Schanz never edited either the Parmenides or the Philebus. For the former we have minute collations of B and T in Waddell's edition, but the readings of W are still unknown. As, however, Wilamowitz has no suggestions to make about the text of the Parmenides, this does not matter for our present purpose. It seems that this dialogue was transcribed with special care just because of its difficulty. At any rate, its text is remarkably good. For the Philebus I published the readings of T for the first time, and I have now procured a photograph of W in this dialogue from Vienna. Mr. R. G. Bury's edition was an anachronism. Though he published it in 1897, he had apparently never heard of the manuscript T. In his note entitled The Text of the Philebus (pp. lxxxii sqq.) he attributes to Schanz a view of the relation between the MSS. which that editor had recanted just twenty years earlier. Except for a few corrections regarding the readings of B (which he calls Cl.), Mr. Bury's own apparatus criticus is merely a reprint of Bekker's, which was published in 1823. For the Symposium we have Schoene's collation of W, which I was able to use in my second edition, and I have now a photograph of that MS. in the Phaedrus too.

I have to apologize to my readers for two passages in which my corrections of the proof-sheets were misunderstood. In V. 21 for ‘flauum’ read ‘florum’; in the note on VV. 72, 73 I suggested an alternative reconstruction of the text, viz. to take V. 72 (‘peruium,’ etc.) as the fourth line of stanza 16, the verb in the second clause of the stanza being still ‘gubernat’; in that case the missing line was the first verse of stanza 17, and I suggest for it ‘Ipsa corpus omne pollens nuptiali gaudio.’ On the whole I now prefer this version.

May I add that it now seems to me very possible that the ‘Fiam ut’ of 5 in v. 95 is a correction of a damaged ‘Pipiat’ ‘chirps’ ? P and F axe exceedingly alike in uncial writing, and, as Mr. Rackham points out to me, the first Pi- may well have disappeared by lipography; if that happened, ‘Fiat’ remained, and the addition of a line over the a and of an m produced the reading found in S.

In v. 17 a better line results if ‘Praenitent’ is substituted for ‘Enitent’ and ‘Apertae’ for ‘Pulchrae’; and vv. 63, 64 are clearer as ‘Tune cruore de superno pontus undas turbidus Deque uiro defluente,’ etc.

The difficulty lies in the two words at the end of the first and last lines of the extract, cortus being manifestly corrupt, and pontus inappropriate. In 276 it is fairly clear that ‘the wind’ should be the subject of the sentence, and Markland's uentus is now printed by most editors: in 271, in spite of a variety of conjectures, editors are mostly agreed that ‘the sea’ should be the object, and Marullus' pontum is usually accepted. The sense is thus rectified, but there remains a serious palaeographical difficulty, neither of the corruptions pontum > cortus, uentus > pontus being very probable in itself or paralleled in the Lucretian MSS. It has been suggested, both by Professor Reid (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. XXII., 1911) and by Professor Merrill (1907), that the last words of the two lines have been interchanged. If this theory can be accepted, it at once gives us pontum in 271: the nominative pontus is only an attempt to adjust it to its new context in 276. We should then be left with cortus at the end of 276, and I suggest that the obvious correction is then corus.

The inscriptions, with their brevity and their tendency to formulaism, are not so profitable a field for the study of the syntax of the Κοιν⋯ as the papyri, and literary documents like the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is possible to glean from them some evidence, which adds to the sum-total of our knowledge; and when the time comes to deal with the Hellenistic language as a whole, they will have their contribution to make. I propose to deal with the evidence for case-usage provided by the popular inscriptions of Asia Minor, particularly those of that inland region, which corresponds roughly with the limits of ancient Phrygia.

Despite the discredit into which the once famous theory of Niebuhr has long sincefallen, it is beginning to appear, both to historians and to students of literature, that Epic poetry was in full process of evolution at Rome before Livius Andronicus was inspired to translate the Odyssey. There is, indeed, ample evidence to warrant such a belief; our authorities may most conveniently be considered in two main divisions. The first calls for no more than the barest mention, for it is concerned with those Naeniae and Cantus Conuiuiales the existence of which is not seriously challenged by even the most conservative criticism. They are well attested, and the evidence for their extreme antiquity is familiar to every reader of Cicero. In passing we may mention also Saturnian epitaphs like those of the Scipios, and the Tituli Triumphales set up in the Capitol. Typical lines are: Fundit, fugat, prosternit maximas legiones, from the inscription of M'Acilius Glabrio, and Summas opes qui regum regias refregit (which, however, Diomedes appears to quote as from Naevius).

In the Glossary-codex, Vat. Lat. 1469, written in the year 908 (see Goetz, Corp. Gloss. Lat. IV. pref., p. xvii; V. pref., p. xviii, p. xxx), fol. 83 has been assigned to ‘glossae collectae.’ They begin (83r I med.): In Passione Apostolorum. Iussit eum inaumachia (sic) cathomis consumi. Cathomis: uirgis nodosis. Hie naumachia forum signat Romanorum quod Prorostris dicitur eo quod rostra, etc. (=C.G.L. V. 573, 19). In Sancto Sebastiano. Saturnus apocatasticus (sic): id est dispositor et destructor fatorum. Annus tuus ex diametro susceptus est. Diametrum est, etc. ‘Glossae collectae’ from the Bible and from Jerome's prefaces come next.

Loewe (Prodromus, p. 144) drew attention to the fact that Apuleius is one of the authors drawn upon by the compiler of the Glossary that has come to be known as ‘Abolita’; and Professor Lindsay in his article on this Glossary (J.P. Vol. XXXIV. p. 275) gives as examples of Apuleius glosses three short batches from the CA-, the CI-, and the CO- sections. These batches are respectively as follows:

(1) C.G.L. IV. p. 29, 33 = Met. 7, 12 or 8, 13: 34 = Met. 9, 16: 35 = Met. 11, 16. (The ‘Abstrusa’ portion on this page runs from No. 6 to No. 32, and it is possible that the last item of the preceding ‘Abolita’ portion, p. 29, 5 ‘causor: accuso[r] uel queror’ comes from Apol. 79—causari.)

Τ⋯ τε 'Ομ⋯ρον ⋯ξ ὑποβολ⋯ς γ⋯γραφε [σόλων] ῥαψῳδεῖσθαι, οἷον ὅπου ό πρ⋯τος ἒληξεν ⋯κεῖθεν ἂρχεσθαι τòν ⋯χ;óμεν㦿ν (Diogenes Laertius, I. 2, 57).

It would be tedious to trace the course of the controversy about this phrase. Since Hermann showed that ύποβάλλειν means ‘subiicere alteri quod recordetur uel dicat’ (as in administering an oath), the many conflicting interpretations have been obliged to resort to some device, more or less strained, in order to reconcile the natural sense of ύποβολή with what at least appears to be the explanatory clause added in the text of Diogenes, and with the parallel phrase in the Hipparchus, 228d: ήνάγκασε τούς ῥαΨῳδοὺς Παναθηναίοις ⋯ξ ύπολ⋯ψεως ⋯φεξης α⋯τ⋯ διι⋯ναι. We should expect some term meaning performance by turns, and sufficiently technical to need the explanation given by Diogenes. Mr. Pallis has cut the knot in the Classical Quarterly (1913, p. 134) by suggesting ⋯ξ ὺποβ⋯ς on the model of the pseudo-Platonic passage. There is, however, no classical authority for this word, and a change as small will restore a known technical word with the required sense.

An application of the method used by M. Meillet (Mem. Soc. Ling. XIX. p. 181) to the variation οἲχομαι: οίχνέω indicates that this verb probably had non-thematic inflexion at one time. From these two forms we can abstract a stem οίχ- which may be added to M. Meillet's list of presents with o vocalization. The meaning of οἵχομαι(οἲχʵται ‘he has gone away’) has been arrived at by a series of changes which can still be observed. As Buttmann (Sprachlehre II. p. 252) showed, οἲχομαι originally meant ‘to go’ without the notion ‘away’ (‘das eigentliche gehn, ohne den Begriff fort’). In confirmation of this he points to ⋯ποίχομαι (he might have added προσοίχομαι Pind.) and II. E 495: κατ⋯ στρατὐν ᾤχετο πάντη 'Οτρύνων μαχέσαθαι A53: ⋯νν⋯μαρ μ⋯ν στρατ⋯ν ᾣχετο κ⋯λα θεοῖο. He seems right also in his assertion that the use of the present form οἲχεται in a perfect sense (‘he has gone’) is secondary and derived from οἲχεται ‘there he goes.’ The o grade of οἲχομαι has therefore nothing to do with the o grade of the Indo-Eur. perfect, but must be grouped with that of βόλομαι, ὂρομαι and the rest.