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.t<TT<J[>dr) /x^yas \ aWrfp with Electra 713-715 fv Si iras tueffTtbdi]
5p6,u.os \ Krfarov KportjTuv dpudruv K&VU $' &vw \ <popeW where the connecting idea
is the dust. (Ms. note.)]
Sophocles
'AAA' 178' OTraSoiv CK Soyucov Tts
BaKpvppoovcra TWO. T v^rjv aKoucro/x,ai ;
TievBtiv /J<ev, ei n SeoTroVaicrt riry^avei,
o- v y y v to <r T o v ei 8' IT' mv 'AS/Mr/rot) l yvvrj
fir' ovv oAa>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 <rw-
In the passage in the Trachinians the coryphaeus
describes a servant coming out of the house to make an announce-
ment diy^s (according tO the Mss.) K a i o-vvax^pvw/xe'vi;. Now
this is the announcement of the entrance of the old woman servant
that is to deliver a speech (vv. 899-946) reminiscent of the speech
delivered by the woman servant in Ale. 153-198; we might, there-
fore, justly expect to find here a reminiscence of Ale. 136 sq. :
'AAA' f/8' OTTttSoiv K 86fJl<l)V TtS fpXf.TO.1
SaKpvppoovaa TWO. Tv^rjv aKOixro/xtu ;
That there is any link between the two passages does not, at first
sight, appear ; but Mr Blaydes has suggested that the certainly cor-
rupt dijflrjs in Track. 869, which has been changed by several scholars
into 0*78175, was originally Ka-nj^s, and we find at Med. 1012 Tt'
8r) KdT^es (Cobet : xarr/^ets codd.) o/x/xa /cat SaKpvppoets. May not,
Sophocles 7
then, Track. 868-870 contain a conflation of Ale. 777 and Med. 1012
referred to a scenic situation similar to that of Ale. 136 sq. by
reason of the occurrence of the verb &a.Kpvppoelv in both Ale. 137
and Med. 1012, and should we not accept /ca-n/^s in Track. Sop? 1
That Sophocles had Ale. 77-136 in his mind at this place in the
Trachinians is pretty certain, not merely from the reminiscences of
Ale. 153-198 in Track. 899-946, but also from the use of hemichoria
in vv. 863-867 to perform in a much shorter compass the function
of the hemichoria in Ale. 77-136. It is also to be observed that
Track. 871-898 take the place of vv. 141-151 in the Alcestis and that
Track. 896 sq.
ju.aAA.ov 8', et Trapovaa TT\r)(Tia
eAeucrcres of 1 8 p a a e Kapr' av WKTIO-O.?.
are reminiscent of Ale. 157
a 8' ev So/tois 1 8 p a cr e Oav^iAcry K\VWV.
The words in the Alcestis are part of the prooemium of the servant's
pijo-is itself ; those in the Trachinians part of the external introduc-
tion to the servant's prjo-is. 2
We come now to the most obvious likenesses between the Tra-
chinians and the Alcestis. They are as follows (in addition to that
just cited) :
Track. 9OO e TT e i yap r)\6t (Schaefer : TraprjXdt Codd.) SoyiaTcuv lo-w
Ale. 158 e.TTf.1 y a p rjfrOeO* KTC.
1 A very pretty example of a conflate reference to Homer by Sophocles may be cited
here as illustrating the tendency of his mind. In Track. 144-6 Td y&p vedfrv fv
roiotffSe j36ffKCTai \ xibpoM iV (cuJroC Kal viv) oiJ 6d\iros Oeov \ otiS' 8/x/3pos ovdt irvev/j-druv
ovStv K\ovei, it was seen and noted by Schneidewin that there is a reference to Horn, e
478 sqq., where it is said of the two 66.fi.voi \ TOI)J nkv Ap' OIT' avt/j.<av Sidy ft.4vos vypbv
dtvruv, | oire TTOT' ^Atos <j>a.iO<i)v aKTicnv e/SaXXei', | ovr o/x/3pos wepdaffKC 5ia/x7repe's, but it
has not been noted that Trvevfj-druv o&Btv icXovei is not to be explained from the
passage just cited but from another, a little farther on in the Phaeacian Episode,
which was naturally, owing to both its proximity and its similarity to the former, run-
ning in Sophocles's mind at the same time. This is the famous description of
Olympus (f 43-5), 80i <j>a<rl 6e(av 5os do-0aXs alel \ e/i/uewt ' ovr' dj^/uowi riv&fffff
rat, ovre iror' 6/j.^ptf) \ Several, ovre -)(l(av iiriTrfavarai, Kre.
3 Zielinski's notion (Philologus 55 [1896], 5Q3 16 ) that the /coyu/u6s originally began
immediately after Track. 870 is refuted by Ale. 141-151, as shewn above. Zielinski's
Excursezuden Trachinierinnen, Philol. 55, 491-540, 577-633, contains some valuable
matter. For the most part, the writer's perversity is only equalled by his prolixity.
Greek Authors
Track. 904 /3 w /u. o T cr i TT po crTrtVvovcr'
Ale. 170 sq.
iravTas Sc /3 oi /u. o v s . . .
Track. 908 sq.
a TOU <f>iX.ov (Naber : <j>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
crta<f>pu>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 <rots
Track. 942 a>/3<avio-ju,e'vos /3iov (Wakefield : fiiav codd.)
Ale. 396 sq.
irpoXnrovcra 8' d/j.ov /3iov
wp<avio-ev (Sophocles construed d^ov (3tov with
dyx^avtcrev)
Track. 943 Toiavra ravSov ecrrtv
Ale. 196 ToiaVT* V OIKOtS 6CTTIV 'ASjU/^TOV KdKa 2
Before seeking to draw certain conclusions from the resemblance
of the Trachinians to the Alcestis it may not be out of place to
remark on an odd turn of phrase in the Trachinians which has not
been well understood and seems to have been derived from a par-
ticular passage in Euripides. In Track. 914 sq. the old woman
servant is made to say:
Kayu> 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 <p<ps (' keepest thy hand on
guard ') ro^rjprj oirXwras ( = TOW OTrXtcras), WC shall SCC that WC
are to connect o/x/i' directly with <j>povpow (' was keeping my eye
on guard ' : cf. O/J,/MLTO<; \ <f)povpa<vy 224 sq.). Following out the
1 The application of Ale. 396 sq. and 403 to Hyllus seems to make it certain that
Ale. 393-403 and 407-415 are to be assigned to the boy (Eumelus), not divided be-
tween the girl (393-403) and the boy (407-415) as Lenting thought (Epistqla Critica
in Eur. Ale. p. 65 sq.)
* Noted also by Zielinski p. 594 17 .
io Greek Authors
interlocked order, we shall further connect Aafyxuos (\a6palov an
easy scribe's slip before o/x/x') eTreo-Kiacr/ien/. Not merely the striking
use of <t>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 <f>povpelv o/u/u.' CTTI o-o> /xoAio-To. Kaipcp, where
<f>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" t<f>pia rdffSe <ri//n0opds, <pl\ai. |
j, oTatj oToj w v tXatvfrai. Ale. 144 (Coryphaeus apostrophizing suffering
T T\TJHOV, 01 at olot u> 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<u /zoAoTxry Sevpo Secrirowrjs rv^as. Geglaubt hat 6S ihm
aber doch niemand ; wenigstens hat er den Versuch nicht wieder-
holt." Is it going too far to conjecture that even if we had the
complete works of Euripides we should find this prologue nearly, if
not quite, unique, and that Sophocles exercised very deliberate choice
in selecting it for imitation? But let us look further into the rela-
tion of the two prologues.
In studying carefully the prologue of the Medea before I had
begun the examination of the Trachinians the results of which I am
now presenting I found myself brought to the conclusion that not
only had the excisions proposed or put in practice by various
scholars been erroneously suggested and made, but that there are
no spurious verses in the prologue of the Medea as handed down
to us. The details of the prologue of the Medea I shall discuss
elsewhere; suffice it here to point out in passing that, if vv. 40-43 be
condemned, vv. 38 and 39 and w. 44 and 45 must keep them com-
pany. This clean sweep of eight verses where there is no apparent
reason for their insertion may well stagger the boldest hewer of
texts and drawer of squared hooks. As for the prologue of the
Trachinians, repeated study of it has convinced me that it too con-
tains no spurious verses. To me, as to Professor Campbell, vs. 465
1 Cf . especially T<? \6yq> (as it seems that we should read for rov \6yov) 5' ov XP^I
(pO&vov, | yuvai, Trpoffeivai Ze!>s &rov irpdKrup <f>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 Tpo<ds is
introduced. It may be said in passing that the term rpo^ds or 'nurse'
is a convenient designation for such personages as the old woman-
servant (the TroXatov ouctov KTrjfM of the Medea and the ypaia of
the Trachinians), but that the designation rpo^ds is demonstrably
correct only for the Hippolytus. However, that is a detail; Dr
Dieterich's observation is just. But we may go further. In the
Medea it is the rpo^ds (to use the stock name) that speaks the
prologue, describing the misery of the heroine as a deserted wife.
In the Trachinians there is a decided gain from the point of view
of the action of the play in making the heroine as deserted wife
deliver the prologue and describe her miseries to the iy>o<ds. And
let it not be objected that the desertion of Deianira is different from
that of Medea : Heracles has practically done what Jason had, as
we find out in the sequel. The words Ae/cTpwv oAXa /Sao-tXcta
KpetWwv 86/j.ouriv cVe'crra (Med. 443-5) describe Deianira's state
quite as well as they do Medea's.
So much for the prologues: let us examine the other parallels
between the Trachinians and the Medea. In both plays the heroine
makes use of a poisoned garment. In the Medea the injured wife
uses a poisoned garment (together with a poisoned diadem) to kill
her rival: in the Trachinians the injured wife uses a poisoned gar-
ment to recover her husband's affection. In the Medea the injured
wife uses "evil arts" wittingly: in the Trachinians the injured wife
seeks to avoid the use of "evil arts," but does so unwittingly, sup-
posing that what she is employing is but a philtre. The parallels
just cited involve differences and contrasts in the conduct of the two
heroines. To these contrasts may be added others. Thus, in the
Medea the injured wife is a barbarian: in the Trachinians she is a
1 Schutz (Soph. Studien, p. 391) would keep the vs., but with some change. I
would ask the candid reader whether /ai) fwi rb /j^\\ov &\yos ^c^tfoi TTOT^ is much of an
improvement on Sophocles's verse.
Sophocles 15
Greek. The injured wife in the Medea exhibits barbarian manners:
the injured wife in the Trachinians exhibits Greek manners. In the
Medea the poisoned articles of dress are handled rather carelessly:
in the Trachinians the poisoned. shirt is handled with great caution.
In the Medea the heroine is a sorceress, and the element of magic
is prominent : in the Trachinians the heroine is not a sorceress, and
the element of magic is hardly present. Some of the points that have
been set forth above call for discussion.
In Track. 582-6 Deianira says to the chorus, after she has de-
scribed the preparation of the shirt for Heracles :
KaKas ye (ego : Se codd.) Terras (Blaydes : rdX/u^s codd.)
fi.rjT fTTurTaifJirjv cyw
[Ayr' eK/j.a.Ooifji.L ras re ToX/nuicras crTvyai
<f>i\Tpoi<; 8' eav TTWS ri^vS' VTTfpftaX<ap.f.6a f
p.f.fji-q'Xa.vrjTOii rovpyov u TL fjJrf SOKW
TT/oeurcmv ^draiov tl Se fj.r), Treiraixro/ncu. 1
Does not this read like a tacit criticism or, perhaps better said, a
covert criticism of Euripides's heroine? Is not the gentle and
patient Deianira meant to be a foil to Euripides's fiery-souled Col-
chian ? Indeed, do we not read in the Medea, in a speech of Jason's
that must represent, to a certain extent, the Greek point of view, this
criticism of Medea's murder of her children : OUK Icmv 171-15 TOVT'
av 'EAAi/vts yvvr} \ IT AT; 7ro0' (Med. 1339 sq.) ? Surely the con-
jecture may be hazarded that Sophocles desired to depict in his
Deianira the humaner spirit of the Greek wife, as contrasted with
the unrestrained passion of the barbarian. The latter character did
not suit the genius of him that was ever ewoXos.
I have noted above the careless manner in which the poisoned
articles of dress appear to be handled in the Medea? Their magic
1 1 have omitted v. 585 (TTJV iraiSa Kal 0t\KTpouri roa t<f> '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
, <j>oprov wore vavri'Aos
Ktu. vvv Su* owrat fufj.vop.ev /was VTTO
Eur. EL 1032 sqq. (Clytaemnestra loquitur)
dAA' r)\6' (SC. Agamemnon) (\<ov fioi juuuvaS' evBeov Koprjv
Iv TOtcriv avroTs 8a>/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'<i7 and the inappropriateness
of the term TrorAos to describe the garment in question (see on
both points Jebb ad loc.) make it almost certain that Sophocles was
thinking of the ACTTTOV TreVAov of Med. 786 and was improving on
the adjective. Again, Heracles KOO-/AO> 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<xrfi<{> 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
po<pi CVFOUCOW, K oe
1065
1070
^, Kai 8ie<$apju.t Sepxts
TO Trav d<^>pao~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 <f>v(riv f
p.ovT7 p.e 8^ Ka^eiXc (ftacrydvov St^a.
O Trat, ycvoS p,ot TraTs lrr]TVfJi.o<s
v v v v ,
KO.I p-rj TO p.7^rpos OVO/JM 7rpe
Aos p,oi xepoiv CTOLV avros e^ OIKOV
5 ^etpa T^V TtKovo'av, a>s 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 <I)s oiKrptiis l^w.
'AtaT, w raXas, atat
a.TT)<i <nra.ap.os dpriws 08' av,
TrXevpwv ovS' dyv/xvao-rov /A' eav
eotKev r/ raXatva 8ia)8dpos voaos.
2O Greek Authors
Nunc, nunc dolorum anxiferi torquent vertices,
nunc serpit ardor. O ante victrices manus,
o pectora, o terga, o lacertorum tori,
35 vestrone pressu quondam Nemeaeus leo
f rendens efflavit graviter extremum halitum ?
Haec dextra Lernam taetra mactata excetra
pacavit? Haec bicorporem adflixit manum?
Erymanthiam haec vastificam abiecit beluam?
40 Haec e Tartarea tenebrica abstractum plaga
tricipitem eduxit hydra generatum canemf
Haec interemit tortu multiplicabili
draconem auriferam obtutu adservantem arbor em?
Multa alia victrix nostra gustavit manus,
45 nee quisquam e nostris spolia cepit laudibus.
L. i bears witness to the fact (as has been noted: see Jebb ad
loc.) that Cicero's text of Sophocles was the same as ours in the
words KOJL Xoyo, for which Bothe's KOV Ao'yw is generally (and
rightly) accepted, as above. It seems probable that the corruption
KOJL for KOV was universal in the texts of Sophocles in Cicero's time,
and that it is one of the very early blunders in Sophocles's text, like
the confusion of the negatives at the beginning of the Antigone.
(I hold a-nys arep in Ant. 4 to be original : see Classical Review
XIII, 386. )* It may be added that Wunder and van Herwerden
thought that the error in Sophocles's text lay, not in KOU but in the
following words. The latter of these scholars writes in his Exerci-
tationes Criticae, p. 127: Quod reponendum suspicabar: KOI Aoywv
Trepa, iamdudum ante me proposuisse Wunderum nunc video. Certa
est, si qua alia, emendatio. In L. 2 (where, by the way, it seems
very likely that Cicero wrote exanclavi, not exanclata) it has been
supposed that Cicero's animo bears witness to a text different from
the traditional one. The truth seems to be, as Dr Zielinski appears
to hint ("Excurse zu den Trachinierinnen," Philologus 55 [1896],
625), that Cicero crossed, or conflated, his translation of Sophocles
with the reminiscence of Eur. Ale. 837, where Heracles cries : *Q
TToXAa rXaora /capSta xal xp /"? This is the more probable from
the fact that we have a certain case below of a passage in which
Sophocles and Euripides are conflated by Cicero in his translation.
It may be noted in passing that the Greek does not warrant Cicero's
1 See below, p. 52.
2t
1085 *flva
a> Atos dart's,
"Evtreicrov coj/a, lyKardo-rjif/ov /3eA.os,
Trarep, xepawov 8cuVuTtu yap at! TraAiv,
~ v ' i '\
VCOTO, Kai crrepv, CD <ptAot
eis 8e Kelvot Sr) KaOf.(TTad' ot TTOTC
evoiKOv, /3ovKO\a)V aAdcrTOpa,
Xeovr , aTrXaTov 6ptp.pja Kairpoa-i/jyopov,
ft to. Ka.Trjpydo'acrOe. Aepvatav $' vSpav
8i(f>va r a/jLUKTOv l-7nro/3d/j,ova crrparov
6rjpG>v vfipKTTrjv avo/Aov virfpo^ov ftiav
'^pv^dvOiov re Orjpa rov & VTTO ^Oovo<s
"A.I&OV TpiKpavov <TKv\aK aTrpoa/jM^ov repas,
Sciv^s 'E^tSvT/s OpffA/JM TOV re ^pvcrecov
/ /x _i'\'' / '
opaKovra. fjirjAoiv <pi)Aa/c CTT ecr^arots TO J TTOIS.
"AXXcov re i*.6y6<av /xvpt'cov eyeucrei/t^v,
treating TroAAa KaKa as a vocative, or rather in translating as if
the Greek had been something like : *O iroAAa &) . . . KO.K.O., a ...
ftox^o-as x. But this is a mere detail. In L. 4 sq. tantum
quantum may indicate that Cicero read TOO-OVTOV oo-ov in G. 3 and
5. He could just as well have written tale quale, so far as the
verse is concerned. But this is uncertain. L. 5 (in which I have
substituted Bentley's Oeneo patre for the traditional Oenei partu,
on which phrase see Sorof ad loc.) is interesting, furthermore, as
indicating either how Cicero's Greek text was pointed or how he
thought it should be pointed. He seems to have made a full stop
after Koprj (G. 5) and to have missed the construction of olov roS'
. . . KaOfjij/ev. This criticism, if just, does riot speak well for Cicero's
knowledge of Greek. But we shall find other things quite as bad.
It may be noted here that vaecors is no translation of SoAcoTris. The
me inscium of L. 6, where we should expect a translation of the
v<j>avTov of G. 7, looks as though Cicero had read a<avrov (sc. /AC) :
but, when we come to his translation of G. 12 in L. u, we find
texiili answering to a^pdo-rw. Had Cicero's text fypacrTov in the
place of i^avrov, and v^avrcC in the place of d^patTTcp? or did he delib-
erately shift those words in his translation to suit a whim? A hard
22 Greek Authors
question that to answer. In L. 7 viscera seems clearly to be a trans-
lation of eo-^aTas <rap*<as (G. 8 sq.). The urguens of L. 8 looks as
though Cicero had had before him something other than WOIKOW
of G. 10 (e.g. IweTpyov); but I venture to think that we are not
justified in assuming that such is the case. When we remember
how constantly O-WOIKCIV is used of wedlock, and how Horace
(Carm. i. 5, 2) uses urguere in about the sense of amplecti of a
lover's embrace, have we not, perhaps, the explanation of Cicero's
urguens here? In L. 9 decolor em is, of course, a bad, though in
form a very literal, translation of x^v>ov. 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 8ie<f>0ap[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
<f>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? (<?7pos?) flia oW 'EXXas </3ta> our' ayXwcnros </3ia>, 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 </wnv seems pretty satisfactory and could easily
have given rise to the traditional text. It is certainly 'elegans con-
iectura,' as Hermann says. In L. 21 piis would presumably mean
'dutiful,' as acting in accordance with a father's command. But the
word answers to nothing in the Greek, and it is just possible that
Cicero wrote tuis ( a-alv G. 21). From L. 22 it is quite clear that
G. 24 was not in Cicero's text. Here Cicero's text was different
from that which has come down to us in lacking an interpolation.
The interpolation, as Nauck rightly judged it to be, is due to some
one, of a time later than Cicero's (in all probability), that failed to
understand opS>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 <ra<a 6pS>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 Sa<Wrai to ewp/7Kev. What remains of G. 37-43
he renders pretty loosely and with a very free arrangement. Thus:
nunc serpit ardor (L. 33) is made out of G. 37 (ardor from
f6a\\f/fv ) ; nunc, nunc dolorum. . .vertices (L. 32) is made out of
G. 38 sq. ; and tuque . . . fulminis (L. 30 sq.) is from G. 42 sq.
24 Greek Authors
("Evo-eio-ov . . . Kcpawov). Sir Richard Jebb's remark in defence of
Track. 1069, that "Cicero wholly ignores vv. 1085 ff- : ne ignores
vv. 1080-1084 also, except in so far as their general sense is blended
with his version of 1088 f., &u'nmu . . . fwpp.r)Kev ," may be compared
with this. The substance merely of G. 47-49 (med.) is given in
L- 35 sq., and L. 36 is practically all Cicero. It is curious to note
that in L. 37 excetra represents v8pav of G. 49, whereas in L. 41
hydra is used to represent 'E^t'oVi/? of G. 54, which Cicero evidently
took for a common noun. Cicero probably connected excetra and
l^iSva etymologically : he therefore reversed v8pav and e^i'Sv^s (as he
understood it) in his translation. This lends colour to the supposi-
tion that he reversed the adjectives in G. 7 and 12. In rendering
G. 51 and 53 Cicero omits, as in the case of G. 48, the somewhat
trailing descriptive epithets of Sophocles. We come now to what
is in some ways the most interesting point of the whole translation.
Cicero expresses G. 54 sq. rov TC xpuo-eW | Spa/covra /u^Awv <vAa/c' ETT'
eVxarois TOTTOIS (where, by the way, Nauck was probably right in
thinking TOTTOIS a gloss ; his x^wos may well be what Sophocles
wrote) by : Haec interemit tortu multiplicabili \ draconem auriferam
obtutu adservantem arborem. Here draconem represents Spa/covra,
auriferam arborem fairly well reproduces xpweW //.r/Awv, and adser-
vantem (though hardly obtutu adservantem) gives the thought of
<j>v\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 <ov | KTCtVatr' dveV^ov (rot <aos O-WT^/HOV. Here WC have
the original of tortu multiplicabili (o-Tretpcus TroA-uTrAoVcois) and also the
original of obtutu adservantem (ro>e awvos <Sv). This proves for
the text of Cicero that the conjecture observantem is without foun-
dation. It looks, too, as if KTCIVOO-' were the original of interemit.
If that be so, we have evidence as early as Cicero's time (and per-
haps as early as Ennius's) for KTVao-', for which the clever sug-
gestion Kot/ioio-' has been made. If KOI/XWO-' is what Euripides wrote,
the corruption is probably an early one. 1 In L. 44 it is perfectly
1 [See Professor Earle's edition of the Medea Introd. p. 53. " Frag, xciv, p. 260
Ribbeck : Non commemoro quod draconis saevi sopivi impetum, may be from Ennius's
version of Eur. Med. 480-482. If this be so, Ennius would seem to have had
not KTtlvao-', in his text of v. 482." Also critical appendix, on v. 482. "
Barthold. This is ingenious and may be right."]
Sophocles 25
plain that gustavit (representing eyewa/^v) is what Cicero wrote,
not lustravit^ which is the reading of the Mss. Any intelligent scribe
staggered by the unfamiliar metaphor would have been likely to
substitute the familiar lustravit for the strange gustavit.
In conclusion it may be remarked that the study of this translation
enables us to estimate with greater justice the degree of literalness
with which we are to take Cicero's reference to the Roman plays
that were doubtless his models as "fabellas Latinas ad verbum e
Graecis expressas" (de fin. i. 2, 4) ; and we can understand, too,
from the kind of knowledge or ignorance of classic Greek that he
displays how he could quote with apparent satisfaction (ad jam.
7, 6) Ennius's murdering of Eur. Med. 214 sqq. (See PAPA.
1900 [Special Session], xxviii sq. 1 )
NOTES ON SOPHOCLES TRACHINIAE. 2
V. 55-
dvSpos Kara r)TV)(riv ov Tre/XTreis Ttva.
Neither Mr Blaydes nor Professor Jebb notices what I believe to
be the most apposite parallel to Kara ^TT/O-IV here, viz. Eur. Cycl. 14
aiQfv Kara rJTr)(riv.
1 [The abstract of Prof. Earle's paper in PAPA. I. c. was as follows :
In the discussion of Eur. Med. 214-224, an attempt was made to show that
Ennius, in making thd remarkable translation of vv. 214-218 which we find in Cic.
ad. fam. 7, 6, had before him the traditional text, save perhaps that for 66ffK\etav in
v. 218 he read (what Prinz extracted from the Scholia) dfovoiav. In v. 215 Elmsley
showed that Ennius probably read p.t^-n<r6' (so L). An English version of the verses
in question from Ennius's point of view was essayed, thus : ' Corinthian ladies, I left-
home. Don't find any fault with me ; for I know that many people have, some of
them become distinguished abroad, others of them at home these from not going
about have won infamy [assuming for the moment that Ennius read 5i5o-/c\ov] and
sloth to boot.' Ennius would thus have made a heavy pause after 86/j.uv (214), have
taken iro\\oi>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<p' ^<ri/xou wodbs resumed
adverbially the adjectival Iv Bvpalois (note his propter ea]. It may be added that sunt
imfrobati is a fitter rendering of Sfovoiav ^KT^ffavro (as Ennius misunderstood the
idiom) than of dfoK\tiav tKT-fi<ravro, It was further urged that vv. 219-221 are
misplaced, Wyttenbach's objection to y&p where it stands being well taken. It was
proposed to place these verses after v. 224. See also Prof. Earle's edition of the
Medea, p. 51.]
1 [From The Classical Review, vol. VII, (1893), pp. 449-451.]
26 Greek Authors
V. 56 sq.
ei TraTpos
Vf.fJ.QL Tiv wpav TOV KaXws TTpacrtreiv oWeiv.
These words cannot be sound as they stand. A comparison of vv.
65 sq. (a\ TTdTpos OVTO) Sapov f^evtap.evov | TO /AT) irvOecrOai trov ecrriv aitr^vnyv
<ep<v>) 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 x<opav <acriv, Evpvrov
In v. 75 I suspect that avrbv has supplanted av vw (cf . Ant. 602).
<ao-tv vw in the present passage thus repeats <ao-t vw in v. 70, the
av answering to p.ev in v. 69.
V. 92 sg.
XO>P 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 <f>povTi8wv /xepos,
^TOI Trpos dvSpos rj TC'KVWV <f>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 <povTi8a>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<Se TO> \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
<rvv 0eoTs. My own conjecture is irov popov, which I find confirmed
(so far, at least, as the latter word is concerned) by Euripides (as
we might indeed expect) ; for in Andr. 414 we read yv 8' vT
/u,o/3ov (quoted also by Mr Blaydes but not utilized).
Vv. 178 sqq.
OTi;(Ov$' opw Ttv' avftpa Trpos \apav Xoywv.
Professor Jebb says that TT. x A-oyoav ' refers to KaTacrT^rj ' , but I
cannot so understand it. Karao-re^r/ oWxovTa forms too close a unity
to be thus separated. Rather join IT. x- Aoywv with the second ele-
ment o-Ttt'xovTa (which amounts to joining with K<IT. oreix-)- This
supports the conjecture eio-o/a/xwo-i irpos x a P- v ftopfa m Ant. 30, in
which I was long anticipated by Mr Blaydes : caTao-Tc^ oWx-
IT. x- Xdywv, which depicts a mutual joy, seems well illustrated by
Anl. 148 sqq. dAAa yap a /x,eya\ww/u,os ^A0e NiKa | TO. TroXvapiMTw O.VTI-
Vv. 196 sqq.
TO yap iroOovv IKOOTTOS eKfjuiOeiv OfXwv
OVK av /A0iTO, Trplv xaO' r/oovyv K\vew.
TO TroOow is one of those phrases that (mfa quidem senlentia) carry
about them an air of genuineness. The trouble seems to lie solely
28 Greek Authors
in tK.iw.6iiv. Why may we not suppose this to have arisen from
cKirXrjvai, with pa.6uv added as an explanatory gloss ?
V. 516.
/nova 8' evAeKTpos ev /xeVw Kvirpis pa/38ovd/xa uvov<ra.
Is weura possible here (notwithstanding the sense that wiei/cu
elsewhere bears in the tragedians) as a Homericism, in the sense of
committere? Certainly 'acted as umpire after bringing them to-
gether in strife' is more vigorous than the sense conveyed by the
traditional text. p^.\o- for ftova were perhaps too rash.
Vv. 608 sqq.
Trplv KCtvos avrov <avpos /A<avu>s (Travels
8i7 Oeol<riv yp-fpa. Tavpo<r<f>dy<i>.
favepfc ('made from <avepu>s in L') is pretty clearly a gloss on e/x<aveos
that has got into the text and ejected something. I would suggest
avrov /A<avois, Ovrijp (TTaOeis (suggested by v. IIQ2, as was Froelich'&
Conjecture <t>avepbv cp.<f>avr)<; Ovryp).
Vv. 672 sqq.
TOIOVTOV fK^^r]Kf.v, otov, rfv <pdwra>,
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 rora<r' have
given the commentators trouble. As we are dealing with a series
1 [From the Classical Review, vol. ix (1895), pp. 200-202.]
30 Greek Authors
of actions and events our examination of these words will, I con-
ceive, proceed best in reverse order. We begin then with ^vcrraa-a.
If we consider this word in connection with the context, exclusive
of A.x s KPLTOV, and take it in its literal sense, it will mean that, when
Zeus gave the victory to Heracles, Deianira, who had been sitting
an anxious spectator of the conflict, took her stand at Heracles's
side. If we take the word thus literally, it looks to ^TJV in v. 24 and
forms a parallel to reXos l^xe in v. 26, thus continuing the aorist in
participial form. We can bring out its force more clearly if we
paraphrase thus : TC\OS 8e OCVTOS AIDS Aywiav 'HpaKAet ^we'orr/v. If
this be the meaning of wrraor', we shall see in it what Professor
Gildersleeve might call a plastic touch. The whole fight is a rude
one like a struggle of beasts (Achelous is a bull when evapyrjs and
bull-headed at the best) for the possession of the female, who
follows the victorious male. A support of this view may be seen
at the conclusion of that chorus in which the fight is described (w.
497-530). There we read (vv. 523 sqq.) : d 8' evoms a(Spa \ ryXavytl
Trap' o-)(B(o \ T/CTTO, TOV ov Tr/oocr/jtei/ovo-' O.KOLTO.V. \ (Probably corrupt verse.)
I TO 8' a.fJ.<j)tveiKr)Tov o/x/xa vvfj.<t>a<i \ eAeivov d/x/xei/ei | KaTro /uxrrpos a<ap
/8c/3a/cev, | wore (SO A : L reads woTrep) TTOpris fpyfui.
If now this interpretation of v<rra<ra be a fair one, Aej(os is to be
taken as nominative, not as accusative. (It has indeed been accepted
as nominative by G. C. W. Schneider (1824), Linwood, Wakefield,
Blaydes, Paley, Schneidewin-Nauck, Jebb. Hermann, however, un-
derstood it as accusative, and so too Wunder and Campbell.)
As for Kpwov we should naturally say that, inasmuch as we have
the contest decided by Zei>s 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
v<n-ao-a." We return now to the narration.
'I have been nursing,' says Deianira, 'a continuous succession of
fears (deinv' CK d/3ov<o/8ovTpe'</><D), anxious for him (for night brings
[him] in and night thrusts [him] away with a fresh toil).' The
in Kttvov irpoKrjpaLvowo. is emphatically placed and suggests a
Sophocles 31
contrast. The following clause vv yap eio-ayet | KCU vv| dTra>0ei 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 <d/3ov
<f>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 (= <o/3ov), while the other makes an under-
stood pronoun referring to Heracles the object of the verbs and
takes TTO'VOV, again of Deianira's anxiety, as object of the participle.
But, however we understand the clause vv TTOVOV, we find the great-
est stumbling-block of this entire passage in w. 31-37.
The first words of this passage are now always read (according
to L, A and other MSS.)Kd<wra/Aev 8rj TraTSas, but they were long read
(according to B) Ka<wa plv 8^ TratSas. As there is nothing for the
fj.ev to refer to, the choice between the two readings is easy; but it
has not been observed that the 8rj is perhaps as bad. 'So' (Camp-
bell), 'nun' (Schneidewin-Nauck), 'then' (Jebb) do not somehow
appeal to one. It seems quite obvious that the phrase looks back to
KM TrpoKrjpaivovo-a and that we have here in TralSas the correlative
to the emphatic KVOV. If such be the case, the sense should be:
'And I have borne children too.' That would be expressed Ka<f>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 Ka<j>v<ra p.V 8rj TraiSas,
then still further emended to Kd<wra//,v 817 TraTSas.
The remainder of v. 31, ous KCIVOS TTOTC, we will leave for the
32 Greek Authors
moment, without determining the meaning of TTOTC, in order to
examine the comparison that follows. This comparison runs thus:
OTTWS apovpav CKTOTTOV \afttav
rotoCros aia>v 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 a6X<av rwvS' we/sTeA^s !<v).
Srore,' says he, 'parait s'opposer a vw 8c du vers 36. Mais 1'ensemble
de la phrase n'est guere satisfaisant.' But the unsatisfactory char-
acter of the context is due to the fact that Tournier, like the other
Commentators, Construes ovs KEIVOS TTOTC o-ireiptov ftovov Trpoo-ctSc K<ia./Acuv
a7ra, making 7^775 OTTWS apovpav CKTOTTOV Xa/3w parenthetic. But
with the comparison rightly understood and punctuated the context
is quite satisfactory. 'Whom he once (or, formerly), as a husband-
man, etc., but now, etc.' For the correlation of TTOTC and vw 8* we
need only compare Phil. 96 sqq. eo-0Aov Trarpos TTCU, KO.VTOS <Sv ve'os
TT o T e | yXSxra-av ftev apyov, X^P a ^' eix ov cpyariv | v v v S ' ets lAcy^ov
eiot>v 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 e<u,
IvraWa. 8i) (= vvv Sr?) /xaXiorra rap/Jrycraor' e^w
e ov yap l^ra xeivos 'I<iTOU /3tW,
^/ms /AW (.v Tpap^tvi T}S' dvacrTarot
^e^w Trap' dv8pi va.iofji.ev, Ketvos 8' OTTOV
j3e(3r)Kev oiSeis oI8e TrXr/v e/xoi Trt/cpas
ciSivas (= <o/3ous) aurov Trpocr/3aXu>v 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<s fJLtvei.
Heracles has thus been away, to be quite prosaic, half as long again
as usual.
But Deianira has not quite finished her speech. She has said
(v. 43) : 'And I am pretty certain that he is suffering some mis-
fortune/ after which she gives in the yap clause (v. 44 sq) reason
for her belief that it is ' some misfortune ' ; then she adds (vv.
46-48) : 'And it is some terrible misfortune : that was the import
of the tablet that he left with me when he was taking leave. I often
pray to the gods that I may prove to have received it without harm'
(KOLCTTLV n 8vov ~fj/JLa TOtavnrjv e/xoi | SfXrov AITTWV ecrrei^e, rrjv cyo> 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 <o/3oi> <o'/3ov Tpf<f>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 <Cff TIVOS^> (^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 avr<S
personale scriptum sit. Cui loquendi rationi baud ita absimilis est
ei quam Eur. Hipp. 46 offendimus, ubi praegresso apalcriv as 6
irovTtos | ava^ IlocretSwv a)7ra(rev O^cret yepas legimus //.T^Scv /u.aratov (1.
/uaratovs) es rpts evgavOai ^ea, 1 quo loco, nisi obstaret metrica
ratio, pro 0e haberemus avrw. Ad summam me credere profiteor
Soloneum illud apud Herodotum, Sophoclis delicias, obvium leviter
specie, re vera baud ita leviter immutatum suum in usum a poeta
esse conversum.
Vv. 9-14.
fjiVijarrrfp yap rjv p.oi TrorayMOS "AxeAwov Xeyta
os yu,' ev rpto-iv /u.opc/>ato-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 <o
KCI'VOU TrpoKf}paivov(ra vv yap eicrayei
/cat vv a.Tr(a6fl SiaSeSeyfieVov TTO'VOUS ,
Ka.<f>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 Ka<f>v<ra./j.ev 8e muSas KTC. Nam qui recte haec verba
leget vel potius pronuntiabit, is necesse animadvertat KUVOV et TralSas
inter sese opponi. Ne te morer, lector benevole, huc-rem deducam.
Duplex est Deianirae timor cum pro Hercule turn pro liberis suis re-
formidantis. Ad liberos quod attinet, satis obscure timorem suum de-
clarat; nam illud rap^a-aar' l^w quod 37 demum versu occurrit aeque
ad Herculem absentem atque ad liberos sine custode relictos spectat.
Cetera quae de toto hoc loco ab editoribus pessime intellect et sensi
et adhuc sentio exposui in Classical Review ix, 1895, pp. 2OO-2O2. 2
Illud tantum habeo quod nunc addam, c^>vo-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<jiv vewv ') and directs US tO read not oXvovra but o-aAeuovTa.
Indeed the Schol. L ad loc. points to this : xf te /o"i> | Av?ra rapax^e
irdOfi, yu,Ta^>o/3iKcos' oiiK ecrrt, <f>r}(ri, /AC/ATTTOV f SVO-TV^OWTI /cat jrapa<f>Ofyyecr6aL,
not Trapa^povowTt /cat 7ra.pa<f>0eyye(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 <r o t s 17 y rj p a. craAevovTas,
KTC.
NOTES ON SOPHOCLES'S OEDIPUS TYRANNUS.*
Vv. 2-5.
TtVas TTO$' ISpas TeurSe /xot Ood^ere
K\a8oicriv e^eore/x/ievot
8' 6/xoi) ^.ev 6vfju.a.fjt.a.Ttov yep.et,
6fJ.ov Se Tratavtoi' re xai (TTfvay/j.a.T<av ;
'Why in the world, pray, are you sitting thus with suppliants'
branches, while (whereas) the city is filled with incense, is filled
with paeans and groans?' TTO'AIS Se implies vpeis /xv in the first
member of the period. That the contrast exists is reasonably
certain. But the actions described in the two members are not
plainly contrasted, as the sentence now stands. The sitting of a
delegation with suppliants' boughs somewhere is not in marked
contrast with burning incense or singing paeans somewhere. It is
the designation of the person to whom the supplication is addressed
on the one hand, the incense-burning and paean-singing on the other,
that makes a contrast between the actions. One part of the citi-
zens a delegation supplicate the king ; the city -at large suppli-
cates the gods. 'Why should a few supplicate the king, while most
look to the gods for aid ?' is roughly the question in Oedipus's mind.
If iroXis 8' is contrasted by implication (as without doubt it is) with
<fym? /u,ev>, 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<a locus non est. Sic saepius novavit Brunckius, a me
non ubique, ut par esset, retusus, quod semel moneo.' The priest
answers Oedipus's implication in vs. 31 sqq. Those words are
pointless and have nothing to rest on (the priest replies to Oedipus
in chiastic order), unless we read rao-8' e/toi. (I shall take up the
priest's words presently from another point of view.) a in dya> 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 <TTfva.yp.a.T<av.
It may be remarked here that modern scholars do not always
appreciate the fact that from the ancient Greek point of view both
terms of a contrast do not need always to be expressed. Thus, for
example, Nauck wrote (Mel. iv. p. 216) of Eur. Hel. 1047 sc l- tnus :
' "Das Schiff, das wir hatten, hat das Meer." Wollte Euripides in
dieser Weise mit dem Verbum lx uv spielen, so konnte er nur sagen
TJV yap T^jnets TrpwrOev et^o/x.ev, TO, vvv f.\f.i r/ OdXa.cro-a. Der iiberlieferte
Ausdruck lehrt dass nicht der Dichter sondern ein Abschreiberver-
sehen verantwortlich zu machen ist fur das frostige Wortspiel. Man
erwartet fj yap yXOopfv 0oAao-o-' !x.' But in Eur. Ale. 339 sq. we find
Xoyw yap rjcrav OVK pyo> <iA.oi | (TV 8' (as if a ourot p.ev OT ovrot had gone
before) avriSovo-a T^S /AT}S TO. (friXrara | i/'v^s ecrwcras. Still more Strik-
ing is Hom. F 164 ov TI /xoi alri-rj carer i, OCOL vv p,oi ainoi ficnv, where no
(TV anticipates 6eoL
As I have just spoken of a matter of punctuation, I may add here
that in vs. 1 1 orep&ivTes should be followed by , . The question is not
direct; therefore, the ; is not required. Besides this, the pointing
with; obscures the relation of is OfXovros av KT!. (vs. n) to </>/oo'
(vs. 9).
It seems to me, as to others, reasonable to suppose that o-Tcp^avTts
was once ov <rrepavTes. I would explain the present state of our
text thus : The ov before oWplavres was dropped out by some one in
copying; then an attempt was made to restore it (by putting it in
the margin first?) ; this succeeded so far that ov did indeed get back
4O Greek Authors
into the text but in the wrong synizesis with \n\ in vs. 13, where it
was not wanted, instead of with 77 in vs. n, where it was wanted.
Vs. 15-21. The fjifv after 6pas is, of course, contrasted with the 8e
in TO 8' oAAo <{)Aov (vs. 19). The structure of this whole passage may
be clearly indicated thus :
opas fjJkv r)fJLoi<i t r)\iKOL KTC.
O* /ACV OuSeVtO KTC.V/Ot Sc (TVV KT.
Jepeus tyw fj.ev ZTJVOS/ \oI8e 8' yOftov ACKTOI
r
TO 8' aAAo (frvXov.
The emphasis on ^Ai/cot makes <Aov mean primarily 'those of other
age than we' (the contrast of sex is not so distinctly if at all
present to the mind). We must read o?8e 8' -rjOcw in vs. 18; also itpevs
eya)ju.v at the beginning of the same verse. oi8e 8' g'tfeW is the reading
of Pal. 40 (see Professor Campbell's edition; cf. also Emil Miiller,
Beitrdge zur Erkldrung u. Kritik des Konigs Odipus des Sophokles,
I. und II., Leipsic, 1884, p. 5).
In the priest's answer to Oedipus the words dAA', o> 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<ri Tots aois . In vss. 31-34 the priest protests
that he and the suppliants do not approach Oedipus as a god. Does
not this, the turning point of the priest's answer, taken in connection
with what has already been said about the relation of the speeches
of Oedipus and the priest, make strongly against /Sw/iourt and for fid-
I may add here that in vs. 31 Mr Blaydes's To-ov ve/Kov <r* eyo> 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/i<opais fiiav and cv TC Stu^ovw o-vvoAAayats are re-
sumed in chiastic order, vw (v. 40) is contrasted with the notion of
Sophocles 41
pastness in JU,OA.O>V=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 <rvfj.(f>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><ras
stands is a substantive that shall be connected as predicate with
V/A<O/DO,S and shall have rS>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<ras. At all events /5i'a indicates very well what is wanted
here. d><ras is pretty certainly wrong. 'For to the experienced (as
you are) necessity is especially the mother of invention' is a senti-
ment that fits in here very fairly well indeed.
In vs. 47 I would read ws ere vvv /*/ KTC. There is no emphasis of
contrast on the ere no special emphasis at all, in fact : therefore,
there is no reason why we should accent the word, vvv /iev demands
a contrasted term in the Se-clause. This is to be found in varepov,
which does not belong to irarovres. ireo-ovre? needs no such adjunct.
trravTes T' e? opOov /cat TTCO-OVTCS is contrasted (chiastically) with
(=ao-<aA.ois, wore p.r) TTCO-CIV) avopOoxrov in V. 51-
42 Greek Authors
In v. 48 Pal. 40 is again right. Trpo^etas (a mere carelessness of
spelling for Trpo/^flias) is sense ; Trpoflv/utas hardly.
In v. 55 I propose to read w avSpdo-w KoAAiov y KCV^S /SpoTwv. 1
In v. 58 should we not construe the final word of the verse, /xot,
with 7rpoo~i]\6eO' at the beginning of v. 59, rather than with yvwra KOVK
ayvwTa in V. 58 ?
If w. 80-1 are right as they stand, should we not construe thus :
ci yap ev rv^rj ye TW o-wrfjpi fiair} <^ OVTW > Aa/ATrpos, wcnrep op.jjja.rL ('to the
A0oi, aWep Aap,7rpos (=<avepos) Trpoo-epxereu. Oedipus knows nothing
about any bright expression on Creon's face. He has not even seen
him yet only heard that he is approaching. Nor is the news that
Creon brings of a kind to put a smile on a man's face. Nor does the
priest in his next words say anything about bright looks : he judges
of the character of Creon's news merely from his chaplet (w. 82-83).
In v. 99 I cannot but think that the reading of the MSS. TIS o
v[j.<f>opa,<; ; is adequately defended by Aristoph. Av. 94 TIS
,- TIS 6 T/aoTros T^S T/3iA.o<ias ; In the reply of Creon (v. 100
sq.) TToiw Ka6apfj.(L; is answered first ; o>s 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 <rvn.Trpa.KTwp o8ov ayyeXos aiSe /caT^X^e, KTC. ?
0VT](rKov<r<. yap (sf. ol (rv/twpaKTOpes 6Sov TravTes) in V. Il8 looks as if
(rv/ATTpaKTwp in v. 1 1 6 might have been the subject of the whole sen-
tence. 2
In v. 118 <jS>o/?<j> is to be construed, I think, with ouSev x' ciSws
<pa(7cu in v. 119. The participle <vyo>v is then=7rei (postquam)
!<vyev. For the emphasis on the participle thus placed cf . what I
have said of ftoAwv in v. 35.
In v. 122 sq. I venture to think that Sophocles may have written
ov fua<i (not ftia) p<i>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<p need not refer to Apollo in
fact, they probably do not. At all events <f>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\<av ?
It is interesting to observe that G. Wolff's conjecture av for ov in
v. 430 is supported by the newly-discovered Oxyrhynchus fragment,
in which av stands in the text with : ou : written above by the
second hand. The balance of opinion ought now, it seems to me, to
turn in favor of av, as against the feebler ov.
In v. 1369 sq., the MSS. make Oedipus say to the Coryphaeus:
is yu.ev rctS' oi>x wS' eor' aptcrr' etpyaoy/.eVa,
fj.rj p? /<Si'8acrKe, yu/^Se crv/z/Joi'Aeu' In.
But the Coryphaeus had said (v. 1367) :
OVK oI8' OTTWS ere < f3ej3ovXeva-8ai. /caXws.
It thus seems that Sophocles wrote in v. 1369 not dpyaa-p-eva but
fyvvo-fjitva. It may be noted that iyvwa^eva and eipyacr/u-eVa are con-
fused in Eur. MeJ. 779 at least ithe reading of the MSS. varies
between eyvwcr/xo/a and dpyao-peva. In the present passage the corrup-
tion of eyvaxr/Kcra to et/oyacr/AeVa may be due wholly or in part to the
occurrence of eipyacr/xeva at the end of v. 1374.
SOPHOCLE, OEDIPE-ROI v. lo-n. 1
J'ai lu avec beaucoup d'interet 1'article que M. L. Parmentier a
consacre dans cette Revue (xxvi, 349-53) aux vers 10-11 de 1'Oedipe-
Roi de Sophocle, mais je regrette de n'etre pas d'accord sur un plus
1 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVII (19031, pp. 151 sq.]
44 Greek Authors
grand nombre de points avec le savant auteur d' Euripide et Anaxa-
gore. Je ne suis en effet de son avis que sur deux points: il a tres
justement marque les raisons de 1'etonnement d'Oedipe 1 et note, a
la fin de son article, 2 le souci chez le poete de presenter Oedipe sous
son jour le plus favorable. Encore dois-je aj outer que M. Par-
mentier ne me semble pas avoir decouvert tout ce qu'il y a d'etonnant
dans la supplication addressee a Oedipe. II dit que le /^oi au vers 2
'a 1'accent/ chose qui ne me semble pas possible si on retient la
forme enclitique du pronom. II a raison quand il demande ici un
pronom emphatique, mais il faut que nous ecrivions avec 43runck
rao-8' efjiol 0oaeTe, ce que j'ai fait et dans la Classical Review, xiii
(1899), 339> 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 !<vs | Trpo rwvSe <<)Viv, v. 9 sq.) ; et c'est parce que
le pretre ne fait sa reponse au roi qu'en qualite d'interprete qu'
1 P. 349-
'P. 353-
8 [See p. 38.]
Sophocles 45
Oedipe s'adresse directement aux jeunes gens au vers 58 (*O TrcuSes
oiKTpoi). Si nous regardons les mots d' Oedipe a ce point de vue
son soi-disant sentiment paternel envers les citoyens de Thebes
s'evanouit au moins en cet endroit. Malheureusement c'est sur les
preuves de ce sentiment, que M. Parmentier croit trouver ici dans les
paroles d'Oedipe, que se fonde en grande partie son interpretation
du mot oWplWTes au vers n. Je n'ai rien a reprendre a ce qu'il dit
de la signification de <rrepyv en general. Quant a 1'endroit cite de
1'Oedipe a Colone, je pense que meme M. Parmentier ne le trouverait
pas d'une si grande importance, s'il eut mieux saisi le sens des mots
d'Oedipe dans 1'Oedipe-Roi. J'en viens done a mon tour a ces trois
mots du vers 1 1 : Scto-avres 17 <rrepavTes.
M. Parmentier n'a pas discute la transposition que Ton a depuis
longtemps propose de 1' ov, qui se trouve tres mal place au vers 13,
au vers n entre 17 et orep^avres. J'ai tache d'expliquer aux endroits
deja cites la raison de cette transposition, a laquelle je tiens tou jours.
Je remarque ici en passant que M. Parmentier met un point d'inter-
rogation apres TTOV au lieu d'apres orep&ivTes. II dit que 'les editeurs
mettent le point d'interrogation apres oWp^avres .' Dans mon edition
j'ai retranche absolument le point d'interrogation. Je ne m'explique
pas comment les editeurs se sont persuades que 1'interrogation
indirecte dependant de <po' doive etre considered comme une inter-
rogation directe.
En rejetant 1'explication qu'offre M. Parmentier de Scwravres 17
orepavres et en maintenant la transposition de la negation : Sctb-avres 17
oi> 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 av8pd<rLV KaAAtov 17 KV^S Kpart.lv.
' For if you really mean to remain lord of this land, the way you do rule it with
men is better than to rule it empty.' With this division of the sentence Kparetv at
the end of v. 55 is perfectly natural.]
Sophocles 47
NOTE ON SOPHOCLES'S OEDIPUS COLONEUS IO36. 1
ovBw (TV fj,p.7TTov tvOdS' wv peis e/Aot Tyrrellius recte, quam tamen
lectionem non recte interpretatur : dicit enim constructionem esse
ovSev w o-v epeis, quod aperte falsum est. Auditur ante illud
alterum e/acts ut hunc in modum intellegatur locus : ov8ev <
c/AOt epeis, ev0aS' oiv (pro v ev0a8') epos. Cf. O.C. 1580 ubi ante Aeas
auditur alterum Aeas quod cum IWTO/MWTCITWS et Tvxoip.i coniungatur.
Cf. Xen. expedit. Cyr. 3, 4, 13, ovs re avros [TTTTOIS ^X^
NOTE ON SOPHOCLES, ANTIGONE H7-I2O. 2
oras 8' VTTfp /jLeXadpiav </>ovwcratoriv 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,<ixavwv being, not unnaturally, taken
as an adverb repeating d/i^t . I would, therefore, read and point
thus (the pointing agrees with Professor Jebb's) :
OTas 8' VTTtp fjLfX.d6p<av (frovuHTancnv e7rra7ruA.a> KVK\(a
Xoy^ats d/t^i^avwv ord/ia,
I would add that the thing signified is obviously the van ( <rro/ia ) of
the army bristling with spears.
In Antigone i it seems not to have been observed by those that
suspect (Nauck) or would emend (Wecklein, M. Schmidt) the
word /cotvov, that Sophocles had in mind when writing this verse
Aesch. Prom. 613 & KOCVOV A^eXiy/ia | BVTJTOUTLV <aveis the metrical
equivalent, syllable for syllable and caesura for caesura, of Ant. I.
MISCELLANEA CRITICA. 1
i. The action of Sophocles's Antigone begins early in the
morning of the day following the battle of the chieftains. The
Argive army has fled in the night. [See vv. 100 sqq.] Antigone
brings Ismene without the palace [v. 18 sq.] to tell her of the pro-
clamation just [d/m'ws v. 8] made by Creon. Of this Antigone has
been informed privately [v. 9 sq.] and unofficially [ws Aeyowt, v. 23*"
<aortv, v. 27; <cun, v. 31]. After telling Ismene what is reported of
the proclamation Antigone continues [vv. 31 sqq.] :
TOIO.VTO. <f>a.ari TOV ayaOov Kpe'ovra <roi
Ka.fj.oi Xeyto yap Ka/ae Ki)pva.vr' f
Kal 8tvpo Vicr0ai TO.VTO. Toun /AT)
The words <ao-i So)po v&r6ai, taken in connection with Antigone's
previous designation of Creon as 'the general ' [TOV crrpaTirybv, v. 8 ;
see Professor Humphreys's excellent note], would naturally lead
us to suppose that Creon had made hia proclamation before the
army but was not yet returned to the palace, when he intended to
make a second proclamation rots /AT) 8<xnv.
With this supposition everything seems to be in accord. It is
1 [From the Classical Review, IX (1895), p. 439.]
Sophocles 49
therefore somewhat surprising to find Professor Campbell appar-
ently the only supporter of this view of the situation. (See his
Sophocles, i 2 , p. 455 : "Creon may not have followed far [in the
pursuit of the Argives] and may have been recalled by the cares of
State, though he is only returning to the palace when the elders
encounter him." [The italics are mine.])
Professor Jebb says [on vv. 162-331] : "Creon, the new king,
enters from the central door of the palace." So too Professor Semi-
telos [on VV. 162-331] : 'Ev <a xpovw 6 xopos 17 /noAAov 6 K0pv<t>aio<; aTTiqy-
yeAAe TOVS Trporjyovfievov<i dvaTraibrous, 6 Kpecov ee\$a>v 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<b in v. 191 as a resumption of the other two eyw's. Whether
or not we should write in vv. 178 and 184 y'op' I will not undertake
to decide. But I would call attention to Professor Jebb's very
laboured explanation of the two yap's [each = 'for' !] in his com-
mentary, and [as an exemplum in terror em} to M. Tournier's note
in his Appendice Critique: 'Top, loin de marquer I'enchainenrent des
idees, ne sert qu'a en troubler 1'ordre. II faut ecrire e//,oi /*/." It is
1 [See notes on Sophocles's Antigone (infra, p. 69) where Professor Earle begs the
reader "to regard the present discussion as in part but only in part a palinode"
of this article].
5O Greek Authors
a relief to find Mr Blaydes writing [on v. 178] : " tfwt yap 'Now
to me, to me then,' etc., in explanation of the preceding senti-
ment."
It may be added that the fact that w. 178-190 are resumed for
transition's sake in v. 191 in the form roioto-8' eyo> 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 :
<f>vyov<ri yap TOI ^01 0pacris, orav TreXas
17817 TOV *A.i8r)v flaopSxri TOV fiiov.
Professor Humphrey's note on v. 581 is interesting: " [tiav depends
on 7re\as [wra]. Without limiting gen., Eur. Ale. 24 77^7 Se TOV&
6a.va.Tov da-opw TreXas [visible presence]." The parallelism between the
expression in the Antigone and that in the Alcestis is indeed strik-
ing, though Professor Humphreys calls no further attention to it.
The "visible presence" of Thanatos seems to be thought of by
Sophocles almost as distinctly as by Euripides.
Again in Ant. 806 sq. we read :
opar' l/x', w yas Trarpias TroXiTot, rav vfdrav o&ov
vtarov 8e <eyyos Aet'trtroixrav deXiov,
is aAAa /i' 6 TrayKOtVas *Ai8a9 !a(rav ayet
Sophocles 51
dxrav, /ere.
With these words of the doomed Antigone we may compare those
of the dying Alcestis (Ale. 259-263), particularly ayu yu,' ay /xe TIS
and TrrepuTos "At&xs with aXXd p,' 6 ayei, and oiav 68ov Trpoa-flawia with
rav o-rei'xovo-av. But we find a still more noticeable parallel to the
Alcestis in this passage of the Antigone. In Ale. 205-208 the tradi-
tional text is
oy^ws Bf, KaLTTfp crfjuKpov efji.7rvf.ovcr 1 ert,
(3Xfif/ai Trpos aiyas fiovXeraL ras rjXtov^
u0is, aAAa vvv Travvcrrarov,
KVK.XOV ff 1 fjXiov Trpocrdi^rrai.
Valckenaer and Hermann have condemned vv. 207-8, and I have
followed them in my text. But a comparison of the words in the
Antigone vearov KOVTTOT' av# has suggested a somewhat different
treatment. The expression in the Antigone is noticeable for its
ellipsis : after KOVTTOT aWts we must mentally supply o^o/ierav or the
like. Now in the Alcestis we shall have the same sort of expression
(indeed, almost the same expression), if we simply drop v. 208 and
put a full stop at the end of v. 207. We can then the more readily
understand the introduction of Hec. 412 into the text of the
Alcestis.
Of course, all this, if sound, is but a further support of the theory
of a close relation between the Alcestis and the Antigone.
4. In Ant. 795 sq.,
VLKO. 8' f
Professor Campbell's sound adherence to the Greek order of words
has led him to join VLKO. and cvapyrjs ("i.e. eva/ay>/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/<a 8' e
52 Greek Authors
NOTES ON SOPHOCLES'S ANTIGONE. 1
No satisfactory emendation of arrp oYep in v. 4 has been suggested.
It seems hardly likely that any such is forthcoming. Are not those
scholars on the right scent after all that maintain the integrity of
OTT/S arep and seek the corruption in the negatives? I cannot think
that the simple change of ovr' to OVK before UTTJS arip satisfies all the
conditions of the case; nor would the change of that our' to ovS' do so
without some further change in the sentence. However, I venture
to think that ovSfv yap ovr' dAyavov ovS' ariys arep is right, SO far as it
goes; only we need to make the rest of the sentence conform to it.
It is to be observed that in ovr' alo~xpov ovr' S.TIIUOV in v. 5 we have a
positive and a negative term of nearly the same meaning conjoined.
Now if in v. 4 we are right in maintaining, as above, the soundness
of arrj<i arep, we have in ovr' aXyeivov oiio' arrjs arep what is practically the
same as a positive and a negative term of similar meaning correlated
as parts of the same (negative) phrase. If v. 5 is to offer anything
that shall at all exactly balance this, we naturally expect after
ovr' cuVxpov something like (as far as the sense goes) ovS* oveioW
arep or ovSe Tt)ti7/s fiera. This brings us to what I venture to suggest
as possibly the original text here:
ovSev yap ovr' aXyeivov ou8' ar^s arep
OVT' al(r\pov ovS 1 evrt/xov ecr$', KTC.
I may add here that the reading advocated in v. 3 by Mr Paley
and suggested inter alia by Mr Blaydes < OVK 2o-0' > orroibv ov^i v<Zv
u>o-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?<r0eZs SiKalq. ical v6/j.tf. /card x^ "^ 5 - This verse, it appears to me, may be justly
rejected from the text, and its presence in our MSS. explained as follows. Assume
two glosses, one on obv Slicy (v. 23): \priff6els SiKatif ical vi/twf. (the late use of xP r l ff ^ t=
Xpijffd/utros is noticed by Jebb ad loc.~), and one on the brief cupinf/e (v. 25): /card -x_dov(>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, <Ls Xeyoucri, avv SLK-TJ /cat v6p.ta
/cara 6ov6s
ov t vcKpov
TOV 8' d0Auus 0avoi/Ta IIoAuveiKous vexw.
M. Tournier gives the right text, only he does not rightly explain
how the present text arose, but talks of a 'glose vexpoTs a x^ ovl/ > 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 <r6\r] (or equiva-
lent) and <r0Awv xa/o;. This brings us to the original form of the verse:
?T' fyyevrjs Tre^uKas tr' ecrOXiav Kax^.
The parodos of the Antigone is unfortunately considerably muti-
lated. It seems pretty certain that the anapaests balanced, or rather
that the anapaests are practically part of the strophes, as Mr Tyrrell
prints them in his Parnassus Library text. Vv. 157 and 161 are
both defective, as well as v. 112. It is quite possible too that there
were several 'strophic rhymes' in vv. 100-162 that do not appear in
the present form of the verses. Thus in vv. 136 sq. /3aKxW avepw
| piTrais CX&O-TCOV 7T7rv may have been the original arrangement of
the words in order to balance CK /xv 8>) TroAe/tttov | TWV vvv
6f<rOf. Xyo-fjioo-vvav (i$o sq.). So too the reading of L in v. 157,
eAeAt<ov, inclines one to suppose that in v. 139 /u-eyas 'Ap^s OTV-
<f>e\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-<VKOS is not
strange. It is due merely to attraction to the predicate substantive
a common enough phenomenon. We come now to the question what
that predicate noun was as Sophocles wrote it. Professor Campbell
decided (with Messrs. Blaydes, Jebb and Tyrrell) in favour of
XdXijfw, adding to the citation of Eur. Androm. 937 : 'And this word
fits more closely to the context of the present passage. "Fie, 'tis too
clear you are a born chatterbox." "Then it is clear that I never did
this deed." ' But this is to use a false interpretation of v. 321 to
support a reading in v. 320. For v. 321 means Reiske's y' for 8'
after TO can hardly but be right 'without having ever done that
deed at all events.' Against the idiom of this verse (for which cf.
O.C. 651, 848, 924; Plat. Euthyd. 283 C, 285 E) Professor Tyrrell's
conjectural reading OVKOW TO 8' Ipyov TOV& 6 Troi^o-as TTOTC sins quite as
much as Professor Campbell's translation. Is there then not good
reason for accepting as the Sophoclean form of these two verses
(320 sq) this?
- Ol/Ll' (OS aXrjfJLO. 8f)\O<i eK7T6<UKOS el.
OVK ow TO y' Ipyov TOVTO Troikas wort.
(CREON. What a born knave you are !
GUARD. Without having ever done that deed at all events.)
That from Creon's point of view aXrjfM connotes sophistical cun-
ning, from the Guard's criminality, is not against this interpretation.
(See Xenophon on v/3pis in Anab. 5. 8, 3.)
It may be added that in Eur. Androm. 937, quoted by Professor
Campbell, there is good reason in the sequence of ideas to regard
the verse as made up of two expressions closely related in meaning
and to read :
The scholiast on the passage in the Antigone, it may be added, inter-
prets aXrjfjM (as he read) by Travofyyos.
The first antistrophe (342-352) of the splendid iroXXa TO. oWa
chorus contains a famous crux. I venture to think that the combined
Sophocles 55
acumen of Hermann and Semitelos has restored the original form
of vv. 349-352, though it seems not to be commonly so thought. I
hazard a short discussion of this famous passage. To do it justice
we must consider the first antistrophe as a whole. This antistrophe,
like the strophe, falls into two portions closely related to each other
but clearly distinguished. The division falls at the same place in
each. As in the strophe vv. 332-337 (TroAAo, oiS/xatrtv), or, excluding
the introductory words TroAAa 7re\ei, W. 334-337 (TOVTO otS/ua<riv),
deal with man's commerce with the sea ; w. 338-342 (0ewv re
TroAewv), with his commerce with the land : so in the antistrophe w.
343-348 (KOV<OVOW re avr/p) deal with the capture of birds, beasts and
fishes (I note that Professor Tyrrell's dypeT is probably right) ; w.
349-353 (Kpo.ru Se ravpov) with the taming of beasts (see the schol.
and Semitelos on v. 349) . TT e p uv for' oiS^tao-tv is answered by
TT p i<f>paSrj<i avrjp and ITTTT e I w yem TroXev o v by ovp e t 6 v T' dS^ra ravp o v.
(My reason for preferring the reading TroAeSov to iroAetW is thus plain ;
of dS/u^Ta as opposed to d^ro, I shall speak presently.) Now if, in the
second half of the antistrophe, the part that deals with the taming of
beasts, we keep the traditional text, we shall have the words Kparii
o/oe(7cri/3aTa explained by Aao-tav^cva 0' Tavpov. But LTTTTOV and ravpov
are evidently but species of the genus aypavXov %>os 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<ov vyoi.
Hermann's defence of e^-W seems to me pretty satisfactory, and it
is accepted by Professor Semitelos; but lir-mov will hardly stand.
Here Professor Semitelos again comes to the rescue and finishes his
good work by the neat supplement ov after l-mrov. Thus we read our
appositives
56 Greek Authors
ITTTTOV, <[ or > 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 (<ro<6V n TO /ni/xavoev KTC.) The
first sentence of his argument seems to call for some comment : 'der
vers Tore ftev usw. ist, wie Sauppe zu Plat. Prot. 344* anmerkt, dem
dort citierten verse eines unbekannten dichters nachgebildet : avrap
avrjp dyaflos TOTC fifv KCIKOS, aAAore 8' ecr0A.6s.' It might appear from Professor
Blass's language as though he thought that Sauppe had been the first
to point out this connection. But in the Erfurdt-Hermann edition
of the Antigone of 1830, of which I have used not only my own
copy but one that bears on the fly-leaf Sauppe's signature as 'studios.
Philol. Lips. 1830', the note on v. 364 contains the addition by
Erfurdt : 'Poetae obversatus videtur Theognidis locus, quem laudant
Xenophon. Mem. I. 2, 20. et Plato Protag. p. 589. Heind.' To this
Hermann adds : 'Versum, quem dicit Erfurdtius, avrap dv7)p dyaflos
TOTC fifv KGIKOS, aXXore 8' T0Aos, alius potius quam Theognidis esse, ex
Xenophonte colligi potest.' It can hardly be regarded as proof of
any internal connection between the Protagoras and the Antigone,
if we find the same 'familiar quotation' in each work in different
contexts, especially as this same 'familiar quotation' appears in
Xenophon in still another context as a favourite saying of Socrates.
The coincidence is such that it proves nothing for Professor Blass.
But he goes on to cite Prot. 320 C sqq. in proof of a striking
similarity between Sophocles and Protagoras 'oder Platon man
weisz ja nicht, wie viel etwa der Sophist in der schrift ircp! T^S ev dpxs
KaTao-Tao-ews hier . . .von selbst vorgetragen hatte ' in the account of
the development of civilisation, rexyrj, he says in effect, is the key-
Sophocles 57
note of both passages, and in the Antigone we are to understand
with irapeiptav the words eis rrjv Te^vrjv, the participle having the sense
of 'einfugend in, verbindend mit'. One must be forgiven for think-
ing of Nestor's words of mild surprise in B 80-81. But let us
examine this matter of similarity. Surely the difference between
the two passages is quite as striking as the similarity. In Plato
Epimetheus leaves mankind aKoa-p-rfrov, so that the theft of fire by
Prometheus is necessary in order that man may obtain the Iv
(ro</>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 'H<cuoTOu Kai TTJV aXX.r)VTi)v
T^S 'AftjvSs. Thus far there is surely no parallel between Plato and
Sophocles. But before we pursue our examination of this matter
further, I wish to say something about a textual corruption that
Professor Blass with others has tried to get rid of. The words
Sia. rrjv TOV 0eov onryyeraav in Prot. 322 A cannot be right. Whether
Professor Blass's a-wrt^yiav for o-vyyeyoav helps matters, may fairly
be doubted. Some time ago I hazarded a correction in the Classical
Review (vii. p. n), 2 viz. Sia TOVTO, and tried to suggest the motive
of the corruption. In regard to the motive I have nothing to add
here; but I venture to suggest what is perhaps a better conjecture
of the original form of the words, viz. oV avnfjv (i.e. 810. TTJV 6tiav /jiolpav) .
If this conjecture really reproduces the manus Platonica, the passage
has been corrupted either by a gloss (as I have suggested) or by a
fancied correction (by supplement) after the loss of Y.
To return to the parallelism, we find that in Protagoras-Plato
man, gifted with the 'fire-skill' and thus in possession of a part of
1 Why, we are not told. Is there here a trace of the tale of the Lost Paradise ?
and have the Aids <j>v\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-
<f>pa<TTtu='ha.s devised', seems still more easily justified. Indeed, is
either of these words more surprising than avTo<wpa>v '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 <VTT> cu'Spaa (or <VTT> 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
<t>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 <f>p6vrjfja. is sound, that
dorw<yiovs opyas is also sound and has the simple meaning given
above, and that <d&v is probably sound. Professor Semitelos
changes ^ponjjua, opyas and <eviv. irapeortos seems pretty clearly=
irapoiKos, 'neighbour', and lo-ov <t>pov>v=o~v(rTa<riwTr]<;. Local and political
proximity are thus coupled.
Vv. 45O-452 1 Creon dismisses the guard (vv. /\^/\ sq.) and turns
to Antigone with the words crv 8' ewre /lot ^17 /X^KOS, aXXa <TWTO//.<I>S |
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.ov<s here ought to mean the same thing as rovVSc
VO/AOVS in v. 449. But this is absurd at least it is generally so con-
sidered. Prof. Campbell does not find it so. He annotates: 'The
iteration of rovo-Se, in contrasting the law which she obeyed with the
edict of Creon, is dramatically appropriate, and there is no difficulty
in the vague use of the demonstrative.' Similarly Wolff-Beller-
mann: 'roixrSe vo^ous mit deutlicher scharfer Beziehung auf Kreon's
Worte 449.' In their Critical Appendix (5th ed.) we read further:
'Durch Valckenaers fast allgemein aufgenommene Konjektur
vo/xous wird die beabsichtigte Zuriickbeziehung auf
449 zerstort.' I must agree with the majority that the tradi-
tional text is indefensible here on account of the preceding row-Sc
VO/AOVS and that Prof. Campbell and Messrs Wolff and Bellermann
are wrong. But before dealing directly with Valckenaer's generally
received conjecture I wish to return to v. 450 and to ask whether it
is necessary to make Zeis the subject of rjv. As I read the verse, and
as it seems to me almost, if not quite, necessary to read it, Zevs
cannot be taken as subject of yv, but must be predicate. My feeling
for Greek certainly imperatively demands this. Let us see what this
leads to. 'Yes ; for not at all in my eyes was the proclaimer of these
things Zeus, nor (was he) that Justice that dwells with the nether
gods, who (Zeus and Justice)', did what? Not 'defined these laws
among mankind', but 'defined the laws among mankind' : not rovo-8 1
ev avOpwTTOLO-LV wpicrav vo/iovs, but Tovs cv a.v6 pwiroiCTiv 5>pwrav 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.TrT<rOai TOUS vexpous Could be an explana-
tion of Erfurdt's text ; it could also be an explanation, as it is gener-
ally supposed to be, of the traditional text.
Erfurdt's reading involves an interesting question to which I shall
presently refer. But before doing so, I wish to speak of another
reading that has been proposed in v. 452. This differs from that
1 It is worth while more fully to compare the passage in the Memorabilia cited by
Erfurdt. It is as follows : ' Aypdtpovs 84 rimj olffda, f<f>r), u 'Ivirla, vbfMvs ; Tous y iv
-irdff-Q, %<i>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/Aoov<rav evrav^a, I fail to
see its force. As we have seen, TOVS in place of row-S' is easily
justified.
The interesting question alluded to above has to do with the
reference of the relative ot. I have already explained it as referring
to Zevs and Aiio/; but it may be said (the objection has already been
made by Boeckh and not well answered by Mr Semitelos) that it
should be Zevs and 17 WOIKOS TV /caVo dew AIKT; and that it cannot
rightly be said that Zeus and this special phase of Auoy (discussed
by Mr Semitelos in his explanatory notes) defined the laws of
mankind. It is not enough to answer with Mr Semitelos that the
context shows that Antigone has in mind only burial-laws. That is
simply not true, it seems to me. The answer is a simple one, I
believe, but quite different, viz. that here, as elsewhere, the relative
clause regards the antecedent noun in its most general sense, not in
the modified sense that it bears where it stands. This is not an
isolated phenomenon. The tendency to gravitate, by a sort of cen-
tripetal force, from the specific to the generic, as a sentence lengthens
out, may be amply illustrated in Greek and need not be dwelt upon
here, nor need we glance atoorw. For the simple relative clause I
will bring forward a few examples. Others are doubtless to be
found. I do not know of any adequate in fact of any discussion
of the phenomenon. Thus in At. 463-465 Ajax says TTWS /u,c rXyverai
(Telamon) TTOT euriSetv | yvpvov <j>avVTa roiv dpwrreiw dYep, | wv avros <r^e
oT<avov ev/cAetas p.fyav ; Here raiv dpicrreiW means specifically the
arms of Achilles, wv means o/no-retW generally, as is recognized in
the Schneidewin-Nauck note : ' o>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)<ra, \KTpa rd/ceiv^s (SC. 'Ep/uoviys) /?i'a, |" dyo> 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. <i/m0tas in general, not merely
a.fJLadta<; T^S /xeyi'crTT;?) II/awTaydpas oSc <f>r)<rlv iarpos elvai jcre. So Lysias 7,
1 8 TTUJS av olds T' J Trdvras TTCICTCU TOVS Trapidvras ^ TOVS yeirovas (my neigh-
bours), o? (neighbours in general) oi> p.6vov dAAT/Awv TO.VT ?o-ao-iv a Trao-iv
opav c^eariv, KTC. : Lys. 32, 24 TO fjfucru roirrots 6p</>avois own. AcAdywrrai,
ovs (orphans in general) 17 TrdAts ou p.6vov TralSas ovras aTeXeis fTTOi-qcrav
(makes), dAAa /cat 7r8av SoKi/xao'^aicriv .cviavrov a<J>f)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. apw<Ti(j.oi yap ^drepwv dcriv yueu.
1C. ov\' u>s y' fKCivia rfj8e T' TJV rjpfj.o<riJ.eva.
K P. ayav ye Avirets Kai crv nai TO crov Xe^os. 573
1C. r] yap o-rep^o-eis TrJo-Se TOV (ravrov yovov ; 574
KP. Ka/cas eyw yuvatxas uteViv cmryai. 57^
K P. *Ai8?;s 6 Trauo-wv rouo-Se TOIIS ya/xous !(/>u. 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 <o> 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
<w, in v. 905. V. 912 seems to have given Aristotle no trouble if
the MSS. are to be trusted. In v. 904 I think it may be fairly asked
whether the traditional text would not mean 'and yet it was / that
honoured you in the eyes of right-thinking people'. If that be so,
we should accept, as Mr Blaydes has done, Arndt's KO.ITOI o-e y' cw
'Ti/j.rja-a rots ^povovcnv eu 'and yet I certainly (y') did right in honouring
you in the eyes of right-thinking people'. And here I may remark
that in O.T. 597 the emphasis seems to be in favour of Musgrave's
ai/caAAovo-t as against the traditional e/c/caAovo-t. (I find that Meineke
takes up this point much as I have done in the Analecta Sophoclea
appended to his edition of the Oedipus Coloneus.) 'Now by all am I
greeted, now all salute me, now those that want something from
you', if we keep eKKaAowri, a word of essentially different meaning
from the two others used of Creon and rather contrasted with
we must, I think, read e/c/coAAovo-' c/xe ; but if we read
we have a third verb of similar meaning with the other
two used of Creon and forming a climax with them and, further-
more, not requiring the emphatic form of the pronoun (for which
there is no manuscript warrant) in place of j,e. Aristotle rhet. 1371
a says /cat TO KoXaKevccrdai /cat 6 /coAa i^Svs <atvo/Aevos yap OavfJUKrTrjs /cat
<atvo^evos <t'Aos 6 /coAa ecrrtv. Does not this defend atKoAAovo-t from
the Greek point of view ?
THE OPENING OF SOPHOCLES'S ANTIGONE. 1
My conjecture as to the probable original form of v. 4 sq. has
already appeared in this Review (xiii, 386), 2 and I still believe it to
be right. At the same place I have also expressed my belief in the
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVI (1902), pp. 3-5.]
2 [See above, p. 52.]
66 Greek Authors
correctness of Paley's treatment of v. 3. In what follows here I
wish to deal with some other matters pertaining to the correction
and interpretation of this speech of Antigone's.
In the first place I can no longer believe that the words rS>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 (d<rroun wai'Suv rlav air' OLOLTTOV Trept).
A simple remedy for the words, which has not, however, to my
knowledge been applied by anyone, consists in changing T>V 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<v cooxuv (gen.
absol.=ev TU> 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)
<f>i\<j)v for KdKcov at the end of vs. 6 in Electra 763, where we read
fteyio-ra TTCIVTWV oiv OTTWTT' eyw /caKaiv. This verse seems clearly reminis-
cent of Ant. 6 : the fact that cio-oVwTr' could not be fitted in makes it
invalid as a defence of OVK OTT^TT.
It has not, I think, been duly noted that the words TU>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 ra<ov yap -rjfj.lv, the tale which Antigone tells in
v. 21 sqq, could be placed in immediate sequence to w. 1-8. <5>s
Aeyovo-c in v. 23 recalls the <ao-i of v. 7. Indeed, I venture to think
that Sophocles at first composed the opening of the Antigone in the
form I have just indicated and then, thanks to a happy Sevrepa
<povTis, improved it by inserting vv. 9-20 and changing slightly the
beginning of v. 21, which had been at first v. g. 2
Before writing out w. i-io as I think we should read and point
them I would note the meaning that must be given to Reiske's *<u
KO.V crv [J.r) flc'A^s TOIOVT', namely dAyeivov ovo" OTTJS arep Kat
ov8' evTi/Aov. It may also be added that Hermann Schiitz in
his Sophokleische Studien p. 206 has strongly supported that inter-
pretation of v. 10 which makes TOVS <iAovs=IIoAvveiKT7 and TO>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<riA'a.s vocrov a.Kfjbrj=^ T^S T^S /3.v.d.),
the words oret^ovTa T<OV exflpwv KaK< * mav very well be taken as=
o-Ttixovra TO. TWV e^poiv Ko.ua. But to this interesting matter of style
I shall recur. The following is the form I believe w. i-io should
have :
KOIVOV auTaeov r/xvr;? Kapa,
ap' ola-6' on Zeiis TOIS aTr' OiSiVou
<[ OVK cer0' ,"> OTTOIOV ou^l vwv aior<uv
Ou&ev yap ovr' dXyeivov ouS' ar^s arep
ovr' aiV^pov ouS' Ivri/iov eo-fi' OTTOIOI' ou
TWV (Ttov T Ka/xcuv icTO7ra7r' eya)
'
xai vv TOIOUT
K7]pvy/jia dtlvat TOV (TTparrjyov dprtus
l^eis TI Kdo">J(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 <i'Aov. May we
not understand this as for 'O.v.d. to-ropei et TL o-oi $i\ov and write it
(perhaps) 'O.v.d. lo-ropet TL aroi <f>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 <t>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^ <i'Xov TTOT' avSpa Suo'/xev^ ^^ovos
veLfjiirjv ffjiavrip TOVTO yiyvaio'/ccov, on
170' O~rtv i^ o'aj^ouo'a /cat TOVTTJS ITTI
TrXe'ovres op^s TrXoDs /caXovs Troiov/j.e6a. IQO
Kat vvv aSeX<a rwvSe /ciypv^as e^w 1 92
ao-Touri TratScoi/ TCOI/ aTr' OtStVou Trept. 193
'Ereo/cXea fj.ev, os TroXecos inrpfj.a^S)v 194
oXwXe TT^o'Se TraVr' dpto~Teuo"as Sopt, 195
Tac/)0) re /cpvi/^at /cat TO. Trajr' e'c/)ayvtcrat
a rots dptorois Ip^erat /carto ve/cpois
TOJ/ 8' av vvaifj.ov TOVOC IIoXwt/c>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 Xey<o
jUT/TC /CTpleiV JU.^T KOMCWCU TlVd,
eav 8' a.6a.TTTov at irpos oiajvwv 8e//.as 2O5
KCU 7T/30S KWWV eSeo-rov aiKLfrdiv T' tSelv. 2O6
TotdvS' /xov (f>povr)/j.<i, KOVTTOT IK y* e/Ao5 2O/
TI/A^ Trpoeovcr' ol KO.KOL TWV evSiKtov,
d\X' ocrris ewous T^8e rg TrdXei 6av<av
xai ^wv 6/xotw9 e /AOU TixTcreTai. 2IO
The symmetrical arrangement of these verses is as follows : After
a proem of 13 verses (162-174, divided into 8 -{- 5 ; cf. the opening
speeches of O.T. and O.C.) come 4 verses (175-177 -f- 191) that
serve at once as transition from the preceding and as introduction
to the core of Creon's speech. Then come 13 verses (178-190)
about the principles (VO/AOI) of rulership. These are followed by 2
verses (192 sq.) introductory of the exemplification by acts of the
ruler (apx^O of the principles of rulership. These acts are set forth
in 13 verses (194-206). The conclusion is made in 4 verses (207-
210), an epilogue, as it were, balancing the prologue in vv. 175-177
and 191. The scheme is this : 13 (8 -f 5) | 4 . 13 . 2 . 13 . 4.
It should, it seems, appear entirely probable that nothing has been
lost after v. 168. It is true that we have here a harshness, an illog-
icalness; for rot>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<U ^'(answer-
ing to KCU TroAxu in V. 289) TOVTOVS iraptjyayov [jii<T0oi(rw SXTT epydcraadai,
SO that the subject of Trap-^yayov should be oVSpes fJ.6\i<> <<f/oovTes e/jiol
and TO.VTO. the object of e/oyao-ao-ftu. The passage should I think, be
thus pointed :
dAAa raura /cat TraXat 7roA.u>s
ai/Spts /toXis </3orres eppoBovv tftM 2QO
Kpvcfrr), napa (ret'ovres ovS' VTTO fuyw
\6rf)ov StKaiws el^oi' ws rrrepyctv e/xe
K TwvSe TOIJTOU? ^e7Ttcrraju.ai KaXais
Tra/37/y/x.eVous fJUcrOolcrw elpydcrOai. raSe.
1 bimrfarq. 5' ^?ri yq, irfoe
irvp<f>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-
dei6<Teipot. Vv. 134-142.
Sophocles 73
'No ; that (ravra, i. e. what you say the gods did bury Polynices)
I know full well that these guards (TOU'TOVS) did, seduced by hire by
certain of the citizens (TrdAews avSpes) that, vexed at me (/to'Ais <epovTes
e/Aoi), had long been muttering in secret (IppoOow Kpv<f>rj, 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 <o/3os.
DE SOPHOCLIS ANTIGONAE VV. 45 ET 46. 1
Verba quae sunt Tdv y ow 1/j.ov KOI TOV o-ov, yv o-v /AT/ OcXr)? \ <lSeA<dv ab
ea una solaque femina dici possunt quae neque cum sorore nee uno
de fratre loquatur. Hie murus aeneus esto. Sequitur continue ut
locus sit corruptus ; atque per scholia antiqua certiores facti sumus
Didymum dixisse a commentatoribus (wo rS>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 Ta<f>ov supplendo videtur cogitari posse, quod eodem
esset accipiendum sensu atque TOV Ta<f>ov yw.pos, sepulturae partem,
Ut plena Sit sententia TOV y ow I/AOV <^ra.<j>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 Koprj<i
wfj.(f>elov "AiSou [/cotXov] ei<re/3atVo/zi/.
It is inexplicable to me that the traditional reading here seems
never to have been disputed. Jebb (with whom Humphreys agrees)
says : "KO/JT/S w^iiov *AiSov, the maiden's death-bower : cp. 795 n.,
929." (The former of the illustrations is different; the latter,
debatable, perhaps glossed.) Schneidewin-Nauck also say: "w/i^dov
'AtSov (654. 816 [only remotely applicable]), Grabesbrautgemach,
wozu /cop?;? tritt, wie 1184 [hardly parallel]. Eur. Here. 562 "AtSov
rao-Se 7re/3i/?oXas KO/M;S [the position of words different]. Vgl. Soph.
El. 681 TO xXuvov 'EXXaSos Trpdcr^/u,' dyaivos " (see below).
A repeated reading of the passage convinces me that I am right
in feeling that to a hearer the sense demanded by the order of the
words, and also by the fact that w^iiov already has an adjective in
XiOovTpwrov, is this : "To the girl's stone-floored bridal-chamber,
Hades' (? substantive in app. to w/x<etov), we were approaching."
If Sophocles wrote KoIXov he (i) added a superfluous and more than
flat epithet to a substantive already well supplied, and (2) gave such
epithet a harsh and disturbing position. Either Xtdoa-rpwrov Koprjs vu/x-
<j>iov "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/i<peiov, Aioov I I, etcrtpati'o/iev.
\ yvaXov/
1 [From the Am. Jour, of Phil. Vol. XIII (1892), p. 483.]
Sophocles 75
CRITICAL NOTE ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN SOPHO-
CLES'S ANTIGONE?
W. 82 sqq. 1C. o I /J.OL raXatv?;?, <1)S inrfp8f8oiKa. <rou.
AN. /xiy '/xoD Trporapfiei. TOV <rbv.l6p6ov TTOT/AOV.
1C. aAA' ot>p 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)<s TaSe.
In v. 86 ot/MH has long seemed to me wrong. Jebb slides over it
in his commentary. In his translation he gives "Oh, denounce it!"
which may be natural English, but does not adequately represent
the Greek. The Schneidewin-Nauck commentary gives nothing;
nor is Blaydes's note ("An exclamation-.here of indignation. Cf.
320.") of much more service. Professor Humphreys offers us at
least something more when he annotates ot/xot thus : "Of disapproval
or satisfaction. So even ot^oi KaKoSaipw, of rage. Ar. Av. 1051.
In id. 1260 ofytoi TaAas may be ironical." But even this is unsatisfac-
tory : the presence of Ka/coSai'/Awv and TaAas after ot/xoi in the Aristo-
phanic citations robs them of all appositeness, and we are left no
better off than before. Let us confess it frankly. This is a case
for emendation, not explanation. Why should we not restore the
vigorous and apt py /xoi (perhaps better written here // '/not or /AT;
f/j.oL ) ? The source of the corruption is not far to seek, being con-
tained in above. A scribe was quite capable of jumbling
the two neighboring passages in such a way as to produce the
present state of affairs in the text. In further support of this emenda-
tion may be compared w. 544-7 :
1C. fir? TOI, Kacriyvr/Tr), /A' dri/nacr^s TO pr) ov
Oavfiv T crvv crot TOV 0avovTa 0' dyvurat.
AN. p.rj p.oi 6dvr)<; crv KOLVO., /x^8" a p.r) '0<.ys
Trotou (reavTrjs apK(r(a 6vtj(TKOv<r eyw.
Here, though there is no ellipsis, there is yet a striking similarity in
the tone of harsh refusal and repulsion.
Vv. 404 sq. ravrrfv y iSwv 6a.TTTOv(rav ovo~v TOV veicpov
1 [From the Proceedings of the Am. Phil. Ass., Vol. XXIV (1903), p. xxxviii.]
76 Greek Authors
Every one feels the harshness of the position of TOV veKpov. The
words may be sound, but they look like a gloss. Perhaps they may
have taken the place of TOVTO Spav.
Vv. 417 st l- Kai T T ' ' < "< V7 ? S x^ ov s
TD<^)0)S^aipas CTKT^TTTOV, ovpaviov a^os.
ovpdvLov a^os has given trouble for more reasons than one. I would
suggest ax#os ovpavov as possibly the original form of the words. If
ax#os became a^os, transposition and a change from gen. to adj . might
follow.
Vv. 478 Sq. ov yap CKire'Act
<f>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 <f>66yyov opviOfav, KCIK
xXct^ovTas otcrrpw xai {3f(3apf3a.ptofJLV<t>.
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 <j>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-a<ts having been
assimilated to *ca/ce5 above it. The loci classici for the 'barbarism' of
birds (Hdt. 2, 57 ; Ar. Av. 199 ; Aesch. Ag. 1050 sq.) are also in
favour of the reading proposed. (In the very similar passage, Eur.
Ale. 777, we should follow Nauck's suggestion [ur. Studd. II., p.
85], and read <rw<a<j>pvu>fjifvo<; [w-] for <rv v to < p u o> /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 <m scheint die unbestimmte Allgemeinheit
des regierenden Satzes nachzuwirken ("alle Menchen haben Leid") ;
keines falls darf man determinative Relativsatze vergleichen, in
denen oo-ns mit Recht steht (G. Hermann praef. OT p. viii.) : der
Satz ist selbstandig und lautet nicht Trpos o Si/caius av o-i> 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.v<f>povi
/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 . . . w<u-
/AOS is an essential and restrictive relative clause closely linked with
TWV cv yevei and not to be set off by a comma. It seems not to be
well understood. It means wv 6fLOp.r}Tpia et *ai bfj-oirarpia a8cA<i/. The
adv. O/AO&V is=eic -n/s au-ri/s yao-rpos, and yam/) is used here in the sense
of semen viri. oA/3ios seems most naturally to be taken as an ejacu-
lation, and d^e'wv must be ( 'noun and not participle (so Professor
Kaibel). The relative clause ov . . . ySv does duty as a substantive, and
'OpeVrav is attracted to ov. The whole is='Ope'<rras, ov...yav. The
words Kpvirra . . . rjfta. of course belong to u>a 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 AeA<iKwv aOX<av x<*-P iV ( v - 682) joins these
with l\6wv (v. 681). To this construction there appears to be a fatal
objection, namely that the words TO KA.&VOV (or KOIVOV) 'EXAaSo? Trpo'o^yn'
dyaivos, 'the famous (or 'common') assemblage-prominence of Greece'
as, it seems, we should literally render, cannot, without an added
epithet of some sort, describe the Pythian Tran/yvpis. That w. 681
and 682 are essentially sound as they stand in the Sophoclean MSS.
there would appear to be no good reason to doubt. The fact that
Sophocles is referring to a Tran/yvpts and that the idea of xAavov
would be practically repeated in Trpdo-x^' seems to favour the read-
Sophocles 79
ing of Thomas Magister, KOIVOV for KAeivov, in v. 681 ; but that may
be justly regarded as a minor matter. A construction of the words
AeA<iKoiv a6\(ov xdpw that I have not met with elsewhere but that
seems to me certainly right, makes v. 681 sq. perfectly plain. Join
es TO KOIVOV 'EAAdSos wpoajpjt/*" dyoivos AeA<iKwv a0Aa>v X"*-P LV > understanding
the words as though they had been arranged es TO KOIVOV 'EAAaSos
AeA<iKaiv d0Acov x^P iV Trpovxw dywvos, which is only a compacter way
of saying es TO KOIVOV 'EAAaSos TT/DOO-^/U.' dyaivos TO AeAc^iKtov a0Atov X<ipi.v
yiyvo//.vov= es TOV AeA<iKov (=IIv0iK6v) dftV^TiKov dytova. The expression
TTpocrxf}^' dywvos (=KAeiv6s dywv) AeA<iKu)v a$Aa>v (=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)<ravpbv
7rp6s x"/ tv ( = X-P LV ) /So/aSs should be thus joined (as they are by Sir R.
C. Jebb, though he gives an unduly laboured and partly false explana-
tion of Trpos x*P' v ) an d otwvots Orjaavpov irpos x-P tv ftp^ understood as
a paraphrase of the Homeric oiwvoto-t Sau-a which two words were
doubtless thus associated in Sophocles 's mind as he commonly
thought of them, much as we may say and think otium cum dignitate,
albeit in Cic. de orat, I. i, I in otto is linked with cum dignitate by the
esse that follows the later phrase. 1
In v. 683 sq. it looks, if the text be sound, as though Sophocles
had blended jio-^eT' dvS/aos opOiois Krjpvy/JUKrw 8p6fiov TrpOKr)pvavTO<s and
fi<r6er opOiwv KtjpvyfJMrwv dvS/aos S/ao/xov TrpOKr/pixrcrovTOS (cf . however VV.
417-419), but there is a more important matter than that in v. 684,
namely the interpretation of the relative clause ov irp^Tij K/JIO-IS.
Nauck understood this to be a restrictive clause, though, of course,
in the pernicious German fashion that the present writer for one
would be glad to see banished for ever from Greek and Latin texts,
he sets a comma before ov. We should then understand Spo/nov <n>
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 '<e'<ra (corrected by Dindorf to Td<m). How-
ever, there are objections to that conjecture that have not perhaps
been put forward, (i) Sp6p.av would, if rd^eW be adopted, have to
be understood as TOU 8p6p.ov ; (2) the emphatic position of Spopov
would also remain unexplained and, perhaps, unexplainable. The
only way, it might be urged, in which Musgrave's conjecture could
readily be admitted would be by changing 8p6p.ov (Spo/tv, S/JO/AOV) into
Spa/uov. Now the contrast of eio^Aflc (v. 685) and e}A.0e (v. 687)
shews that w. 686 and 687 must be closely connected with those
that immediately precede : the full stop after o-/?as should be re-
placed by a point above the line. Furthermore, we want at the head
of the clause that is begun in v. 685 something to resume and carry
on the former half of the sentence. This 8p6p.ov will do, if taken in
the same sense that Spo/xov bears in 684 or that the 8p6fiov bears
which we understand with eio^A^e in v. 685. Should we not under-
stand 8p6fjiov TO. TcpfWTa to mean 'the issue of running' and interpret
V. 685 as = 8/xi/ia>v 8e erv/Ltjuer/aws rrj <j>v(rei (=Tg [Aa/jwrpoTT/Ti rrjs <pv<rew<;
implied in v. 685) or, more concisely, Spaftwv Se Aa/iTrpws ? Orestes
was handsome to look at and he ran handsomely. My (and Wolff's)
explanation of the passage thus differs from one that is commonly
given chiefly in the interpretation of TO. rcp/tara. The main objec-
tion to this explanation and its fellow is that we must supply avrov
referring to Orestes with rrj <f>v<rei.
ON SOPHOCLES'S ELECTRA 683 sq. 1
In the words :
or' fjcrOT' dvSpos opOttav
I have already hinted in this Review (xvi. 6) 2 that, because irpo-
is in the aorist, the phrases dvSpos TrpoK^/ov^avTos and 6p0io>v
(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
6p6i<o as 6p6iwv and the subsequent assimilation of the following word
to that opOiwv.
CRITICAL NOTES ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN
SOPHOCLES'S PHILOCTETES. 1
Vv. 43 sc l' ^-' 17 Vi </>o/3/3r?9 VOCTTOV e^eA^Av^ev
r) <f>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 (<j>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 <E>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 <rv for d>s ; the latter, <us fy>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?; <re v<jyf.pf.(n. TOV voo-^/ttaTo?
7rcrev wore /AT; /A' ayctv vavT7;v ITI;
NG. airavTa Svo-^epeia, T^V avrov (f>v<nv
OTO.V \nru)v Tts Spa ra fj.rj TrpotruKOTa.
4> I . dAA' ovBev f (a TOV ^uTewravTos o~\> ye
Spas ovSe <a>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/oo<mKOTa in v. 903.
V. 917. OI/AOI, TI eiTras; Valckenaer's ri //,' c?7ras; is, of course,
out of the question here. TI y etn-as of B is, as Jebb says "weak."
But why may not the phrase ri ctn-as ; (common to-day, as always)
have taken the place of a less common equivalent ? I would sug-
gest TI </>a>veis; as in Electra 1349.
V. 99 1 ^ /u<ros, ola Ka^avevpt'o'Ktts Aeyeiv.
Xe'yeiv certainly strikes one oddly. Jebb suggests that it should
be Xeywv. That seems hardly likely, however, with KPATUIN at the
close of v. 989 and AeTUJ at that of 990. Perhaps we should rather
write GTTH. There are several ways in which AGfGIN might have
come into the text.
AESCHYLUS.
OF THE PROLOGUE OF THE AGAMEMNON.*
Though many scholars have handled the prologue of the Aga-
memnon, yet it may, I venture to think, be said without presump-
tuousness that they have left something still to be done in the
elucidation and restoration of that small group of verses. It is to
this task that I now address myself.
The proper interpretation of the prologue of the Agamemnon is
far from simple. The right understanding of the character of the
watcher, as Aeschylus has depicted it in words put in the watcher's
mouth, is so bound up with questions about the text that the prob-
lem, What in general was the watchman meant by the poet to say?
and the problem, How precisely did the poet make him express the
thoughts attributed to him? can never be fully separated in any
proper discussion of this passage. To the way in which Aeschylus,
in a few masterly strokes, has made the watcher depict his own
character, Patin has drawn attention in the excellent remark 2 about
Tesclave d'Eschyle, qui ne prononce que quelques vers et offre
cependant tout 1'interet d'un caractere dramatique'. I will now run
the risk of begging certain textual questions and proceed to set
forth in a few words the character of the watcher and his mental
attitude in the prologue.
The man is at once anxious for his master's return and fearful
of what may follow upon that return. He is thoroughly loyal to
Agamemnon, whom he loves (v. 34 sq.) ; he fears Clytaemnestra
and Aegisthus and mourns the evils of the house (vv. 14, 36 sq.,
1 8 sq.). But his virtue is after all but the virtue of the faithful
slave : his loyalty is alloyed with a regard for his own interests and
his own comfort. Indeed, so prominent does he make his sense of
the discomforts and the tediousness of his yearlong task that it
1 Read before the American Philological Association at Union College, Schenec-
tady, 9 July, 1902, [and printed in the Classical Review, Vol. XVII (1903), pp. 102-
105-]
1 Patin's 'Eschyle' (in Etudes sur les tragiques grecs) p. 314, quoted approxi-
mately in Wecklein's German edition.
A eschylus 85
would seem that readers of his words have generally been quite
misled about the tenor of his speech. And this brings us at once
to a question of the minute interpretation of the text.
If what has just been said of the state of mind of the watcher is
true and there is a begging of the question in my assuming above
what a careful study of the text has seemed to me surely to yield ,
if, I say, my analysis of the watcher's state of mind is just, then the
fiev in v. i is concessive and its correlative is the Se in v. 12. The
man is indeed (pfv) praying for release from his irksome task by
the beacon that shall announce his master's speedy return, but ( & )
mourns the evil plight of the house and dreads the future. This is
the sum and substance of that part of the prologue which precedes
the flare of the beacon on the neighbouring mountain ; and this pre-
lude thus falls into two halves of which the former consists of vv.
i-n, omitting the spurious v. 7. We will now examine certain
portions of vv. i-n.
A very important matter is the proper understanding of *ot vvv
in v. 8. If we had to guess the general drift of what preceded the
words KCU vvv <vAacro-a> 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 <f>vXd<r(r<>>
Xafj.Tra.8o-i TO vvpfioXov, the verb <vAao-o-<i> having a double object, an
effected and an affected. The ultimate construction of fy is, then,
with <j>vXd<To-o>, 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 <j>tpovTa.<i . . . aiOtpi I take with others to refer to the stars that mark by their
rising and setting the changes of the seasons. See Wecklein's note ad loc. in his
Aschylos Orestia.
86 Greek Authors
.quite as much to -rows. . Swacrras as to bp.r)yvpw. Furthermore, it may
be, as Meineke and van Herwerden have suggested, that av8p6ftov\ov
should give place to av8p6\r}fj,ov.
In the sentence or clause that begins in v. 12 M. Henri Weil's
first thoughts seem to me to have been entirely right, so far as vv.
12 and 1 6 are concerned. We should regard OTOV S' as resumptive
and should restore lx wi/ f r X W - W G find again that a simple thought
is elaborated in a rambling fashion (and we must not forget that it
is a slave that is speaking) to the confusion of the line by line
reader. All would have been clear to the audience as Aeschylus's
actor rendered the verses. The simple thought is this : CVT' av 8e,
WKTiTrAay/CTOv fvSpocrov T' e^tov | euvi/v, dei'Sciv 17 [uvvpe<T0ai SOKU>,
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 (/*<> <f>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><ri XtfOo/juai. There is a somewhat
similar corruption to that assumed in av8> 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<o/aas
in v. 20 as ' coincidence ' (-nJo-Se o-u^opas xP tv must then go with
1 This correction has been anticipated by Professor van Herwerchn (Excrcitationes
Criticae, p. 99).
88 Greek Authors
), would read o-^/iavw in v. 26, would take SO/MUS in v. 27 as loca-
tive and construe rgSe Xap.Tra.8i in v. 28 with Vop0u<:iv, and I would
understand dtfo-ofuu in v. 32 as a poetic equivalent of Troo/o-o/zm in the
sense of i/yi?o-opxu. Furthermore, I would understand oeo-iroraij/ (v.
32) as referring to Agamemnon and Clytaemnestra 1 and the words
Ta SeoTToroiv ev ireowTa as = TO. TWV SCO-TTOTOJV CVTV^I}. Lastly, the COn-
trast with Seo-Trorwv demands that we write in v. 33 not Trjcr&e fwi but
TTJCrB' ffJML'
I have appended the continuous text of the prologue, as I would
write it, and have added a close translation, which will be found to
fill some small gaps in the commentary above.
[NOTE. The prologue possibly occupied one page of a MS. that
had 38 or 39 lines to the page, and vv. 36-39 were added by the
scribe that first omitted them, when he discovered his blunder, at
the foot of the page. For evidence of the existence of MSS. of the
Tragedians with 39 lines to the page see Hay ley on Eur. Ale. 312.]
eovs p~fv otToi TuivS' aTraAAayj/v TTOVWV
fftpavpas eTttas /AT/KOS rfv, Koi/nu>/u.evos
crreyeus 'ATpeioW ayxa^ev KWOS St'iop,
aarpwv KaroiSa WKTep<av 6//yvpiv
Kai TOVS <epovTas X"/** 1 Kt " ^*/ 3 5 /S/aorots 5
Xap-irpovs Swaoras cp-irpf-irovTas alOtpi 6
KO.I vvv <^vXao-<ra) Aa/i7raSos TO <rvfjL(3o\ov f
avyrjv TTV/JOS tftepavtrav CK Tpotas <f>aTiv
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' <d)8os yap dvTios TrapacrraTet
TO p-^ ySe^Sat'w? y8Xe^>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. <rvfjL<}>opav <rrf.vu>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 <avevTO$ 6p(f>vaiov TTV/JOS. 21
'lov, tow 25
VVKTOS ^'fj.pr)(riov 22
ev "Apyei, T^(rSe (rvfji.<f>opa.<; xa.piv. 24
Aya/^e/xvovos yvvatKt cr^/^avai ropais 26
eTravretAacrav ws ra^os
ev<f>rj/Ji.ovvTa
Trop6i,dei.v, eiVep 'lAtov TrdAis
caAtoKev, is 6 <^>pvKTos dyye'AAwv Trpiiru 30
airds T' lycoye <j>poi/Jiiov
ra SecTTTOTaiv yap ev Treo-dvra
8' ow /AoAdvTos ev<f.X.rj
avaxros ot/ccov rg8e /JaoraVai x P l/> 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
<f>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
<t>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 <rr)fjMlvu cum Weckleino praetuli.
33 rrjffd' t(Mi pro librorum rrjffSt /J.QI reposui.
The gods, it is true, I am asking for release from those toils of
a watch a year in length which, couching on the roofs of the
Atridae upon elbow dogwise, I have learned full well the night stars'
rank and file <in> and those bright lords <of theirs > , 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
<me> a woman's man-minded expectant heart: whensoe'er, though,
occupying a night-buffeted and dewy couch <a couch > by
dreams unvisited in my case; for fear is at <my> 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 <the gift of > 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 <dost
betoken) the holding of dances many in Argos, < welcome > 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 <to the public dances > ; 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
<mine> , 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 <ixrea>s, TO. Se dp
ypa.<f)f)<;. 'Eav Se a>s irapeSoOrj op&os, oVep <aiveTai /?e/3aiov, 8ev
TOV 17. ^atverat 8 iridavatTfpov, OTI eXAetVet evTavOa TO p.tTav TOV orjy/cpi-
TIKOV Kal TOV KtoXov T^S o~vyKpio~ 'co)s VTrdp^ov ^(jrp/3. IIXaT. IIoXiT. cre\. 410 -D
17 a>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^
<f>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 <re TrpecrjSeiJovcra KOVTL T^S e/x^s
I^TJ^S Karacmycracra <ois roS' elaopav
OvrjcTKu>, 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 Qvy<TK<a irapov 8c KT.
In order satisfactorily to treat this difficult passage we must begin
with v. 284. (Perhaps I should have said that the difficulty, though
not the obvious one, begins here.) It is certainly far more natural
to take virlp o-eOtv with Ovyo-Ku than with Oavelv : that every reader of
the verse must feel. But if we read in that way, we shall begin a
new construction with dAA'. The one word that interferes with dAA'
avSpa KT. as a new sentence is the infinitive rjv in v. 287 ; and here,
I believe, we have found the \KOS. Substitute for fjv the participle
0)0-' (cf. v. 695 #s 7rapeA0cbv and Xen. Anab. 2, 6, 29 S>v 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 <acr' dTrocriracr^etcra crov
vv Tratcriv optfravoivtv KTC.
Vv. 291 sq.
KaAais fjikv avrols Kardaveiv f/KOv fitov,
ois 8e o-aiercu TratSa Kei/cAeais ^aveiv
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), pp. 374-376.]
94 Greek Authors
V. 292 is objectionable in its traditional form by reason of the
repetitious daviiv. This is best got rid of by accepting Wakefield's
<f>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 ^><Js (rov KCLTO-aTr/crai (3iov.
The word yepuv in v. 361 is due to the acuteness of Cobet (Far.
Lectt. 2 p. 581). It is accepted, as I am glad to see, by M. Weil
(whose excellent edition of the Alcestis, I may add, did not come
into my hands until the printing of my own text was so far advanced
that I was unable to adopt several admirable corrections of his).
Euripides 95
Cobet in the same place suggested that /3t'ov in v. 362 was a gloss on
<ois that had ousted the original final word of the verse. This word,
he suggested, was Se/xas. The same conjecture was made by Nauck.
Not satisfied with this I have kept the vulgate. M. Weil had done
the same. I am inclined, however, to believe that Cobet's account
of the origin of fitov is right. The key to the emendation of v. 362
appears to be given by /. T. 981 sq. /ecu o-c TroXvKw-n-w o-Ka^>
TraAtv. Read in the Alceslis
Vv. 1118-1120.
AA. KCU 8rj Trporetva). HP. Fo/ayov' <I>s Kaparop.S)v.
AA. l^to. HP. vat, o-<j>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,
K<U KTE. It seems unnecessary to change the traditional vat. Why
should viv have given way to it ? Monk seems to have been right in
giving vai to Admetus. Hermann pithily says : "Recte vat Monkius
Herculi dedit : male autem scripsit vtv " [for vuv]. A careful study
of the passage seems furthermore to demand that we read the
words after o-<c as they are printed in Hermann's Monk's Alcestis
(Leipsic 1824) and are reproduced above. The vw and irdr'are con-
trasted : 'keep now and you will say some time', etc.
V. 1131.
AA. 0tyw, Tr/oocretVw oi(rav ws 8a/uapr' c/xiyv ;
The tbs is certainly awkward. Paley construed it with a>o-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 <Ls eTT/Tv/xws ; Certainly the reading
Oiyw, Trpoo-uTT<i> ^Sxrav ws <T7;Tv/xa)s> ; 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) <T de'AlTTWS, OV7TOT* Ol/fCO^ai So/CUJV ;
(best read as a question in view of Heracles's answer) should
perhaps be corrected by writing OVKC'T' for OUTTOT'. The same correction
was suggested not improbably by Musgrave in v. 876.
V. 1143 seems to need a slight correction. Thus:
ri yap iroff o>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.6v<av rep KvpL<a should probably be accepted with
Matthiae, Hermann, Kvicala (Studien zu Eur. ii. p. 38), Weil and
Verrall (Euripides the Rationalist, p. 68 note). The variant is a
guess like oucetos in v. 8n. Kvicala interprets rightly "der ent-
scheidende Sai/xwv" "jener, mit dem es eben Herakles aufnehmen
musste."
Other readings in the Alcestis that appear to be rightly supported
by a (not to mention the obvious avrrj in v. 37 and navy of v. 1154)
are the following :
V. 45-
V. 1049.
yvn) vea. (on account Of the vea yap of V. IO5O).
V. 1117.
NOTE ON EURIPIDES'S ALCESTIS. 207-20%+
o>S OVTTOT' av$i<s, dAAa vvv
aKTiva KVK\OV 9' rj\iov
If we keep v. 207 and reject v. 208, as I have proposed (and as
had been proposed by Lachmann, De Mensura Tragoediarum, p. 44)
it would look as if Ale. 207 were reminiscent of Ajax 858. Is Anti-
gone 807-8 reminiscent of Ale. 207 or vice versa? If the former, the
Alcestis might fall between Ajax and Antigone. This is the view
I have suggested in my introduction to the Alcestis, p. xxx.
1 [Ms. note.]
98 Greek Authors
NOTE ON EURIPIDES, ALCESTIS 501. l
Heracles, newly arrived at Pherae, converses with the Coryphaeus
and is more nearly informed of the nature of his quest in Thrace.
When told at length that the master of the man-eating horses is a
son of Ares he says:
KCU rdvSc Tovfjiov Scu/AOvos TTOVov Aeycts
(f. a-reppof : cf. Androni. 98 et schol. ad
lOC.) yap atet /cat TT/JOS a^Tros ep^CTcu $OO
?? p.(. TTOICTIV ovs Ap^s eyei'varo
^vvai/'ot Trpwra p.cv AVKOOVI,
Se KVKVW, rovSe 8' fp^ofuu Tpirov
dywva TTcSAots SecTTroTg re a~vfj.ftaXS>v
dAA* owns Icrrtv os Tov ' AAx/^wys yovov 5O5
Tpf<ravTa X&p - Tro\ep,iav iror' oi/rcTai.
I have been at some pains to punctuate this passage accurately.
It is a single sentence. V 499 is parenthetic and might, therefore,
be set off by dashes as well as by the point above the line. The gist
of the sentence may be given briefly thus : 'J ust my luck always
hard to fight with another son of Ares after fighting with two!
But I'll never turn my back on a foe.' I emphasise the fact that
Heracles's speech is a single sentence, because I conceive that it is
the vicious modern tendency to curtail the comprehensive ancient
sentence and to fail to grasp it as a whole that has led here, as too
often in the Classics, to a serious misconception of the author's
meaning. To this misconception we owe it that the word iraurlv
in v. 501 has been called in question. Gilbert Wakefield in his
Tragoediarum Delectus (London 1794) was, so far as I know, the
first of the would-be correctors of this word. He printed in his
text Trao-tv, annotating thus : 'Erectiorem feci sententiam et loquentis
menti accomodatiorem, restituendo ex divinatione propra (sic)
ircurw pro inerti atque inutili dictione vaurw : et quisnam adversabitur ?'
G. A. Wagner in his edition of the Alcestis (Leipsic 1800) objected
to Wakefield's 'restitution', but without giving an adequate reason
for his objection and apparently without fully understanding the
passage. Monk merely notes VSo-iv pro TTOKTIV edidit Wakefield.' In
our time, in which peace has not been given to this passage, at least
'[Read before the American Philological Association at Hartford, Conn., 6 July
1898, [and printed in the Classical Review, Vol. XII (1898), pp. 393-394]-
Euripides 99
two editors of the Alcestis have hit upon the same conjecture as
Wakefield. In Dr Wecklein's edition of Wolfg. Bauer's Alkestis
(Munich 1888) iraaiv is printed and credited apparently to himself
by Dr Wecklein. Again Mr W. S. Hadley in his edition of the
Alcestis (Cambridge 1896) prints iraanv with the explanatory note:
'iraariv, a natural exaggeration,' and the critical note : 'For the MSS.
n-atalv I have read Tracriv ; cf. n. in commentary ; the enumeration of
first, second and third makes the exaggeration natural : iraurlv seems
pointless.' (Cf. also Class. Rev. xii. pp. 118-119.) By the rough
rendering I have given above of this passage, as well as by my
preliminary remarks upon it, I have already sought to indicate the
arguments against this persistent conjecture. Heracles complains
not of fighting with all Ares's sons, but of fighting with another, a
third son of Ares. In a clearer and more prosaic form the sense
of vv. 501-504 might be reproduced thus : ei x/ 31 ? M c T< ?8e rpirta iraiSi
"Apeos /AaX 1 ?" ^wai/Ku Sis r/Sr; Trawrtv "Apeos /AX r ? v ^wcu/wra irp&ra. Kvicva*.
The reading -n-aurlv brings SCOTTO'T^ in v. 504 among the 'sons that
Ares begat' ; the conjecture iraa-iv puts Lycaon and Cycnus among
them 'that Ares begat,' but places the 'master of the foals' in another
category. If we try to reduce the proposed text to a more prosaic
form we shall get something like this : ci xp*7 /" -rao-iv ovs (oo-ovs) *Ap^s
eyei'varo fJ.d\r]V ^vva^avra, TTpiara KVKVW, rdvS' epxe<rOai KTC. This reduc-
tion to prose is certainly a reductio ad absurdum. I do not, however,
venture to hope that I shall have been able to banish this
pestilent critical heresy for ever.
I may add that this passage gives me another occasion to note
what I have noted by implication elsewhere (Class. Rev. ix. 202 ) 1 ,
that a translator may succeed when the commentators fail. Mr Way
does tolerable justice to the passage just discussed thus:
'Thou say'st : such toil my fate imposeth still,
Harsh evermore, uphillward straining aye,
If I must still in battle close with sons
Gotten of Ares ; with Lycaon first,
And Kyknus then : and lo, I come to grapple
The third strife this with yon steeds and their lord.
But never man shall see Alkmene's child
Quailing before the hand of any foe.'
1 [See above, p. 33.]
ioo Greek Authors
It may be added to what has been already said about this pas-
sage and perhaps the addition will put the case in even clearer
light that if Euripides had chosen to write TrcuoW, instead of TTCUO-IV,
there would have been no possible ground for emendation. The
regimen of $wd\ffai before his mind and the consciousness that he
was expressing himself somewhat indirectly caused him, I conceive,
to prefer the dative. If we translate as though iratSw were written
and in v. 504 TrwXwv SCO-TTOTJ; , we shall gain a clear understanding
from another point of view of the difficulties of this passage and the
reasons why editors have blundered.
It may be noted in conclusion that M. Henri Weil in his edition
of the Alcestis says nothing of the conjecture
ON ALCESTIS'S trumping, EURIPIDES, ALCESTIS 280-325. l
Vv. 287-289 of the Alcestis are unconnected with what immedi-
ately precedes them. Lenting saw this clearly, and in his Epistola-
Critica in Euripidis Alcestin, Zutphen, 1821, he wrote thus (p. 54) :
'Hie locus mihi videtur laborare avatcoXovOia sententiae. Vel sic inter
pungam,
......... rvpawSk,
OVK rf.
ut ad dAA' av8pa T o-xetv repetatur irapov vel legam KOVK pro OVK in vs.
288'. The late Mr Hayley lapsed from his customary acumen when he
wrote his brief note on v. 287. In this Review (x [1896], 374)* I too
have tried by means of punctuation and emendation to connect vv.
287-289 with the preceding verses. But now, as the result of repeated
study of this passage, I see clearly that vv. 287-289 should simply
be removed from the text. This J. Heiland is said to have seen
(cf. Hayley and Wecklein), but I do not know where he published
his remarks. It should be quite plain, I am now convinced, that
vv. 287-289 are the work of some one that found Alcestis's words
in v. 285 sq. too cold and calculating in tone. That is to say, the
three verses in question are merely a sentimental substitute for
w. 284-286. The 'some one' may very well have been an actor.
I would add here that in v. 288 sq. we should point thus : ou8" e<era-
'[From the Classical Review, Vol. XVIII (1904), p. 336.]
1 [See above, p. 93.]
Euripides 101
p.r)v | rj/3r)<s, fx V(Ta ^p" * v *s erepTTo/i^v and that we should compare
with v. 289 Soph. El. 360.
Further on in this same speech is a very well known and very
palpable interpolation in v. 312. Hayley's note should be consulted
here about the way in which the verse was possibly introduced into
the text.
At v. 319 I believe we may perhaps again trace the hand of the
author of vv. 287-289. At any rate, v. 319 seems to be a sentimental
addition to Euripides's text. According to Wecklein's Appendix I
have been forestalled in the condemnation of v. 319; for the author
notes: '319 sq. delet Wheeler.' But an examination of J. H.
Wheeler's dissertation De Alcestidis et Hippolyti Euripidearum
inter polationibus, Bonn, 1879, p. 31, will shew that the note should
read: '321 sq. delet Wheeler.'
I would add here that there is need of some correction in vv. 313-
318. Reiske, with his remarkable power of reading Greek 'by the
light of nature', saw what was needed in vv. 314-316. In v. 317 sq.
I would restore, as Lenting suggested (Tlaceret mihi, w/A<ewra>
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 <roi>s 8ta.<f>9f.pei yd/tows ;
Ov yap ere p-TJT-rjp ovre w/u,<evcr<D Trore
OVT' ev TOKOttrt crown 6ap<rvvS>, 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\<a Xoyov 8rj nal irpo&vfuav a-tOcv rappelant
d'une maniere qui n'est peut etre pas accidentelle le vers 38 Odpvei-
StKrjv rot KOI Xoyovs KEOVOVS ?xw. Les vers 64-76, qui sont au nombre
de 13, se partagent entre Apollon et Thanatos dans la proportion de
8 a 5, ce qui rappelle la division en 8 + 5 des 13 vers d'Oedipe au
commencement de YOedipe Roi et de YOedipe a Colone de Sophocle.
Or les vers anapestiques du choeur qui suivent (77-85) sont au
nombre de 9 et rappellent un peu, et par leur nombre et par la
presence du mot fjx\d6p<v dans le premier vers ainsi que du mot vwnv
pres de la fin, les vers anapestiques de Thanatos (28-37). Je me
demande, vu la ressemblance superficielle entre ces deux parties
anapestiques et aussi la singularite d'expression qui se trouve a la
fin du premier morceau (vv. 36-37), s'il n'y avait pas dans le
manuscrit du poete meme une ressemblance plus frappante encore.
Afin de ne pas perdre trop de mots sur un sujet ou est melee la con-
jecture et peut-etre aussi la petitio principii, je reunirai ici les deux
morceajix sous une forme qui me semble s'approcher peut-etre plus
de 1'original. J'ajoute que M. Hayley, a qui j'ai communique cette
conjecture, 1'a trouvee au moins fort interessante.
1 [From the Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIV (1900), pp. 145-146.]
1 Je pense maintenant que j'avais tort de condamner dans mon edition le vers 31.
Euripides 103
Vv. 28-37.
a a (extra metrum)
TI crv TijSe TroXeis, TI crv, Trpos
Qolf? ; dSiKeis av ri/xas eVepcov,
d<opio;u.evo9 /cat KaraTrauwv ;
OUK r/pKCO-e <TOl fJLOpOV 'AS/A1/TOV
SiaKtoXOcrai, Moipas SoXiw
cr<f>-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 <CTT'>
OCTTIS av eiiroi Trorepov <f)0ifjievrjv
Xpr) ^SacriXetav Trev^eiv ^ ^wcr*
eri i^ciis Xevo-o-et IleXiov rdSe
AX/cr/crTis, e/xoi Tracrt T api
86acra. yvvv) Troatv eis
< Trpodavov(r' avroi)>,
NOTE ON EURIPIDES, ANDROMACHE $.*
Enr. Andr. 5 baud negligenda positio rfominis proprii '
simplex enim ordo verborum fuisset 'AvSpoyu-a^T; ^Xwros cet. Praeivit
Sophocles cum scriberet O. T. 8 6 Tracn KAavos OiSiVous KaXov^cvos pro
eo quod est OiStVous 6 Trao-t cet. De sede in versu nominis 'AvS/jo/iax^
cf. 'AvnyovT? Soph. O.C. i ; cf . et 'AorvavaKi-', Amir. io. In verbis
eis quae sunt, ^Xwros ?v ye roJ Trpti/ 'AvSpo/xa^r/ XP" 1 ' 4 ? non deside-
ramus sed intelligimus sententiam quam in versu insequente legimus :
vvv S\ ei TIS oXXr;, SwrvxecrTan; yvvrj. At ista verba addita sunt ut
inferrentur versus qui sunt 8-15 quibus bene describuntur Andro-
machae praesentes res adversae. His in versibus 7r<uS<wroios illud v. 4
quod adhuc otiosum esse videbatur oppositum habet pueri occisi
descriptio vv. g et io ; opponuntur autem versui 4 versus 14
et 15. Inest re vera in versibus 1-15 chiasmus qui dicitur pul-
cherrimus hunc in modum : 8a/*ap So&ura (a) 7rai8o7roio9 ()3) "Exropi (y),
1 [MS. note.]
IO4 Greek Authors
^Xo>Tos Iv ye TW vplv - xpovw (8) ) ( vw 8', ei TIS a\\r], 8va"rv\f<rTaTr) ywi;
(S 7 ), T/TIS 7T00-IV - *EKTOp' - - daVOVT* <Tl8oV (y'), TTOiStt #' OV TUCTO) 7TOO-t
fn<f>6evra (ft'), avrr) St SovXi; KTC. T<T vrjautmr) (cf. 'A<riaTiSos yj/s V. I.)
>&ura KTC. (a') Omnia secundum artem.
NOTE ON EURIPIDES, BACCHAE 1058-1062.'
8' 6 rAiy/itov, #i}Xw ov^ opoiv o^Xov,
O)($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 v60<av (the nomen is here an omen},
and try to find another solution of the difficulty. The end of the
verse must have been badly preserved indeed to admit of even a
scribe's writing oo-ot vd0o>v; but there must have been something
there. The hypothesis of the omission of one of twain would seem
necessary to explain oo-<x for oo-o-ois. But v66<av does not begin with C
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 312.]
Euripides 105
in the alphabet of our dernier ressort nor with anything like it.
But though OCCOICN00UUN will not serve our purpose OCCOIC
00NLUN will; and here I think we have the clue to the solution.
Not to stretch out a long speech, I would rewrite the verse thus:
OVK e^iKvetcr&u [MwdSw CKrcrots vQivw.
NOTES ON THE BACCHAE OF EURIPIDES. 1
i. Vv. 13-24.
AITTCOV Sc AvSuiv TOVS 7roAi>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^<T6 (3ap(3dpoi<; 0' ofwv
KaXXnrvpy<i>rov<s 7roA.t?,
2O IS TiyvSe 7T/3O)TOV ^A^OV EAA^VWV 7TOA.IV,
Kaxet xopevcras Kai KaTa<JT7^(ras eynas
reAeras, lv' ciyyv fp.<f>avGi<i Saifiwv /Jporots.
Pierson's conjecture that v. 20 should stand between vv. 22 and
23 has met with considerable favor. It brings in its train, if ac-
cepted, Wecklein's natural and necessary change of eVeA0<ov to cirfjXOov
in v. 16 (with the omission of 0' after Ilcpo-aiv in v. 14), and of
to x0ora in v. 20. It is easy to see how \06va was corrupted to
when v. 20 came to stand after v. 19. Furthermore, irp5rov
in v. 20 should surely be changed to Trpdm/v, unless we assume, after
v. 22, a lacuna of a verse or verses in which a second action of
Dionysus was described. Such an assumption is, however, highly
improbable; for not only is Pierson's transposition intrinsically
plausible, but it can be supported from another passage in the
Bacchae, vv. 481 sq. :
HE. r)\8e<; Se Trpuira Seiy)' ay<av rov Sa.t/ux>va ;
AI. Tras dva^opevet f3ap(3dp<t)V raS' opyta.
In V. 481 r)\0c<; Trp>Ta 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)porpo<f>oi P.
evflev aypav < , ~
( 6vp(ro<popoi C.
MuiraSes a/x<i/8aAAojTeu Tr
The various readings Qrjporp6<J>oi and 0vp<ro<f>6poi, 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)p6rpo<j>cv (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<fc<av. For this
common sequence of fyxucwv and ctyts, cf. Bacch. 1026, 1330 sq. ; Ion
23-24 particularly the last, where a rite is similarly explained.
3. V. 126.
On the basis of Hermann's /SaK^etw 8* ova. <rwrdva> and Collmann's
/3acxU>v $ dva TV/XTTUVOV, I would propose f3a.K\eiw &' dva Tv/i7rav<p (with
dSu/Joav in V. 127, and Trvevprra in V. 128).
4. V. 150.
rpwftfpov ir\OKa.[JMV eis alOfpa pLvrtav.
A pure Ionic verse may be restored by substituting fiwrrpvxov for
irAoKa/iov. That this change adds another p to the verse is rather
in its favor.
5- V. 193.
ytpw yepovra 7rat&ryaryi/cra> cr' ey<i.
This verse must certainly be understood as a question, and accord-
ingly be followed by ,-. Tiresias declares himself young again and
ready to dance (v. 190). Cadmus rejoins, with some surprise at
this energy on the part of the blind old seer (v. 191), "Shall we
not then take some conveyance to the mountain (= Surely you don't
intend to go on foot) ?" Tiresias objects (v. 192) : " But we
shouldn't be paying as much honour to the god (as if we went on
foot)." Cadmus, still unwilling (v. 193) : "Am / to lead you, old
\
Euripides 107
as we are, as if I were your TrcuSaywyos ?" To which Tiresias
reassuringly (v. 194) : "It will be no labour, for the god will guide
us thither." Then the dancing is again touched upon (v. 195) and
Cadmus at length gives in (v. 197). A parallel to the question in
v. 193 is afforded by the somewhat similar scene in the Heraclidae,
where the servant says to old lolaus (v. 729), r/ iraiSaywyeiv yap TOV
6. Vv. 210 sq.
eipeam, r68' ofy opas,
eyw irpott>rjrrfi troi A.oy<ov yevr;o-o/u.
irpo<f>rJTr]<; <roi Aoytov cannot, I feel, be right. Trptx^TT/s, in its proper
sense, is to be found in v. 551. The genitive with it should repre-
sent the person (god) whose mouthpiece the Trpo^TTys is. Instead
then of -TrptKfrrjT-rjs o-oi \6ywv, I propose Trpor/y^T^p Xoywv " guide in
words," comparing irporjyTjrrjpa o-v/u,<opSs in v. 1159. As used in
respect of a blind man, TrpotjyyTrip , without a special term in the
genitive, would mean irporjyrjT-qp 68ov (or *eAev0ov) ; cf. the use of
in Sophocles, Ant. 990, O. T. 1292. Euripides has
rjp of a blind man's guide in the Phoenix, frag. 813, 2.
7. V. 440.
f)U,eve re TOV/J.OV cvTrpCTres TTOIOV/XCVOS.
Professor Tyrrell adheres to the reading of the MSS. here. "The
middle with a pred. adj. must mean making for one's self. Now, as
Dionysus was at least as much interested as the servant in the
seemliness of the arrest, there seems no reason why we should desert
the MSS., 'turning for himself my task to seemliness.' " With this
I agree so far as ewpeTrts TTOIOU/XCVOS is concerned ; rovfiov, however,
seems harsh in such a context. I would, therefore, (without any
reference to Professor Tyrrell's "my task"), correct rovpyov.
8. Vv. 460 sq.
irpwrov ftev ow /xoi Xeov OCTTIS * y o'os .
AI. ov KO/U-TTOS ovSeis pa'Siov 8' eiTrf.lv roSe.
ov KO/U-TTOS is obviously corrupt. Boasting is not opposed to ease
of any kind. The error, which arose from illegibility and wrong
division of letters, is to be corrected by writing OVK oyxos
io8 Greek Authors
Cf. Soph. 0. C. Il62, flpu-)(\>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\v<rev followed in the next verse by KeX.eva-p.6v is at least
noticeable. Perhaps Euripides may have so written ; I suspect,
however, that he wrote fTre0d>vev, 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 <rvvTCivr) 8 p 6 ft 77 /* a
WV. Cf. also vv. 1188-91, and Soph. O. C. 1623-5.
NOTES ON THE HECUBA. 1
19 Sq. KoAois Trap" dvS/ui prjK.l Trarptata ev<a
Tpo<f>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.eya<s,
comparing Bacch. 183 (ave<r0cu //.eyav) . Thus too is the comparison
with iTTopBos properly carried out. (The locus classicus for such com-
parison is Horn. Od. vi. 162 sq.)
1 5 3- <t>otvLcra'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<av ' rjv yap ai/'w/xai' TIVOS,
ToS' OVK ea /^.c, irapaKaXe'i 8' CKtidev au
A.VTT7/ TIS aXXrj StaSo^os KaKoiv KaKOis.
1 [From 'Euripidean Notes', the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), pp. 345-346-]
Euripides 109
Something is certainly wrong with r68' OVK la /AC. 'If I have laid
hold of any (evil), this does not allow me, but I am called off by
another grief in another quarter.' What 'does not allow' ? The evil
seized ? Nonsense. 'Does not allow me' to do what ? To keep
hold of it (!xr#at) ? Nonsense again. To be brief, I emend thus :
t)V yap airT<afw.i TIVOS,
ToS' OVK CU>/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 <ovea Ti/t<o/o^o-ofuu.
TOV >ov <j>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 <f>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<D K Tov8' dveu/fd/Aetrfti irpvfJ.VTqTi)V xoAwv. The Construction of eis C.
acc. occurs Phocn. 569 d/na0s *A8pa<rTos ya.pna.<> eis <r' avrj^aro.
28O Sq. Aa/u.rrpos 8' aKowas cr/jv a$/8piv <av^(TTai
o-oi KO.I TroAmus 777 Tf -nySc Kai <VTOIS.
Read Awpos for Aa/A7rpos and cf. Med. 301 KpctWwv vo/uo-tfeis AvTrpos
p TrdAci <avet. By the opposite confusion AUTT/OWS appears for Aa/i7rpu>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<{ TTTp<a.
445 sqq. aAoxov TC (f>i\rjv viro <rapcuois
TTOO-IV eAKorcrav TCKva xal yepatov
Trartp 'HpaicAcovs.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff maintains the integrity of the traditional
text here, and in this' I am not disposed to differ from him ; but his
notes on vv. 445 and 447 seem to contain such strange things as to
demand more than a passing notice. They run thus : " vvo iroaiv
sind die kinder, wie man in stehender formel sage, dass die rosse
v<f>' 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 <rctpaioi,
weil sie mit den eignen nicht vorwarts kommen. [A glance at the
scene of the children's murder, vv. 971 sqq., will prove that they
were somewhat more active on their feet than that.] Denn wenn
die jochpferde nicht geniigen, so spannt man ein leinpferd, <m/mios,
daneben, so tut es Patroklos, II 152. Orest. 1016 kommt Pylades
und stiitzt den kranken Orestes, i0wo>v vocrepbv KtuAov 'Opeo-rov 71-081
/ofSoo-ww 7ra/>a<m/oos . . .' 'irartpa hangt natiirlich [unless my reading has
been of none effect, I should say 'ganz unnatiirlich'] von 6pw [eo-opoi]
ab, nicht von eXicovtrav.' [But certainly the well-nigh bedridden old
man is in more need of a 7rapa<m/x>s 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<oXKi'8as \epolv, | vars 8' to?
e<eXa>), 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 <oA./aSs in tow, and wo o-. IT. fXKOva-av=e<f>XKOVcrav. With o-pcuois
TTOO-IV cf. the Seo-/xa o-patcov Pp6\<av with which Heracles is 'moored to
a column' (dvip-To/Aev rrpos KIOV') in v. 1009.
667 sq. urov ar' ev ve(f>eXai<rw a-
o-rpwv vaurais dpi^/u.os Tre'Xei.
Read rather Trporei than TreXet. Cf. Soph. Antig. 478, where for
Blaydes reads ow irpi-jru : I would read
NOTES ON THE HIPPOLYTUS.
1-2. l In Hipp. 1-2, the harsh order of the words has led many to
misunderstand them, M. Weil and Professor von Wilamowitz-Moel-
lendorff being honorable exceptions. The verses are of course to
be understood as equivalent to : IloXXr/ p.cv fv /Sporoio-iv ovpavov T r<o
KfK\rjfJuj.i 6ea Kvrrpis (TroXX^ KtK\7)fw.i= ju-eya e^w TO ovo/xa) KOVK
43-46. 2 Multorum apud veteres scriptores turn latinos turn graecos
locorum perverse iniecta interpunctione detortum atque obscuratum
esse sensum non huius temporis neque omnino necesse est ut admo-
neam. Unum tantum ex ingenti numero hie repurgare conabor. Est
is locus Eur. Hipp. 43-46, ubi in omnibus quaecumque mihi quidem
innotuerunt editionibus post yepas vocabulum virgula intrusa est,
1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXII
(1901), p. xxix.]
1 [From Mnemosyne XXX (1902), p. 136.]
112 Greek Authors
quae si sublata erit, statim et verus verborum atque sententiarum
contextus emerget et correctione levissima ilia quidem versum 46
sanandum esse comparebit. Totum de quo agitur locum hunc in
modum scribendum esse censeo :
Kal TOV fj.fv rjfjitv iro\tfuov veaviav
iraryp apaatv as TTOVTUK
ava IltxraSoiv arcreurev i)<rei
sensus autem est: et infensum ilium nobis iuvenem interficiet pater
precibus quibus marinus ille rex Neptunus honoris causa Theseo
concessit ut minime irritis ter adiret deum. Vix admonendos esse
lectores arbitror vocabulum quod est 0c<5 eodem modo pro ovr<p
positum esse atque supra illud ij<rel. Ex mente loquentis vel, ut
recentiorum philosophorum dicendi ratione utar, obiective non sub-
iective utrumque dictum.
294 - 1 ywcuKcs a?8c oa-yxa^io-Tawu voow.
Notwithstanding Wecklein's expressed and Wilamowitz's tacit
support of the text, I cannot make myself believe that ywouces is
right. It seems to me to have supplanted, as gloss, another word,
viz. irdpturtv.
A CRITICAL NOTE ON EURIPIDES, ION 1-3.*
"ArXas 6 xaAxe'oMn VWTOIS ovpavov
0aiv TroAatov oucov ei(Tpifl<av 6(MV
fua? <^VKT Matiav, rj KTC.
In these verses the following peculiarities have arrested the atten-
tion of critics :
(1) The laboured rhythm of the first verse particularly the
violation of the Porsonian rule of the 'final cretic';
(2) The remarkable use of cjcrpi'/Jw ;
(3) The occurrence of the word 0eo>v at the beginning and end
of v. 2 ;
(4) The construction of simple genitive, instead of genitive with
, with c<we.
In order to get rid of the 'final cretic' in v. I, Badh.am suggested
1 [From 'Euripidean Notes', the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 344.]
[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXV
(1894), pp. Ixiii-buv.]
Euripides 113
TroXov, Nauck (followed by van Herwerden) VWTOMJ-IV
Were we to adopt the latter reading, we should assume that ovpavov
was originally a gloss on 6tS>v 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(3<av to e/c rpiStv. Atlas had three wives. (See
p. v. of Dindorf 's preface to the Leipsic edition of his text of
Sophocles, 1867.) But van Herwerden, in order to make Euripides's
Hermes quite explicit (and, incidentally, to get rid of one of the
0eoiv's), not only transfers (with Dindorf, loc. cit., p. vi.) /was to the
close of v. 2, but replaces it in v. 3 by aXoyuv. Thus the disputed
passage runs in van Herwerden's text as follows :
AT Axis, o )(a\.Koio~i V<DTOIO~LV <pep<ov
&6WV TToAeUOV OIKOV, K TpltoV |UttS
dXo^wv f<f>vo~e MCUO.V, tj KTC.
This, notwithstanding the aXox^v, is certainly better than Dindorf's
*ArAas 6 xaAKOva>TOS ovpavov Oewv
6\<av TTaXaiov OLKOV CK Tpwv /nias
6eS)v l<^)vcre Mauiv, KTC.
Let us turn now to the examination of a word that has thus far
run the gauntlet, though to it, in my belief, is due, in great measure,
the corruption of v. 2. This is the word OIKOV. In v. 15 the two
MSS. of our play contain the same word in the same place (yaorpos
oi-rjveyK OLKOV). This, as was seen long ago by Brodaeus( and it did
not need much penetration to see it), is^a corruption of oyKov (OPKON
with carelessly written l~, misread and miscopied perhaps partly
under the influence of OIKOIS in v. 16) . Let us now substitute oyKov
for OIKOV in v. 2 and observe the result. Instead of an "ancient
house" we have an "ancient mass", and 6e>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 <j>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>ep<av.
There is no need of bringing rpitav and /xias together ; for if it be
urged that the contrast of rpiS>v 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\Keoi<ri VWTOIS ovpavov
<f>eptav Tra.Xa.iov oyKov, CK rpiMtv 6eS>v
tuas !<v<r Malav, 77 KTC.
NOTES ON THE IPHIGENIA T AURIC A*
285290. JIvAaSr;, Se'Sopxas ri/jvof ; rijvot 8' ov% opus
"AiSou 8pa.Kaivav, ws
Seivais ex i '^ val 5 ct5 ?/
XITWVWV Trvp 7rveovo-a Ko.1 <f>6vov
cpe'orci, p,r)Tp' dyKaXais e/x^v
In these verses two points deserve notice. First, the words CK
XiT<ova>v (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 <rrpo<i'8as
567. 1 o TOV ^avovros 8' ecTTt 7rais *Apy
The arrangement of the three last words of this verse is to me
intolerably harsh, even obscure, and I cannot believe them to have
been so placed by Euripides. Rather lor' CT' *A/3y TTCUS Trarpds ;
725 sq. 1 aTrfXOeO' v/xeis at Tra/oevrpeTTt^crc
rdVSov yaoXovres rots </>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*e<r6a -njs oo/s Trpvp.vrj-
o-iwv re (1355-6). Sed hanc sententiam ut integram explicem ne-
cesse totam scenam qualem auditori ob oculos ponere voluerit nun-
tius quoad possim enarrem. Vidit enim navem iam remis rite
instructam remigesque ad laborem paratos (1346-8) ac iuvenes
Orestem Pylademque . ad puppim stantes (1348-9), dum nautae
partim contis proram retinent, partim ancoram tollunt, partim scalam
in usum Iphigeniae nam quid adulescentibus agilibus cum tali ad
navem praesertim TrevrT/Kovro/jov escendendam auxilio ? demittunt
atque per festinationem Trpv/^o-ia iam iam soluturi sunt (1352-3).
Quae conspicati Tauri statim decurrunt et non solum Iphigeniae sed
etiam Tr/jv/mjo-ibis illis manus iniciunt (1354-6). Tota iam pictura
summatim enucleata restat ut de emendationibus singulis rationem
quam brevissime reddam. Conieci igitur confuso ordine versuum
1352-3 verbum StSoVres (quam emendationem iam saepius temptatam
omnibus notum) in formam & Sovres mutatum esse et in versu 1352
participium o-TreuSovTts coniunctione per ordinis mutationem otiosa
facta ex terminationis similitudine illius SiSoVres praveque intellectis
litteris TE2 (orrovSg TE2) ortum esse. Accedit quod hunc in modum
constitutis versibus et collocationis verborum eius quae vulgo chias-
mus appellatur pulcherrimum habemus exemplum, hoc est: (a)
irpwpav ei^oy, (^) 01 8' CTramStov ayxvpav e^avrjirTOV, (^) ot 8
Kadica-av, (a) ecr^yov -irpvfJLvrjana. ; et verba TQ evg (qua de
1 [From the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XIII (1892), p. 87.]
Euripides njf
probabili emendatione codicum verborum TTJV ^o^v iam obiter dixi
neque est cur longius disseram) et Trpv/xv^o-ia in versibus qui secuntur
T^S ivrj<s Trpvfjivr)<ri<j>v 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<ov in Bacch. 406.
The emendation ou Trveixravros makes the aorist participle intelligible
in an ingressive sense. Wecklein's comma after wrrrewavTos and
change of ovpav to app.fv<a do not satisfy.
473477- eyw Se rraTpos yap SO/AWV
eis /u,as TTOTC,
avros \0ovos,
Sovs T<p8' dvao-(retv Trarpi'Sos eviavroi) xwcAov, KTC.
Professor Wecklein reads 8<ap.d.T<av with the MSS. in 473 and
follows Hartung and Paley in bracketing v. 476. The awkwardness
^From the Classical Review, Vol. IX (1895), pp. 13-14-]
u8 Greek Authors
of this is patent. The corruption of yap SO/AWV to Sw/iarwv seems due
(in part at least) to ^ap/wucwv in v. 472.
504. aorpwv av f\8oip.' 17 Sews Trpos dvroXas KTC.
The aWpwv av cX0oi^' 17X101; of the MSS. is changed by Professor
Wecklein to dVo> 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 <povovo-iv eis
i7/iAas /*cya) is palaeographically possible enough, a combination of
uncial and minuscule blunders readily producing 17 (ahy/Jas. The
comparative too played its part.
74O st l- TI S^ra Spw/iev ; avopia yap, ei per ft.
The aTToptav yap ou /icva) of the MSS. and Wecklein is certainly much
less effective. The corruption is of a familiar type.
747- ofK^orepov air oX-rj <f>8ev yap ouSev Odrepov.
'Both ; for either taken by itself is nothing'. ap.<f>6rep<jv airo\i<f>0fv
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(.<s ftfXrj,
TTiKpois yoovs Soicrovcri &rjftaia \6ovi.
In v. 882 Professor Wecklein reads with the MSS. /x^avres /SeXij.
^The correction /xe\^ has already been suggested in the Critical
Appendix to my edition of the Alcestis (on v. 304).
947- ovros 8e irwXos TgS* dv^/i/Atvos TroXa KTC.
Professor Wecklein, with the MSS., am/ioTos ('hingegeben, darge-
bracht'). Does not 'attached to' seem more natural in view of the
context ?
1134-1138. The following transposition (with one slight emen-
dation) I venture to offer as a possible solution of a difficulty :
rats 8* e/38d/iais "ASpatrros ev -rrvXaicriv TJV 1 1 34
vopas c^eov Xaiourii' cv ^Spa^wxriv 1 1 36
*Apyeu>v av^/x* do-n-iS* fKirXrjpovv ypa</>g 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 ypa<t>rj and ?x<ov Aeuoto-tv ev ftpaxuxriv. 'Die eingeschlossenen
Worte,' he writes, 'welche die Konstruktion storen, scheinen inter-
poliert zu sein'.
II 93- 0pwo-Kov c eirnrrov drrvyoav O.TTO, KTC
fOvrja-Kov, e^eViTrrov Wecklein with the MSS.
1233 sc l' v/Aeis 8' ayu>v d<eWes oixeiav x$6va
vrcrecr$e KTC.
The best MSS. read 'Apyaoi x^ 1 "*: two inferior MSS., 'Apyetav
X^ova. 1 Professor Wecklein, adopting a conjecture of J. Weidgen,
reads 'ApyeZbi, TroAiv (for his opinion about the last word in v. 1232
see the Appendix.) In support of my conjecture I would cite
Soph. Ant. 1203. 'Apyetot seems due to v. 1238, just as in Eur. 7. T.
588 dyyetXai is due to the occurrence of the same word in the same
place in v. 582. ('A/ryewxv may well be, as Kirchhoff thought, a late
correction, though possibly a gloss on
NOTES ON THE SUPPLICES?
232237- vots Tra/jax&i's, omves Ti/u-tifievot
TToXe'/tAous r a.vavov<r aveu
o-Tous, 6 fjiv O7TWS CTTpa.T-rjXa.Trj,
o 8' is vy8pij; 8wayu.iv es x&pas Xaftiav,
aAXos 8e xepSovs oiJveK', OUK a7ro<rKO7rciiv
TO TrAiJ^os et rt ySXaTTTerat Trao-xov raSc.
This passage is interesting as an illustration of a feature common
to Euripides and Thucydides, though by no means confined to
them the use of synonymous constructions which to their minds
were evidently entirely equivalent. We have here three expres-
sions of finality: (i) oVws a-TpaTrjXaTy, (2) ws v(3p%y, (3)
=o)s (OTTOS) icepoWvj;. Cf. such passages as Thuc. i-37>4
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]<i ai<a<rewi ('quantum pro sua auctoritate
poterat' Classen), where d&uio-ews = Swa/xeo* is employed because
of TTjv'lTTTrdpxovBvvafuvjust before. Thucydides is a synonym-monger
in quite a different sense from Prodicus. What Thucydides has in
common with Prodicus, Euripides and the other sophists, is rather
an extreme self-consciousness in the use of language. To return
to the passage in hand, it may be further noted that the MSS.
reading irdoyov seems preferable to the emendation of Kirchhoff and
Wilamowitz, 7rotrj(. Young men TroAe/iov? a.vdvov<ri for various pur-
poses : One, OTTWS a-TparrjXaTy ; another, u>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<rx raSe
to appear on a page of Thucydides in such a context, editors of the
Cobetian school would long ago have enclosed it 'uncis quadratis'.
It should at least be irpavva raSc. It is the ir\r)6os which suffers,
jSAcwrTtTot iracr^ov raSe, i. e. the various vfipus of the veot. With this
passage we may compare Thucydides vi. 12, 2 and also vi. 15
(character of Alcibiades and the vecirepoi). On our Euripidean
passage Paley notes : "There can be little doubt, from the tone of
this passage, that Euripides had some particular party or person in
view, whom he regarded as chiefly responsible for the continuance
of the disastrous war, some Lamachus, Demosthenes or Cleon,
whose ambitions he desired to rebuke". The similarity of the pas-
Euripides 121
sages in Thucydides just cited to the verses of Euripides is strik-
ing, if nothing more. Cf. particularly Ti/iw/xevoi XCU/XWTI = dp^fiv
otr/icvos aipeOei? (Thuc. vi. 12, 2. cf. Tt/Atu/uu CK TOT) TOIOVTOV ibid. 9, 2); ov/c
aTroo-KOTTcov TO TrAiJ^os KT=TO eavTov /iovov O-KOTTWV (ThuC. vi. 12, 2) }
Kepoous oweKa=Sia 8e TroAvreXeiav *cai i^eX^y TI ex TT}S dp^J/s (ThuC. /V .
V. ; the ex -riys dpx^s is to be compared with oVws 0-TpaTrjXa.Ty in
Eurip.) J is {>(3pir) Bvvafuv es ^etpas Aa/3d>v = wv yap ev aiai/xaTi viro
raiv dcTTwv rats 7ri$D/tMus /tcti^ocriv ^ KaTa T^V VTrdpxov<rav oixrlav cxprjro Is
TC Tas iTTTTorpo^tas /cat Tas aAAas SaTrdvas (ThuC. VI. 15, 3). To endeavour
to establish anything beyond an accidental resemblance between
the Euripidean and Thucydidean passages would perhaps be unjus-
tifiable. That there Us] however a striking^ similiarity no one can
deny.
ovroi SucaoTT/v cr* eiA.o/yv epytav e
ov8' et TI 7rpaas fi^ /caAais evpicrKO/uuu
TOVTCUV KoXacrT^v KaTTiTi/xijTiyv, dva^,
dXA* is ovaifirjv.
The variance of construction in this passage resembles that in the
former and furnishes an excellent instance of final apposition.
Moreover, it proves that the writer himself was conscious of the
final force. (Of course the 'final force' of any subordinate construc-
tion is not to be regarded as necessarily originally inherent in it.)
Were we to attempt to bring the sentence before us into uniformitv,
we must either write ws /3orj66v (a word which Euripides does not,
I think, employ), or, better, is StKoois is KoAdots KaartTifjuaris, or
even employ fut. participles with is. It is not difficult to find other
instances of final apposition, though I have no other example to cite
in which the varying from final appositive to final clause shows the
author so fully conscious of the finality in the appositional construc-
tion. Cf. e. g. ThuC. i. 53, 4 fioridoi ^Xdofifv ( ftorjOovvTes Or ft<njOri<TOVTK
ri\0ofuv: cf. ib. 63, 2 TT/joT/Aflov is fioyOiijo-ovTes) ; ib. 94, I o-TpaTT/yos ee-
irtlj.<j>0r); 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<ra$
Canter emended io-as, which would naturally suggest itself to any
one. Perhaps the MSS. reading is a contamination arising from a
ICAC
variant OMUJ Q (i. e. o/xois).
1232. 0Tt;(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, <rv, <r<fxa, v/wis ; all
other nominatives are of the third person." But what should be said
of such nominatives as Oca Kwrpisin Hipp.- 2^. Such self-introducing
and self -identify ing nominatives of proper names as subjects of
verbs in the first person are to be found also Androm. 5, 1232, Hec.
3, 503, Troad. 2, Bacch. 2. In view of several of these passages one
might be tempted to speak of such nominatives of proper names as
autobiographical nominatives of the first person; but such a desig-
nation would be too narrow. One naturally thinks of the familiar
Latin "vita" form: Natus sum Johannes Schmidt Berolini, where
the prefixing of an "ego" by the writer is distinctly a irdpepyov. But
this is in modern Latin; an instance or instances from the classical
language may be found cited in a paragraph (1031) of the late
Professor Lane's Latin Grammar, which might well, it should seem,
find its parallel in Greek Grammars. (To the examples in Lane
1031, which includes both the first and the second person, might be
1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXII
(1001). pp. xcix-ci.]
Euripides 123
added Verg. Aen. 2, 677 sq. ; 9, 22; Hor. Carm. 3. i, 3-4; 3.9, 7-8;
Ep. 9. ii ; 16. 36; 17. 35.) But attention is to be drawn here to
several passages of a different sort in Euripides, some of which may
be corrupt, some of which are commonly misinterpreted. In Ale. 167
Sq. we find p-rjo', 5xnrf.p avrS>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,<pvarei TTOTC OVT' ev TOKOKTI <roun 6apo"wti )
TCKVOV (text of S in 318). Here Lenting alone seems to have taken
offence and Lenting was no mean judge of Greek. In his Epistola
Critica, p. 58, he writes : "Placeret mihi, wp.<j>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 r<av lirl y^s Ipywv
TOV Oeov TO KoAAio-rov eoyAev avOpwroL, 'we human beings are the fairest of
God's works on earth,' Joseph. Ant. lud. i, 21.) The following two
examples from the Medea are commonly misunderstood and misin-
terpreted : Med. 406-408 irpos of KCU 7re<wca/u,ev | ywauces es pfv 2<r0A' afir)-
xavtoTaTcu, | KaKGv 8 Travrwv TCKTOVCS oro^wraTai, 'and besides by nature too
we women are for good deeds most awkward, but of all evil deeds most
124 Greek Authors
skilful artisans.' (Here M. Weil rightly: TWCUKS est le sujet, et non
le complement, de 7r^>vKa/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/i<eTc, 'but you women are come to such a pass that you think that
when wedlock goes smoothly you possess everything.'
NOTES ON ANTISTROPHIC VERBAL RESPONSION IN
ATTIC TRAGEDY. 1
Hermann's words in the Elementa Doctrinae Metricae, p. 736
(Leipsic ed. of 1816) = pars III. cap. XXIII. 5, were first quoted.
Then, as an example of the use made by Hermann of the principle
of antistrophic verbal responsion, his emendation of Aesch. Pers.
280-283, by which the word Sauxs is brought into the position occu-
pied by the same word in the antistrophe, was cited. The further
restoration of this passage by Hermann, Heimsoeth, and Weil was
also briefly treated. Hermann's attempt to restore Eur. Cycl. 359-
376 was also touched upon, but regarded as uncertain. The example
from the Persae was then emphasized as indicating the point of view
taken up by the author of this paper in the study of antistrophic
verbal responsion, viz. its value as an organon of methodical textual
criticism.
The following gradations of antistrophic verbal responsion were
next noted: i) repetition, word for word, of an entire choral pas-
sage (Aesch. Bum. 778-793 = 808-823, ibid. 837-846 = 870-880) ;
2) the use of ephymnia (not Sophoclean; chiefly Aeschylean, but
found in Eur. Ion and Bacchae) ; 3) the use of prohymnia (not
Sophoclean ; in Aesch. Ag. 1072 sq. = 1076 sq., and ibid. 1080 sq.
1085 sq. ; in Eur. El. 112-114 = 127-129) ; 4) the use of mesymnic
refrains (Aesch. Pers. 1040 = 1048, ibid. 1057 IQ 63) ', 5) repeti-
tion of the same interjection (or interjections) in the same place
in strophe and antistrophe ( corresponding to 2, 3, and 4 above,
according to position) and the use of similar interjections or brief
inter jectional expressions in the same place in strophe and anti-
1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXVIII
(1897), pp. xi-xiv.] [It should be noted that what is printed here is only an abstract
of the paper itself.]
Euripides 125
strophe; 6) the occurrence of repeated words in the same place in
strophe and antistrophe; 7) the occurrence of the same word (not
interjection or interjectional) in the same place in strophe and anti-
strophe (particles form a subdivision here) ; 8) the occurrence of
different parts of the same word (different cases of the same noun,
different forms of the same verb) in antistrophic correspondence;
9) the occurrence of different words of a generally similar sound
in antistrophic correspondence (e. g. oAo/a and 2Aa/<e, Aesch. Cho. 25
and 35) ; 10) the occurrence of the same syllable or group of sylla-
bles at the end, at the beginning, or in the middle of words in anti-
strophic correspondence. (It is obvious that more than one of these
divisions may be illustrated by the same example.) The last three
divisions are those which require most careful attention, most exact
weighing of collateral evidence, and greatest absence of bias for
their ascertainment.
The treatment of antistrophic verbal responsion by Dr J. H. H.
Schmidt (Griechische Metrik, 27) was next examined. Dr
Schmidt, while denying to the Greek poets rhyme in the modern
sense (what have frequently been treated as rhymes in classic Greek
being, from his point of view, rhetorical rather than poetical phe-
nomena, or even due to the exigencies of expression), emphasizes
the existence of what he terms Strophenreime (strophic rhymes).
The function of the strophic rhyme is to bind together strophes as
rhyme binds together verses. Strophic rhyme consists, he says, not
merely in single words, but in whole sentences often only in ana-
logous subject matter, in similarity of rhetorical construction. Dr.
Schmidt cites examples in German from Rueckert and Arndt.
In two points Dr Schmidt seems to go too far: i) In absolutely
denying rhyme, in the common acceptation of the term, to Greek
poetry; 2) in stretching the term "strophic rhyme" to include like-
ness of subject matter and of rhetorical construction. He excludes
what would naturally pass for rhyme as rhetorical, and makes rhe-
torical likeness pass for rhyme. Dr Otto Dingeldein's treatment
of Greek rhyme, in the common acceptation (Gleichklang u. Reim
in antiker Poesie, progr. Buedingen, 1888), is far juster. In a lan-
guage that readily lends itself to assonance and alliteration we must
exercise care in distinguishing between the fortuitous and the inten-
tional ; but we must not deny the existence of the intentional. Again,
126 Greek Authors
the frequent presence of strophic rhyme in a narrower sense what
I have called antistrophic verbal (including syllabic) responsion
without close parallelism of thought should warn against a free
extension of the term "strophic rhyme" to the domain of sense apart
from sound.
Dr Schmidt lays down the "law" of strophic rhyme as follows:
The Greek strophic rhyme serves to mark passages that are rhyth-
mically important, either at the beginning or at the close of a larger or
smaller [rhythmical] division. The plausibility of this "law" needs
no comment. In considering the several varieties of poetry in which
strophic rhyme appears, Dr Schmidt notes its restricted use in
Pindar. With him it consists of a single word, or at most a very
brief sequence of words. Among the Tragedians Dr Schmidt finds,
as we should expect a priori, a closer relation between Aeschylus and
Euripides than between Aeschylus and Sophocles. (Attention has
been called above to the most obvious differences between Sophocles
and the other two Tragedians.) Though Sophocles, in the avoid-
ance of the larger and more obvious forms of refrain, approaches
the position occupied by Pindar, yet Dr Schmidt is inaccurate in
making the use of strophic rhyme within the strophe (instead of at
the beginning) a characteristic difference between the method of
Sophocles and that of Aeschylus. A looser use of strophic rhyme
in Euripides the use of it as a mere traditional ornament in posi-
tions of less emphasis is what we might not improbably expect.
However, Dr Schmidt finds Euripides generally strict. In Aris-
tophanes he detects a tendency to avoid verbal responsion, nay,
more, to place like words and phrases in metrically unbalanced posi-
tions. The few examples cited are striking, but the matter requires
further examination. Thus far Dr Schmidt.
In Sophocles there are examples (and they seem not to be entirely
wanting in the other two Tragedians) of a modification, or relaxa-
tion, at times of the stricter form of verbal responsion. The verbal
parallel appears, not in the same, but in approximately the same
position in the antistrophe. Philoct. 201 ewro/*' c^e, 7rai=2io dAX' l^e,
TC'KVOV (quoted by Professor Kaibel on Soph. Electr. 1232, in a strik-
ingly inadequate note on verbal responsion) may serve as an ex-
ample.
Returning to the important question of textual criticism involved,
Euripides 127
we may lay down the following principles : i ) Antistrophic verbal
responsion must be carefully observed; 2) its certain or probable
occurrence should guard the text against conjectural emendation;
3) when a slight (sometimes a more extensive) transposition of
words will bring about verbal responsion, such transposition is
generally to be resorted to without hesitation; 4) the discovery of
verbal responsions may aid in rightly arranging a passage and in
determining the presence of lacunae. Thus, on the one hand, a
check is put upon wanton emendation, falsely so called ; on the other,
we may proceed to a methodical and reasonably certain restoration
of the original in many cases.
Soph. Ant. 100-162 was then dealt with (the author's restoration
of v. 117 [see Class. Rev. IX. (1895), p. I5] 1 being alluded to) ; also
Ant. 1115-1135. In this latter passage the syllabic correspondence
between 'IraAwiv (in 8) and Kao-roXtas (1130) was held to be against
the emendation of the former word to 'iKapiav.
The paper concluded with a mention of the following two points :
i) In the famous passage Eur. /. A. 231-302, commonly regarded as
the work of an interpolator, verbal responsion is carefully observed,
and must even be restored. (M. Weil has treated the passage rightly
in detail.) 2) In the Rhesus 454-466 820-832. This wide separa-
tion of strophe and antistrophe finds its parallel in Eur. Hipp.
362-371 = 668-679 (as in the Rhesus, an antistrophic passage inter-
venes), in Soph. Phil. 391-402 = 506-518 (no lyric passage inter-
venes), in Eur. Orest. 1353-1365 = 1537-1549 (astrophic lyric
verses and trochaic tetrameters between; cf. Rhes. 131-136 = 195-
200 [only trimeters between]). But in Sophocles there is no verbal
responsion ; in Euripides it is slight in the Hippolytus and confined to
interjections; in the Orestes it appears only at the beginning; in the
Rhesus (both passages) the responsion may almost be termed exces-
sive. The importance of this observation in the discussion of the
date and authorship of the Rhesus is obvious.
PORSON'S ENUNCIATION OF PORSON'S RULE. 2
In regard to Person's famous rule about the fifth foot in a tragic
trimeter ending in a cretic word, which is wrong as it stands, it was
1 [See p. 47-]
* [From 'Miscellanea Critica', Proceedings of the American Philological Associa-
tion, Vol. XXXII (1901), p. xxviii.] [This note is given in abstract]
128 Greek Authors
suggested that Person probably drafted the rule so that it ended
quintus pes non spondeus esse deberet, but thinking it directer to
use an affirmative rather than a negative turn of expression, care-
lessly substituted for non spondeus the expression for what is nor-
mally allowable in the first five places of the trimeter, viz. iambus
vel tribrachys, forgetting that the final - - made "vel tribrachys"
an impossible addition.
THUCYDIDES
DE THUCYDIDES I. 1-23.*
Prooemium Thucydidis conscriptionis sic enim <rvyypa<f>r)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 <os e-n-oXefj-rjo-av irpos dAA^Xovs Thucydidem
scripsisse sed w eiroAe/wjo-av Trpos dXX^Xous, quae verba latine reddas,
ratione habita sedis quam obtinet illud Trpos oXX^Xous, 'quod inter ipsos
gesserunt'. Sicut tradita nobis sunt verba ista varie possunt accipi,
ut significent aut 'ut <id bellum> inter ipsos gesserunt' aut 'ut inter
ipsos bellum gesserunt' aut 'quo modo <id bellum > 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 K<U particulam
inter Kadurra.fj.fvov et eA.7rto-as infertam et ipsi Thucydidi abiudicandam
censeo. Praeterea digna est quae attendatnr suspicio quam in com-
1 [From the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XXVI (1905), pp. 441-454-1
130 Greek Authors
mentario Classeno-Steupiano verbis expressam legimus de lacuna
statuenda post TWV irpoyeyenj/io/wv. Debuit sane Thucydides rS>v irpo-
yeyevj/p.o'wv 'EAAi/viK<ov TroAc/xwv scribere. Vix necesse habeo dicere
ante cs avrov non rprav me sed ijouv verum habere. Hie quasi
in transcursu significare mihi liceat in verbis quae sunt TO 8e u
8iavoov/vov non habere Kal particulam quo suo quidem iure referatur.
Quid si non sic scripsit Thucydides sed plene TO Sk KO! <avro>-
Stavoov/tevov ? Ante verba quae sunt KIVT/O-IS yap avnj pcyurnj &rj TO!?
*EAXi7<rtv eyo/cro facere non possumus, si recte cogitamus, quin subaudi-
amUS teal opd(i>9 rjXirura. fteyuv re ccrecrftu TOVTOV rov Tro\ffju>v KCU dioA.oyo>TaTOV
TWK irpoycyfvr)fj.cvu>v *E\\rp'iKuv iroXe/4<ov vel tale quid. Violentissima est
sane ellipsis, sed yap particula apud Thucydidem saepe numero valde
elliptice usurpatur. In insequentibus non possum non cum Steupio
facere verba KCU fifpu . . . av6pu>v<i>v 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;<ri yevecrQai, quo modo usurpatae yap particulae exempla minime
desunt. Cetera minutiora quae commemoratione haud indigna in
hoc capitulo obvia sunt ut recenseam, haud dubium mihi quidem
videtur quin dSiWrov ty alteri scripturae, quae est dSwara rjv, prae-
ferendum sit; neque spernenda erat Cobeti coniectura elegantissima
pro obscuro Ct impeditO illo v firl /mxporaTOV O-KOJTOVVTI fiM irio-ret'oxu
^v/i^Saiv ou /yaAa vofu^w yevf(r6ai planum atque apertum hoc o>? 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 <ra<a>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<airot WKOVV 01 auroi aici Kai TrapaSety/xa (exemplum) rov8
TOV Xo'yov (i. e. eorum quae in proxime praecedente enuntiato
dicta Sunt) OVK cXa^to-rov cort (SC. ^ 'ATTIKI/) CK yap T^S aAA?/?
EUaSos KTC.
In capite 3 pro TV iraXaiw ao-Ocveuiv fortasse rescribendum <-n)v>
TWV TroAotuv aardeviuiv. In inscquentibus ^vft.Trao'a irw x eiv correxit
Reiske, iroXXov yc XP OVOV *<" a-<rw cKviKrjo-ai van der Mey, recte uterque.
3- 3 Sic fortasse SCribendum : iroAAw yap vorepov In KOI rS>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 <Crtvs>, 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.ev<DV . . .
dSwaTWTaTtov per medium, quod aiunt, sit. 5. 2 vix dubium esse
potest quin cum Reiskio ots ITI *ai vvv pro tradito ITI Kal vvv ot? re-
ponendum sit. In ots r cTri/neXes e/ eiSeVat, ubi optativus vix ac ne
vix quidem intellegi potest, omittendum censeo 177.
In c. 6. 3 et cc. 7-8 de re piratica fusius agitur, i. e. quae in c. 5. I
summatim significata sunt, ea hie enucleatius exponuntur. Atten-
tiore animo haec legenti aut apparebit aut apparere debebit ea quae
c. 5. 3 legimus cum c. 8. i artissime cohaerere ita ut Kat Kar' Tpmpov et
xai ofy rja-crov \rj<TTal rja-av ol vrjcriSiTai sese invicem excipiant. Appare-
bit autem c. 8. i in falsam nunc sedem detrusum esse, cum ea verba
inter cc. 6 et 7 reponenda sint. Veram earn, ut credo, consecutionem
in sequenti disputatione observabo. Nunc ad c. 6 redeamus.
Totum hoc capitulum ab extremis capitis 5 verbis initium capit,
quae verba SUnt TO TE o-iS^po^opeto-^at TOVTOIS Tots ^TreipwTats OTTO TT79 TraXatas
Xgo-Taas ffj.fj.e/j.evrjK. Sed hie quoque in yap particula ellipsin offendimus;
cogitando enim suppleamus oportet post verba quae modo laudavi vel
ovSc TOVTOIS fidvov TO <7&ripo<^opii<j6at vvr)0e<; rjv TO TroXat vel tale quid.
134 Greek Authors
Facto demum supplemento sine salebra procedet disputatio. Atque
initio capitis recte fortasse Hude pro eo-iS^po^o/sa, quam scripturam
praebent codices Thucydidei, cWtypo^dpow substituit, quam scripturam
aliunde cognitam habemus. Eadem huius capitis sectione suo iure
videtur Herwerdenus -njv vvy6r) Suurav ptO' OT-XWV CTTOIT/O-CIVTO pro trala-
ticio illo frvr^Orj TTJV 8. fi. o. . Per eius correctionis occasionem ani-
madverto cVon/o-avro aoristum non alia de causa usurpatum videri nisi
quod cum twrjOij cogitatione coniunctus idem valet atque eioi&o-av
Ti-oteurftu aut, id quod simplicius etiam est, CTTOIOVVTO. Neque tamen
inde recte concludas frmjOr) adiectivum in praedicativa quae dicitur
sede recte hoc loco collocari posse. In insequentibus cum Reiskio
OHininO faciendum ayfjuuov 8' eorl TO. (pro Tavra) T^S "EXXaSos KTf.
In c. 6. 3 transitus fit ab armis militaribus ad vestitum, unde c. 6. 5
facillimo descensu ad nuditatem devenimus. Hac in sectione verum
vidit Reiskius, qui pro ireiravrai reposuit TTCT-awrtu; neque falsus videtur
fuisse Cobetus verba quae sunt wepl TO. alBota excludens. Eadem sec-
tione equidem minime intellegere possum quae continue insecuntur,
nisi hoc pacto rescribuntur : In Se /ecu vvv ev TWV Bap/Japwv lo-nv ols K<U
fidXuTTa TOIS 'Aatavots mry/u^s KCU iraX-ip aOXa. TI'&TCU KTC. Tralaticia verba
quam perversissima sunt. Absoluto iam excurso de armis et vestitu
ad Stvrepav TrXow de re piratica redeamus.
In priore igitur parte capitis octavi (KCU ofy fao-ov . . . ITI 0a7TTovcri),
quam summo, ut persuasum habeo, iure hue transtuli, de insulanis
agitur latronibus. Hac in particula extrema subditicium mihi videtur
twTfQafj.fi.evr) (v. 1. wTeOa.ft.fj.cvoi) participium. Certe non necessarium est
participium sententiamque magis impedit quam expedit. In inse-
quentibus melius sane rem suam gessisset Thucydides, si plenius
SCripSlSSet KG! TW rpoiroi TTJS rac^s (vel KOI T^S Tatfrfjs T<T Tpajrw) <T KTC.
Caput 7 cur hie collocaverit Thucydides, ex c. 5. I apparebit, ubi
praedones voXeaiv dTcix t ' " r ts diripiendis operam dedisse certiores fimus.
Hoc in capite singula si spectes, haec digna videntur quae notentur.
In rciv Se TToXewv ocrcu fj.ev vewrara (aKitrOrjcrav KOI ffiij irXw'ifJidtTepwv OVTWV V1X
verum potest esse illud vewraro quippe quod nil aliud significet nisi
KOI rj&ij 7rXa)i/xwTpwv ovrwv, quae verba interpretationis instar usitatis-
simo modo per KOI particulam subiunguntur. Reponendum censeo
vetoTepov. In insequentibus praestat fortasse T^S ?rpos TOVS
OOUTTCU (non CKaoroi) to^vos SCribere. Mox tyepov yap < icai ^yov
rescriptum usitatam atque, ut videtur, unice veram scribendi ra-
Thucydides 135
tionem reducat. Extreme capitulo av<o WKIO-/XWH, quam scripturam
Reiskii acumen restituit, non fuit iterum relegandum.
C. 8. 2 partim reditus fit ad ea quae c. 4 continentur, partim
initium capitis 7 respicitur; nam hie et c. 8. 3 ea iterantur quae
priore dimidio capitis 7 continentur. Atque comparatis duobus eis
locis haec apparent: primum c. 7 perperam Herwerdenum
fKTi&VTO icai TOVS eo-fyiovs aTTe\d/j.ftavov in CKTLOVTO KCU Tci'^eoriv roil?
a.7re\a./j.(3a.vov mtitatum voluisse. Nam inter sese respondent c. 7 77817
7rA.<K/ia>Tepa>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 T<OV
TTOIOV/ACVOI, C. 7 TLX (riv fKTi^OVTO fit C. 8. 3 Tet/ X T 7 TTfpVf-ft&hXaVTO. HuC
accedit quod C. 7 verba quae SUnt e/wroptas TC cVeKa *cat TT;S Trpos TOVS TT/OOO--
otxovs tKao-rat icr^w? chiastice praecedentia excipiunt, ita ut ex una
parte TOVS ICT&/J.OVS aireXdfiftavov c/iTropias eveKa (cf. 6. 2. 6 wKowSc Kai
7ra(rav p.ev rrjv 2teA.uiv aKpas re CTT! TJJ Oa\d<rcrr} icai ra 7riKi/ieva
eveKcv TT/S Trpos TOVS Si/ccAovs, unde etiam apparet minus diligenter
Thucydidem Tovsio-^/xovsd7reA.a/ J t/8avovscripsisse), ex altera autem parte
TCt^CO-lV CKTt^OVTO TT^S TTpOS TOVS TTpOCTOLKOVS eKaCTTCH tO^VOS (SC. 0/CKtt) COn-
iungere oporteat. Hinc discimus etiam nam manus, ut aiunt, ma-
num lavat quo modo ea quae c. 8. 3 reixn 7repic/3aAA.ovTo excipiunt et
intelligenda sint et emendanda. Ac primum quidem verba quae sunt
ws Tr\ovcri<t>TpoL cavTwv yiyvo/xevot, quae idem valent atque fj.SX\ov T;8r;
rrjv KTTJO-LV TWV xprj/jidT<av iroiovp-evoi atque in quibus offendit non modo
avToi ante eavTuiv omissum sed etiam importunissimum illud is, haec
verba Thucydidi abiudicanda censeo. At quorsum pertinet illud
ffaepevoi yap KTC. ? atque qua tandem de causa sunt adiecta haec
verba? Responsum nobis reddet, nisi fallor, c. 7, unde discimus
haec verba eidem notioni exprimendae inservire atque evena TT/S TT/JOS
TOVS Trpoo-oiKovs icT^vos. Ut planius quid dicere velim significem, ra-
tionem reddunt ea verba cur TIVCS etiam retxtj 7repi{$aXe<r6ai dicantur,
videlicet quod Trpoo-eiroiowTo vTrr/xoovs TO.S cAaacrovs TrdXeis. Comparet nunc
verba quae sunt Trepiovo-wis IXOVTCS perversum esse interpretamentum a
quopiam antiquitus ad SwaTwTepoi appositum, Thucydidem autem non
nisi of T SwaTtarepoi irpoaeirouniVTO VTTTJKOOUS TOLS eAao"o*ovs TroAeis SCripSlSSC.
Ad finem iam relati sumus capitis octavi, ubi per KOI iv Tovry T<$ rpoiry
/loAAov rfirj ovres vo-Tcpov XP V< P ^ Tpotav eo-TpaTevcrav ea verba et respici-
untur et iterantur quibus c. 3 clauditur atque ad Bellum Troianum,
quod ibi in eo erat ut tractaretur, fit tandem reditus.
136 Greek Authors
Capitibus 9-12 ita de Bello Troiano agitur ut capite 9 Agamem-
nonis potentia ostendatur, capite 10 demonstretur -njv o-Tpartiav cKetn/v
luyurrqv ftev ytvfa-Oat TCOV TT/DO av-ri/s, Xtnrofjievyv Sc TCOV vw, capite 1 1 causa
adducatur pecuniae inopia (17 axprjuaTia) , capite 12 quasi quodam
epilogo etiam post Bellum Troianum migrationes ( /leravao-Tao-a? )
tales quales capite 2 erant descriptae diu factas esse dicatur unde
evenerit ut multae coloniae deducerentur. Huius capitis in fine,
quasi sese excuset quod fines disputationis de antique Graeciae statu
antiquorumque Graecorum rebus gestis transgressus sit, haec addit
Thucydides : Trdvra 8 TO.VTO. vcrrepov TCOV TOCOIKCOV ficrio-Oif. NunC ad
caput 9 redeamus.
Capitis 9 initium mendo parvo quidem sed haud ita levi laborare
mihi videtur, neque recte processuram arbitror orationem nisi hunc
ad modum repurgetur : 'Aya/ie^voDv yap /not So/cet KTC. Sectione se-
CUnda VCrissime, nisi fallor, pro 01 TO. a-a^fa-rara HeXoTrowrja-itav . . .
SeSey/ievot Hude coniecit ol a-a^a-rara TO n. ... 8. In insequentibus
pro irX-fjOu xP r )f J - aTtav <* fyQw . . . \ <av equidem reposuerim TrXyOei XP 7 /^^"
TWV o rjXOev . . . fx>v. 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
<rri/vai reponendum sit Karao-T^o-cu vix dubium esse existimo). Im
peditior vero quam nunc apud Thucydidem legimus participialis huius
clausulae forma sic videtur scribenda ac distinguenda : Efy>u<r0eW
pev ev rfj 'A.TTiKrj VTTO 'Hpa/cAeiSoiiv aTro^avovTos, 'AT/JCCOS 8e, fJ.T)Tpos a8eX<f>ov
OVTOS avrta, CTriTpei/WTOS Eupvcr^ews, or' ccrTpdreve, MvKTyvas TC Kal rrjv apxyv
Kara. TO oixetov 'Arpel rvyxaveiv 8 avTov <f>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 <o/3cp ^wa-
yoycov, ironqo-acrOai. In insequentibus autem 7rpos Trapacrxtov Clim Scho-
liasta et Herwerdeno legendum. Haec verba in codicibus sequitur
Thucydides 137
clausula hunc ad modum leviter reficienda : is "O^pos TOVTO <TE>
a TO) iKavos TeKfJLrjpiSxrai, Kal EV roS SK^Trrpov a/xa TiJ IIapaSo<rei
KTE. Priusquam ad decimum caput pergam addendum esse
censeo cum eis me facere qui pro Kal vavTiKw re a/ia veram scrip-
turam Kal vatmK(3 y a/ia reposuerunt.
In capitis 10 sectionibus 1-2 praecavere studet Thucydides, ne ex
Mycenarum aliarumve antiquarum urbium fama nobilium parvitate
imbecillas eas fuisse falso concludamus. Comparatione igitur insti-
tuta praesentis condicionis Spartae Athenarumque et eius quae esset,
si utraque urbs diruta esset, sic concludit (sect. 3) ov/c ow dTrio-rav
CIKOS ov8e Tas oi^eis TO>V 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 <T> SfS^Xw/CEV a TO) ixavos TK[jLr)pi!acra.i,
'si cui idoneus est testis', ubi fortasse legendum u TW Ixavos <Ktvo5>
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 </u,v> yap scripsisse. Neque minus bene idem
vir doctus cum aliis ^woiKio-flfib-Tjs <T^S> 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 KO<TfJii)<rai. Sectione 4
in transcursu notandum est ras /u.yto-Tas Kal fAxixto-ras negligentius
dictum pro ras TrXfto-rovs Kal fAa^to-Tous e;j(ouo-as. Idem valet de eisdem
verbis sect. 5 iteratis. Infra aut pessime scripsit Thucydides aut
sic est Corrigendum : oAAo>s 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 . . . <at-
vovrat ouS' fvravOa infraque aeque [recte idem vir doctus paStws av paxy
KparovvTfs, 01 y Kal OUK aOpooL (debuit ov^ a$pooi) dAAa /xepa TW att Trapovri
avrei^ov, TroAtopKta 8' av Trpo(TKa9e6[J.evot. lv cXdcrtrovi re x/ovoj (=i Se TroXiop-
Kta trpoa'f.KaOf^ovTO, tv fXacrvovi T' av xpoVa>) 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\d<r(TOvi TTO'VU) rj ocrov
<TXOV. Recte inquam sic scribendum censuit Cobetus, nisi forte
praestat, id quod minus obscurum intellectu locum redderet, post
pciStw? inserere pev atque pro Tpoutv scribere ir6\iv.
Capiti 12, cui cum praecedentibus quae ratio intercedat supra
demonstravi, fifTaviararo *<u KaTWKi^eTo mihi quidem tralaticiae scrip-
turae videtur praestare. Neque dubium esse debet quin ijcrvxacracrav
avr)&f)vai falso sit scriptum pro ycrvxda-ao-a avfyOfjvai. Sect. 2 cum eis
facio qui pro ras Tro'Aas reposuerunt aAAas Tro'Aas. Sect. 3 yap perperam
damnavit Steupius, cum recte se habeat particula modo - ne ad prox-
ime praecedentia referatur. Nam non cum sect. 2 cohaeret sect. 3
sed cum sect, i, ut suspicio mihi orta sit secundam illam sectionem
(17 TC -yap . . . KTIOV) serius demum a Thucydide additam esse. Utut
res se habet, sublatis eis verbis multo melius in unum coalescunt
reliqua. Eadem sect. 3 comparato sequente illo HeAoTrowTjo-ov lo-^ov
praestat TT)V vw p.ev . . . uK-qo-av quam omo-av scribere. At ecce oblitus
sum de eVei particula quae hoc caput aperit aliquid dicere : oportebat
autem ; nam cum eadem ellipsi ea particula hie usurpatur quam
saepius in yap animadvertimus. Subauditur ovSc TO. TT/JO TWV Tpwi'/cwv
P.OVOV aa-Ocyfj ty vel eius modi quid. Atque antequam cetera excutere
pergo, haud absurdum erit indicare quam apte in disputatione quae
capitibus 2-12 continetur cum initio cohaereat finis. Quam clara
enim VOCC hoc /xdAts re ev TroAAw xpdvw T^crvxacrao-a i; 'EAXas ft c ft a t to s
xai oiKTt </ACT>avto-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<rrl KTC. Sectione 5 quo modo distinguenda vel potius non
distinguenda essent verba quae sunt TWV EAA^vwv . . . 7rt/itoryovTwv
vidit Camperus ; ea verba ideo potissimum infra exscripta exhibebo
ut menda tollam duo. Ecce locus repurgatus : TWV "EAA^vwv TO TrdXai
Kara yrfv TO. TrAeuo Ttov re evros TOW 'I<rd/J.ov Kal TWV I^CD Sio. r^s CKCI'VODV Trap'
eirtfua-yovroiv (=TOJV 'EAAiyvwv TO TraAai Kara yfjv TO. TrAetto Trap'
eTri/Mio-yo'vTwv TWV re evrof TOV 'lo-Opov Kal TWV e^a> 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 <C TO > 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<S 'ATro'AAwvt
id sic scribendum censeo : Kal 'P. e. dv^Ke (Herwerdenus) TW
(omisso TO> 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 v<rrepov yevd/xeva rail/ TpanKwv,
Tpiijpecri /xev oXtya (SIC CobetUS pro oXiyais) xpoi/xeva, Trevrr/Kovre/jois 8' TI
xai TrXotots /xaKpois (f . /xtKpois : V. KrUCgerum) c^T/pTu/xeVa wcrTrep cVetva
oXiyois yap irpo TO>V 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 <ye> 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 <Kao-Toi> /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<av77 reduce-
bat. Quibus correctionibus nil habeo quod addam nisi initio capi-
tis 1 8 pro Kai TT/HV Tvpawev6f.icrr)<i me rescribendum censere xal <avr^s>
TvpawevOtivr) 1 ;. Ad a Aa/<eSai)U.ovioi rrj avrrj TroXiTtia xp^vrai quod attinet,
quam scripturam pro d<#>' 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 <ot> 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$ev iroQev /AOI. 22. 2 KCU <^ra^> irapa
(Ullrich) roiv aXXtDV ovg Svvarov aKpiflcLa KTC. 22. 4 et ipSC post Tcr0cu
sententiam hiare arbitror. De supplement vide commentarium
Classeno-Steupianum. Ceterum in fine capitis 22 Cobetus aKowiv
damnavit neque id iniuria ut mihi videtur. Quid si notissimum illud
enuntiatum sic ab initio est perscriptum : KI^/AO. yap es atei /^aXXov 17
ay<i>vur/j.a es TO
142 Greek Authors
De capite 23 in universum satis iam supra disputavi neque praeter
iteratam commendationem illius VO-TC/OOV quod in rS>v & {Wepov Ipywv
pro TT/oorcpov a Thucydide scriptum esse persuasissimum equidem
habeo atque in medium prolatam suspicionem 23. 6 rescribendum
esse TOWS *AOr)vaiovs yyovfjiai /xeyoXov? yeyevij/u.ei'ovs fyoftov <^yap^> irapi-
XOI/TO.S TOIS AaKeSai/Aoviois dvayKacrai t9 TO TroAe/mv ne VCrbullim quidem
amplius addam, sed longae finis chartae hie erit. 1
EPIMETRUM DE THUCYDIDIS DE ILTADIS H FINE
TESTIMONIO. 2
Constare aut certe post ea quae in septima e suis de Iliadis car-
minibus dissertationibus luculentissime disputavit Arminius Koechly
(v. eius Opuscc. Philol. I. 121-152) constare oportet, quo Iliadis H
loco Graecorum ad Troiam bellum gerentium classis subductae pro-
pugnaculi constructio describitur qui locus a versu 313 initium
capere videtur , eum "vel recentissimo" ipsis ut utar Koechlyi
verbis (op. cit., p. 151) "imitator! adscribendum" esse. Quo autem
tempore quoque consilio recentissimus ille imitator centonarium
suum opusculum Iliadi contexuerit, inde satis certo scire possumus
quod, cum Zenodotus, id quod e Scholiis discimus, in suis Iliadis
exemplaribus hanc quoque particulam legerit atque etiam quod
multo gravius est Plato Rp. v. 468 D versum 321 citaverit, Thucy-
didi is locus ignotus fuit. Nam de Graecorum ad Troiam rebus
gestis sic incipit agere Thucydides (i. n. i.) : eTreiSi) & d<iKo/u,evoi ^a.\r)
fKpa.Trj<^$r)^><Tav S^Xov 3 Se TO yap tpvfw. TO> o-ToaTOTre'Sw OVK av eTet^iVavTO ,
1 Sero intellexi n. 2 hunc ad modum scribendum esse: irtpiov<rlo.v 8' el TjKBov
t rpoQfjt Kal 6vTft d0p6oi &vtv \7]<rT(la.s Kal yewpylai fiifex^s rbv ir&\e/j.ov Sitfiepov,
&v (&i) ?) fiAxil KparovvTes o? ye Kal o&x d6p6oi dXXci ^pet ry alel irapbvrfs avreixov
'?) iro\iopKlq, av TrpoffKa.0efofj.evoi tv {\6ffffovl re xpt> 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 <tantum> aliqua semper prae -
sentes <tamen> 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<rr) rfj Swa/xei ^p^<ra/u,voi KTC . Quem ad locum qui
scholium de Ipvpa. vocabulo scripsit munimentum non id intellegit cuius
de exstructione apud nostrum Homerum H 337 sqq. mentio fit sed
irporcpov [UKporepov 8ia TO.? TCOV Bap/3apwv CTriSpojMas : qilibllS CX VCrblS elucet
ideo illud juiKpoVepov ZpvfjM. ultro hominem istum finxisse quod non de
decimo sed de primo belli Troiani anno apud Thucydidem hie agi patet.
Neque hercle esse potest hoc loco ut Iliadis H respexerit Thucy-
dides, nisi forte id quod in talem virum minime cadit temporis
rationem atque etiam rerum narrationem prorsus neglexit. Unde
sequitur ut earn Iliadis partem ubi muri constructio describitur
Thucydides non habuerit cognitam. Neque vero ullam omnino de
illius Graecorum propugnaculi exstructione narrationem apud
Homerum legisse videtur Thucydides. Nam si quis cuius de rei
confectione descriptionem vel manibus terit vel aliquo tempore
lectam memoria retinet, ne ille minime de eius rei originatione quasi
prorsus sibi ignota disputabit atque concludet. Quod tamen ipsum
facit Thucydides dum sic scribit : Si/Aov 8e (sc. Graecos ad litora
Troiana postquam adpulerint a Troianis proelio superatos esse).
TO yap epv/Mi (i.e. illud propugnaculum quod quasi iam dudum
aedificatum alibi in Iliade [cf. M 7 una cum Leafii adnotatione ad
IOC.] COmmemoratum invenimus) TO> 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 <f>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 <^<S rts 1/cacrTOS
VI, II. 2. 3 SiKtAicuTai 8' av /xoi SOKCHKTIV, ws ye. vvv e^oucri, xai cri av
Setvot i//x,iv yevecrOai, fl apeia.v avru>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<p TO Aa/SflV, CITC CK T O V
o-Tao-ia^eiv shows the reading o-racria^eiv to be ancient.
VII, 13. 2. 2 Legendum TU>V vavroiv <avTaiv> /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\d<r<n)<;
1 [From 'Miscellanea Critica' in Classical Review, Vol. X (1896*), p. I.]
" [This emendation was presented at the meeting of the American Philological
Association, July, 1898, but was never published.]
[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXIII (1895), p- I53-]
4 Codd. drecTTai/pouv.
PLATO.
PLATONIS THRASYMACHUS,
SIVE
REI PUBLIC 'AE LIBER PRIMUS. 1
327 A Primum Platonem scripsisse opinor hunc in modum :
KaTeftrjv X^' s c ' s Heipou* /xera TAavKtuvos TOV
7rpoo-eud/Aevds re Tg #e< KOI a/ia TT/V coprijv jSotAd/aevos 0ea-
a-acrOai, flewp^o-avTes & KOI jr/ootrcu^a/xevot aTrfjfKV flrpos aarv. ,
turn autem post 0eao-ao-0<u, quasi iSetv fuerit, addidisse :
TtVtt TpOTTOV TTOll/O'OVO'lV UTC VW 7TpaTOV ayOVTCS. KaA.^ flV
ovv /tot Kai ^ TWV firi\<u>pi<av TTOfjiin) !8oev eiveu, ou /icvTOt
^TTOV l<f>aiveTO 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 .... <Ke\eixrc KTC.
327 B HoXtfwpxos Trepi/tetvcu <C> 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 6eacra<r6ai audiendum videtur esse <us Kai ^/xe
avrrjv vel tale quid. Insequitur enim ^avao-T7;o-d/Ae^a yap KTC.
1 [MS. paper.]
Plato 147
Non dubitaverim equidem quin scribendum sit /cat
y Tj-oAAois TWV vetav KTC. ; ea enim cum adulescentibus conversatio
praecipua fuit quasi esca ad Socratem alliciendum. Cuius pro-
pensionis Socratis Glauco minime ignarus facete sane pro eo
respondet (328 B) : *Eo6Kev /xevcreov civat.
328 B Kal By Kal 0/aao-v/iaxov TOV KaAx^SoViov : inducitur protagonista.
328 C Sta xpovov yap Kal ewpaK-q avrov : tempus verbi a forma nega-
tivi enuntiati explicandum, quae forma fuisset : O-VXVQV yap xpovov
ovS' fdipaKrj avrov vel tale quid.
T#vKu>s 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.a<i=Trap 1/j.f.
328 E lunge TOVTO o ty.
[TOV /?iW] Adscripta fuerant haec verba ad TI}S ^
329 A otov y'
TOTE /u.v v ^wvTE?, vw 8e ovSc ^aivTfs 1 1 aut unum aut alterum
participium fortasse eiciendum.
329 C Aut avr' d7T<^>vyov 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> ^pt<f>Lw.
330 A " CIVTW (sc. TW yi?pa) bene Richards.
330 B n<nov fTTEKTT/o-aftr/v (=Ti fTrKTr]crdp.r)v) : facete tanquam indi-
gnabundus haec respondet.
Fortasse T^S vw <^ov(rtas^> 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 <J>s omisso (r<p68pa, quippe quod idem
valeat atque 0au/xa<rrois a>S.
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, e<j>r), eyw, 6 IIo\fiap^os.
33 1 El TO ra 6<f>uX6p,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 yen7<re<r&u /neAAg.
OV^ OVT(t)=OU TOVTO.
Tvxg o^ciXo/xcvov : potuisset, nisi fallor, etiam Tvyxavy 6<eiA.d-
p.fvov.
332 C TO Siicotov o ti/ : pro TO 8. o, n elr), quod fortasse rescribendum.
TOVT* eiij StKcuov: parum accurate dictum, quod vitium e
Graeci sermonis ingenio pendet.
332 E Trpos TOV TT/S OaXa.TTr)<i Ktv8wov <^xat do'<^>aXcxv^> ?
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<Dv(s. iroiwv), neque id animad-
vertere videtur Socrates, ut qui respondeat quasi Polemarcho
rite responsum reddiderit, E?cv enim dicit. Sed continuat
interrogationem suam quasi Polemarchus non 'Ev TO> irpo<nro\tpv
KCU ev TW v/u,/taxv, l/ioiyc SOKCI dixisset, sed huius modi quid '
l/noiyc
Plato 149
332 E Km JUT) TrXeVucri Se (non &)).
333 A IIpos Ta vp./36\aija : Haud apte ad interrogationem respondet
Polemarchus ; Socrates enim sic interrogaverat : T^V SIKCUOO-VVT/V
Trpos TI'VOS xpeiav 17 KT^CTIV ev eipyvrj ^>at^s av ^pi;<ri/xov e?veu ;
333 B TrcTTeimKos i ludi latrunculorum peritus. At qui fit ut adiec-
tiva in IKOS desinentia apud Graecos praesertim Atticos
peritiae plerumque notionem complectantur ? Inde, nisi fallor,
quod feminina eorum adiectivorum in substantiva transierant,
quibus in substantivis auditur r^yyj, ars s. peritia. Atque e
subs tanti vis illis in adiectiva ea vis quasi redundabat.
333 E *Ap' ow /ecu vocrov ocrTis Setvos <vXoao-$ai, KCU Xa&elv OVTOS Seivdraros
Valde captiose hie interrogat Socrates. Non est morbus quasi
quidam ictus qui et repelli et infligi potest. Neque causa est
cur notio clam morbi inferendi atque infligendi hoc loco indu-
catur. Aa0etv verbum sic inductum eo tantum ' explicari potest
quod Socrati iam videtur obversari cogitatio ea quam insequente
enuntiato verbis exprimit de consiliis hostium surripiendis.
334 A 'AXXa p.rjv ar/DaTOTreSov ye 6 avros ff>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'/<atov Kaxois Troietv.
Hoc verborum contextu omnino non possunt recte se habere
haec. Laborat enim 8^ particula. Ac cogitabam sane de Se
particula pro Sr) substituenda. At ne sic quidem recte se habet
argumentatio. Qua de causa conicio turbatum esse verborum
vel potius enuntiatorum ordinem inde ab illo 'AAA* o/os quod est
334 C. Pristinam consecutionem sic restitutam velim :
'AAAa p.r)v ol ye aya0oi Sucatoi re /cat olot p
'AXA.' O/AO>S Stxaiov Tore rovrots TOW? /u,cv 7ron;povs &<f>e\elv t
TOWS 8' aya0oi>s /SAaTTTeiv.
'J'atVeTat.
Kara. 8^ TOV <rov Xdyov row? /mr/Sev dSiKOwras SIKOIOV
TTOieiV.
150 Greek Authors
335 A KeAev'eis 817 rf/JMf rrpovOeivai TW SIKCUW icat, <5>s TO rrpwrov
AtyovTes Stxaioj' efvcu TOV /ifv <f>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 i<f>of3ovp.rjv : at iam supra dictum est SeiVavres
(336 B).
336 E <C ^* ot ovrf (fv, <a <f>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.
<J>i\oviKelv irpos TO : Fortasse <iAoviKeTv delete ir/oos TO.
338 C-D In verbis quae SUnt d IIouXv8a/xa9 rjp.u>v KPUTTWV o 7rayK/xm-
CUTT^S Kal avT<5 vp.<j>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
irpo<TTa.<acnv.
In eis quae secuntur sic distinguendum : apa TOTC (i.e. oVav ol
p.ev KT.), w o". ., OVK dvay/ouov (SC. ecrTi) o-v/xySatVeiv O.VTO OVTOXTI Si/caiov
eTvai iroieiv ; TOVVUVTI'OV 17 o oai (fort, ws o~v) Ae'yets ' TO yap TOV
KpClTTOVOS KT.
avp.<f>opov 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 KAetTO<oiv UTroXa/Swv. Cf
331 D OUK ovv, </>T/, 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<rr<? volendi sic in unum coactae atque quasi conglutina-
tae sunt vix ut divelli aut distingui possint.
Attendendum est infra 340 C diserte dici non lAeyes sed tfiovXov Xe'yetv,
cum plerumque quasi furtim usurpetur Ae'yeiv verbum Aeyv /?ouA.eo-0at
significans.
340 C Tt<^va^> 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 :=--(o<nrep crS>fjia 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 vfi<j)fpov (TKotruv quae verba idem fere videntur valere
atque Trpoo-Sei/rai Trpos TT)V a^s aperrjv, atque ut verbo rem praeci-
dam irovrjpia hoc loco imperfectio valet, apery autem perfectio.
Sed tamen attendendum erat illud dp^s cum scriberet Plato iam
de alio eiusdem vocabuli significatu eum videri cogitasse. Nam
152 Greek Authors
6<f>6aXfjioi 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 ^w<o/^.oXoy^(reu. Sic posito
firex^ipei post ^uvw^oXdy^o-e obscuratur aliquamdiu saltern imper-
fecti ratio.
343 B dya^ov = ^vp.cj)epov.
Tramway avrovs '. avroirs = TOV? Trot/ievas Kal TOUS /Sov/coAovs.
Cf . crKOTreTv avrovs infra.
Legendum esse censeo oAAws TTWS 17717 SiaKeur&u TT^OS TOVS
dp^o/ievovs ^ a>o-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<o : atque adeo erras.
)( oixetos ( alienus )( proprius ).
Verba TOV K/aetrTovos re Kal dpxovTos per chiasmum opponun-
tur verbis TOV iri6ovp.evov TC Kal VTT^pCTOVVTOS. Post TJ 8c dSi/cui
intercidisse suspicor K<U TO aStKov.
TovvavTibv = contra.
ot 8' (= ol ws a\r)0><; 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 d<eAecT0ai.
avrovs '. = ipSOS.
344 C OVTWS : n= OVTO>S direSet^ij on.
344 E T xeipov " Te /SeXnov /3ia>crd/>i0a dyvoovvrts o <rv <^>^?
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; <j>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 <Ls dA^uis Troi/ieVa obiectum sit
<^vAa^ai verbi. Illud <vAa<u idem valet atque Trjpfjo-ai, id est,
intra finis propriarum suarum partium actionis continere.
Verba quae sunt Kal fufAAovTa eo-Tiao-eo-flcu, quasi additamentum
sint explicantis alicuius vim quae illi SaiTu/xoVa subest uncis
saepta velim.
345 D WO-T' etvai ySeArto-Ti; : praeoptarim equidem fteXTio-Trjv.
346 E EKWV hoc loco (in l&fXuv fKovra apxetv) idem valet atque gratis,
cum alias plerumque aut volens sit aut sciens.
avTolfTw: = ipsis.
347 A yiyvw<TKw )( ov ^VVTJKO..
<!)? . . . fiprjKas : ws particula aut idem valet atque TTW? seu
OTTWS aut emendanda.
347 A-B An SCribendum 81 ov e^eAoucriv ap^Eiv ol 7riKe<TTaTOi orav
347 B orav f&f\<aa-i.v apxuv post apxuv interrogationis signum
ponendum.
347 D An scribendum simpliciter 6 TO> 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 K<U Trorepws dXr)6f.(TTep<i>s.
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 <rv 8 . . . Aeyetv.
348 E wo-7rc/3 oAAot rive's : haud absurde mihi facere videntur qui
haec Gorgiae dialogi ratione habita iniecta esse putant.
349 A T<$ X6yw fTrf.$e\9elv CTKOTTOV/ACVOV : an secludendum r<5 \6y<p ?
Trfpl T^S aXydeuLs cor r upturn.
TI 8e <roi scribendum quoniam opponuntur invicem <roi et TOV
Xoyov.
349 B Pro ov&f r^s SiKatas equidem non graver reponere ovfic ravr^s,
nam quis ferre potest ovSe T^S Strata? post earn interrogationis
formulam quae praecessit ?
349 D ovSfTtpa : hoc vocabulum plural! numero sic usurpatum ex
pendet.
TOIOVTOS apa KT : sic intelligenda haec quasi sint TOIOVTO? apa
/torcriKov Se nva erepov Se a/xovcrov.
349 E aTTtp (f>povLfJiov: = yirep 0povt/AOV. a $ a<f>pova = y Se a<f>pova.
350 B <ro<t>o<; )( a/AadJ/?.
350 C <? yt o/Aotos e/carepos, TOtovTOv Kat CKarepov civat Omisso ctij
emphaseos causa.
o)/ioXoyov/u,v yap : yap = S^ra, z/^; - tf.
350 E TOVTO TOLWV (pwrSt OTrep aprt : an pro TOVTO substituendum
351 B TrdXtv ^at^? av aStKov tlvat : aStKov generis neutri.
TTOJS yap ov: scribendum non TTW? yap ou/<.
351 D Pro tyytyvo/AV77 Corrigendum eyyevoyMev^.
352 C jf^av pro i^co-av scribendum.
fifufioxOrjpoL : an legendum ^trcXct? ? nam praecedit
353 A aper^ et KO.KUL hie metaphorice usurpantur cum proprie ea
vocabula adhiberi exspectaverimus, qua eorum significations
immutatione vitiosa fit ratiocihatio.
Plato 155
NOTE ON SYMPOSIUM, 179 C. 1
Although the words that I would endeavour here to correct oc-
cupy but a small space, I quote the passage in which they occur
(symp. 179 B D) in extenso, in order plainly to show them in their
proper connection :
/cat /J-rjv VTTf.po.irodvyo'Kf.i.v y [Aovoi eOfXovcriv OL ep>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 <f>iXia Sia TOV tptara WCTT' airoSeiai avrous
ovras TO> viti /<ai ovo/ian /AOVOV Trpocn^KOvras. Kai TOVT' fpyaaa/Jifvr)
TO fpyov ovTd) KaXov ISo^ev epydcra.o'Oa.i ov p.6vov avOpiaTrois aAAa Kai $tots ware
TroAAtov TToXXa Kai KaAa fpyacrafjievvw cvapiOp,v)Toi<; 8rj ricrtv ISocrav TOVTO yepas
01 6eoi, l "AtSov dvte'vai 2 TraAiv TTJV (j/vxyv, aXX' a<^v^>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. 'Op<f>ea 8e TOV Oldypov aTtXij d7rre/LH/'av e
<f>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
<ao~Trep *AXK^o~Tts, dXXa 8ta/x?y^avao'6at ^iov eio"tvat eis 'AiSov.
Hommel's correction of dvetvat to dvu'vai, which had forced itself
upon me before I knew that he had made it, seems inevitable ; albeit
it has met with little or no favour with subsequent editors. The
traditional reading is easily explained as due to the following dveto-av.
As to the change that I would propose the following poi its must
be noticed. First, there is a sharp antithesis implied between
evaptO/jirJTois i/n^v and avTr/s (following the vulgate) TW Ipyw:
secondly, this antithesis is not expressed by the vulgate : thirdly,
the position of T^V $vxn v indicates that in the antithetical clause we
should have a term contrasted with it ; but T^V CKCI'V^S (sc. </^xT? v ) w i^
not suffice. We gain help from the story of Orpheus where <j>d<rpa
and aw?;, 'the real woman herself/ are contrasted. Reading avnp/
fKwrjv we have the woman herself as o-w/tia Kai I/M^T? contrasted with
the mere
NOTE ON THE APOLOGY?
Plato, Apol. 17 OVTOI fj.fv ovv, wo-7re/3 eyw Xeya>, 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<r/xr;/xeVovs dAX' d/covo-eatfe CIKJ? Xeydp.eva Tots 7riTvxovo-ii'
ovd/xa<ri Trwrrevw yap oY*caia eivat a Xeyeo /cat p-T/Sels vpxuj/ Trpoo-SoKTjo-aYw
aXXws ovSe yap av O^/TTOV TrpeVoi, a> avSpes, T/jSe T]7 ^AiKia wo-Trep /mpa<aa>
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'<T/>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 <ot> 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 <V>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 <f>ir)(rofji.tv Kal 7roAe/u,tovs <^>ixrei ctvai
Kai 7roA.e/Aov T-^V ^dpav ra.vTtjv K\rjTfOv "TEXA^vas Se "EXX7/<nv, oTav rt TOIOVTO
Spoicrtv, <f>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 <f>\>vu p.lv ^tXtous eivai, and in general the formula holds good that
expo's : <<.'Xos : : Ti-oXe'/uos : <i'Xios. As the commoner word, <i'Xos has
been substituted for <i'Xios in the MSS. in not a few places. I note
here the following : Lysias 12, 38 (read f/ <ls TrdXecs 7roXe/xts ovo-as
<^>4Xias eVot^crav), Xen. Anab. I, 3, 12 (read TroXXou yu,ei/ o^ios <t'Xos <2 av
^>t'Xios ij), ib. I, 6, 8 (read T e/x<p dScX^xp TroXt/itos, e/u,ot 8e <f>i\io<i Kal
TTIOTOS) .
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 22.]
MISCELLANEOUS GREEK AUTHORS.
ON THE INTRODUCTION TO APPIAN'S ROMAN
HISTORY, XI. 1
In the introduction to Appian's Roman History we read (cap.
xi. init.) Ta 8 'P<i>/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 \pov<u ; 81 fvfiovXiav Kal fvrv\iav. This Mendelssohn
thinks plausible. But Appian wrote as the words stand. The chiastic
contrast /xeyeflos : fvrvxia : : evftovXia : x/ooVos is the key to the whole pass-
age. At the end of this passage Appian says : lo>s eTrraKoo-iots Ireat
(j( p 6 v o s) ica*co7ra#owTS Tf. Kal Kiv&vvfvovrfs dyx<j>/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<ifj.ov seems certainly right. Professor Blass's
Srvyos in v. 9 gets rid of the difficulty about the appropriateness of
the epithet. Professor Jebb's fiaOvTrXoKap o spoils the rhyme with
opOo&Kov, which may well be intentional (cf. vv. 22 sq., where de\ios
is answered by oyuan Trpos). Besides Bacchylides's manner of ar-
ranging words favours an adjective before Koupa, agreeing with the
^From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 22.]
*(From the Classical Review, Vol. XII (1898), pp. 394-395.]
Bacchylides 1 59
substantive after it. Cf. xi. 28 sq. 7rayeVa> x"'v eXeua yXawci, v. 19
Sq. evpvavaKTOS ayyeXos Zi^vos tpi<r<j>apdyov, 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 <peva.s | Kaprepa eva(r' dvay/ca in
Bacchylides might very well have served as model for roiydp viv
O.VTO.S e/c do'/xun' ^crrprjcr' eytb | /xavicus opos 8' OIKOVCTI TrapeiKOTroi <pevu>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 (<ao-Kov Bacchyl. xi. 50), the women of Thebes for something
they denied (OVK l^acrnov Eur. Bacch. 27). Add to all this the fond-
ness of Euripides for describing madness and the consequent likeli-
hood that the passage in Bacchylides would have stuck in his
memory, and the resemblance between his verses and those of the
older poet may well be thought more than superficial.
xvi. 35. I fail to see that there is any objection to the expression
&U/AOVIOV re/aas here. It would mean a 'portentous thing.' It is used
for a 'portentous event' (or 'sight') by Sophocles in Ant. 375 (es
Scu/AoViov repas ajti<ivo<o). This poem seems to have been familiar to
Sophocles.
xvii. 20. Such a form as elpev was not strange to the grammar-
ians, to judge from the scholia on Horn. A 513 (KOI peTo 8evre/>ov
Here the Venetian scholia give ATJ/AT/TPIOS 6 'liW
v TO TO apdpov and the Townleyan 6 *I<W '/ceii elpc TO
I forbear to discuss the merits of ei/oe TO as opposed to
beyond remarking that Thetis does not properly 'ask' (in the sense
of 'enquire') anything. But would the reading et/ac TO have been
suggested or regarded at all had the form eipe been strange in itself ?
xvii. 82 Sqq. dA\* cv- | TTOKTWV CTT* ixptW | OTa0is opovore. Here I
venture to think we should substitute ewr' for r'. In Euripides,
Phoen. 1223 Sq., we find 'ETCOKXe'^s 8' virf}p O.TT opQiov orTaOds \ irvpyov
KcXtwo-a? o-Tya Krjpvai o-TpaToI, 'noch der Vorstellung,' as Dr Wecklein
says, 'dass seine Worte von dorther gehort wurden.' Cf. Phoen.
1009 O-TO.S e^ cTroX^ecov aKpwi/ and the other passages cited in Professor
Jebb's valuable note on Soph. Ant. 411. Perhaps in Phoen. 1091
160 Greek Authors
we should Correct irvpyw r' d*po)v O-TO.S to IT. air aKpoiv <r. In Soph.
Ant. 132 Mr Blaydes not unjustly queries whether we should not read
air' aKpwv for eV d/cpwv, and O.TT is found in V 4 according to Professor
Campbell.
DEMOSTHENES'S NICKNAME dpyS?. 1
In Plutarch's Demosthenes we read (4. 5) : 'O Sc dpySs KCU TOVTO
yap faiai TU> Aij[jiO(r0evci yevtcrdai Trapeuvv/uov ) Trpos TOV rpotrov ws
KO.L TriKpov fTt6rj TOV yap 6<f)Lv evLoi TOJV TroirjT(i)v d p y a v ovo/xci^ovcrtv
Trpos TOV Aoyov ws dviaJvTa TOVS aKpow/ievovs Kat yap Apyas rovvopa.
ty v6p.<av TTovrjpwv KOL dpyaXeW. Both these explanations of the nick-
name I believe to be wrong, and I also believe that the right expla-
nation is to be found in Aeschylus's Agamemnon, where we now read
in v. H4sq. thanks to the acumen of Blomfield and Hartung
these words : oiwvwv ySacriXevs ySatriXeCcri vtftiv, o KtAaivos o 8' C^OTTIV
which description of the two eagles is equivalent to : o /xv
o 8f Trvyapyos. Now what more natural than that some witty or
would-be witty Greek should from this passage take a synonyme
of irvyapyos (which, as opposed to fieXa/Mrvyos, was used to describe a
weakling) to throw at the head of the weak and frail Demosthenes ?
If my explanation of the origin of the nickname is right, we
should, of course, write it not d/oySs but dpyas.
ON HELIODORUS, AETHIOPICA*
Aethiop. IO. 14, 25 Sqq. Bekk. TI/S y prjv Kara rrjv xpoiav airopias
<ppdei p,fv trot KCU TJ Tatvia TIJV Xvcrw, of^oXoyovcrrfi ev avrrj Tavrr)(rl Tlep(rivr)<i
caTra/cevai TWO. eiotoAa. KOI <^avracria.<i 6/u.otOT7^Ta)v aTro TT/S Kara T^V
'A vSpo p, e'Sav Trpos <re 6/AiXtas opw/me'vT/s. i 8' ow Kai aAAws
wio-Two-ao-^at ySouXei, Trpo/carat TO ap^ervirov eTTio-KoVei rrjv 'AvSpo/Ac'Sav,
airapaXXaKTov fv rrj ypa<f>y 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.Trpocr<f>vX.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) ypa<j>rj
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
<re bpjXiav opo>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<i)Tr(av TW XP V V *""*?Aa yevrjrai, pyre epya /u.eyaAa re Kat #a>/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}<Tav a\Xrj\oi(n.. Quibus in verbis A-eyo/Ao/a pro yevd/Aeva verissime
coniecit anno 1716 Stephanus Bergler 2 . Neque id tamen satis:
diligentem enim interrogem lectorem qua ratione ad tpya referri
possint ilia rd re aAAa .... oAA^AoMri. Quid autem quod statim in-
secuntur fabulae de Graecorum Asianorumque inimicitiarum fonte
et origine varie utrimque narratae ? Ne multa, totum quo de agitur
locum sic refictum velim : 'HpoSorou 'AAtKapvi/o-o-eos la-ropirj^ dTroSe&s
^8c, <^yevofjLvtj^> <Ls p-rfff- fpya- /xcyaAa re. Kat doifjuKTra., ra fiev *EAAr;crt ra Se
Ba/3)8a/30icrt aTroSe^^evTa, dxAea yevrjrai pyre TO. Aeyo/Aeva e^ avdpfairw TW
\povw i^irrjXa yevrjrai, ra. re aAAa <^Kai 8^^> /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 e</jy o-e ^ TOVTO -n-oulv qu'on a forme
'[From Revue de Philulogie, Vol. XXII (1898), pp. 182-183]
Herodotus Homer 163
la locution ci/oyet <re TO fjLrj TOVTO Trotetv. C'est la la distinction que M.
Koch 1 a faite et dont M. Keelhoff ne semble pas avoir saisi la valeur,
"a moins qu'on en etende 1'application". Mais il me semble que
1'application est deja aussi etendue que possible. Lorsqu'on dit que
la negation qui fait partie de la phrase ou 1'infinitif est traite en
objet interieur peut etre inseree dans la phrase ou 1'infinitif se con-
struit comme genitif, on admet que les Grecs ont mele illogiquement
deux constructions bien disparates. Qu'ils aient fait un tel abus de
la negation, au moins a 1'epoque classique, cela ne me semble pas
tres probable a priori; et les exemples ne sont pas du tout con-
vaincants. Les manuscrits ont pu tres facilement etre defigures
sous la plume des copistes.
Quant a 1'emploi du genitif avec pve<rOai chez Herodote, M. Keel-
hoff n'a pas tout a fait raison. Car le codex R off re le genitif con-
struit avec ce verbe au livre ix, 76: pvo-at /u.e . . . SovAoo-wr/s, legon
adoptee par M. Stein dans son edition de 1884. Dans son Lexicon
Herodoteum s. v. pvto-Oai, Schweighauser avait depuis longtemps
ecrit, a propos de ce dernier passage, "ubi perperam olim Avo-eu [au
lieu de pva-ai] vulgo legebatur".
ON HERODOTUS II. 39.*
7rTa Se eV' avrov olvov [xara TOV Iprffov] eTTio-Tret'travTes *cai C7riKaA7avTs
TOV ^cov <r<f)a.ovari. I would strike out the words bracketed as a mere
gloss On eV avrov.
The older scholars found difficulty with the awkward Kara (i. e.
in the Greek of Herodotus). Schweighauser, Lex. Herod, s. u.
Kara, says on this passage:
'Interpretatus sum adversus victim-am; H. Stephanus, supra ho-
stiam; Gronovius, circa hostiam.'
OF TWO PASSAGES IN HOMER. 3
In commenting on Eurip. Ale. 64-69 I have called attention to the
1 La traduction frar^aise citee par M. Keelhoff me semble obscurcir en quelque
sorte le vrai sens de 1'original. Les mots " mais action" ne sont pas dans 1'original
(a moins qu'ils ne se trouvent dans une edition posterieure a la neuviemeh Les mots
"1'idee de 1'action principaie" forn-.ent une traJuction libre des mots des Inhalt, "le
contenu", terme qui s'cxplique par ceque M. Koch dit 83 en decrivant "1'accusatif
du contenu" (des Inhalts).
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), p. 73.]
8 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XI (1897), pp. 242-243.]
164 Greek Authors
rhetorical inversion of cause and effect in these verses and also to
the close parallel to be found in Aesch. Prom. 918-923, a parallel
that extends even to the expansion of the TOIOS sentence by a os By
sentence. Of course, however, the postponement of the TOIOS clause
is the essential common factor. In a note on Ale. 332 sq. the same
principle of arrangement is appealed to in defence of the traditional
text (barring oAAwsin v. 333, which should perhaps be changed, with
Wakefield, to oAAwv). Here oimos with an adjective is equal to a
specific TOIOS (roia). This defence was, I still think (with all due
respect to Mr Hadley), sound. But it is not my object at present
to discuss the instances of this form of sentence in the Alcestis, or
in the Tragedians at large (cf., however, for Sophocles Ai. 560-563),
but to deal with earlier examples of it.
A parallel to the first two passages cited above (Ale. 64-69, Prom.
918-923) is to be found in Horn. A 387-390:
tvO' ov8f ^etvds Trep etov 'nrir-qXaTa. TrSevs
.owes ea>v 7roA.riv /XCTO. KaS/ietouriv,
' o y af.6Xf.vuv 7r/oo/<aAieTo, vravra 8' evi/ca
TOL-rj OL eirippoOos rjtv 'A.d-r)vrj
The parallel would be complete in extenso, if the last verse were
followed by a relative clause beginning with rj 8rj (e. g. 17 &/ ol /u,eya
0a/>o-os evt <rrrfttanri (vfJKtv). With A 389-90 we may compare E 807-8,
even if v. 808 be an interpolation. E 826-8 has the former sentence
in the imperative, but the TOIOS clause is like (indeed, is nearly
identical with) that in E 808 and that in A 390. (With E 826-8
we may compare E 342 sq. with O 254.) In all these passages we
have a form of the qualitative TOIOS, and we may find another case,
or rather, perhaps, an extension, of this at 8 227 (cf. Eur. Med. 718
and 789), if we lighten the pointing at the close of v. 226. Similar
to this last is the use of the quantitative Too-osin i 243. Other (and
better) instances of forms of TOO-OS in the type of sentence we are
considering are : 326, T 295, E 836, I 546. The demonstrative
adverb ovru, without a following adjective, appears similarly used at
i 262. The absence of the adjective differentiates (though not
essentially) this example from Ale. 332 sq.
We come now to the passage that prompted the writing of this
note A 418. According to the traditional text Thetis says to
Achilles (v. 414 sqq.) :
Homer 165
o> /J.OI, re/cvov e/u,dv, rt vu o-' eTpe<f>ov ami
a<,0 o<eAes Trapa VT^VCTIV dSaKpvTos K
rj<rda.L, etrei vv TOI awra p.ivvvOa. irep, oti Tt /xaXa
" S > 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 <?
rj fj.ev TroAAat y' avrbv fOrjifjaavTO yvratKCs. 235
Here the otov clause is explanatory of o-iyaAdevra. The TWS sentence
immediately following, with its /mAa/cds, which is not in point after
to-^aAeoto, and its Aa/ATrpos ^eAtos ws, which makes a homely comparison
ridiculous by contrast, is, furthermore, awkwardly and unusually
connected with v. 235. We have only to reverse the order of vv. 234
and 235 (the present order is easily to be explained by a careless
reader's ready connection of TWS with otov and by the similar position
of p.fv in the two verses) to have the arrangement that is normal in
such sentences, as well as a greatly improved sense, indeed, I would
fain believe, the original form of the passage. Thus we shall read :
TOV 8e XITCOV' KTC.
rf fj,ev TroAAat y' avrov eOrj^cravro yvvcuKes * 235
TWS p.ev rjv /LuiAuKof, Aaju/Trpos 8' ^v ^e'Aios as. 234
There is a passage in Aeschylus (Prom. 907 sqq.) that belongs
with those discussed above, and should be read thus :
rj fjJtjv en Zcvs, KeuVep avOd&r) <povaiv,
0Tai TttTTttVOS ' TOIOV e^apTVETttl KTf.
i66 Greek Authors
Faith in the text of the Mediceus has led scholars, since Hermann,
to reject the vulgate for av6a&r)<> <f>pev<av in v. 907 (though that does
not so much concern us now) and to cling to otov where TOIOV is
clearly demanded, as Robortello long ago saw.
NOTES ON HOMER. 1
In Horn. Odyssey a 108 avroc seems to be generally misunderstood.
The passage should, I am quite sure, be understood thus (106-109) :
e.vpe 8' apa /j.vrjfrTrjpa's dy^vo/oas ot /u,y cTreiTa
Treoxroto-i TrpoirdpoiOe dvpauav dvfMtv IrepTrov,
77/zevoi fv pwoi<ri ftowv ous e/cravov, avroi
tcrjpvKes 8' avrouri KOL orprjpol Oepa.TrovTt<i KTC.
'They themselves were playing at TTCO-O-OI, seated on hides of oxen that
they had killed, while their heralds," &c.
In Horn. Iliad Z, after Antia's accusation of Bellerophon to
Proetus, we read (166) :
ois <j>a.TO, TOV 8e ova/era ^0X05 XaySev, otov aKOU<rev
KTelvai p.ev p dXccive creySacrcraTO yap TO yc 6vfj.ia
TTC/ATTC 8e p.w AvKt'^vSe, Tropev 8' o ye (Tripa.ro. Xvypd, KTC.
In the note to v. 167 in the Leaf-Bayfield edition we read: ( p:
probably a corruption of an original /:' = c, as in 158 above, A 524,
&c.' (Similarly in Mr. Leaf's large edition.) Now, however the
case may stand with the other verses cited, I am pretty well con-
vinced that the notion that p here represents f = c is wrong, and
for this reason. After the statement that the king became angry
at the monstrous accusation he had heard, we naturally expect a
statement of what he did in consequence of his anger, or, in other
words, we expect a sentence linked to what has gone before by a
conjunction meaning 'so,' 'therefore,' 'accordingly': and that is just
what the traditional text gives us in p' = apa (ovv, 817).
An ovv or 817 standing after the /u,ei/in the first member of a /*/ Se
complex and introducing to the Greek mind the whole complex, to
the modern mind the Si-clause, is a phaenomenon so common in
Attic Greek that it ought to be needless to cite passages. However,
inasmuch as the first chapter of the Anabasis seems to be commonly
misread, it may be well to place side by side with the Homeric
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), pp. 21-22.]
Homer 167
period just quoted the following: Xen. An. i. I, I sq. eVtl oe rjcrOtvei
Aapetos Kat v-rrtaTTTeve. TeXevrrjv TOV /3iov, /3ovXer6 ol TU> TratSe d/
irapelvai 6 /xev ow TrpecrfivTepos Trapwv ervy^ave, Kvpov Se
T>}S cipx*? 5 KT *-> (=7rapdvTos ow TOV 7rpe<r(3vTcpov Kvpov
y4. i. I, 4 (3ov\evcTai OTTWS /ar/Trore In Icrrai CTTI TO> 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' CI<IKVOITO TCOV irapa /3ao-t/\e<os TT/DOS avTov
TravTas OVTO) SiaTt^els a.TreTrefj,ire.To WO'TC cavTw //.aAAov <^>tAovs 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 <I>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* <f>tXov<ra rj&t] l<j>iXa. The words of Plutarch in Artox. 2, 17
Se pyTrjp v-TTrjpxf. TOV Kvpov jnoAAov <f>iXoi><Ta, seem to show that TW Kvpw
was not in Plutarch's text. (Plutarch [Artox. i] and Lucian \tiist.
comer. 23] read at the beginning of the Anabasis what' is probably
the right order A. Kat II . TraiSes yiyvovTat Suo.) Similarly the word
'ApTagtpZriv was added after TOV /3ao-iAeuovTa by some reader.
seems necessary after WO-TC because of the contrast with
Trap' lauTw is contrasted with Trapa /8ao-4Aews : SO /3ap/8apo>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 o<f>eXev 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. <?. 'suicide' ". Conferre possumus A 10
vouo-ov KaKi/v Aoi/zov. Atqui, nisi me fallo, eodem modo ea verba
intellexit Vergilius, qui, ut aperte confitear, in causa est ut haec
nunc scribam. Is enim Aen. 12, 603 mortem quam sibi ipsa con-
scivit regina Latinorum sic narrat : et nodum informis leti trabe nee-
tit ab alta ; qui versus vix dubium esse potest quin maiorem qui-
dem partem ex Od. X 278 expressus sit. Nam illic Epicasta ad
inferOS descendisse dicitur d^a/nen; ppo\ov alirvv d<' v^Xolo //.eAaflpov,
postquam nexit nodum ab alta trabe. At enim verborum quae sunt
informis leti nobis est ratio reddenda, quae verba mihi quidem ex
illo ddvaTos KaKos expressa esse videntur. Neque admiratione dignum
est si Vergilius in ea carminis sui parte quae Iliadem plus quam
Odysseam respicit atque redolet componenda dum forte aliquando
Odysseam compilat, quod inde desumpserit, id Iliadeo, ut ita dicam,
flosculo exornare studuerit 1 . Graece interpretari possumus Vergilii
versum hunc in modum : icai aimrai ftpo^ov Oavdrov KO.KOV a<f>' 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 KO<W>V. 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<p TOIOVTW TTpr)p.fv<o Koo-KtVa) the participle TfTprjfievw is merely
a gloss on TOIOVTO*. (See Mr Adam's note on TWV rotovrwv KOU d/couo-iW
in Apol. 26 A, and Thompson on Gorg. 493 B.) The view that
TtTprjfjiV(a is a gloss seems to be supported by the next sentence in the
Gorgias. It may be added that Professor Allinson seems guilty of
an inaccuracy when he speaks of a "perforated sieve." TCT/J^CT'OS (so,
too, TTpvirrjfjivo<i) may mean either "perforated'' or "having inter-
stices."
Of Professor Allinson's three arguments I am tempted to say,
oTcyav oil Swavrai. In the first place, the reference to the jar of the
Danaids does not "immediately" follow the clause in which KO&VOV
occurs. What immediately follows is a clause involving quite a
different figure and standing as a barrier between the Ko^wosand the
Tntfos. We need not, therefore, treat the second and third arguments
until we have examined the earlier part of the passage in its relation
to what follows.
Wealth, reluctant to revisit Timon, asks Zeus: "Will he (Timon)
ever stop bailing me out as fast as he can, as though from a basket
with a hoje in it, before I have wholly flowed in; wishing to get
ahead of the inflow, lest, tumbling in faster than he can bail me out,
I overflood him?" This translation fails to do justice to the original
in one particular, that the words ><5o-7rep e* KO<J>IVOV 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 <cre.
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 19.]
Lysias Sappho 171
Read el yeyenjTai. The omission of ye- in yeycvrjTat may have led
to the change of et to lav.
Or. 1 8, I v6vp.rjdrjT otoi Tivts ovres TroAtrai Kai avrol Kai wv Trpoa^Kov
TS KT.
Read ol TrpocnyKovres. The KOJ. . . . KOI form a correlation, 'both our-
selves and our relations'. Possible corruption from Kai rS>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,a<raiTe ; Add the nCCCS-
sary oV after ow; it might easily have been omitted in such a
position.
NOTES ON SAPPHO i. 1
The punctuation of this poem does not satisfy me in an important
point. To me it is one long sentence from al irora in v. 5 to the end.
I would place a period after IA0', after v7raevara a dash, and after
i&fXoiaa. (24) a dash, thus marking off the episode. eX0e p.oi KOI vvv
will then get its rights as the conclusion to oT irora KaTtpura. T/A&s. KOTO.
KaTcpwra and Kat vvv are clearly correlative. In other words, put a
period after e\0' (5), drop vv. 9-24, and the original scheme saute
auxyeux. (This incidentally proves the construction of x/>vow, 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 /?<o/ios T * used bv Simonides (* 4. [9.]
Bergk) concerning TWV iv fp/wMrvXms Qavovruv seems to have found
an echo among the Attic poets. I have noted the following apparent
reminiscences:
Aeschylus, Chorphoroe 106.
alSoVfieVf] <T<H (3 (I) p.OV &S T V JJL (3 OV TTttTpOS.
Euripides, Alctstis 995 sqq.
T v fi ft o s eras aXoyfov, 6 o T <r t 8' 6/xotus
T t /u a a a>, <7 e /8 a s fp.Trop<av.
(Cf. the context and the Schol. ad /oc.)
Aristophanes, Thcsmophoriazusac 887 sq.
Kax^ KttKw? ra/}' eoXoto Ka^oXct,
OO-TIS yc ToX/u.as crfjfia rov [$ <a p. o v naXtiv.
(Cf. context.)
NOTE ON XENOPHON'S HELLENICA II, 3, i6. 2
In Xenophon's Hellenica, 2. 3, 16, a slight correction is necessary.
ThuS : 1 8t, OTl TptOLKOVTa, CCT/XEV Kttl O^X IS, ^TTOV Tt Otl ^^^ WCTTTE/)
Tvpavvi'Sos Tavri/s T^s a/t>XV s XP^ val Tt/*6Xo'^tti, evrjOys *. In Lysias 12,
80 we read fo/8' oiv <acri /icXXfiv irpa(.w irXeta) \Q-pw a/uTots icrre T^ wv
firoir]<rav 6pyicr0. Here opyX,(.(rd(. IS illogical for opyrjv larf. (or XT).
It seems probable that Lysias had at first intended to end the sen-
tence with 6/ay^v lxT (x" because he had already used tor with
Xa/Mv); but he decided afterwards to vary the construction still fur-
ther: hence o/oyt?j-0e. We find something similar (in part) to this
in Lysias 1 6, 1 1 art roiv vfiwrepwv oVoi irepl xvySous 17 TTOTOVS ^ ras roiavras
aKoXacrias rvyxavovon ras Siarpt/Jas Trotovyufvoi, Travras avrovs
8ia^)dpovs ovras Kat TrXetdra TOVTOUS Trepi C/MOU XoyoTrotowras xat i
Here, if Lysias had not had TOVTOVS (after TrXfto-ra) already in mind
when he wrote the beginning of the sentence, or else had he not
carefully revised his written sentence, we should pretty clearly have
TTOVTaS TOVTOVS
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 413-414.]
* [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 22.]
Xenophon 173
DE XENOPHONTIS ANABASI. 1
Ei opinion! quam de Xenophontis Anabasis quattuor libris pri-
oribus separatim atque mature editis in Studiis suis Xenophonteis
defendit Hartmanus baud paulum ponderis inde accedit quod locum
ex ea Anabasis parte curiosa felicitate insignem in Panegyrico suo
respexit Isocrates. Nam conferantur inter sese loci qui sunt
Xen. Anab. 2. 4, 4.
CW yap TTOTC K<av ye
(de Persarum rege agitur)
eA0ovras eis rrjv 'EAAaSa ayyeiAai a>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-
<r a v T e s airriX6op.fv .
Cum in superioribus iam et dva/Sao-tv illam et Kara/Wiv summatim
descripserit Isocrates (cf. 145 sqq.), nonn'e apparet eum verbis
modo excerptis ipsa ea Xenophontis verba quae adposui tacite
laudare? Ad talium rerum peritos et incorruptos iudices securus
provoco.
SCHOLIA IN XENOPHONTIS ANABASIN. 2
I, I. 2. KCpov Se /ACTaTre/ATreTai aTro TJ/S dp^s TJS avTov (raTpairrjv eVotT7<re
omissis continue insequentibus Kat a-Tparrjyov 8 . . . d0pot?ovTat, quae
verba particulam efficiunt scholii antiqui quod plene sic fere fuit
SCriptum : <^<ra.Tpd.7rriv avrov eTroirj&f. AvStas re Kat <I>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<rt'ovs
(in Kat TWV 'E. 8e oirAtras rptaKOcrtovs I^ODV dve'/Sr;) ap^ovra 8e aurwv Hevtav
Ilappao-tov narrationis filum interrumpunt. Quominus vero ea Xeno-
phonti abiudicemus obstant duo loci, quorum alter est Anab. I, 3. 18
Kat eav fiev rf irpa^ts rj TraparrA^crta ofaTrep Kat irpoaOev e^p^ro rots Sevtov
1 [From Revue de Philologie Vol. XXVIII (1904), p. 255 ]
J [MS. notes.] ,
1/4 Greek Authors
(sic DobraCUS pro traditO 0/015), en-eo-ftu KOI 17/010?, /ecu firj KOKIOU? eivot
Ttov irpovQtv TovTw o-vmva/8avT<ov, alter autem est Anab. I, 4- 12 nal OVK
tffxKrav Itvai iav pr) TIS (i. C. Cyrus) aurots ^pT;/xaTa SiScC ocraTrep rots TT/JO-
T^XHS /nTa Kv/jou avaftacri irapa TOV iraTcpa aiirov (codd. rov Kvpov) /cai
raCra OVK TTI iro\ffj.<p IOVTOS, dAAo KaAoCvros TOU irar/jos (quae verba dum
exscribo Cobetum plerumque sequor). At nihilo minus non statim
atque ab initio haec a Xenophonte verba accessisse facile crediderim,
quippe quae, ut supra indicatum est, narrationem salebrosam red-
dant ; etenim his verbis omissis Tissaphernis ficta amicitia cum odio
vero eius arte atque luculenter componitur. Fortasse etiam post eos
scriptos locos quos supra laudavi omissam narrationis particulam
minus callide neque sic ut suturae non apparerent adsuit Xenophon-
Cf. Hdt. 3- I 'ETTI TOUTOV ovv TOV *A/ncuriv Ka^/Jixnjs o Kvpov fa
aytav nai aAAov?, TWV rjpx f > 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 p<v . . . rov St. No ; sunt quos must be
answered by something in v. 6, and that something is clearly
terrarum dominos = Romanes, whether Horace had Virgil's happy
phrase in his head or not. All this seems so plain that it fairly
makes one rub his eyes to find the latest editors ignoring it. The
late Lucian Mueller to be sure puts 'mit dem feinsinnigen J. Rutgers'
a; after nobilis (v. 5). But mirabile dictu although he writes
of v. 6 as a whole what were better written of terrarum dominos
alone , 'mit Emphase an den An fang gesetzt, im Gegensatz zu sunt
quos iuvat,' he yet takes terrarum dominos as appositive to deos.
But perhaps the good punctuation may outweigh the bad annotation.
Perhaps I may properly suggest at this point that in vv. 3-5
Horace primarily, it should seem, for reasons of metre did not
continue the construction of collegisse formally but merely infor-
mally. What he wrote, however, I venture to think equivalent to
sunt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum collegisse iuvat metamque
fervidis evitasse rods palmaque nobilitatos fuisse.
To return now to our interrupted discussion of the general mean-
ing of the poem, we have in vv. 3-10 the pursuits of nations (Greeks
on the one hand, Romans on the other) contrasted. In vv. 11-28
we have contrasted the pursuits of various classes of men; in vv.
11-18 we find the farmer and skipper, in vv. 19-28 the man of
ease and leisure and those that follow the strenuous life, whether
in war (vv. 23-25) or in the chase (vv. 25-28).
But how is all this, the non-personal part of the poem, connected
with the rest, the personal part? It could only be, it should seem,
by joining on to the non-personal contrasts a personal one, i. e.,
inasmuch as the poem is addressed by Horace to Maecenas, a con-
trast between Maecenas and Horace. But in the traditional text
we have nothing of the sort. Me doctarum hederae cet. follows
what we have been discussing just as if the matter had all been after
all a little sermon on the text 'Trahit sua quemque voluptas'. But
that that is not the burden of Horace's song has been clearly set
Horace . 179
forth above. Are we not then led to look with more favour upon,
nay even to accept, the old conjecture te for me in v. 29, detestatum
editoribus though it be? Modern Horatians might, I venture to
think, be about worse business than reading, marking, and inwardly
digesting Wolfs Commentatio ad Hor. Carm. I, I, 29 (Litterarische
Analekten II, 261-276). Orelli to be sure hints that Wolf may not
have been in earnest; but perhaps there was something wrong with
Orelli's sense of humour. Wolf was not playing a practical joke;
and it is needless to say that what he wrote is well written, whatever
you may think of the view he takes. To me at least the Commen-
tatio is convincing, although I do not think that Wolf made all IK
might have of his case. I have advanced above in favour of te an
argument from the contrasts in the ode that he did not make use of.
But he has argued well in favour of the need of a reference to
Maecenas at the close of the ode in a more pointed form than that
which the traditional text presents. Indeed, does not a very recent
editor (as others had done before him) comment on the lack of a
tu in v. 35? Wolf might indeed have said plainly (what is a fact)
that this whole poem is just one long sentence and that the only
place where you can put a full stop without spoiling it is at the end
of v. 36.
I wish to set down this poem in full in the form that I believe
Horace meant it to bear and with a rational scheme of punctuation,
but before doing that I would lay before the reader a set of notes
lately drawn up in which some of the points discussed above are
resumed and other matter pertaining to the division of the ode is
included.
1 i ) The ode deals not with the simple theme Trahit sua quemque
voluptas but with the complex theme Trahit sua quemque voluptas,
cui voluptati aliena voluptas semper est opposita.
(2) If the theme were the former of the two just mentioned, such
a climax as me . . . me . . . would be natural ; but inasmuch as the
theme is the latter, the climax should be itself a contrast of terms.
(3) There is throughout the ode a regular series of contrasts
nation contrasted with nation (Greeks X Romans), class of men
contrasted with class of men (agricola X mercator, desidiosus X
strenuus the strenui being represented by two classes: (a)
milites, (&) venatores), individuals contrasted (Maecenas X Hor-
ace).
180 Latin Authors
(4) The divisions of the ode should be observed. These are:
(a) Address to Maecenas (2 vv.) -f- Greeks and Romans (3+ 5
vv. = 8 vv.) = 10 vv.
( /8 ) Farmer (4 vv.) and skipper (4 vv.) 8 vv.
(y ) Man of ease (4 vv.) and men of action (6 vv., of which the
last two might be dispensed with without detriment to the sense)
= 10 vv.
( 8 ) Maecenas the lofty poet (i l / 2 vv.) and Horace the humble
poet (4^2 vv.), to which is added the climax and conclusion (2 vv.)
= 8 vv.
It will thus be seen that the poem falls into two divisions of 18
vv. each and that these divisions are severally subdivided into a
group of 10 vv. and a group of 8 vv. Furthermore, the first group
of 10 vv. is balanced with the second group of 8 vv. ; contrasted
nations are balanced with contrasted individuals ; the first two verses
(1-2) are balanced with the last two (35-36). Again the first group
of 8 vv., which deals with classes of men, is balanced with the
second group of 10 vv., which deals with classes of men, these two
groups forming the centre and core of the poem. The whole
scheme may be represented thus :
When we have grasped this arrangement we may perhaps see
why vv. 27-28 were added to vv. 19-26: it was that the scheme of
the second part of the poem (10 -(- 8) might match that of the first
part (10 -)- 8). Is it going too far to think that this poem was
built upon and around vv. 11-26? This question I shall take up
presently: following is the text.
Maecenas atavis edite regibus,
o et praesidium et dulce decus meum,
sunt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum
collegisse iuvat metaque fervidis
evitata rotis palmaque nobilis ; 5
terrarum dominos evehit ad decs
hunc si mobilium turba Quiritium
certat tergeminis tollere honoribus,
ilium si proprio condidit horreo
Horace 181
quidquid de Libycis verritur areis : 10
gaudentem patrios findere sarculo
agros Attalicis condicionibus
numquam demoveas ut trabe Cypria
Myrtoum pavidus nauta secet mare ;
luctantem Icariis fluctibus Africum
mercator metuens otium et oppidi
laudat rura sui, mox reficit ratis
quassas indocilis pauperiem pad :
est qui nee veteris pocula Massici
nee partem solido demere de die 20
spernit, nunc viridi membra sub arbuto
stratus, nunc ad aquae lene caput sacrae ;
multos castra iuvant et lituo tubae
permixtus sonitus bellaque matribus
detestata; manet sub love frigido 25
venator tenerae coniugis immemor,
seu visa est catulis cerva fidelibus,
seu rupit teretes Marsus aper plagas :
te doctarum hederae praemia frontium
dis miscent superis; me gelidum nemus 30
Nympharumque leves cum Satyris chori
secernunt populo si neque tibias
Euterpe cohibet nee Polyhymnia
Lesboum refugit tendere barbiton ,
quod si me lyricis vatibus inseres, 35
sublimis 1 feriam sidera vertice.
Returning o the question broached above I may note that Lucian
Mueller calls attention in his massive edition of the Odes (I, p. 131)
to a similarity (a "merkwiirdige Aehnlichkeit" he calls it) between
this Ode and the first Satire. That similarity is, I venture to think,
to be traced in the Ode in just one place, viz. vv. 15-18, and it
consists in the fact that the mercator while on the sea in bad weather
wishes himself snug at home in his native village. He is in so far
discontented with his lot and laudat diversa sequentis. Now this is
in the part of the first Ode about which it has been queried above
whether it were not the nucleus of the whole composition, and that
fact may afford us some reason for assenting to that view. Vv.
11-18 are very symmetrically arranged, more so than any other part
of the poem, and in thought they are most closely connected with
vv. 19-26 (to which latter verses it has been suggested above that
1 [But see Professor Earle's retraction of this reading in next article.]
1 82 Latin Authors
Horace added vv. 27 and 28 Sture/oas <povriSos). Vv. 3-11 are not
so symmetrical but make up the rest of the non-personal part of
the poem. In short, whether we do or do not assume, and it is, of
course, mere matter of curious speculation, that vv. 11-26 are the
original nucleus of the poem, it seems tolerably clear that a good
deal of the difficulty in the interpretation of the poem is due to the
grafting upon an originally impersonal poem of a personal poem,
the personal part consisting clearly of vv. 1-2 and vv. 29-36. That
the personal part was grafted on the impersonal and not vice versa
seems fairly clear from the fact that vv. 1-2 -|- vv. 29-36 make up
a total of 10 verses, a number not divisible by 4. On the other hand,
vv. 3-26 are 24 verses = 6X4- Thus working from the point of
view of the stanza and not, as above, from the point of view of the
divisions of the poem according to sense, we can see a reason why
vv. 27-28 verses so eminently Horatian that their authorship ought
never to have been called in question have been added, viz. to
round out the number 36. I am willing to risk the charge of incon-
sistency that my double demonstration (if demonstration it be) lays
me open to.
One more point. With te for me in v. 29 there is a clear contrast
between dis miscent superis in v. 30 and secernunt populo (=profano
vulgo) in v. 32. Again, the quod si of v. 35 means 'but if and intro-
duces a clause contrasted with me gelidum nemus . . . populo (the
si neque . . nee . . clause is a mere parenthetical proviso=modo . .
cohibeat . . . ). But if this be so, the last verse must have a dif-
ferent meaning from that usually assigned to it and will refer not to
Horace's pride but to his fame and dignity. Perhaps, it may be
added, we should in v. 35 write rather Lyricis Vatibus.
I have written on a very interesting subject at greater length than
I had expected to ; but perhaps I may be forgiven for adding in clos-
ing a quotation and suggesting a query. In the English-Latin edition
of Horace published in London in 1750 ('Begun by David Watson,
M.A. of St. Leonard's College, St. Andrew's; Revised, Carried on,
and Published by S. Patrick, LL.D.'), we read in the 'Key' to the
first Ode :
'After he has shewn, that every Man has a different choice, accord-
ing to his own peculiar Will and Fancy, in the pursuit of Happiness
here, he compliments his Patron in these Words : Hederae corona ex
hedera, quae sunt praemia doctarum frontium, miscent te, meum
Horace 183
Patronum & Fautorem, Dis superis. The Ivy, or Crown of Ivy, the
Reward of learned Men, rank you, my Patron and Supporter, among
the Gods above. As for himself, he, as all Men of good Sense and
Education, keeps himself at a distance from his Maecenas, saying,
Gelidum nemus & leves chori nympharum cum satyris secernunt me
a populo. The cool Grove and light Choirs of Nymphs with the
Satyrs separate me from the Vulgar. If the Muses Euterpe and
Polyhymnia will hear my Invocations, and you Maecenas, patronize
my Compositions, feriam sidera sublimi vertice, I shall touch the
Stars with the top of my Head, shall reach at the highest pitch of
Fame, which will last forever. That this is Horace's Meaning, is
plain from ODE XXX. BOOK III. where he says,' &c.
In the corresponding place in the 'Annotations' we read:
'All the editions of Horace had Me formerly, till of late it was ob-
served by the Right Reverend Dr. Hare Bishop of Chichester, that
if Horace wrote me, he had no need to wish for a cool Grove, for the
Company of the Nymphs and Satyrs, to be ranked among the Lyrick
Poets, and to touch the Stars with the Top of his Head, when he was
already among the Gods above, eating and drinking Ambrosia and
Nectar. We must suppose therefore that Horace is not speaking of
himself, but complimenting his Patron Maecenas, in saying that the
Ivy-Crown, the Reward of learned Men, exalted him among the Gods
above. We are not to imagine Horace was so ignorant of the way of
complimenting his Patron, as to prefer himself to him, upon whom he
was in Gratitude passing a compliment.'
This and more to the same purport: the date (see the end of the
'Key' to Ode I) 'this present year of our Blessed Lord 1739'. Let
the reader that 'gentle' and 'indulgent' creature of an earlier day
now open one of the latest modern editions, read text and notes, and
ask himself the question : Is interpretation a failure, or are the Hora-
tians played out?
NOTES ON HORACE. 1
Although in C. i. 2 I do not understand vv. 21-24, unless they are
to be read as a question and with acuisse understood by zeugma (in
the sense of commisisse) with pugnas (civis acuisse ferrum being
taken in the sense, demanded by the emphasis on civis, of in civis
acutum esse ferrum}, yet I am convinced of several things about the
poem. These are that we have the poem practically, at least, as
Horace wrote it and without any spurious additions; that k is his
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVIII (1904), pp. 391-392.]
!84 Latin Authors
earliest attempt in the Sapphic stanza ; that he consciously imitated
in it Catullus's eleventh poem (in vv. 5-20). The last point, which
I have treated very briefly in the Revue de Philologie (xxvii. 270) l ,
I consider specially important; but I would simply call attention to
it again here, adding, for the comfort of such as still believe vv. 5-8
in Horace's poem to be spurious, that terruit Urbem, \ terruit Gentes
finds a very curious and noteworthy echo in the movit Achillem, \
movit Aiacem of C. 2. 4. 4 sq.
Some queer things are commonly printed as part of Horace's
text. But because Bentley was at fault in grammar is no reason why
we should prefer in C. i. 3. 37 nil mortalibus arduist (or ardui est) in-
stead of nil mortalibus arduum cst (or arduumst). The sense de-
manded by the context is not nil ardui mortales habent, but nil adeo
arduum est ut id mortales non scandant. Nor because Bentley re-
jected de Prado's simple and rather obvious correction quanta for
quinta in C. I. 13. 16, should others do the same, even though they
do not follow Bentley in accepting Porphyrion's absurd explanation
but write equally edifying matter about the quinta essentia.
In C. i. 12 v. 45 is a troublesome bit, and I am not sure that I
understand what a tree that grows occulto aevo is. For a time I
thought that Professor Bennett's occulte for occulto was right; but
I now see that the traditional crescit occulto velut arbor aevo is de-
fended by two other passages in Horace. These are C. 2. 2. 5 vivet
extent o Proculeius aevo (which also proves Heinsius's arvo to be
wrong) and Epistt. i. i. 80 multis occulto crescit res faenore (cf. in
the same poem, v. 64, et maribus Curiis et decantata Camillis with
C. i. 12. 41 sq. hunc et incomptis Curium capillis \ utilem bello tulit
et Camillum). I may add here that I now see that C. i. 15. 31 sub-
linii fugies mollis anhelitu is good proof that I was wrong in printing
in this Journal 2 (xvi. 400) sublimis feriam sidera vertice, instead of
sublimi feriam sidera vertice, in C. i. i. 36.
Before leaving C. i. 12 I wish to make what I believe is a necessary
correction in v. 55. Moritz Haupt could not endure sive subiectos
Orientis orae, and proposed for it seu superiectos Orientis orae
a conjecture which received the unmerited honour of a place in
Zangemeister's Index. A simple correction of the verse seems to
1 [See below, p 209.]
1 [See last article.]
Horace 185
me to be the substitution for orae of a word for which it could easily
have been miswritten, to wit, aurae. Cf. Lucan Phars. I. 16, with
Francken's notes.
I will add here two notes on S. i. 6. In v. 4 Palmer saw that
imperitarunt, the least well attested reading of the three imperi-
tarint, imperitarent, imperitarunt, was not impossible Latin. I
would go further and affirm that the tibi in v. 3 makes imperitarunt
alone possible; for the sense is non quod avum habuisti maternum
atque paternum olim qui magnis legionibus imperitarunt. The
editors seem to have understood subconsciously tibi as tuus a
very different thing in such a context. Again in vv. 42-44 we read
At hie, si plostra ducenta \ concurrantque foro tria funera, magna
sonabit \ cornua quod vincatque tubas. Here Heindorf's pointing
restores the sense of the sentence as a whole; but neither he nor
anyone else, so far as I know, has observed that tubas is needless
after cornua and that nothing is said in the apodosis of the sen-
tence about the noise of the wagons. I would read cornua quod
vincatque rotas. It is hardly necessary to remark that this reading
introduces a very neat chiasmus.
NOTE ON HORACE, CARMINA I 3, I-8. 1
If the first two stanzas of this ode mean what most editors have
thought they meant, two things follow : first, there is no reason why
the first stanza should have been the first and the second stanza the
second indeed, it would be a great improvement if the two stanzas
were to change places ; secondly, Horace wrote arrant nonsense here ;
for surely no one that gave thought to what he wrote would, in the
days before navigation by steam, have begun a poem addressed to a
friend about to sail for England on this wise :
O ship that bear'st my friend away,
If thou shalt bring him safe to land,
May western gales speed well thy way,
Until thou reachest that far strand.
But these two stanzas do not mean what most of the editors have
thought they meant. Among recent editors of the Odes Pro-
fessor Bennett alone seems to have rightly explained the connection
of thought in this passage. The explanation amounts to this, that the
1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXIV
(1903), pp. xxii-xxiii.]
jg6 Latin Authors
words finibus atticis reddas incolumem et serves animae dimidium
me M express not the condition of a benediction, but the result
of a desired action (regat). In other words, sic is not=/iac lege or
hac condicione, but is=hoc modo. Mr. Bennett writes: "We should
naturally expect these words [Sic . . . Vergilium} to be followed
by an f-clause (ut reddas, serves}, instead of which, by a simple
anacoluthon, the poet employs jussive [read: precative] subjunctives
(reddas, serves}, explanatory of sic, 'may the goddess guide thee
thus [better : may the west wind guide thee thus] ; bring Vergil un-
harmed to the Attic shores, and save the half of my life.' " This
explanation of the connection of thought, though it is original with
Mr. Bennett, and has also been advocated by Professor Knapp in
his teaching, is far from being new. C. W. Nauck's explanation in
his edition (i3te Aufl., 1889; iste Aufl., by Weissenfels, 1899)
ought to amount to the same thing, but is not clear either in thought
or expression. In the edition of Horace brought out by Anthon in
1830 the same explanation is adopted from the edition of Hunter of
1797. Here, as in many another place, the older students of Horace
seem to have been wiser than the ewtyovot. Anthon himself backslid
in his smaller edition.
But I believe we can and should go farther than Hunter and Mr.
Bennett have gone and that we should restore the ut after Vergilium.
I base this opinion not so much on the surprising parataxis as on
the position of the word precor. Read the two stanzas as Mr.
Bennett would have us do, and the precor falls heavily with reddas
and serves, the sentence still, by reason of the parataxis, breaking
pretty sharply in the middle. But the precor should surely be
brought into connection with the sic-clause. Insert ut after Vergi-
lium, read with proper emphasis and, so far as possible, in one
breath, and precor knits up, as it were, the two strands of the sen-
tence, and its force is clearly felt to pervade the whole, the et serves
animae dimidium meae falling in as a sort of graceful and emphatic
afterthought.
This restoration, as I am convinced that it is, of Horace's text
had been suggested before; in Keller's Epilegomena zu Horaz Doe-
derlein is sneered at for advocating the insertion of ut. I can at
least rejoice, like Odysseus, ovvex eraipov en/eo Xcwo-a) ev dyoivi.
Horace 187
HORATIANUM. 1
In eo carmine quod inter Horatiana est I. vi. menda baud ita sunt
pauca. Nam primum quidem nemo umquam nos docebit qualis sit ilia
avis quae versu secundo commemoratur. In eodem aviario iam du-
dum includi oportebat Maeonii carminis ales atque ov0os ille wrTraAeK-
rpvtav. Vix fieri potest quin manum Horatii feliciter restituerit
J. Jones (v. Muellerum in loc.) qui aemulo pro alite rescribendum
coniecit. Neque recte faciunt hodierni editores, dum spreto Mureti
et Bentleii acumine perversum illud quam rent cumque retinent.
Apertissimum debebat esse Horatium scripsisse qua rem cumque
ferox navibus aut equis, i. e. quocumque modo, sive navibus sive
equis. Neque vero ullo modo Horatio vindicari possunt inepti
hoc quidem certe loco versus qui sunt 13-16. Porro equidem vix
dubito quin cum Bentleio versu 18 strictis scribendum sit, etiam si
eius coniecturae auctor perperam verba quae sunt in iuvenes cum
strictis arte iuncta voluit, cum hyperbati ratio eum docere debuerit
ea verba cum acrium esse coniungenda, ut intellegerentur virgines
unguibus, non gladiis, destrictis in iuvenes acriter pugnantes.
At ista satis nota sunt omnibus omnia, quamvis spreta sint atque ne-
glecta ; nunc ad novum, quod sciam, repertum venio. Extrema car-
minis verba correctoris qui sibi videbatur nisi forte commentator
is erat manum experta conicio. Nam attende, quaeso, quid tradi-
tum sit : vacui sive quid urimur, non praeter solitum leves, i. e. sive
vacui sumus sive quid urimur, non praeter solitum leves. Intenta TU>V
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 <ei> festinanti
(=dum festinat) locupletior <alter>. 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 <povTi8os poeta adicerit. De versus 29'
emendandi ratione cum Luciano Muellero sentio. Denique de versu
40 aperte necesse confiteamur ne particulam prorsus abundare.
Aut Horatium fefellit negationis ratio aut quod magis ad pro-
bandum inclino pro dum ne erat dummodo rescribendum. Sed,
ne ipse in eandem suspicionem quam evitare Horatius studuit incur-
ram, verbum non amplius addam.
DE HORATII SATIRA PRIMA. 2
BpoTottriv ov8tv ecrr* airwfjMTOv. i/rcuSei yap rj CTTLVOUL rrjv yvoiftiyv.
Putaram omnino me Horatii satiram primam iam absolvisse, sed
ecce iterum eo recurro. Neque tamen quidquam eorum quae eo de
carmine vel potius sermone hoc in diario nuper scripsi 3 mutatum aut
1 [See above, p. 191.]
1 [From Revue dc Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), pp. 35-36.]
1 [See last article.]
194
Latin Authors
damnatum velim praeter unum alterumve ex minutioribus ; de ad-
dendo potius quam de subtrahendo nunc agitur. Ac primum quidem
in versu 27 addendam esse censeo ut particulam, qua inserta hunc in
modum decurrent versus 23-27 :
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 <ut> 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, <s>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
<iam> 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 <ita> 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 <ita> 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<ita~>
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 <gwa > 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; <Cna>>, 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 <tu> 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, <qui> 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>; se<d> diligentius intuenti visus est
quasi homo.' Near the beginning of c. 12 we might well expect to
find 'Et erat omnino formosissimum et impensa <cum> 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<fSot/ca p.y OVK ?x<>
on 8S> CKatTTw rtav <iA.wv, av eu yevijrai, dAAa fir] OVK Ir^a) IKOVOUS ots o<a f and
also in the similar passage Xen. Anab. II. 4, 19-20 : ov&e yap av
TroAAui yf<f>vpai OKTIV, l^otyu.ev av o TT o i <vyovTes ly/teis <r w to /A c v av 8e
qfLeis viKoJ/xev, AeAvju.^? T^S ye<vpas ov^ l^ovtrtv tKetvoi OTTOI <f>vy<a<riv.
The construction appeared to me then, as it still does, after com-
parison of other passages, one of purpose ; for we might grammati-
cae causa write in the former passage OTTCJS (av) avrots 85, and in
the latter TOTTOV eTriri/Seiov OTTWS (av) Kei(re <^>vyovTcs 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 <X lv **'
ols 4> 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<a TI (or o rt) eiiro), non habeo quid dicam, where the indirect
question is obvious. The transition from OVK rj(a o n e?ira to i\<a o
n eiTro) might be easily made, although in the latter all trace of the
indirect question disappears. Other similar examples are cited by
Kriiger (Gr. Gr. 54. 7, A. 2), in all of which the leading verb is
exw. These are Plat. Symp. p. 194 D [another of Professor Tar-
bell's examples], eav povov IXQ T< P 8 ia \eyrjrai, and Xen. Oecon. 7, 20,
ev on e tcr< e'p wo- 1 v. In Plat. Phaedr. p. 255 E [one of Professor
Tarbell's examples, wrongly cited as 254 E] and Lysias in Andoc.
42, we have the same construction, if we accept Bekker's emenda-
tion o n Aryjj for 5 TI A.ey, which the sense seems to require. Com-
pare also Plat. Ion. p. 535 B, where we find dbro/oeTs o TI Aeygs and
ewopeis o n Aeyj/s in the same sentence ; here the transition is espe-
cially simple. Even if we explain ewopels o n Aeyj^ as an indirect
question [though it seems clearly quite equivalent to e^as o n Acygs,
cf. iTnrtov evTropiyo-avTesz^fHTrovs Axi/Jdvres, Xen. Hdlen. I. 35], it seems
a perversion of language to apply that name to the others as Kriiger
does. Of course, these remarks will not apply to the doubtful ex-
ample Thucyd. vii. 25, discussed in the note ['. e. in an insertion
in Felton's commentary on Isocrates Pan., loc cit.], or to the cases
of the optative there quoted.' The passages from Plat. Symp. and
Xen. Oecon. are cited in the Moods and Tenses (loc. cit.).
Goodwin's note referred to in the last quotation deserves to be
given here in full, as follows:
'The subjunctive and optative are very rare in this construction
in Attic Greek, the future indicative being the only regular form
In Homer, however, the subjunctive and optative are commonly
Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses 215
used, this older construction corresponding precisely to the Latin,
as the relation of the two languages would lead us to expect.
Another (doubtful) Attic example of the subjunctive may be found
in ThuC. Vli, 25 Trpe'o-yScis ayoucra, oiTrep <f> p d<r <a <r iv, Ktu . . . e TT o T p v -
v w o- t v. Kriiger, in his note on this passage of Thuc. (2nd
edit., 1861), is very severe on those who retain ol-xtp with the
subjunctive, for which he substitutes OTTWS on the authority of a
single MS. [Classen's note on the passage (2nd edit., 1884), is this:
'OTTIOS aus dem vat. st. otTrep von den neueren Herausgg.
aufgenommen, da das Relativpronomen mit einem Konjunktiv des
Zweckes im attischen Sprachgebrauch nicht nachzuweisen ist.']
He explains <f>i\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 <TvA.A.a/3oiTO,
Soph. Phil. 280 ; yovifjiov 8(. TTOIIJTTJV av ofy evpots tri ^rjrtav av,
OO-TIS prjfw. yevvalov X a K o t, Aristoph. Ran. 96. In ver. 98 of the
Ran. we find the regular Attic construction, <xrrts <J>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<j>' 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<a in
Romaic), 3, 'I am able' Svm/tai, and of OO-TIS i. An indefinite
or general relative, 2. TIS introducting an indirect question. To
exw 1 answers CO-TI with a personal pronoun in the dative expressed
or understood, and the definite or particular relative may, as we
have seen above, be used as well as the indefinite or general, though
this is less common.
It remains for me, before enumerating and commenting upon
Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses 217
some examples which I have collected from my own reading, to
examine the three examples which Professor Tarbell gives of a
so-called deliberative clause after other verbs than e^w and for*.
Soph. Phil. 938 : iifj.lv TaS', ov yap aAAov oto" ora Aeyw may be
paraphrased ov yap aAAov x>, 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<ao-ews obropa), oY rjvrtva. Ae'y a> VTrep NIKIOU TavTow = \<a 7rpo<^a<rtv
KT(. where also the antecedent is expressed.
In Soph. Phil. 279 SC 191' oputvra. fj.1v vavs, as l^tov evavoroA.ovv, |
ireuras ySe/Joio-as, dvSpa 8* ovSeV CVTOTTOV, | ovx (aVSpu) OOTIS dpKeo-ctev,
ovS* (dvSpa) OOTIS votrov | Ka.fj.vovn <rvAA.a/8oiTO, the object of opwvra
is not vav? but vavs ySe/Swo-as (the fact of their departure), and it does
no violence to the thought to supply Ixovra governing avSpa. At
all events, the expression is but a short step beyond the customary.
In the first of my examples from the Anabasis (vid. supra) x<u
is evidently ex 40 ' an( 3 the sentence is to be explained like that in
Isocr. Pan. In Romaic one would say S(v) <f>opovfuu (<o/3o>uu) va
//v lx< TITTOTC va 8 <i> <r o) (8d>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 ex<o as Ix*) 1 , it may
be understood as tx "* an d the dependent clause will then contain
a deliberative subjunctive. In Xen. Hellen. I. 3. 21 and I. 4. 15 there
is a like possible ambiguity.
In Soph. Antig. 270 sqq. : ov yap e?xo/tev | ovr* avTufxavclv ovO
OTTWS Spwvres KaXois | Trpa&u/xo', the infinitive in the first member seems
to prove (as Professor Jebb thinks, who cites as parallel At. 428, cf .
his note ad loc.) that ex** nere is lxw a .
Eur. Orest. 722 sq. : KOVK IT' eicrtv \7riSe?, I OTTOI Tpa.Tr6fi.evov 6a.va.TOV
ApyaW ^vya) is another instance of the purpose-construction.
Eur. Ale. 1 2O sq. : OVK t\(o e?rt Tiva | fj.r)\o6vrav iropevOSt KTC. seems
clearly an instance of cxw 2 as shown by the interrogative pronoun.
Aesch. Ag. I53O sqq. : d/*>7x av ^ <povn'8os o-Tep^^els OTTO TpaTTW/xat
is again an example of the indirect deliberative. Notice that here
the phrase afirjx^vS) ^>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<r6' oiroi TIS Tra/xiXvo-tu (MSS
Aikrat, Nauck Xwret), Aesch. Prom. 2QI sq. OVK lo-riv OTCO \ ftet^ova
poipav vtifjuup.' % o-ot (cited by Jerram, ad Eur. Ale. loc. cit.}, Aesch.
Cho. 172: OVK eoriv CKTTIS -irXrjv tp.o\> 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\<o with the inf. The special
"modal" force of the ei protasis, which has been so admirably
brought out by Professor Gildersleeve, seems most readily explained
in this way.
OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN RELATIVE CLAUSES AFTER
OK lernv AND ITS KIN. 1
In the last volume (VII.) of the Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology the first place (pp. 1-12) is occupied by an article by Pro-
fessor William W. Goodwin entitled On the Extent of the Delibera-
tive Construction in Relative Clauses in Greek. This paper reviews
in part the discussion started by Mr Arthur Sidgwick in the
Classical Review of April, 1891, and also sets forth Mr Goodwin's
latest view of the matter. I have been prompted to write what
follows by the fact that Mr Goodwin takes no notice of a theory
broached by me in Some Remarks on the Moods of Will in Greek
which appeared in the Transactions of the American Philological
Association for 1895 ( v l- XXVI. , Proceedings of the Special Ses-
sion, 1894, pp. l.-li.) 2 but credits me with a view of the subject of
the discussion that I have expressly abandoned. It is with a certain
hesitation and regret that I thus express my disagreement on an
important matter of Greek syntax with one to whom I like so
many others owe the first impulse to the study of Greek syntax;
but I venture to do so at once in justice to myself and with a desire
to contribute to the ascertainment of truth in regard to the debated
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), pp. 421-424.]
1 [See last article ]
The Subjunctive in Relative Clauses 223
construction. I begin with a brief discussion of certain of Mr
Goodwin's statements.
At p. i Professor Goodwin speaks of the clauses in question as
seeming 'to lie in the borderland between indirect deliberative ques-
tions and final relative clauses.' Now both the indirect deliberative
question and the final relative clause are 'subjunctive' developments
of the primitive 'hortative.' Thus the 'hortative' iw/v let's go
I use the colloquial form to distinguish the exhortation from the
appeal becomes, when treated as an interrogation, IOI/ACV ; shall
we go? in which the question is put (and this is to be emphasized)
to the subject of the verbal form minus eyw, the action being at the
same time conceived as to be performed by the entire subject, ?//*?.
This interrogative iwftev ; may, of course, be subordinated (indirect
deliberative question). The 'final' clause, whether of the Iva type
or of the relative pronominal type, subordinates, or makes a 'sub-
junctive' properly so-called, of uo/xev let's go. The pedigree of
the divergent uses of the same verbal form may be indicated thus :
i Hortative
2 Deliberative
3 Indirect deliberative 4 Final "pure"
5 Final "mixed" (relative ad-
verb or pronoun admitting av)
Mr Goodwin's 'borderland' lies between 3 and 5 and is, as appears
in his subsequent discussion, a territory of analogy whether true
or false is beside the question.
I have been at pains thus plainly to set forth the genealogy of
these uses because some of the disagreement among those that have
engaged in the discussion I conceive to be due to the disregarding
or ignoring of the steps in the development of the several uses of
what we call collectively the subjunctive. That I have been guilty
of the fault of which I venture to accuse others I have elsewhere
(Transactions 1895, loc. cit.) admitted; and I here again concede
that in claiming that I was in error in seeking to derive the form
of clause in question from the relative clause of purpose Mr. Hale
is entirely in the right , and that too although I do not admit the
224 Greek Grammar
truth of all that Mr Hale has said in his 'Extended' and 'Remote'
Deliberatives in Greek in refutation of my former position. But
it is not my intention to deal now (if ever; for we differ, e.g., toto
caelo in our understanding of the primitive force of the subjunctive)
with Mr Male's arguments. It is, after all, of little moment in the
case at issue to discuss the legitimacy of the steps by which the
falsity of a position that one has taken up has been shown, if one
but admit the falsity. But to return to Mr Goodwin's paper.
At p. 2 Mr Goodwin gives as types of the construction in ques-
tion the following:
f\(.w e<* ols <f>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<i>, / 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 <f>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<a, when OVK x<o = airopSt,
should not, I must believe, be "I have nothing to say" but / have
no knowledge what I am to say. The same remark applies to OVK
X<> 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 </jovri8s. I am sorry
that Mr Goodwin regrets my 'bringing up in judgment against him'
his note of 1863; but then he has brought up in judgment against
me opinions that I have expressly modified (Transactions, 1895,
loc. cit.).
I should anticipate too much of my own theory (only a restate-
ment, after all), were I to take up the affirmative forms x eiv '*'
ols ^iXorifi^wo-iv etc. at this point. Their explanation follows
from, or better, goes hand in hand with that of the negative form.
The example from Plato's Ion (discussed pp. 3 and 4) proves
what the forms of expression used in the debated construction prove
elsewhere, viz. that the Greeks did not hold the relative and the
interrogative sharply asunder at all stages of their development.
It does not prove that the two expressions are to be explained as
steps in one and the same course of development. Secondary con-
tamination does not prove primary community of source.
I need* hardly say in respect of the second paragraph on p. 4 that
I deny Mr. Goodwin's major premiss that o n 8o in the passage
in the Anabasis is an interrogative clause.
The paragraph beginning 'We have thus come' (p. 4) seems to
bring some distant hope of a nearer agreement; for Mr Goodwin
here appeals to the force of the independent interrogative IX0<yv ;
as the interrogative of the independent hortative cX&o/iev.
At p. 6 Mr Goodwin at length gives what it could be wished that
he had given earlier, examples of the debated construction dependent
upon a form of emu (Eur. Orest. 722 etc.). Curiously, as it seems
to me, he treats this formula as a development of the t\ uv formula,
not vice versa.
226 Greek Grammar
At the same page Mr Goodwin concludes his discussion of the
subjunctive per se by giving his formal approval to the term 'ex-
tended deliberative.' Inasmuch as his subsequent treatment of the
optative is directly dependent on his treatment of the subjunctive,
I may be permitted to set forth here what I venture to believe to
be the true explanation of the construction under discussion, an
explanation at which I have already 1 more than hinted. 2 This brings
us back at once to genealogy.
It seems but fair to take as the primitive use of the subjunctive
(using the term in its commonly accepted wide sense) that which
is simplest and which has best stood the test of time in independent
use, viz. the 'hortative.' "Iw/wv let's go and /; taytev let's not go
'[See last article.]
* I venture to add here in the form of a foot-note remarks on one or two
points in Professor Goodwin's treatment of the optative in his paper.
In Class. Rev. 1893, p. 451", I have offered an explanation based on analogy
and which I still believe to be correct of the opt. in Soph. Track. 903. In
Ar. Ran. 97 why should Xrf/cot not be treated like vtfuj/cie in Eur. I.T. 588?
The one verb 'expresses purpose' just as 'clearly' or unclearly as the
other. The 00yrr<u in the next verse is not unnatural. We pass from a
should (for a shall) utter to a more independent will utter. Thus the opta-
tive would be due to attraction or assimilation. Inasmuch as /tAXot ftor/d^fftif
(p. 9)= /So^ijorot, it were better treated simply as a nfrXci ftoijff^ffeif that has
turned optative by assimilation, just as a /3oi?0i}tr might. After what Mr
Goodwin says about 'a distinct conditional force' in the example just alluded
to I will not venture to discuss the reference to my own attitude of mind that
he makes in the footnote on p. 10. Our points of view are too widely separ-
ate. It need hardly be said that in discussing Soph. Phil. 270-282 I believe
Mr Jebb to have gone too far back when he says that the dependent optatives
here represent direct questions (rfs apK^a-g ; and rls ffvXXd^rai ;). In my view
they should rather be treated as optative mutations of ol/m dp^yy and OITU
fl-uXXdjSijrai in analytic form. With Mr Goodwin's remark (p. n) that 'the
difference between bpG>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 <f\.-subjunctive
(4 b w-subjunctive with av)
6 Final "
e"
7 Final " mixed' 1
The theory that I have abandoned would derive the subjunctive in
the clause dependent on OVK lortv (OVK fort /MM, OVK fyw: for
so I would evolve the common form of the introductory sentence)
from 7; the theory of Mr Hale accepted by Mr Goodwin would
derive it from 5 ; the theory held here and in the Transactions for
1895, would derive it from 4. I may add, without in any way aban-
doning my position, that the persistence in Attic Greek of this
derivative of 4 at the expense of the derivative of 46 (with av) may
be explained by the formal influence of 5 upon 4.
Though Mr Goodwin has not in the paper that I have just ex-
amined treated the optative without av in relative clauses dependent
upon OVK eoriv and OVK \<a in the present, I may add that it
follows as a corollary from the theory just set forth in respect of
the subjunctive that this remarkable optative in Attic Greek is a
survival of the ou -optative. The noteworthy sequence marks it as
archaic and archaistic.
A SUGGESTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
GREEK OPTATIVE. 1
The term 'potential' as applied to the optative with av is elastic,
1 [Fiom the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), pp. 122-123.]
The Development of the Optative 229
not to say vague. Strictly speaking, one may venture to think, it
should be applied only to that phase of the optative with av which
is equivalent to the optative of Suvotrftu with av and the infinitive
of the verb in question (\voifu av 8wai/;v av Aveiv) . Besides
this the optative with av has often a plain desiderative, or
inclinative force, being then equivalent to the optative of fiovktvOat
(or e0e\v) with av and the infinitive of the verb in question, or
tO itself plus iJSe'ws (Avoi/u.1 av = ($ov\oipqv av A.VCIV, or ^Sews av Avoi/u) .
In other cases a condition, more or less formally expressed,
is emphasised, and the optative may be termed 'conditional'
or 'contingent.' This use seems readily derivable from
the desiderative, or inclinational, use. (Cf. Eng. 'would.') The
optative of polite request ( Ae'yois av ) seems to have similar
affinities, though it differs from the optative of inclination, in that
the inclination or desire is that of the speaker, not that of the sub-
ject of the verbal form. The change from the first to the second
person, as well as linguistic parsimony, is responsible for this shift.
Thus Xcyois av = ftov\ofp.r)V av ere Aeyeiv, Or Ka6' iJSovT/v av />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 <rot Xaftf.lv) and Xdftoi (ou
Xdftot). The reflex (the answer to the prayer as reported by the re-
cipient of such answer) would take the forms \d(3oifu (ov \a/3oi/u) and
Xdfioi (ov Xdftoi), or in the latter case, if addressed to the person for
whom the prayer had been offered, Aa/3ois (ov Aa/3ois).
The desiderative use of the optative Xvoifu (ov Xvoifu) = /3ovAo/u
(ov ftovXofjMt) Xvav will naturally appear (like the future) in all persons.
(The peculiar turn given to the second person of the oV-optative has
been discussed above). Here we have the origin of the optative of
inclination in what might be called a secularised prayer.
The reflex of the precative mentioned above Xd(3oip.i (ov Xaftoi/u)
may be regarded as an expression of ability (or inability). Thus
Xdfioifu (ov Xdfioi/jii) = SvvafjMi Xaflelv (ov SvVa/xui Xafttlv). Here we have
the potential optative in the narrower sense indicated above.
The forms ftovXaip.^ (oV) Xaftflv = Xdftotp.1 (av) and 8vvatfJ.-rjv (av)
Xaftf.lv = Xdftoifu av, instead of povXo/jMi. Xafifiv and Swa/xai Xaptiv show
a natural assimilation. In Attic Greek ftovXofuu Xaftuv and
Aa/?civ represent rather
ANALECTA. 1
Analecta as a book title means "crumbs swept up" (the title that
the late T. DeWitt Talmage once gave to a volume of essays). Any-
one that chooses to refer to Dr. Murray's English Dictionary will
find that the word appears in English in the form analects (defined
"crumbs which fall from the table") as early as 1623. But if one
look up analecta in Lewis and Short or the new Thesaurus, he will
be informed that the word is a masculine noun Latinised from
dvaAcKT^s and that it was the peculiar name of the slave that per-
formed the office described in Hor. 5. 2. 8, n sq. But if one will
refer to Forcellini or Jesner, he will find a neuter analecta and may
anticipate the brief history that I am about to give of the word as
a modern book title.
Martial 7. 20, 16 sq. read with a pause after analecta in 16 instead
of before it (so that the sense of the verse was supposed to be
analecta et quidquid canes reliquerunt instead of quidquid analecta
et canes reliquerunt) combined with Martial 14.81, Scopae, read
according to the false text sed pretium Scopis nunc analecta dabunt
1 [From the Latin Leaflet; Vol. V (1904), No. 104.]
NEPO 231
instead of otia sed scopis nunc analecta dedit) these passages were
the fons et origo malorum. On the basis of them, supposed to con-
tain analecta in the sense "crumbs swept up", some person at present
unknown to me at some time prior to the year 1623 (as we have
already seen) used analecta as or in the title of a book. I should
like, as a matter of curiosity, to know who that person was ; and
if any reader of these words can tell me, I shall be grateful. What
I am writing is thus, in a sense, an advertisement for a missing
person.
It may perhaps be worth while to mention in conclusion that the
term analecta has been Germanised as Analekten (Wolf's Littera-
rische Analekten should be familiar to the reader), that this form
is interpreted in Sander's Dictionary by Lesefruchte, and that the
well-known author of the Analecta Euripidea has also published
certain philological crumbs under the title Lesefruchte.
NEPO. 1
In expressing my agreement with Mr. Leaf's view as to the
derivation of vepo (Class. Rev., July 1891), I am glad to be able
to supply certain information in regard to Romaic the accessibility
of which he seems to doubt. That ' c is often used for the sound P
is stated by Sophocles (Romaic Grammar, 27, 6) and is well
known to any one who has been much in Greece. It will be found
to occur in combination with a liquid, generally a following p, as in
yepvaw, aor. eyepaera (y^pao-Kto), o-i'8epo (o-iSr/pos), Of.pLo (drjpiov), Kepi
f (fi-qpiov, Sophocles, op. cit., vocabulary), /nayepas (/taycipos),
), Soph.), o-pva> (ervpvw, crupa>, Soph.); sometimes a preceding p
as in y/cpe/ivos (KPTJ/AVOS) and yKpffj.vi<a ; Kpcvat (xpivo) = aTTOKpivofuit : "T^s
KpeVcj, 8f fjiov tcpcm,' in a popular song, quoted by Byzantios, Aeocov
1-175 Ka.0' T//U,S 'EAArjn/o}? AiaXe/crov), and perhaps in /JapcuW (j8apwa>,
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, <ro<iv, which properly or ordinarily meant to make
another o-o<os, could be used in the sense of making oneself o-o^os,
of aping the <ro<oi. It is thus, I think (pace Platonis in Protagora),
that we are to explain the good and bad senses of O-O^IO-T^S, 'teacher'
and 'charletan' (=rwv o-o<f>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 <J 8 t [
In December 1887, while I was residing at Kiato, the chief town
( TrpwTcvovo-a ) of the modern deme of Sikyon, during the progress
of the excavations at the old theatre of Sikyon, an Albanian peasant
named Georgios Agrapedakes told me that some blocks of stone
containing TroAata ypap.pa.ra. had been found in a field belonging to
him in the village of Moulki. 3 On December 18, I went up to
Moulki in company with my friend Dr. Eustathios Tournakes of
Kiato, and there we found two blocks of stone, said to have been
dug up some three years previously. On one of these the inscrip-
tion, of which a facsimile is given above, was quite plainly legible.
1 [From the American Journal of Archaeology, Series i, Vol. iv, No. 4,
(1888), pp. 427-430.]
1 These names are all to be found in Pape. Only two are cited as borne by
Sikyonians, Aischines (PLUT., De Her. mal., 21) and Aristokles (PAus., vi.
9. i; vi. 3. ii ). A Mouses is mentioned (PAUS., v. 24. i; OVERBECK,
Schriftq., 2080) as the unknown artist of a statue of Zeus set up at Olympia
by "the demos of the Corinthians."
8 Moulki ( MC\Ki ) is situated N. w. of Basiliko (the modern representative
of the upper town of Sikyon), near the Uordfu rfy A^x|3as, the ancient
'EX. It undoubtedly formed part of the old city before its capture
Demetrios Poliorketes. Cf. DIODOR., xx. 102. 2-4.
248 Greek Archaeology
The length of this block is 0.70 m., 1 the same as that of the other,
on which there seemed to be traces of letters obliterated beyond
the possibility of decipherment. The height of the letters them-
selves is from 0.02 m. to 0.025 m., the former being that of the O,
except in the first line. The stone is of a brownish color, fairly
hard and of coarse grain. It is broken on the right-hand side,
whence the loss of one or more letters in every word except the
first and third. The characters, as will be noticed in the fac-
simile, are quite neatly formed and arranged nearly O-TOIX^OV.
I made a copy of the inscription at the time, as did also Dr. Mer-
riam, to whom I exhibited the new find before my return to Kiato;
and, on December 22, I took a squeeze, on which the facsimile is
chiefly based.
I will now consider the inscription from an epigraphical stand-
point. The reading, as given in the facsimile,' is quite certain; but
the first and sixth letters in the second name, the seventh letter in
the fourth, and the seventh letter in the sixth are somewhat defaced.
The inscription, when complete, was apparently as transcribed
above.
As regards the characters, we observe: first, the angular form
and small size of the O, except in the first line (cf. Roehl, /. G. A.,
270, Add.) ; secondly, the four-barred sigma; thirdly, the angular
form of the rho; fourthly, the form of the chi, as contrasted with
that (-f) of the Caere inscription (/. G. A., 22; Roberts, G. E., No.
95) ; fifthly, the forms of mu and nw; 2 sixthly, the form X=e. On
this last, special stress is to be laid, as being a point of the greatest
importance.
That X=e was a form peculiar to Sikyon, is not recognized by
Roehl, nor does Roberts lay it down as a fixed principle, while
Kirchhoff (Stud., 4 104-5) st iN retains under the head of Corinth
the inscription of the Caere vase (I. G. A., 22; Roberts, No. 95),
in which this sign occurs four times. I shall endeavor to show that
not only have we no proof that the sign X was employed in the
Corinthian alphabet, but that, in view particularly of the present
inscription, the first one found ipso loco containing this sign, we
' The thickness of the block is 0.26 m. : the original width cannot be deter-
mined.
3 Cf. I. G. A., 21, 22 (ROBERTS, Nos. 94, 95) with /. G. A., 260, Add.
(ROBERTS, No. 93).
A New Sikyonian Inscription 249
seem warranted in assuming that it was peculiar to the Sikyonian
alphabet, which appears to have been pretty sharply defined, and
to have developed with considerable regularity as well as con-
servatism.
The fact that no inscription has been found at Corinth, or to be
with certainty traced to Corinth, containing this form of epsilon,
when viewed in connection with the fact that e in the early alphabet
of Corinth, as well as in that of her colonies, appears as or B
(this form being also employed for the 77, and being usually
written as E 1 ), goes a long way toward a demonstration of non-
existence of the form X = e in the Corinthian alphabet. The prox-
imity of Corinth and Sikyon is nothing in favor of influence one
way or the other ; for Sikyon at least seems to have been conserva-
tive in a very high degree.
In this connection, we must, however, admit that too much stress
has been laid on the peculiar local form of the name, SCKVWV. Roehl
(7. G. A., 77) claims that the inscription scratched on a spear-head
found at Olympia cannot be the work of a Sikyonian, because the
early local form of the name was Se/cvwv, and not 2i/cvu>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 <?/a
Add.};
ii period, first half of fifth century B. c. (/. G. A., 21, 22) ;
in period, middle and latter half of fifth century B. c. (/. G. A.,
2fc Add. and the new inscription).
NEW SIKYONIAN INSCRIPTIONS. 1
(i) On the ist August 1891, while engaged in archaeological
investigation in the theatre of Sikyon, I had the good fortune to
discover in the Albanian village of Basiliko, which occupies part of
the site of Sikyon-Demetrias, the following hitherto unpublished
inscription :
GO IN I AZ TEIlf<P/U
It is inscribed on a block of black marble, built into the stairs of
the house of Nikolaos Anagnostou. The marble is broken at the
right and also cracked vertically. Its dimensions are about -79m.
in length (inscribed surface) by -Sim. in breadth and .29m. in thick-
ness. The average height of the letters is about .O3tn., the o being
somewhat small in proportion to the others including the O. The
character is tolerably regular and slightly ornate.
In attempting the restoration of the missing portion of this in-
scription we begin with the second line, which may be read:
oivtas T<nKpa[Tou(s)
'[From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 132-135.]
252 Greek Archaeology
The artist here named is a member of the Tisicrates-Thoenias
family known to us from the inscriptions collected by Loewy,
Inschrr. gr. Bildhauer, 120-122, and from the notice of Tisicrates
Sicyonius' in Pliny (N. H. xxxiv. 66, cited by Loewy, op. cit., sub
120). Thoenias (son) of Tisicrates' is named in three other in-
scriptions, Loewy 121, 1220, 'Inscriptions from Sikyon,' No. 2
(Amer. Journ. Arch., Vol. V. No. 3, where see Professor Merriam's
valuable note). 'Thoenias' (father's name probably lost) is named,
apparently as artist, in another inscription (Loewy 122, classed by
Loewy with 121 and I22a), and the same name occurs again as that
of the father of a Tisicrates (Loewy i2Oa). The Tisicrates of
Sikyon, known to us from Pliny's notice (loc. cit.) as a pupil of
Euthycrates and the executor of works hardly distinguishable from
those of Lysippus, is thought to have flourished down to about 284
B. C. (Loewy sub 120, Merriam, loc. cit.). On the basis of Loewy's
computations and on epigraphic grounds the Sikyonian inscription
No. 2 (Amer. Journ. Arch., loc. cit.) in which owas T<r[uc/>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[a<nXe'a>s &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 <iA.oTi/ttas Kal opfMjs /U.COTOV eis MaKtSovtav
aTTooreiXm. Among other things calculated to secure the good-will
of Philip an honorary statue to him as king, even before the death
of Antigonus, seems not impossible ; indeed Plutarch's account of
Philip's mission shows that Antigonus sent him as heir-apparent
(TOV StaSo^ov TT/S ^8a<7iAetas).
At all events there is good ground, even if we do not assign the
statue to the period of Antigonus's last sickness, for assuming a
date not much, if at all, later than the year 220 B. C.
Now the execution of a statue to the young king, being a work
of special importance, would have been committed to no inexperi-
enced hands, indeed most probably 'to those of the veteran artist
of Sikyon. We need therefore have no hesitation in assigning to
Thoenias at this time an age beyond middle life. As we have seen
above, the inferior limit of the floruit of Pliny's Tisicrates, who is
reasonably identified with the father of Thoenias, is placed circ. 284
B. C. A pupil of Euthycrates (presumably after Lysippus's death)
who executed statues of 'King Demetrius' (presumably Poliorcetes,
reg. 306-283 B. C.) and of Peucestes, and who had a son still active
in his profession circ. 220 B. C., can hardly have been born earlier
than 320 B. C., or later than 300 B. C. Reckoned on this basis the
activity of Tisicrates not improbably extended considerably later
than 284 B. C. But for our present purpose this is a matter of
small account. The question whether Pliny's 'Tisicrates Sicyonius'
may without violence to chronology be identified with the father of
Thoenias seems to admit of an affirmative answer.
There is therefore no reason to reject Loewy's identification of
the 'Tisicrates (son) of Thoenias' of Inschr. gr. Bildh. 1200 with
the father of our Thoenias, or that of the Thoenias of the Delian
inscription, op. cit. 122, with our artist himself. I have consequently
no change to make in the genealogy of Sikyonian artists at the close
of my article on the statue of Dionysus discovered at Sikyon (Amer.
Journ. Arch., Vol. V. No. 3, p. 303), 1 except to bring down the
1 [See above, p. 246.]
254
Greek Archaeology
floruit of Tisicrates son of Thoenias at least four Olympiads, and
to describe Thoenias son of Tisicrates as artist of a statue to Philip
V., circ. 220 B. C.
It may be added that our inscription further confirms the spelling
of the name of Thoenias's father TWiKpcmjs, which has been
rightly treated by Professor Merriam as the Sikyonian form.
4>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 ' Kar<a eis rov Kcfywrov', i. e. on the site
of the older city of Sikyon. The average height of the letters is
about .O4m. Their tips are somewhat enlarged. The o is rather
small. There is a plain moulding at the top of the stone.
The inscription is to be read:
This stone is either broken sharply on the right, or else the stele
consisted of two pieces, the latter hardly probable.
Pausanias (ii. 7. 2) in describing the mode of interment among
the SikyonianS says : TO /xev o-w/io. yrj KpvTrrova-t, Xi6av Se CTroi/coSo/AiycravTes
KprjTrtaa. /a'ovas e<icrra<ri, KCU CTT' aurots (.TriBrjiJua. TTOIOVCTI Kara rows derois
fjuiXuTTa TOVS cv rots vaois' c 7r i y p a fji p. a 8(. aAXo fj.v fTriypd<f>ov(riv
ouSe'v, TO 8e ovop.a <' avTov Kai ov TrarpoOtv VTreiTrovTCS
K\vov<ri TOV vfKpov xaiptiv, i. e. the simple name of the de-
ceased in the nominative, without an added genitive of the father's
New Sikyonian Inscriptions
255
name, appeared upon the stone, followed by x a w e - (The nomina-
tive is regular on Attic tombstones, even when, as rarely, xup c
occurs ; cf. e.g. C.I. A. 3253 : Ainjo-aperos 'O/o^o/xmos | x a W )'
If what is here said be taken as applying to the simple or^Aat, we
must suppose in the case of our inscription either that x/^oros or
another name in the nominative (in which case we should read
Xatptre) stood at the right of 4>iA.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 <f>, 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 <t> 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 <t> 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 , <t>, y, we see at once that they cannot
be derived from the Ionian <t>, +,V. If we take the last two letters
only, <t>, 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; <t> they retained in its original form; but for the guttural
aspirate they needed a sign far more than for the combination ir<r
and accordingly they made the other new symbol, M?, serve to denote
that sound."
The words just quoted form perhaps the most valuable part of
Mr Gardner's article, albeit the part least heeded, it would seem.
Whatever may be thought of his derivation of Western -f- from
[] his assumption of an entirely independent Western -f- and his
explanation of the arrangement of the supplementary signs of the
Western alphabet as due to a grafting of the Eastern <t> 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<r, and V 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:
<t> 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 <t> 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, <t> 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<r. Between these signs and the
Ionic stand the Attic <t> 5 and X %.. [These should be rather <t> ^
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<T. So we have to reconstruct a common Greek alphabet in which
is = H, <j> = 4> H, x = X H, = X S, ^ <t> $, in which, therefore,
the newly invented signs <t> and X had already either the value of
264 Greek Archaeology
<f> 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 <t> .). 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 <j> 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 <f> 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 <j/. The earliest step to the independent development of
the Greek alphabet was the Ionic mutation of value of samekh to
. Samekh was dealt with as the vowel signs and zayin had been
dealt with, /cer was written in Ionia before came into use. In
Attica was not introduced because of a difference of pronuncia-
tion. But 7TO- and KO- were not adequate representations of the
sound. Therefore, the Attic Greeks invented 9 and X, the former
out of , the latter out of K. The Western Greeks did not accept
X : they had that sign in use already in a different sense. But they
realized the value of a sign for the guttural aspirate; so they made
V out of koppa (an abbreviation of <p H) by cutting off its top.
The new sign naturally grew more angular [perhaps withering after
its top was cut off like the cabbage-palms in the Anabasis], The
East made Y out of the Athenian ^.
In the same year with Mr Kalinka's rather remarkable article,
but too early to take notice of it, appeared Dr Wilhelm Larfeld's
treatise on Greek epigraphy in von Miiller's Handbuch (dated 1891).
Dr Larfeld, on more than doubtful grounds, would carry back the
Ionic more precisely, the Milesian alphabet, including ft, to 800
B.C. <t> 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 <t> and X was the first alphabet innovation in the Eastern alphabet
group. That is proved by the alphabets of Asiatic affinities that
show <t> 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, <t> 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. <t> 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
<f> 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 <r,
but a guttural, like the Naxian D, plus a cr. He would place Boeo-
tian -(- ^, which occurs side by side with V ( = ), on the same
footing as Rhodian X 3. It is plain, Dr Kretschmer thinks, that
in general was not = KO-. Was the X or V of X ^ and V 3
aspirate or spirant? K B M does not occur at Thera: only K M-
But if in X ^ the X is spirant, <t> should be spirant in <t> ^ . 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 <t>; 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 <g) g), ^ or S = t, ^ = \, V = q, M = <*> ^ B = <j>,
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 <f> 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, <cr must be = fs is a grave objection to the view that the character in
question is = guttural spirant. Dr Kretschmer's statement (p. 424) that
"die verschiedene Behandlung von und \f/ in den westlichen Alphabeten fur
ersteres giebt es ein besonderes Zeichen, fur letzteres im Allgemeinen nicht
weist darauf hin, dass diese Lautverbindungen nicht genau analog waren"
falls to the ground, if the theory of a grafting of Eastern alphabet on
Western that I with others maintain is correct. Dr Kretschmer assumes (p.
426) an alphabet in which ^ is expressed by Y, "wie in den spateren west-
lichen Alphabeten, und der guttural von mit X, wie in den ostlichen be-
zeichnet wird." But this "missing link" nowhere appears. "Vorwarts,"
continues Dr Kretschmer, "fiihrt dieses Alphabet zu dem Zustand der west-
lichen Reihe : X 5 konnte zur X = abgekitrzt werden, weil der gutturale
Spirant nur vor <r vorkam, also kein Missverstandnis entstand, wenn man das
sigma wegliess." This is surely a clumsy process. Is it like the Greeks? Dr
Kretschmer believes (p. 429) that the Aeolians "in archaischen Zeit, d. h. vor
Einfiihrung des ionischen Alphabet, das Zeichen X im Sinne von ^verwendet
haben." Surely this is wrong in expression, whatever may be the fact, inas-
much as X = is Ionic.
7O Greek Archaeology
the use (testified to by these [four] Theraean inscriptions) of I
for . There are also examples of I = , but they would probably
be clue to influence from without the island. 1 Dr Kretschmer
thinks (p. 433) that we have in this peculiar manner of writing
proof that the Theraeans (and perhaps, too, the Melians) used the
sign of samekh for . [Would it not, I venture to suggest, be
better to class the zeta with three horizontal bars with the four-
barred epsilon that is found in Boeotia?] "So when the secondary
signs of the Ionic alphabets," he concludes, "became known in Thera,
the Theraeans took over the aspirate signs <t> 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 <t> 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 f<j>v<ra
ElS TCUV TTCVKWV TCI K \wvdpui,
'2av TOW *Epa>Tos 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 <evyow aTT* Ta X
va /HTV Tais
Eivai $eia TO, ^atv^ta.
'Hi (/^v^ais KaAwv '
Ilapao-TaivovTat' jtuts Kpv<f>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)<ra.v ev TTJ ^Trctpa* TgSe veav Ttva dpxijv auTOi p.ev CTriflv/xovvTes
IT}? eAev0epias Travras 8e TOVS dv0pa>7rovs tcrovs eivat /cat o/xotovs Kara <f>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 Ta</>os 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)(e<rdfjLfvoi TC Trepiyf.v6p.fvoi fire KOI irevovres OVTW xa^yvtaav avro
TW CaVTCOV /3yw WO-TC /A^ fTT* /XOt tVttt OU 8ctV<d Ae'yClV OVTI ft^
p-TJre a<pe\elv prjoev. TWV ficv yap Xdywv TWV iJ/ATpa>v ovre (r<j>6$pa ei
<rovTat 01 avOpaiTTOi ovTC TroAvv Tiva x/>6V' / a.vafj.vTf)<rOi^(TovTai ' rov 8* epyov rov
tKtivwv aOdvarov ecrrat TO fivrjpa. Trapa TOIS /neAAouo-i yev^o'eo-^ai. OKTT' dvoyKi;
/AoXXov 17/109 TOVS ^(ovTas KaTOfido-at /iev evTav^a 8ia8e^ecr6ai TOWTOVS TOVS v
T<3 X '/ 3 "? T< ?^ fjua\e<rafjifvov<: KO.I elf TOVTO yor) evrvxias yu,yadv/u.a)s irpo/8t-
TOV dytova, KOTO/xdo-at 8* viro&ee<r6a.i TO VTrdXotTrov CTI /ie'y a py ov
/nv VITTO TOVTWV TWV KaXois OVTW Kal evTt/iws T#vea>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(0ir<av
VOVTOV TOV Adyov Toil det/Av^crTov Lincoln
fj.eTaypanffai eire^eLprjo-a TJ; KTJ MapTibv
288 Appendix
THE EVENING STAR.
Longfellow.
Just above yon sandy bar,
As the day grows fainter and dimmer,
Lonely and lovely, a single star
Lights the air with a dusky glimmer.
Into the ocean faint and far
Falls the trail of its golden splendor,
And the gleam of that single star
Is ever refulgent, soft, and tender.
Chrysaor rising out of the sea
Showed thus glorious and thus emulous,
Leaving the arms of Callirrhoe
For ever tender, soft, and tremulous.
Thus o'er the ocean faint and far
Trailed the gleam of his falchion brightly;
Is it a God, or is it a star
That, entranced, I gaze on nightly?
IIpos aa-Tfpa viro
Ev A-i/xevos Trpo^oats, or* d/AvSpoVepov Tre'Xj? i?/
do-Hyp <f>w<; erra^ei /Aap/Aapvyats 8vo<epeus
KaXXec /AOVVOS IT* wv o-riX/?wv Kara fjianpov "OXvfj.Trov
KOU Tpv<f>epov Xdfjiirwv OKtavoTo pools *
<nrivOf)pa.<; 8e ^e'tov ^pv<ros firl /cv/iara
oibs (inv creXaytT pt/w^*' eAcXt^o/ACvos-
ToioSros TTOT' ea>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 TpV<f)fpOV TO CTeXaS.
A/A<tvoai de /SXeTrwv ToSe ^ecTTre'crtov TO /car' y
aorpov ap ^e ^eov <^>atvd/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