=

=

at Athens, the licensed sojourners' whose protection and status was secured by the payment of a small tax, as contrasted with the ξένοι, οι ξένοι παρεπιδημοῦντες, who were strangers, merely sojourning in a town too short a time to care to secure the rights of μετοικία. The same meaning attached to the term μérokos at Iulis in Ceos (Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 348), Tegea (C.I.G. 15136), and apparently at Argos (C.I.G. Nos. 14, 19). But the same status was more often designated by πάροικος, as at Carpathos (Dittenberger, 331); Carthaea Carthaea in Ceos (C.I.G. 2357); at Thespiae and Acraephia (C.I.G. 1631, 1625); at Ilium Novum (C.I.G. 3595 the Sigean Inscription at Cambridge); at Teos (C.I.G. 3049); at Priene (C.I.G. 2906), and at Ephesus (Le Bas, Voyage Arch. iii. 136a the Oxford decree about Mithridates). Concerning the other cities we have as yet no evidence; but it is observable that the term Tápoikos seems to grow more frequent the further we go eastward. This all lends new meaning to the terms πάροικος, -eîv, -ía, as used in the LXX. and New Testament; they were words borrowed by the Jews from the language of Greek politics. For the term ξένοι, oι ξένοι παρεπιδημοῦντες, οι ἐπιδημοῦντες ξένοι, Acts xvii. 21, and mid. 'Papaio, Acts ii. 10 (temporary sojourners who have not yet secured the rights of πάροικοι or μέτοικοι), it is enough to refer to C.I.G. 3521 (Pergamon), 1338 (Amyclae), 2347k (Syros), 2286, 2288 (Delos), Hermes vii. 133 (Sestos). I forbear to enlarge upon the later usage of the word ἐκκλησία ἡ παροικοῦσα ἐν.

Αναστροφή.

But St. Peter combines Tάρokо and παρεπίδημοι with the word ἀναστροφή, and of this combination the inscriptions afford curious illustration: C.I.G. 1193 (Hermione), [ἐπαινέσαι] τοὺς πρεσβευτὰς ἐπί τε τῇ ἐνδαμίᾳ καὶ τ[α] ἀναστροφᾷ [ᾗ π]εποίηνται ἀξίως ἑκατέρων TOV TOλív (Hermione and Asine); C.İ.G. 1331 (Sparta), ἐπαινέσαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἐνδ[α]μίᾳ καὶ ἀνασ[τροφᾷ, α]πεποίησαι ἐν τῷ πόλει: Ο.Λ.Θ. 1339 (Messenia), ἐπαινέσαι . . . [ἐπὶ τὰ ἐνδ]αμίᾳ καὶ ἀναστροφᾷ ᾧ πεποίηται, K.T.A. Keil, Syll. Inscr. Boeot. No. IVb, οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι τάν τ[ε] παρεπιδαμίαν καὶ ἀναστροφὴν ἐποιήσαντο ἀξίως ἑκατ[έ]ραν τῶν πολίων : C.I.G. 3053 (Cnossos), ἀποσταλθέντες πὰρ Τηΐων προτὶ τὰς ἐν Κρήτῃ πόλιας, καὶ διατρίψαντες τὸν πλεῖστον χρόνον ἐν τῷ ἁμᾷ πόλει οὐ μόνον τὰν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναστροφὰς εὐταξίαν [ἀπ]εδείξαντο . καλῶς καὶ εὐτάκτως ἐνδεδα[μήκασι], κ.τ.λ. Instances like these

from honorary decrees voted to foreign dikasts, or ambassadors, might be accumulated without limit (see Keil, Schedae Epigr. p. 26). In St. Peter the construction is ἔχοντες τὴν ἀναστροφήν, but in all the instances I have observed in inscribed decrees the verb is ποιεῖσθαι. I add one more example from a Prienean inscription, because it illustrates another New Testament word avéykλŋtos, which is a common one in Greek decrees : τοὺς μὲν παραγενομένους ἄνδρας ἐπήνεσεν ἐπί τε τῷ σωφρόνως καὶ ἀνεγκλήτως παρεπιδημῆσαι, κ.τ.λ.

προστάτις.

When St. Paul says of Phoebe that she had been his pooráris at Corinth (Rom. xvi. 2: kaì yàp avτη πρOσTÁTIS TOÀλŵv ¿yérnon καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ), we are again reminded of Greek political life; the poorárns at Athens was the political sponsor of the μéroikos. In some Greek cities a definite board of pоσTáTaι appear to have existed, charged with similar functions towards aliens; it was so at Rhodes, at Cnidus, at Calymna, at Iasos, at Iulis in Ceos, and at Amphipolis.1 In Graeco-Roman times poσrárns was the recognised equivalent of patronus, unless the Latin word was simply Graecised as πάτρων, or less commonly márρwvos: occasionally we even find аτρóvioσa. Schürer (Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juder, p. 31) reminds us that the Roman Collegia had their Patroni, and suggests that St. Paul's use of the word

poσTúris (in a very general and indefinite sense') was suggested by the Patroni of Collegia. I do not, however, find роστárηs ever used in Greek in this sense of patronus. And I prefer to think that St. Paul's use of the word was derived immediately from its common political sense. The Christians at the port of Corinth were in the position of resident aliens in the presence of GraecoRoman society, and even in respect of the Jews established there; and Phoebe may well have been a woman of some social position and of wealth, who employed her influence (after her baptism) to protect and befriend the Church of which she was n διάκονος.

πολίτευμα.

It has been often remarked that whereas at Philippi, a Roman colonia, the citizens were proudly conscious of their political status (Acts xvi. 21), St. Paul in his letter to the Philippian Church employs twice over a strong political metaphor; i. 27: aģíws

1 See Part iii. of Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, No. 420.

τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, and iii. 20: ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς Vápɣe I have not, however, seen it noticed in this connexion that the word Toλírevμa is used in the famous Jewish decree from the Cyrenaica (C.I.G. 5361) for the Jewish community at Berenice. This decree is dated B.C. 13, so that the word rodírevμa had been adopted from Greek civic life into Jewish usage, before the Apostle employed it for the heavenly citizenship of the Church. Another inscription found at Pompeii, but certainly of Egyptian origin, and dated B.C. 3, exhibits the same word Toλírevμa employed of an association of Phrygians, whom we must suppose to have resided in some Egyptian town or district in the enjoyment of their own laws, religion, and administration of justice. Their priest deTheir priest dedicates a statue to Phrygian Zeus. The inscription reads as follows (C.I.G. 5866c):

Γάϊος Ιούλιος Ἡφαιστίωνος
υἱὸς Ἡφαιστίων ἱερατεύσας
τοῦ πολιτεύματος τῶν Φρυ
γῶν ἀνέθηκε Δία Φρύγιον, κ.τ.λ.

Κτίσις.

Kríos, so commonly used in the New Testament for the Creation, and KTLTŃS ('Creator,' 1 Pet. iv. 19) are terms which. had previously belonged to political history. KTT's was the term for the Founder of a city (as oikurs was of a colony), and the title was frequently given in later days to kings and emperors, and even to private persons, who had been great benefactors to a city. Krious was the term for the founding of a city (Polyb. ix. 1, § 4); compare Kríveis, a geographical poem by Apollonius Rhodius, a title which Mommsen thinks may have suggested to Cato the idea of his Origines (Book iii. ch. 14, vol. ii. p. 477, English Translation).

Βασιλεύς.

Before going further let us remind ourselves of the obvious fact, that Hellenism was made familiar to the Jews of Palestine and the Dispersion by means of the Syrian and Egyptian monarchies. In tracing back therefore the Greek political words of the LXX. and New Testament, we need not always go back at once to Attic law and Athenian literature: it is even more necessary to fix our attention upon the political antiquities of Asia Minor and the shores of the Levant. In this connexion observe that one element of this Hellenism had been. from the first, powerful and enlightened monarchies. Alexander inscribed himself

as Baouleus on the Prienian temple, and the title was assumed by Antigonus, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy in 306 B.C. It was under the Alexandrian monarchy that the version of the LXX. had its origin, and it was the policy of the Syrian kings which shaped the history and character of later Judaism. The term Baride's therefore was instinct with present meaning and full of absorbing associations when the Jews first learned it as the translation of their vernacular title. The LXX. may almost be said to revel in the terms βασιλεύς, βασιλεία, Baoiλevw, &c.

Μετοικίζειν, μετοικεσία.

Before I pass on from the mention of royalty, let me note that the idea and practice of transporting whole populations to please a monarch's whim were quite familiar to the subjects of the Diadochi, though they seem to veil the fact under the terms συνοικίζεσθαι, παροικίζεσθαι (see the Teos inscription, my Manual, 149, § 9, § 14). I have already observed that a resident alien was in most places out of Attica called a πάροικος : accordingly the word μετοικίζω was ready to be appropriated for the sense of 'change of abode.' In this sense perokίčeσlaι is used in the same inscription § 9; and the verb, with its cognates μετοικία and μετοικεσία, were ready at hand in ordinary Greek when the LXX. had to describe the events of the

Captivity.

Φρουρά, φρουρεῖν.

Another element of the history of those days was the garrisoning of the Greek cities by the kings. Thus the history of Athens after Alexander until the advent of the Romans was a long struggle to be rid of Macedonian garrisons. The same thing was true of the cities of Asia Minor in the days of Lysimachus, the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies. Let me eg. call attention to a curious decree from Priene published by me in the Hellenic Journal, 1883. Now the word for garrison is uniformly povpá,

poupeîv, the soldiers are opovpoí. The verb occurs in its literal sense in 2 Cor. xi. 32: ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθνάρχης Αρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως ἐφρούρει τὴν Δαμασκηνῶν πόλιν πιάσαι με (when the R.V. seems less accurate than the A.V. Marquardt, Röm. Alterth. iv. p. 247 takes the word in its strict sense). I do not wish to dogmatise nor to impose this one meaning upon poupeîv semper et ubique; but a glance at the literature and documents of the Hellenistic period will show that the word in this sense was in perpetual use, and

=

==

can hardly have been employed in the New Testament without a reminiscence of it. φρουρά garrison, 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14; 1 Paral. xviii. 13; 1 Macc. ix. 51, xi. 66, xii. 34, χίν. 33; φρουρεῖν to garrison, Judith iii. 6; 1 Esdras iv. 56; similarly φρούριον and φρουρός in LXX. Indeed I think the meaning of garrison is universal in the Old Testament. The passages in the Epistles are these:

Gal. iii. 23 : ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συνκλειόμενοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.

:

1 Pet. i. 5 év dvváμei eoû povpov μένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.

Phil. iv. 7 : καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα.

Are we in these passages to maintain the figure of a garrison keeping ward over a town, or are we to adopt the idea of soldiers keeping guard either, to prevent escape, or to protect the weak? It is significant that Schleusner refers only to Symmachus' version of Ps. lxxxviii 9 and Wisdom xvii. 15 for this sense of 'custoditus, clausus quasi in carcere' he compares Gal. iii. 23, but I confess that even here I prefer the notion of a garrisoned town. In the other two passages there seems little doubt that this is the better meaning. E. L. HICKS.

THOSE who are interested in the establishment at Oxford of a school of English literature may be grateful to the indefatigable Mr. Collins for having at any rate promoted the discussion, and so hastened on the practical stage of the subject. The man who simultaneously and persistently works two such divergent oracles as the respectable Quarterly and the vociferous Pall Mall, at any rate gets the matter talked about. And a good deal more talk will probably be required at Oxford before the time will have arrived for legislation. Meanwhile it may not be superfluous to point out that Mr. Collins's cloud of witnesses do not give quite such a clear unanimous lead as has sometimes been assumed, and that his own proposal is open to grave objection.

If the interesting person known as the 'general reader' were asked about the recent controversy, he would probably regard it ast established that the Universities were shamefully behindhand in the recognition of English Literature, and that all competent opinion united in demanding the new study, and in insisting that it should not be divorced from Classics. Not much less than this is claimed by the Pall Mall Gazette: 'Everybody was agreed on the necessity of removing the national disgrace of an English university in which English is not studied'. . . 'should it be associated with the Greek and Latin classics, or rather (as is the case at Cambridge) with the other literatures of modern Europe? on this question also there will be

But even the comparative support given by the twenty-one who, by a liberal interpretation, are classed as favourable, is easily seen on a closer examination to be of very little value. Some of them are unfavourable

to an Honour examination: some mean by associating English with Classics the insertion of a few English books in a classical examination some intend English to be a subsequent study when the classical studies are ended and a still larger number give no hint of what they mean. A consensus, so limited, of opinions so incoherent and indefinite, does not even begin to be a support to the very precise views of Mr. Collins, who wishes to run the three languages, in teaching and examination, absolutely parallel to the last.

It is of course possible that when the time comes for action, it may be found that many of these eminent persons are in favour of

Epic, Lyric, and Didactic poetry, beginning with the classical examples and pursuing the study through the best English works--he no doubt describes a course of reading which could not fail, if properly handled, to be interesting and instructive. But the objec tions to the scheme, both theoretic and practical, he seems very imperfectly to appreciate. It is perhaps convenient to begin with a short sketch of what his proposal is.

The three languages, Greek, Latin, English, are to be studied strictly together. The school is to be an Honour Final School,

apart from the existing examinations. The

subject is to be divided into three, Poetry, Rhetoric and Criticism. First, Poetry. In the classical part the student will be asked to translate with elucidatory comments' pieces from the leading poets, from Homer to Theocritus, and from Lucretius to Pruperiods must be read, and dentius. The leading English poets of all be read, and prescribed masterpieces critically studied.' Rhetoric is to include Historical composition regarded as Rhetoric:' but the books he leaves to the Board of Studies to prescribe. In Criticism, the student is to work at the history of the literatures' and likewise master the

possible that they may be found to be the opposite. But the real conclusion which the student of these documents arrives at, is the unsatisfactoriness of this method of agitation. A circular of inquiries, issued by an enterprising journal, and accompanied or preceded by broad hints of the answers desired, leads to many undesirable results. Some eminent men refuse to answer, and imbibe a distaste for the whole question. Some give oracular and non-committal replies: an unworthy occupation for the writer, and a needless irritation to the reader. Some express hasty and ill-considered opinions, which commit the writers prematurely, and likewise give scope to misrepresentation. And the enthusiast, who has evoked these reluctant and often extemporised views, is perhaps insensibly led into imagining a unanimity which ultimately proves fallacious. The one advantage is, as we have said above, that discussion is promoted. But it may well be doubted if from such unripe discussion there is much substantial gain.

In Mr. Collins's own scheme, there is much that is at first sight attractive; and particularly in the glowing passage (which we unfortunately have not space to quote)where he describes the literature student mastering successively Oratory, the Drama,

which is to be added Lessing's Laocoon.

In this scheme we think the general voice of practical educationists will find several grave defects. In the classical part there is

at once immensely too much, and considerably too little. There is for example in Latin poetry alone, besides Plautus and Terence, the 1400 pages of the Corpus Poetarum, with Prudentius superadded. In Greek, besides Homer, Hesiod, the Poetae Scenici, the Idyllists and the Lyricists-a list which no one would wish to diminish if there were Rhodius,1and some at least of the Alexandrine time for it-we must also add Apollonius

didactics. The Greek list would include some, and the Latin much, which is not firstrate literature and all the while Livy, Tacitus, Thucydides and Herodotus are only treated as Rhetoric; and Pliny, Cicero's letters and treatises, and the whole of Plato,2 are omitted. Imagine a scheme of literature

Later than the prescribed period, but specially included by Mr. Collins.

2 Mr. Collins seems to feel this objection at one point, for he proposes to admit no one to the English school who has not obtained a third in Greats (Quar terly, p. 259). But this quite impossible and suicidal proposal for the result would be prohibitory to the new studies-is inconsistent with his other suggestion that Literature should stand to Greats in the same relation as the old Law and History School (p. 258), where no such restriction was dreamt of.

which includes seventeen books of Punica and the Hymnus Jeiunantium, and which ignores the Gorgias, the Republic, and the Symposium!

In English the case is still stronger. There the division into Poetry and Rhetoric -even with the strained interpretation of Rhetoric which includes History-is even more fatal to a real representation of the Literature. A scheme of English literature which excludes Wycliffe, Malory, More, Ascham, Sidney, Hooker, Bacon, Burton, Milton's prose works, Hobbes, Locke, much of Taylor, Barrow, South; Bunyan, Cowley's prose, Walton, Evelyn, Pepys, Steele, Addison, Berkeley, Defoe, Swift, Johnson, Goldsmith, Fielding, Smollett, Sterne,-with certain small exceptions that might find a place under Rhetoric or Criticism-such a scheme, is, to use an expression Mr. Collins himself has adopted, 'a fraud upon letters.' It may be noted as a final touch of the irony of fate, that under Mr. Collins's system it will be still open to a graduate in the school of literature, to be ignorant whether Arcadia and Oceana are poetry or prose.

Quite as grave again are the practical objections to the classical examination. The classical books are just the Moderations studies over again, with the addition of the silver age. All the arguments that the 'modernisers' urge against continuing on at college the same round of classical studies that so many had wearied of at school, lie with much greater force against a final school where the examination consists in Latin and Greek translations with elucidatory comments. The student has been all his life translating with elucidatory comments. He wants to plunge, we will suppose, into his favourite study, Modern Literature: and with what eyes will he regard the necessity of giving so many hours a week to keep up the Homer, Aeschylus, Tacitus, and Juvenal of Mods, not to speak of the Silius Italicus and Prudentius whose acquaintance he now makes for the first time? And there is a still more serious objection in the character which the classical part of such an examination would certainly assume. There would not be time for both classical part and English part to be thoroughly done, and the weight would be thrown into that side of the study which was new. The classical translations would be regarded as the lower thing, which had to be done up to a certain standard: but to which it was waste of time to devote much pains. In short the classical part would inevitably become the Pass part: the English, the Honour part of the examination.

The

:

classics would be relegated to the position of Divinity in Honour Moderations: with the same fatal results to the study. The object would be to scrape through; men would read the minimum and examiners would be reluctant to plough. The real force of teachers and taught would be thrown into the English. The fact is that it is quite possible to agree with Mr. Collins's reiterated dogma, that English should be taught in connection with classics,' and yet to object wholly to the special meaning which he attaches to it, that the students of English shall be forced for their Final Examination to read up large masses of Greek and Latin authors. What the student really wants is to be familiar in a general way with the Origins of Literature among the Greeks and Romans, as part (and though it be the largest, yet not the only part) of the literary influences that have acted on English authors. It is quite as indispensable that he should have a general idea-and the more the knowledge is firsthand the better, in this case also-of the foreign modern literary influences, to which our great writers owe so much. The French, the Italian, the German, even the Scandinavian and the Spanish influences, are all, in various degrees and at various epochs, of first-rate importance for the thorough study of English. A study which should treat English literature as a simple product of classics, besides being to the last degree misleading, would tend to repeat the old blunder from which we are only just escaping, of educational narrowness. To realise in practice what is true in the idea of teaching English in connection with classics,' it would be quite sufficient that the students of the new subject should have passed through, at school and college, the ordinary classical course. They would even then start far better equipped for appreciating the classical influence, than for understanding any of the others. And simple practical considerations point the same way. obvious plan would be to open the new Literature School to those who had passed Classical Moderations. The school would then stand on the same footing as Modern History, Law, Theology, and Literae Humaniores: the only difference being that the early training in this case would be more specially appropriate to the final study. And as Canon Percival says in his reasonable and weighty letter, it cannot be seriously maintained that by such an arrangement 'any detriment would accrue to scholarship or learning or to the reputation of the university as a home of the higher education.'

The