I need scarcely say that I do not propose to disturb Jebb's celebrated emendation of this passage in so far as the construction of is concerned. But I do think that there is yet a difficulty left. How can Oedipus fee said to have ' taken Iocasta as a gift out of the city' ? Or how can the Greek mean ' receive her from the city ' ? would be right for ' to choose out from among many possessions' (cf. Aesch. Ag. 975), but I desiderate examples of such a phrase as in the sense here required. The suggested correction ⋯πωφελ⋯σας strikes me as harsh without an accusative. Might it not then be better to read ⋯π’ ὠφελ⋯σει π⋯λεος, ‘on the strength of having served the city’ ? The change is scarcely, if at all, more violent; others might prefer ⋯π’ ὠφελε⋯ᾳ. That this phrase can also mean ‘with a view to help’ does not seem to me to matter.

After Mr. Stuart (C.Q. v. i) and Mr. Hardie (ib. v. 2) I ought to be shy of speaking upon the Tragedies of Seneca. But Mr. Stuart and Mr. Hardie have stirred the dust that lay upon notes which I have had by me for some four years: and their papers encourage the hope that there is among English scholars some revival of interest in Seneca. I am afraid that I myself read Seneca for pleasure, with admiration for the justness of his moral sentiments and with affection for his style. Yet I can hardly be blind to the opportunities which his text offers to those who practice the art of critical divination.

(A hard struggle with the Volsci.) Restitere primo obstinatis animis; deinde ut obtinentes locum †uires ferebant† audent ultro gradum inferre.

Codex Louaniensis, or L, the best MS. of Caesar in the British Museum (Add. MSS. 10,084), which is assigned to the eleventh century, has been collated by Alfred Holder for his edition of the Bellum ciuile and by Mr. R. L. A. Du Pontet for his edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum and the Bellum Africanum; but for the Bellum Gallicum no collation has hitherto been available. Last year I made one, which I sent to Dr. Meusel. He urged me to publish it, remarking that it would be very useful, as ‘wir haben nun ein sichereres Urteil über die Familie φ.’ Relying upon Holder's collation, he had described L in his own edition of the Bellum ciuile (1906, p. viii) as ‘a twin-brother of Ashburnhamianus’ (S); and so it is in the Bellum ciuile, but, as he acknowledged after reading my collation, not in the Bellum Gallicum. The first folio, comprising i, I–6, §3 (… bono animo in), is by a later hand. The MS. is described in the Catalogue thus: ‘c. Jvlii Caesaris commentariorum libri. Desinit cum verbis “res eis suppeteret” in libro de Bello Africano, cap. 33. Codex membranaceus, sec. XL, sed folium primum a manu recentiori suppletum est. Folio [10,084.].’

At the end of the Sixth Book of the Republic Plato explains the Idea of Good by means of the Figure of the Sun. As the sun is the cause both of the becoming of that which is subject to becoming and of our apprehension of it and of its changes through the eye, so the idea of good is the cause of the being of that which is and also of our knowledge of it. As the sun is beyond γ⋯νεσις, so the Idea of Good is beyond Being. Glaucon says he does not understand. The simile is further elucidated by means of a line, divided into two parts, of which one stands for the νιητ⋯ν γ⋯νος τε κα⋯ τ⋯πος, where the Idea of Good bears rule, the other for the ⋯ρατ⋯ν γ⋯νος τε κα⋯ τ⋯πος, over which the sun is lord. The line is to be divided unequally (the inequality representing the unequal clearness of the objects each division stands for), and subdivided in the same proportions. Thus we get a line consisting of four parts in the ratio (say) 4 : 6 : : 6 : 9. Let us call the four parts A B C D respectively, A being the smallest, D the greatest, B and C necessarily equal. A (as Plato explains) stands for εἱκ⋯νες, shadows, images in water and on polished surfaces, and the like: B stands for animals, plants, and the creations of human industry: C for the objects of that enquiry in which the objects denoted by B are treated as images, i.e. mathematical enquiries: D for the objects apprehended by dialectic, the Ideas themselves. The first equation asserted (510a 8) is—The objects of opinion : objects of knowledge : : representation : original (AB : CD : : A : B). There follows an explanation of the inferiority of mathematical to philosophical reasoning, and an explanation of the statement that the objects denoted by B are used as images or symbols by the enquiry concerned with C; as a result of which Glaucon perceives that the general distinction between C and D is that between the τ⋯χναι (as they were called), i.e. those sciences in which the Guardians (as explained in the following book) were to be educated, and Philosophy or Dialectic. Finally a special π⋯θημα or affection of the soul is allotted to each of the four divisions of the line, to A εἱκασ⋯α, to B π⋯στις, to C δι⋯νοια, to D ν⋯ησις, each π⋯θημα being clear in the same degree in which the objects it is concerned with are true.

To explain the meaning of the Prometheus the late Dr. Walter Headlam quoted the famous lines from theAgamemnon:

‘ Sing praise; ’Tis he hath guided, say, Man's feet in Wisdom's way, Stablishing fast for learning's rule That Suffering be her school….’ ‘This,’ he said, ‘is the school in which Prometheus himself is being gradually taught the wise humility; at present he is still in the rebellious stage. And it is with this idea that Io is introduced into the Prometheus Bound; she, too, is an example of the seeming cruelty of Zeus; but it is a blessing in disguise, for she is to be the mother of the blessed Epaphus, and it is a son of Zeus by Alcmena, a descendant of her own, that is to set Prometheus free.’

The object of the following paper is to examine in detail the relations between the contents of the poem called the Culex and the acknowledged writings of Virgil. The reader will find that these relations are more numerous and far more intimate than has hitherto been pointed out. They seem to warrant an inference as to the authorship of the poem, which in itself may claim high probability, and which when combined with the external evidence appears to the present writer to reach the level of a practical certainty. In what follows, all statements as to the readings of the manuscripts are based upon Professor A. E. Housman's paper on The Apparatus Criticus of the Culex(Cambridge Philological Society Transactions, Vol. VI, Part I, 1908), unless other authorities are expressly cited. I have followed Professor Ellis's text, except where Professor Housman's evidence makes some other reading more probable.

At the request of the Classical Journals Board we have undertaken for the present to edit this Journal. In so doing we confidently rely upon the co-operation of those who have hitherto been contributors, as well as of others who may be in a position to assist us.

Contr. I. The characters of this declamation are two brothers, at deadly enmity with each other, and the son of one of them, who, when his uncle is reduced to beggary, supports him in spite of his father′s prohibition. Disowned by the latter, he is adopted by his uncle, who presently grows rich—at the very moment when his brother loses everything. The young man again reveals his tender-heartedness, supports the unfortunate man in the face of his adopted father′s orders, and is once more disowned. He pleads his case before a jury.

ὡς … ⋯ξειργ⋯σατο of MSS. is generally corrected to the third person plural, but it would be more like Thucydides to ⋯ξε⋯ργαστο write: this would then be another instance of the corruption of pluperfects, such as into ἠγγ⋯λλετο and the like, of which many instances are given by Cobet in Nov. Lect. 422, Var. Lect. 253. In the old edition of Poppo, 1826, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 297, ⋯ξ⋯πγαστο is given as contained in Cod. Bas. ex emend., but it is not noticed by Poppo-Stahl or recent editors. Ως with the pluperfect is Thucydidean: Mr. Marchant on ii. 59 refers to iii. 23, 1; 26, 4; 27, 1; 69, 2. See the remarks of Poppo in vol. i. part ii. p. 44 sq. on this MS.

The identity of the river is even more obscure than that of the (1. 22). Strabo and Dionysius Periegetes alone mention a Peloponnesian river of the name.

‘Ivravit in mea uerba tota Italia sponte sua et me belli quo uici ad Actium ducem depoposcit.’ In these words the Emperor Augustus clearly meant to suggest that the war in which he got rid of Mark Antony was none of his making, but was imposed upon him by the free and self-determined action of the Italian nation. Modern historians have unanimously refused to regard Augustus as a passive instrument in the hands of the Roman people at large; yet they have generally accepted his account of the oath-taking of 32 B.C. as the outcome of a spontaneous burst of enthusiasm in his behalf, which they interpret as the reflex result of the nation's resentment against Antony's un-Roman and treasonable behaviour.

I 13 3 (seruorum offensiones et molestias);—

Iacobvs Bernays uir sagacissimus, exposuit in Porphyrii de abstinentia libris exstare excerpta ex Theophrasti de pietate libro satis magna, quae antea partim inscientia, partim neglegentia uirorum doctorum erant neglecta. Ad haec fragmenta coniecturas quasdam profero, usus Nauckii editione altera (prodiit in bibliotheca Teubneriana anno 1886).

No tragic poet uses the phrase μ⋯νος πν⋯ουσαν, except Aeschylus, who employs it in describing the Erinyes, not a Greek maiden. Similarly Homer of his ‘Mut-schnaubende’ heroes and of the savage steeds of Diomed. Hence, in the Sophoclean passage, some scribe may have mistaken the familiar ΜΕΝΟCΠΝΕΟΤCΑΝ for the more unusual ΜΕΝΕΙCΙCΤΝΟΤCΑΝ. Initial C attached itself to the preceding word, and ΤΝΟΤCΑΝ became ΠΝΟΤCΑΝ, which was promptly changed to πν⋯ουσαν.

Cf. Aeschines Ctes. 148, ‘ mirrored,’ says Prof. R. B. Richardson ad loc, ‘ in Plut. Dem. 20, ’ Philostratus Vit. Apoll. v 24, , where the context shews the meaning to be ‘ a small part of a day,’ not ‘a little day,’ Lucian Hermotimus 54, where again the meaning is decisively ‘part of a day.’ The Aeschines passage is not quite so clear, but certainly is naturally taken in the same way.

It might reasonably be argued that this question is one of those historical problems which form excellent subjects for the writing of essays, but which are far too complex to admit of a decisive answer, and consequently are much better left alone. No one man is responsible for a war between great powers, and the motives which influence the vast number of people, whose consent is necessary, can rarely, if ever, be identical. It is therefore comparatively easy to argue against any given motive which is asserted to be the one and only reason. Certainly the writer would make no effort to rake up the ashes of this controversy, were it not that in Dr. Grundy's recent work on Thucydides a new and ingenious theory is put forward concerning the vera causa of the Peloponnesian War.

No one probably feels tempted to deny that our best authority for the text of the Tragedies is the Etruscus, E (Laurentianus 37.13), but the authority relatively due to the interpolated tradition A is still a matter of dispute. Leo indeed (vol. i. p. 4) professed to deny all authority to the evidence of A, even where E is manifestly corrupt. But we should be justified in doing this only if the interpolator of A had based his edition on the text of E, and the text of E had suffered no corruptions subsequent to the making of the A edition. That this is so there is not the least reason to suppose. Peiper therefore was right in requiring for his apparatus criticus an account of the pure A text, though neither he nor Richter took the trouble to search out the oldest and best MSS of the A tradition out of the three hundred or more available.

Munro adopts the emendations veris for Veneris (1. 737) and Zephyrus for Zephyri (1. 708), making Zephyrus the ‘winged harbinger of Spring.’ As to the order of the procession, Munro takes one view in his translation and another in his notes: according to the latter it is ‘Zephyrus, Spring, Venus, Flora,’ the flowers springing up where Spring, Venus, and Zephyrus have trodden: according to the translation it is ‘Flora, Zephyrus, Spring, Venus.’ Duff, in his edition, adheres to the MSS. reading as printed above: Veneris praenuntius pennatus is Cupid, and the order of the procession is ‘Zephyrus, Flora (his wife), Cupid, Spring and Venus (or Venus and Spring).’ With this reading and interpretation, which are probably right, quibus goes in construction with praespargens: Munro, reading Zephyrus, takes quibus with uestigia propter, ‘in whose tracks’ (perhaps with praespargens as well), so that with his reading his note is right and his translation—‘along the path they tread mother Flora straws all the way before them’—is wrong, or at least not so probable, as quibus propter uestigia would be more naturally said of one following behind.

i 2. Longus is telling of the discovery of the infant Daphnis: Seiler ‘ caute et anxie circumeuntem,’ Hirschig ‘ caute circumeuntem.’ Tense as well as context point to ‘ bestriding.’ See L. and S. under