Paley, in his note on Eur. Hel. 1301, says, ‘The choral ode which here follows, though beautiful in itself, is liable to the charge of being unconnected with the subject of the play.’ He adds that the ode ‘is both difficult and corrupt.’ And as far as I am aware, no one has yet succeeded in explaining away the difficulties, or restoring the more corrupt sentences.

liii. 6. Seneca says that we try to conceal from ourselves the fact that we are ill, and can do this for a time. ‘Dubio et incipiente morbo quaeritur nomen, qui ubi ut talaria coepit intendere et utrosque dextros pedes fecit, necesse est podagram confiteri.’

‘Let me refresh your memory; there is no harm in going over what you have heard several times. Five will not admit the character of evenness, nor will ten—its double—admit that of oddness. Now, this latter term is actually itself an opposite of another term, but none the less it will not admit the character of oddness; no more indeed will 3/2 or the other terms of this series—the ‘half’—admit the character of wholeness, nor yet will ⅓ and all the other terms of that series.’

The passage containing this verb is in Resp. v. 450 B: χρυσοχο⋯σοντας οἴει το⋯σδε ν⋯ν ⋯νθ⋯δε ⋯φῖχθαι,⋯λλ’ οὐ λ⋯γων ⋯κουσομ⋯νους; The situation is dramatic. Socrates, to his own mind, has just finished a discussion of the one part of his ideal state, and is intending to go on to the other. Polemarchus, however, seizes him by the cloak and at the same time whispers to Adeimantus. Then Adeimantus tells Socrates that they will hold him by force, until he explains further some words of his that have aroused their interest, and finally Thrasymachus adds that they are unanimous in this decision. Socrates replies that they know not what a swarm of explanations they are stirring up. ‘Seeing this swarm,’ says he, ‘I let it pass, that it might not bother us greatly.’ Then Thrasymachus replies: ‘But do you think these persons have come here for gold-hunting (χρυσοχο⋯σοντας), and not to hear explanations?’

Diss. I 1 16 —κα⋯ φαρακ⋯φτομεν συνεχ⋯ς, τ⋯ς ἄνεμος φνεἄ; ‘βορ⋯ας’.

The credibility of Caesar's account of his campaigns against the Helvetii and Ariovistus has recently been attacked anew by Signor Ferrero, whose fame, rapidly acquired, is not only European but Transatlantic, and who has conducted his case with more ability than his predecessors and on entirely new lines. I do not think that it will be a waste of time to analyse the article in which he has set it forth.

I may venture to offer another belated suggestion on the text of Clement.

I venture to call the attention of classical scholars to two legends about Roman Emperors gleaned amid the arid waste of theological nonsense which passed for literature among the Copts, in the hope that they may have better luck than I have had in tracing them to some classical source. The first is taken from MS. Par. Copte 131, fol. 40, a single leaf of what seems to be a geographical and historical encyclopaedia.1 The writer who is treating in a very discursive way of Ethiopia, states that Nero or Domitian—a strange pair to run in double harness—caused an island in the Red Sea to be watered with oil. The description of that island is mixed up with a mention of the original divisions of the Indians—a term which as usual in early days embraces both Indians and Ethiopians,—and their subsequent changes; and as that too may be of interest to students of ancient geography, I will translate the passage in full.

Mr. Agar has collected his adversaria on the Odyssey which have been enjoying cold storage these many years in the blue depths of the Journal of Philology, and increased them by about three-quarters. He has produced a very interesting and valuable book, the most important contribution to the linguistic history of the Homeric text that has been made for a long time. Mr. Agar holds that the language of Homer represents the original ‘Achaean’ speech, and that its abnormalities in vocabulary, word-formation and metre are the result of natural unforced processes of transmission. This position, held by so well equipped and so trenchant an investigator as Mr. Agar, is reassuring. It does not involve any of the mythological factors of the Higher or the Lower Criticism still recommended among us by Mr. Leaf, Father Browne and Mr. Verrall–Pisistratus, Onomacritus, the Ionian conquest of Smyrna, the Thessalian Iliad, the original Achilleis,–and disagrees with Professor Murray's sinister diagnosis clear away the Attic surface and there rises beneath another surface with another set of corruptions, where Ionic rhapsodes have introduced just the same elements of confusion into an Aeolic or at least a pre-Ionic language. The confusion of tongues is deep down in the heart of the Homeric, dialect, and no surgery in the world can cut beneath it’ (Rise of the Greek Epic p. 214). The last ten years’ work in Comparative Philology (especially Kretschmer's researches K.Z. xxxi. 1898, Glotta i. 1907) has made it clearer and clearer that the rule-of-thumb for distinguishing the historical non-Dorian dialects does not apply to the heroic and post-heroic age, and that the terms ‘Aeolic’ and ‘Ionic’ in their usual sense should disappear from the history of Homer. The Homeric tongue derives directly from the pre-colonial language of Greece wherein two elements are discernible, the original Ionian (or Pelasgian) and the Achaean or North-Greek which overlaid it.