Thus far, discarding such manuscripts as are copies of printed editions, we have arrived at the following grouping:

1. The group x (= ABCK), in which K is a copy of A, and B of C, while A and C are brothers, the former being only slightly superior to the latter.

2. SQq. Here Q is a copy of S, whose borrowings from Politian it incorporated. Q added some readings from C or K, and scholia and other readings from a manuscript of the Ee stock; and after Q had received these additions, q was in turn copied from Q.

3. IID. Mr. Allen thinks it possible that, for the Homeric Hymns, these two are not direct copies of the same manuscript; and his conclusions may be accepted as indicating their mutual kinship in regard to Callimachus also. D's lost Callimachean portion gave some readings to Politian's text of Hymn V., and is in part represented by J. Lascaris' editio princeps of all six Hymns.

4.Ee, found to be brothers.

5. The group z (= FAtGHAIBr). Here At appears to be a brother of F; and F stands apart from the z2 section ( = GHAIBr), being nearer than they to xSTLDEe. Among the z2 manuscripts, Br is a copy of I, which is itself separated from GHA; this trio seem, on the imperfect evidence at hand, to be brothers.

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).

Schanz never edited either the Parmenides or the Philebus. For the former we have minute collations of B and T in Waddell's edition, but the readings of W are still unknown. As, however, Wilamowitz has no suggestions to make about the text of the Parmenides, this does not matter for our present purpose. It seems that this dialogue was transcribed with special care just because of its difficulty. At any rate, its text is remarkably good. For the Philebus I published the readings of T for the first time, and I have now procured a photograph of W in this dialogue from Vienna. Mr. R. G. Bury's edition was an anachronism. Though he published it in 1897, he had apparently never heard of the manuscript T. In his note entitled The Text of the Philebus (pp. lxxxii sqq.) he attributes to Schanz a view of the relation between the MSS. which that editor had recanted just twenty years earlier. Except for a few corrections regarding the readings of B (which he calls Cl.), Mr. Bury's own apparatus criticus is merely a reprint of Bekker's, which was published in 1823. For the Symposium we have Schoene's collation of W, which I was able to use in my second edition, and I have now a photograph of that MS. in the Phaedrus too.

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.

There is a general agreement among English scholars as to the meaning and derivation of these strange words: Merry and Riddell ad loc., the admirable article in Liddell and Scott, and Dr. Giles, agree in connecting ѵ⋯ποδες with nepos, neptis, ⋯νεψιóς. The short ο in the declension has come from false analogy with τρíπουε and τετρ⋯ποѵς, 'Aλοσύδѵη is probably for 'Aλοσύνδη ‘salt water.’ Other derivations of ѵ⋯ποδѵς refute themselves. ‘Brood’ is the rendering now approved, but although this gives the general sense, it does not quite hit the centre; and no critics have seen the reason for the choice of this peculiar word.

I have to apologize to my readers for two passages in which my corrections of the proof-sheets were misunderstood. In V. 21 for ‘flauum’ read ‘florum’; in the note on VV. 72, 73 I suggested an alternative reconstruction of the text, viz. to take V. 72 (‘peruium,’ etc.) as the fourth line of stanza 16, the verb in the second clause of the stanza being still ‘gubernat’; in that case the missing line was the first verse of stanza 17, and I suggest for it ‘Ipsa corpus omne pollens nuptiali gaudio.’ On the whole I now prefer this version.

May I add that it now seems to me very possible that the ‘Fiam ut’ of 5 in v. 95 is a correction of a damaged ‘Pipiat’ ‘chirps’ ? P and F axe exceedingly alike in uncial writing, and, as Mr. Rackham points out to me, the first Pi- may well have disappeared by lipography; if that happened, ‘Fiat’ remained, and the addition of a line over the a and of an m produced the reading found in S.

In v. 17 a better line results if ‘Praenitent’ is substituted for ‘Enitent’ and ‘Apertae’ for ‘Pulchrae’; and vv. 63, 64 are clearer as ‘Tune cruore de superno pontus undas turbidus Deque uiro defluente,’ etc.

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.

I have never been able to swallow the explanation that this means οίσθ' ὃ τɩ ἒστɩ τ⋯ν κακ⋯ν ⋯ποῖον κ.τ.λ. The order of words is dead against it, since Zεύς ought to be in the ⋯ποῖον clause; it may be safely said that there is no shadow of a parallel to such an order in Sophocles, and probably not in anyone else either. Look at line 2 by itself and consider whether any hearer could possibly suppose that δτɩ Ζεὺς could mean anything but ‘that Zeus’ is doing or will do something or other. So Aristophanes seems to have thought; in a passage crammed with reminiscences of tragedy he declaims (Birds 1246):

ἆρ' οἶσθ' ὃτɩ Ζεύς εἳ με λυπήσεɩ πέρα μέλαθρα μ⋯ν αύτο⋯ κα⋯ δόμοѵς' AμΦ⋯ονος καταɩθαλώσω πυρΦόροɩσѵν ⋯ετοῖς;

Moreover, I flatly deny that οἶσθ' ⋯ τɩ κακ⋯ν όποῖον ού τελεῖ is possible Greek even when the order has been corrected. οὐĸ οἶδα ὃστɩς τ⋯ν ‘Eλλήνων όποῖος ούκ ᾀπαρνοῖτ’ ἂѵ τοȖτο μ⋯ οὺκ εἶναɩ ⋯ληθ⋯ς. Just look at it!

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.

No part ot Plato's writings has been more debated than the three similes in Books VI.-VII. of the Republic, and still there is a diversity of opinion about their meaning. I believe that most of these difficulties arise from certain assumptions about their purpose which need revision. The current view applies the Cave to the Line, as Plato seems to direct, and this application, which is itself attended by considerable difficulties, leads to an assimilation of the two figures till (in most accounts) they seem to have much the same content and purpose. Again, as this makes the lower line appear to be the phenomenal world, it is thought that the simile of the sun foreshadows the theme of the Line by hinting at a connexion between the intelligible and the sensible which is made more explicit in the Line. Thus the group of similes seem mainly intended to show the dependence of Becoming upon Being. This paper will argue that such a view depends upon the misrepresentation of the symbolism adopted by Plato, that two antithetical groups of symbols are confused with one another, and that symbols are even identified with antitypes. Owing to these misinterpretations (if they prove to be such) the Form of the Good has been mistaken for a material cause; both the Line and the Cave have been thought to reveal Plato as embarrassed by a dualism between sense and intellect, and the purpose of the Cave in particular, since the error is cumulative, has been completely obscured. This paper will attempt to substitute for current accounts another interpretation which will relate the three similes closely with the political arguments of Book VI., and with the Platonic education which is set forth in close connexion with them.

The difficulty lies in the two words at the end of the first and last lines of the extract, cortus being manifestly corrupt, and pontus inappropriate. In 276 it is fairly clear that ‘the wind’ should be the subject of the sentence, and Markland's uentus is now printed by most editors: in 271, in spite of a variety of conjectures, editors are mostly agreed that ‘the sea’ should be the object, and Marullus' pontum is usually accepted. The sense is thus rectified, but there remains a serious palaeographical difficulty, neither of the corruptions pontum > cortus, uentus > pontus being very probable in itself or paralleled in the Lucretian MSS. It has been suggested, both by Professor Reid (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. XXII., 1911) and by Professor Merrill (1907), that the last words of the two lines have been interchanged. If this theory can be accepted, it at once gives us pontum in 271: the nominative pontus is only an attempt to adjust it to its new context in 276. We should then be left with cortus at the end of 276, and I suggest that the obvious correction is then corus.

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.

No one who has read the classics with any attention can fail to have been struck by certain oddities in both the Greek and Latin usage of epithets denoting colour. How really strange their application often is may have escaped general notice for three reasons: partly, it may be, because custom has staled their surprising character—phrases such as ‘the wine-dark sea’ having become, so to say, ‘household words’; partly because a natural and on the whole commendable diffidence prevents our attributing, at least to the Greeks, anything that seems in the least derogatory from an artistic point of view; and partly because these instances of curious usage are scattered and so have no cumulative effect on our judgement.

The inscriptions, with their brevity and their tendency to formulaism, are not so profitable a field for the study of the syntax of the Κοιν⋯ as the papyri, and literary documents like the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is possible to glean from them some evidence, which adds to the sum-total of our knowledge; and when the time comes to deal with the Hellenistic language as a whole, they will have their contribution to make. I propose to deal with the evidence for case-usage provided by the popular inscriptions of Asia Minor, particularly those of that inland region, which corresponds roughly with the limits of ancient Phrygia.

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.

Since the poem of Sappho, which was first published as No. 7 of the Oxyrhynchus series, has been the object of a good deal of attention and ingenuity (some of it frivolous), it is perhaps not too early to publish a number of new readings, the result of repeated examinations of the papyrus (now P. 739 in the British Museum), that may provide a surer foundation for future attempts at reconstruction. I have submitted my suggestions to Professor Hunt, who does not reject them (though in fairness it must be added that he has not re-examined the original), and I have to thank him and Mr. H. I. Bell, of the Department of MSS., for the readiness of their help whenever and under whatever form I made appeal to it. But, of course, neither of them is in any way committed to any of my readings or deductions.

Mr. Mulvany in the Journal of Philology, XXV. 136, in discussing the meanings of ⋯ερ⋯ς, and trying to find something which might be a link between the uses of the word in the sense of ‘strong’ and ‘sacred,’ finds it in the phrase ⋯ερ⋯ ῥ⋯ζειν, which he would translate ‘to act strenuously in a god's service.’ But his argument may be strengthened by the translation, to which the analysis of ancient religion points, ‘to act strongly upon’; ‘to put pressure upon,’ as we should say. Both ἔρδειν and ῥ⋯ζειν are used with a dative of the person, as well as with an accusative, in the Homeric poems. And with this sense we might well align ἱερ⋯ς ⋯κατóμβας.

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.