The form of some of the notes attracts attention. The words "avoids the excessive assonance" (p. 148, 9) suggest what Suetonius did not use, though attention is called to his "extraordinary disregard of euphony" (p. 135, 8) and the "unlucky juxtaposition" in universos diversae (p. 131, 11). We may believe that the last is "accidental," as also, "Suetonius uses the perfect usually" (p. 174, 30), and "by prosecuting the consul's subordinates the consul's own acts would be impugned" (p. 133, 13). But to balance such statements there is a poetic touch now and then, as "troublous times" (p. 149, 4), "joy was unconfined" (p. 223, 19), and "to go unscathed" (p. 267, 9).

A long list of authors, Greek, Latin, as well as modern, have been used to intensify or modify the statements of Suetonius, and much that is given does not refer to the past. For example, the notes on Pomptinas paludes, Fucinum lacum, and Isthmum (p. 152, 5 and 7) show how the moderns have carried out the designs of the ancients. Every fact-grammatical or historicalworthy of notice has, it seems, been judiciously weighed and given its proper rating.

Here and there the form may be changed, but the substance of the illustrative matter must abide. And it is only to show the correctness of the dictum of Horace nihil est ab omni parte beatum that we call attention to the note on oppidatim (p. 323, 9). "This adverb is quoted for only one other passage, and that in Suetonius." This is true for Harper's Dictionary, though other examples are given by Neue, II3, 577. We also think that the note on page 156, 17, might be eliminated without detriment.

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

NASHVILLE, TENN.

R. B. STEELE

In two papers to be published in the Classical Quarterly I have suggested that there is in the Homeric text no real reason for believing that there is anything supernatural about Scheria or the Phaeacians. Here I shall urge that the picture is not imaginary, that the poet was describing a people who dwelt on earth, and that Bérard is right in locating them, where the ancients put them, on the island of Corcyra. And first I would insist against the fairyists on the humanness of the Phaeacian episode.

Thus the account of their settling in Scheria, 4 ff., has all the appearance of history, and reads exactly like one of the ioTopiaι of the Catalogue. Professor Myres seems to accept it as such (Geogr. Aspects of Gk. Colonisn., p. 60, note). The Phaeacians have a political constitution, which Fanta and other writers regard with all seriousness. The women1 occupy as high a position as those of the Achaean communities to the south, and they are, even to Lawton, who is far from minimizing the fairy element, "absolutely human." For Nausikaa he quotes, "who, pray, is alive, if she be dead?" (Art and Humanity in Homer, pp. 193, 241 f.). Wight Duff (Homer and Beowulf, p. 12) speaks of the poet's "mastery of the mind of girlhood in Nausikaa." Again, every trait of the character of the Phaeacians marks them off from the uncivilized races of the non-Achaean world.

1 The inferences as to a yuvaɩkoкparía and the oriental nature of the polity I need not discuss. The former at least is based on no real evidence.

[CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY XIII, October, 1918] 321

They are among those classed as piλóşeivo, and they have the voos Beovons. The poet represents them as knowing and worshiping the great divinities of their Achaean neighbors. They have a fertile land and they till it, but they are essentially seamen. Their wealth and prosperity seem to be the fruit of maritime trade, while a piratical expedition-so to interpret ʼn 9 f.—is no more unfamiliar to them than η to the Achaean races to the south. They fortify their own town against similar raids. They appreciate the Tale of Troy, and Odysseus can assume their familiarity with the great Achaean enterprise and with the heroes of a bygone generation. In their home life, they are easygoing and good-natured, but perhaps somewhat spoiled by prosperity and exclusiveness. That may even lead to a contretemps where a stranger is concerned. They have talents of gold, and their king has a noble residence and gardens to match; they are artistic, and they are athletic after a fashion of their own, which is rather below the Achaean way as exhibited by their great Achaean visitor. They marry and are given in marriage, and the children succeed to their fathers' estates. The dramatis personae among them have names with a human, mortal ring; there are no Oberons, Pucks, or Pease blossoms. The description of the people has, as has more than once been remarked, the air of a drawing from real life, and is as much a καλὸν κάτοπτρον τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου Biov as any other part of the epic.

But it is unnecessary to labor this point, for there are many even among those who do not allow a picture from life known to the poet who nevertheless admit that the Phaeacians are presented to us as real human beings. Even Welcker, after all his theorizings, admits that they are nach Verfassung und Sitte Hellenic. So E. Meyer in Hermes, XXX, 273-the ghostly "middlemen between the living and the dead" become an Ionic Idealstaat of comfortable seafolk. Monro accepts the Märchenhaft in the story, but admits "a human interest which rises far above that level" (cf. Chadwick, The Heroic Age, pp. 297 f. and p. 304, note; Hayman, II, App. G1 and G2; and Menrad, Urmythus, p. 41). To Trenkel (Zur Phäakis, p. 11) the people

1 Fick, Entstehung, p. 65, seems to object to the Phäakis for exhibiting Odysseus als ein grosser Sportsmann, meaning, I presume, a Winkle-ification of the hero.

2 Gruhn, who is apt to be overenthusiastic, pronounces them "EXλnves kar' ¿¿oxýv.

are in many respects normale Sterbliche. In spite of the fairydom prepossession, sober inquirers find real humanness, though not a separate living race known to the poet. Perhaps some of them might have difficulty in saying exactly what they mean when they say the episode is pure Märchen, for that, taken literally, is an impossible description. But apparently their attitude is something like this, a fairy groundwork, conversion of the fairies into human beings, but the final outcome an imaginary people that never was on land or sea. So we may now turn to our own reasons for asserting that the Phaeacians were a community actually known to the poet.

First we have the ancient tradition that Scheria was Corcyra. For this Thucydides is usually quoted (i. 25: καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν Φαιάκων προενοίκησιν τῆς Κερκύρας κλέος ἐχόντων [sc. Κερκυραίων] τὰ περὶ τὰς vaûs, and iii. 70), mentioning a Téμevos on the island still known in the historian's day as Toû 'AλKivov. The first passage is taken by Professor Perrin, on € 34, as disparaging to Corcyra's claim, but that does not seem to be the general view. See the translations by Jowett and Arnold, and by Zimmern (Gk. Commonwealth, p. 414). The question is, What value is to be attached to the tradition? Is it the mere repetition of an idle aspiration, or is a tradition reported by the great historian, who, as his early chapters show, was interested in the Troica, and had considered how far the stories from prehistory could be accepted as true, worthy of respect? It certainly cannot be lightly disregarded. In these days tradition which has all the appearance of mere myth is often found to be confirmed by archaeological, ethnological, and linguistic research, and this one is of a higher order. It relates a simple matter of fact in itself quite worthy of credence.

In estimating it, there are apparently three points to be considered. (1) Was the Corcyraean claim ever questioned in antiquity? So far as my reading has gone, I think the answer must be in the negative, and I observe that Schädel (Das epische Thema der Od., p. 25) distinctly says the claim stood fest. He refers to Strabo vii. 36 for Callimachus' support. (2) Did it go far back? On that point see Thomson's Studies in the Odyssey (p. 86, note): "Scheria was very early identified with Corcyra." The Naupaktia, which is the authority, was by some ascribed to Hesiod, and if the connection was "suggested by the Odyssey," so much the better for present purposes.

Reference may also be made to Roscher (s.v. "Phäaken,” p. 2210), quoting Wilamowitz (H.U., pp. 170 ff.). Gruppe (Griech. Mythol., p. 393) thinks the identification may have been familiar to the oldest lays of the Odyssey, but these he makes comparatively modern, which cannot be admitted. And (3) we must inquire whether there any confirmation to be found in the Homeric text. It seems to me that there is a great deal that is consistent with, and seems to indicate, a place in the position of Corcyra, but before stating it in detail, a subsidiary question has to be examined.

is

This question is, Was Phaeacia an island? The great majority of the commentators believe that this is implied, and the authorities freely refer to Scheria as "the island" (see Belzner, Land u. Heimat des Ods., note on pp. 35 f.). It is true that Homer nowhere applies to it the term νῆσος, and that he calls it the γαῖα Φαιήκων, but that is of no importance. It has been observed by Hayman (III, xci), that "the Homeric island is always one which can be seen at a glance to be such." An island of large size is a yaîa; so in 7 172 for Crete, which is nowhere called a νῆσος, Κρήτη τις γαῖ' ἔστι. But the description of Scheria in 204 seems to me quite conclusive, though Merry and Riddell hesitate. Nausikaa's words there are, oikéoμev d' áñáνευθε πολυκλύστῳ ἐνὶ πόντῳ. The word ἀπάνευθε may not be significant, though 126 may be compared. But surely a mainland site could not be described as évi TóνTw, "in the sea." I observe that 7 172, quoted above, ends, μéoų ėvi oïvoti tóνTW. Compare 8 354 of Pharos and 844 of Asteris, ʼn 244, and cf. § 498 and a 197 of Calypso's Isle, and 25 of Ithaca, noting the added words in the last two cases, áπóжρоlεν and πανυπερτάτη, and comparing them with ἀπάνευθε for Scheria. All the occurrences, including even y 294, where Merry and Riddell seem to be right as to the "isolated rock," point the same way. I might also compare Apollonius Rhodius iv. 983, of this same Corcyra, Kepavvin eiv åλi vñσos. Lehrs (Klein. Schrif., p. 12) tells us that Goethe, after he knew the islands of the Mediterranean, wrote "durch das Treiben der Phäaken wehe etwas so inselhaftes."

And

I hope I may claim the support of all who identify Scheria with Crete.

The comparison of Scheria, as first seen from a distance by Odysseus, to a shield, in e 281, εἴσατο δ' ὡς ὅτε ῥινὸν ἐν ἠεροειδέϊ