P. 181. 18 (H.) = viii. 7: “sed Thrasyllus . . . . illum amicum, coaetaneum, contubernalem, fratrem denique addito nomine <voce> lugubri ciere. "Thrasyllus, in love with the wife of Tlepolemus, has foully murdered the husband, and now hypocritically mourns his victim's death, according to the MSS addito nomine lugubri. Pricaeus thereon exclaims: "quid hic nomen lugubre? aut quid ratio epitheti illius?" He reads lugubriter with a comma after nomine. Oudendorp assents to the objection of Pricaeus, and suggests inserting voce (which Helm adopts) or sono. By what flight of fancy Hildebrand reaches the conclusion that the nomen lugubre is that of Thrasyllus I must leave to some more ingenious reader to discover. But I fail to see what is wrong with the reading of the MSS. Thrasyllus exclaims over the corpse: "amice, . . . ., frater Tlepoleme." Considering the circumstances of Tlepolemus' death-Tlepolemus bravely faced a wild boar, hurled his spear at him, Thrasyllus thrust his spear at the horse of Tlepolemus, the horse threw Tlepolemus to the ground, the boar attacked Tlepolemus, gored him, then Thrasyllus, not content, thrust his lance into Tlepolemus-what under these circumstances could be more truly a nomen lugubre than the victim's name, "Tlepolemus," "sturdy fighter," in the mouth of the murderer? The sensitiveness of Apuleius or of his Greek model to the meaning of proper names needs no comment; cf. the next page 182. 14 (H.) = viii. 8, and Helm, Praefatio to the Florida, p. xxxii.

P. 209. 15 (H.) =ix. 9: “et identidem urgenti sermone comprimunt, promerent potius aureum cantharum. The mendicant priests have stolen a golden goblet, and are urged to give up the stolen property. The adverb potius is left without any explicit second member in the comparison. Very likely Apuleius intended us to supply the missing member (cf. Hildebrand's note). Helm, in his apparatus, suggests inserting <lamentantes> before comprimunt to make the implication easier. But if any change is needed, which I doubt, an emendation of potius to protinus (written ptinus?) might be a simpler way out of the difficulty.

HENRY W. PRESCOTT

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

NOTES ON LUCRETIUS

1. 321: "invida praeclusit speciem natura videndi"; cf. Hilary Trac. in Psalm. lv. 5: "naturam videndi caecis ab utero."

3. 42: "infamemque ferunt vitam quam Tartara leti"; cf. Apul. De Deo Socr. 129: "terrae tartara."

3. 198: "at contra lapidum conlectum."

The manuscripts have coniectum, which may be defended by Cic. Att. iv. 3. 2; “domus fracta coniectu lapidum ex area nostra.”

3. 235: “rara quod eius enim constat natura”; cf. Tert. Marc. ii. 8: "aura vento rarior."

5. 1408: “unde etiam vigiles nunc haec accepta tuentur”; cf. Macaulay Hist. England II, 489 (ed. 1849). “Wharton's celebrated song, with many additional verses, was chanted more loudly than ever in all the streets of the capital. The very sentinels who guarded the palace hummed, as they paced their rounds, 'The English confusion to Popery drink, Lillibullero bullow a la.""

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

W. A. MERRILL

EMENDATIONS OF PORPHYRY de Abstinentia

I. 12 Nauck, p. 94: αἴτιον τὸ συμφέρον καὶ ἀσύμφορον· ὥστε τοὺς λέγοντας ὅτι πᾶν τὸ καλὸν καὶ δίκαιον κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ὑπολήψεις ἐστὶ περὶ τῶν νενομοθετημένων, ἠλιβάτου τινὸς γέμειν εὐηθείας· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν οὕτως ἔχον τοῦτο, ἀλλ' ὅνπερ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συμφερόντων, οἷον ὑγιεινῶν τε καὶ ἑτέρων μυρίων εἰδῶν, ἀλλὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν ἐν πολλοῖς τῶν τε κοινῶν ὁμοίως καὶ τῶν ἰδίων· καὶ γὰρ κ. τ. λ.

For ἀλλὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν ἐν πυλλοῖς, which is obviously corrupt, we should read πολλὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν or perhaps πολλῶν or πολλοὶ.

The elliptical logic of this Epicurean argument runs: Our principle of utility (rightly understood) refutes the skeptical doctrine that right and wrong are matters of opinion depending solely on the positive enactments of law. It is not so but [the diversity of customs that lends plausibility to this view is due to the fact that] just as men err in their estimates of what is advantageous in respect of health, etc., so the many make many mistakes in the general and particular application of the principle of utility. Illustrations follow, introduced by καὶ γὰρ The idea that the multitude are bad judges not only of the right and honorable but even of their own advantage is found in Isocrates Or. i. 45; ii. 45–46; viii. 109.

For the rhetorical turn πολλὰ . . . . ἐν πολλοῖς cf. Plato Rep. 467D, πολλὰ πολλοῖς δὴ ἐγένετο and Blaydes on Aristophanes Eq. 411, πολλὰ δὴ ἐπὶ πολλοῖς, and Vesp. 1046.

I. 30 Nauck, p. 107: ἐοίκαμεν γὰρ τοῖς εἰς ἀλλόφυλον ἔθνος ήκουσι—the reading of Cobet Mnem. Νου. ΧΙ, 424. The MSS have ἢ ἑκούσιν ἀπεληλυ‐ θόσι. Hercher deletes ἢ ἑκούσιν. Valentinus reads ἤκουσιν ἢ ἀπεληλυθόσιν. Cobet assumes that an older Codex had ĈKOYCIN, from which a "sleepy scribe" extracted the erroneous ἢ ἑκούσιν. He therefore would restore ήκουσι and delete απεληλυθόσι. A better remedy is to read ἢ ἐκπεσοῦσι ἢ ἑκοῦσιν ἀπεληλυθόσι. The eye of the scribe passed to the second ή and omitted the ἐκπεσοῦσι which yields a neat and familiar alternative to ἑκοῦσιν ἀπεληλυθόσι. Cf. Plato Rep. 565Β ἐκπεσὼν μὲν καὶ βίᾳ κατελθών and, with slightly different meaning, Rep. 497B, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς ἀλλότριον ἦθος ἐκπίπτειν.

The idea that life is an exile and the true home of the soul is elsewhere can be traced back to various passages of the Republic and even to Empedocles. Below, Nauck, p. 108, 1. 6, instead of ἐπαναμιμνήσκει δ' ἑαυτὸν ὧν ἔχων ἐπελάθετο we should probably read ἑκὼν ἐπελάθετο. Cf. Aeschyl. Ag. 39 and Herod. 4. 43. This suits the thought, for the exiled soul was drawn down to this lower world not only by fate but by its own fault-διά τινα μοχθηρίαν τῆς ψυχῆς, ibid. 1. 26.

PAUL SHOREY

NOTES ON TWO COMPOUNDS OF FIGO

I. Praefigere. Ps.-Quint, Declam. x. 8. Among the uses of praefigere Forcellini, s.v. praefigo, Harper, and Georges give "enchant, bewitch, bezaubern," referring only to a passage in one of the Declamations attributed to Quintilian (Ps.-Quint. Declam. x. 8), Harper marking it with the asterisk that denotes the meaning as of a single occurrence. The subject of the declamation is "The Enchanted Tomb," Sepulcrum Incantatum, and the case is this: A woman saw in sleep every night a son whom she had recently lost by death. She told of this to her husband. He called in a professional magician and had him stop these visitations by incantations over the tomb. The wife brings suit against her husband for cruelty. The grief of the mother when her son does not appear in the night as usual is expatiated upon in the declamation. Finally she goes to the tomb, and quam tum illa praefixum clausumque tumulum nudis cecidit uberibus! Praefixum is translated in these lexicons "enchanted." The tomb is enchanted beyond any doubt, and the reader knows it; but does praefixum contain that idea in itself? Are not both praefixum and clausum used with but a slight figurative extension of their ordinary significance, receiving purely from the context whatever other connotation they may suggest to a reader who knows the circumstances of the treatment of the tomb? I should be inclined to place this reference under the heading "close, block up," a well-attested meaning of praefigo, and to think the claim for "bewitch, enchant," on the strength of this passage, quite untenable.

II. Configere. Prov. 22:23. Configere is used several times in the Vulgate in a literal sense, "to pierce, nail together": John 19:37; Zech. 12:10; 13:3. There is, however, another use that seems quite distinct from this. In the Vulgate, Prov. 22:23, we have, to translate in part, "thou shalt not do wrong to the poor man nor oppress the needy, for the Lord will plead his cause," et configet eos qui confixerunt animam eius. The meaning of the Hebrew word Ķābha' translated by configet and confixerunt is uncertain. A recent Hebrew dictionary, that of Brown-Driver-Briggs, says that it meant perhaps "rob, injure, wrong generally." An older one of somewhat less authority (Fuerst Hebrew Lexicon) gives "intertwine, plan cunning device, defraud, disappoint." A modern Hebrew word

derived from it means "deceive." The Greek versions are as follows: Septuagint, καὶ ῥύσῃ σὴν ἄσυλον ψυχήν; Aquila, καὶ καθηλώσει τοὺς καθηλώσαντας αὐτόν; Symmachus, καὶ κολάσεται τοὺς κολαζομένους ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. The King James version translates "and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them," for which the Revised Version substitutes "and despoil of life those that despoil them."

Again in Mal. 3:8, the Vulgate has Si affiget homo Deum, quia vos configitis me? Et dixistis in quo configimus te? In decimis et in primitiis, where the Hebrew word translated by forms of configo is the same as in the other passage. In Greek we have: Septuagint, μήτι πτερνιεῖ ἄνθρωπος θεόν; διότι ὑμεῖς πτερνίζετέ με; Aquila and Symmachus, μὴ ἀποστερήσει ἄνθρωπος θεὸν; ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἀποστερεῖτέ με.

There is also an Itala version which used fraudavimus et configimus, fraudatis et configitis for the configimus and configitis of the other translation. The King James and Revised Versions are in accord with "rob" for each occurrence of the word. From these passages the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae and before it Weitenaner's Lexicon Biblicum and Forcellini give as a meaning of configere, "defraudare, privare, cheat, rob." The divergence of the Greek texts plainly shows that the Hebrew was obscure at an early date. In the passage in Proverbs the Septuagint in particular admits its obscurity by translating the idea which must be contained in the passage rather than the words themselves, "And will preserve his soul inviolate." Most interesting is Aquila: kanλów means "nail or fasten down," and, as far as I can find, nothing but that (Liddell and Scott; Thes. L. Gr., "clavis defigo, configo"). The passages evidently demand a word with the meaning of "rob" or the like. The context in itself would be sufficient to tempt a translator or commentator who did not understand the word used to translate or interpret it as though that were what it meant. This is one way of handling such a problem. Another is to give the general sense and let the words go as the Septuagint did. But there is a third way possible. If he does not understand the significance of a word, but knows, or thinks he knows, the literal meaning, a conscientious man will probably use that word in his own language that seems closest, and leave the difficulty of interpretation just as he found it. It is barely possible that Aquila with kanλów, the Itala with fraudare et configere, and St. Jerome with configere alone, followed independently the third method and came to conclusions so strikingly similar. But we know that St. Jerome had the Greek versions as well as the Hebrew before him in his work, and it seems improbable that the author of the other Latin text did not also use them, even, possibly, without the Hebrew. Aquila had the reputation in antiquity, and deservedly, of a careful and exact translator. St. Jerome himself in his ep. ad Damas, 12, says of him "non contentiosius ut quidam putant sed studiosius verbum interpretatur ad verbum." So it seems to me that Aquila's version of Prov. 22:23 is the source of the use of configo in both

versions and in both passages of the Latin. The Itala would seem a compromise (in itself implying that even in such a context configere could not carry the meaning fraudare) between a sense of duty to literalness and a desire to have the passage make sense, a compromise to which St. Jerome evidently did not feel impelled. At any rate it seems impossible, other evidence failing, to accord credence to the interpretation given almost without question by the lexicographers, that configere has the meaning "fraudare, rob."

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLARA LOUISE THOMPSON

[Miss Thompson has shown that "cheat, rob" should not be admitted as a meaning of configo, and has offered the attractive suggestion that the use of configo in the passages from which this meaning has been deduced is in imitation of kaŋλów in Aquila's version of Prov. 22:23. How did Aquila come to use kaoŋλów? In the obscure Hebrew word there appears to be nothing which could have suggested to him кałŋλów as a literal translation. He must have intended to render the phrase as a whole (in our Revised Version "despoil of life") with some notion of violent injury, as did other translators into Greek with κολάσεται oι βιάσεται. Compounds of λów are occasionally used figuratively in classical times, and especially an ecclesiastical writer of the second century A.D., like Aquila, for whom kaoŋλów had the special connotation "nail to the cross, crucify," might well employ it in the sense "cause to suffer," or "destroy." Cf. the figurative use of σταυρόω in Gal. 5:24: ἐσταύρωσαν τὴν σáρка κтλ., “crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof."

The Septuagint, Ps. 118:120 has καθήλωσον ἐκ τοῦ φόβου σου τὰς σάρκας μου, ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν κριμάτων σου ἐφοβήθην. But the Hebrew means, according to the RV, "my flesh trembled for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgments." The verb which is rendered "trembled" is given in the last edition of GeseniusBuhl (1910), p. 541, as probably related to a modern Hebrew word meaning "nail." Whether or not the verb is actually related to this word for "nail," the translator's acquaintance with the latter may be confidently assumed and will account for his hitting upon καθηλόω. (Aquila also has ἡλώθη. But as regards the sense, the clause, especially with its shift to the imperative construction, cannot correspond even remotely to the Hebrew original, and does not go well even with the concluding clause in the Greek. Did it mean anything to the translator? Not necessarily, and perhaps we should do well to drop the matter at this point. But if we may venture to correct to κańλwσa and assume a figurative meaning, either "constrain" or "crucify," we secure at least a consistent sentence: "I have constrained (or crucified) my flesh from fear of thee, for of thy judgments I was afraid."-C. D. BUCK.]