This passage, which is in a way a digression from the main subject of the second book, arboriculture, and stands out from the rest of the poem, is one of the best known of the entire work, chiefly, it would seem, on account of its exquisite beauty, but partly also, no doubt, for the distinctly modern note it strikes; for it can justly be regarded as an early example of a national anthem. As a matter of fact, it has been recognized as such from the dawn of the Renaissance, and Petrarch's famous

Salue cara Deo tellus: sanctissima salue: was directly inspired by Vergil's

Salue, magna parens frugum, Saturnia tellus, Magna uirum.

‘The Thebans have also a grave of Hektor, son of Priam, beside a spring which is called the Spring of Oedipus, and they say that they brought his bones from Ilium in consequence of the following oracle:

“Thebans who dwell in the city of Cadmus,

If you wish your clan to dwell with noble wealth,

Bring to your homes the bones of Hektor, son of Priam,

From Asia and by the command of Zeus worship him as a hero.”’

The MS. tradition of Prudentius is particularly interesting, since in the famous Codex Puteanus (Par. Lat. 8084) we have a MS. dating from the early sixth century—i.e. but little more than a hundred years after the publication of the collected poems in 405. Yet it has only been of late years that due consideration has been given to this ancient Codex, which is the actual MS. corrected by Vettius Mavortius' own hand. Mr. Winstedt has spoken (Classical Review, 1904, pp. 112 sqq.) of the neglect which it has suffered for the most part from editors, and also (C.R., 1905, pp. 56 sqq.) of the similar lack of attention paid even by Dressel to its seventh-century companion at Milan—the Codex Ambrosianus; while, later, J. Bergman shewed himself enthusiastic in its praise (Sitzungsberichte der kais. Ahad. der Wissenschaften in Wien, 1907). A confirmation is now available of a curious and generally discredited reading in this MS. (the Puteanus), from that same Arma glossary (Leyd. 67F, 1191–128r) of ‘saec. viii.-ix’ which bears witness to the readings of a lost Terence MS. of the δ-family, the best minuscule family, older than any extant MS., as I shewed in the April, 1925, number of this journal. At Prud. Apoth. 895 the reading of Puteanus is—

Agenitus genitusque deus, pater et patre natus.

This paper is a contribution to the question of how far Polybius fulfilled that part of an historian's duty which consists of acquiring information; it gives an instance, small in itself no doubt, where he definitely neglected to obtain good information which lay to his hand, and preferred to repeat a commonplace untruth of the literary hacks.

Next to the Ninus Romance, to which more attention has been paid, the most interesting fragments of Greek Romance are the so-called Chione Fragments, which have been recently re-edited by Lavagnini. Before discussing the problem of their significance, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate their history.

Hermesianax, ap. Athen. 599B, I. 91 = Collectanea Alexandrina p. 100. This is a locus desperatus; but since the reviewer of Collectanea Alexandrina in the Classical Review, XXXIX., p. 192, accepts the idea which underlay my conjecture ⋯ξετρνϕησε, I think of adding to it οѵδϥμɩνόν τε, which is suggested by Schweighaeuser's οѵδϥμɩνόν The line will thus run: οѵδϥμɩνόν τ' ⋯ξετρνϕησε βίον ‘uitam uilem deliciis consumpsit.’ Hesychius has: οѵδαμɩνός οδένοςλόуου εστɩ βραϰύςεύτελής.

I have never read the two great stanzas of Odes III. 3 without a feeling that the above phrase was rather inadequate, according to what I suppose to be the accepted translation. I base the word ‘accepted’ on Forcellini, and Lewis and Short, who give the reference under the head of propositum, ‘purpose,’ ‘intention,’ ‘resolution,’ ‘design.’ But the capacity of sticking to some particular purpose is not a very noble quality, and if we take the phrase in the wider sense of general tenacity of purpose, I do not feel that we get the ‘iustus’ of the ode, though we may perhaps get a person who is likely to succeed in life. Taken in this way, ‘tenax propositi’ suggests (as much as anything) the portrait of Henry VIII., with his gross face and striding legs, dominating the English Church and the High Table of Trinity. I shall perhaps be told that the context shows the meaning. It may no doubt prevent the phrase from being misleading, but it does not make it worthy of its setting. I may add that in the other two places, where I know of its occurring, it has no very lofty meaning. In Ovid Met. X. 415, ‘propositi tenax’ is used to describe the persistent efforts of Myrrha's nurse to find out what is the matter. In Quintilian XI. 1, 90, in a discourse on mild equivalents, we are told that the ‘pertinax’ may be spoken of as ‘ultra modum propositi tenax.’

In the opinion of Aristotle and Plutarch the growth of latifundia and consequent decline of the citizen population at Sparta were due to the absence of restrictions on gifts and bequests of land. According to Plutarch this freedom of gift and bequest, so far as it applied to the κλ⋯ροι or entailed estates, was introduced by the ῥ⋯τρα of an ephor named Epitadeus, who removed the ban on gift and bequest imposed by Lycurgus.

My hope (Class. Rev. 34, 105) of an edition of the quotations in the Liber Glossarum has at last been realized in Professor Mountford's excellent Quotations from Classical Authors in Medieval Latin Glossaries (= Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. XXL), New York and London (Longmans, Green and Co.), 1925.

That is, Saturno Augusto sacrum. Gaius Memmius Pudens sacerdos intrauit sub iugum libens animo. Intrauit sub iugum is peculiar to this text, but it is reasonable to suppose that the plain intrauit used in other inscriptions of priests of the African Saturnus is a shorter equivalent. Professor Schulten has suggested that some symbolical act indicating the assumption of priesthood is thereby indicated. We may go a little further.

In his last ‘Gleanings from Glossaries’(C.Q., XX. 105, 1926)Lindsay quotes, andascribes in part to Donatus, the Servian scholium on Verg. G. IV. 14: meropes rusticae fbarbarost appellant… sunt autem uirides earum pennae, et uocantur apiastrae quia apes comedunt.

Lindsay obelizes barbaros, ‘because there is no other record of birds called by this name, except Probus' scholium: Meropes dicuntur aues quas in Italia uocant barbaros, etc.’ After quoting the Berne scholium, ‘Meropes tGalbeolif, ut putat Tranquillus,’ andIsidore's statement, ‘Meropes, eosdem et tgaulosf,’ Lindsay comes to the conclusion that these latter words ‘must, each of them, contain a portion of the truth. And isnot the whole truth that Donatus wrote galbus or galuus?’ He goes on to say: ‘Now Ihope that someone with more courage will say: The barbaros of Servius Danielis and of Probus onGeorg. IV. 14 is a corruption of galbos.’ For my part, I take my courage in both hands and assert that it is nothing of the kind.

Printed texts of Greek authors reflect a divergence of opinion, some giving ὐσμενος others ὐσμενος Only ἄσμενος is correct, and it was never called in question until Usener (Neue Jahrb. 1865, 255) drew attention to the spelling ὐσμενος in the Bodleian MS. (Clarkianus 39) of Plato and in the Paris MS. (A) of the same author. He was followed by Schanz, who gave ὐσμενος in his editions of Platonic dialogues.

The question whether τυγχ⋯νω can be used forτυγχ⋯νω ὥν in Attic Prose has been differently answered by different scholars. Phrynichus (p. 277 Lob., p. 342 Ruth.) held that it could not, and Porson (ad Eur. Hec. 788 [782]) followed him. The generality of modern scholars, however, have taken the other view—so, e.g., Locella, Heindorf, Lobeck, Ast, Schneider, Madvig, Stallbaum, Krüger, W. H. Thompson, Rutherford, Jebb, Adam, Kühner-Gerth. The object of the present note is to show that the ‘modern’ view, if it is to be maintained, must be based on other evidence than that hitherto given for it.