coarse, or impatient.

Hence & is never found in prayer or addresses to the gods, and is entirely absent in passages of dignity and elevation.1

NORTHWESTERn University.

JOHN ADAMS SCOTT.

1 The Oos of & had so completely changed in Attic prose that it was seldom omitted, and the vocative without the interjection had a familiar tone.

On the use in Attic prose, and especially in the Orators, see Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, 15 ff.; Rehdantz, Index to Demosthenes, under Anrede; Rockel, De Allocutionis Usu, Koenigsberg, 1884.

V. THE VOCATIVE IN APOLLONIOS RHODIOS.

The serene atmosphere of the epos is not favorable to the true interjection. & deiλ' is found in Homer but there is no alai, no φεῦ, no ὀτοτοῖ. ὤ is found in ὤ μοι and in ὢ πόποι but there is no opo, and now, according to Professor SCOTT, even the mild. & is excluded from the quietis ordinibus deorum. This exclusion, this taboo, seems to be an inheritance from the dactylic measures of hieratic poetry, beginning, say, with Zeû nárep, and it is noteworthy that, opening as they do with a vowel, many of the names of the gods would rebel against &. Outside of dactylic poetry, outside of epic poetry, there is no interdict against the combination of & with the name of a god. Lofty Pindar does not balk at & Zev, I. 5 (6), 3 or at & Zeû nárep, O. 7, 87 and I. 5 (6) 42 and the honey-tongued Keian nightingale has & Zeû kepavveyxés 8, 10 (K.) as well as & xpvσadákatoi Xápites 9, I. As for the iambic levellers we are not surprised to find in Archilochos & Zeû nárep Zeû, σòv μèv ovpavoû κράτος or in Hipponax ὦ Ζεῦ πάτερ θεῶν ̓Ολυμπίων πάλμυ. So too, the dramatists use & Zeû, without scruple, from the priestly aristocrat Aischylos to the advanced thinker Euripides. In prose & becomes colorless, so colorless that puzzled grammarians looked upon it as a manner of article to the vocative (Apoll. Synt. 1, 18). Cf. Jannaris § 251. Then it was the absence of & that became emotional (S. C. G. § 20), until that emotion also wore itself out, and the vocative without & ceased to thrill (Blass, G. N. T. § 33, 4). These shifts of hos we encounter everywhere in language. The third attributive position means one thing in the epos, another in prose (A. J. P. XXIII 8). où μn loses much of its passion by abuse (A. J. P. XVIII 460). Wilamowitz has called attention to the shifting fortunes of 0 and féλw (H. F.' II 11) and not without interest in this whole matter is the crushing victory of the religious é in modern Greek over the secular Boúλopai (A. J. P. XVI 525). Thinking it might be worth while to see how far the old epic feaμós obtained in the artificial epic of a later day, I have examined the Argonautica of Apollonios to this end, and my results have been checked by the keener eyes of my

friend, Professor MILLER. The outcome is not considerable because the speeches in Apollonios do not take up relatively so much space as the speeches in Homer; and Apollonios does not deal so much with the gods. But there is no passage in which the gods are addressed by & except & 1411 and 1414 (see below), and & is sparingly used at any rate.

B. L. G.

a. Without &.1

(3+4). β 693 (3+4). πάτερ. α 295 μήτερ (5). (1+2). 553 (1+2).

α Ι Φοίβε (3). 411 ἄναξ (1 + 2). 420 Εκηβόλε (3+4). 422 ἄναξ 8 1706 Λητοίδη. α 242 Ζεῦ ἄνα. 8 1673 Ζεῦ 8 31 μῆτερ ἐμή. α 336 φίλοι (1 +2). γ 545 883 (1+2). 190 (3+4). 1347 (1+2). 1554 (1+2). a 463 Alsovídn. 1092. 1332. B 444. 615. y 475. 941. 8 355. γ 509 ἥρως Αίσονίδη. α 476 δαιμόνιε. 1257. γ 7ΙΙ δαιμονίη. II 20. 895. 395 (2+3). a 865 dayóvior. B 880. δαιμόνιοι. β α 703 Ιφινόη (2+3). 793 geîve. y 401. 8 33.89.

• 836 Υψιπύλη. 900.

β ΙΙ ἁλίπλαγκτοι (1+2+3). 209 Πανελλήνων προφερέστατοι (1 + 2+ 3+4). 256 τέκνον (6). 438 Φινεϋ (3+4). 622 Τίφυ. 869 Αἰακίδη. 886. 1219 ήθελε (2+3). γ 52 ἠθεῖαι.

γ ι Ερατώ (2+3). 11 θύγατερ Διός (Athena) (3+4). 91 Ηρη Αθηναίη 19 "Hpn. 32. 79 пóтva beá. 91 (see above). 8 1199 "Hpn. y 108 Κυθέρεια (2+3). 129 ἄφατον κακόν (Eros) (3+4). δ 445 σχέτλι Ερως, μέγα πῆμα, μέγα στύγος ἀνθρώποισιν. γ 304 παιδὸς ἐμῆς κοῖροι Φρίξοιό τε. 320 Αιήτη. 386. 427. 372 λωβητήρες (5+6). 467 πότνα θεὰ Περσηί (3+4+5). 674 Μήδεια (2+3). 8 739 σχετλίη. γ 688 Χαλκιόπη. 727. δ 32 Χαλκιόπη καὶ πᾶς δόμος (2+3+4). γ 975 παρθενική (2+3). 978 κούρη (6).

δ ι θεά (3+4) = 2 Μοῦσα (3). 552 θεαί (1+2). 984 Μοῦσαι (6). 757 Ιρι φίλη. 783 Θέτι δια (2+3). 1014 βασίλεια (2 + 3) = 1026 πότνα. 1047 σχέτλιοι ἀτροπίης καὶ ἀνηλέες. 1073 καὶ φίλος = 1079 ἄναξ (1+ 2) = 1086 φίλε (1). 1098 'Αρήτη. 1318 κάμμορε. 1333 ἐρημονόμοι κυδραὶ θεαί (1+2+3+4). 1485 Κάνθε. 1564 ήρως (6).

1597 δαῖμον. 1773 ἀριστήων μακάρων γένος (1+2+3+4).

1 While the list of vocatives here given is not claimed to be exhaustive, it is not likely that the few vocatives that may have escaped observation would materially affect the results of a comparison between Homer's and Apollonios' usage.

2 The numerals in parentheses designate the foot or feet in which the expression is found. When no numerals follow, the word begins with the first foot.

b. With &.

2 616 ὦ μέλεαι, ζήλοιό τ' ἐπισμυγερῶς ἀκόρητοι. 657 ὦ φίλαι. γ 891. β 468 ὦ φίλοι. 641. 774. 1200. γ Ι7Ι. 492. 523.

δ 1741 ὦ φίλε (5). 288 ὦ υἱεῖς Βορέω (2+3+4). 341 ὦ μέλεοι. 4ΙΙ ὦ γέρον. 420 ὦ τέκος. γ 936 ὦ κακόμαντι (2+ 3). 8 1031 ὦ πέρι δὴ μέγα φέρτατοι (2+3+4). 1383 ὦ πέρι δὴ μέγα φέρτατοι υἱες ἀνάκτων (2+3+4+5+6).

α 1337 ὦ πέπον. γ 485. 8 1749. Cf. β 244 ὦ δείλ'.

ὦ καλαὶ καὶ εύφρονες, ἵλατ ̓, ἄνασσαι.

(2+3+4+5+6).

1411 δαίμονες

1414 ὦ νύμφαι, ἱερὸν γένος Ωκεανοίο

It might be interesting to note also the following:

α 290 ὤ μοι ἐμῆς ἄτης. γ 798. γ 674 ὤ μοι ἐγώ. γ 558 ὦ πόποι.

8 1458.

C. W. E. MILLER.

REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.

The Eumenides of Aeschylus, with Introduction and Notes by A. SIDGWICK, M. A. Third Edition. Oxford, 1902.

Teachers of the classics are familiar with Mr. Sidgwick's editions of the Orestean trilogy. That these have proved a valuable introduction to the study of Aeschylus, needs neither statement nor argument. Assuming that this series of text-books has a future as well as a past, it may be worth while to offer some remarks, based upon class-room experience, concerning the third edition of the Eumenides.

The editor has done well to omit the asterisks which formerly marked deviations from the manuscript_readings and to give in their place adequate critical notes. In the revision of the punctuation, the third edition does not seem to mark an improvement over the second. Cases in point are the insertion of a comma in 690, its omission in 807, the substitution of colon for comma in 408. After 830, the comma does not bear out the interpretation given in the note. The entire absence of punctuation after 1028 is evidently an oversight, as is also the false form αἱμητηρόν, 137.

Concerning the notes, the following comments may be made. The expression in vs. 30 is not an abridgment of two constructions but a survival of the ablatival genitive. "Reckoning from my former entrances, may this response be the best." This is an epic construction (Iliad 1, 505, etc.), and is used by Thucydides 1, 1, Soph. Antig. 102, 1212. To translate épnow, 502, "let loose," or with Liddell and Scott, "send upon", is to attribute too much to the Furies. They do not threaten to promote murder, but give warning that if their power is broken murder will take its unchecked course. Their part is permissive. The translation of 503-'5 is lacking in clearness. In 661 Mr. Sidgwick seems to make pros the antecedent of oio. The dative case is against this interpretation. The pronoun is a dative of interest, and the logical antecedent is ó pokov. A note explaining the prevalence of this theory of parentage would be welcome. The sequence of thought in 826-'8 is not correctly given in the note. There is nothing adversative in these verses. When Athena says, "I have trust in Zeus," she means not in his wisdom and justice but in his power. The chorus had threatened violence. Athena replies: You talk of force. I too have an appeal to force. I know where the thunderbolt of Zeus is kept. But we need not appeal to force. A general note prefixed to the passage 711-730 would be helpful to the young student. Antithesis is the key to the understanding