to the description in the text. Again I ask, was this a copy of Artemon's picture? I should imagine that in the "Laomedontis memoriam" Pliny must have lumped together two paintings; unless indeed, as in some rare cases that might be mentioned, two kindred legends were placed in juxtaposition.

I now come to the last name on the list of artist authors, viz. Antigonus. I shall begin by quoting all the passages in Pliny where he is spoken of. That he was one of Pliny's authorities appears in limine from the Indd. to Books XXXIII. and XXXIV. where we find: "Antigonus, qui de Toreutice." Then in XXXV. 19. § 84, we read: "Plures artifices fecere Attali et Eumenis adversus Gallos prælia, Isigonus, Pyromachus, Stratonicus, Antigonus qui volumina condidit de sua arte:" and lastly, in xxxv. 10. 68, it is stated of Parrhasius: "Hanc ei gloriam concessere Antigonus et Xenocrates qui de pictura scripsere, et seqq." I am not prepared to maintain that this Antigonus who wrote on painting, and who is also referred to by Diogenes Laertius, Vit. Chrysipp. is the same as the writer on Toreutics already mentioned. The same I have no doubt he is as the Antigonus named in the title of a work by Polemon (of whom more anon): for it is along with Polemon that Diogenes introduces him. This however is a point of no material importance. My chief concern at present is with the passage in Pliny commencing "Plures artifices." And first I would observe that, from the extreme vagueness of Pliny's language, we are not justified in pressing the question of the material of which the groups made by these "artists many" of the school of Pergamus may have consisted. If we should find occasion to assign to one or other of these artists any marble group or statue now extant in the museums of Europe, we must not be deterred by the consideration that with works of brass Pliny is in this part of the 35th book more especially engaged. Not to beat about the bush any longer, I put the question: what if Antigonus be the author, not merely of a book on Toreutics, but of the more famous and better known statue, which does not represent a dying gladiator? That a Kelt is here pourtrayed, no one can for a moment doubt who stands before the statue, and carefully compares it with the accounts, in Diodorus and Pausanias, of the distinguishing characteristics of those whom the Greeks called Taλaraí. French archæology is too often a kind of Hotel des Invalides for ex

ploded statements and crippled truths. I am therefore the less surprised at Clarac retaining, in his Musée de Sculture, the old designation without so much as an allusion to the insuperable objections by which it has been met. "Il porte autour du cou une corde qui le fait reconnoître pour un gladiateur" (Clarac l. c.). "He wears a white neckcloth, which shews he is a clergyman," would be about equivalent logic, though anything but equivalent English. What Clarac calls a "corde" is of course the Keltic torques. In the Museo Campana is to be seen a gold torques (compare Liv. XLIV. 14. "Torques aureus") which was found in the South of France. Similar but less costly specimens have been shewn to me in the Louvre, unless my memory plays me a trick. I feel however that I am fighting with a shadow in contesting the old designation, dear, it may be, to admirers of Childe Harold, but destitute of any weightier claim to our homage. I start with the fact of the statue being a dying Gaul, and then I am irresistibly driven to the conclusion, that it formed one of the works to which Pliny refers. I am myself very strongly of opinion, that it must have formed the corner figure of a pedimental group. I should add that it cannot be properly understood without comparing it with the so-called Arria and Pætus group, the real subject of which is a Gaul putting an end to self and wife. The actual battle more especially alluded to by Pliny is probably that in which Attalus routed the Gauls B. c. 239. But when we remember-I fancy I owe the remark to Welcker, but I cannot quote chapter and verse-how rarely the record of historical battles was entrusted to the keeping of sculpture, which always preferred a kind of reflective, anticipatory allusion from kindred mythical sources, I think it may be doubted whether the artists did not rather select an earlier engagement (B. c. 279), that at Delphi, which Propertius saw portrayed on one of the valva of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine;-an engagement, this, with which tradition had connected so many supernatural events (see Pausanias), that it might easily be as the mythical shadow, cast before by the coming event of History proper. But, waiving the discussion of this and many other points so pregnant with interest that I am loathe to give them the go-bye, I must content myself with observing, that, whether the conjecture as to the connection between Antigonus and the statue of the dying Gaul be correct or not, the identity of the artist of the school

of Pergamus, and the author whom Pliny had by him, is a question not of conjecture but of fact:-fact too, the importance of which is great indeed, when we remember that it is the school of Pergamus which furnished the key-note and the starting point, from which the sculpture of the so-called Roman æra took its tone and its rise: and I cannot feel that any apology is necessary for having arrested the attention of Pliny's readers on a name, which they might otherwise have passed over in silence, as too insignificant to deserve, or too obscure to repay enquiry. Well has Quintilian said: "in studiis nihil parvum."

I am fully prepared to expect that my readers—always supposing I have any readers-will lavish their censures on the foregoing pages in no scanty measure. Rambling, uncritical, inconclusive, such are the epithets I hear by anticipation. I plead guilty to all the counts of the indictment, but I am sure the verdict will be accompanied by a recommendation to mercy. For I would urge in my defence that although the conjectures here advanced may seem somewhat crazy and ricketty when taken by themselves, they will be found to bear a totally different aspect, when they are fitted each of them into their proper place in the history of art taken as a whole*.

[To be continued.]

C. K. WATSON.

VII.

On a point in the Doctrine of the ancient Atomists.

IN a paper on Lucretius in the first number of this Journal I discussed at some length a passage (1. 529-634) which had suffered grievously from the uncalled for alterations of all the editors, and I endeavoured to show its connexion with and its bearing upon the rest of Lucretius' Atomic Theory. There can I think be no reasonable doubt of the poet's meaning. He wished at one and the same time to maintain in its integrity that cardinal point in the Epicurean physics that matter consisted of atoms impenetrable and indestructible, yet possessed of shape, extension and weight, and to obviate the apparent

See Note, p. 264.

logical absurdity of supposing particles so endowed to be incapable of further subdivision. He affirms therefore that his atoms have parts, but that these parts are minima, the λáxiora of Epicurus, so small as to be incapable of existing alone and for that reason necessarily existing in the atom from all eternity in unchangeable juxta-position: an argument which confirms rather than invalidates the proof that his atoms are "of solid singleness."

That Epicurus held the same doctrine may be satisfactorily shown. In page 30 of the Journal an obscure passage, bearing on the question, was quoted from his letter to Herodotus (Diog. Laert. x. 58); and in the list of his principal writings given by Diogenes (x. 28) we find one with the title Tepì Tηs év T áτóμg yovias, which treated doubtless of the parts of an atom and of the cacumen of Lucretius. The Pseudo-Plutarch too (de plac. phil. I. 877 F) says, καὶ εἴρηται ἄτομος, οὐχ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἐλαχίστη, ἀλλ' ὅτι οὐ δύναται τμηθῆναι κ. τ. λ. thus distinctly pronouncing the atom not to be an λáxiσrov. But this might have been more clearly proved not only of Epicurus, but also of his predecessors Democritus and Leucippus, from Aristotle and his commentators, had not the editors of Lucretius chosen to neglect these for the eloquent commonplaces of Cicero and Seneca, whose purpose it would not have answered to dwell on points so obscure as the one in question.

There is no ancient author extant who has preserved more notices and fragments of lost writers than Simplicius. As Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics is constantly impugning the notion of a limit to the divisibility of things, and consequently the doctrines of Leucippus and Democritus, Simplicius takes frequent occasion to quote not only their opinions but also those of Epicurus. In a noticeable passage of his commentary to the Physics (p. 216 a. Ed. Ald. 6 lines fr. bot.) he distinctly attributes to Epicurus the theory in question, but denies it of Leucippus and Democritus. Λεύκιππος μὲν καὶ Δημόκριτος, he says, οὐ μόνον τὴν ἀπάθειαν αἰτίαν τοῖς πρώτοις σώμασι τοῦ μὴ διαιρεῖσθαι νομί ζουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σμικρὸν καὶ ἀμερές. Επίκουρος δὲ ὕστερον ἀμερῆ μὲν οὐχ ἡγεῖται, ἄτομα δὲ αὐτὰ διὰ τὴν ἀπάθειαν εἶναί φησι. καὶ πολλαχοῦ μὲν τὴν Δημοκρίτου δόξαν καὶ Λευκίππου ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης διήλεγξεν, καὶ δι ἐκείνους ἴσως τοὺς ἐλέγχους πρὸς τὸ ἀμερὲς ἐνισταμένους ὁ Ἐπίκουρος ὕστερον γενόμενος, συμπαθῶν δὲ τῇ Δημοκρίτου καὶ Λευκίππου δόξῃ περὶ τῶν πρώτων

σωμάτων, ἀπαθῆ μὲν ἐ φύλαξεν αὐτά, τὸ δὲ ἀμερὲς αὐτῶν παρείλετο, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο ἀπὸ τοῦ ̓Αριστοτέλους ἐλεγχομένων. Notwithstanding the precision and minuteness of this account, in another part of the same commentary (p. 18 a. 1. 15), strange to say, he asserts that the atoms of Democritus have parts and extension, but are indestructible on account of their perfect solidity and fulness; the very doctrine of Epicurus and Lucretius. ἐπεὶ τὸ ἀδιαίρετον πολλαχώς, he says, οἷον τὸ μήπω διηρημένον οἷόν τε δὲ διαιρεθῆναι... ἢ τὸ μόρια μὲν ἔχον καὶ μέγεθος, ἀπαθὲς δὲ ἂν διὰ στερεότητα καὶ μαστότητα, καθάπερ ἑκάστη τῶν Δημοκρίτου ἀτόμων. Here too he employs Democritus' own word ναστότης. What are we to believe then ? Indeed my perplexity was increased on meeting with another passage in his commentary to the de Calo (p. 56 b. 1. 16. Ed. Ald.), in which he appears to deny parts not only to the atoms of Democritus, but also to those of Epicurus. οἱ περὶ Δημόκριτον, he says, καὶ Λεύκιππον οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι καὶ μετ ̓ αὐτὸν ̓Επίκουρος ... ἔλεγον τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀπείρους εἶναι τῷ πλήθει, ἅ τινα καὶ ἀτόμους καὶ ἀδιαίρετα ᾤοντο καὶ ἀπαθῆ διὰ τὸ στερεὰ καὶ ἀμερῆ εἶναι κ. τ. λ. But the Aldine edition of the commentary on the de Cœlo is, as is well known, a spurious version; and luckily the corresponding passage of the true text is printed in Brandis' extracts (p. 484 a. 23), ὡς οἱ περὶ Λεύκιππον καὶ Δημόκριτον ὑπετίθεντο πρὸ αὐτοῦ γεγονότες καὶ μετ ̓ αὐτὸν ̓Επίκουρος. οὗτοι γὰρ ἔλεγον ἀπείρους εἶναι τῷ πλήθει τὰς ἀρχάς, ἃς καὶ ἀτόμους καὶ ἀδιαιρέτους ἐνόμιζον καὶ ἀπαθεῖς διὰ τὸ ναστὰς εἶναι καὶ ἀμοίρους τοῦ κενοῦ. Here the word ȧuep fortunately does not appear at all, and Simplicius is saved from the charge of contradicting himself in regard to Epicurus. As to Democritus, I can only conjecture that the ambiguity of some of his expressions on so obscure a point deceived Simplicius, just as Lucretius has misled his commentators, and that Democritus in reality held the same opinion as Epicurus; for a still higher authority than Simplicius, Alexander of Aphrodisias, the commentator par excellence, in his treatise on the Metaphysics (p. 27. 20 Ed. Bonitz) most distinctly attributes to Leucippus and Democritus the precise doctrine of Lucretius. λέγει μέν, he says, περὶ Λευκίππου τε καὶ Δημοκρίτου· οὗτοι γὰρ ... οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ πόθεν ἡ βαρύτης ἐν ταῖς ἀτόμοις λέγουσι· τὰ γὰρ ἀμερῆ τὰ ἐπινοούμενα ταῖς ἀτόμοις καὶ μέρη ὄντα αὐτῶν ἀβαρῆ φασὶν εἶναι· ἐκ δὲ ἀβαρῶν συγκειμένων πῶς ἂν βάρος γένηται*;

* This passage, compared with Arist. d. Gen. et Corr. I. 8, p. 326 a. 9, and

Theophr. d. Sens. et Sensil. § 63, will surely prove that Democritus, as might