact if we say that Prof. Earle led on his pupils to a love for Greek literature and to a true appreciation of its beau- ties. His ability in this respect was beyond the ordinary, and became especially noticeable in connection with the Greek Seminar in Colum- bia University, which was mainly under his leadership during the last five years of his life. A significant feature of his method was one which would ordinarily be supposed to militate against rather than to conduce to success. In Germany the custom still holds of con- ducting the Greek and Latin seminar in the Latin tongue. As the seminar method of instruction in America is a distinct importation, Prof. Earle felt that this tradition ought to be respected. Accord- ingly in his weekly Greek seminar for graduate students at Colum- bia he lectured regularly in Latin ; this revival of a custom at one time well-nigh universal was not only acceptable throughout the University on Morningside Heights, but was also the means of attracting thither not a few graduate students from other institu- tions of learning. Some idea perhaps of the character and extent of his reading, and of what he exacted of himself in the way of scholarly endeavour, may be gained from certain notes, headings, and brief remarks, which have been collected since his death. Of them the writer would note the following, which, however, are but a few of the many good things which seemed to fall from his pen, like the crumbs from the rich man's table. For example, "I must read the Atticists with Schmidt's Atticismus;" "I must read the history of Greek literature in Christ and Bernhardy" ; "I must finish Grote and read Meyer's Geschichte des Altertums" ; "I must go on with the Greek historians, Polybius, Diodorus, Appian"; "I must go on with Greek dialects, Smyth's Ionic, Bechtel, etc." ; "I must go on with Greek inscriptions" ; "I must go on with Kontos and Cobet" 1 ; "I must take up the Alexan- XX11 drian writers" ; "I must go on with the Roman poets of the first century A. D."; "I must re-read Cicero"; "Ernesti's Clavis to be used". Nor is this all, but it is enough perhaps to indicate the general trend and nature of his studies in the two literatures and in the critics. It may well be a matter of wonder how far he would have gone and' to what heights he might have attained had he been spared to continue his work. It is interesting also to observe the character of the brief sayings, already referred to, in which he seems to sum up the principles which guided his studies, and which under his leader- ship became the guides also of many if not all of his pupils. Some of these sayings may seem somewhat trite to the casual reader, and are so acknowledged even by himself; yet they serve to show the drift of his intellect and to throw light on his sanity and penetration. They are moreover of genuine value to the young student of whom doubtless he was always thinking. Thus, among his papers have been found such words as these, which are clearly in the nature of advice to the youthful aspirant for classical attainment : "Learn to read Greek by the light of nature. Few do this ; few have done it" ; "Remember that the ancients commonly used long sentences where we use short, choppy ones" ; "The great critics should be read with great care ; much may be learned from them ; much has been too little regarded in what they have written. The little critics are com- monly repeating and often misapplying what they have learned from their masters. All is not gold that is written in German or in modern Latin" ; "Don't think that, because a great many people have interpreted certain words in a certain way, such explanation is neces- sarily right. We are all human". "There are Greek words still not commonly understood among scholars" ; and, best of all : "In order rightly to comprehend and accurately to appreciate the style of any individual writer or speaker, it is necessary to put oneself, so far as may be, en rapport with his intellectual life, the intangible ele- ment which determines the shape of the tangible, in other words to take his point of view." Undoubtedly one way of doing this, or of trying to do it, is to go to the author's native land and there to study the thought and habits of the people. That Earle thought so is 1 In the account given of Carolus Gabriel Cobet in Sandys' History of Classical Scholarship, Vol. ill, the present writer sees much to remind him of Mortimer Lamson Earle. XX111 proved by his fondness for the following couplet, also found among his papers, and once quoted in a letter which he addressed to the writer of this memoir: 'Wer den Dichter will verstehen Muss in Dichters Lande gehen.' Bearing upon this subject, and of importance to teacher and pupil alike, are bits of advice and generalization, which appear in some of his letters addressed to his students. One would expect to find such general truths emphasized rather by an older man than Earle was in the year of 1886, when in a letter to a young friend he said : "Broad- ening is a good thing, but it means, in an easy nine cases in ten, super- ficiality. The thorough mastery of a few subjects does not neces- sarily make one narrow;" and again he said to the same friend (in 1897), "be careful to keep the balance even, between desire and duty, between inclination and obligation." No better proof of his determination to foster high ideals of scholarship, and respect for European tradition could perhaps be found than the advice which Prof. Earle once gave to a candidate for the Doctor's degree who consulted him in reference to the dis- sertation. "I should urge you," he said, "to make your text Latin instead of English; I do not approve of English theses for higher degrees in Classics." But in connection with this evidence touch- ing his intellectual standards, it is encouraging and helpful to mark his moral attitude toward those whose intellectual advancement he regarded as especially dependent on his tuition and guidance. On a previous occasion he had written to the same student the following words of encouragement: "Please remember that my work as teacher does not end there (i. e., with the seminar work in Greek authors), and that I shall be constantly at your service for any advice or help in your studies that I can give you." Earle's love for textual criticism and emendation, and his rever- ence for such critics as Thomas Johnson, Benjamin Heath, and Samuel Musgrave, of the eighteenth century, are indicated in his letters to the late Mr. Louis Dyer of Oxford, a charming Ameri- can scholar, the earlier part of whose life was spent at Harvard University, where he once held the post of Assistant Professor of Greek. One of his letters to Dyer, written in 1892, reads in part as XXIV follows: "Your hearty letter was very encouraging. Textual criti- cism is a thing toward which I find myself inclining more and more ; so you can well imagine my pleasure at finding that what I had at- tempted in the Iphigenia among the Taurians had made me a laudatus a laudato znro. In regard to the Phoenissae, I shall be very glad to have you make me the target for as many letters as you choose to fire. I have attempted much less in the text of that play than in the Bacchae and Alcestis; however, whatever I may fancy I have guessed out better than another I shall take pleasure in plac- ing at your disposal." In another letter to Mr. Dyer, dated 1891, Earle speaks of having secured a copy of the Johnson Sophocles of 1745, containing a con- siderable body of very neat manuscript notes and emendations. "They (the notes) are couched", he says, "in a tidy, scholarly Latin, and from many points of internal evidence I am pretty well persuaded they are from Musgrave's hand." He then requests Dyer to help him to a bit of facsimile of Musgrave's hand, in order that he may clinch or disprove his conjecture about the authorship of the notes in question. This facsimile was subsequently secured by Professor Herbert Weir Smyth, when the latter was in London, with the help of Professor Alfred Gudeman and through the courtesy of the direc- tor of the British Museum. A photograph was made of one of Musgrave's autograph letters in the British Museum, which proved that the Johnson Sophocles referred to had been Musgrave's hand- copy, and was all that Professor Earle had claimed for it. Setting aside Prof. Earle's abilities in authorship, in philological and archaeological investigation, and in teaching, we shall do well to take into account his personality and general character, as these appeared to his friends during the period of his maturity and man- hood. Something has already been said on this subject, so that we are again confronted with the danger of repetition. It is indeed hard, if not impossible, to separate a man's personality from his profes- sional and active life, and the reader of this sketch may well say that he knows already the chief points in question. But lest we should omit anything worthy of mention let us take note of a few facts which throw light upon his nature, and may be considered sepa- rately, and quite apart from his professional career. In his personal appearance he was above middle height and well- XXV proportioned. His hair was dark, his eyes gray-blue, his moustache auburn, his profile clear-cut and handsome, and his fine transparent skin was mingled with a healthy color. He looked unusually youth- ful for his years a fact that greatly enhanced his other attractions. His individuality was strong and suggestive of leadership. In short he had personal magnetism. It was not his way to follow blindly in another's footsteps. His independence of mind carried him sel- dom into mistaken paths, more often into those which lead to valu- able discoveries. He was wont to speak his mind fearlessly and frankly a habit at times deprecated by those who realized how far a man may thus stand in the way of his own promotion and worldly advantage. But this was one of the faults of his qualities if in- deed that can be called a fault which, though disadvantageous to his own prospects, was nevertheless the source of real helpfulness to his pupils and friends. His contempt indeed, which was seldom concealed, for all that was unworthy and meretricious, came occas- sionally into direct conflict with the plans and policies of the powers that be sometimes even to the ultimate discomfiture of the latter and to the betterment of pedagogical rulings and principles ; for his sense of honour was keen, his loyalty to duty most exacting, while a certain spirit of "noblesse oblige" compelled him often to sacrifice personal interests to the good of the cause which he repre- sented. He had a way of looking to find in others the same high ideals which he cherished himself, and his disappointment knew no bounds when he found, as was not seldom the case, that his confi- dence had been mistaken or misplaced. Jealousy was wholly foreign to his nature, which seemed to crave that the right should prevail in all things, without regard to those by whom it might be maintained. He was a philosopher in the best sense of the term, and was well aware that perfection in all things is far to seek. There were in him certain warring elements which manifested themselves according to the occasion. His respect for true religion was indubitable, and he had in him something of the mystic, yet his independence of all authority in religious matters was suggestive also of the agnostic. His sense of what he deemed to be his own unworthiness was coupled with an honest desire for recognition, and when the latter was withheld he would abandon himself to temporary discouragement a trait in his character that XXVI belonged more particularly to his earlier career, when his powers and acquirements were not yet fully known. Looking, as he did, upon the Classics in American education, not as the means merely by which a teacher may gain a livelihood, but as a potent instrument for promoting the well-being of the nation, and the progress of art and literature, he became at times despondent over the future of his favorite subjects. Yet he believed thoroughly in his calling, and worked with untiring zeal to advance its interests, so that no amount of discouragement ever caused him to let go that desire for perfec- tion which served as a spur to all endeavours. In fact this very desire produced in him a sort of fastidiousness which showed itself even in little matters. It appeared in his speech, his manners, and his dress. He admired what he called "good form" and could not easily overlook vulgarity or disregard for social conventions. Yet he was no fop. Affectation of any sort was abhorrent to him. His spirit was truly democratic. He loved to as- sociate with the genuine peasant, and the country folk of his own and other lands. He was attached especially to the peasant folk of Greece, and learned from them all he could of their customs and language. He treated them kindly and without condescension, and accepted their crude and humble hospitality. Not infrequently when he was living in New York, Greeks would come to him as to a friend to ask for advice and guidance in the new country in which they had just landed and where they found themselves without friends or the means of subsistence. In general he cherished a romantic attachment for Greece and her people, such as might be likened to that of Lord Byron, and he gained both profit and pleasure from his summer visits to the Isles of Hellas and the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean. The fastidiousness of which we have spoken extended also to the use of his native tongue. He possessed that "curiosa f elicitas" in the use of English, which is conspicuous by its absence in so many of our American born youth, even in those who, because of their tra- ditions and environment, ought to be distinctly proficient in this respect. By many of us he would have been dubbed "a purist" (were not that word suggestive of a sneer), so few indeed are they who attach high value to nicety in linguistic expression. But Prof. Earle contended to the last for that purity of diction which XXV11 is ever the aim of the true linguist and student. He believed in Lowell's dictum, which he often quoted: "Elegance is also force", and he did what he could to imprint this well attested doctrine on the minds of his pupils. Even his handwriting illus- trated the importance which he attached to the question of form, for it was always clear and pleasing to the eye, while his Greek hand, in the words of an admiring contemporary, "was more beautiful than Person's". Some things that have been said about him by his relatives throw further light on his disposition and mental habits. Accord- ing to a sister of his mother, Earle exhibited an affection for his mother that was "beautiful in every respect"; the two were "in- separable companions, and as her health failed he watched over her constantly in loving devotion". Another cousin, Doctor Frank Hunter Zabriskie, who saw Earle frequently in the summers of 1884 and 1885, was impressed with the latter's fondness for Latin and Greek. "His only ambition", says Dr. Zabriskie, "was to know these two languages exactly, and he already was well along to the goal". "I remember well", adds the Doctor, "seeing him, day after day, lying on his belly, with his feet up in the air, reading Spinoza's 'Ethics' at sight, scarcely ever referring to glossary or dictionary; Macaulay's phrase of 'feet on the fender' had its parallel in Mortimer's case, and after a walk on the hills or a tramp over to the Connecticut river he would set down the fact in Latin verse. His interest in philology began about this time, when he read carefully and with great en- joyment Professor Whitney's 'Life and Growth of Language', with whose conclusions he thoroughly agreed". The same cousin avers that at this time there were two authors for whom Earle entertained a positive dislike. One of them was Carlyle, whom he believed to have done "a lasting injury to the English language". The other was Emerson, whom he accused of "lacking system", and of being an inexact scholar. Such pre- judices may provoke a smile in those of riper years; but it should be recalled to mind that at this time Earle was still an undergrad- uate, and therefore a mere boy. Nor were his judgments with- out discrimination, but rather do they give proof of a power of discernment and of a literary sense by no means common in one XXV111 of his years and inexperience. Of like character with such criti- cisms was his disapproval of a well-known clergyman, whom, ac- cording to the same authority, young Earle thoroughly detested, "not only because of that eccentric preacher's peculiar style of composition, but because of his habit of sacrificing reverence to effect." "Mortimer's interests were wide," adds Dr. Zabriskie in closing; "he loved to read a medical treatise and was always pleased at an apt analogy or a good bit of writing in such a work." Other in- teresting reminiscences of Earle's earlier life and mental drift are related both by Dr. Zabriskie and by other relations and family friends, but cannot be quoted here. Perhaps enough has been said, however, to give the reader a fairly adequate impression of Prof. Earle's character and achievements, and yet the writer of this biography finds it no easy matter to decide just when* he should stop, for Mortimer Lamson Earle had a genius for friendship, which renders the recounting of his achievements a source of real pleasure and satisfaction. These remarks are not of the sort that belong to panegyric; they emanate from an earnest desire to do justice to a man and a scholar, whose love for everything good in life and in literature was one of his most prominent traits; whose fine sense of humour and keen appreciation of the dramatic and picturesque made him a charming companion, and brought him into honourable as well as pleasant relations with many who were unable to follow him closely in the narrower paths of his intellectual life. His own personal range of athletic activity was confined almost entirely to one sphere. He was an experienced swimmer. A really good swimmer was a man of prowess in the "old days" of Greece and Rome, and Earle had the best Greek legend and story at his back whenever he found opportunity to practise his favourite exercise. In general Professor Earle was in the highest sense a man. "Take him for all in all I shall not look upon his like again." Let him therefore live in our memories, for his life, as we know it, is something not to be forgotten, and his every act is worthy of the imitation of the greatest as well as the lowliest of us all. To the writer he was both a friend and an inspiration. "I have felt his XXIX touch and shall feel it always." Thus his work lives after him in many ways. "Si quis piorum manibus locus, si, ut sapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguuntur magnae animae, placide quiescas, nos- que (amicos tuos) ab infirmo desiderio et muliebribus lamentis ad contemplationem virtutum tuarum voces, quas neque lugeri neque plangi fas est." In memory of Mortimer Lamson Earle, Columbia University has established a prize of $50.00 called the "Earle Prize in Classics" which is open for annual competition to all undergraduates in Columbia and Barnard Colleges. His private library of classical authors, comprising three thousand volumes, which he had col- lected at home and abroad during a period of twenty years, has been purchased from his widow by his pupils, classmates, colleagues and other friends, and presented to Columbia University as a per- manent memorial. Each volume is marked by a book-plate which contains certain words chosen from the "Ion" of Euripides, as reflecting Prof. Earle's high ideals: KAeivos S'6 TTOVOS ftoi Otolcriv SovXav x c P* *\ eiv - Union College, SIDNEY G. ASHMORE. Schenectady, N. Y. GREEK AUTHORS SOPHOCLES. I. Studies in Sophocles's Trachinians. 1 i. The Trachinians and the Alcestis. IN studying the resemblances between Greek plays we have to observe, besides the more general and comprehensive resemblances of plots, as in the Choephoroe and the Electras, certain other kinds of similarity of less extent and compass. These may be grouped under three heads: (i) resemblances of motives, (2) resemblances of scenic situations, (3) verbal parallels. Of these it appears that the first and third have received more attention from students of the Greek drama than has the second, though it is impossible to deal adequately with resemblances of motives without taking account incidentally of resemblances of scenic situations. In his excellent Schlafscenen auf der attischen Bilhne (Rhein. Mus. 46 [1891], pp. 25-46) Dr Dieterich has dealt with both the latter and the former and has considered verbal parallels as well. As a further example of the way in which the several sorts of resemblances are bound up together, and also of the way in which they may be complicated besides by derivation from several sources in the same passage, I may cite here the opening of the Philoctetes. 2 The first two lines are reminiscent of the opening of the Prometheus, a play the influ- ence of which on subsequent Greek drama has never, I think, been adequately estimated. We have here not merely a verbal parallel, but also a resemblance of motive. In the Prometheus the hero of the play is brought to a desolate place to suffer alone ; in the Philoctetes the speaker of the prologue tells, on coming to the place where the 1 From Transactions of the American Philological Association ; Vol. xxxiii (1902),. pp. 5-29. 2 [Philoctetes 2 pporois affrei-n-ros o$5' olKovfitvrj : adapted from Aesch. Prometheus 2,. and combining the two readings tifipoTov and a^arov. Thus /Sporots HffTeiirros (or (Sa-riTTTos) is a combination of these two readings and ovS' olKov/j.tvr) is equivalent to teal tprifJ-Ti derived from tprj/j-lav. May not then the variant reading in Prom. 2 be as old as Sophocles's time ? Cf. also Antigone 770. (Ms. note ; cp. also PAPA (1901) 32, p. xxriii.)] 4 Greek Authors hero of the play was left to suffer alone, of the circumstances of that abandonment, of which he had been, like the speaker of the prologue of the Prometheus, the chief agent. But the resemblance of scenic situation in this passage is not primarily between the Prome- theus and the Philoctetes, but between the Ajax and the Philoctetes. In both the Ajax and the Philoctetes Odysseus is discovered at the doorway of an enemy in both cases a man that he has wronged and desirous of learning whether that enemy is within, but fearing to enter and, in the sequel, getting his information at second hand from a companion. Furthermore, the prologue of the Philoctetes is reminiscent of the Trachinians, to which play it is a sort of sequel and in the lost close of which Philoctetes may well have figured, at least in an dyyeAuoj pijcris. Thus TTOTOV Kprfvalov (21) seems to be an echo of Kprjvaiov TTOTOV in the prologue of the Trachinians (14), and fiowv Iv&v (u), as we should doubtless read with r instead of (3o>v crrevaa>v, is repeated from Track. 787, where the words are used of the suffering hero of that play. 1 But we are not at present to discuss in detail the likenesses of the Philoctetes and the Tra- chinians, but of the Alcestis and the Trachinians; and I now proceed to the examination of a remarkable composite parallel between those two plays that had not, to the best of my knowledge, been noted by any one. In Trach. 322-328, after Deianira's question to lole, instead of the latter answering, Lichas says : Oil rapa (/. e. av "TJ?) TW yc irpocrOfv ovSev e i(rov Xpovw Stotcret yXwcrcrav, T/TIS ov8a/u,a Trpov<$>r)Vfv OVTC /u.eiov' OVT' eAcurcrova, 8 a Kpvppoel 8vcTTi;vos t OTOV irarpav fjiev avTrj y dAXa crvyyvwp.rjv l^ei In reading these verses with a class, I was suddenly struck by their verbal likenesses to a familiar passage in the Alcestis, vv. 136-140, where at the close of the parodus the coryphaeus says: 1 [For another verbal parallel between two plays of Sophocles compare Antigone 420, 421 lv 8' tfj.tdr) /x^yas \ aWrfp with Electra 713-715 fv Si iras tueffTtbdi] 5p6,u.os \ Krfarov KportjTuv dpudruv K&VU $' &vw \ A.ev etSe'vat /3ovXoip.t@' dv Here we have three rather noticeable words in the former passage matched by three words in the latter that are the same in the first two instances and cognate in the third, and those words within the same compass and in the same order. That this verbal parallel is not accidental can be proved by an examination of the situation in the two passages. In both places a woman slave from whom some one is anxious to learn something weeps in silence. In the Tra- chinians that woman slave is a captive of Heracles, and her silence is due scenically to the lack of a fourth actor. At the close of the Alcestis (1131-1146) one that is nominally a woman slave obtained by Heracles as a prize of victory is silent when questioned, for the scenic reason that there is no third actor. The scene was a striking one on the stage, and we should not forget a point to which I shall revert that Sophocles had witnessed the first performance of the Alcestis and beaten Euripides in the competition at that time. Is it not now patent that in writing the passage in the Trachinians that we are considering Sophocles, in a curious fashion but one that is quite intelligible psychologically, 2 fused two passages of the Alcestis that were scenically striking to the eye and that had ele- ments in common ? That Sophocles would have written this conflate reminiscence of the Alcestis had he not seen that play acted and appreciated the power of its scenic situations may well be doubted; but it will also, I think, appear probable in what follows that pre- paratory to writing the Trachinians he had deliberately refreshed his memory by a reading of the Alcestis. But of this more later. 3 With the passage in the Trachinians that has just been discussed may be associated another in which again, unless I am mistaken, 1 effnv 'Adfj.-fiTov Lenting : iffrlv e/w/'i/xos codd. 2 For the psychology of such "associated reminiscences" see Mr A. B. Cook's interesting ard suggestive article Class. Rev. XV (1901), 33S-345- I gladly acknow- ledge the impetus which Mr Cook's paper has given to my studies. 3 It may be added here that the parallel in the Trachinians is a proof of the un- soundness of M. Henri Weil's cvyvutrTov in Ale. 139 (on which see also Hayley's note). 6 Greek Authors the Alcestis is imitated. In v. 1181 Heracles asks Hyllus to give him his right hand in confirmation of a pledge ("E/A/foAAe x"P a Se&av TT/aomo-Ta fj.oi) Hyllus is reluctant, but upon Heracles fiercely urging him he stretches out his hand with the words : 'iSov TT/OOTCIVW KOU&V 6.vruprjcrf.To.L (v. 1184). At Ale. 1118, after Heracles, on the ground that he trusts Admetus's right hand alone (v. 1115), has urged the latter to give his hand to the veiled woman (v. 1117), Admetus does stretch out his hand with the words: Keu 817 TrpoTfivta. The fact that this half verse occurs in a scene that we have found Sophocles imitating elsewhere, added to the fact that the scenic situation is a very striking one, makes it pretty certain that Track. 1184 is a reminiscence of Ale. 1118. It is to be noted that Sophocles substituted for Euripides's KCU 8r) the synony- mous tSov. It is possible that another Euripidean situation in which the scenic business must have been decidedly good viz. the scene where Medea makes Aegeus take oath may have been likewise before Sophocles's mind in writing Track. 1181 sqq. But it is not certain. Before taking up the reminiscences of the Alcestis that are to be found pretty plentifully in Track. 896-946 I may note that there is perhaps more in the resemblance of Track. 869 to Ale. 777 than has hitherto been observed. In the passage in the Alcestis Heracles describes a servant receiving him orvyvw TrpouwTro) K a i a-ww- (as we should surely read, with Nauck, for a.iOaiX.ov (Naber : i\w COdd.) /SXei/'eiev o i K e T ui v 8e/xas, I K Xa ic v ^4Ar. 192 TTCXVTCS 8' l/cXatov oiKerai 1 Track. 913 TOV 'HpaxXciov 0aXa/u.ov cicropp,(ap.(vr)v Ale. 175 6dX.ap.ov ecnrecroikra KCU Xe^os * 6pa> 8 T^V ywaixa Sc/xvtots rots 'HpaKXeiois o-rpwra /SaXXovcrav "OTTCUS 8' ereXecre TOVT', eirev^opovcr' ava> Ka^t^cr' ev /xeo-owriv twaT^ptots Kal SaKpvcov prj^acra Oepfia. va.pA.Ta. TO XofTTOV ^8?y XO.lpf.6', d)S I/U.' OV TTOTf Se^ecr^' er" ev KOtVaicrt raicrS' evvarpiav. . 175-184 (omisso tamquam spurio vsu. 178) /cowreiTa ^aXa/xov eo-ireo-ovo-a /cat Xe^os, 8^ 'Sa/cpvcre /cai Xe'yet Ta8 XeKTpov fvOa TrapOevu eXvcr' eyw, 8e A P.OVOV * TTpoovvcu yap cr c>Kvo;cra xa TTOCTIV OvyfTKW ere 8' aXXr/ Tts yuv^ KtKT^creTat crtapu>v fifv OVK av /xaXXov, evrv^s 8* Kin'tt Sc jrpOfnriTvova'a, irav o<^>^aA/jtOTryKTa> SCUCTCU Track. 938 afK^LTTL-nxav (Wecklein : d/A^>t7rt7rTa)v COdd.) o-TO/iatriv y^/f. 403 TTOTI croicri TTI'TVWV trro/iao-iv (This and the two following are noticeable as being derived from two other places in the Alcestis. The reason in the case of the first and third of these passages is obvious: the description of the son of Deianira mourning over his dead mother is naturally assimilated 1 Noted also by Zielinski p. 593". * Noted also by Zielinski p. 593". 'Blomfield for ftAni (see Hayley ad loc.). Sophocles 9 to the mourning of Alcestis's son over his dead mother. The scenic situation was a striking and highly emotional one in the case of the Alcestis. 1 The association of ideas that led to the dovetailing in of a suggestion of Admetus's speech is the easier to understand if we remember that Admetus's words are part of a command that he says he will give to the children.) Track. 938 sq. jr\e.vpav Ale. 466 sq. TT A e v p a. r' e/crctvai TrAev/ooitri TOIS /3 XaOpalov 6p.fjC -7rf.fTKta.(rfJi.evr] (fapovpovv, opco Se KTC. If we will compare Ale. 34 sq. (a rather striking passage) where we should construe x*P a povpow (' was keeping my eye on guard ' : cf. O/J,/MLTO<; \ povpelv but the interlocked order of words is common to the place in the Trachinians with that in the Alcestis. That the former is derived from the latter seems reasonably probable when we compare Phil. 151 povpelv o/u/u.' CTTI o-o> /xoAio-To. Kaipcp, where povptiv op.p.' suggests the Trachinians, the construction of CTTI c- dat. with the phrase suggests the Alcestis. Whether the view just explained of the origin of the idiom in Track. 914 sq. be right or not, we may, I think, draw this conclusion incidentally from our examination of the idiom, that Track. 914 and 915 are not to be separated by the insertion of v. 903 (with f/jMVTrjv for eavTrjv). Mollweide (as quoted by Nauck) is more likely right in treating v. 903, which cannot stand where it does, as due tO a SCholion On XaOpalov O/A/A' lirea-Kuaa-fJievr]. Its Case would thus be somewhat like that of the notorious Ant. 24.* The thesis, which with others quite as perverse Dr Zielinski de- fends in the writing that has been cited already, that the Trachin- ians is earlier than the Alcestis and that Euripides in his play bor- rowed (and not very cleverly) from Sophocles, is completely refuted by the first of the parallels that I have cited between the two plays. Another thesis, proposed by the now distinguished Leyden Hellenist Professor J. van Leeuwen in his Commentatio de Ajacis Sophoclei authentia et integritate (Utrecht, 1881), that the first part of the Trachinians (1-875) was written about 430 B.C. under the influence of the Alcestis and the Medea, the rest, which is less strict in metri- cal form, at a much later period, seems to be quite as convincingly refuted by the fact that the reminiscences of the Alcestis are carried pretty well through the Trachinians, as was shown above. The view taken by Dr van Leeuwen and discussed by him at considerable length in the book just cited, that Sophocles was constantly touching up his plays, as modern poets change the text of successive editions of their works, can hardly be true, it should seem, to any great extent. Were it so, it would make the dating of many Greek plays *I add here what seems like an isolated reminiscence of the Alcestis in the Trachinians. Track. 1044 sq. (Coryphaeus) KXtfow" tpia rdffSe v a/iaprdmi. Sophocles 1 1 a far worse puzzle than it is. This is not the place to discuss the metrical questions involved in the thesis further than to say that Dr van Leeuwen in his Commentatio disregarded, as have most, the influence of emotional exaltation on the part of the fictitious speaker on the form of the Greek tragic trimeter. I have touched upon the matter in the metrical appendix to my edition of the Oedipus Tyrannus. It has been shown that Sophocles borrowed freely from Euri- pides's Alcestis in the Trachinians, and it is a priori reasonable to infer that other marked likenesses between the Trachinians and other plays of Euripides are due to borrowing by the "Attic Bee." Especially is this likely to be the case in a play the Euripidean character of which is so noticeable, as has often been remarked by scholars. We need not then wait until we have discussed the like- nesses between the Medea and the Trachinians before we take the next step toward the approximate dating of our play, but may with reasonable confidence regard Track. 416 Aey', c? n xpy ei< >' Kal yap ov o-tyT/AoseT. asa reminiscence of Eur. Suppl. 567 Aey', f.1 TL fSovXci- Kal yap ov criyTjAos ct. with an improvement in one word. 1 We shall go further, also, and follow Dr Dieterich's excel- lent confirmation of Professor von Wilamowitz-MoellendorfFs view of the relations of the Hercules Furens and the Trachinians. Dr Dieterich's discussion in his Schlafscenen auf der attischen Biihne I have already referred to, and it is unnecessary to do more here than refer to his tentative dating of the Trachinians 419 B.C. (op. cit. p. 43). Surely it would seem that 419-410 B.C. is as large a latitude as we can allow in dating the Trachinians. But we must return now to the relations of the Trachinians and the Alcestis. To say, as Professor Jebb does in his introduction to the Trachi- nians (p. xxii), that the Hercules Furens and the Trachinians are the only two "experiments" in Greek literature of taking "the legend of Heracles as the basis of a tragedy" "of which we have any clear or definite knowledge" is true only in the narrowest sense of the words. It should be added that, if the legend of Heracles is not the basis of the Alcestis, yet that play is perhaps, as I have ventured to suggest in my introduction to it, the first attempt to bring Heracles as a tragic character or, at least, a semi-tragic character before a 1 CI. Track. 1184 and Ale. 1118. 12 Greek Authors Greek audience. If we assume that the Alcestis was indeed a sort of dramatic exaltation of Heracles, we shall find that this tallies perfectly with a view of the relations of the Trachinians on the one hand and the Alcestis and the Hercules Furens on the other to which our discussion has been gradually leading us. Let us see what this view is. It may be put in a definite form somewhat as follows : Sophocles, much impressed by Euripides's Hercules Furens, deter- mines to write a tragedy on a portion of the legend of Heracles. To this end he not only studies the Hercules Furens and adopts from it what serves his purpose, but also reads carefully what is probably the other Attic tragedy, or quasi-tragedy, that deals with Heracles, a play strong in emotion and scenically striking, which he has wit- nessed and defeated some twenty or more years earlier, the Alcestis. He writes thus under the spell of Euripides and pays his rival the sincerest compliment, that of imitation. It would have been well for the worshippers of Sophocles and, at the same time, detractors of Euripides had they better understood their idol's state of mind towards some of Euripides's work. But to return to our subject. We shall not be surprised, when we have learned to see why and how Sophocles came thus to imitate two of Euripides's plays, if he furthermore drew for more than individual lines and brief suggestions upon another strong play of Euripides, a play that had the first place among Euripides's four in the tragic contest of 431 B.C., when Sophocles was second and Euripides third, the Medea. But this is to encroach upon the next chapter. II. The Trachinians and the Medea. The Euripidean character of the prologue of the Trachinians has been more than once commented upon. Hermann Schiitz in his Sophokleische Studien (Potsdam, 1890) puts the matter briefly and well when he writes (p. 390) : "Der Prolog des Dramas erinnert an die Euripideische Manier, durch einen langeren Monolog den Zu- schauer in die Verhaltnisse einzufiihren ; denn auf ihn, nicht auf die alte, mit allem genau bekannte Dienerin ist die ganze Rede der Deianira berechnet." But the prologue of the Trachinians does not Sophocles '13 resemble that of the Alcestis: such reminiscence of that passage as is to be found, if at all, in the Trachinians is rather to be traced in vv. 248 sqq., where Heracles's year-long servitude and its cause are narrated. 1 On the other hand, the prologue of the Trachinians is more nearly than has been observed hitherto like that prologue among those of Euripides that are extant which is generally thought the best dramatically the prologue of the Medea. About this the (somewhat Wilamowitzian) remarks of Dr Zielinski (Philol. 55, p. 522*) are so apt as to deserve quotation here. They are as follows : "Interessant ist, dass auch Euripides einmal den Versuch gemacht hat, den Prolog psychologisch zu motivieren das ist der Prolog der Amme in der 'Medea' ; damit man es ihm glaube, hat er der Amme die Motivierung ausdriicklich in den Mund gelegt 56 if. eyo) yap eis TOUT' CK^C/JT/K' dXy^Sovos, wcr0' i]u,epos ft? virijXdf. yrj TC Kovpav A.e (as it seems that we should read for rov \6yov) 5' ov XP^I (pO&vov, | yuvai, Trpoffeivai Ze!>s &rov irpdKrup avrj ( Track. 250 sq.) with the less formal ' apology Zei)j y&p KaraicTas iratSa rbv t/j.bv afrtos {Ale. 3). 14* Greek Authors is a sufficient defence of vs. 25. x Now this prologue of the Trachi- nians ha,s likewise forty-eight verses. But is this equality in length of the two prologues anything more than a coincidence? Is there any likeness in the situations and the persons at the openings of the two plays? It has been noted by Dr Dieterich (op. cit. p. 43) as part of the general Euripidean character of the Trachinians that a Tpooi\Tpoi<; 8' eav TTWS ri^vS' VTTfpftaX 'H/aa/cXet) with Wunder (followed by Nauck) as spurious. It seems to belong to a familiar type of interpola- tion. 1 It seems reasonable to suppose that at Med. 956-8 the magic articles of dress are brought out openly, not in a box, and so entrusted to the children that one takes the dress, the other the diadem. The poison will work only on the bride. It may be noted here that Seneca, or whoever wrote the Hercules Oetaeus, not only in other re- spects (see Here. Oct. 500 sqq.) made a much more reasonable account of the adven- ture at the Evenus (Sophocles managed it pretty badly, as was anciently noted : see Schneidewin- Nauck on Track. 568), but also took much better care of the poison 1 6 Greek Authors quality is treated as a matter of course, and but little regard seems to be had by the poet to the element of verisimilitude in the working of their poison. This carelessness must, I think, have struck other students of the Medea, as it had me even before I thought to com- pare the caution employed by Deianira in the Trachinians. The great pains taken by Sophocles in his play to lend a certain air of verisimilitude to the working of the poison pains which have prompted Dr Zielinski to make of Sophocles an accomplished physi- cian and toxicologist these are, I venture to think, but the attempt of Sophocles to improve on his rival's treatment. Whether the poisoned garment was originally a part of the legend of Medea as employed by Euripides or was imported into it by him is a question that lies beyond the bounds of our present enquiry. It may not be out of place here to note a certain resemblance between Euripides's Medea and Clytaemnestra as she is drawn by Aeschylus in the Agamemnon. Dr Zielinski thinks (op. cit.p. 5I6 11 ) that Euripides in his Electro vv. 1032 sqq. imitated Track. 536 sqq. a matter that we should like to be clearer about, inasmuch as it would aid us to a more exact dating of the Trachinians. The two passages are as follows : Trach. 536 sqq. Koprjv yap ot/xm 8" ovxer' dAA' e , oprov wore vavri'Aos Ktu. vvv Su* owrat fufj.vop.ev /was VTTO Eur. EL 1032 sqq. (Clytaemnestra loquitur) dAA' r)\6' (SC. Agamemnon) (\/iacriv Karct^' O/AOV. We might draw up the following brief scheme of comparison: 1. Clytaemnestra and Cassandra (Agamemnon and Eur. El. I.e.). 2. Medea and Glauce. there than Sophocles had done ; for he makes Nessus give it to Deianira enclosed in one of his hooves, which he had happened to wrench off with his hand and split (v. 522, quam forte saeva sciderat avolsam manu) ! 1 The transposition of w. 537 and 538 seems to me to be pretty clearly demanded by the sense of the sentence. Sophocles 17 3. Deianira and lole. i and 3. Clytaemnestra and Deianira kill husband. 1 and 2. Clytaemnestra and Medea kill rival. 2 and 3. Medea and Deianira use poisoned garment. 1 1 and 3. Rival brought into house. 2 and 3. Rival a second wife (or practically so in 3). i and 3. Rival taken in sack of a city. This comparison has, I venture to think, a certain value for the study of the development of tragic motives. Enough has been said already, I venture to think, to prove that in writing the Trachinians Sophocles had the Medea before him, and that in the case of this play, too, he paid Euripides the compliment of imitation. But I would further call attention to two passages in the Trachinians in which Sophocles seems to have been influenced in details by the Medea. In Trach. 602 Deianira describes the poisoned shirt to Lichas as roVSe ravca^i} (Wunder's certain correc- tion : see Jebb ad loc. ) ?rrAov. The fact that ravav^ is glossed by the Greek lexicographers by Arrot' TC x a/ / 3a)V K( " o^oA^ (Trach. 764) resembles, as has been noted (see Jebb ad loc.), Glauce Soipois vrrcpxaipovo-a (Med. ir65). Even the phrase K TC KOI o-roXrj is more appropriate to Medea's double gift than to Deianira's single one. III. Cicero's Translation of Trach. 1046-1102. A more careful comparison than has yet, so far as I am aware, been made of the translation of Trach. 1046-1102 which Cicero inserted in the Tusculanae Disputationes, 2. 8, 20 9, 22, will prove of value, not only for our knowledge of the text of this portion of the Trachinians, but also for our knowledge of Cicero's acquaintance with Greek and his manner of translating it. I have deemed it the clearest and simplest method of pursuing this comparison to place 1 A garment, but not a poisoned one, is an important part of the apparatus of the murder in the Agamemnon. 1 8 Greek Authors side by side the translation and the original and then to append thereto certain critical and explanatory notes. The text of Cicero is based on Baiter-Kay ser and Mueller, that of Sophocles on Jebb. The two passages are numbered continuously to facilitate reference. I shall use L. i, 2, etc., in referring to the Latin; G. I, 2, etc., in referring to the Greek. The italics are intended to mark those words and phrases in which Cicero most closely Graeca expressit. O multa dictu gravia, perpessu aspera, quae corpore exanclata atque animo pertuli ; nee mihi lunonis terror implacabilis nee tantum invexit tristis Eurystheus mali, 5 quantum una vaecors Oeneo patre edita. Haec me inretivit veste furiali inscium quae lateri inhaerens tnorsu lacerat viscera urguensque graviter pulmonum haurit spiritus; iam decolorem sanguinem omnem exsorbuit: 10 sic corpus clade horribili absumptum extabuit, ipse inligatus peste interimor textili. Hos non hostilis dextra, non terra edita moles Gigantum, non biformato impetu Centaurus ictus corpori inflixit meo, 15 non Graia vis, non barbara ulla immanitas, non saeva terris gens relegata ultimis quas peragrans undique omnem ecferitatem expuli, sed feminae vir feminea interimor manu. O nate, vere hoc nomen usurpa patri ; 20 ne me occidentem matris superet caritas. Hue adripe ad me manibus abstractam piis ; iam cernam mene an illam potiorem putes. Perge, aude, nate, inlacrima patris pestibus, miserere: gentes nostras flebunt miserias. 25 Heu, virginalem me ore ploratum edere quern vidit nemo ulli ingemiscentem malo. Ecfeminata virtus adflicta occidit. Accede, nate, adsiste, miserandum aspice evisceratum corpus laceratum patris. 30 Videte, cuncti; tuque, caelestum sator, iace, obsecro, in me vim coruscam fulminis. Sophocles 19 1046 *O TroXXa or) Kai 9cpfj.a KOV Xdya> KaKa KOV 7TCO TOIOVTOV OVT' OKOITIS ^ AlOS TrpovdrjKev oW o arvyvos Et>pucr$ei>s e/u.ot, 1050 olov rdS' 17 8oXaJins Oivews KaOrjij/ev W/AOIS rots e/xoTs yap Trpocr/xa^ev e/c crap/cas 7rA.ev/xovo9 T 1055 , , ., ^ , cvv popao~Ta) Ti^Se ^eipw^ets TTf Kat raSra Aoy^ TreStas ov^' 6 orpaTos TtyavTcov oure Oypeios fiia 1060 Y/J.CT^^X x /) 5 \ ovc/ JiiAAas ovr ayAwo'O'os OVP oo~77V eyw ycuav Kadaiputv lK6p.i]V c8pao~e TTO) t yuv?) Se 6^Xvs ovo-a KOII/C dvSpos v(riv f p.ovT7 p.e 8^ Ka^eiXc (ftacrydvov St^a. O Trat, ycvoS p,ot TraTs lrr]TVfJi.os etSai o"a<^>a, c; rorp.ov dXyeTs p-aXXov ^ /ceivrys, opaiv. fAco/3 -,'Tov etSos ev Si/cn Ka/covuevovl ; , , , , , IP , 'w T6KVOV, TOX^O"OV Ol/CTlpOV T p:C TroXXoTatv otKTpov, oo"Tts wo"Te Trap^evos KXat'wv Kai roS' oiS' av ets TTOTC avSpa ^at'ry irpocrO' iSetv SeSpaKora, dXX' dcTTeVaKTOs aiev CITTOUWV KOKOIS 1075 s , , , ... V ,. VW O K TOIOVTOV t>f]\VS fjVpr]fJUU TttAaS. Kai vw 7rpoo"eX^a)v (TTrjOt 7rX^o"tov Trarpos, o*Ki^at 8' OTTOias raCra (rvfj.(f>opa.<; VTTO 7TTrov9a Seii^a) yap raS' K KaXvp,p,aTO)v. 'I8ou 6(.acr6e, Travres, a^Xtoi/ Seuas 80 e ' ' ^ ^ ., opare TOV 8ro-T7;vov Atos dart's, "Evtreicrov coj/a, lyKardo-rjif/ov /3eA.os, Trarep, xepawov 8cuVuTtu yap at! TraAiv, ~ v ' i '\ VCOTO, Kai crrepv, CD va r a/jLUKTOv l-7nro/3d/j,ova crrparov 6rjpG>v vfipKTTrjv avo/Aov virfpo^ov ftiav '^pv^dvOiov re Orjpa rov & VTTO ^OovoavTov of G. 7, looks as though Cicero had read aov. It is plain here that Cicero did not understand his Greek. From corpus extabuit in L. 10 it is reasonably certain that Cicero's text had not 8ie0ap[w.i Se/ias, the prevailing reading in G. n, but 8ie<0apTai Se/tas, which (auctore Jebb) is the reading of B ( cod. Parisin. 2787, saec. xiv). Cicero's Greek text here departs from the current of the tradition that has come down to us, but in a minor point. L. 13 moles. Cicero might, as we see by comparing L. 38 with G. 50, have rendered more exactly by manus. The fact that in L. 13 sq. Orjpaos (3ia of G. 14 is answered by biformato impetu Centaurus warrants the question whether Cicero read 9-fjpuos and not <^peios = Kevravpeios , Centaur eus. It may fairly be queried whether Sophocles himself may not have written ^/aeios here and below (G. 51) ^poiv, where we now read 6t)puv. Homer's reference to the Centaurs (A 268) as r]paiv opeoWoicri would be very familiar to Cicero. But it is of even greater interest to observe how Cicero misunderstood and mistrans- lated PUJ. (G. 14). The words OUTC Orjpuos (or <>;/3eios ?) /3ta | ovO' 'EXXas (SC. yrj) OVT ayXcocrcros ( = /3ap/3apos, SC. 717) he took as = OVTC Orjpeio? ( our' ayXwcnros , and, besides that, he thought that fiia, instead of being part of a periphrasis, had its most literal force. His impetu, vis, and immanitas demonstrate this, most clearly. This is certainly staggering; but we must accept it. In L. 17 it may be noted that peragrans represents iKo/j,rjv and undique omnem ecferitatem e.vpuli KaOaipw in G. 16. Cicero trans- lated pretty freely at this point and gets the terris relegata ultimis of L. 1 6 partly out of the ycudv of G. 16 and partly out of the notion of extent suggested in the oa-rjv of G. 15. L. 18 (where feminae for the traditional feminea seems to have been suggested by Bentley first) condenses into one verse G. 17 and 18, and Cicero comes out Sophocles 23 almost even in number of verses with the first well-marked division of the Greek. Unfortunately, his Latin gives us no light on the original reading of the surely corrupt G. 17. Mudge's conjecture OriXvs KOVK l^ovo-' dvSpos v in Track. 1068. It goes with Sa> o-dfa 'that I may know surely by the witness of my own eyes (6pv) whether it is for me that you feel the more or for her' , but our interpolator understood 'that I may know surely whether it is for me that you feel the more or for her when you see ' and so wanted an object for opwv. Surely the case is a plain one. I add that Cicero's rendering of ei'Sto v by ccrnam is one of his best touches, -really a lucky hit. The expansion of iroAXoio-iv oi/crpov in G. 31 into gentes nostras flebunt miserias (L. 24) reads like a reminiscence of the mourning of the nations with Prometheus in Aesch. Prom. 406-413, a passage that was doubtless very familiar to Cicero. He translates from the Prom. Vinct. in Tusc. 3. 31, 76; and here within a few lines he begins his translation from the Prometheus Solutus. In L. 28-33 (med.) Cicero, who in the first division of the speech had kept pace very closely in number of verses with his Greek original and who up to this point has 27 verses against 29, begins to grow sketchier in his treatment, as though he were growing weary of his task. He omits the greater part of Gr. 33 (8eio> yap . . . KaXv/x/iaruv), and renders what remains of Gr. 32 sq. with great freedom. Of G. 34-36 only 'I8ov OtaaOe, Travres, is rendered. He omits, also, to translate G. 40 sq. and G. 43 sq. from Sav\a.K. But where does the rest come from? Plainly out of Euripides's Medea or Ennius's version of it; for in Med. 480-482 we read : BpaKOvrd 6' os Trdyxpvo-ov ap.7re\(DV Sepos | (TTreipais ra)e TroAu- TrAoKOis avTTVOS e awvos s flporwv as distributed in TOI)S ntv TOI)J 8', have regarded TOI)S ptv as placed vTfpftaT&v after ere/uvofo yeyurat instead of logically (from his point of view) before those words, have taken OIA in v. 217 as = oi' (an anacoluthic resumption of rovs $' at the head of the vs.), and, finally, have thought that d) seems to show clearly that the slave-woman's speech contained a more pointed reflection on Hyllus than our present text gives. Therefore I propose to read iropos | v/n (the latter word is thus given in some MSS.). The Homericism in the construction of iropos with the present is, I think, justifiable. Certainly 'if hitherto he has shown any regard for fair fame' is the sort of sentiment we should expect here under the circumstances. 1 V. 74 sq. a xP vw, o> TraT KCU yap uoTepa> TO y' cv Trpaoxretv, CTTCI TTV^OITO, KepSos c/u/rroAa. 7rv0oiTo has been made from Trv6ou> in L, a Verschlimmerung of the most pronounced sort. We should read thus: /cat yap v(TTfp(p TO y' ev 7rpao"cretv CTTCI TrvOoio Kp8os cfjmoXa. 'For even though one be late, yet success for I pray that you may get news brings gain.' The prayer of Deianira thus echoes the promise of Hyllus (vv. 90 sq.). Mr Blaydes, with his accustomed acuteness, remarks that 'irvfloio may perhaps be the true reading/ but goes no farther, indeed he does not seem to appreciate the merits of the case. 2 V. 148 sqq. cos TIS dvri irapOevov yvvr} K\rj6rj, Xaftrj T' ev VUKTI povTi8wv /xepos, ^TOI Trpos dvSpos rj TC'KVWV o(3ovfji.evr]. 1 [In reading vdpos for warpls Prof. Earle (see his note C. X. ix (1895), p. 395) had been anticipated by Mr H. W. Hayley.] * [Professor Earle compared here 0. T. v. 900, where he read in his edition of the play yfvoi' after Wecklein.] Sophocles 27 The expression of vv. 148-9 is charming. But the delicacy of Xa/Sj; T' ev WKTI v //.epos seemed to some one to need a little explanation; therefore he added fjroi ?rpos dvSpos: some one else seems to have added ^ WKVWV: yet another, who was skilled to 'roll out a rhesis' and 'stiffen' words (but not 'by wisdom') 'out into a line,' completed for us the fair trimeter numbered 150, which it were a kindness to Sophocles to bracket at least. (I am, of course, aware that others have rejected the verse.) Vv. 1 66 sq. TOT' rj 6aviv XP e "7 "0 T \povv r] Tov6' iiTre/cSpayaovTa TOV xpdvou Tt\o? TO XOMTOV 77877 r)v aXvTnfJTta /3iu. we/cSpa/AWTa should not be altered. It is a familiar Euripidean meta- phor drawn from a ship that outruns, or outrides, a storm. But TOV xpovov so soon after TW XP V V (and nearly under it) has been justly called in question. I cannot think highly of Mr Margoliouth's s (Travels 8i7 Oeoldy. favepfc ('made from s in L') is pretty clearly a gloss on e/xavepbv cp.avr)<; Ovryp). Vv. 672 sqq. TOIOVTOV fK^^r]Kf.v, otov, rfv , ywaiKes vfuv (l>. /. Tfp-iv} davp.' dve\7rwrTov /la^eiv. The second verse seems clearly wrong. The dative in the pronoun cannot well be construed, nor does the emendation v/nas seem to touch the root of the evil. The corruption lies most probably, as it seems to me, in ywat/ces, which I conjecture to have supplanted a word with which the dative was to be construed. This word was, I believe, Trapcoriv. The presence of ywauces can easily be accounted for as a gloss explaining vp.lv, or rather clearly indicating the second persoii, not the first. yvvcuKcs has, I think, similarly effected an entrance in Eur. Hipp. 294 (as a gloss on afSc), where I conjecture irdpturiv. V. 903. Kpv^xur favrrjv fvOa. /XT; TIS cicrtSot. Professor Jebb's explanation of IvQo. eiVi'Soi as an outgrowth of the 'deliberative construction' calls for an emphatic protest. The local-temporal Iv9a is here, as elsewhere, merely following in the footsteps of iva, which itself is sometimes followed by the future after the usual fashion of ev6a: cf. e.g. Track. 1157 sqq. In such a passage as Eur. Cyd. 345 sqq. aXX' fairer' eto-w, TW Kar' avXtov Oe \ fv' f /AC it may not be unfair to give Iva a local sense. Sophocles 29 V. 941 sqq. K\O.IWV 60OVVCK' CK SlJOlV 2(TOl$' 5/jta, Trarpos T' exctvi/s T', wpc/xmoyAeyos /8tbu. For /Jibv Wakefield corrected /8ibv, which is accepted by Jebb, though seemingly without sufficient warrant. /Sta would seem far more natural. It may be noted that in v. 1015 we find what looks like the same corruption. Here for plov Wakefield reads ftia. SOPHOCLES, TRACHINIAE 26-48. A Study in Interpretation* Deianira prologizes with the tale of her sorrows. This falls into two parts: the sorrows of her wooing and the sorrows of her wedded life. The former part closes with the fight of Achelous and Heracles. Of this Deianira cannot tell the details : only a disin- terested spectator could do that. As for her, she sat stricken with fear lest her beauty find her pain at last. (This paraphrase of vv. 21-25 brings out the thought that underlies drapes TT}S 0eas in v. 23 and shows that v. 25 which has been condemned by Dobree, Hartung and Nauck, has its force in the context.) So she sat in mortal terror ; 'but at last Zeus as umpire ( dywvios ) ended the con- test (for we unconsciously think of TtXos as adverb as well as object of I&JKC) well if indeed it was well; for though as bride to Heracles adjudged with him I took my stand, ever since have I been nursing a continuous succession of fears.' We must pause here a moment to defend the interpretation just offered. The words T\os 8' ZOrjKf. Zevs dytovios KoAtos, I et 8rj KoAois (w. 26 sq.) are plain enough. Of them we need only say that reXos with its aorist I^T/KC marks sharply the conclusion of the action expressed by ?ip.r)v (v. 24), brings to an end the terrified sitting of Deianira. The importance of this observation will be apparent presently. In the following sentence yap obviously introduces a reason for the added ei 7 KoXois. The participle rrao-' (v. 28) is naturally concessive. Thus much is clear; but the construction of X'xos, the meaning of Kpirov, and the meaning and possible incorrectness of roraas dywvios and as the clause in which K/HTOV stands describes the result of that decision, npirov should be taken in the simple sense of 'adjudged,' 'decreed,' not 'chosen' as the scholiast's ocKpirov would imply. Professor Campbell, although he takes Aexo? in the sense of 'marriage,' translates Kptrbv as 'adjudged to him' (Heracles) and acutely annotates 'HpaKAei thus : "'HpcucAct is primarily (a) dative after Kpirov, and secondarily (b) dative after v0ei StaSeSey- ju-en? TTO'VOV (vv. 29-30) can, it should seem, in view of the context, hardly be taken in any other way than as I have rendered it. For not only is KWOV the emphatic word in what immediately precedes, but the SiaStSey/u-en? TTO'VOV suggests at once a parallel with 6/3ov, as who should say IK TTOVOV TTOVOV Trape^ovo-a. For this interpre- tation we have such support as is afforded by the scholiast's VVKTOS Ip^erat KCU WKTOS i^opfMTai a>s [jt*v] SiaSox^v /u,oi raiv TTOV (the p.?) between is and StaSo^v spoils the sense and appears to be a dittography of fwi after 8taSox??v). (So too in v. 825 we find dvaSoxav TTO'VCOV of Heracles's labours, though this has been questioned and emended to dvaTrvoav TTOVWV. Cf. also vv. 34-35.) It seems most natural to accept the repeated vv as referring to one and the same night, to suppose that Heracles comes home late and goes off on a fresh quest before the dawn. In accepting this (to me, at least) most natural interpretation I follow Professor Campbell, who offers strong objections to the other renderings of which the one makes Tj-oWthe object of both the verbs and the participle, interpreting it as the anxiety of Deianira (= wra- fttv Se TratSas. Here we come upon the explanation of the varia- tion of reading in the MSS. KA^YCAMENAEHAIAAC was wrongly divided Kaffiva-a. /xev 8 TratSas, then emended tO Kavv ei? So/xovs re K aict TOV avop' tTre/XTre AaTpevovTa TO>. If these four verses be taken by themselves and the modern punctua- tion disregarded the meaning is perfectly clear. It is this : 'As a husbandman that has taken a field at a distance sees it but once at seed time and (once again) at harvest (each year), that was the sort of life that continually (brought) my husband home and sent (him) from home in the service of somebody or other.' The com- parison is delicately made. Heracles is the y^V^s, Deianira is the apovpa. As the yrjTTis visits his field oW/aon/, so Heracles visits Deianira; as the 777x^5 does not visit his field again till the time of reaping, so Heracles on his return finds a child born of Deianira. The aorist Trpoo-ctSe can only be gnomic. Did it refer directly to Heracles, we should have an imperfect. We thus see that ovs and KCIVOS have no construction. The thread of the thought broken by the OTTWS clause is resumed not by OVTODS KCIVOS but by the more general TOIOVTOS aJW. But what is the meaning of wore ? Alone of the commentators Tournier has seen that wore is the correlative of vw in v. 36 (vvv S' ^viV a6Xv 6/30) yS/jorois | rrjv yXaicrcrav, ou^i rapya, iravd' riyovfj.evrjv. If all this is so Deianira has told us in effect that Heracles formerly ( TTOTC) came home about once every ten months, and we expect her to say that now (vw) he has been away considerably over that time. And that is precisely what she does say, but in her Sophocles 33 own woman's way circumstantially, reverting to her fears and anxieties first. Thus (vv. 36-42) : vvv 8', f)viK J ad\(av Twv8' i>7repreXr/s ev a.7rot^Tat. Then follows what we have so long expected (vv. 43-45) : 8' eTrt'cTTa/xat TI 7ri}/A' l^ovra viv yap ou^i ft at ov, d/\A' ^Sr; 8 e K a fjif)va<; Trpos aXXois TTCVT' a.KrjpvKTO Oafj.a | 0eots dpw/iai TT^/AOV^S aYep Xa/Sew'). But she has not 'received it with- out harm', and thereby hangs a tale the drama of the Trachinians, the prologue to which would seem incomplete without the conclud- ing words of Deianira. I append verses 26-37 as I would read them. I may add that although the commentators have mismanaged the OTTWS clause, Dr. Plumptre in his translation has done much better; for he renders thus (the italics, etc., are mine) : 'Yea ! ( = 8r)) sons were born to us, And like a husbandman who tills the soil Of distant field, and sees the crop( !) but once, Sowing and reaping, so is he to them; Such course of life still sends him home to me, And far from home, in servile labour bound To one we know.' 34 Greek Authors re\os 8' eOrjKf Zeus dycivtos xaAois el Srj /caXaJs Ae^os yap 'Hpa/cXe! fucrracr' act rtv' K u> KCIVOV TrpOKrjpatvova-a vi> yap eurayci Kat vv aTTw^et SiaSeSey/zevT? TTOVOV , Ka.(f>vo'a./j.ev 8e TraiSas, ovs Ketvos TTOTC y^rr^s OTTWS apovpav IKTOTTOV crTrei'pcov P.OVOV TrpocreiSe Ka TOioirros aiwv es SO/XODS re KO.K Sd/xwv aiet TOV avSp' (.ire/j-ire Aarpeuovra TW vCv 8', fjviK' 9 a.6\u>v Twv8' VTreprfXrjs <^>v, evraO^a 8^ yuaXicrra TapyS^tracr' e^a)- ADNOTATIONES AD SOPHOCLIS TRACHINIAS. 1 Vv. 1-3. Aoyos //.ev ICTT' dp^aios (^avei's, d)S OVK av aiwv' (K/Aadoi ySporaiv Trpiv av ^av?^ Tts ovr' i ^p^crros OVT' ei TW Ka/cos * 'Est sane verbum vetus a quodam prolatum, neminem facile morta- lium ante quam mortuus sit vitam suam cognitam posse habere bonamne an malam habuerit'. In graecis, quae latine quam verissime exprimere sum conatus, sunt quae diligentissime perpendamus oporteat. Ac primum quidem in primo ipso versiculo dubium non potest esse, quin illud IO-T' idem valeat atque wra/o^a. Deinde eodem in versu e Blaydesii coniectura pro tradito illo dv^pwTrwv reponendum esse censeo e/c rtvos . Tralaticia scriptura quin ex interpretamento interlineari /3poru>v vocabulo super- scripto profluxerit nulla mihi est dubitatio. Hac de coniectura vel potius, ut mihi quidem videtur, emendatione alibi iam scripsi : v. Classical Review, vii. 1893, P- 449- 2 Ad AvOpw-n-oK autem quod attinet, quam scripturam pro avOpuTrw e grammatico quodam afferunt 3 , id nihil aliud equidem esse puto nisi coniecturam a nescio quo ad sententiam tolerabilem efficiendam introductam. Tertium ex eis quae hisce in versibus maxime sunt memorabilia illud est, quod pro cKpdOoi L 1 fKfidOois praebet, quam scripturam editorum plerique cupi- dius quam consideratius sunt amplexi. Nollem factum; nam illud 1 [MS. notes.] 2 [The note referred to here is superseded by this article, and is therefore not in- cluded in this volume.] 8 [Vide Harvard Studies, 12.148.] Sophocles 35 fKfj,dOoi, quod et A praebet et Boissonadius, quern honoris causa nomino, in sua editiuncula tuetur, non tantum sensum praebet opti- mum, verum etiam e versibus quarto quintoque verum esse apparet. An cum sic pergat poeta vel potius uxor personata : yu> Se rov lp.ov /cat Trph' eis "AtSov /uoXetv IfotS' e^ouo-a SVO-TVX*) re /cat (3apvv, sic inquam cum se habeat contextus verborum atque sententiarum, intellegentis est et rem suam consulte gerentis editoris e/cju,a0ot spernere, e/c^.a^ois accipere atque defendere? Nonne istud erat dedita opera meridiana in luce caecutire? Mihi quidem adeo plana res est atque aperta, vix ut opus videatur vel uno verbo amplius addito. Addo tamen illud, verba quae sunt ovr' ' XPTJO-TOS ovr' et TW /ca/cos nihil aliud valere nisi OUT' et XP^O-TOV ovr' ei xaxov eo-^ev, ad quae ex contrario optima respondet 2oi8' e^oro-a ; SVO-TU^ TC /cat (3apvv. Ac ne cui forte quidquam omisisse videar, animadverto TW pro- nomine indefinite ita praecedens illud TIS resumi quasi avrato-tv e^rct Trarpos otTwv evapy^s, raupos, aAXor' atoXos 8pa/cwv \IKTO'S, aXXor' dvSpet'w /curet jSovTrpwpos e/c 8e 8ao-/'ou yeveiaSos Kpovvot SieppatvovTO Kprjvaiov TTOTOV. Huius loci cum veram scripturam ex Strabone reduxerint editores, ^veram interpunctionem non perspexerunt. Ita vero positis distinc- tionibus ut ego suadeo hunc in modum est intellegenda sententia relativa : os ^ e^rfrei TOTpos ev rpto-tv )U,opc/)atcrtv c/>otrwv evapy^s (i. 6. e7rtc/>aivo/xvos), <^aAAoT^> raSpos, aAAor' atoXos Spa/cwv eXi/cros, aXXor' dvSpetw /cvrei ySowpwpos /< 8ao-/ctov yevctaSos /cpowovs StappatVcov /cp^vatov TTOTOV. 1 De huius loci vera interpunctione et interpretatione vide sis quae scripsi Mnemos. 30. (1902), p. 136. [See below under Euripides.] 36 Greek Authors V.17. irplv rovSe KoiTrjs e/ Versum e Wunderi coniectura sic sanatum baud facile equidem permittam ut eiciatur, immo vero strenue earn defendam, qui per- suasum habeam ne unum quidem versum hoc ex prologo secluden- dum esse, cuius prologi versuum numerus duodequinquagenarius ex ea ratione numerali videtur pendere quam in Medeae prologo observaverat Euripides : v. Transactions of the American Philolog- ical Association, vol. xxxiii, 1902, pp. 16 sq. 1 V. 27 sq. Suspicor rescribendum esse Adxos yap 'HpaxXci voTaV, i. e. Xa^os yap Kpirov 'HpaKAei vora(r'. Vv. 29-31. (ei TtV K <>()V vcrafjLfv Se TralSas KTC. In versu 31 necessarium esse videtur pro tradito Sia&Scy/Aen? trovov Billerbeckii SiaSeScy/io/ov TTOVOVS. Verum non de hac potissimum correc- tione nunc agere volo, sed de ratione quae intercedit inter KCIVOV TrpoKrjpawovcra. et Kavvo-ayu.ev verbum de sola Deianira esse accipiendum tamquam eadem significatione praeditum atque ITCKOV: cf. Eur. Med. 1063, quern versum fieri potest ut hie imitatus sit Sophocles. In v. 44 sq., si vera sunt quae de denarii hoc loco mensium numeri significatione disputavi in Classical Review (loc. cit), exspectandum erat d\A.' 778?; 8ca | /u^o-cv ?rpos aAAovs TTOT' d/c^puKTos ficvet. Satis tamen dubitanter hanc suspicionem profero. 1 [See above, pp. 13 sq.] * [See above, p. 29.] 37 CAAEYEIN. 1 In Soph. O. T. 694 sqq. we read (following at the end the first hand of L) : os T' efj.av yav c/>t'Aav ev TTOVOLCTLV aXvovcrav /car' opOov cwpicras, TO.VVV T' evTrop.Tro<; el Suvat yevov. Dobree wrote o-aAewwav for aXvova-av. This cannot fail to be the original, 'especially' (to quote Blaydes's words) 'as the rest of the imagery in this passage is borrowed from the sea (oupto-as, V7roju,7ros) .' We naturally compare O. T. 22 24 and Ant. 162 sqq. It is scarcely worth while to quote Schol. L o-aAeuet] ^ /aeracpopa a7ro TCOV xt'-l^op-ww veaiv, and TToAAw craAa>] TpoTri/cws ws eirl vcws. But Professor Jebb's note on O. T. 695 is astonishing : ' aXvova-av, of one maddened by suffering, Ph. 1194 dXvovTo, xei//,epiw Avrra. The conjecture o-aAeuovo-av would be correct but tame.' Leaving the latter of these sentences to fall by its own weight, let us direct our attention to the parallel cited in the former. This is in full (Phil. 1193 5) : aXvovra. XVTTCI /cat Trapa vow Opoelv. Here xwV shows plainly that the metaphor is from the sea (' OTTO TWV \f.ipa.t,op,v | Av?ra rapax^e irdOfi, yu,Ta^>o/3iKcos' oiiK ecrrt, r}(ri, /AC/ATTTOV f SVO-TV^OWTI /cat jrapaOfyyecr6aL, not Trapa^povowTt /cat 7ra.pa0eyye(r0ai, which would be the translation of the traditional text and would bring out fully its insipidity. On Phil. 1194 Professor Jebb cites Phil. 174, where the context (173-5) is: voo~et fifv vocrov dypt'av 8' ITTL iravrL TW to-rajLtevw. This is not a parallel : dAva is right, as is shown by the construction of cTTt cum dat. after it, and is rightly explained by the translation of Schol. L dAvet] dAyet, deeper. With ouXe&iv we expect a locative- instrumental construction, 'in, with, by' : the metaphor is vigorous, and the surrounding, agitating element is not lost sight of. We may 1 [From the Classical Review, vol. VII (1893), p, 248]. 38 Greek Authors compare in conclusion Plat. Legg. 923 B /ecu owu> TOVTWV CXOVTOV, OVK, fdv rts vyxas 0a>7reus {>7ro8pa/x.a)v ev v o , and if what has just been said about a second contrast in the sentence is true, then, inasmuch as there is no word referring directly to the gods, but there is one referring directly to the king (/aoi), we have, what appears very often elsewhere, a double contrast expressed half by half. The scheme of such contrast in the present passage will be thus : 8e But if this double contrast exists and one part of it is an oblique case of a personal pronoun, such oblique case of a personal pronoun should have the antidiastolic form, not the enclitic. Therefore, rcto-Se fj.oi should give place to rao-8' e/xol. So Brunck read. So the 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIII (1899), pp. 339~342.]. Sophocles 39 NewTepa, thus : rives ewriv at KaO&pai aurai, as xdOrjcrOe. And again : e/x,oi 8e ei/corcos eiprjKev oV avrov yap Bothe should not have objected to Brunck's text (addenda et emendanda to Leipsic edition of 1 806) : ' leg. rao-Se p.oi : nam 6pOoTovovfj.v has reference to the contrast, the inconsistency, which Oedipus has just noted, of which he now demands the reason in person. Of course, the interrogation extends, as I have indicated by my pointing, through /oo' (vs. 9). It seems to me, as to others, reasonable to suppose that o-Tcp^avTts was once ov K/XITWWV KTC. answer to dXA.', o> -yepaie, KT. ; the word TTO\IS in vs. 22 intro- duces the reply to TroAis 8' KTC (vs. 4 sq.) ; and o-Temy/ioTs *a! ycwis in vs. 30 refers us back to vs. 5. What follows vs. 30 will, therefore, by a natural process of chiastic elimination, answer to vss. 2-3. This brings us to the conclusion already drawn from the point of view of the earlier verses that vss. 31-32 have reference to vss. 2-3 and that C/AOI must be read in vs. 2. From vs. 142 M. Schmidt (Philo- logus 18, 229) inferred that in vs. 16 Sophocles had written not ftwfUMTi Tots o-oTs but pddpoi seems to me very plausible. In v. 35 os T', which is supported, so far at least as MS. testimony is concerned, by the scholiast's wore, is certainly right, as Wunder maintained. V TC o-v/iV=OT' tfwX.es. //.oAwvis, therefore, not to be construed with ao-Tv KaS/u,eu>v. But if aoru Ka8//,eioj> is to be construed with ee\vo-as, Professor VOn Herwerden's o-KA^pSs doiSov, 8ao-/u,ov y Trapet^o/Acv in v. 36 seems fairly inevitable. Lest I may not have been explicit enough about the chiasmus mentioned above and its bearing on os T', I add a word here, o-u^opcus fSfov is commonly misinterpreted, o-v/^opaTs has its normal sinister sense, and the phrase here 'misfortunes, mischances, of life,' with special reference to the plague, which, though a divine visitation, is here regarded especially from the human point of view ; Sa.ifj.6vav crwoAAayais (the a~vv- is, supported, as against gvv-, by the parallelism with OT^O/DCUS) means 'dealings with higher (supernatural) beings,' with reference to the Sphinx, -n-pwrov lv Sai/xovwv o-waAAayais is expanded in the form of a relative clause in vv. 35-39 ; while w. 4O45 look back tO Trpwrov fv opaL<; fiiov. Chiasmus is a prominent feature of this whole passage. We have a striking little instance of it in v. 42 sq., where TOV Oe>v is followed by dvopos TOV. The reading TTOV spoils this. Vv. 44-45. 'For it is especially to experienced men that I see even misfortunes of counsels.' What we want where d>v /3ovAeu/u,ara)v depend upon it. The best suggestion that has been made here (to my knowledge) is Mekler's ptas. (Musgrave, if I am right in thinking some MS. notes on Sophocles in my possession to be his, felt the difficulty in the same way ; but his conjectures were less satisfactory. I may have more to say of this at another time.) pias with superscribed ouous (the latter merely to indicate the construction) might have got botched into w Aa/ATrpos, wcnrep op.jjja.rL ('to the A0oi, aWep Aap,7rpos (=opa,<; ; is adequately defended by Aristoph. Av. 94 TIS ,- TIS 6 T/aoTros T^S T/3iA.os ra8' (Hermann's certain and admirable correction of roS') alpa X/MOOV 7roA.iv answers TIS 6 rpoVos T^S In v. 116 sq. have we really what Sophocles wrote? Should we not rather read thus : ou8' ayyeXos TIS wSe crvfjLTrpaKTwp oSov Ka.Tr)\6\ OTOV Tts fKfj.ad(i)v e^pi/aaT' av ; tO be Construed : ovSe TIS o/? is to be construed, I think, with ouSev x' ciSws v is then=7rei (postquam) !p.y KTavetv vtv, dAAa o~vv Tr\r)6f.i ^epoiv. 2 It may be questioned whether w. 141-146 are always (or generally) 1 [See below, p. 46.] 7 [These emendations had already been made independently, (SSe by A. Weidner, and jiuas by Sehrwald, as noted by Prof. Earle iu his edition ad loc.~\ Sophocles 43 rightly understood. As -n-av e/xoC opaowros (cf. v. 10 sq.) belongs in thought to larao-fle. The suppliants are to go away now in the belief that Oedipus will do all that lies in his power for the relief of his people. The concluding words of Oedipus's speech are the promise referred to by the priest in the words (v. 147 sq.) rcivSe \-P LV & v &' e&xyyeAAeTcu (=\nri.(rxyelT(u : I fail to see why commentators drag in 'of his own accord' in their interpretations). 'For we (i.e. I) will succeed please God or fall in the attempt' is what Oedipus means by his words. The words avv TO> 0e

avov/j.eOa here has the proper force of the future : it is an expression of intention. Are v. 421 sq. perhaps to be written : orav KaralcrOrj y' ov vp.evai.ov lv Oo/xots avop/j.ov eicrtTrXeucras euTrAotas rv\x wS' eor' aptcrr' etpyaoy/.eVa, fj.rj p? / 3 et dans ma petite edition de 1'Oedipe-Roi (New York, American Book Company, 1901). M. Parmentier cite M. Ewald Bruhn, comme le dernier editeur de 1'Oedipe-Roi. Mon edition ne semble done pas lui etre connue et il m'excusera si j'en fais souvent mention dans ce qui suit. Je passe maintenant aux points ou je ne suis plus d'accord avec M. Parmentier. II commence son article en disant que 'le peuple est prosterne en suppliant devant le palais.' C'est, au contraire, non pas le peuple, mais une delegation speciale se composant de quelques jeunes gens (Moritz Schmidt a pense, comme moi, qu'ils etaient au nombre de quatorze: vois mon edition p. 137) sous la direction d'un vieux pretre. M. Parmentier a neglige, comme la plupart des editeurs du texte, le contraste entre la cite (71-0X15, v. 4) et cette delegation, con- traste que je juge tres important et que j'ai tache de mettre en lumiere dans la Classical Review (1. c.) et dans mon edition ad loc. C'est justement la singular! te de 1'attitude de cette delegation en opposition a 1'attitude de la plupart des citoyens le fait qu'en meme temps que le reste de la cite se prosterne devant les dieux ce petit groupe de suppliants s'adresse au roi comme s'il etait un dieu qui frappe 1'attention d'Oedipe et semble le remplir d'etonnement. C'est seulement aux jeunes gens qu'il adresse les mots *O re/cm. II ne s'adresse au pretre que comme a un interprete qui doit porter la parole (CTTCI wpen-wv ! orepavTes, j'ajoute a ce que j'ai ecrit dans mon edition ce fait important, que c'est precisement en ov o-rep^avrcs que les suppliants se trouvent devant le roi. Les vers 47-57, a la fin du discours du pretre au nom de la delegation, contiennent meme trois fois des exhortations, sinon des menaces couvertes. Le pretre, avec respect et finesse, mais aussi avec assez de clarte, signifie que le peuple s'im- patientera centre le roi si ce dernier ne trouve pas des moyens de lui en aide. Voila une chose bien importante, j'ose penser, pour 1'inter- pretation de ce drame. J'ajoute que M. Parmentier ne me semble pas bien comprendre les mots is 0eA.ovros av. II ne faut, a mon idee, que se rappeler la forme de 1'oratio recta, 0e\oi/xi av, qui veut dire 'je voudrais bien,' velim. 46 Greek Authors SOPHOCLES, OEDIPUS TYRANNUS 54 sq. 1 d)5 flvcp opets Tija-Be y^?, oxrircp vv a.vBpa.(riv KaXXiov 77 KK Apart from Blaydes's ycnrip for oWe/a, a conjecture that a careful reading of the passage with proper regard to the contrast between intention of future action (a/3s=To \OLTTOV aps) and present action (cpaTis=Ta vw icpaTets) seems certainly to reject, editors have been content to let these verses stand in the form presented above. But I cannot help feeling that Sophocles did not write them quite so. For in v. 55 we should expect either opx lv instead of K/xn-eiv if the notion of ruling is to be expressed a third time, or else that the notion of ruling should be understood, i. e., that there should be no infinitive at all. Furthermore the position of Kpartlv is suspicious, since it is not required, because of the similar form Kparets just above it. In A (see Campbell's adnot. crit. ad loc.) we find Kpards instead of KpaTcTv. May this not be but one step further in a process of cor- ruption that has assimilated a form somewhat similar to K/WTCIS into the form K/oare/V and then, finally, assimilated K/xrmv entirely to eis ? I would suggest /Jporciv, the substitution of which for at once relieves an awkward redundancy and gives a neat chiastic arrangement in v. 55." 1 [MS. note. In his edition Professor Earle printed Pparwv without comment. See p. 42.] * [Prof. Earle offered a possible defence of icpareiv in Proceedings of the American Philological Association 32 (1901), p. xxviii. In Soph. 0. T. 54 sq., the two di- visions into protasis and apodosis of the sentence etirep Kpareiv were discussed, that which makes the apodosis begin with l-i>v AvSpdiriv (the prevailing division in modern commentaries) and that which makes the apodosis begin with /cciXXtov. For the latter division Wunder seems to be primarily responsible. In favor of this latter division, it was urged that it brings together wffirep KpareTs and i>v avopdinv. which belong together ; against it was urged that, like the other division, it makes Kpareiv resume the notion of Apeu when the notion has already been once resumed by Kpa.Ttis. It was suggested that the right division is after yrjs, and that we should point and interpret thus : ws eiirep aps Trja8e y^s, WO-TTC/) Kpareis w av8pdovwcratoriv d/i^i^ai/wv KUK\O e(3a KT. The fact that the army-eagle (for only so can one represent the interlocking of sign and thing signified in this splendid passage) is depicted 'agape with blood-thirsty spears about the seven-gated mouth' seems quite enough to warrant some attempt at emendation. But the simple and handy correction of o-To/ua to 7roA.iv (Blaydes) or TroAur/x.' (Nauck) does not explain at all how O-TO/WI came into the text. The conflict of d/x^ixa"^ an d o-ro/m in the vulgate suggests their reconciliation a/ji(f)ix av ^ v orT /' ul > 'with mouth agape'; but then we must change eirTdirvXov to eTTTaTrvAo) and this is precisely Semitelos's inevitable and admirable correction. But he has not quite finished the good work; for we observe that in the strophe we have cTrraTrvAa* near the beginning but not in quite the same place as in the anti- strophe. According to the principle so largely followed by the tragedians we might expect exact correspondence in this regard between strophe and antistrophe here. In the strophe eTTTarruAo* is evidently in the right place; for it cannot be moved to correspond with eTTTaTTvAw in the antistrophe without spoiling the verse. But in the antistrophe 7rra7ruAa> and a.p.^Lx av ^ v can change places without affecting the metre, and by making them shift their positions we bring together elements that belong together in sense eT 1 [MS. note. Cf. Proceedings of the Am. Phil. Ass. 29 (1898), p. xlvi.] 1 [From the Classical Review, IX (1895), p. 15.] 48 Greek Authors and a/j.<(>ixa.vwv oro/ia. We thus see that the corruption of to 7rTa7rvAov is due to its false collocation with oro/ua, the word KVK\W thrown together with d/u, KVK\(a Xoy^ats d/t^i^avwv ord/ia, I would add that the thing signified is obviously the van ( a.ari TOV ayaOov Kpe'ovra aio<; aTTiqy- yeAAe TOVS Trporjyovfievovv CK T^S yu,cr^s rStv Kara, rrjv crK-qvrjv rpiaiv dvptav e^wpet ITTL TO Trpocr/cipiov KTC. But according to what seems a sound interpretation of Sophocles's own words, as quoted above, Creon would have entered from the side, as one coming from the battle-field. 2. In Ant. 178* the word yap has given several commentators needless trouble. To make the matter clear I will briefly analyze Creon's speech from the beginning. 'The gods have righted the ship of state [vv. 162 sq.], but / have summoned you, because I know your loyalty to Laius, to Oedipus, and to Eteocles and Poly- nices [vv. 164-169]. Since, then, they are dead, the supreme power in the state reverts to me by virtue of consanguinity [vv. 170-171].' A less adroit prince than Creon might next have said 'Therefore I expect you to be loyal to me.' But Creon continues : 'But it is impossible to know any man's temper till he be tried in office [vv. 175-177].' Then follow the words e//,oi yap KTC, which, if we are not tied down to the belief that yap always = 'for', we shall naturally render: 'In my eyes then,' etc. So we shall regard eywyap in v. 184 as resuming C/AOI yap and shall render 7 then' ; and finally we shall regard ey vo/iowri ri/vS' avo> TroAiv excludes M. Tournier's otherwise plausible Opovouriv [for vo/xoio-iv] in v. 177. We see furthermore, that vofux in both places means 'principles of conduct.' This brings us to the pertinent question, what does op^ats [v. 178] mean? We have gathered from v. 191 that vv. 178-190 are an explanation of vo/xonv in v. 177. We find, furthermore, that v. 192 is con- trasted [KO! vw] with v. 191. If we accept the traditional reading in v. 191 [rrfvS at&o TToAtv], which is well supported by Plato [Laws 731 A, cited also by Professor Jebb], we must see here not a con- trast of time [between a future opa> or ou and vw] but a contrast of another sort. There must, then, be a contrast between vo/wxo-i and something else. That 'something else' is the Krjpvyfw. implied in Ki7puas e^a), and the contrast is, in more general terms between 'principle' and 'conduct,' or 'action.' We may, then, venture to interpret emeu's as 'actions of a ruler.' Thus we have a chiastic arrangement [a] dpxats [v. 177] ; [b] vo/nouriv [v. 177] ; [b] c/xol yap Troiov/iefla [w. 178 190]; [a] KCU vvv Trtpt, [w. 192-3], the last fully explained in the verses that follow. Nor is this at all too subtle for Sophocles. 3. In Ant. 580 sq. we read : vyov/s eon viKwo-a"). But this is not the end of the matter. In Thuc. 7, 55. I we find TfyevrjfjifVTj^ 8e T^S VI'KTJS TOIS 2iy>aKoo-ibis AayLwr/aas r/By KTC. Here the parallel passages cited make it extremely probable that we should accept Classen's AcyiTrpws (Mr Holden, who keeps XapTrpas, cites Aa^.- Trpais eviica from Plut. Sull. 29,5). At all events viSv Aa/wi-pcis seems to have been a current expression (cf. Schol. Ar. Ran. 73 Dind.) and we need not hesitate to see in the Sophoclean phrase a poetical 8 Aa/u.7rpws. Shall we not then read vi/ orroibv ov^i vo-oiv TfXd has long seemed to me pretty certainly right. What I have said in this Review (vi. 73 ) 2 about v. 24 needs some correction. Two glosses, XpTyo-flets SIKCUW KCU VO/AW and Kara x#ovos, have indeed been used to make v. 24 (they were mistaken by some one for a verse accidentally omitted and then added in the margin, 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIII (1899), pp. 386-393.] 1 [The note referred to ran as follows : X/M?t (we find /caret xGovh used by the Schol. on v. 65, for vvb x^oi6j of the text). When these two glosses had been jumbled into the text, by reason of their forming a trimeter, diKaltf) was naturally changed to Sucal? to force a sense upon the combination. It may be added that the simple Kpfareiv (=0dvreiv) occurs subsequently v. 285.] Sophocles 53 because they happened to scan as a trimeter) ; but Kara. x#ov6s was a gloss on \Qovt., which once stood at the end of v. 25. The word e end of v. 25 (in its traditional form) is due to a gloss on VCKVV in v. 25. It is to be noticed that v. 26 is spatially just about the length of the word veW longer than v. 25. The position of the gloss vexpov just after x&>vt' at the end of v. 25 would aid the process of corruption. I subjoin what I conceive to have been approximately the condition of the text of vv. 23-26 with the glosses. ea /xev, qui a ete 1' origine de 1' interpolation'. However, it is to M. Tournier's note that I owe indirectly this fuller explanation of the genesis of the present text. In v. 33 should we not read ravra. in the place of ravra ? In v. 38 evyev^s and ccrOXw KdK-rj are not properly contrasted terms. Pro- perly contrasted would be evyo/j/s and Svo-yev^s or eo-OXwv ) TroAe/tttov | TWV vvv 6fe\id>v was the original order of the words. (Of the restora- tion of v. 117 I have spoken elsewhere: see Class. Rev. ix. (1895), p. I5, 1 and Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. xxviii., Proceedings, pp. xi.-xiv. 2 ) 1 [See above, p. 47.] 3 [See below a paper on Verbal Correspondence of Antistrophes in Attic Tragedy.] 54 Greek Authors In v. 320 there are at least two points of interest. First, S^Aov is unsatisfactory grammatically. The interlocking of the words the hyperbatic arrangement is plain. We have surely the common idiom of 8>}Aos with emu and a participle. We shall thus accept the reading S^Vos of Aug. b. The gender of the participle KTI-paSrjos o/aeo-o-i/Jara, and we should, therefore, expect the substantives expressing the two species to be in apposition with the substantive expressing the genus, not the sentence containing the names of the species to be in apposi- tion with the sentence containing the name of the genus. Professor Semitelos has escaped the difficulty (rightly, I think) by writing Kparet Se yu/>7xavats dypavAovs 0?7pas opeom/Jdras, But this correction is reciprocally related to the correction of v. 351 sq. Here Hermann, accepting the reading eerai as containing merely an error due to pronunciation (I presume), proposed to read l-jnnov (for l-mrov, in Order to get_^) e^ere' d/x^t Ao c^eVe' U/A< ovpetoV T' a&fjLTJTa ravpov. Professor- Semitelos does not indeed accept dS/x^ra; but it seems to me that after Kpa.Telfj.rjxa.vais and vyot he should have preferred a word that meant 'untamed', 'unbroken', to one that meant merely 'un- wearied', 'strong'. Professor Blass's discussion of the -rroXXa ra 8va chorus in Fleck- eisen's Jahrbiicher for 1897 (pp. 477-480, Zu Sophokles' Antigone und Platons Protagoras) is worthy of attention, though it does its eminent author no great credit. I venture briefly to criticise it here. Professor Blass sets out to show that the word irapapw in the second antistrophe (v. 368) is sound. To do so he begins at the beginning of the second antistrophe (ta ; afjLrjxavov yap yv, says Protagoras, avev rrupos avryv TO> rj xprja-ifJL-i/jv yevr#at. The iroXiTiKrj re^rr) was With Zeus, into whose citadel Prometheus was no longer allowed to enter j 1 therefore he could do no more than go into the common workshop of Hephae- stus and Athena evidently in the lower town ! and steal thence for man's behoof T^VTC e/Mrupov rcxyyv rrjv TOV 'Hv\a,Kal (321 D) anything to do with Genesis 3, 24? 2 [The note referred to ran as follows : 'ETretSr; 5 6 tivdpuTros 6tias n.erffx e /J-olpas, TrpGrrov pitv did. rijv rou deov ffvyytvetav $(fuv fiAvov Oeovs ^6/wcre KT^. The words 5tck r^v TOV 6. ffvyytv. are nonsense in this context : nothing is said anywhere about kinship with the gods. The text seems to have had originally irpCirov p.kv Sid. TOVTO fywv fj.6vov KT^. , in which roOro = r6 Betas uxra(fx.ftv /M>ipas. The reading of BT, as quoted above, is the result of a thought- less gloss on roOro.] 58 Greek Authors what belongs to the gods, 1 first invented a religion, then began to speak, to prepare and procure houses and furniture, to cultivate husbandry. But since men had not TroAiTud; re^, they dwelt separate and were soon almost destroyed by wild beasts, against which they could not wage war, because the TroAe/ntK?) T^yrj is a part of the lacking TT-oAiTiKT; Texyy. Thus men began to congregate and seek to protect themselves by building cities. But they trespassed against one another, because they had not the TroAm/oj r^xyrj, and were soon again scattered. Poor humanity is at length rescued from its plight by Zeus's gift of ai'Sws and 86*07, m which every man must have his share. But what has all this to do with the chorus in the Antigone? There are many wonderful things, says the poet, but none more wonderful than man. He devotes himself to perilous navigation (is master of the sea). He wearies by ploughing the great goddess. Earth (is master of the land). He catches in nets the nimble-witted birds, the wild beasts, the fishes in the sea. He tames the horse and the bull. He taught himself (and here in the second strophe we come for the first time on something the least bit like chronological development 2 ) he taught himself speech, thought, liking to live in towns, building of houses. All resources has he in himself; noth- ing future, save death, will he encounter helpless ; even remedies for overwhelming diseases has he devised. With all this wonderful capa- bility man turns sometimes to evil, sometimes to good, in the latter case loyal to the laws and to his oath, 3 standing thus high in the state: a man without a country is he whose boldness makes that which is not beautiful evil to dwell with him (i. e., as the chiasmus shows, he that l-nl K.O.KOV f/>7r) : may none that does such things (that TOI firj KaXa 2po roX/ias x e V )lv ) be either neighbour or fellow- partisan of mine. 1 We find here, as Professor Blass remarks, in Protagoras's tale a very clumsy at- tempt at connecting primitive art and primitive worship. 2 If we seek to see chronological development earlier in this passage, we shall find man ploughing with the lirireiov ytvos before he has tamed the {"TITOS. 3 What Sophocles wrote where irapdpwv stands may not be absolutely certain, but I believe that Professor Jebb is right in thinking that Reiske's yepalptav is it. The word TT\IJP&V in the scholion to v. 368 cannot well be a corruption of vapetpuv. But irapflpuv in the text might come from yepalpuv, or from ir\t]puv unclearly written as a gloss on yepalptav. At all events the righteous man is intended to be described as Kal HvopKos. Professor Blass seems to have misunderstood 6euv ZvopKov 5lKav = SpKovi. (With irapelpuv for yepatpuv, cf. vapfivra. for "ftpovra., 0. T. 971.) Sophocles 59 Where the 'enge beriihrung zwischen dem Protagoras und der Antigone' is to be found in the passages compared, I for one cannot discern. A connection between Protagoras's //,i)0os and the Orphic poem quoted by Sextus Empiricus (see Professor Blass's article, p. 478) is more probable perhaps but is not proved. 1 A marked difference between Protagoras's tale and the chorus in the Antigone consists in this, that in Sophocles the independent activity of man is dwelt upon; nothing is said of supernatural inter- ference. This Professor Blass ignores. Professor Blass's attempt to smuggle the word re^ into the first antistrophe of the chorus in the Antigone, 2 in order to make it the subject of the second strophe, should be considered a lamentable failure. Albeit eSiSo&iTo seems to be found only here in the sense of 'taught himself, yet that is justified, as Matthiae saw, 3 by the circumstances of the case. Man 'invented', or, more forcibly, he 'taught himself, -rjvptro would come nearest, perhaps, to eSiSa&zro here, but would not nearly so well express Sophocles's meaning. vp.7rt- pav 'which he caught himself perpetrating' (Ant. 51)? and has not Sophocles in the spirit of the higher Greek poetry oftentimes strained a word or phrase enriched its connotation at the expense of its denotation ? It would thus appear that Professor Blass's < 71-0/3' > after irayw is an infelicitous, as well as needless, conjecture. What Sophocles wrote here cannot, perhaps, be said with certainty. One may content himself with cu'Spaa (or cu'Spta) as possibly right. (Pa- laeographically better is the oW0peea of the Campbell and Abbott edition.) Though a connexion cannot be made out between Protagoras's myth and Ant. 332-375, yet it is possible that the passage in the 1 The nMos as Protagoras relates it has, as Professor Blass notes, no strict logical sequence. In this Plato may have wished to parody his sophist's naivete. Whether this be so or not. the story is certainly naive. If an 'Orphic' poem underlies the fj.v6os, it in turn will have been based on a primitive legend. 2 By reading tirirov ?x ei f^vq. &/j.(f>l\o(f>ov vy6v. 3 Gr. Gramm. 496, 8 ad fin. (' Media statt der Passiva '), ' Soph. Ant. 354 Kal et~wa-t8i5dfrTo, wo nach dem gewohnlichen Sprachgebrauch ISiSAxOr, stehen sollte. Aber 8186x611 heisst, er lernte von andern passive, tdiddfrTO, er lernte durch eigne Thatigkeit '. 6o Greek Authors Protagoras where the quotation from the old poet occurs may have something to do with that chorus. In the chorus in the Antigone near the end of the second strophe stand the words voo-wv d/^xdvuv in the sense of 'overwhelming diseases'; near the beginning of the second antistrophe stands the reminiscence of the old poet. In Prot. 344 C we find the words ov av d/t^avos a-v^opa. na-BeXy quoted from Simonides and followed by an exposition of the term d/wfoavos = ap.-fixa.vov TTOWOV, 'overwhelming', as there used. Three classes of cvp.^- XO.VOL are cited as rendered d/A^ avot by d^xavoi ovfjufopai, the skipper, the farmer, the physician. 'For the good can become bad as well, as is witnessed by another poet, who said : avrap eo-0A6V If this is more than mere coincidence, Plato may in writing the passage just quoted above have had the chorus of the Antigone in mind. But this is a mere possibility. A feature of Ant. 332-375 that has an important bearing on the interpretation of that passage both in whole and in part is the duality that runs through it, of which I have already cited a striking instance. But not only have we seamanship and husbandry, capture of the lower animals and taming of the lower animals coupled (w. 335-353) ; we find speech and thought, town-inhabiting temper and building of houses, frost and rain, resourcefulness and resourceless- ness, escape from death and escape from disease (vv. 354-364), evil and good, law and oath, civic dignity and civic disgrace, neigh- bour and partisan (vv. 365-375). The clear perception of this pair- ing of ideas in w. 354-375 shows one that p6vrjfja. is sound, that dorwpov>v=o~v(rTaS | rjSrjo-Oa KrjpvxOwra M Troieiv ToSe; (Here Cobet's rj8rj(rda. IS Certainly right. But the explanation given by Messrs. Wolff -Bellerman, Jebb and Humphreys of the construction of Kijpvx9wra, I venture to think Wrong. KrjpvxOevra pr) iroulv=airoppr]0(VTa Krjpvyyum. The participle IS 1 The following note was read before the American Philological Association at Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., 6 July, 1898. Sophocles 61 not impersonal but agrees with raSe.) Antigone answers : ^ rl 8' OVK 1/xeAAov; e/xt^any yap rjv (SC. Krjpv^Oevra p.r) Troieiv raSe). Then Creon : /cat S^T' eroA/nas TOixrS' inrepftaivew vop-ovs ; Antigone : ov yap Tt P.OL Zevs ^v 6 Kr)pva.$ raSe [ ovS' 17 WOIKOS TOJV Kara) #ew Ai/o;, | 01 rowrS' ev av^paJTroicrtv <5/3rav vo^aovs ' | ovSe aQtvuv TOCTOVTOV wo/j-rjv ra o-a | KT7pvy/i0' war' ay/oairra (possibly a>s Taypatrra with Brunck and Aug. b) Ka.(T(f)aXrj Qttav \ vofUfui 8wa.(rOai OVTJTOV ov6' VTrepfiaXtlv KTC. If we construe Antigone's answer as is customary, we begin: 'Yes; for from my point of view it was not at all Zeus that proclaimed this.' The next verse would then naturally mean 'nor was it that Justice that dwells with the nether gods'. But the next verse would then mean 'who (referring to Zeus and AI'KT/) denned these laws for mankind'. roixrSe v6/j.ovpwrav vo/xous. Some scribe under the influence of rowS' virtppaivuv vo/xovs (449) m ^de the natural blunder rovVS' for TOVS here. This is substantially the course 62 Greek Authors of interpretation and reasoning by which I arrived at what I believe Sophocles to have written here. But I am not the first to suggest this reading. Erfurdt had already reached the same result some- what differently. I quote his note from the Erfurdt-Hermann Antigone of 1830: 'Vulgo rovo-8', quod mihi etiamnum displicet. Quum enim rowrSe vo^ttous non intelligi possit nisi de iis legibus, quarum paullo ante vv. 443, 445 [= 447, 449] mentio facta erat, nominatim de edicto, quo Polynicem sepeliri vetuerat Creon, haud video equidem, qua ratione conveniant ista verba cum antecedentibus. Quippe sic dicitur ea lex Deorum niti auctoritate, a quibus consti- tutam esse Antigona modo negavit. Deinde quae Thebanis data fuerat, quo jure lv avOpuTroun condita vocari potest ? Itaque non dubito scribendum esse TOWS, quo admisso ol lv avOpw-n-oia-t VO/WK, ut cum Xenophonte Memor. iv. 4, 19, loquar, sunt 01 ev Trda-y x^P? KaT <* ravra vo/uo/xvoi. Sic TTOV TO ev avdpuiroi's \pv(riov, in toto orbe terrarum, Xenoph. Ages. 8, 6. Supra v. 193 pro riav August, b. et Dresd. a. pari lapsu rwvS' exhibent.' * That is an admirable statement, so far as it goes. Let us turn now to Valckenaer's famous conjecture. This rests on two assumptions : (i) That Zcvs is the subject of ^v; (2) That rovo-Se vo/xous in v. 452 must mean the same thing as Tovo-Se vo/xous in v. 449. Of these assumptions I believe (i) to be wrong and (2) to be right. I am sorry that the argument against (i) is so intangible. If both assumptions are right (as I deny them to be), then Valckenaer's conjecture roiovo-8' dyuo-ev vo/uovs rises to the dig- nity of an emendation. Mr Jebb (no sure guide in such matters) says it 'is a certainly true correction'. It involves, it may be noted in passing, two changes, that of ot rouo-S" to TowwrS' (to my mind a rather violent change) and that of oyuo-av to wpto-ev. The scholion 17 AIK?/, (prjcri, Kal o Zevs aprav ware 0a.TrTr), u 'Ivirla, vbfMvs ; Tous y iv -irdff-Q, %ri, x<*>P1 Karh. rafrrd. vo/ufontvovs. The ruvd' in v. 193 (which is the reading of L) is due to r&vS' immediately above it in v. 192. Sophocles 63 of Erf urdt only in a minute detail, viz. in substituting TOVS y This was proposed by Professor Semitelos independently c &op0oio-ea>s, as he expresses it but had been ^anticipated by Vau- villiers. Though Professor Semitelos thinks that y is not otiose (doyov) but Trepie^ei TWO. ei/owvetav /cat mKpLav a/o/AoovavVTa roiv dpwrreiw dYep, | wv avros v wird angeschlossen als ob Aias nicht TWV dpio-TciW, sondern allgemein d/oio-retW gesagt hatte.' In Euripides 's Andromache Andromache reports that Hermione says of her that she wishes to dwell in Neoptolemus's house in her stead K/3aAoi) TO trpocrdev ov% e/covcr' vvv 8' exAeAoiTra (w.35~37). Here the a in dyw refers not to but to Ae'/crpa meaning Andromache's relations with Neoptolemus. In Plato Protag. 357 E we read wore TOVT lo-nv TO 64 Greek Authors vtu, apjadua. TJ /teyurTT;, 175 (sc. r) p.6vov dAAT/Awv TO.VT ?o-ao-iv a Trao-iv opav c^eariv, KTC. : Lys. 32, 24 TO fjfucru roirrots 6pavois own. AcAdywrrai, ovs (orphans in general) 17 TrdAts ou p.6vov TralSas ovras aTeXeis fTTOi-qcrav (makes), dAAa /cat 7r8av SoKi/xao'^aicriv .cviavrov af)Kev dwao'cov rciv IsaeuS I, 13 xal TK/yptots ^(prjcrdai fj.rj TOIS /ACT' opy^s (by Cleonymus), ev ols (acts of anger in general) 7re^>v'*ca/Liev d/xapraveiv, KTC. I close this discussion with a Lathi CX- ample (the only one I have at hand) from Justin (8, 2) : et externae dominationi, quam (sc. dominationem, not externam dominationem) in suis timuerunt, sponte succedunt. In v. 540 Mr Blaydes has already suggested what I venture to think is the right reading : dAA' ev JOIKOIO-I o-oto-iv OVK aio-^wofwu. The verse is somewhat like Eur. Ale. 318, where I am glad to see that Mr Hayley agrees with me in upholding ovr' eV TOKOUH o-on 6apa~vv, TCKVOV. Boeckh's support of the assignment of v. 572 to Antigone is a noteworthy instance of the invasion of classical philology by senti- mental bad taste. That vv. 574 and 576 should also go to Ismene is reasonably certain. The symmetry of the passage alone seems to demand it. It is possible that the verses between 571 and 575 have been disarranged and should be read in this order (I prefix vv. 569 sq. because v. 570 seems to need a slight correction by punctuation) : K P. apws y' fKCivia rfj8e T' TJV rjpfj.ou. 575 One cannot wonder that a woman of Antigone's temper fairly loathes Ismene. For all that, in this scene Sophocles has given us a masterly characterisation of a certain sort of mawkish sentiment- ality a characterisation as true to the life as it is disgusting. In v. 593 may not apxala TO. Aa/SSaxiS a> v (so E) opStfuu ot/c to v (balanc- Sop h odes 65 m g v - 582 euSat/Aoves otcri KO.K&V ayevo-ros atuiv) be what Sophocles wrote ? In w. 599 sqq. unless we read reVa 0aAos and d/ta /corns the words Aoyov T aVota /cat (f>pv>v 'E/otvvs would seem fitly to charac- terize the words of the chorus rather than the conduct of the heroine. Though it is not my intention to defend here the authenticity of v. 904 sqq., I venture to remark that the verses are not so bad as they have been often said to be. Professor Semitelos has rightly, I venture to think, corrected a re/cvw wr^p to d re/a/' 5v prJTrjp v air Oloiirov KaKwv in v. 2 are sound. Professor Semitelos was right in objecting, as others had done, to the position of the word Zevs and to the unnatural meaning that must be given to the phrase O.TT OlSiTrov. We find the phrase used in the natural sense and in the same position in the verse Ant. 193 (dV to rots. The collocation and contrast of Zcvs and TOIS d-n-' OlBiirov are ex- cellent, and the Kaxoiv at the end of the verse would readily lead a careless copier to change rots to TWV. V. 2 sq. will thus be=dy olo-6' ort Zevs TOIS drr' OiStVov (^TOIS OiSurov re/cvois) KaKa Travra v i/oj fjv) reXei (=TeXiv /xe'AAei) ; Secondly, in v. 6 I cannot believe that OVK OTTOMT' can be what Sophocles wrote. I venture to think that only if the words TWV o-S>v re Kd/Awv belonged rather to the antecedent than to the relative clause (and that they do not) could the repeated negative be tolerated. But OTTWTT' is too little separated from the ov after OTTOLOV to justify the resumption of the negation by a second ov (OVK). That Todt was right in suggesting (Philologus 31 [1872], p. 215) do-o-rruTr' as the original text can, I think, be made still more plausible by a passage in the Electra, where Sophocles writes (417 sq.) eiViSeiv Trarpos | TOV o-ov re Ka.fj.ov oevrepav 6/uA.tav. Here the similarity of the first half of v. 418 to the first half of Ant. 6 is at once apparent ; and the fact that with the half verse in the Electra eio-iSciv is associated is certainly a fair argument to urge in support of TodtVconjecture. I may add that there is, on the other hand, an argument against Morstadt's conjecture (Beitrage zur Exegese und Kritik der Sophokleischen Tragodien Elektra, Aias, und Antigone, Schaffhausen, 1864, p. 48) i\V a-S>v n Ka/xtov are emphatic where they stand. That means that the evils the KaKa of Ismene and Antigone are to be contrasted by the latter Sophocles 67 i with the evils of somebody else. That somebody else is Polynices : and after the KCU vvv, in which the vvv is contrasted with the rflr) im- plied in eiVoTrwTr' (to accept the conjecture, though the sense is here the main point), we should expect, if we had thus far seen what Antigone were driving at TTOV yvw/? efy , a distinct reference to Polynices, and we should expect the tone of statement, not that of interrogation. The accepting of Reiske's TOIOVT' for ri TOVT (which correction, I may be permitted to add, had occurred to me a good while ago before I knew that Reiske had also made it *) preserves that tone of statement. But the accepting of TOIOVT' carries us far- ther. We must read to the end of v. 8 in' the tone of statement and then suddenly appears a question, the statement not being com- pleted. What has happened? Antigone has interrupted herself. She wants to be quite sure that she is not telling Ismene something that the latter already knows. ("H8rj mAws in v. 18 is, of course, equivalent to our 'I thought not,' 'I was pretty sure you hadn't,' if my reasoning is sound thus far.) If we look on a little further, we get just what Antigone was going on to say when she interrupted her- self to question Ismene ; for if in v. 21 we should substitute for ov yap rd(f>ov vwv the words ras Aeyovo-c in v. 23 recalls the V 1 The correction would seem (see Mr Blaydes's Adversaria] to have been made also by Naber. 2 1 may add that it may further be noted as an interesting coincidence and per- haps a confirmation of what I have just written, that w. 1-8 + vv. 21-30 (omitting, of course, 24 and making the consequent corrections) amount to 17, the same number that Antigone's opening speech and Ismene's answer make up together, as the play now stands. Verses seem to tend markedly to fall into groups of 17 in the Antigone. 68 Greek Authors rS>v 'ApyciW. Furthermore, Professor Gildersleeve has shown that, by a peculiar form of ellipsis (akin perhaps in the case of individual words to such a phrase as 17 T^S /3a OTTOIOV ou^l vwv aiorJ(coi;cras ^ cr Xav^avei ?rpos TOVS ' Before resuming the discussion of the peculiar form of ellipsis represented in v. 10, I wish to deal with another of Morstadt's conjectures because it can be very prettily and conclusively proved wrong. Morstadt repeats (/.c.) his conjecture that vv. 15-17 should be shared by Antigone and Ismene in this way: ANT. iirci Se 0povSds eoriv 'Apyetwv crrparos V WKTL Trj VVV, OvSeV OM70' V7TpTpOV ; 1C. ovr' evrv^ova-a /xaXXov ovr' aTWfMevr]. This involves a change of the traditional text that could be readily accounted for, were there not a very good reason for maintaining that no such change is necessary to say nothing of the fact that there is no obvious urgent reason for redistributing the traditional text. This good reason is the presence of a very elegant chiasmus, a figure that has not, I venture to think, been sufficiently attended to in Sophocles or other Greek stylists. In Ismene's speech as cus- tomarily read the arrangement is this : (A) '/ /iev . . . TKT(O), (B) e OTOV . . . X e P l/ > (B) CTT" 8f ... Trj vvv, (A) ovScv ciS* . . . aTw/jievrj. Here it should furthermore be observed (i) that e^ OTOV is parallel with eV, (2) that ou0* ^Sv>5 ovr' dAycivos is parallel with ovr' evrv^ovara ovr' droj/ien;, and (3) that pia ly/iepa is parallel with eV WKTL TTJ vw. The case for the defence is thus very plain. Sophocles 69 To return now to the ellipsis. Professor J. H. Wright in the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, xii. pp. 137 sqq., has brought together a number of examples, all of which I cannot accept, of this very interesting phaenomenon, which we might call in defer- ence to Sophoclean diction the airXovv ITTOS (implying dAAa SnrXovv ?pyov) . Professor Wright calls it 'euphonic ellipsis.' The matter is worthy of more attention than it has received, albeit such investigations should be pursued with the extremest caution. I venture to think that we can explain in this way a troublesome place in the Electra, where (v. 316) we read 'Os vvv dTrovros loropa TL o-oi C\ov ? But sat paginae biberunt atra- menti. NOTES ON SOPHOCLES'S ANTIGONE.* V. 178 e/xot yap o(7Tis KT!. The yap ought to introduce either an argument or an explanation. It does neither. Professor Semitelos, in his too little valued edition of the Antigone, has alone shewn where the trouble lies and how it is to be remedied. He restores v. 191 to its pristine seat between vv. 177 and 178, making the necessary changes in vv. 175 and 177. He is at fault in one minor detail, viz., that he does not restore TTotois instead of otois at the head of v. 191. I feel sure too that a future is demanded instead of at>o>; and that future can only have been ao>, as will appear, if one consider the endings of vv. 191 and 178 and ask himself how v. 191 lost its place. But there are some interesting matters of symmetry in this great speech of Creon's that can be properly appreciated only if the speech be presented in full with certain indications of the divisions of the parts. This I now do, making here and there certain alterations proposed by various scholars which (particularly, besides Professor Semitelos's, that in v. 190) seem to me to be, for various reasons, demanded. I would beg the reader to regard the present discussion as, in part but only in part , a palinode of what I published on Creon's speech in this Review, vol. ix. (1895), 439 sq. 2 1 Presented by title at the meeting of the American Philological Association at Union College, Schenectady, N. Y., July, 1902, [ and printed in the Classical Review, Vol. XVII, (1903) pp. 5-6.] * [See above, p. 49.] 70 Greek Authors "ArSpes, TO. [j.tv Sr/ vrdXeos dox^aXws $eot, l62 TroXXiC craXu) o~et'o~aj'TS > wpBwa'av 7raA.iv i>/xas 8' eyu> Tro/xTroicrtv e/c Travrwi/ ot^a eo-TtX' iKfcrOai TOVTO /j.ev ra Aatou 165 creySovras ei'8u>s i> $p6Vcov del /cpaVr?, TOVT' a^^ts, ^vt' OlStirous wp^ou vrdAtv *ca.7Tt StaiXer', d/x^>t rot's KetVwv en TratSas /xeVovras /x 7re '^ ovs povr/[jLa.(rLv 169 or ow EKeivot Trpos tTrs yaoipas /xtav Ka^ 'fjfji.epav wXovro Traicrai/re's T ai eya) Kparrj Si) Travra Kat ^pdvovs ^X 10 ) yevovs ar dy^iarera, rotv oXcoXdrotv. 174 Se Trai/Tos dvSpos ov [Jia.df.lv 1 75 T /cat (f)p6vr)fjia /cat yvw^v, Trptv a> re Kat vofjiouriv evrpt/?^, (^ava> 177 Trotots eyw vd/xoicri rv^vS' a^w TrdXiv. 19 1 'E/Ao! yap OOTIS, Tracrav evdvvwv TrdXiv, 17^ /iT^ TWV dptCTTWV aTTTCTai /JouXtDyLCaTWV dXX' e/c (f>6j3ov TOV yXwcro-av ey/cX7jcras l^6 l80 Ka/acrro9 eti/at vSv re /cat TraXai So/ceT /cat yuet^ov oorts di/ri T^S auroO Trarpas (f)L\ov i/o/xi^et, TOUTOV ovSafAov Xeyw eya> -yap IOTO) Zevs 6 TrdvO* opwv det our' av o~tw7r?ycraiyu,t T^V ar/yv opoiv 1 85 crret^ovo'ai/ dcrrots dim T^S crwrr/ptas OWT' a^ 7 Xe'yaj , Sophocles 7 1 os yrjv Trarpwav KOL $oi>s TOWS eyyevets, KareA^aij/, rjOeXfjae ft.lv irvpl- 2OO Kar' aKpas, r)9e\r)cre 8' ai/xaros KOIVOI) Tracracr^ai, TOUS Sc SovAwcras ayeiv TOirrov TrdAei TTjS' KKeKf]pv^OaL Xeypovr)/j.s KctWv TTCU&IS (168) means Oedipus together with Eteocles and Polynices, whereas CKUVOI (170) means only Eteocles and Polynices. But the break between v. 169 and v. 170 may, per- haps, be thought to mitigate this hardness of expression. It may be asked here how v. 191 came to be inserted after v. 190, after its likeness of ending to v. 178 had led to its being dropped out of its original place in the speech. This question can, I think, be answered best by assuming that the archetype of the MSS. of Sophocles had 38 verses to the page or column. For, if we count the verses from the beginning to v. 190, we shall find that the Aristotelian prologue contains (omitting the spurious vs. 24) 97 verses; that the parodus contains, if we count the glyconics sepa- 72 Greek Authors rately and make the second strophic couplet have, as it should, in a right division of the verses, 1 8 verses to the strophe, 64 verses ; and that we have 29 verses of the first episodion to add. This makes a total of 190, which is 38 X 5 ; that is, v. 190 was the last verse of the fifth page in our archetype. My assumption then is that v. 191 was added by the scribe of the archetype or the reviser of the arche- type (more probably by the former) at the foot of the fifth page under v. 190 and was, by an error of the writer of the codex next in descent from the archetype, retained between v. 190 and v. 192. Some person or persons botched vv. 175, 177, and 191 into their present form, wholly or partly in order to make them fit the new context better. It may be added here that vv. 495 and 496, which would read better after v. 493, may once have been at the end of P- 13- Vv. 289-294 seem not to have been well explained. If we read very carefully we shall, I think, see that ravra in v. 289 cannot be the object of eppoOow. Unless I am mistaken, TO.VTO. refers to Poly- nices's burying and is = TO roVSe TOV veKpov 6dif/ai. or Trpovotav io-^v rovSe TOV vwpov -Kf.pl (v. 283). If this is so, Tttvra has no proper construc- tion but is resumed by raSe in v. 294. raSra would have a construc- tion of its own if v. 293 sq. were something like this : K <s ai/Spts /toXis 6pos oj r6re funvo u fav iirin>ei pnrais eix e 5' ftXXp rcL n^v (corrupt), AXXa 5' ^TT' dXXou iirev&fia /x^*yas A- dei6rj, clam mussi- tabant Liv. 33. 31, i), shaking the head and not holding the neck properly under the yoke (ovS' . . . efxov ovS' Ix *' 1 "**) so as to accept me (as their ruler).' I admit, of course, that the construction is ex- tremely harsh ; but there are many harshnesses in the Antigone. In v. 504 dvSavei, not dvoavav, is the reading of L. This may per- haps be right ; for we may now understand v. 504 sq. thus : TOUTOIS (the chorus) TOTO -n-acnv avSavei (this to Creon; then to the chorus with indignation) Xeyoir' av, d p.rj yXuxraav cy/cXg'oi v vTro^ny^Tio-Toiv) versum 46 um spurium indicatum esse (vevo0ei5o-0ai). At eo deleto versu quo modo intellegi potest versus 45 US ? Nam nomen substantivum ma- sculini generis subauditur, neque tamen id fratris nomen potest esse. De uno vocabulo Taov supplendo videtur cogitari posse, quod eodem esset accipiendum sensu atque TOV Taov yw.pos, sepulturae partem, Ut plena Sit sententia TOV y ow I/AOV <^ra.ov vow Bairruv (T(f>^> KCU TOV o-dv, fy crv p.r) 6e\y<;. Atque sic eos locum interpretari solitos esse qui versum 46 um damnarunt, e priore de duabus quae in scholiis antiquis sunt explicationibus apparet, quae explicatio haec est : d ^ o-v 0e'Aas OO.TTTUV, e'yw TOUTO TTOI^O-W fjLovrf. Dixerit hie quispiam : at inaudi- tum inculcatum id ellipsis genus graecaeque linguae indoli vix con- gruens. Audio atque inusitatissimam esse talem ellipsim do et concedo nisi forte El. 1075 TOV ad pro TOV act xpoW sanum est. Sed quid facerem? Nam versus 45"" per se spectatus optime con- structus videtur ; neque umquam quisquam homo versum 46" ad- didisset, nisi TOV e/xov in versu 45 legisset. Traditae scripturae ve- 1 [From Revue de Philologie XXVIII (1904), p. 122.] 74 Greek Authors stigia premere studui, quo facto, si nihil aliud effeci, at clarius quam fieri solet huius loci rationem exposuisse mihi videor. NOTE ON SOPHOCLES'S ANTIGONE 1204 sq. 1 Trpos XiOoo-rpwrov Koprjelov "AiSou [/cotXov] eiiov "AtSov, or (setting aside the metre) *otXov /cd/^s w/x^etov'AtSou, would be all very well ; and it is precisely such expressions that the parallel passages support were there need of supporting them: but not the expression in our texts. Of course, one would not expect of Sophocles that he use KoIXov as a substantive here; but why not (a natural supposition) regard icolXov as a gloss which has supplanted the right word? That right word seems to be either KCV^OS (which .may be supported by v. 818 s rdS' aW/a^ei KCV^OS veKiW), or yvaXov (which may be supported, perhaps better, by the scholion on L on Philoctet. 1 08 1 : yvoAov Sc dvrt TOV KCT^OS Kvpto>$ Se yvaXa TO, KOiXa X e y e T a i). I would therefore read : JL - AS / Kf v0o<; \ , ' w/ip Trpofji-rjvvarjs ye Toirro /u.r/Sevi rovpyov, Kpii^rj SeJ/ceS^e, crvi/ 8' avrcos eya>. AN. o L fj.o L, Ka.Ta.v8a TroAAov f^dititv Icry criywor', eav /AT) Tracrt icr]pvr)povfiv fiey OOTIS SovAos ecrri rutv ireXas. So dubious a word as e/or<-'A. is in more than suspicious company when it stands over 7re\as. There has doubtless been contamination between the ends of w. 478 and 479. Blaydes writes : "Qu. ov yap ow TrpeVet. (or 7reA.a)." The former is nearer what I believe Sophocles wrote; viz., evTrpeTres. (Cf. Class. Rev. VII., p. 344.)* Vv. IOOI Sq. ayvwr' O.KOVW 66yyov opviOfav, KCIK xXct^ovTas otcrrpw xai {3f(3apf3a.ptofJLV. We read smoothly enough through otonrpo) Kai ; but after the Kat we get a mental jolt. We are all ready for another attribute to the opnfla? implied in 66yyov 6pvt6o>v, when we have an attribute to oto-Tpw suddenly thrust upon us. Here again I feel sure there has been contamination, an original /3e/3ap/3apw/x'vovs=a.o-apvu>fjifvo<; [w-] for /u, v o>.) 2 NOTE ON SOPHOCLES'S ANTIGONE. 427 sq. 3 In Sophocles's Antigone 427 sq. we read 8' dpas Ka*cas | rjpa.ro 'and prayed bad prayers', i.e. 'and cursed'. With this we may compare two Homeric phrases : A 284 IpKos 'A^atoio-iv TreXcrai TroAe^oto /caKOio 'is a bulwark for the Achaeans against bad war', i.e. 'defeat' ; and T 173 ws o^eXev flavaro's /xoi dSetv KCIKOS 'would that bad death had pleased me', 'that it had pleased me to commit suicide'. Mr Leaf seems not to have understood the latter place : see his note. 1 [See below, note on Here. Fur. 667.] 2 [See above, p. 6.] s [Ms. note.] Sophocles .77 ON TWO PASSAGES OF SOPHOCLES'S ELECTRA. 1 I. 153-163. If we try to construe this passage according to the traditional text, vv. 153-155 can only mean: 'Not to you alone, my child, has a grief come in respect of which you surpass those that are within.' But such a remark does not square with the evident intention of the Chorus nor with the following words. Prof. Kaibel has seen the difficulty and has evaded it. His words should be quoted here. He writes (ad loc) : 'Hier ist Trpos on "in Bezug auf welches Leid" (a^os) freilich etwas prosaisch, zudem sollte man TT/OOS o erwarten. [The italics are mine. M. L. E.] Aber die Prosa wird man hin- nehmen mussen, und in Trepirn) efys. Die fur den Chor undenkbare Brutalitat Trpos rL 8* oo> TWV fvSov e? TTtpto-o-a ; hatte niemandem einfallen sollen.' I can not but think that it is rather the 'unbestimmte Allgemeinheit' of Prof. Kaibel's theory of Greek relative clauses than that quality in the antecedent clause here that we should recognise. Yet who has thought to question oo-Tis in Eur. Med. 220, a reading that I believe to be demonstrably wrong in the context ? The fact is that a simple relative is demanded in v. 155. Such simple relative may be obtained without the change of a single letter by merely setting the proper diacritical marks. That I shall now do, as I think; and besides I will set down the whole context, as I would read it. Ov TOl (701 /JLOVVa, TKVOV, a^os e(f)dvrj fiporlav, 7T/309 O Tl (TV TWV V yeVCt TTCpKTCra ols 6/u.d0ev * KCU yova ota Xpuo-o0e//,ts o!)i KCU ' d^e'cov ev ^a ov a K\(.LVO. ya TTOTC Several cuTrarpt'Sav Aios f.vpovi /3rjfJuaTi //.oXdvra ravSe yav 'Op 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVI (1902), pp. 5-7.] 78 Greek Authors To this text I would append a note or two, as follows, ri (sc. e? ) means 'in what respect have you more?' The 'grief or 'sorrow 7 (d^os) as here thought of is potential rather than actual. Electra is no more deeply concerned by right in the family sorrow and shame than her sisters and her brother. There is the same 'Brutalitat' in my reading as in the conjectural reading condemned by Professor Kaibel; but I deny that it is 'undenkbar.' iv yeva (Blaydes) is pretty clearly demanded by what follows. It is only by an artifice of modern printing that Orestes can be separated from Chrysothemis and Iphianassa. His name is held until the end to mention nothing else in such wise that the three are most closely linked together. And he is distinctly not IvSov. ots . . . wa understood. In view of the strain that Sophocles has put upon the meaning of other words in other places, I hesitate, with Sir R. C. Jebb, to change /Si^an, which, and not Aios, seems to demand change, if change is to be made. The proximity of //.oAovro, might have helped to change vev/um to fti/jfjMTi. But the matter is an exceedingly difficult one to decide. II. 681-687. The current explanation of AeAv X"*-P LV > understanding the words as though they had been arranged es TO KOIVOV 'EAAaSos AeAv (=certaminum) x^-P tv is, save for the use of the simpler and commoner x<*-P iV f r ^P 05 X/ 3tI/ j es ' sentially the same that we find at Ant. 30, where the words 6r) TTpwrr) Kptb-is as=Toim>v TOV Spo/nov ov irpwrr) Kpurvs. But this interpre- tation of the relative clause practically demands, I venture to think, nOt OV TTpWTr) KplO-lS but OV TTpWTOV KplCTlS^OS 7T/3O)TOS (SC. TWV ttAAcDV S/)O/AWv) Kpivtrai. If, however, we take Spo'/xov in the sense of 'running,' 'foot- racing' (iroSwv 8/30/x.ov), we can perfectly well understand ov irpwrrj as=ov Kpurts trpiarr), i.e. ov i\ Kpicris Trpwrrj (=7rpo Tciiv oAAtov 1 It ought to be added here that Hermann Schutz in the Sophokleische Studien, p. 292, separates AeX^iKtuv &8\wv xdpiv from A0w'v but makes x^P iV purely substantival and appositive to irpdffx'niJ-' This I cannot believe to be right. 8o Greek Authors Kpicrtuv) yiyverat, although it must be admitted that ov Trp(arov would have been clearer. We come now to the much and variously discussed v. 685 sq. Here I cannot but think that Schiitz's lucid note in his Sophokleische Studien, pp. 292-4, is fatal to Musgrave's ingenious and palaeograph- ically plausible rrj 'v 8e erv/Ltjuer/aws rrj v(rei (=Tg [Aa/jwrpoTT/Ti rrjs vv (which by the way might well be, as has been suggested by Professor van Herwerden, a mistake for o. yr/pv/xaTw) are in con- 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVII (1903), p 209.] 8 [See above, p. 79.] Sophocles 81 flict ; for dvSpos TrpoKT/pv^avros seems to be intended to depend on the other phrase and such dependence would seem to demand irpo/c^pvo-- CTOVTOS. I believe we have to do with a fairly ancient corruption and that what Sophocles wrote is 6p0iw Ki/pvy/wn-i (or y^u/xan ?) . The cor- ruption would be due to the miswriting, or rather misreading, of 6p6io/3/3r?9 VOCTTOV e^eA^Av^ev r) v\\ov et n vtuSwov /carotSe TTOV. The traditional text of v. 43 is quite out of the question, nor does any one of the emendations hitherto proposed (so far as they are known to me) seem to restore the manus Sophodea. This was, I conjecture, oAA* 17 ri ^op/^NGCTIN e&ATjAvflUJC (op(3r)v icrnv f&Xrj- Av0o>s). The ease with which this could corrupt into the traditional form needs no comment. Vv. 54 Sqq. NG. TI Sfjr' avwyas; OA. rrjv iAoKT^TOv (re Set *fr v )(7i v OTTWS Aoyoicriv e/cKAei^eis Atywv. orav cr' Iptara TLS re Kat TTO^CV Aeyeiv 'A^tAAews Trats roS' ov^t The syntax of these verses as they stand is very dubious. But I do not think it is to be helped adequately by changing Ae'ywv to an inf. (e. g., o-Koimv). A simple solution of the difficulty may, I think, be found, if we stick closely to the connection of the speech of Odys- seus with that of Neoptolemus, observing also the opening of the speech of Odysseus. Neoptolemus says ri 8rjr avwyas ; "What then do you direct ?" The natural answer to such a question is an oblique form of expression = imperative of oratio recta. This is, of course, in the case in question, the infin. Note now that the preceding speech of Odysseus, which Neoptolemus does not regard as imperative, has the Set construction ; and, further, that in v. 57 Aeyeiv would fall in much more naturally as second member of a compound infin. ( im- perative in oratio recta) structure. In fine, I would read (adopting Gedike's So'Aoio-iv for Aoyoio-iv in v. 55, a conjecture that might 1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIV (1893), p. xxxvii.] 82 Greek Authors occur to any one as it had to me independently, and Nauck's sugges- tion OTCIV 8* in v. 56) as follows: rt STJT' oVwyas ; rjv 4>iA.oKT7/TOu VKOirf.lv t f fV X*) v 7ru>< > o 6 Xo icr iv CK/cAe^cis X eiy a> v orav S' epwra TIS re xai TTO^CV irdpfi, Xiyuv ' A^iAAe'cos Trais roS' ov^t K pv IT r e'ov (KpvTTTeov Nauck for KAcTrreov). Ai. 556 sq., cited by Professor Jebb in support of the construction Se? oVws c. fut. ind., admits of easy correction by substituting O-KOTTCIV oirtos for cr' OTTWS Trarposat the close of v. 556. V. 5^7- *"* 5 TaVT* 7Tt(rTW 8/3W/U,v', OV /Xe'AAoVT* Tl. Though this verse is undoubtedly corrupt, it does not appear that either Nauck or Blaydes has been successful in his conjecturing, the former reading s ; the latter, o>/u,cv' ?cr0i ravra, or ravr' c&Trurrw 8pup.ev. The last, however, comes nearest to what Sopho- cles seems to have written, viz., cv ravr' eVtora) S/JW/ACV' : cf. Electro, 616 v vw 7rio-Tw TtovSc /x' aiaxw^v tx av - ^^6 corruption may easily have ( YG arisen from contamination of -< -rriijp (568) such contamination being a fruitful source of error in the Sophoclean text ; or perhaps it may be due to v. 563 is e* /3tas KTC. Vv. 900 sqq. $1. ou 8?; v I . dAA' ovBev f (a TOV ^uTewravTos o~\> ye Spas ovSe vis, ecr^Aov avSp' 7rw<^eXoiv. A similar case of contamination to that just suggested is to be detected, I think, in v. 901, where instead of vavrrjv In we should read vews ITTI. The source of corruption here was AYTOY in v. 902, probably aided by N OC H M ATOC in v. 900. Again in v. 904 there has been a somewhat similar degeneration. OYAGN owes its origin in part to OYAG in v. 905. But, whatever were the details of the process, the original form of the verse I venture to think was this : dAA' OY5GNONTI TOV ^vrevo-avros o-v ye (=oi evov TI). eVov c. gexi. = alienum a c. abl. can be supported by O. T. 219 sq. : Sophocles 83 a 'yto evos /xev TO Aoyov rovS' eepai | ei>os Se TOT) Tr/oa^O'TOs. It also falls in most aptly as a retort to TO, /) 7r/ooa>veis; as in Electra 1349. V. 99 1 ^ /u without having vv. 1-6 before us, we should certainly say that it must be either 'I have been doing something else than keeping watch for the beacon', or 'I have been keeping watch for a certain time'. Now we have vv. 1-6 before us, and we know that the former alternative is wrong. Where and how is the latter alternative expressed? The answer is that it is expressed in vv. 4-6. If we follow this line of interpretation, we should, I be- lieve, come to see that fy in v. 2 has hitherto been wrongly construed and that vv. 2-8 are an elaboration of ovpas eretias /U,^KOS yv vXd> Xafj.Tra.8o-i TO vvpfioXov, the verb having a double object, an effected and an affected. The ultimate construction of fy is, then, with vXd, the words KOI^W/ACVOS...^^ are parenthetical, and vv. 4-6 are = vt^vXaxa. x"/*" Ke " Qepos. 1 This is revolutionary, but it is, after all, only a matter of putting the commas in the right places. I may note before taking up v. 12 sqq. that the spurious v. 7 would never have been inserted, had it been seen, as I venture to think it should have been, that the genitive aarrpwv vwrepcDv belongs 1 TOI>S tpovTa., and the fact that these words form two perfect trimeters makes me think that they represent very nearly Aeschylus's first draft on which he afterwards improved. The variation evr' av orav is char- acteristic of Greek style and characteristic, too, in that the second synonyme is the commoner word, orav 8', it may be added, resumes the whole of cur' av vuKTtVXayKTov . . . ew^v and should be followed by a comma. In the parenthetical words ovetpois . . . VTTVW I cannot convince myself that e/xi;v is not what Aeschylus wrote. V. 1226 (/*<> fpeiv yap xpy TO Sov'Xiov vyov) is quite strikingly like v. 14, and Eur. Med. 793 ( T( V ' ^ T1 5 eo-Ttv otTTis eaipr)crTai} also favours f/v. In this parenthesis it is also to be noted that dv0' VTTVOV in v. 14 cannot be what Aeschylus wrote ; but I cannot think that the avrwrvovs which Messrs van Herwerden (Ex ere. Cr., p. 96) and Wecklein have pro- posed is certainly right. The word was rather, I fancy, avrtos, out of which and a clumsy explanatory wrvou the traditional reading could have arisen. In v. 16 I fail to see why SOKW should not bear its ordinary sense of 'seeming'. 'Whenever', says the watcher, 'anyone that overhears me thinks I am trying to keep awake by turning a tune, I am really sobbing'. The expression, whether in the Greek or in this free rendering, is a perfectly natural one. After v. 19, in which I would accept the substitution of SCO-TTOTOV- P.CVOV for the traditional SiaTrovov/xo/ou, v. 20 sq. follow rather abruptly. But that is not all. At the end of the prologue we find four verses (36-39) that have nothing to do with what immediately precedes Aeschylus 87 them, that deal with the dark secrets of the house and that fit per- fectly after v. 19. My opinion that vv. 36-39 were placed by Aeschylus after v. 19 coincides with that of Professor van Her- werden, who in his Emendationes Aeschyleae (Jahrbb. io er Suppl., 121 sqq.) writes thus (p. 132) : 'Vss. 36-39 longe aptiorem locum nanciscentur, si mecuni transposueris statim post vs. 19, ubi custos tetigit tristem rerum conditionem. Quo facto et vocabula TO. 8' oXAo. habebunt quo referantur, et laetiora moesta exceperint ad finem orationis usque continuata'. I may add here that the Nw 8' in v. 20 forms a sort of reditus ad propositum and brings us around to the point of view of v. i. Dramatically v. 20 sq. prepare the way for the appearance of the beacon. But there are certain textual questions in vv. 38 and 39 that require attention. The looming of fire by night, as Aeschylus dwells upon it in this prologue, inevitably calls up the opening of Pindar's first Olympian; and must not Aeschylus himself have had those splendid verses in mind when he wrote those that we are now exam- ining? Does not also a certain likeness in v. 39 to something else in Pindar, that striking phrase ^wvavra o-weTouriv which seems to have taken hold upon the subsequent poets (cf. Euripides's e^vverov IWCTOIO-I (Sow I.T. 1092), does not this likeness also suggest that Pindar was running in Aeschylus's mind? Indeed, I believe that v. 39 in its original form had far greater likeness to the Pindaric phrase than it has in the traditional form. There is difficulty in construing vv. 38 and 39, as they stand. XrjOofuu, of course with e/cwv, means 'forget on purpose' and need give us no trouble; but where is its object, and what are we to do with av8S> and the following KCU where w.e do not want a finite form at all, but a participle or equivalent? The Pindaric phrase helps us out in part, and I would write wv Kcov eyw, /jaOoixriv av&fjs, ov pM0oi> KOV in v. 1244, where for K\VOVT' a\r)9<;, ovfev e^Kacr/neva WC should read /cXvovr' a\i)$f) Of the remainder of the prologue I have less to say. I would accept Hermann's transpositions of 'lov lov, would take o-v/x/u.evos crreyeus 'ATpeioW ayxa^ev KWOS St'iop, aarpwv KaroiSa WKTepaTiv dXoS(7t/xov T ftaiv a>8e yap Kpart IO ywaiKos dvSpd/SouXov I\TT!OV neap evr' av 8 CVVTV ovetpots OVK /xi/i' apa a~ufj.(3a\eiv vnrvia 1 5 OTav 8', detSetv i) /xivvpecr^ai So/cai V7TVOV To8' aVTl/LtoXTTOV CVT|U.va>V aKOS, cAata> TOT' OLKOV rovBf. opav v V - 19 1 Of course, the reference is specially to Agamemnon, and Clytaemnestra can only be included by a specious optimism on the speaker's part, as though the evils he be- wails in the present and dreads in the future were not there. His real thought appears in the 8' o8v of v. 34. Aeschylus 89 TO, 8' a\Aa criyai /Jovs CTTI yXwcro-/ /u,eyas 36 @f(3r]Kf.v OIKOS 8' avrds, et <0oyyr)v Aa/Joi, 37 ' av Aeeiev a>v IKCJV eyoj, 38 vSiys, ou /jjadovcri Xq&tyMtt. 39 Nw 8' evru^s ye'votr' aTraAAayr) TTOVWV 2O evayye'Aou vaiov TTV/JOS. 21 'lov, tow 25 VVKTOS ^'fj.pr)(riov 22 ev "Apyei, T^(rSe (rvfji.opa.<; xa.piv. 24 Aya/^e/xvovos yvvatKt cr^/^avai ropais 26 eTravretAacrav ws ra^os evrj/Ji.ovvTa Trop6i,dei.v, eiVep 'lAtov TrdAis caAtoKev, is 6 <^>pvKTos dyye'AAwv Trpiiru 30 airds T' lycoye poi/Jiiov ra SecTTTOTaiv yap ev Treo-dvra 8' ow /AoAdvTos ev 35 2-3 Sensui interpunctionem accommodavi. 4 Virgulam post o^yvpiv vulgo positam omisi, qui Swdffras quoque cum iungendum esse censeam. 6 Virgulam sive gravius punctum post oltf^t omisi, quia simplex sententia est 17 r v\dffffta. 12 Post W virgulam inserui ; ?x wj> scripsi sicut olim Weil. 13 et 15 Verba quaedam a poeta 5ti pfoov iniecta lineis indicavi. 14 dvrfos scripsi viam monstrante Weckleino, qui dvrlirvovs imprimendum curavit- Idem iam proposuerat van Herwerden. 19 dcffiroTovptvov pro dunrovovfjitvov praeeuntibus aliis cum Duebnero restitui. Versus 36-39 hue reduxi. Idem iam fecerat van Herwerden. 39 Ratione habita et loci sententiae et uncialis litterarum ductus et Pindarici illius uvavra (quod sic scribendum esse censeo) (rvveroiffiv restituere conatus sum Aeschy- leam manum. Cf. Ag. 1244, ubi pro dX^UJC ovStv scribendum erat dX^HK oddly- 25 In sedem suam reposui cum Hermanno. 26 Deteriorum librorum (TTJ/UOVW Medicei illi and those bright lords , looming in 90 Greek Authors the aether, that bring winter and summer to mortals, and now am keeping for that token of a torch, a gleam of fire that shall bring out of Troy speech and talk of capture; for thereto constrains a woman's man-minded expectant heart: whensoe'er, though, occupying a night-buffeted and dewy couch by dreams unvisited in my case; for fear is at side preventing my closing my eyelids tight in sleep , whenever, I say, < occupy ing such a couch > , I am thought to be singing or humming, using that as a charm against sleep, I am < really > at such times weeping, mourning this house's misfortune, which is not, as once, most fitly governed but I say no more ; an ox upon my tongue stands heavy ; but the house for itself, could it receive speech, would tell most clearly what I, of my own will, though voiceful to them that know, to them that know not forget. Now, however, may a fortunate release from toils come by the appearing of the fire of good news through the murk of night. Hurrah ! hurrah ! ah ! wel- come, thou beamer that by night daylight dost shew and for that thou comest upon the heels of my word ! To Agamemnon's wife I'll signal clear that rising starlike 1 from her couch with all speed she shrill a cry of worshipful welcome over this torch, if indeed Troy-town is taken, as the beacon looms its message ; and for myself I'll dance a prelude ; for my master's game I'll count a winning one now that this beacon-watch has thrown me treble six. But, < whether a winning game or not> , may it be , when he comes home again, to lift the well-beloved hand of the lord of the house with this hand of mine. NOTE ON AESCHYLUS PROMETHEUS 629* firf p.ov 7rpoKr]8ov fj.acra'ov ws e/xot yXvKv. It seems a pity that the latest editors still cling to this reading. It stands in both the annotated edition of the Prometheus of Messrs. Sikes and Willson (1898) and the Parnassus Library text of Professor Campbell (1898). Professor Campbell puts Elmsley's fuurowtos rj 'pol at the foot of the page, and Messrs Sikes 1 ' Der Wachter ist noch ganz eingenommen von der Beobachtung der Sterne.' (Wecklein.) 2 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 20.] Aeschylus 91 and Willson say of the same conjecture: 'Were emendation neces- sary, this would be good.' Though the latter editors have examined Dr Wecklein's large Greek edition, they do not seem to realize that he has practically given up his former view of the construction in question. His Greek note is decidedly curious to say the least. After reproducing the note of the German edition he continues: AXXa TO, ^copta TO.VTO. efvai TO. fjiev erepas s, TO. Se dp ypa.s irapeSoOrj op&os, oVep s KaXXiov avrols) nal 17 evvoia eivai : u>s e/xot apecrrov ccrrt, /,?/ Cpl ff/LOV. II/3/8. Eup. 'ITTTT. 53 ( - ) ^ T 7^/3 TTVpOS OVT' (ZCTTptDV /SeXos otov TO ras 'A^>po8tras tr;o-tv ex \cptav "Epws xai 'AXx. 8/9 Tt yap dvSpt KaKov /u.et^ov d/AapTeiv Tricrnjs dXd^ou. If it is probable that 17 is left out here between the terms of the comparison, then it should be put in and /xSo-o-ov 17 d>s be restored, ws c>oi dpco-roV cVn, /x^ p6vTie TrXeov ircpi e/x-oO does not represent a case of omission of the particle of comparison, but means ' since it is my pleasure, do not take thought about me further.' Of course, the passage cited from Plato has nothing to do with such an interpretation ; but it is ex- cellent as a support for the reading /xao-o-ov 17 o>s. As for the two passages cited from Euripides at the end of the note, that from the Alcestis was probably rightly explained by Hermann, as I now think with Mr Hayley (see his excellent note on Ale. 879-80). The pas- sage from the Hippolytus is in all likelihood to be corrected by insert- ing 17 before otov. The copyists quite commonly fumbled r\ is (and the like : so particularly /M) ou). A good example is to be found in Hippocrates Tre/ot oW-n/s oeW 2, where the MSS. vary between the right reading CTC/DOUOS yiva>o-Ko> fj <5>s KCIVOI tTre^Wav and y/o)o"K(i) is (see Kuehlewein's critical note ad. loc.). In Xen. Hdlen. 2. 3, 16 TJTTOV TI oiei (of?;) oWep is a mistake for . . . 17 WO-TTC/O, as I have elsewhere noted. One is surprised to find Solon's KO/T/OOV 8' oXXos is eyo> XajSwv figuring in Messrs Sikes and Willson's note on the Prometheus as an example of ws 17. Does not Aristotle 'A0. TroX. 1 2 paraphrase Solon's words by ei yap TIS aXXos ravr^s 1% n/x^s ITV-^V ? This cita- tion the editors just named seem to owe to Mr Adam (on Plat. Apol. 36 D). Mr Adam believes (or believed) that o>s could be used for 17 after a comparative. But the best example he adduces, Plat. Rp, 526 C, is due to carelessness on Plato's part owing to the wide separa- 92 Greek Authors tion of /xtw TTOVOV from the second term of the comparison, which ought, of course, to be 17 oo-ov TOVTO or rj TOVTO, but appears in the form is TOVTO, as though OVTO> /xeyav TTOVOV had gone before. After all's said and done, it would seem that Dr Thompson's dictum that 'the use of d>s for rj after a comparative is a barbarism' must stand. When shall we see P.TJ p.ov irpoK-ijBov /iao-o-ov 17 s e/iot y\vKv come into its own ? EURIPIDES. NOTES ON EURIPIDES'S ALCESTIS. 1 Vv. 282-289. eyw , vapov p.oi /AT) Oavelv wrep cre'$ev dAA' avSpa re cr^etv ecrcraAaiv ov Tj KCU Sa>/>ia vaieiv oA/Jtov TupawiSi OUK fOeXicra rv a.Troo'ira.o'Oeio'a, o~ov e^oucra Swp', cv ots f The difficulty in this passage begins with .285. It will not do to supply, with Monk, Trapdv /u,oi from v. 284, or, with Hermann, to make dAA' connect only the infinitives. Lenting's KOVK for OVK in v. 287 and KirchhofP s ovS' in the same place do not satisfy ; nor has M. Weil helped the passage by writing in v. 284 Qvyv aiKr0eis) and all is right. OvyVKta, Trapov /J.OL p-rj Oavtiv, vwep creOev. dAA' avSpa T cr^etv eoxraAoiv ov r;0eAov Kal 8S)fjLa vat'etv oA^iov rvpavvtSt OVK f)&\.Tf](Ta 0ivuv (cf. Wecklein's emendation in v. 25). But there is another word that seems quite as clearly wrong, and that is KevxAeus. Read the adjective for the adverb KtvKAeas. Vv. 320-322. Set yap davtiv tic KOI roS' OVK cs avpiov ov&' es rpirrjv /u,ot p,r)vo<; I/O^CTCU /caxdv, dAA' avTiK ev TOIS /xiy/ceV own Aeo/xai. Though I cannot feel with Mr Hayley (Amer. Journal of Philol- ogy, xvi. i. p. 103) that v. 321 is right as it stands, I am becoming less and less disposed to regard it as a probable or possible interpo- lation. The simplest treatment of this crux criticorum seems to be the changing of a single letter so as to read ov8' es TpiTrjv fjioi p,r)v ecrep^erai KO.KOV. This had been suggested also by Johann Kvicala (Studien zu Euri- pides, ii. p. n), although (with a perverseness sadly characteristic of this scholar) he proposes as "das wahrscheinlichste" ov&' es Tptrrjv /xoi /xe'AAov ep^erai Ka/cdv. For the nty in this position in the verse may be compared M. Weil's excellent restoration Of V. 487 (dAA.' oi)8' aTreiTretv fiijv TTOVOVS oldv r e/tot) and his note thereon. [Since this note was written, I have received, through the courtesy of the author, Mr Hayley's Varia Critica (Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. vii.), at the close of which he resumes the discussion of this passage. From this it appears that he is now disposed to regard /M/VOS as unsound. For it he suggests vT/Aes.] Vv. 360-362. KaT^A^ov av, /cat p.' ovO' o HAovrcovos KIXDV ovO' ovTri K(i)irrj I/'V^OTTO/XTTOS av yepwv (r^cv, irplv cs ^> TraAtv. Read in the Alceslis Vv. 1118-1120. AA. KCU 8rj Trporetva). HP. Fo/ayov' s Kaparop.S)v. AA. l^to. HP. vat, o-e vvv KOI rov Aios TTOT' etrai irai8a yevvaiov e'vov. To M. Weil is due the admirable division of v. 1118 that I have here followed; but the same scholar is not equally successful in his treatment of v. 1119, where he would read AA. fxa> viv. HP. cro^e'vw, Ko-av "i.e. not as a mere ^>ao-/ta veprepwv." But the following words are awk- wardly definite. I have suggested an d^o KOIVOV construction with both wo-av and Sa/na/ar' e'/^v. But this is awkward. M. Weil in his critical note to v. 1 129 quotes Mekler's eto-opoi gwdopov for da-opSt Sct/uapr' /xryv and in his explanatory note on the same verse asks : " Le poete aurait-il rep^t6 ces mots au vers 1131 ? " The doubt is a fair one ; but the difficulty in v. 1131 should prompt us to emend there rather than in v. 1129, the close of which seems quite natural as a repetition of that of V. 1126 (opas SdfJMpTa O-TJV). Med, 135 (^^ Trpocrcnreiv aWas) points to a separation of <5>s from oWav (so too does the position of d>s), g6 Greek Authors and Ale. 1 1 24 may perhaps supply what we need. We may compare too Soph. El. 1452 rj Kal 6av6vr rjyyuXav ^Sxrav ws ; might easily have been corrupted to the traditional form by the gloss Sa/iapr' e^v added to Ir^rv/jna^. V. 1134. 1^0) 8' avavSos ca-Trjxev yvvrj ; The importance of the readings of Codex Parisinus 2713 (a) in several passages of the Alcestis needs to be emphasized. Kirch- hofFs judgment of this MS. was certainly unfair. Vv. 433-4. CTTCI TedvTjKev avr* ffjwv, Xiav. The reading of a punctuated thus gives excellent sense and em- phasis. (I may add that a spells reOvyKev.) Kvicala (Studien zu Eur. ii. p. 12) saw the value of a's Xiav but thought it in the wrong place. His suggested emendation (d&a Se /H | rifMav (oder nach S. firfl TfOvrjKfv OVT C[JMV) is, of COUrSC, valueless. Nauck's rei &VT eftoO Qaveiv, which I, rather rashly, adopted, is better than Usener's orei' y l^vgo-xev avr' e/iov fiowj, which M. Weil accepts. In v. 546 it is perhaps unnecessary to call attention to a's roiSc, which (in the form T<38c) has won general acceptation, except in proof of the independent value of a. In v. 8n. a's reading rj Kapra [JLCVTOL Kal Xiav 6vpalo<; TJV (for the verification of which I am indebted to the courtesy of M. Henri Omont of the Bibliotheque Nationale) has been undervalued or disregarded since Kirchhoff's great edition. It is supported by o0i/6ov in v. 810 and, more clearly, by Ovpatwv in 814. (I still main- tain the integrity of the traditional arrangement of vv. 809-815.) A misunderstanding of the irony of v. 811 with a's reading might well have led to OIKCIOS. Qvpaio* (which appears only in a of the MSS. Euripides 97 recognized by Prinz but is found also in inferior MSS.) was printed by Lascaris and accepted by Matthiae and Hermann, though persist- ently rejected by Monk. Paley accepted it in his first edition but changed to oi/ceTos in his second. Mr Way in his translation accepts Ovpatos ("O yea, an alien she o'ermuch an alien!"). Mr Verrall (Euripides the Rationalist, p. 52 note) says: "The reading Xiav Ovpalos is clearly right : Xiav OIKCIOS, the facile but pointless variant, is merely an unintelligent gloss." A higher estimate of the value of a's readings may well lead us to accept v. 1055 in the form 17 TTJ< In v. 1140 8aip.6vS OVTTOT' av$iv dAA* owns Icrrtv os Tov ' AAx/^wys yovov 5O5 Tpf 6apa\>vw\ Ep. Crit. p. 58), the first person (cf. Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 32 [1901], p. c) 1 . The whole passage will then read thus: (TV S', 0> TfKVOV /AOL, TTtoS KOptvOyfTr) KttAtOS rj croi TIV alfrxpav 7rpocr/?aA.ovcra. K\.rj86va 77)8775 ev aKfATJ s 8ta.9f.pei yd/tows ; Ov yap ere p-TJT-rjp ovre w/u,, rexvov I am prepared to hear murmurs at this point about the Megarian brigand's famous bit of furniture; but would Euripides himself, OTTOV TTOT eorn, be inclined to say *O XexTpa HpoKpovo-Tei lv ots IrA^v eyw (rreppav avdyKrjv acve'crai KtSvd? irtp a>v? For the speech of Alcestis pruned of the excrescences or, rather, adherescences that I have just treated of is forty-one verses long and thus exactly matches in length Admetus's answering speech in vv. 328-368. If then I am right in my treatment of Alcestis's speech, it is reasonably certain that Admetus's contains no spurious lines and that the excision of w. 348-356, though proposed by so acute a critic as the late F. D. Allen and accepted by Hayley, is unjustifiable, whatever we may think of the taste displayed in those verses. 1 [See below, Notes on Nominative of First Person in Euripides.] IO2 Greek Authors EURIPIDE, ALCESTE, i-Ss. 1 Dans 1'admirable edition de I'Alceste d'Euripide de feu M. Hayley, on trouve exprimes des doutes sur 1'authenticite de la scene un peu comique entre Apollon et Thanatos vv. 24-76 (pp. xxvii-xxix). Ces doutes, qui sont dus au savant maitre du jeune et brillant helleniste que nous venons de perdre, M. F. D. Allen, mort lui-meme- il y a deux ans, e"taient partage"s par M. Hayley. Quoqu'il soit bien difficile ou de lever de pareils doutes ou d'etablir d'une maniere pleinement satisfaisante 1'authenticite des vers en question, j'ose ici donner sommairement des raisons assez curieuses qui, entre autres, m'inclinent a croire que les vers 1-85 de VAlceste, excepte le v. 1 6, qui n'est pas d'Euripide, forment, pour ainsi dire, un tout. Les vers 1-27, exclusion faite du v. 16, sont au nombre de 26 (se divisant en 7 + 7 + 6 + 6). Les vers anapestiques 28-37, hors I'exclamation a a, qui est extra metrum, sont au nombre de 9.* Les vers 38-63 sont au nombre de 26 et font en quelque sorte pendant aux vers du prologue d'Apollon. Us se divisent en deux parties egales, les vers 51 c\-qXavTa Tfxyr), vvv 8' eiri rgS' ^ ToS' VTTfO'Trj, 7TOCTIV CKAv irpoOavovcr' avTir), IleAtov Trats ; Vv. 77-85. TI TTO^' ijcrv^ui TrpoaOf TI (rca-LyrjTai SO/AOS ' dAA." ouSe ^>tAwv TreXas OCTTIS av eiiroi Trorepov , NOTE ON EURIPIDES, ANDROMACHE $.* Enr. Andr. 5 baud negligenda positio rfominis proprii ' simplex enim ordo verborum fuisset 'AvSpoyu-a^T; ^Xwros cet. Praeivit Sophocles cum scriberet O. T. 8 6 Tracn KAavos OiSiVous KaXov^cvos pro eo quod est OiStVous 6 Trao-t cet. De sede in versu nominis 'AvS/jo/iax^ cf. 'AvnyovT? Soph. O.C. i ; cf . et 'AorvavaKi-', Amir. io. In verbis eis quae sunt, ^Xwros ?v ye roJ Trpti/ 'AvSpo/xa^r/ XP" 1 ' 4 ? non deside- ramus sed intelligimus sententiam quam in versu insequente legimus : vvv S\ ei TIS oXXr;, SwrvxecrTan; yvvrj. At ista verba addita sunt ut inferrentur versus qui sunt 8-15 quibus bene describuntur Andro- machae praesentes res adversae. His in versibus 7rTos Iv ye TW vplv - xpovw (8) ) ( vw 8', ei TIS a\\r], 8va"rv\f6evra (ft'), avrr) St SovXi; KTC. T&ura KTC. (a') Omnia secundum artem. NOTE ON EURIPIDES, BACCHAE 1058-1062.' 8' 6 rAiy/itov, #i}Xw ov^ opoiv o^Xov, O)($ov tSot/x' av op^ws /laii'aSwv ala^povpyiav. V. 1060 is notoriously corrupt and consequently multum et diu vexatus. The situation is a plain one, and so is the general sense of the verse. All the conjectures down to Professor Tyrrell's are of a desperate character. They all emend both the words obelized (not designedly of course, so far as they accept Estienne's text) ; but the one horn of the verbal dilemma is generally grasped more tena- ciously than the other. Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona, and so Heath and Hermann read ooxrois for oo-ot : but the acceptance of v6$wv was left for the latest of the riyovot. Let us now try the justly favourite device of 'put yourself in his place' and see what Pentheus would naturally have said, or what you would have said, had you been Pentheus. Poor Pentheus! he cannot see the women; he is impatient. 'Where we stand I can't begin to see anything of the maenads. If I could only mount a hill or climb a tree I could get a fine view of the maenads' rascality.' The words however do not emphasize sufficiently, with any of the conjectures thus far offered (except Elmsley's oo-ov TroO>), the exertion that Pentheus has been making to no purpose his disappointed efforts. The de- spairing 'I can't though I want to' does not mea quidem sententia of course come out strongly enough. Having thus tried to prepare the way, I accept oo-o-ots, reject v60v; but there must have been something there. The hypothesis of the omission of one of twain would seem necessary to explain oo-xpixrous yvas <&pvyG)v re Tleptrwv 0' iyAio/3A?7Tovs TrAaKas 1 5 BetKTpta T Tet^r} rrjv re Bvo^ifiov ^Oova 7reA0a>v 'Apaftiav T' evSai/nova re Trcwrav, rj Trap aXp/vpav aAa EAA^rovavGiva ; AI. Tras dva^opevet f3ap(3dpTa Sevpo = eis T^vSe TrpwTTjv rjXdts xOova an obviOUS reminiscence of v. 20; while v. 482 is an echo of vv. 21 sq. ^opev(ras, opyia. = reAeras) . 1 [From Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. V (1894), pp. 45-48.) i io6 Greek Authors 2. Vv. 101 sqq. *a* M Or)porpooi P. evflev aypav < , ~ ( 6vp(rooi and 0vp6poi, neither of which gives any adequate sense in the context, argue some deep-seated corruption such, e. g., as mutilation or illegibility of. the archetype. (Vv. 556 sq. may have something to do with the present form of the text here.) 0r)p6rpocv (the only possible support of which is Phoen. 820) is, to my mind, simply preposterous. "Beast-fed" is an epithet that can be applied only to a serpent of vast size, and "beast-fed" is the only sense that Oyporpofov could bear. I would suggest as a possible correction vypav virclpav o and Collmann's /3acxU>v $ dva TV/XTTUVOV, I would propose f3a.K\eiw &' dva Tv/i7rav

cr' eyrjrrfi troi A.oyrJTr]<; v Ttv" airet fjJvQov OVK oyKOV 7rAea>v. For the general expression, cf. Demosthenes, vi, 4* po-Btov KCU TTOVOS ovSels irpocrevn TW irpa.yfJM.Ti, and BdCCh. 613, paStws avcv TTOVOV. 9. V. 688. drjpav K0.6* v\r)v KvTT/aiv r)pr)fJi.(i>fJifva<;. This verse is very awkward and disturbing after v. 687. It seems to have been added, with reference to vv. 222 sq., by some one who wanted to bring the two passages into closer agreement. 10. Vv. 1088 sq. 6 8* avOis 7rKeA.evo-ev d>s 8' eyvw/oiow aa(f>r} (? cra<^>ais) KeAevtr/Aov BaK^tov KaS/tov Kopui, KTC. VcKe\vvev, the future of which occurs in /. T. 1127, though in a different context. In favor of 7T0wvev here, followed (in W. IO9O sq.) by yav -rreXetas wKvrrjr' oi>x ^o-trova (em. Heath) | TroSwv l^ovo-ai O-DVTOVOIS SpofL-tjfjiaari, are the words (vv. 871 sq.) ^CDVO-O-OJV Se Kuvayeras j cucriv a>s TIS TrropOos rjv6fMf)v raXas. I believe to be wrong. Everything is pictured in the most favourable colours from v. 16 to v. 20. Polydorus's 'wretchedness' begins after the events narrated in vv. 21-24, and then he does call himself 'wretched' (TOV raXai-n-wpov v. 25). I would read in v. 20 fj.eyaotvLcra'Ofj.evr]v aifuiTi TrapOevov. A most inharmonious verse. We should, I think, reverse the order of words and read irapOevov ai/Aan <^otvio-o-oju,ei/^v. 585 Sq. a) Ovyarep, OVK olo' eis o Tt /JAe'i/fo) KUKWV TroAAoiv Tra.povT/UH, irapaKaXel 8' KTC. 'If I seek to grasp any (evil, grief), this I am not allowed (to do, i. e. ctyao-ftu implied in what precedes), but am called off ' &c. aTTTOD/iat became aij/w/juai under the influence of fiXfyw above it. rdSe is, of course, ace. of inner object w. eoi/uai. 833 Sq. TOV Qavovra TovS' opas ; TOVTOV KaXuiS S/3WV OVTO, K^StCTT^V (TfBfV Spdo-cis. 'ovTa, for TOV ovra. The omission of the article is deserving of notice. Compare Aesch. Cho. 353, Pers. 247.' (Paley.) What is 'deserving of notice' is the utter weakness and insipidity of ovra, and also the fact that it stands under -O'VTO. in the preceding verse. It is, of course, an error. Read dVSpa. 882. a-vv TaurSe TOV tjuov ov ovta is a somewhat strange expression (though, of course, poetically possible) for the murderer of one's child; besides the successive tribrachs make a bad verse. I would suggest TCKVOU ovea. The affectionate tone of TC'KVOV is eminently appropriate here. 1293-5 ITC TT/OOS At/x,evas VKrjvds TC, (ftiXai, Tuiv Seo'Troo'wwv 7reipao"o/Aevai fji6-)(0(i)v (TTtppa yap avdyKr). That SCO-TTOO-WWV has maintained itself, as it seems to have done, criticis intactum, is perhaps due to its position at that point where the reader is ready to lay down the play. I have no hesitation in writing in its stead SouAoo-vVuv : cf . v. 448 sq. (also of the chorus) TO> 7iy>os OIKOV | NOTES ON THE HERACLEIDAE. 1 3. 68' cis TO KcpSos Xrjp,' I^OJV dvei/u,evov. Read dv^^cvov 'made fast', a familiar nautical metaphor : cf . Med. 1 [From 'Euripidean Notes', the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 344.] no Greek Authors 77 eis s in Bacch. 814, where Mr. Palmer has anticipated me in the conjec- ture. NOTES ON THE HERCULES FURENS. 1 195. otroi f TOO Read 00-01 8 x 6 / 00 "' T< ^' x l ' ' lv Cf. Hd. 76, eV0TOX<{ TTTpi\rjv viro ' apfuuriv sind, 'unten an'. Die wendung kam Eur. wol, weil er ein ahnliches bild wahlte, obwol die kinder nicht ziehen, sondern gezogen werden. [One might think this a decidedly disturbing element in the picture!] Megaras fiisse sind fur die kinder v vocrepbv KtuAov 'Opeo-rov 71-081 /ofSoo-ww 7ra/>as than the children.] If any one but the author of these notes can be satisfied with them 1 [From 'Euripidean Notes', the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), pp. 344-346.] Euripides in The real interpretation of the passage, I think, though perhaps I too may be an 'unskilful physician', is to be gathered from such passages as H. F. 631 Sq. (ao> Xa/3wv ye TOIXTO" e), 1424 (0^0-ei TravwXets ei/fd/aecr^' e < oXxi 8e s), Androm. 199 Sq. (Trarepov iv' avT?) TraiSas dvrl crow TCKW | SouXovs fjuivTrj r adXiav e < o X K i 8 a) . The figure then is drawn from the favourite province of Euripides the sea. The children and the old man are e^oAKt'Ses in the wake of Megara. (Cf. Wilamowitz's instructive note on H. F. 631). But what shall we say to wo o-pcuois TTOO-IV? The adjective, I think, tells the story. It is just this element that keeps us (or kept the original hearers) from thinking of Megara's feet at all. iroa-lv here irua-fuurtv, as in Hec. IOI9 sq. (/cat yap 'Apyetoi vewv | AStrai OLKO.&' e/c Tpotas TrdSa, where TrdSa seems pretty clearly meant 7Tio-/m. The vf.ipa.ioi TrdSes are, then, the lines that keep the XKOVcrav. With o-pcuois TTOO-IV cf. the Seo-/xa o-patcov Pp6\eXaiv at the beginning and end of v. 2 ; (4) The construction of simple genitive, instead of genitive with , with cv TroAotov o?/cov. If, however, we follow Hermann's view (as expounded in his Elementa Doctrinae Metricae, I. viii.), we shall regard Euripides as having employed an allowable license "in descriptione rei magni moliminis pleriae," and treat v. I as metrically sound. Of (KTptfiwv 0eo>v Nauck says (in his annotatio critica, Teubner text-edition) : "verba nondum emendata. Sententiam si spectes, c TCOV 'OKcanSwv /uias requiritur." W. Dindorf (followed by van Her- werden) changes fKTpi(3vo~e MCUO.V, tj KTC. This, notwithstanding the aXox^v, is certainly better than Dindorf's *ArAas 6 xaAKOva>TOS ovpavov Oewv 6\v at the beginning of v. 2 at once appears in the guise of an explanatory gloss on TroAatov OIKOV an answer to the natural query : Whose "ancient house" ? For 6cwv we readily substitute tp<*>v, comparing otrjvtyK OJKOV in v. 15 (we need hardly think of Nauck's emendation of v. i). Thus we H4 Greek Authors have Atlas described as "he that on brazen shoulders bears heaven, an ancient mass". This can hardly be right, unless (though it seems scarcely justifiable) we understand oyxov as precisely ax^os ("his ancient burden"). I would, therefore, accepting Hermann's defence of the metre of v. I, make a slight change in the last word of that verse, and read ovpavov. It is then "he that on brazen shoulders bears heaven's ancient mass'. For fKrpiftwv Dindorf 's CK rpt>v seems to be quite right. fKrpipwv is due, if my emendation of O'KOV be sound, to somebody's attempt to construe the passage after 6eS>v had ousted (f>epv and /was makes it more natural that the two words stand side by side, we may answer that Euripides is hinting at what he conceived to be the etymology of Mcua ; hence /uas (/>t)cre Malay. The whole passage, then, I would read thus : ArAas, 6 xa\Keoieptav Tra.Xa.iov oyKov, CK rpiMtv 6eS>v tuas !6vov cpe'orci, p,r)Tp' dyKaXais e/x^v In these verses two points deserve notice. First, the words CK XiTv (v. 288), which appear to have offended the editors gener- ally, with the exception of Seidler and Nauck, may be illustrated by Aesch. Choeph. 1048 sq. ^otoxirwves (qu. (fxurjxiTwves ?) nal TreTrAe- KTavrjfj-fvaj. TTVKVOIS opaxovo-iv, a passage which Euripides seems to have had in mind when writing that under consideration, and to have endeavoured to improve on by substituting for TreTrAeKTanj/iewu TTUKVOIS Spaxovo-tv the graphic SeimTs X i'8vcus eVrofiw/xen;. Likewise, for the rather neutral term ^atoxiVwvcs he gives us the vivid image 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 226-227.] Euripides 115 of a fury emitting fire and blood (cf. Aesch. Choeph. 1058) from her garments as she flies. Secondly, the word o-^Oov (v. 290) was emended by Heimsoeth to oyKov. But we certainly look for a term here in apposition to /u^cpa (v. 289), for which purpose neither o-^Oov nor oyxov seems appropriate. Write rather ^09, an emendation strongly supported by Aesch. Prom, 350> <*x^ os ^ K udyKoA.ov. 1393- The verb ^TretycTo here is quite unsuitable. The passages from Homer cited in support of it are contrary to Euripides's constant usage. Cf. Or. 799, Her ad. 732, Phoen. 1280 (active), Or. 1258, Ale. 255, Ale. 1152, Heracl. 734, Ion 1258, H. F. 586, Phoen. 1171, Hipp. 1185, Antiop. fr. 183 (Nauck) (middle), in all which passages the verb expresses acceleration or haste. Nor does Pierson's conjecture 7rxero seem entirely satisfac- tory. Read rather an-ei/aye-TO. Cf. Hel. 1268, iroo-ov 8' a.TTf.ipyf.1 /A^KOS CK yawis 86pv ; Ale. 255 is also instructive. 1408. oAAos Se TrAe/cTas c^av^Trrev dyicuAas. MSS. efav^TTTev dyKvpas, contra metrum, emended as above. How- ever, I suspect the reading to have been e&w/Kev dy/cuAas, corrupted by reference to v. 1351. Cf. Androm. 718, TrXexras i/Aavrwv eaTO)cri cr<(>a.yrj. in v. 726 is doubly objectionable: (i) it is otiose after ' in v. 725 ; (2) it could properly stand where it does, only if instead of ravSov we had e.g. lo-w (unless we are to understand ro> from evSov) ; but then 7ra/>UTpe7ricTe would lack an object, which it seems to require. I would therefore write /itAovra, comparing v. 624 (lo-w So'/icov roil/8' eicriv ols /u.eA.et TeiSc) and V. 470 Sq. (vaov 8' Icrco (rTtx o1/T 5 | a ^pr) VI TOIS 7rapoi)(ri Kat vo/xi^erai) . The Sense is then I 1 [From 'Euripidean Notes', the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 345.] u6 Greek Authors 'Aid those who have charge of the sacrificial act in making ready the matters within (the temple) which are in their charge.' Ad Euripides Iphigeniam Tauricam, vv. I35I-3- 1 De loco vexato necdum emendate Eurip. I. T. 1351-3 pauca quae- dam habeo quae referam nova. Mihi enim versum 1352 data opera consideranti omnesque quae in manibus erant eruditorum coniec- turas deliberanti ac versibus qui secuntur diligenter animum adver- tenti remedium tandem sese obtulit illud, ut mutato versuum 1352-3 ordine lectionem sic constituerem : irovrti) St&ovre? rg evg (TTrovSg T' fOTjyov Sta Nam versum 1352 haud temere textu qui dicitur movendum esse lucide decent mea quidem sententia verba elx6i*ev TC (1355-6) aptissime repetuntur. NOTES ON EURIPIDES'S PHOENISSAE. 1 The recent publication of Professor Wecklein's valuable edition of Euripides's Phoenissae (Leipsic, 1894) has prompted me to put forth certain conjectural emendations upon the text of that play. For the sake of perspicuity and brevity I place the reading I would suggest at the head of each of the following notes : 208213. 'lovtov Kara TTOVTOV eA.a- ra 7rXevau(ra ireptppvT(av v-jrep /capiricrTwv eyaXt'ais Ze^vou Trvoats, o v irvcvcravTos ev ovpavu KoXXiorov "Having sailed down the Ionian sea in a ship, over the watery ( TTcpippvrw ) unharvested plains, by the sea-breaths of Zephyr whose breath in the sky causes fairest melody." V. 211 SixeXtas Wecklein with the MSS. V. 212 wnrevo-avros Wecklein with the MSS. The emendation evaXwus (which may be supported by Hel. 1459 sq. Kara p.v lorta TreTacrar' av- | pats A.MTOVTCS evaAtais : we must remember too the Homeric expression that Euripides seems to have had in mind, &Kpai) Ztyvpov KeXaSovr' ri oivoTra TTOVTOV) helps to get rid of that trouble- some circumnavigation of the Peloponnese. Did 'Iwiov TTOVTOV help to bring in SiKcXtas? We naturally think of IIa r w eX^ot/i* ijXtbu a desperate guess. The corrup- tion ^Xibv seems chiefly due to A read as A. 7O3 sq. rjKOvira fi*iov avrov eis ^/ias povetv, Ao;8a r 'ASpaorou KOI trrpar^ TreTroudora. 703. 17 0i//fos (for s ^/xas) MSS., 17 0n7Tov Wecklein, after Kinkel. Professor Wecklein had also thought of as ^/Sas. els ^/ms (for which a partial support is to be found in Hipp. 6 00-01 8ev yap ouSev Odrepov. 'Both ; for either taken by itself is nothing'. ap.6rep0fv yap ovStv 6a.Tf.pov MSS., afjuporep' Iv aTroXeupOfv yap ovStv Qaripov Weck- lein. 881883. woAAoi Sc vcxpoi irepl vcxpots TrcnrtoKores, 'Apyeui Kal Ka.6p.fia p.<^^>i^a.vr(.v av^/x* do-n-iS* fKirXrjpovv ypag 1 1 37 an d 1 1 35 cicarov c^iSvwv- ex Sc ret^eW /teo-wv 1 1 35 and 1 1 37 SpoKovrcs <^epov Tcxva KoS/ietW yvodots. Euripides ng 1135. fKTrXrjpStv MSS. and Wecklein, luTrXrjpovv Geel. The readings XSvcus (under e/38o/us) and eWAi/pwv might well be due to the posi- tion of v. 1135. Professor Wecklein keeps the MSS. order but brackets yparj and ?xv d4 1 ' dpyelav, quod est Aid. et recentiorum, videtur etiam esse in b c. ea correctura mihi videtur manifesta', writes Kirchhoff. The MS. c = Laurentianus (Kirch. Florentinus) 31, 10. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (who designates it as O) gives a good account of this MS. in the case of the Hippolytus (see his edition of that play p. 181). I do not know whether Kirchhoff's 'videtur' has been verified. *[From 'Euripidean Notes', the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), pp. 150-152.] I2O Greek Authors p.rj wa8tKiJ(TUKJ-tv , dLXA' oirws a&iKwai, Kai OTTO)? /3iau>vrcu), i. 73> * ( O1 " dvrcpovvres , dL\A* OTTCDS /u.>) fiovXcvcrijcrdt, KO.I apa. /SovXo/xcvoi SjyXwcreu). The feature of style just noted, which is but one phase of a more general characteristic a constant striving to vary the form of expression is far-reaching in Thucydides and has been rightly described by Mahaffy, as it appears in the speeches, as "a crowding of curious and distorted aphorisms about some leading idea, which is reiterated in all sorts of forms". I cannot accept Wilamomitz's view, that the "synonymik" of Prodicus was "seriously employed" by Thucydides (Eur. Herakl. i, p. 27) ; for the peculiarity of Pro- dicus's theory (vide Plat. Protag., particularly 337 A-C) is the hair- splitting tendency of all "synonymik", whereas Thucydides uses a variety of expressions with (apparently) no conscious distinction; nay, he goes so far as to stretch the meaning of an expression or word in order to use it as a synonym for variety's sake. Cf. e. g. vi. 54, 3 is cbro TV? wrapxovo-r]s v/?/jt?7 Swafuv es x"/ 50 * Aa/Sciv ; another to make gain. Why add Trao^a TaSc? He experiences, is made the victim of what? Were such an expression as 7ra(3pir) Bvvafuv es ^etpas Aa/3d>v = wv yap ev aiai/xaTi viro raiv dcTTwv rats 7ri$D/tMus /tcti^ocriv ^ KaTa T^V VTrdpxov0r); ib. 95, 6 eKTre/xTrouo-iv ap^ovTa (cf. ib. 1 09, 2 ire/Aim aVSpa , OTTOS drraydyoi) . In all these cases, as well as in our Euripidean passage, a final clause containing the cognate verb in the subjunctive might easily have been written. Indeed, it is the verbal force felt in such substantives that renders them readily nominal equivalents of verbal expressions. One is surprised to observe that this mode of indicating finality finds no mention among the many varieties cited in the first section 122 Greek Authors of Widmann's excellent and careful dissertation De Finalium Enun- tiatorum Usu Thucydideo (Gott. 1875). 899 sq. TroAAous 8* eoaoras KOTTO OrjXtidv^ o/Aev, "A.8paa-6\ opxui Equivalent to o-Teix a> f t ', ^ op*" 1 Sfyiev. An excellent survival of the paratactic construction out of which the final clause (in stricter sense) with subj. grew. This indicates the original hortatory character of this subjunctive. NOTES ON THE NOMINATIVE OF THE FIRST PERSON IN EURIPIDES. 1 The subject treated would be more accurately designated as the substantival nominative of the first person in Euripides. The current doctrine of the nominative persons in Greek is concisely put as follows in Hadley- Allen, 603, a: "The only nominatives of the first person are ya>, vu>, i7/u,ts; of the second person, v if TCKOVCT' aTroAAv/juu, | Qavelv dwpous TratSas, KTC. This is the commonly and justly received text. But S (= L and P) reads not dTroAAv/uu, but aTroAAvreu. On this variance in reading the late Mr Hay ley has an excellent note ad loc. cit., in which, however, I should be inclined to substitute the words 'could be in the emen- dator's opinion directly the subject' for "could be directly the subject". In Ale. 317 sq. we read without variance in the verbs: ou yap (re p.rjrrfp ovre w(Jt,eucr< \ Oapo~wS>. Vid. Musgrav. ad. vs. 165." Musgrave's parallel is, I believe, that given by Monk on v. 167, viz. Androm. 413 sq. The latter passage is closely parallel to Ale. 167, but it may well be thought that both it and that passage are sufficiently close to Ale. 317 sq. to justify Lenting's suspicion that the first person is what Euripides wrote there. We shall then have three or at least two cases of a desig- nation of a parent used by that parent as subject of a verb in the first person. In Med. 926 Jason is made by Prinz to say of himself ev ra rwvSe ^o-cTtu Trarrfp. Here fv TO. rcovSe and irar^p are very plausible ; hardly so Orja-erat. Why may we not keep Ofoofuu, which has support in the MSS. ? (See Dr. Wecklein's critical notes.) May we not also in Med. 915 fairly suspect that Euripides may have written not W^Kf. but Z0r)Ka, and ibid. 918 cpyafopai? And in H. F. 1 368 is not ob-wAco-' to be understood as dTrwAco-a not aTrwAeo-e ? We come now to several instances of what may be called the genuine first person plural sub- ject. A good typical instance of this is Hipp. 450 ov (sc. "E/xw = "E/JWTOS) Travres ctr/xev 01 Kara x^oV yovoi. (Like to this IS rvKa/tev.") Med. 889 sq. dAA' coytcv otov ccr/wv OVK ip5> KOJCOV | ywuwces, 'but we women are what manner of thing we are I will not say out and out a bad thing.' As a parallel for the second person may be added in conclusion Med. 569-573 particu- larly 569 sq. dAA' cs TOCTOVTOV ^KC0* OXTT' opflor/Ae'vr/s | twi/s ywaiKe? iravr' e^eiv vo/ir)v inter- pretatam velim ad eum tractare modum in animo habeo, ut partim singulos locos quam potero diligentissime examinare atque, si opus fuerit, emendare coner, partim ut quam in hac possessionis sempi- ternae particula componenda rationem secutus sit Thucydides et investigem et exponam. Ac primum quidem de primo capitulo haec habeo quae dicam. Primum in ipso initio post scriptoris nomen excidisse videri o 'OX.6pov; nam ex corruptis Scholiastae verbis, id quod Stephanus primus ani- madvertit, hoc saltern evadere, ita hie proprium suum nomen com- memorasse Thucydidem, ut a cognominibus se ipse distinxerit. At levius hoc fortasse neque longiore dignum disputatione ; graviorem vero moverunt quaestionem qui pro wf.ypa\J/ primam personam repositam voluerunt. Nam, si gweypauf/a amplexi erimus, sequitur ut pro op>v participio, quod constructionem verborum haud paulum impedit, facili negotio reponere possimus cwpw. At haec in incer- tarum numero coniecturarum habenda; multo certius ne dicam certissimum illud est, non inter ipsos gesserunt' aut 'ut inter ipsos bellum gesserunt' aut 'quo modo inter ipsos ges- serint' aut 'quo modo inter ipsos bellum gesserint'. At diligentius locum relegenti idoneam quidem sententiam ex eis interpretationibus tibi praebere debet nulia. Reducto ov pronomine TOV ir6\efwv r&v UtXo- Trowrjviwv Kal ' A&yvaioDV ov CTroXe/XT/crav TT/JOS oAXi^Xovs nihil aliud Slgnificabit nisi 'id bellum Peloponnesiorum et Atheniensium quod inter ipsos gesserunt', quibus verbis quam optime significatur quod appellari solet Bellum Peloponnesiacum. In insequentibus Kv irpo- yeyevj/p.o'wv 'EAAi/viK- Stavoov/tevov ? Ante verba quae sunt KIVT/O-IS yap avnj pcyurnj &rj TO!? *EAXi79 rjXirura. fteyuv re ccrecrftu TOVTOV rov Tro\ffju>v KCU dioA.oyo>TaTOV TWK irpoycyfvr)fj.cvu>v *E\\rp'iKuv iroXe/4vv suspectante. Certe importunis- sime inferta sunt ea verba. In verbis quae proximam obtinent sed em re vera obaeravit, ut ita dicam, Thucydidis studiosos Herbstius pro TOI yap irpo avriav reposito ra yap Tpwoca. Hoc loco haud absurde for- tasse animadvertero yap particulam ideo positam esse ut introducat ratiocinationem cur dixerit Thucydides KLVTJO-IV ravryv /Lteyurr^v Srj rots *EAAi;? eirl fJULKporarov (TKOTTOVVTI /iot TTKTTewai ^v/A/3atVei ov fifyaXa. ycvftrBai repOnentlS. Eo iam prorepsimus unde Herbstii acumine hie saltern felicissimo usis ac totius prooemii ratione habita latius nobis prospicere liceat. Nam si quis diligentius legerit neque ambagibus scriptoris seductus a summa rerum oculos detorserit, sic ab initio prooemium a Thucy- dide adumbratum esse* aut perspiciet aut certe perspicere debebit, ut primum capitulum cum vicesimo tertio artissimo esset vinculo con- iunctum. Quae tamen duo capitula tam late nunc sunt distracta, ut nemo, quod sciam, veram quae eis inter sese intercedit rationem perspexerit neque mendum correxerit quod initium capituli vicesimi tertii deturpat. Ut planam legentibus rem efficiam atque apertam, primi capituli finem et vicesimi tertii initium, utrumque mendis pur- Thucydides 131 gatum, hie ob oculos proponam. Ecce igitur in unum coniuncta quae diu fuerant separata: TO. yap TpoHKa Kal TO, In TraAatVepa s fjikv cv/oetv Sia %p6vov dSwarov TJV, ex Se TCK/iiypiwv a>s CTTI /ta/cporarov (TKOTroOvTi /-lot v[jifiaiv.i ov /MeyaAa yevecr&u oure Kara TOVS TroAe/AOvs ovre es TO. aAAa. TOV o rcrrepov epywv /icyterrov (.Trpa^Tj TO M^StKov, KCU TOVTO o'/zcos ra^eiav T^V K/oicrtv eo-^e, TOVTOU Sc TOV TroAefioi; JU,^KOS re /u,eya Trpovftrj, KTC. Prooemium suum postquam sic adumbravit Thucydides, quam brevem ac simplicem formulam utrum litteris consignaverit necne incertum, ilia TCKfi^pia. r^s TWV TroAot'ov do-^eveio.5 quae in TO. yap Tpw'ina . . . ovTe es ra oAAa sibi praesto esse indicaverat proponere instituit idque ordine qui dicitur chiastico ; nam primum TO. In TraAatVepa et TO, aAAa, deinde ra Tpw'iKa et TOUS TroAe/wws exponit. Ea omnia capitibus 2-12 continentur, quibus capitibus quae proferuntur artissime sunt inter se connexa. Liquet igitur, admirabili sane sagacitate Bekkerum post duodecimum demum capitulum spatio vacuo relicto maiorem disputa- tionis divisionem finitam indicasse. Capitibus 13-19 quae continentur neque cum capitibus 2-12 uni- versam prooemii rationem si spectes, cohaerent neque hercle cum capite 20. Satis manifestum esse debet caput 20 una cum maiore parte capitis 21 post conscripta capita 2-12 adiectum esse, ut caput 23 longissimo iam intervallo a capite i disiunctum apte introducere- tur. In secunda igitur quam statuo prooemii formula caput 12 capite 20 exceptum fuisse credo. Secundae prooemii formae ratio per numeros sic potest indicari: i 12 -f- 20 21. I -f- 23. Quod 21. 2 cum 22 seclusi, id ea de causa feci quod ista verba cum proxime praecedentibus nullo vinculo sunt connexa. Additamentum videntur esse ipsius Thucydidis quod cum reliquo prooemio num- quam rite copulavit. Melius omnino se haberet haec particula inter 23. 3 et 23. 4 inserta, sed ne turn quidem prorsus idoneum earn locum inventuram fuisse persuasum habeo. De tertia quam nunc habemus prooemii forma in universum qui- dem quod dicam nil habeo praeter ista quae aliud agens iam protuli. Hie erat vero fortasse locus aliquid iniciendi quod in superiore mea disputatione neglexi. Nam significare me oportuit ex collocatione capi- tum i et 23 vel apertius apparere quanto iure Herbstius Tpau/ca pro irpoavraiv introduxerit. Neque enim necessario sequeretur ut magnum fuisset Bellum Peloponnesiacum, si quaecunque id praecessissent, . 132 Greek Authors ea Omnia ov /ueyoAa fuissent ovre Kara rows TroAetiovs OVTC s ra aAAa. Coninncto demum cum antiquioribus bellis Persico illo atque utrisque cum Peloponnesiaco comparatis evadit id quod Thucydides demon- strare studebat. Addendum fortasse erat desiderare me in Herbstii vel potius Thucydidis ra yap Tpwi'/ca inter ra et yap illud /nev quo inserto oppositionem quam ego indicavi planius appareret; sed particulam desideratam dubito tamen inserere. Nunc ad capita 2-12 et in universum et particulatim excutienda me accingam.- Ac primum quidem illud attendendum est, in capitibus 2 et 3 anti- quarum rerum Graecarum imbecillitatis duas adferri causas, quarum altera migrationes (^Tamo-Tao-as) , altera civitatium inter sese com- mercii defectus (d/*o#a) fuit. In fine capitis tertii summatim indicat Thucydides etiam Bellum Troianum ex maiore maris usu pependisse, cuius sententiae e demonstratione quae in capitibus 4-8 continetur initium capiunt, quibus capitibus rei navalis Graecorum qui fuerit ante Bellum Troianum status luculenter exponitur. Nunc ad minu- tiora animum adpellamus. In capite 2 igitur suspectum aliquantum mihi est illud TCI irpdrepa, quippe quo post TroAat non opus sit. In commentario Classeno- Steupiano post ovcroi desideratur e/covo-uu. Id minus verum mihi videtur, qui integritatem huius loci hoc pacto restitutam velim : ciAAa /teTaratrraVeis re ovaai KOI paSt'u>9 ocaoroi rrjv eavrSv aTroXcwrovTes res TC Kal > /8tad/xevoi inro TOJV aUl wXfiovwv. Cur a* TC Suva/ieis run yytyvo/ievai (rrao-eis evciroiovv 3.C non potius ai . . . /icti^ov? ytyvd/xeveu (rracreis ev7Totbw scripserit Thucydides, si re vera sic scripsit, equidem dispi- cere nequeo. Verba quae sunt r^v yovv . . . avrj6f]vai insulso interpre- tamento deturpata esse puto. Integrum locum sic se habuisse arbi- tror: njv yovv 'ATTIKTJV K TOV CTTI irXucrTov 8ta TO XeTrroyctov curTao-uwrrov ovcrav avdp TWV TroAotuv aardeviuiv. In inscquentibus ^vft.Trao'a irw x eiv correxit Reiske, iroXXov yc XP OVOV *<" a-v Tptotxaiv yevo/ivo5 ovSa/xov TOVS iufiTravras <*EXA.i/vas> (suppl. Matthiati) wvd/xacrev Thucydides 1 33 ouS* oXXovs $ TOIS /ACT* 'A^iXXews CK TT}S ^tomSos, ourep Kai TrpaiToi ^trav, Aavaoi? 8e . . . dvaKoXei (si sana scriptura in verbo ultimo) . Quae ista excipiunt praestat fortasse hunc ad modum scribere : ov pyv ovSc fiap- /Jdpous elpjjKfVy a>s e/xot 8oKi Sia TO firjS' "EXXr/vas TTW dvTtVaXov es ovofw. a.TroKKpiar6ai ol 8' ow "EXXiyves vorepov KXrjOevres oiScv Trpo TU>V TpauKoiv Si' do-0evav Kai d/xa^uiv dXAiyAwv aOpoot %irpaav. In verbis ot 8* ow . . . K\r)QevTe<; quae omisi, ea adeo sensum impediunt, vix ut vera esse possint. Initio capitis quarti yap particula valde elliptice, ut saepe, usurpa- tUF. Subauditur huius modi quid : TT/S Se flaAao-o-rjs es XPW iV KaTftrrrjaav rovSe. TOV rpoirov. In insequentibus recte Cobetus cKa&jpev pro tradito KaOypa reposuit. In capitis quinti initio scribendum est, nisi fallor, hunc ad modum : 01 yap "EXX^ves TO TraXai Kal TWV jSapySapwv , 01 TC ev rrj yTrecpip irapaOaXda-cnoL Kal ocroi T^CTODS X OV J KT ^- Quae causa adduCtUS sic OOr- rigendum esse existimem, planius ^apparebit ex eis quae de eXg'^ovTo 8e Kal Kar' ^Tretpov KTC. infra sum disputaturus. In insequentibus in- clino ad faciendum cum Herwerdeno illud vauo-iv quod est inter Trepaiova-Oai et ITT dXXi/Xovs damnante. Perperam in editionibus quas curaverunt Classenus et Steupius virgula omittitur inter aSwaTWTarwv et xepSous ; nam verba quae sunt /cepoW . . . Tpo^s quam artissime cum IrpdirovTO irpos ;Xyo-T6av COniungenda SUnt, CUm illud ^yovp.evTepa>v ovrwv Ct C. 8. 2 TrAoi/iwrcpa eyeVcTO Trap cUA^A-Ovs, C. 7 ai'as jUtaAAov l^ovcrai '^ptjp.a.rwv et C. 8. 3 /-wiAAov ySr) rrjv KTTJCTI.V TTpoL cavTwv yiyvo/xevot, quae idem valent atque fj.SX\ov T;8r; rrjv KTTJO-LV TWV xprj/jidTv. Post ^wevex^vat quae constructio ex simplici genetivo absolute acta est, ea in formam vere portentosam evasit quasi vires acquirens eundo. Simplicior ea forma haec fere sit : Eu/oi>tr0ea>s p.tv ev ry 'ArriKy VTTO 'HpaKAeiSaiv a.iro6av6vTO<;, 'Arpe'cos 8c TCOV HcpcretScov TOUS IIcXoTrt'Sas /J.ecov<; xaTacrTi/cravTOs (nam quin pro uov OVTOS avrta, CTriTpei/WTOS Eupvcr^ews, or' ccrTpdreve, MvKTyvas TC Kal rrjv apxyv Kara. TO oixetov 'Arpel rvyxaveiv 8 avTov evyovra TOV varepa 8ta TOV Odvarov KOI, cbs oiiKeri dve^wprjcrcv EipDcr^evs, /3ov\o/j.eva>v Kal TOJV cf>6(3(a TCOV 'Hpa/cAeiScov /cai afia SvvaTov <^auTov^ SoKOvvTa etvat /cat TO 7rA.i}0os TtOepaTrevKora TCOV MuKT/vat'cov TC KCU otrcov Eupvtr^eus ^PX C T ^ v /SacriXetav 'A.rpea irapaXa/Seiv /cat TCOV He/jcreiScov TOVS IleAoTrtSas /xeti^ov? KOTO- crrijom. Hac in formula illud 'AT/SC'COS prorsus pendet, constructio autem e participiali fit infinitivalis. In sectione tertia legendum videtur T^V o-TpaTttav, ov xapiTi TO TrXetov <^ T OV trToAov ]> 17 a TO) iKavos TeKfJLrjpiSxrai, Kal EV roS SK^Trrpov a/xa TiJ IIapaSoV TroXfwv /xaXXov (TKO/TTUV T) ras Suva/Acts, vo/xi^av 8e rr)v CTTpaT6av fKeivyv /xeytcrrT^v yu.v yevecr^ai TWV Trpo avr^s, Xuirofj-evr/v raiv vvv T?7 'Ofji-qpov av Troir/cret ei Tt ^(/3^ KavraC^a TrtcrTevaat (ubi aperte TCSpicit Q- 3, ubi legimUS ws "O/ti^/aos TOVTO SfS^Xw/CEV a TO) ixavos TK[jLr)pi!acra.i, 'si cui idoneus est testis', ubi fortasse legendum u TW Ixavos rcKpypLucrai, 'si cui idoneus ille testis'). Haec omnia pendent ex iKo^iv SE xpr) Kal ravry rrj (Trpa.Tf.ia. ola r)v TO. irpo avr^s (Q- 4) ^tque, 6X parte certe, ideo addita vel potius inserta sunt, ut demonstretur incorrupti Thucydidem iudicis munere fungi. Nunc ad minutiora animum adpellamus. Ac primum quidem baud equidem dispicere possum in Kal on p.ev MvKyvai KT. quid opus sit fj.lv, quae particula mea quidem opinione multo meljiis abesset. Infra recte videtur Hude AaKE&ujuoviW yap scripsisse. Neque minus bene idem vir doctus cum aliis ^woiKio-flfib-Tjs 7roA.ws corrigendum censet. Sectione 3 quae TTIO-TEUEIV secuntur equidem sic scripserim : ov (sic Cobetus) IKOS 7rl TO |U,tov /u.v <[ avTr}v ^> TTOiijTrjv ovra KOs T Kal p.c\X6vTwv TreXayos 7Tpatwo-0-^at /xera Tro\efJiiK(av ov&' av ra TrXota Kara^apKra fi^ovrtov. Nam non de hie sermo, sed de universe Graecorum exercitu. De quo loco vide quae adnotavit Poppo. Capite 1 1 recte cum aliis Cobetus ^a^j; EKpar?/ <0r) > o-av . . . ) Kal aTrovwrfpov T^V Tpoaiv iA.ov ubi vix opus est animadvertere cXao-o-ovi idem valere atque 138 Greek Authors rov T< OVTI yevo/Jifvov, ajrovwrepov autem idem atque f\davto-Ta/u.VT7 (ut equidem scriptum velim) me- moriam redintegrat illius ^atverat yap 17 vvv 'EAAas KaXov/xo/7; ov TraAxu /8e/3atws oiKOvp.vr), a\Xa /Aeravao-Tao-eis ovaai. Capitum 13-19 post capita 2-12 una cum 20-21.1 dudum absoluta, quam longo vero temporis intervallo incertum, conscriptorum id est consilium, ut quos profectus fecerint quasque res gesserint cum universi Graeci turn praecipue Lacedaemonii Atheniensesque inter confectas iam migrationes et coortum Bellum Peloponnesiacum sum- matim ostendatur. Haec disputatio in partes divisa est duas, quarum prior TO, Tvpawucd, posterior autem TO. /itra ra TvpawiKa complectitur. Ilia capitibus 13-17, haec 18-19 continetur. Atque initio capitis 13 duae res factae narrantur postquam aliquid aucta sit Graecia po- tentia et pecunia, primum ut in plerisque ex civitatibus tyrannides instituerentur, deinde ut ad rem navalem magis Graeci animum adtenderent. Quae sic ab ipso Thucydide proferuntur : Thucydides 139 8 yiyvo/AO^s T^S 'EAAaSos KOI TU>V ^p^/Aarov TT)V KTTJ&IV n (Knieger pro In) /iSAAov Troiovfjievrjs TO. TToAAa TupawiSes ev rats TroAeo-iv KadLO-ravro TrpoVepov Be rjaav em PT/TOIS yepacri TraTpiKcu (3a.o-i\eia.i vavriKct re erjpTvero y 'EAAas Kat T^s^aXao-cn/s/AaAAovavTet^To (quae verba ex Herwerdeni sententia correcta exhibui). Hinc usque ad finem capitis 14 de re navali Graecorum quae tyrannis imperantibus fuit disputatur. Capite 15 terrestri re bellica eiusdem aetatis summatim tractata tandem per occasionem causarum commemorandarum quae obstabant quominus consociatis viribus fortiores evaderent maiores civitates, quae com- memoratio adlatis exempli causa lonibus capite 16 fit, ad tyrannos redit narratio, quorum de maligno plerumque imperio capite 17 exponitur. Haec est in universum distributio satis perversa ilia quidem eorum quae capitibus 13-17 narrantur. Ad minutiora nunc redeamus. Atque de 13. I quomodo codicum scripturam emendemus oportere arbitrer supra demonstravi, nunc sectiones 2 et 3 quattuor locis a me ad pristinam, ut opinor, integritatem revocatas exhibebo: irpwrot. 8e KopivOioi. AeyovTcu eyyvs (codd. eyyvrara, quod idoneum quidem sen- SUm hie praebet nulluni) TOV vw rponov /iera^ctpio-at TO, -jre.pl ras vavs Kai rptr/peis Trpwry (codr% irpS>rov) ev Kopi'v$a> T^S 'EAAaSos (=T 'EAAaSos ev Koptv^co) vav7rr)-yr)6f)vai (jtaiverai re (codd. Se) xat 'A/xetvoKAiys Kopu'^tos vav-irrjyos (codd. vai5s hlC inserunt) Trotiyaa? reWapas, errj 8' e Sta T^S eKCtVwv TOVTO TTotowTwv). [In fine eiusdem sectionis sic rescriptum velim : CTretSi; TC ot "EAA^ves /xaAAov tTrAw^oi/, TOLS vavs KrrjcrdfjievoL Kal ep-Trdpiov Trape'^ovTes afj-f^orepo. Svvarrjv ecr^ov xpr)/J.a.T(av TrpocroSw rrjv TroAiv. In S6C- tione 6 quod traditum habemus ai 'P^mav eAwv aveO-^Ke r Ar^Atw tanquam interpretamento illius TW articuli qui illi 'ATToAAwvi praefixus est). Quae c. 13. 2-6 continentur ad "TO TraAaio, vavriKa TWV 'EAA^vwv perti- nent insequente vero capite ad TO. vo-repov yev6/j.eva vavriKa. transitur. 140 Greek Authors Caput 14 saepe numero satis graviter corruptum emendare sum COnatUS ad hunC modum : AwaTwraTa ravra. TCOV <^7raXaiaiv^> vavTiKuiv rjv ' tftaiveraL 8e Kai ravra, TroXXats yeveats vV M^SiKoiv Kai TOV Aapeiov 6a.va.rov, os p-Ta Ka/x/JwrT/v Jlepcroiv eySaa-tXcvo-e, rpt^peis Trepc' re Si/ceXiav rots TvpaVvois es TrX^os eyevovro Kai KepKvpatots. Tavra TcXevTaia Trpo T^S Hep^ov o-Tparetas vavrtKa d^ioXoya ev TJ/ 'EXXaSi Kare'o-TT/ Aiytv^rat yap (quasi praeCCSSerit CIKOTOJS 8c d^toXoya CHTOV vel tale quid) Kai 'A^vatot Kai ti rivts aXXot ftpa-)(ia. CKCKT^VTO Kai TOVTWV ra TroXXa TrevTT/Kovrepovs ' 01/4 yap d' ov (haec duo VOCabllla melius fortasse cum Kruegero secluseris) 'A^vatous /xto-TOKX^s tircwrev, AiyivTyrais TroXcAiovvras Kai ayua. row (3a.pfia.pov TrpocrSoKt/xov OVTOS, ras vavs TTOiT/cracr&H alcrTrep Kai fvavp.d^rjo'av, <^ at ^> Kai atirai OVTTCO cT^ov Sta C. 15. I scribendum cum Valckenaerio et Cobeto ol et mOX 7rt7rXeovTCs yap rats viycrois (cf . 6. I . I CTTI SiKeXtav TrXevcravTts Kara- o-Tpeif/ao-0ai) KaTecrrpe'^ovTO tiaXco-ra ooxu ti^ KTC. (nisi forte post rats in- serendum 7riKt/i.eVats : v. commentarium Steupio-Classenianum) . C. 15.2 legendum o#ev ns Kai Swaius TTcpieyeVeTo (quod verbum pro TrapeyeVcTo summo iure restituebat cum aliis Tournier : cf . supra active itrxw TrepitTrot^o-avTo) . Hie ir*felicissima Siesbyei coniectura (v. Hudei ed. mai.) pro Kai Swa/us reponentis K&V Swa/xts monuit me principii Platonis Phaedonis, ubi in simili verborum contextu av par- ticula falso traditur. Atque operae pretium me facturum arbitror, si locum ilium emendatum hie exscripserim. Sic igitur Plato scrip- sisse videtur nisi forte primae iam chartae ita obdormivit ut graece non SCiret : Kai yap owe TO>V TroXiraiv orSeis Traw TI eTrt^cupta^et TO. vvv ovTf. Tts ^evos d^iKTat exet^cv OCTTIS ^/xtv (race's TI dyyetXat otds r' ^v irepi TOVTCOV -rr\.rfv yc 8^ ort <^>ap/xaKou TTIWV aTro^avoi TWV Se aXXwv ovSev ei^ov <#)pa^eiv. (57 A-B). At tempus ad Thucydidem redeundi. Reliquo igitur capite 15 nil aliud habeo quod moneam nisi me cum Herwer- deno facere troXv airb T^S CO.VTWV secludente. In sexto decimo autem capitulo 17 Ucpo-iK^ fiao-iXeia vix minus falsa mihi quidem videtur scriptura quam 17 Hepo-iK?) covo-ta. Verum habeo TJ Ilepo-tK^ Swa/xis. In insequentibus ?rpos OdXao-o-av Thucydidi abiudi- candum videtur. In capite 17 legendum conicio TO e<' lavTwv /xdvov Trpoopw- In insequentibus verissime mihi videtur Cobetus reposuisse Thucydides 141 vir avrwv pro OLTT' avruv, neque dubito quin non d p*} TI sed d prj i n, ' nisi si quid ', verum sit. Atque verba quae sunt ot yap . . . Swa/xews recte a compluribus damnata existimo, quippe quae ex additamento marginali prof ecta videantur ab aliquo adscripta qui memoria teneret supra (c. 14. 2) a Thucydide relatum esse Tp7pas irtpi TC SiKeXiav TO is Tvpdvvois es TrXrjOos eyevovTO KCLL KepKupatois nisi forte propius veritatem CobetUS COntigit, qui /AOVOI yap ol cv SiKeXia CTTI TrXeio-TOV exwp^o-av Svvaju.ea>s rescriberc iussit. Capitibus 18 et 19, uti supra demonstratum est, TO. pera raTvpawi/ca comprehenduntur : at ilia TO. /xera ra TvpawiKa nihil aliud re vera sunt nisi historiola maxime summatim adumbrata magnarum illarum duarum societatum a Lacedaemoniis et Atheniensibus utrimque fac- tarum. His in capitibus baud ita multa apparent quae manum emen- datricem desiderent ; nam ^ Mapafltw /u,ax^ (18. i) pro ^ ev MapaOwi /^.ax 7 ? alii iam reposuerunt atque Herwerdenus in fine capitis 18 iroAc/xiKa pro TroXefj.ua revocavit. Recte autem Stephanus 18. 2 8^ e TvpawevOtivr) 1 ;. Ad a Aa/' oD . . . xp^vrat codex M et Hermogenes prae- bent, non dubium est quin verum esse oporteat, quod tamen magis Graecum quam Thucydideum ne sit equidem vereor. Inter caput 20 una cum capitis 2 1 sectione i et capita 2-12 quae ratio intercedat satis iam est supra demonstratum. Hac in particula prooemii nil habeo quod novi afferam nisi levissimam correctionem illius TOV /u,ev awc- CTXOVTO, pro quo paene efnagitatur <>OV>TOV ply air^x ovro - ^ x alienis hie coniecturis haec accipio: 20. i -n-av TI (Krueger) e^s TtK/A^piw TTio-Two-at (Reiske) ; ibid, o/iws pro 6/xoitos (Cobetus) ; 20. 2 TWV Ileto-to-rpaTov . . . avrov omittendum (Cobetus) ; 21. 1 a St^X^ov (Weil) ; ibid, aurwv secludendum (Herwerdenus). De 21. 2 et 22 satis iam in universum disputavi. Minutiora vero adnotabo haec. 22. I sic scribendum esse conicio : XaXeTrov <>ev> TT)V aKpijSeiav avrrjv Sta/xv^/xovcro-ai et aXXo$ev iroQev /AOI. 22. 2 KCU <^ra^> irapa (Ullrich) roiv aXXtDV ovg Svvarov aKpiflcLa KTC. 22. 4 et ipSC post Tcr0cu sententiam hiare arbitror. De supplement vide commentarium Classeno-Steupianum. Ceterum in fine capitis 22 Cobetus aKowiv damnavit neque id iniuria ut mihi videtur. Quid si notissimum illud enuntiatum sic ab initio est perscriptum : KI^/AO. yap es atei /^aXXov 17 ayvur/j.a es TO 142 Greek Authors De capite 23 in universum satis iam supra disputavi neque praeter iteratam commendationem illius VO-TC/OOV quod in rS>v & {Wepov Ipywv pro TT/oorcpov a Thucydide scriptum esse persuasissimum equidem habeo atque in medium prolatam suspicionem 23. 6 rescribendum esse TOWS *AOr)vaiovs yyovfjiai /xeyoXov? yeyevij/u.ei'ovs fyoftov <^yap^> irapi- XOI/TO.S TOIS AaKeSai/Aoviois dvayKacrai t9 TO TroAe/mv ne VCrbullim quidem amplius addam, sed longae finis chartae hie erit. 1 EPIMETRUM DE THUCYDIDIS DE ILTADIS H FINE TESTIMONIO. 2 Constare aut certe post ea quae in septima e suis de Iliadis car- minibus dissertationibus luculentissime disputavit Arminius Koechly (v. eius Opuscc. Philol. I. 121-152) constare oportet, quo Iliadis H loco Graecorum ad Troiam bellum gerentium classis subductae pro- pugnaculi constructio describitur qui locus a versu 313 initium capere videtur , eum "vel recentissimo" ipsis ut utar Koechlyi verbis (op. cit., p. 151) "imitator! adscribendum" esse. Quo autem tempore quoque consilio recentissimus ille imitator centonarium suum opusculum Iliadi contexuerit, inde satis certo scire possumus quod, cum Zenodotus, id quod e Scholiis discimus, in suis Iliadis exemplaribus hanc quoque particulam legerit atque etiam quod multo gravius est Plato Rp. v. 468 D versum 321 citaverit, Thucy- didi is locus ignotus fuit. Nam de Graecorum ad Troiam rebus gestis sic incipit agere Thucydides (i. n. i.) : eTreiSi) & d o-ToaTOTre'Sw OVK av eTet^iVavTO , 1 Sero intellexi n. 2 hunc ad modum scribendum esse: irtpiov v V Ka ^ airoviioTepov r^v Tpolav ri)v 7r6Xtv?) el\ov, i.e. abundantia autem si venissent instruct! commeatus et coniuncti sine latrocinio et agricultura perpetuo id bellum gessissent, facile proelio superiores facti quippe qui etiam non coniuncti sed cum parte aliqua semper prae - sentes restiterint obsidione instituta et breviore temporis spatio et minore cum labore Troiam cepissent. el\ov quod fuit post Kparovrret et 5' post iroXiopKlg. primus, quod sciam, damnavit Krueger ; ry indefinitum praebet scholion ; irapbvrfi ipse detexi. Loco eminente positum et cum intentione vocis proferendum illud paStw. '[This MS. article, datfd April 6, 1905, forming a supplement to the preceding paper, was preliminary to an extensive investigation of the Homeric Question which Professor Earle had in view.] 3 Emendavit Thiersch : v. Popponem ad loc. Thucydides 143 vS' evTav$a Trd orpaTOTre'Sw OVK av iruxia-avro. Hinc apparet Cobetum, quern maxima semper cum reverentia nomino, summo iure Thucydidis TO Ipv/na de nota omnibus ex Iliade castrorum munitione intellexisse, iniuria autem hac in re Iliadis H 337-341 citasse; cf. Mnemos. n. s. 8. 69. In transcursu autem memoro haud prorsus verum esse quod Cobetus ibidem scripsit, quidquid de bello Troiano scripserit Thucydides ab uno Homero sumptum esse; nam de agris in Chersonese a Graecis belli tempore cultis ne verbum quidem nostra in Iliade comparet. At id minus ad rem de qua nunc agitur pertinet. Summam ut subducam dispntatiunculae huius meae, satis apparet qua de Iliadis H parte agitur earn Thucydidi prorsus ignotam f uisse ; unde sequi ut post id demum tempus quo verba supra citata scripsit Thucydides ea particula Iliadi qualem nos novimus adtexta sit. Id satis din ante conscriptum a Platone quintum Rei publicae librum esse factum a citatione supra commemorata satis probabile fit. Ac ne quis forte f litteram istis in versibus ad hiatum evitandum 1 alvovrai 5' codices : emendavit Cobet. 144 Greek Authors adsciscendam mihi obiciat, addo quibus septem locis (vv. 356, 371, 375 4 J 3> 4 2 9 444> 4^5) eiusmodi hiatus apparet, eos omnes versibus formulisve aliuncle translatis explicationem atque excusationem accipere facillimam. Unum amplius addo: ad summam quaestionis qua de nunc agitur nihil omnino interesse utrum falsum illud iKparrja-av retineatur apud Thucydidem an pro eo verum hoc c Orjo-av revocetur. 1 CRITICAL NOTES ON THUCYDIDES. VI, 31- 4- 2 - we@TJ 8 7T/3OS Tf. CT^OS aVTOUS O./JM tplV yCVftrOdL, [w TIS irpo(Tf.Ta.^Q-rf\ Koi es TOVS aAAovs "EXAijvas 7rt8eiiv fiaXXov The words bracketed are unnecessary, disturbing and obscure. May they not have crept into the text from a scholion at the close of the preceding sentence, to which the first clause of the above forms an ciravoX^is, the scholion in its original form running some- what as follows : Toiv TTf.pl TO a-St/jM o-Kevuiv] ol [lev OTrXirai oirXa efyov, 01 8e fperai xal TtKTOves Kat XiOovpyol TO. eiriTiJSeia epyaXeia <^v ^vpaKocrioi, /ere. After Ixovo-t Classen indicates a lacuna ; Herbst admires the ellip- tical form of expression and scouts the idea of a lacuna. Both scholars supply the omission in the same way : ov 8vot eimi, appar- ently ignoring the fact that St/ceXioiTai 8' av /u,ot SOKOO-IV ou Savoi eivat IS a strange way of saying 2iKeAoTcu 8' ov p.oi SOKOVO-I 8voi etvai. So much for the German Greek : let us turn to Thucydides himself. The sentence (pace Herbstii) demands a negative near its head in order to yield any proper sense as it stands : the material for sup- plying the ellipsis is ready to hand in 8voi yiuv yevea-Oai : the clauses may have been dislocated. In fine why not read thus : Si/ceAiwrai 8* <^OVK> av poi SoKov(riv, o)9 ye vvv e^ovai, Sctvot ^fuv ycvt&Oai, Kat !TI av v, el apgeiav avrdv ^,vpaKocrioi, KTC. ? 1 Rationem quae Thuc. i. n. i cum Iliad. H intercedit leviter perstrinxit Seeck in libro inscripto Die Quellen der Odyssee p. 418. Seeckio Thucydides ceterique eiusdem aetatis scriptores atque poetae audisse a rhapsodis carmina Homerica viden- tur, legisse non videntur. At quis facile credat haec ? 3 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), p. 227.] *[From 'Miscellanea Critica' in Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. i.] Thucydides 145 VI, 17. 3 .* I would read thus : o, TL Be eKao-Tos 17 K rot) Xe'ywv 7ri'0iv rj (TTao-taiv d^ro TOV KOWOV Xaftwv KTE. The Scholiast's para- phrase IT K TOV XoyO) TTf.idf.LV TTCptyeVoiTO tt{>T

V vavroiv /xev KT. YHOCTAYPOYN. 3 Qui ita equitat ut suus cursus alienum oblique secet, is vircXavveiv dicitur: cf. Xen. Anab. I. 8. 15 ubi perversum illud TreXao-as ab editori- bus prudentibus optimo iure semper spretum esse denuo nuper ostendit Pantazides. Item qui ita murum aut vallum in obliquum ducit ut alterum murum aut vallum impediat quominus producatur, is 7roTixi' aut viroarravpoi. At hercle, dixerit quispiam, istud viroarravpovv nusquam apud scriptores graecos apparet. Fateor, ut quidem nuncsehabent libri ; sed reddendum est Thucydidi VI. 101, ubi SCribendum esse censeo, Kat ot SvpaKocrtoi ev TOUTOJ e^A^ovrcs Kal avrol av6is dp^a/u,evo6 airo T^S TrdXew? Sia p.f.crov TOV eXovs, /cat ra^>pov Trap(i)pv(T(rov, OTTWS pr/ olov Tf. rj rots ' A.$r)vaiois P-*XP L T ^ s Oa\dpiaiveTO irpfirtiv rjv ol paKcs ITTC/XTTOV. , quibus verbis additis participiorum ordinem commutasse, ut inde ab initio narrationis usque ad principium insequentis enuntiati precationis et spectationis notiones chiasmi in modum sese exciperent. 327 B In verbis quae sunt KariSW ow et quae secuntur usque ad KcAetHrcu ita a Platone mutationem factam esse opinor, ut, cum scripsisset hoc pacto : KareiSc iroppwdev ij/ias ot/caSe ip/i^evovs noXe^iap^o? 6 KeA.ucrev ow Spa/idvra TOV TraiSa jrcptfiflva.i e ad maiorem ut ei videbatur concinnitatem contextus pro priore illo verbo finite participium substitueret, hoc modo : KoriStuj' ow .... scribendum esse censeo. 327 C Verba quae sunt is awb T^S TTO/ITT^S aut, ut in n sunt, diTro T^S TTO^TJT/S non Platonis esse puto sed ab aliquo homine ad verba is aTTiojTes in margine adposita esse. 327 C Scribendum esse censeo : OUK ovv, rjv 8' eyw, In ev cAActTrerai (=TI fv eortv oVcp Kai eAAetTTCTai), TO ^ n'Cicrw/xev v/xas is ^p-^ ^/xas d^eivou ; 328 A Post 6eacras yap ervyxavev : an etiarn TC^U/CWS yap Tv^ev recte se ha- buisset? ov rt 0a/u's scribendum esse ego quoque opinor. ovSev av o-e ISet scribendum ; nam in ere pronomine opposi- tionis notio inest. 328 D \firiQv p.iai re Kal i^Sovat]. Recte se habet vfavto-Kois. Trap f]/j.avyov aut airra airifayov scribendum. diroS/jas pro aTro^vywv mihi arridet, nisi forte expellendum est participium. eTraSav yap necessario legendum. 329 D eo-rt non potest retineri. CKLVOVV Kal ?TTOV '. cf. rjcrird^eTO T Kal EITTEV 3^8 C. 329 Km AeyoDcrt yu.v Tt. 329 E Intellexit Cicero : os TO> ^ptLw. 330 A " CIVTW (sc. TW yi?pa) bene Richards. 330 B n ov Pro ^vyytve'^at apparet scribendum esse Fortasse 148 Greek Authors 330 E Necessario SCribendum CSt T) KCU, wnrep rfc eyyvrepw wv TOV CKCl, /m\A.OV Tt KddopWV O.VTO.. Fortasse scribendum etiam vTrwj/ias y ow. 331 A tat dya.077 yifporpd^os, is *at IlivSapos A.y (nisi forte Omit- tendum illud yr/porpd^os) . Ev ow A.eya 0au/ucrTu>s s omisso (rS. 33 1 B Per verba quae sunt TO yap . . . xpr^taTa definitur ex mente Cephali notio iustitiae ($IKOIOO-W?/S). fu'ya /xepos cis Tovro=/ieya /icpos TOVTOV (TOVTOV CUm Q-v/i^oiAAeTai iungendum), quod tamen ambiguum fuisset. 33 1 C TOVTO S* avro, TT)V StKtuoo-vn/v, KTC. Summa aviditate Socrates arripit occasionem ac materiem disputandi. 331 C Haud accurate repetit Socrates Cephali defmitionem. 331 D Haw /iev ow verba hoc loco refragantis sunt. QVK ow, er), eyw, 6 IIo\fiap^os. 33 1 El TO ra 6uX6p,eva CKao-Tai aTroStSovai Sucatov O"Ti : logicam ra- tionem sententiae si spectamus intellegenda haec sunt quasi sint : TO St/ccuov eo-Ti TO ... a7ro8i8ovai. pr} o-o<^po'vws : parum accurate dictum pro pjavevn. 332 A os av T<{I xpw6ov aTToSiSw scribendum esse ex temporum ratione clare apparet. 332 B yiynproi yen7aXcxv^> ? iv TLVI irpau : Socrati quidem, ut ex interrogationibus eius cum praecedentibus turn insequentibus plane apparet, haec verba non aliud significant atque irs irpaTTovras : Polemarchus autem ea intellegit quasi significarent Tt 7rpaTT irpoat^s av ^pi;v\a aya$os ocrTrep KO.I TO. rS)v TroAe/juW K\&l/a.L KOL /8ovXcvyu.ara Kat ras aXXas Wjoa^ets. Supplenda necessario sunt haec : <^<(>vXa dya^os O-TIV> . At istud quidem absurdum est supplementum. Rescribendum ergo : yc 6 avros (J3v\d^ <^at^> dya^os. 334 C Tovrots apa KT. : i. e. rots apa OVTWS dfiapTavovo-iv S. OVTO>S 334 D Kara 8^ TOV (rov \6yov TOVS /A^Sev dSiKOVvras 8i'/S Stxaiov Tore rovrots TOW? /u,cv 7ron;povs &e\elv t TOWS 8' aya0oi>s /SAaTTTeiv. 'J'atVeTat. Kara. 8^ TOV s TO rrpwrov AtyovTes Stxaioj' efvcu TOV /ifv L\ov ev iroulv, rov Se f%6pov KOLKUS , VW TTpOS TOVTto O)8e AeyClV, OTl KTC. 335 C *AXA' if Stttuoo-w?; OVK dv0pa>7reia apery ; In eis quae hlSCCUntur ita ratiocinatur Socrates quasi invert! possint enuntiati cuiuscun- que subiectum et praedicatum neque de significatione totius enuntiati quidquam detrahi aut deminui. At id aperte falsum. 336 D iof3ovp.rjv : at iam supra dictum est SeiVavres (336 B). 336 E i\ dAA*, ot/jtat, ov pluria hie intercidisse arbitror. 337 C E?ev .... ^v 8" eyo> Locus corruptus quern ad sanandum equidem non valeo. 337 Attendenda est huius loci constructio : ZW SwKpaTTjs TO etwflos 8unrpdr)Tai, avTos p*v fir} airoKpivryrai, aAAov 8' airoKpivofJievov Aa/Aj8avg Xdyov Kal Ae'y^y (pro avros fJ&v p-rj airoKp L vecrdai KTC.). Aa/i/8avtv Aoyov Kai cAeyx"" h. 1. vix aliud quidquam significare potest atque orationem accipere et examinare s. redarguere. Oppositio est hoc loco inter py ei8o>s ^7786 ^>ao-Kwv ciSeVat et oieTeu (quod verbum resumit eadem significatione lyyctTai) . atreiprffjicvov avr fir) : delendum illud e/, nam requiritur participium absolutum. 338 A EITTOVTOS 8' fp.ov ravra. i\oviKelv irpos TO : Fortasse v KPUTTWV o 7rayK/xm- CUTT^S Kal avT<5 vp.f.pf.i. KTC. copulam desideramus in priore enuntiati membro. Id fortasse post TrayxpaTuxo-T^s addendum Ut sit TrayKpaTuxrTrjs <^CO-TI^>. 339 A Subaudiendum est alio atque ante sensu verbum Ae'yas in ei & aXijQfs r) ^ (verum autem si id sit necne) ; nam in IfjuaOov o (=o, TI sive TI) Ae'yas verbum quod est Xeyas non dicas significat sed dicere velis. dAA OTI fifv '. = oAA OTI y. 339 C ava/AapTi/Toi : = ofy otot d/iapTetv, ut apparet ex eis quae in- secuntur. In Ti0o-0eu eavrois verbum medium adhibitum ex dativo pro- nominis reflexivi inde suspensi explicandum erat. Sed postea sine ulla quae quidem apparet necessitate iterum iterumque usurpatur verbum medium, cum ante illud Tt6to-0ai cavrot? suo et Plato 151 proprio significatu adhibetur verbum activum in locutione quae est VO/AOVS nOevai. Nam de legumlatore non de populo leges iubente ac sanciente agitur. 339 E eneivot 7rpoo-Yaav idem significare videtur quod a av CKCIVOI irpoopov 817 TTOV idem valet quod d^v^opov 8rj, oT/Mu. Supra rots (sc. d/a^o/xevots) St'Katov c'vat ^i^s idem valet atque rots 8 SlKCtlOV ]J, (5)5 <^>^S CTU, KTC. 340 A 'Eav (TV y', ^>T;, airw fjULpTvprja-r)?, o KAetTOT/, eyw, 6 IIoXe/Aap^os, TWV ye aaiv K\rjpov6/jio<;. Kal ri, 1^)77, Set (P ro Seirai). 340 B In verbo IXtyev ante o T/yotro posito duae significationes dicendi et r//V Kal e^a/xapTamv. 340 D KO.T dirty rrjv apapriav scribendum. Error ex perperam lectis litter is uncialibus KATAYTHN ortus. Bis enim sibi visus est videre librarius aliquis litteras TA. 77 Aoyto-TiKov, os av ev Aoyia/xaJ a/JapTavr), Kara Tavrrjv TT)V afw.pTiav deletO Tore orav a/Aapravii. 340 E Legendum puto vw 8rj airoKpivao-Oai,. 341 E o-w/xa eo-ri Trovrjpov quid significet illud -rrovrjpov, videlicet in- perfectum, ex iis quae insecuntur elucet. Eadem autem notio subest illi -n-ovrjpd quod legitur 342 A. 342 A wo-7rep 6(f>6a\fj.ol . . . e/CTTOpioucn/s :=--(ofjia iarpiKrys Trpoo-Setrai. In priore enuntiato seu enuntiati membro aperf)? idem prope valet quod Supplement!. Cf. 342 B Trpoo-Setrai eirl TT)V auT>7? TTO- vTjpiav TO vfi6aXfjioi Kal WTO, vocabula si spectamus, dpfri/s iam ibi ubi posi- tum est significare videtur muneris vel officii, neque vero iure est dubitandum quin duo quasi fila cogitationis hie nodo vix extricabili complicata sint, vel verius fortasse prius enuntiati membrum colorem ac plus etiam quam colorem ex insequente traxerit. fir' avTor?: SC. TOIS 6<0aA/HS KOI axriv. 342 B OVT avrijs ovTf. aAAr/s TrpoaSuTat : = OVTC avr^s SCITCU. ovrc a\Xr)<; irpos a,vrrj. JWTi-ep av . . . eori . . . haec interpretations vice funguntur illius 6pOr) ovo-a . An pro d/cpi/Sr/s oA?; ^TTC/O eort rescribendum 342 D eirf.xf.ipti Be irf.pl avra /xa^to-^ai t SC. TT/JIV ^wo-7Tp av TIS Trpos irpoftaTa. Illud StaKeicr^cu COniecit Faesi. SUITC^CIT; quod post irpofiara in codicibus exstat expunxi ego tamquam supplementum perverse inculcatum, nam quo tandem modo expediendus fuit aoristus sic positus ut perfectum aequiperasset ? 343 C xal ovTto 7ro/3p<; tvrj8tKol Kal SI'KCUOI) ap^o/j-fvoi TTOIOIXTI TO CKC/VOV (= TOV ap^ovTOs) ^v/x^>epov. avrw ad iicelvov referendum. Sententia loci est haec : et felicem ilium efficiunt dum ei subserviunt. Opposita sunt inter se e/cetvov et IVTOVS pronomina. 343 D o-KOTTturftu = CTKOTTCIV. OTttV T . . . OTttV T = OTttV /tlV . . . OTttV Sf. Plato 153 343 E Kal yap . . . apxy : adversativa non causali hie est opus coniunctione. Pro Kal -yap, ctenim substituerim *ai /w/v, atqui, 344 A v8ai)u.u)v )( a0Aios. 344 B Trpos rots Toiv TToAtTwv xp^/uurt. : compendiarie dictum pro Tw TO TU>V TToXtroiv ^pT^/jLaTa dS direSet^ij on. 344 E T xeipov " Te /SeXnov /3ia>crd/>i0a dyvoovvrts o ^? estne haec ipsius manus annon scripserit hoc ordine etre /8e\Ttov etTC xeipov KTC. ? 345 A /SovAerat : attendendus verbi modus ; non sunt haec pro a av (3ov\r)Tat sed protinus dnvaow, quaevis, OV Ttf.LQf.1'. SC. TOVTO. An amittendum T^S SIKCUOO-WT/S ? ravra Kal erepos (omiSSO ow) ? 345 B iTCttMfl : = Svva/xat Treicrai. 345 C TO Trpwrov 6/Di^o/xevos : cum ab initio definires. aKpiftSx; v\dai : aut post aKpt/fcus aut ante illud SeTv quod praecedit intercidisse suspicor o-e pronomen, quod subiecti vice fungeretur si adesset, cum TOV OVTI ap^wv omisso quasi ad- scripto aXrjOivos adjective ? 154 Greek Authors wore iras av 6 yiyvoio-Kwv KTC. : minime ferenda scriptura quod quiclcm ad Ao-re particulam attinet, pro qua equidem <5>? scrip- turn velim. 347 E s o-Wii )( vw. Haec oppositio enuntiati formae minime apta. Scribendlim Cum AstlO crv ow irorepov et Ks. 348 B An oo-' av . . . Acyto/xev ? Pro OTToreptos SCribendlim TrOTtpws. 348 D Ita dialog! personis orationem distribuendam esse censeo ut Socratis sint verba quae sunt povLfJiov: = yirep 0povt/AOV. a $ apova = y Se apova. 350 B o<; )( a/AadJ/?. 350 C vT<;, ov<^x^> [/u-ovov] on <^oi^> dVSjoes, dXXa /cat ai ywatKes. TOVTOV Se Kai y IleXiov OvydTrjp "AXicr/crTis iKavrjv p.apTvpiav Trape^erai virfp TOvSf TOV Xoyov eis TOVS "EXX^vag fOeXrjcra.o'a. fJLOVT) V7Tp TOV aVT^S dl'S/OOS X7TO^aVtV OVTWV aVTO) TTttTpOS TC Kdl fJLrfTpOS, OVS TOCTOVTOV {iTrepe/JaAero ry iXia Sia TOV tptara WCTT' airoSeiai avrous ovras TO> viti /Tr)v fKetvrjv 3 dvao-av dyaor^eVres TW cpyw ' OVTW Kai $eoi Trjv TTf.pl TOV epwra cnrovorjv re Kai apeTTjv ^.aXtcrra rt/xwo-tv. 'Opea 8e TOV Oldypov aTtXij d7rre/LH/'av e do-p,a Set^avres T^S ywatKos e<^>' ^v ^KCV, a v T r/ v Se ov Sovres, OTC .f crdai eSoKet are wv Ki0apa>8os Kai ov roX/xav lvKa TOV IpwTos a.7roOvyo~Kiv d, 17 TI $) ovScv '[From the Classical Review, Vol. XI (1897), p. 159.] 3 avtlvat MSS., em. Alexander Hommel in ed. Symp. Lipsiae 1834. s dXXa TTJV tKtlvy* MSS. et edd. * [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 20.] Greek Authors vp.ets &' e'p.ov aKovcreo-fle iratrav rrjv dXr;0eiav ov p,evTOi pa At", a avSpes 'A0r/vatoi, /ceKaXXieTn^tvovs ye Xdyovs, woTrep ol TOVTWV, p^^ao-t re Kai oVdpxwriv, ovSe KKO avSpes, T/jSe T]7 ^AiKia wo-Trep /mpa TrAaTTovTi Adyous cis V 5 ? etcrteVai. I need not speak particularly of the chiastic double contrast at the beginning of this passage (OVTOI \/ eyw \ nor Q some other minor points. I have tried to make vp-ets /\ e/ these clear by the way in which I have written and pointed the words. ' It is about a common misunderstanding and misinterpreta- tion of the words from KeKaXXiCTnyp-eVous tO CTriTv^ovo-iv ovofjuaa-i that I wish to speak here. Stallbaum's explanation of these words, which has doubtless led many astray, runs thus : Praeterea commemorat Socrates Xdyovs KCKoo-^/xeVovs, h.e. orationes ornatas, videlicet tropis, figuris, numero ; in his enim rebus maxime cernitur KO'S s. ornatus orationis. This way of interpreting, or rather misinterpreting, is due to failure to heed the chiastic contrast in the Greek and to mis- understanding of the meaning of KeKocr/x^/ievovs. Kcxoo-^/tAei/ovs (Xdyovs) is contrasted with eiKrj Xeyd^eva and KKaXXi7n7ju,o/ovs Xdyous piy/nao-t T Kai ovd/nacriv with Xeyd/xeva rots CTTITV^OVO-IV dvofuxtri. KeKoa-fj.-r)[JLfvov^ means 'marshalled,' 'ordered,' 'arranged,' as opposed to ei/o^ Xf.y6p.wa. We find something similar in Eur. Med. 576, where cv rova-S" cKdo-^o-as Xdyovs may be, I think, most simply interpreted 'well have you marshalled these words.' CRITICAL NOTES ON THE REPUBLICS In Plato Republic, 423 B, I propose to read for oo-?;v Set TO /xeye0os T^V TrdXiv TToieurftu, which seems to be dubious Greek, otav Set TO /u,eye^ The Greek equivalent of tot is OVTW iroXXot (iroXXa) or TOO-OVTOI TO TrX^os (unless TOO-OVTOI alone is clearly shewn by the context to be = tot] . But the resolution of TOO-OVTOS is either OVTO> p,eyas or TOCOVTOS TO p-eye^os (cf. Lysias 12. i), or TT/XIKOVTOS TO p-e'ye^os (cf. Lysias 26.23). Similarly the resolution of 7rdo-ot or 00-01 indicating multi- tude is TTOO-OI (00-01) TO TrX^os (cf. Dem. 29. 51); that of oo-os indicating magnitude would be otos TO p,ye^os. Incidentally I would amend Hdt. 4. 143 SO as to read TOO-OVTO <>6> TrX^dos yeveV^ai 00-01 ev rfj 1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXIV (1903), p. xxiii.] Plato 157 potrj KOKKOI, and Isocr. 4. 33 so as tO read Scope av TOiavrr/v TO ftf In Plato's Republic, 470 C, we read 1 : "EXXv/vas /v apa fiapfidpois /cat fiap/Sdpovs "EXX^cft TroXe/xeti' ( ua^o/Avous re ir)(rofji.tv Kal 7roAe/u,tovs <^>ixrei ctvai Kai 7roA.e/Aov T-^V ^dpav ra.vTtjv K\rjTfOv "TEXA^vas Se "EXX7/v(TL /j.v <^>tXous elvai, votrciv 8' v TW TOIOVTW T^V 'EXXdSa Kai OTao-ta- ^etv Kai a-Taa-tv rrjv TOULVTTJV f.\0pa.v itXrjTfov. Here I believe WC should read \>vu p.lv ^tXtous eivai, and in general the formula holds good that expo's : <<.'Xos : : Ti-oXe'/uos : 4Xias eVot^crav), Xen. Anab. I, 3, 12 (read TroXXou yu,ei/ o^ios t'Xios ij), ib. I, 6, 8 (read T e/x

i\io/iaiW pzyiBfi Tf Kal fvTv\ia SiT/veyxe oV fv/3ov\uiv xai Xpo'vov KTf. Here Schweighauser annotates as follows : Legendum putO pfytdfi Tf Kal \povs eTrraKoo-iots Ireat (j( p 6 v o s) ica*co7ra#owTS Tf. Kal Kiv&vvfvovrfs dyx/AaXa>s TTJV apfflv fl ToSt (/u e y o s) ir/ooi/yayov Kal r^? e v T v ^ i a s atvavro 8ta T^V e v /3 o v X i a v. Here we have : xpovos : /xcyt^os : : evrux" 1 : evfjovXta. The thought is that time (and patience) has brought greatness ; good counsel has brought good fortune. The difficulty is due to the fact that for the sake of the contrast Appian has used xpo" in such a way that it is formally opposed to ftfyfOos, whereas in fact the connotation 'patience' out- weighs the denotation 'duration.' NOTES ON BACCHYLIDES. 2 ix. 22 sqq. Mr Kenyon punctuates KXvo[t /8p]orwv, | ot rpuVei KTC. Either the comma should be omitted (cf. the punctuation of v. 50) or it should be placed between K\uvol and /S/joroiv. The meaning is not 'glorious among mortals are they that,' etc., but 'glorious are those among mortals that,' etc. It may be added here that the comma after Xaa in v. 27 should be removed. It is immaterial whether or not a comma be placed after Idupav in v. 29. xi. 8 sq. lftaOv]7r\oK x"'v eXeua yXawci, v. 19 Sq. evpvavaKTOS ayyeXos Zi^vos tpiapdyov, V. 98 sq. /caAvKoore^avou (re/ivas X<>Xov 'ApTCyuiSos XevKwXeVov. In the last example two adjectives come first. xi. 43-58. Perhaps Euripides did not have these verses in mind in writing Bacch. 23-38, but there are points of quite marked resem- blance between the two passages. TOLS c epartov c^o/fyo-e | 7ray*cpaTr)s Hpa peXdOptav \ Upoirov, TrapaTrX^yi v in Euripides. Cf. the last verse and Bacch. 38 with Bacchyl. xi. 55- So too the daughters of Proetus were punished for something they said (ov Here the Venetian scholia give ATJ/AT/TPIOS 6 'liW v TO TO apdpov and the Townleyan 6 *I Aij[jiO(r0evci yevtcrdai Trapeuvv/uov ) Trpos TOV rpotrov ws KO.L TriKpov fTt6rj TOV yap 6y KOL ev rfj Koprj SeiKW/Jievrjv. All is right except the spaced words. These are senseless ; but the following words of Persina's letter (4. 8. 35 sqq. [pp. 106 sqq.]) help US OUt : eirei&r) 8e crt. Xev/c^v aTreVcKov, d.TrpocrvX.ov AL&IOTTWV xpoiav aTrauyoi^ovorav, eya> p.sv rrjv alrtav eyvwpt^ov, OTI /AOI Trapa T r) v 6p.i\iav T rj v Trpos TOV civ 8 pa Trpoo-ySAei/'at T^V 'AvSp o p. eSav i) yparj We may, therefore, read d? T^ 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIX (1905), pp. 250-251.] 2 [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 3 ] Herodotus 161 p.evrjs. The gloss 'AvS/ao/xe'Sas wrongly inserted is the fans et origo malorum. AD HERODOTUM. 1 Parvum illud prooemium Herodoti Historiae praefixum sic edi solet : 'HpoSorov 'AAtKapv^oWos lO-TO/ao;? aTrdSe^ts ^Se, w? /A^TC TO. yevofieva d.v9p/mo-Ta, TO. p.tv EAAT/cri, Ta Se /3ap/?dpoto"t aTroSe^^evra aKAea yev^Tat, ra re aAAa Kat Si' ^v aiTt'ifv fTro\p.r} /cat 8t' yv aiTirjv dAA7/Aort. ON ILu/ia, -7^/xa, HERODOTUS I. 6; s . Roberts (G^. />^. p. 48) says of the inscription Foprwos TO irai/j.a on an ancient coin of Gortyn in Crete that 'no satisfactory explana- tion has been offered of the word troika,' though ' it has been sug- gested [see the references ad loc. cit.] that Trat/xa : Trai'w : : KO/J./JM. (coin): /COTTTO).' May we not see a support of this view in the oracle in Hdt. I, 67, in which /cai TVTTOS avrtTDTTOS, Kat Trf)/* irt Try/MiTt KCtrat is Under- Stood as referring in TUTTOS avrirviros to hammer and anvil and in TT^/U.' CTTI TTT/jiuiTi KctTat to 3. suffering thing laid ready to produce suffering (TOV Se ^cAawo/Avov crt'S^pov TO Trijfw. CTTI Tny/iaTt KCI/ACVOV, KaTa TOIOVOC Tt tKa^<)v, is 7rt Ka.K(Z ovdpwirov (TiSrjpos dvcvo^Tai) ? That is, may we not prefer to this, in part, forced interpretation of the oracle, taken down we must remember by ear, the following explanation ? The general interpretation is correct, but the words 1 [From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXIII (1905), p. 444.] a Vid. Dorv. ad Charit. p. 9. 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 20.] 1 62 Greek Authors are to be understood as iralfji eVl naiium. KCITCU, in which the preposi- tion eVi has its normal sense, and this second half of the verse be- comes but another expression for the former, which in turn should be slightly corrected to what I believe to have been its original form. Thus we read : KCU TV7TOS aVTlTVTTU), Kttl TTaip. 7Tl imtfJUlTl 'ETTI is, of course, to be understood with dvriTvVw and Tratfta is used first actively (instrument of striking), then passively (result of striking, object struck). Such ambiguity in the pronunciation of oracles as is assumed above may be illustrated by the locus classicus in Thucydides (4, 54, 2-3) concerning the oracle '\ * , ~ TTOAC/IOS Kai < , \ > a/u. avT<*>. ENCORE HERODOTE I. 86. 1 La lettre de M. Keelhoff a M. Tournier sur Herodote I, 86 (Revue de Philologie, xxi (1897), p. 179 sq.) m'a surpris. Si je ne me trompe, le savant auteur est dupe d'une sorte d'erreur d'optique. II met sur la meme ligne les deux locutions eipya ere TOVTO TTOICIV et ilpyu o-e p.rj TOVTO iroulv. II est vrai que ces deux phrases s'emploient d'une maniere generale dans le meme sens; mais il n'est pas exact qu'on puisse les reduire toujours aux memes elements. Car la phrase />y o-e TOVTO TToietv est susceptible d'une double analyse. On peut la resoudre OU en et/oy et ere TOVTO Troietv OU en etpyei o-e et TOVTO Troieiv. Dans le premier cas les mots o-e TOVTO iroulv forment une phrase objective equivalente a un accusatif de 1'objet exterieur (ou acci- dentel). Dans le second cas 1'infinitif TTOICIV se construit comme genitif (ou plutot comme ablatif). Dans la phrase e?py o-e /AT) TOVTO Troieiv au contraire les deux elements sont eipyet o-e et fir) TOVTO Trotetv, dont le deuxieme n'est autre chose qu'un accusatif de 1'objet inte- rieur ou, pour traduire 1'expression employee par M. Koch dans sa grammaire, du contenu (des Inhalts). C'est en cherchant a donner plus distinctement 1'allure d'un substantif a 1'infinitif de la phrase eipyei o-e TOVTO iroietv dans le second cas qu'on est arrive a la formule etpyet o-e TOV TOVTO Trotetv ; et c'est en employant le meme procede avec 1'objet interieur dans la phrase ev 7roA.riv /XCTO. KaS/ietouriv, ' o y af.6Xf.vuv 7r/oo/o-os evt /J.OI, re/cvov e/u,dv, rt vu o-' eTpeov ami a<,0 o J / X3C.V \/ vw o a/xa T a>Kiyi,opos KCU ot^vpos Trept Travrwv 7rAeo TW (or TW) ere KaKrj outcry TfKov fv But 'therefore ill-starred did I bring thee forth in the hall' is not what we expect here, and I have for some time believed a slight change in the text (really only an interpretation of the MS. tradi- tion) to be necessary. Write TWS o-c Ka/o^ a'icry TCKOV iv fAcydpouriv, and we have an instance of the form of expression we have been dis- cussing: 'So ill-starred did I bear thee in the hall' (=OVTW o-e KT!.). This seems to be the only case in Homer where TS has given place to T (TO>) : but, if we examine the few passages in which TWS appears (we may well think, with van Leeuwen, that it was once more frequent), we shall find one that should, it seems, by a trifling transposition be reduced to the type of sentence we are dealing with. In T 232 sqq. we read : TOV Se XITWV' ev6rj(ra. Tre.pl XP' o"tyaAoevra, otov re KpofjLvoio AOTTOV Kara icr^aAeoto, TWS /J.ev erjv /xaAa/cds, AajUjrpos 8' rjv i^eAtos peva.TO, TOV 8e ova/era ^0X05 XaySev, otov aKOU TratSe d/ irapelvai 6 /xev ow TrpecrfivTepos Trapwv ervy^ave, Kvpov Se T>}S cipx*? 5 KT *-> (=7rapdvTos ow TOV 7rpe dSeX^w, dAA', avr' CKUVOV IlajpvcraTts /u,ev 8^ ^ F*) Tr IP ^ 7r ^7/ 3 X < ^<^-^o- O.VTOV rj TOV /8acrtA.vovTa, O'O-TIS 8' CItAovs etvai 17 y8ao~tAet, Kai TO>V Trap' eavTw Se ftapfidptav 7rc/i\erTO ws TroAe/xetv TC i/cavot eirjaav KOI ewoi/ccus lx ll/ a ^ T( ?> 1 "^*' 8e 'EAAiptK-^v 8vva/u.iv Tjdpoi^ev s p-dXtcrra eSuvaTO irLKpVTTT6fJif.vo<;, OTTOJS oTt a7ra/3ao"Ke7;oTaTOv AaySoi /SaatAea aiSe ow CTroierTO T^V o-vAAoy^v. In this passage the connection of thought seems pretty clearly to demand the text as given above. The words TO! Kvptu after v-rrijpxt disturb the connection of thought, and were probably added by some one who did not understand the construc- tion vTrfjpx* tXoviXa. The words of Plutarch in Artox. 2, 17 Se pyTrjp v-TTrjpxf. TOV Kvpov jnoAAov iXoi>v with the subsequent 'EAA^viK^v. TOV /Jao-tAeuovTa followed (twice) by a form of /3ao-tAevs (/Sao-tAe'ws, /3aan.Xu) is neat and very Greek. DE ANATOI KAKOI ET IN FORM I LETO. 1 Apud Homerum F 173-5 Helena Priamo dicit : ws oeXev Odvaros /xot dSetv K a K o s oirirore Sevpo \ vtei o-w kirofjirjv 6dXa.fJi.ov yvwTOvs re AiTrovcra, I TratSd TC TrjXvyeTrjV /cat o/x^Atxt^v cpaTeivrJv. Qui 1OCUS male habuit Leaf, virum 'O^piKwrarov, qui in utraque editione inter alia hoc adnotat : "173. 0dVaTos . . dSetv, a curious phrase apparently founded on the familiar ^vSave ftovX-^ ". Sed quam h. 1. odorari sibi visus est vir ille doctissimus difficultatem, speciosiorem earn equidem quam veriorem esse arbitror. Vix opus esse puto ut lectorem admoneam KaKos adiectivum a Leafio epitheti quod dicitur ornantis loco haberi, ut 0ovaTos KaKos eodem redeat quo simplex tfoVaTos : quod prorsus 1 [MS- note dated Nov. 29, 1901.] i68 Greek Authors aliter se habere equidem opinor. Satis enim diu iam est cum in margine editiunculae cuiusdam priorum Iliadis carminum meum ipsius in usum significavi et T 173 et A 284 KUKO'S adiectivum cum substantive suo ita in unum quasi coalescere atque cohaerere ut ex duobus si non unum vocabulum at notio una fiat. Hoc enim loco Achilles laudatur qui pugnam adversam sive cladem ab Achivis defendat. Poetae verba haec sunt : I/JKOS 'A^atpla-tv TreAcreu TroXe/ioio /c a/< oio. In altero autem loco Helena id factum fuisse optat ut mortem sibimet ipsa conscisceret priusquam Paridem sequeretur. Solus vero, quod sciam, rationem illius tfavaros KCIKOS recte explicavit Keep nostras, qui ad ea verba annotationem tarn verarri quam brevem apposuit hance : " i. ' v\l/r}Xov fj.fXa.dpov. ON LUCIAN, TIM ON i8. 2 In his interesting Notes on Lucian 3 , Professor Francis G. Allinson discusses Timon 18 in a way that I cannot believe to be sound: I venture, therefore, to offer another interpretation and discussion of 1 [For conflation from Homer, see Sophocles, Trachinians, 145 sq. with Jebb's note. See also above, Studies in Sophocles's Trachinians, p. 7, note i.] 3 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIX (1898), pp. vii-ix.] 1 Published in Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XVII, pp. xi.-xv. Lucian 169 that passage and to seek to maintain the integrity of the traditional text where Mr. Allinson believes it to be corrupt. It seems probable to Professor Allinson that Lucian wrote KOO-KIVOV in this passage, instead of the traditional KOV. Before examining his three arguments as such, I may be pardoned for dwelling for a moment on a minor but not altogether unimportant point. In Plato, Gorg. 493 B, it appears highly probable that in the words tTp

<5o-7rep e* KOIVOV nrpvir^evov precede the metaphor. Wealth is naturally first thought of as gold, with which conception a basket is not at all inconsistent. Then wealth is said to flow in, an easy shift of language, in fact, hardly a shift at all (cf., e. g., diall. mar. 12, i; Jupp. trag. 2; de mere. cond. 7; and particularly diall, inf. n, 4). But the notion of flowing, as specifically applicable to water, is insisted on in e-mpporjv. But the figure shifts in the next clause. One need not insist on the fact that in coupling wepavrXos and eTrnreo-wv Lucian is uniting liquid with solid ; I jo Greek Authors 7mcXwro> strictly excludes the image of any small vessel and suggests that we have passed, unwarned, to the bailing of a leaky ship (cf. navig. 16). This might be thought decisive against the proposed change of reading, but there is more to follow. The sentence beginning with wore is to be connected with the preceding by supplying a slight ellipsis. "And so [if I go to him] I expect to carry water to the jar of the Danaids and to bail in to no purpose, because the vessel is not watertight, but what runs in will be poured out almost before it has run in; so much wider [in pro- portion to the inflow] is the gap in the jar and [so] unhindered the exit [of the water]." In this sentence I would call attention first to the fact that the position of Wealth has shifted. Before, he was the thing that flowed in, was bailed out, tumbled in, threatened to overflood; now he expects to act as water-carrier and bail in like water what but his unpersonified self, wealth? Again, we see here even more clearly than before how Lucian becomes the victim of his own metaphor, associated metaphors fading one into the other, and the element of personification tending to still greater confusion. Again, it seems quite plain that the only part of the traditional imagery of the myth of the Danaids that Lucian has distinctly in mind here is the pouring of water into a broken jar. Nothing is said of the sieve when the jar is spoken of. Indeed, it would be out of place. It is only the leakiness of the receptacle that is in point. Thus Professor Allinson's second argument is answered, and the third is without weight. The best parallel to the shifting metaphor in this passage at least, in all Lucian is in Timon 8, which should be carefully com- pared. In the elevated language of other Greek writers we find the same tendency. Cf. Soph. O. T. 22-30, Ant. 531-535, El. 1290 sq. Another excellent example is to be found in Plato, Apol. 30 -31 (man for horse; gnat(?) for gadfly). I note in conclusion the modern Greek phrase IcTrarw/ievo /caAa0i= "unordentlicher Mensch" (Jannaris, Echo, p. 25). EMENDATIONS IN LYSIAS. 1 Or. 15, 5 ^KafnurOt Se, o dvSpes StKaorot, eav ixavov yew/rat v oWiW just below? Or. 19, 25 Kai Aa/3eiv CKKai'ScKa /xvas r* avrg av (a>s as C, as Scheibe) e^oi dvaAiicTKeiv eis ra TT}S Tpirjpapxias. 'and to get sixteen minas on it (the ^>ioAr/), which (adopting Scheibe's as) he (Demos) had to spend (?) on the details of the trierarchy.' Would it not be better to write as cSei dvaXto-Kctv ? Can we parallel exactly lx w w ^h the infin. in the sense of 'have to' = 'be obliged to'? *EXU> dvoAtb-Keiv would naturally mean either 'I am able to spend' (= Sumftat d.), or, rarely, 'I know how to spend' (=z iirurrafuu. a. : Soph. Ant. 270 sqq., cf. the noteworthy expression in Soph. O. T. 119 where there seems to be confusion both of language and of thought). The ease with which GAG I could become GXO I needs no comment. Or. 23, 14 ' 7re <' &* inreprjfJiepos eye'vcro, e^Trc T^v SIKIJV, Ka66ri (.iruBt. For 1-jruOf. read l-n-tTiO-q, 'was assessed, or imposed.' Or. 31*24 Tt ow flovXrjOtvTes i/xets TOVTOV SoKt/a,avow, viz. that it belongs to Sd//,ov and cannot be taken with ap/x'.) apt* (aura serves as the stepping-stone to the episode. 1 [MS. note.] 172 Greek Authors ON SIMONIDES, 4- 1 The striking expression /?, <7 e /8 a s fp.TropXV s XP^ val Tt/*6Xo'^tti, evrjOys *. In Lysias 12, 80 we read fo/8' oiv s s rocroiSe ovres eviKoi/xey BatriAea Isocr. Pan. 149. e Persis agitur a Graecis compluries devictis) wr* (f . eV') avTois TOIS /SatrtAetots K a- TayeAaaroi yeydvacrtv. CTTI rats $vpats avror Kat KaTayeAa- pvytas TTJS jneyaA^s KCU KaiT7raSoKtas^> Kat crrpa/njyov avrov aTreSet^e TTOLVTOIV ocroi eis KaarwAov IleSibv d^poi^ovTat. Cuius scholii ex ea parte quae contextui Xeno- phonteo inserta aetatem tulit elucet in Anab. I, 9. 7, unde supplenda desumpsi, rescribendum esse orpaTiyyos 8c Kat Travrcov a.Trf8ei\Or) <^ocr^>ots Ka.drfK.f.1 eis KatrTujAoi) IleSt'ov a6poiecr0ai. Verba quae sunt Kat TO>V 'EAA^vwv Se l^wv OTrAtVas aveftrj TptaKO Ka -i 'EXXiyvaiv 'Iwvas re /cat LATIN AUTHORS HORACE ON THE FIRST ODE OF HORACE. 1 Enough has been written on the first Ode of Horace to make one hesitate before adding to that ax#os dpoupr/s. It is only a firm convic- tion, based on much careful study and thought, that the first Ode as printed and pointed in the current editions is but a travesty of Horace that has impelled me to the present writing. It is the plain duty of an interpreter of this poem to answer two plain questions: (i) What is Horace driving at? (2) How did he say what he had to say? These two questions and their answers are closely bound up together; but I will try to maintain such separation as the case admits of. Let us see then first what Horace is driving at. The poem may be divided in several ways. For the purpose of our immediate enquiry it may be dividexi into a personal part con- sisting of vv. 1-2 and vv. 29-36 and a non-personal part consisting of vv. 3-28. The gist of the non-personal part (vv. 3-28) is plain (or ought to be so) to an attentive reader. What is it? It might be hastily said that it is an elaboration of the theme: Trahit sua quemque voluptas. But that is worse than false : it is only a half- truth. The real theme is : Trahit sua quemque voluptas, cui volup- tati aliena semper opponitur voluptas. We have in these verses three contrasts of pursuits of men, the first in w. 3-10, the second in vv. 11-18, the third in vv. 19-28. In the first division (vv. 3-10) the favourite pursuits of nations are contrasted, in the two other divisions (vv. 11-18 and 19-28) the pursuits of various classes of men are contrasted. But before going further on this line I must take up the question of the punctuation and interpretation of vv. 3-6. In vv. 11-18 the reference to the farmer and the reference to the skipper are set off sharply and neatly the one against the other. The gaudentem at the head of v. n is balanced in form (though not in sense) with the luctantem at the head of v. 15. It is signifi- 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVI (1902), pp. 398-401.] 178 Latin Authors cant that it is the latter and not the former term that but formally subserves the balance aimed at. In vv. 19-28 we find the est qui at the head of v. 19 answered by the multos at the head of v. 23. And this brings us around to the sunt quos of v. 3. What answers to it ? Surely not the hunc and ilium of vv. 7 and 9 : these words merely introduce subdivisions like TOV pV T?5s i/T^s o/Li/xaTwv acie haec legenti nonne claudicat tibi sententia in illo leves ? Repone modo graves, continue recte se habebunt omnia. DE CARMINE QUOD EST INTER HORATIANA IV, viii. 2 Huius carminis versum i/um, non incendia Karthaginis impiae, damnavit Bentleius idque firmissimis fretus argumentis. Cum autem idem vir doctissimus hoc loco agnoscat "versum Monachalis plane genii et coloris", in versu insequente, eius qui domita nomen ab Africa, non animadvertit quod mireris molestissimum illud eius quod in C. 3. ii. 18 "male oderat". Videtur Bentleius totus in versu 17 damnando occupatus proximi versus peccatum neglexisse. Dam- nato versu 18 deleas oportet verba quae sunt non celeres fugae (15) 1 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), p. 37.] * [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), pp. 306-309.] 188 Latin Authors . . lucratus rediit (19), id quod fecit Lachmannus. At etiam nunc numerus versuum carmine comprehensorum legem violat Mei- nekianam, neque aeque verisimile ac facile factu est ut eiectis praeterea duobus versibus desideratum carminis ambitum assequaris. Quae cum ita sint, haud ita levis subire debet suspicio totum hoc carmen subditicium esse, quam suspicionem ad confirmandam atque corro- borandam aliquid certe adferunt alia quaedam falsitatis indicia quae statim proferam. Ac primum quidem locutiones aliquas leviter praestringam. Omittendum fortasse erat tamquam levius atque mi- noris momenti satis ineptum illud commodus quod in versu primo occurrit, neque nimis urguenda verba pretium dicere muneri (var. lect. muneris} in versu 12, quae tamen equidem confitear satis absurde videri dicta; at nonne admirationem tibi movent in eis quae locum summo iure suspectum medium amplectuntur versus 20-22? An diligentis et intelligentis est scriptoris, postquam de incisis mar- moribus scripserit per quae spiritus et vita redeat bonis ducibus (14 sq.), statim adicere neque, si chartae sileant quod bene feceris, mercedem tuleris? Atque verba per quae . . . ducibus et ipsa inep- tam quandam magniloquentiam mirifice redolent. Aeque tumidum et ridiculum est illud in finis in versu 31. Neque haec Horatium sapi- unt neque mihi quidem in versu 31 clarum Tyndaridae sidus. Nonne hie imitationem sentis notissimi illius fratres Helenae lucida sidera C. I. 3. 2? Atque hie erant fortasse componendi ceteri loci ubi huius carminis scriptor alios Horati versus asclepiadeos minores imi- tando videtur expressisse. Comparanda igitur sunt haec: praemia fortium vsu 3 cum praemia frontium C. i. i. 29, hie saxo liquidis ille coloribus vsu 7 cum perfusus liquidis urguet odoribus C. I. 5. 2, ereptum Stygiis fluctibus Aeacum vsu 25 cum luctantem Icariis ftuctibus Africum C. I. i. 15, quassas eripiunt aequoribus rates vsu 32 cum mox reficit rates quassas C. 1. 1. 17, ornatus viridi tempora pampino vsu 29 cum cingentem viridi tempora pampino C. 3. 25. 20. Multo minus aperta est imitatio in versibus 2 (cf. C. 3. 30. i), 8 (cf. C. i. 3. 16), ii (cf. C. 3. 16. 15), 24 (cf. C. 3. 30. 15), ubi ea intra fines unius aut summum duorum vo- cabulorum subsistit. Non negandum est sane in genuinis Horatii asclepiadeis hie illic occurrere quae declarent ut ceteros poetas ita Horatium aliquando sui ipsius imitatorem fuisse, sed calathum flos- culorum huius quidem carminis scriptor nobis offert. Porro non debet abesse suspicio quin huius carminis auctor Horatianum suis Horace 189 versibus inducere colorem studuerit infertis locutionibus quales sunt hie . . . ille vsu 6 (cf. C. I. i. 7 et 9) et nunc . . . nunc vsu 8 (cf. C. i. i. 21 sq.). Sed maioris est momenti consonantiarum ratio his in versiculis obvia. Nam, cum in aliis ex eis Horatiana sit consonantia, in aliis tamen plane discrepat ab eius usu. Horatiana ratio apparet in his : Censorine, melS aera sodallBVS vsu 2 et hie saxo liquidlS ille colorlBVS vsu 7 (cf. C. i. i. i, i. i. 8, i. i. 12, i. i. 27 (quater in uno carmine), i. 5. 2, 4. i. 10, 4. i. 32, 4. 5. 15), non incisa notIS marmora publiclS vsu 13 (cf. inter alia ex- empla C. i. i. 10), eius qui domitA nomen ab AfricA vsu 18 (cf. inter alia C. 3. 24. 58) ; consonantiarum vero quales sunt gaudes carminlEVS : carmina possumVS vsu 1 1 et vatum dtz/tf IBVS con- secrat insullS vsu 27 frustra apud Horatium exempla quaesieris, qui nomen in -IBVS desinens semper in posteriore sede collocat (cf. praeter exempla supra citata C. i. 14. 14. nil pictis timidVS navita pupplEVS). Consonantia qualem habemus in Maecenas atavIS edite reglEVS e pentametro elegiaco in asclepiadeum translata videtur. Catullus, si non instituit hanc consonantiam, at certe adhibuit in car- minibus 65 et 66 : vide sis 65. 2, 66. 4, 66. 58, 66. 60, 66. 80, 66. 92. Tibulliana exempla sunt haec: i. i. 38, i. 2. 54, i. 2. 84, i. 7. 32, 1. 7. 36, i. 8. 6, i. 8. 24, i. 9. 4, 2. i. 18, 2. i. 36, 2. i. 60, 2. 3. 40, 2. 5. 16, 2. 5. 40, 2. 5. 80, 3. 4. 56, 3. 6. 8. Propertius in primo libro hanc consonantiam paene ad nauseam usque adhibuit: exempla sunt haec: 1 i. i. 2, i. i. 4, i. 2. 4, i. 2. 18, i. 3. 2, i. 3. 8, i. 3. 22, i. 3. 32, i. 3- 3 6 i- 3- 3 8 > i- 5- 2 4, i. 6. 16, i. 7. 4, i. 8. 20, i. n. 2, i. 11. 4, i. n. 8, i. 13. 16, i. 14. 6, i. 14. 12, i. 14. 22, i. 15. 36, i. 15. 40, i. 16. 4, i. 16. 6, i. 16. 10, i. 16. 18, i. 16. 26, i. 16. 42, i. 16. 44, i. 16. 46, i. l8. 22, I. l8. 24, I. 2O. 36, I. 20. 38, I. 20. 42, I. 21. 2, I. 22. 4, i. 22. 10. In secundo libro nullum exemplum, in tertio autem et quarto haec : 3. 5. 32, 3. 8. 14, 3. 8. 38, 3. 20. 20, 3. 27. 18, 3. 32. 64, 3. 32. 68, 3. 32. 70, 4. 2. 28. Cuiusvis e^t decrescentem apud Proper- tium exemplorum frequentiam interpretari quid significet et unde evenerit. Inversae consonantiae primum offendimus exemplum Propert. 5. 2. 42, hortorum in wianlBVS dona probata melS. Sed ne in eos quidem pentametros qui in bisyllabum vocabulum desinere solent nisi lentissimo gradu inversa ea consonantia sese insinuavit; nam in Heroidibus Ovidianis unum hoc inveni exemplum: Her. 1 Editionem scquor Muellerianam. 190 Latin Authors 10. 100 impia funerlBVS, Cecropi terra, tuIS. 1 Apud Martialem autem inter Troem et Tyrium nullum discrimen ; nam usque ad finem noni Epigrammaton libri 2 haec habemus exempla consonantiae rectae Spect. 1 8. 4, Epigr. 2. 43. 8 (versus in tribus desinens),2. 46. 4, 2.90. 6, 4. 57. 10, 5. 64. 4, 5. 81. 2, 9. 47. 2, 9. 59. 20; consonantiae inversae Epigr. i. 13. 2, 2. 62. 2, 4. 10. 6, 6. 43. 4, 7. 65. 2 (content una tribus, Gargaliane, /0m), 8. 3. 14, 9. 41. 8, 9. 48. 4, 9. 65. 4. Haud prorsus dissimile est quod in asclepiadeo evenit; nam, cum apud Horatium in versibus indubitatis inversae consonantiae ex- emplum appareat nullum, in fabulis tamen Senecae adscriptis ex- empla habemus haec : Here. F. 540, Troad. 372, Phaedr. 767. Rectae consonantiae exempla Senecana sunt haec: Here. F. 524, 553, Med. 58, 59, 64, 106, Phaedr. 812, Thyest. 143, 157, Here. Oet. 147, 161. Nunc ad nostrum poemation paulisper redeamus. Hoc igitur in carmine usque ad nauseam insequens versus eodem sono atque praecedens clauditur: cf. vss. I et 2 (-us), 3-5 (-MW), 8 et 9 (-Mm), 13 et 14 (-is), 15-17 (-ae), 25 et 26 (-urn). Istud quidem Horatianum esse vix fieri potest ut equidem credam. Habes, lector, quibus paene coactus totum hoc carmen ab Horatio alienum esse censeo. At dixerit quispiam : "Quorsum haec omnia ? Nonne KVVO. Sct/>et? Se&xp/iorjv et qilidem -rrdXai SeSap/iev^v ? An tU nescis hoc carmen et Lehrsium et post eum Gowium in Corpore Postgatiano ab Horatio abiudicasse ?" Minime inscio obici ista fingo ; sed haud instrenui exorti sunt huius poematii inter hodiernos viros doctos vindices. Vahlenus in prolegomenis ad alteram suarn Ennianae poesis reliquiarum editionem bis carmen nostrum tam- quam ne minima quidem suspicione laborans laudat; et Bellingius, cuius ab ovilibus tener nuper agnus Kiesslingii aram imbuit de libello loquor Studien iiber die Liederbiicher des Horatius inscripto totam appendiculam (pp. 160-167) huius carminis defensioni adtri- buit. Sed huius argumenta incorrupto praeditis iudicio lectoribus satis secure possum committere. Neque multo melius sese habent quae in postumae Muelleri editionis adnotationibus sunt. Illi viro hoc poema vel pulcherrimum videbatur atque Horatio maxima qui- dem ex parte dignum. Contrariam opinionem satis iam, nisi fallor, defendere sum conatus. 1 Pentameter ia bisyllabum vocabulum desinens et ipse antiquiorem consonantiam admittere potest, si tribus vocabulo terminatur, velut Ov. Her. 3.88 et 10.118. 1 Cuncta apud Martialem obvia exempla recensere vix opus. Horace 191 AD HORATII SERMONEM I, i. 15 SQQ. 1 si quis deus "En ego" dicat "iam faciam quod voltis : eris tu, qui modo miles, mercator ; tu, consultus modo, rusticus : hinc vos, vos hinc mutatis discedite partibus. Eia , quid statis ?" nolint ; atqui licet esse beatis quid causae est merito quin illis luppiter ambas iratus buccas inflet neque se fore posthac tarn facilem dicat , votis ut praebeat aurem? His in versibus suspicionem mihi movet praecipue nimis abruptum illud atqui licet esse beatis, quae verba neque cum superioribus neque cum insequentibus satis arte cohaerent. Ne te morer, lector, audi ut Horatii ipsius scrinia compilem quo rem deducam : quod modo atqui fuit adiecta s littera hue illuc duas in partes divisum discedat, ut mutata distinguendi ratione sic constitutus locus evadat: nolint; at , quis (=quibus) licet esse beatis , quid causae est merito quin illis luppiter ambas cet. Conferendum est carminis initium , ubi similem in modum sibi in- vicem respondent qui et ille pronomina. DE HORATII SERMONE I, i. 2 Huius carminis in principio quaerit Horatius undenam fiat ut sua cuique sors prae aliena sordeat; in fine inde id fieri respondet, quia omnes homines avari sint. Ea certe est summa responsionis. Sed haud ita bene Horatius argumentatur. Nam postquam quaesti- onem proposuit hunc in modum: Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo quam sibi sortem sen ratio dederit seu fors obiecerit ilia contentus vivat, laudet diver sa sequentisf, non statim respondere pergit, sed quod, dum Maecenatem interrogat, assumebat omnes ipsorum suam quem- que sortem contemnere ac vituperare, alienam laudibus extollere, id exemplis probare conatur. Qua re, ut putat, conclusa atque confecta ioculariter suam exponit opinionem, haud sincere homines alienae suam quemque condicionem ac studium postha- bere. Turn amoto, ut ait, ludo et graviore assumpta persona rei propositae acrius instare videtur. Sed videtur tantum ; nam ita im- mutatam resumit quaestionem, ut, cum antea interrogarit, cur suam 1 [From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXX (1902), p. 347.] '[Fron: Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVIE (1903), pp. 233-235.] 192 Latin Authors quisque sortem vituperaret, laudaret diversa sequentis, mine varia variis rebus studentium hominum genera reprehendat, non quod illud faciant, sed quia, cum hac mente laborem sese ferre, senes ut in otia tuta recedant, aiant, tamen finem quaerendi facere eos velle negat. Quam contra falsam cupidinem multos per versus quam qui maxime strenue pugnat, dum auream illam mediocritatem cum alibi turn in fine praecipue argumentations collaudat. Denique ad propo- sitam ab initio quaestionem redire videtur; nam 'Illuc' ait 'unde abii redeo'. Hie, etsi a re proposita toto fere sermone aliquantum mentem obliquavit poeta, tamen paene iustum tandem responsum ex- spectare poteramus. Sed falsos nos habet corrupta codicum scrip- tura, quam emendare nunc experiar. Ac primo confitebor mihi earn scripturam quae in vetustissimo codicum Blandiniorum fuisse dicitur, scilicet qui nemo ut avarus, a vero videri propius abesse. Hoc autem fundamento nixus pristinam versuum 108 sqq. scripturam sic revocare conabor ut eos hunc in modum rescribam: Illuc unde abii redeo. Quia nemo, ut avarus, se probat ac potius laudat diversa sequentis quodque aliena capella gerat distentius uber tabescit neque se maiori pauperiorum turbae comparat, hunc atque hunc superare laborat sic festinanti semper locupletior obstat , ut, cum carceribus missos rapit ungula currus, instat equis auriga suos vincentibus, ilium praeteritum temnens extremos inter euntem; inde fit ut raro qui se vixisse beatum dicat et exacto contentus tempore vita cedat uti conviva satur reperire queamus. Sic constituto famoso hoc loco statim legenti apparebit Quia et inde particulas inter sese respondere. Quod vero in versibus 109-111 qui fuerant indicativi in modum coniunctivum migrarunt, eius rei fons et origo fuit Quia particula in qui detorta, quae detorsio inde pro- fluxit quod Hbrarius aliquis initium carminis est alieno tempore recordatus. Ad versum autem H3 m quod attinet, rectissime is se habet, modo tanquam Sia /urov, ut aiunt Graeculi, eum interiectum accipiamus, quasi fuerit sic(=zdeo) semper obstat festinanti (=dum festinat) locupletior . Atque ne nunc quidem prorsus iustum ad interrogationem suam responsum reddit Horatius, Horace 193 qui sic respondeat quasi ab initio quaesierit, qui fiat ut vix quisquam sua ipsius sorte contentus neque alienam cupiens vita discedat. At hoc fortasse est cavillari. Restat ut alios quosdam locos huius sermonis examinem. Et pri- mum quidem quartus versus, nisi fallor, duobus mendis laborat. Illud enim 'O fortunati mercatores!' compellantis est, cum excla- mantis esse oporteret: ergo reponendum erat id quod mihi in- dicavit e collegis meis quidam, vir linguae latinae quam peritis- simus 'O fortunatos mercatores!'. Atque illud aynis minime verum esse potest ; nam grandem natu fictum ilium ab Horatio militem non esse, id a iam particula quae in insequenti versu est elucet ; ea enim vocula significat eum mature labore confectum esse. Reponendum igitur cum Bouhierio armis. Ad versum 8 um quod attinet, cum Bent- leio facio aut particulam geminatam et postulante et subtili argu- mento defendente. In versu autem 12 recta quae dicitur oratio erat fortasse indicanda hunc in modum: 'solos felices viventis' clamat 'in urbe!'. De versus 19* emendatione iam in Mnemosyne 1 30 (n. s.), 347, sententiam meam exposui. Versus 23-27 sic distinctos velim: Praeterea, ne sic ut qui iocularia ridens | percurram quamquam ridentem dicere verum | quid vetat? ut pueris olim dant crustula blandi | doctores, elementa velint ut discere prima; | sed tamen amoto quaeramus seria ludo, quasi verba quae sunt quamquam . . . sed tamen K Sevrepas quaeramus seria ludo, Sic enim rescripto loco iterant immutata modo aliquantillum ratione loquendi illud ne sic . . . percurram verba quae sunt amoto . . . ludo. Si quis alius sic corrigere sit conatus, nescio; quam vero difficile sit novi quidquam Horatio emendando excogitare experientia doctus bene intellego. Huius ipsius satirae in versu 19 Bowyer quidam Anglus, id quod a Wolfio (v. eius Kleine Schriften ed. Bern- hardy p. 1004) didici, eandem in coniecturam inciderat quam ego longo post tempore feci. Neque lugeo equidem gloriolam mihi prae- reptam; gaudeo magis plus unius testimonio veritatem stabiliri. Sed eiusmodi de reculis ne longior sim, ad versum 71 animum ad- vertamus, quippe qui versus levi correctione indigere videatur. An non rectius se habeat oratio ^ littera geminata hunc in modum : congestis undique saccis indormis inhians, et tamquam parcere sacris? Atque ilia fortasse adicienda est observatiuncula, non indormis sed inhians intentiore et mente et voce efferendum esse, quippe quod in figurata dictione cum signo rem significatam coniungat. Pro indormis autem melius Horatius scripsisset, sensum certe si spectes, invigilas, quod ideo videtur respuisse quia versu 76 irigilare ponebat (cf. S. 2. 3. 108-113), nisi forte indormis ita accipiendum est ut idem valeat quod obtorpescis. Versus 80-91 multo melius mea quidem opinione se habebunt, si expulso versu 87 quippe sententiam quasi diluente conturbatum, ut videtur, ordinem sic redintegraris : 84 Non uxor salvum te volt, non filius; omnes 85 vicini oderunt, noti, pueri atque puellae. 86 Miraris, cum tu argento post omnia ponas ; 88 an, si cognates, nullo natura labore 89 quos tibi dat, retinere velis servareque amicos, Horace 195 90 infelix operam perdas, ut si quis asellum 91 in Campo doceat parentem currere frenis? 80 At, si condoluit temptatum frigore corpus 81 aut alius casus lecto te adfixit, habes qui 82 adsideat, fomenta paret, medicum roget ut te 83 suscitet ac natis reddat carisque propinquis. Finem iam faciam, postquam tria addidero: primum in versu 12 melius nunc mihi videri se habere obliquam quam rectam oratio- nem, ut recta oratione utatur prius tantum hominum par, quod versi- bus 4-8 describitur ; deinde in versu 35 Halbertsmam eumque solum, quod sciam, verum vidisse, qui in postumis suis Adversariis Criti- cis (Leidae 1896, p. 153) haud incauta ac non ignara futuri re- scriptum vult; turn versum 113 melius fortasse se habiturum fuisse, si non ubi nunc est sed post versum 116 collocatus esset. VARIOUS AUTHORS. AD CAESARIS COMM. DE BELLO GALLICO INITIUM. 1 Relegenti mihi saepe numero initium Caesaris de bello gallico commentariorum semper minus recte se habere videtur enuntia- tionum ordinatio. Neque fieri potest ut credam tanto praedito acumine scriptori tam confusam Galliae atque eius incolarum finium- que descriptionem excidere potuisse. Sed e doctorum in hunc locum coniecturis quae apud Meuselium Com'. Caes. in unum collectae prostant nulla mihi arridet, quae quidem ordinationem verborum spectet. Quae cum ita sint, hanc tamquam veram atque ab ipsius scriptoris calamo profectam sententiarum verborumque consecu- tionem proponere ausim : Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tris quarum unam incolunt Bel- gae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, moribus inter se differunt. Eorum una pars quam Gallos obtinere dictum est initium capit a flumine Rhodano; continetur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum; attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum; vergit ad septentriones : Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur ; pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni; spectant inter sep- tentriones (septentrionem Codd.) et orientem solem: Aquitania a Garumna flumine ad Pyrenaeos mentis et earn partem Oceani quae est ad Hispaniam pertinet; spectat inter occasum solis et septen- triones. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae prop- terea quod .... continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Hel- vetii quoque . . . bellum gerunt. Apud Helvetios longe nobilis- simus cet. Confusam loci ordinationem inde ortam esse coniecerim quod in archetype casu inversum sit folium quod rectum verba quae sunt Eorum una pars .... inter occasum solis et septentriones, versum autem verba quae sunt Gallos ab Aquitanis . ... in eorum finibus bellum gerunt continebat. 1 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVII (1903), p. 52.] Cicero 197 CRITICAL NOTES ON CICERO DE ORATORE I. 1 i, I si infinitus forensium rerum labor et ambitionis occupatio decursu honorum, etiam aetatis flexu constitisset . . . Those that have felt a difficulty in the bare etiam here seem to me to be in the right. The turn of phrase employed by Q. Cicero de petit. 2, 9 cum semper natura, turn etiam aetate iam quietum, may help us to the restoration of the passage in the de orat. to: etiam flexu constitisset. 3, II vere mihi hoc videor esse dicturus: ex omnibus eis qui in harum artium liberalissimis studiis sint doctrinisque versati mini- mam copiam poetarum egregiorum exstitisse; atque in hoc ipso numero, in quo perraro exoritur aliquis excellens, si diligenter et ex nostrorum et ex Graecorum copia comparare voles, multo tamen pauciores oratores quam poetae boni reperientur. Cicero is dealing with the question : Why have there been more dis- tinguished men in every other field than in oratory ? In order to the proper treatment of this question he first shews that there have been more distinguished men in every other field. In the artes maximae, represented by the general and the statesman, the case is beyond cavil (2, 7-8). But the comparison of the orator with the general or with the statesman may be objected to as unfair, on the ground that the orator should be classed rather with scientists and men of letters. The comparison is therefore restricted to the latter sorts (2, 8). It is hard to count the eminent philosophers (2, 9). The mathematicians of renown are not few (3, 10) : the same holds good of those that have devoted themselves to musica and of the gram- matici (3, 10). Then follows the sentence quoted above. This con- tains the climax and the conclusion of the comparison. The gist of it is this: Among those that deal with reconditae artes and litterae (cf. 2, 8) the poets constitute the class that has the smallest number of distinguished representatives: and there are fewer good orators than good poets. But can it be for a moment supposed that Cicero would conclude so clear and simple an argument as this in the way which our MSS. tell us he has? Let us look at the second half of the sentence quoted, beginning with atque in. 'And in this very number, in which very rarely does anyone rise to eminence, 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XI (1897), pp. 22-26.] 198 Latin Authors if you will make a careful comparison, including both Greeks and Romans, you will yet find much fewer good orators than good poets/ The words in hoc ipso numero (with the appended relative clause, of which more anon) are obviously =in hac minima copia poetarum egregiorum, and the words multo reperientur therefore include the orators in the special class with which they are contrasted and compared. Dr. Sorof represents those that would accept the text as it stands and assumes an anacoluthon. The words in hoc ipso numero are=in poetarum ipsorum numero (a sense which a careful reading of the passage ought to show that they cannot bear), and multo reperientur is "ein durch Zwischensatz veranlasstes Ana- koluth, statt: multo tamen plures egregii reperientur, quam sunt oratores boni, welches um so erklarlicher ist, als dem Cic. fort- wahrend die paucitas vfatorum egregiorum vorschwebt." But even if we disregard the misinterpretation of in hoc ipso numero, can we suppose that Cicero would draw his conclusions so carelessly? The conjecture of Stangl (see Sorof 's Kritischer Anhang) that the words et oratorum are to be inserted between poetarum and egregi- orum in the former half of the sentence merely appears to bring relief. The logical flaw of including one of the two classes com- pared in the other is still present, though placed one step farther back. (See Sorof 's Krit. Anhang.) The same remark applies to O. Hense's et oratorum for egregiorum (see Piderit-Harnecker, Krit. Anhang) the conjecture to which Stangl's suggestion is due. We come now to a consideration of the possibility and probability of emendation in the latter part of the sentence, beginning with the words atque in. Kayser in the Tauchnitz text-edition brackets in before hoc ipso numero, as well as the words quam poetae. Hoc ipso numero will then depend upon the comparative pauciores, and we shall construe: 'And than this very number (i.e. the minima copia poetarum egregiorum), in which very rarely does any one rise to eminence, if you will make a careful comparison &c., you will yet find much fewer good orators.' This treatment of the text, however, assumes for the passage as originally written a form that would not of itself have been likely to have produced the present form. The difficulty lies in explaining the in before hoc ipso numero. How did this fons et origo malorum come into the text? Let us glance at a clause that has thus far passed unchallenged Cicero 199 (in its entirety: Rubner [see Piderit-Harnecker, Krit. Anhang] has proposed the improbable cum exoriatur), in quo perraro exoritur aliquis excellens. If hoc ipso numero is, as it obviously is, a mere resumption of minimam copiam poetarum egregiorum, then in quo excellens is an utterly needless not to say awkward and absurd addition. It is an addition such as would be made to an obscure or ambiguous antecedent and such too as might be made in the margin. Hoc ipso numero is too clear to need such an addition ; not so in hoc ipso numero : therefore in quo excellens presupposes in hoc ipso numero, and it is not enough to bracket in and quam poetae. Thus it appears probable that in quo excellens is a gloss, but a gloss that presupposes in before hoc ipso numero. Let us glance now for a moment at atque. It has been proposed to change this atque into the adversative atqui. (By Piderit, who further- more understood in hoc ipso numero to refer to the preceding ex omnibus, qui in harum sc. mediocrium artium studiis libera- lissimis sunt doctrinisque versati. But, as Adler said, it is harsh not to refer in hoc numero to the immediately preceding minimam copiam poetarum egregiorum.) To this Sorof {Krit. Anhang) objects that the necessity of such change is obviated by the follow- ing tamen (after multo). However, this objection loses its force from the fact that the sentence is too fully under weigh before we are put right by the adversative. Then too we think of the familiar collocation at tamen. An adversative at the head of this sentence an at or an atqui is just what we should expect; but this of itself gives us no help in our critical problem in our trouble over in hoc numero. A. Fleckeisen in his Kritische Miscellen (Dresden, 1864, Program des Vitzthumschen Gymnasiums, referred to by Dr. Sorof) deals (pp. 23-28) with a number of passages in which atque has ousted atqui. The passages which he discusses have in common the peculiarity that the atque that requires change to atqui is followed by a word beginning \ 1th i. Fleckeisen believes that this is not mere chance but that we are to see in this cor- ruption a trace of the archaic spelling ei for i. Thus e.g. ATQVEIILLE or ATQVE!LLE would readily pass, under the hand of a scribe, into atque ille. But the admission of the truth or plausibility of this theory brings us no further forward in the present case, unless we suppose that ATQVEIHOC might have been misread as ATQVEIHOC 2oo Latin Authors (atque in hoc). (For the spellings atquei and quein in the MSS. of Cicero see Georges, Lexicon der Lat. Wortformen s.w. atqui and quin.) A more probable assumption than this we can base on the occurrence in two passages in Cicero (pro domo 12 atquin utrumque fuisse perspicuum est and Philip. 10, 17 atquin huius animum erga M. Brutum studiumque vidistis) of the form atquin. The fact that in the latter of these two passages atquin is followed by a form of hie taken in combination with Fleckeisen's suggestion about the archaic spelling, gives colour to the conjecture that in our passage of the de oratorc atque in should be written as one word atquein. We shall then read: atquein hoc ipso numero [in quo perraro exoritur aliquis ex- cellens], si diligenter et ex nostrorum et ex Graecorum copia com- parare voles, multo tamen pauciores oratores [quam poetae] boni reperientur . . . Thus Kayser's bracketing of quam poetae is to be accepted, in is retained, and in excellens is rejected, the difficulty having arisen entirely from a wrong division of ATQVEIN. 3, 12. Should we read here: dicendi autem omnis ratio in medio posita communi cet, ut excellat ? 4, 13. The traditional text with four aut's is (notwithstanding Professor Wilkins's explanation) very harsh. Reading along natur- ally we understand: aut pluris ceteris (artibus) inservire aut maiore delectatione (homines eis inservire) aut spe uberiore (eis inservire) aut praemiis ad perdiscendum amplioribus Here we expect to understand eis inservire (=commotus or the like eis inservire) but are confronted with commoveri instead. Wex's ac for the last aut is helpful and not improbably or impossibly right, unless Cicero wrote very carelessly here ; but it does not help us out of all the difficulty : we have still one aut too many. Should we not read et after inservire? If we do not, can we not fairly say that we are justified in expecting from Cicero's pen : aut spe uberiore ac praemiis ad perdiscendum amplioribus commotos? 7, 26. hi primo die de temporibus deque universa republica, quam ob causam venerant, multum inter se usque ad extremum tempus diei conlocuti sunt, quo quidem sermone multa divinitus Cicero 201 a tribus ille consularibus Cotta deplorata et commemorata narrabat, ut nihil incidisset postea civitati mali, quod non impendere illi tanto ante vidissent. . . The ut-clause here seems to lack a distinct indication of its exact point of contact with the preceding clause. Divinitus is an emphatic word; to it, therefore, one naturally seeks to link the ut-clause. Even then, however, we miss a particle anticipatory of ut what Fischer would call its 'syndetic antecedent'. This may, I think, be readily supplied before divinitus. Read multa divinitus &c. It is obvious that ita could be easily lost after -Ita. 10, 42. agerent enim tecum lege primum Pythagorei omnes atque Democritii, ceterique sua in iure physici vindicarent, . . . . ; urgerent praeterea philosophorum greges iam ab illo fonte et capite Socrate nihil te de bonis rebus in vita, nihil de mails, nihil de animi per- motionibus, nihil de hominum moribus, nihil de ratione vitae didicisse, nihil omnino quaesisse, nihil scire convincerent ; cet. The last word in the quotation does not stand in close connection with anything that precedes. It is not linked to urgerent by any copulative and stands at the very end of its clause. We should certainly expect here not a finite form but a participle. Should we not read convincentes ? Z 3> 55- quibus de rebus Aristotelem et Theophrastum scripsisse fateor; sed vide ne hoc, Scaevola, totum sit a me: nam ego, quae sunt oratori cum illis communia, non mutuor ab illis; ipsi (Kayser, the MSS. isti) quae de his rebus disputant, oratorum esse conce- dunt, itaque ceteros libros artis suae nomine, hos rhetoricos et in- scribunt et appellant. The last part of the sentence can hardly mean that Aristotle and Theophrastus give their other books a general title belonging to characteristic of 'their art' (suae artis), while giving to their rhetorical works the general prjropiKd. The special subjects men- tioned in the next sentence help to show that Cicero meant to say that while they gave their works on other subjects titles indicative of the special departments or sciences (artes) of which the works severally treated, they gave their rhetorical treatises the general title prjTopina (libri oratorii). But this is not what Cicero's sen- 2O2 Latin Authors tence in the traditional form, makes him say. We must restore a lost word. Read : itaque ceteros libros artis suae < quemque > nomine, hos rhetoricos &c. 13, 57 haec ego cum ipsis philosophis turn Athenis disserebam; cogebat enim me M. Marcellus hie noster, qui nunc aedilis curulis est et profecto, nisi ludos nunc faceret, huic nostro sermoni interes- set, ac iam turn erat adulescentulus his studiis mirifice deditus. The sentence seems to me to have received somewhat harsh treatment at the hands of several eminent scholars. In the first place on the authority of some MSS. the turn before Athenis is bracketed (Kayser, Sorof, Wilkins even third edition, Friedrich; retained by Piderit-Harnecker). Surely the fact that in this sentence the somewhat garrulous speaker is resuming the audivi enim summos homines, cum quaestor ex Macedonia venissem Athenas of n, 45 is abundant reason for its presence. In the latter part of the sen- tence Cobet bracketed the words nunc aedilis curulis est et, in accordance with his favourite theory of glossal interpolation. This athetesis has been accepted by Kayser and by Professor Wilkins (all three editions). But to this there is a mea quidem opinione fatal obstacle, namely in the iam turn (Sorof prints tune) in the contrasted member of the sentence. To this the nunc before faceret is not a sufficient contrast. If there were a glossal interpolation here, the original form of the text would more probably be qui nunc profecto, nisi faceret, huic nostro sermoni interesset. Indeed it may well be said that that is the form in which this part of the sentence would naturally have been cast; for Crassus by his very words hie noster implies that Marcellus is present (cf. huic nostro sermoni) and then corrects himself by saying that Marcellus would surely be present were he not occupied by his duties as aedile. Notwithstand- ing this, however, the contrasted clause forces us to accept, not merely nunc before aedilis curulis, but also curulis aedilis (for is not this term, implying maturity, contrasted with adulescentulus?), and est too, which is contrasted with erat. Roughly translated, in order to mark its successive corrections and approximations, the sentence runs: 'For I was constrained thereto (i.e. ut cum ipsis philosophis dissererem) by M. Marcellus our friend here (I mean) the one that now is curule aedile and would, of course, were Cicero 203 he not at the present moment engaged in superintending the festival, be taking part in this talk of ours, and who already at that time, as a mere lad, was surprisingly devoted to these studies'. A lighter punctuation before ac iam turn erat, which forms merely the second member of the relative sentence begun by qui, seems required. I have used a comma instead of the prevailing semicolon. Perhaps the omission of all pointing were better still. The thoroughly conversational tone of the sentence as thus explained is not its least charm. By way of appendix to the notes on De Oratore I. I venture to add the following suggestions of changes of reading in de Oratore II. 5, 19 turn Catulus 'ne Graeci quidem/ inquit, 'Crasse, qui in civitatibus suis clari et magni fuerunt, sicuti tu es nosque omnes in nostra republica volumus esse, <^ nee >horum Graecorum, qui se inculcant auribus nostris, similes fuerunt, [nee] in otio (or, [nee] tamen in otio) fugiebant; cet. 29, 127 hie Crassus 'quin tu,' inquit, 'Antoni, omitte s (MSS. omittis ista), quae proposuisti, quae nemo desiderat. There is also a passage in the de lege Manilla (4, 10) that is very clearly wrong. Read: ut neque vera laus ei detracta oratione rnea neque falsa adfixa (not adficta!) esse videatur. Of course, the error is due to the preceding falsa, e falso falsum. (Unless, indeed, adficta be regarded as the archaic form of adfixa : see Munro on Lucr. 3, 4: in either case, however, the contrast with detracta makes it reasonably certain that we have to do with a participle of adfigere not of adfingere.) NOTES ON CICERO, DE NATURA DEORUM, I. 1 i. The broken connection of thought is to be mended thus: de qua < tamen > tarn variae sunt doctissimorum hominum, etc. 3-4. The original order may well have been as follows: Sunt 1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXIII (1902), pp. Ixx-lxxi.j 2O4 Latin Authors enim philosophi et fuerunt qui omnino nullam habere censerent rerum humanarum procurationem deos. Quorum si vera sententia est, quae potest esse pietas, quae sanctitas, quae religio? Sin autem di neque possunt nos iuvare nee volunt nee omnino curant nee quid agamus animadvertunt nee est quod ab Us ad hominum vitam permanare possit, quid est quod ullos dis immortalibus cultus, honor es, preces adhibeamus? Haec enim omnia pure atque caste tribuenda dcorum numini ita sunt, si animadvertuntur ab Us et si est aliquid a dis immortalibus hominum generi tributum. In specie autem fictae simulations, sicut rcliquae virtutes, item pietas inesse non potest, cum qua simul sanctitatem et religionem tolli necesse est; atque haud scio an pietate adversus deos sublata fides etiam et societas generis humani et una excellentissima virtus, iustitia, tollatur, quibus sublatis pcrturbatio vitae sequitur et magna confusio. In the MSS. the words Haec enim omnia .... hominum generi tributum follow quae religio ? and the words quibus sublatis . . . confusio follow tolli necesse est. The transposition of the latter sentence seems first to have been suggested by Wyttenbach. 1 6. We should, I think, read: Peripateticos, qui honesta commiscerent cum commodis, ut ea differrent. 22. We should probably read: Quid autem erat quod concupis- ceret deus mundum signis et luminibus, tanquam aedilis, ornaref Si, ut ipse melius habitaret, etc., omitting the word deus between ut and ipse. 25. For Anaximandri autem opinio est nativos esse deos longis intervallis orient es occidentesque, eosque innumerabiles esse mundos should probably be read Anaximandri autem opinio est nativos esse deos, eosque . . . mundos longis intervallis orientes occidentesque. 37. In the explicative clause qui aether nominatur should be written rather than q. ae. nominetur. 88. Cicero seems to have written: Ita fit ut mediterranei mare esse non credant < at > que sint tantae animi angustiae, ut, si Seriphi natus esses non crederes, etc. For < at > que sint the MSS. have quae sunt. 90. The traditional text is : sed hoc dico, non ab hominibus formae figuram venisse ad deos; di enim semper fuerunt, nati numquam sunt si quidem aeterni sunt futuri; at homines nati; ante igitur humana forma quam homines ea qua erant forma di immortales: Cicero 205 non ergo illorum humana forma, sed nostra divina dicenda est. The conclusion of the syllogism I would correct thus : ante igitur quam homines ea qua erant forma di immortales non ergo illorum humana, sed nostra divina dicenda est. 101. A particle needs to be inserted thus: Dant enim arcum sagittas, hastam clipeum, fuscinam fulmen; >, etsi actiones quae sint deorum non vident, nihil agentem tamen deum non queunt cogitare. 107. I conjecture that we should read: Quo modo illae ergo (so Reid) et quorum ? omitting, as a mere gloss, the traditional imagines after quorum. AD CICERONIS CATONEM MAIOREM. 1 2, 6. Scribendum est fortasse: Volumus sane, nisi molestum est, Cato, tamquam aliquam viam confeceris quam nobis quoque ingrediundum sit, istuc quo pervenisti videre quale sit. 3, 8. A Cicerone scriptum videtur esse: Nee, Hercule, inquit, ego, si Seriphius essem, nee tu, si Atheniensis, clarus umquam f uisses. Traditum est: si ego Seriphius essem. Graeca sunt (Plat. rep. 33O A) : airf.Kpiva.TO on ovr' av avros 2epios wv ovo/ttaoros iytvf.ro OVT* CKCIVOS 'A&patos. Verum vidit cum aliis Reid, sed in editionibus adhuc propagatur error. 5, 14. Traditum est : Sua enim vitia insipientes et suam culpam in senectutem conferunt, quod non faciebat is cuius modo mentionem feci, Ennius : sic ut fortis equus spatio qui saepe supremo vicit Olympia, nunc senio confectus quiescit. Equi fortis et victoris senectuti comparat suam cet. In altero e ver- sibus Ennii correxerunt iam quidam quiesco, id quod procul dubio ipse dedit; sed equidem plus quam propensus sum ad credendum ipsos Ennii versus a Cicerone non esse perscriptos, sed laudatam tantum eorum sententiam. Quanto melius sese habeat totus locus hunc in modum constitutus : Sua enim vitia ... is cuius modo men- tionem feci poeta, equi fortis et victoris senectuti comparat suam cet. 8, 26. Scribendum esse censeo : ut et Solonem < in > versibus gloriantem videmus. Infra autem equidem non dubito quin 1 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVIII (1904), pp. 123-124.] 206 Latin Authors legendum sit: quod cum fecisse Socraten in fidibus audierim (pro: audirem), vellem equidem etiam illud cet. u, 38. Exspectarim : quae si exsequi nequirem, tamen me lec- tulus meus oblectaret ea ipsa cogitantem quae iam agere non possem ; sed ut queam (pro possim) facit acto vita cet. Non enim inter sese opposita sunt non possem et ea quae continuo insecuntur, sed si exsequi nequirem et ut possim (pro quo ut queam modo repone- bam). Illud ut queam idem valeat atque ut exsequi queam. 23, 84. Traditum est: commorandi enim Natura deversorium nobis, non habitandi dedit? Tanquam interpretamentum expellen- dum esse censeo illud deversorium, ut rescribantur verba tradita hunc in modum: commorandi enim Natura locum nobis, non habi- tandi dedit. CICERO ORAT. 3O. 1 Traditum nobis est Ciceronem Orat. 30 de contionibus illis quibus Thucydides opus suum ornavit iudicium fecisse hunc in modum : Ipsae illae contiones ita multas habent obscuras abditasque sen- tentias vix ut intellegantur. Quae tamen verba, ut quibus vix fieri possit ut integras Cicero contiones Thucydideas obscuritatis insimulare voluerit, mihi quidem non est dubium quin levi sed perniciosa corruptela laborent. Nam mutata, quaeso, verborum collocatione sic locum modo laudatum re- scribe : Ipsae illae contiones multae ita habent obscuras abditasque sen- tentias vix ut intellegantur. Num vel syllaba addita causa mea indiget? DE LIVII PRAEFATIONE 3." Hunc ad modum scripsisse credo Livium: et si in tanta scrip- torum turba mea fama in obscuro sit, nobilitate ac magnitudind eorum meo qui nomini officient me consoler. Quibus in verbis e librariorum turba unus tarn stolidus fuit ut pro meo scripserit me, pro me autem meo, qui error per totam inde codicum seriem propagatus est praefationis huius elegantiae haud ita modice officiens. 1 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), p. 32.] 1 [From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXIII (1905). p. 397.] Seneca Statius 207 ON THE APOCOLOCYNTOSIS OF SENECA. 1 The verses in c. 15 are surely not in their proper order ; but, if we make the fourth verse the first, we shall read smoothly thus: 'Et iam coeperat fugientes semper tesseras quaerere et nihil proficere fusuro similis semper semperque petenti; nam, quotiens missurus erat resonante fritillo, utraque subducto fugiebat tessera fundo, cumque recollectos arderet 2 mittere talos, decepere fidem' cet. After the verses we read : 'apparuit subito C. Caesar' cet. Surely we should expect the words 'Et iam coeperat' cet. to be followed by ' < cum > apparuit subito C. Caesar' cet. There are one or two other places in the Apocolocyntosis about which I venture to offer suggestions at this time. Thus, in c. 5 the sentence that begins 'Turn Hercules' cannot well be right in its traditional form. I offer the following attempt at correction. 'Turn Hercules primo aspectu sane perturbatus est et qui etiam omnia monstra non timuerit, 8 ut vidit novi generis faciem, insolitum in- cessum, vocem .... raucam et implicatam, putavit sibi tertium decimum laborem venis ; se diligentius intuenti visus est quasi homo.' Near the beginning of c. 12 we might well expect to find 'Et erat omnino formosissimum et impensa cura.' Again, in c. 13 the words 'primi omnium liberti Polybius . . . Pheronactus, quos Claudius omnes, necubi imparatus esset, prae- miserat' seem to contain a flaw in the adjective imparatus. Can it be that an otherwise unattested inapparitus 'unattended' lurks here? NOTE ON STATIUS'S THEBAID II. 294.* In Statius's Thebaid II. 294 sqq., we find these verses (the refer- ence is to the necklace of Harmonia) : Teque etiam, infelix, perhibent, locasta, decorum possedisse nefas; vultus hac laude colebas, heu quibus, heu placitura toris ! post longior ordo. 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIX (1905), p. 303.] 2 As I would write, with Palmer, instead of the traditional 'auderet.' 8 In ' qui . . . timuerit' the corruption probably lies deeper. [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 3.] 208 Latin Authors Evidently laude is wrong; but Baehrens's luce does not seem ex- tremely probable palaeographically, nor does it yield a brilliant sense. I would suggest clade. The explanation is simple: hacclade came to be written haclade, and was 'corrected' into hac laude. We may, perhaps, find further support for clade in vv. 301-303. OBSERVATIUNCULAE AD LOCOS QUOSDAM POET ARUM ROMANORUM. 1 Verg. Eel. i, 19 imprimi solet sed tamen iste deus qui sit da, Tityre, nobis. At de nomine tantum illius dei quaeritur. Ergo reponendum esse mihi videtur id quod aliis quoque visum est quis sit. Aliter res se habet Eel. 2, 19, ubi de sorte ac condicione Corydonis agitur; illic igitur recte se habet qui in verbis quae sunt nee qui sim quaeris. Verg. Eel. I, 62 pererratis participium sic intellegendum esse censeo quasi scripserit poeta: permutatis. Nam de finium permu- tatione non de pererratione hominum inter se finis commutantium hie agi demonstrare videtur tota loci sententia. Nimium metro concessisse hoc loco Vergilium adhuc adulescentem equidem cre- diderim. Verg. Eel. 2, 2 intellegere non possum qui fiat ut in editionibus, dissuadente uno, quod sciam, Brunckio, imprimi soleat minime latinum illud hoc quidem significatu nee quid speraret habebat. Quin reponimus, quod solum est verum, nee quod speraret habebat. Sensus enim aperte est id quod falsa ista lectione retenta intellexit ille vir qui editionem in usum Delphini curavit : Nee quidquam sperare poterat, sive: neque ullum spem habebat (sc. amoris fruendi). Vix esse debebat cur relegarem ad Cic. Cat. m. 19, 68 At senex ne quod speret quidem habet. Verg. Eel. 2, 12 recte fecit Ribbeckius, qui Bentleio praeeunte idem autem suasisse Heinsium auctor mihi est Heynius me cum imprimendum curaverit. Id ut fiat postulat membrorum inter se oppositio enuntiationis eius quae versibus 8-13 continetur. (Ac vero eodem modo multis iam ante saeculis verba intellexit Nemesianus qui (Eel. 4, 41) sic scripsit: Me sonat omnis \ silva,nec aestiins cantu concede cicadis.) Sed illud quoque erat hoc loco animadvertendum, Vergilio dum haec scribit obversata esse verba Catulli 64, 353 sq. 1 [From Revue de Pbilologie, Vol. XXVII (1903), pp. 269-272.] Vergil Horace Catullus 209 velut densas praesternens messor aristas \ sole sub ardenti flaventia demerit arva. Apud Vergilium vsu. 10 de messoribus agitur, versu autem 13 recurrit illud sole sub ardenti, quod isti loco eo est minus aptum quod inter densas fagos Corydon incondita sua iactat. Corn- memorandum etiam illud esse censeo Vergiliana verba hunc in modum esse distinguenda : at me cum raucis, tua dum vestigia lustro sole sub ardenti, resonant arbusta cicadis. Primum haec uno versu conclusa scripsisse videtur: at me cum raucis resonant arbusta cicadis, deinde reliqua adiecisse. Atque etiam Catulli 66 U carminis et 39 mas versus et 47 mus a Vergilio imita- tione expressi testimonio esse debent notissima fuisse Vergilio longiora ilia e carminibus catullianis. Vide sis editorum ad eos versus adnotationes. Verg. Eel. 3, 65 desideratur particula adversativa. Qua de causa scribendum esse censeo et fugit ad salices, set se cupit ante videri. Horatio C. i, 2 scribenti obversatum opinor Catull. n. Confer enim quaeso Horat. C. I. 2, 7 sq. pecus egit altos visere monies et ibid. 15 ire deiectum monimenta regis cum Catull. n, 9 sq. Sive trans altas gradietur Alpes | Caesaris visens monimenta magni. Ne mihi quidem abest suspicio quin Horatianum aequore dammas (12) colorem quasi traxerit a Catulli aequora Nilus (8). Apud ipsum Catullum primi carminis initium ita intelligendum esse suspicor, ut dono non verbum sed nomen esse putemus. Idem igitur valet illud Quoi dono atque : Cui dono dem. Catull. 2, 11-13 non a d secundum quod nunc est carmen pertinere satis esse debebat perspicuum. Suspicor equidem intercidisse versum in eodem vocabulo desinentem quo versum n mmn , ut totum carmen, quod sic tertium esset, quattuor fuerit versuum, quorum primus : Passer, deliciae meae puellae. Is versus fortasse latet 3 (quod nunc est), 4, unde eum expellere volebat Sillig. Catull. 10, 7 iam particulam minime possum concoquere. Repo- nendum esse censeo nam, ut idem valeat quid esset \ nam Bithynia atque : quidnam esset Bithynia. Atque v su 8 iam dudum postliminio reversum stat ecquonam. Versus 9"* sic est distinguendus : Respondi id quod erat mihi neque ipsi (nam in fine versus sic scribendum esse credo atque insequente versu nee quaestoribus ; alioquin enim illud praesertim quibus (12) non habet quo apte referatur). Atque 2io Latin Authors vv. 14-16 melius se habet haec distinctio : quod illic \ natum dicitur esse comparasti, \ ad lecticam homines. Versus 28-30 sic distinctos velim: illud quod modo dixeram me habere | fugit me ratio; meus sodalis | Cinna est Gaius is ibi paravit. Illud cum paravit artissimo vinculo est coniungendum, ut obiectum directum verbi pronomen sit ; cum intenta autem voce sunt enuntianda et me et meus sodalis et Cinna et is. Hinc cum alia apparent turn illud quoque, cum Arthuro Palmer me facere sagacissime suspicante nomina Cinnae Gai et Catulli Gai quasi tacite inter sese hie opponi. De huius carminis scriptura hoc unum amplius addam, v" 32 id quod a quibusdam (atque utinam ab omnibus!) iam dudum est perspectum non ferri posse mihi pararim. Nam e tralaticia scriptura haec evadit sententia : Utor eis tam bene quam si mihi, non alteri, pararim. At nee sibi ipse neque alteri lecticarios compara- verat Catullus. Ergo solum vera vetusta iam coniectura paratis. Initio carminis decimi Catullus se dicit a Varo e foro ductum esse otiosum. Otium igitur in causa fuit cur ludibrio esset scortillo. Undecimum carmen notissimo illo sapphico compositum est metrp, quo metro non amplius usus est Catullus praeterquam in carmine 51 nisi adnumeres versiculos de otio. li autem versiculi falso illuc infersi sunt ubi steterat finis carminis e Sapphone expressi. Aliunde eos hue translates esse suspicor et quidem e vicinitate alterius illius poematii sapphici. Ne multa, versiculos illos de otio molesto, ioculariter sane illos quidem scriptos, inter carmina quae nunc sunt io mnm et n mum a b ipso Catullo primitus collocates esse conicio, ut decimum illud carmen aperte respicerent instar notissimi illius "Haec fabula docet." Catull. 64, 351 putridaque infirmis variabunt pectora palmis et ipsa putrida sit venia verbo videtur esse scriptura. Post mortem demum hominibus putrida esse pectora solent. At non de cadaveribus hoc loco agitur. Ergo reponendum quod solum verum esse videtur putria; quod idem Heinsio placuisse certior factus gaudeo. Ceteri, quod sciam, editores mendum intactum reliquerunt. Catull. 64, 384 namque particulam traiectum accipiunt editores, quod minime est verum; nam tota loci sententia in praesentes cum Parcae artissime coniuncto quasi cardine vertitur. Tu igitur vsus 382-4 sic distingue: Talia praef antes quondam felicia Pelei \ car- Vergil 211 mina divino cecinere pectore Parcae \ praesentes; namque ante domos cet. Huius distinguendi rationis felicia ut Catulli (an scribae alicuius?) scrinia compilem non est cur ego praefer; ipse sibi quisque statim perspexerit. ON VERGIL, ECLOGUES, I. 68-7O. 1 En umquam patrios longo post tempore finis pauperis et tuguri congesto caespite oilmen post aliquot mea regna videns mirabor aristas? Both the interpretations of v. 70 that have been offered are well objected to without, however, the offer of anything better in Conington's note ad loc. The traditional interpretation according to which aristas := messes = aestates = annos, would have everything in its favour, but for the feeble aliquot. But it seems not to have occurred to any one to correct this word. I have long thought, and still think, that the passage is to be righted by a change palaeo- graphically scarcely a change in aliquot. I would write and point the passage thus: en umquam patrios longo post tempore finis pauperis et tuguri congesto caespite culmen post, ah, quot mea regna videns mirabor aristas? It may be added that ah occurs in the Eclogues as follows : I, 15 ; 2, 60; 6, 47, 52, 77; 10, 47, 48, 49. AD VERGILII AENEIDEM, I. 39 sqq. 2 Pallasne exurere classem Argivom atque ipsos potuit submergere ponto unius ob noxam et furias Aiacis Oilei? Ipsa lovis rapidum iaculata e nubibus ignem disiecitque ratis evertitque aequora ventis, ilium exspirantem transfixo pectore flammas turbine corripuit scopuloque infixit acuto ; ast ego, quae divom incedo regina lovisque et soror et coniunx, una cum gente tot annos bella gero. 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 194.] '[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXI (1903), p. 46.] 212 Latin Authors His in versibus nequaquam clare apparet ea oppositio quae exstare debebat cum inter Minervam et lunonem turn inter naves et Aiacem (cf. sis illud classem Argivom atque ipsos) : et mihi quidem vix esse dubitandum videtur quin e multis illis qui volventibus annis Vergilii carmina exscripserunt ab aliquo ita peccatum fuerit, ut quae fuerunt ilia et ipsum pronomina, ea commiscuerit atque in alterius alterum sedem leviter mutata forma migrare coegerit. Quod si verum est, ita refingendus est locus: Ilia lovis rapidum cet. ipsum exspirantem cet. NOTE ON AENEID, IX. 485.* Miram habemus participii concordiam si verum id est quod praestant meliores codices Verg. Aen. 9, 485, ubi mater Euryali audita eius morte inter alia heu, inquit, terra ignota canibus data praeda Latinis. Exspectandum sane erat vel datus nisi metrum obstaret vel date. Hoc praestant teste Hirtzelio deteriores quidam codices atque quod mains procul dubio est favebat huic lectioni Bentley aut proprio Marte coniectura earn est assecutus. Originem duxit illud data ab altera data quod hoc positum est in versu superiore (adfari extremum miserae data copia matri). 1 [Ms. note.] GREEK GRAMMAR, LEXICOGRAPHY AND ARCHEOLOGY. THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF PURPOSE IN RELATIVE CLAUSES IN GREEK. 1 Professor Tarbell's brief notice of 'The Deliberative Subjunctive in Relative Clauses in Greek,' published in the July number of the Re-view (p. 302), informed me that I had not been a-mare's-nesting alone in a rather out-of-the-way corner of Greek syntax. Some years ago my attention was arrested by the construction of the subjunctive in Xen. Anab. I. 7> 7- wore ov TOVTO 8 on 8S> CKatTTw rtav vpai OKTIV, l^otyu.ev av o TT o i vyvyovTcs vwOiafJiev. I was glad to find my view supported by so excellent an authority as Professor Goodwin. His several statements on the subject are as follows : Gk. Moods and Tenses (ed. 7, 1879) 65, i, N. i (a) (p. 138) : 'The Future Indicative is the only form regularly used in prose after the relative in this sense' (i. e. to express purpose). Ibid. 65, i, N. 3 (a) (p. 139) : 'The Attic Greek allows the subjunctive in such phrases as x o T t eiTrr), he has something to say; where the irregularity seems to be caused by the analogy of the common expression OVK ?x o TI (or TI ) ewrj7, equivalent to OVK oiSev o n. li-jry he kn&ws not what he shall say, which contains an indirect statement' (i. e. an indirect de- liberative question). Under the second of these statements, which obviously bears 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 93-95.] 214 Greek Grammar directly upon the point in question, we find cited as the first example Isoc. Pan. p. 49 C. 44 (one of Professor Tarbell's ex- amples) : Totovrov e#os irapeSocrav, wore .... IxaTcpovs t\oTtfjir)Ou a iv, with the translation that both may have things in which they 'may glory'. Goodwin adds in parenthesis: 'Here there is no indirect question, for the meaning is not that they may know in what they are to glory', and he cites his note appended to Felton's Isocrates, p. 135, which I quote here for the sake of comparison: 'The peculiar use of the subjunctive in x eiv '<' * s ^i^orifirjOSxriv may perhaps be explained by the analogy of the common construc- tion OVK fx p di\oTL/j.r)d5>cnv, in the present passage of Isocrates, as a subjunctive in an (indirect) dubitative question [i. e. the ex- planation of Professor Tarbell, following Madvig]. The following examples of the aorist optative, however, show at least that the older construction was not unknown to the Attic poets: dv8pa 8' ovScy* fVTOTrov, ovS' OOTIS dp*c(Tiv ovS' cons 6 e y e T a t, referring to precisely the same thing as OOTIS Aaxoi above. Both these examples of the optative must be explained as relative sen- tences, and the subjunctive is certainly not more objectionable than the optative. Nor can the present example from Isocr. be ex- plained as interrogative without great violence to the sense ; the idea is not that they may know what they are to glory in, but that they may have things in which they may glory. See also v' ov irturOfv- res Trpooio-fle, Dem. Phil. ii. 8.' In G. M. and T. 65, n. 3 (b) (ed. 7) we find the statement: 'The Present or Aorist Optative very rarely occurs in Attic Greek after a past tense, but more frequently after another optative.' The examples are those given above with the addition of Plat. Rep. iii. 398 B, os ft ifiolr o Kal Xe'yoi (depending on xpwpeda av). Dem. Phil. ii. 8 appears as Dem. Phil. ii. 67, 20 (with fuller text and irpoi<7#e for Trpoourdt). Goodwin, however, is hardly consistent in his treatment ; for under G. M. and T. 71 (ed. 7) : 'when a question in the direct form would be expressed by an interrogative Subjunctive, indirect ques- 2i 6 Greek Grammar tions after primary tenses retain the Subjunctive; after secondary tenses the Subjunctive may be either changed to the same tense of the Optative or retained in its original form,' we find not only Aesch. P. 471 (Professor Tarbell's first example), but also (albeit with the qualification that it 'may be explained on this principle as an interrogative, or by 65, I, n. 3 [see above], as a relative clause') Xen. Anab. i. 7, 7, which clearly belongs to the other class of passages ; and this inconsistency will be found in the revised edition (1890) of the G. M. and T. In this new edition we find the first statement cited above from the old edition unchanged in 572-3. The examples of the opta- tive under 573 comprise (besides Soph. Phil. 281 of Professor Tarbell's list) Soph. Tr. 903, K/aui/rcur' eavr^v (vOa fj.y TIS eio-i 8 01, fipvxaiTo (a verse which does not well suit the context as it stands, and which I suspect to be corrupt), and Plat. Rep. 578 E, v. TIS Otwv aivSpa Q(it\ eis fpr)p,iav, oirov avrto ju/tyScts /xeAAoi ftor)6^(reiv, in which latter, however, the optative is merely an ordinary instan.ce of attrac- tion of mood, the idea of purpose being contained in /*e'AAv without regard to the mood. (Goodwin's remark in parenthesis 'This may be purely conditional' is a good example of the mental bias which has led him to drag in a 'condition' at every turn to the great detri- ment of a valuable work.) As will be seen by the quotations I have made, more than one-half of Professor Tarbell's examples 'of the phenomenon which had not been recognized by any previous grammarian' have been examined and discussed by Kriiger and Goodwin. It seems to me now that TO. TroXXa TrpOKO^as, ov TroXXov TTOVOV (jit Set in setting in clear light the source of the error into which Professor Tarbell and others have fallen in discussing the con- struction in hand. The trouble, I believe, lies entirely in the ambiguity of tx> = i> 'I have,' 2, 'I know' = ot&t (cf. Karex, Ka ^" *^ a > T< P ^-fy^- The fact that the antecedent is here expressed seems enough to show that there is no relation with an indirect question. So Isocr. xxi. i : Ov 7rpo VTrep NIKIOU TavTow = \opovfuu (uu) va //v lx< TITTOTC va 8 K<)), an additional proof, as I believe, that the explanation of such a construction as one of purpose is in accordance with the genius of the Greek language. In my second example, although I am inclined to take ex7x av ^ povriSos a-TtprjOcls is a Strofl^ OVK oi8a. A good example of the purpose-construction from a later writer is Plut. Caes. C. 5 : OVTW oicOrjKf. TOV ofjfj.ov, is Koiva; /xcv dpxas, *catvo 218 Greek Grammar ol Tt/xas T/TV CKaoToy, als avrov dftcti/'aivT o, unless this be deemed a Latinism. If the MSS. are to be trusted, we sometimes have the optative of purpose, instead of the subjunctive, after primary tenses. Cf. Eur. Ale. 112117'. dAA' ovfe vavK\r)piav \ t Kf.ipa.iro vtv (M. Ktiptro veiv). Other examples of this construction, some emendable to the sub- junctive, are given along with instances of the optative without av in direct questions, in Mr Sidgwick's valuable Appendix I of his edition of the Choepheroe. In conclusion I add one example (there are doubtless others in Attic writers 1 ) of the relative clause of purpose after SiSu/u Hes. Op. 57 sa i- : TO 'S 8* fya) diTi Triyjos Sauro KO.KOV a> icev aTravres Kara Bvfj.ov cov xaxov d/ NOTES ON THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF PURPOSE IN RELA- TIVE CLAUSES IN ATTIC GREEK. 2 The paper contained an examination of the idiom OVK Ian or OVK e^w, os (ooris or rel. adv.) and subj. (or opt. after secondary tense). The prototype of the Attic idiom was sought in Homeric Greek: Cf. //. 21, HI sqq., //. 19, 355-7, //. 6, 450 sqq., //. 4, 164, //. 21, 103 sq., Od. 6, 201 sqq., //. 3, 459 sq., Od. 15, 310 sq., with Soph. Ai. 514 sq., Eur. H. F. 1245, Xen. Anab. i. 7, 7, Eur. Or. 722 sq. ( For other examples from Attic Greek, see Class. Rev. vi. pp. 93-5. ) 3 It was suggested that "the gradual obsoles- cence of the subjunctive which can be traced in Ionic and Attic Greek in what Weber calls 'unvollstandige Finalsatze' with oVus, seems to have gone hand in hand with a similar obsolescence in the kindred relative final-clauses (i. e. relative in the more restricted sense). In this process the finite construction of the rel. clause may have been influenced by the use of the fut. particip. to express purpose after verbs of motion, a usage so extensive in Ionic Greek that in 1 [Professor Earle had queried this statement in his copy.] * [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIII (1892), pp. xvii-xviii.] 1 [See last article.] The Moods of Will 219 Herodotus viii-ix, which according to my examination, contain not a single fut. rel. clause of purpose, and no certain instance of the OVK fx o, TI constr. with (so-called) final subjunct., we find the fut. part, in all 17 times. " " In such a sweeping away of the subjunctive construction we must seek an explanation of a survival as certain as the OVK fyw o, n (o) construction appears to be, examined from the point of view of historical syntax. It is here that Goodwin's remark is suggestive, if, instead of saying that the construction in question 'may be explained by the analogy of the indirect deliberative, we say that it is to be explained from the essen- tial nature of the subjunctive, traced in its development in Homer, and" found again, in perhaps still further development, in Attic Greek, as a survival, sometimes obscured and confused by the in- direct deliberative, the similar form of which served to prevent it from sharing the fate of its companion relative clauses of purpose. If we put the case in this form (pointing out in our support the triple ambiguity of !x eu/ an ^ the ambiguity of OO-TIS), we shall, it seems to me, be as near the truth as we are likely to get in so subtle a matter." [The writer did not make himself responsible for any particular theory of the original meaning of the Greek subjunctive. He does not, however, wish himself to be considered as favouring the putting on the same footing, though they may both for convenience' sake be classed as "final," of such subjunctives as those which are discussed above, and the final subjunctive developed from the independent hortatory subjunctive. Cf. Eur. Sup pi. 1232, with Soph. Antig. 1322 sq., 1184 sq.] SOME REMARKS ON THE MOODS OF WILL IN GREEK. 1 In the imperative the mood of command the issuer of the command, the speaker, is always distinct from the grammatical subject. Commands imply superiority on the part of the speaker. But let the speaker be one of a body the members of which act, or are to act, together: in urging to action the speaker will be urging to joint action, he will include himself with the others, he will use the first pers. pi. The resultant verbal form will be the first pers. 1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXV, (1894 : special session), pp. Mi.) 22O Greek Grammar pi. of the subjunctive. In the case of this "hortative subjunctive" as in that of the imperative, it is the speaker that urges to action; the grammatical subject (in this case including the speaker) is to carry out the action. Exhortation addressed to oneself takes the form of the first sing, of the subjunctive. In exhortation the atti- tude of the speaker is one of confidence: he is, to a certain extent, the leader. But let an element of hesitation or uncertainty enter the exhorter's mind and instead of an exhortation we shall have an appeal. This will take the interrogative form. Thus: iw/nev "let us go" ? itofjxv "wilt thou (will ye) that we go?" (That such is the meaning that the Greeks attached to the interrogative expression is shown by the prefixing of /3ovA. [/3ouAr0e] and 0eA.s [dcXere]. This is not a case of parataxis proper. We might fairly term the prefixed verb a verbal preposition.) In the exhortation the speaker constitutes himself, to a certain extent, a leader; in the appeal he defers to the will of others, and, in so far, constitutes himself a subordinate. This element of subordination leads to the wider use of the subjunctive in appeals to persons not included in the gram- matical subject, whether such persons be human superiors or super- natural entities (gods, fate, &c.). I have chosen to treat the extended appeal in its interrogative form, as more obviously evolved : but the exhortation is similarly extended. (I use the term "appeal" to cover both.) So it comes, at length, that the imperative is the mood of the ruler, the subjunctive that of the "man under authority." From logical the subjunctive passes to grammatical subordination. (In Od. 5, 465 the construction is simply a formal extension of the appeal. Both in this passage and its parallel, II. n, 404, Odysseus appeals to his 0v/Aos. The context is against Professor Male's inter- pretation [Anticip. Subjunctive, p. 13].) The appeal may be more or less abject: yet the form of expression remains the same. The attitude of the speaker is thus dwelt upon in order to draw attention to the fact that in the subjunctive the will of the speaker is always conditioned. He desires, he strives, he urges, he appeals ; but he is always limited in his action by some one or something external. He is always conscious of an obstacle. He is never consciously free. I would, therefore, call the subjunctive the mood of trammelled effort. The reflex of trammelled effort might well be an expression of resignation naturally negative. Thus iwftev "let us go,'' M The Moods of Will 221 "let us not go" ; but OVK ?o>/*ev "we shall not go." This may explain II. i, 262. Should we resort here to the familiar Greek device of emphasizing the negation by making it a separate sentence, we should expand this passage to ov yap iro> ovS' Icmv orrcos tSoyuu. We shall thus have traced to its origin a form of expression that has given much trouble. For a different view cf. Professor W. G. Male's valuable Extended and "Remote" Deliberative* in Greek [Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc., Vol. XXIV.] and The Antici- patory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin [Stud, in Class. Philol. of the Univ. of Chicago, Vol. I.]. In the former of these treatises Mr Hale has proved (as I cheerfully concede) that the attempt made by others (and by myself) to bring OVK CO-TIV oVws with the sub- junctive into the category of "final" constructions (in the generally accepted meaning of that term) rests on no sound basis. The thanks of scholars are due to Mr Hale for putting the case in clearer light. But I cannot draw the sharp line that he does between what he calls the "volitive," I the "hortative" and "deliberative" or the "mood of trammelled effort," on the one hand, and what he would call the "prospective" subjunctive, I (tentatively) the "mood of resignation or resigned effort," on the other. Nor can I think that the "final" subjunctive is not a development of the subjunctive on its stronger rather than on its weaker side. The wide range of meaning in the subjunctive makes it impossible to subdivide it certainly without some external sign. That this is to be found in the av of subordinate clauses I cannot concede. The optative is also a mood of trammelled effort, like the subjunctive. It starts as a prayer to a superhuman power, declines to a wish (a prayer with the god left out), then to an expression of inclination, then to one of concession or resignation. The weakened opt. with ov instead of pij and with av in Att. Gk., bears traces of the wish (paraphrased by Pov\oifj.r)v av w. inf.) and of the inclination (paraphrased by ijSe'ws av w. opt.), while the feeling that the action of the verb is possible under conditions (the condition being indicated by av as in the case of the corresponding subj.) is brought out clearly when we have a paraphrase in the form Swai'/w/v av w. inf. The opt. appears from the start as logically dependent or contingent, as an appeal to the will of the gods. (A careful analysis of the meanings of the opt. accord- ing to the grammatical persons might be of value.) If what has 222 Greek Grammar been said of the attitude of the speaker in the case of the subjunct. be true, that mood could not be that by which "the earliest expres- sion of the will of the speaker for his own act, i. e., the statement of resolve" ( = Eng. "I will") was made, as Mr Hale affirms (Anticip. Subjunct., p. 14). The subjunct. is the mood not of "will- ing" but of "shalling," and in Gk. we can trace the same distinction as in Eng. The modal form that expresses the "free will" of the subject (in this case "wilier" and grammatical subject are identical as in the Eng. zn7/-forms) is the so-called "future indicative." This fact we find brought out frequently by a paraphrase of the future after consisting of /So^Xo/xai or 0e\i\OTifJ.rjdS>(riv, Isocr. IV. 44. OVK lx w (rosier fj.' oro> ewroAAayoiJ, Aesch. Prom. 470. oi'SeVa c?X ov > 0"$ CTTtoroAas irefjuffeic, Kur. I. T. 588. I may be pardoned if I anticipate the statement of my own theory so far as to call attention to the fact that Mr Goodwin gives here only clauses dependent upon a form of xv and none that depend upon a form of etvoi; for it is at this point that we part company. At p. 3 Mr Goodwin says: 'It is generally admitted that the same deliberative interrogative may follow OVK l^w in the sense of ciTropaJ, as in OVK ej(o) o rt er, / have nothing to say; where, how- ever, the English translation is misleading, the literal meaning being / have not (i. e. 7 am at a loss) what I shall say. That o is really interrogative here is plain from cases like OVK ex " Tl/ Ae'yto, I have nothing to say, Dem. ix. 45; OVK lx<> ri S>, Aesch. Cho. 91 and OVK Ix * i riva. p.r}\oOvrav vopfvOGt, Eur. Ale. I2O; and this appears in the Latin non habeo quid (or quod) dicam' Here I cannot but think that he falls into error. Although Mr Hale seems more than inclined (Transactions Am. Philol. Assoc. 1893, p. 161 sq.) to call me to task for assuming that the ambiguity of ?x av (have, know, be able the last meaning playing no part in the present discussion) and of OO-TIS (os -f- T and also according to Greek feeling, I am more than inclined to think os -J- TI'S ; =TIS ; in indirect questions) has been ignored, I cannot but think that what I wrote then (Class. Rev. 1892, p. 94) x was fairly justified. Does not the fact that the simple interrogative does not (certainly) appear in any of the examples of the construction in question, whereas the compound OO-TIS or the simple os is used in the debated construction (though also in the indirect interrogative clause), shew 1 [See above, p. 213.] The Subjunctive in Relative Clauses 225 that the Greeks distinguished, to a certain and very considerable extent, between the meanings have and know in i\uv ? Mr Good- win's translation of OVK !;(<> o TI uir rt Xeyu. For a similar reason it appears wrong to state the Latin form as if quod were a mere variant of quid. Mr Goodwin is hardly fair to himself when he speks of his 'uninstructed mind' (p. 3). The seemingly spontaneous feeling of a mind fit for and trained to the consideration of niceties of expres- sion may be nearer right than the oevVe/xu v ovStva &rm dpKtffy and ^x w)> of/Siva. fora dp/cArj; is surely not generic; etc. (to the end of the sentence) I am in complete accord. Is not Mr Goodwin's remark (p. 12) that 'the aorist optative in Dem. vi. 8 seems to come from a tendency to use an optative after the preceding optative and an objection to using the future' somewhat (mea quidem opinione, in prin- ciple) at variance with what he says in the first paragraph of the foot-note to p. 10? I may be pardoned if I add that I have (or rather, had) 'considered carefully Gildersleeve's wise and acute remarks' (see foot-note p. 10) and that I too regard his formula Strut Av = %* irwi as 'a powerful solvent.' s [See p. 28.] The Subjunctive in Relative Clauses 227 with their corresponding interrogative use (the 'deliberative') form, as is generally admitted, the basis of many (at least) of the depend- ent uses of the subjunctive, or, as may well be said, the basis of the 'subjunctive.' But there is another independent use of the verbal type which UD/ICV represents besides the 'hortative' and the 'de- liberative' a use which corresponds to our English shall- future. The negative in this case is ov not // and the first example is at //. A 262. This usage may be explained as derived from the 'horta- tive' : but there is apparently an intermediate step. In the hortative the subject of the verbal form includes the person or persons ad- dressed by the speaker. So too, when the 'hortative' is used in the singular in communion with one's self. But both the 'hortative' and the 'deliberative' may become, not unnaturally, an 'appellative,' the person or persons addressed being conceived as entirely apart from and external to the subject of the verbal form. The answer to the 'hortative' is expressed in terms of the 'horta- tive' ; that is to say, either it is a mere echo, if the will of the persons addressed coincide with that of the speaker; or it is the contra- dictory of the form used by the speaker, if the will of those to whom he addresses himself be adverse. In the case of the 'appella- tive,' however, the answer is expressed in terms of the imperative. But besides the answer to the appeal we have to consider what I have elsewhere called a 'reflex,' i.e. the verbal expression of the impression that the result of the appeal leaves upon the mind of the appellant. At the place just referred to (Transactions, 1895, p. li.), after characterizing the subjunctive in general as 'the mood of trammelled effort' a term of which, it may be added, I believe Mr Hale approves, I have said: 'the reflex of trammelled effort might well be an expression of resignation naturally negative. This may explain //. I, 262.' [Of course, the positive 'reflex,' equally possible, would express what one is to do under the authority or control of persons or circumstances.] 'Should we resort here to the familiar Greek device of emphasizing the negation by making it a separate sentence, we should expand this passage to ov ydp via ouS' CO-TIV orrws t8w/xai. We shall thus have traced to its origin a form of expression that has given much trouble.' This view of the construction in question I still hold, although I use the term appeal to cover the interrogative form as well as that used in 228 Greek Grammar the illustration that I have employed in the passage just quoted. This ' oil -subjunctive,' to give it its conventional name, may take av like the *ov -optative.' (How far this use of the particle with the 'ov-subjunctive' may have affected, if at all, the subjunctive in 'relative final clauses' is a question that no man can answer. A certain amount of contamination is, of course, possible.) I would now draw up another pedigree, thus : i Hortative 2 Delib 5 Indirt libcri. ;rative ct De- jiivc 3 Appellative 4 ux Aeyois. (One thinks here of Sophocles Ant. 70, where dcr/xevT/s would certainly be an improvement on iJSeW, though i/Se'tos may be from Sophocles' hand.) These several uses of the optative with av, which correspond to older optatives without av (ov -optatives) in the same senses, are, I venture to think, derivable from certain uses of the \i.r\- optative. This does not, of course, imply dissent from the view that the differentiation of the ^17 -optative and the oi -optative in Greek is proethnic; it means merely that one can trace the process of differentiation in Greek forms alone. (See my remarks on the subjunctive and optative in 'Some Remarks on the Moods of Will in Greek. 1 ) The precative use of the optative may well be taken as its most primitive use. It will appear on a moment's consideration that this belongs primarily to only two persons, the first and the third. Thus, irf Xdftoifju) = So? fwi Aa/Jeiv (So's jxoi pr) \aftelv) and Aa/Joi (py Sos (poi) aiirov \aftelv (py Aa/?etv). Thus prayer for oneself and prayer for another are expressed. The answer to such prayers may conceivably be expressed by 1 [See above, p. 219.] 230 Greek Grammar Xdflots (ov AajSots) = Si'Sw/u' troi Xafieiv (ov St'8w/u (ervpvw, crupa>, Soph.); sometimes a preceding p as in y/cpe/ivos (KPTJ/AVOS) and yKpffj.vi, Soph.); sometimes a preceding A, as in TrXevw (irAww). The only in- stance I can recall of this change, or retention of an older pronun- ciation as it were better called in most cases, not in combination with p or X, occurs in Se/xoo-ta (S^/xoo-ta 6So's), quoted to me in Greece as a curiosity. To return to vcpo : it may be added that the derivation from vijpov is supported by the form Nepal Ss. After all, the question is very largely one of orthography. Mr. Leaf will, I trust; feel in- 1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), p. 73.] 232 Greek Grammar dined to modify somewhat his caustic remark on the Greeks of to-day, if he will consider the great limitations of the Romaic as a vehicle of literature, and especially if he will consult the very faith- ful, though incomplete presentation of the spoken dialect in the first part of Kondyles' Ppa/i/uai-ncai TT/ Neas Athens, 1888. THREE NOTES ON GREEK SEMASIOLOGY. 1 (1) When substantives in -rpov properly denote the instrument of action of the verbs from which they are derived, why are p.rjvvrpov and other substantives in -rpov used to express the money paid , for performing the action? I believe the solution to be as follows: The very common substantive Xvrpov meant properly the instru- ment or means of loosing ( Xwcws opyavov ) . But the means of loosing was a sum of money paid by the ransomer to the captor (Avo-ecos /uorflos ); and this connotational meaning of the suffix in \vrpov a word of vastly common occurrence, it should be insisted on, in the frequent wars of the Greeks could easily give rise to SUCh words as firjwTpov, meaning not /u^vucrews opyavov, but /x^vwrctos /UCT0OS. (2) A second matter of Semasiology that I would notice here is the connotational meaning of the adjectives in -IKOS, which frequently mean, not pertaining to such and such a person or thing, but skilled in something. This secondary meaning was, I believe, reflected, so to say, upon these adjectives from their very common substantivised form. The whole process may be simply and clearly put in the following scheme involving two adjectives in -IKOS of the same form, but with a difference of meaning: iW/aos medicus, tar/aiKos medicinus, larpiK-rj (rexyTJ) medicina (ars), UZT/HICOS medicinae peritus. (3) The third point that I would call attention to here, is the secondary meaning of certain verbs in -i'v a meaning which explains the disparaging force that we meet with in some verbs in -ieiv. This is due to a latent reflexive pronoun. Thus AaKo>n'v is not to make another a Laconian but to make oneself a Laconian, to imitate or ape the Laconians. In the same way, it would appear, Sv the Classical Review, Vol. XXI (1907), p. 14.] GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY A SIKYONIAN STATUE. 1 Of the mutilated marble statue found at Sikyon, 2 some mention has already been made in archaeological publications ; 8 but no ex- haustive discussion has appeared of the qualities of the work and the interesting questions which it suggests. 4 The statue 5 represents a nude youth resting upon the left leg and with the back of the left hand upon the hip. A considerable portion of the bent left arm is missing. It was carved from a separate piece of marble, and was attached by metal pins, as is evident from the seven holes, with the trace of an eighth, which appear in the verti- cally cut surface to which it was secured. About this arm a himation is draped, and it falls, from a point just below the shoulder, in straight folds, with a gradual increase of fullness as it descends. Doubtless it originally reached the base of the statue and served as a support. As such, it is well motived ; for the sharp- ness of the folds shows that the fabric is of comparatively light 1 [From the American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, Vol. V. (No. 3), pp. 26-37. Written by Professor Earle in 1889, when he was a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.] 'Supplementary Report of the Excavations (pp. 286-7). 8 Seventh Annual Report Am. School, p. 46 (MERRIAM), with a cut from Scribner's Magazine, 1888; Journ. Hell. Studies, 1888, p. 130 (HARRISON). 4 [The plate which accompanies this article was made from a photograph taken by Professor C. H. Young of Columbia University. A cast of the statue is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.] 5 The dimensions of the statue in its present condition are as follows : length of face, from roots of hair to end of chin, 0.16 m. ; breadth of face, o.ii m. ; measure over face from ear to ear, 0.21 m. ; height of forehead, 0.06 m. ; length of nose, about 0.055 m. ; length of eye, 0.03 m. ; of mouth, 0.035 m - 1 distance of nose from ear, 0.08 m. ; tip of lobe of ear below plane of outer angle of eye, 0.03 m. ; measure around chin and crown of head, 0.67 m. ; around head above curls, 0.56 m. ; over breast from arm-pit to arm- pit, 0.34 m. ; from throat to navel, 0.33 m. ; from navel to pubes, 0.12 m. ; be- tween hips, 0.26 m. ; around waist, 0.71 m. ; from shoulder to shoulder, 0.35 m. ; from back of neck to small of back, 0.40 m. ; across back from arm-pit to arm-pit, 0.34 m. A Sikyonian Statue 235 texture, as can be gathered also from the manner in which it is held, the hand upon the hip supporting easily the bulk of the weight without the appearance, between wrist and arm-pit, of a brooch or clasp to help hold it, such as we find elsewhere in a somewhat similar conception. 1 Thus, the garment was practically a support, artistically a graceful relief to the nude figure. The statue is still further mutilated by the loss of the right arm from a little below the shoulder, the greater portion of the right leg, and somewhat less of the left, with the contiguous drapery. The membrum virile,. which was not, as very commonly, 2 carved separately and set in, is broken off; a considerable portion of the left side of the throat is missing, rendering restoration here necessary; and the nose is somewhat mutilated, as well as the curls. The head was broken into three large pieces, 3 which were still in contact. The greatest break comes just above the forehead, on the right side of the head, and may be distinguished in the photograph. The right arm was extended, as is shown by the direction of the remaining portion; the motive of this will be considered later in connection with the identification of the statue. The pupils of the eyes were not plas- tically indicated, but were painted red, and traces of the yellow coloring of the hair were plainly visible just after the unearthing of the head. The surface of the marble the provenience of which I am unable to state is somewhat corroded ; but the fine Greek workmanship remains plainly evident ; and the finish was most careful in all parts of the statue except the hair, of which more below. The following questions naturally suggest themselves with refer- 1 Cf. Hermes in Berlin (Verzeichniss der ant. Skulpturen, No. 196) ; brooch on left shoulder, left hand extended, garment (chlamys) falling around and below left arm; Hermes on Ephesian columna caelata (FR.-WOLT., 1242-3, OVERBECK, Plastik ( 3 ), n, p. 97) ; sequel to preceding motive, chlamys has slipped from shoulder bringing brooch in bend of left arm (left hand on hip). In connection with this last figure, it may be mentioned that, in atti- tude, it corresponds very closely with the figure of an athlete in an Attic relief of the fourth cent. B. c. figured in the Annali, 1862, tav. d'agg. M. (text by MICHAELIS, ib. pp. 208-16). ' Cf. Berlin originals, Verzeichn.. Nos. 258, 259 (Satyrs of "Periboetos" type), FR.-WOLT., No. 1578 (Eros of Centocelle), etc. * Two small fragments filling fractures in the curls were also found ; now* probably lost. 236 Greek Archaeology ence to our statue: first, whether it represents a god or a man; second, if the former, what god is represented ; third, what motives known to the history of Greek sculpture does the work embody ; fourth, to what age of Greek sculpture is it to be referred, to what school, and, perchance, to what artist. As regards the first question, there can scarcely be a doubt that we have before us the statue of a god. A consideration of the whole form and character of the work precludes the supposition that the artist was elaborating portraiture of any sort. There are no features of actual human personality ; on the contrary, the whole is pervaded with the spirit of ideality. Nor can it be considered an ideal athlete or ephebe portrait ; for neither is the muscular develop- ment such as to warrant this opinion, nor is the pose that of an athlete: one of the most characteristic features though not ade- quately rendered in the photograph is a plump fullness and a heavy sensuous droop about the region of the loins that show a far different character. The body is languid, and far more sug- gestive of soft, seductive ease than of the palma nobflis: in fact, I can find no better expression of the whole spirit and character of the body than the admirable words in which Overbeck 1 describes the Praxitelean satyr-type : Zu ringen und zu kdmpfen oder selbst zu einem eilenden Botengange wiirde dieser Satyrkorper nicht tau- gen, fiir ihn passt nur das freie Umherstreifen, ein Tans mit den Nymphen oder diese behdbige Ruhe, die wir vor uns sehn und welche ihn von oben bis unten durchdringt und selbst fiir den Arm auf die Hiifte einen Stiitzpunkt suchen I'dsst. Attention should also here be called to the fullness of the breasts and the distinctly feminine form of the shoulders, to which further reference will be made. It is not, however, to be assumed, from the implied comparison with the Praxitelean satyr, that we have before us a type inter- mediate between god and man. The expression of the features, though sensuous, is yet lofty and ideal. It is plain, then, that it is the statue of a god ; and let us attempt to answer the question, What god is represented? The opinion that we have here a Dionysos was broached in the first instance by M. Kabbadias; indeed, he made his assumption before it had been demonstrated that head and torso were parts of *Plastik 0,11, p. 42. A Sikyonian Statue 237 the same statue. To this he appears to have been led by a certain likeness to the so-called Ariadne head. 1 It seems proper to refer here to this designation, inasmuch as it was made public at the time in the daily 'E^^epts of Athens, and was followed in a brief report on the excavations at Sikyon, published in the New York Evening Post in 1888. It is also accepted as probable by Miss Harrison, 2 while Professor Merriam 3 left the question an open one by de- scribing the statue simply as "a naked male figure of pronounced feminine type." Allowing this assumption to rest for the present, let us seek to gain firmer ground by a process of elimination. Con- siderable stress should be laid upon the feminine forms of our statue, particularly the breasts and the shoulders. Such shoulders appear in statues of Apollo, Dionysos, Eros, and (rarely) Hermes. 4 An identification with Hermes is to be excluded, inasmuch as there is not a hint of the swift messenger of the gods, nothing of the lightness and lithe ephebic or mellephebic vigor which characterizes the youthful Hermes type. Eros also must be stricken from the list ; for there is in our statue no trace of wings, which are required in an Eros, 5 to say nothing of the greater boyishness of most of the types of Eros. We have then to decide between Apollo and Dionysos a task by no means easy. The statues of the youthful Apollo exhibit a boy a See FR.-WOLT., No. 1490, for data in regard to this head. 'Journ. Hell. Stud., ut supra. 'Seventh Ann. Report Am. School, ut supra. *Cf. the Florence statue (FR.-WOLT., No. 1534). I am unable at present to give another instance. Even in this figure there is a plump firmness about the shoulders distinctly at variance with our statue. 5 On this question, see FURTWANGLER (ap. ROSCHER, art. Eros, p. 1350) : Von Anfang an erscheint Eros als Knabe oder Mellephebe gebildet und mit Fliigeln ausgerustet. Particularly also the following: Ungefliigelte Bildung des Eros ist nirgends als beabsichtigt. sondern nur aus Nachlassigkeit erstanden und zwar namentlich in sp'dtromischer Zeit zu konstatieren, wo man die Fliigel bei bekannten Typen suweilen auch an Statuen aus Bequemlichkeit wegliess (1. c., p. 1369). We have, of course, in the present instance nothing either nachldssig or spatromische ; as wingless, may be mentioned the St. Peters- burg torso (FR.-W., 217), a replica of the same original as the Sparta torso (FR.-W., No. 218), which latter shows evident traces of wings. Cf. also the wingless group in Berlin (Verz. 150) to which the designation Eros und Psyche (?) is given and favored, obwohl das ubrigens nicht gerade uner- lassliche Abzeichen der Plug el den Figuren fehlt. 238 Greek Archaeology of graceful and agile form, with an inherent capacity for action, as in the Sauroktonos. 1 On the contrary, we find in our statue an inertia, a fleshiness about the body, not marked enough to be in any wise gross, and yet plainly and skilfully suggested. We have this much, then, to urge in favor of the identification with Dionysos; and we can find still further support for it. The statue was found in the theatre, which was consecrated to Dionysos, who had moreover at Sikyon a temple in the immediate vicinity /nera TO 6earpov, in the words of Pausanias. This argument, while of some value as cor- roborative testimony, is worth but little per se, for we find a statue of Apollo in the great theatre of Dionysos at Athens. 2 But it may here be urged, in favor of the identification as Apollo, that the face of our statue has an expression too lofty and intel- lectual for the youthful Dionysos. This objection may be satis- factorily answered, if we consider on what it chiefly rests, namely, the high forehead. For the mouth, though not broad as in Satyr- faces, will be found full and sensuous, while the cheeks and chin sink so softly into the unusually full throat that the uncommon heaviness here strikes one immediately when the statue is viewed in profile. Furthermore, a high forehead is precisely what we find in Seilenoi and Satyrs ; 3 and the apparent lowness of the brow in many statues of Dionysos is due to the arrangement of the hair or to the head-band across the upper part of the forehead, while the 1 Cf. BAUMEISTER, Denkmal., s. v. Apollon, p. 95 sqq.; especially p. 98, where we read : Die grosse Menge der sonst erhaltenen Apollonstatuen geben den Charakter wieder. zvelchen Praxiteles seinem Sauroktonos aufgeprdgt hatte: eines Epheben von schlanker Bildung, Kraft und Zartheit der Glieder vereini- gend, zwischen Hermes und Dionysos die Mitte haltend. Cf. the remark of FURTWANGLER (ap. RoscHER, p. 467) : Die Korperformen [des Apoll] sind regelmdssig sehr jugendlich und iveich. oft denen des Dionysos sich ndhrend. I am well aware that it is frequently difficult to distinguish mutilated statues of Dionysos from those of Apollo, and the attempted restorations are fre- quently dubious : cf. BRUNN, Beschreib. der Glyptothek, Nos. 97, 103. Ex- amples might be multiplied. * Cf. on this subject SCHREIBER (Mittheilungen Athen., ix. p. 248), whose arguments against Waldstein's athlete hypothesis seem convincing. He would make the familiar Athenian figure an original by Kallimachos the KaraTTjf/Tex*'** The statue, according to him, i& that of Apollo Daphnephoros, the chair of whose priest we find in the theatre : cf. ut supra. * Cf. the turoffKvrttuv (pR.-W., No. 1429). The comparison of Sokrates with his high forehead to a Seilenos is well known. A Sikyonian Statue 239 height of forehead is noticeable only in those statues of Apollo which exhibit some such arrangement of hair about the face as in our figure. 1 We have, also, a noteworthy instance of a sweet femininity and quite as much intellectuality in a head in the Berlin Museum, 2 which was at first, like the Sikyonian, assumed to be that of a female, but has been unhesitatingly declared to be a Dionysos by an authority so competent as Furtwangler. We have next to consider what Greek sculptural motives the statue embodies: (i) the general pose of the body and legs; (2) the evident motive of the left arm; (3) the probable motive of the lost right arm; (4) the head and arrangement of hair. As regards the pose, we observe that the weight of the body rests on the left leg, and that there is a corresponding graceful sway in the hips and loins. As is admitted, on the testimony of Pliny 3 and the evidence of replicas of the Doryphoros and other statues, Polykleitos was the first to introduce into Greek sculpture the dis- tinction which is well described by the German terms Standbein and Spielbein the leg on which the weight of the body rests and that which is free to pose in any one of several graceful attitudes. Praxiteles added a graceful sweep and curve of the body, giving to it, as a whole, a sort of S-shape. This is admirably exemplified in the Olympian Hermes. The Praxitelean type is at once evident in our Sikyonian statue, and that, too, not as a novelty but as part of the common stock of artistic tradition. Concerning the left arm there are several points to consider. The left hand supported on the hip is noted as a favorite motive with Praxiteles, though it may have had an earlier origin. It is easily *Cf. the so-called Ariadne head (FR.-W., No. 1490). Many statues of Dionysos have low brows, but the same is true of heads of Apollo : cf. the Belvedere and Apollino, with the high forehead (fourth century type), with FR.-WOLT., Nos. 222-4. *Vers., No. 118; FURTWANGLER, Sammlung Sabouroff, Tafel xxm. Ge- funden zu Athen beim Lykabettos. Hbhe 0,24. Gesichtsldnge 0,12. Pente- lischer Marmor (FURTWANGLER, /. c., Note i under text). The marked fem- ininity of the face, the sweetness of expression and the high forehead are points of comparison with our statue which at once struck me. W\r haben hier, says Furtwangler, einen ganz unversehrten, etwas unterlebensgrossen Dionysoskopf vor uns. der aus einem attischen Atelier der Zeit des Praxiteles selbst stammt. *HN, xxxiv. 56; cf. OVERBECK, Schriftquellen, No. 967. 240 Greek Archaeology demonstrable that the resting of the left hand on the hip may be so motived as to express more than one artistic idea. Let us take, for example, a satyr-statue of the Periboetos type (e. g., Berlin originals Nos. 258, 259; Overbeck, Plastik < 5) , n, p. 41). Here we see the back of the left hand resting softly against the side, rather below the hip : this, together with the graceful and delicate pose of the whole figure, may fairly be considered as the fully developed Praxitelean motive. This is essentially the position of the hand in our Sikyonian statue, though here there is a fuller and firmer resting of the back of the hand against the side, which, in a draped statue of an elderly man, would give an air of dignified composure. If the motive were that in which the back of the hand is turned outward and the knuckles rest firmly against the side, there would be a greater sturdiness, a certain holding of force in reserve, par- ticularly when accompanied by a firmer pose of the whole body. 1 The same may be said of the position of the hand with the fingers extended forward, the thumb behind, to us perhaps the most com- mon and natural of these attitudes. It is essential here to give in historical sequence a brief list of instances of the left hand supported against the side more or less in the manner of the Sikyonian statue. From the Parthenon we have the following: (i) Standing semi-draped male figure on w. frieze (Michaelis, 9. i. i) ; in which the left hand rests rather below and somewhat behind hip : cf. Carrey's drawing ap. Michaelis. (2) Standing male figure on E. frieze (Michaelis, 14, in, 19), back of left hand on hip, staff under right arm, also draped. Together with these may be grouped a number of Attic reliefs in which the traces of Pheidian art are evident. I give the numbering of the casts ap. Friederichs-Wolters. (3) Standing figure of Asklepios (Fr.-W., No. 1070), the familiar draped type resting on staff with left hand concealed in garment and supported on hip. Such figures 1 It is instructive to observe the effect of the supporting of the right hand upon the side (in the instance about to be cited, fingers outward in plain view, thumb behind) in the figure of Pelops from the east pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia. Cf. FR.-W., p. 125 : Nicht ohne Absicht scheint fur ihn der Kilnstler die 'Selbstbewusste, fast trotzige Haltung gewahlt ztt haben: den Kopf etwas zuriickgeworfen, die Hand in die Seite gestemmt, steht er seines Sieges bewusst da. A somewhat similar attitude in a nude Poseidon statuette is described (FR.-W., No. 1763) as mehr energisch als stolz. A Sikyonian Statue 241 have a close likeness to that cited above from the E. frieze of the Parthenon. 1 As Overbeck (Plastik (3 \ I, pp. 274, 279) has no hesitation in deriving the seated statues of Asklepios (cult-statues), whether through Alkamenes or Kolotes, from the Zeus of Pheidias ; so we may claim the standing figures of Asklepios on the reliefs as Attic and Pheidian, in view particularly of the Parthenon figure alluded to above. Similar figures are Fr.-Wolt., Nos. 1085, 1196. It is not always possible to determine whether the back of the hand rests on the hip or whether the doubled hand holding a portion of the robe rests the knuckles upon the hip. This latter posture in connection with a more erect position of body, necessitating the firmer holding of the robe, is expressive of sturdier dignity. This position of the hand we have clearly in the Berlin statue Verzeich., No. 71, and apparently in the fine statue of Sophokles in the Lateran (Fr.-Wolt., No. 1307). For left hand on hip, cf., also, Fr.-Wolt., Nos. 1085, 1147, II 5> II S I > 1161, 1195, 1196, 1445. To these should be added, as Praxitelean, the Periboetos satyrs (e. g., Berlin Verz., Nos. 258, 259) ; the Hermes of the columna caelata (Over- beck, Plastik( z ), n, 97; Fr.-Wolt., Nos. 1242-3) ; an athlete in an Athenian relief previously cited (Annali, 1862, tav. M). An ar- chaistic Hermes on the "Altar of the Twelve Gods" in the Louvre (Fr.-Wolt., No. 422) stands stiffly with left hand on hip. A stand- ing figure of Ammon from Pergamon may be added a draped figure with left hand on hip, reminding one strongly of Attic work. In the preceding list we have either Attic works or at least Attic types. Since it appears already in Pheidian art, it is plain that the motive in question in its more general aspect cannot be called Praxi- telean; but there seems no just ground for refusing it this title, when it appears as developed in the more restricted type of the fourth century, and as applied to nude or nearly nude youthful male statues. As regards the right arm, it is evident from the remaining portion that it was at least somewhat extended; and, in consonance with the rest of the figure, it may most readily be assumed that it was supported upon an object of some height. If the figure is Dionysos, this object may with great probability have been the familiar thyrsus. An interesting comparison may here be made between 1 Cf. FR.-WOLT., pp. 327, 328, for some remarks on the connection between such reliefs from Parthenon and other sculptures. 242 Greek Archaeology our statue and a relief on one side of a white marble disk in Berlin (Verz., No. 1042), found at Gabii, thus described: in flacherent Relief und fliichtiger ausgefiihrt die stehende Figur des jungen Dionysos in Chiton [?] und Umwurf [Himation], auf einen Stab (Thyrsos) gelehnt; auf Felsen neben ihm brennt eine Flamme. Romische Arbeit. The figure looks toward the spectator's right and somewhat downward; the left hand is supported on the hip, the hair seems to be gathered in a knot on the back of the neck, the right arm is bent sharply at the elbow and the hand, held high, grasps the thyrsus ; the weight of the body rests on the left leg, the right is bent in the same manner as the left leg of the Ephesian Hermes. The points in common with the Sikyonian statue are the following: (i) left hand on hip; (2) weight on left leg; (3) right arm raised; (4) garment (himation) over left arm although in the disk figure it is draped over the left shoulder, and, leaving the left elbow bare, falls in front of the left arm as far as the knee, being then brought around behind the figure and looped from before over the bent right arm. It seems not improbable that the Roman disk figure goes back to a much earlier Greek original; and one is reminded of the Dionysos by Eutychides in the house of Asinius Pollio. 1 The comparison affords us, at all events, an interesting parallel; and, aside from this, the thyrsus seems the most natural explanation for the position of the right arm in our statue. As regards the position of the head, I fancied I could detect, in the inclination toward the right with the gaze turned toward the left, something borrowed from the Alexander type, which is un- doubtedly due to Lysippos. 2 But if there is just reason for this conjecture, the motive is here merely hinted at; it is already an artistic commonplace of the post-Lysippian epoch. But we have particularly to notice the free handling of the hair, reminding in a measure of the heads of Alexander, in which we have, as in the Sikyonian statue, a simple arrangement of the locks, which are drawn down from the crown of the head and curl freely upward over the forehead and temples, falling somewhat lower on the neck ^VERBECK, Plastik(*), n, 135. 1 On this subject, cf. BAUMEISTER, Denkm., s. v., Alexandras, and particularly EMERSON in Am. Journ. Arch., vol. n, pp. 408-13 ; vol.ni, pp. 243-60.07. OVER- BECK, Plastik ( s ), n, p. no sqq., in regard to portraits of Alexander by Lysip- pos. A Sikyonian Statue 243 behind. 1 This, so far as I am aware, we do not observe in the Praxitelean types and can hardly date earlier than Lysippos, to whom, indeed, it seems attributable. It is the germ of the treat- ment in later types, such as the Pergamene figures, where we see the hair, as in the Laocoon and the busts of Zeus, rising in a sort of halo about the head and face. The conception of this arrange- ment may, of course, be sought earlier. We have, in a diskobolos of Attic type 2 and in the Eubuleus of Praxiteles, ephebic figures in which the short hair is secured simply by a band or fillet, in strong contrast with the Attic krobylos 3 in vogue till the middle of the fifth century B. c., though scarcely appearing on the Parthenon. 4 In our statue, the hair behind and above the line of curls exhibits very rough and superficial workmanship, and was evidently not intended to be seen. We observe, also, the great fullness of this portion of the head, more noticeable in profile. Taking this in connection with the presence of a number of holes in the marble above the line of the curls, we may conclude that the head had some sort of decoration, which concealed the unfinished upper portion. We observe the same workmanship in other statues with a similar arrangement of hair about the face and with indubitable traces of wreaths. 5 What more natural, then, than to suppose, about the head of our statue, an ivy-wreath of bronze, with broad, full leaves ? The height of the forehead, as already shown, though not neces- sarily conflicting, yet seems unusual in a Dionysos. Furtwangler, in his excellent notice of the Berlin head, already referred to, 8 says that it can be none other than that of Dionysos on account of the fillet in the hair which touches the middle of the forehead and there conceals the roots of the hair a characteristic of Dionysos. Die gewohnliche Binde, he continues, wurde bekanntlich viel welter 1 We see this, also, in the Monte Cavallo colossi, which exhibit traces of Lysippian influence. 3 FR.-WOLT., No. 465; OVERBECK, PlaStik(*), I, p. 276. * SCHREIBER, Mittheil. Inst. Athen., vm, p. 246f. 4 Cf. Mittheil. Inst. Athen., vm, p. 262, a figure in der Gruppe der schonen Greise, der Thallophoren. 5 Cf. FR.-WOLT., No. 1283 (Asklepios?) for arrangement of hair, for high forehead, and for a certain community of expression (e. g., similarity of mouth) with our statue, though No. 1283 is bearded. It may be added that the fullness of the back of the head is far more Praxitelean than Lysippian. ' Sammlung Sabouroff, text to Taj. xxm. 244 Greek Archaeology hinten im Haare getragen. In dlterer Zeit trdgt Dionysos ganz regelmdssig den Epheukrans um das Haupt und dieser scheint auch wiser em Kopfe nicht gefehlt zu haben; eine schrdge Reihe kleiner Locher hinter dem Vorderhaar (darin s. Th. noch Reste eiserner Stifte) zeugen davon, dass ein solcher aus Metallbldttern angesetst war. Here we have something parallel to our statue. From the end of the fifth century there appears in figures of Dionysos, besides the wreath or instead of it, a broad fillet, like that previously de- scribed, above the middle of the forehead. This arrangement, derived from the symposial habits of the time and explained by Diodorus Siculus (iv. 4.4), was adopted as a peculiar attribute of Dionysos, and from it he derived the epithet /urp^dpos. This fillet, originally separate from the wreath, as we see it in the Berlin head, was later for the most part adorned with ivy-leaves and ivy-berries, and came to form an integral part of the wreath (mit dem Kranze zu einem Ganzen verbunden). Such an arrangement is common in terracottas of Asia Minor and marbles of the Roman period. Can we now assume any such arrangement in the case of our statue ? That the fillet was not indicated in the marble is at once evident; and without a cast it is impossible to state whether it might have been formed in metal and connected with the wreath. It is worthy of note, and plain in the photograph, that the hair immediately over the forehead is, near its roots, in noticeably lower relief than the waving locks which rise above it, and that, in the depressions of the curls at either side, a metal fillet might have rested with the wreath. This point, however, cannot at present be fully settled. Before leaving this subject, I must again call attention to the paper of Furtwangler which has been previously quoted. He has summed up and characterized the features of the Berlin head in words which apply in great part to our statue, as well, although the eye is here not so deeply set. The breadth of the root of the nose is certainly noticeable; and we have also the same peculiar fullness of the chin and throat, which in our statue is even more marked than in the Berlin head. The epoch and school to which our statue belongs will now be considered. As we have seen, it has in it no elements earlier than Praxiteles, while the treatment of the hair and perhaps the position of the head are rather Lysippian. We must, indeed, admit that a A Sikyonian Statue 245 distinctively Sikyonian element in the work cannot be proved to any marked extent, and it is certainly not in any way strongly Lysippian. It partakes rather of the character of a generalized post-Alexandrine or Hellenistic art. At the same time, we see in it no trace of the over-wrought pathos of the Pergamene and Rhodian schools, or of the archaistic tendencies of Pasiteles. These considerations will weigh in approximating the date of the work, particularly if we bear in mind that all its characteristics appear as fixed artistic elements and in no wise as inventions. That the work is Sikyonian is unquestionable. The later history of Sikyonian sculpture is known to us through scattered references, especially in Pliny. Inscriptions also have of late come most serviceably to our aid. According to Pliny, Greek sculpture fell into decay after the time of Lysippos and his immedi- ate successors, to revive again in Ol. CLVI. As has already been said, we have in our statue nothing of this ars renata, as it is known to us in the later schools. It must then be attributed to one of the sutxrssors of Lysippos ; and, as we can trace no strong Lysippian elements in it, to some artist not under the immediate sway of the master to one who displayed a spirit rather pan-Hellenic than Sikyonian. So far as we can estimate on the data of Pliny, the activity of the artists named as followers of Lysippos must have continued into the latter portion of the third century B. c. Our knowledge on this subject may be resumed as follows The pupils of Lysippos, who according to Pliny flourished Ol. cxm, 1 were Daippos, Boedas, Euthykrates son of Lysippos, Phanis, Eutychides, Chares of Lindos, 2 of whom Eutychides and Daippos, on the same authority, 3 flourished Ol. cxxi, i. e., about a generation later than their master. Euthykrates had a disciple Teisikrates, 4 while Xenokrates is men- tioned as disciple of either Euthykrates or Teisikrates. 5 From Pausanias, we learn that Eutychides had a disciple Kantharos, a Sikyonian. 6 Furthermore, the inscriptions collected by Lowy , xxxiv. 51; OVERBECK, Schriftquellen, No. 1443. * Cf. OVERBECK, Schriftquellen, No. 1516. HN, I. c. * HN, xxxiv. 67. 'HN, xxxiv. 8.3. * PAUS., vi. 3. 6. 246 Greek Archaeology (Inschr. gr. Bildhauer) show that the Sikyonian Thoinias son of Teisikrates was the son and disciple of Teisikrates son of Thoinias. The name of this Thoinias son of Teisikrates, moreover, occurs in the Sikyonian inscription No. 2, published above, 1 and assigned to the second half of the third century B. c. Starting from Lysippos, 2 we may draw up the following artistic genealogy : Lysippos 1 1 I 1 Daippos Boedas Euthykrates Phanis fl. Ol. cxxi son of Lysippos 1 Eutychides fl. Ol. cxxi 1 Kantharos of Sikyon 1 Charsso of Linde 1 1 Xenokrates Teisikrates son of Thoinias fl. Ol. cxv-cxxiv? 1 Thoinias son of Teisikrates in inscr. at Sikyon circa 240 B. c. From the date assigned to the above-mentioned Sikyonian inscrip- tion, we may conclude that Teisikrates son of Thoinias flourished about Ol. cxxvni-ix, and that Thoinias his son continued his activity to about Ol. cxxxvi. But, according to Pliny (HN, xxxiv. 52), between the time of Eutychides and Ol. CLVI cessavit ars; so that Thoinias may be reckoned among the last of Lysippos' successors. Hence, we may say so much: First; we have a statue of the youthful Dionysos, of good workmanship, a product of Sikyonian art: second; we may assign this work, on grounds of Greek art- history, presumably, to the third century B. c. and to one of the more distant followers of Lysippos : third; we know that Thoinias son of Teisikrates was active at Sikyon and elsewhere in the Greek world in the middle and latter half of the third century B. c. : fourth; we have in our work a certain pan-Hellenistic spirit, such as we may apprehend could have been exhibited by Thoinias. 1 [See below, article entitled New Sikyonian Inscriptions.] 2 Who was airroSlSaKTat, according to PLINY, HN, xxxiv. 61. A NEW SIKYONIAN INSCRIPTION. 1 Movo-os 'A p ft v, as found in this case: but one is startled to find in the Addenda (270) a spear-head inscription attributed to a Sikyonian, but apparently from the same hand as the last, in which the form X= e occurs in the same word. The similarity of the two inscriptions is most striking, notwithstanding this variation, the same unusual pentagonal o occurring in each, and the forms of the other letters, carelessly made it is true, being essentially the same as those of /. G. A., if. One is also surprised to notice that Roehl reads 17, 2iKuo>v, rightly considering the three parallel scratches at the end as a mark of punctuation, 2 while he reads 270, Add., Se/cvaw (w), taking the per- pendicular mark after the N which is taller than any of the un- doubted letters as I, although such a form of iota is here, to say the least, in the highest degree improbable. It seems to me quite certain that we should read, here, simply SCKUWV. The testimony of the coins cannot be adduced in support of any theory of a con- sistent local employment of the form SCKVWV in the fifth century at least; 3 and, indeed, if the two spear-heads were engraved by the 1 Cf. ROBERTS, p. 134. * Lineola quae ad dextram exarata est, non est litterae vestigium, sed finem tituli indicat. 8 Cf. HEAD, Historia Numorum, p. 345. 250 Greek Archaeology same hand, we find here a confirmation of what we may gather from the coins, namely, that the local usage was not at all stable, both forms being used indifferently. 1 We are then, in my judgment, quite safe in numbering /. G. A., ij, among Sikyonian monuments. We must, therefore, guard against an assumption of over-con- servatism on the part of the Sikyonians, but at the same time must not be led to assume that their alphabet developed with the same rapidity as that of Corinth, a point to be emphasized in estimating the probable date of the inscription now under consideration. Roberts, who groups together the inscriptions of Corinth and its colonies and those of Sikyon (G. E., pp. 119-37), distinguishes three periods, as follows (pp. 134-5) : first, that comprising the most primitive inscriptions, in which san, the older form of /i (A*), the crooked iota, the closed spiritus asper, the older theta, certain pecu- liar forms of gamma (C, ^, I), and remarkable forms to express ft and the E-sounds (, B, or X 2 ) appear; secondly, that comprising inscriptions "which exhibit the straight iota but retain the san" (p. 135) ; thirdly, that comprising inscriptions marked by, (i) "the adoption of the four-stroke sigma," (2) "the gradual substitution of the open H for the closed form," (3) "the introduction of the normal form for ft" (p. 135). The first of these periods is to be placed as early as the sixth century B. c., the second would corre- spond to the earlier half of the fifth century, and the third to the latter half of the same century. 3 In view of the arguments adduced in the course of the previous discussion, we seem justified in attributing to Sikyon both the spear- head inscriptions already alluded to (/. G. A., if, and 2fa Add.}. In one of these the form f=i appears, and in both we have san. These, then, are plainly older than I.G.A., 21 and 22, which belong to the same period and are to be assigned to the earlier half of the fifth century. Certainly later than these, again, is our new inscrip- tion, between which and those just mentioned I am in favor of dating I. G. A., 270 Add., which is, then, probably to be restored: 3XKVONIO[N or 5XKVONIO[I. 4 In both these last we find 2 is the reading of Fabricius on the serpent-column at Constanti- nople (cf. ROBERTS, p. 259.) *"X a t Sicyon, at least in the 2d period." *For the grounds of this chronology, which seems very satisfactory, see ROBERTS, p. 136. 'Cf. ROEHL'S remarks ad he. New Sikyonian Inscriptions 251 retained, though in the former we have alpha and kappa of later form than in any other early Sikyonian inscription, and even later than in /. G. A., 26a Add., a Corinthian inscription commemorating the battle of Tanagra (457 B. c.). In the last-mentioned, however, we have the normal e, and a, v, and x of the same form as in our new inscription. In view of the latter coincidence, as well as of the conservatism of the Sikyonians, we need have no hesitation in placing our inscription at least as late as 457 B. c., and probably somewhat later. In fact, I would propose the following chrono- logical classification of early Sikyonian inscriptions: i period, latter part of sixth century B. c. (/. G. A., if and aTov(?) is given as artist, is assigned by Professor Merriam to the second half of the third century B. C. But in approaching more closely the dating of our inscription, the general character of the letters of which alone would assign it to the Macedonian period, we must now consider the upper line. The 'king Philip' on the pedestal of a statue to which the block bearing our inscription must have belonged, can be none other than Philip V., son of Demetrius, reg. 220-178 B. C. We may therefore reasonably read: /3a(TiX(a 4>tXt7T7rov /3[as &r)fiv]TpLOV Sixvwvioi avf.df.crav. The intimacy of this remarkable monarch with the great Aratus of Sikyon, dating from the time when Antigonus on his death-bed sent the youthful successor to the throne of Macedonia into the Peloponnese to attach himself to Aratus and through him establish relations with the states of the Achaean League (Plutarch, Arat. c. 46) and continuing down to the year 215 B. C., is well known. Now there seems to be no other time in the long career of Philip when he would have been likely to be honoured with a statue at Sikyon except this period of his intimacy with Aratus. Indeed it would seem that only under the strongest of pressure would the Sikyonians have subsequently thus honoured the murderer of their New Sikyonian Inscriptions 253 greatest statesman and his son. We may even perhaps derive data for a more exact chronology of our inscription from Plutarch (loc. c*f.), who describes the result of Philip's mission to the Peloponnese in these words: Kai /XO/TOI KCU -rrapaXafivv avrbv (Philip) 6 "Aparos OVTtDS 8lfOlJKV UKTTf 7T O A A. fj ? fJ. V CUVOl'dS TT/3OS OVTOV TToXX^S 8e TT/OOS ras 'EAAijviKas irpaas 1 A f (2) In an outbuilding of Georgios Pappadopoulos SoTrovXos ), on a block of irvpos -54m. wide by .26m. thick. It has apparently been broken from the top of a tombstone, the rest of which is said to remain in situ ' Karov(riv ouSe'v, TO 8e ovop.a <' avTov Kai ov TrarpoOtv VTreiTrovTCS K\voviA.rKos or that the x a '/ e is not placed symmetrically. The name Philiscus is not uncommon, but seems not to occur elsewhere as that of a Sikyonian. Vid. Pape, Lex. Gr. Eigen. s. v. This inscription, if we may draw any conclusion from such minutiae as the form of the , is somewhat earlier than the last. AT10A? X (3) On a bit of Trwpos lying in the courtyard wall of Georgios Pappodopoulos. No information as to its immediate provenance. Height of A .O35m. ; of n and O .O35m. ; of A and X .O3m. The form of the letters is such as we should expect in the second century B. C. or later. We should perhaps read: For an Appollonidas at Sikyon, vid. Polyb. 23. 8. (4) In the dooryard of a certain Soteropoulos on the upper surface (as it lay) of the drum of a Doric column of Trwpo's, near the dowel-hole. Breadth of drum .76m.; breadth of dowel hole .O95m. ; height of letters .o6m. 256 Greek Archaeology A/ DOWBL-HOLK These characters appear to be masons' marks. For other such at Sikyon cf. McMurtry in Am. Journ. Arch. Vol. V. No. 3, P- 273- It may be questioned whether the second character represents Z or B (cf. the Corinthian form Z of the latter). The former seems clearly meant for N. [XI (5) On another block of Trwpos in the same place apparently from an architrave. Apparently Ar, or TA reversed. Height of former character .085111. ; of latter .065. Apparently masons' marks. The form of the A is noteworthy. The architectural fragments on which these letters are cut were heaped together with a number of others and are evidently the remains of one of the Doric temples of Sikyon. They are from the upper plateau, the site of Sikyon-Demetrias, but no more precise information about their provenance seems obtainable. [Accounts of the excavations carried on at Sikyon by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens were published by Professor Earle in the American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, Vol. V, No. 3; Vol. VII, No. 3, and Vol. VIII, No. 3.] THE NAMES OF THE ORIGINAL LETTERS OF THE GREEK ALPHABET. 1 II. From the traditional names of the Greek letters compared with the traditional names of the Hebrew characters we can trace pretty clearly the forms of the letter names as the Phoenicians transmitted them to the Greeks. It is important to note here what Professor Eduard Meyer has so well said in his Geschichte des Alterthums II 384 that it is a fact too commonly disregarded that 'every alphabet must be considered as a whole that is disseminated by being learned from a teacher' (das dadurch weiter iiberliefert wird, dass es bei einem Lehrer gelernt wird). But to examine the names of the traditional letters severally. Alpha comes readily from aleph or alepha. Beta, delta, zeta, heta, theta, iota, six names all ending in ta, can be traced to beth, daleth, zayin, cheth, teth, yod. In the case of the last four the Greek form seems clearly due to the natural tendency to assimilate names strung together in continuous recitation. It has been said that zeta owes its name in whole or in part to the sibilant that is lost in the Greek alphabet tsade. The explanation that I have just given of the name Zeta, which is that of Mommsen (Unt. Dialekten) and Clermont-Ganneau, seems pretty satisfactory; but it is a curious fact which has not perhaps been duly noted if, indeed, it be of any real value that if the Phoenician characters be written from right to left in two lines of eleven characters each the sibilant signs fall in a regular figure (thus : _ "^ _. j in which the lost tsade is immediately under Zayin or Zeta. Delta, which should, it would seem, be dalta, may have been influenced by by popular etymology. Gamma cannot, of course, have come 1 [This article is part of a paper read at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute at Columbia University, December, 1901, and published in abstract in the American Journal of Archaeology, Series II, Vol. VI (1902), p. 46. The first part of the paper read was rewritten and published in full under the title " The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet ", and will be found immediately following the present article.] 258 Greek Archaeology from gimel, but must be for gamala, gamla (so Clermont-Ganneau) from gamal. The form gamma would be due to the many Greek words (especially perhaps ypdp.fw.) ending in -jua. It is of curious interest to note that the Greek names of the original gutterals all end in a geminated consonant followed by -a. Lambda is naturally the original form, not labda, and would derive readily from lamed, the insertion of the b (fi) having its parallels in the familiar words a/j.(3poT09 and ^arrj^pia. In the case of mu, nu it is clear that the former of the forms cannot well represent mem. It has been pointed out that rho presupposes on the one hand an original rosh (not resh), on the other hand a drop- ping in recitation of one of the contiguous s's in ros san. So here the other and older Gk. name for mu (my), viz. mo, points to mom nun, the former of which would become mon. The sequence mon nun samega (which last would be the Gk. form of samekt) would naturally become mo nu samega. The name of this last letter has commonly been traced in the Ionic sigma. Herodotus has been unduly censured, it seems to me, for saying that Persian names ended in the letter that the Dorians called San, the lonians Sigma. This is as though one should say that in writing Pickwick Papers Dickens called himself by a name that ends with the letter that the English call Zed, the Americans of the present genera- tion Ze. But, however this may be, the Ionic name Sigma seems to me not so certainly derived from Samega. The case of the jumbling of the sibilants is not clearly proved. Can it be that sigma is after all a significant name isolated it is true and that the later name omega had its prototype in samega understood (mis- understood) as sammega (san mega, o-av /u.cya)? When the other san was deemed a sufficient exponent of the sibilant and samega had become xei may not the one remaining simple sibilant have been called simply so i. e. o-iy/wt ? O (ov) instead of ova is like ei: thus the vowel names represent two types. (The added u ( v) is conformed to the e (ei) and o (ou) type) . Pei, qoppa (koppa) and tau need no comment. San is to be regarded (with Professor Eduard Meyer) as practically the Phoenician name (shan not shin). The names of the supplementary Greek letters have already been suffi- ciently discussed. 1 Ill Of the Beta Signs. The common Greek form of beta & or B can be readily ex 1 [In the first part of this paper ; see p 257, note i.] The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 259 plained as derived from fy or . Not so such forms as Theraean ^ or Corinthian ru . Lenormant's notion that the latter form was a modification of the current form made after E had given birth to the peculiar Corinthian e sign seems manifestly absurd. It would seem that we can infer a good deal from the Theraean ^. In this character the ^ seems pretty clearly to be a stroke of dif- ferentiation. The letter from which the sign for b was to be dis- tinguished would, of course, be T. But had the Theraeans not had two characters practically identical for b and p, what need for the stroke of differentiation? A similar use of a stroke of dif- ferentiation may perhaps be seen in the character ^^yS. Did the Corinthian ntj come from this? Are we justified in assuming that two or even three forms of beta were accepted by the Greeks at as many different places? that Crete, Thera and some other places took over a form ~\ which was variously modified to differentiate from the character for p, whereas most of the Greeks received and modified I have said "or even three forms" ; for what is the origin of the rho with a similar stroke? Can it be a widely spread differentiation of a ^f = c readily conf usible with a -^ or = b ? There are surely important problems here. IV Of the Sixteen-letter Alphabet. In an article or rather a section of an article entitled Die Theorien der Alten iiber die litterae priscae des griechischen Alphabets (Philologus 52 [1893], pp. 373-379) W. Schmid reaches the con- clusion that the theory of a primitive alphabet of 16 letters seems to be that of a Latin grammarian (Varro?) who compared the Greek and the Latin alphabets and assumed the common letters to be primitive, thus :ABCDEIKLMNOPRSTV. With this should be compared the theory expounded by Professor Sophocles at p. 14 sq. of his History of the Greek Alphabet, Cam- bridge, 1848. This theory I do not remember to have met with elsewhere. It is certainly very plausible far more so than that of the German scholar just referred to. THE SUPPLEMENTARY SIGNS OF THE GREEK ALPHABET. 1 The following remarks about the supplementary or complement- '[From the American Journal of Archaeology, Series II, Vol. VII (1903), pp. 429-444-] 260 Greek Archaeology ary signs of the Greek alphabet have to do primarily with the letters X Y and with the question of their "Eastern" or "Western" origin, arrangement, and equivalence. Discussion of these signs may justly begin with a paragraph near the end of Professor Kirchhoff s Studien zur Geschichte des Griechischen Alphabets in which the question at issue is put with admirable clearness a para- graph which appears in the same words in the fourth edition of the Studien (1887) as in the first (1863). "Since the new signs X * V," says Professor Kirchhoff, "notwithstanding their (in part) fundamental difference of signification and their varying arrange- ment, are yet in both groups [i. e. in the "Eastern" and in the "Western" alphabet] obviously identical in form, and since this cannot possibly be the result of accident, we must assume that they were invented, if not contemporaneously, as it should seem, at all events at one and the same place, from whence they were dis- seminated. Consequently, since we cannot attribute to those that were used with different values a double signification from the very beginning, one of these significations is the original ; the other, that which arose later by arbitrary alteration. Furthermore, since the varying sequence of the $ and X in the alphabets of the [two] several groups stands plainly in a causal connection with this change of signification of the X, this variation too can only be explained on the assumption that the one arrangement is to be regarded as the original ; the other, as the altered and secondary. The problem reduces itself to this: Which of the two groups is to be held to represent more faithfully the original condition, the Eastern or the Western?" 1 1 Da nun die neuen Zeichen X^V trotz ihrer zum Theil grundverschiedenen Bedeutung und abweichenden Anordnung, identisch sind und dies unmoglich zufallig sein kann, so mtissen wir annehmen, dass sie wahrscheinlich gleich- zeitig, ,'idenfalls aber an einem Punkte ursprunglich zuerst erfunden sind und von da sich verbreitet haben, folglich, da den in verschiedener Werthung gebrauchten eine doppelte Bedeutung nicht gleich von Anfang an kann beige- legt worden sein, die eine die urspriingliche, die andere die durch willkiir- liche Anderung erst spater entstandene ist. Da ferner die abweichende Folge des und X in den Alphabeten der verschiedenen Gruppen mit diesem Wechsel der Bedeutung des X offenbar in | einem ursachlichen Zusammen- hange steht, so lasst auch diese Abweichung sich nur so erklaren, dass die eine Ordnung als die urspriingliche, die andere als die abgeanderte und se- cundare betrachtet wird. Die Frage ist nur, welche von beiden Gruppen als diejenige zu gelten hat, die den ursprunglichen Zustand am treuesten darstellt, die ostliche oder die westliche. (Op. cit. pp. 173 sq., 4*' Auflage.) The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 261 In the next paragraph the last of the text proper of the Studien Professor Kirchhoff in his first and second editions declared himself inclined to favor the Western origin of the signs. In the third and fourth editions he says instead that, important as the solution of the problem is for other questions concerning the de- velopment of Greek civilization, he does not believe that the epi- graphical data at our disposal afford a sufficient foundation to build upon either way; therefore he prefers to reserve his decision in awaiting further epigraphical discoveries. That he still inclines or until lately inclined to believe in the Western origin of the signs in question might be inferred from his still in the fourth edition citing them in the Western order; but the inference would, perhaps, be an unfair one. In what follows I shall endeavor briefly to examine what has been done in the way of discussion and discovery toward the solution of the problem indicated above from and during the year 1886, in which year the fourth edition of the Studien went to press. In an article on 'The Early Ionic Alphabet' in the Journal of Hellenic Studies for 1886 (pp. 220-239) Mr Ernest Gardner treated the symbols 4> X V as Ionic and transmitted from East to West (p. 236). "It is a recognized rule," says he (pp. 236 sq.), "to which there are few exceptions, that the symbols of any one alphabet borrowed at one time from any other alphabet, invariably preserve the order they held in that other alphabet; and that new symbols, whether produced by independent differentiation or by fresh bor- rowing, are placed at the end in the alphabetic order, or next to the symbol from which they originated, as our own J, V, W. But this is only possible when the symbols are not also used as numerals in their alphabetic order. If we apply this rule to the last symbols of the Western alphabet, -f , , y, we see at once that they cannot be derived from the Ionian , +,V. If we take the last two letters only, , V, there is. no objection to meet as regards order. Hence -f- must have been there before. Now this -f- is used with the signification of , but in these Western alphabets the alphabetic place of the Phoenician samekh and the Greek is filled by a symbol evidently borrowed from the Phoenicians, but for practical purposes disused, [g . Evidently what had happened here is the same as what we find in the case of f and v. The Phoenician symbol is borrowed, and falls into practical disuse ; but a secondary 262 Greek Archaeology symbol evolved from it is placed at the end of the alphabet, and continues to hold its place in writing. Thus gg survived as a symbol only, but +> i ts simplified form, continued to live and to represent the sound . And the new form was naturally placed at the end of the alphabet. Now when the Western Greeks, already possessing this symbol, came to borrow from the lonians $, -f , V, they could not adopt the -j-, simply because it was identical with the symbol they already possessed, and used to denote . But the other two they borrowed, and put after their -f- a t the end of their alphabet; they retained in its original form; but for the guttural aspirate they needed a sign far more than for the combination ir X ^ upon an alphabet already possessing besides the A ... V series an added symbol -f = are at once bold and shrewd. But the lack of epigraphical evidence of the borrowing or adoption by one section of the Greek race from another of alphabetic signs with changed value left Mr Gardner's theory in the position of other guesses at truth, viz. in that of mere conjecture. The epigraphical evidence required to give it higher rank was ten years in coming. In the meantime several other people tried their heads and hands at the problem. Before taking up Mr Gardner's successors we should note an important publication closely preceding his. Professor von Wilamo- witz-Moellendorff in his Homerische Untersuchungen, published in 1884, gave it as his plain opinion (op. cit. p. 289) that the supple- mentary signs in question were of Ionic origin. and X he would derive from . (Lenormant and Taylor had so derived 0.) V he thought a differentiation of Y (in this coinciding with Clermont- Ganneau). "When this expanded alphabet came to the mother- country, was received with unanimity, but the cross seemed rather a development from samekh than from ; so it was employed for X<* either received no special sign, or else a new The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 263 and not very successful one." Mr Gardner writes as though he did not know of this theory. We turn now to the later writers. In a short article entitled 'Zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets/ published in the Athenian Mittheilungen for 1890 (pp. 235-239) and dated from Vienna in the preceding year, Emil Szanto set forth a rather fantastic theory about the signs we are consider- ing. Starting with the theory broached by Professor von Wilamo- witz-Moellendorff (as above), Mr Szanto says that it requires the assumption of the existence of a saniekh with the value of in the Western group at the time of its assumed act of borrowing from the Eastern. Besides, the influencing of one alphabet by another in such wise as to produce an unhomogeneous result seems to Mr Szanto improbable. His own theory is as follows: is common to both groups in the same signification. It must be older than the division into groups. This no-group stage of the Greek alphabet is represented by the Theraean alphabet, which must have been the common Greek alphabet. [It may be fairly asked on what grounds a purely local alphabet can be called "gemeingriechisch."] The Theraean alphabet expresses the aspirates by H, K H, and P H, and and ^ by K M and P M- The analogy is disturbed by H for TH, but there is no real diffi- culty; for both theta and tau are Phoenician. But as H was written for T H, so H and X H could be written after the inven- tion of $ and X to denote the aspirates, an apt mode of expression indeed if the sounds were affricates. The Numasios inscription seems to support the view that this was done. If that be so, there was once a stage of the common Greek alphabet at which the aspirates were denoted by H, H, and X H, which gave way later (at least in the East) to simple , $, and X. The oldest expres- sions for and ty were KO- and ir 5 and X %.. [These should be rather ^ and X^.] These are therefore relics of a once universal mode of writing. The Attic alphabet must not be regarded as an isolated phenomenon. From the Naxian g ^ we can infer that at a time when X was as yet non-existent and the expression \v was there- fore impossible, the expression ha appeared more adequate than K = 4> H, x = X H, = X S, ^ $, in which, therefore, the newly invented signs and X had already either the value of 264 Greek Archaeology and x, or one very near it, one that could be rendered equivalent to it by the addition of an aspiration. [It is pretty hard to under- stand what this sound might have been like.] H was soon dropped after Q. Next came the attempt to simplify the other four double signs. This was done by dropping the second element. So could be either x or (from $ H or from .). Both were tried. Hence arose the double equivalence. Owing to the great territorial extension of the Greek alphabet at this time geographical groups were formed. The Eastern cancelled H and gained a x but lost a t, which was supplied by samekh. The Western cancelled ^ and gained a but lost ax- So in the case of the labials : in the East they got a <1> by cancelling H, but had to differentiate a Y out of 4>. In a similar fashion they could have got a ^ in the West. But then ^ was not felt as a monophthong; so was gained as in the East. But a growing yearning for a x led to the borrowing of the Eastern ^ to supply the want. "This solution," says Mr Szanto, "pre- supposes a unity of the Greek alphabet until the time of the giving up of the four double letters and their replacement by single signs, likewise uniform adoption of the idea of employing the simple signs for these sounds; from this point, however, the ways part, and finally a sign is borrowed from the East for the West." The varying arrangement of the signs in East and West can be easily explained. The two aspirates might be placed first, the two double consonants second ; or the two gutturals first, the two labials second. In the East, the former arrangement was followed; but inasmuch as samekh, keeping its place in the alphabet, was used for , only < x "A stood at the end. In the Western alphabets that have i $ X the aspirates follow the double consonants ; in those that have x t either the principle of juxtaposition of labials and gutturals is fol- lowed or that of grouping aspirates and double sounds. In either grouping the labials have the precedence. There are some "spunks of sense" in all this, but they are not enough to set the river afire. The theory found small favor with the next disputant, Ernst Kalinka, who, in an article, 'Eine boiotische Alphabetvase,' in Ath. Mitth. 17 (1892), pp. 101-124, dated from Florence, November, 1891, disagrees with Mr Szanto in many things. He too doubts whether any part of the Greek race borrowed a number of signs from another in such wise as to leave to one sign its original signification, while giving to others an The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 265 entirely different value. But the pleonastic B. and X H are not found [Mr Kalinka sets aside the proof of the existence of the former derived by Mr Szanto from Nicandre's inscription] and was not a dental aspirate. He finds it hard to believe that two signs were invented that were intended never to be used singly but always in connection with another sign. The -f- in its position after V, which is peculiar to the Western Greeks, belongs to the earliest period of the separate development of the alphabet. The aspirate group $ X was next added. The East went a step farther in adding X Y are to him of Eastern more precisely, Milesian origin and are derived from koppa, tau, and ypsilon respectively. Their position answers to the order of those signs. The Western arrangement 9 x ( + 9 ^ ) is a mechanical and unmotived suffix- ing of the Eastern signs. The failure to take over the Eastern signs directly is due to difference of pronunciation in the West. In 1893 W. Schmid published in the Philologus (52, pp. 366-379) a paper 'Zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets.' Starting with adverse criticism of Szanto, the author goes on to say that the testimony of the inscriptions forces us to the conclusion that $ 266 Greek Archaeology was invented to express ph (spirant). So X to express ch (spirant). We must, he says, assume the following principles [better, principle and corollary] in judging any alphabet properly so called: (i) Each sign is = a vocal atom (Lautatomon). (2) This applies to signs derived from a foreign alphabet and a fortiori to those that are newly invented in the alphabet in question. The history of the alphabet cannot be separated from that of sounds and dialects. Simple signs for the aspirates were used when the aspirates approxi- mated the fricatives. X and $ were spirants. The change of aspirates to spirants in Greek goes hand in hand with the repression of the independent aspirate. The consummation of the process appears in modern Greek, the most important phonetic peculiarities of which were almost all developed before our era, but were hidden under the crust of conventional literary speech and spelling. So we may assume, continues Dr Schmid, that the spirant pronuncia- tion of the aspirates arose where the spiritus asper first gave way, i. e. among the Aeolians and lonians of Asia Minor. The invention of and X was the first alphabet innovation in the Eastern alphabet group. That is proved by the alphabets of Asiatic affinities that show and X, but not I and Y, viz. the Attic and the Naxian. Next came the invention of the signs for the assibilates. To I the arbitrary value /cor was assigned. The assibilates were introduced before the seventh century. In the Western group of alphabets X was not taken from the Eastern, but independently developed ( = KO-). This was felt as the first desideratum in the West. It is to be noted that the Western group is prevailingly Doric. K M at Thera and Melos may perhaps indicate that the aspiration before o- disappeared early among the Dorians. The coincidence in form in -(- between East and West is purely accidental. "Already in possession of an alphabet of twenty-four signs, the Western group became acquainted with the three new inventions, X V, of the Eastern group. X = ch they could no longer use ; for they had it, or a sign very like it, already in use for ks. Only <1> and V were available. was accepted with its Eastern value ; but an expres- sion for ps was not needed, and to V was given the value of ch." 1 1 1 may note here that Dr Schmid's explanation of the place and manner of the introduction of the spirants ("aspirates") is a priori both reasonable and natural, and appears to be the only one that suits the facts. The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 267 Thus far the discussion of the problem has proceeded without fresh epigraphical discoveries. It has been somewhat complicated by the introduction of the question of pronunciation, but all the disputants have favored more or less the sonant pronunciation of and x Dr Schmid most emphatically. In an article entitled 'Die sekundaren Zeichen des griechischen Alphabets' published by Dr Paul Kretschmer in the Ath. Mitth. for 1896 (pp. 410-433) and dated "Berlin, Dez. 1896," a new theory is proposed and, better still, a new epigraphical discovery is utilized, though not so fully as it might be. With Szanto Dr Kretschmer agrees in one point: he, too, would make X a simplified X 5 (p. 426). But he arrives at the former sign by a different way. In opposition to Schmid, he seeks to prove untenable the view that < and \ could represent spirants at the time of the invention and propagation of the secondary signs (pp. 412-420). In this he believes he has succeeded. He next discusses the question, why the Greeks felt the need of a . In the Naxian sign D [which, and not B, the stone shews] he sees, with Kalinka, a guttural spirant or, at any rate, a guttural that was neither K nor x [the latter being an aspirate in his view]. So in the Rhodian Euthytidas inscription (/. G. Ins. I, 709) he sees in X 3 not should be spirant in ^ . But we have no proof of such a pronunciation of \j/, and Eastern -f- side by side with V is against it. and \f/ are not, in Dr Kretschmer's view, parallel. is = khs passing to guttural spirant plus s. Thus, Dr Kretschmer thinks, we have got the key to the mystery. "We are brought to an alphabet in which x is represented by Y, as in the later Western alphabets, and the guttural of by X, as in the Eastern alphabets. This alphabet leads forward to the Western series : X $ could be abbreviated to x > inasmuch as the guttural spirant occurred only before o- and the omission of sigma, there- fore, would cause no misapprehension." Again: "The Eastern alphabet with X for both x and the guttural element of represents 268 Greek Archaeology the older manner of writing. Since the guttural element of was spirant, or became so, the necessity arose of distinguishing this spirant from kh also in writing. At Naxos a variant of Heta was employed for the guttural spirant. In the West a new sign for the aspirate (^ ) was invented that was diffused over most of conti- nental Greece, and was carried also to Rhodes, Sicily, and Italy. In the East the quiescent samekh was employed for . In Attica and in most of the Cyclades the old style was maintained." In the alphabets that employed the phonetic group ps (phs) received a special sign for symmetry's sake, viz. the Western Y = x- We have epigraphical proof (presently to be given) that a letter could be borrowed by one alphabet from another with change of value; and as for the inexact analogy of and \f/, we know that Archinus compared i/' with and in recommending to the Athenians the introduction of the Ionic alphabet (Aristotle Metaph. 1093 a; Syrianus Schol. Aristot. Metaph. p. 940 b). The less frequent use of ^ also shews that less need of it than of was felt. As for the arrangement of the supplementary signs, that has a phonetic basis. The aspirates always stand together. The original order was the Eastern. Y was added to $ X. "In the West the newly invented aspirate sign Y must, on account of the phonetic principle, stand after ; X was placed either before the aspirates (X $ Y in the Chalcidian and Boeotian alphabets) or behind them ($ Y X in the Achaean alphabet)." 1 1 1 have thought it well to present here in a footnote some further notes on the first part of Dr Kretschmer's important article. Dr Kretschmer sets aside the discussion of the formal development of the supplementary signs (p. 411). He does so, it seems to me, with too great flippancy. The matter is one of great importance. His arguments for the aspirate versus the spirant pronun- ciation of < and v (pp. 412-420) are not convincing. These do not repre- sent the view of all philologists competent to deal with the subject; and even Dr Kretschmer, as will have been observed, has to make a concession to the opposing view in the case of his combination of ^ with sibilant. It is this obstinate aspirate theory that stands in the way of the acceptance of so sim- ple an explanation as that of Dr Schmid, and forces upon us some very tortuous argumentation A MINUS PROBABILI. Dr Kretschmer's discussion of the reason for introducing a simple sign for (pp. 421 sqq.) is not convincing, nor very consistent. His view of Naxian Q^ seems very forced. The Naxian D ^ was, I venture to think, developed before the introduction of the Ionic X. Dr Kretschmer says (p. 424) that only the fact that at Thera K M, and not K B M, is written is against the aspirate pronunciation of X (and Y The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 269 In the concluding section of his paper (pp. 430-433), Dr Kretsch- mer discusses the archaic inscriptions found by Hiller von Gart- ringen at Thera in 1896 (see Ath. Mitth. 21 [1896], p. 252 sqq., and the Inscrr. Gr. Insularum}, in addition to those that were pre- viously known, and sums up our knowledge about the development of the Theraean alphabet. The first period has 2 [xl] ft (con- firming by several examples Professor Collitz's view), f = y, B h and 17, (twice ^ B = , KB or <|>B=x> K M=, and PM=i/'. But we can infer from a few examples, to be regarded as sporadic survivals, an earlier stage at which, as in Crete, K and P are=x and respectively and E is =1; (cf. ^ A\ 3 a in the Abron inscription). The use of H for t) comes from a psilotic region Crete or Ionia. It is not native to Thera. In the second period we have (g), * = L, fl/\ = a- (koppa too is found), but the Ionic aspirates [as Dr Kretschmer calls them, although Ionia is to him a psilotic region] 4> and x have been introduced. We find also (perhaps more modern [though the reason for this designation is not plain] ) represented by V in ' to be read ' AX w a - There are also ( cf - Ath - Mitth - 1896, p. 221) one or two inscriptions at Melos with the same pecu- liarity. The solution of this puzzling use of V is to be found in = x). He says further (ibid.) that the fact that if ya- is guttural spirant + s, and X for < and % without change ; but inasmuch as J was still used among them for , and, for the reason previously given, they had no need of a special sign for \f/, they changed the value of the Ionic sign for if/ to that of . That happened at Melos too, unless the Y = there is a Theraean importation. The great value of this fact appears to me to lie in this, that the change of the Western Y = ^ to the Eastern value i/c thus becomes really plausible." This contains an important element of truth, but we may draw further and, I venture to think, sounder conclusions. In the change of value of V at Thera we see the result of a deliberate attempt on somebody's part to introduce into the Theraean alphabet the short- hand Ionic symbols for the double consonants and the aspirants in addition to the signs already there. The procedure must, it seems to me, have been as distinct and deliberate as that. The and X would be taken "ohne weiteres," as Dr Kretschmer says ; the change of value of V was, as he also says, due to the pressure of I = ; and we must, it should seem, also admit, without, however, accept- ing his view of the reason, that greater need was felt of a symbol for KM than of one for PM. We may now apply a similar course of reasoning to the introduc- tion of the Ionic symbols into the West (and here we may make, with Mr Gardner, Dr W. Schmid, and Dr Larfeld, the assumption that the supplementary symbols in the West came from Ionia or, more precisely, Miletus). Suppose a Western alphabet with + = after Y. Suppose that the users of that alphabet, or rather some small group or individuals among them, deliberately sought to graft 'I & Y M= Zeus appears twice at Corinth (Kretschmer, Ath. Mitth. 22 [1897], P. 343 sq.). The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 271 upon it the Ionic (Milesian) supplementary signs for the spirants and for the double consonants that they lacked; or, more precisely, that they sought to perfect their alphabet by the addition from an Ionic source of signs for ph, ch, ps (phs), in that order and at the end of their alphabet. In the case of the first sign they could accept and did, I believe, accept value and symbol together. In the case of the second sign they could accept the value, but they could not accept the symbol on account of their -]-:=. Therefore they cancelled the symbol but accepted the value, attaching that value to the third symbol. They were thus left without a symbol for i/f. In this process we seem to see a deliberate attempt on the part of some one an earlier Archinus to enlarge the scope of alphabetic expression by the addition of signs and values together and, so far as possible, in a traditional order, a fully conscious and systematic procedure. This rests on an assumption on assumptions, if you will, but the reductio has not been brought, perhaps (as I trust) cannot be brought, ad absurdum. In conclusion I venture to call attention to another case of a change of value of an imported symbol (also Ionic) which can, I think, be detected at Paros, Siphnos, Thasos, and Delos. Here the close o-sounds are represented by Q, the long open one by ; whereas the reverse is the case in Ionia (Miletus). At Melos we have a differentiation of the symbols for the o-sounds in the same direction as at Paros etc., but in a manner independent of Ionia (C o, ov ; = w). Now the Parian and Milesian systems must hang together, and all plausibility lies in favor of the Ionic system being the original. But why should the Ionic symbols have been reversed in their values at Paros etc.? There seems to be but one reasonable answer to this, viz. that in an earlier stage of the Parian alphabet (perhaps we should rather say the Delian alphabet) a differentiation of the o-signs had been made, either the same as at Melos and hence connected with that method or at least in the same direction. Upon this differentiation the Ionic differentiation was grafted, and the value of the Ionic symbols was thereby re- versed, because the symbol developed from the that was in use as a differentiate in the islands in question or at the centre whence their alphabet spread had the value of the close o-sounds, not of the open. The Ionic (Milesian) differentiative had thus, on 272 Greek Archaeology its acceptance in the Cyclades, its function changed to that of the local 0. This explanation may have occurred to others besides myself, but I do not remember to have met with it elsewhere. I would emphasize, what I believe our epigraphical data warrant, the view that alphabetic shifts and changes of the character of those I have been discussing were made among the Greeks with full consciousness and after much deliberation. The arguments attrib- uted to Archinus at the official introduction of the Ionic alphabet at Athens are but the last stage of a movement that derived, as Dr Schmid thinks, the spirant signs from the Phoenician and added the symbols for the double consonants to I. That the similarity of form of the quiescent samekh to I had much to do with the scheme of signs adopted for the double consonants seems, to me at least, very probable. I venture to add a few bits of supplementary speculation. 1 i ) If the early spirant pronunciation of and the pronuncia- tion among the lonians of I as ds were demonstrable, it would be easy to set up a plausible theory of the way in which, in important particulars, the Greeks enlarged the Phoenician alphabet. plus X (-(-) could be the filling out of a spirant scheme (the forms of the last two characters derived from the first, as Professor von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff suggested) ; I plus I and V would be the filling out of an assibilate scheme. Both spirant scheme and assibilate scheme would start with the dental. The similarity in form between I and I as an element in the process I have already alluded to. It may be added that had already a place in the alphabet ; therefore the fact that it precedes V = $ does not imply that it was used = ks before the latter sign came into use. V might be derived from $. (2) We might trace the following stages of the development from the Phoenician alphabet into the Ionian (Milesian) : (a) The introduction (or rather, chiefly, adaptation and adop- tion) of vowel signs; (&) The development and adoption of a group of spirant signs; (c) The development and adoption of a group of assibilate signs; (d) The development of signs for the open E and vowels. The question of the treatment of the various sibilants taken over from the Phoenicians must be dealt with apart. The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 273 (3) I have spoken above of a Milesian alphabet and of a Delian alphabet. Both would be connected with the culture that centred about important shrines of the great divinity of culture Apollo. May not the great Delphic shrine have played its part? Should we say Delphian alphabet for Western alphabet? APPENDIX SELECTED POEMS AND TRANSLATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY * O ' %^ * A, * duteVC* 4.lJ4V rt T <-1 * V ^re JVt [This jeu d'esprit, written on a post-card, was sent as a message of con- dolence from a favorite cat ("Frederick Charles") to his brother ("Cock- tail"), on the death of their uncle ("Smilax"). It is here reproduced as a specimen of Professor Earle's beautiful Greek script.] POEMS AND TRANSLATIONS DAWN IN ACHAIA. The old moon dies within the new moon's arms ; Above the glorious star of morning shines In limpid light; nearer the coming sun Another star is fading in the glow That gently heralds forth his majesty. On the long stretch of sand the silvery waves Tramp in soft thunder, shaking their white manes; And there, beyond them, dark and sullen still, Rises the long, sharp mountain-ridge, where now Rests heavily a line of leaden cloud. Landward the yellow line of garden wall; Beyond it, vineyards and low olive trees ; And further upland, where the mountain-sides Begin to swell in terraces on high, The hamlets wait the greeting of the day. Afar beyond them looks across the plains And o'er the sea, where his proud compeers stand, Cyllene, hoary-white with winter's snow. But see ! Apollo's golden car leaps forth Above the horizon's edge, glorious in might. And the god's arrows fly through azure space, Smiting Parnassus with their flaming barbs, So that his forehead and his breast are stained As with pale blood ambrosial and divine. And Hellas ! would to Zeus and all the powers That ruled thy heights empyrean once of old, I might win from that wondrous mystic past One hour, wherein my eyes might see thee smile From where old Sicyon gazed upon the sea! 1887-8. 278 Appendix WILD FLOWERS OF GREECE. Hard by the old gray stones they grow to-day, 'Xeath the great pines, where the wind sweetly sighs As if it were a dryad's voice that mourns In gentle cadence glories of the past. Their golden cups nod in the mountain breeze, As though beneath the tread of airy nymphs. And see yon broken stem, crushed to the sod : Could one not think, but for our doubting days When every man a Thomas is, and worse, That the sharp hoof of some young satyr trod Upon the tender blossom, as he danced In merry measure to the pipe of Pan, Holding his forest revels in this vale, O'er which Pentele towers in majesty? And did they grow, and were they blooming here, When frank young maidens in those olden days, When love walked naked and was not ashamed, Roaming the valley by their lovers' sides Gathered these wild flowers for their locks, or wore Them with the ivy of their god entwined? Fairest of chaplets for the loveliest heads That ever drooped beneath the stroke of death; For, like these humbler children of the glen, They vanished and their places vacant left For others joying in the vital air. Ah ! sweets of earth, ye are but brief at best ; Glad hours we have, while youth and love and wine Tune the fierce pulses to a measure swift That heralds but the hour of fate afar. Ye flowers of Greece, Demeter's mother-smile, Calm gladness for her daughter's safe return, Ye do but hide the graves wherein the past Is what we shall be, when our dust is laid Far from this lovely nook, wherein yon gold Mocks the vain wishes of the race of men. 1887-8. Poems and Translations 279 Eis Ta SevSpa Mr' '? TOV Satrovs ra AovAovSta Ka0icra Kai TOV avffJ "AKOVO-" ovAa TO. Kal 6 NOTOS /tov fvTos TO TTvev/wt, *Epa>Tos /AC Ta Kovrdpia. 's T^V KOtAaSa 'Hoi) T rewT^^Kave TOL vi/Tria. Tcipa 'ppicrKOvrai KaTO-txais, Twpa '/3/3TKOVTai K^t' d/x/re'Atu, Mo'v* oc avdpwTroi /xas ActVouv 'Air* TOW Ba/c^ov Ta Kai ayaA.|u#.TOS KOp.fJia.Tia, * A.V lBovp.e p.6vov Tavra ATT TO. TraAaia TraAaTta ; Ma Se )8A7TC6S TrtTaAouSats, 2a o-TOt^eia /aeV 's T* depia Fiyxo yvpw iroii TTf.Ta.vf. Kal /u,as ui. *Ev ' 280 Appendix EURIPIDES IN SALAMIS. 1 Salamis azure-ringed with laughing sea Whose salt lips drank the Persians' blood of old, Gem beyond price of Asian hoards untold Upon the billowy robe of Athens free; Sweet sun-kissed isle, yet reef of tyranny, Hallowed art thou, Muse- famed Ajacian hold, Where voices haunt and memory's ear enfold, Like drowsy Comus-song of thyme-flown bee : Thy caverned ghosts still speak through eddying years, Though 'twixt us disuniting surges flow, Bringing nepenthe and hot smart of tears; For on thy shore's gray rim, thought-steeped and slow s Pondered that prophet of our soul-deep fears, His shadow lengthening in the god's last glow. ODYSSEUS. 1 Across the purpling bacchanalian waves That riot on the deep and tramp the shore, All steadfastly sea-swart Odysseus bore On ship, on raft, that wind and sea-god braves. What though his fate and course be gyved slaves In the stern Spinners' thread wound o'er and o'er, When in his ears there echoes evermore What through all peril he still, deep-yearning, craves ? For, constant as the wheeling sea-bird's call Sweeping the wine-faced deep on snowy wing, Sweeter than Siren-music's magic fall, Or Circe's notes of far-melodious ring, From the home-island's suitor-wantoned hall One true voice goals ten years of wandering. 1 [From the Bookman, December, 1900, p. 372.] Poems and Translations 281 HELLAS. Murky the night and dark, in angry fits The wind sweeps free; Cleaving the shadows dank my spirit flits, Hellas, to thee! Llnder the violet heights where Pallas reigns, O'er azure sea, There rocking sails skim light, on billowed plains, Hellas, to thee! Where Zante's isle looms up, with castled steep, To beckon me, In lulling dreams I glide thro' phantomed sleep, Hellas, to thee! Ah ! heart-sick, feeble-breathed with passion's flame, In ecstasy, Yearn I to revel, freed from thraldom's claim, Hellas, in thee! When death, all-vanquisher, from his dark prow Beckons to flee, May he with Grecian thyme wreathe this cold brow, Hellas, in thee! Then like the daemon-souls, in ancient days Fabled to be, May I haunt mountain-heights, lapped in soft rays, Hellas, in thee! Jan. 15 and 26, 1890. ATTICA. In the sweep and cadence of Attica's pines, The kiss of her breezes, the blood of her vines; In the tremble and thrill of her nightingales' moan, The murmuring splash of her sea's lulling tones ; In the blossoms and bees of her mountains and glens, The rank grass that heaves over Marathon's fens, Stirs the breath and the voice of a spirit supreme, A message to prophets in ecstasy's dream. Jan. 26, 1890. 282 Appendix THE PARTHENON. In the hush of the dawning it rises sublime, 'Neath the cloudless abysses of Hellas' sweet clime Thyme-kissed by the breath o'er Hymettus that strays In the bliss of the birth of long midsummer days. 'Tis a dream of the spirit of masterless mind, The essence of wisdom and sweetness combined, Springing keen as the eagle o'er Tempe that swings From the brow of the Thunderer, the tyrant of kings. The shrine of our Pallas, fair gem of the crown On Attica's forehead from aether sent down, O'er the wine-faced Aegean it beacons afar, In columned perfection, earth's exquisite star. Come bow to the Goddess from East and from West, Sing praises in honour of Athens the blest; Though fallen, she rises forever the goal Eternal that governs each fire-breathed soul. Parmenides' chariot no farther could speed Exalted 'mid clouds 'neath the God's shaft that bleed ; Crown high then the goblet Icarius gave And thrice pour the honour on Phidias' grave. 1 Feb. 15, 1890. EVENING. When evening's star, the bright, From the blue deep Beacons to me, Winging afar its flight O'er mountains steep, Over the sea, Speeds then my fancy light Fleeter than sleep Ever to thee. Jan. 30, 1891. Poems and Translations 283 SUNSET. When the clear sunset glow Pales in the west, Over the sea, Bright gleams the evening star, From azure deeps, Guiding to thee. Then with dream-pinions spread, Swifter than thought Airy and free, Cleaving the twilight dim, My spirit flits, Ever to thee. Jan. 30, 1891. The ripples lap lightly, There's a boat on the sea, And her lateen sail flits Through the moonlight and dark. Her pilot steers true; They are speeding to me, With a dip and a splash As the sea rocks the bark. What form rises dim Through the gleam of the night? Who is guiding the sail, And what means the bright spark? My heart tells me true: 'Tis a convoy from * * The twin-brothers steer straight To my soul as their mark. Feb. 7, 1891. 284 Appendix MOONLIGHT In a dusky street of a moonlit town My love she waits for me, Far, far away 'neath a southern sky, In an isle 'mid the azure sea. I know not whether her face be fair, Her eyes be dark and bright: But this I know, at the window there She yearns in the summer night, And her soul at the helm of the rocking bark, With its sails spread white to the breeze, Doth pilot me on to the haven sure, O'er the crests of the silvering seas. And when I shall walk through the sleeping town, To the house of my love at last, Though we knew not each other on earth before, We shall bridge the gulf of the past. There clasped in her arms in the moonlit dusk, In that land where the wind blows free, My heart shall rest on her warm soft breast And dream of the sky and the sea. Athens, Aug. 1891. EURIPIDES. Born at the birth of that which should be great, Born, as they say, upon that fatal tide When Salamis saw the Great King's navy ride Within her straits, the torrent east in spate, Yet saw it scattered by the stroke of fate, Unknowing Athens' subtle might to abide, While Grecian valour ploughed o'er Persian pride Born with the birth of that young power elate, Thou wast the prophet of her soberer years, Thou wast the prophet of her stormy strife, Thou lookedst on her laughter and her tears, Thou saw'st her breed, unwitting, larger life ; And in the eternal Hellas that should be Thou gav'st her spirit immortality. [From the introduction to Professor Earle's Medea (1904), p. 14.] Poems and Translations 285 CATULLI CARMEN V. Uiuamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus, Rumoresque senum seueriorum Omnes unius aestimemus assis. Soles occidere et redire possunt: Nobis, cum semel occidit breuis lux, Nox est perpetua una dormienda. Da mi basia mille, deinde centum, Dein mille altera, dein secunda centum, Deinde usque altera mille, deinde centum, Dein, cum milia multa fecerimus, Conturbabimus ilia, ne sciamus, Aut ne quis malus inuidere possit, Cum tantum sciat esse basiorum. CATULLUS TO LESBIA. Come, my Lesbia, let us live and love, dear; And the querulous words of crabbed greybeards Let us reckon them all not worth a penny. Suns gone into the west come back at morning; But when our little light of life has set once, We must sleep through the night that has no ending. Give me kisses a thousand, then a hundred; Then a thousand again, and still a hundred; Then a thousand a third time and a hundred. Then we'll mix the account of all our thousands, So that we cannot know, and none can envy, When he knows that we've had so many kisses. Dec. 30, 1886. 286 Appendix LINCOLN'S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long en- dure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who have given their lives that the nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate we cannot conse- crate we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain ; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom ; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Poems and Translations 287 LINCOLN'S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS "OySoov p.fv eVos TOVTI Kat oySo^KotTTov, o ai'Spes TroAiTai, a(p' ou ol Trpdyovot 01 iJ/ieVepot Ka.T(TTir)7rovs tcrovs eivat /cat o/xotovs Kara wrw ' vvv 8 ets TroAeyxov KaQi(Trap.e.v Ty/nets /x^>vAtov /ixeyav KCU Seivdv, os xai TTJV ap\r)v Tavrrjv el /cat aur^ xai aAAry TOiavr?/ T^V yvoi/w/v C7~uvecrTavat ouvT^creTai ?rt ^povov cru^vdv. Kai 8^ (TWfX-ri\vda.fjt.f.v TI//XC/OOV OTTOV eyei/tTo ficyaXiy TOT) TToXe/xou TOUTOU /".ax 1 ? ' Ka ^ yKoptv y is d^optowTs TI /xe'pos TOI) TreStou rovSi'j tva Taos yevrjTat KOIVO? TWV evrav^a u^-ep rfjs Trar/atSo? ra la-^aT aTTO^avdvTwv. xat CIKOTWS /xcv Kat SIKUUO? ravra TTOIOV/ACV ' TW OVTI 8* ov Suvaf ovre a.(f>opLcra.L ovrs. avaOeivat ovre dyvicreu 8^ TOVTI TO ^utpLov ' ol yap dv8peiu>$ evrav^a fJM)(ev ovre (r6$pa ei 6V' / a.vafj.vTf)Ta>v dirpo- <^>ao"tcrT(i>s /xaAXov virepfJMxeiv TOV O&.OJ/IUJ.TOS iiTrfp ov Kal Kivoi d7rpo<^ao"io"TO)s fui^ofj-evot OLTTU- \OVTO ' yvdvTas 8f o-uv ^10 /u,^ TrepuSav p.a.Tr}V TeOvr/KOTaf TOVTOVQ-I, dAAa TrpaTTfiv KaTa 8wa/u,iv WCTTC TO /xv t^vos TO rj^erepov Kat TraAiv xaTa Traaav iXevOepiav KTicrOrjvai T-TJV oe TroAiTetav TT^V IK TC TOT) 8iyyu,ou Kai VTTO TOV 8i// xat VTrep TOV orjfj.ov fJiyotiroT' a.(pavi(rdrjvai f av6p(0irw<; erra^ei /Aap/Aapvyats 8voepov Xdfjiirwv OKtavoTo pools * v dveretX' O.TTO (3ev6fo<; a Xpuo-awp TrpoXtTTwi/ KaXXipo^v aTraX^v ' K ^t<^>os yap e^ev' eXeXi^o/x.ei/ov Kara TTOVTOV OVTO) fMLKpOTOVOV KOI TpVatvd/ievov KaOopta. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BOOKS, ARTICLES AND REVIEWS BY PROFESSOR EARLE. 1 1888 A New Sikyonian Inscription. American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, IV. 427-430. 247-251. i! A Sikyonian Statue. American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, V. 26-37. 234-246. 1891 Inscription found at Megara. The Classical Review V. 244. Omitted. Supplementary Excavations at the Theatre of Sikyon in 1891. American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, VII. 281-282. Omitted. 1892 Notes. The Classical Review VI. 73. 52 (note), and 163. Ne/>o. Ibid. 231-232. The Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Greek. Ibid. 93-95. 213-218. New Inscriptions from Sikyon. Ibid. 133-135. 251-256. Notes. Ibid. 226-227. 114-115, 144. An Inscription at Pellene. Ibid. 367. Omitted. On Simonides 4. Ibid. 413-414. 172. Ad Euripidis Iphigeniam Tauricam 1351-1353. American Jour- nal of Philology XIII. 87. 116-117. Note on Sophocles's Antigone 1204 sq. Ibid. 483. 74. Notes on the Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Attic Greek. Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXIII. xvii-xviii. 218-219. 1 The references at the right-hand ends of the lines are to the pages of this volume. The word "omitted" in the same place means that the article in question has not been included in this volume. 290 Bibliography Excavations of the Theatre of Sikyon in 1891. American Jour- nol of Archaeology, Series I, VIII. 388-396. Omitted. Emendations in Lysias. The Classical Review VII. 19. 170-171. On TraifjM, Trfjpa, Herodotus I. 67. Ibid. 20. 161-162. Notes on the Supplices. Ibid. 150-152. 119-122. 2aAvv, Ibid. 248. 37-38. Notes on Euripides, Bacchae 1058-1062. Ibid. 312. 104-105. Euripidean Notes. Ibid. 344-346. 108-117, passim. Notes on Sophocles, Trachiniae. Ibid. 449-451. 2 5' 2 9- Critical Note on Certain Passages in Sophocles's Antigone. Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXIV. xxxviii. 75. Critical Notes on Certain Passages in Sophocles's Philoctetes. Ibid, xxxvii. 81-83. 1894 Various Emendations. The Classical Review VIII. 11-12. Omitted. Notes on the Bacchae of Euripides. Harvard Studies in Classi- cal Philology V. 45-48. 105-108. Some Remarks on the Moods of Will in Greek. Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXV. 1-li. 219-222. A Critical Note on Euripides, Ion 1-3. Ibid. Ixiii-lxiv. 112-114. i895 Notes on Euripides, Phoenissae. The Classical Review IX. 13-14. 117-119. Note on Sophocles, Antigone 117-120. Ibid. 15. 47-48. Sophocles, Trachiniae 26-48. A Study in Interpretation. Ibid. 200-202. 29-34. Sophocles, Trachiniae 56, and Euripides, Medea 13. Ibid. 395- 396. Omitted. Miscellanea Critica. Ibid. 439-441. 48-51. YTTOCTAYPOYN, Mnemosyne XXXIII. 153. 145. Review of Sonnenschein's Greek Grammar for Schools. Edu- cational Review X. 298-299. Omitted. Bibliography 291 1896 The Alcestis of Euripides. Edited with Introduction, Notes, etc. Macmillan and Co. Miscellanea Critica. The Classical Review X. 1-4. 144-145, 160-161, 207-208 (in part). On Vergil, Eclogues I. 68-70. Ibid. 194. 211. Notes on Euripides's Alcestis. Ibid. 374-376. 93~97- Of the Subjunctive in Relative Clauses after OUK IOTIV and its kin. Ibid. 421-424. 222-228. Review of Thumb's Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache. The American Journal of Philology XVII. 491-494. Omitted. 1897 Critical Notes on Cicero, De Oratore I. The Classical Review XI. 22-26. 197-203. Note on Plato, Symposium 179 C. Ibid. 159. 154-155. Of Two Passages in Homer. Ibid. 242-243. 163-166. Notes on Antistrophic Verbal Responsion in Attic Tragedy. Pro- ceedings of the American Philological Association XXVIII. xi-xiv. 124-127. Review of Haigh's Tragic Drama of the Greeks. The Classical Review XII. 37-41. Omitted. Note on Euripides, Alcestis 501. Ibid. 393-394. 98-100. Notes on Bacchylides. Ibid. 394-395. 158-160. On Lucian, Timon 18. Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXIX. vii-ix. 168-170. Note on Sophocles's Oedipus Coloneus. Ibid. xlvi. 47, Encore Herodote I. 86. Revue de Philologie XXII. 182- 183. 162-163. 1899 Review of Isham's Homeric Palace. The Classical Review XIII. 184. Omitted. Notes on Sophocles's Oedipus Tyrannus. Ibid. 339-342. 38-43. Notes on Sophocles's Antigone. Ibid. 386-393. 52-65. 292 Bibliography 1900 Miscellanea. The Classical Review XIV. 20-22. 90-92, 155-156, 158, 166-167, 172. A Suggestion on the Development of the Greek Optative. Ibid. 122-123. 228-230. Euripides, Alcestis 1-85. Revue de Philologie XXIV. 145- 146. 102-103. On the Education of Women. Columbia University Quarterly II. 231-234 Quoted in part in the Memoir. 1901 The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Edited with introduction, notes, etc. The American Book Co. Miscellanea Critica. Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXXII. xxviii-xxix. 3, 25 (note), 46 (note), in, 127, 128. Note on the Nominative of the First Person in Euripides. Ibid, xcix-ci. 122-124. Review of Gildersleeve's Greek Syntax. The Bookman XIII. 566-568. Omitted. 1902 The Opening of Sophocles's Antigone. The Classical Review XVI. 3-5. 65-69. On Two Passages of Sophocles's Electra. Ibid. 5-7. 77-8o- On the First Ode of Horace. Ibid. 398-401. 177-183. Studies in Sophocles's Trachinians. Transactions of the Ameri- can Philological Association XXXIII. 5-29. 3-25. Notes on Cicero, De Natura Deorum I. Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXXIII. Ixx-lxxi. 203-205. Notes on the Greek Alphabet. American Journal of Archae- ology, Second Series, VI. 46-47. [See p. 257, note.] On Euripides, Hippolytus 43-46. Mnemosyne XXX. 136. 111-112. Ad Horatii Sermonem I. 155 sq. Ibid. 347. 191 Bibliography 293 1903 Notes on Sophocles's Antigone. The Classical Review XVII. 5-6- 69-73. Of the Prologue of the Agamemnon. Ibid. 102-105. 84-90. Note on Sophocles's Electra. Ibid. 209. 80-81. Note on Horace, Carmina i. 3. 1-8. Proceedings of the Ameri- can Philological Association XXXIV. xxii-xxiii. 185-186. Critical Note on Plato, Republic 423 B. Ibid, xxiii. 156. The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet. American Journal of Archaeology, Second Series, VII. 429-444. 259-273. Ad Caesaris Comm. De Bello Gallico Initium. Revue de Philol- ogie XXVII. 52. 196. Sophocle, Oedipe-Roi 10-11. Ibid. 151-153. 43-45- De Horatii Sermone I. i. Ibid. 233-235. 191-193. Observatiunculae ad Locos Quosdam Poetarum Romanorum. Ibid. 269-272. 208-211. Ad Vergilii Aeneidem I. 39 ff. Mnemosyne XXXI. 46. 211-212. 1904 The Medea of Euripides. Edited with Introduction, Notes, etc. The American Book Co. On Alcestis's eVto-K^is, Alcestis 280-325. The Classical Review XVIII. 336. 100-101. Notes on Horace. Ibid. 391-392. 183-185. De Sophoclis Antigone vv. 5 et 46. Revue de Philologie XXVIII. 122. 73-74. De Xenophontis Anabasi. Ibid. 255. 173-174. Ad Ciceronis Catonem Maiorem. Ibid. 123-124. 205-206. Analecta. The Latin Leaflet V. No. 104. 230-231. Review of Newman's Edition of Aristotle's Politics. Political Science Quarterly XIX. 157-160. Omitted. 1905 On Iliad I. 418. A Reply. The Classical Review XIX. 241. Omitted. 294 Bibliography Demosthenes's Nickname o/ayas. Ibid. 250-251. 160. On the Apocolocyntosis of Seneca. Ibid. 303. 207. De Thucydidis I. 1-23. The American Journal of Philology XXVI. 441-454. 129-142. Cicero, Orator 30. Revue de Philologie XXIX. 32. 206. De Horatii Satira Prima. Ibid. 35-36. ^S^QS- Horatianum. Ibid. 37. 187. De Carmine quod est inter Horatiana IV. viii. Ibid. 306- 309. 187-190. De Livii Praefatione 3. Mnemosyne XXXIII. 397. 206. Ad Herodotum. Ibid. 444. 161. Three Notes on Greek Semasiology. The Classical Review XXI. 14- 233. Article Athenae in Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 148-156. Omitted. INDEX LOCORUM The pages in which the various passages are discussed or mentioned are given in the parentheses. AESCHYLUS, Ag. 1-35 (84-92); 114 (160) ; 1050 sq. (76); 1072 sq-., 1076 sq., 1080 sq., 1085 sq. (124) ; 1226 (86) ; 1244 (87, 89) ; 1530 sqq. (217) ; Choeph. 25, 35 (125) ; 91 (224) ; 106 (172) ; 172 (218) ; 1048 sq. (114) J 1058 (115) ; Eum. 778-793, 808-823, 837-846, 870-880 (124) ; Pert. 280-283 (1.24) ; 1040-1048, 1057-1063 (124) ; Prom. Vine. 2 (3, note) ; 291 SQ. (218); 350 (115); 406-413 (23); 470 (224); 471 (216); 613 (48); 907 sqq. (165-166) ; 918-923 (164). APPIAN, Rom. Hist. 11 (158). ARISTOPHANES, Av. 94 (42); Ran. 73 (51); 96-98 (215, 226, note); Thesm. 887 sq. (172). ARISTOTLE, *A0. IIoX. 12 (91) ; Metaphy. 1093 A (268) ; Rhet. 1371 A (65). BACCHYLIDES, 9.22 sqq. (158); n.8 sq. (158); 11.43-58 (159); 16.35 (159); 17.20 (159); 17-82 sqq. (159-160). CAESAR, B. G. 1,1 (196). CATULLUS, i.i (209); 2.11-13 (209); 10.7-30 (209-210); ii (184, 209); 51 (210) ; 64.351 (210) ; 64.353 sq. (208-209) ; 64.382-384 (210) ; 66.39, 47 (209). CICERO, Cat. M. 19.68 (208); 2.6, 3.8, 5.14, 8.26, 11.38, 23.84 (205-206); De Fin. 1.2.4 (25) ; De Leg. Man. 4.10 (203) ; De Nat. Dear, i.i, 1.3-4, 1.16 1.22, 1.25, 1.37, 1.88, 1.90, i.ioi, 1.107 (203-205) ; De Oral, i.i.i (79) ; i.i.i, 1.3.11, 1.3.12, 1.4.13, 1.7.26, 1.10.42, I.I3.5S, I-I3-57 (197-203); 2.5.19, 2.29.127 (203) ; Orat. 30 (206) ; De Petit. 2.9 (197) ; Pro Domo 12 (200) ; Tusc. 3.31.76 (23); 2.8.20-22 (17-25). DEMOoTHENES, 6.4 (108) ; 29.5 (156); 6.8 (226, note); 9.45 (224); Phil. 2.8 (215). DIODORUS SICULUS, 4.4.4 (244) ; 20.102.2-4 (247, note). EN;NIUS, Medea (24, with note, 25, with note). EURIPIDES, Ale. 1-85 (102-103); 3 (13, note); 24 (50); 34 sq. (9); 37 (97) ; 45 (97) ; 64-69 (163-164) ; 77-136 (7) ; 112-117 (218) ; 120 (224) ; 120 sq. (217); 136-140 (4, 5, 6); 139 (5, note); 141-150 (7); 144 (10, note) ; 153-198 (6, 7) ; 157 (7) ; 158 (7) ; 167 (123) ; 170 sq. (8) ; 175- 184 (8) ; 175 (8) ; 192 (8) ; 196 (9) ; 205-208 (51, 97) ; 224 sq. (9) ; 255 (us) ; 259-263 (51) ; 280-325 (100-101) ; 282-289 (93) ; 291 sq. (93); 317 sq-. (123) ; 318 (64) ; 320-322 (94) ; 332 sq. (164) ; 339 sq. (39) 5 360-362 (94) ; 393-403 (9, note) ; 396 sq. (9) ; 43 (8, 9, note) ; 407-415 (9, note) ; 433-434 (96) ; 466 sq. (9) ; 487 (94) J 501-506 (98-100) ; 546 (96) ; 777 (6, 76) ; 811 sq. (96) ; 837 (20) ; 876 (96) ; 879 (91) ; 995 sqq. (172); 1049 (97); 1055 (97); 1115-1118 (6, 11, note, 97); 1118-1120 296 Index Locorum (95); 1124 (96); 1129 (95); 1131 (95); 1131-1146 (5); H34 (96); 1140 (97); H43 (96); 1154 (97); Androm. 1-15 (103); 5 (122); 35-37 (63); 98 (98); 4U sq. (123); 414 (27); 718 (115); 937 (54); 1232 (122); Bacch. 2 (122); 13-24 (105); 23-38 (159); 101 sqcj. (106) ; 126 sqq. (106) ; 150 (106) ; 183 (108) ; 193 (106) ; 210 sq. (107) ; 222 (108) ; 406 (117); 440 (107); 460 sq. (107); 481 sq. (105); 551 (107); 556 sq. (106); 613 (108); 688 (108) ; 814 (no) ; 1026 (106) ; 1058-1062 (104-105); 1088 sqq. (108); 1159 (107); 1188-1191 (108) ; 1330 sq. (106); Cyd. 14 (25); 345 sq. (28); 359-376 (124); El. 112-114, 127-129 (124) ; 1032 sqq. (16) ; Hec. 3 (122) ; 19 sq. (108) ; 153 (108) ; 412 (51) ; 448 sq. (109) ; 503 (122) ; 585 sqq. (108-109) ; 833 SQ. (109) ; 882 (109) ; 1019 sq. (m); 1293-1295 (109); Hel. 76 (no); 1047 sq. (39); 1268 (115) ; 1459 sq. (117) ; Heracl. 3 (109) ; 280 sq. (no) ; 729 (107) ; Here. Fur. 195 (no); 445 sqq. (no); 631 sq. (in); 667 sq. (in) ; 1009 (in); 1245 (218); 1368 (123); 1424 (in); Hipp, i, 2 (m, 122); 6 (118); 43-46 (in); 46 (35); 294 (28, 112); 362-371, 668-679 (127); 450 (123); 530 (91); Ion 1-3 (112-114); 15, 16 (113); 23-24 (106); /. A. 231-302 (127); /. T. 285-290 (114); 470 sq. (115); 567 (115); 588 (119, 224, 226); 624 (115); 725 sq. (115); 1092 (87); 1127 (108) ; I35I-I353 (116-117); 1393 (H5); 1408 (115); Medea, Prol. (36); 25 (14); 38-45 (13); 56 sq. (13); 214 sqq. (25, with note); 220 (77); 406-408 (123); 443-445 (14); 465 (13); 480-482 (24); 569-573 (123); 576 (156); 718, 789 (164); 770 (no); 779 (43); 786 (17); 793 (86); 889 sq. (123); 915-918 (123); 926 (123); 956-958 (15, note); 1012 (6, 7) ; 1063 (36) ; 1165 (17) ; 1339 sq. (15) ; 1350 (85) ; Ores. 722 sq. (217, 218, 225); 1016 (no); 1353-1365, 1537-1549 (127); Phoen. 208- 213 (117); 473-477 (H7); 504 (118); 569 (no); 703 (118) ; 740 sq. (118); 747 (118); 820 (116) ; 881-883 (118) ; 047 (118) ; 1009 (i'59) ; 1091 (159-160); 1134-1138 (118); 1135 (119); 1193 (H9); 1233 sq. (119); Rhes. 131-136, 195-200 (127); 454-466, 820-832 (127); Suppl. 232-237 (119-121); 253-256 (12.1-122); 567 (n); 899 sq. (122); 1232 (122, 219); Tro. 2 (122); Frag. 813.2 (107). HELIODORUS, Aethiop. 4.8.35 sq., 10.14.25 sqq. (160-161). HERODOTUS, Prooemium (161) ; 1.67 (161-162); 1.86 (162-163); 2.39 (163); 2.57 (76); 3.1 (174); 4-143 (156); 9-76 (163). HESIOD, Op. 57 sq. (218). HIPPOCRATES, Hepi AUUTT/S 'Qfw 2 (91). HOMER, /J.i.io (168) ; 1.262 (221, 227) ; 1.268 (22) ; 1.284 (76, -168) ; 1.414 (164-166); 1.513 (159); 3-164 (39); 3.173 (76); 3-I73-I75 (167); 3-459 sq. (218); 4.164 (218); 4.387-390 (164); 5.807-808 (164); 5.826-828 (164) ; 5.836 (164) ; 6.166 sqq. (166) ; 6.450 sqq. (218) ; 7.313 sq. (142-144); 7.356, 371, 375, 413, 429, 444, 465 (144); 9-546 (164); '11.404 (220); 12.7 (143); 14.342 sq. (164); 15.254 (164); 16.152 (no); 19-355-357 (218); 21.103 sq-. (218); 21. ill sqq. (218); Od. 1.106-109 (166) ; 4.227 (164) ; 5.465 (220) ; 5.478 sq. (7, note) ; 6.43-45 (7, note); 6.162 sq. (108) ; 6.201 sqq. (218); 9.243 (164); 9.262 (164); Index Locorum 297 11.278 (168) ; 14-326 (164) ; 15.310 (218) ; 19.232 sqq. (165) ; 19-295 (164). HORACE, Carm. i.i (177-183); 1.1.36 (184); 1.2 (183, 184, 209); 1.3.1-8 (185-186); 1.3.37 (184); 1.5.2 (22); 1.6 (187); 1.12.41 sq. (184); 1.12.45, 55 (184); 1.13-16 (184); 1.15.31-' (184); 2.2.5 (184); 2.4-4 sq. (184); 3.1.3-4 (123); 3-9-7-8 (123); 3.11.18 (187); 4.8 (187-190); Epist. 1.1.64, 80 (184); Epod. 9-ir (123); 13.36 (123); 17.35 (123); Serm. i.i (181, 191-193, 193-195); 1-1.15 sqq. (191); 1.6.3, 4, 42-44 (185); 2.3.108-113 (194) ; 2.8. 1 1 sq. (230). ISAEUS, KI3 (64). ISOCRATES, 4-33 (156) ; 4-44 (224) ; ai.i (217) ; Pan. 49 C, 44 (214). JOSEPHUS, Ant, lud. 1.21 (123). JUSTINUS, 8.2 (64). LIVY, Praef. 3 (206). LUCAN, Phars. 1.16 (185). LUCIAN, Diall. Mor. 12.1, lupp. Trag. 2, De Merc. Cond. 7, Diall. Inf. 11.4 (169); Hist. Conscr. 23 (167); Navig. 16 (170); Tim. 8 (170); Tim. 18 (168-170). LYSIAS, 7.18 (64); 12.1 (156); 12.38 (157); 12.80 (172); 15.5 (170-171); 16.11 (172); 18.1 (171); 19-25 (i7O; 23.14 (171); 26.23 (156); 31-24 (171); 32.24 (64); And. 42 (214). MARTIAL, 7.20.16 sq. (230) ; 14.81 (230). PAUSANIAS, 2.7.2 (254) ; 5.24.1, 6.9.1, 6.3.11 (247, note) ; 6.3.6 (245, note). PINDAR, Olym. i. init. (87). PLATO, Apol. 17 (I55-I56) ; 26 A (169) ; 30 -31 (170) ; 36 D (91) ;Euthy. 283 B, 285 E (54) ; Gorg. 493 B (169) ; Ion 535 B (214) ; Legg. 731 A (50); 923 B (38); Phaed. 57 A-B (140); Phaedr. 255 E (214); Prot. 320 C (56); 322 A (57); 337 A-C (120); 344 C (60) ; 344 D (56); 357 E (63) ; Rep. i (146-154) ; 33O A (205) ; 308 B (215) ; 410 D (91) ;, 423 B (156) ; 468 D (142) ; 470 C (156-157) ; 526 C (91) ; 578 E (216) ; Symp. 179 C (154-155); 194 D (214). PLINY, Hist. Nat. 34.51, 52, 56, 61, 67, 83 (239-246, with notes, 252). PLUTARCH, Arat. 46 (252, 253) ; Artax. i, 2 (167) ; Caes. 5 (217) ; ZV Her. Mai. 21 (247, note); Demosth. 4.5 (160) ; Sull 295 (51) POLYBIUS, 23.8 (255). SAPPHO, r (171). SENECA, Apocol. 5, 12, 13, 15 (207) ; Here. Oet. 500 sqq. (15 note) SIMONIDES, 4 (172). SOPHOCLES, At. 428 (217) ; 463-465 (63) ; 514 sq. (218) ; 556 sq (82) 560-563 (164); 858 (97); Antig. i (48); i-io (65-69); 1-35 (48 sq)' 4 (20, 52) ; 24 sq. (10, 52) ; 30 (27, 79) ; 33 (53) ; 38 (53) ; 45, 46 (73) ; 5i (59) ; 70 (229) ; 82 sqq. (75) ; 100-162 (53, 127) ; 117-120 (47, 48) ; 132 (160); 134-142 (72, note); 148 sqq. (27); 162 sqq. (37, 70, 71); 178 (49, 69); 193 (66); 270 sqq. (171, 217); 289-294 (72); 320 '(54)' 332-375 (59, 60); 342-352 (54); 354 (59); 364 (56); 368 (56); 375 (159); 404 sq. (75); 4U (159); 417 sq. (76, 79) 5 420, 421 (4, note) 427 sq. (76); 450-452 (60); 478 sq. (76, in); 495, 496 (72); 504 S q- 298 Indc.r Locorum (73); 531-535 (i/o); 540 (64); 544-547 (75); 569-575 (64) 5 580 sq. (So) ; 593 (64) ; 599 (65) ; 602 (26) ; 773 (3, note) ; 795 sq. (51) ; 806 sq. (50) ; 807-808 (97) ; 818 (74) ; 904 sq. (65) ; 990 (107) ; 1001 sq. (76); 1115-1135 (127); 1184 sq. (219); 1203 (119); 1322 sq. (219); 153-163 (77) ; El. 316 (69) ; 360 (101) ; 417 sq. (66) ; 616 (82) ; 681-687 (78) ; 683 sq. (80) ; 713-715 (4, note) ; 763 (66) ; 1075 (73) ; 1232 (126) ; 1290 sq. (170) ; 1349 (83) ; 1452 (96) ; Oed. Col. i (103) ; 651, 848, 924 (54); 1036 (47); 1162 (108); 1580 (47); 1623-1625 (108); Oed. Tyr. 2-5 (38); 8 (103); 9-ii (39); lO-n (43-45); 15-21 (40); 22-30 (170); 22-24 (37); 3i (40); 35 (40, 42); 35-45 (41); 44~45 (41); 47 (41); 47-57 (45); 48 (42); 51 (4O; 54 sq. (46); 55 (42); 58 (42); 80-83 (42); 09 (42); 116 sq. (42); 118, 119 (42); 119 (171); 122 sq. (42); 141-146 (42-43) ; 142 (40) ; 219 sq. (82, 83) ; 421 sq. (43) ; 430 (43) ; 597 (65); 694 sqq'. (37); 900 (26, note); 1292 (107); 1367-1374 (43); Phil. 2 (3, note); 11 (4); 21 (4); 43 sq. (81); 54 sqq. (81) ; 96 sqq. (32); 151 (10); 173-175 (37); 201 (126); 279 sqq. (217, 226, note); 280, 281 (215, 216) ; 391-402, 506-518 (127) ; 567 (82) : 900 sqq. (82) ; 917 (83); 938 (217); 991 (83); 1081 (74); 1193-119 (37); Track. 1-3 (34); 1-875 (10); 14 (4); 9-14 (35); 17 (36); 21-25 (29, 30); 26-48 (29-34) ; 27 sq. (36) ; 29-31 (36) ; 44 sq. (36) ; 55 (25) ; 56 sq. (26) : 65 sq. (26) ; 74 sq. (26) ; 92 sq. (26) ; 144-146 (7, note, 168, note) ; 148 sqq. (26, 27) ; 166 sqq. (27) ; 178 sq. (27) ; 196 sq. (27, 28) ; 248 sq. (13); 322-328 (4); 416 (n); 516 (28); 523 sqQ. (30); 536 sqq. (16) ; 568 (15, note); 582-586 (15); 602 (17); 608 sq. (28); 672 sq. (28); 764 (17); 787 (4); 825 (31); 863-867 (7); 869 (6); 871-898 (7); 896- 946 (6, 7) ; 900 (7) ; 903 (10, 28, 216, 226, note) ; 904 (8) ; 908 sq. (8) ; 913 (8) ; 914 sq. (9, 10) ; 915-922 (8) ; 938 (8, 9) ; 941 sq. (29) ; 942 (9) ; 943 (9) ; 1044 sq. (10, note) ; 1046-1102 (17-25) ; H57 sq. (28) ; 1181, 1184 (6, ii, note) ; 1192 (28). STATIUS, Theb. 2.294 sqq. (207, 208). SYRIANUS, Schol. Aristot. Metamph. 940 B (268). THUCYDIDES, 1.1-23 (129-142); i.ii.i (142-144); 1-374 (119) ; 1-534 (121); 1.63.2 (121); 1.94.1 (121); 1.95.6 (121); 1.109.2 (121); 4.54.2-3 (162); 6.1. i (140); 6.2.6 (135); 6.9.2 (121) ; 6.11.2 (144); 6.12.2 (120, 121); 6.15 (120, 121); 6.17.3 (i45); 6.31.4 (144); 6.54-3 (119); 6.101 (145); 7.13.2 (145); 7.25 (214, 215); 7.55.1 (51)- VERGIL, Eel. 1.68-70 (211) ; 1.19, 1.62, 2.2, 2.12, 3.65 (208-209) ; Aen. 1.39- sqq. (211-212) ; 2.677 sq. (123) ; 9.22 (123) ; 9.485 (212) ; 12.603 (168). XENOPHON, Ages. 8.6 (62); Anab. i.i.i (167); 1.1.2 (173); 1.14 (167); 1.3.12 (157); i-3-i8 (173, 174); I-4-I2 (174); 1-6.8 (157); 1-7-7 (213,216, 218); 1.8.15 (145); 1-9-7 (173); 2.4.4 (i73); 2.4.19-20 (213); 2.6.29 (93) ; 34.13 (47) ; 5-8-3 (54) ; Hell. 1.3.5 (217) ; 1-3-5 (214) ; 14-15 (217) ; 2.3.16 (91, 172) ; Mem. 1.2.20 (56) ; 4.4.19 (62, note) ; Oecon. 7.20 (214). 000 6fi7