Ol. III. 43-5:

Poetica xxii. 9. 1458b 5.

I. 906-909.

Circumstances have allowed me to inspect the Paris MSS. of Strabo and to collate them for a portion of Book IX. (namely, from c. 4. 18, μéγιοτον δη κ παλαιóτον to the end), in view of an edition of Strabo's Thessaly which Mr. A. J. B. Wace has in contemplation.

In a recent number of the CLASSICAL QUARTERLY (viii., p. 121), under the title ‘Neaera as a Common Name,’ Mr. Postgate writes: ‘There are two undoubted instances of this use of Neaera in Prudentius which are cited by Mr. Ullman.’ This is indeed a very welcome admission, for, unless I am greatly mistaken, Mr. Postgate was formerly of the opinion that such a usage or anything approaching it was unthinkable in Latin.1 But Mr. Postgate still feels uneasy about it, for he says: ‘I imagine however that to an unprejudiced sense of Latin usage these instances will themselves seem to be strange and in need of explanation…. Now is there anything in Neaera or its history which will account for this ? Let us examine the possibilities. And first those offered by etymology…. But it may be thought that it acquired its objectionable colour through the reputed conduct of some particular Neaera of legend or history.’ We are now on common ground, for of course there can be no type-names or common names without some reason.

Ib. 511 sq.

lapsuramque domum subeas, ut sanguis Aleuae,

Stella Leoprepidae cum fuit aequa uiro.

77, 3 (manubia) uastat in quae includit.

E has incidit for includit–another example, eagerly welcomed by Gercke, of free interpolation in this MS. Perhaps incutitur.

There are few ancient texts in a condition so mutilated and unsatisfactory as that of Fronto. Not only was the Codex containing his letters used subsequently for recording the Latin translation of the Acts of the first Council of Chalcedon, and even in one case (Cod. Vat. 227) for two writings one over the other, but there are also indications that there was an earlier writing under the Fronto text, of which Studemund found traces in Cod.Ambr1. p. 107 and Hauler on p. 251 of the same. The latter detected the name Hadrian, and supposed that a work of that Emperor might have been transscribed there. However, the Ambrosian MS. has recently been thoroughly cleaned and laboriously examined by Dr. Hauler, whose authoritative edition of Fronto has long been expected. Meanwhile Naber's edition, faulty as it is, holds the field, and the references in the following notes will be to it. The numerals indicate page and line.

In the Classical Quarterly of April, 1914, I ventured to call in question the explanation of this well-known difficulty put forward by Dr. E G. Hardy in his Roman Laws and Charters. Dr. Hardy has done me the honour of replying to my article in the October Quarterly, but his lengthy argument entirely fails to convince me.