The sic of this passage is ordinarily taken as meaning, ‘on this condition,’ viz. the condition implied in reddas and serues. But du Mesnil (Bremer Rundschau, 1885, No. 258) urged that this interpretation was illogical. The fulfilment of the condition implied in reddas involves in itself the realization of the wish expressed in regat, and so makes that wish unnecessary. To this objection two answers have been made. Schütz expresses the opinion that the prayer is for the perpetual enjoyment of the favourable conditions enumerated in verses 1–4. But apart from the unnaturalness of this explanation, it involves the north-west wind as the perpetual attendant of the vessel. This would prevent its easy return to Italy. The other answer is that such ‘matter of fact’ criticism should not be applied to poetry. But to the minds of many (myself among them) this seems a mere evasion of the question at issue. Most students of Horace, I venture to say, are far from satisfied with the traditional interpretation of the passage.

το⋯το τ⋯ς καθ⋯ρσεως. Perhaps τò τ⋯ς κ. Cf. 3. 59. I τò τ⋯ς ξυμφορ⋯ς: 6. 60.4 τò τ⋯ν ‘Eρμ⋯ν

The Fragments of Pindar have not, so far as I know, been adequately discussed since the great editions of Boeckh and Dissen, and as many of them are extremely important, the following remarks are offered in the hope of turning the attention of scholars in their direction.

Li. 263 and 264 have been much vexed, and a string of conjectures will be found in Wecklein's appendix. All of them produce roughly the same meaning–‘it is useless to enquire into the future, which (1. 265) is bound to be disastrous.’

The sentence ὢσπερ γ⋯ρ οἱ… ἄγουςιν as it stands, seems to be unsatisfactory. The meaning is left too vague. We except some such subject as βουκ⋯λοι or ποιμ⋯νες after οἱ, and the object (τ⋯ πειν⋯ντα θρ⋯μματα) of ἂγουσιν is placed awkwardly next to that of προσεíοντες. We feel that προσεíοντες goes too closely with ἂγουσιν to have anything to do with the article. It may be entirely detached by taking it more or less as a parenthetical remark.

Daphnis has taunted Aphrodite with Anchises; he goes on to Adonis as a still greater disgrace. ‘Fair is Adonis also,though he is only a shepherd, not even an oxherd.’ ⋯πε⋯ is common enough in this sense in latish writers, or we may supply an ellipse : ‘I mention Adonis, because—’ Then the reference to his hunting is also intended to vex her; Daphnis speaks ironically, as if he did not know that Adonis was killed while hunting.

In the ninth elegy of his third book Propertius withstands the encouragements of Maecenas, who has urged him to attempt heroic themes.

He declares himself unequal and unsuited to the task: different minds have different aptitudes; Lysippus excels in one craft, Calamis in another; some race afoot and some in chariots;

So far his weapons of defence are taken from a common armoury; but in the next verses he develops the argumentum ad hominem which was foreshadowed in ‘eques’ and ‘intra fortunam qui cupis esse tuam.’ Such promptings, says he, come strangely from Maecenas, whose own discreetness and self-repression will be famous in history, and whom he is resolved, so far as in him lies, to imitate.

As the plan of the Oxford Bibliotheca does not allow an editor to justify his treatment of a text in detail, it is inevitable that misunderstandings should arise, and I see that even a competent Platonic scholar like C. Ritter has missed the point more than once in his recent Bericht (Jahresber. für Altertumsw., Vol. CLVII., 1912, 1). I make no complaint of that–it was inevitable–but I feel bound to put on record my views on at least the more important problems suggested by the text. First, however, I must say something about the MSS. and the use which I have made of them.

Every one who has used Dr. Meusel's excellent edition of Caesar's Bellum Ciuile will welcome the first volume, comprising Commentaries I.–IV., of his final edition of the Bellum Gallicum. Nominally, each of the two books is a revision of the work of other men,–in the former case of Kraner and Hofmann, in the latter of Kraner and Dittenberger; really each, especially the latter, contains the fruit of so much independent research that the personalities of the older editors are obscured. That part of the joint work of Kraner and Dittenberger which corresponds with the revision consisted of 199 pages ; the revision extends to 464. As Meusel remarks in the Preface, it is no longer intended for the use of schools, but of teachers and classical scholars. The historical introduction and the section on the Roman army, which retain much of Kraner's work, have been carefully retouched; many of the footnotes have been corrected or rewritten; many, both on linguistic points and on the subject-matter, have been added.

The germ of the following paper is as old as the previous century, when in the year 1898 my attention was accidentally drawn to one of the passages discussed below. But progress was impossible until the facts of the MS.tradition of the Stromateis were properly presented–a service for which we are indebted to the excellent edition of Clement by Dr. O. Stählin (Leipzig 1906–1909).

The study of post-Aristotelian philosophy is constantly confused by the perplexing way in which the names of philosophers recur. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, is sufficiently well known not be confused with either Zeno the Eleatic or the later Stoic, Zeno of Tarsus, a disciple of Chrysippus; but when we come to less distinguished names the opportunity of error is greater. If two philosophers of the same name are prominent members of different schools, there ought to be no obscurity, but in an age of eclecticism one school will sometimes adopt doctrines from another, and so make classification difficult.

In the June issue of the Classical Review Professor Cook Wilson announces his conversion to the view that in ‘a well-defined group’ of passages in the Nicomachean Ethics λόγος means Reason. While I cannot hope to re-convert Professor Cook Wilson, I feel that it is worth while to try to express the reasons for which it seems difficult to follow him.

A simple transposition in the text would, I venture to suggest, remove one or two of the many difficulties of this obscure chapter.

I Examined this MS. at Bamberg in the Christmas vacation of 1912-13 for the purposes of the forthcoming critical edition of Livy by Professor Conway and Professor Walters. In 1856 H. W. Heerwagen described it, and published a collation of the first book. Apart from that it has been until now neglected. Bekker had it sent to him at Leipzig about 1830 for the purposes of his text: on its way back it fell into Kreyssig's hands (see the latter's preface to his edition of Book XXXIII.), but neither of them seems to have made any use of it. It was collated by J. G. Seebode in 1835–8 (as is recorded on the flyleaf); but no results were published. It is, however, curious that Weissenborn in his second edition (1859), though quoting Heerwagen as his sole source of information about the MS., which he calls B, cites its readings regularly not only in Book I., but in Book II. also, up to c. 22; after this I only four or five scattered readings are cited. The source from which he ascertained these are not known; in any case, they are few and unimportant. Conway and Walterś apparatus will contain the first account of the MS. I ever given which approaches completeness. It has now been examined at every point where any of the other MSS. show any variation of the least importance from one another, or where the text has been for any other reason the subject of discussion.

The words χρ⋯ and δεῖ with their inflectional and dialectic variations, are less definite and stable in their semantic range than the other Greek expressions for the general ideas of necessity, obligation, or propriety. Their semantic boundaries varied with the dialect, province of literature, and period–which cannot, indeed, be entirely separated. From Homer to Aristotle there is a steady trend, so plain that the slight notice taken of it is rather surprising. Everyone sees that the two are sometimes differentiated; yet it seems to be loosely taken for granted that they are substantially equivalent, and that either may, almost anywhere, be taken as an equivalent of the verbal in -τ⋯ος. The statements in Liddell and Scott under χρ⋯ present an admirable confusion of all periods and styles, and J. H. H. Schmidt, with no mention of dates, makes a distinction that resembles a reversal of the true relation.

The first excitement consequent upon the discovery of an ancient manuscript generally leads to an exaggeration of its importance. This was especially the case with the Veronese Palimpsest, first, because it is the only MS. of the first decade of Livy earlier than the ninth century, and secondly, because it is the only extant MS. for that part of Livy, which is not derived from the Nicomachian recension. Mommsen was naturally prejudiced in favour of the Veronese Palimpsest, which he collated and published, and, when the two families of MSS. differ from one another, he usually decides for the Palimpsest. He used only MPL for his comparison, which is consequently very inadequate. It is possible now, however, with our wider and moreaccurate knowledge of the Nicomachian MSS.,thanks to the patient research of Professor Flamstead Walters and Dr. Conway, more justly to estimate the importance of the Veronese Palimpsest in Livy's first decade.

Neither Prof. Ellis in his Appendix Vergiliana (Oxonii, 1907) nor Prof. Vollmer in his edition of the same (Lipsiae, 1910), though the latter gives a long list of MSS, makes any mention of a Luxemburg MS containing the Moretum. The MS is numbered 27 (M. 9. 16), is of the twelfth century, and was formerly in the library of a monastery at Orval (Aurea Vallis). The Luxemburg collection is not as well known as it ought to be. A catalogue of the MSS was published in 1894 by the then custodian N. van Werveke, but the small number of copies issued does not seem to have fallen into the hands of those most interested. I have to thank the present librarian, Dr. d'Huart, for his kindness to me on the occasion of my recent visit to the library.

The study of Hellenistic Greek, or of the Κοινή, which has flourished increasingly since the beginning of the present century, has brought Modern Greek more and more within the view of classical philologists. As I have insisted on utilizing Modern Greek for Hellenistic philology for about twenty years, I may claim some credit if a knowledge of Modern Greek is now admitted to be indispensable to Hellenistic studies; but philologists only reluctantly acknowledge this new demand, and hesitate to acquire as full an acquaintance with Modern Greek as the study of the Κοιή demands.

May a reader of Mr. Herbert Richards' Thucydidea briefly defend the manuscript reading in this familiar passage ? In the October issue of the Classical Quarterly (vii. 245) Mr. Richards suggests καì πολλοὺσ ἰδών in place of καì αὐτ⋯ς ἰδών. He says, ‘The second aὐróς is very pointless, and a πoλλoὐς seems wanted. We do not need to be told that he saw them himself, and hardly that he did see them; that he saw many is worth mentioning.