Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913. Excerpt:... LECTURE IV THE CASE AGAINST EPHOEUS EXAMINED In the last lecture I endeavoured to establish the case for Ephorus by the aid of three arguments: the argument from coincidence, the argument from style, and the argument from the similarity of the interests evinced, and of the knowledge shown, by the two authors. In the present lecture I propose to discuss some of the arguments that have been advanced against the identification of P. with Ephorus. The first arguments which I shall consider are those which have been advanced by Laqueur and by Niese; by Laqueur with regard both to the npootpia of Ephorus and his date, and by Niese with regard to his date. Laqueur's argument as to the irpooipia may be summarized as follows. We know from Diodorus1 that Ephorus prefixed a ivpoo'iy.iov to each book: Diodorus also prefixes a irpooCpuov to each of his extant books. When, however, we turn to the npooifna of Diodorus, we are at once struck with a marked difference among them. The first three2 conform to a common type. Each of them consists of two parts; firstly, of a rather full recapitulation of the results arrived at in the previous book; secondly, of a very brief indication of the contents of the book which it serves to introduce. This form of npooifiiov is entirely in accordance with the practice of the age of Diodorus. In other historians of 1 Diod. XVI. 76. 5; an excerpt from his Dictionary of Bates. 2 Diod. I. 42; II. 1. 1-3; III. 1. the period we either find no irpootpiov at all, as in Tacitus, or else we find a npooifuov of this type, as in Josephus. When, however, we pass to Book IV, we find, from this book onwards, a npooiyuov of an entirely different type. It begins with a reflection of a general character; sometimes it is a moral reflection (as a rule, a s...