Despite the discredit into which the once famous theory of Niebuhr has long sincefallen, it is beginning to appear, both to historians and to students of literature, that Epic poetry was in full process of evolution at Rome before Livius Andronicus was inspired to translate the Odyssey. There is, indeed, ample evidence to warrant such a belief; our authorities may most conveniently be considered in two main divisions. The first calls for no more than the barest mention, for it is concerned with those Naeniae and Cantus Conuiuiales the existence of which is not seriously challenged by even the most conservative criticism. They are well attested, and the evidence for their extreme antiquity is familiar to every reader of Cicero. In passing we may mention also Saturnian epitaphs like those of the Scipios, and the Tituli Triumphales set up in the Capitol. Typical lines are: Fundit, fugat, prosternit maximas legiones, from the inscription of M'Acilius Glabrio, and Summas opes qui regum regias refregit (which, however, Diomedes appears to quote as from Naevius).

In the Glossary-codex, Vat. Lat. 1469, written in the year 908 (see Goetz, Corp. Gloss. Lat. IV. pref., p. xvii; V. pref., p. xviii, p. xxx), fol. 83 has been assigned to ‘glossae collectae.’ They begin (83r I med.): In Passione Apostolorum. Iussit eum inaumachia (sic) cathomis consumi. Cathomis: uirgis nodosis. Hie naumachia forum signat Romanorum quod Prorostris dicitur eo quod rostra, etc. (=C.G.L. V. 573, 19). In Sancto Sebastiano. Saturnus apocatasticus (sic): id est dispositor et destructor fatorum. Annus tuus ex diametro susceptus est. Diametrum est, etc. ‘Glossae collectae’ from the Bible and from Jerome's prefaces come next.

Mr. Agar in Homerica, Preface ix., has suggested that κακ⋯ι γλ⋯νηι was the original reading, ‘Be off with the evil eye upon you.’ I have searched, but in vain, for any formula of imprecation corresponding to the formula of blessing, τύχ⋯γαθ⋯ι, though I should like to see it in κακ⋯ι τѵχ⋯ι of the Treacherous Hound in Agamemnon 1230. Mr. T. C. Snow, objecting to Mr. Agar's alterations of the Homeric text, once suggested to me that we should rather retain the vocative, and translate it, ‘Be off, evil eye.’ Others also may have thought of this, but it does not appear to have got into print.

Loewe (Prodromus, p. 144) drew attention to the fact that Apuleius is one of the authors drawn upon by the compiler of the Glossary that has come to be known as ‘Abolita’; and Professor Lindsay in his article on this Glossary (J.P. Vol. XXXIV. p. 275) gives as examples of Apuleius glosses three short batches from the CA-, the CI-, and the CO- sections. These batches are respectively as follows:

(1) C.G.L. IV. p. 29, 33 = Met. 7, 12 or 8, 13: 34 = Met. 9, 16: 35 = Met. 11, 16. (The ‘Abstrusa’ portion on this page runs from No. 6 to No. 32, and it is possible that the last item of the preceding ‘Abolita’ portion, p. 29, 5 ‘causor: accuso[r] uel queror’ comes from Apol. 79—causari.)

While translating the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems for the Oxford translation of Aristotle, I have frequently found it necessary to refer to the Fragments of Theophrastus (as collected by F. Wimmer in Vol. III. of the Teubner text), which are obviously the source of many of the Problems, in particular in books II., V., XX., XXIV., and XXVI. The condition of the text of both the Problems and the Fragments of Theophrastus leaves much to be desired, but considerable improvements are possible in those passages where the compiler of the Problems is adapting or copying from Theophrastus.

Fordvs is usually regarded as containing the root of fero bher- ‘carry’; i.e. fordus stands for *foridus ‘pregnant’, like Gr. ϕορóν -óν in medical writers. Its by-form hordus therefore is held to be a dialect form, and was according to that view rightly assigned by Conway, along with some other and quite certain examples of pure Latin f- = dial. h- for I.-Eu. bh- (or dh-), to one of the dialects of the Latinian group; Conway's choice fell upon Faliscan, but that is a different question from the one under discussion.

Historians and grammarians, palaeographers, and epigraphers have long employed the Scipionic inscriptions as providing accurate data for the period of about 200 B.C. A recent article, however, appearing in this journal, written by the distinguished grammarian, Professor Fay, just before his untimely death, questions the authenticity of these inscriptions, chiefly on grammatical grounds. The inscriptions are so important that it might be well to consider carefully the validity of such arguments in the light of other evidence before we surrender these landmarks of republican history and language.

Τ⋯ τε 'Ομ⋯ρον ⋯ξ ὑποβολ⋯ς γ⋯γραφε [σόλων] ῥαψῳδεῖσθαι, οἷον ὅπου ό πρ⋯τος ἒληξεν ⋯κεῖθεν ἂρχεσθαι τòν ⋯χ;óμεν㦿ν (Diogenes Laertius, I. 2, 57).

It would be tedious to trace the course of the controversy about this phrase. Since Hermann showed that ύποβάλλειν means ‘subiicere alteri quod recordetur uel dicat’ (as in administering an oath), the many conflicting interpretations have been obliged to resort to some device, more or less strained, in order to reconcile the natural sense of ύποβολή with what at least appears to be the explanatory clause added in the text of Diogenes, and with the parallel phrase in the Hipparchus, 228d: ήνάγκασε τούς ῥαΨῳδοὺς Παναθηναίοις ⋯ξ ύπολ⋯ψεως ⋯φεξης α⋯τ⋯ διι⋯ναι. We should expect some term meaning performance by turns, and sufficiently technical to need the explanation given by Diogenes. Mr. Pallis has cut the knot in the Classical Quarterly (1913, p. 134) by suggesting ⋯ξ ὺποβ⋯ς on the model of the pseudo-Platonic passage. There is, however, no classical authority for this word, and a change as small will restore a known technical word with the required sense.

463 ante 462 VGP et ante corr. ut uidetur U, item adnotator super Lucanum ed. Endtii p. 276 et Statii scholiastes ad Theb. VI 760, qui 462 et 464 coniunctos legerunt.

462 ante 463 MZ et ex corr. U.

463 quam MZPGV, qua ex corr. U.

462 manum VGP, lemma schol. Bern., Statii schol., manus Z et ex corr. U de M non liquet.

tempus quo noscere possent VGP et ut uidetur M, adn. sup. Luc, Z (pos), Statii schol. (possint), tempus = q.t.i.r.n.p. lemma schol. Bern., uultusque agnoscere quaerunt ex corr. U, Z2 G2, uultus etiam V2.

An application of the method used by M. Meillet (Mem. Soc. Ling. XIX. p. 181) to the variation οἲχομαι: οίχνέω indicates that this verb probably had non-thematic inflexion at one time. From these two forms we can abstract a stem οίχ- which may be added to M. Meillet's list of presents with o vocalization. The meaning of οἵχομαι(οἲχʵται ‘he has gone away’) has been arrived at by a series of changes which can still be observed. As Buttmann (Sprachlehre II. p. 252) showed, οἲχομαι originally meant ‘to go’ without the notion ‘away’ (‘das eigentliche gehn, ohne den Begriff fort’). In confirmation of this he points to ⋯ποίχομαι (he might have added προσοίχομαι Pind.) and II. E 495: κατ⋯ στρατὐν ᾤχετο πάντη 'Οτρύνων μαχέσαθαι A53: ⋯νν⋯μαρ μ⋯ν στρατ⋯ν ᾣχετο κ⋯λα θεοῖο. He seems right also in his assertion that the use of the present form οἲχεται in a perfect sense (‘he has gone’) is secondary and derived from οἲχεται ‘there he goes.’ The o grade of οἲχομαι has therefore nothing to do with the o grade of the Indo-Eur. perfect, but must be grouped with that of βόλομαι, ὂρομαι and the rest.

In the whole theory of the Latin tenses there is no more popular item than this explanation by Roby (Latin Grammar, 1574a) of the use of the pluperfect indicative in unreal conditional sentences. Far the most familiar instance is that in Horace (C. II. 17), ‘me truncus illapsus cerebro sustulerat, nisi Faunus ictum dextra leuasset.’

Professor J. van Wageningen has sent me a review of my fourth volume of Manilius which he has published in Museum vol. 28 pp. 173–7. I never contradict the taradiddles usual in reviews, because, if the reader thinks it worth his while, he can find out for himself whether they are true or no, and if he chooses to believe them without enquiry, it serves him right. But when he is fed with false information about a MS which is out of his reach, he can do nothing to help himself, and may fairly claim to be protected.

There can be few other uses in the Latin language which afford us so great an insight into the mental attitude of a writer at the moment of his writing, or which endow writing with so much of that personal colour which the voice alone gives in perfection, as does the singular use of the pronoun nos. All forms of this word (with the corresponding adjective and verb forms) which occur in the speeches of individuals, who are at the moment speaking independently, are either wholly singular uses, or partly plural uses with more or less justification for the plural form according to the extent to which the speaker is identifying himself with his surroundings. Thus we find all degrees of plurality in such forms, and it is those instances in which the plural form can be least definitely justified which we call ‘singular’ or ‘unreal plural’ uses, and which prove to be the most fascinating from a psychological point of view. The object of the present essay is to inquire how far the varieties of meaning in the singular use of nos, which Professor R. S. Conway has pointed out in Cicero, appear also in Vergil.