¹ 19

² It occurs over 75 times.

³ Μεγαρεύς ‘without an adjective’ naturally means ‘a native of the Megara’ and no one will deny the claim of Nisaean Megara to that distinction.

The political situation described in the Theognidea corresponds closely with the accounts of Megara given by Aristotle and Plutarch. Many expressions in the poems undoubtedly refer to Nisaean Megara, but we cannot be always certain that Theognis is the author of the poems in question.

The opening couplet of elegy 773–782 contains a reference to continental Megara, and its patron Apollo.

Φοι̑βε ἄναξ, αὐτὸς μὲν ἐπύργωσας πόλιν ἄκρην, Ἀλκαθό̢ω Πέλοπος παιδὶ χαριζόμενος.

For we know that Apollo helped Alcathous to rebuild the walls of Megara; and one of the town's citadels bears the name of Alcathous. (Paus. i. 42). Alcathous is said to have dedicated a temple to Ἀπόλλων ἀγραι̑οςand ᾿Αρτεμις ἀγροτέρα (Paus. i. 41). The opening poems of the collection are addressed to deities especially connected with Megara, viz. Apollo and Artemis, who figure prominently on the bronze and silver coins of the state.

⁴ Laws. 629 a.

Ἀθ. προστησώεθα γο̑υν Τύρταιον, τὸν φύσει μὲν Ἀθηναι̑ον, τω̑νδε δὲ παλίτην γενόμενον. . . .

630 Ἀθ. Ἡμει̑ς δέ γε ἀγαθω̑ν ὄντων τούτων ἔτι φαμὲν ἀμείνους εἰ̑ναι καὶ πολὺ τοὺς ἐν τω̢̑ μεγίστω̢ πολέμω̢ γιγνομένους ἀρίστους διαφανω̑ς· ποιητὴν δὲ καὶ ἡμει̑ς μάρτυρα ἔχομεν, Θέογνιν, πολίτην τω̑ν ἐν Σικελία̢ Μεγαρέων.

⁵ Most modern critics endeavour to remove the difficulty by accepting the suggestion of a scholiast (quoted by Sitzler, Theognidis Reliquiae, addenda to p. 49) τί δὲ ἐκώλυεν αὐτὸν ἐκ ταύτης μὲν εἰ̑ναι τη̑ς Μεγαρίδος, ἀπελθόντα δὲ εἰς Σικελίαν, ὡς ἡ ἱστορία ἔχει, γενέσθαι νόμω̢ Μεγαρέα ἐκει̑, ὡς καὶ τὸν Τυρται̑ον Λακεδαιμόνιον ;Plato, they say, knew that Theognis was a native of Nisaean Megara, and in the passage under discussion he tells us that the poet had received the franchise in the Sicilian city. Had Plato meant this, he would surely have added the word γενόμενον to πολίτην(as in the case of Tyrtaeus). Welcker (followed by Sitzler) removes the difficulty by assuming that in the above quotation from the Laws the words καὶ ἡμει̑ς mean ‘we inhabitants of Attica.’ This would certainly make everything clear, but such a translation is quite impossible. Although the speaker is an Athenian, καὶ ἡμει̑ς (like ἡμει̑ς δέ two lines earlier) can only mean ‘we and those who agree with us on this point,’ ‘we who differ from Tyrtaeus in our views can also bring forward a poet in support of our opinions.’ Theognis is not brought upon the stage as a native of Attica to meet Tyrtaeus the Spartan. Such a contrast is out of question here. Not only would it be irrelevant and out of place, but Tyrtaeus himself has at the very outset been claimed not merely as a native of Attica, but as an Athenian. The two poets are introduced to represent not two districts but two shades of opinion on the question at issue, viz. the respective merits of στάσις and δ ἔξωθεν πόλεμος as tests of a man's good qualities.

⁶ e.g. Didymus, , cf. Schol. ad Plat. legg. 630 Google Scholar (quoted by Sitzler) αὕτως ὁ Δίδυμος, ἐπιφυόμενος τῷ Πλάτωνι ὡς παριστοροῦντι: and Harpocration: οὗτος δ᾿ ἦν Μεγαρεὺς ἀπὸ τω̑ν πρὸς τῇ Ἀττικῇ Μεγάρων· ἦλθον μὲν γὰρ ἔγωγε καὶ ἐς Σικελήν ποτε γαι̑αν (Theog. 783).

⁷ Unger, G. F. (‘Die Heimat von Theognis,’ Philologus 45 Google Scholar) takes the poet to be a native of a Megara on the borders of Macedonia and Epirus, and a member of the tribe Αἴθικϵς (cf. Theog. 1209).

Beloch, J. (Neue Jahrb. f. Phil u. Päd. 1888 Google Scholar) accepts the view of Plato, , chiefly on account of the reference to cavalry in Theog. 549–554 Google Scholar. ‘Das griechische Megara hat so wenig wie der ganze Peloponnes bis an das Ende des 5ten. Jh. eine Reiterei unterhalten.’

⁸ Quoted in full below, n. 41. My quotations are taken from Bergk-Hiller-Crusius, Anthologia Lyrica, 1897 Google Scholar (= B.H.C., ) Theognis, pp. 67–122 Google Scholar.

⁹ Aristotle, , Pol. 1305 Google Scholar a.

¹⁰ Aristotle, 1357 b. ᾖτει φυλακὴν καὶ λαβὼν ἐτυράννευσε.

¹¹ Pausanias, 1. 40.

¹² Quoted below, n. 16.

¹³ e.g. Bergk, , Griech. Litteraturgeschichte ii. p. 305 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ i.e. if we accept 624 B.C. as the latest date possible for the attempt of Cylon.

¹⁵ Aristotle, 1315 b. τω̑ν δὲ λοιπω̑ν ἡ (τω̑ν) περὶ Ἱέρωνα καὶ Γέλωνα περὶ Συρακούσας.ἔτη δ` οὐδ᾿ αὕτη πολλὰ διέμεινεν, ἀλλὰ τὰ σύμπαντα δυει̑ν δεοντα ει̑κοσι· Γέλων μὲν γὰρ ἑπτὰ τυραννεύσας τῷ ὀγδόῳ τὸν Βίον ἐτελεύτησεν, δέκα δ᾿ Ἱέρων, Θρασύβουλος δὲ τῷ ἐνδεκάτῳ μηνὶ ἐξέπεσεν.αἱ δὲ πολλαὶ τω̑ν τυραννίδαν ολιγοχρόνιαι πᾶσαι γεγόνασι παντελω̑ς.

¹⁶ Quaestiones Graecae, 18.

Μεγαρει̑ς Θεαγένη,τὰν τύραννον,ἐκβαλίντες,ὀλίγον χρόνον ἐσωφρόνηαν κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν·ει̑τα πολλὴν–κατὰ Πλάτωνα–καὶ ἄκρατον αὐτοι̑ς ἐλενθερίαν τω̑ν δημαγωγω̑ν οἰνοχοούντων,διαφθαρέντες παντάπασι,τά τε ἄλλα τοι̑ς πλουσίοις ἀσελγω̑ς προσεφέροντο,καὶ δειπει̑ν πολυτετω̑ς· εἰ δὲ μὴ τυγχάνοιεϝ,πρὸς βίαν καὶ μεθ᾿ ὕβρεως ἐχρω̑ντο πᾶσι. Τέλος δὲ δόγμα Θέμενοι, τοὺς δεδωκότες ἐτύγχανον,παλιντοκίαν τὸ γινόμενον προσαγορεύσαντες.

¹⁷ οἱ μὲν Μεγαρει̑ς δἰ ἀταξίαν τῆς πολιτείας ἠμέλησαν τοῦ ἀδικν´ματος.

¹⁸ As Athens had her σεισάχθειαand τὸ ἄγος so Megara had her ταλιντοκία and οἱ ἐναγει̑ς

¹⁹ The ancients attributed a Μεγαρέων πολιτεία to Aristotle. Strabo, lib. vii. 7 αἱ Ἀριστοτέλους πολιτει̑αι δηλοῦσιν . . .φησὶ . . . ἐν τῇ Ὀπουντίων καὶ Μεγαρέων.

²⁰ παραπλησίως refers to the preceding instances of the statement made at the beginning of the chapter, viz. αἱ μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίαι μετεβάλλουσι διὰ τὴν τω̑ν δημαγωγω̑ν ἀσέλγειαν

²¹ Another passage in the Politics probably refers to the overthrow of this democracy: 1300 a περὶ τὰς τω̑ν ἀρχω̑ν καταστάδεις . . . ὤσπερ ἐν Μεγάροις ἐκ τω̑ν συγκατελθόντων καὶ συμμαχεσαμένων πρὸς τὸν δῆμον. Some (e.g. Cauer) refer 1300 a, 1302 b, and 1304 b to the return of the exiles narrated in Thuc. iv. 74, but as Welcker pointed out in his Prolegomena to Theognis (p. xii.) this is impossible owing to the words ἐνικησαν μαχόμενοι, ἡττηθέτων and συμμαχεσαμένων for the exiles of 424 did not secure their restoration by defeating their opponents in battle but returned under an agreement (κοινολογησάμενοι κατάγουσι)

²² τη̑ς μὲν κωμῳδίας(ἀντιποιῦνται)οἱ Μεγαρεῖς,οἹ τε ἐνταῦθα,ὡς ἐπὶ τῆα παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς δημοκρατίας. γενομένης, καὶ οἱ ἐκ Σικελίας.

²³ Flach, , Chronicon Parium, 1884 Google Scholar, Christ‘Gr. Litt.-Gesch.’ in Müller's, Handbuch, vol. vii. ed. 3, 1898, p. 557 Google Scholar.

²⁴ There was a definite date engraved on the marble, but it is no longer legible. The entry comes in between the archonship of Damasias and the tyranny of Pisistratus: Flach, p. 18, §39 ἀφ᾿ οὗ ἐν Ἀθ[ήν]αις κωμῳ[δῶν χο]ρ[ὸς ηὑρ]έθη [στη]σάν[των αὐτὸν] τῶν Ἰκαριέων, εὑρόντος Σουσαρίωνος, καὶ ἆθλον ἐτέθη πρῶτον ἰσχάδω[ν] ἄρσιχο[ς] καὶ οἴνου[ἀμφορ]ε[ύς].

Bergk reads ἐν ἁμάξαις κωμῳδία ηὑρέθηGr. Litt.-Gesch. iv. p. 43.

²⁵ Some think that the compiler of the chronicle derived his information from a pupil of Aristotle.

²⁶ Aristotle does not mention him.

²⁷ Welcker, Proleg. xii. ‘Plebs postea denuo superior facta est, quum Ol. 89. 1. ex democratia iterum paucorum dominatum restitutum esse constet ex Thucyd. iv. 74; cf. v. 31’; also xiii, ‘popularis status qui ad Ol. 89. 1. usque tenuit.’ Cf. St. Hilaire in a note to ch. iii. 3 of his translation of Aristotle's Poetics (1858): ‘cette démocratie dura sans doute jusqu'a la guerre du Péloponnèse: du moins Thucydide, livre iv. ch 74, parle-t-il de la révolution oligarchique qui renversa le gouvernement de Mégara.’ Cf. Schneidewin, F. G., Delectus Poet. Eleg. Graec. (1838), p. 54 Google Scholar, ‘quum principatus nobilium denuo popularibus turbis cessisset: qui status ad Olymp. 89. 1. usque obtinuit.’

²⁸ This is discussed in detail below.

²⁹ Theog. 27–30.

³⁰ Φοῖβε ἄναξ,αὐτὸς μὲν ἐπύργωσας πόλιν ἄκρην,

Ἀλκαθόῳ Πέλοπος παιδὶ χαριζόμενος.

³¹ Cf. the threat of Cyrus, , Herod. i. 153 Google Scholar τοῖσι,ἤν ἐγὼ ὑγιαίνω,οὐ τὰ Ἰώνων πάθεα ἔσται ἔλλλεσχα ἀλλὰ τὰ οἰκήϊα.

³² Herzberg attributes it to Xenophanes, cf. Sitzler, , Theognidis Reliquiae, p. 36 Google Scholar, note 64 a.

³³ Theog. vv. 891–4 are taken by Christ, (Gr. Litt.-Gesch, p. 131 Google Scholar) to refer to the Athenian expedition under the Cypselid Miltiades in the year 506 B.C., and are used as an argument in favour of a later date for Theognis (757 sqq., 773 sqq., refer to the expedition of Mardonius 492 B.C.). But there is no good ground for attributing the elegy (891–4) to Theognis, nor is the reference so clear as Christ would have us believe. Beloch, in the article referred to above (note 7), states his belief that Megara had passed through the social revolution (seine grosse Revolution, sein 1789) at the end of the seventh century B.C.; and this is one of his reasons for refusing to regard Theognis as a native of Megara Nisaea. He tacitly admits that if this Megara was the home of Theognis, the poet must have lived at the end of the seventh century. His interpretation of 773—782, which he takes to refer to the events of the year 480 B.C., compels him to reject this early date; and he considers that the political elegies refer to the struggles between the nobles and the people in Sicilian Megara, as the other Megara had passed through the same crisis more than a century before.

³⁴ Parteien und Politiker in Megara und Athen, von Friedrich Cauer, Stuttgart, 1890, cf. Cauer, F., Studien zu Theognis in Philologus 48 Google Scholar, 49, 50.

³⁵ ‘Allerdings scheint es, dass Theagenes sich auf jenen Stand gestützt hat. Denn das einzige, was von seiner Regierung erzählt wird, der Bau einer Wasserleitung (Paus. 1, 40, 41) lag im Interesse der städtischen Bevölkerung’ (p. 31).

³⁶ ‘Noch an einigen Stellen bei Theognis erseheint der Adel als der allein herrschende Stand’ (p. 32).

³⁷ What reason had a member of this middle-class party to view the rise of a tyrant with fear? It was the fall of a tyrant that had ruined their prospects. The devoted adherent of a party that owed all its power and prosperity to the tyrant Theagenes would not be so horrified at the thought of a return to their former glories.

³⁸ ‘Diese(31–36) Stellen sind geschriehen, ehe die Gemeinen [οἱ κακοί] die politische Macht errungen hatten, welche ihnen Theognis nicht gönnte.’

³⁹ ‘Sie waren nicht verpflichtet—oder nicht berechtigt—zum Kriegsdienste’ (p. 29): a statement which Cauer endeavours to prove by the help of Theognis 865–868. Is it likely that any state would keep such a large section of the population in idleness at a crisis which threatened its very existence?

⁴⁰ ‘Faktisch waren sie eine Zeit lang die herrschende Partei … Diese Partei übte einen solchen Terrorismus aus,’ u.s.w. p. 31.

⁴¹ Theog. 53–60.

Κύρνε,πόλις μὲν ἔθ᾿ ἥδε πόλις,λαοι δὲ δὴ ἄλλοι· οἳ πρόσθ᾿ οὔτε δίκας ᾔδεσαν οὔτε νόμους, ἀλλ᾿ ἀμφὶ πλενρῇαι δορὰς αἰγῶν κατέτριβον, ἔξω δ᾿ ὥστ᾿ ἔλαφοι τῆσδ᾿ ἐνέμοντο πόλεος, καὶ νῦν εἴσ᾿ ἀγαθοί, Πολυπαΐδη· οἱ δὲ πρὶν ἐσθλοὶ νῦν δειλοί· τίς κεϝ ταῦτ᾿ ἀνέχοιτ᾿ ἐσπρῶν;ἀλλήλους δ᾿ ἀπατῶσιν ἐπ᾿ ἀλλήλοισι γελῶντες , οὔτε κακῶν γνώμας εἰδότες οὔτ᾿ ἀαθῶν.

⁴² Philologus 50, p. 534, ‘Darum klagt Theognis, dass die Plebs die Stelle der edlen Geschlechter einnimmt und die Edlen zu Gemeinen geworden sind … von den κακοί, den wohlhabenden Bürgern, ist 57 noch keine Rede: erst 60 werden sie erwähnt und von der eben zur Herrschaft gelangten Menge ausdrücklich unterschieden.’

⁴³ Μηδεὶς σ᾿ ἀνθρώπων πείσῃ κακὸν ἄνδρα φιλῆσαι, Κύρνε· τί δ᾿ ἔστ᾿ ὄφελος δειλὸς ἀνὴρ φφίλος ὤν;

⁴⁴ Theog. 1109–1114.

Κύρν᾿, οἱ πρόσθ᾿ ἀγαθοὶ νῦν αὖ κακοί, οἱ δὲ κακοὶ πρὶν νῦν ἀγαθοί· τίς κεν ταῦτ᾿ ἀνέχοιτ᾿ ἐσορῶν;

⁴⁵ 57 ἀγαθοί . . . οἱ δὲ πρὶν ἐσθλοί| νῦν δειλοί

1109 οἱ πρόσθ᾿ ἀγαθοὶ νῦν αὖ κακοὶ,οἱ δὲ κακοὶ πρὶν|νῦν ἀγαθοί.

59 ἀπατῶσιν . . . γελῶντες.

1113 ἀπατῶντες . . . γελῶσιν.

60 οὔτε κακῶν . . . οὔτ᾿ ἀγαθῶν.

1114 οὔτ᾿ ἀγαθῶν . . . οὔτε κακῶν.

⁴⁶ In spite of his carefully-drawn distinctions Cauer translates δϵιλοί and κακοί here by the same word die Gemeinen.

⁴⁷ Liddell and Scott quote v. 60 s.v. γνώμη=‘token, mark.’

⁴⁸ 39–42;

Κύρνε,κύει πόλις ἥδε, δέδοικα δὲ μὴ τέκῃ ἄνδρα εὐθυντῆρα κακῆς ὕβριος ἡμετέρης. ἀστοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἔθ᾿ οἹδε σαόφρονες. ἡγεμόνες δὲ τετράφαται πολλὴν ἐς κακότητα πεσεῖν.

43–52: Οὐδεμίαν τω, Κύρν᾿,ἀγαθοὶ πόλιν ὤλεσαν ἄνδρες· ἀλλ᾿ ὅταν ὑβρίζειν τοῖσι κακοῖσιν ἅδῃ, δῆμόν τε φθείρωσι, δίκας τ᾿ ἀδίκοισι διδῶσιν οἰκείων κερδέων εἹνεκα καὶ κράτεος, ἔλπεο μὴ δηρὸν κείνην πόλιν ἀτρέμ᾿ ἔσεσθαι, μηδ᾿ εἰ νῦν πολλῇ κεῖτα· ἐν ἡσυχίῃ, εὖτ᾿ ἄν τοῖσι κακοῖσι φίλ᾿ ἄνδρασι ταῦτα γένηται, κέρδεα δημοσίῳ σὺν κακῷ ἐρχόμενα. ἐκ τῶν γὰρ στάσιές τε καὶ ἔμφυλοι φόνοι ἀνδρῶν μούναρχοί θ᾿·ἂ πόλει μήποτε τῇδε ἃδοι.

⁴⁹ Cf. εὐθυντὴρ αῐαξ Aesch. Suppl. 717.

This elegy (39–42) occurs a second time in the collection (1081 sqq.) where instead of v. 40 we read ὑβριστήν, χαλεπῆς ἡγεμόνα στάσιος,, a reading which is still more favourable to the explanation here suggested.

⁵⁰ Aristotle 1300 a.

⁵¹ 1231–1389 with the title ἐλεγείων β´. The same MS. gives to the first book (1–1220) the title θεόγνιδος ἐλεγείων ά.

⁵² Though every reader of the book must have been struck by the occurrence of several successive elegies beginning with the same letter (e.g. 73, 75, 77, 79: 611, 615, 617: 619, 621, 623), the cases are not numerous enough to justify us in assuming such an arrangement for the whole collection; and besides, this would necessitate the separation of elegies closely connected in subject-matter.

⁵³ Rheinisches Museum, 1867, p. 161–177.

⁵⁴ Philologus xxix. pp. 526–546.

⁵⁵ Theognidis Reliquiae, 1880.

⁵⁶ e.g. 155–72 seven poems on the uncertainty of human affairs, 467–510 conviviality, 971–1012 ten poems on conviviality, 1039–1048 conviviality, 1082c–1102 eight poems on friendship.

⁵⁷ 1–254.

⁵⁸ ‘Unsere Sammlung ist also weder nach Gedanken noch nach Buchstaben geordnet. Wohl aber nach Worten. Nach Stichworten sind die Fragmente an einander gereiht, so dass je zwei Fragmente ein gleiches oder ähnliches Wort gemein haben.’ p. 171.

⁵⁹ P. 171. The elegies are not divided in our best MSS., so that we have no good manuscript tradition to guide us in making our divisions.

⁶⁰ In Bergk-Hiller-Crusius' Anthologia all the repeated poems are printed exactly as they stand in the text of the best manuscript. Other editors generally content themselves with a reference in the notes.

⁶¹ Only three repetitions occur before 1038, all the rest (excepting half a dozen in the Paedica) occur between 1038 and 1185.

⁶² Lines 93, 4 are not repeated here in the MSS., although Bekker and Bergk² state that they are.

⁶³ This couplet (1157–8) is not found in the MSS. of Theognis, but has been inserted from Stobaeus.

⁶⁴ Here as elsewhere catchwords can be found for the poems that deal with the same subject.

⁶⁵ ‘Er griff zurück zu den schon gebrauchten.’ [Fragmenten] p. 172.

⁶⁶ p. 173.

⁶⁷ e.g. A alone repeats 209, 10 after 332, all the other MSS. have it in the first place only.

⁶⁸ We must remember that the repeated poems are not the only things omitted in the younger MSS. e.g. 937, 8 are omitted in 10 MSS.

⁶⁹ Fritzsche has arranged the whole collection according to catchwords, and though he uses very simple and common words, his scheme still contains 112 gaps. Cf. p. 543 ‘In den 370 Fragmenten sind 112 Lücken der Stichwortverbindung.’

⁷⁰ Nietzsche dates our collection between 433 A.D. and Stobaeus.

⁷¹ Cf. 53–60 and 1109–1114.

⁷² Occasionally they are too trivial.

⁷³ Generally some form of φιλ- or ἐρ(ῶ) and ὦ παῖ.

⁷⁴ 1–4 is complete in itself and 5–10 is probably a fragment of a Delian hymn, and was very likely inserted as a parallel to the first elegy. Fritzsche keeps the poems apart and his series is 1–4 ἄνα(Λητοῦς) 5–10 ἄναξ (Λητώ) θεά11–14 θεά-θύγατερ ߡιός.

⁷⁵ e.g. some form of πιστ-(πίσυος) occurs in every one of the six poems 53–86 (taking 79–86 as one poem).

⁷⁶ P. 173.

⁷⁷ All the editors print these separately.

⁷⁸ If we follow Bekker in printing 27–8, 29–30 as two elegies, we then get four poems without a catchword, unless we take Κύρνϵ.

⁷⁹ 129–30 ἀνδρί 131, 2 ἀνθρώποισι ; 133–42 ἀνθρώπων 133, 4 θνητῶν.

⁸⁰ Unless we join the smaller elegies to form one long poem.

⁸¹ Unless we accept τελεῖ (160) = τέλος (164).

⁸² Unless we accept ἀνθρώπων (168) = ἀνδρός (170).

⁸³ B.H.C. print 183–192 as one poem: and Nietzsche would have done so too were it not for the occurrence of a catchword χρήματα in the two parts of it.

⁸⁴ As I have already said (p. 16), I consider 1–254 to be a small collection of Theognidea complete in itself—other poems were added to it later, or rather it was incorporated in a larger collection.

⁸⁵ Poems addressed to the gods are sure to contain words like θεός, ἀθάνατος,Διὸς τέκος.

⁸⁶ Sometimes two poems containing the same idea offer us no possible catchword. Here according to Nietzsche's theory, we must assume that an elegy has dropped out, and possibly we may have to break the sequence of thought by the insertion of a poem containing suitable catchwords: e.g. Fritzsche inserted a poem on ‘poverty’ between the two closely-connected convivial elegies 1045–6, 1047–8.

⁸⁷ e.g. 719–28 are a reply to 699–718; 1003–6, 1007–12 give the two sides of the same question. 931–2 suggest another solution of the problem discussed in 903–30. Nietzsche arranges 903–932 as follows, 903–922, 923–932. Whether we take 903–930 as one poem or (which is far less probable) as two, 931–2 must certainly be taken by itself as a separate elegy. The argument in 903–30 is, ‘spend rationally so that you may neither be in want while you live, nor yet leave anything behind you, for that would be a waste.’ ‘No!’ says 931–2 ‘save something to leave behind you, or else no one will mourn your death.’

⁸⁸ Cf. 309, 313 ἐν μὲν συσσίτοισιν . . . ἐν μὲν μαινομένοις. Cf. 409, 411.

⁸⁹ e.g. 209–221: a group of maxims that may be labelled ‘miscellaneous,’ with no catchwords at all. 260–302: twelve poems (in Bekker) with seven gaps. The longer poems give us πάντα 275 = πάντα 282, τιθεῖ 282 = τιθεῖν 286. 523–596: twenty-nine poems in Fritzsche's arrangement (30 in Bergk), with fifteen gaps. The catchwords in this last section are πλοῦτος; two gaps; φίλον (noun)—φίλον (adj.); αὐκῶν—αὐκητῆρος (same subject); 3 gaps; τήνδε—τήνδε; gap; ἀνδρῶν—ἄνδρα; gap; πόλλ᾿—πολλήν, χρημοσύνην—χρήματα, ἔχειν—ἔχων ἐσθλόν—ἐσθλός; 4 gaps; κακόν—ἐχθαίρω κακὸν ἄνδρα—ἔχθαίρω; 2 gaps (Nietzsche found catchwords, μάργον=ἀργά!); θεός,θεοί; 2 gaps; cf. 639–658; 843–856.

⁹⁰ e.g. ταῦτα (1050), σοι (1049), ἔχειν (several times in Fritzsche's scheme), τήνδε (541), δμῶς (495), ὥσπερ (449), οὐ (687), ἄλλος (796). Fritzsche's scheme has 112 gaps (370 poems); this number would be more than doubled if we refused to admit the very simple words he has used so often: e.g. some form of ἀνήρ (with its synonyms ἄνθρωπος and even θνητός) is used as connecting link 35 times, φιλος (or some form of φιλεῖν &c.) 36, κακός 20, ἀγαθός 10, θεός 11, Κύρνε 9. Sometimes we have several words in two poems that would serve equally well as catchwords, and we find Nietzsche using one, and Fritzsche another. Fritzsche is far more charitable than Nietzsche in admitting simple words.

⁹¹ οἶνον=κωμάζοιμι (886); ἴβην=εἶμι (945); αἰσχρόν=ἀναλσείης (891); ἔργματα=ἔργον(901); σοφός τοῖς συνιεῖσιν (904); ἀρετή= σοφίης (942); κλινόμενος=τρέψασ (949); all the above in a group of eleven poems; δειλοῖς ἄφρονες καὶ νήπιοι (1039); πέπονθα = ὀλοφύρο μαι (1131). Similarity of sound: εὔδωμεν= οίνωμεν (1043); μάργον=ἀργά (584); παυρό τεροι=χαλεπώτερον (117); μἠ θαύμαζε=μὴ κώμαζε (1351); παρ᾿ ἄφροσι= παρ᾿ ἀνδράσι (627).

⁹² In a group of three poems a, b, c the catchword joining b to a often comes near the end of b, while the catchword for c comes at the very beginning of b. [E.g. 659–66, 667–82, 683–6, with their catchwords ὤλεσε (664), ἀπόλωλεν (677), ἔρδουσι (675), ἔρδειν (685). I have noticed one instance where the catchwords are 25 lines apart (νικάτω 466 = ἀνίκητοσ 491).

⁹³ Nietzsche is often very unreasonable as we have seen. The catchword theory may prove fatal to sound criticism and do much to warp and corrupt our judgment when we endeavour to establish the text of Theognis and to determine the exact length of each poem. We have already seen how Nietzsche's theory leads us to join disconnected fragments: it also induces us to cut up single poems, or at any rate prevents us from combining two fragments that ought to form one poem. 903–930 may or may not be a single poem; the question was settled for Nietzsche by the occurrence of πτωχϵύϵι twice, and he printed the lines as two poems; had there been no catchword he would with equal confidence have printed them as one poem.

⁹⁴ He uses the same licence as Nietzsche and Fritzsche in his application of the term ‘catchword.’

⁹⁵ They need not necessarily be next to one another, for he often marks catchwords in poems separated from one another by one or more elegies e.g. παρέοντα (1151) = παροῦσι (1133) with a long poem 1135–50 between them, κριθαῖσι κορεσθείσ (1269) = κριθῶν ἐκορέσθησ (1249) with five poems between. There are so many catchwords in each poem, especially in Book II., that the reader is often quite lost in the maze of cross-references.

⁹⁶ Hartung, J. A.; die griechischen Elegiker unter den ersten Ptolemäern, pp. 53–72 Google Scholar. Leipzig 1859. One of the poems is from the Planudean Anthology.

⁹⁷ With a little more boldness in using ‘synonyms’ I could reduce the number of gaps to one.

⁹⁸ Cf. Nietzsche's δεινὰ παθών=ἀχνύμενοσ κῆρ (1114 a).

⁹⁹ Cf. N. σώφρων=σύμφορον (457), νικάτω ἀνίκητοσ (491).

¹⁰⁰ Similar sound cf. N. εὔδωμεν=πίνωμεν (1042).

¹⁰¹ Cf. Nietzsche γνώσῃ=γνώμη (1172).

¹⁰² Cf. N. μάργον=ἀργά (584).

¹⁰³ It will be observed that in filling up the gaps I have in each case used a poem that has already occurred in the collection, in no case have I had to adopt Fritzsche's practice of taking poems that occur later.

¹⁰⁴ In his edition of Theognis (1543) Vinet has the following note: ‘et hos sex uersus (1221–6) ex loan. Stobaei Apophtheg. adlecimus: quos ad hoc Theognidis poema referendos esse, uel Cyrni nomen satis arguit. Tenebunt autem postremum hunc locum, donec dexteriore aliquanto numine, suo tandem restituti fuerint’

¹⁰⁵ Cambridge University Press, 1902.