F is Milan, Ambrosianus 120 (B 98 sup.);. foll. III. (paper) + 227 (parchment); cmm. 25, 1 × 17, 8, with thirty lines to the page; cent. early XV. Contents: ff. 1v–125v, Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, with marginal and interlinear scholia; followed by his Life. 127, Batrachomyomachia. 132v, Pseudo-Herodotus, Life of Homer. 142v Maximus of Tyre, πῶς <ἄν> τις ἄλνπος ἐἲη (Dissert. XXXIV. Dübner). 145, Orpheus, Argonautica. 168v, ἐπήκοοι καἰ πρòς ἑρπετἀ, i.e. Orpheus, Lithica, Il. 91–110, 115–140, 145–171, 176–202, 207–233, 238–266, 271–300, 305–332, 337–364, 369–398, 467–498, 500–531, 533–564, 566–774. 178v–209r, Homeric Hymns III.–XXXIII. 209r, ‘Homeric’ epigram εἰς ξένους (Hom. Epigr. I. Baum.). 209r–227v, Callimachus, Hymns, with marginal and interlinear scholia. 227V, four lines (ύμνῶ τòν έψίζυγον…τὴν παλαιτέ-ραν). The manuscript is bound in leather. Marks of gatherings are lacking from the Callimachean portion. All the writing is in the same small and very neat hand. Ligatures abound. In the text, final letters (one, two, or three together, in full or abbreviated forms) are frequently written above those which precede them; in the same position, but in the middle of a word, α and abbreviated εν appear frequently; αι, ε, σ or ς, and abbreviated ον and ας, rarely. Iota subscr. is not regularly employed. Horizontal supralinear strokes are used 38 times to indicate names of persons. The scribe was a careful copyist. His major errors, not found in the common stock either of the manuscripts in general or of the z group, nor shared with G and H, number only 25 (permutation of letters, 7; omission and insertion of letters, 15; mis-division of words, 3); his minor, 43 (including 35 of accent).

Cordus, who gave Pompey's body decent burial, is apostrophizing Fortune: Pompey asks no splendid burial, no incense, no loyal Roman shoulders to carry the father of his country, no funeral procession displaying mementos of former triumphs, no solemn music in the fora, no mourning army circling about the pyre and casting their arms in it.

Among the writings of Isocrates the discourse ‘on the Peace’ ranks second only to the Panegyricus. Apart from its literary merits and historical importance, an additional interest attaches to this work, because it is one of the few classical writings of which an early papyrus in a fair state of preservation has come to light.

In E.N. I. c. 5 Aristotle is considering divers views as to what constitutes Eudaimonia. He told us in c. 4, 2–3 that there are many conflicting opinions on the subject. The Many identify Happiness with some palpable good, such as pleasure, wealth, honour, but the Wise identify it with something beyond the Many, while [Plato] denied it to be any specific good at all. Of all these views we should (§ 4, cf. Michelet, p. 20) consider such as (i.) have many adherents or (ii.) are considered to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Universal Good is considered in c. 6 after consideration in c. 5 of five particular goods—pleasure in the form of bodily pleasure, honour, wealth, virtue [and, implied in the theoretic Life, wisdom]. These five goods are brought into relation with four Lives—viz. pleasure with the apolaustic; honour and virtue with the political; [wisdom] with the theoretic; wealth with the business or money-making Life; and the first three Lives are called προέχοντες. There is nothing in this introduction of the Lives to astonish us; for, as Aristotle himself tells us, τò ἀληθὲς ἐν τοȋς πρακτικοȋς ἐκ τῶν ἔργων καὶ τοû βίου κρίνεται (1179a 18). But there is much difference of opinion as to the argument he draws from the Lives. According to the view now submitted for consideration, the argument is that when a specific good, which some suppose to be Eudaimonia, is also the end of a ‘pre-eminent’ Life, then there is some prima facie probability in the view that that specific good is Eudaimonia.

Readers of Phaedrus will have noticed that the rhythm of III. Ep. 34, Palam muttire plebeio piaculum est is unique. Nowhere else does he admit a molossus-word before the final metron of the iambic senarius, and he only admits it here because he is quoting a line from the Telephus of Ennius. Since a scholar whose opinion deserves respect proposes to introduce this rhythm into a reconstruction of a fragment of Laberius it seems worth while to examine its history in order to see how and why it was used, before it was finally banned. For Seneca, like Phaedrus, banns it entirely. The question has already been considered by Klotz, Grundzüge Altrömischer Metrik, pp. 324 sqq.; W. M. Lindsay, Captiui (large edition), p. 66; Havet, Métrique, 276 (though the treatment there is too short to be satisfactory); and by T. Hingst in his inaugural dissertation De Spondeis et Anapaestis in antepaenultimo pede uersuum generis duplicis Latinorum, Leipzig, 1904.

An enumeration of the emendations and interpretations of these verses would fill the space necessary for a whole article. Consequently, I shall proceed at once to a consideration of what I conceive to be the correct restoration of the passage.

The last word of verse 601, ἀνάριθμος, is evidently genuine, and is accepted by all scholars. The preceding word, μήλων, has been changed to μηνῶν. Jebb regards this as a certain correction, for ‘in no other way can ἀνάριθμος be justified.’ That is true, if the adjective is to be taken with ἐγώ (as it is by all scholars); but, in my opinion, it agrees with χρόνος. Cf. ἀνάριθμος χρόνος (Schol.), O.C. 617 ὁ μριος χρόνος, Ai. 712 ὁ μέγας χρόνος. As we shall see, it is added as a reinforcement to παλαιός to convey the notion that the months seemed numberless because they were so cheerless. Cf. O. T. 561 μακρὶ παλαιοί τ' ༂ν μετρηθεῖεν χρόνοι.

In my article in the last number of the Class. Quart., dealing with Apuleius glosses in the ‘Abolita’ Glossary, there should have been, on p. 41, a note explaining the gloss ‘Aerugo: sanguisuga’ (p. 86, 10);

What has happened to give the item this form? Perhaps the original entries were as follows:

‘Aerugo: <?>’ (Met. 1. 21).

‘<Hirudo>: sanguisuga’ (? Met. 6, 26).

‘Aerugo’ must have been altered to ‘Herugo,’ and through confusion the two glosses became merged in one.

Fordvs is usually regarded as containing the root of fero bher- ‘carry’; i.e. fordus stands for *foridus ‘pregnant’, like Gr. ϕορóν -óν in medical writers. Its by-form hordus therefore is held to be a dialect form, and was according to that view rightly assigned by Conway, along with some other and quite certain examples of pure Latin f- = dial. h- for I.-Eu. bh- (or dh-), to one of the dialects of the Latinian group; Conway's choice fell upon Faliscan, but that is a different question from the one under discussion.