THE CLASSICAL MUSEUM. 54 I. THE HELLENICS OF XENOPHON, AND THEIR DIVISION IN a paper published in the first number of the Rheinisches 1 See Kleine Schriften, Vol. 1. p. 464. A translation of the paper, by the Bishop of St. David's, is in the Philological Museum, Vol. 1. p. 485–9. 2 * Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 4. § 35–7, after having described the assassination of Alexander the tyrant of Pheræ by his wife and her brothers, says: τὰ μὲν οὖν αἴτια τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς γυναικὸς οὕτω λέγεται· τῶν δὲ ταῦτα πραξάντων ἄχρις οὗ ὅδε ὁ λόγος ἐγράφετο Τισίφο νος πρεσβύτατος ὧν τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶχεν. § 37. where ὅδε ὁ λόγος means 'this history,' or 'this part of this history.' Mr. Clinton thinks that Alexander was slain in Ol. 105. 1. (B. c. 360), and that Tisiphonus ruled from that year till Ol. 105. 4 (357). See his Fasti, Vol. 11. ad ann. 359, and App. c. 15. Diodorus places the death of Alexander in 357 B.C. at the end of the second book; ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὁμοῦ πολιτεύονται, καὶ τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμένει ὁ δῆμος; which could not have been written by Xenophon forty-four years after the amnesty. Niebuhr adds, in confirmation of this view, the following arguments: "Another statement which appears to me likewise well deserving of attention is, that Xenophon published the books of Thucydides... It is extremely probable that he resided at Athens for some time after the battle of Cnidus, and that he was living under the eyes of his fellow-citizens, when he brought out the two supplemental books; and that he subjoined them as such from the first to those of Thucydides. According to the Bibliotheca Græca, all the seven in the Aldine edition bear the title of Paralipomena of Thucydides; and this was no doubt taken from some manuscript: it is appropriate for the first two books, and was assuredly their original one: it only becomes absurd by being extended too far: Marcellinus, I conceive, was acquainted with the two books in their separate state, and it is they ois Eevodov συνάπτει τὰ Ἑλληνικά. For this again is the appropriate title for the last five. "The ancients set so high a value on harmony of numbers in their distribution of parts, and on symmetry in general, that one may hazard the conjecture that the Paralipomena formed only one book; so that, including them, the whole history of the Peloponnesian war made up nine, like that of Herodotus. As a single book they would not be more bulky than one of Thucydides. Ten however is likewise a suitable number, especially for Athens; whereas seven is one altogether accidental and arbitrary3. The five of the Hellenics would be the half of the former, and combined with the seven of the Anabasis, would make twelve.' (Phil. Mus. Vol. I. p. 488). The argument derived by Niebuhr from the occurrence of the word Paralipomena in the Aldine edition of the Hellenics, has been shewn by L. Dindorf to be founded on a mistake. The name appears to have been given at a late date to the Hellenics of Xenophon, and some other works, including the later Greek 3. Doch auch zehn ist eine angemessene Zahl, zumahl für Athen; wogegen sieben eine ganz zufällige und unbegründete.' Kleine Schriften, Vol. 1. p. 468. 4 His remarks were published in the Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik for 1833, Vol. 1. p. 254, and a translation of them is given in the Philol. Mus. Vol. 11. p. 241; where see the editor's note. Compare Renouard, Annales de l'Imprimerie des Alde, Tom. I. pp. 96, 97. (ed. 2). history, considered in connexion with Herodotus and Thucydides ; and it was probably, as Dindorf remarks, suggested by the Alexandrine title of the books of Chronicles. Neither Diodorus, he adds, nor the old grammarians who cite the Greek history of Xenophon, are acquainted with any other title of it than 'Eλλŋviká3. Dindorf however concludes his remarks thus: "Although the external evidence which Niebuhr has adduced in support of his opinion seems to me to have no weight, yet any person who considers the internal proofs as convincing, is still at liberty to hold that the Hellenics were written at different times, and even with different objects." Setting aside the argument founded on the title of Paralipomena, as unsupported by sufficient testimony, I propose to examine whether the arguments derived from the character of the Hellenics, and the division and number of its books, are sufficient to establish the view taken by Niebuhr. In the first place it may be remarked that Niebuhr's arguments with respect to the different periods at which the earlier and later books of the Hellenics were composed, do not prove that the work was not considered by the author as one. Even if the first two books were written soon after the return of the Ten Thousand, and the later books were completed forty years afterwards, it does not follow that Xenophon considered them as belonging to different works. The ancient writers appear to have often kept their works. under revision during a large part of their life. This was probably the case with the history of Herodotus; and Niebuhr himself particularly remarks the same fact with respect to the History of Plants, by Theophrastus. "From the archons mentioned in the History of Plants," he says, "the time of its completion and publication may be deduced negatively. These chronological notices show indeed during how long a time previous to the publication such additions as suggested themselves were incorporated by the philosopher with his work, which had been composed, but not yet laid before the world. In the year 117. 2. he wished to state that Cyrene had then stood for about three hundred years; so he named the archon of the day (vi. 3). Thus natural phenomena were related to him as having occurred about so many years before; all these dates might have been referred to the year of the publi 5 For example, Diog. Laert. II. 57. and Phot. Biblioth. p. 532 a. 19. ed. Bek ker. Athen. v. p. 217 F. cites Zevopov ἐν πρώτῳ Ελληνικών, i. e. I. 7. § 14. cation; but it was quite superfluous. Numberless other additions must have been made in the same way, which are not to be detected, not being appended externally, but immediately wrought into the work itself. In like manner (he adds) Aristotle has evidently enlarged his Rhetoric, which in his first sketch was one of his earlier works, with additions till toward the close of his life." (Hist. of Rome, Vol. 1. note 30). It is to be observed, with respect to the Greeks of the fourth century before Christ, that the publication of a book was a far less marked and precise event than it has become since the invention of printing, or than it even became at a later date in Greece. When Plato, or Xenophon, or Aristotle, had composed a work, probably he read it, or portions of it, to some of his friends or disciples; perhaps, too, a few persons caused copies to be made; but the publicity was so limited that the author naturally continued to revise it so long as his interest in the subject remained alive?. After a literary class had been formed in Greece, the deposit of a book in the Alexandrian library, as in the temple of the Palatine Apollo at Rome, might have formed nearly as distinct an epoch in an author's mind as an advertisement of his book in a newspaper forms at present; but the Athenian writers before the age of Alexander had no such event for marking the time at which a writing became the property of the public. Favorinus reported an anecdote respecting Plato, that on an occasion when he read aloud his dialogue of the Phædo, all the audience went away except Aristotle. Diog. Laert. III. 37. 7 ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ διαλό γους κτενίζων καὶ βοστρυχίζων καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἀναπλέκων οὐ διέλιπεν ὀγδοήκοντα γεγονώς ἔτη. Dionys. Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 25, (p. 406, Schaefer), who goes on to tell the well-known anecdote of the first words of the Republic having been found, after Plato's death, written in different ways on his tablet. Compare Diog. Laert. 111. 37, and Ast ad Rep. init. With respect to the successive alterations and improvements of his works by Aristotle, see the remark of Stahr, Aristotelia, Vol. 11. p. 43, and as to the question whether Aristotle published his own works, ibid. pp. 35, sq. 8 There was no public library at Athens at this period. See the accounts of the early libraries, in Gräfenhan, Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie, Vol. 1. p. 58, sq. Strabo, XIII. p. 608, states that Aristotle was the first person who collected a library: πρῶτος ὧν ἴσμεν συναγαγών βιβλία, καὶ διδάξας τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ βασιλέας βιβλιοθήκης σύν ταξιν. Compare Stahr's Aristotelia, Vol. 11. p. 25. The important influence which the foundation of the Alexandrine libraries and the creation of a set of literary endowments by the Egyptian princes produced upon Greek literature, is remarked by Littré, in his Introduction to Hippocrates: "Les conquêtes d'Alexandre, les communications multipliées qui s'établirent entre la Grèce et l'Orient, la fondation d'Alexandrie en Egypte, la formation des grandes bibliothèques dans cette ville et à Pergame produisirent, dans les rélations littéraires, une revolu |