Two questions remain, where possibly more difference of opinion is to be expected: as to whether the other modern Literatures are to be included in the school, and whether language is to be studied as well as literature. The first one may be dismissed very briefly. No proposal has been made, and it may be assumed that no proposal will be made, to put in the other Modern Languages except as alternatives to English. The Pall Mall professes to be afraid of English being 'associated with modern languages. We fail to see why the most bigoted opponent of a school of modern European languages and literature need object to such 'association' as is implied in the system of alternatives. If Mr. Collins thinks the study of French would act prejudicially on the study of English, a view which strikes us as groundless, at any rate we fail to see how a student of English is damnified by the fact that another man in the same university is reading French, and will be examined at the same time, and appear in the same Class List.

But

The other question, whether language shall be added to literature in the new school, will no doubt be much more hotly discussed. It is idle to attempt to shake a hardened and impenitent Antiphilologer like Mr. Collins, with his great gifts, his wide knowledge of literature, and his strongly formed and loudly expressed opinions. But a few considerations may be offered which may have weight with the more ordinary and practical men, who after all will have to decide the question of the new studies, and prescribe the conditions and the course. It is indeed one of the unfortunate results of Mr. Collins's forcible style of controversy, that he feels himself bound successively to repudiate and rebuke the Oxford and Cambridge teachers of English,' the University legislators, and popular opinion, which at least will go for something in the settle

ment.

It may, for example, be plausibly urged that if English Literature has been neglected, so still more has the English language: that for a hundred men who leave the University with some knowledge of the literature, not one can be found who knows as much of the growth of his own language as he does of the Classical tongues: that the University is

least of all the place where English should be studied without some sound knowledge of its origin: that in no scheme of Literature can Chaucer be omitted, and that to read Chaucer with no knowledge of middle English is hardly less absurd than to read Homer with only a knowledge of Attic: that if a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon and the elements of Gothic, sufficient to give some first-hand knowledge of the beginnings of English Literature, can be acquired with a few months' study, as competent authorities assure us, it would be a great pity to sacrifice the chance of making the survey of the ground relatively complete, for the sake of keeping in the course a mass of classics of which the old is a repetition of Moderationstudies, and much of the new is comparatively irrelevant. And there is another danger which the addition of the language would avoid. A course of teaching which is literary merely, though stimulating in diverse degrees, and likely to evoke the highest faculties of a few, may with many minds have too indefinite a character, and with not a few tend to sink into the communication of opinions and criticisms learned at secondhand. The element of definiteness in linguistic study: the training in accuracy, capable of being brought to a test: the sense of mastery acquired in learning an unfamiliar tongue: the tracing relations between the earlier and later forms of the language: these things would be present to correct the dangerous tendency referred to, and to make the combined study more of a mental training. And all this is apart from the light which the study of language must necessarily throw upon literature, and on which much more might be said.

Much of this, no doubt, those who agree with Mr. Collins would admit: some of it ho has himself admitted in his article. His difficulty is the shortness of the time; which no doubt, under his classical scheme, particularly as he only allows a year for the systematic study of English, would be fatal to any possibility of including language. But under the more reasonable scheme here advocated, where the classics are not systematically read beyond Moderations, and two years and a term are thus saved for English, the difficulty disappears.

A. SIDGWICK,

1 October Quarterly.

January Quarterly, p. 242.

3 January Quarterly, p. 243.

Quarterly, p. 259.

12

Homer: an Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey. By R. C. JEBB, Litt.D., &c. Glasgow Maclehose, 1887.

IT is a strange thing that we should have had to wait till this year for a handy introduction to Homer, but it is stranger to think that even in Germany there has not appeared, so far as I am aware, any work possessing claims to do what Professor Jebb has done. The want, now that it has been met, seems so obvious, and yet so well within the limits of a reasonable treatment, that it is hard to see why the beginner should have been left to glean his general conspectus of the subject from histories of Greece, histories of Greek literature, histories of art, and the introductions or notes of commentators. However industrious the student, and however excellent his authorities in each of these departments, he laboured perforce under the disadvantage of piecemeal learning, now confused by fundamental contradictions, now left entirely in the lurch as if by mutual consent. It is hardly necessary to say that such works as Mr. Gladstone's Primer' could not fill the gap, while Hartley Coleridge's Introduction to the Study of the Greek Poets is long out of date.

Conciseness, with all its drawbacks, being granted as an absolute necessity for learners, Professor Jebb's handbook is as good as it well could be. Within the limits, and with the aim, to which he rigorously confines himself, we do not of course look for any very novel views or surprising theories; we expect, and we find, a clear and lucid statement of the most approved results of criticism, informed and illustrated by their passage through a mind of singular tact and delicacy of judgment. In no part of the book is this more conspicuous than in the first chapter on 'General Characteristics,' which is full of acute and instructive remarks on the position of the Epic, whether as Volksepos or learned poem, in the history of literature. The whole chapter is a model of quiet and luminous criticism.

Passing lightly over the next two chapters, on the Homeric World' and 'Homer in Antiquity,' both excellent specimens of accurate condensation, based in the main, of

course, on the works of Helbig and the Königsberg school respectively, I would earnestly recommend the fourth, on the Homeric Question,' to the consideration of all English scholars.

Professor Jebb has definitely and boldly thrown in his lot with the adherents of what has been not unhappily called the 'Crystallization theory,' the hypothesis of a primitive epic of the Wrath of Achilles expanded by the insertion of many lays of various compass by later hands. The substance of the primary Iliad' is to be found in books 1, 11, and 16 to 22 inclusive-allowance being made for later interpolations, large or small, in books 16-22.' The group of books 2 to 7 'represents the earliest series of additions made (not all at one time or by one hand) to the primary Iliad.' Books 12 to 15 are 'a skilful and brilliant expansion,' 'thoroughly worthy of a great poet'-(though I cannot at all agree with Mr. Jebb in regarding these books as even possibly the work of one hand; in no part of the Iliad is the narrative more uneven and complicated than here). When the additions had reached this point, no further amplification of the original simple plot would be possible; for the space between 11 and 16 was now filled with events, while any further retardation between 1 and 11 would be tedious. Hence the artifice of duplicating' the turningpoint of the story, the discomfiture of the Greeks, by the insertion of books 8 and 9-book 10 did not yet exist.

With regard to 23 and 24 the case is different. They are concerned with a subject always of extreme interest to Greek hearers the rendering of due burial rites.' If they are viewed simply in relation to the plot, there is no reason why they should not have belonged to the primary Iliad itself. It is the internal evidence of language and style which makes this improbable.' Book 24, Professor Jebb thinks, may possibly be by the author of book 9, to which it forms a brilliant antithesis.' All these books must be older than circ. 850-800 B.C., while the remaining book, 10, and the 'greater interpolations' may be referable, perhaps, to circ. 750-600 B.C. Under the 'greater interpolations' Professor Jebb in

cludes the episode of Phoenix in 9; the interview between Nestor and Patroclus, 11 596-848 or at least so much of it as is comprised in 665-762' (the earlier part of it is surely essential to the primitive poem); the making of the armour in 18; the Theomachia in 20, 4-380 (to this should be added also the actual Theomachy in 21, 383-514); the funeral games in 23; and the Catalogue, by a Boeotian poet of the Hesiodic school, in 2, 484-779.

The view thus summarily condensed coincides, im grossen und ganzen, so completely with my own belief that I have no wish to criticize it, and can only gratefully welcome the appearance of so powerful a champion on the side of what I hold to be the truth. A matter of more importance, however, is this very significant indication of the tendency of modern Homeric criticism to rally, after many years of independent and mutually destructive combat, round a single standard. All the best recent work has been converging towards agreement; in the general spirit in which they view the Iliad, Naber, Sittl, Niese, Christ, Fick, however discordant in details, are really allies, as against the Right of the Unitarians and the Extreme Left of the Lachmannianer. Even Hentze, as appears from the preface to the last published part of his Iliad (the third edition of books vii.-ix.) has at length given up his belief that 8 and 9 belong to the original poem, and will probably be found in the same camp in a few months. Then there will at last be something like concord in the modern school. The fundamental point to be settled is the original sequence of books 1-11-16; if that is once admitted, all other differences are insignificant.

With regard to the place of origin of the poems Professor Jebb is a modified adherent of the European' theory, holding that at least the primary Iliad was composed in Greece proper, not in Asia Minor-which however he regards as the birthplace of 2-7 and a fortiori of all the later books.

Here

be seems to me to lay too much stress upon the supposed knowledge of Asia Minor which the poets of 2-7 show. It would have been more satisfactory if he had indicated this in somewhat greater detail. I can recollect no important indication of such knowledge in these books except in late portions of the second. The names of towns in the Troad are familiar even to the author of book 1, and Sarpedon and his Lycians, as Christ has shown, are by no means an integral part of the story where they occur. The only really striking instance of local knowledge in the

whole Iliad is the allusion to the fact that the plain of Troy can be seen from the top of Samothrace; and that occurs in a passage which for many reasons must be considered late (xiii. 12-14). The other natural features mentioned in the note on p. 148 are not distinctive of any locality. Here again, however, it is more pleasant to welcome agreement than to accentuate differences; and even the ultimate reference of but a small part of the Iliad, as a poem, to Europe is an important point d'appui for a fresh examination of the evidence. It does not seem probable to me, however, that we have to look to Thessaly; with the single exception of Achilles, an indispensable datum of the legend, the important heroes all belong to S. Greece and the islands; it is Argos and the Argives, as Cleisthenes complained, not the Myrmidons, who are glorified. The little linguistic evidence there is points to the Peloponnesus; the affinities of the non-Ionic forms are with the Cyprian-Arcadian rather than with the Thessalian. Compare for instance Cyprian and Homeric Tóλs with Thessalian ττόλις.

The book contains appendices treating of 'the House at Tiryns,'-a condensation of Professor Jebb's recent paper in the Journal of Hellenic Studies rather too polemical and long for the general character of the book, but in the main I think right-and of various linguistic points; and closes with a useful list of books. Instead of discussing these at length, it will be more useful to note a few corrections for future editions. On page 1 the 'songs on the death of a beautiful youth' are not very happily cited as instances of Indo-European Nature worship. Of the five names given as belonging to such hymns one, Linus, is probably Semitic (as Professor Jebb himself points out on the next page), and another, Adonis, patently so: and whatever we may think of Hyacinthus and Hylas, Ialemus at least does not wear a very 'IndoEuropean' look. The Simonides who quotes Homer (p. 88) is not for certain he of Ceos; Bergk for instance thinks it was Simonides of Amorgos, thus throwing back the date of the quotation 160 years. On p. 141, note 2, Nauck's σκηπτόοχος for σκηπτούχος cannot be quoted for the restoration of a medial F. On p. 185 the argument that the suggested derivation of modern Greek povya from low Latin ruga (rather than from the Homeric pûyes) 'fails to carry pouya far enough back' surely begs the question, which on the evidence cannot be regarded as other than quite open. It is misleading to say that the digamma in the Aeolic alphabet 'kept its

place far into the historical age' (p. 140); in the Aeolic inscriptions properly so calledthose of Aeolis in Asia Minor-the digamma is of course unknown. The statement is correct only if'Aeolic' be taken in the wide sense to include the dialects of Boeotia, Elis, Thessaly, etc., an extension of the word which is much to be deprecated; or if it means that in the historic age there were still MSS. of the old Aeolic poets in which the ♬ was written (see Meister, Gr. Dialekte, pp. 103 ff.) The Iliad and Odyssey consist of not nearly,' but considerably more than, 15,000 and 12,000 lines respectively (p. 5, note 3). Of mere misprints, on p. 30, 1. 18, Iliad 16 should be Iliad 17: p. 87, note 1, 1. 7 one 'Chios' should be Rhodos': p. 194, V. (d) the omission of μév after σákos makes the metrical remark unintelligible. On p. 201, 1. 25 read Turici for Turin, and 1. 36, Danish for Dutch. A few still smaller slips might be noticed; but it is superfluous to say that not one of them detracts sensibly from the claim of the book to be a trustworthy and indispensable guide to the study of the two great poems.

WALTER LEAF.

Select Private Orations of Demosthenes, with Introductions and English Commentary, by F. A. PALEY, M.A., and J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Second edition, 1886.

AN edition which for eleven years has been in the hands of all English scholars requires no long notice. Messrs. Paley and Sandys' Demosthenes already takes rank as a standard work, and it will be sufficient to indicate the chief alterations, almost all of them, we may say at the outset, improvements, in the reprint now before us. If less ambitious as a contribution to classical philology than Shilleto's monumental edition of the De Falsa Legatione, it is in some respects more useful to the student. A generation which has learnt to admit the incompleteness and occasional fallibility of Porson's method of editing may, without ceasing to honour the memory of Shilleto, recognise the limitations of his mind. Exact as he was in verbal scholarship, skilled in the handling of MSS. and wonderfully versed in the phraseology of the orators, there were yet whole departments of antiquity which, owing to the incessant demands on his time, remained closed to his view. Thus he falls far short of Messrs. Paley and Sandys, as well in minute knowledge of Grecian history, so important for explaining obscure allusions and fixing the date of controverted speeches, as in their

many-sided presentment of ancient life and manners, drawn from the resources of wide archaeological study. In dealing with the orators it is much, of course, to come after A. Schaefer, Blass, and Prof. Jebb; and besides these, such works as the Attische Process (with the additional notes by J. H. Lipsius), Schoemann's Antiquities and the new edition of Hermann's Antiquities as far as published (e.g. Thalheim's volume on Greek law), Caillemer's detached Études, Büchsenschütz's Besitz und Erwerb, and Becker's Charicles in Göll's recension, have been freely used, and add greatly to the interest of this edition. In part ii. more especially, the latest German monographs have been laid under contribution. The new edition of Boeckh's Public Economy, by Fränkl, appeared just too late to be of service.

Though the type remains the same, the second edition is still more attractively got up than its predecessor. We are met at once by an excellent autotype plate of illustrative coins, with descriptive letterpress by Mr. Sandys; an improvement for which we have to thank the liberality of the University Press. We naturally turn to see what use has been made, in part i., of Prof. Joseph Mayor's criticisms in the Journal of Philology, vi. 240-252. Most of his corrections are thankfully accepted; in some cases, as in Pantaen. p. 971, § 16, the editorial dignity is saved by a show of resistance, while substantially conceding the point at issue. On Boeot. de Dot. p. 1018, § 33, the note on undèv ådɩkoûvtos is re-written with reference to Mr. Mayor, but with no notice of the strong probability in favour of ovdév, actually found in MSS. of authority (e.g. in F). The encroachments of un on où in later ages are well known. In the same speech, p. 1021, § 42, the Attic usage κaTà Tí διὰ τί is treated (controversially, too) as equivalent to the much rarer pleonasm of κarà where we should expect the simple accusative (κarù τοῦτ ̓ ἀδικεῖ, Τimocr. p. 710, § 32). Oa Dionysod. p. 1292, § 32, and p. 1293, § 37, the certain corrections of Cobet might have been defended in a note and not merely quoted as various readings; in the latter passage the primitive hand oŵs orì lies but half hidden in the tautology σέσωσται καὶ ἔστι σῴα. In one or two passages we offer suggestions of our own. Prof. Mayor's rendering of ovverμnon (Dionysod. p. 1285, § 8) may, we think, be slightly improved upon. The context alludes to the practice of changing the destination of corn-ships in accordance with advices after they had sailed, the natural effects of which would be, not merely

=

to raise prices where corn was cheap, but to lower them where it was dear; this is Tuâv, 'to bring prices to a level, produce an equilibrium.' This did not suit the Athenians, who wanted an artificial cheapness at the expense of speculators, and made, not only the exportation of corn, but its consignment to any other port than Athens a capital offence (Adv. Pharm. p. 918, § 37, wich Sandys' note). The law was of course disregarded in the pursuit of gain, as the references show: and the present passage is interesting as a proof of greater talent for business on the part of the Greeks than they have sometimes been credited with. Again, we are not disposed to agree with Mr. Sandys (Introd. p. lxi. and note on p. 1270 § 41) that the case of Conon was probably tried before the Forty, sitting as a jury. We conceive that the TETTαрáкоνта were petty magistrates, not dicasts in the ordinary sense; and that a case in which the plaintiff Ariston had been half-killed must have gone before a regular heliastic court, with at least 201, more probably 501, jurors.

W. WAYTE.

Thirteen Satires of Juvenal, with a Commentary by JOHN E. B. MAYOR, M.A. Vol. I. Fourth edition, revised, vol. ii. Third edition, revised. Macmillan, 1886.

IT is no exaggeration to say that since Casaubon no scholar has presented so remarkable a combination as Prof. John Mayor of two qualities seldom found in the same person, wealth of learning and freshness of interest. His commentary on Juvenal, long so justly admired for its abundance of illustration, is a work whose importance extends far beyond the limits imposed by the requirements of textual or explanatory criticism of his author. Just as one learns far more of ancient life from Casaubon's Persius than from Persius himself, so the present writer has often felt that he has learned more of Juvenal's age from Mr. Mayor's commentary than from Juvenal.

The new edition before us contains a large number of new notes; a new index of phrases printed at the end of the first volume; and a new preface, in which the author notices (among other things), the chief additions recently made to our knowledge of the text, notably under the auspices of Beer and Bücheler. The new index, which has evidently cost its author immense pains, will prove of great value. In the preface, Mr. Mayor, as though drawn into the spirit of a

writer whose motto is quicquid agunt homines, votum timor ira voluptas, Gaudia, discursus, has a good deal of miscellaneous discourse, ranging over temperance, vegetarianism. vivisection, and the management of college estates. The intention of the author is admirable, nay noble, and he only emphasizes teaching now heard on all hands. Yet, amid the thousand calls upon us, so specious, so popular, to attend (for moral reasons) to bodily health, one is occasionally tempted to ask whether, after all, we have not forgotten a once familiar text, Ideo dico vobis ne solliciti sitis animae vestrae, quid manducetis.

But apart from its discursiveness, few things can be imagined more inspiring and suggestive than this preface. For, while Mr. Mayor is a scholar of the first order, the moral elevation of his character prevents him from being a self-isolating student. In the light of his almost prophetic enthusiasm, the advance of knowledge is seen to be what it really is, and what we hope it may one day be generally thought in England, an element of moral advancement. Philology and natural science belong, of course, to all countries; yet in view of the wide diffusion of the English language, it is most important that we should have original works in both departments of knowledge written in English and from an English point of view. Our debt to Germany, it is true, can never be repaid. But there is much in what Jacob Bernays once said to the writer of this article; "Do not translate our books, write afresh in your own language, and from within your own circle of ideas." No one has done more than Mr. Mayor to aid us towards the reali zation of this object.

Mr. Mayor's book still suffers from the imperfection of its form. The pages on the life of Juvenal (vol. ii. pp. xi.-xx.) should have been transposed to the beginning of the first volume, and the new index to the end of the second.

The new readings, catalogued p. xlviii. and onwards, will have to be carefully studied by all Latin scholars. The most important and interesting one, proved beyond all doubt by ancient evidence, is in 8, 148, ipse rotam adstringit sufflamine mulio consul for multo sufflamine consul. But auditor saturarum for adiutor (3, 322): perit hic plus temporis atque olei plus for petit (7, 99): inde Dolabellae atque istinc Antonius for hinc (8, 105) are also, in their several ways, great improvements.

With regard to the life of Juvenal, the new edition adds nothing to the pages printed in the previous edition at the beginning of