VBI Varro (R.R. I. 13. 2) de uilla rustica facienda agit, de culina haec monet: in primisculina uidenda ut sit admota, quod ibi hieme antelucanis temporibus aliquot res conficiuntur, cibus paratur ac capitur. Hunc locum legentes sponte nosmet ipsos rogamus, quid sibi uelit illud admota. ‘Prope cellam uilici,’ inquit Keilius (Comm. p. 46), de qua paulo ante sermo est: uilici proximum ianuam cellam esse oportet eumque scire, qui introeat aut exeat noctu quidue ferat, praesertim si ostiarius est nemo. Sed si locum ita interpretamur, quomodo intellegenda est sententia, quae sequitur, causalis: quod ibi hieme cet.? Num uilicus in cella iacens uel sedens moderari debebat opera, quae mane in culina fiebant ? An idcirco culinam proximam cellae uilici esse oportebat, ut inter utramque paruum spatium interesset, si uilicus ab altera ad alteram commeare uellet? Et hoc et illud uix credibile est Varronem significare uoluisse. Accedit, quod in uilla rustica culina non prope ianuam est, sed in parte interiore cohortis, quemadmodum docent fundamenta aperta uillae rusticae Pompeianae (prope Boscoreale, cf. Overbeck-Mau Pompeii2, p. 382), et probatur uerbis Vitruuii (VI. 6 initio), qui ita praecipit: ‘in corte culina quam calidissimo loco designetur.’ Quae cum ita se habeat, apud Varronem legendum esse puto: in primis culina uidenda ut sit <soli> admota, h.e.ad meridiem spectans (cf. III. 9. 14: ‘prodigendae [gallinae] in solemet in stercilinum’ Cic. Lael. § 100: ‘uirtus ad id [lumen] seadmouet’). Nam si ita legimus, neque admota suo caret datiuo,1 et perspicuum fit, quid sententia causalis quod ibi hieme cet. sibi uelit. Diligenti enim domino ‘prouidendum’ est, ‘familia ubi uersetur, si fessi opere aut frigore aut calore, ubi commodissime possint se quiete reciperare’ (I. 13. 1). Talis dominus etiam curabit, ut ‘hieme antelucanis temporibus’ serui ‘aliquot res conficere et cibum parare et capere’ possint loco calidissimo uillae (cf. Verg. Georg. I. 287–310), sed situe hie locus longe an prope a cella uilici, nihil ad rem pertinet.

One day towards the end of the eighth century the scribe of cod. Paris. Lat. 7530, a miscellany to which we owe the carmen de figuris (anth. Lat. Ries. 485, P. L. M. Baehr. III pp. 273–85), began to copy out for us, on the 28th leaf of the MS, the Thyestes of Varius. He transcribed the title and the prefatory note, which run thus: INCIPIT THVESTA VARII. Lucius Varius cognomento Rufus Thyesten tragoediam (traged … cod.) magna cura absolutam (absoluto cod.) post Actiacam uictoriam Augusti (aug … cod.) ludis eius in scaena edidit, pro qua fabula sestertium deciens accepit. Then he changed his mind: he proceeded with a list of the notae employed by Probus and Aristarchus, and the masterpiece of Roman tragedy has rejoined its author in the shades.

I. The etymologies susceptible to simple phonetic formulation and semantically obvious have, for the most part, been discovered long ago. But I cannot say semantically obvious without recording my conviction that semantic science is still in swaddling clothes. Readers of the Classical Quarterly will, I trust, find the following derivations interesting, as well as clear and semantically obvious.

My paper, written in 1911, was something of a ballon d'essai, and I acknowledge frankly one or two mistakes. Thus I did not know that Euripides wrote a Thyestes; and again one or two of my references were wrong: in excuse I may perhaps plead that I have not had access to a Latin book for nearly two years. Apart from this I will now make only two observations:

1. I set aside the evidence of Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 because I was dealing with evidence of saec. i.-iv. Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 shows that some persons at the end of saec. viii. ascribed the Thyestes to L. Varius Rufus. So did persons in saec. iv. In addition, Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 gives a date for the Thyestes. To Mr. Housmanthis date is certain; if it is uncertain a large part of his argument comes to nothing. But who can think it certain ? It comes to us from the end of the eighth century. If it came to us from Jerome's Chronicle we could still not think it certain, though we should know whence Jerome derived it. We do not now whence Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 derived it. The reference to Actium may have no better source than the wish to connect a great literary and a great political event: and the gossip about the playwright's profits (reckoned by Mr. Housman at some £10,000) seems to me in itself suspicious.

2. The main contention of the early part of my paper was that the evidence of the relevant MSS. as between Vari and Varii, etc., amounts to nothing either way. I do not think Mr. Housman is prepared seriously to contest this proposition.

When the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Vol. IX. No. 1174) of Sophocles' 'ІΧνενταí gave the forms κννηγ[Έ]σω (first aor. subj.), 1. 44 in Fragmenta Tragica Papyracea, and ΈκκννηγΈσαι, 1. 75, it restored to light a verb which is not acknowledged in the Lexicons, but which had remained, though almost unnoticed, in Phrynichus, Soph. Propar. in Bekker's Anecdota I. p. 48, and Theognostus' Canons in Cramer's Anecdota Oxoniensia II. p. 143. The form could not come from κννηγετΕîν, nor from the Hellenistic verb κννηγεîν, and attention was first drawn to these two authorities by P. Maas in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1912, p. 1075, and by J. Stahl in Rhein. Mus. Vol. LXVIII. p. 307 (also by L. O. Tudeer in Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia = Annales Academicae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B. Vol. XIV.). I owe these references to Mr. Stuart Jones.

What was Agamemnon's political position in Greece? Was he only king of Mycenae and territory adjoining it, or had he in addition a suzerainty over the rest of the Peloponnesus? Was he sovereign in the whole of the Peloponnesus? Did he exercise any supremacy over, and especially can he be described as king or emperor of, Mycenaean Greece and its islands? In regard to the expedition against Troy, did he command it by virtue of a dominion over the whole of Greece, or was he selected for the position for some special reason, as his relationship to Helen or his pre-eminence in power over the other Achaean princes?

In the Note on p. 155 and in Note 2 on p. 156, for ‘Journal of Philology’ read ‘Classical Philology.’

The Notes by Professor Jean Wageningen on pp. 131, 140 should be deleted. They appear in the Classical Quarterly for July, 1912.

Miss Gertrude Hirst's article on Aeneid VII.in the April number, 1916, of the C.Q. depends for its cogency upon dates in Propertius. Not wishing that her careful work should be vitiated by premisses which may shortly be proved false, I venture to set out the bare results of my own researches in this field of dates, results which have stood the test of several years of further examination.

In Professor W. B. Anderson's interesting paper on this subject (C.Q. Vol. X. No. 4) there seems a certain hesitation about the treatment of Lucan's famous

et quantum mihi restat ad Culicem ? (Sueton. Vita Lucani).

The following passages may be cited as fixing the sense of this rather rare idiom:

1…crebro querens incolumi filio adiutorem imperii alium uocari. Et quantum superesse ut collega dicatur ? (Tac.Ann. IV. 7),

i.e. from adiutor to collega is ‘a mere step.’

In a general account of this Livian MS. given in the Classical Review of 1904 (Vol. XVIII. p. 392) I dealt more especially with the text of the first decade; now that my study of its text of the third decade is completed, it is possible to give a brief estimate of its importance and interest in this portion also.

In the April number of the Quarterly Mr. Pearson discussed seversal passages of the Rhesus. On two of these I wish to offer a few observations.

Rhesus 250 sqq.

ἒσΤı ιΦρνῶν Τις

ἒσΤιν ἄ;λκιμος ἒν δè θράσος

έν αίχμὃ· ποτì Μνσ⋯ν ὃς Êμν

σνμμαχíαν άτíζζι