Of all the numerous inscriptions which throw light “upon the organization and activities of the ancient religious and social guilds, none is more valuable and none more vivid than that which contains the minutes of a meeting of the Athenian Iobacchi followed by acomplete text of the statutes which were then unanimously ratified. This document, originally published by S. Wide in A th. Mitt. XIX. 248 sqq., appears in a number of well-known and widely accessible collections—Dittenberger's S.I.G. 737, 1109; Roberts andGardner's Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, II. No. 91; Ziehen's Leges Graecorum Sacrae, II. 46; Michel's Recueil, 1564; and I.G. II. 1368—and has been discussed in detail by E. Maass (Orpheus, 14 sqq.), who republishes the text with a translation and commentary, and by E. Drerup (Neue Jahrbücher f. d. klass. Altertum, III. 356 sqq.).

Some uncertainty has always surrounded the translation of Thucydides made by Laurentius Valla in 1452 at the desire of the Humanist Pope, Nicolas V., because its source was unknown. It is recognized that the translation is of unequal value, because, excellent Latinist as Valla was, he was less at home in Greek, and often fails, even when the Greek is not particularly difficult; but his text, whatever its origin and history, is a primary authority. In the Oxford text of Thucydides, edited by Principal Stuart Jones, I have counted sixteen places for which Valla is the only authority, and there are a few more which might perhaps well be added. The view both of the Principal and of Hude is that Valla's readings in these places were due to his own ingenuity.

Plutarch's dialogue De facie in orbe lunae contains a mention of an eclipse, the identification of which would give a terminus post quern, for the composition of the work. The speaker is the Etruscan Lucius, the Pythagorean friend of Sulla the Carthaginian, and his words are as follows (93ID): ‘Concede me this, remembering this recent eclipse, which, beginning immediately after midday (εύθùς έκ μεσηβρίας άρξαμένη), caused many stars to appear in many quarters of the sky.’ For such a phenomenon to occur the eclipse must have been nearly or quite total.

Perhaps for ώς ἔθελ' as there is no real contrast of persons, but only an intimation of the extent or degree of power exercised, ώς ἓθελ' αὔτως, ‘just as he liked’ (cf. note on 211), should be read. I make no doubt λύρην (MS. Mosc.) should be preferred to the rival λαβών, which appears to be an import from 499, and for έέαριστερ Χειρός I would recommend π ριστέρέ ργων' ργων (cf. 153). The omission of Χειρός leaves nothing to regret, especially as it must mean in 418 the left hand, and in 419 the right hand (v. Sikes and Allen, ad loc.)

Among the Homeric names there are many of the shortened form, of types that appear in historical Greek names and also some with endings (such as -ες, της, and -τωρ) that disappear, or tend to disappear, in names of the later time. Different forms of the same name occur; Patroklos is the only form used in the nominative of that hero's name, but in the other cases forms of the name Patrokles are found. The name Sthenelaos appears in its full form and there is also the variant Sthenelos. The full name Agasthenes is used in Il. 2. 624, but in the case of others who have names originally made in the same way the short forms appear; Eurystheus is short for Eurysthenes and his name contains an element of his father's name Sthenelos. The name Menesthenes does not occur in Homer, but the forms Menestheus, Menesthes, and Menesthios are all found. Other examples could be added of the variety which existed in the early form of the language in the proper names that are variants or ‘short forms’ of the original name.

All that we know of this writer comes from an item in the collection of pseudoPlacidus, who, like Nonius Marcellus, collected scholia from MSS. of Republican authors, and with laudable accuracy recorded the exact phrase used by the author as well as the scholium which explains the phrase. The great Latin Thesaurus (cf. Journ. Phil. XXXIV. 258) now makes a practice of distinguishing these valuable items (by the label ‘ps.-Plac.’) from the worthless Placidus items (labelled ‘Plac.’). A phrase labelled ‘ps.-Plac’ in the Thesaurus may, as a rule, be accepted as the ipsa uevba of a Republican writer; and the next editor of fragments of Republican Dramatists, etc., must bear this in mind. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri enable us to see the kind of MSS., provided with a very few short (or long) marginal scholia, from which pseudo-Placidus (I wish we knew his real name) made his apparently haphazard collection, a collection of which only a part, possibly a very small part, has survived.

There has always, apparently, been a strangely persistent belief among scholars in the existence of Knights of Senatorial rank, and though the definition of these has varied from time to time, their existence seems to be universally accepted.

The first form of this idea is to be found in the view that the phrase ‘equitesillustres’ used by Tacitus refers to Knights possessing Senatorial rank. In a recent article the writer has dealt with this question, and tried to show how Mommsen definitely disposed of this theory. But in spite of his masterly refutation of it, it has found acceptance among more recent scholars, such as Furneaux, Pelham, Cagnat, and others.

The following emendations, if sound, illustrate the relation between the two chief MSS.

(a) Kb shows a gloss that has ousted the true reading, while Lb has a conflation of the two:

1097b 14: τ δ αὒταρκες τίθεμεν μονούμενον ἄρκιον κα αἱρετν ποιεῖ τν βον κα μηδενς νδε Lb: αἱρετν κα ἄρκιον Mb (which is better, as it does not divide ἄρκιον from μηδ. ένδ.): Kb has αἱρετν alone. I suspect the true reading to be ἄρκιον alone. On this αἱρετν was a mistaken gloss: it is out of place here, as it belongs to the concept τέλειον which was discussed in §§ 1–5 and to which we return below, ἒτι δ πάντωναἱρετωτάτην μ συναριθμονμένην. The poetic ἄρκιον is used to explain αὔτ-αρκες, and is itself paraphrased κα μηδενς νδε. αύτ is explained by μονούμενον, just as b 9 αὐτῷ was explained by τῷ ντι βίον μονώτην (which shows that μονούμενον goes with βίον, not ὃ).

The fifth book of Xenophon's Anabasis presents a puzzle which Mr. Tarn has not discussed in his most stimulating chapter on the ‘Ten Thousand’ in the Cambridge Ancient History. Xenophon is telling the story of the retreat along the shore of the Black Sea. At Cotyora, at Xenophon's own suggestion (so he tells us) a general кαθαρμός was held by the survivors. For some time past the troops had been beginning to get badly out of hand. There had been a particularly disgraceful scene at Cerasus, which they had left a week before their arrival at Cotyora. Certain local tribes of the Colchi had sent ambassadors to the Greek army, which was actually leaving the town at the moment of their arrival. Most of the troops were already outside the walls; but some stragglers who were still within the town stoned the ambassadors to death, and a general riot ensued. Now, not a word of this story is told by Xenophon in its proper place in the narrative (V. 4, 1), where we are simply told that the Greeks left Cerasus, some by sea and seme by land. The whole story is told later in great detail, and in a curious form: as a digression which Xenophon makes in a speech immediately preceding the court of enquiry at Cotyora.

No modern writer, so far as I am aware, has called attention to the peculiar attitude adopted by Cornutus towards Homer and Hesiod. My object in this article is to state his attitude, and attempt some account of its significance for the history of Greek allegorical interpretation of poetry.

In the Classical Quarterly for April, 1927, I tried to show how Virgil, in his fourth Eclogue, introduced assonance and even rhyme to contribute in part to the ‘Sibylline’ atmosphere of the poem. Since then I have further investigated this question of assonance in Virgil's poetry, with what appear interesting results.

The spirit of Aelius Donatus must be uneasy of late years; so many scholars have attempted to evoke his ghost. Professor H. J. Thomson professes to see in the additional notes to Servius (S) an image once removed from the true Donatus. ‘The question’, he writes, ‘how far we can assume that the words of Donatus are directly reproduced [in the additions first published by Daniel (D)] can hardly be satisfactorily answered.’ That Donatus was not the immediate source of D, Thomson endeavours to show from three instances, in two of which (on Geo. II. 139 and Aen. IX. 675) we know for certain, either from the Glossaries or from Servius himself, the substance of a part, at least, of the note of Donatus on these passages. In the other (on Geo. I. 260) the argument rests on the comparative meagreness of the note in the enlarged Servius. In all three cases, according to this theory, we have a rehandling of the D comment. The note on the passage from the Aeneid has already been discussed by Professor Thomson in his study of the Virgil scholia in the Abstrusa glossary. The conclusions reached there (“Donatus has been revised; and not by the combiner') are repeated, though perhaps not so positively, in the article under discussion. I hold with Professor Rand that we have in Servius auctus substantially the voice of Donatus, though in a fragmentary form, due to the work of a compiler (or compilers) who, with Servius as a basis, has worked in with more or less success explanatory matter which departed from, or was an addition to, the information supplied by an interpreter who himself derived most of his material from Donatus.

I HAVE to correct a mistake in my article in the last number of the C.Q., on p. 195, n. 1. The sentence containing it runs; ‘Thus, for the consular provinces of 51–50, the Senate picked out the two senior ex-consuls who had not yet held consular governorships.’ But, to begin with, it is apparent from Caesar, B.C. I. 6, 5, that Cotta, who had been consul in 65, and was therefore senior to Cicero and Bibulus, had not held a consular province by 49. And secondly, as to what was done in determining who should have the consular provinces of 51–50, there seems to be no evidence. Cicero's statement in Ad Fam. III. 2, i, that praeter opinionem it had become necessary for him to go out to a province, may mean that he had counted on being unaffected by the regulations of 52, and that either a subsequent decree of the Senate or some arrangement made by a few senatorial leaders had upset his expectations. But of course praeter opinionem may refer to his not having expected before 52 that he would have to undertake a governorship. Nor can we tell whether his words (ib., § 2), Vides ex senatus consulto provinciam esse habendam, refer to a decree prescribing who should draw lots for the consular provinces of 51–50, or merely to a decree which had the effect of obliging Appius to hand over Cilicia to a successor. However, the point that after 52 the Senate or its leaders had some power to determine what ex-magistrates should draw lots for provinces, seems to be sufficiently proved by Ad Fam. VIII. 8, 8, where praetorian provinces are concerned, and Caesar, B.C. I. 85, 9.