I need scarcely say that I do not propose to disturb Jebb's celebrated emendation of this passage in so far as the construction of is concerned. But I do think that there is yet a difficulty left. How can Oedipus fee said to have ' taken Iocasta as a gift out of the city' ? Or how can the Greek mean ' receive her from the city ' ? would be right for ' to choose out from among many possessions' (cf. Aesch. Ag. 975), but I desiderate examples of such a phrase as in the sense here required. The suggested correction ⋯πωφελ⋯σας strikes me as harsh without an accusative. Might it not then be better to read ⋯π’ ὠφελ⋯σει π⋯λεος, ‘on the strength of having served the city’ ? The change is scarcely, if at all, more violent; others might prefer ⋯π’ ὠφελε⋯ᾳ. That this phrase can also mean ‘with a view to help’ does not seem to me to matter.

At the end of the Sixth Book of the Republic Plato explains the Idea of Good by means of the Figure of the Sun. As the sun is the cause both of the becoming of that which is subject to becoming and of our apprehension of it and of its changes through the eye, so the idea of good is the cause of the being of that which is and also of our knowledge of it. As the sun is beyond γ⋯νεσις, so the Idea of Good is beyond Being. Glaucon says he does not understand. The simile is further elucidated by means of a line, divided into two parts, of which one stands for the νιητ⋯ν γ⋯νος τε κα⋯ τ⋯πος, where the Idea of Good bears rule, the other for the ⋯ρατ⋯ν γ⋯νος τε κα⋯ τ⋯πος, over which the sun is lord. The line is to be divided unequally (the inequality representing the unequal clearness of the objects each division stands for), and subdivided in the same proportions. Thus we get a line consisting of four parts in the ratio (say) 4 : 6 : : 6 : 9. Let us call the four parts A B C D respectively, A being the smallest, D the greatest, B and C necessarily equal. A (as Plato explains) stands for εἱκ⋯νες, shadows, images in water and on polished surfaces, and the like: B stands for animals, plants, and the creations of human industry: C for the objects of that enquiry in which the objects denoted by B are treated as images, i.e. mathematical enquiries: D for the objects apprehended by dialectic, the Ideas themselves. The first equation asserted (510a 8) is—The objects of opinion : objects of knowledge : : representation : original (AB : CD : : A : B). There follows an explanation of the inferiority of mathematical to philosophical reasoning, and an explanation of the statement that the objects denoted by B are used as images or symbols by the enquiry concerned with C; as a result of which Glaucon perceives that the general distinction between C and D is that between the τ⋯χναι (as they were called), i.e. those sciences in which the Guardians (as explained in the following book) were to be educated, and Philosophy or Dialectic. Finally a special π⋯θημα or affection of the soul is allotted to each of the four divisions of the line, to A εἱκασ⋯α, to B π⋯στις, to C δι⋯νοια, to D ν⋯ησις, each π⋯θημα being clear in the same degree in which the objects it is concerned with are true.

The identity of the river is even more obscure than that of the (1. 22). Strabo and Dionysius Periegetes alone mention a Peloponnesian river of the name.

I 13 3 (seruorum offensiones et molestias);—

i 2. Longus is telling of the discovery of the infant Daphnis: Seiler ‘ caute et anxie circumeuntem,’ Hirschig ‘ caute circumeuntem.’ Tense as well as context point to ‘ bestriding.’ See L. and S. under

Lvcilivs 11191 (Ma.) is preserved for us in Isid. Etym. XIX, iv, 10, where, amongst the articles of a ship's equipment, the plummet (catapirates, the ) of Herodotus is mentioned, with this illustration (I give the reading of the Archetype) from Lucilius:

Hunc (hanc ?) catapiratem puer eodem deforet unctum,

plumbi paucillum rudus linique mataxam.

In Brutus § 274 Cicero writes: The style of M. Calidius was pure and limpid; he used no word that was ‘ durum aut insolens aut humile aut longius ductum. Erant autem et uerborum et sententiarum ilia lumina quae uocant Graeci …(§ 275) “ Qua de re agitur” autem illud quod multis locis in iuris consultorum includitur formulis et ubi esset uidebat.’ In the last phrase, which I give in the MSS reading, editors have adopted for et ubi the suggestion of Corradus id ubi. There seem to be two objections to it: (I) poor sense, (2) doubtful syntax. Impelled by these objections but pressing overmuch the relevancy of a somewhat similar phrase (De Fin. V. 26. 78: si est quisquam qui acute in causis uidere soleat quae res agatur is es profecto tu) one editor proposed ‘ acutissime uidebat.’ But the context shows that Cicero is describing the language of Calidius, not his mental powers; so a reference to keenness in perceiving the subject of dispute is not relevant. In § 276 the passage proceeds to enumerate the formal qualities of his style:. ‘ accedebat ordo rerum plenus artis, actio liberalis, totumque dicendi placidum et sanum genus.’

Liv. II. 5. 2: Ager Tarquiniorum qui inter urbem ac Tiberim fuit consecratus Marti Martius deinde campus fuit.

Surely Livy had too nice an ear to finish two clauses close together with fuit. Rather than that he would no doubt have written qui… fuerat, which would indeed have been more regular and proper with the fuit following. But should not the second fuit be fit, a historic present like res integra refertur just before ? The two words are so much alike that it was easy to identify them.

Lvcilivs, fr. 965 (Marx):

quaenam uox ex te resonans meo gradu remoram facit ?

Mr. Housman in the first number of the Classical Quarterly (p. 59) refuted and pulverized the attempt of Marx to emend this passage by writing quoia nam. ‘ Ex tecto ’ and ‘ ex aede’ have been suggested; but it is obvious that if ‘ ex aede’ is to be contemplated, emendation may go on —scores of words could be found that would make sense. There is no context. If the passage is to be emended at all, I suggest that Lucilius wrote

quaenam uox EXTVOORERESONANS.

The Hercules Oetaeus, whatever be its authorship, is closely related to the other plays, and often has what seem to be reminiscences of them, not always felicitous reminiscences. Often, of course, they are reminiscences of the other Hercules, and may supply a clue to the text of that play. Many of them were pointed out by Leo, but there is room for further investigation.

Carolvs Praechter, uir clarissimus, optime exposuit quo modo rumores et fabulae de Platoni s itineribus gradatim orerentur, augerentur, firmarentur.1 Inter scriptores, qui nobis tales narrationes tradiderunt, est Valerius Maximus, qui her Aegyptiacum et Italicum his uerbis narra: (III 7, Ext. 3.)

<Quoque tempore a studiosis iuuenibus certatim

Athenae Platonem doctorem quaerentibus petebantur, ipse Nili

fluminis inexplicabiles ripas uastissimosque campos,

teffusam barbariam et flexuosos fossarum ambitus

Aegyptiorum senum discipulus lustrabat.>

It has usually been held, on the strength of several passages in Thucydides, that the Athenian army which was besieging Syracuse in 414–413 b.c. contained a contingent of Etruscans desirous of retaliating upon the Syracusans for losses inflicted upon them in past days—e.g., in 474 at Cumae and in 453 at Elba.

Was the above-named bill, which was brought forward in 122 b.c. by the tribune M. Liuius Drusus, and provided that the Latins should under all circumstances be exempt from the penalty of scourging, duly passed by the Roman Assembly and entered upon the statute-book?

In analyzing for composition I start in the most obvious way with (from gwm-ti-) in the sense of ‘gang’ (i° ‘uia’ 2° ‘ caterua’), while must be a root-noun from *lew-s, and is perhaps immediately cognate with Skr. lu-nati ‘caedit.’1 This analysis makes mean something like ‘ uiam-muniens,’ i.e. a sort of ‘ ponti-fex.’ I think more particularly of the sacrificial leader, the , the Rex Sacrificulus, who, while he may have been concerned with the making of ways on earth, also made paths for man to the gods. But this aside, he who ‘ blazed the trail,’ who ‘ loosed’ or ‘ solved ’ (the problem of) the ‘ ways,’ was ‘ explorer, guide, leader,’ i.e. ‘dux.’

In Plautus and elsewhere in old Latin there is an imperative suffix -mino of medio-deponential meaning: opperimino, PL True. 188 (Ambr.), progredimino, id. Pseud. 859, arbitramino, id. Epid. 695, praefamino, Cato, RR. 141, 2, famino Paul. Fest. 62, 10, Th., all 2 sg.; in legal documents, antestamino (si in ius uocat, ni it, antestamino, igitur em capito), in the XII Tables, fruimino (is eum agrum habeto niue fruimino), CIL. 1, 199, profitemino in Lex Iulia Municipalis, all 3 sg. The generally accepted explanation of the form is that it arose from a contamination of the ordinary 2 pl. medio-passive imperative in -mini and the 2, 3 sg. forms in -to, Lindsay, Latin Language, p. 517, Von Planta, Gramm. d. oskisch-umbr. Dial. II, pp. 310 sqq., Buck, Elementarb. d. oskisch-umbr. Dial. p. 112, Sommer, Hdb. d. lat. Laut- u. Formenlehre, p. 366, Stolz, Lat. Gramm*. p. 158. The Oskan and the Umbrian forms in -mo, -mu, U. spahamu, eturstahmu, persnimu, O. censamur, all of 2 or 3 sg., and U. arsmahamo, caterahamo of 2 or 3 pi., are identified with the Lat. -minō forms on the assumption that the Osk-Umbr. -mu represents an older *-mnō which in turn arose by syncope from -*menō Von Planta, l.c. This explanation is the most satisfactory that has been given, and we may suppose that Latin, Oskan, and Umbrian had an imperative form in *-menō.