we find evidence of neo-Platonic psychology in the exposition of Plato's theory of the soul, it is better to assume that Porphyry, if indeed he is Nemesius' source, and Chalcidius drew from similar

sources.

The following are the main points in his account of Plato's theory. The soul has widely differing functions (vires), the λoyiσTIKÓV, the θυμοειδές, and the ἐπιθυμία. It extends throughout the body and manifests its power through the various parts as its instruments. There are two principales vires, una deliberativa, altera quae ad adpetendum quid impellit. The rational soul is located in the head. The senses are placed near it that it may pass judgment upon their reports. The senses are related to the deliberatio (diávoia apparently) as the latter to the intellectus (voûs). The location of the rational soul in the brain is proved from the fact that madness and like disorders are occasioned by affections of this organ. In such cases the soul itself is not injured, but its instrument is unable to fulfil its function. The second principale is located in the heart. Just as in the universe the gods command, demons carry out these commands, and earthly beings are subject to rule, so in the nature of man "est quiddam regale, est aliud quoque in medio positum, tertium quod regitur et administratur. imperat igitur anima, exequitur vigor eius in pectore constitutus, reguntur et dispensantur cetera pube tenus et infra." This same division Plato employs in the Republic.

It is needless to point out the elements which are derived from Plato. The idea of the extension of the soul throughout the body goes back to Xenocrates: cf. Lactantius De opificio dei 16. The idea that the soul is not impaired in diseases of the brain seems to be a Platonic development of Aristotle De anima 408 b, 18. I know of no exact parallel to the theory of two yeμоvikά or principales vires. Though it is inconsistent with the Platonic division of the soul, Chalcidius evidently tries to secure harmony by equating the second ἡγεμονικόν with the θυμοειδές. Steinheimer is wrong, I believe, in interpreting the clause "reguntur et dispensantur pube tenus et infra" as referring to the body, not the rivμía.

This section cannot, I think, come from the neo-Platonists. The idea of two yeμová is altogether opposed to their conceptions.

There is a total lack of subtleties such as the distinction between the functions of the soul proper and those of the ovvaμþóтepov, which is the resultant, not of a union of body and soul, but of body and an emanation, an effluence, given off by the soul; cf. Plotinus i. 1. 7; vi. 4. 15.

Neither can Chalcidius' strange interpretation of Timaeus 46 E be neo-Platonic (chapter 261): "illas vero, inquit, quae ab aliis motae movent alias, secundas existimandum. perspicue patibilem partem rationabilis animae vitiosamque significat. in qua est impetus. quippe inpetus principaliter quidem ab ea parte animae movetur, quae motu intimo genuinoque ex semet ipsa movetur, ex accidenti vero etiam desideriis moventibus. ipse autem inpetus movet corpus." The phrase "patibilem partem rationabilis animae" is utterly inconsistent with Plotinus' statements that the soul is ȧπans, and that the effluence which combines with the body is no part of the soul (iii. 6. 1; vi. 4. 15).

In chapters 275-320 Chalcidius gives a discussion of matter. After setting forth the ideas of the Hebrews, the atomists, the Eleatics, Empedocles, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Pythagoras (according to Numenius), he gives, in chapters 300-320, the theory of Plato. Steinheimer (pp. 40-45) indicates many close parallels between this latter section and Plotinus, and concludes, notwithstanding several slight discrepancies which he points out, that Chalcidius' source is a neo-Platonist. The argument would be very plausible if we found the same agreement between Chalcidius and Plotinus concerning the question of the origin of matter that we find concerning its nature. But in chapters 300-301 Chalcidius divides Platonists into two main classes: those who declare that matter is the creation of God, and those who regard it as uncreated. This latter class is again divided into those who hold that matter was animated by an evil soul before the creation of the world-soul by God, and those who hold that the disordered motion of which Plato speaks was not in unqualified matter, which is immobile, but in bodies.

Whether Chalcidius is referring in his first class to the neoPlatonists or to earlier philosophers such as Eudorus, is uncertain. Those who taught the doctrine of the original, evil world-soul are Plutarch, Atticus, and their school. The second division of the

second class seems to include the Platonists who, while regarding matter as uncreated and a separate ȧpxý, maintained that the world was not created in time. There can be no doubt that Chalcidius himself follows this latter class. Throughout the work he argues for the eternity of the world. His opposition to those who declare matter to be created is seen from the phrase which he uses concerning them, "verba quaedam potius quam rem secuti." Furthermore, in chapters 303-5 he demonstrates that there are three principles-God, matter, and the ideas.

If Chalcidius had used a neo-Platonic commentary on the Timaeus, there is no doubt that he would have found in it the doctrine that matter is not an independent principle, but is derived. For we see from the arguments of Porphyry and Proclus1 that the neo-Platonists laid a great deal of emphasis upon this point. Being a Christian and knowing that according to commentators the Hebrew Scriptures taught that matter was created, Chalcidius could have had no reason for substituting the theory of the independence of matter for that of its derivation.

The resemblances between Chalcidius and Plotinus are to be explained most easily by the assumption that they drew from the common fund of ideas of the Platonic school. For the doctrine of the nature of matter which they set forth is plainly a development of the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.3

In conclusion, our investigation has shown us that there is much in Chalcidius utterly at variance with the theories of the neoPlatonists; that the ideas which he has in common with them are found in earlier writers, with the apparent exception of the threequality theory of the elements, and the denial of the transmigration of souls into the bodies of the lower animals; that consequently we cannot assume a neo-Platonic commentary or treatise as the source. GRINNELL COLLEGE

1 Proclus i. 384, 391, 457.

2 Cf. chap. 276.

8 Cf. Baeumker, Das Problem der Materie, p. 403.

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS.

THE ARCHON LYSITHEIDES

In the 'Ep'. 'Apx. (1915), 1 ff., Dragoumes has published a decree of the thiasotai of Bendis from Salamis dated in the archonship of Hieron. Among the officers of this religious cult are the epimeletai Menon, Nikias, and Nikarchos, the treasurer Charinos, and the secretary Stratokles. The decree is completely preserved and the editor has been able to restore with accuracy a similar document from the archonship of Lysitheides which was more or less fragmentary (IG, II, 620; cf. Wilhelm, JOAI [1902], 130). In the latter document we find Nikias serving as treasurer, Stratokles as secretary, and Pausias and Menon as epimeletai. It is evident that Nikias, Stratokles, and Menon are identical in the two lists and that the two decrees must be dated reasonably close together. Dragoumes has followed Schoeffer (PaulyWissowa, RE, 8.v. "archontes") in dating Hieron in 276/5 and Lysitheides ca. 249/8. But an interval of twenty-seven years between these archonships is altogether too great, for three men could hardly have held these offices for nearly a generation in the same organization. Wilhelm (loc. cit.) has placed Lysitheides in the latter part of the third century, on the basis of the lettering. The discovery of the new evidence shows that little confidence can be given to that kind of proof, especially when Wilhelm (and no man has ever been better qualified than he to judge) errs by half a century. Dragoumes is probably right, however, when he argues that Lysitheides is later than Hieron, although it might equally well be held that the double dating in his new decree is a sign of later date when the organization was more powerful and the dignity of office greater. In the list of archons published in CP (1914), 277, Hieron is dated in 272/1. The first vacant year thereafter is found in 268/7, but we learn from IG, II2, 702, 703 that the archon's name in that year had seven letters (or at the most eight, if it began with a vowel). The next available year is 265/4 to which IG, II2, 689 belongs (CP [1914], 263; cf. AJP [1915], 443 f.). In this decree the archon's name consists of ten letters and ends in -ίδης. Kirchner has restored [ἐπὶ ̓Αῤῥενη]ίδο[υ ἄρχοντος KTA.] but this must be rejected, for Arrheneides belongs to 262/1 after the close of the Chremonidean war, when the Board of Administration (oi ẻrì tỷ διοικήσει) had been replaced by the Minister of Administration (ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ Soinσa). I had formerly suggested that the name Philippides (IG, II, 1333) might be restored in this inscription, but from the new evidence given in the decree from Hieron's year it is clear that the proper restoration is [ènì

209

Λυσιθε]ίδο[υ ἄρχοντος κτλ.]. This gives an interval of seven years between Hieron and Lysitheides, which is the extreme limit allowed by the prosopographical evidence. Lysitheides should therefore be dated in 265/4.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

A. C. JOHNSON

NOTE ON ILIAD xvi. 823-28 ὡς δ ̓ ὅτε σὺν ἀκάμαντα λέων ἐβιήσατο χάρμη, ὦ τ' ὄρεος κορυφῇσι μέγα φρονέοντε μάχεσθον πίδακος ἀμφ' ὀλίγης· ἐθέλουσι δὲ πιέμεν ἄμφω. πολλὰ δέ τ' ἀσθμαίνοντα λέων ἐδάμασσε βίηφιν· ὣς πολέας πεφνόντα Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμον υἱὸν Έκτωρ Πριαμίδης σχεδὸν ἔγχεϊ θυμὸν ἀπηύρα, Lines 826-27 are rendered by Lang, Leaf, and Myer "and the lion hath by force overcome the boar that draweth difficult breath; so after that he had slain many did Hector," etc. This is the usual interpretation. Leaf, e.g., approves Paley, who makes Toλéas repvóvтa answer to åκáμavra in 823, and this seems to be in substance the interpretation of Ameis-Hentze and of Düntzer. This is one of many illustrations that might be given of the failure even yet to appreciate the true nature of the Homeric simile. Though Homer expatiates on the irrelevant details, he is seriously concerned for the logic of his similes, which he usually emphasizes by the repetition of the keyword or of its equivalent synonym. When the logic is strained and the comparison far-fetched, the reiterated word helps it out and quiets the poet's conscience. Such is the case in Iliad xiii. 200–201, vov . . . . iчoû, and such is the case here with woλλά and roλéas: "as the lion subdues the boar despite his much panting resistance, so after his much slaughter Hector slays Patroclus."

Two things have misled modern commentators: (1) they have not felt the Homeric logic that is satisfied by the parallelism of πολλά and πολέας; (2) the ambiguity of åσ0μaívovra, which, though properly "panting" or "breathing hard," may at any time take on the suggestion of resisting or struggling, making an effort, as it does in Aeschylus' Eumenides 651, ovdev åσ0μaívwv μéve, where Wecklein's "keineswegs infolge von Zornmut schnaubend" is not to be taken seriously. The double meaning is still plainer in the use of ȧoraípe Iliad xii. 204 and perhaps Odyssey xix. 228.

CICERO DE DIVINATIONE i. 80

PAUL SHOREY

"Equidem etiam in te saepe vidi et, ut ad leviora veniamus, in Aesopo, familiari tuo, tantum ardorem vultuum atque motuum ut eum vis quaedam abstraxisse a sensu mentis videretur."