In the Antiatticista, as we call the scanty excerpt of a lexicon of the second century A.D., so abbreviated as to be often unintelligible, we find on p. 86. 20 the following article: Γενέσια ⋅ оὔσης тε έоρтῆς &lsqbтῆς&rsqb δημотελоũς 〈έν〉 &rsquoΑθήνααις, ΒоB7δρоγιѿνоς ΠέμΠтηι, Γενέσια καλоυένμς, καθόтι øησί Φιλόχоρоς καί Σόλων έν тоȊς &rsquoΑξоσι, καί тῆς тоũ όνόμαтоς χρήσεως оὔσης &rsquoΕλλ:ηνικῆς, тί κιλúει μή μόνоν έΠὶ тῆς δημотελоũς έоρтῆς á»á καί έΠί тῆςίδίας έκáσтоυ тáσσεσθα&iota. What rouses our interest in this note is not the domestic quarrel between the Atticists of a stricter and of a more lenient observance about the meaning and the use of the word, but the facts themselves, which in the present case are fortunately clear enough. The lexicographer knows two entirely different facts: a material fact, the existence of a State festival in Athens called Genesia and celebrated on the 5th of Boedromion; a linguistic fact, the ’Ελλινικǹ χαῆσις which denotes by Γενέσια not this State festival but some private celebration. For the latter, it is important to observe that by &rsquoΕλλἠνικὴ χαῆσις the lexicographer does not mean Hellenistic Greek nor the usage of his own day, but the occurrence of the word in those authors whom the strict Atticists do not take as models of style, or who are not held to be Attic writers: it is to such authors, at least, that the lexicographer appeals in the preceding gloss: he there quotes ΕὐριΠίδης “Іωνι (653; 805) for γενέθλια and Herodotos (4. 26) for γενέσια. The latter passage could be the evidence for his linguistic fact, that ‘Hellenic usage’ applies the word γενέσια to a private celebration.

[Sir Stephen Gaselee, who died in June 1943, was, as is widely known, a devoted student of Petronius. He read the book first in 1901 when he was still at Eton; two years later he already possessed nearly a hundred Petroniana and was distributing to booksellers a short bibliography which he had compiled in order that they might help to fill the gaps in his collection. Petronius was the subject of the Fellowship dissertation which he submitted unsuccessfully at King's in 1908. It comprised a copy of Buecheler's editio minor (ed. 4,1904) interleaved with foolscap sheets on which was written a critical and epexegetical commentary, and a substantial volume of typescript entitled Some Materials for an Edition of Petronius and dealing with the personality of the author, the place of his book in Classical literature, its literary history, the manuscripts, and the printed editions. The last section was presently expanded into a long paper which, with a handlist, was presented to the Bibliographical Society in 1909. In the following year appeared a large and expensive reprint of the earliest English translation of Petronius (1694) for which Gaselee supplied an introduction and a Latin text. In 1915 he published at his own cost a collotype facsimile of that part of the Codex Traguriensis which contains the Cena Trimalchionis, adding a preface and an annotated transcript of the facsimile. In 1916 Gaselee went to the Foreign Office and, except for a brief interval in 1919, worked there until his death. He continued to collect Petroniana and to note in his interleaved text parallel passages and suggestions of other scholars, but the leisure necessary for the preparation of his own edition was never at his disposal. Thenceforward his contributions to the subject are both few and slight.

The notes of W. S. Maguinness on the Corpus Tibullianum contain several things which strike me as either true or at least highly plausible. In the above passage, however, I think both he and Postgate have missed the point of the first word. Tibullus has been telling the story of how Apollo turned herdsman for love's sake. He insists several times over that it is a story, not a thing he can vouch for. The infinitives in 14 a-c make it sufficiently evident that the lost pentameter began with fertur or dicitur; in 18, Artemis dicitur to have blushed for her brother's unseemly occupation; in 29, fertur that the gods used to serve Venus openly. The same line reminds us that these stories refer to old days, olim. Now comes the couplet in question.

Ennius began his Annals with a prayer to the Muses:

(I.V.) Musae quae pedibus magnum pulsatis Olympum.

In this he differs from his predecessors. Livius in his Odusia had substituted Camena for Homer's Μοῦσα, and the ‘novem Iovis concordes sorores’ to whom Naevius addresses himself in the Carmen Belli Punici also bore the name of Camenae, as we may infer with some confidence from Naevius' epitaph: ‘Immortales mortales si foret fas flere Flerent divae Camenae Naevium poetam.’ The mysterious Carmen Priami likewise speaks of the Camenae: ‘Veteres Casmenas cascam rem volo profari.’ For general reasons it seems unlikely that before Ennius' time the Romans were altogether unfamiliar with the name of Musae. Evidence, however, to show that they knew it is not available. Nevertheless, even if the name Musae was known, in invoking their patronage for his poem Ennius is making a departure from the habits of earlier poetry, of which he is both conscious and proud. In the beginning of the seventh book he speaks with scorn of his predecessor Naevius: ‘scripsere alii rem Versibus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant Cum neque Musarum scopulos…’ Now the reign of the Muses begins, and the grave virus of the Saturnian line is driven out by the munditiae of the hexameter.

In the above paper I suggested that in Anth. Pal. ix. 519 and xi. 12 Philip V of Macedon was himself the Cyclops and the Centaur, and that these two identifications were not only appropriate to Philip's character (as popularly interpreted), but also historically associated with the Argead dynasty. In my case for the ‘Centaur’ identification, however, I overlooked one of the most important pieces of evidence, though it had been available since 1926; and that is the meaning of the word κέντανυος In an article published that year E. H. Sturtevant showed that κέντανυος is a word of Thraco-Macedonian origin with the same meaning as the Greek ϕίλɩππος. The first part κενττ– is the κενττ– οΤ κενθ which is a constituent of several Thracian personal names, e.g. Aulu-centus, Aulu-centius, Ἐπται-κενθος, Zipa-centhus, etc. (almost a score are quoted by Sturtevant). The second half of the word, avro-, occurs in Ἀβρο-ξελμης, Ἀβρου-πολις Ἀβρο-τονον etc. (with such variants as Αὐλου-ξελμις, Ἀλλου-πορις, which led Tomaschek to suggest that ἀβρο(υ)- and αὐλο(υ)- are alternative forms of the same word). Already Tomaschek had identified κεντ- with the Greek ϕιλ-, and had argued that Thracian avro- ‘was borrowed from Iranian neighbours of the Thracians. Avestan aurva-, aurvañt (“runner, swift”) is strikingly similar in form to Thracian avro-, avrū-, and the Avestan word applies so frequently to the horse that it might easily come to mean ”horse”’. From a combination of the two forms Sturtevant gets the convincing κένταυρος (cf. the reverse form Aulu-centus) = ϕίλιππος.

A Study of the sources of a Plutarchan Life may be excused on two grounds: first, a knowledge of the sources is important for a critical evaluation of the Life's historical worth; and second, such a study is instructive for the understanding of Plutarch's methods of composition, which, in its turn, helps considerably in the historical evaluation. For this second object the Titus is particularly well suited, since the problem, owing to the survival in large part of his main source, is infinitely simpler than in many of the other Lives, and it is on these grounds that the present study seeks to justify itself.

J. M. C. Toynbee's study ‘Nero Artifex: the Apocolocyntosis Reconsidered’, C.Q. xxxvi, 1942, 83–93, has the double merit of questioning what had never been questioned—the dating of the Apocolocyntosis about A.D. 54–5—and of making many valuable observations on the importance of the Neronia of A.D. 60. But the attempt to transfer to these Neronia the Apocolocyntosis, the Carmina by Calpurnius, the second of the Carmina Einsiedlensia, and, to a certain extent also, Lucan's De Bello Civili, seems to me, if I may anticipate my conclusions, entirely misleading.

Every student of Plato will be inclined to admit that, among his dialogues, the Parmenides is one of the hardest to understand. The attempt to elucidate it has continued since ancient times, but even to-day we still lack a definitive interpretation. The first part of the dialogue is relatively simple; it is with the second that the great difficulty begins. Two questions are raised: firstly, how this part is to be understood, and, secondly, how it is related to the first part.

In the foregoing parts of this paper I have sought, first (in A. Plutarch's Text) to recover Plutarch's text of the Rhetra, which I believe to be also Aristotle's text. It is evident that Aristotle knew and commented on this Rhetra: I take it as my hypothesis that his account of it in his Spartan Constitution was substantially the same as what Plutarch gives us.