found to lie in that we are thus enabled to forgive or pity the hero! In the same connection, Twining's interpretation of þiλáv0pwπov (1452. b. 38) is dismissed, a consideration which perhaps decided the retention of σTоXážovтaι (1456. a. 21) and certainly accounts for the venturesome note on p. 254. But Aristotle says καὶ ὁ ἀνδρεῖος μὲν ἄδικος δὲ, not καὶ ὁ ἄδικος μὲν ἀνδρεῖος δὲ. And, finally, there is no note on τῶν ἐν μεγάλῃ δόξῃ ὄντων Kai eʊTvxíą . . . . (1453 a. 10-11; though he stops to note the apparent εὐτυχίᾳ contradiction in Beλríovos 1453 a. 16). But is there no significance in the doctrine that tragedy must be the "fall of something great"?

But when Professor Bywater deals with the text, and in the main body of the commentary, one can feel nothing but admiration for his refined, if hard-headed, sobriety. No one has so well pointed out or so carefully collected the lapses and contradictions in the Poetics, or so clearly shown the apparent waning of Aristotle's interest in his subject as the book goes on.

Professor Bywater frankly undertakes at the start to prove that the Arabic version is of little or no value as against the final authority of Ac. The notes on 1447. α. 17 τῷ γένει ἑτέροις and 1448. α. 10-11, τῷ περί τοὺς Aoyous are good examples of the well-known judgment which appears on nearly every page. One observes casually that Vahlen's insertion of e before Tuxev in 1460. b. 36, is silently passed by, and, strangely, the commentary contains no note on the singular passage ἐξ οὗ μεταβαίνειν είς εὐτυχίαν . . . . (1455. b. 28).

We heartily accept his position that a translation of Aristotle should lean toward paraphrase. If somewhat bold, his version is very surefooted where others stumble, as e.g. 1455. a. 30–31, miðavúratoɩ yàp ảñò Tŷs avrŷs púσews, where Butcher goes wrong. But one must object to "as having magnitude" in the definition of a tragedy, where the note also is defective, for the principle involved might have been illustrated at great length from Aristotle. Finally appovía may be equivalent to péλos in 1449. b. 29, though this is doubtful, and to róvos in 1449. a. 27, but it is never our English "harmony."

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

TORONTO

W. S. MILNER

Four Plays of Menander: The Hero, Epitrepontes, Periceiromene, and Samia. Edited with Introductions, Explanatory Notes, Critical Appendix, and Bibliography, by EDWARD CAPPS. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1910. x+329 pp. Mr. Capps's edition of the four plays in the Cairo papyrus has a distinct individuality: the editor's liberal employment of his own supplements in the filling of lacunae, his independence in the distribution of

the dialogue and in the interpretation of the plots, the considerable increase in illustrative material in the commentary, sharply differentiate this edition from its French and German predecessors. In richness of information and suggestion it is easily superior to anything that has appeared hitherto.

The introductions are clear expositions of the action with ingenious solutions of the difficulties, suggestive sketches of the character treatment, and careful accounts of the interrelation of the fragments. Space does not permit a discussion of Mr. Capps's efforts to disentangle the plots; his ingenuity is ever of the better sort: it starts from a basis of fact; he discriminates between plausible conjecture and sound conviction.

The deviations from the papyrus, when it is legible, are fewer than in Körte's text. To be sure, the inclusion of the recto of the St. Petersburg fragment, in accord with the editor's theory, is an innovation, but in this case, however one may sympathize with Körte's skepticism (Menandrea, p. xviii), one cannot deny that Mr. Capps has sufficient warrant for incorporating the fragment in his own constitution of the text. In some of the departures from the papyrus we doubt the wisdom of the changes. In E. 53 Zúpiok' becomes où raûr' on the ground that Smicrines could not have known the slave's name; but we recall the shrewdness of Gripus in the Rudens in accepting his master as arbitrator, and wonder if Syriscus was not equally clever in choosing an acquaintance; the first act may have provided all that the audience needed to understand the situation. In E. 261 avrη. (συνέπαιζ(ε)ν spoils the force of the passage; any necessary "reference to the girl in the case" (cf. the note) is sufficiently contained in TOLOTOV erepov (259); and what point is there in Habrotonon's mentioning her virginity (262) except to explain why she herself (avrý) in spite of her present condition could properly join in the frolic of the freeborn girls (ovvéracov)? This view, of course, involves supplying with oud' ¿y Tóre a thought equivalent to that expressed in 262: she stammers, naturally enough, in stating the matter to Onesimus. Even in such a small matter as yeyev<v>nμévov (S. 398) we wish the editor had followed the papyrus rather than Van Leeuwen. In E. 4-5, the interpretation of díxala dè máσxw as a question will startle any reader who is following the Greek and the situation; whoever expects a yáp, in place of dé, in the affirmative statement seems to us to be intruding the idiom of his own language. We are especially grateful for Mr. Capps's conservatism in retaining Tò y' dσTIKOV of the papyrus (E. 340) as hardly anybody has done since the appearance of the princeps; but what virtue has Croiset's punctuation? Must we avoid τὸ γ' ἀστικὸν τὸ γύναιον because of the two articles ? But the meaning is not "the clever creature!" rò y' åσTɩóv is in the predicate, and the two articles and the meaning are sufficiently defended by rò

Xρnμа σоdúтεрov à Onλea (Theocr. xv. 145). In E. 850 ff., as in P. 279 ff., Mr. Capps accepts a theory that the monologue reports an imaginary conversation; this is a matter of technique, but the mass of evidence in the monologues of Latin comedy is not drawn upon by the editor to confirm or to refute the theory. In the filling of lacunae Mr. Capps has been lavish: the college student will find his reading of the plays more interesting, and the teacher will be grateful. Nor are we disposed to object to the editor's very frequent preference for his own stopgaps; the preference is often justified, and in the larger gaps the supplements are sometimes ingenious, seldom (P. 885) ill-advised. In E. 122 the choice of airou is hardly supported by the reference to Kühner-Gerth, for all the examples there quoted show the possessive pronoun following the attributive modifier; if the position of the editor's auroû must be defended, such Hellenistic examples as Theocr. v. 2; Herond. v. 7, vi. 41; Callim. Hymns, iii. 139, would serve the purpose better.

In the commentary Mr. Capps has drawn freely on Latin as well as Greek comedy for illustration, and thereby reveals not only the meaning of Menander, but the background of situation and phraseology in Plautus and Terence. We regret the frequent comment on metrical detail; Mr. White's article makes unnecessary the space devoted to this theme; if such material were condensed, Menander's style-his freedom in the collocation of words, his peculiar sentence structure and special phases of Hellenistic usage might receive more convincing treatment. In H. 20 the interpretation of ovx is more easily understood by a comparison of Theocr. xiv, 27 (cf. 10) and other Greek examples than by the quotation of the Latin phrase in the note. In H. 31 does not ȧredídov in the sense of "give," not "pay," need comment (cf. E. 337, S. 12-13)? On E. 60 a reference to Wackernagel Hellenistica, p. 23, on oveév would be helpful. In E. 177 does és mean "put down"? Does not ròv ýμétepóv σa 0; in the next verse suggest that Oés is hardly more than dós? And if 0és does = kaтáles, as Mr. Capps thinks, where is the evidence that the omission of kará "gives to the command a peremptory tone"? Such examples as Theoc. v. 21; viii. 13, 14 (cf. 11, 12) suggest no peremptory tone. On E. 287 the editor notes: "vrónua: pledge, security, here only in this meaning, instead of vо0ýкn"; but a Theran inscription of the second century B.C. (IG. xii. 3. 329) is worth noting (r'[TOOéμа]TI ációxpew). These nouns in -pa are an interesting feature of Menander's vocabulary: in E. 870 on аρrаoμа Mr. Capps notes that άprayý is the regular word; it is well to remember that there are vestiges of аρжаσμа in Plato Legg. 906 D (where Burnet follows AO rather than L) and in Plutarch Cato Maior, xiii, where CV, according to Sintenis, read aρraуμа, but other documents ἅρπασμα. This passage of Plutarch, also, would supply Mr. Capps with support for the meaning "kidnaping expedition," which seems better than Wilamowitz' suggestion (Körte, Menandrea,

p. xxv, n. 1). In E. 686 (and cf. P. 232) avós

· ...

ὑπαὶ δείους
ported not only by rideís (678) but by čkeɩo (663).

'Ipıkλña (Theocr. xxiv. 61). In P. 673 keμévŋv is sup

Considering the enormous amount of detail the mechanical part of the book is remarkably well done. The use of "angles" to indicate the supplementary readings is a happy device for preserving an attractive page. Misprints are rare: p. 28, n. 2, "Geffken"; p. 53, n. on 29; p. 68, n. on 171, "σnμela"; p. 72, text of 206, "¿TTLELкws"; p. 75, text of 224, “ἐστιν”; p. 155, n. on 38, “εύροιτο”; p. 169, n. on 201, “ἐν καλῷς”; "complaisance" (p. 136) and "complacence" (p. 138) are waging a Franco-Roman war.

Mr. Capps has very appreciably added to his achievements in the field of the New Comedy. Sound scholarship and the teacher's practical sense have combined to make an edition of Menander that presents material of great value to scholars without impairing the usefulness of the book in the classroom. To somebody-we hardly know to whomwe are indebted for the fact that so much space has been given to the editor for the interpretation of a small amount of text; even the high price of the book can hardly cover the outlay involved. Under these circumstances the undertaking is very gratifying to all who are interested in the encouragement of such intelligent research.

HENRY W. PRESCOTT

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The Sea Kings of Crete. By JAMES BAIKIE. New York: Macmillan, 1910. Pp. 259; 32 illustrations and a map. $2.00. This admirable summary of recent discoveries in Crete will doubtless prove the most popular handbook on the subject. It is better written and is considerably cheaper than Professor Mosso's The Palaces of Crete, and its abundant illustrations render it more attractive to the layman than either of the other recent handbooks, viz., Professor Burrows' The Discoveries in Crete and Mr. and Mrs. Hawes's Crete the Forerunner of Greece. It is, moreover, written with an enthusiasm and rapidity of style that compel the reader's interest.

The first three chapters are entitled "The Legends," "The Homeric Civilization," and "Schliemann and His Work." They are very readable but occupy more space, perhaps, than can well be spared in a book on Crete which contains altogether but eleven chapters. The next two chapters on the Knossos palace describe the results of the excavations as they were obtained year by year. This chronological method together with the author's frequent quotations from Mr. Evans' narratives give to these chapters a really dramatic interest. The writer's enjoyment of the romantic side of Minoan discoveries leads him, however, to champion doubtful theories,

as when (p. 107) he marvels that the cross should have served at so remote an epoch as a religious symbol, adding "the fact of the equal-limbed cross having at so early a date been the object of worship also suggests the reason why the Eastern church has always preferred the Greek form of cross." But the evidence is scarcely sufficient to prove that the cross was a religious symbol, to say nothing of its being an object of worship. The chapter on "Phaistos and Eastern Crete" gives a summary of the excavations at other sites than Knossos. The treatment is very brief, and much of importance is omitted, especially the results of the more recent excavations. Thus Pseira is not even mentioned, nor is the name found on the map. Yet the town laid bare by Mr. Seager on this island is the most picturesque Minoan town found and the results obtained here though published only this summer have several times been summarized in periodicals. Similarly, the work of Mr. Xanthoudides in the Messara plain is not included. A résumé of these more recent discoveries would have been particularly appropriate to a new book on Crete inasmuch as the results of the other excavations have been now so often summarized.

The seventh chapter, on "Crete and Egypt," which profits by the author's familiarity with Egyptian antiquities, gives in concise form the evidence for Egyptian and Cretan synchronisms. The Pulosathu mentioned in the inscriptions of Rameses III are, at the end of the chapter, identified with the Philistines, and since Hebrew tradition brought the Philistines from Kaphtor (Keftiu), Goliath thus appears as the last of the Minoans. The author does not entirely reject Professor Petrie's system of dating, but gives his dates in parallel columns with those of the German school, which seems somewhat over-cautious in view of the ceramic evidence from Crete which cannot be made to fit with any system of extended dates. The depth of the neolithic deposit at Knossos is doubtful evidence for putting the beginning of the neolithic era as early as 10,000 B.C., as the author, following the early suggestions of the excavators, implies. Twice the words "three feet per millennium" occur, but surely when people lived in wattled mud huts, any one of which, overthrown in a storm, might leave several inches of mud behind, an accumulation of three feet might be expected in less than a thousand years.

The next chapter, on the Minoan period, is a clear statement of the chronological system which has been worked out by Mr. Evans. It is perhaps time, however, that some changes in these divisions were made. At any rate it might well be suggested first, that very little is known about the Early Minoan I period; that no Middle Minoan II pottery appears in eastern Crete, making it probable that "Kamares" ware is technically not chronologically distinct from that of the preceding period; and lastly that there is little evidence in eastern Crete for distinguishing the Late Minoan I and the Late Minoan II periods.

The last two chapters treat of "Life under the Sea Kings" and "Letters ·