tribunus militum under the patronage of Octavianus. Yet that the latter case was a fact appears on the face of the Epode, unless Horace be exaggerating; which, as poets do not write on affidavit, is not at all improbable and that thus, whether Menas or any one else was the object of his Satire, a very slight hint might have served for the story of the whipping and imprisonment. Whilst on this point, Dr. T. might have bestowed a line or two on the word 'Ibericis' (v.3). Some commentators, it is true, have referred it to the ropes being made of Spanish broom, but in this way it is a mere vague and unmeaning epithet; whereas, if we take it to convey an allusion to Spain, whither the younger Pompey had retired to maintain himself against Julius Cæsar, it points, as it were, with the finger to Menas as the subject of the Ode, and adds another trait to those, which, whilst they held him up unmistakeably to the indignant gaze of Rome, spared the author the necessity of naming him. Like a skilful strategist, Dr. Teuffel brings up the rear with his best argument that the designation of tribunus militum does not suit Menas, who, we are told by Appian (B. Civ. V. 80), was appointed legatus, under Calvisius Sabinus 3, immediately on his desertion (Μηνόδωρόν τε ἐλθόντα 'ελεύθερον εὐθὺς ἀπέφηνεν ἐξ ἀπελευθέρου, καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ἤγαγε νεῶν ἐπέτρεπεν ἡγεῖσθαι, ὑποστρατηγοῦντα τῷ ναυάρχο Kalovioi). But, though willing to allow all due force to this argument, I must at the same time be permitted to remark, that it is not at all decisive. I agree with Dr. Teuffel in thinking that Horace would not have given the man a wrong designation, as Franke suggests (Fasti Horat. p. 128), either out of contempt or from want of accuracy; but I am by no means so satisfied that the first part of Franke's remark, namely, that when the Epode was written Menas was in reality only a tribunus militum, is incorrect. It may be observed, that throughout the story there are many discrepancies between Appian and Dio; and in this part the former is not confirmed by the latter. On the contrary, it may be inferred from a passage in Dio, that even if Menas were Sabinus' lieutenant in 716 (of which Dio says nothing), he had ceased to be so in the interval between the campaign of that year and the resumption of hostilities in 718. In describing the last-mentioned event Dio says-Καῖσαρ ἐς τὸν πόλεμον καθίστατο. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα κατὰ γνώμην αὐτῶ, ἐχώρει· ὁ δὲ δὴ Μηνᾶς ἄπιστός τε φύσει ὢν καὶ τὰ τοῦ κρείττονος ἀεὶ θεραπεύων, καὶ πρόσετι καὶ ἀγανακτήσας ὅτι μηδεμίαν ἀρχὴν εἶχεν, ἀλλὰ τῷ Σαβίνῳ ὑπετέτακτο, πρὸς τὸν Σέξστον αὖθις ηυτομό Anger (Lib. XLVIII, 54). Now, even admitting that vrоrárreoda is inоrátteσdai 3 It may be remarked that Schweighauser, both in his version and index, makes Calvisius Sabinus into two per sons; misled, apparently, by the particle Tε coming between the names in one of the chapters. equivalent to Toσтparηyer, the word used by Appian, and that μndeμíar áрxiv exεir may be said with propriety of a Legatus, still the most reasonable inference from this passage is, that this subordinate appointment, whatever it was, at which Menas took offence, must have been made just before the resumption of hostilities in 718; as we are otherwise driven to the alternative that the haughty freedman must have put up with the affront for a period of nearly two years. If, then, we should decide that Dio's words refer to the post of legate, and not to that of tribune; still Menas may have held only the latter rank during the interval of the war. On these grounds, and to escape from the extreme improbability that more than one Menas should have astonished and disgusted the Roman public during the brief period of the Sicilian war, by so unparalleled a rise from the degradations of slavery to the possession of wealth, and to the station of a knight and military tribune, it seems most reasonable to conclude that Pompey's freedman was indeed Horace's butt, as the scholiasts unanimously assure us. T. D. XIV. ON THE APOLOGY OF SOCRATES COMMONLY THE little treatise which is usually printed among the works of Xenophon, under the title of 'Aπoλoyía Zwкpárovç, is unquestionably a genuine relic of antiquity, but whether it is a production of Xenophon is a question which modern critics have answered in different ways, though most of them agree in declaring it a supposititious work. The question however has, to my knowledge, never yet been fully discussed; and those writers who have expressed their opinions upon it, have done so merely by the way and on general grounds; it will therefore perhaps not be superfluous to subject it to a somewhat closer examination. In this, as in all similar cases, we have to look first to the external testimonies of the ancients themselves. The first writer who is believed to allude to the Apology, as a work of Xenophon, is Athenæus, who lived, at the earliest, about the end of the second century after Christ. Athenæus, while discussing the historical inconsistencies in the works of Plato, states1 that he also differed from Xenophon in his account of the manner in which the Delphic Oracle answered Chærephon's question about Socrates. His words are as follows: κἀν τούτοις δὲ μὴ ξυμφωνῶν Ξενοφῶν φησι, Χαιρεφῶντος γάρ ποτε ἐπερωτήσαντος ἐν Δελφοῖς ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἀνεῖλεν ὁ ̓Απόλλων πολλῶν παρόντων μηδένα εἶναι ἀνθρώπων ἐμοῦ μήτε δικαιότερον μήτε σωφρονέστεpov. Now these words, as they are quoted by Athenæus, occur neither in the works of Xenophon nor in those of Plato; the latter merely says, that the Pythia declared μηδένα σοφώτε pov ɛivaɩ, and in the Apology ascribed to Xenophon we find the more rhetorical statement that Apollo declared undeva ɛivai ἀνθρώπων ἐμοῦ μήτε σωφρονέστερον, μήτε ἐλευθεριώτερον, μήτε δικαιότερον, μήτε σοφώτερον. The words quoted by Athenaeus bear indeed a stronger resemblance to those in the Xenophontean Apology5, and it might be said that the discrepancy between the words in Athenæus and Xenophon arose from the fact of the former quoting the passage from memory; but this supposition is scarcely admissible in our case, where Athenæus is discussing minute historical differences between Xenophon and Plato, for by an inaccurate quotation he would have been guilty of the very thing with which he there charges Plato. The copy of Xenophon's Apology, therefore, from which Athenæus seems to quote-for the passage does not occur in any other of Xenophon's works-must have been different from the one which we possess, and it cannot be said with any certainty that our present Apology is the same as the one which Athenæus had before him. The second authority which, apparently, is of somewhat greater weight, is Diogenes Laertius, who attests in two passages that he knew of an Apology of Socrates attributed to Xenophon. In the first he endeavours to prove that there existed a sort of rivalry between Plato and Xenophon, and says, ἔοικεν δὲ καὶ Ξενοφῶν πρὸς αὐτὸν (scil. τὸν Πλάτωνα) ἔχειν οὐκ εὐμενῶς. Ὥσπερ γοῦν διαφιλονεικοῦντες, τὰ ὅμοια γεγράφασι, Συμπόσιον, Σωκράτους ̓Απολογίαν, τὰ ἠθικὰ ̓Απομνημονεύματα. 1 V. p. 218. • Some read Ξενοφῶντι φησι (scil. IIλárov), for which Casaubon proposed to read Ξενοφώντι ὅς φησι. 3 Apolog. Socrat. p. 21. a. 4 § 14. This circumstance led Casaubon to the emendation of the passage in Athenæus, which I mentioned above. 6111. § 34. In the second passage, Diogenes, in enumerating the works of Xenophon, likewise expressly mentions an 'Aroλoyia Zwкpárovs as distinct from the 'Aroμvnμovεúμaтa. These two passages therefore prove beyond a doubt that there existed in the time of Diogenes an Apology of Socrates, which was believed to be a work of Xenophon, but they do not prove, by any means, that the work now extant under that name is the same as the one to which he alludes, though it may be the same, and in all probability is the same, since Stobaeus,' who probably lived in the fifth century of our era, quotes from our Apology two passages of considerable length, from § 28 to § 30 and from § 25 to § 28. Thus, even if we set aside the doubtful authority of Athenæus, we have every reason for believing that in the time of Diogenes Laertius our Apology existed, and that Stobaeus made use of it is attested by positive evidence. If, however, we consider the uncritical character of Diogenes and Stobaeus, their testimony in ascribing the Apology to Xenophon is of little weight, and even the negative evidence of other more critical writers is, I think, sufficient to render their authority at least very doubtful. There are many passages of earlier writers in which they would certainly have mentioned Xenophon's Apology, if they had known its existence. I shall mention only the most striking instances. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 10, putting side by side the works which Plato and Xenophon had written in defence of their master, says that Plato wrote an ἐγκώμιον ἐν ἀπολογίας σχήματι, and Xenophon ἐν τοῖς ̓Απομνημονεύμασι· ὡς γὰρ ἀπολογούμενος ὑπὲρ Σωκράτους ἐγκώμιον Σωκράτους περαίνει. Any one must see that Dionysius would not have omitted here to mention Xenophon's Apology, if he had known it, and the only thing that he knew Xenophon to have written in defence of Socrates, is the Apomnemoneumata, or, as they are more commonly called, the Memorabilia. The author of the forged epistles of Xenophon" makes no allusion to an Apology of Socrates, written by Xenophon, but he regards the Memorabilia as an apology, for he says-dokε 7 II. § 57. B pp. 94 and 96, ed. Gesner. 9 I need only remind the reader that he quotes the letters of Phalaris and other forged productions, without a doubt as to their genuineness. 10 De arte rhetor. II. p. 57, ed. Sylburg. 11 Epist. Socrat. xv. p. 38. χρῆναι ἡμᾶς συγγράφειν ἅ ποτε εἶπεν ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ ἔπραξεν· καὶ αὕτη ἀπολογία γένοιτ' ἂν αὐτοῦ βελτίστη εἰς τὸ νῦν καὶ εἰς τὸ ETTEITA. The author here speaks of the Memorabilia as the only and the most suitable Apology of Socrates that Xenophon wrote, and must therefore have lived previous to the time when our Apology was circulated under the name of Xenophon. It would not be difficult to multiply the number of passages which prove, in a negative way, that the Apology was unknown at the time when they were written, but I shall not dwell upon them, as the strongest evidence of its spuriousness is, after all, derivable from the character and nature of the treatise itself. I will only add, that the first editions of Xenophon's works, the Juntina and Aldina, do not contain the Apology; but whether it was omitted by the editors from carelessness, from want of MSS., or from their conviction that the Apology was a forgery, cannot be ascertained. The first edition of the Apology is that of J. Reuchlin, who edited it, in 1520, together with Xenophon's Encomium on Agesilaus and the Hiero, and ever since that time it has been printed among the works of Xenophon. 12 The first modern writer who expressed reasons for doubting the genuineness of the Apology, is Valckenaer, who remarks 1o Quæ vulgata prostat ut Xenophontis Σωκράτους Απολογία, est illa hoc ingenio capitali, siquid judico, prorsus indigna, ab eodem conflata, cui finem Cyropædiæ debemus et alia quædam, quæ vulgo leguntur ut Xenophontea." In another place 13 he observes" eadem, verbis tamen diversis usus, tradiderat in Cyropædia, 1. 6. § 21, legunturque talia in his Socraticis longe plurima, eorum similia, quæ prostant in Cyropædia, nec tamen iisdem verbis narrata. Et crederemus Xenophontem sua ipsius, quæ dederat in Historia Græca, centena continua in Agesilai encomio transscripsisse? aut Apologiam scripsisse Socratis, in qua nihil alicujus inveniatur momenti, quod non legatur in his commentariis?" In this last remark Valckenaer has hit upon one of the main points; for the author of the Memorabilia would indeed have acted very foolishly, if he had written the Apology, which hardly contains any thing that is not found in the Memorabilia. This fact alone is sufficient to refute the opinion of 12 In a note on the Memorab. 1. 1. 13 In a note on the Memorab. III. 3. § 9. |