Professor Scott in his paper on ‘Eurynome and Eurycleia’ (in the April number of the Classical Quarterly) was inclined to believe, although he did not press the point, that Eurynome and Actoris were one and the same servant, the name Actoris being a patronymic. This explanation was offered also by Hayman, who compares Actorion (A 750), but it has been ignored by Wilamowitz (Hom. Unters. 84 sq.) and by van Leeuwen-Mendes da Costa, who reject ψ 226 sqq. It is an ingenious attempt to solve a small Homeric problem, and would be convincing but for two reasons, of which the first has to do with the poet's manner and the second with the circumstances of the recognition scene in ψ

Two main views of the country called in the Odyssey the Land of the Phaeacians or Scheria are current among Homeric scholars. Some think it is, or is in, the island known to the ancients as Corcyra, and that the people who are described as living in it were ordinary flesh and blood mortals. The other view, the belief of the majority, though of great variety, is that Scheria is in fairyland or some other supramundane sphere, and a creation of the poet's fancy. In Class. Rev. XXIV. 204 Mr. Evelyn-White says, after quoting Monro, that it ‘cannot be disputed’ that the Phaeacian and other adventures of Odysseus are Märchen, so the matter is as good as closed. But as many of the Homeric choses jugées of last century have been proved of recent years to be unsubstantial, it has seemed worth while to examine the fairyland theory afresh. I begin with a survey of the literature of the question, and shall then inquire in a second paper what Homeric foundation there is for the supernatural theory. Elsewhere I shall endeavour to show that Homer describes a real people, and that Scheria can be fitted into the Mediterranean world, as we now know it, of the latest Minoan or Mycenaean period, and is in fact a Minoan settlement in Corcyra.

‘Come, live with me,’ says Polyphemus (1. 42), ‘and leave the grey sea to beat upon the shore; my cave has all the heart could desire, laurels and cypresses, ivy and a sweet-fruited vine; a stream too fed by the snows of Etna.’

αἰ δέ τοι αὐτ⋯ς ⋯ϒὼν λασιώτερος ημεν, ⋯ντ⋯ δρυ⋯ς ξύλα μοι ὑπ⋯ σποδ⋯ ⋯κάματον π⋯ρ καιόμενος δ ὑπ⋯ τε⋯ς και τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν ⋯νεχοιμαν κα⋯ τ⋯ν ἕν ⋯ϕθαλμόν τ⋯ μοι γλυκερώτερον οὐδέν

The controversy between the Anomalists and Analogists has not, I think, attracted as much of the attention of scholars as it deserves. It was perhaps not a very practical matter, though, as I shall point out presently, it probably had indirectly some important practical results. The interest of the controversy lies rather in the spirit in which it was conducted. Anyone who reads for instance Varro, De Ling. Lat. VIII. 31–32, where the anomalist argues that as in life variety of furniture and the like is necessary for aesthetic enjoyment, so in language anomaly is desirable; or IX. 24, etc., where the analogist argues from the unchanging order that prevails in the heavenly bodies, in the tides, in the continuity of species, will feel that he is moving in a world of thought very different in one way from our own, though in another rather like it. By the analogist language is conceived as a world in itself, much as we conceive of the visible world. Its phenomena are being laid bare and constantly reveal fresh signs of law and order. The investigator sometimes finds facts which prima facie suggest anomaly, but he is as confident that behind them must lie some unifying principle as the scientific man of to-day is with regard to the phenomena of the visible world, as impatient of the suggestion of disorder as he is of any miraculous interference with the order of nature. Even the anomalist, sceptic as he is, approaches the question not in a spirit of mere denial, but of aesthetic consideration. We get a glimpse of a lost point of view. The world of words had a glamour and a wonder for them which it cannot have for us.

A. The Vestine Inscription with brat.

T. Vetio | duno | didet | Herclo | Iovio | brat. | data.

1. This inscription, most easily consulted in Diehl's Alt-lat. Inschriften, No. 70, has been explained, beyond any reasonable doubt, by von Planta (Osk.-Umbr. Gram. 1. 304) as follows: ‘ The entire inscription is accordingly to be rendered thus: T. Vettius donum dat Herculi Iouio; merito data, sc. est or sunt, according as the votive offering was feminine singular or neuter plural.’ The very abbreviation of brat. favours a formulaic word such as merito. Von Planta accounts also for all other dialectic occurrences of the stem brato-, vindicating a sense of meritum (quasi gratia) for all of them.

Since the English author, who has written in the greatest detail and with most acceptance on Greek warfare in the fifth century, has now declared definitely that δρÓμψ cannot mean ‘at the run,’but should be translated both in Thucydides and Herodotus ‘at the quick step’in contrast to βúδην‘at the slow step,’ it may be worth while to re-examine the evidence, and to give some reasons for maintaining the translation ‘at the double’ at least in the descriptions of battles given us by Thucydides, Xenophon, and Herodotus.

In the Mon. Ancyr. II. 2–11 Augustus makes four statements: (1) He carried out a lectio senatus on three occasions. (2) He held a census in his sixth consulship (28 B.C.) with Agrippa as his colleague, and completed the lustrum after an interval of forty-two years, the number of citizens registered being four millions and sixty-three thousand. (3) He completed a second lustrum in 8 B.C. invested with the consular imperium and without a colleague, the number of citizens having increased by one hundred and seventy thousand. (4) He completed a third lustrum in 14 A.D. again invested with the consular imperium, but with Tiberius as his colleague, the number of citizens having again increased by seven hundred and four thousand.

On those of Professor Elmore's hypotheses which appeared in his original article, I need make very few additional remarks. He restates them with undiminished confidence in this Review in January, 1918, but, except on one or two side issues, he makes no attempt to answer the careful and reasoned criticism to which I subjected them. The further developments of his theories, to which he calls my special attention, call for some examination, which however shall be brief.

Ellis, in his Prolegomena to Catullus (pp. iv sqq., 1867), is at some pains to refute the opinion of J. J. Scaliger that the Archetype of our MSS. of Catullus was written in ‘Lombardic’ characters, and gives reasons—some of which require qualification—for presuming a ‘Merovingian’ original. He would have saved himself a good deal of trouble if he had stopped to ask what Scaliger meant by ‘Lombardic.’