X. 13. 10, with X. 33. 3. (Fabius Maximus is protesting against his own re-election as consul in defiance of the law.)

Et ille quidem in recusando perstabat: quid ergo attineret leges ferri rogitans quibus per eosdem, qui tulissent, fraus fieret; iam regi leges non regere.

Mrs. Dall, in her article A Seventh-Century English Edition of Virgil (p. 176 infra), shows that Virgil glosses taken from marginalia in the same MS. of the poems often preserve something of their original coherence in the two kindred glossaries, Affatim and the Second Amplonian, in spite of all the reshuffling of these two collections. Thus a small group of Virgil items appears in Affatim on p. 491 of Goetz's apograph (in Vol. IV. of the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum): (no. 2) Carecta, (no. 3) Crateras, etc. The second last of this ‘Virgil cluster’ (as Mrs. Dall calls it) is (C.G.L. IV. 491, 5) Cada: vasa vinaria. It appears also in Ampl. II. (C.G.L. V. 272, 63) Ca[t]da: vas<a> vinaria, and in (the cognate) Ampl. I. (C.G.L. V. 354, 75) Cada: vasa vinaria, and is apparently taken (by all three compilers), ultimately or immediately, from a marginal annotation on Aen. 1, 195 ‘uina bonus quae deinde cadis onerarat Acestes’ for in the Virgil Glossary printed by Goetz in C.G.L. IV. 427–470 we find (p. 432, no. 24) Cadis: vasis vinariis.

The Times Literary Supplement of November 8, 1917, contained, under the title of Socrates recognitns, a review of Plato's Biography of Socrates, a lecture delivered by Professor A. E. Taylor to the British Academy in the early part of last year. The opening sentence of the review is as follows: ‘Next to the problem of the Gospels ranks that of the Platonic dialogues amongst those most vital to the history of the human spirit.’ A little further down the reviewer says: ‘It is much to the credit of British scholarship—and especially to that of the University of St. Andrews—that it should have attacked these problems with untiring energy, and propounded solutions which, although they run counter to most of the traditional tendencies of historical and philosophical criticism, have not only challenged attention, but are carrying conviction even to unlikely quarters.’ And again, at the end of the article, we read this passage: ‘It is scarcely to be thought that the ground won by the scholars of St. Andrews will be held without counter-attack; but this is slow to mature, and in the meanwhile such essays as the subject of this notice, with which we may couple the paper recently read to the British Academy by Professor Burnet on the Socratic doctrine of the soul, serve to buttress and consolidate the position.’

How any editor of Plautus can become one of the slash-cut-and-carve critics I cannot understand. The fair garden-beds of Plautus are scored all over with the hoof-prints of the reckless emender. Take this line of the Poenulus for example. Hanno gets a sight of his two long-lost daughters and is surprised to find how they have grown:

Haecine meae sunt filiae?

Quantae e quantillis iam sunt factae!

His would-be son-in-law, not a very refined youth, says with a smile:

Scin quid est?

Thraecae sunt: in celonem sustolli solent.

Georg. I. 36 sq.:

quidquid eris,—nam te nec sperant Tartara regem, nec tibi regnandi ueniat tam dira cupido;—

Mr. Page's note puts well what seems the customary view of this famous parenthesis: ‘The force of nam deserves attention. Having used the phrase quidquid eris, which sums up the whole passage from line 24, as though there were no other form of deity left which Augustus could assume, Vergil adds this explanatory sentence to show why he had not mentioned the fourth division into which deities were divided, viz. those of the underworld. The fourfold division of deities being well known, Vergil cannot omit the fourth without stating the reason for which he does so.’

Since the time of Burman it has been amongst the aims of Phaedrian scholarship to endeavour to make good the imperfections of the direct tradition by recourse to the indirect. That losses have been sustained, one piece of evidence is enough to show. In the sixth line of his Preface to Book I. Phaedrus says that trees speak in his fables; but no trees speak in any fable now left to us, either in the five books as handed down in PR or in the Perottine Appendix.

Charles Erskine Stuart's studies of the MSS. of Seneca's tragedies are known to readers of the Class. Quart, from his two articles (V., 1911, pp. 32 sqq., and VI., 1912, pp. 1 sqq.). Before he died he expressed a wish that his collations and notes should pass to me.

The change of the Greek aspirates into the voiceless spirants of the modern language was already beginning to appear in some of the ancient dialects. The intermediate stage in this development is naturally that of affricates, ph, th, kh, becoming pf, tp, kx respectively, a stage seen in such spellings as μετνλλακχóτα. The evidence of the inscriptions shows that the change was not readily effected in Attic, and the clearest mark of this conservatism is the interchange of aspirates and tenues.

Two kindred glossaries, Affatim and the Second Amplonian, have been shown (by Professor Lindsay in the Classical Quarterly XI. 185 sqq.) to derive their materials mainly from the Abstrusa and Abolita glossaries, but partly also from Virgil marginalia. This Virgil thread is most clearly seen in the I-section of Affatim. The Affatim compiler tells us that the exemplar (from which he drew most of his material) had lost four leaves at this point: ‘Here the exemplar lacks four leaves in the H–I portion’ (C.G.L. IV. 524, 45–46). We find the following unmistakable Virgil batches:

Affatim 525, 41 sqq. Infandum: inenarrandum, nee loquendum (e.g. Aen. 1, 251); Inpar: inaequalis uiribus (e.g. Aen. 1, 475); Iamdudum: iam pridem, iam olim (e.g. Aen. 1, 580; also C.G.L. IV. 88, 40); In arce: in excelso (e.g. Aen. 3, 531); Infabricata: inperfecta (Aen. 4, 400); Iam uertitur: iam transit (Aen. 5, 626); <lnualidum>: iam ualidum minus, minus fortem (Aen. 5, 716); Imago: uultus (e.g. Aen. 6, 695); In iaculis: in armis, in telis (Aen. 5, 37).

The MS. hie tunc of V. 6 has no friends. L. Mueller's hoc tunc is weak and flat, and L. Rank, Mnemosyne 40. 51, is justly dissatisfied with the hietans of M. Havet's larger and smaller editions, to which the hians of Verg. Aen. 12. 754 lends no sufficient support, as there the dog is opening its mouth before it bites. Add to this that it is by no means certain that Phaedrus would either have used the word or used it in the simple sense of opening the mouth. Rank's own proposal, ‘heu’ tunc, fails also to carry conviction. There is however a word which belongs to our author's vocabulary (App. 23. 5) and is as near to the manuscripts as either of the above, and which hits the sense at which hietans aims. This is rictus. The word is often used of the opened mouths of dogs, Lucr. 5. 1064, Ovid Met. 13. 568. Juvenal 10. 271 sq. ‘canino latrauit rictu,’ and of other animals. That it is appropriate with dimisit ‘let go’ may be seen from the counterpart expression of Martial 1. 48. 1 ‘rictibus his tauros non eripuere magistri.’

Posidonivs was fortunate to be born in an age when the Romans had begun to recognize their own intellectual limitations, and had turned for guidance to a hitherto despised nation, admitted by themselves to be as much their superior in originality as it was inferior to them in practical matters. He was, moreover, the official exponent of a philosophical system which, destined as it was to exercise for hundreds of years the strongest moral influence over the world, had already taken a firm hold on the more thoughtful minds at Rome. Probably any Greek teacher of ability had, in the time of Cicero, a good chance to make a name; Posidonius, who was a man of considerable intellectual gifts, great learning, and some originality, and who was, moreover, the accredited successor to Zeno and Chrysippus, obtained a reputation which lasted for some centuries.

Page 156. Fable IV. 1. 1. for sibi read huic.

Page 157. Fable V, 1. 5, for multiplici plenam read plenam multiplici.

Page 160. Fably VII, 1. 3, for legitimo sedit read sedit legitimo.

The corresponding corrections should be made in the annotations.