Vergil's plagiarism has been a theme for critics ever since Perellius Faustus made an anthology of his ‘furta’ and Quintus Octavius Avitus com-piled eight volumes of Оμоιóτηɛσ, giving both the original passages and Vergil's adaptations of them (Suet. Vit. Verg. 45). Much of this literature has survived in the commentary of Servius and in Book VI. of the Saturnalia of Macrobius. The study of his imitations and plagiarisms throws much light on Vergil's methods and aims of composition, and has frequently been attempted in editions of his works. But one class of his plagiarisms differs considerably from the rest. Often in the Aenèid he incorporates phrases, either intact or slightly altered, from the Annales of Ennius. These differ from where he imitates Homer, because in them he does not have to translate from Greek into Latin and so remake the original into something new, and they differ, too, from his adaptations of some other earlier Latin poets, because Ennius was his only important forerunner who had written on the same heroic themes of war and the growth of Rome.

At the beginning of the Poetics Aristotle has these words: έποιìα δn` καì τσ τραγωιδίασ ποίησισ τι δ κωμωιδία καì διθυραμβοποιητικ καì τσ αλητικσ πλɛίστη καì κιθαριστικσ πσαι τυγχάνουσιν οσαι μιμήσɛισ τò σνολον. διαøρουσι δ άλλήλων τρισίν. ρ τι ' ν τέροισ μιμɛίσθαι τι τɛρα τι τέρωσ καì μ τòν αὐτòν τρόπον. Then, expounding ν τέροισ: ᾰπασαι μν ποιονται τν μίμησιν ν p'υθμι καì λόγωι καì ρμονίαι, τοτοισ ' η χωρìσ ἤ μɛμιγμένοισ οἶον ρμονίαι μν καì p'υθμι χρῴμɛναι μόνον ἤ τɛ αὐλητικ καì κιθαριστική … αὐτι δ τ'υθμι χωρìσ ρμονίασ τν ρχηστν. Here I omit the crucial sentence; he proceeds: οὐδν γρ ἂν ἔχοιμɛν νομάσαι κοινòν τ ὺσ σøρονος καì Ξɛνάρχον μίμουσ καì τοὺσ σωκρατικοὺσ λόσουσ, οὐδɛἴ τισ δι τριμέτρων ἤ λɛγɛiων ἤ τν ἄλλων τινν τν τοιοτων ποιοῖτο τν μiμησιπλν οἱ ἂνθρωποi γɛ συνπτοντɛσ τι μτρωι τò ποιɛῖν λɛγɛιοποιοὺσ τοὺσ δ ποποιοὺσ νομζουσιν. He develops this point about the use of the word ποιητσ to denote all writers who write in verse and finally, before ending his exposition of ν τροισ, says: ισ δ τινɛσ οἳ πσι χρνται τοῖσ ɛἰρημνοισ, λγω δ οἶον p'υθμι κα μλɛι καi μτρωι, ὢσπɛρ ἤ τɛ τν διθυραμβικν ποiησισ καῖ ἤ τν νჲμων καῖ ἤ τɛ τραγωιδiα καῖ κωμωιδiα.

That accent as well as quantity plays a certain rô1e in the structure of early Latin dramatic verse is no new doctrine. It has been present in some form or other to the minds of most writers on Plautine and Terentian prosody since the time of Bentley, who in his Schediasma de metris Terentianis (1726, second edition 1727) laid the foundations of modern research into this somewhat thorny subject. Unfortunately, however, the question has been complicated from the very first by the introduction of a third term into the discussion, viz. the term ictus, with the result that the fundamental issue has been obscured and to some extent side-tracked. Bentley was himself responsible for this result; for it was he who introduced into his text of Terence those ictus-marks which have figured in most texts of Plautus and Terence down to the present day. And his whole theory of Terentian verse was dominated by the postulate that it was delivered on the stage with a stress of the voice falling rhythmically on the ‘rise’ (or, as he called it, the ‘arsis’) of each foot: e.g.

Malúm quod ísti dí deaéque omnés duínt.

Clytaemnestra describes her anxious presentiment of coming evil, but ό π ροστατν Χρθνος bears no obvious meaning. The schol.'s πιενόμεος —corrected to πιινπιγ by Papageorgios from Suidas—is meant to interpret the phrase as merely a periphrasis for the future. So the schol. on Pind. ol. X. 9 glosses πιγν πιγ with ιγενόμε&ngr;ος. Jebb practically agrees, but thinks that strictly ό πρ. Χρόνος is ‘the time which stands in front (of the present).’ Kaibel, rightly in my opinion, regards έμοṽ as the necessary complement of προστάτης, but understands the latter as Time personified leading the queen by the hand continuously forward. She does not know her goal, but fears it is death. None of these views is convincing; and if we would seize the metaphor which the words are intended to convey, we shall do better to follow the indication afforded by Aesch. Ag. 976 τιπτε μο τς μπςως |δείμαπ ροατατατηριον| καρδιας τερασκόπον ποτται where the speaker is labouring under the burden of apprehension, whose image hovers over his heart. The future casts its shadow beforehand as a danger to be encountered. So here Clytaemnestra cannot rest for the persistent image which ever obtrudes itself upon her mental vision (scil.έμοṽ). Meineke preferred προσ-στατν just as Blaydes conjectured προσ-στατ ριον in the Agamemnon.

That a considerable fragment of the Fabulae of Hyginus—whoever Hyginus may have been and whenever he lived—exists in a Greek translation in the Hermeneumata Leidensia (C.G.L. III., p. 56, 30 sqq.) is well known to all students of his work. Indeed, this extract furnishes the terminus ante quem for Hyginus’ date in its opening words; I cite it as accented and punctuated by Schmidt (p. liv of his edition of the Fabulae, Jena, 1872):

Maξμѱ ka “Aπρῳ v´πáτoιs πρò у εἰδν ΣεπTεμβρων ‘Ỵуνoυ уενεaλoуaν πâσιν уνωστν μετуραΨα, ν ὦ ἒσoνται π λεoνɛṣ ἱστoρατ δτερμνευνατ ν τoὑτῳ τῴ βιβλῳ θεν уàρ kα θεáων νματα ν δευτρ ξεπλξαμεν λ’ π τoτ σoνται τoτων ξμуσεισ, ε kα μ πσαι, ττων μντoιуε ν τoστ δναμαι.

‘Heliodori Aethiopica, sive Fabula … complectens amores castos Theagenis et Chancleae Libris X quorum singuli, quoad initium et finem, cum editione Graeca Basil[iensi] MDXXXIV. 4. collati, cum ipsa penitus consentire comperti sunt.…

‘Codex Graecus Chartaceus Ms. in 8 Saec. XV plurimis in locis manu Saec. XVI suppletus. Constat foliis scriptis 211.’

In the Classical Quarterly, Vol. XXIII. i, pp. 7–10, Mr. Denniston attempts to revive the ancient and once honoured sport of gloss-chasing. But the day of that perilous pastime has gone, and this latest effort is perhaps less successful than some of its predecessors. In his notes on the De Elocution of Demetrius he hunts and traps the unwary ‘gloss’ in his net of criticism, but unfortunately the snare is faulty, and the ‘catch’ escapes. I propose to discuss each of his suggested ‘glosses’ in his order, basing my arguments against his conclusions—(a) on probabilities; (b) on the usage of Demetrius in this work:

§ 271. καθλου δ νς λEεως τ σϰματα κα ὑπκρισιν κα γνα παρϰει τῷ λοντι, μλιστα τ διαλελυμον, τοτ' στι δειντητα.

The Placidus Glossary was hailed in Ritschl's time as a new clue to Plautus' true text. And Buecheler, Ritschl's pupil, seized on its Alapari est alapas minari, etc., and foisted this verb on Plaut. True. 928. The great Latin Thesaurus quotes the line with this piece of new cloth put on an old garment:

nil alapari satiust, miles,

instead of the correct

philippiari satiust, miles.

In Corp. Gloss. Lat. V. 435–490 Goetz published excerpts from the A A glossary. Further interesting items were published by C. Theander in Eranos XXIII (1925) 51–61, 167–176. The complete glossary is now being prepared for the press, and Professor W. M. Lindsay has kindly communicated to me some of the new items which may possibly contain quotations from classical authors. The most interesting of them is the following:

MA 2 ‘Mabortia res quae ad pugnam pertinet unde moenia funduntur vel res Martia.’