Skip to main content

Full text of "The Journal of philology"

See other formats


3D!)* Brumal 







VOL. X. 

Hontion an& GTambrfoge: 





X \ 


/7 6<^ 



No. XIX. 


Archaeological Interpretations. R. Burn ..'... j 
On certain Engineering Difficulties in Thucydides 7 Account of the 

Escape from Plataea. Bk. in. 20 4. F. A. Paley ... 8 

On the First Seven Verses of the Antigone. F. A. Paley . . 16 
On some Fragments of the New Comedy, and some Passages of 

Aeschylus, Theognis, Alcaeus and Ibycus. R. Ellis . . 18 

The Homeric Trial- Scene. William Ridge way .... 30 

Note on Xenophon, de Vect. iv. 14. H. Hager . . . . 34 

Note on Plato, Apol. Socr. p. 26, d, e. H. Hager .... 37 
Notes on Gender, especially in Indo-European Languages. James 

Gow 39 

Atakta. I. Bywater .... 67 

Notes on some Passages in the Politics. J. Cook Wilson . . 80 

Observations on the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles. J. P. Postgate 87 

Old German Glosses from a Bodleian Manuscript. F. Madan . 92 
Traces of Different Dialects in the Language of Homer. A. H. 

Sayce 110 

On some Difficulties in the Platonic Psychology. R. D. Archer-Hind 120 

(j?) On Plato's Republic VI 509 d sqq. Henry Jackson . . . 132 

Aesch. Ag. 115 120. A. W. Verrall 151 


No. XX. 


Thilo's Servius. Henry Nettleship ... .... 153 

Pyrrhus in Italy. Henry Elliot Maiden 172 

Biology and Social Science. F. Field 178 

Horatiana. A. E. Housman . . . . . . . . 187 

On a Passage in the Rhetorica ad Herennium. W. Warde Fowler 197 

Dissignare. Henry Nettleship 206 

The Chronology of the Books of Kings. W. Robertson Smith . 209 

On the Text and Interpretation of certain passages in the Aga- 
memnon of Aeschylus. W.W.Goodwin 214 

On the Fragments of Euripides. H. A. J. Munro . . . 233 

J Plato's Later Theory of Ideas. Henry Jackson .... 253 

The Simile of the Treacherous Hound in the Agamemnon. A. W. 

Verrall 299 

Aristotle, Politics iv (vn) 13 5 7. 1332 a 7 sqq. Henry Jackson 311 






1. Propertius IV (v). 8. 1, 

Disce quid Esquilias hac nocte fugarit aquosas. 

The epithet aquosas as applied to the Esquiline hill by 
Propertius has not been rightly interpreted by commen- 
tators. They suppose that the hill was so called from its 
springs and marshy ground, and refer to Varro's statement 
(L. L. v. 49) that its name was derived from the cesculeta 
which grew upon it, as proving that marshy ground occupied 
at least a part of the slopes. Another explanation given by 
commentators has been that aquosas is a translation of the 
Homeric epithets iroXvirlha^ or iriS^eaaa applied to Mount 
Ida in IL vm. 47, XI. 183, as it is in Hor. Od. ill. 20. 15 
" aquosa raptus ab Ida." But neither of these explanations is 
satisfactory. Varro's derivation of ' Esquiliae ' from the wscu- 
leta which grew there seems improbable, and Mommsen R. H, 
Bk. i. oh. 4, and Corssen Lat. Spr. Vol. IL p. 1023 are probably 
correct in taking the true derivation to be from excolince " the 
suburban district," as inquilinus from incolo and sescenti from 
sexcenti. Nor does it seem likely that Propertius would have 
used the Homeric epithet merely as a poetical ornament, with- 

Journal of Philology, vol.x. 1 


out any special significance. As he lived himself upon the 
Esquiline (Prop. Carm. IV. 23, 24), he must have intended to 
express some feature of the hill which would be at once 
recognized by every Roman resident. 

Nor is it difficult for the archaeologist to see what this 
feature of the hill was. He will at once recollect that almost 
all the aqueducts of Rome entered the city on the Esquiline 
hill near the Porta Maggiore and the Porta S. Lorenzo, where 
considerable remains of the specus of several, of the more 
ancient and important aqueducts still remain, the Marcian, 
Tepulan and Julian, with the records of their restoration by 
Augustus inscribed upon them. Agrippa and Augustus during 
the life of Propertius renovated and distributed the water of 
these and other aqueducts. We find Pliny, N. H. xxxvi. 
121, stating that Agrippa when aedile constructed several 
hundreds of cisterns and aquce castella, and fifty great public 
jets of water. 

Strabo. also, v. 3. 8, says that nearly every house had <rt- 
cjxoves /ecu Kpovvoi a<f>9ovoi, and that rivers of water ran through 
the city. The passages in Horace, Ovid, Martial and Juvenal 
which describe the abundance of water dripping and bursting 
from the cisterns and pipes are well known. (Hor. Ep. I. 10. 
20 'aqua tendit rumpere plumbum.' Ovid. Met. IV. 122. 
Mart. in. 47; ix. 19. Juv. in. 11.) 

This escape of water from the pipes and specus and foun- 
tains on the Esquiline is probably referred to by Martial 
(Ep. v. 22. 6), where he speaks of the stones on the ascent 
from the Subura to the Esquiline as " Nunquam sicco sordida 
saxa gradu," a passage which is often wrongly understood as 
referring generally to mud in the streets. So also in Ep. IV. 
18. 2 Martial, speaking of the arch of the Aqua Virgo over 

the Via Flaminia, says "Et madet assiduo lubricus imbre 

1* a 

The puticuli on the Esquiline mentioned by Festus, p. 21 G 

ed. Mttller, and referred to by Hertzberg in his commentary, 

were, as Festus says, pits for the deposit of the bodies of criminals 

executed on the Esquiline, and have no bearing on the epithet 

aquosas, but were named from the putrid filth they contained. 


Propertius refers to the improvements introduced by Agrippa 
when aedile in the distribution of the water which came by 
the Julian and Marcian aqueducts to the Esquiline, when he 
speaks (in the line Carm. in. 2. 12 "Non operosa rigat Marcius 
antra liquor ") of the pipes by which the water was conveyed 
to private houses. Frontinus de aq. 9, in reference to the 
same act of Agrippa, says that Agrippa " Compluribus salien- 
tibus aquis instruxit urbem." The greatest portion of the 
water supplied by the aqueducts to Rome must therefore have 
passed over and through the Esquiline hill. No doubt many 
of Agrippa's fountains and castella were constructed there, and 
many pipes passed from the main channels in all directions to 
the houses and gardens of Maecenas and other wealthy courtiers 
who occupied the Esquiline after the ground had been cleared 
and made as Horace calls it saluber. (Sat. I. 8. 14 "Esquiliis 
habitare salubrious.") The warm swimming bath which Dion 
Cassius, LV. 7, mentions as one of the public improvements 
introduced by Maecenas was probably in his grounds on the 

2. Propertius IV (v). 4. 14, 

Bellicus ex illo fonte bibebat equus. 

Commentators and archaeologists have been misled in their 
statements as to the probable position of this fons by their not 
having recognized the fact that the so-called Career Mamer- 
tinus was at a very early period a tank or well-house which 
probably supplied water to the district between the Capitoline 
and Quirinal hills. In this poem in connection with the story 
of Tarpeia, Propertius has evidently called up in his imagina- 
tion the state of the ground occupied by the two contending 
troops of Romans and Sabines. The Sabine warriors under 
Tatius he represents as having descended from the Quirinal 
hill and posted themselves at the foot of the slope of the 
Roman Arx on the Capitoline. Here the poet imagines that 
there was a clump of trees watered by a spring which rose on 
the side of the Capitoline and flowed down towards the site 
of the Forum Romanum. He marks out the spot by the words 
in line 13, "ubi nunc est curia septa." The Curia, it is nearly 



certain, stood on the slope below the site now occupied by 
the church of S. Giuseppe dei Falegnami and the ancient 
well- house called the Mamertine Prison, and this is exactly 
the position which the Sabines, descending from the Quirinal 
and posting themselves in the Forum valley, would occupy 
between the two hills. 

Mommsen, in his admirable discussion of the topography of 
the north end of the Forum, mentions this passage of Pro- 
pertius and suggests that the lacus servilius is the fans re- 
ferred to (Ann. dell' Inst. xvi. 302). But the lacus servilius 
was on the side of the Capitoline nearest to the Palatine, and 
therefore on the opposite side to that from which Tatius was 
imagined by Propertius to have approached the Forum. Pro- 
pertius must have had the Curia as restored by Augustus in 
his mind, and this was certainly near the Comitium and at the 
north-west corner of the Forum. 

The lower chamber of the building now called the Career 
is constructed in a conical shape by the gradual projection of 
the stones forming the sides. This mode of building is of a 
very early date, and is found in the Regulini Galassi tomb 
at Caere in Etruria, and in well-houses at Tusculum and at 
Fiesole and Cortona. See Dennis, Etruria, Vol. II. pp. 46, 
128, 451, and Gell, Topography of Rome, p. 432, where repre- 
sentations of the tomb and the well-house are given. The 
well at Tusculum shews most clearly what the nature of this 
Roman watering-place originally was. We have there the 
truncated conical dome where the spring water collects, and 
near it are some troughs supplied from it with water which 
were evidently washing troughs, or troughs from which horses 
might be watered. Propertius had a horse's watering trough 
of this kind in bis imagination when he wrote the line "Bellicus 
ex illo fonte bibebat equus." In the legend, as it was known to 
Propertius, Tarpeia drew the water for her water-jug at the 
fountain-head, whence it ran down the slope to the troughs 
in the Forum where the horses could drink. 

The building as it now stands was not consecrated as St 
Peter's prison before the 9th century (Hemans, Monuments of 
Rome, p. 110), and the name Tullianum was possibly derived 


from the ancient structure having been a well-house. Festus 
gives an interpretation of the word Tullius as meaning a stream 
of water. (Festus, p. 353 ed. Miiller.) He quotes from the 
Ajax of Ennius an instance of the use of the word tullii 
corresponding to the avptyyes "arteries" of Soph. Aj. 1412 
and the av\b<; 7ra%u?, "gush of blood" of Horn. Od. XXII. 18. 

Corssen Lat. Spr. II. p. 171 connects the name Tullius with 
the root tol tul, which would seem to point to the meaning 
"a place for drawing water." Tiburtes tullias occurs in Plin. 
N. H. xvii. 16. 26, where tullias probably refers to the well- 
known cascades of the Anio at Tibur. 

3. Martial VIII. 75. 2, 

A tecta Flaminiaque recens. 

This passage has been wrongly explained by commentators 
as referring to the tecta via outside the Porta Capena. Their 
mistake arises from ignorance of the fact (well known to Roman 
archseologists) that there were two tectce vice at Rome, as is 
rightly stated in Forcellini's Lexicon s. v. recta via. These 
tectce vice were no doubt similar to the Porticoes at Bologna 
which lead from the Porta Saragozza to the Madonna di S. Luca, 
and from the Porta Maggiore to the church of Gli Scalzi. One 
of them was placed between the Porta Capena and the temple 
of Mars outside the walls, and was intended to secure a con- 
venient passage for the votaries who went to dedicate their 
armour at the temple after a successful engagement or a happy 
escape. This custom is referred to in Propertius IV (v). 3. 71, 
"Armaque cum tulero Porte votiva Capenae subscribam salvo 
grata puella viro." 

A grand procession of the Order of Knights (transvectio 
equitum, Liv. IX. 46 ; Ov. Fast. vr. 191) was conducted on 
the Ides of Quintilis ever} 7 year from this temple of Mars to 
the Capitol to give thanks for the aid of the Dioscuri at the 
battle of Regillus, and other religious ceremonies were carried 
on just outside the Porta Capena, as for instance those con- 
nected with the Lapis Manalis. Thus a considerable traffic 
similar to that which passes through the Porta Saragozza at 


Bologna, passed along the road between the gate and temple, 
and was sheltered by a via tecta. 

The other path which was sheltered by a portico was on the 
Campus Martius near the Flaminian road between the old 
Porta Ratumena and the later Porta Flaminia, now the Porta 
del Popolo. This latter is the via tecta to which Martial refers 
in vni. 75. 2, as quoted above, where he connects it with the 
Flaminian road. A further description of it as the Via For- 
nicata ad Campum is given in Liv. xxil. 36. 8, shewing that 
it was a vaulted archway. The Roman house of Martial's 
friend Julius Martialis seems to have been near this via tecta, 
for his villa was on the Monte Mario to which the approach 
from the Flaminian road would be much nearer than from 
the Porta Capena. See Mart. III. 5. 5, * hunc quaeres primaj 
in limine tectae," and Mart. IV. 64. 1, "Juli jugera pauca 
Martialis Longo Janiculi jugo recumbunt"; and 23, "Cum sit 
tarn prope Milvius." Seneca, Apol. 13. 1, speaks of this via 
tecta as near the altar of Dis, where Claudius descended ad 
inferos. Claudius was buried in the Mausoleum of Augustus, 
which was near the southern end of this via tecta. 

Gallienus (Hist. Aug. Gallien. 18) seems to have designed 
a grand extension of this via tecta to the Milvian bridge. 

4. Martial IV. 18. 1, 

Qua vicina pluit Vipsanis porta columnis. 

A mistake has been made in the interpretation of this line 
by commentators from their ignorance of the position of the 
Roman aqueducts. Schrevelius in his variorum edition of 
Martial's epigrams, followed by Paley and Stone, identifies the 
porta here mentioned with the Porta Capena, because the 
Porta Capena is in several passages of the Roman poets called 
madida from the Aqua Marcia which passed over it. 

But the porta here spoken of was 'vicina Vipsanis co- 
lumnis,' and the 'Porticus Vipsania' was probably a portion 
or a continuation of the Porticus Poise built by Pola, Agrippa's 
sister (Dion Cass. lv. 8), and perhaps connected with the 
Porticus Europae (Mart. II. 14. 3). This colonnade was in sight 


of Martial's house on the Quirinal (Mart. Ep. I. 108. 3), and 
we may infer from the name Vipsania that it was a part of 
the buildings of Agrippa near his Thermae on the Campus 
Martius. Thus the water which dripped from the porta must 
have been that of the Aqua Virgo, from which Agrippa sup- 
plied his baths. 

And it appears that the Aqua Virgo was carried over the 
arch of Claudius discovered in 1650, which crossed the Via Lata, 
now the Corso, near the Palazzo Sciarra, and was built in 
memory of Claudius' expedition to Britain in A.D. 43. Another 
archway was also discovered at the same time by which the 
Aqua Virgo was carried over a street parallel to the Via Lata 
but nearer to the Pantheon. One of these two archways is 
plainly alluded to by Martial, and thus the position of the 
Porticus Vipsania is approximately determined. The extent 
of this Porticus is shewn by the fact mentioned by Tacitus 
(Hist. I. 31) and Plutarch (Galba 25) that troops could be 
quartered in it. 

[To be continued.) 


PLAT^EA. Bk. hi. 204. 

A careful consideration of the account given of this event 
by Thucydides, aided by modern research, will, I think, tend 
to throw considerable doubts over his accuracy, in this respect 
at least, as an historian. I am not aware that such doubts 
have been raised in any history of Greece, with the exception 
of that by Sir George Cox 1 . He has put forward, at some 
length, in an appendix, the views I propose to bring more fully 
before the reader; and in doing so, he has acknowledged his 
obligations to me as the author of the doubt. The question is, 
I think, both interesting and important ; for the character of 
a "great historian is impugned, if not for truthfulness, at least 
for accuracy. 

In the year B.C. 429, two years after the outbreak of the 
Peloponnesian war, the Peloponnesians, led by King Arch idamus, 
marched against Platsea. This was done at the desire and the 
instance of the Thebans, who were the implacable enemies of the 
Platseans. As the Platseans, advised by Athens, had rejected the 
offer of remaining neutral, their city was at once invested by the 
Lacedaemonian army. And here follows, in Thucydides u. 75 8, 
a most interesting and circumstantial account of the siege, 
which it is necessary to my purpose to epitomise. 

The first operation was to barricade the city all round with 
trees cut from the spot, to prevent any further egress of the 
citizens, rod jjLrjheva en Ifykvai. The next was, to carry a 
mound on an inclined plane to the level of the top of the wall. 
This mound was raised only against a portion of the city wall, 
the object being simply to effect an entry. For the construc- 
tion of it, wooden piles and fascines, stones and earth, were 
used ; and when the besieged made mines under or holes 
1 Hist, of Greece, Vol. n. App. K. pp. 6036. 


through the bottom of their own wall, and carried off the loose 
soil from the mound into the city, so as to cause a continual 
subsidence of the enemy's earth-work, the Peloponnesians had 
recourse to reed-baskets filled with clay. As the mound rose in 
height, the Plataeans kept adding to the height of their own walls 
by a hoarding or frame of timber filled in with brick. For seventy 
days and nights the whole Lacedaemonian army worked con- 
tinuously by relays, kclt dvcnravXas. The Plataeans, fearing they 
should not hold out, left off raising the wall in this part, and 
worked at a crescent-shaped inner wall, commencing from the 
lower or unheightened wall on either side, and curving inwards 
into the city, in order that, if their great or outer wall were taken, 
el to /jbeya refyp? oXlo-kolto, the secondary or crescent-shaped 
wall might still hold out for a time. The Peloponnesians now 
raise engines on their mound to batter down the Plataean timber 
frame or upper wall. This device seems to have been a batter- 
ing-ram, a contrivance well known to the Assyrians in much 
earlier times. Mr Layard, in his 'Nineveh/ p. 217 of the 
smaller edition, describes a bas-relief in which the besieged are 
endeavouring to catch the ram by letting down a chain from 
the wall. In p. 255 of the same work, he says, "the battering 
ram was rolled up to the walls on an inclined plane constructed 
of earth, stones, and trees, which appears to have been some- 
times paved with bricks or squared stones to facilitate the 
ascent of the engine." He adds, "this mode of besieging is 
frequently alluded to in Scripture." 

According to Thucydides, the Plataeans adopted very similar 
measures to prevent the ram making a breach. They let fall 
heavy beams suspended by chains, and knocked off the heads of 
the rams as they were going to strike. The Lacedaemonian 
army next tried fire, hoping, says the historian, that if a wind 
arose they could set ablaze the city, which was of no great size, 
oucrav ov jneyaXrjv, II. 77. They wished, he says, to induce the 
city to surrender without the expense and delay of a long siege, 
to frighten the Plataeans in fact, by a strong measure which 
should leave them little hope of mercy if they persisted in 
holding out. To this end, they piled up the spaces between 
the wall and the crescent-shaped barricade with faggots, which 


they threw in from their own mound, and even for some little 
way over or beyond the crescent, and into the interior of the 
city. Then, setting fire to the heap with brimstone and tar, 
they made, says the historian, such a bonfire as had never been 
seen up to that time, unless perhaps in the accidental burning 
of a wood. But* he adds, with a slight touch of the marvellous 1 , 
" it is said that a thunderstorm with heavy rain descended at 
the time and put out the fire." 

The siege at length was turned into a blockade. Archida- 
mus appears to have retired with part of his army; for the 
historian says, a considerable part, fiipo? re rov cnpaToirehov, 
was left, and that these, the remnant of the force, proceeded to 
wall round the city, assigning the work in different parts to 
different cities or bodies of troops, Kepio.Teiyi'Cpv rrjv itoXlv 
kvk\&), Scekc/jbevoc Kara 7ro\et? to ywpiov. 

This wall, he tells us, had a double ditch or moat, both 
inside and out, from which they had dug the bricks to make 
the wall : rdcfjpos 8e ivro? re r)v ical e%(o0ev, it; 179 iirXtvOev- 
aavro. The whole of this work was finished, he adds, irdv 
igelpyacrTo, at the rising of Arcturus, that is, at the autumnal 
equinox. Now, as the expedition had commenced in spring 
(rov eiri,yi<yvo[xevov Oepovs, chap. 71), and seventy days had been 
spent in the fruitless working at the mound, we are met at once 
by this startling statement, that in less than three months an 
investing double wall of brick, with a double moat, was raised 
all round the city, and even built of materials, wXlvOoi, that 
had to be dug and made (either burnt or sun-dried) on the spot ! 

Now, though the historian does say that the city was not 
large, ov pueyaXTj, we know certainly that it was by no means 
small. For there were 400 fighting men left in it, besides 
eighty Athenians, and 110 women to make the bread for the 
besieged (11. 78). All the rest of the women, with the children, 
the old men, and the unserviceable population, d%pelov 7r\rjdos, 
meaning probably the slaves, had been sent by the Platseans 
for safety to Athens. According to the usual average of fighting 
men to a whole population, there could not have been less than 
10,000 inhabitants. At the battle of Marathon, some 60 years 
1 Compare the story in Herod. 1. 87. 


before, we read of a contingent of 1000 Platseans; at the battle 
of Platoea the ottXltcu numbered 000. Now, let us consider if 
any engineer, civil or military, could by any possibility perform 
such a feat in three months as to surround and inclose so large 
a town with a wall and a deep double moat! With the number 
of hands engaged, it is manifestly and certainly quite impossible. 
Such a feat can only be compared to the stories about devil's 
dykes and mounds miraculously raised in a single night. Least 
of all were the slow and inert Lacedaemonians likely to execute 
so stupendous a work in so brief a time. 

We happen to know, from existing remains, the extent of 
the city wall of Platsea. Colonel Leake tells us, in his Travels 
in Northern Greece 1 , that it is 2 J miles round. Of course, the 
investing wall with its double moats must have been much 
larger, whatever may have been the circuit of the ancient city. 

But what puts an end to the question of possibility is the 
minute account given of this very wall in the 20th and 21st chap- 
ter of the Third Book, where it is to be observed that it is in three 
separate places distinctly called the "wall of the enemy," and "the 
wall of the Peloponnesians." It was actually a double wall, with 
an interval of 16 feet between. It was so high that it had to be 
scaled by ladders ; it had battlements, and at intervals of every 
ten battlements, Bid Bi/ca iwak^ecov, there were wide and large 
towers, spanning right across to the very outside of each wall, 
and therefore about as large as ordinary church towers! He 
calls them irvpyoi fieyaXot teal lo-oirkaTels rS Telnet. There 
was an arch or entrance in the middle of each, and they were 
roofed above, avwdev areyavol. The intervening space, he says, 
was used as a series of guard-rooms, tols (pvXa^cv ol/cr/{iaTa 
(okoBo/jltjto. Who these cfrvXa/ce? were, we know from II. 78; 
they consisted half of Boeotians, that is, Thebans, and half of 
Lacedaemonians, though even the fiepo? ri, or part of the army 
that is said to have made the wall, had retired, aveywp^aav, 
and been disbanded. 

But still further; the whole of this wall, say, two miles in 
circuit, was plaistered internally with rough-cast in itself a 
most gigantic task to perform ! How could an invading enemy 

1 Vol. ii. chap. 16. 


possibly do this, standing on scaffolds or ladders, without oppo- 
sition; and above all, where did all the plaister come from? 
Thucydides says, that in order to calculate the height of the 
walls by the courses of brick internally, the Platseans who in- 
tended to escape counted the bricks in a part fj erv^e 7ry>o? 
acfra*; ov/c i^aXrjXijjLiJbevov to rel^o? clvtwv (that is, to rectos 
t&v TroXe/jLLoyv), words which Dr Arnold incorrectly renders 
"thoroughly white-washed." He should have translated, "in 
a part where the plaistering had not been completed.' , 

Thus then we have some 500 righting men cooped up in a 
double wall of some two miles in circumference, and guarded 
by a handful of troops who had their lodging in the double wall ! 
This alone is quite incredible; for if an army had come from 
Athens to aid the party within, these <f>v\cuce<; would have been 
in a very unsafe position between the Athenians without and 
the Platseans within, and must have surrendered very shortly if 
only by a failure of supplies. 

The question now arises, is the whole story about this wall 
a fiction, or is it the result of an extraordinary and almost in- 
credible blunder on the part of Thucydides in confounding the 
ancient city walls with a new wall built on purpose to prevent 
the escape of the besieged ? 

Although there are very great difficulties in either supposi-, 
tion, I shall endeavour to show that the latter is the case. The 
evidence of modern travellers will go some way in determining 
this. But first it may be remarked, that we happen to possess 
an ancient stone sculpture, or drawing as it might be called, 
found by Sir Charles Fellowes at Pinara in Lycia, and of a date 
certainly not less ancient than the siege of Platsea, with battle- 
ments and towers on the walls precisely as described by 
Thucydides. Secondly, walls such as those here spoken of as the 
siege-works of the enemy existed commonly till quite late in the 
middle ages. If I remember aright, the city of Nuremberg still 
retains its old walls, said to be crowned with 365 towers. I say 
"crowned," bearing in mind the passage in the CEdipus at 
Colonus of Sophocles 1 , who speaks of irvpyoi fiev ot ttoXlv 

1 Ver. 15. The MSS. indeed give ariyovciv, but it seems probable that 
aritpovacu is the true reading. 


aricfyova-cv, in speaking of the wall then surrounding Athens, 
traces of which, with towers, still remain. 

The most complete account of the old walls of Platsea is 
given in Dod well's Classical Tour through Greece, Vol. I. p. 277 
80. The ruins, he says, of the city stand on a low oblong 
rock, the narrow extremities of which face north and south, the 
longer sides closely corresponding with the still existing re- 
mains. Being enormously strong (even without being double), 
they might have afforded, in the flanking towers, a safe position 
for the warders or <pv\a/ce<; of the beleaguered city. They were 
supported too by 300 reserves, who are said (in. 22, 7) to have 
been posted outside the outer moat to bring immediate aid, if 
necessary, oh ireraicTo irapa^orjOelv el ti Beoc. 

That Thucydides did not know the locality, and fancied that 
the city wall was encircled by another double wall, is further 
shown by his using i^ekOovre? in chap. 22. He there says 
distinctly that the Plataeans who remained in the city went out 
and made an attack on the Peloponnesian wall on the opposite 
side to that on which their friends were escaping. This must 
mean that they went out of their own city walls and attacked 
the Peloponnesian wall of circumvallation. Moreover, he fancied 
that the Spartan force was encamped somewhere between the city 
wall and their own double lines ; a force over and above the 
({>v\afc<; and the 300 reserves. For he says that when an alarm 
had been raised by the falling of a tile, in the escape, the be- 
sieging army rushed to the wall, &p/jLr)crei> iwl to rei^o?. Nor 
do I think it possible to understand these words in any other 

Viewed under any aspect, the matter is full of difficulties. 
It is possible that all the walls now remaining may be later 
than the siege of Platsea ; for Thucydides says the Thebans 
" destroyed the whole city to the level from the foundations," 
Kadekovres avrrjv e? eBacfros iracrav etc rcov 6e[ie\l(ov, III. 68, but 
he does not specify the walls. The city is said to have been 
rebuilt after the peace of Antalcidas in 387, and again de- 
stroyed by the Thebans in 374. Again it was restored under 
the Macedonian supremacy, and lastly its walls were rebuilt by 


Thus great doubt is thrown on the identification of any of 
the present remains with those existing in the time of Thu- 
cydides. If those walls have wholly disappeared and been 
replaced by others, his account may be substantially true, 
provided we understand it of the city walls and not of the 
circumvallation, which, I think I have clearly shown, must be 
given up as false in fact, because involving an impossibility. 

It is likely that this old city wall was the same, as regards 
circuit and foundations, with those walls that now exist, and 
which Dodwell attributes to the Macedonian era. The old 
foundations he speaks of may be those left by the Thebans 
when they razed the town to the ground ; and the towers now 
standing may have been rebuilt after the fashion of the old 

With regard to the brick dug out of the moats, of which 
Thucydides says the walls were built, if there is clay on the 
spot, it may be said that suu-dried bricks could have been 
made with straw or stubble, like those which are used about 
Cambridge made out of the chalk marl, and called "batts." If 
there is no clay, then of course the whole story of the bricks is 
a fabrication. It would be very interesting to have this matter 
settled by a geological examination of the site, which is said to 
be on a rock. 

My impression is, that Thucydides was so far led away by 
the habit of the Xoyoypdfyoi to compose amusing or sensational 
stories abundance of which we find interposed in the graver 
historical narratives of Herodotus that he here indulged his 
hearers with a very exciting story of a hair-breadth escape, and 
was really more intent on making the story a good one (in 
which he has certainly succeeded) than in a careful investiga- 
tion of the truth. It is not to be de tried that in his preface 
(i. 21) he denounces the Xoyoypafyoi who compose stories merely 
to please, eVl to irpoaaywyorepov rfj cucpodaei, rj d\r)6earepov, 
but then this preface was written last, and it may express the 
feelings of the more matured historian, although some approach 
to the romantic and the marvellous had been attempted in the 
earlier writing of his history. 

There may have been a desire too to insert an exciting and 


amusing episode to counteract the dullness for which he him- 
self apologizes in 1. 22, where he expresses a fear that some 
may think the non-mythical nature of his history somewhat 
uninteresting, e? aKpoacnv icrco^ to fir) fivO&Ses avrwv drep- 
irearepov (fraveirai. 

It will no doubt be objected that Thucydides, writing so 
nearly at the time of the event, and a native of Athens, could 
not have been so misinformed about so important a town so 
near and so friendly to Athens. But Platsea had been utterly 
destroyed by the Thebans about B.C. 425; and if Thucydides 
wrote or published his history twenty years later, when the 
town was in utter ruin, such misconceptions are by no means so 
improbable as they may appear. 

That certain prisoners of war did escape and get safely to 
Athens, no one will deny. But we may be pretty sure their 
version of the story would not be derogatory to their own 
bravery and cleverness. 

There is really no difficulty in supposing that the Spartans 
had taken possession of the city wall and cooped up the inhabi- 
tants within it till they should surrender themselves through 
starvation. The motive for this is evident, viz. because in the 
event of a peace they would not be compelled to restore any 
city that had given itself up, but only those captured by force. 
This is distinctly stated in III. 52: "the Lacedaemonian general, 
aware of the weak state to which the Platseans had been 
reduced by the famine, was unwilling to take them by assault, 
orders to spare them having been sent from head quarters, in 
order that, in the event of a truce, and a restoration on both 
sides of the places taken in the war, Plata?a might not be ceded 
to Athens, as having voluntarily come over." 

The double character of the wall, described as spanned by 
towers, may be a mistake resulting from some kind of mound 
or barricade raised round the city wall on the outside, and the 
wonderful story of the deep moat and the frozen water very 
likely arose from that of the ditch out of which the mound had 
been dug. But if there ever were moats, there must still be 
vestiges of some of them. 



I seem to myself to have found a probable solution of the 
great difficulties which beset this passage. 

I suppose vs. 2 3 to have stood thus originally; 

ap omtu on Zef? rcov air Uloiitov /ca/ccuv 
ovk itrff oirolov ovyl vcov ^oocratv reXel; 

By way of comment, en was written above ^coaacv, this being 
the more usual formula, as we have en, cocrav ya^els in v. 750, 
en, %cdv Ajax 990, and en %<2<rav cfAoya in Bacch. 6. But when 
the gloss had crept into the text and so made a verse of seven 
feet, ovk ead' was omitted, and the present reading, which is 
nonsense, and cannot be translated, was the result. In other 
words, the actors had to choose between rejecting ovk ea6\ 
or en. 

For many years I have held the opinion, that the three next 
verses are an interpolation, and that for three good reasons; 
(1) The seven verses of Antigone should correspond numerically 
to the seven of Ismene. (2) The words oirolov ov kclkwv are 
a mere repetition from the preceding sentence. (3) The double 
negative, oirolov ov ovk oircoira, if defensible in itself, seems 
due to the same kind of pedantry which intended ovt arrj^ 
arep in v. 4 to stand for ovre ovk drep arris, i.e. ovre gvv 
art). None of the proposed corrections of this verse seem to 
me in the least probable. It is radically bad, together with 
the other two lines. The negative ov repeated seven times in 
three verses can hardly be attributed to Sophocles, who could 
so easily and naturally have used yaOofjurjv for ovk oircoira, 'of 
which I am not fully aware.' 


But why were these verses interpolated? I fancy I can now 
give a plausible reason. It was to represent in another way the 
ovk eari which had been wrongfully excluded from v. 3, and 
was taken into protection by one school of actors. This is now 
developed into ovSev yap iari tSv kclkoov oirolov ovk oirioira. 
It is evident, not to say certain, that if the poet intended in 
v. 3 the syntax I have suggested, ap olaO' ore ovSiv ion twv 
kcucwv oirolov Zei)? ov reXel, he could not have immediately 
added, ovSev yap iari tgov /ca/coov oirolov ovk oircoira. 

As a matter of Greek grammar, it seems to me necessary 
that ov/c ecrd* oirolov should have commenced v. 3. 

If my reasoning is right, what a curious "muddle" has been 
caused by the interpolation of the little word ere 1 ! 

1 In Oed. Tyr. 1401 there is a doubt Phil. 4168. (I am aware, of course, 

between apa fiov fU/nf(r0' on of 2pya of the interpretation suggested by 

dpaaas, and /xe/Avrjad' Zti. Keinarkable Professor Kennedy on Oed. Tyr. 328, 

examples of a redundant negative oc- where I still prefer my correction t&jul 

cur Oed. Tyr. 328, El. 626, Trach. 158, ws av elV^s.) 


Journal of Philology, vol. x. 


The following notes on the 4th volume of Meineke's Frag- 
menta Comicorum Graecorum, containing the fragments of the 
New Comedy, may, I hope, be not without interest, if not for 
themselves, as illustrating Catullus. I shall begin with exhi- 
biting some parallelisms of expression or idea. Such resem- 
blances are especially likely to be found in Menander, the one 
subject running through all whose dramas like a common breath, 
was love (Plut. irepl "E/^&jto? ap. Stob. Flor. 63. 34). 

Cat. lxxvi. 13, 14 

Difficile est longum subito deponere amorem, 
Difficile est. 

Menand. KapxySovwi fr. IIL M. 

epyov ifc /jLarcpov yjiovov 
avotav r^iepa fieraa-rrjaai, fiia. 

Menand. Inc. cxcin. 

epyov <rrt\ <t>avla, 
fia/cpav avvrjOeioLV (Spa^ei Xvcrai yj)6v(p. 
The repetition Difficile est. Difficile est is a natural one and 
has its counterpart in a fragm. of Apollodorus of Carystus Inc. 

^dXeirov tv^ij ^cttl irpaypua, yaXeiroV aXka Set 
ahrrjv (pepetv Kara rponrov, (txrirep fopriov. 

The combination of past, present, and future in the recurring 
formula quot aut fuerunt Ant sunt aut aliis erunt in annis is 
found several times in the New Comedy. 


Menand. Inc. xii. M. 

QOiaucdv 7r7roL7)/ce zeal iroirjcrei kcli iroieZ. 

Philem. Inc. II. M. 

ov ovSe eh \e\rj0ev ovSe ev ttoicov 

ovK dv iroLrj(T(i)v ovhe ireirotrjicw^ irakai, 

to which may be added from Euripides Troad. 467 

7rTO)/Jbdr(ov yap d^ta 
Traayoi re koX ireirovOa kcltl ireldoiiai. 

With Cat. XXII. fin. compare Menand. Inc. LXXXV. 
ovBels i(f> avrov rd tca/cd avvopa, Uafi<pc\, 
<7<z0g3?, erepov 8' dcr^qfiovovvro^ otyerai. 

With Cat. viii. 3 Fulsere quondam candidi tibi soles, compare 
Zenob. VI. 13 MevavSpos Be <f>T]o-iv iv Aev/ca$ia rrjv dyaOrjv 
rj/xepav XevKrjv /ca\io~0ai. 

Menand. Inc. VII. 

Ma rrjv 'AOrjvdv, dvSpes, elicov ov/c e^a> 
evpelv ojAoiav tgD yeyovoTt irpdyixariy 
^tjtcov 7T/30? ifiavrov tl ra^ico? diroWvec. 
arpo^cXo^', iv 'Saw (rvarpecfyeTcu, 7rpoo~ip^6Tat t 
Trpoekaftev, igeppiyjrev, alcov ylyverat. 

The word i^eppi^ev has a strange look, and can hardly, I 
think, be genuine. I believe the real word is igepprjgev which 
is used intransitively of a subterranean wind bursting forth by 
Aristotle Meteorol. n, 8, p. 366. 31 of the Berlin ed, "H&7 yap 
icreicrjJLos iv T07rot? tio~1 yuvofievos ov irporepov e\v)%e t Trpiv i/cptj- 
jEas et9 tov virep yi}<> tottov (pavepws wairep iKve<pia<i i^XOev o 
Kivrjcra^ dvefio<f. 

Menand. Inc. viii, M. 
afiec yap i)jjlgov ovbe et? et, fifj oetc rj 
ev&e/ca yvvalicas' BcoBex rj 7r\eiov<? ripes. 
*Av Terrapas S' rj irevTe yeyafirj/coos rv^rj 
"f/caTacTTpocfrrfTLS, dvv/jbevaco? ddXios 
dvvfjL<po<; ovtos iiriKaKelr iv to? e#et. 



Meineke reads after Tyrwhitt ti>xV Karao-Tpofyrj? Tt?* ap- 
parently in the sense of 'dies.' Mr Lancelot Shadwell, in his 
* Commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and of Mark' 1861, 
conjectures Kara arpa(f>fj Tt? 'which alters only half a letter, 
and exactly agrees with the context. The poet had just before 

ya/xet yap tj/jLcov ovoe e^9 ei fir] cetc r) 
evheica yvvalicas, BcoSe/c i) 7r\eiov$ Tive<z. 

He then adds, But if any one shall take four or five wives, 
and stop there, they call him a miserable old bachelor' (pp. 58, 

Menand. Inc. XV. M. 

Plut. ap. Stob. Flor. 63. 34 twv M.evdv8pov Bpafidrcov 6fiaXw<; 
airavrwv V o~W6Ktlk6v eartv, 6 epoos, olov irvevfia kolvov Biaire- 
(pvKcos. ov ovv (? o5? av ovv) fidXtcrTa OiacrwTrjv rov 6eov koX 
opycaarrjv rov dvBpa (rv/nrepiXafiftdvofiev eh rrjv ^rjrrjcriv, eVel 
/cat \e\d\r)K irepl rov irdOovs (pcXoao^oorepov. aiov yap elvai 
OavfAaros d>wo~l to nrepl tovs ipotyvra*;, "^oocrTrep 0~tcv, dfia XaXerf". 
etra diropel koX ^vrel irpds eavrov 

tlvl BeSovXayrai ttotc ; 
6-^rei) tyXvapos' Trjs yap avrrjs irdvTes av 
TjpcoV Kpiaiv yap to j3\e7recv tcrrjv eyet. 
dX)J 7]Sovt] rt? tovs ip&vra? iirdyeTat 

<TVVOV(Tia<> ; 7Tg3? OVV tT/)0? TaVTTjV %CDV 

ovBev ireirovOev, aU' a7rr)\0 /caTayekdov, 
ere/30? diroXcoXe ; fcaipos icrTiv r) vocros 
'r rv X^' '^V'Y 6 ^ * "fetcrco 8r) TiTpcocrfceTai 

'Multorum coniecturis uexatum est' says Cobet of this pas- 
sage Nov. Lect. p. 82; if therefore I err in my attempt, it is in 
good company. And first it seems pretty clear that the words 
a%iov yap OavfiaTos are part of the quotation, and on this 
hypothesis they have been variously altered, not very happily so 
far as they are known to me. I would read 

a%iov yap OavfiaTO? 

TO T60V ipCOVTCDV, Oi9 TTapeGTlV, CL flTTOiel. 


'Strange enough is what happens to men in love, all that 
he (Love) produces in those that are under his spell.' The 
change of nominative to "Epoos is easily intelligible, and if any- 
where, in Menander. 

For eicrco Brj which Bentley altered to elafioXr}, Wyttenbach 
to ek o Set, Hermann to eh 6$l, a marginal annotator of the 
Bodleian copy of Bentley's edition of the fragments has written 
eh ttXrjv, i.e. I presume, ^v^r)v. This would make excellent 
sense if we interpret fcaipos a mortal blow: 'the disorder (love) 
is a mortal blow to the soul, the stricken victim is wounded in 
every fibre of it.' 

Menand. Inc. xxx. M. 


iyoo to croo^ov tt)v ijjirjv olfciav 

dXXa irapeXuirov oliceTwv elvat crrdcnv 

evBov Trap* avra> Trpdy/xa ^pTjacficoTarov. 

The paraphrase of this passage given in the Venetian Schol. 
A. on II. XXI. 389 ovBeiroTe 6va>v ev^djjurjv aXXa><; aw^ecrOaL tt)v 
ol/ciav rj crrdorLV olketcov elvcu ev avrfj as well as the excerpt 
from Plutarch Cat. Mai. 21 quoted by Meineke del Be tivcl 
<nd<riv eyeiv tovs BovXovs e/jbrj-^avdro /ecu Soa(f>opdv 7rpo<; dXXrj- 
Xou?, V7rovocov ttjv o/jlovolclv /cat BeSoi/cws make it probable that 
we should read to a&^ov rrjv e/jurjv dv oliciav, 'AW' rj irapeXarov' 
'numquam id uoui quod domum meam seruaturum esset, nisi ut 
relinquerem etiam (without reserving) ut inter seruos fieret 

Menand. Inc. lxxix. M. 

tov<z tov IBcov BaTravGovras dXoytcrTcos (3iov 
to /caXa><; dicoveiv Ta^y iroiel irdaiv fca/ccos. 

For irdcnv Bentley conj. ireivrjv, Meineke irdXw or irda^etv. 
Is not irpdaaeLV a simpler emendation? 

Apollodorus i ~E7rtBi,Ka6/jLevo<; II. M. 
From the words of Terence on which this corrupt passage is 
quoted by Donatus it seems probable that naXkei? or AvaX/ceis 
represents ev Xea^y. 


Anaxippus ^yKaXvirTOjievo^ I. M. 

tov opBpov iv Tat? ^epalv o^ret (SiftXia 
%ovTa /cat ^rjrovvra tcl Kara rrjv rkyynv. 
ovBkv ~\"%ovBpvovcrL Bta^epco r 'Aa-TrevBlou. 

I explain this of the Aspendian salt with the white and 
withered look of which the studious and bookish cook is com- 
pared. Plin. XXXI. 73 Sal siccatur in lacu Tarentino aestiuis 
solibus...item in Sicilia in lacu qui Cocanicus uocatur et alio 
iuxta Gelam. horum extremitates tantum inarescunt, sicut in 
Phrygia Gappadocia Aspendi, ubi largius coquitur et usque ad 
medium. I would read then ovBip rt %6v8pov 8ia<f>epco r 'Acr- 

Poseidippus ' Avaf3\7ra>v I. M. 

6 Se ttjv yXwrrav eh dcrxf)l Ji0va S 
eTTiOvtiias "\evia re twv ^SvcFfidrcov 
KaOaXos, fcaToijos, ^avari/cos, irpoo fcav<n ik6<?. 

For evua re I would suggest eV/aXXe or etyiaXXe. Od. IX. 
288 'AW' o y avai%a<; erapois eVt ^elpa^ laXXev. 

Aesch. Supp. 615. 
Tolavft eirecOe prjaiv a/i.0' rj^iwv Xeyoov 
ava% HeXaayoov, l/cealov Zwvbs kotov 
fieyav Trpocfxovoov iltjttot elaoiriv ^povov 
ttoXlv ira^yvat, %evacbv dariKov #' dfia 
Xeycov hiirXovv /xlacrfia irpo iroXews (fxtvev 
dfirj-^avov ftocricrjiia TrrjfAovrjs ireXeiv. 

Conington, quoted by Paley, who translates 'warning them 
that the great wrath of Zeus would never hereafter enrich the 
city,' thought the idea was of a disease draining the body politic, 
exhausting its powers of support, and preventing it from thriving 
or becoming fat. This has always seemed to me the exact reverse 
of the poet's meaning. The citizens are warned against allow- 
ing the wrath of Zeus Hikesios, incurred by neglect of the sup- 
pliant Danaides, at some future time to make the city wax gross 
and increase the unwholesome humours in the body politic. The 
same metaphor underlies the words oXffos dyav Trayyvdeis 


'prosperity swoln to an unhealthy bigness.' And this is surely 
the natural meaning of irpocfrcovwv ^iror, 'warning them that 
the anger of Zeus should not make the city grow fat,' i.e. against 
allowing it to do so. 

857. ayetos iyco fiaQw)(aLO<$ fiadp ki a? /3a0p ec as yepov. 

So Med. I cannot help believing after all that has been 
written about dyeios that it is simply 'Apyehs: cf. 274 'Apyeicu 
yevos 'Efein^o/iecr&z, and the king's incredulity 277 "AirccrTa 
fiv6el<r6\ co ^ivai, ickveiv ifiol, f/ 07rcr)? toS' v/jllv icrriv 'ApyeZov 
yevos, and especially 322 where the Chorus having proved their 
ancient connexion with Argos conclude with saying elSa,? S' 
afjucv upyaiov yevo<$ Tlpdaaois av tw? ' Apyelov ducrrrjo-ys arokov. 

Suppl. 875. 
ol 61 61 61 61 X-vfi-acrtcr virp o yaav XacrKec 
nrepi yapsirra ftpvd^eLS 6 V ip a> ra?. 

I think this mysterious passage contains two Egyptian 
allusions (1) to Isis, who is invoked to witness the wrong of the 
Suppliants (2) to the crocodile, called in Egyptian yap-tya 
(Herod. 11. 69). We may suppose a number of Egyptians by 
this time to have gathered round, perhaps wearing the national 
ear- and ankle-rings, and gesticulating violently: it would be 
natural to the Suppliants bred in Egypt and remembering the 
similar adornment of the sacred crocodiles to compare them 
with their pursuers: hence I would read 

* ? t f 


Xv/jlcls, *I<ri. Trpb yas v\do-fcoL. 

irepl, ^d/j,yjra, /3/3uafet?, 

tf * , 
ocr epcoTa?. 

'Alas for the outrage, o Isis. I would he might howl beyond 
the limits of the land. Unmeasured is thy wantonness, thou 
crocodile, that thou askest so many questions.' With irepl 
/fyuafet? we might perhaps compare Nicander's irepL^pv-qs twice 
used in the sense of over-luxuriant, oa for 09 as in 'OX/3 la, ftcrcra 
i'aaTL' iravoXfiia, <w? y\vKv<\xoveZ seems so natural that I marvel 
it should not have been suggested before. 


Suppl. 987. 
teal /nrfT ae\7TTco<; Bopt/cavel fiopw Oavwv 
XdOoifML, xa>pa o a%do<i dei^cov irekoi. 

Weil and Wecklein rightly object to this, the former reading 
fjbrjT ef dekiTTwv, the latter (Studien p. 88) supposing a verse 
lost after 988. May not the right reading be teal fjurj V deXirroi^ 
'and that I might not for some unlooked for reason be slain, 
and the land thus incur a burden of undying guilt.' The un- 
looked for reason would be some sudden surprise, such as might 
easily occur to a stranger. 

Suppl. 996 sqq. 

v/jbdq S' iiraivw fir) KaTaiayyveiv e/ue, 
iopav eyovaas tt\vS lirioTpeiriov ftporols. 
repecv oircopa 8' V(})v\cikto<; ovSap^co^. 
drjpes he Krjpalvovac teal fiporol, rl fiijv; 
teal KveoSaXa irrepovvja koli 7re8ocrTi/3r}. 
KapTrcoftara ara^ovra KTjpvcraet KirTrpt? 

f*/ca\o> p aKco Xvovaav Ocoafiiv rjv ipco. 

It seems probable that the obelized line contained some par- 
ticular application of the remark just made. 'I warn you to 
keep your virginity jealously guarded. Fruits just ripe are a 
desirable thing, and attract the attack of beasts and men. 
Venus gives notice when the grape is over-juicy, and who has 
not seen the fox watching the vine?' 

I suggest then 

KaXmireK apevovaav (dvOoo-fivv) ipco. 

\oivdvdrjv J 

The objection to the former of the two bracketed words 
is that it is not known to exist. But that it may have existed 
as the original word from which the well-known avdoapula^ 
(ohos) took its origin, is I think likely, because both Suidas 
and the Schol. Arist. Plut. 807 say dvOoa/jila^ was formed dirb 
tottov 'AvOocr/jLiov rj Co? dirb ecSovs dfiirekov. It is difficult to 
believe that the vine was called dvOoapbla^. As in the case of 
Kairvias, the vine would be likely to have a different form. 


Schol. Vesp. 151 kclttvt) elSos dfjuirekov ^rjporarov teal Bpt/jLvrarov 
olvov 7rocov<T7]<z ) 6/Wa>? teairvo) irotovvra Bdtepva. Ttj>e<? Be teairvlav 
olvov iv Bez>e/3ez>Tft> rfjs 'I-nzXta? ylveaOal <$>acn, teal Kairvia 77 
afjLTreXos. As then the vine seems to have been called Kairvr) 
Kairvia as well as teairvios Kaizveo^ tedirvetos, but not kclttvIcls, so 
it might be expected the vine would be called dv06<rp,r) dvdoa- 
yu-eo)? or by some other similar form, but not dv0o<rp,las. The 
fox is frequently mentioned as prowling about and injuring 
vines, Theoc. 1. 457 dp,<f>l Be viv Bv d\a>7re/ee<>, d puev dv op^co? 
<$>0Lrf} aivofjLeva rdv rpcotjtfiov, Nicand. Al. 185 Uioreprjv ore 
fiorpvv eaivaro ter)/ed$ aXthirr^. Babr. I. 11 ^ AXwnete eyQp&v 
dfjuTrekoav re teal ktjitwv. With ipw 'I will tell of,' introducing 
an object of comparison, cf. Ag. 896 Aeyotpu dv dvBpa rovBe tojv 
araOfJicov tevva, ^corrjpa vaos irporovov te.r.X. and 838 EtS&)9 
XiyoLfi dp, ev yap ie7ricrTap,ai, 'OyiuA,/a<? Karoirrpov, etBcokov 
a/cids, Aofcovvras elvai tedpra irpevfieveZs efiol. The language 
seems closely to resemble Chaeremon fr. 12 Nauck, UoWrjv 
oirwpav "KvirpuBos elaropav iraprjv "A/cpcucrt irepted^ovcrav olvdv- 
0ai<$ y^povov. 

Suppl. 350. 
XvkoBlcoktov cos hdfidXiv dp, Trerpais 
aXiftaTOis, iv aXtea ttlctvvos fiepuvtee 
(f>pdovcra fioTrjpL pbo^jdov^. 

Antigonus Hist, Mirab. 29 Keller rds 8' ekdfyovs Xeyet 
tlkt6lv Trapd TO? oBovs, (fievyovcra? rd dr/pla. rjKiara yap eiriTi- 
deaOaL toi)? Xvkovs ev0dBe' dyeiv he teal rd reteva eirl tojv arad- 
fiwv, eOi^ovaas ov Bel diTofyevyeiv' elvai Be tovto irerpav dnropp&ya, 
puiav e^ovcrav 6B6v. This description would apply exactly if we 
might interpret BdpuaXiv not of a young heifer, but a young doe, 
following Hesych. Bd/xa\c<;. pbbcryps teal Kara iravros veov. 

Suppl. 795, 6. 

Beitero? olocfipcov KpepLas 
yvirids irerpa. 

Antig. Hist. Mirab. 42 TWo? Be \eyerat viro tlvodv otl 
ovBels eopa/ee veorrov ovBe veorrelav' Bio teal 'HpoBcopov rov 


Upvcrcovos tov cro(f)ccrTov irarepa airo tivos clvtov? erepas <f>dvai 
779 eivai fMerecopou. ritcreiv o ovv iv cnrpocrfiaTOLs Trerpais. 

Sept. c. Th. 576. 

kcli tov gov avOis Trpocrpuopav dBeX<f>e6v 
e^virr id^wv ovopua, UoXvvei/covs /3iav, 
0Y9 t iv reXevrfj Tovvopu ivBarov puevos 

777)09 pbopav Med. irpoapuopov most other MSS. 

It does not seem to me at all certain that the reading of 576 
is specially corrupt. Hermann indeed says 'aSe\<eo? alienum 
est a trimetris tragicorum.' But surely forms like oXoiclto 
twenty lines above (552) in a similar iambic passage, the recur- 
rence of dBeXfacov in a lyric passage 974, to say nothing of the 
generally epic character of the play, are sufficient to determine 
the form as Aeschylean, even if we had not the further plea that 
as a gloss dBeX<j>6v, not dBeX<f>ov, might have been expected. 
Hermann quotes two scholia which to me are very sugges- 
tive, tov 777)0? tov crbv OdvaTOV dBeX^ov, and tov ovk iirl <f>iXia 
ovtcl aoi. On this view I would read 

Kal tov aov av6i<$ 777)09 puopov 6 dBeX(f>e6v 
'he calls on him, that is your brother, but brother as the doom 
of death assigns/ tov dBeXfabv puev, 777)09 popov Be. Polynices 
and Eteocles are brothers, but brothers in their doom, and in 
the fatality w T hich, fulfilling the curse of their father Oedipus, 
sentences them to quarrel, as brothers, for the possession of 
their father's throne, and finally die by each other's hand. The 
whole of the conclusion of the play is a commentary on this 
remark, cf. especially 930 ol 8' SB* eYeXeu- Tao-av vir dXXaXocfao- 
vois Ye/wrlv opbocrTTopotaLV. 932 bpLOcnropoi BrJTa teal iravtoXeOpot,. 
811 O0TW9 dBeX(f)ai<? ^epcrlv rjvedpovT dyav. 0#tco9 Balpuwv 
Koivbs yv dpufyolv dpua. The A would easily fall out before A. 

Sept. c. Theb. 705. 

vvv ot, aol 7rap6CTTapL6V' 67rel Balpccov 
X?7/iOT09 dvTp OTTCuia Xpovi ap,eTa~KXaKTb<$ 
io-cdo" dv eXOoL 6a...Xco Tepcoc 

TT-VevpLCLTl' VVV Tt **. 


So Med. ap. Merkel. The metre in 705 requires an alter- 
nation of dactyls with cretics, as is proved by their regular 
recurrence not only in the corresponding strophe 698 700, 
but in the previous strophe and antistrophe 686 688, 692 
694. Hence haifjbwv would seem to be wrong, though the 
passages quoted by Paley prove that it would be quite Aeschy- 
lean as regards mere expression. Accepting OeXeficorepa) from 
Conington, I would read the rest of the passage thus 
vvv ore aoc Trapearaicev' eVel Boficov 
Xrj/jLaros dv rpoiraia yj)ovia fieraX- 
Xafcros tcro)? av eX0oc OeXeficoTepay 
Trvevfiart,' vvv 8' ere et. 

and with So jaw Xr/fiaro^ rpoiraia ' a changed wind in the spirit 
of the house' I would compare Cho. 1065 oBe roc fieXdOpocs rocs 
(SaacXeiocs Tpcros av ^ec/jccov Uvevo-as yovias eTeXecrdrj. 

On the interesting fragments newly published by Weil from 
a papyrus of M. Firmin-Didot, the following suggestions have 
already appeared in the Academy of May 1, 1880. 

Fr. in. 7. 

zeal rpels dyctivccs, rpecs yvvaaceiovs ttovovs. 

Fr. iv. 7. 

Weil reads XeTrrrj ydp iXTrls rjh^ eVl gvpov TrtXec, Blass t}& 
hr\ %vpov puevec. I cannot but think that we have here a sur- 
vival of a lost word errcgvpecv, and would read eTre^vprjfjcivrj 
'close-shaven/ i.e. a hope reduced to very narrow compass. 

Fr. v. 5. 

Weil irapi/cecTo to tcaXov, rdyaOov, rb ae/jcvov [ov]. Blass 
rjXXa/cro. Perhaps iraprjicTo 'was perverted.' 

Theognis 125 Bergk. 

ov yap av elBecr]? dvSpos voov ovBe yvvacKos, 
irp\v Trecprjdelijs coairep viro^vylov. 


ovBe icev el/cdaaais cLairep iror ? ccpiov iXdcov. 
iroKKaKi yap yvco/juvv e^airaTcoa IBeai. 

A great variety of conjectures have been expended on e? 
ch'piov, as if it must be wrong. I venture to suggest that it is 
either a different spelling of or a mistake for e? avpiov. The 
meaning is: you must test a friend before you admit him to 
your confidence, not after doing so. You must not guess at his 
character as if you were to come the day after and find you were 
mistaken in him. Sen. Epist. 3. 2 Tu uero omnia cum amico 
delibera, sed de ipso prius. Post amicitiam credendum est, ante 
amicitiam iudicandum. Psti uero praepostero officia permiscent, 
qui contra praecepta Theophrasti, cum amauerunt, indicant, et 
non amant, cum iudicauerunt. Ethic. Eudem. VII. 2 ovk ecm 
8' avev 7r/c7Te&)? cfriXia fiefiaios, rj Be ttLctti^ ovk avev yjpovov. Bel 
yap irelpav \a[3e2v, cocnrep Xeyei koX Sioyvis Ov yap av elBelrjs 
vrro^vyiov, ovc" avev yjpovov cplXos. And a little lower ov yap 
ecrrtv avev ireipas ovBe puas rjfjLepas 6 (j)l\o<;, aXXa yjpbvov Bel. 

Theognis 1066, 7 Bergk. 
tovtcdv ovBev tol dX\! eiri repirvoTepov 
dvBpdacv yBe yvvai^L 

Perhaps tovtcdv ov 6vt]toI<;. 

Theogn. 1257. 
co rrral, KivBvvoccri nroXvirXdyKTOicrtv 6/jloIos 
6pyr\v, aWoTe toIs, aWoTe toIctl cf)iXelv. 

Perhaps icCKkovpowi 'wag-tails,' or as it seems also to have 
been written KiWvpoicn. Hesych. /clWvpos cricroTTvyis. Theo- 
gnis elsewhere makes this bird an emblem of instability. 303 
Ov Bel KiyKX'i^eiv dyaOov fiiov, dX)C aTpe/jLt^ecv. 

Alcaeus fr. 86 Bergk. 
For At yap k aXkoOev ekOrj Be cpot/crjvoOev e/Afievat, the 
most probable emendation seems to be, retaining Seidler's 6 Be 


At yap k aXKoOev e\6r)$, 6 Be cf>rj KrjvoOev efifievai 

' if you have come from some other place, then he says he is 
from that! An excellent description of a not uncommon cha- 


In the next fragm. though the restitution of the whole line 
is uncertain, it can hardly be doubted that a/3a<; irpoairoaiv 
is a mistake for a/39 irpoTroaiv. - 

Ibycus fr. 2 Bergk. 

*H [lav rpofjuew viv (Love) e , rrepyo\x.vov, 

ware (f)pevyos tirrrQ? deOXotyopos iron yrjpai "fae/ccov 

crvv o^eacpi 6ool<? e? dficXXav e/3a. 

I think de/ccov is a corruption of aco/ccov 'vigorous' when old 
age is approaching. 

Ibycus fr. 29 Bergk. 

"EptSo? ttotI fidpyov e%(ov aro/Jia 
dvria hfjpiv "fivloLS /copvcrcroi. 

Bergk reads ijjboL The variants are evcoi, vevooi. Hence I 
suspect a less common word, perhaps iveU, as in Bacch. 851 
evels iXa<ppdv Xvcraav. 

Bentley in his Epistola ad Ioannem Millium, p. 320, ed. 
Dyce, correcting the Hesiodic verses quoted by the Scholiast 
on Soph. Trach. 266 Toi)<? Se fied' oTrXordr^v re/cero %av0r)v 
'loXeiav * kvTioyr) Kpelovaa, iraXaibv yevo? kvfioXiZao sug- 
gested from Hyg. fab. 14 Clytius et Iphitus Euryti et Antiopes, 
Pylonis filiae, filii that the right reading was UvXcovos Nau- 
ftoXlBao. That Bentley was right in his reference seems to me 
certain : but is not II vXdovo? Avj3o\lSao a more probable ver- 
sion of it ? Bentley indeed denies the existence of such a form 
as Aubolus or Aubolides : but instances are common enough of 
such dropping of an initial letter, e.g. Omamertes Mamertes 
(Tzetz. ad Lye. 938), Brimo Obrimo, Briareos Obriareos (Bach- 
mann on Lye. 698), Candulus Andulus (Lobeck Aglaoph., 
p. 1305). To my ear HvXcovo? has a sound unlike the style of 
epic verse. 



Ketro 8' ap iv /jLetraoKTC Bvco ypvaolo raXavra 
ra> Bc/iev, 09 fiera rolac hiKrjv iOvvrara etTrrj. 

Mr Laurence, in a paper entitled " Judges and Litigants," 
published in the Journal of Philology, Vol. VIII. No. 15 (1879), 
resting on the great authority of Mr Shilleto, renewed the fight 
over this sorely contested passage, and attacked the interpreta- 
tion given to it by Sir H. Maine and other eminent scholars. 
Sir Henry Maine has given an excellent exposition of the 
passage on the analogy of the ancient Roman Legis actio sacra- 
menti, and in reference to the lines in dispute he says : " The 
point of detail, however, which stamps the picture as the coun- 
terpart of the archaic Roman practice is the reward designed 
for the judges." Against this, Mr Laurence urges three points. 
He (1) first objects to translating Bt/crjv ehrelv as "to pronounce 
judgment," at the same time admitting that " BUrj in Homer is 
a very complex word used in many different ways." Few 
modern scholars will regard it as a valid objection to such an 
interpretation of an Homeric phrase that no parallel for such 
usage can be adduced from Attic Greek. (2) He objects that 
" if Sir Henry Maine and Mr Gladstone are right there must 
have been not one trial but two. The merits of the suit had 
first to be adjudged and then the merits of the respective 
judgments." Mr Laurence goes on to say : " We do not learn 
whether the judges were to be rewarded in proportion to their 
knowledge of precedent, the skill which they displayed in mas- 
tering and grouping the facts of the case, or the elegance of the 
Greek in which their decisions were respectively pronounced." 
This is simply quibbling. To expect the rude judicial methods 



of a primitive people to accord with our present notions of 
Law, which are the slow growth of ages, is indeed unreason- 
able. If an English judge at the present day was to adopt 
the method pursued by Solomon in his famous decision, public 
opinion would scarcely view his procedure with that unmixed 
satisfaction with which his subjects hailed the method em- 
ployed by the wise King. (3) Like all those commentators 
who have held that the two talents of gold represent the 
Troivrj dv&pds aTrocfrOifievov, Mr Laurence points triumphantly 
to the largeness of the sum. On the other hand, Sir H. Maine, 
evidently feeling a certain difficulty in making the sum har- 
monize with his own admirable exposition, is forced to resort 
to the unsatisfactory explanation that " the largeness of the 
Homeric sum compared with the ordinary sacramentum indi- 
cates the difference between fluctuating usage and usage con- 
solidated into law" (Anc. Law, 375). 

The difficulty has arisen from the commentators all esti- 
mating the Homeric talent by the standard of historic times, 
without ever enquiring as to whether there was an Homeric 
standard or not. And yet such a standard can most certainly 
be found from the Homeric poems themselves. 

First, in a well-known passage, II. M^. 262 270, we find 
that when Achilleus offered prizes for the chariot race, two 
talents of gold stand only fourth in a list of five prizes. The 
first prize consisted of a yvvrj dfAvpova epya ISvla, and a Tpiirovs 
wTooet,?. Now, though the lady was not merely skilled in fair 
works, but was also supplemented by the rpiirovs oorwei*;, we 
cannot suppose the first prize to have been of startling value, 
especially if we find that in the list of gifts offered to Achilleus 
by Agamemnon, I. 122130, 264272, seven ladies, all of them 
dfiv/jLova epya IBulai, and furthermore surpassing in beauty the 
tribes of womankind, are mentioned quite casually, and when 
we see from X. 164 that 77 Tpliro? rje yvvrj was the ordinary 
prize in chariot races. If two talents of gold were so inferior in 
value to a slave woman, surely they would be a very insufficient 
" eric " for the life of a man of some importance, such as we are 
justified in considering the dvrjp dirofyOipievos to have been. 
The third prize offered by Achilleus was a Xe/3??9. This same 


vessel is denominated ira^avocovTa Xeffrjra in 1. 613 of this 
same book, which are the words applied in r. 386 to the laver 
in which the nurse, Eurykleia, is washing the feet of the sup- 
posed old vagrant, when she discovers that he is her long-lost 
master. Now, a vessel employed for such mean purposes cannot 
have a high intrinsic value. Again, we find (6. 393) in the 
list of presents to be contributed for Odysseus by the twelve 
yyTJropes qBe fieSovres of the Phaiakes that a talent of gold 
stands last, for Alkinoos says, 

T<v oi (J)dpos etca<TTO<; ivirXvve^ rjhe j^iTwva 
Kal %pv<ro2o rdXavrov ivecfcare Tifi-qevro^. 

Furthermore, at 8. 129 we read of Polybos, King of Egyptian 

o? MeveXdw boozce 8v* dpyvpias daapbivQov^ 
Solovs Se Tpiirohas, 8e/ca 8e xpvcrolo rdXavra. 

Here again we have ten talents of gold standing last in the 
enumeration. We shall be probably justified in making a similar 
inference from the position of the words yjpvaov * * * hkica 
irdvra rdXavra in the description of the valuables, which Priam 
brought forth from his treasure-chamber for the ransom of the 
body of Hektor (fl. 232). For though the lines at co. 273 seem 
to contradict this view at first sight, where seven talents of gold 
are mentioned before several leading items of the list in fl. 232, 
the moment our attention is drawn to the epithet evepyrjs, all 
difficulty disappears fypvo-ov jiev oi Sao/c evepyeo? eirrd t- 
\avra, cf. t. 202). Wrought gold was excessively valuable at 
a time when skilled artificers were not to be found in Hellas, 
and when all works of art were imported from Sidon or Egypt. 

From an examination of the above passages, I think it will 
be seen that the rakavrov of the Homeric poems is by no 
means a large sum. (Mr Laurence is uncertain whether the 
Homeric talent is a weight or a coin. It cannot surely be the 
latter. There is no trace of coined money in Homer, and it was 
only at a very late date comparatively that the Greeks coined 
gold.) We must be careful not to regard it in the light of the 
Attic or Euboic, Aeginetan, or Babylonian talent, which seem to 
have been confined to silver (cf. Herod, vn. 28, Xen. Hell. 


3. 5. 1), whereas the Homeric talent is confined altogether to 
gold. This alone is quite sufficient to overthrow Dr Schlie- 
mann's theory, that in certain oblong pieces of silver found at 
Hissarlik we have specimens of the Homeric talent (Troy and 
its Remains, 328). Rather are we to regard the small talent 
called the Sicilian or gold talent, used for weighing gold by the 
Greeks of Magna Graecia, which was equal to six Attic drachms, 
as the true representative of the Homeric roXavrov. 

If this be so, the sum of two talents would be too small as 
composition for a homicide, but would very fairly represent 
the sacramentum, and thus the only weighty objection to Sir 
H. Maine's interpretation of the passage will be removed. 


Journal of Philology, vol. x. 


[Read before the Cambridge Philological Society, April 15th, 1880.] 

YlaXav jjuev yap hrjirov oh fJLefieXrj/cev dfcrjtcoafiev on Nt/aa? 
7TOT6 6 Nitcrjpdrov i/crr/a-aTO ev rots dpyvpeloL<; %Ckiov<s avOpw- 
Trof?, ot)<? i/celvo? %(Dcria tw Spa/cl e^efilj-Ocoaev, i<f> a> 6j3o\ov 
fjuev aTekfj e/cdcrTov ttjs rjiiipas d-7ro$i86vai, rbv 8' dpiOfiov taovs 
del Trapel'xev. 

The conditions on which slaves were let out to work in the 
mines are generally said to have been that the lessee was bound 
to pay an obol a day for each slave and to restore them to the 
owner the same in number 1 . 

This profit would have been extraordinarily great, even 
allowing for the high interest usual among the Greeks; for on 
Boeckh's calculation, reckoning 350 days and taking the average 

1 Cf. Boeckh, Staatsh. d. Ath. 2 i. 
p. 103 : ' Wenn Bergwerksclaven, an 
Pachter vermietet, ihrem Herrn tag- 
lich einen Obolos einbringen,...ruhrt 
dieser Ertrag keineswegs allein von den 
Sclaven, sondern zugleich von den 
damit verpachteten Bergwerken her ' 
and Ueber d. Laur. Silberbergw. in At- 
tica (Kleine Schriften, v. p. 47 foil. ) : 
1 Diese reichen Manner hatten ihre 
Sclaven an Unternehmer verpacbtet, 
unter der Bedingung, dass der Pachter 
ausser der Bekostigung der Sclaven 
von jedem Kopfe taglich einen Obolos 
ohne alien Abzug erlege und die An- 
zahl stets vollstandig erhalte und zu- 
riickliefere ' ; and Buchsenschutz, Be- 

sitz und Erwerb im griech. Altert. p. 
205 ; Prof. Mabaffy, Bambles and Stu- 
dies in Greece, p. 130: Nicias let out 1000 
slaves to Sosias, at an obol a day each 
the lessee being bound to restore them to 
him the same in number ' ; and Wallon, 
Hist, de Fesclavage dans l'antiquite, 
p. 202 : ' Ainsi les esclaves lou6s aux 
exploitants de Laurium produisaient 
net 1 obole par jour a leurs maitres 
ou 360 oboles par an; et encore les 
entrepreneurs supportaient-ils les chan- 
ces des maladies accidentelles ou de la 
fuite, puisqu'ils devaient, a Pexpiration 
du contrat, les rendre tout aussi nom- 
breux qu'ils les avaient reQus.' 


price of a mining slave at 140 drachmae, the return would be 
above 40 per cent.; and yet there would have been no risk for 
the owner, since the lessee had to restore the full number of 
slaves which he had received. For this reason Boeckh suggests 
that the obolus a day for each slave included also payment for 
the use of the mines in which they worked. 

This involves a gratuitous alteration of the text, all the MSS 
having irapel-^ev, and secondly this solution of the difficulty 
does not appear tenable for the following reasons : (a) we learn 
from Andoc. de myster. 38 l , that Diocleides had one slave 
working in the mines; is it conceivable that a mine and one 
slave to work it, could be let out to a lessee ? 

(b) Xenophon in proposing that the state might, in imita- 
tion of private individuals, procure public slaves and let them 
out on hire to work in the mines, does not so much as hint that 
the lessees would at the same time become entitled to work 
such mines as were not yet in private hands. I think therefore 
that we must give up the notion that the high pay of an obolos 
a day for each slave included payment for the working of the 

From Xenophon we can derive what I consider the more 
probable explanation for this high return. He distinctly says 
that such public slaves were to be let out on the same conditions 
as those of private individuals ( 19), and then proceeds to 
prove that the speculation is safe ( 21) : 'when the slaves are 
marked with the public mark and when a penalty is fixed for 
selling and exporting such slaves, how can any one steal them?' 
Does not this imply that the state, in its capacity as slave- 
owner, would have to bear the loss, if the slaves were stolen ? 
otherwise, why should it take such precautions, if the lessee had 
to restore the slaves the same in number? I cannot suppose 
that the public mark was merely intended to prevent inferior 
slaves being restored to the state at the end of the contract, as 

1 2<pr] yap elvat fitv avSpairodov oi iirl habe, die jemand fur an ihn vermie- 

Aavply, delv 5 KOfxiraadaL airo^opav. thete Sclaven dem Eigenthiimer zu 

Meier und Schomann, Att. Proc. p. 533, zahlen hatte ; Andocides evidently uses 

have: es ist durch keine Stelle belegt, airotyopa in this sense. 
.. dass aTro<t>opa je die Miethe bezeichnet 



Prof. Mahaffy seems to think was probable in such cases, when 
he says (Primer p. 40): 'the contractor was also obliged to 
restore them the same in number, no regard being had of the 
individual slave'; the Athenians were too shrewd business men 
to allow themselves to be cheated in that way. I should there- 
fore suggest as a more probable explanation for the high profit 
on capital invested in mining slaves, that the lessee paid an 
obol a day for each slave for his work, and that it was the owner 
who ran aU risk for the life and safe keeping of the slaves: this 
is confirmed by the fact that Nicias paid no less than a talent 
for an overseer in the mines (Xen. Mem. ii. 5, 2 ; cf. Plut. 
Nic. 4)\ 

The rate of profit on the purchase money was naturally 
high; for the value of a slave decreased with his getting old, 
not to speak of the danger of his dying comparatively early as a 
result of his exposure to the atmosphere of the mines (which 
was notoriously noxious (Xen. Mem. iii. 6, 12), in spite of air- 
shafts (ijrvxaycoyia)), and of the still greater danger of his 
running away, for which reason some had to work in chains 
(Plut. Nic. et Crass, init.), a danger to which Xenophon alludes 
( 25) by a reference to the time of the occupation of Deceleia 
by the Lacedaemonians, when as is stated by Thucydides 20000 
slaves deserted to the enemy. 

The meaning of the above passage seems therefore to be, 
that Nicias received 1000 obols a day for slaves let out to work 
in the mines, and that by fresh purchases he kept up this 
number, either to enable Sosias to carry on mining operations 
on a large scale by supplying him regularly for the time of the 
contract with the same number of workers, or that he might 
himself retain a regular source of income. 

1 Perhaps also by the fact that cophr. col. ii. supposing he speaks of 

Athenaeus (vi. p. 272 d) quotes the mining slaves, no mention is made of 

above passage only as far as i<f> $ a stipulation to restore the slaves the 

oftoXbv eicaffTov ($Ka<TTov the text) reXeTv same in number. 
tt)s 7)npas, and that in Hyp. pro Ly- 

NOTE ON PLATO, APOL. SOCR, p. 26, d, e. 

'Avatjayopov otec KaTrjyopeiv, a> (f)i\ MeA.??Te, kcli ovtoj /cara- 
(fipoveU rcovSe teal olei clvtovs aTreipovs ypa/xfjudrcov zivai, ware 
ovk elhivai ore ra 'Avagayopov ftiftXia rov Kka^o/Jbevcov yifieu 

TOVTWV TU)V \6yC0V, KOLl Br) KCLI 01 V60C TdUTCl TTCip ifJLOV Lldvda- 

vovcriv a etjeaTiv ivlore, el irdvv ttoWov, 8pa%p,r}s i/c t>;? 
opx 1 l" T P a ^ trpicLfjie'vois Xco/cpdrovs /carayeXav etc. 

All editors, as far as I know, recognise in these words of 
Socrates an allusion to exhibitions at the theatre, at a drachma 
admission, of plays whose authors had borrowed the notions of 
Anaxagoras. But besides the wording, which appears to me 
scarcely to admit of such an interpretation, there remains the 
objection that a drachma was not the price of admission to the 
theatre. Boeckh (Staatsh. i. p. 68) expresses a different opinion 
regarding the meaning of this passage; according to him, in the 
opxW T P a f the theatre, when no performances were going on, 
there were book-stalls, where the writings of Anax. might be 
had for a drachma at the most, an explanation adopted by 
Buchsenschiitz, Besitz und Erwerb im gr. Altert. p. 572. This 
seems to me the correct interpretation of the above passage as 
far as the fact goes that trade in books is meant, but I submit to 
you a passage from Photius which gives in my opinion a much 
more satisfactory explanation of the spot, where the trade was 
carried on; he says s. v. opx/icrrpa'. 6. irpwrov SkXijOtj ev rfj 
dyopa and to the same locality points Nicophon (Meim fr. com. 
ii. 2, p. 852) who mentions the /3i{3\io7rou\cu amongst the motley 
crowd of sellers of figs, leather, spoons, sieves, etc. etc., whom 
we can only expect to find in the market place. Eupolis (M. ii. 
1, p. 550) speaks of a place ov rd fit^Kia covta; this also is best 
understood as referring to the market place, and Boeckh does 
so, only since he has once established the book trade in the 
opXV~ T P a 0I * the theatre, he takes fiiftXla here to mean not 
1 written books ' but ' paper.' Without entering more into 
detail, by the aid of Photius' explanation of opyfiarpa and of 
these and other well-known passages from the Old Comedy 



writers (such as /3c^\caypd(j)ov Be irapa KparLva) iv Xeipcoatv 
M. ii. 1, p. 159) the fact seems to be established that there was 
at the time of Socrates' trial and before that time (Cratinus 
"(-423) a trade in books carried on in the market place at Athens; 
nay from Xen. Anab. vii. 5, 14 we may even conclude that an 
export trade had sprung up 1 . 

1 In the reading aloud of the hook- 
seller, by whose side Zeno of Citium 
sits down (Diog. Laert. vii. 2), Mr 
Grote (Plat. i. p. 147) sees ' a feeble 
foreshadowing of the advertisements 
and reviews of the present day '. But 

from Lucian adv. ind. 2 /cat dvayiyvu- 
aKeis l-via irdvv TTLTpix u}V (pOdvovros tov 
6(pda\/j.ov to arofia it would appear 
that it was the custom of the Greeks 
to read aloud, cf. dvayiyvuxrKeiv in this 
sense in the Acts (8, 30), etc. 




It is curious that, among the many subjects which philology 
offers to the speculative mind, gender has been generally 
avoided, or, if not avoided, has been treated in an inadequate 
or contemptuous manner. In English books especially, except 
Harris's Hermes 1 , which was published in 1751, long before the 
era of the science of language, I can find but few remarks, and 
those of little or no value, on the history of gender. Adam 
Smith, Lord Monboddo, Dr Beattie and the late Prof. Key have 
alluded to it, but have confined themselves to enlarging, with- 
out improving, upon Harris. Prof. Sayce, in recent works, has 
devoted some pages to the subject and advocated a view which 
will be discussed hereafter; but other writers make no more 
than a passing mention of Harris's theory. In Germany, indeed, 
there is a considerable literature on the topic, but the collectors 
of facts have not, so far as I know, classified them with a view 
to theorising, and the theorists have not cared to study the 
whole collection of facts. The truth seems to be that the 
explanation of gender-distinctions belongs to a department of 
philology, the ' Bedeutungslehre' or Sematology or science of 
meanings, which, as a whole, is as yet non-existent; and thus, 
while the thorough investigation of gender has been neglected 
as being only a fragmentary contribution to a work still unde- 
signed, a plausible and ancient explanation (such as the 
sexual theory adopted by Harris) of the more striking facts is 
considered sufficient for present purposes. Furthermore, the 

1 Chap. iv. pp. 44 sqq. (3rd Ed.). 


dynamic changes by which the genders of words ought to be 
distinguished, are not regular enough or indicated with sufficient 
clearness to immediately arrest attention and invite inquiry. 
Thus, in Latin and Greek, the distinctions of genders are 
marked very imperfectly or not at all in the consonantal declen- 
sions, and in the vowel declensions by a method which is imper- 
fect, uncertain and not primaeval 1 . Because, moreover, in the 
Indo-European family of languages each tongue has a system, 
for the most part peculiar, of assigning genders and marks of 
gender, the investigation of the history of gender distinctions 
has been considered to belong to the special philology of each 
separate language, and while the students of such separate 
languages are unable to find within the limits of their subject 
an explanation of the confusion, with respect to genders, therein 
existing, the whole inquiry has been shelved as idle and unfruit- 
ful. Even those writers who have ventured to approach the 
difficulty, have carefully warned their readers against their own 
conclusions. "As all such speculations," says Harris at the end 
of his chapter on gender, "are at best but conjectures, they 
should therefore be received with candour rather than scruti- 
nised with rigour." Prof. Key 2 in a similar manner apologises 
for having touched on the topic at all. The writer of the article 
" Grammar " in the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, " Such specu- 
lations are wholly fanciful and the principles upon which they 
proceed are overturned by an appeal to the facts: " and Schoe- 

1 See Schleicher, Compendium, pp. by the same inflexions, the grammar 

502, 503. In the vowel declensions of Indo-European languages would be 

gender, which should properly be more logically consistent and far easier 

marked in the stem, is,, at least to all to learn. Suppose, for instance, in 

appearance, indicated by a modifica- Latin a stem-suffix -ana to indicate 

tion of the inflexional suffixes. Simi- the feminine, and a stem suffix as to 

larly the plural, which also ought to indicate the plural, then we might 

be distinguished in true stem,, is marked have e.g. masc. sing, equus, fern., sing, 

by a new set of inflexions. In verbs, equanus ; masc. plur. equasus, fern. pi. 

on the other hand, unnecessary varia- equanasus, all declined alike with 

tions are introduced into the personal one set of inflexions, instead of four, 

endings. If differences of quality and The Turk himself is far less " un- 

quantity and the like were marked speakable " than the Aryan, 
always by the same alterations in the 2 Orig. and Develop, of Language, 

stem and differences of relation always pp. 365 379. 


maim 1 recommends to the student of gender "the shrewd saying 
of an old commentator on Aristotle, ov Bel irXeov hrityirelv irapa 
tov \6yov rj oaov eVtSe^eTYU r) rwv 7rpa<y/naTcov cra<^r]veta. ,y It is 
possible, indeed, that the advice of these critics may, after all, 
be justified, but I submit, with deference, that rj tcov irpajfidrcov 
<ra(f]Via has not yet been properly elucidated. I propose, there- 
fore, in this paper to sketch briefly but efficiently enough for 
the present purpose the nature and distribution of gender-dis- 
tinctions in the languages of the world, and to state, in a very 
condensed form, a theory, suggested by these observations, of the 
history of such distinctions- in the Indo-European languages. 
It may well be that the various grammars, upon which of course 
I have mainly relied, have occasionally mis-stated rules or 
stated them broadly without mentioning exceptions which would 
disprove my inferences, but I do not think that any or all of 
these and other similar slips can have occurred often enough to 
seriously damage the plausibility of my main conclusion. That 
this is indeed in part plausible, I may perhaps be permitted to 
infer from the fact that much of it is not new and has already 
been favourably entertained (for reasons not altogether the same 
as mine) by such men as Heyse 2 , Madvig 3 , Schleicher 4 and 
Kiihner 5 . 

Before entering upon an inquiry into the linguistic distribu- 
tion of gender-distinctions, with a view to discovering the origin 
and histor}'- of the phenomenon, it will be necessary to adopt 
some definition of gender, if not really, at least prima facie 
correct. The difficulty, which occurs in some sciences 6 , of fram- 
ing a provisional definition which does not beg the very question 
of debate, need not here create any embarrassment, for gender 
is itself a cause and may be well enough defined by its effects. 
The gender of a noun 7 is, in fact, first known by its environ- 

1 Kedetheile, p. 72. 135 ; Mill, Unsettled Questions of 

2 System der Sprachwissenschaft, Polit. Econ. Essay v., and Logic 11. 
p. 418. 225. 

3 Kleinere Schriften, No. 1. 7 It is assumed here that gender 

4 Compendium Vergl. Gram, ante cit. is an attribute of nouns, and is dis- 

5 Greek Grammar, vol. 1. p. 284. tinguished, in other parts of speech, 

6 See, for instance, Cairnes, Logical only more clearly to mark their rela- 
Method of Polit. Economy, pp. 134, tion to the prominent nouns. Prof. 


ment, by the adjective or pronoun or, in some languages, by the 
verb by which it is accompanied, and all nouns of a certain 
gender have, prima facie, this characteristic alone in common, 
that they are invariably accompanied by the same distinct 
forms of these and other parts of speech. It is true that 
this result is merely accidental and that gender-distinctions 
might well be indicated in nouns alone, without affecting other 
parts of speech ; but few languages, if any, seem to have adopted 
the latter expedient only, and it may therefore be generally said 
that in those tongues wherein separate classes of nouns are not 
necessarily followed by separate forms of the adjective, pronoun 
or verb (such separate forms not being distinctive merely of 
number, case or person) distinctions of gender do not exist : and 
the contrary, where such separate forms are found. Proceeding 
then upon this principle of discrimination, we find broadly that 
Radical languages 1 and languages of uncivilised peoples generally 
(with some remarkable exceptions to be hereafter mentioned 
more in detail) admit no distinctions of gender. Agglutinative 
languages 2 also (with one exception) are genderless, save that 
an incipient gender-distinction sometimes appears in the in- 
terrogative pronoun; the Incorporative, for the most part, 
distinguish animate things from inanimate ; and finally, of the 
Inflexional, the Semitic family has two genders, called mascu- 
line and feminine, and the Aryan three, the masculine, feminine 

Sayce, however, is of a contrary I believe the evidence shews that it 

opinion. According to his theory, was, originally at least, systematic, 

founded on Bleek's, certain pronouns and depended on the meanings of the 

were selected and associated (through nouns. His argument seems to me to 

habit, euphony or affinity of sense or shew only that gender was formally 

sound) to certain classes of nouns, and indicated in pronouns earlier than in 

where the pronouns differed, the nouns nouns, and this is doubtless true of 

were considered to differ in gender. many languages. 

' Whereas gender started from trans- 1 Morrison, Chinese Grammar, pp. 

f erring the differences between the 66, 67. 

pronouns to the substantives connected 2 Caldwell, Dravid. Lang, of S. India, 

with them, we now transfer the in- p. 171 ; Gabelentz, Gram. Mandchoue, 

herited differences of substantives to p.36sqq. ; Kellgren,Finnische Sprache, 

their representative pronouns " (Comp. p. 75; Castren, Burjatische Spr. p. 7, 

Fhilol. pp. 254, 257). He seems to 32; Kasem-Beg, Tiirkisch-Tatar. 

think that this appropriation of pro- Spr. p. 27. 
nouns was haphazard chiefly, whereas 


and neuter. The foregoing statement is, however, available for 
little without further particulars, and I therefore add here such 
details as seem to me of special importance 1 . 

In those languages which admit no distinctions of gender, 
the sexes are distinguished either by separate names or by- 
compound words of which one element is common and the other 
means 'male' or 'female.' (E.g. Chinese jin homo: nan jin = 
vir : niu, jin femina.) 2 Occasionally, in the latter case, the 
common word is used alone for the male sex and the compound 
employed only for the female: (e.g. Setshuana khomo = bull, 
khomogari = cow :) or in the compound forms the distinctive 
parts are dipt, as in Bullom, where pokan 'male' and lakan 
1 female ' are often shortened in composition to pok, po, lak, la 3 . 
All these processes, it will be seen, actually survive or have 
their analogues in the higher languages. Many of these gender- 
less tongues, again, draw, in some way or other, a distinction 
between persons and things 4 which approaches to a distinction 
of genders. This appears generally, but not always, in the 
interrogative pronoun, which has two forms, answering to our 
'who' and 'what'. Thus, in Bullom (Africa), the pairs are 

1 In the following remarks, state- In Latin, on the other hand, such a 
ments not otherwise authenticated are word as Somnlum, even when repre- 
derived from Pott's article "Ge- senting a divinity (e.g. Ov. M. 11.588), 
schlecht," a splendid repertory of facts, would be followed by a neuter relative. 
in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopedia, At what stage a gender-distinction 
vol. lxii. Bindseil's Abhandlungen becomes complete is very difficult to 
iiber Allg. Vergl. Sprachl., No. 2, is determine. I have taken it, for prac- 
also full of information, and contains tical purposes, to be so when a large 
in particular (p. 527) a more precise class of nouns, representing not exactly 
statement of gender distribution. a certain class of things, has appro- 

2 In Thibetan, curiously, pho 'male' priated to it special forms of the other 
and wo 'female' are added also to P arts of speech. In such a case, I 
pronouns. should guess that the speakers had 

3 So also in the Mandingo (Mac- learnt to use words (like money) with- 
brair's Grammar, 14) and Yoruba out immediately realising what the 
languages (Crowther's Vocab. p. 5) of words represent. A good example of 
Af r i ca . the incipient distinction is seen in 

4 I have already called this " an Herero, where ombepo (Kafir umoya) is 
incipient gender-distinction." I mean of the personal class, when it means 
that the distinction drawn is really ' spirit,' but when 'wind,' of the im- 
between things, and not yet stereo- personal (Bleek, post cit. p. 45). 
typed into one between mere words. 


ngha, ngho : in Annamese ai, nao (though the latter is used 
sometimes of persons also) : in Mandschu we, ai : in Magyar ki, 
mi: in Samoyed sele, ma: in Turkish Mm or kin, neh. The 
Dyaks of Borneo draw the same distinction in the pronoun of 
the third person, using id of persons, ta of things. In Zulu, 
words which begin with um (in Cuan mo, in Herero omu 1 ) have 
a different plural when they are names of persons from that 
which they have when names of things 2 . The distinction is 
carried furthest in Ashantee 3 , which, indeed, may be said to 
have two genders. In this language the names of persons and 
the pronouns which refer to them begin with o (e.g. oba 'boy'), 
while, of things, the names begin with a, the pronouns with e. 
The class of persons, however, is not very strictly denned : for 
instance, opodo ' pot ', oprai ' broom ', osekan ' knife ', and other 
similar words have the personal V, while agya 'father', abofra 
1 child ', and others are impersonal. On this point more will be 
said farther on. Both in Africa and Asia remarkable exceptions 
to the general rule of low linguistic developement appear. 
Thus, in Africa, the Hottentots distinguish masculine, feminine 
and common genders, have a definite and indefinite form of 
each, and singular, dual and plural numbers (e.g. koib, kois, koii 
are vir, mulier, homo respectively) : and the same gender-dis- 
tinctions are added to the verb, as gambi, gamsi, garni, virum, 
mulierem, hominem interficere 4 . In Namaqua also, according 
to Pott 5 , who quotes a vocabulary published at Barmen in 1854, 
the same rules prevail (e.g. aub, vir: aus, mulier : aui, homo), 
and gender is distinguished even in the personal pronouns (e.g. 
masc. make, fern, mare, com. mada, ' nos '; 6 . In Asia, the excep- 

1 See Bleek, De Nominum Generibus of Kisuaheli Lang. pp. 28 33) in 
Ling. Afric. Austr. pp. 15 and 13. Kisuaheli and other African languages. 

2 Grout, Journal of American Orient. 4 Bleek, op. ante cit. pp. 40 and 46. 
Soc. i. 403. A less important hut 5 In Ersch and Gruher, lxii. 410 a. 
similar distinction appears in Kechua 6 The masculine and feminine gen- 
(S. America) and Malay : where differ- ders are not, in either of these lan- 
ent words for ' male ' and female ' guages, confined to names of animals, 
are used of persons from those used of It is curious that in Namaqua sorts 
animals. SeeTschudi,Kechua-Sprache, 'sun' is feminine, while khab 'moon' 
i. 114; Crawfurd, Malay Gram. p. is masculine, as are hurib 'sea' and 
10. hnub 'earth.' See Bleek, Comp. Gram. 

3 Also, according to Krapf (Outlines of S. Afr. Langg. pp. 112 and 120. 


tion is furnished by the Dravidian languages of Southern India, 
which shew, with respect to gender, a very remarkable develope- 
ment. In Tamil nouns are divided into high-caste ' and ' low- 
caste or ' casteless ' ; in Telugu, into ' mahat ' and ' amahat ' or 
1 majors ' and ' minors '. The first class includes only the names 
of rational beings, and in this class masculine and feminine 
genders are distinguished. All words in the second class are 
neuter. "This distinction" says Caldwell 1 "appears to have 
arisen at a late date ", f r m older Tamil and in poetry we find 
many words neuter, which, later, and in prose, are masculine 
(e.g. Devu 'God' (from Sanskrit) is neuter in old and masc. in 
modern Tamil): and according to the same authority, the 
suffixes which distinguish the masculine and feminine are only 
mutilated pronouns. Of the Incorporative languages, many 
have no distinctions of gender, and all discriminate the sexes 
by the primitive methods before-mentioned. In most, however, 
of the tongues of North 2 and Central 3 and in some of South 
America 4 a distinction, more or less clear, is drawn between the 
names of animate and those of inanimate things. In many cases 
the two classes of nouns are distinguished, as in Zulu, only by 
separate forms of the plural ; but more generally, it would 
seem, the gender of nouns is reflected in the verbs, which, when 
transitive, vary with the object, when intransitive, with the 
subject 5 . According to Gallatin, some languages of Central 
America further divide the animates into rational and irra- 
tional, but more particulars on this subject are wanting. It 
appears plainly here as in Ashantee, that the linguistic distinc- 
tion between animates and inanimates seldom accords strictly 
with the natural, and that the classes differ in different lan- 
guages. Thus the Lenni-Lenape or Delaware Indians assign to 
the animate gender everything that lives and grows except 

1 Dravidian Lang, of S. India, p. 171. 5 E.g. wunnehayoo=he loses an ani- 

2 Du Ponceau, M6moire sur le Sys- mate object; wunnetow=he loses an 
teme Gram, des langues de quelques inanimate. Howse's Grammar of Cree 
nations Indennes de l'Amerique. Language, p. 41. Bindseil quotes (p. 

3 Gallatin, Trans. Amer. Ethnol. 527) from some American language 
Soc. i. p. 12. nolhalla ('habeo') nolhatton; newa 

4 Tschudi, Kechua-Sprache, i. 111 ('video') nemen, as similar pairs of 
sqq. animate and inanimate verbal forms. 


annual plants and a few special exceptions (e.g. namessall 
4 fish ') : and the Kechuas add, to the same class, the names of 
rivers, the sea, the sky and the stars, while they treat as inanim- 
ate all living things, such as little plants and animals, which do 
not obtrude their vitality on the public eye. According to 
Schoolcraft, also 1 , the name of any inanimate, when personified, 
is transferred to the animate gender. 

It remains to speak only of the Inflexional languages. Of 
these, the Semitic family (including here the doubtful Koptic 2 , 
Galla and Berber) distinguish two genders, the masculine and 
feminine 3 . To the latter class belong, generally, the following 
groups, viz. : names of women, female animals, countries, towns, 
double members of the body and tools, abstractions and collec- 
tives. Hebrew, at least, uses the feminine adjective where 
Indo-European languages would have the neuter (e.g. "a tongue 
speaking great things" Psalm xn. 4). The names of male 
animals belong to the masculine gender, but other words seem 
to be distributed between the two genders in a manner of which 
no grammar yet published suggests a rationale. To the two 
genders of the Semitic family, the Indo-European languages 
add a third, the neuter, and confusion now becomes worse con- 
founded. The signs of gender and the groups of 'congeneral' 
words differ totally sometimes in the most nearly-related tongues, 
and words of closely-allied meaning in the same language often 
disagree in gender. Except in names of male and female 
animals, few glimpses of uniformity appear. The names of 
1 child ' ' egg ' and fruits, and also diminutives, are almost exclu- 
sively neuter in all the languages of the family : ' earth ' is 
feminine : ' wind ' and the names of winds are masculine, and 
abstractions seem to be generally feminine. One example, on 
the other hand, will shew the extraordinary diversity of genders 
in a simple group. The names of trees are in Greek, Latin (in 

1 Quoted by Pott, E. and G. lxii. p. ting the chapter in Sacy's Grammaire) ; 
420. Wright, Arabic Grammar, vol. i. 

2 Dillmann,2EthiopischeGram. 126, 289 297; Caspari, Arabic Gram. pp. 
and Bleek, op. ante cit. 120 125 ; Longfield, Introd. to Chal- 

3 Gesenius (ed. Rodiger, trans. dee, 32, p. 40 ; Phillips, Syriac Gram. 
Davies), pp. 289292 ; Forbes, Arabic 16, pp. 3840 ; Sayce, Assyrian 
Grammar, pp. 41 43 (almost transla- Grammar, p. 114. 


spite here of analogies of form which would tend to make them 
masculine), Lithuanian and German, mostly feminine. But, in 
all these languages, there are many exceptions to this rule, and 
that not merely in the names of wild trees, e.g. ipcveos, oleaster, 
where the reason of the distinction may be guessed. Thus, 
Greek BevBpov, Gothic triu, Slav, drevo are all neuter, while 
Germ, baum is masculine. In Greek the following are mascul- 
ine : <f>i\\6<;, X.ft)TO?, <j)otvL%, Ktrrog, [ivppLvos, /cepaaos and a few 
more. In Latin except ficus (which is also feminine) the 
anomalies occur mostly in the names of plants, as acanthus, 
carduus, etc., all masculine. In Old High German ahorn, asc 
and elm were all masculine (as was Old Norse \ollr pine-tree), 
and many names of plants. In Slavonic languages many trees 
are masculine, but in Sanskrit, according to Benfey, nearly all 
trees are masculine and shrubs feminine, while the two dialects 
of Keltic shew this extraordinary difference, that in Gaelic trees 
are masculine, in Kymric feminine 1 . Similarly, sun, moon and 
stars, mountains, rivers, towns and countries, collective names 
and abstractions, though seldom neuter, are divided in inex- 
tricable confusion between the other genders. A further peculi- 
arity of these languages is that in modern times they shew a 
strong tendency to discard one or more of their ancient genders. 
Thus Persian 2 has lost them altogether. Bengali 3 , English and 
Danish 4 preserve the masculine and feminine only for male and 
female animals and persons, and assign all other nouns to the 
neuter. Lithuanian 5 has lost its neuter, as Keltic 6 had long 
before, and one Spanish pronoun (ello) is the sole relic of the 
same gender in the Romance languages 7 . 

The foregoing statement will perhaps suffice to apprise the 
reader at least of the nature of the facts with which a theory of 

1 Pott on 'Metaphern' in Kuhn's 6 Zeuss, Gram. Kelt. p. 228. 
Zeitschr. vol. 11. Similarly metals are 7 The neuter, in the other Komance 
in Greek masculine, in Latin neuter. tongues merged in the masculine, has 

2 Chodzko, Persian Grammar. become feminine in Wallachian only. 

3 Forbes, Bengali Gram. pp. 18, 19. See Alexi, Gram. Daco-Romana, p. 35. 

4 Grimm, Deutsche Gram. 111. pp. So also, in Lithuanian, the old neuter 
545, 546. adj., used substantively, is now repres- 

5 Grimm, ubi sup. p. 548; Schleicher, ented in common parlance by the 
Litau. Spr. p. 170. feminine. Schleicher ante cit. p. 258. 


the history of gender-distinctions must deal. To profess to 
divine, with certainty, the order out of which this monstrous 
disorder grew, would be an absurd pretence. Nevertheless, 
time has left a few traces of what might have been, and the 
method of comparison may still suggest what ought to have 
been. Conjecture, with these two aids, must be left to do the 

It will have been observed that in all languages, except the 
Inflexional, the division (if any) of genders in nouns agrees 
pretty closely with a ' dichotomy ' of things, reasonable enough 
to satisfy even Plato's Eleatic stranger, the exceptions not being 
so numerous or of such a kind as that either inveterate use or 
some common characteristic of the barbarous mind may not 
fairly be admitted to account for them, A presumption is thus 
raised that the genders of inflexional languages are also the 
reflexion of a distinction in things analogous to that between 
animates and inanimates, or rational and irrational creatures. 
Nor has this presumption been disputed, so far as I can find, by 
any philologer until quite recent times, and then only by Dr 
Bleek and Prof. Sayce. Of these writers, the former, impressed 
by the fact that in the languages of the Congo-Caffrarian 
group and in Koptic the noun-affixes are or seem to be mutil- 
ated pronouns, suggests a theory that noun-affixes have, in all 
languages, come to be used as pronouns and that this accid- 
ental circumstance has given rise to a supposed distinction of 
genders. Prof. Sayce is of the same opinion except that he 
would reverse the process and say (see supra, p. 2, note) that 
pronouns came accidentally to be used as noun-affixes 1 . It is a 

1 1 think the following examples a given primitive language, say, there 

{the first of which is suggested by Dr are pronouns 'he,' 'she,' 'it,' and 

Bleek himself) will not misrepresent others all prima facie equally appli- 

these two theories. According to cable in reference to any noun. Habit, 

Bleek, such suffixes as -dom, -ric, -ism however, has made it correct to say 

of kingdom, bishopric, idealism would 'he' of male bears, oaks, tables, cups, 

come to be used as pronouns, and spoons, and a thousand other things ; 

where these nouns had preceded, we ' she ' of female bears, elms, chairs, 

might refer to them as ' dom of Eng- saucers, forks, &c. ; ' it ' of insects, 

land,' 'ric of Durham,' ' ism of Plato. ' vines, &c. In process of time these 

Prof. Sayce may be better illustrated pronouns were actually appended to 

by another set of examples. Thus, in the nouns, and so we get words con- 


plain corollary from this theory that there may be as many 
genders of nouns as there are distinctive noun-affixes, and Dr 
Bleek actually assigns sixteen (and in one case eighteen) genders 
to the languages of the Congo-Caffrarian group 1 , these genders 
being in fact forms of nouns compounded with and followed by 
distinct pronouns. It must be admitted that distinctions of 
gender clearly could have arisen by the methods here suggested, 
but such a theory is no less clearly inapplicable to the Indo- 
European languages, in which pronominal elements are very 
doubtful in noun-suffixes and have certainly nothing to do with 
the commonest methods of distinguishing gender. In the 
Semitic family, where the theory has more plausibility, it is to 
be observed, in the first place, that a very large proportion of 
feminines have not the distinctive pronominal element, and, 
secondly, though here the nouns included under each gender 
are on the whole strangely heterogeneous, yet under each there 
occur so many well-defined groups of similar meaning that it 
becomes incredible that the gender was only accidentally 
ascribed. A fortiori is this incredible of American and other 
languages which distinguish such well-marked groups only as 
animates and inanimates. Lastly, on examining Dr Bleek's 
sixteen or eighteen so-called genders, we find that seven of 
them are forms of the singular and seven of the plural. Thus, 
all nouns of any given gender out of these fourteen have at any 
rate this in common, that they are of the same number, and 
number is obviously, as much as sex or life, predicable, not origin- 
ally of words, but of the things which words stand for. It might 
therefore be as properly said of these South African languages 
that they have two genders (or classes), a singular and plural, 
each distinguished in seven different ways : it would then be 

structed like he-bears (or bear-he), he- reason of the fact that they had origin- 

oak, he-table, &c. ; she-bear, she-elm, ally only two or three noun-affixes 

she-chair, &c; it-insect, it-vine, &e. ; (ace. to Bleek), or pronouns (ace. to 

but these groups have really nothing Sayce). See Bleek, Comp. Gram, of 

in common except that they are com- South African Langg. Pt. 11. p. 104, and 

pounded with and are followed by the Sayce, Comp. Phil., ante cit. 

same pronoun respectively. Those * This comprises all the languages 

languages which have two or three of South Africa except the Hottentot, 
genders only have them merely by 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 4 


seen that the basis of the distinction is even here rational, though 
the marks of gender (i. e. of number) might have been accident- 
ally distributed 1 . We must then, it would seem, in default of 
a better hypothesis, fall back upon the theory, so favoured by 
analogy and so long sanctioned by belief, that genders in 
inflexional languages also are due to a primitive classification of 
things. What was the basis of this classification, is now the 
question. Clearly it was not number (as in S. Africa) for that 
is otherwise provided for : neither was it the presence or absence 
of life (as in America), or of reason (as in Tamil), for the divi- 
sions of gender, even where there are but two, do not coincide, 
at all nearly with these distinctions. Some other principle of 
division is therefore plainly required, and the almost universal 
opinion of all ages, since grammars were first devised, has 
declared that differences of gender in inflexional languages were 
intended originally to mark differences of sex, real or imaginary, 
in the things or ideas of which nouns are the names. This 
belief rests apparently on the following grounds. The gender of 
nouns is, as it has already been stated, primarily indicated by 
the adjectives, pronouns or verbs which accompany them. Now 
we can easily conceive, with Bleek, that of these parts of speech 
there should be as many forms as there are of nouns, that in 
fact there should be as many genders as there are distinctive 
noun-suffixes. Yet in reality the number of genders in any 
language is at most three. It is a striking coincidence that the 
number of possible sex- distinctions is also three, viz. male, 
female and no sex. Moreover, the number of cases in which 

1 The remainder of Bleek's genders animals and personified things ; two 
have nothing to do with number. The more, also sing, and plur., to the 
fifteenth belongs to the infinitive mood names of rivers and trees. Another, 
and a few nouns signifying place. The a sing., implies very great size, while 
16th, 17th, and 18th,which may be called its corresponding plural is the gender 
peculiar to the Otyiherero" language, of collectives (esp. of liquid substances). 
are very rare even in that, and belong See Bleek, De Nom. Gener., ante cit. 
also only to nouns signifying places. pp. 16 and 17, and Id., Comp. Gram. 
These four might, therefore, very well of South African Langg. Pt. n. pp. 
be called the locative ' gender. Ob- 104, 123, 253 sqq. These facts do not 
serve also that of the first fourteen seem easily reconcileable with Bleek's 
forms, two, a singular and a plural, theory of accidental origin of gender- 
are devoted to the names of men, marks. 


the name of an animal of a certain sex receives an exceptional 
gender are so small that, given a sex-name, its gender is almost 
certainly predicable. The difficulty of accounting for the attrib- 
ution of sex to sexless things is not, by any means, insuperable ; 
and lastly, the evidence of antiquity, i.e. of the writers who 
lived nearest to the time when genders were significant distinc- 
tions, is entirely in favour of the sexual theory. Thus the 
Sanskrit grammarians speak of 'masculine' and 'feminine' 
genders, and the third they call ' kliva ' or ' napunsaka ', ' castra- 
ted'. The German ' geschlecht ' positively means 'sex' 1 . Our 
own word 'gender' is the lineal descendant of Priscian's 'genus', 
which he thus defines : ' Genera dicuntur propria quae generare 
possunt, quae sunt maseulinum et femininum.' Servius had 
previously given a similar definition. In Greek yevos, used by 
Plato as distinctly equivalent to 'sex' 2 , was first applied to 
language, according to Aristotle, by Protagoras, but there is 
some doubt whether tbe latter really meant ' sex ' by the term, 
as Aristotle, on the other hand, certainly did. 

Evidence, so many-sided as this, in favour of the sexual 
theory is not easily to be overcome. Some pliilologers, however, 
perplexed by the innumerable anomalies in the division of 
genders upon the sexual principle, have proposed new bases of 
distinction. One of these, which has received much favour, was 
suggested by W. Mohr 3 , who, after premising that language 
must indicate the quantity, quality and relativity of each thing 
or idea, declares gender to represent a distinction of quality, in 
respect of activity, passivity and a mixture of these two. Thus, 
the names of all active things are or should be of the first, so- 
called masculine gender: those of passive things are of the 

1 This fact has led Grimm (Deutsche 2 Sympos. 189 d ; Art. Rhet. nr. 5, 

Gram. in. 317), who is followed by Poet. 21. Varro and Quintilian per- 

most German philologers, into the haps did not use ' genus ' as meaning 

mistake of distinguishing 'natural ' 'sex,' for they speak of 'genera' of 

from ' grammatical ' gender (called by verbs. For more information see 

Bilderdijk 'eigen geslacht' and 'ge~ Schmidt, Beitrage zur Gesch. der 

slacht uit toepassing,' i.e. by applica- Gram. 269 sqq. 

tion. Niederlandsche Spraakl.). Sex 3 Dialektik der Sprache, Pt. 111. chap, 

is natural, but gender is, of course, 1. 54 56. 
always grammatical. 



second or feminine, while those things which, like tools, are at 
once active and passive, are assigned to the third or neuter 
gender 1 . Criticism upon such a theory can hardly be very 
vigorous, but it seems worth observing, in the first place, that 
the relative activity and passivity of male and female animals is 
shewn only in the sexual function, so that, in their names at 
least, sex must after all be considered the basis of the distinc- 
tion of genders. Further, in the case of many things other 
than animals, it is far easier to conceive them as of a certain 
sex than of the corresponding activity or passivity. Thus 
abstractions are in the Aryan languages generally of the feminine 
(Mohr's passive) gender, yet surely the virtues and vice's, for 
instance, were generally, in primitive times, imagined as active 
powers existing beyond us and interfering in our daily lives to 
prompt us to good or evil, to bless and to scourge. The sexual 
theory, pointing to Themis, Eris, the Muses and other similar 
names, suggests that these abstractions were personified as 
females and hence their names were assigned to the feminine 
gender 2 . To put it shortly, Mohr's theory is a less safe and 
satisfactory explanation than the sexual, because sex is of a 
much wider connotation than any other single attribute, such as 
activity or passivity. To get over this difficulty, Bindseil 3 very 
much enlarges the list of qualities upon which gender will de- 
pend. According to his view, the first gender will comprise the 
names of those things which are, by comparison, "great, strong, 
swift, active, stirring, creative"; the second the names of those 
which are "small, weak, passive, receptive, productive;" and the 

1 Mohr's theory seems to have been blending or combination of active and 

suggested by a remark of Grimm, passive, male and female, forms." 

who says (Deutsche Gram. in. p. 311), This hint, however, is not carried fur- 

" The distinction of genders lies as deep ther by Grimm himself. 

in the nature of nouns and their forms 2 Bleek, on the other hand, as might 

as that between the active, passive, be expected, is of opinion that genders 

and middle in verbs. Both divisions influence mythology rather than my- 

may be compared in more than one thology genders. See his Beynard the 

respect : the active appears, like the Fox in S. Africa, p. xxi., and Origin 

masculine, as the strongest and of Lang. p. 23. 

oldest form ; the passive, like the 3 Allg. Vergl. Sprachl. ante cit. pp. 

feminine, as a form derived from the 496, 497. 
first : the middle, like the neuter, as a 


third those which are "impassive, lifeless, undeveloped 1 ." It 
would naturally be expected, if this theory be true, that the 
names of all huge and ferocious animals at least would be of the 
first gender, and those of small and timid creatures of the 
second; yet this is not the case, and again we seem to be thrown 
back on sex alone as the basis of gender in one very large and 
important group of nouns. Finally, a happy compromise is 
adopted by Madvig 2 , who, arguing from the fact that the neuter 
sign, a final -m or -v in Latin and Greek, is also the accusative 
sign in other genders, sees in the neuter the passive gender and 
confines the sexual theory to the masculine and feminine, which 
together form the active gender. An explanation differing, on 
the whole, in little but names from Madvig's, will be proposed 
in this paper, with the further advantage, that it will not press 
the sexual theory into accounting for all masculine and feminine 
words, and that it, at the same time, removes the difficulty 
which prevented Bindseil from admitting the sexual theory at 
all. He was unable, he says, to account for the apparently late 
origin of the neuter and the apparent " retrogression" of so 
many languages which have abandoned the sexual distinction 
for that between animates and inanimates. It will be suggested 
that neither of these appearances corresponds with fact. The 
remark should here be added that probably none of the theorists 
just reviewed would deny that some words may come by their 
gender simply by the accidental analogy of their form 3 : but 
since such cases would only arise at a somewhat late date in 
the history of language, they may well be neglected in a general 
discussion of the origin of gender-distinctions. 

1 This classification, again, is taken from adventura fern. ; geste in French 
from Grimm's division of the words to is fern, from Lat. gesta, neut. plur. ; diu 
which grammatical, not natural, gen- mare in Thuringian is fern, from old 
der belongs (Deutsche Gram. in. 359) : diumaere neut. plur. Grimm, Kleinere 
but while Grimm admits that sex is Schriften, 1. 85. On the other hand, 
after all the ground of these distinc- meaning sometimes determines gender 
tions, Bindseil stoutly maintains that in spite of form and custom, e. g. tre- 
sex has nothing to do with them. telgia Goth, is fern, when meaning 

2 Kleinere Schriften, No. 1. (Ge- 'axe,' but, when 'carpenter,' is masc. 
schlecht). So nullus potestas, den Potestat in old 

3 Thus abenteuer in Germ, is neut. charters, like modern Italian podesta. 


The statements hitherto made and the theories cited, with 
regard to genders in inflexional languages, apply to those 
languages only in the highest stage of their development. This 
fact, however, is almost always forgotten by the theorists, who 
generally take it that the differences of sex or other qualities 
are the only original ground of distinction of words, the common 
primitive principle of division which those nations, who acknow- 
ledge less than three genders, have abandoned. Now Indo- 
European languages at least, appear to have had a very long 
history at which we can only guess, and it is likely that, in this 
remote past, the distinctions of gender were not such as we find 
them at a later date, and again that the earlier usage did not 
wholly disappear on the introduction of the modern. The 
inquiry into development, which has disturbed so many sym- 
metrical a priori theories, may perhaps be advantageously 
applied to the stud} r of genders, though unfortunately, from the 
nature of the case, the evidence to be procured can be only 
fragmentary and, for the most part, disputable. 

In the first place, as, on the one hand, we find in South- 
east Asia radical languages slowly becoming agglutinative, and 
agglutinative elsewhere (e.g. in Hungary) becoming inflexional, 
so, on the other, the more we examine the structure of words in 
the Indo-European languages, the more irresistible becomes the 
conviction that these have been at one time agglutinative and 
still earlier radical. This conclusion, based upon the analogy 
here mentioned and upon the successful analyses of many in- 
flexions of verbs and of the genitive case 1 , seems to be admitted 
by all philologers. But the radical languages now known admit, 
as we saw, no distinctions of gender, and it is an obvious question 
whether the Indo-European languages did so at the time when 
they may be supposed to have been radical. Analogy, at any 
rate, would shew that they did not, nor is internal evidence 
wanting to support the same inference. The nature of that 
evidence may be best learnt from a short extract from Schleicher, 
who says, " Gender is marked by no vocal element in nearly all 
cases of consonantal stems and stems in diphthongs and in i and 

1 Garnett, Philolog. Essays. 


u. In stems in a, we find the feminine, in nearly all cases, an 
increase of this a to a,... so that here most cases of the feminine 
are distinguished from the masculine and neuter. But the 
circumstance that the increase of the a-ending is not wholly 
foreign to the masculine and neuter shews that it is not wholly 
devoted to the feminine and that we cannot properly speak of 
feminine stems in a. Moreover, in some languages the forms of 
the a stern with increased ending are used as masculine, e.g. 
Lat. advena, Gr. iroXirrjs: Slav, vladyka 'master', old Lith. 
geradeja 'benefactor' etc.: and a stems not increased do duty as 
femininesy e.g. Gr. 686$: Lat. nurus, domus, etc.: so that this 
distinction is not universal and its original application to the 
distinction of gender is very doubtful." The other means of 
marking gender, enumerated by the same philologer, are also 
almost all certainly not primeval,, and his conclusion is that " es 
ist deutlich war zu nemen, dass in einer aiteren sprachepoche 
der indogermanischen ursprache das genus one bezeichnung 
war und erst im laufe der zeit durch secundare hilfsmittel die 
genera am nomen gesondert wurden 1 ." It is worth observing, 
also, upon the same subject, that, as in radical and other unde- 
veloped languages the sexes are distinguished by wholly distinct 
words (even in compounds the words for 'male' and 'female' 
are invariably quite different) so also in Indo-European languages 
the names of the sexes in human beings (e.g. father, mother, 
brother, sister, son, daughter) and in the animals probably most 
familiar to a primitive people (e.g. bull, cow, dog, bitch, taurus, 
vacca, verres, sus, etc.) are generally derived from different roots, 
or are represented by one common term differentiated only by 
the context or by the addition of the adjective 'male' or 'female' 
(e.g. femina bos, Varro, R. R. II. 1, 17, etc.). The second ques- 
tion which now arises is, When the Indo-European languages first 
assumed the practice of distinguishing genders, upon what 
principle was the distinction made ? Did they at once proceed 
to discriminate the sexes, or was there an intermediate stage ? 
The ordinary view appears to be that they first distinguished 
masculines from all other words which together belonged to the 

1 Vergl. Grammatik, p. 501. Comp. also Pott in Ersch and Gruber, ante 
cit. (pub. 1853). 


second gender, and that this latter was ultimately again divided, 
new forms being assigned to the neuter. This theory, however, 
though it derives some colour from the practice of the Semitic 
tongues, is not supported by analogy in others or by the internal 
evidence of the Indo-European themselves. On the other hand 
there seems to be a fairly strong case, considering the nature of 
the subject, for the argument that the languages of our family 
at an early time distinguished animate from inanimate gender. 
Analogy here is to be looked for not only in the agglutinative 
tongues,, but also in the incorporative, for the nations who speak 
the languages of these groups are, upon the whole, at much the 
same stage of mental development. We have already seen that 
in incorporative languages a distinction between animate and 
inanimate genders is almost universal, and that in the agglutina- 
tive, as also in the tongues, not definitively classed, of many of 
the higher savages, the same distinction or something like it is 
generally incipient and occasionally complete. It seems unlikely 
that the ancestors of the Aryan race, whose minds doubtless 
progressed, by the same paths as those of other peoples, from 
brutal ignorance to civilization, should have disregarded, as too 
obvious, a general classification which others have deemed so 
striking and so necessary to reproduce in speech. And here 
also internal evidence is forthcoming to support analogy. The 
distinction of only two forms, animate and inanimate, in the 
interrogative pronoun, which, as we saw, was the first inkling of 
gender in the agglutinative languages,, is retained in nearly all the 
descendants of the Aryan stock; e.g. Gr. ti?, tl: Lat. quis, quid 1 : 
Ger. wer, was: Polish kto, co (so nikt 'nobody,' nic 'nothing'): 
Persian Jceh, tscheh; so also in Albanian and Keltic 2 . Yet 
Sanskrit has a feminine ka (masc. kas) y so that the usage of the 
other languages would seem to be a survival from a very ancient 
time. Nor has some express recognition of this fundamental 
distinction ever wholly died out. Thus in Slavonic languages 
of the present day, masculine nouns representing animates have 
an accusative in -a which is not given to masculine names of 

1 Roby, Latin Gram. 380, " Quis iv. 1. 6, &c. 
illaec est mulier ? " Plaut. Epidic. 2 Bindseil, p. 513. 


inanimates 1 . In Lithuanian, masculine names in u of animates 
have a special form of the vocative wanting to other masculines. 
In Persian, diminutives of animates are formed with -eh (as 
kenizek 'puellula') while those of inanimates are formed with 
-tsheh (as mah-tsheh 'lunula'). In Old High German, neuters 
which stood for living things formed a special plural in -iren, 
etc. But the great sign of one common early usage in this 
respect is this, that the oldest and only universal distinction of 
gender-forms lies between the neuter on the one side and the 
masculine and feminine combined on the other. In the nomin- 
ative and accusative singular the neuter has the bare stem or 
the objective ending -m (in pronouns a special ending -d) as 
against -s of the other genders, and in the plural again the 
neuter has final a where the others have as. In one case, only, 
are the masculine and neuter together against the feminine, viz. 
in the feminine genitive sing, of the a-declension we find -s 
against the -sya of the others, but this variation may be ex- 
plained by the fact of the late origin of the feminine, to be 
hereafter considered. In all other cases, where the masculine 
and neuter are distinguished from the feminine (e.g. Lat. abl. 
novo against nova) the difference is not primeval (e.g. in the last 
example both forms were originally novat) and its ultimate 
appearance may be similarly explained by the late origin of the 
feminine 2 . Finally, whereas three common genders are con- 
ceivable, viz. a masc.-fem., masc.-neut., and fem.-neut., only 
one, the masculine-feminine, is found. This evidence, already 
reasonably strong, will be further enforced by facts which it is 
convenient to reserve for our last inquiry, namely, that into the 
general development of the forms by which genders are indicated. 
For the same occasion also, may be suitably kept a more detailed 
suggestion of the mode in which the animate gender was ultim- 
ately divided. It will be sufficient here to say that there 
seems little ground for doubting that this final division was 
based upon distinctions of sex in the things heretofore con- 
sidered merely as animate, though probably not all such things 
were further conceived as endowed with sex. 

1 Grimm, Vorrede xxxix to Wuk's 2 Schleicher, Yergl. Gram. pp. 502, 

Serbische Grammatik. 503. 


One more question, as it has been already hinted, remains 
to be answered before a theoretical history of genders can be 
considered complete. Of existing forms, appropriated to the 
several genders, which are the oldest? When the primitive 
Aryan language first admitted distinctions of gender, were new 
vocal elements introduced to mark the classes, or were the old 
forms kept for one class and new provided for the other or 
others? And, in the latter case, to which class were the earlier 
forms assigned? Upon this point, philologers seem, for some 
reason or other, to be entirely agreed. From Bernhardi down 
to Prof. Sayce 1 , all concur in the opinion that the masculine 
gender is the oldest, the neuter latest. The grounds of this 
belief appear to be, first, that in oblique cases the inflexions of 
the neuter are the same as and therefore probably adopted from 
those of the masculine, and, secondly, that Semitic languages 
have no neuter. Now, unless the neuter be a very late inven- 
tion indeed, its inflexions in oblique cases are originally not only 
the same as the masculine but (except in one case, the genitive 
sing, of the a-declension) the same as the feminine; and that it 
is not a late invention, its universality sufficiently declares. 
When, moreover, it is sufficiently considered that there are 
good grounds for believing these inflexional suffixes to be mere 
adaptations of pronominal roots of definite meaning, it will be 
seen that it is impossible to give the priority, in respect of their 
use, to one gender rather than another. The argument, in fact, 
is only saved from being circular by the introduction of the 
analogy of Semitic speech. It would be lawful, perhaps, here 
to protest against an inference derived from languages whose 
early history is, in so many important respects, totally incom- 
parable with that of the Indo-European family, but it seems 
possible also to aver that the real analogy may be different from 
that suggested. The genders of Semitic languages do not seem 
to have been very carefully treated, as yet, by any writer, but, 
in such information as can be gleaned at least from Hebrew 

1 Bernhardi, Sprachlehre, pt. i. pp. lxii. 405 b ; Whitney, Language and 

141 sqq. ; Grimm, Deutsche Gram. in. Study of Language, p. 274 ; Tylor, Pri- 

318; Bindseil, Allgem. Verg. Sprachl. mitive Culture, 1.273; Sayce, Assyrian 

p. 496 ; Pott in Ersch and Gruber, Grammar, p. 119. 


grammars, I can find nothing to disprove and some facts to 
favour a theory that these tongues also, like the Aryan, had at 
one time no genders; then divided animates from inanimates, 
and finally, very imperfectly, distinguished feminines from 
masculines, without, however, inventing any new forms indica- 
tive of this final division. Thus Gesenius 1 states that "the dis- 
tinction of the feminine sex is often avoided by early w r riters, 
Hebrew as w r ell as Arabic;" and Kalisch, that "as the great 
number of communia proves, usage may in many cases have 
long fluctuated. * * * * Certain it is that both genders were 
not so strictly distinguished by separate forms as in later epochs 
of the language, but, throughout the books of the Old Testa- 
.ment, we find traces of a gradual and struggling development 
in that direction.... In a very considerable number of instances, 
the masculine of the pronouns, suffixes and verbs is, in the 2nd 
and 3rd persons, used instead of the feminine, and they occur 
in such variety and number that it is scarcely possible to 
consider them as anomalies or inaccuracies of expression." 
Similarly, the words mother, concubine, eive, she-ass and others, 
names of countries, of parts of the body, of tools and utensils, of 
light, fire and other powers of nature are all construed as 
feminine, though generally not feminine in form: while the 
feminine form is actually preferred only for lifeless things, 
abstract ideas, collectives and adjectives used substantively. 
Much the same rules seem to obtain also in Chaldee 2 , and in 
Assyrian many feminines have no distinctive termination 3 . 
Generalizations like these, unanimously adopted by the most 
eminent professors, seem to me to afford considerable prima 
facie evidence for a theory of genders similar to that already 
suggested for the Indo-European tongues 4 . The peculiarity in 

1 Hebrew Grammar, ed. Roediger, 4 B. Stade (Lehrbuch der Heb. 
trans. Davies, pp. 239242 ; Kalisch, Gramm. 312 a) distinctly says, " The 
Heb. Gram. 11. 107 sqq. ; Nordheimer, use of the feminine to form abstracts 
Heb. Gram. vol. 1. pp. 216218 ; is explained by the substitution of the 
Wright, Arabic Grammar, vol. 1. opposition of males to females for that 
289 297. of persons to things, which latter op- 

2 Longfield, Introd. to Chaldee, 32, position seems to have preceded, in 
P- 40. Semitic languages, the differentiation 

3 Sayce, Assyrian Gram. p. 119. of the two sexes." 


this case would, of course, be that when the animates were 
divided according to sex, the ferninines received, by way of dis- 
tinction, not a new form but that already appropriated to inanim- 
ates, so that the result is rather to distinguish masculines 
alone from ferninines and inanimates combined, a practice not 
without analogies in other phases of Semitic civilization. To 
return, however, to the Indo-European languages : it is clear 
that if, in fact, the masculine and feminine represent the old 
animate gender and the neuter the old inanimate, the neuter 
must be older than one of the other two genders. But the 
masculine is clearly older than the feminine, so that the question 
of absolute priority lies between the masculine and neuter. 
Now we are accustomed to hear it argued that of two languages 
or two words that is the older which is the simpler in construc- 
tion, i.e. which is the less abundant in functional suffixes. But 
the main distinction between the neuter and masculine is that 
the former is deficient in about a third of the chief suffixes 
which belong to the latter 1 . The nominative, accusative and 
vocative of neuters have but one form, which in the plural is 
much shorter than the masculine; and, in these cases, neuters 
singular of the consonantal declension are but a bare stem while 
masculines have extra suffixes, s or its equivalent in the nomin- 
ative and m in the accusative. It is argued, however, that the 
final m of neuters in the vowel-declension is borrowed from the 
masculine accusative, while the short neuters in the consonantal 
declension are abbreviations of the masculine form. As to the 
former supposition, surely it is equally tenable that the mascul- 
ine accusative m is the neuter form, chosen for this reason, that 
an animate thing, when conceived as passive, is to all present 
intents inanimate : and as to the latter, is it conceivable that a 
whole nation should consciously and systematically reject a 
customary suffix in order to mark a new distinction in things ? 
It is an almost invariable rule that new associations of words 
are marked by new suffixes or internal modification, and it 
seems to me unscientific to assume an exception where another 

1 The argument of the text may be survival from a very remote antiquity, 
reinforced by the analogy of the dual shews the same paucity of forms as 
number, which, admittedly a useless the neuter gender. 


explanation is possible. It is observable also that in Latin, 
which has preserved so many primeval usages, undeclined 
nouns are always neuter, and undeclined adjectives (e.g. nequam, 
frugi, tot) are always neuter in form. Let us recall here also 
the statement of Caldwell, already cited (supra, p. 45), regarding 
Tamil, that "in older Tamil and poetry we find many words 
neuter which later and in prose are masculine, and the suffixes 
which distinguish the masculine, feminine and common genders 
are only mutilated pronouns." Internal evidence and analogy 
are thus strongly in favour of the priority of neuter forms to 
masculine, and it is besides a priori improbable that the Aryan 
people, at quite a late date, unanimously invented a new gender 
which not so long afterwards many of them began to discard. 
With regard to the other two genders, it will be sufficient to 
say that the masculine is everywhere admitted to be older than 
the feminine. In the vowel-declension, where alone the two 
are differentiated, the feminine form with lengthened vowel is 
clearly later than the masculine, which also is always used in 
words of common gender 1 . The reader who desires more inform- 
ation on this topic is referred to Grimm's Deutsche Gram- 
matik, in. pp. 313 315. 

The theory of the history of gender in Indo-European lan- 
guages, which I have here tried to sketch 2 , is briefly as follows. 
These languages had at the earliest time no gender-distinctions 
but afterwards divided nouns into names of animates and those 
of inanimates, keeping the old forms for the latter but adding 

1 Thus parens, in old Latin, is mas- 151. 
culine even when it distinctly means 2 My theory may be concisely shewn 

mater. Festus, s. v. masculine, Mull. by a diagram, thus : 

No gender 
r ^ 

animate inanimate 

(new, later masc, forms) (old forms, later neuter, retained) 

< ' 1 

masc. feminine 

(old anim. forms) (new forms or a few old anim. forms adapted) 

For Semitic languages, the history of no old material was available, nor did 

the classes would be the same, but of any new suffix suggest itself except the 

the forms different. Inanimates, not neuter -t. Hence the identity of 

animates, received a new form, suffix neuter and feminine forms. 
-t. On the differentiation of feminines, 



new suffixes to the former. Still later, the animate class was 
divided into masculine and feminine, and with this change the 
old forms of the animate gender were assigned to the masculine, 
while new characteristics were invented for, or possibly old 
material was specially appropriated to, the feminine' 1 . 

It may be said that this theory, even if it be plausible, affords 
no explanation of the existing confusion in the distribution of 
genders; but it is submitted that each new change in the 
division of words would be somewhat imperfectly carried out 
and would leave a considerable margin of anomalies. In the 
first place, when the distinction between animates and inanim- 
ates arose, not all living things would be assigned to the 
animate class, and the exceptions will now be found as anomal- 
ous neuters. Thus, in Ashantee, as we saw, ' father ', ' slave ', 
'child', 'maiden' and other expressly personal names and col- 
lectives of animates, as 'family', 'company', 'party' (though 
these latter may possibly be plurals), belong to the impersonal 
class. Similarly, in Aryan languages, we find iroov, pecus, das 
Weib, das Rind, das Schaf and other German collectives, 
diminutives and names of children and fruits all neuter. Some- 
times, doubtless, inveterate usage of a familiar word would 
retain the inanimate form for an animate name, and sometimes 
(as in the case of reicvov etc.) animates would be deliberately 
assigned to the inanimate class because of their peculiar rela- 
tion, as products, to other animates. On the other hand, very 
many words, properly belonging to the inanimates, would be 
assigned to the animate gender. The agent in this case would 
be a habit of vague personification, such as that of which Mr 
Tylor speaks in the following passage. " Certain high savage 
races," says he, " distinctly hold, and a large proportion of other 
savage and barbarian races make a more or less close approach 

1 For instance, many names of but not without exceptions, distinctive 
females in common use, but not many of the feminine. In the Semitic lan- 
males, happened to have a long vowel guages, on the other hand, the anim- 
in the stem, or to be formed with a ates had no special characteristic, and 
suffix -na or -ana (e.g. Sk. patni, Gr. consequently, on the specialisation of 
hiairoiva, Lat. regina, Pol. bogini (god- the feminine, there was no old material 
dess), Ger. gdttin, Eng. vixen), and to adapt, 
these forms would become, as a rule, 


to, a theory of separable and surviving souls belonging to stocks 
and stones, boats, food, clothes, ornaments, which to us are not 
merely soulless but lifeless 1 ." A long and striking array of 
examples is given by this writer, but need not here be cited, for 
oar business is only with the effect of this habit of personifica- 
tion on language. In Ashantee, 'broom', 'knife', 'pot' and 
other names of inanimates are assigned to the animate. Among 
the North American Indians names of trees, the calumet, the 
tomahawk, arrow, kettle, piece of wampum and other objects of 
familiar use are all habitually animate, and, according to School- 
craft, already quoted, any other inanimate may, by personifica- 
tion, change its gender 2 . It is difficult, of course, to find, at 
the present day, equally certain examples in Aryan languages, 
but the habit of mind now in question was certainly common to 
our forefathers, witness only the ancient practice of trying for 
manslaughter a rooftree or other lifeless thing which had accid- 
entally killed a passer-by : and that the habit of mind affected 
the language is rendered in the highest degree probable from 
the fact that from the earliest times we find inanimate objects 
receiving proper names. Thus we read of the ship Argo, of 
Thor's hammer Miolnir, of Arthur's Excalibur, Sigurd's Gram, 
Rustum's Brand, the Cid's Tizona, etc. These analogies will 
suffice to shew what influence personification could exercise in 
swelling the numbers of the animate class. All words of this 
gender were, according to my theory, ultimately assigned either 
to the masculine or the feminine, and in this redistribution old 
and new influences would combine to produce an infinite and 
confusing variety. The names of things, which contained no 
suggestion of sex, or (as in words of common gender) where sex 
was not material, would retain their old forms and associations 
and thus be masculine 3 : words in common use, properly femin- 
ine, would, especially in the consonantal declensions, not be 
transferred to their new gender : other words, properly either 

1 Primitive Culture, 1. 477 sqq. ing of themselves in the plural, with a 

2 See Tylor, Prim. Culture, 1. 285 quasi-sexless editorial 'we,' use the 
303. masculine. 

3 Similarly, in Greek, women, speak- 


masculine or sexless, would be assigned to the feminine because 
they resembled, in form, a certain group of words which, by 
virtue of their meaning, were now classed as feminine : by 
these and many other similar obstacles a systematic classifica- 
tion would be prevented. In selecting words for the feminine 
gender, the merest fragment of a sexual characteristic would 
suffice, whether such characteristic were original or only added 
by association. Thus the Dyaks of Borneo say of a heavy down- 
pour " ujatn arai sa" "a ^e-rain this" : in Bullom the thumbs 
and great toes are called the male fingers, the others female : a 
Chilian calls soft wool domo-cal, i. e. female wool. In the French 
navy, it is said 1 , masculine names were given to line-of-battie 
ships (as Le Vengeur), feminine to frigates (as La Belle Poule). 
The affection of a sailor for his ship leads him to speak of it as 
' she ', as does every mechanic of his engine. So, according to 
Cobbett 2 , a Hampshire labourer refers to his plough with ' she ', 
but to all other tools with ' he \ The distinction made by the 
Englishman between 'male' and 'female' screws, is in other 
languages indicated by a difference of gender. Thus in German 
we have haft and heftel, haken and schlinge, ohse and ohre. 
These last, according to Grimm 5 , used to be distinguished as 
mannli and weibli simply, like the Italian maschio and femmina, 
Arabic zend and zendet. Similarly, in Greek, we find fiv\o$ 
distinguished in gender from pyXy. Could there be a more 
remote suggestion of sex than that by which certain rimes and 
caesurae have been, even in modern times, styled 'feminine'? 
Yet sexual characteristics, no stronger than those here sug- 
gested, would in primitive times have sufficed to determine a 
word to the masculine or feminine gender, even as, in modern 
German, the manly qualities muth and hochmuth are distin- 
guished from the womanly demuth and wehmuih. It would 
appear, also, as a further cause of confusion, that the separation 
of the feminine, though begun earlier, was not completed till 
after the scattering of the Aryan race : for except the lengthened 
stem-vowel and the suffix -ana no marks of the feminine can be 

1 Key, Language, Its Origin, etc., 2 English Grammar, Letter v. 

chap, on gender. 3 Deutsche Gram. in. 359. 


considered common to all Indo-European languages. The ic of 
Lat. victrix, the -ya of Gr. fyepovcra (fapovT-ysi), are peculiar to 
those languages, as are other forms to other languages. Lastly, 
when more civilised habits of observation had displaced the 
older tendency to personify, new words, created to represent 
new things or ideas, would receive a gender suggested not by 
their meaning but their form : compounds (e.g. with heit, keit 
in German) would be assigned to the gender of their last com- 
ponent ; words with vowel-ending (preferred in Latin and 
Greek) would be classed as feminine. At the same time, pho- 
netic changes and the irksomeness of remembering distinctions 
no longer significant would lead to endless mistakes, many of 
which would become stereotyped (as in the case of frons and 
crux, and many more which were masculine in Old Latin 1 ), or 
even to rearrangements of genders, regardless of form*. Other 
similar sources of confusion, needless to enumerate or discuss, 
will doubtless occur to the reader. 

In the foregoing remarks I have endeavoured merely to 
suggest a history of the Indo-European genders which will, 
without violence, account both for their existence and for the 
few regularities and multitudinous discrepancies of their dis- 
tribution. The proofs which have been proposed, though not 
absolutely cogent, yet seem to me more than strong enough 
to support a hypothesis which can never be very hardly 
worked. For unfortunately genders, as we know them, are 
generally those of only one dialect, fixed at quite a late date 
by the introduction of writing and the growth of a literature. 
The want of record and the difficulty of conceiving the mental 

1 Festus, s. v. masculino, 151 Mull. &c. are all neuters. Deutsche Gram. 111. 
ante cit. 426. The loss of genders, like that of 

2 Thus, according to Grimm, modern inflexions in modern languages, is 
German shows a tendency to make all clearly due to the inability of foreign- 
names of towns neuter, notwithstand- ers, adopting a new language, to 
ing that they may be compounded with remember meaningless distinctions, 
terms properly of other genders, e.g. even where similar ones existed in 
Bam-berg (wi), Magde-burg (/), Lands- their native tongue. 

hut (wi), Elber-feld (n), Neu-hof (m), 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 5 


attitude of a long-distant age will prevent the possibility of 
explaining, with any show of certainty, the gender of a par- 
ticular word. The same obstacles lie in the way of any practical 
application of a theory as to the origin of language, but the 
science of philology manifestly requires the aid of such tributary 
speculations 1 . 

1 The substance of this article was distinctions agree with mine. I may 

written as long ago as 1876. While it here observe also that, in the article 

was printing, Mr Brandreth read a on Grammar in the last edition of the 

paper on Gender before the Philolog. Encyc. Brit., Prof. Sayee expressly 

Soc. in London. I am told that his adopts the sexual theory of gender, 
views on the probable growth of gender- 




1. Aristoteles Poet 1, 1447*8 (Vahlen): irepliroivriKYJ^ 
ai>Tr}<; re /cal twv elBcov avx/??, rjv Tiva BvvafXiv e/caarov ti e%ei 


The reading exaarTov ti has been introduced by Vahlen 
(instead of the common reading enao-Tov) under a misapprehen- 
sion, namely that the Paris MS. 1741 has e/caoroTi. The MS. 
has eicaa-Tov, written thus, etcao~ToN. 

2. Aristot. Poet. 3, 1448 a 30: Bib tcai dvTnroiovvrai rrjs 
re rpa<yq)Sia<; /ecu t^5 KQ)fi(o8La<; ol Aoopiei<;' rrjs fieu yap 

K(o/jLG)$ia<; ol Meyapels /cal t^<? Tpayq>Sla<; evioi twv ev 


The grounds on which the Dorians claimed the invention 
of Comedy are stated at some length by Aristotle, whereas 
their claim to the invention of Tragedy is merely recorded as 
a fact in a clause of some half-dozen words, as though it were 
too far-fetched to deserve consideration. If we insert a 8' after 
koX t^? TpayaySias so as to make the clause mean 'and even 
Tragedy is claimed by certain of the Peloponnesian Dorians/ 
we shall improve the sense as well as the construction of 
the passage. 

3. Aristot. Poet 8, 1451 a 16 : nvOos 6 iarlv eh ov^ &o-irep 
rives oiovrai eav irepl eva rf 7ro\\a yap icai aireipa tg5 evi 
avfiftaivei, ef wv evicov ovBev Igtiv ev' outg>9 Be teal Trpa}*ei<$ 
evo<i TroWac elariv if; wv fila ovBefiia yiverau Trpaf-LS. 

The eviy which has supplanted the old reading yevet, is 
found in a late (Wolfenbuttel) MS. ; but, if I am not mistaken, 



it has on its side much better authority than this, namely 
that of the Arabic version of the Poetics. Until we have 
Prof. Sachau's long-promised edition, the Arabic version is 
a sealed book to us; in the interim however we may as a 
pis-aller turn to the mediaeval Latin version, which is a 
translation of the commentary of Averroes. Now the Latin 
corresponding to the above passage runs thus : 

Uni etenim rei multa accidunt, et similiter reperiuntur 
in una et eadem re actiones multae (f. 5 rect. ed. Yen. 1481). 

The Arabic text, therefore, which is older than the oldest 
Greek MS. and is based on a still older Syriac version, would 
seem to presuppose kvl rather than ykvei. As for evlcov, I think 
it should be bracketed, as due to a marginal hi (intended as a 
correction of yevev) which has found its way into the text 
in the wrong place. It is not recognized in the Latin version, 
and there is no similar limitation in the next clause (ef 
wv fila ovBe/JLi'a ylverai irpa%i<;) which is in other respects the 
counterpart of the clause with which we are dealing. 

4. Callimachus Hymn. 5 (Lav. Pall.). 45 : 
(rafiepov vBpocj)6poi fiev ftairTere, cra/juepov "Apyo? 

7TLV6T OTTO KpaVCLV, fir) 8' dlTO TOO 7TOTa/JLC0. 

This is the reading in Schneider's edition ; but I cannot 
think that his note on the passage (i. p. 340) clears up the 
difficulty in the words "Apyos irlver . If we are not prepared 
to take 7TLV6T as = irlverai, or to regard "Kpyos as a voca- 
tive = ye Argives, or to write (as Meineke suggests) trUr or 
Trivet, there is still another possibility, viz. to read irtcrer*. 
7tl(76T6 will of course govern "Apyos ; and as the future is prac- 
tically equivalent to an imperative (see Goodwin, Moods and 
Tenses, 25. 1. 5 b), Meineke's doubts as to the fir) that 
follows will thus fall to the ground. The fiev after vSpocfropoi is 
Schneider's unnecessary correction of the MS. reading, fir). 

5. Clemens Alex. Paed. 3. 12, p. 307 Potter : ko\ olKerai<; 
fiev ^pr)(TTeov oj? eavrols' avOpwirot, yap elaiv w? r)fxeh' 6 yap 
#eo? iraaiv to2s ekevOepois ical roU SovXois iariv, av gkottt)^, 


As the context literally swarms with quotations I suspect 
that Clemens has here worked into his text the words of some 
dramatic poet, perhaps Euripides. The addition of a syllable 
or two gives us the following result : 

6 yap #eo? <roi> iraai rot? <t> iXevdepoi? 
/cat tol(ti hovkois i<TTiVj av aKOTrfjs, icros. 

6. Clemens Alex. Strom. 4. 8, p. 589 : o/jloicos Se /ecu 
o8otos 6 irvBayopeios iiroirjaev Kal UavXos o AaKvSov yvco- 
pifJLos, ft)? (f>7]cn Tt/zo^eo? 6 irepyafjLTjvbs ev r<a irepl 7-779 twv 
<j>L\o<r6(f)(DV dvSpelas. 

Clemens is enumerating the philosophers (Zeno, Anaxar- 
chus, etc.) famous for their fortitude under torture ; and we 
learn from this passage that their heroism was the subject of a 
special work by a certain Timotheus of Pergamum, Who then 
is the Paulus mentioned ? As Lacydes resigned in B.C. 21 5> 
I do not see how one of his disciples can have had such a 
name, and am inclined to suspect that the right name was 
Oau\o? or <I>aiA\o?. The mistake may be as old as Clemens 
himself, since Theodoret who copies him has the same reading. 
As far as I know, this Paulus or Phayllus is not mentioned 
elsewhere: judging from the dates one may perhaps suppose 
the story of his sufferings to have been told in some way or 
other as an episode in the history of the tyrant Nabisw 

7. Clemens Alex. Strom. 7. 11, p. 871 : rd%a 6" ovtol 
Kal Tod? OavixaTOTroiovs dvSpeiovs <f>r)(rov<Tt,v et? t<z? p^ayaipas 
fcv/3t,<TT(ovTa<i if; ifnreipias twos KaKoreyyovvTa^ iir\ Xvirpaj tg3 

Read eVl \v7rpS tw fjuaOcS: comp. Diog. Laert. 10. 3: 
ypdp,p,ara h&daiceLV Xvirpov twos piaQapiov. 

8. Galenus irepl Sia(f)opd$ <r(f)vyp,a)v 2. 10, t. 8 p. 631 
Kiihn: ovre yevvvfOel? 'AOrjvrjcnv ovre Tpafek, dWd %#e<? Kal 

7T/3&)TG>9 TJKCOV 6K KtXt/Citt?. 

For 7r/)&)Tft)9 read irp(pr\v. 

9. Galenus irepl ra>v irapd tt)v \igiv (Tocpia/jLaTcov 4, t. 14 
p. 595 : p,ia fiw [scil. dp,<f>ij3oXla], rjv Koivrjv 6pop,d%ov<rc rod 


T elpyfiivov Kal tov BiacpeTov, oia early r) avXrjTpls irais 
ova a' Kotvrj yap avTr) tov re avXrjrpU ovofiaros Kal tov 

This occurs in an enumeration of the eight species of 
amphiboly recognized by the Stoics. ATAHTPIS was a 
favourite instance of one kind of ambiguity, the question 
being whether in a formula like this, ATAHTPIX ireaovaa 
hrffioaia eaTco, it was to be read as one word or as two 
1 utrum aula quae ter ceciderit an tibicina si ceciderit debeat 
publicari,' as Quintilian says (Instit. 7. 9. 4; comp. Diog. 
Laert. 7. 62). The parallel statement in Theon (Progymn. 4, 
E-hett. Gr. t. 2, p. 81 Spengel) is as follows: daafyr) Be tyjv 
ipfnjvelav irotel Kal v) Xeyo/juevrj dp(f>i/3oXla irpos ro3v BtaXeKTLKwv 
irapa ti)v kolvtjv tov aBiacpirov re Kal Bcrjprjfzevov, w? ev Ta> 
ATAHTPIS ireaovaa Brjfioala earay' ev puev yap ti ian to 
v<j> ev Kal dBiaipeTOV, avXrjTpl? eaToy ireaovaa BifpLoala, erepov 
Be to Biyprj/nevov, atiXr) Tpls ireaovaa eaTco Brjfioata. By the 
aid of this parallel it is easy to restore the words of Galen 
to something like their original form: p.ia fiev, rjv <irapd Tt)v> 
KOLvrjv ovofid^ovai tov Te BcrjpTj/JLevov Kal tov dBiaiperov, oca 
icrrlv r) ATAHTPI2 ireaovaa' kolvt) yap avTrj tov Te avXrjrpls 
ovopaTos Kal tov Biypijpbevov. 

10. Galenus (pseudo-Galenus) el (pov to Kara yaa-Tpts 
5, t. 19 p. 176 : (j>r)al Be A.TyjLOKpiTO<; dvOpoyirov e dvOpcoirov 
e^eaelaOau Kal Kvva e< kvvos. 

The astonishing word i^eaelcrOat is a blunder which has 
survived from the editio princeps. As Democritus said efeir- 
avTai dvOpooiros e'f dvdpcoirov (Stob. fl. 6. 57), it is pretty 
obvious that what Galen wrote was e^eaavadai. A similar 
correction has still to bs made in Clemens Alex. Paed. 2. 10,. 
p. 227 Potter : dvOpcoiro? ydp i dvdpcoirov eKcfiverat Te Kal 
airoairaTai where eK(f>veTai is surely a scribe's mistake for 
eKaeveTac. B. ten Brink (Philol. 8, p. 415) thought eK^veTai 
due to a slip of memory on the part of Clemens himself. 

11. Galenus Befin. medic. 487, t. 19 p. 462 : evQovaiaa- 
p,o$ eaTi KaOdirep e^iaTavTal Tives eirl t&v viro9vp,i(o/jbivcov ev 

AT ART A. 71 

T0i9 lepots opwvTes 17 TV/jLirdvcov rj avXoov rj cvjiftoXcov d/cov- 

This definition may be made complete by the aid of what 
precedes it in the text, but even then it requires some slight 
correction. Read: ivOova-iaa-fio^ ecr-u <Btavola<s /co-Taais>, 
KaOdirep i^io-ravral rives virb toov viroOvfjuayfievcov <rj ra> iv 
rot? iepols 6poovT<! rj Tvpirdvoov rj avXoov rj KVfJLpdXoov dtcov- 

12. Hippocrates irepl rpocfrrj? 14, t. 9 p. 103 Littre': 
^vXol tyOeipavTes teal oXov teal p,epo<$ /cal e^coOev /ecu evBoOev 
avrofiaroL teal ov/c avTo/juaroi, r\pTiv fiev avrofiaroi airly S' 
ovk avrofiarov, alrlrjs Be rd p,ev BrjXa rd 6" dBrjXa ktL 

Although the reading here given is as old as Galen (v. t. 5 
p. 393, and t. 15 p. 300 Kiihn), we may be tolerably sure that 
Hippocrates himself wrote not ahirj and alriy? but in both 
cases erefj which is the regular Ionic equivalent of $vo~ei 
as the antithesis to vojuop or 777)09 r]fid$. Galen elsewhere 
(t. 1 p. 417) shews himself quite familiar with the word. 

13. Menander nepl eiruBeLKTiKoov 2. 1, Rhett. Gr. t. 3 
p. 346 Spengel: irapdBo^a Be [scil. iy/coo/Ma], olov *A\iciBd- 
fiavros to tov %avdrov iy/cobfiLov,rj to rrjs Tlevla? rj tov HpojTeco*; 
rod fcvvos. 

I give the text as it stands in Walz and Spengel (who rely 
mainly on two Laurentian MSS.), but every one must feel 
that there is something clumsy and unsatisfactory about it; 
one would naturally infer from it that Alcidamas wrote an 
eytcoo/juov TTpcoTeco? tov kvvos ! In stating the theory of 
iy/coo/Ma Menander divides them according to the nature of 
the subject-matter into (1) evBoga, (2) dficfriBoga, and (3) ira- 
pdBo%a x . Encomia of the Gods come under the first head: 

1 The existing text adds #5oa to the an effort of ingenuity make it out to 

list ; the addition is to my mind and be not really ado^ov in which case the 

Heeren takes the same view an ab- iy/cu/xiou becomes what Menander in 

surdity too great to be fathered on the passage before us terms irapabo^ov. 

Menander. An ado^ou iyKw/uov is a When I read the explanatory clause, 

contradiction in terms : if you wish to <x5oa 3 ra wepl dcufibpuv nal kolkov 

laud something oZo&v, you must by Qavepov, I cannot but think that the 


under the second head he gives as instances the Panathenaic 
orations of Isocrates and Aristides, one instance being taken 
from early, the other from more recent literature. In dealing 
with the third class we should expect him to select his exam- 
ples on the same principle, but if Spengel's text is right, this 
is not actually the case. When we revert, however, to the 
pre-Walzian text, that of the Aldine or of Heeren's edition, we 
find that the above passage once had a very different aspect : 

7rapd$o$ja Be, olov ' AX/ccSdfiavTos to tov Qclvcltou iyfcobfjuov, 
rj to Trj<> Jlevtas UpcDTecos tov kvvos. 

This, as I have ascertained, is the reading also of the Paris 
MS. 1741, which is, .1 believe, older than the two Florentine 
MSS. followed by Walz and Spengel: Aristotelian scholars will 
remember that it is now-a-days recognized as the critical basis 
for our editions of the Rhetoric and Poetics; so that authority 
as well as internal probability seems to be on the side of the 
reading of the Aldine. If we keep the reading of the Aldine, 
we recover the name of a writing of the famous Peregrinus 
Proteus. We learn that he wrote a 'Praise of Poverty.' 
Menander would seem to regard it as a well-known book, and 
also as one of sufficient importance to be chosen from among 
recent works to be pat in comparison with the famous "Praise 
of Death' of Alcidamas. 

14. Plato de Rep. 3, p. 411 B: orav 8* iwix^v pr/ dviy 
aWd fcrjXrj, to fierd tovto rjBr] rr)Ki ical \e//3et, ea>? dv i/crtj^y 
tov Ovfibv teal eKTefir) a>o~7Tp vevpa iic t^? ^^%^?9- 

Though the words koi Xeiftei, are recognized by Demetrius 
irepl epfArjveia? 51 (Rhett. Gr. t. 3 p. 274 Spengel), I am in- 
clined to think \elf3ec a mere gloss on Trj/cet, the two words 
being almost synonymous in sense (comp. Hermogenes irepl 
fieOSSov SeivoTTjros 4, Rhett. Gr. t. 2 p. 428). The passage will 
read better if we cut it out as an emblema and suppose Plato 
to have written, ttjkL ecu? dv eKT^rj tov 6v/jlov. 

addition must have been worked in by (vu Sap. conviv. p. 153 a), might pos- 
a later hand, though I am aware that sibly be quoted as an argument against 
Plutarch's ii /3\a/3epw7-aro' ; dal/xcav me. 


15. Plato de Rep. 3, p. 411 D:iret,6o2 fiev Bid Xoycov ovBev 
ere xprjrcu, fSLq Be ical dypiorrjTL wcnrep 0r)plov irpos iravra 

Here Baiter, following K. F. Hermann, brackets Biairpdrre- 
rai, in lieu of which Madvig proposes BtardrreTai a reading 
actually found in one of Schneiders MSS. Prof. Chandler (Mis- 
cellaneous Emendations and Suggestions p. 6) suggests that, if 
any change is necessary, we should transpose and read irpocrBta- 
wpaTTerai iravra. The real difficulty in fact is not so much in 
the verb as in the preposition. If we provisionally bracket the 
7T/30?, either as the addition of a scribe, or as representing some 
small word not affecting the general construction, we shall have 
as the result a form of expression precisely similar to that in 
Gorg. 451 D: rj pr)Topucrf ovaa twv Xoyw rd iravra BiairparTO- 
fievcov re /cal Kvpovfievcov. 

16. Plato de Rep. 5, p. 473 A: tovto fiev Br) p,r) dvdy/ca^e 
fie, ola ra> Xoycp BcrjXOo/JLev, rocavra iravrdiraat /cal tg> epyw 
Belv ycyvofieva dirofyaiveiv. 

Read either, yiyvopev AN dirotyalvetv, or (as a friend has 
suggested to me), tg3 epy<p AN yiyvofieva dirofyaiveiv. In 
favour of the second alternative I may remark that Stobaeus 
and also some of the MSS. of the Republic have Brj instead of 
Belv, and that the difference between AH and AN is very slight 

17. Plato de Rep. 6, p. 488 C: avrovs B* avrw del tg5 
vaufcXrjpqy irepcKe^vcrOac Beofievov? kol iravra iroiovvras 07Tft)? 
dv a(f>i<ri to irrjBdXiov eirirpe'tyri* 

For avr<x> we should perhaps read, am 

18. Plato de Rep. 6, p. 492 C: ev Br} tg> tolovtw top veov, 
rb Xeyofievov, rlva otet /capBlav %<rvtiv\ y) iroiav [dv] avra> irai- 
Beiav l&icoTi/crjv dvdegeiv /ere ; 

The dv after iroiav has been very rightly excised by Baiter 
(following Cobet). The clause, however, which precedes requires 
the particle, as the symmetry of the sentence demands a future 
or the equivalent of a future in both cases. If Plato did not 



write %eiv (as Demosthenes does in a parallel instance (p. 842), 
Tiva oteo-06 avrrjv tyw)(r)v e^eiv), the reason, I presume, was 
that e%euv would offend the ear, when dvQk^eiv was so close to it 
in the context. But by the insertion of a single letter we get the 
equivalent of a future, if we read, tiv AN oleu KapBCav l&yew; 

19. Plato de Rep. 6, p. 503 B: fjv yap Bii]\6o/jLev <j)vo-iv 
Beiv virdpyeiv avrols, et? ravrb ^vfJLtyvetrOai clvttjs rd fieprj 6\i- 
yd/cis i6e\ei, rd 7ro\\d Be Buecriraa- fieva (fiverac. 

The parts were surely not Bteairaa^eva but BtecrirapiJieva a 
distinction which we realize more easily when we reflect on the 
difference between Biaairdv and Biao-ireipeiv, though no doubt 
the distinction is not quite so clearly marked in the case of the 
perfect passive. But there are passages in Plato in which we 
find the perfect from Btao-ireipeiv, and in which no one would 
wish to see the perfect of Biaairdv substituted for it : 

Phaedr. 265 H: et? fiCav IBeav avvopoovra dyeiv rd iroXXa^rj 

De Rep. 455 D: o/Wft)? BiecTirapy^evai at <f>vcreL<s ev a\xolv 
toIv %<poiv. 

Legg. 945 C: ov<$...fjt,iav ovaav <f>v<jt,v BiecnrapfjLevrjv 7ro\\a- 
Xv> 7roWols ovofiaac irpoaayopevofiev. 

A thing is said to be Buecrirao-fievov when its unity is lost 
through a more or less violent disruption or, to use Aristote- 
lian language, ravra /uudkccrTa Biaa7rdrac, d et? Tovvavrlov re 
/cat ia-^ypw^ eXfceTat, koX Kcvelrai (Probl. 5. 39, 885 a 8). The 
explanation in Hesychius, Biaairdaai' Biao-irapatjat, Biaay^idai^ 
gives, I think, a fair notion of the ordinary use of the word in 
Greek writers. On the other hand, the elements which go to 
form a composite whole may be said to pre-exist separately, 
Bieairapfjueva, before their union, but how can we say they pre- 
exist Sicr7racr/jLeva?. In short there is a distinction between the 
two participles corresponding to that which we have in English 
between separate (adj.) and separated [compare Cobet Nov. 
Lectt. p. 412]. 

If what I have just said is true, there are probably not a few 
passages in Greek authors in which BieairdZrai, BieairdX6ai, and 


BiecnraS/jLevos have usurped the place of 8tea7raT y Tcu, hieairaVOai, 
and SteaTraP/jLevos. I am inclined to think that this is the case 
in the passages in Aristotle's De Gen. Anim. in which he dis- 
cusses the Empedoclean embryology. The theory of Syngenesis 
(I take the term on the authority of Lewes' Aristotle, p. 353), as 
maintained by Empedocles, Hippocrates and others, affirms the 
embryo to be the product of the union of male and female yovrj : 
in order to explain the likeness of the offspring to both the 
parents, it seemed necessary to assume that both parents make 
the same sort of contribution to the physiological result. The 
elements of the body of the offspring accordingly were said to 
pre-exist partly in the yovrj of the male and partly in that of 
the female ; but before their fjul^is, it is clear that the elements 
must exist apart, and when thus existing apart they would in 
Greek phraseology be spoken of as ^leairap^ieva rather than as 
htea-Traa^lva. I conjecture therefore that Empedocles must 
have written hik<nrapTai in the fragment preserved (in a sadly 
mutilated form) by Aristotle {De Gen, Anim. 1. 41, 72 2 b 
10 = v. 270 ed. Stein) : 

(prjcrl yap iv tw appevi teal OrfKei olov avp.f3o\ov iveivai, okov 
S' air ovSerepov dirievac, "aX\a Bcea-iraarac fieXecov </>ucrt?, 
r} pep ev avbpos . 

The same correction has to be made more than once not 
only in the immediate context but also in the second discussion 
of the Empedoclean view, in the Fourth Book of the De Gen. 
Anim. (4. 9, 764 b 3). As far as I know, all trace of the word I 
wish to restore has disappeared from the MSS. of Aristotle, but 
the conspiracy of the scribes has not been equally successful in 
the case of the text of Galen. Galen too has a criticism of Em- 
pedocles : now one of his objections to the theory of Syngenesis 
is this, that if the parts of the offspring pre-exist separately in 
the two parents, we shall want a tertium quid > some formative 
principle, to account for the possibility of their union (irepl, 
crirepfxaTOS 2. 3, t. 4 p. 617 Kuhn): aWov tlvo<; dpa Tpirov 
Zerjcrei rots Steairapfievois iv eKareptp roov (Tirepfidrcov /xepecn^ 

1 The next line was perhaps something to this effect : 17 Sk ywaiKdcu<n 
yovcus tvi x<*7>is kovea. 


rod <rvvTa%ovTO<$ avra /cal Bia/coo-firjaovTos. If Galen wrote 
this, it seems clear that he read BieairapTat in the line of Em- 
pedocles; and I cannot believe that in other places in the same 
discussion he wrote 8iea7rd2,6cu (p. 616) hiea7ral,^evcov (p. 616) 
or hieairatneva (p. 618) in his paraphrases of the language of 
the quotation. 

20. Plato de Hep. 6, p. 503 e: ev fiaOrjiiaat 7roX\ot? yvfi- 
vd^eiv Bet, aKoirovvra^, el ical ra /uueyiara fjiaOrj/jLara Swarf) 
ear a i evey/celv, ecre icai diroSeiXtdaei. 

The received explanation of the feminine Swarrj is, I imagine, 
to assume with Schneider that the subject present in Plato's 
mind was $v<tl<; a word which in Baiter's text is just 23 lines 
off, with all sorts of things in the interspace! I have more 
respect for Plato than his commentators seem to have, and 
prefer to think that he wrote not hvvarr) ecrrai but Bvvyo-erai. 

21. Plato de Hep. 6, p. 504 B : twv fievroc e/nirpocrdeu 
irpoeLprjfjLevcov 7rofjLeva<> airoBei^eis olov r elrj irpoad^ai. 

Read: iyoyAvas. Similarly in the passage in Polit. 271 E: 
ocra r^5 roiavrris earl fcarafcoGfirja-ecDs eirofieva, we may per- 
haps be inclined to give Plato the benefit of the doubt, and 
believe the word as written by him to have been i^o/jueva. 

22. Plato de Hep. 6, p. 511 A: elicocri he ^pco/LLevrjv [scil. 
tt)v tyw)(r} v ~\ avTOis Tofc vwo rwv /caro* direiKaaOelai kol eiceL- 
vois 7T/30? eicelva a$9 evapyeat hehofjacrfievoc? re /ecu TerifjLrj/j.evoi^. 

This is part of Plato's statement of his theory as to the 
nature of hudvoia and its objects, ret hcavorjrd, but the ingenu- 
ous youths for whose benefit the explanation is given in the 
dialogue must have been easily satisfied if they could accept 
the explanation as it stands without a protest against its 
obscurity. That hedvota cannot dispense with the assistance of 
el/coves, sensible figures and diagrams, is stated here and else- 
where with sufficient clearness: the present passage however 
has been supposed to imply that hidvoia requires in addition a 
second sort of el/coves, here described as avrd rd v7ro twv /cdrco 
direiKaaOevra. Accordingly Schneider, and more recently Mr 
Henry Sidgwick (Journal of Philology 2, p. 96), think the 

AT ART A. 77 

formula t virb twv /carco direiicacrOevTa means literally, 'the 
things which are themselves copied by the things below them 
in the scale,' and is thus a description of Biavorjrd. If Bcavorjra 
are themselves eUoves of something higher (vorjra proper, if I 
may use the expression), the mind in the stage of Bidvoia may 
very well be said to deal with two kinds of et/coi>e? which for 
the sake of brevity I may distinguish as et/coi/e? alaO^raC, and 
elicoves BiavoTjraL This explanation is not in itself un-Platonic 
(see esp. Rep. 7, p. 516 A, the Scholiast on 511 A, and Proclus 
in Euclid. Prol. 1, p. 10 Friedlein), but one may doubt whether 
it has any relation to the passage before us. Two objections 
may be urged against it. (1) If the words were to bear the 
interpretation put upon them, one would have expected Plato to 
prepare us in some way or other for so important a statement ; 
whereas, if this refinement is really in the text, it is introduced 
without a word of warning without a syllable in the context 
to suggest it. (2) The context on the other hand supports the 
older and more natural interpretation, viz. that avrd rd direi- 
KaaOevra denotes the sensible el/coves. The sentence in which 
the formula occurs is a mere repetition or summary of what 
precedes; and we have in the sentence which immediately 
precedes this what I take to be an obvious equivalent of avrd 
rd direiicacrdevTa '. 

avrd fiev ravra d irXdrrova-l re /cat jpd(j)ovcn. 

So that avrd rd diruKaaOkvia avrd d d-rreLicd^ovcn, and 
denotes the sensible copies, and not the (intelligible) originals 
to SfjbOLcodev, and not to g5 w^oiwQi). The general sense of the 
passage seems to me to demand this (the old) interpretation, 
but we cannot get it out of the text as it now stands, which 
must therefore be amended before we can interpret it on the 
ordinary principles of philological probability. A very slight 
change however will give us the meaning which the logic of the 
passage necessitates. Let us for vivo twv /caTO) read viroKaTWy 
and for /ecu eiceivois, kclI efcel (or rather KaKet), so as to make the 
passage run thus: 

eltcoo-i Be xpcD/JLevTjv clvtoZ? toi<$ viroKaTca direiKaaQelai ted/eel 
7rpo? ifceiva <w<? ivapyeo~i BeBogaafieitQis Te koX TeTijmrjfjLevois. 


In regard to viroied I may refer to Madvig (Advers. 1 
p. 27) who has a good deal to say about the corruption of the 
cognate word irepacdrio. As soon as viroKaray was turned into 
vtto TUN /carco, the further corruption of teal e'/eet into kcli e'/ce/- 
voi$ was probably deemed an improvement: it was not seen that 
eVet, coming after vttokcitg), meant 'in the lower sphere/ the 
region of sensible counterfeits in which the common man is said 
to live. A very similar instance of tcd/eel with a supplementary 
clause trailing after it is found in another place in the Republic 
(7, p. 532 b): Ik tov Karayetov et9 tov tjXlov iirdvoSos, teal 

KL 7T/J09 flV TO, &) T fCCll <j)VTa KOL TO TOV rfklOV <o5? T 

ahvvafJLta fiXeireuv kt. As I have been led to quote this place 
in the Seventh Book, I may as well say here that the reading 
eT dBvva/jLia, which the editors take from Naegelsbach who. 
conjecturally restored it, is to be found in the paraphrase in 
Iamblichus irepl ttjs kolvtjs fia6r}/jLariK7J<; iirLaTrjfir}^ printed in 
Villoison's Anecdota t. 2 p. 196. Iamblichus reads ert d&vva/jLLa, 
which shows how the faulty reading ilV dSvva/Jiia originated. 

23. Plato de Rep. 10, p. 607 B: /ecu fjueya? iv d<f>p6vwv 
KeveayopiataL ical 6 twv Btaaocpajv 0^X09 KpaTcov. 

The prevailing view among Editors is that we have here two 
quotations, the second beginning after koX. This is by no 
means obvious, but even if the view is true, it seems to me not 
impossible that Plato combined the two quotations into one. I 
suspect that teal 6 is a mistake for 6 /ecu, and that the original 
reading was, 6 teal tov Ala aocjxZv o^Xo? KpaTwv tov Ala being 
governed by lepaT&v used perhaps in the sense which the verb 
has in Aeschylus Choeph. 958, tepaTecTat to delov. The reading 
of the Paris MS. is tv Bla o-ocjxvv. 

24. Porphyrius de Abstin. 2. 34, p. 104 Nauck: tols Be 
avTOv i/eyovois, vorjTol^ Se Oeols rjBrj, ical ttjv iie tov Xoyov 
vfjivwBiav irpoaOeTeov. 

Porphyry is distinguishing between the honours due to 
the supreme deity and those due to his offspring the mortal 
gods of Plato's Timaeus. Read, therefore, Ovtjtols for votjtols. 

AT ART A. 79 

25. Porphyrius ad Marc. 1, p. 193 Nauck : dvyailpwv /aw 
7T6VT6, Bvocv ' dppevcov ovaav fjbrjrepa, rwu p,ev koX en Pr/iruov, 
twv Be r}$r) 6t? ydfiov r)\iKiav r)(3av e<pop/JLOvvrcov. 

If, as Nauck thinks, rjftdv is an intruder, how did it come 
to find its way into the text? On the alternative hypothesis 
that rjXiicLav is the intruder we may by the change of an accent 
restore e? yd/xov rjfiav which looks like the end of a line of 
some bucolic poet. A similar instance of the use of the sub- 
stantive t]/3tj I am unable to find, though Oppian has the verb 
in a sense approximating to that which we want here : eXapi Be 
y\v/cv<; olaTpos civcty/cdcr)? dcfrpoBtTT)? ydjjboi tfftaxocTi (Hal. 1. 
474). ecfropfiovvTfov, at the end of the passage, seems an odd 
word to use when one would expect ecjyopfiwvTcov or 6pp,oovT<ov. 

26. Strabo Geogr. 14. 19, p. 658 Cas. : koX icaO? jj/ias 
Nt/aa? 6 Kai Tvpavvrjaa? Kcoa)i>, /ecu ^Aplarcov 6 dupoacrd^ievo^ 
rod irepnraT^TiKov zeal /cXrjpovofirjcras eicelvov. 

This appears in an enumeration of the eminent natives of 
Cos. Aristo the Peripatetic is a well-known personage; but 
who is the Aristo whom it was possible to describe, as Strabo 
seems to do here, as 'the pupil and heir of the Peripatetic'? If 
we cannot know more about this Aristo, it might be as well to 
get rid of him altogether, which we can easily do by the inser- 
tion of a single letter, so as to read ' Kpi<TT(ovo% d/cpoacrdfievo^. 

27. Timo Sillogr. ap. Diog. Laert. 2, 126 (ed. Cobet):- 

Xrjpov dvaaTtjaas o^pvcofievo? dcf>pocn,/36/iLJ3a. 

Xrjpov is a conjecture, the MSS. having Xoyov. I would suggest 
6%Xov, or Xaov. 




Pol. iv. iii. 

The whole of Pol. bk. IV, ch. iii (or ch. 3 and ch. 4, 1 
15, 1289 b 27 1291 b 13) is considered by Susemihl ungenuine, 
and due either to one interpolator, or, because of the parallelism 
of the transition passage 1290 b 21 (ore /jlcv ovv iroXirelaL 
TrXelovs k.tJX.) to the transition passage 1291 b 14 (on fiev ovv 
elal TToXirelat TrXeLovs k.tX) at the end of ch. iii, perhaps to 
two interpolators. In the latter case Susemihl would make 
the second interpolation begin at the first of these transitions 
(1290 b 21), and conjectures that the second interpolator, finding 
the first interpolation already in the text and supposing it 
referred to by the words in 129 l b 14, joined on to it the 
part which he had himself written by a transition (1290 b 21) 
imitated from 1291 b 14. This seems scarcely possible, for the 
whole of the first transition passage reads thus : 

otl jiev ovv TroXirelai TrXelovs, teal 8i rjv alrlav, ecprjraL' 
Bwtl Be 7rXetou9 tcov elprjfievcov, kcli rives teal Bed tl, Xeycofiev 
apXV v XafiovTes rrjv elp7]jxkvr]V irporepov. 

Thus it would be implied that the subject of the first (supposed) 
interpolation the reason why there is a plurality of Con- 
stitutions (cf. 1289 b 27) was done with, and that a new subject 
was to follow the reason why there are more than have been 
mentioned (one might suppose democracy and oligarchy in- 
tended, which at the end of the first part of the first interpola- 
tion are said to form the usual division of Constitutions). 


But instead of this the second (supposed) interpolation 
treats over again the main subject of the first, and more fully, 
ending with the same statement about the usual twofold divi- 
sion of Constitutions into democracy and oligarchy: and the 
writer of it therefore could hardly have joined it to the first 
interpolation by such an introduction. 

A more probable account seems to be that two parallel 
versions have here been unskilfully put together, not intended 
by the author of either to stand in the same context. 

The two parallel passages are 1289 b 27 1290 a 29 and 
1290 b 21 1291 b 13. 

Thus (i) 1289 b 278 = 1290 b 24 and 1290 b 389. 

(ii) 1289 b 28 1290 a 3 corresponds to 1290 b 40 

1291 a 10 and 1291 a 33 b 1. 
(iii) 1290 a 57 and 1113 correspond to 1290 b 

(iv) 1290 a 1316 corresponds to 1291 b 113 (esp. 


Susemihl says (Intr. p. 58, 1. 6, edn. of 1879) that the inter- 
polator of ch. iii (1289 b 27 1291 b 13) refers (1290 a 1 seqq.) to 
Pol. bk. VII, and therefore had the ' original ' order of the books 
before him. The reference is found in one version only of the 
proposed resolution of ch. iii ; the second version instead of the 
reference inserts a long passage similar to that part of bk. VII 
which the first version refers to. So far therefore it is by no 
means certain that the second version is older than the received 
order of the books. 

The words however at the beginning of the second version, 
dpxfjv rrjv elpr)fievrjv irporepov (1290 b 23), may perhaps refer to 
bk. VII ; but Susemihl thinks bk. IV, ch. iii is intended, i. e. the 
beginning of what seems the other parallel version in ch. iii. 

A third parallel version seems to be found in ch. iv init. 
1291 b 1430. 

The passage 1290 a 30 b 20 which intervenes between the 
first two versions is obviously parallel to bk in, 1279 b 11 seqq. 

There is room for the suspicion that the preceding part of 
the book, chs. i and ii ? also contains three versions. The list of 
Journal of Philology, vol. x. 6 


contents in ch. i is repeated in the last part of ch. ii. The first 
part of ch. ii may be another independent list. For it announces 
the subjects thus, Xolitov irepl iro\nela^ SieXOeiv tj;? tqj kolvw 
irpocrayopevofievr]? ovofiart, /cat irept, tgov aWwv iroXireccov, 
okvyapxias re Kal $7)/llo reparian koI rvpavvlSos, 1289 a 35 : and 
(1), democracy and oligarchy having been discussed, it is said 
(ch. vi or 8 init.) that two subjects are left (\017rcv) TrdXiTeia 
and Tvpavvis ; (2) after the account of iroXireia it is said that 
TvpavvL^ is left (wepl Be TvpavviBos r\v Xotirov elirelv 1295 a 1, 
cf. reXevralov 1293 b 25): while (3) after the chapter on rvpavvk 
follow other subjects peculiar to the lists in ch. i and the last 
part of ch. ii. The argument is not conclusive, and the unity 
of the text could be defended ; so that the evidence for disunity 
might not be worth stating were it not for the more obvious 
triplicity in chs. iii and iv. 

The double enumeration of the kinds of democracy and 
oligarchy in chs. iv v (4 6), is also suspicious. 


Pol. ill, x xi. 

Chs. x and xi (or chs. 15 and 16, 1285 b 34 seqq. and 1287 a 
1 seqq.) discuss the same subject, the irapb^aaCkela. Out of a 
part of ch. x (15), 1286 a 26 b 3, and a part of ch. xi (16), 
1287 b 8 35, Susemihl forms two parallel versions, printing 
1286 a 26 b 3 + 1287 b 815 parallel to 1287 b 1635. The 
remaining parts of these chapters he tries to form into a con- 
tinuous context by a number of rearrangements. 

It may be however that the two chapters belong almost 
wholly to two parallel versions, and that instead of being com- 
bined in this way they should be still further resolved. 

The beginning of ch. xi (16), 1287 a 1 8, is closely parallel 
to a passage near the beginning of ch. x (15) 1286 a 2 7, and 
a better case for parallel versions can be made out here than in 
the part selected by Susemihl. 

The matter which follows these is in general of the same 
kind in both chapters for some distance, from 1286 a 7 to 1286 b 3 


in ch. x (15), and from 1287 a 8 to 1287 b 35 in ch. xi, though 
there are additions and differences of arrangement in the one 
context as compared with the other. 

Thus (i) 1286 a 27 = 1287 a 18. 

(ii) 1286 a 724 corresponds in subject to 1287* 
18 b 8 + 1287 b 1624. 

Compare 1286 a 79 with 1287 a 18 19 and 1287 b 20 1 
1286 a 1116 with 1287 a 33 b 5 
1286 a 1620 with 1287 a 2832 
1286 a 212 with 1287 b 234 
1286 a 234 with 1287 b 1718 
1286 a 24 with 1287 b 17 and 19 

1286 a 26 with 1287 b 1516. 

(iii) 1286 a 25 b 3 corresponds in subject to 1287 b 
2435 and 1287 b 815. Of these passages, the third disturbs 
the context and looks like a parallel version of the second; there 
is some ground therefore for placing it as Susemihl does. 

From the above it would seem also that the first part of 
Susemihl's second column, 1287 b 16 26, with the exception of 
the first two lines, has its analogue not in his other column but 
higher up in ch. x, that is in the first column of the resolution 
of the text here proposed. 

In ch. xi (16) the passage 1287 a 24 8 interrupts the argu- 
ment of the context: it belongs to the same part of the subject 
as 1287 b 1623, and may be read after eVrtV, 1287 b 23 : but if 
it belongs to this place it is hard to see how it could have been 

The repetition at the beginning of ch. x (or ch. 14 fin.) of 
the characteristics of the first four kinds of monarchy, before 
the introduction of the fifth, may indicate that the discussion of 
monarchy was double from the beginning : though the circum- 
stance taken by itself would not count for much. 




Pol. V, i iii. 

Pol. V, i may be divided into three parts from 1301 a 25 
onwards, viz. 1301 a 25 1301 b 6, 1301 b 6 1301 b 25, 1301 b 26 
1302 a 15. The third of these does not cohere with the 
second, but is an abrupt unexplained return to the subject of 
the first, which has been already wound up with the words 
dpyal /JLev ovv oo<> elirelv avrau Ka\ mjyal rcov ardaecov elcnv, 
1301 b 4 5. The first and third passages seem to be duplicates: 
both deduce in the same way political disturbances (and the 
existence of different forms of government) from the different 
interpretations which contending parties put upon a commonly 
accepted principle of right. Compare especially 1301 a 26 7 
with 1301 b 356: 1301 a 289 and 1301 a 312 respectively 
with 1301 b 378 and 1301 b 389 together with 1301 b 3940. 

Ch. ii, 1302 a 16 seqq. returns again to the causes of political 
changes : Xrjirreov tca66\ov nrpwrov ra<; dp^a? /cat ra? atria? 
avTwv, words which should be contrasted with the ending of the 
first passage, dpyah /xev ovv o5? elireiv k.t.X. (quoted above). 
A wider classification of these dpyai is given, and under the 
first head the main thought of the other two parallel passages 
is repeated in a shorter form. There is here then perhaps 
another rewriting, seemingly by a later hand, of the introduction 
to the book, and with this third beginning seems to cohere the 
rest of ch. ii and ch. iii. 

The references in 1301 b 367, 1302 a 24, if genuine, may be 
to the third book of the Politics, like the reference in 1301 a 28 : 
thus there would be three parallel references to the third book 
of the Politics (in, 9 init., or its probable duplicate ill, 12 init.), 
one in each of the supposed parallel passages. 


Pol. VII i iii and xii xiii (=1315). 
Susemihl has remarked (Note 712) that the subjects of ch. i 
and chs. ii iii are repeated by chs. xii (13) and xiii (1415). 


Possibly there is even a threefold treatment ; for ch. xii (13) 
seems like a shorter duplicate of ch. xiii (14 15). In each the 
same question is proposed, What is happiness or the chief Good ? 
(compare 1332 a 7 and 1333 a 15 16) ; and the discussion of it 
is followed in each by a transition, in almost the same terms, to 
the subject of education (compare 1332 a 39 1332 b 11 with 
1334b 5 _ 11 geqq.). The chief difference is that ch. xii (13, 
1332 a 7 9) takes the definition of the Good in the general form 
given in Nic. Eth. I, vii (or Eud. Eth. II, 1), while ch. xiii. 
(14 15), like Nic. Eth. x, distinguishes between the life of 
moral virtue and the higher life of philosophic contemplation, 
the second discussion not being put as a continuation of the first. 
The division of Goods into tccCka and dvayfcaia is made inde- 
pendently in both chapters (xii and xiii), compare 1332 a 10 seqq. 
with 1333 a 32 > 3 and 1334 a 16 seqq.: but in ch. xii there is 
no consciousness of what seems implied in ch. xiii (15), that 
moral virtue does not belong so completely to the kcl\6v as 
6 cop la. 

The nature of the parallelism in the two transition-passages 
(1332 a 39 1332 b 11 and 1334 b 511, compare especially 1334 b 
78 with 1332 b 811 and 1334 b 1012 with 1332 b 58) 
confirms the order of the text in the first of them against 
Bocker's transposition of 1332 b 5 6 (for which see Susem. 
vol. i, p. 446, note 2), and makes Broughton's supposition 
(Susem. i, 462, note 2), that the second of them is an interpola- 
tion unlikely, especially if the other parallelisms of the two 
chapters be taken into account. Yet the beginning of the 
second passage 1334 b 6, rvy^dvofLev Srj hirjprnjievoi irplrepov 
may have been altered, unless the reference is to the Ethics. 

In the version of ch. xii (13), the language which follows 
the words tyafxev he ical iv rol<; rjOifcols (1332 a 7), has more 
affinity for the Eudemian than the Nicomachean Ethics. Suse- 
mihl says (n. 876) of the distinction in 1332 a 10, that ' it is not 
in the Ethics (Nic), but is put here by Aristotle if he is the 
author to avoid possible misunderstandings.' It occurs how- 
ever in the Eudemian Ethics 1238 b 6. 1332 a 19 should be 
compared with the same Eudemian context, 1238 b 6 7 ; and 


1332 a 223 with Eud. Eth. 1249 a 12. Compare also (though 
not so distinctive) the use of XP^ aL<i * n ^ ne formula for the 
Good in 1332* 9 with the repeated association of x/or/crt9 and 
ivepyeia throughout Eud. Eth. II, i (= N. Eth. I, vii, etc.) 


Pol. I, xiii, 1260 a 22, KaOdirep mero Xco/cpdrr)?. The refer- 
ence being to one of Plato's dialogues, 6 ^cofcpdrrj? would be 
expected. One MS (P* Susem.) has the article, but it has not 
been followed in the editions, though apparently right. The 
ordinary reading is accounted for by the last syllable of <&to. 

The article is similarly wanting in one other place, Pol. VIII, 
vii, 1342 b 23, Bib /ca\(o<; iirirLfiwaL ical rovro Xoycpdrei, though 
the reference is to the Republic (cf. 1342 a 323, 6 S' iv ry 
iroXirela Sco/cpar?]?), but probably rS has been lost after 
rod TO. 

Pol. IV, xiv, 1298 a 1, 

VTpOV TO TTpl Ttt9 O pX a< > TOVTO O 0~TIV a? 06* 

/cat Tivwv elvau icvpias /ecu irolav revd Bel ylveaOat rrjv alpeatv 

For icnlv a? should perhaps be read iarl (jl)va<; : one ti 
may easily have dropped out. 




(Read before the Cambridge Philological Society.) 

The following paper is chiefly occupied with the elucidation 
of passages in the Oedipus Coloneus which have been obscured 
through inattention to the main argument of the play. I will 
begin with the passage that suggested it. 

384. tovs Se crow ottol 6eol 


The present reading is intolerable, whatever sense we assign 
to it, as Professor Madvig has seen. He conjectures, in the 
Adversaria, ttaQopixiovaiv^ which is hardly near enough to the 
MSS. Besides, an examination of other places in the play where 
Oedipus speaks of his last resting-place suggests a different 
metaphor. The houseless, homeless wanderer finds at last in 
the territory of Athens the promised dwelling of which he has 
been so long in search. 

Thus in vv. 87 93 <I>o//3&>... | o? jioi rd 7roAV ifcelv or 
ifjiypri fcafca, | ravrrjv e\ee iravXav ev yjpovip fia/cpS j iXOovrt, 
yoapav rep/jblav... \ evravOa Ka/jL-tyeiv rov raXaiTrcopov fi'iov \ 
/cepSr) fjueu oiKijcravra rocs BeSeyfjuevois \ arrjv Se to? irepb^aatv 
ol fjb airrjXao-av. Oedipus is to dwell in the land to work 
mischief to those who cast him out, and to be a source of ad- 
vantage to those who received him. The plural KepSij has the 
same force as in 7ralyvca, amores, &c. This natural sense is 
needlessly obscured by Madvig's conjecture oUicravTa. Again 
in v. 626, 627 ovttot Olhlwovv ipeis \ a^pelov ol/crjTfjpa Be^acr- 
0ac tottwv. So in 635, 636 ayw o-ejBiadels ovttot eK^aXw 
yapiv rrjv rovBe yjp<l $' ejnrdkw KaroiKico. In *act the con- 


trast between the knightly hospitality of the stranger Theseus 
and its reward and the very different conduct of Oedipus' own 
kinsmen and its retribution, is the very pivot of the play. The 
generous promise in the passage just quoted, %&)oa 8' efiiroOuv 
{efXTToXtv) KaroiKtw, is in marked opposition to the conduct of 
those who first drive the old man from their borders (eic(SaXkov- 
aiv, e^eXavvovo-Lv) ; and then, when forced by a divine necessity, 
grant him the privilege the privilege of what? of lying just 
outside their borders (v. 401 Ovpaai KeL/xevov, 784 ov% w e? 
86fAOV<; ayys, dX)C w? irapavXov o l/c i cr y s) . 

Hence in v. 631 

Tt9 Brjr av dvSpos evjievetav efcftaXot 
rotovSe ; 

the commentators are wrong in taking i/cfiaXoi as = 'waste, 
throw away:' it means 'drive from my bounds.' 

So in Oedipus' speech 1348 sqq. in which he invokes upon 
his unnatural son a fate like the one in which he has involved 
his father. He has driven his father from his country, and 
from that country for the curse is already working he has 
been driven by his brother never to return. To begin with, the 
bitter antithesis of v. 1373 has been misunderstood : 

to i jap a 6 Balficov elcropa fiev ov rl itch 

oj? avTLKy elirep o'ihe Kivovvrai \oyoi 

7rpo5 acTTV rj/3r)<? ov yap earO* 07Tft)? ttoXlv 

/celvrjv ipel Tt?, 

'to the streets of Thebes: for I know one who shall never call 
it native cit}^.' Oedipus says to his son ' You have driven me a 
homeless exile from my native city (v. 1357 eOrjKa^ ajroXcv), and 
with the same measure that you mete shall it be meted out to 
you. You shall never see your native town again.' Mr C. S. 
Palmer in a note on this passage has pointed out that rh is 
here used for the second personal pronoun, though he has failed 
to interpret the general sense 1 . This use is too well known to 
require much illustration. I may however refer to one place, 

1 I see that Professor L. Campbell probably taking a hint from Mr Palmer, 
in the second edition of his Sophocles interprets the passage as above, 
which has only just come into my hands, 


at present corrupt, in which it should be restored. "We should 
read in Aristophanes Lysistr. 657 

el Be \v7rrj<TL<; tL fie, 
ra>Se rdylrij/crq) irardga) ra> (for tco) KoOopvqy ttjv jvaOov. 

'I'll strike somebody on the face with this untanned buskin.' 
The ictus falls on ra> as in Ban. 708. 

Again towards the end of the very same speech vv. 1389, 
1390 we have the very curious expression 

Kal kclXw to Taprdpbv 
orvyvov irarpcpov epefios <w? cr air oik la rj. 
Here diroLKiay 'settle you far from your fatherland' is to be 
understood in the same reference. ' You have driven me from my 
home, but I have found refuge and an abiding dwelling-place 
on the friendly soil of Athens ; your brother has driven you too 
from home, but your new resting-place shall be the abhorred 
womb of death.' 

Finally I think we may find the same keynote struck in the 
very beginning of the play vv. 25 27. 

AN. a\X ogtis 6 T07TO? rj fidOco fio\ovo~d aor, 
OI. val, retcvov, ecirep earl y J eJ~oiKr)Q-LiAO<$. 
AN. aXX earl firjv olfcrjTos. 

The antithesis of i^oifcijo-ifio^fol/crjTo 1 ; which is thrown into 
the strongest relief by their close juxtaposition, will not permit 
us to suppose that their sense is the same. And the idea of Din- 
dorf that eg in e'fot/crjcri/xo? means 'completely' is opposed to the 
ordinary sense of the word and gives a meaning which can be 
only described as inane. It only remains then to take igot/cTJo-t- 
yuo? in accordance with the common usage of egoi/ceco 'to live out 
of a place or away from it,' i.e. 'to emigrate.' Oedipus, thinking 
of his weary wanderings and the divine promise that they 
should end at last, asks 'Is this a place where exiles can find a 
habitation?' to which Antigone, perhaps misunderstanding the 
question, returns 'Nay, it is inhabited already.' These two 
short speeches, properly interpreted, are seen to cohere with v. 39 
where the stranger corrects the idea which underlies the action 
of the blind man and his guide, by saying the place is cIOiktos 
ov& oZfcrjros. And perhaps it is not too subtle to suppose that 


this peculiar turn of phrase was intended by Sophocles to be a 
foreshadowing and indication of the drama's main motive, which 
otherwise breaks unexpectedly and abruptly upon us in v. 45 
with the flat declaration of Oedipus that he will not leave the 
holy ground. It will now be obvious what change I propose to 
make in v. 384. For kcltouctiovgiv I would read /carocKiovo-tv, 
so that the sense will be 'I cannot tell where the gods will settle 
thee the toiling one.' The use of ottoi of course does not require 
support; but one example from this very play is so apt that I 
cannot refrain from quoting it v. 23 e%et9 BiSdcr/cecv Srj pu ottol 

I take this opportunity of adding two suggestions on other 
lines of the play ; and one on a fragment. 

v. 30 rj Bevpo Trpoaarei'XpvTa /cd^oppLGofievov, 
This is explained, I believe, by all the commentators as a 
hysteron proteron 'going and starting,' a figure here ludicrously 
out of place, i^oppbcofievov means 'hastening' as in Trach. 929 
iv & to Kelae Bevpo r i%op/jLWfieda 'while we hurry hither and 
thither.' Oedipus with the querulousness of a blind man wants 
to know, not only if the stranger is coming towards them, but if 
he is making good haste. This is on a piece with his words in 
v. 21 and Antigone's gentle protest, and with the pettishness of 
v. 25. 

v. 153 d\\ y ov fiav ev y i/j,ol 

irpoaOrja-ei^ rdaB' dpds. 

It is singular the editors can have put up with this so long. 
The middle is imperatively required both by the rules of Greek 
writing and Sophocles' own usage. Compare An tig. 40 nrpoa- 
deadat ifkiov, O. T. 1460 irpoaOfj fjuipipLvav, and in this very 
play v. 404 vrpoo~6eo~6aL <re. 0. T. 820, which Professor Campbell 
quotes, is decisively against him teal rdB* ovtl<$ aXko? r)v rj y y(o 
V ifjuavrw rdo~& dpas 6 7rpoaTt0ek, as the e7r' e/juavrat makes 
all the difference 1 . Read therefore Trpoadrjcrei'tdike to thyself,' 
which was changed through being mistaken for the active. 

1 In his last edition Professor Camp- that it is not easy to see how the ac- 

bell supplies t$ yj^Tipi^ 8-qfi^. By tion of a foreigner like Oedipus could 

ellipses of this kind anything can be bring dpas upon the deme of Colonus. 
ocoiained. But it must be observed 


Fragm. 319. dirfj^e 7re/jL<f)ii;Lv ov 7reXa? <f)6pov. 

This is a passage from the lost play KoX^ol, quoted by Galen 
9. 385 (5. 454) in a philological discussion of the meaning to be 
assigned to Treaty coSr/s in a medical dictum of Hippocrates. 

This interesting word, which Curtius Gr. Etym. p. 708 con- 
nects with <j>v<rda), seems to have meant originally either (A) 
'something blowing' or (B) 'something blown out.' (A) gives 
the meaning ttvoy} 'blast,' which is assigned to it here by Galen. 
Under (B) we place the meanings 'blister,' 'bubble,' 'drop' of 
rain or blood, 'flash of light,' (so called from its evanescence); 
and then by a very curious metaphor ireficjii^ tj\lov seems to 
mean the 'sun-bubble,' (unless indeed it is taken here also to 
be a 'flash'). 

The meaning assigned to 7re/*<tf here by Galen is irvorj 
which agrees with the original meaning of the word from root 
<pv 'blow' Curt. Gr. Etym. I.e. A comparison of the other two 
passages quoted by Galen for this sense will shew that he uses 
irvor) with some latitude. In the fragment of the Salmoneus it 
refers to the blackening rush of the lightning, in the Prometheus 
Bound (rather Unbound) to the dark sweep of the storm. To 
either of these it may refer in this passage, or possibly to the 
scorching breath of the bulls of Colchis (as the play is the 
KoA/^o/) from whose nostrils issued fire and smoke. Hermann 
has suggested a$? Ittvov creXao-tyopov. aeXaa^opov is very tempt- 
ing, and, with the slight change of v to v, I propose to accept it. 
I propose also to keep ov and to find the lost substantive which 
agreed with creXao-<f>6pov in ire/jufutjiv, which I take to be for 
7rficj)^[i^]Lv. t'ft? is a good word, used by Eurip. Troad. 396 
for 'coming,' and by Hippocrates for 'movement' {4>opd) and 'a 
straight course ' (evdveopia). So that the sense is 'the 7re/z<*|r 
sprang away on its dark path.' 



The Manuscript which contains the following glosses is in 
the Bodleian Library at Oxford, marked Auct. F. 1. 16, and 
was written not later than the early part of the tenth 

It contains the text of the Georgics of Virgil from 2. 120, 
Servius's Commentary on the Eclogues and Georgics, the text 
of the Aeneid, and Servius on the Aeneid. But between 
the commentary on the Georgics and the text of the Aeneid 
occur several pages of excerpts from Isidorus and other authors 
and the first sixty- four of the following glosses, the whole 
being arranged so as to form a brief commentary on all Virgil. 
This is followed by a heading Incipiunt uaria glosemata and 
the glosses 65 to 121. The rest of the glosses are either 
marginal or interlinear, and appear to be written by two 
different hands within a century of the date of the manuscript 
itself. It may be added that the glosses 1 to 121 were not 
first written by the scribe but copied from a book before 

The history of the MS. before the seventeenth century is 
unknown. It was one of three lent by Bernard Rottendorph, 
a physician of Munster, to Nicholas Heinsius, who used it 
for his editions of Virgil, giving it the name Rottendorphianus 
tertius, but forgot to return it to its owner. In 1672, Francis 
Junius, author of the Etymologicurn Anglicanum, then at 
the age of 83, saw and copied the more important of the 
textual glosses in Heinsius's house at Copenhagen. In 1678, 
Junius's transcript came into the Bodleian, and in 1697 



the original MS.: but the connexion between them was 
unknown, and when a selection of the following glosses was 
printed in Nyerup's Symbolce ad Literaturam Teutonicam 
(Haunise, 1787), it was from transcripts of Junius's tran- 
scripts that they were taken ; and all the references to them 
in Graff's Althochdeutscher SprachschaU are from this source. 

At last, in 1877, the real history and significance of the 
long-lost MS. was discovered, and the whole of the glosses have 
been carefully transcribed for the present paper, an answer 
being thus supplied to the anxious query in Haupt's Zeitschr. 
fur Deutsches Alterthum, Vol. XV. p. 103 (1872). This list 
will be reprinted in the second volume of Steinmayer and 
Sievers's Althochdeutsche Glossen, of which the first volume 
was published in 1877. 







Gloss on 

























Hibleis herba est quaui nos dicimus 

Palumbes columbe sunt quas dici- 
mus menistuba. 

Cicuta herba est quam nos dicimus 

Calta cle. 

Carecta multitude- herbarum. In palus- 
tribus quas dicimus semithai. 

Carduus thistilcarda. 

Paliurus hagan. 

Coturno calciamento uenatricio quod 
alii dicunt periscelidas aut hoson. 

Fuliginem quod nos dicimus ruot. 

Licia id est quod dicimus harluf cum 
quo ligant mulieres. 

Vici Vuicchun. 

Rastrum recho. 

Crates egida. 

Yiseo hulls [1 bulis], 

Cuneus vuecke. 

Lappe cledthe. 




Gloss on 





graue robur id est grendil. 



Tribula fiegil. 



Trahe egida. 



[VJirgea preterea id est gart. 

21, 22 


Crates hurth aut egida. 



Bine aures qu riestra dicimus. 



Tilia linda. 



Vallos sunt quos dicimus phali. 





Eilix farn. 



Yri id est animal quod dictum est 



Oscilla scocga. 





Asilo bremo. 



Achalantida id est auis . nathagala. 



stiria id est ihilla. 



Phoce id est animal marinum quod nos 
dicimus elah. 





Melisphilla herba quam dicimus bini- 



Papauer herba quam dicimus maho. 



Amello . herba golthblomo. 



Tigna latta. 





Rimis ntioe . in quibus tabule in 
unum coniunguntur. 



Vnco morsu quern nos dicimus chram- 



Lincis id est los apud nos animal quod 



Fucos drenon quod nos dicimus. 



Sponda lectum siue beddipret. 





In ulua . hoc ~ [in marg. is added "~ est"] 
in palustribus locis ubi crescit iuncus 
ac papyrus . et quod nos .dicimus 





Delfinum . mirisuuin. 



Dispeudia ungifuori. 





Lato uenabula ferro id est staph in 
se habentem la tarn hastam quam nos 
dicimus euurspioz. 





Clauum quod nos dicimus helta in 
summitate est. 



Trudes furha. 





in tribus locis ubi tres uie, in unum con- 
ueniunt que nos dicimus giuuicge. 



Yiscum . id est bidis. 




Gloss on 


A en. 



Bratlllltea blech. 





Picus . auis speth. 



Turbo in modum factus globi rotun- 
dus quern dicimus dock buxum . 
inde erit factus turbo. 



Thirsus stilherbe. 



Rugis hoc dicimus nos rumphusla. 



Aruina mittigarne. 





Sciphus parua staupa. 





Pontis . scalis aut quod rustici dicunt 



Radii rauua. 





Crates clida. 



Papilla . summitas mamme id est uaarte. 





Verbena herba quam dicimus hanaf. 



Caulem comantem id est stipitem cum 
foliis quam dicimus stil. 



A temone hoc est in anteriori parte 
plaustri ubi boues ligantur apud nos 



Callum caro et cutis indurata quod nos 
dicimus suuil. 


Flocci sunt quos nos in uestimentis thiu- 
disce uuuloo dicimus. 


Culcites bedd. 


Culcitum id est plumatium beddiuuidi. 


Cauteriola canteri. 


Toregma scaperede. 


Tornarius thre s lsa [sic, manu ut ui- 
detur prima]. 


Maialis barug. 


Murica snegil. 


Muscus grimo. 


Migale harmo Allec ala3rencia . p] 


Gobio grimpo. 


Esox lahs. 


Lucius hacth. 


Capito alund. 


Timallus . asco. 


Sardinia Tiering. 


Axedones id est humeruli lunisas. 

9 6 



Gloss on 


Scorellus amer. 


Terebra et teretrum nauuger. 


Crabro homut. 


Ancipula fugulclouo. 


Andela brandereda. 

88, 89 

Arula fiurpanne uel herd. 


Apiastrum biniuurt. 


.^Esculus boke uel ec. [A in.JP* = JE, . 
mutatum est.] 


Aestuaria flod . uel bitalassum ubi 
duo maria conueniunt. 


Acinum hindbiri. 


Atramentarium blachorn. 


Atramentum . blac. 


Fasciola uinning [? iunning] 


Yerriculum besmo. 


Yillosa ruge. 


"Villa lininhruge. 


Vadimonium borg. 


Bacinia beri. 


Botholicula stoppo. 


Bracium malt. 


Bracinarium bro u hus [sic, manu ut 
uidetur prima]. 


Bouellium . fated. 


Bradigabo feldhoppo. 


Balista stafslengrie. 


Brancia kian. 


Burdo uurenio. 


Cincindila uuocco. 


Cratus bollo [prima manu "gratus", 
rasura mutatum]. 


Cerasius kirsicbom. 


Cerasium . biri. 


Clauatum giburdid. 


Arnoglossa uuigbrede. 


Plebeios psalmos id est seculares psalmos 
id est uuinilieth. 


Beditus hembrung. 


Petulans uurenisc. 


Pastellus hunegapl. 


Pustula angseta. 



(N.B. Glosses 122 end are interlinear or marginal : those marked with an 
asterisk seem to be older than the rest.) 


Gloss on 

arbores uuilnan 


Georg. 2. 


picee tantum [sic, quoad locum: "uuil- 
nan" perobscurum est]. 


122 6 

taxique nocentes [sic, quoad locum]. 



acie : uuihta. 


Georg. 3. 


aulaea : umbihang. 
e luue dilectus 



dilectus [sic, quoad locum]. 



Huic lineae e regione sunt extrema 
margine hack 



[in dubium est]. 





temo : thisle. 


r Aureus uuahsbl [uidetur " anc . " 



Gilbus badius . falu 


Spadix dun 


Glaucus glasa [forsitan una litera 
adiecta est]. 


Cadius bias [forsitan nil nisi " " 
adiectum est]. 




Petilus fitilu [forsitan " fitiluiz " 

[? asteriscc 





nanda omnia] 

Scutulatus appulgre. 


Guttatus sprutodi p sprurodi]. 


Mannus jiarscutig. 

139, 140 

Mirteus dosan uel uuirebrun. 


Maurus alsuart. 


Iumenta mergeh. 


Toctonarii . thrauandi [sic : ? Totto- 


Tottolarii Telderias [1 Toctolarii]. 



mammis : geclerun [? geelerun, geelcrun]. 



Lappae : cliue. 


Georg. 4. 


tenuia : thunni. 



uisco : mistile. 



tiliae : lindian. 



fucos : drenan. 


' r~ 


Stellio : mol. 



fucus : brana. 



crabro : homut. 



phocas : mirikoi. 



cymba : nauis parua alii cuba \1 Latinum 


Journal of Philology, vol. x. 




Gloss on Servius 


Eel. 6 

. 78 

upupam : uuiduhoppe. 



hirundinem : sualan. 


Eel. 8 

. 74 

stamen : uuarp. 



Licium : heuild. 


Georg. 1. 


lupini : ficbane. 




uisco : mistile. 



glarea : id est arena grat. 


Georg. 2. 


furcille : gajlie uel fur he. [Haec uerba 

etiam in marg. reperiuntur, manu an- 



Georg. 3. 


uicinum : uuasblwric [contextus est : 
"album quod pallori constat esse ui- 


Gloss on 


Aen. 1. 


lyncis : losses. 



suras : uuathan. 



portus : cathoma. 

*168 b 


fucos : uaspe. 



Pal lam : hroc. 


Aen. 2. 


abiete : dcemdum [? dsennuin]. 



foedare : gihonen. 

mapuldreum acernis 

172, 173 


acernis . mapulder. sic, quoad locum]. 



amicis : friundlicun. 



merentem : uuirthiganen. 



testudine : id est densitate armorum id 
est sehilduueri. 

176 6 


ariete : murlraca [? murltaca]. 


Aen. 3. 


socii : isuese. 

178, 179 



forths effusio [sic quoad locum : sed for- 

^X 1 , 

i. gesseod est tasse uerius "gesscod"] 

180, 181 


euasisse : ouerrunnen habbien. 



Aere cauo clipeum : quia ex aere factum 
erat chuculan. ["chuculan" quoad 
locum super "clipeum" est: et est 
uelutsi "cauculan" uel "chuculan" uel 


"ehuculan" scriptum esset; corrector, 

ipse fortasse scriba, certe "huculan" 
scripsit, nisi mero casu paene euanuit 
to "c".] 



antennarum : segelgerd. 




Gloss on 



rudentem : vel rudente circulo guber- 
naculi id est stiruuUh. 



coma : curnilbom. 



aequare : igrundicm. 

introitum imitthi 



ostia saxo saxi [sic, quoad locum : % imu- 

pertaesum : odiosum athrotan. 


Aen. 4. 19 

undar intermissa pinne 

189, 190 


opera interrupta minaeque numana [sic, 
quoad locum : ? = undarnumana "J. 



uenabula : lancee euurspiat. 



fibula : fibula spenule. 

193, 194 


caprae : Capra reho nam crapra get 



167, 168 

terre signum id est erthbigunga 
nimphae [sic, quoad locum]. 



talaria : scridfoos [? serid- , sorid-foos]. 



tranat : vulotad. 



mento : chinne. 



ciet : utihalad. 



procos : appetitores druMingas. 
mergis : dukiras. 


Aen. 5. 128 



murice : duuansten. 



pacisci 1 teneant 1 : rihingian [ Vna erat 
adiecta litera, "r" dubium est]. 



taeniis : tena nestila. 



leuato lucida : gifuriuidemo. 



titubata : calcata uuankonda. 



impubis : UTiharldharht \) ex "unbarh- 
harht" correctum]. 



primi : uuassitiluot [? uuasfitiluot]. 



Lustrauere : umbiridun. 



hospes : uuerd ["e" fortasse dubium est]. 



fortuna : missiburi. 



Pertaesum : odiosum sit athrotan. 



incensus : giscund. 

auernum sine uerno 



auerna per alta uuunni [sic, quoad locum]. 



Elysium : sunnanueld. 



acerra : cerra uas turis arcula tu- 
raria . id est roc/at [In "rocfat" "t" 
fortasse dubium est]. 



forum : tnahal. 



periurae : forsuorenero. 












227, 228 












257 a 
257 6 


Gloss on 

Aen. 6. 180 



Aen. 7. 109 



Aen. 8. 178 

Aen. 9. 87 




Aen. 10. 

adfixus : tohlinandi. 

piceae : fiuchtie omnes arbores unde pix 
uenit [] fuichtie], 

Fraxineae : eschine. 

uiscum : mistil. 

robore : rinda. 

offam : muhful. 

offam : deuuin [? cleuuin, deuiun]. 

recensebat : talde. 

adorea liba : bradine dishi. 

pronuba : maherin. 

torre : brande. 

alga : rietgras. 

lucida tergunt uegadun [sic, quoad lo- 

Aruina : midgami. 

Signa : gutfanan. 

pero : striorling [? streorling], 

picti : pictus uehe. 

acerno : mapuldrin. 

1 populus : halebirie. 

picea : picea uurie. 

iactant : hromiat. 

statione : uuardu. 

mouebant id est uidebant scuddun. 

testudine : testudo scelduuara. 

tabulas : scindulan. 

rastris : egithon. 

manicas : ermberg. 

petat : stichit ["s" fortasse dubium est], 

pulmone : lungandian. 

falarica uenit : stephstrengiere. 

fortuna : missiburi. 

conuerso : togidanemo. 

Dum : iaunt. 

thoraca : brungq. 

uelit (in "uellit" correctum) : a terra 

costis : ribbun. 

gemini : ituisan [? "itiusan," uel = ".i 
tuisan," sc. "id est tuisan"]. 

cesserunt : rumdun. 

uitta : xxxnding [Vix dubium est quin 
scriba "uuunding" indicet]. 

gradine : quasi gradatim id est stillo. 




Gloss on 



pactos : gimahlida. 



dedecus : turpitudinis honithia. 

impellat stachi 



exigat ensem [sic, quoad locum]. 

erexit struuide 



inhorruit armos [sic, quoad locum : 
1 "striuude"]. 



Contulit : angenbrahte. 

" 264 


abiectum : nithergiuuorpenen. 



Yiderit : gisehe et hoc uerbum ironia est. 



Cedebat : retrahebat thananfor. 



neuerat : brordade. 



Bellatoris equi : uuihherses. 



calcibus : houun. 



effusum : nithergiuuorpenen. 



nefas : honithia. 


Aen. 11. 73 

laeta : uuillich. 



reposto : nithergisettemo. 



plaga : uuald. 



Desiluit : umbette. 



quo : thar. 



sonuere : hullun. 



fundam : slengiran. 



omine : hele. 



fremit : thrasida. 



ardescit : gerode. 





lunatis agmina peltis : in modum lun 
factus sinuuuellun. 



Suffuso reuolutus : nitheriuallenemu 
p "-eruiall-" : uulgo "Suffosso"]. 



Yerba : hrom. 



interrita : ungimelademu. 



Pictus acu : gibrordade. 



laxos : unspannane. 



Arietat : stiet. 


Aen. 12. 7 

toros : toros crocon. 



candentem : gloianden. 



radii : gerdiun [1 gerduin]. 



admouit : adiunxit todeda. 



notant : steppodun. 



lancibus : uasis baexuuegun ["e" prius 
dubium est, "x" uix dubium : est 
uelut si quis scripsisset "baxuuegun" 
et in "baec-" uel "baex-uuegun" mu- 



No. ' 

Gloss on 




deuocet [in " deuouet" correctum] : bifal. 
fibula : hringa. 





Occupat : slog. 

299, 300 


prima : infuristemo. 



extorquet : utauuende.. 



sternacis : id est sternentis spwmandies. 



Sollicitat : uuegida. 



Dictamnum : umteuurt. 



caulem : stok. 



panaceam : herbam rauuano p " riniuo- 
no," "reniuano"]. 



temone : thisle. 



conducta : ingimedodera. 



Discurrunt : tiuarad. 



miserum : unothi. 




spatiumque dedere [sic, quoad locum]. 



uergat : nitheruuaga. 



sequi : shietan. 



parthus : ungar [sc. Hungarius 1] 

Gloss on Servius 



2. 229 

Expendisse : id est soluisse ungebdan. 




clunis : isben uel ars belli uel posterior 


pars omnis animalis. 



4. 548 

Yrbanus : alter liber dicit urbane 



5. 269 

taenis : nestilun. 



6. 704 

Yirgulta : sumerladaw,, 




Gloss on 

Georg. 3. 25 

Aen. 5. 337 
Aen. 10. 23 


uidere theatJte A 

scena v ut uersis [in marg. "quemad- 

modum "]. 
Euryalus : fanfullistia. 
Quin intra : netian. 




N.B. Numerals printed thus 234 are in the text, 234 and 234 are interlinear 
(or marginal) in the older hand, in the more recent hand. 

adueh 1 
aec 91 
alsuart 141 
alund 79 
amer 83 

angenbrahte 263 
angseta 121 
-apl 120, cf. sq. 
appulgre 136, cf. foreg. 
ars 317 
asco 80 

athrotan 188 212 
-auuende 301 


baexuuegun (1 baecuuegun) 295 

-bane 160 

-barldharht (? barhharht) 207 

barug 72 

? baxuuegun 295 

bedd 67, cf. sqq. 

beddipret 41, cf. foreg. 

beddiuuidi 68, cf. bedd 

belli 318 

-berg 246 

-beri 102, cf. biri 

besmo 98 

-bette 275 

bifal 296 

-bigunga 195 

-bihang 124 

biniuurt 33 90 

biri 114 (-biri 94), cf. beri, birie 

-biridun 209 

-birie 238, cf. biri 

blac 96, cf. sq. 

blachorn 95, cf. foreg. 

-bl[anc] 130 : -blanc 165 

bias- 134 

blech 51 

-blomo 35 

boke 91 


-bom 113 185 

borg 101 

bradine 227 

-brahte 263 

brana 152 

brande 230, cf. sq. 

branderede 87, cf. foreg. 

-brede 116 

bremo 29 

bro u hus 105 

brordade 267 (-brordade 287) 

-brun 140 

-brang 118 

brunge 253 

bulis 50, % bulis 14, cf. hulis 

-burdid 115 



canteri 69 
-carda 6 
cathoma 168 a 
? cauculan 1&2 
chinne igS 
chrampho 38 
chuculan 1&2 
cle 4 

cledthe 16 
1 cleuuin 225 
clida 58 60 
cliue 146 
-clouo 86 
crocon 290 
cuba 155 
curnilbom 185 


daenniun (? dsennuin) 17a 

-danemo 251 

-deda 293 

deuuin (? deuiun) 225 

diski 228 

doch 53 

-dodera 308 

dosan 139 

drenan 150, cf. sq. 

drenon 40, cf. foreg, 

druhtingas 200 

dukiras 201 

dun 132 

duuansten 202 



egida 13 19 22, cf. sq. 

egithon 245, cf. foreg* 

1 ehuculan 182 

elah 32 

ermberg 246 

erthbigunga 195 
eschine 221 
euurspiat 191, cf. sq. 
euurspioz 46, cf. foreg 


-fal 296 
faled 106 
falu 131 
-fanan 234 
fanfullistia (1) 323 
farn 26 
-fat 216 
feldhoppo 107 
fiarscutig 138 
ficbane 160 
fitilu- 135 
fiuchtie 220 
fiurpann 88 
flegil 18 
-foos 196 
-for 266 

forsuorenero 218 
forths 178 
friundlicun 174 
fronisco 319 
fugulclouo 86 
% fuichtie 220 
-ful 224 
-fuori 44 
furistemo 300 
-furiuidemo 205 
furka 48, cf, sq. 
furke 164, cf . foreg. 


gaflie 163 
-game 56, cf. sq. 
-garni 233, cf. foreg. 



garfc 20 

-gebdan 315 

geclerun 145 

1 geelcrun, 1 geelerun 145 

-gerd 183 

gerdiun (? gerduin) 292 

gerode 281 

gesseod (i gesscod) 179 

get 194 

gibrordade 287 

giburdid 115 

-gidanemo 251 

-gifuori 44 

gifuriuidemo 205 

gihonen 171, cf. honithia 

gimahlida 259 

gimedodera 308 

-gimelademu 286 

giscund 213 

gisehe 265 

-gisettemo 273 

giuuicge 49 

-giuuorpenen 264 270 

glasa 133 

gloianden 291 

golthblomo 35 

-gras 231 

grat 162 

-gre 136 

grendil 17 

grimo 74 

grimpo 76 

-grundian 186 

-gunga 195 

gutfanan 234 


habbien 181 
hach- 126 
hacth 78 

hagan 7 

-halad 199 

halebirie 238 

hanaf 62 

-hang 124 

-harht 207 

harluf 10 

harmo 75 

hele 279 

helta 47 

hembrung 118 

-herbe 54 

herd 89 

hering 81 

-herses 268 

heuild 159 

hindbiri 94 

-hlinandi 219 

-honen 171, cf. sq. 

honithia 260 271, cf. foreg. 

-hoppe 156, cf. sq. 

-hoppo 107, cf. foreg. 

-horn 95 

hornut 85 153 

hoson 8 

houun 269 

hringa 297 

hroc 169 

hrom 285, cf. sq. 

hromiat 240, cf. foreg. 

-hruge 100, cf. ruge. 

1 huculan 182 

hulis 14, cf. bulis 

hullun 277 

hunegapl 120 

hurth 21 

-hus 105 

iaunt 252 



ichas 122 b 
igrundian 186 
-ihalad 199 
ihilla 31 

imitthi (I imuthi) 187 
in 299 

ingimedodera 308 
inn- 127 
isben 316 
isuese 177 
ituisan 256 
-iuallenemu 284 
% iunning 97 


kian 109 
kirsicbom 113 
-koi 154 
-konda 206 

-ladan 321 

lahs 77 

latta 36 

-lieth 117 

linda 24, cf. sq. 

lindian 149, cf. foreg. 

lininhruge 100 

los 39, cf. losses 

losda 254 

losses 166, cf. los 

-luf 10 

lungandian 248 

lunisas 82 

luue 125 


mahal 217 
-mahlida 259 
maho 34 

makerin 229 

malt 104 

mapulder 173, cf. sqq. 

mapuldreum 172, cf. foreg. 

mapuldrin 237, cf. mapulder. 

-melademu 286 

-medodera 308 

menistuba 2 

mergeh 142 

midgarni 233, cf. mittigarne 

mirikoi 154 

mirisuuin 43 

missiburi 211 250 

mistil 222, cf. sq. 

mistile 148 161, cf. foreg. 

mittigarne 56, cf. midgarni. 

mol 151 

muhful 224 

murlraca (? murltaca) 176 b 


nathagala 30 
nauuger 84 
nestila 204, cf. sq. 
nestilun 320, cf. foreg. 
netian (?) 324 
nithergisettemo 273 
nithergmuorpenen 264 270 
nitheriuallenemu (? nitheruialle- 

nemu) 284 
nitheruuaga 311 
numana (? tmdar-) 190 
nuoe 37 


-othi 310 
ouerrunnen 180 

-pann 88 



phali 25 
-pret 41 


1 -raca 176 b 

rauua 59 

rauuano 306 

recho 12 

-rede 70 87 

reho 193 

? reniuano 306 

ribbun 255 

-ridun 209 

riestra 23 

rietgras 231 

-rihingian (amissa litera prima) 


rinda 223 

1 riniuano 306 

rocfat 216 

-rode 281 

ruge 99, cf. hruge 

rumdun 257 a, 311 

rumphusla 55 

-runnen 180 

ruot 9 

scaperede 70 

scelduuara 243, t cf. schilduueri 
scheming 3 

schilduueri 176 a, 1 cf. scelduuara 
scindulan 244 
scocga 28 
scridfoos 196 
scuddun 242 
-scund 213 
-scutig 138 
segelgerd 183 
-sehe 265 

semithai 5 

% seridfoos 196 

-settemo 273 

sinuuellun 283 

skietan 313 

slengiran 278, cf. sqq. 

-slengrie 108, cf. foreg. 

slingirun 282, cf. slengiran 

slog 298 

snegil 73 

? soridfoos 196 

-spannane 288 

spenule 192 

speth 52 

-spiat 191, cf. sq. 

-spioz 46, cf. foreg. 

sprutodi (? sprurodi) 137 

spurnandies 302. 

stachi 261, cf. stichit 

stafslengrie 108, cf. staph, slen- 
giran, stephstrengiere 

staph 45, cf. foreg. 

staupa 57 

-sten 202 

stephstrengiere 249, cf. staf- 

steppodun 294 

stichit 247, cf. stachi 

stieruuith 184 

stiet 289 

stil 63, cf. sq. 

stilherbe 54, cf. foreg.. 

stillo 258 

stok 305 

stoppo 103 

I streorling 235 

striorling 235 

struuide 262 

sualan 157 

-suart 141 



sumerladan 321 
sunnanueld 215 
-suorenero 218 
suuerdollon 42 
suuil 65 
suuin 43 

? -taca 176 b 
talde 226 
telderias 144 
thananfor 266 
thar 276 
theathe (?) 322 
thessalia 64, cf. sq. 
thisle 307, cf. foreg. 
thistilcarda 6 
thrasida 280 
thrauandi 143 
thre s lsa 71 
thunni 147 
tiuarad 309 
todeda 293 
togidanemo 251 
tohlinandi 219 
-tuba 2 
% tuisan 256 

V u. Cf. uu 

-uallenemu 284 
-uarad 309 
uaspe 168 b 
uegadun 232 
uehe 236 
-ueld 215 
1 -uiallenemu 284 
uinning 97 
umbette 275 
umbihang 124 

unibiridun 209 

unbarlharht (? unbarhharht) 207 

undar (? -numana) 189 

tingar 314 

tingebdan 315 

ungifuori 44 

nngimelademu 286 

unotlii 310 

unspannane 288 

urrint 27 

utauuende 301 

utihalad 199 

uurenio 110, cf. sq. 

imrenise 119, cf. foreg. 

uurie 239 

-uurt 33 90 304 


vulotad 197 

VV. Cf. u 

uua- 128 

uuaga 311 

uuahsbl- 130, cf. uuasblanc 

uuald 274 

uuankonda 206 

uuardu 241 

uuarp 158 

uuara 243 

uuarte 61 

uuasblanc 165, cf. uuahsbl- 

uuassitiluofc (1 uuasfitiluot) 208 

uuathan 167 

uuecke 15 

uuegida 303 

-uuegun 295 

-uuellun 283 

-uuende 301 

imerd 210 
-uueri 176 a 
-uuicge 49 
uuicliun 11 
-uuiddi 68 
imidduhoppe 156 
uuigbrede 116 
uuihherses 268 
uuihta 123 
uuillich 272 
uuilnan 122 a 
uuinilieth 117 


uuirebrun 140 
uuirthiganen 175 
uuiteuurt 304 
-uuith 184 
uuocco 111 
-uuorpenen 264 270 
uuuloo 6Q 
? uuunding 257 b 


uuunni 214 


xxxnding 257 b 




The article published by Mr Monro under this heading in 
the last number of the Journal of Philology seems to require 
a reply, more especially as the author is so impressed with the 
untenability of my position as to regret that a work " so well 
adapted otherwise" for general readers as Prof. Mahaffy's 
History of Greek Literature, should have given currency to 
what he regards as a mass of misstatements and erroneous 
reasoning. I hope to show as briefly as possible that the 
statements are not misstatements and that the reasoning is 
not erroneous. 

I must begin by thanking Mr Monro for the clerical errors 
he has pointed out in the delinquent Appendix. Perhaps they 
will be excused when I say that the whole system of reference 
had to be changed while the Appendix was passing through 
the press, and that owing to my absence from England I was 
unable personally to superintend it. I must next draw atten- 
tion to the fact that my primary purpose was not to determine 
whether Homer was an actual individual or a mere abstraction, 
whether he was the author of the whole of the Iliad and 
Odyssey, and whether he lived in the twelfth or the fifth century 
before our era, but to examine the age and character of the 
Epic dialect as we now have it. All I was concerned with 
showing was that the Homeric dialect is an artificial one, that 
it bears traces of having passed through several phases of 
existence, and that in its present form it is as late as the fifth 
century B. c. Professor MahafTy, however, was perfectly right 
in assuming that I placed the date of " the first origin of the 
Iliad and Odyssey as complete poems at or near the opening 


of the seventh century B.C." I certainly did so at the time 
I wrote the chapter, considering that the new Ionic forms 
found in Homer and Herodotus might be as old as that period, 
and that the Attic colouring which, in common with Aristarchus, 
Cobet and Paley, I find in Homer, was simply evidence that 
the poems had undergone a process of manipulation in Attica. 
Subsequent study and reflection, however, have brought me 
more and more over to Prof. Paley's view, and I find it 
increasingly difficult to believe that the Homeric dialect in its 
present form can claim a much greater antiquity than the 
Periklean era. Many of the forms which are usually regarded 
as archaic rather seem to me, to borrow a term from the art- 
critics, archaistic. Of course this does not prove anything as 
to the age of the original Iliad and Odyssey, or of the original 
Homer, whoever he may have been ; if Mr Monro likes, he may 
still believe that Homer lived before the Dorian invasion of the 

I will now take Mr Monro's objections and criticisms 
seriatim, dealing with each as briefly as possible. I cannot 
help remarking, however, that the general impression they 
produce upon me is that of a system of apologetics which I 
fancied had long since been discredited by critical science. 

Mr Monro first objects to my use of the term "period.'* 
It is, however, consecrated by custom, and I do not see what 
other term I could have chosen to express my meaning. The 
Ionic genitives in -ov presuppose older genitives in -oo, and 
these again still older genitives in -oto. If we follow Ahrens, 
all three forms are found in Homer. I am surely, therefore, 
justified in saying that Homer contains forms belonging to 
three different periods in the history of the Ionic dialect. Mr 
Monro says that " we cannot assume that all the forms which 
are similarly intermediate between two others belong to the 
same chronological period." But I never assumed anything of 
the kind ; I was dealing with philology, not with history. It 
is sufficient to know that in the Homeric language we have 
relics of three different phases of growth of the Ionic dialect ; 
those belonging to the first and third phases cannot be older 
than the earliest beginnings of Epic poetry or later than the 


final redaction of the Iliad and Odyssey. So far as I can see, 
it matters little whether the relics of the second phase all 
belong to exactly the same chronological period or not. They 
must fall somewhere between the first and the second periods. 
Mr Monro asks what was the middle Ionic form of vrjos, veo? ? 
If an answer is necessary, we may say i^o? itself, the older 
form which may or may not be preserved in Homer being 
1/77F0?. I do not understand the point of Mr Monro's other 
question : " If vqos is old Ionic, and consequently archaic, how 
are we to explain the fact that it is very much commoner than 
j/60? V* since according to my view the choice of equivalent 
words in later Epic poetry was determined partly by the 
exigencies of the metre, partly by an affectation of archaism. 

We come next to the question of the relation of the lan- 
guage of Homer to that of Herodotus. Here as elsewhere, it 
must be understood, I have given but a few examples in sup- 
port of my position out of the many which I have collected in 
my note-books, and as I have taken care not to select the most 
typical or convincing, but the first that came to hand, the 
examples are necessarily of unequal strength. At the outset 
Mr Monro seems to doubt whether he has not "strangely 
misunderstood " me. He certainly has done so. My point was 
not to prove that the New-Ionic parts of Homer are Hero- 
dotean, but that the language of Herodotus and of certain parts 
of the Homeric dialect belong to the same period in the history 
of Ionic speech. It was not necessary, therefore, to discuss 
whether rcdelai and the other words arraigned by Mr Monro 
might possibly "date from the earliest periods of Ionic;" all 
I had to show was that they were employed by Herodotus, 
and were consequently in use in Ionic literature during what 
I have termed the New- Ionic period of the language. Their 
antiquity must be tested by other evidence, and when so tested, 
I venture to think, in spite of Mr Monro, fails to be substan- 
tiated in the majority of cases 1 . Except in the case of tlOcIo-l 

1 Thus the Attic i<r/xii> is an older dialects first separated: the omission 

form than the Ionic d/xtp, and must of the augment is distinctly the mark 

therefore have been the form used in of a later time; 0i/\a/cos and fidprvpoi 

Old Ionic when the Attic and Ionic are the products of an analogy which 


and its congeners, the Attic forms are older than the corres- 
ponding ones found in Homer and Herodotus, and must ac- 
cordingly have been the forms used by Old Ionic when the 
Attic dialect branched off from it, while in some instances we 
meet with forms due to an analogy which seems first setting in 
during the age of Herodotus (as may be inferred from the 
small number of examples of it found in that author), or (as in 
the case of the augment) with marks of phonetic decay which 
are actually more numerous in the pages of Homer than in 
those of the historian of Halikarnassos. We must not forget 
that when the age of the Epic language is in question, we have 
no ridit to assume that forms found for the first time in 
Herodotus and the New Ionic inscriptions existed at a much 

seems only just setting in during the 
age of Herodotus ; the etymologically 
incorrect rfCcrav is probably late in spite 
of the Old Persian -aisa; and as the 
iteratives in -gkov are not found in 
Attic prose we may gather that they 
are subsequent to the separation of 
the Attic and Ionic dialects. In fact, 
the iterative Preterites are confined to 
the language of Homer (and his imita- 
tors), Herodotus and the later Epic 
writers. We know, therefore, that they 
characterised the New Ionic ; we do 
not know that they existed in the 
Ionic dialect in any earlier stage of its 
career. Mr Monro is mistaken in saying 
that xPW is "probably not an instance 
of lost augment;" xpV n0 doubt was 
originally a substantive, but when an 
imperfect was formed from it the 
analogy of other augmented imperfects 
was necessarily followed. That Hero- 
dotus should omit the augment in a 
case of this kind is a strong proof that 
the omission of the augment is a 
mark of linguistic decay, characterising 
the New Ionic period of the Ionic dia- 
lect. It thus throws an important light 
on the omission of the augment in 
Homer, and I have accordingly referred 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 

to it. The loss of the aspirate in 
HeTaXpevos and iirdXfMevos is New 
Ionic ; so therefore would its loss be 
in the Epic aXro. 

In his article on Homer in the En- 
cyclopedia Britannica Mr Monro sup- 
ports his assertion that the Homeric 
dialect is Old Ionic by the fact that 
many more weak (miscalled "strong") 
or second aorists, as compared with 
the number of sigmatic aorists, appear 
in Homer than in Attic prose. But he 
forgets that both aorists existed in the 
Parent- Aryan, and that there was no 
reason except custom and analogy why 
tenses should have continued to be 
formed on the one type more than on 
the other. As a matter of fact the weak 
aorist is the imperfect of the weak ver- 
bal stem, and several so-called second 
aorists in Homer are really imperfects. 
If there are more weak aorists in Homer 
than in Attic. prose, all we are justified 
in inferring is that they suited the 
metre better than the sigmatic aorists, 
or seemed to have a greater flavour of 
antiquity about them. Some of them, 
like Kixeiv, tvrvyov, hiviirov and 
yjvhairop, are certainly analogic for- 



earlier date, unless (1) they are also found in Attic, or (2) can 
be shewn to have belonged to the Parent-Aryan. We must 
also not forget that in a question of this kind three or four 
certain forms, and Mr Monro admits that even the short list 
I have given contains as many, are quite sufficient. 

Mr Monro now endeavours to set aside my argument from 
the fact that whereas forms like the genitives in -ev and >eu? 
are monosyllabic in Homer, they are written -eo in New Ionic 
inscriptions up to the beginning of the fourth century B.C. 
In this he has the support of German scholars, who finding in 
nine instances that ev has been written eo in Ionic inscriptions 
infer that eo was pronounced as a diphthong. But the inference 
is obviously unjustifiable. Eo could not be pronounced diph- 
thongally, and nine instances are not sufficient to upset a 
phonetic fact, more especially when we consider that they may 
either be the result of a misleading analogy, or indicate a 
disyllabic pronunciation of the ordinary ev on the part of the 
engraver 1 . I do not find any German scholar venturing to 
assert that @eo- in compounds was pronounced as a diphthong 
unless it was written ev-. 

Mr Monro then suggests at least, such I understand to be 
his meaning that words like /3\goctk(d, arvyelv, cr/cdfa, /cpoaiva), 
aveKrjKie from the post-Homeric taj/cis, or the weak passive 
future fjuiyrjo-eaOai, were derived by the Alexandrine poets from 
the language of the archaic period. I doubt whether he will 
find many comparative philologists to agree with him. 

Passing over Mr Monro's supposition that Homer is older 
than the Dorian migration, a supposition, however, which 
seems to me not only utterly untenable but also to make the 
whole history of Homeric poetry unintelligible 2 , I come to his 
treatment of the ^Eolisms in Homer. Here I would recom- 
mend a perusal of the careful work of Hinrichs Be Homericce 
Elocutionis Vestigiis JEolicis, where, by the way, Mr Monro 

1 The latter alternative is supported their three tribes and already esta- 
by 2eorjpov for Severum (Corp. Insc. Wished in Krete, which presupposes 
3423). their previous occupation of the Pe- 

2 How would he explain Od/xix. 177, loponnesus and maritime extension ? 
where we find the Dorians divided into 


will find an answer to his question as to the iEolic character of 
tcev, Mr Monro further asks why allies, $ftf*e<; may not be 
considered Old Ionic ? I answer : (1) because this is phonetic- 
ally impossible, and (2) because we know they were iEolic. 
As to Mr Monro's idea that honorary epithets like dpv/t&v or 
traditional proper names like epaiTT)*; may have been intro- 
duced into Ionic poetry directly from the spoken iEolic dialects 
of the day, I can only say that it seems to me in the highest 
degree improbable. The poets of a pre-literary age are not 
likely to have gone for their honorary epithets to another 
dialect unless these epithets had already become fixed and 
stereotyped in their dialectic form. And the only conceivable 
way in which they could have become so fixed and stereotyped 
was by their having been coined and used in iEolic poetry. In 
a footnote Mr Monro quotes G. Meyer's Griechische Grammatik ; 
but I do not think he has quite rightly understood the latter's 
meaning. Meyer does not intend to say that we do not know 
the phonetic peculiarities of the several Greek dialects and the 
forms which belong to each ; a large part of his grammar is 
based on the opposite assumption ; but that the relation of the 
dialects one to the other is still in great measure disputable. 
Even this assertion, however, is carefully guarded by the next 
sentence which Mr Monro does not quote. 

I have included a<f)icn, in the list of Atticisms because 
Herodotus certainly uses acpl while the reading g$igi in his 
text is not placed beyond doubt, and eireaov because the parallel 
forms in Homer (agere, olae, l%ov, &c.) lead me to consider it to 
have been borrowed by Attic literature from the Epic dialect. 
%ed is not supported by the genitive deacov, since I regard the 
latter as archaistic, not archaic. G. Meyer, imagining Oedwv 
to be archaic, holds that 6ed was "derived from older non- 
Ionic poetry, while in Ionic #eo? seems to have stood for 
both genders." We know, however, that the word was Attic. 
Mr Monro ignores altogether the Atticisms brought forward by 
Prof. Paley, the most striking of which I have quoted, and 
which, I am now convinced, Prof. Paley is right in regarding as 
evidences of the Periklean age. 



I now come to the examples of false analogy. Mr Monro's 
question: "how do we know" that a form produced by false 
analogy " is the work of poets or rhapsodists, not of the people 
at large ? " can only be answered by an examination of the false 
forms themselves. When they are modelled or supposed to be 
modelled after archaic words and forms which had disappeared 
from common use, or after corrupted or misunderstood words 
and forms preserved in poetry, we possess the criterion that is 
required. The instances I have chosen belong to the language 
of literature not of every-day life. Mr Monro's second question 
has been already anticipated on page 518 of my Appendix. I 
will now take his criticisms in detail. 

(1) Our interpretation of ei/cco differs; I think mine the 
more natural. It certainly has the support of similar forms. 

(2) Hefavyoi implies 7re(f)ev<yco, so I do not see the force of 
the objection. 

(3) Benfey has long since shown that the so-called second 
aorist and the imperfect are originally the same. 'EirecfrpaSov 
is as much the imperfect of irefypdhco as ervirrov is of tv7tt(o. 
Why could the perfect ire^paha not be formed ? 

(4) I was wrong in saying that the futures Ihrjaw and 
Tvyfio'm existed in Homer, and am duly penitent. But though 
rv^rjcrcD does not exist, irv^rjo-a does, which has the same value 
as Tvyr\(j<x> for the purposes of my argument. 

(5) The "root" of 6r)o-a> is 6e- y whereas the "root" of 
iviowijo'G) is aeir or rather <T7r, not cnre. 

Mr Monro goes on to blame me for fitting Wackernagel's 
"ingenious hypothesis" into my "general theory." But surely 
I may be allowed to use whatever grist comes to my mill. I 
was guilty, however, of writing a misleading sentence when I 
said that "the so-called diectasis...has been proved by Mangold 
and Wackernagel to be the result of an affected archaism." I 
meant, and ought to have said, that it has been proved by their 
researches to be so. 


The criticisms in detail with which Mr Monro concludes his 
article are relegated to a footnote; I have therefore appended 
my replies to them in the same form 1 . 

1 (1) I cannot admit Allen's expla- 
nation of the Lokrian f6n. G. Meyer 
says in his Grammar which Mr Monro 
quotes as an authority: "Das griechische 
Eelativum lautet os, a, 0. Die beliebte . 
Identificierung desselben mit dem ai. 
Relativum yds, yd, ydt scheitert an 
der einen Form fbn, die auf der 
lokrischen Inschrift von Oiantheia'a 6 
als Neutrum des Pronomens steht. 
Vergeblich hat Curtius die Bedeutung 
dieses f abzuschwachen versucht." 

(2) I am duly thankful to Mr Monro 
for pointing out this clerical blunder. 

(3) By way of answer I would refer 
to Hinrichs : De homerica elocutionis 
Vestigiis JEolieis pp. 62, 63. 

(4) If mvvpes is not iEolic, what is 
it ? Its phonetic form proves that it is 
neither Ionic nor Doric, and at the 
same time justifies the usual opinion 
of scholars, which pronounces it to be 
iEolic. As Mr Monro himself says, 
"the nearest known form is the Les- 
bian irtaavpes," and Lesbian is the 
iEolic dialect nearest akin to the iEolic 
dialects spoken on the mainland oppo- 
site. The Lesbian form, however, is 
more archaic than the Homeric. 

(5) We can explain the various read- 
ing iprfptdaT' from A^XefSar', but not 
iX^e'dar from epr)pk8ar\ 'EX^X^Sar' is 
further supported by eX^X^ar', which, 
however, as Mr Monro well knows, is 
an inferior reading. 

(6) Mr Monro does not say why 
Clemm "can hardly be right." 

(7) Prof. Paley*s explanation seems 
to me the only correct one. How does 
Mr Monro propose to get rid of the con- 
junction r ? 

(8) Buttmann's explanation will not 

(9) Phonology shows that 7rX^es can 
have no real connection with the com- 
parative, as the sense and syntax of the 
passages in which it is found require. 
The only root to which the word can 
be referred is 7rXe- "to be full," the 
form originating in the supposed 
analogy of words like evptes. Prof. 
Paley may perhaps be right in thinking 
that the New Ionic ir\evv for 7rX^oi' 
gave rise to the false interpretation of 
7rXees, ir\ees being to tXcvv as eupkes to 

(10) I must maintain my correctness 
in stating that according to Curtius 
the first e in the infinitives in -eetp is 
historically false. 'Idelv for ite-ev is the 
correct form ; the insertion of the first 
e makes it incorrect. 

(11) My explanation of seems 
to me the less "violent" one. For 
reasons against that of Wackernagel 
see G. Meyer, Griechische Grammatik 
p. 193. I may add that there is quite 
a long list of words in Homer (tedva, 
ieicrdfxevos, eeinocn &c.) in which an 
initial vowel, erroneously explained as 
"prothetic," has been introduced be- 
fore the digamma through the influence 
of false analogy. 

(12) I was thinking of words like 
Kadrj/xai, Kadvirepde, to which we may 
perhaps add words like 5ei.8kxo.Tai, 

(13) A "fixed place" may still be "a 
choice of three or four " when the choice, 
as here, is further limited. What does 
Mr Monro mean by "considering the 
metrical form " ? 

(14) I gratefully accept Mr Monro's 
corrections. I had already noted them 
for a second edition of Prof. Mahaffy's 
work. But for obvious reasons I can- 


Mr Monro's views of the Epic dialect seem to me to be 
influenced by a previous assumption of the antiquity of the 
Iliad and Odyssey, and he is therefore anxious to explain away 
whatever appears to militate against this assumption. I do not 
think I can be justly accused of being influenced by a counter 
hypothesis. My first investigations into the Homeric dialect 
were made with a full conviction of its great antiquity, and it is 
only little by little that I have been forced by what I believe to 
be overwhelming evidence into the position I now occupy. At 
the time I wrote the Appendix to Prof. Mahaffy's volume I 
still thought it possible to maintain that the Homeric language 
in its present form belonged in substance to the older phase of 
the Ionic dialect. I cannot do so any longer. The marks of 
conventionality and modernism are too numerous and inter- 
penetrating to be ignored, and I cannot resist the cumulative 
force of the " Periklean " Atticisms which Prof. Paley has 
brought forward. Much, as I now see, that is usually termed 
archaic is rather archaistic, metrical necessity and the affecta- 
tion of antiquity largely dominating the choice of words and 
forms 1 . Can anyone read Homer and Apollonius Rhodius 
together without prepossessions and prejudice, and then say 
that the language used in the two works is separated by a wide 

not agree with what he remarks about be rejected for phonetic reasons, and 

facT-fjp. the less said about the roots av, ai and 

(15) The evidence is of course far the like the better. The word always 
too long to be given here ; but it will comes at the end of a verse, and there- 
be found in the works of the scholars fore at once suggests the common 
who have laboured upon these Epics. phrase irarpiSa yalav (and irarpidi yairi), 
In the case of the Nibelungen Lied and which I believe formed the model for 
the Kalevala it is so notorious that I the new coinage ata, the 7 being sup- 
should have imagined it was well known posed to be the particle ye (7'). Con- 
even to Greek scholars. If the Edda sequently irarpldos at-qs was formed in 
is not an Epic, what in the world is it? imitation of Trarpida ycuav and irarpldi 
The Kal6vala seems to me to offer the 7^ and the archaic word, as it was 
closest possible analogy to the Iliad imagined to be because never heard 
and Odyssey, especially to the latter, in living speech, was introduced into 
and I fancy the majority of its readers other passages where it suited the 
will be of my opinion. metre better than yaia. Hence we 

1 The Epic ata or airj may be quoted have Kadopia/xevos alav, iiraLdvaTCU atav, 

as an example of this. The attempt lir'' alav, and virtp atys. 
of Curtius to derive it from yaia must 


interval of time ? Of course, we are told that Apollonius Rho- 
dius was an u imitator/' but how do we know that Homer was 
not one too ? If we would rightly understand the Epic dialect 
I believe we must regard the language of Homer not as a form 
of Old Ionic or as a model for later writers, but in its present 
form as the last embodiment of an artificial dialect whose roots 
go back to the lost poems of ancient iEolis and which was 
nurtured and moulded by generation after generation of Ionic 
poets through long periods of time. In judging thus of the 
present text of Homer, however, I do not pretend to determine 
when the Iliad and Odyssey first took shape as independent 
poems or whether the Homer who composed them was one or 



If we compare the teaching of the Phaedo concerning yjrvxv 
with that of several other Platonic dialogues, two startling 
discrepancies seem to he manifest. Grote, in his chapter on 
the Phaedo 1 , has with his accustomed clearness stated them 
as follows: 'In the Phaedon, the soul is noted as the seat of 
reason, intellect, the love of wisdom or knowledge exclusively : 
all that belongs to passion and appetite is put to account of 
the body : this is distinctly contrary to the Philebus, in which 
dialogue Sokrates affirms that desire or appetite cannot belong 
to the body, but belong only to the soul.... That controul, which 
in the Republic is exercised by the rational soul over the 
passionate and appetitive souls, is in the Phaedon exercised 
(though imperfectly) by the one and only soul over the body. 
In the Republic and Timaeus, the soul is a tripartite aggreg- 
ate, a community of parts, a compound : in the Phaedon, 
Sokrates asserts it to be uncompounded, making this fact a 
point in his argument 2 .' 

Thus the difficulties are, (1) in the Phaedo desires, fears, 
&c. are attributed to body, while in the Philebus such 

1 Grote's Plato, vol. n p. 159 (2nd we read on the contrary in the Sym- 
ed.). posion that soul and body alike are in 

2 A third difficulty started by Grote, a constant and unremitting variation, 
I conceive to be illusory : he says, neither one nor the other ever continu- 
* Again in the Phaedon the soul is pro- ing in the same condition.' But in the 
nounced to be essentially uniform and passage to which he refers (Symp. 
incapable of change : as such, it is 207 d 208 b) there is no question of 
placed in antithesis with the body, the essential nature of soul. 

which is perpetually changing: while 


passions are expressly denied to body and attributed to soul ; 
compare especially Phaedo 66 C, D with Philebus 35 c, D. 

(2) In the Phaedo the human soul is uniform and incom- 
posite ; in the Phaedrus, Republic, and Timaeus it appears as 
threefold and composite ; whence arises the often-discussed 
question: does the argument for immortality in the Phaedo 
apply to all the three parts of soul, or to the highest only ? 

Grote's summary method of dealing with the difficulty is 
characteristic. 'The difference which I have here noted,' he 
says, ' shows how Plato modified his doctrine to suit the pur- 
pose of each dialogue. The tripartite soul would have been 
found inconvenient where the argument required that soul and 
body should be as sharply distinguished as possible :' and more 
in the same strain. 

To those who see in Plato's dialogues only a magnificent 
series of dissolving views this short cut to a solution may be 
altogether satisfactory ; but if we believe that they compose an 
artistic and coherent whole in which we may trace develope- 
ment, but not contradiction a fiaKporepa nreplohos must be 
followed. It may indeed seem rash to attempt the conciliation 
of discrepancies which so many eminent authorities besides 
Grote have failed to reconcile; yet, as Sokrates says, rd Xe- 
yofieva firj ov^t nravrl rpoTrcp eXiy^eiv real fir} irpoa^idTaaOai 
irp\v dv iravra^ri gkottwv d/Treiirr) ns irdvv fiaXda/cov icmv 

The way to the solution of the first problem clearly lies 
through the second, which we will accordingly take first. 

It appears to me that some light may be thrown on the 
question by a closer examination of this very tripartite division 
of ifrvxf} '> as a preliminary to which it may be well to note 
briefly how the case stands with regard to ^f%?) in the Pla- 
tonic dialogues, excluding the Republic and parts of the Timaeus 
and of the Phaedrus. 

'tyvxfi then is the principle of life which vivifies the entire 
universe, interpenetrating its whole mass from centre to cir- 
cumference ( Tim. 36 e) ; she is nature's upholder and sustainer 
(Krat 400 a); having her motion of herself she is to all things 
that move the source and principle of motion (Phaedr. 245 e 


cf. Laws 895 b 896 a) ; she is without birth or death, through 
all eternity existing (Phaedr. 245 D, e) ; she is the guardian of 
all that is soulless (246 b) ; she is divine, deathless, spiritual, 
uniform, indissoluble, self-identical, changeless (Phaedo 80 b) ; 
akin to the ideas and coeternal with them (79 D, 92 d) ; the 
only seat of reason (Soph. 249 A) ; the one cause and means of 
communion between the ideal and material worlds (Phileb. 
28 C seq. where vovs is identified with the atria rrj<; /z/e&>?). 
The.human soul is derived from the universal soul (Phileb. 30 a), 
differing only in the inferior purity of its substance (Tim. 41 D 
cf. Phileb. 29 B, c.) ; it possesses, as we gather from the Phaedo 
and Phaedrus, conscious and individual immortality; it is an 
indwelling essence distinct from the body but by some mys- 
terious union informing and controlling it ; it apprehends 
sensible objects by means of the bodily organs (Theaet. 184 d) ; 
and it alone, by virtue of its affinity with the ideas, has the 
power of contemplating pure being and absolute truth (Phaedo 

In all this we find that ^f%>7, whether universal or par- 
ticular, is treated as a substance, one and indivisible : and so it 
is everywhere in Plato, except in the passages I am coming to 
consider, the single principle of life, sensation, and thought. It 
is certainly not a little strange, if in three of the Platonic 
dialogues there exists a theory of ^vxv totally at variance 
with this conception ; which is not one belonging to a particular 
period but is constantly occurring throughout the whole series 
of Plato's writings ; and this strangeness is the more startling 
when we observe that in these three dialogues themselves the 
usual conception is also apparent. 

It is in the celebrated allegory of the Phaedrus that we are 
first brought face to face with the difficulty. The individual 
soul, of god or man, is likened to a car driven by a charioteer 
and drawn by two steeds, one noble, spirited, and docile, the 
other lustful, vicious, and intractable. The meaning of this 
similitude, clear enough from the context, is fully explained in 
Republic 434 441, where we have the soul divided into a 
Xoyurrucov and an aXoyov e2So?, the aXoyov being subdivided 
into Ovfioeihh and liriBv^riKov. The soul thus appears com- 


pounded of three distinct parts or kinds, rational, emotional, 
appetitive : in describing them Plato uses indifferently the 
words elSos, yivos, and /xe/?o? cf. Republic 435 c, 441 c, 444 B 
but no expression of Plato's, I think, warrants Grote in speak- 
ing of three souls 1 . 

But if this is really so, what are the consequences ? Let us 
turn to the Phaedo. At first the mutually complementary 
arguments of dvTairohocris and dvdfivr}cn<; seemed to carry 
conviction to us; yet presently we feel that even their com- 
bined persuasion has no charm potent enough to dispel our 
fear lest the soul that passes forth of the body on a stormy 
night be blown asunder and scattered like smoke on the blast : 
the child in us can only be soothed with the assurance that the 
soul is not compounded of parts, therefore into parts it cannot 
be resolved ; that it shares the nature of the ideas and there- 
fore shares their eternity. But now our soul that was incom- 
posite and uniform and like to true being has turned out to be 
composite and triform and therefore as unlike true being as 
can well be conceived. The downfall of the argument is utter 
and ruinous ; we are left hopelessly wondering whether all the 
parts survive the body, or one, or two ; and if more than one, 
whether in union or apart ; if the liriOv^TLKov survives, what 
does the soul's release from the body profit her ? finally whether 
the argument that has betrayed us on so important a point be 
altogether faithless, and our soul die utterly with the body. 
It has been maintained that the Phaedo deals with the Xo- 
ryiaTifcov eI8o9 alone ; but there is not one word in the dialogue 
which countenances the supposition that Plato is using the 
term ^rvxv in a more restricted sense than elsewhere ; nor 
does he anywhere show an inclination to confine the title to the 
highest eZSo?. I cannot but regard this explanation as a forlorn 
hope. Apart also from the subject of immortality, we are laid 

1 Compare Aristotle Nic. Eth. 1 xiii Kvprbv ical to koIXov, otidtv 8ia<pipt irpo* 

9, 10. olov t6 ixkv ctXoyov avrijs thai to to ivapov. Here "we may remark that 

5 \6yop x ov > ravTa S irdrepov diibpio-Tcti Aristotle does not regard the distinc- 

KaOdirep t<x tov o-oSjxaTos fwpia ical ttolv to tion between aKoyov and \6yov tx ov as 

p,cpio~T6v t 77 rep \6y({> 8vo <tt1v axupLCTa necessarily implying parts. 
irftpVKora Ka0d.7r(p iv tyj irepirpepdq. to 


open to spine inconvenient metaphysical questions : for instance, 
what is the essential difference between these parts of yjrvxv ? 
what the nature of their union ? what the common principle 
by virtue of which they are all termed ^tr^ 1 ? I cannot be- 
lieve that Plato intended to set his scholars adrift on such a 
sea of perplexity as this ; still less, as Zeller 2 would have us 
suppose, that it is a question which Plato doubtless never defi- 
nitely set before himself; which at least he has done nothing 
to answer. 

But in one or other of these conclusions we must, I think, 
have acquiesced, had Plato never written the Timaeus. The 
account given in that dialogue still remains for consideration ; 
and this, while at first sight it seems to plunge us even deeper 
in perplexity, really in my belief gives us the clue that shall 
guide us out of the maze. This passage (Timaeus 69 c seq.) has 
such an important bearing on the question that it may be well 
to translate some part of it in full. 

'And the created gods following the creator's example, 
when they had received from him an immortal principle of 
soul, went on to frame about it a mortal body, and all this 
body they gave it to ride in : moreover they enclosed within 
the walls of the body another kind of soul, even that which is 
mortal, having in itself dire inevitable passions first pleasure, 
the strongest allurement of evil, then pains that scare away 
good things; rashness also and fear, two thoughtless counsellors; 
wrath hard to assuage and hope that lightly leads astray all 
these forcibly they mingled with reasonless sensation and love 
that ventures all things, and so they composed the mortal kind 
of soul. Wherefore, in awe of defiling the divine, but so far as 
needs must be, they lodge the mortal kind apart from the 
divine in another chamber of the body ; and between the head and 
the breast they constructed an isthmus to sunder them, placing 
the neck in the midst that they might be separate. So in the 
breast and the chest, as it is called, they confined the mortal 
part of the soul. And seeing that one part of it was of higher, 
another of lower nature, they built a wall across the hollow of 

1 Compare Aristotle de anima i v 2427; m ix. 

2 Gesch. d. gr. Phil, n i p. 717, 3rd ed. 


the chest, as if they were marking off separate apartments for 
women and for men, setting the midriff as a partition between 
them. That part of the soul which shares courage and spirit, 
since it is warlike, the} 7 placed nearer the head between the 
midriff and the neck, that it might be within hearing of the 
reason and might aid it in forcibly restraining the tribe of 
lusts, whenever they would not willingly obey the signal and 
word of command issued from the citadel 1 .' 

I have translated so much verbatim, in order to bring out 
clearly the highly figurative character of the passage. In 70 D 
Plato describes the position of the,Qv^r]TiKov as follows : 
' That portion of the soul which lusts after meat and drink 
and all things which because of the body's nature it needs, 
they placed between the midriff and the boundary at the navel, 
constructing in all this region as it were a manger for sus- 
tenance of the body; and herein they chained it like a wild 
beast, which nevertheless must be reared in union with the 
rest, if a mortal race were to be at all.' 

Zeller, interpreting this passage literally (p. 715 seq.), 
asserts roundly that these three forces are not different forms 
of energy but actually different parts of the soul, to which Plato 
shall even assign separate positions in space. I believe that 
most of Plato's commentators, from Aristotle downwards, have got 
into trouble by failing to realise that the Timaeus is not only a 
profound philosophical speculation but also one of the most 
fanciful of fairy tales. Zeller, though he has elsewhere shown 
himself fully alive to this, has, I think, been here forgetful of 
it, and has thus failed to reach Plato's meaning. Moreover 
while he naturally feels that the passage, as he understands it, 
leads to grave difficulties (p. 717), he does not seem adequately 
to appreciate the irreconcilable inconsistencies it involves. 

For to the difficulties before mentioned as attaching to the 
triform nature of ^jrv^r} this passage adds two still more hope- 
less perplexities : (1) the three parts, as Zeller says, have 
distinct locations in specified regions of the body; all three 

1 Compare with this Politicus 309 c. ixoo-ajxivrj de<r/j.<$, fiera 5 to Otiov to 
irp&Tov /xkv kcltcl to vyyevhs to aeiyevks faoyevks avTwv avdis avdpwirivois. 
ov 7-17? ^J'X^J a\'T<2v fiipos Qetipv $vv<xp- 


therefore, it would seem, have extension in space ; yet Plato 
has again and again told us that soul is immaterial : (2) the 
two inferior parts are declared to be mortal. This does not 
seem to have given Plato's interpreters much anxiety, but surely 
a more startling statement could not proceed from his mouth ; 
indeed in what possible sense of the two words Plato can use 
the combination 6v7]jrj ^vyrj I am utterly at a loss to imagine. 
It is, if possible, a more absolute contradiction in terms than 
irvp tyvxpov or even dpria rpids. If ^v^rj, that is vital prin- 
ciple, can die in any case, what becomes of the final argument 
in the Phaedo ? what is the end of all Plato's endeavour to 
discover some stable and permanent object of knowledge? 
a)(o\fj yap dv tl dXKo <fi6opdv firj Be^olto, el ye to dddvarov 
diSiov ov (pOopdv Several. Again in the Phaedrus (245 d) it is 
positively asserted that all soul is immortal, irdaa ^jruxv dOdva- 
ros; and this only a few lines before the tripartite nature of 
the soul appears in full developement : that is to say Plato first 
affirms without limitation that all soul is immortal and imme- 
diately afterwards describes it as consisting of a mortal and 
immortal part united. 

We are therefore driven to choose between the following 
suppositions : (1) Plato has directly contradicted himself on a 
point of the gravest importance ; (2) the term ^rv^v is used by 
him in different senses ; (3) the expression dvrjrov elSos tyvxvs ^ s 
to be explained so as to harmonise with Plato's other state- 
ments on the subject. The first must, I think, be dismissed 
without ceremony : it is surely incredible that the greatest and 
most careful of all original thinkers, on a point which he had so 
much at heart and on which he bestowed so much pains, has un- 
consciously fallen into so obvious and glaring an inconsistency. 
Secondly, if the 6vr)rdv elSos be a different substance or sub- 
stances from the dOdvarov, what is this substance ? a question 
which to ask is inevitable, to answer, I think, impossible. For 
what right has this mortal substance to share the name of ^vxi> 
whose essence is immortality ? we have between spirit and 
matter a third substance, sharing, as it seems, the properties of 
matter for it is extended and perishable but classed under 
the same title as spirit. As the origin of emotions and appetites 


it is a source of motion : either then its motion is of itself or 
from without : if of itself it cannot be mortal, for the self-moved 
is immortal ; if from without, it cannot be -\jrv xv> f r the essence 
of ^rv)(rj is self-motion. We are thus forced to adopt the only 
remaining alternative ; which amounts to this. It is not ^rv^r) 
which is mortal, but certain activities of ^rvxn m certain rela- 
tions which are terminable and determined by separation from 
matter; we must accept, in fact, the conclusion which Zeller 
rejects, that the three parts are not ' verschiedene Theile', but 
' verschiedene Thatigkeitsformen ', or modes of operation . To be 
more explicit : all soul, as such, is eternal and uniform, nor are 
there more kinds of soul than one. But soul when it enters 
into union with matter is forced more or less to operate through 
matter ; and the names given to this combined action of soul 
and matter are Ou/jlos and eTriOvfila. Therefore Ovfjuoethh and 
etriOvyiri'TiKov are expressions for soul in certain material rela- 
tions; and as the connexion of soul with body is terminable, 
OvfioeiSes and eiriOvfjL^TLKov, as such, are perishable. But this 
does not mean that the vital principle, which in its material 
connexion assumes these forms, is perishable, but only that the 
relation is temporary: yjru)(rj exists as ^v^f) eternally; as eiridv- 
/jL7)tlk6v and tfu/zoetSe? only so long as its connexion with matter 

This view will, I think, be found to agree entirely with 
Plato's whole teaching on the subject. It must be remembered 
that the two lower etBrj of soul are found only in conjunction 
with matter. Even the gods, to whom all three parts are 
attributed, are corporeal : a god is dOdvarov tl %<pov, eypv /juev 
^Vjfffv ^X ov ^ (TQO/Jia, rbv del Be yj)6vov ravra ^vfJLTre^vKora 
(Phaedr. 246 d) ' : only, as their bodies are more ethereal, their 
soul is more free to act independently ; consequently in them 
reason is supreme. Similarly in the Phaedo, in proportion as 
the soul withdraws herself from communion with the body, 
pure reason predominates over the earthly and sensual appetites. 
All this is perfectly reasonable, if we conceive soul as a single 
essence, constrained in certain circumstances to work through 

1 Even in their case the connexion tinuance depends upon the will of the 
has no inherent permanence : its con- creator (Timaeus 41 a). 


matter ; but surely Plato did not mean that soul, being when 
apart from body a uniform essence, on entrance into a material 
abode all at once annexes two inferior substances, being parts of 
itself and yet essentially different. 

It is well also to bear in mind that although the three ecBrj 
are commonly spoken of as three coordinate parts of soul, the 
main division is really twofold, XoyiarrtKov and aXoyov as ex- 
pressed in the Republic, aOavarov and Ovr)rbv in the Timaeus ; 
this is appropriately represented in the Phaedrus by the driver 
and pair of horses. This is important to notice ; since, were the 
three divisions coordinate, the view I am here maintaining 
would involve serious difficulty. As it is, the distinction be- 
tween Ovfioeihes and liriQvyLt]TiKov is simply a classification of 
the operations of soul through body. 

The general physical application of this theory is perfectly 
simple. All living things derive their life from a single uniform 
principle, that is soul. In the gods, if such there be, soul 
possesses the highest state of freedom compatible with material 
existence : bodily affections they must have, since they are 
corporeal ; but, owing to the predominance of spirit over matter, 
their affections are entirely controlled by the reason : in man, 
since soul is bound in a much closer union with matter, the 
power of reason is greatly diminished, while that of the passions 
is proportionately increased ; still the philosopher, whose whole 
life is a ' study of death ', can so far abstract his soul from its 
bodily connexion as to attain a considerable degree of intellec- 
tual freedom. In the lower animals, as we descend the scale, 
the implication of soul with matter becomes more and more 
complete, and in proportion as the reasoning power decreases 
the purely animal impulses predominate ; till in plants all we 
find of life is a mere faculty of growth. But the reason of a 
god and the growth of a moss are alike operations of one and 
the same vital principle ; in one case acting in almost complete 
independence of matter, in the other inextricably entangled 
with it. 

The view that by Ovrjrov elhos tyvxfj? Plato means not 
a mortal kind of soul but a terminable mode of soul's exist- 
ence is thus, I think, shown to be in harmony with his general 


teaching and to release us from grave difficulties. And surely 
it cannot be argued that in this passage of the Timaeus one of 
the most figurative passages of Plato's most allegorical dia- 
logue we are compelled to understand every phrase with 
verbal literalness. It would be as reasonable to maintain that 
Plato meant us to accept literally the account of soul's con- 
struction by the Srjfjuovpyos, involving its composition out of 
three elements and its beginning in time ; both of which are 
directly contradictory of Plato's theory of soul. 

It follows from what has been said that the question 
whether the reasoning in the Phaedo refers to all the parts 
of the soul or not is quite beside the mark. Plato has ignored 
the threefold division, not, as Grote says, because it would 
have been inconvenient, but because his argument is entirely 
unaffected by it. His demonstration applies of course to soul 
as such, not to particular relations of soul. The vital prin- 
ciple, of which the ^u/xoetSe? and i7TL0vfirjTCK6v are manifesta- 
tions in conjunction with matter, exists eternally ; but Ov^ioei- 
Se? and iTrcOvfirjTLKov themselves are merely temporary modes 
of its operation. The whole difficulty vanishes with the 
notion that Plato held the existence of more than one kind 
of soul. 

If this solution of Grote's second difficulty be accepted, the 
explanation of the first is easy. In the Phaedo Plato is dealing 
with soul as such, with which bodily appetites, &c. have 
nothing to do : these belong to soul in its corporeal relation, 
and can only affect it through such relation. Consequently 
from this standpoint of the Phaedo Plato is perfectly justified in 
attributing such passions to body ; because they arise from the 
union of soul with body. Any closer investigation of their 
nature would have been foreign to his purpose : and Plato 
always likes to do one thing at once. In the Philebus on the 
other band we are specially concerned to examine scientifically 
into the nature of pleasures and desires ; and they are accord- 
ingly attributed to soul. But the discrepancy is only apparent. 
In the Phaedo they are assigned to body, because they can- 
not affect soul except when it is in connexion with matter ; 
in the Philebus to soul, because matter as such is insensate. 
Journal of Philology, vol. x. 9 



The latter statement is more exactly scientific, but it could 
not have been made in the Phaedo without raising irrelevant 
issues. In both the meaning is the same ; that is, desires and 
passions are phenomena belonging to a conjunction of soul 
with body : inasmuch as the soul is the seat of these passions, 
they are properly assigned to soul ; inasmuch as body is a ne- 
cessary condition of their existence, they may be said to belong 
to body. 

The easy explanation thus obtained of apparently so grave 
an inconsistency is, I think, another strong piece of evidence 
for the solution proposed of our former problem. Indeed, 
except on the supposition that soul, notwithstanding the figura- 
tive descriptions of it in the Phaedrus, Republic, and Timaeus, 
is a simple substance, I do not see how any psychological 
theory can be attributed to Plato, which he could conceivably 
have constructed. This view is also, I believe, not without 
important application to the theory of ideas ; but that is far 
beyond the limits of the present inquiry. 

I conclude with a brief summary of the preceding argu- 
ment : 

The difficulties are two : (1) in the Phaedo eTriOvfiiac 
are attributed to body, in the Philebus to soul : (2) in the 
Phaedo soul is simple, in the Phaedrus, Republic, and Timaeus 
it is triform. I have endeavoured to solve both problems in 
the following way : 

In Timaeus 6.9 C 72 D, we have a Oelov elBos and a Ovrjrbv 
elBos of yjrv^V ' f which Oelov XoyiarcKov, Ovryrov = Ovfioei- 
Se? and eiriOv^Tiicov. Now yfrvyrj as such is aOavarov ; 
therefore the word 0vt)t6v can only refer to a particular rela- 
tion of ^rv^rj .and awfia, or operation of ^v^t) through aoofia. 
SvfjLoeL&e? therefore and iTriOv/ubrjriKov are not different parts of 
ty v XV Du ^ on ty names for different modes of its action through 
awfia : thus Ovfioeuhe^ and eTriOvfirjriKov are Ovrjrd, because, 
when the conjunction between tyvxfj and atopa ceases, they 
cease also. 

Thus, (1) the apparent discrepancy between the Phaedo 
and the Philebus is reconciled. In the one liriOvyjlai are 
ascribed to aoofia, because arising from the conjunction of 


-*jrvxr) and orwfia ; in the other they are more accurately as- 
cribed to tyvxrj, because they are an affection of ^rvxrj through 
awfia : (2) the argument of the Phaedo is entirely unaffected 
by the threefold division. All soul is simple, uniform, and 
indestructible ; but in connexion with body it assumes certain 
rjbases which are temporary and only exist in relation to body. 
Thus though the kiriQv^TiKov and OvjioeiSes as such are not 
immortal, because they depend for their continuance upon 
body, which is mortal ; yet the vital principle, which under such 
conditions assumes t hese forms , is immortal and continues to 
exist, though not necessarily in the same mode. For the 
modes in which vital force acts under temporary conditions 
are transitory, but the acting force itself is changeless and 




Mr H. Sidgwick's excellent article in the Journal of Phil- 
ology II 96 103 is still, so far as I know, the best statement of 
the received interpretation of the last pages of Republic VI and of 
the difficulties which beset it. But his remarks are offered " with 
a view less to solve the difficulties of the passage, than to de- 
fine them more clearly than has yet been done," and accordingly 
cannot be considered final. In the present paper (which would 
hardly have been written l>ut for Mr Sidgwick's) I propose to 
review the passage together with its context and to offer some 
suggestions for its interpretation. On a future occasion I hope 
to comment upon the metaphysical portion of the Philebus, and 
to institute a comparison of the ontologies of the two dialogues 
such as Mr Sidgwick's concluding paragraph seems to invite. 

1 The Line. 

In the pages preceding those which specially concern me 
Socrates has illustrated his theory of the supremacy of the avrd 
dyaOov, the origin of Being and of Knowledge, by comparing it 
to the sun, which in the visible world 1 is the origin of Becoming 
and of Light. He now 509 D proceeds at Glaucon's request to 
amplify and complete the similitude of the sun (ttjv irepl rbv 
rj\cov o/jlolotwto). Let us suppose, he says, the visible world 

1 That oparov is not to be confounded to guard against this misconception, 

with al<r07)T6v, might perhaps be as- It is only in the case of sight, he there 

sumed ; but as commentators have tells us, not in that of the other senses, 

supposed the whole region of sense to that there is a rplrov which will serve 

be referred to, it may be well to note as an dic&v of the avrb ayadov. 
that at 507 c sqq. Plato has endeavoured 


presided over by the sun and the intelligible world presided 
over by the avrb dya06v to be respectively represented by the 
two segments of an unequally divided line, and let us further 
divide each of the two segments similarly to the whole line. 
The four segments thus obtained may be taken to represent, in 
respect of comparative clearness or truth, 

1 Images, i.e. (1) shadows and (2) reflections in water, &c. 

2 Things by which images are cast, whether (1) products 
of art or (2) products of nature. 

3 That which the soul studies (a) descending from hypo- 
theses to a conclusion, (b) by the aid of visibles treated as 

4 That which the soul studies (a) ascending from hypo- 
theses to a principle which is not hypothetical, (6) by the aid 
not of images but of forms 1 . 

At this point I pause to comment. According to Mr Sid'g- 
wick, who assumes at the outset that " the universe is compared 
to a quadripartite line," "We have (omitting the fourth seg- 
ment as of no metaphysical importance) three processes of 
apprehension carefully distinguished : and corresponding to the 
first and third two sets of objects, material things and elSrj. We 
naturally expect therefore a set of objects intermediate between 
the two corresponding to the intermediate process." Just such 
an intermediate set of objects we have, thinks Mr Sidgwick 
with the commentators in general 2 , in the fiaOrjfiaTifcd men- 

1 Until it is possible to arrive at a annimmt) ausschliesslich die mathe- 
distinct conception of the two sorts of matische Wissenscbaft ; er selbst sagt 
vot]t6v, I shall sometimes for the sake diess Kep. vi, 510 b f. 511, c f. aus- 
of brevity speak of them as 'the in- drucklich." Zeller Gesch. d. gr. Ph. 
ferior vorjrov' and 'the superior vot\rbv' > 11 i 537. "Da Plato jedoch das 
respectively, but I shall mean by these Mathematische und zwar zunachst die 
terms no more than 'the object of the Zahlen, wie wir sehen werden, fur We- 
inferior intellectual method' and 'the senheitenhielt,dieinderMittezwischen 
object of the superior intellectual dem sinnlich Wahrnehmbaren und 
method.' den Ideen, so hat er unter jenen so- 

2 "Unter der dtdpoia oder iiricrT^fxr} genannten Wissenschaften oder Kiin- 
versteht Plato (wie auch Brandis sten doch wohl lediglich die mathema- 


tioned by Aristotle metaphysics I 6 4, 987 b 14, though, as 
Mr Sidgwick himself acutely remarks, " the language " [of 510 d]1 
"in no way supports this interpolation of intermediate objects." 
So far Mr Sidgwick. The obvious, and, I think, fatal, objection 
to this interpretation is that it leaves one of the four segments 
unexplained. By way of answer to this objection Professor 
Jowett suggests (1) that "Plato had been led by the love of 
analogy to make four terms instead of three," and (2) that " each 
lower sphere is the multiplication of the preceding"; in other 
words, that the proportionals are a, ar, ar 2 , ar 3 , so that when 
the superfluous a (the first segment) is omitted, it may still be 
true that ar is to ar 2 as ar 2 is to ar s , i.e. that sensibles are to 
intermediates as intermediates are to ideas. But these incon- 
sistent suggestions do not dispose of the objection : for (1) three 
proportionals would have satisfied Plato's love of proportion just 
as well as four ; and (2) the proportionals are not, as Professor 
Jowett assumes, and apparently Mr Sidgwick also, a, ar, ar 2 , 
ar 3 , but, as Whewell has pointed out (Philosophy of Discovery 
p. 444) a, ar, ar, ar 2 , so that when a is omitted, the three 
remaining terms do not give the relation supposed by Professor 
Jowett and Mr Sidgwick between sensibles, intermediates, and 
ideas. It would seem then that the introduction of the first 
segment is unmeaning, and worse than unmeaning, on the 
assumption that " the universe is compared to a quadripartite 
line " ; and it may therefore be worth while to inquire whether 
this assumption is necessary or justifiable. 

tischen verstanden und sie fur die telndenDenkens zureichend." Brandis 
ausschliesslichen gehalten, bei denen Gesch. d. gr.- r'dm. Ph. n i 272. 
das hypothetischeVerfahren des vermit- 

" Zusammenfassend schematisirt Plato Rep. 509 ff. und 533 f. in folgender 
Weise : 

A. Objecte. 

'Oparov yevos {yiveais). 
2w//ara. Et/coVes. 

Notjtoj' ytvos (ovaia). 
'18tcu. MadrjfAaTiKOL. 

B. Ekkenntnissweisen. 

NoVm. Aoa 

Nous (oder v6rj<ns 

Oder iwurrwv)' Ataxia. 

Ueberweg Grundriss d. Gesch. d. Ph. i 132. 

UiffTis. EluaaLa:' 


Let us return to the preceding context. When at 506 E 
Glaucon challenges Socrates to give at all events a popular 
account of the dyaOov, such as that which he has previously 
given of the virtues, Socrates professes his inability to do so, 
but declares himself willing to explain his notion of it by refer- 
ence to its efcyovos, the sun, which (not in the whole sensible 
world bat) in the visible world is ofjuoioTaro? i/ceivq). Now it is 
plain that the sun is " of no metaphysical importance," except 
so far as it illustrates the Platonic Socrates's notion of the avrd 
dya66v ; and, as in what he says about the quadripartite line 
Socrates is amplifying and completing rrjv irepl tov rfkiov 
ofioLOTTjTa, and indeed, when he resumes his discourse, is careful 
I to repeat that the sun presides over the oparov just as the 
\dyadov presides over the votjtov, it would appear that both the 
lower segments, not one only, are devoid of " metaphysical 
! importance," except so far as they help us to understand the 
'relation between the two higher segments. We have then here 
what may be called (in imitation of Aristotle) an el/cwv /car 
dvaXoylav ' as images of things are to things imaged, so is the 
jinferior votjtov to the superior vorjrov,' the popular distinction 
between images of things and things imaged, Sfioccodev and m 
\wfji,o(,(60r) 510 B, being used to explain the metaphysical distinc- 
tion between the respective objects of the inferior and the 
I superior intellectual methods. 

Now if the object of the inferior intellectual method is to 
the object of the superior intellectual method as an image or 
reflection of a thing is to the thing itself in other words, 
if the inferior vorjrov may be regarded as an image or reflec- 
tion of the superior votjtov, it would seem that the objects 
of the two sorts of intellectual method are not distinct exist- 
ences, but the same existences viewed in the one case in- 
directly and in the other case directly. Thus as soon as we 
discard the assumption that " the universe is compared to a 
quadripartite line," and recognize the purely illustrative cha- 
racter of the first and second proportionals, for the four 
segments are only four proportionals geometrically expressed, 
all reference to ' the intermediates ' of the metaphysics (which 
differ from the ideas in that each of them is a 7roXXa and 



not a Zv x ) disappears, and with it the inconsistency which Mr 
Sidgwick finds between "the symmetry of the theory" and 
"the language of the passage." 

But what are the two objects related to one another as 
thing to image ? That the superior object is the idea, is indi- 
cated at 510 BD 511 B, and is indeed generally acknowledged. 
What then is the inferior object, 'the image or reflection of the 
idea ' ? In the case of every group of particulars to which we 
give the same name, we assume the separate existence of an 
idea in which these particulars participate. This idea is the 
whole completed connotation of the name, as it would be 
understood by omniscience, hypostasized. Now the general 
notion is the connotation of the name as we imperfectly under- 
stand it, not hypostasized. For example, the idea of sulphur 
is, hypostasized, the whole sum of the properties, known and 
unknown, which are common to specimens of sulphur : the 
general notion of sulphur includes, not hypostasized, so many 
of these as are known to us. The general notion is therefore 
not the idea, nor a correct and complete representation of the 
idea, but an incorrect and incomplete representation of it. 
May we not assume, apart from any indications to be found in 
Plato's account of the methods of investigation, that by 'the 
image of the idea' he means the general notion 2 ? 

The view which I take of the significance of the several 
segments of the line finds, I think, some confirmation in the 
well known chapter of the Phaedo descriptive of the Platonic 
Socrates's aspirations and failures. Having in the course of 
his physical researches learnt to draw a distinction between 
1 cause ' and ' condition,' the word ' cause ' being properly used 
only in the sense of ' final cause,' Socrates was astonished to 
find that Anaxagoras, when he had arrived at the notion of an 
intelligent author of all things by whom chaos was reduced to 
order, did not complete his theory by providing an dyadov 

1 Hereafter I shall have something * The ehoves of 402 a are, I conceive, 

to say about 510 c e, where the to be understood in the same sense, 

mathematical object, e.g. 'the refiec- Of the <pavTa<T/j.aTa iv vdcurtv of 516 a 

tion' of the avrd rplyowov, is recognized 532 b I shall have something to say 

as a part of the inferior vorjrbv. presently. 


which the intelligent author of all things should seek 1 . He had 
expected Anaxagoras, when he wished to assign the cause of 
anything, to show that 'it is best that the thing in question 
should be as it is/ the cause of each thing being to icd<TT(p 
/3e\TL<TTov, and the cause of all things rd kolvov iracnv dyaOov. 
Anaxagoras however had done nothing of the sort, and Socrates 
had not succeeded in supplying the deficiency. He found 
himself therefore obliged to have recourse to another line of 
inquiry, though he had never abandoned his conviction that a 
really satisfactory theory of the universe must be teleological. 
Now in the passage above summarized, although the phrase- 
ology of the theory of ideas is carefully avoided, the supremacy 
of the dyad 6p is as distinctly asserted as anywhere in the 
republic 2 . In both places it is the origin both of Being and of 
Knowledge. The main doctrine of the two passages being thus 
the same, the resemblance of the next following sentences in 
the Phaedo to the sentences in the republic already considered 
can hardly be without significance. The investigation of things 
(oWa), we read at 99 D, having proved a failure, Socrates now 
proceeded to study their reality (toov ovtcou rrjv d\r)6eLav) in 
definitions (Xoyot), just as an astronomer, fearing to be blinded 
if he watches an eclipse of the sun directly, observes its image 
reflected in water. It will be seen that we have here an el/cwv 
tear dvakoylav as an image of the sun is to the sun, so are 
\6yoi to ovra which eltcoov resembles the dvakoyla in the 

1 It would seem that here at any admitted, the idea of good is repeatedly 

rate the ayadov is not to be identified (476 A 484 d 507 b 531 c 538 e) 

with vovs, of whose operations it is ranked indiscriminately with other 

the ov tveica. ideas, this can be no reason for de- 

, 2 Mr Sidgwick however, who takes nying its supremacy in the Phaedo. 

no notice of the indications of doctrine In fact, although as compared with 

contained in the criticism of Anaxa- other ideas the idea of good occupies a 

goras, is of a different opinion. ' ' There " higher position, as compared with par- 

[sc. Phaedo c. xlix], he says, " Plato's ticulars it may be ranked with the 

ontology is obviously in a different rest. Compare republic vi 509 b, where 

phase, as to ayadov (here placed at the ayadov is placed iir^Keiva ttjs ovalas, 

the summit) is ranked indiscriminately with vn 518 d 526 e, where it is spoken 

with other elSij that Socrates supposes of as rod ovtos to tpavorarov and to 

(vTTOTlderai)." But as in the republic, eidaifiovtaraTov tov ovtos. 
in which dialogue its supremacy is 

m" n . u 


sixth book of the republic and countenances the views above 
taken, both of the relation in which the first and second pro- 
portionals stand to the third and fourth, and of the significance 
of the third proportional 1 . 

2 The Cave. 

That ' the line and ' the cave ' are intimately connected, is 
obvious : indeed it is expressly asserted at 517 b, Tclvttjv tolvvv, 
rjv 8' iyco, tyjv el/cova, co <pt\ TXav/cow, TrpocraTTTeov airaaav 
toIs e/jLTrpocrdev Xeyo/jLevots. It will therefore be well to inquire 
whether the results so far obtained in regard to the line accord 
with the allegory which opens the seventh book. 

If we tabulate the objects successively seen by the prisoners 
together with a conjectural interpretation of those objects, 
placing the imagery of the allegory on our left, and the signifi- 
cation on our right, we have (exclusive of details with which I 
am not now concerned) 

Witliin the Cave bo^aarov 

Shadows of statuettes of things = particulars as apprehended by the senses. 
Statuettes of things = particulars as they are (or become) in them- 


Without the Cave voyyrbv 

Eeflections of things = objects of the inferior intellectual method. 

Things themselves = objects of the superior intellectual method. 

That shadows of statuettes of things ' stand for ' particulars as 
apprehended by the senses,' and therefore that ' statuettes of 
things ' stand for ' particulars as they are in themselves/ almost 
every reader 2 will take for granted : that 'reflections of things' 

1 It would appear that ovra generally, ayado v as well as with the parallel pas- 

not ovtws ovra as opposed to yiyvo- sages. 

fieva, are here contrasted with \6yoi. 2 Professor Jowett however makes 

Hence I am careful not to identify the "the shadows" and "the images" [i.e. 

avaXoyta of this passage with the the statuettes which cast the shadows] 

auaXoyla of the sixth book of the re- "correspond the first, to the realm 

public. The commentators with one of fancy and poetry, the second, to 

accord assume that ytyvo/neva as op- the world of sense." This interpreta- 

posed to oj/tws ovra are here con- tion seems to be precluded by the 

trasted with \6yoi. This limitation description, 516 c e, of the mental 

seems to me inconsistent with So- condition of the prisoner, when his 

crates's narrative of his search for the gaze is turned for the first time from 


are equivalent to the inferior votjtov of the sixth book, cannot 
be doubted, since ' the contemplation of reflections of things in 
water ' must stand for the irpoiraiheia, which again includes the 
sciences or arts mentioned in 510 C and 511 C (cf. 533 D) as 
employing the inferior intellectual method: and that 'things 
themselves ' stand for the superior vorjrov, is certain, since in 
both passages the highest object is expressly assigned to dialec- 
tic 511 c 534 d 53C c. 

Let us now seek in this tabular statement of the allegory 
the four terms of the original dvaXoyca. If, as Mr Sidgwick 
assumes, "the universe is compared" [in 509 D sq.] "to a 
quadripartite line," the four segments should all be found on 
the right of the page, sensibles standing second : if however, as 
I have supposed, the first and second terms of the dvaXoyia 
merely illustrate the relation between the third and fourth 
terms, we shall expect the first and second terms to occupy the 
third and fourth places on the left of the page, the third and 
fourth terms as before occupying the third and fourth places on 
its right. Now on Mr Sidgwick' s assumption the old difficulty 
meets us again 'the shadows of statuettes of things' are 
superfluous. On the other hand the requirements of my theory 
are perfectly satisfied, reflections (rd ev tols; vSaao (pavrda/jiara) 
having been expressly mentioned at 510 A as a species of el/coves, 
and the 'things themselves' (avrd) of the allegory being 
obviously capable of identification with the &3<z /cal nrdv to 
())vtvt6v of 510 A. Thus the duaXoyla of the former passage, 

'shadows of statuettes of things' to avrov awopetv re av nal rjyeTadai rh 

1 statuettes of things,' as it is not easy Tore opwpeva aX-qd^arepa r/ to. vvv 

to see why the transition from "the buKvvixeva ; 

realm of fancy and poetry" to "the It is remarkable that Professor 
world of sense " should occasion curo/wci, Jowett, who sees that "the reflec- 
nor why the former should seem ' more tions in water" of the seventh book 
real' than the latter. On the other are "the abstractions or universals 
hand if the irepiayojyi) or wepiarpo^ is of sense, of which the mathemati- 
the discovery, under the influence of cal sciences furnish the type," should 
such an fkeyxos as is applied to the have given in the sixth book an en- 
young Theaetetus in the dialogue caUed tirely different meaning to the third 
by his name, that sensation is not ob- segment. That the two passages must 
jectively true, nothing could be more not be inconsistently explained, seems 
appropriate than the question ovk otei to me certain. 


as I understand it, gives us in a compendious form so much of 
the allegory of the seventh book as lies without the cave, 
together with its interpretation. 

While however the scene within the cave is not represented 
in the dvaXoyia of the sixth book, this part of the allegory with 
its interpretation may be expressed in a similar dvaXoyia, 
namely, as images (in this case, shadows of statuettes) are to 
things (in this case, statuettes) so are particulars as appre- 
hended by the senses to particulars as they are in themselves. 
Indeed we have been told at 510 A that el/coves include irpwrov 
fiev cvaa? (i.e. the shadows in the cave) eireira ra ev rots vBacrc 
(jyavrdafiara (i. e. the reflections outside the cave), and that to 
the second term of the dvaXoyia belong both fo>a koX ttclv to 
<I>vtvt6v (i.e. avrd outside the cave) and to o-fceva&Tov yevo<; 
(i.e. the dvSpiavres k.tX. in the cave) ; so that we are prepared 

. . . r tl .. images of things , . , 

for the double occurrence ol the ratio ,. . -. ~- , which, 

things imaged 

as the words 'images' and 'things' are of no "metaphysical 

importance," may be employed to illustrate the difference 

between the two sorts of sensible as well as that between the 

two sorts of intelligible 1 . 

, images of things . ., , 

Moreover as the ratio , . : f- is common to the ava- 

tinngs imaged 

Xoyia of the vorjrov given us in the sixth book and the dva- 
Xoyia of the ho^acrTov which I have just constructed, we are 
now in a position to frame an dvaXoyia in which all four terms, 

. reflections of things our former statements [at the end of 

t e ra 10 things the sixth book], paralleling the visible 

without the cave is equal to the ratio region [outside the cave] with the 

shadows of statuettes of things ... . prison-house [the inside of the cave], 

statuettes of things " and the firelight in the prison-house 

the cave, seems to be intimated at with the sun." The ordinary rendering 

517 A, Tavrrjv toIvuv, fy 5' 4yu>, rrjv of a<pop.oLovvTa, "comparing," "liken- 

elKova, & <pl\e TXavKuv, vpocrairTtov ing," as if r) bC o\f/ew$ (paiponfrrj Upa 

"iraaav tois fyirpocrdev \eyop.frot.$, -rt)v were the interpretation of tj tov Seoyiw- 

pkv hC oipew <pcuvop*vr)v 25pau rfj tox> rrjplov oticrjais, and 17 tov rjkiov Svvafiis 

5effp.WTijpl.ov olKTjffei. dcpo/ioiovPTa, to 64 the interpretation of to tov irvpos iv 

tov irvpos h avTjj <pus t% tov rjhlov avT-fj (puis, treats parts of the imagery 

Swdpxi. " You must combine the as parts of the interpretation, 
whole of this image [of the cave] with 



being derived from the interpretation of the allegory, shall be 
of "metaphysical importance." This third avaXoyla will run 
thus : particulars as apprehended by the senses are to particu- 
lars as they are (or rather, as they become) in themselves, as 
the objects of the inferior intellectual method, i.e. \6yoi, are to 
the objects of the superior intellectual method, i.e. ideas. 

Thus the original avaXoyla, as I interpret it, though not 
coextensive with the allegory, is perfectly consistent with it. 
It is in fact its foundation, what is most important being set 
forth in advance in the sixth book and afterwards repeated 
with additions in the seventh. At the end of the sixth book 
we are told that the inferior votjtov is an image of the superior 
votjtov: at the beginning of the seventh we are told (1) that 
the inferior vorjrov is an image of the superior votjtov, and (2) 
that the inferior ho^aa-rov is an image of the superior ho^aarov. 
It is then in the seventh book, not in the sixth, that we find a 
division of the universe, and this division is neither quadripar- 
tite nor tripartite, but bipartite 1 , the two parts being yiyvo- 

1 At this point it may be asked 
But where do we find a place in this 
scheme for the fj.adrjfLa.TCKd mentioned 
by Aristotle, which are intermediate 
between alo-drjrd and eldrj, differing 
from the aiadrrrd because unlike aiadrjTa 
they are eternal and immutable, and 
differing from the eZSos which is single 
because they are plural ? There is no 
place for these poAgparucdL Plato, as 
I understand him, is here concerned, 
not with fiadrffxariKd as opposed to 
other porrrd, but with fxadrifiaTiKa as 
types of porjrd. Hence even if we sup- 
pose that when he wrote the republic 
Plato had learnt to distinguish in the 
case of fiadrjfiaTiKd (in addition to the 
ilea and the X6705 which are single) 
two sorts of woWd, i.e. the triangles 
which the geometer sees and the tri- 
angles of which he thinks, the re- 
cognition of this distinction is in this 
place impossible because it is peculiar 
to fiadr\jmTi.Kd. But I cannot think 

that Plato would have taken fiadrffxariKd 
as types of voTjrd in general, if when 
he wrote the passage before us this 
refinement had already suggested it- 
self to him. In short, the passage in 
the republic, making no distinction 
between fxadrnxariKa and other vorfrd, 
recognizes (to take a particular ex- 
ample) (1) the (single) idea of triangle 
as it is, 510 d, (2) the (single) general 
notion of triangle implied in the 
geometer's definition, (3) the plurality 
of particular triangles as they are, (4) 
the plurality of particular triangles 
as they are apprehended by sight. 
The fxaB-iffkariKa mentioned by Aris- 
totle, i.e. the plurality of particular 
non-sensible triangles which particular 
sensible triangles suggest to the mind 
of the geometer, would have to be in- 
terpolated, if anywhere, between (2) 
and (3) : but it is by no means clear 
that Plato entertained the two doc- 
trines simultaneously. 



ixeva and ovtg><; ovtcl, which stand second and fourth respec- 
tively in my third dvaXoyca, while its first and third terms are 
respectively the yiyvo/jbeva of the second term and the ovtcds 
ovra of the fourth, as they are respectively apprehended by us 
in alo-Orjaeis and \6yoc 1 . But though there are only two sorts 
of existence, the allegory of the cave, which has for its declared 
purpose the representation of our nature irai^ela^ re irepi koX 
aTTcuhevalas, distinguishes four stages in the progress from 
ignorance to knowledge. First, the uneducated man takes his 
sensations for objective realities 515 b; next, he becomes aware 
of their subjectivity 515 D ; thirdly, he studies the one and the 
many in the so-called sciences or arts which compose the irpo- 
TTcuheia 525 A 533 D 536 D ; and lastly, he will, it is hoped, 
attain to dialectic, which is a ' coping stone' to his former 
acquirements 533 c 534 E 2 . 

1 "In logischem und ontologischem 
Betracht aber ist die Idee das Object 
des Begriffs. Wie durch die Einzel- 
vorstelhmg das Einzelobject erhannt 
wird, so wird durch den Begriff die 
Idee erhannt. Die Idee ist nicht das 
den vielen einander gleichartigen Ein- 
zelobjecten innewohnende Wesen als 
solches, sondern das als in seiner Art 
vollkommen, unveranderlich, einheit- 
licb und selbststandig oder an und fur 
sicb existirend vorgestellte Wesen der 
einander gleichartigen Einzelobjecte 
(die in den Umfang des Begriffs fallen, 
durch den eben diese Idee gedacht 
wird)." Ueberweg Grundriss der 
Gesch. der Ph. 1 125. Apparently 
these words do not refer to the passage 
before us, as at p. 132 Ueberweg says 
expressly that the four objects re- 
cognized in republic 509 ff. 533 f. are 
ISicu fiadrjfjLariKa <rt6/tara eko^es. 

2 In tabulating and discussing the 
imagery of the cave I have taken ac- 
count only of 'shadows of statuettes 
of things,' 'statuettes of things,' 're- 
flections of things,' * things them- 
selves,' neglecting the subdivision of 

'things' into 'things,' 'the moon and 
the stars seen at night,' and 'the sun.' 
All these stand for real existences or 
ideas. 'The sun' is plainly the avrb 
dyadov. 'The moon and stars' would 
seem to be the ideas of SUaioy, kcl\6p, 
and perhaps all the ideas which in the 
republic bear indifferently abstract and 
general names. (Cf. Parmenid. 130 b.) 
(The phrase irepl tCov tov diKalov <sklQ>v 
rj aydX/j.aT<j)v u>v at anial 517 e, ' about 
particular rights as men conceive them 
or as they are,' implies that a place 
must be found in the allegory for the 
avrb Ukcllov at any rate ; while the re- 
peated mention of SUaiov and kcCKov in 
company with ayadov prepares us to 
find them placed second in the list.) 
' Things ' are the rest of the ideas, in- 
cluding clvdpwTroi 516 A and fd re Kal 
(pvrd 532 a b. Plato is careful to say 
534 e that the names which he gives to 
the Trad^fiara ip ry ipvxy yiyvo/xeva 
are not important. This is, I take it, 
an apology for a slight inconsistency in 
the use of them, 'conjecture' (ekaaia) 
and 'belief (irlcms) being assigned at 
511 e to 'images' and 'things,' and 



I 3 The Two Methods. 

* - A to show that the allegory of 
Having thus shown or tned to sho ^ 

the eave agrees in all respects as 1 f th 

,ith the t^ retatl l 0f fl : o lent of the sixth book. To 
paper, I now resume the argument ^ ^ ^ 

the two segments of the "^"' ^ of inve stigation are 
general notions and ideas, two method ^ ^ 

Ligned. The one * ad op^ -^ B> fc 

* ^XXou, *"*" tCmethod which will presum- 
*r*i4* 533 d; th ! *; i *LiTn of the future, is scien- 
ably he adopted by the ^Jmxan ^^ ^ ^ 

tific in a higher sense 534 D. 

briefly, as follows .- ^ from ^-po- 

(1) The arithmetician and tbej ^ ^ in ds 

theses (e.g. odd and even the geom to au 

of angle),-which, not being g*to d J^^and thence 
to the last retain their ^V^\ desired conclusions, 
descend by mutual agreement _ ^o of ^ TeTpa ^_ 

Furthermore, to aid them m the! J* * employ models 

,0, M. <5 MW ^'^^ible world, and are them- 

^n^^^Sr investigatedbyme8B8 

of bypotheses, with the ^J^^^ s tarts from 

(2) The dialectician, like the m ^ con . 

Metises, but, unlike ^^ lately descending to 

tent with them. Hence, instead 01 

ablY) to -the pa, - "Sl* S 

S - i ^^ SAX- * 

terns ^ ore 2 P Xr HI 
latter use than m the former. 


conclusions, he uses his hypotheses as stepping-stones by which 
to ascend to the principle of all things. Having thus reached 
that which is not hypothetical in the dp^rj tov ttclvtos, he is 
in a position to descend, without recurrence to sensibles, from 
idea to idea, and so to the conclusion sought. 

Let us now examine the description here given of the 
former of the two methods, bearing in mind that, if my in- 
terpretation of 'the line' and 'the cave' is correct, this method, 
though here described with special reference to arithmetic and 
geometry, should be applicable whenever an idea is studied in 
its reflection, the corresponding X070?, and that the characteris- 
tics here mentioned (1) use of viroOea-et^ which never cease 
to be hypothetical, and (2) dependence upon sensible images 
should be characteristics, not of mathematical processes only, 
but generally of the processes by which \6yot, are investi- 

Let us in the first place endeavour to ascertain what Plato 
means when he says that 'mathematicians suppose (vttotl- 
devrcu) the odd and the even, the geometrical figures, three 
kinds of angle, &c, assuming them to be obvious to all 
and declining to give any account of them.' His meaning 
must be that the geometer starts from such propositions as 
' There may be such a thing as length without breadth, hence- 
forward called a line,' but does not show, or even attempt to 
show, that there is such a thing. If he could prove that there 
is such a thing, this which is now a virodea-^, i.e. an dpj(rj 
dvaTroSeiKTos, would become an dpyr) proper. Now according 
to Plato there is in the ideal world an 6Wg>? ov answering to 
every abstraction. The geometer's definition is therefore hypo- 
thetical in the sense that it has not been shown to be a correct 
and complete account of the idea. Similarly, I conceive, every 
X0709 is a vTToOeais so long as it has not been shown to be 
a correct and complete account of the appropriate idea. When- 
ever a \6709 can be shown to be a correct and complete account 
of the appropriate idea, it will be no longer an viroOeais, it will 
become an ap^rf. 

Next, what are 'the visibles used as images' of which the 
mathematician's models and diagrams are typical ? They must 


be, I think, the particulars or * many') from which in virtue of 
their participation in the idea we derive that imperfect know- 
ledge of the idea which is expressed in the A.0709. So long as 
the man of science has not got a firm footing in the world 
of ideas, he cannot get clear of the visibles from which the 
X070? is obtained. 

The inferior method then starts from \6yoi, which (1) are 
hypothetical in the sense that they have not been shown to be 
correct and complete accounts of ideas, and (2) for that reason 
are still dependent upon the particulars or ' many ' from which 
they were originally derived. It is the method pursued by 
Socrates when he wishes to ascertain whether a certain person 
or a certain thing is just, and by Plato when he inquires 
whether the sophist, the statesman, and the philosopher are 
identical. The appeal is in both cases to a A.0'70?, and the ! 
X0709, though perhaps in the one case a more correct and 
complete account of the iroWd than in the other, is in neither 
case shown to be a correct and complete account of the eV. 
Plato wants something more than this, and accordingly tries to 
devise a way of converting \6yoi which are viroOeaet^ into \6yoc 
which are dp%a&, \6yoc which being obtained through particu- 
lars are imperfect representations of ideas into \6yot which are 
proved to be perfect representations of ideas, so as to eliminate 
at once both the defects of the inferior method. He conceives 
that this may be done, if, instead of descending from a hypo- 
thetical or unproved A.0709 to a conclusion, we ascend from one 
hypothetical or unproved A0709 to another, until at last, after 
repeated trials, the scale of hypothetical or unproved \6yoc 
converges and culminates in the apxv T v ttclvtos, i.e. the 
avTo dyaOovy iirefceLva rfjs ova-las, from which the ideas derive 

1 It is worth while to note that in vofil^wv ravrrju [tt]i>~\ ac^aKeiav etvai 
Xenophon's memorabilia iv 6 13 the \6yov. roiyapovv iroki) ixaKiara cSv iy<b 
word viroOeais is used for ' the general olda, ore \4yoc, roi>s aKotiovras 6/jlo\o- 
definition' of Socrates: M rty vvodeaiu yovvras irapeix^v. 2<prj Sk Kal"0/m.r]pou t 
iiravrjyev av irayra rbv \6you. Again in '08v<r<rei dvadeivai rb a<r<pa\ri p-qropa 
15 we have sentences which seem to etvai, ws Uavbv avrbv optcl Sia tQv do- 
he echoed in the Phaedo 100 d e 101 d kovvtwv rots av9pibiroi$ ayeiv toi>j Xo- 
105 B : ottotc St avros ri rip \6y(p Sie^ioi, yovs. 
Sib. Twv /ttiXt <rra 6[xo\oyovp.fro3v eiropeitTo, 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 10 


their being. If in this way we can pass from unproved general 
notions, reflections of ideas, to the good, so that we may now 
say, not only that the good causes existences, i.e. ideas, to be 
what they are, but also that the good causes existences to be 
what we conceive them, we may infer, he thinks, that our \6yoi, 
hitherto provisional, are adequate representations of 6Vtg>? 
ovtcl. Having thus bridged the gulf between the lower and 
the higher vorjrov, between \6yot and etBr), by showing that 
certain \6yoi accurately represent eiSr), we shall be able to 
descend in the line of the eiSr) without recurring to the ' many' 
L particulars from which we originally started. 

In other words, Plato conceives that, whenever we can draw 
up a scheme of viroOeaeis culminating in the dyadov, so as to 
show that the supposed system of 6Vtg>? b'vra is the best which 
intelligence working to an end could devise, we may be sure 
that our \6yoi, though originally derived from the inspection 
of particulars, are accurate representations of ideas. The 
moment we pass from vTrodeaeis to the dyaOov, our \6yoi will 
thereby receive the attestation which they have hitherto lacked 
and will be converted from inroOeaeis into dpyai, whence we 
may descend to conclusions (reXevral) as much more certain 
than the reXevrai of the geometer as certified dp^ai are more 
certain than uncertified viroOeo-eis. The dyaOov is therefore the 
source of all knowledge, just as the sun is the source of all vision 
506 A 508 D sqq. Plato does not indeed pretend either to 
have drawn up the required scheme of existences, or to be able 
to explain the passage from viroOeaeis to the dyaOov. It is not 
for him, but for the trained dialectician of the future, to explore 
the fiaKporipa 7re/noSo? 504 A sqq. 506 E. To use the 
imagery of the cave, the Heraclitean Cratylus has released 
him from his bonds, turned him round, and convinced him 
that he has hitherto seen only the shadows of statuettes ; fur- 
ther, Socrates has dragged him up the steep and rugged 
ascent, and taught him to study the reflections of men and 
things, of stars, and of the sun ; but he has not learnt to regard 
with unreverted eye things themselves, the moon and the 
stars, and the sun in all its splendour. In short, he says of 
himself what Cowley said of Bacon: 


" The barren Wilderness he past, 

Did on the very Border stand 

Of the blest promis'd Land, 
And from the Mountain's Top of his exalted Wit, 

Saw it himself, and shew'd us it. 
But Life did never to one Man allow 
Time to discover Worlds, and conquer too." 

But, it may be asked, is not the view here taken of the 
method to be adopted in the investigation of ideas inconsistent 
with the doctrine of dpafivrjo-ts, which in some other dialogues 
is prominent, and seems to be referred to in republic 621 A? 
If the sight of particulars reminds us of the idea which the 
soul has known in a previous existence, is not the idea directly 
apprehended ? must not the superior method be accounted 
a superfluity ? The inconsistency is, I think, only apparent. 
We may recollect the idea well enough to say that the particu- 
lar falls short of it, and yet be unable to form an adequate 
notion of the idea recollected, just as (to use an image of 
Plato's) we may perceive that a portrait of Simmias is un- 
satisfactory without being able to paint a more perfect likeness 
or even to recal his features precisely and correctly. Thus the 
doctrine of dvafjuvrjac^ leaves ample room for a theory of the 
investigation of the ideas recollected. In fact, avdfivtjcris 
assures us that there are ideas to be known, an assumption 
which was made at the outset of the passage before us : but it 
does not give us correct and complete knowledge of ideas, still 
less does it assure us that we have obtained such knowledge. 

At this point it is necessary to refer to the well-known 
passage of the Pkaedo 100 A sq., though it is not without 
hesitation that I offer the following summary of it. Finding 
himself unsuccessful in the attempt to trace things to their 
cause, the good, the Platonic Socrates proceeded to deal with 
causes as he was in the habit of doing with other matters. 
His rule was to assume, i.e. to accept without proof, that X070? 
which seemed to him most secure, and to account that true 
which agreed with it, that untrue which did not. On this 
principle he proposes in the present case to justify his belief in 
the indestructibility of the soul by showing that it is in accord 
with a X0709 dc<f)a\rj<; which is no novelty. What in this case 



is assumed without proof is apparently the correspondence of 
the idea in general to Socrates's conception of it. Now Socrates 
conceives things to be caused by participation in the idea. On 
the strength of this do-cfraXrjs Aoyo? he proposes, when asked 
the cause of anything, to allege participation in an appropriate 
idea, neglecting altogether those inconsistent causes which are 
alleged by more ingenious thinkers. If however his original 
virodecris is disputed, he will justify it by a higher assumption, 
and so proceed until he reaches l/caiov t*\ In conclusion he 

1 ras 8e o^iVeis ravras Kal irpoo~- 
diaeis Kal rds aXXas rets roiavras koja- 
\pelas eiprjs av xcu'peu>, irapels diroKplvaadai 
rots creavTov cro0a>rtpois* av Se Se8iu>s av 
rb Xey5p,evov ttjv cavrov o~Kidv /cat ti)v 
direipiav, exbp.evos cueivov rod do~<f>aXovs 
rrjs virodicrecos, ovtios diroKplvaio av. 
[el 84 tis av-rrjs rrjs vTode'treus '4xi-to, 
Xalpeiv eiprjs av Kal ovk dvoKpivato, ews 
dy ra 0,77-' eKeivrjs oppujOevra CKe\j/aio y et 
<rot dWrjXoLS vfjL<pu)vel rj Siafitovei.] 
eireiSi) 8k eKeivrjs avrris 84ol ere SiSovai 
Xoyov, wravTws av SiSolrjs, dXXrjv av 
viro&eaiv vTro6i/Ji.evQS, t)tis t<Zv avtpOev 
fiekTLGTTj (palvoLTO, e'ees iiri tl iKavbv 
iXdois, dfj.a Se ovk av (pfipois toenrep ol 
avriXoyiKol Trepl re rrjs dpxys St.a'Xeyo- 
fxevos Kal tQv e eKelvrjs (dpp.r)p,e'vtov, elirep 

j3ovXoLO TL TU3V OVTUV ebpelv. 101 C E. 

The sentence which I have bracketed 
seems to me in every way suspicious. 
That (1) e'xotro cannot stand in the 
sense of 'oppugnare,' 'aggredi,' espe- 
cially as ixbfievos has jutst been used 
(100 d 101 d) in its proper meaning, 
is remarked by Madvig, who would 
therefore read tyoiro. But this con- 
jecture leaves unanswered the further 
objection, that, as the text stands, (2) 
there is no antithesis (as there plainly 
should be) between el 84 tls avrr/s ttjs 
virod eVews ^x oiTO i * ^<Polto) and eireiS-r) 
Se iKeLvris avTTJs 84oi <je SiSavai \6yov. 
Ast endeavours to meet both objections 
by reading el 84 tls aXX^s vwodeo-eus 
exoiro, to which correction it may be 

objected that elsewhere throughout the 
passage Socrates persistently uses the 
word virodeats only when he is speaking 
of his own provisional apxy, and would 
hardly use a term so characteristic of 
his own doctrine in speaking of his 
opponent's more pretentious principle. 
Moreover (3) the injunction to consider 
t& air eKelvrjs bppLijde'vTa o~Ke"\pao~daL et 
col dXXrjXoLS ^vp.<pcovet rj Siacpwvel finds 
no countenance in the summary state- 
ment ctXX' ovv Si) ravrrj ye wppLTjcra, Kal 
virodep.evos eKacrrore Xoyov ov av Kpivto 
ippiOfxeviaraTov tlvai, d p.kv &v fioi Sour} 
Tovrcp vp.<t>toveiv, rid i)ixi cos dXrjdrj ovra, 
Kal irepl ahlas Kal irepl tlov dXXuv 
airdvTtov, a 8' dv pcij, 0>s ovk dXrjdrj 100 A, 
and involves a violation of the precept 
d/xa Se ovk av <p6pois coo'Trep ol avriXoyiKol 
irepl re rrjs dpxvs SiaXeybpievos Kal tlov 
et- eKelvrjs lop/uLrjpLe'vtov 101 e. Indeed it 
is not easy to say what is meant by 
'the mutual agreement or disagree- 
ment of r& dirb TTjs virodiaews oppLrj- 
de^vTa,' a phrase which looks very like a 
perversion of the concluding words of 
the sentence quoted above from 100 a. 
The sentence seems to me to be the 
work of an interpolator, perhaps the 
same who in 72 d has added the words 
Kal ra:s flip 7' dyadals dp.ei.vov elvai rats 
8e KaKais Kaiciov. (See Bonitz Pla- 
tonisclie Studien p. 283.) It will be 
observed that in both places phrases 
which occur in the context are echoed 
in a false sense. 



warns us not to confound the study of the dp-^rj with the 
investigation of its consequences. 

As I read it, the whole of the passage summarized is con- 
cerned with the 'inferior method' of the republic. It has indeed 
been thought that the Uavov of 101 D is the dwiroOerov of 
republic 511 B, and therefore that the concluding sentences 
refer to the 'superior method.' It would seem however that a 
reference to the superior method, which at 99 C Socrates has 
renounced as beyond his powers, can find no place here, where 
he is describing his Sevrepos 7rXoC?. It remains then to under- 
stand by the Uavov any more general iir66eai<s which gains the 
assent of the opponent. Thus, while the passage in the republic 
treats of the use of the inferior method in exposition, the passage 
in the Phaedo (as the language throughout shows) deals with 
its application to debate, and accordingly provision is now made 
in case the viroOea^ offered by the one disputant should not 
be approved by the other (eVetSj) e/ce/r?/? avrrjs BioL ae SiSovac 
Xoyov). In such a case we are to take some more general vnb- 
Oecris, and so on, until we arrive at one which the opponent is 
willing to accept. As this inroOeo-L?, not having been certified 
by the ascent from it to the dyaOov, is no more an dpyr] (in the 
strict sense of the word) than the virodeat^ originally offered 
and refused, the reasoning which is based upon it is necessarily 
of the inferior kind. 

In fine, the two methods of the Phaedo that which Socra- 
tes has abandoned, not because he has lost his belief in it, but 
because he does not know how to apply it, and that which he 
adopts as the least unsatisfactory substitute are respectively 
identical with the two methods described in the republic^ the 
method of the dialectician and the method of the so-called 
man of science. In both dialogues the superior method is an 
unrealized aspiration ; though it may perhaps be thought that 
the republic expresses a more hopeful mood than the Phaedo. 
Both dialogues are themselves examples of the inferior method, 
the v7r66e(TL<; being the theory of ideas ; but it would seem that, 
in accordance with the precept d/jua he ovk dv <f>vpoi<; coairep ol 
avrCkoyacol Trepl re rfjs dp^r}? hLaXeyofxevo^ /cal twv e' ifcet- 
vrjs wpfjLrjfievcop, elirep /3ov\ol6 ri twv ovtoov evpelv, in the 


republic the viriOeai^ itself is under discussion, while in the 
Phaedo Socrates traces twv eg e/celvrjs oop/jLiyjuivcov ti. 

The passage in the republic upon which I have been com- 
menting deserves, I think, more attention than it has received 
from recent commentators and historians, if only because it is 
unusually precise and dogmatic. But when Plato is precise 
and dogmatic, he generally contrives to introduce an element of 
obscurity into the exposition. In this instance the indirect 
description of the third segment is just such an element, made 
more perplexing for us by the apparent parallelism of metaph. 
I 6 5. I venture to think however that, if we (1) under- 
stand the original dvaXoyia, not as a quadripartition of the 
universe, but as an eUcov /car dvaXoylav in which the first 
and second terms are introduced only to explain the rela- 
tion between the third and fourth, (2) equate the four seg- 
ments, not with the whole imagery of the succeeding allegory, 
but with the imagery and the interpretation of the more impor- 
tant part of it, and (3) take the third segment to stand for 
those universals which were the foundation of the Socratic 
dialectic, we obtain a consistent interpretation both of ' the 
line ' and of ' the cave.' Plato, as I read him, gives us here just 
what was wanted to complete the outlines of the theory of ideas, 
a comparison between his own position and his master's. 
First, he shows that the theory of ideas is founded on the 
Socratic doctrine of universals, which is incorporated in it, not 
superseded. Secondly, he marks the deficiencies of the Socratic 
logic, and of all inquiry conducted on merely Socratic prin- 
ciples. Thirdly, while indicating a hope that the theory of 
ideas, teleologically interpreted, may one day become the 
basis of a new and powerful logic, he admits unreservedly 
that his own logic is not at present superior in kind to that 
of Socrates. 


AESCH. AG. 115 -120. 

olcovoov fiacrtXevs ftao-iXevcn vewv, 6 /ceXawds, o r i^oiriv dpycis, 
(pavevres i/crap fj,e\d0pcov, X P ( > ^ K ^opiirdXrov, 

irajjarpkiTToi^ iv ehpaicriv, 
fioarKOjAevoL Xayi'vav ipiKV/nova ^epfian yevvav, 

(SXafSevra XoktOlcov Spo/jicov. 

It appears from the commentaries that the concluding 
words of this citation are very difficult of interpretation. Her- 
mann, indeed, would have us suppose that the \oi<t0los Spo/xos 
of the unhappy hare "portended the capture of Troy just when 
it thought itself safe under the feigned retirement of the 
Grecian fleet." 

Seivd fiel ovv Seivd repd^et crowds oiajvoOiras. 

I am glad to see that upon this curious exposition Professor 
Paley, who cites it, observes a significant silence. The latest 
German commentary I have seen, that of Enger, is as far gone 
in another direction, enquiring by what interpretation or correc- 
tion \oLa0ioL SpofioL may be brought to signify the birth of the 
hare's offspring, of which they were hindered by the devouring 
of the mother an enquiry hard to answer. 

The word \oia0i<ov, in which all the difficulty lies, seems to 
have caused some misapprehension of the rest of the phrase. 
Professor Paley, in his translation of 1864, gives as the literal 
rendering " stopped from future courses," and Donaldson in the 
New Cratylus, 454, " stopped from running any more races." 
Both these versions do some violence to the sense of XolaOtos, 
in which respect Prof. Kennedy's " caught ere its closing race 


was over" is more accurate. But apart from that, we may- 
doubt whether auy one, not pressed with the necessity of getting 
last courses into the context, would have translated /3Xa/3evTa 
hpofjiwv ' stopped from running ' instead of ' hindered in running.' 
/3\a7TTiv, as Eustathius says in the notice cited by Donaldson 
himself, is "properly to ifiiro^L^eiv tov rpe^ovra, to hinder or 
impede a runner'' and so it should be turned in the two cases 
given from Sophokles, El. 696, and Ant. 455, el Be t*? Oe&v 
fiXairroi, cf)v<yoi tuv ^co kclkos tcv Kpeicraova, though Donaldson, 
still haunted by the XoutOicdv of the Agamemnon, writes stop in 
both of them, to the manifest detriment of the meaning. Nor 
is fiXafievra 8p6/j>G)v in this sense at all alien to the passage 
before us. The eagles' quarry was hindered in running by its 
pregnant condition, and as it was the cruelty of its capture 
under these circumstances which excited the anger of Artemis, 
this interpretation at once gives the line force and point, which 
it is difficult to find in the mere statement that when caught 
the hare could not run any more. 

Even so however XotaOlcov is a difficulty. An epithet thus 
inserted in a compact phrase like f3Xa/3evra Spoficov ought to 
be closely coherent with it in meaning. Hindered in running 
is sense, hindered in last running is scarcely sense. It is worth 
while therefore to ask whether XotaOicov is likely to be an error. 
No symbols are more frequently confused with others than 
those which compose the first syllable of XoiaOlwv A with A, 
oi with v. Each of these permutations is common enough to 
give a pala?ographic basis of possibility to the correction, 

fiXafievra Bvadocov Spoficov, 

that is, literally, hindered in its difficult running; compare Occo, 
doos, Su<77r\oo?, Bvairvoos. 






The second volume of this work contains the Servian com- 
mentary on the fourth and fifth books of the Aeneid, with an 
elaborate preface in which the editor sets forth at length his 
views on the work, the manuscripts on which its text is based, 
its authorities, its date, and its general character. The appear- 
ance of this preface, while it makes the volume doubly welcome, 
also makes it possible for a reviewer to criticize the edition, for 
the first time, as a whole. 

There are two recensions of the Servian commentary 2 , one 
of which contains many more notes than the other. These 
notes are sometimes supplementary to those of the shorter 
version, sometimes repetitions of them, sometimes inconsistent 
with them. The fuller recension is generally known as the 
Servius of Daniel, from the fact that the different manuscripts 
in which it is contained were first used by Peter Daniel, who 
edited it from these manuscripts in 1600. An account of the 

1 Servi Grammatici qui feruntur in the fourth edition of Conington's com- 

Vergilium commentarii. Kecensuerunt mentary were published before the 

Georgius Thilo et Hermannus Hagen. appearance of this volume. 

Vol. i. Fasc. ii. Lipsiae, mdccclxxxi. 2 In this paper the supposed inter- 

The essays on the ancient Vergilian polations in Servius are enclosed in 

critics and commentators prefixed to brackets. 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 11 


manuscripts used by Daniel, all or nearly all of which are for- 
tunately still in existence, is given both by Thilo and Thomas, 
of whose excellent essay on Servius I have spoken elsewhere. 
The two scholars are in substantial accord on all points but 
one. The additional notes on the first and second Aeneids are 
contained in a manuscript now at Cassel. A Fulda manuscript, 
containing additional notes on the same two books, was collated 
for Daniel by Scioppius. The readings of this codex as given 
by Daniel do not always coincide with those of the Cassel MS. 
Thomas, like Schubart before him, doubts whether the Ful- 
densis of Daniel is the same as the now surviving Cassellanus. 
Thilo maintains their identity in a very interesting and ingeni- 
ous argument; but until Thomas (whom Thilo treats in this 
matter with scant courtesy) has replied to him, it cannot be 
said that the last word has been spoken on the subject. 

The first question to be decided with regard to the Servian 
commentary affects the character of the fuller version. Is the 
fuller version the true Servius, while the vulgate (as with 
Thomas and Thilo we may call it) is an abridgment ? Or is 
the vulgate the genuine Servius, while the additional notes are 
interpolations ? And if interpolations, by whom and when were 
they added to the genuine commentary ? 

The view that the fuller recension represents the genuine 
commentary was maintained by. Joseph Scaliger, and has been 
recently upheld, though in a different form, by Ribbeck. Mas- 
vie, on the other hand, and Ottfried Miiller, contended for the 
non-Servian origin of the additional notes, and Thomas and 
Thilo agree with them. 

In the essays prefixed to Conington's first volume (ed. 4) I 
ventured to express a doubt whether this latter view is correct ; 
and a further examination of the evidence has led me to form 
the opinion that the additional notes have, on the whole, as 
good a right to bear the name of Servius as the vulgate. I 
doubt whether either recension of the Servian commentary can 
claim to come entirely from the hand of Servius, and to repre- 
sent all that he had to say upon his author. But as Servius 
was celebrated as a very learned lecturer on Vergil, I suspect 
that the commentaries now bearing his name represent, in a 


fuller and a shorter shape respectively, notes which were at 
various times given by him in his lectures, and which were 
edited without any serious attempt to present a properly 
homogeneous whole. 

It used to be supposed that the additional notes were con- 
demned absolutely by the words ' ut dixit Servius,' which were 
thought to occur in one of them on Eclogue 9. 1. But Thomas 
informs us in the supplement to his essay that these words are 
not really there. The only important piece of external evidence 
which could affect the question is therefore gone, and we are 
left entirely to considerations drawn from the character of the 
notes themselves. 

The chief arguments relied upon by Thomas and Thilo as 
shewing that these additional notes did not form part of the 
original commentary of Servius, are, so far as I can ascertain, 
the following : 

(1) The additional notes fall into two classes ; one of which 
includes comments which are really supplementary to the vul- 
gate, while the other consists of notes which, although they 
have been inserted in the text in such a way as to present a 
specious appearance of coherence with it, are really out of place, 
and interrupt the sequence of ideas. In many cases the addi- 
tion is made with the aid of conjunctions such as ergo, nam, 
enim, quod, quia and the like, which on examination are found 
to be out of place. Thilo notices in particular that the word 
sane is used in an irrational way in the additional notes. In 
some passages again the additional note has had the effect of 
mutilating the text of the vulgate. 

(2) The additional notes quote a great variety of opinions 
upon disputed points without deciding upon any one in par- 
ticular, while the vulgate usually does so only to adopt one in 
preference to the others. 

(3) The vulgate, when referring to an opinion previously 
expressed, or an observation previously made, always uses the 
words ut supra diadmus, while the additional notes speak im- 
personally, ut supra dictum est. 

(4) Where the manuscripts of the vulgate mention the 
names of Donatus and Urbanus, the manuscripts containing 



the additional notes omit these names. This is however the 
case only with Donatus and Urbanus, not with Probus, Asper, 
or any other commentator mentioned in the vulgate. 

(5) The compiler of the additional scholia assumes that 
the commentary on the Eclogues and Georgics preceded that 
on the Aeneid, while the vulgate assumes the reverse order. 
It may be observed by the way that the commentary of Aelius 
Donatus must have followed the same order as that observed in 
the additional scholia. 

(6) In some cases the author of the additional scholia 
seems to have followed a different text from that followed by 
the author of the vulgate. 

(7) The additional notes containing quotations from Sallust 
are probably to be attributed to Asper, others to Probus, others 
to Aelius Donatus. Many agree with Vergilian notes in Mac- 
robius, but it cannot be shewn that they are borrowed from the 

(8) The character of the vulgate differs from that of the 
additional notes. The latter sometimes exhibit a deeper learn- 
ing than the vulgate, while at the same time they are often 
expressed in worse Latin. The notes on grammar are inferior, 
but those on lexicography and interpretation, superior, to those 
of the vulgate ; and the fables are given, in the additional 
notes, in a fuller form. 

(9) The question must be answered whether scholars later 
than Servius, who seem to have known and used the Servian 
commentary, had the vulgate or the fuller version before them. 
Little can be made, in this connexion, of Cledonius, Pompeius, 
Priscian, the scholia on Lucan or on Statius : but the first 
writer among the mythographi and Isidore in his Origines 
evidently borrowed from the shorter Servius. In an immense 
number of passages, where there is a verbal correspondence 
between the notes of Isidore and those of Servius, Isidore 
repeats the note of the vulgate, though he might as easily, had 
he had the fuller version before him, have copied from it. In 
some cases however it appears as if the compiler of the fuller 
commentary had taken his notes from Isidore. 

The conclusion which Thilo draws with regard to the com- 


position of the additional scholia is this : that they were 
compiled by one writer, who had before him not only the 
writings from which extracts were made by Macrobius, but also 
the Origines of Isidore ; that his date must therefore be later 
than that of Isidore (about 570 640), and that from some 
slight indications it may be inferred that he was a Christian. 

Before passing on to the more important points involved in 
the discussion, I may remark that this last inference is based on 
the slightest possible evidence. Thilo appeals to two notes on 
A. 4 200 and 301, which he thinks (after Burmann) shew a 
Christian tone. The first is as follows : significat sine intermis- 
sione fieri sacrificia, ad quern (quae ?), excubare per diem et 
noctem necesse sit, ut dicimus quotidie in officio esse ; non ergo 
apud quas dii excubant, sed quae diis excubantur. The second 
is this : commotis excita sacris : verbo antiquo usum tradunt ; 
moveri enim sacra dicebantur, cum sollemnibus diebus aperie- 
bantur templa instaurandi sacrificii causa ; cuius rei Plautus in 
Pseud olo meminit, ' scis tu profecto, mea si commovissem sacra, 
quo pacto et quantas soleam turbas dare.' Hoc vulgo apertiones 

I wish that Thilo had pointed out explicitly what mark of 
Christian authorship he finds in these notes. His other argu- 
ment, that the compiler of the additional scholia often speaks of 
the customs of the Roman ritual as things of the past, need 
prove no more than that his notes were written after 382 a.d. 

Let us now proceed to examine the arguments for the non- 
Servian origin of the additional scholia in the order in which 
(nearly following Thilo) I have stated them. 

(1) There can be no doubt that many of these notes 
are repetitions of what has been said in the vulgate, and that 
many again interrupt and interfere with the coherence of the 
vulgate. So much is this the case that Thilo sometimes trans- 
poses them ; a proceeding which, however tempting, is in my 
opinion questionable in a case of this kind. If we are to form 
an opinion on the character of a supposed interpolation, it is 
important that it should be exhibited to the eye of the reader, 
so far as possible, in the form in which the manuscripts present 
it. When these additional notes are embedded in the text of 


the vulgate, to take them out of their place and print them sepa- 
rately is to assume the point which has to be proved, that they 
are essentially heterogeneous to their surrounding. Even where 
the sense of the vulgate is unquestionably interfered with by 
the interrupting matter, it would, in my opinion, have been safer 
to print the text as it appears in the manuscripts, relegating 
conjectural transpositions to a note, than to pursue, as Thilo has 
done, the opposite method. Indeed I have found two cases, 
and I dare say I might find more, in which I think it doubtful 
whether any transposition was required 1 . 

The phenomenon presented by these notes does not differ in 
kind from what meets us in the Terentian commentary which 
bears the name of Donatus. This work abounds in repetitions ; 
a fact which may shew either that its author must have copied, 
or dictated to a class, identical notes from two or more older com- 
mentaries, or that the commentary is not the work of one 
scholar but of two, one of whom subsequently added, without 
any regard for symmetry, notes taken from a second work 
similar in character to the first. Or again, the same scholar 
may have given two or more sets of lectures, the notes of which 
partly coincided with and partly differed from each other, and 
the two sets of notes may have been carelessly embodied, side 
by side, in the commentary bearing his name. 

1 A. 1 52 Poetae quidem fingunt que arta levari Vincla iubet Priamus.' 
hunc regem esse ventorum [Hippotae Tridenti autem pro tridente, dativum 
sive Iovis sive Neptuni filium. Qui pro ablative Aperit, ideo quod ha- 
cum immineret bellum, quo Tyrrhenus, renarum congerie impediente prae- 
Lipari frater, Peloponnesum vastare clusae ad navigandum erant. Ceterum 
proposuisset, missus ab Agamemnone, bis idem. Ergo inmisso in eas mari 
ut freta tueretur, pervenit adLiparum, aptas ad navigandum facit. Sic Sal- 
qui supra dictas insulas regebat im- lustius, <sed ubi tempore anni mare 
perio, factaque amicitia Cyanam filiam classibus patefactum est.' Temperat, 
eius in matrimonium sumpsit et Stron- tranquillum facit. Atque rotis sum- 
gulam insulam in qua maneret acce- mas, &c. Bene non moratur in de- 
pit. Varro autem dicit hunc insularum scriptione currus, ut citius liberetur 
regem fuisse,] ex quarum nebulis et Aeneas.] At in quinto ubi nullum 
fumo, &c. periculum est, &c. 

A. 1 145 levat, leves ac navigabiles This is the order in the Oassel ms. 

facit, ut 'nostrumquelevesquaecumque I am not convinced that any change 

laborem. ' [Alibi levat, laxat : ut ' at- is necessary in either case. 


The fuller version of Servius does not essentially differ in cha- 
racter, so far as its repetitions and inconsistencies go, from such 
scholia as those of Donatus on Terence. The vulgate of Servius 
is indeed on the whole a homogeneous work, which may fairly 
be supposed to come from one hand. Yet even the vulgate is 
not always consistent with itself, and sometimes gives us notes 
which bear the appearance of having been transcribed inde- 
pendently of each other and never harmonized 1 . Taken by 
themselves, these considerations point to the conclusion that 
though the fuller version of Servius cannot be called a homo- 
geneous work, it has at least as good a right to bear the name 
of Servius as the Terentian commentary that of Donatus. 
And it must further be observed that, as I hope to shew in a 
moment, there are many cases in which the vulgate and the 
additional notes are absolutely homogeneous. 

The second and third arguments are no doubt of importance 
as accentuating the facts already dwelt upon. It cannot be 
denied that there are slight differences of character between 
some of the additional notes and those of the vulgate. 

(4) I am unable to see how this fact bears on the question 
of the Servian character of the additional notes. Where, in the 
vulgate, the names of Donatus and Urbanus are expressly men- 
tioned, in the corresponding passages of the fuller version they 
are suppressed, and alii, or a similar word, is substituted for 
them. This shews that there were at least two recensions of 
that part of the commentary which is undoubtedly Servian, but 
what has it to do with the character of the supposed inter- 
polations ? 

(5) This fact again proves no more than that there were 
two editions of the Servian commentary, one of which began 
with the Eclogues, and the other with the Aeneid. But there 
is some probability that this was the case with the vulgate as 
well. For in the Harleian manuscript of Servius, my account 
of which, written in 1878 2 , has not come under Thilo's notice, 
the Servian memoir of Yergil is prefixed both to the com- 

1 See, for instance, p. 5, 1. 9 12 in 2 In the preface to a pamphlet en- 

Thilo's edition ; p. 51, 1. 3 foil., com- titled ' Ancient Lives of Vergil.' 
pared with p. 76, 1. 17 foil. 


mentary on the Aeneid and (in a shorter form) to that on the 
Eclogues. I do not gather from Thilo's account of his manu- 
scripts that this is the case with any other copy of the vulgate ; 
but it shews that the commentary on the Eclogues was by some 
editors of Servius considered to be at least independent of that 
on the Aeneid. 

With regard to (6) it must be admitted that the facts 
adduced by Thilo make in favour of separating the notes of the 
fuller version from those of the vulgate. The same may perhaps 
be said of (8), though it might be as reasonably inferred that 
so far as the notes on lexicography and interpretation go, the 
fuller version represents an older commentary than the vulgate. 
No conclusion that seriously affects the question can, so far as 
I see, be drawn from (7), for there can be no doubt that notes 
of Asper and Probus are embedded in the vulgate as well as in 
the additional scholia. 

(9) I have not examined the passages which are alleged to 
have been borrowed from Servius by the first writer among the 
myihographi. But on the .question of the relation between 
Isidore and Servius I am wholly unable to agree with Thilo. 
This point is of the utmost importance as bearing on the ques- 
tion both of the sources of the vulgate, and of the relation 
between the vulgate and the additional notes. Could it be 
shewn with certainty that Isidore copied from the vulgate of 
Servius, while he was ignorant of the fuller version, no doubt we 
should have a strong argument in favour of supposing the notes 
of the latter to be insertions by a later hand. But I think, and will 
endeavour to shew, that Isidore did not copy from the vulgate 
of Servius, but that the numerous coincidences between the 
vulgate and Isidore are due to community of sources, and also 
that a comparison between Isidore and the fuller Servius shews 
that many notes in the latter are absolutely homogeneous with 
the vulgate, and cannot, therefore, be supposed to be interpo- 

All considerations drawn from external evidence make 
strongly against the theory that Isidore borrowed from the vul- 
gate of Servius. The Origines of Isidore is a work of reference 
arranged under heads on a perfectly intelligible system, and 

Till LO'S SERVIUS. 161 

bears the plainest marks of having been derived from a work or 
works of a similar kind. It is certain that Isidore had access 
to the Pratum of Suetonius, and nearly certain that he largely 
consulted it ; and there is no proof that he did not know the 
great work of Verrius Flaccus. At least there is much in 
Isidore which must directly or indirectly have come from the 
latter. Now it is abundantly plain, and is allowed by Thilo, 
that the Pratum of Suetonius was much used by Servius. We 
shall therefore be prepared, a priori, to find that Suetonius was 
the common authority for many identical notes in Servius and 
Isidore. Why indeed should Isidore, with Suetonius or an 
abridgment of Suetonius before him, go out of his way to look 
for information in Servius ? It would be like hunting for a 
needle in a bottle of hay. But we can safely leave a priori 
ground, and give instances of notes taken from Suetonius by 
Servius and Isidore alike. 

Serv. Eel. 3 8 hirqui autem sunt oculorum anguli. secundum 
Suetonium Tranquillum in Vitiis Corporalibus. 

Isid. 12 1 14 hircus lascivum animal et petulcum... cuius 
oculi ob libidinem in transversum aspiciunt, unde et nomen 
traxit. Nam hirqui sunt oculorum anguli secundum Suetonium. 

Serv. E. 3 105 ulna proprie est spatium in quantum utraque 
extenditur manus. Dicta ulna airo rav coXev&v, i.e. a brachiis, 
unde et Xev/cooXevo? "H/M7 dicitur. Licet Suetonius unum 
cubitum velit esse tantummodo. 

Isid. 11 1 64 ulna secundum quosdam utriusque manus 
extensio est, secundum alios cubitus, quod magis verum est, 
quia Graece coXevrj cubitus dicitur. 

Serv. A. 7 612 Suetonius in libro De Genere Vestium dicit 
tria esse genera trabearum. Unum dis sacratum, quod est tan- 
tum de purpura. Aliud regum, quod est purpureum ; habet enim 
album aliquid. Tertium augurale, de purpura et cocco mixtum. 

Isid. 19 24 8 trabea erat togae species ex purpura et cocco, 
qua operti Romanorum reges initio procedebant. Hanc primum 
Komulus adinvenisse dicitur, ad discretionem regii habitus. 

Serv. A. 7 627 secundum Suetonium in libro De Vitiis 
Corporalibus arvina est durum pingue, quod est inter cutem et 


Isid. 11 1 81 arvina plnguedo cuti adhaerens. 

In these cases the reference in Servius proves the Suetonian 
origin of the note in Isidore, or makes it highly probable. Had 
Isidore been copying from Servius, why should he not have 
written out his notes in full and without any variation ? But 
the very points in which the two writers differ shew in my 
opinion that Isidore is abridging the passages in Suetonius from 
which Servius is quoting more fully. In the case of the note 
on hircus, indeed, the explanation given by Servius of 'trans- 
versa tuentibus hircis' is quite different from that of Isidore. 

Let us now consider some instances where there is a verbal 
coincidence between Isidore and the vulgate of Servius. 

Servius A. 1 12 urbs dicta ab orbe, quod antiquae civitates 
in orbem fiebant, vel ab urvo, parte aratri, quo muri designa- 

Isid. 15 2 3 urbs vocata ab orbe, quod antiquae civitates in 
orbem fiebant, vel ab urvo parte aratri, quo muri designabantur, 
unde est illud 'optavitque locum regno et concludere sulco.' 
Locus enim futurae civitatis sulco design abatur, id est aratro. 
Cato: 'qui urbem, inquit, novam condet, tauro et vacca aret, ubi 
araverit, murum faciat, ubi portam vult esse, aratrum sustollat 
et portet, et portam vocet.' 

If Isidore is here borrowing his first words from Servius, it 
is natural to ask how it happens that he does not quote the line 
on which Servius is commenting, but a line which does not 
occur in Vergil at all; and secondly, what was Isidore's authority 
for the second part of his note, which is so closely connected 
with the first that it is natural to suppose that the whole comes 
from one source. Was Verrius Flaccus the ultimate authority? 
See Fest. 875 s.v. urvat. 

Serv. ib. et earn deleverat Scipio Aemilianus. Quae autem 
nunc est postea a Romanis est condita. 

Isid. 15 1 30 ex iis profecta Dido in litore Africae urbem 
condidit, et Karthadam nominavit, quod Phoenicia lingua ex- 
primit; mox sermone verso Karthago est dicta: hanc Scipio 
delevit. Quae autem nunc est, postea a Romanis condita est. 
Karthago autem antea Byrsa, post Tyrus dicta est, deinde 

Till LaS SERVIUS. 163 

In this instance also the words common to Servius and 
Isidore occur in Isidore as an integral part of a longer note, and 
the supposition that they are taken from the passage in Servius 
is unnatural. Nor is there any other note in Servius from 
which they could be derived. 

Much the same may be said of the following notes : 

Serv. A. 1 43 rates, abusive naves: nam proprie rates sunt 
conexae invicem trabes. 

Isid. 19 1 9 rates et primum et antiquissimum navigii genus 
e rudibus tignis asseribusque consertum, ad cuius similitudinem 
fabricatae naves ratariae dictae. Nunc iam rates abusive naves : 
nam proprie rates sunt conexae invicem trabes. 

The ultimate authority for this note may have been Verrius 
Flaccus : see Fest. 273 s.v. rates, where much the same informa- 
tion is given. 

Serv. A. 1 G2 foedere, modo lege, alias pace, quae fit inter 
dimicantes. Foedus autem dictum vel a fetialibus, id est sacer- 
dotibus per quos fiunt foedera, vel a porca foede, hoc est lapidi- 
bus occisa, ut ipse ' et caesa iungebant foedera porca.' 

Isid. 18 1 11 foedus est pax quae fit inter dimicantes, vel a 
fide, vel a fetialibus, id est a sacerdotibus dictum. Per ipsos 
enim fiebant foedera sicut per saeculares bella.' Alii foedera 
putant a porca foede et crudeliter occisa, cuius mors optabatur ei 
qui a pace resiluisset (?). Vergilius, 'et caesa iungebant foedera 

Now this note of Isidore bears a much closer resemblance to 
a note, compounded partly of the vulgate and partly of a 
supposed interpolation, on A. 8 641, where the etymology from 
fides is given, and referred to Cicero. So far as it goes therefore, 
the note would go to prove that in this case the additional mat- 
ter in the enlarged Servius is not an interpolation. As to the 
authority for the note, it may very well be Suetonius, whose 
name is mentioned by Isidore in its near neighbourhood, but 
ultimately it comes from Verrius Flaccus; Paul. 84< foedus a,pipe\- 
latum ab eo quod in paciscendo foedere hostia necaretur. Ver- 
gilius: 'et caesa iungebant foedera porca.' Vel quia in foedere 
interponatur fides. 

Serv. A. 1 178 fessus generale est: dicimus enim fessus 


animo, [id est incertus consilii], ut ' ter fessus valle resedit,' et 
fessus corpore, quod magis est proprium, et fessus rerum a for- 
tuna venientium, ut hoc loco. 8 232 ter fessus valle resedit; 
egens consilii. Sallustius ; ' fessus in Pamphyliam se receptat.' 
Nam corpore fatigatum dicimus, animo verofessum; quamvis 
liaec saepe confundat auctoritas. Here again it seems that the 
additional note of the fuller version formed part of the original 
comment. Let us now compare Isid. 10 101, who adds some- 
thing which is in neither note : fessus quasi fissus, nee iam 
integer salute ; est autem generale. Dicimus enim fessus 
animo, ut 'ter fessus valle resedit/ et fessus corpore, quod magis 
est proprium, et fessus rerum a casu venientium. Fatigatus, 
quasi fato agitatus. 

Serv. A. 1 215 feras dicimus aut quod omni corpore ferun- 
tur, aut quod naturali utuntur libertate et pro desiderio suo 

Isid. 12 2 2 ferae appellatae eo quod naturali utuntur libertate, 
et desiderio suo ferantur. Sunt autem liberae eorum voluntates, 
et hue atque illuc vagantur, et quo animus duxerit eo feruntur. 

Here it is true that Isidore's comment corresponds in gene- 
ral drift with the vulgate, to which the fuller version adds a 
remark which is not in Isidore : still the wording of the two 
notes is so different that it is improbable that one was copied 
from the other. The additional note, sane veteres prope omnes 
quadrupedes feras dicebant, ut 'inque feri curvam conpagibus 
alvum Contorsit,' et ' armentalis equae mammis et lacte ferino,' 
should be compared with the Verona scholia on A. 7 489, and 
Nonius p. 307. 

Serv. A. 4 7 nihil interest, utrum umbram an noctem dicat ; 
nox enim umbra terrae est, ut supra (2 251) 'involvens umbra 
magna terramque polumque.' 

Isid. 5 31 3 noctem autem fieri dicunt, aut quia longo 
itinere lassatur sol, et cum ad ultimum caeli spatium pervenit 
elanguescit, ac labefactus efflat suos ignes, aut quia eadem vi 
sub terras cogitur, qua super terras pertulit lumen, et sic umbra 
terrae noctem facit. Unde Vergilius ' ruit Oceano Nox ' &c. 
Here surely the agreement between Servius and Isidore is of 
the slenderest. 


Serv. A. 4 30 sinus dicimus orbes oculorum, id est palpebras, 
quae a palpitatione dictae sunt, nam semper moventur. 

Isid. 11 1 39 palpebrae sunt sinus oculorum, a palpitatione 
dictae, quia semper moventur. Concurrunt enim invicem, ut 
adsiduo motu reficiant obtutum &c. 

Here not only does Isidore add something which is not in 
Servius, but it is plain that the object of his note is different. 
He is defining palpebra, Servius is explaining sinus. 

Serv. A. 4 130 iubare exorto, nato Lucifero : nam proprie 
iubar Lucifer dicitur, quod iubas lucis effundit ; unde iam quic- 
quid splendet iubar dicitur, ut argenti, gemmarum. Est autem 
Lucifer interdum Iovis ; [nam et antiqui ' iubar ' quasi ' iuvar ' 
dicebant ;] plerumque Veneris stella, unde Veneris dicta est, 
ut (8 590) 'quern Venus ante alios astrorum diligit ignes' 
[Alii iubar solem, alii splendorem siderum dicunt]. 

Isid. 3 70 18 Lucifer dictus eo quod inter omnia sidera plus 
lucem ferat ; est autem unus e planetis. Hie proprie et iubar 
dicitur, eo quod iubas lucis effundat; sed et splendor solis ac 
lunae et stellarum iubar vocatur, quod in modum iubae radii 
ipsorum extendantur. 

Isidore's note here combines observations which are to be 
found in the vulgate and the fuller commentary combined. 
There is no ground for supposing that he is borrowing from 
Servius, nor need we go far for the common source of the note. 
Paulus 104 clearly points to Verrius Flaccus : iubar stella 
quam Graeci appellant <pcoo(f)6pov vel eo-irepov, hoc est Lucifer, 
quod splendor eius diffunditur in modum iubae leonis. 

In all these cases, where the words of Isidore and Servius 
coincide, Thilo remarks ' excripsit Isidorus ; ' with what reason 
I leave readers to decide. As this is a case where the brick 
may be taken as a sample of the house, it is not necessary to 
quote any more instances. I will only observe that there are 
numberless passages where the correspondence between Isidore 
and Servius is only of a general kind, and where Thilo observes 
not 'exscripsit' but 'conferatur Isidorus.' In these passages, 
as far as I can see, the only hypothesis which can account for 
the correspondence is that of a community of sources. And if 
Isidore and Servius used the same sources in one large number 


of instances, it is difficult to see why they should not have done 
so in another ; or (to put the same thing from the other side) 
if Isidore copied from Servius in one set of instances, why he 
should have refrained from doing so in another. 

Let us now examine the relation of Isidore, not to the 
vulgate, but to the fuller version of Servius. 

Thilo himself allows that there is a considerable number of 
passages, of which he gives a list on p. xliv, in which Isidore 
appears to have copied scholia from the fuller version and 
neglected the notes of the vulgate on the same points : nor is 
he disinclined to concede that in this case a community of au- 
thorities is the cause of the correspondence. As there is here 
no difference of opinion between us I need not dwell further on 
this point. It is more important to consider in detail some 
passages in which the vulgate and the fuller version can be 
shewn, by a comparison with corresponding notes in Isidore, 
to be homogeneous. 

The first which I will take is discussed by Thilo p. xli. 
Isid. 10 260 sequester dicitur qui certantibus medius intervenit, 
qui apud Graecos 6 /xecro9 dicitur, apud quern pignora deponi 
solent. Quod vocabulum ab sequendo factum est, quod eius 
qui electus sit utraque pars fidem sequatur. 

Serv. A. 11 133 pace sequestra, media; nam[que] sequester 
est [aut] medius inter duos altercantes, [aut] apud quern aliquid 
ad tempus seponitur, [dictum aut em a sequendo, quod eius qui 
electus sit utraque pars fidem sequitur.] Pacem ergo seques- 
tram indutias dicit, i.e., pacem temporal em et mediam inter 
bellum praeteritum et futurum. 

I agree with Thilo that Isidore is not here borrowing from 
the fuller edition of Servius, but that both writers are taking 
from a common authority, whom I suspect to be not Lavinius 
Luscus de verbis sordidis (Gellius 20 11), but Verrius Flaccus : 
Festus 339 sequester is dicitur qui inter aliquos [qui certant 
medius], ut inter eos convenerit, [ita tenet depositum ali] quid, 
ut ei reddat &c. But the point on which stress should be laid is 
that the vulgate and the fuller edition of the Servian note are 
here homogeneous, and theie can therefore be no question of 
interpolation. And so with the following instances (Thilo p. xlii). 


Serv. A. 1 505 testudine, camera incurva, [id est fornicata] 
quae secundum eos qui scripserunt de ratione templorum ideo 
sic fit ut simulacro caeli imaginem reddat, quod constat esse 
convexum. [Quidam tradunt apud veteres omnia templa in 
modum testudinis facta, at vero sequenti aetate divinis simula- 
cris positis, nihilominus in templis factas esse testudines, quod 
Varro ait, ut separatum esset, ubi metus esset, ubi religio 
administraretur. Bene ergo, cum de templo loqueretur, addidit 
ei testudinem. Idem Varro de lingua Latina ad Ciceronem, 
'in aedibus locus patulus relinquebatur sub divo, qui si non erat 
relictus et contectus erat, appellabatur testudo/ Cicero in 
Bruto, 'commentatum in quadam testudine cum servis litteratis 
fuisse. Quidam testudinem locum in parte atrii volunt adversum 

Isid. 15 8 8 gives an abridged version of the two notes com- 
bined, again shewing that in the common source from which 
both were drawn the two formed part of the same comment. 
Testudo est camera templi obliqua, nam in modum testudinis 
veteres templorum tecta faciebant, quae ideo sic fiebant ut 
caeli imaginem redderent, quod constat esse convexum. Alii 
testudinem volunt esse locum in parte atrii adversum venien- 
tibus. Compare Nonius 58: testudines sunt loca in aedificiis 
camerata, ad similitudinem aquatilium testudinum, quae duris 
tergoribus sunt et incurvis. Yergilius Aeneidos lib. I (505) 'in 
foribus divae, media testudine templi.' Sisenna Historiarum 
lib. IV. 'C. Titinius quidam... pri mo ante testudinem con- 
stitit,' &c. 

Serv. A. 8 402 liquido electro, [aut liquefacto aut] puro ; et 
secundum Plinium in Naturali Historia tria sunt electri genera, 
unum ex arboribus, quod sucinum dicitur. Aliud quod natura- 
liter invenitur, tertium quod fit de tribus partibus auri et una 
argenti; quas partes etiam si naturale resolvas invenies. Unde 
errant qui dicunt melius esse naturale. Electri autem natura 
probatur veneno, quo recepto et stridorem emittit, et varios ad 
similitudinem [arcus caelestis] reddit colores. [Et ad lumina 
in convivio clarius auro et argento lucet.] 

Isid. 16 24 electrum vocatum. quod ad radium solis clarius 


auro argentoque reluceat. Sol enim a poetis Elector vocatur. 
Defaecatius est enim hoc metallum omnibus metallis. Huius 
tria genera : unum quod ex pini arboribus fluit, quod sucinum 
dicitur, alterum metallum quod naturaliter invenitur et in 
pretio habetur, tertium quod fit de tribus partibus auri et 
argenti una. Quas partes etiam si naturale solvas invenies. 
Unde nihil interest natum an factum, utrumque eiiim eiusdem 
naturae est. Electrum quod naturale est eiusdem naturae est, 
ut in convivio et ad lumina clarius cunctis metallis ful^eat et 
venenum probet. Nam si eo infundas venenum, striuorem edit 
et colores varios in modum arcus caelestis emittit. 

In this instance also it is clear that the vulgate and the 
fuller version together make up a homogeneous note, which is 
given in another and slightly different form by Isidore. Its 
source may either be Pliny, with whose words (37 31, 33 81) 
much of it coincides, or some later writer, such as Suetonius, 
quoting and enlarging Pliny's observations. 

Serv. A. 1 119 gaza Persicus sermo est, et significat divitias, 
[unde Gaza urbs in Palaestina dicitur, quod in ea Cambyses rex 
Persarum cum Aegyptiis bellum inferret divitias suas condidit.] 
Isid. 15 1 16 Gazam oppidum Palaestinae condiderunt Evaei, 
in qua habitaverunt Cappadoces pristinis cultoribus interfectis. 
Vocata autem Gaza, eo quod ibi Cambyses rex Persarum thesau- 
ros suos posuit, cum bellum Aegyptiis intulisset, Persarum enim 
lingua thesaurus gaza nominatur. 

Serv. A. 1 373 annates: inter historiam et annales hoc 
interest; historia est eorum temporum quae vel vidimus vel 
videre potuimus, dicta airb rod laropelv, id est videre; annales 
vero sunt eorum temporum quae aetas nostra non novit; unde 
Livius ex annalibus et bistoria constat. Haec tarn en confun- 
duntur licenter, ut hoc loco pro historia inquit annales. [Ita 
autem annales conficiebantur : tabulam dealbatam quotannis 
pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis consulum nomini- 
bus et aliorum magistratuum digna memoratu notare consueve- 
rat domi militiaeque terra marique gesta per singulos dies. 
Cuius diligentiae annuos commentarios in octoginta libros 
veteres rettulerunt, eosque a pontificibus maximis a quibus 


fiebant annales maximos appellarunt; unde quidam ideo dictum 
ab Aenea annales aiunt, quod et ipse religiosus sit et a poeta 
turn pontifex inducatur.] 

Isid. 1 63 3 annales sunt res singulorum annorum. Quae- 
cumque enim digna memoria domi militiaeque, mari ac terrae per 
annos in commentariis acta sunt, ab anniversariis gestis annales 
nominantur. Historia autem multorum annorum vel temporum 
est, cuius diligentia annui commentarii in libris delati sunt. 
Inter historiam autem et annales hoc interest, quod historia est 
eorum temporum quae vidimus, annales vero sunt eorum anno- 
rum quos aetas nostra non novit. Unde Sallustius ex historia, 
Eusebius et Hieronymus ex annalibus et historia constant. 

The Servian note is here fuller than that of Isidore. The 
substance of the whole came, as Gellius (5 18) tells us, from 
Verrius Flaccus. 

I could add many more similar instances; but enough has, 
I think, been quoted to shew that there are a considerable 
number of cases where a note in Isidore closely resembles one 
only to be found in the fuller version of Servius. The hypo- 
theses at command for explaining this phenomenon are, so far as 
I can see, the following: either that Isidore borrowed from the 
fuller version of Servius, which must therefore be at least as old 
as the sixth century, or the beginning of the seventh; or that 
the interpolator borrowed from Isidore; or that these notes 
were taken by Isidore and the author (or authors) of the fuller 
Servian commentary from the same or similar sources. Thilo 
rejects the first hypothesis altogether, and seems inclined to 
lean in some cases to the second, in some to the third. But the 
second assumes that the author of the additional notes was 
later than Isidore, which is the very point in question ; and I 
therefore am strongly inclined to adopt the third, which Thilo 
himself allows to be the most natural in some cases (p. xlv.). 
If in some cases, why not in all? 

If, as I have endeavoured to shew, Isidore did not borrow 

from Servius, but used the same authorities, it follows that the 

matter common to both writers can claim a very respectable 

antiquity, and authority in proportion; while with regard to 

Journal of Philology . vol. x. 12 


those additional notes of Daniel's Servius which are shewn by 
a comparison with Isidore to be homogeneous with the vulgate, 
it is clear that they cannot be regarded as interpolations. Nor 
again is there any reason for suspecting the integrity of those 
which are really supplementary to the vulgate. With regard 
to those which are not homogeneous with the vulgate, which 
repeat it, or contradict it, I am unable to see that we are com- 
pelled to infer more than this, that they represent a different 
recension of the Servian commentary ; but that they were not 
inserted in it until long after the time of Servius I see no 
grounds for believing. When we consider the general cha- 
racter of the fourth century commentaries on Roman authors, 
such as that of Donatus on Terence and of the Pseudo-Asconius 
on Cicero, when we reflect that their style and manner is in 
the main impersonal, that they bear the clearest marks of being 
compiled and abridged from the numerous works of earlier 
scholars, and that they present the same phenomena of repe- 
titions and general looseness and carelessness in composition, 
we are justified in pausing before we deny to the fuller version 
of Servius its right to the name which it has so long borne. 
The additional notes are undoubtedly drawn from the same 
sources as those of the vulgate ; they are often homogeneous 
with them, and their style, though later than that of the Verona 
scholia, is on the whole neither earlier nor later than that of 

Thilo has said but little on the sources of the Servian 
commentary. He does not, in my opinion, at all succeed in 
shewing that Servius borrowed from Aelius Donatus. The 
memoir of Vergil which bears the name of the latter is gene- 
rally attributed to Suetonius, and I have endeavoured to shew 
in my edition of this work that Servius extracted his shorter 
biography from the fuller work of the latter, and was thus able 
to add details which in the memoir by Donatus are omitted. 
Thilo mentions a number of passages in which notes in the 
Servian commentary correspond with notes of Donatus on 
Terence. But on examining these I find that in many cases 
the Servian note is fuller, and that it is not seldom possible to 


point out an older form of the comment in Nonius, or Verrius 
Flaccus, or both. Nonius and Verrius, it may be observed, 
are hardly mentioned in Thilo's preface. Yet it is these two 
authors above all others who must, in my opinion, be more 
thoroughly studied than any others, if we would arrive at sound 
conclusions respecting the sources of the Latin commentaries 
of the fourth century. 




The war waged in Italy by Pyrrhus of Epeiros against 
the Romans has always commanded attention, from the 
picturesque incidents interwoven with the story, from the 
character of the king, and of the Romans, Fabricius and Curius, 
and from & false idea of the importance of the struggle. 

It was important; for it secured to Rome, as the repre- 
sentative of Italian unity as opposed, to foreign intervention, 
the control of the whole Italian peninsula for the first time. 
The false importance given to the war has sprung from the 
consideration of it as a kind of test action between the Roman 
and Macedonian methods of fighting, between legionary and 
phalangite. It has been spoken of by one popular historian 
as if it first introduced the Italians, as a military people, to 
the notice of the Greeks and Macedonians. 

Lord Macaulay, in his Lays of Ancient Borne, (Prophecy of 
Capys, Introduction,) uses the following strong expressions con- 
cerning it. 

"That barbarian warriors, led by barbarian chiefs, should 
win a pitched battle against Greek valour guided by Greek 
science, seemed as incredible as it would now seem that the 
Burmese or Siamese should, in the open plain, put to flight 
an equal number of the best English troops." " The Tarentines 
were convinced that their countrymen were irresistible in war." 

"His (i.e. Pyrrhus') expedition to Italy was a turning 

point in the history of the world" "The pilum and the 

broadsword had vanquished the Macedonian spear. The legion 
had broken the Macedonian phalanx." 

This and similar language is sheer misrepresentation. The 
Tarentines must have been singularly unacquainted with their 


own history, and with the history of their own times, if they 
believed their countrymen irresistible. Ever since the great- 
ness of the Italiot cities began to decline, after the destruction 
of Sybaris in the sixth century B.C., the Italians had been 
constantly pressing upon the Greeks, curtailing their territory, 
and beating them in the field. In about 473 B.C. the Taren- 
tines themselves had been overthrown by the Messapians in a 
pitched battle with heavy loss. The interference of the great 
despots of Syracuse, Dionysios the elder and Agathokles, had 
been invoked again and again in the struggles of the Greeks 
against each other, or against the Italians. Champions too 
had come over the Adriatic, from the mainland of Greece and 
Epeiros, and had fared but badly at the hands of the Italians. 
On the same day, it was said, as the battle of Chaironeia, in 
338 B.C., Archidamos the Spartan had been defeated and slain 
by the Lucanians. Alexander of Molossos, a predecessor and 
cousin of Pyrrhus himself, an uncle of Alexander the Great, 
had since then waged war in Italy with doubtful success. He 
complained that he had meri to fight against, as contrasted 
with the Asiatic foes of his great nephew ; and by these men 
he was finally overthrown and killed, by Lucanians and Bruttii. 
Later still, twenty years only before the arrival of Pyrrhus, 
the success of Kleonymos the Spartan, on the same field, was 
at best doubtful. That the Greeks should finally be subdued 
by the Italians ; that the strongest Italian power which had 
yet arisen should overthrow the most illustrious Greek adven- 
turer who had yet come to Italy, this was precisely what a 
careful observer of past history would have predicted. What 
we call Rome, was a body of colonies, allies and subjects spread 
throughout central Italy, directed by the most uniformly 
capable aristocracy that the world has seen. That this coherent, 
persistent, patriotic power should overthrow the factious demo- 
cracies of the Italiot cities, backed by a military adventurer 
however brilliant, assisted by disorganised and broken men 
like the Samnites and Lucanians however brave, was almost 
certain. The Roman victory was the natural consummation 
of a long series of events. 

Neither is it correct to describe the contest as one between 


rival systems of fighting. A portion of the legion was then 
armed with spears after the manner of the phalanx, though 
not with the extraordinarily long pikes of the Macedonians 
(Polyb. VI. 23). Nor were the troops of Pyrrhus merely a 
phalanx supported by cavalry. The great reason for the mili- 
tary superiority of the armies of Philip and Alexander had 
been the combination of other troops, peltasts especially, care- 
fully armed and trained, with the phalanx. Their armies, and 
those of their successors, exhibited for the first time, among 
Greeks, a proper combination of all arms of the service. 
Infantry, cavalry, artillery 1 , troops heavy and light were there. 
The Roman, that is the Italian 2 , method of fighting, with swords 
in comparatively open order, must have been equally well 
known to the people of Tarentum and Epeiros. Certainly the 
scientific soldier Pyrrhus knew all about it. This is not con- 
jecture. Poly bios, comparing the Roman and Macedonian 
armies which fought at Kynoskephalai in 197 B.C., says: 
Uvppos ye firjv ov /jlovov ottXols, dWa /cal Bwdfiecriv 'Iraki/cals 
cvytcexpTjTai, ridels ivaWa^ arj/aaiav kcli airelpav (jyaXajytTLK^v 
iv rols 7r/jo? 'PcofAalovs dyooaiv, Polyb. XVIII. 11. Italian allies, 
and among others Italian mercenaries, filled his line of battle, 
which exhibited alternately manipuli, armed with swords and 
javelins, and clumps of phalangite spears. 

Dr Arnold (R. Hist. c. 37) remarks that the account of 
Pyrrhus' first battle, Heraclea, is inconsistent with the suppo- 
sition that his troops were mere phalangites. The two armies 
drove each other back alternately seven times. That the legions 
should drive back an unbroken phalanx is incredible; that a 
broken phalanx should have returned to the charge is well-nigh 
impossible. Yet Dr Arnold does not apply the passage of 
Polybios quoted above till he comes to the second battle, 
Asculum. As Polybios however speaks of battles, and lower 
down of victories, in the plural, as being gained by this forma- 
tion, he must allude to both Heraclea and Asculum. At all 
events at Beneventum, where Pyrrhus was defeated, the bulk of 

1 See Arrian, Anabasis iv. 4, for Lucanians too, were armed like the 
Alexander's use of field artillery. Eomans. Liv. ix. 40. Sail. Catil. 52. 

2 The Samnites, and therefore the 


his army was Italian and mercenary. His Epeirot veterans had 
mostly perished, and his ranks were recruited from the mer- 
cenaries of Sicily and of Italy. The victory of M\ Curius was a 
victory over soldiers armed and equipped like his own, backed 
only by a reserve of sarissae, if indeed Pyrrhus had any 
phalangites armed in the Macedonian manner, left at all 1 . 

Moreover to rightly understand the course of the campaigns 
of Pyrrhus we must look beyond the fields of battle and beyond 
Italy. He crossed from Epeiros in the spring of 280 B.C., when 
his friend Ptolemy Keraunos was just established on the throne 
of Macedonia. Ptolemy supplied him with a portion of his 
army, perhaps with all his elephants and cavalry (Justin, XVII. 2), 
but the different accounts of his numbers are irreconcilable. 
After inflicting a severe defeat on the Romans at Heraclea, and 
after causing a general rising of the Samnites and Lucanians, 
he offered a peace, which could have been only a truce at the 
best, for Rome was not seriously crippled. In this peace we see 
no advantage for himself. The cause was as follows ; in the 
same year, 280 B.C., the Gauls had invaded Macedonia, killed 
Ptolemy Keraunos, threatened Epeiros, and deprived Pyrrhus of 
all prospect of support from home or Macedonia. 

Perhaps the defeat of the Gauls and their allies by the 
Romans in the decisive battle of Sentinum a few years before, 
and this invasion of Macedonia, give between them a more 
valuable criterion of the relative strength of Italy and Greece 
than the campaigns of Pyrrhus can. 

However, the Romans refused peace. Some indecisive opera- 
tions, and another doubtful victory near Asculum in 278 B.C., 
left Pyrrhus as far as ever from the position of conqueror or 

1 Macaulay's vigorous poetical op- The lines would I believe be more true 

position of sword and sarissa falls of Kynoskephalai, or of Pydna, nay, 

therefore to the ground : even of the meeting of the Spanish and 

" Hurrah i for the good weapons, Swiss infantry at Bavenna (Machiavelli, 

Which keep the War God's land ; Art of War, B. n. c. 3), than of Bene- 

Hurrah ! for Bome's stout pilum, ventum. 

In a stout Boman hand. But see Plutarch's account of the 

Hurrah ! for the good broadsword, battle, and above all Dionys. Halicar. 

Winch through the thick array xix. 12, referred to below, for the com- 

Of levelled spears, and serried shields, position of the army of Pyrrhus at 

Hews deep its gory way." Beneventum. 


arbiter of Italy. Again he negotiated a truce, and this time 
successfully. Not that he now desired to return to Epeiros. 
The Gauls had retired from Macedonia, and had been defeated 
by the Aetolians in their incursion into Southern Greece. If 
we could trust an evidently untrustworthy and marvellous 
account of that invasion by Justin, we could place it in the 
winter of 279 8 B. c. But it anyhow probably occurred be- 
fore the autumn of 278 B.C. when Pyrrhus left Italy. He 
had been there two years and four months since the spring 
of 280 B.C. 

Now freed from anxiety about the Gauls, and finding Italy 
an unpromising field for adventure, he went to Sicily. His 
wife Lanassa was daughter of Agathokles the late tyrant of 
Syracuse, a man of talents and influence equal to his crimes. 
Lanassa had borne a son, Alexander, who might fairly hope to 
inherit his grandfather's position, if Pyrrhus could only expel 
the Carthaginians. But he failed, on this constant field of 
Greek military failure, where " barbarian warriors, led by bar- 
barian chiefs," had often won pitched battles "over Greek 
valour, guided by Greek science." 

He returned to Italy to support his former allies, to a task 
which his former partial success must have convinced him was 
now impossible. So only can we explain the readiness with 
which after the single defeat of Beneventum he retired from 
the contest. He might still have preserved the independence 
of Tarentum by staying. He had an army still ; he brought 
upwards of 8000 men back to Epeiros, and left a garrison behind 
in Tarentum; but empire for himself was plainly hopeless, so 
he went. At Beneventum his forces had been Tarentines, 
armed no doubt as a phalanx, but more probably after the 
Greek than the Macedonian fashion 1 ; Samnites, and mer- 
cenaries from Italy and Sicily, Italians too for the most part, 
retaining their national arms ; with the remnants of his original 
force. Plutarch makes no mention of the special formation of 
the phalanx in the battle. Indeed no general in his senses, 

1 The Achaeans, for instance, after were only induced by Philopoemen to 
this, still kept up the old-fashioned adopt the Macedonian arms, 
phalanx with the shorter spear; and 


much less Pyrrhus, would have attempted a surprise, by a 
night march, through woods and mountains, with troops prin- 
cipally armed with spears twenty-four feet long. 

Nor does Dionysios of Halikarnassus (xix. 12) mention the 
phalanx in connection with the battle. He calls the troops 
indeed ottXltcu with whom Pyrrhus attempted the surprise ; 
but he talks of their being encumbered, not with spears, but 
Ovpeois, the oblong shields of the Italians, described by Poly- 
bios (VI. 23) as part of the equipment of the Roman oirXlrai, 
or legionaries. Pyrrhus was certainly here employing Italian 
weapons, probably Italian men, and these Dionysios tells us 
were his best troops. So much for " Greek valour guided by 
Greek science," as exemplified by the army of Pyrrhus. 

Nor was the battle a decisive blow to Greek influence in 
Italy. The progressive events of two centuries had shewn that 
to be already doomed, so far as it was a political influence. 
The only question was, what Italian race should rule the Italiot 
Greeks. But Beneventum did confirm the authority of Rome, 
at the head of her Latin and Sabine confederacy and subjects, 
over the Oscans of southern and central Italy. These had 
stooped to use foreign aid ; of the Gauls in the third Samnite 
war, of the Greeks in the- present war ; even as they welcomed 
Hannibal, and intrigued with Mithradates later. Rome, with a 
safer instinct, had in this very war refused to avail herself of 
useful Carthaginian succours to counteract the superiority of 
the Tarentine fleet; and she reaped the reward of a con- 
sistent national policy by becoming beyond dispute the head of 





" In 1802, simultaneously, and apparently independently, a German and 
two French naturalists proposed the word Biologic for the whole study of living 
matter. The idea was accepted, grew, and we in England have for some time 
past used the word Biology. Dr Field of Norwich had written to the Lecturer 
to point out, on philological grounds, that the word is a bad one, as /3tos is 
applied only to human life, while fay is applied to other animal life. Although 
he suggests a new term, I think it too late to change our present one." 

Prof. Huxley, Lecture at South Kensington, 1877. 

" One of the most singular things that are shewn in that museum [of tools 
and weapons] is the wonderful tendency of the human mind, when it has once 
got into a groove, to stick there. The great object of scientific investigation is 
to run counter to that tendency." 

Prof. Huxley, Address at the British Association, 1878. 

Ovk dpa Travrbs dv5pos...ovop.a Otadai kariv, dWd tlpos dvofxaTovpyov. 

Plat. Crat. p. 388 E. 

"The study of living beings, irrespective of the exact 
nature and position of these, is the province of Biology (Gr. 
/3/o?, life; \6yo$, a discourse). All living beings, however, 
may be divided into the two kingdoms of animals and plants 

in accordance with which division, Biology splits up into 

the kindred sciences of Zoology and Botany 1 ." 

It will be the object of this paper to show that the Greek 
word /3/o? has nothing in common with the subjects of either 
of these two kingdoms, with the sole exception of Man ; and 
with him, not as a living, but as a rational, social and account- 
able being. 

Bto? is thus defined by Aristotle: B/o? earl XoytKij fay- 
And so the grammarians, as Ammonius : " B/o? differs from 

1 Introduction to the Study of Biology, by H. Alleyne Nicholson, M.D., 
Edinburgh and London, 1872. 


0)77. Bto? is used of rational animals, that is, of men only ; 
o>?7 both of men and of irrational animals, and occasionally of 
plants (rjSr) Be irore ical eirl <f>vr(ov). Whoever, therefore, uses 
/3to9 of beasts (eVt tu>v drjptcov) speaks improperly (d/cvpo- 
Xoyei) 1 ." In such apparent exceptions to this rule as we shall 
presently notice, it will always be found that there is no question 
of the principle of life, but only of some adjunct or accident 
of it. 

The various shades of meaning of the word /3/09 may be 
thus arranged 2 . 

1. The duration of human life is so called. To this head 
belong the phrases Sidyeiv, BtareXelv, Biep^eaOaL top (Slov ; 
Sod (3iov, per totam vitam; tov ftiov KareXvaev, KareaTpe^jrev, 
ireXevTrjaev, e^eKiirev etc. ; /jLa/cpofttos, {3paxyf3io$, 6\Lyo/3ios 
(Job xiv. 1) ; dirofiiovv, vivendi finem facere. f O /3to? ftpa-xy? 
(is the well-known aphorism of the Father of Medicine) r) Be 
Teyvr] fjuaKprj. In this sense, TLepas airaaiv dvOpwiroL? earl rov 
ftiov Odvaro? 3 ; and one who is near that term may say with 
Cicero : Mini quidem ftefticoTat ; viderint juvenes*. 

2. Life considered in regard to the feelings, with respect to 

1 Ammonius Uepl o/moiuv ko.1 duup'Spuv properly said of dogs and wolves ; but 

Xifc&p, p. 30, ed. Valck. Archbishop this only gives greater significance to 

Trench, in his New Testament Syno- the Psalmist's (xxxvii. 8) upvopiTiv dvd 

nyms, p. 105, points out that the asser- arevayfxod rrjs Kapdias fiov. And in the 

tion of Ammonius, that /3t'os is never, latter of the two places of Aristotle, he 

except incorrectly, applied to beasts, is is comparing the habits (rods (3Lovs) of 

inconsistent with Aristotle's use of the animals, in regard to skill and inge- 

word in Hist. Anim. 1. 1, 15 [13] and nuity, with those of the human race, 

ix. 8 [7], 1, " unless, indeed, he means instancing the manner in which the 

to include Aristotle in his censure." swallow builds its nest, mixing straw 

But a,Kvpo\oyiai, although reckoned with the clay, etc. 

amongst the vitia orationis, are only a With our arrangement maybe com- 

censurable when used harshly or ex- pared that of Tzetzes on Hesiod Op. et 

travagantly ; in many cases, especially D. 689 : Bios l arj/xaluef ttjv t^Wi 

in poetry, they are beauties. Thus tov rpbirov, tov irapovra Koo~p,ov, tov evos 

Virgil's " Vir gregis," and " Hunc ego exaaTov xpovov T V* fk"?s, ttjv irepiovoiav, 

si potui tantum sperare dolorem," and /cat t&j irpos to t)v crvvrebovaas rpocf>6.s. 

Thomson's " Softly shaking on the 3 Demosth. Uepl tov <TTe<pavov, p. 

dimpled pool Prelusive drops," are in- 258, 20. 

stances of the judicious use of this 4 Cic. Epist. ad Att. xrv. 21. 
figure. The Greek word upveaOcu is 


happiness and misery (eU ev<f>poavva<; re kclI Xu7r<x? 1 ). In this 
view /3/o? may be %a\e7ro?, eiriirovo^, oBvvrjpos, \v7rwp65 ; or, 
on the other hand, euBalpicov, pbaicdpios, aTrpdypucov, dfiepipLvo? 
etc. To this head also belongs the well-known phrase /3/o? 
a/Maro?, a life so wretched as to be insupportable. An ancient 
philosopher recommends 6B6v fiev rrjv Xeiordrnv e/cXeyeaOai,, 
(3iov Be tov akwrroTCLTov ; but a better rule of life is that of 
Pythagoras, who said ore XPV fitV alpecadac rbv apiarov' rjBvv 
yap avrbv rj avvrjOeta iroirjcre^. Animals, being endowed with 
feelings like ourselves, are not excluded from this use of the 
word per aKvpoXoylav. As we speak of leading the life of a 
dog, so the Greeks had a saying, Xayco ftiov %r}v, to lead the life 
of a hare, that is, in continual fear and trembling (SeStco? teal 
TpepLcov) 3 . 

3. Life considered in its moral aspect, or in regard to the 
conduct, is emphatically called /3/o?. To this sense belong the 
epithets crepbvos, k6o~/juo<;, evdperos, o-axfrpcov, xpTjcrTog, eVte^/o/?, 
and their opposites; and the synonyms rpoiros, v@V> irpdt;i<i 
etc. In Christian writers /3/o?, even without an epithet, is 
often contrasted with irian,*; or Boypuara; as St Chrysostom, 
in distinguishing between heretics and hypocrites, says : Uapd 
yap a!pTiKOL$ ian iroXXdicis nal /3lov (good living) evpelv, irapd 
Be tovtois ol? elirov ovBapLGos*. 

4. But in forming an estimate of moral worth, it is abso- 
lutely necessary to take into consideration the circumstances in 
which any one is placed, as well as his conduct under them. 
Both these were within the purview of the great Orator in his 
celebrated challenge to his rival : " Draw then the parallel be- 
tween your life and mine (rd vol icdpiol ftePicopLeva), Aeschines. 
......You were an usher, I a scholar; you were an initiator, 

I was initiated; you danced at the games, I presided over 

them; you were a clerk of the Assembly, I a member your 

measures were all in the enemy's favour, mine always in the 

\ Xenoph. Hiero i. 2 : II77 hia^ipu 6 ford. 
rvpavpiKos re ko! 6 t'Stwrt/cos plot els 3 Demosth. lit ante, p. 314, 24. 

eucppoavvas re KalXvras dpdpunrois. 4 S. Chrysost. Opp. T. vir. p. 293 B, 

2 Stob. Flor. T. i. p. 17, ed. Gais- ed. Ben. 


country's 1 ." Hence the title of Plutarch's great work, BIO I 
IIAPAAAHAOI ; and the English word, legitimately formed 
from the Greek, Biography. 

5. A man's calling or profession {jkyyi), eTrtr^evfia) is 
also indicated by this word, as /3/o? OaXdrTio?, yewpyiicos, 
Xycrrpifcos, J3ovko\lk6<;, Krvvorpofyos, arparicorL/co^, fyikocrotyos 
etc. ; and by an easy transition, he is said dirb t?5? OaXdrTrj?, 
yecopyias, Xvcrreia^ etc. top /3lov eyeiv, iroieiaQai, iropi^ecrOai, 
to get his living. To this head probably belongs one of the 
precepts (viroOrjicai) of the Seven Sages, Tg3 /3t<i> /uurj pdypv, 
Do not quarrel with your bread and butter ; as well as a pithy 
saying of Metrodorus, preserved by Stobaeus in his collection 
Tlepl (f)ei8a)\ias, ^roc/Jbd^ovraL nves Bed jBlov rd Trpos tov /3iov 2 . 
Every reader of the Greek Testament is familiar with this 
use of the word 3 . Hence (since animals must live, in this 
sense) arises another d/cvpo\oyla, of which an instance is com- 
monly quoted from Xenophon's description of spiders : At 
<j>d\ayys, dpdyyia Xeirrd v7)vdp,evai, 07)pwcrc rd 7rpo? tov 
j3iov 4 . But a more notable example, and one of common 
occurrence, is the word dixfyifiios, amphibious, applied to such 
animals as pass their time and get their living in both elements; 
quia non tantum terrestria, sed aquatilia quoque desiderant 
pabula 5 . For a similar reason a smaller class of animals, as 
owls and bats, are called vvkti$ioi. 

6. Passing from individuals to communities, the diversities 
of the various tribes of the human race, in regard to manners, 
customs, and modes of subsistence, are properly styled (Bioi, and 
distinguished by such epithets as tffiepos, dypios, <tk7)vlt7)<;, 
vofiahiKo^, dTjpLco&ns etc. Diodorus Siculus, one of the earliest 
cultivators of anthropological science, concludes his description 
of the races inhabiting the countries bordering on the Arabian 
Gulf with these words : " Now if any of my readers, by reason 
of the strange and marvellous character of the habits of life 

1 Demosth. ut ante, p. 315, 5 (Lord 3 See Mark xii. 44, Luke viii. 43, xv. 
Brougham's Translation, p. 180). 12. 

2 Stob. Flor. T. i. pp. 116, 341, ed. 4 Xenoph. Mem. Socr. in. 11, 6. 
Gaisford. 6 Columella vm. 13. 


here recorded (rwv dvayeypafjufievayv ftlwv) should disbelieve 
what has been narrated, let him only bear in mind the differ- 
ence between the temperature of the air of Scythia, and of 
the country of the Troglodytes, and he will be no longer 
incredulous 1 ." But even in civilized life, and in the same 
community, manners are continually changing; and in the 
increase of luxury and its attendant evils, a philosopher may 
sometimes wish to recall the old-fashioned and simple habits 
(top dpyatov ical dirapdaKevov /3iov) of ages long gone by. 

7. Lastly, human life in its most comprehensive aspect, 
genus humanum, the world, is properly expressed by 6 /3/o? 6 
dvOpcoTTivos, 6 koivos /3to?, or simply 6 fiios. Thus the great 
benefactors of the human race are described as ol evepyerrj- 
(tclvt<; iieyaka top tq)v dvOpooirasv ftlov 2 ; and the greatest of 
them, Hercules, who is lauded by the Historian as having by 
his own labours humanized the world (igijfiepcoo-as rrju oIkov- 
fievrjv 3 ), is represented as saying of himself and his exploits, 
o? Ato9 fiep vio$ elfii, rocravra Be ireirov^Ka 'EKKA0AIPI2N 
TON BION 4 . And to quote only one more instance, St Chry- 
sostom, commenting on the text (1 Tim. vi. 1) " Let as many 
servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy 
of all honour," observes that if this precept were neglected, the 
Greeks would have some reason to say that Christianity was 
introduced into the world for the subversion of all things (eVt 
dvarpoTrfi tgov iravrayv eh top ftiov elaevqveKiai) 1 \ Akin to 
this is the patristic use of /3to? for secular life, as, mapQevos 
dirora^ajjievr] ra> fii(p ; and /3c(otlkoI dvOpcoiroi, as opposed to 
the followers of a religious life. 

The obvious result of the foregoing enquiry is to shew that 
the term Biology, recently imported into the scientific vocabu- 
lary, is a blundek, illustrating the old saying, "A little learning 
is a dangerous thing." The inventor of it 6 , being in want of a 

1 Diod. Sic. in. 32. ed. Ben. 

3 Idem iv. 15. Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus 

3 Idem iv. 8. (born 1776, died 1837), in his work 

4 Lucian Dial. Deor. xiii. 1 (coll. entitled, Biologie, ou Philosophie de la 
Vit. Auct. 8). nature vivante, which appeared in 1802 

5 S. Chrysost. Opp. T. xi. p. 774 A, and following years. 


Greek word expressive of life, had recourse to his dictionary, 
which offered him a choice between two, /3/o? and 0)77. Zoology 1 
being already in use, as a derivative from ^Sov, he was forced to 
take up with Biology, a well-sounding word, and not likely to 
be too closely scrutinized by the general scientific world. So it 
has proved. The philosophic mind, which, after all, is but 
human, has got into a groove, and seems likely to stick there, 
unless some helping hand is extended to it from without. Let 
us see what philology can do in this matter constructively, as 
well as destructively. 

To attempt this with any prospect of success, two things 
seem to be required : first, to propose a substitute for the 
obnoxious term ; and, secondly, to find another aud a legitimate 
use for it. 

1. The vital principle (avrb tovto w ^oofiev 2 ) in Greek is 
neither a>?} nor ftLok, but to ^cotlkov. Thus the author of the 
Geoponics says that in the trying (SoKi/jLaaia) of eggs care 
should be taken not to shake them, for fear of destroying the 
vital principle (tva fir) Sca^Oapy to iv avrofc ^o)TiKov) 3 i The 
term ZOTICOLOGY is not quite on a par with the similarly 
sounding word Toxicology, because to%ikov, poison, though 
originally an adjective (<f>ap/naKov being understood), has by use 
passed into a noun ; whereas rd (otlkop (like to opanKov, the 
visual faculty, to oo-fypavTocov, to Xojlkov etc.) becomes a noun 
only by the help of the neuter article, which unfits it for enter- 
ing into the construction of a compound term. Still, without 
appealing to such doubtful compositions as Neology from vio$, 
Hagiology from ayios, Eschatology (!) from ea^aTo^ (all three 
adjectives), we need go no further than the undeniably legiti- 
mate formation dp^aioXoyla Archaeology, the science which 
deals with ancient things (to, ap^ala), as Zoticology is concerned 
about things endued with life (ja ^odtiko). But since it is 
always a matter of difficulty to obtain currency for a new term, 
however legitimately formed, it deserves to be considered 

1 There is not the same excuse for not from &ov). 

such monstrosities as Bioplasm, Bio- 2 Plato ap. Stob. Flor. T. 1. p. 273, 

genesis, etc., which might easily be ed. Gaisford. 

changed into Zooplasm, etc. (from t;wri, 3 Geopon. xrv. 7, 27. 


whether the opposing claims of science and philology might not, 
in this particular case, be reconciled by the simple disuse of the 
objectionable word, without the adoption of any substitute for 
it. Is a term, which is merely a higher generalization of two 
subjects, usually studied distinctively, and represented in Uni- 
versities by two or more separate chairs, absolutely necessary, or 
even highly convenient, for the promotion of scientific research ? 
Would not the Biological section of the British Association for 
the Advancement of Science conduct its affairs as well under 
the title of the Zoological and Botanical section, as under its 
present more compact and euphonious, but decidedly unphilo- 
logical, and, therefore, unscientific designation ? I lately read 
that the late Arctic expedition had " supplied us with a great 
mass of additional knowledge, especially as regards the biology 
and physical geography of the newly discovered regions." A 
few years back, instead of biology the writer would have said 
the Fauna and Flora of those regions, with no loss of elegance, 
and with a decided advantage in point of linguistical propriety. 
If those who have occasion to use the word would only remem- 
ber Prof. Huxley's candid acknowledgment that it is a "bad 
word," and only to be tolerated on the unphilosophical plea of 
" too late to mend," surely they would not grudge going a trifle 
out of their way, and by avoiding the use of the term them- 
selves, help to bring about its gradual discredit and final extinc- 
tion in the sense which it has hitherto borne. 

2. But what shall we do with the discarded word ? I 
answer : let the admirers of what is now periphrastically called 
Social Science assert its claim to be admitted amongst the 
ologies ; and having regard to the wide use of /3/o?, as defined 
in this paper, let them consider whether the objects and uses 
of that branch of science, which they so zealously and lauda- 
bly cultivate, may not be fairly represented by the term 

" Social Science," says a former President of the Association 
for the Promotion of that science, " I take to be the acquisition 
of such knowledge as shall enable the human community by 
which the earth is inhabited to reach the highest level of moral 
and physical well-being, which is compatible with the original 


conditions of their existence." And if I were promulgating a 
new science under the name of Biology, I should define its 
object to be, in the words of Polybius, rj iiravopdwat^ rov tcqv 
avOpwTrcov ftiov 1 , the correction of human life, a definition of 
which Lord Dufferin's account of Social Science is little more 
than an expansion. The task is an Herculean one, in both 
senses of that epithet ; it is an arduous task, and it is the very 
one which (as we have seen) Hercules, in his generation, and 
according to the requirements of that early stage of society, set 
himself to perform, ifc/caOaipetv rov ftiov, to purify the world, by 
ridding it, as the great Grecian hero of boars, lions and hydras, 
so the associated heroes of Adam Street, Adelphi, of the mon- 
strous abuses, the Augean accumulation of social disorders and 
derangements, which stand between the human race and the 
<( highest level of moral and physical well-being/' which it is 
capable of attaining. But if the " club and lion's skin " should 
appear to belong to a state of civilization widely different from 
that with which modern professors have to deal, coming down a 
few ages, we meet with the honoured name of one whom the 
cultivators of Social Science would do well to adopt as the 
founder of their faith, and the model of a true social philosopher. 
SOCRATES, says his biographer, irp&ros Trepl BIOT SieXexOrj 2 - 
Common life was his lecture-room, his laboratory, his observa- 
tory. The subject of his researches was, as he himself avowed, 

"Otto too ev /jLeydpotat kclkov t dyaOov re rervKrac, 
Whate'er of good or ill our homes enshrine 3 . 

Socrates, writes the great Roman philosopher, primus philo- 
sophiam devocavit e caelo, et in urbibus collocavit, et in domos 
etiam introduxit, et coegit de vita et moribus, rebusque bonis et 
malis quaerere*. If the papers hitherto read at the Social 
Science congresses should appear to have turned too much 
upon the smaller details (yet not small in their aggregate bear- 
ing upon human happiness) of sanitary requirements, mercantile 
laws, the treatment of lunacy and the statistics of crime, per- 
haps the assumption of a new name, at once more comprehen- 

1 Polyb. Histor. 1. 35, 1. 3 Horn. Od. A. 392. 

2 Diog. Laert. Vit. Socr. v. 4 Cic. Tusc. v. 4. 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. .13 


sive and more elevated than the original designation, may have 
the effect of bringing out more conspicuously, and keeping 
more steadily in view, the great aims and landmarks of the 
Science of Life, and of reducing all its parts into harmonious 
proportion with each other and with the whole. At the con- 
gress of 1878, the President of the Art section (then for the 
first time admitted into the programme of the Association) 
thought it necessary to apologize for the intrusion, and to 
answer the question, "What has Fine Art to do with Social 
Science ? " But if the enquiry had been, " What has Fine Art 
to do with Biology ? " the respondent might have taken up a 
higher tone. He might have asked in return, What would 
human life be, stripped of all those elegances and refinements, 
which exercise a humanizing influence upon all classes of 
society, down to the very lowest; which contribute so largely 
to the employment of the idler, and the enjoyment of the 
busier, part of mankind ? What but a /3io? dfilcoTos, destruc- 
tive of the ends, and unworthy of the name, of life ? The 
eloquent eulogium of Cicero upon one of the polite arts is 
equally applicable to them all : Haec studia adolescentiam alunt, 
senectutem oblectant ; secundas res ornant, adversis perfugium ac 
solatium praebent; delectant domi, non impediunt foris ; pernoc- 
tant nobiscum, peregrinantur, rusticantur 1 . Let the Biologist of 
the future take for his motto, Humani nihil a me alienum puto. 
Let the National Biological Association, if such should ever 
come into existence, write upon its banners (to wit, the title 
page of its annual volume of Transactions) 

Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, 
Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli 2 . 

1 Cic. pro Archia poeta 7. 2 Juven. Sat. i. 85. 


Norwich, August, 1879. 


Carm. 11 2 1 4. 

Nullus argento color est auaris 
abdito terris, inimice lamnae 
Crispe Sallusti, nisi temperato 
splendeat usu. 

Alike Lambinus' 'abditae' and Bentley's the only rational 
elucidation of the MS reading compel the words ' auaris terris ' 
to mean the miser's coffers : now when Horace says carm. ill 
3 49 sq. 'aurum inrepertum et sic melius situm, Cum terra celat, 
spernere fortior Quam cogere humanos in usus ' he is to be sure 
taking the other side as a poet may, but the parallel does seem 
to show that ' auaris terris ' here must have its natural sense of 
the mine, 'in her own loins She hutcht the all-worshipt ore' as 
Comus says. And is not 'inimice lamnae, nisi temperato 
splendeat usu ' or ' auaris abditae terris inimice lamnae ' a most 
dark and helpless way of saying ' open-handed Sallust ' ? And 
then how ' inimice ' and its train of dependants encumber and 
overbalance the sentence. If then as seems likely it is in 
'inimice' the corruption lies, this is what I would suggest: 

nullus argento color est auaris 
abdito terris, mimmusqm lamnae, 
Crispe Sallusti, nisi temperato 
splendeat usu. 

'Silver in the mine has no lustre at all, nay even when coined 
it has next to none, without it is burnished by changing hands.' 
This at least does away with the obscurity and redresses the 



balance of the sentence. It is chiefly I suppose because Horace 
was at no period unread that the corruptions in his MSS seldom 
lie on the surface, they present a resemblance at least superficial 
to sense and metre : if ' minimusque ' by two common errors 
became ' inimusce ' the further change to ' inimice ' was all but 

Carm. Ill 5 3140. 

Si pugnat extricata densis 
cerua plagis, erit ille fortis 
qui perfidis se credidit hostibus, 
et Marte Poenos proteret altero 
qui lora restrictis lacertis 

sensit iners timuitque mortem, 
hie unde uitam sumeret inscius 
pacem duello miscuit. o pudor ! 
o magoa Carthago probrosis 
altior Italiae minis. 

In this the reading of most MSS and well-nigh all editions 
Bentley justly finds fault with the lame climax 'timuitque 
mortem ', and * hie ' used where the poet should and might have 
used ' ille ' : he might too have added, what sort of writer is 
Horace if 'mortem' and ' uitam' here have nothing to do with 
one another ? But there is this deeper fault in the reading, 
that it makes Begums lose the thread of his argument; for 
what is he debating ? not what is done and cannot be undone, 
the surrender of the army, but its ransom, the matter in hand : 
his aim is to fence off the pernicies ueniens in aeuum, the 
flagitio additum damnum, the probrosae Italiae ruinae, and 
down to v. 36 he is speaking straight to the point ; but here 
with a full stop at ' mortem ' he loses his way and drifts off into 
mere exclamation about what is past mending and will remain 
the same whether he gains his cause or loses it. 

But several good MSS, that of Queen's College Oxford among 
them, have 'aptius' for 'inscius', and very many more give it 
for a varia lectio : Bentley then accepting this, proposed 
1 timuitque mortem Hiwc, unde uitam sumeret aptius, Pacem et 


duello miscuit', comparing carm. ill 11 38 'ne longus tibi 
somnus unde Non times detur'. This removes at once the 
faults of the passage and saves Horace's credit as a rhetorician : 
'hinc' for 'hie' is the slightest of changes, carm. I 17 14 and 
21 13 the MSS have 'hinc' where 'hie' must be right: but his 
insertion of ' et ' has not much likelihood, as he himself tacitly 
acknowledges on IV 4 18. 

But can 'pacem duello miscuit' in Horace mean 'con- 
founded war with peace ' ? Horace who five times elsewhere 
uses ' duellum ' uses it with a marked restriction, always of 
some single war, never of war in the abstract : the word's fancied 
connexion with ' duo ' was maybe at the bottom of this : war 
as opposed to peace is 'bellum' carm. 11 19 28 'idem Pads 
eras mediusque belli 1 serm. II 2 111 'in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit 
idonea bello' 3 268 'in amore haec sunt mala, helium, Pax 
rursum ' : if he wants to use ' duellum ' thus he must use the 
plural epist. II 1 254 ' tuisque Auspiciis totum confecta duella 
per orbem, Claustraque custodem pads cohibentia Ianum '. I 
will suggest then that Horace here too was true to his custom 
and wrote ' pacemgue be\\o miscuit ' : ' u ' and ' b ' are in his MSS 
as in others much confused, carm. Ill 23 19 'mollibit' for 'mol- 
liuit', I 20 10 where Munro emends 'uides' for 'bides' or 
1 bibes ', 25 20 Aldus' ' Euro ' for ' Hebro ' is probably right : 
' be ' then might well fall out after ' ue ', and the senseless 
' pacemquello ' would be readily altered by the change of one 
letter to ' pacem duello '. 

Carm. Ill 11 15 20. 

Cessit immanis tibi blandienti 

ianitor aulae 
Cerberus, quamuis furiale centum 
muniant angues caput eius atque 
spiritus taeter saniesque manet 

ore trilingui. 

Perhaps neither ' eius ' alone nor ' spiritus manet ' alone 
would be intolerable, but surely the pair of them is more than 
man can stand: so at least thought Bentley Meineke and 


Haupt. Haupt and Meineke however betake themselves to 
the coward's remedy of declaring the stanza spurious : Bentley 
perceiving that the alteration of ' eius atque ' into a verb for 
'spiritus' rids us at one stroke of both inconveniences proposes 
* exeatque ' : he cites instances of ' spiritus exit ' but candidly 
adds ' verum hie notandum est, quod in his locis spiritus exit 
de iis duntaxat dicatur, qui moribundi animam expirant. Quare 
ad euitaiylum Ambiguum, utinam Noster scripsisset potius 
exeatque halitus teter '. I propose then ' effluatque ' a word 
which can well be applied to ' spiritus ' or the like, Ovid met. 
VI 233 ' ne qua leuis effluat aura ', Cic. n. d. II 39 ' aer effluens 
hue et illuc uentos efficit '. Of all errors ' i ' for ' 1 ' is perhaps 
the most frequent, 's' for ' f ' by no means unusual, and if a 
copyist read or wrote ' essiu atque ' then ' eius atque ' was not 
far off. 

Carm. in 26 18. 

Vixi puellis nuper idoneus 
et militaui non sine gloria : 
nunc arma defunctumque bello 
barbiton hie paries habebit, 
laeuum marinae qui Veneris latus 
custodit. hie hie ponite lucida 
funalia et uectes et arcus 
oppusitis foribus minaces. 

Of all weapons the one which doors and doorkeepers can 
best afford to laugh at is an 'arcus' in any known sense of the 
word : Bentley's ' securesque ' however is not likely, no more is 
Keller's ' et ascias ' : indeed it surely is plain enough there is no 
keeping 'et': you can almost count up the available substan- 
tives on your fingers and see that none of them will do. But is 
it a substantive that is wanted ? Theocritus cited by Bentley 
has 7reXe/c6t? /cal Xa///7raSe?, and that Horace had this in his 
head is likely enough ; but why then when Theocritus mentions 
only two sorts of 'arma' should he mention three? Surely 
hatchets alone or crowbars alone are all that is wanted in 
addition to the torches, and his ' uectes ' do duty for Theocritus' 


TreXe/cet?. Then as to the symmetry of the sentence : 'funalia' 
has an epithet to itself, and that ' uectes ' should tally with it is 
at any rate as likely as not. What I am trying to make out is 
that here we have a corruption such as Bentley detected in 
'eius atque', that c et arcus' represents a single word, probably 
then an imperative co-ordinate with ' ponite ' : can it be ' et 
uectes sacrate Oppositis foribus minaces ' ? ' sacrate ' with the 
change of one letter is et arcus ' written backwards : to be sure 
I know of no quite parallel corruption, but in Propertius 
(Baehrens) ill 5 25 DV give ' integras ' for ' et nigras ' precisely 
reversing the first four letters. 

Carm. iv 4 6568. 
Merses profundo, pulchrior euenit; 
luctere, multa proruet integrum 
cum laude uictorem, geretque 
proelia coniugibus loquenda. 

Many seem to have felt the strangeness of ' merses, euenit ' 
followed by ' luctere, proruet geretque ', yet ' exiet ' is quite out 
of the question, and ' proruit ' and ' geritque ' are not very 
taking. And then the unexampled use of ' euenire ' ? The MSS 
vary between ' merses ' * mersus ' and ' mersae ' : ' mersus ' 
which has most authority is of course impossible and is attri- 
buted by Keller to the Mavortian recension : among those 
which have ' mersae ' is Keller's liber archetypus F (= </>^)> one 
of the MSS which preserve for instance the genuine reading 
'rumpit' carm. Ill 27 5. I think it then not unlikely Horace 
wrote ' mersae profundo pulchrrws euenit ', like ' male istis 
eueniat' etc. : a copyist misunderstanding the construction 
might readily write * pulchrior ', compare the corruption of ' ad 
uentum' to 'aduentus* carm. I 23 6. This at all events does 
away with both difficulties at once. 

Carm. IV 12 58. 

Nidum ponit Ityn flebiliter gemens 
infelix auis et Cecropiae domus 
aeternum obprobrium, quod male barbaras 
regum est ulta libidines. 


Bentley says ' ideo aeternum opprobrium quod sive quia 
male ulta est mariti libidines ', that is he makes ' obprobrium ! 
nominative, ' quod ' = ' quia ' and refers * ulta est ' to ' auis ' : all 
commentators seem to follow him in the main. You can hardly 
have demonstration on a point like this ; but does not ' auis et 
obprobrium ponit nidum' make a strange hendiadys ? one 
would rather expect 'obprobrium' to be placed in apposi- 
tion. I should be inclined to take ' obprobrium ' like * Ityn ' as 
governed by ' gemens ', ' quod ' = ' namely that ', and refer ' ulta 
est' to Cecropia domus: ' Cecropiae domus' will then be the 
1 auis ' and her sister : ' lamenting Itys, lamenting too her sister's 
infamy and her own, their dreadful revenge on Tereus '. 

Epod. I 714. 

Utrumne iussi persequemur otium 

non dulce, ni tecum simul, 
an hunc laborem mente laturi, decet 

qua ferre non molles uiros ? 
feremus et te uel per Alpium iuga 

inhospitalem et Caucasum 
uel occidentis usque ad ultimum sinum 

forti sequemur pectore. 

The great awkwardness of 'laturi' here = ' laturi sumus' has 
led Nauck to put a comma after ' laborem ' and govern it by 
' persequemur ' : this however only makes matters worse, as 
' persequemur otium ' means ' Shall I pursue my present stay- 
at-home life ' : now it is absurd to make Horace say ' Shall I 
continue to stay at home or continue to go to the wars \ 
Another objection, though perhaps not a serious one, I will 
mention, which applies alike to both interpretations : they make 
Horace ask a question of Maecenas to whom throughout this 
poem he is speaking, and then take the words out of Maecenas' 
mouth and give the answer in his own person. The punctua- 
tion I propose then is this, 

utrumne iussi persequemur otium 
non dulce, ni tecum simul, 


an liunc laborem mente laturi, decet 

qua ferre noti molles uiros, 
feremus, et te uel per Alpium iuga 

inliospitalem et Caucasum 
uel occidentis usque ad ultimum sinum 

forti sequemur pectore ? 

He then makes Maecenas answer this question by a counter- 
question, 'roges, tuum labore quid iuuem meo Imbellis ac 
firmus parum ', and everything runs smoothly. Perhaps it is 
not worth much that Porphyrin's lemma consists of these 
words thus written, 'an hunc laborem mente laturi decet qua 
ferre non molles uiros feremus \ 

Epod. IX. 

Quando repostum Caecubum ad festas dapes 

uictore laetus Caesare 
tecum sub alta (sic Ioui gratum) do mo, 

beate Maecenas, bibam 
sonante mixtum tibiis carmen lyra, 5 

hac Dorium, illis barbarum, 
ut nuper, actus cum freto Neptunius 

dux fugit ustis nauibus, 
minatus urbi uincla quae detraxerat 

seruis amicus perfidis ? 10 

Romanus eheu (posteri negabitis) 

emancipatus feminae 
fert uallum et arma miles et spadonibus 

seruire rugosis potest, 
interque signa turpe militaria 15 

sol aspicit conopium. 
ad hunc frementes uerterunt bis mille equos 

Galli canentes Caesarem, 
hostiliumque nauium portu latent 

puppes sinistrorsum citae. 20 

io Triumphe, tu moraris aureos 

currus et intactas boues? 
io Triumphe, nee Iugurthino parem 


bello reportasti ducem, 
neque, Africani cui super Carthaginem 25 

uirtus sepulcrum condidit. 
terra marique uictus hostis punico 

lugubre mutauit sagum. 
aut ille centum nobilem Cretam urbibus 

uentis iturus non suis 30 

exercitatas aut petit Syrtes noto 

aut fertur incerto mari. 
capaciores affer hue, puer, scypbos 

et Chia uina aut Lesbia, 
uel quod fluentem nauseam coerceat 35 

metire nobis Caecubum. 
curam metumque Caesaris rerum iuuat 

dulci Lyaeo soluere. . 

I am constrained to cite this poem in full, though it now has 
but one critical difficulty, because I think I can contribute 
something to its elucidation as a whole. It takes some nerve 
to say it, but I am much deceived if all the commentators I 
have read are not strangely out in supposing it written after, 
not before the battle of Actium : I really think this only wants 
pointing out to be self-evident. Let us see : vv. 1 6 will 
square equally well with either view : they are generally taken 
to mean 'when shall we have a chance of carousing together 
over this victory of Caesar's': they may just as well mean 
'when will Caesar win his victory and set us carousing'. On 
vv. 7 10 I will only say it seems to me unlikely he would care 
to say so much about Sex. Pompeius in the full blaze of Actium, 
but I lay no great stress on this. Vv. 11 16 the tense is 
generally taken to be historical, if I am right it will be present. 
Vv. 17 20 are important : the critical hitch in v. 17 need not 
delay us for the present : vv. 17, 18 seemingly refer to the 
defection of Amyntas and Deiotarus with their Galatians some 
time before the battle : what do vv. 19, 20 refer to ? The older 
commentators say to Cleopatra's flight to Alexandria : if that is 
so, my theory of course crumbles away, and with it Horace's 
reputation for a decent style: to announce the defection of 


2000 men out of 100,000, and then in the same breath, as an 
afterthought, that the world is lost and won ! The lines refer 
then to some naval defection or mishap or mismanagement 
matching the desertion of the Galli on land: what c sinistrorsum 
citae ' means perhaps no one will ever know : Bentley suggests 
it may be some nautical technicality, and if so we need not be 
astonished at our ignorance, seeing that Cicero did not know 
the meaning of 'inhibere remis'. What sort of poet now is 
this who with the thunder of Actium in his ears can dwell on 
the desertion of a handful of barbarians, and mention the 
'hostilium nauium puppes' without saying they are burnt to 
the water's edge ? To proceed : I suppose it is vv. 21 32 that 
have thrown the commentators off the scent: I shall be sur- 
prised if any one familiar with the locutions of poetry finds a 
difficulty here, but if he does I will cite a parallel : The 
mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the 
lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming ? why tarry the 
wheels of his chariots?' Set that now against 'io Triumphe, 
tu moraris' cet., and with 'terra marique uictus' cet. compare 
'Her wise ladies answered her, yea she returned answer to 
herself, Have they not sped ? have they not divided the prey ; 
to every man a damsel or two ; to Sisera a prey of divers 
colours ? ' this interrogation being of course in Hebrew poetry 
tantamount to the strongest affirmation. Horace too returns 
answer to himself, and the answer is not correct in its details : 
if these lines are meant as a rejoicing over Actium, then what 
is the meaning of * terra uictus ' ? there was no land-fighting at 
all, except a cavalry skirmish some days before the battle : a 
week or so after the battle Antonius' main army laid down its 
arms without a blow disgusted at the desertion of Canidius. 
Is that then what Horace means ? but if so this poem must 
have been written full a fortnight after the battle, and that is 
incompatible with the ignorance vv. 29 32 about Antonius' 
flight. Truth to tell the poet is trying like the mother of 
Sisera to cheer himself with glowing anticipations, and rinding 
this unavailing is driven to 'capaciores scyphos'. The last 
lines vv. 33 38 are generally supposed to inaugurate a 
carouse over the victory, though Horace takes pains to say that 


they do nothing of the kind : ' curam metumque ' ! why, what 
anxiety, what fear could Horace have for the conqueror with 
the world at his feet ? that Octavianus' difficulties were not 
over with Actium may be true as a matter of history, but was 
Horace the man to say so or this the time for saying it? 
'Fluentem nauseam' alone should be enough to show that 
the poem was written in the breathless hush before the 
battle, when Italy and the world were in agonies of suspense, 
'in dubioque fuere utrorum ad regna cadendum Omnibus 
humanis esset terraque marique '. 

I now come to the well-known crux in v. 17 : 'ad hunc' has 
by far the most MS authority : perhaps an easy and satisfactory 
correction would be 'at nunc', which Horace as Munro has 
pointed out probably wrote 'ad nunc'. 'Frementes' must 
surely belong to ' equos ' not ' Galli ', see carm. IV 14 23 ' fre- 
mentem mittere equum ' : it is almost an epitheton sollemne. 
If there is anything in what I have been saying above, 'nunc' 
will seem quite necessary to mark the change from dark to the 
first streak of light. 



# \ This paper was read at a meeting of the Oxford Philological Society, 
Nov. 19, 1880. Since then H. Jordan has published the suggestion ' quotannis ' 
for 'quodam is' in the Hermes (May, 1881), p. 48; whether or not for the first 
time, I am not aware. 

W. W. F. 

IV. 54. 68. 'Breuitas est res ipsis tantummodo verbis ne- 
cessariis expedita, hoc modo; Lemnum, praeteriens cepit, 
inde Thasi praesidium reliquit, post urbem Lysimachiam sus- 
tulit, inde pulsus in Hellespontum statim potitur Abydo. 
Item : modo consul quodam is deinde primus erat ciuitatis. 
Turn proficiscitur in Asiam, deinde hostis est dictus, post impe- 
rator et populi Romani consul factus est'. 

The text here given is that of Kayser's separate edition 
of the Rhetorica (1854), which has not been improved upon 
by Baiter and Kayser in their joint edition (1860). Of the 
two examples of 'breuitas' given in the passage, the first is very 
corrupt, and attempts to restore it must necessarily be doubt- 
ful in the absence of any certainty as to the events referred to 
in it. The last three words, however (statim potitur Abydo), 
may be accepted as certain on the manuscriptal evidence, and 
may possibly supply a key, as I shall presently show, to the 
meaning of the rest of the example. 

The second example, which is less corrupt and more im- 
portant, has generally been considered as giving a terminus 
ex quo for ascertaining the date of the publication of the 


Rhetorica 1 ; a date which is incidentally of much weight in 
determining the relation between this work and the De Inven- 
tione of the youthful Cicero. The person whose public career 
it so succinctly sketches has been understood by the editors, 
though not universally by the copyists before them 2 , to be 
L. Cornelius Sulla. The last words of the example have con- 
sequently been referred to his second consulship in B.C. 80, and 
no allusion to any event of a later date than this has as yet been 
discovered in the four books of the treatise. 

If then this work was written or even published shortly 
after B.C. 80, we might expect to find in it at least occasional 
allusion to the stirring and crowded events of the years imme- 
diately preceding. Strange to say, the last event before that 
date which can be clearly shown to be alluded to, is the murder 
of Sulpicius in B.C. 88 3 : and though references are frequent to 
occurrences of the Gracchan and Marian periods, these eight 
years of terror and civil war are entirely passed over. It is of 
course perfectly possible that the author may have had a 
reason of his own for this at which we cannot now arrive ; but 
there are two further difficulties, wanting as yet satisfactory 
solution, which have led me to suspect that the book has 
been post-dated by several years, and that the ' consul factus 
est' of the passage quoted above does not refer to Sulla or to 
B.C. 80, but to some other person, and to an earlier date. 

The first of these difficulties can here be only briefly indi- 
cated. It is now generally believed, on what seems satisfactory 
evidence, that Cicero in writing his fragment de Inventione 
had the Rhetorica ad Herennium before him 4 ; and on the 
supposition that the latter work was published in or after the 
year B.C. 80, the date of the former should be at earliest B.C. 78 

1 See the Preface to Kayser's edition, in the reading Africam ' for Asiam ,' 
p. xi. Kayser is followed on this point which, though undoubtedly wrong, 
by Teuffel, Bom. Lit. sec. 149, 2. Blass, shows that the copyist was thinking 
Griech. Beredsamkeit, p. 121, and of Marius. 

Prof. Wilkins, Introduction to Cic. de 3 i. 15. 25 ; iv. 22. 31. 

Or. p. 52. 4 Kayser Pref. xi ; Spengel, Khein. 

2 This is shown by the introduction Mus. xviii. p. 495. Cp. Drumann, 
of the word ' tribunus ' into the text of B. Gr. vol. v. p. 230. 

one ms., as is explained below, and 


or 77, i.e. at a time when Cicero was close upon thirty years 
old 1 . But Cicero himself, in a well-known passage in the De 
Oratore (1. 2. 5), writes of his earlier rhetorical work as com- 
posed 'pueris aut adolescentibus nobis'; and however loosely 
he may be expressing himself, it is at least surprising that he 
should describe himself as still so youthful at a time when he 
had already made his mark as an orator, and was on the point 
of entering on his public career as a magistrate 51 . Kayser has 
tried to get rid of this difficulty by supposing that the four 
books of the Rhetorica were not all published at once, and that 
Cicero may have had access to the first three before the publi- 
cation of the fourth, which contains our passage with its alleged 
allusion to Sulla's consulship in B.C. 80. The guess is inge- 
nious and far from unreasonable; but it becomes at once 
superfluous if it can be shown that the year 80 is wrongly 
assigned as a terminus ex quo for the date of the whole 

The other difficulty simply consists in the fact that the 
second example of 'breuitas' in the passage quoted above 
cannot be tortured into yielding any allusion to Sulla or to the 
year B.C. 80 without severe treatment and a very imperfect 
result. If the reader will follow it closely with the aid of 
Kayser's critical apparatus and of an exact knowledge of the 
chronology of the period, I believe he will find, that the 
following propositions, taken together, will place it almost 
beyond a doubt that Sulla is not the person meant to be 
referred to : 

1. If Sulla be meant, the antithesis of the ' modo ' and 
'deinde' at the beginning of the example will be entirely 
lost : for the words modo consul' can only refer to Sulla's 
first consulship in B.C. 88, while 'deinde primus erat ciuitatis' 
must be forced to refer to his mastery of the situation at Rome 
that same year, after the death of Sulpicius and flight of 
Marius to Africa. He was consul during the whole of the year 
88, and 'primus ciuitatis' during the latter half of it, and 
it can hardly be supposed that a careful writer, framing an 

1 He was born Jan. 3, b.c. 106, 2 Pro Quinctio, b.c. 81; Pro Eosc. 

Drumann, p. 216 reff. Am. 80 ; election to quaestorship, 76. 


example of 'breuitas' with great exactness, would point this 
relation of part to whole by using the words ' modo ' and 
1 deinde.' 

2. The first sentence of the example runs thus in the best 
MSS. : 'Modo consul quodam is deinde primus erat ciuixatis'. 
Now for the obviously corrupt reading ' quodam is ' no correction 
has ever been suggested, so far as I am aware, on the supposi- 
tion that Sulla is the person alluded to. A single MS (/u.) of the 
best family has 'quondam tribunus', which was corrected by a 
later hand to f quondam tribunus is '. Even if ' tribunus ' were 
the true reading and not an obvious interpolation, it could not 
of course refer to Sulla, who never was or could have been 
tribune. But this reading is put entirely out of court by the 
awkwardness with which it breaks in on the contrast of the 
1 modo ' and ' deinde'. 

3. The next words are 'Turn proficiscitur in Asiam\ If 
Sulla be meant, they are curiously inexact for an author writing 
so near the event. Sulla went in B.C. 87, not to Asia but to 
Greece ; he did not cross the Hellespont 1 till early in 84, and 
remained in Asia but a very short time. The words which 
follow (' deinde hostis est dictus ') may on the other hand refer 
easily enough to the outlawry of Sulla by the Senate before his 
return from Asia probably on his refusing to give up the 
command to Flaccus in B.C. 85. 

4. In the concluding words of the example, if Sulla be 
meant, the word ' imperator ' is meaningless, or at least needs a 
justification which it has not yet found. It is true that Sulla 
was technically 'imperator' from the day on which he left 
Rome in 87, till the day he resigned his Dictatorship in 79. 
But the word, if here used of Sulla, must be meant in some 
such special and extended sense as was afterwards given it by 
Augustus ; and we have no evidence whatever that Sulla in 
this point anticipated the Empire 2 . Both Sulla and Coesar 

1 Liv. Epit. 81 to 83 : Fischer Zeit- understand -rjyeiuovos as translating 
tafeln, p. 184. 'Dictatoris' and not 'Imperatoiis', 

2 In the inscription on the famous since the latter would have been 
equestrian statue, which (according to rendered avroKparcop by a Greek writer. 
Appian, B. C. i. 97) ran, KopurjXLov See Mommsen in Corp. Inscr. Lat. 
StfMas i]y4fj.ovos evrvxovs', we must i. 163. 


found the Dictatorship sufficient for their purposes, and stu- 
diously avoided the invention of titles of doubtful Republican 

5. The words 'populi Romani' which follow are not to be 
found in any MS, but were introduced by the Juntine editors in 
1537 as a correction for 'populorum' which is given by all the 
MSS of the best family, as well as by a large majority of the 
others hitherto collated. It is plain that these editors forgot 
that they were dealing with an example of 'breuitas' res 
tantummodo verbis necessariis expedita , or they would have 
hesitated before inserting an emendation so flat and superfluous. 
On the other hand 'populorum' seems to have no possible 
meaning, if Sulla be the person alluded to ; for ' populorum 
consul ' is sheer nonsense, and if the ' et ' be misplaced, ' impe- 
rator populorum ' is almost equally so. 

These considerations seem to me to put it beyond doubt 
that the author of the Rhetorica, who in this fourth book 
framed his own examples 1 , never intended that Sulla should 
here be understood as alluded to. A still closer examination of 
the text and of the circumstances of the time will be found (if 
I am not mistaken) to clear up all these difficulties, and at the 
same time to elucidate the real meaning of the example. There 
is but one other person whose history it can possibly be meant 
to sketch, and it remains to be shown that the chief events in 
the life of Marius correspond with it in every particular. These 

1. Five consulships, in B.C. 107, 104, 103, 102 and 101, all 
of which, it should be carefully noted, were spent almost 
entirely in the field in Africa and Gaul. 

2. Sixth consulship in B.C. 100, spent in Rome; where 
Marius, with the help of Saturninus and Glaucia, was omnipot- 
ent during the entire year, or at least until the death of 
Saturninus, which did not take place till December. 

3. Departure for Asia in the year following, on the recall 
of Metellus. He remained in Asia for several years in a private 
capacity, and on his return served without distinction in the 
early campaigns of the Social War. 

1 iv. 4. 7 ; iv. 7. 10. . 
Journal of Philology, vol. x. 14 


4. Struggle with Sulla for the Asiatic command in 88, 
ending in his flight to Africa and proclamation as a public 
enemy 1 . 

5. Return to Italy after the departure of Sulla for Asia in 
March 87; during the autumn of that year Marius and the 
other generals of the populares are at the head of Italian 
armies directed against Octavius and the Sullan government at 

6. Seventh consulship in January 86, held only for a few 
days until his death. 

I now present the example as I believe it should be read by 
the light of these well-known facts. 

'Item : modo consul quotannis* deinde primus erat ciuitatis. 
Turn proficiscitur in Asiam, deinde hostis est dictus, post impe- 
rator populorum 3 et consul factus est'. 

It will be found that the six landmarks in the public career 
of Marius are here indicated with as complete exactness as could 
be expected in an example specially framed to illustrate ' breui- 
tas ' ; viz. 1. ' Modo consul quotannis ' gives the succession of 
consulships from 104 to 101, 'ipsis tantummodo verbis neces- 
sariis'. 2. 'Deinde primus erat ciuitatis' gives the exact posi- 
tion of Marius in B.C. 100. 3. 'Turn proficiscitur in Asiam' 
gives the voluntary exile of Marius in B.C. 99. 4. 'Deinde 
hostis est dictus* gives his expulsion from Italy in 88, after 
which he was proclaimed ' hostis ' by the Senate. His previous 
return from Asia and service in the Social War are not indic- 
ated, as neither could be called a turning-point in his fortunes. 

1 Appian B. C. i. 60. framed to illustrate breuitas. 

2 For the constant interchange of 8 I have here placed the ' et ' after 
' quot ' and 'quod', see e.g. Corp. instead of before 'populorum'. At 
Inscr. Lat. vol. i. 1016 ; Festus p. 178 first the natural correction seemed to 

October equus immolatur quod) be 'post imperator et populorum pro- 

annis) ; Mr Munro on Hor. Od. ii. 3. consul factus est ' ; but the omission 

11, in number 18 of this Journal. By in that case of any allusion to the 

this correction the sentence seems seventh consulship of Marius would 

to me to gain exactly that unusual imply that the book was completed 

and antithetical incisiveness which we before that event ; and this, as I shall 

should look for in an example specially show, is very improbable. 


5. 'Post imperator populorum' will be found to give with 
exactness the position of Marius in Italy on his return from 
Africa in the middle of 87 \ He was furnished by the consul 
Cinna with the proconsulare imperium and the fasces, doubtless 
in order to give him, technically hostis as he still was, a definite 
position in the eyes of his soldiers. Secondly, the army he 
commanded, like those of Cinna, Carbo, and Sertorius at the 
same time, was composed beyond doubt of the Italian populi 
still in arms 2 , together with large numbers of the new Italian 
cives who were discontented with the inferior position assigned 
them by the Senatorial government in a limited number of 
tribes. This campaign in fact, though commonly called the 
first Civil War, was in reality only a new phase of the Social or 
Marsic War ; the new feature being that one party at Rome 
was now heading the Italians against the other. If we had the 
eighth and ninth decades of Livy, we should no doubt find, as 
we may guess from his Epitomist, that throughout the war the 
Italians were called ' populi Italici ' or ' populi ' only ; and in an 
example of ' breuitas ', framed by a person writing soon after 
the war, it would be perfectly natural to term a general at the 
head of an Italian army ' imperator populorum '. 6. ' Et consul 
factus est' refers of course to the election (or rather appoint- 
ment) of Marius as consul for the seventh time after the occupa- 
tion of Rome by the united armies in January 86. 

If these arguments are well grounded, it will be apparent 
that in the seventh consulship and death of Marius, we have 
a more natural and more reliable terminus ex quo for the date 
of the Rhetorica, than the second consulship of Sulla. But if 
January 86 is the latest point of time that can with any 
certainty be considered as alluded to in the treatise, have we 

1 This is expressly stated by Plu- Mar. 45). A parallel case of the illegal 

tarch (Marius 41) in a passage too assumption of ' imperium ' will be 

explicit to be the result of a misap- found in Sail. Catilina 3G. 
prehension, and possibly derived from 2 Liv. Epit. 80. (Samnium). App. 

Posidonius, who was in Italy a few B. C. i. 67. (Etruria). Cp. Kiene, 

months later, and had an interview Bundesgenossenkrieg p. 298 ; Momra- 

with Marius on his death-bed (H. sen, R. H. (Eng. Tr.) iii. 317 foil. 
Peter, Quellen Plutarchs p. 103 ; Plut. 



any grounds for hazarding a conjecture as to the exact date of 
its appearance ? I am inclined to think that the year in which 
the work was actually completed was 84, on the evidence of the 
other example of breuitas, which immediately precedes the one 
I have been discussing : 

' Lemnum praeteriens cepit, inde Thasi praesidium reliquit, 
post urbem Lysimachiam sustulit, inde pulsus in Hellespontum 
statim potitur Abydo.' 

Corrupt as these words are, they will help us, if ' Abydo' is 
the true reading ; for comparing them with Appian (Mithrid. 
56), we may guess that they refer to the movements of Lucullus 
and the fleet co-operating with Sulla early in 84 \ If this be 
so, the precision of the writer in detailing the movements of 
the Roman admiral, together with the fact that the passage is 
almost at the very end of the work, suggest a probable comple- 
tion and a possible publication very shortly after the news of 
these events reached Rome 2 . 

Whether or not this be the exact date, we are now in any 
case rid of our former difficulties. We no longer have an entire 
absence of allusion to any event in the eight years between the 
death of Sulpicius and the second consulship of Sulla. We are 
no longer surprised that Cicero should have written of the De 
Inventione as the work of a mere stripling, for if our reasoning 
is correct, it might well have been written when he was no 
more than five-and-twenty, and before he had come under 
public notice as the defender of either Quinctius or Roscius of 
Ameria. And lastly the conjecture of Kayser as to the delay in 
the publication of the fourth book of the Rhetorica may now be 
safely dispensed with. 

I may add that it seems to me by no means impossible that 
the author of this work, who had made no secret in it of his 

1 Lucullus, according to Appian, adverted to by Cicero (pro Cluent. 8. 
seized Abydos in advance of Sulla, in 25), which must have occurred in 83, 
order to secure the safe passage of the after Sulla's return to Italy. But this 
Hellespont for his chief. cannot be proved from a comparison of 

2 Kayser (notes, p. 310) sees in iv. the two passages ; for in the former 
52. 66 (example of sermocinatio) an no names are given, and in the latter 
allusion to an outrage at Larinum no details. 


sympathy with the cause of the populares and Italians 1 , may 
have perished in the Sullan reign of terror which followed close 
on its publication. This would account in some degree for the 
mystery which has shrouded its authorship, and for the fact 
that we hear of no subsequent work by the same hand. It is 
at any rate quite fruitless to attempt to identify the author 
with any individual known to have been living at a later date, 
whether bearing the name of Cornificius or any other. 

1 See e.g. iv. 9. 13, 22. 31, 34. 46, suggests Italian and Marian associa- 
55. 68. The name of Herennius, to tions. Plutarch Marius ch. 5. 
whom the book is dedicated, also 



This word, which I hope to shew should be carefully dis- 
tinguished from designare, is treated even by the most recent 
lexicographers (Lewis and Short, and Georges in his seventh 
edition), as an alternative form of that word. It is indeed 
agreed on all hands that dissignator is the right word, not desig- 
nator, for the official who presided over funeral or other games : 
but I am not sure whether the verb dissignare has been set in 
its right connection with dissignator and dissignatio. I suppose 
that dissignare as implied in the words dissignatio and dissig- 
nator must mean literally to mark out or arrange in different 
directions, and so to order or dispose, while designare means to 
mark out in one direction, or to mark out in a single line, and 
so plan or design. Dissignare has sometimes, I think, been 
corrupted into designare, but I doubt whether the converse has 
taken place. Vitruvius constantly uses designo in its proper 
sense, and if Muller-Strubing's apparatus criticus may be trusted, 
the manuscripts do not give dissignare for designare in a single 
instance. Nor is there any confusion between the two words in 
the manuscripts of Vergil, who twice uses designare of marking 
out the walls of a city. Again, is consid dissignatus ever found 
for consul designatus? In two passages, however, of Cicero's 
Be Natura Deorum (1 26, 3 85) manuscripts of good charac- 
ter give dissignari and dissignata where designari might be 
defended. 1 26 Anaxagoras... primus omnium rerum descrip- 
tionem ac modum mentis inflnitae vi ac ratione dissignari atque 
conflci voluit. 3 85 Ut enim nee domus nee res publica ratione 
quadam ac disci plina dissignata videatur si &c. In both pas- 


sages designari might perhaps stand, but dissignari, to be 
arranged or disposed, seems to give a better sense. 

But in the following passages (some of which, from the 
Christian writers, I owe to Paucker) there can be little doubt 
that dissignare is the right reading: and it will be interesting 
to follow its various meanings. 

Corpus Inscriptionum Rhenanarum no 161 (Brambach) NI* 
read neu discindatis neu violetis opus: Georges quotes neu dis- 
sigilletis: why not neu dissignetis? do not unseal or tear open: 
comp. Augustine De Moribus Manicheorum 13 30, signaculi 
dissignator, he who tears off the seal. Metaphorically Augus- 
tine uses dissignare for to violate, outrage a custom: C. D. 15 
16 2 qui (mos) cum...immoderationem continentiae coerceat, 
eum dissignari atque corrumpi merito esse nefarium iudicetur. 

Manuscript evidence which is above suspicion also gives us 
dissignare and dissignatio in the sense (apparently) of tearing 
open or divulging unlawfully what ought to be kept sacred and 
secret, so to utter something wrong or unlawful. Plautus Most. 
413 (Ritschl) according to B, though the editions give desig- 
nata: quae dissignata sunt et facta nequiter: Apuleius M. 8 28 
(so F) quasi contra fas sacrae religionis dissignaverit aliquid: 
Arnobius 1 63 nee reputandum putavit quid ille dissignasset, 
dummodo suis ostenderet se. 7 6 si quid animal caecum atque 
in nubibus semper ignorationis incedens dissignaverit, dixerit 
qui illorum minueretur auctoritas; (is dixerit a gloss?) 7 9 abo- 
litionem dissignationibus comparari. And Porphyrio on Horace 
Epistles 1 5 16 says dissignat, aperit. 

Whether this is the right interpretation of this passage 
may, how T ever, be doubted. For Nonius p. 96, according, not to 
the editions, but to the excellent Harleian manuscript, of which 
my friend Mr J. H. Onions has just made a full collation, has 
the following note ; dissignare, cum nota et ignominia aliquid 
facere. Terentius Adelphis (87) Ilia quae ante facta sunt 
Omitto; modo quid dissignavit? where the Bembine has desig- 
navit, but the other good manuscripts dissignavit, and Donatus, 
according to the printed editions, says designare est rem novam 
facere in utramque partem... designatores dicti qui ludis fune- 


bribus praesunt. But we know on the authority of very good 
inscriptions that these functionaries were called dissignatores: 
we need therefore feel no hesitation in reading dissignarit both 
in Terence (as Nonius would have us) and in the note of Donatus. 
Nor do I see any reason why we should not adopt the explana- 
tion given by Nonius and Donatus. From meaning to tear open, 
to treat with violence, dissigno with a cognate accusative neuter 
might readily come to mean to perform any startling or violent 
act, any act which upsets the existing order of things: and this 
is exactly the sense required in the often-quoted line of Horace, 
'Of what miracle is not intoxication capable?' Operta recludit, 
Spes iubet esse ratas, ad proelia trudit inertem, Sollicitis animis 
onus eximity addocet artes. 



The enquiries of Noldeke 1 , Wellhausen 2 and Krey 3 have 
established the artificial character of the Hebrew Chronology 
from the Exodus to the Return from the Captivity. There are 
480 years from the Exodus to the founding of the temple, and 
480 according to the list of Judaean kings from the founding of 
the temple in Solomon's fourth year to the Return. 1 note that 
the epoch-making year does not reckon as the close of the old 
but as the beginning of the new cycle. Thus B.C. 535, the year 
of the Return, is the first year of the new theocracy. Further it 
appears that where historical data failed the chronological in- 
tervals were filled in, as appears most distinctly in the period of 
the Judges, by numbers based on a generation of 40 years as 
the unit. The system as a whole is later than the Return, 
which is its fixed starting-point, and Wellhausen has shewn 
in his edition of Bleek's Einleitung that 1 Ki. vi. 1, the key 
verse of the system, is late and did not stand in the LXX. It 
thus becomes a point of great interest to determine which of 
the detailed dates, especially in the period of the kings, are 
traditional, which systematic. 

Now in the earlier Judaean reigns the only dates other than 
those of accessions to the throne refer to the temple, its plun- 
dering by Shishak,the change of the system of temple revenues by 
Joash. These dates are not systematic, and doubtless are derived 

1 Untersuchungen zur Kritik des edition, p. 264 sq. ; Geschichte Israels, 
Alten Testaments, p. 173 sq. p. 287. 

2 Jahrbb. f. Deutsche Theol, 1875, 3 Zeitschr. f. iviss. Theol. 1877, p. 
p. 607 sq. ; Bleek's Einleitung, 4th 401 sq. 


from the temple records, from which we have several curious 
and valuable extracts in the books of Kings. They deserve 
therefore our special attention. The change in the revenue 
system is dated in the 23rd year of Joash. It was a very im- 
portant change, tending towards the centralisation of the 
hierarchic system, by bringing funds that formerly belonged to 
the whole priestly guild under the immediate control of the 
high priest, and it continued in force in the days of Josiah. 
According to the present chronology this change took place in 
the 161st year from the founding of the temple. It marks the 
commencement of the second third of the cycle of 480 years. 
Again if we reckon 160 years from this epoch we come to the 
year of Hezekiah's death. The first year of Manasseh, whose 
reign is characterised as the decisive cause of Judah's rejection, 
begins the last third of the great cycle, the period of decline and 

In the first third the details are filled in by the aid of the 
number 40, subject to the condition that 37 (= 40 3), the part 
of Solomon's reign after the temple was founded, and 22 
(= 20 + 2) years of Joash are fixed data. This requires one 
period of 20 years, which is assigned to Jeroboam and Abijah, 
one of 41, which goes to Asa, and one of 40, which is the period 
of the influence of the house of Omri on Judah Jehoshaphat 
to Athalia inclusive. 

In the second period Hezekiah's reign was fixed at 29 years 
(30 1), by the fact that Sennacherib attacked Judah in his 
fourteenth year, and that fifteen years were added to his life 
after the sickness which occurred " in these days." Again Joash 
reigning a round 40, 18 years of his life (20 2) belonged to the 
new era. The other reigns had to supply a 2 and a 1 in the 
unit place, an 8 and a 3 for the tens. Accordingly Amaziah and 
Azariah give 81 years, Jotham and Ahaz 32. 

In the third period the length of Zedekiah's reign (11 years) 
was known; for 2 Kings xxv. 8 is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 1, 
2 Kings xxiv. 12 and fixed by the synchronism of Nebuchad- 
nezzar. The length of the captivity was also known to be fifty 
years (585 536 inclusive), for in Babylonia dates were carefully 
kept. Now 160 50 gives 110 years for the reigns from 


Manasseh to Zodekiah inclusive. The length of Josiah's reign 
was also known to be 31 years from Jer. xxv. 1 3. On these 
data 11 was the natural factor by which to subdivide the reigns, 
and we find Manasseh = 5 x 11, Anion and Josiah = 3xll, 
Jehoiakim = 11. If the last clause of Jer. xxv. 1 is genuine, 
the 11 years of Jehoiakim are also confirmed by a synchronism 
of his fourth year with Nebuchadnezzar's first ; but the clause 
is wanting in the Septuagint, as is also the name of Nebuchad- 
nezzar at ver. 9 and xlvi. 26. According to Jer. xlvi. 2 the 
fourth year of Jehoiakim was the date of the battle of Car- 
chemish when Nabopolasar was still alive. In any case the 55 
years of Manasseh are suspicious. They have been challenged 
by Wellhausen on independent grounds. 

The kingdom of Ephraim also lasted 240 years. Wellhausen 
and Krey reckon 242, and then correct the number by two 
years with the aid of the Jewish synchronisms. This process is 
arbitrary, since we know that these synchronisms are not part of 
the original chronology ; it is also unnecessary, for the number 
of 242 is got by allowing a year for Zechariah and Shallum, who 
have no more right to be counted than Jehoahaz of Judah, 
who is not reckoned in Jer. xxv. The true sum is 241, and 
the epoch making year of Samaria's fall (the 9th of Hoshea) must 
be deducted, as in the case of the Judaean periods. The kingdom 
thus lasted 240 full years. 

Now the first sure date, not an accession, supplied by the 
northern history, is the commencement of the great Syrian wars. 
There were two years' campaign under Ahab, then a year of 
rest ; and in the following year, the third year from the fore- 
going campaign according to Hebrew reckoning, Ahab was 
killed. Four years of Ahab's reign belong to the Syrian Avars. 
Now Ahab on the present chronology died in the 84th year 
from the division of the kingdom. The Syrian wars commence 
therefore in the 81st and open the second third of the whole 
240 years of the kingdom. Again the 79th year of the Syrian 
wars is the last of Joash. Jeroboam II. succeeded and com- 
pleted the deliverance begun by his predecessor (2 Kings xiv. 28 
with xiii. 19). One year of Jeroboam is thus reckoned to the 
Syrian period, and his whole reign is 41 years. The last 80 



years consist of 40 years of glory under Jeroboam and 40 of 
decadence to the year of Samaria's fall exclusive. 

In this reckoning it is somewhat disturbing that one year of 
Jeroboam II. goes to the Syrian wars. This however is con- 
nected with a variation in the tradition. In 2 Kings xiii. 
Joash, but in 2 Kings xiv. Jeroboam, appears as the deliverer of 
Israel and the restorer of the lost territory on the Syrian 
frontier. To reconcile these statements it was necessary to 
take part of Jeroboam's reign into the Syrian period; but as 
three campaigns of Joash were recorded to have recovered the 
lost cities (xiii. 25) one was enough for his son. 

The eighty years' period for the Syrian wars seems-however 
to be older than this adjustment, and to belong to the cycle of 
prophetic narratives from which the fundamental date in Ahab's 
reign is derived. For it is noteworthy that Elisha dies just 
before the three campaigns of Joash. But in like manner 
Elijah first appears three years before the Syrian wars. The 
80 years of war would thus on the present chronology correspond 
to a 79 years' ministry of these prophets. The discrepancy of 
one year between these periods appears to be connected with 
the variation in the tradition as to the close of the Syrian 
wars, and naturally suggests the conjecture that an earlier ad- 
justment of the chronology gave Jeroboam only 40 years and 
assigned the odd year to an earlier king, so as to make the 
Syrian wars end with Joash's three campaigns. On this scheme 
we get an eighty years' period for Elijah and Elisha. It is not 
unlikely that this eighty years' prophetic period was the basis 
of the chronology, since all the numerical data apart from ac- 
cessions belong to the prophetic cycle. If so it is also possible 
to explain as systematic the numbers given to the individual 
kings within the period. We have 

Elijah under Ahab 7 years 
Ahaziah 2 [3] 

Joram 12 

Jehu 28 

Jehoahaz 17 

Elisha under Joash 13 

) y 19 [20] 


War under Ahab 4 

13 + 7=20dr< 

w Joash 


But on the hypothesis one of these kings has to get the year 


withdrawn from Jeroboam II. It belongs either to Ahaziah or 
to Jehoahaz. I apprehend that Ahaziah is the right person, for 
3 and 7 are the usual numbers in the prophetic narratives 
(3 years and 7 years of famine, 42 = 6 x 7 children, 3 years' 
peace, &c), and Joram has 3x4, Jehu 7x4 years. Ahaziah 
was afterwards reduced to the normal 2 of the short reigns in 
the finished scheme, and a year was given to Jeroboam II. 

The construction of the first 80 years is so far on the same 
model that 22 years of Jeroboam I. + 18 of Ahab = 40 or half 
the entire period. But of course we cannot expect to find a 
uniform system carried out through all the details of the 
Chronology. The conclusion to which the present observations 
point is that the existing chronological scheme was obtained 
by setting down a small number of dates given in the old 
records as fixed points, and filling up the intervals by a system 
of interpolation in which 20 and 40 were the main units. 
But the details were necessarily subject to given determining 
conditions, for it was known in a general way that some kings 
had long reigns, and others short. We might have expected 
that it would also be thought necessary to preserve those 
synchronisms between kings of Judah and Israel, which were 
given for example by the deaths of Joram and Ahaziah in the 
revolution under Jehu. The fact that these synchronisms are 
not observed, and that the baud which finally added the 
detailed synchronisms of accessions in the North and South 
accomplished his work only by the highly arbitrary mode of 
calculation, which Wellhausen has explained in Jahrbb. f. D. 
Theol., 1875, confirms the arguments adduced in this paper 
to shew that the main lines of the Northern and Southern 
Chronology were originally drawn from mutually independent 



These remarks on the Agamemnon of Aeschylus are sub- 
mitted in an honest desire to throw light into some of the dark 
corners of this greatest of ancient tragedies. They are made in 
the full knowledge of the fact of which indeed only very 
superficial scholars can be ignorant at this day that there 
are still many passages of the Agamemnon which no skill of 
scholars has ever been able to clear up, and which will probably 
always remain a battle-ground for critics. 

There is one source of knowledge to which many will think 
it is no longer of any avail to turn for new light on Aeschylus : 
I mean the manuscripts. The list of these is easily given, so 
far as the Agamemnon is concerned. The Medicean with its 
two copies, all sadly mutilated and containing less than a 
quarter of the Agamemnon ; the two Venetian fragments ; the 
Florentine and the Farnese, the only two which contain the 
whole tragedy ; these are the whole. And it might reasonably 
be thought that the careful collations of the older scholars had 
exhausted the resources of these few manuscripts and left them 
(to use Bentley's expression) like "squeezed oranges." I will 
first give a few examples to show that this is not entirely 
correct. A short inspection of the Codex Venetus (G16 in the 
Library of St Mark), containing Agam. 1 45 and 1095 to the 
end, showed that some gleanings yet remained in that fragment, 
In vs. 1196 this MS. reads plainly to fir) Biv a \ i.e. to fir) elBivat. 
Although this reading is adopted in many modern editions, 


it is always given as an emendation (see Paley's and Weil's 
notes). Hermann says : "Omnes [i.e. codices], to fi elBivat... 
Apertum est aut deesse negationem, aut ineptum esse \6yw." 
Others, as Schneidewin, accept to fi elhevat on the authority of 
the MSS., and explain or emend to avoid the inconsistency 
which Hermann points out. Again, in vs. 1127 many editors 
accept fie\ay/cep<p in the belief that this is the original reading 
of the Medicean, which now has fieXay/cepcoi with v written 
over the final 1. But the first reading of the MS. was clearly 
-cov, which was made -col by correction and was afterwards 
restored by a third hand. Recent editors doubt whether irop- 
Qelv or iroOelv is the reading of the Codex Florentinus in 
vs. 342 (see Hermann's and Paley's notes), and Hermann 
accepts iroOelv partly on the authority of his collation of that 
MS., saying " idque ex Flor. mihi enotatum est." But iroOelv 
is really found in no MS. at all, the Florentine (like all the 
others) having iropOelv beyond question. Hermann cites the 
Codex Florentinus as authority for the singular reading in 
vs. 345, Oeols cT av dfnr\aicnTO<; el ijloXoi, where I have copied 
the reading of this MS. (I think correctly) Oeoh 8* dvajjafkaicrj- 
to?. I am at least confident that there is no breathing or other 
mark over the syllable afi. I can hardly believe that Her- 
mann's reading could ever have been adopted into any text had 
it not been for this supposed authority. Apart from the sense, 
av (belonging to yevoiTo) would be in an absolutely anomalous 
position thus imbedded in the protasis, which could be defended 
by none of the ordinary examples of double or triple av in long 
sentences, still less by the formula ovk olha av el, as in Eurip. 
Med. 941, ovk oZS' av el ireiGaiyu. Besides, the sense of the 
MSS. reading, Oeol<; 8' avapmXaicriTos el fioXo'i crTpaTos, but 
(even) supposing the army to reach home without offending the 
Gods (as suggested in vss. 338 342), seems best suited to the 
thought of the following lines, in which Clytemnestra darkly 
hints that a reckoning awaits the victors after their arrival at 
Argos, even though they may not incur new wrath of the Gods 
by sacrilegious plundering at Troy. 

The passages which I have selected for discussion belong 
chiefly to the large class in which it seems to me that the 


readings of the manuscripts have been needlessly called in 
question, and my object is therefore in great part a defence of 
the manuscript text. In many cases I fear that my attempt 
will seem both heretical and abortive to older students of 
Aeschylus, who have generally assumed that certain passages 
are corrupt, and to whom the emended text has in a measure 
become the vulgate. 

1. Vss. 105 107. ert yap 6e66ev Karaizveiei 7rec6ob /-toX- 
irav, dXicdv av/Mfrvros alcov. Most recent editors read fioXwdv 
depending on ireiOoo, and dX/ca depending on arv/uLcfrvTos, omit- 
ting the comma. Hermann reads dXica and retains iioXirdv, 
but he takes dXfca o-vficfrvTos alcov in the sense of the time that 
the war has lasted, and puts it in apposition with TreiOoo to 
express id quo niter etur ea fiducia. Other interpretations may 
be found in Paley's and in Weil's notes. It seems to me that 
the emendations are far more difficult to explain than the 
reading of the MSS. as given above. In this reading it is hard 
to see what there is in either sense or construction to which 
almost all editors have taken exception. The asyndeton and 
the chiastic order both suit the sense, and we may translate as 
follows : " For still (i. e. after these many years of waiting) 
persuasion from the Gods inspires me with song ; still even my 
old age (literally ' the time that has grown with me ' for ' the 
time that I have lived') inspires me with strength (to sing)." 
The first clause was clearly so understood by the Medicean 
scholiast who says : ireiOeu yap /ie r) irapd Oeoov irians pbeXireLV 
teal Xeyeiv otl ev irpd^ovcriv ol 'ArpecSai, bcrov airo rov avfieiov. 
The meaning of avji^vTO^ aloov (sc. /xot) and the construction of 
d\/cdv with Karairveleu are indicated by the succeeding scholion : 
6 jap crv/jL^VTos \xoi alohv o eari to yrjpas Std rrjv eU 6eov<$ 
TreiOoo /jloXit^v [xoi /ecu dXicrjv KaTairvel' o ecrTiv, el teal yepcov 
el/Mi, o/xft)? /jueX^co rd yey ovora* ireiroiQa yap otl eh Trepan avTa 
d^ovo-LV ol 6eoL The words Std...ireL0a) here show a reading 
and interpretation of the first clause which we cannot reconcile 
with any possible form of the words TrecOoo pboXivdv. Paley 
suggests that this scholiast may have read ttclOol, but his 
version would require also koX dXicdv or dXicdv re. In the 
Medicean 7ret,0a> and [xoXirdv have been changed by a later 


hand to weiOS and [lokirav. Weil gives poXirav as the reading 
of the first hand ; but I feel confident that my own collation is 
correct here. Perhaps ireidm may confirm Paley's suspicion 
about 7T6L0OL. The use of av fxcpvTos alwv (sc. /-tot) in the sense 
of the time (or age) which has grown with me is well illustrated 
by Agam. 894: dp,j>i 001 iraQr) opaxra irXeico tov <tvvv$ovto<; 
Xpovov, i.e. more accidents than could have occurred during the 
time I was sleeping (the time sleeping with me being used for 
the time I was sleeping). See also Eumen. 286 : xpovos ica- 
Oaipei irdvra ynpda/ccov 6/jlov. Hermann quotes also Soph. 
Oed. Col. 7: 6 %povos %vv<dv fia/cpos, and Oed. Tyr. 1082: ol 
o-vyyevei? firjve<i. It may be added that in the former clause ere 
means even now, after ten years' waiting for the fulfilment of the 
predictions, referring to the omen of the two eagles and the 
hare, of which the chorus are about to sing, and the interpreta- 
tion of it by Calchas ; the faith of the chorus in the Gods and 
in the ultimate fulfilment of the predictions still remains 
unshaken. In the second clause ert refers to the chorus still 
having strength afforded even by their old age, el koX yepoov 
elfil. It is perhaps hardly necessary to say that the whole 
passage in question, eri...alcov, is a pure parenthesis, the follow- 
ing o7r&)?...7re/47m being the development of the idea first 
expressed by ohiov Kparos, etc., in the leading clause. 

2. Vss. 249 254. No passage in Aeschylus has been read 
and explained in a greater variety of ways than this. Between 
Hermann's to irpoicXveiv 8' rj\vo~i,v irpo^aipkTw (to jziWov 
being joined with the preceding sentence) and Paley's to /j,4\- 
Xov 8' eVet ov ykvoiT av Xvcris, irpo^aLpeTco, there is room for 
an infinite amount of conjecture and ingenuity. A few recent 
editors, Schneidewin, Weil, and Enger (1874), adopt a reading 
which is essentially that of the Farnese MS. in all except the 
last verse ; but none, I believe, now venture to retain the 
reading of the best MSS. through the whole passage. As the 
text is so much in question, I give (from my own collation) the 
exact readings of the three principal MSS. in the first part of 
the passage. The following is the text of the Medicean (the 
words and colon within the brackets being added by a later 
hand in blacker ink): 

Journal 0/ Philology, vol. x. 1 5 


Al/ca Be tocs fjuev iraOovaiv jiaOelv 


to fieXkov[' to Be irpoickveiv] 

7riyivoLT av kXvol? irpoyaipeTQ). 

The Oxford fac-simile of this manuscript (ed. by Merkel, 1871) 
fails to mark the interpolation in to Be 7rpoK\veiv, and no one 
(to my knowledge) has noticed that the colon after puekXov 
is a part of the interpolation. Indeed, the total absence of 
punctuation in the Medicean is an important part of the 

The Florentine MS. reads : 

Bitca Be tois puev iraOovcnv fiaOeiv, 
eirippewei to /neXXov. to Be 7rpo/c\veLV> eVei 
<yevoLT av kXvois, irpoyaipeTw. 

The reading of Ven. A (468), so far as it could be de- 
ciphered, seemed to agree with that of the Florentine, and it is 
so given by Hermann. In 1872 the words between irpoicKveiv 
and irpoyaipeTw were no longer visible, even in the sunlight. 

The reading of the Farnese MS. is as follows : 

Al/ca Be toIs fMev iraOovcrtv puaOelv 

eirippeireL. to pceWov 

eirel yevoiT av kXvois, irpoyaipeTto. 

The words to Be Trpotckveiv had evidently been introduced 
into the text before the Florentine and Venetian MSS. were 
copied, so that these latter have to fieWov joined with puaOelv 
7nppe7reL, while to 7rpofc\veiv takes its place as the object of 
ickvois. But this construction of to irpoickveiv is as fatal to the 
sense as the introduction of to Be irpotcXveiv into the text at 
all is to the metre, which is in perfect agreement with that of 
the strophe without these words. It is obvious that the only 
construction which the original copyist of the Medicean could 
have had in mind is that which the copyist of the Farnese MS. 
(probably Triclinius) adopted in his text, either by conjecture or 
from some purer source than the interpolated Medicean text. Of 
course, iTri^evoiT in the Medicean is only a slip of the pen or 
the ear for eVet yevoiT, and we thus have the construction to 


fieXkov eVet yevoiT av kXvols, which requires only 8' after 
fieXkov to make both sense and metre complete. Davies objects 
to this reading on the ground that iirel yevoiT av is not a 
possible construction. But the construction is to pueWov kXvois 
av inel yivocro, you can hear of the future when it comes, the 
assimilating force of tcXvois (a force which is especially strong in 
poetry) causing what would otherwise be eiretBav yevwTai to 
become eVet yevoiTo. This is like redvalrjv ore jjlol prj/ceTi 
ravra pueXoc (Mimn. I. 2) and g$? clttoXolto ical aWos o Tt? 
rocavrd ye pe^ot (Odyss. I. 47), where assimilation alone makes 
the optatives more natural. Indeed, this example is a strong 
confirmation of the position on the whole subject of assimilation 
and its effect on moods which is maintained in the paper on 
" Shall and Should in Protasis 1 ." There is the same difficulty 
in translating yevoiTo here in English that is felt in translating 
pekot, or pi^oi, above ; and for the same reason. The position 
of av, where a comma might precede, is not objectionable so 
long as to jxeWov, which is a part of the clause containing av, 
precedes the particle, and eVel yevoir is only an inserted clause. 
See Arist. Pac. 137 : aXX, a> fie\\ av 1x01 o-itlcov BarXoov eSei. 
The general principle that av cannot be the first word in a 
clause, even after a comma, is subject to this limitation, not to 
speak of others. 

The Medicean scholiast who wrote against vs. 249 rofc puev 
TTeirovQctJiv rj hiicr) hihcdav to puaOelv evidently had the original 
construction in mind. But the following note, Si/crjv yap SovTes 
pavOavovcn to puekXov, must come from some one who joined to 
pueXkov with pLaOelv in the text. When to pueXkov is rightly 
taken with the following words, it will also be the natural sub- 
ject of irpo^aipeTco, which to TrpoKkveiv could hardly be. 

In vs. 253 all MSS. and editions agree in laov Be tS irpoaTe- 
veiv. If the interpolated to he irpoickveiv is left out of the text, 
to TTpo^aipetv (sc. to p,ek\ov) will be the subject; i.e. for the 
future to he dismissed {bid farewell) before it comes is just as 
well (taov) as lamenting it before it comes, for it will surely 
come, whichever we do. When, however, to Be 7rpo/c\vecv was 
added, it was taken as subject here, and the meaning was sup- 
1 Journal of Philology, Vol. viii. p. 33 sqq. 



posed to be hearing the future beforehand is equivalent to he- 
wailing it beforehand, on the ground that it must be full of 
sorrow. The later scholiast on this verse has this idea when he 
says : 6 yap irpoyuyvoxTKcov to fi&Xkov /ecu irpocrTevd^ei. Indeed, 
it is highly probable that to Be nrpoicXveLv was first written in 
the margin as the subject (understood) of tcrov Icttiv, as it only 
adds confusion to all the other constructions. 

A greater difficulty comes in the last line. Here there is 
little or no dissent among recent editors from the emendations 
of Wellauer and Hermann, Topbv yap r/fet crvvopdpov avyals, 
for cvvopQov avTacs (Med. and Ven.). For crvvopOov Flor. and 
Farn. have crvvapdpov. The words avvopOpov avyals are some- 
times understood as referring to the actual rays of the morning, 
sun (just about to rise), sometimes to the metaphorical sunlight 
which is expected to break upon the darkness of uncertainty in 
which the Argives at home have been living. The objections 
to crvvopOov avTals are, first, that crvvopOos does not elsewhere 
occur, and secondly and chiefly, that avTais cannot be referred 
to the distant Te%vai without great violence to the sense and 
still greater obscurity. But crvvopOos (or perhaps crvvopOos), 
though a aired; elpnpAvov, is no more so than crvvopOpos, and is, 
moreover, amply justified by the compounds dvopdos, upright, 
with the cognate verb dvopdoco, set upright again, and e^op0o<; 
with igopOoco. We have the verb avvopOoco in Arrian (see 
Lexicon) ; and an adjective crvvopBos, coincident with, would 
naturally be expected. Compare crvvofiCkos, o-vfifjueTpos, crvv- 
ofv?, and other such compounds of avv. A word thus 
analogically formed, and found in the Medicean MS. of Ae- 
schylus, is not open to objection as a aira^ elpv/^evov, provided 
it suits the sense of the passage. (See also 6, below.) We 
come now to avTals, which cannot be referred to anything 
nearer than Tkyyai KaX^az^To? in vs. 248. But those terrible 
words Te^vai he KaA,%cwro? ovk d/cpavToi, following the minute 
description of the preparations for the sacrifice of Iphigenia, 
and taking the place of an account of the sacrifice itself, 
suddenly bring before the mind the awful reality which faces 
the chorus as they think of the condition of things. These 
words give unity to the whole choral song, and show more 


plainly than any exact language could have done that the 
Argive state now stands on the brink of a new gulf of horrors, 
which may well exceed all the ancient horrors of the house of 
Pelops. Let us trace the course of thought which runs through 
the whole chorus, that we may see more clearly the exact 
relation of the verse in question to the whole. The first stasi- 
mon and the lyric parodos (from vs. 104) form in subject a 
single ode. 

The chorus first describe the omen which was seen as the 
Argives marched forth to Troy, two eagles devouring a pregnant 
hare. This Calchas interpreted as portending the capture and 
destruction of Troy by the Argives. But, with an ominous 
reserve, he fears only that some divine displeasure may cast a 
gloom over the bright prospect; for Artemis is watching with 
envious eyes her father's winged hounds, the two eagles, and 
the two sons of Atreus whom they represent, and she " loathes 
the eagles' banquet." And as Artemis, the friend of all the 
beasts of the field, is asking her father Zeus to fulfil what the 
prodigy portends, the bad as well as the good, so the prophet 
in turn prays Apollo to prevent his sister from detaining the 
Argive fleet by any contrary winds, which he fears she may do 
in her eagerness for "a new sacrifice, a lawless one, of which no 
man can partake, a kindred worker of strife, that fears not 
man." " For," Calchas adds with double significance at the 
close, "child-avenging wrath (i.e. the wrath that avenges a 
child's murder) abides firm, terrible, ever rising afresh, haunting 
(directing) the house, treacherous, ever remembering." To the 
Argive chieftains just setting forth for Troy this was terrible 
enough, as reminding them of the vengeance that still was due 
for the murder of the children of Thyestes ; while to the chorus, 
who quote it after ten years, it has gained a new and more 
terrible meaning through the " new sacrifice " at Aulis. To the 
chorus, therefore, and to the audience who know even more 
than the chorus these last words of Calchas pronounce the 
doom of the guilty race. The vague forebodings of the prophet 
his fear lest some divine power might possibly darken the 
prospect, lest Artemis might detain the fleet, lest this detention 
might in some way cause "a new sacrifice" had all been 


realized in the fullest sense ; a child, the darling daughter of 
the King of Men, had been sacrificed to the father's ambition ; 
and now nothing could save the race of Atreus from the double 
retribution of " child-avenging wrath." In this state of mind, 
with the hope of victory thus darkly clouded by the sure ap- 
proach of retributive justice, the chorus again sing, in harmony 
with the words of the prophet, alXivov, alXivov elire, to ' et) 
vifcdrw (vss. 104 159). , 

The chorus now invoke the aid of Zeus, the only power 
which can relieve them from the load of anxiety which 
oppresses them. Ouranos and Kronos, the elder divinities, 
are past and gone ; but he who calls on the name of Zeus 
with willing heart shall gain perfect wisdom. But the law of 
Zeus makes wisdom the result of suffering; the "trickling of 
drops of torturing recollection before the heart in sleep" sobers 
men often in spite of themselves. And it is on the whole a 
gracious boon that this is so (vss. 160 183). 

Then, by a sudden transition, the chorus describe the conflict 
in the mind of Agamemnon when he is told that his daughter's 
life is demanded by the army as a sacrifice to appease Artemis 
and still the opposing winds. He yields to the demand and 
to his own eagerness for victory. Then follows the graphic 
account of the preparations for the unnatural sacrifice, the 
maiden's prayers and cries to her father for help, the lifting 
of the victim "like a kid" upon the altar, her falling robes, 
the gags which checked her voice, and then her speechless 
appeal to the heroes whom she had often seen as her father's 
guests ; Iphigenia -lies upon the altar, ready for the sacrificial 
knife, " beautiful as a picture" (vss. 184 246). But here the 
chorus suddenly pause, and the last scene is left to be imagined. 
They say : 

" But what followed we saw not, and we tell it not. Bat 
[we do say] the prophetic arts of Calchas must bring fulfilment 
(i.e. the vague horror of his predictions in vss. 147 155 must 
surely be realized). But [it is only by actual experience that 
we shall ever know what penalty is to be exacted for the 
sacrifice of Iphigenia, for] Justice brings knowledge within the 
reach of those [only] who have suffered (jrdOet fxaOos) ; the 


future you can hear of when it comes; before that bid it 
farewell, and this is as tvell as to lament it beforehand; for 
[whatever we do] it will come out clear and plain in full accord 
with these (prophetic arts)." 

It seems to me that no one can thus take a connected view 
of the whole song without feeling that the interpretation here 
given to the transmitted text of the last verses is not merely 
possible but highly appropriate. There is a special force in 
avrals, referring to the solemn words re^yai Be KaA/^ayro? ov/c 
d/epavroL with emphasis at the end of a sentence which begins 
as parenthetical, but which thus leads the thought at the close 
back to the point from which it digressed. The gender of 
avrais, moreover, makes the reference to rk^yai much clearer 
in Greek than it can be made in English by our vague " them " 
or "these." Indeed, the ambiguity which we feel here can 
hardly be said to extend to the Greek. 

The emended reading avvopQpov avyals, understood literally, 
with the rays of the coming morning (prietur cum luce solis 
eventus, Hermann), implying that the mystery is to be cleared 
up at sunrise, cannot give the correct meaning if to fieWov has 
been rightly explained above. For " the future " here includes 
not merely the question of the capture of Troy (which was 
to be decided at once), but also and chiefly the dreadful ques- 
tion of the doom impending over the race which had spread 
the Thyestean banquet and had sacrificed a royal princess on 
the altar of its ambition. This last question, as the chorus 
have said, can be decided only after the knowledge of the 
future has come through suffering; it is this knowledge that 
the chorus will bid farewell, for they have as yet no suspicion 
of the immediate doom which awaits Agamemnon on his 
return. The thought furthest from the minds of the chorus 
is that the coming dawn is to settle this terrible question. 
This interpretation is therefore opposed to the obvious sense 
of the preceding words. It is perhaps to avoid this that some 
recent editors understand the " rays of dawn " metaphorically, 
not of the morrow's sunrise, but of the future emerging from 
the darkness of futurity into the light of the present. In this 
view we have merely a strong expression for "the future will 


come to light plain and clear." As this cannot be called im- 
possible, two questions arise : first, whether this interpretation 
is better suited to the whole sense of the passage than the one 
proposed above, which adds the idea that the future which is 
to come out " clear " must accord with the prophecy of Calchas ; 
secondly, whether, if this is preferred, it is so superior to the 
sense afforded by the manuscript reading that it must be pur- 
chased by introducing into the text two conjectures, one a 
fectf elprj/jbivov. I can hardly doubt what answer will be given 
to these questions by unbiassed scholars, especially by those 
who will reconsider their opinions from the beginning on a pas- 
sage about which they have already made up their minds. 

I have felt that the importance of these verses, which 
determine the final turn of thought in one of the grandest of 
lyric songs, and greatly affect the whole impression which the 
ode makes, is a sufficient justification of the space given to the 
discussion of them. 

3. Vss. 931 943. These verses stand thus in the manu- 
scripts (not to notice unessential variations) : 

KA. KoX /jbTJV To8' 17T6 fJbTj TTttpa yVCOfMJV ifJLoi 

AT. yvcofirjv fiev taOt fir) 8ta<f)0povi>T ifjue. 

KA. rjvijo) 6eo2<$ 8eicra<s av a>8 > ep8eiv rd8e ; 

AT. elirep ti?, eZ&w? 7' ev too" e^elirov re\o$. 

KA. ri 8 av 8o/cei <tol TLpiafjuos, el raK rjvvcrev ; (935) 

AF. ev ttolkIXois av tcapra fioi firjvat, 8o/cel. 

KA. fjbr] vuv rbv avOpaoireLov al8ea6rj<i yjroyov. 

AT. (f^j^y ye fievrot 8jip,66pov<$ fieya aOevet. 

KA. 8 a(f)66vrjr6<; y ov/c hrifyfkos 7re\ec. 

AT. ov toi yvvaiKQ<i eariv Ifielpecv fid^V^- (940) 

KA. Tofc 3' oX/3coi<; ye real to vucaaQai nrpeirei. 

Ar. r\ teal ai) vifCTjv rrjv8e 8r}pio$ Tieis; 

KA. itiQov' /cpaTO<; fievroi Trapes y ckgov ifiol. 

In the interpretation of these much-disputed verses, I differ 
from Paley, where he has expressed his opinion, chiefly in 
regard to vs. 933 (906 Paley) ; but it is impossible to discuss 
a single verse of a o-rixofivdta by itself. In the speech just 


finished, Agamemnon has expressed a decided repugnance to 
making himself a mark for divine vengeance, after his great 
victory, by walking into his palace upon a path spread with 
purple embroideries. He is well aware of his danger, already 
hinted at by the chorus : twv TToXvKrovoav ydp ov/c o/jkoitoi 
Oeoi (vs. 461), and to 8' VTrep/corco? ev Kkveiv ftapv (v. 469) ; 
and his mind cannot be entirely free from anxious recollections 
of Aulis and Iphigenia. Clytemnestra, who is still more awake 
to the importance of the crisis, is determined that her hus- 
band's last act shall be one of defiance against the Gods. But 
it is a time for coaxing and for arguments (especially ad homi- 
nem), not for open quarrelling with her husband. She there- 
fore says (vs. 931) : " Now don't say you won't walk on the 
embroideries, and so go against my wishes." I think that firj 
stands after its verb merely to make irapa yvoo/jLrjv ip,oi more 
prominent and to show that the interference with her pet 
plan for the king's reception is what she has most at heart. 
The poet says irapa yvco/urjv ifioL (rather than i/jajv) as he might 
have said, irapa ryvcofiijv i/nol icmv, it is against my wishes or not 
to my mind, opposed to Kara yvco/jLTjv i/uot eariv. In this verse 
yvcDjjLTjv means wish, hope (cf. Dem. 01. I. 16, p. 14 : dp tc /jlt} 
Kara yvoofirjv i/c/3r}) \ but in the next verse (932) Agamemnon 
repeats the word with emphasis, giving it a slightly different 
turn by the change in expression. He says : " As to yvoofjuj, 
please understand that I shall not let my purpose (yvoofjLTjv) 
be weakened." This leaves Clytemnestra where she began ; 
and she now tries a new style of argument, addressed to his 
sense of shame : " Could you possibly have vowed to the Gods 
in some time of fear that you would act thus ? " The form 
of the question implies, with bitter sarcasm : " Surely you, 
Agamemnon, could never have had a moment of terror in 
which you could make such a vow !" Agamemnon has already 
(vs. 924) said that walking on embroideries is ifjuol p,ev ov8a/j,w$ 
dvev (f)6/3ov. But he now replies with dignity and apparent 
firmness : " If ever a man declared a decision knowing perfectly 
what he was about, I have done it now." Hermann says of 
reXo? here : u Sic dictum ut sit pro decreto." This reply suits 
perfectly the meaning which I have given to the preceding 


verse, and is not at all open to the objection which Professor 
Kennedy {Journal of Philology, vn. 13, p. 17) makes to Mr 
Paley's similar version, that it "is no reply to the previous 
words of Clytemnestra : it is a mere repetition of his refusal, 
' JS T o, P wont,' in another form, rudely ignoring what his wife 
had said." Mr. Paley had omitted the interrogation-mark at 
the end of vs. 933 (906) and translated : " You would have 
vowed to the gods to act thus in time of fear, i.e. you are pur- 
suing a course more like one in peril than a victor." But if 
we suppose Clytemnestra to have just suggested the possibility 
(or rather the impossibility) of Agamemnon's having been 
frightened into a vow that he would act with humility if he 
should ever capture Troy, the dignified reply of her husband " 
is just what would be expected. 

A third argument is now tried. Agamemnon is asked what 
Priam would have done if he had gained so glorious a victory ; 
and he replies that Priam would undoubtedly have walked on 
embroideries. After he has been further asked to disregard 
human censure, and has replied that the voice of the people 
still has mighty power, Clytemnestra tells him that it is not 
desirable to escape the cfrOovos of men, for " he who is unenvied 
is not an enviable man," i.e. he who escapes <$>06vo<; is not the 
object of 77X09 (is not rj\(frrl$). It seems as if Agamemnon 
here decided that he was no match for his wife in " chopping 
logic," and that it would be better on the whole to make no 
more ungracious objection to her plan for his reception; and 
yet his scruples were by no means overcome, as appears in 
vss. 9t4 949, below. He shows his disposition to yield (as 
he had doubtless often yielded before) by saying : " It is not 
like a woman to be so eager for a fight as you are." The 
queen replies, now sure of her point : " It becomes the pros- 
perous to submit even to defeat," i.e. they can afford to yield 
a point like this. Agamemnon rejoins, partly in scorn, but 
chiefly in jest: "Is this the kind of victory in a strife which 
you hold in honor?" i.e. the victory (vlkt)) which consists not 
in to viKav but in to vucaaOai. He speaks as if vl/crj could be 
the equivalent of both to vikclv and to vucaadai, as ti\xt] is of 
both to Ti/xav and to TifiaaQcu, and asks his wife if she adopts 


this principle for herself as well as for him. Professor Kennedy 
translates this verse: "Do you 'really care for victory in this 
dispute?" This requires a change of rijvBe to rrjaBe, which I 
cannot feel is necessary unless some objection can be urged 
against the interpretation given above. Nothing now remains 
for Clytemnestra but to ask that her husband's compliance 
may be not forced but willing. 

I should thus translate the whole passage, following the 
reading of the MSS. (as given above) : 

CL. And now don't say this and disappoint my wish (yvwfxrjv). 

AG. My purpose (yvto/x-qv) be sure I shall never weaken. 

CL. Could you ever have vowed to the Gods in any time of fear 
that you would act as you now do 1 

AG. If ever a man declared a decision knowing well what he 
was about, I have done it now. 

CL. But what do you think Priam would have done if he had 
accomplished what you have 1 (935) 

AG. I am very sure he would have walked on embroideries. 

CL. Now don't be afraid of the blame of men. 

AG. Yet the voice of the people has mighty power. 

CL. But the lofc of the unenvied man is not enviable. 

AG. It surely is not womanly to be (so) eager for a fight. (940) 

CL. But it is becoming to the prosperous even to let a victory 
be gained over them. 

AG. What ! is that the kind of victory which you hold in honor 
(for yourself as well as for me) 1 

CL. Be persuaded (i. e. never mind which kind of victory it is) : 
at all events let me prevail (here) by your consent. 

4. Vss. 10251020 : 

el Be fir} rerajfieva 
fjiolpa \xolpav ifc Oecov 
elpye p,rj irkeov <f>epeiv> 
7rpo<fi6dcraaa /capBla 
ry\<rcrav av TaS' e^e^ei. 

Every student of Aeschylus knows how unsatisfactory are 
all the widely divergent opinions of editors on these verses. 
Paley's translation "But if the appointed law of fate did 


not hinder fate from getting further assistance from the 
gods, my heart outstripping my tongue would pour out these 
feelings " seems to give a literal sense of the words in a 
perfectly grammatical construction; and his note on the last 
two verses shows, I think, that Schutz's emendation fcapStav 
yXwo-aa is not only unnecessary but injurious to the sense. 
But can we rest satisfied with this interpretation of the first 
three verses ? I trust that any suggestion on so obscure a 
passage will appear better than none. 

I think, first, we must certainly take fioipa jiolpav in a 
reciprocal sense, like aWos aXkov, and secondly, irXeov tyepeiv 
must mean bear away more than its due, after the analogy of 
irXeov ex 6LV > to have more than is due. U\4ov (pipeaOao is com- 
mon in the sense have an advantage (cf. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 500 : 
ifkeov fj iyco (frepeTai) ; and a similar use of the active cf>epco is 
familiar, as in Soph. Oed. Col. 651: ovk ovv wepa y av ovBev 
rj \6ya> cj)ipoc<;. The meaning of the passage will then be: " But 
did not one fate appointed by the Gods (sometimes) hinder 
another (fate appointed by the Gods) from securing more than 
its due, my heart would outstrip my tongue and pour forth its 
present burden." This seems to point to a doctrine of " inter- 
ference" between two lines of fate, by which either may be 
checked or balanced in a course which would, if unhindered, 
prove too destructive. The chorus would thus imply that this 
last desperate hope is all that they can still see to warrant them 
in hiding their feelings longer vtto gkotw (vs. 1030). In this 
song the gloomy forebodings of the chorus assume a more 
definite form. The earlier songs have hinted darkly at coming 
disaster ; while the description of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, 
the allusions to the slaughter at Troy, and the fears of the 
consequences of human pride, all disclose grounds for the 
gravest apprehension. But these fears are all vague and 
general; now, however, after Agamemnon has entered his 
palace, timidly 7ropcf>vpa<; 7rarcov, and Clytemnestra has assured 
him in bitter irony that she has at her command the whole 
Ocean to supply " purple " to the royal house, the chorus feel 
that a deed of blood is close at hand. They do not yet divine 
its nature, least of all do they suspect that Agamemnon was 


walking to his death; but there is "murder in the air." The 
general tenor of their song is as follows : 

" Why does this hovering phantom ever flit before my heart, 
and why can I not spurn it and restore confidence to my soul ? 
I have seen the Argive host set sail for Troy; and now with my 
own eyes I have witnessed its return. But still my heart of its 
own impulse sings the Fury's lyreless dirge, and refuses to be 
encouraged by hope. And I know that this feeling within me 
is not all in vain, and that it points to some fulfilment of my 
forebodings ; but yet I pray that my fears may prove groundless 
and without result. 

" Great prosperity is ever insatiate to extend its limits, 
reckless of the close neighbourhood of calamity; and human 
fortune as it sails onward often strikes a hidden reef. Yet the 
sacrifice of part of the cargo to save the rest may keep the ship 
from sinking and the fortunes of the house from falling, and one 
plenteous harvest averts all danger of famine. But far otherwise 
is it when the life-blood of a man has once fallen to the earth ; 
this no incantations can recall. Were this not so, Zeus had never 
stopped Aesculapius from raising the dead. My only hope is in 
the thought that one line of fate fixed by the Gods may some- 
times interfere with another line of fate (also fixed by the 
Gods) and so hinder it from securing too much ; were this not 
so, had I not this desperate hope to encourage me, my 
heart would outstrip my tongue and pour forth all its burden. 
But, as it is, I can only hide my grief in darkness, sore vexed, 
and with no hope of ever seeing order come out of this con- 
fusion, while my soul is burning within me." 

The passage in question thus supplies an important link in 
the chain of thought, and gives the ground on which the chorus 
decide to suppress their feelings a little" longer. The appearance 
of Cassandra now gives a sudden turn to the play, and the 
affrighted chorus are for the first time made aware of the real 
danger which awaits them. 

It may be said that no such doctrine of the interference of 
two lines of fate as is here supposed can be found elsewhere in 
the Greek religion. Even if this is true, I contend that such a 
doctrine appears here by the only interpretation of the language 


which is at once plain and consistent with the context. It can- 
not be too clearly understood that the ideas of fate which make 
the Moipai, the superiors of Zeus, and the King of the Gods 
merely a helpless agent in their hands, are not Aeschylean. 
The verses of the Prometheus (517, 518): 

X. Tovrcav dpa Zeus iariv dadevearepos ; 
IIP. ovfcovv av e/c<pvyoi ye rrjv ireirpwjjLevTjv. 

represent only the threats of a defiant rebel against the whole 
divine order of the world as this was established under Zeus ; 
they refer moreover to a disaster which Zeus did avert by his 
own free-will. Greek orthodoxy certainly the orthodoxy of 
Aeschylus speaks plainly in the following verse (519), in which, 
the chorus indignantly ask 

Ti yap irknrptoTai Zrjvl, irXrjv del Kparelv ; 

The doctrine of Prometheus probably represents a more 
ancient and gloomy view of inexorable necessity ruling both 
Gods and men, while the later view gave the government of the 
world to a wise and beneficent personal ruler, the director of 
other subordinate rulers, who had displaced a harsher dominion, 
and whose laws were made for the best good of mankind in 
general. These laws, however, the laws of nature, though bene- 
ficent on the whole, were inexorable and unyielding, often 
bringing misery upon the innocent children of a guilty race as 
the result of ancestral crime, but still by that very misery 
working out the great purpose of Zeus and making men wise 
through suffering. This stern, inexorable course of nature's 
laws, which all creeds must recognize, whatever they may 
choose to call it, seems to be the Fate of Aeschylus, the fioipa 
Terayfieva etc Oecov. The Homeric fxolpa Oewv or alaa Ato? 
stands in the same general relation to the more primitive 
government of the world by special interventions in which an 
earlier age believed. The frequent statues of Zet)? p>oipaye~ 
t?;? which Pausanias found in different parts of Greece show 
an absorption of an ancient idea of independent fate into 
the more advanced doctrine of the sovereignty of Zeus. (See 
Pausanias i. 40. 4; v. 15. 5; viii. 37. 1; x. 24. 4.) Now, if 


this was the poet's view of fate, that it was the onward 
march of nature's laws, the universal laws of the Gods, 
how could he have failed to see that the workings of several 
such laws, i.e. several lines of fate, may nay, must often 
interfere with each other, like several mechanical forces, and 
produce a result which is different from any of them ? In 
this view, the chorus simply express a last hope that the line of 
fate which seems to them to be leading directly to some new 
deed of blood may perchance be met and balanced by some 
other line of fate as yet unknown to them, so that the horrors 
which they see in prospect may be averted. 

5. Vs. 1347: aXka KOLvwo-wp.ed' av 7ro)9 dcr(f)a\r) ftovkev- 
fiara. This reading of the MSS. was emended by Porson to 
Koivwcraipbed' av 7r&>? (interrogative). The emendation now 
generally adopted is that of Hermann dv 7ro)9 (for a av irw^)- 
The latter is supported by two passages of Sophocles, dXk' 
dvayfcdaac Oeovs dv /jut} OeXwatv 01)8' dv et? Bvvair dvrjp, Oed. 
Tyr. 281 ; and (f>pdaov res icrrlv' av Xeyys Be fir) cfxoveo p>eya, 
Philoct. 574; in both of which the sense makes dv for a dv 
( = lav) of the MSS. an almost certain correction. It is, how- 
ever, quite as possible that dv 7ra)? in the MSS. is a mistake 
for rjv 7ra)?, so that we should read aWa KOLvcoacofieO', rjv 7ra>? 
dcr(f)a\rj fiovXev/jLara (sc. $), but let us take counsel, in case there 
shall prove to be any plans for safety, i.e. that ive may adopt any 
plans for safety which there may be. This is a case of the quite 
common absorption of the apodosis in the protasis, which some- 
times gives idv with the subjunctive the appearance of an indi- 
rect question. See Plat. Rep. II. 358 B : d/covcrov ical e'/xoO, 
idv <Joi ravrd 80/cf}, hear me too, in case the same shall please 
you, i.e. that then we may adopt it. Here the construction is 
obvious ; but in Rep. I V. 434 A : the Srj, idv <roi orrep ip,ol gvv- 
Bofcrj, many think they see an indirect question, though they 
cannot tell us what the form of the direct question would be. 
The change of ?jv to dv ( = idv) in the MSS. here supposed is 
confirmed by three passages of Sophocles, rjv (frpdaco, Trach. 
672 ; rjv...irpoa6rj, Frag. 323 (Nauck) ; ov8' rjv rbv SiSdafcaXov 
Xd/Brj, Frag. 736, in all of which the MSS. have dv. The 
further question, whether all four passages together do not 


furnish ground for an exception to the general doctrine that dv 
for idv was never used by the tragedians, need not be discussed 
here. The meaning of the line with the reading tjv irm agrees 
well with that of the preceding verse, rovpyov elpydo-Qai Bo/cel 
fiot fiacrtXecos ol/jLooy/jLarc. 

6. Vs. 1599: (p/Acojjev, dfjuTrliTTei S' dirb a^ayrj^ ipoov. Here 
ipoov is in most modern editions changed to i/xoov because ipcia) 
in the sense of vomit does not occur. But ipoov seems amply 
defended by the compounds aTrepdoo, i^epdco, etc., and has 
rightly been restored (as I notice since reading this paper) by 
Weil. An instance of igepoov in this sense is found in Phe re- 
crates (Pers. Frag. 2) : 

*I2 fjLa\d%a<; jxev egepoov, dvairvewv 8' vdiavdov. 


July, 1877. 


I have taken, as was natural, Nauck's edition of these 
Fragments (Lipsiae 1869) for the basis of the following remarks. 
His numbering and arrangement of them have been generally 
followed ; by Dindorf for instance in his latest recension of the 
Scenic Poets. At the same time I have kept constantly in 
view the authors who have preserved these fragments for us, of 
whom Stobaeus is by far the most prolific and important. 
Editors appear to me to have sometimes unduly neglected the 
hints afforded by the theme which Stobaeus is illustrating in this 
or that fragment and thus to have missed the probable meaning. 

58. Alexander. 
a/ irayKaKLcrroL /cat to BovXov ov \6yco 
e^ovres, aXka ttj Tvyj) KKrr)fjiivoL. 

'vs. 2 Ttj (jivcrec Iacobsius' Nauck. In several fragments of this 
play slaves in name and by position are contrasted with them 
who are nominally free, but are slaves from baseness or self- 
indulgence. I would therefore suggest rpv<f>fj for tvxv- Comp. 
fr. 55 xa/cov ti walBevfi rjv dp eh evavhplav f O tt\ovto<$ dvQpw- 
ttoictov at T ayav rpvcfrai. 

106. Alope. 
opw pep avhpoov rovSe yvfivdha <tto\ov 
CTTelyovTCL Oeoapbv e'/e Tpoywv ireiravixkvov. 

Ammonius quotes this passage to illustrate Tpoyps = Bpo^os. 
'vs. 2 arel'xpvd i ewov Dindorfius; equidem suspicabar dvhpwv 
(ttoXov XreLXovO^ opwfjLev' Nauck. I propose 

6p(3 fiev dvSpcov rovSe yvfivdSa aroXov 
arei^ovr ddvpovr, k rpo^cov ireTrav^ievov. 
Journal of Philology, vol. x. 16 


'I see this troop of gymnasts coming on, disporting themselves, 
now they have done with their racing'. I would suggest in Ion 52 
dfjL(f>tj3cofilov<; rpo%ov? 'H\ar' dOvpcov (or perhaps Tpo%ds, for 
T PXV occurs, apparently with the same meaning, in a tragic 
iambic quoted by Hesychius s. v. irpoaavpl^ovo-a), in place of 
Tpo<pa$ which scarcely gives any sense. 

149. Andromeda. 


ov firj to delov &)9 to. iroXXd crvvOekei. 

1 vs. 2 rd 7ro\V iircofyekel Heimsoethius' Nauck. Perhaps m 
tcl 7roXV av^eiv deXei: this first became iroWd ^vvOeket. 
Comp. Med. 966 Ketvr)<; 6 Salficov, Kelva vvv av^ec deos, Nea 
Tvpavvel. This however can scarcely be what Euripides wrote. 
Mr Verrall observes : ' Kelva for tcl i/ceivr)<; is a loose expression, 
and the whole phrase /celvrjs Tvpavvel somewhat incoherent... 
Nauck would strike out Kelva TvpavveV. I would suggest 

Katvrjs 6 BalficQV, Kaivd vvv av%ei #eo?, 

vea Tvpavvel. 
Comp. Kaivrjs vi>fjL(f>r}<; earlier in the play ; and 76 iraXaia Kai- 
vdov \eiireTai KrjBev/JLaTcov. 

162. Antigone. 

dvSpos S' epoovTo? et? Kvirpov veaviov 
dfyvkaKTOS 7) Tr)pi]o~i,$, kolv yap cfravXos fj 
raXX', et? epcoTa? iras avr)p ao(f>(OTepo^' 
rjv 8' av TrpocrfjTai Kv7rpt?, t/Bicttov \aj3elv. 

This the Ms. reading is manifestly very corrupt. I will first 
write down the verses, corrected in sense and metre : 

dvSpbs S' opcovTos et9 Kv7rpiv veaviov 
d<f>v\aKTO<; r) ireipao-is, ? Kav (f>av\o<; y 
to\X\ eh epcoTa? 7ra? dvrjp aocfxoTepos' 
rjv S' av TrpocrrjTaL Ku7T/)i?, rjSoaTOv Xaftelv. 

vs. 1. SpoovTo? 'pereleganter emendavit S. Musgravius' says Valck- 
enaer (Diatr. p. 242) ; and this has naturally been adopted by the 
latest editors of Euripides and Stobaeus. In vs. 2 Nauck's a>? 
Kav for Kav yap simply and effectually corrects the metre. But 


his proposed airpaKro^ r] $>vXal*vi for the first part of the verse 
is surely rewriting. I conjecture irelpeurts for Trjprjo-is: when 
we recollect that in very early times, long before Stobaeus, ei 
and 1 were indiscriminately interchanged, UlVao-cs might easily 
pass into TrlP^o-*?. The word I take in the sense in which 
Thucyd. VI 56 uses it, tov S* ovv 'ApfioSiov dnrapvr\Qkvia rrjv 
ireipaaiv. His attempt at seduction is not guarded against, 
because love sharpens his faculties and enables him to carry out 
his schemes with greater skill. And now in v. 4 Musgrave's 
rjv for fjv, before unmeaning, becomes significant, as it refers to 
ireipacris. All editors have irpoarjTai, surely a non-existent 
word. Nauck says ( dv irpo(T7\Tai Ku7r/)? nondum emendata'; 
but I think rjv $ dv 7rp6o-rjrat K. gives an excellent sense: 
'But whatever form of seduction Cypris approves of and favours, 
it is most sweet to experience'; and thus it becomes irresis- 
tible. Comp. Electr. 622 ir poarj/cdfjLrjv to pr/Oev, 'I quite ap- 
prove what you say'. Cypris, as she wills, makes love prosperous 
or unprosperous. 

167. Antigone. 

r) yap hofcrjcris Trcvrpaai 7ratSa? eltckvai 
rd TroWd rai/TTj ylyverac re/cva irepi. 

The conjectures of Nauck, and of Meineke in his Stobaeus, 
strike me as violent and improbable. I propose 

rjv yap Bofcrjcri,? irarpdcn 7ratSa<; elickvai' 
TOb iroWa ravrrj ylyverac reicv i/jucfrepf). 

'Yes, there was an expectation that children are like their 
fathers' and this expectation has produced the effect: 'it is in 
this way that for the most part children become like.' 

230. Archelaus. 

Aavads 6 irevriqKOVTa Ovyarkpcov 7rarr)p 

NftXou Xlttcov KoKkicrTov i/c yata? vBcop 

ikOcov 69 "Apyos toKia *\va)(pv ttoXlv. 

'vs. 2 nondum emendatus' Nauck. eV xpelas would suit the 
sense and the myth. 



250. Archelaus. 
ovk ecrri irevias lepbv ala^lorrr}^ 6eov. 
fiiaoo yap ovrcos oirive? fypovovai fiev, 
<j)povov(7i, & ovBevos ye ^prj/jbdrcov virep. 

'vs. 3 ovSev xpTj/jbdrcov vireprepov Pflugkius' Nauck: and Meineke 
actually adopts this conjecture in his Stobaeus. But the title 
of that chapter is Hevias ^0709, and many passages are given 
to shew that poverty at all hazards is to be avoided; not that 
riches can be too highly valued. I propose 

typovovai S' ov, Beov ye, xprj/idrcov virep. 

'who are men of thought, but take no thought, tho' they ought 
to, for riches'. 

264. Archelaus. 

irakai cr/co7rov/jLcu rd<; Tv%a<; toov fipoToov 
G09 ev fjL6TaWd(i(TOVcrcv' 09 ydp av <T(f)a\f} 
eh 6p6bv earrj %o5 irplv evTv^cov Trirvei. 

'vs. 1 t9 i<j>r)p,epG)v Tvyas O. Hense. vs. 2 w9 eu] ocrov Herwer- 
denus, a$9 Oeol O. Hense' Nauck. The following has occurred 
to me 

TrdXat a/coTTOvfiai t9 Pporoov Ti/^a?, o7rco<; 
del [or, elicrf\ /neraWao-aovo-cv. 

286. Autolycus. 
cryoivivas yap Xiriroicri (pXo'lvas rjvias TrXeicei. 

'videtur tetrameter trochaicus restituendus esse' Nauck. The 
words suggest to me fragmentary senarii rather: such as 

. . cryoivivas yap \_ainrvKa<$\ 
'ittitokji <f>Xotva<; #' rjvlas 7r\e/cei . . 

288. Bellerophon. 

I cite the three last vss. of this fragment, as the first twelve 
present no difficulties. 

<? M # r if V A /) n 

oLfxao o av v/j,a<;, ev Tt9 apyos gov ueoi,<; 
y. ev^ocro kcl\ fir} X L P L cvkXeyoi fiiov, 

rd Oela irvpyovcnv at Kauai re av/a<popai. 


'vs. 15 non expedio' Nauck. I would suggest 

rd^pef virovpyelv ry /cd/cy t' dcrvficfropa. 

This would give a sense in accordance I think with the rest of 
the fragment. If c be written for e, the letters in virovpyeiv are 
then the same as those in 7rvpyovatv, and if it became virovpy- 
ctlv, such an impossible word might readily pass into irvpyovcnv. 
Cobet, Collect, critica p. 217, says that there is a 'magna lacuna' 
before this verse. I do not think so ; for the indefinite Tt? can 
surely designate any among the vfjuds. 

311. Bellerophon. 
7TT7jaa inreiKcov puaXkov rj fiaXXov OeXoc. 

'poetae verba mihi obscura' Nauck. Plutarch in two different 
works quotes this line to illustrate the truth that a man should 
not be too yielding and submissive to friends, as Pegasus was to 
Bellerophon. The following slight alteration w^ould give I 
think a good sense: 

eTTTTjcra virei/ccov puaXkov, y puaXkov OeXot. 

'Pegasus ever cowered and submitted the more, in whatever 
way Bellerophon wished him to do so'. With y dekou compare 
Soph. Ant. 440 av fjuev ko/jli^ois av aeavrov y OeXeis : Electr. 
1429 y voeis (hretr/e vvv. 

324. Danae. 

epcos yap dpybv fcdirl rot? dpyois ecf)v' 
<j>i\et KCLTOTrrpa zeal ico/at)? %av6io-fiaTa, 
(jievyet Be /jlo^Oovs. ev Be p.01 re/cfiypiov' 
ovBeis TTpoaaiTcov ftlorov ypdaOrj ftpoTcov, 
ev to?? S' e%ovcnv r)/3r)Tr)<; 7recf)V)^ oBe. 

'vs. 5 7/j3r)Trj<; corruptum' Nauck. I have thought of 

ev rot? e%ovGi orj parr)? 7re<pv% ode. 

Oomp. Hesychius: eftpog. rpcvyos Parr)?: id. Oopos. /3ar?7? 
d(p>poBiaiao~Tri<;: id. Paras. 6 fcara(f>eprj<;. Tapavrivoc. 


406. Ino. vss. 2 and 3. 

XPV V 7^P tov evrvyovvO' 07ra)5 ifkelo-Tas e%ei,v 
yvvatfcas, eXirep rpocprj 86/jLols iraprjv. 

'vs. 3 eiirep ev 86p,ois rpocfrr} Pflugkius, an eiirep 8c6fia<riv rpocprj 
leg.?' Nauck. I would simply read etirep Kal rpocfyrj 8. it. for 
Kal is surely wanted. 

414. Ino. 

Toidv8e %pr} yvvaiKi irpoairoXov edv, 

rjTL^ to fiev hiicaiov ov o-cyijo-eTat, 

ra 8* alo"%pa pbiael Kal kclt otydaXfiovs ej(ei. 

Nauck registers several quite useless conjectures; but does not 
mention in v. 1 Musgrave's almost certain correction, irpocnro- 
Xelv : comp. Troad. 264 rvfij3op reraKrat irpoairoXelv 'A^tWeo^ : 
nor in v. 3 the quite certain correction of Dobree, epel for e^et : 
'but hates what is base, and will tell you so to your face'. 
Comp. Aristoph. Ean. 625 ha aoi Kar 6(p0aXfj,oi)s Xeyco, 
referred to by Dobree: also Rhes. 421 Kal fie/jicpofiai o~oi Kal 
Xeyco Kar o^fxa gov. Electr. 910 a y elirelv rjOeXov Kar ofifia 
aov. For epel comp. fr. 416 o<7Tt?...Ta7ro Kap8ias epel. In 
frag. 613 we should perhaps read Xoyov? ipels for e^a?. 

457. Cresphontes. 

covqrepav Be rrjvo* eyco 8l8co/jll gol 

For covrjrepav is the reading of all known Mss., not oaicorepav 
which all editors follow Valckenaer in adopting: he says indeed 
vaguely 'e Mss/, but nothing is known of them. It appears 
from both Plutarch and Aristotle, that this verse, when spoken 
by Merope as she was on the point of stabbing her son, sup- 
posing him to be the murderer of that son, but discovering her 
error in time to save him, always caused a prodigious sensation 
among the spectators. I would suggest 

bvacr dp tjv 8rj ttjvo* eyco 8l8cofjii gol 

'Good speed to this stroke which now I strike'. 


514. Melanippe. 

iy(o fiev ovv ovtc oIS' 07T&j? oKOirelv ^peocv 
rrjv evyeveiav' tovs yap avSpetovs fyvoiv 
koL tou9 oucaiovs toov tcevwv Bo^ao/xaTcov, 
kclv wol oovXcov, evyeveoTepovs Xeyw. 

'vs. 2 sq. ra<; yap dvSpeta? (f>voei$ real ra? oucaias KaX fcevas 
Heimsoethius. vs. 4 evyevearepas Heimsoethius' Nauck. Eight 
words are thus altered, with no satisfactory result. I would 
simply read twv Keva> oogdofiaTt, : the cause of the corruption 
is manifest. 'Them who are by nature brave and by nature 
just, even if the sons of slaves, I term more noble than they 
who are only so in empty opinion'. I have sometimes thought 
that to read rot*? Bc/catco? twv kcvS SotjdofiaTL would give a 
more pointed antithesis. But the two great civic virtues are 
courage which repels external, and justice which prevents inter- 
nal dangers. The title of the chapter in Stobaeus which con- 
tains our fragment is irepl evyeveiav' oti evyeveU ol Kai dperrjv 
aWe? k.t.X., and several of the fragments dwell on the virtue 
of justice. 

530. Meleager. 

to t . . KpaTiGTOv, tcdv yvvrj /cpaTO . . 77, 
tovt ear aperrj to oe ovo/jl ov oiacpepei. 

The passage appears in this mutilated shape in the sole Ms. of 
Orion. In vs. 1 tol, and in 2 co-tip, are doubtless to be read 
with all the editors; and it is highly probable that the Ms. 
originally had KpaTioTov, as Dindorf reads with Schneidewin. 
But this, as Meineke says, gives no sufficient sense. Nauck has 
yovfj Kafcos ? rj, yovfj from Conington, the rest from Gomperz. 
I propose 

to tol KpaTCOTOv, Kav yvvaiicotCTiOTOV y, 
tovt eoTiv dpeTr)' to o' ovo/jl ov tl oiacfrepei,. 

On the one hand Aristotle in his Poetics quotes from a Tragic 
poet oirelpwv OeoicTioTav <f>\6ya: on the other Aeschylus has 
yvvaiKoyr)pvTO<$ : yvvaacooihaicTos also occurs. Conington and 
Meineke conjecture ov ouafyOepel. Our fragments shew that 


the conduct of women, as might be expected, was much can- 
vassed in this play. 

538. Meleager. 

to jiev yap ev </>o3, to Be Kara a kotos /ca/cov. 

'verba to Se kclkov nondum sunt emendata' Nauck. Com- 
paring Here. Fur. 568 rod kcltco ctkotovs, I should say that 
Valckenaer's to Be kcltcq (tkotos kclkov was probably right. 
Dindorf asserts that the 'veteres' did not use to a kotos. But 
other editors and the Mss. of Euripides have the neuter more 
than once. It is found in Thucydides also more than once, 
and is common in Plato. Its occurring in Pindar proves it not 
to be a late Attic invention. With reference to this neuter I 
would now discuss fragment 

537. Meleager. 
aTepirvov to </>&)? p,oi to$ vtto yr)v 8' aBov gkqtos 
ovB' eh oveipov ovK eh avOpwirovs p,o\elv 
eyco fiev ovv yeyooaa TrfkiKrjB? ojjlcds 
aireiTTVcr avTo kovttot evyopbai Oavelv. 

I have written down this fragment just as the Ms. gives it, 
with the exception of Valckenaer's TrjXtKrjB' oficos for ttjXlkt] 
Bokoes. Meineke calls it 'corruptissimum necdum probabiliter 
sanatum fragmentum'. But the avTo of v. 4 proves almost to 
demonstration that cta;oto? here is neuter and that Nauck and 
Dindorf are wrong in reading o 6 otcoto?. Of course in v. 1 
Gesner's Tepirvov is rightly adopted by all editors. But I think 
it not improbable that it was preceded by the exclamation a, 
which would explain the aTepirvov. This is how I would amend 
the first two vss. 

a. Tepirvov to (a)? fiou' to 6 vtto yrjv aBov ctkotos 
ovK eh oveipov vyies avOpwirois /moXeiv. 

We find a similarly 'extra metrum' in Here. Fur. 629 and 
Bacchae 810. 

554. Oedipus. 

eK tcov cHXtttcov r) yapis fieifav fipoToh, 
(pavecaa fxaXkov rj to 7rpoo-$OKcop,evov. 


'vs. 2 aut spurius aut corruptus' Nauck. Corrupt, surely not 
spurious. I suggest 

aaivovaa fidXkov r) to irpoaSoKcofievov. 

576. Oenomaus. 
I quote the two first lines of this fragment. 

ev io~Ti ttclvtwv Trp&TOv elSevao tovtI 

<J)plV Tfl O-VflTTLTTTOVTa fir) TTCikiyfCOTWS. 

* vs. 1 tovti] roSe B, suspicabar ftpoToj ' Nauck. Of course ToBe 
of B is a mere attempt to correct the metre. I would read 

ev io~TL iravrcov nrpcorov elBevav, to too 
(f)epecv to, crvfnriTTTOVTa fir) TraXvy/ioTcos. 

to tol is in place in a general maxim : comp. fr. 530 to too 


582. Palamedes. 

to. t^? ye \7]0rj<; (fidpfiafc' SpOojcras fiovos, 
dcf)cova real (f>covovvTa o-u\\a/3d<; re Oels 
e^evpov dvOpwiroicn ypdfifiaT elBevat, 
coo~t ou irapovTa irovTias virep 7r\afc6s 


iraiaiv r diroOvrfaKovTa ^prjfiaTcov fieTpov 
ypd-\jravTa<i elirelv, top \aj36vTa S' elBevai. 
a S' eh epiv tt'itttovg-iv dvOpwirov? /ca/cd 
BekTos Biaipel, kovk ea tyevhrj \eyeiv. 

1 v. 6 diroOvrjCTKovTa suspectum. v. 7 ypdijravTa \el7reiv Sca- 
liger. vs. 8 /ca/crjv Heathius ' Nauck. No word in the whole 
passage is more genuine than diroOvrjaKovTa. I propose with 
some confidence 

iraiaiv t diroOvrjaicovTa ^prjfiaTCOV fieTpov, 
ypa^avo oo~ , einreiv. 

1 And at his death to tell his children the amount of his riches, 
having left in writing how much they are '. With ocra compare 
Soph. Aj. 118 6pd$, ''OBvaaev, ttjv Oeoov Icr^vv, oo-tj. 


In v. 8 KaKrjv may be the right correction of the corrupt 
icaica : I have thought of KcCkd, for which the context might 
readily suggest /ca/cd to a careless scribe. 

608. Peliades. 

to S' eaycLTov Brj tovto davfiacrrov {3poroL<; 
Tvpavvls, ovy^ evpois av aOXiwrepov. 
<j>C\ov<; re 'nropOelv real KaraKravelv v^pecov, 
7rXeicrTO? (poftos irpoaeaTL fjirj Bpdorcoorl tl. 

'vs. 1 iayaToo^ scripserim. vs. 3 fort. 7roXet? re ir. teal (j)l\ov<; 
KTavelv. vs. 4 7rXetcrTo?] eVel Pflugkius' Nauck. These changes 
are violent and yet insufficient; nor do other editors help us. 
I offer the following reconstruction of the passage : 

tl B\ ecryaTOV Brj tovO' o OavpLaarbv j3poTol<; } 
Tvpavvfc ; ov% evpoL<$ av a6\L(OTepov. 
cfrlXovs. t dircoOelv, kcu, KoraicTaveZv y^peoov, 
7r\ei(r6 > ot? (j)6/3o<; irpoaecTTi fir) Bpaacoai tl. 

With the beginning compare fr. 900, 7 tl tovto Br) to y^prjaTov ; 
ov/c dp/eel k.tX. Euripides is very fond of the word dirwOelv. 
The tyrant must drive away his friends, and put to death such 
of them as are most dangerous. 

620. Peleus. 


ou ScopLCL ryaias kXLo~t6v, ev6a ttjv (Jivctlv 
o Bvo~<yevr}<> Kpvtyas dv elrj aotyos. 

Thus the Mss. We have then another instance of the neut. 
o-ic6to<?. Nauck, Meineke, Dindorf and others read tolovto? : 
but the euphony is thereby somewhat impaired, fond as Euri- 
pides is said to be of cr. Elmsley indeed denies that tolovto is 
found in the tragic poets. But Hermann and other scholars do 
not follow him in this ; and Aesch. Prom. 801 tolovto puev ctol 
tovto seems indisputable. If the tragedians use, as they some- 
times do use, tclvto, why proscribe the good Attic tolovto ? 

In vs. 2 Meineke, followed by Nauck and Dindorf, conjec- 
tures %<Va. This suits yalas : but then kXtjcttov ? that surely 


fits hwixa, not %a)/ta : Thuc. II 17, speaking of locked buildings, 
ei ti dXXo /3e/3a/o>9 kXtjcttov tjv : Eurip. himself, Andr. 593, has 
aKXrjara hwfiara. The corruption therefore is in yaias. I 
propose ov Saofia to lax; kXtjo-tov. Comp. Hesychius toiw?. 
lo-^vpco<;. KaXcos. dfcpiftGos : he means evidently ovtcos lo~xvpa3<?, 
which is illustrated by Thucydides' /3e/3ato>? : and such an adverb, 
if not necessary to the sentence, at all events much improves it. 
It is evident that Hesychius, or his authorities, often have in 
view the Attic poets of the best time, and it is not improbable 
that the writer was thinking of our passage, if indeed tolcos was 
in it. 

Hesychius again Tot?, ovreos. This Homeric word occurs 
four times in Aeschylus, twice in the dialogue ; once in Sopho- 
cles in the dialogue. I would therefore suggest in the Medea, 

el/cos yap opya? OrjXv iroietaOai yevos 
ydfiovs Trape/jLTroXcoPTi, to)? aXXovs iroaei: 

tw?, SeifCTiKoos, * furtively dealing in other marriages as I am 
now doing'. Its use is very similar in Aesch. Sept. 618 rj f&W 
dTifjLacrTTJpa tco? a dvSprjXdrrjv cf)vyj} rov clvtov rovhe rlaaadai 
Tpoirov. I should not think of rejecting dXXolov? merely 
because it is not found elsewhere in the Tragedians : Homer 
and Pindar prove it to be suited for poetry; Thucydides and 
Plato shew it to be good Attic. But I agree with Dindorf and 
Verrall that it has here no sense.* When -ti tcds had passed 
into -T09, dXXolovs might well have been written to make good 
the metre. The scholia are now a confused jumble ; but they 
seem to shew traces of both aXXovs and TTape/jLiroXwvTL. 

To return to our fragment : in v. 3 Sir G. C. Lewis may be 
right in proposing /cpvyjreiev dv icdv fj <ro(j)6<;. But in another 
fragment of this chapter of Stobaeus folly is connected with 
Bvayeveia. See too what is said below on frag. 739. ' Kpv-fyas 
dv 6<{>0ei7) Enger, fortasse eicfiair) praeferendum ' Nauck. Perhaps 
/cpvyjras dv elr eXt) (to^os. 

652. Protesilaus. 
7roW' e\7r/Se<? tyevhovcri zeal aXoyoc ftporovs. 


Dindorf, followed by Nauck, koI Xojol Gaisford and Meineke 
yjrevSovaiv aXoyoi. But zeal aXoyoi is certainly genuine, and 
the corruption lies in tyevhovau. I would read 

7ro\A,' ekirlhes tyvy^ovai koXojol fiporovs. 

yfrv^co in a fragment of Sophocles has the sense of ' cheer ' 
1 refresh ', like the compounds dvayfrvyco, icaTafyvyja , Trapartyvyw. 
Comp. too Athen. p. 503 C for the use in Aeschylus and Euri- 
pides of TJrvKTrjpia for tov$ dXcrooSeis zeal o-va/clovs t6ttov<$...V 
ol? ecniv dva^rv^ai. 

664. Stheneboea. 
dvev tv^tj^ yap, uxntep y irapotpbia^ 

77WO? /JLOVCoOels OVK6T dXyVV0 ftpOTOVS. 

vs. 2 ovk4t dXSaivec Musgrave. Before I knew of this reading, 
I conjectured dXSavel: * Without luck, as the proverb goes, 
labour left to itself will no more make men plump \ This 
Homeric and Aeschylean word is in place in a proverb. 

698. Telephus. 

7rT(w^' djji(f)l/3\r]Ta crco/zaro? Xafioov pdtcr) 
dpKTr]pia TU%7??. 

- vs. 2 akKTripia Bernhardy. ti>xv$] ^%ou? Dobraeus ' Nauck. 
But how with such readings would the verse proceed ? I pro- 
pose av^pLTjpd t drv^s. 

703. Telephus. 
This fragment, which has been recovered from Olympiodorus' 
comment on Plato's Gorgias p. 521, is given as follows by 
Nauck, whose arrangement and explanation of the words are 
simply adopted by Dindorf : 

olS* avBpa WLvcrov TrfXe^ov . . . 

etr icrrl Mt/cro? ecre KaXXodev iroQev, 

[etc tov\ TTpoorcoiTov T?;\e<o? yvcopL^erai. 

Nauck has a right I think to say ' certum est quod v. 1 addidi 
olK dvBpa ex Ar. Ach. 430 '. But he gets his last verse out of 
these words of Olympiodorus, irw^ on 6 TrjXefyos yvcopl^erai, 
which are surely the writer's prose paraphrase of Euripides' 


words. This reading of Nauck, who adds that feVo? & oBe at 
the end of v. 1 would complete the metre and the sense, seems 
to me to destroy all connexion between the beginning and end 
of the fragment, and to make Olympiodorus' comment unmean- 
ing. To me it is clear that Telephus was in rags on the stage 
and for some time was not recognised. Some one says : I 
know (by fame) of Telephus a Mysian ' : [this man may be a 
Mysian or not] : and then 

a\V eLT MWo? etre KaXKoOev irodev, 
7ro3? OUT09 a$5 atv TrjXecfyos ypcopl^erai ; 

or something to the same purport. 

739. Temenidae. 
<f>6v (pev, to $vvai iraTpos evyevoix; airo 

r 6(Jt]V % p6vr\GlV d^LCOfld T6. 

kclv yap 7riv7)<; wv Tvy^dvy, xprjarbs 767ft)? 
TL/Jbrjv X L TW) dva/jL6T pov fievos he 7r&)5 
to tov iraTpbs yevvalov wfyeXel Tpoirw. 

1 vs. 2 i%t Sofcrjaiv d^icofiaTos Meinekius. e^et r ovtjctlv 
Schmidtius. vs. 5 co^eXet Tpoirw verba corrupta' Nauck. 
1 (ocfrekel] ov fyOepet Engerus ' Dindorf. If (frpovrjaiv could bear 
the meaning of (fepovrj/jua, 'high spirit', it might be in place ; but 
no instance of this seems to be known. For Suppl. 216 is 
hardly a case in point. It was said above on fr. 620 that to 
fiwpov was sometimes connected with Bvayeveia: see fr. 166 
from the Antigone ; and, what is more to the present point, 
comp. fr. 138 of the Adespota ttjv evyeveiav, rjv 0e\ys dvacrKO- 
irelv, 'Ez> to is /ca\co<; typovovaiv evp^aets ftpoTwv. But would 
the word at all harmonise with d^lco/Aa, and the rest of the 
fragment? If not, I would propose (f>66v7]crcv d^toy^d re, 
1 envy of the bad and esteem of the good \ Qovr)cn<$ occurs in 
Soph. Trach. 1212. 

For the manifestly corrupt cofaXel Tpoircp I have thought of 
ov (juXei pvirov: 'Ever thinking of his father's nobility he 
loves not sordid ways', pviros is found in Homer, in Aristo- 
phanes and the Comic Fragments, in Plato, and once in the 
fragments of Aeschylus. Or ov 6e\ei pvirdv might be suggested : 


Ion 1118 0eo? ov fiiavOfjvai 6e\cou. In Latin 'sordes' is very 
common in this sense : Horace ' O nee paternis obsoleta sordi- 
bus': Cicero 'splendetque per sese semper neque alienis urn- 
quam sordibus obsolescit [virtus]': 'non amat profusas epulas, 
sordes et inhumanitatem multo minus'. 

773. Phaethon. 

Beivov ye, to?9 ttKovtovctl tovto 6 eficpvTov, 
GKaioicriv elvai' tI irore rovSe y cCItiov\ 
dp o\/3o9 avrols oti TU(/>A.a? avvrjpereL, 
TV(f>Xas eypvai t? (ppevas /cat r^? tu^?. 

' vs. 4 tentabam kcu tt)<$ Tk.yyr\<$ sc. fiavri/crjs. Maehly ical 
SvoTUYet?' Meineke. I offer 

TV(f)\a<; eyovai t<z? (frpivas kovk evaro^ov^. 

Bat in v. 2 rovSe y alnov is Nauck's conjecture for tovto 
TaiTiov of the best Mss. 

781. Phaethon. 
v. 50 of this long fragment is said to be thus represented in the 

awavTa tclvt r)6p7]aeKav , jTa)Tovae')(eL 

Dindorf adopts Hermann's 'correction': tclvt aWpr)\T aKairvw- 
Toi 0* ohoi It would certainly be nearer the Ms. and would I 
think agree with the context, if we read 

clttclvtcl tclvt rjOprja evavTa 7T&;? e^et. 

Comp. Soph. Ant. 1284 evavTa nrpoa-pXeTra) veicpov : Euripides 
also uses evavTa in the Orestes ; as well as the Homeric dvTa in 
Ale. 898 : elaiheiv avTa. This word I would introduce into 
Suppl. 322, where dvaj3\e7reL can scarcely be genuine : o/oa?, 
aftovXos c8? fce/cepTO/jbrj/JLevT), Tot? KepTOfiovai yopybv &5? dvTa 
/3\e7reL %tj iraTpfc : ' Seest thou how thy country, when flouted 
for its reckless policy, grimly looks the flouters in the face ?' 
This was written about the time of the peace of Nicias, when 
Athens was at the height of its power. 

793 (vss. 4 and 5). Philoctetes. 
oo"Tt? yap avyel 6ewv iwlaTao-OaL irkpi, 
ovBev to fiaXkov olSev, rj ireiOei Xeycov. 


Nauck, followed by Dindorf, reads rj TrelOeiv \. : ' quo locus vix 
persanatur ' says Meineke. I propose el ireiOei \eywv. ' He 
may boast he knows all about the gods; but he knows not a 
whit the more for all that, if he persuades men he does by his 
words '. Perhaps we should read oZSe, Kel. 

794. Philoctetes. 

\eft) S' iyu>, kclv fiov hua<^6eipa<; 8o/cf} 
\6yov$ vTroaras avros TJBifcrjfcevai. 
d\\ y e ijjbov yap Tafia fiaBrjarj k\vwv, 
6 & avTos avrop ifufravcei croi Xeyoov. 

This fragment ought to be compared with its context in the 
Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, ch. 19. There is I believe a corrup- 
tion in every one of the 4 vss. This is proved by the metre of 
the last two, and by the sense in the first two. I will write 
down the passage as I propose to correct it : 

Xefo) o iyco, kclv jjlov hiafyOelpai Bo/cfj 
\6yov<z, v<f>iard(; avros rfBi/cvfcevai. 
d\7C i i/jbov yap rd/i dva/JLaOrjcrr) /cXvcov, 
6 S' avTos avrbv yfKpdvc^i aoo Xeycov. 

The figure TrpoKardXr)-^^ has place, when the first of the two 
speakers, conjecturing the charges which his adversary is likely 
to bring against him, and for himself, anticipates the other by 
giving his own version of these charges and so gaining the ear 
of his auditors. The avTiirpoKaTakif]'^^ has place, when the 
second speaker retorts on the first by exposing the insufficiency 
of what he has said against him and in favour of himself: 
o _ a^>co9 e/Sft)? on e^ekey^co avrov irpoKareka^e /jlov tcv \6yov 
koI irpohtefiaXev, Xv vfiel? k.t.X. Anaximenes quotes these 
verses as an example of skilful dvTiTrpoKardXrjyjn^. 'I will 
speak, even tho' he seem to have spoilt my speech, by setting 
forth in his own way his own wrong-doing. But that won't do, 
for you shall hear from me over again my pleas ; but he in his 
speech made it plain enough to you what a man he is ' ; so I 
need say no more of him. 

The infin. Bta^Oelpac seems clearly called for. With v(f>i<r- 
rd<; comp. Soph. Aj. 1091 yvoo/jua<; viroaTrjcra^ <ro<f>ov$. For the 


neut. vTToards could only mean ' having agreed ' ' promised to 
do something ' ; and not ' admitting doing it ', which the context 
calls for. And that these two words might be easily inter- 
changed, would appear from this : Hesychius says rightly : 
vcj>Lara<;. viroTiOeis. Both Photius and Suidas, following him 
or his sources, have : v^icrrd^. viroards. viroridel^. These late 
writers seem to have lost the feeling for the difference between 
the active and neuter parts of the verb. For dva/jLa0r/ay comp. 
Hesych. dva/ndOo). if; dpxfjs pudOco. In v. 4 I write with some 
confidence ripbc^avt^e, because I believe the fut. i/jbc^avcel to be a 
plain interpolation of a copyist who did not understand the past 
tense. Otherwise the old correction of Heath, e^avi^ei aoi, 
strikes me as better than various later conjectures. The con- 
jectures recorded by Nauck and Dindorf seem to me very 
insufficient. The resolved foot which I have introduced into 
the third verse may be objected to in a play which was in the 
same trilogy as the Medea. But the word exactly suits the 
context ; and even in the Medea we find verses like 375 Orjaco 
rrarepa re /cal Koprjv iro&iv r epuov. 

801. Phoenix. 

poyQripov eariv avBpl 7rp6o-/3vTrj re/cva 
BlBcoacv ban? ov/ce6' wpalos yapeiv' 
Beairoiva yap yepovrt vvjuL<j)i(p yvvij. 

Valckenaer's correction of this fragment, even as corrected by 
Porson, is very violent; so I think are Nauck's and Madvig's 
conjectures, as well as insufficient: the latter for instance makes 
re/cva the vocative, and for BlBcocrcv reads Qjywais. But even if 
Euripides could have used the latter word, it could scarcely 
have the sense of marriage absolutely ; so that you would need 
pioxOrjpd, the neut. predicate being here not in place. All three 
scholars too adopt jafiel for the yapecv of Mss. I correct the 
passage by altering one termination thus : 

/jbo^Orjpov ianv, dvBpl irpecr^vrrj re/cva 
BlBcoctlv oaTis ov/ced^ wpalw yapuelv. 

The corruption is surely natural for a copyist not understanding 
the construction. This use of oo-rt? is very idiomatic : fr. 362, 


v. 1 ra? yapiras octtis evyevus ^api^erai," HBcov ev fipoToiaiv* 
oi Be Bpcocu p,ev, XpoVo) Be Bpcoai, Bpatai BvoyevecrTepov : (thus 
'Heinrichius' completes v. 3; if however we read, as I should 
prefer to do, BvayeveaTepov Xeyeo with Meineke, or toBc, or 
BpoQo~iv, earl BwyeveaTepov, or something of the sort, we 
then have a second example of the same idiom) : Electr. 

815 6K TCOP KaXwV KO/jLTTOVaL TolcTl %eO~0~aXoi^ YTlvcli t6B\ ogtl? 

ravpov dpra/j,L /caXoS? : Fr. Trag. ap. Plut. Mor. p. 33 toB* earl 
to ^rfKcorov JvOpooTTOts, OT<p T6ov fiepifivr)? et'9 fiovXerai irear} : 
Thuc. Ill 45 a7r\ft)9 re dBvvarov teal iroXXfjs evrjOelas, o<7T(? 
oXerai k.t.X.: VI 14 to /ca\o3? apljai tovt elvat, 09 dv t?)i/ 
nraTplBa (o<j>e\r)0"rf. Nor is there any tautology : ' It is a vexa- 
tious thing, for any one to offer his children to an old man for 
him to marry, when he is no longer of an age to marry '. He 
may be copalo? for dying : comp. Ale. 516 ; Phoen. 968. The 
plur. T6Kva is I think idiomatic : Phoen. 966 ovS 1 dv tov clvtov 
iralBd ti<; Boirj KTavelv. M77 p, evXoyeLT(o Tafia Tt9 ktclvcov 
Teicva, where one only is in question. There is a very similar 
example in Heracl. 410 414 of Teicva thus used. 

830. Phrixus. 

Tt? o oibev ei L,r]V tovu o Ke/cXrjTai uaveiv, 
to tfiv Be OvrjaKeiv i<rrl\ irXrjV o/xct)9 (SpOTCov 
voaovaiv ol fiXeTrovTes, 01 o oXcoXoTes 
ovBev voaovat,v ovBe fce/CTrjvTac tca/cd. 
'vs. 2 irXrjv o/a&>9 verba corrupta' Nauck. The sentence calls, 
not for a connecting particle, but for an adverb to sustain 
the parallelism. I would therefore suggest with some confidence 
TXr}/j,6v(o<; fipoTwv k.t.X. Hesych. tXtj/jlo vgjs. iXeeivw: Troad. 
40 Te0vr)K TXr)/j,6va)<; UoXv^evrj. 

839. Chrysippus. 

yvcop,rj cocfyot; p>oi real yep dvBpeiav eyew (or, eypi) 
Bvo-/jiop(f)o<i eirjv fxdXXov rj /caXo9 Kaxos. 

Frag. 895 Choeroboscus quotes from Euripides d<f>p(ov dv eirjv, 
el Tpi(f)oiv Ta twv ireXas, to illustrate the form Tpefoiv. If this 
form then be legitimate, 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 17 


yvcofirj (rocfros tol /ecu %ep' dvBpelav e^oiv* 
hixriiopfyos elrjv fxaXkov rj /ca\o9 kcik6<; 

would give a satisfactory meaning and would explain the e^e^ 
and e%(M of our authorities. 

853. Incertarum. 

Setfa? yap a<TTp(ov rrjv ivavriav 6$ov 
Brjfiovs T eacoaa real Tvpavvo? l^ofirjv. 
'vs. 2 Srjfiovs] So/jLovs Bergkius. Opovovs Heimsoethius'. Atreus 
is speaking of his astronomical discovery, recorded by Strabo 
and others, of the heavens moving in a contrary direction to the 
sun and stars; which discovery gained him popularity and 
made him king. I would therefore propose S^ou? r eo-rjva. 

892. Incertarum. 

d)(f>ei\,6 SrjOev, elirep ear ev ovpavS 
Zevs, fir) tov avTov 8v<TTV%r} fcadecrTavai. 

'vs. 2 fir) tov iaOXbv Heimsoethius \ Perhaps rather fir) tov 
dyvbv, or tolovtov. 

986. Incertarum. 

Polyb. v 106 ov yap oltT 07Tft)? del irore He\o7rovvr)cnoL. . ./card 
tov J&vptirUyrjV r)aav 'alel irpao-LfioyQoi (or, ifkr]crlfioy6oi) rwe? 
koX oviroTe ifovYOi Bopl\ Perhaps 

alel Tives 
dirXrjaTO fio^Ooi kovttoQ* rjav^ot, hopl. 
Athenaeus twice quotes from Timon dirXrjaTolvovi r dpvraivas. 

1028. Incertarum. 

Kpivel t/s avTov ttgittot dvOpcoircov fiiyav, 
bv e^a\L(j)C irpofyacrLS r) Tvypva o\ov, 

Thus without remark all the editors of Euripides and Stobaeus, 
among them Valckenaer, Gaisford, Meineke, Nauck and Din- 
dorf. Yet surely the future with ircoirore is strange and unpre- 
cedented. A simple correction would be 

Kpivel tl<s avTov 7rcy5 wot dvOpdmusv fiiyav ; 


1030 (v. 4). Incertarum. 
rj iraiaiv avdevraiat fcoivcovfj Soficov. 

For the unmeaning iraia\v I have thought of r) airaiaiv avOev- 
Tcuai k. 8. : 'He shares his house with childless murderers'; i.e. 
shelters them not from charity, but greed, to inherit their 

1039. IncertanrTi. 

veavlas yap oo~tl$ cav "Apr) arvyrj, 
KOfirj fjuovov real erap/ce?, epya 6 ovSa/xov. 
opas tov evrpdire^ov co? 7781)9 /3to?, 
r 6 r o\/3o? egcodev rk eari irpayfiaTwv, 
a\V ovk evearc GTecfravo? ovb* evavBpia, 
el fir} ti teal roXficoai tuvSvvov fiera. 

'vs. 4 graviter corruptus' Nauck; and I have seen no specious 
correction of it. The dXX ovk evecrrt, k.t.\. of v. 5, as well as 
v. 3, seems to shew that v. 4 pointed to the power of wealth 
over external things, tho' it has no inward virtue. I have 
thought of 

o r oXfio? eco a^rjv rfe io~ri irpaypLaTCdv, 

'Wealth is a wedge, or most effectual instrument, of things': it 
can remove external obstacles and procure external blessings, 
but can do nothing more, o-^r/v occurs in Aeschylus and Aris- 
tophanes: comp. too Aristot. Mech. 17 Bid rl tg3 a^rjvl ovtl 
fiLKpcp fieyaXa fiapr] Buo-rarao koX fieyeOrj acofjudrcov, Kal OXlyjns 
la^ypd yiyverav; k.t.X. For the metaphor comp. Tertull. adv. 
Marc. I 21 hoc enim cuneo veritatis omnis extruditur haeresis. 

1044. Incertarum. 

eyw ydp ea> XeKrpa avrois KaXoos eye.iv 
Bircaiov ecrriv otcrt o~vyyrjpdaop,ai. 

'locus nondum emendatus' Nauck. I suggest 

eycoy dvefceo \e/cTp\ a y <o? /caXw? eyew 
hiicaiov ecrriv olai (rvyyrjpdao/Jbat,. 

olcri = eVel avToh. With v. 1 comp. Hecub. 121 tj}<? fiavTo- 
ttoXov Ba/c^r/? dvex<>v AeKTp ' AyafAe/jLvew. 



1046. Incertarum. 

fjioxOovfiev a\Xft)? BrfKv <f>povpovvre<; 761/05* 

tfris yap avrr) /z?) nre^v/cev evBov (or, evBo?) 

tC Bel <f>v\d<7creiv (or, 8?) <f>v\d(r<rei) /cdfjafiapTaveiv ir\eov\ 

The end of v. 2 was evidently mutilated in the archetype : for 
the right meaning of v. 3 comp. fr. 112, from the Alope, 17 in 
the same chapter of Stobaeus in which our fragment is preserved. 
I would suggest 

t)ti<$ yap avrrj /jlt) 7re(j>VfC VOVV %(,V, 
tl Bel <j)v\a<Taeiv ; e^ajxapTavev TrXeov. 

1052. Incertarum. 

rov aov Be iralBa <r<D<f)povovvT e7rlo~Tafiai> 
%pr}<TTol<z 0' 6/mXovvt evcreftelv t rjcricrjicoTa. 
7ro)5 ovv av etc rocovBe o~(6fjLaTO<; icaicb<; 
yevon av) ovoeis tovto fi av itlool irore. 

'vs. 3 o-oofiaros suspectum' Nauck. I read e/e toiovB? a<7ft)To? 
rj KaKo<s: aacoTos is the opposite of v. 1, icaicbs of v. 2. 

1065. Incertarum. 

0) yrjpa?, oiav e\7no Tjoovi]^ ep^et?, 
#al 7ra? t<? eh tre fiovXer dv0p(O7rcov fioXelv' 
\a/3<Dv Be irelpav fiera/jLeXeiav Xa/juftdvet, 
ft)? ovBev eo~Ti yelpov ev Ovtjtq) yevet. 

'vs. 2 erot/zo? dvOpcoircov Elmsleius. ftovXerat fipor&v Meine- 
kius. vs. 3 fierafjueXeLa Meinekius ' Nauck. I propose 

Kal 7ra? Tt? el's a* eXoir av dvOpcoirwv fioXelv' 
Xafioov Be irelpav fierajieXeiav av X a ft 01, 

H. A. J. MUNRO. 



1 Does the theory of ideas appear in the republic in 

its final form ? 

In a former paper 1 (Journal of Philology x 132) I proposed 
what I believe to be a new interpretation of the concluding 
pages of the sixth book of the republic; I compared this 
notable passage with another, not less difficult, in the Phaedo, 
which seems to me to represent the same phase of doctrinal 
development; and I tried to determine the dogmatic content 
of the two passages. In both places Plato, as I read him, 
contrasts the 'general notion,' i.e. the connotation of the 
name as we imperfectly understand it, not hypostasized, with 
the 'idea,' i.e. the whole completed connotation of the name, 
hypostasized : in both places he marks the insufficiency of any 
method which, like that of Socrates, whether in its original 
shape or as improved and supplemented by Plato himself, has 
nothing better than imperfect uncertified general notions for its 
dp^al ; in both places, but in the Phaedo with less confidence 
than in the republic, he aspires to a more perfect method, 
which should attain scientific truth by converting imperfect 
uncertified \6yoi into \6yoi, proved to be the exact represen- 
tations of ideas ; finally, in both places, but in the Phaedo with 
especial emphasis, he declares his scheme of a higher logic to 
contain a fatal flaw. 

1 To my friend Mr R. D. Archer paper and of the paper here referred 
Hind I am indebted for much helpful to. 
and suggestive criticism both of this 


Although however, not only in the Phaedo, but also in 
the republic, the dialogue which is generally accounted the 
most perfect representation of the most characteristic phase 
of his doctrinal development, Plato frankly acknowledges his 
failure to construct on the basis of the theory of ideas a 
logic of scientific discovery, in these same dialogues the theory 
itself is confidently maintained, and carefully formulated. In 
particular there are two passages, dogmatic in spirit and pre- 
cise in expression, to which I would here invite the reader's 
attention. (1) " Wherever we find a plurality of particulars 
called by the same name," says the Socrates of the republic, 
u we assume a corresponding idea " : elSo? yap irov rt ev eicaa-rov 
elooOafiev Ti6e<rdai irepl e/cao-ra rd iroKkd ol$ ravrov ovofia 
i7n,(j>epofjL6v. x 596 A. Thus, when the republic was written, 
Plato, building on Socratic foundations, assumed for every 
general name a corresponding idea, and consequently recog- 
nized, with others, ideas of evil e.g. kclkov oZikov, of manu- 
factured articles e.g. k\Ivw Tpdire^a, and of relations e.g. hi- 
ifkdaiov tf/Mcrv 1 . (2) " If any one alleges as the reason why 
anything is beautiful," says the Socrates of the Phaedo, " that 
it has a fine colour or a fine form or the like, regardless of 
such explanations, which only perplex me, with artless and I 
dare say foolish simplicity I hold fast the principle, that the 

1 In the republic ideas are explicit- /SapiJ v 479 b, vii 523 e 524 a, of ir&xos 

ly recognized, not only of ayad6j> v XeirTOTrjs ^taXa/c6r^s a/uuicpoTrjs vii 523 e, 

476 a, vi 493 c 505 a 507 b, vii 517 c and of fiadrj/xaTiKd vi 511b, must be 

518 d 519 c 526 e 531c 534 c 538 e added to the list. 
540 a, of ko\6v or /cdXXos v 476 bc In the Phaedo 65 d, 74 a 78 e, 

479 ae 480 a, vi 493 1 501b 507 b, vii 100 b 106 d there are ideas of ttrov 

531 C 538 d, of dlicaiov or diKaioat- p.ya or p-ei^ov or /xtyedos ^Xarrov or 

vt\ v 476 A 479 A 501 B, VII 517 E oyu/cpor^s irXrjdos oXov irepirrov or 7re/tr- 

538 e, x 612 B, of <Tw<ppo<r{>v7i dvbpeia tottjs dpriov p.ovd$ dvds rpids or rpia 

iXevdeptorijs p.eya\oirp4ireia III 402 C, irefiTrrds dyadov koXov hlnaiov 6<riov p.ov- 

of auxppov vi 501 b, but also of kolkov <wcov deppuov or deppjor-qs \pvxpbv or \J/v- 

and adiKov V 476 a, of ala-xpov v 475 E, XP T V S vyleia laxvs voaos irvperos ftflj 

of the ivavria. of o-(xHppoaiji>y dvSpeia ddvaros ipvxv irvp x i &v. See especially 

iXevdepioTTjs peyaXoirptireia in 402 c, of 65 D Xiyoi 5e irepl Trdvrwv, olov peytdovs 

kXIvt) and rpdir^a x 596 b ; while if iript, vyielas, lexvos, ical r&v dXXuv evl 

we take note of implications, ideas of Xoyip awavTuy ttjs o&rt'as, o rvyxdvei 

SurXdaiov and yjpnorv v 479 b, of /t^aor e/cacrrov 6v. 
ptyedos fffJUKpov or cpUKpoTV)* KOV<pov 


thing in question is made beautiful only by the presence, 
or the communion, or the intervention however styled and 
entitled, of the self-beautiful : mind, I don't insist upon the 
name, but I do insist upon the principle that it is the self- 
beautiful by which all beautiful things are made beautiful : " 
dW idp t/9 fioi \iyrj Bi ft tc /caXov iamv otlovv, rj oti ^pcofia 
evavOes fyov V <r X^/ jLa V d\Xo otlovv tgqv tolovtwv, ra /jlcv 
aWa \aipeiv ec5, TapdrTOfiai yap iv to2<; aXkois Tract,, tovto 
Be a7rXco? /cal dri^ym? /cat laa)? evrjOco? e^oa irap e/jtavTw, 
r 6ri ov/c a\Xo tl irotec avro /ca\6v rj r) i/cetvov tov koXov 
elVe irapovaia cltc /cotveovta, elre r 6irrj Br) koI #7ra)? irpoaayo- 
pevofjuivrj' ov yap ere tovto 8uo"xyptofjtai, aXX? oti tg3 
Ka\(p irdvTa tcl /ca\d yvyveTai KaXd. 100 C. Thus, when 
the Phaedo was written, Plato held that the particular is what 
it is by reason of the presence of the idea. In these two 
passages taken together we have, I conceive, a dogmatic and 
precise statement of views entertained by Plato at one period 
of his philosophical development in regard to those eternal, im- 
mutable, separate existences, which he postulated under the 
name of ideas and conceived to be the proper objects of 

Aristotle however in certain well-known passages of the 
metaphysics affords glimpses of a doctrine widely differing from 
that of the republic. He tells us (1) that Plato recognized 
ideas eVl tgov <j>vo~ei only, to the exclusion of manufactured 
articles 1 and of relations 2 ; (2) that he resolved both ideas and 

1 metaph. 1 9. 991 b 6 *ai ToWa low) suppose Aristotle to object that 
ylyverai ire pa, otov oLkLcl ical 5a/cri5- certain proofs here spoken of as 
Xios, cSj> ov <pafiev etdij elvat' ware aicpi(34<rTepoi, " quibus non solum com- 
8rj\ov on IpflfjgiiM Kai raXXa koX elvcu mune quidpiam praeter singulas res 
Kal yiyveaOou StA roiatras alHas oJfas esse demonstretur, sed idem esse ex- 
Kal to. pr/divra vvp. . emplar, quod singulae res imiten- 

2 metaph. 1 9. 990 b 15 hi 52 ol tur " involve consequences which 
a.Kp<.po~Tpoi tQ)v \byb)v ol p.kv tup irpos Plato had not foreseen, some of these 
rt iroiovaiv iteas, wv ov <f>ap.ev elvai proofs necessitating the recognition of 
icad' avrb yfros, ol 8 tov rplrop or- ideas of relations, and others exposing 
Opairop \4yov<riv. This passage has, him to the objection called the Tplros 
I think, been misunderstood. Zeller avdpwros. They then proceed to ac- 
in his platonische Studien p. 261 and cuse Aristotle of inaccuracy, inasmuch 
Bonitz in his commentary (see be- as (1) ideas of relations are recognized 



particulars into two elements, to ev and to /jbiya koI to fitKpop, 
whereof the latter was the origin both of multiplicity and of 
evil ; and (3) that his system as a whole bore a striking re- 
semblance to that of the Pythagoreans. The editors and his- 
torians, taking for granted seemingly that in the republic the 
theory of ideas has assumed its final form, either reject 
Aristotle's testimony, or reconcile it with the republic by 
strained interpretations. They conjecture, for example, that 
Aristotle is mistaken when he makes Plato deny ideas of 
relations and of manufactured articles 1 : or that Aristotle is 

in republic v 479 b and Phaedo 74 a sq., 
and (2) the objection called the rplros 
dvdpwTros is stated by Plato himself in 
the Parmenides. The very passages 
just now cited seem to me to suggest 
another interpretation. Aristotle, as 
I read him, says ' We find Plato in 
his more precise statements of doctrine 
(1) distinctly recognizing ideas of re- 
lations, which orthodox Platonism 
denies, and (2) urging against his own 
theory the objection called the rplros 
avdpuiros. In other words, Plato him- 
self by means of the rplros SivdpojTros 
dealt a fatal blow to the theory of 
ideas as it was conceived in the re- 
public and the Phaedo, and when he 
denied ideas of relations plainly ad- 
mitted the position taken up in those 
dialogues to be untenable. Further 
criticism of that form of the doctrine 
in which an idea is assumed for every 
plurality of particulars called by the 
same name is therefore hardly neces- 
sary.' That the republic, the Phaedo, 
and the Parmenides are 61 &Kpi(3<rrepoi 
rcov Xoywv in the sense which I have 
given to the phrase, seems to me in- 

To the remark made by Zeller pla- 
tonisclie Studien p. 257 and by Bonitz 
commentary p. 112, that when Plato 
stated the rplros dvdpcoiros in the Par- 
menides, he must have been convinced 

that he could meet it triumphantly, 
I cordially assent: but I infer, not 
that the objection was not valid a- 
gainst that form of the theory of ideas 
which is criticized in the Parmeni- 
des, but that, when Plato wrote that 
very important dialogue, he had in 
reserve a reformed doctrine, which 
was, or seemed to be, safe from attack 
on this side. 

1 "Die erstere Bemerkung erlautert 
Alexander (z. d. St.) in einer iibrigens 
nicht sehr klaren Darstellung, an dem 
Begriff der Gleichheit. Urn so auf- 
fallender wird dadurch aber die Be- 
hauptung, dass in der Ideenlehre keine 
Ideen der blossen Verhaltnisse ange- 
nommen werden; denn Platon selbst 
wahlt als Beispiel fur die Darstellung 
jener Lehre nicht nur iiberhaupt solche 
Verhaltnissbegriffe, sondern ausdriick- 
lich den Begriff der Gleichheit. Und 
ebenso, wenn behauptet wird, von 
Kunstprodukten, wie ein King, ein 
Haus u. dgl., gebe es keine Ideen, so 
ist dagegen geltend zu machen, dass 
Platon nach Bep. x, 596 f. auch in den 
Werken der Kunst nur die Nachah- 
mung an und fur sich seyender Wesen- 
heiten erkannte." Zeller platonisclie 
Studien p. 261. See however the 
Ph. d. Griechen 11 i 587, where Zeller 
accepts Aristotle's testimony, thinking 
apparently that Plato in his later years 



mistaken when he makes Plato deny ideas of relations, and 
that, although he is right in saying that Plato did not re- 
cognize ideas of manufactured articles, this is not inconsis- 
tent with republic 596 B, the mention there of the ' idea of 
bed' not being serious 1 . When Aristotle says that Plato took 
the elements of the ideas to be the elements of all things, 
he is again accused of inaccuracy 2 . It is indeed admitted 
on the strength of Aristotle's testimony that at some period, 
probably towards the end of his life, Plato assimilated his 
doctrine to that of the Pythagoreans; but it is alleged that 
the theory of numbers was a mere "appendix" to the system 3 , 
and that the Pythagorean development has left few, if any, 
traces upon Plato's writings 4 . Now, whereas in these criti- 
cisms it is plainly taken for granted that the doctrine referred 
to by Aristotle in metaphysics I 6 was substantially identical 
with the doctrine indicated in the republic, and that the two 
statements ought therefore to be consistent, I hope on some 

arbitrarily modified the details of his 
teaching at a serious sacrifice of general 
consistency. I hope to show that 
these modifications of details were 
parts of a radical reconstruction of 
the system. 

1 " Mensae enim et sellae non vide- 
tur ideas ponere Plato, sed illo loco, 
ad vulgarem intellectum quam maxime 
adaptato (cf. x 597 c), haec exempla 
tantummodo adhibere ad illustranda 
diversa imitationis genera." Bonitz 
commentary p. 118. 

2 Zeller platonische Studien 248 ff. 
Ph. d. Griechen n i 628 ff. Bonitz 
commentary p. 94. 

8 " Eundem vero ideas ad numeros 
retulisse et idearum naturam per nu- 
meros expressisse, ex ipsius libris non 
possumus colligere, nedum pro certo 

affirmare Atque hanc de numeris 

doctrinam, quae in ipsa Platonis philo- 
sophia vixalium quam appendicis locum 
potest obtinere, ii ex discipulis Pla- 
tonis, qui in philosophia magistri ac- 

quieverunt, tantopere adamaverunt, ut 
omissa, quod est Platonicae philoso- 
phiae caput, idearum doctrina in ex- 
quirenda numerorum illorum ratione 
prope unice elaborarent, unde intelligi- 
tur cur tantum operae iis refutandis 
Ar. tribuerit." Bonitz commentary pp. 
539, 540. 

4 " die uns durch Aristoteles be- 
kannte Umgestaltung der platonischen 
Lehre,...von der es in den Schriften 
des Philosophen an allep Spuren so 
sehr fehlt, dass wir sie spater, als diese, 
zu setzen genothigt sind." Zeller 
Ph. d. Griechen 11 i 462. "Diese 
Verbindung der Einheit und der Viel- 
heit in den Ideen druckte Plato auch 
so aus, dass er die Ideen als Zahlen 
bezeichnete. Doch kann diese Dar- 
stellung erst seinen spateren Jahren 
angehort haben. In den platonischen 
Schriften findet sie sich noch nicht." 
567. See also Brandis Gesch. d. gr.- 
rom. Ph. 11 321. 


future occasion to shew that Aristotle distinguishes the doc- 
trine which we know through the republic from the doc- 
trine which, when he was a member of the school, was con- 
sidered orthodox 1 , and therefore that it is not to be expected 
that the two statements should agree. For the present it is 
sufficient to note that in a summary of the speculations of his 
predecessors Aristotle attributes to Plato views which are 
certainly not those of the republic. It is possible, no doubt, 
that Aristotle has seriously misunderstood or misrepresented 
his master : but if evidence can be obtained from the writings 
of Plato himself, proving that after the composition of the 
republic he modified the theory of ideas in the direction indi- 
cated by Aristotle, it will at any rate be worth while to take 
the Aristotelian statement into account. 

Now I cannot believe that, if Plato reconstituted his system, 
he wholly omitted to put his new views upon record ; and 
accordingly I think I see in several dialogues, not only proofs 
that he was no longer content with the doctrine put forward 
in the republic, and signs that he had attempted a recon- 
struction, but also hints, and something more than hints, as 
to the leading principles of the revised ontology. It is in 
the Parmenides, I think, that Plato most loudly proclaims his 
rupture with his former self. In that important work he on 
the one hand criticizes the theory of ideas with a severity which 

1 It may be worth while to note a ceeds to note, as a consequence of the 

single instance. In metaph. xn 4, parallelism of the two doctrines, that 

where Aristotle speaks of the theory there were ideas of all general names : ' 

of ideas in its original form before it wore owtfiaivev avrois crxedbv r$ avrip 

was combined with the theory of num- \6y(p ttclvtuv Idias efocu t<2v icaddXov Xe- 

bers (firjOeu crvvairTovras irpbs ttjv rwv yo/xivutv. 1078 b 32. (That ax^SSv must 

apidp.G>v <p6<xiv, d\X' ws viriXa^ov 4 be taken, not, as by Schwegler with 

dpxvs ol irpGiTOL ras Ideas (pfoavTes elvai iravriav, but with rep airip \frycp, is obvi- 

1078 b 10), he recognizes in it two ele- ous.) Thus, whatever Aristotle may 

ments the Hemciitean fins and the have written elsewhere about a theory 

Socratic definition and no more : for of ideas which in the case of some 

the mention of the Pythagorean school general names did not recognize cor- 

in 1078 b 21 is clearly parenthetical. responding ideas, he was quite aware 

Observing that it was the separate ex- that according to the original doctrine 

istence of the idea which distinguished (as in the republic) every general name 

it from the Socratic universal, he pro- had its corresponding idea. 


I cannot believe to be simulated, and on the other with all the 
air of earnest conviction insists that, except on the hypothesis of 
the existence of ideas, philosophy is impossible. At first sight 
the two positions appear to be hopelessly irreconcilable. It will 
be found however on examination that the doctrine criticized 
is precisely that form of the theory of ideas which is known 
to us in the republic, i.e. that form in which e28o? tl %v 
etcaarov elooda/xev rideaOai irepl e/caara ra iroXka ol? ravrbv 
ovo/jlo, iirHfrepoiLev, and that, when Parmenides asserts, Socrates 
assenting, that philosophy is impossible except on the hypo- 
thesis of the existence of ideas, he does not postulate an idea 
in all cases in which several particulars bear the same name. 
Thus the two positions cease to be irreconcilable, if we 
suppose that, when the Parmenides was written, Plato had 
abandoned that form of the theory of ideas in which every 
general name was held to imply a corresponding idea, and w T as 
reconstituting his system on a new basis 1 . In fact the Par- 
menides seems to me to lead the way to the later doctrine just 
as the Theaetetus had led the way to the earlier doctrine, and 
is consequently from my point of view one of the most im- 
portant of the Platonic dialogues. But partly because it is 
critical rather than expository, partly because it has been for 
centuries a battle-ground for controversialists, I find it con- 
venient to defer the examination of the Parmenides until I have 
looked elsewhere for traces of the later theory of ideas. 

In the hope then, both of proving that there was a time 
when Plato became dissatisfied with the doctrine of the re- 
public, and of obtaining hints which may be combined with 
Aristotle's notice of orthodox Platonism as he knew it in the 
Academy, I now propose to examine the ontological part of 
the Philebus, reserving for future investigation other obvious 
sources of information. 

1 It will be seen that my hypothesis form of the theory of ideas which bears 
explains the peculiar position which the closest resemblance to the Socratic 
Socrates occupies in the Parmenides. 'Begriffsphilosophie' is now under ex- 
He acts as respondent because that amination. 


2 The significance of the Philebus. 

With a view to the better understanding of remarks here- 
after to be made I subjoin an analysis of the opening pages of 
the Philebus, giving prominence to those portions of the ar- 
gument which especially concern me, commenting in occasional 
footnotes upon certain minor difficulties, and now and then, 
when I find myself at variance with Badham, the latest and 
best editor 1 of the dialogue, justifying my dissent. 

11 B Whereas Philebus has hitherto argued that pleasure 

-^alpeiv r/Sovr} Tep-^L^ is for all creatures good, Socra- 
tes's contention being that, for all who are capable of 
it, wisdom <f>povelv voelv fA/j,vf}cr6ai, Sofa 6p6r} aXrjOeis 
Xoytoytot is better than pleasure or any thing else, 

D Protarchus, who now succeeds to Philebus's place in the 
discussion, undertakes to maintain that it is the eft? or 
BidOeo-ts of pleasure against Socrates who holds that it 
is the eft? or hid6e<ri$ of wisdom, which makes human 

E life happy. Should it however appear that there is a 
third eft? superior to both, it will be necessary to inquire 
further whether the eft? of pleasure or that of wisdom is 
the more nearly related to the third or victorious eft?, 
and therefore entitled to take precedence of its rival. 

12 B Beginning with pleasure, Socrates remarks that plea- 

sures are various; for it would be absurd to identify the 
pleasure of 6 dKoXaa-raivcov with that of 6 a-cocppovooPy or 

D the pleasure of 6 dvorjTaivcov with that of 6 (ppovwv. Pro- 
tarchus does not see how two pleasures, however different 

E their sources, can be unlike another. In this way, re- 
plies Socrates. One figure may be unlike another figure, 
one colour may be unlike another colour, and similarly 

13 A one pleasure may be unlike another pleasure. Perhaps, 

answers Protarchus : but what then ? Why, rejoins 

1 I gladly take this opportunity of rendered to readers of the Philebus 
expressing my deep sense of the ser- both in his careful revision of the text 
vices which this excellent scholar has and in his acute commentary. 



Socrates, you take for granted that all pleasures resem- 
B ble one another in being good, whilst I hold that some 
D are good, others bad : if we persist in thus withdrawing 

our respective clients from examination, the discussion 
14 B necessarily falls to the ground 1 . Both pleasure and wis- 

1 (pofiovfxai 5 fly rivets i)8oi>as rjbovais 
evprjcofiev ivavrias. II. "laus' ctXXA rl 
rovd' rin&v p\d\J/et rbv \byov ; 2. "On 
irpocrayopeveis avrd dvbfxoia 6ptcl trtpy, 
(p'riGop.ev, dvopLan. \iyeis yap dyadb. 
irdvra etvai ret ijdia. rb p.h ovv p.rj ovx 
i)5ta elvat rb. i)5ia X070S ovbeis d/j.<pt<r- 
(3r)Ti' /ca/ca 5 6vt* avrwv to. iroXXA nal 
dyadd 54, ws T/yueis tpapAv, o'yitws wavra ov 
ir po<r ay opetieis dyadd aura, 6p.o\oy<2v 
duofxoia elvat T<p Xoyy, ef rls <re irpoaa- 
vayicdfoi. tL ovv 5t) ravrbv iv reus Karats 
opoLws kolI kv dyadais ivbv irdaas ybovas 
dyadbv etvai irpocrayopeveis; 13 A B. Bad- 
ham's revision of this passage seems to 
me to be founded on a misconception of 
the argument. " If Protarchus asserts," 
he says, "that they [i.e. pleasures] are 
all alike, and yet must confess that 
they are not alike good, he is bound to 
mention some other ground of likeness. 
Socrates therefore cannot be intro- 
duced as asking him for a proof that 
they are cryafld, but as wanting to 
know, forasmuch as they do not agree 
in this respect, in what else they do 
agree. But the received text makes 
him say : ' You know they are not all 
good, and you are ready to admit that 
they are so far unlike; and yet you 
call them all good : ' which is so absurd 
that I have changed opuas into o/xofus, 
and put dyad 1 avrd and dyadbv etvai in 
brackets." He further drops irdvra 
before <rv and supplies re before rats 
and rats before dyadais. In my opinion 
none of these changes are necessary, 
while several are positively destructive 
of the true sense. Protarchus has not 
acknowledged that ' pleasures are not 
all good. " On the contrary he has as- 

serted at d that all pleasures, whatever 
their origin, are alike. Socrates having 
replied that, just as xpup-ara and cxh- 
piara though like may also be unlike, so 
pleasures though like may also be un- 
like, Protarchus signifies his assent by 
the word "laws, but still does not see how 
Socrates's remark affects his inference 
that all pleasures in virtue of their like- 
ness are good. ' Because,' returns Socra- 
tes, ' although you have admitted that 
pleasures have points of unlikeness as 
well as points of likeness, you take for 
granted that goodness is one of the 
points of likeness. Now as this is pre- 
cisely what we deny, you ought to tell 
us what the characteristic is, common 
to those pleasures which I call good 
and those pleasures which I call bad, 
on the strength of which you attribute 
goodness to both my classes. Other- 
wise argument between us is impos- 

So interpreted the passage is in per- 
fect accord with the rest of the discus- 
sion begun at 12d and ended by common 
consent at 14 b. On the other hand 
Badham's interpretation assumes that 
Protarchus has already consciously sur- 
rendered the point for which we find 
him still contending at 13 bc. 

The sentence nana bk ovr > avruv 
kt\ is then correct as it stands except 
so far as concerns the syntax of the last 
clause; where, inasmuch as Protar- 
chus has already under pressure from 
Socrates admitted that pleasures are 
diverse ('Tews 13 a), instead of supply- 
ing dv before dvbp.oia with Hermann 
and Badham, I would alter irpocavay- 
Kafoi into rrpoaav ay Kafri. 


dom must be submitted to examination, if we would 
decide whether the one or the other or some third thing- 
is the good. Protarchus assents, but plainly is not alto- 
gether satisfied. 

c Socrates therefore proposes, before continuing the 

main argument, to inquire into the relations of the One 
and the Many, which others, besides Protarchus, find 

D mysterious and paradoxical. You mean, I suppose, re- 
plies Protarchus, the union in the same person of differ- 
ent and even opposite qualities, as when the same person 
is said to be at once tall and short, heavy and light. No, 
I do not, retorts Socrates ; nor yet the union in the same 
individual of a plurality of parts. These familiar para- 
doxes are now generally admitted to deserve no attention, 
to have no interest except for children, to present no real 
difficulty, nay to be serious hindrances to philosophical 

E progress. No, the paradox of which I am thinking is 

15 A not one of these. The One which is in my thoughts is 

not a yiyvofxevov re koX diroWv/juevov, but the Unity 

which we see in Man, Ox, the Beautiful, the Good. These 

B henads give rise to serious controversy: (1) Is each such 
monad really existent % (2) How is it that each such 
monad, though incapable of generation, of change, and 
of destruction, nevertheless appears in an indefinite plu- 
rality of yiyvo/jueva, either (a) being itself divided into as 
many parts as there are yiyvopeva, or (b) being repro- 
duced as a whole in each yiyvofievov, so that it exists, 

In the last sentence of the /^o-is would say, ivopQ h coi tovto, without 

Thompson is, I am sure, right in sub- adding some participle." Cf. however 

stituting ivopQv for kvov : cf. 34 e Upbs Thucyd. 1 95 oirep ical iv t$ Havaaviq. 

tI 7rore apa ravrov pXtxf/avTes ourw 7roXt> iveidov (cited by Liddell and Scott) and 

duKpipovra raO0' ivl Trpoaayopevop-ev rivales 133 d Horepov ovv iv (pCkoaotfrlq. 

6v6p.aTi ; Meno 72 C, Hippias maior tl tovto tdiov ivopys kt\. 

299 e, Sophist 247 d, Hipparchus 230 d. A few lines further 13 c, where ovdh 

Badham rejects this conjecture (1) riTpuaKec appears in the middle of a 

because his excision of ayadbv elvcu, cri- string of futures, I suspect that we 

ticized above, makes it necessary to con- should read ovdiv tl Tpuxrei. For ovdfr 

strue tL to.vtov kvov with Trpoaayopetieis, rt, see Stallbaum on Phaedo 65 e and 

(2) because he "very much doubts Schaefer's Gregor. Corinth. Index s. v. 

whether a good Greek prose writer rts (referred to by Stallbaum). 


not only in itself, but also simultaneously in a multitude 
of particulars ? These are the questions which are really 
important : and accordingly we must now give them our 
best attention. 

The verbal difficulties of the passage which begins re ye firjv 
jjboi tcrov rod crov re xal ifiov Xoyou dpeaicei 14 A and ends firj 
Kivelv ev rceifievov 15 c appear to have occupied the attention of 
the commentators to such an extent that they have neglected 
its substance. Yet, if I am not mistaken, it contains valuable 
information, both as to the relation in which the Philebus stands 
to several important dialogues, and as to the general purport of 
the succeeding argument. Socrates here recognizes identification 
of ev and ttoWcl in three distinct senses: (1) the identification 
of the One particular and its Many qualities, (2) the identifica- 
tion of the One particular and its Many parts, and (3) the iden- 
tification of the One idea and its Many particulars. Of these 
three paradoxical identifications, Socrates authoritatively sets 
aside the first and the second, pronouncing the first to be 'stale/ 
'by general admission unworthy of investigation,' 'childish/ 
'trifling/ nay, 'a serious hindrance to thought/ and the second 
to be no better than the first. On the other hand he declares 
the third to be matter of grave controversy; for how can the 
One, if it is eternal and immutable, be distributed amongst an 
infinite number of particulars ? and a fortiori, if it is separately 
existent, how can it exist at once by itself and in an infinite 
number of particulars ? Now the same two identifications of ev 
and iroXkd which are here accounted trivial and uninterest- 
ing, in the republic VII 523 A 526 B are made the bases of 
dialectical education. A rule is there provided for distinguishing 
those studies which will aid us in our progress towards ovaLa 
from those which will not do so. Any object of sensation which 
simultaneously produces inconsistent sensations needing to be 
reconciled by an effort of mind for example, anything which is 
at once in different relations iieya and o-fii/cpov, /covefrov and 
ftapv is, we are told, irapaKk7)TiK6v or cyepri/cbv TJ79 vor)<re(0<z, 


inasmuch as it obliges the soul to inquire What are to /juiya 
and to a/jLi/cpov, to /covcfrov and to ftapvl Plainly this is the 
first identification of the One and the Many. Similarly the 
material counter of the practical arithmetician, being at the 
same time a unity and an infinitely divisible magnitude, obliges 
the soul to inquire What is to r ivl and so stimulates vorjo-is 1 . 
Plainly this is the second identification of the One and the 
Many. Thus the very same paradoxes which in the Philebus 
are pronounced to be (a) BeSrjfievfieva, (b) avyKe^copTjfiiva. ..fjur) 
8eiv tcov tolovtodv airTeaOai, (c) ircuBapMoSr), (d) paZua, (e) o~(f>6- 
8 pa toU \6yoi? ifnroBia, are in the republic (a) dwelt upon, 
(6) as important studies, (c) to be pursued not only by children 
but also by men, (d) who must possess qualifications rarely 
found in combination, (e) as the only means by which they can 
attain truth. On the other hand the distribution of the idea 
amongst particulars, which in the Philebus 14 c is 'a trouble to 
all mankind,' is in the republic tacitly assumed as if Plato had 
never noticed that the third identification involved any diffi- 
culty whatsoever. 

Similarly in the Phaedo 102 b 103 a the first identifica- 
tion is discussed in regard to the tallness and the shortness 
simultaneously discoverable in Simmias at a length for which 
Socrates thinks it necessary to make a sort of apology 102 D, 
whilst the simultaneous existence of avTb to jieyedo? and to iv 
rjfiiv fiiyeOos, of the separately existent idea and the same idea 
distributed amongst its particulars a case of the third identifi- 

1 el 5' ael ti airifi afia oparat ivav- metic of the accountant, who works 

tIw/jlcl, wore firjdev fiaXXov h rj nal tov- with counters, Socrates proceeds to 

vavrlov <palveo~dat, tov irnKpivovvTos 5r/ speak of the arithmetic of the mathe- 

dioi dv jjdr) Kal dvayKafriT' dv iv curry matician, who uses, not counters, but 

ypvxh diropeiv Kal fore'iv, Kivovca iv eavrrj abstract numbers, as likewise possess- 

r^v hvoiav, Kal avepcarav, rl irori ianv ing the required tendency. (Sidgwick 

avrb t6 eV, Kal ovtu) twv ayuryGiv dv etrj i s mistaken when he says that the 

Kal fxerao-TpewTiKuv iirl tV tov 6vtos arithmetic of the multitude is not 

6iav i] irepl rb iv (x&0T)<ns. 'AXXh fiivToi, ' ' recommended as a part of the pro- 

i<f>ri, tovtS y* e%ei ovx ijKio-Ta rj irepl [to] paedeutic of dialectic." Journal of 

avro o\pir dfm yap ravrov us h> re bpQ- Philology n 99, 100. The two sorts of 

fiev Kal ws airetpa to xXijdos. 524 e. arithmetic are both recommended, but 

After this recommendation of the arith- on different grounds.) 



cation of %v and iroXka is assumed without a word of expla- 
nation 1 . 

In the Philebus then (and I may parenthetically remark, 
in the Parmenides also) Plato recognizes three cases of the 
identification of One and Many. We have (1) the division of 
One yoyvofjLevov into Many qualities, (2) the division of One 
yiyvofievov into Many parts, (3) the division of One 6v into 
Many ytyvofieva. Of these three cases the first and the second 
are set aside as trifling, uninstructive, and no longer interesting, 
whilst the third is declared to require serious consideration. 
Dropping the second, which both in the republic and in the 
Philebus, though distinctly recognized, occupies a subordinate 
position, we observe that the first and the third have important 
bearings upon Plato's theory of real existence. The fundamen- 
tal principle of that theory as represented in the republic and 
the Phaedo 'Particulars are what they are by participation in 

1 If again we turn to Meno 73 c sqq. , 
we remark at once a similarity and a dis- 
similarity to Philebus 12 d sqq. Meno's 
inability to regard virtue as a ?c, and 
Protarchus's inability to regard plea- 
sure as a 7ro\\a, have a common origin, 
and Socrates in his answer to Meno 
takes the same sort of line, and em- 
ploys the same examples (dxw aTa an( i 
Xpw/mra), as in his answer to Protar- 
chus. On the other hand there is 
nothing in the Meno to correspond to 
Philebus 14 b 15 b c. The ontological 
difficulty insisted upon in the latter 
has not in the former come to the 

It may be worth while to note in 
passing another instance of an echo 
with a difference. Having at the end 
of the passage above summarised 15 b c 
precisely stated the difficulty to be dis- 
cussed, Socrates does not immediately 
address himself to his task, but first 
explains the method which he intends to 
pursue. ' There is no fairer method, ' 
he says, ' than that which, despite my 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 

constant devotion to it, has often left 
me in the lurch.' This method is logic 
with its processes of (rvvaywyrj and 
dialpeais, which are next copiously illus- 
trated and in the subsequent inquiry 
carefully applied. The phrase which I 
have just paraphrased ov nty &rrt /ca\- 
\lu3v 656s ouS' av yfrotTo <r}> tjs y<*> 
ipa<rT7)s uv elju del, iroWdias 5e" fie tj5t} 
5ia<pvyov<ra iprj/xov Kal diropov Kariarr}' 
aev. 16 b echoes the words of the 
Phaedrus Tovrutu 5tj iyuye avr6s re 
ipaaTrjS, w QaTSpe, ruv diaipiaewv Kal 
(rvvayujywv, tv' olds re co \yeu/ re Kal 
tppovetv idu t4 tiv* d\\ov rjyqffuuai 8v- 
vvltov els fr Kal iirl iroWd 7re0i//c60' 6pdv, 
tovtov olwkoj KaT6iriade uer' lyyiov Coore 
dedto. 266 b, but with a significant addi- 
tion. The method of avvaywy-fj and 
Siatpetris is not superseded, but we are 
reminded that it is not infallible a 
warning which seems specially appro- 
priate when the theory with which it 
has hitherto been associated is under- 
going a radical reform. 




separately existent realities called ideas' assumes both forms 
of the paradox: each yuyvoixevov partakes of many ovra, and 
each op is distributed amongst many ycyvofieva. In the republic 
and the Phaedo however, while the one form of the paradox 
the yiyvofievovs participation in many ovra is persistently 
dwelt upon, the other form of the paradox the distribution of 
each ov amongst many yuyvofieva passes without remark. 
When then we find that in the Philebus that form of the para- 
dox which in the republic and the Phaedo was dwelt upon is, 
not ignored, but deliberately set aside, while that form of the 
paradox which in the republic and the Phaedo passed without 
remark becomes prominent, we are bound to suppose that the 
Philebus was written after the other two dialogues, and repre- 
sents a later stage of doctrinal development. 

And I think I see in the structure and the style of the 
Philebus evidence to confirm the theory that it belongs to a 
later period than the republic and the Phaedo. The dogmatic 
tone of the protagonist, the subordination of the dramatic 
interest, and the frequent occurrence of characteristic hyperbata, 
all point to this conclusion, Against this may be set Zeller's 
argument that u the very question which forms the theme of 
the Philebus is in the republic VI 505 B treated as a familiar 
one, the two views which in the Philebus are criticized at length 
being in the republic disposed of in a few sentences," Ph. d. 
Gr. II i 464, and Thompson's remark that the results of the 
long investigation of pleasure in the Philebus " seem to be 
taken for granted" in Phaedrus 251 E. For my own part, 
holding that in very many of the dialogues it is not the subject 
discussed by the interlocutors, but rather some side-issue arising 
from it, to which Plato attaches the greatest importance, I find 
no difficulty in supposing that he has here restated on a larger 
scale his views about the contemporary controversy, not so 
much because he Was anxious to justify, or to supplement, what 
he had said about it in the republic, as because he thus secures 
an opportunity of marking the changes which had taken place 
in his metaphysical doctrine. Indeed I must confess that the 
ontology of the Philebus seems to me so certainly later than 
that of the republic, that, if there were (what I do not think 


there is) clear proof that the main argument of the Philebus 
is earlier than the corresponding passage in the republic, I 
should not scruple to regard the ontological parts of the former 
dialogue as interpolations introduced by Plato himself sub- 
sequently to the composition of the latter. 

Whether I am, or am not, right in thinking that Plato 
is here taking a new departure, it is at all events clear that he 
proposes for discussion a question of profound importance to 
the author of the theory of ideas, and the very precision and 
formality of the statement of the difficulty (15 B: see analysis, 
above) lead us to expect that some answer will be attempted. 
Further, as if to preclude all possible doubt, Plato makes 
Protarchus, on behalf of the company, distinctly suggest the 
investigation of the difficulty, and Socrates as distinctly accepts 
the challenge. Hence, when we find that Plato does not directly 
answer the question, we shall not, with Grote, assume that 
"he enjoins us to proceed as if no such difficulty existed," 
but shall rather suppose that he has deliberately preferred to 
answer it indirectly : for when Plato is obscure, he is so, I am 
convinced, intentionally, his aim being to compel the reader to 
think for himself. 

3 The ontology of the Philebus. 

The question 'How is it that the separately existent monad 
or idea is reproduced in a multitude of particulars V having been 
raised, and all present except Philebus having agreed that the 
discussion of it should not be deferred, Socrates addresses himself 
to his task. 

15 D How shall we begin ? he asks. Thus : the identifica- 

tion of the One and the Many, which is necessarily 
involved in the use of \6yoi, has been made by young 

16 C people the basis of much fallacious argument. There is 

however a way by which we may avoid the confusion so 
occasioned. Assuming that all things which are said to 
exist are reducible to a One and a Many, and have two 



D elements, Limit (irepa?) and Indefinity (direipla), in 
investigating anything we must first take a genus (ISea), 
then divide it into two, three, or perhaps more, species, 
next divide each species into subspecies, repeating this 
process as often as necessary, and taking care not to 
attribute (numerical) indefinity to the multitude of 
species until all the species and subspecies have been 

17 A enumerated. This is the method of the dialectician, 

as opposed to that of the eristic, who is not careful to 

18 b mark the intermediate steps of the division. Similarly, 

when we have to begin with the indefinity of particulars, 
we must not pass from them to the genus until we have 
arranged them in subspecies and species. 

D Philebus, who has already interrupted 18 A, now fur 

the second time asks how this bears upon the matter 
under discussion, i.e. the rivalry of rjhovr] and <f>povr}cn<$. 

E Because, replies Socrates, r/Sovi] and fypovqens are each of 
them a One. Hence, in order to decide which of them 
is to be preferred, we must first enumerate their kinds. 

19 c That, says Protarchus after he has restated the 

question under discussion, will be your duty, Socrates ; 

20 A unless you know some other way of deciding the con- 
B troversy. Here Socrates remembers to have heard it 

said that neither ^Bovrj nor <j>povr)(ri<;, but a third thing, 

C is the dyadov : if this is acknowledged, it will no longer 

be necessary to enumerate the kinds of rjhovrj and 

22 A (ppovrjcris. Now on being questioned Protarchus admits 

that the life of rjhovrj is inferior to the life of rj&ovrj and 

B fypovqais combined; and similarly Socrates admits the 

inferiority of the life of (frpovrjais, hinting however that 

the human vovs, whose claims have thus been disallowed 

on an appeal to experience, is not to be confounded 

with the true or divine 1/0O9. Thus, for the present at 

any rate, if not finally, the original question falls to the 

ground. But though neither rjhovrj nor p6vr)cn<s is 

D entitled to the first place, it is possible that one of the 

two is more nearly related than the other to that, 

whatever it may be, which makes the mixed life 


desirable and good : and accordingly Socrates continues 
E to assert the superiority of vovs to r)Bovrj, at the same 
time indicating his suspicion that even the third place is 
more than r)Bovr) deserves. 

23 B If however he is to maintain the claims of vovs to 

the second place, he requires other weapons besides 

C those hitherto employed. Now the whole contents of the 

universe may be arranged under four heads (1) aireipov 

and (2) 7reoa?, which have been already mentioned 16 C as 

D direipla and Trepan, (3) the two united, and (4) the cause 

24 E of their union. The aireipov includes biroa av r]pTiv 

cf>aivr}Tai fjLakXov re icai tjttov jiyvo/xeva /ecu to o~(f>68pa 
feed r)pep,a Be%6/ieva Kal to \iav /cal Sera toiclvtcl irdvTa : 
for example, hotter and colder, dryer and wetter, 
more and less, quicker and slower, greater and smaller, 
all which forthwith cease to be, so soon as quantity and 
measure (to re itoctov Kal to fieTpwv) establish them- 
selves in the seat of the fiaXkov tc koX tjttov by which 

25 A the tcl direipa are characterized 24 C. Next, to irepa? 

we assign tcl fir) Be%6fieva TavTa [sc. to fiaXkov Te Kal 
tjttov, to a<f>6Bpa teal Tjpefxa, to Xiav, kt\], tovtoov Be tcl 
evavTia irdvTa Be^Sfieva, irpwTov fiev to lo~ov koI laoTrjTa, 
fjbeTa Be to lctov to Biifkaaiov zeal irav tl irep av irpos 
E apiQixbv dpiO/jLos r) fieTpov y irpos fieTpov. Thirdly, when 
the wepaTos yevva or irepas e%ovTa are combined with 
the aireipov yevva or aireipa, certain yeveo~ei<; result ' ; 

1 In the above summary I have been cvvt]ydyop.ev. d\X tVcos Kal vvv ravrbv 

careful not to depend on the disputed Spdaec rotirwv dfupore'pojv o-vvayop.e'voiv 

passage 25 C E 2. Upoades 5tj 77/36- Kara<pavr)s Ka.Kei.vrj yevf)o~erat. II. Holav 

repov Kal vypbrepov avrots, Kal irXtov koX Kal ttQ>s \yeu ; 2. Trjv rod tcrov Kal 5t- 

fXarrov, Kal darrov Kal (3pab~vrepov, koX ir\a<rlov, koX ovbor) Travel. irpbs aWrjXa 

p.eiov Kal apuKpbrepov, Kal 6ir6<ra iv rq> rdvavrla Ziacpbpus Ifxojra, <rvp.p.erpa dt 

trpbodev rrjs rb fidWbv re Kal y\rrov Kal o'vp.cp'wva vdeio~a direpydfrerai. 

SexofJ^vrjs irlde/xev els v 0i/<rea>s. II. II. Mavddvu)' <palvei yap /tot \4yeiv, 

T-rjs rov aireipov Xe^yeis ; 2. Na/. avp.- fiiyvvcri ravra yevio~eis rwds d<f> iKda- 

fxiyvv 5e ye els avrty rb fiera ravra rrjv rcov ffvp.(3aLveiv. This passage as it 

at! rod viparos yhvav, II. Holav ; 2. stands abounds in difficulties. Take 

*l\v Kal vvv 8r] Mov r), Kaddirep rr)v first the sentences <rvfi/ilyvv cV ye 

rod dweipov crwrjydyofiev els iv, ovtoj cvvrfydyop.ev . Socrates having men- 

/ecu rrjv rod ireparoeiSovs avvayayelv, ov tioned the iriparos yevva, and Protar- 



26 A e.g. health, music, fine weather, beauty, strength, and 
E a variety of excellences discoverable in the soul. Fourthly, 

chus having asked * What is that ? ' 
the reply is ' The yiwa which, whereas 
we ought to have collected the yiwa 
of the Teparoeides just as we had col- 
lected the yiwa of the direipov, we just 
now omitted to collect.' Neglecting 
for the moment the parenthetical part 
of Socrates's answer, we find that the 
words rjv Kal vvv 8rj ov o~vvi)ydyop:ev 
contain a positive misstatement, the 
yiwa in question having been ' col- 
lected ' in the phrase ra tovtwv to, ivav- 
ria irdvra dex^eva kt\ 25 A, just as 
the direlpov yiwa was collected in the 
phrase oirba dv rjpuv ^alvrjrat fiaWov 
re kclI t}ttoj> ytyvop.eva Kal to acpddpa 
/cat fjpefjLa 8exdp.eva Kal to Xlav /cat 6o~a 
ToiavTa iravra 24 e. Further, if we 
take account of the parenthesis, (2) 
the words ti\v tov Teparoeidovs sc. 
yiwav seem a strange superfluity in 
an answer to the question 'What do 
you mean by the iriparos yiwa ? ' and 
(3) while tt)v tov iriparos yiwav and 
rb ireparoeidis are intelligible phrases, 
ttjv tov ire paroeidovs yiwav has no autho- 
rity elsewhere, and contains a hardly 
justifiable redundancy. Next, in the 
sentence which follows, (4) the words 
ravrbv dpdaei can scarcely mean " will 
do as well." Then, (5) though the 
word KaKeLvr), which clearly needs ex- 
planation, has intervened, Protarchus 
repeats his question about the iriparos 
yiwa, and Socrates gives the answer 
which he might as well have given 
before. Finally (6) Protarchus's reply 
is strangely abrupt. Of these diffi- 
culties the last three disappear if, as 
I suggested in a paper read before the 
Cambridge Philological Society, Oc- 
tober 18, 1877, the words d\X lam Kal 
vvv Tavrbv dpdaei' tovtojv apL^oripuv 
<rvvayop,ivwv Karacpavijs KaKelvrj yevr/ae- 

rai are placed after direpydfrerai : but 
the other three remain untouched. It 
now seems to me necessary (1) to 
interchange *Hv Kal vvv drj 8iov ripds, 
Kaddirep rrjv tov direlpov o~vvi)ydyop.ev els 
I'v, ovro} Kal ttjv rod ireparoetdovs avva- 
yayelv, ov avvr\ydyop.ev and Trjv tov tcrov 
Kal dnrXaolov, Kal oirocrr) iratiei irpbs 
aXkrfka rdvavrla diacpbpus e'x 0VTa > v^p.- 
pierpa 8e Kal o~6p.<p'(i}va, evdetaa dpidp\6v, 
direpydfrrai, (2) in the former place to 
bracket 'Kaddirep Teparoeidovs, and (3) 
to substitute avp.p,io~yop.ivu)v for avvayo- 
p.iva>v. We shall then get the follow- 
ing sense, ' S. Next you must com- 
bine with it [i.e. the direlpov tpicis] 
the family of the limit. P. What is 
that ? S. <The family of the equal and 
the double, that is to say, anything 
which puts an end to the mutual dis- 
sensions of the opposites (cf. 25 a), and 
by the introduction of number reduces 
them to symmetry and harmony.> But 
perhaps it will do the same thing now 
(i.e. the appearance of this yiwa will 
give symmetry and harmony to our 
exposition) : by the union of these two 
families the third will be brought to 
light. P. What do you mean by the 
third family? and how is it to be 
brought to light? S. I mean the other 
family which we wrongly omitted to 
collect a little time ago. (Cf. 23 e, where 
the three yivi) are mentioned, but only 
two, iripas and direipov, are taken in 
hand.) P. I understand. You mean, 
apparently, that if we add these (i.e. 
the iriparos yiwa), certain generations 
are the result.' Badham anticipates 
me so far as to declare transposition 
necessary, and (with other alterations) 
to place Tovruv-^-yevrjo-erai after direp- 
ydferai. He is clearly wrong in giving 
to avvayopiiviav the meaning of <jvp.p.ix- 



to these three kinds of which the first and second are 
constituent elements (e'f wv yLyverat), while the third 
includes the results of their union (rd ytyvofjueva) we 

27 B must now add the alria t^? /-ufeo)? teal yevecre(o<$. This 
is vovs or <j>povrja-L<;, which, as others have already seen, 
orders and governs the universe, as well as the individual. 
C The table of the four yevi] being now complete, we 

return to the main argument. As intelligence in the 
abstract is akin to the alria, while pleasure in the ab- 
stract, with its correlative pain, belongs to the aireipov, 
we may safely assume intelligence in the abstract to be 
superior to pleasure in the abstract. But in order that 
we may adjudicate upon the claims of vov? actualized, 
and rjhovrj actualized, to stand next to that third thing 
which is admitted to be the dvOpwirtvov dyaOov, the 
two claimants must be studied in their species. 

31 B 55 c Pleasures are classified as (1) false, (2) true, the 

latter class being subdivided into (a) eVto-r^at? eirofAevai,, 

(b) aladrjaeaiv eiro\ievai. 

I think, be bracketed) : and it is easy 
to see that, when once transposition 
had occurred, a diligent annotator 
would be very likely to try his hand 
upon a misplaced sentence. For 
playful applications of a theory under 
examination to the circumstances of 
the dialogue, such as that which I 
think I see in a\A' taws Kal pvp ravrbv 
dpdcrei, compare iropptoT^pu) 8 ian tQp 
rpiretW, et tl rep i/xcp pep 8ei iriareijeip 
r}p.ds to. pvp. 22 E. dinare?* yap or), ttcjs 
i) Ka\ovp.ivrj p.ddr]<n$ dvdp.vijai$ i<mv ; 
'Aituttu) /xev 70*76, 77 8' os d 2i/t//cty, 
ov, avrb 5e tovto, 2<prj, oVo/xat iradelv, 
Kepi ov 6 X670S, dvap.vri<rdr}vai. Phaedo 
73 B. ovtos ovp col 6 X670S iicelvcp ttcDs 
%vi>a<TTaL ; Ovda/xus, 01? 6 Si/i/ias. 
Kal fi-qv, 77 5' oj, Trptirei ye elirep rep 
aX\(p \6ytp vvcp8(p elvaL Kal rep irepl ap- 
fiovias. Tlpe'irei ydp, tyrj 6 "Etfifitas. 
Ovtos toLvvp, tyrj, o~ol ov vvcpd6s. Phaedo 
92 c. 

divTiov 26 b: but I think that in this 
respect the text should be brought into 
conformity with his interpretation. 
Vahlen thinks that all that is neces- 
sary is to add el after opdcei, and to 
remove the colon after the latter word: 
but his interpretation depends upon a 
misconception of the words cvpt]yd- 
yopiev, cvpayayeir, avvayop.e'vtov ; for, 
whereas he takes awdyeip in the two 
former cases to mean ' enumerate in- 
stances,' and in the third to mean 
'unite' (<rvp.fuyvvpai), it is quite clear 
from 23 e, 25 a, that cvvdyeiv here 
means to ' collect under a definition,' 
in which sense the iriparos yivva as 
well as the direipov yivpa (but not the 
/iiKTOp) has been already collected. 

That marginal notes and references 
have in several cases been incorporated 
in the text of the Philebus, seems to 
me certain (see, for example, 30 a, 
where the words ra rkrrapa iice'ipa, 
7Tpas Kal direipov Kal kolvov Kal should, 


55 C 59 D Arts and sciences are classified as (1) inexact, 
(2) exact. 

59 D 64 A We are now in a position to ask which of the 
arts and sciences and which of the pleasures are to 
be mixed in order that we may obtain that combination 
of intelligence and pleasure which constitutes the happy- 
life. All arts and sciences, it is answered, but only 
those pleasures which are true and those which are 
necessary, the need of intelligence being unreservedly ad- 
mitted by pleasure, whilst intelligence resents the intro- 
duction of those pleasures which are false and intense. 

64 A E The ingredients having been determined, we have 

next to ascertain what it is which makes this mixed life 
desirable and good, in order that we may then, as 
proposed 22 D, inquire which of the two ingredients is 
the more nearly related to it. It is obvious that, if it is 
to be harmonious and real, the combination must possess 
/nerpov or jjueTpiorris, ^vfifjuerpLa or /caXXo?, and dXrjOeia. 

65 A 66 A Let us now take these three conditions, into 

which the dyadov of the mixed life has been resolved, 
one by one, and consider whether vovs or rjhovrj is the 
more closely related to each of them. It will be found 
that vovs is nearer akin than rjhovrj to each of the three 
to aXr)Qeia, to fierpov or p,erpi6rr]<; ) and to ^v/JUfjueTpla 
or fcdWos : and as the excellence of the combination 
depends upon these three things, we must account i>o0? 
victorious over rj^ovq. 

66 A 67 C Finally, it is concluded that the conditions of 

perfect union and the ingredients of which the mixed 
life consists may be placed in the following order of merit 

1. fJLTpOV, fierpiov, KCbLpiOV. 

2. av/Jt,fiTpov, icaXov, reXeov, l/cavov. 

3. vov$ and (ppovrja-is, which represent dXrjdeia. 

4. i7rc(TT7J/jLai } re^vai, Bo^ac SpOaL 

5. rjhoval KaOapal avrrjs rrjs tyv-)(f}<; 

(a) e7ri(TTi]p,at<; [? koX dperal^ 63 e] kirb^evai 

(b) alaOrjaecnv eTrofxevat. 

6. [? rjhoval dvay/calcu.] 


If the conversation imagined in the Philebus had ever taken 
place, and one of the interlocutors had afterwards been asked to 
say what the character of the conversation had been, he would 
have answered, and would have rightly answered, that the 
subject of the discussion was ethical, but that incidentally 
something had been said about a metaphysical difficulty in 
regard to the theory of ideas. If Plato had been asked what 
the subject of the dialogue was, he would no doubt have 
answered " I leave that to your own penetration " ; but I am 
very much mistaken, if to himself, in his heart of hearts, the 
metaphysical element of the treatise was not vastly more im- 
portant than the ethical. The very pains which have been 
taken to obscure the fact, serve to rouse my suspicions. In the 
passage of which I have now to speak, 15 c 31 A, where the 
two threads are strangely interlaced, the continuity of the 
metaphysical thread, though never really broken, is never 
insisted upon; and partly in consequence of this deliberate 
reticence, partly in consequence of the reappearance of the 
ethical theme, Grote and others have supposed that the inquiry 
into the difficulty stated at 15 B loses itself in the mazes of the 
subsequent discussion. The statement of the metaphysical 
difficulty is however so precise, and the opening of the investi- 
gation is so formal, that we may be very sure that a solution of 
the problem, if not explicitly offered, is at any rate implicitly 
contained in the succeeding pages. 

Now in the passage about genus, species, and particulars 
v, iroXka, and aireipa irkrjOei, 15 D 18 D, there is, if we 
except the words irepas he real anreiplav iv avTol? gvficfrvTOV 
eypvTwv 16 C, nothing which might not be found in an account 
of the earlier theory of ideas. There is in it moreover nothing 
which could possibly be regarded as an attempt to meet the 
difficulty raised at 15 B in regard to the distribution of the idea 
among its particulars. It is in fact, as is shown by Socrates's 
meditative questions iroQev ovv ti<? Tavrrjs dp^rac, 7ro\\fjs 
ovarrjs ical ttclvtoLcls irepl ra a/x^Lo-^rjrovfjueva fiaxw, ap evOevhe) 
15 D, a mere preface to the promised explanation. When 
we find then that under pressure from Philebus 18 AD, Socrates, 
as soon as he has completed his account of the processes of 


avvaycoyrj and Btalpeat,?, recurs to the main question and settles 
it without making any use of these processes, we should, I 
think, infer, not that the attempt to explain the relations of the 
idea and its particulars has been abandoned, but only that it has 
been postponed, the contribution to the main argument serving 
the purpose of separating the logical doctrine with which we 
are familiar from the metaphysical novelties now to be pre- 
sented to us. It is then only what was to be expected when" 
the conversation takes a turn which brings the metaphysical 
thread again uppermost, its continuity being marked by means 
of a direct reference (Tov debv eKeyo/mev irov to puev anreipov 
Stlgcu t<ov ovtwv to Be irepa? ; 23 c) to the statement made 
incidentally at an early stage of the inquiry and not referred to 
in the interval that every thing which is said to exist, not 
only is resolvable into a One and a Many, but also has in itself 
Limit and Indefmity (cJ? e| ei>o? [lev /cal e/c ttoWgov ovtcov twv 
del Xeyofievcov elvca, irepas Be /cal dnveiplav iv-avrols ^v/jl^vtov 
e-)(pvT(ov 1G c). Hence we enter upon the passage which begins 
Mafial apa, to Upcorap^e, avyyov \xev \6yov rod Xolttov, a^eSov 
Be ov$e pahiov iravv to vvv. 23 B, expecting to find in it a resolu- 
tion of the difficulty proposed for consideration in 15 B ; and as 
we have seen that the difficulty now considered so serious was 
not felt to be a difficulty at the time when the republic and the 
Phaedo were written, we shall not be altogether surprised if the 
resolution of the difficulty is effected by a reconstitution of the 
earlier doctrine. Perhaps we may further conjecture, on the 
strength of the sentence ical yap Brj (paiverao Seiv aXkrjs pyx av VS> 
iirl ra Bevrepela virep vov iropevofxevov, olov /3e\?} eyeiv erepa 
twv epmpovQev \6ywv ean Be taw? evia ko\ ravrd. 23 B, that the 
reconstitution will involve additions to the original theory. In 
this way we are brought face to face with the question raised by 
Sidgwick, Journal of Philology n 103, How is the ontology 
of the Philebus related to that of the republic ? but, whereas he 
and others start with the assumptions that the Philebus is 
earlier than the republic, and presents substantially the same 
doctrine, I hold the Philebus to be the later of the two dia- 
logues, and expect to find that in the interval the doctrine has 
been added to, and perhaps otherwise modified. 


What then is the ontological doctrine of the Philebus? 
According to the Philebus iravra tol vvv ovra ev rw iravTi may 
be arranged under four heads, as follows : 

(1) direipia l indefinity ', or direipov ' the indefinite ', which 
regarded as a iroXXd becomes direipa 'indefinites' includes 
everything which exhibits to pidXXov re fcal rjrrov, to acf>6Bpa 
teal tfpi/jLa, to Xiav, ktX: for example, OepfioTepov /cal tyvxpo- 
Tepov, i-rjporepov /cal vypoTepov, irXeov /cal eXaTTOV, Qclttov /cal 
ftpaBvTepov, fiei^ov /cal o-fii/cpoTepov, rjBovrj /cal Xvirrj (so long as 
they have not been actualized by the introduction of a irepas 
e X ov ) ; 

(2) 7T6/XX9 'limitation', or Trepan e^ov 'limit', 'limitant', 
which regarded as a iroXXd becomes irepa? e^ovra 'limits', 
'limitants', includes everything which exhibits tovtcov [sc. tov 
fidXKov T6 /cal tjttov /ctX] tcl ivavTia, irpwTov fiev to Xcrov /cal 
IcroTTjTa, fieTa Be to Xcrov to BiirXdaiov /cai irdv b tl irep av irpos 
dpiOfjuov dpidfjuos r/ fjueTpov y irpos fieTpov, everything which by 
the introduction of numbers reduces the divergent direipa to 
symmetry and concord ; 

(3) imktov or Kotvbv includes to tovtcov [sc. direipov /cal 
irepaTo<i\ e/cyovov dirav, all /jllkttjv /cal yeyevrjfjbevrjv ovaiav, 
all direipa when bound fast by the irepas : for example, vyieia, 
/cdXXo?, tV^i/?, fjiovo-Lfcr}, dpfjuovla*, wpai, the fii/CTO? /3/o?, rjBovai 
actualized, whether dXrjOei? or tyevBeis, whether good or bad ; 

1 Here I may notice an apparent in- Xi57tt7, not as yet actualized by the in- 
consistency which has perplexed some troduction of a irepas '4x ov m the lan- 
of the editors. In 27 e rjdovr} is assigned guage of 31 a, ydovrj avrri and is there- 
by Philebus to the direipov, on the fore rightly assigned to the direipov, 
ground that any limitation of it would whilst the -qbov-q of 31 c is -qbov-q actu- 
prejudice its claim to be regarded as alized -qdov^ Kara (ptiaiv yiyvop.kvq 
iravdyadov. Socrates demurs to the and therefore belongs to the fuKrov. 
reason alleged ; but, as is clear from The same confusion might have arisen 
31a, is otherwise content with Phile- in regard to 6epp.6v \pvxpov kt\, if 
bus's decision. The same view is taken Plato had not, in order to guard against 
in 41 d. In 31 c however rjdov-f) is it, where he means depyJov koX faxpov 
assigned to the /j,ikt6v or koivqv. "These not actualized, used the comparatives 
two statements " says Jowett " are un- deplore pov Kai ^vxporepov, or as in 26 a 
reconciled." The two statements are added the explanatory words direipa 
however perfectly consistent : for the 6vra. 

7)8ovri mentioned in 27 e 31 A 41 d is 2 2. *Ap' ovk iv p.ev voaon rj tovtojv 

one member of the 8vds, rj8ov^ /cat opOrj Koivuviarriv vyieias (pvcriv iyivvijaev; 



(4) The atria rrj? /u'feoj?, which by combining irepas and 
ctireipop produces yeveais, is vovs, the lord of heaven and earth, 
which orders and directs the universe, just as the human voi)<$ 
orders and directs the individual. 

II. narraTCWt ovv. 2. 'Ev 5e <$et 
Kal /Sapet teal rox Kal fipaSei, direipois 
ovaiv, dp' ov ravra iyyiyvo/xeva ravra W/xw tc direipydaaTo Kal /xovctik^v 
t'/jLTaaav TeXeurraTa j-vveo~T7)0 , aTo; II. 
KoXXtord ye. 2. Kal [xty (w ye xet/AWin 
Kal rviyeaiv iyyevopieva to fxkv iroXv \lav 
Kal direipov dtpeiXero, to 8e ifipieTpov Kal 
041a ffvufiCTpov direipydaaro. II. Ti ix.y\v\ 
2. Ovkovv ("k tovtcov wpai re Kal ova 
Ka\a iravra ijpXv yeyove, t<3v re direipwv 
Kal tuv iripas ix 0VTWV (rvp.p.ixOe'vTiov ; 
II. IlaJs 5' ov; 2. Kal dXXa 5t) fxvpia eVi- 
Xeiru Xtyuv, olov /i0' vyieias KaXXos Kal 
lo~xiv, Kal iv \pvxcus av ird/xiroXXa frepa 
Kal irdyKaXa. v(3piv yap irov Kal %v/xira- 
aav iravruv irovrjpiav avrrj KanSovca 7} 
deos, u KaXe ^iXrj^e, iripas ovre rjSovdv 
ovSt'v ovre irXijapiovuiv ivbv iv avrols, vbp.ov 
Kal rdijLv ire" pas ^xovt^v USero' Kal o~v 
fiiv airoKvaicrai <pi t s avT-fiv, iy& 8e Tovvav- 
rlov diroaufaai Xtyu. 25 e. Badham is 
no doubt right in his acute conjecture 
that the words piovaiK^v %vp.irao~av in the 
sixth line of this extract should be 
followed by re and some word signify- 
ing a genus of which piovaiK-rj is a spe- 
cies, but I feel no confidence in his 
suggestion thatreXeaJrara (which seems 
to me an appropriate adjunct) is a cor- 
ruption of re Xeibnrra. There is a dis- 
tinct reference to the passage before us 
in 31c 2. Koivov toLvvv viraKovcopiev 8r/ 
ruv re-rrdpuv rp'nov iXtyopiev. II. *0 
Herd rb aireipov Kal irtpas \eyes ; iv $ 
Kal Oyleiav, 8i Kal dpfxoviav, iri- 
6tao ; But, whereas Protarchus's cita- 
tion in 31 c has all the appearance of 
being exact, and certainly ought to be 
exact as regards dp/xovia, seeing that 
the word, having been incidentally in- 
troduced, gives Socrates his cue, in 

25 e sqq. dpfiovia is not mentioned. May 
I suggest that the requirements of both 
passages would be satisfied if we were 
to read in 26 A Kal fxovaiK^v ^vpiraadv 
0' dpfioviav TeXe&rara H-weo-Tyo-aTo ? This 
conjecture is not as tempting as Bad- 
ham's ingenious re XeiorrjTa : but 
it is conceivable that a scribe who 
had before him lyMTTACAN T6<\pMO- 
NI<M\lTeAecoT<\T<\ might drop a cou- 
ple of words in consequence of the 
recurrence of the letters <MMT. It 
is worth while to note that Olympio- 
dorus mentions vyieia, dpfiovia, <ttoi- 
Xeiwv tois, and wpQv vepioSos as the 
irapadely/xara here adduced. 

The editors have not been able to 
agree about the goddess mentioned 
towards the end of the extract. It 
seems to me that we have a clue in 
63 E Kal irpbs ravrais rots /*e0' vyieias Kal 
tov aoxppove?? Kal Sr/ Kal ^v/mwdarfs dpc~ 
ttjs biroaai Kaddirep deov diraSol ytyvo- 
fievai avry %vvaKoXovdovai iravrr}, rairas 
/xiyvv, where vyieia and aperr} are to- 
gether conceived as one goddess. So in 
the passage before us, vyieia in the body 
(with koXXos and lax^s, cf. Aristot. 
topics 116 b 18) and /jlovo-ikt] in the soul 
(with TcifxiroXXa Vrepa Kal irdyKaXa, i.e. 
the virtues) are together conceived as 
one goddess, whom, if pressed for a 
name, I should call dp/uovia. Plainly 
Plato here pythagorizes : cf. Diog. 
Laert. vin 33 rtjv t' dper-^v dppoviav 
etvai Kal tt\v vyieiav Kal to dyadbv awav 
Kal tov debv 816 Kal ku0' dp/xoviuv ewee- 
Tavai tci 8Xa. The whole passage recals 
Symposium 185 e 188 d, where (as here) 
vyieia and /jlovo-ikti are the two most 
prominent manifestations of dppiovia. 


Further of these four yevt], the first and second are together 
spoken of as i gov ylyverai iravra and as to SovXevov eA? yeveaiv 
atria, the third as to, yiyvofieva and as to iroiovfxevov } and the 
fourth as to iravra ravra Byfiiovpyovv and as to ttolovv. 
Finally, we must not forget the important phrase &5? i( evbs fiev 
(Cal i/c 7roXXoov ovtgov tgov del Xeyo/juevcov elvai, mripas Be teal 
direipiav ev avroi? ^vfi(f>vrov exovrcov, which shows that the 
processes of avvaycoyr) and Biaipecris find a place in the new 
system as well as in that of the republic and the Phaedo. 

Now the exposition summarized above, though for the most 
part precise and even perspicuous, is in one point difficult and 
perplexing. The irepa? e%ov appears to perform a double 
function. On the one hand it converts non-existence iDto 
existence : on the other hand it converts what is bad into what 
is good. But if the function of the irepa? e^ov is to convert 
what is bad into what is good, so that one Trepas e%ov in con- 
junction with one aireipov produces vy'ieia, and another Trepa? 
%ov in conjunction with another aireipov produces (movo-uct), 
how is what is bad produced, for example, ' disease ', ' discord ' ? 
If ' disease' and 'discord' belong to the jjuktov, how do their 
elements differ from the elements of ' health ' and ' music ' ? If 
they do not belong to the /juktov, in what part of the system 
are they to find a place ? It would seem however that the 
latter supposition may be immediately rejected, bad pleasures, 
as well as good ones, being unhesitatingly assigned to the 
fwcrov. We have then to ask ourselves Under what circum- 
stances does the union of irepas e^pv and aireipov produce what 
is good ? Under what circumstances does it produce what is 

Experience seems to shew that with Plato a gap in an expo- 
sition does not necessarily mean a lacuna in the system. The 
gap may have been intentionally left to be filled up by the 
student. In such cases however Plato usually affords one or 

PHilebus is appealed to, not "be- ference between him and Socrates is in- 

cause His goddess was in question," sisted upon. Whilst Socrates regards 

but because here, as in 27 e (q. v.), irtpas as the alrla tov ev, Philebus re- 

where Philebus is again brought into gards it as the afrta tov /ccikcDs. 
the conversation, the width of the dif- 


two pregnant hints. Now in 24 C, to fiaXKov re ical tjttov hav- 
ing been taken as the characteristic of the aireipov, the ivavila 
of to fiaXKov re teal tjttov are to tc iroaov ical to /neTpiov, where 
to fieTpiov is plainly not identical with to iroaov. Next, 
taking Plato's example, the deppuoTepov ical tyvxporepov, i.e. 
temperature not yet actualized by the introduction of a limitant, 
let us observe what will be the effect of introducing first pueTpiov, 
secondly iroaov generally. The effect of introducing the par- 
ticular iroaov called fieTpwv into OepfioTepov teal tyvxporepov or 
depfibv koX yjrvxpov, aireipa ovTa i.e. temperature not actual- 
ized, regarded as extending in opposite directions from a point 
of indifference is to produce in actuality an equable tempera- 
ture which is neither uepfjuov nor -tyvyjpov. But when any other 
iroaov is introduced into Qep\ioTepov icaX tyvxpoTepov, the effect 
is to produce in actuality a temperature diverging more or less 
either on the side of deppuoTepov or on that of tyvftpoTepov from 
the equable temperature of the point of indifference. In fact, 
while the union of OeppbOTepov ical ^rv^poTepov with any iroaov 
whatever produces an actual temperature of some sort, it may 
be, xeifioov or irviyos, there is one iroaov which produces an 
actual temperature which is neither Oeppuov nor tyvxpov, namely 
wpa, and inasmuch as this is the one point in the infinitely 
extended line which is fixed, all the other actual temperatures 
must be measured from it. Thus the one jjulktov produced by 
the union of OeppoTepov ical tyvxporepov with the particular 
iroaov called fieTpcov stands in marked contrast to the many 
fiacTci produced by the union of OepfioTepov ical yjrvxpoTepov with 
other 7roo-a: it is the one fixed standard, and therefore capable 
of being known ; they are the many deviations from the standard, 
and, inasmuch as, however nearly they may approximate to the 
standard, they can never attain to fixity, are consequently in- 
capable of being known: it, as the standard, is perfect ; they, 
as deviations from the standard, are necessarily imperfect, though 
the more nearly any iroaov approximates to the /AeTpcov, the 
more nearly the /jllktov, which results from its union with the 
a-rreipov, approaches perfection. The apparently distinct func- 
tions of the irepas fyov are then in reality one: for perfection and 
existence are identical, and the further anything is from perfec- 



tion, the further it is from existence. Thus when to fierpcov, 
i.e. the appropriate iroaov, is added to a given diretpov, perfec- 
tion and existence are the results. When a iroaov more or less 
approximating to the appropriate iroaov is added, the result 
approximates correspondingly to perfection and to existence. 
When a iroaov is added which is remote from the appropriate 
iroaov, the result is correspondingly remote from perfection and 
from existence. For example, perfect health and perfect music 
are produced by the union in either case of the appropriate 
iroaov with the aireopov in question: imperfect health and im- 
perfect music are produced by the union in either case of a 
iroaov, more or less approximating to the appropriate iroaov, with 
the aireipov in question: disease and discord are produced by 
the union in either case of a iroaov, remote from the appropriate 
iroaov, with the aireipov in question; for even disease and dis- 
cord must have something of order or goodness in them, or they 
could not be existent 1 . It would seem then that in the case of 

1 With the above should be com- 
pared politicus 283 b 287 a. The pas- 
sage being too long to be quoted, I ap- 
pend a summary, in which I have 
endeavoured as far as may be to pre- 
serve the turns and expressions of the 
original: 'The art of measurement 
includes two parts, (1) that which 
deals with rb /xiya kcu rb c^iKpbv in their 
relation to one another, and (2) that 
which deals with rb fiiya Kal rb apuKpbv 
in their relation to rb p.rpiov, and so 
is concerned with the bare existence 
of becoming [rty rijs yeuiaews avayKalav 
otialav). If we ignore the existence and 
the measurement of rb /xtya Kalrbcr/MKpbv 
in their relation to rb fitrpiov, we shall 
forthwith work the destruction of the 
arts : for the arts regard excess or 
defect of rb p\trpiov, not as non-exist- 
ent, but as an existence detrimental 
to their operations, and guarding 
against it accordingly, in so far as 
they secure ixirpov, make all things 
good and beautiful. As surely then as 

there are arts, so surely rb iikya. koX 
rb cpuicpbv must be measured, not 
merely in relation to one another, but 
also in relation to rb fiirpiov : if there 
is a /xirpioi', there are arts; if there are 
arts, there is a p^rpiov; if either is 
not, neither is the other. Hence to 
the one part of the art of measurement 
we assign all those arts which measure 
number, length, depth, width, and 
speed in relation to their opposites, 
and to the other all those arts which 
measure them in relation to fitrpiov 
irpk-Kov Kaipbv Stop and generally every- 
thing which migrates from the extremes 
to the middle point. It is of the last- 
named part of the art that many of 
the KOfi\pot are thinking, when they say 
that the art of measurement is con- 
cerned with all things which become, 
though from want of familiarity with 
the processes of dialectic they have 
confounded the two parts.' 

It will be immediately seen that this 
passage presumes the theory which 



a given aireipov we must carefully distinguish the fiirpoov or 
appropriate iroaov from all the other iroaa which may be united 
with it 1 : and that, where the combination is imperfect, 

I have elicited from the Philebus, pre- 
cisely that part of the theory which in 
the Philebus was left obscure being 
here emphasized, whilst what in the 
Philebus was expressly stated is here 
barely indicated. There are further 
some points of detail which seem to 
deserve a passing notice: (1) when 
Aristotle says metaph. I 9 3 /caret 
re yap roi/s \6yovs robs k tCsv iriGTiip.jv 
etSrj fa-Tat irdvruv 8awv tiriaTr)p.ak elai, 
he may very well be thinking of that 
part of the passage before us which is 
summed up in the words ws dpa 
iryijTiov dfioLws rets rix va ^ T^daas etvai 
Kcti fieifiv ti a/xa Kal fKarrov p.eTpeiadai 
fiij Tpbs d\\i)\a p.dvov dXXa koI irpo% 
ttjv rod fierpiov ytvtviv. 284 d. Plato here 
from the existence of arts and sciences 
argues the existence of a p-hpiov, which 
(as we have seen in the Philebus) 
combines with the direipov to produce 
the fixed type or idea. Aristotle re- 
plies that in that case there should be 
fixed types or ideas of Texvv T d, where- 
as in the later development of the 
system with which we are now con- 
cerned in the case of olda 8clktij\ios 
kt\ fixed types or ideas are not recog- 
nized: (2) when Plato quotes certain 
KopuJ/ol generally admitted to be the 
Pythagoreans who say that p.eTprrriKr) 
vepl wavr* iarl to. yiyvdfieva, and re- 
interprets the dictum in the light of 
what has been said about approxi- 
mations to a standard, he must surely 
mean that, whereas the Pythagoreans 
saythat 'things are apid/tol,' he holds 
that 'the degree of the thing's ap- 
proximation to the standard is deter- 
mined by dpidfws.' Now this is ex- 
actly what Aristotle says in his com- 
parison of the Pythagorean and Pla- 

tonic systems; to p.ev ovv to 2v Kal 
Toi>$ apidfiobs irapa tcl irp6.yp.(na iroiTjo'ai, 
Kal p.r) wairep ol TLvdayopeioi, koI t) tuv 
elSQv elaayoiyr) 8ia ttjv iv tocs \6yois 
iyfrero antyw ol yap irpoTepoi StaXeK- 
tlktjs ov p.Tix ov ' metaph. i 6 7: 
(3) in view of the last words of the 
foregoing quotation from the meta- 
physics, it is almost startling to find 
Plato 285 a in like manner attributing 
the Pythagoreans' misinterpretation (as 
it seems to him) of their own principle 
to their want of familiarity with the 
processes of dialectic. 

1 The distinction between the pir- 
piov or appropriate iroaov and other 
iroad differing from the appropriate 
iroaov, appears to be indicated in the 
precedence expressly assigned to taov 
and laoTijTa in 25 a O&kovv to. p.i) 8exo- 
p,eva Tavra, Tofowv 8k rd evavrla irdvra, it p&tqv p.lvTolo~ov Kal lo~6- 
TijTa, piera Se rd taov t6 8iir\daiov 
Kal irav o tL irep av irpos dpidp.6v apidp.6s 
7) pjrpov rj irpos pjrpov, Tavra j-6p.iravTa 
t$ to irtpas dir0\oyi^6p.voi Ka\ws av 
8oKO?fiev Spav tovto ; 

The latter part of this sentence 
seems to imply that the icoaa are quan- 
tities measured by reference to the 
ptTpiov as unit. If so, it may well be 
asked (1) Are we then to assume that 
the iroad of things are in all cases 
exact multiples of the associated 
piov? (2) Granted that this sort of 
measurement is applicable to that 
which is in excess of the pArpiov, how 
is it to be applied to that which 
is in defect of it? In fact the 
numerical expression of divergence 
from the type involves serious diffi- 
culties, of which Aristotle was well 



while it is some iroaov other than the appropriate ttoctov which 
makes the huctov in question what it is, the perfect /jllktov, 
which results from the union of the appropriate ttooqv with 
the airetpov in question, may be regarded as a type to which the 
imperfect jjllktop approximates 1 . 

1 It may perhaps be asked Does 
the new explanation of the ontology of 
the Philebus throw any light upon the 
fanciful order of merit which concludes 
the dialogue? I think it does. In 
order to establish the claims of the 
human vovs actualized against those 
of Tjdovr] actualized, Socrates proposes 
to show that vovs is more nearly related 
than r/dovf) to that which makes the 
mixed life desirable and good. What 
then is that which makes the mixed 
life good for human beings ? We can 
no longer say, as we used to do, 
that it is participation in the good : 
indeed in the republic itself no attempt 
was made in this way ' to hunt the 
good with one idea ' /una* Idea to dyadov 
drjpevircu 64 e. It is possible however 
that we may be more successful if we 
take account of the new theory, that 
it is to fjTpiov which makes a thing 
good irepl /xtrpov Kal to fiirpiov Kal 
Kalpiov Kal irdvd' oiroaa roiavra XPV 
vofxigeiv ry\v didiov yipTJadcu <pvo-iv. Now, 
that our jjuktos (3los may be the dvdpw- 
wivov dyadov, firstly, its ingredients 
(which have been found to be ^71-10-7-77- 
ixai and certain rfioval) must be good, 
i.e. they must severally exhibit per- 
piorrjs; secondly, they must be mixed 
in proper proportions, i.e. the mixture 
must exhibit ^v/xfierpla ; and thirdly, 
the result must be a reality, and con- 
sequently there must be vovs to act as 
ahla rr/s /xiews Kal yevo~ews. Having 
thus ascertained what conditions are 
necessary that the (ilktos /3tos may be 
(a) a good combination (b) of properly 
constituted ingredients, (c) actualized, 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 

namely fierpioTijs ^v^/xerpla dXr/deia, we 
are in a position (1) to decide the con- 
test between vovs and r/dovri by com- 
paring them with each of the three 
requisites in turn, (2) to draw up an 
order of merit. This order of merit 
will be 

1. fiirpiov, which, in union with 
(a) imo'Trifji.r} dweipos ovaa, and (/3) tJowt) 
direipos ovaa, produces (a) iTiaTrj/xr), and 
(/3) ribovq, properly constituted. 

2. ^vfifxerpov, which determines the 
proportion in which the i-mo-T^fMai and 
the selected ydoval shall be mixed. 

3. vovs which effects the two unions, 
and their subsequent mixture or com- 

4. iwiaTrj/xai actualized. 

5. selected rjdovai actualized. 

In fact ixfrpiov and ^v/x/xerpov, the 
representatives of irtpas, stand first and 
second; the atria ttjs pUews comes 
next ; then come the puKrd which are 
here to be combined in a single Kpdais. 
To complete Plato's list, the remain- 
ing yjdoval and the two aireipa, iiri- 
arinx.'f] and 7750^77 not actualized, might 
be added. That the four 76/77 should 
reappear here, is very clearly indicated 
at 27 d. The difficulty of the passage 
as a whole is perhaps in some measure 
due to the fact that we are here ex- 
amining a fii^is of two piKTa. 

That the vovs which stands third is 
the dvdpuwivos vovs seems clear, since 
at 22 c (q. v.), where Socrates aban- 
dons the claim made to the first place 
by the dvdpuwivos vovs, he reserves the 
claim of the Belos vovs for further con- 
sideration. Indeed, it is plainly stated 



The fitKTou then includes two orders of existence which 
we shall do well to discriminate : (a) certain fixed types which 
result each from the union of the appropriate iroaov with the 
atreipov in question; for example, health, music, harmony, equa- 
ble temperature, beauty, strength, virtue ; (b) any thing which 
results from the union of a woa-ov, more or less approximating 
to the appropriate nroo-ov, with the direipov in question, and 
consequently approaches more or less to the one fixed type. 

So far I have endeavoured to develope the doctrine of the 
Philebus without reference to the theory of ideas. But we must 
not forget that the purpose of the exposition is the resolution of an 
objection which may be raised against that theory, and that the 
objection is apparently to be met by means of modifications and 
additions. Our next step then should be to throw the new sys- 
tem into a shape in which it may be compared with the old one. 
And with a view to this we must plainly begin by asking our- 
selvesIn what part of the new system are the ideas to be found? 
Of the three answers which have been given to this question, 
none seems to me satisfactory. When Brandis Gesch. d. gr.-rom. 
Ph. II i 332 and Susemihl genetische Entwickelung d. pi. Ph. 
II 13 identify the ideas with the irepas fyovra, the remark im- 
mediately suggests itself, that in that case the difficulty raised 
in 15 b is not removed the idea still exists at once by itself, 
apart, and distributed amongst a multitude of particulars. 
ZelJer's theory plat. Stud. p. 251 and Ph. d. Griechen n i 577, 
that the atria t^? fxl^ewi represents the ideas, is open to the 
same objection, to say nothing of the difficulty of reconciling the 
hypothesis with Plato's statements about the alrla. When 
Schaarschmidt (as I learn from Zeller) asserts that the ideas do 
not appear in this passage and infers the voOela of the dialogue, 
I can only say that, though I am satisfied that the ideas are not 
to be found either in the djretpov, or in the Trepas e X ov, or in 
the alrla, I cannot accept his assertion until I have looked for 
them in the fxiKrov. 

33 b, that pleasure, being the con- l y be right when, in the sentence r<* 

comitant of a ><Wts els owLap, affects ph oh> vucrrryipluv vpos tov koivov piov 

the gods as little as pain itself : their om o^ut^itQ ttw virkp vov 22 c, he 

life is, in fact, a life of serene con- brackets irw.) 
templation. (Hence Badham can hard- 


Now the idea as we knew it in the republic and the Phaedo 
existing at once separately and in a multitude of particulars is 
certainly not to be found in the /jliktov. We have seen however 
that there are in it (a) certain fixed types resulting each from 
the union of the appropriate irocrov with the aireipov in question, 
and (6) side by side with each type a divergent multitude, result- 
ing each from the union of a irooov, more or less approximating 
to the irocrov of the type, with the aireipov in question. The 
fixed types are then just what the Ones spoken of at 15 B 
were supposed to be fiovdSes rives aXrjOws ovacu, whilst the 
relation of the fixed type to the fiucrd congregated about it 
presents no difficulty such as that which the relation of the idea 
to its participant particulars, as originally conceived, was found 
necessarily to involve. May we not conclude that Plato meets 
the difficulty formulated at 15 B by modifying his conception of 
the idea, and that the fixed types which we have discovered in 
the fjucKTov are the reconstituted ideas 1 ? If so, the idea is still 
eternal, immutable; it is still perfect, separately existent; it is 
still the proper object of knowledge. It is too, in a stricter 
sense than ever before, a One : for, whereas according to the 
earlier theory it was either divided or multiplied amongst 
particulars, its unity is now never sacrificed. But (1) its relations 
"to the particular have undergone a complete transformation. 
Whereas in the republic and the Phaedo a particular is what it is 
by reason of the presence of the idea, so that the idea is its cause, 
in the Philebus both the idea and the particular come into being 
through the conjunction of two elements, an indefinite matter 
and a limitant quantity. The indefinite matter is the same for 
the idea and for the particular. The limitant quantity of the 
particular differs from, but at the same time more or less ap- 
proximates to, the limitant quantity of the idea; and the more 
nearly the limitant quantity of the particular approximates to 
the limitant quantity of the idea, the more closely the particu- 

1 I have heard the Master of Trinity ing of the ideas as they appear in the 

from whom in common with many Philebus, but I do not know whether 

Cambridge men of my generation I in other respects his interpretation of 

derived my first genuine interest in the dialogue agrees with my own. 
Plato use the word ' types ' in speak- 



lar resembles the idea. Thus the relation of the particular to 
the idea is now no more than resemblance to a type, the causal 
function of the idea as conceived in the republic and the Phaedo 
having been transferred to the two elements into which the 
particular, in common with the idea itself, has been analyzed. 
Further (2) whereas in the republic and the Phaedo, Plato, in 
the attempt to convert the Socratic logic of practical morality 
into an ontology, has made himself the slave of general names, 
and has assumed, wherever he found a general name, the exist- 
ence of an idea, the new conception of the idea as a fixed type, 
to which particulars approximate, implies an immediate depo- 
pulation of the world of real existences. Certainly all general 
names which connote divergence from types will cease to have 
equivalent ideas e.g. kclkov aioyjpov olBikov d/coXaa-rov Oeppuov 
-tyvyjpbv qhovr) \117rr); and it will not surprise us if we are 
further told that rd irpos tv and rd TexyrjTd have also been 
struck off the list 1 . 

In fact, the doctrine briefly but precisely declared in the 
passages quoted at the outset from the republic 596 A and the 
Phaedo 100 c, has now been superseded by a doctrine which 
finds expression, as brief, but also, I think, as precise, in two 
mutually complementary passages, the one from the Par- 
menides 132 c, the other from the Philebus 27 B : (1) dX\\ <w 
TlapfievlBrj, fiaXLcrra efioiye Kara^alverai ewe %eiv rd puev 
etBrj ravra toawep irapaBeuypuara eardvai ev rfj ^vaeC, rd Be 
aXXa tovtoi? ioi/cevai kcli elvai Sfioccofiara. (2) Tipwrov puev 
toLvvv direipov Xeyeo, Bevrepov Be wipa?, eireir 4k tovtcov 
Tpirov fiiKTTJv teal yeyevrjjjuevTjv ova lav ryv Be Trjs pLigews air lav 
koI yevio~eco<; reraprov Xeycov dpa pcrj irXrj/iifMeXolrjv av n ; II. 
Kal 7rcS?; Whether the new theory is still incomplete, and 
needs to be supplemented by the identification of an ultimate 
irepa^ with the dyaOov of the republic and of an ultimate 
direipov with the xobpa of the Timaeus, is a question which 
I leave to be considered on another occasion. 

1 Cf. Aristot. Metaph. 1 9. 990 b 15, 991 b 6, quoted above p. 255. 


4 The Aristotelian summary of the later theory of ideas. 

In this attempt to recover Plato's later doctrine, I have 
thus far depended solely upon the Philebus, my reference to 
the politicus, p. 279, being purely illustrative and supple- 
mentary. I now propose to start afresh, from Aristotle's sum- 
mary of the Platonic ontology metaph. 16. If I can shew 
(1) that this vexed passage is consistent with itself, and (2) 
that the doctrine described in it is in all respects that of the 
Philebus, I may, I think, at any rate claim to have made out 
a prima facie case. 

The principal points insisted upon in this important chapter 
(part of which I shall presently transcribe) are the following : 

1 Though in the main Plato's system agrees with that 
of the Pythagoreans, there are certain dogmas which he 
does not share with them. 

2 These distinguishing features of Plato's teaching are 
(1) the doctrine, derived from the Heraclitean Cratylus, 
of the flux of alcrOrjTa which consequently are not the 
objects of knowledge, and (2) the theory of ideas ex- 
isting apart from the sensibles which from them derive 

3 their being, which theory was based upon the Socratic 
doctrine of ethical universals. 

We come now to those parts of Platonism which have 
analogues in Pythagoreanism. First, the Platonic theory 
of the relation of particulars to the idea (fiiOe^c;) differs 
only in name from the Pythagorean theory of the re- 

4 lation of things to the number (jil/jltjo-l^), and the one 
theory is just as incomplete as the other. 

5 Next, Plato distinguishes three sorts of existence, alaOrj- 
tol, fiaOrj/nari/cd, etSr], and, as ideas are causes of particu- 
lars, conceives the elements of the ideas to be the elements 
of all things to fieya kol to fuicpov being the vXtj, and 
to ev being the ovala, as it is by iieOefy? in to ev that 

6 the ideas are derived from to fxeya kclI to fii/cpov. Now 


in this part of his system Plato agrees with the Py- 
thagoreans in making to ev an ovo~ia, and in taking 
dptOfioi to be diTioi r^9 ovaias to particulars : he differs 
from them however, when he makes the direipov a 
duality, and calls it t6 /jueya koX to /M/cpov, when he 
makes dpidfiol distinct from things, and when he as- 
signs to fiaOrifiaTLKa an intermediate position between 
alcrOrjTa and etBrj. 

7 Of the doctrines which distinguish Platonism from 
Pythagoreanism, two that of the separate existence 
of to %v teal ol dpL$/jbOL and that of the ideas were 
due to Plato's logical studies, while the resolution of 
the direipov into a duality was devised in the hope of 
tracing to the material cause the plurality of particulars. 

8 This last device is however a failure, as familiar analogies 
seem to shew that plurality originates in form rather 
than in matter. 

9 Such is Plato's theory of causes : it is however plain 
that he recognizes two causes only, a tI Iq~tiv and a 
10 material cause, the ideas being aiTia tov tl io-Ti to 
particulars, and the ev an clItlov tov tl ccttl to the 
ideas, while the material cause both of ideas and of 
particulars is a duality, to fieya iml to fxacpov. 

In the two elements he sees the origin of good and 
of evil respectively, as Empedocles and Anaxagoras did. 

For fuller statements of the difficulties which have been 
found in this passage and of the attempts which have been 
made to elude them, I must refer the reader to Bonitz's com- 
mentary ad loc. and Zeller's platonische Studien and Ph. d. 
Griechen. It will be sufficient here to say that the commen- 
tators and historians, assuming the dpiO/iol mentioned in 
6, 7 to be identical with the ideas, agree in asking How can 
the same indefinite which in conjunction with the idea pro- 
duces particulars, in conjunction with the one produce the 
idea? and again What does Aristotle mean by identifying 
the one, the formal cause of the idea, with the idea, the 


formal cause of the particular ? They seem further to agree 
in supposing by way of explanation that the one and the 
indefinite which produce the idea are not identical with, but 
only analogous to, the one (i.e. the idea) and the indefinite 
which produce the particular. They differ however as to the 
exact import of Aristotle's testimony ; some of them by a 
strained interpretation of his words reading into his assertions 
their own explanation; while others, seeing that, if words 
have any meaning, he distinctly and deliberately makes Plato 
identify the elements of the ideas with the elements of all things, 
are driven to the supposition that the pupil "has not quite 
rightly apprehended his master's meaning," " er habe Plato's 
Meinung, so weit es sich um die vorliegende Frage handelt, 
nicht ganz richtig aufgefasst," a supposition, I may remark, 
which is insufficient, if for no other reason, because it does not 
explain Aristotle's failure to perceive that he is attributing to 
Plato irreconcilable contradictions. Is there then no other 
explanation ? 

It is possible that the reader will be startled when I say that 
in this summary of orthodox Platonism the dpi6p,oi which are 
formal causes of particulars are not the ideas. It is true that 
in 3 Aristotle represents the relation of the particular to the 
dpiOfjLo? in the Pythagorean system as identical with the re- 
lation of the particular to the idea in the Platonic ; and that 
in 6, 7 he recognizes to ev /cal tovs dpiOfiov<; as parts of the 
Platonic apparatus ; but it by no means follows, because the 
Platonic idea is equivalent to the Pythagorean dpiOfibs, that 
the Platonic dpi6/u6$ is identical with the Platonic idea. It is 
also true that at the end of 5 ef i/celvcov yap Kara fiiOetjov rod 
ez^o? rd elBrj elvat toi)? dpid/jLovs, commentators from Alexander 
Aphrodisiensis downwards have assumed tov<; dpiO/iov? to be 
identified with rd eiSr) ; but neither Bonitz's view, that roi>$ 
dpi0fjLov$ is an apposition, nor Zeller's suggestion, that to etSrj 
is subject, tovs dpidfAovs predicate, platonische Btudien p. 236, 
carries conviction. Thinking then that Zeller has taken a step 
in the right direction when in his Ph. d. Griechen n i. 628 he 
expunges rd etSr}, I propose provisionally to retain rd ecBrj, 
expunging rods dpi6pbov% for which words I shall be able to 


find a place in the immediate neighbourhood. It is true too 
that 9 seems to favour the assumption of the commentators 
and historians, but as in this Aristotle is by his own ad- 
mission, not recording Plato's doctrines, but commenting 
upon them, I think myself entitled to defer the consideration 
of it until I have examined the rest of the passage. 

Aristotle is however so far from assuming the identity of 
the apiOfjLol with the ideas, that in 7 he seems to distinguish 
to ev teal tov<z apiOfiovs from them. Now to ev is expressly 
declared 5, 6 to be the ovaia, i.e. the formal element of 
the ideas, and in the second sentence of 6, ol dpiQpiol are 
as expressly declared to be aiTiot, ttjs ovalas, i.e. the formal 
elements of particulars. Would it not seem then that, when 
Aristotle says that Plato conceived the elements of the ideas 
to be the elements of all things, he understands by the formal 
element to ev koX ol dpiO/ioi, to ev being the formal element of 
the ideas, and ol dpiQp,ol the formal elements of particulars ? 
It appears to me that 5, 6 might very well bear this meaning 
as they stand : remembering however that we have already 
expunged the words tovs dptdpuovs, which at the end of 5 
are superfluous and ungrammatical, I venture to place them, 
first prefixing a teal, after o5? S' ovaiav to ev. The sequence 
of thought in 57 will now be as follows : 

'Plato conceived the elements of the ideas to be the elements 
of things, the material element being to pueya real to fiircpov, the 
formal element to ev /cal ol dpiQpLol: more precisely, the 
ideas come into being from to pueya koX to putcpov by fieOefc 
in to ev, which with Plato as with the Pythagoreans is an 
ovaia ; while ol dpiOp,oi are formal causes of particulars, another 
point in which Plato and the Pythagoreans agree : Plato differs 
from the Pythagoreans however in making the indefinite a 
duality (to fieja koX to p,i K p6v), in separating the dpi6p,0L 
from sensibles, and in assigning to the iiaQ^aTiKd an inter- 
mediate position. Here the separation of t6 ev koX ol dpiO/ioi 
from things, and the introduction of the ideas, are the results of 
Plato's logical studies.' 

It will be seen that, so far, a consistent sense has been 
obtained, and that the doctrine here attributed to Plato is 


exactly that which has been found in the Philebus. In fact 
(1) as in the Philebus to re fiirptov Kal to iroorov are formal 
elements of all things, to iierpiov being the formal element 
of ideas and ra irocrd formal elements of particulars, so here 
to ev teal ol aptO/jiol are formal elements of all things, to ev 
being the formal element of ideas and ol dpiOfiol the formal 
elements of particulars : (2) as in the Philebus an aireipov 
called to fjudWov teal to tjttov, so here an aireipov called to 
fjbiya teal to /M/epov, is the material cause at once of ideas 
and of particulars : (3) in precisely the same sense in which 
in the Philebus both sections of the /j,lktov are reduced to 
the same i gov yiyveTai, all things are here reduced to the 
same aTOi^ela : (4) as in the Philebus the particular stands to 
the idea in the same relation in which a copy stands to its 
model, the resemblance of the one to the other being caused 
by the approximation of the irooSv of the one to the ^erpiov 
of the other, so here 3 the pukde^ of the particular in the 
idea would seem to be in reality yLu'yu^o-t? : (5) as in the Philebus 


here 10 to ev Kal ol dpiO/iot and to fieya Kal to fiLKpov, are 
respectively the origin of good and the origin of evil. 

Thus five principal dogmas of which not one is consistent 
with the theory of ideas as it is stated in the republic are com- 
mon to orthodox Platonism as described by Aristotle and to the 
doctrine adumbrated in the Philebus. The terminology is 
not indeed precisely the same, but this will not surprise us, 
as Plato would naturally avoid in a written exposition the 
technicalities of the school, while -Aristotle would as naturally 
preserve them. In other respects the agreement is exact. 

Two paragraphs however still remain to be explained. The 
first begins 7 with the words to Be Bvdha iroirjaaL ttjv erepav 
(frvaiv Bid to toi)? dpi6[iov^ e%co tojv 7rp(OT(0V eu0fc3? e avTrjs 
yevvdaOai, (hairep etc two? iKpayeiov and ends with 8. 
Here it is immediately obvious that the words tov<; dpiO/jbovs 
ego) tojv irpwTeov are full of difficulty, and that until they have 
been explained the meaning of the whole sentence must remain 
to some extent uncertain. According to Bonitz (after Alex- 
ander) Aristotle says ' Plato's reason for making the material 


cause, in name rather than in fact, a duality (" quod infinitam 
materiae naturam, verbo quidem magis quam re ac notione 
duplicem fecit"), was, that numbers, i.e. mathematical numbers, 
with the exception either of primes or of odd numbers, are 
generated by the help of the number two 7 ("quia numeri 
quorum ad naturam vel similitudinem ideas suas redegerat, 
magnam partem dyadis ope progignuntur, exceptis nimirum 
numeris vel indivisibilibus vel omnino imparibus"). In other 
words, Bonitz supposes Aristotle to say that, when Plato came 
to name his aireipov, he preferred the dual title fiiya ical /Mtcpov, 
because some mathematical numbers are generated by the 
number two. How Bonitz connects the sentence in question 
with 8 is not clear. Further, in regard to the irpwroL dpidfioi 
here excepted, no agreement has been arrived at. Bonitz 
hesitates between primes and odd numbers generally : Trende- 
lenburg de ideis et numeris p. 79, Zeller platonische Studien p. 
255, and Schwegler ad loc. suppose the ideal numbers to be 
intended : Brandis Gesch. d. gr.-rom. PL II 313 takes them to 
be those ideal numbers which are odd. That these interpreta- 
tions are anything but certain seems to be admitted even by 
their authors. Does the new conception of the theory as a 
whole throw any light upon these incidental sentences ? 

We have seen in the Philebus that each airetpov is a duality 
in the sense that it extends in opposite directions from a point 
of indifference. It is further plain that in 8, which clearly 
should be read in conjunction with the sentence now under ex- 
amination, Aristotle refers to the plurality of particulars. Hence 
if the mss had exhibited a hiatus where the troublesome words 
tovs dpidfAovs etjco t&v TTpcoTcav now occur, no one would have 
scrupled to paraphrase the passage as follows : ' Plato's reason 
for making his material element a duality [i.e. for making it 
extend in opposite directions from a point of indifference] was, 
that this hypothesis made it easy to suppose the generation 
from it of <a plurality of particulars >. Familiar analogies 
seem however to shew that the origin of plurality should be 
looked for, not as Plato supposes in matter, but rather in form : 
for example, one table only can be produced from one piece of 
matter, whilst the joiner, who impresses form upon the matter 


in question, makes several tables ; and in like manner the 
analogy which Plato himself has used (real Br) Kal TrpocreiKaaat, 
irpkirei to puev Be^opuevov fjLTjrpi, to B* odev iraTpi, tt)v Be 
fjL6Tav tovtcov <j>vo~lv ifcyovo), Timaeus 50 d) may be effectively 
turned against him.' The sense thus obtained being unexcep- 
tionable, the question now suggests itself Is it possible that 
tovs dpidfiovs egco twv 7rpcoT(Dv means * the multitude of par- 
ticulars ' ? Here Aristotle comes to our assistance. We read 
in the physics 219 b 6 dpiOfios eaTi Bl^co?' Kal yap to dpiOpbov- 
puevov Kal [to] dpiOfirjTOV dptO/jibv Xeyopiev, Kal a> dpiOpuovpbev : 
whence it would appear that there is nothing to prevent us from 
using the word dp cOfioc on the one hand in the sense of oh dpiO- 
fiov/jLP to denote the iroad of the Philebus apart from any 
IxdXkov Kal tjttov, and on the other hand in the sense of to, 
dpiOpbTiTa to denote the iroad of the Philebus taken in con- 
junction with some puaXkov Kal tjttov. In this latter sense 
however, the idea, being a combination of t6 pueTpiov or to ev 
with to fidXkov Kal to tjttov or to pueya Kal to puiKpov, is itself 
an dpiOfjLos, here called irpooTos to distinguish it from the dpoOpuoi 
or dpiOfjLrjTd before mentioned. (In fact the irpcoTo? dpidjjLos 
of Aristotle is the evd<s of Philebus 15 A.) Thus by toi)? dpiQ- 
yLtou? etjco toov TrpwTcov Aristotle means dpcOpLrjTa arising from 
the union of a pueya Kal puKpov with dpiOpuol or oh dpiOpuovpuev 
as opposed to dpiOpbTiTa arising from the union of a pueya Kal 
puiKpov with the ev. It will be seen that the explanation here 
given of the double sense in which the word dpiQpuo^ is used, 
applies to a considerable group of passages, which might other- 
wise have been thought fatal to my interpretation of the phrase 
to ev Kat 01 apiopLov. 

It remains to say a word or two about 9, where Aristotle 
from his own point of view briefly comments upon the system 
which he has been describing. Here he certainly assigns to 
the idea the same position in relation to the particular which 
the ev holds in relation to the idea. That there is in this 
place some confusion, inasmuch as throughout the rest of the 
chapter, while the ev is the formal cause of the idea, the 
idea is, not the formal cause, but the type of the particular, 
cannot, I think, be denied. This confusion may be due to the 


hasty and careless expression of Aristotle's dislike of a theory 
which seemed to assign the function of his own etSo? in part 
to an inherent formal cause, in part to an external type. It 
is possible again that Plato himself did something to create 
the confusion, if, as perhaps may be inferred from Aristotle's 
statements in 3 and 5, he used the word fiede&s which 
had formed a part of the terminology of the earlier system 
to express at once the relation of the particular to the idea 
and the relation of the idea to the gv. Or again it may be 
that, though in dealing with the particular Plato discriminated 
the cause, i.e. the apiOpuo? or iroabv, from the type, i.e. the 
idea, in dealing with the idea, he assigned to the ev both func- 
tions. However this may be, I can see nothing here to lead 
us to doubt the general accuracy of the precise statements of 
the rest of the chapter, confirmed as they are by the evidence 
of one of Plato's most elaborate dialogues. 

By way of conclusion to this section I append the text of 
the latter part of the chapter upon which I have been com- 
menting, together with a translation. 

rqv he fiiOe^LV rovvopa fiovov The only novelty in this doc- 

/*T6^oXev ol fjilv yap Hi^ayoW trine of participation was the 

, x n K ' term employed : for whereas the 

fiLfirjcrct ra ovra <f>a<nv lvcu <jw Pythagoreans say that things 

dpiOpw, II Aaron/ 8k //.etfe^ei <t<v exist by imitation of numbers, 

i. t*~^ * o \ ' s Plato changes the term, and says, 

r r r* W v ,/y b y participation m ideas : 4 

p.ivroi ye piOe^iv rj ttjv pip-qo-iv but what this participation or 

ijns av el V U cl8<3vl dd>u<rav iv S *** n ^ as to be > both Plato 

, J , and the Pythagoreans left an 

Koivco frrrtiv. I en be irapa ra open question. | Furthermore 

al<rOr)T<x koli to. elSrj ra pbaOrj- Plato asserts the existence of 

., x ~ / * , . mathematical, distinct from sen- 

/tar... Tv Trpay^v W ^at sMeg and ^ .^ an(J ^ 

p.Tav, 8ia<f)epovTa ray plv ala-Orj- mediate between them, differing 

tQv rQ diha koX tUbma cW fr om sensibles inasmuch as they 

s , , ; [sc. the mathematical] are eter- 

To>v o Lb<vv to) ra fxev ttoAV nal and immovable, and from 

arret, opoia elvai to 8c elSos avra ideas inasmuch as of each mathe- 

5 iv cWrov pVov. | M * atrca rd f^f"* ^H siniikr 

* m ' t instances, whilst the idea is in 

eio?7 tois aWois, raVaW vtoi- each case one alone. | 5 Now 



^cia iravTcov wyOrj t<3v ovtiov ctyat 
(TTOi^eta. to? ju.v ovv v\rjv to 
fxeya Kat to fJUKpov etvat ap- 
X a ?j w? o ovctav TO CV < Kat TOVS 
apt#jaovs>. klvo)V yap Kara 
/xiOe^iv tov cvos rot elSrj ctrat 

6 [tOVS dpL0fJLOV<s\' TO fieVTOL yc iv 

ovaLav eTrat Kat /x.7; erepoV ye Tt 
oV \eyeo~6at. eV, 7rapair\r}ai(os tois 
Ilvflayopetois fAeye' Kat to tovs 
apiOfJLOvs atTiovs trai tois aAAots 
t^s ovatas axravTtos eKCtvots. | to 
e aim tov a7Tipov (os evos ovaoa 
7TOLrjcrai, to 8' arretpov ck fieydXov 

Kat flLKpOV, TOVT l8lOV. Kat CTl O 

jxkv tovs apt0p,ovs irapa ra alaOrj- 
ra, ol apLup.ov<s cirat <pacnv avra 
ra TrpaypLara' Kat Ta /xaOrj/xaTLKa 
7 firav Tovroiv ov Ti6ao~iv. | to p,\v 
ovv to ev Kat tovs apc$p.ovs 
Trapa ra 7rpayp.aTa 7roifjoraL Kat fxrj 
(nairep ol UvOayoptioi, Kat rj twv 
t8wv ctcraycoyiy 8ta TTyv cV Tots 
Aoyots eyeveTO o~kci}/iv' ot yap ?rpo- 


8e SvaSa iroLrjo-ai rrjv kripav <f>vo~w 
ota to tovs apLUfAovs e<o twv 
TrpwTwv v<v(3s e avTrj<s ytv- 
vao-Qox a>a7rep ck tivos eK/myetov. 
8 KatVot o~vp.(3aLVL y eVavTtws' ov 
yap evAoyoy ovtcds. ot /xev yap ck 
t^s vA-^s 7roAAa 7tolovo-iv, to 8' 

since the ideas are causes of all 
besides, Plato conceived that the 
elements of ideas are the ele- 
ments of all existences. Thus in 
his system the great and the 
small are material causes, and 
the one and the numbers are 
formal causes. From the great 
and the small the ideas are de- 
veloped by participation in the 
one : 6 where indeed he re- 
sembled the Pythagoreans in 
making the one an existence and 
not a mere predicate of some- 
thing else which exists. He also 
resembled them in his further 
doctrine, that the numbers are 
the causes of the existence of all 
things other than ideas. | But 
the substitution of a duality for 
the indefinite taken as a unity, 
and the resolution of the indefi- 
nite into a great and a small, are 
peculiarities of Plato's. Again, 
whereas he makes the numbers 
distinct from sensibles, they say 
that numbers are the things 
themselves : and [whereas he 
does,] they do not, assign to ma- 
thematical a position interme- 
diate between higher and lower 
existences. | 7 The separation 
of the one and the numbers 
from things, as opposed to the 
Pythagorean doctrine, [which 
identifies them,] and the intro- 
duction of ideas, had their origin 
in Plato's logical speculations, 
his predecessors not having culti- 
vated dialectic. His reason for 
making the other [i e. the mate- 
rial] element a duality, was, that 
[on that hypothesis] the numbers 
other than the first [i. e. particu- 
lars] were naturally generated 
from it, as from a lump of wax. 
8 Facts are however against him 
the theory is untenable : for, 


i8os a.Tra yewa fxovov' <f>aivTai 
8* K /uas v\r)<s jXLa TpaVe^a, o Se 
TO cTSoS ilTl<f)p(t)V cts ojv 7roXA.a5 
7rotet. Ofxotios 8 ej(t Kat to appev 
7rpos to OrjXv' to /xev yap i>7ro /Atas 
7rX^povTat ox ta S> to 8 appev iro\- 
\a 7r\r)poZ kclitoi ravra /Uju/iy/xa- 

9 Ta TU)V dpxfiV KiVO)V kcTTLV. | IIA.a- 
TO)V /MV OVV 7Tpl TWV ^7]TOVfieVO)V 
OVTOi 8tO)piO"|/' <f>aVCpOV 8' K TOW 
clprj/ACVlOV OTL SvOLV CUTiaiV 0"TI 

fiovov Kexpr]/x(vos, rfj T tou Tt 
0"Tt Kat t# Kara rrjv vXrjv' Ta yap 


10toTs 8 t8eo"t to ev. Kat Tts i; 
vAt; rj vTroKCLfxevrj, Ka0' 17s Ta t8iy 

flV 7Tt TO)I/ ataU7]T(DV TO O 1/ l> 

Tots tSeo"t XeycTat, on avrty 8vas 
rrt, to fxeya Kat to fxtKpov. en 
8c Tiyv toi; v Kat rod kolkws olItlclv 
tois orot^etots a7rc8o)Kev CKaTepots 
e/caTcpav, wcnrep <><f>a/xv Kat 
tow Trporipiav i7rir)Tr}<raL Ttvas. 
f>i\o<ro(fi(DVf olov 'Ep,7reSoKA.ea Kat 
Avaayopav *, 

1 In printing the above extract I 
have made three alterations of the 
text, which need a word of explana- 
tion: (1) I have tried to shew above 
p. 287 that though the word apidjuos 
occurs in both systems, the Platonic 
equivalent of the Pythagorean dpidjuos 
is not dpid/xos but eWos. Hence in 3 
we must, at any rate in thought, sup- 


whereas his school derives multi- 
tude from matter, supposing the 
form to generate once for all, we 
find that one table is produced 
from one piece of matter, whilst 
the one person who impresses the 
form makes many tables. So it 
is likewise with the sexes : the 
female is impregnated by a single 
congress, while the male impreg- 
nates repeatedly. Now the rela- 
tion of the carpenter to the piece 
of wood, and the relation of the 
male to the female, are similar to 
that of form to matter. [Whence 
it would appear that Plato is not 
justified in assuming matter to 
be the origin of multitude.] 9 
Such was Plato's decision of the 
points at issue. Enough has been 
said to shew that he employs two 
causes only, a formal cause and 
a material cause, the ideas be- 
ing formal causes of all other 
existences, and the one a formal 
cause of the ideas. It is also 
clear what the material substra- 
tum is, to which the ideas are 
attributed in the case of sensibles, 
and the one in the case of ideas : 
it is a duality, the great and the 
small. Further, he assigned to 
the two elements respectively the 
origin of good and the origin of 
evil, like certain earlier philoso- 
phers whose speculations we have 
already noticed, I mean Empe- 
docles and Anaxagoras. 

ply after UXdrcov dt fiede&i the words 
toov el8<2v, while in 4 the words tuiv 
el8u>v, though appropriate to rr/v fxi- 
de^iv, are not appropriate to ttjv p.1- 
firjaiv. In view of the double inaccu- 
racy I have ventured on a transposi- 
tion, though, had the inaccuracy been 
single, I should have thought little of 
it : (2) In 5, for reasons explained 


5 Concluding remarks. 

It will now be possible to frame a provisional theory of 
Plato's doctrinal development. 

I. Starting from the philosophical scepticism which he 
had learnt from the Heraclitean Cratylus, Plato seems for a 
time, like his master Socrates, to have found employment for 
his intellectual energies in the construction of general notions 
(koyoc, viroOecreis), within the domain of ethics. That these 
general notions are not knowledge in the strict sense of the 
word, Plato was quite aware : but this in no wise troubled him, 
as in this stage, like Socrates, he held knowledge properly so 
called to be unattainable. 

II. Overcome by the craving for knowledge properly so 
called, he cast about for some method of extracting it from the 
Socratic general notions. In order to this it was necessary 
(1) to assume that each general notion represented not only 
what is common to a multitude of particulars, but also, in 
an imperfect way, an eternal and immutable existence, 
separate from particulars, and (2) to devise a method of 
converting the imperfect representation of the eternal and 
immutable existence into a perfect representation of it. The 
theory of ideas as we see it in the republic and the Phaedo 
is the assumption above named dogmatically expanded into 
the following propositions : (a) wherever we find a plurality 
of particulars called by the same name, there is, separate from 
them, an eternal and immutable existence, which we call 

above p. 288, I have added ko.1 tovs Further I have throughout spaced ' 

apidfjLotis after ws 5' owlav to 'iv, and the Platonic technicalities in order to 

bracketed rods apid/xofc after t& eid-rj distinguish the Pythagorean dpidfiol 

elvcu : (3) The last sentence of the 3, 6 from the Platonic dptdp-ol, h in 

extract Ztl 5t rrjv rov ev /ecu rod /ect/ews the ordinary sense of the word 4, 6 

afriav kt\ appears to contain a di- from the Platonic &>, and eWos in its 

rect reference to 3 17. 984 b 18 and Aristotelian sense of ' form ' 8 from 

4 3. 985 a 5 (cited by Bonitz) : I have the Platonic etdrj. 
therefore written <pa/j.ev for $apv. 


an idea; (b) each particular is what it is by reason of the 
presence in it of the idea which bears the same name. In 
the republic and the Phaedo Plato further propounds a scheme 
for the requisite conversion of that imperfect representation of 
the idea which the general notion affords into that perfect 
representation of it which would constitute knowledge properly 
so called : but he frankly confesses that there is in the scheme 
a gap which he has not succeeded in bridging. In this stage 
then Plato tries to attain knowledge properly so called through 
ideas, but sees as clearly as any of his critics that the attempt 
is unsuccessful. Indeed the theory of ideas, which was to be 
the basis of the higher logic, is itself open to serious objections : 
(a) if we are to postulate an idea wherever we find a plurality 
of particulars called by the same name, the argument com- 
monly called the Tpiros avOpwrros may always be urged against 
us, and (/3) it is impossible to understand how the idea can be 
distributed amongst particulars without sacrificing its unity 
and its separate existence. 

III. In order to meet these objections urged against the 
theory of ideas, Plato in the Philebus (and elsewhere) amends 
his doctrine. Whilst he still postulates eternal, immutable ex- 
istences, separate from particulars, he withdraws the assertions 
(a) that, wherever a plurality of particulars is called by the 
same name, there is an idea to correspond, (b) that the particu- 
lar is what it is by reason of the presence in it of the idea 
which bears the same name. He now regards each idea as an 
eternal, immutable type in nature, produced by the union of an 
appropriate quantity (ev) with a given matter (fMeya ical fxiicpov), 
and the allied particulars as divergences from the type, pro- 
duced by the union of a quantity (dpuOfio^), differing more or 
less from the appropriate quantity, with the matter in question. 
Thus the idea is now a irapaSeLyfia, the particular, in virtue of 
the approximation of its dpidfios to the ev of the idea, being 
a o/jLolcofia. In this way Plato provides himself with eternal, 
immutable existences irapd to, alad^rd to be the objects of 
knowledge. In the Philebus he makes no attempt to explain 
how the knowledge of them is to be obtained : but I hope 


hereafter to show that, whereas in the period of the republic 
and the Phaedo it was proposed to pass through ontology to the 
sciences, in the period of the Parmenides and the Philebus it 
is proposed to pass through the sciences to ontology. It is 
possible that the statement of the theory of ideas which is 
contained in the Philebus was afterwards modified or supple- 
mented, but its exact agreement with Aristotle's summary in 
metaph. I 6 would seem to show that it continued to the last 
to be in the main a correct account of the Platonic ontology. 

The time has not come for attempting to criticize the theory 
which has been unearthed, or to trace the consequences of the 
discovery, if such it is. But even in this early stage of the 
inquiry it is easy to see, that, if the later theory of ideas was 
what I have supposed it, Aristotle's attack upon Plato assumes 
a new aspect, in so far as, form and matter being already pro- 
vided for the particular in the shape of aptO/io? and p,i<ya teal 
/MKpov, the paradeigmatic idea with the associated doctrine of 
fjL&6e%L<; or /nLp,r,aL<; is from the Aristotelian point of view a mere 
excrescence. It is easy to see too, that, if, as I conceive, the later 
theory is represented in certain of the Platonic writings, we 
shall obtain an important criterion for the determination of the 
order in which they succeeded one another. Again, it may 
perhaps be found that the study of the later dialogues from this 
novel point of view throws new light upon the teaching of 
Plato's Pythagorean contemporaries, as well as upon that of his 
academic and neoplatonic successors. On some of these sub- 
jects I hope to say something hereafter, but my first task must 
be to complete the examination of the original authorities. 

In the foregoing pages I have endeavoured to interpret and 
to apply two passages, the one in the Philebus, the other in the 
metaphysics. The special novelty of my interpretation of the 
former consists in the discrimination of the tierpiov and the 
irocrov and the assignation of the ideas to the /mktov. The 
special novelty of my interpretation of the latter consists in the 
recognition of to ev kol ol dpiOfiol as the formal element of all 
things, ev being the formal element of the idea and apidyub^ the 

Journal of Philology, vol. x. 20 


formal element of the particular. In the course of the inquiry 
four important propositions have emerged, (1) that internal evi- 
dence proves the Philebus to have been written after the repub- 
lic and the Phaedo, (2) that in the first-named dialogue a new 
and improved theory of ideas is traced out, (3) that metaph. I 6 
contains a consistent account of orthodox Platonism, (4) that 
the doctrine ascribed to Plato in metaph. I 6 is precisely the 
doctrine of the Philebus. 

As I have found myself throughout in antagonism to two 
great scholars whose names are honoured wherever Plato is 
studied, it seems fitting that the last words of this paper should 
express the admiring gratitude which I feel towards Eduard 
Zeller and Hermann Bonitz. If, as I am bold enough to 
imagine, I have added something to their results, it is their 
writings which have enabled me to do so. In any case ovk 
epi^ofieVy dWa StaXeyo/jueda. 


12 Dec. 1881. 



ve&v t eTrapyps 'IXiou r dvaardrr}^ 
ovk olSev ola <yX&cro~a /Mo-rjrfjs kvvo? 
Xe^aaa KaKrelvaaa <f>ai8povov<; Slkijv 
arrjs XaOpalov revijerat, icaicf} Tvyrj. 

^sch. Ag. 12271230. 

A well-known scholar, who recently revived not without 
profit the discussion of the SUai ^vfjuftoXauai, observed that the 
reappearance of the subject would probably raise a smile. In 
inviting the student of iEschylus to yet another consideration 
of the fiLarjTrj kvoov I certainly feel the same hesitation, and am 
therefore encouraged to the same perseverance. 

In the most recent edition 1 of the Agamemnon (A. Sidgwick, 
1881) the simile is abandoned to the obelus ; the following is 
the editor's note 

" 1228 ' Knows not what things the tongue of the vile she- 
hound, with long-drawn smiling welcome... shall accomplish by 
evil fate.' This is the best sense that can be made out of the 
text as it stands ; but ola is a clumsy and unlikely accusa- 
tive for oicov, and <j>ai$p6vov$ is a very strange adjective, and 
the use of adj. for adv. is harsh with itcreivaa-a : and we can 
scarcely resist the conviction that the text is corrupt. On the 
whole Madvig's alteration (following Tyrwhitt) is the most 
probable and is certainly highly ingenious ; he reads : 

ovk oiZev ola yXoocraa /McrrjTrjs kvvos 
Xeiijaaa icdicTe[vao~a (f>acBpov ou<?, Slktjv 
v Att)<; Xa0paiov y By^erat, /carcf} rvyrj 

1 Written in October, 1881. 



../knows not what a tongue of the vile she-hound has licked 
(his hand) and stretched out a joyful ear, and now like a 
stealthy curse shall bite him by evil chance.' The violent 
stretches of language, making the tongue (instead of the dog) 
stretch out a joyful ear and bite, are hardly too strong for 
jEschylus. Still they are strong, and Btjgerai for revgercu is 
a considerable alteration; so I have not ventured to put the 
conjecture into the text." 

Most readers will share Mr Sidgwick's objection to the 
MSS version, and approve his discretion in refusing admis- 
sion to that of Madvig. For myself, indeed, I cannot, with 
the utmost deference to the author of the correction, give to 
it even such a qualified approval as Mr Sidgwick gives. The 
only acceptable thing in it is the Xelgacra of Tyrwhitt, which 
indicates the true point of the comparison, namely, that the 
glozing welcome of Klytemnestra is a preparation for her 
treacherous stab, as a dog will lick the confiding hand which it 
purposes to bite. I am little disposed to quarrel with anyone 
on the shades by which boldness in language is discriminated 
from absurdity, but I think it should be proved by some similar 
instances that iEschylus could possibly describe a tongue as 
putting out an ear and biting. It is no defence that yXwaaa 
fjLccrrjrrj^ kvvo<} may stand for kvgov fiicrrjTr) yXooaaav eypvoa 
or the like. Of course it may in proper places ; but poetry 
cannot be constructed or analysed like a term in an algebraical 
equation. To say 

narratur et prisci Catonis 
saepe mero caluisse virtus, 

though it was Cato and not his virtue that warmed, is sense and 
poetry, because the phrase virtus calet suggests no visible image at 
all, and consequently cannot suggest an absurd one. But yXwo-aa 
KT6ivaaa fyaiBpbv ovs Brj^erat does suggest a visible image, and 
that image is ridiculous. Still there is scarcely a limit to the 
vagaries of the imagination, and if the rules of critical evidence 
seemed to shew that JSschylus made a dog's tongue bite, we 
could only sigh and acquiesce. But this gem of metaphor is 
scarcely worth purchasing at the expense of such an alteration 
as rev^erai for B^ercu. Nay, even QacBpov ofo, the charming 


simplicity of which has lulled the suspicions of criticism, might 
not have been so effective against Agamemnon. I cannot 
pretend to an intimate acquaintance with dogs, but according 
to my small experience the canine manner of making friendly 
overtures is not at all happily described by 'stretching out a 
joyful ear,' whether this means (for it is not determined) 
1 pricking the ear ' or ' laying it back.' The amicable lick is 
familiar to everybody, and it is often accompanied by rubbing 
the head against the hand saluted, but the ear I put this 
merely as an enquiry though the chief organ for expressing 
excitement, attention, etc., is in the coaxing mood merely pas- 
sive, and the position of it would depend on the breed of the 
dog 1 . 

But while I go with Mr Sidgwick in rejecting this, the 
best of the attempts to make sense out of 1229, I think 
that the verse should not be given over until it has at least 
been considered from an entirely different point of view. If 
we take the lines as they stand in the MSS 2 , 

ola jXwcrcra fitcrr)Tr}s /cvros 
1229 Xe^aaa KaKrelvaaa tyaihpovovs Slktjv 

aT7)<$ XaOpalov rev^erat, icaicf} rv^rj 

and consider ab integro how we are to find there the meaning 
which Madvig justly expects, we ought surely to make our first 
essay upon the assumption that 1230 forms a sentence gram- 
matically continuous. A malicious dog, he wishes iEschylus 

1 Prof. Kennedy (see recently pub- is an expression proper to the poetical 

lished Transactions of the Cambridge style. It might even support the con- 

Philological Society \ p. 172) has given jecture that the words actually oc- 

a guarded approval to the reading curred in some tragedy, though it does 

(fraidpdv ov$. He has stated most of not prove even as much as that, for it 

the objections to it with a vigour is not to be assumed that Aristophanes 

which leaves nothing to be desired, but could not invent a quasi-tragic phrase 

he regards as "all but decisive" on without an actual model. For con- 

the other side the occurrence of 0<u- necting the parody with this passage 

dpois walv in a parody of tragedy by of the Agamemnon there seems to be 

Aristophanes Pax 154-6. I cannot but no reason whatever, 

think that Prof. Kennedy greatly over- 2 The difference between ko\ ktcI- 

estimates the weight of this fact. It vaaa and Canter's KanTdvava is not 

certainly proves (if proof be required) worth notice, 
that to prick a joyful ear [(fxubpov oCs) 


to say, by licking the hand under the pretence of affection will 
obtain the opportunity to wound it. But this is just what 
1230 does say, whether we read 

aTrjs \a6palov Tevgerai Kaicy Ti>xVy 

will accomplish by an evil chance of treacherous hurt, or 

0T975 \a0palov Tevgerai, icaicrjv Tuyr)v, 

will find an evil chance of treacherous hurt 1 . If this were 
so, the participial clause must of course begin and end 
with 1229. And whatever difficulties may ultimately await 
us in bringing the whole into conformity with this hypothesis, 
if once it occurs as possible, I think we shall soon discover 
small but conspiring indications in its favour. In the first place, 
not only is it easy to take aTijs XaQpaiov with ri>xv> Dut it is 
difficult to explain it satisfactorily in any other way. According 
to the usual punctuation, Bl/crjv arrjs \a6paiov, the actions of a 
treacherous dog are illustrated by those of "At??. If our atten- 
tion had not been turned elsewhere, it would probably have 
been noticed before 2 , how oddly the relation of copy and original 
are thus inverted. When a quality or immaterial thing such 
as arrj is personified, actions may of course be attributed to 
it, and the most natural way of making the conception real and 
vivid is to compare the action supposed to that of some material 
agent which may serve as a type of it. But to reverse the 
process is unreasonable, not to say silly. Our only way of 
imagining what a treacherous arrj would do is to figure to 
ourselves what a treacherous human being or treacherous 
animal would do. What purpose, then, can be served by saying 

1 The case of ota appears to me, as suggested (Prof. Paley) that Tev&rai 

it has appeared to Prof. Kennedy and is the future not of rvyxwu but of 

others, quite defensible. It is rather revxa and is equivalent to iroLr/creTai. 

cognate than object to revifeTcu, what Although we should expect rev^ei, the 

success it shall have; otoou reu^erat middle is not impossible; but it is 

would mean what will befall it, a difficult to dissociate rc^erat from 

different thing. Moreover, even a rvxy. 

slightly irregular accusative would be, 2 Prof. Kennedy does observe in 
as Prof. Kennedy says, not surprising passing how "strange" is the "pa- 
in such a position. It has also been rcnthetic simile." 

M15HTH KYON. 303 

that the behaviour of a dog or a woman is like that of "Arrj or 
an drrj ? Let us consider a parallel case in English. When 
the Elizabethan poet writes how 

pity, like a naked new-born babe, 
Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed 
Upon the sightless couriers of the air, 
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, 

the figure, though bold or even (some might think) exaggerated, 
has a plain function, giving to the abstract notion of pity the 
energy and force of a visible presentation. But when the 
poetaster in ' The Chough and Crow,' encouraged possibly by 
this very passage of Shakspeare, tells us that 

The hushed wind wails with feeble moan, 
Like infant Charity, 

the thing in spite of the most pathetic and quavering prolonga- 
tions remains hopelessly ineffective ; obviously because the 
moaning of infant Charity, a purely imaginary sound, presents 
itself to the mind so much less distinctly than the wail of the 
wind itself, that the image loses in force by the comparison. 
And really the " licking " and " ear-stretching " of a " treacher- 
ous curse " (or " secret plague," or whatever you please) is very 
little better. Moreover, if such a comparison was to be made, 
the very last word to express it would be SUtjv. This curious 
archaism, which signified properly ' after the wont of so-and-so/ 
is elsewhere reserved to the most picturesque similes only, and 
was clearly in iEschylus' day a highly artificial phrase, the 
unusual application of which would have been instantly felt 
and reprehended. In modern imitations of the Attic dramatists 
this BUvv is treated as an arbitrary variety for wairep, but this 
is not so in the originals. Sophokles and Euripides have but 
one example between them, which we shall notice more particu- 
larly below ; iEschylus, for reasons not difficult to see, is 
extremely fond of the phrase ; but the reader will perhaps be a 
little surprised at the following list of his comparisons a crow, 
an ox> a swan, a swallow, a dog, a hare, a fawn, a kid, a wave, 
fire, water, the moon, the Gorgons, a diver, a messenger, a 
charioteer, a gardener, sailors, a child, a bride, a man speaking 
a foreign tongue, dreams. The limits of this class, are visible 


upon inspection. All these things are things which have a 
motion or habit of some kind, a ' way ', in fact, of their own, 
which way is called their Blktj. The case of Ag. 980, whatever 
view may be taken of it, is peculiar, 

fiavTiirokel S' a/ceXeuo-To? a/Ma6o<; doLBa' 

ov8* dlTOTTTVCraL Blkclv 


6dp<TO$ eVTTlOh L^6L <j>pv6s (f)l\0V QpOVOV. 

Neither the object nor the manner of this comparison are like 
the supposed Blktjv citt]? XaOpaiov, and it does not therefore 
concern us here, but Blkclv ovetpdrcov is certainly unusual, and 
there is something to be said for the editors who reject it (see 
Karsten, Dindorf 1869, and others). Beyond iEschylus, there 
is I believe but one tragic example, iroKefiicjov Blktjv in Eur. 
Nek. 1162, to which for its own sake I should like to devote a 
word or two. Fresh from the vigorous similes of iEschylus, his 

fioOS BlKTJV 7T/30? /3cO/jLOV VTokfl(0<; 7raT??, 

or his 

oveLBos ervtyev Blkclv BL^prfKarov 
V7TO (ppevos, 

the mind can scarcely fail to be displeased by the shadowy 
vagueness of iroKe^iUov BUtjv, and to wonder why Euripides 
should have gone out of his way to pick up so poor a phrase. 
At least this was my own impression, and it was certainly not 
weakened when on turning to the passage, I read Polymnestor 
is describing the assault of the Trojan women 

k&t etc yaXrjvoov 7rc3? Bokcls 7rpoo-(f)deyfj,dTCov 
ev6vs Xaj3ovcraL (pdayav' i/c ireifXoav iroOev 
Kevrovai ttcuBcls, al Be iroXe/JLLcov Blktjv 
^vvapirdaaacu ra? i/xd<i el%ov %epa<$ 
/ecu KtoiXa. 

We scarcely need the poet to tell us that to hold a man 
down by main force while your comrades murder his children is 
the act of an enemy, and if Euripides did wish to state the fact, 
the commonest vocabulary would have been adequate to his 
purpose. The adoption of Blktjv should signify some unusually 


bold and iEschylean image, some graphic touch from nature 
such as the father of tragedy delights in. Perhaps we can even 
recover it 

al Be ttoXvttoBwv 1 Bikjjv 

^vvapirdaaaaL ras i/ia? el^ov %epa? 

teal KQ)Xa 

they clung to my limbs like devil-fish. 

With any reading, therefore, the common punctuation of 

Xe^acra /cdtcTelvaaa (fxuBpovovs, Biicqv 
aT/79 XaOpalov 

is objectionable in point of sense; and this objection applies 
to Madvig's. reading no less. But the correction fyaiBpbv ovs 
raises another objection on the ground of rhythm. I appeal 
with some confidence to any one who has tuned his ear by the 
sound of iEschylean verse, to say whether he is pleased with 

(patBpov ov<;> 8itcT)v 

for the close of an iambic senarius. A pause, even the slightest, 
before the final foot is contrary to the principle of the metre 
and extremely rare. It occurs indeed with this very word 
BUrjv in Ag. 297 

virepOopovaa ireBiov 'Acrct)7ro), BUtjv 
(fycuBpa? (Tekrjvqs, 

but it is plain I speak of my own sensations that the ill 
effect of the break is very much increased when it follows 
immediately upon a heavy and emphatic monosyllable. I do 
not of course mean to say that any line could be suspected 
merely on this ground, but when we are endeavouring to fix the 
exact place of an admitted corruption, we should best begin by 
presuming the rhythm normal; and this, corroborating our 
other evidence, will incline us to place the division before t^9 
\adpalov and seek a construction for BUrjv in the line where it 

This, then, is the new point of view of which I spoke. It 

1 Or tovXvttuv if this form of the word is to be restored in tragedy. See 
Lexicon s. v. 


remains to take the corrupt line 1229 and see whether, on this 
hypothesis, we can make anything of it. 

Xe%a<ra (or Xel^aaa) tcdtcreivao-a (pcuBpovow; Buetfv. 

Now there is only one word in this clause which does not offer 
hope of a. reasonable sense, and that is hUnv. Mr Sidgwick 
indeed remarks that ' <j>ac8p6vov$ is a very strange adjective,' 
but the objection, unless it be confined to the construction of 
the word in this particular context, seems groundless. The 
transference of <f>aihpo<; from the glad expression to the glad 
feeling which the expression is supposed to indicate is quite 
natural ; we have parallel forms in vtynXovovs (Plato, Phosdr. 
270 A), vypovov? of weak virtue (mentioned by Pollux 6. 12G in 
a list of epithets applicable to the /aWt8o<?), and probably others. 
It is likely that such formations were unusual in Attic prose, 
impossible they can scarcely have been in a dialect to which, 
evvovs and /ca/covov? were familiar; and it might even be 
argued from the context that neither vtynXovovs nor its com- 
panion reXeo-iovpyo? are of Plato's own mint; but for poetry 
fyaihpovovs is perfectly good. But Blkvv of course cannot be 
right if the line is continuous. And to a reader accustomed to 
the habits of copyists, no word could appear more promising as 
a lurking-place for corruption. It is an extremely common 
word and has a wide range of meanings, with a corresponding 
capacity for appearing to give a sense when it really does not. 
In fact it is just the sort of word which the half-learned scribe 
is apt to fabricate. The next thing, then, will be to consider 
what letters were likely to be mistaken for Aikhn, a question 
admitting of a brief and positive answer. Aikhn in iEschylus may 
represent four different groups of letters, of which two have no 
meaning, or none which can apply to the present passage. But 
let us try Xl-^vv 

ov/c otBev ola yXao-aa fjLianTrjS Kvvdi, 
Xet^acra KcucTeiVaaa (pacSpovovv Xcy^v, 
aT7)<$ XaOpalov rev^erat, Ka/cj} rv^rj, 

he knows not what the tongue of the abominable hound, proffering 
the lick of gladness, shall accomplish by an evil chance of treach- 
erous hurt The accusative X^v is to be taken both with Xec^aaa 


and with eKreivaa-a. Thus the language of the metaphor be- 
comes perfectly natural and consistent: the tongue does not 
bite, but by offering to lick the hand in token of friendly wel- 
come, it gains an opportunity for the bite. iicTeivacra is modelled 

upon eicTeLveiv x ei ? a t P u ^ ou ^ or V ro ff er * ne nan d hy way of 
greeting, and it is this word which, if my suggestion is right, 
was probably the cause of all the mischief. Kassandra's words 
are pointed more especially to the long and elaborate speech 
with which Klytemnestra receives Agamemnon upon his arrival 
855 913, of which the king says (915) 

dirovaia fjuev eliTa? t/eoTG)? i/xy' 
fia/cpav yap ifjireipaf. 

It was therefore very natural to connect the eKTelvacra of 
one passage with this e^ereivas, though in reality it has not any 
resemblance, or, except perhaps in a sort of allusive way, any 
reference to it. Thus eKrelvaaa in fact produced the false sub- 
stitution of \&%acra for Xel^acra which it has served to conceal. 
The experience of any student of textual degeneration will 
supply him with examples of this species of error by false refer- 
ence, as it might be called. Thus aided and prepared, the 
descent of Aixhn to Aikhim, already sure, would be precipitated, 
and cf>cu$p6vovv must wander, as forsaken adjectives will and do, 
to the only remaining support. 

I should like to add a few words on the reading /ca/cr)v... 
tvxv v - Palseographically, it is almost an indifferent alternative 
for Kaicy...Tvyrf, the confusion of these terminations being in- 
cessant. And though, as the dative will pass, we should of 
course not change it, I am not sure that the accusative is not 
better, and possibly right. The adverbial ola how, for the common 
C05, is illustrated by the analogy of birola and 6/jioia, both of them 
Attic; ola itself occurs as an adverb in Homer, and there is no 
reason for denying it to iEschylus. Upon rev^erai Tuyrp it is 
to be observed that Tv%rj in its common use is 'cognate* to the in- 
transitive Tvyx^ V( to happen, befall, rather than to the transi- 
tive to find or get, though the two meanings are very near and 
sometimes cross. But it is a characteristic of poetical styles, 
particularly of archaic poetry, to use words according to their 


etymological and, so to speak, native force, and not according to 
the narrower limitations which for the sake of clearness are 
imposed upon them in prose. It is one of the many ways of 
attaining that remoteness from vulgar associations, which is in 
some degree necessary to diction intended for dignified purposes. 
The Greek tragedians themselves furnish examples much more 
remarkable than this exceptional treatment of Tt/^77. For 
instance, Xafirj in the Greek of all periods signifies either a 
handle or a grip and in the latter sense is a technical term of 
the wrestling- ground. But notwithstanding this, iEschylus can 
fall back upon its etymological relation to Xafiftdvco, like that 
of ti>xV to rvyxdvco, and boldly writes (Supp. 935) 
to vei/cos 8* ovk iv dpyvpov \afty 

making \aj3rj a poetical equivalent for the prosaic Xrjyjrc^. So 
again the various uses of nrdXkeiv are for the purposes of ordi- 
nary speech strictly parted among the different substantives 
derived from the same stem; to irdWeiv /cXrjpovs corresponds 
jraXo? a lot, from iraXXeTat Keap we have iraXp,u<; a throb, 
while irdXXeiv top fia^Sfievov to swing or dash down an adver- 
sary, a use which, though it must have been once in vogue, had 
before the literary epoch been expelled almost to the last trace 
from the verb, took by way of compensation the exclusive 
possession of the substantive iraXv wrestling. Neither 770X7} 
nor its derivative nraXaieiv have any other sense in prose, or 
normally in poetry either. Yet the language remains conscious, 
so to speak, that itoXtj is, after all, merely 7ra\o? in an older 
form and can upon occasion remember it, as we see when Euri- 
pides writes (Herakl. 158) 

rjv S* 6? \6yovs re koX rd ravS* olKTiajxara 
fiXtya? 7T7ravdrj<;, e? irdXnv KaOiararat, 
hopbs to irpdrfjxa. 

It is obvious that this irdXr) Sopos (for the common fidxv 
Sopos) is intended to recall the cognate verb in its most familiar 
application irdWetv 86pv, which does not appear to have formed 
any substantive in common use, nor are 7raXo? and its associa- 
tions of arbitrament and decision out of view. This blurrino- of 


the hard lines drawn for practical purposes between kindred 
forms of speech is, in fact, the essential condition of poetry and 
its chief linguistic difference from prose. One more example 
out of many I will mention because it is peculiarly striking. 
ko7to<; ache is connected in form with kotttuv to bruise, but the 
etymology has left no impression upon its ordinary meaning. 
The word itself is almost confined to poetry, but its congeners 
classical and post- classical kottlclco, Koiuapos, kottcz^co, K07r6co etc. 
have all the same notion as kottos itself, fatigue or weariness. 
To strike a coin was Koirreiv vo-fiur/ia, the stamp not kottos but 
ko/jl/jlcl, to beat the breasts in mourning was /coirreiv a-repva, the 
act not /co7ro? but #0^/1,0?. It is quite improbable that kottos 
was ever heard among Athenians in any but the one proper 
sense. Yet it was observed by Seidler and is generally agreed 
that in Eur. Suppl. 789 

rctSe <ro 1 BiSofjuev 
TrXr/y/jLara Kparos crrepvcov re "f" ktvttov^ 

the poet must have trusted the ears and intellects of his 
audience so far as to write 

ifkr)<yfjLaTCL fcparbs crrepvcov re kottovs. 

It is a bold stroke, though, and Athens one would think 
must have contained critics dull enough or keen enough to ask 
what 'breast-aches' might be. It is possible also that the true 
correction is 

irXrjyfiaTa tcparbs arepvcov re tvttov^, 

but if so the example is equally to the purpose, for 7wo?, like 
/co7ro?, was differentiated for prose purposes by the different 
sense of a mark or stamp. Xenophon has it once as an equiva- 
lent (unless indeed it is an error) for ktvttos (Eq. 11, 12). I 
prefer kottovs, however, in the Supplices, because Koirreadac was 
the regular Attic word for the gesture of mourning, not rvir- 
T(T0cu, and an exceptional use of this kind would naturally 
follow some perfectly familiar analogy. 

In the presence of these facts, and many more of the same 
kind, there is no reason for surprise at any use of ti>xv which is 
justified by its relation to rvyxavco. There are, as I have 


pointed out elsewhere (note to Eur. Med. 198), other passages 
in which tvxv m tne common sense of chance would give a poor 
effect, and the word is certainly coloured by the associations of 
tvjx^ V(0 i0 hit, so as to suggest, if not to mean, a stroke, notably 
Eur. H. F. 1393 

7T<2Z/T69 ii;o\(t)\afJLV 

f/ H/oa? fjua 7rXr)yevT<; ddXtoc tv^jj. 

In the iEschylean example, the actual presence of the verb in a 
grammatical connexion implying similarity of meaning would 
make the substantive perfectly clear, and the whole would re- 
semble more closely than ever the alvels...KaK6v alvov from 
1481 2 of the same play, which Prof. Kennedy quotes in 
illustration of it. 

If the reader, satisfied in other respects with my interpreta- 
tion, is disturbed by the absence of \iyfi from the Lexicon, I 
would suggest to him the following reflexions. (1) Is it seriously 
to be supposed that the Greek language was incapable of ex- 
pressing a lick ? (2) If the word for a lick, was not Xixv r 
\oixv> one or both (cf. ifKoicr), Tvy?], 7rTVXV) crTOifir), <iTif$r), 
Xoifii], o-r/%09, a-riftes, etc. etc.) what was it ? 


Note. Having had occasion to refer to Mr Sidgwick's edition, 
I should like to express my thanks for his courteous and appreciative 
remarks (Appendix) upon a former paper of mine in the 9th volume 
of this Journal. I think his criticisms partly right and partly wrong, 
and hope soon to have an opportunity of discussing them further. 

ARISTOTLE, POLITICS IV (VII) 13 57. 1332 a 7 sqq. 

QcLfAev Be Kal Bccoplo-fieOa ev ro2<; rjOiKols, ei tl twv Xoyoav 
eiceivwv ofaXos, evepyeiav elvai Kal ^prjcruv aperf)? rekelav, 
Kav ravrrjv ovk i VTroOeaew*;, aAV dirXcdg. Xeyco 6 ij vtto- 
o'eo-eo)? rdvayKata, to 6 a7rXa><; to KaXw<;. olov to, irepl Ta? 
oifcaia? wpa%eL<; al BtKaiai Tificoplac Kal KoXdo~ei<$ air dpeTrjs 
fiev eicriv, Kal dvayKalai Be Kal to koXgos dvayKalcos eypvcriv' 
aipTQ)T6pov fiev yap pLrjSevds BelaOaL tcov tolovtcov firjTe tov 
dvBpa firjTe Trjv ttoXlv' at B* iirl r9 TLfia? Kal Ta$ evTropla? 
a7r\(0$ eicrL KaXXio~Tai> 7r payees, to /juev yap eTepov KaKOV 
twos aip<TL<$ io~TLV, al ToiavTaL Be irpd^ei^ TOvvavTiov, KaTa- 
aKeuav yap dyadoov elai Kal yevvrjcrei*;. 

Happiness, we are here told, consists in evepyeia Kal xpr)<n? 
dpeTrj<; TeXela; but in order that evepyeia Kal xprjo-L<; aperf? 
TeXela may constitute happiness, it must be TeXela dirX(o<i, not 
TeXela e'f V7ro0eo~em. By way of explaining the distinction, 
it is added that TavayKala are eg V7ro0eo-ecds TeXeia, to koXws 
being a7rXco<; TeXeiov. For example, al BiKauai Tt/icoplai Kal 
KoXdo-eis, though virtuous, are dvayKalai, and exhibit to KaX&s 
dvayKalco? ; while at BiKaiai 7rpd%ei<$ al eirl Ta$ Ti/jids Kal Ta$ 
V7ropla<; are a7rXa><; KaXXiaTai. In the sequel something is 
said about xprjcreis which are a7rXoo<; anrovBalai Kal KaXal. 

As the phrases ef viroOecrews, dirXm confessedly need ex- 
planation, while the words dvayKaia, KaX&s are ambiguous, 
we naturally look to the example in the hope that it will give 
us some assistance. Here however a new difficulty meets us. 
If we take the phrase al eirl Tas Tipuds Kal Ta? eiriroplas in 
its obvious sense, it seems strange that ' acts done with a view 
to, or in the expectation of, honours and rewards/ should be 
contrasted with ' the infliction of just vengeance and punish- 
ment.' If again with Susemihl we take the phrase in question 
to mean " diejenige Ausiibung der Gerechtigkeit, welch e 
Anderen Ehrenauszeichnungen zutheilt oder Wohl stand ver- 
schafYt," it seems strange that acts of distributive justice should 


be accounted so decidedly superior to acts of corrective justice, 
while it may be doubted whether the phrase iirl ra? r^a? 
koI to? eviropias can bear the meaning given to it. It is 
to be remarked further that in any case the epithet BUaiai is 
superfluous, as rd irepl t<z? Bitcaia? ir pd%ei<; are alone under 

Now in Nic. Eth. in 8 15 and x 9 4, 9, 10, acts 
done Bt dvdy/crjv, Bed to? Ti/xcopla^, are unfavourably contrasted 
with acts done otl koXov, Bed rds tijjucl^ : see especially III 8 
5 Bel & ov Be dvdyKrjv dvBpelov eivai aW otl kcCKov, X 9 
4 ov yap ire<f)VKCLo-iv [sc. ol iroXkoi] alBol ireiOap^elv aXka 
fyofiaf, ovB' direyeo-QaL tosv <f)av\cov Bed t6 alo"yjpov dWd Bed 
rd$ Tificopias. 9 ol yap iroXKol dvdy/cy fjudWov rj \6yco 
7ri6ap%ovo-i real ty)iLiai<$ rj rS koXS. May we not infer that 
in the passage before us, where Tavay/cala are contrasted with 
to /eaX&>9, al eVt t? rifid? teal to9 evTropia? 7rpafei? being the 
second member of the second pair of correlatives, (1) rdvayKala 
means, not wv ov/c dvev to ev (Berlin Index 797 a 43), but 
to Be dvdy/crjv, and (2) at 8id tols Ttficoplas ko\ /coXacret? should 
be substituted for at Sfoaun Ti/jLcopiai ko\ teoXdcreis ? 

In this way we obtain an excellent sense : just acts which 
have for their motive dvdyfcr) in the shape of vengeance and 
punishment are distinguished from just acts which have for 
their motive to koXov in the shape of honour and reward, 
the former being accounted ef viroOeo-eox; reXetat, perfect in a 
qualified way, the latter dwXoo^ Tekeeai, perfect without such 
limitation : it is in acts, not of the former, but of the latter 
sort in other words, it is in acts not of obligatory, but of 
optional, morality that happiness is to be found 1 . 


1 Accepting Postgate's interpreta- virtuous action enforced by punish- 
tion of the phrase kcikov twos a'lpecns ment is good only by comparison with 
(Notes on the Politics of Aristotle, p. vicious action, virtuous acts done in 
13), I read the sentence in which it the hope of honour and reward pro- 
occurs as a justification of the supe- duce positive good, and so are good 
riority assigned to al iirl rds Tip,as ko.1 absolutely.' 
rds edwopias vpd^eis: 'for, whereas 











Do not y j 




remove // 




the card 1 



from this \ 






Pocket. VI 






Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. " Ref. Index File." 



P* _3-3