ballads,' as H. Köchly ingeniously suggested, but parts belonging to an older division of the Iliad, which in this instance can be traced back to the time of Herodotus. The exact point of division may well have been at VI. 311, where the change of subject is very clearly marked.

Mr Paley also quotes the passage (Hdt. v. 67) in which it is said that Kleisthenes stopped the rhapsodists at Sicyon, because in Homer's verses Argives and Argos were chiefly celebrated. Mr Grote, who like him thought that these words were inapplicable to the Iliad or Odyssey, proposed to refer them to the Homeric Thebais. They would not suit the Olyssey: but "Apyos for the Peloponnesus, or even for Greece generally, and 'Apyeîot for the Greek army are constant in the Iliad. Kleisthenes did not consider that such terms may change their meaning in the course of centuries: the hateful name was enough. The words of Herodotus should be noticed: rà πoλrà Távта iμvéaтaι, 'in most places nothing but Argos and Argives are sung.' Thucydides (1. 3) notices that the Greeks are called 'Apyeîot by Homer.

In Thucydides Mr Paley considers that the references, with one important exception, are in agreement with our text of the Iliad. That exception is I. 11, ἐπειδή τε ἀφικόμενοι μάχῃ ἐκράτησαν—δῆλον δέ· τὸ γὰρ ἔρυμα τῷ στρατοπέδῳ οὐκ ἂν ÉTEIXίOAVTO K.T.X., where 'the historian states distinctly that on the first arrival of the Greeks they must have been victorious, or they never would have been able to make a fortified naval camp.' There is here a double difficulty: first that the (not a) fortification is nowhere else, either in our Homer or in the abstract of the Cypria in Proclus, assigned to the first arrival of the Greeks; and secondly, that such a fortification is not a proof of superiority in the field but the reverse. I venture to think that Thucydides says neither of the two things which his commentators have found so perplexing. By rò epuμa we must understand (as Krüger points out) the fortification' of the story: and the meaning must be that the fact of their fortifying the camp when they did, in the last year of the war, and after at least a partial defeat (see the taunts addressed to the Greeks by Hêrê, Il. v. 788—791), proves that at first and until

that time they had been victorious. The new measure of defence showed that new circumstances had arisen. The obscurity of the sentence is caused chiefly by the way in which the story of the Iliad is taken for granted rather than quoted. The ellipse may perhaps be best filled up by translating, 'they must have conquered in the field at first (and until the events of books V-VII), otherwise they would not have fortified their camp (immediately after these events).' It may be asked whether Thucydides would not have made this clear by saying that 'otherwise (in case of defeat) they would have built the fortification at first.' But this would have been less logically accurate. They might have returned at once: or they might not have found a fortification necessary. In every case the proposition holds as Thucydides puts it, viz. that 'if they had not been victorious at first, they would not have built the fortification (of book VII.).'

The result of these remarks may be summed up as follows. Herodotus knew the 'Iliad' and the 'Aristeia of Diomede' as respectively the whole and a part of a poem whose author was Homer: four lines which he quotes from this Aristeia are found in the corresponding part of our Iliad: and those four lines, quoted by him to prove that Homer was acquainted with a certain story, are in fact the only passage which he could have found in our Iliad to give any colour to his opinion.

If we may suppose that Herodotus and Thucydides read the same Iliad, it was one which agreed with ours in frequently bringing in the names "Apyos and 'Apyeîot, the latter as a national name for the Greeks, and in never using the word Έλληνες in that sense. Here, as in the other case, we find a combination of positive and negative agreement with the Iliad as we have it.

Finally, Thucydides not only is acquainted with the account of the rampart as it is found in our Iliad, but supposes perfect familiarity with it on the part of his readers.

It may be instructive to compare the result of applying similar tests to the Cypria,-one of the Cyclic poems which Mr Paley considers as more ancient than the Iliad and Odyssey. That poem, according to Herodotus (II. 117), cannot be

Homer's, because it relates that Paris reached Troy 'in three days from Sparta with a fair wind and smooth sea.' But in the abstract of the Cypria given by the grammarian Proclus, the story agrees exactly with the Iliad. A storm is sent by Hêrê: Paris is driven by it to Sidon, and takes that city. Thus in the case of a poem of which we have only the argument and a few fragments, there is evidence of at least one extensive interpolation between the time of Herodotus and that of the grammarians: while in the Iliad, with much greater chance of detecting such alterations, none has yet been satisfactorily proved. The change in the Cypria was evidently made to bring it into harmony with Homer.

D. B. MONRO.

ON LUCRETIUS, BOOK VI.

48. FOR Ventorum exirtant placentur omnia rursum I would read Ventorum existant (so Bernays) placentur momina rursum, which is sufficiently justified by 474, Posse quoque e salso consurgere momine ponti.

53. Munro makes quae supplied from the quae of 50 the subject of faciunt. May it not be homines, and when they humble their spirits through fear of the Gods'? Similarly in 15, homines, rather than corda, is the subject of uexare, as is perhaps indicated by cogei. Cf. 645, Cernentes pauida complebant pectora cura.

68. Quae nisi respuis ex animo longeque remittis

Dis indigna putare alienaque pacis eorum.

'Unless you drive from your mind with loathing all these things and banish far from you all belief in things degrading to the Gods and inconsistent with their peace', Munro, who follows Lachm. in making putare mean 'to hold a belief', as in the passage quoted from Cicero, de Sen. 4, Quis coegit eos falsum putare. It seems to me that this is not the first impression the words convey; dis indigna putare with quae preceding must surely be 'think them unworthy of the Gods'; to separate the two clauses looks like an after-thought, occasioned by the difficulty of longeque remittis. I think that the negative idea in these two words led Lucretius into a construction more Greek than Latin. As in 399 parcit in hostis is, not 'refrains against his enemies', but 'spares it to attack his enemies', i. e. ita parcit ut in hostes uertat, so l. remittis putare dis indigna is in effect atque ita remittis ut putes dis indigna, and might be translated, as in similar repeated

negatives in Greek, ‘and remove far from you the thought that they are worthy of the Gods and compatible with their peace'. 116. Fit quoque enim interdum non tam concurrere nubes Frontibus aduersis possint quam de latere ire. Lachm. and Munro after Pius insert ut before non. In 145 Fit quoque is followed by an indic., trucidat thus standing simply, though separated, it is true, by two clauses and two lines from Fit; in 426-430 Fit...ut descendat is followed by et quaecumque in eo tum sint deprensa tumultu Nauigia in summum ueniunt uexata periclum, where sint has induced Lachm. to change ueniunt into ueniant, while others read sunt, retaining ueniunt. Is it not possible that Fit ut is sometimes represented by fit alone? If not, to read possunt in 117 seems less harsh metrically than to insert ut in 116.

129. Tum perterricrepo sonitu dat missa fragorem. Missa is changed by Bernays to scissa, by Lachm. to fissa; yet missa was not only read by Isidorus, XIII. 8, but makes very good sense whether it is the procella or the uenti uis as in 300, uenti uis missa sine igni. The launching of the storm no doubt implies the rending of the cloud, and hence the transition in the next line to a bladder bursting. For saepe ita dat paruum sonitum I propose Suppetat haut paruum ad sonitum.

154. magis I would rather take with crematur 'burns more decidedly', or, to speak more exactly, with the whole sentence than with terribili sonitu.

258. et fertur, which it is the custom at present to write as ecfertur, is supported by so very large a number of similar instances, as to make it probable that before ƒ as before g, a t, not a c, was the dominant spelling and pronunciation. So in Catullus, VI. 13, etfututa, XXVIII. 6, etquidnam, and in x. 8, etquonam may be the right reading, rather than et quonam.

286. uideantur which is retained by Lachm. need not be changed to uideatur as Munro, who quotes abeant, the MS. reading in 1. 1108, for abeat, the subject to which he makes terra: where I should take omnis, 'all men', as the subject and retain abeant. Here the subject to uideantur seems to be lumina, not templa as Lachm. who altered opprimere to exprimere.

296. Incidit in ualidam maturo culmine nubem, 'Falls on a