the position in regard to Plutarch's text which he had previously occupied, but the aim which Reiske set before himself was very imperfectly realised Indeed it is astonishing that Reiske should have criticised the method of Stephanus so strongly, when his own procedure was open by his own naïve confession to the same condemnation. He made no attempt to consult any MSS., although the Codex Monacensis, containing Book II. of the Lives, had been for a considerable time at his disposal, and all that he did was to collate, and that in a somewhat perfunctory way, the Juntine and Aldine editions, with those of London and Paris. Where differences of reading occurred, he debated their comparative values in his own mind and with his friends, and in this way formed the text of which so much was to be expected. His edition contains the notes of Bryanus and du Soul, and some additional notes, mainly critical, of his own. They often show considerable acumen, and in the Galba and Otho several of his conjectures have been admitted into the text by Sintenis. Reiske's preface is well worth reading from the account it gives of the earlier editions of Plutarch. In 1809 was published in Paris a most important edition of the Lives by Coraes, with modern Greek notes, mainly but not exclusively critical. In the Galba and Otho several very ingenious and convincing conjectures are due to this edition, as will be seen. from my Apparatus Criticus, e.g. ἀετῶν for ἐναντίων in Oth. 14, προστρόπαιοι for τρόπαια in Oth. 15, etc. In 1825-1830 H. Schaefer published his second edition, with notes, in six volumes, adding nothing very essential to his predecessors. Up to this time the text of the Lives, though it had been improved by the conjectures of these various editors, had never been submitted to any thorough or scientific recension, and this work was undertaken by C. Sintenis in his edition of the Lives, in five volumes, published 1839-1846. He not only based his text entirely upon an examination of the MSS. and the earliest editions, but for the first time he weighed the value of the various MSS., and proceeded altogether by the systematic and careful methods of modern textual criticism, giving a full Apparatus Criticus at the bottom of each page of the text. This edition purged the Lives from most of their corruptions, and at any rate remedied the uncertainties caused by Stephanus, and placed the text on a firm and certain footing. But at the time of the publication of this edition, Sintenis had not had the opportunity of consulting all the Parisian Codices, and accordingly another edition, in five small volumes, was published from the Teubner Press in 1852-1854, embodying the results of his latest investigations. This has formed the standard text of Plutarch's Lives since, and it is on a later issue of this edition (1887) that the text of my edition is based, though in a few cases I have departed from it where the Mss. give no help and conjecture is allowable, or where the context clearly points out the correct reading. (A list of these cases I give below.) Lastly, in 1855-1857 appeared the Vitae Parallelae, edited, in five volumes, by I. Bekker, with an admirable preface containing all that is known of the life of Plutarch, an account of his writings, and a detailed enumeration both of previous editions and also of the MSS. Though many of the Lives have been published separately, those of Galba and Otho have as yet found no editor either in Germany, England, or elsewhere. While I have examined and consulted every one of the editions which I have enumerated above, Coraes is the only editor whose notes, apart from those on the text, I have found of any use, and those only in four or five places. The great interest of the Lives. lies in their resemblance to the Histories of Tacitus, and it is accordingly to this aspect of them that I have given the most attention. Places in which the text of Sintenis is departed from Galb. 1, 15. φύσεως τε γενναίας for φύσεως γενναίας. Galb. 4, 29. Αὐτὸς, εἶπεν, ὦ Γάλβα, τίνα τρόπον βουλεύῃ for αὐτὸς εἶπεν, Ω Γάλβα, τίνα τρόπον βουλεύεσθε. Galb. 5, 24. κάλλιον for (καὶ λίαν). Galb. 7, 16. Toλλà... Tŵy I have enclosed in brackets. Galb. 9, ad fin. [xai wapeikei] I have omitted. Galb. 13, 32. ̓Αλλ' οἱ πολλοὶ for ̓Αλλὰ πολλοί, Galb. 18, 16. τῶν μὲν for τὸ μὲν. Galb. 19, 1. Οὐϊτελλίῳ for Τιγελλίνῳ. Galb. 28, 10. [kal OvïTeλXlov] I have omitted. INTRODUCTION. The marines formed into a legion, Adoption of Piso, Jan. 1, 69. Jan. 3. Jan. 10. Murder of Galba and proclamation of Otho, Jan. 15. Consulship assumed by Otho, Otho's departure from Rome, Battle of Bedriacum, Death of Otho, 'Dies imperii' of Vitellius, Jan. 26. March 9. March 14. 1 ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΓΑΛΒΑΣ. CHAPTER I. Mercenary soldiers, according to Iphicrates, should be fond of money and pleasure. Most authorities, however, rather agree with Aemilius Paulus, who demanded of his soldiers ready hands, sharp swords, and implicit obedience to their general. Plato, too, sees how indispensable to a good general is obedience in his men, and how obedience presupposes a noble nature and systematic training. His words receive a striking confirmation in the events which followed Nero's death, when the Roman Empire resembled the scattered Gigantes owing to the license of its soldiers. Lycophron of Pherae was called a tragedy-king, because he reigned barely ten months, but in less time four Roman emperors entered and left the Palace. The people, however, were avenged for their sufferings by the speedy deaths of their oppressors, and not least by the fate of their arch-seducer, Nymphidius. Ὁ μὲν Ἀθηναῖος Ιφικράτης τὸν μισθοφόρον ἠξίου στρατιώτην καὶ φιλόπλουτον εἶναι καὶ φιλήδονον, ὅπως ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις χορηγίαν ἐπιζητῶν ἀγωνίζηται παραβολώτερον, οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι, καθάπερ ἐρρωμένον σῶμα, τὸ στρατιωτικὸν ἀξιοῦσιν ἰδίᾳ μηδέποτε 5 χρώμενον ὁρμῇ συγκινεῖσθαι τῇ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ. Διὸ καὶ Παῦλον Αἰμίλιον λέγουσι τὴν ἐν Μακεδονία |