construction of the sentence of which it is supposed to form a part? Is no weight, moreover, to be attached to the principle, that a speech in answer to another generally conforms, at least roughly, to the first speech in its number of lines? Now the speech of Pentheus consists of 47 verses, the answer of Teiresias of 48, as arranged by Dindorf, of 42 as arranged by me, and of 62, if the whole of the suspected passage be pronounced sound. v. 396. τό τε μὴ θνατὰ φρονεῖν· βραχὺς αἰών. Bpaxus alúv is no doubt the predicate, the previous sentence must be taken in close connection. This has been pointed out in an able review by Mr. Sandys, of St. John's College, who compares Iph. Taur. 1122, τὸ δὲ μετ ̓ εὐτυχίαν κακοῦ -σθαι θνατοῖς βαρὺς αἰών. v. 430. τὸ πλῆθος ὅ τι περ φαυλότερον ἐνόμισε χρῆταί τε τόδε τοι λέγοιμ' ἄν. For Teρ I would read rò, Brunck's correction of the Te of C a man. sec. It suits the context better that the Chorus should say, "let me profess those opinions which the common-place public hold, and on which they act," than that they should say, "let me profess the commonplace opinions held and acted on by the crowd.” V. 451. μαίνεσθε· χειρῶν τοῦδ' ἐν ἄρκυσιν γὰρ ἂν This Chas a Scholium ἐμοῦ superscribed over τοῦδ'. Schol. has been curiously neglected by all the editors of *For instance, at v. 1202, the answer of Cadmus exceeds the speech of Agave by three verses, X the Bacchae. Yet I believe it is all important for the right understanding of the passage. "Ye are mad," says Pentheus, "once caught in the toils of my hands, he (Dionysus) is not so quick as to escape me." In my edition I have defended this interpretation sufficiently, as I think; however, it was not without satisfaction that I learned from my friend Mr. Mahaffy, who personally inspected C last spring, that C has the stop a prima manu after the word μαίνεσθε. Mr. Mahaffy's examination further goes to prove, that the negligence of De Furia's collation has been hitherto underrated. When I say that C has the stop a prima manu, I mean that there is not merely a stop which might have been inserted later, but the regular space for a stop between the words μaiνεσθε and χειρῶν, and in that space the mark of punctuation. v. 506. On this verse I accept Reiske's ő Spâs for opâs. The line then runs: οὐκ οἶσθ' ὅτι ζῇς οὐδ ̓ ὃ δρᾷς οὐδ ̓ ὅστις εἶ. The argument on which I relied in my view of the verse was the fact that a line in the Christus Patiens begins ἆρ ̓ εἰσέτι ζῇς, and that, unless εἰσέτι occurs here, it is not found in the dramas of Euripides from which PseudoGregory composed his cento, and it is a word too rare to occur except supported by some passage. It is on this same principle that I read apdnv in v. 1352. v. 737. καὶ τὴν μὲν ἂν προσεῖδες εὔθηλον πόριν μυκωμένην ἔχουσαν ἐν χεροῖν δίκῃ. P. G. have dixa. Elmsley's conjecture díky is objected to chiefly because the plural, not the dual, xeipŵv not xeɩpoîv, would be expected. But this objection rests, as it seems to me, on an erroneous interpretation of Thν μèv, as one of the Maenads." If this were the meaning of Tv μèv, it would of course be absurd to use the dual, as the picture would then be ex vi termini vague. But when Tv μèv is rightly understood as referring to Agave, her, the chief agent in the scene, the picture becomes definite and the dual appropriate. v. 743. ταῦροι δ' ὑβρισταὶ κἀς κέρας θυμούμενοι. Does Euripides mean in this line to describe the action. of the bull when he puts his head down and appears to look along his horns, or does he mean that the bulls "vented their rage on their horns?" The former seems much more probable, when we compare with this passage Hel. 1558, κας κέρας παραβλέπων, as well as the oμμа тavρоνμévny of the Medea, and the ὀξὺ κέρας δόχμωσεν of Nonnus. If Euripides ever observed at all this peculiar pose of the head of an angry bull (and that he did Hel. 1558 is a proof), the, only difficulty in the way of supposing him to refer to it here is removed. If this view be correct, not only is this passage misunderstood by Virgil, Georg. III, 232, when he renders it irasci in cornua discit Arboris obnixus trunco, but by the unknown poet (perhaps Callimachus) quoted by Cicero ad Att. VIII. 5, 1, when he said, with this passage, no doubt, in his mind, πολλὰ μάτην κεράεσσιν ἐς ἠέρα θυμήναντα. v. 864. εἰς αἰθέρα δροσερὸν I give up δορὰν, the phrase ῥίπτειν δέραν being defended by Pindar's piyaúxevɩ oùv kλóvæ, as Mr. Sandys has pointed out. I still believe, however, that þíπτeiv Sépav can be used with reference to women only by a metaphor, and when their gestures are compared to those of animals. v. 986. τίς ὅδε Καδμείων μάστηρ ὀριδρόμων. The last word was proposed by Kirchhoff and by me independently for the ὀριοδρόμων of P., and the ουριοδρόμwv of Ald. But Kirchhoff has not mentioned, and so, I suppose, had not observed (as neither had I myself) that that word, abundantly defensible from analogy, does not, however, rest on mere analogy, but has an actual existence in Nonnus Dion. v. 22. This, I take it, establishes beyond question the correctness of opiopóμwv, and this must be added to the other passages (e.g. vv. 457, 665, 1060) on which the paraphrase of Nonnus is decisive of the sense or reading. v. 1383. ἔλθοιμι δ' ὅπου μήτε Κιθαιρὼν ἔμ' ὁρᾷ μιαρὸς μήθ' ὅθι θύρσου μνῆμ' ἀνάκειται. In this passage eμ' opâ is, of course, the indicative mood not the subjunctive, as some suppose. This would be shewn by the meaning, even if ȧváкeiraι did not follow; "let me go where there will be no Cithaeron looking down on me as there is here." ROBERT YEL VERTON TYRRELL. ON THE KANTIAN THEORY OF EXTERNAL PERCEPTION, AND OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES. SIR IR William Hamilton, in his famous discussion of Theories of External Perception, classes the Kantian. doctrine on this subject with the finer form of representation. The justice of this classification does not appear to have been called in question by subsequent writers. Mill, while vindicating for Brown, on much weaker grounds than exist in the case of Kant, a theory of immediate or presentative perception, seems content to abandon the latter philosopher to the Hamiltonian strictures. Mr. Mahaffy too, to judge from a passage in his volume on the "Deduction and Schematism of the Categories," would appear to take the same view. "We still hold," he says, p. 178, "in opposition to Sir William Hamilton and other Scotchmen, that external objects (in the common sense) are not presented to the mind, but represented by intuitions or modifications of our sensibility." I propose in the present paper to show some reasons why I think this classification incorrect, and calculated to give a false impression both of Kant's philosophy in general and of his views on the question of External Perception in particular. In fact, his theory on this subject in many respects resembles Hamilton's own doctrine of Natural Realism, while its undoubted contrast to that scheme in others depends on metaphysical not psychological grounds. In considering this question it may be well to examine in the first place in what sense the Kantian philosophy |