he uses it eight times, Aen. IV. 18, 550; VII. 253, 388; IX. 591; X. 388, 648; yet all but two of these, IX. 591 and X. 388, seem to be in keeping with the other passages and both cases occur in the later books, which show other evidences of increasing freedom in dealing with his subject. It is very probable, then, that Vergil means an avλý when he uses aula; and, if he does, it seems clear that here again, in the two passages relating to Dido's palace, he has used the word atrium as an equivalent for the Homeric μéyapov. Such an explanation relieves all four of the passages from difficulty, is in strict keeping with Vergil's methods and character, and is far more natural than the supposition that he pictures the houses of his own day and then attaches usages and customs of his remote ancestors to give the whole an antique flavor. He may indeed have been influenced somewhat in his conception of ancient palaces by what he saw about him in Rome; but that is quite a different matter from supposing that he took these things as a basis rather than his Homeric sources.

I have thus far been able to find nothing in positive support of the above views. Heyne compares I. 725 with Od. I. 365, and adds below: "Non lucernas vel candelabra posuit sed lychnos, funalia . . . cf. Odyss. n, de regia Alcinoi, 100 sqq.," and he says of porticibus longis, II. 528: "Si Homerica et non sua potius tempora sequutus est, albovo av expressit, quae avλǹv ab utraque parte ornabat"; but his note on II. 512 and the excursus on the passage make it clear that he holds practically the common view. He says: "Graecis poetis erat ara Iovis Hercei (Atòs 'Epкelov) in atrio aedium Priami, év avλŋ· eam aram Virgilius in impluvium, si interiora domus ita appellare licet, transtulit . . . ut Penatium ara esset; propius hoc ad Romanum morem. v. Excurs.” In the excursus he makes interiora domus refer to the peristylium of a Roman house. He does, however, recognize that there are difficulties in the passage. If Vergil means the μéyapov, all these difficulties disappear, and that he does seems to be the only logical conclusion; for, as was suggested at the beginning, he could not use a Latinized form of μέγαρον. In the sense of the main hall of the ἀνδρών, the word is cited only in Homer. In Herodotus it is used of sacred edifices alone, and in later times it seems to have been confined entirely to underground caves sacred to Demeter and Persephone, in which sense it would probably have been understood by his readers, if Vergil had been bold enough to turn it into a Latin word. The best thing that he could do was to use the word atrium in its place, very much as we should use the word hall or halls to-day if writing a poem in English under similar circumstances; for it is probable that every foreign word which he used was familiar to his readers in the sense in which he used it. He accordingly used the technical term where he could do so, and translated elsewhere. Finally, the common view, that atria in the passages corresponds to avλý, loses sight of the fact that the Homeric au was not a room at all, but an open, unpaved court.

25. On the Accent of certain Enclitic Combinations in Greek, by Professor Francis G. Allinson, of Brown University.

This paper appears in full in the Transactions.

Professor J. Irving Manatt, of Brown University, then made some remarks on recent progress in Mycenaean archaeology.

II. THE GREEK STAGE AGAIN.

In view of the stand taken in some quarters recently against the 'no-stage' theory, I merely wish to emphasize what Pickard says in the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XIV., p. 83: “The height of this 'stage,' the lack of means of communication with the orchestra, its slight depth, its distance from the cavea, the doors leading out on the level of the orchestra, the arrangement of the seats themselves, all unite to prove that this structure could never have been used as a stage."

At line 58 of the Hippolytus a chorus of attendants enter, remain for some time, and depart with their master (1. 112). For this scene the broad level of the orchestra is better suited than the narrow platform of the stage. Indeed, to one who has had something to do with the management of a troop of young men on a much wider platform under not entirely dissimilar circumstances (at least so nearly alike that any difficulties of representation in the one would obtain for the other) it seems almost impossible to put this scene on a stage eight feet deep. So in the scene where Hippolytus and the nurse are within the palace. Phaedra is farther away from the audience than the chorus, and consequently nearer the palace. Suddenly she hears a noise within and commands the chorus to keep quiet that she may hear. It is Hippolytus upbraiding the nurse, and, as soon as she discovers the real state of affairs, she breaks out with: ἰώ μοι, αἰαὶ αἰαῖ· [ ὦ δυστάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν παθημάτων (569-70). The chorus does not understand, and Phaedra bids the choreutae step up to the door and listen for themselves (Taîod' èπioтâσaι múλais). She does not tell them to mount an elevated stage. True, they do not move, but this is clearly a device of the poet to convey to the audience an account of what is going on in the palace (577-80).

III. MISCELLANEOUS.

1. 32. ěкônμov is read by MAC2P and the scholiast, ekonλov by VC1N. Editors vacillate between the two. Nauck reads ἔκδηλον and says: “ ἔκδημον deteriores libri" (which is not true). Wilamowitz has ěkdŋμov and translates ihr fernes Lieben. Wilhelm Pecz (in his study of the tropes in the three tragic poets, Berliner Studien für class. Phil., Vol. III.) considers exônμov as referring to Hippolytus by metonymy (love for the lover). Weil proposes to alter these three lines, and omits èpŵσ' epwr' ěkdпμov. Bury (Class. Review, III. 220) feels sure that knλov must be the true reading, but his arguments are not convincing. ekonλov, conspicuous (cf. Il. V. 2), makes sense — - such as it is; the opposite adnλov, secret (Thuc. VIII. 108), would be just as appropriate. Cf. 40, 42, 139 (KρUπTŲ TÉVOEL). The passion was secret in both places (in Athens and at Troezen); it only became more violent when Phaedra came to the latter place. But many conjectures might be made, e.g. åλyelvóv (cp. 775), and yet none of them could be received as certain emendations. Blomfield, as well as Hartung, excises 32 and 33, but if these verses are removed, a sufficient explanation is wanting for 30 and 31: these two in turn are made necessary by 29. Moreover, ἐπεὶ δὲ in 34 corresponds to πριν μὲν in 29.

1. 33. wvbμajev is the reading of the MSS. and the scholiast. Several changes have been suggested. Meineke and Wilamowitz read wvbμacov. Kirch

hoff has ovoμáoovoi. The future is certainly to be desired, but the change is unnecessary: the tense can be explained on the basis of the praesens propheticum.

1. 42. πрâɣμa: MSS. Wilamowitz changes to raidi, unnecessarily. His reviewer in the Classical Review says that it is a harmless reading, if it had MS. authority, and harmonizes with 520, as the traditional reading does with 690. Neither line affects the question particularly. Line 41 gives the negative, 42 the positive side. In ll. 43-46 mention is made of the death of Hippolytus, in 47 of Phaedra; so we have a regular gradation in time: Theseus, Hippolytus, Phaedra, the events referred to occurring in the reverse order · a sort of ὕστερον πρότερον. The chorus swears μηδὲν κακῶν σῶν ἐς φάος δείξειν ποτέ (714); nevertheless, the whole matter does come to the light. Cf. the exclamation of the chorus in 367 όλωλας, ἐξέφηνας ἐς φάος κακά.

1. 79. öσols: MSS. Porson changed öσous to oσTis, a reading which is not objectionable, to be sure; but it is not so natural as oσois. Nauck says: mit Porson's Aenderung ist dem Sinn der Stelle wenig gedient. In spite of the fact that most editors have followed Porson (Monk, Weil, Wilamowitz, Nauck in the third edition) the MSS. reading seems to me to be preferable. Cf. 3, 6, 442, 451, 1015, 1302. Consider the sentence &λx'.. ouws parenthetical, understanding aurous with elλnxev, and it becomes clear. It is not necessary to make Enxev neuter, as in Hom. Od. IX. 160, for the verb means here 'took them for her own.'

11. 168-169. Translate Much-revered by me she always comes to the rescue,' not as Mahaffy and Bury (after Weil) explain: 'she walks in the number of the gods,' nor as Paley takes it, thanks to the gods.' σùv eoîσ is a stereotyped phrase meaning 'with the blessing of heaven.' pora is not used absolutely (the meaning is 'she comes to me') and this verb is purposely selected. μerà eŵv occurs only in H. F. 180, where it is a matter of gods among gods. It is strange that this line has been so often misunderstood. Tycho Mommsen explained it correctly. Herwerden in Revue de Philol. for 1878, p. 19, says: requiro èv beoîσi poiтa, showing that he has the same conception of the passage as Weil, but is dissatisfied with the preposition σύν. Hadley changes φοιτᾷ to ἐφοίτα, unnecessarily.

1. 277. Oaveîv. This is the reading of the MSS. The only possible interpretation is that the nurse repeats the aveîv of the chorus by way of reply, and then adds ἀσιτεῖ δ ̓ εἰς ἀπόστασιν βίον to explain the means Phaedra chose: ‘she desires to die, and to accomplish this, you see, she is starving herself.' The nurse knows her mistress wishes to die (248-9, 305, 314, and especially 322), but the cause which lies back of this resolution (τὸ δεινὸν τοῦθ ̓ ὅ σ ̓ ἐξαίρει θανείν) is what she has been trying so hard to discover (39-40, 271, 273 návтa yàp σiyậ Táde, 279, 283, 284, 297, 303) and the very thing which Phaedra takes such pains to conceal. Consequently, no valid objection can be raised to the reading of the MSS. Wilamowitz feels sure that Oaveîv has crept in from the preceding line; so he removes the word and fills up the gap with our old', a harmless reading, but no better than many others which suggest themselves, e.g. oiyậ (cf. 273, 279, 297): the nurse reiterates that all her efforts have been in vain, and this word would be very appropriate here, in fact, more appropriate than ouk old', for the nurse does know the answer to the latter of the two questions (@aveîv Teɩpwμén), as is shown by her interrogation in 322.

11. 468 ff. Nauck and Wilamowitz read ἧς κατηρεφεῖς δόμων with the MSS Hartung has ἢ κατηρεφεῖς δόμους, Weil εὖ κατηρεφῆ δόκοις. Musgrave proposed κανὼν ἀκριβώσει ̓ ἄν in the next line. Wecklein made a further change: οὐδὲ στέγην ἂν εἰς κατηρεφεῖς δόκους κανὼν ἀκριβώσειεν. Barthold rejects the three lines; Nauck reads ἀκριβώσαιεν and Wilamowitz ἂν ἠκρίβωσαν for the MSS. ȧkρißwσeιav. Probably the whole difficulty originated with this verb. If Eur. wrote ȧкpißwσe av, the two words would soon coalesce, forming the plural, which would account for the changes in the preceding line. Hence I propose

τις κατηρεφή δόμων for ἧς κατηρεφεῖς δόμοι. Cf. Soph. Εl. 380 ἐν κατηρεφεί στέγη.

11. 566 and 568. Wecklein, Johnson (conj. et opt. usu Euripideo), Hadley and others transpose these two lines. The order in the MSS. is correct, for as soon as Phaedra says ežeɩpyάoμela, the chorus is eager to know what is the matter and can not refrain from asking. This necessitates a repetition of the command, which is given, not because the singing annoys the queen, but because she wishes to hear what is going on inside. Then the chorus complies with Phaedra's request and answers σlyŵ.

1. 485. μâλov dλyiwv. this is a pleonasm which occurs as early as Homer. In Latin it is very old. Of the double comparative Pautus has three examples (Men. prol. 55, Poen. prol. 83, Pseud. 220-1). In early English it is by no means rare. I have been at the pains to count the number in Shakespeare's plays, and find 29 examples (not counting 'lesser ').

1. 1019. рáσσew yàp ev: this is the reading of CVPNT and the scholiast. Nauck and Wilamowitz omit the eû and insert Te before yàp. If this reading be accepted, the meaning must be: 'you have time to work,' i.e. to devote to anything which may interest you or engage your attention, whereas a monarch has no leisure, and, indeed, this is the interpretation of Wilamowitz, for he translates: so bleibt Raum zu schaffen und zu wirken. But páσσev without a complement is rare except in the phrase λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν. Ion, 730, seems to indicate the true reading: σὺν τοῖς φίλοις γὰρ ἡδὺ μὲν πράσσειν καλῶς. This verse (1019) is introduced merely as an explanation or amplification of the preceding — πράσσειν εὖ is merely another way of saying εὐτυχεῖν. Moreover, this thought harmonizes with the character of Hippolytus.

1. 1069. The MSS. read κакŵν at the end. So Nauck and most editors. The text must be corrupt. Wilamowitz reads dóμwv. I propose exwv. A participle which has the same construction as koμlwv seems to be needed, and žuvoκούρους ἔχων could easily have become ξυνοικούρους κακῶν.

The paper was read by Professor Ebeling.

27. Old-English Runic anipu lufu, by Professor George Hempl, of the University of Michigan (read by title).

In his "Old Northern Runic Monuments" (III. p. 236 = Handbook, p. 193), Stephens places side by side two gold coins, one of which presents a runic inscription. This coin was found in England, and is in the British Museum; the other is in the Leyden Museum. Stephens, as usual, regards the foreign coin as a copy of the English, but this is manifestly impossible; both are, rather, barbarian