x. 33, where the generation of it is explained. And as in Diognetus vi. we notice three forms of owμa, so in Phil. p. 27, we have a like repetition of the same word. The word Sokéw is in frequent instances played on, as in p. 4, dokεTà dóžavra; p. 20, the same words following doкkovμεv; also in p. 44 and in p. 92, δοκεῖ, δοκοῦντα, δόγματα, δοκεῖ. I shall presently notice other examples of the play on this word. In p. 100, after quoting the words of St. Paul, Rom. i., as misapplied by the heretics, there follows a parenthesis in which the ȧoxnμoσúvηv of St. Paul is played on with ἀσχημοσύνη, ἀσχημάτεστος, σχημάτων, σχηματιζομένοις. And these are clearly the words of Hippolytus himself; while in other similar instances it is difficult to distinguish his own words from those of the heretics he is exposing. Thus, in p. 98, we have aužu and its cognates repeated six times in six lines, with no repeated three times. But it is highly probable that the frequent repetition of the former is due to Hippolytus himself in expounding the doctrine he is describing. Instances of this kind might be multipled considerably. But we may add some where he is certainly not mixing his own words with those of others. Thus, in viii. 8, he plays on δοκόν, δοκεῖ, δόγματα, in reference to the Doceties, and again more fully in 11, where the same words are played on with dokos through the whole section. In the course of it he says: "They have called themselves doкýraç. Of whom we do not mind rò doкtiv, the seeming to be some vain talkers, but we evince the beam doκóv in their eye brought from so great a wood, if by any means they might be enabled to see distinctly ; εἰδοῦκαν τομηεντέρους τυφλῶσαι.” Miller's conjectural emendation of this is very unsatisfactory. The play on the word might perhaps suggest some other form of δοκέω, and we might read εἰ δοκοῦν τὸ μὴ ἑτέρους Tupλwoa, if their purpose is not to blind others, i. e. if they are not wilfully blind and are not determined to blind others,1 I could greatly enlarge these examples, but the habit is so patent, that it seems quite needless. An objection might be made to any conclusion from the foregoing comparison of Hippolytus with the Epistle to Diognetus, that the Greek of the latter is very facile, while that of Hippolytus is not so, being sometimes very crabbed. But this is only the case in the Philosophumena. In that difficulties are largely due to the very corrupt state of the text, caused, no doubt, by the unfamiliar nature of the subjects treated on, and not intelligible to the copyists. And I think where Hippolytus has his hand free there is not the same difficulty. There is also a great difference between short tracts of a rhetorical kind and a justum volumen undertaken to expound matters of a controversial nature, in which the author's own words are mixed up with those of others. And now I may remark that, in the case of Hippolytus, it would be nothing strange that a writing of his should be found anonymous, or fathered on some one innocent of it. His earlier and shorter tract on the heresies has been attributed in a Latin form to Tertullian, and attached to his De Præscriptionibus. The compilers of the Apostolical Constitutions have appropriated a large portion of his work on the Charismata. assigned to several, Josephus amongst others, and to 1 Miller's note is, ei de (pro el dè μn), οὐκ ἂν τοὺς ἡμετέρους τυφλωσαιεν. Professor Swete, of Cambridge, having in his "Achmîm Fragment," p. xlii, mentioned Hippolytus as "playing all round the name, i.e. of the doceties, in the above passage, I sent him the conjecture I have mentioned. He would prefer to read ei d' où, kắv, and to suppose something lost from the text, the meaning being that if they cannot be made to see, at any rate he might save others from being blinded by them. If His περὶ παντός has been we adopt this, I am not sure that any more is needed than to supply the word Suvn@wow at the end, which was either dropped by a copyist, or, perhaps, left to be supplied by the reader from the preceding clause. El d'où referring to a past verb, and not one following, should be ei de uh. Hermann, on Viger, Pp. 793, says he never saw it so used. But that is no matter here, as Hippolytus himself has it on p. 9, 21. The Tò should, however, be omitted. Gaius, if this is the historical Caius, and not meant for Hippolytus under a second name. And his greatest work, the Philosophûmena, lost in its greater part till 1850, and of which only the first book was previously known, was for long ages ascribed to Origen, and published as his by Miller when he had discovered the best part of the remainder. Even the personal history of Hippolytus had been hitherto in a state of confusion and uncertainty. His labours having been mainly in Rome, it is not to be wondered at that this confusion should have existed in the East. But the history he gives us in the IXth book touching the state of the Roman Church in his days, so damaging to its character, even if we make allowance for exaggeration under the influence of personal pique, is sufficient to account for an unpopularity there, and the comparative neglect of his writings in the West. So it has come to pass that it was not in the West that this work was in its larger part recovered, but came to us at last from Athos. It is not for me to pronounce what measure of probability attends the supposition I have ventured to make in the foregoing pages. I cannot believe that it is groundless. In a case of this kind certainty is not to be expected. J. QUARRY. THE NUGAE PROCOPIANAE. HE following are a few notes on Book I. of the Gothic War, on points which occurred to me in re-reading it in the new edition of Comparetti (published by the Italian Historical Institute, and handsomely printed at the Palazzo dei Lincei), the first instalment of the first critical edition of any part of Procopius-previous editions having depended almost entirely on inferior MSS. Dom. Comparetti has done his work well; his Italian translation is good; and perhaps the only defect (apart from a few misprints in the text) is the accumulation of some unnecessary material in the critical apparatus. When it rains, it sometimes pours; and we are promised, from the Teubner Press, a complete edition of Procopius by Dr. J. Haury. Comparetti's work is confined to the Gothic War, as it is included in a series which is concerned only with fonti per la storia d'Italia. Ι. i. καὶ ἐπειδὰν αὕτη [ἡ ἐπιρροή] ἀφίκηται τά τε πλοῖα κατὰ βραχὺ ἐκ γῆς ἐπαιρόμενα πλεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀμφὶ ναῦται ἔργου ἐχόμενοι ναυτίλλονται ἤδη. [Herwerden, ἀμφ' αὐτὰ or ἀμφὶ ταῦτα.] The sea runs inland in the early morning (pwt) a good day's journey, and retreats åμpì dɛíλŋv òfíav. The preparations of the sailors must apparently be begun, and the ships made quite ready to sail during the night; therefore I suggest οἱ ἀμφὶ νύκτα ναῦται ἔργον ἐχόμενοι. ἀμφί νύκτα (like ἀμφὶ δείλην), ‘in the course of the night. 76. 12, p. 100. ἄρχοντάς τε ἀεὶ καὶ στρατιὰν Θευδέριχος ἔς τε Γαλλίαν καὶ Ἱσπανίαν πέμπων αὐτὸς εἴχετο ἔργου, τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς κράτος προνοήσας τε ὅπως βέβαιον αὑτῷ ἐς ἀεὶ ἕξει. So Comparetti with the Vatican Mss. [Vulg. προνοούμενος ὅπως]. A participle co-ordinate with προνοήσας is demanded. Read τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς κρατ<υνάμενος κράτ>ος 10. 14, 112. Ρώμη τε αὖθις ἑξήκοντα ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ὑπὸ μηνὸς, ἑνδέκατον ἔτος Ιουστινιανοῦ βασιλέως τὴν αὐτοκράτορα ἀρχὴν ἔχοντος, ἥλω. Maltreto's conjecture θ' ἀπελλαίου μηνός (based on Evagrius and Nicephorus Callistus) may be right. ὕστε ρον ἢ ἐπὶ Ζήνωνος (cp. I. i. ad init.) occurred to me as a possibility. As the current year was the tenth of Justinian, critics have observed that Sikarov is required. We must read δέκατον δὲ ἔτος which accounts for the corruption. ΙΔΕΤΟΣ was read as ΙΑΕΤΟΣ. 16. 15, p. 118. τούτου δὲ τοῦ κόλπου ἐντὸς πόλισμα πρῶτον ὁ Δρυοῦς οἰκεῖται, ὅπερ τανῦν Ὑδροῦς καλεῖται. This sentence is generally misunderstood, and it is consequently proposed to read Ὑδροῦς for ὁ Δρυούς and Ὀδρους for Ὑδρους. But we need not change a letter. We have only (with a late MS.) to write ὁ Δρυούς as one word, δρυος, and translate the first city within the gulf is Odryus, by which name (ὅπερ sc. ὄνομα) Hydrus is now called. 76. 18, p. 131. ὃς δη [ἵππος] ὅλον μὲν τὸ σῶμα φαιὸς ἦν τὸ μέτωπον δὲ ἅπαν ἐκ κεφαλῆς μέχρι ἐς ῥῖνας λευκὸς μάλιστα. τοῦτον Ἕλληνες μὲν φαλιον βάρβαροι δὲ βάλαν καλοῦσι. So Vulg., but the best MSS. have βίλαν. Should we keep Bλav and regard it as derived from the Slavonic |