It appears to be a generally accepted opinion among modern historians that the expedition which the Athenians led up-Nile in 459 B.C. in support of the Egyptian insurrection against Persia was an exceptionally large one, numbering no less than 200 sail. Modern authors also seem to imply, though they may not say so explicitly, that the whole of this armada was involved in the catastrophe which overtook the rebels in 454 B.C.

In a recent number of the Classical Quarterly Mr. F. M. Cornford argues against the commonly accepted view, according to which the tripartite social structure of the Republic is a corollary, in Plato′s mind, to the tripartition of the individual Soul. In the present paper I propose to examine the general plan of the dialogue, in the hope of showing that Plato′s conceptions of State and Soul were not, as generally assumed and as assumed by Mr. Cornford, ready-made and clearly formulated in his mind before he began to write the Republic: that, on the contrary, we can detect profound and vital modifications of his original views as the argument proceeds: and that the conceptions of the Ideal State and the rightly constituted human soul grow out of one another and react on one another in such a way that it is impossible to give a simple answer, affirmative or negative, to the question ‘ Which is prior, the tripartition of State or the tripartition of Soul ?’

On this Dr. Gow, in his excellently businesslike school edition, remarks: ‘The MSS are divided between publicum, Apulicum, and Ponticum. Of these readings, the first is nonsensical; the second unmetrical; the third incredible,’ and he therefore adopts Palmer's sublicis. To that alteration there are strong objections: (1) the position of the merely conjunctive et: (2) the fact that sublicae do not suggest wealth: (3) the technical improbability of the termination in -is being converted into one in -um.

In the Teubner edition, just published, I had to reduce the apparatus criticus to the smallest possible dimensions. All conjectures that were merely probable and not fairly certain had to be excluded. Some of them that are new may find a place here. There is only one MS. of Festus′ epitome of Verrius. It is now at Naples, and is said to have been found in Illyria. Dr. E. A. Loew, the leading authority on Italian script, tells us that it was written at Rome towards the end of the eleventh century. It must have been rescued (in Illyria?) from a fire; for the outer edges of all the pages are burned away, so that the greater part of the outer of the two columns on each page has been lost. The chief task for editors is to fill up by conjecture these gaps in the outer columns. Scaliger won immortal fame in this work, although many of his conjectures merely followed out a suggestion of his predecessor, Augustini. Ursini and Miiller were of service in adapting to the conditions of space the stop-gaps of Scaliger, and both of them, chiefly Miiller, added excellent conjectures of their own. The conjectural supplements, printed in italics in Müller's edition, have often, especially in German students′ dissertations, been treated as if they were actually part of the text. The Hungarian editor, Emil Thewrewk, who first provided satisfactory manuscript material for Paulus′ epitome of Festus, in order to prevent this error, took the extreme course of omitting these supplements in his edition; although many of them are made absolutely certain by the words of Paulus. I have taken a middle course between Miiller and Thewrewk and have admitted the certain and the probable supplements, leaving blanks elsewhere. The supplements are printed within angular brackets, the merely probable supplements being in italic type.

The last line of the passage was not completed in the quotation.

It has been pointed out above that Festus in his quotations cares more for the completion of the line than of the sense. His normal form is one complete line. So the probability is that Liu. Andr. com. (quoted s.v. Scenam) is an Iambic Senarius, with a dactyl in the first foot and hiatus at the pause in the sense:

Corrúît quasi ictus scéna, haut multósecus.

In the school study of syntax the results of etymology, however highly they may be valued in theory, are in effect neglected. I called attention to this, and specifically to the construction of credo with the dative, in an article in the Classical Quarterly, v. 193 (§ 25 sqq.)

Bücheler assigns this epitaph to the Caesarian epoch: and it is clearly not of later date. The fifth line is corrupt. Bücheler suggests tentatively the insertion of the word dilecto after Cadmo. That will indeed give us a verse of six feet. But we shall not be much the happier. We shall still have to believe that a member of the gens Heluia married, circa 100&50 B.C, a husband of the name of Cadmus Scrateius. He must have been the public executioner: for I know of no other Cadmus in Rome; and he bore no very good reputation, and very little deserved the epithet dilectus, for the commentators upon Horace 5. i. 6. 39 speak of him as ‘ notae crudelitatis.’ He must be supposed to have taken the name Scrateius to make himself more terrible. But where in all the Graeco-Roman world he found it, it is impossible to guess.

Thanks to Prof. Leo and to Prof. Lindsay (Classical Quarterly, 1913, p. 1), we know now two important things about this corrupt trochaic line, Simul huic nescio qui turbare qui hue it decedamus. First, that the line announces the coming of the chorus, although this chorus utters no words (so the entry XOPOT in Greek fragments of comedies). Secondly, that instead of turbare the true reading is turbae (the former reading of B), a dative which designates the band of the approaching choreutae. We may guess that the archetype of BCD had turbare, the fault turbre having sprung from an old TVRBAE, in which A had been read R (see my Manuel de Critique verbale, §§ 618 and 1352). The restitution of turbae involves two other emendations; the preceding qui is to be corrected into quoi (of which archaism qui is a common corruption), and the following qui into quae (the error arising from the ambiguous value of a barred q).

Inde Venus uaria produdt sorte figuras

maiorumque refert uoltus uocesque comasque,

1225 quandoquidem nilo magis haec de semine certo

fiunt quam facies et corpora membraque nobis.

1227 et muliebre oritur patrio de semine saeclum

maternoque mares existunt corpore creti…

In an article in the Classical Quarterly of October, 1911, Mr. Guy Dickins criticized certain views put forward by Mr. Cornford, by the writer of the article on Greek History in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and by myself, on the statements made by Thucydides as to the cause or causes of the Peloponnesian War. Mr. Dickins makes three statements as to the views which he supposes me to hold. Not one of the three statements is even approximately correct.

THE clue to the meaning and interpretation of this poem, which has long been the despair of critics, is, I believe, to be found in a variant on line 9, faithfully preserved in the Codex Sangermanensis (G) and yet unaccountably neglected hitherto. G's text I transcribe from M. Chatelain's photo-lithograph facsimile of the manuscript (Leroux, Paris, 1890).

In his new edition of II. i.-xii. Prof, van Leeuwen takes áμóv in Z 414, ή τoι γàρ φατέῤ άμòν άφέκτανε δîoς ‘ΑΧιλλεὐς, as = nostrum, i.e. meum et meorum fratrum, adding that the plural used for the singular is alien to epic practice. He refers to A 30, B 486, T 440, H 196, © 360, K 448, N 257, O 224, II 244, Σ 197, T 402, φ;60, 432, ψ84, 413, α 10, β 77 sq., K 99, 334, 525, λ 33, 166, 481, v 358, π300, 442, σ 247, ψ139. The point has often been discussed by commentators and grammarians, but generally with only one or two references, and an obiter dictum thereon.