Professor D'Arcy W. Thompson has recently revived a conjecture of Lauth on Geoponica, XIII, 8, 1, which runs as follows: ὅϕεις οὔκ ἔσονται ⋯ν χωρ⋯ῳ ⋯⋯ν ⋯ʊ⋯νθιονἢ ⋯ρτεμ⋯σιον ἢ ⋯βρ⋯τονον περ⋯ τ⋯ν ἔπα$$υλιν ϕυτε⋯σῃς. τοὺς δ⋯ ⋯ντας ⋯λ⋯σεις ⋯⋯ν (directions for a fumigation follow). The conjecture is that ⋯ντας is the Egyptian hontasu, ‘lizard.’ That this would make sense is obvious; but the usage of the Geop. itself, to say nothing of other authors, indicates that the word is simply what it appears to be, namely the pres. part, of εἰμ⋯. Thus we find in X, 46 τ⋯ ς⋯κα σκώληκας ¿ὔ π¿ι⋯σει⋯⋯ν μ⋯λλων φυτε⋯ειν ⋯μπ⋯ξῃς σκ⋯λλῃ τ⋯ν κλ⋯δ¿ν, τ¿ὺς δ⋯ ⋯ντας ⋯ναιρεῖς ⋯⋯ν κ.τ.λ. Here the explanation ‘lizards’ would hardly be reasonable; still more cogent, however, is XII, 8, 2–3, ¿ὔκ ἔσονται … τ⋯ς δ⋯ οὔσας κ⋯μπας διαϕθερῖς, where no such conjecture is possible. Not dissimilar is XII, 19, 9, τ⋯ς τε γ⋯ρ οὔσας ψ⋯λλας ϕθε⋯ρεικα⋯ ἄλλας οὔκ ⋯ᾷ γεν⋯σθαι. All these extracts are taken from authors of the second and third centuries A.D., though we have no means of knowing how closely their actual wording is followed; it is therefore in point to cite a passage of Galen, the opening paragraph of the tractate περ⋯ αἱρ⋯σεων Medicine, he says, has for its aim health, and a physician must know how to bring about health if absent (μ⋯ παρο⋯σαν) and preserve it if present (παροȗσαν). καλεῖται δ⋯, he continues, τ⋯ μ⋯ν ⋯ργαζ⋯μενα τ⋯ν μ⋯ οὖσαν ὑγ⋯ειατν τε κα⋯ βοηθ⋯ματα, τ⋯ δ⋯ φυλ⋯ττοντα τ⋯ν οὖσαν ὑγιειν⋯ διαιτ⋯ματα. In other words, ὢν can be used in much the same sense as παρών. This is no novelty of Roman times, for we may compare, for instance, Soph. Ant. 1109, οἵ ' ὅντες οἵ τ'⋯π⋯ντες, and El, 305 τ⋯ς οὔσας … κα⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯πο⋯σας ⋯λπ⋯δας.

The work of Professor Jaeger on the Aristotelian metaphysics, and its modification by the late Hans von Arnim, have raised many new points of the greatest interest, and may, I hope, be considered as having opened up a large and fascinating new field for discussion rather than as having closed the matter. It is a subject which must be considered as a whole. There would be little profit in writing short notes on isolated points in the arguments of the two scholars. Anyone who, possessed of some previous acquaintance with the Aristotelian corpus, reads their work is inevitably stimulated to return to Aristotle with his mind full of fresh ideas. If after a re-examination of the texts he feels he has a different story to tell, he must tell it for himself. That is my excuse for an account which must include much which was always known and much which (as I would gratefully acknowledge) has arisen out of the work of Jaeger and von Arnim. My conclusions are not the same as theirs, and the argument must stand or fall as a consistent whole.

These lines of Cassandra's speech, as given in the MSS., run thus:

νεν τ' ἄπαρχος Ἰλίου τ' ναστάτης

οὐκ οἶδεν οἷα γλσσα μισητς κυνς

λέξασα κα κτείνασα ϕαιδρνους, δίκην

ἄτης λαθραίου, τεξεται κακῇ τχῃ.

τοιάδε τολμ· θλυς ἄρσενος ϕονεὺς

ἔστιν.

The question discussed in this paper is the relation of the Topics (including the Sophistici Elenchi) to the two Analytics. The smaller works are here ignored.

The civil war which ended in the victory of Octavian and the suicide of Antony and Cleopatra is one of the most exciting but most obscure periods of Roman history, obscure mainly because the victor succeeded in imposing bis version of affairs upon his countrymen and through them on posterity. That is not to say that his version is necessarily completely false: the danger that threatened Rome was a real one, the national feeling that resulted in the coniuratio totius Italiae of 32 B.C. and that inspired Virgil and Horace later was not an artificial growth, though it was carefully tended. But in kindling the requisite war-feeling and in rousing the necessary enthusiasm both sides had to propagand for themselves, and in ancient times propaganda often became a matter of personal abuse and mud-slinging. In this Octavian's agents were perhaps more successful, though few nowadays (save writers of sensational novels) would accept the conventional portraits of Antony and Cleopatra as anywhere near the truth. But Antony's propaganda, though not so effective, was not obliterated by Octavian's victory; indeed a great deal of it is still preserved and masquerades as fact in histories of the period, where Octavian's personal character suffers badly.

The Fourth Volume of Livy's text in the Oxford Series is in the Press, and it is time to fulfil a duty which for some years I have owed to the study of Livy—namely, to provide students with fuller information about the character of this important manuscript than could be included in the Praefatio to the third or fourth volume.

It may be of interest to supplement the latter part of Professor Conway's article by a note applying the same standards to estimating the value of the other sources on which (together with Rhenanus' incomplete record) we have to rely for our knowledge of the Spirensian tradition. Apart from ‘L’ and Harl. 2684 (which is Spirensian only from xxix. 3. 15 to xxx. 21. 12) Luchs used for this purpose three partially Spirensian sources: (a) the one fourteenth-century and four fifteenth-century MSS whose archetype he called ‘R’ (to be called θ in the Oxford Text) (b) V, the fifteenth-century Vat. Pal. 876, and (c) the fifteenth-century Flor. Laur. lxxxix. inf. 1. The last mentioned may be dismissed as practically valueless and as supplying little more than new corruptions from an unusually contaminated intermediary. In addition to these deteriores Luchs used the Agennensis (Harl. 2493), but only for the Spirensian supplement in Book xxvi' (where the omission in N is not supplied by any corrector) and for the last part of Book xxx (where A like N contains a supplement). He did not deal at all with the Spirensian textual correctors in A.

To speak of ‘the real subject’ or ‘the primary aim’ of a Platonic dialogue usually means to magnify one aspect of it at the expense of other aspects as important. Such is not my intention. It is quite clear, however, without prejudice to the philosophic value of any of the topics discussed, that the Protagoras is an attack upon the sophists as represented by Protagoras, the greatest of them. Hippias and Prodicus are present and some of the great man's glory is reflected upon them; they are also no doubt to some extent implicated in his defeat, though they seem quite unaware of the fact.

Commenting on Thucydides I, 136: ναγκáζεται… παρ' αδμητον τòν Μολοσσѿν βασιλέα, ὅντα α ὐ τ ᾦ οὐ ϕλον, καταλσαι, Shilleto once wroteb: ‘After some thought I have acquiesced in αὐτᾦ, i.e. in Latin, qui ei (or ipsi) erat inimicus. Still inimicum suum would be as natural. In Latin MSS., as sui (suus) cannot be con-founded with is (ipse), a Critic of course more or less sees his way. But in Greek, as far as my experience goes, we are in a labyrinth without a clue.’