In what has preceded I have travelled a good deal beyond Simonides. But I have done so in order to illustrate the fact that the remains of ancient lyric cannot be interpreted in isolation. I come back now to the extant fragments of Simonides.

The object of this paper is twofold: in the first place, to expound afresh a passage of Greek tragedy which has been mauled by recent criticism; and, more particularly, by recognition of the light which it throws upon the development of the action, to vindicate the dramatic unity of the play.

The object of this paper is to show that, in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., two different and radically opposed systems of thought were elaborated within the Pythagorean school. They may be called respectively the mystical system and the scientific. All current accounts of Pythagoreanism known to me attempt to combine the traits of both systems in one composite picture, which naturally fails to hold together. The confusion goes back to Aristotle, who usually speaks indiscriminately of ‘the Pythagoreans,’ though now and then the phrase ‘some Pythagoreans’ indicates that he was aware of different currents within the school.

If such rhetorical flourishes are allowed any weight against indisputable historical fact, what strange inferences might we not draw from Juvenal's exclamation:

“… Arma quidem

ultra litora Iuuernae promouimus”

or

“de conducendo loquitur iam rhetore Thyle.“’

From the paper in which the Interrogatives were treated, by an inadvertency an was omitted. As there was every reason to expect, an is found to shorten a sub-joined hoc, id, etc.

Ad. 337 an ŏc proferendum tibi uidetur usquam? Ge. Mi quidem non placet. (So the vulg. since Bentley; but A has usquam esse, and the Calliopians have esse usquam. Room could be found for both words by a transposition, thus: an hŏc tibi uidetur proferendum esse usquam? etc.)

The following notes are based on the apparatus criticus in the edition of E. T. Merrill (Teubner, 1922):

I. 20. 5 ‘uides ut statuas, signa, picturas, hominum denique multorumqne animalium formas, arborum etiam, si modo sint decorae, nihil magis quam amplitudo commendet.’ Why ‘many animals’ and not ‘many men’ and ‘many trees’ ? Read mutorum; with ‘animalia,’ a standing opposition to ‘homines,’ as in Seneca, Ep. 76. 26 'ea quae tam homini contingunt quam mutis animalibus, 'where also it has been corrupted to multis as in many other places.

In discussions of the date at which Philodemos wrote the treatise περ σημείωѵ κаί σημεɩώσεωѵ there is general agreement on one point ‘that for this purpose our best evidence is a passage from col. 2, II. 11 sqq., of the papyrus. The author is there explaining the difficulties of induction in allowing for unobserved variations, and in taking Man as an instance he quotes first ‘the Kretan giant’ and then οѷ)ς έѵ՚ Акώρεɩ π∋γμα∕ονς δ(εικνύ)ονσιν νλει δ՚ ν∕α(λ)óγο(νς τος οѷς)’ Aντώνιος νûν ∕ κ Ʃụρία(ςκο)μσ(ατ. In the last line the letters of the papyrus are ΕΞϒΡΙΑΣ, which equally well may represent either § 'ϒρας or κ Σνρας but κ Σνρας has held the field since it was first suggested by Gomperz.

Since Teuffel's Römische Literatur (at least the edition of 1910) mentions s.v. Varius (६ 223, 2) the famous entry in the Monte Cassino MS. (Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 7530) incipit thvestes varii, but ignores its occurrence in a Benevento MS. (Rome, Casanat. 1086 or A III. 11), it may be well to give some account of the latter codex. For I read with amusement a recent article in this journal in which the writer severely censured Mr. Garrod's ignorance of the entry in Paris 7530, but revealed his own ignorance by assuming that it was the scribe of the Paris MS. who had the lost tragedy of Varius before him.

A Famous group of heraldic dedications, with inscriptions in the Oscan dialect, the iovilae-inscriptions as, in the uncertainty that prevails as to their real character, scholars have generally been content to call them (from the recurrence of the word d i u v i l a- or [in a later form] i ῧ v i l a-, presumed to be the name of the object dedicated, in all or nearly all of the dedicatory inscriptions), have long been a standing puzzle to students of the Italic dialects. A visit made in the spring of 1922 to the Museo Nazionale at Naples, where a number of the iovilae are now preserved, provided an opportunity of reconsidering, with the actual objects before me, a new explanation of these most interesting dedications which I now venture to publish.

An inscription found in 1912 near Praeneste,1 and now easily accessible in the new edition of Vol. I. of the Corpus of Latin inscriptions (CIL. I. pars 2, fasc. 1, 1918, No. 2439), records a dedication in honour of Juno PALOS-CARIA(e) (dat. sg.), an epithet previously unknown, and not yet, I believe, satisfactorily explained. Rosenberg's attempted explanation (palus -i sens, obsc.—an extremely rare meaning, it should be observed—and stigare in the sense of ‘instigare,’ referring to Juno as the goddess of motherhood) will not secure many adherents, while that of Lommatzsch (CIL. l.c.), who would connect the word with palus -udis, and see an allusion to the ‘paludes Pomptinae,’ involves us in serious, though not insuperable, phonetic and morphological difficulties. If we were reduced to accepting the derivation from palus ‘marsh,’ I should prefer to see rather a reference to the festival of Juno on the Nonae Caprotinae (July 7), which took place near the Caprae (or Caprea) palus in the Campus Martius. There would then be at least a definite connexion of the goddess with the palus, whereas there is no such connexion, so far as I know, of Juno with the Pomptine Marshes.

Propertivs IV. iii. 7 sqq.:

7 Te modo uiderunt iteratos Bactra per ortus,

te modo munito Neuricus hostis equo,

hibernique Getae, pictoque Britannia curru,

10 ustus et Eoa discolor Indus aqua.

8 munito Beroaldus, munitus O., Neuricus Jacob, hericus NFL, hernicus D. 10 ustus MSS., uastus Palmer, pastus Otto, tunsus Housman, discolor MSS., decolor Passerat.