meaning given by the editor here is no doubt correct in substance, but I submit that it is not kolaσr which makes possible the use of μέγας, but θυμόν, and that to θυμόν in strict analysis μeigw belongs, being joined as a further predicate with exopauóvra. In fact the editor's translation that my wrath had run too fur in punishing those past errors seems to me precisely right, and more so than his note. The phrase péyas Ovuós, high anger, is familiar.

Space forbids me to go further at present in discussion and it would be impossible even to sample here the notes which seem to dispose finally of their subject. I have noted for example as containing points of special interest, those vv. 342, 383, 420, 504, 522, 658, and many others. But it is useless to distinguish, where the whole deserves accurate study. I hope for an opportunity of returning to the subject.1

1 At v. 71 by a slip of the pen The Chorus are ' is written for The Stranger is.' A propos of this, is not the EENOZ of the traditional dramatis personae a singularly unhappy description? Oedipus addresses him of course by téve, but I can scarcely believe that Sophocles meant him to be so described. Could Antigone when she sees him approaching (v. 29) possibly have said Texas yàp Eevov Tovde vv op@ instead of ἄνδρα ? Yet to describe him as ξένος in the dramatis personae is much the same thing. The word is essentially relative, and has no meaning as an independent description. Ανὴρ Κολωνιάτης would be the proper phrase. Polynices at his approach (v. 1249) is described as d évos, but naturally, as he is known to be such, ἔμπολιν οὐκ ὄντα, συγγενῆ δέ,

v. 1156.

eigener Emendationen und auch einige interessante Conjekturen anderer Gelehrter in Cambridge mitge theilt. Die Nachricht von seinem nach kurzer Krankheit in Rom am 30 März d. J. erfolgten Tode war für mich eine überaus schmerzliche.'

The introduction is divided into five chapters:

I (pp. 3-26). Martial's life and poems. II (pp. 26-50). Martial's versification. (The chief part of this chapter, Elegisches Distichon,' is by Th. Birt, whose shortening of o in the substantive modo, x 16 8, calls forth a deserved protest from the Revue Critique.)

III (pp. 50-67). Chronology of Martial's Epigrams.' Here Friedländer has modified his earlier results by the aid of Stobbe, Mommsen, Hirschfeld, Asbach, Kerckhoff.

IV (pp. 67-119). Tradition of the Text,' with three appendices: (1) Derivation of the Three Families from Three Texts.' (2) On Cod. F and the MSS. identified with it by Schneidewin' (by C. Frobeen). (3) 'Orthographical Details' (by W. Gilbert). Many scholars have contributed collations, and Friedländer has worked hand in hand with Gilbert, whose edition of the text has just been published by Teubner, and whose review in the Berliner Philolog. Wochenschr. 4 Dec. 1886, enters into some detail about Friedländer's critical treatment of his materials. The orthography generally coincides with that sanctioned by the oldest MSS. of other authors; it is to be observed that both Friedlander and Gilbert write

epistola, brachium.

V (pp. 120-127). Editions.' It is to be regretted that more use has not been made of Rader's commentary, which is often cited, for instance, by Becker in his Gallus. Marcilius and Heraldus are not even mentioned, though both of them did much to illustrate the language and the matter of their author. The names of masters in various departments of ancient learning, whom Prof. Friedländer has been able to consult on difficult points, Jordan, G. and O. Hirschfeld, P. Krüger, V. Hehn, F. Hultsch, C. F. W. Müller, A. Sallet, F. Schürer, suffice to assure us that nothing has been omitted to make Martial intelligible to this age. For the text, beside Gilbert and Munro, and collators, Baehrens, Buecheler, Grasberger, Rohde, have supplied

contributions.

There are special introductions to spect. and XIV. The commentary is divided into four sections: (1) Critical notes (only where the reading is doubtful: it would be well to publish the entire variations of the important

MSS. collated for the first time). (2) Dr. E. Wagner's parallels from earlier and later writers. (3) Citations in grammarians, scholiasts and mediaeval writers. (4) Explanatory notes.

At the end is an index of names by Carl Frobeen (pp. 347-381), divided into. mythological, geographical and topographical, authors, historical persons before the battle of Actium, Roman emperors, real (in italics) and fictitious names of the imperial times, names of animals. A full index of words (pp. 382-532) and an index to the introduction and notes complete the book. The index of words is an improvement on the Delphin index, for under the adjectives the substantives with which they agree are given. But it does not supersede Lemaire's index of phrases; both are necessary to the student. By referring to his Sittengeschichte, to Becker-Göll's Gallus, to Marquardt's and Mommsen's handbooks and other standard authorities, Friedländer has been able to compress much valuable teaching in a small compass. I hope elsewhere to furnish larger materials for the interpretation of the prince of epigrammatists. Here space will allow only a few extracts from my collections.

III 18

perfrixisse tuas questa est praefatio fauces.

cum te excusaris, Maxime, quid recitas?

Suet. Nero 41 edictis tandem Vindicis contumeliosis et frequentibus permotus, senatum epistula in ultionem sui reique publicae alhortatus est, excusato languore faucium propter quem non adesset. Quintil. iv 1 § 8. Tac. d. 20 pr. quis nunc feret oratorem de infirmitate valetudinis praefantem? qualia sunt ferme principia Corvini. Gellius xi 9 § 1.

III 23

omnia cum retro pueris opsonia tradas,

cur non mensa tibi ponitur a pedibus?

Sen. ep. 77 § 8 non esse inhumanum, quemadmodum cena peracta relliquiae circumstantibus dividantur, sic peracta vita aliquid porrigi his, qui totius vitae ministri fuissent. Petron. 67 Narra mihi, Gai, oro, Fortunata quare non recumbit?' 'Quomodo nosti' inquit illam,' Trimalchio, nisi argentum composuerit, nisi relliquias pueris diviserit, aquam in os suum non coniciet.' Suet. Galba 22 cibi plurimi traditur, quem tempore hiberno etiam ante lucem capere consuerat, inter cenam vero usque eo abundantis, ut congestas super manus relliquias circumferri

iuberet spargique ad pedes stantibus. cf. Phaedrus i 22 6.

III 75 3 bulbique salaces. Athen. ii 64 and 65 p. 63° seq. who cites the proverb οὐδέν σ ̓ ὀνήσει βολβὸς ἂν μὴ νευρ ̓ ἔχῃς. Apic. vii 12.

IV 86 9 10

si damnaverit, ad salariorum curras scrinia protinus licebit. From Catullus 14 17 18 nam si luxerit, ad librariorum curram scrinia.

IV 89 1 ohe iam satis est, ohe, libelle. See on the change of quantity Munro on Lucretius iv 1259 and Nicander, frag. 70 14 ἴσον ἴσω.

V 69 7 8

quid prosunt sacrae pretiosa silentia linguae? incipient omnes pro Cicerone loqui.

From Sextilius Ena in Sen. suas. 6 § 27 deflendus Cicero est Latiaeque silentia linguae. VIII 30 6 totis pascitur illa sacris.

This is said of the right hand of the convict who represented Scaevola, thrusting his hand into the fires of the altar. Fried

länder conjectures sacris p. i. focis: totis was written focis, and then the transposition was made for the metre.' Duff and Munro explain totis adverbially dextra unice pascitur et delectatur sacrificiis.' I take it in its strict sense: the hand does not timidly skirt the fringe of the fire, letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,' but plunges into the thick of it and there roams, devouring the devouring element, like a beast in its pasture; 'feeds on the length and breadth of the burnt-offering.' Sacris focis is very tame in comparison.

VIII 76 7 vero verius ergo quid sit, audi. cf. vi 30 6 vis dicam tibi veriora veris ?

Sen. ep. 66 § 8 nihil invenies rectius recto, non magis quam verius vero, quam temperato temperatius. Paulin. vit. Amb. 25 certo certius. Arnob. ii 48 omni vero verissimum est certoque certissimum (on the abl. after superl. see Bernays Ges. Abh. ii 128).

et

Plaut. trin. 1059 CH. heus tu, asta ilico. audi, heus tu. ST. non sto.-most. 251 (= 261 R) Pи. tum tu igitur cedo purpurissum. Sc. non do. 862-3 velut ubi advorsum ut eant ero suo vocantur: | 'non eo: molestus ne sis.'-Curc. 621 PHAEDR. ambula in ius. THER. non eo. 662 PHAEDR. tace tu. CURC. non taceo. 712-3 CAPP. non taces? THER. non taceo. -Ter. haut. 610-1 CH. pro Menedemo nunc tibi ego respondeo non emo.'-Sen. contr. 27 § 14 'caele' inquit: 'non caedo.' verbera: 'non ferio.'-Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis 2 'fac sacrum pro salute imperatorum.' ego respondi: non facio.'-Cypriani acta proconsul. 3 (in Hartel's Cypr. p. cxii. Aug. serm. 309) Galerius Maximus proconsul dixit: iusserunt te sacratissimi imperatores cueremoniari.' Cyprianus episcopus dixit: 'non facio.' cf. Cypr. p. 483 17 Acta Felicis c. 2 § 2 (in Dupin's Optatus, 149 col. 2) Magnilianus curator dixit: Felix episcope, da libros vel membranas quascumque habes.' Felix episcopus dixit: habeo, sed non do' (same reply ibid. c. 5. p. 150 col. 2). Ruinart acta sincera (Pionius c. 21, but in c. 8 the future is used). acta sanct. Feb. 1 p. 46d. Le Blant, Les Actes des Martyrs p. 81.

XIV 151

=

=

660 19.

dulci sed pondere venter

si tumeat. Ov. her. 11 37 iamque tumescebant vitiati pondera ventris. Rittershusius and others on Phaedrus III 15. lexx. s.v. pondus.

XIV 174 2 cetera matris habet.

Cf. ii 89 4 hoc Ciceronis habes. ibid. 2 and 6.

my collections have been anticipated by one or other of these papers, but I believe that no one has called attention to a graphic description in Aug. de magistro c. 10 § 32 nam quaero abs te, si quisquam ignarus deceptionis avium, quae calamis et visco affectatur, obviam fieret aucupi, armis quidem suis instructo, non tamen aucupanti, sed iter agenti; quo viso premeret gradum secumque, ut fit, admirans cogitaret et quaereret quidnam sibi hominis ille vellet ornatus; auceps autem cum in se videret attentum, ostentandi se studio cannas expediret et prope animadversam aliquam aviculam fistula et accipitre figeret, subigeret et caperet; nonne illum spectatorem suum doceret nullo significatu, sed re ipsa, quod ille scire cupiebat?

In a word this edition is indispensable for all students of Martial, containing a greatly enlarged and sifted critical apparatus, a concise antiquarian commentary, such as probably no other living man could have given us, a large collection of parallel passages, and occasionally valuable grammatical and lexicographical notes. There is still room for a young Ruhnken or Heindorf to labour in this last field, and the commentators on Horace (esp. Obbarius), Apuleius, Petronius, with Casaubon's Persius and Suetonius, will supply abundant materials and models of research.

JOHN E. B. MAYOR.

The Development of the Athenian Democracy. By F. B. JEVONS, M.A., Tutor in the University of Durham.

THIS pamphlet is an attempt to elucidate some of the obscurities of early Athenian history, and to explain, on the basis of historical development, how political power passed from the Eupatridae into the hands of the πλῆθος.

Mr. Jevons attacks his subject with two different weapons. The first of these is the recently discovered papyrus-fragment of Aristotle's πολιτεία ̓Αθηναίων: the second is the close application of the 'comparative method,' in order to investigate the interdependence of ancient religious and political thinking (p. 27) that he is the first to apply systems. Mr. Jevons is surely mistaken in this method to Athenian political development. Not to mention Freeman's Lectures on Comparative Politics, La Cité Antique of Fustel de Coulanges is entirely based on this idea.

It is well known that in 683 B.C. a step in the direction of democracy was made by the institution of nine annual archons. The

competition for the office, then practically the sole depositary of power, was very keen. It appears from the papyrus that in the archonship of a certain Damasias, whose date Mr. Jevons, following Bergk1 (Rhein. Mus. 1881, p. 87 ff.), places at 639-8 B.C., an outbreak of violence occurred which resulted in the division of the archonate between the three 'classes' in such a way that the Eupatridae were represented by four archons, the Geomori (Georgi, Apoiki) by three, and the Demiurgi by two. Here a difficulty at once arises, because the historians tell us that it was not till half a century after B.C. 639 that Solon instituted his property classification, admitting only the first class to office. This would be, if anything, a retrograde step, since obviously fewer Geomori and Demiurgi than before would be eligible to office. Mr. Jevons shows that the view that only the πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι were eligible to office under Solon rests solely on a passage of Plutarch (Aristides i.), on other grounds suspicious, and concludes, with the support of Aristotle (Pol. ii. 12), that by the constitution of Solon all ȧpxai were held by the first three property classes. It may be added that the negative evidence of Pollux viii. 131 (οἱ δὲ τὸ θητικόν τελοῦντες οὐδεμίαν ȧpx pxov) and of Harpocration 8.v. Ores (οὗτοι δὲ οὐδεμίαν ἦρχον ἀρχὴν) tell in the same direction.

Then follows an ingenious piece of reasoning, which contains the gist of the paper. Proceeding on the assumption (previously laid down by Oncken, Staatslehre des Aristoteles) that when Aristotle speaks in abstract terms about the development of political institutions he is really referring to those of Athens, the author argues that Aristotle's well-known Four Stages of the evolution of democracy (Pol. vi. (iv.) 4-6) do in fact exactly correspond to what actually occurred in the history of Athens. The First Stage, in which the depositary of power is rò yewp γικὸν καὶ τὸ κεκτημένον μετρίαν οὐσίαν, corresponds to the pre-Solonian period. The Second Stage, when the suffrage without restriction belongs to all ἀνυπεύθυνοι κατὰ τὸ yévos, answers to the Reforms of Solon. The Third Stage, τὸ πᾶσιν ἐξεῖναι ὅσοι ἂν ἐλεύθεροι ơ, reflects the Reforms of Cleisthenes, under whom the term cubepoɩ assumed a new and wider meaning. The Fourth Stage, when voters are paid by the State for their services, τοὺς ἀπόρους λαμβάνειν μισ

1 Mr. Jevons makes too little use of this admirable paper. He takes his readings of the papyrus from the completely superseded interpretation of Blass, Herines, 1880, p. 336 f.; 1881, p. 42 f.

òv, admittedly stands for the Periclean Reforms.

Mr. Jevons bases his arguments on the cardinal fact that admission to the parρíα meant possession of the franchise. The Años at Athens, like its analogue, the plebs at Rome, wanted power, and was determined to make itself unpleasant until it obtained it. Now power, i.e. the right of choosing your rulers and holding them to account, was only held by members of the φρατρίαι, which φρατρίαι were made up of a certain number of γένη. Belong to a γένος the Oos could not, any more than the plebs at Rome could be admitted to a patrician's household rites. The problem could only be solved, as indeed it was solved at Rome, by admitting the Años into the parpiai but not into the yén of which the φρατρίαι were composed. This revolution was accomplished before Solon, possibly soon after what was practically the monarchy was subdivided, just as at Rome the plebs forced their way into the Comitia Centuriata soon after the bisection of the regal power. But, in order not to make a complete surrender, the Eupatridae probably accompanied their concession to the λos with a timocratic restriction of the franchise, such as is described by Aristotle in his First Stage, and this was in force when Solon instituted his reforms. Solon extended the franchise to all members of pparpiai, without any restrictions of property, but, in order to check indiscriminate admission, he denied the right of inheritance in intestacy (ayXoreía), and therefore the franchise, to vólo, i.e. to children of non-Athenians by either parent.

Cleisthenes introduced manhood suffrage for Attica. The φρατρία, 28 a division carrying political privileges, was abolished, and a geographical subdivision of Attica into duo substituted, the right of Toλireía being henceforth dependent on registration as δημότης not as φράτωρ. This was manhood suffrage, with one restriction, that the father must be an Athenian. No proof is at hand that Cleisthenes was the author of this law, but it is obvious that some check must have been introduced, and Mr. Jevons points out that if the roλírns still had to be yvnorios aupov, Cimon, Themistocles, and Thucydides (Olori), all vóbo e peregrinis, would have been arol.

The parpía, killed by Cleisthenes, was revived by Pericles. This was the effect of the law μόνους Αθηναίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐκ δυεῖν 'Aonvaίow yeyovóras (Plut. Per. 37), a law rendered a State necessity by Pericles' new

arrangement for giving pay for attendance at the ἐκκλησία. This new arrangement, dangerous to finance if open to any casual applicant, had the double effect of restoring the parpía as a political qualification, and of drawing together in a closer bond of union all true-born Atheniaris.

The weak link in this chain of practically rewritten history appears to be the period of the Solonian and pre-Solonian Reforms. According to Mr. Jevons Solon abolished the property qualification for the exercise of the franchise. This involves two assumptions: (1) that when, in 639, the archonate was divided amongst the three classes, the franchise depended on a property qualification, and (2) that, granted a property qualification to the franchise was made, it lasted up to Solon's time. Neither assumption rests on a shadow of evidence. Gilbert indeed (Griesch. Staatsalt. i. 123), whom Mr. Jevons is perhaps following, suggests that the concession of 639 meant 'ein wohl mit einer vermögensrechtlichen Beschränkung verbundenes Wahlrecht,' but he advances no proof of the assumption, nor does Mr. Jevons, except the comparison of what happened at Rome. Again, the words of the papyrus-fragment itself, immediately following the account of the breaking up of the archonate, seem to show that the arrangement was purely temporary. It continues καὶ οὗτοι τὸν μετὰ Δαμασίαν ἦρ[ξαν ἐνι]αυτὸν, which surely implies that the change terminated with that year. It was a change hastily made, to meet the demands of tumult, and as hastily revoked. And it is clear that it is quite unnecessary to assume any elaborate timocratic restriction of the franchise if the right to exercise it only lasted one year. Besides, this breaking up of the archonate was a reform of an ultra-democratic character, too democratic for its early date. It was the institution of plebeian magistrates. And if it lasted from 639 to 594, it seems impossible that we should not have heard more of it, either by direct historical record, or by the indirect evidence of democratic reforms carried during those forty-five years. The five Georgic and Demiurgic archons must have made a very bad use of their time if they failed to carry against their four Eupatrid brethren nothing more than the legal reforms of Draco. Nor is it easy to see how the author of (Arist.) Pol. ii. 8, could have called such a constitution åpσTOκρατία λίαν ἄκρατος.

One or two minor points remain which seem open to critici-m. It is stated (p. 23)

that in B.C. 411 the total number of citizens

[of Athens] probably did not amount to more than the 5,000 citizens to whom the Ekkλŋσía was limited.' Then what was the point of the Four Hundred limiting the citizenship to five thousand? They obviously intended to re-impose some timocratic qualification (Thuc. viii. 65, end), to the exclusion of the poorer classes. The reason given (on p. 24) for the conclusion of the Thirty Years' Truce by Athens (that it was to gain time for preparation for the inevitable war with Sparta) looks like a piece of rather loose writing, and sounds much as though it had been said that in 1871 the French made peace in order to prepare for the inevitable war with Germany. Is it not rather hard luck,' too, to say (p. 27) that the whole of Curtius' account of the Cleisthenean reforms is 'vitiated by a fundamental error' because he, amongst other mistakes, was not acquainted with a fact recorded only in the Berlin papyrus, which was not discovered till more than twenty years after Curtius wrote his History? The quotation from Herodotus vii. 2, is rather a slender peg on which to hang the primacy of the eldest son' among the Greeks, for that passage plainly refers, not to the headship of a family, but succession to a throne, by no means the same thing. Finally, the word pparpía is regarded (p. 31) as a later form of parpía, which is an Ionic weakening of warpía a by-form of πάτρα : thus φρατρία is the association of sons of a common father.' Would not the received connexion of parpía with Sans. bhrata, Lat. frater, have been a simpler way of arriving at the same result? Curtius (Gk. Etym. 699) deals with the form parρía.

On the whole, however, although we are not prepared to accept in its entirety this complete remodelling (for it is nothing less) of much of the early Attic history, yet the author deserves the gratitude of all students of comparative politics for his bold and lucid attempt, from which no one could fail to derive instruction, to grapple with a most difficult and perplexing problem.

А. Н. СООКЕ.

Römische Geschichte. Von THEODOR MOMMSEN. Fünfter Band. Die Provinzen von Caesar bis Diocletian. Berlin. Weidmann. 1885. 9 M.

Ir is thirty years since Dr. Mommsen published the third volume of his Roman History. He has at last given us out of its proper order vol. v. The reason for the delay and the change of order hang together. The interval has been largely occupied with