When Odysseus and Diomede are about to set out on their adventure in the tenth Iliad, Meriones lends the former a noble κυνέη, the workmanship of which is carefully described.

So MSS. For ϕερετε metri causa Scaliger proposed ϕερετι, an emendation rightly accepted by editors. In the preceding line καιδή conceals a corruption.

Wilamowitz reads:

και μήν παιδωμ ταδε δή.

The change,however, is too violent to recommend itself on palaeographic grounds. In his notatio critica Murray says: Fortasse παισι.

Medea v. 856 sqq.

πóθεν θράος η Θρενό η

χειρì ΤÈΚνων σÈθΕν

Καρδα τε λήψη

δεινàν πpoσáγονσα τóλμαν

The completion of a critical text of Catullus, which Teubner expects soon to publish, furnishes a plausible excuse for offering a few observations on readings:

29. 20 Hunc gallie timet et britannie (brittanie O) GORM (spatium solito maius post timet reliquit R).

This is the way to say in Latin ‘you see my face, though you cannot see the rest of me’. So her. X 53 ‘tua, quae possum, pro te uestigia tango’, 135 ‘non oculis sed, qua potes, aspice mente’, art. III 633 ‘corpora si nequeunt, quae possunt, nomina tangunt’, trist. IV 2 57 ‘haec ego summotus, qua possum,. mente uidebo’, 3 17 sq. ‘esse tui memorem… quodque potest, secum nomen habere tuum’, 10 112 ‘tristia, quo possum, carmine fata leuo’, ex Pont. IV 4 45 ‘absentem, qua possum, mente uidebo’.1 But that is not what Ovid seeks to say: he means ‘you see my face in such fashion as you can’, not in the flesh but in counterfeit presentment; and Latin expresses this meaning otherwise. As Ovid here speaks of his own likeness on a ring, so in ex Pont. II 8 55 he speaks of the likenesses of Augustus Tiberius and Liuia on a medal; and he says ‘nos quoque uestra iuuat quod, qua licet, ora uidemus’. Arellius Fuscus in Sen. suas. 4 I puts the same thought in the same way, ‘cur non ab infantia rerum naturam deosque, qua licet, uisimus, cum pateant nobis sidera et interesse numinibus liceat ?’ In her. XIII 41 sq. ‘qua possum, squalore tuos imitata labores dicar’ many MSS have changed the adverb into quo agreeing with the substantive hard by; and similarly here the ‘quae potes’ of the text has come from ‘qua potes’.

Hosius and others have suspected v. 87 on the ground that it is omitted by most of the good MSS. But the omission, as Weber saw, is due to the similar endings of vv. 86–87 (cura-hora). It is difficult to see how a student of Lucan could convince himself that any other person is the author of v. 87, which not only improves the passage, but is wholly in keeping with the gloomy fatalism of Pompey as represented by Lucan in many other places. Francken's objection that the emphatic me should have a pronoun contrasted with it may be sufficiently answered by a reference to vv. 396–398 of the same book; many instances from other authors could be added.

Aelivs donatvs, the note d grammarian of the fourth century of our era, wrote commentaries on Terence and Virgil. The commentary on Terence has been preserved, though in a curiously heterogeneous form which thus far has defied analysis. The most plausible supposition is that our present text is a conflation of two commentaries, one by Donatus himself, and one by Euanthius, whose work was obviously utilized for part of the introductory note on comedy. But even if this is the right statement of the question, the question remains to be solved. The problem of the commentary on Virgil is, unfortunately, more simple, or at least is universally adjudged more simple. We have extant Donatus's life of Virgil, his dedicatory letter to Lucius Munatius, and his introductory remarks on Bucolic poetry. The commentary itself, save for scattered references in later grammarians, glossaries, and commentaries, has been lost.

These forms would result regularly from the longer forms, audivisti, etc. The v drops out between two like vowels, and these then contract immediately (cf. divitis > ditis). Both the long and the short forms are used, but the intervening forms audiisti, etc., do not occur in early Latin, just as diitis is not found. (This is the ordinary explanation, and quite sufficient, but see under Class 5.)