from a complex to a more simple method. Thus, the story of Electra, the daughter of Atlas and mother of Dardanus, is told in the chorographical and genealogical Troica, and also in the purely genealogical Atlantis. So the story of Niobe is told in the genealogical Atlantis, and also in the chronological Hiereiai. The cupbearer whose accidental murder by Heracles caused that hero's banishment from Calydon and brought in its train the final catastrophe on Mount Oeta, is named Cherias in the genealogical Phoronis, but Archias in what Athenaeus (IX, p. 419 F) calls "the histories," probably the Hiereiai, or the Atthis, or both. This is not surprising on the theory of an advance from lower to higher methods of composition.

It is surprising, however, to find that the two great chronological works of Hellanicus, the works most deserving of the name of histories, the Hiereiai and the Atthis, cover much the same ground, and follow the same method. Both chronicles began with a mythical and legendary period, where the chronology was reckoned by generations, an arbitrary unit of forty years; both had next a period covering events from about the time of the Trojan war down through the Persian wars and the Pentekontaëtie, where the earlier chronology was reckoned either by generations or by mythical lines of kings; and both, finally, a period covering more or less of the Peloponnesian war, where, as well as in the later parts of the previous period, the chronology was reckoned on the basis of archive lists of public officials. In the case of the Hiereiai, the official was the priestess of Hera at the Argive Heraeum; in that of the Atthis, it was the annual archon at Athens.

While both works included more recent events of the Peloponnesian war, we notice this striking difference between them. The Hiereiai gives us no fragment (i. e. is not cited by later writers) for any event later than the opening years of the war (Frag. 49 Thuc. I 113 = 447 B. C.; and Frag. 52 Thuc. II 81, 4 = 429 B. C.), but the Atthis gives us fragments describing much later events, such as the affair of the Hermae at the beginning of the Sicilian expedition (Frag. 78; cf. Thuc. VI 60, 2; Andocides, de myst. 48; Plutarch, Alcibiades, 21) in 415 B. C. and the battle of Arginusae (Frag. 80) in 406 B. C.

To all appearances, then, on the evidence before us, the Hiereiai was discontinued, and superseded by the Atthis. With due consideration of the great freedom of excursus which Hellanicus, in common with all the "logographers," allowed him

self, even in his more strictly chorographical works, and also of the increasingly imperial relations of Athens, it is not necessary to assume any more local and narrow scope for the Atthis than for the Hiereiai. Here we must not be misled by the narrower patriotism of the later antiquarian writers of Atthides, like Philochorus above all, with whom Hellanicus is sometimes ranked, much more because he wrote a work which he called 'Atthis' than because his Atthis was like that of Philochorus. When Hellanicus wrote his Atthis the Athenians were still making history. The reigning literary spirit was creative and imperialistic, not antiquarian and particularistic. Both the Hiereiai and the Atthis of Hellanicus were national Hellenic chronicles. Therefore the mystery of their community of form and matter becomes all the deeper, and tempts to explanation.

The catastrophic burning of the Argive Heraeum in November of 423 B. C. furnishes a reasonable explanation. Thucydides describes the disaster with remarkable detail (IV 133, 2, 3): "During the same summer the temple of Hera at Argos was burnt down; Chrysis the priestess had put a light too near the sacred garlands, and had then gone to sleep, so that the whole place took fire and was consumed. In her fear of the people Chrysis fled that very night to Phlius; and the Argives, as the law provided, appointed another priestess named Phaeinis. Chrysis had been priestess during eight years of the war and half of the ninth when she fled." There is no good reason to doubt that Thucydides, when he thus wrote, knew the Hiereiai of Hellanicus and had drawn material from it. His words take on added significance if he realized, as he doubtless did, that the chronological basis of a notable rival's history was thus forever and irremediably swept away. There was no immediate prospect, certainly, that it could become imperially current. How Thucydides felt towards this system of chronology which his rival had adopted may, I think, be seen from his words in V 20, 2, where the translation of Jowett is changed slightly, but fairly, as any one would grant: "I would have a person reckon the actual periods of time, and not rely upon lists of archons or other officials whose names may be used in different places to mark the dates of past events. For whether an event occurred in the beginning, or in the middle, or whatever might be the exact point, of these officials' term of office is left uncertain by such a mode of reckoning." And acquaintance, at least, with the system of Hellanicus in the Hiereiai may fairly be inferred from the words of Thucy

dides in II 2, 1, where he attempts to fix the date of the opening of the Peloponnesian war by all the received systems of chronology: "For fourteen years the thirty-years peace which was concluded after the recovery of Euboea remained unbroken. But in the fifteenth year, when Chrysis the high-priestess of Argos was in the forty-eighth year of her priesthood, Ainesias being Ephor at Sparta, and at Athens Pythodorus having two months of his archonship to run, in the sixth month after the engagement at Potidaea, and at the beginning of spring, about the first watch of the night, an armed force of somewhat more than three hundred Thebans entered Plataea, a city of Boeotia, which was an ally of Athens." Here speaks a historian conscious of a method of chronology far superior to that of any rival. The consciousness vents itself in controversy in the passage cited above from book V.

The destruction of the Argive Heraeum certainly made it natural for Hellanicus to abandon the chronological thread for his Hellenic history which had been supplied but could be supplied no longer by the archive lists of temple priestesses. Furthermore, the boundless prestige of Athens during the years between her great triumph over Sparta at Sphacteria (425) and the Peace of Nicias (421) made it equally natural for him to select, as a new chronological thread on which to rearrange the old material of the Hiereiai and arrange the new material brought by the advancing years, the archive lists of annual archons at Athens. No basis of chronology bade fair to have more national currency than this.

In the chronological passages already cited from Thucydides we may, on this explanation, see veiled reference to both the Hiereiai and the Atthis of Hellanicus. The passage which he wrote later, I 97, 2, is more familiar to all: "I have gone out of my way to speak of this period (the Pentekontaëtie) because the writers who have preceded me treat either of Hellenic affairs previous to the Persian invasion or of that invasion itself; the intervening portion of history has been omitted by all of them, with the exception of Hellanicus; and he, where he has touched. upon it in his Attic history (ἐν τῇ ̓Αττικῇ ξυγγραφῇ), is very brief, and inaccurate in his chronology." Here the reference is clearly to the Atthis alone, which was now recognized as the final form of the great national chronicle. For neither Atthis nor Hiereiai has Thucydides a kindly word.

B. PERRIN.

IV. MUTARE PULICES.

A COMMENT ON LUCILIUS, NON. 351, M.

As far as it is safe to infer from the few single lines now surviving, most of which are due to Nonius, the theme of Lucilius in his twenty-sixth book was not unlike that of the first satire of the second book of Horace. Among other matters, the poet certainly specified the readers whose approbation he most desired, perhaps dilated on the nature of his satire, and, apparently in a dialogue with some acquaintance, explained and defended his reasons for not following the usual public career of a Roman in his position. He also seems to have told why he did not choose to marry and rear a family, duties which, as Marx has shown, had recently been brought home to the Roman citizen by the law of Metellus Macedonicus. A fragment quoted by Nonius (351, M.) to illustrate mutare in what he conceived to be the sense of derelinquere is generally connected with this discussion.

In the best manuscripts of Nonius, the Berne and Geneva, Xth century; the first hand of the Harleian 2719, IXth century, and the second hand of the Paris 7667, Xth century, a MS copied from the Harleian, the line runs:

Mihi quidem non persuadetur, pulices mutem meos.

This text was adopted by Dousa and afterwards, without comment, by Quicherat (edit. of Nonius, 1872, p. 401).

The reading of the Harleian, second hand; of the Paris, first hand; of the Leiden and Wolfenbüttel MSS, and, according to Lachmann's critical note (Lucil. 599), of the Basel edition, is publices. Without some emendation, publices is, of course, impossible. The Aldine of 1513; H. Junius, Antwerp, 1565, and Lachmann (Lucilius, Berlin, 1876) emend to publice ut mutem. Mercier, the first great editor of Nonius, in the Paris edition of 1614, writes publice mutem. According to this emendation of the text, publice is to be taken in its not unusual sense of 'in the service' or 'on

behalf, of the state,' and with meos some word like amicos or familiares might be either understood or supposed to occur in the following line. We should therefore translate: 'You won't induce me at least to change my friends for the benefit of the state,' and should agree, for example, with Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 230, that we have here one of the poet's reasons for preferring a private life.

In his edition of Lucilius (1872, XXVI 13) Müller made the very simple emendation to publicis (i. e. publiceis) mutem, explaining the word (p. 246) by reλwvía, and supplying familiares with meos. This makes the fragment differ slightly in meaning, but it would be used in the same connection as before. If, however, we are to believe Nonius, the difficulty with the text after Müller's emendation is that mutare does not mean derelinquere, but is used in its ordinary sense. It was apparently for this reason that Müller gave up publicis and, in his edition of Nonius, I, p. 568 (1888), wrote Publi, utei mutem, just as his vessel of wrath, Francken-neither seems to have ever mentioned the other in this connection-proposed, Mnemos. XVI 396, to read Publie ut mutem, supporting his form of the vocative by Priscian, 301, K. and supplying lares with meos. In both cases the connection of thought appears to be about the same as before.

If we except Dousa and Quicherat, there are certainly two objections to all the texts so far mentioned. First, they are emendations, and, speaking in general, these should be the last resort; and second, publices, upon which they are all founded and from which successive editors take us farther away, is itself not the reading of the best MSS. It is clear, as Stowasser well observes (Wiener Stud. V 262), that "the text-tradition calls for something else." The best MS reading for this flea-bitten line is, without a doubt, pulices. But Stowasser thinks that paelices was the text of the archetype. Being derived from a single reading (pullices, Paris 7667, M3), the emendation has the peculiarity of being as easy from the side of palaeography as it is unlikely from all other points of view. Having adopted the word, we must either change meos to meas or suppose that paelices here was exceptionally masculine. Stowasser chooses the second alternative, and supports it by Sueton., Caes. 49; Martial, XII 97, 3 (96, 3, Fr.), and Festus, 222, M. But these examples do not impress me as having any bearing on the gender of paelex. They simply show that the word was sometimes applied to males.