were only of a slender kind, he was able to work up and combine with skill results at which previous writers had already arrived. Above all, it was necessary that this new philosophy of religion should take great care, in unison with the refined doctrine respecting the Deity set forth by Plato and others, to represent Jehovah as the absolutely perfect existence. It was equally necessary to represent him as unchangeable, since transition, whether into a better, a worse, or a similar condition, is inconsistent with absolute perfection. (Quod deterius potiori insid. p. 202, Leg. alleg. ii. pr., Quod mundus sit incorrupt. p. 500, de Sacrif. p. 165, Quod Deus sit immutabilis, p. 275.) The unchangeable character of the Deity was defined more closely as the absolutely simple and uncompounded | (quod mundus sit incorrupt. p. 492, de Nomin. mulat. p. 600), incapable of combination with any thing else (Leg. alleg. ii. pr. &c.), in need of nothing else (Leg. alleg. ibid.), as the eternal (de Humanit. p. 386, &c.), exalted above all predicates (quod Deus sit immut. p. 281, De Profugis, p. 575), without quality (Leg. alleg. i. p. 51, &c.), as the exclusively blessed (De Septenario, p. 280, &c.), the exclusively free (de Somn. ii. p. 692). While, however, it was also recognised that God is incomprehensible (akaтάληTтos, de Somn. i. p. 630), and not even to be reached by thought (drepivónTos, de Nomin. mutat. p. 579, &c.), and inexpressible (akaτovóμaσTos Kal äßßntos,de Somn. i. p. 575, de Vit. Mosis, i. p. 614, &c.), and that we can only know of his existence (napis), not of his proper existence (idía un, de Praem. et Poen. p. 415, &c.), nevertheless knowledge of God must be set down as the ultimate object of human efforts (de Sacrif. p. 264), and contemplation of God (ʼn TOû ŏνTOS Déa, nos eoû, de Migrat. Abrah. p. 462, &c.) must be attainable; i. e. man by virtue of his likeness to God can participate in the immediate manifestation of him (euparis evapyńs, quod deter. pot. insid. p. 221, &c.); and therefore must exert himself incessantly in searching for the ultimate foundation of all that exists (de Monarch. i. p. 216, &c.). Visible phaenomena are to lead us over to the invisible world (de Somn. i. p. 648, &c., de Praem. et Poen. p. 414), and to give us the conviction that the wisely and the beautifully fashioned world presupposes a wise and intelligent cause (de Monarch. l.c. de Praem. et Poen. l. c. de Mundi Opific. p. 2); they are to become to us a ladder for getting to the knowledge of God by means of God, and for attaining to immediate contemplation (de Praem. et Poen. 1. c., Leg. alleg. iii. p. 107). Partly because he was unable to raise himself above the old Greek axiom, that nothing can be produced out of nothing (quod mund. sit incorrupt. p. 488), partly that he might in no way endanger the conviction of the absolute perfection of God, Philon, like the Greek philosophers, took refuge in the assumption of a lifeless matter, in itself immoveable and nonexistent, absolutely passive and primeval, and destitute of quality and form; and while again he conceived this as an unarranged and unformed mass, containing within itself the four primal elements (de Cherub. p. 161, &c., de Plantat. pr. &c.), he represented the world-fashioning spirit of God as the divider (Toueus) and bond (deouós) of the All (de Mundi Opif. 3, de Somn. i. p. 641, &c., de Plant. Noae, l. c.). In the second connection, conceived as something subordinate to, and resisting the divine arrangement (quis rer. div. haer. p. 495, de

|

Mundi Opif. 4), matter was looked upon by him as the source of all imperfection and evil (de Justitia, p. 367); whereas in other passages, in which he especially brings into notice the non-existence of matter, God is represented as the creator, as distinguished from the mere fashioner of the universe (de Somn. i. p. 632, &c.). Philon could not conceive of the unchangeable, absolutely perfect Deity as the immediate cause of the changeable, imperfect world; hence the assumption of a mediate cause, which, with reference as well to the immanent and transient activity attributed to him for the projec tion and realisation of the plan of the universe, as to the thinking and speaking faculty of man, designated by one and the same word (ó λóyos ó év διανοίᾳ, ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός), he designated as the divine Logos (de Cherub. p. 162, de Migrat. Abrah. p. 436, &c., de Vita Mosis, iii. p. 154, &c.), within which he then again distinguished on the one hand the divine wisdom (the mother of what was brought into existence), and the activity which exerts itself by means of speech (Leg. alleg. i. p. 52, 58, &c., ii. p. 82, de Ebrietate, p. 361, &e., de Sacrif. p. 175, &c.), on the other hand the goodness (ayabóτns), the power (dperń, éžovσía, tô Kрάтоs), and the world-sustaining grace (de Sacrif. p. 189, Quaest. in Gen. i. 57, de Cherub. p. 143, &c.). As the pattern (wapáderyμa) of the visible world he assumed an invisible, spiritual world (кóσμos dópa Tos, vóпTOS, de Opif. 3, 6, 7, &c.), and this he regarded platonically as the collective totality of the ideas or spiritual forms (Dähne, l. c. p. 253); the principia of the mediate cause he regarded as powers invisible and divine, though still distinct from the Deity (de Migrat. Abrah. p. 464, &c., Dähne, p. 240, &c.); the spiritual world as completely like God, as his shadow (de Opif. M. p. 3, Leg. alleg. iii. p. 106, &c.); the world of sense in like manner as divine, by virtue of the spiritual forms contained in it (de Mundi Opif. p. 5). The relation of the world to the Deity he conceived of partly as the extension (Kтeive) of the latter to the former (de Nomin. mutat. p. 582, &c.), or as the filling of the void by the boundless fulness of God (de Opif. Mund. p. 36, &c.); partly under the image of effulgence: the primal existence was then looked upon by him as the pure light which shed its beams all around, the Logos as the nearest circle of light proceeding from it, each single power as a separate ray of the primordial light, and the universe as an illumination of matter, fading away more and more in proportion to its distance from the primal light (de Somn. i. pp. 638, 641, &c., de Praem. et Poen. p. 414, Leg. alleg. i. p. 47, &c., iii. p. 120, &c.). Thus we already find in Philon in a very distinct form the outlines of the doctrine of emanations, which subsequently was further developed on the one hand by the Gnostics, on the other by the Neo-platonists.

2. The MEGARIAN OF DIALECTICIAN, was a disciple of Diodorus Cronus, and a friend of Zenon, though older than the latter, if the reading in Diogenes Laërtius (vii. 16) is correct. In his Menexenus he mentioned the five daughters of his teacher (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 528, a. ed. Potter), and disputed with him respecting the idea of the possible, and the criteria of the truth of hypotheti cal propositions. With reference to the first point Philon approximated to Aristotle, as he recognized that not only what is, or will be, is possible (as Diodorus maintained), but also what is in itself

founded on the statement of a grammarian (Schol. in Aristoph. Nub. 530), that an express law forbade a poet to exhibit a drama in his own name while he was under thirty years of age; but Bergk has shown (4.c. pp. 906, 907) that this law is probably one of those innumerable fictions of the commentators, who state as facts things which are simply the expression of their own notion of their author's meaning; for Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides are all known to have brought out plays in their own names while they were under thirty.

Now, in every case, the name enrolled in the public records was that of the person in whose name the chorus was applied for, whether he were the real author or not, and this is the name which appears in the Didascalia prefixed to a play under the form edidaxon did Kaλλiσtpátov (Acharn.), or di' AUTOû TOû 'Apioтopávovs (Equit.). In fact, according to the original spirit of the institution, the chorus was the only essential part of a play, and the public functionaries knew nothing of the author as such, but only of the teacher of the chorus. Now we can easily understand how, when a poet was wealthy and fond of enjoyment, he might choose to assign the laborious duty of training the chorus and actors to another person; and thus, besides the reasons already stated for a poet's using another's name at the commencement of his career, we see another ground on which he might continue that practice, after his reputation was established. Now we learn from Aristophanes himself, to say nothing of other evidence, not only the fact that he brought out his early plays in the names of other poets, but also his reasons for so doing. In the Parabasis of the Knights (v. 514), he states that he had pursued this course, not from want of thought, but from a sense of the difficulty of his profession, and from a fear that he might suffer from that fickleness of taste which the Athenians had shown towards other poets, as Magnes, Crates, and Cratinus. Again, in the Parabasis of the Clouds (v. 530), he expresses the same thing in the following significant language:

τεκεῖν

Κἀγώ, παρθένος γὰρ ἔτ ̓ ἦ, κοὐκ ἐξῆν πώ μοι ἐξέθηκα, παῖς δ ̓ ἑτέρα τις λαβοῦσ ̓ ἀνείλετο, where the last words evidently imply, if the figure is to be interpreted consistently, that the person in whose name he brought out the play referred to (the Dactaleis) was another poet. It was evidently the word ἐξῆν in this passage that misled the scholiast into his fancy of a legal prohibition.

We must now inquire what light the ancient grammarians throw upon the subject. The author of the anonymous work, Пepi kwudias, who is decidedly one of the best of these writers, states (p. xxix.) that "Aristophanes first exhibited (édidage) in the archonship of Diotimus (B. c. 427), in the name of Callistratus (διὰ Καλλιστράτου); for his political comedies (Tds ToλITIKds) they say that he gave to him, but those against Euripides and Socrates to Philonides; and on account of this (first drama) being esteemed a good poet, he conquered on subsequent occasions (τοὺς λοιποὺς, sc. χρόνους), enrolling his own name as the author (ertypapóuevos). Afterwards he gave his dramas to his son" (Araros). The play which he exhibited on this occasion was the Aairakeis (Nub. I. c. and Schol.). To the same effect another respectable grammarian, the author of the life of Aristophanes, tells us(p. xxxv.) that "being

Thus far all is clear and consistent. Aristophanes, from motives of modesty and caution, but not from any legal necessity, began to exhibit, not in his own name, but in that of Callistratus, and afterwards of Philonides. The success of these first efforts encouraged him to come forward as the avowed author of his plays; and again, towards the close of his life, he aided his son Araros, by allowing him to bring out some of his dramas (the Cocalus for example) in his own name. But at the close of this very same Life of Aristophanes (p. xxxix.) we find the error which we have to expose, but yet combined with truth as to the main fact, in the statement that "the actors of Aristophanes were Callistratus and Philonides, in whose names (di ŵv) he exhibited his own dramas, the public (or political) ones (Td nuoтiká) in the name of Philonides, and the private (or personal) ones (Td lowTiká) in that of Callistratus." It seems that the grammarian, though himself understanding the meaning of diá, copied the error into which some former writer had been led, by supposing that it referred to the actors: for, that it cannot have that sense in the passage before us, is obvious from the tautology which would arise from so translating it, and from the force of the auroÛ; namely, "the actors of Aristophanes were Callistratus and Philonides, by whom as actors he exhibited his own dramas." We may, however, with great probability regard the passage as a later interpolation: how little credit is due to it is plain from the fact that the distribution of subjects in the last clause agrees neither with the testimony already cited, nor with the information which we derive from the Didascaliae, as to the plays which were assigned respectively to Philonides and Callistratus. From the Didascaliae and other testimonies, we find that the Babylonians (B. c. 426) and the Acharnians (B. C. 425) were also brought out in the name of Callistratus; and that the first

play which Aristophanes exhibited in his own name was the Knights, B. c. 424 (édidáxon.........di' αὐτοῦ τοῦ ̓Αριστοφάνους, Didasc.). And hence the notion has been hastily adopted, that he henceforth continued to exhibit in his own name, until towards the close of his life, when he allowed Araros to bring out his plays. But, on the contrary, we find from the Didascaliae that he brought out the Birds (B. c. 414) and the Lysistrata (B. C. 411) in the name of Callistratus (did Kaλλioτράτου).

Thus far the testimonies quoted have only referred to Philonides in general terms: it remains to be seen what particular plays Aristophanes brought out in his name. From the above statements of the grammarians it might be inferred that Aristophanes used the name of Philonides in this manner before the composition of the Knights; but this is probably only a part of the error by which it was assumed that, from the time of his exhibiting the Knights, it was his constant custom to bring out his comedies in his own name. It is true that

the scholiast on the passage from the Clouds, above quoted, in which the Daetuleis is referred to, explains the phrase waîs érépa as meaning Awvions nai Kaλλioтpatos, and Dindorf, by putting together this passage and the above inference, imagines that the Daetaleis was brought out in the name of Philonides (Frag. Arist. Daet.); but the scholiast is evidently referring, not so much to the bringing out of this particular play (for wais érépa cannot mean two persons, nor were dramas ever brought out in more than one name) as to the practice of Aristophanes with respect to several of his plays. There is, therefore, no reason for the violent and arbitrary alteration of the words of the grammarian, who, as above quoted, expressly says that the play was exhibited dià Kaλλiστpátov. There is, therefore, no evidence that Aristophanes exhibited under the name of Philonides previous to the date of the Knights; but that he did so afterwards we know on the clearest evidence. His next play, the Clouds (B. c. 423), we might suppose to have been brought out in the name of Philonides, on account of the statement of the grammarian, that Aristophanes assigned to him the plays against Socrates and Euripides, coupled with the known fact that the Frogs were exhibited in the name of Philonides; but, however this may be, we find that, in the following year, B. c. 422, Aristophanes brought out two plays, the Prougon and the Wasps, both in the name of Philonides, and gained with them the first and second prize. This statement rests on the authority of the difficult and certainly corrupted passage in the Didascalia of the Wasps, into the critical discussion of which we cannot here enter, further than to give, as the result, the following amended reading, which is founded on the Ravenna MS., adopted both by Dindorf and Bergk, and of the correctness of which there can now hardly be a doubt :—'Edidáxon éπl άρxovтos 'Aμvνίου διὰ Φιλωνίδου ἐν τῇ πθ' ὀλυμπιάδι: β' (i. e. δεύτερος) ἦν. εἰς Λήναια: καὶ ἐνίκα πρῶτος Φιλωνίδης Προαγῶνι, Λεύκων Πρέσβεσι γ' (i. e. τρίτος); from which we learn that the Wasps was exhibited at the Lenaea, in the 89th Olympiad, in the year of the Archon Amynias, under the name of Philonides, and that it gained the second place, the first being assigned to the Пpoάywv, which was also exhibited in the name of Philonides, and which we know from other sources to have been a play of Aristophanes (see the Fragments), and the third to the Пpéobes of Leucon."

In the year B. c. 414 we again find Aristophanes exhibiting two plays (though at different festivals), the Amphiaraus, in the name of Philonides, and the Birds, in that of Callistratus (Arg. in Av.) ; and, lastly, we learn from the Dulascalia to the Frogs, that that play also was brought out in the name of Philonides. We thus see that Aristophanes used the name of Philonides, probably, for the Clouds (see Bergk, l. c. pp. 913, 914), and certainly for the Wasps, the Proagon, the Amphiaraus, and the Frogs. The Dactaleis, the Babylo

Clinton (F. H. vol. ii. p. xxxviii. n. i.) gives a very good account of the extraordinary errors which have been founded on this passage; to which must be added his own, for, on the strength of a reading which cannot be sustained, he makes the passage mean that Aristophanes gained the first prize with the Wasps, and some poet, whose name is not mentioned, the second with the Proagon.

nians, the Acharnians, the Birds, and the Lysistrata, were brought out, as we have seen, in the name of Callistratus. Of the extant plays of Aristophanes, the only ones which he is known to have brought out in his own name are the Knights, the Peace, and the Plutus. His two last plays, the Cocalus and Aeolosicon, he gave to his son Araros. The Thesmophoriazusae and the Ecclesiazusae have no name attached to them in the Didascaliae.

These views are further supported by Bergk, in an elaborate discussion of all the passages in Aristophanes and his scholiasts, which bear upon the matter; which must be read by all who wish to master this important question in the literary history of Aristophanes.

There still remain, however, one or two questions which must not be passed over. Supposing it established, that Aristophanes brought out many of his plays in the names of Callistratus and Philo nides, might they not also be the chief actors in those plays, and, if not, who and what were they? From what has been said in the early part of this article, a strong presumption may be gathered that the persons in whose names the dramas of others were exhibited were themselves poets, who had already gained a certain degree of reputation, but who, from advancing years, or for other reasons, might prefer this sort of literary partnership to the risk and trouble of original composition. Indeed, it would appear, on the face of the thing, an absurdity for a person, who did not profess to be a poet, to enrol his name with the archon as the author of a drama, and to undertake the all-important office of training the performers. But we have the evidence of Aristophanes himself, that those in whose names he exhibited his dramas, were poets, like himself, Tépoto ToinTaîs (Vesp. 1016; comp. Schol.): we have already seen that Philonides was a poet of the Old Comedy ; and with reference to Callistratus, we have no other information to throw doubt on that contained in the above and other passages of Aristophanes and the grammarians. The fact, that we have only three titles of plays by Philonides, and none by Callistratus, accords with the view that they were chiefly employed as didásKaλo of the plays of Aristophanes. We have seen, indeed, that one or two of the grammarians state that they were actors; but, with all the evidence on the other side, there can be little doubt that this statement has merely arisen from a mistake as to the meaning of the word did in the Didascaliae. That word has its recognized meaning in this connection, and no one hesitates to give it that meaning in the Didascaliae of the earlier plays: there is no good authority for supposing it to desig nate the actor: the Didascaliae were not designed to record the name of the actor, but that of the poet, whether real or professed; the terms diddoκαλος, χοροδιδάσκαλος, κωμῳδοδιδάσκαλος, are used as precisely equivalent to Tons and kudoTONTS: and the notion that the Xopodidáσkaλos and the chief actor could be the same person involves the almost absurd idea of the chief actor's training himself. The common story about Aristophanes taking upon himself the part of the chief actor in the Knights is shown by Bergk to be, in all probability, a mere fabrication of some grammarian, who mistook the meaning of didaxon di' avтoù TOÛ 'Apiσropávous in the Didascalia; and there is no clear case, after the regular establishment of the