A Page of this MS, which however I discovered independently, is reproduced by M. Chatelain in his Paléographie des Classiques Latins, and for an account of the codex I refer to vol. ii. p. 11 of that work. The volume consists of four parts: (1) Juvenal, ff. 1–47; (2) Persius, ff. 48–59; (3) Horace, ff. 60–93; (4) Juvenal, ff. 94–113. This last part contains Sat. i. 1–ii. 66, iii. 32–vi. 437, i.e. two intermediate leaves, the two outside double leaves of the first quire of eight, of 34 lines on a page, have been lost. The quires b and c are disordered. Foil. 94v–97 contain i. 1–ii. 66, ff. 98–105, v. 98–vi. 437, ff. 106–113, iii. 32–v. 97.

In Hermathena, vol. xiv., pp. 338–359, Professor Charles Exon attempts to prove that the nom. and dat.-abl. pi. of deus were disyllabic in Plautus. The argument upon which he lays most stress is briefly this: Plautus uses iambic words shortened by the law of breves breviantes in the thesis (i.e., the accented part of the foot) of iambic and trochaic verse about twice as often as he does in the arsis, whereas the long monosyllable cor occurs in dialogue with equal frequency in both parts of the foot. In this respect the nom. pl. of deus agrees with the shortened iambi, and should therefore, he thinks, be considered one of them.

⋯κολούθησις which has most MS. authority, may very well be right, though it expresses an action or course of conduct rather than a condition of mind. But ⋯κολουθο⋯σα would seem possible. Is not some word lost parallel to ὑπομενητικ⋯ and governing the genitive το⋯ ὑποληφθ⋯ντος, e.g. ⋯ποτελεστικ⋯, which occurs a few lines below (πιλοπον⋯α ἓξις ⋯ποτελεστικ⋯ οὗ ἂν προ⋯ληται)? The genitive has at present no construction.

The line is preserved in a passage of Consentius ‘De Barbarismis et Metaplasmis’ (Keil's Gramm. Lat. v. p. 400, 9): sicut Lucilius ‘ore corupto’; dempsit enim unam litteram per metaplasmum, r; et Ennius ‘huic statuam,’ etc.

When Caesar sailed to Britain in 55 b.c. he was obliged to leave behind eighteen transports which had his cavalry on board and had been prevented by adverse winds from joining the rest of the fleet. These vessels, like those which carried the infantry, were of native Gallic build, and were doubtless sailed by Gallic seamen, who were familiar with the conditions of navigation in the Channel. On the fourth day after Caesar landed in Britain they set sail with a light breeze. All went well until they were approaching the British coast and were descried from the Roman camp when, as Caesar says,

‘such a violent storm suddenly arose that none of them could keep their course, but some were carried back to the point from which they had started, while the others were swept down in great peril to the lower and more westerly part of the island. They anchored notwithstanding, but as they were becoming waterlogged, were forced to stand out to sea in the face of night, and make for the continent.’

li. 1. tu istic habes Aetnam †et illuc nobilissimum Siciliae montem.

Chatelain's editum ac is almost certainly on the right road. But editum seems a little feeble: inclitum would be a good deal better, arid very easy palaeographically, if we bear in mind the probability of the first syllable's being absorbed in the last letter of Aetnam. But an adjective linked with a superlative like nobilissimum ought, if not itself a superlative, at any rate to have somewhat similar force: eximium would satisfy this condition. The confusion of i or single strokes of u and m with l is not uncommon in these MSS.: cp. esp. 47. 10, where all have illis for the necessary uis which Macrobius gives.

In a recently-published work of much learning and great interest, La Frontière de l'Euphrate de Pompée à la Conquète Arabe (Paris, Fontemoing, 1907), M. Victor Chapot has dealt at some length with the history of the eastern legions. But neither he, nor, so far as I can find, any other writer, has attempted to fix their camps with full regard to chronology, and many points have been left uncertain. Although there is little direct evidence—less than for any other part of the Roman Empire—it may be possible to construct with reasonable probability a more exact military map of the eastern frontier.

Since P. Thielscher, in Philologus, 1907, pp. 117, 128, supplies us with information about the Manilian MS. Palatinus 1711 (P), the importance of which he himself does not seem to comprehend, I should like to point out what an interesting MS. this is. ‘It is to be suspected,’ says Thielscher, ‘that it offers interpolated readings.’ It is not a matter of ‘suspicion’ at all. If Thielscher did not know it for himself, he could have learnt from Scaliger (1600), from Bentley, from Jacob, that the readings of P long ago received sufficient publicity to enable scholars to assign it to the ‘ interpolated’ class of MSS. The Variae Lectiones of Junius (1589) is mostly occupied with the readings of P, and tells us all about P that we need know, save what Thielscher has himself added. From Thielscher we for the first time learn that P belonged to ‘Johannes Archiepiscopus Strigoniensis,’ and that it contains this subscription: ‘legi et emendaui cum magistro Galeotto 1469.’ Now just as Thielscher seems to know nothing of Junius, so he seems to have no idea who Johannes Strigoniensis is, though the reference to Galeotto and the year 1469 should at once have told him. If he had troubled to look at Schmitt's Archiepiscopi he would have found that, while Schmitth enumerates no less than six archbishops of Gran who bore the name John, yet the only one of them who fits the date 1469 is John IV. And John IV. is a famous person, being none other than that leader of the Hungarian Renaissance whom we commonly call Vitezius.

Among the objects discovered in the excavation of the temple of Athena Chalkioikos at Sparta is a small bronze figure of a trumpeter (illustrated in the Annual of the British School at Athens, xiii p. 146). Mr. Dickins, who says that the figure ‘can be dated without hesitation in the middle of the fifth century,’ regards ‘the presence of a trumpeter as a dedication in Sparta as perplexing, because the Spartans marched to battle to the sound of flutes, and made no use of trumpets for martial music’. This is, I think, the view generally held. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a possible reason for the dedication of the trumpeter at the date, which the style of the work suggests.

When a man has breathed his last, do particles of the soul remain in the body or do they not? If they do, the soul, thus impaired by loss, cannot fairly be deemed immortal; if they do not, whence come the living creatures which are bred in carcases?

Amongst the readings of the Parisian codex collated by Mr. Stuart (supra pp. 1–7) which he classes as interpolations is one whose singularity at once arrests attention. In the well-known passage, I. 113 sqq., where all known MSS. including P have

etsi, funesta Pecunia, templo

nondum habitas, nullas nummorum ereximus aras,

ut colitur Pax atque Fides Victoria Virtus

quaeque salutato crepitat Concordia nido,

II presents firma instead of atque.