I Choose the word metrical rather than prosodical, to make it plain at the outset that I am not concerned with the rule in Priscian—not of Priscian, for its irrelevance is sufficient proof of that—G.L.K. II p. 82 7–9 ‘gnus quoque uel gna uel gnum terminantia longam habent uocalem paenultimam, ut regnum stagnum benignus malignus abiegnus priuignus Pelignus’, still less with the illegitimate inference sometimes drawn from it, that this pair of consonants, like ns and nf, lengthened a short vowel whenever they followed it. The present dispute is not about vowels but about syllables; the power of gn to make position, as they say, like st or x, and so to impede the flow of verse.

The modern admirers of Horace who take him seriously as a moralist are inclined to attribute an undue degree of originality to his views on the moral function of poetry. The conception of the poet as teacher was, of course, the traditional Greek view. But Professor A. Y. Campbell thinks—in spite of ‘passages from Strabo and Plutarch’ —that this conception ‘after the days of Plato and Aristophanes lapsed as completely as did the production of the sort of literature that had justified it.’ Strabo and Plutarch, he asserts, merely provide evidence that the older Greek view revived; the forces inspiring this ‘revival’ were ‘not Greek, but Roman.’ ‘The Greeks got it from the Romans, Strabo from the spirit of the Augustan age.’

The last phase of Greek philosophy has until recently been less intelligently studied than any other, and in our understanding of its development there are still lamentable lacunae. Three errors in particular have in the past prevented a proper appreciation of Plotinus' place in the history of philosophy. The first was the failure to distinguish Neoplatonism from Platonism: this vitiates the work of many early exponents from Ficinus down to Kirchner. The second was the belief that the Neoplatonists, being ‘mystics,’ were necessarily incomprehensible to the plain man or even to the plain philosopher. To have encouraged the persistence of this superstition in the nineteenth century is the least pardonable of Creuzer's many sins. The third was the chronological confusion involved in the ascription to Saint Paul's contemporary of the works of the pretended Dionysius Areopagita, which contain a fully-developed Neoplatonic theology. Though the fraud had been exposed by Scaliger, these writings continued down to the beginning of the nineteenth century (and in certain clerical circles down to our own day) to be used as evidence that the ‘Nsoplatonic trinity’ was an inferior imitation of the Christian one. When this false trail was at length abandoned the fashion for orientalizing explanations persisted in another guise: to the earliest historians of Neoplatonism, Simon and Vacherot, the school of Plotinus was (in defiance of geographical facts) ‘the school of Alexandria,’ and its inspiration was mainly Egyptian. Vacherot says of Neoplatonism that it is ‘essentially and radically oriental, having nothing of Greek thought but its language and procedure.’ Few would be found to-day to subscribe to so sweeping a pronouncement; but the existence of an important oriental element in Plotinus' thought is still affirmed by many French and German writers.

It is now generally agreed that the 7th and 8th Platonic Epistles are genuine. There may still be a lingering doubt, here or there, about the philosophical digression in the 7th; but with this exception both letters may be said to have established their claim to be regarded as the work of Plato.

The Plato MS. designated by Bekker as Ω and by Burnet as O escaped the investigation of editors of the text of Plato for nearly a century, because it was wrongly cited by Bekker as Vat. 796. Finally, in 1908 Rabe published an account of the missing MS., which he had discovered in the Vatican library listed as Vat. gr. 1. Until its rediscovery the opinion of Jordan prevailed that it was a comparatively late MS., copied from A (Parisinus graecus, 1807). It actually belongs, however, to the late ninth or early tenth century—i.e. it is of almost equal age with A and B.

Authorities on Apollo and Apollo cults are still divided into two camps. Some believe the god to have been Anatolian—Homeric god of the Troad, god of Branchidae and Lycia, a hawk-god, Smintheus, Lykios, with a western outpost at Carian-Ionian Delos, worshipped too in Crete, whence he passed to Pytho. In the other camp Apollo is, at least in part, believed to be a northerner, fair-haired, descending on Greece from the land of the Hyperboreans, the people ‘Behind the Beyond.’ And the mainstay of those who claim a partially northern origin for Apollo is in tales which both at Delos and at Delphi link him with the Hyperboreans.

The question as to who were teh class of Equites called ‘Illustres,’ or in Greek πɩπανεɩî—as to whether, indeed, such a class existed apart from the ordinary ‘Equites Romani’—is a very puzzling one, and no agreement has yet been reached on the matter.

It has become a standing reproach upon Plato's treatment of poetry in the Republic that he forgets or misrepresents in the tenth book what he said in the third.

According to the earlier discussion, poetry is required to perform important services in the ideal state; its subject-matter will make the young familiar with true doctrines (376 sqq.); its style will reflect the qualities proper to the character of guardian, and therefore—by the principle of imitation—induce and confirm such qualities in the souls of young and old (392c sqq.). Poetry, like all other forms of art, must train the young to love and resemble the beauty of truth (τῷ καλῷ λόγῳ, 401d), so that when reason develops, they will recognize it as an old friend (402).

Our information about the early stages of Greek music is so slight that these references of Aristides Quintilianus (p. 28, Meibom) to an the Pseudo-Plutarch to a scale employed by the legendary figure Olympus take on an immense value for us. The dialogue itself is an unskilful patchwork, but the author's sources are often good. These particular passages are almost certainly both derived with small alteration from Aristoxenus, in whose time the traditional music ascribed to Olympus was still in use. For the elucidation of the scale's history and structure we have three1 pieces of evidence to help us. There is the first passage mentioned above, which deals with the discovery of the enharmonic genus by Olympus, which is connected, at first sight obscurely, with the Spondeion scale; and the second passage, which discusses the scalar limitations of theσφoνδειξων τρόφoς with especial reference to an elementary polyphony. There are also the ancient scales quoted by Aristides Quintilianus (ed. Meibom, p. 21).

TheProblems, which occupy pp. 859-967 of the Berlin Aristotle, have probably been less read and studied than any other treatise in the Aristotelian Corpus; they contain, however, a vast quantity of interesting information on a great variety of subjects, and an enquiry into their composition may be not without interest.

The histories of literature tell us that these three poets were out of favour with scholars during the second and third centuries and the first half of the fourth. Lucan and Statius certainly had a vogue in the first: Suetonius studied Lucan at school (Vita Lucani ‘Poemata eius etiam praelegi memini’), and Statius (Theb. XII. 814–5) can say to his book:

‘Iam te magnanimus dignatur noscere Caesar

Itala iam studio discit memoratque iuuentus.’

My suggestion that the H.A. was written during the reign of the Emperor Julian and in his interest has had, on the whole, ‘a bad press.’ Reviewers who have not thought it necessary to support with argument their doubts or their rejection of the theory are in a strong position: they remain practically unassailable. ‘The theory seems on a priori grounds improbable:’ a historical student can only reply that so is human nature—distressingly improbable, as he knows to his cost. ‘After reading this book one puts it down “met een zekere onvoldaanheid:”’ what can an author do save express his regret for having caused Dr. Van de Weerd this discomfort? But two stalwart defenders of the conservative position—De Sanctis and Lécrivain’—have sustained with detailed argument their unqualified rejection of my theory; in their cases it is possible to attempt a rejoinder.

In my last paper, C.Q., January, 1927, I stated briefly that v. 349 should stand in immediate sequence to v. 351. Few, I think, will refuse assent to this. But more than this may be learnt from the line in its new position:

τοῖα πλωρ' ὡς εἔ τις ραισι δρνσ βανοι.

In a note on this passage as far back as 1868, E. Wölmin 1 advanced the theory that the plural anulis is used here in a technical and stereotyped way as symbolic of equestrian rank. He is not sure whether such illogical use of the plural is to be found earlier than Tacitus or not.

This equation was set up by Mr. Allen in the Classical Review XV. 8–9 (1901), and remained, as far as I know, for over twenty years without effect. I thought, therefore, when writing my External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925) that the article had provided its own corrective and needed no criticism. About the same time, however, Mr. Allen in his Homer: The Origins and the Transmission (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 2352, reiterated his opinion; and later still Mr. Sheppard, ib. XLI. 127–9 (1927), shows that he has been impressed by it. Under these circumstances, and because a good deal depends upon the interpretation of the word, a brief discussion now seems desirable.

Dieses von mir im J. 1924 behandelte Papyrusbruchstück wurde 1927 von v. Wilamowitz berücksichtigt. Er hält meine Zurückfuhrüng des Bruchstückes auf Antiphon für sehr ansprechend und auch meine Erklärung für treffend; die Ergänzungen befriedigen ihn nur zum Teil. Letzteres muss ich ihm unbedingt zugeben. Leider sind alle kleinen Fragmente des Papyrus sowie die Zz. 1–6 des Fr. B bei dem Hinüberführen aus England nach Amerika (oder bald darauf) spurlos verschwunden und somit fiir die Wissenschaft auf immer verloren; es ist also nicht mehr möglich zu beurteilen, ob ich Recht hatte, als ich die Zz. 14–15 des Fr. A mit dem Fr. F vereinigte. Dagegen ist Col. II. des Fr. A glücklicherweise erhalten; Prof. W. L. Westermann legte eine ganz hervorragende Freundlichkeit an den Tag, indem er mir zuerst eine photographische Aufnahme davon zusandte und dann meine Lesung an der Hand des Originals prüfte. Bei dem näheren Studium der Photographie bemerkte ich, dass sowohl Hunts Lesung der Z. 7 (περ [ι] Ẻπ [.]ϕ) wie auch meine fruhere durch diese falsche Lesung ins Leben gerufene Erganzung ganz unmöglich sind. Auf der Photographie las ich Z. 7 t περ[ι] επ[ ]ηδ‐‑, und teilte dieses Ergebnis W. L. Westermann mit. Nachdem er in das Original noch einmal eingesehen hatte, antwortete er mir darauf; ‘Das ist die richtige Lesung. Es ist absolut sicher.’ Zu der scheinbar nächstliegenden Ergänzung Περ[] έπ[ιτ]ηδ[ευ]μάτων, die auch ich im ersten Augenblick für passend hielt, kam Westermann, nachdem ihm mein Vorschlag zur richtigen Lesung des Textes bekannt worden war, ganz unabhängig von mir; ich glaube trotzdem dass diese Lesung nicht das Richtige trifft. Wir haben doch in Col. II. eine Reihe von Antithesen (s. unten); aus περ Υο‐‑ νης (Z. 5) ist aber keine Antithese zu έπιτηδεύματα zu konstruieren. Was nun diese Stelle (Z. 5) anbetrifft, so ist hier nur die Lesung Υο (vielleicht auch Υρ ?) möglich, keinesfalls aber das von mir a. a. O. vermutete Υα Aus den Resten Υο. νης oder Υο.νης ist allerdings kein griechisches Wort zu erganzen; doch haben die einzelnen Zeilen des Papyrus nicht gleiche Längen, sodass nichts dem im Wege steht, dass Z. nach Υο auch nichts gestanden habe; dann gelangen wir zur Lesung: πε[ρ] Υο[] έπ[ικ]ηδ [ευ]μάτων, d. h. ‘von der Geburt der Menschen sowie von den Bestattungsbrauchen’ —auch hier haben wir dann, wie in alien anderen Antithesen von Col. II. (s. den Text unten) an der ersten Stelleυμξφροντα, an der zweiten ξυμΦέροντα, vgl. Antiphon, P. Oxy. 1364, Col. III., Z. 28: κατμένξναύτοέστινάΠων

The relation of the glossae breviores of Placidus, or rather Pseudo–Placidus, to Festus1 epitome of Verrius has been the subject of much discussion; but after Karl's detailed examination inDe Placidi Glossis (Comm. phil. I en. VII. 2), the view has generally prevailed that Ps.–Plac. is not dependent on Festus, and that any similarities between them are referable to the use of similar sources by Verrius and our compiler.