Since the publication of a lecture called ‘Where Was Vergil's Farm?’ in the John Rylands' Library Bulletin in 1923, and its appearance in a fuller form as Ch. II. of my Harvard Lectures on the Vergilian Age, no hostile criticism has appeared except from writers in Mantua itself (who naturally cling to the local tradition for its own sake), until the book of my friend Prof. E. K. Rand, In Quest of Vergil's Birthplace. This describes in a delightful way his travels in the region of Mantua and Carpenedolo, in the summer of 1929, and re-examines the question in the light of his experience. It also includes several valuable photographs and a map of the Provincia di Mantova, from all of which I have been glad to learn much. The reproductions of pages from the three manuscripts and two editions of the Life by Probus are particularly welcome.

In an earlier paper on this topic, ‘Eupatridai, Archons, and Areopagus,'3 I was primarily concerned to recover the views of Aristotle, as expressed in the ‘Αθ. πολ., on such elements of Attic Society as Eupatridai, Gennetai, etc. I sought to establish that to him at least these two were not identical: that, more precisely, he recorded two stages of development—

(a) ‘Ion’: in whose day the whole body of Athenians was composed of Gennetai, while Eupatridai had not yet been created.

(b) ‘Theseus’: who created the Eupatridai—distinguishing them, as a Third Estate, from those two Estates (Georgoi and Demiourgoi) which had hitherto, since Ion, composed the body of Athenians.

Wilamowitz (Staat und Gesellschaft, II. 70) denies that there was ever any definite status of Nobility (‘ein rechtlich irgendwie abgesonderter Stand der Adeligen’) in Athens: his reason is, that Solon says nothing of such a thing. E silentio and very dangerous: and in fact a remnant of Privilege of Nobility survived into the fourth century at least; ϕυλοβαασιλεῖς ἐξ Eὐπατριδῶν (Pollux, VIII. in). This puts it beyond question that Eupatrid-hood (a) was capable of definition, and (b) carried privilege.

Cicero (Inu. 2, 166) defines gloria as frequens de aliquo fama cum laude, ‘much talk about a person to his praise.’ When the talk is by the person himself, the word takes the signification ‘boast’ (as early as Plaut. Mil. 22 gloriarum pleniorem).

I argued in § II. (Ion and Theseus) that in the lost chapters of the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία Aristotle recorded (in connexion with the Synoikisis) the creation by Theseus of the Eupatrid Order, from whom the Archons were chosen: that this tallies with Thuc. II. 15: that Thucydides further suggests that the continuous existence of the Areopagus Council dates from the same time: that finally Council and Order stand to each other as patres and patricii did in Rome.

The theory of the comparative method has been discussed in a previous article. I pass on to the results obtained—the actual history of prose-rhythm in the practice of particular authors. I give below the figures of normal frequency on which my statements are based. For Greek prose, as I have already said, Thucydides may be considered a practically unmetrical author, since nearly all his clausulae occur with about the same frequency as might be expected from the natural proportion of long and short syllables in the Greek language, and since there is little difference between his sentence-metre and his clausula-metre. (A slight difference between the two is natural, because there are some words, such as the article, which can scarcely be used to close a sentence.) Thus the theoretical frequency of — ∪ — is 14·19 per cent.; its frequency in Thucydides' clausula-metre is 14·2, in his sentence-metre 14·4. But there are two cases where the difference in these proportions seems too great to be due altogether to chance. Compared with the theoretical calculation and with the sentence-metre, —∪∪—— occurs in the clausula considerably more frequently (6·1 per cent, as against 2·6 per cent.) and —∪—∪ considerably less (3·7 per cent, as against 5·1 per cent.). The first form seems to be sought by Thucydides; the second seems to be avoided (doubtless as suggesting an iambic trimeter ending). For these two forms, therefore, I have considered as normal the average percentages of 2,000 cases in the sentence-metre of Thucydides and Xenophon (1,000 each), for the rest the percentages of 2,000 cases in the clausula-metre of Thucydides. For normal frequency in Latin metrical prose I have used de Groot's figures, based on 2,000 cases from nineteenth-century Latin translations of Gregory and Athanasius.

I. HomericHymn to Apollo 334:

κἐκλντε νῦν μοι γαῖα καὶ οὐρανòσ εὐρὺσ ὓπερθεν,

TιτǴνεσ τε θεοιí ὑπὸ χθονὶ ναιετάοντεσ

τάρταρον ἀμφὶ μέγαν, τῶν ἔξ ἂνδρεσ τε θεοί τε.

τυτθòν δ' ὅσσονἄπωθεν ἁλιτπὐτοιο γέροντος

γενναίαις σταφυλαîσι καλòν βέβριθενἀλωά

τὰν ὀλίγος τις κῶρος ἐφ' αἱμασιαîσι φυλάσσει

ἣμενοσ' ἀμφ· δέ νιν δύ' ἀλώπεκες ἃ μὲν ἀν' ὂρχως

φοιτῆ σινομένα τὰν τρώξιμον, ἂ δ' ἐπὶ πήρᾳ

πάντα δóλον τεύχοισα τò παιδίον οὐ πρὶν ἀνησεῖν

φατὶ πρὶν ἀρίστοισιν ἐπὶ ξηροῖσι καθίξη.

αὐτὰρ ὃ γ' ἀνθερίκοισι καλὰν πλέκει ἀκριδοθήραν

σχοίνϕ ἐφαρμóσδων· μέλεται δέ ο· οὒτε τι πήρας

οὒτε φυτῶν τοσσῆνον, ὅσον περὶ πλέγματι γαθεῖ.

It is usual, since Wolf, to print πέλει in 396 instead of ποτί. The authority for this is very slight: E. M. 214. 33 from Diogenes βρόμος κυρίως ὁ τοῦ πυρὸς. ᾒχος. πεποιημένη δέ ἐστιν ἡ ϕωνὴ κατὰ μίμησιν τοῦ ἀποτελουµένου ψόφου ἀν πυρί, οἷον τόσος γε πέλει βρόμος αἰθοµένοιο. schol. Ap. Rhod. III. 861 the etymology of Bx03B1;ἰθριµώ … ἢ παρὰ τοῦ βρόµον τοῦ πυρός. τόσσος γὰρ πέλεται βρόµος ἡ γὰρ θεὸς λαµπαδοῦΧος. It is not certain that either of these quotations refer to our line; in the former, as will be noticed, πυρός is out of place, and we cannot tell how the second (which may also come from Diogenes) would have continued. In any case, it is not obvious what turned such an easy word as πέλει into the difficult ποτί.

In dealing with excerpts from Terence in the Servian Commentary on Virgil I deferred consideration of the material found only in the enlarged Commentary, on the ground that, if any difference of quality or character should appear in this material, it must be kept distinct from the work of Servius.

The purpose of the present article is to examine the use of Logos as an ontological term in the Plotinian system and to seek to trace its connexion with Stoicism. Although at first the fact that the fundamental meaning metaphysically of Logos for Plotinus is a spiritual activity due, both as created and as creator, to the desire for contemplation may appear to be an obstacle to a close resemblance with the Spermatic Logos of Stoicism, the creative aspect of the elemental Fire, nevertheless abundant and striking similarities in other respects seem to furnish conclusive evidence that the title which I have selected is not mistaken. The full importance of the Plotinian Logos cannot indeed be grasped until the development of the term has been studied not merely in Stoicism but in Philo and early Patristic Literature; for then the common function of Logos in every system, the reconciliation of the transcendent and the immanent views of God, is clearly manifested. But here only a brief indication of the evolution of the Logos doctrine between the diffusion of Stoic thought and the emergence of Neoplatonism is possible. Chief interest will be directed to the use by Plotinus of the spermatic conception, fundamentally Stoic, of a creative Nature which informs and pervades the Cosmos as its immanent Logos.

The present essay is intended to supply amplification, and where necessary correction, to my previous article on Anaxagoras' philosophy. Since its publication important essays on the same subject have been written by Mr. Cyril Bailey and by Mr. F. M. Cornford, and the present essay is also an attempt to examine some of the theories put forward in them.

There are one or two points which may be stated at the outset. The conclusions which I put forward five years ago I still believe to be valid. Some of the presentation of the evidence, however, I now see to be misleading and inadequate, notably the treatment of Aristotle's evidence, which I now hope to deal with more fully, and to show that it lends even stronger support to my thesis. I should also say that my former use of ‘Elements’ as a convenient collective term to refer to the four Empedoclean Elements has proved confusing, since it was never intended to suggest that these substances were elements in Anaxagoras' system. I now refer to them by their names in full.

Having recently chosen to lecture on the Pythian Odes, and coming in due course to the ninth, I naturally consulted Dr. Farnell's translation and his article in the Classical Quarterly with regard to the puzzling question of the connexion in thought between lines 76–96 and the rest of the ode. Being more or less dissatisfied both with his views and with those of such other commentators as were known to me, I am now attempting to analyze the poem myself in hopes of showing that it is a more continuous whole than has been generally supposed.

It would be natural to expect, after all these years, that the language of an author so important as Livy would be adequately represented in the dictionaries. Unfortunately this is very far from being the case. It is disquieting to find numerous Livian words cited without any mention of Livy or of any other writer of the Ciceronian or the Augustan Age. It is equally disquieting to find Livian idioms or constructions attributed only to writers remote from Livy both in time and in genre. To crown all, we find a good many of Livy's notable usages entirely ignored. Perhaps a humble service may be rendered both to Livy and to the history of the Latin language by indicating a few deficiencies, especially in the parts of the alphabet not yet covered by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.

The former part of this paper attempted to show—

1. That in Anaxagoras' scheme of physics the following substances were elements:

(a) The animal substances (such as Flesh, Bone, Marrow, etc.);

(b) The vegetable substances (such as Bark, Wood, etc.);

(c) The so-called Opposites (the hot, the cold, etc.); and

2. That there is no evidence that Anaxagoras asserted any substances to be homoeomerous, and that, even if he had done so, the word ‘homoeomerous’ does not bear the meanings often attached to it by those theories which assume he made the assertion. The meaning of is, ὁμοιομερής is, not ‘simple in substance,’ i.e. ‘elementary,’ but ‘simple in formation.’

There is an epigram preserved in two lives of Pindar, that in the scholia Ambrosiana and the rambling biography of the poet by Eustathios. It is perhaps most conveniently accessible in von Christ's larger edition of Pindar, pp. ci and cii, and runs as follows:

ἦ μάλα ρωτμάχτε καὶὔμητισ λιуὑφωνιινδάρ‘nu; ἓκλατ θуατέρεσ πινταί, αρуθεν ἦμoσ ἴκντκμίζσ ἔνδoθι κρωσσῦ λειψαν' ἀπ' ༀπὺ ξεινησ ἀθρόα πρκαïῆσ.

IIρωτμάχη Eustathius. 2. Éκλαταὶ ινδάρ θуατέρεσ East. et Ambr., corr. Gerhard.

The history of Athenian relations with Sicily in the fifth century is beset with difficulties; and no part of it, perhaps, is more obscure than the story of what is commonly known as the First Sicilian Expedition, which set sail from Athens in the late summer of 427 under Laches, and was reinforced under Pythodorus, Sophocles and Eurymedon in the winter of 426.