VI. 6. 8. In the year 386 B.C. a combination of dangers, especially the rumour of a Latin revolt, led the other Military Tribunes, on the advice of the Senate, to place the direction of affairs wholly in the hands of the aged Camillus, who happened, according to the tradition, to be one of their number. Camillus accepts the responsibility with modest diffidence, but promises to do his best:

ingens inde ait onus a populo Romano sibi, qui se dictatorem iam quartum creasset, magnum ab senatu talibus de se iudiciis eius ordinis, maximum tam honorato collegarum obsequio iniungi.

A General treatment of Greek compounds seems much to be desired. It would have to be undertaken by one who had an up-to-date philological equipment, to which I cannot lay claim. But rather with the hope of eliciting discussion on the subject and learning from others I offer the following observations, and in further study of the subject should be grateful to anyone who would advise as to the exact statistics that may be desirable over and above what I give below. I was led to the subject by a feeling that the treatment of many individual compounds by editors was far from satisfactory, and that possibly a collection of the material might help to bring out the exact meaning of some of the well-known difficulties in the Tragedians. One is dealing here with a highly developed and somewhat arbitrary poetic idiom, and it may perhaps be impossible, as one must admit from the outset, always to make precise the poet's meaning, but it is worth while to make the attempt.

The aim of this article is twofold: first, to prove that Virgil was one source of the Glossary which is printed within square brackets in Goetz;' Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, Vol. IV. pp. 4–198, and to which Professor Lindsay, in his article on the Abstrusa Glossary and the Liber Glossarum in the Classical Quarterly for July of last year (Vol. XL No. 3), has given the name of Abolita (Abol.); secondly, to show, as the result of assigning batches of glosses to Virgil, that certain corrections must be made in the Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum. The corrections there made likewise hold good for the Latin Thesaurus, so far as it goes, which has taken over the errors without question from the Thes. Gloss.

This poem, first printed by Scaliger in his Ausonianae lectiones, lib. II c. 29, from a MS in the possession of Cuiacius, will also be found in Burman's anthologia Latina, vol. II p. 321, in Meyer's, no. 1032, and in Baehrens' poetae Latini minores, vol. V p. 350. In date, combining as it does the prosody of plānetae with the syntax of sex (for sexiens) denos, it can hardly be earlier than Prudentius and may easily be much later. It is edited by Riese from eight MSS better than the Cuiacian, three of the 9th century, three of the 10th, one of the 11th, and one of the 12th: the best of these, and the only one of which he professes to give a full collation, is C, Aug. 167 at Karlsruhe.

Perhaps the most difficult part of the famous inscription from Heraclea (around which so many controversies have raged) is the opening section of the extant text, where from a given form of procedure it is required to determine the subject matter. A solution of this puzzling problem, which I proposed some months ago, has recently been made the subject of an interesting article in this journal by Dr. E. G. Hardy. Mr. Hardy has long been engaged in this field, and has rendered much useful service. In this article, however, he seems to be interested in my views chiefly in their relation to his own theory. This is apparent in his agreements with me. For example, one aim of my study was to identify the professiones of Cicero's letters ad Att. xiii. 33, 1, and ad Fam. xvi. 23, 1, with those provided for in the first section of the inscription. It appeared that the returns mentioned by Cicero were registrations of property, that they were to be made yearly, and that they had their prototype in the annual property census of Egypt. It also seemed clear that Caesar's recensus populi of 46 was modelled on the Egyptian kατ' oίkíαm άπoγραφήiKíαν. With these preliminary conclusions (by no means unimportant in themselves) Mr. Hardy is not unwilling to agree. He even goes so far as to say that I have made a good case for ‘a new system of professiones somehow relating to property and introduced in 46.’ He thinks too that the settlement of the frumentations as a part of a more comprehensive legislative scheme (as my view implies) would be most appropriate. So far so good, but when it comes to the vital point of admitting a connection between these matters and vv. 1–19 of the Tablet he draws back as if from some fatal step.

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.’

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).’