AugustWilhelm vonSchlegel, who did so much to rend the already torn artistic reputation of Euripides in the early nineteenth century, is singularly lenient in his criticism of the Hecuba.

His adverse comment is limited to three points only: The first, that ‘the two actions of this piece—the sacrifice of Polyxena and the revenge on Polymestor on account of the murder of Polydorus—have nothing in common with each other but their connexion with Hecuba’; the second, that ‘the second half destroys the soft impressions of the first in a highly repulsive manner’; and the third, that it is ‘not very suitable that Hecuba should display such presence of mind in her revenge.’ In this leniency he differs from one of the latest modern English critics, Professor G. Norwood,2 who does not hesitate to condemn the play as ‘on the whole poor and uninteresting,’ ‘far below the best of Euripides' work’; and from his great predecessor, J. J. Reiske, who condemned the play on ten distinct counts, all different from those that form the basis of SchlegeFs own argument.

In Plutarch's two narratives (Vita Pelopidae XIII. and De genio Socratis) of the recapture of the Cadmea by the Thebans, 379/8 B.C. (winter), he speaks of three harmosts as in command of the Spartan garrison. This is the only instance in Spartan history where more than one harmost is mentioned as exercising authority in the same city, and it suggests the question: Was Thebes for some reason receiving different treatment from the other cities where we hear of harmosts in residence ?

The difficult and apparently inconsistent regulations by which certain marriages are forbidden in the Republic have not, it would seem, been consistently explained hitherto. It is the purpose of this article to prove that—if we read Plato's text without prejudice—marriages between brothers and sisters are nowhere prohibited, but expressly allowed; and that there are in the ideal city certain family groups, though I do not contend that any very great importance is to be attached to these.

If the Bucolics as a whole ‘ look on us with dark enigmatical eyes,’ for long no more impenetrable darkness and no more compelling enigma could be found than that of the fourth poem in the collection. But Skutsch, the authors of Virgil's Messianic Eclogue, and more recently Mr. Royds in his Virgil and Isaiah, have done much to solve its many mysteries. Their efforts, however, were mainly directed towards the problems of fact contained in the Eclogue, and so far little attention seems to have been given to an equally interesting point, that of its metrical arrangement. It is plain that we must consult the Sibyll for help: if it is not plain, that is not Virgil's fault. I hope to be able to show here that Virgil himself has left in this poem certain unmistakeable signs for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, besides his own rather casual reference to the Cumaeum carmen, and incidentally to dispose anew of the theory which reads in that expression an allusion not to the Sibyl but to Hesiod.

It seems worth while giving some account of this MS., because in recent years it has been said to contain certain pieces of the Moralia which it does not, and not to contain others which it does.

At the foot of the first page of the text the MS. carries the pontifical shield with the arms of the Medici, and from this it is reasonable to suppose that there was a time when it belonged either to Leo X., who was Pope from 1513 to 1521, or to Clement VII., who was Pope from 1523 to 1534. This being so, 1534 is established as the terminus ante quem of its writing. Towards the end of this century, about 1598, it was acquired by the Spanish Cardinal Saverio de Zelada. In 1801 the Cardinal Archbishop Antonio de Lorenzana bought in Rome a certain number of Greek and Oriental manuscripts which had formerly been in the collection of Cardinal Saverio de Zelada, and placed them in the Chapter Library at Toledo. Included with these was this MS. of the Moralia, which remains there to this day.

Sophocles, Antigone 853–856, Jebb's text:

προβᾶσ' ἐπ' ἔσχατον θράσους

ὑψηλὸν ἐς Δίκας βάθρον

προσέπεσες, ὦ τέκνον, πολύ.

In considering the question as to the order of composition of different portions of Aristotle's works it is necessary to start (as Jaeger did in his study of the genesis of the Metaphysics) with some idea as to his method of composition.

On looking at the surviving works one sees at a glance that at some date and by some hand they have been carefully arranged as a continuous series. Internal references forward and backward are frequent. The author refrains as carefully as Euclid does from anticipating ‘earlier’ discussion the answer to a question which will arise ‘later.’ The forward references are merely promises that a question will be discussed. These multitudinous cross-references are so interwoven with the thought and the argument that there is little doubt that in the main they are due to Aristotle himself. On the other hand, the short transitional statements with which the ‘books’ as we have them close must always be accepted with some reservations. The book is a device of the ancient bookseller, not the unit of composition. Of course, where they could, the editors have made the ends of books correspond with important breaks in the argument; but wholly artificial book-endings do occur. There is, e.g., the end of N.E. θ, which corresponds to no important stage in the thought; and here the editor or bookseller has merely emphasized the artificiality of the division by inserting the wholly inappropriate clause, περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἐπὶ τοσοῨτον εἰρήσθω

Terence was studied, though not so much as Virgil, in monastery-schools. Their magistri bestirred themselves to get aid for pupils. Some famous magister— we know not who—had written, between the lines or in the margins, interpretations of difficult words in at least the three opening plays of the MS. which he used—Andr., Ad., Eun.—if not in all. These interpretations (glossae) were collected from his MS. and found their way into many monastery-libraries. Goetz has published these glossae collectae of Terence from a tenth (?) century MS. (Vat. lat. 1471) in Vol. V. of his Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, pp. 529–539; Mr. Austin (Class. Quart. XIX. 104) has added more from a Leyden MS. (67 F), written apparently in Belgium or Holland, c. 800–815 A.D. (see Palae. Lat., Part V.). Probably Dr. Theander will add a further batch from a Paris MS. (Bibl. Nat. lat. 10588, ‘saec. IX. in.’).

To the instances of non-syllabic ε after -ιλ- or -υλ- which were given in Class. Quart. XVII. 196 (cf. Schwyzer, Exempla 251B 17, note), two more may be added:

(1) Σιλεωνίας, Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca 783 (Cnidos), occurs in a trochaic line, and is scanned Cup – Cup –. Kaibel calls it a ‘nomen suspectum’; but in the re-edition in Anc. Gr.Inscr.in the British Museum, No. 796, the reading is defended by a comparison with Σιλώνιος in C.I.G. 1577. 3 = I.G. 7. 2429 (Thebes).

Inthe Classical Quarterly for July-October, 1924, the late Mr. H. G. Evelyn White sought (1) to establish that the vulgate of Hesiod is a conflation of two or more versions; (2) to point out the inference to be drawn, and to suggest a date for the formation of the received text. To establish his first point in respect of the Works and Days he gives a list of eighteen passages where he suspects the hand of a conflator.

ProfessorLinsay has called my attention to the need for an examination of these compounds, with a view to ascertaining whether they are ever used in the Singular by Latin writers, or always in the Plural.

From a scholium, probably by Donatus, on Aen. X. 173:

(Ilua) insula inexhaustis Chalybum generosa metallis, has come a gloss which appears in the Ansileubus Glossary (just published in Vol. I. of Glossaria Latina, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1926) in two forms:

FR 205 Frofra (!): insula Tirreno mari in quo (qua) ferrifodina <e> exercentur, RU 77 Rufa: insula Tirreni maris in qua ferrifodina exercetur.

Modern editors take λάθρη (or P.'s λάθρια γελάοϖα as = ‘smiling secretly’— hiding the smile she felt inclined to show. This involves the two difficulties (1) the γελάοισα of 1. 95; (2) the expression βαρùν δʼἀνὰθυμòνἔΧοισα. To take first: If Aphrodite came smiling it is absurd to say in the next line that as matter of fact she was hiding her smiles. This has led to Ahlwardt's quite unjustifiable ἁδέη, accepted by Hiller.