It may be safely asserted that few of the fragments of Greek lyric poetry have excited more discussion than the so-called ‘Lament of Danae’ but it is curious, considering that we owe our knowledge of it to Dionysius's desire to set his readers a metrical puzzle, to see how little attention has been given to the metre of the fragment by the many scholars who have contributed to the literature of the problem since 1835. The purpose of the present study is to enquire into the scansion of the fragment, quoting parallels wherever possible from the extant remains of Simonides and, where these fail, from the works of other lyric poets.

If only from a sense of duty, I have filled the evident lacuna, so as to safeguard the κα⋯ and furnish some little excuse for the copyist (ζ⋯σα κατώρυγμαι, βοηθεῖτε Reiske, ζ. τ⋯θαμμαι, β. Hercher). There remains, however, the melancholy fact that Callirrhoe was consigned to her living grave as a consequence, not of ⋯γων⋯α in any known or imaginable sense of the word, but of a profound swoon produced by a kick from Chaereas; whose foot, says Chariton in his best manner, εὐστ⋯χως κατ⋯ το⋯ διαφρ⋯γματος ⋯νεχθε⋯ς ⋯π⋯σχε τ⋯ς παιδ⋯ς τ⋯ν ⋯ναπνο⋯ν (I 4). I have therefore restored a common word for ‘unconsciousness’ (the sense is almost technical enough to deserve a place in the dictionaries): cf. II 5 γενομ⋯νην δ⋯ με ἄ φ ω ν ο ν ⋯ξ αἰφνιδ⋯ου πτώματος ἔθαψαν οἱ γονεῖς πολυτελ⋯ς, I 2 ἄφωνος εὐθὺς ἦν κα⋯ σκ⋯τος αὐτ⋯ς τ⋯ν ⋯φθαλμ⋯ν κατεχ⋯θη, I 4 fin. Καλλιρρ⋯η μ⋯ν οὖν ἄφωνους κα⋯ ἄπνους ἔκειτο νεκρ⋯ς εἰκ⋯να π⋯σι παρ⋯χουσα, and so frequently. The same change is imperative at Xen. Eph. III 6 σκηφαμ⋯νη δ⋯ ⋯φων⋯ᾳ (*: τῇ ⋯γων⋯ᾳ cod.) κατειλ⋯θαι, ⋯κ⋯λευσεν αὑτῇ τινι τ⋯ν ὕδωρ ⋯νεγκεῖν. The confusion is simple and occurs, for instance, at Max. Tyr. i, where Markland restored διαφων⋯ας for διαγων⋯ας. As for the sequence ⋯φων⋯ας … ἔρρηξε φων⋯ν, neither the author nor his readers could have even been aware of it: the weakness which deters the modern from the equivalents of ἔδωκεν ⋯ποδο⋯ναι (Lys. XX 7), συν⋯πεμψε παραπ⋯μψοντας (Luc.VH. i 27), παμμ⋯γεθες ⋯λ⋯κον, ταρτ⋯ρειον τ⋯ μ⋯γεθος (Philops. 24), χωρ⋯α δ⋯σιππα πρ⋯ς τ⋯ν ἵππον (Plut. Crass. 19), δυσδ⋯οδον ἔχει τ⋯ν π⋯ροδον (Polyb. V 7, 10), ⋯ποκατ⋯στησαν εἰς τ⋯ν ⋯ρχα⋯αν κατ⋯στασιν (XXIII 17), στελλομ⋯νῳ βασιλεὺς ⋯π⋯στειλεν (Procop. t. iii p. 96, 10–12 Haury), and all their numberless analogues, was to the Greeks foolishness. On that point the judgment of Chariton was as sound as that of Pascal.

The object of this paper is to show the predominance of the influence of geometrical ideas in Aristotle's account of first principles in the Posterior Analytics— to show that his analysis of first principles is in its essentials an analysis of the first principles of geometry as he conceived them. My proof of this falls into two parts. I. A consideration of the parallel between Aristotle's and Euclid's account of first principles. II. A comparison between the general movement of thought in the Aristotelian ⋯παγωγ⋯ and ⋯π⋯δειξις and in the δι⋯νοια and ν⋯ησις of the Platonic dialectic.