‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin’ not only ‘of little minds,’ but of some classically trained minds as well. And it is surprising to see how this has caused certain unevennesses in ancient authors to be trued up. Aristophanes, for example, we are toldby a late venerable scholar, never permits a change of meter in a single speech directed to the same person; and to get rid of the two deviations from this rule, the framer of it cut down the seemingly good trochaic tetrameters in the Peace(299 sq.) to iambic trimeters, and then put line 555 before line 553 and took the three lines 555, 553, 554 from Trygaeus and assigned them to the coryphaeus. It is conceivable that if we possessed the thirty-three lost comedies of Aristophanes the editor might have had more and harder surgery on his hands.

All students of Greek epigraphy are familiar with the abecedarium discovered in 1805, ‘prope Bastam (the modern Vaste) ruri quodam dicto Melliche,’ by Luigi Cepolla, amongst whose papers (still preserved at Lecce in the Biblioteca Provinciate, Misc. Castromed. D. 29. 18) Mommsen found and published it in his Unteritalische Dialekte (1850). Cepolla's copy, though inaccurate, is not so bad, as I hope to show, as has usually been supposed. To be sure, he proposed to interpret an alphabet as a complete inscription, and actually ‘translated’ it! Nor, I think, could it be properly deciphered until more Messapic inscriptions than were known to Mommsen had been collected and their alphabet more closely studied. It has, however, long been recognized that the Vaste alphabet should be rightly regarded as essentially a Messapic (rather than a Greek) alphabet, although, as is well known, the alphabet of the Messapic inscriptions agrees in the main with the Tarentine-Ionic variety of the Western Greek alphabet; but the proposed explanations of Cepolla's transcript of the Vaste alphabet have been most diverse, not to say perverse—certainly they have been largely arbitrary. They may be sought in the places cited in the footnote below.

The religious value which we are entitled to attach to instances of purification in the Homeric poems is extremely small. It is important at the outset of the inquiry to get away from pre-conceived ideas founded on later religious practice, in the light of which the Homeric examples are instinctively interpreted. Chapter and verse from fifth century and later parallels is not necessarily authority for reading a religious significance into the account of an apparently secular act in Homer.

The precise position to be assigned to the Categories in the Aristotelian system has always been somewhat of a puzzle. On the one hand, they seem to be worked into the warp of its texture, as in the classification of change, and Aristotle can argue from the premiss that they constitute an exhaustive division of the kinds of Being (An. Post. I. 22, p. 83 b 15). On the other hand, both in the completed scheme of his logic and in his constructive metaphysic they retire into the background, giving place to other notions, such as causation, change, actuality and potentiality. Investigation has, moreover, been hampered, especially in Germany, by attempts to correlate them with the Kantian Categories, with which they have obvious points of contact. But Kant's formal a priori concepts by which the mind makes for itself a world, to use Mr. Bosanquet's phrase, imply an attitude to knowledge and reality so utterly opposed to the Aristotelian that the comparison has tended to confusion rather than elucidation. Scholars now realize better that the Aristotelian Categories can only be understood in connexion with the problems of Aristotle's own age.

From the time when Friedrich Conrads published1 the first systematic study of the method of composition employed by Vergil in the Aeneid it has been recogmzed that Bk. III. is especially involved in the contradictions existing between the various parts of the poem. It is not my purpose in this paper to attempt an exhaustive study of this aspect of Bk. III.; the industry of classical scholars in the last half-century renders needless further repetition of this sort. I wish merely to present a few suggestions which may help to reconcile the passages generally regarded as hopelessly contradictory.

Mr. P. H. Ling's suggestion that the famous line ϕθε⋯ρουσιν ἤθη χρ⋯σθ' ⋯μιλ⋯αι κακα⋯ stood at the beginning of a play of Euripides seems to me to lack anything like cogent proof. A gnomic verse of this sort—to take the characteristics of the line in the order given by Mr. Ling—may indeed begin a play, as in the fragment of the Stheneboia (Nauck, 661) which he quotes; but it may also begin a speech, as Hec. 864; or come early in a speech, cf. Heracl. 2; or alone in stichomythia, as Alc. 540; or late in a speech, as Med. 561; or at the end of one, as Supp. 510. In other words, there is no position which it may not have. As to its lack of ‘any particle or conjunction to connect it with what preceded or followed,’ how does Mr. Ling prove that it was not preceded by γιγνώσκων ὅτι, cf. Med. 560; or that the previous line did not end in γάρ, like Hec. 551, Supp. 361; or that this line is not the end of a longer sentence, like Alc.

Mr. Norman H. Baynes thinks that the conclusions which I reached in my essay on the ‘Chronology of the Ninth Book of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius’ are ‘difficult to believe.’ That is due, he says, to the fact that I based my reconstruction ‘on one of the most doubtful sections of that book’—that in which Eusebius states that the Emperor Maximin wrote his letter to Sabinus after he received the ‘Edict of Milan.’ From it I inferred that the letter was dispatched early in 313. No doubt Eusebius' assertion raises difficulties. But when a contemporary witness of high authority speaks it may be wise not to reject his evidence before the difficulties which seem to overthrow it are scrutinized. In the present instance the difficulties seem to me to vanish on examination. But Mr. Baynes appears to have overlooked my attempt to deal with them. His own view of the date of the letter is expressed in a single sentence ‘In November of 312 Maximin would receive news of Constantine's victory [at the Milvian Bridge], and as a result he issues the letter to Sabinus permitting Christian worship late in 312.’ But where is his evidence? All I can find is that in his edict of toleration Maximin affirms that ‘last year’ he wrote the letter. ‘This passage proves that that letter dates from the year 312.’ Yes, if Maximin's year began in January. But is that certain? In the East, New Year's Day was not uncommonly in September.

Deinde qui minus grauis esset iis senectus, si octingentesimum annum agerent quam [si] octogesimum ?

This sentence has to do with people who complain that the evils of old age have come upon them all too soon. Cicero rejoins that they would be of exactly the same mind, even though they had a life ten times as long to look back upon.

In the Classical Quarterly for January, 1925, p. 5, last line of note 1, for ‘Posidonius’ read ‘Crantor’.

According to Walde's Etymological Dictionary, Latin spēs is cognate with spatium and with Old Church Slavonic spěchĭι. Under spatium he refers us to Skt. sphāyati, ‘swells out,’ ‘grows out,’ sphīta, ‘fat,’ ‘flourishing,’ and a number of Baltic-Slavonic and Germanic words, from which I will select O.E. spēd, ‘speed,’ and Lith. spēti, ‘have time for something,’ ‘to be quick enough.’ In place of this etymology I venture to suggest that spēs must be connected with another Lithuanian spēti, which is duly recorded in Lalis's Lithuanian-English Dictionary. It means ‘guess,’ ‘conjecture,’ or ‘suppose,’ and occurs not only uncompounded, but also in the compound , ‘guess,’ ‘divine,’ ‘solve’ (a riddle). The Lat. spes means no doubt ‘hope,’ but it also means ‘expectation,’ which comes nearer to the meaning of the Lithuanian words.