Suetonius says that Augustus was born on the ninth day before the Kalends of October (a. d. VIIII. Kal. Oct.), in the year when Cicero and Antonius were consuls (691 [63 B.C.]), a little before sunrise,1 and also that he was born under Capricorn.2 Mr. H. W. Garrod, in his recent edition of Manilius,3 maintains that the date which Suetonius gives belonged to the pre- Julian calendar, and corresponded with December 20 of the Julian. Remarking that, ‘ according to our present reckonings,’ the sun enters Capricorn on December 22, he adds that ‘the astronomers of Cicero's time placed the beginnings of the sign some 7 degrees in advance of our reckonings. If, therefore,’ he concludes, ‘ Augustus was born on Sept. 22 paulo ante solis exortum, Capricorn was his natal sign.’

(i.) Even after the masterly studies of Leo Sternbach following on the paper by Hilberg1 there are still some small points to be noted on the historical poems of George of Pisidia. In what follows I have, of course, presupposed a knowledge of Sternbach's work which has happily rendered superfluous the new text which he was to have edited for Methuen's Series of Byzantine Texts.

In the Phillipps Library at Cheltenham there is a MS. of the Epitome which Professor Thewrewk was unable to use for his edition. No one who knows the difficulties which attend the study of MSS. in this Library will blame him for the omission. The Phillippsianus has the form usual in codices of the Epitome (the form probably of Paulus’ autograph original), a quarto volume with two columns to the page, and with each article occupying a separate paragraph and beginning with a fairly large initial letter. It was written by Ellinger (Abbot of the Monastery of St. Quirinus at Tegernsee, between 1019 and 1056), during his previous stay at Altaich, as is shown by the subscription in capital letters which stands at the end of the whole volume, (fol. 103v): Abbas indignus ego Ellinger peccator istam glosam scripsi dum essem in Altahensi monasterio Deo sanctoque Quirino. Rogo vos omnes in ea legentes ut oretis pro me.

The following quotations will show what is thought about the origin and extension of the name Chalkidike and the work of Euboean Chalkis in those parts:—

‘The barren islands of Sciathus and Peparethus were the bridge from Euboea to the coast of Macedonia, which, between the rivers Axius and Strymon, runs out into a huge three-pronged promontory. Here Chalcis planted so many towns that the whole promontory was named Chalcidice.’ ‘The whole peninsula was called Chalkidike, and the Greeks in it were comprised under the name of the Thracian Chalkidians.’

Some passages of Herodotus and Thucydides led me to suspect that Chalkis took but a minor part, if any, in the colonization of this region; that the area of the Chalkidians of Thrace was comparatively small; that the name was confined to this area; and that these Chalkidians were not colonists from the cities of southern Greece, but, like their neighbours the Bottiaioi, a tribe. Further enquiry, though it has strengthened these suspicions, has not established them beyond doubt; but it seems to me worth while to set out the evidence, in the hope that others may throw light on a question of some importance for the history of Greece. At least I may expect that in future ‘Chalkidike’ and ‘Chalkidians’ will be used with care.

The use of the temporal augment in narrative we have found to be purely scansional. Scansional, too, is the use of the syllabic, though this has a grammatical restriction which is of some interest; indeed, next to the maintenance of type öρovδΕ, it is the most vital fact for the whole question. The unaugmented aorist is not felt as an inflection which has been docked of its first syllable; quite the reverse, the augmented tense is treated as a compound. For example, é normally stands second in its clause; and so, if the syllabic augment was still consciously regarded as what it really is—viz. an adverb in composition—we should expect to see a great unwillingness to place Be after a tense thus augmented. Our expectation is fully borne out by the text; in the whole narrative of the Iliad there are only sixteen sure examples of é standing after the syllabically augmented aorist.

It is curious how little recognition has been given by the authorities on Greek grammar to the persistent use of the future participle, except within very narrow limits. Goodwin,1 for example, recognizes its use mainly with expressions of motion (go or send) in the sense of purpose, and in indirect discourse, or with the article, or with ώς: the only quotation he gives which goes beyond these uses is one passage where is found with the nominative of the participle. Gildersleeve2 quotes only cases where it represents in indirect discourse the future indicative and refers to its use with verbs of motion. Monro3 recognizes the use with verbs of motion, and in the following cases, (i.) the isolated ; (ii.) in in two passages, but with the suggestion4 that the form is not a future at all, but an aorist; (iii.) in Il. xviii. 309, and (iv.) in Od. xi. 608, . Even then he5 describes the usage in (iii.) as a use of the future participle, which is hardly to be defended. Kiihner-Gerth6 also give nothing further.