The recently issued volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Part XI.) contains new and important fragments from the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women; and the two substantial pieces grouped as No. 1358 are particularly welcome as shedding light upon two rather obscure sections of that work—the γης περlόδος, and the history of the Sons of Europa and Zeus. It goes without saying that the editors' treatment of these fragments is in every way admirable; and I trust it will not be regarded as an impertinence if I endeavour to restore a few lines which they have refrained from completing, and to offer an alternative reconstruction of a somewhat difficult passage.

In a previous article I have cited these lines in support of my emendation ‘Ηλεκτρατον for the MS. text Ηλεκτρα τοκν, v. 1075. With Jebb I tacitly agreed that the word-order ωδ’ ακορεστον οίμωγáν was correct. The metre of vv. 138–9 οντε γools ορτε λίταίσιν must therefore be defective.

Many critics have condemned, some have defended, Euripides for composing a play ‘altogether wanting in the satisfaction which nothing but a unity of ideas could produce.’ It helps us little to marvel, with Paley, at the ‘obtuseness of critics who forsooth prefer “unity of ideas” to profoundly moving incidents, etc.,’ though it may be admitted that Paley has detected part of the truth when he calls attention to the importance of the fact that Athens is, throughout the play, the only possible asylum for the hero. Verrall's analysis has the merit that it attempts to account for the play as a whole, but it is hard to believe that the Athenian audience was composed of subtle critics, endowed with Verrall's ingenuity and acumen. Still, though it is easy to disagree with Verrall, it is less easy to give the reasons for one's disagreement. In detail one can say: ‘The straightforward and obvious sense of the words is adequate; the subtle suggestion is not likely to have occurred to an audience which had never heard of Schlegel or of Swinburne.’ That leaves us with the fact that the impression made on most of us by the whole work is not one of formal perfection. To most readers there seem to be three episodes, each excellent, but not intimately connected with the other two: in the first we are concerned for the fate of the tyrant Lycus, and rejoice at his just destruction; in the second we are moved by the sudden reversal in the fortunes of the beneficent Heracles; and in the third we are impressed by the magnanimity, and, perhaps, delighted with the Athenian connections, of the excellent Theseus. There is a good deal of talk which we ascribe to the tendency of Euripides to make his characters the mouthpieces for current debate. There are choral odes which we think charming, but, on the whole and as a rule, slightly irrelevant to the main ‘incidents.’ My purpose in this paper is to suggest, first, that the audience was occupied with certain quite familiar ideas upon which Euripides has built his play, and was, therefore, not at leisure to catch at subtleties of detail, suggestions, ambiguities, ironies, points of logic and of lack of logic, such as Verrall emphasizes; and, secondly, that if we also remember these ideas, we shall find both unity in the construction and relevance in the choral odes.

‘The populace,’ says Menelaus, ‘when roused to anger, is difficult to deal with; but if when it rages one slacks the sheet, watching an opportunity, the storm may blow itself out. And when it moderates its blasts, one may easily win one's will of it. It is capable of pity and nobility, qualities most precious to one who bides his time.’

Heracles had gone to Arcadia to fetch the Erymanthian boar; when he had just returned he heard of the voyage of Argo, and, hastily depositing the boar at Mycenae, departed to join Jason without the knowledge of Eurystheus. λυρκήιον Αργος άμείψας is supposed to mean ‘having come to Lyrceian Argos’. But, first, άμείβω Αργος ought not to mean ‘I come to Argos’; άμείβω and άμείβομαι alike mean either change or pass or leave; enter they do not mean. The lexica quote passages as meaning enter which do not mean any such thing; Θύρας or βαλόν άμείβω is ‘I pass’ the door or threshold, πόλιν έκπόλεως άμείβω or άμείβομαι is ‘I change one city for another,’ άμείβομαι έρκοςόδότων ‘I pass the hedge of the teeth,’ and so on. Until I see an instance of it I shall not believe that πόλιν άμείβω can mean merely I enter or come to a city. Nor can we take it to mean pass in this place, because the road from Arcadia to Mycenae does not pass Argos. Secondly, what is Lyrceian Argos ? Whether a river or a mountain be implied by Lyrceian, it is not a Greek expression; we do not speak of Hymettian Athens or Cephisian Athens, of Cithaeronian or Asopian Thebes or Boeotia. There is indeed found the expression Πηλιωτιν 'Ιωλκόν in Euripides, Medea 484, and the scholiast on iv. 131 says that Τιτνίδος Αίης means Aea of the river Titen, referring to Eratosthenes as his authority for the river, but no one else knows anything about it, and it is more than probable that Mr. Mooney is right in regarding it with suspicion.

The bear, says Hierocles, is aware that its head is easily injured, and instinctively uses its paws as a protection. The three following lines in the papyrus are badly damaged– καν εί π.ε … δεηθεί Του | βαλανεíον <lacuna of twenty letters> κρημν | πáλιν ύ;β <nineteen letters> εθεíησιν ε | αυΤήν. This is followed by a description of what the bear does when it is pursued and comes to a precipice. It inflates itself (άσκώ βοιήσασα πεπνενμαΤωμéνώ παραπλήσíαν) and trusts to the inflation to break its fall. It is hardly possible to restore the damaged lines. Von Arnim thinks that the sense required is: ‘wenn die Bärin, vom Jäger verfolgt, eines Bades bedarf oder auf ihrer Flucht an einen Abgrund kommt,πáλιν ύπ<оστéψασα έπì τоùς δικоντας> èψίησιν εαψτήν’ But a sensible bear would hardly think of taking a bath when pursued by the hunter. It might take to the water; but the Greek for this would be somewhat different. As I read the passage, there is no reference to the bear as pursued by the hunter till line 34, where I would read πоιεî δè τò τοιóνδε <δικομéνμ>, since the phrase εί δ υν διοκμéνμ in line 38 is resumptive, and implies that the pursuit must have been alluded to before. But before line 35 H. is only describing what the bear does to protect its head in the ordinary routine of its life when it is not harassed by the hunter. It wants a bath, and finds that it cannot reach the water without clambering down an overhanging bank (ϰρημνóς) It will not climb down head foremost, but guards its head by sliding backwards down the bank. As the bear would want its bath because it was hot, it is perhaps not too hazardous to conjecture that some phrase such as ϰℵν ει π<ι>ε<ζομéν πνíγηι δεμθεíν του β. should find its place in line 31.

The following note s have been made during a long-continued study of Aeneid vii. (and viii.), with a constantly growing conviction of the priority of these books in point of composition. They deal with internal evidence and literary correspondences only. Examination of the metre has not produced any very definite results, so when I note d in one of the most recent articles on Vergilian metre z the statement that ‘a comparison and analysis of the separate books of the Aeneid does not give any results worthy of note ’ (with an exception that has not much bearing on this investigation), it seemed that these note s might appear without further waiting, though their argument is almost entirely subjective.

When we read the Latin Grammarians' Rules of Prosody, we are puzzled now and then. (They are to be found in the Prosody-sections of Keil's Grammatici Latini, and deal mainly with the Dactylic Hexameter and with Virgil.) One thing that puzzles us is their silence about the features of difference between Latin Prosody and Greek. They often seem to take it for granted that Virgil's Prosody is identical with Homer's. This point of view is perhaps not surprising, since these Grammatici often speak of Latin as a mere dialect of Greek (Charisius 292, 16 K. ‘cum ab omni sermone Graeco Latina lingua pendere uideatur’; Diomede 3II, 3 ‘cum ab omni sermone Graeco Latina loquella pendere uideatur’). But it has its disadvantages. Every scholboy knows that moeniă Troiae is as natural in Virgil as TєίεΧεă Τροίηs would be unnatural in Homer; and every school-manual of Latin Prosody confines its examples of a Mute and Liquid (1) lengthening, (2) not lengthening a preceding syllable to examples of a Mute and Liquid in the middle of a word. If it mentions Catullus' impotenti̅ freta, it calls this a Greek, not a Latin type. Not so the Grammatici. Diomede's examples of a short syllable before FR, FL are (429, 3 K):

ore fremebant talia flammato.

This well-known passage refers to the growth of latifundia, a symptom of Rome's decadence. In v. 170 ignotis is generally taken to mean ‘unknown to the owners,’ and thus, it seems to me, the point of the passage is missed. There is a double antithesis; longa is contrasted with breuίa, parua, and ίgnotίs with notίs, ίnlustrίbus, or the like. The latter antithesis is implied in Camίllί, Curίorum; the other is left to be understood. In the good old days farms were small, but were cultivated by the most eminent citizens, men like Camillus and Curius Dentatus; now these small farms are combined to form latίfundίa, managed by nobodies (ίgnotίs), whether slaves or tenant farmers. The juxta-position of longa and sub ίgnotίs is intentional.

The Teubner edition of Festus de Verborum Significatu had scarcely appeared when Professor Anspach announced (in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung of November 29, 1913) his discovery of a MS. of Isidore's Etymologies (A 18 of the Vallicelli Library, Rome) with some Scholia taken from Festus. Last Easter, in the limited time at my disposal, I transcribed from the MS. the greater part of this Isidore Commentary and, later, received a transcript of the remainder from Abbe Liebaert some weeks before his death. Although hampered by the deficiencies of our University Library, I am unwilling to keep this new evidence any longer from students of Festus.

J. A. J. Drewitt, The -σσ- Forms in Homer. The writer would show that the doubling of the σ is metrical and due to ‘the stress of the arsis’. He thinks that in the case of Άχιλλενς and Όδνσενς forms like Άχιληος and Όδνσσος arose through cross associations by the side of the correct ones Άχιλληος Όδνσος. B. O. Foster, The Trojan War Again. Defends Van Leeuwen's theories against the attacks of Prof. John Scott. The events of the original Iliad fell into a single year; the passages which mention or appear to presuppose a ten years' war are either interpolated or inconclusive. A. L. Forthingham, Grabovius-Gradivus. Plan and Pomerium of Iguvium. Grabovius is to be equated to Gradivus as the moving, marching god. The basis of the templum, arx and city of Iguvium was the triangular form. John C. Rolfe, The so-called callium prouincia. Discusses the problems arising out of the passages cited by the Thesaurus under this heading, Tac. Ann. 4. 27 ’Curtius Lupus quaestor cui prouincia uetere ex more calles (‘Cales’ Lipsius) euenerant,’ Suet. ltd. 19 ‘prouinciae… minimi negotii, i.e. siluae callesque,’ Q. Curt. 3. 4. 5 being rejected as irrelevant.