exceptum Satyrus continuisse suo. Fab. 15 11 The conjecture in numerum is Cannegieter's, but is wholly needless. Fab. 16 9 10 se quoque tam rasto rectam non sistere trunco, ast illam tenui cortice ferre minas. The oak is speaking in the fable of the oak and the reed. I believe I have restored intelligibility to this line by reading rectam non sistere for needum (rectum C) consistere of MSS. The objection is not to necdum being used for nondum,... but to its being the exact reverse of what we should expect, non ium : for all attempts to force the meaning of 'not yet' into the passage are futile. I hope not. Even she, with so mighty a bole, did not yet stand firm, but the reed with its slender bark braved the storm.' Even yet, adding year by year to her solid strength, she could not hold her ground. Non iam, as it seems to me, would be far weaker. Fab. 17 (in the 9th line of Babr. 1 p. 81 διαστάς is misprinted διαστάς). Fab. 17 3 4 tum pavidis audax cupiens succurrere tigris verbere commoto iussit adesse minax. Neither Ellis nor Fröhner nor Bährens state which MSS. have adesse, presumably all but three: I am glad to see that Bährens keeps the received commotas...minas, lashes herself into a rage.' Fab. 18 5 in the note (p. 83, also pp. 89, 105, 128) Reifferscheid's name is spelt with a y. Fab. 19 34 indignum referens dumis certamen haberi, quos meritis nullus consociaret honor. Wopkens has sufficiently supported cunctis; dumis after the dumos of ver. 1, seems to me very flat. Like Cannegieter, Schenkl, Bährens, and Ellis himself, I prefer meriti. Fab. 20 5 6 (the little fish begging to be allowed to grow, till he would be worth catching). 'parce, precor,' supplex lacrimis ita dixit obortis, nam quanta ex nostro corpore dona feres?' dona Lachmann for damna of MSS.... Wopkens' view that ex nostro corpore ='from the loss of my body,' ie. by giving me up and restoring me to freedom, is harsh, but not impossible. I agree with Wopkens; damna (damage by returning me to the sea') seems to me far more effective than the lucra of the older editors, the dona of Lachmann, Fröhner, Bährens, Ellis; I ask you to make a sacrifice, but how small a one.' Fab. 20 12 pinguior ad calamum sponte recurro tuum. sponte an exaggeration as absurd as the spring. ing tears of the fish in 3. Yet not beyond the capacity of court flatterers Iuv. IV 69 ipse capi voluit. Fab. 20 13 14 ille nefas captum referens absolvere piscem, All MSS. casibus which Fröhner changes to Bährens also reads cassibus, and Cannegieter cites one MS. for it. Yet ingenious as it is, I hold it certainly to be wrong; throughout the fable angling, not netting, is spoken of. Fab. 21 5 sed vox inplumes turbavit, a credula, nidos. MSS. have credula, ‘acredula scripsi.' The only scruple which this specious conjecture leaves in my mind, is that the vocative is Cf. Georges s.v. acredula and * Claud. III not sufficiently indicated by the context. cons. Hon. praef. 5 protinus inplumes convertit ad aethera nidos. Fab. 22 5-8 his sese medium Titan, scrutatus utrumque optulit, et precibus cum peteretur, ait, 'praestant di facilis, quae namque rogaverit unus, protinus haec alter congeminata feret.' MSS. have ut peteretur, with the exception of one, whose first hand wrote confiteretur, from which Ellis has restored, as it seems to me with certainty, quom peteretur. In verse 7 the mss. read prestundi facilis (one praestabit facilis). Fröhner reads praestandi facilist, and Bährens praestandist facilis, but this seems very weak, for 'ready to give.' Praestant di faciles, on the other hand, makes excellent sense. See my note on Iuv. x 8 di faciles. When a child I read in a magazine a story, which I cannot trace, but which I believe comes from some great mine of folklore and illustrates this fable. A fisherman, bringing a fine fish to court, was only admitted by the porter on promising to share with him its price. The king bid him name his own terms. Fifty stripes.' When 25 had been administered, the fisherman cried Hold, I have a partner. He has a right to the remaining half.' Where can a second fool like you be found?' 'At your own gate.' Fab. 22 19 proventis. ventum is rather rare.' this is the only example. Fab. 23 1 2 6 The neuter proSo far as I know venditor insignem referens de marmore Bacchum expositum pretio fecerat esse deum. May not referens mean 'bringing home'? it is nowhere said that the salesman was himself the artist. De marmore Verg. georg. III 13. In ver. 2 the rhythm forbids the construction fecerat expositum esse.' Rather Had set it out for sale and made of it a god.' Cf. Iuv. x 365-6 nos te, nos facimus, Fortuna, deam. With the whole. fable cf. Hor. s. 1 8 1-3: olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum, cum faber, incertus scamnum faceretne Pria sordid avarice) is made subject the worship, of a mighty destiny,' i.e. whether the marble be destined to receive worship as a god.' Cf. Tert. apol. 12 quantum autem de simulacris ipsis, nihil amplius deprehendo, quam materias (or matres) sorores esse vasculorum instrumentorumque communium vel ex isdem vasculis et instrumentis quasi fatum consecratione mutantes, licentia artis transAdd figurante et quidem contumeliosissime. Minuc. 23 § 9. Athenag. 26 p. 30". Fab. 24 4 edita continuo fronte sepulchra vident. MS. forte is perfectly simple. 'Chance straightway to espy a lofty tomb.' The archaism frons masc. should not be ascribed to Avianus without necessity. Cannegieter well refers on this fable (the Hunter and the Lion) to works of art representing Hercules and the Nemean lion. Strange to say, no one seems to have remembered the famous verses of Xenophanes (fr. 6 Mullach) if oxen or lions had hands or could paint as men etc.' cf. Epicharmus in DL. I 16. Cic. n.d. 1 §S 76 77. Fab. 25 8 ima petit, a Macrobian exSee Aen. IX 119 120 aequora pression.' rostris ima petunt. Luc. IV 127 ima petit quidquid pendebat aquarum. Fab. 26 (pp. xii and 99). The valuable Latin Glossary 4, 626 in Sir Thomas Phillipps' library at Cheltenham contains an extract from Avianus' version of this fable: Citisus est herbe de qua Avianus florentem citisum carpe. Fab. 29 14 silvarum referens optima. From Iuv. I 135 optima silvarum. Fab. 22 Freund and his followers (RiddleWhite and Lewis-Short) state that the o in duo is found long only once (in Ausonius). Georges has no example. Ellis quotes three passages of Prudentius. Fab. 30 7 Many additional examples of praedictus in the sense of 'aforesaid,' 'above,' will be found in Velleius. Fab. 31 7 tunc indignantem lusor sermone fatigans. The ms. iusto will stand, 'fair,' 'deserved.' Fab. 34 3 Ellis, after Cannegieter, cites confectus senio from Valerius Maximus; lexx. add Ennius and Cicero. Fab. 34 5 6 solibus ereptos homini formica labores distulit et brevibus condidit ante cavis. An exact parallel in Aug. enarr. in ps. 36 serm. 2 § 11 quemadmodum formica abscondit in cavernosis penetralibus labores aestatis. Fab. 36 1 pulcher et intacta vitulus cervice resultans. Cf. * Verg. georg. IV 540 intacta totidem cervice iuvencas. Fab. 39 15 nam licet ipse nihil possis temptare nec ausis. The reading of one ms. ausis, is probably right, though the ausus of the others has a parallel in Aen. IX 428 429: nec potuit. nihil iste nec ausus Fab. 41 16 ausa pharetratis nubibus ista loqui. The parallel pharetratae brumae, cited by Ellis, seems convincing; otherwise 'the artillery of the clouds' is not in the quiet vein of Avianus. Foret tantis, read by Bährens, is cited by Cannegieter from his 'Cortianus 2.' Fab. 42 8 regemens. Freund and his followers say that this word occurs' perhaps' only in two passages of Statius; Ellis adds two of Sidonius. Georges has these four examples, with yet two others, one from the Culex, one from Corippus. It would seem imposssible to use Freund for a week, without discovering that his general statements about the whole compass of Latinity are to be narrowed (especially from the letter D downwards) to that portion of Latin usage which is stored in Forcellini. Yet his editors repeat his vainglorious dicta without suspicion. After the commentary follows 'Excursus I. Praesumere' (in the sense of 'to presume, arrogate).' 'Excursus II. Coniecturae Babrianae,' originally published in the American Journal of Philology. The book ends with an index of words (pp. 133-151) for which I am indebted to my friend Mr. Charles Bradburne of Trinity College.' This index seems to include every word but et and que. I tested it for one fable, and found no error or omission. Each form, as in the Delphin indexes, occurs in its own place (e.g. verba, verbera, verbere, verberibus, verbis, verbo, verborum), a much more helpful arrangement than that adopted in Schenkl's Calpurnius, where only one form of each word is registered, (in verbs always the present infinitive). But even this is open to grave objections, as different cases, genders, parts of verbs, even entirely different words which happen to be spelt alike (e.g. cum), are confounded together. Jahn's index to Juvenal is not a model of excellence, but it does aim at sorting the articles according to the various cases etc. Another blot on the index I have already touched upon; it makes no distinction between conjectural readings and those founded on ms. evidence; nay, the latter, if ousted from the text, have no place at all in the index. A fortnight would have sufficed to compile a complete Lexicon Avianianum, which might have recorded the various readings, as Bruder does for the N.T., Meusel and Menge-Preuss for Caesar. Even something far short of a lexicon would have been welcome; thus Cannegieter's index for the two words cited above gives (verbera caudae ·mollia — prohiberet --- submittens; verbere commotas minas; verberibus domat; verba asperiora-darent-dedisse-dedit· - multasecreta; in verba redire; verbis compulsus— certare-fallacibus-pravis insistere—rectis ; verbo hoc; verborum fulem). Cannegieter has also an Index II. In Notas (32 pp.), Index III. Scriptorum antiquorum qui in Notis atque in Dissertatione illustrantur, emendantur.' There is so much new and valuable matter in the Oxford edition, that it deserved a good index to the notes. I have enriched the margins of a lexicon with the principal contributions here made to lexicography; but how many will have patience to do likewise? A singular omission is that of an index fabularum.' Cannegieter has an alphabetical one, immediately after his preface: the new edition compels us to consult 45 pages to learn the subjects of the 42′ fables. The notes have the monotonous running heading, 'commentary,' so that one must often turn a page to find out where one is. These headings should always form a table of contents. Mr. Ellis sets a noble example of conscientious diligence, and his works cannot be safely neglected by any serious student of Latin literature. With a few hours more labour, and a few pages more print, he might have enabled us to dispense with all previous editions of Avianus. If in future he will add a complete lexicon to each volume, and make his lexicographical collections subsidiary to the best lexicons of the day, he will not want imitators, and England will contribute her fair quota to that Thesaurus Latinae Linguae to which Wölfflin is devoting himself with a rare self-sacrifice. JOHN E. B. MAYOR. STUDIA BIBLICA Hence Prof. Neubauer treats of the Dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ,' and the results which he finds probable are: that (1) in Jerusalem and perhaps also in the greater part of Judea the modernised Hebrew and a purer Aramaic dialect were in use among the majority of the Jews; (2) the Galileans and the Jewish immigrants from the neighbouring districts understood their own dialect only (of course closely related to the Aramaic), together with a few current Hebrew expressions such as proverbs and prayers; (3) the small Jewish-Greek colony and some privileged persons spoke Greek, which was however a translation from the Hebrew rather than genuine Greek, in a word, a Judeo Greek jargon.' he concludes that the language which the disciples of Jesus spoke and wrote' was that represented by the Talmud of Jerusalem, a Galilean composition. In this he adopts the conclusion of Böhl (Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel u.s.w.). We need not say that he supports his view with much learning, nevertheless there are not a few weak points in his reasoning which is substantially that of De Rossi and Pfannkuche. For example, as a proof that the Septuagint translation was unknown in Palestine except to men of the schools and perhaps a few of the Hellenistic Jews, he cites the well-known condemnation of that version in the Talmud. There is no doubt that the Jews in the second century became dissatisfied with the LXX. (partly perhaps on account of the use made of it by the Christians), and desirous to possess a more literal translation. The desideratum was supplied by Aquila and others, with the natural result that the 1 On the Language of Palestine in the Age of Christ and his Apostles. By De Rossi and Dr. H. F. Pfannkuche. Translated by Thorl. G. Repp. Clark's Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii. De Rossi's work is entitled Della lingua propria di Cristo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina da' tempi de' Maccabei. Parma, 1772. But is clear that the language of the Talmud long afterwards has no value as evidence of the light in which the version of the LXX. was regarded in the time of Christ. The use made of it in the New Testament, even in an Epistle to the Hebrews, is contemporary evidence and leads to a different conclusion. The quotations in the Gospels cannot be accounted for by the supposition that they are derived from a Targum, unless that Targum was itself founded on the LXX. even apart from the New Testament, there is evidence usually considered sufficient, that in the time of the Apostles and earlier the Jews found no fault with the version. The first book of Maccabees exhibits evidence of its influence, and the second book even quotes from it. Nay there is reason to think that the LXX. exercised an influence over the Haggadic exegesis of Palestine. Thus when we are told that the witch of Endor recognised Saul (1 Sam. xxviii. 12) by the fact that Samuel came up on his feet, not on his head, as spirits did to ordinary inquirers, we trace the senseless fable to the Greek rendering optov, which is due to a mistake of one letter in the Hebrew (zaqeph for zaqen). Frankel's hypothesis that the rendering opov arose from the fable which is then assumed as an ultimate fact is preposterous. Böhl maintains that the LXX. version was so highly esteemed that the Bible in popular use was a translation from it into Aramaic. The question is not about the total extinction of the language of the Jews, but about the extent to which Greek was understood. Paulus, who held that the Jews of Palestine were largely bilingual, referred to 2 Macc. iv. 13, where it is stated that in the time of Jason (second century B.C.) there was a rage for Greek fashions and a desire to be like the Greeks in everything; this, he observed, favoured the supposition that the language also was widely adopted. De Sacy's reply 2 is that there was sufficient time afterwards for the Hebrew again to displace the Greek before the time of Christ. But then it must be remembered that Herod also used great efforts to introduce Greek culture. De Sacy indeed, did not feel his victory so easy as Mr. Neubauer thinks, and fell back on what 2 De Sacy's paper is in Millius' Magasin Encyclopédique for 1805, tom. i pp. 125-147. It is a review of a Dissertation by Paulus, published in the form of two University Programmes. (Jena, 1803.) he regarded as the irrefragable argument of the surprise of the multitude on the day of Pentecost. Are not all these which speak Galileans' But the supposition that the surprise was felt simply at Galileans speaking Greek does not satisfy the requirements of the text, which shows that the multitude were surprised that men of so many different countries heard ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ. Let this pass, however. De Sacy believed that the Apostles spoke Greek by a miracle, and thought that Paulus was biassed by disbelief in miracles. If Mr. Neubauer thinks that the Apostles, unlettered Galileans, spoke Greek without a miracle, then he must admit that Greek was pretty widely known in Galilee: what then becomes of his thesis? 1 Mr. Neubauer again asks (following Pfannkuche), 'Why should the chief captain wonder that St. Paul could speak Greek if the Jews were generally familiar with it?' The chief captain has himself answered the question; he did not know that Paul was a Jew, but thought he was an Egyptian. Pfannkuche understands this to mean an Egyptian Jew, and as he thinks that the uncultivated Egyptian Jews knew no Greek, he is consistent in asking the question. But Mr. Neubauer holds that the Jews in Egypt had completely forgotten their language long before this (p. 69); how then is the question in his mouth relevant or consistent? It is worth observing also that St. Luke specially mentions the fact that St. Paul spoke T Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ, in order to introduce the remark that on this account the people were more quiet, μᾶλλον παρέσχον ἡσυχίαν. Does not this imply that they would not have been surprised and would have understood, had he spoken Greek? Again Mr. Neubauer asks: Would any one venture to maintain that St. Peter spoke Greek when he addressed himself to the "men of Judea and all that dwell in Jerusalem" and that too at Pentecost, when all the prayers were offered in Hebrew, as, be it observed, they still are. 'How would the Medes, Elamites and Arabians have understood if he had spoken Greek?' To the first question we may reply that the audience did not consist wholly or perhaps chiefly of men of Judea, and we may quite as effectively 1 Perhaps it may not be irrelevant to mention that we have heard persons in Middlesex, who had just been listening to a preacher from Ireland, express surprise that they had been able to understand every word he said. Yet they had not expected that he would speak Celtic. (The preacher, by the way, was after all a native of Essex.) ask, Would Peter have used a language which probably most of his hearers would not understand, especially as we may reasonably suppose that it was principally the strangers that he hoped to influence? The 3000 who were converted were doubtless not Jews of Jerusalem. As to the second question, we need only refer to what Mr. Neubauer himself says (pp. 69, 70) of the Jews in various parts of Asia and elsewhere, who, 'far away from Palestine, spoke only Greek.' In fact are not these Medes and Elamites, etc. the very same men whom he finds just before addressed by the Apostles in Greek, as he holds, and calling it their own dialect or language Again, referring to St. Luke's statement that Jesus addressed Paul on the way to Damascus in Hebrew,' he says that not remembering or being able to supply the Hebrew words, he was obliged, in order to be believed, to state that Jesus spoke in Hebrew.' Surely if St. Luke had said nothing about the language used, no reader would have made the omission an objection to the story. A historian does not usually state in what language words were spoken unless he has some special reason for doing so, as St. Luke had in Acts xiv. 11, xxi. 40. His not stating that Peter spoke in Hebrew on the day of Pentecost is not regarded by Mr. Neubauer himself as an objection to the supposition that he did so. In the case of the words addressed to Saul, how much more natural it is to suppose that the Hebrew language is specified because it was not a matter of course than because it was. May we not ask also, 'In what language did Jesus converse with Pilate, or does the historian's silence about the language affect in any way the credit of the story?' The language of the books of the New Testament is a fact of the first importance in the question. Prof. Neubauer (following Pfannkuche) speaks of the Gospels as translations, and the few Aramaic expressions that occur he describes as 'left by the translators.' Whether he agrees with Pfannkuche in supposing that they were left through inadvertence (!) does not appear. The supposition is contradicted by the fact that, wherever necessary, a translation is subjoined (as, ex. gr. to έφφαθά and ταλιθὰ κούμι). This circumstance also proves that it was not from inability to find a Greek equivalent that the Aramaic words were retained. We can understand the retention of the words spoken on the cross as necessary to explain the misunderstanding of Eli, Eli' as a call for Elias. We may, however, ask in passing, How came the Jewish bystanders (most likely |