Li. 263 and 264 have been much vexed, and a string of conjectures will be found in Wecklein's appendix. All of them produce roughly the same meaning–‘it is useless to enquire into the future, which (1. 265) is bound to be disastrous.’

The sentence ὢσπερ γ⋯ρ οἱ… ἄγουςιν as it stands, seems to be unsatisfactory. The meaning is left too vague. We except some such subject as βουκ⋯λοι or ποιμ⋯νες after οἱ, and the object (τ⋯ πειν⋯ντα θρ⋯μματα) of ἂγουσιν is placed awkwardly next to that of προσεíοντες. We feel that προσεíοντες goes too closely with ἂγουσιν to have anything to do with the article. It may be entirely detached by taking it more or less as a parenthetical remark.

In the June issue of the Classical Review Professor Cook Wilson announces his conversion to the view that in ‘a well-defined group’ of passages in the Nicomachean Ethics λόγος means Reason. While I cannot hope to re-convert Professor Cook Wilson, I feel that it is worth while to try to express the reasons for which it seems difficult to follow him.

A simple transposition in the text would, I venture to suggest, remove one or two of the many difficulties of this obscure chapter.

May a reader of Mr. Herbert Richards' Thucydidea briefly defend the manuscript reading in this familiar passage ? In the October issue of the Classical Quarterly (vii. 245) Mr. Richards suggests καì πολλοὺσ ἰδών in place of καì αὐτ⋯ς ἰδών. He says, ‘The second aὐróς is very pointless, and a πoλλoὐς seems wanted. We do not need to be told that he saw them himself, and hardly that he did see them; that he saw many is worth mentioning.

C. i., p. 2, 12 (Meister's paging) dicit Peliae regi se eo uelle ire si uires sociique non deessent. Pelias … Argum … iussit … nauim aedificaret.

Considering the next sentence read perhaps n a u e s for uires.

C. ii., p. 3, 25. Graeci aduentare nauibus. mittit ad portam.

M reads nauibus uti. May this conceal e t i t a ? cf. p. II , 2. For change of tense cf. opening lines of C. iii.

Since the publication of my critical edition in 1889 the Tristia of Ovid has received some attention. A paper in Hermathena, vol. vii. (1890) by Professor R. Ellis contains several conjectural emendations, and in a public lecture on The Second Book of Ovid's ‘Tristia’ (Clarendon Press, 1913), this veteran scholar analysed the intricate contents of Book II. Two learned pamphlets by Dr. R. Ehwald, Ad historiam carminum Ouidianorum recensionemque symbolae (I. Gotha, 1889 ; II. Gotha, 1892) deal with the history of the text, and the textual criticism and interpretation generally. Dr. Paul Vogel's Kritische und exegetische Bemerkungen zu Ovid ‘Tristien’ (Festschrift, Schneeberg [Sachsen] 1891) is a valuable contribution to the understanding of the text and its interpretation.

The five chapters which Quintilian has devoted to ‘Grammatica’ are in many ways the most valuable discussion of the subject which we possess. They are older than any other surviving account, except the remains of Varro De lingua Latino, and the grammar of Dionysius Thrax, and this last, though far more complete than Quintilian in its examination of the parts of speech, has nothing that compares with the other chapters on analogy, etymology, etc., nor does it give so clear a view of ‘grammatica’ as a whole. These chapters do not appear to have been treated by any scholar since Nettleship published his article on ‘Latin Grammar in the First Century’ in the Journal of Philology, vol. xv. If, in the course of this paper, I traverse on certain points the opinions of so distinguished a scholar, let it be understood that I do so with much diffidence, and only after much consideration of the facts as they appear to me.

Our best MSS. agree upon salapantium. But they also agree upon desertum for disertum. Seneca, who quotes the last two words of the line, has salaput(t)ium disertum ; and since he is right about disertum it is supposed that he is right about salaputium ; and salaputium stands in all our texts of Catullus. What it means nobody knows. It is mostly relegated to that numerous class of Latin words of which we conjecture that they are obscene and are content that they should remain obscure.

I. In Skr. medín we have an Indo-Iranian -in derivative of a proethnic start-form (s)met-sdos ‘co-sedens,’ whose initial s may have been lost by haplology, but cf. Av. mat ‘μετά.’ Homeric ἂoζoς ‘attendant’ (start-form sm-sodyos) is a like compound, meaning co-sedens and not ‘mitgänger’ (pace Johannson IF. III. 199), but has suffered psilosis. Out of composition, unless the ‘suffix’ conceals a posterius, we may have a further cognate in Lat. sodalis ‘boon-companion,’ wherein sodā- may have meant something like ‘session’ (the council or board of elders in the Scotch kirk).