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.

In his recent pamphlet on Herodotus the Historian, Friederich Focke has discussed the lion-portent which accompanied the birth of Pericles: έκ δἐ Ίππоκπἁτεоς Μεγακλἑνσ τε Ξλλоσ καὶ ᾈγαπίоτνς, ὶ;ϰλ· ίλπ ταὶ ᾽Αγαριστŋς ίхоυσα τò о;νоѵоνα. ῆ σооνικńσασί τε ξανθίππψ τῷ᾽ Απιφρоνоς καὶ ἔλκυоς éоûα είδε ὄψℓν ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ. ἐδὁκεε δἐ λἑοντα τεκεῖṿ καὶ υετ᾽ ợλίγας ἡυἑρας τίκτει Пερικλἑα ξανθίππψ. As this is the only occasion on which Herodotus mentions Pericles by name, those critics who are concerned to show that Herodotus was ‘Pericles' man’ have made much of the passage, and have deduced therefrom that Herodotus here means to express all his pent-up admiration for Pericles, which otherwise the scope of his work did not give him an opportunity of displaying. This admiration is at least conveyed in cryptic form, and Focke, following up a hint of Nissen that Pericles is here called a lion ambiguously, combats the view that Herodotus is expressing great reverence for him; and after examining fifth-century parallels, comes to the conclusion that Herodotus was repeating (whether as a mere marvel or with some personal arrière pensée he cannot decide) a tradition that had been set afoot as a purposely ambiguous and derogatory reference to Pericles as a ‘tyrannical man of might.’ After an examination of Focke's evidence, however, I remain unconvinced. It seems possible to account for most of thes quotations which Focke makes by bringing them into line with the ordinary Greek use of leonine symbolism, which, as I shall try to show, was complimentary, not derogatory

The Placidus Glossary was hailed in Ritschl's time as a new clue to Plautus' true text. And Buecheler, Ritschl's pupil, seized on its Alapari est alapas minari, etc., and foisted this verb on Plaut. True. 928. The great Latin Thesaurus quotes the line with this piece of new cloth put on an old garment:

nil alapari satiust, miles,

instead of the correct

philippiari satiust, miles.

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 two years which intervened between the consulship of Pompey and Crassus 70 B.C. and the tribunate of Cornelius in 67 B.C. are for the most part neglected in standard histories of the period. It is true that they were uneventful, if by uneventful meant the absence of open hostilities between the two political parties. a careful investigation of the political affiliations of the men who were prominent these years, and of the significance of events which usually are considered of moment, reveals political undercurrents which go far towards explaining meaning, not only of what happened in 67 B.C, but also of the more serious four years later.

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).

In Corp. Gloss. Lat. V. 435–490 Goetz published excerpts from the A A glossary. Further interesting items were published by C. Theander in Eranos XXIII (1925) 51–61, 167–176. The complete glossary is now being prepared for the press, and Professor W. M. Lindsay has kindly communicated to me some of the new items which may possibly contain quotations from classical authors. The most interesting of them is the following:

MA 2 ‘Mabortia res quae ad pugnam pertinet unde moenia funduntur vel res Martia.’

Epitrepontes 353–355:

ἐκείνην λήψεται ταύτην [δʹἐγὠἐπεύξ[ομαι τ]ὴν ἒνδον ἀπολείπειν δ μως και νῦν χαριέντως ἐκνενενκέναι δο κῶν τὸ μὴ δι΄ ἐμοῦ ταντι κυκᾶσθαι.

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.