with most codices. Everywhere else throughout this chapter ivdéxeraι appears in the same sense and connexion; and the question at issue is treated consistently by Aristotle from the point of view rather of what is conceivably, than of what is physically, possible. The solution, too, of the difficulties discussed, is finally given by adjusting our conceptions of identity: distinguishing the identical rų dóyų from the identical τῷ ἀριθμῷ.

Logically, all this should come immediately after πpóv, 448a, 1, and should be transferred to that place. As the text stands, the argument is broken up by the interjection of a discussion, perfectly lucid and satisfactory in itself, but perfectly irrelevant to the subject of rà OuσToxa. That the latter may run to its close without absurd interruption-I mean interruption which there is nothing in the text or the subject-matter to explain or excuse-the above suggested transposition is absolutely required.

452, 26. ἐὰν οὖν δι' ἃ πάλαι οὐ κινηθῇ, ἐπὶ τὸ συνηθέστερον κινεῖται.

This reading of Biehl's is distinctly inferior, both in evidence and in meaning, to that of Bekker—dià maλaioυ KIVĪTαι. What Aristotle intends is that, "if this kinois travels along an old path, it brings one's thoughts to the more habitual (not to the wished-for) representation." Old memories (habitual pavτáoμara) keep coming up, when perhaps we want to remember something recent. For, according to Aristotle, we may start a train of thought, but cannot always determine its direction. Cf. Prof. William James, Psychology, vol. I. 577. "Habit, recency, vividness, and emotional congruity, are all reasons why one

representation, rather than another, should be awakened by the interesting portion of a departing thought." In this brief sentence, Prof. James sums up (doubtless without having intended it) most of what the author of the De Memoria aims at saying here. The merit of condensed expression is not often so clearly on the side of a modern writer when compared with Aristotle.

JOHN I. BEARE.

THE

DR. BLAYDES'S EDITION OF THE

AGAMEMNON

HE latest edition of the masterpiece of Aeschylus is worthy of the hand of the scholar who, on evil days though fallen, and evil tongues, has, through a long and laborious life, been unswervingly faithful to the best traditions of the English school of "pure scholarship." Of all living scholars, Dr. Blaydes is probably the truest representative of the School of Bentley, Heath, Elmsley, and Porson. He is the equal of these great scholars in his mastery of Greek idiom, in his grasp of the spirit and style of his author, and in the immense stores of erudition which he can bring to bear upon the difficulties of a disputed passage. In the latter respect, his editions are not likely to be superseded, for, as Mr. Headlam says ("On editing Aeschylus," p. 2), " facts are never out of date."

As an editor, Dr. Blaydes has many merits. He is a thorough-going sceptic, and rarely subscribes to accepted views simply because they are accepted. He has, furthermore, the merit-rarest in an editor of Aeschylus-of being able to distinguish between poetry and nonsense. His wide knowledge of Greek literature renders his notes invaluable as a storehouse of tragic idiom. But, as a critic, his methods and principles have found but little favour among two generations of scholars, on account of his avowed contempt for the authority of the MSS. In dealing

1 Aeschyli Agamemnon. Cum Annotatione Critica et Commentario, edidit Fredericus H. M. Blaydes, M.A., Oxon.

Halis Saxonum, in Orphanotrophei libraria. MDCCCXCVIII.

with the text of Sophocles and Aristophanes, whose MSS. are in the main free from deep-seated corruptions, there is little doubt that Dr. Blaydes has violated the principles of scientific criticism in employing conjecture to an extravagant extent, but the case of Aeschylus is very different. Pace Mr. Verrall, I agree with our editor that the codices of the Agamemnon present us with a text which, in the choral odes at least, seems, like Time, the more unintelligible the more we consider it, and that the only hope of restoring the hand of the poet is, by indulging the ingenuity of scholars, to endeavour to remove the "corruptelas et plurimas et inveteratas" which disfigure the MSS. In grappling with this problem Dr. Blaydes's cardinal principle is "by diligent comparison of parallel passages, and by constant study of the style of Aeschylus, to grasp his spirit, and so restore his hand." This is the "sola tuta via," and, so far as our editor is true to this principle, his work is valuable, but his method is vitiated by a contempt for what he calls "servilis literarum ductus observantia." No one can reasonably object to Dr. Blaydes preferring to this "servile method" a "diligens sententiae consideratio"; for no emendation, no matter how plausible it may be palæographically, can be tolerated if inconsistent with the context; yet, on the other hand, few emendations have found acceptance which depart widely from the MSS. tradition, unless the "causa corruptelae" is obvious. Dr. Blaydes's contempt for the ductus is fatal. It is this failing that has excited prejudice against him almost universally amongst scholars, and has obscured the meritorious character of a great portion of the excellent work he has done. It rarely occurs to him to explain the origin of an error. He is satisfied that the text is faulty, and he generally supplies what he calls "dimidium medelae," by pointing out the blot; but, in spite of my admiration for Dr. Blaydes's erudition and devotion to literature, and for

the unrivalled stores of illustration with which he defends his suggestions, I must confess that, through his disregard for scientific method, very few of his corrections will appear in future texts of the Agamemnon.

In support of what I say, I will adduce the chief alterations he has made in the text, in constituting which he professes that he has been cautious, admitting only 'certain' or 'probable conjectures.'

52. Blaydes omits all reference to Professor Housman's most ingenious suggestion παίδων ἀπάτῃ λεχαίων (cp. Soph., Ant. 630, ámáraç deɣéwv vπepadyav), which would be almost convincing were it not that the two datives are somewhat awkward.

Blaydes's own reading vπèp ŵv dexéwv emphasizes too strongly the sense of proprietorship, above their own nests.'

54. Tóvov opraλíxwv, MSS. Blaydes destroys the pathos πόνον ὀρταλίχων, of the line by reading yóvov (cp. Spenser, 'right sorrowfully mourning her bereaved cares.') It may be noted that in Soph., Fr., 725, iπiμaorídiov yóvov opradixwv, which Blaydes adduces in support of his alteration, Ellis reads TÓVOV. The two words are perpetually confounded.

55:

ὕπατος δ' ἀΐων ἤ τις ̓Απόλλων.

Blaydes reads in text roi, an ugly shortening, which removes an idiomatic use of ris (= 'perchance.')

78:

Αρης δ' οὐκ ἔνι χώρα,

Blaydes reads ypg as a "certissima emendatio."