(A hard struggle with the Volsci.) Restitere primo obstinatis animis; deinde ut obtinentes locum †uires ferebant† audent ultro gradum inferre.

At the request of the Classical Journals Board we have undertaken for the present to edit this Journal. In so doing we confidently rely upon the co-operation of those who have hitherto been contributors, as well as of others who may be in a position to assist us.

Contr. I. The characters of this declamation are two brothers, at deadly enmity with each other, and the son of one of them, who, when his uncle is reduced to beggary, supports him in spite of his father′s prohibition. Disowned by the latter, he is adopted by his uncle, who presently grows rich—at the very moment when his brother loses everything. The young man again reveals his tender-heartedness, supports the unfortunate man in the face of his adopted father′s orders, and is once more disowned. He pleads his case before a jury.

Cf. Aeschines Ctes. 148, ‘ mirrored,’ says Prof. R. B. Richardson ad loc, ‘ in Plut. Dem. 20, ’ Philostratus Vit. Apoll. v 24, , where the context shews the meaning to be ‘ a small part of a day,’ not ‘a little day,’ Lucian Hermotimus 54, where again the meaning is decisively ‘part of a day.’ The Aeschines passage is not quite so clear, but certainly is naturally taken in the same way.

No one probably feels tempted to deny that our best authority for the text of the Tragedies is the Etruscus, E (Laurentianus 37.13), but the authority relatively due to the interpolated tradition A is still a matter of dispute. Leo indeed (vol. i. p. 4) professed to deny all authority to the evidence of A, even where E is manifestly corrupt. But we should be justified in doing this only if the interpolator of A had based his edition on the text of E, and the text of E had suffered no corruptions subsequent to the making of the A edition. That this is so there is not the least reason to suppose. Peiper therefore was right in requiring for his apparatus criticus an account of the pure A text, though neither he nor Richter took the trouble to search out the oldest and best MSS of the A tradition out of the three hundred or more available.

Callimachus Aitia (Ox. Pap. 1011) 82–85. I cannot quite get this right to my satisfaction, but it must have been something like:ΠλΧσεΨΜλ

That Isidore′s etymological encyclopaedia should still remain to be edited seems strange at first sight; a book which makes a bridge between ancient and modern learning, and gives us a picture of the arts and sciences in Spain in the seventh century. Arevalo′s edition (in Migne′s Patrologia Latina) has a fair text, but practically no apparatus criticus; Otto′s (in Lindemann′s Grammatici Latini) offers the variants of a few worthless MSS. to support a very poor text. Since Otto′s, published some eighty years ago, there have been promises of editions, but no actual edition.