The Platonic Commentators.—After Cicero the Academy is no more than a few names to us for nearly five centuries. The nearest that we get to contact with it in this period is in the writings of Plutarch. He was himself a student there, and was well read in the books of Plato and the commentaries thereon.

This passage has caused much discussion and much variety of opinion, and it still remains doubtful whether the later commentators in their efforts at exact interpretation have been more successful than the earlier ones. The general sense is sufficiently clear. Medea is making an apology to the Chorus of sympathizing Corinthian ladies for her delay in appearing before them. So far all are agreed. The difficulties, real or unreal, arise when we begin to inquire what form the apology actually takes. First of all there are doubts as to the meaning of το ὺς μ⋯⋯ μ⋯⋯ᾂπο. in the Scholia. we have a gloss μῂ όρώμνοɩ είναɩ. and the explanation το⋯ Xωρίςεσθαɩ καì ᾂτ⋯ν ποθεν ⋯μμάτων είναɩ. Many scholars have taken exception to this view on two grounds, as stated by Verrall ad loc, because (I) ‘the sense of motion is not there, and (2) there is no reference to any eyes in particular.’ He requires either authority or analogy for this. As far as the absence of motion is concerned, it is sufficient to refer to Thuc. 1, 7 αί δ⋯ παλαɩαί(πόλεɩς) ᾀπ⋯θαλ⋯σσης μ⋯λλον ῲκίσθησαν id I, 99ἳναμῄ ᾀπ οἲκου ⋯σɩ,γ. Il. B 292 μένεν ᾀπ⋯ ᾑς ᾀλòΧοɩο. Then there is the analogous expression αί γàρ δῂ μοɩᾀπ οὒατος ώδε γένοɩτο (II.Σ 272, cf. X 454). As to the second objection, why is it necessary that the eyes of anyone in particular should be referred to ? There is no more ambiguity here than there is in Il Ψ 53 θâσσον ᾀπ ⋯ϕθαλμ⋯ν, where the meaning is ‘so as to be out of sight, not of me or you, but of everybody.’ In fact, it could not be maintained with any show of reason that ᾀπ⋯ϕθαλμ⋯νand ᾀποὒατς could not mean ‘out of sight’ and ‘out of hearing’.

(1) In Cicero, In Vatinium, § 29, occur the words: ‘ Fecerisne foedera tribunus plebis cum ciuitatibus, cum regibus, cum tetrarchis?’

With this are to be compared:

(2)Ad Fam. I. 9, 7:‘In quo omnia dicta sunt libertate animoque maximo de ui, de auspiciis, de donatione regnorum.’

(3)Att. II. 9, I:‘Irnprobitate istorum, qui auspicia, qui Aeliam legem, qui Iuniam et Liciniam, qui Caeciliam et Didiam neglexerunt … qui regna quasi praedia tetrarchis … dederunt.’

This famous iambic line is described—alike by commentators on the New Testament and by writers on the Greek drama—as a quotation in the first place from the lost Thaïs of Menander, and it is further stated that it was there borrowed from some play of Euripides no longer extant. In view of the revival of interest in Euripides during recent years, it seems worth while to examine the line in detail, and to see whether, in the light of our present knowledge, any further information can be extracted as to its precise source.

In common with other poems of the Appendix Vergiliana, Copa has incurred the a priori suspicion of forgery or post-Virgilian imitation. But if, as I have tried to show, Copa was written under the direct and immediate influence of Theocritus, that suspicion can no longer be permitted to colour and confuse the enquiry into Copa's date and authorship. The poem has acquired the right to do battle with the Eclogues on equal terms for the palm of priority.

The object of this paper is to enquire how far we can trace in the works of Horace the use of the plural forms of the first person which have been pointed out by Professor R. S. Conway in his essay on The Use of the Singular nos in Cicero's Letters (Camb. Phil. Soc. Proc., Vol. V., Part I., 1899), from which it appeared that the idiom throws valuable light upon the inner workings of Cicero's mind.