This paper is an attempt to show that considerations similar to those which have been applied by the present writer to the Suppliants throw more light than is generally admitted on the construction and dramatic value ox the Septem. The criticism of Dr. Verrall, whom I cannot mention without a deep sense of gratitude and sorrow, and the edition by Prof. Tucker, have made it unlikely that any careful student will without argument dismiss the play as uninteresting. We are no longer content to remark that ‘the scene between Eteocles and the Chorus is dramatically unnecessary,’ that ‘in the episode, vv. 370–708, which is the centre and kernel of the Seven against Thebes, we look in vain for action,’ that ‘there is no drama proper except between Antigone and the Herald.’

Two papyrus fragments (Berlin Pap. 7497 and Oxyrh. Pap. 421) treat of the ancestry and story of Bellerophon. The first has the beginnings of fifteen lines, and the other the endings of nineteen: both are assigned to the second century A.D.

Egypt has not yet given us a Greek original of Plautus, unless the paltry Hibeh fragments (I, p. 24) belong to the original of the Aulularia. (For the pro and con, see Blass, Rhein. Mus. 62, 102; Leo, Herm. 41, 629.) If they do, then Plautus departed widely from the Greek. And that is what one would expect. Read any ‘sermo’ in Plautus (in sermonibus Plautus poscit palmam) and see how recklessly he abandons himself to the vagaries of his humour. Clearly no ‘icily regular’ Greek is his guide there. Still a ray of light has come from Egypt that illumines one dark spot in Plautus, the end of the first Scene (or rather Act) of the Bacchides. The two sisters retreat into the house after a line which appears in our editions in this form (v. 107):

It is difficult to be satisfied with παρá...χρήναι contrary to their not thinking it right. First the grammar and sense are peculiar. Is there any other instance of παρá with this meaning taking τó and infinitive ? Nor would the conduct be contrary to their act of thinking it wrong, but to their thought that it was wrong. For both these reasons we should expect something like and not what we find. Again, even if we waived these objections, what a needlessly awkward phrase it is

1. Introduction. Sources of difficulty in the investigation.–II. Dr. Monro′s pitch theory. The passage in Heraclides. Supplementary evidence from the Problems.–III. Prof. Macran′s theory. Evidence against this theory. Prof. Macran′s answer to this evidence. Further objections. Criticism of the evidence in favour of Prof. Macran′s theory.–IV. Prof. Cook-Wilson′s theory. Platonic and Aristotelian evidence against Dr. Monro. Objections to this theory.–V. Recapitulation. Statement of the antinomies in the evidence.–VI. Conclusion. The nucleus of certainty. The Greek, as contrasted with the modern, musical sense.

The view of Homer which I have attempted to expound in articles recently contributed to this and other journals may be stated as follows: an individual, father of the children, first natural then spiritual, who bore his name and worshipped him, lived in Chios, of which island he was so much the glory that ‘ Chian ’ in the mouth of Simonides, himself a professional and an islander, means ‘ Homer.’ He was not blind, like his disciple the Chian Cynaethus, but seeing: he selected, arranged, adorned and expanded two episodes in the stock of saga (whether continuous or already disposed in separate poems) which the colonists brought with them from Europe.

In Varia Socratica Professor A. E. Taylor devotes his first chapter to a proof that the impiety for which Socrates was condemned consisted in his connection with an Orphic-Pythagorean cult. This argument has more than historical interest, for it is the first step in an attempt to attribute to Socrates, and ultimately to Pythagorean sources, doctrines hitherto regarded as Platonic. Much of Dr. Taylor′s new evidence seems to rest on passages which in their context contradict or greatly modify his inferences; other arguments have no better basis than the dubious principle that any fact shown to be related to Orphism in one connection is always so related; and, above all, the enquiry which set out to give precise legal grounds for the charge of impiety tails away lamentably into a mere discussion of doctrine. I propose, after examining the wording of the charge, to analyze the evidence for regarding Socrates′ offence as the importation of a foreign cultus, then to enquire how far Dr. Taylor′s discussion of doctrine is relevant to the legal charge, and, lastly, to ask whether the Apology of Plato and the Memorabilia really do preserve so suspicious a silence about the impiety as to justify a totally new theory to account for their reticence.

‘ If Rome, addlepate that she is, misprises a thing, let that be no concern of yours. For at Rome every living soul—ah, would that I might utter it! But utter it I surely may, when I consider what dismal old squaretoes we are from the day when we are boys no more. Then, then—forgive me (I don't wish it, I can't help it)—but (this spleen of mine is to blame) I do burst out laughing.’ Down to the middle of u. n my text and punctuation are those of most editors, and I shall uphold them against the MS readings retained by Casaubon and recalled by Buecheler. From that point onward the punctuation is my own, except that it partly agrees with K. F. Hermann's, adopted in 1910 by Mr Leo.

In Appendix II. to his edition of Odyssey, xiii.-xxiv., the late Dr. Monro examined the ‘ Relation of the Odyssey to the Iliad.’ One section of this Appendix, pp. 327 sqq., deals with ‘ passages of the Iliad borrowed or imitated in the Odyssey.’ It is there admitted that repetition is a characteristic of the epic style, and that in many cases of parallelism no detrimental inference can legitimately be drawn. But if, it is said, ‘ we are able to point to a sufficient number of passages tending to show that the author of the Odyssey imitates the Iliad, and if no considerable instances can be produced of the converse,’ then it is thought there is confirmation of the view that the Odyssey is the later poem. The object of the present paper is to suggest that the decisions in individual cases have been arrived at on scanty or disputable grounds, and without due regard to relevant epic practice; and consequently that the reasons for inferring the existence of a later poet imitating an earlier are inadequate.

An aspect of Pisistratus, which has not hitherto been utilized in this question (see p. 50), appears to justify another presentment of the evidence which connects him with the Homeric tradition. I shall endeavour to be brief and not to repeat what is common property or irrelevant. The literature and the bearing of the controversy are given with his usual clearness by P. Cauer, Grundfragen der Homerkritik,2 pp. 125 sqq. Cauer's private doctrine, that Homer was for the first time written down by Pisistratus, I consider sufficiently refuted by C. Rothe, Die Was als Dichtung, pp. 5–13. Fantastic views lately promulgated in England are1 dealt with conclusively to my mind by Mr. A. Lang, The World of Homer, pp. 281 sqq., to whose account nothing for controversial purposes need be added. On looking back over the literature I find myself most in agreement with Hans Flach, whose treatise, Die litterarische Thdtigkeit des Peisistratos, 1885, has been unduly depreciated. I shall have to repeat my own views expressed in the Classical Review, 1901, p. 7; 1907, p. 18; and in the Classical Quarterly, 1909, p. 84

At the beginning of ch. xxv (3516) Socrates starts once more to prove his contention that courage is a form of wisdom. He begins by asking Protagoras whether pleasure is not always in itself good, pain in itself evil. Protagoras is not prepared to admit this, but he is willing to accept the position as a basis for discussion. Socrates then asks a second question (352a 8): does Protagoras, like most people, think that knowledge has no power or authority in the soul? does he think that knowledge may be present and yet not operative, being knocked about like a slave by the superior force of anger, pleasure, or passion? Must we not rather believe that knowledge can be conquered by nothing and is alone sufficient to salvation?

The mystical part of Reitzenstein′s interpretation of the song in Theocritus′s first idyll has not been generally accepted;it is somewhat surprising to find a new interpretation of the legend of Daphnis, and a new explanation of the genesis of pastoral poetry, introduced by the statement, referring to Reitzenstein: ‘ Nicht zu kiihn war er, sondern noch nicht kiihn genug.’ Starting from Reitzenstein′s contention that the pastoral was developed from a cult-song, Fries elaborates the theory that Daphnis is a Greek Krishna; that the maiden of Theocritus′s first idyll is the counterpart of the heroine of the Song of Songs; that astral mythology, Oriental in origin, supplies the clue to Theocritus′s handling of the legend. On the basis of this and other material Fries constructs further theories affecting the development of other literary types than the pastoral, and leads us ultimately to a novel interpretation of the Phaeacian episode in the Odyssey.

Like everyone else, I was brought up to repeat that regnauit populorum is a ‘Greek genitive = ’ If one shrinks from depriving examinationpapers of this interesting idiom, he may be consoled by remembering that abstineto irarum and desine querelarum are still left. Why should not populorum depend in a normal manner upon potens (cf. diua potens Cypri) ? Surely the sense is improved by the antithesis pauper aquae, potens agrestium populorum. ‘Where Daunus, scant of water, ruled rustic peoples’ contains a somewhat cold pedantry, which is at least partially relieved by the fuller description. I find it difficult to understand why so many scholars prefer to make ex humili potens refer to Horace himself.

Read just as has been corrected. The rain was still falling.

7. 2. Two points may be urged against the MS. reading. First is an extremely awkward construction, if it means that they gave, not received, the order. In Thucydides the dative is quite rare in this use with passives, except of course with perfect tenses, and the cases in which it most often occurs will not be compared with this by any competent scholar (e.g. ). But special awkwardness arises from the fact that naturally takes a dative of a quite different kind, and that in this sentence such a dative is actually added.

The dream related by Ennius in the first book of his Annales, in which the ghost of Homer appeared to him, has been the subject of much discussion. There are various pieces of evidence about it from which inferences can be drawn; sometimes, I think, too much has been inferred, sometimes too little. My chief object in this paper is to consider what exactly was the view held or expounded by Ennius regarding the nature of the soul and the conditions under which a ghost appears. But I propose in the first place to review the evidence and to contemplate the dream as a poetic product, a thing which has its place in the history of poetry and its affinities with similar passages in other authors.

In the last number of the Journal of Philology (xxxii. 63, p. 136) a change of punctuation in Sophist 244 C, together with a new interpretation, is proposed. To this serious exception must be taken; or perhaps not too serious, because the proposal can hardly be due to anything but haste and want of revision.It is not only in disagreement with a familiar idiom, but is easily seen to be inconsistent with the context, which can have barely received attention.The passage is as follows: ξE. On this Apelt, in his new edition of Stallbaum's Commentary, has written quite rightly, respondet antecedenti illi ut non opus sit mutatione…. Ceterum ad totius loci sensum nihil interest, utrum an scribatur.

Tvnicam linteam pro lanea uulgo Romae saeculo tertio post Chr. n. gestatam esse iure optimo Friedlaenderus (S. R. I l l p. 68) contendit, sed idem Romanos fortasse iam antea eo uestimento usos esse addit, idque fretus loco Iuuenalis, quern supra indicaui. Mihi tamen uidentur uersus illi Aquinatis non posse afferri ad Friedlaenderi sententiam tuendam, quod ut demonstrem, eos infra describam et tractabo.

‘The date of the poem has been canvassed with merciless prolixity for the last four-and-twenty years, but the pertinent facts are few.’ So I wrote in 1903 on p. lxix of my edition of the first book of Manilius; and in two octavo pages and a half I collected all those facts, said all that I could find to say on both sides of the questions in dispute, and drew the conclusion that books I and II were written under Augustus and book IV under Tiberius. Ten years have passed, and the prolixity has continued, but the prolix have added no pertinent fact to those which I collected: some of them have even subtracted one, by suppressing the numismatic evidence, which I duly recorded, that Tiberius had Libra for his star.

These notes are the result of some work done a year or two ago on the Medicean MS. of Aeneas Tacticus1 (Cod. Mediceus Laurentianus, Plut. lv. 4, Saec. xi.) in preparation for an edition of that unduly neglected author which I hope will soon see the light. I should not have thought it worth while to publish them separately were it not for two papers, at once laborious and brilliant, read by Mr. A. C. Clark to the Oxford Philological Society on the text of Cicero′s speeches, in May, 1912, and February, 1913. The extreme plausibility with which the reader then explained numberless corruptions, transpositions, etc., in the text of Cicero, by reconstructing the length of line and pagination of the MSS. in their several degrees of descent, led me to think that it might be of some interest to publish the results at which I arrived by working on the same lines with a Greek author. In my case the problem has been a far simpler one, as I only had one MS. to deal with; but as I came to my own conclusions quite independently, before I knew that the method was being applied elsewhere, I give them for what they are worth, only too glad to find myself in such good company.

The supposed difficulties of this famous passage are set forth in Conington's notes. In reality they have been created by a misunderstanding, and chiefly through forgetfulness that the English of pauci is ' only a few.' In vv. 743–747 the sense is not (as Page takes it) that the souls dwell in Elysium ' until lapse of time hath removed the ingrown corruption.' This would surely require donee … exemerit …purumque reliquerit.The fact is that Anchises is explaining his own presence in Elysium at so early a date after his death. If souls require a prolonged purgation before reaching Elysium and the laeta arua, how comes it that he himself is already there ? The answer is—because he is one of the few in whose case the process was a short one.Quisque suos patimur Manes, says he, and the length and nature of the purgation depend upon what your Manes deserve and require. ?‘ All souls go through such punishment and refining as are necessary.We each suffer our own Manes (i.e. suffer what they merit), and only a few of us are so fortunate as to enjoy the happy fields before a long period has removed the impurities (i.e. only a few of us enjoy that privilege without having to pass through a long experience of the kind).’ He is himself one of those who have so escaped (his stains having been but slight), and hence his presence here to meet Aeneas so soon after decease.