το⋯το τ⋯ς καθ⋯ρσεως. Perhaps τò τ⋯ς κ. Cf. 3. 59. I τò τ⋯ς ξυμφορ⋯ς: 6. 60.4 τò τ⋯ν ‘Eρμ⋯ν

Daphnis has taunted Aphrodite with Anchises; he goes on to Adonis as a still greater disgrace. ‘Fair is Adonis also,though he is only a shepherd, not even an oxherd.’ ⋯πε⋯ is common enough in this sense in latish writers, or we may supply an ellipse : ‘I mention Adonis, because—’ Then the reference to his hunting is also intended to vex her; Daphnis speaks ironically, as if he did not know that Adonis was killed while hunting.

The study of post-Aristotelian philosophy is constantly confused by the perplexing way in which the names of philosophers recur. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, is sufficiently well known not be confused with either Zeno the Eleatic or the later Stoic, Zeno of Tarsus, a disciple of Chrysippus; but when we come to less distinguished names the opportunity of error is greater. If two philosophers of the same name are prominent members of different schools, there ought to be no obscurity, but in an age of eclecticism one school will sometimes adopt doctrines from another, and so make classification difficult.

The words χρ⋯ and δεῖ with their inflectional and dialectic variations, are less definite and stable in their semantic range than the other Greek expressions for the general ideas of necessity, obligation, or propriety. Their semantic boundaries varied with the dialect, province of literature, and period–which cannot, indeed, be entirely separated. From Homer to Aristotle there is a steady trend, so plain that the slight notice taken of it is rather surprising. Everyone sees that the two are sometimes differentiated; yet it seems to be loosely taken for granted that they are substantially equivalent, and that either may, almost anywhere, be taken as an equivalent of the verbal in -τ⋯ος. The statements in Liddell and Scott under χρ⋯ present an admirable confusion of all periods and styles, and J. H. H. Schmidt, with no mention of dates, makes a distinction that resembles a reversal of the true relation.

Neither Prof. Ellis in his Appendix Vergiliana (Oxonii, 1907) nor Prof. Vollmer in his edition of the same (Lipsiae, 1910), though the latter gives a long list of MSS, makes any mention of a Luxemburg MS containing the Moretum. The MS is numbered 27 (M. 9. 16), is of the twelfth century, and was formerly in the library of a monastery at Orval (Aurea Vallis). The Luxemburg collection is not as well known as it ought to be. A catalogue of the MSS was published in 1894 by the then custodian N. van Werveke, but the small number of copies issued does not seem to have fallen into the hands of those most interested. I have to thank the present librarian, Dr. d'Huart, for his kindness to me on the occasion of my recent visit to the library.

ὃσον κατ’ ⋯ρχ⋯ς το⋯ πολ⋯μου οἱ μ⋯ν ⋯νιαυτ⋯ν, οἱ δ⋯ δ⋯ο,οἱ δ⋯ τρι⋯ν γε ⋯τ⋯ν οὐδε⋯ς πλε⋯ω χρ⋯μιζον περο⋯σειν αὐτοὺς, εἰ οἱ Πελοπονν⋯σιοι ⋯σβ⋯λοιεν ⋯ς τ⋯ν χώραν.

In recent years important contributions to the interpretation of the eighth book of Lucan have been made by Professor Postgate (C.Q., vol. I., pp. 75–79, 216–222), and by Mr.J.D.Duff (Journ.of Phil., vol. XXXII., pp.125–135).The following notes make a further attempt to solve some of the many problems presented by the book.

Owing to the illegibility of parts of the Fronto palimpsest and the carelessness of its first editor, Cardinal Mai, it was impossible, even after the critical labours of Niebuhr and his colleagues, to come to any satisfactory conclusion as to the chronology of the Letters. But the edition of S. A. Naber in 1867, which had the advantage of a fresh collation of the MS. by G. N. Du Rieu, further reinforced subsequently by a new examination of the Codex due to W. Studemund, held out a better prospect of success. The labours of C. Brakman in the same direction, published in 1902, have also thrown fresh light upon the subject. Yet the critical world has long been awaiting the appearance of the authoritative recension by Professor E. Hauler of Vienna, who has spent infinite pains over a further, and what may well be a final, inspection of the Codex. A great desideratum, which it is much to be hoped that the new edition will supply, is an exact indication, as far as may be, of the extent of each lacuna in pages, lines, words, or letters. A knowledge of how much is lost in each case is essential for the true understanding of the sequence of thought and time in what remains.

There are two undoubted instances of this use of Neaera in Prudentius which are cited by Mr. Ullman in support of his contention that in Horace another proper name may be similarly employed. I imagine however that to an unprejudiced sense of Latin usage these instances will themselves seem to be strange and in need of explanation.

IN the heroic Latin hexameter, after the essential alternation of long and short syllables, by far the most important feature is unquestionably the caesura. Nevertheless, ancient writers on metre dismiss it with the most cursory notice; all we get from them is that the chief caesura is the penthemimeral, the trochaic and hephthemimeral coming next; the fourth trochaic and the bucolic are usually rejected, and the trihemimeral is mentioned only by Ausonius, Modern writers, among whom are Müller and Winbolt, deal with the question at greater length, but do not agree even on fundamental points, and often base their statements on an insufficient analysis of the extant remains of Latin hexameter verse. The purpose of the following paper is to attempt a more complete analysis, at least in the case of Virgil, the acknowledged master of the Latin hexameter. But before we proceed further there are two preliminaries which must be settled—what are the main types of caesura, and how many caesurae are admissible in one verse?

This old difficulty has recently received a new explanation from the pen of Dr. E. G. Hardy (Roman Laws and Charters, pp. 133 sqq.). Dr. Hardy believes—and his view has met with some acceptance—that the disability, under which these Gallic candidates for admission to the Senate laboured, was the want of a municipalis origo. Up to this time, he contends, only Romans who were members of a town of Roman or Latin rights were eligible for admission to the Senate. Now in the Tres Galliae there were practically no such towns: these Gallic chiefs possessed the ciuitas individually by special grant and not as members of any municipality. Hence the door of the curia was closed to them while it was open to Romans from Lugdunum or Vienna.