In a paper on the application of thought to textual criticism which I read before the Classical Association at Cambridge in 1921 (Proceedings vol. XVIII pp. 67–84)I made some remarks which I abbreviate as follows: ‘One of the forms assumed by thoughtlessness in textual criticism is the endeavour, now frequent especially among Continental scholars, to break down accepted rules of grammar or metre by the mere enumeration of exceptions found in MSS. That can never break down a rule: number is nothing; what matters is weight, and weight can onlybe ascertained by scrutiny. If I had noted every example I have met, I should now have a large collection of passages where orbis, which our grammars and dictionaries declare tobe masculine, has a feminine adjective attached to it. But I do not therefore propose to revisethat rule of syntax; for scrutiny would show that these examples, though numerous, have no force. In most of them the context proves that orbem, orbis, orbes, etc., are merely corruptions of the corresponding case and number of urbs; and in the rest it is natural to suppose that the scribe has been influenced and confused by the likeness of the one word to the other.’

FOR hundreds or even thousands of years posterity saw in Aristotle only the impersonal intellectual majesty of the philosophical system. When awakening humanism began everywhere to seek in the works of the classic writers the impress of their personality, this new interest met in Aristotle with the most stubborn resistance. His was a very different case from that of Plato or Demosthenes. The few notices preserved of his life and person remained in merely external relation to the body of his works. In recent times we have begun, however, to discern the intellectual history of the man Aristotle, and in this regard his relations to Plato naturally acquire special significance. In the various phases of his life these relations took various forms; but in view of late gossip about the pupil's ingratitude to the master, it is as well to say that never was Aristotle^s attitude to Plato other than one of the deepest possible veneration. It has a special psychological fascination to see how this veneration expressed itself at the time when Aristotle found himself committed to philosophical opposition to his master; and it is significant that the only documentary proofs of Aristotle's attitude that we possess belong to these years. Evidently his veneration found this compensating expression when he was forced to publish his philosophical critisma.

In beginning to speak of Euripides in this University of Manchester, one's thoughts naturally turn to the work of Professor Norwood in this direction, and it is with an especially keen sense of pleasure that I find myself not only following in his footsteps—a long way after!—but helping in a small way to contribute some further confirmation to the views on Euripides established by him and Professor Verrall.

The motive of Clodius in attacking the validity of Caesar's laws in the latter part of 58 B.C. has been the subject of many conjectures on the part of modern historians. In a recent article1 Pocock has propounded a new theory as to the position and policy of the turbulent tribune, which is highly suggestive and deserving of a careful consideration. In the first place Pocock, in opposition to all previous historians, flatly denies that Clodius made any such attack at all, and offers a new explanation of the passage in Cicero's speech for his house where this is asserted. In the oration in question Cicero declares that Clodius called Bibulus before the people and by the testimony of the former consul showed that all Caesar's laws had been passed in disregard of the auspices, drawing from this the conclusion that they should all be annulled by the senate. If the conscript fathers would do this, Clodius offered to bring Cicero back on his own shoulders as the saviour of his country.2 Pocock believes that Cicero has flagrantly misrepresented Clodius and wilfully distorted his meaning. Some of Cicero's friends had denied the legality of Clodius' tribuneship and hence of the great orator's exile, and what Clodius did was to demonstrate that this denial logically involved the repudiation of all the Julian legislation. His offer to bring back Cicero was an ironical difiance, and amounted to telling the nobles that they had better not raise such a question unless they had the courage to cancel all Caesar's laws, something which he knew that they would not dare to do.

From time to time the figure of Tenes or Tennes, the eponymous hero of Tenedos, intrudes itself into discussions of larger matters connected with Greek religion, usually in order to lend support to some imaginative theory. As one of the latest examples might be instanced Dr. A. B. Cook's Zeus II., pp. 654 sqq. It is as well, however, to be certain as to the precise evidential value which attaches to the stories about Tenes before employing them to buttress further hypotheses. A little intensive study of these traditions will therefore not be unprofitable, even if the result should be almost wholly negative. For in that event wemay be spared the trouble of placing much reliance upon edifices erected upon sand.

So far as I am aware no editor and no critic has ever questioned the integrity of the four opening words of 313 as they stand above. So written they are seriously misleading. Let them be arranged as three,

αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα ἕκαστα,

and we have the sentence as the author of the Hymn surely wrote it (Mosc.), whatever support may be found elsewhere for the article before ἕκαστα.

The manuscripts of Pausanias present at III. 16, 4 the following: 'Iòντι δἐ ώσ ἐπì τἀσ πνλἀσ ἀπò τοȗ Xιτῶνοσ Xείλωνόσ ὲστιν ἡρῷον τοȗ σοΦοȗ νομιζομένον καì Aθηναίων ρω τῶν όμοȗ Δωριεȋ τῷ 'Aναξανδρίδον σταλέντων ὲσ Σικλίαν. By a change euphemistically called an emendation Madvig has replaced 'Aθηναίων ρω by 'Aθηνοδώρον, a person unknown to history, whose further acquaintance we will not pursue.