Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Paul's), J. W. Headlam (b, c), King's (Eton), C. E. T. Headlam (a, b), Trin. H. (Haileybury), E. G. W. Hewlett (e), Trin. (Owens College), E. C. Marchant (c*), Pet. (Christ's Hospital), R. R. Ottley (b), Trin. (Wellington), J. L. A. Paton (u*, c*), Joh. (Nottingham and Shrewsbury), C. A. McL. Pond (c), Joh. (City of London), N. Wedd (a, c), King's (City of London), C. Williams (a, b), Trin. (Eton), L. Pocock (b), Newnham, M. Powell (e), Newnham.

Second Class: C. S. H. Brereton, Joh., D. E. Clapton, Magd., F. H. C. Marshall, Sid., R. W. Philpott, Cath., J. R. C. P. Tomlin, Pemb., J. H. Vince, Christ's.

MATHEMATICAL TRIPOS, Part I. Wranglers: 1, H. F. Baker, Joh. (Perse School), A. W. Flux, Joh. (Portsmouth), J. C. Iles, Trin. (Lancing), J. H. Mitchell, Trin. (Melbourne); 5, J. B. Peace, Emman. (Aberdeen); 6, E. W. Brown, Christ's (Totteridge Park); 7, N. J. Berry, Trin. (Pr. Tuit.); 8, J. T. Little, Trin. (Framlingham and King's College, London); 9, W. G. Clay, Trin. (Cheltenham), T. Varley, Joh. (University College, London); 11, L. S. Milward, Pemb. (Malvern), E. Young, Christ's (Trent); 13, W. D. Eggar, Trin. (Brighton); 14, T. L. Atkinson, Christ's (Doncaster), H. E. Soper, Trin. (S. Paul's); 16, H. R. Norris, Joh. (University College School); 18, J. E. Browne, Sidney (Tiverton), G. Osborn, Emman. (Kingswood and Eastbourne); 20, H. Douglas, King's (Eton), C. S. Vaughan, Trin. (Harrow); 22, W. W. Bryant, Pemb. (Brampton), F. Sergeant, Trin. (Derby); 23, R. Ll. Jones, Corpus (Brecon); 25, H. O. Fox, King's (Marlborough), A. Thornton Christ's (Giggleswick); 26, H. H. Holland, Sidney (Walsall); 27, G. F. Perrott, Jes. (Ealing); 28, H. W. Saw, King's (Blackheath), G. F. C. Searle, Pet. (Pr. Tuit.); 30, W. J. Sharples, Queen's (Manchester). Senior Optimes: 1, S. F. Card, Joh. ; 2, A. Robinson, Jes.; 3, C. E. Holland, Christ's; 4, J. A. Hay, Clare, R. A. T. Stevens, Trin. H.; 6, J. Carter, Trin., J. T. Jolley, Cath.; 8, W. Dunn, Trin; 9, W. O. Duncan, Pemb., C. W. Herbert, Trin., H. S. Mundahl, Joh. ; 12, H. N. Hopgood, Trin. ; 13, H. Hancock, Joh. ; 14, H. G. N. Foyster, Trin., H. E. Pownall, Pet.; 16, E. L. Hartley, Pemb.; 17, W. H. N. Hope, Trin., E. Kitchener, Christ's; 19, H. J. T. Bake, Jes., J. W. Bragg, Emman.; 21, W. A. Russell, Joh. ; 22, H. J. R. Lawrence, Trin. H.; 23, E. G. Allport, Christ's, J. N. Benfield, Trin. ; 25, H. H. Cooper, Joh., E. F. Hadfield, H. Selw. ; 27, S. Symonds, Cath. ; 28, A. H. Summers, Cath.; 29, E. B. Badcock, Sidney; 30, R. P. Marriott, Cath. ; 31, J. G. Garnett, Cath.; 32, R. L. Lewis-Lloyd, Jes.; 33, G. S. Back, Trin., C. C. T. Parez, Clare; 35, N. W. Campion, Queens', H. F. Nesbitt, Clare; 37, W. E. Bryan, Trin., C. Marsh, Clare. Women: H. Browne, Newnham (bracketed with 12); B. A. Holme, Girton (bracketed with 16); M. S. Raymond, Girton (between 18 and 19); B. Whalley, Girton (bracketed with 22); E. Walters, Newnham (between 22 and 23); M. Atkins, Newnham (bracketed with 25): M. S. Richards, Newnham (between 30 and 31); K. T. Wallas, Girton (bracketed with 32).

MORAL SCIENCES TRIPOS.-Second Class: E. E. Goodacre, Joh., J. R. W. Mowbray, Joh., A. N. Stapley, Joh. Women. Second Class: A. M. Anderson, Girton, C. R. Collins, Girton, M. E. Lowndes, Girton, M. C. Sturge, Newnham.

MATHEMATICAL TRIPOS, Part II.-Class I. Division 1: C. W. C. Barlow, Pet. (Edinburgh), G. H. Bryan, Pet., A. C. Dixon, Trin. (Kingswood), W. C. Fletcher, Joh. (Kingswood), C. Platts, Trin. (City of London and University College, London), Division 2: W. M. Coates, Queen's (Trinity College, Dublin), F. W. Hill, Joh. (Manchester); Division 3: J. Clark, Pem. (Aberdeen), H. G. Dawson, Christ's (Trinity College, Dublin).

Class II. Division 1: E. H. Askwith, Trin. (Christ's Hospital); Division 2: J. P. Johnson, Pet. (Trinity College, Dublin), A. McAulay, Caius (Kingswood and Owens College), W. Nicolls, Pet. (Trinity College, Dublin); Division 3 : J. Tate, Joh. (Belfast).

SEMITIC LANGUAGES TRIPOS.-Cluss I.: A. A. Bevan, Trin.

Class II.: H. S. Alken, Queen's.

LAW TRIPOS.-Class 1.: 1, G. G. Alexander, Down. (Priv. Tuit.), T. A. Herbert, Joh. (Mill Hill and Owens College), G. J. R. Murray, Trin., J. Windsor, Joh. (Owens College); 5, W. Archbold, Pet.; 6, W. Summers, Trin. ; 7, H. E. Wright, Trin. (Cheltenham); 8, T. E. Chisenhale-Marsh, Trin. (Eton); 9, W. Barrington, Trin.

Class II. 1, G. Grey, Joh., J. C. Ingle, King's, R. Lyle, Trin. H.; 4, E. H. Mallet, King's, D. J. Wanliss, Trin.; 6, R. A. Sharp, King's ; 7, S. J. W. N. Greenidge, Joh., L. R. Holland, King's, T. F. Howell, Joh., H. J. Morgan, Trin. H.; 11, G. N. Hind, Joh., Count G. N. Strickland, Trin.; 12, P. Yasuhiro.

NATURAL SCIENCES TRIPOs, Part I.-H. C. Anderson, Cai. (Harrow), C. A. Berber, Chr. (Kingswood), E. K. Colbeck, Cai. (Wellington College, N.Z.), J. P. d'Albuquerque, Joh. (City of London), S. F. Dufton, Trin. (Bradford), A. Dufton, Non. Coll. (Bradford), W. T. Elliott, Chr. (Newcastle), A. G. Francis, King's (University College School), R. E. Fry, King's (Clifton), M. Grabham, Joh., T. T. Groom, Joh. (University College, London), H. Richardson, King's (Priv. Tuit.), F. R. Tenant, Cai. (Newcastle, Staff.), F. M. Turner, Trin. (City of London), E. P. Waggett, Pemb. (Charterhouse), W. H. Wagstaff, Sid. (Merchant Taylors'), C. E. Williams, Cai.

Class II. F. E. Batten, Trin., A. E. Bodington, Cai. J. W. Campbell, Cav., C. Cargill, Jes., A. Carling, Joh., C. A. Carus-Wilson, Pemb., R. F. d'Arcy, Cai, H. E. Davies, Cai., J. R. Ellis, Trin., W. C. P. Ellis, Cath., T. H. Evans, Joh., G. E. Hale, King's, A. S. Hall, Cai., C. P. Handson, Cai., J. F. Hartin, Down., T. H. Haydon, Cai., W. M. Hayward, Sid., S. Herbert, Cai., H. L. Joseland, Chr., A. F. Kellett, Joh., S. M. Kingdon, Chr., S. H. A. Lambert, Joh., W. S. Lazarus-Barlow, Down., F. C. Martley, Trin., J. Owen, Sid., S. Parkes, Emm., G. Percival, Joh., H. G. L. Pryce, Pemb., C. E. Rice, Cai., E. A. Shaw, King's, W. W. Stabb, Cai., J. H. Staines, Sid., J. W. W. Stephens, Cai., J. D. Stubbs, Trin., C. R. A. Sutton, Cla, T. J. Watts, Queen's, D. Wessels, King's, W. S. West, Joh., J. H. Wilks, Cai., A. E. Wright, Trin., J. C. Wright, Joh.

Women.-Class I.: E. E. Field, Newnham, A. J. Flavell, Newnhamn, M. M. Smith, Newnham.

Class II. I. C. Fortey, Newnhamn, E. R. Saunders, Newnham, M. A. Sewell, Newnham, C. L. Skeat, Newnham, J. C. Vinter, Girton.

Part II. 1, R. H. Adie (Chemistry), Trin. (Royal School of Mines and Int. Coll., London), W. Couldridge (Chemistry), Emman. (Exeter), A. C. Durham (Physiology), Christ's (University College School), F. H. Edgeworth (Physiology), Cai. (Clifton), P. Lake (Geology), Joh. (Newcastle College of Science), W. S. Melsome. (Physiology), Owens (Lancing), A. B. Kendle (Botany), Joh. (Southwick), G. S. Turpin (Chemistry), Joh. (Nottingham and Owens College); 2. J. C. H. Blake, Trin., A Campbell, Corpus, A. W. Day, Caius, H. E. Durham, King's, H. M. Fletcher, Tin., P. P. Groom, Trin., F. Hird, Trin., H. A. Roberts, Caius.

HISTORICAL TRIPOS.-Class I.: 1, G. T. Warner, Jes. (Newton Abbot) ; 2, E. Jenks, King's (Dulwich), J. F. Kendall, King's (King's College, London) : 4, J. P. Malleson, Trin.; 5, C. A. Houfe, Queen's. Women: M. Bateson, Newnham (between 1 and 2), E. C. Moore, Newnham (equal to 4), M. K. Griffiths, Newnham (equal to 4).

Class 11. 1, W. A. Lewis, King's; 2, R. Bickersteth, Pemb., T. M. Evans, King's; 4, G. R. Sanders, Trin.; 5, H. C. S. Dumas, Trin. Hall, S. H. Hargrave, Trin, W. G. Selwyn, King's; 8, H. J. Carpenter, King's. Women: B. Paull, Newnham (equal to 1), K. J. Pattinson, Newnham (between 4 and 5), E. A. Bebbington, Newnham (equal to 5).

The Classical Review

OCTOBER 1887.

SCHEME FOR A CATALOGUE OF GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICAL MANUSCRIPTS.

In accordance with a suggestion made in a former number of the Classical Review (pp. 38 foll.), it is proposed to print from time to time brief time brief descriptions of the Classical MSS. in Greek and Latin which exist in public and private libraries, at home in the first instance, and (possibly) also abroad. By this means useful material for reference will be brought together, and in the end a fairly complete catalogue may be formed. The success of the scheme must, however, depend entirely upon co-operation. It is proposed to commence with the MSS. of Greek poets, keeping as far as possible to the chronological order, and the Editor would be glad to receive (1) information as to the existence of such MSS. from librarians and others, (2) names of persons who would be willing to assist in drawing up the descriptive catalogue. The scheme which follows, together with the (imaginary) examples by which it is illustrated, was drawn up by Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, and has received the approval of some of the best English palaeographers. Information under all the heads which are here laid down cannot of course be expected in every instance; but it is hoped that they are exact and wide enough to take in all the points that need to be recorded

Form of Descriptions.

General description of the MS.:

State (1) the number or designation of the MS.; (2) the material on which it is written; (3) the number of leaves, and of columns (if two or more); (4) the measurement of the leaves; (5) the character of the writing; (6) the date or period, and, if possible, where written; (7) the history of the MS. and names of former owners. Note anything of external interest, as binding, &c.

NO. VIII. VOL. I.

Description of contents:

If a Greek MS., the titles to be in Greek (not Latin).

If a Latin MS., the titles to be in Latin. If titles are given in the MS., quote them between inverted commas.

If the MS. contains more than one poem or treatise, give the reference to the leaf of the MS. on which each begins, and, if it is imperfect, state where it begins or ends.

The recto side of a leaf to be indicated by the number simply, as f. 60.

The verso side, by the number and letter b, as f. 60 b.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Les Plaidoyers Politiques de Demosthène. Par HENRI WEIL. Deuxième Série. Androtion, Aristocrate, Timocrate, Aristogiton. Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1886. 8 fr.

THOSE who are acquainted with the two preceding volumes of Weil's Demosthenes (published respectively in 1873 and 1887) will welcome this latest instalment of so

important a work. Weil stands among the

He

foremost of Greek scholars in France. is conspicuous for good sense and sobriety as a commentator, for a wide historical knowledge, and for an admirable literary judgment. His Introductions exhibit the oratorical structure of the speeches and the occasions which called them forth with singular penetration and insight. He is familiar with the most recent researches in the departments of archaeology and law, and his pages embody these results without being overweighted by detail.

The critical notes appended to the text include a new and valuable collation of the Parisian manuscript S. Weil, while appreciating the clear superiority of S over all other MSS., does not follow it with the blind devotion of the Zurich editors. But it seems to be rather sound commonsense than a delicate and sympathetic comprehension of the language or a thorough mastery of its idioms that guides him aright. When we look for critical or grammatical elucidation we become aware that his strength lies in other directions. The niceties of syntax and the finer shades of meaning either escape him or fail to interest him. scholarly exactness and completeness his. notes generally fall behind those of Wayte in his very useful edition of the Androtion and Timocrates (Cambridge University Press,

In

1882). We might instance Androtion, § 3 (παρὰ μικρὸν), Timocr. § 195 (οὐδ ̓ ὀλίγου δεῖ), Timocr. § 196 (Todλóσтų xpóvų), Timocr. § 39 (el with subjunctive in a legal document). In questions affecting the text it is almost part of Weil's manner not to give the reasons which determine his critical

judgment. We desire to see the process and he only gives us the conclusion. Thus it happens that he sacrifices thoroughness to studied brevity, as in Aristocr. § 165, Tòv μὲν ἅπαντα χρόνον μῆνας ἑπτὰ διήγαγεν ἡμᾶς modeμŵν. Here S has quas (kept by Weil). A nuiv, while Cobet (M.C. p. 541) would read pòs μas. It may plausibly be argued that uâs is the mistake of a transcriber who was familiar with the late Greek phrase, woλeμeîv Tivá, whereas Demosthenes knows only πολεμεῖν τινὶ or πρός τινα. On the other hand Stayew is sometimes used in a causative sense, e.g. in de Cor. § 89, ó módeμos év πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἀφθονωτέροις καὶ εὐωνοτέροις διῆγεν ὑμᾶς, “the war kept you in a better and cheaper supply of all the necessaries of life.' It is not impossible that διήγαγεν ἡμᾶς πολεμῶν should mean 'kept us in a state of warfare,' where πολεμοῦντας οι ἐν πολέμῳ would have been the more natural expression. Reiske following Etym. Magn. would give dınyaye the meaning of έntárnσe, a conjecture based presumably on the use of Staywyn, ‘amusement,' 'entertainment.' But Staywyn belongs to διάγειν in its connection with χρόνον, a pastime,' and lends no support to diáɣeiv garaтâv. Weil, however, accepts the alleged usage without stating the authority on which it rests, and without arguing the case. He merely translates il nous amusa en nous faisant la guerre,' and proceeds to remark on the ironical turn of the phrase.

=

Again, we miss some critical discussion of Aristocr. § 117, ταύτην ἂν ἐμοὶ χρῆσθε συμβούλῳ φυλάξετε τὴν πίστιν πρὸς τοῦτον τὸν Θράκα, καὶ μὴ βουλήσεσθε εἰδέναι τίνα ἂν πρὸς ὑμᾶς σχοίη γνώμην. Weil here, like most previous editors, admits without demur an abnormal and startling bit of syntax. His note is, ‘καὶ μὴ βουλήσεσθε equivalent to καὶ μn Bovλeobe. The fut. indic. is accompanied by un owing to the imperative sense of the proposition. Cf. Aristoph. Plut. 488, μalakov d' évdwσete μndév.' A reference, however, to the context of Plutus, 488, will show that μαλακὸν δ' ἐνδώσετε μηδέν need not be taken as an independent clause containing a direct prohibition, but forms part of a relative. sentence. The relative ᾧ is carried on from the preceding νικήσετε to ἐνδώσετε.

:

Some

other supposed examples of this use of μὴ may be similarly disposed of e.g. Soph. Ajax, 572, μήτε...θήσουσι, where the future depends on a preceding ows. No sure inference can be based on Menander, Mon. 572, ξένον ἀδικήσεις μηδέποτε καιρὸν λαβών, οι on Eur. Med. 822, λéĝeis dè μndèv tŵv époì dedoyμévov, as in each case the fut. indic. differs only from the aorist subjunct. by e instead of n. (Yet it must be owned that in both these instances the harshness of the fut. indic. is modified by the position of the negative following instead of preceding the verb). There remains, however, one passage which cannot be evaded or emended, Lysias xxix. § 13, ἐὰν δὲ εὖ φρονῆτε, καὶ νυνὶ τοῦτο φανερὸν ποιήσετε.....καὶ μηδεμίαν αὐτοῖς ἄδειαν δώσετε. Comparing the close resemblance between the structure of this sentence and the passage in Aristocr. we may perhaps be driven to accept the usage, however rare, as genuine, and to give it a place beside certain other eccentric but well-established combinations, e.g. un with fut. indic. in oaths in Homer, and un with opt., and av in Attic prose and verse. If it were not for the quotation from Lysias it would be far more tempting to read Bouλeole with Bekker in Aristocr. § 117.

Weil as a rule cannot be charged with a superstitious respect for MSS. authority where it is in conflict with commonsense or invariable usage. But surely in Aristocr.

§ 33, he is mistaken in reverting to the MSS. reading. The orator is here explaining the archaic word ȧrowâv, 'to fine' (cf. Homeric Town) which occurs in one of the laws relating to homicide: Tò dè μnd' aroâv [λέγει] μὴ χρήματα πράττεσθαι· τὰ γὰρ ἄποινα χρήματ ̓ ὠνόμαζον οἱ παλαιοί. Obviously in the last clause ἄποινα and χρήματα ought to change places, so that the clause will run,

[ocr errors]

τὰ γὰρ χρήματα ἄποινα ὠνόμαζον οἱ παλαιοί, the ancients called a pecuniary penalty aπowa'; and so in fact the words are quoted by Theon. Progym. iv. 15. Almost all editors since Reiske have adopted this necessary correction. It is a mistaken subtlety by which Weil attempts to justify the order of the words as they stand in the MSS., 'the ancients designated money by the term (Tà) amowa.' The passage cited by him is not parallel, and we may safely say that no Greek ear could have tolerated this complete inversion of an every-day phrase.

6

=

A clause in Timocr. § 42 has been needlessly debated and frequently misunderstood owing to the neglect of a simple idiom. [ALOKAS εἶπε] τοὺς μετ ̓ Εὐκλείδην τεθέντας [νόμους] καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν τιθεμένους κυρίους εἶναι ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἕκαστος ἐτέθη πλὴν εἴ τῳ προσγέγραπται xpóvos övτiva del apɣeiv. The sense obviously is [Diocles moved] that the laws which were passed after Eucleides and such as are hereafter passed, shall come into force from the day on which each was passed, except where a time has been expressly specified, at which the law is to come into operation.' But doubts have been raised as to the construction of ὅντινα δεῖ ἄρχειν. Wayte is clearly right in dismissing the interpretation (adopted even by C. R. Kennedy), 'in whose archonship a law is to commence,' according to which apxew = аpxovтa eivai, and ovτiva 'what person.' The noun to be supplied with ὅντινα is as he says χρόνον. But he himself, apparently, takes vóμov as the subject to apxew. Two objections to this at once occur: (1) the accus. ovτiva, to mark the point of time, (2) ἄρχειν for ἄρχεσθαι, which Wayte seeks to justify. But the passages he quotes (Thucyd. iv. 118, and v. 19) are instances of the strict use of apxew. All difficulty disappears as soon as we recognize that ovτiva xpóvov is subject to apxew, so that the full phrase would be ὅντινα χρόνον δεῖ ἄρχειν (τοῦ κύριον εἶναι τὸν vópov) lit. what time is to mark the beginning (of the law coming into force),' i.e. 'from what time the operation of the law is to date.' For the act. voice cf. Thucyd. iv. 118, 6, τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν εἶναι ἐνιαυτόν, ἄρχειν δὲ τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν (sc. τῆς ἐκεχειρίας), that this day marks the beginning of (the truce)'; not that the truce begins this day,' which would be ἄρχεσθαι. So Thucyd. v. 19, 1, ἄρχει δὲ τῶν σπουδῶν ἔφορος Πλειστόλας, ' the ephoralty of Pleistolas marks the date of the treaty.' The day from which a law or treaty dates is strictly said apɣew, with a gen. of the object, 'to initiate it,' to mark its commencement.' Weil rightly explains

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the clause in the Timocrates but with a brevity which is tantalizing. A good comment on the construction is supplied by Demosthenes himself in the next section, where he quotes with a slight variation the words of the law: κελεύει γὰρ ἕκαστον ἀφ ̓ ἧς ἡμέρας ἐτέθη κύριον εἶναι, πλὴν εἴ τῳ χρόνος προσγέγραπται, τούτῳ δὲ τὸν γεγραμμένον ἄρχειν, "...except where a time has been expressly specified, and in the case of such a law the specified time is to begin it,' i.e. is to mark the date at which it comes into operation. The last clause is in itself decisive against some of the false interpretations.

Aristocr. § 96 furnishes us with an instructive variety of the conditional sentence, one however which the editors pass over in silence. The instances in prose of the past ind. with av to denote not what would have happened under imaginary conditions, but what must have happened under actual conditions, are sufficiently rare to claim attention. The passage referred to runs thus: οἷον εἴ τι τῶν ἡλωκότων ψηφισμάτων παρ' ὑμῖν μὴ ἐγράφη, κύριον ἂν δήπουθεν ἦν· καὶ μὴν παρὰ Toùs vóμous y' av cipηro. Whereas the clause κύριον ἂν ἦν is an ordinary unfulâlled 'condition, 'would have been still in force,' the clause παρὰ τοὺς νόμους γ ̓ ἂν εἴρητο is not an unfulfilled condition; for, as the immediate context shows, the illegal decrees had actually been carried. The literal rendering is and yet ex hypothesi (av) it had been moved contrary to law.'

Repeated negatives in Greek sometimes give rise to puzzling questions, but in Timocr. § 28 there is no possible reason for hesitation : ἵνα μὴ προαισθομένου μηδενὸς...τεθείη... ὁ νόμος. Madvig would omit μή on the ground that it would negative relein. Wayte does not pronounce definitely upon the point. Weil keeps un but does not defend or illustrate it. Yet un reinforced by undevòs merely conforms to the general principle which governs repeated negatives, namely, that accumulated negatives in Greek do not cancel one another so long as the added negative adds a new idea. The double negative with the participle here is precisely similar to Timocr. § 46, οὐ προτεθέντος οὐδένος TEрi TоÚTOV. Nothing could be more regular. A real irregularity, on the other hand, occurs in Androt. § 32 (where neither Weil nor Wayte has a note), οὐδ ̓ ἂν ὦσιν ἔτ ̓ Ανδροτίωνός τινες αἴσχιον βεβιωκότες οὐκ ἔστι λέγειν κακῶς τοὺς ἄρχοντας. Here οὐκ following οὐδὲ merely repeats instead of cancelling the negative idea. So too in Mid. § 129, Against Phormio, § 2. In each of these cases, however, the protasis of a conditional

sentence intervenes between the oude and the ouk, a fact which accounts for the resumption of the negative. A propos of negatives, it is worth referring to the construction of Tou with infin. in a final sense, where the omission of the negative is as rare and exceptional in Classical Greek as it is characteristic of Hellenistic usage. The editors do not mark the distinction. On Timocr. § 36, éktɩőévai KeλEVEι тov прoeidévai távtas, Weil's note is, genitive marking the motive cf. de Cor. § 107, ἀναλῶσαι τοῦ μὴ τὰ δίκαια ποιεῖν ἐθέλειν. It would be more to the point to quote Timocr. § 133, ἐπιβουλεύων τοῦ πιστευθῆναι, Steph. I. § 41, Tov ßeßaíav avro ryν áшaλλayηv

[ocr errors]

εἶναι.

The study of inscriptions has thrown new light on many documents of disputed authenticity which are inserted in the text of Demosthenes, and Weil has made good use of this important aid. In the law quoted, Timocr. § 33, the name πpócspot is applied to the Presidents of the board of the Nomothetae. This had been held to be a forger's blunder. The πρόεδροι, it was said, presided only over the Ecclesia, while the Nomothetae were presided over by the Thesmothetae. But an inscription published by Koumanoudis in 'Anvalov (1876, p. 179) dispels all doubts, and proves that the Nomothetae had their own πрóedρo and their own twτárηs. The inscription which is of the age of Demosthenes is a decree conferring the right of citizenship on a certain Peisitheides of Delos. It concludes thus : ἐν δὲ τοῖς νομοθέταις τοὺς προέδρους οἳ ἂν προεδρεύωσιν [καὶ τὸν ἐπιστάτην προσνομobeтeiv...Another and more famous document that has been rejected is the Oath of the Heliasts as handed down to us in Timocr. § 149. It would be too much to say that the document as a whole is now placed beyond suspicion; but, at least, many of the grounds on which it has been rejected are seen to be wholly inadequate; nay, it so happens that one of the suspected clauses of the oath has been strikingly corroborated by an inscription of Calymnia, now in the British Museum, published by C. T. Newton in 1883 (Gk. Inscr. in B. M. vol. ii. no. 290. See also Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, March 1886). The clause is this: ovde dupa δέξομαι τῆς ἡλιάσεως ἕνεκα οὔτ ̓ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ οὔτ ̓ ἄλλος ἐμοὶ οὔτ ̓ ἄλλη εἰδότος ἐμοῦ οὔτε τέχνῃ οὔτε μηχανῇ οὐδεμίᾳ. The oath of the judges of Cnidus contained in the inscription above mentioned is couched in almost identical terms: οὐδὲ δῶρα ἔλαβον τᾶς δίκας ἕνεκεν ο]ὔτε αὐτὸς ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος οὔτε ἄλλα ἐμὶ[ν οὐ μαχανᾷ οὐδεμίᾳ. On the whole it seems likely that epigraphic science will undo much

« ForrigeFortsett »