that at length his representations have had the effect of convincing some of them that there really was such a person, and that his history of Rome is worth reading. Partial translations and editions of selections are beginning to appear, and those who are interested in the later Greek historians and do not close their literature at the death of Demosthenes or their history at the battle of Chaeronea may congratulate themselves on these signs. For the acceptance of Polybius as an author to be edited and studied means a great deal more than the thin end of the wedge; if classical scholars can bring themselves to face the Greek of Polybius and write notes on such words as φαντασία, προστασία, οι αντοφθαλμεῖν, they cannot consistently refuse to read Diodorus and Appian, Cassius Dio and Herodian; they must recognise the unAttic but Hellenistic Greek of Zosimus, Procopius and Agathias, as well as of Julian and Libanius; nor can their extended view be bounded even here. The chain, or eipuós (to use the word of Evagrius of Epiphania), whose first link was forged by Polybius of Megalopolis, does not really come to an end until the days of Phrantzes and the Thucydidean Critobulus; Polybius stands first in what we may call the series of 'GraecoRoman historians.'

Mr. Capes has put together the portions of Polybius which bear on the history of the Achaean League, and has provided his selections with notes both historical and philological. His introduction consists of two parts, (1) on the author and his work,' (2) on the Achaean League.' The second part gives a brief account of the rise and constitution of the federation. There are two problems connected with the origin of the Achaean and Aetolian leagues, which Mr. Capes has not clearly distinguished. One problem is why the Achaean and Aetolian peoples, who had never played a part in history before, suddenly emerged in the third century from their obscurity and assumed a position of first-rate political importance. The other problem is why the political activities, which were suddenly developed in the Achaean and Aetolian highlands, took the form of federal institutions. two problems are quite distinct: a solution of the one may be possible, while the other remains unsolved. Let us see what Mr. Capes says on this subject::

The

'Why the new movement [of federal unions] spread at first in these two countries, far away from the old highways of politics, cannot now be confidently stated. It is possible, as has lately been suggested, that soldiers of fortune, who had issued from these poor mountain regions, came back to their homes enriched by pay and plunder, and spread around them more material well-being and a bolder spirit of selfrespect than could be found in the old historic cities, where the hardier virtues had been gradually exhausted in the hotbeds of political excitement. It would be hazardous however to lay much stress on this, but we may say that federal tendencies would encounter least resistance where the interests of town life were least absorbing, and there were fewer traditions of the past to appeal to local jealousies and pride' (p. xxix.).

The suggestion, which Mr. Capes refers to and passes lightly over, was made by Mr. Mahaffy in his recent volume on Greek Life and Thought (p. 7). But Mr. Capes completely misrepresents Mr. Mahaffy's conjecture, which is a remarkable example of a good historical hypothesis. It is the first and not the second of the problems which we distinguished above, that Mr. Mahaffy's hypothesis is intended to solve: and Mr. Capes misconceives it as an attempt to solve the second. The return of mercenary soldiers to their mountain homes, enriched by pay and plunder, supplies a plausible explanation for the sudden rise of

the countries which were nurseries of mercenary soldiers; Mr. Mahaffy, as far as I understand his words, never supposed that it supplied any explanation of the federal tendencies.'

The first part of the introduction is chiefly occupied with details (after Krebs and Kalker) about the style and language of Polybius, and is well worth reading. The expedients to which the writer resorts for the purpose of avoiding hiatus are given with considerable fulness; but why is nothing said of the rules of hiatus which were adopted by Polybius and the exceptions which he allowed himself? On p. xviii. a misleading statement is made. It is mentioned as one of the differences which distinguish the Greek of Polybius from Attic that 'àvá and σúv are rarely used'; and on turning to the notes (p. 321) we read that ́åvà is one of the prepositions of the older language which, except in compound verbs, is fast disappearing in the style of Polybius; he uses it mainly in the distributive sense, or in a few adverbial phrases like åvà μέρος, ἀνὰ μέσον, ἀνὰ τὸν αὐτόν λόγον, but its local sense is very rare with him.' The conclusion one naturally draws from these statements is that àvά was a preposition of ordinary use in Attic, to express local relation as well as distribution, that in Polybius it is less frequent, and that the tendency of late Greek is to allow it to fall into disuse. But the facts are quite different. Any one who has studied the use of the prepositions in Attic Greek will inform Mr. Capes that àvá is of extremely rare occurrence; and that whenever it does occur it does not bear a local sense. For example, in the extant plays of Aristophanes it is never found, except in the lyrical parts which do not conform to prose usage (in Ranae 554, there can be no doubt that the correct reading is ἀνημιωβολιαία, an adjective formed from ἂν ἡμιώβολον, where ανά has its distributive sense). ἀνὰ λόγον and avà μépos were Attic expressions, but even in a distributive sense àvá is not used freely before Xenophon. On the other hand, any one who has read the later Greek historians will be able to assure Mr. Capes that nothing is commoner than avà in a local sense. At the first page of Agathias I open I find àvà tò Βυζάντιον. Thus what Mr. Capes ought to have called attention to is not that avà is fast disappearing in Polybius, but that, having tended to disappear in Attic, it begins to reappear in Polybius, who however still uses it sparingly. In Herodotus it is common enough; the Herodotean àvà μérov, not used in Attic prose, reappears in Polybius.

In his note on Tрoaípeσis (p. 232,This favourite term of Aristotle passes on from the ethical sense of 'intention to that of 'state policy' in Polybius), it is strange that the editor does not observe that Demosthenes constantly uses the word in the same sense as Polybius. In style the notes are not always clear; for example, on p. 300 we read: 'A few miles off was the temple of Bassae, to build which Ictinus, the architect of the Parthenon, was called from Athens, from which the sculptures have been brought to our National Museum.' This note is intended to instruct readers who have never heard of the temple of Bassae; would not such readers infer that the sculptures were brought from Athens to London, and wonder how they came to be in Athens ?

On p. 303 Mr. Rutherford's ingenious suggestion as to the origin of роnnλaxi(w is mentioned-namely, that it is for προπηλικίζω (πηλίκος) to ask a man's age-and Mr. Capes pertinently asks: but why the change to a? This is a serious objection, but at the same time Mr. Rutherford is certainly right in reject ing the derivation from nλós. I would suggest that the original word was προπαλακίζω = * προκαλκίζω (the by labiation for q, and the second à a sheva, as ic

The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament. By J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. (Camb. Univ. Press. 1887. pp. 66. 4to.)

THIS is an interesting contribution to the genealogical study of later cursive mss. of the New Testament. Codex 69, now the property of the Corporation of Leicester, is described by Scrivener (Introd. p. 190) and has been frequently collated: most recently by T. K. Abbott ("A Collation of Four Important Manuscripts of the Gospels," Dublin 1877.)

Prof. Harris shews that the codex is by the same hand as the Caius psalter which belonged to Friar Brinkley of Cambridge, Provincial of the English Minorites at the time of the dissolution. Both the psalter and the Leicester codex passed from Brinkley's possession into that of William Chark, a Puritan divine at Cambridge, whose library also contained the notorious codex Montfortianus, the production of which in answer to Erasmus' challenge led to the insertion, in Erasmus' third edition of his N. T., of the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Prof. Harris shews grounds for the supposition that this latter codex was written by Franciscan friars (or "monks" as he strangely calls them pp. 26, 47, &c.) for the purpose of supporting the interpolation; possibly the actual writer was Friar Roy (this, and not Froy, appears to have been his name) the first known possessor of the ms. Prof. Harris examines the writing, catch-words, arrangement, material, &c. of the Leicester codex, with great learning and ingenuity. Specially interesting, if not absolutely conclusive, is the examination of the water-marks. Taken together, the indications converge upon an Italian origin for the ms., and upon a date not fifty years before the invention of printing. This agrees in substance, though there remain questions of detail upon which difference is still possible, with the conclusion of M. Martin, that this and the allied mss. are traceable to a Calabrian origin.

Enough has been said to shew the interest of Prof. Harris' investigation both for the N.T. critic and for the paleographer. His pages are by no means without human interest as well; his personal and academic prepossessions (pp. 27, 31, 34, 38 note, &c. &c) relieve the dryness of scientific enquiry. And there are curious antiquarian pickings to be gleaned, of which this is not the place to speak. Prof. Harris' book is very favourably reviewed by Dr. Gregory in Schürer's Theol. Literaturzeitung 1887, no. 25.

A. ROBERTSON.

Hermae Pastor Graece Integrum Ambitu. Primum Edidit ADOLFUS HILGENFELD. Leipzig: Weigel. 1887. (London: Trübner.) 4 Mk. PROFESSOR HILGENFELD gives us in the Prolegomena an account of the Greek editions of Hermas which have appeared since 1856. In that year R. Anger and G. Dindorf published the complete Greek text as far as Sim. IX. 30, 3. They availed themselves for their edition of three MS. leaves containing Mand. XII. 4, 8, to Sim. VIII. 4, 3, and Sim. IX. 15, 1, to IX. 30, 5, which C. Simonides had brought from Mount Athos, as well as of a copy (apograph II.) which he had made of the earlier and the intervening

portions of the book. On the same MS. leaves, but on a different copy (apograph I.), C. Tischendorf based his edition of Hermas 1856. This however, as well as the later editions by A. Hilgenfeld, 1866 and 1881, O. v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, 1887, F. Funk, 1878-altogether five since Hefele-stopped short at Sim. IX. 30, 3, ei dè.... In these editions the remaining portion, IX. 30, 3-X. 4, 5, was added from Latin translations. Simonides had already (1859) published the last Sim. in Greek. But having been convicted of a series of systematic forgeries, his last edition to the text of Hermas was at the time universally rejected as spurious: Timendus igitur est hic Danaus et dona ferens, sed etiam dona tulit non respuenda,' says Hilgenfeld. He considers that the man to whom we owe so large a part of the Greek text has a right to be heard when he offers to restore the last remaining chapter, and that his proposal should not be so peremptorily dismissed, as was done by Harnack (Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1887, No. 7: comp No. 21). Hilgenfeld admits the last Sim., not however without a certain amount of hesitation, into his edition, and thus furnishes the first H. P. Graz integer ambitu.' The editor gives in the remaining four chapters of the Prolegg. an account of the Cod. Lipsieusis vel Clementinus, the two apographs taken by Simonides, the remaining MSS. of Hermas, the Cod. Sinaiticus and the Cod. Amphilochii, the extracts found in ecclesiastical writers, as well as the old Latin and Aethiopic versions of the last Simm. There follows 'a life of Hermas': the work, it is stated on the authority of Simonides, of a Libyan bishop of the sixth century. The text is accompanied by copious notes. The readings found in the different Codd. and apographs are fully quoted, as well as those which have been adopted in the various editions mentioned above. Antiochus Homm. XCIV. and CXXII. are very appropriately quoted in illustration of Sim. IX. 31 sq. The lost portion, Sim. IX. 30, 3 -X. 4, 5, is given first as restored by Simonides, next as rendered in the Versio Vulgata Palatina, and finally in a Greek translation by the editor. Whatever the value may be of the additions which Simonides offered to make to the Greek text of Hermas, there can be no doubt as to the completeness of this its latest edition. CHARLES MERK.

Ciceros Rede für Cn. Plancius, für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von DR. ERNST KÖPKE: in dritten Auflage neu bearbeitet von DR. G. LANDGRAF. 1 Mk. 20.

THOSE who know Dr. Landgraf's edition of the speech pro Sex. Roscio Amerino will not need to be told that any contributions from his own stores to that which Köpke's Planciana had provided have an independent value and Dr. Holden will do well to consider them in the next edition of his excellent commentary, which is largely based on Köpke's second edition, as far as we can judge without having the latter actually before us.

We will just notice a few of these points, though it is not always easy to tell what is of Köpke and what is of his διασκευαστής.

Reserving purely textual matters for the present, we find in § 16 an entirely fresh treatment of the difficult passage which runs thus in Holden-' vel nescio vel non dico vel denique, quod mihi gravissimum esset, si dicerem, sed impune tamen deberem dicere: non recte. nam quid adsequerere, si illa extrema defensione uterer, populum quod voluisset fecisse, non quod debuisset?' no explanation, however, being given of the construction of vel denique recte,' where the sentence is broken-backed.

Landgraf removes this difficulty by pointing with a comma at recte, and reading num for nam (nunc TE); thus adsequerere is apodosis to si dicerem, which is further defined in 'si. uterer.' (Cp. for the order of the clauses pro Cluent. § 124 'sin autem, quod subscriptum est, quia verum est, idcirco grave debet esse, hoc quaeramus': and for the double condition, with the apodosis in the middle, Ter. Hec. 255 'sin east retinendi causa... te mi iniuriam facere arbitror si metuis.') The sense given is excellent: You ask, Laterensis, why the electors preferred Plancius to you? I am not concerned to answer your question: if I took an extreme line and said what I might say without compromising my client's case, viz. that the people made the wrong choice, acted in mere caprice, you would gain nothing by the admission.'

Another point is in § 23: where hoc municipii genere, 'translated by Holden after Nägelsbach 'in respect of his municipium,' is more satisfactorily explained, in the different character, type, of the municipium to which he belonged.' Genus means properly 'kind or class of objects' in such a phrase as in omni genere, in eo genere': so that we should expect in hoc municipiorum genere,' if so it meant here.

In § 83, 'te in ludos... sine tensis autem quid potero dicere?' Holden quotes Long, the passage is obscure and Wunder admits that he cannot explain it.' Previous commentators seem to have inferred from this and from § 40, and Q. fr. ii. 16; ad fam. i. 9, v. 9 (which refer to the preceding trial of Vatinius), that Plancius was tried at the end of August, before the ludi Romani (Sept. 4-20); and indeed have assumed that a trial could not take place during the ludi Romani. But Zumpt has disproved the assumption. Landgraf fixes the date at Sept. 5, approximately. Cicero is meeting irony with irony. 'Laterensis says that he was most reluctant to have the case taken during the Ludi, because he knew that I should as usual make oratorical capital out of the religious solemnities, as I had done before in defending aediles. I can assure him he has effectually clipped my wings sine tensis quid potero dicere?' In § 90 impiorum is rightly referred to Clodius and his gang, not (as by Holden) to Catiline.

:

The book is judiciously arranged for school use. Critical notes go to a Critical Appendix: there is a useful list of divergences from Ĉ. F. W. Müller's text of 1886. There is a wise economy of citations: and references to Zumpt, Seyffert, etc., which most students have no mind and most teachers no time to verify, are relegated to what is called a Sachlichsprachlicher Anhang. This contains some things which should have gone into the main commentary, which is sometimes defective. In § 20 habemus hoc nos, 'this is a peculiarity of ours,' might have been explained; habere habere in se. In § 55 neque tu haec habes neque eis confidis, the same verb is explained as neither 'know' (as Holden) nor 'believe,' but = in causa habere; 'you have not got any such facts in your favour.' In § 30 it is unnecessary to say that 'we know nothing of a vetus ius' allowing of personal violence against actors: ius is not technical, but means 'privilege.' In § 31 'communis sensus, the general way of thinking: sensus communis, feeling of propriety, tact': surely this cannot be maintained: Hor. Sat. i. 3, 65 communi sensu = 'ordinary tact' (Prof. Palmer): Sen. Ep. M. i. 5, 4 sensum communem, humanitatem et congregationem, the social sense,' the feeling in which all partake (cp. Planc. § 34).

Space forbids us to dwell at length on the text: in thirty instances Dr. Landgraf dissents from C. F. W. Müller. He has made ample use of the critical labours of Madvig, Lehmann, Karsten and

:

others but his leanings are conservative. He is slow to bracket or expunge; but is content at the same time, in such cases as those of §§ 40, 78, to offer a reading as provisional only. In § 35 ego quia... conferuntur is retained: in § 40 'tum (codd. edd. cet. tu) me ignaro . . . iniquos' is well defended against Wunder, Cobet, Müller and others, though there is evident corruption at 'inscio notes.' In §54 'rogatus' is plainly wrong: Karsten conj. 'provocatus.'. In § 77 'praeferam' (TE) is retained, others reading 'prae me feram': for this use (generally postclassical) with substant. object. Landgraf compares Rosc. Am. § 87, de rep. i. § 52. In § 29 O. Müller's emendation futtilis' is preferred to 'fallax' (Campe), on palaeographic grounds: in § 95 arcum (codd. arcem) facere ex cloaca' is palmary. Cp. Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. xxix. 21.

W. Y. FAUSSET.

A Companion to School Classics. By JAMES Gow. Macmillan and Co. 1888.

THIS is a remarkable little book which, unless we are much mistaken, will be warmly received by classical teachers, and will be of no small use even to many advanced students and scholars. Dr. Gow describes it as being an attempt to give the information which a commentator is, from the nature of his task, compelled to assume even in a young student.' On questions like Textual Criticism, the Theatres, the Public Economy of Greece and Rome, the commentaries and dictionaries (Dr. Gow remarks) present a vast mass of details, but not the history or theory by which such details can be correlated'; and this defect he attempts 'partly to supply', and 'to give from the latest and best authorities a suinmary of essential facts and rules.'

The first difficulty in carrying out this programme is obviously the selection of the points on which such summaries will be most useful. Probably if teachers were asked to write down a list of subjects which they would like to see so treated, no two would quite coincide in their lists: though we think it likely they would all agree in declaring that many of the points they most desired to include were to be found here. The best test of this is to give the headings of the chapters.

A. Classical Texts.-The Greek and Latin Alphabets, Books and their Publication, History of Classical MSS., Modern Libraries of Classical MSS., Apparatus Criticus, Textual Criticism, Famous Scholars, Dialects and Pronunciation.

B. Greece.-Greek Chronology, Greek Metrology, History of Athenian Government, Population of Attica, Athenian Officials, Athenian Deliberative Assemblies, Athenian Army and Fleet, Legal Procedure, Finance. Sparta, Colouies and Cleruchies.

C. Rome.-Roman Chronology, Metrology, History of Roman Government, Rome under the Kings, the Republic of Rome, (Magistrates, Characteristics of Magistracy, Religious Functionaries, Deliberative Assemblies, Classes of Free People, Government of Italy and Provinces), Imperial Government, Roman Army and Navy, Law, Finance.

D. The Drama, and E. Philosophy.

Perhaps some will demur to the advantage of summarising the tenets of the various schools of philosophy for beginners, though such summaries are frequently wanted and often given in a detached and bald way. But there can be little doubt of the advantage of B. C. D being presented in a convenient and continuous manual form; while the first book on Classical Texts is just what many students have long sighed for. It presents as fully as is possible in the space an account of just those points on which

information is not to be had in any accessible English work of reference; and yet of points which meet the student at every turn in working at classical authors and in reading commentaries. If any reader will recall his school or college days, and the state of mistiness which pervaded his ideas on manuscripts, glosses, scholiasts, the names of famous scholars, and textual criticism generally, he will be able to measure the avidity with which he would have opened a book like Dr. Gow's, professing to summarise for him the essential facts and rules' which would have made order amidst his chaos.

Granted however that the points dealt with are the right ones, the much more important question arises, how these professions are realised in the actual handling. We think that here too Dr. Gow is to be congratulated on his success.

First the authorities consulted on the various points are all recent, so that the information is all posted up to date as far as was possible. The author gives a list in the preface of the chief books to which in the various sections he is most indebted; and they are nearly all either newly published, or re-edited, in the last seven years. This will supply an answer to a possible objection that might be raised on a perusal of the table of contents, namely that on many of the subjects in B, C, and D, information is to be got by the English reader in Dictionaries of Antiquities. The answer is that so much of that information is now wholly or partially superseded, that instructed readers, where they cannot check it, have to accept it with misgivings. To take one example: if the article on the Greek Theatre, for instance, in Dr. Smith's dictionary be compared with Dr. Gow's account, the reader will find in the latter an interesting summary of recent discussions on the Stage, where careful archaeological research has thrown doubt on the traditional account given by the former.

But also, and still more important, the style of Dr. Gow's exposition is excellent. Perhaps the part where it is most difficult to present adequate information in a form at once brief and interesting is the first section on Classical Texts. The success with which this is done is chiefly due to two things: to the tact with which he has selected the prominent and essential facts, and the judicious choice of examples and illustrations. Particularly noticeable are these qualities in the chapter (vii.) on Textual Criticism, where a remarkably good collection is made of instances showing how mistakes arise, and how they are emended. For instance, even the dullest reader must find a new interest in text criticism when he comes on the following illustration :

'In Seneca, Ep. lxxxi. 4, Madvig found the words: philosophia unde dicta sit, apparet: ipso enim nomine fatetur. Quidam et sapientiam ita quidam finierunt, ut dicerent, &c. He set the passage straight by reading ' ipso enim nomine fatetur quid amet. Sapientiam ita quidam &c.'

Again, the two pages of facsimiles of Greek Uncials and Minuscules, Latin Rustic Capitals, Uncials and Minuscules, will give the young student a better idea of what is meant by those often recurring words than any amount of description, and will tempt him to turn over the Palaeographical Society's publications which have hitherto been undisturbed by him in his school library.

We have only noticed two misprints in the book, one on p. 121, the trivial mistake of oóμBoλov for ovuBoxov; and the other the curious (though hardly misleading) confusion of left and right (in speaking of the Greek writing), which occurs three times on pp. 4, 9, and 10.

We will conclude with two suggestions; first that

16.

there should be rather more illustrations, e.g. of the ancient armour, ships, &c, in chapters xvi. xxvii, and xxviii.; of ancient houses and dress, which the author has omitted to speak of; and perhaps facsimiles of ancient inscriptions, like those of early manuscripts, to replace the rather confusing table of letters on page And secondly that those who wish to pursue any point in more detail should be guided by a careful list of works of reference, which need not take up much room, and might be prefixed to each chapter, somewhat in the style most usefully adopted for indicating his authorities in Green's History of the English People. A. S. W.

Griechische Geschichte. Von ERNST CURTITS Zweiter Band. Bis zum Ende des peloponnesischen Kriegs. Sechste verbesserte Auflage. Berlin, 1888.

10 Mks.

As compared with the edition from which the English translation is made, the present volume contains alterations and additions which, if not so important as those made in vol. i, are at all events of considerable interest. In the first chapter we have additional matter dealing with the importance to Athens of the foundation of Piraeus (p. 18), the building of the first Athenian fleet under Themistocles (pp. 30-33), the urst use of ostracism to settle a quarrel between citizens where no idea of tyranny was involved (p. 35), and the effect of the Persian war in reviving interest in the Homeric poems (p. 50). An insertion on p. 124 is calculated to cause confusion. The expulsion of Pausanias from Byzantium by Cimon (Plut. Cim. 6, Thuc. i. 131) is placed in the forefront of Cimon's exploits, even before the capture of Eion and freeing of the Thracian coasts. It is obvious from Thucydides that Pausanias did not seize Byzantium until 470 or 469, and Professor Curtius again relates the capture by Cimon in its proper place on p. 131. The renewed strength of Argos (after her defeat in 496) is dwelt upon with more emphasis (p. 142); she is now for the first time the capital city of a large district. On p. 160-1 the substitution of the voμopuλaxes for the Areopagus as guardians of the laws, and the establishment of the unTpov as the new state record-office, are points on which new light is thrown; close upon which (p. 163) comes a new discussion of the question of the removal of the treasure from Delos to Athens, but the date is not more definitely given than 'some time between 460 and 454.' The position of Boeotian affairs before the battle of Tanagra (p. 169f.) has undergone considerable alteration. The statement that the Peloponnesians had busily strengthened the Theban, ie, the oligarchical party in the whole of the country,' is replaced by the view that it was no longer the old oligarchical party of the Persian wars which was in power, but a new party of democratic inclinations, hostile to Athens, and anxious to make Thebes head of Boeotia. Thus this new democratic party leaned towards Sparta for help, while the remains of the old oligarchic party looked towards Athens. The victory of Oenophyta is thus regarded (p. 170) as resulting not in the establishment of democratical constitutions with the help of Attic partisans,' but in the isolation of Thebes, and instead of the Boeotian towns uniting against Athens and Thebes, in their entering into an alliance with Athens against Thebes.' This view naturally results in alterations in the description of the movements which preceded Corones (p. 178). On p. 180 recent inscriptional discoveries affecting the position of Chalcis in Euboea are worked in. The changes in the judicial system under Pericles are entirely rewritten (pp. 217-220). It is now pointed out how the Helinea could be regarded as the

representative of the whole citizen body, and as such could swear to treaties. Here, and in his description how the diaσThpia gradually took the place of the weakened Areopagus, the author's views have no doubt been influenced by Fränkel. The question of the number of dikaσral is discussed, and as a result we are relieved from the picture of the 'fourth part of the entire civic body distributing themselves into their various courts.' The author now quite gives up (p. 223) the idea that it was Pericles, or even a contemporary backed by Pericles, who introduced payment for attendance at the KKλnola. He now pronounces that it was certainly an innovation, not truly democratical, of a later date, but the actual time of the change is confessedly unknown. He has also given up the idea (p. 227) that there was in Periclean or even pre-Euclidean times such an official as ἐπιμελητὴς or ταμίας of the public revenues, holding office for four years. The relation of the island states to Athens under Pericles is largely expanded (pp. 241-244), in view of new inscriptional evidence; particular reference is made to the grouping of the states for taxation purposes, though the author does not seem to mention how curiously Thucydides' notice of the Athenian allies in II. 9, confirms this view. Particulars of the amount of tribute paid by individual states, the storing and management of the same, the μνᾶ ἀπὸ ταλάντου given to Athena, are described on p. 247f. To this succeeds (p. 255f.) a vastly improved historical account of the origin and development of the Kλnpouxía, much of which is drawn from recently discovered inscriptions, and (p. 262) some new paragraphs about the μéтoiko. A much fuller account is now given (p. 310f.) of the origin and progress of the fine arts at Athens, of the influence of the islands of the Archipelago, of architectural Athens in general, and of the recognition and influence of Athenian art in the Peloponnesus. The estimate of the character of Pericles (pp. 418-423) is largely added to, his panhellenic policy is regarded as his weakest point. More information is given (pp. 482-3) on the relations of Cleon and Aristophanes; the raising of the tribute, probably on the motion of Cleon, and the imposition of the first elo popà are new points, and so is the mention (p. 498f.) of the pamphlet on the Athenian Constitution, written in 424, expressing confidence in the position of Athens and her allies, just before the expedition of Brasidas to Thrace showed how precarious that position really was. Passing on to events succeeding the peace of Nicias we find Athenian designs on Epidaurus and the events leading up to Mantinea much more clearly put than heretofore (pp. 596-600). Succeeding this is a useful addition (pp. 606-609) in a description of affairs in Tà el páns after 421. No change is made in the author's earlier views on the Hermocopidae (pp. 633-645). He still seems to regard the event as the result of a combination of men of all political parties, with the object of ruining Alcibiades. He still regards Pisander and Charicles, the leading members of the committee of Snrnral, as disguised enemies of the constitution, directly or indirectly responsible for the mutilation itself.' It seems strange that the author has not been able to adopt the views of Gilbert (Beiträge, pp. 250-260), who places the whole matter in a far more probable light. Scarcely any alteration is made in the account of the Decelean war. Professor Curtius still maintains (with Herbert and Gilbert) his view of the innocence of the generals at Arginusae, in opposition to Grote's refusal to believe anything evil of a democracy. A useful map of the tribute-paying allies and the Kλnpovxíaι of Athens, divided into their proper sectional groups, concludes the volume. A. H. COOKE.

Histoire de la Littérature Grecque. Par A. CROISET et M. CROISET. Tome I. Homère; La Poésie Cyclique; Hésiode. Par M. CROISET. Paris: Thorin, 1887. 8 frcs.

THIS is the first volume of what promises to be an excellent history of Greek literature. It contains ample evidence of acquaintance with modern work on the Homeric question, it shows a fresh and independent appreciation of the original Greek, and it is written with the grace and lucidity which we are accustomed to look for in French work. Add to this that the work is eminently sober and you will have a fair idea of the good points of the volume. The author is, as regards Homer, a Separatist. But, let me hasten to add, he is a very reasonable Separatist. He does not believe that the Iliad for instance is made up of a number of rhapsodies composed independently of each other by poets working in ignorance of each other's productions. He does not believe that the elements out of which the poem is composed were put together once for all on one definite occasion. On the other hand he does not believe that the original poet of genius left a sketch of the future poem for his successors to fill in. Nor do we hear from M. Croiset of diaskeuasts or revisers. If he cannot believe in the very simple theory that the Iliad is the work of one author, neither can he believe that it is a fortuitous concurrence of lays or the mechanical production of a commission. His creed is that of organic growth. The way in which he pictures this organic growth is somewhat as follows: we have first to imagine that the tale of Troy was fixed in its main outlines as a matter of tradition or legend before poets began to embroider on it. The Iliad itself presupposes that the tale of Troy is known to the listener, and we have a still more pertinent example afforded in Odyssey VIII. of the circumstances in which epic poems grew up. In this book of the Odyssey, Demodocus when bidden to sing chooses as his theme an incident in the Trojan war, a quarrel between Achilles and Ulysses. Subsequently, the disguised Ulysses suggests that Demodocus should take as his theme another incident in which Ulysses figured, that of the wooden horse, and thus we have an example of the way in which a bard was naturally and necessarily led to embroider on two subjects which, though not connected, still as being drawn from the same tale might come to be connected. In the next place, a careful examination of the Iliad shows that different parts are of different ages, that the oldest are the fewest, and that they bear the marks of a common origin. Further, the parts thus shown to have a common origin do not form a continuous poem (this is an instance of M. Croiset's sobriety-he could just as easily have obtained a residuum which did form a continuous poem), though they are connected by the order which they observe and by the fact that they are developments of one and the same situation (this situation I should say is the Quarrel of Book I.; the other primitive parts which develop it are the Exploits of Agamemnon, Book X., the Patroclia, Book XVI., and the death of Hector, Book XXII.). rhapsodies were evidently composed to be sung singly; at the same time the author when he composed the first, the Quarrel, had the rest vaguely in his mind; and with a very few lines introduced for the purpose these lays, though originally designed for separate recitation, could be strung together so as to make a tolerable whole. This rudimentary epic, however, does not constitute the whole of the inheritance bequeathed by the first great poet to his successors. He seems also to have composed certain

These