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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amph. prol. 90–91. In the Amphitruo Plautus runs great risk of giving oflence by bringing Jupiter on the stage. In the prologue (spoken by Mercury) he conciliates the audience by saying that this Jupiter is no god but a mere actor. (‘Then know that I, one Snug the joiner, am a lion fell’):

26 sqq. Etenim ille quoi(u)s hue iussu uenio Iuppiter

Non minu' quam uostrum quiuis formidat malum: (i.e. a flogging, the penalty for bad acting, Cist. 785)

Humana matre natus, humano patre,

Mirari non est aequom sibi si praetimet.