that there is a 'Philonic or neo-Platonic tendency' in it, and, whatever the truth may be about the authorship of the Epistles, that at least is impossible. The Epistles were included in the canon of Thrasyllus, and are therefore earlier than Philo, to say nothing of the Neoplatonists. Cicero quotes four epistles in our collection, and he expects Atticus to recognise an allusion to one of them without any mention of the author or work to which it refers.1 Indeed, it is altogether improbable that the Epistles mentioned in the canon of Aristophanes of Byzantium were anything else than our collection. If 'Epistles of Plato' existed in his time, they would hardly have disappeared without leaving a trace. If, then, anyone wishes to disprove the authenticity of the Epistles, he must show how they could have been forged before the first century B.C., and he must not make use of any hypothesis involving the Neoplatonists or even Philo. It might be simpler to assume that there is rather more 'Neoplatonism' in Plato than has been supposed. The usual flood of German dissertations has been abated for some time, but one which reached this country shortly before the war deserves special mention. It deals with Theaetetus, and is the work of Miss Eva Sachs, a pupil of Diels and Wilamowitz. Most of the authoress's conclusions will not be exactly new to those who have had occasion to study the subject, but she adds considerably to the force of some arguments which have been used already, and puts a good many points in a clearer light. Further, as many people are still ignorant of the fact that Theaetetus was one of the greatest mathematicians in history, it is a good thing to have all that is known of Plato's favourite disciple put together in a handy form. It may be mentioned that 1 Cicero ad Att. ix. 10: Ita dies et noctes tamquam avis illa mare prospecto, evolare cupio. Cf. Plato, Epp. vii. 348a, 1, ßλéñwv čžw kaláπep ὄρνις ποθῶν ποθεν ἀναπτέσθαι. 2 De Theaeteto Atheniensi Mathematico, scripsit Eva Sachs (Diss., Berlin, 1914). Miss Sachs argues convincingly that Theaetetus died after the battle at Corinth in 369 B.C., and that Plato wrote the Theaetetus not long afterwards. This view is pretty generally accepted now, but the impossibility of the earlier date (394 B.C.), adopted by Zeller and others, has never been so thoroughly established. In her Introduction Miss Sachs tells us that she has also written a work on the five Platonic bodies,' i.e. the regular solids.1 This is not accessible for the present, but the writer is well qualified to write upon this all-important subject. She also tells us that she means to devote her life to the study of Plato. That is good hearing; for she is exceptionally well equipped for the work. No work of first-rate importance dealing with Aristotelian philosophy has appeared. Mr J. L. Stocks has written a useful paper on some of the difficulties which still beset Aristotle's theory of sensation,2 and the late Mr R. C. Seaton has defended Sir William Hamilton's view of the Aristotelian évoúμnua against Cope, pointing out that the term ἀτελής συλλογισμός has nothing to do with the omission of a premise, but is simply opposed to Texelos σvoyoμós in its technical sense. The general impression left by recent Aristotelian work is that, while points of detail may be usefully discussed, larger questions of interpretation have to be postponed till some agreement has been reached about the Platonic question, which again will hardly be possible till the Socratic question has been cleared up. There is plenty of work to be done in this field, and the workers are none too numerous. It is to be hoped that the time is at hand when students of Greek philosophy will be able to shake off the excessive deference they are apt to pay to German authority in this department. No 1 Die fünf Platonischen Körper, Zur Geschichte der pythagoreischen und platonischen Mathematik und Elementenlehre (Berlin, 1914). 2 AOгO2 and MEZOTHΣ in the De Anima of Aristotle,' Journ. Phil. xxiii. (1914), pp. 182 sqq. 3 Class. Rev. xxviii. (1914), pp. 113 sqq. N one will deny that the Germans have done much admirable work, and in particular we all owe a great debt to Hermann Diels; but most of the really illuminating contributions to the subject have been French, Italian, and English. If the events of the past year should inspire us with a little more independence of thought in these matters, that will not be amiss. JOHN BURNET. XI GREEK LITERATURE On the Greek Epic no work of first-rate importance has appeared. M. Valeton has published in book form his articles De Iliadis fontibus et compositione.1 Though there are a number of acute observations, M. Valeton follows in general a bad old method of dissection. He operates with the supposed author of a Patrocleia, who used in his work the substance of an earlier Achilleis, sometimes modifying, adding, or subtracting, sometimes leaving his material unchanged. The assumption seems to be that logical inconsistency implies dual authorship. Of two similar episodes the less effective is regarded as due to a later imitation. The method is arbitrary, and can hardly lead to truth. Similarly, the insistence upon logical consistency, as opposed to artistic effect, seems to me to vitiate the argument by which Mr B. O. Foster 2 seeks to support Van Leuwen's theory that the poet conceived of the events of the Iliad as happening, not in the tenth year of the war, but soon after the arrival of the Achaeans, who expected a speedy issue to a summer's campaign. It is pleasant to turn to several articles in which Mr Shewan paves the way for a more sensible criticism. In an amusing paper on 'The Oneness of the Homeric Language,'s he exposes the weakness of the linguistic critics, and shows that their inconsistent results are due to the logical defect of their method. Books I, K, Y, 2, for example, are, as the 1 Leyden: Brill., 1915; gulden 3.50. 2 Am. Journ. Phil. 1914, pp. 294 ff. 3 Class. Phil. 1915, pp. 151 E. critics say, 'Odyssean'; but they are also, as Mr Shewan insists, 'Iliadic.' Mr Shewan does not formulate a theory, but clears the ground by exposing fallacies, and by insisting on the importance of common sense. In another paper1 the same writer discusses the present position of the LeucasIthaca controversy, analysing especially the evidence provided by the voyage of Telemachus from Pylos. After a scrupulously fair discussion he decides that the balance of probability is against Dr Dörpfeld's theory. I desire also to call attention to Mr Shewan's sensible criticism of Mr Thomson's 'Studies in the Odyssey,'' and, in particular, to his admirable treatment of the absurdity which makes Penelope a waterfowl.8 In the same spirit of cautious moderation Professor J. A. Scott discusses the alleged Athenian interpolation of Homer.* For the internal evidence he refers to an earlier article of his own: as to the alleged historical proofs, he accepts Mr T. W. Allen's results. In the present paper he adds to the weight of the negative argument a consideration of the external probabilities. In the sixth century, he reminds us, Athens stood outside the main current of literary production; even in the fifth century she is not traditionally regarded as a centre of Homeric opinion; finally, the Alexandrian scholars, though they recognise her paramount authority in other departments of literature, ignore her alleged influence on Homer. Elsewhere, in a paper on 'Two Homeric Personages, 25 Professor Scott makes havoc of Bethe's notion that Hector was originally a Theban; and contributes a useful analysis of the part played by Pandarus in the Iliad, showing that the three incidents in which he appears depend for their significance on their mutual connection, yet are so subtly connected that it becomes absurd to speak of the 1 J.H.S. xxxiv. 1914, pp. 227 ff. 2 Class. Rev. 1915, pp. 207 ff., and Classical Weekly, Jan. 1915; see also Prof. Scott in Class. Phil. 1915, pp. 101 ff. 3 Class. Rev. 1915, pp. 37 ff. 4 Class. Phil. 1914, pp. 395 ff. |