the most obvious subjects for his extortion, the chorus adds: 'You keep a look out too, as to who is rich and silly among the citizens' generally, as opposed to the special class just noted. But before they conclude the sentence Cleon interrupts them, and so they end with an unwilling aposiopesis, to which, however, every hearer could supply the remainder.

I do not think that this analysis leaves any difficulty unsolved. I may add that the Scholiasts, as well as Hesychius, have an inkling of this rendering of the whole passage, and after accommodating each word to the wrestling metaphor, add its meaning in relation to figs. But both they and all the modern commentators have bound themselves slavishly to the former interpretation. I submit that my rendering of the words ἀποστρέψας-ἐνεκολήBarev, as compared with their absurdities about people's shoulders when wrestling, is almost decisive. Suidas is quoted (though I cannot find the passage in Bernhardy's Edition) as translating the last word ἐπὶ κόλαις βαίνειν. Ι hardly think any one will accept this explanation as more than a random guess, suggested by a false view of this very passage.

EURIPIDES, Medea, 68.

πέσσους προσελθὼν ἔνθα δὴ παλαίτατοι

θάσσουσι.

This line has been universally understood by commentators to mean, 'going to the place for playing draughts, where the elders sit'-a very extraordinary version if we consider the manners of the Greeks. That old Greek gentlemen should sit and play draughts in public must have been thought highly unseemly. Pindar indeed allows the happy departed in the islands of the blest to indulge in them, and Plato somewhere in his Laws permits them as a recreation for old age; but there is nothing else more definite to support this translation, in itself strange enough. The real

meaning will appear from the following considerations:(1) It was the habit of elders, from Homeric times downward, to sit on a circle of smooth stones, the primitive judgment-seats of the ȧyópa. I need not quote passages in support of so well-known a fact. (2) A Fragment of Cratinus ('Apx. fr:. 4) says:

ἔνθα Διὸς μεγάλου θώκοι, πέσσοι τε καλοῦνται,

and this proves that a certain set of stone seats at Athens were called Téσool. But in this line I think we should construe Aids μɛyáλou with both substantives; for (3) under the expression Διός ψῆφος, Suidas explains that this was the name of a certain place at Athens, where Zeus was said to have decided a dispute between Poseidon and Athene by his vote. I conceive the large smooth stones in the 'sacred circle' to have suggested by their shape huge voting pebbles as well as huge draughtsmen, and so 'Jove's voting pebbles' was applied to these stones, just as in Ireland a gap in a mountain is called 'the devil's punchbowl,' or a huge round rock a 'giant's marble.' (4) It is certain that in later Greek Téoσoç sometimes meant a large stone, as well as a pebble for playing draughts. Strabo uses it for the square base of a pillar in large buildings. The line then in question clearly means: Going to the wooo, or smooth stone seats, where the elders are in the habit of sitting.'

Mr. Tyrrell observed that in a line corresponding to this in the Christus Patiens (which is a cento from plays of Euripides), the reading is Oúkovç instead of Téoσous—the rest of the line being exactly the same-which clearly shows the opinion of the author, or the tradition of his day, to have been in agreement with the translation I have suggested.

TACITUS, ANNAL. XI. 29.

The historian is speaking of the plans of Callistus, Narcissus, and Pallas, who, he says:—

'Agitavere, num Messalinam secretis minis depellerent amore Silii, cuncta alia dissimulantes. Dein metu, ne ad permitiem ultro traherentur, desistunt Pallas per ignaviam, Callistus prioris quoque regiae peritus; . . . . (marks of omission) perstitit Narcissus, ut solum id immutans, ne quo sermone praesciam criminis et accusatoris faceret.'

The italicised words are evidently not sound. Halm suggests set solum, Nipperdey (with his usual daring) consilium dissimulans. Orelli simply omits the ut; Heinsius and Haase, ut solum id imputans, which is Tacitean, but far-fetched. Gronovius had formerly suggested at solum, which is close to the MSS., but gives a bad sense, as the whole plan of Narcissus was changed. The MSS. quoted by Orelli read (M) ut solum, as above printed, and (G) et solum, in which the et is otiose.

It appears, then, that there is still place for an emendation which will carry conviction. Strangely enough, the most obvious one has never been suggested, viz.: 'perstitit Narcissus, UT SOLUS id immutans,' &c. This emendation only changes one letter of the best MS., a letter often expressed by abbreviation, and gives an adequate sense. The three powerful freedmen, when in combination, had proposed to threaten Messalina secretly with their enmity, should she not abandon Silius. Their conjoint power was such, that they were not afraid to let her know their sentiments. But when two of them would not venture into action, from the reasons assigned, and Narcissus was left alone, he persisted in his accusation, making this alteration, as he was now single-handed (ut solus), namely, that Messalina should be given no previous hint of what the charge against her would be, or who was her accuser. This precaution was necessary, as he was not strong enough

R

to resist her if she had discovered his plan. This use of ut is peculiarly Tacitean, and will not require citations to support it. If my view of the argument be correct, the expression secretis minis in the preceding sentence will mean not 'threats reaching Messalina,' of which she could not discover the authors, but merely 'private threats,' that is, not made known to the public. So secreta imperii, &c.

As to the substitution of s for m in my emendation, it should be added that in the uncial character they are so similar as to be easily confused, viz. S and M = ∞.

8.

NOTE ON A PASSAGE IN THE PROTAGORAS. By George LONGFIELD, D. D., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.

COMMENTATORS have found a difficulty in a passage in the Protagoras, where there seems to me to be none. The following is the passage to which I refer :-Οὐκοῦν ἐροίμεθ ̓ ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐγώ τε καὶ σὺ πάλιν, πονηρὰ δὲ αὐτὰ πῇ φατε εἶναι; πότερον ὅτι τὴν ἡδονὴν ταύτην ἐν τῷ παραχρῆμα παρέχει καὶ ἡδύ ἐστιν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, ἢ ὅτι εἰς τὸν ὕστερον χρόνον νόσους τε ποιεῖ καὶ πενίας καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλὰ παρασκεύαζει; ἢ κἂν εἴ τι τούτων εἰς τὸ ὕστερον μηδὲν παρασκευάζει, χαίρειν δὲ μόνον ποιεῖ, ὅμως δ ̓ ἄν κακὰ ἦν, ὅτι μαθόντα χαίρειν ποιεῖ καὶ ὁπηοῦν; Protagoras, ch. xxxvi. (354, C. D.). In establishing the thesis that virtue consists in knowledge, Socrates considers the case of those who are spoken of as overcome by pleasures," who might be thought to err, not through ignorance, but for want of power to resist evil temptation. But in the case of such he contends that ignorance is the real cause of error. They pursue pleasure, thinking it to be a good, and not seeing that it is evil on account of its disastrous consequences. In what respect, he asks, are sensual enjoyments evil? Is it because they produce pleasure at the moment, or because they occasion disease and poverty, and other evil results afterwards; or, he goes on to say, would it be maintained that if they led to no such evil results, but only made a man feel enjoyment, they would still be evil, merely because they made a man feel enjoyment even in any degree (ὅτι μαθόντα χαίρειν ποιεῖ καὶ ὁπηοῦν) ? It is the word μalóvra here which has perplexed commentators. Stallbaum thinks that walóvra must be the true reading, and, taking oηouν with πalóvra, thus explains the passage “quia faciunt, ut quis quomodocunque affectus gaudeat,"