S is Madrid, Biblioteca Nacionale, gr. 24; foll. 136 (paper); size folio, with thirty-two lines usually to the page; dated 1464. Contents: f. 2, a Life of Musaeus (differing from Suidas), followed by' AντƖπά⋯pou σƖδωτíον (sic, for Өɛσσαλο⋯ɩƙέως) ɛĺς ἠƿὠ καĺ λέα⋯ծpoδ (Anth. Dübner, VII. 666) and Musaeus, Hero and Leander. 7v, two poems by Marcus Musurus, viz. a version of Musaeus' poem in ten hexameter lines and four elegiac couplets ɛĺς μονοαîo⋯. 8r, three epigrams on Orpheus (Anth. Düb. VII. 8–10), written as one. 8v, Constantine Lascaris ɛĺς Ƭձ πpoλɛƳòμɛ⋯α ƬoȖ σoϕοȖ òpϕέως 10v, πɛpìπolŋroÛ on the life and writings of Orpheus (quite different from Suidas' Life). 11r, úπóƟɛσɩς ƬoȖ πλoȖ Ƭὦ⋯ ⋯pƳo⋯α⋯ Ƭlκѽѵ (sic). 11v, úπóƟɛσɩς ƬoȖ ծέpo⋯ς 12, Orpheus, Argonautica, with frequent marginal notes, and corrections in red ink, in Lascaris' hand. 35, Orpheus, Hymns, prefaced by the invocation to Musaeus, 'Opɸɛùς πρòς μo⋯σαîo⋯ ɛùƬνXὦς Xpὦ έƬαîρɛ (M⋯⋯Ɵɑ⋯ɛ ծέμονσαîɛ Ɵυɳπоλíŋ⋯ πɛpì σɛμ⋯ήν κƬλ); of the Hymns are given (Abel) II.; VI.; VIII.; XXXII.; XL.

There are many shortcomings in Otto Schneider's apparatus criticus to Callimachus' Hymns. Some of these appear on a perusal of the Praefatio. For it claims a thorough collation for only ten MSS. (ABCdEFGHIM); scantier citations are given from seven others (fKLQRST), from the editio princeps (called by Schneider D), and from the MSS. used respectively by Politian for Hymn V., and by Robortelli and H. Stephanus for all six Hymns. And, besides the unused codex Ambrosianus A 63 sup.. there is on pp. xxxix–xl a list of MSS., with the places where they have been reported to exist, only one of which (F) is represented in Schneider's collation.

II is Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec suppl. 1095;2 foll. 280 (paper), cmm. 33, 5X22, 8, with forty lines to the page; cent. late XV. Contents: f. Ir, Life of Homer(“Ομηρος ό ποιντής τίѵωѵ μἐѵ кτλ.). Iv–24v, Plutarch's dissertation on Homer(Περισσὀν μἐν ἴσως ктλ.). 25–222r, Iliad, with scholia. 223–4, blank. 225r–245r, Homeric Hymns III.–XXXIII. (but IV. 494–580, V. 1–152, and XXIV.–XXVIII. or XXV.–XXIX., are missing); then the epigram єἰς ξἑνονς (Epigr. I. Baum.).4 245r an epigram on Callimachus' works, which runs thus in this manuscript:

ϒμνῶ тὸν νΨίζνчоν ἐν πρώτоις δία.

Фоῖβоν δ' ἓπειтα кαὶ тρίтην тὴν ἄρтεμιν.

δῆλоν тεтὰρтην εἶтα λоʋтρὰ παλάδоς.

ἒктην δὲ τὴν тήμηтραν Тὴν παλαιТέραν.

μέλπω δὲ γραὸς τῆς Фιλоξένоν Тρόπη.

кαὶ Тὴν ТελενТέαν Тὲ Тὴν ἄγραν.

кαὶ Тῶν μεγίσТων αἰТίων Тὴν ТεТράδα.

σкώπТω δ' ἱπ' ἀραῖς ἴβоν ἀπоλλῴνιоν

кαὶ Тὴν ἀθηνᾶν ѷσТαТоν μέλπω πάλιν

γρίФω βαθίσТω кαὶ δνσενρήТоισ λόγоισ.

As the black clouds of war lift from the surface of the Continents of Europe and Nearer Asia, the eye looks round upon a shattered civilization. The once busy tide of labour on the field and in the factory, beneath the soil and within dock, ebbs slowly away; the accustomed rewards of toil, food, warmth and clothing, become daily more difficult of attainment. Authority trembles in its seat, and money loses its once all-powerful attraction. Inevitably the scholar recalls the tale of the Decline and Fall of the Roman-Hellenistic world, and calculates the prospect of a second millennium of darkness and suffering. And he is not unconscious that he stands himself accused of having brought about, or at least failed to avert, the doom of the nations. For, he is told, the governing classes of all the nations that clashed in mutual destructiveness were constituted of men brought up in the classical tradition, whose minds in their fresh boyhood were fed on the so-called glories of Alexander the Great and of Julius Caesar, and who sought in rivalry to win, each for his nation, the haughty supremacy of imperial Rome. And he hears the clamour of those who demand a clean sweep of the false ideals and selfish ambitions of the past, and the building upon new foundations of a world of contentment and peace, inspired by the basic conception of a citizenship in which no man shall seek his own gain at the cost of another's loss. Towards the building up of this new world, it is claimed, the study of the past can do nothing to help; by effacing itself it will cease to be a hindrance. And in response to this accusation there arise in all directions schemes for a reconstructed world, a reconstituted nation, and a new education, which shall be alike in this one point—that they take for granted the elimination of the study of antiquity and the disappearance of the atmosphere of the Humanities.

Post Martios labores, uir ornatissime, cum ad nostra studia redissem, in Ephemeride quam tu et docte et diligenter regis a. 1917, p. 131, Jac. Wageningeni coniecturam legi ad Tibulli El. I. 4, 41–44 ‘uenturam alliciat imbrifer arcus aquam.’ Quam difficile, immo Herculei laboris simillimum sit ueteres auctores coniectura tentando superiorum uel conamina uel commenta imprudentem non repetere, qui iisdem saepe me ludis oblectauerim, probe scio. Longe igitur a me reprehendendi uirum egregium consilium abesse profiteor, sed quae ille dixit iam alii dixerunt: ‘alliciat’ Antonio Zingerle placuit, qui ‘uenturam alliciat nimbifer Eurus’ ut editores scriberent suadere studuit; ‘uenturam alliciat nimbifer arcus aquam’ paucis uerbis, sed non inepte, puto, collato Vergili uersu Georg. I. 380, ipse (Analecta, Studi Italiani di Filol. Class. XII., 1904, p. 314) commendaui.

I. Eth. Nic. III. c. I, § 16.

In spite of what Bernays and others have done to clear up this chapter, many perplexities remain. To some of these I propose later to return, but here I confine myself to one. Among the possible circumstances of an act, ignorance of which is excusable and may excuse, is enumerated τò οὑ ἔνεκα. Nothing but desperation could have led the commentators to suggest that here τò οὑ ἔνεκα means the actual effect or result of the act (Stewart, Burnet). It may be sufficient to quote the notes ad loc. of these two scholars:

1. Stewart: ‘The oὑ ἔνεκα here is not, as usual, the intention of the doer, for he cannot be ignorant of what he intends to do; but the outcome or result of what he actually does, which is the opposite of the intention.’

The ancient evidence about the Culex is collected by Miss Jackson in her article in the Classical Quarterly (Vol. V. 1911, p. 163 sq.). There seems no reason to doubt that Lucan said ‘et quantum mihi restat ad Culicem!’; and, whatever Lucan meant by it, Statius turned it into a compliment for the poet by making Calliope predict the various works he would produce ‘ante annos Culicis Maroniani’ (Siluae II. vii. 70). In the Neronian age, we may take it, it was not an obscure or conjectural matter, but one of common knowledge or belief, that a certain known poem, the Culex, was the work of Virgil. About the other opuscula there is no evidence as early as that. The Aetna and Moretum are ascribed to him dubiously; the Ciris, Dirae, Epigrammata, Priapea, Catalepton are attributed to him with more confidence, but not so confidently as the Culex. It almost looks as if the belief in the Virgilian authorship spread from the Culex to certain other poems which were in some way or other connected with it. Here there is admittedly a great difficulty for those who are inclined to deny or to doubt that it is Virgil's. Are not the facts most easily explained by supposing that it was Virgil's ? At all events it is in various ways improbable that it was written, and produced as Virgil's, at some time between Virgil's death and the youth of Lucan. It is difficult to imagine who would have a motive for doing such a thing, or who could do it successfully. So it is incumbent upon the sceptic to produce some plausible view of what may have happened.

To discuss Professor Lindsay's doctrine of ‘Breves Breviantes’ would involve writing a long article, for which there is no space in the April number of the Class. Quart. But it would be wrong in me to pass his treatment of Plaut. Bacch. 1106 by without comment. What he calls ‘a sane view of the law of B.B.’ (Class. Quart, for January, p. 50) involves the emendation of a number of lines which are in other respects quite above suspicion. In these circumstances would it not be the wiser course to reconsider the supposed ‘sane law’ rather than to attempt to alter the text so as to make it fit a law which is not admitted by some of the most eminent of modern critics (e.g. Seyffert and Skutsch)? Emendation is particularly unfortunate in this instance, because the metre is anapaestic, and the suggestion of Professor Lindsay that the word Philoxene may be ‘a gloss to indicate the speaker or a misinterpretation of some marginal indication of a speaker’ is surely ill-considered; for the speaker is Nicobulus, and the speakers of adjacent lines are given correctly, so far as I see, in the MSS. Such a gloss would, then, be meaningless. Professor Lindsay's attempt at emendation of this line is, in fact, striking evidence of the bankruptcy of the ‘sane view‘ of iambic shortening to which he has unfortunately committed himself.

The Myrmidons going out to war are compared to a pack of wolves going to drink after they have devoured a deer; see the following lines; they are not like wolves which ‘are devouring’ it. Hence δάπτουσιν looks wrong, and is probably a corruption of δάΨουσιν, the old aorist subjunctive; this being taken for a future would infallibly be altered. In any case Ψ and πτ are not infrequently confused; thus in 161 λάπτοντες is a variant for λάΨοντες.

Great advances have been made of late years in the understanding of ancient artillery, but the difference between the παλíντινιν and the εὐθ⋯τινιν seems to remain a riddle still inviting solution. In tentatively accepting the invitation, we are met at the outset by a certain amount of fog due to the fact that ancient guns were classed by two methods which produce a cross division. It will pay us to dispel this fog, or at any rate to find our bearings in it as exactly as may be, before going further.

In Proverb. Vat. IV. 3 the proverbial Ἡσιόδειον γῆρας is somewhat darkly explained as follows: Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν Ὀρχομενίων πολιτεία δὶς τετάφθαι φησὶ τὸν Ἡσίοδον καὶ ἐπιγ἗μματος τοῦδε τνχεῖν.

Χαῖρε, δὶς ἠβήσας καὶ δὶς τὰϕον ἀντιβολήσας,

Ἡσίοδ′, ἀνθρώποις μὲτρον ἔχων σοϕίης.

In the article on Plato Republic 421B, by Mr. A. S. Ferguson, in the Classical Quarterly, Vol. XIII., the following corrections should be made:

P. 163, 1. 6, for holiday-workers read holiday-makers.

n. I, for I, 123a 6 read 1123a 6.

P. 164, 1. 5, for πρóς read πρóς.

P. 165, 1. 16, after οῖóν τɛ insert οἴει.

These notes have been interrupted by the war, and the appearance of Wilamowitz's Platon (Berlin, 1919) makes it desirable to resume them on a slightly different plan. That work has an appendix entitled Textkritik (vol. ii., pp. 323 sqq.), which cannot be passed over in silence, since the writer's reputation and the air of authority he assumes might easily mislead those who have no first-hand knowledge of Platonic textual criticism. I hope to show that most of his conjectures are wrong, and that many of them suggest doubts as to his knowledge of Platonic Greek.

The object of this article is to ascertain as nearly as possible the dates of the conference at Luca and of Cicero's speech on the consular provinces; to identify the composition which he called his ‘palinode’; and to fix the chronological order of certain letters which relate to these points.

Writing on April 8, 698 (56 B.C.), Cicero tells his brother that on the 5th there was a debate in the Senate on the Campanian land; that on the 7th he visited Pompey, who intended to start on the IIth for Sardinia and to embark at Labro (Leghorn ?) or Pisa; and that he himself is on the point of leaving Rome, but intends, after staying successively at Anagnia, Arpinum, Pompeii, and Cumae, to return on May 6. Two years later he wrote to Lentulus Spinther that in the debate of April 5, 56, it had been resolved ‘that the question of the Campanian land should be referred to a full meeting of the Senate on the 15th of May.’ ‘After this decree,’ he continued, had passed in accordance with my motion, Pompey, without showing the least sign of being offended with me, started for Sardinia and Africa, and on the way visited Caesar at Luca. Caesar complained a great deal about my motion, for he had already seen Crassus at Ravenna, and had been irritated by him against me. Everyone knew that Pompey was much annoyed about it—so I heard from others and afterwards learned definitely from my brother. When Pompey met him in Sardinia a few days after he left Luca, he said, “You are the very man I want to see… You went bail for your brother Marcus; unless you speak strongly to him, you'll have to pay up”… He spoke of his own services to me; recalled what he had often said to my brother about Caesar's measures [in his consulship] and the pledge which my brother had given for my conduct; called my brother to witness that what he had done to secure my recall [from exile] he had done with the consent of Caesar; and asked him to commend to me Caesar's policy and aims and persuade me not to attack, even if I would not or could not support them.

The Abstrusa glossary consists to a great extent of glosses extracted apparently from the margins of a Virgil MS., which contained not merely explanations of difficult words but many long scholia taken from ancient commentators such as Donatus and Servius. In its original form it was probably much larger than it appears in C.G.L. IV. The process of curtailment is visible in the MSS. we possess. Moreover, the Liber Glossarum and other glossaries borrowed freely from it, and often show its glosses in a fuller form. It is reasonable to suppose that many glosses of the kind described above, which are found in the Liber Glossarum (with the sign DE GLS., i.e. ‘taken from glossaries’) and sometimes elsewhere, belonged to the Abstrusa glossary, though they do not appear in the edition of it which has survived. (See Lindsay, C.Q. XI. 120 sqq.) Some of the following notes will show how these principles help to clear up difficulties which arise in the investigation of individual items.

As students of Roman chronology are aware, all dates between February 24, 700 (54 B.C.)—if not also between 691 (63 B.C.), the year of Cicero's consulship—and the last day of 708 (46 B.C.) can be referred with absolute certainty to the corresponding days of the Julian calendar, with a possible error of one day. The possibility of this minute error lies in the fact that it is not quite certain whether the Kalends of January, 709—the first year of the Julian calendar—corresponded with January 1, 45 B.C., or with January. In Ancient Britain (pp. 714–726), after examining all the relevant literature, I gave reasons for believing that Kal. Ian. 709 fell upon January 1, 45 B.C. One book, however—the third volume of the revised edition of Drumann's Geschichte Roms, which appeared in 1906, just before the manuscript of Ancient Britain went to the printer—was then unknown to me. I will now examine the reasons which the learned editor, Paul Groebe, has given for accepting the view that the first day of 709 was January 2, 45.

During the period from December to April Dionysos is celebrated at Athens four times: at the Lesser Dionysia, at the Lenaea, at the Anthesteria, at the Greater Dionysia.

The Lenaea festival falls in the Ionic month of Lenaion, which corresponds with the Attic Gamelion, i.e. January. There are no serious objections to fixing the date in this way. The competition in theatricals held at this festival is called ⋯ ⋯π⋯ Ληναίωι àγών the god Dionysos Ληναίος or Ληνεύς the temple-grounds τ⋯ Λήυαιου. These were probably situated on the stretch of swelling ground, rising from the Apostle Paul Road, between Areopagus and Akropolis, as there was room enough there to seat a large audience. It is worthy of notice that, in contrast with the Greater or Urban Dionysia, ancient narrators call the Lenaea a rural festivity, at which a rustic song is intoned. Still, they are to be distinguished from the Lesser Dionysia, which are celebrated at the end of December.

There is no fragment of the older Attic Comedy that concerns Greek religion so intimately as this, and none which has been so misinterpreted. It may also claim to have a certain value for our literary judgment of Plato.

The story of Phaon is preserved for us by three authorities, Aelian, Palaiphatos, and Servius; and with few variations and additions all three present it as follows: Phaon was an elderly Lesbian ferryman who transported Aphrodite, disguised as an old woman, across the sea; and she in reward gave him a magic ointment which restored his youth and ensured him the desperate love of all women. I am not concerned here with the handling of the story in other literature, nor with its original significance. We may suspect that it originated as a ίερòς λόγος. But it is presented to us merely as a piece of folklore, as a theme well suited to the temper of the Middle Attic Comedy. We may suppose that Plato followed a version known to Kratinos, according to which Aphrodite was the chief lover of Phaon and jealous of guarding him against her rivals. For it is certain, as Meineke has pointed out, that it is Aphrodite who delivers the speech contained in this fragment; in line seven she demands a preliminary sacrifice to herself, under the name κουροτρόɸος Only a divinity can demand sacrifice, and κουροτρόο;ος is a familiar epithet of many deities including Aphrodite, and she is the only deity possible in this scene, in which she is trying to keep off the ardent crowd of women from her beloved Phaon, by insisting on long and complicated preliminary rites and sacrifices before their admission to her shrine, where she is keeping him, as she once kept Kinyras.

Of Aristophanes' comedy Αἰολοσκων we have only seventeen fragments, not extensive enough to allow us an accurate judgment about the contents; but it seems certain that the second performance of the play belongs to the so-called Middle Comedy, and the various fragments are well explained in the beautiful edition of Blaydes. I will add only some words about the title.

While reserving my judgment on the wider questions connected with the Roman calendar, I think it may not be out of place to attempt a firmer handling of the astronomical dates discussed in Dr. Rice Holmes's ‘Supplementary Note on the Julian Calendar’ which appeared in the Classical Quarterly, XIV. (1920), pp. 46, 47. That note is concerned with two new moons discussed by Dr. Groebe in his edition of Drumann's Geschichte Roms, III. (1906), pp. 774–9.