In discussions of the date at which Philodemos wrote the treatise περ σημείωѵ κаί σημεɩώσεωѵ there is general agreement on one point ‘that for this purpose our best evidence is a passage from col. 2, II. 11 sqq., of the papyrus. The author is there explaining the difficulties of induction in allowing for unobserved variations, and in taking Man as an instance he quotes first ‘the Kretan giant’ and then οѷ)ς έѵ՚ Акώρεɩ π∋γμα∕ονς δ(εικνύ)ονσιν νλει δ՚ ν∕α(λ)óγο(νς τος οѷς)’ Aντώνιος νûν ∕ κ Ʃụρία(ςκο)μσ(ατ. In the last line the letters of the papyrus are ΕΞϒΡΙΑΣ, which equally well may represent either § 'ϒρας or κ Σνρας but κ Σνρας has held the field since it was first suggested by Gomperz.

The etymologies of Homeric words have been considered too much in the light of later Greek. The following suggestions are, so far as I am aware, new. I express them briefly for economy of space.

'Аχαα;ιο, τριχικες, Δαναο, “λληνες.

Since Teuffel's Römische Literatur (at least the edition of 1910) mentions s.v. Varius (६ 223, 2) the famous entry in the Monte Cassino MS. (Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 7530) incipit thvestes varii, but ignores its occurrence in a Benevento MS. (Rome, Casanat. 1086 or A III. 11), it may be well to give some account of the latter codex. For I read with amusement a recent article in this journal in which the writer severely censured Mr. Garrod's ignorance of the entry in Paris 7530, but revealed his own ignorance by assuming that it was the scribe of the Paris MS. who had the lost tragedy of Varius before him.

A Famous group of heraldic dedications, with inscriptions in the Oscan dialect, the iovilae-inscriptions as, in the uncertainty that prevails as to their real character, scholars have generally been content to call them (from the recurrence of the word d i u v i l a- or [in a later form] i ῧ v i l a-, presumed to be the name of the object dedicated, in all or nearly all of the dedicatory inscriptions), have long been a standing puzzle to students of the Italic dialects. A visit made in the spring of 1922 to the Museo Nazionale at Naples, where a number of the iovilae are now preserved, provided an opportunity of reconsidering, with the actual objects before me, a new explanation of these most interesting dedications which I now venture to publish.

It is a familiar statement that, when in a primitive Latin word of the scansion the ––≏ first syllable is long by position before a geminated consonant (as in *mammilla, *offella, *farrina), the tendency is to omit one of the consonants and produce the scansion ∪–≏ (as in mamilla, ofella, farina). No such shortening occurs in words of the same scansion when the initial syllable is either naturally long or made long by other groups of consonants.

In a recent article (C.Q. XV. 192–194) attention was drawn to those quotation items (labelled DE GLS) in the Liber Glossarum which cannot be traced to any one of those authors, such as Isidore and Augustine, whose work formed the basis of the Lib. Gloss.

An inscription found in 1912 near Praeneste,1 and now easily accessible in the new edition of Vol. I. of the Corpus of Latin inscriptions (CIL. I. pars 2, fasc. 1, 1918, No. 2439), records a dedication in honour of Juno PALOS-CARIA(e) (dat. sg.), an epithet previously unknown, and not yet, I believe, satisfactorily explained. Rosenberg's attempted explanation (palus -i sens, obsc.—an extremely rare meaning, it should be observed—and stigare in the sense of ‘instigare,’ referring to Juno as the goddess of motherhood) will not secure many adherents, while that of Lommatzsch (CIL. l.c.), who would connect the word with palus -udis, and see an allusion to the ‘paludes Pomptinae,’ involves us in serious, though not insuperable, phonetic and morphological difficulties. If we were reduced to accepting the derivation from palus ‘marsh,’ I should prefer to see rather a reference to the festival of Juno on the Nonae Caprotinae (July 7), which took place near the Caprae (or Caprea) palus in the Campus Martius. There would then be at least a definite connexion of the goddess with the palus, whereas there is no such connexion, so far as I know, of Juno with the Pomptine Marshes.

Propertivs IV. iii. 7 sqq.:

7 Te modo uiderunt iteratos Bactra per ortus,

te modo munito Neuricus hostis equo,

hibernique Getae, pictoque Britannia curru,

10 ustus et Eoa discolor Indus aqua.

8 munito Beroaldus, munitus O., Neuricus Jacob, hericus NFL, hernicus D. 10 ustus MSS., uastus Palmer, pastus Otto, tunsus Housman, discolor MSS., decolor Passerat.

In App. Verg. Priap. 3, 3, the most recent editor adopts the form fomitata, first proposed by I. Voss, a form which seems to derive its only authority from a passage in Paulus' abridgement of Festus (Paul. Fest. 66, 9). Though there is some variation in the MSS. of the Priapeia (formitata, formicata, formata, formidata), the first four letters are in every case the same—namely, form-. Again, in Ps.-Placidus (22, 26) the MSS. give formitat, but Goetz (Thes. Gloss, s.v.) prints this as fo[r]mitat. The reading formitata was upheld by Skutsch, who quoted the form formitare as a parallel to exitare in Catull. 17, 24, which all recent editors have changed to excitare.

In Class. Quart. XV. 193 Dr. Mountford discussed a quotation from the Grammarian Caper in the Liber Glossarum (s.v. Lacteus), and referred it to an item culled from Vergil Scholia by the Abstrusa Glossary. Since Keil in his edition of this grammarian (Gram. Lat. VII.) did not know of this glossary evidence to Caper's text, it may be worth mention that another Caper quotation appears in Lib. Gloss., s.v. Kaluus (properly Kalua or Calua). It is taken from the first sentence of p. 100 of Keil's edition, and shows that the words caluaria singulare have dropped out of the three Caper MSS. used by Keil, after plurale est, though they have left a trace in a variant (caluaria for calua) in two of the trio. And it testifies (rightly or wrongly) to the name of the historian who used caluaria ‘a skull.’ Here is the gloss as it stands in the two chief MSS. of the Liber Glossarum:

Kaluus:

кραѵоѵ uocatur, licet Celio et Varro kaluariam dicant; nam caluariae plurale est, kaluaria singulare.

In a recent article1 mention was made of a MS. (Cod. Vat. Reg. 215) from which Goetz printed selections in Vol. V. (pp. 583–6) of the (Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, and one of its entries was discussed. This so-called glossary, which, as was indicated in the article in question, appears in reality to be a collection of notes, arranged in alphabetical order, from the lectures delivered by Martin the Irishman at Laon in the middle of the ninth century, is preserved in another MS. now in the British Museum2 (Royal 15 A XVI. foil. 74r sqq.). This MS. was not used by Goetz. On fol. 81 appears the following entry:

‘Moechus est adulter alterius t[h]orum furtim polluens; inde a m <o>echo dicitur m[o]echanica ars, ingeniosa atque subtilissima et p<a>ene quomodo facta uel administrata sit inuisibilis in tantum, ut etiam uisum conspicientium quodam modo furetur, dum non facile penetratur eius ingeniositas quali ingenio artis candelabrum illud Theodosianum factum legitur.’