Since the days of Merula it has been regularly assumed by editors and critics of Ennius that, despite the express statement of Cicero to the contrary, the Annales did contain some narrative of the events of the first Punic War. Familiar as the passage in the Brutus is, it must be quoted once again: “Tamen illius quem uatibus et Faunis annumerat Ennius Bellum Punicum quasi Myronis opus delectat. Sit Ennius sane, ut est certe, perfectior: qui, si ilium, ut simulat, contemneret, non omnia bella persequens, primm illud Punicum, acerrimum bellum, reliquisset”.

In attempting to determine the text of Sophocles in the places presently to be discussed, it is notmy purpose to put forward a series of novelties which, though more or less plausible, are essentially incapableof proof. I seek rather to plead for the reception of certain ascertained but neglected variants, and to establish their claims by a survey of the relevant evidence. After a somewhat prolonged study of the data, I am convinced that the chief hope of progress— apart from the discovery of fresh material—lies in a more methodical use of the ancient scholia and lexicographers. Although their value has long been acknowledged, they have been employed unintelligently or at haphazard, largely because the character of their information and its sources have been imperfectly understood. One of the chief aids which they afford is in passages where the genuine reading has been displaced by an explanatory gloss. This is a possibility which critics have always recognized, but, while ready enough to suggest that the word selected for expulsion is a gloss on some other, they frequently fail to demonstrate that it is used as a gloss at all. Leaving such guess–work aside, we shall still find various grades of probability. It should be a minimum requirement that the word removed from the text is, either itself or as one of a class, a well-attested gloss of the proposed substitute. Thus in El. 800, where LA with most other MSS. have καταξίως but four of the recentiores κατ' άξιαν, I think that Bothe and Monk were right in preferring κατάξι' ἂν.

Thucydides, II. 28, records an eclipse of the sun in the summer of the first year of the Peloponnesian war. It can be no other than the annular eclipse of the 3rd of August, 431 B.C. He describes the phenomenon so accurately and with so many details that we can hardly doubt that he observed it himself — Tοῦ δ' αủτοῦ θέρονς γονμηνιᾳ κατά σελήγηγ, ὤσπερ και μόγογ δοκει ειναι γιγνεσθαι δνγατόγ, ό λιος έξέλιπε μετά μεσημβριαγ και πάλιγ άγ επληρὡθη, γενόμενος μηνοειδής και άστέρὡν τινὡν έκΦανέντων.

In the course of reading some of these writers I have made the following notes. Some of the suggestions have very probably been anticipated, and in such cases I can only plead the legal maxim, superflua non nocent. The references are to volume and page of Spengel's edition (Lipsiae, 1853–6), and Anon. 1. 427 has been cited as Cornutus.

This instalment of suggestions is put forward with all the diffidence one is bound to feel after an examination of the great body of the manuscripts. No great writer's text has hung upon a more slender thread of evidence. Larger matters than verbal emendation are touched upon in the discussion of poem LXVIII. My theory of how our texts became dislocated (and more than half of the extant manuscripts present an order quite different from that of GOR), and some new light I hope to throw upon the form and meaning of the Peleus and Thetis, must be withheld until a later occasion.

It is generally assumed that every adjective ending in -ης is an s-stem like εủγενἠς (gen. εủγενοὖσ from εὖγενἐ(σ)-ος; cf. γἐνος gen. γἐνε(σ)-ος, Lat. genus gener-is, Skr. janas janas-as) or δνσμευἠς (: μἠνος; cf. Skr. dur-manās gen. dur-manas-as). Solmsen, for instance, does not hesitate (Beiträige zur griechischen Wortforschung 16) to regard ὀμ-ηγερἠς (πολμ-ηγερἠς, θνμ ηγερἠσ) as evidence for the s-stem geres which he wishes to find in ἀγοστóς (ἀγο(ρ)σ-τóς), and Bechtel (Lexilogus 274) infers a stem παγεσ - from ὐπερπαγἠς. The result of this well-nigh universal belief has been that hardly anybody has thought it worth while to examine these words carefully.

A Student who looks out siparum in the dictionary is sent on to supparum. Forcellini: ‘sīpărum et sīpărus et sīphărum, v. supparum'; ‘suppărum, i, n. et supparus, i, m… scribitur autem et sifarus et siparum et siparus et sipharutm’. Georges: ‘sīpărum, īphărum (īphărus), s. supparum’; ‘suppărum (īpărum u. īphărum), i, n., u. suppărus (īphărus), i, m. (σíϕαρος)’. Lewis and Short: ‘īpărum or-us, i, v. supparum'; ‘suppărum (īpărum, īpărum, īphărum), i, n. u. suppărus (īphărus), i, m.’ This then is one word, rejoicing in no fewer than eleven forms (most of which I have never met anywhere outside a dictionary2): supparum, supparus, īparum, sĭparum, īpharum, sĭpharum, siparus, sifarus, īpharus, sĭpharus, sĭparium. And to this one word the lexicographers assign two meanings: (I) a topsail (or in military use a sort of banner), (2) a linen garment mostly worn by women. Similar opinions are forthcoming from all quarters: studniczka Beitr. z. Gesch. d. altgr. Tracht p. 90 ‘supparus… bezeichnet ein linnenes Obergewand der Männer und Frauen, zugleich aber ein Art Segel und segeltüchtige Vorhänge, wie sie im Theater und anderwärts verwendet wurden’; Vaniček Fremdwörter p. 79 ‘supparus m., supparum n., ursprünglicher Name eines Segels … dann ein Frauengewand’ (a description taken word for word from Hehn Kulturpfl. u. Hausth. p. 154 ed. 2); Pauli in Kuhn's Zeitschrift XVIII p. 5 ‘supparus, supparum, leinenes gewand, frauenhemde, toppsegeL’; Weise Griech. Wört, im Lat. p. 181 'nächst der Tunikaund Stolaist dasam frülhesten in der Litteratur auftretende Frauengewand das supparum. Sein Name (=σíφαρον) ist ein uraltes Lehnwort des Seewesens und bezeichnet ursprünglich ein linnenes Segel’; Marquardt Privatl. pp. 484 sqq. ed. 2 ‘das linnene Frauenkleid, welches zuerst in Mode kam, war das supparum. Das Wort ist … identisch mit siparum oder σíφαρoσ (das Segel)’; Lindsay Lat. Lang. p. 29 ‘supparum, with byform siparum’; Walde Lat. etym. Wörterb. ‘supparum, Toppsegel, Bramsegel, auch siparum, sipharum, aus gr. σíπαρoσ,σíφαρoς entlehnt’; KellerLat. Volksetym. p. 106 ‘das Toppsegel heisst lateinisch supparum und supparus, griechisch σíϕαροσ, σíπαρoς’

It is plainly absurd to wish that Odysseus, who has been on Phrygian soil these ten years, should perish in the future before he even treads upon it. Paley gets some sense by supplying ‘as a conqueror or permanent settler,’ but obviously we have no right to supply all that: nor indeed would any Greek poet have ever said such a thing as έπí γâν îχνος βαλεîν ώς νικŵν or εìσαεí. See also Mr. Porter's note in C.Q. XI. 160. My explanation may be hazardous, but such as it is it would be somewhat as follows:

In the first place, it is notorious that in early Greek poetry the optative, present and aorist, is used in constructions which in strict Attic require imperfect or aorist indicative. I need say nothing of Ȅνθα ŵεν αѷт àπÓλοιτο and the like. But consider optatives after εì Not only does Homer use εì with present optative instead of indicative, e.g. B 780 ώς εȉ τε νέμοιτο, ۸ 467 ώς έȉ β ςιώατο X 411 ώς έί δμύχοιτο, ψ 274 εȉ νȗν άεθλεύοιµεν but he even does at least once so use aorist optative for indicative, a fact which I have not seen noticed, κ 416 ώς εί ίκοατο ‘as if they had come.‘ At N 343 ôς is substituted for εί in the sentence μάλα κε θρασυκρδιςεȉ ηôς ȍϚ τότε ϒηθήσειεƲ = ήν άν ός έγήθσεν. And the important point for my purpose is that this use of ει with present optative is occasionally found in Attic, as everybody knows.

єί μέƲ ο$$v$$Ʋ ήμєȋς μέƲ ϕƲλακЃκ ώς άληθῶς ποіοῶμєƲ, ἥкіστα КαКоύρϒονς Τῆςs πóλєѡς, ό δ' ὲκєîƲo גέγѡƲ γєѡργούς τιƲɑς καì ὥσπєρ έƲ παƲƞΥύρєі άλλ' οὐ᧻ ÉƲ πόλєі έσΤιάΤορας єύδαίµοƲας, ȁλιƲ ȁƲ ΤΙ ἥ πóλιƲ λέλoi.

‘More simply expressed,’ write Jowett and Campbell, ‘the sense is as follows: “If the idea of a state requires the citizens to be guardians, he who converts them into rustic holiday-workers will mean something that is not a state.“’ This rendering, which seems to be necessary if the traditional text is retained, is difficult to reconcile with the preceding argument. Although this note will suggest an emendation, its chief purpose is to indicate the connexion of this passage with the argument of which it is the closing sentence.

One of the most learned and prolific writers of the ninth century was Remigius of Auxerre (c. 841–908). In addition to lengthy expositions of several books of the Bible, he wrote Commentaries on Donatus, Priscian, Eutyches, Beda, the Disticha Catonis, Sedulius, Martianus Capella, Boethius, and Phocas.

The significance of the name of the goddess worshipped at Mantinea and at Tegea, Athena Alea, is correctly interpreted by M. Fougères in B.C.H. 16 (1892), p. 573. “ Aléa Athèna,” he says, “signifie la deésse A1éa, qui ressemble à Athèna. Par cette addition on a voulu marquer les rapports entre la deésse Protectrice d'Arcadie et la deésse tutelaire d'Athènes.” He calls attention to the fact that in the language of Homer and Hesiod the Greek word άλέα denotes ‘la protection qui éloigne le mal.’

Read thus the simile presents nothing eccentric. In ver. 101 Hosius and Lejay (in his excellent little edition of Book I., published by Klincksieck in 1894) read male separat, which not only common sense requires but codd. VUQ authorize: not so Mr. Haskins, who follows a multitude of codd. in offering mare separat. But a slight further correction is necessary: to read Aegaeon in 103 for the MS. Aegeo, ‘Withdraw the land, and Aegaean would smash Ionian Sea.’ Those who make Isthmos the subject of frangat cite Stat. Silu. IV. iii. 59:

356 nonquit O, oinquit Q, linquit Q corr., oinquid G, noscit Lachmann. 359 adsittens OQ, adsistens Q corr.

In the summer of 1919, in the high Sierra of California, I chanced to talk with a cattleman who had driven his herd from the lower valleys to the highlands for summer pasture. When he had arrived at his destination he found a cow missing. He retraced his route, and forty miles below he found the cow by the roadside.Her calf, by reason of its weakness, had been picked up by a waggoner and brought on, and the cow was found at the identical spot where the calf had been taken from the ground; the cow had found the place and had remained there for five days. The occurrence gave rise to a general discussion by the cattlemen present concerning the habits of these animals. When a cow misses her calf she will go by memory to the place where the calf was last seen by her, and will stay there for days; but she will graze and not go hungry herself. The cow will also search by smell; she can smell a herd or the odour left on bushes or that attached to footsteps for hours certainly, possibly for days. The calf also will stay for days where the mother left it. The bereaved cow will try to find her calf first by sight, then by memory, and lastly by smell.