This paper is an attempt to elucidate the senses in which this place-name is used in Homer; to assign meanings to the Homeric terms Achaean, Iason and Pelasgic Arge, to ‘Argive’ as a synonym for Greek, and to establish the nature of the Argos over which Agamemnon ruled. I take the Homeric poems as the unity which they profess to be, and which they must be for historical enquiry. Whatever liberties Homer took with his materials (and I credit him with as free a hand as any one has allowed to Pisistratus)it is plain he was careful to respect events. The effort to distinguish between old and new in the Iliad and Odyssey has caused needless and fruitless encumbrance to the official historians, such as Busolt; the Unitarian position has given us the remarkable results of Professor Myres' (paper on the Pelasgians, J.H.S. 1907, 170 sqq.). The consistency of Mr. Myres' account, and I venture to hope of mine, allows a fresh inference back to the homogeneity of the poems which are their source.

Strabo i. 2. 2O. ἢ τ⋯ν Θρᾴκην oὐκ oῖδε (sc. ⋯ 'Oμηρoς) μ⋯ πρoπ⋯πτoνσαν π⋯ραν τ⋯ν Παιoνικ⋯ν κα⋯ Θετταλικ⋯ν ⋯ρ⋯ν ; ⋯λλ⋯ κα⋯ τα⋯την τ⋯ν ⋯φεξ⋯ς κατ⋯ τo⋯ς Θρᾷκας ɛἰδ κα⋯ † oὐ κατoνoμ⋯ζων τ⋯ν τɛ παραλ⋯αν κα⋯ τ⋯ν μɛσoγα⋯αν M⋯γνητας μ⋯ν τινας … καταλ⋯ γɛι κ.τ.λ. It is true that oὐ is contrary to the sense, but those who reject it should explain how it came into the passage. Read ɛὖ κατoνoμ⋯ζων …

For the following notes, which are mainly on the Life of Apollonius, I have taken Kayser's Teubner text (1870) as the foundation, and my references are to the Olearius paging in his margin.

M. Antoninus Imperator ad se ipsum recogn. I. H. Leopold, Oxonii (Scriptorum Classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis).

In reading the last six books of Platos Laws in Prof. Burnet's excellent edition I notice some passages the corruptions in which seem to me to be due to that very common fault of copyists, false change of case usually due to the preceding word or words.

The inscribed stone, of which an illustration is here given, was found in a wall composed of large blocks, which had all formed part of some other construction. This wall, which had certainly formed no part of the original building, separated the eastern portion of House XI into two rooms numbered 5 and 6 in our plan. The text of the inscription as given by Dr. Ashby in the report published in Archaeologia is as follows:

[Deo] Marti Leno [si]ve Ocelo Vellaun(o?) et num(ini) Aug(usti) M(arcus) Nonius Romanus ob immunitat(em) collign(i) d(onum) d(e) s(uo) d(edit) Glabrione et Homulo co(n) s(ulibus) (ante diem) x k(alendas) Sept(embres) [23 August, A.D. 152].

The idiomatic use of ;ἤλλ' ἤ found in classical writers is familiar in Aristotle; but there is a set of passages for which the ordinary renderings of it fail, and the difficulty is such that the text has been suspected. Bonitz, for instance, Index Aristotelicus, 33b2O, says of two of these passages, Pol. 1257b21, Metaph. 1038a 14, that ⋯λλ⋯ is enough by itself, or even that ⋯λλ⋯ without ἤ seems required (ubi ipsum ⋯λλ⋯ vel sufficit vel requiri videatur), and it has been proposed in the second of these places to read ᾖ for ἤ. It must be contended that the text is sound in all the difficult passages in question.

The excellent article in the January number of the Classical Quarterly upon a mistaken interpretation of Philebus 31 c contains the somewhat incorrect statement that this interpretation is the general one: and the article itself is anticipated by a short note in a paper which I published in the Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society for 1881–2. I have nothing to complain of, for (as will appear) it may partly serve me right. Besides, my paper, though duly registered in the Revue de Philologie, is omitted from the index of that periodical; the aforesaid Transactions are out of print, and by some mischance my correction of the wrong rendering did not appear in the last edition of Jowett's Plato, though Jowett intended it should.

Dissatisfied with current views upon the exordium of Tibullus II. i. (vv. 1–24), I proposed in Selections from Tibullus (1903) to make the occasion of the poem the Sementiuae Feriae instead of the Ambarualia. This proposal, criticised, amongst others, by Mr. Warde Fowler in an interesting article in the Classical Review (xxii. 1908, pp. 36 sqq.), I have now abandoned (ib. p. 40 b). But the difficulties which led me to break away from previous exegesis still remain, and to them I address myself in the present article.