We may now consider this ancient evidence that Andes lay three miles away from Mantua in connection with Conway's remaining arguments and with Virgil's ‘own statement’ in his Bucolics.

In the matter of the inscriptions, Conway's ‘impenitence’ does nothing to strengthen his case. All the points that he raises in an apparent refutation had been met by me. I had distinguished between public and private inscriptions, as Conway had not done in his earlier article, where he declared the period of the two monuments to be ‘Virgil's own,’ the inscriptions being ‘cut in the style which marks the best work between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50.’ I had not, as he asserts, failed to notice the point that caps the climax of his recent article, that ‘the P. Magius who wrote the inscription of Casalpoglio … was related to Virgil's mother.’ I was inclined to date both inscriptions, with the approval of Professor Egbert, somewhere in the third quarter of the first century of our era, but ‘even allowing for them both a date as early as the end of the first century B.C.,’ which is apparently as far back as Conway means to stretch their date, I clamored for an inscription of the time of Virgil's birth if it were to serve as evidence for his birthplace. This point is not met by Conway. If Virgil was born at Pietole, his fame and his family could certainly have extended as far north as Casalpoglio and Calvisano at the time of his death in 19 B.C. Supposing that we knew on other evidence that he was born at Calvisano, the presence of an inscription with the name of Magius or Vergilius would corroborate that evidence.

It is important to ascertain whether in the Actium campaign Antony really had only the small proportion of Italian legionaries sometimes assigned to him, and this can only be done by analyzing his legionary figures from Philippi onwards. Unfortunately, though Appian is usually quite clear, he omits one figure at the very start, which prevents one treating the matter synthetically; so one must analyze backwards from Antony's legionary coins.

It is not without a certain feeling of surprise that I find the fragment preserved by Strabo VIII. 3, 20, and somewhat doubtfully ascribed by him to Stesichoros, still commonly attributed to that writer. As the purpose of this note is to give what seem to me cogent reasons for holding that no poem of such a metre and content could be by an author of any possible date earlier than Alexandrian times, I cite the passage of Strabo in full. It runs as follows, and is part of an argument for the existence of an ancient city called Samos in Elis.

At the end of Republic VI. Socrates compares the Good with the sun as a cause both of existence and intelligibility. Afterwards, when he continues and expands this comparison, the symbolism becomes so complex that the interpretation of almost every part of it is in dispute. We start with the contrast of light and darkness; to this is next added the contrast of image and original, and also of up and down along a vertical line; in the allegory of the Cave these three sets of contrasted terms are worked in together so as to explain the effect on the soul of the intellectual education by which we are converted from what is dark and imitative and ascend finally to knowledge of the Good.

There are four problems to be faced in 710–12. Is πρσει correct? Who was Orestes? What is the construction of 'ρστῃ? What is the meaning of ἵνα μῥιλν ποδὐῃ? A brief review of the evidence collected on the subject of Orestes is the first essential.

Editors of Pliny's Naturalis Historia have not had to deplore the paucity of the MS. tradition, but rather its value; while MSS. belonging to the ordo recentiorum are numerous and fairly complete, those of the ordo uetustiorum are very few, and never contain more than a few books, often with considerable gaps. They are A ii 196–vi 51, M xi–xv, P and H parts of xviii, I xxiii, xxv, B xxxii–xxxvii (end). There are also some scattered fragments. Detlefsen indeed claimed that the restoration of the original text of the N.H. is more difficult than that of any other Latin author owing to the mutilated and defective transmission of considerable parts.