Some day, it may be, a betterGreek scholar and more skilful emendator than I will summon to hisaid from among scientists familiar with the Levant a botanist, aherbalist, a herpetologist, and an entomologist, empanel forconsultations a small body of medical men who have practised in theNear East, and produce an annotated text and translation of Nicander;and when this has been done it will be possible to read him, notindeed with pleasure, but with a good deal less labour and vexationthan attend the process at present. Meanwhile, those whose dutyobliges them to struggle through the Theriaca andAlexipharmaca with the aids now available stand in no need ofthe injunction not to forget him which the author has appended tothose two poems.

We will now consider the most obvious parallels to our text in the papyri.

(I) and (2) Berl. Kl. Texte V. 20 A and B (P 9772, 9773). Both second century B.C. Both deal with the subject of women and marriage. In both the citations are arranged to present opposite views on the subject. In A citations 1–6 (and perhaps 7–9) denounce women and marriage, while 10–13 defend them; in B 1–4 defend women, while the subject of the remaining excerpts is indicated by the heading . Compare Stob. Flor. §§ 67–74, where several chapters are devoted to what was treated here in one subdivided chapter.

I Am not proposing in this essay to treat at length and in detail of the metric of other lyric poets. In most cases questions of metre are intimately involved with questions of text, into which so many other considerations enter that in dealing with them proportion would be lost, while metrical analysis of such material would still remain largely speculative. What follows is therefore little more than a general account of the principles of composition which these poets appear to me to follow; I have, however, indicated a few passages where emendations made purely on metrical grounds and widely accepted seem to me, in the absence of responsion, based on too ready a desire to reduce all poems to the best-known formulas of versification.

Dactylo-Epitrite has established itself in a privileged position among choral lyric metres, since the greater volume of material and the greater regularity of its component units have encouraged a more careful study, and closely reasoned controversies have arisen and been resolved over its structure. Other kinds of Pindaric metre have for the most part been analysed in a hit-or-miss spirit, and arbitrary schemes have been produced of which rarely are two alike for the same poem, yet little attempt has been made to base any preference upon a theory.

If we consult the Anthologia Lyrica of E. Diehl and the Geschichte der griechischen Literatur of Schmid-Stählin, we find that they consider as genuine the three epigrams on Hermae which the Palatine Anthology attributes to Anacreon. The question of the authenticity of these epigrams has been for long a matter of dispute, but we may shed further light on it if we take into account the spread of the cult of Hermes in Attica and Anacreon's visit, or possibly visits, to Athens.

In consulatu sexto et septimo postquam bella civilia exstinxeram per consensum universorum [potitus rerum own]ium rem publicam ex mea potestate in senat[us populique Romani a]rbitrium transtuli.

There is very little doubt about the reading of the Latin text, except that the Greek has suggested to Schönbauer that ‘compos’ should be read for ‘potitus’. He urges that ‘compos’ has a ‘milder meaning’ than ‘potitus’ and has no connotation of the use of force. The change to ‘compos’ is worthy of consideration, but suggests that the Latin ran ‘compos factus’ if ‘compos’ was used, and the phrase ‘compos factus’, though good Augustan Latin, is perhaps too retarding in rhythm to fit this place, though to that stylistic feeling too much weight should not be assigned.

The Brotherton Collection, which now forms part of the Library of the University of Leeds, contains a manuscript of Cicero's De Officiis which is usually assigned to the twelfth century. On page 3 of the catalogue of the Brotherton Library (printed for private circulation, Leeds, 1931) the manuscript is incorrectly said to contain ‘DE OFFICIIS LIBER PRIMUS’. In fact the manuscript contains all three books with the exception of nine leaves (seven of them from Book II) which have been removed. At present the manuscript consists of 41 folios on vellum measuring 11 in. X 7½ in. Ff. 39–41 are written by a later (14th-century?) hand.

The ‘four famous cruces’ (Gow, ed. p. 4) of this satire are as interesting as notorious. I regard the first as solved, since I cannot imagine anybody (Horace included) improving upon Postgate's line 13 (see below). But I find instead a hitherto undetected but quite palpable flaw in the opening words.

Of the unusual grammatical constructions which Statius employs for the sake of variety and novel effect, among the most remarkable is his use of the ablative case. There are striking instances at Th. 8. 157, Th. 10. 309, Ach. 1. 219, Ach. 2. 129; and W. C. Summers was led to say: ‘We see some traces in Valerius of the lax use of this case which became almost a disease with Statius, who employs it for almost any kind of idea.’ There are three passages in Statius which have been misinterpreted or emended through the failure to recognize a use of the ablative to which he was especially prone—the local ablative where the poetic dative of ‘motion towards’ would seem more normal. I shall first list examples of this use in Statius where there is little or no doubt about interpretation or reading, and in the light of this accumulated evidence consider the three passages which are disputed.

Ephoros is known to have conceived each of his books as a unit with a specific theme, so that where we have any quantity of material it is worth while asking what the theme of a book was supposed to be. Clearly Ephoros i was about the return of the Herakleidai and the early history of the Peloponnese, but that defines the starting-point, not the scope of the book: I propose to argue that he presented here the contrast of the three Heraklid kingdoms, the degeneration and downfall of the Argive and Messenian Heraklids as opposed to the salvation of the Spartan state by Lykourgos.

The text of a Laconian inscription recorded by Fourmont is re-examined and found to be part of an early lex sacra relating to the cult of a goddess, probably Demeter.

Restoration of the text is attempted and, despite many uncertainties, the general structure and meaning are established. The first sentence deals with the weaving or dedication of certain garments by the votaries; the second excludes unmarried women from participation in the rites.

In a well-known quotation from Speusippus in the Theologumena Arithmeticae (82.10 de Falco), said to have been derived from Pythagorean sources, especially Philolaus, occur the following sentences: And again a little later: Similarly Sextus Empiricus (Math. 10. 279–80), drawing evidently on a relatively early Pythagorean source, writes as follows: And Aristotle himself writes of the Pythagoreans (Met. 1036b12): There were, in fact, certain Pythagoreans who equated the number 2 with the line because they regarded the line as ‘length without breadth extended between two points’; and likewise the number 3 was equated with the plane and 4 with the solid.

Plato's use of illustrative material, in the widest sense, is very varied. Parts of the field have had some study—his use of metaphor and simile (still capable, no doubt, of yielding more meaning in relation to his thought) and his use of proverbs, at least as regards subject-matter and sources. The object of the present article is to consider in general what may already have been catalogued somewhere—his quotations from other writers (mainly from poets) and his references to myths and to other stories.

post hos elefantorum fulgentium formidandam speciem et truculentos hiatus uix mentes pauidae perferebant; ad quorum stridorem odoremque et insuetum aspectum magis equi terrebantur. (Amm. Marc. 25. 1.14.)

COKNELISSEN, Mnemosyne, xiv (1886), 280, comments: ‘Non intellego fulgentium. Minime audiendus est Wagnerus, qui fulgentes elephantes dictos esse contendit ob cutem glabram. Corrigendum puto ingentium. Porro non satis intellego quomodo hiatus elefantorum militibus pauorem incutere potuerit. Wagnerus, qui omnia con-coquere solet, interpretatur proboscidas. Nescio an scripserit A. barritus.’

Jebb in outlining the differences between ancient and modem oratory maintains that while modern orators try to give the impression that their speeches are extempore, the Greeks polished their speeches with fastidious care and were not ashamed to admit laboured preparation. This view, which is widely held, needs considerable qualification. The purpose of this article is:

Maas's annotation on Fr. C, col. I in his edition of the new fragments (C.Q. xliv. 8–11) says: ‘fortasse conferendi Diod. 13. 66. 6; Xen. Hell. 1. 3. 16–22; Dionys. Byz. Anapl. 13’.

The comparison of Fr. C, col. I with the passage in Dionys. Byz. De Bospori Navigatione 13 seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the city referred to in the fragment is Byzantion. Consequently the supposition that the papyrus tells the story of the siege of Byzantion—dealt with in the other two passages quoted by Maas—becomes almost a certainty.

The expression used in the Periplus M.E. has attracted a certain amount of attention. It is generally held to mean ‘a legal mart where foreign trade was officially allowed and taxed’ (E. H. Warmington, Commerce between the Roman Empire and India, pp. 53, 57): and this translation has sometimes been made the ground of comparison with the treaty ports of China or the échelles of the Levant. On closer examination of the usage of the Periplus M.E. it seems difficult to accept this meaning, and possible to suggest another.

The commentators for the most part observe a religious silence on pars extrema; yet there is a difficulty, as the meaning required ‘the least important part’, or ‘the merest fringe’, is hardly justified by usage. The words should mean ‘the last part’ (cf. Cic. Verr. 2. 1. 36. 92 ‘in codicis extrema cera’, 2. 2. 78.

Ancient rhetoric divided the questions which concerned the orator into the definite and the indefinite, quaestiones finitae and quaestiones infinitae, the former concerned with particular persons and occasions, the latter without any such reference. To take a simple example from Quintilian, ‘Should one marry?’ is a quaestio infinita, ‘Should Cato marry?’ a quaestio finita. The distinction was introduced, or at any rate first clearly formulated, by Hermagoras in the second century B.C., and became an established part of rhetorical theory. The Greek term for the indefinite, or general, question was none of the various Latin equivalents used by Cicero attained general currency, and the Greek term prevailed.

There are some passages in Strabo where corruption of the text is not obvious at first reading, because the existing text offers no grammatical difficulty and can even be translated in such a way as to satisfy the less wary reader. One is driven to conclude that emendation is necessary only when one realizes that Strabo's argument demands something different from that which the manuscripts offer. There is an interesting example of such a passage in 11. 7. 4.