but much more difficult to accommodate the verse when made to the structure of the entire passage.

The remainder of the verses are I think satisfactorily reconstructed by Valckenaer. Except that for παῦσαι δ ̓ ἀοιδῶν it seems to me that the participle substituted by Callicles, παῦσαι δ ̓ ἐλέγ xwv, leads us rather to the reading deídov. Nauck, from Aristoph. Av. 1382, and another passage, writes μeλwdwv, but I cannot see how the fact of Aristophanes having once used the phrase Tavσαι μeλwdŵv can have any bearing upon the present passage: all that can fairly be inferred from it is that Euripides might have so written in conformity with the laws of the Greek language, which no one even without this evidence would probably be disposed to deny.

It has not been observed that the injunction Tolaûr' acide comes in rather oddly after the very decided recommendation píov Aúpav, in one of the previous lines, however it may be qualified by the reference of τοιαῦτα to πολεμίων, feats of war, martial achievements,' exclusively. Perhaps the word is corrupt; and the mistake may have arisen from a confusion with deídwv in the line before.

See Valckenaer's Diatribe on the Fragments of Euripides, and Wagner's and Nauck's Collections of the Tragic Fragments.

NOTE B.

This school' is, I have little doubt, the Pythagorean. First, that the doctrine or fancy that the soul is buried in the body as in a grave, or place of ward or punishment, was held by the Orphic mystics, is distinctly shown by the passage of the Cratylus, 400 B. Compare Phæd. 62 в, where it is referred to as an άróppηros Móyos by Cebes, who had been intimate with Philolaus in Thebes his native city. p. 61 D. See also Brandis, Handb. 1. p. 87 and the reff. Now with the Orphics the Pythagoreans were closely connected in doctrine and discipline. Herod. II. 81. See Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 795 foll. Prof. Thompson's note on Butler's Lectures on the Hist. of Phil. 1. 343. On the Orphics, their traditions, poems, doctrines, and ceremonies, Müller, Hist. Gk. Lit.

C. XVI. And this very same opinion on the condition of the soul in this life was held likewise and expressed in the same words by the Pythagoreans. Brandis, Handbuch, I. 495, notes h and i; and Böckh, Philolaus, pp. 178-180 and foll. See especially the extracts from Clemens Alexandrinus, Theodoret and Athenæus cited by both writers. Brandis refers to the whole of this passage of the Gorgias as Pythagorean. And Böckh u. 8. pp. 186, 7 adds some other considerations, especially the fondness of the Pythagoreans for etymologizing, tracing verbal resemblances, or 'playing with words;' of which there are no less than four examples here in Plato—σῶμα and σῆμα, πιθανὸς and πίθος, ἀνόητος and ἀμύητος, and ἀειδής and "Αιδης (the last of which occurs likewise, Phæd. 50 D and 81 c); all which coupled with the direct authorities cited by him is to my mind almost conclusive in favour of ascribing these opinions to that sect together with the Orphics.

case.

Karsten however, Comm. in Empedoclem, pp. 301–303, and Stallbaum in his note on this passage, differ from Böckh and Brandis, and agree in attributing them to Heraclitus and Empedocles. Heraclitus' claims may be despatched in a very few words. He is neither a Sicilian nor an Italian, but an Ephesian: and though he said no doubt in his symbolical mysterious way that life is death (or what is equivalent to it), and that our souls are buried in our bodies, there is no verbal correspondence as there is in the other The authorities on which they both rely are Olympiodorus and the Scholiast, who agree in calling Empedocles a Pythagorean, and are therefore at least half in favour of the other supposition. Karsten's remaining arguments are almost too trifling to deserve notice. The first is derived from the words Σικελὸς ἢ Ιταλικός, which he says suit no one so well as Empedocles on account of his Sicilian birthplace. But at all events he was not born in both; and Philolaus and the Pythagoreans were all natives of Italy, and therefore seem to have at least as good a claim to be represented by Plato's alternative as the other. Next he says that the paronomasia are rhetorica argutia Empedocli non alienæ but Böckh gives a much better reason, Philolaus' actual practice, for ascribing them to the latter. The last two are that Empedocles was Gorgias' master; and that in a passage of the Sophist, 242 D, Heraclitus and Empedocles are coupled toge

ther in a similar phrase, Ιάδες δὲ καὶ Σικελικαὶ Μοῦσαι; both true, but apparently not very much to the purpose.

In illustration of the hidden meaning of the allegory I cannot do better than quote the words of Steinhart in his Introduction to Hieron. Müller's translation of this dialogue, p. 378. Denn das dichterische Gewand lässt die grossen Gedanken durchschimmern, dass die Herrschaft der Lust nicht das wahre Leben, sondern der Tod des Geistes sei, dass sie die Seele zur Aufnahme reinerer und höherer Ideen unfähig mache, und zu einem eitlen nichtigen unseligen Leben führe. The same writer goes on to ascribe a serious meaning, and an argumentative intention to both of these fables; a view which is likewise adopted by Susemihl, another recent writer on the Platonic Philosophy. On this Bonitz, Platonische Studien (in Sitzungs berichte der Kais. Akad. der Wissenschaften, Vol. XXVI. p. 255) justly observes, that the expressions used by Plato on the subject, 493 D, 494 A (and he might have added the introductory phrases, 493 E, où yàp lavμáζοιμ' ἄν κ.τ.λ.) are entirely opposed to the notion that he designed to lay any stress whatever upon them as a proof: vielmehr bezeichnen die angeführten Worte des Sokrates in aller Deutlichkeit, dass Platon in solchen Bildern nicht eine beweisende Kraft anerkennt, sondern nur den bildlich anschaulichen Ausdruck für eine Überzeugung, welche bereits auf anderem Wege sicher gestellt sein muss. The same may be said of the Myths; with the exception that in their case no other kind of confirmation is possible; in them poetical imaginations and popular convictions and traditions take the place of the unattainable truth. Schleiermacher in his note on the passage, p. 489, had already guarded his readers against the error of attributing a serious purpose to these allegories and an intention on the author's part of employing them in establishing his conclusions: he says that Plato is speaking half in derision of such pompous trifling, and means to imply that the argument can make no real progress until it returns to his own simple and natural method.

NOTE C.

The late Dr Donaldson, in his little book on Classical Scholarship and Classical Learning, Appendix, p. 253, writes thus: "Now it is well known to all really good Scholars that où távv does not mean, as it is so often rendered by those who are imperfectly trained, whether Germans or Englishmen, 'not altogether,' which admits that the thing may be so partially, but 'altogether not,' which contradicts the supposition that it can be so at all," quoting Soph. Cd. Col. 142 οὐ πάνυ μοίρας εὐδαιμονίσαι πρώτης as necessarily meaning "not at all of an enviable condition," though Hermann had rendered it non primæ profecto sortis hominem. ov Távu therefore is always omnino non, never non omnino.

To the same effect Buttmann, Index to Plato's four Dialogues, p. 223, says, où voces non solum negat, sed in contrarium vertit (cf. páva): sic imprimis où πávu non vertendum est 'non omnino' sed omnino non, prorsus non, [I presume he means invariably, as he adds no qualification or exception] ut apparet ex locis quales sunt Men. 77 D, Crit. 48 A: sic igitur intelligenda sunt etiam Men. 71 c, Alc. I. 128 B. This inference I altogether deny.

To these authorities I have nothing to oppose but reason and facts. First it is unreasonable and improbable to suppose that two words which express by the very order in which they are placed a qualified negative should invariably be applied to convey an unqualified negation. The emphatic negation is of course naturally and properly expressed by the words in the reversed order πάνυ οὐ, as in Thucydides, I. 8, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πρὸ Ἕλληνος τοῦ Δευκαλίωνος καὶ πάνυ οὐδὲ εἶναι ἡ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη ; though it is true that by some caprice of language usage has attached the same signification to them in the other collocation, and this sense has become perhaps the more common of the two; all that I argue for is that this is not the only, nor the original, sense of où távv in this their usual order. This stronger sense, when it occurs, may arise out of the other by giving an ironical tone to the words; 'not quite' may convey by the tone and manner of utterance iden

tically the same meaning as 'absolutely not,' and so may pass by usage into that signification when no irony at all is intended; and this is probably the actual origin of the unqualified meaning; at least I can see no other way of accounting for it. This view is further confirmed by the parallel case of oux KLOTα, which by the same μelwois, softening of the language, expressing a decided meaning in mild terms, (and this is a sort of irony), has acquired by usage the sense of μάλιστα.

As to the question of fact, the difficulty in deciding the point lies in this, that in the great majority of instances either sense is sufficiently applicable, and many of them may be quoted in support of either interpretation. Thus in the passage above quoted from the Edipus Coloneus it seems to me that it is by the ironical emphasis that the words are made to convey the unqualified negative, and that they do really mean there 'not altogether;' which I have always regarded as at once more poetical' and more forcible than

1 That this is no mere fancy of mine, but is actually warranted by the facts of the case, will appear from the following considerations. Bp Thirlwall, in his famous paper on the Irony of Sophocles, Phil. Mus. II. 483, thus defines verbal irony. "This most familiar species of irony may be described as a figure which enables the speaker to convey his meaning with greater force by means of a contrast between his thought and his expression, or, to speak more accurately, between the thought which he evidently designs to express, and that which his words properly signify."

But there is a melancholy as well as a sportive irony; and, "where irony is not merely jocular, it is not simply serious, but earnest." It is this kind of irony which here gives character to the expression; and I need hardly point out how much more appropriate such a subdued tone of melancholy is to the old, blind, desolate Edipus, in whose mouth the words are put, and how much more in conformity with the spirit which, as Dr Thirlwall shows in detail, pervades and characterises the dramas of Sophocles, that deep feeling of the contrast between the reality and the outward appearance which constitutes the very essence of Tragic pathos, than the sharp, flippant, querulous, "not at all of an enviable condition," which is the rendering of Dr Donaldson. In fact when we look at the interpretation of the passage of Sophocles from this point of view, it may I think be safely asserted that here at all events the ironical or qualified sense of the negative is the only one that good taste will tolerate.

It is singular that this of the Edipus Coloneus is the only instance of the use of this phrase that is to be found in the extant plays of Sophocles-this may be stated with confidence on the authority of Ellendt's elaborate Lexicon to this author. In Eschylus it never occurs at all: nor does it appear in the