I have not read the Thebais more than three times, nor ever with intent care and interest; and although in putting these notes together I have consulted a large number of editions—Bernartius, Tiliobroga, Geuartius, Cruceus, Gronouius, Barthius, Veenhusen, Beraldus (Delphin), ed. Bipontina, Lemaire (with Amar), Queck, O. Mueller (books I-VI), Kohlmann, Wilkins, Garrod, Klotz, and the translations of Marolles, Nisard, and Mozley (Loeb)—it may well be that profitable matter has escaped me and that some of my comments have been made before.

Ever since Ph. Kohlmann in his Teubner edition of the Thebaid (1884) asserted that he had used cod. Parisinus 13046, one of the MSS. formerly of St. Germain des Prés, this MS. has been known by reputation to his successors and other students of Statian textual problems, and, designed by the letter S, it is alluded to and cited in the edition of Garrod (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis 1906) and in the newer Teubner of Klotz, which appeared in 1908. The two later editors confessed that they themselves had not examined the MS., but were relying upon the information accessible in Kohlmann's edition. Doubts having been cast from more than one source upon Kohlmann's accuracy and the soundness of his reports, while at the same time the importance of S as a member of the ω group was emphasized by Mr. Garrod and Dr. Klotz in spite of the incomplete evidence at their disposal, it seemed worth while to the writer to examine the MS. for himself and to make a thorough collation of it. This has been done in the summer of 1932.

As a preliminary to an estimate of the work of Kleisthenes, I have sought in this paper to constate certain facts about the nature of the evidence.

The last Latin colony in Italy named by Livy is Aquileia; but Velleius Paterculus in a well-known passage says that Luca received a colony in 177 B.C., and follows his usual practice of not stating whether it was of the Latin or of the citizen type. Livy does not know of a colony at Luca, but does mention a citizen colony planted at Luna in 177 b.c.

In Plato's Euthyphro two suggestions are offered to account for the accusation of impiety brought against Socrates. The first comes from Euthyphro (3b), who takes it that the accusation is directed primarily against Socrates' ‘divine sign.’ The second is made by Socrates himself (6a), who puts forward the view that he is being brought to trial because he refuses to accept such tales about the gods as Hesiod told regarding the maltreatment of Uranus by Cronus and of Cronus by Zeus—tales which Euthyphro not merely believes but regards as justifying his action in prosecuting his own father. Both these suggestions used to be taken at their face-value, as, for example, by Grote (Plato I, chap. IX). But according to J. Burnet (notes on Euthyphro 3b 5 and 6a 8), followed by A. E. Taylor (Plato, chap. VII), neither is meant to be taken seriously.

A short article was published in the Classical Quarterly in 1921 (Vol. XV, pp. 166–8) entitled ‘Some Emendations in the Fragments of Theophrastus,’ which sought to show that several passages of Theophrastus could be improved by a comparison with certain of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Problems where the author of the latter is obviously deriving his material from Theophrastus. A further comparison of the Problems and Theophrastus, carried out in the course of preparing an edition of the former, has led to the discovery of more parallel passages and makes it possible to suggest further improvements in the text of several passages of Theophrastus.

I. The New Inscription from Cales.

II. The Date of the Operations Recorded by the Inscription Dessau 8965.

III. The Identity of the General.

I. The following inscription (Not. Scav. 1929, p. 31) was recently discovered at Cales:

M. Vinicius P.f., M.n., L.pron., cos. II, VII vir [epu]lonum, sodalis Augustalis, thriumphalibus ornamentis, quinq(uennalis) viam ab angiporto aedi[s] Iunonis Lucinae usque [ad] aedem Matutae et [clivum] ab ianu ad g[isiarios portae] Stellatin[ae et viam patulam] ad portafm laevam et ab foro] ad port[am domesticam sua pecunia stravit].

In his Works of Pindar, Vol. II, p. xxiii, Dr. L. R. Farnell discusses the admission of metrical licences into Pindar's text, and pronounces that ‘the “Responsion-law” should not be pressed with over-strained severity.’ In general he agrees with Wilamowitz and Schroeder and disagrees with the stricter school of P. Maas. But none of these scholars have formulated the principles by which long syllables may be equated with short in Pindar's text, or even those by which two short syllables may take the place of one long and vice versa. Such attempts were made by great scholars of the past, notably by Erasmus Schmid, Hermann and Boeckh, but recent developments in metric and textual criticism have created a new attitude towards metrical problems and provided a new vocabulary. It is time that Pindar's practice was re-examined. Only from it can we deduce what his rules of composition were and find out what licences he allowed and what not. The question is important both for the textual critic and for the student of Greek metric. If we can discover the principles on which Pindar used such metrical licences, we shall be more qualified to consider emendations which involve them and to understand the rules which he set before himself when composing an ode.

Everyone knows the statement of Servius that Virgil was compelled by Augustus to alter the second half of the Fourth Georgic after the fall of Gallus, and that he substituted the story of Aristaeus for the laudes Galli. This statement, often doubted by older generations, has had such a remarkable success in recent years that anyone who ventures to impugn it must feel that he is pleading with a halter round his neck before a one-sided jury. It is notable, however, that these jurors, though one-sided, are by no means united, save in their determination to uphold the credit of Servius. One group will assure us that the episode of Aristaeus shows obvious signs not only of haste but of immaturity, and they draw a pathetic picture of the grief-stricken Virgil, ordered to bring out a second edition minus the praises of his friend Gallus, and half-heartedly throwing together some bits of juvenile stuff which he happened to have handy. Others assure us that the tale of Aristaeus shows us a more mature Virgil, nearer to the Virgil of the Aeneid. But the Servians really cannot have it both ways. They must make up their minds in the one direction or in the other if they are to be taken seriously. They make it doubly difficult for us to take them seriously when they try to tell us what Servius meant—but of that more anon. The present paper is an attempt by a converted Servian to examine frankly the arguments which have been advanced in support of Servius. Most of these may be found in Skutsch, Aus Vergils Frühzeit, pp. 140–147. One is very reluctant to use disparaging words about an eminent scholar who has served the cause of learning in so many ways; but it can scarcely be denied that the work just mentioned, in spite of its ingenuity and enthusiasm, shows a lamentable lack of three great essentials—a judicial temper, accurate statement of facts, and cogent reasoning. There is also at times a regrettable vagueness of expression, suggesting that the author is concealing inward doubts or shrinking from thought. All these deficiencies are to some extent present in the section with which this paper is concerned.

In this study it is proposed to illustrate Plato's statements about painting from what we know of contemporary artists and styles, and more particularly to show his condemnation of Athenian art of the late fifth century and his appreciation of Peloponnesian art of the early fourth century.

The ‘Αρμονικ Στοιχεῖα of Aristoxenus, being the earliest treatise on Greek Music extant, have hitherto held an unchallenged position as the foundation of much of our knowledge of ancient musical theory. Mr. R. P. Winnington-Ingram's shrewd and critical examination (C.Q. XXVI, 195 ff.) of the many difficulties involved in Aristoxenus’ treatment of subtleties of intonation is a very welcome contribution to a thorny subject; and it is in the hope of furthering our understanding that I venture to offer these comments on one or two points where alternatives or modifications may be suggested.

In C.Q. XXVI, pp. 35 sqq., Mr. H. D. Broadhead comments unfavourably on my essay, ‘Prose-Rhythm and the Comparative Method’ (C.Q. XXIV, pp. 164 sqq.; XXV, pp. 12 sqq.). I wish my reply to be explanatory rather than controversial. In a few places Mr. Broadhead has mistaken my wording, and he has, I fear, a poor opinion of my aesthetics. But those are personal matters; I will try in this article to defend my position generally, illustrating my remarks on the classical languages with some English analogies, and meeting, I hope, in the course of the argument the more important of Mr. Broadhead's objections.

The object of this paper is to determine the relations between the two parts of Parmenides' poem: the Way of Truth, which deduces the necessary properties of a One Being, and the False Way, which contains a cosmogony based on ‘what seems to mortals, in which there is no true belief.’

Siehe dazu Pausanias I 37, 7 δρκων φνη σπουδῇ κατ τν φωλεν ιών. Mit Unrecht hat man bestritten, dass das Emporfahren des Hermes als ein ιναι bezeichnet werden könne; sonst müsste man sich auch darüber wundern, wie einer Schlange das ἰναι zugeschrieben wird. σπουδῇ ἰών ist doch wohl rein formelhaft von schneller Bewegung gebraucht worden; ich glaube hier eine Bestätigung meiner Darlegungen im Kommentar z. St. zu finden. Doch nun zu Wichtigerem. T. W. Allen ist in dieser Zeitschrift (XXVII 51) für die Lesung γκαλωρν im Mosquensis am Schluss von Vs. 82 neuerdings eingetreten; es bleibt mir nichts übrig, als seinen Gründen beizupflichten, und ich kann zu meiner Entschuldigung nur anführen, dass auch A. Ludwich, der gewiss viele griechische Handschriften gesehen hat, γκαλωρς zu erkennen glaubte. γκαλωρν ergibt vor allem die einfachere Lösung: τν ττε συνδσας νεοθηλ ν' ἄγκαλον ὥrho;ην. νεοθηλα ὥρην ist nun Objekt von συνδσας ν' ἄγκαλον adverbiale Bestimmung, durch die ausgedrückt wird, dass Hermes je ein, d.h. zwei Armvoll nahm, entsprechend den anzufertigenden zwei Sandalen.

A new edition of the Homeric Hymns is in preparation by Mr. W. R. Halliday, Principal of King's College, London, and myself. In the meantime there are some passages in the Hymn to Hermes which call for longer treatment than would be natural in an edition. Some of these notes are suggested by the substantial and valuable edition of Professor L. Radermacher (Wien, 1931).