-;fPll U43 lihicaKO. Univ. - _ inVeaLlgatlOUts ' ^^^^'^epts ; Greek, Latin Southern Branch of the University of California Los Angeles Form L I C\3 This book is DUE on the last date stamped belov JAN 9 1927^ ' 193H WAYI0J948 Form L-9-13»(-10,'25 LOS AHOKL^S, CAUF, .S > THE DECENNIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE DECENNIAL PUBLICATIONS ISSUED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST TEN YEARS OF THE UNIVERSITY'S EXISTENCE AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE EDITED BY A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE EDWAKD CAPPS STARR WILLARD CUTTING ROLLIN D. SALISBURY JAMES ROWLAND ANGELL WILLIAM I. THOMAS SHAILER MATHEWS CARL DARLING BUCK FREDERIC IVES CARPENTER OSKAB BOLZA JULIUS STIKGIITZ JACQUES LOEB THESE VOLUMES ARE DEDICATED TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OP OUB TIME AND COUNTKY WHO BY WISE AND GENEROUS GIVING HAVE ENCOURAGED THE SEARCH AFTER TRUTH IN ALL DEPARTMENTS OF KNOWLEDGE INVESTIGATIONS THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ItOCKIiFELLEli INVESTIGATIONS REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENTS GREEK LATIN COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY CLASSICAL ARCHEOLOGY THE DECENNIAL PUBLICATIONS FIRST SERIES VOLUME VI CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO PRESS 1904 66424 Copyri(jht,J903 BY THE UNIVERSITY,^F CHICAGO s ^ ^ COI^ TENTS ^ I. A Greek Hand-Mibror in the Art Institute of Chicago (with Plate I) 1 By Frank Bigelow Tarbell, Professor of Classical Archaeology II. A Canthaeus from the Factory of Brygos in the Boston Museum OP Fine Arts (with Plates II, III) ------ 5 By Frank Bigelow Tarbell, Professor of Classical Archaeology ' III. The Meaning of eVl t»5t (TKrjvr)). Cf, also the archaic Artemis from Pompeii {ROmische Mittheitumjen, 1888, p. 282). 2 0vEEBECK,Griec/i.iC«rwimytfcotoj7ie,Bd. II, pp. .398-402. high boots (ei-ipo/iiSes). But in the case before us the foot- gear proper, to judge by the purple straps, ends just above the ankles. I conceive that the leg-coverings are separate from the footgear. Thoy may perhaps be bandages, wound about the legs and hold in place by cords {indicated in black). On the British Museum cylix E. 69, ascribed to Brygos (Wieiicr Vorlegehldtter^VI, 2), the representation is similar, except that there the dabs of brown color, in- * Jahn (Archdoloffisckc Aufsdtzc, pp. 149, 150) called stead of being confined to the legs, appear also between attention to the frequency with which an altar is intro- the straps of the sandals, as if the bandages were wound duccd into scenes of abduction. According to him it means about the feet as well as the legs. On E. 264 in the British that the event is thought of as taking place at a religious Museum the representation seems to agrtje with that on tho festival, and it reflects the fact that on such occasions Boston cantharus. On E. 276 and E. 361 the black lines are Greek girls had a liberty of public apjwaranco not usually drawn about the legs, but the brown dabs are (tmittcd : and accorded to them. this appears to be a common mode of representation. 5Tho articles in question arc commonly described as f'OvEUUECK, SrtccA. /iTuwdiii/Hiolm/ic, Hd. 11, pp. GLMS. Frank Bigelow Tabbell peculiar arrangement of the hair at the back of Zeus's neck ' are all in the style of Brygos (if we may for convenience so call the man who decorated tlie cylices signed with Bpvyo'; eiro irjaev). And, though each of these features may be found in the work of one or more of his contemporaries, taken collectively they point pretty strongly to him. Again, the triple ends of the hair-ribbons and of the girdle are characteristic of Brygos. But more decisive still are the narrow eyes, sensitive nostrils, and parted lips of the faces, and the headlong impetuosity of movement in the figures. Tln^se indications are sufficient to assure us that this vase was not merely produced under the influence of Brygos, but was decorated by his very hand. It is thus one of the most important treasures in the Greek vase collection of the Boston Museum. 7 Cf. the satyr oa the left of the frat^ment in Castle uted to Brygos. Several instances occur also on a cylix in Ashby (Haktwig, Meisterschalen, Plato XXXIII, 2), attrib- the style of Duris iibid., Plato LXVI). H H < ai O Eh •< O n Pm •< H o H o EH 1-1 Ph O M < o hi n Ph H THE MEANING OF ^^n x^s ctkiiv^s IN WRITERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY THE MEANING OF cttI Tfjs vipf\emeat- anes," Harvard HtudifS, Vol. II (1891), pp. 164 ff. ; Capps, band VII (1899), pp. 3 ff. " The Stage in the Greek Theater," Trans. Am Phil. Ass., 7 Zeitschriftf. d. Osterr. Gymnasien, Vol. XXXVIII (188"), Vol. XXII (1891), pp. G4ff.; BoDENSTEINEE, "Szenische pp. 276 ff., and Dew (/liecftisc/ie TAeafer (1896), pp. 283 ff. 15 6 Meaning of eVi Tf/9 aKt]vri<; in Writers of the Fourth Century so far as it extended, was quite consistent with that of Phitarch and his contempo- raries; in fact, that only by gaining a correct idea of the meaning of the phrases in question in Aristotle could one secure the right point of departure for the interpreta- tion of the idioms in Plutarch. The Aristotelian passages were first attacked in a discriminating way and made the basis of a general classification by Edward Capps, who, however, has published only an abstract of his conclusions.' Approaching the subject originally from the point of view of Plutarch's usage, I have found myself in substantial agreement with Professor Capps's conclusions, and at his suggestion, and availing myself of his collections, with which he allowed me to supplement my own, and his constant criticism and advice, I have thought it well to state fully the case as far as concerns Aristotle, reserving for a later occasion the results of my studies in Plutarch and the later literature — except in so far as it may seem advisable to quote here later instances in illustration of the usage of the earlier period. I take this opportunity to acknowledge my obligations to all my predecessors in this field. Before the middle of the fourth century the phrases eTrt tjj? S ff,, antl in the Panly-Wissowa Real-Eucyclo- i" The Attic Theater 2, pp 155 ff. pMie, Vol. Ill, p. 2402, s. p. "Clior:" and Capps, Trails. II Prolcgovwna zur GcKchichte tfe« Theaters im Alter- -""• "'''"'• •'"'" '^'°'- ^^^^ ^^'^^' »"'• ^'^^ '• rtum, pp. 2i:i ff., and 67J«. ye(c/ir. /Inzciwcr, 1897, pp. 72i; II. " Cf. White, Harvard Studies, Vol. TI (1891), p. 107, 12 CiiEiHT, Sitzuimsbcrichle der bayer. Akad. dcr Wissen- ""'" ' : "'"' Robert, Hermes, Vol. XXXII (1897), p. 447, aud tcha/ten, 1894, pp. 26 f. '" f'*"- vclchr. Anzciyer, 1897, pp. 39 ff. 16 KoY C. Flickingeb tendency to go over to Vitruvius for the period represented by the Lycurgus theater at Athens and by the theater at Epidaurus — the Last quartc^r of the fourth century. In this dearth of evidence and abundance of conjecture anything bearing on the general question is of exceptional importance. But the subject of the present discussion is not merely important; though its bearing has been strangely overlooked, it is really fundamental. If iirl rr)? aK-qvrjt; in Aristotle and his contemporaries means "on the stage," and if eVi in this phrase necessarily "implies elevation," we need no more evidence — the great question is decided. For the subject under discussion much has been made of Plato,'^ Sijmposvim, 194 6.- eTTiXijcTfioov jxevr' av ectjv, a> 'Ajd6(ov, elireiv tov 'EfOKpdrijv, el ISmv ttjv ar]v avhpilav Koi iJ.eja\ocl>poavvr]v ava^aivovTO'; eVt tou oKpi^avra fiera twv v7roKpt.TS)v, koX /3Xe'i|i-ai'T0? evavTia rocroina) Oedrpa), iMeX\ovTO<; eTrihei^eadai, cravTov Xoyov^, Koi oi/8' oircoaTiovv eKTrXa- •yevTO';, vvv olriOelrjv ae Qopv^TjOrjaeadai eveKa r]p.S)v oXiywv avdpoiTruyv. I should be forgetful, Agathou, said Socrates, of the courage and spirit which you showed when your compositions were about to be exhibited, when you came upon the oKpiySas with the actors and faced the whole audience '" altogether undismayed, if I thought you would on the present occasion be chsturted by a small company of fiiends. The scholiast on this passage, and Hesychius s. v. 6Kpi^a<;, give this explanation: OKpi^a^ • TO Xojelov, i(f>' ov ol rpajoyBol ■^ycovi^ovTO • rti/e? Be KiXXi/3a'; Tpio'KeXr]';, e<^' ov 'laravTO ol viroKpnal koI to, Ik fierecopov Xeyovaiv, and Timaeus, Lex. Plat., oKpi^a^' Trrjyfxa to iv tm Oedrput Tt,6ep.evov, e<^' ov iaravro ol ra hrjfxocna Xeyovre'i. Evidently these writers had no clear idea of the word's meaning. Moreover, the appearance of the poet with the actors shows that here we have to do, not with the ayav, but with the Trpodyav" and that was held, not in the theater, but in the odeum.'* The passage, then, whatever its precise interpretation may be, is not relevant to the present discus- sion. In the present unsatisfactory state of our information regarding the irpodycov, therefore, we are scarcely warranted in drawing sweeping conclusions from Plato's reference to that ceremony. Aristotle uses the phrase e-rrl (t?)?) ffKrjvrj^ four times in the Poetics, Viz.: (1) XIII, 6, p. 1453a; (2) XVII, 1, p. 1455a; (3) XXIV, 4, p. 1459b; and (4) XXIV, 8, p. 1460a; and Demosthenes uses it once (5) in Or., XIX, 337. I shall now con- sider these passages in turn. 1. XIII, 6, p. 1453 a; Blo koI ol EupitriBr) iyKaXovvTe<; tovt uvto afiaprdvovcnv, oTi TOVTO Bpd ev Tal<; Tpaywhlai'i tcaX iroXXaX avrov et? Svarvx^av reXevrcbaiv. tovto ydp icTTiv wairep etp-qjai opdov. a-i]p.elov Be fieyiaTOV eirl yap t&v crKi]va)v Kai tojv dymvoyv 15 Of. A. MtJLLEE, Bilhnenalt., p. 365, notes 3, 4, who gives i" Other interpretations were reviewed and rejected by a list of previous autliorities ; also Wieselee, loc. cit., Rhode, Rhcin. Miis.. Vol. XXXVIII (1883), pp. 233 3. It is p. 206, note 20; OEHivncHEN, Woch. f. klass. Phil., Vol. IX likely, too, that under the term uiro«piTai' all of Agathon's (1892), p. 1112 ; Navaeee, op, cit., p. 106, note 2 ; and MUlleb, performers were included, chorus as well as actors. Cf. the Philologus, Supplementband VII, p. 55. story told in the Vita Euripidis of Sophocles and his choriis 16 Till the close of the fifth century the almost exclusive »' fie "poiyo.^ after the news of Euripides's death, meaning of ScaTpaf was " audience ; " c/. Wilamowitz-MOl- i* Cf. schol. Aeschines Ctesiphon. § 67. LENDORFF, Hermes, XXI (1886), pp. 602 f. 17 8 Meaning of eVl tT]<; aKi]vri<; in Writers of the Fourth Century rpajLKonaTai al roiavTai ^aivovTai, av KaropdwOwaiv, Koi 6 'EvpnrtSrj'; el kuI to, aWa firj ev olKovo/xel aWa TpayiKOiTaTO'; ye TOiv ■Koi-qroiv t^aiverai. Aristotle has been saying that a well-constructed plot should be simple, and should imitate actions which excite pity and fear — the pity that is aroused by unmerited misfortune, the fear that is stirred by the misfortune of a man like our- selves. The reversal of fortune should, therefore, be from good to bad. The practice of the stage, he adds, bears out our view (arjfielov Se Kal to yiyvofxevov), for tragedies nowadays are founded on the story of a few heroes whose fortunes illustrate this principle. The earlier poets had treated any legend, whatever the nature of the issue. A perfect tragedy, however, should be so constructed. He then adds: Hence they commit the same error [i. e., as the earlier poets] who censure Emipides just because he follows this principle in his plays, many of which end unhappily. It is, as we have said, the right ending. The best proof is that on the stage and in di'amatic competitions such plays, if they are well represented, are the most tragic in effect; and Euripides, faulty as he is in the general management of liis subject, yet is felt to be the most tragic of the poets." In this chapter Aristotle finds confirmation of his statement of the principles of tragic composition in the practice of successful poets and in the effect that tragedies constructed according to his rules actually have upon the audiences. He appeals twice to the "practice of the stage," as Butcher renders to yiyvofjievov. The contrast is between plays which are technically perfect and those which, in spite of technical faults, do actually succeed in exciting the emotions of pity and fear. The test is the actual performance. There is no suggestion involving the work of the actors as opposed to that of the chorus. Assuming that they are well put on (av KaropQwOwaLv), the plays of Euripides, with all their faults, are most effective when actually produced (eVi Tosv (TKTjvwv Kal TO)v aywvaiv). The combination of aKtjvrav with aycovcov shows that a-KTjvi^ has here the common meaning of "performance." The phrase may be regarded as an example of hendiadys, and means nothing more or less than "at scenic contests." This is precisely the meaning of the modern phrase employed by Butcher, "on the stage and in dramatic competition "; only we must not allow the modern connotation of "stage" as the actors' platform to affect our interpretation of the Greek phrase, in which the work of the chorus is necessarily included. This point will be made clearer in the discussion of the other jiassages. In post-classical Circek another phrase is sometimes used in the same meaning — eVl dedrpov, c. iapao<; e^ lepov avr/ei, i^In translatiDf? the Poetics I havo usod Butcher's vor- 2riv, tiri QfaifiMv; R. eirl* ta6p; tho others, eiri tw Otarptf. sion (2d od.) with slight adaptations. 18 KoY C. Flickingeb 9 fiT] opo)VT a^\rov 1 6eaTr]v^ "' iXdvOavev, eirl he t;";? aKriv?i<; i^t'ireaev Bvcr'yepavdvTcov TOVTO TO)v dearSiv. Ill constructing the plot and working it out with the proper diction, the poet should place the scene, as far as possible, before his eyes. In this way, seeing everything with the utmost vividness, as if he were a spectator of the action, he will discover what is in keeping with it, and be most unlikely to overlook inconsistencies. The need of such a rule is shown by the fault found in Carcinus. Amphiaraus was on his way from the temple. This fact escaped the notice of the poet, who did not visualize the situation. On the stage, however, the piece failed, the audience being offended at the oversight. Since we have no knowledge of the plot of the play, the hint given by Aristotle is necessarily obscure. But the inconsistency that Carcinus overlooked is, neverthe- less, indicated with sufficient clearness. The poet had not, in constructing his plot, carefully worked out the language of his characters (rrj Xe^ei avvaTrepyd^eaOai. Butcher's "diction" is faulty) so that it should harmonize with their actions. Here Amphiaraus was on his way back from the temple, whither he had previously departed, but on his reappearance speaks of having come from somewhere else.''''' The contrast here is similar to that in the passage previously discussed — between the crucial test of the performance before spectators and the intrinsic merits of a play. There the practical success of Euripides is set over against defects in technique ; here the prac- tical failure of Carcinus against the (implied) merits of his drama. When writing the play the poet, by failing to visualize his plot, overlooked an inconsistency; but when the play was performed (eVl rf;? aKijvi]';) , it failed because of this small defect."^ To introduce into the interpretation of this passage a reference to a stage for actors, as contrasted with the orchestra for the chorus, is to violate common sense and reason. Here also a-Krjvrj stands for the theater itself; eVt ri)? aKr]uri}? avardaeo}^ to fj.rjKO'i rj eTroTroiia 21 The emendation of Goraperz for opCivra t'ov 0f{iTTiv of H. DCntzer. Rettunf; der Arist. Poetik, p. 177. saw the the manuscripts. A careful examination of the context point correctly, though vaguely, but found an impossible shows that the poet, not the spectator, was blamed for contrast between ef iepoO and «'n-t trfcijr^s. TeichmCller, overlooking the inconsistency. The phrase opuiv .... Arist. Forschuugen, Vol. I, 104 f., read Bearrti', and thought ^leto-Ta Aai'flat'ot applies to him, and its echo, m*) op'^»'''a .... the spectators were offended because they did not see the eAafSavei', naturally does the same. Dacier saw the proper return of Amphiaraus from the temple actually represented application, and read iroojTiif for dear^v, which Suseniihl before their eyes instead of being merely described. But adopted. Butcher brackets toi- dearriv, but the passage then that would not have involved a virivavriov. Gomperz in lacks the definite reference to Carcinus that is required. Aristotelcs Pot-tik (1897), p. Ill, suggests that the appear- Vahlen's conjecture, optuvr' av, thouyh perhaps easiest to ex- ance in another rOlo of the actor who played Amphiaraus's plain paliBographically, breaks down at the same point. part while he was supposed to bo absent offended the Gomperz's emendation gives the evident meaning of the audience. But this occurred in nearly every play, passage, and from it the present reading could easily have 23 Euripides, on the contrary, is commended for his care been derived by some scribe's writing rov fleaTiji/ between the [q gudj details, viz., for telling the audience whence a char- lines as a comment on ainiv, which he misunderstood. acter comes and whither ho is going. The opening line of 22This is better than to assign the error to faulty stage the Troofles is a case in point: 'Hkoj ^miiy .^iyaioi- iAm'poi- management, e.<7., that .\mphiaraus made his exit through piflos, where the scholiast remarks: oAot eVi toD Oeirpov o one of the parodoi, and then on his return entered from EupuriS,)?. " Euripides was wholly intent upon, i. e., was the building represented by the proscenium. Susemihl, ever thoughtful of, his audience." C/. Plut.iech, J/omJm, pp. 234, 1B26 (2d ed.), frankly confessed ignorance of the p. 342b; (Alexander, entertaining the Persian ambassadors), fault involved ; Welcker, Die griecliischen Trau&dien, Voi. ovB^v ijpwTa irai&iKoy aAA" 6A0? ev to(s KuptwroTots ^i- t^« III, p. 1065, brought nothing of value to the discussion. tiyt^onat ; and Horace, Sa«., I., 9, 2: totiis in illis. 19 10 Meaning of eTrl tt}? a-Krjvr)'; in Writers of the Fourth Century Kal TO fisTpop. Tov fiev ovv ixr)Kov TrapijKoiev. e;j^« Be irpo'i to eireKTeivecrdat. to fieye6o<; ttoXu ti r) eTroiroiia iBiov Bia to iv p,ev Ty Tpayathia fii) ev8€)(ea'0ai afia irpaTTOfieva ttoWo, pieprj fii/xela6ai aWa to evrt rr)? aKrjvrj'i Kal twv VTroKpiToyv p.epo<; fiovov. iv Be Trj eTTOTroiLa Bia to Birjyrjcnv elvai ecTTi ttoXKo, p-eprj afia iroielv Trepaivofieva. Epic poetry differs from tragedy in the scale on which it is constructed, and in its metre. As regards scale or length, we have already laid down an adequate limit: the beginning and the end must be capable of being brought within a single ^iew. This condition will be satisfied by poems on a smaller scale than the old epics, and answering in length to the group of tragedies presented at a single sitting. Epic poetry has, however, a special capacity for enlarging its dimensions, and we can see the reason. In tragedy we cannot imitate several actions carried on at one and the same time; we must confine ourselves to the action on the stage and the part taken by the players. But in epic poetry, owing to the narrative form, many events simul- taneously transacted can be presented. A tragic plot is restricted as to time and place, j". e., it cannot represent more than one event at a time. Now to represent simultaneous events we need several groups of characters and as many places for their action. But tragedy can present but one group of characters at a time acting in but one place, viz., that represented in the scenery of the theater. Whenever in a play the scene of action has once been localized, there it must remain, and no performers can be introduced inconsistent with this location. Now the chief cause of this restriction was the chorus. Its constant presence effectually prevented the tragic poet from shifting the scene of action, as the epic poet could readily do in his narrative, and as the modern dramatic poet, freed from this serious limitation, can do without violating the laws of his art. The fifth- century dramatists keenly felt the restraint put upon them and tried to gain a larger freedom, ^schylus in the Eumenides, Sophocles in the Ajax, Euripides in the Alcfstis, Aristophanes in the Thesmophoriaznsde, and the unknown author of the Rhesus succeeded in removing the chorus for a moment while the scene was changed; but they could not introduce a new set of characters in the new scene, because the traditions of the drama imposed upon the poet a single chorus for each piece. The utmost that the poets did in this direction was done in the early period of tragedy, when chorus and actors changed their characters between the longer episodes — an arrangement from which developed the group of four plays forming a tetralogy. Aristotle, of course, did not dream of a tragedy without a chorus, and in formulating the laws which govern this branch of the imitative art, accepting the chorus as an essential part of tragedy, simply defined the conditions which arise from its presence. It is evident, therefore, that under the term ol viroKpLTaC he had in mind all of the performers concerned in representing the action which the poet brings before our eyes, the chorus as well as tin; actors."* The restriction as to the performers wliicii the 2*^/, Nolo 17 above, and Triclinius's scholium to tlio Jiihr.f. chtax. Phil,, Vol. VII (1.S75), p.4;J2: TtevrtKaihiKa fia\v Agamemnon, quoted by Wecklein," Studicu zu Euripides," oi toO rpayiKoii xopov vnoKptrai. 20 Roy C. Flickinger 11 tragic poet can introduce into a given plot is, however, only an incident of the limita- tion — imposed by the constant presence of the chorus — as to the phirc, of (idlou. To this consideration, therefore, Aristotle properly gives the {jrecedcnce — Set /Mineladai TO eVt Trfi aKr]vrj<{ fiepov. Out of the many actions going on at the same time which the epic poet may draw into his narrative, the tragic poet must select that one which takes place at the scene of action determined upon at the outset. To make clearer the necessity of the poet's confining himself to this one scene, Aristotle adds the second item — Kal to t5>v vttokpitwv (xepo(ov7J<; iaa><; ehrelv avdyKT]. Trdvv yap fieya Koi iirl ravrr) (ppovelv avrov aKovoa, ©? KadviroKpivovixevov v/xdv. efiol Se SoKelr' cnoiruiTarov dirdvTcov av troirjcrai, el, ore /Jiev to, @veaTov koi tmv iirl Tpoia KUKa riyavi^ero, eKc^dWer'' avrov Kal i^eavpiTTer' eK twv dedrpwv Kal fidvov ov KareXeved' o£/T(u?, ware reXevTwvTa rod rpirayayviareiv drroari^vat., eVetS^ 8' ovk eVt t?;? aKi]V7]<{ oX\' eV Tot? Koivolv Kal fieyLcrroi<; t^? Tro'Xeo)? irpdyfiacn fxvpi eipjaarai KaKa, r-qviKavG' w? KaXov (f>6e'yyojj,evcp •n-po(7e-)(otre. And yet, perhaps, I must speak also about his voice, for I understand that he is very proud of that, too, presuming that he will oveipower you by his acting. It appears to me, however, that it would Ije an act of extreme absurdity on jour part, if, when he played the miseries of Thyestes and the heroes at Troy, you drove and hissed him fiom the theater and all but stoned him, so that he finally retired from playing his third-rate parts, yet now, when not merely in dramatic performances, but in public and most momentous affairs of the state, he has wrought endless miseries, you should pay attention to him as a fine speaker. Demosthenes is calling attention to the different scenes of ^schines's failures, which were not confined to his theatrical efforts but extended to his public career as well. 'Etti TJj? aicrjvri'; has no more definite application to his standing-place as an actor in the theater than eV rdv 6edrpcov above, or than ev Aiovvaov in Or., V, 6, 7: rrdXiv rolvvv, 5> dvhpe<; ' A07]vaioi, icartScov NeoTrroXe/ioi' rov irn-OKpirrjv .... KUKa ipya- ^ofxevov rd fieyiara rrjv rroXiv .... rrapeXdwv eirrov ek iifj.d<; Kal ovKeri ev rovroi<; alridaofiai toij? vTrep NeoTTToXe'/xou Xeyovrw; aXX' avroiK vfj.d<;. el yap ev Aiovvaov rpayipSois ededaaaOe, dXXd fii] rrepl aa>Trjpia<; Kal Koivoiv Trpayfidrwv rjv 6 X070?, ovk dv oi/T(D? oiir' eKeivov '7rpo<; y^dpiv our ifiov vrpo? drrexOeiav i^Kovaare; or than eV 6edrpw in Theoplirastus, Charact., XI: 6 ^heXvpo^ roiovro'; olof . . . . ev dedrpca Kporelv, orav 01 dXXoL iravwvrai Kal avpirreiv oi)? TjSeco'i Oecopovaiv at Xoiiroi. Though ev Atovvcrov and ev 6edrp(p may include both performers and spectators, while iirl Trj<; a-Krjvj]'; is restricted to the former, none involves specific reference to any particular part of the theater. These are the only examples of the phrase in the extant literature of the fourth century. I add a few later instances which illustrate the same usage: schol. Thesm., 101 : /xovaSei 6 'Ayddcov &)? tt/jo? 'x^opov, ovx o)'> eirl aK-qvi)'^^^ aXX' w? Trofqfiara avvrL6el<;. hid Kal ^opiKa Xeyei fj-eXi] avro<; Trpoi avrdv, o)? ^opiKa Se. " Agathon sings a solo as thcnigh he were addressing a cliorus, not as if he were in the theater, but as com- posing verses [at home]. Accordingly, he says also the choral parts all to himself, though still as choral parts." Lucian, Apol., 5: dl [/. c, tragic actors] eVi ^kv rrjk [)lay obviously incloded the place of the chorus as well as that of the actors. Plutarch, Moralid, p. lHi)b: ^iXT^fiwva Se tov kidhikov /cal AXe^iv eVt t?";? aKr)vrj<; aya>vL^ofievov<; Kal are^avovfxevov<; 6 OdvuTov KareXa/Se. " IJeath seized Philemon and Alexis while they strove successfully in tlu^ theater." Of course, in this instance there is no mention of actors at all, but of poets who were contestants in the theater with their plays. Libanius, Prarfai. ad Demosth., 2: laroprjrai yap riva BaroXoi' 'Ecfx'aiov avXrjTtjv yeve'adai, o? TrpwTO? viroSrifiaai. yvvaiKeLOK errl Trj<; (TKrjvrj'i i-^pi](TaTO. "Batalus [as his etfemiuacy caused him to be nicknamed, though his name was really Tigranes; cf. schol. ^schines, I, 12GJ, the Ephesian flute player, was the first to wear women's sandals at a performance in the theater." In the Greek theater flute jilayers performed in the orchestra."" Though Libanius may have had in mind the custom of the Roman theater, more probably he was simjjly quoting the words of a much earlier writer. Plutarch, Moralia, p. 337e.- aycoviary yap ^yefxovia<; VTTOKpirrjv eTreKT'ijyaye, fidXXov Be oj? eVi ffKrjvri^ to htdhrifia Kui^ov Bie^rjXde T?j9 oiKOVfievT)';. " For he brought in against his opponent one to play the role of power, but as in a play a 'mute' took the part of ruler of the world." Ibid., p. 109(1: aXXa Bel aKOTrelv -TrpCoTOV Ti'i o KaXwv iariv. el /xev yap ov cr(f>68pa avvi)6ij'i, aW i} rcov irXovaiWv ri)? aKrjV7jpv'yt.(nl ovk eaTiv ev rpayioBia xopiicov'. .... aXX" cnro (TKi}vr]'i, p.Lp.i]TiKr] ydp; ihid, XLVIII, 922/;; TciVTa Be dixcfxo X^PV P'^" "vdpfiocrTa, Tol<; Be cnro aKijvrj'i olKeiorepa' eKelvot /xev ycip rjpdywv fitfiiirai. The use of xopd's, XopiKov, etc., in these passages gives to the phrase d-iro (t^?) (rKj]vij<; the restricted meaning desired. As soon as the "choral" element is taken out, "scenic" must refer to the actors alone, although, strictly speaking, both chorus and actors were included in 2« Cf. thi- rncont controvprpy— arisillK from FltEl'a dissnr- liclhi' :iml n.-)rpfcia in Hn-iiiCK, Vol. XXXVI (10()1), pp. 597 ff., tatioii, Pc Ccrtaminihitit Thi/mcUcfs, iiasol, lliOU — between ami ibid.. Vol. XXXVII U'JO'J), pp. ;!41i 11. aud 48.'iII. 2i Roy C. Flickinger 15 the term "scenic" Vf. Demosthenes, XVIII, 180: (^ovXei) ae he /xtjB' i'jpo} top Tv-yovra (6S)\, aWa Tovrayv Tiva tuiv cnro t?)? crKJjvy'i, Kpea mium is the presentation of to koXov {houcsiuin), of history to aXijOe^;. The former may euphemize, suppress, amplify, in order t(j admit no impression })ut that of the meritorious or praiseworthy; the latter is bound to strict objectivity and impartiality. Accordingly we find in the preface to both of Tacitus's historical works the avowal of unpartisan devotion to truth, which befits the historian/*^ Here, however, he says with similar explicitness that the present work is devoted to the Jionor of his father- in-law, Agricola. Its subject-matter is, therefore, honestd, such tilings as shall redound to the praise of the person commemorated." Thus the phrase honori dcsti- "Tacitus will also seiner Agricola .... als eine histo- rische Schrift betrachlet wisscn " (Hoffmann, Z. f. 6st. Gym., Vol. XXI (1870), p. 251). Of a more general character and without specific reference to this passage, WOlfflin, Archiv, Vol. XII, p. 116: " Dass der Agricola und die Ger- niauia abor in das Gebiet der Geschichtsschreibuug fallen uud iliren Platz ncbcu den Historien und Anualeu haben, darf als zugestanden vorausgesetzt werden." Eveu Pro- fessor Gudeman speaks of chaps. 18-39 (the npa^eis of .Agri- cola) as the "strictly historical portion of his biography." and on this theory justifies the presence of the speeches in the Agricola (Int., p. xvi). 8 NicOL. Soph. (Sp. Ill, p. 483, IS) : 6 dr^p vap iKelvo<; .... rerapTOV irapa to. rpia to. irpo^e^BepTo. to ioTOpixoc exaAeo-c. There is apparently no suggestion of this in the l\hct. or Poet., and from what work it is derived does not appear. 9C/. PoLYBins, X, 21 (24), 6, cited below, p. 25, and LtJCiAN, Dc hist, cons., 7, who complains of historians as dyi'oOi'Tes (o? ou aret-w tuj iaHiiiZ Bnupiarai koi SLaTfTii\iijTai if iuTopia irpb? to eyjcut/Jtoi', aAAa Tt ;neya Ttij^o? iv ft.eo'ai etXTiv avTiuv. It has seemed worth while to emphasize a well- known distinction in view of Professor Gudeman's state- ment, p. x: "In fact the line of demarcation between a historical narrative and an encomium was a very slight one." In support of this he cites Boxopater (Walz, II, p. 413) : oiiSiv £ioi TrofjLTriKcijTepat Kal iravijyvpiKuiTepaf TrpoaeaTi Be avrai-i to eVa^^e? [invidia)' tovto toivvv iiravopOcoTeov rj hia rS)v TrpoTrapaiTijaeo}!' (dcprecdtiuncs, jx'ti- tiones veniae) r) tw itpayicalov heiicvvvai, top \6yov tcl iroWa TrpoaTrocovpievov TrapaXeiiretv 7j i^ avaipecreoy; to, iroWii eladyovra ktX. Cf. also Aristides, Sp. II, 500, 8: tov he fiT] cf)opTiK(i)<; inraivelv .... rpuTroi elalv oi'Se. -wponov . . . . w? avuavayKaaOek eirl tovto BoK^ (7vi>eve)(6r]vai .... rpiTO? Tpotro'i OTav irplii elTrelv tj avyyi'iofj.yji' e'c^' ot? av fieWr) \eyeiv alTrjTai ktX. Another axample of such a TrpoTrapatTijait we may learn of, or rather infer, from Pliny's account of an address which he had delivered on the dedication of a library at Comum, and was preparing to publish. The subject-matter was enco- miastic, and dealt with his own generosity and that of his parents: ancej)S hie et tnbri- cus locus est, etiam cum illi necessitas lenocinaiur. The necessitas [cf. the passage 12 C/. IsOC, Euag.^G: rovriav 6' airto? o '/iCdi'O? ktA. I'tf/.TlIflON (n-, i'y«.), Sp. IT. lin, 1:1: Ka\ai it ttiTi n-pofel? , , . , Tui- not' iToAAwt' ciperoov to? Trpd^ei'; 8i£\6eli>. Brief recognition of this conception of biography is made by Tacitus himself in chap. 1: (ideo virtufcs {sdem tcmpon'bus optinie (icstinunitirr qvibus facUlime gignunfnr. That is, the literary record of a life is essentially a presentation of virtutes, or character, as illus- trated in a man's deeds (facta moresque poster is tradere). It is from this point of view that most of the chapters under consideration are written. How widely they differ from Tacitus's historical manner will be illustrated below. Concerning the first chapter of the geographical description of Britain (10), and the motives for the uprising in the administration of Suetonius Paulinus (15), a wend later ; but now let us turn to the campaigns of Agricola in illustration of what has been said above. In the first summer, although it was already half gone, Agricola made two important expeditions, the one against the Ordovices, and the other against the island of Moua. Both are narrated rather as revealing the energy and discernment of Agricola than as historical events of significance in themselves. The army looked upon its campaigns for the season as over, and the enemy were on the watch to follow up an advantage recently gained. Meantime they awaited quietly an oppor- tunity to test the temper of the new legate. The troops were dispersed to their stations, the conditions were adverse to an expedition for that season [tarda et contraria J)elhini incohaturo), while the advisers of Agricola iii'ged against offensive operations. The whole situation is studiously f)resented to show the allurements to inactivity which confronted Agricola. It affords thus a background against which to set in effective contrast the energy which he at once displayed. The expedition against the Ordovices was immediately followed up by the invasion of Mona, the motive assigned for which reveals the characterizing significance of the narrative [nan ignarus instandum famac). The difference between this account of the invasion of Mona and the one described in Ann., XIV, 29 (under Suetonius Paulinus) is especi- ally significant of the distinction between the historical and the encomiastic method of treatment. In the Agricola practically the whole of the highly rhetorical narrative is directed to showing the ingenuity and perseverance of the leader in finding means of getting his troops across in the absence of ships, and to describing the effect of wonder and dismay which the display of such resourcefulness produced upon the islanders: ita rej)ente inmisit, ut obstupefacti liostc^, (jiii rhis.^cni, us. The 34 George Lincoln Hendrickson 9 whole passage is a striking example of a higlily elaborated av^tjaK (almost to the point of frigidity), din'cted to the praise of the ralio ct ronslditlid duris (vs. 20). Contrast with this the simple statement of the same method of invasion in Ann., XIV, 29: equites vada seciiti ant altiores inter undas adnantcs equis framisere. There follows then, in the Annah, a vivid pictui-e of the natives of the island gathered upon the shore, the fanatical behavior of tlie Druids, the; alarm with which the scone inspired the Romans, the rout of the inlial)itauts, the static ming of a garrison, the destruction of the sacred groves, and an allusion to the custom (jf human sacrifice. In the one case we have a narrative of facts and events of a universal, historical significance; in the other, the rhetorical amplification of a single point to illustrate a quality of an individual character.'* The remainder of the chapter is expressly devoted to drawing inferences for the characterization of Agricola from the d(H'ds of this first season: renown and recognition which followed (clarits (ic iiidf/iiKS hdhcri), contrast of his vigor with the ostentation and inactivity of others in the beginning of their administration (^quijype cut ingredientem j)i'ovinci(iiii, quod iemjms alii 'per ostentationem, etc.), modesty of bearing in the face of success (dissimulatione famue famam auxit). Apart from the emphasis thus laid upon characterization as distinguished from narrative, the chapter reveals a consfjicuous feature of encomiastic style in the con- stant employment of comparison (avyKpiaii;), express or implied."^ I have pointed out above how the whole situation on Agricola's arrival is presented with careful reference to affording a background of obstacles against which to display the efficiency of Agricola in overcoming them. Of a similar character are such explicit contrasts as (vs. 10): et plerisqne cnsiodiri suspccta potius videhaiur; or (vs. 27): quod tcmpus alii .... transigitnt. To this syncritical figure i^aj^rjixa avyKpi.TiKov) belongs also the rhetorical aii^ijcri'; cited above, expressing the surprise of the inhabitants of Mona, who had looked for an invasion by a fleet and, in dismay at the unwonted attack, thought nothing invincible sic ad bellum venieidibiis. In the jmssage of the rhetorician Apsines quoted above (p. (>}, one of the resources of encomiastic narrative is designated as avaipeai<;, that is, so to speak, the paint- ing of a negative background against which to set in sharper outline a positive picture. It is obviously a form of the (rj^rnia avy/cpiTLKOv. It was recognized as a means of lending dignity and impressiveness to style,'" and in practice it is constantly ^^Cf. LuciAN, Quomodo hist, cons., 1 (speaking of the other examples are for the most part implied comparisons faults of historians): d/ieATJaarT*:? oi woAAoi auTwi' tou iaToptii- (introduced with such phrases as non aUus, non ut pie- Ta yeytvr]^i^ya Tot? iiraivoii Tuiy ap\6vTuiv Kai iV ei'Siarpt- riquc, or with the figure of avaiptai^) merely touched in ^ovaiv. passing. The theory of them would seem to be alluded to by NiC. Soph., Sp. Ill, 481, 17: iVa fxrindi'Tj] e*cAiiT)7ac (6 Adyos) p.6vT}V fj.vijiJ.riV TJOtoviJ.ivittv ijt^tiiv .... Treipaero/ieda ei? aperd? avatijipsiv rds Trpafets Ka\ en-ayei^ Kara juepos Tas (TvyKftiatt.^, ii> On the encomiastic significance of cruyKptai? in gen- eral, see the writers of TTftoyvp.va.fTy.ara, TiiEON, Sp. II, 112; Aphthonius, ibid,, 42; Hermogenes, ibid,, 14, andpaasim, C/. HeEMOG., 13, 3: peyiarrj 5c iv rols iyKujpioi<; aopp.rj i) ajrb 10 HekMOGENES, ir. iSt'io^ (Sp.II, 307.3) : ffX'i**'^''*^'' ^^M^^pa Tuv avyKpiaetov, The avyKpiaf; was sometimes formal and oaa Ka'i eueiSij, olov al acaipetrei? kt\. Cf. also Sp. Ill, 125, 13, elaborate, sometimes merely incidental. The most formal and 130, 8. uvyKpttrti in the Agricola is in chap. 41 (cited below, p. 31 ); the 35 10 The Proconsulate of Julius Agrioola found in professedly encomiastic passages. It is especially frequent in characterizing descriptions, as, for instance, in chap. 5: nee Agricola licenter, more iuvenum ([id milifiam in lasclviain vertuiit,nequ.e scgniicr, etc sed noscere 2»'ovmciam, etc. ; or, again, chap. 8: ncc Agricola Hinquam in suam famam gestis exsultavit: ad auciorem ac duccm id minister fortunam referebat. See also the wliole of chap. 9. In all these cases it is constantly combined with (as in the first example from chap. 5, above), or is the expression of, a avyKpia^. The form 7iec or non (frequently repeated in anaphora), followed by sed, is the most common. Or, as above, in the example from chap. 8, the positive antithesis may be introduced in adversative asyndeton. The phenomenon is one of considerable interest as an index of stylistic tone, and deserves more detailed investigation along with the whole question of rhetorical avyKpiai^. It is this figure of ava(pecn'isque Itaud minus ardutim est quam provinciam regere (vs. 4) ; cireumeisis quae in quaestum reperta ij^so tribido gravius tolerabantur (vs. 14) — an implied a-vyKpiai<; which is then elaborated in the description of former abuses. Note especially the end of this section, which the editors paragraph absurdly with chap. 20: hacc primo si/<; Kai Germaus' plan of ambush) : nihil cx his Cacsdyl iucop^ T(is fVeipat iia p6fY}i7i.i' iytputaKf<;, fKelfoi &i Twf vnb trov irpaT- nitum, etc.; ihid.^ XIII, 40, 3: rcpeiitc (tgtncn liotnanutn TotLtvuiy ovSiy avvitaav. The naive injunction of tlio rho- circumfundit (Tiridates)^ non ignaro ducc nostro, otc. toriciau is almost oqualcd by tho bald simplicity of the Stativs^SUv., \, 2 {laudes Bolinii)^ AO, practice of writers of the highest rauk. Cf. Tacitus, Ann., 40 George Lincoln Hendrickhon 15 knowledge of Agricola, yet for his contemporaries the connection of this famous adventure with his administration must liave possessed no little biographical interest. The affair had made a sensation in its day, and the survivors wlio had reached Roman territory through the devious paths of servitude and sale, reporting their adventure, had attained a notoriety which we can only understand when we realize how vague and remote the unexplored Northern Ocean was felt to be (^acfucrc quos .... indi- cium tanti casKS iidiistrarit). These deserters had accomplished what neither Roman military expeditions nor geographical explorers had as yet succeeded in, the circum- navigation of Britain, and, according to Dio Cassius, it was only in consequence of this that Agricola sent out his own expedition of exploration ((id, 20) : kuk tovtov koL a\\ov<; 6 ' AypiKoXwi ■7reipdaovTa<; rov TrepiirXovv -TrefJLifra'i efiaOe Kal trap'' eKeivccv on vrjao^ ecTTiv. Of this there is no suggestion in Tacitus, but a reason for suppressing the fact might lie in the desire to ascribe the idea of circumnavigation to Agricola's own initiative. Still, the account of Dio Cassius differs in some essential points from Tacitus, so that it must have been derived from a different source. The fact of the existence of a different account of the matter is in itself significant of the celebrity of the episode, and still more the circumstance that it is essentially the only event of Agricola's proconsulship which Dio records. It may be observed in conclusion that Calgacus in his speech before the battle (.32, 19) instances this desertion as evidence of the unstable organization of the Roman army. The episode is thus made by Tacitus himself to contribute to the series of obstacles which the generalship of Agricola has to overcome. The following chapter begins with the record of a domestic blow, the loss of a son — obviously an item of biographical rather than historical significance, and it affords occasion for laudatory characterization of Agricola's conduct under this grief. It assumes again the form of a avyKpiai'; [iicqne id pleriqiic forfiiiiii virori(m, etc.). This brings us, then, to the confronting of the two forces at Mons Graupius, and the speeches of the opposing leaders, Calgacus and Agricola. The introduction of these harangues by the opposing leaders on the eve of conflict is purely in the manner of historiography, for such speeches as are found elsewhere in ancient biography are of a more personal and characterizing kind. They continue thus the historical form which has been observed in the aunalistic record of Agricola's deeds. The general's speech in ancient historiography has a manifold significance. In part it is employed to lend color to the dramatic picture of the whole scene and circumstances of the battle; in part to summarize the historical situation and thus afford a setting for the event of victory or defeat ; again it is a means of characterizing the speaker, and of enabling the historian to interpret by the general's own words the character which preceding or following events reveal. Of these considerations the last may here be dismissed, since there could be little point in the indirect charac- terization of Agricola which the speech would afford, when he has already been char- acterized directly in much detail. As for Calgacus, there is no reason why he should 41 16 The Proconsulate of Julius Agricola be characterized at all. He has not been named in the narrative before, and here he simply steps forth from the throng for the sake of affording a personality to whom words may be assigned, representing the situation from the side of the Britons. But apart from the rhetorical opportunity which is afforded, it is obvious that the speeches summarize the whole course of Agricola's conquests, and prepare the reader for the successful outcome of the battle which was the crowning achievement of Agricola's administration. The burden of the first part of Calgacus's speech (30) is, that on the Britons there gathered rests the last hope of freedom from the Roman yoke {Jtodiernuin diem .... initium libcrtatis toti Britanniae fore). They are still free, but beyond them there is no resource — nullae ultra terrae ac ne mare qiiidem securiim imminente nobis classe Romana. In earlier contests against the Romans hope of succor had been derived from the fact that they remained still uncorrupted by the touch or sight of servitude [priorcs pugnac, etc. — a form of crvyKpicn(ov7]fj.a — inrcnla Brifaiiiiia ct sH.lxictd.'" With these words the speech opens, and here for the first and only time is it possible for Tacitus to state directly in strong encomiastic av^rja-i's the two claims for distinction derived from the deeds of Agricola, his explorations {inventa) and his conquests {snhada). His speech continues with conventional exhortation and praise to his soldi(>rs, and allusion is made to the difficul- ties of their situation (ncqnc, ciiim iiohis ant locurnm radcm nofifiii, ant commccdiiaui eadem dbundantia). At the entl of the chapter he alludes in romantic phraseology to the glory of adventure and, if need be, of deatli at the very boundaries of the world {nee inglorium fiierit in ipso terrarum ac naturae fine cecidisse).'^ The succeeding section is taken up with conventional depreciation of the enemy, but the brief horta- tory peroration returns to the encomiastic totto'^ with which the speech opened — tran- sigite cum expeditionibns, imponite (ptinqnaijinta aiinis viagnnm diem, etc. These final words contain the gist of the whole situation. They enable Tacitus to say what in his own person he could not claim without invidious comparison — that Agricola had set the crown on the work begun by Claudius; he had completed the exploration and conquest of the island. By [)utting the words in the mouth of Agricola, in the form of an exhortation to his army on the eve of battle, they are deprived of all arro- gance or invidious suggestion of comparison with the merits of others. The device is analogous to a well-recognized rule of ancient rhetoric which Aristotle formulates thus [Rhet., Ill, 17, p. 14:18/>, 24): et? Be to ?/^o?, eireiBrj 'ivia irepi avrov Xeyeiv i) i7ri(j)0ovov rj fiuKpoXoyiav rj avriXoyiav e^ei, .... erepov y^pij Xeyovra iroidv. We see here again a conspicuous illustration of what we have noted above in the annalistic record of Agricola's campaign, namely, the skilful use of a form peculiar to historiography for the ends of encomium. Encomium, dealing with deeds of acknowledged greatness, does not hesitate to dwell with epideictic amplification of language upon the merits which are claimed for the subject of praise. But neither were the deeds of Agricola so well known, nor was his place in the history of Roman conquest so generally acknowledged, as to render such treatment possible ;'"'" nor, again, had his position been one of such eminence that his merits could be exalted above those of other governors of Britain without alienating the sympathy of men still living. Tacitus, therefore, by choosing the form of a historical narrative, and b}' placing in the mouths of the opposing generals the titles to praise which he would claim for Agricola, attained the 20QUINT., VIII, 5,11 : esf enini e/>/7)/iOnt'»)rt rei narnttac not expressly confirmed it: oy yip ISioy tovto tiovof tov flairt- VCl- pvOOdtdC SUnitna UCCiClinQtlO, Acuj^ to eyicujfiiof, aAAi Koif'ov np'o^ Traira? Tou? otKoOiTas Tiji* 21 Cy. 7*. -L. Jlf., IV, 29 {referring to the expedition of n6\Lv" (Gudeman, Int., p. x, n. 1). The citation apart Claudius). from the contest would seem convincing if we chose to 2- "That the essential features [of the ^a(7lAl«b? Aoyo?] ignnre tovto. But reference to the text shows that toi/to to are common to biographical writing in general might have <'yicci>iioi' refers to the topic irorpis as a source of praise. It been taken for granted, even if Menander (III, 369, 25) had is this which is "common to all the residents of the city." 43 18 The Proconsulate of Julius Agricola end at which he aimed, and avoided at the same time the odium which attaches to direct praise. That this portion of the Agricola which is presented in the form of historiography looks consistently to the praise of Agricola will probably be conceded. It remains to consider Leo's utterance (cited above, p. 4) that "from chap. 18 on Agricola is the leading personality, but not otherwise than the commander would be in any history of military campaigns." If this is true, then, of course, it must be conceded that a large part of the Agricola is historical rather than biographical or encomiastic in treatment. I feel convinced, however, that the foregoing analysis has supplied sufficient evidence to refute such a statement. But it will perhaps not be carrying our investigation too far afield, if we undertake to test the truth of this statement by comparison with the history of another military campaign under the leadership of a general for whom the historian entertains a similar warmth of personal feeling. The justice of comparing Tacitus with himself in this respect will not be questioned; for if the comparison reveals identity or similarity of treatment, or if, on the other hand, it reveals funda- mental difference, we shall possess, so to speak, the author's own judgment as to the literary character of this portion of the Agricola. That there is a certain similarity in Tacitus's portraiture of Agricola and Ger- manicus, each the successful leader of Roman arms in the establishment of the impe- rial frontier and each the victim of an emperor's jealous hate, has been observed more than once, and in general the two descriptions lend themselves very naturally to comparison. But in the technique of characterization of the two men there is a ditference so marked and striking that it can only be attributed to fundamentally different conceptions of the nature and purpose of the two works. In the Agricola, as we have seen (and I confine myself here exclusively to the record of campaigns, chaps. 18-29), events are recorded and their significance for the personality of the hero is pointed out in such a way as to reveal that the emphasis of the narrative lies upon the characterization. It is, furthermore, noteworthy that not a single officer other than Agricola is allowed to appear upon the scene by name, although it would have seemed natural in a historical narrative to designate at least the commander of the fleet which played so impoi-tant a role in the conquest of Caledonia, and which accomplished the circumnavigation of Britain and the exploration of the Northern Sea. In the reform of the civil administration of the island the Roman procurator must also have played a prominent part, for without his co-operation such changes in the levying of tribute as are recorded must have been quite impossible. It is not too much to affirm that the encomiastic nature of the Agricola is responsible for such suppression. The cam{)aigns of Germanicus on the German frontier are described in the Aymals beginning at I, 33, and continuing, with the interposition of some other material, as far as II, 20. The account covers the ex[)editions of the years 11, 15, and 10 A. D. 44 George Lincoln Hendkickson 19 It is, of course, a much more detailed narrative than the record of expeditions in Britain, and this in itself would be an adequate explanation for the fact that the deeds of the lieutenants of Germanicus come in for a conspicuous share of attention. The three officers who had charge of fitting out the fleet in the third campaign are men- tioned by name (II, 0), and even the name of an eagle-bearer who protected a Eoman envoy against the mutinous violence of the legionaries is recorded (I, 39). But the difference in fulness of narrative and historical importance of events, which might account for such differences of treatment as these, will not explain the fact that throughout this whole campaign, exceeding by many pages the length of the corre- sponding part of the Agricold, the events recorded are very rarely used for the purpose of direct characterization of the leading figure. Germanicus is almost constantly before us, in speech or plans or action, but the reader is left to draw his own infer- ences and to interpret the character dramatically from the course of the narrative. There is not a single characterization of Germanicus in the field comparable to Agr., 20; nor, again, of his strategic skill in the selection and defense of camps as in 22. There is no characterization whatever of the civil administration of his province {Agr., 19 and 21). In general, the narrative is dramatic in the highest sense, and scarcely once does the writer lay down the role of narrator to point out the bearing of events upon the character of his hero. Such characterization as is found is for the most part implicit in the narrative. Exceptions are few and of slight extent, as, for instance, in chap. 33, where upon the first introduction of Germanicus it was necessary for the writer to place the reader in possession of his attitude toward him. It is given first as an expression of the general feeling of the Roman people: kiuIc in GennanicKm favor et S2)es eadem, a statement which elicits from Tacitus a jjersonal indorsement: nam luveni civile rngenium, mira comitas et diversa ah Tiberii sermone vultu, adro- gantibus et obscuris. But even this case differs from the examples of the Agricola under discussion, in which the characterizing significance of events is pointed out. Apart from this passage, throughout the remainder of Annals, I, the character of Germanicus is unfolded only in action or in his own words. This will appear from a survey of the passages of this book which convey a suggestion of personality. They are so few that they may be adduced here. His unselfish support of Tiberius: sed Germanicus quanto summae spei propior, tanto impensius pro Tiherio niti (I, 34) ; he replies to Sergestes clemente response (I, 58), though the epithet is rather stra- tegic than personal; his j)ictas toward the memory of Varus and his army (I, 01) ; in the performance of the last rites on the scene of their defeat he placed the first sod upon the tumulus — grafissimo vinnere in dcfiinctos et praesentihus doloris socius (I, 62) ; Germanicus relieves the soldiery out of his own purse and assuages the memory of disaster by his personal kindness (I, 71). But the principal characterization of Germanicus is reserved for the eve of the decisive battle (II, 12). The extraordinary reserve of Tacitus in his historical works in the matter of direct personal analysis is nowhere better illustrated. The charac- 45 20 The Proconsulate of Julius Agricola terization takes a dramatic form, not that of the course of events, but the singular and almost bizarre device of representing Germanicus as stealing forth in disguise into the streets of the camp in order to test the temper of the soldiers by their own utter- ances in their own haunts (II, 13): adsistit tahernaculis fruiturque fama siii. cunt hie vobilitatem (Ikci's, decorem alius, plurimi paiieniiam, comitafcni, etc.'^ Of more directly encomiastic character is a brief statement of Germanicus's strategic skill in II, 20, where, after describing the plans of the enemy, Tacitus con- tinues: nihil ex liis Cacsari tncognitum: consilia locos, prompta occulta noverat astusque hosfium in perniciem ipsis vertcbaf; and just beyond: quod arduum sibi cetera Icgatis p)ermisit. The passage is comparable to Aijr., 25 extr. and 26 init., and is almost the only considerable passage of direct praise which the whole episode contains. In II, 22, after giving the inscription placed upon the trophy raised by Germanicus, Tacitus adds: de se nihil addidit, nictu invidiae an ratus conscientiam facfi satis esse. The words furnish another illustration of the dilference between encomium and history. As a historian Tacitus designates two j)ossible motives. The encomiast would not hesitate to select the one which should yield the greater praise to his hero. The contrast is well shown by Agricola, 18 extr. (after the suc- cesses of the tirst campaign): ne laurc(dis quidcm r/csfa 2)i''>secufus est, sed ipsa dissimulatione faiuae famam au.rif. To complete the list of passages which have more or less direct characterizing significance for Germanicus, we may add the description of the energy with which the war was continued after the naval disaster to the Romans (II, 25): co promptior Caesar jiergit, etc., and the brief mention of the generosity which was shown to the soldiers in making good individual losses (II, 26). But in all this there is but slight trace of that type of characterization (through the implications of acts) which confronts us constantly in the Agricola. It is possible that some passages have been omitted; yet I have gone over the text repeatedly, and I suspect rather that I have included more than really belongs here. The difference between the portion of the Agricola under consideration and the treatment of Germa- nicus in the Annals is clear and marked. In the Agricola, although the external form of historiography is preserved, yet in its essence the account is in the manner of enco- uiiuu), in which, as was pointed out above, the Trpafet? are adduced, not as historical events per se, but as indications of traits of character ( wcrTrep 'yvaipiaixara rwv t)}? •<|fLiT^r;? apercov). The truth of this statement will appear from a brief review of the princifjal characterizing incidents and the encomiastic comment elicited by them which these chapters of the .Agricola contain: The unexpected attack upon the Ordovices immedi- ately u[)on his arrival, as an index of the energy of Agricola in contrast to the delay advised by his officers and expected by the army; recognition of the importance of 23Tho signiflcanco of tliia episode for Tacitus's toch- ISiKl. Cf. also Norden, Antikc Kunstprosti, Vol. I, p. 87: niquo of char.-icterization is pointed out by Uruns, Die "Tacitus, der grOssto Psycholoi^o unt(;r dun Historikoru, ist PeraOnliclikcit in dcr antikcn Gcschiclttsucltrcihunfj. Korlin. ducli solir zurllcklialtend." •10 George Lincoln Hendeickson 21 following up a first success (no?i ignarus instandum famae) by the attack on Mona; iiigouuity and perseverance (ratio ct constantia ducis) in fiiuliiif^ a means of crossing in the absence of ships; contrast of tlie effect produced by his activity with the vanity and ostentation of most proconsuls on entering their province; modesty in success (18). Recognition of the wrongs of the province [animorum provinciae prudens) and determination to make his reforms strike at the root of evils; discipline of his own servants ; justice in the administration of civil affairs ; avyKpi,atr eiraiVou Kai i/*6yov, (Jtjtci Tor olAtjO^ Kal Toi' Ktiita\attubr] Kai ^er" auf jjffcws Twf TTpa^etiiv a7roAoYL(T/i6f ' ovTui? Toi- /xer' d7ro5et^ew? Kai Twl' iKaaroii TTapenotieVbji' tTvK\oyi.(lp.6v, 51 26 The Pkoconsulate of Julius Agricola program of a political creed, or a vindication of the memory of Agricola (and so of the moderate party) against the charge of dishonorable servility, have based their theories in the first instance npon the famous words in chap. 42: Domitiani vero natiira praeceps in iram, et quo obscuriuv, co ■inrcvocdbilior, moderatione iamcn prudentiaque Agricolae lemebafiir, quia non contumacia neque inani iactaiiouc liher- tatis famam faiumquc provocnhat. scianf, qtiibus maris est inlicifa mirari, posse etiam sub malis principibus inagiios viros esse, obsequiumque ac modestiam, si industria ac vigor adsint, eo laudis esceiidere, quo plerique per abrupta, sed ia nidlum rci pubJicae usniii, anibitiosa morie indarurruni. Students of Tacitus have debated hotly and with easy honors whether the prin- ciple here laid down is consistent with the general attitude of our author elsewhere toward the question at issue — a question which, from the time of Tiberius at least, had come to be one of the most vital problems of practical ethics for every great and influ- ential public character. Evidence from Tacitus's own utterances can be adduced on both sides. We can show that the very men — Thrasea, Rusticus, Helvidius — whose contumacy is here so vehemently assailed, are elsewhere touched with a kindlier hand, and to the description of their deaths there is lent the suggestion of martyrdom. Even in the Agricola, but a few pages farther on, Tacitus recalls with horror the share which the senate was compelled to have in shedding the innocent blood of Helvidius, Rusticus, Senecio (45). And similarly at the opening of the work these same men are instanced as martyrs whose deaths put to blush the acquiescence of himself and his compeers [dedimiis profecfo grande patientiae documentum). Surely in these passages there is no thought of sjiaring himself for his share in the degradation of those last years of Domitian's tyranny. Nor does Tacitus fail to record elsewhere with manifest admira- tion utterances which reveal a bold but fruitless independence of spirit. On the other hand, it is true that he praises the moderation of men who have known how to steer a middle course infer abrupiam contumaciam et deforme obsequium [Ann., IV, 20). But the essential ditference between this passage and other analogous exjjressions of politi- cal prudence, as, for instance, the one just cited, lies in the form and tone. Elsewhere, with a certain sadness and resignation, he commends acquiescence because of the fruit- lessness of opposition. Here he passes quickly from the fact of Agricola's submission to praise of his conduct, as an example of the glory that it was jwssible for a good man of vigor and efficiency to win under a bad emperor. For myself I cannot escape the feeling that the arrogant i-TriKpiai'; (^sciant quibus, etc.) rings false, and betrays that the writer is making the worse appear the better cause for the ends which filial devotion demanded. For, in the first place, it is not easy to see what there could have been in Agricola's dignified acceptance, when it should be offered him, of a high pro- consular post, which Tacitus could honestly designate as a "seeking for notoriety and a challenging of his own fate by contumacy and a vainglorious atfectation of inde- pendence." Would ncjt the more honorable and patriotic course have been to accept the reward which his merit had won and await the consequences'? Agricola, of his 52 George Lincoln Hendkickson 27 own motion, we are led to believe, would have followed this course, but was finally persuaded and terrified by his frieTids (siiddeidrs simiil icrrcntesquc jwHrdTcrc ad Domitiaimvi) into asking tlie ignoble favor of release from service. The humiliation of the request to Agricola is the aspect of the narrative wliit-h most impresses the modern reader; we are less concerned that Domitian did not blush at the odiousness of the benefit he conferred. Is this, then, that middle course between cuntumticiu and deforme ohsequium which Tacitus praised in Lepidus? Surely Tacitus has not spared his pen to make us realize how hideous the acquiescence of Agricola was. After such a scene we might concede a final judgment like that which is accorded to L. Piso [Ann., VI, 10): iiulJius servilis sentenfir]- fiia) of acts or events which were at best colorless, or perhaps even censurable, we have noted the explanation of the acerbitas of Agricola, and I have suggested that the iiriKpiai'; in 42 [sciant quibus, etc.) with its context seems to be a rhetorical defense of a course of conduct of doubtful credit. There are some other examples which might be instanced in this category, as the comment in chap. (5 on the inactivity of Agricola's tribuneship: gnarus sub Nerone temporum quibus inertia pro sapientia fuit. I am aware that investigations of the sort here presented are likely to be looked upon as hypersceptical indictments of the historical accuracy of our sources. But with questions of historical fact we are here only incidentally concerned ; the object of my study has been to define, if possible, the difference in literary treatment between encomi- astic biography and history. Unfortunately the means of direct comparison which the treatment of the same events in the Histories might have afforded are not available. In Xenophon the difference in the treatment of Agesilaus in the encomium of that name and in the Hellenica led scholars for a long time to dispute the authenticity of the former work. In Polybius, unfortunately, we do not possess the full historical treatment of Philopoemen, and all trace of the special biography of him has disap- peared. But that there was a considerable difference in the handling of the material in the two works we must believe on the authority of Polybius himself, as was indi- cated above. A pointed illustration of the differences between the two forms of liter- ary treatment is afforded by the inconsistencies which are revealed in Tacitus's account of Corbulo in the latter part of the Annals. The immediate source of his information was, I believe, an encomiastic biography analogous to the Agricola. For large parts of his narrative he follows this closely, and thus introduces into history the tone and spirit of encomium. At other times he discredits its statements and endeavors to maintain the objectivity of the historian. The result is curiously inharmonious. But the detailed consideration of this question must be postponed to another time. It was on the basis of a long tradition of biographical literature, composed from the point of view of encomium, that Tacitus wrote the life of his father-in-law. That in many instances, as we have seen, details of treatment correspond to the theoretical precepts of the rhetoricians, is due rather to the biographical and encomiastic monu- ments from which such principles were derived, than to a conscious observance of rhetorical theory itself. 55 30 The Proconsulate of Julius Agbicola APPENDIX Some miscellaneous observations are here appended which it has not been found convenient to include in the continuous argument of the preceding: 5, 2: prima casfrorum riidimenta in Britannia Suetonio Paulino .... adprobavit, electus quern contubernio aesiimaret. Cf. also 6, 18: electus a Galba ad dona templorum recognoscenda, etc. 9, 22: hand semper errat fama, aliquando et elegit. The encomiastic significauce of these passages is set in somewhat clearer light by the precept of the rhetorician Theon (wtpl iyKm/xiov), Sp. II, p. 110, 25: Sei Si Xaiifiavciv Kai ras KpL(T(.i% Tu)v Ivho^uiv, KaOainp ot iirai- voSvTEs 'EXci/ijv on 07JO-EVS TTpoiKpive. Cf. also note on indicium (43, 17) below. 9, 10: ubi officio satis factum, nullam ultra jMtestatis personam, tristitiam et adrogan- tiam et avaritiam exuerat. So the MSS. Eheuanus's correction, which is generally adopted — nulla ultra potestatis 2)ersona. Tristitiam, etc. — ascribes directly to Agricola qualities which a panegyrist could scarcely name even to deny. The correction ot Uriichs — nihil ultra: potcs- tatis personam, etc. — seems to me simpler, but I would retain the words tristitiam, adro- gantiam, avaritiam, which Uriichs Ijrackets. Tacitus, iu characterizing the potestatis personam, has allowed himself to ascribe to it, iu the detached manner of a sathical historian, the conven- tional attributes of Roman provincial governors, unmindful that the mere mention of them in this connection conveys a suggestion scarcely to the praise of Agricola. One may compare the satirical remark at the end of chap. 21, which seems to suggest a sinister design in Agricola's measures for the civilization of his province quite at variance with the writer's pui-pose as an encomiast. Vide supra, p. 11. A parallel example is afforded by Isoc., Euag., 78, which, though addressing a compliment to Nicocles, conveys a reflection upon the class to which he belongs: TTyDUTOS Kai p.ovo'; tCiv fv TvpavviSi Kal ttXoutu) Kol Tpuc^uis ovTdiv <^tXo(TO(^£iv Kai Troveiv €7rlKCl(£ip7JKaS, 10, 6: Britannia .... spatio ac caelo in. orientem Germaniae, in occidentem Hispaniae obtenditur. So far as I am aware, spatio ac caelo are universally taken as ablatives (of respect) with Britannia, and as such have been felt to be and certainly are otiose. Thej' are, however, I believe, datives in hendiadys {= spatio caeli) with obtenditur. Germaniae and Hisjmniae are genitives depending upon them. The position of Britain in relation to Germany and to Spain is designated by JH ociVHYe?)!. and »i occiV/cH/t'?)!. respectivelj'. "Britain lies iu the same latitude {sjjatio ac caelo .... obtenditur) as that of Germany on the east and of Spain on the west." In contrast to this more general indication of geographical position, v\ith relation to regions on the east and west, follows an exact designation of the southern boundary: Gallis in meridiem etiam inspicitur. The emphasis upon the proximity of Gaul may have been evoked by the inexact statement of Pliny, IV, 16, 30: e,t' adrerso huius situs (the Low Countries) Britannia insula inter seiJtentrionalem et occidentem iacet, Germaniae, Galliae, Hispaniae .... magna intervallo adversa. 10, 18: sed mare ingrum et grave remigantibus perhibent, etc. The phenomenon does not admit of a satisfactory explanation, if we think of Tacitus as describing something actually observed by the expedition of exploration sent out by Agricola. There surely could have been no difficulty in recognizing fields of floating sea-weed or ice or even adverse currents. The encountering of a belt of calm iu the vicinity of the Shetland Islands (to which Furneaux refers) may have seemed to lend confirmation to a widely diffused conception of the imknown outer ocean as a windless sea of almost inunoval)Ie character. Walch cites a num})er of passages which allude to this in widely different periotls of antiquity. In the discussions of this question I have not observed that the parallels afforded by Seneca Rhet., Suas. 1, have been cited: Deliberat Alexander an Oceanum naviget. His friends dissuade him from essaying so perilous 66 GrEORGE LINCOLN HeNDRICKSON 31 a task: stat immotum mare, quasi drficirutifi in suo fine naturae pigra moles ipsiim vero grave et defi.rum mare. 2ex(r.: immobile prof nndum. 10: hie dijficuUatem naviga- tionis, ignoti maris naturam non patientem navigationis. 15 (Pedo .... in navigante Germanieo dicit): ad rerum metas cxtreniaque litora m.nndi\\ nunc ilium, pngris immania monstra sub undis^ qui ferat, Oceanum, ate. Agaiu, a little farther ou: atque alium fiabris intactum quaerimus orbemf But Tacitus, in Ann., 11,24, says: quanta violentior cetera mart Oceanus, etc. 18, 23: qui classem, qui naves, qui mare expectabanf. In explanation and defense of mare, Miss Katharine Allen, of the University of Wisconsin, has calletl my attention to Hist., II, 12 init.: possessa per mare et naves maiore Italiae parte. An example, somewhat analo- gous to this, of a loose use of mare is afforded by Tibidlus, I, 3, 50: nunc mare, nunc leti mille repente viae, where it stands " praeguanti sensu .... pro nunc maris et navigationis pericula." In oiu- passage mare gathers up in forcible climax the content of the preceding expressions classem naves. It is in no sense a descending series. 41, 18: sic Agricola simul suis virtutibus, simul vitiis aliorum in ipsam gloriam praeceps agebatur. This well-known passage seems to have been very generally misintei-preted. Commentators have read into it more than it really contains, and have found it an extreme example of Taciteau compression {cf. Ernesti's characterization of it as " acuminis captatio," Walch, Wex, Furneaux, and the conjectures of Madvig and Baehrens). But the passage con- tains no suggestion that "Agricola's glory was his doom." It is merely the conclusion of a cruyKpttrts, which sets forth, by contrast to the weakness and inefficiency of Domitian and his generals, the swift growth of Agricola's fame. The comparison begins with 41, 5: et ea insecuta tempera quae sileri Agricolam non sinerent. There follow then the disasters (the negative side of the o-v'yKpiais — the ritia, aliarum) which provoked popular clamor for Agricola, comparantibus cunctis vigorem et consiaiitiam et expertum bellis animum cum inertia et formidine ceterorum. The comparison concludes with the words in question: " Agricola, not only by his own virtues, but by contrast with the weakness and inefficiency of others, was hiuried to the very pinnacle of fame." The correctness of this interpretation may be tested by comparison with the similar conchision of a o-vyKpio-i? of Pomp)ey with other generals, in Cicero, De imp. Pomp., 67: quasi Cn. Ponipeium non cum suis virtutibus turn etiam alienis vitiis magnum esse videamus. 43, 16: satis constat lecta testamenio Agricalae, quo coheredem ojttimae uxori et piissimae filiae Domifianum scrij)sit, laetatum eum velut hoiiore iudicioque. The quasi- technical character of this last phrase seems to have been overlooked. Furneaux (with Andresen) thinks that the words honore iudicioque distinguish the act and the thought, and renders "the mark of respect and the esteem implied in it;" and so essentially Gudemau. But indicium is a terminus technicus in the legal language of wills and inheritances for the judgment which animates a bequest, and so for the bequest itself. This transition of meaning is well shown by Seneca, Z>e i?e»ie/., IV, 11, 4: gw/d .... cum testamentum ordinamus nan beneficia nihil nobis profutura dividimiisi .... atqui numquam magis iudicia nostra magis torquemus quam ubi rematis utilitatibus solum ante oculos honcstum stetit. For suprema iudicia, or iudicia alone, in the sense of testamentum see the passages in Forcelhni, s. v.. Ill, 1,3, of which Suet., Aug., 66, affords a good illustration: quamvis minime appeteret hereditates, ut qui numquam ex ignati testamento capere quicquam susiinuerit, amicorum tamen suprema iudicia moro- sissime pensitavit, neque dolore dissimulato si j^arcius aut citra honorem verborum, etc. (These last words cast some light upon honore iu our passage. The honorem iudicii alone, citra honorem verborum, he did not desire.) Finally a parallel which sets the meaning of our passage in the clearest light, and shows that it is to be interpreted as heudiadys for honore 57 32 The Proconsulate of Julius Agricola iudicii, is afforded by the Laudafio Murdiae (C I.L., VI, 10230), vs. 6: viro cerhtm pecuniam legavit iit ins dofis honore iudicii aiigeretur. (Cf. Vollmer ad. loc, Jahrb., Suppl. Vol. XVIII, p. 487.) Cf. also Du Cange, s. v. indicium. [I note that Ruperti, ad loc, makes allusion to the use of the word here noted, but without closer application to the interpretation of the passage.] 44 in it. : A transposition of sentences from the order preserved in the MSS. is a noleut remedy and one justly regarded with extreme scepticism. But since we have ample evidence that errors in the sequence of ancient tests do occur, it is legitimate for the critic to point out apparent errors of this sort and to make such suggestions of restoration as are possible. This chapter begins with a brief statement of some external facts concerning Agricola : (1) his age, (2) his appearance. Then follows a considerable reflection that Agricola, though cut off in the prime of life, had attained all that long life could have granted: et ipse quidem, quamquam medio in spatio integrae aetatis ereptus, quantum ad gloriam longissimum aevum j)eregit. The position of these words is sui'prising, for such a reflection would more naturally have followed the statement of his age; nor can I think that et ipse forms an appropriate transition from the preceding. There follows an epexegetical sentence: quippe et vera bona, quae in virfutibus sita sunt, impleverat, et consulari ac triumphuJibus ornamentis praedito quid aliud adstruere fortuna poterat i The real goods of virtue and fame are here obviously contrasted with external goods of fortune, although as yet the latter have not been named. These then follow, as the third item of external character, in a manner which, as Furneaux remarks, appears irrelevant: (3) opibus nimiis non. gaudebat,speciosae nan contigerant. As a matter of arrangement it would have seemed more natural to have placed the third statement of external facts imme- diately after the second, before proceeding to the reflections which follow (2), especially since these reflections are rather in sequence with (1) than with (2). But further, and more decisively, we should look for (3) to precede quippe et vera bona, so that these words may look back in proper antithesis to opibus. An arrangement of the passage which would seem to meet all the difficulties which I have named, and which others (especially Furneaux and Gudeman) have raised, would be as follows: il) uatvs erat Agricola, etc {2) quod si habitum quoque eius jwsteri noscere velint, etc., .... libeuter. (3) oj)ibus nimiis non gaudebaf. spieciosae non contigerant. [From this state- ment of his small material wealth Tacitus passes to the suggestion of his real good fortune.] Filia atque uxore superstitibus potest videri etiam heatus incolumi dignitate, florente fama, salvis adfinitatibus et aniicitiis, fufura effugis.se. [In contrast to this statement of his good fortune in the integrity of his fame and tlie safety of his family and friends, Tacitus turns to the fact of Agricola^s own death and shows that it was not untimely.] Et ipse quidem, qttamquam medio in spatio integrae aetatis ereptus, quantum ad gloriam, longissimum aevum peregit. quippe et vera bona [in contrast to the opibus above], quae in virtutibus sita sunt, impleverat, et consu- lari ac triumphalibus ornamentis praedito quid aliud ad.struere fortuna poterat f namsicut ei <^non licuity durare in liauc beatissimi saeculi lucem ac principem Traianuui videre .... ita festinatae mortis grande solaciuni tulit evasis,se jwstremitm illud tempus, etc. [This sen- tence, introduced appropriately by nam, anticipates the suggestion that fortune might have granted him to see the reign of Trajan, and answers it by showing that it could only have been at the cost of witnessing the last days of Domitian. The balanced clauses nam sicut .... ita would perhaps best be rendered by " for though .... still."] I have explained this, though it is obvious enough, to meet an objection which will naturally be raised to the transposition proposed. It will be said that this last sentence is the natural complement of futura effugi.s.se, and it cannot be denied that the sequence of these two parts as they stand is perfectly satisfactory. I would only urg(^ that the sequeuc(? with (juid aliud adstruere fortuna jwterat is equally natural, as I have endeavored to point out. Geouc;e Lincoln Hendrickson 33 44, 14: navi sicut ei ^non liciiity duraro. in hnne hrafinxiini sat'c/idi liic.em ac principem Traianum viderc, quad aiigiirio rutin(jiit' ajiiul jio.ilras aiiri.s oiniiialxifur, fte. Lipsins com- ments: " mirum si tot aunos praesaf^iit. Nee de Traiano ulla spopav \d/3r] Tivd. Beivi] yap. Here the line is bracketed by all modern editors' as having been inappropriately inserted from vs. 380. After vs. 356 Didymus is said by the scholiast to have found the same line, although it is not found in any of our manuscripts in that place and no editor has proposed to restore it. Here the text reads (the king of Corinth is the speaker) : irpovvveTTO) Be aoi, el' a rj ^inova-a Xa/i7ra? 6-<^eTai deov Kal iralBwi ii'TO'i rijaSe repfiovcov ^Oovo';, 6avel- XeXeKTat fivOo'i ayp-evBij'i oSe. 355 vvv S\ €1 fieveiv Sel, pLifiv icj}^ rj/xepav fiiav ou yap TL Spda£L<; 8eivov wv (f>6/3o<; /i' e'l^ei. To the last line of this passage the following scholium is attached : ov ydp n Bpd hS)fxa vvp.iKov irvpt, ^ SrjKTOu a>au> ^dcT'yavov hi iJTraro'i, 380 ffi-y^ Sofiovt elalid(T 'iv ecrrpayTai Xe;)^o?. Valckenaer and Pierson have not been followed by subsequent critics in consid- ering the line in place at 41 rather than here. It is the scholium upon the line in this place which has given difficulty: S)Se KoXco? Keirai. Ai'^u/xo? crrjp.eiovTai oTi KaKd^(o avrov. This interpretation is impossible. 0-17^ BofMov; ela-^daa refers of course only to the one line immediately preceding it, and there never has been any valid objection to its appropriateness in connection with that line. J. van Leeuwen {Commenfatio de Antigoiia Sophocleci) punctuates: AiBufio<; .... Tdaaovcriv. — iirl twv Bvo to aiyy Bo/jlov; ela^daa, Kavcrai t} a-(j)d^u) avT0vv 8uo meets with approval. Some redactor of the scholia who had access to the notes of Didymus found that that famous critic cited the line 0-47^ hofiow ela^aaa after vs. 356, with a note accusing the actors of having inappropriately introduced it there (see the scholium on 356 already quoted). It was to be expected then that, in commenting on the line in its proper place, vs. 380, he should express his opinion as to its fitness in the latter place — which he does by saying wSe «:aX.w? Kelrai — and, further, should refer to the note and citation of Didymus in the preceding place. This reference it is which has been corrupted into the meaningless words eVi toiv Bvo, and the reference read origi- nally eVt TM Tv^', "at line 352" (/. e., 356, Schwartz). The first step in the corruption was probably the loss of the second t, thus : tq)tvI3 became rmi/yS, whence toiv 0. If this emendation is correct, the scholium should read thus : wSe kuXok Kelrai. Ai'^u/xo? arjfieiovTai oTi KaKW ol inroKpiTal rdacovaiv eirl tS) tv0 to " crfyrj 86fiov<; ela^aaa,'''' and 65 6 A Stichometrio Scholium to the Medea of Euripides one might paraphrase it thus: "Here the line is in the proper place (not at 357). Didymus marks the line for the reason that the actors are wrong in bringing it into the text at 352." At 352 (356, Schwartz) he had already said: "After this line Didymus cites the line criyrj B6ij.ou<;, k.t.X., and blames the actors for bringing it into the text here, where it is out of place." The last clause of the scholium, Kavaui r) a-cfxi^o) avroik, seems to be a late attempt at an explanation of iirl tSiv Svo after the corruption had taken place, and as such it is to be rejected. Bruhu's theory that it is a paraphrase of vss. 378, 379 is less inviting. He says : "Quibus verbis vix opus est moneam novum contineri scholium 378-79 complecteus." {Luc. Eur., p. 249, note.) This emendation gives a natural interpretation to the whole scholium upon vs. 380 as well as to the one upon vs. 356, which was thought by Elmsley as well as Verrall to be out of 2)lace. Moreover, Didymus is the ultimate source of both scholia, and the qiaestion involved in both — that of an actor's interpolation — is the same. This naturally leads one to connect the reference in eVi tmv Bvo with the corresponding scholium upon vs. 356, rather than with vs. 41, of which Didymus seems not even to have spoken. Finally, the corruption of eVt tw tv/S' to iirl tojv /3' is certainly an easier one than that which Mr. Verrall assumes. Though I do not know of similar references by verse in the scholia of the drama- tists, there is sufficient actual manuscript evidence to make us certain that the method of citation by verse must have been a common one. Asconius^ has at least twenty- five references by verse numbers to lines of Cicero ; cf. in Cic. Pis., p. 3, Orelli : circa versiim LXXX; p. 6 : circa vcrsum a j^rimo CCLXX, etc. In a similar way the scholiast of Oribasius' refers by arixoL to the passages in the works of Galen which were the source of the later author s statements. See on Oribasius, IV, p. 532, 24 (ed. Daremberg), the scholiast's reference to Galen : a7ro tov 5-' rf;? depa-rrevTLKrj'i &)? irpo a' cTTixoiv rov reXov;. See also the scholia on Oribasius, III, pp. 686, 22 ; (i89, 12 ; IV, pp. 533, 4 ; 538, 1 ; 534, 6. The last citation reads : otto tov a ^i/3\iov t?)? crvvo- ■v/re(U9 TO)v ^eipovpyovfievaiv fiera to TpiTOv tov /SifiXiov, o)? /lera t' aTL-^ovi t/}? ap)^ri<; tov o/xoiov K€cf)aXaiov. Some examples of the same method of reference are found in Diogenes Laertius;' so, for example, in VII, 188: ra 8" avTci (j)7jcn ( Xpi^criTTTro? ) Kal ev TU) Trepl TOiv firj Bi' mvra ciipeT&v . . . . , ev oe tu> TpiTcp irepl hiicalov KaTo. toi)? y^LXlovi aTixpv; (= "circa versum millesimum," Wachsmuth) Kal tov<; a-rroOavovTa^ ecrdieiv KeXevwv. Similar references occur at VII, 33, and VII, 187. As the above-mentioned references are to prose works, they are usually not exact, being modified by some word like circa, m, kuto.. The impli(;ation is, of course, that the works referred to were numbered in the ordinary'' way by the hundred-line measure with the sixteen-syllable 3 C/. the discussion by RiTsniL, liiiuscula. I, pp. 7X IT. >• Cf. Fuhr, Khcinischc.-! Museum, XXXVII (18.S2), p. 468 ; * Cf. DiELB, HcrmcK, XVII (18S2), pp. m tt. Sciianz, Hermes, XVI (1881), p. :««; Ciiuist, Die AUirus- J" Cy. WAnisMUTH, Rhcinisehes Museum, XXXIV (18791, p. .39; Sciianz, Hermes, XVI (1!-81), p. .310; Bomde, Khemi- tches Huxcum, XXXXV (1879), p. 562, noto. aungabc des Demosthenes ; Graux, Revue i]a-iv .... Tois S' vTro/cpiTat crvyKeeiv, and at the end of the alleged confusion (vs. 1G9) the charge is repeated: 'ATroXXo'Scopo? /xev ow (jjrjcriv 6 Tapaeix; Trjv a/j,o^ovfj.edai .... yap Beivd ; Orest., 1519-20, Becvov .... BeBoiKa<;. Now, as we have found good reason for the belief that Didymus (whose text was probably better than ours) did not have vs. 41, and as the four lines 40-43 are of a kind, and from the same source, we have an additional argument for their rejection. We may safely date them as post-Didymean. I cannot agree, however, with Diudorf [Eurijiides, VII, p. 266 ; he is followed by Prinz-Wecklein), who finds here an interpolation of six lines. He says : "Glossator non animadvertit interpolatoris fraudem, qui post versum 37 versus intulit sex {^apela . . . \d/3T} Tivd) quorum quattuor ipse scripsit, duos ex. vss. 379-80 hue rettulit."' 68 THE COMMENTARIOLUM PETITIONIS ATTRIBUTED TO QUINTUS CICERO THE COMMENTARIOLUM PETITIONIS ATTRIBUTED TO QUINTUS CICERO Geoboe Lincoln Hendricks on AUTHENTICITY It is now just ten years (I write in September, 1902) since I published in the American Joiinud of FhiJology (Vol. XIII, pp. 200-212) a brief paper in which, as I thought, I was able to adduce conclusive evidence of the spuriousness of the Coinmen- tarioliim. Its authenticity had already been called into question on quite inadequate evidence by A. Eussner in a Wiirzburg Program of 1872, while Mommsen in the third volume of his SfaafsrccJit of the year 1887 (p. 484 and note) had alluded to the work as spurious, but without discussion of reasons for his belief apart from a single example of erroneous statement relating to the ordo equesfcr. Eussner's disciission was answered at considerable length by Professor Tyrrell, iirst in Hcrmathena and later in Vol. I of his edition of the letters. But while the many trivial arguments of Eussner fell an easy prey to the almost indignant pen of Professor Tyrrell, yet it is, I fancy, an impartial verdict, that he succeeded in refuting Eussner rather than in defending Quintiis.' The question is naturally not a burning one, but (apart from private expressions of opinion which came to me) in the course of time I noted that my argument had won a few adherents, of whom I may name Professor Gudeman in his treatment of "Liter- ary Frauds Among the Romans" (Transactions of the Am. Phil. Ass''n, Vol. XXV, p. 154, note 2), and Dr. L. Gurlitt, the eminent connoisseur of Cicero's letters, in the Jahreshcricht for 1898 (Vol. XXVI, p. 3). But I did not convince Professor Leo, who in the course of a discussion of the date of publication of the letters to Atticus,' defended the genuineness of the Commentariolum, nor Schanz, who in the second edi- tion of the Romische Liferoturgeschichte still holds to the position originally taken by him toward the question. Most recently Dr. J. Ziehen — and his words have impelled me to revert to the subject once more — has used this discussion to illustrate the general reaction toward a more conservative point of view in the higher criticism of Roman literature,^ assuming that the authenticity of the work in question is now generally acknowledged. That such is the case I shall not dispute, but I am stirred to protest when this conservative reaction is illustrated by a series of examples which places the challenging of the genuineness of the Commentariolum on a par with the frivolous icy. Leo, "Die Publication von Cicero's Briefen an 2"EchtheitsfragenderrOinischen Literaturgeschichte,'* Atticus," Nachrickten d. k. GeselUckaft d. U'issenschaften Berichte d. freieti deiUscken Hochstiftes zu Frankfurt zu GOttinrten, phil.-hist. Klasse, ISSo, pp. 447 11. "TyrreU a. M.. 1901, p. 84. I am indebted to Dr. Ziehen himself for hat seine Vertheidiguns gofUhrt ohne, wie mir scheint, den a copy of his valuable paper, with the general tendency Kern der Sache zu treffen." and results of which I am in full accord. 71 4 The Commentariolum Petitionis Attributed to Q. Cicero doubts of the early nineteenth century concerning the orations against Catiline, the orations j^ost redltum and the pro MurccUo. The considerations advanced by Wolf, and especially by his German and Dutch emulators, against any of these orations were never more than of a most general character — suspicions of the presence of bombast, declamatory rhetoric, and the magisfcr vmhraticus. Of definite relations to other works of literature, which would reveal the pillager, examples were not shown. Now in regard to the Commentariolum I would carefully eliminate so far as pos- sible all considerations of a vague or general character, and so throw over voluntarily much, or rather most, that Eussner advanced. I would let the question rest upon a comparison of resemblances with literature of a time subsequent to the date at which the treatise purports to have been written, that is, subsequent to the middle of the year 64, the earliest date which can be assigned to it, if genuine. Confirma- tion of this result I shall then endeavor to point out from a study of the rhetorical form and style of the treatise. Although all scholars who have discussed this question concede the relationship of certain passages of the CommenUiriolum to the oration in Toga Candida (delivered just before the consular election of 64), and assume that Marcus Cicero borrowed from the recent campaign document of Quintus, yet I will reproduce them here for the sake of affording a complete list of the most essential parallels. Of Antonius we read. Com. 8: vocem audivimus iiirantis sc Romae iudicio aequo cum homine Graeco ccriare non posse. And in a fragment of the oration in Tog. Cand., preserved by Asconius (edition of Kiessling and Scholl), p. 74, 26: qui in sua civitate cum peregrino negavit se iudicio aequo certare posse. Concerning the death of M. Marius at the hands of Catiline, Com. 10: quid ego nunc dicaiii pctere eum consniatum, qui liomincm carissimum p)opulo Romano, M. Marium, inspectante populo Romano .... vivo stanti collum gladio sua dcxtera secuerif, .... caput sua mamt, tulerit. In Tog. Cand. p. 78, 10: popidum vero, cum inspectante populo collum secuit Jiominis maxime popularis, quanti faceret ostendit: and ibid., p. 80, 22: caput etiam turn plenum animae et spiritus ad Syllam .... manihus ipse suis detulit. Of these passages and of a number of other rather striking points of contact between the two works Biicheler says, p. 9: "et haec quidem aliaque de Autoni praediis proscriptis, de Catilinae stupris, de Africa provincia, de testium dictis ac iudicio etiam si pariter uterque vel tractavit vel elocutus est, tamen quod temporum rerumque aut necessitate id factum est aut opportunitate, mutuatum esse alterum non liquet." But concerning the two following passages he assumes that Marcus borrowed consciously from the recent letter of Quintus. Com. 10: qui nullum in locum tarn sanctum ac tarn rcligiosum accesserit in quo non etiam si aliis culpa non essct, tamen ex sua nequitia dedecoris suspicionem relinqueret. In Tog. Cand., p. 82, 3 (a passage which Asconius refers to a charge of incest with the vestal Fabia): cum itavixisti ut non essct locus tarn sanctus quo non adventus tuus etiam cum culpa nulla sid)esset crimen adferret. This the reading of 72 Geokge Lincoln Hendkickson the lemma: Asconius in his comment (ilml., vs. 8) gives etiam si, etc., as in the Com. It is, I 6up[)ose, the cautious phraseology etiam si (iliis culpa non esset which Bacheler means that Marcus found worth reproducing with etiam cum [si] culpa nulla subesset. As for the rest, Cicero had already used a similar phrase of Verres (I, 62): ecquo in oppido pedcm posuit iilii non plura \^tuproru7n flag it ior unique suorum^ adventus sui vestigia reliqnerit? Com. 12: quis enim reperiri jyotest tarn improbus civis, qui velit uno suffragio duas in rem publicaru sicas destringere? In Tog. Cand., p. 83, 20 (which Asconius prefaces with the words dicit do malis civibus): qui postraqnam illo <^quoy conati erant Ilispaniensi 2^>i(/iunculo nervos incidere civium Jiomanorum non 2>otuerunt, duas uno tempore conantur in rem publicam s/cr/.s destringere. It is perhaps worth noting, but scarcely of any significance for our question, that these four passages of most striking resemblance between the Commentariolum and the oration in Toga Candida occur in the same sequence in both works. Concerning this last example a significant point has been overlooked. In the first place the antithesis of uno siiffragio with duas sicas destringere falls out of the figure in puerile fashion, which is not the case with Marcus's very natural phrase dnas uno tem- pore sicas destringere. But furthermore — and this to my thinking is a decisive consideration — the essential antithesis in the oration is not between duas sicas and imo iem2)ore, hwt between the Spanish siiletio (Hispanieiisi j^ugiunculo)," vfhich had failed to cut the sinews of the state, and the two daggers (sicas) which the same citizens were now attempting to draw. In the Commentariolum the metaphor is launched abruptly, in trivial antithesis to uno suffragio, with rather frigid effect; in the frag- ment of the in Toga. Candida the whole phrase duas in rem publicam sicas dish'ingere is the natural outgrowth of and antithesis to the ])receding metaphor Hispaniensi pugiunculo nervos incidere. That is, once given this metaphor, the second is an out- growth of the historical relationships, and not a random shot of rhetorical pyrotechnics as in the Commentariolum. But it will hardly be questioned, I imagine, that looked at per se, the place where the metaphor is most natural and in most organic relation to the context is most likely to be the original place of its occurrence. Let us now turn to the oration jwo Murena, which likewise reveals some striking points of contact with the Commentariolum. Some of the most essential parallels were pointed out by Eussner, along with many examples of very doubtful character, which only served to cast discredit upon his method. To these I added some further examples in my former discussion. That there is in them such closeness of resemblance as would point decisively to a relationship between the two documents has been denied by Tyrrell and Schanz. Leo, however, recognizes them along with the passages of the oration in Toga Candida as genuine reminiscences from the work of Quintus.* That 3 Asconius, loc. cit. : " Hispaniensem pugiunculum Cn. einzelne Wendungen aus der Schrift des Bruders verflochten, Pisoncm appellat quem in Hispania occisum dixi." und auch die Rede pro Murena des n&chstea Jahrcs zeigt t Loc. cit.. p. 449: "Dioser (Marcus Cicero) hat in die -Vnlilange an den Brief." Rede in Toga Cond/da bald nach Empfangdes Briefes .... 73 6 The Commentakiolum Petitionis Attributed to Q. Cicero some relationship between the two works exists, a comparison such as the following must, I think, convince anyone. Pro Murena, 44: jjetitorcm ego, pracsertim consu- latits, magna spe magna animo magnis coplis et in forum et in campyum dednci volo [Com., 36: magnam affert opinionem, magnam dignitatem cotidiana in deducendo frequentia] ; pZnce/ »((/«' .... p>ersalut(dio, praeseriim ciim iam hoc novo more omnes fere domos omnium concursent [Com., 35: in salutatoribus, qui magis vulgares sunt et hac consuetudine quae nunc est pluris veniunt], et ex voltu candidatorum coniec- turam faciant quantum quisque animi et facultatis habere videatur. [Com., 34: nam ex ea ipsa copia (assectatorum) coniectura fieri poterit, quantum sis in ipso campo virium ac facult-atis habiturus]. But it is possible, I am convinced, to go farther than merely to point out resem- blances. It can be shown that certain ideas and certain expressions in the Commenta- riolum are intelligible, or fully intelligible, only in the light of the oration j^^O Murena. In Com., 55 the author admonishes Cicero, in view of the danger of bribery: fao .... ut intellegas eum esse te quiiudicii ac pericidi mctum maximum competi- foribus afferre possis, fac ut se abs te cusfodiri atque observari sciant. The admo- nition concludes with a qualification as follows: atque haec ita nolo te illis proponere ut videare accusationem iam meditari, sed ut hoc terrore facilius hoc ipsum quod agis consequare. The words are not likely to strike one as obscure ; but it is nevertheless not easy to see why Cicero is advised to show his teeth and yet not seem to be on the point of bringing them together. It is rather a subtle balance which the words with some ineptitude enjoin. Indictments of candidates by each other during the petitio on charges of bribery were not unusual, and in this very canvass of 64, had not the tribune of the peof)le, Q. Mucins Orestinus, intervened to prevent the passage of a lex ambitus aucta etiam cum pioena (Asconius in the argument of the oration in Tog. Cand., page 74), we might have had a legal action against Catiline and Antonius instead of the senatorial speech in Toga Candida. As it was, Cicero used the oppor- tunity of a protest against the interccssio of Orestinus to deliver himself of an invective against his competitors which could not have differed greatly in moral significance from an accusatio. But for some reason, the author of the Commentariolum admon- ishes, Cicero must not seem accusationem iam meditari. The explanation of this statement is afforded hj pro Murena, 43 ff., where at considerable length and with much sprightly banter Cicero argues that Sulpicius lost his chance of election by stop- ping in the midst of his candidacy to prosecute his opponents for bribery: ncscio quo jjacto semper hoc fit, .... simul atque candidatus accusationem meditari visus est, ut honorem desperasse videatur.^ The author of the Commentariolum has general- ized this admonition (atque haec ita nolo te illis proponere ut videare accusationem '" My statomont above, that Tyrrell denies that the re- probable that Marcus in his speech availed himself of a semblances botweon the Com. and the pro Murena point to reminiscence of his brother's Essay which ho had perhaps a relationship of any kind hotwe{;ri the two docnmcnts. re- been editinj^ very recently." But that this cannot be the re- quires correction with reference to this example : " In this latiou has been made clear, case," ho says (Vol. I'-', p. 119 extr.), "it seems to mo very 74 George Lincoln Hendrickson lam meditari) from the statement which suited the particular exigencies of Cicero's argument in behalf of Murena. This same special argument of the j>ro Murena serves to cast light upon still another passage of the Commentariolum, which by itself has afforded not a little diffi- culty to editors (52): cura .... vt etiam si qua 'pnx^it nc competitorihus tuis cjcistdt aut sceleris ant libidinis aut lanjilionis accommodala ad corum mores infamia. The question at issue here among the critics is whether ne shall be kept or omitted. Those who look upon the text as sound (e. g., Orelli) appeal to the generous admonition of sec. 40 as a parallel. Bticheler combats this interpretation vigorously, and with Palermus and Gulielmius thinks that ne is inappropriate- He sees in it a corruption of nova, and would read accordingly ut si qua possit nova competitorihus existat infamia. The text is, however, sound, but it would bo a mistake to attribute the thought to a generous motive. The presence of the admonition here is closely connected with the position which these words occupy as the conclusion of the partitio outlined in 41 — speciem in publico.'' This final member is introduced by the words which immediately precede the sentence under discussion thus: postremo tola jietitio cura ut pompae plena sit, ut illnstris, ut splendida, ut popularis sit, id haheat summam speciem ac dignitcdem, id etiam, etc. (as above). In what connection with this advice concerning brilliancy and splendor of campaign the injunction under consideration (ne competi- tor ibus existat infamia) stands it is not easy to see, nor is it strange that critics have found it a block of stumbling. But here again the jwo Murena plays the role of com- mentary to the writer's thought. We have already seen that Cicero tells Sulpicius that he revealed his ignorance of the art of campaigning by prosecuting a competitor in the course of his canvass. People demand, he says (44), of their candidate an appearance of confidence, a brilliant display of resources, etc. (petitorem ego, praeser- tim considatus, magna spe magna animo magnis cojnis et in campum et in forum deduci volo). But Sul[)icius, busy with his prosecution, appeared downcast and distracted: ['id) teinquirere videbaid,trisfem i2)sum,maestos arnicas : Catilinam interea alacrem atque tact u in, stipatum. choro iuventutis, etc., and so, to escape the impending success of Catiline, men voted for Murena. In the light of this description it becomes clear why the author of the Commentariolum urges in this connection: ut si qua 2^ossit (possis?) ne competitoribus tuis existed infamia. That is, following the suggestion of Cicero's description in the jyro Murena, he advises that any notorious scandal such as might be looked for from the character of his competitors {accomodata ad eorum mores) be not allowed to come to public notice and (by compelling attention) transform the brilliancy and dignity of Cicero's campaign into an uninteresting prosecution. There remains still another passage of the Commentariolum which I believe shows even more clearly the dependence of its author upon the pro Murena. I pointed out the verbal resemblance in my former article, though at that time I did not discern the 6 On the reading (for spent in republica of the MSS.) see below, p. 24. 75 8 The Commentariolum Petitionis Attributed to Q. Cicero full significance of the passage for this question. In pro Murena, 21, Cicero ridicules Sulpicius's contention that, having been at Eome engaged in the affairs of the forum, he deserved the consulship rather than Murena, v^ho for so many years had been absent in the army. After some further development of this theme Cicero reminds Sulpicius that the very fact of always being in Rome and in the forum causes people to grow tired of one's presence: ista nostra adsiduitas, Servi, iicscis quantum interdum adfcrat hommibus fastidii, quantum satietatis. In his own case, he continues, presence had been of advantage, but only by diligent effort had he overcome its disadvantages: niihi quidem vchemeutcr cxpediit positam in oculis esse gratiamj sed tamen ego mei satictxdcm magno mco labore su^ieravi. With unmistakable reminiscence of the same phraseology, the author of the Commentariolum says under the caption assiduitas (43) : prodest quidem vchementer nusquam discedere; sed tamen hie fructus est assiduitatis, 710)1 solum esse Romae atque in for o, sed assidue peter e, etc. In this passage, apart from the striking formal resemblances, the reader will discern the whole background of Cicero's discussion in the pro Murena — the suggestion that mere presence in Eome is not necessarily an advantage (quidem), that the true reward of assiduitas can only come to one, as it came to Cicero, by diligent effort. The author has generalized for the purpose of his argument the exception which Cicero makes in his own case (mihi quidem).^ In this example, as in the preceding one, the text of the Commentariolum has not gone unchallenged. The adversative idea introduced by sed tamen, which is perfectly clear in the light of the pii'O Murena, has caused difficulty, and was trans- posed by Eussner to the end of the section (after rogatuni). The resemblances of the Commentariolum to the long first letter of Marcus ad Quintum fratrem are of a somewhat different character from those thus far considered. For it is obvious that the totally different subject-matter would not afford to the author precepts de pietitione consulatus. The resemblance is generic rather than specific. But in any theory of the spuriousness of the Commentariolum it must be the most natural hypothesis to assume that the letter of Marcus furnished the later rhetorician or rhetorical student with the suggestion of an epistolary suasoria of similar kind. No one can read the two works side by side without feeling a certain relationship between them, and yet in the matter of detailed resemblances there is nothing of a decisive character which can be adduced. In making this statement I should fear that I might seem merely to reflect the impression of a prejudiced mind if I could not appeal to the words of Biicheler on this point, written before the question of authen- ticity had been raised (p. 10): "Marcus par pari quodam modo rettulit missa ad fratrem epistula praeclara I, 1, quae cum in genere scribendi .... proxume ad commentariolum hoc acccdat, tiim singula habet adsimilia velut ibi quae leguntur § 37 7 That Cicero's treatment of the matter in the j^ro Mu- I would note further in this connection that Tydeman rena arises from the particular circumstances of the case finds the relationship between Com., 37 and pro Muixna, 70 in hand seems to have been noted also by Tydeman, " In so close, that Marcus " hinic Quinti locum oculis proposi- Q. C'iceronis do pet. cons, librum aduotatio," Leyden, 1838: turn habuisso videatur" (p. 55). " Nee metuenda v,sl ilia assiduitatis satietus, Quam causae aUiue amici gratia Cicero rcfert." 76 George Lincoln Hendrickson 9 admodum coiicinunt cum Quiiiii Bententia§39." The passages are as follows: (Cicero says that the only cxcoiitioii he hears to the praise of Quiiitus touches his proneiiess to anger): 7ion suscipiam id quae dc ivdcumUd did ftolcnl d doctissinua honiinibus ea nunc tibi exponam. And a little further on: nequc eTeceding[His2Kmie7isi2)ugiunculo .... nervos incidere). Fresh from the reading of the jjco Murena, he not unnaturally incorporated into his treatise some ideas and expressions which are only inteiligil)le in the light of that speech, and these instances afford the most conclusive proof of tlie spuriousness of the work. The letter was not, of course, meant as a forgery — it was merely a rhetorical exercise, and in the concluding words one can still seem to detect the deferential tone of a pupil asking for 78 Geoege Lincoln Hendkickson 11 criticism of his master, and commending in modest words the earnestness of his pur- pose: si quid mutiindnm esse viilcbilnr aid omnino tollcndum, ant si quid erit prue- teritiun, vcliiu hoc mihi dicas; volo cnim hoc commentariolum petitionis haheri omni ratiouc pcyfcdiiiti!' But, as Ijeing an exercise and not a deliberate literary forgery, no care was taken to avoid anachronism iu the use of the material. ] n lexicography and grammatical usage the language points to a relatively early date, but this cannot afford the slightest ground of objection to the conclusion that the work is spurious, as Schanz urges. We know from the elder Seneca that only a few years after the death of Cicero declaimers were busy with sitasoriae which dealt with his career, and Asconius tells us of spurious orations which purported to be the replies of Catiline and Antonius to the oration in Toga Candida. RHETORICAL FORM It is a commonplace of text-criticism that we are not justified merely in rejecting, no matter how grave the suspicion which we may cast upon the text called into ques- tion; we must advance a step farther and account for the presence of the interpolation. A similar demand is made of higher criticism, although in the present case it would seem to be met adequately by the general suggestion outlined above, of a rhetorical exercise which should be the counterpart of ad Quintum fraircm, I, 1. But inasmuch as this does not seem to have conveyed to some of the adherents of authenticity a satisfactory explanation of the theory of origin, it will not perhaps be superfluous at this point to indicate more accurately the rhetorical source and the literary affinities of the Commentariolum. Ziehen, in the paper cited above (p. 3), says: "den Zweck dieser Khetoren- falschung .... vermogen wir nicht recht zu erkenuen" (p. 84). To these words Gurlitt (Jahresbericht, Vol. lOU, 1901, p. 1('>) replies: "den Zweck eiuer Schultibung, einer Suasorie, unter denen das consilium dare bekanntlich zu den beliebtesten Themata gehorte." Gurlitt's words I quote gratefully as giving the true name and classification to the work in the exercises of the rhetorical schools. To be sure the suasoriae which the elder Seneca describes (and which will occur to the reader most naturally as specimens of this form) are, in the situations which they present, of a somewhat different character. They show us Alexander or Cicero, for instance, deliberating between two alternative plans, or lines of conduct (dclihcrat Alexander an Oceantim naviget; delibcrat Cicero an Aufoiiium deprcceiur), the one or the other of which is urged by the advisers who deliver the suasoriae. In none of them is advice given concerning the attainment of a concrete end. Nevertheless the purpose, consilium dare, is the same as that which underlies the Commentariolum. The field was obviously wide, and that the material might assume many forms, Quintilian observes (III, 8, 15): nam et consultantium et consiliorum plurima suid genera. 9 In one other case the conscious pupil seems to peer through (49) : ac nevidear aberrasse a distributione mea qui haec in hac populari parte petitionis disputetti, hoc scquor. 79 12 The Commentakiolum Petitionis Attributed to Q. Ciceko The pars ddibcrativa says Quintilian (ibid., 6) quae eadcm siiasoria dicitur .... officris constat duobiis suadendi ac dissuadendij its goal as defined conven- tionally by the rhetoricians is utilitas, a conception which Quintilian finds too narrow and to which he adds honesfas, especially in the quacstio inter utile atque honestum (ibid., 24). With reference to arrangement the suasoria requires only a brief proocmium, if any be used at all (etiam cum prooemio utimur, breriore tamen et velut quodam capite tantum et initio debemus esse contenti) ; a narratio is likewise unneces- sary in a matter of private deliberation — quia nemo igyiorat id de quo consulit (ibid., 10). Into this rhetorical framework the Commentarioliini falls without constraint. Cicero is bidden to deliberate on the circumstances of his petitio (2) : prope cotidie tibi ad forum dcscendenfi meditandumst; and the writer offers the results of his own reflections {quae milii vcniebant in mcntem dies ac noctes de petit ione tua cogitanti) in the form of admonition to or warning against certain lines of conduct. Of technical language, apart from that which has just been cited, which reveals the author's con- sciousness of the rhetorical form which he is using, one may note (46): illud alterum (<(iit false promittasy) subdurum tibi homini Platonico suadere, sed tamen tempori consulam. (27): hoc quod ego tehortor, etc. {39): tantum est huiustempor is admonere (c/. Emporius de deliberativa mcderia. Halm, p. 572, 15: suasio est ... . admonendi causa). Utilitas as the goal of the writer's admonition appears constantly in phraseology of every kind ; the frequent use of adiuvare and prodesse may be noted especially {e. g., in sees. 4—6). In some cases the quacstio inter utile cdque honestum is raised and answered without hesitation in favor of the former; as for instance in the example cited above: sed tempori consulam, where see the whole context 45-48. Cf also such examples as 42: opus est blanditia, quae etiamsi vitiosa et turpis in cetera vita, tamen in pet it tone nccessaria est; and 25: potcs honeste [in petit ione), quod in cetera vita non queas, etc. Practically all the utterances in the Commentariolum which may be classed as exhorting to dishonorable conduct belong in this category, and we shall judge them less harshly if we remember that they follow a conventional precept of the genus deliberativum (r. Quintilian, loc. cit., 41 and 42). The end, in short, must justify the means, and the author of our treatise thought not otherwise (56) : et plane sic contende omnibus nervis ac facultatibus ut adipiscamur quod petimns {cf Quintilian, loc. cit., 34: videndum quid consecturi simus et per quid; ut acstimari pussit plus in eo quod pet imus sit commodi an vero in eo per quod pictimus incom- modi). In arrangement the Commentariolum corresponds to Quintilian's rule cited above, in that it has a very brief prooemium, from which it passes over immediately to the ty-actatio: narrationem vero numquam exigit prircda drlibcratio (Quint., Ill, 8, 10). It is to be said, however, that the first topic of the tractatio in a manner supplies the place of a narratio, as is explained below. This question of the relation of our treatise to rhetorical theory may be con- cluded with the following observations, which afford us a glimpse into the very work- 80 George Lincoln Hendrickson 13 shop of tlie rhetorician. In introducing the question of the material of the sttasoria Quintilian pk'ads for a wider range than his predecessors had admitted, and begins his treatment thus (loc. cH., 15): quare in suadendo et dissuadcndo tria primum spec- tanda erunt: quid sit do quo deliberetur, qui sint qui delibcreni, qui sit qui suadeat. It is with reference to this precept that our author distributes his matter in the opening of the treatise proper as follows (2): civitas quae sit, cogita, quid pctas \^=quid sit de quo deliberetur^, qui sis [=qui sint qui delibereiit]. After thus making recogni- tion of the fundamental considerations of the j^o's suasoria, this abstract rhetorical formula is repeated in reverse order with the special conditions of the particular case filled in: ad forum descendenti meditandumst : novus sum \^qui sis'\, consulatum pcto \_quid petas^, Roma est [civitas quae sit]. The merit which the writer claims for his performance lies not in any originality of suggestion, but in this methodical analysis and arrangement of the matter in accordance with rule (1): td ea quae in re dispersa atque infinita viderentur esse ratione et distributione sub uno aspccfu ponerentur. That of Quintilian's threefold division the member qui sit qui suadeat is here lack- ing, is most natural. For whatever might be said of the qualifications of the writer to give advice, or in justification of his doing so, would belong to a preface or epilogue (as we shall see in a parallel example below), and not to the advice itself. In the situation which the Commentariolum presents the topic is sufficiently covered by allusion to fraternal affection as the author's motive for writing [amore nostro non sum alienum arbitratus, in the preface). Of the three divisions into which the tractatio is thus distributed, the third, Roma est, is treated very briefly at the end (54-6). The whole emphasis lies upon the other two divisions, and especially upon the second (consulatum peto), which really forms the essential tractatio and justifies the author's designation of his work as a commentariolum pctitionis. I suspect, however, that the writer having in mind a threefold analysis of the pars suasoria such as Quintilian presents, and being unable to use the rubric qui sit qui suadeat as a part of his argument, cast about for a third member which should take the place of it. He found it perhaps in such a precept of the genus deliberativum as Cicero presents in de Oratore, II, 337: ad consilium de re publica dandum caput est 7iosse rem p>ublicam: that is, civitas quae sit cogita. In further confirmation of this suggestion I would quote the words which follow in Cicero: ad dicendum vero probabiliter nosse mores civitatis, qui quia crebro mutantur genus quoque orationis est saepe mutandum. With this compare the following passage from the treatment of the topic in the Commentariolum (54): video esse magni consilii atque artis .... esse unum homincm accommodatum ad tantam morum ac sermonum ac voluntatum varietatemj quare etiam atque etiam perge tenere istam viam quam institisti, excelle diccndo. (A suggestion of this third topic is contained in Quintilian {loc. cit.) in allusion to the passages of the de Oratore just cited; Cicero .... duo esse praecipue nota voluit, vires civitatis et mores.) The Commentariolum is therefore a suasoria composed in accordance with the precepts of rhetorical theory. A classical and genuine model of the type in epistolary 81 14 The Commentakiolum Petitionis Attributed to Q. Cicero form is afforded by the letter of Cicero ad Quinium fratrem to which frequent alhision has been made. But in spite of generic resemblance it reveals a somewhat different character; for the advice given is of a more general ethical nature (protreptic or parae- netic) than practical and with reference to the attainment of a concrete end.'" Still more essentially they differ in this respect, that the letter of Marcus is truly epistolary and maintains throughout a vital relationship with the personality of the one addressed. In form it conserves the freedom of an epistle and is wholly absolved from the con- straint of a rhetorical formula. It is impossible, for instance, to detect in it any regard for rhetorical precepts such as govern the arrangement of the Commeniariohim. For closer parallels in this respect we must descend to the plane on which, as I have explained above, the Commeiitariolum seems to me to belong — to the declamatory literature of the schools, written under the impersonation of an historical name and situation [prosoiiopoeiae).^^ Of this kind there are two quasi-epistolary documents which I would cite as closely analogous in conception and technique to our letter: the two pseudo-Sallustian treatises ad Caesarcm scncm de re p^ihlica. They are edited by Jordan (3d ed., pp. 139-52) as inccrfi rhcforis snasoriae — a classification which requires no justification. The second is an epistle, as pcvlectis littcris in 12, 1, shows; that the first on the other hand is an oratio, as Jordan inscribes it, the form does not seem to me to indicate conclusively."^ It is, however, a matter of no vital importance, for the second with its fervid epilogue shows how little check the epistolary form imposed upon the style. The arrangement of matter in both is essentially the same; for illustration the first will suffice. It consists of a 2^)X)0cmin)a (1) setting forth the duty of all to give Csesar siich advice as each one finds possible; a brief nar- ratio (2) setting forth the situation, for the instruction of the declaimer's audience, rather than for the benefit of Caesar (c/. Quintilian, above, p. 12), a tractatio (3-8, 6) with twofold division de hello afque pace, and a brief epilogue (8,7). The tractatio is introduced thus: igifiir quouiam tihi viciori de hello af(jite pcice agitaiidumest, .... de te ij^so primuni, qui ea compositurus es, quid optiiuiim facta sit existnma. Although the writer here begins with the topic de te ipiso, the division concludes with the words (5, iiiit): de hello satis dictum. That is the topic qui sit qui deliheret (Quintilian, sitjn'a) is merged with a portion (.sc. de hello) of the topic quid sit de quo deliheretur. This latter division is made especially prominent in introducing the second part (5): de pace jirmanda, quoniani tuijue et onines tui agitatis, jjrimum id, quaeso, considera quale sit de quo consultas. The epilogue (8, 7) sum- marizes the two preceding topics of the genus deh'herativum [quae rei puhlicae WQn the distinction see Syrianus in Walz, IV, 763 (cited limac videntur prosopopociae. in guibus ad reliquum by VoLKMANN, T^Aetorifc, p. 294). That tho letter of Cicero suasoriae lahorcm accedtt etiam jiersoiKie diJJicuUds. The belouKS to tho general category may bo .shown in rather an ordinary mitaioria advised Cicero, for instance, but without interesting way by comparison witii tiie typical specimen of definition of the person of tho adviser. tho eVto-ToAj) iTviJ.fiov>,€vTiKri whidi is contained in tlie psendo- Demetrian tuttoi ein(TToAt* and 17: omnis sermo .... a domesticis emanat auctoribus (to yield I ~ ^ ")• TEXT The oldest and best manuscripts containing the Commcntariolum , which have thus far been discovered, are two: E (Erfurtensis, now Berolinensis No. 252) of the end of the eleventh or of the early twelfth century (Bticheler, p. 11), and H (Har- leianus No. 2682) of the latter part of the eleventh century (E. Maunde Thompson). Both manuscripts contain miscellaneous works of Cicero and, for the question of authenticity, it may be of some significance that in both the Commentariolum follows the pseudo- Ciceronian epistle ad Octavianum, at the end of the collection of letters. But that is a question which must be left to the historian of the text of Cicero's letters. For the Commciifarioluiu E was first employed as representing the purest source of the text by Bticheler in his edition of 18G8. The value of H for this treatise was pointed out by Baehrens, who published a careful collation of the text in his MisceU 89 22 The Commentabiolum Petitionis Attributed to Q Cicero lanea Crifica (Groningen, 1879). The edition of Miiller (Leipzig, 1898) was the first to present a text based upon these two sources: it has now been followed by that of Purser (Oxford, 1902). The problem of relationship between the texts offered by these two manuscripts is one which can only be solved by a study of the affinities of the two codices as a whole. Some remarks on this point will be found in Colla- tions from the Harlcian 3IS. of Cicero 2682, by A. C. Clark (Oxford, 1892), on pp. xiv-xvi. I have examined both manuscripts myself without, however, finding anything of importance to correct in the collations of Biicheler and Baehrens, except in a single instance, which will be noted below. Before taking up the passages in which I shall endeavor to emend the text, I would note briefly that in a few instances the readings of our manuscripts are defended against proposed deletions by the rhythmical laws which have been set forth in the preceding section. So, for example, Biicheler edits in 12: qui jiequaquam su7it tarn genere [insiynes^ qiiam vitiis nohiles. But the soundness of our text is fully vindicated by the presence of the rhythmical balance which was pointed out above p. 21. Similarly Biicheler (whom Miiller and Purser follow) edits in 57: si nostras ad summum sfiidium [bentvolos^ excitamns. But we have seen above (p. 21) that the sequence of clausules in the series of sentences beginning with Si, demands the (resolved) cretic betti voles before the double trochee excitamus. In view of these cases I hesitate to follow Biicheler (and MuUer) in 1: etsi .... suppetunt ea quae consequi ingenio aid usu homines [aut intelli- gentia^ jiossunt. For although the clausula - >- - - | - - (^usu homines 2}ossunt) is found, yet of vastly more frequent occurrence is the form - ^ - | — (intelli- gentia possunt). The author begins with the resources which will be of assistance to Cicero as a novns homo. In sec. 3 he enumerates the classes of men whom Cicero already has, and among them studio dicendi conciliatos pilii^'imos adulesceidulos. These are to be confirmed in their allegiance. To be won over to his support are homilies nohiles, especially those of consular rank, and young men of noble family. 6: _29rat'/(!?'t'a adolescentes nobiles elabora ut habeas vel ut teneas studiosos. quos habes multum dignitatis afferent. Most editors (and so Miiller) omit the period after studiosos, and punctuate after habes. The words vel ut teneas ai-e, I believe, corrupt, for as an alternative to ut habeas they are inept, if not meaningless, since the adoles- centes nobiles cannot be held {teneas) until they are won (habeas). But Cicero already has a constituency of young men, studio dicendi conciliatos (3). Now the adolescentes nobiles are to be won to the same allegiance as those whom he already has. I read, therefore: praeterea adolesceides nobiles elabora id habeas, VELUT tenes studiosos quos liabes. In this connection I would take up a very difficult and corrupt passage in 33. To understand it aright it is necessary to go back to 29, iu which the necessity of 90 Georgk Lincoln Henduickson 23 Cicero's strengthening his position by vfiried friendships is set forth. The matter is taken up in a jxirfitio as follows: ■primiim (29), dcindc (HO), jwstra (30); whereupon follows the passage in question in 83: lam equitum centuriae multo facilius mihi diligentia posse teneri videntur. primum cognosce equites, p)(iuci enim sunt, deinde appcte .... dcinde hahes tecum ex nivcntute optimum quemque et studiosissimum hnmanilutis; turn antcm quod equcsier ordo tiiiis est, seqventur illi auctoritatem ordiiiis, si abs te adhibebitur en diligentia, ut non ordiiiis solum rohmtcde sed etiam singulorum amicitiis eas centurias confirmcdas habeas. Accepting the corrections which H afPords, incorporated in Muller's text as here given, the remaining difficulties of this passage consist, first, in the appar- ent absence of a concluding member to the partitio and, secondly, in the obscurity of reference in (7//. This word would seem to refer to the young men mentioned just before (optimum quemque, etc.). But if that is the meaning, it is remarkable that at one moment Cicero is said to hold the allegiance of a certain class, and in the next that the same class should be referred to as one that will follow the authority of the equites in support of him, provided sufficient care is exercised. The equites are already Cicero's friends (cf. 3) ; with care their loyalty is assured (diligentia posse teneri). They are therefore disposed of briefly. Now in the enumeration above referred to we had the divisions primum, deinde, postea, iam. But last of all and as a class distinguished from the equites '' appear the adolesceutcs. Deinde I would there- fore change to denique, introducing the concluding member of the partitio. In this class are to be taken up tirst those adolescentes whom Cicero already has, viz., optimum quemque et studiosissimum huinanitatis (the studio diccndi conciliatos of 3). But just as in sees. 3 and 6 the adolescentes were, as we saw, of two kinds, so also here. For apart from the young men who are attracted to Cicero by oratorical pursuits, there are o//tcrs, for whom another motive to allegiance must be provided — the authority and example of the ordo equesfer. I would read therefore : denique hahes tecum ex iuventute optimum quemque et studiosissimum humanitatis. tum autem quod equester ordo tuus est sequentur alii aucioritatem ordinis, etc. For the form of expression optimum quemque .... alii, cf. de Officiis, I, 9U. 9: educatus in soi-oris stupris. The passage is thus edited in all the tests, and according to Biicheler's apparatus (ex silentio) is the reading of E. But E reads without variant sororum, which is confirmed by H, reading sorore, with correction by the original hand to sororum, which should therefore be restored to the text. 18: hos tn homines quibuscumque poteris rcdionibus, ut ex animo atque ex ilia summa voluntcde tut studiosi sint elaborato. H reads ex illo, Meyncke conjectured ex intuma voluntcde. Ilia is defended rather ingeniously than convincingly by Tyrrell ad loc. It would seem that critics have overlooked a very simple correction here, unless the formulary character of summa voluntate seemed to forbid change. I would 15 On this distinction (which is also mado in 3 and C) and the correctness of it, cf. Momu3EN, B6m. Staatsrecht, Vol. Ill, p. 484 and note. 91 24 The Commentariolum Petitionis Attributed to Q. Cicero read maxuma (spelled masuma, thus giving rise to ilia siimma) voluntate. Cicero affords at least one example of maxuma voluntate [Verr., II, 2, 51), and probably there are others. 23: Tertium illiid genus est stiidiorum voluniarium. Biicheler makes a readable text by bracketing studiorum, and is followed by Muller and Purser. Eussner (Tyrrell and others) correct to studiosum roluntariumque. The passage is the third member of a por/Z/fo outlined in 21, to which t7?(((i refers: tribus rebus homines ducuntur . . . . beneficio, spe, adiunctione auinii ac voluntate. These members are then taken up singly — benejiciis (21), spe (22), and so to the passage in hand. It will be observed that the reason for loyalty in each case is derived from a source named, which fails for the third member. Methodical correction should not, therefore, make the source co-ordinate with the end as in Eussner's reading — studiosum (the end) voluntariumque (source). We require rather: tertium illud genus est studiosum voluntate, the correctness of which is revealed by the words which follow: quod .... signijicanda erga illos pari voluntate .... confirmari oportebit, where piari points back to the preceding voluntate. Cf. de Inv., II, 16G : amicHia (est) voluntas erga aliquem .... cum eius pari voluntate. 24: Hos ut inter nos calumniatores spr. The L group restores the thought with has ut internoscas videto ne spe. Bticheler reads elaborato. What imperative stood here it is impossible to say with certainty, but from the group of letters — umni — in calumniatores vfe may restore confidently omnis {cf. umeris from umnis, the reading of H for omnis in 48). We shall not be far from the truth for the whole passage in reading: Hos ut internoscas omnis curato ne spe, etc. Omnis is appropriately used in a summary following the enumeration of various classes (cf. 19 extr., and 23 extr.). 38: nee aliud ullum tempus futurumst xit tibi referre gratiam possint. Biicheler, in the critical apparatus says against the lemma 7tt: "« cum superscripta /, non ubi vocis compendium." But according to Baehrens ubi is the reading of H, and reference to Prou, Manuel de PaUographie (2d ed., 1S92), p. 335, will show that the compen- dium which Biicheler here describes (but the superscribed letter is not of course /) stands regularly for iibi. The matter has seemed worth mentioning, because here, as in a number of other cases where Miiller has followed Biicheler, there is discernible a tendency toward the establishment of a vulgatetext. But Purser reads correctly %dii. 41: Dicendum est de ilia altera jmrte petitionis quae inpopulavi rationo versa- tur. ea desiderat nomenclationem, blanditiam, assiduifatem, bcnignitatem, rumorem, spem in re publica. H reads spem in rem p)ublicam; I 50, speciem in re publica. The interpretation of the phrase spem in re publica seems to me difficidt. There is but one meaning the words can have — spem in re publica positam. But that surely has little to do with the raiio jwpularis, with which the other requisites named are concerned. Each one of these is considered in detail ; iiomenclatio (42) bland ilia, (42) assiduitas (43) benignitas (44) rumor (50). Editors I presume have held that spem in re publica is taken up in the partitio at 53: ahpic etiam in lute jiclilione maxime 92 George Lincoln Hendkickson 25 videndum est ut spes ret publicae bona de te sit ct honesta opinio. But this is a totally different thing from the spem in repuJiIica of 41, which ])roceecls from Cicero, and can only moan Cicero's hope or confidence in the state, wliile sjm'S rei publicae bona de te proceeds from the people, and refers to their confidence in him. Further- more, if this passage were the concluding member of the pxirtitio, we should expect some transitional word like denique or pKjstremo to introduce it, and not a formula which points to something new — atque ctiam (cf. Seyffert, Schol. Lat., Vol. I, p. 22). But in 52 (^init.) after long consideration of rumor the author writes: iMstremo tola pclitiu cava lit pompae plena sit, ut illustris, ut splendida, ut iwpularis sit, ut habeat sumnutm spcciem ac dignitatem. These words, I am convinced, give us the true con- clusion of the partitio outlined in 41, as is indicated by postremo, and also by the summarizing of the ratio popularis which is suggested by the last of the accumulated adjectives ut popularis sit. They reveal also that I 50 (from whatever source) has given at least a partially correct reading iu 41- — speciem in re 2>ublica; for it is some such word of external demonstration or display that we require to correspond to the others of the group — nomenchdio, blandifia, etc. In itself sjx'ciem in re publica might conceivably stand as a satisfactory reading ; but since it occurs in the treatment of the ratio popularis, it would seem to me that in re p)ublica is too general, if indeed the political connotation of the word would be tolerable here at all. I conjecture, therefore, speciem in publico, for which cf. Tacitus, Dial., G, 12 (where Ajier is speaking of the rewards of the orator): iam vero qui toyatorum comitaius et eyressus! quae in ^yublico species! I would point out, finally, that sec. 53, to which I have alluded above (videndum est ut spes rei p)ublicae bona de te sit), does not belong to the division of the work devoted to the ratio p)opularis, but follows it (introduced by atque ctiam) as a con- cluding section to the whole of the second main division consulatum peto. Accord- ingly it takes into account not the j^opulus only, but all classes of citizens — senatus, equites et viri boni, multitudo. 93 A SKETCH OF THE LINGUISTIC CONDITIONS OF CHICAGO A SKETCH OF THE LINGUISTIC CONDITIONS OF CHICAGO Carl Darling Buck The liugiiistic conditions in some of our largest American cities are unique in the history of the world — an unparalleled babel of foreign tongues, yet undergoing absorp- tion so rapidly and so naturally that the " language question," which looms up so large in the contemporary history of many European states, does not exist for us as a dis- turbing j^roblem. I say "unparalleled babel" with all due regard to the claims of Constantinople, Cairo, and other cities of the Orient, past and present. In Constantinople, with the heterogeneous constituency of the army and the harem, augmented by the ranks of European officials and visitors, the number of languages represented may on occasions be as great as in New York or Chicago. But it must be remembered that only a few of these languages are spoken by large bodies of the population, whereas in Chicago there are some fourteen languages, besides English, each of which is spoken by 10,000 or more persons. Newspapers appear regularly in ten languages, and church sei-vices may be heard in about twenty languages. Chicago is the second largest Bohemian city of the world, the third Swedish, the third Norwegian, the fourth Polish, the fifth German (New York being the fourth). In all there are some forty foreign languages spoken by numbers ranging from half a dozen to half a million, and aggregating over one million. A study of the language situation in Chicago, which in a general way is typical of that in our other large cities, has two main points of interest. One is a phase of the general problem of the linguistic consequences of race-mixture. What is the result, as regards language, of the particular conditions of race-mixture that are exemplified here? The other is the constituency of the foreign element. To know what languages and groups of languages are represented here, and in what proportions, is a matter of interest, not only to the philologist, but also to the historian and sociologist, for in most cases linguistic divisions correspond to present racial divisions, and with a few notable exceptions, like the Irish, language is the best available test of nationality. In an article entitled "Language-Rivalry and Speech-Differentiation in the Case of Race-Mixture,"' Professor Hempl has given a classification of the character- istic types of race-mixture known to history, according to numbers, general conditions, and attendant linguistic results. Of necessity the kind of race-mixture going on in this country is put in a class by itself. The foreigners come in vast numbers, roughly speaking half a million a year. In many cities they form with their descendants in the first generation the majority of the population. Moreover, the diflPerent national- ities in the cities are to a large degree locally segregated, and many of them many 1 Transactions of the American Philological Associatimi, Vol. XXIX, pp. 31 ff. 97 4 A Sketch of the Linguistic Conditions of Chicago almost exclusively within their own limits.^ Nevertheless the social and economic conditions are such that all this has not the slightest effect on the supremacy of the English language. Nor is it possible to produce tangible evidence of any permanent effect on the character of the English. This easy victory of the established language is doubtless assisted by the fact that the competition is divided. But even if all the immigrants were of the same nationality, the absorption of their language would take place no less certainly, only somewhat less rapidly. Observation and inquiries among representatives of the different nationalities show- that the j^rocess of absorption is substantially the same everywhere. The immigrants themselves must and do learn more or less English, but it remains to them a foreign tongue, acquired with all degrees of proficiency according to the individual's age at arrival, length of residence, occupation, and general intelligence. The second generation is bilingual. The children learn first their parents' mother- tongue; but as soon as they are out on the street and in school they learn English, and it is not long before they speak it by preference. Children the world over are contemptuous of foreigners, and a boy does not care to add to his schoolmates' capa- city for teasing by inviting epithets like "Dutchy," "Canuck," "Dago," or "Polak," which are hurled about with no less freedom by those who are themselves of foreign parentage, and not always with any nice discrimination between them. From this period on English is the language most used, and it is a question of how far they also retain a familiarity with their parents' mother-tongue. Some remain truly bilingual, others speak their parents' language, but with some effort, and occasionally it happens that grown-up sons and daughters cannot converse with their parents except in Eng- lish. The third generation, even of unmixed foreign descent, generally knows only English. This is true of the nationalities already represented in three generations, for example the German, Polish, and Bohemian, and the result cannot be otherwise in the case of the more recent classes of immigrants. If the stream of immigration were to cease, it would only be a question of time when church services and newspapers in foreign languages would be unknown. There are of course exceptions to the general course of development as stated. Some of the more well-to-do and intelligent families retain and hand down an interest in the language and literature of the country of their origin through several genera- tions. Or, again, if we look outside the cities, we find isolated colonies in various parts of the country where a foreign tongue has been kept through several generations and English but little used. Such, for example, are some of the Swedish farming communities in the Northwest. There is said to be an old Polish colony in Texas where the language has been spoken for generations and where even the negroes speak Polish. The same conservatism may be looked for in some of the Finnish mining villages of Michigan, the recent Russian colonics in the Dakotas, etc. But even for these condi- 2 For examijlc, according to the school cnn^-ns of isns, of Bohemian parents on both sides, while only T'.t^' had but there were in Chicago 47,965 children born in this country one parent Bohomian. 'J8 Carl Dakling Buck 5 tions it is unsafe to generalize. For example, while some of the older Norwegian settlements have kept their language for several generations, th(! recent colonists in North Dakota are "progressive;" that is, they ai'e Americanized with the same rapid- ity as in the cities. It is ix)ssible that, aside from conditions of environment, the rapidity of absorp- tion differs somewhat among different nationalities, some having a greater tenacity than others in the retention of their language. But ou this point it is difficult to secure any tangible evidence. The absorption of the various languages does not appear to be accompanied by any permanent effects on the character of the English spoken. Except in isolated communities, the speech of the second generation seldom betrays any foreign influence either in pronunciation or in vocabulary. It is often a vulgar form of English, but not diffei-ing from that of persons of native descent in the same social position. There is, however, a marked influence exerted by the dominant English upon the other languages as spoken here.^ The German of the German-American is full of English words either unchanged or provided with German endings or prefixes, and of English idioms clothed in German words, an interesting phase of which is the use of German words in meanings adopted from the corresponding English words, as in the well- known ich gleiche "I like," or ich eigne "I own." The Frenchman makes groceur of grocer, couque of "cook," etc. In the Lithuanian quarter one sees painted in huge letters on a blank wall the advertisement of didzicmsias departmentinis sztoras pietinej dalyj, in which, equipped with antique endings and surrounded by formations which are the pride and joy of philologists, we recognize the highly modern department store. An exhaustive study of this phenomenon, interesting as it is, is not possible for any one person. It demands a separate investigator for each language and one entirely at home in the idioms of this language as well as in English.' But inquiries upon this point among representatives of many nationalities leave no doubt in my mind that substantially the same sort of mixture which is best known in the case of our German- American exists in the other languages spoken here. We turn now to the question of the constituency of the foreign speech-element in Chicago, and in mentioning the various languages and peoples I shall add some remarks on their representation in the country at large. Although some of these facts are so easily accessible as perhaps scarcely to deserve repetition, others, for some of the less-known nationalities, have been gained, incidentally to my inquiries regarding local conditions, from private sources and will not be unwelcome additions.'' 3 With tte fact that the foreign languages spoken here ^ I have not touched upon the history of the immigra- are influenced by English, but not English by them, com- tion from the various countries. For the older elements, pare the remarks of Windisch, " Zur Theoric der Misch- German, Irish, Swedish, Norwegian, etc., the subject has sprachen und LehnwOrter," Sttzuni/sbcrichte der siichs. been fully treated, but there is ample opportunity for Gesell^ckaft der Wissenckaft, phil.-hist. Classe, 1897, pp. further work along similar lines. A history of Slavic im- 101 ff. migration would be of great value, and I am glad to learn * Some of the forms of mixture have already been in- ^^'>-^ Professor Wiener has it in mind to gather materials vestigated in detail, e. fif., the language of the Pennsylvania '**^ such a work. Qermans, of the Portuguese in New England, etc. 99 6 A Sketch of the Linguistic Conditions of Chicago It may be thought that the Census Reports, with their elaborate statistics of foreign population, covering, for the Censiis of 1900, 174 pages, render any further investigation superfluous. This, however, is not the case. And, while acknowledging my indebtedness to them in certain respects, I shall not hesitate to point out their limitations. The most serious defect, and one which is fatal to the full realization of the purposes of siich statistics, is the lack of any adequate system of classification. In general, the classification is according to political divisions, but concessions are made to certain nationalities which have no independent political existence at present. For example, not to mention Ireland, Wales, Bohemia, etc., the Poles keep their identity in the Reports, and even the Finns, relatively small as their numbers are, are given a place. No one can question the propriety of such a recognition of nationalities not politically distinct, only it must be carried much farther in order to give any proper idea of the constituency of our foreign population, particularly of those elements which form such an important part of the most recent immigration. The truth seems to be that a system of classification which was once reasonably satisfactory has not been sufficiently enlarged to meet the present conditions. To give some examples. The Lithuanians, who in language and sentiment foi-m a distinct people, and are represented by thousands of immigrants, are nowhere mentioned.* In Chicago they were told by the enumerators that, there being no provision for Lithuanians, they might be either Poles or Kussians. Whether in other places they were classified under Poland or Russia, or both, it is impossible to say. For the enumerators are not always so impartial in such cases, as may be illustrated by the procedure reported to me by a Slovakian. There being no special provision for Slovakians, of whom there are some ten thousand here in Chicago, not to speak of the immense numbers in the Pennsylvania mining regions, one would naturally expect them to be put under Hungary, to which they have belonged politically for more than a thousand years. But in the case referred to, the enumerator, a German, was not disposed to augment the number of Hungarians and so entered the Slovakian under Austria. A Bohemian enumerator — and there may well have been such — would undoubtedly have entered him as a Bohemian, and such a classification, though eminently unsatisfactory to the Slovakian, would at least have more justification, since the Slovakians and Bohemians arc most closely related. The Croatians, of whom there are over one hundred thousand in the country, are likewise unknown in the Reports, being entered under Austria. The same is true of the less numerous Slovenians.' And, in general, it is clear that the figures given under Austria and under Hungary have no real significance as they stand, though they are used constantly in articles on labor and immigration problems. *■' For tho school census of 189(), the innovation was made ' A Slovenian priest told mo that, finding ho could only of classifying tho Lithuanians separately, and several be entered as an Austrian, he refused to make any return Lithuanian enumerators were ai>i)ointcd. In 18UH tho as to nationality. If this is not an exagpcratod statement separate classification was retained, but no Lithuanian of his attitude, ho was ono of thttso nocossitating the enumerators appointed, and tho number droi>pcd from huadiug "Europe (not othurwiso specified)." 2,807 to 1,411, although, as a matter of fact, the) Lithuanians Uud been pouring in constantly, as they have since then. 100 Gael Darling Buck There are now considerable numbers of Armenian and of Syrian immigrants, but it is only by comparing outsider information as to their location in different parts of the country with certain figures given in the Census under the heads of "Asia, except China, Japan and India," and "Turkey," that one discovers that they form the chief componeiats of these classes. Judging from the figures of Chicago and some other cities, the Armenians seem to have been put under Turkey and the Syrians under Asia, though it is not clear how consistently this distinction, the grounds for which are not obvious, was maintained. That many other nationalities, represented by very small numbers, such as the Icelanders, Letts, Bulgarians, etc., should not be given a separate place in the classi- fication, is less surprising, and perhaps unavoidable so long as only the roughest pic- ture of the foreign element is aimed at.* For those nationalities which are properly provided for in the classification the figures are, of course, of great value, though far from infallible. In all the statistics on foreign population there is inevitably a greater proportion of error than in the Census as a whole. The newly arrived foreigner, ignorant and knowing yet but little English, vaguely suspects the enumerator of being a constable or a spy, and thinks his safest course is to give false answers. To get at the actual truth would require more time, and, generally speaking, more intelligence, than the enumerators have at their disposal. In the case of the statistics of foreign parentage one has to reckon also with the deliberate falsehood of many who are so thoroughly Americanized as to regard even foreign parentage as a taint which must be concealed. That there is a vast amount of this misrepresentation is beyond any question. For these reasons the independent estimates of intelligent repi'esentatives of the different nationalities may often be nearer the truth than the Census figures, and for the many nationalities about which, as explained above, the Census furnishes no infor- mation, they are our only source. It is true that the disposition to exaggerate the numbers of one's countrymen is often apparent, but this may be largely counteracted by securing several estimates and by inquiring somewhat closely into the basis of them. And in general it may be said that, through various sources, such as the vot- ing lists, the membership of their churches, the subscription lists of their newspapers, and the enrolment in their societies, which flourish in astounding numbers among the foreign population, the leading men of the various nationalities have a pretty accurate 8 But there is no reason why the machinery of the Cen- to loss than one hundred and fifty items), the language SUB should not be employed to secure the necessary lin- census, forming part of the general Census, has more than guistic data for a fairly complete representation of the succeeded in its modest object of getting " a photograph, foreign element and its distribution— such data as are col- as it were, of the existing distribution of language in India, lectcd by various European governments, e. ff., in Austro- from the popular standpoint, which might to some extent Hungary, where the statistics for the various elements in guide the more leisurely and comprehensive researches of the population are based entirely on the linguistic test, or competent specialists " (Raines, " The Language Census of in Great Britain, where statistics are gathered for the lin- India," Transactions of the Kinth Oriental Congress). Only guistic conditions in Ireland, Wales, etc. In India, where experience will show in just what form the best results matters are infinitely more complicated than here (the are to be obtained, but it is hoped that with the recent names of languages returned numbered many hundreds establishment of the Census Bureau some progress will be and even after sifting and classification were not reduced made along this line. 101 8 A Sketch of the Lixguistic Conditions of Chicago idea of the numbers of their countrymen." I have taken, as fairly indicative of the linguistic representation, the figures which include the second generation of unmixed foreign parentage, that is, in the case of the Census Reports, Tables 54, 55, 59, and 60, which cover "persons having both parents born in a specified country."'" For it may be assumed that the number of those of the second generation not speak- ing (in addition to English) the language of their parents is offset by the number of those of the third generation who do speak the language of their parents and grand- parents. At best, the figures given are only approximate and intended merely to give a picture of the relative strength of the various elements. In the following survey, the language-families, their principal subdivisions, and the languages in each are given in the order of their relative numerical strength in Chi- cago. I have not thought it worth while to differentiate further and to attempt to show the representation of the dialects of each language. In the case of languages spoken by large numbers, such as German, Swedish, Polish, etc., one may be reasona- bly certain that all the dialects are represented." There is, however, as every student of language knows, no objective, purely lin- guistic, criterion of language versus dialect, some languages differing from one another far less than many dialects ; and our choice of terms depends upon considerations geo- graphical and historical as well as linguistic. I have intended simply to follow ordinary usage in this matter, though in some few cases the procedure will need some comment. That the picture of the linguistic elements of Chicago's population is complete I should not venture to hope. It is highly probable that there are several languages, spoken by a few individuals, which have escaped my notice. And of the languages mentioned, the part played by each could be described with greater elaboration. But even this sketch will, it is hoped, prove of sufficient interest and value to repay the very considerable expenditure of time involved in gathering the materials. INDO-EUROPEAN GERMANIC WEST GERMANIC English. — English is of course spoken by nearly the whole population. German. — German is spoken, it is safe to say, by more than half a million. The Census figures of Table GO for Germany are 303,810, while the school census of 1898 ^Tho sources of my information arc far too numerous t" The table usually quoted is GO, which pives the num- to mention in detail. I have talked with consular officials, bers of "white persons having both parents born in priests, newspaper editors, and business men, and can specified country " for cities of over 25,000. acknowledge their assistance oidy in this general way. I 11 To illustrate Chicago's possibilities as a linguistic am, however, under special obligation to a former pmiil, hiboratory I may mention the fact that of the eleven Mr. Marienburgcr, for assistance in securing information Lithuanian dialects spoken in the Russian province of upon the linguistic conditions of the .Jewish population. Kovn.., according to the minute classifieation of Bara- In noting the extent to which the differcMit languages are novski (see Leskikn, Idg. Fonrli. Anz., Vol. XIII, pp. 79 represented in the press I have derived much information ff j every one is represented hero, from the Lord and Thomas Pocket Directory of the Ameri- can Press, but in nearly all cases have corrected and aug- mented this from private sources. 102 Carl Darling Buck gave 469,014. To these figures would have to be added a portion of those tabulated under Austria, Hungary, Belgium, and Switzerland. Many leading Germans think 600,000 nearer the truth. Even at the conservative estimate of 500,000 German- speaking persons, Chicago ranks as the fifth German city of the world, New York being the fourth. More than twenty German newspapers and periodicals are published here, includ- ing such important dailies as the Stddts-Zcifnng, Frcie Prcssc, and Abend post. As is well known, the German forms by far the largest element of our foreign population, and is distributed over every state, though strongest in New York and Illinois. The German papers in the country number between two and three hundred. Yiddish". — Yiddish is spoken by upward of 50,000 persons. There are two Yiddish dailies, the Daily Jewish Call and the Daily Jewish Courier, and a Yiddish theater in which performances are given nightly. New York is the great Yiddish center, containing over 200,000 Yiddish-speaking Jews, and it is there that the leading Yiddish papers are published. Dutch. — Dutch is spoken by about 35,000. The Census figures for those bom in Holland (Table 35) are 18,555. No statistics for Holland are given under Table 60, but to include the second generation it woiild be fair to double this number. And, without knowledge of the Census returns, the Dutch estimate has been between thirty and forty thousand. There are two Dutch weeklies, De Nedcrlander and Onze Toekomst. Chicago is the first city of the country in the number of its Dutch, Grand Rapids, Mich., being second, and Paterson, N. J., third. Of the states, the Dutch element is strongest in Michigan, where, besides the large numbers in Grand Rapids, there are several towns almost purely Dutch, including one called " Holland," the seat of Hope College. Of the fifteen Dutch papers in the country, nine are published in Michigan. Flemish.'^ — Flemish is spoken by upward of 1,000, possibly by 2,000 persons. The largest Flemish population is in Wisconsin, and two Flemish weeklies appear in DePere, Wis., De Volksstem and Onze Standaard. Frisian.^^ — Frisian is spoken by some 2,000 persons from the Dutch province of Friesland. 1= I mention Yiddish at this point for the reason that its But this is called Flemish, not Dutch, and for convenience principal component is a form of High German which for we have kept the distinction, meaningless as it is from the several centuries has been isolated from the literary Ian- purely linguistic point of view. The two papers mentioned guage of Germany and pursued its own deve.opment. That are classed as Flemish simply because they are Catholic I do not ignore it like other German dialects (see p. 8), but and appeal mainly to the Flemish population, treat it as a distinct language, is due not merely to the h Qf all the Germanic languages and dialects of the strong admixture of Slavic and Hebrew words (together, continent Frisian is the one most closely related to Eng- according to Wiener, about 30 per cent.), but also to the ij^jj^ ^qJ forms with it the Anglo-Frisian branch of West- fact that it has come to be regarded by the Jews in Slavic Germanic, in contrast to German (High and Low) and countries as their own distinctive language, and boasts a Dutch. Its distinction from Dutch is then, unlike that literature of no mean value. between Flemish and Dutch, fundamental. Frisian is "The dialects of the Germanic-speaking portion of used to a limited extent as a literary language and Frisian Belgium are closely related to and co-ordinate with the newspapers are published in Leeuwarden. This is properly Dutch dialects of Holland, and the literary language, West-Frisian. It is probable that among the immigrants which since the "Flemish movement " has gradually dis- from Germany there are some from the coast of Holstein, placed French, is the same as the Dutch literary language. where North-Frisian is spoken. 103 10 A Sketch of the Linguistic Conditions of Chicago In general, Frisians are found wherever there are other immigrants from Hol- land in large numbers, so that their centers are the same as those of the Dutch. There is no Frisian paper published in this country. north GERMANIC OR SCANDINAVIAN Swedish. — Swedish is spoken by ujiward of 100,000. The Census figures of Table 60 are 95,878, while the school census of 181)8 gave 109,755. The Swedish estimate is 115,000. Ten Swedish papers are published here, the most important being the Svcnska Kuriren and the Svenska Tribiinen, both weeklies. Chicago is the third Swedish city of the world and has more than twice as many Swedes as any other city in the country. New York being second and Minneapolis third. Of the states Minnesota has the largest Swedish population. There are over fifty Swedish papers in the country. Norwegian. — Norwegian"^ is spoken by some 50,000 persons. The Census figures of Table 60 are 37,886, while the school census of 1898 gave 44,980. The Norwegians regard 50,000 as a conservative estimate. Seven Norwegian papers are published in the city, the Skandinaven, daily and semi-weekly, being the leading Norwegian paper of the country. Chicago is the third Norwegian city in the world and the first in this country, Minneapolis being second, and New York third. Of the states, Minnesota contains the greatest number of Norwegians, though North Dakota has the largest percentage of Norwegians to the total population. There are over sixty Norwegian and Danish papers in the country. Danish.^'' — Danish is spoken by some 20,000 persons. The Census figures of Table 60 are 15,185, those of the school census of 1898, 21,261. There are two Danish papers, the Chicago-Posten and the Revyen, both weeklies. Chicago is the first Danish city of the country. New York being second, Racine, Wis., third, and Omaha, Neb., fourth. Of the states Iowa has the greatest number of Danes. Icelandic. — Icelandic is spoken by some 100 persons. The principal Icelandic settlements in the United States are in North Dakota, mostly in Pembina county, and in Minnesota, mostly in Lyon and Lincoln counties. In these states there are several thousand Icelanders. There is also a colony of about 200 on Washington Island, Wisconsin, and a few Icelandic settlers are found in some other states. l&The Norwegian liter.iry lansuapro and cultivated tlie important Norwegian papers, tiiough read to some ex- speech differs but slisiitly from tiieDanisli.and in fact is.iiis- teut Ijy Danes also, preserve ttieir specific Norwegian char- torically considered, nothirigbut the importedDanish wiiich acter. Moreover, the real Norwegian of the dialects is has prevailed since the Rcrformation, more or less colored radicallydifferent from Danish, belonging with Icelandic to by the Norwegian dialects. But even in this literary Ian- the West-Scandinavian branch, while Danish belongs with guage the Norwegian coloring is sutlicient to make it seem Swedish to the eastern grouj). So that it is justifiable to to the Norwegians themselvcrs ,a lauguagc* distinct from the keep the Norwegian and Danish elements apart even from Danish. And, while some churches and some newspapers a linguistic standi>oint. published in this country are known as Danish-Norwegian, le ggg preceding footnote. 104 Carl Darling Buck 11 A weekly paper, the Vinland, is published at Minneota, Minn. The Icelaiulcrs are more numerous in Manitoba, and there are four Icelandic papers," three published at Winniiieg and one at Gimli, in a district known as New Iceland. BALTO-SL.WIC SLAVIC Polish. — Polish is spoken by more than 100,000, possibly liy 150,000 persons. The Census figures of Table (50 are 107,G69, while tiie school census of 1898 gave 96,463. But the opportunities for wrong classification are great in the case of the Poles, and a conservative Polish estimate puts the number at 150,000. There are about a dozen Polish papers in the city, including two dailies, the Dziennik Chicagoski and the Dziennik Naradowy. Chicago is probably the fourth Polish city of the world," and contains more than twice as many Poles as any other city of the country. New York being second, fol- lowed by Milwaukee and Buffalo. Of the states Illinois is first in its Polish popula- tion, owing mainly to the numbers in Chicago, Pennsylvania coming second with its large body of Poles throughout the mining regions. There are between thirty and forty Polish papers in the country. Bohemian. — Bohemian is spoken by about 90,000 persons. The Census, Table 60, gives 72,802, the school census of 1898, 88,581. There are fifteen Bohemian papers in the city, including four dailies, the Scor- nost, the Denni Hlasaiel, the j\"a?'Of/, and the Lidove Novinij. Chicago is undoubtedly the second Bohemian city in the world, since Brunn is about half German. It contains nearly three times as many Bohemians as any other city in the country, Cleveland, O., being second and New York third. Of the states Illinois is first, followed by Nebraska, where there is a large Bohemian farming population. There are more than forty Bohemian papei-s in the country. Slovakian." — Slovakian is spoken by about 10,000. The Slovakian population is most numerous in Pennsylvania, particularly in Pitts- burg and Allegheny. The states next in order, in the strength of their Slovakian population, are Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. Eight Slovakian papers are published in the country, six of them in Pennsylvania, one of the most important being the Amcrikuno Slovenske Novini/, a weekly published in Pittsburg.'" I'At Wiunipeg the Ldgbcrp, Hcimskringla, and Ha- viaus since the beginning of tho tenth century, when they meiningen (this last a religious monthly) ; at Gimli the were conquered by tho Hungarians. Consequently they Dagsskra. feel themselves a distinct people, do not wish to be identi- is There is little doubt, I think, that it outranks Posen fied with tho Bohemians, and since the early part of the with a population of 117,017. According to some Polish nineteenth century have used their own dialect as their estimates it would outrank Vilna (154,532) and so be the literary language, instead of the Bohemian, third Polish city of the world. 20 The others are Slovensky Dennik (daily), Pittsburg; ■■- Slovakian is very closely related to Bohemian, in fact Slovak V Ainvrika, New York ; Bratitno. Wilkesbarre, Pa. ; represents a dialect, or set of dialects, co-ordinate with .s'/ocejtsfca Frai'rfa, Freeland, Pa.; Jcdiwta. Scranton, Pa. ; those of Bohemia and Moravia. But tho Slovakians have Viera. Cleveland, O. ; Slovenske Noviny. Hazleton, Pa. been separated politically from tho Bohemians and Mora- 105 12 A Sketch of the Linguistic Conditions of Chicago Serbo-Croatian.'' — Croatian is spoken by some 10,000, from Croatia and the Dalmatian coast. There are two Croatian papers, the Chicago Sloboda and the Branik. While no other city contains a larger number of Croatians (Pittsburg and Alle- gheny together have about the same number), the great mass of the Croatian popula- tion is in Pennsylvania, where there are about 38,000. The states next in order are Illinois, California, Ohio, Montana." There are in all seven Croatian papers, including two dailies, the Narodni List in New York and the Hrvafska in Allegheny.'^ Of "Servians"'* there are perhaps 100, of whom only about half a dozen are from the kingdom of Servia, two or three from Montenegro, four or five from Bosnia, and the rest from Herzegovina or Dalmatia. So far as I have learned, there is nowhere in the country any considerable number of immigrants from Servia proper, yet the Servian element is strong enough to make possible the existence of five weekly newspapers calling themselves Servian.^^ Each of these is printed partly in the Cyrillic and partly in the Latin alphabet. There are said to be several hundred Montenegrins in California. Eiissian. — Eussian is spoken by some 7,000, possibly as many as 10,000, nearly all Jews. The Census figures for Russia, whether accurate or not, are of no value for linguistic purposes; for they represent in large part Jews, only a small proportion of whom speak Eussian as well as Yiddish. The American-born children even of those •who are bilingual learn only Yiddish, so that the proportion of Eussian to Yiddish- speaking is much less than among the Jews of Eussia. There are probably not 100 genuine Eussians, that is. Great Eussians, in the city. There are, however, several hundred Euthenians, perhaps about 500, who speak a Little Eussian dialect. The Eussian church of Chicago is made up largely of Euthenians, and service was for a time held in Little Eussian, now, however, in Great Eussian. 21 This embraces the speech of Servia, Bosnia, Herzego- on South Slavic literary and political movements, but vina, Montenegro, the Austrian province of Dalmatia, and can hartUy be illustrated more picturesquely than by an the Hungarian provinces of Croatia and Slavonia. incident related to me of three brothers from Ragusa, now Throughout this territory is spoken a series of ck)scly re- living in South Chicago, who " threw knives at each other lated dialects, the divisions between which do not coincide because one said he was a Croatian, the other that he was with any political divisions. All these dialects are now a Servian, the third that he was a Dago." represented by what is essentially the same literary Ian- In Bosnia, too, there is a Croatian as well as a Servian guage, though appearing in two forms — the Servian in the "party," and the Austrian officials, to avoid offimding east, written in the Cyrillic alphabet, and the Croatian in either, call the language neither Servian nor Croatian, but the west, with Agram as the center of literary activity, "the vernacular " or " Bosnian." written in the Latin alphabet. But a divergent political 22 A Croatian census, Po/iis Hrvata u Anierici, pub- history and religious differences (the Servians belong to lished in Allegheny, furnishes carefully collected statistics the Greek Church, the Croatians to the Roman) have pre- for all the Cr(>atian settlements in the country. It repre- venled any genuine feeling of unity, and, in spite of the sents an undertaking which might well be imitated by dicta of their scholars and literary leaders, the Croatians other nationalities. and .Servians regard themselves as distinct peoples, each 23 Besides these two and the two Chicago papers, they with its own language. The Dalmatians for the most part are: Napredak, Allegheny; Osa, New York; Uridti u are to be grouped with the Croatians, but in the extreme Aiiwrici, Rankin, Pa. south there is ;i mixture of Croatian and .Servian elements, -' See footnote 21. further complicated by the Italian influence which has 2:. The liilo and the Srhi7i, Pittsburg, Pa.; Scrhska been strong in Dalmatia from the earliest period. There- .SVihih, New York city ; Slotioda, San Francisco; Tlie Owl, suiting conditions have been elaborately treated in works Pueblo. Col. 106 Cakl Daeling Buck 13 In other parts of tli(^ country, too, the Russian language is represented mainly by the Russian Jews, so that New York, wliidi contains by far tlie largest number of these, is the largest Russian-speaking city of the country. Aside from the Jews, the only considerable Russian colony is that of the Dou- khobors in North Dakota. Shvenian. — Slovenian, the Slavic language of the Austrian province of Carniola and parts of Carinthia, Styria, and the coast land, is spoken by about 1,500 persons, most of them from Carniola. The principal Slovenian colonies are in Cleveland, Ohio, Joliet, 111., Pueblo, Col., Red Jacket, Mich., in each of which there are several thousand. There are also consider- able numbers in Pittsburg, Leadville, Col., and in several towns in Minnesota. There are six Slovenian papers."" Bulgarian. — Bulgarian is spoken by between 50 and 60 persons, about four-fifths of whom are from Macedonia. The next largest numbers are in Pittsburg and Philadelphia, there being about 35 in each, and about 100 in the whole state of Pennsylvania. There ai-e also between 30 and 40 in Ohio and Massachusetts, about 25 in New York, about 15 in Maryland, New Jersey, Maine, Michigan, 10 in California, and still smaller numbers in several other states. In all there are in the country between 500 and GOO, about four-fifths of whom are Macedonians, chiefly from the district of Monastir, who have come here within the last three or four years. Up to 1892 there were less than 100 Bulgarians in the country, and nearly all these were students or professional men from Bulgaria proper.'' A small Bulgarian bi-monthly is published in Chicago, and has some 200 subscribers. Wendish. — It is almost certain that among the immigrants from Germany there are at least some individuals from the Wendish region about Cottbus and Bautzen, but they are so thoroughly Germanized as to pass everywhere for Germans, and I have not been able to learn definitely of any Wendish-sjjeaking persons. There is a colony in Serbin, Tex., where church service is still held in Wendish. BALTIC Lithuanian. — Lithuanian is spoken by over 10,000 persons."' The vast majority of them are from Russian territory, though there are also a few Prussian Lithuanians. There are two Lithuanian weeklies, the Lietuva and the Kutalikas. 2^Nova Damovina^ Cleveland; Amerikanski Slovenec^ school census were of little value at tke time (see footnote JoUot; Glas Naroda, New York; Glasnik, Red Jacket; 6) and the number has been rapidly increasing since Jl/ir, Pueblo; J/osfcito, Cleveland. then. There are two very large Lithuanian Catholic con- „, ^ „, a T, , ■ t ■ • . c lu /-.v gregations, not to speak of a small one in South Chicago, 2' Dr. Staneff, a Bulgarian physician of South Chicago, , ,, ^ ,, t i „ •„ ;„ ;,„ij ;„ „ <^„,.„,„ . ^ , , ..,., ■,,,, , and the Lutherans, for whom a service is held in a (jerman has taken unusual pains to furnish me with full and accu- , .,_ l l -r. ■ *i. * - *u^.,^«.,^ ^ . , ^. , , ,, T, 1 ■ .t i_ ^ i._ Lutheran church. During the past year one thousand rate information about the Bulgarians throughout the ^- ^ ^ c ^ ^ .-■ t /~. . , m , . T - , . ^ , ,. .1 • in the Census represent less than ono-nfth of the true iium- comniunities elsewhere. To him I am indebted for the in- , mi- • » .i . t i . ». j , bcr. The (liscrepancy IS so j?reat that I hjive not ventured formation given above. , . ^, u- u « .\ \ t- i • n " to accept these higher figures, though not deuyiug the ^ My colleague, Professor Ingres, tells mo that the possibility of their correctness. 108 Carl Darling Buck 15 are large numbers from the West Indies. Apart from the Mexicans, New York has the largest number of Spanish-speaking persons. All of the fifty-odd Spanish papers of the country appear in the states named, there being twelve in New York city. Roumaiiidii. — Roumanian is spoken by perhaps 2,000 lloumanian Jews. The Census gives only 287 as born in Roumania, but they have been arriving in larger num- bers within the last two years. Estimates of the number vary widely, some running as high as 4,000. The number given is hardly more than a guess. A large proportion of all the Roumanian Jews in the country is in New York city. Aside from the Jews, I have not learned of any considerable number of Rou- manians anywhere,'* and the Roumanian language seems to be represented almost wholly by the Jews from Roumania, with some Gypsies who speak Roumanian. Portuguese. — Portuguese is spoken by only a few dozen persons. The Census gives 21 as born in Porttigal. Most of the Portuguese population of the country is in Massachusetts and Cali- fornia, in each of which there are over 12,000 born in Portugal. The five Portuguese papers of the country appear in these states. CELTIC Irish. — Irish is spoken by ujiwards of 10,000 persons certainly, and probably by as many as 15,000. The first number would be within the 1-4^ per cent, of the 73,912 born in Ireland (Census, Table 35), 14A being the percentage of the popula- tion of Ireland which can speak Irish. But immigration is especially strong from those counties in which Irish is most spoken, so that the percentage of Irish speakers among the Irish-born of Chicago (and in general in this country) is without doubt somewhat larger. Moreover, the revival of interest in the Irish language, fostered by the Gaelic Leagiie, has had the result, unique '^ in the history of our foreign population, that not a few adults have learned their native tongue for the first time in this country. There are also some of the second generation who learn Irish at home or in the classes of the Gaelic League. But this enthusiasm for the language, after all, affects but a small proportion of the Irish population, and it would not be safe to assume any very large additions to the number of those who spoke Irish when they came here. Neither here nor elsewhere, even in Ireland, so far as I am aware, is there any newspaper published entirely in Irish. But most of the papers devoted to Irish inter- ests print, occasionally at least, addresses, poems, stories, etc., in the native language. The number of Irish-s[)eaking persons is, of course, everywhere proportionate to the total number of Irish, which is greatest in New York city, followed by Philadel- phia, Chicago, and Boston. In the whole country there are probably about one-quar- 32A young Roumaniaa from Bessarabia whom I met in anian or Slovakian here. And I now recall that one of Chicago did not linow of any other Roumanians in the city. the Lithuanian priests in Chicaj^o, who preaches regularly 33 Or almost unique. Professor Wiener tells me he has '° Lithuanian, told me ho learned it in this country. His met some Lithuanians and some Slovakians who spoke father had spoken Lithuanian, but he himself only Polish only Polish or Hungarian before coming to this country, and Russian. but, joining their respective societies, have learned Lithu- 109 16 A Sketch op the Linguistic Conditions of Chicago ter of a million of Irish-speaking persons, which is more than a third of the number in Ireland. Welsli. — Welsh is probably spoken by about 2,000 persons, the total Welsh population here being 4,000 or 5,000. More than a third of all the Welsh in the country are in the mining regions of Pennsylvania, the states nest in order being Ohio and New York. There are three Welsh papers, the most important being Y Drych, a weekly published at Utica, N. Y. Scotch Gaelic. — The Scotch Gaelic, closely allied to the Irish, is spoken by per- haps 500 persons. There are nearly 20,000 Scotch in the city, but, of course, only a small number from the parts of Scotland where Gaelic is still spoken. In Canada there are some p\u-e Gaelic settlements, where church services are still held in Gaelic. One of these is in Gananoque, Ontario. Manx. — Manx, also closely related to Irish, is spoken by perhaps 100 persons. This is on the assumption that of the 400 or 500 Manxmen in the city, the proportion of Manx-speaking persons is about the same as on the Isle of Man. Biit it may be less, and a Manx informant has the idea that there are only a few dozen who can speak Manx. The principal Manx center is Cleveland, Ohio. Settlements in the neighborhood of the city were made as early as 1827, and there are said to be now in the suburbs and immediate vicinity as many as 8,000 of Manx birth or descent.'* There are also considerable numbers of Manxmen in New Orleans, San Francisco, Rochester, and Albany. Breton. — The Breton or Armorican, spoken in Brittany and allied more closely with the Welsh and the extinct Cornish than with the Irish, is represented by a few dozen of the immigrants from France. I have not learned of any distinctly Breton settlements in this country, and doubt if there are any. But wherever there are French immigrants in large numbers, there are certain to be some from Brittany, and it is safe to conclude, in the absence of more specific evidence, that the largest number of Breton-speaking persons is in New York city. GREEK Modern Greek. — Modern Greek is spoken by about 4,000, possibly by 5,000. The Censiis, Table 35, gives only 1,4U3, and the school census of 1898 only 1,044 of Greek birth. But the school census of 189(3 gave 3,711, and since then the number is known to have increased.^ Chicago has the largest Greek population of any city in the coimtry, followed by 3* A Cleveland lawyer of Manx descent, who has kindly earlier Manx settlements with anything like such rapidity given rao the above information, has the imi>ression that as in the Isle of Man itself. most of the generation born in this country are, like him- 36Tho discrepancy is probably to be accounted for by self, bilingual, having learned M-iux as the lancuage of the the fact that at certain times a largo proportion of the household. If this is true, it indicates that the proportion (Jreeks arc at work out of the city. of those able to si>eak Manx has not diminished in our 110 Cakl Darling Buck 17 Now York, Lowell, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Savannah, Pittsburg, Charles- ton, New Orleans, in the ordtsr named. There are two Greek newspapers, both published in New York, the 'KiXavrk and the &epfioTrv\ai. ALBANIAN Albanian.^ Albanian, representing an independent branch of Indo-European of which no other languages are extant, is spoken by perhaps one or two hundred of the immigrants from Greece. A large proportion of the Greeks come from the southern part of the Pelopon- nesus, where there are very few Albanians, while from Attica, Bcjeotia, and other parts where the Albanian element is strongest, the number of immigrants is much smallei. From Albania proper there are probably no representatives, nor, as far as I know, from the Albanian towns of southern Italy. In other parts of the country the distribution of the Albanian element will cor- respond roughly to that of the Greek element. ARMENIAN Armenian. — Armenian, which, like Albanian, is the sole representative of an independent branch of the Indo-European family, is spoken by some 125 persons. Except for New York city, with 2,500, most of the Armenians are in the New England cities. Worcester has 1,500, Boston 800, Providence 800, Lawrence 350, Lynn 300, etc. There are five Armenian papers, three of which are published in Boston, one in Cambridge, and one in Fresno, Calif.* INDOIRANIAN Neither Persian nor any of the other modern Iranian languages is represented here, as far as I have been able to learn. Nor do I know of any Hindus living here at the present time. Gypsy. — The Indie branch, however, is not entirely unrepresented, since there are nearly always some Gypsies in the outskirts of the city or in the immediate vicinity. And, as is well known, the Gyjisy language still retains a large element, which, in spite of the accretions from other languages, clearly betrays its origin in India. In the summer of 1001 there was here a large number of Gypsies recently arrived from Rou- mania and Bessarabia, who spoke Roumanian and Russian as well as Gypsy. But most of the Gypsies who frequent the city from year to year belong to a family which came to this country, after living for some time in Bavaria, from Croatia, and call them- selves Hungarian Gypsies. ^(■The Hayrenik, the Gotschnag, and the Tzain Haireniatz, Boston: the Lo!/ce, Cambridge : T/te C/i/zen, Fresno, California. Ill 18 A Sketch of the Linguistic Conditions of Chicago FINNO-HUNGARIAN " Hungarian. — The number of Hungarian-speaking persons is difficult to estimate even roughly. There are about 1,000 Magyars in South Chicago, Pullman, and the other manufacturing districts in the southern outskirts of the city. These, of course, are entirely Hungarian in speech. Nearly all the Hungarians in the city proper, of whom there are many thousands, are Jews, there being two Hungarian-Jewish churches. Some of these are as thoroughly Hungarian in speech and in sentiment as the Magyars themselves, but many, on the other hand, belong to our earliest class of immigrants from Hungary and left at a time when German influence was predominant, so that German rather than Hungarian is their mother-tongue, and their children, so far as they learned anything but English, acquired German, not Hungarian. As to the actual numbers of the Jews from Hungary, and their descendants, and the proportion which speak Hungarian, I have received the most divergent opinions. It is safe to say that Hungarian is spoken by 5,000, while some would place the number at several times this. Of the cities, New York has the largest Hungarian population, with Cleveland, O., second. Of the states, Pennsylvania stands first, followed by New York and Ohio. There are five Hungarian papers, three in New York and two in Cleveland.^ Fiiuiish. — Finnish is spoken by about 500 persons. The center of the Finnish population is in the Calumet mining regions of Michigan. Next to Michigan, with 18,910 Finnish bom, according to the Census, comes Minnesota, with about 10,000, fol- lowed by Massachusetts with about 5,000. There are fourteen Finnish papers, seven of them appearing in Michigan.^' Esthonian. — There are said to be three Esthonian families in Chicago. New York and San Francisco have each about 150 Esths, and altogether in the country there are about 400.*° An Esthonian religious paper, Amerika Ecsti Postimces, is published in Boston by the same editor as the Lettic paper. SEMITIC Arabic. — Arabic is spoken by the Syrians, numbering between 300 and 500. In New York, which has the greatest number of Syrians, there are four papers published in Arabic. No account is taken of Hebrew, which, however familiar in Jewish serv- ices, is not actually a spoken language anywhere. For Yiddish see above, p. 9. 3' While this is as definite a language family as Indo- 39 The Kristillisia Sa7iomia^ Makatma^ Snrtolainen^ European or Semitic, its relationship with other families Heligteiis Vag, Brooklyn; Ntiistcn Lchti^Suomctar. Vuthet, often grouped with it under the iicad of " Ural-Altaic " is TocliUistcn Juukkn, Cahimet, Mich.; Fahncti Sanomat, tif a loss decisive character. Owing to this, and also to the RaiUiuttlehti, Hancock, Mich.; Kalava, Manistee, Mich.; fact that outsifie of Finno-nuugarian the Turkish is tho C7it.si A'(>//ni(ia, New York Mills. Minn. ; .'l7»ienfca?i.S'a7iomaf, only representative here of tho Ural-Altaic, I have ignored Asterbill Harbor, Ohio; Tfituim, Fitchburg, Mass. this more general grouping, and simply mentioned Turkish 40Evon the Livonians of the northern extremity of below, under "other languages." Courlnnd, relics of another Finnish people from which i^Szahatlndfj mid Mti^yar Ilirmrnulf'}, Cleveland; Nt'ps- Livonia takes its name and numbering in ISSl only .I,!")!! in zava, Amcrikai Ncmzctor, and I'iity-Valatty^ New York. all, are represented by a few families in Now York city. 112 Carl Darling Buck 19 OTHER LANGUAGES Chinese. — Chinese is spoken by between one and two thousand persons. As is well known, the Chinese element is strongest in California and the other Pacific states. In the East the greatest number is in New York. There are two Chinese papers, one in New York, the other in San Francisco. Japanese. — Japanese is spoken by less than a hundred persons. The Census gives 80 as born in Japan. The Japanese are most numerous in California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho in the order named. Turkish. — As far as I can learn, there are no Turks in the city at present, though one or two remained stranded here for some years after the exposition of 1893. But the Turkish language is not unrepresented, for the reason that nearly all the Armenians, that is, all the male adults, speak Turkish in addition to their own lan- guage. There are probably very few Turks anywhere in the country, the language being represented mainly by the Armenian population, which is almost exclusively from Turkish Armenia. Basque. — Basque is represented by a few individuals only. I have not learned of any considerable number of Basques anywhere in the country.*' The native Indian languages are almost wholly unrepresented. There is a resi- dent physician who is a full-blooded Sioux, and occasionally a party of Indians is brought here for a few months for commercial purposes. But practically the Indian languages play no part in the linguistic conditions of the city. I have not learned of any representations of the Malay-Polynesian group of languages, though it is quite possible that there are a few Hawaiians or Samoans engaged in business. The Census gives 46 as born in the Pacific Islands, but these are probably of American parentage. SUMMARY The most notable characteristic of Chicago's foreign population is the strength of the Scandinavian and Slavic elements. No other city in the country contains any- thing like as many representatives of these groups. The Slavs number over a quarter of a million, and of the large divisions which we have made above, Slavic comes next to Germanic, a place which would be occupied by Romance in New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. Taking the languages without regard to the classification previously fol- lowed, the following are those of which Chicago furnishes the largest representation of any city in the country: Polish, Swedish, Bohemian, Norwegian, Dutch, Danish, Croatian, Slovakian, Lithuanian, and Greek. *■ >■«'«' '<•«"!' satiii/ojanamagyam gcmh-a, etc., t. c, his hand " - AaH/icna kanvamhklialiyam pahari ; r/. " when they had come to a cross-way." One .>f the two sani Sumunrmla-viluum. ]>.3n, last line, and p. 312, first line: immediately following oat-h other would very naturally bhikkhuni kannasuhkhalii/am paharitva. Kannatahkhali have dropped out through the negligence of the scribe. i&i\m ^kt. karruicashkuU, '' But ifajid'd (instead of jjaii'rt) would then be a little 118 J. J. Meyer A landed proprietor wlio was c('lel)ratiug his son's wedding came along witli great pomp and rotiuuo and the girl (the bride) seated in a palanUin. When the domestic chaplain saw this he said : "If you wish, it is possible to make this girl sin with you." "How can you say so? Her retinue is too great for tiiat, friend." "See then, my lord," said the chaplain. He stepped forward, made a tent not far from the road, and put the king into the tent, he himself sitting down at the wayside weeping. Then the landed proprietor, seeing him, inquired : " Why do you weep, my good sir? " " My wife is very big with child; I started upon the way to take her to the home of her kin. But on the highway her throes came upon her; she is laboring within the tent, no woman is at her side and I cannot go there. I do not know what will become of it." "You must get a woman. Don't weep; there are many women; one will go." "Then this girl here shall go, and it will be a lucky omen also for her." The man thought: " He speaks the truth; it will Ije an omen betokening luck to her too; she will increase in sons and daughters; " atld he sent her. She entered there, saw the king, fell in love with him, and sinned with him. The king gave her the seal-ring from his finger. When she had finished and returned from out of the tent, they asked her: "What has she borne?" She answered : " A son of golden hue." The landed proprietor took her and journeyed on with his train. The chaplain also went to the king and said: "You see, my lord, even a young girl is so wicked, far more the other women. But have you given her anj'thing? " "Yes, the seal-ring fi'om my finger." " I will not allow her that." He rapidly strode on, caught up with the palankin," and when they asked : " What is the matter? " he answered : " She took the seal-ring with her that had been placed under my wife's pillow. Give me the seal-ring, my good lady." She wounded the brahman's hand with her finger-nails when she gave him the ring and said : " Take it, you rascal." Thus by various stratagems the brahman brought it about that the king could sec (with his stranpo. Or we might read tesatn yojanamaggam gantca, identification of .Saketa with Ayodhya, adducing conclu- etc, i. c, "after they had gone a tjojana's way." Anobjec- sive proofs for this view, and identifies Savatthi with Sewet lion to that reading would be this that twelve miles was and the modern Sahet-Mahet. Whatever explanation we too long a journey to find the first pliant woman. That may adopt to reconcile the il/oAni'ai7.9a with these state- were not in keeping with the spirit of the fairy tale, ments, it is clear that the yojana of the MahCivaf/ga especially as the king was "very fair of form and figure." amounts to vastly more than two or three miles, unless we But although Childers gives a yojana as twelve miles, that reject Cunningham's identification, which seems to rest on does not seem to be so very correct. The statements a very solid basis, or assume that another Saketa is meant, regarding the yojana differ greatly. Oesterlet, Baital a very improbable expedient. On the other hand, in Pacchisi, P- *!?, says a ?/oja na = about nine miles; Stein, Sutta 89 of the Majjhima-KikCiya King Pasenadi looks at Rajatarangini (transl.). Vol. VII, p. .393, about six miles; the park of Nangaraka. There the thought of visiting Crooke, Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern Buddha enters his mind. But the Master is sojourning in India, p. 232, ten miles; MONIEU Williams, su6 voce, Metalumpa. The king is told that the distance between the informs us; '' Sometimes regarded as equal to four or five two places is not great, only three 2/oja7(a5, and that one ^English miles, but more correctly = four krogas or about could ride to Metalumpa during the rest of the day nine miles; according to other calculations = two and {divasOvasesena). The king's charioteer actually takes his one-half English miles, and according to some = eight lord there in time. Such a thing would have been impos- kro^as." Professor Lanman writes me: " It is 60 yojanas sible, it seems, if a J/oj'ana were between twelve and seven from Kapilavatthu to Rajagaha (Jiit. I, p. X5, 1. 31), that is miles. A distance of about eight miles in all appears to be about l.'jO miles, perhaps — that gives only 2 or 3 miles for a quite enough for the '' rest of the day," the roads in ancient yojanana." Cunningham takes the yojana as seven miles. India not being of the ideal kind. Perhaps the yojana Mahuvagga, VII, 1, mentions six ?/ojo?i«5 as the distance (literally "a distance traversed in one harnessing or with- between Saketa and Savatthi; according to the Fa-Hian, out unyoking") was just as indefinite in old India as it was eight 2/ojana-s. Counting the (/oja^ia as seven miles, now is the term "mile" which has to be qualified by the Chinese traveler's statement would give us fifty-six " English," " German," " geographical," etc., in order to be miles, which is correct according to Cunningham {Ancient correctly understood. Geography of India, Vol.1, p. 409), who accepts the common 6 Perhaps, rather, "stopped the palankin." 119 Two Twice-Told Tales own eyes) many other licentious women, and he said: "This is enough for this place, let us go elsewhere, my lord." The king roamed through all JambudvTpa [lit., " the island of the rose apple tree," i. e., India], and then he declared: "All women (outside of Jambud^ipa) will be the same way. What of them ! Let us return." So they went back to Benares. The chaplain pleaded with the king : " Such, O great king, are all women, of such a bad quality is their nature; pardon Queen Kinuara." He pardoned her and expelled her from his comt; and as he had deprived her of her station he chose another queen consort. And the cripple he caused to be driven away, and the branch of the rose apple tree (that hung over the top of the wall) he had cut down. It will be seen at a glance that this old Buddhist version of the story is very interesting in many respects. A careful comparison with the Arabian and Italian tales points to several things. I mention only a few. The story of Shah Zamau (Shahseman) or of Giocondo being cured of his heart- ache by seeing the king's wife doing the same thing as his own spouse is here missing. But that is of no importance at all. The story of " The Lady in the Box," which forms a sej^arate Jdtuka in the Pdli collection, we see in the Arabian Nights woven into the introductory story, with which originally it had no connection at all. A multitude of similar cases might be pointed out. These productions of the people's fancy grow not only from within, but also from without. The different versions drop the one incident and add another, either by spontaneous growth or more frequently by appropriating another story or part of another story. This story of " The Lady in the Box" must serve, in the Arabian Nights, the same purpose as the king's salutary ramble through various countries in the Buddhistic tale and in the Orlando Furioso. The Arab story-teller could not use this portion. The old Hindu looks upon the frailty of the fair sex rather with the sadly smiling eye of the philosopher. And the numerous angry invectives against women in Hindu literature notwithstanding, we even meet a multitude of stories where the tricks which amorous women play their relatives, and especially their husbands, are described with the same inward chuckle as in the "laughing tales" of Boccaccio, Bandello, and others. The Muhammedan spirit is severer and fiercer. Shahryar (Sheherban) puts to death his wife and a host of other women (1,095, if there was no leap year among those three years) ; the king of Benares spares his guilty spouse u[)on the intercession of his chaplain. And then, just think of a Muhammedan ruler roving through the land and introducing himself by stealth into as many harems as possible in order to learn by experience that no woman is true and chaste if she can help it ! Another consideration is this : Adhering to the original version, the Arabian collection could hardly have introduced Sheherezade, who is so pre-eminently neces- sary. The Arabian adaptations of these old tales are often better than the more original forms, but the otherwise excellent story of "The Lady in the Box" seems to me here a rather inferior substitute for the way in wJiicli the king is made to see the depravity of all womankind in our Pali JCitaka and in Ariosto's novella. We must concede that 120 J. J. Meyer this king Shahryar is drawn witli a masterhand, and the spirit of tho fairy-tale, especially the Arabian fairy-tale, is manifested in a sparkling manner. This poor lady has been cruelly torn away from her bridegroom by tho Jinni ; ladies do not like to be put into boxes of this kind, not even in the countries of the harem; such treat- ment would be sufficient to raise the spirit of deviltry in a Penelope; still our sultan Shahryar, like a true eastern despot, infers from this exceptional case that all womcm act like the one now before him, which is a flat contradiction of his previous attitude toward the question. He is the type of the stupid, cruel prince so common in eastern tales. By the way, this peculiarity of the NigJits that they usually — Harun ar Rashid, of course, excepted— depict princes as rather dull, hasty, bloody, etc., whereas their ministers are models of insight, prudence, energy, and other good qualities, is doubt- less in a great measure due to the fact that the NigJits go back to the Jataka as their principal fountain-head. In the Jftfala Boddhisatta (the later Buddha) is again and again born as a king's minister, and as such restrains and instriicts his impetuous and often weak-minded lord. Now, we know that in the Orient ministers of state are, as a rule, no better, and even worse, than their masters, or slaves, i. e., the princes. So the Nights can in this respect hardly have copied life. Still, the noble family of the Barmecides, for instance, may have contributed colors to this bright, ideal picture of the vezir. But, in spite of many excellent traits in the Arabian tale, the best, most essential, and most extraordinary part of the whole story, i. c, the king's peculiar exploratory tour, together with a few other things in our Jdtaka, go to make up a bet- ter narrative than the Muhammedan adaptation. That the story when it became known to the Muhammedans contained this journey of the king through various countries and his amorous adventures with a multitude of women is also clearly shown by the manner in which the substitute for this portion is introduced. When Shahryar with his own eyes had seen his queen in the loving embrace of the negro Said, he said, according to Burton's literal translation of the Arabian Nights: " Let us up as we are and depart forthright hence, for we have no concern with kingship, and let us overwauder Allah's earth, worsliiping the Almighty till we find some one to whom the like calamity hath happened; and if we find none then will death be more welcome to us than life." So the two brothers issued from a second private postern of the palace; and they never stinted wayfaring by day and by night, imtil they reached a tree a-middle of a meadow — hard by a spring of sweet water on the shore of the sea. Then happens the story of "The Lady in the Box" and their immediate return home. The words quoted seem to indicate beyond doubt that the tale when the Muhammedans borrowed it described a far more extensive and very diiferent journey of the two. Why should they make so much ado, give up the kingdom, set out upon the way to " overwauder Allah's earth" simply and exclusively in order to find a single and solitary woman who would not be loyal to her husband or lover? It is true, our king Shahryar is no miracle of intelligence, and the way in which he is stupefied by his wife's colored liaison renders him very naive and amusing. Still he has just now 121 8 Two TwiCE-ToLD Tales seen eleven women follow their lewd desires ; his brother's wife added makes twelve ; he is an oriental, a Muhammedan, and as such cannot help but have imbibed a some- what realistic philosophy in puncto foeminarum. So this whole portion is simply ridiculous, and the words quoted above and the things that came to j^ass thereiipon can be explained only by the fact that the Muhammedans found these words, although quite different in some respects, in the story and transplanted them into their own version, the final development of which renders them so utterly incongruous, to say nothing of other blemishes. So the outcome seems to be this: The theory that Ariosto has taken over the introductory story from the Arabian Nicjlds is untenable. But we see everywhere how very tenacious certain incidents and even phrases are in these tales of the people, their marked pliability and even Proteus-like transformations in some respects not- withstanding. It were possible, therefore, that Ariosto nevertheless got the story through the instrumentality of the Arabs. A version conforming more to the original tale and independent of the introduction to the Ni(jlds might still have been current among the Arabs at that time. But this is not very probable. We know that the manuscripts of the celebrated Arabian collection diifer in a most astonishing manner. But the introduction — together with a number of other tales — is the same every- where, as far as matter is concerned, and even the wording varies here not essentially. "The Introduction (with a single incidental story 'The Bull and the Ass') .... may be placed in our tenth century," says Burton in his translation (Vol. X, p. 93). His o[)inion is certainly entitled to respect. All Arabists, I think, agree that the introduction is one of the oldest parts. Now, it seems not very plausible that another version should have survived among the Arabs down to Ariosto's time side by side with its all-powerful rival in the Nights. I would rather incline to the opinion that the story was brought to Italy from Russia. We know that intercourse between these two countries was quite lively at that time. But as I cannot show up the Slavic link, I must give this as a mei-e, though very probable, supposition. Like the other stories of the introduction to the Avahian Niijlds, the one most important of them all for the collection is of Hindu origin; the Shehereznde, most famous and typical of Arabian girls, is found in the tales of the Jainas, an old reli- gious sect of India. Jacobi, in his well-known book AiisgewdliUe Erzdhlungcn in Mdltdrdshtri (1880) has published the Prakrit text of the story, and many a reader of this valuable volume must have recognized the identity. But, so far as I know, nobody has yet considered it worth while to speak about the matter. So I subjoin an almost literal translation. The story is found pp. 49 if. It is taken from a com- mentary of Devendra which was finished in 1073 A. D.' Devondra himself calls his work an epitome of a book of ^antyacarya.* The tale runs thus: 'Jacodi gives Samvat 1179, i. e., 1122-2.3 A. D. But this 8 Of him Pavomni (in his article, "Vicendo del tipodi mistake has been cr)rrccled by Leumann, "Die Le^endo Miiladcva," Giormilc delta Socictil Anfatira Ualiana, Vol. von Citta ilnd Sainl)iinta," Wiener Zcitschrift fiir die IX, i». ITS) says: '' vcrosiinilnuuito di im)Co postc.rioro alia KuTuie des Moryenlimdcs, Vol. V, p. 112. redaziono doUnitivo del cuuono doi jaiua (4b4 d. C.)." 122 J. J. Meyer 9 There is here in India a city named Khiipaitthi3-am. JiyasattQ was king there. Once the king commenced a picture-gallery and handed it over to the guild of painters in equal por- tions [i. e., assigned the head of every family — professions being hereditary in India- an equal share of tlie work to be done]. Many painters painted. Also an old p;iinter, Cittangaa by name, painted. A long time passed. And his young daughter, Kauayamaiijari by name, brought him his meals. One day she was on her way to her father with his dinner in her hands, when a hf)rsenian came along the king's highway, that was crowded with people, on his horse, making it run at full speed. And she fled in fear. Then after ho had rushed by she went to her father. When Cittangaa saw that his meal had come, he went to ease nature. To while away time Kauayamaiijari painted there in colors, on the paved floor, a peacock's feather entirely true to nature. In the meanwhile King Jiyasattu came to the picture-gallery. Looking at the paintings he saw the peacock's feather on the paved iloor, and thinking, " It's beautiful," he stretched out his hand to pick it up. He broke his nails, which were like pearl-oyster shells. Abashed he looked into space. Kanayamailjari said with a laugh: "While I reflected, 'A chair doesn't stand on three legs,' and sought the fourth foolish man, I have now found you as the fourth leg." The king said: " How is that? Tell me the whole matter as it is." She said laughing: " While I brought my father his meal a man rode a horse in hot haste on the king's highway. He had not a bit of pity, for old people, children, women, and all other weak people that passed along were trampled down. Therefore this horseman, being an arrant fool, is the chair's first leg. The second leg is the king, by whom the picture-gallery has been assigned to the painters in equal shares. In the individual families there are many painters. My father is, firstly, without a son; secondly, an old man; thirdly, poor. But although he is such, an equal portion (of the work) has been set down for him (which he cannot do under the circumstances). The third leg is my father here, because while painting at this picture-gallery he has spent what he had earned before; now I bring him any food I get, and when it has come — he goes to ease nature! What a dull man he is! "" The king said: " Why am I the fourth leg?" The other said : " Now, anyone knows at once : ' How should a peacock's feather come here indeed!' If it [the feather] had been brought here in some way or other, even then one would perceive it by the eye at once." '" The king said : " I am really a fool and as such the fourth leg of the chair." Hearing how (cleverly) she put her words together and seeing the loveliness of her body, he became enamored of her. But when Kanayamanjari had given her father to eat she went home. By mouth of Sugutta, his prime minister, the king asked Cittangaa for Kanayamanjari. He said : " We are poor. How could we celebrate the marria|^e and pay the king due honor! " This was told the king. He had Cittangaa's house filled with money, grain, and gold. On an auspicious lunar-day, in an auspicious hour, Kanayamanjari was married ( i)y the king) in great splendor. A palace and a great multitude of female slaves were bestowed on her. Now the king had many queens; every one (of them) entered the king's sleeping apart- ment on the night when her turn came. And on that day the order was given that it was ^ Slyala, Sanskrit, (Ttala, "cold," seems to be used had thought for a moment that the feather had been just as jat^a for "cold, torpid, senseless, stupid," in San- there, he would have rectified the mistake right away (/. skrit. e., perceived that it was no real feather). Or: Even if the i"Or "by his intelligence." The literal translation feather had been brought there, one (/. e., people) would would be : " It might have been brought here in some way ^^^o seen it right away (and picked it un, of course, not or other [so one might object]. Even then one would per- leaving it till the king came)- ceive it," etc. The sense may be : Even if a man of sense 123 10 Two TwicE-ToLD Tales Kanayamanjari's turn. Bedecked and adorned she went, together with her slave-girl Mayaniya, and sat down upon a seat. In the meanwhile the king came. She rose to greet him and performed the other acts of politeness and modesty. The king lay down on the bed. Before this time already Kanayamanjari had said to Mayaniya: " When the king has lain down you must ask me for a story in a way that the king hears it." Therefore Mayaniya said at this appropriate moment: " Mistress, tell me a story while the king tarries (with us here)." The other said: "The king must fust sleep soundly, then I will tell one." The king thought: "Now, what kind of a story will she tell? I too will hear it." So he pretended to be asleep. Mayaniya said: "Mistress, the king is asleep; tell the story." The other said: " Listen! There was in a city Vasantaura a merchant Varuua. He had a chapel built of one hand in size tliat was made all of one block. Into this he put a certain idol of four hands." Mayaniya said: " Mistress, how could there be room for an idol of four hands in a chapel of one hand in size?" The other said: "I am sleepy now; tomorrow I shall tell." " Thus let it be," said Mayaniya, who went out and went home. The king's curiosity was roused and he thought: " What kind of thing is this? " She (Kanayamanjari) also lay down to sleep. When on the .second day again the order was given that it was her tiu-n, shewas addressed in the same way by Mayaniya: "Mistress, tell that half-told tale (to the end)." The other said: " Friend, that god is the Foiu'-Armed One," but this is not the size of his body [i. e., what I said does not refer to the size of his body]." Thus far goes the story. Mayaniya said: "Tell me another." Kanayamanjari said: "Friend, there is a great forest. In it there stands a great red asoka tree with outspread boughs and branches. And it has no shade." Mayaniya said: " How could such an excellent tree have no shade? " She said: " Tomorrow I'll tell; now I am overcome by sleep." The third day again, out of curiosity, she was summoned. In the same manner she was questioned by Mayaniya. She explained: "That tree's shade is below it."'- Asked for another story, she nanated: " In a certain place there was a village magistrate. He had a camel. And this roamed about at will. One day when it roamed about it saw a babbula tree abounding in leaves, blossoms, and fruit. And toward that it stretched out its neck and could not reach it. And for the tree's sake it harassed itself a very long time. Then it stretched out its neck still a great deal more in all four directions. When it could not reach (the tree) in any wav, it was seized by anger. Therefore it'discharged its m'ine and dung on the tree." Mayaniya said: "How could it discharge its urine and dung on the tree which it could not even reach with its mouth? " The other said : " TomoiTow I'll tell." In the same manner she declared on the following day: " That babbula tree was down in a • blind ' well," therefore the camel could not eat of it." '* In this way Kanayamanjari befooled the king with such interesting stories for six months. 11 Vishnu, who is ropresonted with four arms and bo taken more literally. The shining water in the well is hands. its pupil of the eye ( Aut/oistcrn) . Vf. the interesting, 12 Therefore it ftiw no shade, is not protected by shade ; oft-recurring passase, Majjh ima-Nikayu, Vol. I, p. 80, where whereas Mayayiya (and the liiufe-) took the painter's •«e\\A\o udakataraka, Wussevstern = Waescrspugd {ot a. daughter to mean that the tree cast uo shade. well). "Literally, "in the mi.ldlo of a blind well-pit." A "The Sanskrit version hero adds six other stories, all well dried up, overcrown with plants, nud not used is of a similarnaturn. Three of them are well-known tales meant. The metaphor may be the same as in the German, 'Nos. r., 0, 7). As they are nc-ither in the Maharashtri text bUmiai Feiixler, hlhtde Tkilre: or the term may refer to the ""■■ "^oct the matter in hand, I pass them by. fact that such a well is hidden from view ; or the word may 124 J. J. Meyer 11 Then he had become exceeding-ly enamored of her. Exclusively devoted to the pleasm-e of love with her alone, he passed the time. Then her fellow wives Ijecame enraged against her, sought for weak points in her, and conferred together: " She has bewitched the king by witchcraft, so that he has abandoned even his queens who were born in the highest families; in his passion for this artisan's daughter he considers neither excellences nor faults, pays no attention to the affairs of the kingdom; cares not that his wealth is being ruined by her juggler's tricks." But'^ Kanayamanjari, day l)y day, entered one of the chambers in her palace at noon-time, all alone, cast off the garments and the finery that belonged to the king [i. e., that the king had given her], and put on the ragged dress and the finery made of tin and lead that she had got from her father. And she admonished her own soul: "Do not be proud, O soul, of (this) wealth, do not become conceited, forget not thyself! The king's is this wealtli, thine are these clothes all beaten to pieces with the stick"* and this finery. So be of a calm mind, Ijccause for a long time thou didst not enjoy such splendor. Else the king might take thee by the neck and put thee out." Observing these her doings day by day, her fellow- wives said to the king: "Although you are destitute of love for us, nevertheless we will ward off misfortune from you; for: Woman's deity is her husband. This woman here, who is your sweetheart, pronounces some incantation or evil spell. Being bewitched by her, you do not notice this mischief." The king said: " How is that?" They said: "At noon-time she goes into a chamber, shuts the door, and stands there mumbling something by herself, day by day, for some time. If you don't believe it, watch her " yourself or (have it done) by a niunber of others." And, having heard this, the king went himself. Standing at the door in order to watch Kanayamanjari, who had entered the room, he saw the doings described already and how she instructed her own self. His heart was filled with joy. "O what pnidence of hers! O what freedom from pride! O what discrimination! Therefore she is in every respect a treasure of all excellences; and these [her fellow-wives] are envious by reason of their being fellow-wives. For even excellence they deem a fault." And fidl of joy the king made her mistress of the whole kingdom and invested her with the turban.'* The king was right. Her conduct in prosperity proved her to be a rare jewel among women; and though this story, which clearly is an abridgment anyhow, in many respects ranks below that of the Arabian Nights, Kanayamanjari showed such eminent qualities in all her dealings that Sheherezade need not be ashamed of her Hindu mother. 15 Literally " from that time," the time when the king nOr: "investigate the matter." had shown her his favor. is j-. g._ i,g j^^.,,, i^g^ crowned as pattaraJTii - as his 16 In the process of washing numberless times, principal wife or queen consort. 125 THE UNITY OF PLATO^S THOUGHT THE UNITY OF PLATO'S THOUGHT Paul Shorey PART I INTRODUCTION During the past twenty years Platonic Forsdiiuig has come to mean the investi- gation of the relative dates of the dialogues liy the statistical study of vocabulary and idiom. The general trend of modern philology and the reaction figainst mystical and metaphysical Platonism favored this tendency, and the work would perhaps not have been done at all if the workmen had not cherished illusions as to its value. To combat these illusions or to test in detail the logic of Sprachstntistilcis not the purpose of this paper. A merely negative attitude toward any harmless form of human endeavor is unfruitful. But granted, since life is short, all that is claimed by the enumerators of icaOd-rrep and ti fi-qv, the essential quality of Plato's thought remains for some Platonists' a more interesting topic of discussion than the conjectural chronology of his writings. It has become the fashion to assert that the one depends upon the other, that we cannot interpret Plato's philosophy until we have determined the historic sequence of the dialogues, and with it the true order of development of his thought. But we have always known that the Laws and TimcBus are late, that the Republic belongs to Plato's full maturity, and that the minor Socratic dialogues are as a whole presumably early. To affirm that more is necessary is to beg the question; it is to assume the very point in controversy that the philosophy set forth in the dialogues did develop in the sense required by the argument. The question is partly verbal Every man's thought is developed out of nothing somewhere between infancy and maturity. Any author whose literary activity, like that of Plato, extends over half a century undergoes many minor changes of opinion, and reflects many varying moods of himself and his contemporaries. But it is not true of all, or of a majority, of the world's great thinkers that their first tentative gropings toward a philosophy and a criticism of life are depicted as in a votive tablet in their earliest published writings, or that the works of their riper years present a succession of shifting and dissolving views. Yet something like this is the assumption made by the increasing number of investigators who, in emulation of the triumphs of the statistical method, are endeav- oring to confirm, refute, or cori'ect its results by a study of alleged inconsistencies, contradictions, or developments in Platonic doctrine. Abstractly the followers of this method would probably repudiate the principle here attributed to them. In their practice the desire for striking arguments and definite results leads them to assume that Plato was capable of producing a masterpiece like the Protagoras before his most characteristic philosophical and ethical conceptions had taken shape in his mind, and 1 Notably for Bos'iTZ ; see the judicious observations in Platonlschc Studicn, 3d ed., pp. 270 ff. and pa&shn. 129 The Unity of Plato's Thought that throughout the period of his meiturest writings his leading ideas were in a state of Heraclitean flux, or were being casually developed from year to year. This method misleads scholars of great acumen and erudition to make false points, to labor fantastic analogies, and to cite irrelevant parallels. It betrays them into misplaced emphasis, disregard of the context, and positive mistranslation. In short, it necessitates the systematic violation of all the canons of the simple, sane, and natural interpretation of literature.' Plato avoided rather than sought a rigid technical terminology, and prodigally varied the language and imagery in which he clothed his most familiar thoughts. Every variation of phrase and imagery is pressed to yield significant contradictions or developments. The most far-reaching conclusions are drawn from the different shades of meaning attached to such words as '"opinion," "dialectic,'" "philosophy," "sensation," "reminiscence," "participation," "presence," "com- munion," freely and untechnically employed by Plato to suit the theme and context.' The absence in any work of explicit insistence on a thought is supposed to prove the absence of the thought from Plato's mind at the time, and as a consequence, we are expected to believe in the most incredible combinations of maturity and naivete within the same writing. Or we are taught that Plato's development, like some Sophoclean sentences, proceeds in the order alxi, and consisted in the acceptance, the rejection, and the re-acceptance of the same idea. The most reckless assertions are made that certain elementary thoughts appear for the first time in certain dialogues. The emphatic introduction of a term or idea is, according to the exigencies of the theory, now taken as proof that it is a novelty, and now explained away as a mere dramatic artifice. The rapid outline of an argument is alternately regarded, according to the requirements of the "chronology," as an anticipatory germ or a later resume of the fuller treatment found elsewhere. Fantastic conceits or bare possibilities as to Plato's literary motives and polemical intentions are treated as absolute psychological and historical certainties and made the basis of serious arguments.* May there not be some TrpSiTov i/revSo? involved in a conception that thus betrays its advocates? It is of course a 'priori conceivable that Plato's thought did unfold itself in this tentative and fumbling fashion. Examples of such mutations and nuta- tions can be found among the Fichtes and Schellings of modern philosophy. They are still more frequent, as Professor Gildersleeve lias wittily shown, in the history of modern philology, and, as I may add, in the interpretation of Plato. But it is at least equally probable that Plato's philosophy and his conception of life had taken shape at the age of thirty or thirty-five, and that his extant works, though not of course a pre- determined systematic exposition, are tlie naturally varied reflection of a liomogene- ous body of opinion, and of a consistent attitude in the interpretation and criticism of 2 Examples throut^'hoiit thn i)ap<^r. alizf3cl statnments and criticisms of ttmdencies in the _, , , , . ^ ., , I luui^ht ()f tiio time, and ospocially tlio hypothesis that ho ^ Infra, and LuTOSLAWsur, Uniim (iiid Growth of »■ . , ^ ■ i .1 r i- „,..,. satirized contemporaries under the names of earlier Plato s Logtc^ passim. o i.- . c \_ » .1 -n i i n j- j i- Sophists. Such hyiM)(heses will be wholly disre(?ardea in * To this category behmii nearly all conjectures as to the foIlowiuK study, as a more hintlranco to thtt apprehen- tho particular philosophers referred to in Plato's >rener- sion of Plato's own meauinys. 130 Pail Shukky 5 contemporary life. And if this wore the fact, it woukl be a far more important fact for the interpretation of his writings than the determination of the nshitive dates of the Fhcedo and Sijiiipostum or ev(m than the demonstration that the Sophist, Statesman and Philebus follow rather than precede the Rcpnhlic. I am not arguing against such a dating of the dialectical dialogues. I do not deny the value of the more vivid conception that we gain of Plato's later mood and manner by combining and compar- ing the traits of these dialogues with those of the Laws and Timams. This is no ap^o<; Xoyo^ directed against all sober critical investigation of the difficult problem of Plato's chronology. But the attempt to base such a chronology on the variations and developments of Plato's doctrine has led to an exaggeration of Plato's inconstancy that violates all sound principles of literary interpretation and is fatal to all genuine intelli- gence of his meaning. The implicit canon of this method is that variation in literary machinery and expression mvist be assumed to imply divergence or contradiction in thought. To this I wish to oppose an interpretation based on the opposite canon: that we are to assume contradiction or serious alteration in Plato's thought only in default of a rational literary or psychological explanation of the variation in the form of its expression. As Professor Maguire says in his foi-gotten but very acute essays on the Platonic ethics: ''If we are anxious to find out inconsistencies in appearance, we shall find them in abundance. Biit the student of Plato will perhaps discover that it is more fruitful, because more philosophical to commence with the points of agree- ment." The ultimate test of the two methods must lie in the appeal to specific texts and contexts, and there will be no lack of this in the following pages. But by way of preparation it is first advisable to eniimerate some of the general features of Plato's writings that make the sane and simple literary interpretation of his meaning so diffi- cult and so rare. 1. Plato is not only a thinker, but also a dramatic artist and an impassioned moral and religious teacher. Although, as Schopenhauer says, he is really the most severe and consistent of logicians, and holds the threads of his design in an iron hand, his dramatis personae affect to follow whither the argument blows,^ and he often seems more concerned to edify or entertain than to demonstrate and conclude. Wherever his sesthetic or moral preferences are involved he cavils on terminology and breaks into seemingly irrelevant eloquent digressions in a Kuskinian fashion sorely puzzling to those not in sympathy with his mood. If forced to accept the substance of a repug- nant theory, he translates it into language more consonant with his feelings. This peculiar mixture of rhetoric and logic, of edification and science, misleads both the sentimentalist and the scientific puritan. The one often mistakes the ornament for the substance, the other distrusts perfectly sound reasoning because of his distaste for its emotional accompaniment. Again, Plato stimulates our own speculation in so many ways that wo are apt to mis- take the drift of his meanings not because it is not clearly defined, but because we abandon = Not only in the earlier dialogues, but in Rep., 394 D ; Thecetet., 172 D ; Lmvs, 667 A. 131 6 The Unity of Plato's Thought it to pursue our own. The clever essayist tells us what he himself thought a propos of this or that brilliant suggestion. The investigator too often begins by selecting a few detached notions and formulas as adequately representative of each dialogue, and then proceeds to juggle with ingenious combinations of these and the interpretations put upon them by his predecessors. Neither interprets Plato's real thoughts as they lie open to any competent reader ■w'ho will patiently study him to the end and report the things on which he lays most stress. ° 2. In the second place, Plato's dramatic quality affects not only the artistic setting and the personages, but the ideas which he brings upon the stage. Plato's serious meaning detaches itself with perfect distinctness for the faithful student. But the hasty reader is more likely than not to receive as Platonic ideas that have a purely dramatic significance ; or that are falsified by isolation from their context.' And the investigator in pursuit of a thesis too often attributes specifically to Protagoras, Antisthenes, Euclid, or Isocrates ideas that Plato has generalized and decked out beyond all recognition, as representatives of the spirit of the age. Again, arguing for victory, the maintenance of a thesis in jest to test an oppo- nent's metal or display one's own ingenuity was a common practice in the world which Plato depicts, and is frequently illustrated in his writings. The Platonic Socrates, under cover of an ironical profession of ignorance, employs a similar method to expose showy pretenders to universal knowledge, to produce a salutary conviction of ignorance, or to stimulate youthful thought, and prepare the way for a more serious analysis by an exposition of the antinomies latent in conventional opinions. It fol- lows that the ostensible failure to conclude an argument, the avowal of bewilderment and perplexity, the admission even of positive fallacies of logic in any given dialogue prove nothing as to the stage of development of Plato's own thought at the time. The hypothesis that the fallacy was intentional, and that the avopia was affected for a purpose, has at least an equal claim to be tested by all the probabilities in each case. 3. Expositors of Plato seem strangely oblivious of the limits thus far set to all systems of philosophy. They treat as peculiar defects of Plato the inconsistencies which they detect in his ultimate metaphysics after they have elaborated it into a rigid system which he with soimd instinct evaded by poetry and myth. They habitually write as if they themselves and their intelligent readers were in possession of a final philosophy which reconciles all conflicting claims of metaphysical analysis and common sense, and fi"om the heights of which they may study merely as a his- torical phenomenon Plato's primitive fumbling with such problems as the nature of 6 Such a reader is Bonitz for the most part in his ad- were intended seriously, and not a few continue to quote mirabie analyses. ThetEtet.^ 156 ff., as Platonic doctrine. Under this head TA notable example is Herbert Spencer's inference fall most of the " fallacies " discovered in Plato: those of from TJcp., 339 D, that Plato, like Hobbes, makes state 'he Parmcnidcs, which, as wo shall see, are intentional; enactments the source of right. So President Eliot has 'hose of the Oorniae, dramatically justifiable against the been recently misled by Zei.lee's misuse of Bep., 421 A extreme thesis maintained by Callicles; those of Hep., I, U-hil. dcr Gnechcn. 1th ed., Vol. II, No. 1, p. 890), to prove 333 E, and 349 B, which Zeller (p. 652) thinks Plato did not that Plato would not educate the masses. Many scholars perceive, still seem to think that the etymologies of the Cratyliu 132 Paul Shorey universals, the antinomy of unity and plurality in thought and things," the relation of mind and body, the possibility of a consciousness of self or a knowledge of knowl- edge, the proof of immortality, the freedom of the will, the difficulty of conceiving or defining good except in relation to evil, the alternative of excepting thoroughgoing relativism and phenomenalism or of positing a noumenon that cannot be described or brought into intelligible relation with phenomena. We are told that he has "keino Ableitung des Sinnlichen," as if there were somewhere extant a satisfactory deduction of the sensible world from some higher metaphysical principle. It is objected that the relation of the ideas to the Deity is undefined, and that the personality of God is not investigated, as if any results could follow from an attempt to define the relation of the metaphysical noumenon to the Deity, or from an investigation of the person- ality of God. The absence of a complete table of categories is taken as a defect in Plato's system or as a proof of the immaturity of the Phcedrus, as if the Aristotelian and Kantian categories were not mere illusions of the metaphysical instinct, and Plato was not far wiser in proposing only such categories and classifications as the argument in hand required. A chief merit of Plato is that he clearly recognizes and sharply defines the limits of scientific thought in these matters. When the interests of the moral and relieious life, as he conceives them, are at stake he resorts to myth to express his hopes and aspirations. Where the epistemological problem compromises the foundations of prac- tical certainty and sound method, he arbitrarily postulates the solution that will best serve his chief purpose — the extrication of a practicable working logic from the hope- less dialectical muddle of his time. But he is always careful to distinguish his neces- sary practical postulates from his mythical and metaphysical assumptions.' The dogmatism of his later works has been as much exaggerated as the Socratic doubt of the minor dialogues.'" 4. As a fourth caiise of misapprehension we may count a certain quaint and curious subtlety in the use of abstraction and antithesis characteristic of all Greek writers, but carried to its farthest extreme in Plato. His reasoning often proceeds by what seem to us excessively minute verbal links. This is generally thought to mean merely that the modern mind has learned to abridge the formal process by taking some things for granted. But it is often due to Plato's anxiety to anticipate the cavils and quibbles of the age before logic ; or his wish to bring out neglected shades of meaning. Again, Plato, like all serious reasoners, employs unreal abstractions to express ideals and test hypotheses by extreme cases." But in addition to this the Platonic Socrates meets a fallacious and fantastic abstraction from the conditions of reality, not 8 Astonishment is often expressed at the attention apodictic replies in the 'later" works proves nothing that bestowed by Plato upon the problem of the one and the is not already involved in the fact that they are not dra- many, as it, transferred to psychologj', it were not still matic disputations. A consenting respondent naturally the crux of all our metaphysics. gives "apodictic " answers. 9 Meno, 86 B ; Phcedr., 252 C, 265 C, 274 C ; Rep., 416 B C, he. g., the isolation of pleasure and intelligence in 517 B, 506 C. Phileb., 21, to which Grote objects. 10 Tim., 72 D, Laws, 641 D, 799D,J<12A. The percentage of 133 The Unity of Platu's Thought by exposing the fallacy, but by translating all the real facts into the language of abstraction. There is no real fallacy in such procedure, but a sense of fallacy results for the modern reader.'' Allied to this is the use or abuse of antithesis. Opposite views are first stated with ruthless consistency in their most abstract and extreme form. And the truth is approached through a series of compromises and mediations.''' Dramatically, Plato is right. This is the course of discussion among ordinary men in all ages. But the elaborate refutations which Plato thinks fit to give of the cnidest form of hostile theories sometimes produces an impression of unfairness upon modern critics." They forget two things : first, that he always goes on to restate the theory and refute its fair meaning ; second, that in the case of many doctrines combated by Plato there is no evidence that they ever were formulated with the proper logical quali- fications except by himself.'^ 5. In the fifth place, and finally, we may mention the difficulty of confining the infinite variety and suggestiveness of Plato's thoughts in the framework of any system either of philosophy or of exposition. It is possible to present Plato's ethical and social ideals in a fairly systematic r4sum6. The theory of ideas may be restated in the Platonic terminology, which does not teach us much, or analyzed in relation to the underlying psychological and ontological problems. Special chapters might be written on Plato's attitude toward inchoate physical science, the temper in which he faced the religious problems of an age of transition, his portrayal and criticism of the literary and artistic life of his time. But a complete system of philosophy with principles subordinate, derivative, and interdependent, and a fixed technical terminology, cannot be extracted from the Platonic writings. This will not greatly grieve those who are aware of the perfect futility of all such system-building, even when the architect possesses the genius of a Spinoza, a Kant, or a Schopen- hauer. But the expositor of Plato can hardly avoid attempting to cast his exposition into some systematic form, and the recalcitrance of his material is to him a serious problem. No method is quite satisfactory. The atomism of Grote, Jowett, Bonitz, and Horn, that treats each dialogue as an isolated unit, is the renunciation of all method. The clever attempts of a succession of French expositors to deduce all Platon- ism symmetrically from a few principles are more ingenious than convincing."" The exhaustive schematism of Zeller, applied alike to all philosophers from Thales to Plotinus, is philologically a masterly achievement of German erudition. But, thoiigh '2£. g., in Rep., I, 346, the separation of niaBanK^, tlie 4J1K, 433 B, 489 D. Similar is tlie treatment of Homo Men- wage-earning power, from the other functions of each art sura in the Protngoras, and the claim of pleasure to be the and craft. chief good in the Philebus. ^^ Pkllcbun, Thcwtctufi, Rep.., 1 and 11, Qorgias. ij Plato may have found hints and suggestions of the i» ^ p., in the Crati/lm. 38.5 A, the theory that lauguage ^'o™*' •"> brings on tlie stage in Euripides and the Sophists is a mere convention is first stated in the most extreme (DUmmlke, Prolegomena zu PlaUms Staat). But so far as form. In the Oorgias a long argument is spent to drive "« ■"«>"• '"' '^ f^" "ifst thinker who could present a com- Callicles from a position which he affirms was assumed in P'o*" logical statement of any philosophical theory in all jest (499 B). In Rep., .TiSC, Thrasyniachus's definition of ''^ bearings. justice is taken in a grotesquely unfair sense in order to I'lSee my review of Hal^vv, TlU-orie platonicienne ties force him to state it more clearly. C/. Laws, 714 C; Gorg., sciences, Philosophical Review, Vol. V, p. .522. 134 Paul HuoREY 9 rarely admitting gross and palpable errors, Zeller's exposition frequently misses the true proportions, perspective, and enipliasis tliat would bo brought out by a more flexible literary and philosophic interpretation. The present study, though it touches on most topics of the Platonic philosophy, does not attempt a complete historical survey. Some subjects I have discussed else- where. There are many details (in the Laws and TimcvAis, c. (j.) which would be irrelevant to the main purpose of emphasizing the unity of Plato's thought. The order of presentation adopted after many attempts is a compromise between the systematic and the atomistic. The Platonic ethics, the theory of ideas, and an outline of the psychology will first be sot forth as a whole. A group of logical and metaphysical problems will be discussed in connection with the Sophist and Parmeuides. Other topics and some repetitions from a different point of view will follow in a survey of the principal dialogues taken one by one. I. ETHICS The chief topics of the Platonic ethics are these: (1) the Socratic paradoxes; (2) the definition of the virtues, and, more particularly, the determination of their relation to a postulated supreme science or art, to happiness, to the political or royal art, to the idea of good; (3) the problem of hedonism; and (4), associated with it, the attempt to demonstrate the inseparability of virtue and happiness." 1. Plato always formally maintained that all wrongdoing is involuntary;" that virtue is insight or knowledge, is in its essence one, and can in some sense be taught." Sometimes he merely dramatically illustrates the conflicts that arise between these paradoxes and common-sense. Elsewhere, most explicitly in the Laws,'" but by impli- cation even in the minor dialogues, he reveals his perception that these propositions can be reconciled with experience only by the conscious employment of words in a special sense."' Wrongdoing is involuntary (1) because all men will the good or what they deem the good;" (2) because no man who knows the right will do the wrong, if we take knowledge in the highest sense, or refuse the term to any cognition that does not control the will;^' (3) because the conditions that shape conduct lie far more in heredity, education, and environment than in our conscious wills." The contradiction noted by Aristotle between this charitable principle and the edifying proclamation " virtue is free," '■'" is emotional rather than scientific.^^ The modern free-will contro- versy arises out of two conceptions not connected with this problem by Plato: the 1' These are, as a matter of fact, the chief topics of the 20689 D, 696C, 710 A, '^v ns ireni'ui'oir iy Aeyoi, ij)pd>'i)(7ii' ethical dialogues. If we base Plato's ethics on the idea of iTpoaavayicd^<,jv tlyai to au-o, 2CD: Gorg.. 521D: Apol., 24,25; point of view Phcedo, 69 AB; Protag.. 356, 357, with Phileb., Laches, 179 CD. tlE. ^f'Protag.; Metio; Euthyd.,2i2C (274E). 30 Jfeno, 97 B; Meno, 100 A, olos /cp., 518 B, 519 A. This apparently contradicts the does not take it seriously, but merely uses it for dramatic statement of the Meno, 99 A, and Protag., 361 B, that J^i- ""■ Propasdoutic purposes. Zelleb, p. 597, takes this as j^., alone can bo taught. But the objection is captious. Plato's real opinion, citing Sep., .53.5 D and 382, which The Republic is satirizing tlio exaggerated claims of the merely use the paradoxical terminology to emphasize the Sophists and is speaking of the faculty, not the content, of thought, acceptable to Mill or Huxley, that the mere iutel- knowledgc. The whole higher education is a teaching of loctual love of truth (knowledge) ought to be counted a knowledge in a sense. And, on the other hand, though v'"''"" as well as the ordinary virtue of truthfulness, both Plato and Aristotle limit teaching in the strict sense 3i)i,ac/ies, 194D; Lysis, HOD: iie/)..349E. 1.S6 Paul Siiokey 11 does away with many forms of wrongdoing. It is not courage, but the man who knows how is less likely to be afraid.*" It is not aQ}cf>poavvr], but it is incompatible with many forms of acfypoawT]. The wise man knows his own limits, and will imdertake only wliat he can perform.*' Partly for these reasons, and partly because he. did not or, in ironical assumption that others were even as himself, would not recognize that men know the right and yet the wrong pursue, the Platonic Socrates seems to ignore the chief ethical factor, a virtuous will, and argues that he who knows justice is just.*^ But such "fal- lacies" are for Plato merely the starting-point of a fuller analysis. All knowledge is good and commendable," but the supreme knowledge that may be identified with "virtue" is plainly something different from the specialties of the arts and sciences.** Courage, for example, apart from mere animal and temperamental fearlessness, may be defined as knowledge of what is and is not to be feared. But this involves real knowl- edge of good and evil, a complete ideal of life, either that of the Sophists and average Athenian opinion, or that unfolded by Plato himself in the Republic. The attempt to define courage in the absence of these distinctions merely illustrates the inadequacy of conventional ethical thought.*'^ The effective application to these problems of the obvious distinction between science and right opinion requires the larger canvas of the Republic. And even then it remains true that the courage most worthy of the name implies a complete philo- sophic mastery of the conception of life that educates the masses in such right opinion.*' Plato tacitly assumes that this supreme knowledge will be inseparable from the vir- tuous will in his philosophic statesmen as it is in Socrates.*' And thus on this higher plane the Socratic paradox becomes true again. It matters little to the consistency and unity of Plato's thought whether we regard this harmony of the intellect and the will as a mere ideal or as a practicable postulate realized in Socrates and to be fulfilled by others in a reformed society. The distinction once drawn, the ideal once affirmed, Plato can afPord to make concessions to common-sense. He can admit that in present experience a kind of bravery is ^'^ Laches^ 193: Protag., 350. * between the desires .ind the ethical convictions the grossest *i Xen., Mem., 2, 2, 24; Charm., 171 DE; Ale, 1, 11" DE; for™ "' " ignorance." Sophist, 229 C ; Laics, 732 A. <3 Protag., 318 B ; Laches, 182 D. 42Go)-p., 460B. The fallacy, so tar as it is one, is in- " CAarm., 165C; £tt«ftj/dem.,2S2E, 290; Protaff., 311, 312, tentional. Observe Kara tovtqv Tbi* \6yov, and the explana- 319 A; Laws, 961 E ff. tion in Rep., 438 D E, that the knowledge of health, though 45 j^^^^^ . p,.giag_^ 349^ 350, 360 D ; Eep., 429, 430. differentiated from knowledge in general, is not neces- sarily healthful. Cf. also the recognition of common-sense ** The courage defined in 429 C is only ^oAiT.«i.. ye. Cf. in 444D, TO ^iv i^Kj6eci aAAw nfidetrdai, r) Ta> 47 This harmony is the chief point in the selections and K6y^,Crito, 46B; cf. Lathes, 188DE; Gori;., 488 A. Hence, tests applied to them; Rep., 485, 486, 539Dff. Cf. Polit., as Aristotle (Eth. nic, 7, 2, 1), quoting Protag., 352 B, says, 309 .iB. The Laws emphasize character, as compared with he thought it monstrous that any other impulse in man intellect, still more, and preserve the identity of the moral should prevail over his better knowledge. And Plato in and the intellectual "which are ever dividing, but must his latest work refuses the term " knowledge " to any belief ever be reunited " ( Jowett), by reserving the word " wise " that does not control the will, and pronounces discord for the virtuous, 689 D. 137 12 The Unity of Plato's Thought found dissociated from the other virtues.*' He can allow the word (TQ)4>po(Tvvr) to be used merely for the instinctive temperamental moderation in appetite that is the for- tunate endowment of some children and animals." He can recognize that knowledge, or at least quickness and acumen of thought, is not infrequently associated with intemperance and injustice.'" But he prefers to translate the facts into a more edify- ing terminology. Conventional virtue is a worthless currency unless redeemable and redeemed by and in the coin of wisdom.*' And, on the other hand, we will refuse the name of wise to him whose will does not follow his judgment of right; and we mil grant it to the man who knows enough to obey his acquired belief in the good rather than the innate promptings of appetite, though he know not how to swim or recite the alphabet.*^ 2. Plato found the suggestion of the cardinal virtues and of the predominance of justice in the poets. He also mentions 6o-(o'tj;?" and /xeyaXoTrpeTreia, the latter some- times with irony .'** But the number four was consecrated by its incorporation in the scheme of the Repiihlic. This implies no change of doctrine. Even in the Republic other virtues are mentioned."^ And in the Euthyphro it is hinted that piety is a form of justice."" Plato would always recognize piety as one of the chief virtues, or perhaps as a synonym of all virtue," and he would always shrink from giving so problematical a concept a place in a scientific scheme.'* Several of the minor dialogues turn on the attempt to define the virtues and allied notions. The Laches and Charmides are both Socratic quests for definition — of courage in the one case, of temperance in the other. Both involve the antithesis of the quiet and the energetic temperament.'" Both terminate in perplexity — in the puzzle that, if any one virtue is identified with the supreme knowledge that will make *8 Protagoras maintains this view, Prolog. ^ 350, and is of piety, I should accept that of Bonitz as formulated by not answered by Socrates, who refutes him only indirectly Professor Heidel (introduction to his edition of Eulhy- by the proof that all virtue is one — the science of measur- phro, p. 24). It is the endeavor to realize the good felt as ing pleasure and pain. But the obvious fact of experience the service of God, and as a willed co-operation with Him. is presumably as clear to Plato when he allows Protagoras But this is a mood in relation to, or an emotional synonym to state it as when it is! enunciated more explicitly in the of, all virtue. It is not one aspect of virtue which it is PoliticvA, 306 B, or the Lawn, 631 C Zelleb (p.599) incom- necessary to distinguish in relation to a special field of prehensibly affirms that the plurality in unity of virtue is conduct or a particular classification of the faculties of found only in the Republic ! the soul. I'Lnics, "lOAB. 68The suggestion that the Eutliyphro "eliminates" '.'I' Rep., 519 A; Laivs, 689 D, oaa irpbt ri^o^ t^i •I'^xv^; piety, and that the Jl/cjio may be dated by its recognition Thewlet. 176 C. of 6„.r. . . . ^a.p^ op.ar .x» to m^ vTTo navovpyta^ fit-aL. Ihe Whole passage IS in the „,„_, v, •• it , r it.i-j-*-*- . , , . ^. , 319EI. Nicias and Laches, for want of this distinction, mood and temper of the A-a;rs. . ^ . .. , o * « 11 ♦* ^;^.. maintain opposite paradoxes. Socrates calls our attention '-^Protag., 329 C; .Weno, 78 D; Laches, 199 D. t„ this by attributing to Nicias the doctrine onoiiui Xt'oixa '-^Menn, 74 A ; iSc;j.. 560E. In Meiu>, m X, tiniOt^a and «e.a:j30A. ^ ^.^^ ^j courage to children and animals. But i^o.ws ^'•C/. also /'ro<«M., .331 A. 7r<*u««i'ai pointedly ignores the distinction of tempera- ^' If it were desiniblo to produce a Platonic definition ment. 138 Paul Shokey 13 us happy, the distinction between th(i virtues vanishes;'" or in tli(^ tautology that the knowledge that is good is knowledge* of th(« go(xl.''' It is often assumed (1) that Plato was serious in these attempts to express by a phrase or a substituted synonym the essence of a virtue and the various and contradic- tory meanings of its conventional name; (2) that the failure and pretended perplexity of Socrates at the close mark the point reached by Plato's own thought at the time. This is a priori, conceivable. But the following consitlcrations make it highly improbable: o) Plato, in this unlike Xenophon,"" always proceeds as if he were aware of the true theory and use of the definition and of tht; multiple meanings of .ethical terms. All attempts in his writings to work out absolute and isolated detinitioiis fail." His own deiinitions, when not mere illustrations,"* are always working hy[)otheses"' or epigrammatic formulas, subordinate -to and interpreted by the argument of which they form a part, and recognized as imperfect, but sufficient for the pur[)ose in haud.''° The definitions of the virtues in Rep., -i'i'.* ff. cannot be understood apart from their context, and are never used again. They are declared to be a mere sketch — inroypa(f)ijj>, 50-4 0."' How shall we explain this on the supposition that he was under any illusion as to the value of absolute and isolated definitions V b) Plato repeatedly refers in a superior way to eristic, voluntary and involuntary,''' and more particularly to the confusion, tautology, and logomachy into which the vulgar fall when they attempt to discuss abstract and ethical problems."' Some of these allusions touch on the very perplexities and fallacies exemplified in the minor dialogues.™ They do not imply that Plato himself had ever been so confused." W^iy should we assume that he deceives us in order to disguise his changes of oj^inion, or 60 Larftes, 199 E. dialogufs cures. Cf. Meno,f,lAB. So SopA., 232 A B, gives 61 C/iarm., 174 B; cf. Rep., M'l B C — a connection gener- the rainnn d'etre of passages iGorrjias, Protag., Ion) in ally missed. which a pretender to universal knowledge is pressed for a 62 The Xenophontic Socrates perceives no difficulties, specific definition of his function which he naturally is is never in doubt, and propounds dogmatically such defini- unable to give. tioDS as voii^fiop = iUaiov, Mem., lY,i, 12. '"iPotit., 306 ff., especially 306 .A, to v«P optTij? (icpo! 63 Except the not quite serious definitions reached by "P"'' "*" «'«'*'°(>°'' "-«' ■^""' ''P"'""' "'' "P'- '^"ivoit iM*'<;-/3i- dichotomy in the SophM and roliticus. Cf. Charmides, """ '" ''"■^' '"""«""- "P" ^^^ ■'-" ""A*"- ^J"'. Cf. Laws, Laches, Lysis, Meno, Thea'telus, Euthyphro, Hippias Major. ^-'^ ^' .ua^.i^o^v. 19 .... pw"'''"'' irpo, to.- t^p ttoAAo,;- Aoyo... 6 Lnws, 964 A, Sioi'ooO ik w« ipiav ita\ hnjj rirTapa ot-ra apprehend it best. But as against the ideals of Athenian kv e<7Tt, Kal c/xe 6e a^iov, aov Stifai-rot ii>s eV, TraAo- on^ st>phists and politicians, his beliefs were defined "already " TirTapa. in the Euthyiihro,2C, and the Gorgiaa, 40,3 D ff., 521 D. 7oNot to dwell on the resemblance of Mcno, 99 C, and '-'"One of the finest specimens of analysis in all his Apnlogy, 22 C (c/. also the /on), why, if riato has no dra- writings."— John .Stuabt Mill, DiSHCrtatio^is and Discus- niatic reserves, is opB-ij 66$a ignortnl in the Kuthydcmusf Or sions. Vol. IV, p. 200. is the Eulhydcmus, with its mature logic and its assump- I'Phcedo, 82 A; Kep., 522 A, 619C; Law>, 966C. tiou that virtue can be taught, earlier than the Jfeiio? 110 Paul Shorey 15 (1) Lastly tho structuro and logic of the minor dialogues are indicative of dramatic design rather than of tentative inquiry. The systematic evolution of tin; argument and of the antitheses which it involves;" the emphasis laid on the very difficulties elucidated by the latter theory;'" the reserves and qualifications of the argument and the hints of dramatic purpose" — all j)oint to Plato's possession of the clue. The argu- ment based on the absence from the "Socratic" dialogues of certain features of the longer works begs the point at issue. Assuminsr that Plato undertook to illustrate in brief dramatic discussions the ethical logomachies of tlie day, he would by hypothtssis as a rule abstain from Pytha- gorean myths, criticism of pre-Socratic thinkers, demonstrations of inmiortality, psycho- logical or physiological digressions, and dogmatic developments of his own philosophy. It may be argued that such dramatic dialogues form as a whole an earlier group. It cannot be maintained that they mark the stages of Plato's own progress.'"' The defini- tions of the virtues proposed in the fourth book of the Rcpuhlic, interpreted by their context, meet the dramatic difficulties of the Laches, Charmides, Protagords, and Meno. Courage is not animal fearlessness, neither is it precisely knowledge of things terrible and the reverse. But the courage to be expected of the masses in a reformed state is the conservation by disciplined feeling of the opinion about things terrible or not terrible inculcated by the possessors of such knowledge."' loxppoa-vvr] is not pre- cisely quietness, nor doing one's own business, nor self-knowledge, though each of these definitions emphasizes one of the shades of meaning which Greek usage assigned to this "mixed mode." It is in man and state the willing acceptance by all the psychic faculties and the corresponding classes in the population of a harmonious scale of 7' In the Charmides pocrvvr] is first defined by the the problem of good and evil, and the ultimate nature of quiet temperament, 159 B, then by the associated modesty, desire and the good. alS^,, 159 E, which is elsewhere its virtual synonym, Pro- 78 Note the repeated demand that it bo shown how o-u,*po. lag., 322CDE: then by ri iavToi .piTT«.., 161 B, another ^„,,^ is a good. Charm.. 1390, 161 A, 16.5 D, 172 D, 171 B, with rhetorical equivalent, Tim., 72 A, which, however, requires j;^^, 50. (.f. infra, p. 17. Also Laws. 710, when, even after an interpretation that Critias is unable to give, even though ^^^^ Republic, it is recognized that au,*po,ru.., as the mere assisted by a hint from Socrates (161 E). He cannot gen- p^^^j^^ conditio sine qua non of the usefulness of the active eralize minding one's own business, »nd distinguish (1) the ^j^j^^^ ^^.^^^ ^.^-^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^.^_ ^g^i^_ ^^_ ^^^^ association economic, (2) the social and political, (.3) the psychic ^j ^. .^^^^. „pi„„, ;„ igj ^,.^^^^ ^^^ division of labor, and division of labor; Rep., 4«C. The formula is aUowed to ^^^^ j.^^^ ^3^ ^^ ^.^^.^ ^3^ g^ .^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^.^^.^^^ j^ drop, and the equally ambiguous expression "self-knowl- ^^j^^^ ^^ ^^^j^ ^^.^^ ^^^ knowledge of things really terrible edge" is substituted (161), which is found to involve puz- ^^^ j,^^ ^^^^^^^ j^ ^^^ ^^^ property of any craftsman even zles that Critias can neither untie nor cut (c/. 167 A with .^ ^j^ ^^.^ g^j^^ ^^^ j^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ knowledge of final ends il/eno, 80E; rfte(r«cf.,lS8A). which he cannot define -i.e., obviously the "poUtical art" In the Laches, Laches insists exclusively on the torn- ^^ ^.j^^ j^^^ ^j good, peramental aspect of bravery which opposes it to other virtues, Nicias on the cognitive element which identifies it "CTarm., 160 B. eV ye toutou to5 Aoyov; the obvious de- with them. Laches's theory tends to show how the virtues sign of humbling Critias, 162CD; Charmides's disbelief in are many, that of Nicias how they are one (I-n!ra,963E ff.). Socrates 's ignorance, 176 B. C/. Phxdr., 262 D, it iv h But neither can expound his own view completely, still less eiSijs to i\r)eh irpoffiraij'iui' e'l- Aoyois Trapoyot Toi>! axoi^oi-ras, reconcile it with the truth of his adversary. They exemplify Laches's unfamiliarity with dialectic and the awakening thelogomachy described in Po!i(.,3»>,. 307. This is the chief effect of the Elenchus upon him; 194 A B. object of the dialogue, and not the reduction of all virtue g„^^ Ueberweg says (Untersuchungen. p. 280) : "Fur to knowledge (Zeller), uo7 the unity of virtue (Horn), nor ^^^ VerstSndniss des Platonismus ist kaum ein anderer even the establishment of the dehnition *po.a^o, «apr.p.« j^t^um gefahrlicher, als der, eine Zurflckhaltung, die which Bonitz says is the only suggestion not disproved. pj^^^ ^^^ methodischen Griinden Qbte, mit einem Noch- In the Lysis we begin with purely verbal quibbles, pass ^j^t^j^^i^ ^„ verwechseln." to the suggestive antithesis of the attraction of like and unlike in nature and man (-214, 215), and conclude with si iJep., 429C D, 442C 141 16 The Unity of Plato's Thought subordination from higher to lower. '^'' It is thus the precondition and obverse aspect of justice which is the fulfilment of its own function by each faculty and class — a higher than the economic division of labor in the soul and in society.'^ These defini- tions are stated in terms of being ratlier than of doing, and Plato preferred this form of statement to the viuV* But he is careful to add that the one includes the other and that the justice within the soul will express itself in just action.'^ 3. These definitions, then, meet the chief difficulties of the minor dialogues and fill their place in the literary economy of the Rcpiihlic. But Plato warns us that they are not the final definitions of a complete philosophy."^ It is not enough to define the virtues psychologically on the assumption that their sum is good." A final definition must relate virtue to, and deduce its utility from, an iiltimate standard or ideal of good.-' Such a definition is rather a regulative conception than a practical possibility. The Platonic Socrates is always prepared to silence by dialectic or overwhelm by his eloquence those who deny that "virtue" is a real good.™ But a formal, positive enu- meration of the reasons why courage and justice are good and desirable can never be complete, and will always prove unedifying : "Does law so analyzed coerce you much '?"' Plato wisely attempts nothing of the kind. He merely describes the dis- cipline and education™ that will enable his philosophic rulers to prove, if required, the coincidence of virtue and happiness, and systematically inculcate efficacious right opinion, thus teaching virtue and molding character and institutions in the light of a reasoned and unified conception of the true scope and good of individual and public 8-432 A, 442 D. This definition is adapted to the literary machinery of the Republic. It does not estop Plato from employing the word in its normal Greek sense (Hep., 389 D E, potTvvr] and SiKaiotrvi'ri is not clear, and a little pedantic to institute a learned philological inquiry to ascertain it. 84 Lnim, 864 A, tiiv 6e tou apiarov &6^av .... iav avryi Kpa- Toiiffo tV ipv)^ais StaKOiTfJ.jj TToi'TO avRpa, itai' CifidAATjTat Tt StKaio^' fiiv Tiav fivat <^tiT«of To TauTTj npa^O-iv. 8'' 442 E, 443 A. ^••Groto, followed by many others, denies this. But that is bncansi! lie persists in attributing to Plato the doctrine that nthical abstractions ("mixed modes") have one meaning only which can be expressed in an absolute definition; cf.nupra. But, on the contrary, the very cause of the confusion, according to Plato, is that men fail to take notice of the different mf;anings and sub-specios covered by one generic term (T/d/'fr., Itjl, 102; Euthydcm., 211,218; Lavs, 837 A ; Phileb., 12 E il. ; Euthijphro, 7 D. with Pfurdr., 263B, and PuliL, 28rjE; Polit., 30:JA). Laches, Nicias, Charmidcs, Critias, discuss the virtues without distin- guishing temperament, convention, habit, systematic dis- cipline, opinion, and complete insight. They are unable to attach any precise meaning to the conventional phrases " know thyself " and " minding one's own business." There is not one temperance or bravery, but three or four. There is no incompatibility between this view and Plato's insist- ence on the necessity of the definition and the fi.nal unity of virtue. If the word has many meanings, the first step in rational argument is to define the one intended. And the unity of virtue is to be sought, not in a verbal defini- tion, but in the unity of the moral life, the idea of good, the political art, the tricoTros {rf. infra, u. 102^. The definition is a hypothesis at the beginning, or a stage in the progress of the argument iC?uirm., 1G3A; Euthyphro, 9D, 11 C; Pha!dr.,231'D,o,io\oyia 9e/ucioi 5po»', 263D E). It cannot be an end, and for this reason dialogues that seek a definition fail. This dialectical relativity of the definition, of course, does not preclude Plato from arguing that his ideal of the moral and social life is better than that of average Athenian opinion, and that the definitions which embody it are right as against formulas that express some aspect of the tradi- tional belief. ^^ Pep., 427 E, ot^at rjiiiv Trjv iroAif .... T(Ae(U? aya0i}v fti'at. 6t]\ov S't} oTi (70tj>>^ t' eCTi fcai av&ptia Kal iTuiifipdiV Kai 6iKaia. «^ //^/'rf.. rj04 R('T), oO.'! A, h TOO nyaBov iSta .... [J 5t««"« Koi r'oAAa TrpoaxprjadfJitya xprjaifia *cai u»■. On the identification of the good With God see Idea of Good, pp. 188, 189. tical interpretation of napan^rjaia tavrw {Tim., 29 E) and a false construction of (92 B) e'lKiitv toO votitov (sc. ^ou not dtoit, 93Fantastic because due (1) to the wish to depress c/. 38CD). i,Sovi/i to the fifth place; (2) to the neo-Platonic device of 95 ii/eno, 87 D ; LocAes, 192 C, 193D; Pro(ap.,349E; Eipp. extending the intelligible hierarchy by the interpolation of Jl/oi., 28iD; Rep. 332 333. new members between the highest and the lowest. It o»cj rj ^^ j nnn nm . , ill- 1- • .■ 4u .i m . ' 96 See idea 0/ Good, pp. 200-204. belongs to rhetoric or religious emotion, then, not to Plato s j , ^±- scientific ethics. ^'> Euthyd., 282E, 290, 291C; Charm., nOB; Protag.. ',,,„. „ , 319 A ; Gorj7., 501 A B, 503 D; Pohf., 289 C, 293 D, 309 C; iJep., 9*E. g., one hundred and fifty pages separate Zelleb'b 42s n treatment of the idea of good (p. 707) from his discussion of the ethical good (p. 867). In elucidation of the former 's C/. Meno, 80 E ; Euthydem.. 286D., Thes ytto5 J , ^, j^ . . ■ .. , J ,, - , . „.^ . , , .... . . . , advance even of the Cra(i/(iis, IS "already ' in £y5(S, 218 A. oj, T. ri,- r- -J.- -.1 n. J oe, . r uo- seller, who IS "unable to suppose that Plato had "al- 841 D, C.% C, irapa v7B. Socrates, Protagoras is a far bettor reasoner than Laches i>''Rc/>., 440 E, 571 C, 605 B. or Nicias, and again Socrates refutes him only by taking 146 Paul Shokey 21 theses incompatible with the positions from which they started. '" But the full expla- nation lies deeper. In tlio llcpnhHc Plato undertakes to demonstrafo tlie intrinsic desirability of virtue afjainst two forms of disbelief — the explicit skepticism of the cynic, who affirms that natural justice is the advantage of the stronger and human justice an artificial convention, and the unfaith of the ordinary man, who virtually admits this theory by commending justice solely on external and prudential grounds.'" The Callicles of the Gorgias represents the former view, Gorgias himself and (less obviously) Protagoras the latter. Like other Sophists, he is the embodiment of average public opinion which his teaching reproduces.'"'' He himself says that all men teach virtue. He modestly claims at the most only to teach it a little more effectively and persuasively than the layman.'"' Plato would admit both assertions, with the reserva- tion that the virtue so taught hardly deserves the name, and that the teaching is neither systematic nor philosophical. The molding power of public opinion, operating through countless social and educative agencies, is admirably depicted in the myth attributed to Protagoras, the main thought of which is repeated in the Rejiublic."' There, however, the philosophic rulers are to employ this irresistible force for the inculcation, not of average Greek opinion, but of Platonic virtue. The Protagoras dramatically illustrates the dialectic incapacity and philosophic superficiality of the great popular teacher. His ethical teaching is spiritually and logically on a level with the precepts of the worthy sires and guardians satirized by Adeimantus.'"'^ However unlike in temper and practical effect, it is philosophically akin to the individual hedonism of Callicles and Thrasy- machus who reject all morality as an unreal convention. Pi-otagoras is naturally unaware of this. Like the populace, he recoils from the naked exposition of the principles implied in his preaching and practice. He accepts the terminology of indi- vidual hedonism only under compulsion of Socrates's superior dialectic. But Socrates's explicit challenge to him and the assembled Sophists to name any other final good than ■^Bovr) is a pi'oof that one of Plato's objects was to identify the Sophistic ethics with hedonism.'"* But neither this nor the demonstration of Protagoras's inability to cope with Socrates in dialectic exhausts the significance of the dialogue. Plato, however reluctantly, always recognized a certain measure of truth in the Benthamite analysis here attributed to Socrates. He knew that " act we must in pursuance of that which (we think) will give us most pleasure." Even the Gorgias contains phrases of utilitarian, if not hedonistic, implication.'"^ The Eudaemonism of up a new line of argument — the identity of pleasure and »^ Eep., .362 E ff. Cf, Zeller, p. 603, n. 1. good, and the consequent unity of the virtues in the 120 Peo 49'' ff ^-^ Protaa 328 B ''measuring art." Plato of course was aware here, and in the Euthyphro (12), and everywhere, that a universal afHrma- '23 Ritchie (p. 1.56) says: "The argument of the Sophist tive cannot be directly converted. But it is a part of the P^tagoras is now fully accepted by Plato," ttc, as scheme of the dialogue that Protagoras should make some '^ ^'^'o ^''^ ""^ ">« «»*''*"' "^ ">« Protagora.,. good points, though defeated in the end. And Socrates is '23 iJep., 362E. 12*354 D, 3o8.\. baffled in or fails to complete other proofs of the unity of i2i 499 p. Ritchie (p. 155) strangely says that in the virtue, and so is driven to rely on the proof from hedonism. Republic Plato recognizes, in marked advance upon the which is the chief feature of the diah)gue. position of the Goij7t.(s, that there are good pleasures as "sProfoff., 361. well as bad! 147 22 The Unity of Plato's Thought the Republic has often been pointed out,''" and in the Laws Plato explicitly declares, in language recalling that of the Profnrjoras, that it is not in human nature to pursue any course of action that does not promise a favorable balance of pleasure.'"' But the inference which he draws is not that it is safe or desirable to proclaim that pleasure is the good, but that it is necessary to demonstrate that the good — the virtuous life — is the most pleasurable. To a Benthamite this will seem a purely verbal or rhetorical distinction. And Aristotle himself hints that Plato's aversion to the name of pleasure cast a suspicion of unreality over his ethical teaching.'"" But Plato is not alone in his aversion to the word. Matthew Arnold acknowledges a similar feeling. Aiad Jowett, in his admirable introduction to the Philebus, has once for all set forth the considerations by which many clear-headed modern thinkers, who perfectly understand the utilitarian logic and accept whatever is true in its psychology, are nevertheless moved to i-eject its language. The Greek word ijSoi/^ is much more closely associated with a low view of happiness than the English word "pleasure;" and Plato had, or thought that he had, much stronger reasons than the moderns have, for identifying hedonism with the negation of all moral principle. The Gorgias and PhilcbHs nowhere explicitly contradict the thesis of the Pro- tagoras that a preponderance of pleasure, rightly estimated and abstracted from all evil consequences, is good.'"'' The doctrine which they combat is the unqualified iden- tification of pleasure and good, coupled with the afiirmation that true happiness is to be sought by developing and gratifying the appetite for the pleasures of sense and ambition.'^" Plato represents Callicles and Philebus as unable or unwilling to limit these propositions even by the qualifications of the Protagoras."' It is he, not they, who introduces the distinction of pure and impure,'^^ true and illusive,'" wholesome and unwholesome,'" necessary and unnecessary pleasures."^ The modern critic may object that Plato was not justified in attributing to any contemporaries either this dialectical incapacity or this cynical effrontery. Plato thought otherwise. It is a question of historical evidence. But it is not legitimate to attribute to the Callicles and the Philebus of the dialogues the utilitarianism of Grote or John Stuart Mill, or even that of the Protagoras, and so convict Plato of self-contradiction.'^" With these remarks we may dismiss so much of the Gorgias and Pliilebus as is merely dialectical, dramatic, or rhetorical, directed against the crudest form of hedonism which Plato chooses to bring upon the stage before grappling with the problem in i-'.T)" B, ^Soi-ai oaai a^XapfU gnods per se: 457 B, 458 E, and the expUination that some painful goods are medicinal ij81 E (with /vows, 7;i2E), t^r) oti. irp'o-; to KaX^tov xat alvxtov iw (3r)4 A = Kep., S.'iT C), and is checked by the calculus of all /xijfie TO xftpoi" Kat a/xcii'oi', aAAa Trpb? aiiTo to ijSiof Ka't aAvjroT- consequences, all of which is ignored by Callicles and tpov. Philebus. 127 Laws, -33, 7.34 ; <•/. 663 A. i-:« Eth. nic, X, 1. U2 phileb., 51, 52. 133 Ibid., 36 C ff. '^■iPhileb., 60 A B, is verbally a direct contradiction of i3»/6jrf., « A; Gorg., 499 DE. "^ Rep., 558 D. Protag., .1).> B. , „, pij^^^^ ^^ Jowett says, is " playing both sides of the 13(1 Oorg., 495 A, 492 D E : Pluleb., 12 A, 12 D, 27 E. g^y„„ .... bj,t it is not necessary in order to understand 131 The verbal identification of liSovij and ovaSoi- in i^") him that we should discuss the fairness of his modes of has been precoflcracticnble application and justify his repudiation of its terminology, may be summed up as follows: The distinction between good and bad pleasures once admitted, the statement that pleasure as such is the good, becomes an unreal abstraction.'^" The reality is specific kinds of pleasure and the principle of distinction, whether intelligence, measure, or the will to obey the "opinion of the best,"'^^ becomes more important than the bare name of i)leasure, and more nearly allied to the good.'*" The "measuring art" postulated in the Protagoras is impracti- cable. Pleasure and pain are, like confidence and fear, foolish counselors;'" either deprives the mind of the sanity required for a just estimate.'*^ No scale of human judgment can be trusted to weigh the present against the future, and make allowance for all the illusions of memory, hope, and contrast.'" The most intense pleasures and pains are associated with a diseased condition of mind and body.'** And the habit of pursuing pleasure, of thinking and speaking of it as the good, tends to make the world of sense seem more real than that of thought and spirit.'*" The contrary is the truth. The world of sense is a pale reflex of the world of ideas,'*^ and the pleasures of sense are inherently unreal, illusory, and deceptive, and may in sound logic be termed false, as fairly as the erroneous opinions that accompany them.'" They are false because composed of hopes and imaginations not destined to be fulfilled;'*" false, because exaggerated by the illusions of distance in time or contrast;'*^ false, because I37p/iae6., 55AB, and Gorff., 495 C, 499 B, show that the arguments of Gorgr., 49r)C-499B, are, in the main, a con- scious dialectical sport. I recur to this point so often be- cause the Gorgias aud the first book of the Republic are the chief source of the opiniou, widely spread by Grote, Mill, and Sidgwick, that Plato is a magnificent preacher, but often a weak reasoner. Cf. Mill, Diss, and Discuss.^ IV, 291: "This great dialogue, full of just thoughts and fine observations on human nature, is, in mere argument, one of the weakest of Plato's works.'* Cf. Idea of Goody pp. 213-15. I38pft,i7e6., 12 BE. In answer to the question, nuts yap ijSovr} ye jjSoyjj fi'n oi'x bfioioTarov av tlij ; Socrates shows that generic (verbal) identity is compatible with specific differ- ence or even opposition, a logical principle "already" glanced at in the Protag., 331 D, with the same illustration of jLttAai- and XevKov. IjUTOslawski, p. 467, misunderstands 13 A, TOuTa> TuJ Adyoi /iJj maT^ve, Ttjj Tiai'Ta Tii ivavTLujrara eu iTotovfTt — " we need not attempt a reconciliation of all con- tradictious! " i^^ Phcedl'.^ 237 D, e/un^uros .... eiriBvfiia JiSovuif .... ejTiKTTjTO? 66^a, e(f)i€iJ.evr) tou apitrrov. Cf. LaiOS, 644 D, 645 A. Phcedo, 99 A, ujto So^tj? ^epoixeva tou PcATt'tTTOV. Ufip/K7e6., 64C, Tt .... /utaAto'T* alriov elyai 86^€uv at- ritJ.lv Toil itaj;iaTOS .... fifytiXTat fxev ^Socai, etc. 1*5 Cf. Phcedo, 83 D, with James's Psychology, Vol. II, p. 306: "Among all sensatious, the most belief-compelling are those productive of pleasure or pain." I«i?ep., 509, 510, 514 ff., the allegory of the cave. ^^"^ Phileb. y 36C ff. As Berkeley aud Huxley argue from the subjectivity of pain to that of sensations aud ideas ; as Epicurus proceeds from the reality of pain to that of the other secondary qualities; so, reversing the order, Plato infers the falsity of pleasures and pains from that of the associated perceptions and beliefs. Grote, Jowett, Horn, and others pronounce the whole train of reasoning falla- cious. But it is to be observed: (1) that their objections as usual are anticipated by Plato {Phileb., 38 A), who has a right to use his own terminology provided his meaning is unambiguous {Charmides, 163D); (2) that the epithet " false " is used either with reference to a postulated objec- tive judgment of life as a whole, or as a mere rhetorical expression of the disdain or pity felt by an onlooker. In the first sense it is justified by the argument, in the second by the usage of the poets— falsa licet cupidus deponat gaudia livor (Propert., 1, 8, 29); (3) having demonstrated against Sophistic negations that i/zeuS^s applies to 56fa, Plato was naturaUy tempted to extend it to ^5of»j. as Phileb., 39 E, 40 C. Cf. "we are all imaginative, for images are the brood of desire " (George Eliot). n^/ftirf., 41, 42B; Laivs, 663 B. 149 24 The Unity of Plato's Thought what we mistake for positive pleasure is usually the neutral state, the absence of uneasiness, the cessation of pain.''" This doctrine of the negativity of what men call pleasure is the fundamental basis of Plato's ethics, as it is of Schopenhauer's. On this, in the last instance, rests his refutation of hedonism, and, as we shall see, his demonstration that virtue and happi- ness are one.'" Sensuous pleasures are in their nature impure and illusory. They are preconditioned by, and mixed with, desire, want, pain. "Surgit amari aliquid" is ever true of them. They are the relief of an uneasiness, the scratching of an itch, the filling of a vacuum.'" To treat them as real, or to make them one's aim (except so far as our human estate requires), is to seek happiness in a process rather than a state,'"' in becoming rather than in being. It is to bind one's self to the wheel of Ixion and pour water into the bottomless jar of the Danaids.'^' Far happier, far more pleasurable, is the life that consistently aims at few and calm pleasures, to which the sensualist would hardly give the name, a life which he would regard as torpor or death.'^^ Both the physiology and the psychology of this doctrine have been impugned. It has been argued that, up to the point of fatigue, the action of healthy nerves involves no pain, and must yield a surplus of positive sensuous pleasure. It is urged that the present uneasiness of appetite is normally more than counterbalanced by the anticipa- tion of immediate satisfaction. Such arguments will carry no weight with those who accept Plato's main contention, that the satisfactions of sense and ambition, however inevitable, have no real worth, and that to seek our true life in them is to weave and unweave the futile web of Penelope. Whatever qualifications modern psychology may attach to the doctrine, it is the logical basis of Plato's ethics. The unfeigned recogni- tion of the inherent worthlessness of the lower pleastires removes at once the motive and lures to evil.'^° It is the chief link in the proof that virtue is happiness. It insures the domination of reason over feeling and appetite. It molds man into that likeness to the divine pattern which is Plato's favorite expression for the ethical ideal,'" for the divine life knows neither pleasure nor pain."^' It is the serious argument that iMPAifeh., 42Cff. ; Rep., 583D. some moderns, that pleasure is not strictly = KiVtjais is ,-,fT.L i ii. i 1 • • -.«*. • ■ ;<- beside the point. 1^1 The argument that pleasure is ■yei-eo'is, not ovtjta, is ^ not, as Zellee says (p. 604), the nerve of the proof. It is >'■•* Gorg., 493B, TeTpijufi-o? wiSos, etc.; Phcedo, 84A, obviously,asthelanguageot 53 C implies, one of those half- ai-^rvToi- tpyoi' .... nijieAditTjs — icrrdi, Goi-j?., 507E; Phileh., serious metaphysical and rhetorical confirmations used to 54 E. make a strong case where Plato's feelings are enlisted. It 155 phceda, 64 B ; Gorg., 492 E ; Phileb.. 54 E, «o; *airi ^^ does not occur explicitly in the Republic which spealis, how- „,,, j^, u^auBai, etc. In Laws, 733, 734 B, the hedonistic calcu- ever, of pleasure asKiVTjai?, 583 E. lus of the Protafforas is retained, but is applied notdirectly i52"Already" in the Gorgias, 493E, 494C, and the to the individual acts, but to types of life. The life of Phmdrus. ZriSH, Sif irpolivwrie^fat Stl t, ii.riBii,cai ayaQoi, and Socrates i6ii,aH"s, 662B. forces him to contradict himself. Zeller Ip. 75'i) lists it 162 iff/)., 392 A B; LaHW, 663 B, iriSawit v', el fiy,Ui> ircpoy, among Plato's fallacies. jrpos TO Ttva t^tAeii- ^^i- Tof bfftof KaX SUaLov fiiov. 167 Strictly Speaking, Socrates's dialectic is emplos'ed 163 iJe/)., 358, 359, 365; Gorg., 483ff. Cf. Rep., 3oSC, merely to force from Callicles the admission that some JiaTeflpvA^^eVoi ri ira ; Protag., 333 C, «.rtl mWoi yi r the capacity for the "higher" pleasures than that for tiio lower, as is shown by tlie judgment of those who have experienced both. In this less absolute form the argument leans for support on that which precedes, and still more on that which follows it. In the third place, the lower pleasures as compared with the higher are illusory, unreal, and impermanent, and they tend to destroy the healthy balance of faculties which is the condition of all true pleasure.''^ This is a repetition or anticipation''' of the theory of the negativity of pleasure which we have already met in the polemic against hedonism. This completes our sketch of the Platonic ethics. The rest is exhortation, inspi- ration, myth, things oiiic arjSe'a-Tepa aKoveiv, but not within the scope of the present study, nor indeed reproducible in any study. For the ethical and religious spirit that informs every page of Plato we must go to the master himself. II. THEORY OF IDEAS Plato's theory of ideas is (1) primarily a realistic way of speaking of the univer- sal; (2) a jioetic and mythical extension of this realistic language, by which the uni- versal is treated, not only as a thing, but as a thing of beauty and object of desire and aspiration ; (3) in relation to metaphysics, it is the definite and positive assertion that the substantive essences, or rather the objective correlates, of general notions consti- tute the ultimate ontological units of reality to which psychological and logical analysis refer us as the only escape from a Heraclitean or Protagorean philosophy of pure relativity. In the first sense the ideas occur throughout the dialogues. It is irrational to look for the other forms of the doctrine except when the argument natu- rally leads up to them. A Kantian does not expatiate upon the Dimj-an-sich in an mony, and health of the soul, and from the analysis of proximate to these types. And the statement of the argu- pleasure. Here Plato is renewing the debate between the ment in the Laws applies to the simple just man, 663 C, " philosopher," the sensualist, and the politician begun in ra aSiKa . . . . cV fih' aSUov Kal kokov favTov Oewpoi'/ifra ijSea, the Gorfjias. He is indulging his feolings in a demonstra- etc., .... tJjc 6' aA»j0ciov rijs KpitrtM^ norfpai" xi'piujTepa^ elvat. tion that in the Athens of his day the " philosophic " life ^utfjiey; iroTfpa ttji* rqs x^'po*"**? ^vxh^ V '''h^ ^v^ ^eArioros. is a higher and happier type than the life of the politician or the sensualist; and he holds that no real reform is pos- "« iJep., 583 B-586C. sible until men can be found who approach political lite as '"'Zeller thinks it a r6sum6 of the fuller treatment of anecessary, not a desirable, thing, condescending toit from the Fhilehus. Those who put the Fhilebus late regard it a life which they feel to be higher and more pleasurable as a preliminary sketch. The Fhilebus is probably late, (c/. ii!e/?., 521 B). The form of the argument of the i?epit6i/r as Mill affirmed before Sprachstatistik was conceived, is determined by the purpose of contrasting the extreme But the psychology of pleasure in the two dialogues sup- types of the virtuous philosopher and the finished tyrant. plies no evidence. Cf. infra, ''Plato's Psychology," and But it applies to other men in proportion as they ap- Part II. 153 28 The Unity of Plato's Thought essay on universal peace. Plato discussed many topics that did not require embellish- ment by the mythical description of the idea as type, or the explicit reaffirmation of the idea as noumenon. And the apparent absence of either from a given dialogue proves nothing. Plato's fearless and consistent realism is so repugnant to "common sense" that modern critics either take it as proof of the naivet6, not to say childishness, of his thought, or extenuate the paradox by arguing that he could not have meant it seriously and must have abandoned or modified the doctrine in his maturer works. All such interpretations spring from a failure to grasp the real character of the meta- physical pi'oblem and the historical conditions that made Plato adopt and cling to this solution. From Heraclitus to John Stuart Mill human thought has always faced the alternative of positing an inexplicable and paradoxical noumenon, or accepting the "flowing philosophy." No system can escape the dilemma. Plato from his youth up was alternately fascinated and repelled by the philosophy of Heraclitus. No other writer has described so vividly as he the reign of relativity and change in the world of phenomena.'" Only by affirming a nouiiienon could he escape Heracliteanism as the ultimate account of (1) being, and (2) cognition.'" He chose or found this noume- non in the hypostatized concepts of the human mind, the objects of Socratic inquiry, the postulates of the logic he was trying to evolve from the muddle of contemporary dialectic, the realities of the world of thought so much more vivid to him than the world of sense.""' This is the account of the matter given by Aristotle'" and con- firmed by the dialogues. Except in purely mythical passages, Plato does not attempt to describe the ideas any more than Kant describes the Ding-an-sich or Spencer the "Unknowable." He does not tell us what they are, but that they are. And the diffi- culties, clearly recognized by Plato, which attach to the doctrine thus rightly limited, are precisely those that confront any philosophy that assumes an absolute. Plato's particular selection of the hypostatized concept for his absolute seems more paradoxical only because, from the common-sense point of view of a convenient but inconsistent conceptualism, we ignore the real philosophical alternative of consist- ent nominalism or consistent realism, and forget the historical conditions that forced Plato to make his choice. Realism was for Plato not merely the only metaphysical alternative to Protagorean relativity; it was the only practicable way of affirming the validity of universals and abstract thought. The psychology and logic of modern nominalism as gradually worked out by Locke, Berkeley, John Stuart Mill, and Taine, did not exist. The modern flowing philosopher can give a plausible account of li85»mp.,207DE; Tm., 43 BC, 44 A B, 52 E, 69 C D; concepts ideas (which he did!) it his starting-point had !^/^Cffie(., 156 ff. been the hypustatization of the concept, and (which is i"Crafi/i., 4.39, 440; Themtet., 179 ff., 185, 186; Tim., 21 D, partly true) that he would not have put forth the paradox 28 A, 49Dff., 51 BC. Less dircictly pertinent are Soph., at all if he had not felt the necessity of positins some 249 B ; CratyL, 3S6; Phileh., 58 E, with licp., 533 B. reality beyond the world of sense. This last Apelt confirms i»ol do not mean that Plato said: "Go to, I need "a by iVc(., lOlOfc, 2", which, however, proves nothing for Plato, nmtmetum, I will hypi.^tatize the Socratic concepts," as it merely states a favorite thought of Aristotle. which a malicious critic miuht infrr from Ai'KLt'« argu- "i We(., 1, 0, 987a, 2911., 1086b. ment {Seitrdtje, pp. Kl~3), that Plato wouhl have ui.ade all 151 Paul Shokey 29 the universal, recognizes the general term as a convenient algebraic symbol, and so accepts the old logic as a practical working instrument of thought. But in Plato's time the old logic was still to be created, and the cruder forms of nominalism and relativity which he combated blocked the way by captious objections to the normal and necessary use of general terms.'"" The theory of ideas, then, often appears to be mainly, if not merely, an affirmation of the concept apart from explicit insistence on any theory of its psychological or ontological nature."' But the main issue is unaffected by this fact. Even if he had been acquainted with the analysis of Mill and Taine,'" Plato would have continued to ask: Are the good and the beautiful and similar essences something or nothing?"' Can everything in the idea be explained as the natural product of remembered and associated sensations?"*" Is not man's power of abstraction something different in kind from any faculty possessed by the brute?'" Not all the refinements of the new psychology can disguise the fact that the one alternative commits us to the "flowing philosophers," the other to some form of Pla- tonism. For the answer that the "good" and the "beautiful" are only concepts of the mind is an evasion which commends itself to common-sense, but which will satisfy no serious thinker. If these concepts are the subjective correlates of objective reali- ties, we return to the Platonic idea — for Plato, it must be remembered, does not say what the ideas are, but only that they are in some sense objective and real.'" If the concepts are the natural products of casual associations, accidental eddies in the stream of sense, the "flowing philosophy" receives us again."" Moreover, though this ^^^ Phileb.^ 14 D, (r • » V - ■ • Anima. 429 fc 26 in A. J. P.. Vol. XXII, pp. 161 £f. ayaQov Kol *caAdf. CratyL, 440 B, ci 6e .... eari Serb KaXov, ^^^ Cf. the characterization of positivism or phenom- ctTTc 6i TO aya96v. Sophist, 247 A-B, to ye Bvi-aTov t(j» irapa- enalism In Rep., 516 C D, KaBopui'Ti. ra napioira Kal fiyrjfi.0- ■ytyveaSat koi aTToyiyvftrOai iravTui^ etrat Tt yjiT0Vi7iv .... i-eiiocri ^aAicTTo, oca re nporepa auTtaji- xai vtmpa fiutOft Kai afia ovcn}<: ovv {txatoo-iii'jjs. etc. Phileb., 55 B, n-iis ovk dAoyof e'o-Tt iropcueo-tfai. C/, also P/lCEdo, 96 B C ; Gorj?., 501 A B. 155 30 The Unity of Plato's Thought point is not explicitly made by Plato, a concept of the mind, even apart from objective reference, either is or is not an entity of another than the natural or sensuous order. If it is, we are di-iven back upon Platonism. For, though the Platonic ideas are more than thoughts if thoughts are only decaying sense, thoughts, if radically different from sensations, become entities that may assume the role of Platonic ideas, as they do in the ultimate philosophy of Aristotle, and in the interpretation of those Pla- tonists, ancient and modern, who conceive the ideas as thoughts of God. This is not Plato's doctrine, but only a plausible development of it by those who cannot acquiesce in his wise renunciation of systematic dogmatism."" In these matters Plato affirms no more than is necessary for his fixed faiths and purposes.'"' The objective reality in some sense of ideas (but no more) was so necessary. That it was a hard saying is as well known to him as it is to his critics."" And he has anticipated their objections. But this doctrine, or something equally and similarly paradoxical, was and is the sole alternative to a philosophy which he and the majority of his modern critics cannot and will not accept. The burden of proof rests heavily, then, on those who affirm that at any time he did or could abandon or seriously modify it. A survey of the dialogues discovers no evidence in support of such a contention. For this purpose the dialogues fall into three (or four) groups: (1) Those that are supposed to precede the doctrine ; or (2) to lead up to it ; (3) those in which it is most specifically affirmed or mythically embellished ; (4) those in which it is criticised or, as some say, abandoned or modified. In the case of the first and fourth group the argument is often made to turn upon the meaning to be assigned to elSo';, ISea, and other terms elsewhere distinctly appropriated to the transcendental idea. We are repeatedly warned that the mere use of the words eZSo? and IBea is no evidence of the transcendental doctrine. This is obvious ; but it is equally true that the possibility of taking these words in a conceptual sense raises no presumption that they must be taken in that sense exclusively and that the doctrine was absent from Plato's mind at the time. Such an assumption is made by modern critics in the interest of theories of development, or to free as many dialogues as possible from the distasteful paradox. But Plato was always at liberty to use the terminology of the ideas conceptually for the practical logical uses of definition and classification — even in the transcendental Phcedrus.^^^ All Platonic ideas are concepts. It does not follow that they are ever in Plato's intention no more than concepts. And, in any case, the absence of the theory from any given dialogue pi'oves no more than does the virtual absence from the Laws of all metaphysics, including the "later" theory of ideas. 190 Cf. infra. Part II, Philebm. j^an the Pha-do and Republic; LuTOgLAWSKi (pp. 340, 341), 191 Mow, 86 B, «ai tA ^iv Y« «*A« ""< i" "i™ i"'«P ■">« that it must be later, because, if we interpret rightly, wo Adyou Siiffxi'pii'ai^))^, etc. " s„„n get quit of the riddle of self-existing ideas " and per- i'« /Jcp., 532 D, 476 A; Parmen., 13uBC; Philcb., 15 A B; ceivo that " i5ea and elJo? are used in a meaning which is Tim., 51 C D ; infra, p. 36. identical with the idea as conceived by Kant, a necessary 1'3 237 C, 249 B, 263 E. Cf. also the loose popular use of concept of reason." Of course, Kant's ideas of reason are «Wo? and iifa 237 D, 238 A, 253 C D. NATOftP, Hermes, Vol. misapplied here and all Lutoslawski means is " Begriff," XXXV, p. 409, infers that the Pha-ilrus, " must" be earlier "concept." 156 Paul Shorey 31 Premising thus much, we turn to the first group. In the Apolofjij, Crito, Laches, Lysis, Charmidcfi, Mencrenus, first four books of the Repuhlic,^'^ ProUtyoras,^''" and (some affirm) the Euthyphro, Gorgius, and Eidhydemns there is no distinct mention of the (Platonic) ideas. There was no occasion for it in the Apolony, Crito, and Mencrenus, and little, if any, in the others. The relation of the Lysis, Charmides, and Laches to Plato's mature ethical theories and the subtlety of the Charmides and Lysis "° make it improbable that they antedate the main tenet of his philosophy. This is still more obvious in the case of the Menexenus (387 (?), rot. 40).'°' The realistic language used of the definition in the Euthyphro must be presumed to imply what a similar terminology does elsewhere.'™ The joke about irapovala in the Eiifhydemus is a distinct and familiar allusion to the Platonic idea of beauty."" Had Plato omitted that jest, the absence of the doctrine would prove no more than it does in the case of the Protagoras. More interesting than this balancing of probabilities is the evidence presented by the Gorgias. This magnificent composition may or may not be earlier than the Meno, Phcedo, Enthydemus, and Cratylns. It is certainly not appreciably less mature. It distinguishes and classifies "ideas" in the manner rather of the "later" dialogues,^"" and although it contains no explicit and obvious mention of the transcendental idea,^"' the doctrine is clearly suggested for all readers who look below the surface. It is worth while to dwell upon the point. In the Cratylus, 389 C, employing the termi- nology of the ideas in the manner of Republic, 596 A B, 597 B,^"^ Socrates says that the workman who makes a tool puts into the material, the iron, the idea of the tool that exists in nature.""' Similarly in Eepublic, 500 D, the philosopher statesman puts 1M402C aud 437, 438, presumably imply the ideas, but etc., see my remarks in .1. J. P., Vol. IX, No. 3, p. 287.) More- could be taken merely of concepts, classes or species. Not over, Plato never affirmed the presence absolutely of the so 5S5 in Book IX. Pfleiderer therefore, in order to elimi- idea with or in the particular (/*armc?i., 131 A B; Phileb,, nate the ideas from Books VIII and IX, pronounces 580 B- 15B), but only its presence or communication somehow. 588A a later addition. The rt of waAAo? rt expresses this and Socrates's embarrass- 195 But Cf. 330C, i «i«a.OTi.i.,) ^piy^i Tt ccTTil. i oM;.- ment very well. C/. Pft«?do, 100 D, .Ire :rapo.;cr.a dre ,<>ir<»^.-f ; Rep., 596 A, _ ,E .. . ^ • \ 1 • \ ■ • - 't • ^'^' But cf. 474 D, aTToBAcn-cuc ; 488 D, Ta Tuiv noWtai' vo/J-tfia, etoo5 .... €f ... . irept tKaara Ta TToAAa) — auTO to €i5os <«, j ^ >- ■> ^ „4.^ fnt. 1 -lAATi - ^ • nr --on " tjt with .ffe»., 479 D, Ttt Ttov TToKkuiv iToAAa voixtfi-a, etc.; Gorg,, t y •'\ ■ a\ ■ f ■ 497 E, Trapouffi'a .... oi? av KaAAos iraprj. fit o), aiToaMiTUiV .... irapaOiiytiaTt. i r . m 189 301 A. It IS not the word nap«TTt that proves this, . • 7 , , r i r- . i but the entire context eT#pa avrov ye roii jtaAoO, etc. LUTOS- v^o'ct ovo-a (k ivrj). LAW9KI (p. 212) affirms that Plato " would have said later 203 On this passage as the chief Platonic source of the irdpfart TO itaAAos (avrb Ka6' auTo)." He never did say, nor Aristotelian doctrine of matter and form see my remarks could he have said, anything of the kind. Tlapeo-ri .... in .<4. J. P., Vol. XXII, No. 2, p. 158. Campbell, overlooking avTo KaQ' ainb he would have felt as a contradiction in this passage, finds in Po^7.. 288 D, the earliest approach to terms. (On the correct and incorrect use of avra KaS' avra, the distinction of matter and form. 157 32 The Unity of Plato's Thought into the plastic stuff of human nature the forms or ideas of justice and temperance which he contemplates as existing in the transcendental world [iicel), and so becomes an artisan of political and popular virtue.'"' Expressed in slightly different imagery, this is the function of the statesman in the Politicus, 309 C (c/. 308 C D). He is to implant in those rightly prepared by education, fixed, true opinions concerning the honorable, the just, and the good.'"^ The thought and the imagery belong to Plato's permanent stock. We find them in the Gorgias, 508 E-504 D.™ Here, too, Plato conceives the true teacher, artist, or statesman as contemplating ideas or forms, which he strives to embody in the material with which he works, even as the Demiurgus of the Timtvus stamps the ideas upon the matter of generation. The origin, first suggestion, exposition, or proof of the theory of ideas is variously sought by different critics in the Meno, the Cratjjlits, the Thecetetus, or even in the Phcedrus, Pannenides, and Si/mposium. Obviously Plato could at any time argue indirectly in support of the ideas as necessary postulates of ontology and epistemology. Our chief concern is with the hypothesis that the exposition of some particular dia- logue marks a date in the development of his own thought. The doctrine of remin- iscence is introduced in the Meno to meet an eristic use of a puzzle allied to the psychological problem of "recognition."""' How, if we do not already know, shall we recognize a triith or a definition when we have found it?"™ Socrates replies that the soul has seen all things in its voyagings through eternity, and that all our learning here is but recollection.""" This theory is confirmed in the case of mathematical ideas by Socrates's success in eliciting by prudent questions a demonstration of the Pythag- orean proposition from Meno's ignorant slave."'" The Phcedo distinctly refers to this argument as a proof of the reality of ideas,'" and the myth in the Phcedrus describes the ante-natal vision of the pure, colorless, formless, essences of true beiug."'' It fol- lows that, though the ideas are not there explicitly mentioned, the reminiscence spoken of in the 3Ieno must refer to them.'" But it is extremely improbable that this repre- sents Plato's first apprehension of the doctrine. Psychologically and historically the origin of the theory is to be looked for in the hypostatization of the Socratic concept and the reaction against Heracliteanism."* Its association with Pythagoreanism and 20e Platonis ideor .... 5i)iJ.iOvpyov .... ata^pouijvr\. t- ,.„<>" ■7 11 7 and vm^poavvt) wpbs THuTO ^AtJ^(u^•, etc. The pr/Tuip ayaQbi 211 73 A. ..-. Tex^.«i>5 here = the true woAitcw. And we may note in 3,2247 ff., 249 C, toOto ii iirr^v iydi^vri^.: J,..Vcor, etc. passing that the Gorgian " already " recognizes that rheto- ric might be an art. The popular rhetoric is none because "-'The realistic terminology of the dcfinitiou would it ignores the ideas (1) as ethical ideals (Gorgias), (2) justify the same inference. Cf. 74,73. as the basis of scientific dialectic ^Phtzdr^w). 2U cf. supra, p. 28. 158 Paul Shoeey 33 the ante-natal life of the soul is mythical embellishment; and its application to the problem of the a j)riori element in human knowledge is a secondary confirmation of its truth.'" Nevertheless the Meno, which John Stuart Mill pronounces " a little gem," is admirably adapted to serve as an introduction to the Platonic philosophy. It exem- plifies in brief compass the Socratic method and the logic of the definition in termi- nology that suggests the ideas, touches on higher things in the theory of recollection and the problem of a priori knowledge, and clearly resumes the dramatic, ethical, and political puazles that prepare for the teaching of the Republic. Socrates's mention of the ideas at the close of the Cratrjlus as something of which he dreams as an alterna- tive to Heracliteanism is taken by some critics to indicate that we have here an intro- duction to or a first presentment of the doctrine.'^'" They overlook two considerations: (1) the theory is taken for granted at the beginning of the dialogue, as we have already seen;^" (2) there are no traces of immaturity in the thought of the Cratijlus. The polemic against the flowing philosophers and the forms of eristic associated with them is, in a jesting form, as sharp, and the apprehension of the real issues as distinct as it is in the Thea-fetus and Soj^/i /s/.^" Some scholars look upon the ThecBtetus as a propaedeutic introduction to the ideas,^" while others take it as marking the transition to the later theory. Strictly speaking, neither view can be correct, since, though the ideas are not often or very explicitly mentioned, there is enough to show the presence of the doctrine in its normal form. The ayaOov and kuXov, claimed for being as against becoming in 157 D, is almost technical for the aSirmation of the ideas.^"" The -n-apaBeiynaTa of 176 E can hardly refer to anything else. And the close parallel between 18f) AB and Republic, 523, 52-1, admits no other interpretation. Among the votito. which the soul grasps by 2I5PROFES30E Ritchie's suggestion (.Plato, pp. 86, 8") tinctly implies that irii'Ta pei includes qualitative change, that the Platonic idea is a generalization of the Pythag- Cf. 439 D, on toioOtoi-, 4-tO A, iMo xai iAAoioi' viy^-oiTo .... orean treatment of mathematics is unsupported by evi- onoloy yd ri iuTu-. iS^Tl, i^ri6iv iliu V iu- 1 i-u i iu -J u i_ heard ovk oAiyaitis that the idea of good is the y.iyi.iTTov 236 Those who think that the ideas have been men- u i rp 'ini'Pi tioned in only one preceding dialogue, as the 3/e»io or Sy»i- t^^- ^^ P'> posium, are much exercised by the 6ana AtYeii' of 72E, the 23ti00D. aSpuAouMei-deiof 76D, andtheiroAu9pvA7)T»of lOOB. LuTOS- 238 596, 597, 585,534, 532, 514-17, 505-11, 500 D-501 B, 490 B, LAWSKl'a statement (p. 292) that these terms may refer to 485 B, 476-80. 161 36 The Unity of Plato's Thought philosophy contained but one transcendental idea, as if the problems of psychology and ontology which the theory of ideas sought to meet or evade could have been in any wise advanced by the hypostatization of one concept ! We have glanced at such methods of reasoning already, and shall meet them again. At present we pass on to the hypothesis that the Parmenides contains a criticism of the ideas which leads to the abandonment or transformation of the theory in the fourth and latest group of dialogues. This hypothesis rests on the assumption that the criticism of the Parmen- ides is new, that Plato was bound either to answer it or give up the ideas, and that, as a matter of fact, the transcendental idea is not found in the later dialogues. These assumptions will not bear critical examination. The objections brought forth against the ideas in the Parmenides are obvious enough, and, as Jowett says, are unanswerable by anybody who separates the phe- nomenal from the real. How can we bring the absolute into intelligible relation with the relative? How can the absolute (" the Gods") take cognizance of us or we appre- hend what is adapted to their thought?'^' How can we without self-contradiction apply to it unity or plurality, or any other predicate of human knowledge?"" More specifically, if the ideas are transcendental unities, how can we predicate multiplicity or parts of them as wo must to connect them with one another and with phenomena?"* How shall we interpret the figurative expressions that the ideas are present in things, or that things participate in or imitate the ideas?"*" If the idea is the postulated corre- late of every idem iyi mult is, why should we not assume an idea to explain the likeness of the idea and the particular, and so on in infinite regression?'*^ To what extent the form of these objections is due to contemporary critics, or the misunderstanding of students, or the precocity of Aristotle, is an unprofitable inquiry. Their substance is in the Rcpid)lic, not to speak of the Phcedo, the Eiithydemus, the TimcBiis, and Philebiis.^** Their presentation in the Parmenides, then, does not mark a crisis in Plato's thought calling for a review of his chief article of philosophic faith. Plato does not and cannot answer them, but he evidently does not take them very seriously,''" though he admits that it would require a marvelous man to sift and analyze them all."° They arise from the limitations of out finite minds."' Here as in the Philebus he bids us disregard them, and proceed on the assumption of ideas to find the one idea 2.19 Parmen., 134. Sophist, only because pedants were obstructing the way of 2«0SopA., 241, 245; i'armen., 142 A; Tim., 37 E, 38 A. ^"eic by denying it. Similarly the rpiro! d^Spuirot is dis- „., „ ,„, „, ., ^ ... _ tinctly implied in Bepublic, 597 C, and Tim., 31 A, as the difficulty of giving a precise moaning to napovata is in 2« Parmen., 131 A, 132 D. :« 132 A, 132 E. EutKydemus, 301 A, and Pha: iq^ a n i\Xj, iAAiui., and Bywatee, who reads /i/s( does not really contradict Ttm., Sojihist." Pfleiderer uses it to prove that the fifth book of .^AB. Absolutely oi- and /iii ov remain a mystery (251 A, the Kepu''(/c is later than tlie tenth. Anything rather tlian 251 D, 254 C). The Sophist merely fixes the practically admit the obvious fact that Plato always recognized the necessary conventions of logical discourse about them — "communion" of ideas, and argued it at length in the Toi-Aoyoi', €>• roit jrap' ifiik Aoyoit, etc., 251A, 251D. 162 Paul Shorey 37 and enumerate all its species. ''" The hypothesis must bo judged by its total con- sequences.'" The text of the Parmenides does not bear out the assertion that the objections apply to any special form of the theory or can be met by a change of terminology. The suggestion that there may be some classes of concepts to which no idea corre- sponds is repudiated for good Platonic reasons.'^" The interpretation that the ideas ai"e to be henceforth merely concepts is distinctly rejected, was a priori impossible for Plato, and is refuted by the positive affirmation of their objectivity in the Timcens.''^^ Socrates's explanation that the ideas are "TrapaSetyfxaTa, patterns of which phenomena are likenesses, is nothing new. The terminology of pattern, copy, and artist looking off to his model is familiar throughout the " early " dialogues, whether used of the definition or the idea. There is no hint in the corresponding passages of the Philebns that such a variation of terminology could in any way affect the problem. It is not proposed in the Parmenides as a new doctrine, but merely as a different metaphor to evade the difficulty found in the literal interpretation of fieTe'xeiv — it is a mere gloss upon the meaning of tierexeiv. But equally formidable difficulties confront this way of putting it."^" And there is no systematic change of terminology in the "later" dialogues, which, like the earlier, employ in a purely natural and non-technical way the various synonyms and metaphors which Plato used to express the inexpressible."^^ The challenge to find the ideas in dialogues "later" than the Parmenides is easily met. Nothing can be more explicit than the Timceus.''^* The alternative is distinctly proposed: are the objects of sense the only realities and is the supposition of ideas mere talk ? ^'^ And it is affirmed that their reality is as certain as the distinction between opinion and science. They are voovfjieva and exist Ka6' avrd.''"^ There is no hint that 248 135 B C, Phileb.^ 16 D. Cf. Phcsdr.y 270 D, eav 5e irAei'ui lar in the idea. The ojnotuijuaTa are no more separable as eI6>7 e\T(\ Tayra apiSfirjaafift'OV<;. Laws, 894 A, eV elSeiri Aa^ecv an intermediate stage than are to. eitriovTa leat i^iovra Tuv fifT* api0^tol). hvTijiv a€i ^i^i^^aTa of TiiiKeus, 50 C. In both cases we have 24'Par)HeJi., 136; Pfta?do, 101 D. ""^y "i" ''lea and the particular and the metaphorical 550130 D. See Zellee, 700, 701, for lists of ideas. But, ^^P'^^^'o" "^ *eir relation, as we have seen, to admit that there is any conceptual "sSee my note in A. J. P., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 66. Zellee, unity not referable to an idea is to make the theory a mere Sitziingsber. d. Berl. Akad., 1887, No. 13. play of fancy, and deprive it of all psychological and onto- 25(51, 52. logical meaning. 255 51 C, to Si Miv ip' !,,■ nM,,. \6yo,. For the impossi- 251 51 C. Cf. supra, n. 188. bility of taking Aoyoj as " Socratic concept " see my note in 252The TpiToi ai-Spuiiros is repeated in 132 DE. Other ^. J. P., Vol. X, p. 65. difficulties follow, and the final summing up, 135 A, is 256 Me. Aecher-Hind's attempt {Jour, of Phil., Vol. couched in the most general terminology : cl tialv ovTai ai XXrV, pp. 49 ff. ) to " circumvent " this passage is based on a iSeoi Tu}y ovrtuv ita'i bpulrai Tis outo tc e*oiiiiiTis and (2) neflefn toO o/ioiui/iiaToi in the other ideas in it. J. Hoeowitz {Da» Platonische vorirbv descent from the ideas to the individuals. ijioiiiniiTii and ^iof mid der Philonische noirMot I'oijTdt, Marburg, 1900) fails liiTexovTci are merely two sides of the same fact— the par- to prove his assertion that the i'oijtoi' ^i^oi' is "die Welt- ticipationsomehow(elT«oirn5iTisovrdTi9eTaO of theparticu- Idee." Mr. Archer-Hind's further arguments merely pre- 163 38 The Unity of Plato's Thought they are mere concepts, or thoughts of God. On the contrary, God uses them as pat- terns, and as elements in the creation of the soul.°" They are characterized in terms applicable only to pure absolute Being, and the familiar terminology is freely employed.^^' Three things, Plato repeats, must have existed from all eternity: the pure Being of the ideas, the generated copies, and space, the medium or receptacle. "'' The attempts of modern scholars to eliminate these elements or identify them with other categories found in other dialogues contradict Plato's explicit statements. We are often told that space is the ddrepov or fir] ov.'''" For this there is not a scintilla of evidence."*' Plato even says of space : ravrov aiirrjv ael irpoa-p-qreov (50 B), and calls it a rpiTov av yevoi; 6v to t)}? ■)(wpa<; aei. The "same" and the " other" appear in a wholly different connection in the creation of the soul, and are obviously the categories of the Sophist attributed to the soul to explain its cognition of sameness and differ- ence."''^ The occurrence of these categories in a dialogue that reaffirms the transcen- dental idea proves that to Plato's mind the two points of view were not incompatible, which, for the rest, is obvious enough from the Phcedrus. We must interpret the Sojjhist, Politicus, and Philebus in the light of this presumption, and treat the termi- nology of the ideas as jirima facie evidence of the doctrine. The Republic (J:"^) " already " states that the transcendental unity of the ideas is somehow compatible with their communion. The Sophist formulates all the concessions which a "working logic " must demand from all philosophies of the absolute, be it absolute relativity, absolute Bemg, or absolute Platonic ideas. Plato minimized the inevitable inconsist- ency, and a sound interpretation will not exaggerate it. A working logic does not emphasize the transcendental character of the idea. But the language of 248 A, 247 A B, distiactly implies it.'"^* The statement that BiKuiocrvvT] and 'd9(52 B). But Plato's terminology which are not competent to anyone who himself believes in cannot be used out of its context in this way. The ^i o" any metaphysics or attributes metaphysics to Plato. problem belongs to logic. PliGenomena are intermediate be- 25' 28 A, 29 A, 30 BC, 35 A. Zeller, p. 665, n. 2, adds tween o- and ^i 5.- because they change, and are and are Pftcedr., 247, which is irrelevant, and Rep., .596 A ff., where ""*•. 't'" S'""* predicates, not because they are the offspring God is the maker of the ideas. Lutoslawski's argument "^ '^eas and matter. In physics Plato was forced, how- from .o^cr.c ^.Ti Adyov ^ep.A„rT;«, sec. 117: "either that real space is God, or that there is something beside God „ „ which is eternal, uncreated.") So far is it from being true 25S52A, 27 D, 28AB, 29 B, 30C. C/. 39 E, o eVr. ; 37 B, r„ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ matter imparts ^^ 5. to ,,/,«.«omc,.a that, on ,ara rairi .>"« i"- 48 E, ^apaS.ivMoTo,, to which cor- the Contrary, Plato explicitly says that p/itrnomena. being respond 50 C, m'MW«t<., and 52 A, oi^^.vu.ov o^oior ; 31 A, the ^^^^^j i^^ggg^ ^ij^g to essence (owiaO somehow through Tp.TO! iv9f,u,iT0f. t^gj^ existence in space. Tim., 52 C. ''■' ' 262 37 ABC is plainly a psychological myth or allegory 260 j;. g., by Ritchie, p. 116. expressing the results of the analysis of the Sophist. Cf- 201 Zeller, pp. 719 ff., 733, produces none. Aristotle's also TAetriet., 194 B. obscure allusions prove nothing. The identification of the 2e3iii xoyiffMov it ^xxi "pot rir i\nia% oii S" and matter breaks down. ravTa oxraiiTut ix"-" *»" oucr^t ovv aiicaioiruvT)! «ai " apprehended neither by voOt nor 164 Paul Shorey 39 which we are required to apprehend them in thought or in the soul.'"* It is often said that souls take the place of ideas in Plato's later period. This is a complete miscon- ception of Plato's thought and stylo. It is quite true that he could not confine the predicates of true or absolute Being to the ideas. God is, of course, true Being, and in religious and metaphysical passages need not always be distinguished from the ideas taken collectively. Both are invisible, eternal, intelligible. In the Timccus space also is reluctantly treated as a kind of eternal being. The Sophist tries to show that "being" is amenable to human logic and cognizable by finite minds. This involves a contradiction for all except consistent relativists who renounce pure Being altogether. This Plato could not do, for, not only in the Parmenides, but in the late TimcBus, he retains absolute Being for metaphysics and religion. In the Sophist he shows that for human logic it is as impracticable as absolute not-Being. To be known and talked about it must come out of its isolation and enter into relations — act and be acted upon. Being is therefore temporarily defined against the extremists of all schools as the power and potentiality^*^ of action or passion, and the contradiction is smoothed over by the equivocal use of "true being" to denote both the metaphysical and the reli- gious noumenon — the ideas and God. True Being as God obviously possesses life, thought, motion, soul, and true Being as the ideas borrows so much life and motion as will explain their intercommunion in finite thought.''' But the definition, its purpose served, is never repeated, and pure transcendental _being reappears in the Timceits. That the ideas still take precedence of souls appears distinctly from Polif., 309 C, where it is said that fixed opinions in souls are a divine thing in a daemonic thing. The same follows from the creation of the soul in the Timcpiis, and the hierarchy of elements in the good (Phileb., 6G) where pure ideas precede wO?. '" Politicus, 269 D, pre- sumably implies the ideas;'"" 285 E ff. unmistakably alSrms them. What other possible interpretation can be put upon the statement oVt tok /xev rwv ovtmv paBioi-; KaTUfiadelv ala-O-qrai Ttvei 6ix.oi6Tr)T€<; irecfyvKaaiv? These ovra are plainly ideas of material things, of which material things are likenesses. But to. TLiutaTara (justice, good, etc., Phcedr., ■iii* Sophist, 250 B, rpiTor opa Ti irapi raira to ov iv Tj) ifivxn i" iam of Parmenides (or his followers at Megara or in Ti«ei5. Cf. 243 C, ovx ^TTOr icari to iv ra-iirov toOto Tripos elA.]- the school — ouSei- yip TaiiTf) Sia^epei) as well as the irdi-TO pel ^oTd iv Tji i//uxn. Cf. ofioXoywai-a . . . . iv ij) iii^(T(pa •pvxji, of Heraclitus for which he felt less sympathy. Cf. Them- rAecefe*., 155 A, from which LuTOSLAWSKi, p. 383, infers that (e(., 180, 181, 183 E, 181 A. the ideas are subjective notions ! 267 See Zellee, pp. 689, 690, who seems to deny the con- 265 247 E, Si/raiiis probably includes both. tradiction altogether, and pp. 696-8, where he argues that „. . , , , i m J I. the Sophist is early because life and causality are never 266 The entire passage betrays embarrassment. To adapt attributed to the ideas, and do not belong to them "Being" to the necessities of logic Plato is obliged to .^ ^i^^^Hg., representation. Space fails to enumerate all deny of it (248 DE) what in r»«., 38 A B, his feelings require ^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^ fitter difference from Apelt's subtle him to affirm He treats vv^-a-^Sa. as a .a,Tx«. which ^^ ^^^ ^ (BeUrage). He points out that the Zeller (p. 6d2), as a true Aristotelian, thinks a verbal fal- ^^g^j^j^^ ^j 5^ j^ ^-^^^^^^ ^^j^iy ^g^inst the materialists, lacy. In the crucial passage, 249 A, he uses a.To (^,6. ir,v ^^^ ^^^^^ attention to lublic must be very early because the aged Cephalus neglects the opportunity to supplement his citation from Pindar with a scientific proof of immortality. Horn tells us that the Phcedrus represents the first 269Forai-oM'"I<"5 in the Pod (iciisc/. m/ra, p. 44. Phocilo, 115 DE; and with the idea, 959 B, that the only 2") See A. J. P., Vol. IX, p. 279. Po^9«ia at the bar of Hades is a just life in this world, <•/. 211 LnTOSLAWSHj, p. 467, mistranslates, or, if he prefers, Oorg., 522 C D, 526 E ; Crito, 54 B. misinterprets, 15 D: "the nature of thought requires the 275 p/tcerfo, 85 C, to /iei' o-aifies eiSei-ac iv riZ vvv ^iut rj aSvva- union of notions into higher units, and this constitutes an row thai ij jroYx»^«'">'' ". Cf. 107 A B; Tim,, 12 D; Meno, eternal necessity of the human mind." C/. supra, p. 36. 86AB; PAcccir., 265 C. 272tt)»' yap wept to hv *coi To ofTuj? «ai TO Kara rainov a€i 276 40 C. C/. also Pftccdo. 91 B. ''!*"f°! •.• ■; /-■«("? °M'"«"''"'"'"V^"-y":--"P'^"",''"« 277Cro«2/J«s, 403 DE, implies the doctrine of PhtBdo, 67,68. Ta auTa waauTws ajuttToTaTa e'xoi-Ta. — rj ic iiri Ta ^^Tt ytyvo^Leva unre anoXAvtiifa, Kara Tai-Ta 5e Kai utravTo}^ ovja oei. Cf, 62 A, • ■ 278 M C* aVTri<; Trep'i SiKatoaof tj? o ti iffTi. 66 \, Trt^ ai&i-ov .... (^nifftf. °^ ^• For the ideas iu relation to the method «ot' eiSij riiivnv, 279 207 D, 208 B. Too much is made of this, for the same and a fuller discussion of the ii^t ov fallacy, see infra, inferouce could bo drawn from Lous, 721 and 773 B. The Part II. popular belief in Hades is implied, 192 E, and there is even 273 PhcBdo, 114 D, xp'l '■« ToiouTa liffirep ('iro'Sfii' iovToJ. a hint, 212 A, that the philosopher may be immortal: tlircp ■inRep.. 608 C II.: Laws, 881 A, 967 DE, 959 A B; with to, aAA^ ii'Spoi.ru,^ iSawy «ai «e...o,. TOf 6« ofra rinujv inatrroi' ovTw? addyarov [ftrai] ^v\rip, cf. 2H0 priced).,, 245 C : Lo«JS, 894, 895. 166 Paul Shokey 41 youthful enthusiastic apprehension of immortality, the Symposium expresses the mood of sober manhood content with this life, while in the Fhcedo old age. waiting for death, craves a real immortality. According to Thompson, the Meno reserves the proof of what it merely asserts; the FhcBdrus outlines a general proof, the Republic later attempts another; the Symposium, dissatisfied with all so far achieved, ignores the sub- ject; and finally the problem is taken up seriously in the Pluvdo. Zeller, on the other hand, while holding that all the proofs are substantially identical, thinks, as we have seen, that the Republic refers to the Phcedo, and is also later than the PhcBdrus. But to Lutoslawski it is evident that the proof given in the Pluedrus and repeated in the Laivs is the latest. And he also can discern that the Symposium, in the first flush of idealism, could dispense with the personal immortality of the Gorgias, but that later, when the theory of ideas had grown familiar, Plato undertook in the Phcedo to affiliate upon it the old doctrine of immortality. Hardly more profitable than these arbitrary speculations is the analysis of the separate arguments. Broadly speaking, Zeller is right in saying that they all amount to this, that it is the nature or essence of the soul to live. But this general truth becomes a fallacy when employed to identify absolutely the distinct arguments of the Phcedo, the Republic, and the Phcedrus. The gist of the argument in the tenth book of the Republic is a fallacy employed also in the first book (353 D E), the equivocal use of the apen^ or specific excellence of the soul in relation to its epyov, its function and essence. In both cases the epyov is defined in terms of mere life-vitality, while the aperi] is referred to the moral life. But in so far as the epyov or essence of the soul is mere life, its aperrj is intensity and persistency of life — not justice.^" Simi- larly the Phcedrus and Lnws, identifying life with self-movement, prove the eternity of the principle of motion, and assume it to include moral and intellectual qualities.''*^ But there is a certain pedantry in thus scrutinizing these arguments. Plato's belief in immortality was a conviction of the psychological and moral impossibility of sheer materialism,''^ and a broad faith in the unseen, the spiritual, the ideal. The logical obstacles to a positive demonstration of personal immortality were as obvious to him as they are to his critics. If we must analyze the arguments of the Phcedo, rhe analysis of Bonitz is, on the whole, the most plausible."'* They prove, at the most, ^'^i Cf. the equivocal use of apfiovia in Phcedo, 93,94, to objections by establishing the inherent immortality of the denote the composition of physical elements that, on the soul as a form that always involves the idea of life. I may hypothesis under examination, is life, and the harmony of add that the fallacy in this ingenious argument may be spiritual qualities that is virtue. analyzed in various ways. In 103 B it is said that avrh to 282 Laws 896 C D iyat'Ttoy, as distinguished from to €xoiTa Ta evavria could never admit its opposite. A.(ito to eyafTcof is then sub- 283 Laws, 891 C, .ivJu^.iit. yip i> Aeya)^ TaOra irOp «al u5«,p divided into Tb iv ii^ly and Ti) tV T,5 4,v,rii. This seems to Mi Yl" «<«' «pa .rpiT« ;iY"''«»"-">"'»''™'' e^ai. Cf. Pluleh., yield throe things : the ideapersc, the idea in the particular, 30A: Thea:tet., 155 E, 184 D; Sophist, 246A; Tim., 51 C, and the particular as affected by the idea. (C/.SM;)ro, n. 252.) i raira, irrep ««l fiUwo^^v .... ^ova .VtI To.aiin,^ i^o^Ta g^t jj^g^g ^^^ fg^Hy ^^^y^ j^^ things: the idea, and the aAijSEiaf. particular affected by the " presence '* of or " participa- 284 1, e., the argument €« tCiv ei^avTimv ra ^vavrCa, 70 E ff., tion " in the idea. How the idea can be at once in itself proves merely that the state of the soul after death is the and in the particular may be, as wo have seen, a mystery, same as that before birth. The argument from avdfxvfjtm. But it does not justify the duplication of the idea, which is 73 3., supplements this by the proof that before birth the a device employed here only, and presumably with full soul possessed intelligence. The final argument meets all consciousness, for the purpose of the argument. For by its 167 42 The Unity of Plato's Thought the immortality of soul, not of the individual. This Plato presumably knew, but we cannot expect him to say so by the death-bed of Socrates or in the ethical myths, which obviously assume individual immortality."*^ But neither this unavoidable funda- mental ambiguity nor the fanciful variations of the eschatological myths convict Plato of serious inconsistency, or supply any evidence for the dating of the dialogues. 2. In the Republic Plato bases the definitions of the virtues and the three classes of the population on a tripartite division of the soul, which he warns us is not demon- strated absolutely, but sufficiently for the purpose in hand.^*° A poetical passage of the tenth book hints that in its true nature the soul is one and simple, but that we cannot perceive this so long as, like the sea-god Glaucus, it is disguised by the accre- tions of its earthly life.^" The tripartite division is embodied in the myth of the Phcedrus, which, if we pedantically press the poetical imagery,"*** implies the pre- existence even of the appetites.^*' In the Timcetis the immortal soul is created by the Demiurgus, the mortal, which falls into two parts, spirit and appetite, by his minis- ters."'" Here the tripartite division is subordinated to a bipartite, as Aristotle would have it."''' But we are explicitly warned that the revelation of a god would be required to affirm the absolute scientific truth of this division, and to distinguish precisely the mortal from the immortal part.""" In the Laws the question whether the Bv/io^ is an afPection or a distinct part of the soul is left open."''^ As Aristotle says, it makes no difference for ethical and political theory.'"'* The Phcvdo, attempting to prove immor- tality, naturally dwells rather upon the unity of the soul, as does the tenth book of the Republic. But it distinguishes, quite in the manner of the Republic, the three types of character, the (f>i.\6ao(f)0'; or ^i\ofia0r]<;, the (jyiXap^o's or (piXoTifio';, and the (fjiKocro)- fiaroi or ^tXo;^/3r;/iaTo?.-* Plicedo, 79 B C E, does not affirm that the soul is absolutely simple and uncompounded, but that the body is more akin to the composite, and the soul to the simple and unchanging. The contradictions found by Krohn and Pfleiderer in the psychology of the Republic, or between the Republic and Ph(vdo, on this point, are sufficiently explained by Hirmer."'" From all this it appears (1) that Plato affirmed nothing dogmatically with regard to the ultimate psychological problem. (2) That his primary classification was the distinction between the pure reason and the lower faculties subordinate to reason and dependent on the body. (3) That for ethical and political theory he found most helpful the tripartite classification — reason, spirit, aid the life in the individual is posited as an intermediate Flat. Forsck., p. .33, says that Rep., X, must be later than entity between life per se and the living individual, and Phcpdrus, for in the PhoeUriis immortality belongs to all pronounced immortal because, like life per se, it will not three parts of the soul I admit its opposite. Another way of putting it is to say that, 29»34BC 69C1I. in 106 E ff., ieii-aToi' is equivocally used for (1) that which _„, „j, ,,.,.„„ . ... ■ - » . ,, does not admit death (while life is preseut), (2) that which »• - 11.. does not admit death at all. °^°'' '^°''" «5Gor£,., r,24ff.; Re;)., 614 ff. C/. Laws, 904BC; Tin,.. ''"''"^- <^f- P'^'^dr.,2l6A. U D, i/ivxM ivcra redearai ra ovTa. The doctrine of avdfivrjcn';, then, repeated in the Politicus, is not abandoned in the Philebtis. This conclusion might have been affirmed a priori. For " recollec- tion," once indissolubly associated with the ideas and the pre-existence of the soul, would not be given up while they were retained. But pre-existence is assumed in the Laws,'^' and the ideas, as we have seen, occur in the Politicus^" and are reaffirmed in the Timmus, which also implies the soul's prior knowledge of all things, in language recalling the Phcedrus and Politicus.^" b) The general problem of the relation of mind and body is involved in that of immortality and the parts of the soul. As we have seen, the Timceus, though it assigns separate seats to the mortal and immortal soul, declines to dogmatize without the assur- 305 277 D, Ktv6vvfv(l yap riniov €ica(TTO? olov ovap eiSw? aTra^Ta 306 MenOy 85 C, itttrntp oi'ap aprt KtKlvtjVTal al idfai auTat, a! TtiK^v uawep iinap iy'-o"''- RiTCHiE, p. 143, misapprehends 30? Repuh., 402 A B ; cf Soph., 253 A ; Phileb., 18 C ; Thccc- this passage when he associates it with the "lie of approxi- (g(_ 201 E- Tim. 48 B, etc. mation." We rrmst use examples, not because in difEcult .,n., 0-0 t, ..... .... matters it is permissible to fall back upon picture- thinking and symbolism," but because only by beKinninB with easy examples can we learn how to convert our dream- ^^^ *^^* like knowledge into real kn()wletigo. The ydp introduces '-^^^^Supra, p. 39. the whole parallel, of which the dreamlike knowledge of 31141E, t>)^ toO iroirb! ^liffii- t'StiJe. all things is only the first point. i;o Paul Shorey 45 ance of a god, and the Laws leaves it an open question whether the parts of the soul are real parts or functions.''" Of the dependence of our cognitive faculties on bodily organs Plato knew as much or as little as we know."'' In the images of the wax tablet and aviary he anticipates all psychologies that explain memory, association, and recol- lection, and the distinction between latent and actual knowledge, by material analogies.'"* But sheer materialism and sensationalism he rejects, for many other reasons"* and because it fails to account for the synthetic unity of thought.""" The senses are the organs through which, not the faculties by which, we know.'" Sometimes and for some purposes he exalts pure thought freed from all contaminations of sense."' In other moods, he recognizes that human thought takes its start from a'i!crdr]ai<; or immediate perception."" He points out that the contradictions of sense give the first awakening stimulus to the generalizing activities of mind."'^" He admits that our minds are too weak to attain to knowledge without experience,'"' and require the aid of concrete examples in order to apprehend difficult abstractions.'"" We can recover the prenatal vision of the ideas only by association with their sensuous "copies," or by strenuous logical discipline.'"' And, though knowledge is not sense-perception, sense-perception is the best evidence that we have of some things.'"' Only a very literal-minded criticism will treat these con- cessions as a contradiction of the apotheosis of pure thought in the Phcedo. Slightly more plausible is the claim that Plato contradicts himself in regard to the nature and seat of desire, pleasure, and pain.'"'* The "early" Gorgias and the "late" Philehus explicitly affirm that the soul, not the body, is the seat of desire.'"" The Philebtis adds the psychological reason that desire is dependent on memory.'" The Philebus further explains pleasure and pain as mental states arising from changes in the body sudden enough or violent enough to affect the mind and pass the threshold of con- sciousness, in modern phrase.'"' Pain results from movements unfavorable to the "natural" condition of the body, pleasure from those that preserve or restore the natural 312 Sapra, n. 293 ; cf. also Rep., 612A, elTe iroAvciS^t tire 322poii<., 277 D. Cf. Phcedr., 262 C, iJ/iAi? iruis Aeyofitv fiovottSri'; , Phcedr., 271 A. ouk i\0VT€i i«acd TrapaScty/ittTa. SlSPAfydo, 96BC, irorepoi/ To aliii ianv "."■• Tim.. V! A, ri.yi. Uy..y ..pi toO .a.rh, ^.yo>,.y^. 1Q7 R-gnn R ouoei5 ai' nore epprjdr} /ji>jt€ ampa fiijT€ TjAtof p-rfTe ovpav'ov io6»'Tcur. 3l5p;icedo, SOB, 96; Phileb.,^; Tim., 51 C; Latvs, ^^^Thecetet., 201 B, wf Uovtl fj.6vov Imtv f at ai(r07jo-cis desire to the soul, but pain and pleasure to the body. «ai ai «aTi TaiiTat 6d|ac. C%aim., 159 A, a:(T9l<7.V Ti,.a naptxtiy. 326 Qorg., 493 A, TJjj Si vfvxis toOto ip (J i:T,evp.iai. citr.'. So ff i}s 66^a av Tts troi jrepi ai'T^« ciij. Phileb., 249 B, fK woKKutv Tim. 69C. tot' attrdritretof ei? tv Aoyitrfitp ^vyatpovp^tvov. 320 Rep., 524 B C ; Theatet., 186 A B. 321 35. 328 33, 34, 43 B C. C/. Rep., 462 C, 584 C, a! ye Sii toO ipuj<7if rjfiocr), iv iL if dfairAtjputric, A. J P., Vol. IX, No. 3, p. 284. toOt' i^ «al ^So.TO- TO ^i>tia ipa- ov SoKel Si, where oil ioKcl 333 43BC. C/. 33 D, 9« rii/ jrtpi rb (Ti,//u;^»jf TetVei. /'/k/c?*., 55 B, explicitly aflirnis that pleas- 442 A; Tim., 64 A; Phileb., 41 C, to tri^fj-a ^c to Trapi\6y.evov; ure is in the soul only : ttwc oiiK aAoyot' sVti ^ijStf a-^aObv tlfat Rep., 584 A, T«i Y« ^5u ec i/'l'Xp yiyvbtLivov; 442 A. .... ffAijif €C i/'i'XiJ '^"^ ivraida ritovt)V /iOfov. 33147E~50D, 46 C, 47 (.' D. 334 66 C, «al ya.p TroAeVovs KoX <7To(T«is KoX ^axaf oiiSkv aK\o 332 48 BC, SOD. .So rn.dicus in iVo(ao., 3.37 r. The "ap.X" i t6 ai^o «a; ai toutou iiriOuMm.. statement, Phileb., 31 iJ, tliiit pleasure and pain originate ™' Phoetlo, 94 B ff. ; Rep., 411 B, 390 D. 172 Paul Shore y 47 Gorgias and "later" Philebus. One might as well argue that the tenth book of the Hcpitbh'c antedates or abandons the tripartite soul because the doctrine is ignored in the proof of immortality attempted there. c) Lastly it is sometimes affirmed that the later dialogues show an increased preci- sion in the use of psych(jlogical terminology. In fact, however, Plato's psychological vocabulary is nowhere technical. He is content to make his meaning plain by the context. Nor can we find in Spinoza or Kant or in any modern text-book the consist- ent precision that is sometimes demanded of Plato. There is no modern terminology which sharply discriminates mental states that are or are not supposed to involve the element of judgment and belief. There is none that shows independently of the context the precise line intended to be drawn between sensation and perception, or distinguishes revived and compounded "images" from "images" regarded as immediate impressions. We cannot, then, expect Plato to emphasize distinctions not needed for his immediate purpose, but if we bear this in mind, we shall find no serious inconsistencies or significant variations in his use of such terms as al'o-^/jcrt? Bo^a and Aiadrja-i'; is any immediate sensation or perception or consciousness including pleasure and pain and Locke's inner sense.'"' As sense-perception it is rightly said to involve judgment,'" and so issues in 86^a, opinion or belief.'" The word Bo^a may be used in this neutral, psychological sense; it may be taken unfavorably to denote mere opinion as opposed to knowledge, or favorably when true opinions and beliefs are set in antithesis to the appetites and instincts.'" These shades of meaning arise naturally out of Greek usage, and would call for no comment if they had not been cited to convict Plato of inconsistency or change. The mental process that terminates in the affirmation or negation that constitutes Bo^a may be expressed in words, Xo'709,"" or take place in silent thought. In the second case it is Bidvoia — a discourse in the soul.'" Acdvoia, then, mere or silent thought, may be opposed to speech'*" or to thought accompanied or interrupted by sensation.'" It is thus often a synonym of pure thought.'" But the Republic, in default of a better term,"^ employs it to denote 336r;ieoe(e(.,156B,186DE,152BC; }'hileb.,3iA; Charm., ^wphileb., 38E, «ai Adyoj 6i yiyovty oirois 6 totc So^av 159 A. iKuKoiiitf. 337 iJep., 523 B, is U^vC, inb ri,, alcrSw^^t «pc.6M»'a. ^" PhUeh.. 38 D : Thcatet, 189 E, 190 A. Soph., 263 E, Phileb., as C, iroAAiicis iSoi-Ti .... PoiiAe(T«ai (cpi^eii- 0ai7)5 if Siii-oia ixiv «ai Aoyot raurdf n-A^i' i iiiy eVrbt T^s i^uxi)! iipo! aiiriji- Tav6' anep opa. This is not quite the modern psychologist's 5taAoYos, etc. recognition of the judgment involved in perception, but it 342 5o/)/i., 238B, 264A. leads up to Aristotla's characterization of sensation as 3,3 Thecetet., 195C D; Rep.. 511 C, J^a-om p.«. .... iAAi ^i Svvai^^v avM*uro>. «p.r.«,^. A,iali/t. Post, in fine. aMrj^.au: In PhcEdo. 73 D, it is the (memory) imagination 333 Pft/Ie6., 38B, e*c (i.i'^/i7j5 T« «ai aic^^ucws 5ofa, Phcedo, of modern I)Sychology : fcat et- rjj fiiai'Oia fXapOf TO €t5o5 TOO (« ToiiTwi- (sc. the senses) 6e yiycoito ti^vf^v " ^^^ 5dfa. Charm., n-atSos; in Rep., 603 C, it is the mind, including higher and 159 A, alP^^V<^'-^ 'i>uTo« iniBvfxta .... ra ei'ScKa a fATfSiv aWo'Ji StavofiTaiTis; c/- ifep., 526 A, &!» Siaroij- €TriKTT]To? Bo^a. Tim., 77 B. In Thecetet., 187 A, So^d^etv is (Jfji-at M^dfo*- evxwpci. almost the pure thought of Phcedo, 65 C. ^45533 D, ov n-tpi 61-0^0705 a/i^icr^ijTijo-ts. 173 48 The Unity of Plato's Thought the processes of mathematics and the sciences, which are inferior to the pure thought, vov<;, of dialectic, in that they depend on sensuous imagery and hypotheses.^" Plato describes memory images,"" and images of "imagination.""*' But he has no term for imagination as a faculty intermediate between abstract or verbal thought, on the one hand, and sense-perception, on the other. For i^avracria takes its color from (j)aiveTaL and (papTci^eTai, which include all forms of opinion and illusion, and it is often merely a disparaging synonym of Bo^a.^'^ But cjiaivcTai, though applicable to any notion that appears true, is most naturally used of the appearances of sense, and BO (j)avTaaia is pi'eferably the form of Bo^a that accompanies sense-perception,"" and may be defined as avfifiL^i^ alcT6^aea)<; Kal So'^a?.""' Pure infallible knowledge as an ideal must be sharply distinguished even from true opinion."*^ Strictly speaking, it cannot be defined,"'" and is unattainable in this life."'* Poetically it may be described as the vision of the ideas, and we may be said to approximate to it in proportion as we "recollect" the ideas by severe dialectic."'' Practically knowledge is true opinion, sifted and tested by dialectic, and fixed by causal reasoning."* "True opinion" may be disparaged in contrast with the ideal, or praised as a necessary stage toward its attainment.'" It is a very mechanical criticism that finds contradiction or inconsist- ency here. There is no limit to the contradictions or developments that a false subtlety can discover in Plato's psychology. Most of them are by implication explained away in the foregoing summary. I will close with two or three further examples which must stand for all. Susemihl "'" argues that the Thecvtefus marks an advance on the psychology of the Phcedrus because it includes WalinichmiingsnrfJicile in Boxelv or So'|o."''^ But the Thecetetus itself elsewhere attributes them to atadt)(nai>TatTia apa nal aicrflijtni raiiTOy eV T« 3ii Pluleb., 39 C; Phcedo. 73 D; Tkecetet., 191 D, ?« iv Sep^or, „a. ,i,r. ror, to.ovto«. Soph., 2U A, oTa„ ^i, k„»^ avrvv . - . .p . ■ - 1 aAAa fit' aladntrno^ Trapn Tcvl To toioOtoI' av rrddo^ : i. €. it is herO fvji TO ti&uiKov avrov, etc. ^" not a memory image, but a percept accompanied by belief. ^*^Phileb., 39 C, nept .... Tic jifAAoi/Twc; 40 A B, and « „ „ , « -r. - , . ,i_ « . ,- i. * ^v « ^' * 1.L 1- m- 3^' Son/t., 264B. Hence here 263 D, "pavTatria, and F/ifteo., the fantastic account of the functions of the liver, Tim., ' ' ^^^^^^ l^o ^ v/ *./,■*- ^a * .* i, ., Ti A D r- *. *• ti „ J * „■ n ^ ^ -. 40 A, "^ai'Tafffiara { = imaginations or imaged expectations) 71 A B. Grote, expecting the modern atomistic order: sen- ' ., , . , , , , . . t# , • - *■ « ;™-,™« ;^«o -^.A ™««f ;.. c.-^^^i^^A *Ur.i. ;„ r»i n^i. are said to admit truth and falst'hood. Modern atomistic sation, image, idea, judgment, is surprised that in Fhilco.^ . . . ,, on „ „ -1 „« »- fi 1. •** i • ;., 4.1,-. „.,i .^A psychology sometimes conceives images as mere pictures 39, memory and sensation first write Aoyoi in the soul, and : , . „. . .,.,.- i ^, , J. ■ . 1, ■ i • t involving no ailirmation or belief. Aristotle seems to ex- that, secondly, a painter supervenes who paints images of , . . . < o , - ^» . . ., . . I ,, )- p.t T> i. -1. • u press this view in De Annua, 4o2«, 10, eori 6 n Aavrao'ia these Aoyoi and the corresponding 6ofai. But it is charac- " . . , . t^ i. • .«! ,« ^J'\ • m ■ i- * r>i i. i i iL ■ p. iL -J ii. J €T«poy dtacfiti^ Kai aTTodtaacut^, But lu 42o(ii 12, thinking of toristic of Plato to put the image after the idea, the word, *^ ^ . « , .\ . ^^ . * < vu . ^ «» ],i.j , 1 », iv. ■ v. Philebus, 40 A B, he says, ai fie Aaj'Tao'iai -n-vovraL at ttAciov? and the judgment everywhere. Moreover, the images here , jc - « , « ^.-j^t ^ , are not the primary images of perception, which are in- ^^^ ^'^* cUidod in Plato's altrdr^aKi, but imaginative visualizations =*^2 Tim., 51 D E. ^53 Thecetetus, infra; supra, p. 43. of beliefs and hopes, lu the mature human mind this is 35i p/icerfo, 66. 67 ; Laws^mi'D,^'; vovv nork Qvriro\» Neue Plat. Forsch., p. 52. 31.9 209 ff. 174 yot. SE-'* Supra, n. 323. 360 Infra, on the Tkecetet. Paul Shorey 49 including judgment, and Bo^a may always be used either of the belief that accompa- nies aiadi)cn<;, or of the operation of the mind as opposed to sensation. Campbell thinks the rejection in Polilivns, 281 CD, of KaWCan^v ical /xeyiarriv iraaSiv as a satisfactory definition is an advance on Thect'td., 207 D, where the sun is defined as the brightest luminary, etc. But tlie point is simply that made "already" against Gorgias's /j-eyicrra roov avOpwirelcov TrpayfiaTcov as a definition of the matter of rhetoric."'"'' Again, Campbell thinks the mention of Bo^av and ^avraalav in Su2Jliisf, 260 E, as distinct faculties implies an advance on the Thecetetus. But the ThcmMus does not identify the words by using them once or twice as virtual synonyms. Tin; Sophist, 2(54 A, temporarily distinguishes (fyavTaata as a judgment present to the mind, St' alcrd-qaeox;,^' while Bo^a is a judgment, eV yjrvx^ kuto, Bidvoiav .... ihtcl (ny7]<;. But to press this would prove too much by distinguishing the Sophist from the late Philehus also. Lastly, Lutoslawski argues*'^ that the Phcedriis and Thecetetus are later than the Republic, because they familiarly employ BiivafMi.<; in a sense first explained in Repuhlic, 477 C. He overlooks Protag., 330 A, and the five occurrences of the word in Char- mides, 168, in a passage fully as metaphysical and abstract as that cited from the Eepuhlic. Indeed, the case cited from the Phcedrus, 246 D, Tnepov Bwafxit;, is a mere periphrasis like ij re tov -jnepov (j)vai<;, 248 C, and of the two cases from the Thecetetus, 158 E closely resembles the Charmidcs, using the word in the vague general sense of power or potentiality, and 185 C, v ye Bia t))'; yXcoTTrj^ BiivafMii, uses it of the senses, as do the Charmidcs, 168 D [ukoi], oi/rt9), the Republic, 477 C {oyjri.v kuI aKorjv), and the Protagoras, 330 A (6cf>6a\n6<; wra). Of equal value are the developments which Lutoslawski finds in the use of BiaXeKTiKi], (j>i\ocro(jiia p.edoBo'i, -q twv \6ya>v re'^^vrj, etc.^' PAKT II The dialogues were composed in some order, and a study of their parallels, coinci- dences, or variations in thoiight will often seem to indicate the plausible, possibly the real, historic sequence. That is not the purpose of this paper. I wish to show (1) that our conception of Plato's philosophy is not appreciably affected by placing the dialectical dialogues — the Sopliist, Politicus, Philebiis, and possibly the Parmenides and Thecetetus — after, rather than before, the Republic; (2) that the evidence is at present insufficient to date the dialogues of the "earlier" and "middle" Platonism, and that, again, from the point of view of the interpretation of the content, it does not greatly matter. The chief value of such negative results is that the way to them lies through a further positive interpretation of Plato's true meanings. There are certain perennial puzzles of language or thought that present them- 360Goi-ff., 451DE. '• In earlier works Plato used the term soul as free from 361 Cf. Thecctet., 158 C; supra, p. 48, n. 350. every ambiguity. Hero we see already a trace of doubts about the existence of the soul." He might as well say that the existence of the soul is called in question by Crito, 362 Pp. 331, 396. 363 Cf. the statement, p. 373, d propos of the innocent 48 ,\, exeti'o o ti itot' iarl, etc., or by Symp.^ 218.4, -riiv xapStav phrase, Thecett't., 184 C, tire i/'u^jji- flrt 6 ti 6t-i Ka\tli' that: ij i/zu^']'' yap ^ o ti 6ei ovo^octoi. 175 50 The Unity of Plato's Thought selves to Plato in three forms: as mere eristic sophisms; as hindrances to a sound logical method ; as serioiis problems of epistemology and metaphysics. They may be roughly enumerated as the problem of Being and not-Being, or the true nature of predication and negation; the antithesis in thought and things of the one and the many, the whole and the part, permanency and change, rest and motion ; the nature and possibility of real knowledge, and the meaning of consciousness of self. They are all directly or indirectly involved in the theory of ideas, but we may also study them in the group of dialogues in which they are most prominent. The EidhydcmKS presents a broad burlesque of all the chief sophisms of eristic. The Parmenides systematically exposes all the antinomies concerning the one and the many, the whole and the part, rest and motion, that can be deduced from the abuse of the ambiguity of the copula. The TItecefeiiis covers with persiflage the forms of eristic associated with one-sided theories of knowledge, especially materialism and extreme Heracliteanism, and makes a serious effort to solve the epistemological prob- lem. Here perhaps, and here only, does the Socratic avowal of perplexity express Plato's own state of mind. The Sopliisf makes explicit the lessons implied in the Parmenides and TliccEfetus, and finally disposes of fourth-century eristic so far as it affects the presuppositions of practical logic and sound method. The Politicus applies the method of the Sojdiist to the definition of the true statesman, reafiirming from a different point of view, and perhaps with less confidence in the ideal, the chief doc- trines of the Pepuhlic. The Pliilehus restates the true logical method that emerges from eristic or metaphysical debate and applies it to the ethical problem of the suinmum bontim. We will begin with the Sojdiist, which contains the fullest exposition of method and the most explicit analysis of the fundamental eristic sophism. For our purpose there are three topics; (1) the method of definition by dichotomy; (2) the problem of Being and not-Being; (3) the logical and grammatical analysis of the sentence. 1. The formal dichotomies of the Sophist and Politicus lend these dialogues a very un-Platonic aspect. They may be said to be characteristic of Plato's "later" style, so far as this can be true of a feature that is less prominent in the Laws than it is in the Gort'tii'; rhilcfi.,V.i,liB, TfiV iot.vvv 6iaop6Tr]Ta; etc. 3TOSi/mp., 205 BCD, iiJxfAdi/Tet . . . . n lUoi . ... if ^optoi' a^opiCT^ef TO TTtpi . . . . oi fj-iv aWj) Tpejro^ecot . . . . ot 6e Kaja ky Tt €l5os ioi-Tes. Cf. Pol/t., 2()2 D, to /xei- .... w? el- , , , . di^aipoO^re; .... Kdi yecoy ei* aVTO elvai. Soi'h., 222.\, iKTp€TT€a9ov; Polit.,2oSC; Tim.,GO'B, fivo^ £K ndpTuiv aifiopiadei' ; Soph., 229 G, 257 C, 268 D. 371 454 E, 5uo alBrj Buifjiev. The two eiSij are denoted, as in the Sophist, by adjectives in -«6!, 455 \, frequent also in pp. 464, 465. Socrates's humorous definition of rhetoric, pp. 462 ff., is in the vein of the Sophist. It starts from the alternative art (science) or not-art, 462BC, like Soph., 219 A; Polit.. 25S B. It is found to be a branch ot the pseudo-art KoAaKeuTixTj, which is divided Tcrpaxa. corre- sponding to a four-fold division of art obtained by two successive sub-divisions. Similarly Sophistic is finally found to be a part, p-opiov. Soph., 268 D, of the quadripartite iftavTauriKoi'. 372 79 A, ^w/iff .... 6v6 ci5i), etc.; 90 B, ai-ey T^y irept tous \6y0ViTi\vrj^; 75 D, oU €Jri{T0pttyi^6/ieOa TOUTO 6 eO'Tl. Cf. Phileb., 26 D; Poi4(.,258C. 373 In 424 CD, the division of letters KoiTi eiS>i and the subdivision of these ciStj is the method of Philel>v.s, 18 B C. We are further required to examine the things to be named by letters and see ct ev aiiroU fi-eo-Tif tlfiTj, and then apply one set of eiii to the other, precisely as in Phasdrus, 277 B. 371 147 D, €7rfi5il on-etpoi TO jrA^do? .... ^vKKa^elv eis €v (C/. Phileh., 18 B, orat- tis to aiTfLpov avayKaaSri irpwTOC Xap-fia- vtt,v, etc.) : 1-17 E, TOf aptOpi'oy nafTa Six** 6iopali'; 532 E, Kara ffota Bjj ciSij SUaTijKev; with which cf. 504 A; Phileti., 23 D, and Polit., 260 C, tJj^ . . . . Te'xf*)*' .... Qeiniov tl TTp BtftrTfjKiv with context. Compare further 544 C D, i) Tts Kal ef ciSct Staavii TLi-t (ceiTat with Polit., 2So B, Bi.a^opa<; .... oiToaaLTrep if ttSftri KflvTai; 580D, fitjjpTjTat KOTd Tpta et5»], oiJTut Kai i^wxif .... Tpi^^. 376 244 E, 253 C, 270 B, 271 D. 377 It is often affirmed ( Jowett, Natorp, Jackson, Bury, etc.) that the method of the Philclnts, Politicus, and Sophist is more advanced than that of the Phcedrus, in which " the complementary methods of generalization and division are applied merely to the discovery of Socratic definitions with a view to consistency in the use of debatable terms.'' Well, the subject of the Phmdrus being the necessity of basing rhetoric upon definitions and dialectic, that point is naturally emphasized there (265 D, ;>•' e«.jj). But all theories of a sharp distinction between the method of the Phcedrus and that of the " later " dialogues will only injure the scholarship ot their propouuders. The Phcedrus requires Ti)v o^oioTTjTa ritiy bvTvKc (265 E: cf. Polit., 262, and with KoiTov'-i'i'" ef. Polit., 287 C, 265 D, «aTa9p(iiieii-) and subdivide (266 .\, Te>fwi' oiJK fKavriKt), distinguishing and following up separately the right- and left-hand pallia (266 A, Stfid .... aptarepd; cf. Soph., 264 E, nopeviaHai Kara Toiiiri Sf^ia det fiepoc ToO TuijSei'Tos) , till the object of our search and of our praise 177 52 The Unity of Plato's Thought what seems to us the purely logieal treatment of the ideas as conceptual genera and species, the P/(a'(//*«s pictures the prenatal vision of them; the RcpiMic announces the most naive realism with regard to any and every universal ; and the Tiiinvus sol- emnly reaffirms their objectivity/" In the face of these facts, it is impossible to maintain that the dichotomies of the Sojjhist are evidence of a later doctrine in which the transcendental or naively realistic idea is discarded for the genera and species of conceptual logic. The emphasis and center of interest may shift from dialogue to dialogue — the doctrine remains the same. But the opposition between the two points of view cannot be denied or disguised. The noumenal idea is one. But not only as reflected in things, biit as subdivided by logic, it is many. By a natural and inevitable metaphor both Plato and Aristotle speak of particulars and lower species as parts of the higher conceptual whole to which they are subordinated. By the theory of ideas, as we have said, each of these parts, every subordinate concept, is an idea, not only the summum genus and the lowest species, as animal and dog, but the intermediate groups, mammal and quadruped, etc. The Aristotelian objection that the one dog will thus embody a whole series of ideas we have dismissed with the metaphysics of the subject. The relation of the particular to the idea is a mystery. And once we have accepted the metaphors "presence," "participation," "pattern," a number of ideas can be reflected by or present in one thing as easily as can one idea. But the elaboration of logical and scientific classification brings up the difficulty in a new and more specific form less easily evaded. For the theory of ideas any and every subordinate group apprehended as a conceptual unit by the mind is an idea.^'' For sound logical and scientific classification only true genera and species are ideas — not necessarily "true species" in the sense of the modern naturalist, but in the sense of the Platonic logic; that is, classes and groups based on significant and relevant distinctions. From the one point of view we expect every part to be an idea; from the other, Plato explicitly warns us against mistaking for true ideas what are mere frag- ments or parts.^" His embarrassment shows that he felt the difficulty. Sound and blame is found {26fiA; cf. Soph., 2.'?5C, (vi-aKoKovSilv etc.; Polit., 285 A, etc.; Lmcs, 894 A A, 963 D, 905 0. Each airrtu Siaipovvra^ .... iuitrnep av A»j00ij). He who Can thus dialogue brings out some aspect of it less emphasized in look ii^iv KtiL ent jroAAa is a dialectician (266BC; cf. Par- the others. We cannot expect Plato to repeat himself men., I.'i2 A, ^ia Ti9 cffws 5o«et iSe'a e'rai ejri jrai-To iSoi'Ti; Soph., verbatim. But these variations have little or no signifi- 235 C, Trjtf Tw** oi>Tui SvyafjityitH' (U€TtcVai Ka0' €KaiTTa re icai (jri cance for the evolution of his thought. jrdfTa fiiftoSoy) , Again, looking at it from the point of view 378 '?i/n>-a n '^5 n ''IS- n 3" n ^"C of scit'uco rather than of rhetoric and dialectic (270), the object of investigation is either simple or manifold. If SJ'iJep., 596 A., 479D; Soph., 22:, C, riira. SeHov ^Sv tUoi, it has many tlSr,, wo must enumerate them (270 D, raira ipi»- eVe''"£p o"to SUyy,^Kew is irtpor ov o Wyos, irip tVu,i.t.^ms ^■qaciiivavii cf. J'kilch., 10 D, npiy iv T15 Tov ipiflfio" ""'"u """ viv i,^' ^^Cv Tvxclv ifior. PftiVefc., 18 C D, the «e(r(«ii of irirra KOTiJn ri.^ (ieraji; ToO iireipou T« «o. ToJ ivoi) , and treat association in our minds makes a unity, and hence an idea each subordinate (» {cf. Philch., 16 D, itai rCy (1/ iKtivuiv Ua- "f vpo/iMaTiit^. arov TiakLv axrauTwc) as we do the original unity — i. c, study ^^^ Polif.., 287 C, implietl " already " in Phtr.dr., 265E; its potentialities (^tjvap.ts, uctlvo or passive; cf. Soph., c/. 1*0^/7.. 262 B, aAAo to m<>o« ci^a cISo? exe'Tw. We are more 217 DE) in relation to other tilings. Klietoric is a special likely to "nii^et with ideas" if we bisect the universal psychological application of this gencralscientific m(?tho,dr., 263 D E, iiviyKaatv ii/jii'; vi!o>~a.&t:lv .... 383 i?ep., 4-15 C, 544 AD, ^ riVa oAXtji/ *x^'5 Ihiav iroAiretos, ei/ Ti Tiav ovTttiv, etc.; PoliL, 2jS C, &vo fl6ij 6iat'0ij(H}fai riiv iJTts Kdi €f ciSei fiiai^acfi Tifl K€iTai; Tim., 83 C, «t5 iroAAa /itc i/(v;^7)t' Tjfiuji' noLTjirai; Phileb,, 18 C D, 23 E, fo^aat, 7r»j noTe rjtf Ka'i ai'oiiOia jSAejreii', opac 5e ei/ avToU tv yeVoy h'bv a^iow e'jrwi'U- avTuiV €v Kal TroAAa cxarepoi'. See SUpra, p. 39, n. 264. f.;«; Soph., 229 D, ^ xo.a Ixo" S^aip.a.v i^.a. in^yv^ia,! 223 A, 3^3 g^^ ^^ j ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^_ ^^g g_ ^^^ y^,^ ^^j^ ^^ 225C, 287 D, names for ideas often fail because the aucients ~ were neglectful of tj)? riov yci-ui^ Kar' ci5j) Siaipecreo)?. Polit., 260E, ii'oli'v^io^ 6^o^a ertpoi- oiro;? iropoxcupijcrai'Tts eeiTflai 3S0 478 B. Cf. Parmen., 1.32 BC, 142 A, 164 A, 166 A; Tn-oi; 261 E, TO iLri airov&aieiv t'iri Tois oi'oMairi, 203 C. Thecetel., 167 A, 188 D. 381 ".Already," Charm., 163D; Polit., 261E; Theatet., 33o pnrmen., 142 C, vv" Se ou« aiiri) itrrif ^ viroSeais, ei tv 168 B, 1S4C; Soph., 21i C; Laws, G21 D, and passim, tv . . . . aAA" ti er itrTiv; 163C, t6 6e fiij eanv .... apa tir/ n o'AAo '^^^Soph., 217 A ; Polit., 263 C, on Trao-t Tavrhv tirofo^a^eo' arjfLaiviL ij ovtria^ anovtriai'f 162 A B, with my interpretation, tVx's ii'op.a.i Kep., 454 A. A. J. P., Vol. XII, pp. .349 ff. ; Sophist., 256 D E ff. ; Tim., 38 B. 179 54 The Unity of Plato's Thought ciple — ov and ixrj ov, ovra and /^j; ovra; that /x?/ ov is not nonentity, but otherness; not nothing, but some other thing. ^'' If we can show that other dialogues, pre- sumably earlier than, or contemporary with, the Republic, ridicule the fallacy, or imply the answer to it given in the Sopliist, we have established a prima facie presumption for an interpretation of the Republic that will remove the contradiction.™" This is the case. In the Eidhijdemus the fir) 6v puzzle is one of the stock fallacies of the eristics. To desire to make Kleinias wise is to wish to make him other than he is, what he is not — not to be. The suggestion enrages Ctesippus, but Socrates bids him fir) ovofnaTi Biac- * half seriously, he was resolved to preserve for ea-ai. to /uj o.', besides its ontological meaning, can be naturally us.^d 3M286C, where, as in the Thecetet., it is attributed to in Greek idiom as a mere category embracing all particular Protagoras with a malicious allusion to iA^jOtia. cases of (a) negative predication, (h} misstatement. Any ^'J^iZdB; cf. Hipp, major, 2iii'E; il///ios, 314 D ff. particular p-yj ov is something other than the corresponding 396 429 D. Of ; and, generalizing, Plato may say that m*) ov is the other of tbc Of without imi)lying that it is the other of absi>lute Being. For the same reason, in explaining the nature of error and misstatement, he is justified in substituting for 3™430D, .Vl 6t to;? ifi^^iri npb, T

,9^. the general category m") ov a concrete (ailirmative) mis- ****'430D. *■*! 431 A. statement, " Therotetus flies." It all sounds crude enough, *f^ 433 A, Sdfuijuei' our/j rij aAij^et'o oiiTu irws (\Tikvdivai. otfnai- it we think it only through English idiom. But it was the Tepof toO iiovros, Cf. Soph., 251 B. 259 D. 180 397 KO/i>/*6Tcpos ^«c 6 Aoyos r} Kar' e/xe, etc. ; cf. .S'o^>/l., 239 B. 30« 191 B. Paul Shobey 55 It is obvious (1) that the fallacy is none to Plato; (2) that ho feels himself able to carry the analysis farther; (8) that he does not do so because he wishes to write the Crutylus, not the Sophist. In the Thecetctus the matter is somewhat more complicated. As we shall show more fully below, the object of the Thecetetus is not to refute or analyze the logical fallacy that false opinion is impossible, but to explain the psychological nature of error, and with it of cognition: rt ttot' earl tovto to ■jrciOo'; Tj-ap" •i]ixiv koL Tiva rpoTTov eyyiyvofievov.*"^ For this the fir) ov quibble would have been wholly unfruitful. But it could not be altogether ignored. Hence it is perfunctorily dismissed in a page with the admission that the method of elvai and m «'^«' offers no explanation of error, since 6 So^d^aiv €V TL So^d^ei, and o fx,ijSev ho^d^wv to irapdiTav ovSe Bo^dl^ei.*"* We are thus left free to pursue the psychological analysis kuto, to elBevac Kal ixi]. But it is absurd to suppose that Socrates is really baffled in the ThecviHiis by a fallacy at which he laughs in the Euihijdcmus and Cratijlus. And his real opinion of it is sufficiently indicated by his attribution of it to Protagoras in this very dialogue.*"^ The final analysis of the fallacy in the Sophist is introduced and accompanied by persiflage in the manner of the Euihydcmus and Cratijlus, and by hints that it is a mere eristic puzzle.'* The final common-sense formula that true speech and opinion represent xa oma w e;^€i or w ecni. is not new.*"' It evades the psychological prob- lems of the Thcivtctus, and it is reached by arguments purely logical and practical. If we do not admit that jxt] ov normally means otherness rather than non-existence, we shall make all rational speech and thought impossible.*"' The absolute 6V (and n>] ov) of the Parmenides to which no intelligible predicates attach is reserved for ontology and mysticism.*"" But iv toU Trap rj/xlv \6yoi<; (251 D) we must accept a doctrine of mixed and relative Being and not-Being.*'" The result of the inquiry is that, if Plato in the Republic falls into this fallacy, the Republic must be earlier and less mature, not only than the Sophist, but than the Euthydemus and the Cndylus. But Plato does not yield to the fallacy in the Repub- lic. He merely varies his terminology to suit his theme. He needs the transcendental absolute Being for the world of ideas as opposed to the world of sense, for the sym- bolism of the idea of Good, the image of the sun, the cave, and the conversion from the shadows to the realities. It would have been singularly tactless to preface these passages with an explanation that ov, like m ov, is a relative term, and that all oWo with which human logic can deal are likewise p-i] ovtu. There is no occasion for the ovTa and prj ovTa of practical logic here. Absolute not-Being is consigned to total W3 187 D. ■"'* 188, 189 A. lO? 263 B, Aeyei ii avrSti' 6 /iti' aAtjflijs Ti oi'Ta cil iVrc irepl croO. ■i"5 lu Socrates's ironical defense of uUra-Protagorean- Cf.Cratyl. , 3!i:>B,6i avTaii'Takiyjiw's eaTi.vi\tieri<;; Eutfiudem., ism, 16" A, OUTii yip Ti )ii) oi'TO SuwaToi' Sofiaai, aire iMa Trap 281 C, i^^i ri oi'Ta /jlcv TpoTror Tii'i Aeyei, oCr ftei'TOi lo! ye «x". a iv nairxv- Cf. CratljL. 286 C. 40S 2SS C, 239 B, 219 B C, 252 C, 259 A, o Si viiv eifiiiKat^ff e'rai *'^**236E, evavTioKoyia /ii) 5 Ae'yOfiec «Ae'y^a? ^ ij.i\pt. Ttsp efLe .... TraAai Ka'i Ti viiy TjTTTj^ei'Of av ciipoi jrepl rhv Toy ftjj ai' iSucaTjJ, AeKTeoi' «al eiteiVw ffa^oTTtp rjjiiets, etc., 260 A. 0..T0! JAeyxor, etc. ; (■/. 212 A, 213 A B, 252 C. Note also the ,„„.,-,l^ , ,q „ 1- «.!■ . e .1. c k-. -.1 n ■ i 9 2o8 E ;c/. supra, p. 39. close parallelism of tins part or the So/)ft(s( with tbo inten- ' ■" ^ ' •• tional fallacies of the Parmenidts, infra, pp. 58, 59. "o 251 A, 251 C D, 259 A B. 181 56 The Unity of Plato's Thought ignorance as it is iu the Soj^hisf.*" Pure Being is reserved for the ideas, as it is in the Timanis, which was written at a time when the results of the Sopliist were cer- tainly familiar to Plato. Its antithesis, the world of phenomena, is described as tum- bling about between Being and not-Being — as a mixture of the two; the things of sense are always changing — they are and are not."" It is not necessary to dash the spirit of mystic contemplation and enthusiasm by the reminder that the ideas them- selves, when drawn down into the process of human thought, move to and fro and partake of both Being and not-Being."' We are concerned here only with the broad contrast between the two worlds. To say that the objects of sense and the notions of the vulgar tumble about between Being and not-Being, is merely another way of saying that they belong to the domain of the mixed or relative Being and not-Being described in the Sojohisf."* Only a deplorably matter-of-fact criticism can find in this adapta- tion of the terminology to the immediate literary purpose a concession to a fallacy ridiculed throughout the dialogues. And the arguments that would prove the results of the SojMst unknown to the author of the Republic would ap23ly almost equally to the Tiniceusj for there, too, Plato calmly reinstates the absolute ov which the SojjJiist banishes from human speech as no less contradictory than the absolute /jlt] 6v, and treats as an inaccuracy the expression to /uj) 6v fxr) 6v elvat, the practical necessity of which the Sophist demonstrates.*"^ Yet the treatment of the "same" and the "other" in the ■yjrvxoyovia (35) proves that the analysis of the So2)hist was familiar to the author of the Timanis. 3. The explicit discrimination of ovofiara as names of agents and of p/jfiaTa as names of actions is peculiar to Sopliist, 262. So the special definition of Sidvoia is confined to the Hepiuhlic"'^ and nearly every dialogue employs some definition or distinction which Plato does not happen to need again. Even if we concede that this greater explicitness of grammatical and logical analysis marks the Sojihist as late, its significance for the development of Plato's thought is slight. It is not repeated in the Politicns or Laics,"' and it is virtually anticipated in the CrafijlKs, where it is twice said that X070? is composed of prjixara and ovofjLara.'" It is barely possible, but not necessary, to take pTjfiara here in the sense of "expression" or "phrase." Even then it must include the verb. For ovo/xa is [ilainly used iu the sense of "name" or "noun." Lutoslawski's argument*" that "it would be unjustifiable to apply to the Cratylus a definition given only iu the SopJrist," obviously begs the question. The expression (425 A), kuI crvWa^a<; av awnQivTe; e^ hv to, re ovofiaTa Kal to, pij/xara avvTiOevrai, seems to put ovofiara and pr)p,ara on the same plane and is unfavorable to *ii 477 A, tin ov nT/SafLfj ; 478 D E, toO TToi-Ttos ^Jj ofTo?. Not *i* Cf. A, J. p., Vol. IX, p. t%7. foreseeiiiK modern philology, Plato (iid not thiuk it noces- ^i^ T/rn., 38 A B. ^ifi^wpra, n. 346. sary to add iri^Tw or M.)6<.Mii a third lim.^ in 478 B, when ha /l/fi/. Similarly ApIvLT {licitrdijc). nient." •*"4iyHCI}. *1^ 425 A, 431 C, Aoyot ydp irov ii»« eyw^iai, J) TOVToiV ^vy6fut merely to sliow that, conceding the iitmost that the texts will bear, the difference very slightly affects the relative maturity of the thought in the two dialogues/"" THE PARMENIDES A great deal of ink has been s{>illed over the Parmenides, and the profoundest mystical meanings have been discovered in its symmetrical antinomies/'' To rational criticism nothing can be more certain than that they are in the main a logical exer- citation more nearly akin to the Euthydemus and the Sophist than to the Tlmccus^ and that they are n(jt meant to be taken seriously except in so far as they teach by indirection precisely the logic of common-sense expounded in the Sophist.*" In style, however, the Parmcaidcs presents few, if any, traces of the elaborate "late" manner of the Sophist/-^ and this fact makes the identity of doctrine the more signifi- cant. Both the Thccetctns and the Sophist allude to a meeting between Socrates and Parmenides/'* The method of argumentation employed is characterized in the Phcvdrus as a kind of rhetoric, and in the Sophist as mere eristic/"^ Many passages closely resemble arguments and expressions which are ridiculed in the Thccetetas and Sophist^ and which are presumably not serious here. *20C/. supra, p. 33. n. 218. The further points made by Lutoslawski are nearly all misapprehensions. He says that the admission that philosophic teaching may be given by continuous lecture, as well as by the method of questi(^u and answer, is first found in '217 C. But Thecetet., 167 D, recognizes the same choice. The meaning of fiedo5o<; in Soph., 227 A, is not more definite than that in Phaedr., 270 D, and Rep., 53^i C ff.. except in so far as the method of theSophist and Polit'cus lays more stress on the mere mech- anism of definition by dichotomy. Cf. sup)-a, n. 377. The notion of logical exercise is not new here, but is found in Meno, 75 A, iva Kai yevijTai troi fj-iXirr), etc., and is implied in Thctntct., 147 A ff. Dialectic in the Republic is as clearly the science of the division of notions as it is in the Phcedrus and Sophist. See 454 A, 53.J B, supra, n. 305, See also on 6vfafit<;, supra, p. 49; and on the ideas as souls, su^^ra, p. 39, <2i BuK^ on "Later Platonism," Jour, of Phil., Vol. XXIII, pp. 161 ff., gives a useful summary of recent discus- sions. 422 Cf. supra, p. 54. De Plat, idcarum docfrina, pp. 41 ff. ; A. J. P., Vol. IX, pp. 185, 290 ff. i2:tNAT0RP, Avckiv, Vol. XII. 424 Themtet., 183 E; Soph., 217 C. Either allusion might precede or follow the actual composition of the Panjie- nides. Natoep, Archiv^ Vol. XII, pp. 291, 163, supposes that The dialogue itself abounds in hints Plato at the time of Thecetet., 183 E, intended to discuss rest and motion, but, writing the Parnienidcs muc!i later, changed his mind and devoted Part I to objections to the ideas, and Part II to metaphysical problems still debated. *'^ Phti'dr., 261 D, rov ovv 'EXtartKov IlaAoju^STji' (Zeno?) AfyovTa ovk liTufv rex*'?! wore titaifeaOai T019 aKOVOV(ri to. avra 6fj.oia Kat avofj-oia, Kai if Kal noWa, etc. Soph., 259, It is equally foolish to deny or to take seriously the antinomies (ei-ttfTitiia'cau') that arise from the communion of ideas and the relativity t)f ou, ftri bv, and ddrcpof. Cf. 259 D, to 5e Tavrbv tTtpov ano^aivfiv afj-jj yi jtjj .... Kai. to fiiya (TtitKpov wai to OfJ.oioi> afojuoioc .... oy7€ rts eXeyxo? ouro? a\r}9iy6q, etc. Such contradictions are nothing difiicult when one knows the trick. 259 C, «tT€ «is n ^a-^f Trbi- *caTai'ei'o>j»cuis, Cf. Parmen.^ 159 A, KOLi ndi/ra to. it'avTia Troifli) ovksti X'*^*"''^* tupfjao/iec, and Socrates's congratulations to the Sophists in the Euthyde- mus on the ease with which Ctesippus picked up their method (:J03E). 42'". E. g., the quibble, Parmen., 147 D ff. (of which .Alice's "jam every other day " is the only English analogue), that the "other" is the "same" because the word irtpov in Greek idiom applies to both, and the word must refer to the same essence. This is parodied by Socrates in Euthy- dem., 301 B, and explained in Thccetet., 190 E, en-ttSij to p^^a e'T«poi' Tip trepw Kara prjixa tuvtov iariv. The extension of this reasoning to the afo/ioioTaToi' is deprecated as eristic in 183 58 The Unity of Plato's Thought to that effect. It is recited by one whose light has gone out more completely than that of Heraclitus's sun, and who now is devoted to horsemanship.'"' Parmenides himself characterizes it as a kind of intellectual gymnastics which it would be unseemly to practice in the presence of the uninitiated,*'* and explicitly terms it a -rrpayiJiaretdyBi] iraiBidv.*'^ He chooses as his respondent the youngest interlocutor, on the ground that he will be least likely -rroXvirpayfiovelv — that is, to interrupt the flow of plausible ratio- cination by distinctions like those with which Socrates checked the stream of fallacy in the Euthydemus."" These are probabilities. The proof is that the fallacies are symmetrically deduced by a systematic abuse of the ambiguity of the copula, and that Plato gives us clear warning of this at each turn in the argument. The symmetry is of course not perfect, and there are various minor fallacies that arise from other equivocations. An analysis full enough to show this in detail would defeat its own object by wearying the reader and obscuring the main design, which is not open to debate."' The groups of contradictory conclusions deduced from the hypothesis that the One is and that the One is not derive almost wholly from the equivocal meaning of "is" — from taking "is" or "is not" to signify now the absolute uncommunicating Being or not- Being which the Sojihist dismisses as impracticable, and now the relative Being and not-Being, or otherness, which the Sophist establishes as the only tenable use of the terms in human logic. And near the beginning of each hypothesis we are distinctly warned of the sense in which "is" and "is not" must be taken. "^ This is perhaps sufficient; but another way of putting it will bring out the parallelism with the SojyJiist still more clearly. The eristic combated in the Suji^tist may be resumed in two fallacies: (1) The noumenal unity of the idea is incompatible with any suggestion of change, rela- tion, or multiplicity. The ideas will not communicate or mix. Predication is impossible. You cannot say, "Man is good," but only, "Man is man" and "Good is good.""' Phileh., 13D. The Parmen., 148 A, infers that kut' avTi, i^Ldtoslawski, p. 418, misuuderstands this, saying: TovTo awav anaat. 6fj.oi.ov av etij. Now, it is precisely the func- *' It is only in the Pannenides that discussion (n-oAun-pa-y- tion of deceptive rhetoric irav Tjavri o^otoOf, Phccdr., 261 E; ttovelv) is declared useless." and it is precisely this that the Sophist, 259 D, and the «3i ggg Apelt Beitrage. PA/icdits, 13 A, stigmatize as eristic. Similarly the antino- jt,/,\,.,-t> ■■ - . . ,o\iio/^ - f • . u 1 J »■ ^-.nn-r. .111? .1-1? .--T? .rnr-r. ^'^ (D 1-ilD, ii tv earai. to tv; (2) 142 C, vw it oux auTT) miesof whole and part in 137 CD, 144 E,14jE,1:)i E, ISOCD, ,,.,.. . , .. .,,..,. ,iw— /-, .. „ „ „ . ,. „ , ,. cffTtt* »i yn-otftirts ei ci' Cf .... aAA ti ec eiTTif . . . . ; (4)1.^(0. recall rhecp(e(., 204, 205, and A-oi)ft., 24... On rest and motion ,,. , , . ... ,,, . '. c/. 139 B with Sopft., 250 C, 146 A, 156 E, 162 E, With 255 E; '^ ' , ,-,,-„!,'.■ < • ■ •■---,, Theaetet., 181-3. In Theaelet., 180 D, the words ira «ai oi ■ i- .,, ■ ■ ■ . ,,., ,,.,,,, ■ , , . . . X'^P^^ °t TaAAa TOU ecos Cd'ai; (b; luU L , OTl fT€pov Tl Acvoi TO ffxuTOTOuoi .... TrauiTw^Toi nAioiio« oio^Efoi Ta IJ.CV faTavat, Ta .... . , . , . . . ■ , . ,. .... u 131 . • 1 ■ ■ f n. '"' ""'' "'■'"' """ "" " '"' '"''■ "" '"H-'y o Aeyei (o/. Soph., &e Ktvei(T0ai Ttav ovzuiv, show Plato s real opinion of these „r.^ ,-,, .,.„t^ 7 - p .. . ^, absolute antinomies; c/. .Sopfc., 249 C D. For the negation ' ' 1? ,.,■ • 1 ^i , ,, . . ,,. ,, J- . , ,,., , ,,!, D c. I oiori noAAiui' ouSei' iciuAusi. 1 rom this ouirios (ieT«x«'>' and then of all intcUiBible predicates cf. 142A, 164B; Soph., 248C; , , . . , , , ,-^ ,,..j,. • i- • - „ . ,.„"„ T , ,T ,A -1 TO eifttt ^»j c are deduced; contra ( i) 163 (_, to fie un eaTo- .... Theit'tet., 1.x B. In general the Parmentdes exeraplines , .,, .... , ^ . ... , , ,. ,, , ■ , . „,, c ■ J o 1 *'"' '"' " "*^° o->lpaO'«i ri ouirias oirouo-iai'; (e/. AR., Met., what the .Sop/iiS< terms, 245 E, Tous .... fi^axpl^oAoYou^e^'ou« , ... 1004(1, lb), OFTOC Te ITfOL KCLi fl)i. 433 251 E, 259 E, 251 C; TAetf^e^., 201 E -202 A. The tJSii' 127128 C. ■(.lAoi, 248 A {cf. 246 B, 248 E), represent not so much a par- iOQ.orT\ .00 TM? fri r. ,1 I I,- 1 .1 IV L ■ ticular school as a generalized tendency of thought. They 428 133 D, 136 D E. The Ku^ftj/i/emus hints that listening ,., , ■ , , „, . ■ .. r^, \- . ■ . j . . , ,,,■■,- .„,■■., . are literal-mindod Platonists or Eleatics who introduco to ©nstic may be a useful discipUno. luis is the ineauing . , , • n, ^ , . . r. ■. . , .■ . . i .- ,,, . . ' ,. ,.. J . „,,i, , ,„,r,> rt into logic Plato s (and Parmenides s) poetical absolutism, of the intervention of the fiai/ionoi', 272 E, and of SOjI), often t.i . 1 -.• ■ • i- . .■ e .. i- n m . , , Plato s criticism is not a recantation of earlier I'lato- misuuderstood. . c .. ■ 1 ■ o . .>,t,,^ ■ ■ 1 . .- ..i * uism.fortlieir dogma in .'^o/'/^-.24S(_ , is precisely what I lata «I9 137 B. himself says in Tim., 38 A ; c/. supni, p. 39. 184: Paul Shobey 59 (2) The negative "is not" denotes absolute non-existence, which is unutterable and unthinkable.*'" Plato answers in substance: (1) We must admit the mixture of ideas, the seeming multiplication of one idea by communion with others, as a condi- tion of intelligible speech. Without it we cannot even predicate existence, identity, and diversity."^ (2) Absolute not-Being is no more nor less a problem than absolute Being."" The only not-Being that finds a place in intelligible speech is otherness — - that which is not this, but is some other thing.'" Now, in the eight or nine"* hypotheses of the Parmenides these two principles are alternately and systematically violated and recognized — the consequences in each case being drawn out in exact parallelism to those indicated in the Sophist. In the absolute theses the ideas are taken in self-identity, in isolation, x'^P^'^-*"' The one has no parts, and the exclusion of parts is found to shut out all predicates that imply multiplicity, space, time, or number."" And since these are the forms in which Being appears,"' we cannot even say that it is."" There is neither knowledge nor speech of it.'" In the absolute negative theses /xrj 6v is taken to exclude every sense of ehai, with a similar result."* In the hypotheses concerned with relative Being and not-Being the reasoning is reversed. If we speak of unum and alia, we imply existence in some sense. The existent one is two (unity and existence), has parts, and so by necessary implications is clothed in all the predicates of space, time, and relation."^ Instead of abiding in isolation, the one everywhere united with essence, ova-ia, is divided up among the indefinite multiplicity of oma."'' And it is explicitly affirmed that this is true of the most abstract and ideal unity that we can conceive."' Similarly, starting from the assumption that /xr) 6v (or (J-rj ev) means something, and something different,"' we deduce first "participation" in various predicates,'" and finally the defiant paradox of the Sophist that fxr] 6v eVrt.'™ The doctrine of these relative hypotheses is that of the Sophist. The reasoning of the absolute hypotheses is that of the preliminary airopiai ^34 238 0-241 A, etc. *42141E, oiih' apa oiiTw? (imv uare ev eivat. DamasciuS 435''o'>C ''56 \B '•59 E etc ^^^^ that Plato does not negate tf of et*, but Simplicius, Phys., 88, 32, contradicts him. *«U2A; cf. Soph., 218 C ff. *** 163 C, 161 B, oOrw 5»j (f OVK ov ovk e\fL jrw? ov^a/JiTi. «SThe third «Vc Si, to rpcTO.- x,y,^^ev, 155 E, stands by 4«112C, it iAAo t. <,,^,a.Vo^ t6 .Vt. joi iv . . . . roioOrov 436 250DE, 25SE, 437 257 ff. itself. It is in some sort a reconciliation of the contradic- j^ ^^ .,, „,^„.,,„^ „;„^ ^,p, ,-^,...^ etc. ; cf. Soph., 244 D ff. tions of the first two, and, by implication, of all. ..c.r, • • - ,, «*« . 446144 B, en-i TTavTa aptt TToAAo oi'Ta rf oviTia i'ei'€/x>)Tat, etc. ; 430 137 C, 139 E, Tov Bi ye evh^ X"P'" i*"""! ''ijl' 4>ili ^otc *a..;i to iy aiT^^ V, ovtr.a elvai i^i„rv ; Theatct. 166 C, i««l a.poi'»j(rews does not mean "an ideal totality of individual Phccdo, 99 B, but more probable that he deliberately pre- eudeavors .... transmitted from generation to genera- ferred the periphrasis which is far more impressive in the tion." The word is used here not only for the first but for context; a\^o tiey ri eim to alnoy ti^ ovti, a\Ao 5' iKi:lvo ivsv ov the last time. Campbell's citation of Sophist, '259 D, is to oItlov ovk ay iror elr] aWtoy. irrelevant; cf. supra, n. 439. The use of Svvaiiit proves 462 See Campbell on 263 D. nothing ; cf. supru., p. 49. 308 C has nothing to do with the modern notion of building up a science by selection, <63 In 267 successive dichotomies have distinguished the "while useless observations and notions are rejected ;" nor statesman only as the caretaker of the biped human flock. with CratijL, 438 E. The statement, 308 E, that the royal f' remains to define his specific service to this flock, 287 B, art puts to death, toO? ju>7 5uca/iei'ovs Koii'tuceit', is not an -.H tJ, o03 L ti. admission of the "impossibility of proof in moral ques- 464 26911. tions," and in any case is virtually identical with Proiao., .._„ ,l , . . .• ^, . ■ ... ...i.^T, . . s - ,j . . J. ,,T,. 465 tor the characteristic Platonic generalization of 322I).To.^,a..aMc.o.a,6o««a.5.«„M...X"-"— . The "already" "°?. °', "r" r'.r ^^ "'f ■■"S™«f.;'-' ^5«E' °' Cra(-/(.,388BC. C/.Phae6.,23D. Sophist, 2o7 C, except as the concept or idea (liKe auy other coucept) is ono "already" iii Rt-p., 438 CD. The question *66268D, 277 ff. i I nnr> r *'0 7rpb? aAArjAa, 284 B. The parallel with Rcp., 531 A, <6iThe employment of a periphrasis m Phcedo, 99 B, for .... - , , , /' , u.«^/i, ,,,,.,, 1 ■ i-v. /i . , ■ OL,, TA aAAijAois ot'ttjiifTpoui'Tts, seems to have been overlooked. the technical term awamov used in the Polificus,2>MJ>, «- r » 287 C, 281 C E, etc., and in the Timcetis, 46 C, and nowhere *' ' 284 D, ai« apa rtyrjrdov 6ixoiM()^c recognizes the control of mar- «3Tho utrpiou ytieffi!, 284 A B, to which every artist riagc, 4fiO, and tlio importance and difficulty of rocon- looks, is virtually the idea which he tries to realize, ciling the two temperaments. 503C. It does not happen Corp., 503E. to bring the two ideas together. The Laws, 7"3 A B, does. »;t Cf. irpbt i^A.)^a four times in 283, 284 with Thea-tct., «s2 44r, D. It cannot be a democracy, because ^lAdcro^c 160B, 182B, Parmen., lti4C. .... irA^Sot iSiivaTov tUm = PolH., 202 E, (»"■■ ov^ «o««i 475 274, 275. *""' Oorff; 517 B, 521 D. irA^Sos ye ev :r6Aei TaVTriv Tiji* effiaTijjuiji' Sui'aTof eli'ai KTijaatjOal, «"304D, £u(fc2/i . 1- ' T^ *i J nnt nnn 'i with space. See SiEBECK, p. 84. The Timants docs not 5'»So Plato generalizes (inxii, £«»ij/d., 271, 272: K>?A.)o-c! »' ' '' (,i.Mv rex.",), ibid., 289E; e,p..T«^, ibid., 290B; Laws, explicitly identify matter and space merely because 823B; Polit., 299D; Rep., 373B; Soph, 221, 222; nMou^^ia, >t ■., V ol. IX, p. 416. But whcthor WB Call it matter or spaco. ths Lavts, 90tiC, cf. Symp., IXbC, Gorg., 508.4; /ti^iijAeio, . .. , • ^i. .i t .• ■ I- n... T. ■ f •m-n - .1 ; ; •>«- n „„.i x""?". the iroi-Sexes, the mother of generation IS one. Laws, 910 1); woiTjffts, .Symp., 20dB; tptu^, ibid., 20jD. and a r , a . passim; yincai'!, Polit., 2G1 B, etc. ; 5iaKpiTi«^, Soph., 226C; 503 Siebeck compares it as the antithesis of the idea to Tii6avovpyiKri, ibid., 222 C ; KoAoxcc'a, Gorg., 463 B if. ; the the ti.ri bv, the eVcpoi' of the Sophist, the matter or space of comparative degree, TO f^iAAoi- rt Kai ^ittov, Philcb.,Zl\ and the Timceus, the principle of necessity or evil, and the many minor examples, Polit., 279, 280, 289. H-^ya «ai /ii/cpoi-. More precisely (p. 89), the o'lreipoi- is the f*'" SCHNEIIJER, p. 1.^3, and .Siebeck, p. 73, make it a mediating link between the OaTepoi- of the Sophi.'it and the mediating principle between the idea and phenomena. x^P" of the Timwus. Now these terms undoubtedly have But Plato never speaks of the "idea," but only of the ideas this in common, that they are variously opposed to the or the idea of something. Uipaq is itself an idea and is the ideas, but Plato employs thoni in different connections and cause of limit, in any given case, precisely as the idea of we cannot equate them. Sikbeck argues (pp. .5811.) that whiteness is the cause of white, or the idea of dog the the absolute hi oy abandoned in the Sophist (2riS E) must cause of a doe- mean something. Uo Huds it in the ab.solute hypothesis of 190 Paul Shorey 05 physical and chemical "process," as opposed to ideally or mathematically defined "states.'""* (4) The insatiate, limitless character of undisciplined desire and appetite — a conception which we have met in the Gor(ji(is.''"' The iMKTov is the mixture or union of •7repa<: and a-Kupov in any or all of these senses giving rise to various yevecrei^, both in the world of matter and in souls.'^'" As the union of matter and form it may be "equated" with the "oft'spring" of the idea and the "mother" in the Timoius.^"^ As the mixed life of pleasure and intelligence it obviously may not.*' AItm is the principle of cause in general, and in particular the cause of the due mixture of pleasure and intelligence in the happy life."" In the one sense it may be identified with the Demiurgus who embodies the principle of cause in the Timceus.'"^" The ultimate cause is conceived by Plato as beneficial intelligence which is virtually synonymous with the good. He intentionally confounds the good in human life with the good in the universe. It is possible, then, to say that God, or the good, or beneficent intelligence is the cause alike of the cosmos or ordered world and of the well ordered life.*" We may identify the supreme mind (toO?) with the Demiurgus of the Timanis and the Idea of Good in the Republic. We may conceive the ideas as thoughts of God, identify God with the sum of his thoughts {yor^aa j/OT/o-ew?) and so bring the ideas under the principle of ahia as not only formal but efficient causes.^'" But in all this we are mechanically "equating" the terminology and imagery — the literary machinery, so to speak, of three distinct lines of thought in three different dialogues, for the sake of attributing to Plato a rigid and ingenious metaphysical system wholly foreign to his spirit. We have already discussed the psychology and the main ethical argument of the the Parmenfdes as the antithesis of the fv regarded as the ment and measure are spoken of in connection with the symbol of the principle of the ideas. From this it is an ideas, and movement and measure imply space! easy step to identifying it with matter which is also the 5ii4p;jj7f),.^ 2iB, 25C, 26A. antithesis of the idea. But it is not true that the absolute 505 27 E, 31 A, Gorg., 492-4, supra p. 24. ,.;, 5.. must mean something. Plato's rejection of it in the 506 27 0, 2.-)e', 26B, «»l iylvx<^:/ai wdfi^c\\a, v.bicb alone Sophist is sincere, and is confirmed by the Parmcudes refutes the equation, iTr.ipoi- = matter. which makes it unspeakable and unthinkable. The abso- aoTTnTi lute oi-, as we have seen, was reinstated for religious and r orr.. * . i. , ■ . . , , . , i, - I, ui u ,.* -^'-^There is a slight equivocation m the assumption metaphysical purposes, as it is by many philosophers of ,,.„^, .. , , .,„,-, , . j • . ..- rriL I, i- f f ■ ™ (•-' i>) that the mixed life of pleasure ana intelligence every ago. There was no such motive for forcing a mean- il i , , . , -, . ,, i, 1 i. - - -1 i.1 • t i-a t.- t -i. belongs to the ju.iKToi' of irepas and ajTctpof. mg upon the absolute mi ov, and the identification of it ^ '^ '^ ^ with matter is, as we have seen, quite impossible. {Supra, -"^' -'*-^' "■*^- Q^ 261.) 5'" In SOD the ^afjiAnciji' tlivxw, ctc.,= the soul of the SiEBECK then proceeds to associate the logical aireLpov world, and the alrU^ Suia^n'^ the Demiurgus. and the Sdrepov with space and to attribute to Plato an s^' Cf. Idea of Good, pp. 188, 189, n. 2. " intelligible " as well as a phenomenal space by pressing 512 Schneider identifies God not with the Idea of Good, all passages in which the logical relations of concepts are but with the ideas. The ideas, he argues, must be real and expressed in spatial terms (p. 90). As the human mind they must be thoughts. They are, therefore, thoughts of naturally thinks logical determinations in spatial im- God. We have already considered this theory, sujjra, p. 38. agery, he has no difficulty in finding such passages. But It is for the modern systematic philosopher the most plainly the method is vicious. We cannot infer an Intel- plausible escape from the difficulty of positing two dis- ligible ""space" or the 'dentity of Odrfpov and space tinct no-umc7ia, God and the Ideas. Perhaps Plato would because the ideas are spoken of as "living apart," or have accepted it, if it had been presented to him. Unlike "included" in a larger idea, or because the method of the majority of its advocates, Schneider does not misin- dichotomy proceeds to the right and leaves on the left the terpret particular passages in order to support it. He other of the particular idea pursued. Still less can we merely combines and equates lines of thought which Plato infer it from the vorjTos ronos, or from the fact that move- left unfinished and distinct. 191 66 The Unity of Plato's Thought Philebus, and seen that neither contradicts or appreciably modifies the doctrine of the earlier dialogues.^'' There remains only the question whether the demonstration of the unreality of pleasure presupposes, or, as Zeller still maintains, is presupposed by, the shorter proof of the Repuhlic. Believing that the Philebus is probably late, I am logically committed to the first branch of the alternative. But this opinion is entirely compatible with the view that the differences between the two treatments of the theme are not in themselves sufficient to show which must be the earlier. It is impossible to determine a priori whether the slighter treatment is an anticipation or a r6sum6 of the fuller discussion. The main doctrine was always a part of Plato's thought, as appears from the Gorgias, the Phcvdo, and the Pha'driis.'"" The differences between the Republic and the Philebus have been much exaggerated. The abbreviation of the argument in the Republic is sufficiently explained by the subordinate place which it occupies in the scheme of the entire work. It affords no proof of the date, and no presumption even of a change of doctrine.^"* THE THE^TETUS The date of the Thcaictus has been much debated on external grounds."^ Its wealth of thought and dramatic vivacity of style make it one of the most difficult dialogues to classify. In psychological depth and dialectical acuteness it ranks with the Sophist, Philebus, and Parmenides, many of the thoiights of which it anticipates or suggests.'" But it has nothing of their dogmatic finality of manner. Socrates is still the midwife delivering ingenuous youth of opinions which fail to stand the test of the elenchus. And the conclusion is an avowal of Socratic ignorance.^'^ Before losing oiirselves in details we must recall why this is so. There are two reasons: (1) The formal quest for an absolute definition always fails in Plato. '^''' (2) It is not possible to define knowledge or explain error. We can only describe and classify different stages of cognition and various forms of error. All seemingly intel- ligible explanation rests on material images, like Plato's figure of the wax tablets and the aviary. But these analogies either commit lis to sheer materialism and the flowing philosophy, or they explain nothing. No spatial image can represent the synthetic 513 Supra, pp. 24, 43, 45 ff. that tho Republic is not yet acquaintcc] with the thought •'^^ Supra p 24 that tho neutral state implies not absolute quiet iu the 51^ See Zeller, p. 548. The question whether pleasure or ^p6vTi, * n ^n- u f • l„l„:. ™ 526 By BONITZ, NaTOKP, CAMPBELL, JoWETT.GeOTE, etc. IS aA7j9i7s 605a. He says that the diiiiculty of explaining ^ ' ' , . . false opinion arises only from the assumption that knowl- ^'^'^ Supra, n. 137. edge is " right opinion." That is not so, either absolutely or in Plato. The ultimate difficulty is : if the mind a^-pre- ^ ^'^'^Supra, n. 7. Note especially the tone of 163-6. hemis as a psychic unit, how is mis-apprehension, as dis- '"here avowedly enstic arguments are employed against tinguished from non-apprehension, possible ? Bonitz is the literal identification of .^crr^^i and ac^«w«. Observe undoubtedly right in affirming that the question for Plato "^e Persiflage of 156, 157, 167 A, 179,180. Natorp, Phik,l.,\o\. is not so much the fact or possibility of error as the psycho- ^- P' -^^- ''""''^ '"^ ^^'^ ^ ^ '""'"''y «' Ant.sthenes s attack logical explanation. (Pp. 83, 89. Cf. my paper, De Pla- 0° Protagoras, 166-8C being Protagoras s defense. Any allu- lonis idcarum doctrina, pp. 17-19.) The length of the ^'0° '» ''"^'-'•^ '"•''>' ^^ 1° a sense a parody of Antlsthenes " digression " is justified by the interest attached to the "^ <>' ""y °^^" ^"''"'^ contemporary. Protagoras himself is problem of ^tvSr,, Sola and the psychological analysis that represented as employing the fti o^ quibble, 167 A. Cf. it provokes. It is a " digression " and a negative result ««^™' °- ^°^' '»"<^ Eulhydtvi., 2S6 C. only for those who naively a-^sume that Plato himself ex- 529 See Natorp's acute Forschungen zur Geschichte des pected to reach a positive definition. Erkenntnissiiroblems im Alterlhum, and his "Protagoras 122 181 CD, 200 AB. und sein Doppelgftnger," Fhilolagus, Vol. L, pp. 262 If. 523.Su/ira, p.. 34, n. 283. Cf. Thecetet., IM C S. Uptol83C Natorp's analyses retain their value, even if we doubt the identity of eViiTT^jii) and alaSijo-n is refuted only so far the possibility of reconstructing Protagoras. For Antis- as it depends on extreme Protagoreau relativity or Hera- thenes and the Thea^tetus see the phantastic conjectures of clitcauism, which makes all thought aud speech impossible. Joel, Der echte und der jrenophontische Sukrutes,\ol.Il, KaToi yi Trjc Toij JToiTa Kiy*ia9at i^iOoSov, I'p. 839 II. 193 68 The Unity of Plato's Thought practical tendency of the age repugnant to Plato's taste and feeling. This seems to be overlooked in the controversy between Natorp [PhiloJogiis, 50) and Gomperz, as to the meaning of the formula. Plato, as Natorp shows, explicitly affirms the thought to be: things are to (each and every) man as they appear to him. If sugar tastes bitter to the sick man, it is bitter to him — there is no other test. But there is no evidence and no probability that Protagoras had systematically drawn out the consequences of generalizing this proposition in its application to ethical and logical truths. He did not need to ask himself whether he meant by dvdpun70.u,v xpiyfu-, Theophr. sens..', Dox. 'jOO. S-ISCD. 542 1S5CD. 5«i86AB. C/. supm, DD. 221 and222. 5.oi84D,S«..6.Y»P''ov,iwa:,e;„oXWTi.«;^.w.V,i, 08A ; A'e/*., t.'IOB, readingMot'^Mo*'). lal'oUt.^ u. 3i4. aolIC, aATyfli) &t'>^at' nfTa 3e/3anotretij? cannot be referred exclu- &00201CD. sively to the phiU)sophic virtue with Zkller (i>. .596). It Ml The Timaus (51 D) sharply distinguishes loDt and i"clu., 202 A, op9o6ofa1 i J i. ■ ,. li 55S24;jD, apx>| Kll-ipueuil, etc. and minimizes the contradiction. Plato does not intend to "define" knowledge, but he is careful not to contradict the ''" I" *« ^'S''" °^ ^^^ '"i"'^- practical description of it given in the Republic. The 560 267 A, ri re .5 (r^i«pi ^.viAa «ai Ti^tyiAa a .... phrase Soiyai le Kai Sefao-fla. Aoyoi. is mentioned as a conditio «""'" •" ; toJi ixi^poU fieve'o? trep.etuai, «al ra t, n-aAaid with the rejected theory of elements, and its full dialecti- """-is 6ieA9eiV, etc. cal significance is not developed. 56i Gompehz, Ueber neuere Plato-Forschung. 197 72 The Unity of Plato's Thought But there is an end to all use of Isocratean parallels if we cannot infer that the Phcedrus is later than a work which it explicitly panjdies. If we assume Lysias, who died in 378, to be still living, the date may be still more precisely determined to about the year 37!l. The strongest confirmation of this date is the weakness of the arguments for an earlier date, which it is hard to take seriously. The politician who recently called Lysias a Xoyo3 279A, Tout Aoyovt oU ruy €rrix"p«r may well be the 5™ Hermus, Vol. XXXV, pp. 400 il. Paneuyricus, but rait;lit be unythint?. ^''" Supra, u. 400. 198 Paul Shobey 73 the ecstasy of love is due to a speciality of the idea of beauty. Unlike other ideas, it is represented in this world by a not wholly inadequate copy, the sight of which recalls the beatific vision of the original.''' The proof of immortality requires only the categories of the self-moved and that moved by another.^" The absence of other abstract logical categories proves no more here than it docs in the Laws. The method of dialectic is described in its relation to rhetoric, which is regarded as an art of deceptive dialectic or almost eristic."" There is no occasion for going back to ultimate categories or hypothesis beyond hypothesis. The subject about which it is desired to effect persuasion is the starting-point."' The rhetorician's art is to bring this under a definition or category from which there is a plaiisible transition to praise or blame."^ So even in the Philebus the account of the true dialectical method starts from the concrete a-n-eipov to be investigated, or the idea, the ev, that it reveals to inspection, and says nothing there of ontological categories, ultimate hypothesis, or a supreme science.''' The Philebus is not for that reason less mature than the PhcrdoJ'^' Plato cannot always delay to tabulate ultimate categories or to reaffirm the unity of science, whether it be (1) as dialectic, (2) as the vision of the idea, or (8) as the "political art." Natorp's other arguments merely confirm our main position by illustrating once more, and typically, the desperate straits to which an acute scholar is reduced in the attempt to date the dialogues by their thought. For example, there is obviously no connection between the remark that those who affirm that (ftpovTiaf; is the chief good are unable to define what (fypovijai'; {^Rpp., 505 B), and the enthusiastic declaration that if wisdom (c^/joVt^o-i?) could be seen l)y mortal eyes (as beauty in some measure can) it would enkindle Seivoix; .... epwTm (PJia'dr., 250 D). Yet Natorp regards the first passage as a distinct criticism of and advance upon the latter. But the Phcedrus pas- sage merely says that .. no, < Phwdo and ihe RcpuhUc. include dialectic and eristic, just as lu Sophist, S^.1, m, 7ri#«- vovn^Kn embraces all forms of rhetoric, the higgling of the *"= Fhaidr., 250 D, seems destined to misinterpretation, market, the Lucianic art of the parasite, and the whole Lutoslawski, p. 339, misses the meaning altogether, and teaching and eristic of the Sophists. HoEN, pp. 212, 213, actually takes JtiroOs e>T« (understand- ing Seu'ous in a bad sense) as Plato's reason why we have no 5T12G3DE. 5;2265,266A. 57316CDE. vi„id images of other ideas than beauty, and objects that J>7*The division of all things into irepa?, aircipo^, ^ocTof, the passionate love of justice would be a good, since it and airia is given in a different connection, and has nothing would not be exposed to sensual excess 1 199 74 The Unity of Plato's Thought a prelude is a mere commonplace of rhetoric, as in Phcedo, 108 C ; Meno, 239 C ; Polit., 2G9 C. The argument that dialectic is first introduced as a new term in 266 C will not bear scrutiny. In Philebus, 53 E, eveKo, tov is introduced still more circumstantially. The ideas are a dream in CralyL, 489 C; dialectic is dramatically led up to in Craiijh, 390; and in SopJiisf, 265, 266, an elaborate explanation has to be given of what is taken foi granted in the phrase (pavTaa/xaTa 6ela, Rep., 532 C.'™ Natorp says "der Begriff Dialektik ist im Gorgias noch nicht gepragt, sondern erst im Phcedrus." But 8ia\ey€(T6ai is contrasted with pr^ToptKr] in the Gorgias, 448 D, and the term haXeKri- k6<;-7], if I may trust my memory and Ast, does not happen to occur in the Sumposiiim, Thecetetus, Timceiis, Parmenides, Phcedo, Philebus, or Laws. It is begging the question, then, to assume that BiaXeyeaOai in the Gorgias does not connote true Pla- tonic BiaXeKTiK-q, but only Socratic conversation. There is not a word about "damo- nischeu 8(a'Xe«:T0?" in Symp., 202 E, 203 A, and the notion of philosophy as the seeking rather than the attainment of knowledge occurs not only in Sympi., 203 D- 204 B, "after" the PhcE', 200 Paul Shobey 75 THE CRATYLUS In vivacity and comic verve the Cratijlus is "early," ''"" in maturity and subtlety of thought " late." Its most obvious feature, the playful allegorical use of etymol- ogizing, is anticipated or recalled in many other dialogues.'''" Admirable is the art with which etymologies recognized to be little better than puns are made the vehicle of a true philosophy of language, and a profound discussion of the relations of lan- guage and thought. With this we are not concerned. We have already seen that the attempt to assign the dialogue an early place in the development of Plato's own thought breaks down.'"*'' Plato is "already" in full possession of the theory of ideas and of the essen- tial arguments of his polemic against the flowing philosophers.**' His repudiation of eristic fallacies is as distinct and as clearly, if not as fully, expressed as it is in the Euthydemus and Sophist.^^* It remains merely to enumerate, as a part of our cumulative argument, some of the minor resemblances that link the Cratylus to its predecessors or successors, and make it a sort of abbreviated repertory of Platonic thoughts and classifications. In 386 D there is a reference to the doctrine of Euthydemus: iraai •Kama 6fj,oico<; etvai afia Kul aei. In 386 D, ■7rpd^ei^ axnov is virtually the "voluntary lie" of Rep., 382 A. In 436 D the emjjhasis laid on the apx^ or hypothesis {vTTo/ceiTai.) recalls Phcedo, 101 D, 107 B. THE EUTHYDEMUS The Euthy dentil s in subtlety of logical analysis, and in its attitude toward eristic, is akin to the Sojiliist and Thecetetus.^'^ The question, Can virtue be taught? the pro- treptic discourses, and the quest for the political art resume similar discussions in the Meiio, Protagoras, Cliarmides, and Gorgias.^'^^ To the partisans of development the dialogue offers a dilemma. Either this mature logic must be assigned to an early work, or a late work may display comic verve of style and engage in a purely dramatic, apparently unsuccessful, Socratic search for the political art/" A systematic analysis would be superfluous after Bonitz, Grote, and Jowett. But the Euthydemus, like the Cratylus, is a repertory of Platonic thoughts that link it to "earlier" and "later" dialogues. A few of these may be enumerated: 273 C, avrov avTU) j3o7fddv iv tok BiKaa-Tjjpioi';; cf. Gorg., 509 B; 275 D, the captious question, Are those who learn ol aoSupra, pp. 54, 58. verbroitet ist. Man sollte doch in ErwflRon ziohon, oh ^fi^Cf. Idea of Good, p. 204; supra, n. 97. donn jcuo Rube mul Sicliprhoit. dir Di,-.cussioii cirjiT FraRO M'292; c/.Hupm, ii. "1. Bonitz, p. 125, protests against "'^ Frawo fUr j(^mand nintilich ist, filr di-u sic cben uur the assumption that Plato is really balTlpd in ■.".li E, and "'"■•' Problem ist uud eino MOglichkoit dor LOsnng sich sensibly adds: " Ich erwilline dies unr, wcil dicso Art diT "''•'''• dargoboton hat," Folgerung und dor Erklaruug Platonischer Dialogo weit i>«sS«pra, nn. .517, .548. 202 Paul Shobey 77 The significance o£ the closing conversation with Crito is often missed."' Nothing, of course, c,in be inferred from the casnal admission (807 A) that %/37?/iaT)9 8ia iravTaiv Sie^oSov re Koi TrXdvr}<; ahvvaTOv eVri/p^oWa tw aXrjOel vovv exeiv- But Socrates, regardless of personal dignity, welcomes every occasion for intellectual exercise: oiira) t(9 e/oco? Seivo'i evBeSvKe t/")? Trepl ravra yvp,vaaLaroAei,(.9i,r.... Cf. reference to the Helena upon Rejjublic, .5S6C, are apt to rfcecea.T5Kai6<^w«<». The ■■oject, in the interest of their chronology, the two almost rhetorician is helpless in the hands of either the philoso- certain citatious of Isocrates by Plato, that in Phcedr., pher or the eristic. ^"^ ^ {mpra, p. 71), and that in Gorgias, 46.3 A, where Isoc. ,„. „, „_ ,„„ ,„. „ T J K. ;■ - ■ -V • t,, , parodied by ^f/vx^i oe u(7is are indispensable to the complete rhetor. stimmung folgen Iftsst." It's a poor argument that will not They are requisites of the ixafby iytoi'iaTij? in any pursuit, work both ways I as is distinctly statt'd in i?ep., 374 D E. Nor is anything to 59ss„;„-a, pp. 19, 40 ff., 43. 59990A. be learned by pressing too closely the various possible 6^i"193A. It is, of course, just conceivable that, as WlL- meanings of eTTicrT^^Tj — knowledge of the Isocratean rules amowitz aflfirms (Her»ies, Vol. XXXII, p. 10:i), the allusion of rhetoric, knowledge of dialectic and psychology that is to the events of the year 418. But we are still waiting might make rhetoric an art in Plato's opinion, knowledge for his proof that Plato commits no intentional anachron- of the subject-matter of the discourse. isms. mtZeller says, p. 527, that the Protagoras, which ed 73 A ; il/eno, 82 ff . It is not necessary, for Plato prob- assumes the identity of the good and the pleasurable, "•'•y 0""° illustrated 6.viiJ.vriaii by geometrical cross- "must" be later than Gorg., 495 ff., and all subsequent examination in the school. dialogues. But cf. supra, p. 20. Horn finds in Protag., 6»2 Kep., 611 B, oi iAAoi (WyoO need not be the specific (.■org., and Plimdo the following Denkfortschritt; (1) Die proofs of immortality given in the Pfta'.fo. Lust ist das Guto. (2) Die Lust ist nicht das Guto. (3) Die w"Siebeck, however (p. 1211), thinks that the Laches is Lust ist das BOso ! In Pha:dr., Symp., Phtrdo ho sees a the fuller discussion of courage " promised " in Rep., 430C, falling away in middle life from the youthful faith in av9tt Sc irepi avToD, eii/ ^o^;An """•''^'o'' ^'Ve"". immortality to which age returns! Lutoslawski thinks «"* C/. supra, pp. 14, 15. that the discussion about the identity of the tragic and ^''Supra, nn. 244, 375, pp. 34, 36, 42, 46, 55, 62. comic poet at the end of the Si/mposium is an apology for G'^i^See Zeller (pp. 551 ff.), who dates it in 375, The the comic touches in that dialogue and an announcement coincidences between the liepuhlic and the Kcclesiazousae 201 Paul Shorey 79 The relations already indicated between the Republic and other dialogues force extreme partisans of "development" to break it up into distinct sections which they assign to different periods/*"' Such hypotheses are beyond tho scope of serious criti- cism, which in the total absence of evidence can neither affirm nor deny them. It can only point out the fallacy of the reasoning by which they are siipported. Tho "argu- ments" of Krohn, Pfleiderer, and their followers have been refuted in more than suffi- cient detail by Hirmer, Campbell/""* Grrimmelt, and other defenders of the unity of the Republic. They may be reduced, broadly speaking, to a pctitio principii and a few typical fallacies. The petiiio jirincipn is the assumption that the numerous connect- ing links and cross-references that bind together the "parts" of the Republic wore inserted by Plato as an afterthought. The chief and fundamental fallacy is the appli- cation to a great and complex literary masterpiece of canons of consistency and unity drawn from the inner conscioiisness of professional philologians. The architectural unity of the Republic is superior to that of the Laws, the Fhilebus, the Flupxlrus, or to that of the parts into which the disintegrators resolve it, many of which plainly could not exist by themselves. Secondary intentions, a prelude, digressions, and a peroration, posthide, afterpiece, or appendix may be expected in so long a work. As Jowett sensibly says:"'"' "We may as well speak of many designs as one; nor need any- thing be excluded from the plan of a great work to which the mind is naturally led by the association of ideas and which does not interfere with the general purpose." It is uncritical, then, to assume a central argument and prune off everything that is not indispensable to its development. The argument might conceivably have started from the restatement of the problem by Glaucon and Adeimantus at the beginning of the second book. Plato might have drawn up a sketch of a reformed state, omitting all mention of the higher education, the rule of the philosophers, and the degenerate forms of government. He might have closed the work abruptly with the demonstra- tion of the main thesis at the end of the ninth book. Or, if he wished to add the myth, he might have omitted or found another place for the digression in which the banishment of the poets is justified on deeper grounds. But these bare possibilities do not raise the slightest presumption that the Republic was, in fact, pieced together out of detached and disjointed essays. The different topics were closely associated in Plato's thought. And if they were all present to his mind from the beginning, it of Aristophanes yield at the most a terminus post queyn. the picture of the tyrant (577) "must "fall after the first Cf. HiRMEB, "Entstehung und Komp. d. Plat. Rep.," Jaftr- Sicilian journey and before the second when Plato was on bucher fUr Phil., Suppl., N. F., Vol. XXIII, p. 655; Adam, friendly terms with Dionysius tho younger; (3) because TfteEepMhiJco/Pioio.Vol.I, pp.345-55. Hiemee (pp. 66011.) Chkist has "proved" that the eleventh epistle icirca 364) disposes of the attempt to date the Republic by the allu- is genuine, and the eleventh epistle implies the completion sion to Ismenias (3.36A), and to Polydamas (338C),bythe of the iJepttfciic and the beginning of the TiiHaTM. supposed allusion to Eudoxus (5.30), and by Reinhakdt's 607Pfleideeee, Zur iSswno d.plri*. Frape, p.79: "Das reference of 410 BC to Isocrates's Antidosis, 181, and of Zusammenwerfen ganz verschiedener Phasen in der Rep., 498 DE to the Areopagiticus. He himself, with as Uttle ^.j^ ^^^ behaupte, mussto nothwendig fflr Jeden, der sonst proof, thinks that 49XDE alludes to the Eiiagoras. He gg^^g Phasen und Perioden gesehen hatte, die geahnten dates the completion of the Republic circa 370: (1) because, QrenzJinien wieder verwischen." after Christ, he believes that the protest against interne- cine war between Greeks (471 A-C) "must" refer to the ^» Republic, Vol. II, essay III. destruction of Plateea by the Thebans in 374; (2) because 609 Vol. Ill, p. vii. 205 80 The Unity of Plato's Thought would not be easy to suggest a more natural and effective order of presentation than that in which we now read them. To prove, then, that, as a matter of fact, the "parts" of the RepuhJic were com- posed at different times recourse is had to two other fallacies : (1) it is assumed that what is not explicitly mentioned in any part is not known to the author at the time ; and (2) slight variations in phrasing are taken to imply serious differences of doctrine. The application of this method to the theory of ideas and to Plato's psychology has already been considered."'" A few words may be added here on the second point. Rohde*'" says that the immortality of the soul is ignored in the earliest part, II-V, 471 C; first appears as a paradox in X, 608 D; and is assumed iu its sublimest form in YI, VII. But his arguments will not bear scrutiny. "Was nach dem Tode kom- men moge, sollen die <^uXa/ce? nicht beachten" (III, cap. iff.), is an unwarranted inference from Plato's polemic against Homeric verses that represent death as terrible to all men, even the good — an idea which Plato would always have repudiated. The sneers iu 363 C D and 366 A B at future rewards are directed against low ideals — the fieOtjv alwvLov — or are intended to emphasize the necessity of first proving that virtue is desirable for its owu sake. When that is done, it is »;S(; av€7ri(f>6opov (612 B) to add the rewards ; and there is no more inconsistency in reintroducing in a nobler form the premiums which the gods bestow upon virtue after death than there is in the with- drawal of the supposition that the just man is to be reputed unjust, and in the affirma- tion that in fact honesty is the best policy, though that is not the sole or the chief reason for practicing it."^ The omission of all reference to immortality in the first nine books would prove nothing. It is equally ignored in the first nine books of the Lairs, and is first explicitly mentioned in XII, 959. Glaucon"s dramatic surprise at Socrates's confident assertion of immortality proves nothing for Plato. The idea is familiar to the Gorgias and Meno. And even if we deny the reference of 611 B to the Phcedo, and with Rohde place the Phcvdo after the RepuhJic, the tenth book of the RepuhJic knows the ideas, and even the Tpho^ c'ivOpcoTro'i, and cannot therefore be placed before the Gorgias by those who make use of arguments from development. In speaking of immortality Plato naturally tries to qualify and limit the doctrine of the tripartite soul."^ He can only fall back upon poetical imagery and affirm his faith that in its true nature the (immortal part of the) soul must be one and simple. It is a waste of ingenuity to attempt to find a consistent chronological development in this point in the Phcedrtis; Rep., II-V, X; Phcedo, and Timaus. It is perfectly true, as Diimmler argiies,"* that iil»S»pra, pp. 36, 40 il. en f>syr/ie, pp. SSS ff. k:mn irgendwelche utilitaristischo Bcgrandung nicht 012SIEBECK (p. 144) and Dt'MMLER (Vol. I, p. 24X), it is mohr interessieren." Terrible logic I Aro modem believers true, flud fault witli this too, on the ground that the "^ immortality wholly indifferent to utilitarian considera- Socratosof the tenth book does not repeat every point of t'""-'' ""1^ Zugabo " 7 And had Plato no interest in the the hypothesis like a lawyer, and forgets the stijiulation psychological proofs that the virtuous life is, even in this that the unjust man was to have the power, if detected, world, the most pleasurable, given in the Laivs, the Phile- to defy punishment, or tlio wealth to buy off the gods. *"»• ""<• ""> "'"th book of the Rcpuhlic? Diimmler also objects that " nachdem die Porspektive auf i>i3.S'H/))-a, pp. 4'i, 46. die Ewigkeit als jie-yiaTa J9Ao der Tugend bezeichnet war, 6H Vol. I, pp. 256 ff. 206 Paul Shoeey 81 if the soul is really one, the definition of justice as a relation between its parts loses all meaning. But such "inconsistencies" are inherent in human thought, and prove nothing for the relative dates of Book X and Books II-V. Can any modern theo- logian produce definitions of the virtues that will apply to man in his earthly state and to the disembodied soul?"^ Lutoslawski, while rejecting the fancies of Krohn and Pfleiderer, holds it pos- sible to show that the first book of the RcpuhUc falls between the Gorgias and the Phcedo, and that the remaining books follow the Phcedo and reveal traces of progressive development of doctrine. The following parallel illustrates the force of his arguments: P. 277: "This sharp and general formula- P. 318: 'Here''" for the first time occurs a tion of the law of contradiction.""' not only as formulation of the law of contradiction as a a law of thought as in Phcedo,'^" but for the law of thought, while in the Phcedo and earlier first time as a law of being .... is a very books of the Republic it was a metaphysical important step." law." Lastly, a word must be said of the attempt to trace a development in Plato's treatment of poetry. The contradictions of those who employ this method might be left to cancel one another."' But the whole procedure is uncritical. Plato was always sensitive to poetic genius, and there was no time when he might not have praised Homer withoiit conspicuous irony .''-° But he always regarded the poet as an imitator, whose aim is pleasure rather than the good, whose ethical teaching must be inter- preted or controlled by the philosopher, and whose fine sayings are the product of "inspiration" rather than of knowledge. The Apology '"'^ anticipates the Republic in the doctrine that the poets do not know whereof they speak, and the Phcedrus in the theory of poetic inspiration. The Gorgias, 502 BCD, deals with the moral influence of poetry upon the masses in the tone of the Republic and Lairs; and like Republic, 601 B, strips from the body of the poet's discourse the meretricious adornment of the poetic dress. The doctrine that poetry is /xi/xijai^ is sufficiently implied in Crafylus, 423, where the mimetic value of words is discussed, and where fiovaixr) is classified as fiifirjaii. The differences between the tenth and the third books of the Republic cannot be pressed. The third book hints that there is more to come ; "■'"' and the tenth book announces itself as a profounder discussion, based on psychological distinctions brought out in the intervening books. But it is begging the question to assume that they were discovered by Plato after the composition of the third book. The fact that «>5 Cf. supra, pp. 6, 7, and Hirmee, p. 641. the Republic, and sees in it a return from the bitter mood 616 436 B. 617 102 E. 618 802 E. of the Gorams and itepwfci/c to a calmer and more generous -lOT., ^..^ *i i T»i i 1 t L J state of mind: *' Da ist er auch gerecht eegen andere: 619 Lutoslawski says that Plato s scorn of poetry de- „ j ,, ■ j t . , „ , . . * •' auucm, , 1 fi. IV, c 1 iu .. .1 i .u u 1 e Homer und Hesiod, Lykurg und Solon sieht er unter sich. veloped after the Symposium, and that the tenth book of h h 1. -V. rl i" ""^o» oitu, the Republic is therefore later than the Phcedo, which praises Homer without irony, and earlier than Phccdrus ^'2" Phmdo, 95 A, oure yip ay ... . 'Oi^rjpu) ttiif irouirn and Thccetetus, which take for granted the low estimate of oiio^oyal^tv ovre ouroi r,i±:v ainoU; Laws. 776 E, o it o-o^c/iraTot the poet. But Natoep, thinking of other passages of the '"'''' ''""■ '""•?'-(ii. — in both passages seriously, as the con- Phcedrus, is positive that such a dialogue could not have text shows. been written after the rejection of poetry in the ilc/wdJ/c; 621 23 C; c/. the /on. and 3/eno, 99 E. while DOmmlee (Vol. I, p. 269) places the Symposium after 622 394 D, laws fie itai TrAeiw in tovtwv. 207 82 The Unity of Plato's Thought in emphasizing the distinction between dramatic and narrative poetry Plato carelessly speaks as if the former alone were imitative, proves nothing.''^'' A far more important new point made in the tenth book is already distinctly implied in the Protaf/orns — the antithesis between the principle of measure in the soul and rj tov cpaivofj-evov Bwafii'!,'''' to which poetry makes its appeal.'^' The mood of the Symposium differs from that of the Gorgicis and the Eeintblic. But this does not prove either that the Synqjosium is earlier, or that Plato had been mellowed by success. A banquet at which Agathon was host and Aristophanes a guest was obviouFly not the place for a polemic against dramatic poetry. But even here the ironical superiority of the dialec- tician is maintained, and the inability of the poets to interpret or defend their art is revealed.'^"'^ CONCLUSION. IDEAS AND NUMBERS. THE LAWS The value of Plato's life-work would be very slightly affected even if it were true that in the weakness of extreme old age the noble light of his philosophy did " go out in a fog of mystical Pythagoreanism." It is not in the least true, however, and the prevalence of the notion is due mainly (1) to the uncritical acceptance of the tradition concerning Plato's "latest" doctrine of ideas and numbers; and (2) to the disparaging estimate of the Lmcs expressed by those who care only for dramatic charm of style, or by radicals like Grote, who are offended by the " bigotry" of a few passages. A word must be said on each of these points. 1. Aristotle's account of Plato's later identification of ideas and numbers has been generally accepted since Trendelenburg's dissertation on the subject.""' Zeller rightly points out that the doctrine is not found in the extant writings, but adds that for Plato numbers are entities intermediate between ideas and things of sense. In my discussion of the subject""' I tried to establish two points: first, that we need not accept the testimony of Aristotle, who often misunderstood Plato, and was himself not clear as to the relation of mathematical and other ideas ; second, that the doctrine of numbers as intermediate entities is not to be found in Plato, liut that the passages which misled Zeller may well have been the chief source of the whole tradition about ideas and numbers. The first point is a matter of opinion. I did not deny the testi- mony of Aristotle, and no one who chooses to accept it can be refuted. The relation of ideas to numbers was doubtless much debated by the scholastics of the Academy. Aristotle's reports of the intolerable logomachy do not make it clear just how much of this nonsense he attributed to Plato. But I do not intend to enter upon the inter- pretation of the eleventh and twelfth books of the Metaphysics. No reader would 623393 c, 394 D. 62(pn)(a.7., 3.J6D. man is "inspired" by the tragic muse, another by the 82!i Rep., 602, 603. comic. If poetry were a matter of science, the poet could 626 201 B, Kivtvvtva, i 5(i»paTe'pov ; and asks: "Are we then to suppose that there are many ideas of 'one' ?" The answer is: "Yes, precisely, to the extent that there are many ideas of anything." We have already seen {Rcj^., 476A) that every idea is j^c?* se one, and yet, not merely as reflected in phenomena, but t^ a\\^\(ov KoivwvCa appears many. The contradiction is inherent in the theory of ideas. As against the multijilicity of phenomena, we insist on the indi- visible unity of the idea. But when we find the idea involved with other ideas in a number of instances, we are forced to use the plural. Plato does not, however, here •33C/. Idea i)f Good, p. 222; Phileh., 56E, ei in'ri tioviia "Again, great and small, swift and slow aro allowed to fiovaSoi iKaa-nii Tutv ti.vpi(iiv nr}&tfiiav aXKrif a\Xij<; SLaepov Plato is using the terms precisely as Bisiikblbt does 638133c g,. cf, ^. j. p._ Vol. IX, p. 288. when he says {Principles of Human KTWwledye, XI): 210 Paul Shoeey in terms pluralize the "one." He says: Of what numbers do you speak in which the one, i. e., the idea of one, present in each as a constituent and essential part of the more compk^x idea, etc. ? Of course, this implies a multiplicity of units in each num- ber, and still more in all ; but only as any idea is multiplied when it appears in a number of others. The multiplication of the idea t^ tw^ a-MfxciTcop icoiveovia is more easily evaded than that ry aWijXwv KOivwvia, because in the first case we may use the imagery of pattern and co[)y, while, in the second case, the idea is an essential con- stituent part of that into which it enters. In the special case of numbers, the paradox is still more glaring. But Plato is not one to be frightened from the path of philo- sophical consistency by a paradox which he rightly regarded as largely verbal. In the Parmenides he amuses himself by showing that the idea of " one " itself apprehended T^ SiavoM fiovov Kad' avTO breaks up into many."*" This does not make it the less necessary for the mathematician to apprehend the pure absolute idea of unity and restore it as fast as it is disintegrated by analysis or the senses."" 2. Despite many passages of stately and impressive eloquence, the Laws will remain the type of "frigidity" for those who, like Lucian, read Plato mainly for the dramatic vivacity of the PhcBdrus or the artistic beauty of the Sijrrnwsium. Our purpose is not to deny the altered mood and style that mark the masterpiece of Plato's old age, but merely to protest against the notion that it may be safely neglected by the serious student, or that it presents a doctrine essentially different from that of the Rejniblic. If Plato was not to rewrite the Republic, it was almost inevitable that his political studies should assume the form of a project of detailed legislation for a possible Greek city. But even here, while recognizing that many of his theoretic postulates will have to be mitigated in practice,'" he holds fast in principle to the ideals of the earlier work."*- A harmony of the Laws and Republic, however, though not a difficult task, would demand more space than can be given to it here. We need not delay to examine the contribution of the Laws to our knowledge of Greek institutions, or the very con- siderable influence which it exercised upon the speculations of Aristotle and later Greek thinkers. One service which it renders to students of the dialogues we have already often noted. As the years wore on, Plato naturally grew weary of Socratic irony, of the game of question and answer, of the dramatic illustration or the polemical analysis of eristic. Even in the earlier dialogues he sometimes evades or contemptuously explains away an equivocation which elsewhere he dramatically portrays or elaborately refutes."" In the Laws this is his habitual mood,"" and in consequence the Laws may often be quoted for the true Platonic solution of problems which Socratic irony or dramatic art seems to leave unsolved in the earlier dialogues."^ While acknowledging this change of mood, we must be on our guard against the 639 U3 A, 1-14 E. 640j;ep.,525 E ; eupra, n. 647. 6« 7i6. «" 627 B, 627 D, 644 A, 864 B. 642739 C ff., S07 B. 6*3 jse;,., 436 C D E, 437 A, 451 A; UhSupra, pp. 13, 19, nn. 70, 71, 293. Cratyl, 431 A ; Symp., 187 A ; Euthyd., 277 E. 211 86 The Unity of Plato's Thought exaggeration of its significance by Grote, Mill, and Gomperz. Grote had little appre- ciation of Plato's substantive thought at any stage. He cared only for the dramatic illustration of the elcnclnis. This, which for the aiithor was a means to an end, was for him the real Plato. The exposition of positive doctrine he treats as the work of a totally different person — a dogmatic Plato who has "ceased to be leader of the oppo- sition and passed over to the ministerial benches." This view, which appears even in Grote's treatment of the Gorgias and Thccetetus, is still more prominent in his criticism of the Republic. In the case of the Laws this feeling is intensified by the deep repugnance aroused in Grote's mind by Plato's whimsical provisions for the conversion or punishment of those who denied the truths of natural religion or traded upon the superstitions of the vulgar. ""* He cannot speak of the Laws without alluding to that unfortunate page; and the vision which he conjured up of the aged Plato as the Torquemada of a Pythagorean mysticism makes him totally blind to the real signifi- cauce of what in wealth of content is Plato's greatest work. This view was accepted by Mill from Grote, and by Gomperz from Mill, and it leads them both to misappre- hend the true relation of the Laws to the Bepuhlic. Mill says: "In his second imaginary commonwealth, that of the Leges, it [dialectic] is no longer mentioned ; it forms no part of the education either of the rulers or of the riiled.""' Similarly Gomperz:"' "Plato in his old age grew averse from dialectic. In the Laws, the last product of his pen, he actually turned his back upon it and filled its vacant place at the head of the curriculum of education with mathematics and astronomy.'""" These statements, even if we concede that they are true in a sense to the letter, convey a totally false impression, as a slight study of the last pages of the twelfth book of the Laws will show. Plato does not care to rewrite the sixth and seventh books of the Republic. But he defines as clearly as in the earlier work the necessity and function of dialectic and the higher education in the si ate. Even in the first book we are fore- warned that to complete the organization of the state the founder must set over it ^vXaKW; .... TOii? fiev Bia <^povrj(Teai/ss. and Z)isru88., Vol. IV, IK 2K9. mentioning any othor element of the higher education. 6«8 Greek Thinkers, Translation, p. 4G6. The possessors of ^pir^int will surely bo able .ar' tIS, f ,- «.nm ,-, «. , r, r.~ ^ Tc if { fi30 E ) a Hil w i 11 p Tuc L ice t ho d 1 alcc t Ical Hie t liods of t ho 6<9Tolike efTect Zellkr, pp. 9.M, 9oC. ,. .,,' ... ,,,',, ,„,, .7„. ,„„.„ .. . ' '^ ' "recent SoiilusI, I luldniJ!,aml Pohticus. Zeller 9 attempt »M632 r. The paralh^lism with the Republic is obvious. to distinguish between *pof.|atiou of tho hit.her education. Mathematics only is mentioned ^■-'' Protau., 3111); Corg., 447, 448. 449 E ; Euthyd.,mC; because Plato is cuplaiuiug that it is not needful for tho Hep., 3.33. multitude to study it profoundly. Therp is no oeeasi<»n for 6539^1, 9*>2. 212 Paul Shoeey 87 No state can prosper or bo saved unless such knowledge resides in some part of it as a ^v\aKT7]piov."'* The beginning of such knowledge is to fir) vXai/acrOai irpcx; ttoXKo, aro'x^a^o/j.evov aW' eh ei> /BXewovTa, etc.™ Now ra -rSiv TroXecov vdfxifia aim at many things — wealth, power, and rov eXevdepov Br) ^iovf^'' Our aim is vii'iue. But virtue is both four and one. The intelligent physician can define his one aim. Must not the intelligent ruler be able to define his? It is easy to show how the four virtues are many. To exhibit their unity is harder.*" A man who amounts to anything must know, not only the names, but the \o'7o? of things. And the true guardians, teachers, and rulers of a state must not merely rebuke vice and inculcate virtue, but they must be able to teach i^j^ 8vvap,iv exei.'^"" The state may be likened to the body, the younger guardians to the senses in the head, the elders to the brain." They cannot all be educated alike. Therefore iTeov apa eVi riva aKpijBearepav TiaiSeiav t>)? efnrpoaOev.'^" This is the education already glanced at in our phrases about the unity of purpose. The essence of the more accurate method is oiir old acquaintance to Trpo? fxiav Iheav eK To)v iroXXoiv Koi avofioiwv Bvvarov elvai /SX.eVeti'.'''' The guardian must be able to do what Meno could not do — IBelv irpSsTOv, o tL irore Bia irdvTwv twv TerTapwv tuvtov Tvyyavei!^' And similarly irepl KaXov re koI ayadov and ttuvtcov tmv airovhaiwv, they must not only know in what sense each is one and many, biit they miist be able to expound their knowledge — ttjv evBei^iv tw Xoyay ivheUwadat.^^ The thing being so clearly indicated, it would be pitiful quibbling to object that the word BiaXeKTiKr] does not happen to occur here. Its omission is possibly due to the fact that the Athenian throughout the Laws talks down to the level of his unsophisticated Spartan and Cretan interlocutors. Mathematics and astronomy, then, are not substituted for dialectic, but are added for a special reason among the airovhala which the guardians must understand with real knowledge. The multitude may follow tradition. The guardians must be able to demonstrate the truths of natural religion, as we have done.'^'^ Astronomy, the study of the ordered movements of the heavens, is a great aid to this. With astronomy is involved the necessary mathematics, which also in their relation to music and the arts are of use to him who is to shape the characters and laws of men.*^'^ He who cannot learn these things can never be a ruler, though he may be an assistant. In the last two pages of the Laws Plato evades giving a detailed account of the curriculum of the higher education thus indicated — perhaps he was weary, perhaps he did not care to repeat the Repuhlic.'^ In any case, there is no justification for the statement that the Laws ignore the higher education of the rulers or substitute in it mathematics and astronomy for dialectic. On the contrary, the unity of Plato's 664 962 C ; (■/. Rep., 42i C. 661 Cf. Phmdr., 265 D ; and with Taunjs ov« ten (ro()>«/i;si and the Politicus employ the keenest dialectic in order to meet and defeat eristic on its own ground {Soph., 259 CD). In the Fkilebtis, which Gomperz thinks late, dialectic is still the highest science of truth (Phileh.. 58). But Plato had other interests than dialectic, and it is unreasonable to expect him to fill the Laws and Timwus with repetitions of what had been said once for all in the Sophist, Potiticvji, and Philehus. ^nn Supra, p. 37. 6C!M. J. P., Vol. IX, pp. 395 fif 6"oAs, e. g.. that of Ritter, "Die Sprachstatistik in Anwendung auf Piaton und Goethe," Neue JahrbUcher etc.. 1903. INDEX ■Airififri(/>pOCTU»'TJ, 15. Symposium, 19, 77. Temperaments, the two, 12 n. .59, 13 II. 70, 62 n. 481. Thcirtctiu:, IK ff., 33, 55. Tima-m, 37,88. Utilitarianism. 20 ff. Vice, involuntary, 9. Virtue, is knowledge, 10; unity of, 10; coincides witii happiness, 25 ff. 2U THE TOLEDO MANUSCRIPT OF THE GERMANIA OF TACITUS THE TOLEDO MANUSCUirT OF THE GERMANIA OF TACI- TUS, WITH NOTES ON A PLINY MANUSCRIPT' Frank Frost Abbott DESCRIPTION OF THE CODEX TOLETANUS The manuscript of wliich the Gcrmania forms n part, 49.2 of the Zelada collec- tion, contains 223 folios, with 30, occasionally 29, lines to the page. The page is 23.1cm. X 14.5 cm., and the written portion 17.2 cm. X 8.3 cm. It is divided as fol- lows: Cor. Taciti De Vita Movihns Et Origine Germanorum Opus Eleganiissimiim, folio 1 r. to the middle of 15 v. ; Opus Eiusdcm De Vita Et Mori''^ L. Agricolr, 10 r. to bottom of 36 V. ; lo. Antoiiii Cainpaiii Oraforis Atque Poetae Cclcherrimi Omtio De Laudihus Scientiaruvi, 37 r. to 63 v.; fragment of an oration, 64 r. to the middle of 66r. ; a number of Pliny's ie/fers 66 r. to 221 v. ; fragment of an oration, 222 r. to 223 V. On folio 15 v., at the end of the Germania, after relinquam there is written :=o reXcoo- and just below, the subscription FVLGINIE SCRIPTVM GERENTE ME MAGISTRATVM PV • SCRIBE ■ KAL' • IVN • 1474. The AijricoJa has at the end the word FINIS only. On folio 63 v. following the oration of Antonius stands the title of his oration, followed by these words: Scripta p me M. Angtm Crullum Tuder- tem fulginii pu. Scribam Noii Decembr MccccLxxiiii Deo Laiis & honos. The selec- tions from Pliny's Letters' have, on folio 221 v. and 222 r., the subscrij)tion Caii Plinii oratoris atc^ Phylosaphi Dissertissimi epistolarum liber octavus et ultimas explicit foeliciter dec gras Finis Perusie in domo Crispoli'°* 1468 AMHN TeXwo- M. Angelas Tuders. Incidentally it may be noticed that the scribe's name is Crullus, not Trullus as Leuze surmised from Wiinsch's report in the Classical Revieiv, 1899, p. 274, and that his patronymic in the subscription, both on folio 63 and 221, is given 1 In the spring of 1899 I planned to visit Toledo for the the codex itself convinced me that it was thoroughly trust- pnrpose of collating the Tacitus MS. in the possession of worthy. I take this opportunity to express my sincere the cathedral library of that city. Reference was made to thanks to Monsignor Merry del Val, the archbishop of this plan in the Cfassical Fcvien^ of the preceding year Nicaea. whose enli;,'htc'ned interest in classical study is well (Vol. XII, p. 465). The necessity of finishing another piece known. Through his friendly intercession in my behalf I of work upon which I was engaged forced me, however, to received permission to make a complete copy of the Ger- give up the project for a time, and I was unable to carry it 7na7ua text, although such permission had never been out until last spring. In the interval Dr. Leuze, of granted before, I believe, iu the Toledo library. I am in- Tilbingen, made an admirable collation of the Agricoli. debted also to Dr. Leuzo and to Dr. Wiiusch. who first portion of the MS., and published the results of his exarai- made the existence of the Toledo MS. known to students nation of it in the eighth Suppleiitenthand of Ph'tlologus, by his note in Hermes, Vol. XXXII, p. 5'.», for the helpful In this paper, therefore, I shall confine myself to the Ger- suggestions which they gave to rae by letter before I went wianm, which is contained in the same codex, and which to Toledo. Dr. Leuze did not have time to collate. In his article (p. 2 A description of this part of the MS., with a coHation 517) Dr. Leuze expressed the fear that his collation might ^f ^ fg^ of ti,e letters contained in it, is published in this not be accurate at all points, because he was obliged to paper on pp. <3. 44. make it in a very short time, but my comparison of it with 217 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus as Tuders, not Tudertinus as Wiinsch reports. A more important correction of Wunsch's reading^ consists in the fact that at the end of Antonius's oration the date is clearly 1474: and not 1471. From the dates previously reported Lenze inferred that the Afjricola was written between December 5, 1471, and June 1, 1474. This siipposition involved a serious difficulty, because, as will be noticed, the oration of Antonius, which follows the Germania, seemed to bear the earlier date, 1471. Since, however, the actual reading in both cases is 1474 the difficulty disappears, and further- more we can say with considerable confidence that the Agricola, which stands between the Germania and the oration of Antonius, was written between June 1 and December 5, 1474. The date, 1468, given at the end of Pliny's Letters, is a little surprising, but it is written in brown ink, while the rest of the subscription is in bright red ink, and may be an incorrect date inserted later. This supposition is in a slight degree confirmed by the fact that the subscription is arranged in lines of approximately equal length, except that in the line where 1468 is written this number stands to the right of the perpendicular, to the left of which the other lines of the subscription fall, but I am not inclined to lay much sti'ess on this last consideration. Since Angelas makes no mention of his title of public scribe in this connection, and since Pliny's Letters were copied at Perusia, it may perhaps be assumed with safety that the Pliny MS. was not copied in 1474. That Angelus copied the Agricola as well as the Germania is not only clear from the close resemblance which the handwriting in the one document bears to that of the other, but is proved beyond a doubt by examining his method of forming certain combinations of letters. To take one illustration only: fama so closely I'esembles fovma in Agr. 10, 12 that Dr. Leuze was in doubt (p. 545) which of the two words was intended. The same word, fama, is written in the same peculiar way in Germ. 34, 9 and 35, 16 (Mtillenhoff's ed.). The signs for abbreviations, the method of making corrections, and the orthography in the two texts are also similar, although perhaps one ought not to lay much stress on the resemblance last mentioned. The MS. of the Germania, like that of the Agricola, has a great many variants. These are without exception written on the margin in the hand and ink used in the body of the text. Someone has also added on the margin here and there in bright red ink the nominative form of certain proper names occurring in the text. Thus on folio 1 r. opposite 2,8 (ed. MtlU.) stands Germania, opposite 2, 12 (ibid.) Tuisco dens, opposite 2, 13 [it)id.) Mannus. These additions are of no importance in discussing the MS., and may, therefore, be left entirely out of consideration. Corrections of a single letter or syllable are made above the line. In two cases only, where it is necessary to insert one or more words (13, 4 and 13, 18), the words to be added are written on the margin. The corrections are made in ink of three different colors^a dark brownish green (that of the text itself), a reddish brown, and a bright red. It may bo stated with confidence that those in green ink are made by the ■iTlio errors iu Dr. Wflnsch's description of the MS. result of coarse solely from the fact that, as he wrote to Dr. Leazo, he was alloweit to note Acusaei-lichkeitcn only. 218 Frank Frost Abbott scribe himself from the copy which he is following. One cannot speak with the same certainty of the other two classes of corrections, Init T am strongly inclined to think that those in reddish-brown ink are in the hand of the original copyist. The third corrector, he of the bright red ink, is evidently the scribe who wrote the proper names on the margin to which reference has been made above. The ink is the same as that used in the titles and the paragraph marks. This fact makes it reasonably sure that this third class of corrections may be attributed either to the original coj>yist or to one of his fellows. His corrections are so slight as to afford us little basis for a comparison of his hand with that of the text. The style which he has used in his notes on the side of the page differs from the writing of the original copyist, but probably the dif- ference is no greater than would naturally exist between the formal and the free hand of the same scribe. We may assume, therefore, with great probability that all three classes of corrections are to be traced to the original copyist. It does not follow, how- ever, that they come from the same source. Those in green ink were undoubtedly made by the copyist as he proceeded with his work. As has been remarked already, they were corrections of errors which he made in following his copy. Those in reddish- brown and in bright red ink must have been added somewhat later. That a con- siderable interval of time elapsed between the copying of the text and the insertion of these two classes of corrections seems rather probable from the fact that these two inks are used in correcting the Agricola also. The reddish-brown ink is used, for instance, in Agr. 43, 7 (ed. Halm),* and the bright red ink in 3, 6; 29, 9; 31, 2; 31, 19; 33, 6, and le, 1 (see Leuze, pp. 543-54). It is clear that these changes were made some time after the entire MS. had been finished, and for this second and third correction of the text a MS. other than the archetype of T, or even two such MSS., may have been used. The bearing of these corrections upon the text of the MS. from which T was copied can be ascertained only by discovering their source, and this can be done better when we come to discuss the readings in T.^ II T AND THE BC CLASSES OF MANUSCRIPTS' COLL.\TION OF TBbCc WITH MULLENHOFF'S EDITION ' Cor. Taciti De Vita Moribus Et Origine Germanorum Opus Elegantissimum Feliciter Incipit T 4 At 43, 7 avsim was omitted by the original copyist, of B (Vat. 1862) and C (Vat. 1518) are from my own collation and added on the margin in brownish-red ink by the of those MSS., and a list of corrections to be made in Mal- corroctor. lenhoff's critical apparatus may be found on pp. 42, 43. The 6 This point has a like importance for the Agricola. hand of the first corrector is indicated by T', that of the second by Ta, that of the third by T-'. At the points 6 MttllenhoS's nomenclature for the MSS. is followed, carted in this table with a star Mallenhoff, in the Deutsche and in this table the readings of B bC and c. which make Allertumskunde, Vol. IV (Berlin, 1900), expresses a prefer- np the BC classes, are given, because the fundamental ^^^^ j^^ j^^ readings which T (with certain other MSS.) point in connection with any new Germaiua MS. must be ^^^^^ jj ^^^ seemed best, however, for convenience in to determine its relation to these four MSS. reference, to print in the first column the readings of Mul- 'The readings of b and c have been taken from the lenhoff's teit, even where that editor on maturer consider- critical apparatus in MallenhoS's edition. The readings ation has expressed a preference for another reading. 219 The Toledo Maxu.sceipt of the G-ermania of Tacitus Cornelii Taciti De Origiiie Et Situ Germanorum Liber Incipit B Cornelii • Taciti ■ De Origine ■ Situ • Moribus Ac Populis Germanorum Liber Incipit : =n= b C • Cornelii Taciti de origine et situ germanorum C C • Cornelii Taciti De Origine Et Situ Germani§ Liber Incipit c Editio Muelleuhofifii 1. 1 Germania 1 Raetisque 2 Danuvio 3 cetera 3 Oceanus 6 Raeticarum 8 septentrionali 9 Danuvius 10 Abnobae 11 septimum TBbCc ermania omissa G quae minio pingi ilcbelxit T Ehaetiis(^ T, Retiisque B, rhetiisque b, retiisque Cc Daiiubio T, danubio Bbc cetera T, coetera et similiter sae2}iiis rel ct^terab, cetera vel caetera Cc ubiquc occeanus TC uhique r'^eticay T, rlieticanim b, reticarum C, raeticarum c, Reticarum B septemtrionali T Dannubius T, danubius Bb, Danuuius C, danuuius in damxbius corr. c' Arnobe (al Arbone al none in margine) T, Arnob§ (Arbouae in marg.) B, arbon^ b, arbone C, arnobae in arbonae corr. c septimu^ • ''' • (septimus in septimum correxit ct ■ Is ■ sujjra addidif T") T 2, 12 Tuistonem 14 conditoresque 15 Itj Ingaevones Herminones 16 ceteri 10 Istaevones 17 deo 18 plurisque 18 Suebos 20 Germaniae 21 Rhenum 24 omnea 24 vlctore 25 etiam Tuiscone T, Tuistone C, Tristone et in iiuirg. Tuisman B, tristone b, tui supra tri /3, Bistonem c conditorisc^ T, conditorisque B b c, conditoris C Ingeuones T B b C, ingeuones /3, ingaeuones c liermi°ones (n supra addidit T-') T, Hermiouea BbC, liermi"ones /3, herminones c ceteri T Isteuones TC deos T phu'sc^ T, phiresquo BbCc Sut'uos T B b C c germani^ T rhenium (i piincio drier it T') T omsT victor-T (vf. arar- 14, 17) oni. Tc, etiam B b, & C ' Qentls vcrbuM (:'. lied. M.) Jol. f rlaudit. 220 Frank Fkost Ahhott H, 2 proelia 4 barditum 5 futuraeque 5 pugnae 7 vocis 7 videtiir 10 Ulixen 12 Germaniae 13 incolitur 14 iiominatumqiie . . . araui 15 Laertae 1(5 monumeiitaque 17 Graecis 18 Germaniae 18 Raetiaeque 18 quae prelia T, plia I), plia C, praelia c Barditum et in mdrij. Baritu T, baritum supra bardi- tum c' futurecj T corr. in futur^cj T^ pugne T corr. in pugn^ T^ voces TBbCo videntur T B b C c ulixem T, ulixen Cc, Ulyxen B, Ulyssem (ss //( litiira) h germanie T corr. in germani^ T^ colit~T corr. m icolit'T" nominatumc^ ACKITTVPflON aram TBCc, nominatum- que aram {in niorg. deest /3) b Laert^ T monimentac^ T C grecis T germani^ T rhetie(j T, rhetiaeque b, R^ti^que B, rgtiaeque c, reti^q; C que T 4, 1 Germaniae 2 conubiis 6 caerulei 6 rutilae 7 valida 9 tdlerare 10 assuerunt * germanie T corr. in germani^ T' conubiis T B b C c cerulei Tc, c^rulei C, ceruli b, ceruli (t lei supra versutn) B rutil^ T vallida [in valida correxit T ') T tollerare T C assueveriit TCc, assuerunt (t int supra versuni) B 5, 1 2 7 7 specie foeda eaeque gratissimae 10 Germaniae 12 baud 15 commerciorum 17 nostrae pecuniae 20 quoque magis quam 21 affectione speijji (spem corr. in spei?T') T, spe~C, spetie c feda T B b e^(j T b, Eeque B, eatq ; C, eatque c gratissime T gemanie T aut TC comertioy T, commertiorum Co nre pecunie T magisq T affectatione TBb, affectione Cc ^ Confirmare ^-er^w/jj (5, id ed. M.\ fol. iv claudit. 221 The Toledo Manuscript of the Gekmania of Tacitus 6, 1 lie ferrum quidem ue ferrum (q addidit T*) T 5 comminus cominus T b 10 clistinguuiit distingut T B b C c 11 galea galee T B b C c 12 variare uarietate T b, variare B C c 16 aestimanti extiuianti T, estimati B, estimati b, existimanti Cc 17 proeliantur preliaiitiir T 18 peditum peditum (e siijjrct addidit T ') T 25 proeliis preliis T 28 siiperstites Bupstes T 7, G lie verberare neq^ verberare T 7 poeiiam penam T B 7 iiissii iuxu T 7 velut velud T, veluti C 9 effigiesque Effigies T 9 detracta de tracta T 11 fortuita fortuiia T corr. in fortuita T' 16 illae 16 et* ille T C aut TBb, et Cc 8, 4 comminus 7 uubiles 9 consilia 9 11 iieglegunt Albruuam 13 tamquam 2 3 litare Martem et Herculem 4 6 Sueborum liburnao 8 8 9 speciem assimulare caelestium comiu^ TCb nobiles T B C c, nobiles b consilio T negligiit T b C c, neglegunt B Aurinia (Albrunam sive Albriniam in mnrg.) T, auri- niam B b C, fluriniam c, sed B in margine Albriniam, b 1 Albriniam, c ab altera vuvin albriniam siijjra adscrijitnm hahent. tanq- T B c litare T Herculem & martem T, herculem ac martem Cc, et herculem post placant B b suevoit T C c b, Sueiiorum B liburne T spem T C, specie B, spetiem c assimilarc T celestiuiu T 10 Quidem verbum (6', ; ed. M.) fol. 2r diiudit. l> Nod verbum (7, 7 ed. M.) fol. 2v clavJit. IJ Modam verbum (S, eed. M.) fol. 3r claudit. 222 Frank Frost Abbott 10, 5 fortuito 10 eundem 12 interrogare 13 praesagia 22 exploratur* 24 popularium 25 praeiudifio 11, 2 omnes 4 incidit 5 incohatur 10 nee ut iussi 11 coeuntium 12 absumitur 12 turba* 13 turn 15 aetas 12, 2 distinctio 7 flagitia 7 abscond! 8 poena 9 mulctae 11 conciliis 13 ex plebe 14 assunt 13, 1 publicae 1 privatae 4 turn in 4 vel pater vel propinqni 7 publicae 9 adolescentulis 11 etiam 13 aemulatio 15 haec 15 hae 16 semper 16 circumdari 18 cuique i3Coinmittunt verbum (10, 25 ed. fortuitu T eumdem T interogare T presagia T explorant T C c, exploratur B, cor7: ex exploratur b depopularium T preiuditio T, pr^iuditio C, iudicio B omes T inciderit T inchoatur T b C, incohatur B c ne iniussi T c^tuum T assumit* T turbe T B, turbe b C c tamen (tantuj in mary.) T, turn c, cum C, tamen Bb etasT Distintio T flagia T, flagitia C, flagicia B, supplicia b ascondi T penay T B, poenarum b C c miilcte T comitiis T explebes T corr. in explebe T adsut T B C pub'^T, plu^" C private T Tum in T (Tum in Cum correxit ef Eum supra addidit T"), tum in Cc et supra cum c', cum in B b ut ipsi ut propinqni (ipsi punctis delevit et in marcjine vel pt addidit T^) T p u b <= « T adolescentibus T et- & T emulatio T hecTB heTB semp & T circuudari T om. T sed in margine scripsit T* M.) fol. 3" claudit. " Comites verbum ( 12, 1.3 etl. M.) fot. 4r clnudit. 223 10 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus 14, 2 vinci 2 virtutem princiins 2 adaequare 3 ac 3 probrosiim 6 praecipuum 8 otio 9 adolescentium 11 ancipitia 13 tuentur 14 illam 17 arare 18 exspectare 20 et 20 adquirere viam T coit. in vinci T" virtute principe T adequare T, equare C c 07n. T sed in marg. scripsit T* probosiim T precipuum T ocio T B b adolesceutu T ancipiatia T cori: in ancipitia T' tuere T sed a supra addidit T", tuent^ B, tuetur b, tueare C c et reliqui omnes illamc^ T araf T, ar"are ( = arrare) C expectare T B C c oin. T sed in nuirg. & addidif T" acquirere T B C c 15, 2 otium 5 feminis ocium T B b feminis T 16, 1 populis 2 ue pati 4 locant 5 conexis 5 et 5 cohaerentibus 6 circumdat 7 caementorum 9 Bpcciem 12 imitetur 12 supterraneos 14 hiemis 16 aperta 16 populatur 17 ignorantur p p 1 o s T corr. in p p 1 i s T* nepati T locant [in marg. Long ant) T, longant (super lineam \ locant) B, looant sed supra et infra secun- dum o liturn, vt fnisse videatiir logant , 4ed. M.) fol. 12^' cUiudit. •231 18 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus 39, 6 horrenda 13 adicit 13 Semnonum 14 habitant* 14 corpore 40, 1 nobilitat 2 cincti 3 proeliis 5 Suardones 5 Nuithoiies 7 Nerthum 10 eo 12 intellegit 13 feminis 13 laeti 14 quaecumque 15 sumunt 1() pax et quies 20 servi horrentia T Adiicit T B b C c Semonum (Semnonuj margo) T, Semonu (t sennonu m siipra) B, senonum b, semnonum C c habitant-T B b C c corpore (tempore margo) T, corpore (\ tempore supra) B, corpore b, corpore C c nobilitas T B b C, nobilitat c cuncti T pr^liis T Suarines (Suardones margo) T, Suarines B b C c, denes supra ines adscripsit /8, suardones cod. Hummel, et nan nulli alii Nuitones T, Nuithones Be, uuitones C, uurtones b, i supra r ^ u Nertum T, Nerthum c, nethum C, Neithu B, neithum b, r supra i /3 eaTBbCc intelligit T B b C c f^sminis T Leti T quecuc^ T sumunt T, sumut B, sumut C pax ^ quies (& supra liueam add if o T') T Sevi T corr. in Servi T' 41, 1 liaeo 1 Sueborum 2 Germaiiiae 2 propior 3 Danuvium 3 Hermundurorum 5 commercium 6 Raetiae 7 passim 42, 1 Varisti 2 praecipua hec T verboy TBbCc germanie T corr. in germani^ T' tri proprior Tc, propior B Danubium Tbc, Danuuium BC Hermundoy T comertium TC, comertiu Bo Rheti? Tb, Retie B, reti§ Co passum T corr. in passim T' Narisci T, Naristi Bbc, Narisci in margined, maristi C precipua T 3iQuiesluQC tuuturi) veflia(4o. Ui(icLAf.}fol. 12'' clautlunt. 232 Fkank Fkost Abbott 19 42, 13 ipsa etiam 43, 3 Boiis 4 Varisti 5 Germaniae 5 Danuvio 6 praecingitur 7 manserunt* 8 Tudri 10 saepius 1 Cotini 2 claudunt 3 Cotinos 7 Cotini 7 effodiunt 10 Suebiam 12 Lygiorum 14 Helvaeonas 15 Nahanarvalos 15 apnd Nahanarualos 15 religionis 16 praesidet 21 Harii 22 truces 23 feritati 26 sustinente 28 Gotones 28 regnantur 29 adductius 81 Lemovii 44, 1 ipso * 1 Oceano et & ipa (& lineola indueta delevit et signa transposi- tionis supra, (itiam et ipsa addidit T') T, etiam ipsa b Bois TBCc, boiis b narisci T, Naristi Bbc, maristi C Germanie T danubio Tbc, danuuio B C peragit-TBbCc mansere TB, manser" b, manserunt Cc Trudi T sepius T Gotini TBbCc claudiut T GotinosTBbCc Gotini T B b, Cotini C c effodunt T sueviam T B b C c ly i Legiorum T, Legiorum B, legiorum b (Ligij rn nKn-ijinc 1 ue /8), leugiorum C, legiorum cc" heluetonas (halosionas margo) T, Heluetonas B, lielue- h conas b, eluheconas C, Heueconas cc^ t naharualos Nahanarulos (naharualos margo) T, Nahanarualos B, naliarualos b, nahanarualos C, nachanarualos c Apd Naharualos T B b, nacharualos C c religionis (regionis margo) T, religionis B b, regionis Cc Presid& T alilTBbCc trucis TBC, trucis (a puncto deleta) b, trucis c feriati T Sb^stinete T c Gothones T B b C c regnat TBC, regnant b, regnantur c adductus T, aductius C lemouii Tb, u supra n posnif, sed in inargine Lemonii /3, Lemouii BCc ipe T B, ipsae b, ipo C c occeanum T, oceanum B b, no supra adscripsit /3, occeano C c S'Regibus verbnin {42, 9 ed. M.)fol. i:i'' clauiUt '3 Ipsaque verhum {43, 25 ed. M.) fol. 13" claudit. 233 20 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus •i-i, 1 praeter 3 utrinque 4 ministrant 10 clausa 12 otiosae preter T utrim(j T, utriq ; C ministrat- T B b C c causa T Ociosa T B b, occiosa C, otiosa c 1 immotum ■i ortum* 4 edurat 4 sidera hebetet 5 equorum 6 adicit 8 Suebici 8 Aestiorum 9 adluuntur 10 Britannicae 10 propior 17 sucinum 17 glaesum 18 litore 18 quae 19 quaeve 19 quaesitum 22 perfertur * 23 sucum 24 intellegas 27 igitur 28 tura 29 terrisque . . . 30 radiis 32 litora 32 exundaut 32 Bucini 33 temptes 33 taedae solis imotum T, inmotum C ortus T C c, ortum B b edura T corr. in edurat T ' heb& & (hebet et expunxit et sydera liebet& ('/* marcjine addidit T ') T deoy (eoy margo) T, deorum B b C c, eoru cod. Stutt- garfiensis, cod. Vindobonrusis <7S])icit adiicit (aspicit j^'incfis dcleto) T, adiicit B b C c Seuici (Sueuici margo) T, seuici b, Saeuici B C c, supra t sueuici Be ', sueuici et in margine suionici /3 Aestyoy T, Aestiorum B C c, estiorum b, etlu supra scripsit et in margine eflui /3 abluunt" T B b, alluuntur c, adluuntur C Britanic^ T, britanice C proprior T succinu T b, sucinum B C c glesum T B b C c littore T B C c que T que ue (uo margo) T quesitum T profertur T, pfertur b Succum T b C c, sucum B intelligas T B b C c ergo T thura T c ow. T radius T B b C, radiis c littora oniissum scripsit in margine T ' exsudant T c, exudant C Buccini T b C, suciui B c tentesT, tetesBbCc tede T, tedae b c '* Quod verbuin i i:>. 3 etl. M.) ful. N'' claudit. 3'' Tern. syUaha prima toinpostatuin vertfi (^.», 31 ed. M.) fol. M>' claudit. 234 Frank Fkost Abbott 21 45, 3B Suionibus 37 differunt 46 1 hie Suebiae finis 5 torpor 6 coiuibiis 6 mixtis 8 quidquid 11 figunt 11 pedum 13 sunt 14 foeda 15 herba 16 Bolae 16 sagittis 16 inopia 17 idemque 19 praedae 23 inlaborare 25 difficillimam 27 Oxionas Si uouibus T corr. in Suionibus T ^ differl T, differunt" C I sueup saeuae Hie Suevi^ fines T, hie sueuie (Sueui^ B, sueuiae c c ') fines B C 0, hi sueui§ fines b tomjjore torpor (tempore jumdis deleto) T conubiis T B b c mixtos T B c, mistos b, o pnncto delevit et i supra mhcripsit /3 quic(] T B b c fingunt T C c, figunt B b peditum To, pecudum B b, corr. in peditum/9 om. T feda T B erba T SolaT sagiptis T in opia T Idem T pred§ T illaborare T difEcilimam T, difficillimam C c, difficilem B b oxionas (etionas niaryo) T, Oxionas (letionas s»pra) B, oxionas be, t etionas supra yS, exionas C, Etionas Mudlenhoffius, D. A. p. 517 uultus(j T b C c, uoltusque B & corpora T C c o>». T 28 voltusque 28 corpora 29 ego Cornelii Taciti De Origine Et Situ Germanorum Liber Explicit B : (:>o : CO : oo Finit b finis : OeXoa- C oo T e\ o) 9 c : oo T e \ ojo" FVLGINIE SCEIPTVM GERENTE ME KAL'. IVN- 1474 T MAGISTRATVM PV ■ SCRIBE Attention has been called already (pp. 4, 5) to the three classes of corrections which T shows. T' is the scribe himself making corrections from the MS. which he is following. The doubt which an examination of the handwriting of T " and T " and of the ink used by them leaves in one's mind [cf. p. 5) can best be resolved by examin- 31 Aliud i-ei;;U)» (*;, lo ed. M.) fol. 16'' chiudil. 236 22 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus ing the corrections made by each of these hands. A conspectus of those made by T'^ is given in the following table, and, to facilitate comparison, the readings of certain other MSS. and early editions'' are also indicated. CORRECTIONS BY SECOND HAND Ed. Muell. T Ta 1, 11 septimum septimiis septimum enim 2, 16 Hermiuones hermiones Vat. 2964, N,R herminones 3, 13 incolitur colitur incolitur B, 1 quidem oni. •juidem 13, 4 tum in tum in K cum II in (cum in Vat. 21 4 pater ipsi Vat. 2964, , K, N pater 18 cuique om. K, iV cuique 1^, 2 3 13 20 vinci ac tuentur et viam om. tuere om. vinci ac tueare R (?) (tueaf Vat. tueantur K, N) et 16, 1 5 1(1 populis et aperta populos on,. K, N aperta populis et non aperta 2964, It is necessary to anticipate a conclusion reached later in this paper (rf. pp. 37 ff. ) by stating at this point that T is closely related to K (or L), Vat. 2964 (Massmann's Rd), the Nuremberg editions, and the Roman edition of 1474. If, therefore, the cor- rections of T^ difPer from the readings of this group,'* it is apparent that he is either introducing his own conjectures, or basing his corrections on some other MS. than the archetype of T. An examination of the table will show that the state of things just supposed is the case at 1, 11; 2, 16; 13, 4 (ipsi); 13, 18; and 16, 5. In all these cases the first hand in T shows the same errors found in other members of the group, so that the corrections of T" give different readings from those of the E MSS. It might be assumed that T, although it was related to the MSS. and editions mentioned, belonged to a collateral branch into which the errors under discussion had not entered. It is well- nigh inconceivable, however, that the first hand in T and the copyist of the archetype from which K, Vat. 2964, R and N are descended should have committed the same errors at all of these points. The conclusion reached after an examination of these readings is confirmed by a glance at the other corrections made by T". In no case does he restore a reading peculiar to the E MSS. The readings of T" at 3, 13 ; 6, 1 ; 14, 2 ; ■!' K ^ Kappianus or Longolianus (rf. Masrmann, p. 4) ; R = editio Romana (r/. Massmann, ]>\i. 2T> fl,, and Tao- HM^N. DcTaciti Gcrmaniac tipparatu rritico p. 2.1) N = •ditio Norimbergeusis (c/. Massuann, p. 24; Tagmann, p. 22, and MOllenuoff, Dcutsclie Altertumsktiiulc, Vol. IV, pp. 689 ff. ■''* From this point on we shall di'siynato this sroup of MSS. as the E class, fullowint; MUllenhoff's nomenclature. 236 Frank Frost Abbott 23 14, 3; 14, 13; 14, 20, and IG, 1 are found, it is true, in MSS. of (lie class mentioned, but they also all appear in important MSS. entirely independent of that group. eum Special interest attaches to 1, 11; 13, 4 (cum n in); 13, 4 (pater); and 10, 16. In 13, 4 and 16, 10 T, in harmony with the E MSS., had i[)si and ai)erta, which T" changes to pater and non aperta. In 1, 11 septimus, the reading of T is nearer septimum, the reading of the E class, than septimum enim is. A similar statement may be made in regard to tum in, the reading of T at 13, 4. All of the readings of T", with the excep- tion of non aperta, are found in other MSS. That correction may be based on the copyist's conjecture, but the others seem to be clearly taken from some other MS. This conclusion does not carry with it the corollary that the reading of T at all the points mentioned represents correctly the archetype. On the contrary, wherever T" coincides with the E MSS. we should adopt its reading, not because it is the read- ing of T", but because evidence from the E group makes it almost certain that the archetype of T and the E MSS. had the reading in question at that point. Accord- ingly we should accept incolitur, 3, 13 ; quidem, 6, 1 ; vinci, 14, 2 ; ac, 14, 3 ; tueare, 14, 13; et, 14, 20, and populis, 16, 1. All these are simple errors, in their first stage of development, so to speak, and there is no difEculty in believing that they were made by the first hand in T, and that consequently they do not represent the readings of the archetype of T at these points. On the other hand, to restore the archetype of T, we should adopt the reading of T at 1, 11; 2, 16; 13, 4 (turn iu); 13, 4 (ipsi); 13, 18; 16, 5, and 16, 16. It may be surmised with some probability that the corrections made by T^ were taken from Vindobonensis I (Massmann's W; c/. p. 21), or from some MS. very closely related to it. This seems to be a natural inference from the fact that W has the read- ings of T^ at all fourteen of the points cited in the table on p. 22, while, if the reports of Massmann and Tagmann may be trusted, it is the only MS. which gives all three of the characteristic readings, septimum enim os, 1, 11; Herminones, 2, 16; and tum eum, 13, 4. That Toletanus is otherwise independent of W seems clear for two reasons. It does not, on the one hand, show the errors peculiar to W (e. g., erumpit, 1, 11; Ara- nisci, 28, 11; Germaniae, 28, 17; and Bastranas, 46, 3), while, on the other hand, abnormal forms like iuxu, 7, 7, and simple errors peculiar to T, like effigies, 7, 9; con- silio, 8, 9; depopularium, 10, 24; and comitiis, 12, 11, are passed over by T^ without correction. The corrections made by T" are simpler. They are given in the following table. CORRECTIONS BY THIRD HAND 3, Ed. Muell. T T 5 futurae future futur^ 5 pugnae pugne pugn? 12 Germaniae germanie 237 germanif 24 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus 20, 16 si 28, 22 libentius 29, 14 cetera 14 similes 32, 6 infantium 9 natu 40, 20 sevvi M, 2 Germaniae 45, 36 Suionibus sed Ibentius cetera si miles infanctium natui sevi germanie Si iionibus Bl libentius i cetera (?) similes infantium natu servi germanif Suionibus If cetera, 29, 14, be left out of account, in none of these cases is there any reason for believing that T" either based his corrections on another MS., or introduced his own conjectures. The mark over the final letter in cetera bears some resemblance to an i, but it is doubtful if it was intended for that letter. The fact has already been noticed (cf. p. 5) that the corrections of T' were made by the official corrector who inserted the titles and paragraph marks, and evidently they represent the correct reading of the archetype of T. Having reached a conclusion in regard to the corrections in T, we are in a position to discuss the relation of T to the other MSS. of the Germania. The errors which T shows in common with the leading MSS. B b C c prove that they are all derived from the same archetype. The errors common to all five are voces, 3, 7 ; videntur, 3, 7 ; ACKITTVPnON, 3, 14; connubiis, 4, 2; distingunt, 6, 10; gale?, 6, 11; nobiles, 8, 7; turbae, 11, 12; poenarum, 12, 8; connexis, IG, 5; in animum, 20, 14; victus, 21, 17; comis, 21, 18; descriptis, 25, 1; aboiis, 28, 11; Neruli, 28, 10; Nubii, 28, 21; retulisse, 31, 7; quicquid, 34, 10; Frisis, 35, 3; nomine, 36, 5; et ipso et ipse, 37, 16; populi Romani, 37, 20; vertice, 38, 12; innoxie (inopi§ C), 38, 13; sacrum, 39, 4; adiicit, 39, 13; habitantur, 39, 14; ea, 40, 10; vei-borum, 41, 1; peragitur, 42, 6; Gotini, 43, 1; Gotinos, 43, 3; alii, 43, 21; Gothones, 43, 28; ministrantur, 44, 4; otiosa, 44, 12; deorum, 45, 5; adiicit, 45, 6; Suevorum, 45, 9; tentes, 45, 83; and fines, 46, 1, leaving out of account such deviations from the accepted orthography as Siievi, intelligere, and the use of e for ae. T, therefore, like all the other extant MSS. of the Germania, twenty or more in number, is a descendant of the Hersfeld MS., so-called.^' This MS. was made known to scholars about 1455, and it seems to be proved now beyond question that Enoch of Ascoli, who found it in Germany, brought back to Italy the MS. itself, and not a copy of it, as had been commonly supposed." ■10 Whether this MS. certum in medium rclin- quam.' Utitur autem Cornelius hoc voc:ibulo 'iuscicntia' non ' Inscitia ' ". Our extant MSS. in the passage in ques- tion (chap. 10) have inscitia, so that Dccembrio .seems to bo 238 Fbank Frost Abbott 25 Having established the fact that T is descended from Hersfeldensis, let us inquire into the relation which it bears to the other Gmiutnld MSS., all of which have a like origin. It is now agreed on all sides that the text of the Hersfeld MS. is best preserved by MSS. of the two independent classes which MttllenhofP has styled B and C respectively, one of which classes is represented by Vat. 1862 (B) and Leidensis (b), the other by Vat. 1518 (C) and Ncapolitanus (c). At more than one hundred points these two classes of MSS. offer different readings, and a comparison of T with them at these points throws a great deal of light uiion the relation which T bears to each of them and to the Hersfeld MS. In the table which follows all the passages are brought together in which B b and C c disagree. A star (*) indicates that the reading is adopted by Mtillenhoff in his edition of the Oermania. A dagger (f) means that T is in error with B b; a double dagger {X) that T is in error with C c. In a supplementary table some peculiar cases are given. TABLE SHOWING THE READINGS OF T AT POINTS WHERE B 1) AND C C DISAGREE. Bb 2, 12 Tristone (Tuisman marg.) B, tris- tone b 3, 4, 13 2 5 6 hodieque * T B b populos * T B b qq (al. tanq, marcj.) B, quamquam* Tb llei ceruli B, ceruli b 10 1 int assuei'unt B, assuerunt b 5, 7 8 12 21 e§que * T b, eeque B propitiine * T B b I pro periude B, perinde * T b affectatione f T B b 6, 8 I mensum B b 16*' aestimanti B b, extimanti ( = esti- manti* ?) T 7, 21 2 quidem B b aut * T B b 2 etiam B b 12 aut pi-opinquitates Bb in error in his comment ou this matter; but tho important point in his statement, to which Sabbadini calls attention, ig the fact that Enoch's MS. was written in columns, whereas in Decembrio's time it was the practice to make the lines in MSS. run across the entire page. This shows clearly enough that Enoch brought the German MS. itself with him and not a copy of it. The title which the Ger- Cc Tuiscone T, Tuistone C, Bistonem c, (Tuistonem, ed. Muell.j * hodie C c populis C c tanquam C c cerulei C, cerulei * T c assueuenint ;{: T C c eatque C, eatque c propitii C c proinde C c aifectione C c I imensum C c, in immensum * T existimanti C c quod * T C c ac C c et * T C c et propinquitates * T C c mania bore in the Hersfeld MS. also makes it reasonably sure that the original title was De Orighie et Situ Gervia- norum. This is the titU which appears in MSS. B and C. *iUpon snch forms as extimanti forestimanti c/. GuDE- HA.N, "Bemerkungen znm Codex Toletanus des Agricola," in the Berliner Philotoyische Woehenschri/t. 1902, col. 796. 239 26 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus 7,16 aiit * T B b etCc 8, 3 9, 3 precum * T B b et herculem after placant B b pr^co C c herculem & martem * T, herculem ac martem 10, 17 20 hinnitusque * T B b istos B b hiunitus c, himnituB C illos * T C c 22 11, 3 13 12, 1 exploratiir B b pertractentnr * T B b tamen Bb, tameii-j- (tantum mm concilium * T B b ■r/-)T explorant ;}: T C c praetractentur C c cum C, tum c consilium C c 10 uindicauit B b uindicatur * T C c 13, 4 cum B b turn * T C c 5 13 14 14, 2 6 propiuqui * T B b primus * T B b principum cui * T B b adequare * T B b eius om. b, e B propinquus C c p" C, primum c principium cui C c equare C c eius * T C c 13 16, 4 17, 5 tuentur B b 1 locant longant B, logant b ferunt B b tueare :}: T C c locant C c, locant * (longant marg.) T gerunt * T C c 18, 11 12 aliquid * T B b hoc maximum * T B b id C, a' c h§!C maximum C c 19, 9 inuenerit * T B b inuenit C c 20, 3 aut * B b ac :{; T C 21, 7 22, 1 aliqua B b enim f T B b alia * T C c eCc 9 sed et * T B b sed C c 14 15 adliec B b 1 1 ) loci ioci B, ioci b adhuc * T C c ioci * T C c 24, 8 exercitatio * T B b excitatio C c 25, 2 ministris B b ministeriis * T C c 4 ut t T B b et Cc 6 9-14 exequuntur * T B b liberti .... argumentum misplaced Bb exequantur Cc in liroper pJdce * T C c 26, 3 in uices B, inuicem b, inuices" *T uices C, uices c 27, 1 obseruat B, obseruant b obseruatur * T C c 28, 2 autor B b auctorum ;{: T C c 13 commigrauerint * T B b comigraueruni C c 14 qui B, (j b 240 quia* TCc Frank Frost Abbott 27 29, 3 populus B b populis :{: T C c 30, 1 ulera B b ultra * T C c 5 acBb atque * T C c 19 propior * T B b propiora C c 31, 15 iiultu* T B b cultu C c 33, 11 nihil* T B b nil C c . 34. 1 Angiiuarios* T B, angrinarios lb anguiarios C, anguarios c 2 Tliasuarii* T B, tasuarii b occasuarii C, Cliasudrii c 3 Fi-isii* T B b frisi c, frisfi C 10 magnu; B, magnificum in (magn marg.) /S, magmmif Jitura T magnificum C c 35, 5 obtenditur* T B, optenditur b obtendere C c 6 nam B b tam* T C c 9 maluit B, malit corr. from malint b malit* T C c 13 assequuntur* T B b asseqnantur C c 36, 8 f usi B b fosi* T C c; 37, 1 situm* T B b sinum Cc 8 etf T B b ac'Cc 8 Sapiriof T B, Sapyrio b papirio c 38, 12 in solo B, in ipso (solo written above in ipso solo* T C c /8)b 12 religatur* T B b ligant C (J 40, 3 ac*TBb &Cc 3 Veusdigni B, Veusdigni (R written Reudigni* Tc, Reudigi C aha re V /3) b 7 Neithiim B, neithum (r above i/8)b nerthum C c, Nertum* T 9 popnlis* T B b propriis C c 41, 7 passim* T B b passim et C c 42, 4 parata B b parta* T C c 7 manseref T B b manserunt Cc 43, 1 Buri* T B b Burii Cc 2 Quadorumque* T B b o qdornmque Cc 7 gotinif T B b Cotini C c 18 memorat B b memorant* T C c 44, 1 ipse-f- T B, ipsae b ipso Cc 1 oceanum B b, occeaniim-|- T occeano C c 4 frontem* T B b fronte Cc 8 non* T B b nee Cc 45, 2 cludique* T B b claudique C c 4 ortum B b ortus+ T C c 241 28 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus 45, 5 9 formasque* T B b abluuntiir* T B b forrnas C c adluuntur C, alluui 19 28 giguat* T B b sudaiit B b gignit C c sudantur* T C c 36 37 gens Bb differunt* B b, diffeft T gentes* T C c differuntiu- Cc 46, 11 figiint B b fingunt;}: T C c 25 difEcilem B b difEcillimam C c, d 28 corpora B b et corpora;|: T C c SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 2, 25 etiam B b &C,om. Tc 3, 9 obiectis T B b abiectis c, dictis C 30, 6 artus B b, arctus T areus C c 33, 10 urgentibus iam, T B b in urgentibus Cc 35, 6 sinuetur B b, sinuetur (sinatur sinatur C c 37, 10 marg.) T Marcoquoqiie or Marcoqiie B, Mar- miquoque C, Mc 39, 4 coquoque b, Marcoque T Inois Inuminis omnes b, omnes B, oms (nomis t omnis Co 14 nximls marg.) T I tempore temp corpore B, corpore b. corpore (tem- corpore C c 43. 1.-, pore marg.) T naharualos T B b nacharualos C c difficiliinam* T Of the 100 cases given in the first table T agrees with Bb and gives the correct reading in 47. T agrees with C c and gives the correct reading in P>3. T agrees with Bb and gives an incorrect reading in 11. T agrees with C c and gives an incorrect reading in 9. The true state of affairs and the significance of these figures will be more apparent after an analysis of the instances in which T B b and T C c are respectively in error. The text upon which the above calculation is based is that of Miillenhoff, because Mul- lenhoff's edition of the Germania is the only one which contains a satisfactory critical apparatus. During the thirty years, however, which have elapsed since its appearance, the reconstruction of the text has made considerable progress, and the present state of the investigation is perhaps well represented by Schwyzer's revision (1902) of the Schweizer-Sidlcr text. Let us compare the readings of his text with the eleven cases where TBb are in error, and the nine where TCc are in error, when tested by Mallenhoff's text. 242 Frank Frost Abbott 29 TBb Schwyzer 5,21 affectatione affectione 11,13 tamen B b, tamen (tantum manj.) T turn 22, 1 enim e 25, 4 ut et 34,10 magnum T, magna; B, mag nificum magnificum 37, 8 n( litura ami mngn I marc/. /3 et 8 42, 7 Sapirio T B, Saiiyvio mansere TBb h Papirio manserunt 43, 7 Gotini Cotini 44, 1 ipe T B, ipsae b ipso 1 occeanum T, oceanum iBb oceano 4,10 TCc assueuerunt adsueuerunt 10,22 14,13 explorant tueare ' explorant tueare 20, 3 ac ant 28, 2 auctorum auctorum 29, 3 45, 4 populis ortus populue ortus 46,11 fingunt figunt 28 et corpora corpora Schwyzer In only one (37, 8) of the cases of the first group is the reading of T B b adopted, while five readings of T C c are admitted into the text.*" In other words, at three points only, (viz., 20, 3; 29, 3; and 46, 28) do the MSS. TCc, as over against Bb, fail to preserve the reading of Hersfeldensis, and at least two of these cases may readily be accepted as independent errors of the copyists of T and C c. Let us pass to an examination of the supplementary table on p. 28. At 3, 9 T is correct and in agreement with B b ; c has misread the first letter, and C has made c a more serious blunder. At 30, 6 perhaps the archetype of all five MSS. had artus. B b neglected the variant, C c accepted c as a correction, and T thought the letter above had been omitted." At 2, 25 B b read etiam, C &, while T and c have neither *2 MttUenhoff himself in later years expressed a prefer- ence for three of the TCc readings, viz., assueverunt (i, 10), explorant (10, 22), and ortus (45, 4) (c/. Deutsche Altertums- kunde, Vol. IV, pp. 147, 232, 505.) He also maintained with probability {!6td.,p. 81) that "an den boiden letzten Stellen (t. e., 28, 2 and 46, 11) stand in A* it. e. Hersfeldensis) ohne Zweifel aucto2i und figunt nnd in B war durch einen glilck- lichen Lesefehler zufallig das richtipe getroffen." At both places, therefore, fingunt and auctorum of T C c represent a purer tradition than figunt and auctor. At 14, 13 he reasoned back (pp. 82, 267) to a form tuear, which would naturally represent tueare (c/. laboT— labore and arar=arare above.) At all six of the points under discussion MQllenhoff's later conclusions are represented by Schwyzer's readings. Of the TBb readiogs he favored ct 37, 8 ; mansere, 42, 7 ; and ipse, 44, 1 (cf. D. A., pp. 447, 480, 499). 43 Of course the reading in the archetype may have been t t areas or arcus. The tendency of C c to accept all letters and words written above the line as corrections, however, makes the form assumed in the text more probable. The genesis of the form in T would be essentially the same in any one of the supposed cases. 243 80 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus word. Perhaps the archetype had &, and in writing it C omitted the stroke above the symbol, while T and c, independently of one another, overlooked the symbol itself. At 33, 10 and 43, 15 T is in agreement with B b, and at 37, 19 that is essentially true, although all five MSS. are wrong at these three points. At 35, 6 T has the same reading as B b, but offers as a variant the reading found in C c. This may very well indicate, as I have attempted to show elsewhere, that the archetype of all five MSS. had at this point double readings, of which B b chose one, and C c the other. T offers the same reading in the text as all four of the other MSS. at 39, 4 and 39, 14, but, with B, as elsewhere, it has retained the variants of the archetype {cf. p. 3G). This fact does not, of course, show that T is more closely related to B or to B b than it is to C c, but only that, like B, it reproduces the archetype in this respect more faithfully than the C class does. Of the readings cited in the supplementary table those at 2, 25 ; 3, 9 ; 30, 6 ; 35, 6 ; 39, 4, and 39, 14 may properly be left out of account for the reasons just given. The common errors of T B b at" 33, 10 ; 37, 19, and 43, 15 are significant of the fact that T is more closely related to the B class than to the C class, but all five of the MSS. are wrong at these three points, and, since at present we are considering only those points of difference between the B and C classes where the one or the other has the true reading, these three passages must be left out of consideration in this connection. This disposes of all the readings cited in the sup])lementary table, and oiir revised statistics for the passages in which B b and C c differ are as follows: T agrees with B b and gives the correct reading in 48 cases " T agrees with C c and gives the correct reading in 39 cases T agrees with B b and gives an incorrect reading in 10 cases T agrees with C c and gives an incorrect reading in 3 cases The meaning which these statistics have for the relation of T to B b and C c is perfectly clear. That T is not a simple copy of any mejaber of the Bb family, extant or now lost, is evident from the fact that in forty-two of the one hundred cases where Bb and Cc differ it goes with Cc. It cannot be copied from any member of the C c family because in fifty-eight of the one hundred cases of disagreement between B b and C c it shows a different reading from C c. It cannot be a copy of a B b MS. with corrections from a C c MS. for this reason : In one hundred cases B b and C c differ. In forty-nine of these B b is in error, and yet in thirty-nine of these instances the reading in T is correct, agreeing with C c. It is inconceivable that a copyist, or a scholar of the fifteenth century, should have been able to choose correctly between two different readings in 80 per cent, of the cases before him. The case is still stronger against the hypothesis that T is a copy of a C c MS. corrected from B b. That theory would involve the supposition that the copyist made the right choice in 94 per cent, of the cases involved, because it would make it necessary for us to believe <*Tho errors at two, perhaps at three, of these points *&If we accept MallenholT's later conclusions, the fig- go back probably toHersfoldensis, cf, MLU.lenhoff, D.A.^ ures for T B b wonhi be 50 aud H respectively, pp. 62, 423, 448, and Taomann, p. 3.^. 244 Frank Feost Abbott -M that he had selected the correct reading in forty-eight out of fifty-one instances. Either of these snpj)oBitioiiH is of course in(;onceivabk>. For simihir reasons it is impossible to suppose that T is a copy of a MS. compounded of B b and C c. The evidence which is available to disprove the theory that T is a cojjy of any one of the four extant MSS. of the B class or the C class, viz., B, b, C, or c, is still fuller. When compared with B, for instance, T shows the correct reading, not only at the thirty-nine points where both B and b are in error, but also in other passages (e.fj. 9, 4 ; 21, 14 ; 33, 3 ; 39, 6, and 45, 22) where T and b are cornn-t, while B gives a poor reading. Over against b, T gives a true reading, not only at the thirty-nine points just mentioned, but also in a large number of cases where B is correct, and b in error {r.y. 7, 11 ; 7, IG ; 15, 6, and 28, 8). Similar facts could easily be given to show that T is independent of C or c. From the negative point of view the evidence is still stronger in support of the view that T cannot be a copy of any one of the four MSS. mentioned. Taking these MSS. one by one, and leaving mere variations in spelling out of account, T shows only two of the errors peculiar to B (viz., at 38, 4 and 39, 4), two peculiar to b (viz., at 6, 12 and 43, 31),'' one peculiar to C (viz., at 5, 12) and two peculiar to c (viz., at 41, 2 and 2, 25). The last one has already been discussed (c/. p. 29). At 6, 12 varietate was probably a variant reading in Hers- feldensis (c/. MtJLL., D. A., p. 65), which T b have received into the text, rejecting the other reading variare. At 43, 31 it is very probable that Lemonii, and not Lemovii, is the correct reading (cf. ibid., p. 494). The errors peculiar to B which T shows, viz., q^ for g^ q^ (38, 4) and eiusdem(j for eiusdem (34, 9), like aut for hand (5, 12) which is found only in T and C, " are of frequent occurrence in all MSS., and do not in any way weaken the argument. Another set of facts may be mentioned in this connection which not only seem to show that T is independent of B b C and c, but even suggest that in some cases it is closer to the Hersfeld MS. than is any one of the others. In fact, in some of the instances to be cited, T seems to show us how to account for the different readings in B b and C c, and helps to explain the errors in individual MSS. of these two classes. The cases in point are 19, 9, inueiiit T, inuenerit Bb, inuenit Co; 28, 1, auctoy T, auctoru Cc, autor Bb ; 30, 12 roe T C, romane Bb, ratione c ; 34, 1, Dulgicubuni (dulgibnii mar(j.) T, dulgitubini b, Dulgibini (dulgitubini above) B, dulgibini Cc (cf. Miill, D. A., p. 80) ; 39, 4, oms (nomis, nuniTs murg.) T, omnes b, omnes (nois, numinis ahov^ B, omnis Cc. The Hersfeld MS. probably had invenit, aucto:^^, roe, and oms, which T has faithfully preserved. In a similar way the copyist of T at 30, 9 gives in the test oceiones, but writes the word in full on the margin. The fact may have been noted that the corrector of b (/S) has introduced at certain points the readings of C c, and it may be suspected that T is a cojiy of b made after these corrections were inserted, but a comparison of the readings of ^ with those « Mention should be made of 24, 6 and 45, 22, where T *'• 2, 12 is not cited here because the readings of T and C and b of all the MSS. sepm to have preserved true read- seem to show merely a difference in spelling. lug's. It is hardly probable that they are conjectures. 245 32 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus of T shows that this view is tmtenable. In the last ten chapters of the Germania, for instance, the following readings disprove this theory : 39, 1, Semones, (Semnones mary.) T, Senones /3; 3U, 4, sacrum T, sacrani /3; 43, 12, Legiorum T, ligiorum ^-j 44, 1, occeanum T, oceano /8 ; 45, 36, Sitonum T, sithonum b ; 46, 6, mixtos T, mistis /S; 46, 20, sunt T, oin. b /3." T must, therefore, be regarded as entirely independent of B, b, C, and o.'" The figures given on p. 30 show, however, that it is more closely related to B b than to C c. It agrees with B b in fifty-eight of the cases under consideration, with C c in forty-two only. It shows the same error as B b in ten instances, while it fol- lows C c into error in three cases only, and all three may be considered independent errors of the copyist of T and C c. As for the relation that T bears to the two MSS. which make up the B class, it may be noted that it has two errors in common with b, but they probably come from variant readings in Enoch's MS. (cf. p. 31), while the errors peculiar to TB at 38, 4 and 39, 4 (cf. p. 31) scarcely warrant us in assuming any closer relation between these two MSS. than exists between T and b. At many points, however, (('. (]., 2, 9; 7, 16; 8, 10; 12, 7) T and B preserve the true reading, or are nearer the archetype than b is. This state of things would seem to indicate that T, or its arche- type, bears the same relation to B that it does to the MS. of which b is a copy, /. e., Ponianus.^ An interesting point of similarity, however, between T and B is brought out by comparing the variant readings in the two MSS. They are given in the following table : <8 The orthography of a fifteenth-centary MS. canQot be safely used in determiniDg its relation to other MSS. of the same period, but for the sake of completeness it may be interesting to know the forms in T at the points where the spelling in Bb and Cc differ. There are thirty-nine such cases. They are the following: 1, 9, danubius Bb, Dannu- biust T, danuuius c, Danuuius C ; 1, 10, pluris* T B b, plures C c ; 2, 14, tris* T B b, tres C c ; 2, 17, pluris* T B b, plures C c ; 5,2, tedatTBb, foeda Cc; .5, 5, fccunda* TBb, foecunda Cc; .5, 15, commerciorum B b, commertiorum Cc, comer- tiorumJT; 5, 21, sequuntur* TBb, secuntur Cc; 9, 10, con- secrant* TBb, consacrant Cc; 11, 13, coercendi* TBb, cohercendi Cc; 14,8, cciof TBb, otio Cc; 15, 2, ociumf TBb, otiumCc; 16, 5, aedificiis* TBb, hedifltiis C, aedi- fitiis c; 16, 12, supterraneos B b, sb''t^aneos C, subterra- neos{ Tc; 16, 13, onerant* TBb, honerant Cc; 1", 7. commercia Bb, commertia Cc. coniertiaj T; 18, 8. delicias* TBb, delitiasCc; 20, 5, deliciis B b, delitiis} TCc; 20,20, precia B b, praetia C c, pretia* T; 22, 5, negocia B b, negotia* TCc; 25, 5, officia B b, offltia} TCc; 25, 7, coercere* TBb, coherceroCc; 26, 8, seperent Bb, .separent* TCc; 28, 19, seperentnr Bb, separentur* TCc; 31, 7, precia B b, praetia C c, protia* T ; 33, 1, Teucteros* TBb, thoucteros C, thoncteros c; 34, 8, tr-tauimus Bb, tentauinius TCc: 34, 13, sanctiusque* T Bb, santiusquo Cc; 37, 21, trisque* TBb, tresqueCc; 37, 25, ocium Bb. otium* T Cc; :i\ 3, optiuent B b, obtinett TC, obtincntc; ;iS, 11, caniciem Bb, caniticm* TCc; 41, 10, iuclytum Bb, inclitum* TCc; 4:), 1, marco- manorum* T Bb, Marchomanorum Cc; 45, 8, iitore* TBb. littore Cc; 45, 13, hostis* T B b, hostes Cc; 45, 23 preciuiu- que Bb, pretiumque* T Cc; 45, 27, fecundiora* TBb, foecundiora c, foecondiora C : 46, 7, fedantur Bb, foedan- tur* TCc. Taking the orthography of Mullenhoff's edition as a standard, in eighteen cases T is correct with Bb, in ten with Cc: in four instances it is in error with Bb, and in six with Cc. Tentavimus in 34. 8 is loft out of account. In so far as tendencies in spelling are concerned, T shows a preference for plural forms iu -is (e. f/., tris, pluris), and the omission of the aspirate (e. g. coercere, Toncteros). Both of these points are characteristic of Bb. Iu the forms of separo (separent, etc.), and iu the choice of b rather than p in such words as obtinet and subterra- neos it goes with C c. It inclines to C c also iu showing a slight preference for t over c in such words as otium and pretium, and in the use of single consonants, but its prac- tice in this respect is not uniform. «"> MOllenhoff has stated his belief (D. A., pp. 80f.) in the independence of the class of MSS. to which it will be later shown thatT belongs, but his discussion is very brief, and does not seem to me convincing. For these reasons the subject has been considered somewhat fully iu this chapter, and along different lines from those followed by him. i'This relation is iudicated iu the stemma on p. 41. 246 Frank Frost Abbott 33 TABLE OF variants" Ed. Muell. T B b 1,10 Abnobae Arnobe Arbone, Arnone Arnob^ Arbonae 2,12 Tuistonem Tuiscouem Tristone Tuisman 4, 5 quamqiiam qnamqiiam quamqnam tanquam 6 Caerulei cerulei ceruli cerulei 10 asBueninf assueuerunt assuerunt assuerint 5,12 perinde perinde perinde proinde 6,14 coniuncto coniuncto coniuncto cuncto cuncto b coniuncto /3 19 delectos delectos delectos dilectos 8,11 Albrunani Auriniam Auriniam Auriniam Albrunam or Al- Albriniam Albriniam briniam 11,13 turn tamen tantum tamen 12,5 crate crate crate grate 16,4 locant locant longant longant ( ?) b longant locant locant yS 20,19 gratiosior gratiosior gratior gratiosior gratior 22,15 ioci ioci ioci loci ioci loci 26, 6 praebent praestant praebent prestant prebent 7 labors laborare labore laborare labore laborare labor 51 All the passages are given in which T, B. or b has any variant reading. At these points C has no variants, couicto and c one only, viz., 6, 14, cuncto. Opposite the reading of Mullenhoff's edition, in the proper column, is given the reading in the body of the text, and immediately below it the variant. Thus at 2, 12 B has Tristone in the body of the text and Tuisman as a variant. The reading of T is given in all cases, even when T has no variant. 52 At 4, 10 Schwyzer reads adsueverunt ; Mallenhoff also in D. A. 2^1 34 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus 28, 9 Boihaemi Boihemi Boihemi Boijemione 29, 8 collationibus collationibus coUocationibus coUocationibus 31, 1 raro raro rara rara raro 7 nascendi nascendi noscendi noscendi nascendi 3-t, 1 Dulgubnii Dulgicubuni Dulgibnii Dulgibini Dulgitubini 8 ilia ilia illis ilia 11 consensimus consensimus consueuimus consensimus 35, 6 sinuetur sinuetur sinatur sinuetur 36, 2 ac et ac ac 9 adversarum aduersarum aduersarum aduersarum adusariis aduersariis aduersariis 37, 4 ambitu ambitum ambitu ambitum ambitu 19 Gnaeoque Marcoque Marcoquoque Marcoque 28 inde inde nam inde nam 88, 6 sic sicut sic sic 12 ipso solo ipso solo (see col- lation) solo ipso 16 ornantur" armantur armantur ornantur ornantur ornantur armantur 39, 1 Semnones Semones Semnones Semones Senones Senones 3 stato statuto stato stato 4 omneB cms nominis, numinis omnes nois, numinis. 13 Semnonum Semonum Semnonum Semonum Sennonum Senonum •'At 38, 18 Schwyier roads armantur MOllenhoff also in /). A. 218 Frank Frost Abbott 35 39, 14 corpore corpore corpore corpore tempore tempore torporo 40, 5 Suardones Suarines Suarines Suarines b Suardones Suardones yS 41, 2 propior propior propior proprior 43, 12 Lygiorum Legiorum Legiorum Lygiorum 14 Helvaeonas Heluetonas Heluetonas Halosionas Helueconas 14 Helisios Helisios Helysios r Halisienas 15 Nahanarvalos Nahanarulos Nahanarualos Naharualos Naharualos 15 religionis religionis regionis religionis 31 protinus protinus protenus protinus 45, 5 equorum deorum eorum deorum 8 Suebici Seuici Saeuici Sueuici Sueuici 19 quaeve que ue que ue que ue 40, 1 Suebiae Sueuig Sueui^ Sueuf! 1 Peucinorum Peucinorum Peucinorum Peucurorum Peucurorum 27 Oxionas'' Oxionas Oxionas Etionas Etionas This table brings out the fact that in one noteworthy respect T resembles B more than it does any other MS. of the Gennania. As has been noted, there are no variant readings in C at the points under discussion, and c has one only. Eight are found in b, while B and T have thirty -nine and thirty-four respectively. An analysis of these cases shows that at ten points the reading in the body of the text and the variant are identical in B and T, that at six more (viz., 1, 10; 8, 11; 89, 1; 39, 13; 43, 15, and 45, 8) they are very similar, and that in four more instances, not counting 34, 1, the reading in B is the variant in T and vice versa. At twenty points, therefore, B and 6* In D.A. MQlleDboff expresses a preference for Etionas. 249 36 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus T show the same double readings, and at certain points {c. g., 31, 7 and 37, 4) double readings seem to be reported from no other MSS. than T and B. In this connection we are principally concerned with the double readings common to T and B, but it will be convenient to discuss here a few of those found in T, which do not appear in B. At 11, 13 perhaps the archetype had tn, which would naturally be expanded into either tamen or tantum, or if misread tu, into turn, from which the further error cu=cum is an easy one to make. On 34, 1 cf. Mull., D. A., p. f)2. The readings illis and sicut at 34, 8 and 38, G are reported nowhere else. The second readings sinatur, 35, G, and regionis, 43, 15, both of which stand in the text of C c, were perhaps in the Hersfeld MS., and omitted by B, and possibly, as Miillenhoff thinks (D. A., p. 85), Suardones, 40, 5 was added by Enoch to his MS. after B, or the MS. from which B is derived had been copied." We have just considered some of the instances from the list printed above, where B gives one reading only. It may be interesting to analyze briefly the other cases, / ('., the cases where B gives a doiible reading. The facts from this point of view are presented in the following conspectus: T has double readings; B and T, correct one in text - - - - 8 T has double readings; B and T, incorrect one in text - - - 7 T has double readings; T correct in text, B incorrect - - - - 3 T has double readings; T incorrect in text, B correct - - - 1 T has double readings; all foiu- readings incorrect - . - - 2 T has one reading, correct; B, correct one in text - - - - 11 T has one reading, correct; B, incorrect one in text - - - - 3 T has one reading, incorrect; B, correct one in text - - - - T has one reading, incorrect; B, incorrect one in text - - - - 1 TotaP^ .36 The faithfulness with which B has recorded variant readings is one of the strong- est proofs which we have of the conscientiousness with which that MS. was copied. Its accuracy in this resjiect leads us to trust it in other particulars. In a similar way the preservation of a large number of variants in T, some of which are impossible readings, like tempore at 39, 14, speaks for the fidelity of the copyist of T. He does not deserve the same measure of confidence as the copyist of B, however, for two reasons. In the first place, at four points where he has preserved variants, he has interchanged the variant and the reading in the text. At least this is the case if we accept the authority of B at these points. In the second place, in sixteen places he has omitted variants which B has preserved. This omission is oidy partially offset by his possible retention of three variants which the copyist of B overlooked, or did not find in the archetype when he made his copy. f-^That Suardonos stood as a second reading in thu able explanation can be offered for many of them, but in archetype was surmised by Waitz as early as 1874; cf. the present state of our knowlodKo of the MSS.it would Deutsche V^crfassunf/Ht/eschichle, \ii\. I, p. .510, n. 1. The be hazartlous to express a positive i>piniori about them. double readinKsiuTatl, 10; 2!), 8; .14,11; 3fi, 2; 39, .1; 39, 1; M The peculiar cases at 34. 1 ; 37, 19, and 3S, 12 have been 39, 13; 43, 14 ; and 4:., 19 are not discussed here. A reason- left out of account. 250 Frank Frost Abbott 37 The resemblance which exists between T and B in the niatlcr of variant readings does not indicate that T is more closely related to B than to b, but only shows that the common variants were in the archetype of T and B, and that both MSS. have preserved them with similar lidelity. Ill T AND THE E MANUSCRIPTS In the last chapter we reached the negative conclusion that T is independent of BbCc, /. e., of the B and C classes of manuscripts. In this one we shall try to show that it is a member of the E class, a conclusion to which reference has already been made by way of anticipation (p. 22). Tagmann first recognized the connection between Massmaun's K (or L), Vat. 2904 (Massmann's Kd), the Nuremberg editions, and the Koman edition of 1474," and Miillenhoff established more definitely {D. A., pp. 78 ff.) their relation to the other MSS. of the Ge.rmania. MuUenhoff secured a new collation of Rd, and himself examined R '. For L and N he took the readings of Massmann. His conclusion after comparing the four texts is as follows: "Esunter- liegt .... keinem bedenken nicht nurdie Nurnberger drucke (e'j mit dem in anfang und am ende unvollstandigen Longolianus unter 6in zeichen, sondern damit auch den romischen druck (e^) und den Vaticanus selbst (v) als 6ine hs. E zusammenzufassen, da wesentliche differenzen unter den drei oder vier zeugen allein eintreten, wo die gemeinsame quelle doppellesarten hatte, bei denen die abschreiber oder herausgeber sich bald so bald so entschieden, die ohnehin geringen und nicht zahlreichen beson- derheiten jeder hs. oder jedes druckes aber bei jenem verfahren ohne schaden ver- schwinden." {D. A., p. 79.) A comparison of T with any one of the E MSS. will decide, therefore, whether it belongs to that class or not. The comparison can be made most satisfactorily with the Nuremberg editions (e^), because, since Miillenhoff wrote the sentence quoted above, a complete and accurate collation of them has been made by Roediger (c/. D. A., pp. G91 flP.).'' The first thirteen chapters will be enough for our purpose. I, 1 rhaetiisqj T, rhaetys que e' I, II, rhaetis quae III 2 Danubio T e' G rheticay T e' 9 Daunubius T, Danubius e^ 10 Arnobe (al arbone at none nmrg.) T, arnobae e". II, 12 Tuiscone Te"7, II, Tuistonem e' III 14 conditorisqj T e^ IG hermiones Te^ 17 pluesc^T, plures c^e' 25 etiam om. Tel III, 4 Barditum (Baritu marg.) T, barditum e' I. II (d .■^triclyn out III) 7 voces To-' uidenturTe' lOUlixemTe' 14 ACKITTVPriON T, Acriniprion (ao-«:icoi/p/riop III) e" IG monimentaq^ Tel IV, 2 conubiis T, connubys e'^ 10 assueverunt T, assueverint e". V, 15 comertioy Te' 20 quoque om. Te' 21 affectatione T, affectacione el VI, 5 cominus Te' 10 distingunt Te' 12 uarietate Te' (r over te III) 17 preliantur Tel 5; Tagmann, De Taciti Germaniae Ai>paratu Critico, ssThere are three early Nuremberg editions, but after pp. 69 f . the first few pages they give exactly the same text. 251 38 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus VII, 6 neque Te^ 11 fortuna corr. to fortuita T, fortuita e' II, III, fortuna e^ I 16aut Te-. VIII, 9 negligunt Te' 11 Auriniam (Albrunam or Albriniam [Vj marg.) T, auri- niam e" 13 tanquam Te'. IX, 3 Herculem & Martem Te" 8 assimilare Te^ X, 5 fortuitu T e' 22 explorant Tel XI, 4 inciderit Te" 10 ne iniussi T, nee iniussi e^ 11 cftuum T, coetium e' 13 tamen (tantum viarg.) T, tii e^. XII, 7 ascondi T e^ 8 pena:^ T, poenarum e^ 14 adsunt Tel XIII, 1 private Te' 4 turn] turn T, cum e" pater] ipsi Te" 11 etiam] et & Te' 16 semper & Te^ 18 ciiique om. Tel In the following list some of the readings characteristic of T are given; i. e., readings not found in MSS. of the B or C classes : X, 5 fortuitu Te'e^T; XI, 10 ne iniussi T, nee iniussi e^e'?; XI, 11 c^tuum T, coetium e"e'?7 XIII, 6 semper et Te^e'?; XIV, 9 adolescentum Te'^'e'?? XVI, 16 popu- latio Te-e^T; XVIII, 19 uiuentes Te'e'77 19 parientes Te'e'77 XX, 7 in ex aucta T, in exauta e= (s over ut e' II) 77 XXV, 6 verberaut Te'e' XXVIII, 25 collati T e= e'v XXXV, 13 iuiuriam T e' XXXVII, 10 consulatum] conventum T e' XXXIX, G hor- rentia Te' XLII, 8 Trudi Te'r, XLV, 19 que ve (v5 marg.) T, quae vero e' XLVI, 16 solaTe"??. That T is a member of the E class, so called, to which these four MSS. and early editions belong, is apparent without comment. It would be hazardous in the present state of our knowledge^' to attempt to find the exact relation which the several members of the E class bear to one another, but some general conclusions on this point may be stated with a great deal of confidence. We have already noted (p. 3(3) that the preservation in T of variant readings whose presence in Hersfeldensis is attested by B furnishes proof both of the fidelity of the copyist of T and of the excellence of the MS. which he followed. The same infer- ence has been drawn (p. 31) from the appearance in T of certain abbreviated forms, probably taken from the archetype, out of which errors have developed even in our best MSS. These a iwiori considerations are supported, so far as the comparative excellence of T and the other members of the E class is concerned, by the presence in T of certain words which have been overlooked by the copyists of the other E MSS. ; e. g., 10, 19, sed T, on. e'e^tj and 16, 15 et T, om. e", and by the preservation of the true reading in T where e' and the others have gone astray. Cases in point are 2, 21, primi T, pr. eni e\ primi eni el primum t); 15, 6, iidem T, iisdem o"; 18, 18, data T, parata e', parata (air data parata marg.) ?;; 19, 5, abscisis] abscisis T77, adcisis e', S'^ An accurate collation of e2 has been given by Rfldi- reports MQlleuhoff as announcing after an examination of ger, as already noted. Tlio roadinKS of T are given in chai>. K (or L) that it was a direct copy of the Nuremberg edi- ii of this paper. MlUlonhoff examined Ri and tj, but did tion, and this statement agrees with the passage quoted not publish his collations. Some of the readings of Ri and above (p. .37) from the JM'Utsche Altcrtuntskitmlc in regard r] are given by Massmanti, but a comparison of Massmann's to e^. Complete collations of Ri and »i are needed, there- critical apparatus for H and h with the MSS. themselves fore, before the exact relations of the members of the E has led mo to distrust the readings which he reports for class to one another can be determined with certainty. other MSS. WOnsch in Hermes, Vol. XXXII (1»97), p. 43, 252 Frank Frost Abbott 39 adscisis e'. Still more significant perhaps are the passages where the writing was not perfectly legible. In some of these places the original copyist of T has first made a mistake, and at once corrected it, whereas in the other E MSS. an error is left uncor- rected, e. (J., 19, 7, fiuere corr. to finire T', finuere e', funero rj; ;i(), 14, impedite corr. to in pedite T', impedite tj. In two other cases T is iu error, but is nearer the arche- type than the other MSS. These are 20, 7, ine.Khausta] in oxaucta T, inexauta r/, in ex auta (s over ut in II) e", and 37, 8, Papirio] Sapirio T, Sapino o^, Sapiro rj. In the matter of d(juble readings T bears to the other E MSS. a relation very similar to that which B bears to b, C, and c. It may be remembered, for instance, 1 pro 1 prebont that we find at 5, 12 perinde B, perinde b, proinde C c; at 26, 6, prestant B, pbet b, praebent c, pstat C. In a similar way T has double readings at a great many points where each of the other E MSS. has selected one and omitted the other. Examples of this state of things are 20, 19, gratiosior (gratior marg.) T, gratiosior e^ gratior j?; 31, 1, raro (rara marg.) T, rara e^ raro rj; 31,7, nascendi (noscendi nKtrg.) T, noscendi e', nascendi rj; 34, 1, Dulgicubuni (Dulgibnii marg.) T, Dulgibini e^, Dulgicubuni ??; 37, 28, inde (nam marg.) T, inde e'^, nam j?; and 39, 14, corpore (tempore marg.) T, corpore e'*, tempore 77.™ It follows from all these facts that T is not a copy of any one of the E MSS., and also that it is one of the best representatives of them. It could hardly be expected that many true readings would occur in T which are not to be found in either B b or C c. The following cases may, however, be men- tioned: 19, 5, abscisisj abscisis T, adcisis B, accisis be, accissis C; 20, G, separet] e separet T, seperet Bc^, sep& C, separet c; 30, 1, Hercynio] Hercynio T, Hircynio B, e hercinio Cc, hircynio b; 37, 19, Mallio] Mallio T, Malio B, Maulio bC, Manilio c; 39, 1, Semnones] Semones (Semnones marg.) T, Semoues (1 Sellones ahorc) B, seno- nes b, semones Cc, Semnones above c"; 40, 1, Langobardos] Langobardos T, Largo- bardos B, logobardos b, longobardos Cc, l5gobardos (Longobardi 7narg.) /9; 40, 5, Suardones] Suarines (Suardones marg.) T, Suarines BbCc (dones above ines /3); r 43, 14, Helisios] Helisios T, Helysios C c, Helysios (1 halisienas above) B, elisios b, and apparently Albrunam" at 8, 11, which is found in T only. One shoxild mention in this connection 45, 22 also, where T b alone seem to have preserved the true read- ing, profertur. The real value of the E class lies in the fact, as MilUenhoff has shown, that it casts the deciding vote when B b and C c are at variance, and thus furnishes a safe basis for the reconstruction of the text at a rather large number of points. In eighty-seven of the one hundred cases where B b and C c offer different readings (cf. p. 30) the agreement of E with the one or the other class may be accepted with safety 6xpansion of the abbreviated form which the copyist of B has brought over without change into his text. APPENDIX II NOTES ON A MANUSCRIPT CONTAINING PLINY'S LETTERS The Codex, No. 49, 2 in the Chapter Li])rary at Toledo, in which the Germania of Tacitus is found, also contains the Letters of Fliny. They run from folio G6r. to 221 v., and, as already noted in my article on the Germania, on folio 221v. stands the subscription Caii Plinii oratoris atque Phylosaphi Dissertissimi epistolanmi liber octavus et ultimus explicit foeliciter deo gras, and below Finis, Perusi^ in dome Crispolitorum (?) 1486, AMHN TfXwo-, M. Angelus Tuders. This sub- scription led Dr. Wunsch, who was allowed to make only a very few notes on the MS., to the very natural conclusion that only Books VIII and IX were given (rf. Classical Review, XIII [1899] p. 274). I found, however, on examining it, that the MS. contained Books I-VII and Book IX. The first leaf is gone, so that the text begins with an ut solebas, I, 3, 2. The manuscript does not end with an incomplete letter, as Dr. Wunsch thought, but IX, 40 is given in full. The twenty- seventh letter of the fourth l)ook is lacking, and the letters are frequently numbered, until we reach 100 at V, 6, when the numbers cease. After No. 8 the letters in Book V stand in the order 21, 15, 10-14, 16-20, 9. The MS. apparently belongs, therefore, to Keil's second group (cf. Praef. pp. v-vi), of which the oldest representative is the codex archivii Casinatis of the year 1429. Manuscripts of this class are freely corrected from the one-hundred-letter collection. This accounts for the fact that the letters are numbered up to V, 6. I did not have time enough at my disposal to make a complete collation of the MS., but I subjoin readings for the first few letters at the beginning and the end of it. The numbers refer to the pages and lines of Keil's edition. II, 20 aduocaris te om. foelix 21 tempus] temnis est enim om 22 ciu-as] curas et 23 negocium ocium 24 vigilie iuAetiam 27 c^pit 28 quod] (J modo] modo i (i c/ctefa) Siqjerscrijjtio Epia 1111 Pli. S Pompeie Celerine socrui S P 33 Otriculano (otriculanus iu marg.) Carsolano (carsolanus in marg.) 34 vero om. bal- neum 36 Plauti dictum in marg. 38 mei] mei te III, 1 diverteris 4 servos] suos 6 per se ipsos Superscriptio Pli. S. Voconio Rufo S P epta V 10 M.] Marco humilioremque 12 tectiora] tet'ora 13 aurileni corr. in aruleni 16 cicatrices tigniostum (stigmosum marg.) 17 Senec- tionem 18 quidem] (J Mettius Catus meis] eis 19 ego] ego aut 21 qum 25 reminiscebantur corr. in reminiscebatur me ipsum 24 v. 13 nitebatur corr. in nitebamur 25 cause Mettii 26 relegatus a Domitiano 27 sentias Iterurn ego (Itenim ego verbis delefis) 29 afFuisse 30-1 si de hoc .... sentias om. sed in marg. add. 34 quidem esse 38 ergo ex IV, 1 mox a (a dcleta) 2 reconcilient corr. in reconciliet venit corr. in pervenit 3 cum] qum (qui tum marg.) 6 ferre] perferre 6 a Spurinna] ait Burina 7 porticu] portam (porticu marg.) 10 parce] pee (paxa sive para marg.) cui ego dispicies] inqens : quoi disp^iets (dispicies marg.) putas 11 decepi corr. in decipi Mauricum] maritum 12 ab exilic] n ■ ab exilio 13 illam corr. in ilium 14 comittem corr. in comitem 17 quod] (| aliqn 18 Ruffo Ruffus 19 secula corr. in seculi 20 dcm : q - 21 potuisse] potius se existimare 23 secudi 24 iudicii] 25.7 44 The Toledo Manuscript of the Gekmania of Tacitus studii 25 quor es om. 26 quid] (J Metti 27 et om. 27 haesitabundiis] haesitabuudus iuquit interogavi 28 lit om. 34 Maricus 35 esse om. Sva-Kaealperop] se diligenter 36 curatur] evitatur (amatiu- marg.) 37 amore fortius concussa] concisa (coucussa niarg.) V, 1 ut] ex ut Maritum 2 et] est 3 previdere corr. iu providere temtante con: in tem- tandi 4 constabat quia] q - equu Superscriptio Plinius S • CJornelio Tacito S ■ P • epla VI 10 ridebis] videbis corr. in ridebis ego] ego Plinius 11 et qiudem] erj cepi 12 etquieie om.sed in marg. add. 13 erat] eraut aiit (aiit deletum est et uon iti marg. additum est) 14 pugilares 16 agitatioue] acogi- tatione 18 ipsamque corr. in ipsumque 21 non] non (dum in marg. add.) 22 vale om. Superscriptio Pli ■ S ■ Octavo Rudo • S • P • epla VII 26 idem] t| deletum est et idem in marg. additum est 27 lovi Optimo Maximo Homerus v. 29 cm. 30 ac reniitu] atque rem tu tuo voto 32 ex advocationem pr. m.. 36 petis (a supra e scripta) id (illud supra id scripto) Pagina CXCVI Superscriptio C ■ P • S ■ Paulino Suo S ■ P • 7 hec 8 a om. 10 nisi te] in me 11 locan- donim] tuscanorum(?) 13 lustro] iusto 14plerique 16natum]na putaut 16-17 occiirrendum ergo] occiirrendum qiioque 17 et] a «*■ Wis. ifffl^iSi irptaPtir,? iv. Those uncertain jjej jiggt,) . fi^g 5^^^ ^f guidas can bo explained only on data could therefore readily bo reconciled with a floruit the assumption that the passage in Aristotle was carelessly (40 years) before 460, birth before 500. Brinck, Inscrip- rg^d 1 Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica, s. vv. Xi,oviSr„ tiones Graecae ml chorcgiam pcrtinentes. p. 170, places his ^^^\ Miy, ,5 : The Suidas notice is omitted altogether from birth CO. 495. jjjg tostimonia on Chionides. *8It may bo of interest to name the principal ropre- (3) Meineke objected to Grtsar's chronology on the sentatives of each of these throe groups. The following ground that it placed Epicharmus oAiyw, not n-oAAto, irpoTtpo?, list is by no means exhaustive: This seems to have led Croiset and others to approve of (1) Meineke, Hist, crit, (1839), p. 27: if Suidas s. v. the textual change; cf. Histoire delalitt^rature grecquc, Xioji/iSijs is right, Chionides would be earlier than Myllus, Vol. Ill 2 (1899), p. 433, note 2. I have already referred to the etc. But Aristotle regards Chionides and Magnes as the view of Denis, whose interpretation amounts to a textual earliest poets of literary comedy in .\ttica. Bernhardy, change. It is hard to see what Beloch would do with the Grumlrifm iler grierhischen Liiterfitur. Th. II (1845). pp. 942, Aristotle passage, for he thinks that Epicharmus was very 945 and at/ Suid. s. r. Xiu)t't£»j«. LtURK^Z, Lclten uiul Schriften young when he came to Syracuse and that ho lived many des Coers Epicharmott (1864), pp. 52 if, Loreuz was years after Ilieron; cf. Grieehische Geschiclite. Vol. I, p. influenced to abandon the altogether reasonable explaua- 577, note 1. tion, which he works out in detail, by Meineke's objection (3) Haigh, .4(//c Theatre'^ (1898), pp. 30 f., 41, assumes concerning Myllus, Euetes, etc., and by the suspicious cir- that there were regular contests under state auspices as cumstanco that Suidas groups three Sicilian and five Attic early as 487, believiugsooxact a statement as that of Suidas 264 EOWARD CaPPS the floruit of EpicharmuH in flio 73(1 Olympiad, that of Chionides and Magnes in the 80th. Much as we may admire the ingenuity displayed by some of the greatest scholars of our time in getting rid of the contradiction which they have felt between Suidas and Aristotle — from Meineke's quiet rejection of the troublesome notice, to Wilamowitz's sleuth-like detection of the forger, and Kaibel's gentle correction of a bit of carelessness in translation — on sober reflection it seems well-nigh iucredil)le, and by no means creditable to our modern scholarship, that any difficulty should have been found, in the first place, in the straightforward notices with which we are dealing, and that the error in reasoning should have persisted so long, especially since there have not been wanting all these years a few scholars who have found no difficulties in the way of a natural and satisfactory interpretation. I refer particularly to F. A. Wolf, Clinton, and Bergk.''^ The trouble has been, mainly, the failure to recognize the absolute necessity of assuming, from the words of Aristotle, that Epicliarmus was a Megarian and first won distinction at Megara."" Aristotle was speaking only of the claims of the Dorians, and Syracuse"' would have suited his argument as well as Megara; he would scarcely have gone out of his way to mention the Megarians had not the literary comedy of the Sicilians originated among them." The second source of the prevalent error has been the mechanical and somewhat unintelligent use of the data furnished by the chronog- raphers. Anonymous uses the term yeyove, which often is the equivalent of ■qKixdl^ero^'^ Now it is a familiar fact that the aKfi,T) of a person was prefei'ably fixed with reference to some important event in his career [iyvapi^eTo) — e. g., Solon's by his legislation — though more frequently by reference to persons or events in a general way contemporary — e. g., so many years before the Persian Wars. We are fortunate in the case of Epicharmus in that Suidas records the fact which determined the 73d Olympiad as an epoch s. V, Xiwi'tSTi trustworthy. But he inclines to the opinion p. 24, note 15. Grysar, De Dorienslwn comoedia (1828), that his exhibitions were at the Lenaea. Rergk at one time seems to have perceived tiie correct relationship of the hekl a similar view, but he was at least logical, holding that three poets, but to have aimed at too ffreat precision as to these early productions at the Lenaea were unofliciul. repre- dates, e. ff., fixing Epicharmus's first exhibition in the year senting the crude stage of comedy which Aristotle passed 494-3. I have not been able to see this work, over as unliterary; cf. " Verzeichnisse der Siege dramat- 20A point properly emphasized again by Poppelbectee, ischer Dichter in Athen," ifftein. Jl/iw., Vol. XXXIV (1879), Decomoerf/ac ,4((iVae;)rtmord/is (Berlin, 1893), p. 17, note. p. 320. He later abandoned this view, which rested upon a 21 since Epicharmns became a Syracusan, it is not snr- strange misconception of the status of the dramatic exhi- prising that nothing is said by the Syracusans themselves bitions at the two festivals, in favor of a natural interpre- about his and comedy's Megarian origin ; cf. the epigrams tation both of Aristotle and of the other notices; Griech. ;„ ijjs honor, one by Theocritus, the other quoted by Diog. Litteraturgesch., Vol. IV (1887, posthumous), pp. 24, 46. Laert., VIII, 3; or that some one should have said of him i» Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (179.i), p. 69, note 34 (aP»rf Suidam),b! tSpc t^^ «o,M>f.Sta^£,.Supa.oO,7a.9 ipa*w»,. (quoted by Lorenz) ; " Utrumque 't. e.. Chionidem et Mag- '- It is hard to see how Bernhakdy's assertion that the netem ) autem pluribus anuis praegressa est comoedia Grae- claim rested " bloss aut seine PersOnlichkeit " can be recon- corum Siciliensium, ab Ephicharmo, si nutus veterum recte ciled with Aristotle, even if we reject the notice of Suidas assequor, perscripta iam ante Gelonis tiirannhlem." Clin- on Chionides ; cf. Grmulr. d. griech. Lilt., Th. II, p. 902. TOff, Fasti Henenici(\i11).No\.\l, sm'i a?i. 500 : "Epicharmus 23Eohde concludes, as the result of his valuable study, perfected comedy in Sicily long before Chionides exhibited " Viyovt in der Biographica des Suidas," Ehein. J/iis., N F., at Athens, and continued to exhibit comedy in the reign of XXXIII (1878), p. 165: " In der ungeheueren Mehrzahl der Hiero;" stth an. 487: " Chionides first exhibits." Beegk, Falle Suidas bezeichnet (by ye'voie) nicht das Geburtsjahr, Griech. Litteraturgesch., Vol. IV, p. 24 : " Epicharmos hatte sondern die Zeit in welche der wichtigste Theil des Lebens damals (at his removal to Syracuse) wohl bereits die eines Schriftstellers fallt." The usage of Suidas may be Schwelle des Greisenalters erreicht; und sich als Lustspiel- assumed for Anonymous, for the meaning iytyfiie-q is of dichter einen allgemein geachteten Namen erworben ; " cf. course excluded. 265 8 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia (Jate — ^t> BiBdcTKoov ev ^vpaKova-ai<;. This in turn was known, not by the existence of didascalic records from Syracuse — the source of such notices concerning Athenian poets — but because the destruction of Megara occurred co. 483, before which time Epicharmus must have taken up his residence at the Sicilian capital.^* Another epoch date of Epicharmus, 472, is known from the Parian Marble, and it is just as good as the other, though we do not know just the event which determined it. In fact, the chronographers give, if they can, no less than four epoch dates for each great dramatic poet — birth, first appearance, first victory, and death — and as many others as the peculiar circumstances of the subject suggest. It is an obvious error in method, therefore, to seize upon one particular epoch date in the life of Epicharmus, assume that it is a fixed point in his life, like his birth date, assume further that it is the epoch which formed the point of departure for Aristotle's ttoXXw TrpoVepo?, and to make the chronology of Chionides and Magnes square with these assumptions. In fact, with Aristotle's reference to the Megarians and Suidas's notice about Chionides to guide us, and in default of contradictory evidence, we must accept the sane and convincing con- clusion of Bergk: "AUe drei sind Zeitgenossen ; nur geht Epicharmos an Jahren wie an Werken voran.""' 2. The beginniug of the official records. — The way is now prepared for the con- sideration of the passage frtjm the fifth chapter of the Pocfics, quoted at the beginning of this paper, in the light of its context. We shall learn from it to appreciate the full significance of the first granting of a comic chorus by the archon, the reason why so much importance is attached to the exact time of the activity of Chionides and Magnes, and why a solution so simple as that outlined above has, through the influence of oyjre Trore, been felt to be unsatisfactory by a majority of scholars. After having discussed in the preceding chapter the important changes through which tragedy had passed before reaching maturity, Aristotle proceeds to comedy:"'* Though the various steps in the development of tragedy, and the persons responsilile for them, are still remembered, yet iu the case of comedy, since no attention was paid to it at the beginuing, they have been forgotten. For it was not until a relatively late time that the archon granted a chorus of comic performers. Before that time they had volunteered their services.-' And comedy had already taken on a more or less definite form at the time when the poets 2*This is generally agreed upon; the difference in xop^^Tat, have failed to recognize the generic term in the opinion is as to his age at the time ; and Aristotle ought to formal phrase x^po'' KmniuSCiy, familiar enough in such settle that. phrases as rois TpaytuSois, *' at the time of the tragic per- 25GnecA.I,iHem(«r0«cft.,Vol.IV,p.24,notel5. formers." The person to whom the archon granted a chorus was the 6i6acr«aAo5. All who were trained by him 261449a, 35: ai ^t.- oi^r tSs rpayuSiat m"«?«''"s ««1 «'' iv were «Tc.\ },(T,iy. ^Sri Si (Txw<"-i "••<» ""^-^i tx<»ii"?5 "' Aristotle can use u.To«p.Tai for all who engage in a dramatic A,ytiM«>ot »Oiiji iroiiiia; (iv^f.oi'fiioi'Tai. -ri. Si wpoawwa iiriSi^xfw performance; (■/. Poet.. 14596, 26, and Flickinger, ^np6\oyov i itA^O, v,ro«p.T• l-dpM"?. to ^er tf ipx^t e'. S.KeA.ot Century," Decennial PuhUcut)o)u< of the Unifcrsitij of Clii- }l\e,, rC^ Si ■\Biivna:. KpiT,5 TrpJiTot hfi'" iil^€vo, r!,, mfi^iKis ^„,,g^ pj^gt Scries, Vol. VI, p. 10. The suggestion oi xopiV"' iS.as .afloAou iroulr Aoyous Ka.\ /.vSous. (Stauk, Scsemihi.) overlooks the fact that the chor.'gia 27 That is, oi KuttiwSoi, all wlio took part in the proseuta- was a democratic institution, not antedating the reforms iUm of A KuifiuSia. Those who have assumed a enti.s7ru(7/o a(i of Cleisthenes. But surely there were comic iOeXovrai he- tensum. understanding, as subject of ^aoc, oi \opf]yoL or oi fore thou. 2GG Edward Capps 9 mentioned are recorded. But no one knows who was responsible foi- wp&auna. prolo^nic, number of actors, etc. Crates was the first Athenian tof^'ive up the lufifiiKri iSia and to use consistent plots, following the example of the Sicilians, Epicharnius and rhorniis.-" lu this passage Aristotle confines himself to Attic comedy, shaping his account of it by the account just given of Attic tragedy. He knows certain important facts in the history of tragedy which he cannot give for comedy, and explains the reasons for his ignorance. We must assume that these reasons were satisfactory to liis Athenian hearers, i. e., that they really explained both his accurate knowledge of tragedy, on the one hand, and, on the other, his ignorance of comedy down to a certain point, and his better information after that time. We should therefore be able, by inquiring closely into the matters concerning which he is well informed, to ascertain the full significance of the reasons assigned for his ignorance. All are agreed that ol Xeyofieuot. TronjTal must mean Chionides and Magnes^' — the poets whose very names stood for a certain well-defined stage in the development of comedy, for the first real Attic comedy. But what is the meaning of /Mvr]fj,ovevovrai ? Does it refer simply to an oral tradition — "erwahnt werden," "on commence h nommer"?'" Or is it an allusion to /xvijixaTa of some kind, readily understood by the Athenian? Observe that a definite point of time is suggested by the occurrence of the names of these two poets. They were either "mentioned" with reference to certain datable events, or "recorded" under a specific year or period. Were others mentioned or recorded before them, or were theirs the earliest names'? The answer to these questions depends upon the settlement of certain other questions first. It is clear that the granting of a comic chorus by the archon was an outward sign that the period of indifference (ovk iaTrovBci^eTo) with respect to comedy was then at an end, so far as the state was concei-ned. Did Aristotle from that time on have com- plete knowledge of the development of comedy ? If so, why does he not frankly state that at this time comedy had passed through such and such stages of those mentioned in the account of tragedy, instead of employing the vague phrase a^^riixaTci jiva ? Of course, after the state recognition of comedy the official didascalic records were avail- 28 In view of the vast influence which the views of WiL- setzt hatten. Denn Niemand wisse, wer die Prologe," etc. AMOWITZ have exercised in the interpretation of this pas- He then sums up as follows: "Also: erst gibt es die sage, I append his paraphrase of the passage in full. And Ac-yofiecot TroiTjTai, dann erhalt die KomOdie die Staatscon- I may take this opportunity to acknowledge my own in- cession, dann ist sie iambisch, .... dann konimt Krates." debtedness to this scholar, "der gelehrteste der Hellenen" Note that the sentence Ws 6e . . . . riyvoriTix^ is made causal of modern times, for inspiration and guidance at every in this version, and that the causal relation of *cal ydp point in my study of this subject, though I am unable to \ophv ktA. is disregarded. follow him in his principal conclusions. Though he has ^n.n t ,. i. ^i ^ ^ t. , .,- . ^ ^, , ,rT^- - L f ,j- n .. 29 AiJ, I mean, who accept the text. Lsener soAivoi^iet- adhered consistently, from Die megarische KomOdie to / -^ .-. , ., -■,,.- u l r jf ^. „ ,, , ,,. . , i 1- t , ■ 1 11 J 1 (after Castelvetros oAiyoi fiei-oi), which has found favor the Herakles, to this interpretation of Aristotle and to ... , , ,. , ^i, j *ii , ,,^ ,, t , 1 ^ J -1 . ., , iL .. L with some scholars, entirely reverses the order of the argu- about ibS as the epoch date of comedy. It IS possible that he ^ j, -i,_ l- ,. , • ^i.- ,.„,,. . ,, ,r, ,_,,_- ment, and leaves us with a reason which explains nothing, has since modined his views, though I have searched his . - ^ i, , . » ^,_ j ^ ., c i, j , ^ * , ... ^. ,^. „ ^ Aristotle s ignorance of the details of the development of recent writings in vain for an indication of the fact. , ,,.. , ^, i-j-^l, ^u ., _. . , „ .J. ,, rr TT , TV ..or,,., comcdy wouUl obviously not be explained m the least by Die megarische KomOdie, Hermes^ Vol. IX (18i5), p. ^, , . ,. ^ ,.i, , , , ^ c ^i i . . , ., , - . ill. J .. . . the fact that the names of only a few parts of the early 332; Aristotle says, speaking of Attic comedy, sie sei . , ^.,, ^ j ,, xt ■ • i j i .,,*,.,■. .,-1 - , ,„ , period are still remembered. Nor is a ^lef needed to zunAchst, da Niemand sich ernstlich um sie bekQmmert, , , il - p. * ,, • im, j i- • ■ i . , , . ,. . „ . .1 u u J Di 1 • ■ J- balance the ris Se following. The adversative is required unbekannt geblieben. ±.rst spat habe der btaat sie in die i , *k Hand genommen. und die Dichter, die man anfuhro, warden erst in einer Zeit erwahnt, wo sich gewisse Formen festge- so Denis, La com(die grecque. Vol. I, p. 6. 267 10 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia able, but they gave only the names of the contestants and choregi and the titles of the plays; at this period probably not even the titles.^' How then did Aristotle know any- thing about the status of comedy at this time, even enough to warrant the assertion of ax^ifJ-iTo- Tiva? The texts of the plays of Epicharmus, probably from the time of his residence in Syracuse, were preserved ; but if Aristotle had possessed the texts of the Attic poets he would have had moi-e exact information than he gives evidence of hav- ing. For the statement a-)(ii]ixaTd -nva, however, the texts were not needed ; Aristotle might easily have inferred this much from the very fact that the state had given its sanction to comedy. And this would fully explain the indefiniteuess of the phrase. The /iexa/Sacrei? which Aristotle records for tragedy are: irX^dij inroKpiTcov and the attendant changes, aKtjvoypa(j)ia, fj.eye6o<;, Xe'fi?, fierpov, -ttXijOi] e-neLcrohlcov. The data for his statements concerning them could have been derived from the tragic texts alone. I should include even aK7]voypa(f)ia, for it seems hardly possible that the official records of the contests should have covered matters theatrical,^" while, on the other hand, this important innovation must have had an immediate and striking effect upon the inner economy and technique of the plays. It is to be noted that he does not mention any innovations before Aeschylus. Since we have one play of Aeschylus that goes back to about a decade from the time of his first appearance, and the intro- duction of the second actor was probably not coincident with his first appearance, we have no reason to doubt that Aristotle had in the tragic texts extant in his day an unbroken line of testimony from the time of this innovation. In tragedy, therefore, the period of indifference, not necessarily on the part of the state, but on the part of the public, shown by the non-publication of the tragedies exhibited, did not extend beyond the early years of Aeschylus.'^ In comedy it extended likewise down to the time of the first published plays. We have seen that this was probably some time after the first granting of a comic chorus. We shall be able to define this time more closely. Now in spite of the fact that Aristotle, at the very outset of his account of comedy, makes a sweeping acknowledgment of his ignorance in respect of the various /xero- /Sa'crej? through which it had passed, he yet later on specifies three particufer details upon which he has no information: Ti-poacoTra, 77/30X070?, irXrjOri inroKpir&v. Of course 3'To judgeby the use of *' «w/xw5ta" instead of the title the autoschediastic stage, and was the first sign of the in the case of the earliest events mentioned in lose. Grace. attainment of a certain literary form, a\ri^aT6. rtca; from 5(c. et /(ai., 1097 (CIG I, 229). that time to the introduction of the second actor by Aeschylus, as in comedy down to Cratinus, a period of more rapid development, but stiU the absence of literary quality and the non-publication of the texts. The scheme 32 WiLAMO^viTZ. who believes that the state adoption of comedy, the increase of the actors in tragedy to three, and important changes in the arrangement of the theatre, were prescribed by a co/xo? MowaiaKh^ about 465, includes also (TKrivoypa^ia; cf, " Die BQhne dcs Aischylos," Hermes, Vol. XXI (1886), p. 613, and Ucraklm, Vol. I (od. 1), p. 50. I agree with A. Mdei.ler, P/ii(oiof/iM, Supplbd. VI (1891), p. 89, and Codenstkinkk. liuisiniis Jahrcsber.^ Vol. CVI (1901), p. I.'i8. that such matters as imi»rovoinonts in staging would not have been proscribed by a law. may be true enough in general outline, but it would be unsafe to extend the phrase xopbi- 6 apxtttv eSw/cei- to tragedy as an epoch date in the same sense in which it was the epoch date for comedy, for it is hardly possible that the choregic system implied in these words antedated the reforms of Cleisthenes. The dithyrambic contests of men's choruses in ,509/8, archon Lysagoras (see Munro, "The Parian Marble," rVitM. ifif., Vol. XV (1901), p. 357), 33 It would be natural to assume from the text of was before the first chorogia. Kocognition by the state Aristotle that the granting of a chorus by the state marked before the chorogia, if there was such a recognition, took the time of the emergence (jf tragedy, as of comedy, from another form. 2G8 Edwahd Capps 11 he was uninformed about these for the same reason ns al)out the others — because the texts of the period in which these clianges were accomplished were no hjnger extant. Why, then, does ho single out these three details, one of which was included among the /i€Ta/3a'o-eis of tragedy ? Evidently because they were not sufficiently covered by the preceding explanation of his ignorance — because, in his opinion, they fell in the period after the state concession and the "mentioning" of Chionides and Magnes.^ By glancing again at the history of tragedy we shall see the significance of this passage. Sophocles is credited with the introduction of the third actor. The change was not accomplished in 467 {Scjdem};''-' but it was in 458 (Orestcia). Now it is incredible that the number of actors should have been fixed in comedy before it was in tragedy, though the improvement was probably adopted immediately.'"' Now since, as we shall be able to prove later on from the inscriptions, the adoption of comedy by the state was certainly prior to 407 (or even to 471, the first appearance of Sophocles)," this inno- vation was made after this epoch. It is clear from this that Aristotle had no comic texts for a considerable period after the first granting of the chorus,^" and that the period of public indifference to comedy extended for a considerable time after the end of the indifference of the state. This is an important result, for it permits us to fix the epoch date 6 dpxcov eBcoKev, which was a matter of official record, without reference to Aristotle's personal knowledge of comic texts, which is a matter of a very different nature. We now know for a certainty, what was only a surmise before, that Aristotle's knowledge of the status of comedy (cr;^7;>aTa riva) at the time of its recognition by the state was based wholly upon the fact of its recognition. Further, the period of o-;;^»;/txaTa Tiva and fivTjfiovevovTai is synchronous with that expressed by o dp^cov eScoKevf Chionides and Magnes "are mentioned" at the time of the first official con- 34 WiLAMOWITZ, Hermes, Vol. XXI, p. 614, note 1, and 37 Euseb., vers. Arm., and Hieron., sub 01. 772. On the ScsEMIHL, (of. cit.. p. 200, reached just the opposite con- whole, this seems more likely to be true than Plutarch's elusion — that the state concessiou antedated the employ- statement which synchronizes his first victory in 468 with ment of three actors in tragedy; for, they argue, if this his first appearance; Cimon,S. innovation in comedy came after the granting of a chorus, ssWilamowitz, Hermes, Vol. IX, has convincingly Aristotle would have known who was responsible for it. demonstrated, on other grounds, the fact that Aristotle But this assumes that information about such matters jj^d no comic texts before Cratinus. But when he says, was derived from the state records, not from the texts, p, 33,-,; "Die Kuude Uber die attischo KomOdie die der which both agree were not published until later; and this gelehrteste der Hellenen besass, reichte nicht Ober die assumption is altogether improbable. And it the three- sechszigen," we must now qualify the statement some- actor stage had been reached en. 4C.J, how conies it that the what; he had the didascaliae. Wilamowitz, it is true, earliest play of Cratiuns of which we know employed only believed that the state concession was made in the sixties two actors, as Kaibel has shown, "Die 'OSuacrit von (465-460), getting at this date by the process: the granting Kratinos und der Kv«Aiui(/ des Euripides," Hermes, Vol. of the chorus was much later than Epicharmus ; epoch of XXIV, p. 82? SnsEMIHL's explanation that this was " an Epicharmus, the reign of Hieron, 478-467. The error here exception " does not seem to me valid. jg, of course, the selection of precisely this date as the one 35 1 accept the opinion of the majority, that the exodos which proved to Aristotle the priority of Epicharmus over m our text is spurious. Chionides and Magnes. 36 I do not mean to commit myself here to the view that 39 My interpretation differs radically from that of WiL- comedy went through the same process as tragedy, gradu- amowitz at this point. He sets the state concession after ally increasrng the actors from one to three. On the con- the Aevofiei-oc rroiijTai', i. e., makes the oU iairovSiieTO period trary, 1 cannot understand its development from the kiLjios coextensive with the €«.Aoi-Tal period. It totally changes except on the supposition of a large number of performers the logic of Aristotle's thought to make the sentence ri? Si gradually reduced, so far as it ever was reduced, to the .... ijvi-oiiTai causal. I leave my exposition to speak for norm of tragedy. itself. 269 12 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia tests, Chionides, we should suppose, in connection with the very first. They were among the first comic poets of Attica whose claim to be poets in the true sense of the word was sanctioned by the state itself. Aristotle assumes to possess no direct and personal knowledge of the literary merits of their productions; it was enough for him that the state had deemed them worthy. We can no longer be in doubt as to the exact meaning of ixv-qfiovevovrat; the ofiicial didascalic fivrifiara were the only source which could furnish both their names and their date in relation to the first ofiicial comic contests.*" There were, of course, other poets mentioned in the early comic did- ascaliae; these two are selected as the most representative of the number. The phrase 6\jre ttots is not so vague and bafiliug as before, now that we know positively that Aristotle could have given the exact year had he desired. It is, of course, used with reference to tragedy, but since we do not know precisely what period Aristotle had in mind for tragedy — its admission into the Dionysia under Peisistratus, or the establishment of the tragic choregia under the new democracy — it is useless to indulge in speculation as to the exact number of years the phrase would require." It may be that we should interpret oi/re in tei-ms of development rather than of years; comedy had reached a state of greater maturity when taken in charge by the state than had tragedy when it was so adopted. In any event, we are no longer obliged to seek a date as late as possible, infiuenced by oyjre Trore combined with TToXKfp TT/joVe/ao? ; for the date of Epicharmus's reputation as a comic poet at Megara may be as early as the epoch date of tragedy.*" We have learned, moreover, that the epoch date of comedy was derived from the Athenian didascalic records, and that, in trying to recover it, we are not to be influenced by what we know of the non-publication of the early comedies. The records contained the names of Chionides and Magnes, among others, at or near the beginning of the lists which reported the contests in which comedy had a part. If we had access to the original didascalic documents themselves, we should at once look for the names of these two poets, assured that the admission of comedy into the festival programme dated not far from the year of their first appear- ance. Now the notice of Suidas, which reports Xtwi'i^Tj? iBiBacrKev for 488 or 487, may possibly go back to an excerpt from these didascalitB. At any rate there is now no chronological obstacle in the way of such an assumption, and the notice on the face of it appears to be as trustworthy as any of the didascalic information furnished by Suidas." It is hard to account for it, besides, on any other hypothesis — plain error, forgery, or stupid translation of Aristotle. But for the present we would best reserve our final *oSD9EMIHL, loc. cit., p. 199, saw this, but did not make *2Xhe equation set up by Wilamowitz, 6 apxttiv iSuiKev the application: "ergo hi duo poctae antiquissimi erant, " lango nach Epicharm," therefore, only adds one more quorum uomina in indicibus victoriarum philosophus unliuown quantity ; r/. "Die Btthne des.\ischylos,"//ermes, iuvenit et ox eis hand dubie in Didascalias suas reciporat." Vol. XXI (1&S6) , p. 613. iiK'ompare ij Aefis .... oi|*e aneafiivv0ij in the account *^ Though many errors have crept into the text, yet one of tragedy. Wo must agree with Hili.er, Rhein. Mus., can, iu general, agree with Bergk's verdict, Rlieiti. Mus., XXXIX (1S84), p. XiS, that the tragedies of Phrynichus and N. F., Vol. XXXIV (1879), p. 318, note 1: "Die Angaben Aeschylus were already acM^'tti as regards Atfi«; but opinions dcs Suidas fiber die dramatischen Dichter verdienen im will differ as to whether the period of Acfts ycAoia must, on Allgemeinen voiles Vertraueu, deuu sie geheu auf Didas* account of the i>i/i«, be placed before Thespis. kalion zurUck." 270 Edward Cap PS 13 opinion upon this ]ir)iiit until wc have examined tlic valuable fragments of Athenian didasealiiu preserved to us on stone. In view of the facts thus elicited we may, by way of summary, [)araphrase the argument of Aristotle as follows : The various steps in the development of comedy, such as have been traced for tragedy, are beyond our knowledge, because comedy was not an object of serious attention at first. No facts, naturally, are recorded for the period of volunteer performances, which preceded the appointment of comic choregi by the state, and this event was rather late as compared willi tragedy. At this time, when we meet in the official records of the comic contests the names of Chionides and Magnes, who have already been mentioned as the earliest representatives of a literary comedy in Attica, comedy must already have taken on a more or less definite form to have obtained this recognition. But no one knows who was responsible for certain important innovations which must have been introduced after the admission of comedy into the festivals ; for the plays produced in this period were not published, that is, the indifference of the public still continued. We do know, however, that Crates was the first at Athens to follow the lead of Epicharmus in the matter of plots, etc. THE EVIDENCE FROM INSCRIPTIONS We are fortunate in possessing a number of fragments of a series of inscriptions, which, taken together, originally constituted a complete record of the dramatic contests at the City Dionysia and Lenaea. One inscription gave the contestants and the titles of their plays, arranged in the order of their success in the competitions." Another gave the names of the poets, arranged chronologically, and under each name the titles of the plays brought out, at each of the festivals, the year, and the rank as fixed by the judges.*^ Still another reported year by year all the victors of every class — tribes and choregi for the lyric events, and poets, choregi, and actors for the dramatic contests of each festival.*'^ And, finally, a very extensive document in eight sections gave the names of the victorious poets and actors in tragedy and comedy for the two festivals separately, the names being arranged in the order of the first victories, with the total number of victories won." These remarkable documents, all derived from the archives of the state officials under whose supervision the contests were held, were inscribed early in the third century. They were, in all probability, transcribed from the works of Aristotle entitled AiSaaKuXiai and NIkul AiovvcnaKal /cal ArjvaiKai, so far as they could be used, or, at any rate, were authorized by the state under the influence of Aristotle's studies in this field.*' Now, when we consider the wide publicity which the records of the Athenian «*In four sections: (1) Dionysia, tragedy, C I A IT, 973, broken to furnish much specific information. The current (2) comedy, 97.5; (3) Lenaea, comedy, 912, (4) tragedy, 972. restorations are useless as sources of information. For the order, cf. my article "The Dating of Some Did- 46CIA 11,971, and IV, p. 218. The corresponding lists ascalic Inscriptions," Am. Jour. Arch., 2d Ser., Vol. IV fof the Lenaea are not preserved. C1900), p. 86. *? CI A II, 977, and IV, p. 220. *5 Insc. Oraec. Sic. et Ital, 1097, 1098. These fragments 48 Wilamowitz, Herakles, Vol. I (ed. 1). p. 50; but hs embrace only the comic poets. The fragments are too sets the date of the inscriptions about fifty years too early. 271 14: The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia dramatic exhibitions enjoyed in antiquity, throngh both the works of Aristotle and these documents set up on the acropolis and in the precinct of the theatre of Dionysus, we are able not only better to understand how even minute details concerning the poets and the contests, such, for example, as the period of Euetes and the victories of Eudoxus, came to be known and mentioned by grammarians, biographers, and chro- nographers, biit also to appreciate the chances in favor of the accuracy of information, not exactly didascalic, which is occasionally furnished; for example, that certain poets were contemporaries, as Aristophanes and Nicophon, Menander and ApoUodorus of Gela, Chionides and Magues. In spite of the epitomizing, paraphrasing, and formaliz- ing through which this material has gone, in spite of the manifold chances of error in transmission, the student in this field comes to have a profound respect for such notices scattered up and down Greek and Roman literature, feeling that in the end they probably go back to the infallible records of the Athenian archives, and that he should not reject them or attempt to correct them except upon evidence equally free from suspicion. Let us consider next some of the fragments of these inscriptions which throw light upon the period of the Old Comedy, in the hope of getting somewhat nearer to the epoch date that we are seeking. 1. The catalogues of all the I'ictors at the Cifi/ Dionysia. — The name of Magnes, as victor in a comic contest at a time not far from the date of the admission of comedy into the state festivals, occurs in frag, a of the great catalogue of victors at the City Dionysia, CIA II, 971. This fragment does not contain a date line, but it was contiguous to frag. /, which does. Frag, a stood at the head of the first column of the second slab of the inscription; the exact position of frag. / is unknown. The attempt has repeatedly been made" to determine the exact position of / in relation to a, and thus to ascertain the exact date of Magnes's victory, but I have long been of the opinion that none of the conclusions reached by various scholars is possible, firstly, because they all disregard certain important epigraphical factors in the problem, and secondly, because they start with the assumption that Magnes could not *9Frag. a has bfenknown since 1839 throufjh itspublica- choregiam pertinentes,'' Diss. Hal.^ Vol. VII (1886), pp, tioQ by PiTTAKIs, but it.s importance was first recognized, 164 ff., A. Mueller, " Neuere Arboiten auf dem Gobiete des after Leo, '* Ein Sieg dos Magnes," Rhein. M-iis., Vol. griechischen Buhnenwesens," Philoloffii^, Supplbd. VI XXXIII (1878), pp. 139 ff., by KoEHLEE, " Documente zur (1891), pp. 83 ff., and Bodensteiner, " Bericht Obor das Geschichte des athenisclicn Theaters," Ath. Mitth.y Vol. antike Bilhnenwesen," Bursiajis Jahresher., Vol. CVI III (1878), pp. 104 ff., and Bergk, " Verzeichniss der Siege (lilOl), pp. 13") ff. Mention should also be made of the dramatischer Dichter in Athen," Rhein. Mus., Vol. XXXIV elaborate but untrustworthy essay of Gehmichen, " Ueber (1879), pp. .%30 ff. Frag. / was first published by Georgios die .\nfange der dramatischen WcttkSmpfe in Athen," 'Er/t. "Apx., Vol. IV (1886) , p. 267, and its significance at onco Sitzuimsbcr. d. k. hayer. Aktui. d. Wiss. zu Mitnchcn. philos.- recognizcd by Lipsids, Sitzungsber. d. k. sticfis. Gesell. d. philol. Classe, 1889, pp. 140 ff. Though the errors of Oeh- IViss. zu Lcipzii;. philol. -histor. Classe (1887), pp. 278 ff. niicheu were promptly pointed out by Miiller and later by Of the other fragments, g and h were published by Lolling, Bodensteiner. thoy have continued to influence the views of SitzuruisbcT. d. k. k. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin (1887), p. 1009; his colleague, Wilhelm Cukist; cf. Gesch. d. gr. Litt., 3te (landd by Koeuler, Ath. Mitlh., Vol. Ill (1878), pp. 104 ff. Aufl., p. 196, note 4, and p. 21.^), note 4. It is rather remarkabh>, What is known as frag, r is a hopeless jumble taken from considering the attention paid to this inscrii>tion, that no the notes of Pittakis, and should uot be counted as a one lias Iiithcrto made use of the later fragments in the document. Fragments a-e, C T A II, 911; f-h. IV, p. 218. attempt to solve the epigrapiiiral que-^tions which are ali- The most important discussions of the epoch date of important for the interpretation of the earlier, the inscriptiou are : Bbince, " loscriptiones Graecae ad 272 Edward Capps 15 971a ONKflMOIHSANTfl Z]ENOKAEIAH§EXOPHrE M|ArNH§EAIAA§KEN TPATfilAQN TTEPIKAH§XOAAP:EXOPH AISXYAO§E[A]IAASKEN TTANAIONIfSANAPQN] KAEAINET|0§EXOPHrEI] KQMfllAQN ETTIXAPHT05] (472/1) KQMniAQN] OPHTEI §EA1A]A§KEN' TPATQIAnN] EXJOPHTEI TTOAY*PA§MQ]NEAIAA§- ETTITTPAEIEPrOjY' (471/0) ITTTTOGQNTISTTAJlAnN' PHTEI QN OPHr El 971/ [TPATQIAQN] : EXOPH EAIAASKEN ETTI1ANA: EXOPH AISXYAOSEAIAASKEN ETTIABPQNOS (458/7) EPEX0H1STTAIAQN XAPIASArPYAH; EXOPH AEQNTISANAPQN AEINO§TPATO§EXO[PHrEI KfiMQIAQN OPHr BIQ KQM[QIAQN ANA KAA[AIA§ .' TPA[rQIAnN 0A KA[PKINO§'' YTT[OKPITH§ - . ETr[IKAAAIMAXOY' (446/5) 1 The name that follows Magnes in CIA II, 977i,* see p. 25. 2 Lipsius. •"iMy restoration, to be established in the following discussion. * See p. 17. 6 My restoration; cf. Am. Jour. Phil., Vol. XX (lfi99). p. 396, note 1. ^Lipsius. 273 16 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia have exhibited before about the date at which Meineke placed his floruit. It will therefore be necessary to consider at considerable length all of the seven published fragments of this inscription. I regret that I shall ncjt have the advantage of using the fragments still unpublished, announced by Dr. Adolph Wilhelm some years ago; but those which we possess will sufBce for our present purpose."" I give first the text of the two earliest fragments. It will be seen that the complete record of each year, in frag, a and the first two columns of frag. /, occupies eleven lines, and that these lines always recur in the same order. In the third column of frag. /we notice the addition of a twelfth line, the victorious tragic actor — v7r[o«piT^? 6 Seti'a]. This recurs in all the later frag- ments. The only disturbance of this twelve-line record in the extant fragments is in the narrow outer column of the latest fragment, where two lines are sometimes required for a single entry. There may, of course, have been other disturbances in the portions now lost ; for example, we might expect to find during the continuance of the syncho- regia (406/5 and some years thereafter)'' two lines used for the two choregi of both tragedy and comedy. But for our present purpose we may treat the order and number of lines to the year as fixed for the entire inscription. In attempts to fix the date of the events in frag, a, col. 1, recourse has been had to general considerations based upon the choregia of Pericles for a play of Aeschylus, combined with the current view that Magnes could not have exhibited until about the middle of the sixties. We have already seen how uncertain the data are upon which the opinion about Magnes rests; as to Pericles, the idea that he would have been too young to undertake a choregia before ca. 467 is the result of guesswork rather than of evidence.'^" The only trustworthy means available for prosecuting our inquiry to a certain conclusion — the restoration of the date-lines in the first columns of fragments /and e, using one as a check on the other — has been overlooked entirely, chiefly, it would seem, because of the fixed idea concerning the lateness of Magnes and the official adoption of comedy, and also partly, no doubt, because of certain difficulties in the way of any consistent reconstruction of the inscription as a whole, due to misleading or incorrect reports in the Corpus as to the condition of fragments g and e. Obviously soThe main outlines of this study were worked out t^e citizen — a tax on the wealthy— not voluntarily as- some five years ago; cf. Am. Jour. Phil.. Vol. XX (1899), p. sumed, as a rule, and could hardly have heen interpreted 388. I visited Athens in the spring of 1899 chiefly for the by Thi'opompus, or whoever was the source of Plutarch, as purpose of examininR the stones, especially to clear away marking the entry of a person upon his political career, some doubts about Koehlee's reports on certain frag- Partly as the result of KOhler's interpretation, and partly meats; see below, p. 19 (p) and p. 22 (e, col. 2). It was on owing to Wilamowitz's [Hermes, Vol. IX, p. 3:17) idea that the strength of my conviction regarding this inscription jijg recognition of comedy was one of the events charac- that I assumed ca. 140 linos also for CI A 11,972; cf. Amer. teristic of the first years of the dominant influence of Pori- Jour. Arch., 2d Ser., Vol IV (1900), pp. 76, 86. dgg^ Q^e fiuds here and there an amazing misconception of 6lC/.myarticle,"TheDramaticSynchoregiaatAthens," the choregia ; e.g., Denis, La comfcUc grecqucWA. I, p. .4m. ./our. iVii;., Vol. XVII (18%), pp. 319 ff. 121, note 2: "P6ricl6s avait besoin do munificences person- ,„. . ,,,.,., 1 1 f 1- nelles pour gagner lo peuple et pour se I'attaclior;" and ..2 It IS now generally admitted that the combinatum ^^^^^,^ Arisioph,me, p. 22: "C'fetait le moment on P«riclJ>s upon wh.ch KoEHLtm (after Leo) based his theory of 63 ^„^.^ ^^.^^_. ,^^ „„i,,,,„,^ ^^ rarLstocratio eu d6poniIlant hues has no force. Plutarch s • forty years of pubhcl.fo ,,,^,4<,„„^.e ,,« sos privil^ges. II .se pent qu'il ait voula has to bo taken as a round number (Pericles, 16), and tho ^,^_,^ j^.^^ ^^^^^^ j^ ^^^^.^ ^ ^^^ desseins." choregia is misconstrued. It was an obligation put upon 274 Edward Capps 17 the inscription niusi, if possible, be interpreted and restored epigia[)lii(ally, l)y strict adherence to all the indications furnished by the stones themselves, before we allow ourselves to be influenced overmuch by the clironological conse(juences involved. That the number of lines to the column in the portion under the heading was three lines less than a multiple of eleven, i. e., 41, 52, 63, etc., is obvious from the fact that the eleventh line in any year in col. 1 is opposite the eighth in col. 2. The lower limit can be fixed by reference to the actors' contest recorded in col. 8 of frag. /. The fifth line of the year (Biw-) in this column is now found to be opposite the eleventh (the tragic poet) in the preceding column. The twelve-line record has therefore already occurred three times before the current year, /. c, the contest of tragic actors was introduced just four years before the year of the lost archon in col. 3. If the new contest was introduced in the earliest possible year, in the archousliip of Habron (458/7), the lost archon of col. 3 was of the year 454/3, and the column contained four full years of twelve lines plus four lines, i.e., 52 lines. '^' It could not possibly have been less than 52, but it may have been indefinitely more." For every additional eleven lines the date of the first actors' contest, of course, is later by one year, i. p., if the column contained 63 lines it would be 457/6, 74 lines 456/5, 140 lines 450/49. We may now take up col. 1 of frag. /. Lipsius observed that the name of the victorious tragic poet must have been unusually long, to judge by the position of its final letter -v. We notice too that the heading rpajcoiBayv is entirely broken away — another indication that the lost name was at least eleven letters lonsr. There can be no question as to the correctness of Lipsius's restoration [no\v4>pdafj,Q)]v, especially since his name happens to be preserved on the list of victorious tragic poets, CIA II, 977a, between Aeschylus and Sophocles. The tribe Hippothontis is the only one that will fit the space below the archon's name. With the knowledge thus gained we look over the list of the archons of this period. There are only five names between Tlepolemus, of the year 463/2 (requiring 52 lines) and Praxiergus, of 471/0 (140 lines), whose names meet at all satisfactorily the conditions of space and genitive-ending. I give them in juxtaposition : Archons Year Lines (TT0AY4>PA§MnN) ETTITAHTTOAEMOY 463/2 52 APXIAHMIAOY 464/3 63 AY§l§TPATOY 467/6 96 GEArENIAOY 468/7 107 TTPAZIEPrOY 471/70 140 (nTTTOenNTiSTTAI-) 6^ Oehmichen, it is true, assumes 30 lines, making the fuse to consider. Mueller's dates for the actors' contest first actors' contest tliat which happens to be recorded in (pp. 82 f.) are corrected by Bodexsteinee (p. 137). col. S, or one year before. But this leaves him with two 5iThe notion that more than 63 lines would eiceed the or three unoccupied lines after Habron's year, which he probable dimensions even of a lar^e public inscription can only account for by assuming the interpolation of (Bodensteinee, p. 1.37) was clearly not advanced by an some explanatory words about the actors' contest — an epigraphist; Koehlee decided upon 63 only on account expedient which Mueller and Bodensteinee rightly re- of Pericles. 275 18 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia The position of the -Y in relation to the N is correctly given in the copy on p. 15. Iota occupies less than (about one-half) the space of an ordinary letter, Q a little more. 'Apx^^Vf^^^ov and AvaLarpdrov satisfy the space relations somewhat less satisfactorily than the other three names. Lysistratus and Theagenides may be regarded as some- what doubtful, besides, because of the possibility that another poet than Polyphrasmon was victorious in the tragic contest the year before each of them ; Aeschylus brought out the Scplcm the year before Lysistratus, and won, and Sophocles's first victory was won the year before Theagenides, almost certainly at the City Dionysia." But in spite of these possible objections it would be safer to regard these five names for the present as all equally possible, and to seek in frag, e for the information by which we shall be able to eliminate all but one of them. 971 e XE]XOPH' E]AIA[AS]KE YTTOKPITH§A]0HNOAQPO§ ETTISnSirENOJYS (342/1) AirHI§TTAlA]QN AI]OME[EYSEXOP]H ITTTTOenNTISjANAPQN .... EKKOIjAHSEXOPH KQMaiAQN] H$[EXOPH- TPArniAQN] EX]OPlH A§TYAAMA5EAI]A[ASKEN^ I 57))i«x('*1^l' !-Ai)s or -ills, -'i Wc know from C I A II, 973, that Astydamas was the victor in .')41. If I rishtly detect the faint outlines of a A in EJTTIAPlST[0]ANOYS (331/0) OINHI§TTAIAn[N T05[AXJAPN[EY§EX0PH lTTTTO0fiNT15ANAP[QN OS[TT]EI[P]AIE[YSEXOPH [KQMJQIA[nN' TPArjQ[IAQN thfl position indicate wf» havp a slipht confirmation of tlip re>tf>ration t»f ir«n>jgenes. * Very faint traces. The archon Aristophanes was of the year 881/0. Since the restoration viroKpirr)^ in the first column is certain (for the word is never abbreviated in this inscription), the name of the archon just below, with the genitive-ending -ovPYNIXOY 337/6 Archidemides 96 AYSIMAXOY 339/8 Lysistratus 07 eEOPA§TOY 340/39 Theogeuides 40 sn^irENOYs 842/1 Praxiergus There would seem to be no room for doubt that the name of Sosigenes is to be restored here and that of Praxiergus in frag. /, if we are right in assuming that the columns throughout the inscription contained the same, or nearly the same, number of lines. But this assumption may not be right, and so no conclusion can be accepted as final until it has been tested rigorously by the other fragments. Frag, h (see Plate IV, at the end of the article) also contains an archon's name in its second column, Ce[)hisophon of 329/8, and broken line-ends in the first. Its position was near the top of the slab, for only two year-lists intervene between Aristo- phanes, about 17 lines from the bottom of col. 2 of e, and Cephisophon. The first column of h therefore continued the first of e, and its second column the second of e. The exact interval can now be determined. The first line of the column in which was the first column of /* was the twelfth line in the year of Sosigenes, and this is known from C I A II, 97.3 — {moKpiTi-jt; NeoTrroXe/io?. There can be no doubt of the correctness of Kohler's restoration of -\o? in the third line of /(, col. 1, as [ uTro/c/str?;? ©eTrajXo?. This line was therefore the 13th from the top, and ©eTraXo? was in the last line of the year 841/0. The name of Cephisophon stood in the 18th line of the second column. I shall discuss later on the irregularities in this second column of /;; as to the first column, we know from 973 that Thettalus was indeed the victor in 340, and that Astydamas was the successful poet. The position of -aKev just above -Xo? gives pre- cisely the space required for the name of Astydamas. We may therefore look upon this fragment as confirming the restoration of Sosigenes in frag, c and of Praxiergus in frag. /. I had reached this point in the demonstration some five years ago, when occupied with the series of inscriptions relating to the dramatic contests. I could find no solu- tion of fragments/ and r except on the basis of 140 lines. Frag, ij, however, seemed to be wholly at variance with this result, and, besides, blocked the way to any other solution. It contains eight lines, including a complete date-line — Themistocles, the archon of 347/6, i. e., five years before Sosigenes. According to the hypothesis of 140 lines, therefore, it must have had a position in the same column as the first column of frag, e, and about half-way up the column ; for e was at the bottom of its slab, as Kfihler reported ; and this report is shown to be correct by the fact that a portion of the record of the year after Aristophanes was at the top of the next column after e (t .e., frag, h, col. 2). But Kohler also reported that frag, g retains an original upper margin, so that it must have stood at the top of a column. Now if Sosigenes was correctly 277 20 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia restored in r, and Kohler s observation regarding the upper margin of g was correct, this column would have contained only 70 lines, though the next column seemed to have 140. Either Kohler or my hypothesis was wrong. With this dilemma in mind I made a careful examination of frag, g, and was not surprised to find that the present upper margin is not original, but the result of a later cutting. The fragment had been put to some architectural use after it had been broken off. The broken letters which Kohler reports in the first line some distance below the present margin are, in fact, immediately below and on the margin (Plate IV) ; this line was half cut away when the present iipper siirface was made. Frag, g, therefore, is not against the hypothesis."' The reconstruction of the early portions of the inscription on the basis of 140 lines to the column has been found to be the oidy poseible solution of one of the three two-column fragments (rj, and the most suitable, if not the only, solution of the other two (/, /(), and at the same time not opposed to the facts regarding frag. g. It remains only to test this result by considering the reconstruction as a whole. Two tests must be a[>plied: (1) The intervals between any two fragments whoso position in the column is fixed should yield an even number of twelve-line lists distributed over an even number of columns of 140 lines without excess or deficiency of lines, and (2) the other fragments which we have not considered must find a suitable position within the column, /. c, the records contained in them must not be broken by column-divisions. The only fragments to be considered under the latter head are b and 6 " The Catalogues of Victors at the City Dionysia, enough if I have shown that my classification satisfies the CI A II, 977," Am. Jour. Phil., \oi. XX (1899), pp. 388 £f. evidence better than Bergk's; the burden of proof should The classification in the Corpus is just the opposite. I am not be on the objector in this case. 281 24 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia Lenaea CIA II, 977 d [KQMlKQNTAAHNAI]A[TTOJHTnN [OIAEENIKJQN E]ENOIAOS I THAEKAEIAHS APISTOMENHS KPATINOS III EPEKPATHS EPMITTTTOS Mil •t'PYNIXOS 11 MYPTIAOS I EYJTTOAIS III TT II 1 It is strange that Kiechnee, Prosop. Att,,s. v, Mayoj?, should doubt this restoratioQ. due to Koeblee. which uot ouly fits the space, but also explains the eleven victories assij^ned Magnes by Anon, jt, Kui^L. II Kaib. Beegk's ob- jection was based upon a faulty chronology and a misstate- ment cornccrning Anonymous; cf. Am, Jour. Phil., Vol. XX, p. 398, note 1. 2 0ehmichen's 'A^-Kifielvrjs suits the space and what we know ot the poet; cf. Meineke, Hist, crit., p. 101. I do not Dioiiysiu CIA II, 977 / [KQMIKQNENASTEITTOHTQN OlAEENIKQNj MAfNHJS Al' § I NHS P § I EY<5>PONJI05 I' EK^-ANJTIAHS- KPATIJNOS TTI AIOTTJEI0HS II' KPA]TH§ III KAAAIAJSIP understand on what grounds K.\IBEL in Pauly-Wissowa regards the name, and the title of the play attributed to him, as a fraud. 3 Due to Oehmichen. *My restoration. Oehmichen's *iAo]Tr€t0jj9 is impos- sible. Cf, Am. Jour. Phil., Vol. XX, p. 396, note. 5 Ain. Jour. Phr'l., Vol. XX, p. 31*6, note : cf. p. 15, /. col. 3, above. KiEfHN'EE, Frosiiji. Atf.^ Vol. II, p. 4fi7, seems to look with favor upon this restoration. make an estimate of the interval of time which separates their names in tlie list.*^' We may also in this way gain some information as to the luimber of poets whose names preceded his in the list. To begin wiih. the last name, we have seen that the comic poet KaX-, who won the prize in the year 447/() (971/, col. 3), is probably KaWm?, whose name makes a perfect restoiation here. The first city victories of Crates and of Cratinus are probably indicated by the entries of Eusebius under the years 451/0 and 453/2 respectively,^^ BO that we may properly assume that the victory of 447/1) was the first wcm by Callias. The one victory of Eu})hronius is recorded in *J71 under the year of Philocles, 459/8. These four dates for the five names are entirely in harmony with each other — 67This method was followed by Oehmichen, "Ueber die Aufanpe der dramatischf^n Wi-ttkampfe in Athen," Sitzumjsl/tr. (I. k, Ixiycr. Akail. d. Wtss. zu. Miinckcn^ i)hilos.- philol. Clas.so (18Uit), l'>5 S. Ho also jjlaccs MuKues as h)w as possible, and reaches the year 47S for the !K.%'innin^; of the contest, 472 for the other list. But his art'omentatiou is weak and exceediuyly superficial in details. c*» Vers. Arnien., su6 01.822; Crates comicus et Telcsila cognoscebantur ; sul* 01. SI* : Cratinus et Platou ctmiici his temporibus surgebant. So also Hieronymous and Syncel- lus; cf. Anon. n. icwja. II Kaib. couceruins Cratinus's first yictory ; I'l^a fitrd rrji- no.' o\. (the correction from nt is cer- tain; see vim. Jour. Philol.,, Vol. XX, p. Umi), The error as regards Plato should not bo held to vitiate the whole notice, since the part which has to do with Cratinus is niaiiifestly correct. The "epoch years" of these two poets were determined, then, by their first victories at the City Dionysia. 282 Edwaku Capi's 25 Euphronius 458, Cratinus 452, Crates 450, and Callias 446. The six poets mentioned between the years 458 and 44fi won just one-half of the victories in these twelve years. The others were won l)y tlni predecessors of Eu])hronius; and not by the three immediately preceding, for they won oidy one victf)ry eacli, but by Magnes and his predecessors. Again, we see that th(! name immediately following Magnes is to be restored in U71/, col. 1, as the victor of the year 972/1. In the thirteen years between this unknown poet and Euphronius, ten victories were won by Magnes and his iH'edecessors. Magnes himself won only eleven times eV ao-rei in his whole career, anil although we learn from Aristoj)hanes {KiiiijJifs, 524) that his successes were won in his youth, and that he failed to j)lease in old age, it is inconceivable that all his victories were won between the recorded victory of 472 and the year of Euphronius. We are obliged to assume, therefore, that one or more names preceded his in the list, witli victories enough to their credit to fill up the catalogue down to 44(j; v. r., with alxjut seven at the least. The reputation of Chionides, whose name was linked with that of Magnes, in all probaliility was based upon a marked success in the competitions, as well as upon his early date ; for he was not the only poet who competed in the early years after the admission of comedy. We should not be far wrong, I believe, if we should place Magnes as far down in this column as possible, assuming, say, four names before him, as I have done above. And this would bring the date of tlie first victory of Magnes some years before 472, possibly into the eighties, and Chionides might easily, as far as this list is concerned, have competed in the official contests as early as the year recorded by 8uidas, 488 or 487. The Lenaean list in frag, d points to quite as early a date for the introduction of the comic contest into the Lenaea. By a consideration of all the datable Lenaean vic- tories in the fifth century I have elsewliere'' shown that the tirst names in this frag- ment miist be placed about 450 to 445. One full column of fifteen names must have preceded this column, as is shown by the heading. Assuming even a low average of victo- ries in the early period covered by the lost first column, we again reach the eighties for the beginning of the Lenaean list. Since the average number of victories won by the early poets at the Dionysia was relatively high, there is nothing against the supposi- tion that comedy was introduced into the Lenaea and the City Dionysia at the same time. Aristotle's words, 6 ap)(^a>v eSooKev, as we have seen, do not necessarily refer to tlie City Dionysia, but may be interpreted as indicating simply the establishment of the comic choregia. Frag, d is a proof that this interpretation is right." 3. The epoch dafe of ilte great ccdrdogue. — Returning now to the great catalogue of victors with the information which we have derived from the lists of comic poets, 69 "Chronological Studies in the Greek Tragic and text of the hypothesis to the Plutus. But I now believe Comic Poets," Am, Jour. Fhif., Vol, XXI (I'.iOO), pp, 52 ff., that we have evidence in Tnsc. Gruec. Sic. et Hal.. 10^7, t() in a discussion of .\ristomenos, whose first Lenaean victory prove that there was only one .\ristomeues and that ho I dated ca. 44.5. I there raised again the question pro- competed in ;1S8. pounded by Bergk, whether the Aristomenes of this list ^^ i do not mean that it is proved that the admission of could be the same as tlie rival of Aristophanes of the year comedy into the two festivals took place in the same year, S88. Beegk thought that there must have been two poets probable as it may seem, but that Aristotle did not intend of the name, and I was inclined to suspect an error in the to distinguish between the festivals. 283 26 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia let us try to determine what possibilities are ofFered in the lost first slab for the begin- ning of the eleven-line year-lists somewhere in the ten or fifteen years preceding the archonship of Meiion. A number of possibilities will naturally ofFer themselves, and the choice among them will have to be determined by considerations other than epio'raphical. But it will be well to have surveyed the field, at any rate, and to have reduced the possibilities to the narrowest limits. One slab of probably not more than three columns nor less than two preceded fragment a. The record of victors began with the name of the archou at the very top of one of these columns." From the available space in these columns we must deduct the six lines needed to fill out the year of Menon. The numbers to be dealt with are accordingly: 3 cols., 414 11.; 2 cols., 274: 11.; 1 col., 134 11. The epoch date of the stone will be either an even number, without remainder, of ll's, if the introduc- tion of comedy into the City Dionysia is the epoch date, or of a combination of 8"s and ll's, if it was some other important event in the history of the contests at this festival. The epoch date of the inscription was not the first comic contest under state auspices, as has been maintained by Bergk, Reisch, and particularly by Wilamowitz; for, carrying the eleven-line lists back to the beginning of the first, second, and third columns, there is an excess of 2,"' 10, and 7 lines respectively. This is the sound conclusion of Ixjth Miiller and Bodensteiner, and relieves us of the painful necessity of making tcaifxot in the heading ec|uivalent to KWfiwhlai, against which numerous protests have been raised. We must look for some event earlier than the epoch date of comedy. The events, of which we have knowledge, which must be taken into consideration as possible epoch dates, are: (1) The first tragic exhibition, by Thespis in 585/4. Brinck, in his admirable discussion of this question, has shown that, even if records were kept of the performances from this early period, yet it is altogether improbable that there should have been regular annual contests during the whole of this period. We know that the chorus of men dates only from 509/S," and comedy from a time many years later. If the epoch were the first exhibition of tragedy, it is strange that ■)(^opol Tpa'yaihoiv, or the equivalent, was not used in the heading, instead of the more general term kwjioi, "celebrations." (2) The establishment of the musical contests at the Dionysia. This is the idea of the majority, though expressed in a variety of ways ; but it is an idea based upon the fragmentary heading, and leaves us as much in the dai'k as ever. (3) The establishment of the choregic system at the City Dionysia. This is essentially Brinck's suggestion, and he would date this event 508 or soon 71 OEIiMicnEN assumed that if the heading contained botii headin^i and columns work out satisfactorily without tho archou's name it would not have been needed at the this assumption. beginning of the first year and on this (,'round adopted the 7l!oi6e iviKiav, it is true, may have occupied the extra theory of two columns of tlu; 11-lino year-lists. Ho accord- two lines on the assumption of one column. This W()uld iuifly restored 'Etti Mti'weo?, *(/»' oy, etc. But, as Muellee make the epoch tiate 4H.V'l. But, as we have seen, a slab of pointed out, it would have to bo 'Atto .Mecoji-os, etc. The date one ct)lumn is improbable. Other reasons will appear in line of the first year could therefore not bo dispensed with. the more satisfactory solution. It has occurred to me as juissiblo that the oiS« ifUi^v was 7;i Archonship of Lysacoras; see Muneo on the Parian reserved out of the first line and set over the first column, Marble, Claw. Rev., Vol. XV (1901). p. 3^1. The date usu- as in 977. This woulil give two linos less to deal with. Hut ^\\y given, Isagoras, 508 7, must bo corrected accordingly. 284 Edwakd C a PI'S 27 after, depending upon tlie Parian Marble's notice about the first chorus of men in the year of Lysagoras. The establishment of the choregic system seems to nie tcj he, on Die whole, by far the most plausible suggestion for thi^ ejioch event. It was at that lime that the archon first granted a chorus to tragedy and to the dithyramb. From that time dated the foundation and organization of these contests, so peculiarly an Attic institution, upon the basis which maintained itself for the next two centuries. The essential feature of this organization, as we see it in this inscription, was ilui chcjregia itself, and tlie par- ticipation of the tribes in the lyric contests. These both presujipose the democratic institutions of Cleisthenes. Before that time the exhibitions of dithyramb and tragedy had depended upon the patronage of individuals and of eOeXovrai. Neither the patrons nor the choruses represented the free people in the sense in which they did under the choregic system. It would be natural that the democracy should pride itself not a little upon the brilliant results of this system, and that Aristotle, the historian of these contests, should have selected this innovation as the great epocli Ijy which should bo dated the beginning of that glorious history. This hypothesis wins in plausibility when we place ourselves, in relation to this great document as a whole, in the position of the compilers of the records of these two centuries of contests, kept in the archives of the state, which they were author- ized to put upon marble and erect upon the acropolis. The record was [)robably not con- tinued, at least in this form, after the discontinuance of the choregic system. Soon after Aristotle's death, between 31() and 309," the choregia was displaced by the agonothesia. The democratic institution was abolished and the state reverted to a form of that patronage which existed before Cleisthenes. The whole conception of the musical contests had by this time suffered a complete change. When the state officials undertook to set up a permanent record of the victors under the old system in the contests — a magnificent testimony to the ideals of the old democracv now dead — what epoch could they more appropriately have chosen than the date of the establishment of the institution which, more than any other agency, had rendered this remarkable record possible? It was a review from the beginning to the end of the system in which public-spirited citizens, not independent patrons nor agonothetes in the guise of representatives of the demos, vied with each other to the honor of Dionysus and the edification of their fellow-citizens. When was the choregia established? The inscription may help to decide; but let us first liriug together the few independent data. It can hardly have been one of the institutions of Cleisthenes himself. In the stormy year of Isagoras, after his brief term of exile when Cleomenes came up from Sparta, he dovibtless accomplished little more than Aristotle indicates in the'AOrjvaioav YloXireia, 20 f: the formation of the ten tribes, the establishment of the Boule of 500, the lavinsf out of Attica into demes, the demarchs to take the place of naukrai'oi, the naming of the demes and tribes, and '1 In SO.t 6 accurdiug to Koehler. 285 28 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia some important legislation for the strengthening of his political machine. It was not imtil the year of Hermocreon, eVet TrefiTrro) fxeja ravTTjv rrjv Kardaraaiv, that we learn of an innovation that siiggests the wider use of the tribal system such as is implied in the choregia for lyric contests. At that time the senatorial oath was formulated; eVeiTa tou? (jTpaTijyoii'; ypoOvTo Kara (f>v\m, i^ e/caixTj;? t?";? (^fXr)? em. Here is an application of the new system of tribes to administration — the essential feature of the lyric choregia. The choregia itself may, of course, have been established some years later, but it is not likely to have been earlier, than Hermocreon. Unhappily we do not know the exact date of this archon, for, although the irefiTrTa) would mean 504/3 or 503/2, yet in the next sentence Aristotle dates the battle of Marathon /xera ravTa ScoSe/caro).'* But the period is clearly enough defined. Guided by these considerations, let us see if a reconstruction of the lost begin- ning of the inscription can be obtained which shall satisfy the two fundamental condi- tions — a suitable epoch date for the inscription itself and a date for the first comic contest which shall be consistent with all the evidence which we have reviewed. Three columns before frag, a would carry us beyond the establishment of the democracy ; one is imiirobable. On the supposition of two columns, however, two possibilities are offered if we i-eckon from the the victory of Magnes in the year of Menon:'^ 1. The first comic contest, 479/8; the epoch date of the inscription, 505/4. 2. The first comic contest, 487/6; the epoch date of the inscription, 502/1. If Aristotle meant to define the epoch date of comedy strictly by reference to the same epoch for tragedy, the granting of a chorus by the archon, some may feel that the interval of fifteen years offered by (2) is insufficient to justify the phrase 6-\}re TTore, and on this ground may prefer to accept the interval of 26 years offered by (1) ; although, in the case of Epicharmus and Chionides, the scant 14 years between their assumed "epochs" are generally thought ample for the ttoWw TrpoVe/so?. I am inclined to think, however, that we are not at liberty to interpret Aristotle so strictly," inasmuch as we know that tragedy had a standing in the state festivals long before the democracy, indeed as early as 534." We must remember, too, that oyjr^ may refer to the relatively late stage in the development of comedy at which recogni- tion was accorded by the state, and not merely to a term of years after tragedy. By either of the alternatives, therefore, the demands of Aristotle's text will be satisfied. But we must take into consideration here three other factors in the question which have been discussed, viz.: (1) the list of victorious comic poets, which demands several names before Magnes and a number of contests before him which the six 'SKlRCHNEE, in his list of archons at the end of the ^^The full list of possibilities, mathematically speak* second volume of his i'rofio;*. Att.^ assigns Hermv. The two extra letters at beginning and end would be provided for in the margins." '^Taking oKTuj as an ordinal, "the eighth year." air[b VvKiha ('ci']iKT)(c[dT]u>i' T[a riiJOia]. The corresponding t,,^ - ., .J- t li u J i 1 ■ lieadiutr would be somethiug like "Airb Fi^AiSa i4>' o^ jraCtTov •""One of the sententiae controversae attached to his "=au'i t, 1 ., . - ,, „ . ,. , .. ^ . ... Kwuoi lavwi-es ^<^"*' Ttoi' Ilut'toji' oiO« eitKuji'. dissertation Deprimordtis. . , , , , . , ,. , ^, ^ ,. , , ,. .rr . ,r,.T» ..^ s:j This, the simplest possible form of heading, maybe »i Bull, de corr. hell., Vol. XXII (ISaS), p. 2fiO; Bitten- ^^^^^ ^^ '(^^^ ^^^'^ „.6e ^...o,. was not reserved for the BEKGER, Syllogc, ed. 2, Vol. II, No. 91.j. second line, and that 272 lines should not be taken instead *^2The preamble reads: [e'jrei .... 0v\i'i[Ta^av wivaKa rlit- of 274 as the basis of calculation. 2S' 30 The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia With the new conception of the early history of Attic comedy many matters once obscure receive new light. There is no reason now, for example, why we should not accept in their full significance the conclusions ably deduced by Poppelreuter from the early Attic vase-paintings, for comedy had indeed, as Aristotle says and as the paint- ings prove, "taken on a more or less definite form" by the year 487. The long- chei-ished illusion concerning the establishment of the City Dionysia about the time of the Persian Wars, to which Ribbeck gave currency, is at last definitively dissipated, and also the other misconception as to the Lenaea as the festival in which comedy was nurtured long before its recognition by the state. And, finally, we have learned once more that we may not depart one jot from the words of Aristotle, the fovintain-head of all our knowledge of the beginnings of the drama. Where we cannot follow him, we ourselves are blind. EXPLANATION OF PLATE IV The details of my reconstimetiou of the Catalogue of Victors, and the restorations in it to which I have been led, are given in the accompanying Plate. The seven published fragments are given in capitals, and, with the exception of frag, d (see p. 20), are placed in the position in which they belong. The so-called frag, c is purposely omitted (see p. 14, note 49). A critical study of this Plate will provide the best possible demonstration of the correct- ness of the reconstruction as a whole. It should be clear, tor example, that, given in frag, a the original upper margin and in e the lower, no other hypothesis as to the number of lines in the column and the extent of the heading would work out satisfactorily ; fmther, that frag. / cannot possibly occupy any other position in relation to a. It will also be seen that the lost first columns can be restored in no other manner that will satisfy equally well the conditions imposed by the facts derived from other som-ces. The irregularities in Ccls. XIV and XV are indicated as accurately as possible. For convenience I have added in ordinary Greek type victories won at the City Dionysia about which we chance to have information from any source, provided that the year is known, No claim to completeness is made, however. I have veutmed to enter here several events not expressly recorded as City victories, in accordance with my conviction that the chronographers t{K)k info account only the record of victories i" fiffrei (<;/. Am. Jour. Phil., Vol. XX, p. 395), and that the Parian Chronicle records only first victories won at this festival (Am. Jour. Phil., Vol. XXI, p. 41). For the notices from Eusebius see p. 24. For the victory of Alexis in 357/6 see Am. Join: Phil., Vol. XXI (1900), p. 60, supported by Munro, Class. Rev., Vol. XV (1901), p. 360. The lyric victories are mainly from Brinck, Jnsc. Graec. ad choreg. pertin., and Bodensteiner, "Ueber choregische Weihinschrifteu," Festschr. d. philol. Se.m., Miinchen, 1891, The events entered after the year 329/8, while correct as to the year, are placed only approxi- mately in the right position in the column. Note.— At the last moment I have received from my former pupil, Mr. D. M. Robinson, Fellow of the American Sctiool at Athens, by the courteous permission of tlie discoverer. Dr. Adolph Wilhelm. a squeeze of a new fragment which joins fraj,'- /' on the left. It K'ves Astydamas in Col. XIV, 12, and Theophrastus in 1. 11 — welcome conKrmation of my reconstruction of this part of the record. More welcome still is the promise of Wilhelm's edition of this whole series of inscriptions in the near future 288 '^ -^UTH . OjOPHrti noiitPiiwajNEAiaii KlUINETlOIEIOPHrEIJ £ciC(PHrEi NlAIAItlUiailKEN EPMIiriT|0KEN »l IPirOJlflQM a]hTTlllKIE(TlEIOPH MEIHEHPikrHttatiaDKEM yTr)0KPiTK}wriiN(i)NOi , t(ni*AK*)OI IW/I ••llfiVitaiprtj. IlltU Ml/l tHEflPJilUHl I qiOPHHEi OEOtlAOIUIAjAINEH 0|HMHEnHtl(H*II|0] NAH*iai£AlJKEH rnoiRPiTMt fmUHHtOtONTO* tSM irnTM0Nnfn»n4aH U Iri «_u^.n 4&I/J -e^ i>v»-~ *»/» >«<^IU.» Rwl, i.^u^ au..» An A "Eri Xw- tlt/l We£ltU[IAUKEM TPAraiADN KA]EOM*IOIAI1(PN: EI Til AlflTVAAMIAIIE^jlAAtK vrrroi" PI T H •« eriA/ M ciiTie»iiato«*Eo*i ji)/ MEKPOITtlinUAQM A'OllkN KEKPOItllfANAPOH aionciefHt ITPO KA E l( A H I U U(< K CN TP«rOIA[flN -«^iM>vw ni/i «at_a^„Mui>, UTiAv.— tn/ii <*»r>.iv, ip iM| -Mill—, tw/j 110 . . t]aid**J>'IE"£ lOPH (irnoeoNTnAHafiOH , . M{II|EI[Pl»iq»«E»OPM [KOUJOIAION » University o1 Calilomia SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hllgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from w/hich it v»as borrowed. RECEIVED APR 2 9 1997 Mf iio ubnMnf Fo l^JOf-», CALIF. D 000 547 184' 2