THEOGNIS. Becutive hexameters in the gnomic extracts from his poems. The passage of Plato (l. c), sometimes quoted to show that he wrote epic poetry, seems to us to prove, if anything, the very opposite. The poems, which have come down to us, consist of 1 389 elegiac verses, consisting of gnomic sentences and paragraphs, of one or more couplets ; which vary greatly in their style and subjects, and which are evidently extracted from a number of separate poems. Even in the confused account of Suidas we trace indications of the fact, that the poetry of Theognis consisted of several distinct elegies. In wiiat state the collection was in the time of Suidas, we have not sufficient evidence to determine ; but, comparing his article with his well-known method of putting together the information which he ga- thered from various sources, we suspect that the work which he calls Tvwjxai Si eAeyeias ets eTrr; fia>, was a collection similar to that which has come down to us, though more extensive, and with which Suidas himself was probably acquainted, and that he copied the other titles from various writers, without caring to inquire whether the poems to which they referred were included in the great collection. Xenophon, in the passage above cited, refers to a collection of the poetry of Theog- nis ; though not, as some have supposed, to a con- tinuous gnomic poem ; and it is evident that the collection referred to by Xenophon was different from that which has come down to us, as the lines quoted by him as its commencement are now found in the MSS. as vv. 183—190. The manner in which the original collection was formed, and the changes by which it has come into its present state, can be explained by a very simple theory, perfectly consistent with all the ffects of tlie case, in the following manner. Theognis wrote numerous elegies, political, con- kvivial, affectionate, and occasional, addressed to Cyr- tnus, and to his other friends. In a very short time 'these poems would naturally be collected, and ar- ranged according to their subjects, and according fto the persons to whom they were addressed ; but [at what precise period this was done we are unable to determine : the collection may have been partly made during the poet's life, and even by himself ; but we may be sure that it would not be left undone long after his death. In this collection, the distinction of the separate poems in each great division would naturally be less and less regarded, on account of the uniformity of the metre, the similarity of the subjects, and — in the case especially of those addressed to Cyrnus — the perpetual recurrence of the same name in the ditfi'rent poems. Thus the collection would gra- dually be fused into one body, and, first each division of it, and then perhaps the whole, would assume a form but little different from that of a continuous poem. Even before this had happened, however, the decidedly gnomic spirit of the poems, and their popularity on that account (see Isocr. /. c), would give rise to the practice of extracting from them couplets and paragraphs, containing gnomic sentiments ; and these, being chosen simply for the sake of the sentiment contained in each individual passage, would be arranged in any order that accident might determine, without re- ference to the original place and connection of each extract, and without any pains being taken to keep the passages distinct. Thus was formed a single and quasi-continuous body of gnomic poetry, THEOGNIS. lorr which of course has been subjected to the common fates of such collections ; interpolations from the works of other gnomic poets, and omissions of pas- sages which really belonged to Theognis ; besides the ordinary corruptions of critics and transcribers. Whatever questions may be raised as to matters of detail, there can be very little doubt that the so- called poems of Theognis have been brought into their present state by some such process as that which has been now described. In applying this theory to the restoration of the extant fragments of Theognis to something like their ancient arrangement, Welcker, to whom we are indebted for the whole discovery, proceeds in the following manner. First, he rejects all those verses which we have the positive authority of ancient writers for assigning to other poets, such as Tyrtaeus, Mimnermus, Solon, and others ; pro- vided, of course, that the evidence in favour of those poets preponderates over that on the ground of which the verses have been assigned to Theog- nis. Secondly, he rejects all passages which can be proved to be merely parodies of the genuine gnomes of Theognis, a species of corruption which he discusses with great skill (pp. Ixxx. foil,). Thirdly, he collects those passages which refer to certain definite persons, places, seasons, and events, like the epigrams of later times ; of these he con- siders some to be the productions of Theognis, but others manifest additions. His next class is formed of the convivial portions of the poetry ; in which the discrimination of what is genuine from what is spurious is a matter of extreme difficulty. Fifthly, he separates all those paragraphs which are ad- dressed to Polypaides ; and here there can be no doubt that he lias fallen into an error, through not perceiving the fact above referred to, as clearly established by other writers, that that word is a patronymic, and only another name for Cyrnus. Lastly, he removes from the collection the verses which fall under the denomination of iraiSiKa^ for which Suidas censures the poet ; but, if we understand these passages as referring to the sort of intercourse which prevailed among the Dorians, many of them admit of the best interpretation and may safely be assigned to Theognis, though there are others, of a less innocent character, which we must regard as the productions of later and more corrupt ages. The couplets which remain are fragments from the elegies of Theognis, mostly addressed to Cyrnus, and referring to the events of the poet's life and times, and the genuineness of which may, for the most part, be assumed ; though, even among these, interpolations may very probably have taken place, and passages actually occur of a meaning so nearly identical, that they can hardly be supposed to have been different passages in the works of the same poet, but they seem rather to have been derived from different authors by some compiler who was struck by their resemblance. The poetical character of Theognis may be judged of, to a great extent, from what has already been said, and it is only necessary to add that his genuine fragments contain much that is highly poetical in thought, and elegant as well as forcible in expression. The so-called remains of Theognis were first printed in the Aldine collection, Venet. 1495, fol,, mentioned under Theocritus (p, 1034, b.), then in the several collections of the gnomic poets pub- , lished during the 16th century. (See Hoffmann, 3z a
