ὡς ἂν σκοποί νυν ᾖτε τῶν εἰρημένων, shows that they at least would not recognize the construction: and Donaldson, in his defence of the old reading, seems at a loss for a parallel to support it, unless he considers the case of os av to be entirely distinct from that of us. Another instance in point is Esch. Prom. 68. öпws μǹ σavτòv olktleîs totè, if we overlook, as we may well do, the slight difference between the ind. fut. and the conj., and do not refuse to identify ons pro tanto with &s, because the former happens to be more commonly used in these cases. There is no real distinction either between the uses of the different persons in expressions of this kind, except that where, as here, the first person is found, the imperative does not enjoy its full force, but becomes what I have called quasi-imperative. os μn σoμai is quoted by Jelf, § 812. 2, from Plato Menon. p. 77. A.

a

380. τέχνη τέχνης ὑπερφέρουσα is taken by Matthiæ and Wunder of king-craft in general, on a comparison of Philoct. 138. Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 11: by Hermann, of Edipus' own cunning in solving the enigma. Why may it not refer to both? Edipus alludes to his own skill, as that which marked him out for the throne, and made him when there an embodiment of the kingly ideal. Whatever we think of Hermann's remark" nullo tempore non fuerunt multi reges stultissimi," there is nothing strange in making the conception of royalty equivalent to that of supreme ability and conversely we may expect to see the general conception, as predicated of an individual, realized in particular acts. Toλvýλ must either be much envied or much envying, the choice which Wunder gives-not as Hermann renders, "diversissimis studiis plena."

Ed. Col. 251. xpéos is explained by Wunder after Hermann "necessitudo, res necessaria, quâ quis ægre careat, ideoque eâ delectetur." It appears rather to mean a care or concern of any kind-occurring just above, v. 235, in a bad sense, a trouble, while here it may perhaps best be translated a tie.

536. μυρίων γ' ἐπιστροφαὶ κακῶν. Musgrave, vortices, Döderlein, impetus, both on the supposition that Kakŵv is the genitive of the subject. I would rather take it as the genitive of the object, and understand троpaí like doμáτwv čσтроpàs, Æsch. Sept. 648; "conversance with evil.” eñales immediately following a little confirms this.

1068. Hermann rejects Reisig's rendering of karÀ аμжνктýρia, cum phaleris, as impossible, himself explaining the words to mean quantum frena valent, like κατὰ κράτος. The two interpretations really belong to the same sense of κarà, which, with its accusative, is very nearly equivalent to an adverb. κατὰ κράτος 13 is according to strength strongly, or with strength. Kaтà ȧμжvкtýρia is according to bridles bridle-fashion, κατὰ ἀμπυκτήρια or with bridles. The singularity is in the conception, not in the expression.

=

=

1212. The construction of #apels with a genitive is probably of the same kind as that of avexew, noticed on Ed. T. 174, other words expressing esteem or neglect being ordinarily so constructed. Possibly the poet may have chosen it instead of the more ordinary structure with an accusative on account of the genitive in the previous line, as he is fond of balances and apparent antitheses of language. Neither Tápos nor Tépa, however, would not be a very violent conjecture.

1231. τίς πλάγχθη πολύμοχθος ἔξω; τίς οὐ καμάτων ἔνι ; Those who like Dindorf and Wunder understand the first of these two clauses as put for τίς πλάγχθη ἔξω πολλῶν μόχθων or τοῦ πολύμοχθος εἶναι, a sense which in itself it might very well bear (cf. πάμψυχος ἀνάσσει, Elect. 841, according to the common interpretation), are bound to understand the next clause in a similar manner, referring κaμáтwv to ěv, as in Phil. 648, Tí TOûe' ὁ μὴ νεώς γε τῆς ἐμῆς ἔνι ; The enumeration that follows, however, shows that rís où кaμáтwv ěv must mean "what woe does not fall within the compass (of life)?" and thus we are driven to seek another interpretation of τίς πλάγχθη πολύμοχθος ἔξω; This we might get by

D

adopting Hermann's reading Toλù μóxos, " quis longè discedit labor?" but though the change is very slight, it seems hardly probable, as the weakness of To must strike any one. A better suggestion, I think, would be to take moλúμox@os substantively = πολὺς μόχθος, like προβουλόπαις Æsch. Αg. 356, αινόπατερ Cho. 315. The licence which Sophocles allows himself in the language of his choruses is very great, especially in the case of compound words-e. g. Tayxploro, Trach. 661, Tаvσúρт, Elect. 851, both of which, though adjectival forms without the article, seem to have the force of substantives.

In v. 1084 I believe the old reading ewpńoaσa is right. If we take fewpeîv as an ordinary transitive verb we may compare Esch. Prom. 902, μndè кpeloσóvwv. θεῶν ἔρως ἄφυκτον ὄμμα προσδράκοι με, Cho. 451, δι ̓ ὤτων δὲ συντέτραινε μῦθον ἡσύχῳ φρενῶν βάσει, in both of which passages the verb seems to be used with an accusative, neither of the object, nor of the cognate, but rather of the instrument. If we understand it intransitively, to be a fewpòs, the technical sense which it bears in various passages of Thucydides referred to by Hermann, our best parallel will be Ajax 40, kai πρὸς τί δυσλόγιστον ὧδ ̓ ᾖξεν χέρα ; Hermann's own account is not very satisfactory: he calls the present a transitive use of ewpeîv, apparently supposing that it can mean to make to see a notion which he naturally finds it difficult to justify either on principle or by usage. Richmond (Class. Mus. xxiii.) is quite right in saying that fewphoaoa" is clearly in keeping with θεωρήσασα the whole passage" (as is shown by ayóvov in the preceding line)," and has a poetic appearance of genuineness." Indeed, wpnoara, Wunder and Dindorf's correction, adopted by Linwood, would form a very poor and weak conclusion to the strophe, independently of the preliminary objections to it as an extremely rare word, and one without the slightest authority from the MSS.

J. C.

NOTES ON SOME PASSAGES IN THE FIRST

AND SECOND BOOKS OF LIVY.

THE Romans, like other men in early times, invented fathers for races, founders for cities, authors for institutions and customs, and stories for monuments and remarkable localities; like other men in simple times, they believed false miracles, and turned emblems and figures into fables; like other men, at all times, they overrated the virtue, glory, and wisdom of the past; and above all other men. they burned with a fanatical patriotism, which moved them to blot out, if possible, from history, the dissensions, disgraces, and defeats, of Rome.

We cannot regret the time when men believed Livy. Fable, when known to be fable, is beautiful; symbol, when known to be symbol, is instructive. The one is the primitive poetry, the other the primitive history and philosophy of nations. But nothing can be more despicable or more insipid than fables and symbolical legends converted into real events, and narrated in the style and with the circumstance of history.

1. Were this the original form of the legend, there would be an irresistible presumption that its authors had read and misunderstood the Iliad. Antenor is chosen because he receives Menelaus and Ulysses when they are sent ambassadors to Troy, and votes for restoring Helen. Æneas is chosen because it is foretold that his children's children shall reign (but in their own land) after the fall of the house of Priam. Niebuhr, in tracing the source of the Trojan legend, seems to ignore the suggestiveness of the Latin Troja and the Venetian Troja and Pagus Trojanus. The

occurrence of those names seems enough in itself to suggest the legend to a Greek who had heard of them, or to a Roman who had heard of the Trojan war. Argyrippa brought Diomed to Italy, and Circeii brought Ulysses.

Niebuhr, pronouncing that the legend was homesprung, traces it in Greek writers as far back as Apollodorus of Gela, the cotemporary of Menander. There must then have been a remarkable coincidence between the mythologists of Rome and Greece.

"It is improbable," says Niebuhr, "that a belief of this kind should be of foreign origin, when it is recognized by the state; by a state, too, so proud and so contemptuous towards everything foreign as Rome." But they accepted the foreign origin; why not the foreign legend? And the lettered aristocracy of Rome can hardly be said to have despised what came from Greece.

The legend might well become popular; it made the Romans a peculiar people, distinct in their origin from the conquered races of Italy. It proved them not to be barbarian upstarts or outlaws, but a civilized nation, with Gods and laws as old as Troy. And once popular, it might soon be recognized and adopted by the state. The "state" of Rome was not a great nation, but the aristocracy of a great city. When once the founder of the Julian house had been identified with the son of Æneas the tale would become an article of faith with the adoring world.

What, then, was the native story of the origin of Rome, if this was foreign? Perhaps the Alban colony, which blends in these legends with the Trojan. Perhaps it was simply that the Tiber laid the founders at the foot of the Palatine Hill.

It seems unsafe, with all deference to Niebuhr, to assume that the Pelasgian blood in Latin and Roman veins was distinctly conscious of its fountain; still more unsafe to assume that it would express that consciousness in the tale of Æneas and his son. That