The present study of the manuscripts of the Knights arose out of the preparation of a text of the scholia for a forthcoming edition. The completion of a collation of all the manuscripts for the scholia seemed a suitable occasion for extending the inquiry and re-examining our manuscript tradition in both text and scholia, especially as the scholia in a manuscript, provided they come from the same source as the text, can often reveal facts that might escape an investigator who confined himself to the text. The scholia are far greater in bulk than the text, and scribes are often less careful and so more self-revealing in scholia; so that both from the quantitative and qualitative points of view scholia are important for the student of the tradition.

Priscian tells us in his dedicatory introduction that he took his material from many Latin sources—collectis etiam omnibus fere quaecunque necessaria nostrorum quoque inueniuntur artium commentariis grammaticorum. This can hardly mean that he owed everything to his predecessors. At any rate it is unlikely that he copied all his illustrative quotations from earlier grammarians. The problem is one which, for our purpose, does not need to be solved. We can make Priscian responsible for every quotation (unless, of course, we suspect that copyists have had a hand in introducing variations), because he had the opportunity of correcting or commenting on such borrowings as he incorporated in his work. If he could acquiesce in a garbled version of a line, we must take the fact into account in appraising his value as a witness to the text of Terence. And we must assume that the Terence text of his day did not differ from the versions which he quotes. Nowhere does he hint at a discrepancy. This assumption, it will be understood, has reference only to the points of diction for which we are tolerably sure that we have Priscian's attestation, and not to minor details which did not interest him at the moment, and in which we can prove that he was far from conscientious.

463 ante 462 VGP et ante corr. ut uidetur U, item adnotator super Lucanum ed. Endtii p. 276 et Statii scholiastes ad Theb. VI 760, qui 462 et 464 coniunctos legerunt.

462 ante 463 MZ et ex corr. U.

463 quam MZPGV, qua ex corr. U.

462 manum VGP, lemma schol. Bern., Statii schol., manus Z et ex corr. U de M non liquet.

tempus quo noscere possent VGP et ut uidetur M, adn. sup. Luc, Z (pos), Statii schol. (possint), tempus = q.t.i.r.n.p. lemma schol. Bern., uultusque agnoscere quaerunt ex corr. U, Z2 G2, uultus etiam V2.

During the Late Roman Empire Terence was the most revered and the most quoted classical Latin poet after Virgil. Among authors both pagan and Christian, none (to judge, of course, by the surviving written record) made as frequent or as creative literary use of his comedies as Jerome, one of the most accomplished polymaths in all of Latin antiquity. In his estimation Terence ranked, alongside Homer, Menander and Virgil, as one of the greatest of all poets. Jerome had an encyclopedic knowledge of Terence's dramatic corpus and quoted or appropriated phraseology from all six of his comedies. A significant number of these reminiscences have already been identified, but others await discovery. The purpose of the present study is to make a further contribution to this particular branch of Hieronymian Quellenforschung by adducing and analysing two hitherto unrecognized allusions in Jerome's correspondence to Terence's Eunuchus, apparently one of the biggest blockbusters in the history of the Roman stage.

I have never been able to swallow the explanation that this means οίσθ' ὃ τɩ ἒστɩ τ⋯ν κακ⋯ν ⋯ποῖον κ.τ.λ. The order of words is dead against it, since Zεύς ought to be in the ⋯ποῖον clause; it may be safely said that there is no shadow of a parallel to such an order in Sophocles, and probably not in anyone else either. Look at line 2 by itself and consider whether any hearer could possibly suppose that δτɩ Ζεὺς could mean anything but ‘that Zeus’ is doing or will do something or other. So Aristophanes seems to have thought; in a passage crammed with reminiscences of tragedy he declaims (Birds 1246):

ἆρ' οἶσθ' ὃτɩ Ζεύς εἳ με λυπήσεɩ πέρα μέλαθρα μ⋯ν αύτο⋯ κα⋯ δόμοѵς' AμΦ⋯ονος καταɩθαλώσω πυρΦόροɩσѵν ⋯ετοῖς;

Moreover, I flatly deny that οἶσθ' ⋯ τɩ κακ⋯ν όποῖον ού τελεῖ is possible Greek even when the order has been corrected. οὐĸ οἶδα ὃστɩς τ⋯ν ‘Eλλήνων όποῖος ούκ ᾀπαρνοῖτ’ ἂѵ τοȖτο μ⋯ οὺκ εἶναɩ ⋯ληθ⋯ς. Just look at it!

The Argive herald is dissuading the king from championing the cause of his petitioners. ‘It is either because they have detected some stupidity that they have come here to you, or because, being in a hopeless position, they are just chancing their arm to see whether or not . For I doubt if they expect that, in your right senses, you would, etc’ For the alleged impersonal use of (‘employed in a sense similar to that of our colloquial to come off, Pearson) editors can quote only two passages of Aeschylus, which I transcribe from Page's text: Su. 527–8 , Ch. 378–9 (‘non intellegunturjmutilum esse iudico inclusis scholiorum fragmentis’, Page).

In the midst of his fulminations against Cleopatra, Propertius denounces her land of Egypt in the following ‘wholly admirable parenthesis:’

Noxia Alexandria, dolis aptissima tellus

Et totiens nostro Memphi cruenta malo,

Tres ubi Pompeio detraxit harena triumphos!

Toilet nulla dies hanc tibi, Roma, notam.

Issent Phlegraeo melius tibi funera campo

Vel tua si socero colla daturus eras.

My subject is two fragments of rhetorical commentary that appear both in an anonymous manuscript collection of quotations ‘From Longinus’ and (without attribution) in Photius' Bibliotheca. My purpose is to clarify some observations that have been made on them by modern scholars and thus offer a correction or two. The collection of separate quotations labelled κ τν Λογγνου in Laurentianus 24, Plut. 58, was given its title by a later hand different from that of the writer of the original. The grounds for that mistaken heading were that the name ‘Longinus’ appears in the second of the fragments. Aristotle and Theophrastus, however, are cited in other quotations, and most are anonymous, with as yet no particular resemblance found to wording in other rhetorical literature. Each begins with the word ὅτι. All are general remarks on subjects such as rhetorical tropes, style, and different types of speeches. They are, in effect, scholia without a text.

Some years ago, when discussing Theocr. 22. 177 sqq. (C.Q. XIII. p. 22), I suggested that Theocritus had been a little careless in envisaging the circumstances which he is describing, and had written as though a duel normally resulted in the deaths of both combatants. That still seems to me the probable explanation of the difficulty with which I was dealing, and, as I then said, the oversight with which I charged Theocritus is venial enough, for in fact two deaths result from the particular duel which he is about to describe. He is concerned with the drama, not with the setting, and if the setting proves to be of cardboard, the play is after all the thing.

The Thesaurus lists a number of texts where demolior appears as a passive. To these should be added Cicero, Topica 4.22: ‘Ab efficientibus rebus hoc modo. Omnibus est ius parietem directum ad parietem communem adiungere vel solidum vel fornicatum. Sed qui in pariete communi demoliendo damni infecti promiserit, non debebit prae-stare quod fornix viti fecerit. Non enim eius vitio qui demolitus est damnum factum est, sed eius operis vitio quod ita aedificatum est ut suspendi non posset.’

The ninth and last poem in Book 4 of the Silvae is an amusing hendecasyllabic piece in which Statius, addressing Plotius Grypus, reproves him for having sent him for the Saturnalia a tatty, second-hand copy of a boring book in return for the fine, expensive, new volume which was Statius' present to him. The poem includes a long list (lines 23–45) of humble and/or poor-quality items, any of which, it is suggested, would have been more acceptable than Grypus' gift. Included in the list are eggs

The long-standing enigma of I.G. i. 115 (= Tod, G.H.I. 87) has been brought into the lime-light once more by two recent articles, ‘The Law Codes of Athens’ by Sterling Dow in Proc. Massachusetts Hist. Soc., vol. lxxi (1953–7, pub. 1959) and by E. Ruschenbusch in Historia, ix, Heft 2 (i960).

This enigma has many facets, but I only wish to deal here with one. It concerns the precise nature and purpose of the inscription and, in particular, the significance of the words l. 10. The preamble to the decree is quite specific.

This article examines the theory of recollection in Plato's Meno and attempts to unravel some long-standing puzzles about it. What are the prenatal objects of the soul's vision? What are the post-natal objects of the soul's recollection? What is innate in the Meno? Why does Socrates (prima facie) suggest that both knowledge and true opinion are innate? The article pays particular attention to the ana- prefix in the verbs aneuriskô, anakineô and analambanô, and suggests that they are used for two distinct stages of recollection: a phenomenological stage of ‘finding again’ or ‘awakening’ our innate content, which Plato calls doxa, and an epistemic stage of ‘getting it back’ as epistêmê. Thinking of the verbs with this ‘back/again’ sense of the ana- prefix (instead of as ‘up’, in the common translation of analambanô as ‘take up’) allows us to understand why Plato would simultaneously imply that our souls had prenatal epistêmê, have post-natal innate true opinion and have the potential to analambanein epistêmê. He is not talking about ‘taking up’ epistêmê that he also calls doxa, but about ‘getting back’ the epistêmê we had prenatally. The article concludes with an examination of what this innate content is, suggesting that it is a type of ‘principle’ and ‘essential’ mental content.

Virgil's list of the qualities that are desirable in a brood cow corresponds closely to those in Varro's De re rustica and in the texts which, though later, can be plausibly taken as evidence of an existing tradition. Yet, there is one exception, and it is an exception to which the poet carefully draws attention. Varro's, Columella's and Palladius’ ideal cows all share with Virgil's and with each other hairy ears, very long dewlaps and tail, and other features. However, whereas they all have narrow hooves (ungulis breuibus, Palladius), moderate at most (ungulis modicis, Columella), and certainly not broad (pedibus non latis, Varro), Virgil's cow emphatically has big feet (Verg. G. 3.51–9):

optima toruae
forma bouis cui turpe caput, cui plurima ceruix,
et crurum tenus a mento palearia pendent;
tum longo nullus lateri modus: omnia magna,
pes etiam, et camuris hirtae sub cornibus aures. 55
nec mihi displiceat maculis insignis et albo,
aut iuga detrectans interdumque aspera cornu
et faciem tauro propior, quaeque ardua tota
et gradiens ima uerrit uestigia cauda.

The best shape
for a fierce cow is one which has an ugly head, which has a lot of neck
and whose dewlaps hang from her chin all the way down to her legs;
then let there be no limit to the length of her flank: let everything be big,
even the foot, and hairy ears under in-curving horns,
and I would approve of her being marked with white spots,
either refusing the yoke or sometimes fierce with her horn
and in appearance closer to a bull, and who is lofty in every respect
and when walking sweeps her tracks with the tip of her tail.

Just about every odd year in the early fifth century B.C. has been proposed as the date of the Nemean victory of Pytheas from Aegina, celebrated in Pindar's Fifth Nemean and Bacchylides' thirteenth ode. Scholars have attempted to date both odes with the help of Isthmian 6 and 5, which celebrate victories of a member of the same family and the latter of which at 48ff. refers to Salamis as a recent event. Various interpretations of the victory catalogues in I. 6 and 5 have led to various dates for N. 5 and B. 13. The fullest analysis of the material is that by Severyns, who argues that N. 5 and B. 13 must be at least seven years earlier than I. 5. In his conclusion (pp. 50–51), however, he still suggests three possible dates for N. 5 and B. 13: 487, 489, and 485 B.C., in what he considers to be the order of likelihood.

In his admirable commentary, Jeffrey Henderson notes the significance of posture and of physical setting. He does not remark that the statue of Leaina near to which Lysistrata and Kalonike are standing on the Akropolis was intimately tied to the obscure story of the later years in the Athenian tyranny. With minor variations of detail or colour the story was that Leaina, a hetaira beloved of Harmodios or Aristogeiton, had been tortured by Hippias after the murder of Hipparchos but, brave girl, had preferred to die than say yes, or indeed say anything. She bit out her tongue. The Athenians set up a bronze lioness, the work of Amphikrates, to commemorate her martyrdom.