According to the best authorities on matters epigraphical, this clear-cut inscription is not later than the third century B.C. This inscription seemed to give one name of the member of the family here interred, and this name is that of Aristotle. According to the best authorities, the great philosopher retired from Athens, after the charge brought against him, to Chalkis in Euboea, where he died, in the year 323 B.C., of disease of the stomach. There he had possessions, and there he left to his second wife, Herpyllis, 'his country house in the garden.' All other accounts are considered apocryphal. Now Chalkis is the city immediately bordering upon Eretria, in the island of Euboea, and the domains of these two cities adjoin one another. These are the facts bearing upon the question. It seemed evident to me that we here had a tomb belonging to a great family; that in this family tomb was the grave of a great and distinguished man, as is evident from the seven gold diadems; that this great man was a man of letters, as is shown by the pen and styluses; that this man of letters was probably a philosopher, from the statuette, corresponding to the description of the statue of Aristotle, found in the grave; that the name Aristotle occurs in that family tomb; and, finally, that Aristotle died in this district, where he had property, and where he was, in all probability, buried. This certainly seems strong circumstantial evidence; but we must not ignore the facts which can be brought in opposition. First it must be stated that Chalkis is not Eretria, and this is, no doubt, an objection which will be felt, especially by students of ancient history. Everybody will at once remember the wars between the great rivals Chalkis and Eretria, arising out of the desire of each to possess the fertile Lelanthian plain. They will remember Eretria as the rival of Athens, and the campaign of Pericles; they will recall the facts of the destruction of its walls on several occasions. But we must remember that after the Macedonian period this antagonism between the great independent states of Chalkis and Eretria no longer existed, that Chalkis probably became the important centre for the whole district. I have not as yet studied the question sufficiently; but I have already been able to find evidence that after the fifth century B.C. there was a certain unity and community between these cities. Inscriptions relating to Chalkis have been found at Eretria; and the same inscription relating to the sanctuary of Apollo, Artemis and Leto has been found at Chalkis, at Eretria, at Bathia, and several miles beyond the latter town, showing that there was a common sanctuary to all these places and community existing between them. In the second place we must receive with some caution the Our investigation of the walls proves that, in spite of Strabo, the old and new Eretria were on the same site. The city walls in their present state also illustrate each successive state of the history of the city. evidence of the statuette of the philosopher; for, in the present state of the study of ancient graves, we are not justified in maintaining that the statuettes found in a grave have an immediate and direct relation to the person there interred. But I may say that even at the present moment I have collected some evidence which tends to show that such a relation did subsist. In the third place we must remember that the name Aristotle, though far from being a common name, was not unique in antiquity. I have, even at present, come across eighteen instances of that name. These are the points which at present occur to me as being worthy of serious consideration before congratulating ourselves upon the undoubted discovery of the greatest philosopher's grave. But, on the other hand, we must be careful not to err in the direction of too much caution. We must ask ourselves why the grave of Aristotle should not be found, as well as that of any other obscure individual of the ancient world? In fact it is more likely that we should find and recognise the grave of a very distinguished man than that of an unknown person, because the signs and attributes of a famous grave are likely to be more numerous. Leaving the sphere of archæology, I would appeal to the legal and mathematical mind, and I feel sure that, whatever objections may be raised, at least a very strong probability would be accorded from this point of view to the claims of Aristotle on the grounds furnished by these excavations. I venture to say that we could not in the present day have hoped for better evidence for the identification of the grave of Aristotle, after the lapse of more than 2,000 years. And accordingly, why should not the great Hermes Kairosor, I should prefer to think, Athene-be gracious and generous to those who love the great Hellenic past? I will not dwell upon the dramatic side of the work of the excavations, nor will I give an ear to the poetic aspect of the actual work of such archæological investigations and all that it suggests. It is well at the present juncture to put a curb on the emotional impulse, and to remain sober. For my part, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not make any final and definite statement whether this is the tomb of Aristotle or not. I wish at present merely to give the facts, so that others can judge for themselves. CHARLES WALDSTEIN. The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake ON first reading Sir J. Pease's resolution about opium, it appears to be a resolution condemning the opium traffic as immoral in itself, and as one of which the extinction was recommended to the Government of India; but this natural impression was, it appears, erroneous. The effect of a resolution of the House of Commons is dependent upon rules as artificial as those of a decision of the High Court. In this case there was no resolution that the Speaker should leave the chair, and, therefore, substantially there was no resolution at all. Whatever may have been the nature of the resolution, those who voted for it no doubt meant that the cultivation of the poppy should be discouraged, and if possible stopped, and the revenue from it given up. This resolution, and the debate upon it, appears to set one weakness of the national character in the strongest possible light. The motion was carried by 190 to 160, and if effect were to be given to it, it would strike what, if not a fatal, would at least be an unspeakably serious blow at the whole future of the British Government in India. It is recommended to reduce by 20 per cent. the income of the whole empire, without even a suggestion as to the manner in which the deficit is to be filled up, or a hint that the money already received was improperly spent. No one who dealt with the question at all took the pains to make a single observation upon these essential points. One member indeed proposed an amendment that the House should say it would take steps to reimburse the deficiency to the Indian Empire caused by the suppression of the opium revenue, and something was said as to the issue of a commission to inquire into VOL. XXIX.-No. 172. 3 M the subject. These were the only traces which the debate showed of the most common precautions for any sort of security in carrying out what may with perfect justice be called a revolutionary proceeding. Scandalous as such a mode of proceeding may be in dealing with the most essential interests of a great empire, which is in no way represented by Parliament, and which has no means of making its own wishes known upon the subject, no attempt will be immediately made to carry out the plan. Bankruptcy, on the one hand, and the attempt to raise 5,500,000l. by new taxation in India, which would go a long way to cause bankruptcy, will not be incurred. The choice lies between letting things go on as they are, and paying the Indian Government about 5,500,000l. a year to do away with the poppy. It is singular to trace out the strange results into which the proposal of laying such a tribute on British taxpayers would lead. The condition is one on which it would be hard indeed to get the English to continue to hold India. It is indeed difficult to see what else is to be got by doing away with the opium traffic; the attacks made upon it are based upon the ground that it injures the morals of the Chinese, and those of the natives of India and other parts of the world who practise opium smoking. To this there are two answers: (1) that the injury done is enormously exaggerated; (2) that it is done by the native populations which are affected by the use of opium, and that what they suffer by their own fault must be redressed by their own abstinence. It is extravagant to suggest that an enormous expense should be incurred by English taxpayers for rescuing the Chinese from the consequences of their own self-indulgence. Nearly the only subject connected with the use of opium on which all persons are agreed is that it is a question of degree. Enormous masses of people of all countries use opium. It is stated that in the United States there are nearly a million opium smokers. When it is used in excess it produces dreadful results, but in moderation it is highly beneficial, and it is a gratuitously dismal view to think and speak as if in common cases it is abused for the purpose of drunkenness.1 Such an The following extracts were read by Sir M. E. Grant Duff in Parliament on the 10th of May, 1870, when the subject was last discussed. "Tis true,' says he, 'I saw a man smoking, expecting in a moment or two to see him in his third heaven of bliss; but no! after he had taken a few whiffs he quietly resigned the pipe to one of his friends, and walked away to his business. Since then I have often seen the drug used, and I can assert that in the great majority of cases it has not been immoderately indulged in.' Mr. Balfour says that opium is like any other narcotic or stimulant, is as amenable to abuse, and, as being more seductive than other stimulants, perhaps rather more so, but this is certainly the utmost that can be imputed to it. Thousands consume it without any pernicious results, as thousands do wine or spirits without any evil consequences. The Assistant Opium Inspector at Benares says: 'With respect to the abuse of the drug in the mass of the people, I must affirm that no injurious results are visible.' (102, 506–507.) opinion is as ill-founded as the same opinion would be respecting spirits. It was well remarked in the course of the late debate that, in some ways, the drunkenness which arises from opium is far less injurious than the drunkenness which arises from spirits. A man drunk with opium is not violent or brutal. He dozes away his time ignobly, and no doubt may ultimately sink into a sort of idiocy, but he is, as a rule, inoffensive. This proceeding is essentially a self-regarding vice, and as such is distinguished fundamentally from the innumerable causes which are more or less connected with the majority of crimes in England. It was well said by Sir Richard Temple that Coleridge was fortunate in taking opium instead of spirits. If he had suffered from delirium tremens he might probably have had occasion to make a much worse confession than he ever made as an opium eater. This has, at all events, one highly important practical consequence. It is that if it is decided to treat intemperance in the use of opium as a vice, it will be found much easier to deal with it by way of prevention than to deal in the same way with intemperance in the use of intoxicating liquors. There can be no difficulty in preventing, or at least in regulating and restricting, the sale of opium, nor would it be a matter of extraordinary difficulty or danger to turn out opium smokers, to take into custody people under the influence of opium, or to resort to other police measures for the purpose which might be easily devised and effectually carried out in India, but which it would be practically impossible to enforce in this country. Surely these are the natural and obvious measures for preventing scandals in the use of opium. It is not impossible that the enormous influence of Caste might be made use of in favour of temperance, but whatever means may be available ought to be tried to the utmost before a resolution is taken the carrying out of which would involve the monstrous consequences which would be involved in the destruction of the poppy and the prohibition of its cultivation. One objection to any such proposal goes very deep indeed, and extends to all attempts to make temperance compulsory by destroying opportunities for its violation. It is that it is never wise to make war upon the strong and lasting feelings of mankind. Mankind have passions and inclinations which wise people must take as they find them. We must take it for granted that people will, whether their legislators like it or not, drink and smoke, and it is as a general rule unwise for rulers not to take it for granted. It is nearly as necessary to take for granted the habit of smoking opium as the habit of smoking tobacco. Many people dislike tobacco, and many people regard it as unhealthy, but no reasonable person supposes that it would be wise to legislate without reference to the existing state of public feeling on the subject. It must never be forgotten that the demand that opium should |