The fabulist Phaedrus, or Phaeder if that was his real name, was unhappy in his life, and ill-fortune pursued him after death. In addition to accidental corruption and the interpolation which this provoked, his five books of verse have suffered from disruption and partial conversion into prose. Restoration of the original, so far as that original is capable of being restored, is neither simple nor easy. The sources of the text are diverse and different. None of them can be trusted, but none on the other hand may be neglected. A short account of them is requisite in order to make what follows immediately intelligible.

On p. 49 of the number of the Classical Quarterly for January, 1917, Mr. Alex. Pallis suggests an emendation in the reference to sacrifice of goats in A. 40, 66, 315, on the assumption that such a sacrifice is not Homeric: ‘In no other Homeric passages do we find an allusion to sacrifices of goats, nor is it likely that offerings of animals so little prized would have been thought acceptable to the gods. It is clear, therefore, that in the above passages we must read $$$ίων instead of α$$$γ$$$ν.’

IX. 6. 12. (The young nobles of Capua describe the bearing of the Romans released from the Caudine Forks after having passed under the yoke.)

iacere indolem illam Romanam ablatosque cum armis animos; non reddere salutem, non salutantibus dare responsum, non hiscere quemquam prae metu potuisse.

Charles Erskine Stuart's studies of the MSS. of Seneca's tragedies are known to readers of the Class. Quart, from his two articles (V., 1911, pp. 32 sqq., and VI., 1912, pp. 1 sqq.). Before he died he expressed a wish that his collations and notes should pass to me.

The change of the Greek aspirates into the voiceless spirants of the modern language was already beginning to appear in some of the ancient dialects. The intermediate stage in this development is naturally that of affricates, ph, th, kh, becoming pf, tp, kx respectively, a stage seen in such spellings as μετνλλακχóτα. The evidence of the inscriptions shows that the change was not readily effected in Attic, and the clearest mark of this conservatism is the interchange of aspirates and tenues.

Professor Postgate (C.Q. XI. 169) speaks of ‘the regrettable silence of the principal editors of Plautus upon the subject.’ As a minor editor, I beg to defend my colleagues by pointing out that the scansions dĭŭtíus and dyūtius are subject of a note in Dziatzko's and Hauler's editions of the Phormio of Terence (on line 182) and in the Plautus Report in Bursian of 1879 (p. 70). Also that a reference to the index of my larger edition of the Captiui (Methuen, 1900) will show that the word is discussed in my section on Prosody (p. 27): ‘The same doubt exists regarding the scansion of diutius (e.g. Trin. 685), the by-form (equivalent to a dactyl dῖutius or to a proceleusmatic dĭŭtĭŭs) of the fuller form dĭūtĭŭs (Rud. 93).’

84 B. ζῆν τε οῐεται οὕτω δεῖν … καὶ… ἀϕικομένη ἀπάλλαττεσθαι. Surprise has been expressed at this nominative after οἲεται δεῖν. Cf. Magna Moralia II. xi. 31, οὐκοἲ ονται δεῖν αὐτοι ϕιλεῖν ἀλλ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνδεεστέρων οἲονται δεῖν αὐϒοῖ ϕιλεῖσθαι. Herodian Hist. I. X. 4, ῲήθη δεῖν μέϒα τι δράσας κατορθῶσαι . Isocrates ix. 30, οὐΧ ἠϒήσαϒο δεῖν χωρίον καταλαβὼν και τὸ σῶμα ἐν ἀσϕαλείᾀ καταστήσας περιιδειν.… Either such phrases were so common that οἲομαι δεῖν came to be thought of as a single word, in which δεῖν did not count, or else this use comes from adding δεῖν superfluously to a primitive use of οἲομαι with an infinitive. It is of course common enough to say οἲομαι ϕιλεῖν in good Attic for ‘I think fit to love.’ I should prefer the latter hypothesis myself: οῐομαι is properly to ‘carry’ or ‘bear’ so οἲομαι ϕιλείν is ‘I propose to love,’ and then δεῖν was added, especially when οἲομαι had come to mean ‘I think.’ There is a good instance of the primitive use of οἲω in Odyss. xix. 312, ῶδʹἀνὰ θυμὸν οἲεται surely this is simply ‘it is borne in upon my mind,’ ‘je suis porté à croir’. Anyhow οἲομαι or ἡ ϒοῦμαι δειν may be followed by a nominativeand infinitive.

It seems to have been assumed that Lucretius elides final s promiscuously, as Ennius does, at any part of the line. The following statement of facts will show that the truth is very different: I take all cases where the reading appears certain. (1) He has twenty-eight such elisions at the end of the fifth foot, including the emended ii. 623, 975, 986, v. 1410; (2) ten at the weak caesura of the fifth foot, including the emended iii. 198, 1016, v. 949, 1106. But except in these two positions the elison is quite rare and exceptional. I will begin the exceptions by giving (3) a peculiar group: ii. 5, omm' sit. 458, omnibu' sunt (Lamb.), 1079, aliquoiu' siet (Gronov.), iv. 493, coloribu' sint, 1152, corpori' sunt, 1268, opu' sunt, v. 456, minoribu' sunt, 1445, priu' sunt; all these are from the first four feet, but evidently to Lucretius a combination like opu' sunt is very different from, say, opu' fit. Indeed, I take it that opusit was to him just one word like necessest; the following s in sit and sunt helps, perhaps, and so the solitary instance in Catullus is before s; at any rate, this group is obviously exceptional. There remain (4) only two elisions at the end of the fourth foot, iv. 1035 and the emended vi. 972; two at the end of the second foot, immutabili' in i. 591, and immortalibu' in v. 53, both due to correctors and both words of a form which is rare at the opening of a line; one in weak fourth caesura, iii. 905; one at end of first foot, i. 978. You will hardly believe me, but those are all.

Two kindred glossaries, Affatim and the Second Amplonian, have been shown (by Professor Lindsay in the Classical Quarterly XI. 185 sqq.) to derive their materials mainly from the Abstrusa and Abolita glossaries, but partly also from Virgil marginalia. This Virgil thread is most clearly seen in the I-section of Affatim. The Affatim compiler tells us that the exemplar (from which he drew most of his material) had lost four leaves at this point: ‘Here the exemplar lacks four leaves in the H–I portion’ (C.G.L. IV. 524, 45–46). We find the following unmistakable Virgil batches:

Affatim 525, 41 sqq. Infandum: inenarrandum, nee loquendum (e.g. Aen. 1, 251); Inpar: inaequalis uiribus (e.g. Aen. 1, 475); Iamdudum: iam pridem, iam olim (e.g. Aen. 1, 580; also C.G.L. IV. 88, 40); In arce: in excelso (e.g. Aen. 3, 531); Infabricata: inperfecta (Aen. 4, 400); Iam uertitur: iam transit (Aen. 5, 626); <lnualidum>: iam ualidum minus, minus fortem (Aen. 5, 716); Imago: uultus (e.g. Aen. 6, 695); In iaculis: in armis, in telis (Aen. 5, 37).

The MS. hie tunc of V. 6 has no friends. L. Mueller's hoc tunc is weak and flat, and L. Rank, Mnemosyne 40. 51, is justly dissatisfied with the hietans of M. Havet's larger and smaller editions, to which the hians of Verg. Aen. 12. 754 lends no sufficient support, as there the dog is opening its mouth before it bites. Add to this that it is by no means certain that Phaedrus would either have used the word or used it in the simple sense of opening the mouth. Rank's own proposal, ‘heu’ tunc, fails also to carry conviction. There is however a word which belongs to our author's vocabulary (App. 23. 5) and is as near to the manuscripts as either of the above, and which hits the sense at which hietans aims. This is rictus. The word is often used of the opened mouths of dogs, Lucr. 5. 1064, Ovid Met. 13. 568. Juvenal 10. 271 sq. ‘canino latrauit rictu,’ and of other animals. That it is appropriate with dimisit ‘let go’ may be seen from the counterpart expression of Martial 1. 48. 1 ‘rictibus his tauros non eripuere magistri.’

Posidonivs was fortunate to be born in an age when the Romans had begun to recognize their own intellectual limitations, and had turned for guidance to a hitherto despised nation, admitted by themselves to be as much their superior in originality as it was inferior to them in practical matters. He was, moreover, the official exponent of a philosophical system which, destined as it was to exercise for hundreds of years the strongest moral influence over the world, had already taken a firm hold on the more thoughtful minds at Rome. Probably any Greek teacher of ability had, in the time of Cicero, a good chance to make a name; Posidonius, who was a man of considerable intellectual gifts, great learning, and some originality, and who was, moreover, the accredited successor to Zeno and Chrysippus, obtained a reputation which lasted for some centuries.

Page 156. Fable IV. 1. 1. for sibi read huic.

Page 157. Fable V, 1. 5, for multiplici plenam read plenam multiplici.

Page 160. Fably VII, 1. 3, for legitimo sedit read sedit legitimo.

The corresponding corrections should be made in the annotations.