Not a little speculation has been expended on the Genius in ancient and modern times. I propose very briefly to recapitulate the known facts about him, examine the chief explanations, and give what I consider the true one.

We can now approach the interpretation of the famous symbol called the Tetractys or Tetrad, which is a compendium of Pythagorean mysticism. The tetractys is itself a system of numbers. It symbolizes the ‘elements of number,’ which are the elements of all things. It contains the concordant ratios of the musical harmony. It might well be described in the Pythagorean oath as ‘containing the root and fountain of everflowing Nature.’ In one of the acousmata preserved in Iamblichus it is identified with the cosmic harmony. It was also called κσμος, οὐρανς, πν. Theon says it was held in honour because it contained the nature of the universe.

Whatthe influences were which led to the development and formulation of the so-called Theory of Ideas, usually associated with the name of Plato, is a question of perennial interest. And the interest has been increased by the vigorous controversy that, during the last ten years, has been conducted round the question of the exact part played by Socrates in the development of this theory. All the available evidence on the question is accessible and familiar to students of Greek thought, and has been worked over many times. But as there is still no unanimity among scholars as to its true interpretation, it may be worth while to go over the ground once more, even if the only result is to confirm some view which has already been put forward and disputed.

The object of this article is to discuss, defend, and supplement the only definite piece of evidence we possess which deals with the musical scales(or Harmoniai)referred to by Plato in the Republic (398D–399C). In this first section I shall consider the list of scales given by Aristides Quintilianus and suggest the source from which it is derived; in the second part the employment of certain abnormal intervals will be established and elucidated; and finally the evidence of the preceding sections will be reviewed from the standpoint of the Pythagorean musical theory.

There is a division of opinion on this subject which is perplexing to the ordinary student of Homer. The extremists on one side hold that hiatus was all but absolutely barred, while the more thoroughgoing among their opponents believe it was freely tolerated. A notable paper by the eminent philologist, Karl Brugmann, Zur Geschichte der hiatischen (zweisilbigen) Vokalverbindungen in den indogermanischen Sprachen, in Berichte üb. d. Verhandlgn. d. königl. sachs. Gesells. d. Wissensch. zu Leipzig, philol.-histor. Klasse, 1913, 139 sqq., might well, it seems, be taken as a starting-point for further investigation.

The discovery of upwards of a score of fragments of stagshorn with inscriptions in a North Italic alphabet closely resembling the Venetic, but also in the use of some symbols (a and h) showing affinities with the ‘North-Etruscan’ alphabet, was reported in a careful record of the excavations in which the fragments came to light (excepting the first piece of horn, which was accidentally discovered by a carpenter), written by Pellegrini for the Notizie degli Scavi for 1918, pp. 169–207. Some account of the excavations, with a description of the horn fragments and suggestions concerning the possible nature of the deity to whom they were offered, I attempted to give in a paper read before Section H of the British Association at Hull in September, 1922, reserving for the present article notes on the alphabet and text of the inscriptions, as well as all discussion of dialect. My chief object here is to deal with the forms which the inscriptions show, and to attempt to provide answers to the questions: (1) Is the language of these inscriptions Indo-European or not? (2) To what people or race are they to be assigned?

Like most of the other poems contained in the Appendix Vergiliana, the Copa still arouses controversy with respect to authorship and date. While the tendency of contemporary criticism may fairly be summarized as favourable to acceptance of the tradition which ascribes this poem to Virgil, nevertheless there are not wanting respectable voices to declare the Copa a post-Virgilian imitation of the Eclogues; nor are the pro-Virgilians decided as to the period to which it should rightly be assigned.

The new historical inscription from Epidaurus has provided us with a unique piece of documentary evidence on Greek federal constitutions. In this article I propose to study the principal points of constitutional interest contained in it. I have based my text on that of Professor Wilcken and M. Kougeas; and I follow Professor Wilcken and Mr. Tarn in identifying the new document with the constitution which Demetrius Poliorcetes imposed upon his pan-Hellenic League in 303–2 B.C.

I desire to invite the attention of students of Plato and of Greek mathematics to a solution of a passage which has long been a field of controversy for critics. For brevity's sake I shall take for granted an acquaintance with the two solutions which at present dispute the field, and further adopt certain positions which previous enquirers have established beyond reasonable doubt.

Plato nowhere deals systematically with the problem of the origin of evil. And yet no system of philosophy which proposes to explain the mysteries of existence can leave untouched the undeniable and perplexing fact of warps and imperfections in the fabric of our life, seemingly inherent in the very tissue of which it is woven. It is difficult to believe that Plato could shape his scheme without taking this into account—somewhere, one feels, he must offer an explanation. He does, indeed, in various dialogues drop scattered hints which apply to the matter in hand, without throwing light on the problem as a whole. The following are typical instances. In the Republic he says that evil may be a punishment for sin in a former life, or, if not that, may be good which we cannot recognize: Оȕτως äρα ύποληπτέον περι τοΰ δικαον νδρός ὲάν τ' ν πενϭ γγνηϒαι ν τ' ν νόσοιας ἥ τινι δδλѱ τών δοκούντων κακŵν, ώς τούτψ ταûτα ες γαθόν τι τελεντήσει ξѾντι ἥ καί ποθανόντι. ‘Then this must be our notion of the just man, that even when he is in poverty or sickness, or any other seeming misfortune, all things will in the end work together for good to him in life and death’ (Jowett's translation).

In his recently published book on Early Latin Verse Professor Lindsay says (p. 4): ‘The MSS. of Terence have not yet been all collated; at least, collations have not yet been published. And for a critical edition there is as yet nothing better than Umpfenbach's (shall we say?) pre-scientific volume…;’ (cf. p. 225). I therefore thought it not out of place to give an account (not a collation) of the better of two MSS. recently acquired by the Cambridge University Library. My attention was drawn to it by my father, Dr. Postgate, who had noted its reading of exclusti in Eun. 98 (which none of Umpfenbach's MSS. read, but Donatus confirms), and he has helped me with the preparation of this paper. I have also to thank Mr. Sayle for allowing me to quote the official description of the MS.

The numbers prefixed are those of Dr. Mackail's Select Epigrams, edit, iii., 1911. Those subjoined, enclosed in parentheses, refer to the Anthologia Palatina.

The Sallustian Suasoriae are far from being works whose origin and authenticity can be claimed as matters of earth-shaking importance. As forms of composition their interest is mild; linguistically they are less valuable than bizarre; and as historical records theysuffer from the defect of most Suasoriae—that the author cannot advise about the past and is compelled to deal chiefly with the potentialities of the future. But in spite of this it is not without reason that in Germany much attention has been paid to these few pages of Latin during the last twenty years. If they are what they seem to be, their evidence, such as it is, must at least be taken seriously. And this evidence is not without promise; for not only do these pieces contain several scraps of otherwise missing information largely about the prosopography of the last century B.C., but in general they purport to express the views of Sallust—a man who was no fool, even if his ability was not so great as has some-times been alleged—on the political and economic difficulties of Rome during the closing phase of the career of Julius Caesar. Material of this kind cannot lightly be neglected; but at the same time the significance, both of the author's suggestions and of his casual references to events inthe past, will depend to a great extent on the author having been Sallust himself, and not a member of some rhetor's establishment writing perhaps a hundred years or more after the events with which he pretends to be contemporary. So though there may be no welcome for yet another addition to the literature of a subject whose bibliography is already long, it may still be worth while to make some observations which will perhaps help to show that, wherever the true conclusion about the authenticity of these pamphlets may lie, at least it does not lie in the direction which has been taken in recent years by several scholars—in particular by Pöhlmann and Eduard Meyer.

In the first part of this paper an attempt was made to show by various considerations that the second Suasoria of cod. Vat. lat. 3864 cannot be the work of Sallust. There still remains, however, a final argument which, partly because through some mischance it has never been elaborated before and partly because it leads to a slightly more definite conclusion than the foregoing, deserves separate and fuller statement. The critic whose name is most closely associated with the view that these two Suasoriae are not by a single hand is Hellwig; and though his work is now generally ignored—to some extent perhaps because he omitted the more convincing reasons for the theory he was urging—a fresh examination of the evidence may suggest that, so long as he is merely combating the assumption of single authorship, Hellwig is on the right lines. After that, unfortunately, he goes completely astray: in trying to prove that the second Suasoria is Sallustian and the first an inferior imitation, he is wide of the mark. Had he only taken a hint already available in Schenkl's review of Jordan and backed the first as authentic, he might have saved his successors much controversy.

The sumptuous edition of Herodas by Headlam-Knox, while it throws welcome light on many dark places, is perhaps hardly adequate in a few points where ancient religious ideas are involved. I venture, therefore, to offer the following suggestions:

I. II and 66, μà τàς Моίρας. IV.30, πρòς Моιρέων.

I. 32,μà τήν Αϊδεω (?) Κούρην.

I. 69, μà … τήν Φίλην δήμητρα.

These are the facts about the manuscript tradition of this line. The history of the interpretation is as follows. The early editors, knowing that penicillus tectorius in Pliny, N.H. 28. 235, means ‘a plasterer's brush,’ assumed that peniculus tectorius in Plautus meant the same, since there is no ascertainable difference in meaning between penicillus and peniculus. They accordingly translated, ‘as wind scatters the leaves or scatters the hairs of a plasterer's brush.’ About 1560 Turnebus saw that it was not likely that the wind could have much effect upon a brush made, as Pliny tells us, of bristles (saetae), and was the first to darken counsel by emending peniculumt. to paniculam tectoriam, ‘ut paniculae leuissimae arundinis, qua integi uillaticae domus solent, intellegantur.’ He quotes Plin. N.H. 16. 158 for a description of the reed used for thatching, and doubtless has in mind, though he does not quote it, Rudens 122, quin tu in paludem is exicasque hanindinem qui pevtegamus uillam. The difficulty about this interpretation is that the panicles or tufted heads of reeds were no more likely to have been used in the ancient mode of thatching than in the modern. If any were left in the completed thatch it would be by an accident, and they would not be a marked feature of the countryman's roof. Pareus thought that Tumebus had acted ‘too dictatorially’ in departing from the manuscripts. He therefore restored the established text, and took it to mean ‘a brush made of a horse's tail.’ But this did not dispose of the difficulty, and succeeding editors—Lambinus, Dousa, Taubmann—all followed Turnebus.

These minute annotations, put together for a paper read to the Cambridge Philological Society on February 15, are mostly taken from jottings which I made some thirty years ago in the margin of Leo's edition. There they would have stayed, but for the appearance in 1918 of the Illinois index uerborum compiled by Messrs Oidfather, Pease, and Canter, which is not merely what its title promises, but also aims at recording the conjectures of the present century, and has enabled me to cancel three or four proposals which I found anticipated. Other people, from Dr U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff downward, so often print emendations of mine as their own, or indeed as anyone else's, that I am even more anxious than I otherwise should be to avoid printing as mine the emendations of other people.

The tale current in antiquity that a certain section of the people known as Αίθίοπες was peculiar for its longevity is one of whose origin a satisfactory account is still to seek. To say that the legend was attached by the Greeks to the Aithiopians through their remoteness from the Mediterranean world is no explanation; nor is it a very cogent conjecture that the fable may have arisen from misunderstood reports of an African five-month year, for which there is some evidence in modern times. With the utmost diffidence I venture to make a suggestion which, whether it carries conviction or not, is at least so obvious that it can hardly fail to have occurred to many schdiars in the past. My one excuse must be that it does not seem to be mentioned either in the more ordinary books of reference, where it might be expected to appear, or in any other works which have come my way.

It is a familiar story that on April 5, 56 B.C., Cicero made a motion in the Senate concerning Caesar's Campanian land law, and that this action of his was one of the reasons for the conference of Luca. Query: What were the terms of the motion?