of the Christians to the pagans apparent, he is unable to discover the source whence the names Cosmas and Damian were derived.1

The original Asiatic pair were saintly physicians who, after a life of beneficent works for which they refused pay, met death in peace; but in the course of time the tendency to give saints the crown of martyrdom led to the formation of the other two pairs, of which the Roman were said to have suffered under the emperor Carinus, the Arabian under Diocletian and Maximian. The three pairs, however, did not enjoy equal honor in all parts of the Christian world. In the Greek church the Asiatic and Roman pairs were especially revered; in the west the Arabian martyrs were the favorites. To them was dedicated by Pope Felix IV (526-30) the old basilica on the Roman forum, which was held in high esteem in later centuries. Their martyrium was apparently invented in Rome.

The texts, which occupy pp. 87-225, give first the lives and miracles of the Asiatic saints and then the martyria of the other two pairs. These texts depend on a complicated tradition in which thirty-six manuscripts are represented, dating from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries inclusive. No manuscript contains more than a fraction of the whole. The task of bringing order to this entangled mass of material required no little skill, but Deubner seems to have accomplished the work with a high degree of success. He has increased the number of miracles known from twenty-six to forty-eight, and in every way has enlarged our knowledge of these important saints. The words of Tillemont which Deubner prefixes to his work, "L'histoire de S. Cosme et S. Damien se peut dire entièrement incertaine et inconnue," are happily no longer true. The book is in every way worthy of the man to whose memory it is dedicated-Hermann Usener.

CLIFFORD HERSCHEL MOORE

Hans Blaufuss: Römische Feste und Feiertage nach den Tractaten über fremden Dienst (Aboda zara) in Mischna, Tosefta, Jerusalemer und babylonischem Talmud. Beilage zum Jahresberichte des Königl. Neuen Gymnasiums in Nürnberg. Nürnberg, 1909. In the Mishna, Aboda zara, 1, 3, we read: "These are the festivals of foreign religion, the Calends, the Saturnalia, the Q.ratisim, the Genusia of the kings-day of birth and day of death,' says Rabbi Meir; but the learned say: 'Every case of death, when the body is burned, is connected with foreign religion. If the body is not burned, it is not connected with foreign religion. The day on which the beard is cut, the day on which the hair is cut, the day of landing, the day on which one was freed from prison, In his review of Weyh Die syrische Kosmas- und Damian Legende (Schweinfurt, 1910) in the Berl. phil. Wochenschrift, No. 41 (1910), col. 1286, Deubner now abandons his view that the Christian saints were directly concerned with the Dioscuroi.

the day on which one made a feast for his son-here only the day and only the individual are forbidden.'"

It is evident at a glance that certain of the festivals here named are of familiar Roman origin; others are not so easily recognized. Blaufuss devotes his program to the elucidation of the entire passage and to the identification of the festivals whose character is not evident to the classical philologist. In this notice we will give briefly his results.

From the Jerusalem Talmud 1, 2 it appears that by the Calends is meant the Roman festival of the new year which fell on January 1 and 3, January 2 being a dies ater; the Jewish interdict against dealings with the Gentiles on the Saturnalia was limited to the day of the public sacrifice and convivium, December 17. The group of festivals indicated by the Q.ratisim is not so apparent, but passages in the Tosephta, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Gemaras, show that the dies imperii (natalis imperii) of Augustus, April 16, and the dies imperii of his successors are meant. The name Q.ratisim Blaufuss connects with the Greek κpárnσis = imperium. Genusia is easily recognized as yevéσua, i.e., the birthdays of the emperors and also the days on which the divi received their consecrationes. Here not the day only, but the three days preceding the festival were forbidden. Furthermore we should note that after the yevéoia the Tosephta names as interdicted also the day of the emperor's marriage, the days on which he assumed new offices, as for example March 6, on which Augustus in 12 B.c. became pontifex maximus, and the day on which he recovered from a sickness. All the above are public festivals, feriae publicae, and as such were celebrated throughout the empire. The remaining are feriae singulorum, on which the prohibition extended only to the individual celebrant. It is well known that the dedication of the beard and hair when first cut was a Greek custom adopted by the Romans, and that such a dedication was made the occasion of a family festival. (Vide Statius Silv. 3, 4 and Vollmer's commentary thereto; also Martial 9, 16. 17. 36.) The successful completion of a voyage was celebrated with a sacrifice known as ekẞarýpia, and the day on which this was offered must be the "day of landing" named in the Mishna. Likewise a sacrifice, κаTITÝρia according to Hesychius, was made on release from prison. Finally "the day on which one made a feast for his son" is shown by the Jerusalem Talmud, Aboda zara 1, 3, to be the day of the son's marriage.

Thus the passage in the Mishna bears testimony to the influence of imperial Rome on the exclusive people. So far as one can judge who is not a Semitic scholar, Blaufuss has correctly interpreted his material, and so has made a contribution to our knowledge of the civilization of the Roman Empire. It is to be regretted that he did not touch some of the larger questions suggested by his work, but possibly the limitations of a program forbade that.

CLIFFORD HERSCHEL MOORE

Dares-Studien. By OTMAR SCHISSEL VON FLESCHENBERG.

a. S.: Niemeyer, 1908. Pp. 171.

Halle

The work of Dares falls into two parts: an introduction, comprising chaps. i-xi, and the historia proper, which opens with the gallery of heroes and heroines in chaps. xii and xiii. It is with these portraits that Schissel begins his studies. Similar portraits are found in the works of the Byzantines Malalas and Isaac Porphyrogennetus; but the latter's heroic gallery was long ago shown to be directly borrowed from that of the former. By an elaborate study of Dares' descriptions and by an extended comparison of them with those of Malalas-a task which occupies more than half his book-Schissel comes to the conclusion that the Latin writer was unquestionably using freely a Greek original, and that this was identical with the source employed by Malalas. He then passes on to a discussion of Dares, chap. xiv, which, against Wagener in Phil., 38, 103 ff., he maintains was drawn directly from Il. ii. 494-760; he further holds that Il. ii. 816-77 was likewise the immediate source of the list of Trojans in chap. xviii, although this last has been influenced also by the Ilias Latina 233-35. From this relation Schissel somewhat illogically draws the bold conclusion that the entire list was not found in the Greek original, but was added by the Latin adapter from a Latin source. He closes his discussion of the second part of Dares' work with a review of the evidence in favor of a Greek original, laying stress especially on the words of Aelian, Var. Hist. xi. 2, kaì tòv Þpúya dè Aápηta, οὗ Φρυγίαν Ιλιάδα ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἀποσωξομένην οἶδα. That a Greek original once existed no one will today be bold enough to deny, since Egypt has given back to us a portion of the Greek version of Dictys. The Greek Dares Schissel dates in the first century of our era, classing it with those other products of the imagination in which the later Greeks delighted. Athens he regards as the place of its origin, and he would hold that it was independent of the Greek Dictys as well as of the Ilias Latina, with the exception in the Latin version which has just been noticed.

A study of the first eleven chapters of Dares' history occupies the last third of Schissel's work. These chapters he seeks to prove were drawn in large measure from Dracontius' Carm. prof. viii, De Raptu Helenae. From this dependence he coins a terminus post quem of ca. 510 A.D. for the date of the Latin Dares; a terminus ante quem of ca. 530 a.D. he finds in the date of the Mythographus Vaticanus primus, 24, which he shows to his own satisfaction was derived from Dares, chaps. i-iii. The Latin version naturally drove the Greek original out in the West; in the East also the Greek seems to have disappeared soon after Malalas, for the partisanship which Dares shows for the Trojans was naturally offensive to Greek pride.

Schissel's work is an important contribution to the solution of the complex questions which are connected with the invention of Dares, although the author will hardly win assent to all his conclusions. The dependence

of Dares on Dracontius, for example, seems to the present reviewer hardly proved.

Finally be it said that the strictures passed by a German reviewer give a foreigner courage to echo a protest against the intolerable style in which this study is written. Sentences hopelessly and needlessly complex effectively prevent the work from being interesting, and impose undue labor on the reader. CLIFFORD HERSCHEL MOORE

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The Classical Association of England and Wales, Manchester and District Branch, Second Annual Report: The Roman Fort at Manchester. Edited by F. A. BRUTON. Manchester: The University Press, 1909. Pp. xvi+194+159. 6s. An indication of the increasing activity in England in the excavation and study of Roman sites is afforded by this interesting book. Its publication under the auspices of the Classical Association of England and Wales is also significant. In brief the volume, which is copiously illustrated with photographs and plans, is a scholarly treatment of all the available evidence, literary and monumental, for the reconstruction of the Roman fort at Manchester and of the site on which the modern city is built.

The fort was oblong in shape and occupied a rising ground situated in a loop of the little river Medlock; a large part of this space is now covered by railroad tracks and the southeast corner of the fort is crossed by a canal. The dimensions of the fort were: length about 175 yards, width 140 yards, the area inclosed being a little more than five acres; this was, therefore, one of the largest Roman forts in Britain. The name of this military post is not known with certainty. In the Antonine Itinerary it appears in one form as Mancunium, but the manuscript transmission varies considerably, and no Roman inscription preserves the name.

A chapter on Mithras worship in Roman Manchester is suggested by the discovery in 1821 of a portion of a Mithraic relief a short distance southwest of the fort. The writer of the chapter, Canon Hicks of Manchester, takes the opportunity to describe at some length the character of Mithraism and develops the theory that the worship of Mithras was officially encouraged by the Roman government as a rival of Christianity.

The surviving fragment of the rampart-wall visible before the excavations of 1906-7 is on the eastern side. It measures 17 feet in length by 6 feet in breadth and consists of sandstone block laid in a white mortar which is still very hard. The facing stones have apparently been

removed. Even this small fragment suggests that the rampart surrounding the fort was very strong. Nothing is known about the position of the gates. In 1906-7 rather extensive excavations were made in search of the west wall of the rampart, a section of which, 44 feet long and about 7 feet wide, was finally disclosed, the essential part being a thick layer of bowlders packed in a light-colored clay. Running close to the inner face of the wall was a cobblestone pavement, two feet nine inches wide, which was probably earlier than the wall itself. The existence of a trench (fossa) on the outside of the wall cannot be determined. Near by were found coins of Hadrian, of the Antonines, and of Julia Domna. A tile stamped with CIII BR was discovered in the course of the excavations, as well as millstones, fragments of Samian ware, fibulae, and a few architectural fragments. Extensive remains of a red sandstone flooring also were laid bare within the area of the fort not far from the wall; possibly it belonged to a street. This section of the book, written by Mr. Bruton, is made clear by three large folding plans and several good photographs. The chapter concludes with a detailed description, accompanied by measurements and photographs or drawings, of the objects found, all of which are later than the first century A.D.

The objects in the Ellesmere collection of Roman antiquities, found on or near the site of the fort between 1828 and 1832, are next described. They comprise an altar and interesting pieces of bronze, lead, and earthenware, including a bronze phalera and two circular brooches. In an appendix to the volume is a full description of the more than two thousand Roman coins found at various times at Manchester. They date from Augustus to the end of the fourth century, those of the first half of the fourth century being most numerous.

SWARTHMORE College

WALTER DENNISON

Der Zeuge im attischen Recht. By ERNST LEISI. Frauenfeld, 1908. Pp. vii+167.

The important and difficult subject of the Attic law of evidence, after remaining practically untouched for many years, has recently been illuminated by two works published in 1905 and 1908. The latter, however, was in the main complete when the former appeared, and we have thus another instance of the curious yet frequent coincidence by which two scholars take up independently the study of some longneglected subject. I may therefore be permitted to mention that I had myself blocked out a treatise on the Attic law of evidence in 1904, which was intended to take the form of a comparison with the rules in English law; but when Dr. Bonner's work1 appeared, I determined not to pro1 Robert J. Bonner, Evidence in Athenian Courts, Chicago, 1905.