(8 KaλUTTÓμEVOs) to the first edition. We have the first conclusion preserved by Stobaeus; it is strictly germane to the argument, whereas in our version the poet inserted lines expressing the public sorrow for Pericles. This is all the more remarkable, as he often transferred his concluding lines from one play to another. It is commonly said (since Hermann suggested it) that in the noise and confusion of the departing audience, the concluding words were not audible, and that therefore the author took no trouble about them. The case before us rather points to this particular moment as that when a contemporary allusion was usual, and the stock conclusion may only have been placed there to stop the gap, and to be removed when, at the last moment, the poet caught the feeling uppermost in his audience, and expressed his sympathy with it. Thus the ending of the Orestes and Phoenissae ‡ could only have been tolerated after a recent victory, certainly not after a recent defeat.

But if this conjecture be not adopted, the double version in question proves even more clearly that our text was a careful revision, containing the poet's maturest work, and therefore unlikely to contain either slovenly writing or confused thinking. And yet it requires no deep study to discover that the

* Vid. note ad. fin. of the Comm.

Vid. ad. fin. of the Helena, Bacchae, Andromache, Alcestis, Medea, also the Orestes and Phoenissae.

ὦ μέγα σεμνὴ Νίκη, τὸν ἐμὸν

βίοτον κατέχεις

καὶ μὴ λήγοις στεφανοῦσα.

latter especially-indeed both-are frequent throughout the play.* It is therefore certain that we have not the text in a condition at all approaching its original purity. Our Ms. authority for it is as good as that for any of the poet's plays; we have it preserved in copies of both families, so to speak-that represented by the Marcian A and the Copenhagen E, as well as that preserved in the Palatine B and the Florentine C. In most of the doubtful places the sentences are grammatical, and it is rather the metre or the logic which is faulty, and which leads us to suspect some early confusion. Hence this play, once considered amongst the purest in condition, is now held by the best critics to be exceedingly corrupt. It is very likely that the similarity of the two editions was a principal cause, and lines suitable to the earlier context have strayed into this.

It is not to be assumed that the poet himself was guilty of such inaccuracies. But pedantic and foolish readers will often fill their margin with parallel passages, and these have misled later copyists. The number of good variants, indicated by the yp. kaì of the scholiasts, show that the verbal changes made by the poet had been carefully noted.

These are the reasons which have induced recent foreign editors-in our opinion rightly-to treat the text boldly, and not to hesitate in pointing out artistic and logical flaws, as unworthy of Euripides, still more of his reconsidered and revised work. It is, of

* Cf. notes ad vv. 93 sq., 294, 376 sq., 419, 500, 1012 sq., 1034, 1195, 1441.

course, much more difficult to heal than to discover these wounds; many of them of such long standing that their origin is only to be conjectured; and there will not be wanting those who argue that what has satisfied other generations of critics must be sound enough, and is at all events beyond the reach of any fruitful questioning. Nevertheless, prudens interrogatio dimidium scientiae; we can never tell when a reasonable question will not suggest to another critic the proper answer; and, in any case, the frame of mind which finds difficulties and exposes them is one not to be reproved. Even in a smaller edition of a text, intended mainly for younger students, such questions are not the least out of place. They stimulate the reader to approach his author not in a spirit of blind reverence, but of intelligent appreciation, and teach him to exercise on the poetry of the Greeks that just criticism which rejects what is false and trivial in the productions of his own day. It is indeed not easy to defend the minute study of these texts, if reasonable exercise be not allowed to the critical faculty.

But it is among us rather the fashion to discourage than to praise this higher criticism, on account of its alleged abuse among our Dutch and German neighbours. In philology, at least, the English are thorough Tories, and think it rather the duty of an editor to defend and explain what he finds written than to substitute for it conjectures of his own. They urge, with their usual good sense, that it is our first duty to find out what the best MSS. say; our

next, to endeavour, if possible, to explain it without alterations. But the if possible marks the field of conflict; for what one man thinks quite a possible exegesis, another cannot bring himself to attribute to a great classical poet. Thus a different standard lies at the root of many of these disputes. To us, for example, such lines as vv. 383 and 1441 seem impossible, in their construction, from such an artist as Euripides. There are many better scholars in England who will not feel this difficulty, and who will make out an interpretation of some kind, which satisfies them. At worst they will say that we must allow the possibility of loose writing, and that the poet was guilty of some confusion of thought or expression. The Germans would reply that to assume this was to assume that the literary standard of the Greeks was low, and that their leading poets gained a reputation cheaper than they would in our day. The Dutch school might probably add that the value of classical study as a mental training would soon be denied, if we are to explain away bungling, and make excuses for weak and trivial writing. They hold that the great classical masters were real artists, to whom it is an insult to ascribe such defects.

Here, then, are the extremes between which an editor must steer his course. There is no chance of his pleasing everybody. If he is conservative, he is called by that school safe-by his opponents dull and unsuggestive. If he is sceptical, he is called brilliant by one side-rash and reckless by the other. If he pursues an eclectic course, possibly he will incur

the censure of both. But, on the whole, the conservatives are the most numerous, and perhaps the most intolerant. For they are supported by the herd of second-hand scholars, who are afraid or unable to think for themselves, or suggest anything new, and who naturally cry out against a sort of criticism which they dislike, if they do not envy it. We have thought it right, however, out of respect for the genuine section of this opinion, to disturb the text as little as possible, pointing out by brackets, and in notes, where doubts have been suggested. We have also been careful to admit as few of our own conjectures as possible, knowing how insecure is men's judgment of their own work, and how likely they are to be carried away by the ambition to make successful emendations.

As regards the economy of the play, and the character painting, I will not repeat here what has been already said in my Greek Literature (i., § 204). A few words must be added about the editions consulted, and the мs. authority. Since Valckenaer's monograph (with Latin trans. and notes), a most valuable work, the most important older commentary is that of Monk (1811, four plays). Recently we have in England Mr. Paley's Euripides; in France, Weil's Sept Tragédies; in Germany, Barthold's monograph. These have been used throughout, and in them have been found many stray suggestions of older scholars, which are referred to their authors. Wecklein's articles have also been utilized, and thus we hope that nothing important as to exegesis has