The scholiasts supposed that it was Zeus, not Strife, who dwells γαíνσ Έν ŕίζησι, and Paley has punctuated the line accordingly. I do not in any case doubt that he is wrong, but if the Theogony is evidence, he can almost be proved so. In the Theogony the γης ŕίσα;ι are a kind of suburb of Tartarus, from which the author does not very clearly distinguish them. In his useful though somewhat desultory gazetteer of those districts he says that Styx dwells there apart from the gods, and that Iris only comes down when there are oaths to be administered in Olympus. Clearly Zeus is not at home in such a place. Strife herself is not enumerated in the Theogony among the residents, but her family is. Whatever she may be elsewhere, both in the Works and Days and in the Theogony she is the daughter of Night; and in the Theogony not only Night but also her two sons Sleep and Death reside in the district. Strife may appropriately keep them company.

The wholesome severity of publishers' regulations restricted the small Teubner edition of Festus almost to the actual text of the archetype MSS. of Festus and his epitomator Paulus. The flimsy material to be picked up from mediaeval glossaries was excluded from this small and solid structure and reserved for the ampler space and freer air of a second volume, a volume which should attempt a reconstruction of Festus from Paulus' excerpts, like an antiquarian's reconstruction of the Forum from the ruins that now remain. In Goetz' Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum we have apographs of the chief MS. of each important glossary, and in his Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum we have all the glosses edited and arranged in dictionary form; but much spade-work has to be done before these glosses can be used by an editor of Festus. Some has been done already by a pupil of Goetz in a Jena dissertation (A. Dammann de Festo pseudo-Philoxeni auctore, 1894), who shows the so-called Philoxenus Glossary to be compiled in part from Festus, and collects and emends its Festus glosses. Yet even this piece of work is not complete. For our (we may say) unique MS. of Philox., a mere ninth-century MS. (of Laon ?), is an imperfec record of that large bilingual collection which has left so many traces of itself in the glossaries of the British Isles and of those parts of the Continent which received English or Irish culture. The Ab Absens Glossary, for example, printed by Goetz (C.G.L. IV. pp. 404–427) from a North Frankish MS. of Charlemagne's time, has (in the A-section) a number of Festus glosses from this collection which are not recorded in our MS. of Philox. and are accordingly ignored by Dammann.

Inter praecepta, quae Priapus amaioribus dat ad puerorum uoluntatem sibi conciliandam, hoc quoque est (I. 4. 41–44):

neu comes ire neges, quamuis uia longa paretur

et Canis arenti torreat arua siti,

quamuis praetexens picta ferrugine caelum

†uenturam amiciat imbrifer arcus aquam.

VBI Varro (R.R. I. 13. 2) de uilla rustica facienda agit, de culina haec monet: in primisculina uidenda ut sit admota, quod ibi hieme antelucanis temporibus aliquot res conficiuntur, cibus paratur ac capitur. Hunc locum legentes sponte nosmet ipsos rogamus, quid sibi uelit illud admota. ‘Prope cellam uilici,’ inquit Keilius (Comm. p. 46), de qua paulo ante sermo est: uilici proximum ianuam cellam esse oportet eumque scire, qui introeat aut exeat noctu quidue ferat, praesertim si ostiarius est nemo. Sed si locum ita interpretamur, quomodo intellegenda est sententia, quae sequitur, causalis: quod ibi hieme cet.? Num uilicus in cella iacens uel sedens moderari debebat opera, quae mane in culina fiebant ? An idcirco culinam proximam cellae uilici esse oportebat, ut inter utramque paruum spatium interesset, si uilicus ab altera ad alteram commeare uellet? Et hoc et illud uix credibile est Varronem significare uoluisse. Accedit, quod in uilla rustica culina non prope ianuam est, sed in parte interiore cohortis, quemadmodum docent fundamenta aperta uillae rusticae Pompeianae (prope Boscoreale, cf. Overbeck-Mau Pompeii2, p. 382), et probatur uerbis Vitruuii (VI. 6 initio), qui ita praecipit: ‘in corte culina quam calidissimo loco designetur.’ Quae cum ita se habeat, apud Varronem legendum esse puto: in primis culina uidenda ut sit <soli> admota, h.e.ad meridiem spectans (cf. III. 9. 14: ‘prodigendae [gallinae] in solemet in stercilinum’ Cic. Lael. § 100: ‘uirtus ad id [lumen] seadmouet’). Nam si ita legimus, neque admota suo caret datiuo,1 et perspicuum fit, quid sententia causalis quod ibi hieme cet. sibi uelit. Diligenti enim domino ‘prouidendum’ est, ‘familia ubi uersetur, si fessi opere aut frigore aut calore, ubi commodissime possint se quiete reciperare’ (I. 13. 1). Talis dominus etiam curabit, ut ‘hieme antelucanis temporibus’ serui ‘aliquot res conficere et cibum parare et capere’ possint loco calidissimo uillae (cf. Verg. Georg. I. 287–310), sed situe hie locus longe an prope a cella uilici, nihil ad rem pertinet.

When the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Vol. IX. No. 1174) of Sophocles' 'ІΧνενταí gave the forms κννηγ[Έ]σω (first aor. subj.), 1. 44 in Fragmenta Tragica Papyracea, and ΈκκννηγΈσαι, 1. 75, it restored to light a verb which is not acknowledged in the Lexicons, but which had remained, though almost unnoticed, in Phrynichus, Soph. Propar. in Bekker's Anecdota I. p. 48, and Theognostus' Canons in Cramer's Anecdota Oxoniensia II. p. 143. The form could not come from κννηγετΕîν, nor from the Hellenistic verb κννηγεîν, and attention was first drawn to these two authorities by P. Maas in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1912, p. 1075, and by J. Stahl in Rhein. Mus. Vol. LXVIII. p. 307 (also by L. O. Tudeer in Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia = Annales Academicae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B. Vol. XIV.). I owe these references to Mr. Stuart Jones.

What was Agamemnon's political position in Greece? Was he only king of Mycenae and territory adjoining it, or had he in addition a suzerainty over the rest of the Peloponnesus? Was he sovereign in the whole of the Peloponnesus? Did he exercise any supremacy over, and especially can he be described as king or emperor of, Mycenaean Greece and its islands? In regard to the expedition against Troy, did he command it by virtue of a dominion over the whole of Greece, or was he selected for the position for some special reason, as his relationship to Helen or his pre-eminence in power over the other Achaean princes?

In a general account of this Livian MS. given in the Classical Review of 1904 (Vol. XVIII. p. 392) I dealt more especially with the text of the first decade; now that my study of its text of the third decade is completed, it is possible to give a brief estimate of its importance and interest in this portion also.

In the April number of the Quarterly Mr. Pearson discussed seversal passages of the Rhesus. On two of these I wish to offer a few observations.

Rhesus 250 sqq.

ἒσΤı ιΦρνῶν Τις

ἒσΤιν ἄ;λκιμος ἒν δè θράσος

έν αίχμὃ· ποτì Μνσ⋯ν ὃς Êμν

σνμμαχíαν άτíζζι