That family of Manilius' MSS which is now usually called the second, and is designated by the letter β, made its first decisive entrance into criticism in the year 1739. The early vulgate had shaped itself out of hybrid copies in which the tradition of the two families α and β was indistinguishably blended; one good and ancient representative of α, the Gemblacensis, was brought into employment by Scaliger in 1600: but the testimony of β was never disengaged and isolated until Bentley's edition made public the readings of the Leyden codex Vossianus 390. The next member of the family to emerge was Matritensis M 31, discovered in 1879 by Gustav Loewe and brought to general notice in the middle of 1893 by the simultaneous publication of two papers,—one by Mr Breiter in the Neue Jahrbuecher vol. 147 pp. 417–423, one by Prof. Ellis in Hermathena no. xix pp. 261–286. Two other MSS closely akin to this, Vrbinates 667 and 668 in the Vatican library, containing the first 82 verses of the poem, which the Matritensis has lost, are employed in an edition of Book i which I published in 1903.

Since Hermann first suggested the likelihood of a considerable loss of verses from the text of the Heraclidae it has been generally assumed that the play has suffered either from some mischance in the copying of the manuscript or else at the hand of an interpolator. Hermann held that the end of the play had been lost: ‘Fabulae extrema pars videtur intercidisse, in qua fieri non poterat quin de Macaria referretur, eaque res solitis celebraretur lamentis.’ Kirchhoff places the lacuna after line 629: ‘Post hunc versum multa desunt. Macariae narratio et Alcmenae matris [sic] lamentationes cum chori cantico integro; novit hanc fabulae partem auctor argumenti: **ταύτην μ⋯ν εὐγεν⋯ς ⋯ποθανο⋯σαν ⋯τίμησαν αὐτο⋯ δ⋯ τοὺς πολεμ⋯ους ⋯πιγνόντες παρόντας εἰς τ⋯ν μάχην ὥρμησαν.’ Wilamowitz argues against the assumption of a ‘mechanischer Ausfall’ of a whole passage, and maintains that the play has been revised by a fourth century régisseur in order to adapt it to the capacity of his theatrical troupe.

In the proper punctuation of this passage I have been in part anticipated by Francken, who saw that the apodosis to the conditional clause was to be sought in 235–7. But, as the second edition of the Teubner text still keeps it in its primitive incoherence, I make no apology for dealing with it here.

This account of the verb forms in Plautus proceeds in the same direction as my earlier papers on noun, adjectival, and adverbial forms (Classical Review, July, December, 1902, July, 1903). I feel strongly that something is needed on Plautine forms that shall be more complete and accurate than anything that yet exists. The statements that one meets with, that this or that form is “common,” or “regular,” in Plautus, are frequently misleading, or even incorrect, and are usually unsatisfying. I do not think it is of much import whether a word occurs fifty times or fifty-five, but it often is important to know whether it occurs fifty times, or five, or once, or not at all.

The first few chapters of Caesar's Bellum Civile are notoriously untrustworthy. Much has been done by Nissen, Schmidt and others towards re-telling the story more truthfully, but our accounts are not yet fully satisfactory. Caesar's statement that he met the tribunes only after crossing the Rubicon is at first sight startling and does not accord with the story as told by Plutarch and Appian; for both of these historians make much of the fact that Caesar exhibited the tribunes upon their arrival to his army, thus stirring the soldiers to action. Plutarch and Appian are evidently following Pollio, who was with Caesar on the day of crossing: they ought therefore to furnish testimony of some weight. Suetonius makes no direct statement about the matter, but the order of events as given by him seems to place him in agreement with the statement of the Bellum Civile. We have therefore Pollio, Plutarch (twice), and Appian against the words of the Bellum Civile and Suetonius; or, more simply, Pollio against Caesar, both of whom were eye-witnesses of what occurred that day. Pollio, moreover, is the critic who questions the veracity of these very commentaries. Our acceptance of one side or the other can, therefore, hardly depend upon preponderance of authority. It will be a question of probability and probability I think we shall find resting with Plutarch and Appian. The only objection against adopting this conclusion at once, is that it seems to assume that Caesar has falsified to his own disadvantage.

In 1871 it might well have been said that no Latin author was in worse need of a critical recension than Lucilius, and again in 1904 that none was in worse need of an exegetical commentary. The one want was supplied in 1872 by the edition of Lucian Mueller, and now Mr Friedrich Marx, by the publication of his second volume in 1905, has supplied the other. Both works deserve praise, both deserve thanks, and both deserve more thanks than praise ; for while gratitude is earned simply by the element of good which a book presents to us, admiration must depend on the greater or less predominance of the good element over the bad.

In the middle of the third book of his Histories, Tacitus records some movements in the western provinces occasioned by the events of 69. The troops in Britain, he says, were partial to Vespasian, who had served there with distinction in the reign of Claudius, and a party was formed in his interest.

‘In forming our estimate of tragedy, let us first consider its externals—the hideous appalling spectacle that the actor presents. His high boots raise him out of all proportion, his head is hidden under an enormous mask; his huge mouth gapes upon the audience as if he would swallow them; to say nothing of the chest-pads and stomach-pads with which he contrives to give himself an artificial corpulence lest his deficiency in this respect should emphasize his disproportionate height.’.

These lines conclude the speech of Pompey to Cornelia when she met him on the shore of Lesbos after the disaster of Pharsalia. This speech Mr. Heitland in his excellent Introduction to Haskins' Lucan has stigmatised as ‘abominable’.1 So far as the bulk of the speech is concerned a plea may perhaps be urged in mitigation of this judgment. Cornelia has completely broken down at the sight of her unfortunate husband, and his first object should be to restore her to herself. For this purpose, as all, not excluding Lucan, know, a tone of sharp chiding would be most effectual, and we learn from the sequel that it succeeded : ‘uocibus his correpta uiri uix aegra leuauit | membra solo’ (86 sq.). For the crude brutality of the statement in the last four words there is however no excuse. But happily it is not to be charged to Pompey or to Lucan, but to the editions. We should punctuate:

quod defies, illud amasti?

2. Vv. 155 sqq.

tanto deuinxit amore

hos pudor hos probitas castique modestia uoltus

quod submissa nimis nulli grauis hospita turbae

stantis adhuc fati uixit quasi coniuge uicto.