Plato Rep. X. 616B. ⋯πειδ⋯ δ⋯ τοῖς ⋯ν τῷ λειμ⋯νι ⋯πτ⋯ ⋯μ⋯ραι γ⋯νοιντο, ⋯ναστ⋯ντασ ⋯ντε⋯θεν δεῖν τῇ ⋯γδΌῃ πορε⋯εσθαι, κα⋯ ⋯φικνεῖσθ;αι τεταρτα⋯ονσ ὅθ;εν καθ;ορ⋯ν ἄνωθεν δι⋯ παντῸς το⋯ ο⋯ρανο⋯ κα⋯ κα⋯ γ⋯ς τεταμ⋯νον φ⋯ς εὐθ;⋯, οἱον κ⋯ονα, μ⋯λιστα τῇ ἴριδι προσφερ⋯, λαμπρ⋯τερον δ⋯ κα⋯ καθαρώτερον εῚς ὃ ⋯φικ⋯σθ;αι προελθ;⋯ντεσ⋯μερησ⋯αν ⋯δ⋯ν, κα⋯ ⋯δεῖν αὐτ⋯θι κατ⋯ μ⋯σον τῸ φ⋯ς ⋯κ το⋯ οὐρανο⋯ τ⋯ ⋯κρα αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν δεσμ⋯ν τεταμ⋯να—εἶναι γ⋯ρ το⋯το τ⋯ φ⋯σ σ⋯νδεσμον το⋯ οὐρανο⋯, οἶον τ⋯ ὑποζ;ώματα τ⋯ν τρι⋯ρων, οὕτω π⋯σαν συν⋯χον τ⋯ν περιφορ⋯ν—⋯κ δ⋯ τ⋯ν ἄκρων τεταμ⋯νον 'Aν⋯γκησ ἄτρακτον, etc.

All are agreed that towards the end of his long life Euripides leff Athens and went to the court of Archelaus, king of Macedon. From Plato 1 and many other sources we know that Archelaus was the illegitimate son of Perdiccas II., by Simiche, a slave girl, and had succeeded to his father by murdering his uncle Alcetas, his half-brother, and his cousin. As these events occurred in 413 or 412 B.C., the poet's visit must have been later than that date, and has with probability been placed soon after the production of his Orestes at Athens in Ol. 92. 4 (409–8).

The great number of contradictory statements which confront us when we examine the various explanations of Anaxagoras' philosophy make it more than usually important to decide what is to be admitted as first-hand evidence and what is not. I purpose, then, to begin by accepting the barest minimum of data, and I shall try to exclude any direct comments upon Anaxagoras' work by later writers. Sufficient justification for such a course may be found in the bewildering masses of confusion which have gathered around his teaching.

It would add greatly to our interest in the plays of Plautus if we knew more about the order in which they were produced. As it is, our knowledge of the dates of the plays is pitifully meagre and uncertain. Miles Gloriosus appears to have been produced soon after 206; Cistellaria about 201; Stichus (the only play that can be dated with certainty) in 200; Trinummus soon after 194; Pseudolus probably is 191, and Truculentus about 189. The date of the remaining seventeen plays is unknown. We can only infer their relation one to another from the internal evidence of language, metre, and structure. The results of an examination on these lines, if they converged, might be useful in enabling us to arrange the plays roughly in a number of well-defined groups. Mr. Sedgwick 1 has recently made an interesting attempt to approach the problem from the side of metre. I think that a more intensive study of the plays from the side of language might lead to profitable results. My immediate concern is, however, only with a small corner of this vast field—viz., the frequent coincidence of thought and phrase which is so marked a feature of these plays.

Grote's powerful defence of Thrasyllus' canon should have taught us at least not to reject lightly any dialogue which, like the Hippias Maior, is there classed as genuine. The burden of proof lies with those who attack our dialogue. Raeder, Ritter, and Apelt consider it to be genuine, while Ast, Jowett, Horneffer, and Röllig declare against it, as also Gomperz, Zeller, and Lutoslawski.

‘All the difficulties in the theory of forms arise from their separation.’ This recurrent criticism of Aristotle's is, of course, one of the principal obstacles in the way of any reconstruction of the Platonic metaphysic. To begin with, it is flatly denied by Plato himself in the use of such words as μέθεξις, παρoυσία and κoινωνία. It must also be rejected by the orthodox account of the Forms which takes them to be immanent, constitutive principles in the world of everyday life, like a Law of Nature or the Concrete Universal of Hegel. Finally, modern philosophy has made it clear that this view of universals is right and necessary if thought and language are to exist, and it is therefore tempting to attribute it to Plato.

In the Classical Quarterly, XIX., pp. 192–3, in some remarks on the word celtis, I suggested that the Philoxenus gloss CE 23 (Celtis ῥνα ίΧθύοςεἷδος) was in reality a fusion of two glosses—

Celtis : ῥȋνα

Celtis (?): ίΧθύος εἶδος

and I tried to show that the former was a Bible gloss from Job xix. 24. Since the appearance of my article it has been pointed out by Professor Housman, in a communication to Professor W. M. Lindsay, that I had overlooked the kindred Philoxenus gloss SQ 4 (Squatus: ῥȋνα εἶδος ìΧθύος); and it would appear that, in view of this regrettable oversight, the division of the gloss CE 23 and the explanation of the first part as a Bible gloss is untenable.

The famous passage (Enn. V. 8. 1) in which Plotinus declares that fine art, so far from simply reproducing nature, ‘goes back to the Reason-principles from which nature herself emanates,’ has hitherto been generally regarded as a tacit criticism of Plato's teaching, and as an original contribution to the philosophy of art involving a rupture with the entire previous tradition of Greek aesthetic theory. Yet Plotinus introduces it, not as if he were proclaiming a new gospel, but almost casually, as a subordinate link in his discussion of Intelligible Beauty. And though his respect for Plato was not the half-superstitious reverence of the later Neoplatonists, he was at all times more zealous to walk in Plato's footsteps than to correct or criticize him, tacitly or otherwise. Moreover, can it be said with certainty that his doctrine is in itself opposed to Plato's? That question can be answered only by a detailed examination of Plato's theory of art—a task which I hope to accomplish elsewhere. In the present article, postponing all enquiry into the relation between these two aesthetic theories, I shall endeavour to show that the teaching of Plotinus was not a sudden innovation, but the natural and indeed inevitable outcome of preceding thought.

As my suggestions have been unfavourably criticized in Professor Ridge-way's article on ‘Euripides in Macedon’ which appears in the current number of the Classical Quarterly, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of explanation and reply. Professor Ridgeway's article in its latter part is chiefly directed against the thesis I endeavoured to support in the Classical Review of 1921, pp. 52 sqq., to the effect that our Rhesus is probably not the genuine work of Euripides. Space does not permit me to do more than refer to a few of Professor Ridgeway's strictures; but I would ask readers not to accept his statements of my views without reference to my original article. The context often makes all the difference. Thus, for example, when I am arguing that a strong case can be made against Euripides on the score of language, I am made to be dealing with the whole issue of authenticity. Indeed, if Professor Ridge-way's judges were to sum up at nisi prius on the lines suggested for them, they would soon become the by-words of their profession.

Ib. 8–16. εἱ δ&apos οὖν γὼ μν ϕυγς… οἱ δ' χθρο οὑμο λαμπρο κα μέγα ἰσχύοντες oi δ ταῖροι ὑμεῖς οὒτε αὐτΟθΙ <χρήσιμοι οὒτε ἂλλΟθΙ> οὐδαμο, δουλεία δ' ν τῷ μέσῳ παιδαρίων ρϕανν πολλν, λυναικν ρήμων τν ὑμετέρων κα τ ς μ ς, γ ο ν έ ω ν [δ] κα πρεσβυτν κα πρεσβυτίδεν (νίοις γρ αὑτν κα οἱ γονεῖς ἕτι εἰσἱν)—εἰ τατα πάντα… καταλαμβάνοι κτ.

οὑμο Hr: οὐχ οἱ P ∥ <>* ∥ οὐδαμο*: οὐδ' μο P ∥ τς μς, γονέων*: τν μν, νίων δ P.

Ennead I. 4. 3: Plotinus is arguing that happiness is fullness and completeness of life, and continues, according to the MSS. (Volkmann's edition, p. 66, 1. 20), οϋτω γ⋯ρ ἂν οùδέ έπακτòν τò ⋯γαθòν ύπάρΧοι, ούδ' ἂλλο τò ύποκείμενον άλλαΧόθεν γενόμενον παρέξει αύτò (or better αύτῷ, Marc A and Müller) ⋯ν άγαθῷεἶναι. Mr. MacKenna translates the last phrase by ‘a life needing no foreign substance called in from a foreign realm to establish it in good ’; Ficinus by ‘neque aliud quicquam aliunde adueniens efficiet ut subiectum collocetur in bono.’ Ficinus is undoubtedly right. τò ύποκειμένῷ means ‘the subject,’ which a few lines above (p. 66,1. 4) has been identified with the λογικ⋯ ζωή. The passage should be corrected by writing τῷ, ύποκειμένῳ, dependent on γενόμενον, for τò úποκείμενον.

If all or any of our MSS. dated from 800 or 900 B.C., it might be of importance to note θέλεις for the regular epic form ⋯θέλεις and even to print it so in the text, otherwise it is negligible. More worthyof attention is the punctuation after ⋯μo⋯μαι. The presence of ὑπίσχoμαι in the next line is held to justify the stop given above, otherwise the comma, as in Gemoll's edition, would be sufficient or more than sufficient. For in accordance with Homeric usage (cf. A 76, Y 313–5, K 321, etc.) we might read:

πατρòς κεϕαλήν μέγαν ὃρκoν ⋯μo⋯μαι

μή μέν ⋯γώ μητ' αὐτòς—ὑπίσχoμαι—αἴτιoς εἶναι.

That Hermias, the despot of Atarneus, was a barbarian as alleged by Theopompus, fr. 242, Oxf., Letter to Philip, in Didymus in Dem., col. 5, 24, has been denied by Jaeger, Aristoteles, p. 113 n., on the ground that in Aristotle's hymn and epigram he is put forward as a Hellene; cf. ibid., p. 119, on Callisthenes and Hermias. In confirmation may be added that, had he been a barbarian, he could hardly have induced the Eleans to declare the Olympic truce to him as Theopompus says they did, Did. 5, 29. Demetrius the Magnesian, Diog. L. V. 3, said he was a Bithynian; and possibly Theopompus said the same in the defective passage in fr. 210, Did. 4, 69. He may have been in fact a Bithynian by place of birth, yet not by blood: at such Greeks the taunt ‘barbarian’ was readily cast; cf. Birds 1700 on Gorgias, and Aeschines on Demosthenes. But we may go much further in scepticism.

In a previous article I attempted to show the relationship between the most important MSS. of the Aethiopica, and to fix the basis on which the text ought to be built. The object of the present enquiry is to go more deeply into the history of the Xylander MS., which was only lightly touched upon then, and to estimate the value of another MS., which received no treatment at all.

Sentences of the form si sit … esset crop out at rare intervals in the literature of classical Latin, deviating so sharply from what might be called the standard forms of conditional speaking that they have commonly been regarded with more or less suspicion.

It has been known for many years that inscriptions in the Arcadian dialect contain a considerable number of words which occur commonly in the Homeric poems and rarely, if at all, elsewhere. The first attempt at a complete list was made by Otto Hoffmann in Die grieckischen Dialekte, I. pp. 276–278. He gives as Homeric αἶσα (‘share’), βóλομαι νυ ⋯πυέσΘω, ⋯ρτύω ⋯σκηΘές, δεάτοι, δ⋯μα, 'EἙκατόνβοια and 'Eκατόμβοια, hίκοντα, κελεύθω, μέστ', πληθύς, and πλός. Buck, in Greek Dialects, p. 132, added εùΧωλά and ἆμαρ and we might with as much justification add ἒρπειν λεύσοντες and λεύσοντες. In each case a Homeric word, unusual in later Greek except in verse, is used in ordinary Arcadian epigraphic prose.

Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium, V. 9. 8, p. 99, Wendland preserves a curious hymn to Attis: εἲτε Κρόνον γένος εἲτε ‘Pέας μεγάλης, χαῖρ’ ὦ τ κατηϕς ἂκουσμα ‘Pέας Ἄττι σ καλοσι μν’ Ασσύριοι τριπόθητον Ἄδωνιν, δλη δ' Αἲγυπτος Ὄσιριν, πουράνιον μηνς (Μηνς Wilamowitz) κέρας ‘Eλληνς σοϕία, Σαμοθρᾷκες Ἅδαμνα σεβάσμιον, Αίμόνιοι Κορύβαντα, κα οἱ ϕρύγες ἃλλοτε μν IIάπαν, ποτ δ’ αὖ νέκυν ἥ θεν… It is preceded by a long exegetical disquisition, which treats the various divine names in the order in which they occur in the hymn, and includes the remarks, 8. 13, p. 91, τοτόν, ϕησι, θρᾷκες οἱ περ τν Αἷμον οἰκοντες Κορύβαντα καλοσι, κα θρᾳξν οἱ Φρύγες μοίως… τν αὐτν δ τοτν, Φησι, Φρύγες κα IIπαν καλοσιν (after about a page of explanation). The statement here made is obviously at variance with the hymn: Αἱμόνιοι are properly Thessalians, and have nothing to do with Mount Haemus. Moreover, we have evidence for the cult of a Korybas, more commonly called a Kabeiros, at the foot of Mount Olympus, and as Mount Olympus lies on the borders of Thessaly and Macedonia, this may be designated as a cult by Thessalians. Αἱμόνιοι therefore agrees with facts, and the explanation given by Hippolytus or by the authority whom he was following can be explained as due to a confusion of place-names. It led here to the further error of θρᾷκες; the attribution of orgiastic cults to Thracians was natural, but there seems a lack of evidence for Korybas or Korybantes in Thrace.

A. I begin with some emendations founded on familiar evidence.

(a) ii. 9. aspice quos summittat humus formosa colores.

In each of the following verses of the stanza from u. 9 to u. 14 natural and spontaneous beauty is the subject (sponte sua, solis, indociles, natiuis, nulla arte). Verse 9 has seemed unsatisfactory because it lacks the very point which it should introduce. All the emendations have attacked formosa because it is repeated in u. 11: morosa, Housman (which would rather mean ‘wayward’ or ‘crabbed’), dumosa, nemorosa, muscosa, and other even less probable adjectives have been suggested.

On the passage spaced Archer-Hind writes: ‘It seems to me that needless difficulty has been raised over this sentence; Хαρɩέντως έҳωνsimply means “having his body in a good state,” and to this τοɩαύτη refers. If the body were in a healthy condition at death and at a healthy age, it would hold out longer, says Plato, against decomposition. Mr. Cope, I think, is quite correct in translating “If a man dies with his body in a vigorous state and at a vigorous period of his life, a very considerable time indeed.” The following sentence συμπεσòν … χρόνον is bracketed by Schanz after Ast. I see no sufficient reason for doing so; the yap is certainly not very obvious but may be explained thus; (nor is this the strongest case) for if a body is embalmed it remains nearly whole for an indefinite time. Hirschig brackets ώσμερ … ταριχενθέντες very superfluously. Plato says (i.) the body of a healthy man who dies in the prime of life lasts a good while; (ii.) an Egyptian mummy lasts an indefinite time; (iii.) even without this some parts of the human frame are almost indestructible.’