Aristotle says in the De Sensu that other colours are produced through the mixture of black bodies with white (440a31–b23). The obvious mixture for him to be referring to is the mixture of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, which he describes at such length in the De Generatione et Corruptione. All compound bodies are produced ultimately through the mixture of these elements. The way in which the elements mix is described in i. 10 and 2. 7. They mix in such a way as to produce an entirely new substance, in which the characteristics of the original earth, air, fire, and water survive only in modified form.

Stylometry can be defined as the use of numerical methods for the solution of literary problems, most often problems of authorship, integrity, and chronology. As stylometry has been described it seems hardly more than the application of common sense to a literary situation. For example:

It consists in collecting as many peculiarities of style and grammar as possible from these works [the dialogues of Plato], particularly the Laws, which are known, or for good reasons supposed to belong to the author's latest period, and observing the frequency with which these occur in other dialogues. If it is then found, e.g., that one dialogue uses commonly 100 of these, another but 60, it is reasonable to suppose the former to be nearer in time to the Laws, i.e. later.

The consuls of 284, according to the Fasti Capitolini, were L. Caecilius Metellus Denter and C. Servilius Tucca. Of Tucca we know nothing else at all, and if the literary sources also tell us that Metellus Denter was defeated and killed by Gauls at Arretium, the date of this setback and Metellus' status at the time have long been matter for dispute. The surviving accounts of Rome's campaigns against the Gauls in this period fall into three categories. First, there is Polybius, who apparently sets Metellus' death in 284 and terms him , prima facie consul. Then there are the sources which seem clearly to derive from a later, annalistic tradition; they describe Metellus as praetor and place his death in 283. And finally there is Appian, whose account represents an attempt to conflate these views and consequently falls between two stools; in his account Metellus is not even mentioned.

The sense of line 34 is obvious: ‘une prairie était à leur disposition’, Legrand; all editors print this text, and assume this meaning. But Gow is worried about the Greek: is common enough of tracts or places, but usually of their geographical position, which is not here in point. The verb seems rather to be selected to indicate a store or deposit &’—but the vox propria for ‘to be at someone's disposal as a store’ is , and P. Oxy. 694 in fact reads here. We should restore , which accounts for both readings.

In these lines Micio criticizes the way in which his brother Demea rears his son and implies comparison with his own method. Two types of imperium are contrasted, ‘imperium ’ and ‘illud quod amicitia adiungitur’. It is the latter phrase which will be discussed here. If this meant ‘si imperium tibi amicitia adiungas’, there would be no difficulty: cf. Cic. Mur. 41 ‘benevolentiam adiungit lenitate audiendi’; Sext. Rose. 116 ‘auxilium sibi se putat adiunxisse.’ The acquisition of imperium, however, is not relevant here; Micio is talking of the imperium that a man has qua father (the patria potestas) and the point at issue is the manner in which each man administers this imperium.

In CQ N.S. xxi (1971), 146 f. Dr. G. Giangrande reaffirms his claim that the reading of most manuscripts at A. R. I. 1333 is sound. I argued in CQ N.S. xix (1969), 274 f. that is more likely to be from than from , on the ground that readers (or hearers) of an epic poem would not take it in any other way, since Homer has only and from . Giangrande now produces the variants and found here and there in Homer's text. According to him, ‘the more obscure and debated the variant, the more elegant its reproduction was felt to be’. Apollonius thus campaigns for from on the basis of these obscure varian.

It has by now become a commonplace among the historians of the republic that optimates and populares were not political parties in any modern sense. Nevertheless the ghost of the ‘popular party’ still lingers in subtle disguises, the most insidious of which is donned whenever populares is translated as ‘the populares’, with all that the definite article may imply.

The accent of Greek (Ionic-Attic) orthotonic words was mobile with limited freedom of movement, i.e. it could not stand outside a definite zone at the end of the word. Had the limit of this zone been the same for all words and had the accent been allowed to stand anywhere within it (as is the case in Modern Greek), there would have been no problem. Unfortunately, the length of the accentuable zone did vary whatever the unit we use (2 or 3 final syllables; 3 or 4 final vocalic morae) and there was a place within it where the accent was prohibited (the penult vocalic mora of some words). Hence the problem of explaining these ‘irregularities’.

The battle of Panormus, in which L. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 251) decisively defeated the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal, was one of the major victories of the First Punic War. The year in which it took place, however, has long been matter for dispute, reasons being found for placing it in 251 or 250. There is now, it is true, a general preference for 250, so that there may seem to be little need to traverse this ground yet again. But there is also Polybius' reputation to consider. Whichever dating scholars prefer, they invariably maintain that Polybius' account of the years 253–250 (1. 39. 7–41. 4) is more or less disfigured by confusion, contradiction, and inaccuracy; on either view he is accused, expressly or by implication, of making remarks which point to the wrong year.

A. W. Verrall (The Altar of Mercy, Literary Essays Classical and Modern, Cambridge, 1913) considers rightly that the scene at Thebaid I 2. 481 ff. is ‘the cardinal point of the whole poem’. I hope to show that Statius has portrayed the goddess Clementia as a force which functions in a way very different from that which his readers would expect from their experience of the usage of the word clementia and that his new portrayal is closely related to a theme of the poem. I shall suggest that his redefinition of the concept was inspired by the political situation in which he found himself. The Altar of Mercy focuses Statius' thoughts on the position of man in the universe and of the individual in society, and coming as it does after eleven books of disaster offers some comfort to man in his suffering. Statius is concerned in the Thebaid with man as a tragic victim, and the Altar of Mercy affords him comfort precisely in that area in which he most seeks it.

In Plutarch's account (Cato min. 34–9) of the younger Cato's mission to Cyprus a fairly prominent place is given to one Canidius, described as one of Cato's friends. He is also twice mentioned in connection with the same events in Brut. 3. 2–3, but here the great majority of our MSS. read κανίνΉον, while only one family (Z), and perhaps a later hand in the early MS. L, have κανί΄ων.

Canidius is a very rare gentilicium—a fact obscured perhaps by scholars' familiarity with Horace's witch—and besides the subject of the present investigation there is only one known bearer of the name in Republican times, namely P. Canidius Crassus (Miinzer, R.E. iii. 1475 f., no. 2) cos. stiff. 40. He served with Lepidus in Gaul and then became a partisan of Antony, whom he accompanied to the East after earning a suffect consulship.

The demonstration by E. Wölfflin that between the Histories and Annals Tacitus progressed towards a more archaic and artificial style is well known. From the outset Tacitus adhered to the traditional Roman view that history should be composed in an archaic language remote from everyday usage ; but he was apparently at first not fully aware of the possibilities of the archaizing style. New archaisms and artificial usages suggested themselves as he advanced ; and others, which he had used sporadically even early in the Histories, were allowed to oust ordinary alternatives completely.

The words I wish to delete in 48-9 spoil a ‘tricolon crescendo’ whose three members are clearly marked (ima plebe . . . de plebe . . . hinc) and whose verbs are perhaps deliberately varied in person and tense (invenies, veniet . . . petit). The parataxis by means of hic is awkward, and the words seem to be a versified gloss. The Scholiast says : id est: to nobilis tantum et imperitus. nam de plebe, id est de humili familia, eloquentes exeunt, qui nobilium imperitorum causas defendunt; but that could be a paraphrase based on the text as it stands in our manuscripts.

We know very little about the life of the jurist, A. Cascellius, but in his famous potted history of Roman legal science, parts of which are preserved in the Digest, Pomponius does tell us that Cascellius never rose beyond the rank of quaestor and that he rejected the consulship when Augustus offered it to him (D. 1. 2. 2. 45, Pomponius libro singulari enchiridii). Such are the ways of scholars, however, that several modern writers are intent on posthumously awarding him a praetorship under the Triumvirate. The purpose of this note is to raise an objection to this tendency, which shows signs of causing trouble in the field of Roman law also.

Line 2 has puzzled editors: ‘The significance of the name is beyond knowledge’ (Shackleton-Bailey); ‘Hie versus inter difHcillimos Properti est’ (Enk). It should mean, ‘a door known to the chastity of Tarpeia’, i.e. ‘known to Tarpeia when she was still chaste‘, i.e. ‘known to Tarpeia as a girl’; and I suggest it means just that.

Among classical Latin poets, Juvenal is unusually richly provided with ancient scholia; at the same time, the scholia exhibit an unusual degree of ignorance and sheer stupidity. What is perhaps most surprising, however, is the extent to which these commentators appear to have been worse informed than we are today concerning the identity of individuals who appear in the satires.

‘The sudden emergence of all the post-classical functions of habeo+Infinitive in Tertullian is very remarkable’, as Mr. Coleman has said in his important paper (p. 226) on the origin and development of this structure, so prominent in the formation of the Future and Conditional paradigms of the main Romance languages. The functions which he has in mind are all Prospective: he distinguishes meanings tangential, as he puts it, to Possibility, Obligation/Necessity, Futurity, and, for the past tenses of habeo, Futurity-in-the-Past and Conditioned Unreality (p. 217). In this he essentially follows received opinion, though there have been those who would also distinguish a meaning tangential to Volition. Mr. Coleman gives these short shrift (p. 217 n. 3, p. 219 n. 2). Whether rightly, the reader may judge from what follows.

‘The authenticity of the ille ego lines fails on every count’ was the conclusion of an article by Professor R. G. Austin1 on the lines of the Aeneid preceding arma virumque cano. The aim of the following discussion is to suggest that perhaps, after all, Virgil did write the lines. To avoid unnecessary repetition I adhere as closely as possible to Prof. Austin's arrangement of the points to be considered. It is not always the arrangement that I should have chosen myself but I have only had to deviate from it in as far as I have found it necessary to discuss part of the contents of section V ‘Conclusions’ along with section I ‘The Ancient Evidence’. 1t will be understood that only the reader with Prof. Austin's article to hand will find the following fully intelligible.

Much else was done by Rose and Sullivan in their possibly conclusive attempt to restore sense to the rebus passage, but the reading super scorpionem locustam was Gaselee's, as Rose and Sullivan clearly acknowledge. This seems unluckily to have escaped B. Baldwin, otherwise he would have noticed that Gaselee also fancied in his correction an allusion to the poisoner Locusta. For those who may have difficulty in obtaining Gaselee's collotype reproduction, I quote the relevant part: ‘But what have lobsters to do with poisoners? Is it permissible to see a more or less open reference to Locusta, the queen of all poisoners? If so, we have here another little piece of evidence which will help us to date the Satyricon.’