Ever since Ph. Kohlmann in his Teubner edition of the Thebaid (1884) asserted that he had used cod. Parisinus 13046, one of the MSS. formerly of St. Germain des Prés, this MS. has been known by reputation to his successors and other students of Statian textual problems, and, designed by the letter S, it is alluded to and cited in the edition of Garrod (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis 1906) and in the newer Teubner of Klotz, which appeared in 1908. The two later editors confessed that they themselves had not examined the MS., but were relying upon the information accessible in Kohlmann's edition. Doubts having been cast from more than one source upon Kohlmann's accuracy and the soundness of his reports, while at the same time the importance of S as a member of the ω group was emphasized by Mr. Garrod and Dr. Klotz in spite of the incomplete evidence at their disposal, it seemed worth while to the writer to examine the MS. for himself and to make a thorough collation of it. This has been done in the summer of 1932.

A short article was published in the Classical Quarterly in 1921 (Vol. XV, pp. 166–8) entitled ‘Some Emendations in the Fragments of Theophrastus,’ which sought to show that several passages of Theophrastus could be improved by a comparison with certain of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Problems where the author of the latter is obviously deriving his material from Theophrastus. A further comparison of the Problems and Theophrastus, carried out in the course of preparing an edition of the former, has led to the discovery of more parallel passages and makes it possible to suggest further improvements in the text of several passages of Theophrastus.

I. The New Inscription from Cales.

II. The Date of the Operations Recorded by the Inscription Dessau 8965.

III. The Identity of the General.

I. The following inscription (Not. Scav. 1929, p. 31) was recently discovered at Cales:

M. Vinicius P.f., M.n., L.pron., cos. II, VII vir [epu]lonum, sodalis Augustalis, thriumphalibus ornamentis, quinq(uennalis) viam ab angiporto aedi[s] Iunonis Lucinae usque [ad] aedem Matutae et [clivum] ab ianu ad g[isiarios portae] Stellatin[ae et viam patulam] ad portafm laevam et ab foro] ad port[am domesticam sua pecunia stravit].

In this study it is proposed to illustrate Plato's statements about painting from what we know of contemporary artists and styles, and more particularly to show his condemnation of Athenian art of the late fifth century and his appreciation of Peloponnesian art of the early fourth century.

Siehe dazu Pausanias I 37, 7 δρκων φνη σπουδῇ κατ τν φωλεν ιών. Mit Unrecht hat man bestritten, dass das Emporfahren des Hermes als ein ιναι bezeichnet werden könne; sonst müsste man sich auch darüber wundern, wie einer Schlange das ἰναι zugeschrieben wird. σπουδῇ ἰών ist doch wohl rein formelhaft von schneller Bewegung gebraucht worden; ich glaube hier eine Bestätigung meiner Darlegungen im Kommentar z. St. zu finden. Doch nun zu Wichtigerem. T. W. Allen ist in dieser Zeitschrift (XXVII 51) für die Lesung γκαλωρν im Mosquensis am Schluss von Vs. 82 neuerdings eingetreten; es bleibt mir nichts übrig, als seinen Gründen beizupflichten, und ich kann zu meiner Entschuldigung nur anführen, dass auch A. Ludwich, der gewiss viele griechische Handschriften gesehen hat, γκαλωρς zu erkennen glaubte. γκαλωρν ergibt vor allem die einfachere Lösung: τν ττε συνδσας νεοθηλ ν' ἄγκαλον ὥrho;ην. νεοθηλα ὥρην ist nun Objekt von συνδσας ν' ἄγκαλον adverbiale Bestimmung, durch die ausgedrückt wird, dass Hermes je ein, d.h. zwei Armvoll nahm, entsprechend den anzufertigenden zwei Sandalen.

The work of Professor Jaeger on the Aristotelian metaphysics, and its modification by the late Hans von Arnim, have raised many new points of the greatest interest, and may, I hope, be considered as having opened up a large and fascinating new field for discussion rather than as having closed the matter. It is a subject which must be considered as a whole. There would be little profit in writing short notes on isolated points in the arguments of the two scholars. Anyone who, possessed of some previous acquaintance with the Aristotelian corpus, reads their work is inevitably stimulated to return to Aristotle with his mind full of fresh ideas. If after a re-examination of the texts he feels he has a different story to tell, he must tell it for himself. That is my excuse for an account which must include much which was always known and much which (as I would gratefully acknowledge) has arisen out of the work of Jaeger and von Arnim. My conclusions are not the same as theirs, and the argument must stand or fall as a consistent whole.

The civil war which ended in the victory of Octavian and the suicide of Antony and Cleopatra is one of the most exciting but most obscure periods of Roman history, obscure mainly because the victor succeeded in imposing bis version of affairs upon his countrymen and through them on posterity. That is not to say that his version is necessarily completely false: the danger that threatened Rome was a real one, the national feeling that resulted in the coniuratio totius Italiae of 32 B.C. and that inspired Virgil and Horace later was not an artificial growth, though it was carefully tended. But in kindling the requisite war-feeling and in rousing the necessary enthusiasm both sides had to propagand for themselves, and in ancient times propaganda often became a matter of personal abuse and mud-slinging. In this Octavian's agents were perhaps more successful, though few nowadays (save writers of sensational novels) would accept the conventional portraits of Antony and Cleopatra as anywhere near the truth. But Antony's propaganda, though not so effective, was not obliterated by Octavian's victory; indeed a great deal of it is still preserved and masquerades as fact in histories of the period, where Octavian's personal character suffers badly.

The Fourth Volume of Livy's text in the Oxford Series is in the Press, and it is time to fulfil a duty which for some years I have owed to the study of Livy—namely, to provide students with fuller information about the character of this important manuscript than could be included in the Praefatio to the third or fourth volume.

It may be of interest to supplement the latter part of Professor Conway's article by a note applying the same standards to estimating the value of the other sources on which (together with Rhenanus' incomplete record) we have to rely for our knowledge of the Spirensian tradition. Apart from ‘L’ and Harl. 2684 (which is Spirensian only from xxix. 3. 15 to xxx. 21. 12) Luchs used for this purpose three partially Spirensian sources: (a) the one fourteenth-century and four fifteenth-century MSS whose archetype he called ‘R’ (to be called θ in the Oxford Text) (b) V, the fifteenth-century Vat. Pal. 876, and (c) the fifteenth-century Flor. Laur. lxxxix. inf. 1. The last mentioned may be dismissed as practically valueless and as supplying little more than new corruptions from an unusually contaminated intermediary. In addition to these deteriores Luchs used the Agennensis (Harl. 2493), but only for the Spirensian supplement in Book xxvi' (where the omission in N is not supplied by any corrector) and for the last part of Book xxx (where A like N contains a supplement). He did not deal at all with the Spirensian textual correctors in A.

To speak of ‘the real subject’ or ‘the primary aim’ of a Platonic dialogue usually means to magnify one aspect of it at the expense of other aspects as important. Such is not my intention. It is quite clear, however, without prejudice to the philosophic value of any of the topics discussed, that the Protagoras is an attack upon the sophists as represented by Protagoras, the greatest of them. Hippias and Prodicus are present and some of the great man's glory is reflected upon them; they are also no doubt to some extent implicated in his defeat, though they seem quite unaware of the fact.

Commenting on Thucydides I, 136: ναγκáζεται… παρ' αδμητον τòν Μολοσσѿν βασιλέα, ὅντα α ὐ τ ᾦ οὐ ϕλον, καταλσαι, Shilleto once wroteb: ‘After some thought I have acquiesced in αὐτᾦ, i.e. in Latin, qui ei (or ipsi) erat inimicus. Still inimicum suum would be as natural. In Latin MSS., as sui (suus) cannot be con-founded with is (ipse), a Critic of course more or less sees his way. But in Greek, as far as my experience goes, we are in a labyrinth without a clue.’