Plato Rep. X. 616B. ⋯πειδ⋯ δ⋯ τοῖς ⋯ν τῷ λειμ⋯νι ⋯πτ⋯ ⋯μ⋯ραι γ⋯νοιντο, ⋯ναστ⋯ντασ ⋯ντε⋯θεν δεῖν τῇ ⋯γδΌῃ πορε⋯εσθαι, κα⋯ ⋯φικνεῖσθ;αι τεταρτα⋯ονσ ὅθ;εν καθ;ορ⋯ν ἄνωθεν δι⋯ παντῸς το⋯ ο⋯ρανο⋯ κα⋯ κα⋯ γ⋯ς τεταμ⋯νον φ⋯ς εὐθ;⋯, οἱον κ⋯ονα, μ⋯λιστα τῇ ἴριδι προσφερ⋯, λαμπρ⋯τερον δ⋯ κα⋯ καθαρώτερον εῚς ὃ ⋯φικ⋯σθ;αι προελθ;⋯ντεσ⋯μερησ⋯αν ⋯δ⋯ν, κα⋯ ⋯δεῖν αὐτ⋯θι κατ⋯ μ⋯σον τῸ φ⋯ς ⋯κ το⋯ οὐρανο⋯ τ⋯ ⋯κρα αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν δεσμ⋯ν τεταμ⋯να—εἶναι γ⋯ρ το⋯το τ⋯ φ⋯σ σ⋯νδεσμον το⋯ οὐρανο⋯, οἶον τ⋯ ὑποζ;ώματα τ⋯ν τρι⋯ρων, οὕτω π⋯σαν συν⋯χον τ⋯ν περιφορ⋯ν—⋯κ δ⋯ τ⋯ν ἄκρων τεταμ⋯νον 'Aν⋯γκησ ἄτρακτον, etc.

Grote's powerful defence of Thrasyllus' canon should have taught us at least not to reject lightly any dialogue which, like the Hippias Maior, is there classed as genuine. The burden of proof lies with those who attack our dialogue. Raeder, Ritter, and Apelt consider it to be genuine, while Ast, Jowett, Horneffer, and Röllig declare against it, as also Gomperz, Zeller, and Lutoslawski.

The famous passage (Enn. V. 8. 1) in which Plotinus declares that fine art, so far from simply reproducing nature, ‘goes back to the Reason-principles from which nature herself emanates,’ has hitherto been generally regarded as a tacit criticism of Plato's teaching, and as an original contribution to the philosophy of art involving a rupture with the entire previous tradition of Greek aesthetic theory. Yet Plotinus introduces it, not as if he were proclaiming a new gospel, but almost casually, as a subordinate link in his discussion of Intelligible Beauty. And though his respect for Plato was not the half-superstitious reverence of the later Neoplatonists, he was at all times more zealous to walk in Plato's footsteps than to correct or criticize him, tacitly or otherwise. Moreover, can it be said with certainty that his doctrine is in itself opposed to Plato's? That question can be answered only by a detailed examination of Plato's theory of art—a task which I hope to accomplish elsewhere. In the present article, postponing all enquiry into the relation between these two aesthetic theories, I shall endeavour to show that the teaching of Plotinus was not a sudden innovation, but the natural and indeed inevitable outcome of preceding thought.

Ennead I. 4. 3: Plotinus is arguing that happiness is fullness and completeness of life, and continues, according to the MSS. (Volkmann's edition, p. 66, 1. 20), οϋτω γ⋯ρ ἂν οùδέ έπακτòν τò ⋯γαθòν ύπάρΧοι, ούδ' ἂλλο τò ύποκείμενον άλλαΧόθεν γενόμενον παρέξει αύτò (or better αύτῷ, Marc A and Müller) ⋯ν άγαθῷεἶναι. Mr. MacKenna translates the last phrase by ‘a life needing no foreign substance called in from a foreign realm to establish it in good ’; Ficinus by ‘neque aliud quicquam aliunde adueniens efficiet ut subiectum collocetur in bono.’ Ficinus is undoubtedly right. τò ύποκειμένῷ means ‘the subject,’ which a few lines above (p. 66,1. 4) has been identified with the λογικ⋯ ζωή. The passage should be corrected by writing τῷ, ύποκειμένῳ, dependent on γενόμενον, for τò úποκείμενον.

That Hermias, the despot of Atarneus, was a barbarian as alleged by Theopompus, fr. 242, Oxf., Letter to Philip, in Didymus in Dem., col. 5, 24, has been denied by Jaeger, Aristoteles, p. 113 n., on the ground that in Aristotle's hymn and epigram he is put forward as a Hellene; cf. ibid., p. 119, on Callisthenes and Hermias. In confirmation may be added that, had he been a barbarian, he could hardly have induced the Eleans to declare the Olympic truce to him as Theopompus says they did, Did. 5, 29. Demetrius the Magnesian, Diog. L. V. 3, said he was a Bithynian; and possibly Theopompus said the same in the defective passage in fr. 210, Did. 4, 69. He may have been in fact a Bithynian by place of birth, yet not by blood: at such Greeks the taunt ‘barbarian’ was readily cast; cf. Birds 1700 on Gorgias, and Aeschines on Demosthenes. But we may go much further in scepticism.

It has been known for many years that inscriptions in the Arcadian dialect contain a considerable number of words which occur commonly in the Homeric poems and rarely, if at all, elsewhere. The first attempt at a complete list was made by Otto Hoffmann in Die grieckischen Dialekte, I. pp. 276–278. He gives as Homeric αἶσα (‘share’), βóλομαι νυ ⋯πυέσΘω, ⋯ρτύω ⋯σκηΘές, δεάτοι, δ⋯μα, 'EἙκατόνβοια and 'Eκατόμβοια, hίκοντα, κελεύθω, μέστ', πληθύς, and πλός. Buck, in Greek Dialects, p. 132, added εùΧωλά and ἆμαρ and we might with as much justification add ἒρπειν λεύσοντες and λεύσοντες. In each case a Homeric word, unusual in later Greek except in verse, is used in ordinary Arcadian epigraphic prose.

On the passage spaced Archer-Hind writes: ‘It seems to me that needless difficulty has been raised over this sentence; Хαρɩέντως έҳων simply means “having his body in a good state,” and to this τοɩαύτη refers. If the body were in a healthy condition at death and at a healthy age, it would hold out longer, says Plato, against decomposition. Mr. Cope, I think, is quite correct in translating “If a man dies with his body in a vigorous state and at a vigorous period of his life, a very considerable time indeed.” The following sentence συμπεσòν … χρόνον is bracketed by Schanz after Ast. I see no sufficient reason for doing so; the yap is certainly not very obvious but may be explained thus; (nor is this the strongest case) for if a body is embalmed it remains nearly whole for an indefinite time. Hirschig brackets ώσμερ … ταριχενθέντες very superfluously. Plato says (i.) the body of a healthy man who dies in the prime of life lasts a good while; (ii.) an Egyptian mummy lasts an indefinite time; (iii.) even without this some parts of the human frame are almost indestructible.’

‘The Thebans have also a grave of Hektor, son of Priam, beside a spring which is called the Spring of Oedipus, and they say that they brought his bones from Ilium in consequence of the following oracle:

“Thebans who dwell in the city of Cadmus,

If you wish your clan to dwell with noble wealth,

Bring to your homes the bones of Hektor, son of Priam,

From Asia and by the command of Zeus worship him as a hero.”’

Next to the Ninus Romance, to which more attention has been paid, the most interesting fragments of Greek Romance are the so-called Chione Fragments, which have been recently re-edited by Lavagnini. Before discussing the problem of their significance, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate their history.

Hermesianax, ap. Athen. 599B, I. 91 = Collectanea Alexandrina p. 100. This is a locus desperatus; but since the reviewer of Collectanea Alexandrina in the Classical Review, XXXIX., p. 192, accepts the idea which underlay my conjecture ⋯ξετρνϕησε, I think of adding to it οѵδϥμɩνόν τε, which is suggested by Schweighaeuser's οѵδϥμɩνόν The line will thus run: οѵδϥμɩνόν τ' ⋯ξετρνϕησε βίον ‘uitam uilem deliciis consumpsit.’ Hesychius has: οѵδαμɩνός οδένοςλόуου εστɩ βραϰύςεύτελής.

In the opinion of Aristotle and Plutarch the growth of latifundia and consequent decline of the citizen population at Sparta were due to the absence of restrictions on gifts and bequests of land. According to Plutarch this freedom of gift and bequest, so far as it applied to the κλ⋯ροι or entailed estates, was introduced by the ῥ⋯τρα of an ephor named Epitadeus, who removed the ban on gift and bequest imposed by Lycurgus.

In his last ‘Gleanings from Glossaries’(C.Q., XX. 105, 1926)Lindsay quotes, andascribes in part to Donatus, the Servian scholium on Verg. G. IV. 14: meropes rusticae fbarbarost appellant… sunt autem uirides earum pennae, et uocantur apiastrae quia apes comedunt.

Lindsay obelizes barbaros, ‘because there is no other record of birds called by this name, except Probus' scholium: Meropes dicuntur aues quas in Italia uocant barbaros, etc.’ After quoting the Berne scholium, ‘Meropes tGalbeolif, ut putat Tranquillus,’ andIsidore's statement, ‘Meropes, eosdem et tgaulosf,’ Lindsay comes to the conclusion that these latter words ‘must, each of them, contain a portion of the truth. And isnot the whole truth that Donatus wrote galbus or galuus?’ He goes on to say: ‘Now Ihope that someone with more courage will say: The barbaros of Servius Danielis and of Probus onGeorg. IV. 14 is a corruption of galbos.’ For my part, I take my courage in both hands and assert that it is nothing of the kind.

Printed texts of Greek authors reflect a divergence of opinion, some giving ὐσμενος others ὐσμενος Only ἄσμενος is correct, and it was never called in question until Usener (Neue Jahrb. 1865, 255) drew attention to the spelling ὐσμενος in the Bodleian MS. (Clarkianus 39) of Plato and in the Paris MS. (A) of the same author. He was followed by Schanz, who gave ὐσμενος in his editions of Platonic dialogues.

The question whether τυγχ⋯νω can be used forτυγχ⋯νω ὥν in Attic Prose has been differently answered by different scholars. Phrynichus (p. 277 Lob., p. 342 Ruth.) held that it could not, and Porson (ad Eur. Hec. 788 [782]) followed him. The generality of modern scholars, however, have taken the other view—so, e.g., Locella, Heindorf, Lobeck, Ast, Schneider, Madvig, Stallbaum, Krüger, W. H. Thompson, Rutherford, Jebb, Adam, Kühner-Gerth. The object of the present note is to show that the ‘modern’ view, if it is to be maintained, must be based on other evidence than that hitherto given for it.

The traces of real, that is, ancient, rival versions of Terence's lines are not so pronounced as of Plautus' lines. Professor Lindsay has drawn attention to a possible instance at Hec. 468 (‘Notes on the Text of Terence,’ C.Q. Vol. XIX., No. i, p. 33). Another seems to be Andr. 532 (‘atque adeo in ipso tempore ecce ipsum [obuiam] Cbremem’), if I am right in supposing that the text used by Donatus had ipsum Chremem. A trace of the variant survives in the unmetrical δ-setting ipsum obuiam Chremem DGL. The text of the other minuscule MSS. has ipsum obuiam. A is not in evidence for this part of Andria. Had it too ipsum Chremem ?

CATVLLVS LXVIII. 157 contains a crux in the last word which has continued to defy editors. In ending his long elegy to Manlius, Catullus showers his gratitude upon him and all who have served him in his first efforts to meet Lesbia:

Sitis felices et tu simul et tua uita

et domus, in qua nos lusimus, et domina

et qui principio nobis terram dedit aufert

a quo sunt primo omnia nata bona.

Cistifero was the reading of A and B, but for want of a satisfactory interpretation of it, or indeed any evidence for it, cistibero (from CA) has been preferred. Hirschfeld, who first brought this forward (in Hermes, 1889, p. 106; cf. Heraeus, Rhein. Mus., 1899, p. 309), explained it as meaning one of the ‘quinqueuiri cis Tiberim,’ a low official contrasting effectively with the senator of Gellia's dreams. It seems worth while to call attention (without prejudice) to the Abstrusa gloss (C.G.L. IV. 192, 27),‘Vicorum et cistifer nomina sunt metallorum’ There seems to be no doubt that the first word should be uiocurus (cf. IV. 194, 8; V. 613, 44); and in theNotae Tironianae (XXXVI. 94–5) uiocurus and cistifer stand thus in succession at the end ofa list of officials. Heraeus thinks the author of the gloss must have confused the words with cistophorus and uictoriatus; but would he be likely to write metallorum for ‘coins’ ? For this last word in the gloss magistratuum has been proposed, a somewhat violent change even in a glossary. I suggest metatorum; cf.Abstr. 116, 17,‘Metatores: mansionum praeparatores.’ Was cistifer perhaps the title of a low-grade official who had something (but what?) to do on the staff of a quartermaster?

So far as I am aware, the commentators on the above passage(Horace, Epp. I. 16, 73 sqq.)all say that it is imitated from Euripides, Bacchae 492 sqq., and the commentators on Euripides, loc. cit., agree. It seems to me, however, that there is reason to suppose them all wrong; not of course that there is no connexion between the two passages, for there most obviously is, but that Horace is not imitating the Greek directly, but an imitation or adaptation of it by Pacuvius.

The various attempts to make sense of ‘sequitur,’ e.g. Palmer ‘naturally follows,’ taking pudor as subject and amorem as object, seem to me most unsatisfactory. Sedlmayer reads ‘quitur’ which Palmer calls ‘mira coniectura.’ But it is obvious that as far as sense and transcriptional probability go the correction is excellent, and also that since a passive infinitive is understood, it is grammatically right or at least would be if we found it in Lucretius. The only, and it may be thought fatal, objection is that this passive use of potestur, quitur, nequitur, etc., has not been found in any writ er later than Lucretius, with the possible and not very relevant exception of Apuleius. Birt, the original author of the conjecture, met this objection by adducing other archaisms in Ovid. My purpose here is not to discuss these, but to add to them the fact that Quintilian did not consider that quitur was obsolete