Zeno's Game of τάβλη (A. P. ix. 482)Author(s): Roland G. AustinSource: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 54, Part 2 (1934), pp. 202-205Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/626864Accessed: 05/12/2008 12:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

of drawing in the classical style, in addition to its interest as the only surviving representation in ancient art of a famous incident in the Nekyia of the Odyssey.

The concluding lines of the passage describing the meeting of Odysseus with Elpenor (XI, 81-83) must have have been clearly in the mind of the artist:

Noi pEv os5 TErIcv dIpEIpoHIv)o oT-ruyEpoioV

ijiEO', Eycb p.ev &vEUEv i?p' calpaTt ipcyacvov trX>cov,

EicXov 8' ETEpcoGEV iCaipou ir6XX &y6pEuVv.

In the centre, Odysseus (OAYYEYE), seated on a rock with his chin resting on his right hand, gazes sorrowfully into the staring eyes of his dead comrade. His left hand holds the sword with which he has cut the throats of the two sheep lying before him. Their blood drips into the pit-oaaov TE 'TruyocJIOv Evea Kai evea-prepared for the purpose. The ghost of Elpenor (EATE- NOPO:), whose legs from the knees down are hidden in a depression of the ground, leans his body and raised left arm against a rock, the hand grasping a projection from it, while his right hand, planted on another rock, gives him the additional support he needs to hold himself erect. One is reminded of the epithet apEvrnva K&plva, and of the description of Agamemnon later on in the story (11. 393-4):

WhX' o0/ y&p ol ?-r' /v IS pr1e805jos oU8e T KIKUs,

oirl TEp T&poS Eg6(V EVi yvapw-MTOIcn pl crcn.

The rendering of the landscape recalls Circe's description of the entrance to the Lower World (X, 513-5):

Evea pEv eiS 'AX?pOVTa TTlupipeyEQcov TIE Ooouct

KCOKUT6S 0', 6s 86i Z-rvyos U85TOS 'CTrVv aroppcb6,

Tr-ETpTI E TIVwiYS TrE 8uco TOTrapCoV ept8oOTiftv,

The reeds suggest the proximity of the rivers, and the rock at their confluence is represented by the undulating line against which Elpenor leans.

Hermes (H<E>PMO), who stands behind Odysseus, plays no part in this episode of the Odyssey. The artist may have added him because of his connection, as Psychopompos, with the Underworld. It is possible also that the god appeared in one of the lost tragedies dealing with this theme.

L. D. CASKEY.

Zeno's game of rT&pAi (A.P. ix. 482). 861TrOTE yap Zivcova, TroXtcaouxov PaclAiia,

Tratyvlov ex<ppac-rcov KTEEO0VTac K3pCOV,

Toifl T0OIKl?OTEUl-rTOS E?V O?etlS, E&T' c&Tr AEUKO0,

TOo Kai 6roiailSfiv Eis 686v pXOpEVOU,

of drawing in the classical style, in addition to its interest as the only surviving representation in ancient art of a famous incident in the Nekyia of the Odyssey.

The concluding lines of the passage describing the meeting of Odysseus with Elpenor (XI, 81-83) must have have been clearly in the mind of the artist:

Noi pEv os5 TErIcv dIpEIpoHIv)o oT-ruyEpoioV

ijiEO', Eycb p.ev &vEUEv i?p' calpaTt ipcyacvov trX>cov,

EicXov 8' ETEpcoGEV iCaipou ir6XX &y6pEuVv.

In the centre, Odysseus (OAYYEYE), seated on a rock with his chin resting on his right hand, gazes sorrowfully into the staring eyes of his dead comrade. His left hand holds the sword with which he has cut the throats of the two sheep lying before him. Their blood drips into the pit-oaaov TE 'TruyocJIOv Evea Kai evea-prepared for the purpose. The ghost of Elpenor (EATE- NOPO:), whose legs from the knees down are hidden in a depression of the ground, leans his body and raised left arm against a rock, the hand grasping a projection from it, while his right hand, planted on another rock, gives him the additional support he needs to hold himself erect. One is reminded of the epithet apEvrnva K&plva, and of the description of Agamemnon later on in the story (11. 393-4):

WhX' o0/ y&p ol ?-r' /v IS pr1e805jos oU8e T KIKUs,

oirl TEp T&poS Eg6(V EVi yvapw-MTOIcn pl crcn.

The rendering of the landscape recalls Circe's description of the entrance to the Lower World (X, 513-5):

Evea pEv eiS 'AX?pOVTa TTlupipeyEQcov TIE Ooouct

KCOKUT6S 0', 6s 86i Z-rvyos U85TOS 'CTrVv aroppcb6,

Tr-ETpTI E TIVwiYS TrE 8uco TOTrapCoV ept8oOTiftv,

The reeds suggest the proximity of the rivers, and the rock at their confluence is represented by the undulating line against which Elpenor leans.

Hermes (H<E>PMO), who stands behind Odysseus, plays no part in this episode of the Odyssey. The artist may have added him because of his connection, as Psychopompos, with the Underworld. It is possible also that the god appeared in one of the lost tragedies dealing with this theme.

L. D. CASKEY.

Zeno's game of rT&pAi (A.P. ix. 482). 861TrOTE yap Zivcova, TroXtcaouxov PaclAiia,

Tratyvlov ex<ppac-rcov KTEEO0VTac K3pCOV,

Toifl T0OIKl?OTEUl-rTOS E?V O?etlS, E&T' c&Tr AEUKO0,

TOo Kai 6roiailSfiv Eis 686v pXOpEVOU,

iTT'& plv EKTOS EXeV, pliav etvaTOS' aciTap 6 aoOppoS

8iaca&as a&lplrwcov laoos ?lv SEKMOT' 10

OS TE ErriET pETr& CaOUppov IXEV 8io pouv&8a 8' aArirv,

qf9pov -r v TupOi&TTrV apcplEcTroKE Sipos. a?aX p&ka's SitooCas plev V6y o&y-rc hire XCpcp

Kal T60roraS TirpaS EiS UOCiv fv6EK6TT)v-

apqil Suco6EKarrov 8E S81'rpE-rov EiKEAXOl ahXa, 15 KaXi TplKaitSEK6aTcp 'p9os5 iKEIT'O iia

i8{3yES 'AvTiyovov sIEKO6aEOV-' d6AA Kcai CiTZO fCToS iEplve TVrITcs TrEvTTrwIKat8EKaTc,

OKTcoKaiSEKoTc TFravopo10os' ECrTtl 8' &XXa

EtXEV 81X09a6ias T'TpaTOS ?K TVuV6TOV. 20

aOTrTp ava Xnsuxoio hXcXov CprtlTia Iocwraou, Kai T-rV Ecroplvi)v oV voeov rrayiSa . . .

Sola Kati ? Kai '

TrevrgT KTa-ryayEv-' CaTiKa 8' OKT"C 23

ax3uyas EixEv oias Trp6o0aE ppi3oplvas5.

rT&PTrV 9pEVyETE Tr&vTES, ErlEi Kai K:a ipavoS aOUToS

K?ivTS S Ta&5 Xoyous oOuX ui&rxie TUOXas.

The purpose of this note is to shew the faulti- ness of Henry Jackson's reconstruction of Zeno's game of T-r6As l (JPh. vii, 1877, pp. 240 fF.), and to suggest that the correct solution is given by Becq de Fouquieres (Jeux des Anciens, Ist edn., I863, pp. 371 f.).

Agathias' epigram forms our chief and most circumstantial evidence for the game; the inci- dent narrated must have become a commonplace among anecdotists, as Agathias himself was not born until nearly fifty years after Zeno's death in 491 A.D. Jackson and Becq both suppose that Agathias is describing a game of' xii scripta.' But whereas the latter was played on a board with three rows of I2 points (see my papers in Greece and Rome, Oct. 1934 and Feb. 1935), Tc-rxr needed only two such rows, as is clear from the epigram. T6dpA, in fact, is a direct descendant of 'xii scripta'; although both are of the backgammon type,2 T&IpAr is the more developed form and more akin to the modern game; it is to be identified with the game of tabula or alea described by Isidore (Orig. xviii. 6o ff.).

The point of the epigram is that Zeno's men were so placed that a throw of 2, 6, and 5 gave him eight 63uyEs, thus virtually ruining his game: for a3uyes, as Jackson shewed, are the 'blots' of backgammon, single pieces liable to capture if one's opponent chances on an appro-

iTT'& plv EKTOS EXeV, pliav etvaTOS' aciTap 6 aoOppoS

8iaca&as a&lplrwcov laoos ?lv SEKMOT' 10

OS TE ErriET pETr& CaOUppov IXEV 8io pouv&8a 8' aArirv,

qf9pov -r v TupOi&TTrV apcplEcTroKE Sipos. a?aX p&ka's SitooCas plev V6y o&y-rc hire XCpcp

Kal T60roraS TirpaS EiS UOCiv fv6EK6TT)v-

apqil Suco6EKarrov 8E S81'rpE-rov EiKEAXOl ahXa, 15 KaXi TplKaitSEK6aTcp 'p9os5 iKEIT'O iia

i8{3yES 'AvTiyovov sIEKO6aEOV-' d6AA Kcai CiTZO fCToS iEplve TVrITcs TrEvTTrwIKat8EKaTc,

OKTcoKaiSEKoTc TFravopo10os' ECrTtl 8' &XXa

EtXEV 81X09a6ias T'TpaTOS ?K TVuV6TOV. 20

aOTrTp ava Xnsuxoio hXcXov CprtlTia Iocwraou, Kai T-rV Ecroplvi)v oV voeov rrayiSa . . .

Sola Kati ? Kai '

TrevrgT KTa-ryayEv-' CaTiKa 8' OKT"C 23

ax3uyas EixEv oias Trp6o0aE ppi3oplvas5.

rT&PTrV 9pEVyETE Tr&vTES, ErlEi Kai K:a ipavoS aOUToS

K?ivTS S Ta&5 Xoyous oOuX ui&rxie TUOXas.

The purpose of this note is to shew the faulti- ness of Henry Jackson's reconstruction of Zeno's game of T-r6As l (JPh. vii, 1877, pp. 240 fF.), and to suggest that the correct solution is given by Becq de Fouquieres (Jeux des Anciens, Ist edn., I863, pp. 371 f.).

Agathias' epigram forms our chief and most circumstantial evidence for the game; the inci- dent narrated must have become a commonplace among anecdotists, as Agathias himself was not born until nearly fifty years after Zeno's death in 491 A.D. Jackson and Becq both suppose that Agathias is describing a game of' xii scripta.' But whereas the latter was played on a board with three rows of I2 points (see my papers in Greece and Rome, Oct. 1934 and Feb. 1935), Tc-rxr needed only two such rows, as is clear from the epigram. T6dpA, in fact, is a direct descendant of 'xii scripta'; although both are of the backgammon type,2 T&IpAr is the more developed form and more akin to the modern game; it is to be identified with the game of tabula or alea described by Isidore (Orig. xviii. 6o ff.).

The point of the epigram is that Zeno's men were so placed that a throw of 2, 6, and 5 gave him eight 63uyEs, thus virtually ruining his game: for a3uyes, as Jackson shewed, are the 'blots' of backgammon, single pieces liable to capture if one's opponent chances on an appro-

1 Lamer (RE., s.v. lusoria tabula) rightly refuses to admit that Becq's theory can be applied to xii scripta, but is wrong in alleging that the game is nowhere named: Agathias gives the name, Trtpal.

2 'Tables,' the generic name, is more accurate; Tapr6iX is not exactly equivalent either to backgammon or to the French tric-trac, but is merely one repre- sentative of the family.

1 Lamer (RE., s.v. lusoria tabula) rightly refuses to admit that Becq's theory can be applied to xii scripta, but is wrong in alleging that the game is nowhere named: Agathias gives the name, Trtpal.

2 'Tables,' the generic name, is more accurate; Tapr6iX is not exactly equivalent either to backgammon or to the French tric-trac, but is merely one repre- sentative of the family.

202 202 NOTES NOTES

NOTES

priate throw. A position where Zeno could

escape eight blots is therefore invalid. Zeno is playing White; he has 7 men on the

6th point, i on the gth, 2 on both the loth and the aoupios, 2 on the point after the aooppos, and one on the Sipos. Black has 2 on the 8th, i th and I2th points, I on the I3th, 2 on

Av-riyovos, 2 on both the i5th and i8th, and 2 again on the 4th point from the last. White is described as 6oli5iinrv EiS 686v ipXO6pvos, which must mean that he is transferring his men

through his opponent's tables back to a home

table, exactly as in backgammon. I append (Fig. I) a diagram of Becq's arrangement. The vertical division between the tables is found in all xii scripta boards, and may certainly be assumed in rap?Ar also. The horizontal division

, BLACK 24 23 22 21 20 19

203

regular order from lower to higher numbers: the only exception to this is the rouipos, named before the Ioth point instead of after it, but as the two are coupled in a single clause for metrical reasons, the disturbance of order is only apparent. The Sipos is more difficult to assign; Becq places it on 23 by elimination, as it is in fact the only point left where the presence of a blot fulfils the conditions of the game; there may be some connexion between the name and the 2nd point from the end of the board.'

Zeno now threw (KaTrriyayEv, cf. French amener)

2, 6, and 5. He could not move any piece from

6, as 8, I I, and 12 are all blocked,2 nor the piece on 9, as I , I4, and 15 are blocked, but he could move one of the men on Io to I6. He then had a 2 and a 5 to play; he could only move 20 to

< WHITE < 18 17 16 15 14 13

o * 0 0 *

* 0 0 * 0

0 0 00 0 0 o

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II /2 > WHITE > BLACK<

FIG. I.

is necessitated by the type of game; it can easily be accounted for if we regard -rPApq as originally played on a xii scripta board in which the middle row was not used for movement.

The diagram will shew how Becq disposes of those points which had special names. The

aooiios he puts at the i9th, on the certain

ground that this is the furthest point to which a

piece starting from I could travel by the highest

possible throw, i.e. three sixes. In confirmation

of this, Mr. H. J. R. Murray tells me that in the

Middle Ages this point and the 6th (Black's corresponding aooppos) had technical names, as they play an important part in the tactics of

the game. The place of 'AvTiyovoS at 14 is

clear from the Greek, which names the points in

22 and 19 to 24, which resulted in his eight blots as described by Agathias. It should be added that he could not have moved from 19 with his 6 or from 20 with 5 or 6: these moves would have

1 I cannot understand why Sipos has been

equated with divus; surely the quantity alone would

prevent this. The word is not mentioned in the old Liddell and Scott; in the new edition it should rather be explained as 'a point on a backgammon board' than as 'a square on a draught board.' E. A. Sophocles, in his Lexicon of Byzantine Greek, wrongly accents it sipos.

2 Because two or more men on any one point make movement impossible to that point by an

opponent.

204 NOTES

taken him off the board, which in games of this sort is not allowed until a player has all his men in his home table (i.e. for White, I9-24). Becq's reconstruction (accepted in essentials by Stadt- muller in his edition of the Anthology) thus fulfils the conditions of the epigram, and must be regarded as correct; Mr. Murray tells me that he arrived at the same position indepen- dently, which confirms Becq's theory.

Let us now turn to Jackson. He arranges his board (see his diagram Fig. 2) with I and 24 on the right-hand side of the board, a perfectly possible system. But he is fundamentally wrong in his unnatural direction of movement. He makes White move forward from I2 towards I (on his diagram) and back again from 24 to 13,

13 14 15 16 17 18

which the o3uyEs or blots could not be moved. Such a rule nowhere exists in this family of games, and of course makes any real play impossible, as may be seen from experiment; and as without it Zeno is not forced to his eight blots, Jackson's reconstruction must be wrong.

Nothing, in fact, suggests that the blots were immovable per se; only their position might make them immovable for the purpose of any one throw, since their progress would be blocked by the presence of two or more hostile pieces on the point to which they might otherwise go. It is position alone that matters, and Becq's arrange- ment satisfies this condition, Jackson's does not.' This brings us to a most important piece of evidence, in which Mr. Murray has solved a

BLACK 19 20 2t 22 23 24

* t t ; 9

$t$9: 1X <?? 12 II 10 9 8 7

instead of through a natural progression from I through I2 up to 24. Such a direction is quite opposed to the invariable practice in games of this

type, and precludes any natural movement from the lower to the upper tables. Jackson then, in order to arrive at the necessary eight blots, puts aoOppos at 24, thinking that it must be an end point, 'Av-ryovos at I, and Sf3po provision- ally at 2. But this arrangement is forced on him by his unnatural direction; apart from anything else, it quite ignores the methodical, neatly expressed Greek order. However, even so, Zeno is not so placed that eight blots are inevit- able; he could still have saved two of them; therefore Jackson is driven to invent a rule by

6

WHITE FIG. 2.

5 4 3 2 1

problem which has hitherto caused the greatest misapprehension. Isidore, in describing the moves in 'tabula' (certainly the same game as

rpha1), states (Orig. xviii. 67): 'calculi partim ordine moventur, partim vage: ideo alios ordinarios, alios vagos appellant; qui vero moveri omnino non possunt, incitos dicunt.' Mr. Murray points out that Isidore's termin-

1 Jackson supports his view of the a3uyEs by an analogy (itself false) from latrunculi, an utterly different type of game; he further states, wrongly, that the men were originally arranged in threes, an inference from Ovid's account of the game of Merels (A.A. iii. 365), another quite different game.

The Campaign of Marathon.-I have through the courtesy of Professor Sotiriadis of the University of Athens received an extract from rTpCKT. 1933, 8, p. 377, entitled 'The Campaign of Marathon according to a recent critic.' In this paper Professor Sotiriadis refers to my paper on the campaign of Marathon (JHS. 1932, pp.

I3-24). I regret to find that he considers my paper 'an unjustifiable attack on Herodotus.' I may say at once that my studies of the military campaigns described by Herodotus fill me with admiration for the father of history. I said in my paper (p. 13): 'We have to remember in dealing with the story of Marathon that Hero- dotus was writing long after the event with the greater event of Xerxes' invasion between him and the campaign of Marathon. It was as if a British historian were to attempt to write now the history of the South African War without any of the carefully catalogued records which are

to-day at his disposal. The wonder then is not that there are improbabilities in Herodotus's story of Marathon, but that there are so few of them.' Indeed, as I say (p. 24), my story' involves

only one important departure from Herodotus, the date of the fall of Eretria.'

It is upon this point that Professor Sotiriadis

challenges me. He says (p. 380) that Herodotus VI. Ioo, in which the appeal of the Eretrians to Athens is described, is an insertion (rrapeppoAi) in the story of the campaign of Marathon and refers to events which preceded the first landing of the Persians in Euboea and the fall of Karystos. It is quite possible that Professor Sotiriadis is

right, and it is arguable whether the words with which Ch. 1oo begins refer to what was taking place while the Persians were ravaging the

country round Karystos as described in Ch. 99 or to events which preceded the landing in Euboea. Indeed it is quite probable that the Eretrians, remembering the part which they had taken in the burning of Sardis, were in a panic when they learned of the approach of the Persians to Euboea and appealed at once to the Athenians for help. The point is immaterial. The real

points are:-

I. Whether the whole Persian army landed at Marathon after the fall of Eretria;

2. Whether Miltiades marched out from Athens before or after the fall of Eretria.

With regard to (i) I have already pointed out

(1. c. p. I6) that the whole of the Persian expedi- tion could not have been required against little Eretria.

With this view Professor Sotiriadis seems to

agree, for he says (p. 379), after speaking of the p

The Campaign of Marathon.-I have through the courtesy of Professor Sotiriadis of the University of Athens received an extract from rTpCKT. 1933, 8, p. 377, entitled 'The Campaign of Marathon according to a recent critic.' In this paper Professor Sotiriadis refers to my paper on the campaign of Marathon (JHS. 1932, pp.

I3-24). I regret to find that he considers my paper 'an unjustifiable attack on Herodotus.' I may say at once that my studies of the military campaigns described by Herodotus fill me with admiration for the father of history. I said in my paper (p. 13): 'We have to remember in dealing with the story of Marathon that Hero- dotus was writing long after the event with the greater event of Xerxes' invasion between him and the campaign of Marathon. It was as if a British historian were to attempt to write now the history of the South African War without any of the carefully catalogued records which are

to-day at his disposal. The wonder then is not that there are improbabilities in Herodotus's story of Marathon, but that there are so few of them.' Indeed, as I say (p. 24), my story' involves

only one important departure from Herodotus, the date of the fall of Eretria.'

It is upon this point that Professor Sotiriadis

challenges me. He says (p. 380) that Herodotus VI. Ioo, in which the appeal of the Eretrians to Athens is described, is an insertion (rrapeppoAi) in the story of the campaign of Marathon and refers to events which preceded the first landing of the Persians in Euboea and the fall of Karystos. It is quite possible that Professor Sotiriadis is

right, and it is arguable whether the words with which Ch. 1oo begins refer to what was taking place while the Persians were ravaging the

country round Karystos as described in Ch. 99 or to events which preceded the landing in Euboea. Indeed it is quite probable that the Eretrians, remembering the part which they had taken in the burning of Sardis, were in a panic when they learned of the approach of the Persians to Euboea and appealed at once to the Athenians for help. The point is immaterial. The real

points are:-

I. Whether the whole Persian army landed at Marathon after the fall of Eretria;

2. Whether Miltiades marched out from Athens before or after the fall of Eretria.

With regard to (i) I have already pointed out

(1. c. p. I6) that the whole of the Persian expedi- tion could not have been required against little Eretria.

With this view Professor Sotiriadis seems to

agree, for he says (p. 379), after speaking of the p

ology need not and in fact does not apply to the men per se (an assumption which has so much vitiated most researches on this subject), but only in virtue of their relative position. ' Ordinarii' are men moving in rank, two or more at a time for protection, as in backgammon: ' vagi ' are single blots (&a3uyes) which have ' strayed ' from their companions: ' inciti' are pieces which at a given throw cannot be moved at all. Thus, according to the fluctua- tions of the game, (a) an ordinarius can become vagus if its companions are played to another point, (b) any vagus can become an ordinarius if another piece is played to its point, (c) either ordinarii or vagi are also inciti if for the moment their way is blocked by hostile ordinarii. Now, does not this apply admirably to Zeno's game, as reconstructed by Becq? For example, the &uVyES on 9 and 23 are vagi which have become inciti; one of the ordinarii on Io becomes vagus when its mate is played to I6, but the other is incitus. Thus Mr. Murray's account illustrates Isidore and makes him plain by means of Agath- ias; and the obvious fact that Isidore is describing 'tabula' and not 'latrunculi' or any other game, when taken with this explanation, rids the history of these games of a most undesirable will-o'-the-wisp.

There is one further point. What is the mean-

ing of vv. 25-6 of the epigram? Gottling apparently took 6oAac with Trpo6as, interpreting 'he had eight divided pieces, which were pre- viously 6oAcl ; but the use of the present participle then appears strained, and the whole run of the line is against the interpretation. Jacobs sug- gested ?rrp6ao' 6pf i3lopvas; Jackson objects both to this and to Gottling's translation on the ground that two of the ultimate eight blots existed before Zeno's fatal throw. The objection, though a real one, cannot be pressed: Agathias may have been speaking loosely. Stadtmiller appears to take pEpl3opavas as a middle used absolutely, translating ' he had eight blots which previously when in partnership (vept3opEvas) were not separated (6hAs) '; this solution is ingenious to a degree, but it seems very hard to extract from the Greek. A definite decision seems scarcely possible; I should like to think that Stadtmiiller is right. Jackson's own emen- dation is -rp6S ENp' 6pl3opivas, 'marked out as

ology need not and in fact does not apply to the men per se (an assumption which has so much vitiated most researches on this subject), but only in virtue of their relative position. ' Ordinarii' are men moving in rank, two or more at a time for protection, as in backgammon: ' vagi ' are single blots (&a3uyes) which have ' strayed ' from their companions: ' inciti' are pieces which at a given throw cannot be moved at all. Thus, according to the fluctua- tions of the game, (a) an ordinarius can become vagus if its companions are played to another point, (b) any vagus can become an ordinarius if another piece is played to its point, (c) either ordinarii or vagi are also inciti if for the moment their way is blocked by hostile ordinarii. Now, does not this apply admirably to Zeno's game, as reconstructed by Becq? For example, the &uVyES on 9 and 23 are vagi which have become inciti; one of the ordinarii on Io becomes vagus when its mate is played to I6, but the other is incitus. Thus Mr. Murray's account illustrates Isidore and makes him plain by means of Agath- ias; and the obvious fact that Isidore is describing 'tabula' and not 'latrunculi' or any other game, when taken with this explanation, rids the history of these games of a most undesirable will-o'-the-wisp.

There is one further point. What is the mean-

ing of vv. 25-6 of the epigram? Gottling apparently took 6oAac with Trpo6as, interpreting 'he had eight divided pieces, which were pre- viously 6oAcl ; but the use of the present participle then appears strained, and the whole run of the line is against the interpretation. Jacobs sug- gested ?rrp6ao' 6pf i3lopvas; Jackson objects both to this and to Gottling's translation on the ground that two of the ultimate eight blots existed before Zeno's fatal throw. The objection, though a real one, cannot be pressed: Agathias may have been speaking loosely. Stadtmiller appears to take pEpl3opavas as a middle used absolutely, translating ' he had eight blots which previously when in partnership (vept3opEvas) were not separated (6hAs) '; this solution is ingenious to a degree, but it seems very hard to extract from the Greek. A definite decision seems scarcely possible; I should like to think that Stadtmiiller is right. Jackson's own emen- dation is -rp6S ENp' 6pl3opivas, 'marked out as

prizes.' prizes.' ROLAND G. AUSTIN. ROLAND G. AUSTIN.

1 In the earlier xii scripta game the Latin term for a blot may have been 'distans'; see S. G. Owen's note on Ovid, Trist. ii. 475-6.

J.H.S.-VOL. LIV.

1 In the earlier xii scripta game the Latin term for a blot may have been 'distans'; see S. G. Owen's note on Ovid, Trist. ii. 475-6.

J.H.S.-VOL. LIV.

NOTES NOTES 205 205