This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work 15 expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book 15 still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthtto://books.google.com/
i i eg ee .
ΠῚ Bound Phill 76 | APRIO97
Harbard College Library FROM THE BEQUEST OF MRS. ANNE E. P. SEVER,
OF BOSTON,
Wipow oF CoL. JAMES WARREN SEVER,
(Class of 1617)
3Quag 1894 V7 Bass 1576
HERMATHENA:
A SERIES OF PAPERS ON
LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY.
ΒΒ “ἧς -ἦι
HERMATHENA:
A SERIES OF PAPERS ON
LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY,
BY
FMembers of Trinity College, Dublin.
LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., PATERNOSTER-ROW.
DUBLIN:
HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO. (Ltp.), 104, GRAFTON-STREET.
1896.
Phlok, 46
Ἵ
4 Ὑ, Aug 13 — 1896 3.017
DUBLIN :
Printed at the Anibersity Press
BY PONSONBY AND WELDRICK.
CONTENTS.
Aristotle’s ‘ Parva Naturalia.” Joun I. Beare, M.A.,. . mee The Homeric Hymns. R. Y. Tyrrext, M.A., Litr.D., . 30 M. Berger’s History ofthe Vulgate. T. K. ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, B.D., Litt.D., . . . . . . . 50 Plautina. A. Patmer, M.A., Lirt.D., . . ~ ς . §6
The Predecessors. of Bishop Butler. J. H. BERNARD, D.D., 75 Two Unpublished Inscriptions. T. K. ΑΒΒοτι, B.D., Litt.D., 85 Notes on Cicero’s Epistles. L.C. Purser, M.A., Litt.D.,. 87
Notes on Valerius Flaccus. J.B. Bury,M.A., . . . 95
Scrivener’s ‘Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testa- ment’: Fourth Edition. J. H. BgERNarD, D.D., . . 105
Propertiana. A. PALMER, M.A., Litr.D., . . . . 118
Notes—Valerius Flaccus, p. 49; Horatianum, p. 84; Catullus, p- 94; A Mistranslation in Ovid, p..104:—A. PaLmgr, M.A., Lirt.J).
De Duplici Forma Actorum Lucae. FripEricus BLass, Hon. Litt.D., . . . . . . . . %2t
Blaydes’s Adversaria in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. RoBINSON ELLis, Hon. LL.D., _.. . . . . 144
vi CONTENTS.
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopedie. J. P. Manarry, D.D.,
On Two Inscriptions from Dimeh (Fayrém) J-P. MAHATEY, D.D., oe -
Notes on Martial. A. Parmer, M.A., Litt.D.,
A Question in Criticism Illustrated from Cicero’s Letters. R. Y. Tyrrewy, M.A., Lirt.D.,
Furneaux’s De Germania. GrorGE WILkins, M.A.,
The Vulgate of St. John. J. H. Bernarp, D.D.,
Waddell’s Parmenides. Joun I. Beare, M.A.,
Jowett and Campbell's Reputle y Plato. Joun I. Bearer, M.A., . . . .
Note on Kant. ΙΟΗΝ I. Beare, M.A.,
Blass’s Commentary on the Acts. G. Satmon, D.D..,
A New Inscription from the Fayyim. J.P. Mauarry, D.D.,
Lindsay’s Latin Language—An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems, and Inflexions. W.J.M. STarxig, M.A.,
British Museum Papyrus ccecci. J. P. Mauarry, D.D., Deazeley’s Horace. A. Parmer, M.A., LitT.D., .
Translations from Homer and Aeschylus. The late JoHN ANSTER, LL.D.,
NotTgs—Propertius, pp. 164, 170, 180 :—A. Pater, M.A., Litt.D.
A Stele from Aswan in the British Museum. J. P. Manarry, D.D.,
De Variis Formis Euangelii Lucani. FRipER1cus BLass, Hon. Litt.D.,
Page 155
160
165
171
175 18!
216
273
201
-ἃ»
CONTENTS.
Notes on Propertius. J. B. Bury, M.A.,
The Epistle to Diognetus and its Possible Authorship, with a Sequel on Novatian’s Treatise De Trintiate. J. QUARRY, D.D.,
Nugae Procopianae. J. B. Bury, M.A., Sophoclea. R. Y. TYRRELL, M.A., Litr.D., Marcus Brutus as Caesarean. L. C. Purser, M.A., Litt.D.,
Notes on Longinus περὶ ὕψους. Ropinson E xis, Hon. LL.D., . .
The Royalty of Pergamum. J. P. Manarry, D.D., Four Notes on Lucilius. A. Parmer, M.A., Litt.D., .
Fragments of Translation from Dante and Schiller. The late JoHN AnstTErR, LL.D., .
Vil Page 314
318 358 362
369
385 389 406
408
HERMATHENA:
A SERIES OF PAPERS ON
LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY,
Pembers of Trinity College, Dublin.
No. XX.
y DUBLIN: LONDON: HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO. (Ltp.), | LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 104, GRAFTON-STREET. PATERNOSTER-ROW.
1894.
Price Three Shillings.
Lately Published, Half Morocco, Quarto. Price 8/9 net.
THE
TERCENTENARY RECORDS
OF THE
Gniversity of Bublin.
DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS, ἃ CO. (Ltd.). LONDON: LONGMANS ἃ CO.
*," This Book gives a full account of the Celebration of the Tercentenary. All the Addresses sent by Universities and Learned Bodies are given ts extenso. All Speeches delivered are, as far as it was possible to obtain reports, fully given; and many very interesting Letters of Reply to the Invitation to
be present, from distinguished men, are also published.
ΗΕΚΜΑΤΗΕΝΑ:
A SERIES OF PAPERS ON
LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND | PHILOSOPHY,
BY
Members of Trinity College, Wudlin.
DUBLIN: LONDON: HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO. (Lrp.), | LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 104, GRAFTON-STREET. PATERNOSTER-ROW.
1894.
DUBLIN : Printed at the Anibersity Press,
BY PONSONBY AND WELDRICK.
CONTENTS.
Page
Aristotle’s ‘Parva Naturalia” JouN I. ΒΕΑΚΕ, M.A., . . I
The Homeric Hymns. R. Y. TyRRELL, M.A., Litt.D., . 30 M. Berger’s History of the Vulgate. T. K. ΑΒΒοτΊ, B.D.,
Litt.D., . . . . . . . . - 50
Plautina. A. PALMER, M.A., Litt.D., . . . . - 56
The Predecessors of Bishop Butler. J. H. BERNARD, D.D., = 75 Two Unpublished Inscriptions. T. K. ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, B.D., Litt.D., | 85 Notes on Cicero’s Epistles. L.C. Purser, M.A., Litt.D.,. 87 Notes on Valerius Flaccus. J. B. Bury, M.A., . . - 95
Scrivener’s ‘ Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testa- ment’: Fourth Edition. J.H. Brrnarp, D.D., . . 105
Propertiana. A. PALMER, M.A., Litt.D., . . . . 118
Notrs—Valerius Flaccus, p. 49; Horatianum, p. 84; Catullus, p- 94; A Mistranslation in Ovid, p. 104:—A. PALMER, M.A., Litt.D.
HERMATHENA.
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALTA.’ De Sensu.
RISTOTLE states very clearly, at the beginning of the
De Antma, his reason for undertaking the investi- gation of ψυχή, namely, that δοκεῖ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἅπασαν ἡ γνῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλα συμβάλλεσθαι, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν. ἔστι γὰρ οἷον ἀρχὴ τῶν ζῴων (402%, 4-6). And in Book UW. iv. (415%, 7-20) he says ψυχή is not only ἀρχή, but αἰτία, τοῦ ζῶντος σώματος, an assertion which he there explains and confirms in detail. ψυχή being the one common attribute of all the forms which constitute organic nature—the meaning of τὴν φύσιν above—it seemed to him that the study which he was about to make of all living forms should commence with a tract περὶ ψυχῆς. ψυχή was for him the principle of life as well as of mind. Accordingly, his work was intended to cover the whole ground now divided between Biology, Physiology, and Psychology. As was to be expected, this dual view of ψυχή, as prin- ciple of life (vegetable or animal), and as principle of mind in all its manifestations, proved fatal to his attempt
at a systematic treatment of his subject. From the outset VOL. IX. B
|
2 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
of the De Anzma a tendency may be observed on his part to pursue now one, now the other, of two more and more divergent Jines, the first leading him to Metaphysics, the second to Physiology. For a while he struggles against this tendency, but in the end yields, more or less com- pletely, to the metaphysical bias. In De An. Il. we find him largely engaged, and with all the fervour of a ‘ First Philosopher,’ in speculating on the subject of a “ νοῦς which thinks itself’—the crowning conception of his Metaphysics. Having, in the De Anima, dwelt with preponderating interest on the mental side of ψυχή, he declares (De Sensu, ad. tnzt.) that, while the conclusions there attained must be allowed to stand, he will now occupy himself solely, or chiefly, with its Ahyszcal side. Hitherto, although the functions of body in psychical experience were continually referred to, still, on the whole, the interest of the discussion was made to turn on such questions as—of what activities, if any, is ψυχή, apart altogether from σῶμα, capable? In the De Sensu and following tracts all this is changed. Aristotle an- nounces his intention of henceforth discussing only ra κοινὰ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς Eoya. Thus he makes Psychology a stage in the direction of Biology or Phy- siology. Accordingly several of the little works which make up the Farva Naturalta are (as far as the writer’s intention goes) contributions to empirical psychology, the essential mark of which is that it treats mind as grven in experience equally with body; in other words, treats only of the phenomena of mind—of the frocesses and events of sensation or reflection; in which experience or knowledge is progressively acquired by the individual or the species. Important though these tracts are, not only to the philo- logist, but to the psychologist, they have not in modern times been much studied. The text is very unsettled, and the interpretation presents many difficulties. In this paper
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 3
I shall confine myself to the De Sensu, with Alexander’s Commentary thereon.
Thurot’s splendid edition of Alexander's Commentary on Aristotle’s De Sensu is an indispensable auxiliary in any exhaustive study of the De Sensu itself. I shall therefore presume that this edition is familiar to my readers, and forbear from offering any further observations on it, save those arising in connexion with Aristotle’s text. In an appendix to his edition Thurot gives a list of passages in which Alexander’s Commentary is useful for the rectifi- cation of the text of the De Sensu. To this part of Thurot’s work I shall most often have occasion to refer.
The title of the tract, as given by Bekker, is—MNepi αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν. In three MSS. αἰσθήσεων is found for αἰσθήσεως. Thurot says that Alexander read αἰσθήσεων.
The words of Alexander (p. 6, line 12 segg., Thurot’s Ed.) are :—
Αεγὼν δὲ περὶ αἰσθητηρίων τε καὶ αἰσθητῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, περὶ aic On - σεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν ἐπέγραψεν αὐτό, ὡς καὶ τοῦ περὶ τῶν αἰσθητη- ρίων λόγου εἰς τὴν περὶ τῶν αἰσθήσεων συντελοῦντος θεωρίαν (κοινὴ γὰρ ἡ αἴσθησις ψνχῆς καὶ σώματος), ἢ αἰσθήσεων ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσθητηρίων (αἰσθήσεις γὰρ καὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια καλοῦσιν).
Here Alexander cites the title as Bekker prints it. Thurot’s assertion that αἰσθήσεως, in line 12, is corrupt, seems quite arbitrary. He gives no reason for it, but seems to think it manifest from the words in which Alexander attempts to account for the title. Alexander himself is silent about any variation in the text of his authorities as to the title of the tract. He has already (lines 3-11) declared his opinion that the De Sensu treats of the αἰσθητήρια καὶ αἰσθητά, and that the title conveys this. All that he still deems needful to be explained is why Aristotle, in — this title, uses αἰσθήσεως rather than αἰσθητηρίων. In
answer to this he makes the two suggestions above quoted, B2
4 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA,’
viz. (a2) that the discussion of the αἰσθητήρια will contribute to complete the theory of the αἰσθήσεις, αἴσθησις being a function of body and soul in common, and the αἰσθητήρια being bodily organs; in which case the tract would be implicitly, or virtually, a treatise περὶ αἰσθήσεως. The alternative suggestion (4) is that αἰσθήσεων is here, in accordance with a common practice, used by Aristotle for αἰσθητηρίων. This (Thurot must think) proves that Alex- ander read αἰσθήσεων : yet αἰσθήσεων may be interpreted as a quite general expression = ‘The several αἰσθήσεις being spoken of instead of their several αἰσθητήρια, an interpre- tation which might as well have been given by Alexander for αἰσθήσεως as for αἰσθήσεων. Indeed the fact that there is a varta lectto αἰσθητηρίον in three MSS. of Alexander, referred to by Thurot, seems to make it doubtful whether both these last words, αἰσθήσεων and αἰσθητηρίων, should not be genitives singular instead of genitives plural. The genuine title appears to be that printed by Bekker. It is in keeping with the actual plan of the De Semsu. For this the interpretation of αἰσθήσεως as = αἰσθητηρίων, given by Alexander, is too narrow. It would suit the opening chapters 2-5, but breaks down as applied to chapters 6 and 7 (in which the theory of αἴσθησις, given in De Antma, seems to be intentionally supplemented), and in which the subject is no longer ra αἰσθητήρια, but ἡ αἴσθησις--- the faculty of sense-perception. Alexander, however, is so convinced that Aristotle here only intends to treat of the αἰσθητήρια and αἰσθητά, that on page 15, line 3 (Thurot’s Ed.), he refers to the tract De Sensu as τὸν περὶ αἰσθητηρίων re καὶ αἰσθητῶν λόγον. No one that I am aware of has, however, at least in recent times, argued from this, that Alexander had before him a variant αἰσθητηρίων for αἰσθήσεως in the title of the work. He did not perceive the special propriety of αἰσθήσεως, including, as it does, 1 Cf. Anst. De Mem, ad init.
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 5
what is intended by αἰσθητήρια, and also the further development of the doctrine of sense-perception contained in chapters 6 and 7. This would not be sufficiently con- veyed by αἰσθήσεων, which could here only = αἰσθητηρίων.
436°, 10-14 :—
καὶ yap ταῦτα σχεδὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὰ μὲν πάντων ἐστι τῶν μετεχόντων ζωῆς κοινά, τὰ δὲ τῶν ζῴων ἐνίοις. τυγχάνουσι δὲ τούτων τὰ μέγιστα τέσσαρες οὖσαι συζυγίαι τὸν ἀριθμόν, οἷον ἐγρήγορσις καὶ ὕπνος x.7.X. Aristotle has just enumerated αἴσθησις, μνήμη, θυμός, ἐπιθυμία, καὶ ὅλως ὄρεξις, with ἡδονή and λύπη as functions of ψυχή and σῶμα conjointly. He goes on to enumerate afterwards sleeping and waking, youth and old age, inhaling and exhaling, life and death, as four Jazvs of phenomena which resemble the above in being conjunct functions of soul and body. This conjunct character belongs to and accompanies them whether they extend to all ra μετέχοντα ζωῆς, Or to all animals, or are peculiar to certain species | of animals, Alexander remarks that in these faz7s Aris- totle states the subjects of a series of tracts to follow the De Sensu and De Memoria, but that he actually discusses αἴσθησις μνήμη, &c., before proceeding to the 2275; and he adds (page 15, line 4, Thurot) καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἐρεῖ τόδε “‘xal γὰρ ταῦτα σχεδὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι τοῖς ζῳοις ᾽ eae διὸ προστίθησι “οὐ γὰρ μόνα τάδε κοινὰ, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνα." Here in the words οὐ---κἀκεῖνα we seem to have before us a clause read in his texts by Alexander, but of which no other record remains. Thurot, who, on the page referred to, prints the words in inverted commas, showing that he at first took this view of the matter, says, in an appendix of ‘additions and correc- tions,’ that the inverted commas should be suppressed. He gives no reason for this. I presume, however, it is because he is unable to see how the words in question could be fitted anywhere into the text of the passage
6 ARISTOTLE’S ‘ PARVA NATURALIA.’
before us. However this may be, there is no mistaking the import of Alexander’s διὸ προστίθησι, which is, that he treats the eight words which follow as words of Aristotle’s text.
436°, 17-18 :—
\ gg ς 4 ~ Sel ’ , καὶ ὅλως ὁ xupds ἐστι τοῦ θρεπτικοῦ μορίου πάθος.
Alexander (page 22, lines 10-14) clearly read γευστικοῦ here, not θρεπτικοῦ, though he mentions the latter as a variant, which, if accepted, we must not, he says, refer, as Aspasius refers it, to the faculty of ψυχή called by Aris- totle τὸ θρεπτικόν, but to the [bodily?] organ through which nutrition is effected, so that Aristotle should be understood here to make χυμός an affection of τὸ τρέφειν δυνάμενον μόριον. ‘But’ (he goes on to say), ‘the reading γευστικοῦ is better.” He speaks of a third reading, τοῦ yevarixov θρεπτικοῦ μορίον, which, if accepted, must, he says, be taken as equivalent to τοῦ γευστικοῦ μορίου 6 ἐστι θρεπτικόν, the general notion, τὸ γευστικόν, being divided into τὸ θρεπτικὸν καὶ τὸ μή, Two of Bekker’s MSS. give γευστικοῦ. But the sense plainly requires θρεπτικοῦ : γευστικοῦ would be quite pointless in this connexion. There is no weight in Alexander’s argument :—
ἤΛτοπον τὸ λέγειν ὑπὸ χυμῶν πάσχειν τὴν θρεπτικὴν δύναμιν" τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ χυμῶν πάσχειν τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι χυμοῦ ἐστι, τὸ δὲ θρεπτικὸν ἄλλο τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ. ΤΠ point pressed by Aristotle is, that χυμός---ἰῃδ object of γεῦσις ---ἰἶδ related in a peculiarly close way to τὸ θρεπτικόν (to say that it is related to τὸ γευστικόν would be mere tautology); and this same point is further developed in 441°, 23 segg., where we read—8r δ᾽ οὐ παντὸς ξηροῦ ἀλλὰ τοῦ τροφίμου of χυμοὶ ἣ πάθος εἰσιν ἣ στέρησις «7A. AS χυμός, the objective quality of taste, is, in thjs latter passage, shown to be related to τὸ τρόφιμον, the objective quality of nutritiveness, so, in the passage before us, it is
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA ΝΑΤΟΚΑ114. 7
shown to be related to τὸ θρεπτικόν, the nutrient faculty. Indeed, the one relation necessarily implies the other; this, too, is involved in the preceding sentence in the words ἡ δὲ γεῦσις διὰ τὴν τροφήν x. r.rA. Thurot rightly says that θρεπτικοῦ is the correct reading, and must refer to the nutrient organs regarded as operating in subordination to the nutritive soul.
437%, 17-22:—
περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς δυνάμεως ἣν ἔχει τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἑκάστη, πρότερον εἴρηται. Tod δὲ σώματος ἐν οἷς ἐγγίγνεσθαι (leg. ἐγγίνεσθαι) πέφυκεν αἰσθητηρίοις, ἔνιοι μὲν ζητοῦσι κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν σωμάτων οὐκ εὐποροῦντες δὲ πρὸς τέτταρα πέντ᾽ οὔσας συνάγειν, γλίχονται περὶ τῆς , πέμπτης.
In the words τοῦ... αἰσθητηρίοις, Thurot finds a difficulty, confessing himself at a loss as to their construction. Nor is this difficulty settled for him by the words of Alexander bearing on the point: περὶ δὲ τοῦ σώματος δι᾽ οὗ ἡ αἴσθησις γίνεται (ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ αἰσθητήριον. Hence he would read τὰ αἰσθητήρια, and construe this substantive with τοῦ σώματος, regarding ἐν οἷς as depending on ζητοῦσι, as though the text ran: ζητοῦσι ταῦτα ἐν οἷς ἐγγίνεσθαι πέφνκε τὰ αἰσθητήρια τοῦ σώματος. Τί is hard indeed to believe that such a scholar as M. Thurot should stumble over a mere grammatical point, yet such appears to be the fact here. His difficulty is, in reality, none at all. In the sentence rov ... . αἰσθητηρίοις we have an instance of what is familiar as the attraction of the antecedent into the relative clause, where it is made to agree in case with the relative, and to drop the article that it would otherwise have. Thurot himself actually arrives at this analysis of the sentence, but he thinks it necessary to conjecture ra αἰσθητήρια for αἰσθητηρίοις, thereby turning an idiomatic sentence into a piece of schoolboy Greek. Besides, ra αἰσθητήρια could not stand in the place of αἰσθητηρίοις, but
8 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
should come before ἐν οἷς; where it is already logically implied, though not expressed, according to the idiomatic construction above mentioned. Thurot, however, sees the sense clearly enough. Alexander does not. His expla- nation of the genitive τοῦ σώματος, as depending on the repetition of περὶ, understood from the preceding sentence, is quite wrong. St. Hilaire, too, goes astray, rendering :— ‘Pour savoir précisément quel est le corps qui agit naturel- lement dans chacun des organes.’ The version of Vatablus is correct:—‘Corporea autem sensoria in quibus ii [sc. sensus | fieri apti sunt &c.’
The exact sense of γλίχονται in the above sentence is not obvious. Philosophers (we are told), not finding it easy to adjust the alleged relationship between the five senses and the four elements, γλίχονται περὶ τῆς πέμπτης (sc. αἰσθήσεως). St. Hilaire renders:—‘on a été conduit ἃ imaginer un cinquiéme élément,’ referring πέμπτης to στοιχείου, as though this were feminine. The etymology of the word γλίχομαι is uncertain. Vanicek and Curtius are both in error as to the quantity of the first vowel, which they mark long. That it is not so is proved by Aristophanes Γεωργοί [frag. 160, Dindorf]: ri δῆτα τούτων τῶν κακῶν, ὦ παῖ, γλίχει; Curtius subsequently (Greek Verb, p. 150, Engl. trans.) states the quantity rightly, but his etymology connecting the word with γλίσχρος is vitiated to some extent by the above error. J/ γλίχομαι were co-radical with γλίσχρος, we might illustrate here by haerere, or haesttare, <n aliqua re; but this hypothesis is weak, and Curtius, at least when first maintaining it, did not know that it would involve a serious exception to his rule (Gk. Ety., 700): ‘der Vocal ist iiberall vor diesem aus sk entstandenen χ lang.’ Adopting this connexion, one might familiarly render γλίχονται περὶ here ‘ are stuck respecting.’ The word means much more than ἀπορόυσι,
1 Here αἰσθήσεις seems equivalent to αἰσθητήρια.
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA. 9
which, even in its dialectical use, is purely zegatsve. The Etymolog. M., pp. 234, 35 (in a note on the above- quoted verse of Aristophanes) renders γλιχόμενος by καρτερῶν ἣ ἐπιθυμῶν. Herodotus, II., 102, writes: δεινῶς γλιχομένοισι περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίης of men who strove hard Jor freedom. It is this poseteve feature in the meaning of the word to which I would call attention, as distinguishing it from ἀποροῦσι. A survey of its usage inclines one to separate it from the root of γλίσχρος, as Vanicek does, and, following him (except in marking 7) to refer it to the root of ‘Sk. Grdh = ausgresfen, nach etwas streben.’ Thus γλίχονται wept would here mean: ‘they strive eagerly, but vatnly, for a theory of’ [the fifth sense in correlation with the four elements}; and we should compare the use of guacrerve de, e. g. in Lucretius I., 332 : et guaerere semper de summa rerum, i.e. ‘40 be fo seek—to seek vatnly—for an intelligible account of the summa rerum.’
437°, 26-9 :—
ἔχει δ᾽ ἀπορίαν τοῦτο καὶ ἑτέραν. εἶ yap μὴ ἔστι λανθάνειν αἰσθανό- μενον καὶ ὁρῶντα ὁρώμενόν τι, ἀνάγκη ἄρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἑαυτὸν ὁρᾶν τὸν ὀφθαλ- μόν.
On this Thurot says :—‘Les mots ὁρώμενόν τι n’ont pas de sens. Ensuite pour que le raisonnement soit complet, il faut qu’ils soient remplacés par ce qu’ Alexandre (36, 1) semble avoir lu dans son texte—épwv δ᾽ ὁρᾷ τι’ The words of Alexander are :—
Ἔστι δ᾽ ἣν προστίθησιν ἀπορίαν αὕτη: εἰ μὴ ἔστι λανθάνειν αὑτὸν αἰσθανόμενον καὶ ὁρῶντα, ὡς δοκεῖν μὲν ὁρᾶν, μηδὲν δὲ ὁρᾶν, ὁρῶσα δὲ ἡ ὄψις τότε ye (Thurot’s correction for δὲ) ὁρᾷ τι, δῆλον ὅτι ἑαυτὴν Spa: οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἄλλο γέ τί ἐστι τότε ὁρώμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς.
Aristotle has just stated the opinion of all philosophers to be, that the visual organ proper consists of fire, this opinion
10 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA,’
resting upon the observed fact that, when the eyeball is pressed, or moved, in the dark (or when the lids are closed), a flash of fire appears within the eye. He then argues, in the words before us, that if this be so—if the visual organ consists of fire, and sees itself in the case described— there is no reason why it should not see itself when at rest as well as when the eyeball is moved or pressed. For when a fully conscious (αἰσθανόμενον) subject ‘sees,’ there must be a ‘seen’ object (6pwpevdv τι) correlated with his act of seeing, and this object cannot escape his notice. Now the eye, according to the above philosophers, is both ‘seer’ and ‘seen,’ under the particular circum- stances referred to. But being, as they assert, made of fire (which explains its visive power as well as its phosphorescence), it should, says Aristotle, a/ways see (or be capable of seeing) itself, without needing to be moved in its socket. This, however, is not the fact ; when at rest the eye does not see itself. The meaning is very well given by Ziaja' as follows :—‘ Und hierin entsteht wieder eine zweite schwierige Frage; wenn es namlich undenkbar ist, dass das Gesehene (d.i. das glanzende Auge als Objekt) von dem, welches wahrnimmt und sieht (d.1. wiederum das Auge als Subjekt), unbemerkt bleibt, so miisste das Auge sich selber sehen. Weshalb nun tritt dies nicht ein, wenn es in Ruhe gelassen wird?’
On Thurot’s note, then, we can only observe that Alexander himself gives no hint of any variation in the text of Aristotle at this point; that he, in his usual way, substitutes what he considers equivalent phrases for those of his author, stating the meaning fairly enough, but without anything to make us seriously think he read ὁρῶν δ᾽ ὑρᾷ τι: that Bekker’s MSS. give this reading no support ; and lastly, that the sense and construction of the text,
1 Aristoteles de Sensu, δὲς p. 439%, 18, tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen.
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 11
as it stands, are as simple as they need be. In the clause ci... . ὁρώμενόν τι, the subject of λανθάνειν is the personal subject (treated as masculine), agreeing in case with αἰσθανόμενον and ὁρῶντα. Αἰσθανόμενον is added to ὁρῶντα to express the thought of seeing comscrously, or with full consctousness, somewhat as in Thucydides, v. 26, where the historian says of himself—aic@davdpevde re rg ἡλικίᾳ καὶ προσέχων τὴν γνώμην, ὅπως ἀκριβές τι εἴσομαι. The trans- lation of the clause before us is: ‘If it is impossible that a person in full consciousness should see an object of vision wtthout knowing that he does so.’ It needs only to be added, that the philosophers, against whom Aristotle argues, believed the eye, dy z¢sef/, in virtue of its being constituted of fire, to be a veritable ‘ subject’ endowed with the faculty of vision.
437°, 26—438*, 3:—
ὡς δ᾽ Gre τις πρόοδον νοέων ὡπλίσσατο λύχνον, χειμερίην διὰ νύκτα πυρὸς σέλας αἰθομένοιο,
σ ΄ >. 2 “a 3 ’ ἅψας παντοίων ἀνέμων λαμπτῆρας ἀμονργούς,
ΨΦι 5" ἢ Ά, ζω nw [2
oir’ ἀνέμων μὲν πνεῦμα διασκιδνᾶσιν ἀέντων, φῶς δ᾽ ἔξω διαθρῶσκον, ὅσον ταναώτερον ἦεν, λάμπεσκεν κατὰ βηλὸν ἀτειρέσιν ἀκτίνεσσιν' ὡς δὲ τότ᾽ ἐν μήνιγξιν ἐεργμένον ὠγύγιον πῦρ λεπτῇσιν ὀθόνῃσι λοχάζετο κύκλοπα κούρην᾽ ai δ᾽ ὕδατος μὲν βένθος ἀπέστεγον ἀμφινάοντος,
πῦρ δ᾽ ἔξω διαθρῶσκον, ὅσον ταναώτερον ἦεν.
In these interesting verses, quoted here by Aristotle, Empedocles sketches his theory (or one of his theories) as to the elementary nature of vision, with the richness of cxpression and profusion of imagery which usually charac- terise his fragments, and tend to justify the eulogium of Lucretius. The poet compares the organ of vision (which was for him the ‘ lens’) to gleaming fire within a lantern,
12 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
which protects it from the wind and rain, but does not prevent the more subtile’ portion of it (i.e. τὸ φῶς) from leaping forth to illuminate the traveller’s path. So the membranes of the eye protect the lens from the sur- rounding humours which, if unchecked, would cause its extinction; but do not prevent the more subtile portion of its fiery substance from leaping forth and exercising its power in the field of vision. The general meaning is quite plain. But several difficulties meet us in details, ¢.g. (1) Shall we, with Bergk, punctuate after νύκτα, ἅψας, and ἀνέμων, removing the stops at λύχνον and alfouévoio? (2) Does ἅψας mean ‘lighting up,’ or is Karsten right in trans- lating it ‘aptans’? (3) ‘Shall we read ἀμοργούς, ἀμουρ- γούς, OF ἀμονργεῖς ἡ and how shall we explain these words? (4) What is the true interpretation of κατὰ BnrAdv? (5) Is the same thing intended by μήνιγξιν as by ὀθόνῃσι, or, do they, as Karsten thinks, refer to different things, and, if so, what are these? (6) Is AoxaZero genuine? or is the variant éxevaro right? and what is the meaning of the former? (7) What are we to think of the important variant χοάνῃσι (NOt χοανᾷῇσι), as against ὀθόνῃσι in v. 8?
(1). Stein agrees with Bergk in punctuating after νύκτα, ἅψας, and ἀνέμων, not after λύχνον and αἰθομένοιο. He prints ἀμοργούς (= made of linen, or byssus). The words
1 ὅσον ταναώτερον Hey: not, as Vata- blus renders, quantum se fundere possit ; nor as St. Hilaire—d’autant plus loin qu’elle est plus forte; nor yet as Ziaja —so weit sich der Raum dehnt. These versions miss the sense of ὅσον and ταναώτερον, besides making no effort to explain the comparative. The writer means that all that part of the wip which is more extensible and pene- trating—in fact the light-rays — leaps forth through the lantern. στάναος is radically appropriate here. Cf. infra. 4385, 25: ἄλογον δ᾽ ὅλως rd ἐξιόντι τινὶ
τὴν ὄψιν ὁρᾶν, καὶ ἀποτείνεσθαι μέχρι. τῶν ἄστρων. The false reading, φῶς for πῦρ, in this verse is to blame for the false translations of 8cov ταναώτερον ἦεν. ‘The more subtile or extensible part of the Aight’ did not make sense, and it was not observed that the visibly radiant part of the jive, i.e. the light itself, is intended. The tense of ἦεν is accommo- dated to that of λάμπεσκεν, ὡπλίσσατο: these are all consuetudinal tenses. But in vv. 7-10 the tenses point back to the time of the events as conceived by Empedocles.
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 13
παντοίων ἀνέμων are construed by him and Bergk as in Lltad, B. 397.
X ᾽ » td τὸν δ᾽ οὕποτε κύματα λειπει 4 4 παντοίων ἀνέμων.
Thus ἅψας means ‘lighting up,’ and λαμπτῆρας is regarded as in apposition to π. σέλας. But Bekker’s punctuation is better. We must distinguish between λύχνος, π. σέλας, and λαμπτῆρες. The two latter, when combined, form the λύχνος, which essentially consists of both, viz. the gleaming fire sheltered within the transparent screen. Hence λαμπτῆρας cannot stand in apposition to x. σέλας : itis not the “ghé, but the Janfern, or apparatus constructed to shelter or protect the light. Cf. above, 437°, 13: ἐξιόντος ὥσπερ ἐκ λαμπτῆρος τοῦ φωτός: Cf. also 780%, 35: διόπερ οὐδ᾽ οἱ λαμπτῆρες δύνανται φαίνειν, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐκ τοιούτου (Sc. μὴ διαφανοῦς) δέρματος.
(2). We are forced by the above considerations to sur- render for ἅψας the more obvious sense of ‘lighting up,’ and to render it, as Karsten does, ‘ adjusting thereto.’
(3). AS to ἀμοργούς, there is this against it, that the matertal of the shade is less relevant here than its function; and the much more weighty consideration that ἀμοργούς leaves ἀνέμων without construction; for the Homeric passage, compared by Bergk, is not to the point. ἀμουρ- γούς, on the other hand, explained by Alexander as = ἀπερκτικούς is (if Alexander’s explanation be right) just the word we want. Its etymology, however, is uncertain.
(4). Alexander explains κατὰ βηλόν as =xara τὸν οὐρανόν, influenced by Hom. //. xv. 23—
ῥίπτασκον τεταγὼν ἀπὸ βηλοῦ x. 7. A.
Cf. also 72. 1. 591. But in these passages βηλός is the threshold of heaven, and not = οὐρανός. So, in the passage before us, it undoubtedly means the ‘threshold,’ or, more generally, the ‘trodden way,’ leading up to and from the
14 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
house-door. This is first illuminated by the beams of light streaming from the traveller’s lantern. Karsten rightly renders: ‘illustrat vzam.’
(5). Karsten appears right in distinguishing μήνιγξι (= cornea and sclerotic coat in general) from ὀθόνῳῃσι (= the membrane or capsule enclosing the lens).
(6). Fire (here called ὠγύγιον, or primeval, because regarded from the point of view of creation, and as a factor, or agent, in the elementary constitution of the eye) is represented by Empedocles as passively confined within the eye, and yet as having actively determined the situation of the κούρη. This determination is referred to in λοχάζετο, the explanation of which given by Karsten is as follows :— ‘AoxaZero activa potestate accipiendum ut sensus proprie hic sit: ignis oculis inclusus, pupulam tenuissimis mem- branis, Zanqguam speculatorem, occuluit, sepsit. Iam “ pupu- lam sepsit’’ idem vult ac si dixisset ‘‘sese sepsit”; pupula enim oculi aciem continet atque ipsa adeo oculi fax est.’ There is no need, with Schneider, to suppose a lacuna after ὠγύγιον πῦρ, the creative fire being itself viewed as an agent in the construction of the eye, corresponding to the intending traveller who (according to the illustration) sets the πυρὸς σέλας within the lantern. Thus λοχάζετο would be the middle voice of λοχάζω (Hesychius), related as its causal form to λοχάω. λόχος, an ambush, λοχάω, to ‘ize in ambush,’ and λοχάζω (here -ouac) to ‘ zy in ambush,’ might be compared with τόπος, roraw (Eustathius') τοπάζω = (according to Hesychius) ἱδρύει, to ‘put in a place.’ Perhaps, however, the evident play in ὀθόνῃσι and κούρην implies that the writer connected λοχάζετο with the Aex- of λέχος, rather than of λόχος, so that the sense should be ‘embedded.’ The form λοχάζομαι is only found here and
1 Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ὥσπερ pare ματάζω νοημάτων ἔχω els τὸ ὑπονοεῖν τόδε τι.--- καθὰ ἐρρέθη, οὕτω σὺν ἄλλοις καὶ ror Eust. 543, 17 544. τοπκάζω' ἤγουν τόπους τινὰς καὶ ἀρχὰς
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.”’ 15
in a passage of the Anthology (P. 9, 251), where it means ‘to lurk.’ "ExGiorn Μούσαις σελιδηφάγε, λωβήτειρα φωλάς, ἀεὶ σοφίης κλέμματα φερβομένη, τίπτε κελαινόχρως ἱεραῖς ψήφοισι λοχάζῃ, σΐίλφη, τὴν φθονερὴν εἰκόνα πλαττομένη ;
Strange to say, Alexander, in his Commentary on Em- pedocles’ verses, shows no knowledge of λοχάζετο, recog- nizing only éyevaro. Both readings are well supported in Bekker’s MSS. If éyséaro (= moulded) be accepted, it would seem that we should also accept the variant yoavyow for ὀθόνῃσι.
(7). There is in yodvyo something peculiarly redolent of Empedocles’ style and mode of thinking. Cf—
ἡ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος ἐν εὑστέρνοις χοάνοισι x. τ. A.
(quoted by Aristotle, De. 4.1. 5) in which (according to Simplicius) Empedocles means, by χοάνοισιν, the melting- pots wherein, at Creation, the elements generally were fused and things originally moulded. Here the reference would be to the delicate moulds in which the crystalline lens was at first cast. Alexander, however, read λεπτῦσι ὀθόνῃσιν éxebaro κύκλοπα κούρην, which, he says, means—Aerroi¢ ὑμέσι περιεκύκλωσε τὴν κυκλικήν κόρην, and adds, that Empe- docles here uses ὀθόνῳυσι for ὑμέσι, with a play on the usual meaning of κούρη. Karsten, accepting Alexander’s text, renders χεύατο by ἀμφεχεύατο: but this is extremely forced. In all probability the corruption, which un- doubtedly exists in this verse, is as old as the time of Aristotle himself, or older. It certainly existed before the time of Alexander. There is now little hope of rectifying it.
In v. 6 the sense demands (zde note, p. 12) that rup should be restored for φῶς. The fire, ὅσον ravawrepoy fev, i.e. the more subtile part of its substance, the light, leaps
16 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
forth. φῶς here would deprive ὅσον κ. τ. λ. of all meaning, for πυρός could not be understood after ὅσον. πῦρ occurs without variation in v. το.
438", 5-8 :—
Δημόκριτος δ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ὕδωρ εἶναί φησι [τὴν ὄψιν], λέγει καλῶς, ὅτι
δ᾽ οἴεται τὸ ὁρᾶν εἶναι τὴν ἔμφασιν, οὐ καλῶς: τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ cupBaiver ὅτι τὸ ὄμμα λεῖον, καὶ ἔστιν οὐκ ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ δρῶντι: ἀνάκλασις γὰρ τὸ πάθος. ‘Democritus,’ says Aristotle, ‘ rightly declares the visual organ to be made of water, but wrongly supposes the act of seeing to be but the “ mirroring ” of the object in the eye. For this phenomenon [τὸ ἐμφαίνεσθαι] is due to the fact that the eyeball is a smooth body, and does not really exist (i.e. find its full explanation) in that [sc. rm λείῳ ὄμματι], but in the beholder [does not, that is, exist except for one looking into another’s eye, and there seeing the image of the object]. For the phenomenon is’ merely one of reflexion, and requires for its expla- nation the visual act of a second person, B, to whose eye the rays projected by the object upon A’s eye may be reflected.’ The ‘image’ here referred to by Democritus and Aristotle is not what we know as the ‘ retinal image,’ but that reflected from the external surface of the eye, and seen in the ‘pupil.’ ‘If, says Aristotle, ‘the act of vision consisted in this phenomenon, then mirrors and reflecting pools should possess the power of seeing.” Thus the meaning of the passage is plain, and there is no need to correct it, as Thurot tries to do, by transferring οὐκ to the position between ἀλλά and ἐν. My explanation of the passage is substantially that of Ziaja.
438°, 15:
᾿Αλλ᾽ εὐφυλακτότερον καὶ εὐπιλητότερον τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἀέρος.
The eye, says Aristotle, is of water, which is a medium of vision in virtue of its being διαφανές. True, air also is
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 17
διαφανής, but water has this advantage, that a portion of it may be, more easily than air, detached and kept apart in a receptacle. It is not so easy to seclude a portion of air and keep it in confinement, as the ‘humours’ are secluded and kept in the eye. The sense evidently requires εὐαποληπτότερον, and Bekker’s εὐπιλητότερον must be re- garded as an error, perhaps arising from the notion, on some copyist’s part, that, after all, ‘reflexion’ is the radical fact in vision, and that therefore the medium re- quires a certain denszty. 438", 8:-
οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐσχάτου ὄμματος ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αἰσθητήριόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι ἐντός. The diaphanous medium is necessary, internally as well as externally, for vision, because the ψυχή is not situated at the outer extremity of the eye, but somewhere within. If it would be harsh to suppose that τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αἰσθητήριον (as distinct from τοῦ σώματος τὸ αἰσθητήριον) simply = τὸ αἰσθητικόν, we should read αἰσθητικόν (supported by five MSS.) instead of αἰσθητήριον. Alexander seems to have read αἰσθητικόν here. In two references to the clause his words are :—6re μὴ ἔστιν ἡ ψνχὴ καὶ ἡ δρατικὴ δύναμις ἐν τῳ ὀφθαλμῷ (Ρ. 76, 4-5): and (Ρ. 77, 1), ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄκρον τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ ἡ ὁρατικὴ ψυχή κ. τ. λ.
Alexander, p. 77. 13:—
ov διαφανὲς δὲ τὸ πῦρ, ὡς ἡ ὄψις.
Thurot says he cannot see the meaning of this proposition. But its import is, I think, as follows: ἡ ὄψις = ἡ κόρη: and the diaphanous κόρη is (Alexander has said just above) the medium whereby the κίνησις (light-vibration) is transmitted from the external διαφανές inwards to the ψυχή. Fire, if the κόρη were (as alleged) made of it, would not thus propagate the κίνησις continuously from without inwards. ς
VOL. IX.
18 ARISTOTLE’S8 ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
For, though fire gzves Uighi, itis not transparent, and would if placed at the point occupied by the κόρη (the lens), interrupt the continuity of the διαφανές, or translucent medium. The passage of Aristotle, on which Alexander here comments, 438°, 12 560.» is as follows :—
ἤδη yap τισι πληγεῖσιν ἐν πολέμῳ παρὰ τὸν κρόταφον, οὕτως Gor ἐκτμηθῆναι τοὺς πόρους τοῦ ὄμματος, ἔδοξε γενέσθαι σκότος ὥσπερ λύχνου ἀποσβεσθέντος, διὰ τὸ οἷον λαμπτῆρά τινα ἀποτμηθῆναι τὸ διαφανές, τὴν καλουμένην κόρην.
Here, if we distinguish (as before) between λύχνος and λαμπτήρ, the sense is plain. The λύχνος, or luminary, is quenched, because the λαμπτήρ, or transparent medtum, which at once sheltered and transmitted the light, has been cut away. See what has already been said above of λαμπτῆρες. It does not seem to me necessary to suppose that Alexander read τοῦ διαφανοῦς in line 16, though I admit that Thurot’s impression to the contrary is natural at first sight.
ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ τούτων. . .. ..- φανερὸν ὡς δεῖ κιτ. Δ. 438°, 16 segg. Here Baeumker (Zeitschrift fiir die Oster. Gym., September, 1877), followed by Neuhaeuser (Aristoteles’ Lehre von dem sinnlichen Erkenntnissvermégen, Leipzig, 1878), recalls εἰ (discarded by Bekker, but found in four MSS.) between we and δεῖ, urging that it is necessary for the sense, if Aristotle is to be freed from the charge of glaring inconsistency. It is strange that neither Baeumker nor Neuhaeuser quotes or refers to Alexander here, who states Baeumker’s conclusion as an obvious fact, and in- dicates some of the very passages of the De Anima which form the nerve of Baeumker’s argument. Vide Alexander, p. 80 (Thurot’s Ed.), where these words occur—PovAdpevog [ὃ ᾿Αριστοτέλης | ἕκαστον αἰσθητήριον ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων avare- θέναι (οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἀρέσκοντα αὑτῷ λέγει εἶπε γὰρ ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψνχῆς κι τ΄ λ). Alexander also, on p. 78, 2, shows
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 19
that he read εἰ before δεῖ. Thurot sees no necessity for adopting this reading of Alexander’s, though (with Neuhaeuser) he follows him in reading ἐπὶ τούτων, in τό, instead of τούτων τι. Ziaja, in the little work to which I have already referred, argues vigorously against Baeum- ker and Neuhaeuser, declaring that the text of Bekker involves no inconsistency on Aristotle’s part, and that if it did, the introduction of εἰ would not remedy the matter. Ziaja, too, seems ignorant of the strong support given by Alexander to his opponents’ view. The point at issue being critically and exegetically as important as any other in the De Sensu, I may discuss it here at some length. The passage of Aristotle is printed thus by Bekker :—
ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ τούτων τι συμβαίνει, καθάπερ λέγομεν, φανερὸν ὡς δεῖ a 8 4 3 4 s Lg ΄- ᾽ ’΄ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀποδιδόναι καὶ προσάπτειν ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων « " σὰ ig “ 8 δ λε 5 ψ e [2 ἑνὶ τῶν στοιχείων. τοῦ μὲν ὄμματος τὸ ὁρατικὸν ὕδατος ὑποληπτέον, ἀέρος δὲ τὸ τῶν ψόφων αἰσθητικόν, πυρὸς δὲ τὴν ὄσφρησιν. . . τὸ δ᾽ ἅἁπτικὸν γῆς. τὸ δὲ γευστικὸν εἶδός τι ἁφῆς ἐστίν.
Here the writer refers to the above-mentioned theory, which would harmonize the five senses with the four elements, a theory against the 2γεημοῤί of which Aristotle has said nothing, although pointing out that its advocates are in difficulties about the fifth sense, and that they too hastily make fire the essential element in the organ of vision. It is natural to suppose that he would now under- take to pronounce upon this theory as to the elemental relations of the αἰσθητήρια, before discussing, as he does in the following chapters, the physical constitution of their respective αἰσθητά. It must be remembered, too, that if he does not 4ere pronounce on the theory in question, he does so nowhere in the De Sensu. But to some extent Aristotle certainly does give his own verdict here. That the organ of vision is ὕδωρ, is argued out by him as his
own belief: and this being the case, we must, I think, C2
20 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
admit that the establishment of a connexion between the other sensory organs and their related elements, is also contemplated as a conclusion of his own; though he does not, indeed, argue at length in reference to the other organs, as he does in the case of the organ of vision. It is, besides, incredible that Aristotle should, as Baeumker and Neuhaeuser contend (and as Alexander before them contended), wind up an elaborate disquisition like this, merely with the statement of a conclusion which he did not believe, and which only followed from premises which he did not believe: but, particularly, that he should give his readers no hint of this being his attitude, leaving them to discover it for themselves. It must be added that Aris- totle here finds in the bodily situations ot the organs of | sight, touch, smell, and taste, something which peculiarly confirms the statement here given of their elemental constitution: can it be supposed that in this observation, which he dilates upon so warmly, he is arguing for a theory not his own, and with which he is out of sympathy?
Baeumker, however, refers to certain passages of the De Anima, the De Gener. An. and the De Sensu itself, which, he says, flatly contradict the assumption that Aristotle here states his own views.
De An. Til. 1. 3 (425%, 3-8) :—
τῶν δὲ ἁπλῶν ἐκ δύο τούτων αἰσθητήρια μόνον ἐστίν, ἐξ ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος (ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόρη ὕδατος, ἡ δ᾽ ἀκοὴ ἀέρος, ἡ δ᾽ ὄσφρησις θατέρου τούτων) τὸ δὲ πῦρ ἢ οὐθενὸς ἢ κοινὸν πάντων (οὐθὲν γὰρ ἄνευ θερμότητος αἰσθητικόν) γῇ δὲ ἢ οὐθενός, ἢ ἐν τῇ ἁφῇ μάλιστα μέμικται ἰδίως. διὸ λείποιτ᾽ ἄν μηθὲν εἶναι αἰσθητήριον ἔξω ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος.
De An. Il. 13 (435%, 243 435", 2):—
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ὀστοῖς Kat ταῖς θριξὶ Kai τοῖς τοιούτοις μορίοις οὐκ αἰσθανόμεθα, ὅτι γῆς ἐστίν. καὶ τὰ pura διὰ τοῦτο οὐδεμίαν ἔχει αἴσθη- σιν, ὅτι γῆς ἐστίν.
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 21
Now what is the question before Aristotle in our passage, De Sensu? It is that of the adjustment of a relatronship between the five senses (or sense-organs) and the four elements. The word used to express the effort at such adjustment is συνάγειν. It is not contemplated to show that any one of the αἰσθητήρια is composed solely of any one element, but only that each, while possibly containing an admixture of the other elements, has a peculiarly close affinity to some one element in par- ticular. This is all that the propositions τοῦ μὲν ὄμματος τὸ ὁρατικὸν ὕδατος ὑποληπτέον «.r.rX. undertake to assert. The genitive (or ‘class-case’) appears to have been mis- understood by Baeumker. It becomes plain if com- pared with a similar use in De Sensu Iv. (where it has signally misled St. Hilaire) 4425, 17, and 22-3 :-—6 μὲν οὖν λιπαρὸς τοῦ γλυκέος ἐστὶ χυμός (= ‘the λιπ. χυμός is 40 be classed with the γλυκὺς χυμός᾽), and λείπεται γὰρ τὸ ξανθὸν μὲν τοῦ λευκοῦ εἶναι, ὥσπερ τὸ λιπαρὸν τοῦ γλυκέος (= ‘it remains that the colour ξανθόν be classed with the λευκόν, as the taste of the λιπαρόν with that of the yAuxé’). The passage before us similarly says that τὸ ὁρατικόν is (as the word συνάγειν might have shown) ὥ be classed with the element ὕδωρ, not as Baeumker supposes, that whatever is visive in it 1s solely composed of ὕδωρ; and so on with the other αἰσθητήρια. Now, on a careful perusal of the above passages in the De Anima taken in their context, it will be found that they are only very slightly, if at all, inconsistent with the passage before us thus understood. It is especially notice- able that they, too, are pervaded by the thought here under discussion, that there really zs a relationship between the several elements and the several sense-organs. This relationship is there, as here, stated to exist between the visual organ and water, and between the auditory organ and air. The idea is there also thrown out, that γῆ is mixed up in a peculiar way with adj: only in reference to ὄσφρησις is
22 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
there any real difficulty. “Oadpnotce is, in De An., brought into relation, not with wip, but with either ὕδωρ or ἀήρ: and πῦρ is said either to enter into the constitution of no sense-organ, or (as is immediately after said to be more probable) to enter into the constitution of all sense-organs. But the difficulty, at first felt, almost ceases when we come to see the writer’s purpose in the De Atma, viz. to show that while air or water might, conceivably, dy themselves constitute sensory organs (a statement explicitly repeated in a different context, De Am. Ill. 13; 435%, 16), earth or fire could in no wise do so, but must, so far as they enter into the constitution of the αἰσθητήρια, undergo some admixture with the other elements. The sentence, διὸ λείποιτ᾽ ἂν . .. ἀέρος, means that no ἁπλᾶ, or unmixed elements, except air or water—not earth or fire, therefore —could constitute sensory organs. Or, as Ziaja says: ‘Konnen diese Worte (τῶν δ’ ἁπλῶν... ὕδατος) dem Zusammenhange nach nur heissen: “ Den Hauptbe- standteil der Sinne bilden nur zwei Elemente, Luft und Wasser.”’ But this makes nothing against the possibi- lity of earth and fire being (when duly associated with the other elements) characteristically related to certain αἰσθητήρια, as here to τὸ ἁπτικόν and τὸ ὀσφραντικόν. For there is no force in Ziaja’s attempt to distinguish τὴν ὄσφρησιν in 21 from τὸ ὀσφραντικόν : the analogy of the preceding clauses, and the argument of the succeeding, imperatively demand that we should identify them. So Bonitz (Lex. sub voc.) does, though with some hesitation. Thus the inconsistency with the passages of the De Anima is greatly reduced.
In the passage before us the argument for the proposition ἡ ὄσφρησις πυρός rests on the general principle that each organ of sense possesses fofentially the same nature which its correlative object possesses actually (the object acting upon and realizing the potentiality of the organ, so that, at
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 23
the moment of conscious perception, object and organ are qualified alike), combined with the statement ἡ ὀσμὴ καπ- νώδης τίς ἐστιν ἀναθυμίασις. In ch. v. (443°, 21, 5494.) this statement is sharply criticised, if not, as Baeumker thinks, altogether rejected. Neuhaeuser, however, disagrees with him. Of the statement in question the latter says :— ‘Indessen wird sich zeigen, dass sie mit einer gewissen Modification auch von der eigenen Meinung des Aristoteles - nicht gar zu weit absteht’ (Aristoteles’ Lehre, &c., p. 22). I cannot now reproduce Neuhaeuser’s reasons for this assertion, and, as I think it needless to add to them, I must be content to refer my reader to his pages. It is to be observed that in ch. v. we find Aristotle implicitly repeating the assertion here made of the association be- tween ὄσφρησις and πῦρ. For in 444", 24 we read:—n yap τῆς ὀσμῆς δύναμις θερμὴ τὴν φύσιν ἐστί.
On the whole, as Alexander evidently read εἰ before δεῖ, this is probably correct, but we must not, with Baeumker and Neuhaeuser treat this particle as indicating that Aristotle argues, from premisses not his own, for a con- clusion with which he does not agree. There should then be a comma, instead of a full stop, after στοιχείων.
438°, 23:- ὥσθ᾽ ὑπάρχειν ἀνάγκη αὐτὴν [τὴν αἴσθησιν δυνάμει πρότερον.
It appears that the ὃ of two MSS., before δυνάμει, must be accepted. The required sense is not that ‘ αἴσθησις must extst potentially before it exists actually’ (though this is true), but that ‘it must, from the first, possess the qualtty which exists potentially prior to the moment of perception.’ For as the actualized αἴσθησις possesses the actual quality of its αἰσθητόν, so the potential αἴσθησις (τὸ ὀσφραντικόν) possesses the potential quality of the αἰσθητόν, which is prior to the actual. Hence, δυνάμει θερμὸν τὸ ὀσφραντικόν.
24 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA,’
439°, 25, Segg. :---
Ἔστι μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὑπολαβεῖν πλείους εἶναι χρόας παρὰ τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ μέλαν, πολλὰς δὲ τῷ Adyy’ τρία γὰρ πρὸς δύο, καὶ τρία πρὸς τέτταρα, καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλους ἀριθμοὺς ἔστι παρ᾽ ἄλληλα κεῖσθαι, τὰ δὲ ὅλως κατὰ μὲν λογὸν μηδένα, καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν δέ τινα καὶ ἔλλειψιν ἀσύμμετρον, καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἔχειν ταῦτα ταῖς συμφωνίαις. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εὐλογίστοις χρώματα, καθάπερ ἐκεῖ τὰς συμφωνίας, τὰ «ἥδιστα τῶν χρωμάτων εἶναι δοκοῦντα, οἷον τὸ ἁλουργὸν καὶ φοινικοῦν καὶ ὀλίγ᾽ ἄττα τοιαῦτα, δι᾿ ἧἦνπερ αἰτίαν καὶ ai συμφωνίαι ὀλίγαι, τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τἄλλα χρώματα, ἢ καὶ πάσας τὰς χρόας ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εἶναι, τὰς μὲν τεταγμένας, τὰς δὲ ἀτάκτους καὶ αὐτὰς ταύτας, ὁτὰν μὴ καθαραὶ ὦσι, δὶα τὸ μὴ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εἶναι τοιαύτας γίνεσθαι.
Here Aristotle states what he considers a possible theory of the origin of different colours from the primary black and white, by the juxtaposition in varying propor- tions of invisibly small blacks and whites; and he illus- trates this by the theory of the combination of sounds; conjecturing, further, that the production of pleasing colours may be analogous to that of pleasing chords, as based upon, or involving, numerically definite ratios between the components in both cases. ‘Or (he concludes) we may conceive a// the various colours as znvoluing numerical vattos between their component blacks and whites, some, however, determinate in ratio and some indeterminate, and suppose that colours, when they are not καθαραΐί, derive this quality (τοιαύτας γίνεσθαι) from their mot tn- voluing numerical rats.’ Here there is a contradiction: for the hypothesis is that all colours really involve such ratios, only that while some are τεταγμέναι, others are ἄτακτοι. We must read τοιούτοις before roatrac. The χρόαι are not καθαραί, when the ἀριθμοί which they in- volve are not καθαροί, 1.6. not definitely calculable. Aris- totle’s meaning may be stated at length as follows :— It occurs to him that all combinations whatever of blacks
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 25
and whites must involve in each case a certain number of whites and a certain number of blacks. But, as he goes on to say, if the colours resulting from the combinations are to be pleasing, the numbers they involve must be calcul- able, or capable of being numerically defined. In Acoustics every combination of sounds involves the composition ; of certain vibration frequencies: of this there can be no doubt: but only in comparatively few cases are the pro- portions between the combined elements calculable, and only in these cases is the result pleasing. Thus, in the octave the συμφωνία is the product of a φωνή involv- ing vibration-frequencies of # per second combined with another φωνή involving those of 2% per second. Now when the numbers which form the terms of a λόγος or propor- tion can be thus definitely stated, they are said to be xaQapoi: to be cleared up. When a bank account is balanced, 2.5. when the arithmetical relation between the credit and the debit sides has been determined, this account is said to be exactly calculable or calculated— the proper expression being καθαραὶ ai ψῆφοι (cf. Dem. 303)... Similarly here when the ratio of the blacks and whites (which, doubtless, has always at its basis certain numerical totals) is such as can be determinately formulated (as in musical chords), the numbers involved are καθαροί (or clear), and their representative colour also is καθαρόν
1 In this passage Dr. Blass (whom I mention with all the honour due to such a scholar) reads—ay καθαιρῶσιν αἱ ψῆφοι κἂν μηδὲν wepif. But the sense, at least, of the formerly accepted dy καθαραὶ ὦσιν αἱ ψῆφοι is beyond ques- tion, viz., ‘Just as ... whenever you proceed to a λογισμός, if the account has been dalanced, and nothing found to his credit, &c.’ The καθαρειότης consists not in the fact of the op- posite amounts cancelling (ἀντανελεῖν)
one another, which they may or may not do, but in the fact that the state of the figures on both sides is arithmeti- cally clear, this ‘clearness’ being the condicio sine qua non of the λογισμός. The tense of καθαιρῶσιν is against it: we want an aorist, as in the corre- sponding phrase of Aeschines, ἐπειδὰν ὃ λογισμὸς σνγκεφαλαιωθῇ; and dow in the old reading ἐς virtually an aorist. So too is περιῇ, its co-ordinate.
26 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA,’
(or pure). It is not necessary to ask whether Aristotle had actually calculated the components of any colours. He had not: but he had a strong faith in the analogy (in whatever terms expressed) between the spectrum and the scale. On this faith in the possibility of a calculation not yet made, his present hypothesis is based. He therefore speaks of ‘certain colour-ratios as calculable in contradistinction to others which are not so, neglecting or forgetting that no ratios in the composition of colours—whether agreeable or not—had as yet been definitely made out: that no one had done for the spectrum what Pythagoras did for the scale. The propriety of reading τοιούτοις, to go with ἀριθμοῖς, is manifest from the above considerations, while the need of emendation is equally manifest from the fact that the received text makes the sentence self-contradictory. How easily τοιούτοις may have been lost before τοιαύτας is obvious. Alexander’s text contains no positive evidence that he read τοιούτοις.Ό His interpretation of μὴ καθαραΐί seems incorrect. He explains thus:—‘ By μὴ καθαραί Aristotle must mean juxtapositions of dissimilars (μὴ ὁμοίων). For the resultants would be καθαρά if, for ex- ample, in the whole mixture-process, side by side with every two parts (of e.g. black) one part (of white) were placed; but not καθαρά if, in the course of one and the same mixture-process, we had one part of one opposite sometimes juxtaposed with two parts of the other, some- ‘times with three parts of the other, and sometimes with one.’ Thus, he thinks, the impure colour would result from the combination, or juxtaposition, in the same colour of dissimilar, but still defimzfe, ratios. If this were so, no doubt the difficulty of calculating the general ratio between the separately invisible blacks and whites would be increased: but its calculableness would appear to be established. Aristotle’s point, however, is that the numbers which underlie the colours called impure—the
ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA ΝΑΤΟΚΑ114Α. 27
numbers of the particles of black and white, respectively, which enter into each such colour, and therefore the ratio of these numbers to one another, cannot ever be definitely made out. Similarly one might say a noise is an ‘im- pure’ sound, as being (unlike a συμφωνία) representative of no calculable ratio. There is doubtless, or would be from the Creator’s point of view, some numerical ratio to express the relation between the διάμετρος and the πλευρά of a square, but this ratio is for human reason incapable of determinate arithmetical expression: it is an ἄλογος λόγος. Now if φύσις had mixed blacks and whites in a ratio equal to that between the diagonal and the side of a square, the resulting colour would be in this sense ἐν ἀριθμοῖς, but the ἀριθμοί would not be καθαροί, and the colour would not belong to the class called καθαραί χρόαι. The qualitative impurity of the colour—another form of expression for its andfa—would be the sensible correlative of its numerical ‘impurity ’—of the fact that it baffles men’s powers of arithmetical analysis.
443°, 26 segg. Aristotle has distinguished two εἴδη of odours. The first εἶδος depends for its agreeable or dis- agreeable qualities on its association with the taste of food: when we are hungry we find the smell of food agreeable: when we have satisfied our hunger the same smell is not agreeable, or is positively disagreeable. The second εἶδος consists of odours agreeable or disagreeable per se. He goes on:—
Ai δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτὰς ἡδεῖαι τῶν ὀσμῶν εἰσίν, οἷον αἱ τῶν ἀνθῶν: οὐδὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον οὐδ᾽ ἧττον πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν παρακαλοῦσιν, οὐδὲ συμβάλλεται (leg. συμβάλλονται) πρὸς ἐπιθυμίαν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον μᾶλλον" ἀληθὲς γὰρ ὅπερ Ἐῤριπίδην σκώπτων εἶπε Στράττις [ Phoen. I.]
Grav φακῆν ἔψητε μὴ ᾿πιχεῖν μύρον. He condemns a practice which had come into vogue of seasoning meats with odours of the latter class: βιάζονται
28 ARISTOTLE’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’
τῇ συνηθείᾳ τὴν ἡδονὴν, ἕως ἂν ἐκ δύ᾽ αἰσθήσεων γένηται τὸ ἡδὺ ὡς ἕν καὶ ἀπὸ μιᾶς. Alexander, in his remarks upon the passage, informs us that Strattis, in the above verse, Satirized Euripides ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν ἐπῶν ἀκαιρίᾳ, 1.6. for the want of tact said to characterise his dramatic genius. The latter, owing to his love of moralizing, very often intro- duces philosophic sentiments unseasonably, or without due regard to situation and circumstances. Many of his choral odes seem to have no other purpose than the grati- fication of this tendency. He also shows his axapia by assigning reflections on life and morals to speakers with whose condition such reflections are utterly incongruous. He makes not only Hecuba, but even Phaedra’s nurse, talk philosophy. The μύρον in Strattis’ verse might stand for the philosophy : the ¢axj#—plain, homely, fare—for the person whom it would be dramatically improper to repre- sent on the stage as a philosopher. This verse of Strattis became a popular mof, and was quoted in reference to incongruous associations generally. If two heterogeneous things, the one useful, the other merely de /uxe, were brought into mutual connexion, someone was ready to exclaim τὸ ἐπὶ rg φακῷῇ μύρον (attar of roses with porridge) ! So in Cicero ad Att. I. 19 we read:—Legati sunt Q. Metellus Creticus et L. Flaccus, et τὸ ἐπὶ τῇ φακῷ μύρον, Lentulus, Clodiani filius. Here the thought present to Cicero’s mind was chiefly that of the zxcongruity of asso- ciating Lentulus with the other two, and the desire for the evident pun on φακῆ and the name Lentulus would leave him little time for examining into the detailed propriety of the exclamation. But if. we may suppose that he used the proverb with propriety, he must have regarded the association of Lentulus with Metellus and Flaccus as that of one who, from character or habits, was but poorly qualified to co-operate with them, or promote the object of their common commission. As a Clodiani
ARISTOTLE'’S ‘PARVA NATURALIA.’ 29
filius we may suppose him to have been a man of fashion rather than of business, and unsuited to take part in the very difficult diplomatic service on which all three were despatched. This explanation does not render it neces- Sary to give up the pun. Though Cicero’s exclamation now appears logically less apposite, still its humorous, or ludicrous, effect is undiminished, if not indeed actually heightened. The pun would represent Lentulus as the φακῆ : sober sense would represent him as the μύρον. But however this may be, Cicero, like other men, punned with but little regard for logic. Liddell and Scott’s interpreta- tion ‘of pains thrown away,’ is quite beside the mark: as is also the interpretation of Suidas. That the central thought expressed by the phrase relates to an unnatural combination of incongruous things or persons appears plainly from the present passage of Aristotle, and, still more plainly, from the commentary of Alexander.
JOHN I. BEARE.
( 80)
THE HOMERIC ΗΥ̓ΜΝΆ.:
T was a highly commendable project of the late Pro- fessor Goodwin to bring out an edition of the Homeric Hymns. Before his premature and lamented death, in 1892 when only two-and-forty years of age, he had carried on the work of collation of Mss. for some years, but of his critical labours nothing remains except notes to the fragment of the Hymn to Dionysus, to verses 1-250 and 379-501 of the Hymn to Demeter, and to the first 24 lines of the Hymn to Apollo. No part of his projected commentary has been found. The edition, there- fore, in its present form, is mainly due to the late Pro- fessor’s pupil and friend, Mr. T. W. Allen, who tells us that he has carried out the method of Professor Goodwin, so far as he had left any indication of it. We own that we hardly understand the method, as will be seen from the ensuing remarks; but we feel much admiration for the scholarship, as well as the industry, displayed in Mr. Allen’s work.
The Hymns deserve to be far better knownin England. They have attracted more attention abroad. But neither in England nor on the Continent has an edition been produced which can be said really to offer a text which is throughout translateable, or a commentary which gives even a theory as to the meaning of every passage. Till
1 Hymni Homerici codicibus denuo Orxonii e typographeo Clarendoniano. collatis recensuit Alfredus Goodwin MDCCCXCIII. cum quattuor tabulis photographicis
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 91
Baumeister’s edition appeared in 1860 the text was ina state of chaos. But though Baumeister’s text is con- struable in hundreds of places where before his time there was merely a fortuitous concourse of words, there was no very successful attempt to grapple with the many and great difficulties of interpretation till the appearance of Dr. Albert Gemoll’s admirable edition of 1886, in which he included the most valuable of the views of E. Abel, published earlier in the same year. In his Preface Dr. Gemoll makes the following boast :—‘ Der Leser wird auf den ersten Blick bemerken, dass der eingeklammerten Verse hier viel weniger sind, und dass die Unzahl der Liicken fast ganz verschwunden ist.’ This is quite true; but while, on the one hand, we gladly welcome the reso- lution of the editor who boldly addresses himself to the task of trying to emend, and does not content himself with mere obelising, on the other we believe that the only theory on which we can account for the present condition of the text is the assumption that /acumae constantly interrupt the narrative. These /acunae can, of course, never be filled up until we light on some MS. descended from another archetype; for, as they disfigure all our present MSS., they must have existed in the archetype itself. The emendation of a corrupt passage, even without further light from MSS., is never absolutely impossible. But to mark a lacuna is, in these hymns, unfortunately too often the only resource of a judicious editor, and to suppress the mark of it is only to try to persuade ourselves and the reader that we have a consecutive narrative where we have not. This is what we should expect to see in a really helpful edition of the Hymns, more marks of /acuna and less odelz than in earlier editions. This is what we do not find in the work now before us. The marks of /acuna are very few, even in places where there clearly does not exist a consecutive narrative, and the ode/: are so numerous that the text is
82 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
almost a reversion to the pre-Baumeisterian or chaotic type. We give a few illustrations of this criticism. In Herm. 48 the editor prints
\ €¢7
πειρήνας διὰ νῶτα διὰ ῥίνοιο χελώνης,
not mentioning in the footnote Pierson’s λιθορρίνοιο or Schmidt’s ταλαρρίνοιο. Surely the student would have been better served if he had printed either of these excel- lent conjectures in the text, adding the corrupt reading of the MSS. and the other conjecture in the note. In the same hymn, 152, we find
σπάργανον ἀμφ᾽ ὦμοις εἰλυμένος, ἠύτε τέκνον
νήπιον, ἐν παλάμῃσι Ἱπεριγνύσι λαῖφος ἀθύρων, without any reference to A. Ludwich’s excellent conjec- ture,
ἣν πάλλῃσι παρ᾽ ἰγνύσι λαῖφος ἀθύρων, though the footnote tells us that παρ᾽ ἰγνύσι is found in the Parisian family.
In 240-2 the infant Hermes is described as counter- feiting sleep while really awake, and drawing himself up into a cosy bundle, head, hands and knees all together, like a baby put to sleep after its bath, while he holds under his arm the shell of the tortoise, which he has fashioned into a lyre. The ingenuity of Hermann and Martin has presented us with a text which excellently conveys that description—
ἐν δ᾽ ὀλίγῳ συνέλασσε κάρη χεῖράς Te πόδας Te, φή ῥα νεόλλοντος, προκαλεύμενος ἥδυμον ὕπνον, ἐγρήσσων ἐτεόν γε, χέλυν δ᾽ ὑπὸ μασχάλῃ εἶχεν. It is hard to see what is gained by presenting the passage
thus— [δή ῥα νεόλλοντος, προκαλεύμενος ἥδυμον ὕπνον tdypys’ εἰνέτεόν τε χέλυν ὑπὸ μασχάλῃ εἶχεν,
with the note ‘ ἐγρήσσων coni. Martin.’
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 33
But the most signal instance of a perfect conjecture unrecognized is in the hymn to Aphrodite, 250, where the goddess says she will no longer be able to boast among the immortals of her universal sway over the gods, since she has herself yielded to the embraces of a mortal man, Anchises. This is thus found in the MSS., and is thus given in Goodwin’s edition—
νῦν δὲ δὴ οὐκέτι μοι Ἰστοναχήσεται ἐξονομῆναι τοῦτο μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι.
It seems singular that an editor who doubtless remem- bered the Homeric phrase ὅσον κεφαλὴ χάδε φωτός should feel unable to accept Martin’s emendation, στόμα χείσεται, for the utterly unmeaning στοναχήσεται. ‘My mouth will not be big enough to utter’ seems a perfectly epic way of expressing the thought, ‘I shall not be so presumptuous as to say.’ Gemoll strangely accepts Matthiae’s στόμα τλή- σεται, though there are no certain examples of the Attic correption before τὰ in the Hymns; and moreover, the word is not nearly so suitable, and not so close to the MSS. He apparently takes χείσεται (Or χήσεται) from χάσκω, and so finds an unsuitability in the verb, which is really xavdavw. In dealing with the criticism of certain other passages these considerations will perhaps be somewhat enforced. We propose, therefore, now to go through the Hymns, noticing certain critical difficulties which they present, and occasionally attempting an answer to the riddles with which they abound. We follow the order of the Hymns (which is that of M) given in the present edition, adding the usual order in parenthesis.
II. (V..\—HyMN TO DEMETER. In the 13th verse the MSS. give— κῶδις τ᾽ ὀδμῆ was δ᾽ οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ὕπερθε γαῖα τε πᾶσ᾽ ἐγέλασσε καὶ ἁλμυρὸν οἶδμα θαλάσσης. VOL. IX. D
84 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
Ruhnken conjectured—
κηώδει δ᾽ ὀδμῇ πᾶς τ᾽ οὐρανὸς. We suggest—
κῶξ ἥδιστ᾽ ὀδμή (or κὠδώδει τ᾽ ὀδμή), πᾶς δ᾽ οὐρανὸς. Ruhnken’s conjecture introduces a not quite suitable ad- jective in κηώδει. We shall see that the neglect of crasis has often misled the copyists. Crasis in Homer is limited (see Monro’s Homertc Grammar, 377); but the writers of the hymns have used it far more largely. If Fick’s theory of the Aeolic origin of these poems is right, ὧζε was originally written dod, like φροντίσδην, Sapph. 41 (37).
φ-
17. Νύσιον i πεδίον τῇ ὄρουσεν ἄναξ Πολυδέγμων.
Here we have a violation of the law universal in Greek poetry from Homer to Nonnus, that there must not be a trochaic caesura of the dactyl in the fourth foot. Crasis again comes to our aid. Probably the poet wrote—
τῇ ὄρουσ᾽ ἄναξ Πολυδέγμων.
or, perhaps, we should omit Νύσιον as a gloss, and insert κρατερὸς after ἄναξ, as in 431."
22. οὐδέ τις ἀθανάτων οὐδὲ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἤκουσεν φωνῆς οὐδ᾽ ἀγλαόκαρποι ἐλαῖαι.
Thus is the verse given by the Editor according to the MSS., without an obelus. Yet who can believe that any poet, not to speak of a Greek poet, could say that the cry
1 Dr. Sandys, in his masterly edition of the Constitution of Athens, has overlooked this law, first established, we believe, by H. A. J. Munro; he prefers, to other restorations of a certain hexameter, the verse—
Διφίλον ᾿Ανθεμίων τήνδ᾽ εἰκόν᾽ ἔθηκε θεοῖσι. as more rhythmical. The trochaic caesura makes the verse quite impossible. Of
course εἰκόνα θῆκε would be an easy correction, but that involves a further depar- ture from the Mss.
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 35
of the ravished Persephone was not heard ‘by God or man or—the fine olive-trees’? We have no light on this verse in Goodwin’s edition, and no obelus. There it stands. Her cry was not heard by God or man or the olive-trees, not elsewhere mentioned in the poem. Baumeister reads Ἕλειαι with Iigen. Hailing from Ireland, we would gladly welcome the admission of ‘bog-trotting’ goddesses into the Hellenic pantheon; but, though we find Νύμφαι ἐλειονόμοι in Apollonius Rhodius (ii. 821), would not some substantive such as Νύμφαι be absolutely required? A mention of Demeter is certainly required. It seems not impossible that one of her many names might have been ?EXaw or ᾿Ελαίη. The title would not be unsuitable for the goddess of Eleusis, derived, as it would be, from Athens’ greatest boast, the olive-tree. One recalls the parabasis of the Acharnians where Aristophanes declares—
‘If some flatterer said /and of oil, there was nought you'd refuse him, I ween, Though he gave youa title more fit for the praise of a potted sardine.’
But if it should seem too daring to read οὐδ᾽ ἀγλαόκαρπος ᾿Ἐλαιώ, then, remembering that ἀγλαόκαρπος is a traditional epithet of Demeter, we should be disposed to read ἤκουσεν (or rather ἤκουσ᾽ ἂν) φωνὴν οὐδ᾽ ἁγλαόκαρπος ἐλεινήν, Com- paring 284---
τοῦ δὲ κασίγνηται φωνὴν ἐσάκουσαν ἐλεινήν,
and fortifying the description of Demeter as ‘ The Fruitful one,’ by pointing to Πολυδέγμων and Πολυδέκτης as similar descriptive titles of Pluto in this hymn. Gemoll has sug- gested ἐλεινῆν. There would be no metrical objection to reading οὐδ᾽ ἀγλαόκαρπος Anw, for we find in 204---
| μειδῆσαι γελάσαι τε καὶ ἵλαον σχεῖν θυμόν. D2
86 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
In 35— ἔτι δ᾽ ἤλπετο μητέρα κεδνὴν ὄψεσθαι,
there is no difficulty if we regard μητέρα as the accus. before, not after ὄψεσθαι.
There is certainly a lacuna after 57, where Hecate assures Demeter that she has not seen Persephone or her ravisher, but only heard her scream. As the text stands, the words run thus—
57. φωνῆς yap ἤκουσ᾽, ἀτὰρ οὐκ ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὅστις env’ σοὶ δ᾽ ὦκα λέγω νημερτέα παντα.
These are the words of Hecate in answer to Demeter. We then read that Demeter, without even answering Hecate, went straight to the sun god. Surely we should read after 57 some verse like others found in this hymn—some verse
such as Ἠέλιος δ᾽ ἴδεν οἷος ἄναξ Ὑπερίονος vids,
ΟΥ Ἠέλιος δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὅπωπε θεῶν σκοπὸς ἠδὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν,
and λέγω should be corrected to λέγοι (which could be either the opt. proper or the potential opt.) in the next verse. Hecate must have referred Demeter to the sun god for information about her lost daughter.
In 64—
"HAG αἴδεσσαί pe θέας ὕπερ,
it is impossible to believe, with Hermann, that θέας ὕπερ means ‘by looking for (my daughter).’ But when the Editor printed Ludwick’s θεὰν σύ περ, we think he over- looked a better conjecture, Ilgen’s Θέας ὕπερ, ‘in the name of your mother Thea’ (I adjure you).
In 99— . Παρθενίῳ φρέατι ὅθεν ὑδρεύοντο πολῖται,
one is at first sight disposed to read φρείατι Παρθενίῳ, but
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 97
we find quite as large an employment of the epic license to lengthen a short vowel in arsis in 248, τέκνον Δημοφόων, ξείνη σε πυρὶ ἕνι πολλῷ.
In 211 a reading, originally suggested by Voss, has maintained its place unquestioned, yet it is completely unjustified by palaeographic considerations. Metanassa. has poured out a cup of wine for Demeter, which she refuses, but asks Metanassa to make her a posset (κυκεῶ) of meal-water and penny-royal. Metanassa makes the posset and gives it to the goddess, and thus the narrative proceeds according to the MSS.
ἡ δὲ κυκεῶ τεύξασα θεᾷ πόρεν, ὡς ἐκέλευε᾽ δεξαμένη δ᾽ ὁσίης ἕνεκεν πολυπότνια Δηώ.
There the sentence ends, so ἕνεκεν is impossible, unless we read ὁσίης ἕνεκεν πίε with Biicheler, or mark a Jacuna. But the accepted emendation is that of Voss, ὁσίης ἐπέβη. It is quite true that such a phrase occurs elsewhere (Herm. 166, 173; Hes. Zh. 396), but in those places it _is given by the MSS., and it affords a good sense. Here neither of these conditions is satisfied. The MSS. read ἕνεκεν, not ἐπέβη, and the sense given by ἐπέβη is poor. ‘Sacri honoris compos est facta ve/ sacro honore frui coepit,’ writes Ruhnken, but neither of these interpretations lies in the words, nor can they convey the sense which Gemoll attributes to them, namely, ‘when the goddess drank the posset she then and there ordained the rite of libation.’ It seems to us that we should read ἐνέχεεν for ἕνεκεν, and πολὺ πότνια for πολυπότνια. Demeter received the posset from Metanassa, and poured a large draught into the cup, from wnich she was to drink it; or, perhaps, ἐνέχεεν merely means ‘she poured a libation of it,’ as in Av. Pac. 1102. Of course ὁσίης must be corrected to ὁσίως, but that is a much smaller change. For the synizesis in ἐνέχεεν, compare κυκεῶ in the foregoing verse, τοκῆες in 137, and ἄνθεα in 426,all scanned as dissyllables.
38 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
229. οὔτ᾽ dp ἐπηλυσίη δηλήσεται {οὔθ᾽ trorapvov’ olda γὰρ ἀντίτομον μέγα φέρτερον ὑλοτόμοιο.
It is hard to see why ὑποταμνόν should be obelised and the absolutely unmeaning ὑλοτόμοιο should escape that nota. In the first volume of HERMATHENA, p. 142, Davies suggested for the latter word οὐλοτόμοιο, ‘gum cutting,’ from οὖλα, ‘gums.’ Demeter, according to him, says that she has a fine remedy for a baby’s pains in teething, and ὑποταμνόν Means ‘ the tooth’s cutting upwards through the gum.’ These words, however, are very strangely formed if they denote a process, and unintelligible if they do not. Curiously enough Voss suggested οὐλοτόμοιο, but explained it in a different sense, as herba ad perniciem excisa. Hermann, accepting it, explained it as herba penttus exctsa, contrasted with ὑποταμνόν cuzus aliquid recisum est. In 256, for ἀφράδμονες, should be read ¢paduovec (Biicheler) : cp. Orph. frag. 32, 8, οὔτε κακοῖο προσερχομένοιο νοῆσαι φράδμονες οὔτ᾽ ἄποθεν μάλ᾽ ἀποστρέψαι κακότητος. In 262, Huschke excellently restores γῆρας for κῆρας, comparing Ap. Rhod. iv. 874. In 269, εἰμὶ δὲ Δημήτηρ τιμάοχος 7 τε μέγιστον ἀθανάτων θνητοῖσιν ὄνειαρ καὶ χάρμα τέτυκται, itis possible that we have another overlooked crasis. At all events, Ruhnken’s ὄνειαρ χάρμα τ᾽ ἐτύχθη is an example of an unscientific method rare in the work of that great scholar. A word, doua, ‘food,’ is cited from Hippocrates (the same word is said to have meant love in the Delphic dialect), and it seems not impossible, in the absence of evidence for dveap or ὄναρ = ὄνειαρ, that the writer of this hymn, who seems to have been late, and was certainly learned, wrote κἄρμα. ° There are several signs of late authorship in this hymn.
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 39
Among them are λιμός, fem. in 311, a usage of Calli- machus and the Anthology; the post-Homeric expres- sions, θεῶν οὐρανίων in 55, ἐπηρτύνοντο in 128, τιμῆς, ‘price,’ in 132, ἀφήλικος, which Moeris calls an Attic form, as well as χλεύη for γέλως in 202. Again, ζυγὸς, in the sense of ‘ yoke’ (217), is not found before Callimachus, θυσίαισι (368) is an Attic form, νωμήσας used absolutely (373) in the sense of παπτήνας is unhomeric, and παύσειε intrans. in 351 is hellenistic. Finally, we would quote an excellent remark of the Editor on the style of this hymn, a remark with which we entirely concur: ‘ Ceterum compositionem illam «at... καὶ versuS 397 ut ab omni sermone epicorum alienam (videris Ebelingii lexicon, Pp. 618) recte forsan vetustioris epicae poeseos ratione habita editores iudicaverint, τὰς huzc hymno non absonam esse factle guts concedat.’ ‘We may remark that his resto- ration of the mutilated passage, 388-389, shows fine scholarship, and quite surpasses all the German attempts, a result for which one is prepared when one remembers that such a restoration is really an exercise in Greek verse composition, an art which is neglected in Germany, but cultivated most successfully in England, and which (if not actually essential) is far more useful in the emendation of the ancient poets than continental scholars imagine.
When the goddess resigns her ministrations as nurse, the infant feels the inferiority of those who endeavour to take her place (291),
τοῦ δ᾽ ov μειλίσσετο θυμός" χειρότεραι γὰρ δή μιν ἔχον τροφοὶ ἠδὲ τιθῆναι.
This verse is quite possibly right ; but would not the poet more probably have written ἠὲ τιθήνη Demeter had been the infant’s nurse, τιθήνη; his sisters, who succeeded her, were volunteer caretakers, τροφοί.
40 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
344) 345. πόλλ᾽ ἀεκαζομένη μητρὸς πόθῳ ἠδ᾽ {ἐπ᾿ ἀτλήτων Τέργοις θεῶν μακάρων μητίσετο βουλῇ. Comparing Hymn to Apollo 322, we would propose— ἡ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ (or ἐπ᾽ as in ἐπ᾽ dpwyp, Ψ §74) ἀπλήτοις (or ἀπλήστοις) ὀργαῖς νόσφι θεῶν μακάρων μητίσατο βουλήν, ‘ Demeter, still in sore wrath, brooded o’er her plans (what course she should take) aloof from the gods.’ We meet ὀργαῖς plural in 205 of this hymn: cp. ἃς ἔχεις ὀργὰς ἄφες, Aesch. Pr. 3153; ὀργή is not found either in the singular or the plural in Homer, who always uses θυμός. We should rather have expected some verse like ἡ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἄπλητον μήνιεν, οὐδὲ θεῶν μακάρων μετεείσατο βουλήν, comparing verses 94 and 303 of this hymn, in which she is said to have held aloof from the assembly of the gods.
III. (1) ΗΥΜΝ To APOLLO.
On verse 59 Gemoll mentions an ingenious explanation of the vox nzhzl: wepirac, which appears in E. It is that it stands for περὶ ra σ΄, and means ‘here is a lacuna of about six letters.’
In 104 the editor gives without obelus—
χρυσείοισι λίνοισιν ἐερμένον (libri éepypevov), a reading which we cannot understand, and does not mention Barnes’s
χρύσεον ἡλέκτροισιν ξερμένον, which, if not certain, is certainly better than most of the conjectures recorded in the foot-notes.
142. ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖ νήσους τε καὶ ἀνέρας ἠλάσκαζες.
This seems hardly possible. We may defend νήσους ἠλάσκαζες by στρεφόμεσθα πόλεις, 175, but ἀνέρας ἠλάσκαζες
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 4]
is not Greek for ‘ you wandered among men.’ We might read νήσους καὶ av’ ἀνέρας, Or ἂν νήσους τε καὶ ἀνέρας. 314. ὡς ἔμ᾽ ἀτιμάζειν ἄρχει νεφεληγερέτα Ζεὺς πρῶτος ἐπεί μ᾽ ἄλοχον ποιήσατο κέδν᾽ εἰδυῖαν. Surely we should read πρῶτον, ‘for the first time,’ as is
shown by the succeeding ἐπεὶ, which bears here the sense of ex guo, not of guontam.
529. οὔτε τρυγηφόρος ἧδε γ᾽ ἐπήρατος οὔτ᾽ εὐλείμων. Thus is this verse given according to the MSS. by the edition before us and by most editors. Yet it contains three defects—the ellipse of y#, the presence of y’, and the superfluousness of ἐπήρατος. Thetwo worst of these defects would be removed by reading οὔτε τρυγηφόρος ἦδ᾽ ovr ἡροτὸς οὔτ᾽ εὔλειμων. For the ellipse of γῆ cp. a δὲ σὲ γειναμένα in Eur. Tro. 825. Ἦροτός would have been inferred from ἀνήροτος. At the end of the hymn (538) is a passage which is
usually abandoned as hopeless—
νηὸν δὲ προφύλαχθε, δέδεχθε δὲ φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων
ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀγειρομένων καὶ ἐμὴν ἰθύν τε μάλιστα. The god is addressing his votaries, and enjoining the observance of rites in his honour. We believe that under i0éy τε is hidden another perf. pass. imper., and the verse might have run
κατ᾽ ἐμὴν δ᾽ ἴθυνθε μάλ᾽ ἰθύν, or (to borrow a word used in 114)— κατ᾽ ἐμὸν δ᾽ ἴθυνθε μάλ᾽ ἴθμα.
IV. (III.)—HyMn TO HERMES, In 14, where Hermes is described as ληιστῆρ᾽, ἐλατῆρα βοῶν, ἡγήτορ᾽ ὀνείρων, Gemoll is certainly not justified in the violent change ot
- πα -..-...-
42 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
ὀνείρων into φωρῶν. A title of Hermes was ”Ovetpoe: cp. Hymnus Magicus in Mercurtum(see Bruchmann’s Lexicon): Μοιρῶν προγνώστης σὺ λέγῃ καὶ θεῖος “Overpos, ἡμερίνους χρησμοὺς καὶ νυκτερίνους ἐπιπέμπων.
Read ἡγήτορ᾽, ὄνειρον, regarding ἡγήτορα as ψυχοπομπόν, Or ἡγητορ᾽ ὀνείρων = τὸν ἐπιπέμποντα ὀνείρους.
In 33 there is, as it seems to us, room for a certain conjecture, though, strange to say, the needfulness of a correction has not struck any of the editors. Hermes, addressing the tortoise out of whose shell he afterwards fashioned the lyre, exclaims—
πόθεν τόδε, καλὸν ἄθυρμα, ΕΣ ¥ 3 ΄ μ a” ’ αἰόλον ὄστρακον ἐσσί, χέλνς ὄρεσι ζώουσα;
But ‘how came it that you are a shell?’ is unmeaning. Read fa00. The tortoise was not the shell much more than a man is his great-coat. One is reminded of the joke ascribed to Mr. Gilbert when, in reply to ‘you wear a great-coat?’ he said, ‘No, I never was.’ But ‘thou art clothed with this shell’ at once recalls the λάϊνον ἕσσο χιτῶνα of Γ΄ 57. When Tennyson wrote
‘As when a great thought strikes along the brain, And flushes all the cheek,’
we wonder had he before his mind a passage in this hymn which might well have suggested it— |
ὡς δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ὠκὺ νόημα διὰ στέρνοιο περήσῃ
ἀνέρος ὄντε θαμειαὶ ἐπιστρωφῶσι μέριμναι,
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε δινηθῶσιν ἀπ᾿ ὀφθαλμῶν ἀμαρυγαί.
A difficult passage, 79-86, describes how Hermes tied branches of tamarisk and myrtle under his feet, to oblite- rate the mark of his footsteps. The passage is full of corruptions, and labours under the fundamental error of alluding to a past adventure of the god in Pieria, though
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 43
Hermes is now only two days old, and the hymn has already related all the incidents of his career from his birth. Here is the passage, as given in Goodwin’s edi- tion :—
σάνδαλα δ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἔριψεν ἐπὶ ψαμάθοις ἁλίῃσιν,
[ἄφραστ᾽ ἠδ᾽ ἀνόητα διέκπλεκε θανματὰ ἔργα,
συμμίσγων μυρίκας καὶ μυρσινοειδέας ὄζους.
τῶν τότε συνδήσας νεοθηλέος ἄγκαλον ὕλης,
ἀβλαβέως ὑπὸ ποσσὶν ἐδήσατο σάνδαλα κοῦφα,
αὐτοῖσιν πετάλοισι τὰ κύδιμος ᾿Αργειφόντης
ἔσπασε Πιερίηθεν δὁδοιπορίην ἀλεείνων
οἷά τ᾽ ἐπειγόμενος δολιχὴν ὁδὸν [αὐτοτροπήσας. In 79 we read ἔραψεν with Matthiae and other editors. But πετάλοισι in 84 must be wrong. What need had Hermes for leaves under his feet in the Pierian adventure? What he wanted was wings, to save the trouble of walking home, after his long journey on foot. In the hymn he is obliged to walk after the stolen cows. We propose to read πτιλίοισι for πετάλοισι. He wraps leaves and twigs round his feet to obliterate his spoor, and puts them on over his sandals, ‘wings and all’ (αὐτοῖσι πτιλίοισι), having now no use for the wings. The whole passage may have run thus :—
σάνδαλα δ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἔραψεν ἐπὶ ψαμάθοις ἁλίῃσιν,
[κἄφραστ᾽ ἠδ᾽ ἀνόητα διέκπλεκε θαυματὰ ἔργα],
συμμίσγων μυρίκας καὶ μνρσινοειδέας ὄζους
τῶν τόθι, συνδήσας νεοθηλέος ἄγκαλον ὕλης
ἀβλαβέως" ὑπὸ ποσσὶ δ᾽ ἐδήσατο σάνδαλα κοῦφα
αὐτοῖσι πτιλίοισι, τὰ κύδιμος Ἀργειφόντης
ἔσπασε Πιερίηθεν ὁδοιπορίην ἀλεείνων,
οἰκάδ᾽ ἐπειγόμενος δολιχὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοπορήσας. The passage clearly shows that the leaves which Hermes required were picked up there and then, and could not have been used in a former adventure. The ἅπαξ εἰρη- μένον diminutive πτιλίοισι was wrongly written πετάλοισι, a word which was before the minds of the copyists.
44 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
Not knowing the story of the Pierian adventure, we can only conjecture that it accounted for the falarta, πέδιλα, which were peculiar to Hermes, and which are here called πτιλία. The word αὐτοπόρος is used by Nonnus for a traveller on foot, and Aristophanes, Ranae 23, makes Dionysus say —
αὐτὸς Badilw καὶ πονῶ τοῦτον δ᾽ ὀχῶ,
*I have all the fag of walking on foot, while I give this fellow a mount.’ In 106— καὶ τὰς μὲν συνέλασσεν ἐς αὕλιον ἀθρόας οὔσας,
we have the Aeolic shortening οὗ -ας in ἀθρόας. Fick might claim this as evidence of his theory, that the hymns as well as the Homeric poems were originally written in Aeolic. But however that may be, we have the form here according to all the MSS. We believe that in another passage in this hymn an Aeolic form has led to the corruption of the text. The verse is 473— τῶν νῦν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ σὲ {παῖδ᾽ ἀφνειὸν δεδάηκα.
Hermes is flattering Apollo, and enumerating the ἀγλαὰ δῶρα καὶ τιμάς, Which Apollo has received from Zeus. By reading πέδ᾽ (πεδὰ = μετὰ) for παῖδ᾽, and ἀφνειῶν for ἀφνειόν, we gain an excellent sense, ‘with which gifts of my own knowledge I wot you are among those well provided.’ The gen. is the case which follows ἀφνειός, as in xpvaoid te ἐσθῆτός τε, a. 167. Possibly, as we shall see, we have another Aeolism surviving in 239.
159. th σὲ λαβόντα μεταξὺ κατ᾽ ἄγκεα φηλητεύσειν.. Read 9 σε λόφων τὰ μεταξὺ κατ᾽ ἄγκεα φηλητεύσειν, ‘rather than that you should be a freebooter in the dells between the hills.’ Compare ΧΙΧ. 6—
ὅς πάντα λόφον νιφόεντα λέλογχε.
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 45
188. ἔνθα γέροντα κνώδαλον εὗρε νέμοντα παρὲξ ὁδοῦ ἔρκος ἁλωῆς.
Borrowing κλῶνας from Schneidewin (or, perhaps better, κλωνί᾽), we might give— ἔνθα γέροντα κλωνῶ ἀνεῦρεν ἀμῶντα παρὲξ ὁδοῦ, Epxos ἀλωῆς,
‘gathering sticks to make a wall for his vineyard.’ The verb ἁμάω may be used in the sense of ‘ gathering in,’ and seems appropriate here.
We cannot feel much confidence in ἅπαξ εἰρημένα formed so strangely as Prof. Ridgeway’s νώδαλον, or Rossbach’s κώδαλον.
Prof. Ridgeway’s conjecture, ἀλέαινεν (in which he was anticipated by Ilgen), in 239, is tempting, but does not give the required sense, which is, ‘curled himself up, not ‘warmed himself.’
Seeing that ἀλέεινεν is intransitive in 42. Rhod. 111. 650, we might possibly read ἀλέειν᾽ ἐς ἕ αὐτόν, ‘he shrank into himself,’ or (if we might venture to assume that, in this verse, yet another Aeolism, ἐν = ἐς, has survived), ἀλέειν᾽ ἐν ὃ αὐτόν, which would be in effect the reading of the Mss.
259. ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ γαίῃ ἐρρήσεις, ὀλίγοισιν ἐν ἀνδράσιν ἡγεμονεύων. This is generally changed to ὀλοοῖσιν (Bothe), or λυγροῖσιν (Ludwich), while ny. gives place to ἠπεροπεύων. But the MSS. may be defended. Apollo threatens Hermes that, if he does not disclose the place where he has hidden the stolen cattle, he will hurl him to Tartarus, ‘ where you will come to naught, for all your primacy among little folk.’ Hermes was only two days old when he stole Apollo’s cattle. We find ὀλίγος περ ἐών applied to Hermes in 456. Such a phrase as ὀλίγοι ἄνδρες for ‘little folk’ would, of course, be impossible in formal poetry. But in
46 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
this hymn we have a sportive and half-comic use of the epic style. In the admirable passage, 262-277, in which Hermes replies to the threats of Apollo, there is much humour, as well as dramatic skill, in the childishness, mixed with cunning, with which the infant cattle-lifter defends him-
self οὐκ ἴδον, οὐ πυθόμην, οὐκ ἄλλον μῦθον ἄκουσα, οὐκ ἂν μηνύσαιμ᾽, οὐκ ἂν μήνυτρον ἀροίμην, οὔτε βοῶν ἐλατῆρι, κραταιῷ φωτί ἔοικα... ὕπνος ἔμοιγε μέμηλε καὶ ἡμετέρης γάλα μητρός, σπάργανά T ἀμφ᾽ ὥμοισιν ἔχειν, καὶ θερμὰ λοετρά... χθὲς γενόμην, ἁπαλοὶ δὲ πόδες, τρηχεῖα δ᾽ ὑπὸ χθών. εἰ δὲ θέλεις πατρὸς κεφαλὴν μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμοῦμαι" μὴ μὲν ἐγὼ μήτ᾽ αὑτὸς ὑπίσχομαι αἴτιος εἶναι, μήτε τιν᾽ ἄλλον ὄπωπα βοῶν κλοπὸν ὑμετεράων, αἵτινες ai βοές εἰσί: τὸ δὲ κλεός οἷον ἀκούω. In 280 there was no sufficient reason why the editor should print with an obelus [ἅλιον τὸν μῦθον ἀκούων, nor why Baum. should conjecture ὑποσχών for ἀκούων. The words mean ‘listening to his statement as if it were of no moment,’ a sense which agrees well with the context. In 315 we highly approve of the editor’s conjecture of φωρὴν for φωνὴν, and with Baumeister’s correction of οὐκ ἀδίκως the passage runs very well— ὁ μὲν νημερτέα φωρὴν ἐκδεδαώς. We think εὐμαρίη would be a better correction of Τεὐμιλίη (325) than any which we have seen. In the next line ἄφθιτοι should probably be ἄφθονοι.
346. αὐτὸς δ᾽ οὗτος ὅδ᾽ ἐκτὸς. Perhaps we have Dr. Verrall’s word ἑκτός. We might
then read οἷος δ᾽ οὔτοι (or οὔτι as in 377) ὅδ᾽ ἑκτός, ‘he is the only one who can never be caught,’ or ‘ stopped.’
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 47
The passage from 409-415 is very difficult, as is shown by the fact that the commentators are prettily evenly divided on the question whether Apollo bound Hermes or the cattle, and on the further question, what it was that Hermes desired to hide. Even Gemoll admits a lacuna after 413, but we can hardly avoid postulating another after 411. If both were supplied by a new codex we should probably find that first Apollo bound Hermes, and that then Hermes extricated himself, and managed to steal the cattle again. One thing seems clear, that for tayvov, 410, we should read ayvov, ‘of willow,’ with Seiler and others.
436. Bovddve, μηχανιῶτα, trovevpeve δαιτὸς ἑταῖρε πεντήκοντα βοῶν ἀντάξια ταῦτα μέμηλας.
These are the words of Apollo to Hermes after he has been soothed by his harping. The verb péundag is sus- tained by μέλησεν in 453, and should not be changed. We conjectured for the obelized part of the line pnyavéwy ἀπονήμενε With some confidence, which was increased when we found from Gemoll’s note that the same emendation had occurred to Waardenberg. However, it has not met with the appraval of either Gemoll or the Oxford editor, who both give the corrupt text obelized.
In 461—
7 μὲν ἐγὼ σὲ κυδρὸν ἐν ἀθάνατοισι καὶ ὄλβιον [ἡγεμονεύσω, we suspect that we have a solitary instance of εἴσω transi- tive (we have εἴσομαι intrans. in “42. RA. ii. 807), and that we should read ἡγέμον᾽ dow.
The Hymn to Aphrodite, v. (iv.), is a charming poem, and has come down to us in a much less corrupt form than most of the hymns. We have already referred to Martin’s palmary conjecture, στόμα χείσεται, in 252. Peppmiller, in Philologus x\vii., Ὁ. 1, has made some good suggestions ; for instance, the transposition of 30 after 32, and the
48 THE HOMERIC HYMNS.
reading τάφος for ἔρος in gt. We have, perhaps, a note of late authorship, or at least of a self-conscious art not found in very early poetry, in 113, where Aphrodite, in assuring Anchises that she is no goddess, but a Phrygian woman, thinks it necessary to add ‘but I know your language as. well as my own, for I had a Trojan nurse.’ |
In the Hymn to Pan, xix., we have an excellent ex- ample of axagrammatismus in 33—
θάλε yap πόθος ὑγρὸς ἐπελθὼν,
where Ruhnken corrected θάλε to λάθε. The Hymn to the Moon, xxxii., presents a strange corruption in its first verse—
2 > , u aA μήνην [ἀείδειν τανυσίπτερον ἔσπετε, Μοῦσαι.
Bothe’s εὐειδῆ has been generally accepted, but it is too. common a word to be likely to suffer corruption. Perhaps δειελινὴν, as She is called ἑσπερίη in line 11. The similarity in form of AAA would account, to some extent, for the corruption.
In the Hymn to the Dioscuri, xxxiil., in line 15,
κύματα δ᾽ ἐστόρεσαν λευκῆς ἁλὸς ἐν πελάγεσσι
ναύταις σήματα καλά, πόνου σφισιν, the last word has been corrected to κρίσιν (Baum.), and λύσιν (Abel), and Matthiae has proposed πλόον σφισιν. Perhaps σχέσιν, ‘stop or check,’ for σφισιν, would account better for the corruption on account of the rarity of the word and its resemblance to σφισιν. It is late in this sense, but probably the poem is quite late.
To estimate the edition as a whole, the type and paper leave nothing to be desired, and the Introduction gives some excellent facsimiles of leaves from M. The notes show good scholarship and judgment when the some- what unintelligible method of the edition allows scope for the display of these qualities. Twenty-six MSS. have been
THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 49
collated either by Professor Goodwin or Mr. Allen, whose admirably-written Praefato gives a full account of them. Five of these are now collated for the first time. Of these five the most important are those styled 1, r, and 5, but they flow from the same archetype as the generally recog- nised three families—(1) M, the Moscow Codex; (2) the Paris family ; (3) E, L, D (Estensis, Laurentianus, and Ambrosianus). Hence they supply no dacunae, and throw little or no light on the most difficult and corrupt passages, while still depend for their elucidation on the critical insight of scholars, failing the discovery of some MS. descended from a new archetype.
R. Y. TYRRELL.
NOTE ON VALERIUS FLACCUS.
II. 386.
bellator equus, longa quem frigida pace Terra iubat, brevis in laevos piger angitur orbes : Frena tamen dominumque velit si Martius aures Clamor et obliti rursus fragor impleat aeris.
This, writes Mr. Bury, is one of the most difficult passages in Valerius (HERMATHENA, No. xix., p. 400); I think it may be set right by writing BOVIS for dbreves (with, of course, zuvat), The war-horse likes the long life of rest in a land dead cold with peace, and ‘is forced into the awkward! circles of the ox,’ z.¢. is made to grind at the mill: but he wakes up from his lethargy at the sound of the trumpet.
δ Or there may be some technical allusion in Jaevos : cp. dexirarit equi, A. P e
VOL. IX. E
(δ)
Μ. BERGER’S HISTORY OF THE VULGATE:.'!
- SAMUEL BERGER, whose previous labours on
the history of the Vulgate are well known, has presented us, in this volume, with the fruits of a vast amount of labour. The period of which he treats particu- larly is that from Merovingian times to the end of the Carolingian period. It is necessary thus to begin, as it were, in the middle, as the period best known. To work back to the earlier history is a task of no small difficulty. The criticism of the Vulgate has to deal with a vast number of documents, which present examples of errors proceeding from the most various causes. In addition to the usual sources of errors in MSS., there are others arising from the fact that the text was a translation. Of variations arising from dogmatic motives, certainly the most remark- able is that affecting the fourth book of Esdras (which does not, however, belong to the authentic canon of the Vulgate). That book contains a passage in which prayers for the dead are decisively condemned. The passage was appealed to by Vigilantius, whose reference to it St. Jerome contemptuously ridiculed, pointing out that the book was not canonical, and adding that he himself had never read it. Influenced doubtless by this, an owner of Codex Sangermanensis simply cut out the leaf containing the passage, a lacuna of no less than 74 verses being thus created. The curious fact is that all the MSS. of this book known until recently, being 84 MSS., and of course all the
1 Histoire dela Vulgate pendant les S. Berger, Mémoire Couronné par 0 In- premiers Sidcles du Moyen Age. Par stitut. Paris, 1893. 8vo, pp. xxiv, 443.
M. BERGER'S HISTORY OF THE VULGATE. 51
printed texts, followed this codex. The editors of St. Jerome’s works naturally had some difficulty in appreciat- ing Vigilantius’ appeal to the book. The Oriental versions contain the missing passage, but it was not known to exist in any Latin MS. until Mr. Bensly discovered it in the Corbie MS., about twenty years ago. M. Berger mentions four others (three in Spain) in which it has been since found.
Mr. Bensly, by the way, gives a good instance from the same book of the substitution of the familiar for the unknown in the reading Nazareth substituted in one ms. for Arzareth. The latter is simply an imperfect trans- literation of the Hebrew for ‘a strange land.’ I quote this as an illustration of Bengel’s admirable, but invari- ably misquoted, maxim, ‘ Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.’ This does not mean ‘the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier,’ which is an unsound rule, and involves a mistranslation of three out of the four words ; but, the reading to which the scribe would be more prone is less likely to be the true one. It will be seen that ‘proclivis scriptio’ includes familiar combinations of words or letters, which may make the text more difficult to the reader, as, for example, ‘non sum ihs’ for ‘ non sum missus.’ In the same note Mr. Bensly mentions a reading found in three MSS., which may serve as an illustration of the unsound rule just quoted, ‘Et mulieres et heretici parient menstruatae monstra.’ If the more difficult read- ing is to be preferred, certainly ‘et heretici’ should be genuine. But this is to wander from M. Berger.
M. Berger follows the geographical method, seeking to find the local origin of the different recensions. He finds that it was from without that the MSS. of the Vulgate text -spread into Gaul, which long remained faithful to the ancient versions. The sources of these texts were Spain
-and Ireland. M. Berger follows these texts in their course E2
52 M. BERGER’S HISTORY OF THE VULGATE.
across the Roman world. The Visigothic texts entered Gaul by the South, ascended the Rhone to Lyons, and spread thence through the plains of the North. The missionary ardour of the Irish and their love of travel carried them to the confines of the Christian world, dis- persing a great number of those admirable MSS. which Irish decorative art was alone able to produce. From Iona and Lindisfarne to Wiirzburg and St. Gall, and to Bobbio, the world was filled with Irish MSS. and Irish texts. St. Gall deserves special notice from the fact that it has preserved to the present day the library founded in the eighth and ninth centuries by its great masters, Wini- tharius and Hartmut. The latter was Abbot from 872 to 883. Of forty-one Biblical Mss. specified in a list compiled in his lifetime, probably in the latter year, thirty-one re- main. Ten MSS. (13 vols.) are written or corrected by his own hand. His handwriting is very remarkable. There is, says M. Berger, nothing like it in the whole history of caligraphy. One MS. throws a curious light on his relations with his scribes. Iwo leaves are preserved at the end of the volume, which contain, line for line and letter for letter (without rubrics), in his own hand, the pattern for the scribe who has written the corresponding pages of the book. It is worth noticing that in this MS. there is a lacuna of sixteen verses (Eccles. ix. 1~16), owing to a change of hand, Hartmut himself having taken up the pen, so that, in spite of his care, he was responsible for this omission.
Up to the reign of Charlemagne the history of the Vulgate in France only shows disorder, furnishing indeed much that is of interest to the historian in the way of rare readings and old texts, but not acceptable to a Church which valued unity. Charlemagne desired to have correct and uniform copies, ‘Psalmos, notas, cantus, compotum, grammaticam per singula monasteria vel episcopia, et
M. BERGER’S HISTORY OF THE VULGATE. 58
libros catholicos bene emendatos; quia saepe, dum bene aliquid Deum rogare cupiunt, sed per inemendatos libros, male rogant.’ His desire was not met by the work of Theodulf, who collected in his margin all the various readings that he could find. The man who carried out the king’s purpose was Alcuin. Purity of language was cer- tainly a foremost object with Charlemagne, ‘Non sumus passi nostris in diebus inter sacra officia inconsonantes perstrepere soloecismos.’
Alcuin’s work was completed about 800, but up to the middle of the ninth century, and in remote places later, the texts were a mixture of good and bad, the old versions mingled with the Vulgate in extremest confusion. Even as to the order of the books, M. Berger has counted over two hundred varieties. The old texts were banished, but the succeeding centuries were centuries of mediocre texts, gradually becoming worse and worse, until in the thir- teenth century the University of Paris (founded early in that century) found it necessary to seek for uniformity in the texts used by its teachers and its pupils. An English name again meets us in this connexion, that of Stephen Langton (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), one of the principal teachers of the University, who divided the Bible into chapters, and settled the order of the books as we now have it. From that time, however, inferior texts ruled, and in spite of the efforts of critics, such as Robert Stephens and Cardinal Carafa, the autho- rised text of to-day is, in essence, the Parisian text of the thirteenth century.
Amongst the many items of peculiar interest contained in M. Berger’s volume, I may select one ortwo. The first relates to the recent discovery by a Belgian Benedictine, Dom G. Morin, of the Italian relationship of the Northum- brian MS., the Book of Lindisfarne. At the commencement of each Gospel is a list of feasts: those, no doubt, on
δά M. BERGER’S HISTORY OF THE VULGATE.
which lessons from this Gospel were read; the calendar in fact; of the Church to which belonged the archetype of this Μ5.: Now, amongst these are the feasts of St. Janu- arius and of St. Vitus, and the dedication of the basilica of Stephen. St. Januarius, as everyone knows, is the great local saint of Naples. St. Vitus was also honoured there before his removal to St. Denis, and the cathedral of Naples was ‘basilica Stephani.’ There exists, moreover, an ancient Neapolitan calendar which agrees in all points with that in question. But what was the connexion be- tween Naples and Northumbria? The answer is, that in 668 Theodore (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), and Hadrian, abbot of a Neapolitan monastery, were sent to England, with Benedict Biscop, to organize the Church. After his installation at Canterbury, Theodore visited the provinces, accompanied by Hadrian. Arriving at Lindis- farne, he wished to consecrate the (wooden) cathedral built by Bishop Aidan. Is it not probable that Hadrian, at the same time, may have presented some liturgical MSS. and MSS. of the Gospels? The Book of Lindisfarne was written early in the eighth century (as appears from a note in the book). The close resemblance of its caligraphy and art to those of our Book of Kells enable us to fix the date of the latter approximately to the middle or latter part of the same century. Closely allied to the Lindisfarne textis that of the great Codex Amiatinus (now in Florence), the best MS. of the Latin Bible, and the reader will hardly need to be reminded of the recent discovery by Commen- datore De Rossi, completed by Dr. Hort, that this MS. was sent to Rome in 716 by Ceolfrid, Abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow. An ancient Life of Ceolfrid informs us that the MS. he sent to Rome had been written under his direction
1 Another Anglo-Saxon MS. of the have been copied from this, although ninth century in the British Museum with important differences. has the same calendar, and seems to
HM. BERGER’S HISTORY OF THE VULGATE. 55
in England. The hand, however, appears to have been, if not Italian, that of an English disciple of the Italian scribes. Moreover, the first quaternion of the codex ap- pears to be copied from a MS. of Cassiodorus, which Bede (who appears never to have been south of York) had him- self seen. Cassiodorus was of the monastery of Vivarium in Calabria. This is another link between York and Italy. Once more, there is in Paris a MS. (that of Echternach) in an Anglo-Saxon hand of the eighth or ninth century, containing an Irish text, and decorated in the purest Irish style, which professes to be corrected from a copy belong- ing to Eugippius, a celebrated Neapolitan writer.
It is only lately that we have learned the existence of the school of caligraphy of Jarrow and Wearmouth, from which so many fine MSS. proceeded.
It need hardly be said that M. Berger’s book is indis- pensable to the student of the Vulgate.
It may not be uninteresting if I take this opportunity of mentioning the varieties of order of the books of the New Testament in the Mss. in Trinity College. The Gospels always come first, and, except in the Antehiero- nymian version, in the usual order.
In seven the Epistles of St. Paul come before the Acts, but one of these has Colossians after Thessalonians, and one (44) has the spurious Ep. ad Laodicenses.
In two the Acts come after the Catholic Epistles.
In two the Pauline Epistles come after both the Acts and the Catholic Epistles. One of these, again, has Colos- sians after Thessalonians.
Two, the Book of Armagh and 53, have the order— Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles. Of these again, 53 has Colossians after Thessalonians, and the Book of Armagh has the spurious Ep. ad Laodicenses.
T. K. ABBOTT.
( 56 )
PLAUTINA.
HAVE just received (April 20, 1894) from Professor
Georg Gotz the fasciculus which completes the great edition of the plays of Plautus, set on foot by Loewe, Scholl, and himself, as Ritschl’s literary heirs, twenty-five years ago. All scholars will join in congratulating the two surviving editors on the finishing of this truly magnum opus. The present fasciculus contains the Czs¢ellarta edited by Schoell, with the Fvagmenia edited by Goetz himself, both admirable pieces of work. The Czstellarza has less of the ‘ludibunda manus’ of Schoell than usual, and the critical notes, so far as I have observed, contain fewer, although still far too many, of those offensive obelisks with which Schoell loves to point the finger of scorn at sugges- tions of scholars which are behind the age; while the industry displayed by both editors, and the enormous amount of critical lore collected by them, are beyond praise. I make the following suggestions in the Czs¢ellaria :—
373 @, 6 (Schoell).
Vos datéres Negotioli bellfssumi, senicés, soletis ésse.
This is only preserved in two passages of Priscian. He quotes it once, iii. 38, expressly for the form megotzolum ; the other time, vi. 94, for the inflexion setczs of semex. But in all the mss. of Priscian the order of the words in both places is datores bellisstmt vos megotiols. I think negottolt is wrong, and that mepofult should be substituted for it. Vos alone needs transposition, or indeed, as it is not
PLAUTINA. 57
wanted, it may be omitted. The sentiment is that amorous old men are lavish in their gifts (donandi parca zuventus)—
vos datéres Bellfssimi, nepdsuls senicés, soletis ésse.
405 (Schoell).
Non quasi nunc haec sunt hfc limaces, lf{vidae, Febrfculosae, mfserae amiculae, dsseae, Didbolares, schoéniculae, mirdculae,
Cum extritis talis, chm todillis crasculis.
So this fragment is given by Schoell. Zodzl/zs is also accepted by Ussing. It is worth while examining the evidence for this curious word. It is illegible in A, the only MS. which contains the passage; for although Stude- mand cites éodell1s crurtbus from A, with the letters ¢and WZ doubtful, Schoell himself could only decipher urzdus at the end of the verse.
1. Festus, Muller, p. 301, s. v., ‘succrotilla vox,’ cites this passage. He says ‘succrotilla vox’ is a ‘ vox tenuis et alta,’ and he illustrates the word by appealing to this passage, which he cites from Syz., supposed to be for Syra, and to be the old name of this play. ‘<Plautus in de> scribendis mulie<rum cruribus> gracilibus in Syr. talis cum sodellis cr... .’
2. Festus, p. 352, ‘Todi sunt <aves parvae pede exil>i quarum πὶ. Plautus in Sy. “. .. tis talis cum todillis crus... 3. Paulus, p. 353, has ‘todi genus avium parvarum. Plautus, “cum extortis talis cum todillis crusculis.”’’
4. Paulus, p. 52, has ‘ crocotillum valde exile. Plautus, “‘ extortis talis cum crocotillis crusculis.” ’
5. Priscian, 3. 29. has ‘crus, crusculum’; Plautus in Cistellaria, ‘cum extortis talis cum todinis crusculis,’
399 .
58 PLAUTINA.
I do not see that anyone supposes that all these cita- tions are not of one and the same passage. We therefore have the curious fact that the same passage is cited with at least four different readings of one word: sodellzs, todtdlis, crocottll:s, and todints.
Even more extraordinary is the fact, that both Festus and Paulus cite the same passage twice as containing contradictory readings, Festus quoting the verse as con- taining sodelizs and fodillts crusculis; Paulus as containing lodilles cruscules and crocotellts cruscults.
What is the solution? In my opinion it is that some word stood in the verse before crusculzs which was capable of corruption into cvocotell1s, todzllis, and todints. To be brief, I propose to write the verse thus—
Cum extortis talis CROCODILINIS crusculis,
Crocodiles have very short twisted legs. Pliny says of them (11. 249): ‘Priora genua post curvantur, posteriora in priorem partem. Sunt autem crura his obliqua humani pollicis modo.’ This agrees remarkably well with exéorts falts, which has much better support than exérzitzs.
Crocodtlsmzs would be corrupted in some MSS. to cod1- linzs, then codimzs, hence fodznts of Priscian; in others to crocodillis ; hence crocotillzs and todzltlts.
Plautus is fond of adjectives in -zzus derived from animals, and of applying them to bodily features. He has miluinis ungults, noctutimts ocults, aquilinis ungulis: cf. also panthertnus, cantherinus, clurinus (? aelurinus). Croco- adtlzmus seems from the same mint as these, and seems to me to account for the various corruptions of the. verse before us.
I pass on to the /ragmenta, which are admirably edited by Goetz, whose uniform courtesy and moderation do not diminish the pleasure and profit which the reader derives from his learning and accuracy. The book would be worth
PLAUTINA. 59
buying, if it were only for the fragments of the Vidularta, which have been deciphered in the Ambrosian by Stude- mund. These are now for the first time published with an edition of the whole of Plautus, although included by Winter in his edition of the Fragmenta a few years since. From these new fragments we are now able to make a tolerably certain guess as to the plot of the Vidularia. It was some- thing like that of the Rudens, and chiefly differed from it in that it described the fortunes of a lost son, not a lost daughter. Nicodemus seems to have been a son lost or stolen in early life. He is wrecked near his father’s house, and all his worldly goods go to the bottom of the sea in his chest. Being reduced to penury, he takes a humble lodging with a fisherman Gorgo, and to makea livelihood engages as a farm-servant with his own father, Dinia. A rogue of a slave, Cacistus, fishes up his chest, and is going to carry it off, when he is prevented by Gorgo, who has been watching him from among some myrtles. Gorgo insists on keeping the chest until Cacistus can establish his claim to it before an arbitrator. That is all we learn from the fragments: indeed we do not learn quite so much, for it is not expressly told us that Dinia was Nicodemus'’s father. The rest of the play must have been almost identical with the Rudens. The recognition of the chest by Nicodemus as his, and the recognition of Nicodemus, through cre- pundia contained in the chest, by Dinia, must surely have followed. The piece seems to have been expressly written as a counterpart to the Rudens. I print here the greater part of the fragments recovered from the Ambrosian, from the 18th to the 68th verse in Schoell’s edition. I have tentatively supplied some gaps, in order to give a con- nected sense, marking my insertions with square brackets. The parts supplied by Studemund I mark with angular brackets.
60
PLAUTINA.
NIcoDEMUS. DINIA.
NICODEMUS. [ Adefindi atque appellandi nunc occdsio]
Est qué [bonum erit nullum aéque tem Jpus cénseo. Quid afs ? licetne ?
DInia. Maxume, siquidémst opus. Sed qufd est negoti ? NICODEMUS. Té ego audivi dfcere Operdrium te vélle rus condiacere.
| DINIA. Recte afdivisti. | NICODEMUS. Quid vis operis fleri ὃ
DINIA. Quid tu {stuc curas? an mihi tutor ddditu’s ?
NICODEMUS. Dare péssum, opinor, sf vis bonum operdrium.
DINIA. Est t{bi mercede sérvos quem des qufspiam ἢ
NICODEMUS. Inépia servom [mf imperat eg ]o mé loc[em].
DINIA. Quid τά ?. locastin <quaéso te usquam quofpiam ὃν Nam equi dém te m[ercenndrium esse haud 4r |bitror. NICODEMUS.
Non sim, siquidem tu né[n es mercenndrius ].} Verfim si pretium dds, duces tecim simul.
1 Some εἰρωνεία like this seems father, as I suppose. demanded, if Dinia was Nicodemus’s
PLAUTINA. 61
DInIA. Labériosa, aduléscens, vitast rfstica.
NICODEMUS. Urbana egestas édepol aliquanté magis.
DINIA. Talfs iactandis tuaé sunt consuetaé manus.
NICODEMUS. At qudlis* exercéndas nunc intéllego.
DInNIA. Mollitia urbana atque 4mbra corpus cdndidumst.
NICODEMUS. Sol ést ad eam rem pfctor: Afrum fécerit.
Dinia. Heus τά nihil illic éstur [ gustat bonum ].
NICODEMUS. Miseré male esse [prfdem consuetimst mihi ].
DINIA. Quod abést, [virtutes tu4s] quaeso ut mi inpértias.
NICODEMUS. Si tibi pudico héminest opus et nén malo, Qui t{bi fideliédr sit quam servf tui, Cibfque minumi mdxumaque indfstria, Minumé mendace, em mé licet condfcere.
DInIA. Non édepol equidem crédo mercenndrium Te esse. NICODEMUS.
An non credis n[{mium p]ondu{s νυ] τί [ὑπ] 7 N| empe adtumare hoc quf pote ]st, dicdt simul [Ipsum Hérculem fuisse m4lum ] operdrium.
3 Probably the best pun in Plautus.
62 PLAUTINA.
DINIA.
[ Operdrium scin] Gnde conducdm mihi? Multém laboret, pafillum mereat, pafllum edit, Minus éperis nihilo faciat quam qui plarumum.
NICODEMUS.
Nec mfhi nisi unum prdndium quicquam duis Praetér mercedem.
DINIA. Quid merendam ? NICODEMUS.
Né duis, Neque cénam.
DINIA. Non cenabis ? NICODEMUS. Immo ibé domum. DInIA. Ubi habitas ἢ NICODEMUS. Hic apud pfscatorem Gérginem. DINIA. Vicinus igitur 6s mihi, ut tu praédicas.
This is as pretty a scene as is to be found in all Plautus. It makes us doubly regret the loss of the greater part of the play.
CACISTUS. GORGO.
CACISTUS.
Ibo et quaeram, sfquem possim séciorum nanciscier, Sefi quem norim qui 4dvocatus ddsit : iam hunc nové locum. Hicine vos habitatis ἢ
PLAUTINA. 63
GORGO.
Hisce in aédibus: huc addfcito. _ At ego vidulum {ntro condam in 4rcam atque occludd4m probe. Τά siquem vis {nvenire tibi patronum, quaérita. Pérfidiose nfmquam quicquam hic agere decretimst mihi.
CACISTUS.
Οὔτ, malum, patrénum quaeram, péstquam litem pérdidi ἢ Némo homo miser ést <adaeque ut égo sum atque infelfx fui>. Vidulum qui ubi vidi, non me cfrcumspexi céntiens.
Vérbero illic {nter [murtus latitans mi] insidids dedit.*
Tam scio quam méd hic stare: ca4ptam praedam pérdidi,
Nisi quid ego mef simile aliquid céntra concilifm paro.
Hic astabo atque Sbservabo, sfquem amicum cénspicer.
On the Fragmenta the only suggestion I have to make is minutal (mince-meat) for canulam, vs. 34.
I must apologize for repeating Biicheler’s conjecture per ver (Casima 523) in the last number of HERMATHENA. I have no claim either to usgue after corpus (Miles 783). This belongs to Ussing. I do not know whether any of the following conjectures have been anticipated. They are not mentioned in Ussing’s or Goetz and Schoell’s editions.
Epidicus 1. i. 62. Déperit. Hercle détegetur corium de tergo meo.
Read delergetur, ‘ scraped off,’ with play on “ergo.
3 Studemund cites a word beginning _servus per myrteta prosilit. Otherwise MO... after iter ; but see vs. 100, I had suggested moros. preserved by Porphyrio: Nescio qui
64 PLAUTINA.
Epidtcus 1Π. 1. 3. Ne quid hinc in spem referas tibi: hoc oppido pollinctum est.
So Goetz; Jollttum B. Perhaps follutum.
Epidicus 111. 3. 8.
PERIPHANES. Non repperisti, adulescens, tranquillum locum Ubi tuas virtutes explices ut postulas. Nam strenuiori deterior si praedicat Suas pugnas fdeillius illae fiunt sordidae.
This is one of the most difficult corruptions in Plautus. B has the reading given above. F and Z add ove after τε, a mere interpolation. I have seen no emendation that is satisfactory, and I suggest that Plautus wrote—
si praedicat Suas pugnas, de illis SUILLAE fiunt sordidae,
‘his battles turn into filthy hog-fights’ (unvia). Cf. acczpz- trina (scil. pugna), a hawk’s fight, Bacchides i. iii. 47 (274).
Miles Glortosus 2. 6. 101.
Nam nunc satis populo impio merui mali.
Populo has, since Bothe, been changed to Zzfu/o in most editions, including Ritschl’s. Professor Tyrrell, following Geppert, reads Nam unt capitulo plus nimio merut malt, A having NAMUNI at the beginning of the verse. But A seems to agree with the other MSS., except as to unt. That fofulo is right I think I can show. Sats populo, ‘enough for a whole people,’ or ‘ all the people,’ was cer- tainly a Latin saying. Ovid, for instance, has, JZé?. 8. 833—
quodque urbibus esse Quodque «αἱ populo poterat, non sufficit uni.
PLAUTINA. 65 And in Plautus himself we find, Pseud. 1. 5. 25, 26—
Nam tu quod damni et quod fecisti flagiti Populo viritim potuit dispertirier.
But the decisive passage is Foe. 1. 2. 15, 16—
Apage sis: negoti quantum in muliere una est. Si vero duae, sat scio maxtmo unt Populo quoilubet plus satis dare potis sunt.
Surely these passages show that f7Julo is unnecessary. The last passage seems to show that uzz should also be read—
Nam uni satis populo impio merui mali.
‘I have deserved thrashing enough for one whole impious people.’ Miles lil. 1. 102.
Iampridem quia nihil abstulerit succenset ceriaria.
Certartia A; cerarta the Palatine mss. Salmasius’s foraria, ‘nurse,’ only rests on a conjectural reading of a gloss. I suggest corzartza as the nearest approach pos- sible to A. Cortarta might mean a woman who looked after the boots and shoes.
Miles τι. vi. 104.
Illic hince abscessit : sat edepol certo scio Occisam saepe sapere plus multo suem, Quin id adimatur ne id quod vidit viderit.
So A, and so, very nearly, the Palatine Mss. There is no doubt that adzmatur is the tradition of both branches of the MSS.
I have long since dissented from those who hold a lacuna after svem. As a pupil pointed out to me, the lines give an excellent sense as they stand (reading admu-
VOL. IX. ΕΒ
66 PLAUTINA.
ttletur, with Ritschl), ‘I am quite sure that a slaughtered hog has more wit (than this fellow), who is so chiselled that he has not seen what he has seen,’ the omission of the antecedent being most Plautine. That is the semse, but the word admuitilefur is not fairly got out of adzmatur, which has such powerful testimony that the real word must have been either it, or something very like it indeed. Such a word is adlimatur, which I suggest Plautus wrote—‘ he is so filed down.’ This would add another to the many metaphors from the carpenter’s trade referring to cheating, swindling, with which this play abounds: cf. deasctart, deruncinare, dolare, &c.
It has been proposed to keep td ad:matur, and with this object Ribbeck changes guzne to cutm (dative); but then ze gives the exactly opposite sense to the real one.
Deltmare, eltmare, are known as compounds of lmare.
Miles Iv. v. 5. Verum postremo impetravi ut volui: dona videre Quae voluit, quae postulavit. Donait dere B; dona videre CD. I have little doubt that the true reading is vdevo. ‘I'll see to getting the gifts she asks for.’ This Pyrgopolinices does, Iv. viii.
28— Exite atque ecferte huc intus omnia istic quae dedi.
The contending readings are donavi, dedt, Ribbeck; donave, dart, Bugge; donavigue et, Camerarius.
Miles Ol. ii. 29. Si falsa dicis, Lurcio, excruciabere. Lurcto is Fleckeisen’s conjecture, is generally read, but is very far from the MSS., which have here wotzo BC,
uocto ID, though Lucrio puer is given as the name at the beginning of the scene. Although I admit that a proper
PLAUTINA. 67°
name is likely, and that Lurczo may be that proper name, I will add eculeo to the list of conjectures based on the supposition that the word is an ablative, denoting some
kind of torture. ‘If you don’t speak the truth you shall be put to the rack.’
Castna 1. 38.
Post autem ruri nisi tu acervom ederis Aut quasi lumbricus terram.
This seems to be the reading of A. I repent of my conjecture aervem in last HERMATHENA. The word that is most corrupt seems 7,272, which has no meaning here. With a transposition and slight change, I now propose—
Post autem nisi 7wd7 tu acervos ederis, Aut quasi lumbricus terram.
“heaps of brambles.’ The collective singular is defen- sible.
Castna 1. 16 (104 Seéqq.). Chaline, non sum oblitus officium meum,
Praefeci ruri recte qui curet tamen.
Quando ego eam mecum rus uxorem abduxero, Rure incubabo usque in praefectura mea.
Read— RuREI CURABO usque in praefectura mea,
‘I will attend to my country province.’ Cuvrare takes the dative in Plautus, as is well known.
Bacchrdes 4. 8. 63.
CLEOMACHUS.
Hodie exigam aurum hoc. F 2
68 PLAUTINA.
CHRYSALUS.
Exige ac suspende te. Ne supplicare censeas: nihili homo. Eas has apparently fallen out after censeas. ‘Be off, you good-for-nothing! ’
Bacchides 3. 3. 82-4. Qufd opust verbis ? si 6pperiri véllem paullispér modo,
Ut opinor illius inspectandi mihi ésset maior cépia, Plas vidissem qu4m deceret, quam me atque illo aequom fuit.
Ut openor slleus is, of course, corrupt; but otherwise the three verses seem sound enough, and should not be bracketed. The following conjecture gives the sense re- quired, and is not far from the MSS. :—
Ut rupanar{s spectandi mihi ésset maior cépia.
Capitot 1. 2. 81.
I modo venare leporem: nunc irim tenes. Nam meus scruposam victus commetat viam.
Ictem, ‘ a weasel,’ is the most generally accepted emen- dation. I think Plautus wrote czcuvim, ‘Go hunt for a hare: you now have hold only of a tame one.’ Hares were often kept in a /eforartum, and very probably their flesh was tougher than wild hares, and this may be all that vs. 82 means.
Curculto 3. 25-27. CuRCULIO.
Catapulta hoc ictumst mihi Apud Sicyonem. Lyco. Nam quid id refert mea An aula quassa cum cinere ecfossus siet ?
I find some difficulty in cum cinere. I know that aula
PLAUTINA. 69
cum cinere would mean in Plautus ‘a pot of ashes,’ as ‘nassiterna cum aqua’ means ‘a watering-pot of water.’ But bow a broken pot could contain ashes, or how a pot of ashes would be standing by, or could be thrown, or how the ashes would help to knock out an eye, I do not understand. Why is Sscyon mentioned? Possibly, in the original, to introduce a joke on σίκνος, a cucumber—
quid id refert mea An aula quassa AN CUCUMERE ecfossus siet ἢ
Cicinere and cucumere very closely resemble each other.
Curculto 1. 2. 33.
Venus, de paulo paululum tibi dabo haud lubenter: Νάτῃ tibi amantes prépinantes vinum potantés dant omnes. Mihi haud saepe eveniunt tales hereditates.
Read fofsies.
Poenulus τ. 2. 12.
Binaé singulaé quae dataé nobis ancillae.
The metre is bacchiac, and amczllae will not scan. Perhaps /faveae should be read for it. Amczllae may have been an intrusive gloss: cf. A/t/es 3. 1. 202.
Poenulus 1. 2. 158.
Ego faxo si nén irata es, n{fnnium pro té dabit.
So B. Aes, omitted in all MSS., is invariably supplied after es, and mtmtum is read for ninntum. I think it is unsafe to change innzum; it scans, and has a meaning, namely, a screw of a horse, which may have been all Agorastocles possessed.
70 PLAUTINA.
Poenulus 2. 45-46.
A. Ausculta. 2. Non hercle auscultabo. A. Quomodo? Colaphis quidem hercle tuum iam dilidam caput, Nisi aut auscultas aut is in malam crucem.
So A, which alone has the passage entire. I suggest: A. Ausculta. Z. Non hercle ausculto. A. At scin quomodo ἡ
The idiom was to use the present in refusals; and af sce quomodo is the regular formula introducing a threat.
Poenulus v. 2. τό.
Sed quaenam illaec avist, quae huc cum tunicis advenit ? Numnam in balineis circumductus pallio ὃ
Avis is absolutely devoid of meaning; for Ussing’s explanation that Hanno is compared to a bird, owing to his sudden appearance on the scene, is absurd. We should probably read either z//a avtast or tlla anus est, ‘who is that old woman with the tunics.’ Hanno, who wears no belt (cf. 5. 2. 48) and long tunics, more than one (tunicis demissiciis, 5. 5. 25), is compared to a woman, ‘sane genus hoc muliebrosum’; ‘mulier’ and ‘amatrix Africa’ in the passage last quoted.
Poenulus 5. 4. 46.
A. S{ quid amicitia ést habenda, cum hdéc habenda est. Ad. Hatd precor. Read :
A. Sf quid amicitia ést habenda, cum hoc habenda. Ad. Hau DEprecor.
Rudens V. ii. 20.
G. Sed qufd tibist? Z£. Hac préxima nocte fn mari et 4lii Confrdctast navis pérdidi quidqu{d erat miser ibi émne.
ΜῈῈ et altt, Seyffert, Sonnenschein, possibly rightly.
. PLAUTINA. 71
But as Labrax makes no farther mention of his partner, and as it is not in accordance with his selfish nature to trouble himself about him, I think it worth while to sug- gest defalz, ‘in the deadly sea,’ which is very near the MSS.
Pseudolus τι. iv. 9.
Ch. Névos mihist. Ca/. Nimifm mortalis graphicus: εὑρέτης mihist. This is a violation of the rule forbidding a diiambic ending. I suggest that Plautus used the form εὑρήτης : several forms with -» occur.
Pseudolus 4. 7. 44.
Tune is es? Chlamydate, caue sis tibi a curuo infortunio Atque in hunc intende digitum.
For curuo I would propose either crurum or querno, the former for choice.
TIrinummus I. iv. 25~29.
S?#. Quia sponsionem propter tute exactus es
Pro illo adulescente, quem tu esse aibas divitem.
Le. Factum. S?. Ut quidem illud perierit. Ze. Factum id quoque est.
Nam nunc eum vidi miserum et me eius miseritumst.
Surely there is something wrong with the last verse. munc gives no Satisfactory sense. ‘ Now,’ literally, is out of the question. The transaction was of some standing. And the meaning, ‘as it is,’ is out of place: for there is no other course with which a present course is contrasted. I cannot help surmising that the very name of the friend for whom Lesbonicus spoke the fatal word ‘ spondeo’ is men- tioned here. I conjecture his name to have been Lynceus.
72 PLAUTINA.
This, in the original MSS. of Plautus, would be written Lunceus, accusative Lunceum—
Nam Lunceum vidi miserum et me eius miseritumst.
I would not introduce synizesis into a Latm word of the form Lunceum ; but as even the elegiac and heroic poets contract the cases of Greek proper names in -exs all through, I have no hesitation in suggesting that Plautus would have done the same.
Trinummus Ill. ii. 66-68.
Quis me improbior perhibeatur esse ἢ haec famigeratio Te honestet, me conlutulentet: si sine dote duxeris Tibi sit emolumentum honoris: mihi quod obiectent siet.
The phrase emolumentum honoris is a peculiar one. I pro- pose— Tibi siet monumentum honoris: mihi quod obiectent siet.
Trinummus ΤΙΤ. iii. 31. Gerrae: ne tu illud verbum actutum inveneris.
‘Mihi quidem hercle non est quod dem mutuom.’ Malim hercle ut verum dicas, quam ut des mutuom.
Ussing abandons the last line. I think it is still part of the words of Megaronides, the speaker of the first two lines, and reaad—
‘Malim hercle, ut verum dicam, mz ut des mutuom,’
‘tell you the truth, I had rather you would lend me money.’
Truculentus I. i. 53.
Aut perit aurum, aut conscissa pallula est.
Aurum is rather vague: for it seems as if some particu- lar article had been lost. Hence I would venture to pro- pose zzaurts, ‘an earring,’ although, to the best of my belief, the singular is not found elsewhere. This would
PLAUTINA. 73
make the passage still more similar than it is at present to Horace, Ep. 1. 17. 55—
Nota refert meretricis acumina saepe catellam
Saepe periscelidem raptam sibi flentis.
Truculentus ΤΙ. i. 37. Velut hic agrestis est adulescens, qui hic habet Nimis pol mortalis lepidus nimisque probus dator. Sed is clam patrem etiam hac nocte illac Per hortum transilivit ad nos eum volo convenire.
This is, practically, the tradition of the Palatine Mss. A here has readings which point to a different recension altogether. It makes the first line a trochaic, having velut htc est adulescens qut habtta|n|t htc agrestis rusticus, gives amator for dator in the second verse, and ¢vamszt for transt- 4:vz¢ in the last. The tradition of the Palatine seems the more reliable, and I think the four lines may all have been iambic trimeters. I would read in the last two—
Sed is calim patrem etiam hac nocte maceriam
Per hortum transilivit ad nos: eum volo. Caltm is the ancient form of clam, while z//ac seems to me to stand for mac, a truncation of macertam ; and conventre was added by a scribe, who forgot, for the moment, that éum volo was complete without it.
Truculentus 4. 3. 67. . DINIARCHUS. Verum te obsecro, ut tuam gnatam des mihi uxorem Callicles. CALLICLES. Eundem pul te iudicasse quidem istam rem intellego. Callicles had just found out of his daughter having had a child by Diniarchus. I read—
Eam dem! pol te iudicasse pridem istam rem intellego. “you have settled that matter yourself long since.’ fof and pridem are old restorations.
14 PLAUTINA.
Truculentus 5. 33.
STRATOPHANES. Meosne ante oculos ego illam patiar alios amplexarier ? Mortuum hercle me hodie satius. Abstine hoc mulier manum, Nisi si te mea actutum machaera et hunc vis emori.
PHRONESIUM. tNihilipphiari satiust, miles, si te amari postulas. Auro haud ferro deterrere potes me ne amem hunc, Strato- phanes.
I only discuss here the reading of the first lines of Phronesium’s speech. A. Spengel, orie of the ablest of Plautine critics, coined the word PAzl:ppzarz out of the corrupt WVzhzlipphtarz, ‘you had better use louis d’ors if you want my love.’ But I pointed out in HERMATHENA, in 1881, that such a coinage would be only justified by a reference to a previous infinitive, and suggested that a line had fallen out beginning with Mzhzz, Thus—
Nfhili facio tu4m machaeram: mftte minitar{ mihi.
And I still think I have got the first part of the line correctly ; but it seems likely that Spengel’s Phzl:pp1arz¢ points to a pun on mina, and therefore I suggest the two lines ran—
Nfhili facio tuam machaeram: mitte mi mindrier:
Philipptari satiust miles, si te amari postulas,
none of your mznae for me: use Philips if you want my love.’
I may also suggest vzve, es mecum, ers. 30, for vzves: semtcocta, Pers. 93, for mtht tncocta ; σκληρά for scelera, Pseud- 817; susum tn, Stichus 925; fert, Siichus 86, for ertt; lectos tres, Stichus 35.
A. PALMER.
( Τὸ )
THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
HERE does not seem to be anywhere preserved a catalogue of the library of Bishop Butler. It was probably not thought worth making at the time of his death, for he was a wise rather than a learned man; and wisdom of the highest type is hardly to be learned from books. But it would be an interesting record, if it could be found, for it would throw light on a chapter of English philosophical history that is somewhat obscure. The relation of Butler to the ethical and religious thought of his time has indeed been often discussed, but beyond vague general statements as to his knowledge of the works of Clarke, Shaftesbury, and Hutcheson, little, as far as I know, has been written which gives us much insight into the nature of the books he read or the writers with whom he lived in his hours of study. And yet an investi- gation which could tell us this would not be without value, for, although a great man like Butler is, doubtless, more than the mere product of his age, he can hardly fail, if he reads at all, to be influenced by the literature of his time, whether for good or for evil.
To discuss with fulness Butler’s indebtedness to his English predecessors would require a knowledge of the philosophical literature of the seventeenth century to which I do not pretend; but the editor of HERMATHENA has kindly permitted a few fragmentary notes on the subject to find a resting-place here.
I do not know that it has ever been observed how much Butler was indebted to a now forgotten writer, one
76 THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
John Wilkins, who was Bishop of Chester from 1668 to 1672. This worthy person seems first to have attracted public attention to himself by the publication of a book in which he suggested the possibility of a voyage to the moon, though not after the manner of M. Jules Verne.’ In 1640 he published ‘The First Book: the Discovery of a “New World, or a Discourse tending to prove that it’s probable there may be another habitable world in the Moone; with a Discourse concerning the possibility of a Passage thither.’ It is not, however, to this book that I desire to call attention, but to a posthumous volume edited after Wilkins’s death by Tillotson, and issued in 1675, entitled, ‘Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion.’ This is a sober and sensible treatise, full of good psychological remarks; and it seems to me plain that Butler must have read it. It would be unlikely that, in the preparation of his Axalogy, he would neglect a book recommended, and (in the concluding chapters) partly written by Tillotson; and there are more resem- blances both in thought and phraseology with the Sermons and the Azalogy than can be reasonably ascribed to chance.
For instance, the principle which Butler lays down in the Introduction tothe Analogy, that in practical matters of great importance we are morally bound to act on probable evidence, if demonstration is not forthcoming, was fully expounded by Bishop Wilkins in the third chapter of Book I. of his Natural Religion. ‘In all the ordinary affairs of life’ (he says), ‘men use to guide their actions by this Rule, namely, to incline to that which is most probable and likely, when they cannot attain to any clear unquestionable certainty. And that man would be
1 Cf. Addison, Zhe Guardian, No. Bishop Wilkins was so confident of 112:—‘ The philosophers of King success in it, that he says he does not Charles’s reign were busy in finding question but that in the next age it out the art of flying. The famous will be as usual to hear a man call for
THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER. Τ7
generally counted a fool who should do otherwise’ (p. 34; see also p. 95). And the Bishop proceeds:—‘If in any matter offered to consideration the probabilities on both sides be supposed to be equal ; yet even in this case, men may be obliged to order their actions in favour of that side, which appears to be most safe and advantageous for their interest. Suppose a man travelling upon the road to meet with two doubtful ways, concerning neither of which he can have any the least probability to induce him to believe that one is more like to be the true way to his journey’s end than the other; only he is upon good grounds assured, that in one of these ways he shall meet with much trouble, difficulty, and danger, which the other is altogether free from: in this case, though a man be not bound to believe that one of them is a truer way than the other, yet is he obliged, in prudence, to take the safest’ (p. 37). This is re-echoed by Butler over and over again ; é.g. on p. 278 of the Analogy' he remarks :—‘ Suppose it doubtful, what would be the consequence of acting in this, or in a contrary manner: still, that taking one side could be attended with little or no bad consequence, and taking the other might be attended with the greatest, must appear, to unprejudiced reason, of the highest ‘moment towards determining how we are to act.’
The striking quotation from Grotius de Vertfate Rel. Chr. in the Analogy, p. 235 (Ut? tta sermo Evangelit tanquam lapis esset Lydtus ad quem tngenta sanabilia explorarentur), was applied by Wilkins (p. 32) in precisely the same way as it is used by Butler. There can be little doubt that this quotation was obtained at second-hand by Butler, who nowhere else shows any knowledge of Grotius.
Again, Butler speaks of ‘the appearance of a standing his wings, when he is going a journey, works, in two volumes, published at
as it is now to call for his boots.’ Oxford in 1844. 1I quote from the edition of Butler’s
78 THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
miracle in the Jews remaining a distinct people in their dispersion’ (Analogy, p. 272). Now, Wilkins not only makes this very point, and speaks of the Jews as being ‘intended for a standing memorial and example to the world of the divine power and vengeance’ (p. 89), but he remarks, that ‘ but little notice’ had been taken of the fact by previous writers. It seems that here, again, Butler was indebted to the Bishop of Chester.
And to turn to the Sermons :—The important psycho- logical doctrine, that there could be no pleasure derived from the gratification of a passion were it not for a ‘ drtor suttableness between the object and the passion’ (Butler, Sermons, p. 132), is laid down with great exactness by Wilkins. ‘Pleasure doth consist in that satisfaction which we receive in the use and enjoyment of the things we possess. It is founded in a suitableness and congruity betwixt the faculty and its object’ (Natural Religion, Ῥ. 344). There can be no doubt, I think, that Butler had this passage in his mind when he worked out the theory of his eleventh Sermon.
Again, the word superstition is used by Butler more than once, and its meaning is not immediately apparent (see Sermons, pp. 31, 85). But Wilkins’ definition of it (p. 236) makes all plain—‘ Superstition doth properly consist in a misapprehension of things, placing religion in such things as they ought not for the ma/ffer, or in such a degree as they ought not for the measure, which proceeds from ignorance.’ ἢ
It is also perhaps worth noticing that the ‘implicit dissatisfaction of the wicked in vice’ discussed by Butler
1JIt has, I suppose, been often ob- every man, not only a power to reflect, served that the word reflection, which but a necessary reflection upon his Butler uses as almost equivalent to actions; not only a voluntary remem- conscience (Sermons, p. 8), was usedin __ brance, but also an irresistible judgment the same sense by another Bishop of of his ownconversation’ (On the Creed, Chester, viz. Pearson—‘ There is in Art. vii., § 19).
THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER. 79
(Sermons, p. 87) is remarked by Wilkins (p. 385), and the principle illustrated from the Epistles of Seneca. How- ever, here it must be admitted that Butler’s way of putting the matter is far more forcible and pointed than that of his predecessor.
It is tolerably plain from these illustrations, that the work of Wilkins on Natural Religion was familiar to the author of the Azalogy. Of other writers who influenced the thought of Butler, the most conspicuous is Shaftes- bury. And it may be worth while to add here a few of the points in which there seems to be a literary or philoso- phical connexion between the two writers.
The whole idea of human nature as a system or consti- tution naturally adapted to virtue is (as has often been remarked) fully worked out by Shaftesbury in the /uguzry, though, as Butler indicates, the principle of the supremacy of conscience was not sufficiently recognized by that writer. But, as Butler here acknowledges his obligation, it is not necessary to dwell on it with more fulness. It may be observed, in passing, that when Butler speaks (Preface to Sermons, p. xvii) of ‘the greatest degree of scepticism which Shaftesbury thought possible,’ he is alluding to a passage in the Charactertsttcks, where we read: ‘Let us carry scepticism ever so far; let us doubt, if we can, of everything about us, we cannot doubt of what passes within ourselves.’ The principle that ‘ self-love, in Its due degree, is as just and morally good as any affection whatever’ is also stated by Shaftesbury with great clear- ness and exactitude (Charactertsticks, vol. ii., Ὁ. 23).
The doctrine ‘that there are as real and the same kinds of indications in human nature that we were made for society and to do good to our fellow-creatures as that we were intended to take care of our own life, and health, and
i Vol. ii., page 173. My edition printed, in three volumes, in 1727. of Shaftesbury’s -works is the fourth,
80 THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
private good’ (Sermons, p. 4) is not, of course, regarded by anyone as a doctrine peculiar to or originated by Butler. But it is remarkable how closely his statement of it agrees with the language of his predecessors. Bishop Wilkins (Natural Religion, p. 288) speaks of man being naturally designed for society; and Shaftesbury tells us (Charactertsticks, iii. 223) that ‘the most ¢vuly natural [affections], generous and noble, are those which tend towards public service and the interest of the society at large.’ ‘Nor is anything more apparent than that there is naturally in every man such a degree of social affection as induces him to seek the familiarity and friendship of his fellows’ (Characterzsticks, ii. 136). The phrase ‘ public affection’ used by Butler in this context is taken from Shaftesbury (ii. 79).
The ethical doctrine developed by Paley, which has been described as ‘ otherworldliness,’ may be found hinted at in the pages of Butler. Thus, at the end of the third sermon Butler points out, as an incentive to right living, that duty and interest always lead in the same direction, if we include the future life within our mental prospect. The germ of this teaching is to be found in Bishop Wilkins (ὦ. ¢c., p. 83), ‘nothing properly is man’s duty but what is really his zz/erest’; and this general correspon- dence between the dictates of conscience and self-love is regarded by Wilkins, as it was afterwards by Butler in the Axalogy, as an indication of the wisdom and: power of the Governor of the World.
That the final cause of the passion of hasty resentment is to prevent and enable a man successfully to resist sudden violence is remarked by Shaftesbury, as well as by Butler. ‘ This passion,’ he says,! ‘is serviceable in forti- fying us against danger, and enabling us to repel injury
1 Vol. ii., p. 144.
THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER. 81
and resist violence when offered.’ And in like manner, there is a similarity in the treatment given by the two moralists of the passion of settled or deliberate resentment. Both agree that its presence in man is a sufficient demon- stration to him ‘that the rules of justice and equity are to be the guide of his actions’ (Sermons, p.99). ‘Anger... an acknowledgment of just and unjust,’ notes Shaftesbury (vol. ii., p. 420).
The question ‘whether we should love God for His own sake,’ discussed among the Quietists in France, to which Butler alludes at the end of his Preface, is raised by Shaftesbury (Chavractertsticks, vol. ii., Ὁ. 272), and con- sidered in connexion with the cognate ethical problem as to the possibility of a disinterested pursuit of virtue.
When Butler insists that if there be observed instances of approbation of vice, as such, in itself, and for its own sake, they are ‘evidently monstrous’ (Azalogy, p. 58), he is reproducing Shaftesbury’s illustration. ‘Nor are they less monsters who are misshapen or distorted in an inward part’ is a principle laid down by that writer (Characferts- πος, vol. ii., Ὁ. 136).
That misery is a different thing from ill desert is illus- | trated by Butler, as it had previously been by Shaftesbury. ‘We do not say of anyone that he is an 2/7 man because he has the plague-spots upon him’ (Charactertsticks, vol. ii., Ῥ. 21). Compare with this Butler’s Essay on Virtue, Ὁ. 319. ‘If unhappily it were resolved, that a man who, by some innocent action, was infected with the plague, should be left to perish, lest, by other people’s coming near him, the infection should spread, no one would say he deserved this treatment.’ The similarity of the illustration seems to betray literary connexion.
It is a familiar thought with Butler, that we are not competent judges of the scheme of Divine Providence,
from the small parts of it which come within our view in VOL. IX. G
82 THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
the present life; ‘therefore,’ he says, ‘no objections against any of these parts can be insisted on by reason- able men’ ‘ (Azalogy, p. 128). Precisely the same point is made by Shaftesbury: ‘Ifthe ill of one private system be the good of others; if it makes still to the good of the general system .. . then is the Ill of that private system no real Ill in itself, . . . so that we cannot say of any Being that it is wholly and absolutely 211, unless we can positively show and ascertain that what we call ILL is nowhere Goop besides, in any other system, or with respect to any other order of oeconomy whatsoever’ (Characferisticks, vol. ii., p. 20).
And lastly, concerning the relation of abstract morality to the will of God, Butler expresses himself in a manner very similar to that of Shaftesbury. ‘If the mere W212, Decree, or Law of God, be said absolutely to constitute Right and Wrong, then (Shaftesbury had said) are these latter words of no significancy at all. For thus if each part of a Contradiction were affirmed for Truth by the supreme Power, they would consequently become fue’ (Charactertsticks, vol. ii., p. 50). The illustration here em- ployed is repeated by Butler (Azalgy, p. 118, note). ‘It seems as inconceivable to suppose God to approve one course of action, or one end, preferably to another, which yet His acting at all from design implies that He does, without supposing somewhat prior in that end to be the ground of the preference; as to suppose Him to discern an abstract proposition to be true, without supposing somewhat prior in it, to be the ground of the discernment.’
Among the other modern writers explicitly mentioned by Butler are Clarke, who greatly influenced his early
4 Berkeley had said the same thing: themselves, appear to be evil, have the ‘If we enlarge our view . . . we shall natureofgood, whenconsideredaslinked be forced to acknowledge that those with the whole system of beings’ (γέρε. particular things which, considered in ciples of Human Knowledge, § 153).
THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER. 88
speculations, as we learn from the letters which passed between them; Hobbes, against whose psychological theories he directs his polemic in his Sermons on Human Nature and on Compassion ; Locke, whose doctrine of personality he discusses in the first Dissertation appended to the Analogy; Wollaston, whose Religion of Nature Delineated had a high reputation in the eighteenth century ; and Colliber, to whose book on Revealed Religion he refers in the second part of the Azalogy. Butler mentions Wollaston’s book in favourable terms in the Preface to the Sermons, but I do not know that the resemblances, whether in matter or form, between the two authors are more, or more striking, than might be expected from the fact that they wrote on the same topics about the same time. But in Colliber’s work there is a good deal which might have suggested some of the arguments of the Analogy. Its title in full is, ‘The Christian Religion founded on Reason; or, two Essays on Natural and Re- vealed Religion, by the author of the /mpartial Enqutry.’ It was published in 1729, the motto on the title-page being Credo guta [non] tmposstbtle est. This of itself gives a good idea of the spirit of the writer, to whom nothing could be more distasteful than the paradox of Tertullian which he thus transforms into a platitude.
That it is impossible to believe any doctrine ‘plainly contradictory to nature,’ that the ‘reasonableness of revelation’ is a suitable topic for discussion, inasmuch as its internal character affords its best test, that the passions are not to be destroyed but to be controlled, inasmuch as ‘ Patience doth not include a Stoical Apathie or an entire freedom from all Passions,’ are all proposi- tions familiar to the student of Butler, but not so familiar to the English thought of his time.
It would not be right to occupy any more space with
quotations from these forgotten writers; my object is G2
84 THE PREDECESSORS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
simply to call attention to the fact of Butler’s indebtedness to Wilkins, and the extent of his indebtedness to Shaftes- bury. The former of these points, so far as I know, has not been observed, and the latter has, as it seems to me, been underestimated.
J. H. BERNARD.
HORATIANUM.
Epodes ΠῚ. 13-18 :
Hoc delibutis ulta donis pelicem Serpente fugit alite,
Nec tantus umquam siderum insedit vapor Siticulosae Apuliae,
Nec munus umeris efficacis Herculis Inarsit aestuosius.
Eficax is a very strange word to apply to a person. Were it the most appropriate in the world, it has no point here. On the other hand éficax is the very word to apply to a powerful drastic poison. Cf. ‘ efficaci scientiae’ 17, 1. I put forward, as in every way preferable to the vulgate :
Nec munus umeris aestuantis Herculis Inarsit efficacius.
I am aware that Orelli brings forward one passage in which eficax is applied toa person. Caelius, writing to Cicero, ad Fam. 10. 3: Nosti Marcellum quam tardus et parum efficax sit; but Caelius is by no means Locuples auctor, and even the sense he assigns to it would be odd here.
A. P.
( 8δὅ )
TWO UNPUBLISHED INSCRIPTIONS.
HE first inscription is Latin, on a marble slab, sixteen inches by nine. It was formerly in the Museum of Trinity College, and is now in the Library. I know nothing of how it originally came into our possession. It reads as follows :—
Dv M S S S M v IVLIO v CAPITOLINO S MEDICO v DVPL ν CL ν ΡῈ MISE B NENSIS VY HERES v M
2.6, M. Julio Capitolino Medico Duplari (or Duplicaric Classis Praetoriae Misenensis Heres. Bene Mereuti.
The Classis Misenensis became *Praetoria, 2.5. under the command of the Emperor, between A.D. 71 and A.D. 127 (Mommsen, C.I.L.). The first mention of it in this character is of the date 129 (Darenberg and Saglio). It continued to be Praetoria until the fifth century. ‘ Milites Duplares,’ or ‘ Duplicarii,’ were those who received double pay for distinguished service. |
The second inscription is Greek. Unfortunately we possess only a mould. The only information I have about it is from Mr. Cullen, of the Museum. He states that he has a distinct recollection of a conversation between a former curator and the Rev. Eugene Q’Meara, for many years curate of St. Mark’s, from which he gathered that
86 TWO UNPUBLISHED INSCRIPTIONS.
the original was in St. Mark’s Churchyard. The fact of our having the mould is presumptive evidence that the original was not far off. I have made every inquiry and search in St. Mark’s and elsewhere without success. The Rev. Mr. Dougherty, however, late curate of St. Mark’s, states that he distinctly remembers its being pointed out to him, but whether in St. Mark’s or not he cannot re- member. This would be, I think, the only Greek inscrip- tion ever found in Ireland. Of course it could only have come here by accident, either being brought by a traveller, and subsequently thrown aside, or perhaps coming with the ballast of a ship. Itis imperfect, its present extreme dimensions being thirteen inches by eleven, and it reads as follows :— EWNT ENAPOAE! (\EPOMNAMONOC ANGENTWNIOYNYS
PEIMOYK . IAAMOKPATOYC
KAIENAOP . AEITOYKAIKAC
ECTACOYCIACKATATOESO
NOITOYAIAYMEWCTO
Before P in line 5 appears to be part of T.
The only point to be noticed about the form of the letters is that M has all its strokes rather curved, the niddle angle being rounded, and the left-hand stroke not reaching to the top of the second, which curves over it.
T. K. ABBOTT.
( 87)
NOTES ΟΝ CICERO’S EPISTLES.
Y the kindness of the Rev. J. E. Fenwick, of Thirle- staine House, Cheltenham, I was allowed to consult the eight MSS. of Cicero’s Eprstulae ad Famtliares which are in the library of that mansion. This library was formerly the property of Sir Thomas Philipps, of Middle- hill, Worcestershire. There is a large, but not complete, catalogue of this library in Haenel, but he mentions only five MSS. of Cicero’s Epistles as having been at Middlehill. The mss. of Cicero’s Epzstulae ad Famtliares are these :—
917.—Parchment, cent. xv., beautifully written and highly ornamented. Contains all the letters.
4009.—Paper, late, in loose sheets. Contains ix. 8 to ix. 15. 5 (partetrbus); viii. 2. 1 (nom mehercules) to viii. 9. 3 (spem) ; ix. 15. 5 (aut tn tecfo) to xvi. 18 fin. (Lomo bonus).
2269 a4.—Same writing as 4009. Contains from iii. 6. 2 (conventssem) to viii. 1. 2 (femuesstmam). After this the leaves are wrongly bound, but all the portions of viii., which are wanting in 4009, are to be found, except 15. 2 (conferre) to end of book.
2269 6.—Paper, late. Contains iii. 7. 4 (Araetergressum) to vii. 17. 2 (memuintsse fe credo), breaking off in the middle of a page.
8875.—Parchment, cent. xv. Contains all the letters, except Book viii. The omission of this is noticed by a second hand in the margin. The ninth book follows the seventh in the middle of a page. The MS. has as a supple- ment ad Brut. i. 16; i. 15; Ep. ad Octavianum.
88 _ NOTES ON CICERO’S EPISTLES.
3685 and 11913 (the one MS. bears both numbers).— Parchment. Contains all letters; but there is a consider- able displacement of leaves from xi. 1. 4 to xiii. 78. 2.
Mendelssohn (p. xvii) has shown that during the fifteenth century very many MSS.—alzus alto nequtor, as he says—were copied from Medicean 49. 7 (he calls it P). This was the copy of the great Medicean 49. 9, which Coluccio received from Pasquino de’ Capelli in 1389. All the Cheltenham MSS. appear to have been derived from this source. Certain it is, at all events, that they are quite worthless members of the same family as M. Thus, all have iv. 11. 1, guemadmodum—gratulatio, omitted by the Harleianus (H) and Parisinus (Par) ; and again, in iv. 12. 2, they do of supply the words ¢z—medicos, omitted by M, but found in H Par; and in v. 2. 7 they read credo with P* for certo scto (om.sczo M). Those of them that have the first book, in i. 7.8 read virtutigue with P for favist: (Schol. Bob.) ; [praefuzs|t2 M, om. HP. Those that contain the fast eight books have not (at least by the first hand) any of the genuine readings which are found in the family to which M does not belong, ¢.g. ix. 15. 1 (curam—izb1) ; x. 18. 2 (exercitu—senitente) ; X. 23.5 (mumeroque hosits habueram) ; ΧΙ. 13.1 (Aguzlam pertsse nesctebam) ; xii. 14. 3 (quam revera —scripst) ; xiii. 28. 3, 22 confirmo ; xv. 2. 5, et tamen adu- lescentem essem; while all read ef fe vtsus est, as is found in M, but omitted by the Harleian (H), Palatinus Sextus (Pal), Erfurdtensis (E). It also has ix. 18, omitted by Η; and x. 18, 19, 20, omitted by Pal.
16288.—The same may be said of the 52. ad Fam. found in this MS. It is on parchment, and contains Fam. i-vii.; Q. Fr. i. 1, and several letters from the later books ad Att., viz. xvi. 10, ὃ 1 (vlgo), as if beginning a letter, to § 2 (factam) ; xvi. 11. 2, Quod vererts to lactarer; § 3, Quod me to altud; Ltbrum to end of letter [for ἀδόλεσχος here, and for many, but not all, Greek words this MS. has Gr.];
NOTES ON CICEROS EPISTLES. 89
Xiv. 17 A; vill. 15 A. 1, 2; 1x.6A;7C,B, A; 16; 134; 14; xii. 28, 2, 3 (to delego); 10; xiii. το. 1 (Ll/ud, as if begin- ning a letter) to 20. 1 (A/tspalt, as if the end of the letter) ; xiii. 33. 4 (De Varrone to remanserunt) ; xiv. 13 A, B; Xiv. 12. 6; ad Brut.i. 8; Att. xvi. 16D, E,F; iii.5. Then follow some letters from the latter books of Fam., viz. 1x. 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 23, 25, 263; X. 123 Xilii. 4, 36,17, 19, 20, 21; Xvi. 21.1. It stops in the middle of a page, leaving three and a-half folia unfilled. The portions of Fam. are un- doubtedly a copy of Med. 49. 7 (P). There does not appear to be anything exceptional in Epp. ad Att., the readings in most of the passages inspected showing no marked divergence from Med. 49. 18. The list given may help towards the obtaining of some knowledge concerning the selections of letters made in the fifteenth century.
2351 and 2879.—The single MS. which bears these two numbers is somewhat different from the others. It is a parchment MS., written in 1447.)
In the first eight books it is a mere copy of P; but in the latter portion it is a ‘contaminatus codex’ of the kind noted by Mendelssohn, pp. xxvi, xxvii. Thus we find in it the additions (cp. p. 88 above) supplied by H Pal in ix. 15. 1; ix. 16. 7 (afud me—tllos) ; x. 18. 23 X. 22. 5; xii. 14. 3; xiii. 28. 3. On the other hand, it omits xi. 13. 1 (Agutlam pertsse nesciebam) ; xv. 2. 5 (et tamen adulescentem essem), as M does; and reads xiv. 4. 1 (semper); xv. 15.1 (meécessar1a) ; xvi. 15. 2 (et fe vtsus est}, which are omitted by H Pal E. It also has ix. 18, omitted by H, and x. 18, 19, 20; ΧΙ. 29, omitted by Pal. The scribe knew what he was writing. Thus he never in the early letters fails to write
1 At the end is ‘M. T. Ciceronis et dux mediolani.’ Eugenius IV. died Epistularum familiarium liber xvi. et on Feb. 23rd, 1447, and Filippo Maria, ultimus explicit feliciter anno d. (blank ἴδε last of the Visconti, on Aug. 13 of space of about ten letters) quo anno the same year. clausit diem summus pontifex Eugenius
90 NOTES ON CICERO’S EPISTLES.
tribunus plebis (or abbreviations of these words) for the tivannus puplst lentulo of the best Mss. This knowledge leads him sometimes to attempt the part of a corrector; é.g. xi. 10. 1, he has exploratum habes: st tamen hoc tempore tts uideatur dict causa <stmulationts> malle me tuum tudt- cium; but even this bold interpolation does not cure that difficult passage?
On the whole, these MSS. afford no additional know- ledge to the criticism of the Epistles.
Subjoined are notes on a few passages in the volume of Cicero’s Correspondence with Brutus :—
i. 2. 2. Quod scribis de seditione quae facta est in legione quarta, de ¢{Catoniis—in bonam partem accipies—magis mihi pro- babatur militum severitas quam tua <clementia>.
The last word is omitted in the MSS., but it was pro- bably clementta: see ὃ 5. There must be some corruption in guarta, for the fourth legion was at this time (May, 43) in North Italy, under the command of Octavian: it had gone over to him at the end of 44: cp. Phil. iii. 39. Her- mann’s correction guadam is impossible, as this letter is addressed to the commander of the legion in question ; but possibly he is right in his suggestion, fraude C. Antontt for de Catontts: cp. Dio xlvii. 22 fin., τὰ στρατεύματα cracta- σθέντα of ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αντωνίου κατεστήσατο (Sc. ὁ Βροῦτος). Perhaps guarta is a mistake for caf/a, and the reference is to the forces of Antonius which Brutus had detached from Antonius before Apollonia (Dio xlvii. 21 fin.). For de Catonits I would suggest de C. Antoni? salute ; the abbrevi- ation s for salutem is common in letters. Brutus treated this Antonius with great forbearance, and was ill repaid by him (Dio, 1. c. 23).
NOTES ΟΝ CICEROS EPISTLES. 91
i. 2. 5. Quod scribis me maximo fotio egisse ut insectarer Antonios.
For oto Ruete reads negofto, ‘ with infinite labour’: cp. Caes. B.G. v. 11. 2, ut reltqguae maves refuct posse magno negotto uviderentur ; Cic. Fam. ii. 10. 3. Possibly what Cicero wrote was me <e> maximo otto extsse. The adj. with otsum is generally semmum, but cp. Off. i. 77, neque . . - periculum in rep. futt gravius umquam nec matus ottum.
i. 3. 1. Quales tibi saepe scripsi consules, tales exstiterunt.
Cobet adds fore after consules. If any word was required esse would be preferable, as it might have fallen out after consules. But no addition is necessary : cp. i. 5. 4, Omntno Pansa vivo celertora omnia putabamus, sc. fore.
i. 4. 3. Nunc, Cicero, nunc agendum est, ne frustra oppressum esse Antonium gavisi simus neu semper primi cuiusque mali exci- dendi causa sit, ut aliud renascatur illo peius.
There is something wrong with this sentence. We should expect some word like /festematio after exczdendt. Middleton suggested rato, Becher cura, Markland omtssto. A simpler addition would be ἐσ after causa, which might readily have fallen out after that word, which, in its abbreviated form, is cé& Translate ‘lest the excuse that each evil should be cut down the moment it appears bring it to pass that (lit. “‘be of such a nature that”) another worse evil springs again into existence.’ For causa = ‘excuse,’ cp. Phil. i. 28, mec 4715 tustior 1n senatum non ventendt morbt causa quam mortss.
i. 4. 4. Itaque timeo de consulatu, ne Caesar tuus altius se ascendisse putet decretis tuis, quam inde, si consul factus sit, descensurum.
Both Becher (Rh. Mus. 37 (1882), p. 596) and Ruete make virtually the same correction here. The former
92 NOTES ON CICERO’S EPISTLES.
reads guam inde consul factus stt descensurus ; the latter quam tnde, st consul factus sit, descensurus sit. (For ut omitted after guam Becher compares De Orat. ii. 161 ; Att. iv. 1.7, adtungtt ... matus imperium in provinctts quam 5:2 eorum quit eas obttneant.) Ursinus, however, claims to have found this reading, in a slightly better form, in one of his manuscripts, viz. quam inde, st consul factus set, stt adescensurus (see Variorum ed. of the Letters to Brutus, p.118). The second 522 having dropped out by lipography, descensurus was altered to descensurum.
i. 11. 2. Statuit id sibi * * quoniam exercitum dimisisset.
So M. The Palatinus tertius reads statust 5121 eundum. An Oxford Ms. and the ed. Romana have statu:t eundum sthz. As even this additional word eundum does not make the sense complete (for it does not say where he was going), we may assume that it is a true tradition. Read status? stbt eundum domum (dom). For domum = Romam cp. Att. li. 13. 1; xii. 42. 3, as is pointed out by Lehmann, Quaest. Tull., pp. 73, 74.
i. 15.9. Ego autem . . . nihil mihi videor hoc bello sensisse prudentius, cur autem ita sit, aperiendum non est, ne magis videar providus fuisse quam gratus: hoc ipsum nimium, quare alia vide- amus.
Foc tpsum nimtium is possibly a gloss by some reader who wished to express the just opinion that the preceding statement of Cicero was too highly coloured. If the words were Cicero’s own some qualification would have been added, like sed fortasse.
i. 16. 4. Scilicet, ut illo prohibito rogaremus alterum, qui se in eius locum reponi pateretur, an ut esset sui iuris ac mancipii res publica? nisi forte non de servitute sed de condicione serviendi recusatum est a nobis.
The translation would appear to be: ‘ And, of course,
NOTES ON CICERO’S EPISTLES. 93.
all this is done in order that now, when Antony has been checked, we might supplicate another to allow himself to be placed in the position which Antony held, or was it not rather that the State should be its own master, and at its own disposal? unless, perchance, our opposition was directed, not against bondage in general, but against a partieular kind of bondage.’ The clause az... res publica, expressing, as it does, the real reason why opposition was directed against Antony, comes in awkwardly in the midst of the other ironical sentences. Perhaps we should read repontt, an pateretur ut esset, ‘that we should ask the other, who is putting himself into the place of Antony, whether he will be graciously pleased to allow the State to be its own master.’
i. 18. 4. Videtur enim esse indoles, sed flexibilis aetas.
With zzdoles Wesenberg proposes to supply Jona ; but there is no necessity to do so: zmdoles by itself can mean ‘natural excellence,’ ‘ capacity’: cp. Att. x. 12. 7, est enim endoles ; Plaut. Rud. 424, tum quae indoles in savtost ; Liv. i. 3. 1, Zanta indoles in Lavinta erat.
ii. 3. 5. Duabus rebus egemus, Cicero, pecunia et supplemento, quarum altera potest abs te expediri, ut aliqua pars militum istinc mittatur nobis vel secreto consilio adversus Pansam vel actione in senatu, altera, quae magis est necessaria, neque meo exercitui magis quam reliquorum.
This sentence has no proper ending. Ernesti omits guae after altera, and Wesenberg reads alferaque. But altera ... alteraque is, I think, a solecism. Possibly ad 2250 senatu, or words to that effect, have dropped out betwéen sezafu and alfera. As regards the transference of forces, the authority, though formally resting with the Senate, was practically in the hands of the general, and the Senate would not interfere further than to make a
94 NOTES ON CICEROS EPISTLES.
recommendation, except on important and critical occa- sions. But the case was different with grants of funds; such grants were both formally and practically made by the Senate. For the diminished control exercised by the Senate over the armies of the provincial governors during the last century of the Republic see Willems Le Sénat, ii. 646 ff.
L. C. PURSER.
CATULLUS 53.
Risi nescioquem modo e corona, Qui, cum mirifice Vatiniana
Meus crimina Calvus explicasset, Admirans ait haec manusque tollens ‘Di magni salaputtium disertum !’
Flaec in the fourth verse seems somewhat awkward. I venture to suggest that Catullus wrote—
Admirans ait ἐς manusque tollens,
2.6. extollensque manus. For e- see vi. 13.
( 96}
NOTES ΟΝ VALERIUS FLACCUS.
N a paper in the last number of this Journal I made a number of tentative suggestions which had occurred to me during a first study of the Argonautica. A large number of these suggestions I should now, after more care- ful consideration, decline to defend; but my observations have not been quite fruitless, as they have called forth Mr. Postgate’s Annotations in the JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY (xxii., Ὁ. 307 sgq.), and elicited some emendations from the editor of HERMATHENA. In the present paper I propose to deal with some other difficulties in the poem, but will first make brief remarks on a few of the passages dealt with in my first paper.
i. 147. Mr. Postgate’s explanation is right. 213. I find that in reading rvegem I have been anticipated by Kiessling. 529, 530. No change is necessary ; Bumann’s explanation is correct. 749. ar/us is right. Compare Virgil, Aen., iv. 336, dum spiritus hos vegz# artus. ii. 235. Read obduntque (see Mr. Postgate’s note, p. 308). 414. vapfus is right. 454. Kurtz (Zeztschrift far dite dsterretchischen Gymmnasten, xxviii. 610, has well defended /lebzle succedens, cum fracta remurmurat unda. 455. wacuum is right. 626. Kurtz (2d.) anticipated me in the emendation caela- mina. iii. 120. Mr. Postgate’s sinssfrum is, I think, certain. 594. Ph. Wagner’s nunc motas (so Mr. Palmer) is probably right. iv. 674. «wel falls is the true reading, as Mr. Herbert Greene pointed out to me (so Mr. Postgate, p. 311). One or two other passages will be rehandled below.
96 NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS.
In treating the text of Valerius, it is important to realize that the poet had not finally revised even the early part of his work. There are not only clear indications of this fact, but it may be shown with probability that V. was ultimately derived from a text in which Valerius had jotted down additions which he intended to make before publication, but was prevented (by death) from incorpo- rating in his poem. This question has been well dis- cussed by J. Peters, De C. Valertt Flacct vtta et carmtne, p. 14 sgg., who has added much to the remarks of Thilo.
There is a clear instance of the need of revision in ii. 332, where an abrupt transition leaves the story incom- plete (see Peters, p. 21). In vii. 423 we are told casually that Iphis is dead, and in i. 441 that Iphis is to die; in revising Valerius would assuredly have introduced a nar- rative of his death. There is an inconsistency between vi. 507 and 750 (Peters, 18). In v. 477 Cretheus is (by in- advertence) stated to have been an ancestor of both Phrixus and Iason, whereas he was brother of Athamas, who was father of Phrixus. This lapse would have been corrected on revision (Peters, 20).
The true explanation of v. 565, 566—
qualis ab Oceano nitidum chorus aethera uestit qualibus adsurgens nox aurea cingitur astris—
is, no doubt, that suggested by Bulaeus, that the poet wrote both lines provisionally, intending to make a final choice of one. The same is to be said of vii. 201, 201 a—
hoc satis; ipsa etiam casus spectare supremos ei mihi ne casus etiam spectare supremos.
i. 778-84 are to be regarded as having been written in the margin by the poet, who intended subsequently to work them in, making the necessary alterations in his original text. And so iii. 273, cur etiam flammas miseros-
NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS. 97
que moramur honores, was a marginal addition of Valerius, perhaps intended to come after 1. 310 (as Thilo suggests), but inserted by the copyist in an inappropriate place.
Some cases of tautology would perhaps have been altered by Valerius in revising —¢.g. ill. 139, elatae; 140, delataque (which, however probable, is not absolutely certain, as V has delicataque); 254, uersique; 256, con- uersa. The repetition of a word or phrase is not a suf- ficient cause for suspecting our text. For the same reason I would not, with Bahrens and Schenkl, question such a verse as i. 851—
et loca et infernos almae uirtutis honores. Valerius wrote ii. 642— longaque iam populis inperuia lucis eoae,
as it stands, but he would probably have altered it.
I. 398.
insequeris casusque tuos expressa, Phalere,
arma geris; “acua nam lapsus ab arbore paruum ter quater ardenti tergo circumuenit anguis:
stat procul intendens dubium pater anxius arcum.
uacua V, naewa M. Heinsius proposes fafula, Schenkl ttasta, παρέα, which can only mean that the snake had left the tree, is superfluous with /afsus ab arbore. Valerius fully appreciated the possibilities of wacuus (cp. 111. 589, frangit et absentem uacuis sub dentibus hostem, and vii. 528, uacuo furit ore per auras), and if he wrote uwacua here we may assume that he would have replaced it subse-
quently by some other epithet. It seems to me, however, VOL, IX. H
98 NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS.
more likely that the word is corrupt, and I propose to amend thus :
saeua nam lapsus ab arbore.
The adjective is appropriate to the tree which concealed the snake, and characteristic of the use of the Flavian poets in such cases. The cause of the corruption would be the omission of initial s after the last letter of gets.
I have been unable to discover any other mention of this adventure of Phalerus in his childhood.
I. 723.
sunt hic etiam tua uulnera, praedo, sunt lacrimae carusque parens.
The last words are feeble. canusgue parens (cp. 1. 718, in nostrae durus tormenta senectae) would be a slight improvement; but the phrase may be regarded as pro- visional, to be altered, and perhaps expanded, on revision. (Bahrens, casusque pares.)
I. 833.
hic geminae aeternum portae, quarum altera dura, etc.
.aeternum is unsound; alfernant and introrsum have been proposed. A genitive of ‘the under-world’ is pro- bably concealed in aeternum (compare the Virgilian pas- sage which Valerius is imitating, Aem. vi. 893, sunt geminae Somnz portae). I propose—
hic geminae lemurum portae.
The corruption of the first letter of emurum might easily lead to a correction aefernum, in view of aefernaque moenta in 1. 847.
NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS. 99
II. 29, 30.
torquentemque anguibus undas Sicanium dedit usque fretum cumque urbibus Aetnam intulit ora premens.
In writing my last paper I felt, like others, doubts about tntulit ; but now I have no doubt that it is right. -d/2/ here is the perfect, not of /evo, but, in accordance with its etymology, of οί, and the word means ‘lifted on top of him.’ dedit (ἔθηκε), ‘put,’ may be illustrated by dafatzm. It is quite possible that if the poem had been submitted to a final revision this passage would have been changed.
11. 57.
certusque ad talia Titan integer in fluctus et in uno decidit auro.
auro is the happy correction of an anonymous Italian
scholar for euro. Eyssenhardt retains ¢u7o, but the following lines—
adde quod in noctem uenti ueloque marique
incumbunt magis, show that it is impossible. 272 uno decedtt auro means ‘set in a sheet of gold.’ Schenkl is wrong in questioning zz uno, and his suggestion 62 2270 is excluded by the last line but one—puraque nec gravido surrexit Cynthia cornu. pleno would be better if any change were required.
11. 152. picta manus fusto placet sed barbara mento.
ustogue, Bon. Ald. edd. The corruption will be ex- plained if we read— picta manus nurus usta placet sed barbara mento. ,Compare below, 160, e¢ plaustro derepla nurus. . H2
100 NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS.
II. 219.
O qui me vera canentem sistat et hac nostras exolvat imagine noctes |!
moctes is one of the touches in Valerius which dis-
tinguish the genuine poet. An ordinary versifier would have written mentes. It is significant that Schenkl con- jectures mendes, and prints it in his text. On the other hand, in 1. 252,
iam dubiae donum rape mentis et ensem
tu potius, miserere, tene, he proposes moctis for mentis, thereby vexing the sense, which is, as Burmann rightly explained, ‘take quickly, while my mind still wavers.’
II. 227.
tantum oculos pressere fuelut agmina cernant Eumenidum ferrumne super Bellona coruscet. Burmann supplied manu after pressere; Carrion mefu, the Bologna ed. uz77, Read—
pressere, rei uelut agmina cernant,
‘as if they were guilty men beholding the Eumenides,’ a correction which accounts for the corruption.
II. 316.
tunc etiam uates Phoebo dilecta Polyxo
(non patriam, non certa genus, sed maxima ftaeta Proteaque ambiguum Pharii se tab antris
huc rexisse uas iunctis super aequora phocis. saepe imis se condit aquis cunctataque paulum surgit ut auditas referens in gurgite uoces) ‘portum demus’ ait.
There can, I think, be no question that the last word of 1. 317 is cele (so C, caete). The coming of Polyxo to Lemnos is doubtless referred to, and the conjectures
NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS. 101
hitherto proposed have been based on this supposition. I
propose to read— sed maxima cete
Proteaque ambiguum Phariis οὐδὲ narrat ab antris
huc rexisse uias iunctis super aequora phocis. ‘She tells that mighty monsters and ambiguous Proteus from Pharian caves guided her ways hither over the waters on yoked seals.’ shoczs, of course, applies only to Polyxo, not to her guides. This is simpler than any of the changes proposed by the commentators.
11. 464.
defectaque uirginis ora cernit et ad primos surgentia flumina flectus.
I formerly proposed uergentia lumina fietus. 1 now prefer . ad primos turgentia lumina fletus (cod. reg. furgentza), This was proposed to me by Mr. J. S. Reid, who observes that Valerius was thinking of the turgentia lumina fletu of Propertius. ‘Swollen to shed (to the point of shedding) the first flood of tears’: cp. plenz oculos, i. 298. 473- nos Ili “εἶχ quondam genus.
feltx is the certain correction of Slothouwer; V has ueterts. The origin of the corruption is worth noting. I/sfe/zx became //2%, which was corrected to Ili, and wezerss was introduced, for the metre, from 1. 580, ueteris tumulos praelabitur Ili.
II. 580. ueteris tumulos ‘praelabitur ΠῚ Dardaniumque patrem. Schenkl proposes Dardanitque patris, which does not explain the corruption.
102 NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS. Read—
Dardaniumaue patris,
‘the father of the Dardanians,’ z.e. Dardanus. Maserius suggested that Teucer was meant.
ΠΙ. 10.
primas coniunx Percosia uestes quas dabaé ef picto Clite uariauerat auro.
dederat picto ef, Thilo’s conjecture, which does not account for the reading of the MSS., has been adopted by editors. dabat is clearly the insertion of someone who thought that Clite, not Cyzicus, gave the apparel to Jason, and we may conclude that such an insertion was prompted by a defective line. The problem is to amend
quas picto Clite uariauerat auro.
Virgil, Aen. iii, 483, suggests the correction. There we have—
nec minus Andromache digressu maesta supremo
fert picturatas auri subtegmine uestes,
et Phrygiam Ascanio chlamydem, etc.
Read—
quas picturato Clite uariauerat auro.
picturatum aurum is gold thread wrought to form an em- broidered picture, a variation for pzcfuratas auro, as picto auro would be a variation for piclas auro: cp. vii. 227—
non auro depicta chlamys, non flava galeri caeSaries pictoque iuuant subtegmine bracae. See also Statius, Achzlletd i. 330— et picturato Cohibens uestigia limbo, an echo of Virgil, Aen., iv. 137. The similarity of the
second and fourth syllables in f:c/urato would account for the corruption.
NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS, 109
,
Im. 206.
nox alta cadentum ingentes donec sonitus augetque ruinas.
The Aldine dufslicat, generally accepted, has no proba- bility. My former conjectures are nugatory. We have to deal with done, and need not hesitate to accept the emendation of Gronovius, denset.
V. 39. bina (nefas) toto pariter mihi funera surgent litore.
So V, but edd. read “ufo with Sabellicus, and surgenz¢ with M, man. sec. I believe that the MS. reading is right; we have only to place a mark of interrogation after /z/ore. Jason complains that he is losing his followers in pairs. He had already lost Hercules and Hylas; he has now lost Idmon and Tiphys. Strictly, of course, fuera surgent is only applicable to the second case; but in the rhetorical question, including the future, such an inaccuracy is per- missible and-natural. ‘Are two losses to befal me, two funeral piles to rise, at every point along the whole coast ?’
V. 45. nec summa speculantem puppe uidebo Pleiadumque globos et agentes noctibus Arctos ἢ gue shows that agentes (superfluous with Avctos) should be a word co-ordinate with sfeculantem. Read—
nec summa speculantem puppe uidebo Pleiadumque globos et agentem noctibus Arctos ἡ
We have here a good example of a poetic idiom, of which the most familiar instances are—in Latin,
104 NOTES ON VALERIUS FLACCUS.
Virgil’s abscondimus arces, and in Greek, Callimachus’ ἥλιον ἐν λέσχῃ κατεδύσαμεν. The observer who watches the motions of the constellations is said to drive them through the heavens. This mode of expression is quite in keeping with the phrase of the following verse—
cui Minyas caramque ratem, cuz sidera tradts P
J. B. BURY.
A MISTRANSLATION IN OVID.
ALL editors, including myself, have, I fear, misunderstood a very simple line, Ovid, Her. 1. 27: Grata ferunt nymphae pro salvis dona maritis.
The meaning assigned has been: ‘The wives offer grateful gifts in return for the safety of their husbands.’ So Bur- mann, van Lennep, Terpstra, Loers: so also Forcellini.
I aver that mymphae cannot bear this meaning, and that the true rendering is, ‘the Nymphs receive grateful gifts in return for safe husbands.’ Serre ‘munus, donum in the sense of receiving a gift are common.
As to the Nymphs being prayed to take care of absent lovers, or spouses, I need only quote Propertius 4, 4, 25: Saepe tulit blandis argentea lilia Nymphis, Romula ne faciem laederet hasta Tati.
The singular zympha is, no doubt, occasionally used of a particular female, but its use is very restricted. Lennep quotes Ocbalt nympha of Helen, xympha Jardants Omphale, Orment nympha Astydamia.
But a general use of the plural zymphae for sponsae, uxores, or puellae, of the heroic, or any, age, is, so far as I know, without a parallel in Latin.
A. PALMER.
( 105 )
SCRIVENER’S ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITI- CISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.”
HE third edition of this well-known book was issued by the late Dr. Scrivener in 1883, and has now been out of print for some time. There is no other book in English which covers exactly the same ground, and thus the fourth edition, which has just appeared, will be wel- comed by all students of the text of the Greek Testament. This new edition has been prepared by the Rev. Edward Miller, of Oxford, with the aid of MS. materials left by Dr. Scrivener, and with the co-operation of many eminent scholars. The task entrusted to Mr. Miller by the pub- lishers was, indeed, a difficult one. The number of MSS., both uncial and cursive, which have become accessible within the last ten years is very great ; and as a matter of fact, instead of the 2094 manuscripts of all classes enume- rated in the third edition, we now have a description of no less than 3791. And, again, so much has recently been written on the versions of the New Testament in Syriac and Latin, and so much more knowledge has been accu- mulated of the versions in Coptic and other little studied languages, that the production of a book of reference of this sort is a far more serious undertaking than it was twenty, or even ten, years ago.
It is always an ungrateful and difficult task to revise a dead scholar’s book; but, on the whole, the editor seems to have been wise in the method he has pursued, although
1‘A plain Introduction to the Criti- A. Scrivener. 4th ed., edited by the
cism of the New Testament, for the use Rev. Edward Miller. of Biblical Students,’ by the late F. H.
16. SCRIVENER’S INTRODUCTION TO THE
it is sometimes a little confusing. As much as possible of Dr. Scrivener’s work is left in his own words, slight corrections being inserted on almost every page. And where it was necessary that the original author’s state- ments should be modified to any great extent, Mr. Miller has called in the aid of some of the most learned specialists in England. Thus Mr. White, who has been engaged for years on the Oxford edition of the Vulgate, which asso- ciates his name with that of Bishop Wordsworth on the title-page, contributes the chapter on the Latin versions, Mr. Gwilliam and Mr. Deane have given assistance in the section on the Syriac versions; Mr. Headlam and Mr. Horner have helped in the account of Coptic MSs.; Mr. Conybeare has rewritten the chapter on the Armenian and Georgian, and Professor Margoliouth that on the Arabic and Ethiopic versions. In addition, Mr. Maunde Thompson has given his valuable aid in the palzographical sections of the book, and the editor acknowledges ‘much help of a varied nature’ from Professor Rendel Harris. The two bulky volumes which the book now fills contain an enor- mous mass of information; and it is safe to predict that, in spite of the rival claims of Dr. Gregory’s admirable Prok- gomena, which have lately been completed, Dr. Scrivener’s book, in its new dress, will be widely used.
It will be found by anyone who takes the trouble to compare this edition with the last that the number of corrections that have been silently introduced by the editor into Dr. Scrivener’s paragraphs is very large. And he has made some very important additions. For instance, an account of the important uncial codex of the first two Gospels designated as Φ is now given, with a fine facsimile of a few lines of the text. This MS. is preserved at Bel- grade, in Albania, whence it is generally called Codex Beratinus. It is described as magnificently written, in silver letters, on purple vellum, and the date of the writing
CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,’ 107
is fixed by experts at the end of the fifth century. The text has been published by M. Batiffol,’ and is said to be of the type now usually called ‘Syrian.’
In an Appendix to the first volume Mr. Miller incorpo- rates Mr. Rendel Harris’s ingenious explanation of the divisions of the Gospels into ῥήματα, which are found in a good many cursives. Mr. Harris suggests that these ῥήματα are taken from a Syriac table, inasmuch as the numbers given in many cursives (Matthew 2522, Mark 1675, Luke 3803, John 1938) agree very well with the numbers in a table found in a Syriac MS. at Mount Sinai, if we assume that the number for Luke (which is evidently too large’) should be 3083. It is interesting to observe that a similar stichometric table was found by Dr. Gwynn in the Crawford Ms. of the Syriac New Testament,’ though here the numbers require some explanation, being for Matthew 2520, Mark 1275, Luke 3083, John 2532.
The chapter on the Coptic versions of the New Testa- ment is one of the most interesting in the second volume, as it deals with a subject which is daily growing in im- portance, and for the investigation of which new materials are coming in fast. When Bishop Lightfoot wrote the account of Coptic MSS. printed in the third edition of Scrivener’s ‘ Introduction,’ only three versions were known, and were designated ‘Memphitic,’ ‘ Thebaic,’ and ‘ Bash- muric,’ respectively. This is the division adopted, too, in the concluding fasciculus of Gregory’s Prolegomena, which has just been published. Now, in the first place, Mr. Headlam points out that, in the opinion of the most
1 Archives des missions scientifi- Syriac, of substituting 800 for 80, as it ques et littéraives, ser. 3, tom. 13, Paris, would merely involve the dotting of 1887 (a reference, by the way, which a numeral letter. ought to have been given; we take it 8 Transactions of the Royal Irtsh from Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena). Academy, vol. xxx., p. 352.
2 The mistake would readily arise in
15 SCRIVENER’S ‘INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE
recent investigators, no fragments whatever of the Bash- muric version are now extant, though that such a version was in existence at an early date seems certain. And all literature hitherto published as Bashmuric is, it seems, really in the language of the Fayoum, and should in future be called ‘ Fayoumic.’ Further, documents which have been lately recovered from Akhmim, e.g. the ‘ Testa- ment of Zephaniah,’ published by M. Bouriant, appear to belong to another distinct dialect, which is named ‘ Akh- mimic.’ Here again, if we are to trust Mr. Headlam, Dr. Gregory has incorrectly described some of Mr. Petrie’s papyri edited by Mr. Crum, for, while they are put down in Gregory’s Prolegomena as ‘Bashmuric,’ Mr. Headlam tells us that they are ‘Akhmimic.’ The language of this version is said to be the oldest of all the Coptic dialects. And, once more, documents found near the site of the ancient Memphis seem to exhibit a dialect different from any of the others, for which the name ‘ Middle Egyptian’ is proposed.
It appears from this last fact, that to describe the language of Lower Egypt (in which most of our Egyptian Biblical MSS, are written) as ‘Memphitic,’ as Tischendorf and Lightfoot did, is somewhat misleading, for this term might more fitly be applied to ‘Middle Egyptian.’ So this important North-Coptic version (which is now the Church language of the whole country) is designated in the new Scrivener by the name given to it by Athanasius of Cos in the eleventh century, viz. ‘ Bohairic.’ To the study of the MSS. in this version Mr. Horner has devoted much labour; he ‘has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic version in European libraries,’ and promises us some time an edition of the Bohairic New Testament, which will be a welcome addition to the materials of the Biblical critic. In an Appen- dix an account is given of the more important of the
CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.’ 109
Bohairic MSS. of the New Testament preserved in Egypt.
Only one version now remains to be spoken of, that formerly described as ‘ Thebaic,’ which Mr. Headlam prefers to call ‘Sahidic.’! It is in the language of Upper Egypt, the South-Coptic dialect. Great additions to our materials for the study of this version have lately been accumulated, and are enumerated by Mr. Headlam, who expresses the hope thet M. Amélineau will shortly give us an edition of the Paris fragments at least. The lin- guistic peculiarities of this version have not, however, always received a due measure of attention, as Dr. Atkinson has taught us in his recent trenchant articles on the sub- ject; and it is, above all things, desirable that whatever is printed should be worked over with care and without undue haste. Mr. Headlam considers it hardly possible at present to say anything definite as to the textual value of this version; he is not inclined, as it seems, to believe that it is any older than the Bohairic, though this is a point that can hardly as yet be fixed.
We have given a good deal of space to this section, because the matter is new, and it is of great importance. So fast have materials come in from Egypt, that instead of three, scholars now speak of szx distinct dialects of the Coptic language, and in five of these do there seem to have been versions of the New Testament written at a very early date.
Mr. Miller is as warm an opponent as was Dr. Scrive- ner, or even Dean Burgon himself, of the principles of New Testament criticism expounded by Dr. Hort, so that, in this respect, the book is still on the old lines. And it is perhaps as well for Biblical criticism in these countries that it should be put before students at the commencement
1 This is Tischendorf’s sak; hecites the Bohairic version as cop.
110 SCRIVENER’S ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE
of their studies, that, although Dr. Hort’s conclusions ‘hold the field,’ and are very generally accepted, yet many of the fundamental principles which underlie these investigations are still sub 7udtce.
A review of a book of this kind is, in one respect, somewhat difficult to write. It deals, for the most part, with facts, and not with theories; and thus the chief con- cern of the reviewer must be to furnish a list of addenda and corrigenda which may be useful to the reader, for a book of reference should, above all things, be accurate in small details. But in the present case, though we are going to point out some matters which ought to be mended, we desire to repeat that we are deeply conscious of the difficulties imposed on the editor by the enormous mass of material which he had to sift, and aggravated, as he tells us, by the short time allowed him by the pub- lishers for the execution of his task. It is a great. deal easier to point out mistakes in a book when printed than to keep them out of the ‘ copy’ supplied to the printer.
A circumstance which must have embarrassed the editor a good deal is that Dr. Scrivener’s third edition was hardly equal, in point of accuracy, to the other writings of that industrious and excellent scholar. In
1883 he was getting to be an old man, his sight was failing, and the multifarious duties of a large parish cur-
tailed his leisure. And the result was, that the mistakes which he let pass were not a few. Shortly after the pub-
cation of this third edition there appeared (1885) a small
volume in America, entitled ‘ Notes on Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, in the
form of an Appendix to the Andover Revtew, vol. iii. This
tract, compiled from Dr. Ezra Abbot’s papers, with addi- tions supplied by Professor Rendel Harris, Professor Warfield, and Dr. Gregory, contained about fifty pages of Addenda and Corrigenda. The present editor has incor-
CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 111
porated many of these in the fourth edition, but he has not adopted them all. This, we think, is a matter for regret. For instance, the MS. numbered Evan 424 is described in the present as in the last edition of Scrivener as containing ‘St. Luke, with the Commentary of Titus of Bostra and others.’ But it really contains mo fext of St. Luke at all, and should, as Dr. Gregory notes in his Prolegomena, be removed from the list of cursives. And in like manner, Evan 432 only contains a commentary of Victor of Antioch on St. Mark, but 2o ¢ext, and should also, therefore, be struck out. Again, Dr. Ezra Abbot pointed out that Scrivener’s note on Evst. 46 was ‘a re- markable specimen of error and confusion,’ and his elabo- rate discussion of the subject was printed in the Appendix to the Andover Review, to which we have already referred; but Scrivener’s description is reproduced without alteration in the present edition.
Again Evan 472 = Act 235 of Scrivener’s list should be struck out. Dr. Gregory pointed out in 1885 that this Poictiers MS. is only a copy of Stephen’s edition of 1550, and is therefore of no independent authority; but yet it still retains its place among the Cursives of the Gospels and Acts. The full description given (p. 244, vol. i.), viz. Evan 472 (Act 235, Paul 276, Apoc. 103) is misleading in another way, for Paul 276 is really = Evan 796, Act 321, a MS. at Athens; and Apoc. 103 is a MS. of the Revelation at St. Petersburg (Gregory’s 101). In Scrivener’s present list, in other words, the numbers Paul 276 and Apoc. 103 are used for other codices; and, even if they were not, the MS. described as Evan 472 = Act 235 is not a true MS. at all.
Other instances of errors which have been repeated, although a correction was furnished in print as far back as 1885, are numerous; but we do not wish to undertake the ungrateful task of enumerating them. Suffice it to say,
12 SCRIVENER’S ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE
that it is not safe to use even the fourth edition of _ Scrivener without constant reference to the Appendix to the Andover Review.
Evan 38 [Paris, Cod. Coislinianus, 200] is an unfortu- nate MS.; there seems to be a conspiracy among the critics to describe it inaccurately. Michaelis,’ indeed, knew all about it, and correctly stated that it contained all the New Testament except the Apocalypse. But Montfaucon, in his Catalogue, had, by mistake, entered it as containing the Apocalypse and omitting the Pauline Epistles. This error of the press (for it could hardly have been more) has worked sad mischief. In Scrivener’s third edition he described it as Evan 38 (Act 19, Apoc. 23), and explicitly declared that it contained all the New Testament except St. Paul’s Epistles, though he seems to have had a suspicion that something was wrong, for he says in a note (Ed. π|., p. 184), that it is strange to find it never cited by Stephen for the Apocalypse which it contains, and con- stantly for the Pauline Epistles which it omits! He got the numeration, Afoc. 23, from Scholz, who arbitrarily changed the numbering of Wetstein and Griesbach. Now, in the new edition before us, we have confusion worse than ever. Evan 38 is equated to Act 19 = Paul 23, although four lines further down the old blunder is reprinted, that the MS. contains all the New Testament except St. Paul’s Epistles. In the first place it does contain the Pauline writings, and in the next place, though Wetstein numbered it Paul 23, that is not its number in Scrivener’s list. The correct description is Evan 38 = Act 19 = Paul 341, and the state of the case is, as Michaelis and Wetstein said, that it contains the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse.
It is worth adding, that even Dr. Gregory’s accurate
1 Introd, to the N.T. (1793), ed. Marsh, vol. ii., p. 249.
CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.’ 1118
tabulation is here at fault. In his Prolegomena, p. 471, he (like the new edition of Scrivener) equates Evan 38 to Paul 23. This, as we have said, is Wetstein’s number which no one follows now; and Dr. Gregory has given on pp. 619 and 670, the correct numeration. On his system Evan 38 = Act 19 = Paul 377.
Mr. Miller complains that Dr. Gregory’s procedure in altering the numbers for many of the cursives agreed on by Burgon and Scrivener has not only largely increased the labour of revising Scrivener’s book, but will be a cause of much inconvenience to students. And though there is no use now in going into the respective merits of the two systems, there is no doubt that it is extremely
‘troublesome in practice to be obliged to look up every MS.
in two indices, instead of in one only. Mr. Miller has done a good service in printing a table at the end of his first volume similar to the table given by Dr. Gregory, which much facilitates cross references from one system to the other.
We make a few more observations on the cursives before we leave them. Evan 57 is not = Act 85, as it is misprinted in the book under review, but is = Act 35. Of Evann 59, 66, 492, 503, 556, 604, &c., it might be added that fuller descriptions and collations are given in Scrive- ner’s Adversarta Critica Sacra, which has lately appeared. It should be noted that, according to the Abbé Martin, Evan 348 belongs to the Ferrar-Abbott group, in which we in Dublin have a special interest. This conclusion is also mentioned, but without definite approval, in the Adversarta (p. xviii) That Evan 549 = Act 219 is a point which should be noted on p. 254.
1 Since the above was written, we criticising the account of Evan 38, yet have come across the review in the asserts the identity of it with Paul 23. Guardian, May 30, of the book before Truly this is a perplexing Ms. us, and note that the reviewer, though
VOL. IX, I
11. SCRIVENER’S ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE
Evan 568 merits a fuller description. The part of this MS. containing the Gospels is one of the Burney manu- scripts in the British Museum; in this volume are also two leaves of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Now, Dr. Gregory found, in 1884, the rest of the MS. containing the Acts and I‘pistles at Metz, where it yet remains. There is no hint given-in the new Scrivener that the MS. thus exists in two divisions, though, of course, the explanation of the omission may be, that Mr. Miller did not like (as he tells us, vol. i., Ῥ. 379) to take more of the information supplied in Dr. Gregory’s work than was absolutely necessary. At any rate some additions and corrections should be made in the account of it. On p. 256 the MS. should be described as Evan 568 (Acts 110, Paul 259), and on p. 314 it is a mis- take to identify Paul 259 with h*"; it is really j* (as correctly stated on p. 256). And the reference on p. 314 to Act 189 is wrong and should be struck out. As the description at present stands of Act 110 = Paul 259, it would seem as if it might be seen at the British Museum, whereas this part of the Codex is, as we have said, at Metz.
Evan 110 and 609 are identified with Gregory’s Evan 1260 and 552; these are misprints. 110 (Scr.) = 1268 (Greg.) ; and 609 (Scr.) = 555 (Greg.). On p. 312 Paul 181 should be identified with Evan 365, xo¢ Evan 643. On p. 318, Paul 396 is wrongly equated to Act 418; it should read Act 201; and similarly on p. 324 Apoc. 86 should be equated to Act 201, not Act 251, as is printed in error. On p. 322, Apoc. 54 (Evan 263) is a wrong entry. Evan 263 (Act 117, Paul 137) does not contain the Apocalypse. 54 is therefore a vacant number for cursive MSS. of the Apocalypse, as Dr. Gregory notes in his Prolegomena.
On p. 219 a confusing misprint in the table of corrigenda which Dr. Scrivener prefixed to Ed. 11. has been repro- duced, Evan 201 (Act 91, Paul 104, Apoc. 94) is m** in
CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 115
the Gospels, and b*™ in the Apocalypse; but it is h* in the Acts and Pauline Epistles, μοΐ p*", which is quite a different MS. in the Acts, and does not exist for the Pauline Epistles.
The description of the ninth-century fragment of an Evangelistarium, numbered 493, has accidentally been omitted in the new edition. In the third edition it was called Evan A (1) (it was discovered by Tischendorf at Mount Sinai, and described by him in the Vienna Fahr- biucher der Literatur for 1846); but as it is only part of a lectionary, its proper place is among the Evangelistaria. Accordingly the description