The poetical remains of Dorotheus, on which I made some comments in the Classical Quarterly vol. ii pp. 47–61, have received from the cod. Vat. Graec. 1056 an increase of ten verses, published by Mr J. Heeg in catal. cod. astrol. Graec. vol. v part iii p. 125 and also in Hermes vol. xlv pp. 316–8.

Callimachus Aitia (Ox. Pap. 1011) 82–85. I cannot quite get this right to my satisfaction, but it must have been something like:ΠλΧσεΨΜλ

The passage is thought to refer to the efforts of the Macedonians to honour the memory of their dead king. Who are meant by reges is not at all clear, and summa nituntur opum ui, as we may infer from other passages where the same or a similar expression is used, can hardly refer to anything but the labour of the hands. Probably we ought to read regis, i.e. Philippi. The lines will then refer to the work of the people.

Lvcilivs 11191 (Ma.) is preserved for us in Isid. Etym. XIX, iv, 10, where, amongst the articles of a ship's equipment, the plummet (catapirates, the ) of Herodotus is mentioned, with this illustration (I give the reading of the Archetype) from Lucilius:

Hunc (hanc ?) catapiratem puer eodem deforet unctum,

plumbi paucillum rudus linique mataxam.

That Isidore′s etymological encyclopaedia should still remain to be edited seems strange at first sight; a book which makes a bridge between ancient and modern learning, and gives us a picture of the arts and sciences in Spain in the seventh century. Arevalo′s edition (in Migne′s Patrologia Latina) has a fair text, but practically no apparatus criticus; Otto′s (in Lindemann′s Grammatici Latini) offers the variants of a few worthless MSS. to support a very poor text. Since Otto′s, published some eighty years ago, there have been promises of editions, but no actual edition.

It must have been shortly after I entered college in my middle ̓teens that I first heard of the grammatical doctrine that psychological opposites take the same construction. As a mnemonic, alone, the doctrine is immensely worth while and practically helps with categories like (damnare)(absoluere, meminisse)(obliuisci, cedere)(resistere, similis)(alienus (dissiniilis)—which rouses a literary interest by recalling Thackeray's use of different to as a counter term to equal to, similar to, like to. And, to get back to grammar, for English folk it clarifies prope ab to counter it with procul ab. By the doctrine of opposites we clarify even so elusive a matter as the ‘subjunctive of repudiation’ which I once sought to explain by partial obliquity (Cl. Rev. XI. 344 sq.), not mistaking therein, I am fain to believe, the valuable stylistic note of echo. In this subjunctive I now see a clear opposite to the concessive. It is a survival, on the cold page, of a speech form that owed its meaning to the speaker's mood (⋯ ψυχικ⋯ δι⋯θεσις, the pitch of his voice, all the things that manifest and betray emotion, and so far forth is ‘polemic’ It is often introduced by ut, utne, egone ut, where ut is exclamatory and interrogative at once, and the tone converts the concessive to an anticoncessive, indicating repudiation, disavowal.

In Brutus § 274 Cicero writes: The style of M. Calidius was pure and limpid; he used no word that was ‘ durum aut insolens aut humile aut longius ductum. Erant autem et uerborum et sententiarum ilia lumina quae uocant Graeci …(§ 275) “ Qua de re agitur” autem illud quod multis locis in iuris consultorum includitur formulis et ubi esset uidebat.’ In the last phrase, which I give in the MSS reading, editors have adopted for et ubi the suggestion of Corradus id ubi. There seem to be two objections to it: (I) poor sense, (2) doubtful syntax. Impelled by these objections but pressing overmuch the relevancy of a somewhat similar phrase (De Fin. V. 26. 78: si est quisquam qui acute in causis uidere soleat quae res agatur is es profecto tu) one editor proposed ‘ acutissime uidebat.’ But the context shows that Cicero is describing the language of Calidius, not his mental powers; so a reference to keenness in perceiving the subject of dispute is not relevant. In § 276 the passage proceeds to enumerate the formal qualities of his style:. ‘ accedebat ordo rerum plenus artis, actio liberalis, totumque dicendi placidum et sanum genus.’

Parmenides (Diels) i 37. . It is generally admitted that is unintelligible; people who ‘ can construe anything’ can of course construe this also. Others compare viii I, , and would read here. This is no more intelligible than the other, and it is pretty clear that both lines are corrupt, and that the phrase was originally neither nor .

Mr. Richards is justified in saying that is here indefensible, but he does not much mend matters by reading . Iocasta may have been a paragon of all the virtues, but what has that to do with it? No, the real correction is . ‘ To whom should I tell even greater things than this rather than to thee ?’

Liv. II. 5. 2: Ager Tarquiniorum qui inter urbem ac Tiberim fuit consecratus Marti Martius deinde campus fuit.

Surely Livy had too nice an ear to finish two clauses close together with fuit. Rather than that he would no doubt have written qui… fuerat, which would indeed have been more regular and proper with the fuit following. But should not the second fuit be fit, a historic present like res integra refertur just before ? The two words are so much alike that it was easy to identify them.

Acharnlans arg. I, line 17..

Lvcilivs, fr. 965 (Marx):

quaenam uox ex te resonans meo gradu remoram facit ?

Mr. Housman in the first number of the Classical Quarterly (p. 59) refuted and pulverized the attempt of Marx to emend this passage by writing quoia nam. ‘ Ex tecto ’ and ‘ ex aede’ have been suggested; but it is obvious that if ‘ ex aede’ is to be contemplated, emendation may go on —scores of words could be found that would make sense. There is no context. If the passage is to be emended at all, I suggest that Lucilius wrote

quaenam uox EXTVOORERESONANS.

Ludwig Traube has remarked that ‘ Einer der sonderbarsten Abschnitte in der von Emil Baehrens rekonstruierten Anthologia latina (Poeta[e] minores, vol. iv., Leipzig, 1882) ist der, welcher die Gedichte Römischer Kaiser zusammenfasst, carmen 122–127 (Seite III ffg.).” Of these six poems he points out that Nos. 125 and 126 are early mediaeval epitaphs, No. 127, Hermaphroditus, is later mediaeval, and that Nos. 123 and 124, which were favourites in the Middle Ages, are improperly ascribed to the Emperor Hadrian. Of the remaining poem, No 122, he says nothing. It was first printed by Hermann Hagen in the Rheinisches Museum, xxxv, pp. 569 sqq. (1880), from the Berne MS. No. 109, a tenth century MS. of French origin, partly written in Tironian notes. Hagen gives a facsimile of the entry in the MS. which bears the title Octa. aug. This is the authority for attributing the poem to Augustus.

The Hercules Oetaeus, whatever be its authorship, is closely related to the other plays, and often has what seem to be reminiscences of them, not always felicitous reminiscences. Often, of course, they are reminiscences of the other Hercules, and may supply a clue to the text of that play. Many of them were pointed out by Leo, but there is room for further investigation.