of our discussion on the same basis as the treatise itself. Divested of the proverbial and historical references that introduce and close it, its central thought is expressed in the following words: μόνην σοι δηλῶσαι τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην ἐθέλω, ὅπως τε νῦν ἔχω καὶ ὅτι μὴ παρέργως πρὸς τῶν σῶν λόγων εἴλημμαι. 'I only wish to prove to you what opinion I now entertain and that I have not been superficially affected by your discourse.' It is needless to say that for Schwarz and his views this statement ought to constitute the cardinal difficulty; for, if genuine and sincerely meant, it disposes at once of Schwarz's theory, that the whole discourse is a huge joke at the expense of Nigrinus. Schwarz surmounts the difficulty with an ease altogether suspicious; "Diese Worte bekommen aber je nach der Anschauung des in Eitelkeit befangenen Philosophen oder des vorurtheilsfreien Lesers einen verschiedenen Sinn." Can we conceive that a man writes a parody on a philosopher's activity, so artfully devised, that its true character has escaped the critical faculties of generations of scholars, that he sends this treatise to the philosopher in question, accompanies it with a letter of hearty recognition, and yet at the same time wishes every other reader to recognize that there is not a candid statement in all that he has said? The reader, free from prejudice, would methinks conclude otherwise; it is a preconceived notion that Nigrinus does not adequately represent Lucian's ideal of philosophy, that has led to this far-fetched conclusion. According to our opinion of the introductory epistle the whole treatise must be judged; and I am free to confess that I consider it a straight-forward expression of a philosophic standpoint. I would go a step farther. Schwarz in a later treatise on the "Gallus" says of his earlier treatise on the Nigrinus, that he still maintains his views on its general purpose and period of composition, but is not ready to maintain every position therein indicated. It would not be surprising to me, if calmer reflection had made his earlier assumption appear too audacious. With this suggestion I proceed to another point. Many commentators on Lucian, as has been previously stated, ascribe a prominent influence on the philosophic habitus of their favorite author to Nigrinus and Demonax; the same general principles of a well conducted life appertain to both, the same tendency to eclecticism as a philosophic rule of conduct, rather than pronounced adherence to any school. Το Demonax is ascribed the sentiment, ἐγὼ δὲ Σωκράτην μὲν σέβω, θαυμάζω δὲ Διογένην καὶ φιλῶ ̓Αρίστιππον. It is quite another matter however to reason that because Nigrinus and Demonax were Lucian's types and standards of a noble, reflective life, his literary treatment of them should be similar. It would verily be yλuvк' 'A0íraže to cite instances in which the same writer according to his varying mood cultivates now the ornate, now the more sober narrative style; and yet this essential condition of the creative faculty Sommerbrodt, the well known editor of Lucian in the Weidmann collection, seems to have disregarded; in his general introduction he rejects the Δημώνακτος βίος as a genuine production of Lucian's, with the words: "eine stümperhafte characteristik" unworthy of the master of style. He makes no comments in defense of his abrupt condemnation, and yet it would have merited a fuller discussion, for Fritzsche, the editor KAT' ¿Soxhν of Lucian, unhesitatingly accepts the treatise. It cannot be because of any serious discrepancies in language between the wording of this treatise and the body of Lucian's writings, such a discrepancy as Guttentag has revealed in the Toxaris, where the awkward attempts at imitation make the difference of style only the more apparent; a survey of the style of the Bíoc fails to reveal any of those ineptitudes which might point to surreptitious authorship. The "blundering' quality of the description, as alleged by Sommerbrodt, must therefore appear from comparison with analogous works of our author, and such a work is preeminently that, in which he presents his other ideal philosopher, Nigrinus. Let us hear what he finds worthy of commendation in the treatise "Nigrinus": "its delicacy of observation and pregnancy in characterization." These are preeminently artistic qualities, but we may have impressive and truthful delineation of char. acter, and yet not find these evidences of the artistic temper. And here we reach that distinguishing line, which, it seems to me, should settle the mooted question. The Neypìvos is as truly a piece of artist-work as any of the earlier Platonic dialogues; subject-matter and form are of equal importance to Lucian; in reproducing the contents of Nigrinus' discourse, he wishes to show that it is the hand of a master in the literary art that shapes the environments of the whole; it is what the Germans are apt to call "ein literarisches Paradestück." How entirely different in intention and execution is the βίος Δημώνακτος ! That it must have been written at a much later period than the Nigrinus, is manifest from this fact: The discourse delivered by Nigrinus marks the beginning of Lucian's philosophic studies; the Bíos is composed after the death of Demonax, of whose philosophic method Lucian had gained intimate knowledge throughout a sympathetic intercourse of many years. Immaturity of style is therefore out of the question; the lack of elegance, the unadorned presentation of the salient points of Demonax' character will all explain themselves, if we remember that it is a Bios. From the Alexandrine period on, the general outlines of the Bios are definitely marked; the facts and tendencies of a life are supplemented by a store of anecdotes, illustrative of these facts and tendencies. According to the Iskill of the author we must either content ourselves with this scanty array, or else we find the theme appropriately introduced, judiciously disposed, and harmoniously concluded; and to this latter category we may fairly assign the biographical notice of Demonax, and credit Lucian with its composition, unless arguments of far greater weight than those hitherto advanced be adduced against his authorship. VI.-Virgil and Plato. BY ERNEST G. SIHLER, PH.D., NEW YORK CITY. I. Professor Sellar of Edinburgh in his excellent volume on Virgil, page 313, speaks of the three great passages of the Aeneid in which the action is prophetically advanced into the Augustan age. These are: Aen. I 223-296, Jupiter's consolation to the mother of Aeneas; VI 756-860, vision of Roman worthies destined to ennoble Roman history; and VIII 626– 731, the shield of Aeneas, wrought by Vulcan. "These, better than any other passages, serve to bring out the relation both of dependence on the Homeric epic, and of contrast with it, which characterizes the Virgilian epic." On the artistic plausibility it may be appropriate to comment further on. Now it is characteristic of the way in which Virgil follows Homer that as far as the order in his own epic is concerned, Virgil does not follow the succession of Homeric figures and episodes. The Virgilian Odyssey comes first and the Virgilian Iliad second, each occupying one-half of the Aeneid. Thus too in his Inferno: the Trojan hero's helmsman Palinurus who lost his life by accident, comes first, begging for burial 337-383, corresponding closely enough to Homer's Elpenor who lost his life by accident Od. XI 51-80. The dreary typical moan of Achilles over shadow life 489 Bovλoiun k' ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ, has its palpable counterpart in the (more impersonal) lines of Virgil VI 436 sq. quam vellent aethere in alto nunc et pauperiem et duros perferre labores! The mute aversion of Dido, 469 sqq., corresponds to the way in which Ajax nurses his hatred even in the nether world, 543-564. The most woful thing in Virgil's Inferno is Deiphobus relating his destruction through the treachery of a woman, Helen, to Aeneas who had been ignorant of such an end of his friend. The prototype of this is Homer's Agamemnon relating his destruction through the treachery of a woman, Clytaemnestra, to Odysseus who had been ignorant of such an end of the former (387-464). The most prominent passage in Virgil's Inferno, where adaptation most nearly approaches translation, are the verses on Tityus 595 sqq. It is notable, too, that the Roman poet in one of his figures blends the functions of two distinct Homeric persons: the functions both of the seer Teiresias and of Odysseus' mother Anticleia are sustained by Anchises in Virgil's Inferno. But at a certain point the Roman poet utterly forsakes his Homeric guide. It is with this departure that our present inquiry is occupied. What does Virgil mean by it? Whence has he drawn his materials, if he does not move along alone? Have we here any proof of personal philosophy or of personal belief on' the part of Virgil? II. After meeting his sire, the Roman hero, 703 sqq., beholds vast clouds of spirits hovering on the banks of the Lethaean His father informs him that these stream. animae, quibus altera fato corpora debentur, Lethaei ad fluminis undam securos latices et longa oblivia potant. 713 sqq. Naturally Aeneas is much astonished at this new coming into the flesh and its grounds and ends :-quae lucis miseris tam dira cupido? Anchises, satisfying his curiosity, begins with a philosophic diatribe ab ovo: "At the beginning Spirit and Mind pervaded the universe, as life does the human body; and from this union of the universal mind and spirit with the dead primeval mass have sprung the individual living organisms; their life is a part and effluence of that cosmic life and spirit." Abstract as these statements are, they are not quite concise enough to permit us to attach them to a specific doctrine of one Greek thinker. Some points indeed suggest the cosmic doctrine of Plato as presented in the Timaeus, e. g. the idea of the anima mundi, Tim. 34 b fuxir de eis Tò μέσον αὐτοῦ θεὶς διὰ παντός τε ἔτεινε. Plato also calls the universe 2 ζῷον αΐδιον Tim. p. 37 d. And there is some resemblance to Stoic teaching, cf. Ritter and Preller, 5 ed., § 412. So much, a |