On Schneidewin's Edition of the (Edipus Bex. 327 (evfprjfiov fjfxap ov 7rpeV Ka<ayyeK(a ya>aar) fxiaiv(iv) would prevent the subjects of (Edipus, and not least his queen, from glooming the morn of the new king's reign by allusion to the bloody sunset of his predecessor. The interregnum of the Sphinx would tend also to diminish the importance attached to the obscure details of Laius's death. See 130. tj iroiKiKcobos 2<ly ra 7rpos iroo (TKorvciv peOeuras Tafias rdcpavfj 7rpocrrjyTo. Regarding the subject from a Greek point of view, we find no reason to disparage the plot of this great tragic masterpiece*. B. H. Kennedy. III. S. Clemens Alex, on New Testament Chronology. In the first book of the Stromata (ch. 21. 101143) Cle- ment goes into a long chronological detail, designed to prove that Moses and the Prophets lived long before the rise of Grecian Philosophy. To this in 144 he appends an outline of Roman chronology, from Augustus to the death of Commodus, " in order to set forth the times of our Saviour." This outline consists (1) of the Augustan section of the well-known " Astronomical Canon/' differing, however, by the insertion of one year for the reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius between Nero and Vespasian, (2) of a list of reigns in years, months and days, from Julius Caesar, also to the death of Commodus. Then ( 145) he argues as follows : (I number the statements, for convenience of reference) (1) " Our Lord was born in the 28th year, when they first ordered the * drroypcxpai to be held under Augustus.' " The year meant is the 28th Augustan year of the Alexandrians, beginning with the fixt or moveable 1 Thoth = 29 or 24 August b. c. 3, M. Nab. 746.
- Reconsidering Schneidewin's some- think he has not adopted the interpre-
what vague note on Antig. 31, 1, I now tation I ascribed to him in No. II.
