By means of this upper fort, guarding the entrance to Epipolæ from Euryâlus-combined with the apareixioμa, or continuous line of connecting wall, reaching down to the city-Gylippus first provided for Syracuse a complete scheme of defence; which same scheme was afterwards carried out with greater elaboration and cost by the despot Dionysius, when he constructed the continuous lines of wall along both the northern and southern cliffs of Epipolæ, meeting and terminating in his new fort at Euryâlus, as the apex of the triangle of which the wall of Achradina was the base.

No objection can be made to the phrase—ξυνετείχισαν τὸ λοιπὸν τοῖς Συρακοσίοις μέχρι τοῦ ἐγκαρσίου τείχους—when explained according to the above suggestions-except its most vexatious conciseness. Thucydidês, having present to his own mind the complete state of defence as it stood when Demosthenês arrived, unfortunately presumes the reader to know it also; and therefore contents himself with saying rò λoiñòv or the remainder-which to any one who possessed that knowledge, would convey a clear meaning. Dr. Arnold says "To λoñòv simply is obscure, and to my mind suspicious. I cannot but think that the text in this place has sustained some injury, or else that Thucydidês wrote carelessly and confusedly" (p. 275). I am the last to deny the obscurity of the passage, after having written so long a note to explain it, and after calling in question the views of so many other expositors. But it is an obscurity, unhappily, frequent enough in Thucydidês, and arising out of that extreme parsimony of words which he seems to have thought an excellence. Still the passage construes well; and does not at all deserve to be called "confused." Nor is there the smallest ground for Dr. Arnold's suspicion of the text. The phrase έvvereixioav ai vñes, meaning "the men out of the ships," which he objects to as "not being the way in which Thucydidês commonly writes" (p. 275), may be sustained by reference to iii. 17, where ai vñes occurs in exactly the same signification.

APPENDIX TO VOL. VII.

A pamphlet has recently been published by Mr. Richard Shilleto, Classical Lecturer of King's College, Cambridge, commenting upon some of the views taken in the sixth volume of my History, and controverting some interpretations of the text of Thucydidês given in my notes. Whatever may be thought of the reasonings of this pamphlet, I feel assured that its style and spirit will find no response among scholars and gentlemen.

I have also been favoured with some MS. papers of observation, chiefly by Mr. C. B. Scott, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, but partly also by Mr. H. A. J. Munro, also Fellow of the same College. These observations, for which my best thanks are due, relate for the most part to the interpretative notes of my last four volumes. They furnish some corrections in which I am glad to coincide, and some illustrative remarks of great value.

I greatly regret that before these criticisms reached me, the second edition of my volumes V. and VI. was already published, and the printing of the second edition of my volumes VII. and VIII. already completed. Accordingly, I can now do no more than advert briefly, in the present Appendix, to the main points raised, and rectify some mistakes which have been pointed out. Vol. iii. ch. 9. p. 36. note. I quote "the saying of Jason of Pheræ, who used to declare that he felt incessant hunger until he became despot—πεινὴν ὅτε μὴ τυραννοῖ, ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος idiúrns eivai" (Aristotel. Polit. iii. 2, 6).

Upon this Mr. Scott remarks-"The passage from Aristotle Polit. iii. 2, 6-πεηy öте μй Tupavroi-can scarcely bear the sense which Mr. Grote (and others) have given to it, that Jason felt an eager longing for the throne. Aristotle is observing, that the qualities required in a ruler are not the same as those which

enable a man to fill a private station well, and then proceedsIt was hence probably that Jason said he must starve if he was not in power: literally, he was in a state of starvation whenever he was not on the throne.'

I think Mr. Scott is right in saying that the word zeɩvŷr will hardly mean "feeling hunger or longing for the throne." It will rather perhaps imply, that the primary wants of his nature were unsatisfied when he was not on the throne. He was "like a fish

out of water," to apply a familiar analogy.

.... Vol. iv. ch. 30. p. 145. Herodotus i. 64. éppiwoe (Peisistratus) τὴν τυραννίδα ἐπικούροισί τε πολλοῖσι, καὶ χρημάτων συνόδοισι, τῶν μὲν αὐτόθεν, τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ Στρύμονος ποταμοῦ, συνιόντων.

I construed this passage as meaning that Peisistratus obtained his mercenaries from the Strymon, or from Thrace; and the money, with which he paid them, from Attica. Mr. Scott thinks with Bähr and with Dr. Thirlwall, that rov μèv and rŵv dè both refer to xonμátor, and that Peisistratus derived his funds partly from Attica, partly from Thrace. He says

"Surely Bähr's explanation of the passage, that Peisistratus derived his resources from the mines at Laurium and those which existed on the Strymon in Thrace, is to be preferred. Vid. Herod. v. 23, where we find the country full of Greek settlers, and the mines known and worked. The mercenaries would be said to come from Thrace, if it was so-not from the Strymon: but if we suppose the mines, in the hills close by, to be meant, the expression is the natural one.”

I cannot but think however, still, that my interpretation of the passage is preferable. Herodotus mentions nothing in this place about the mines of Laurium, nor about revenue derived from them by Peisistratus. He states that Peisistratus obtained revenue from Attica (av:óter), but this is hardly sufficient authority for referring to the mines of Laurium, which only come to be mentioned as productive to any valuable degree a little before the invasion of Xerxes. As far as I comprehend what is specifically meant by autóder, I should rather incline to refer it to confiscations made by Peisistratus from the property of his political opponents who fled into exile; for the words which immediately succeed are, ὁμήρους τε τῶν παραμεινάντων ̓Αθηναίων καὶ μὴ αὐτίκα φυγόντων παῖδας λαβὼν, καὶ καταστήσας ἐς Νάξον. These words lead me to suppose that what was present to the historian's mind immediately before, was, oi avríka øvyóvtes.

Again, if we refer back to cap. 61, we shall find several sources enumerated from whence Peisistratus obtained pecuniary resources, during the time when he was in exile, for the purpose of regaining his power in Attica. But though many other places are stated from which he got money, nothing at all is said about the river Strymon, which would surely have been among the sources enumerated, had Peisistratus possessed mines there to yield him a supply. Nor can I think it at all probable that Peisistratus had any property or settlement near the Strymon, so as to enable him to get revenue from thence. The passage from Herodotus, v. 23, refers to a time considerably later, just before the Ionic revolt; and that too mentions only that there were many resident Greeks in the region around-not that there was any Athenian settlement established by Peisistratus therein, which is the only way in which he could have got revenues. Moreover, if Peisistratus had established such a settlement in or near the region afterwards occupied by Amphipolis, would not Thucydidês have mentioned it either in i. 99–100, or iv. 102, instead of beginning his narrative about Amphipolis by first mentioning the occupation by Aristagoras?

Surely it is not less proper to say "mercenaries come from the Strymon "-than to say "Athens sent colonists to the Strymon -which latter is the expression of Thucydidês, i. 100. Moreover, on the construction of Bähr, it would appear that Herodotus does not at all tell us where the mercenaries of Peisistratus came from-while he enumerates two distinct places from which the revenues came: which I think less natural than my construction, referring souрoin to the Strymon, and xpnμara to Attica.

....

. . . . Vol. iv. ch. 31. p. 172, note. I attempted to explain the phrase of Aristotle (Polit. iii. 1, 10.) Κλεισθένης . . . . πολλοὺς ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους, the two last words of which are considered by many able critics as affording no sense. It appeared to me that the phrase, though awkward, might perhaps be admissible, as meaning "intelligent slaves living apart from their masters (χωρίς οἰκοῦντες) in a state between slavery and freedom, working partly on condition of a fixed payment to him, partly for themselves, and perhaps continuing to pass nominally as slaves, after they had bought their liberty by instalments." Upon this Mr. Scott observes

"Phormio (in the Oration of Demosthenês vèp Popμiwvos) is a case in point: but he expected to get the franchise (p. 946).

And though a man might perhaps continue to pass nominally as a slave, after he had bought his liberty'-it is scarcely likely, one would think, that Aristotle would couple together two words involving a contradiction in terms."

Mr. Scott evidently leans to the opinion that the phrase is corrupt. There are great authorities for pronouncing it so; and I an by no means clear of the contrary. I felt, and feel now, that my proposition was a very doubtful one.

Vol. iv. ch. 31. p. 229. Mr. Scott thinks that the language of Herodotus does not warrant us in supposing that the effigies of the gods were ever carried with the armies. I admit the point to be uncertain. My strongest reason for imagining that there must have been effigies, is contained in the expression of the historian, άredidosar: which seems to imply some real, material, object, given back (Herod. v. 81. roùs pèr Alaricas ȧñecidoσar, τῶν δὲ ἀνδρῶν, ἐδέοντο).

. . . . Vol. v. ch. 38. p. 24. In my description of the bridge of boats laid across the Hellespont by Xerxes, Mr. Scott remarks a nautical inaccuracy: that the boats or ships must have been moored with their heads towards the Euxine, from whence the stream flows-not with their sterns towards the Euxine, as I stated.

.. Vol. iv. ch. 31. p. 176. ed. 1, p. 177. edd. 2. and 3, I described the first distribution, by Kleisthenês, of the population of Athens into ten tribes, each containing so many demes; citing the passage of Herodotus, v. 69. δέκα δὲ καὶ τοὺς δήμους κατένεμε ἐς τὰς φυλάς. On the construction of this passage, there has been much difference of opinion. In my note, I said—“I incline, as the least difficulty in the case, to construe désa with puλas, (and not with duous) as Wachsmuth and Dieterich construe it." Upon which Mr. Scott remarks:

"How Mr. Grote manages to construe déra with puλds, I cannot comprehend. The construction is karéveμe déкa-divided into ten lots or parcels, one for each tribe-as Xenoph. Cyrop. vi. 5, 13. τὸ στράτευμα κατένειμε δυώδεκα μέρη. See, for other instances, Schweig. Lexic. Herod. s. v. diapeiv. Thieme and Sturz. Lexic. Xenoph. also s. v. diaper. Theocrit. iii. 21; ix. 27. névte διαιρεῖν. πέντε Tapor-and riλai Xerra-also Aristophan. Equit. 768. Karaτμηθείην λέπαδνα—etc. Plato, Critias, p. 113. s. fin. τὴν νῆσον τὴν Ατλαντίδα πᾶσαν δέκα μέρη κατανείμας.

"This passage of Herodotus is misquoted in the Lexicon Hero