Thus far, discarding such manuscripts as are copies of printed editions, we have arrived at the following grouping:

1. The group x (= ABCK), in which K is a copy of A, and B of C, while A and C are brothers, the former being only slightly superior to the latter.

2. SQq. Here Q is a copy of S, whose borrowings from Politian it incorporated. Q added some readings from C or K, and scholia and other readings from a manuscript of the Ee stock; and after Q had received these additions, q was in turn copied from Q.

3. IID. Mr. Allen thinks it possible that, for the Homeric Hymns, these two are not direct copies of the same manuscript; and his conclusions may be accepted as indicating their mutual kinship in regard to Callimachus also. D's lost Callimachean portion gave some readings to Politian's text of Hymn V., and is in part represented by J. Lascaris' editio princeps of all six Hymns.

4.Ee, found to be brothers.

5. The group z (= FAtGHAIBr). Here At appears to be a brother of F; and F stands apart from the z2 section ( = GHAIBr), being nearer than they to xSTLDEe. Among the z2 manuscripts, Br is a copy of I, which is itself separated from GHA; this trio seem, on the imperfect evidence at hand, to be brothers.

There is a general agreement among English scholars as to the meaning and derivation of these strange words: Merry and Riddell ad loc., the admirable article in Liddell and Scott, and Dr. Giles, agree in connecting ѵ⋯ποδες with nepos, neptis, ⋯νεψιóς. The short ο in the declension has come from false analogy with τρíπουε and τετρ⋯ποѵς, 'Aλοσύδѵη is probably for 'Aλοσύνδη ‘salt water.’ Other derivations of ѵ⋯ποδѵς refute themselves. ‘Brood’ is the rendering now approved, but although this gives the general sense, it does not quite hit the centre; and no critics have seen the reason for the choice of this peculiar word.

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!

No part ot Plato's writings has been more debated than the three similes in Books VI.-VII. of the Republic, and still there is a diversity of opinion about their meaning. I believe that most of these difficulties arise from certain assumptions about their purpose which need revision. The current view applies the Cave to the Line, as Plato seems to direct, and this application, which is itself attended by considerable difficulties, leads to an assimilation of the two figures till (in most accounts) they seem to have much the same content and purpose. Again, as this makes the lower line appear to be the phenomenal world, it is thought that the simile of the sun foreshadows the theme of the Line by hinting at a connexion between the intelligible and the sensible which is made more explicit in the Line. Thus the group of similes seem mainly intended to show the dependence of Becoming upon Being. This paper will argue that such a view depends upon the misrepresentation of the symbolism adopted by Plato, that two antithetical groups of symbols are confused with one another, and that symbols are even identified with antitypes. Owing to these misinterpretations (if they prove to be such) the Form of the Good has been mistaken for a material cause; both the Line and the Cave have been thought to reveal Plato as embarrassed by a dualism between sense and intellect, and the purpose of the Cave in particular, since the error is cumulative, has been completely obscured. This paper will attempt to substitute for current accounts another interpretation which will relate the three similes closely with the political arguments of Book VI., and with the Platonic education which is set forth in close connexion with them.

No one who has read the classics with any attention can fail to have been struck by certain oddities in both the Greek and Latin usage of epithets denoting colour. How really strange their application often is may have escaped general notice for three reasons: partly, it may be, because custom has staled their surprising character—phrases such as ‘the wine-dark sea’ having become, so to say, ‘household words’; partly because a natural and on the whole commendable diffidence prevents our attributing, at least to the Greeks, anything that seems in the least derogatory from an artistic point of view; and partly because these instances of curious usage are scattered and so have no cumulative effect on our judgement.

Since the poem of Sappho, which was first published as No. 7 of the Oxyrhynchus series, has been the object of a good deal of attention and ingenuity (some of it frivolous), it is perhaps not too early to publish a number of new readings, the result of repeated examinations of the papyrus (now P. 739 in the British Museum), that may provide a surer foundation for future attempts at reconstruction. I have submitted my suggestions to Professor Hunt, who does not reject them (though in fairness it must be added that he has not re-examined the original), and I have to thank him and Mr. H. I. Bell, of the Department of MSS., for the readiness of their help whenever and under whatever form I made appeal to it. But, of course, neither of them is in any way committed to any of my readings or deductions.

Mr. Mulvany in the Journal of Philology, XXV. 136, in discussing the meanings of ⋯ερ⋯ς, and trying to find something which might be a link between the uses of the word in the sense of ‘strong’ and ‘sacred,’ finds it in the phrase ⋯ερ⋯ ῥ⋯ζειν, which he would translate ‘to act strenuously in a god's service.’ But his argument may be strengthened by the translation, to which the analysis of ancient religion points, ‘to act strongly upon’; ‘to put pressure upon,’ as we should say. Both ἔρδειν and ῥ⋯ζειν are used with a dative of the person, as well as with an accusative, in the Homeric poems. And with this sense we might well align ἱερ⋯ς ⋯κατóμβας.

Mr. Agar in Homerica, Preface ix., has suggested that κακ⋯ι γλ⋯νηι was the original reading, ‘Be off with the evil eye upon you.’ I have searched, but in vain, for any formula of imprecation corresponding to the formula of blessing, τύχ⋯γαθ⋯ι, though I should like to see it in κακ⋯ι τѵχ⋯ι of the Treacherous Hound in Agamemnon 1230. Mr. T. C. Snow, objecting to Mr. Agar's alterations of the Homeric text, once suggested to me that we should rather retain the vocative, and translate it, ‘Be off, evil eye.’ Others also may have thought of this, but it does not appear to have got into print.

While translating the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems for the Oxford translation of Aristotle, I have frequently found it necessary to refer to the Fragments of Theophrastus (as collected by F. Wimmer in Vol. III. of the Teubner text), which are obviously the source of many of the Problems, in particular in books II., V., XX., XXIV., and XXVI. The condition of the text of both the Problems and the Fragments of Theophrastus leaves much to be desired, but considerable improvements are possible in those passages where the compiler of the Problems is adapting or copying from Theophrastus.

Historians and grammarians, palaeographers, and epigraphers have long employed the Scipionic inscriptions as providing accurate data for the period of about 200 B.C. A recent article, however, appearing in this journal, written by the distinguished grammarian, Professor Fay, just before his untimely death, questions the authenticity of these inscriptions, chiefly on grammatical grounds. The inscriptions are so important that it might be well to consider carefully the validity of such arguments in the light of other evidence before we surrender these landmarks of republican history and language.

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.

In the whole theory of the Latin tenses there is no more popular item than this explanation by Roby (Latin Grammar, 1574a) of the use of the pluperfect indicative in unreal conditional sentences. Far the most familiar instance is that in Horace (C. II. 17), ‘me truncus illapsus cerebro sustulerat, nisi Faunus ictum dextra leuasset.’

Professor J. van Wageningen has sent me a review of my fourth volume of Manilius which he has published in Museum vol. 28 pp. 173–7. I never contradict the taradiddles usual in reviews, because, if the reader thinks it worth his while, he can find out for himself whether they are true or no, and if he chooses to believe them without enquiry, it serves him right. But when he is fed with false information about a MS which is out of his reach, he can do nothing to help himself, and may fairly claim to be protected.

There can be few other uses in the Latin language which afford us so great an insight into the mental attitude of a writer at the moment of his writing, or which endow writing with so much of that personal colour which the voice alone gives in perfection, as does the singular use of the pronoun nos. All forms of this word (with the corresponding adjective and verb forms) which occur in the speeches of individuals, who are at the moment speaking independently, are either wholly singular uses, or partly plural uses with more or less justification for the plural form according to the extent to which the speaker is identifying himself with his surroundings. Thus we find all degrees of plurality in such forms, and it is those instances in which the plural form can be least definitely justified which we call ‘singular’ or ‘unreal plural’ uses, and which prove to be the most fascinating from a psychological point of view. The object of the present essay is to inquire how far the varieties of meaning in the singular use of nos, which Professor R. S. Conway has pointed out in Cicero, appear also in Vergil.

In the course of a note on Aen. VIII. 86 sq. by Dr. J. W. Mackail (Class. Rev. XXXII. 1918, p. 103), the Servian interpretation of line 96 (‘secant placido aequore siluas’: ostendit adeo perspicuam fuisse natuvam fluminis ut in eo apparerent imagines nemorum, quas Troianae naues secabant) is supported with the observation that 'note should be taken of Virgil's distinctive use of the ablative. “Placidoaequore siluas” in his language is practically equivalent to “placidas aequoreas siluas” just as “pictas abiete puppes” is to “pictas abiegnas puppes” or “uasta uoragine gurges” to “uastus uoraginosus gurges.”’;

The two meanings of ἄγρα [(i) the chase, (2) game, booty taken in hunting] are also meanings of θ⋯ρα and similarly θηρέὐέιν is parallel to ⋯γρέὐέιν both in form and in meaning. These facts are of more importance for the etymology of ἅγρα than the accidental resemblance to ⋯γρέῖν or to ⋯γέἰρέιν.

As a contributory step toward a new edition of Du Cange's Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, planned by the International Association of Academies, the British Academy has undertaken to publish a critical edition of mediaeval glossaries. The most important of these glossaries, because it constitutes the parent-compilation from which subsequent compilers of glossaries drew their material, is that pair known as Abstrusa and Abolita, found combined in the Vatican MS. 3321, which is the oldest extant MS. of purely Latin glossaries. It is with the date and home of this MS. that the present note is concerned.

In response to a suggestion in the Class. Rev. (XXXIII. 106), the two MSS. of the Liber Glossarum preserved at Tours have recently been examined. Since they had not been seen by Goetz when he published his excerpts, the following short descriptions may be added to the introduction of Vol. V. of the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum:

1. Tours, Bibliothèque de Ville, MS. No. 850; end of the ninth century; foll. 493, of which 1, 491, 492 are mere corners; cmm. 49 by 29. The last item is an Isidore gloss, Zatenen.-gemmam. Gaps due to loss of folia occur between Abiectus and Abdolet; Dextera manus and Dialogus; Faber and Impulitum; Res diuinae and Samsacus. There are no corrections except between folia 197 and 300, where a thirteenth-century hand has checked the MS. by means of another copy of the Lib. Gloss. The items are drawn up in two columns, and the alphabetical arrangement agrees for the most part with that of Vat. Pal. lat. 1773. Marginal indications of the sources of the items are numerous except between Profanum and Remeantes; where two or three neighbouring items come from the same source, the marginal mark is repeated; and towards the end of the MS., where the scribe takes to writing two items in the same line, the indication is also carefully transferred. This is important in view of Goetz' theory that the source of an unlabelled item is that given by the last preceding label.

In the last number of the Classical Quarterly (July-October, 1920, p. 172) Dr. Holmes has asked if a trustworthy observer has ever seen with the naked eye a moon not more than 27 hours old in an atmosphere no clearer than that of Geneva. Hoping that I am a trustworthy observer, I will enumerate the cases where I have observed crescents of an age less than 27 hours. I have also constructed tables with which I find the moment when the moon becomes visible. I believe the minimum for Heidelberg is 20 hours from February 1 to April 1, if the moon is at her perigee and the argument of latitude is between 60° and 120°. All times given here are mid-European time ( = Greenwich mean time+1 hour). I have never used a binocular. Heidelberg is 35 m. east of Greenwich, and 25 m. west of the mid-European meridian.