Except Goldbacher and Dee, most critics have held the latter part of the last book of the Metamorphoses of Apuleius to be almost entirely autobiographical; and many have taken the same view of the first chapter of the first book. Rohde, in particular, has championed this theory, and incidents of the last book are freely included in biographies of Apuleius.

One of the grounds for arguing that the books of the Iliad, I, K, Ψ, Ω, are late and Odyssean, is that there are found in them uses of certain prepositions, especially ⋯π⋯, ⋯ν, ⋯ξ, which appear in the Odyssey, but not, or only very rarely, in the other twenty books of the Iliad.

Signor Ferrero has courteously replied to the article in the Classical Quarterly of July, 1909, in which I gave reasons for preferring Caesar's First Commentary to his reconstruction. He thinks that I failed to seize his main point, which, he says, is represented by this question: Why did Caesar conclude an alliance with Ariovistus in 59 b.c. and break it in the following year? Any one who may have read my article with care will have seen that I recognized that this point was capital.

This (Schöne's) must be the right reading, not ζυγγ⋯ν for the next line begins with a vowel, and by Headlam's canon the final dactyl must be pure. Compare also 291:

Since the appearance of Th. Birt's monumental edition of Claudian in 1892, followed in the next year by the Teubner one of Julius Koch, but little has been done for the text of a poet who for more reasons than one deserves something better than neglect. And I shall be glad if the publication of the ensuing notes draws the attention of scholars to the work that has yet to be done. The majority of my corrections were made some sixteen years ago; but only two have seen the light, and these merely in passing mention, Laus Serenae 86 sqq. in my review of the two editions, Classical Review IX p. 167 b, and Panegyricus dictus Probino et Olybrio cons. 48 sqq in my note on Lucan VII 755 (1896).

During the last twelvemonth we have been engaged in finally preparing for press the first volume (I.-V.) of our text of Livy in the Bibliotheca Classica Oxoniensis, and we now desire to submit beforehand to the judgement of scholars some of the chief alterations in the current text that we have been led to adopt. It will be seen that some proportion of them consist of little more than a defence of the MS tradition; and where we have proposed changes of our own, we have, we believe, rigorously confined ourselves not merely to such suggestions as can be readily reconciled with the reading of at least one good manuscript, but to such as provide in each case a tenable explanation of the origin of all the variants in all the MSS that we have consulted. In several difficult places we have become persuaded that corruption has arisen through slight and accountable dislocations of order, and in a still larger number from the incorporation of marginal or interlinear glosses not differing in character from those which still appear in great numbers in all the MSS of the 9th to the 12th centuries, but which have not forced their way into the text. A typical example will be found in our note on V. 2. 8.

My apology for reverting to this subject is a recent article by Mr. W. C. F. Walters in the April number of the Classical Quarterly for 1910 on the signatures in the Vatican Codex (Vat. Reg. 762). Mr. Walters does not seem to have been aware that this manuscript, though not of direct value in the constitution of the text of Livy, is one whose interest from a palaeographical point of view has long been recognized. A number of articles have been written concerning it, most of which deal with the signatures, the subject of Mr. Walters' paper, more fully and more accurately than he has done. Beyond giving the signatures, two of them incorrectly, Walters does nothing more than to conclude that there were eight scribes, who copied 42 quaternions. But a great deal more than this is known about the scribes and the manuscript. In fact, thanks to the ingenious combinations of Chatelain and Traube in piecing together the hints suggested by the signatures, more is known about this particular manuscript and the circumstances under which it was made than is the case with any other manuscript of a classical author of so early a date. It may therefore be worth while to summarize the known data concerning the manuscript, with a brief account of how they were worked out, referring the reader for the details to the articles mentioned in the footnotes.